2

Wildlife Biological Assessment for the Two Bit Vegetation Management Project

1. INTRODUCTION:

The purpose of this biological assessment/biological evaluation (BA) is to determine the effects of the TWO BIT VEGETATION MANAGEMENT PROJECT (project) (alternative 2 in the DEIS) 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 #7396278-111539, (February 26, 2010)). 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)

Sensitive Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus leucocephalus) Northern goshawk (Accipter gentiles) Great gray owl (Strix nebulosa) Swainson’s hawk (Buteo swainsoni) 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) 3

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. Marbled murrelet, designated May 24, 1996. Tidewater goby, designated Novemebr 20, 2000.

Other Sensitive Species Peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus anatum)

Shortnose and Lost River suckers (lakes and their tributaries), and tide water goby (coastal lagoons, estuaries and streams a short distance from these habitats) does not occur in the project area. Critical habitat for the tidewater goby does not occur in the project area.

The project is not within the range of the Sierra Nevada red fox (Cascades Mountains and Sierra Crest). Habitat for the Swainson’s hawk (perennial grassland, grassy shrub-steppe, or agricultural landscapes), greater sandhill crane (wetlands, marshes, grasslands, or irrigated fields), or pallid bat (Antrozous pallidus) (CDFG 1990) and does not include open, xeric forests suitable for roosting and foraging (S. Livingston et. al. 2002). This project is outside the range of the Tehama chaparral snail (Trilobopsis tehamana) and lacks suitable habitat (lakes elevation at or above 6000 feet) for Cascades Frog (Rana cascadae).

The above mentioned species and designated critical habitat will not be addressed further in this document

II. CONSULTATION TO DATE

Field review conducted on 6/16/2009 by Timothy D. Burnett (USFS Happy Camp District Biologist), Karen West (USFS biologist) and Jan Johnson (USFWS biologist). Review of units post harvest from Happy Camp Phase II along Cade Creek and near Jackson peak was conducted to determine Northern Spotted Owl (NSO) habitat post harvest. Determined foraging habitat was maintained as foraging habitat post harvest. The following units were reviewed in the field: 99, 105, 106, 36, 71, 253, 234, 208, and 209. Field review determined that all plantations (that were reviewed during field trip), were unsuitable foraging habitat for NSO due to the small size class and density of crowns and trees (however further field review to other plantation by Timothy D. Burnett concluded some plantation were suitable NSO foraging habitat). FWS recommended a variable thinning approach for plantations within the LSR to foster stand diversity. All of the natural stands were not NSO nesting roosting habitat but do contain foraging habitat. No proposed units were considered RA 32 habitat that are described in the 2008 recovery plan (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2008a). No suitable nesting habitat for marbled 4 murrelet was found during the field review and it is not expected to be in or within ¼ mile of the project area.

It was agreed by the group that the new USFS 2008 NSO habitat layer was not accurate in estimating habitat quality and quantity at the NSO activity center scale. It was decided that Tim Burnett will habitat type all home ranges of historic NSO activity centers home range (1.3 miles) using ortho photos, aerial photos, and ground verification. Three proposed units are natural stands located within 0.5 mile of an NSO activity center (AC).

On July 9, 2009 Tim Burnett presented the Project Information Form (PIF) and gave a brief overview of the Two Bit Project: o Although the project is within the range for MAMU, there is no habitat within treatment units or within ¼ mile of treatment units. o The majority of thinning units are within plantations; Approximately 1900 acres of thinning are proposed within plantations and 300 acres are within natural stands. Approximately 8600 acres are proposed for Rx fire(acres have since been adjusted due to field review by specialsit and IDT). o NSO surveys will be conducted annually through implementation provided funding was available. If surveys are not conducted then limited operating perios would be implmented. o The majority of plantations are not suitable NSO nesting/roosting (N/R) or foraging (F) (too thick) o The majority of the 300 acres of natural stands proposed for thinning are suitable NSO F habitat except Unit 301(further field reviews determined that other natural stands did not constitute foraging habitat for NSO. The proposal is to maintain majority of F habitat by retaining 50% canopy closure post project.  The group reviewed treatment in natural stands (F habitat) that overlap NSO core areas – discussions were as follows: o KL-0236 has 12 acres proposed for thinning within the core. The survey history shows only one detection within the AC – the site does not meet the criteria for an AC but did not have full protocol surveys. Tim will continue with protocol surveys to determine status of the site. If after 3 years of protocol surveys no NSOs are detected, the site will be reviewed for AC status. The 12 acres of thinning within the core will continue to be F habitat post project. o KL-0286 has 2 acres of thinning w/in the core (Unit 254). Located on a ridge in a switchback – no concerns. o There is an NSO site at Jackson Peak – the AC needs to be added to the map o PDSs will be included as described on the PIF. Standard smoke minimizing PDSs as described in Forestwide Prescribed Fire Programmatic Biological Assessment and limiting % AC burned will be applied. 5

 After discussion about the Project, the Level 1 team agreed that, based on the information presented, the determination is a MANLAA for NSO.

On July 9, 2009 Tim Burnett ) had a phone conversation with Dave Clayton (USFS Biologist, Rogue-Siskiyou District) to discuss Northern Spotted Owls surveys associated with the Two Bit Vegetation Management Project. Dave stated that no recent surveys have been conducted in the last ten years in the vicinity o f the Two Bit project area by the Rogue-Siskiyou National Forest.

On April 15, 2010 a level one meeting with USFWS biologist Jan Johnson and USFS biologist Timothy D. Burnett and Sue Stresser, reviewed draft BE/BA and agreed upon changes that were needed. Tim will update the BE/BA with the changes suggested and submit them to Jan in approximately one week.

The Level 1 Team agreed upon the BA on May 13, 2010.

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. The Project occurs within the following Management Areas from the KLRMP: MA-5, MA-6, MA-7, MA-10, MA-15, and MA-17 (Table 1). All Standards and Guidelines in the KLRMP will be met by project design.

Table 1: Management Areas with proposed treatments

Acres within Management Proposed Forest Plan Goals, Standards and Guides, and Desired Area Thinning Future Conditions Units Goals: Protect and enhance conditions of late-successional and “old growth” forest ecosystems. Silvicultural activities aimed at reducing risk of large-scale disturbance and accelerate development of late-successional conditions shall generally focus on treatment in younger stands. MA 5 - Late DFC: Varies by dominant vegetative species site class, successional 126 topography and other site factors. Generally multi-layered forest Reserve common on suitable sites with overstory trees that are large diameter, tall and have obvious signs of decadence. Where hardwoods occur, mid-seral stage forested areas provide suitable habitat with less dense stands and smaller trees. south slopes and drier areas are more open due to frequent fires. MA 6 - Managed 1 Wildlife Area Goals: Manage to provide late-successional habitat, to provide 6

Acres within Management Proposed Forest Plan Goals, Standards and Guides, and Desired Area Thinning Future Conditions Units moderate to high quality habitat for fisher, to test and demonstrate the effectiveness or treatment for use in LSR. Schedule marginal timber yields, compatible with area goals. Manage to maintain snags and logs. DFC: Mid-to late-seral stage, mixed conifer or Douglas-fir provide habitat for a variety of species. Canopy closures are dense as site allows. Hardwoods occur as a component or as pure stands. Goals: Manage for ecological processes and unique features for which the area was designated. Sutcliff Creek for Port-Orford- cedar (Poker Flat for sensitive plants and species diversity). Promote public use, education, interpretation and enjoyment of MA 7 – Special 23 these areas where it will not harm the values. Interest Area DFC: The vegetative features are enhanced to emphasize the unique feature. Few signs of management activities are present other than to provide public access. Retention Visual Quality Objective applies. Goals: Maintain and restore riparian-dependent structures and function of intermittent streams. Provide benefits to riparian- dependent and associated species and improve travel corridors for many terrestrial species, including connectivity among LSR’s. Be consistent with Aquatic conservation Strategy (ACS) goals. Design silvicultural prescriptions for existing regenerated stands to achieve ACS objectives. Where site conditions allow, manage conifer vegetation for a basal area of >250 square feet per acre. Apply silvicultural practices to control stocking, reestablish and MA 10 – Riparian 361 manage stands, and acquire desired vegetation characteristics Reserves needed to attain ACS. DFC: Where site conditions allow, a multi-layered vegetation canopy is present including conifers, deciduous vegetation, and ground cover. Overhead canopy provides shade to streams. Decadent conifers provide woody material to the channel. Riparin vegetation is diverse and dense enough that it stabilizes stream banks and adjacent hillslopes, catches sediment and contributes large wood to riparian reserves. Management activities support water quality goals. Goals: Provide forested scenery in a natural or natural-appearing conditions. Manage for a programmed, sustained harvest of wood products in areas that are capable, available and suitable. Maintain stand health, as well as resilience to wildfire, insect, MA 15 – Partial disease and other damage. Retention Visual 363 DFC: Views from visually important roads and trails appear Quality forested and provide a natural or natural-appearing forest. Signs of management activities are not apparent to the average Forest visitor and repeat form, line, color and texture that represent characteristics of the landscape. Goals: Provide a programmed, non-declining flow of timber products. Maintain conifer stocking levels and high growth rates commensurate with the capability of the site. Maintain stand health and resilience to wildfire, insect, disease and other damage. Emulate ecological processes where possible. Provide MA 17 – General 1,243 for snags and hardwood habitat. Forest DFC: A mosaic of healthy forest stands comprised of a variety of vegetative species. Forest stand consist primarily of conifers with openings for hardwoods, shrubs, grasses and forbs. In some areas, the conifer component is sparse due to vegetative manipulations or natural conditions. Some areas support mature 7

Acres within Management Proposed Forest Plan Goals, Standards and Guides, and Desired Area Thinning Future Conditions Units forest stands. 2,117 Need to Total for Thinning update with

Units latest unit changes

IV. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT AREA

The Two Bit Project is located in the 135 square mile Indian Creek watershed. Indian Creek is the largest tributary to the Klamath River between the confluences with the Scott and Salmon Rivers. The Project proposes thinning treatments within six Management Areas as identified in the Klamath National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan). These Management Areas are MA-5, MA-6, MA-7, MA-10, MA-15, and MA-17.

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

The second dominant vegetation class is Douglas-fir dominated sites which occur just below the elevation gradient of the Klamath Mixed Conifer vegetation type. In the Douglas-fir vegetation type, Douglas-fir comprises of at least eighty percent of the overstory trees, with sugar pine and ponderosa pine frequently represented. Similar understory species occur; however, they are generally denser than at higher elevations.

The analysis area consists of the project boundary that includes majority of the Indian Creek 5th field watershed (approximately 67, 700 acres), as well as, management area 6, a peregrine 1.5 mile territory buffer and five Northern Spotted Owls 1.3 mile territory that extend beyond the project boundary. In total the wildlife analysis area comprises approximately 77,822 acres and includes portion of Thompson Creek, Perkins Gulch and Little Gridder Creek (Map 1). The Treatment area is defined as the area of proposed treatments (i.e. thinning units, underburn, meadow treatment etc.).

V. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION

8

The Project proposes vegetation treatments in plantations (1,665 acres) and natural stands (315 acres), specialized treatments (pole harvest, sanitation, and hardwood release for a total of 140 acres), four large landscape scale underburning treatments (7,250 acres), and treatment of meadows (160 acres) to remove conifer encroachment (refer to Table 8 and Map 2). In order to treat the stands, 4.1 miles of pre-existing no-system temporary roads will be re-opened and re-used and 2.9 miles of new temporary roads will be constructed. The Project also proposes decommissioning 4.3 miles of existing Forest Service system roads.

The Forest Service identified approximately 1,980 acres of stands that are of a size, condition, and location suitable for thinning. Thinning is proposed primarily for plantations, making up 84% of all acres proposed for this treatment. Thinning is proposed for LSRs, General Forest, and Riparian Reserves. Thinning proposed in LSRs would occur only in plantations, which contain only small inclusions or individual trees left from the original stand. Within LSR there are few trees over 20” in diameter and these trees would not be cut except in a few cases where it is necessary to facilitate safe thinning operations. Alternatives have been designed to comply with all applicable Management Area standards and guidelines.

Thinning in Plantations

Plantations between 40 and 50 years old are proposed for thinning. These plantations are on moderate to high sites; most often had tractor site preparation in the past to remove competing vegetation, and had cultural treatments such as release and precommercial thinning. These conditions have allowed good tree growth; 40 to 90 percent of the trees in the plantations are over 10 inches diameter breast height (dbh). Plantations were also chosen because they could be yarded with ground-based systems that make it more economical to thin and harvest small diameter trees. Nearly 90 percent of the area that was harvested in the past is classified as Pacific Douglas-fir. There are, however, small areas within many plantations that have serpentinized soils, hardwood and shrub sites, or riparian vegetation. Approximately 25 percent of the plantations within the Douglas-fir and white fir types were planted with ponderosa pine; these are often referred to as off-site pine. Thinning in Natural Stands

These stands are multi-aged and multi-sized and are dense with a variety of species at mid and lower elevations. They are mid and late seral stands with some older and relic trees.

Competition mortality of species such as sugar pine (including larger trees) and shade intolerant hardwoods are occurring. Suppressed Douglas-Fir trees of various sizes are also dying in small amounts.

9

Objectives include reducing stand density, maintaining some of the more shade intolerant species, maintaining good growth rates in individual trees, reducing the risk of heavy competition-induced mortality, and utilizing potential mortality for wood products.

Specialized Treatments

Pole harvest is proposed for 84 acres along roadsides that are heavily stocked with small diameter (less than 10 inch) trees. These areas are proposed for thinning to meet fuels objectives and would be made available to the local community through personal use pole permits.

Sanitation harvest is proposed for 36 acres along a roadside that has dwarf mistletoe infestation. Thinning in these areas is proposed to remove trees with dwarf mistletoe to prevent the spread to nearby healthy stands.

Thinning to restore hardwood stands is proposed for approximately 18 acres to reduce conifer competition with medium- to large-sized oak trees and other hardwoods.

Meadow restoration is proposed for approximately 160 acres. Treatment involves using saws to remove of conifers and thin hardwoods around the meadows in conjunction with pile and burning. No heavy machinery will be used to treat these units.

Temporary Roads, Landings and Skid Trails

Approximately 2.9 miles of new temporary road construction in 26 segments located throughout the project area would be constructed to more efficiently remove thinned trees. All of the proposed road segments have been reviewed by IDT members and found to meet standards. Existing roads, skid trails and landings would be used whenever possible and practical to avoid new disturbance. Approximately 4.1 miles of pre-existing non-system roads would be re-opened. These roads would then be hydrologically restored (culvert pulled, out-sloped tec.) and barricaded after use.

Timber hauling would mainly occur on existing system roads or on re-opened non-system roads. Haul routes would receive maintenance such as dip, ditch and culvert cleaning, dust abatement and grading. Existing skid trails and landings would be used whenever possible and practical to avoid new disturbance; however, new skid trails and landings would be required to facilitate thinning treatments. Exact location and total acres of skid trails is not feasible to determine at this project planning stage, however it is estimated that fewer skid trails would be necessary due to the use of new temporary roads. Approximately 250 landings would be required; 122 of which would be new construction (refer to Map 2 and Table 2). Landings for ground based operations will average 0.5 acre while landings for skyline logging will average 0.1 acre in size (Davis, 2010). Approximately 37 acres will be affected by new landing construction on ground based units and 4.7 acres may be affected by landing construction for skyline operations. New 10

full bench skid trails would generally not be developed, though safety and operational conditions may require a skid trail to cross short, steeper sections within tractor units. Some cut and fill may be necessary to safely cross these areas. Any full bench skid trails would be reviewed by a soil scientist, geologist, hydrologist or other earth science specialist prior to construction to ensure slope stability. Table 2: Acres affected by landing construction and reconstruction Number Landing Yarding of Status System Landings Acres

Existing Ground Based 123 61.5 Skyline - Existing Continuous 5 0.5 New Ground Based 75 37.5 Skyline - New Continuous 47 4.7 Total 250 104.2

New temporary roads and landings would not be constructed in Riparian Reserves. New temporary roads would be built, used, and then closed in the same season of use (prior to winter). Some re-opened pre-existing roads and landings occur in Riparian Reserves. New disturbance would be avoided in locations where sediment may directly enter streams. Rock would come from existing quarries located outside Riparian Reserves. Berms would be removed, and conditions which concentrate surface runoff would be eliminated on all temporary roads. After use, rock pits and quarries would be water- barred and shaped for drainage. Clause CT 6.602 Special Erosion Prevention and Control (5/4/98) would be included in the Timber Sale Contract. This clause requires the purchaser to apply site-specific measures to road work to protect water quality. Any new temporary road alignments or full bench skid trails added during the implementation phase of the project would be reviewed by an IDT specialist including biologists and earth scientists to ensure BMPs are properly applied.

Commercial Harvesting in Riparian Reserves

Riparian Reserves (RR) occur on about 18% of the project area within 170 feet of an intermittent or perennial stream and extend to 340 feet from fish bearing stream reaches. Riparian Reserves are also established for inner gorges, unstable areas, and small wetlands.

Forests within RR in the project area, in general, have a wide range of fuel loadings and vegetation conditions and past flood damage has left some riparian areas with sparse cover (USDA 1997).

11

Approximately 350 acres within Riparian Reserves are proposed for thinning. Thinning is proposed within RR to achieve the objectives of late-successional stand structure and diversity over time, as well as fuel reduction of surface, ladder and crown fuels. Riparian Reserve standards and guidelines apply to silvicultural prescriptions in RR (see MA 10 Goals in Chapter 1 in Two-bit EIS). Appendix B (Two-bit EIS, 2010) includes a table outlining the commercial thinning units’ generalized prescriptions, and identifies where Riparian Reserve thinning is proposed (maps are available on the Website). Riparian Reserve thinning would be conducted according to design criteria that ensure woody material is properly maintained, soil compaction and disturbance is minimized or eliminated, and important elements of the riparian environment are not degraded LSR Treatments: Approximately 125 acres of thinning are proposed within the Runway LSR. Approximately five acres of thinning will occur in 100 acre LSR (KL286 (2 acres) and KL342 (3 acres)) Refer to Table 3. Desired structural components in LSRs include (1) multispecies and multilayered assemblages of trees, (2) moderate-to-high accumulations of large logs and snags, (3) moderate-to-high canopy closure, and (4) moderate-to-high number of trees with structural imperfections such as cavities, broken tops, and large deformed limbs.

Runway LSR

This LSR is about 3,030 acres in size; it encompasses portions of The West Fork and Little South Fork of Indian Creek. Elevations range from 2,200 feet to about 4,800 feet. The terrain is steep, and is dissected by sharp ridges and streams. There is a small parcel of private land located at the northern portion of the LSR.

There is currently a substantial amount of late-successional habitat within the LSR, 45% of the capable land base. This LSR has also been impacted by timber harvest as 27% of the total land base is in plantations. Management of the early seral vegetation is key for the development of future late-successional habitat. Stocking levels need to be managed in order to allow for these stands to progress through the various seral stages. Because many of the early- and mid-successional stands within the project are young and healthy, they are expected to respond favorably to silvicultural treatments that reduce stand density. Some legacy late-successional components (i.e. legacy trees, large snags, large down woody material etc.) from the original stand exist in mid-successional stands and will be retained to the extent possible. Based on the Klamath NSO habitat layer the Runway LSR is 43 percent nesting/roosting habitat and 37 percent non-habitat for NSO.

100 acre LSRs

100-acre LSRs represent a network of stands of late-successional habitat that are retained in their natural condition with natural processes, such as fire, allowed to function to the extent possible.

Underburning and Fuels Treatment

12

Proposed prescribed burning activities include hand piling, burning small concentrations of debris and slash (jackpot), and low intensity burning under a forest canopy. These activities are designed to treat fuel accumulations created during proposed thinning treatments in thinned stands, and to reduce fuel loading and buildup of forest debris both within thinned units and outside of thinned units. Fuels treatment within thinned stands includes a combination of landing pile burning, underburning and hand piling where jackpot burning would be used to burn debris. Approximately 2,000 acres of underburning in combination with landing pile burning is proposed within thinning units and 120 acres is proposed for hand piling and jack pot burning. Meadow enhancement units (160 acres) would also be hand piled and jackpot burned.

Outside of thinning units, approximately 7,250 acres of underburning is proposed over a ten year period. Thinning of small trees (<10 inches dbh) and brush may occur within these large underburn areas as needed to promote effective fuel consumption. Underburning outside of thinning units would occur within several Forest Plan Management Areas, including LSR, RR and General Forest, as shown Table 3 below.

Table 3: Acres of treatments proposed under alternative 2 by Forest Plan Management Area

Silvicultural Treatment Acres Underburning Acres and (does not include meadow Management Area Percentage of Treatment Area enhancement) and Percentage of Treatment Area Non National Forest 87 (1%) 0 MA-2 Wilderness 4 (<1%) 0 MA-5 Late Successional Reserve 1299 (18%) 125 (6%) MA-6 Managed Wildlife Area 447 (6%) 1 (<1%) MA-1,7,8 Special Management 13 (<1%) 23 (1%) MA-10 Riparian Area (stream 353 (17%) course RR = 1530 ac; geologic RR = 1601 (22%) x acres) MA-15 Partial Retention VQO 757 (10%) 363 (17%) MA-17 General Forest 3042 (42%) 1255 (59%) 100 acre LSR (KL286) 0 2 (3%) 100 acre LSR (KL289) 45 (45%) 0 100 acre LSR (KL342) 56 (53%) 3 (3%) Total 7,250 2120

Burning operations would be accomplished according to burning and smoke management plans intended to meet management objectives and minimize the effects of smoke on adjacent communities and the public. Burning would usually be accomplished during times of high fuel and duff moisture levels, which limits the burning of large stumps and coarse wood and maximizes consumption of smaller-sized fuel. Burning would occur during favorable weather conditions when smoke is transported away from sensitive locations. Slash piles would be constructed to burn with minimal smoke. Techniques include covering piles to keep them dry and limiting the amount of soil in the piles. For example, ignitions would be slowed or stopped if changing 13

meteorological conditions cause smoke to intrude into sensitive areas, or burning may be undertaken on low visitor use days in the spring and avoided on high use weekends. Smoke management plans would be submitted to the Siskiyou County Air Pollution Control District for each burn plan. Contingency actions would be undertaken if smoke impacts occur or meteorological conditions go out of prescription. Spot weather forecasts would be used to ensure favorable “within prescription” weather conditions for the burn itself and for smoke transport. Underburning is recommended in the Watershed Analysis, LSR Assessment, and various Fire Plans. Underburning is also prescribed in Riparian Reserves to meet Aquatic Conservation Strategy (ACS) objectives (KLRMP, 4-143).

Road Decommissioning

Approximately 4.3 miles of existing system roads are proposed for decommissioning (refer to Map 2). Decommissioning of road may involve one or all of the following: installing large dips in draws, removing culverts and associated fills from stream channels, installation of barriers to block access to the road.

Project Design Features:

. Protocol surveys for northern spotted owls will be conducted in 2009 and 2010. o For areas that include degrade, removal or downgrade of northern spotted owl habitat surveys will be conducted to the March 12, 1991 (revised 2/1993) NSO survey USFS protocol.

o In areas where habitat will not be removed or downgraded a three visit year of action survey may be substituted for the protocol surveys. This will be applied to thinning in non- suitable northern spotted owl habitat and underburns adjacent to nesting roosting habitat.

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

. A seasonal restriction of February 1st to July 9th will apply to all activities that that create noise above ambient levels within 0.25 mile of an occupied activity center or unsurveyed NSO nesting/roosting habitat. All Units are subject to the above mentioned restrictions except Units 1, 21, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 54, 68, 70, 76, 93, and 119.

14

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

. When burning in spring, smoke is managed so that light to moderate smoke may be present within a canyon or drainage but dissipates or lifts within 24 hours. If heavy or concentrated smoke begins to inundate occupied or unsurveyed nesting/roosting habitat or occupied activity centers late in the afternoon, ignition should be discontinued.

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

Coarse Woody Debris (CWD):

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

Snags and wildlife trees:

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

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

Underburns

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

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

. Surveys for blue grey tail dropper will be conducted in all riparian reserves that are located within natural stands prior to treatment of natural stands. If blue grey tail dropper is located they will be 15

protected in accordance to the 2001 ROD Survey and Manage guidelines. Table 4: Project Design Features for Underburn Units Underburn Seasonal Seasonal No No Unit Restriction Restriction Underburning Underburning 0.25 mile 0.25 mile > 50% of > 50% of from a NSO from NSO area 1.3 mile area 0.5 mile activity suitable around NSO around NSO center habitat activity activity Feb 1 to July Feb 1 to July center in one center in one 31 * 31* year year UB 1 X UB 2 X X X UB 3 X X UB 4 X X X UB 5 X

“X” PDF applies to the Unit, if surveys have concluded that no NSO are nesting within 0.25 of the underburn than season restrictions may be waived.

VI. EFFECTS ON WILDLIFE SPECIES Federally Listed Species Northern Spotted Owl

A. Environmental Baseline 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 16

large overstory trees; moderate to high canopy closure (60 to 90 percent); a high incidence of trees with large cavities or other types of deformities (e.g., broken tops, mistletoe, etc.); numerous large snags; an abundance of large, dead wood on the ground; and open space within and below the upper canopy for NSOs to fly within (Thomas et al. 1990). Basal area within nest stands often exceeds 200 ft2/acre (Solis & Gutiérrez 1990). Foraging habitat generally consists of attributes similar to those in nesting and roosting habitat, but much variation exists over the NSO range. Recent research addressing spotted owl foraging habitat in California, suggests that the basal area of a stand influences use, with 160-240 ft2/acre basal area providing optimal foraging conditions (Irwin et al 2004; Irwin et al 2006). Dispersal habitat, at minimum, consists of stands with adequate tree size (average diameter greater than 11 inches) 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.

Baseline on Klamath National Forest

Reproductive Biology:

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).

Prey:

17

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 and with some riparian reserves.

Northern flying squirrels are nocturnal rodents that nest in trees in a variety of forest communities (Williams et al. 1992). Flying squirrel den sites include cavities in live and dead old-growth trees; cavities, stick nests, and moss-lichen nest in second growth trees; cavities in branches of fallen trees; nests in decayed stumps; and witches brooms formed by mistletoe infections (Carey et al. 1997; Carey 2000). 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.

Threats (existing and potential):

Habitat Trends:

The NSO was listed as Threatened under the ESA throughout its range “due to loss and adverse modification of suitable habitat as a result of timber harvesting and exacerbated by catastrophic events such as fire, volcanic eruption, and wind storms” (USDI 1990a). At the time of listing, significant threats to the spotted owl included low and declining populations, limited and declining habitat, poor distribution of habitat or populations, isolated provinces, predation and competition, a lack of coordinated conservation measures, and vulnerability to natural disturbance.

The amount of NSO habitat continues to decline on a range-wide basis across all ownerships, although at a rate that is less than in the years prior to the listing of the NSO, particularly on Federal lands within the NWFP boundary (Bigley & Franklin 2004). Existing habitat trends are a function of both management actions and natural events.

Historic timber harvest within the project area has impacted NSOs by removing habitat suitable for nesting, roosting, or foraging. Additionally, the stands that have regenerated following timber harvest typically lack the structural attributes and diversity necessary to 18

support nesting pairs (multi-layered and multi-species canopies; large, decadent trees and snags; and large downed woody debris). Past timber harvest has also reduced the amount and recruitment of important habitat components of NSO prey such as large diameter snags and downed woody debris. Approximately 18 percent of the project area includes plantations from past regeneration harvest. No regeneration harvest has taken place in the Two Bit project area since 1995.

Wildfire:

At the time of listing, the USFWS recognized that catastrophic wildfire posed a threat to the NSO (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 1990a). The amount of habitat lost to wildfire in the relatively dry East Cascades and Klamath Provinces suggests that fire may be more of a threat than was previously thought. In the California Klamath Province approximately 15,900 acres of NSO habitat has been lost to fires since 1994 (Bigley 2004), with approximately 5,400 of these acres occurring on the KNF.

According to the Klamath National Forest GIS layers, there have been 17 fires at 5 acres or greater that occurred or entered into the project boundary over a sixty year period (1944 to 2004). In this same time period, 367 fire starts have occurred within the project boundary. Figure 1 below is a map displaying year and acreage burned in the vicinity of the Two Bit project boundary and fire start locations within the project boundary (Isbell, 2010). 19

Figure 1: Map of historic fires within project area

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 NSO (Gutiérrez et al. 2004). Barred owls apparently compete with NSOs through a variety of mechanisms: prey overlap (Hamer et al. 2001); habitat overlap (Dunbar et al. 1991; Herter & Hicks 2000; Pearson & Livezey 2003); and agonistic encounters (Leskiw & Gutiérrez 1998; Pearson & Livezey 2003). Recent research and observations also indicate that barred owls may displace NSOs (Kelly et al. 2003) and Anthony et al. (2006) reported that barred owls had a negative effect on NSO survival in three demographic study areas in Washington. Although the barred owl currently constitutes a significantly greater threat to the NSO than originally thought at the time of listing, it is unclear whether forest management has an effect on the outcome of interactions between barred owls and NSO (Gutiérrez et al. 2004).

20

Barred owl occurrences on the Westside of the Klamath are low, although surveys have not been conducted specifically for this species. One barred owl was detected in 2009 surveys within project area. No nesting pairs of barred owls were located within the project area during 2009 surveys.

West Nile Virus and Sudden Oak Death:

Health officials expect that West Nile Virus (WNV) will eventually spread throughout the range of the NSO (Blakesley et al. 2004), but it is unknown how WNV will ultimately affect NSO populations. Sudden Oak Death poses a threat of uncertain proportions because of its potential impact on forest dynamics and alteration of key habitat components (i.e., hardwoods); especially in the southern portion of the NSOs range. Because the magnitude of these threats is unknown at this time, they do not represent relevant information pertinent to analyses conducted for this biological assessment.

Response to Auditory and Visual Disturbance:

The FWS has determined that creating noise above ambient levels or smoke during the breeding season within ¼ mile of active nest sites or unsurveyed suitable nesting habitat has the potential to disrupt essential breeding behaviors (USDI 2002). Noise and smoke have a higher likelihood of affecting adult and juvenile NSOs early in the breeding season when they are closely associated with the nest core; this is the period when juvenile owls are not yet able to fly and adults are closely defending the nest core.

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).

Implementation of PDF will avoid adverse effects from noise and smoke to spotted owls. If no spotted owls are found nesting during surveys, no seasonal restrictions would apply.

Suitable Habitat in the Analysis Area:

Habitat estimates are based on interpretation of 2005 digital orthophoto quads, 2009 field verification, and the The July 2003 crosswalk from LMP timber types contained in old corporate layer "Veg0495". Nesting/roosting habitat occurs in small (less than 25 acres), widely scattered patches. Foraging habitat is more widely distributed and occurs in somewhat larger blocks. Dispersal habitat is widely distributed. Refer to Table 5 for acres of habitat within the Project Area, refer to Map 3 for a map of suitable NSO habitat.

Table 5: NSO Habitat Types and Acres by Management Area within the Project Area

Management Area Nesting Roosting Foraging Dispersal “Matrix” 8958 7874 4642 Large LSR 3699 3268 2393 NSO CHU 1992 1866 1961 1994 21

NSO CHU 2008 1815 1950 1887 Total Acres: 14523 13103 9029

NSOs in the Project Area:

Approximately 94 stations were surveyed in project area three times in 2009. These surveys covered approximately 28,540 acres. Surveys stations were placed to survey as many known activity centers within project area as possible. Surveys stations targeted covering entire 6th field drainages that had proposed treatments. Surveys were not conducted in areas where treatment units was separated by major ridges. Surveys were not conducted 1.3 miles around all treatment due to combinations of the types of treatments, presence of major ridges, lack of suitable nesting/roosting habitat within treatment areas, and lack of access. All suitable northern spotted owl habitat and sites within a minimum of 0.5 mile of Project Area units were surveyed to methodology described in the 1993 USFS protocol during the 2009 field season. .

The estimated home ranges of 14 NSO activity centers overlap the project area and have actions proposed within 1.3 miles of the activity center (Table 6). Many of these activity centers were based on nighttime locations only, over twenty years ago. In addition, this landscape does not appear to contain sufficient habitat quality and quantity to support as many breeding pairs and territorial singles that Table 6 suggests (see also Table 7). Until further surveys can provide more conclusive information, we assume these activity centers do exist, and potential effects to them will be analyzed. Northern spotted owls were detected in three activity centers in 2009; nesting pairs were not detected within 0.25 of any of the proposed units or underburn treatments, and no new activity centers were located.

Table 6: Survey History for Northern Spotted Owl Sites within the Project Area

Site Response Highest Response Number Site Name 2009 Status Last Surveyed (KL#) Surveys N Fork Little 1996 KL0235 Pair Not surveyed Grider No response Terr 1997 KL0236 Green Creek No response single No Response 1997 KL0286 Kemper Gulch Pair No response No Response Tennessee 2000 KL0289 Pair No response Gulch No Response 1997 KL0294 Wagner Gulch Pair No response No Response Terr 1998 KL0339 Bear Gulch Auditory pair single No Response Terr 1996 KL0340 Upper Coon Run No response single No Response Single male heard Terr 1998 KL0342 Sutcliffe Creek once 0.5 mile from single No Response activity center 22

additional visits no response Terr 2008 KL1300 Jackson Peak No response single Terr single 1997 KL4205 Creosote Pair No response No Response 1996 KL4206 Mill Creek Pair Auditory pair No Response 1999 KL4208 Tom Gray Gulch Pair No response No Response 1997 KL4209 Perkins Gulch Pair Not surveyed Pair 1997 KL4234 Doolittle Creek Pair Not surveyed No Response

NSO Home Ranges:

Home range size varies geographically, likely in response to differences in habitat quality (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 1990b). Home ranges are smaller during the breeding season and often increase dramatically in size during fall and winter (Forsman et al. 1984; Glenn et al. 2004). The average home range size is approximately 3,300 acres in the California Klamath Province. Bingham & Noon (1997) defined the portion of the owl’s home range that receives disproportionate use as the core area. Radio telemetry 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).

Based on a summary of data from various studies and past consultations, the USFWS has concluded that NSO productivity and survivorship are reduced when the proportion of suitable habitat within .5 miles of an activity center (core area) falls below 400 acres (250 acres of nesting/roosting habitat and 150 acres of foraging habitat) and the proportion of suitable habitat within a home range (3,300 acres or 1.3 mile radius) falls below 1336 acres (40%) (USFWS, March 26, 2008).

There are five home ranges that are within 0.25 miles of the treatment units. There are eight NSO core areas (0.5 mile radius) that overlap with the treatment units. There are 14 home ranges (1.3 mile radius) that overlap the treatment units. One activity center (KL1300) currently does not meet the threshold criteria of at least 1336 acres of suitable habitat (N/R and F) within the home ranges, and multiple activity centers are below threshold within the 0.5 mile core (refer to discussion above and Table 7, Acres of Suitable Habitat Within NSO Nest Cores and Home Ranges). Three proposed units (214, 243, and 254) are natural stands located within 0.5 mile of an NSO activity center (KL236 and KL0286).

Table 7. Acres of Suitable Habitat within NSO Nest Cores and Home Ranges. 23

Distance Suitable Habitat (NRF) Acres Activity From Land 100 acre Center Nearest 1.3 Mile Allocation/CHU LSR (y/n) 0.5 Mile Number Project NR F NR F Activities KL0235 0.5 LSR Yes 376 49 515 945 KL0236 0.5 GF No 0 278 0 1623 KL0286 0.25 GF No 0 249 0 1599 KL0289 0(underburn) LSR Yes 0 394 195 1511 KL0294 1.3 CHU, LSR No 0 263 0 1834 KL0339 0(underburn) LSR No 0 299 0 1570 KL0340 0.25 GF No 0 239 345 1365 KL0342 0.25 LSR Yes 0 321 0 1870 KL1300 1.3 CHU, LSR No 0 269 0 1292 KL4205 0.5 GF No 22 260 156 1453 KL4206 1.3 LSR Yes 88 228 165 1771 KL4208 1.3 LSR Yes 0 297 0 1744 KL4209 1.3 LSR Yes 0 204 124 1517 KL4234 1.3 LSR Yes 0 321 0 1932

GF= General Forest

Critical habitat in the analysis area:

Approximately 8,000 acres of NSO Critical Habitat occur within the Project Area (refer to Map 2).

On January 15, 1992, the USFWS designated 6.9 million acres of critical habitat for the NSO across Washington, Oregon, and California (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 1992). Critical Habitat for northern spotted owls was modified in September 2008 (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2008a). 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).

No treatments of Northern Spotted Owl Critical Habitat that was designated in 1992 or 2008 or areas described as RA32 in the 2008 NSO recovery plan (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2008a) is proposed in this project. Northern Spotted Owl Critical Habitat will not be discussed any further in this document.

B. Effects of the Proposed Project on NSOs

The proposed project has the potential to affect the ability of NSOs to breed, feed, shelter, or disperse by removing and/or modifying habitat components required for these activities. Normal behavior patterns of NSOs may also be disrupted by actions that create smoke and noise above ambient levels. Treatment prescriptions and the protection 24

measures described above will reduce the likelihood that habitat modification and smoke and noise disturbance will adversely affect NSOs.

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

Map 2 displays the proposed treatments that will occur within each NSO core area and home range. Treatments will degrade NSO habitat but will not downgrade or remove habitat. Table 8, Treatment Type in Acres, displays the treatment type in acres and Table 9, displays the Summary of all units that occur within suitable habitat.

For the purposes of this report units that involved plantations were determine to be non- suitable or NSO dispersal habitat, except units 103, 104, 108, 109, 110, and 111 which were determined to be suitable foraging habitat. These stands were determined to be suitable NSO foraging habitat after field review determined that they had trees over 11 inches in diameter, and canopy cover above 50 percent.

All units in natural stands were determined to be NSO foraging habitat, except 208, 234, 237, 400, 300 and 301, and 254 which were determined to be dispersal habitat. All units that were pine plantations were considered not suitable habitat. Of the 1,665 acres of plantation thinning 62 acres were determined to be suitable foraging habitat. All 62 acres are located within the Runway LSR. Of the 315 acres of thinning of natural stands 209 acres were determined to be suitable NSO foraging habitat.

Thinning in Plantations that are not suitable Habitat

Approximately 51 acres of plantation are located within the Runway LSR are not currently suitable NSO foraging. All plantation thinning will reduce stand density increasing growth rate of trees and reducing the probability of stand replacing fire. Thinning will promote foraging habitat in a shorter time frame than not thinning. Thinning will open the stand creating habitat for NSO prey species. Thinning will also favor hardwoods that will be beneficial to prey species and NSO habitat.

Thinning in Plantations that are Suitable NSO Habitat

Thinning would generally be from below where smaller trees with poor crowns would be removed to favor trees that are higher in the canopy with well developed crowns. There are several exceptions for groups of trees or for individual trees. At times, smaller trees would be left rather than larger trees in order to maintain species diversity, to remove some damaged or diseased trees from the stand, or where trees are too small to be thinned for timber products in this entry.

25

In plantations there is less variation in the size of trees and thinning would tend to be across all diameter classes. Trees of the same size within stands are often grouped together because of localized site conditions. In these cases, certain sized trees that are large compared to the other trees in one patch, might be the smallest-sized trees to remove within a different patch.

Thinning would focus on trees larger than 10 inches in diameter, but many of the trees smaller than that would be removed or felled during thinning operations, post harvest fuel treatment, or other stand improvement activities. Treatments would vary in the extent of thinning, leaving some stands more open than others.

Some stands would also be thinned using uniform thinning and some areas of variable density thinning according to the prescriptions. This type of thinning creates a fine scale mosaic pattern by thinning to different densities, creating openings, and leaving areas unthinned in small patches within a stand. Most stands would have free thinning prescribed to maintain desired species that are not shade tolerant such as sugar pine, black oak and madrone. Free thinning removes competing trees from around the desired tree (Sharp, 2009). For both types of thinning (variable density and free thinning), individual larger trees could be removed to meet the objectives.

Treatments in plantations shall leave a more open under-story making them more suitable to foraging NSO while retaining tree species diversity.

Table 8: Treatment Types in acres Treatment Acres PCT 3 Roadside Pole Thin 84 Roadside Sanitation Thin 36 Meadow Enhancement 160 Thin Natural Stand 315 Thin Plantation 1665 Thin Plantation/PCT 36 Underburn Only 7252

Table 9: Summary of all units that are suitable NSO habitat (nesting/roosting or foraging) and results post treatment of units. (Units not listed are not suitable NSO Habitat). (* indicates units in LSR) Basal Basal Area Area Canopy Silvicultural Yarding Effect Unit# Acres NSO Pre- Post- Closure Treatment System Post Habitat Harvest Harvest AVG Type AVG AVG 103* Thin Plantation Tractor TE 9 Foraging 188 120 >60 Degrade 104* Thin Plantation Tractor TE 7 Foraging 180 120 >60 Degrade

108* Thin Plantation Mech Harv 11 200 130 >60 Degrade Foraging 109* Thin Plantation Mech Harv 5 180 120 >60 Degrade 26

Basal Basal Area Area Canopy Silvicultural Yarding Effect Unit# Acres NSO Pre- Post- Closure Treatment System Post Habitat Harvest Harvest AVG Type AVG AVG Foraging

110* Thin Plantation Mech Harv 13 175 120 >60 Degrade Foraging

111* Thin Plantation Mech Harv 17 Foraging 200 120 >50 Degrade

200 Thin Natural Stand Tractor TE 14 240 160 >60 Degrade Foraging

201 Thin Natural Stand Mech Harv 17 300 160 >50 Degrade Foraging

203 Thin Natural Stand Mech Harv 3 160 120 >50 Degrade Foraging

205 Thin Natural Stand Cable 7 400 190 >60 Degrade Foraging

209 Thin Natural Stand Mech Harv 9 240 180 >60 Degrade Foraging

212 Thin Natural Stand Mech Harv 3 380 180 >60 Degrade Foraging

213 Thin Natural Stand Cable 6 420 240 >70 Degrade Foraging

214 Thin Natural Stand Cable 19 280 160 >60 Degrade Foraging

216 Thin Natural Stand Cable 7 340 160 >60 Degrade Foraging

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

218 Thin Natural Stand Tractor TE 3 340 170 >60 Foraging Degrade

219 Thin Natural Stand Cable 15 260 140 >50 Foraging Degrade

220 Thin Natural Stand Tractor TE 12 240 140 >50 Foraging Degrade

225 Thin Natural Stand Mech Harv 6 220 140 >50 Foraging Degrade

226 Thin Natural Stand Tractor TE 8 320 150 >50 Foraging Degrade

227 Thin Natural Stand Mech Harv 10 230 150 >60 Foraging Degrade

228 Thin Natural Stand Mech Harv 9 320 150 >50 Foraging Degrade

229 Thin Natural Stand Mech Harv 5 240 140 >60 Foraging Degrade

236 Thin Natural Stand Tractor TE 2 260 160 >60 Foraging Degrade

238 Thin Natural Stand Mech Harv 10 360 190 >60 Foraging Degrade

243 Thin Natural Stand Cable 4 280 120 >50 Foraging Degrade

253 Thin Natural Stand Mech Harv 28 240 140 >50 Foraging Degrade

255 Thin Natural Stand Mech Harv 9 240 160 >60 Foraging Degrade

27

Thinning in Natural Stands that are Suitable NSO Habitat

The Natural stands in general had high basal area and canopy closure, but lack structural complexity (snags, large down woody material etc) and multistoried canopy to be considered nesting /roosting habitat.

Thinning would generally be from below where smaller trees with poor crowns would be removed to favor trees that are higher in the canopy with well developed crowns. There are several exceptions for groups of trees or for individual trees. At times, smaller trees would be left rather than larger trees in order to maintain species diversity, to remove some damaged or diseased trees from the stand, or where trees are too small to be thinned for timber products in this entry. Objectives would be to reduce the stand density, maintain hardwoods, and increase stand diversity.

Some stands would also be thinned using uniform thinning and some areas of variable density thinning according to the prescriptions. This type of thinning creates a fine scale mosaic pattern by thinning to different densities, creating openings, and leaving areas unthinned in small patches within a stand. Most stands would have free thinning prescribed to maintain desired species that are not shade tolerant such as sugar pine, black oak and madrone. Free thinning removes competing trees from around the desired tree (Sharp 2009). For both types of thinning (variable density and free thinning), individual larger trees could be removed to meet the objectives.

Thinning treatments would be designed to maintain or improve the health and vigor of the stand. Diseased trees (e.g. dwarf mistletoe, heart and butt rots, etc.) would be targeted for removal, as long as overall resource objectives are met. However, snags and a portion of trees with decant characteristics would remain where practicable, particularly in LSR. Firewood and other special forest products would be offered where feasible to help meet the thinning or fuels treatment objectives.

The prescriptions in all NSO foraging habitat in plantations and natural stands shall retain NSO foraging post harvest. At a minimum 50 percent or greater canopy cover, basal area greater than 120 ft2/acre, using variable density thinning and thinning from below methods.

Dispersal habitat shall be retained dispersal habitat post harvest. Prescriptions are designed to increase growth in mid-seral and younger trees left after treatment, increasing the development of late-seral conditions sooner than untreated stands.

Whole tree yarding would result in slash piles at landing sites. After piled material is made available for personal use fuel wood gathering, remaining material would be burned at the landing. Heavy equipment may be used to pile the slash or slash would be hand piled where needed, particularly in areas where trees are limbed on site. The timing of underburning through thinned and adjacent stands would be coordinated with slash treatments after thinning. 28

Many of the home ranges do not contain recommended sufficient amounts of suitable nesting/roosting habitat. However, this project would not thin any existing nesting/roosting habitat; underburning only is proposed for nesting/roosting habitat and is not expected to reduce the quality of the habitat for nesting/roosting.

In addition, in the long-term, both thinning and underburning treatments proposed for foraging and dispersal habitat would also contribute to the development of future suitable nesting/roosting habitat. Short term effects on prey species within home ranges are expected to minimal and short term with small mammals.

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 (Manning and Edge 2008; Suzuki and Hayes 2003). Also the majority of plantations within the project area have few snags, coarse woody debris or trees over 20 inches DBH, thus when treating these units, these attributes will be retained. Short term effects on prey species are expected to be minimal with small mammal populations recovering in 6 months to 1 year from the date of treatment (Manning and Edge 2008; Suzuki and Hayes 2003). Heavily thinned areas will provide habitat with increased amounts of herbaceous and shrub growth due to the increased light; this vegetation 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).

The acres of habitat degraded in NSO home ranges in Table 9-10 are not cumulative; many of the northern spotted owl sites overlap and the same acres are counted in several sites. Many of the sites are below the desired threshold for nesting/roosting habitat within the core area (250 acres). One site, KL1300, is below the 1336 amount of suitable habitat within the 1.3 mile homerange (refer to Table 10, Northern Spotted Owl Home Range Analysis). Thinning is designed to promote the development of suitable NSO habitat and will not eliminate important structural components of NSO habitat such as large-diameter trees (>20”), large hardwoods, snags, and down wood from the stands. Trees infected with mistletoe will be removed, but prescriptions and land management guidelines have been designed to ensure that this structural component will remain on the landscape.

Table 10. Northern Spotted Owl Home Range Analysis; Acres of Habitat Modified. Post Project Post Project Acres of Habitat Removed Activity Acres of Habitat Affected 0.5 Mi Core 1.3 Mi Home or Downgraded: Center Area Range #: .5 1.3 .5 1.3 NR F NR F NR F NR F NR F NR F 185 U KL0235 0 0 0 0 3 U 0 3 U 376 49 515 945 18 T KL0236 0 0 0 0 0 11 T 0 53 T 0 278 0 1623 KL0286 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 507 U 0 249 0 1599 29

KL0289 0 0 0 0 0 128 U 0 361 U 0 394 195 1511 18 T KL0294 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 263 0 1834 244 U 299 U 726 U KL0339 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 299 0 1570 15 T 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 26 U 0 239 345 1365 KL0340 28 T 10 T 31 T KL0342 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 321 0 1870 152 U 818 U KL1300 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 269 0 1292 18 T KL4205 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 22 260 156 1453 313 U KL4206 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 269 U 88 228 165 1771 53 U KL4208 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 297 0 1744 28 T KL4209 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 T 0 204 124 1517 KL4234 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 54 U 0 321 0 1932

The removal of large-diameter trees (>20 inches dbh) would only occur under limited circumstances such as operational trees or hazard trees. Operational trees are those that are cut for road and landing construction and clearing for yarder corridors in skyline units. Placement of yarding corridors will be such that patches of large trees and snags will be avoided whenever possible; however in some cases due to yarder anchors and or geographical conditions corridors may need to be placed where individual large tree felling may be required. Removal of these trees is not expected to have a measureable affect on NSO habitat.

Down wood greater than 20 inches diameter averaged 4.9 pieces per acre across units surveyed (Isabel, 2010). Amounts of down wood vary greatly by units surveyed ranging for 0 to 14 pieces per acre. Additionally, where stand conditions permit, incorporation of recommendations for snags and down wood will ensure that these components are retained (KLRMP 1994, pgs 4-25 & 4-39).

At the landscape scale approximately 1,575 acres of foraging habitat and 2,975 acres of nesting/roosting habitat will be affected. The majority of these acres will be affected through underburning. Approximately 1,414 acres of foraging and 2,709 acres of nesting roosting will be underburned (refer to Table 11).

30

Table 11: Treatment Types in Northern Spotted Owl Habitat

Treatment Habitat Acres Roadside Pole Thin Dispersal 52 Roadside Sanitation Thin Dispersal 3 Thin Plantation Dispersal 118 Thin Plantation/PCT Dispersal 5 Underburn Only Dispersal 530 708

Thin Natural Stand Forage 209 Thin Plantation Forage 62 Underburn Only Forage 1414 1672

Underburn Only Nest/Roost 2709

Non- PCT Habitat 3 Non- Roadside Pole Thin Habitat 18 Roadside Sanitation Non- Thin Habitat 32 Non- Thin Natural Stand Habitat 73 Non- Thin Plantation Habitat 1489 Non- Thin Plantation/PCT Habitat 31 Non- Underburn Only Habitat 2600 4246

Temporary Road Construction

Approximately 2.9 miles of new temporary road will be constructed to facilitate harvest in units. Of the 2.9 mile of new temporary road construction only 0.55 miles (1 acre) will be potentially removing suitable NSO foraging habitat. Another 4.3 miles of temporary road re-construction are on existing temporary road or is new temporary road construction that is in early seral stage vegetation that in is not suitable NSO habitat. Approximately 0.5 miles of road (approximately 1 acre) to be constructed is suitable NSO foraging habitat (Table 12).

31

Table 12: Temporary Road Construction Effects to Suitable NSO Habitat Acres of NSO Miles in Foraging Temp Natural Habitat Rd# Status Unit# Treatment Stand Affected T110A New 110 Thin Plantation 0.08 0.2 T201A New 201 Thin Natural Stand 0.09 0.2 T206A New 206 Thin Natural Stand 0.09 0.2 T211A New 211 Thin Natural Stand 0.09 0.2 T218A New 219 Thin Natural Stand 0.07 0.2 T225A New 225 Thin Natural Stand 0.04 0.1 T253A New 253 Thin Natural Stand 0.09 0.2

Openings created by road construction will be linear and at most 20 feet wide. Existing canopy in mid-and late-seral forest will cover all or most of the openings. Road clearings may have short term effects on small mammal movements and occupation of the road surfaces. All temporary roads used for this Project will be closed after use and should be covered by leaf and needle drop and start accumulating down wood within one year of their closure. The small size that will be created is not large enough to affect the surrounding NSO habitat therefore temporary road construction is not considered to remove NSO habitat. Openings of this size are common in northern spotted owl habitat and will have minimal short term negative effects on northern spotted owls.

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

The small amount of road to be constructed within the LSRs (0.08 mile) will have minimal impact to species and habitat. Because of the amount of road decommissioning (0.8) vs. road construction also located within the LSR, there will be a net decrease of roads in the runway LSR. Therefore, the effects of disturbance to wildlife from vehicles traveling on roads will be reduced. All temp roads will be barricaded and hydrologically restored to allow natural revegetation within several years after project completion, thus further reducing negative impacts to wildlife.

Landings:

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

32

The small size that will be created is not large enough to affect the surrounding NSO habitat therefore landing construction is not expected to remove NSO habitat. Openings of this size are common in northern spotted owl habitat and will have minimal short term negative effects on northern spotted owls.

Six new landings will be constructed within 0.5 of three known NSO activity centers (KL0236, KL0286, and KL0342). Of these six, three are proposed in plantations thus will not be removing suitable NSO habitat (KL0286 and KL0342). Three cable landings are within the same NSO (KL0236) 0.5 mile activity center (core) and are expected to affect approximately 0.3 acres of foraging habitat from that activity centers core area (refer to Map 1).

Thinning and Underburning in LSR

There are three 100-acre LSRs within the Project Area where treatment is proposed. Four acres of plantation thinning are proposed in KL-0286 and KL-0342, and 101 acres of underburning are proposed in KL-0289 and KL-0342 (refer to Table 3 and Map 2). No commercial thinning will occur in natural stands in LSRs.

NSO habitat status will remain the same pre- and post-treatment (e.g. dispersal habitat will remain dispersal, foraging will remain foraging) (refer to Table 9) Plantations that are currently suitable foraging habitat will be reduced to no lower than 50 percent canopy cover. Prescriptions will reduce tree densities by thinning from below (Sharp, 2010). Treatment shall maintain or enhances tree species diversity by retaining all species present in the stand. The prescription will also favor thinning around hardwoods to promote large hardwoods. Although LSR guidelines suggest retaining 10 percent of units as un-thinned patches, it was decided that it would be more beneficial to thin the entire unit. It was determined that un-thinned habitat would still be present in the LSR and adjacent to the units being treated. Un-thinned areas are expected in riparian areas with equipment exclusion zones, steep slopes that prohibit access within and adjacent to unit boundaries. Thus at a stand level, tree density diversity will be maintained in the LSRs.

Thinning designed to promote the development of late-successional habitat will not remove important structural components of LSRs 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 hazard or operational trees. Operational trees are those that are cut for road and landing construction and clearing for yarder corridors in skyline units.

Indirect Effects

Prescribed Burning

Prescribed burning is proposed on 7,252 acres in the Project Area. Prescriptions for underburns will be designed to minimize damage to the existing habitat. Snags and down 33

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.

It is expected that prescribed fire will affect prey distribution in the short term, by forcing prey species to move outside of the burned area escaping the fire. 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. In addition, the area within a fire perimeter that actually burns is highly variable (Sugihara et al. 2006). Unburned areas within the fire perimeter may act as refugia for some small mammals (Lyon et al. 2000). Underburn monitoring data collected by the Forest Service from 1998 to 2005, indicates that an average of 31% of the area within an underburn remains unburned post treatment (USDA Forest Service 2005b). Therefore, the actual number of acres burned within a northern spotted owl core area or home range is expected to be considerably lower than 50 percent of the core and home range.

Prescribed fires can influence prey communities via consumption and creation of snags and down wood and effects on understory vegetation. Several important prey species are associated with decaying standing and down wood structures, including flying squirrels and dusky-footed woodrat. Prescribed fires typically consume some of the existing dead wood in a stand, which could negatively affect these species; however, low and very low intensity burns do not normally burn all areas within the underburn and it is expected to leave the majority of hard down wood and snags in place, providing refugia for small mammals. Therefore, it is expected that low severity and intensity prescribed fires will have minimal short term 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 Project Area would be reduced and the area that would have control problems (flame length greater than 8 feet) would be reduced (Isbel, 2010). 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.

Cumulative Effects

Populated communities near the watershed include Happy Camp, Seiad Valley, Yreka and Scott Valley. Generally, the major use of private property located within the watershed is for the rural residential life-style. There are also commercial uses, with some ranching and agricultural parcels, mining, and smaller tracts of timberlands. Most 34

residences are occupied year-round, while a few are visited by the property owners seasonally. There are currently no known plans for logging that affect habitat on private lands, although approximately 390 acres of harvest occurred on private lands within the watershed between 1999 and 2003. There are no cumulative effects because private property within the project area is a small percentage of the landbase and activities that are reasonably foreseeable are not expected to affect NSO’s. .

Determination of Effects for Northern Spotted Owl

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

 Nesting/roosting or foraging habitat would not be removed or downgraded

 Thinning of plantations and underburning is expected to have short and long term benefits to NSO and NSO habitat

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

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

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

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

Determination of Effects for NSO Critical Habitat

There are no treatments proposed in NSO Critical Habitat that was designated in 1992 or 2008 or areas described as RA32 for this project. The proposed Project will have No Effect on NSO Critical Habitat.

Federally Listed Species Marbled Murrelet

Environmental Baseline 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 35

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.

Reproductive Biology:

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,). 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.

Incubation is shared by both sexes, and incubation shifts are generally 1 day, with exchanges occurring at dawn (Nelson 1997, Bradley 2002). Hatchlings appear to be brooded by a parent for 1-2 days and then left alone at the nest for the remainder of the chick period while both parents spend most of their time at sea. Both parents feed the chick – usually a single fish carried in the bill – and a chick typically receives 1-8 meals per day (Nelson 1997). About two-thirds of the meals are delivered early in the morning, usually before sunrise, and about a third at dusk with a few meals sometimes scattered through the day (Hamer and Nelson 1995). Bradley et al. (2002) documented significant differences between sexes during chick-rearing; males made 1.3 times more inland trips than females overall and made 1.8 times as many trips at dusk. During early chick- rearing, nest visitation rates by males and females were found to be similar, but toward the end of chick-rearing female visitation declined while males maintained the same visitation rates. Males therefore provision the chicks more often than females, especially during the last half of chick rearing (Bradley et al. 2002).

Reasons for Listing:

Populations of this species are thought to be in decline primarily because of nesting habitat loss; 50 to 90 percent of older aged forest habitat in the Pacific Northwest has been lost because of logging and development, and much of what remains is highly fragmented (Alig et al. 2000, Bolsinger and Waddell 1993, Garman et al. 1999, Hansen et al. 1991, Wimberly and Spies 2000). Other factors such as mortality in gill nets and oil spills, and high predation rates at nest sites have also affected population viability (Carter and Kuletz 1995, Carter et al. 1995, Nelson and Hamer 1995, Raphael et al. 2002b). The murrelet was listed as a federally threatened species in Washington, Oregon, and California in 1992 (USFWS 1997) and British Columbia in 1990 (Rodway 1990).

Species Range:

In the Northwest Forest Plan (NWFP) marbled murrelet habitat was divided into two zones. Zone1 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 36

was determined to be of importance in 1994. In the Northwest Forest Plan(NWFP) 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 NWFP, 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. The project is located on the eastern edge of zone 1, with the majority of the treatments located in Zone 2 (Figure 3).

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 continuity, large tree size, multiple canopies and high canopy cover, high moss cover and depth and high platform density.

Meyer et al. (2004b) also found that murrelets in northern California preferred cool slopes near the bottom of drainages, where large trees with large limbs grow abundantly. On a regional scale, occupied sites were located within the fog Zone (<35 mi inland) in northern California where large coast redwood trees occur (Meyer et al. 2002, 2004a). Local variation in presence of moss appears related to moisture levels; trees on the lower portion of slopes and in proximity to streams had more moss cover in older aged forest stands along the central Oregon coast (Nelson and Wilson 2002). At inland sites (12 to 37 mi) in southwestern Oregon and northern California, however, murrelets were absent from dry stands where platforms were abundant but moss was scarce (Dillingham et al. 1995, Hunter et al. 1998). The lack of moisture in these dry stands appears related to high daily temperatures in summer and low tree density, not aspect.

In 1998 Hunter et al. examined the presence or absence of murrelets in the inner north coast range of California, south of the Klamath Mountains 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. The study area was located about 20 mile to the west of the project area. 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.

On Orleans Ranger District in 1992, two murrelet detections occurred at two locations within Bluff Creek drainage during pre-sale surveys for Panther and Nicker Timber 37

Sales, using the May 1992 protocol (Ralph and Nelson 1992). Follow-up visits each time were unsuccessful. Sightings were approximately 18 miles (33 km) inland near a ridgetop, in or near late mature/old-growth habitat. In 1995, at the same Nicker Timber Sale location, another murrelet was detected during a non-protocol survey. In 1998 a murrelet was detected, using radar, in the Bluff Creek drainage.

Habitat:

In California, murrelets nest primarily in coastal old-growth forests dominated by redwoods (Carter and Sealy 1987), though detections have occurred in old-growth Douglas fir, Port Orford cedar (Chamaecyparis lawsoniana), and grand fir (Abies grandes) (Paton and Ralph 1990). The three separate areas where murrelets currently are found in California correspond to the three largest remaining blocks of old-growth coastal conifer forests (Carter and Erickson 1992).

Nesting habitat is characterized by stands of large trees (greater than 32 inches dbh). Trees must have large branches or deformities, usually covered with moss or lichen, for nest platforms. Nest platforms typically require moderate to high canopy closure, which may come from the nest tree or surrounding trees (Hamer and Nelson 1995). Most observations are below 2000 feet (610 m) elevation, with some detections at 2000-3000 feet (610-914 m). The farthest inland nest in California was located 18 miles (29 km) from the ocean (Hamer and Nelson 1995).

Suitable Habitat in the Project Area:

About 90% of the proposed project lies within the central study area of marbled murrelet Zone 2, approximately 35 miles inland. Approximately 62 acres of plantation thinning, one acre of thinning of natural stand and about 150 acres of underburning are proposed within the marbled murrelet Zone 1. The remainder of the project treatments is located within Zone 2.

The project area is 35 miles inland with a major ridge (elevations between 5,000 and 6,000 feet) located between the marine environment and the action area. Marbled murrelets following the Klamath River would have to fly approximately 100 miles to reach the action area. Murrelets breeding in the action area would have to fly up the river or inland over major ridges twice daily. Energy expenditures required to make this trip would most likely be excessive, limiting the use of suitable MAMU habitat located in the action area for breeding.”

No nesting habitat for marbled murrelet was identified in or within 0.25 miles from the proposed units during many field reviews. Although the Indian Creek Watershed Analysis indicates that coastal influence is significant (creating more rainfall, lower temperature etc.) within the project area, field reviews of habitat determined that the coastal influence was not pronounced enough to create murrelet habitat within the project area. 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 38

oak/Douglas fir and Douglas fir vegetation associations surveyed in Hunters 1998 study area. There are stands that have some large trees with large limbs but there are no moss covered limbs (the primary substrate used by nesting marbled murrelets). In addition units are located in the upper third of the slope and away from major creeks and rivers where marbled murrelets generally are found nesting.

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

On July 20, 2000, the Klamath National Forest received a letter, Technical Assistance on the Final Results of the Status of the Marble Murrelet in Interior Northwestern California, from the USFWS regarding future consultation within marbled murrelet Zone 2. This letter clarified the implications of negative survey results detailed within the Status and Distribution of the Marbled Murrelet in Interior Northwestern California: Final Report (May 18, 2000). Additionally, the USFWS letter stated, “…implementation of existing and future projects in this area will not result in harassment of nesting marled murrelets; therefore, section 7 consultation relative to disturbance of marble murrelet will not be necessary.” The USFWS also supports the Forest Service recommendation to discontinue any further surveys for murrelet in the central study area. It is highly unlikely marbled murrelet occur within the central study area. Additionally, no marbled murrelet nesting habitat is present within or directly adjacent to the proposed project area.

Determination of Effects for Marbled Murrelet The following factors were considered in making the determination of the effects for Marbled Murrelet:  Marbled murrelet nesting habitat will not be removed or downgraded

 Marbled murrelets have not been detected within 25 miles of the Project Area

 Marbled murrelets are unlikely to be found nesting in the project area based on recent research

 There is no suitable of nesting habitat within ¼ mile of the proposed treatments

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

Marbled Murrelet Critical Habitat

Critical habitat for marbled murrelets was designated in May, 1996. It includes mapped LSRs within Zone 1; Runway LSR and a portion of Seiad LSR (USDI 1997) are included. A final marbled murrelet recovery plan was released in September 1997. The marbled murrelet recovery plan emphasized recovery strategies within Recovery Zones. On the Forest, the Siskiyou Coast Range (Recovery) Zone coincides with the "Zone 1" 39

boundary, described by FEMAT. Recovery actions within this zone should focus on preventing the loss of occupied nesting habitat (none identified on the Forest at this time), minimizing the loss of unoccupied habitat, and decreasing the time for development of new suitable habitat (USDI 1997).

There is plantation thinning and underburn units located in marbled murrelet Critical Habitat unit CA10a (Runway LSR). The proposed thinning operations located in Critical habitat are in plantations that do not currently provide suitable marbled murrelet habitat.

Field review, conducted by Timothy D. Burnett (USFS Biologist), Karen West (USFWS Biologist), and Jan Johnson (USFWS Biologist), of the Marbled Murrelet critical habitat located within the project area, determined that suitable nesting habitat for MAMU (i.e. old-growth component large trees, trees must have large branches or deformities with moss or lichen substrate) did not appear to be within 0.25 miles of the treatment units.

No nesting habitat for marbled murrelet was identified in or 0.25 miles from the proposed units during many field reviews. Most of the project area stands are located in the Klamath mixed conifer vegetation association 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 stands do have some large trees with large limbs but there is no moss present on the limbs (the primary substrate used by nesting marbled murrelets

Underburning is planned for approximately 1,197 acres of the 3,000 area within the MAMU CHU (Runway LSR) (approximately 40%) (Table 13). The 1,197 acre underburn would not be underburned in one year and is expected to take several years to completely burn the designated area. Underburning will decrease the probability of stand replacing fires and is expected to create a more fire resilient ecosystem. Underburns will not remove or affect any of the primary constituent elements for MAMU critical habitat.

There is no effect on MAMU CHU.

Table 13: Treatments in MAMU CHU (Runway LSR) MAMU Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 CHU ACRES Treatment acres acres acres Runaway 3034 Thin Plantation 119 119 119 Underburn Only 1197 1197 0

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

 Marbled murrelet nesting habitat will not be removed or downgraded  Operations in the thinning units and underburns will not remove primary constituent elements of marbled murrelet Critical Habitat. 40

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

FOREST SERVICE REGION FIVE 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 increased or stabilized bald eagles were removed from the endangered species list in September 2008. Once a species is delisted the Endangered Species Act requires that the species be monitored to insure populations are stable and as a result the Bald eagle was added to the Forest Service Sensitive Species List after it was delisted.

Bald eagles forage on a variety of foods based on prey species availability, with birds, fish, and mammals being the most common prey items (Swen et al. 1986; Stalmaster and Kaiser 1998; Buehler 2000). Carrion is also an important food source especially during winter (Swen et al.1986; Buehler 2000). Nest sites typically occur in forests with old growth components such as very large open-limbed trees (Buehler 2000), and nest sites are usually within a mile of a large body of water (Lehman 1979; Swen et al. 1986; Anthony and Isaacs 1989). Roost sites are associated with foraging areas but are not necessarily as close to water as nest sites (Buehler2000). Throughout the species’ range roost sites are typically in super-canopy trees (Keister and Anthony 1983; Chester et al. 1990; Buehler et al. 1991).

Surveys for bald eagles are not routinely conducted in the area; however, there are several Forest Service biologist and interested public that routinely watch for bald eagles and report new nest locations on the Klamath River (Sam Cuenca, pers. com. 2008). There are no known bald eagles nests within the analysis area; however bald eagles have been observed feeding at Kelly Lake (Jon Grunbaum pers com). Proposed treatments (all are thinning of plantations) are 0.5 mile away from Kelly Lake.

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

 No Bald Eagle nesting habitat will be removed or downgraded  No Bald Eagles have been found nesting in the project area The Project will have no effect on bald eagles

41

Northern Goshawk

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

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

There one goshawk management areas in the Project Area (USDA Forest Service 1999a, pg 3-28)(Map 2). No proposed act ivies are in any goshawk management area. There are two historical nest sites referred to as “Poker” and “Deadman’s Point” (refer to Map 2). The Poker site was discovered in 1987 with the detection of three goshawk fledglings in August. The site was surveyed again once in September of 1990. White wash was found and the site was assumed occupied for that year. Surveys have been conducted for the area in 1993, 1994, 1995 and 1996 with no observations of goshawk. A goshawk was detected at the Deadman’s site in July of 1995. Several suspected goshawk nests were located. No other records of surveys of this area have been conducted since 1995. All suitable habitat within 0.5 mile of the Poker and Deadman’s site were surveyed in 2009, no goshawks were detected.

No Goshawk habitat will be removed and habitat within plantations will be improved for goshawk foraging in the short term (1-5 years) and nesting habitat in the long term 30 plus years. Habitat in the historic goshawk nest locations is being encroached on by young conifers and hardwoods, which if left untreated would reduce the function 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. 42

In the long term, fuel reduction treatments are expected to have significant benefits to goshawk by reducing fuels to a level that would result in an acceptable fire behavior and post fire stand condition. Fuels treatments will generally reduce crown fire potential and maintain a surface fire type and 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.

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

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

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

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

 No habitat would be removed in the project.  Thinning in the goshawk habitat would remove understory vegetation, improving goshawk habitat  Thinning of plantation would be beneficial for goshawk  Noise and smoke disturbance may occur to nesting goshawks  Treatment of unsurveyed goshawk nesting habitat will occur  Operations would occur during the nesting season in and within 0.5 mile of nesting habitat.  Fuels treatments would reduce the possibility of stand replacing fires in the habitat. Based on the above factors it is my determination that the proposed project may impact individuals from smoke and/or noise disturbance, but is not likely to result in a trend 43

toward federal listing or a loss of viability for northern goshawk. Vegetation treatments may have beneficial effects on goshawks through improvement of habitat.

Willow flycatcher

Willow flycatchers (Empidonax virescens) are listed as a Forest Service Region 5 Sensitive Species. The species is at risk due to the loss and degradation of riparian shrub habitats throughout its range, cowbird nest parasitism, and livestock grazing. The willow flycatcher is a rare to locally uncommon summer resident in wet meadow and montane riparian habitats at 2000–8000’ in the Sierra Nevada and Cascade Range. In California, this species most often occurs in broad, open river valleys or large mountain meadows with lush, high-foliage volume willows (Harris et al. 1987; CDFG 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. Breeding adults have been captured in the spring and a flush of young of the year juveniles are captured in the fall, indicating that the species breeds in the Siskiyou Mountains (S. Cuenca, pers. comm. 2008).

Habitat for willow flycatchers is primarily located along Indian Creek and its larger tributaries. Patches of habitat of varying sizes are scattered throughout the project area but all are adjacent to streams and meadows and are within riparian reserves. Habitat for willow flycatchers also occurs in meadow treatment areas. Spring underburns that back into riparian reserves may directly affect some willow flycatcher habitat. Willow and alder habitat are located in the areas 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. 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.

Habitat for willow flycatchers occurs only in riparian reserves and meadow treatment areas. Approximately 13.3 acres of meadow restoration/enhancement could affect Willow flycatchers. Underburns are also proposed within riparian areas that have suitable willow flycatcher habitat. The riparian reserves with suitable flycatcher habitat are small and patchy and are located adjacent to the wetted edge that is unlikely to have much effect from underburning. Project design feature and the aquatic conservation strategy for the project will reduce negative impacts from management with riparian reserves and is expected to provide long-term benefits to willow flycatcher habitat.

44

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

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

Wolverine

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, etc), and overgrazing in high mountain meadows. Across their range wolverines are restricted to boreal forests, tundra, and western mountains (Banci 1994). Wolverines will roam through a variety of vegetative types including Douglas-fir, red fir, lodgepole pine, mixed conifer, subalpine conifer, dwarf shrub, and barren areas, and likely use wet meadows, montane chaparral, and montane riparian (CDFG 1990). They also can travel over extremely rugged topography (Copeland and Yates 2006).

Wolverines have extremely large home ranges (up to 375 square miles) (Hornocker and Hash1981) and may undertake extensive daily and seasonal movements (Inman et al. 2004; Copeland and Yates 2006). Wolverines are considered a solitary species, with adults apparently associating only during the breeding season. Recent research indicates that male home ranges may overlap (up to 30%) while female home ranges are exclusive or have very limited overlap (Krebs and Lewis 2000; Copeland and Yates 2006). Wolverines use caves, hollows in cliffs, logs, rocky outcrops, and burrows for cover, generally in denser forest stages (CDFG 1990). They den in caves, cliffs, hollow logs, cavities in the ground, under rocks, and may dig dens in snow or use beaver lodges (CDFG 1990; Magoun and Copeland 1998; Krebs and Lewis 2000; Weir 2004; Copeland and Yates 2006). Habitat for wolverines is more likely defined by distribution and abundance of food and structures for denning and avoidance of high temperatures, humans, or human caused disturbances than specific vegetative parameters (Hornocker and Hash 1981; Weir 2004). Throughout the year wolverines use a wide variety of structural stages although mature and old forest stages may be used predominately (Weir 2004). Carnivore surveys have been conducted adjacent to the Analysis Area (USDA Forest Service 2005a) none of these efforts detected wolverines

In California, wolverines are considered a scarce resident of the north Coast Mountains and the Sierra Nevada and have been sighted from Del Norte, Trinity, Shasta and Siskiyou Counties in the north and south along the crest of the Sierra Nevada to Tulare County (CDFG 1990). Because wolverines are wary and elusive and sightings are rare, accurate population estimates are difficult to obtain. Observations of wolverines in California have occurred between 1,600 and 10,800’ in elevation (CDFG 1990). 45

There have been unconfirmed sightings of wolverines on the Scott River Ranger District on Scott Bar Mountain, in the Canyon Creek watershed and recently on Grey Back Mountain in Southern Oregon. However, there are no historic records of this species in the analysis 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 Analysis Area, either as part of individual home ranges or as individuals dispersing through the area. Based on home range sizes and limited intrasexual territoriality of the species, there is the potential that several reproductive units (2 male and 4 or more females) overlaps with the Analysis Area.

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

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

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 Project Area would affect approximately 2,951 acres. The vast majority of habitat affect is from underburns treatment (92 %).

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 Project 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 46

supply. The proposed Project will not render the area unsuitable for wolverines (Hornocker and Hash, 1981).

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

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

 Wolverine habitat may be degraded by underburning  Noise and associated human disturbance from project activities may affect wolverines in the project area. Based on the above factors it is my determination that the proposed project may impact individuals, but is not likely to result in a trend toward federal listing or a loss of viability for wolverines.

Fisher

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

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

47

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 fisher habitat will not remove significant amounts of important structural components of fisher habitat such as large-diameter trees, snags, and down wood. Trees infected with mistletoe, which may provide resting structure will be removed, but silvicultural prescriptions have been designed to ensure that this component will remain on the landscape.

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. Underburning and preparations for underburns (i.e. line construction) may disturb foraging or breeding behaviors but is not expected to effect the overall population.

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

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 (fuels report). 48

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 0.5 mile of temporary road will be constructed in mid-successional habitat, resulting in approximately 1.3 acre. Landing created is expected to affect 18 acres of mid-successional habitat. Opening from temporary road construction and landings will be small and scatter through-out the project area.

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 may remove some large trees suitable for denning or resting. Openings created by temporary roads and yarder corridors are not expected to be barriers to fisher movements.

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

 Affects to prey are minimal and expected to be short term  Noise and smoke disturbance from project activities may disturb denning and foraging fishers in the project area. Based on the above factors it is my determination that the proposed project may impact individuals, but is not likely to result in a trend toward federal listing or a loss of viability for pacific fisher.

American Marten

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

49

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 Project Area, numerous carnivore surveys have been conducted over the past decade. These include 12 track plate and camera stations that were periodically monitored by the Klamath National Forest on the Happy Camp River Ranger Districts from 1992 to 1996 (USDA Forest Service no date); 19 baited camera stations in the Collins-Baldy LSR in 2004 (Farber and Franklin 2005); 60 track plate stations monitored by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on the Oak Knoll and Scott River Ranger Districts in 2005 and 2006 (S. Yaeger, pers. comm. 2008) These combined survey efforts resulted in only a two marten detections in 2005 (S. Yaeger, pers. comm. 2008) approximately 12 miles south of the Grider Creek drainage. 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 in the Project Area.

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 detections in one area of marten within the known range. The probability of martens occurring in the area is very low.

The following factors were considered in making the determination of the effects for American Martnen:

 Likelihood of American marten in the project area is low  Affects on American marten habitat and disturbance will be insignificant Based on the above factors it is my determination that the proposed project would have no effect on American marten.

Townsend’s Big-eared Bat

Townsend’s big-eared bats (Plecotus townsendii) are listed as a Forest Service Region 5 Sensitive Species due to a steep decline in numbers and its high sensitivity to human disturbance at roost sites. Townsend's big-eared bats occur throughout the western United States. In California, the species utilizes a wide variety of habitats and can be found from sea level up to 10,000 feet (Pierson and Fellers 1998; Szewczak et al. 1998). Distribution of this species is strongly correlated with the availability of caves and cave- like roosting habitat although the species also makes use of manmade structures such as abandoned buildings, water diversion tunnels, and bridges (Maser 1998; Pierson and Fellers 1998; Fellers and Pierson 2002). Large-diameter trees have also been shown to be used for roosting in California coastal forests (Fellers and Pierson 2002; Mazurek 2004). 50

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

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

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 Project Area.

No mines adjacent or cave was identified within proposed treatment areas. Large diameter trees are located throughout the project area. Because these species are sensitive to disturbance at roost sites, these actions would likely have an effect on roosting behavior if bats are present.

Thinning is expected to have long-term benefits for Townsend’s big-eared 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.

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

The following factors were considered in making the determination of the effects for Townsend’s Big Eared Bat:

 Noise and smoke disturbance may occur for bats in the project area.  Loss of large snags may reduce roosting habitat Based on the above factors it is my determination that the proposed project may impact individuals, but is not likely to result in a trend toward federal listing or a loss of viability for Townsend’s Big Eared Bat.

Northwestern Pond Turtle

51

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The following factors were considered in making the determination of the effects for Northwestern Pond Turtles:

 Northwestern Pond Turtles may be injured during underburns within 600 of slow moving water Based on the above factors it is my determination that the proposed project may impact individuals, but is not likely to result in a trend toward federal listing or a loss of viability for Northwestern Pond Turtles.

52

Foothill Yellow-legged Frog

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

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

Riparian reserves are designed to act as a filter and provide shade to maintain water quality in local streams (Bousfield, 2010). 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 project.

Thinning with ground based and skyline equipment, underburning and road use may have negligible, short-term indirect effects on stream habitat as a result of the potential for sediment delivery to streams within the project area. Implementation of Best Management Practices (Bousfield, 2010) and protection measures for fish will reduce any potential downstream effects in slow moving waters of Indian Creek and its tributaries and the Klamath River. Equipment will not be within 50 feet of suitable habitat for yellow-legged frog.

The following factors were considered in making the determination of the effects for Foothill Yellow-legged Frogs:

 Little to no impact to Foothill Yellow-legged Frog habitat or individuals Based on the above factors it is my determination that the proposed project would have no effect on foothill yellow-legged frog

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 53

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

Siskiyou mountains salamanders, the newly described Scott Bar salamander (Plethodon ausupak) and the Del Norte salamander are closely related; the 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 assessed and no talus habitat was identified. However suitable talus habitat is likely to occur within underburn areas.

There will be no direct effects on Siskiyou Mountains/Scott Bar Salamanders as a result of the proposed thinning. The amount of habitat for salamanders will be the same pre- and post-project. However the areas of proposed underburning were not surveyed 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. Although it is possible that some individuals may be lost from under burns it is expected that number will be extremely low and that it will not significantly affect the population within the project area.

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

The following factors were considered in making the determination of the effects for Siskiyou Mountains/Scott Bar Salamanders:

 Siskiyou Mountains/Scott Bar Salamanders may be injured during underburning Based on the above factors it is my determination that the proposed project may impact individuals, but is not likely to result in a trend toward federal listing or a loss of viability for Siskiyou Mountains/Scott Bar Salamanders.

Blue-gray Taildropper

Blue-gray taildroppers (Prophysaon coeruleum) are listed as Forest Service Region 5 Sensitive Species due to a small number of known sites. The blue-gray taildropper (BGTD) ranges from southern Washington to northern California (Duncan et al. 2003). In 1999 and 2000 about 100, randomly-selected, 10-acre plots were surveyed for terrestrial 54

mollusks on the KNF. These surveys discovered eleven and eight sites on the Goosenest and Happy Camp Ranger Districts, respectively.

The blue-gray taildropper (BGTD) is a forest-dwelling slug. Typical habitat for this species includes moist, usually late-successional forests, or second growth forests with late-successional attributes, often with a hardwood component (Burke et al. 2000). The 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).

Occupied sites of BGTD are located within the project area (Figure 12). Commercial thinning and underburns are proposed in suitable BGTD habitat although it is unlikely that BGTD occur in the proposed units. Areas proposed for surveys for BGTD are units of natural stands located within riparian reserves. It is believed these areas had the highest likelihood of presence BGTD within the Project Area Surveys will be conducted within the proposed thinning of natural units where it overlaps with stream riparian reserves. If blue-gray taildroppers are located then they will be buffered according to the protection measures of one site potential tree.

The areas of the proposed underburns were not surveyed because underburns are thought to minimal impact to blue grey tail droppers. It is reasonable to assume that there are populations of blue-gray taildropper in these areas. Most mollusks will have retreated underground prior to the conditions being right for a prescribed fire. Although it is possible that some individuals may be lost from under burns it is expected that number will be extremely low and that it will not significantly affect the population within the project area.

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

The following factors were considered in making the determination of the effects for Blue-gray tail droppers:

 Blue-gray tail droppers may be injured during underburning Based on the above factors it is my determination that the proposed project may impact individuals, but is not likely to result in a trend toward federal listing or a loss of viability for blue-gray tail droppers.

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 talamanders range is limited to Coast Range of Oregon south of the Little Nestucca and 55

northern California Coastal Mountains. Southern torrent salamanders live very cold, clear spring, seeps, headwater streams, and waterfall splash zones, and they may forage in moist forest adjacent to these areas. They lay their eggs in rock crevices in seeps, mostly in the spring. Larvae and adults live in gravel or under small cobbles in silt free, very shallow water that is flowing or seeping. Adults may also be found under debris or stream banks or in streamside forest and talus during rainy periods (Corkran and Thoms 1996).

The Project Area is located east of most known southern torrent salamander site, however several populations have been located in areas removed from the general range including the Seiad Valley area on the Klamath River and a specimen was found during salamander surveys downstream from the mouth of Grider Creek and is also located on the south side of the Klamath River (Sam Cuenca Personal communications, 2008).

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

Thinning with ground based and skyline equipment, underburning and road use will have no direct effect on southern torrent salamander habitat. There may be 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 Indian Creek and its tributaries in the Project area. Although it is possible that some individuals may be lost from under burns it is expected that number will be extremely low and that it will not significantly affect the population within the project area.

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

The following factors were considered in making the determination of the effects for Southern Torrent Salamanders:

 Southern Torrent Salamanders may be injured during underburns though this is extremely unlikely. Based on the above factors it is my determination that the proposed project has no effect for Southern Torrent Salamanders.

Great Grey Owls

FEMAT (July, 1993) analyzed that management under the Northwest Forest Plan (Option Nine) gave the great gray owl an 83% chance of remaining well distributed throughout the northwest. Population trends for great gray owls (GGOs) are uncertain due to limited long term survey data (Hayward and Verner 1994; Panjabi et al. 2005) and difficulty in detection (Godwin pers. Comm.. 2005). The Klamath National Forest is on the edge of 56

the known range of the species and is not included in the range as described by CDF&G (1990). However, according to the most recent GGO protocol (USDA and USDI 2004), GGOs have been observed during the breeding season in CA Klamath and CA Cascades Physiographic Provinces, but have not been confirmed to be breeding in those areas. There are no records of GGOs nesting on the Klamath National Forest and it has been suggested that the few sighting on the Forest (roughly 4 or 5), are a result of dispersing individuals, winter movements, or stressed and starving birds at the edge of the species range (i.e. recent daylight observations of an adult GGO on the Scott River Ranger District) (CDF&G 1990; Sibley 2000).

Great gray owl prey species consist mainly of small mammals, especially rodent. Voles and pocket gophers are primary species with shrews, moles, mice and flying squirrels also consumed (Hayward and Verner 1994). Based on recent survey data in Oregon, we assume GGOs are using mid- to high elevation mixed conifer and true fir forest habitats adjacent to large montane meadows in the project area. Preferred breeding habitats in California studies (Sierran) were pine and fir forests adjacent to montane meadows between 750 m (2469 ft) and 2,250 m (7,380 ft) in elevation (Winter 1986). Ponderosa pine was the dominant tree species within the home ranges of breeding owls, followed by incense cedar and white fir.

The project area does contain suitable habitat as described above for great gray owl, primarily in the upper elevation meadow/mixed conifer forest complexes near Dry Lake Mountain and along the Klamath Siskiyou crest. There are no historic detections of GGO within the project area.

Great grey owl habitat will benefit from meadow treatments. Furthermore underburns will increase prey availability and opening may be beneficial to GGO. Suitable habitat for GGO will not be removed by proposed activities.

Direct effects of noise and smoke disturbance from 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. Disturbance from project activities in or within 0.25 miles of suitable GGO habitat may disrupt normal breeding, nesting and foraging behavior of great gray owls that may be within harvest units.

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

The following factors were considered in making the determination of the effects for Great Grey Owl:

 Noise disturbance from proposed treatments within suitable GGO habitat Based on the above factors it is my determination that the proposed project may impact individuals, but is not likely to result in a trend toward federal listing or a loss of viability for Great Grey Owls. 57

VII. PROJECT SUMMARY OF DETERMINATIONS FOR ALL SPECIES Species: Determination of Effects Northern spotted owl May affect, and is not likely to adversely affect NSO critical habitat May affect, and is not likely to adversely affect Marbled murrelet No effect Marbled murrelet critical habitat No effect Bald eagle No effect Shortnose sucker No effect; no habitat in project area Lost River sucker No effect; no habitat in project area Tidewater goby No effect; no habitat in project area Northern goshawk May impact individuals, but not likely to lead to a trend toward Federal listing or loss of viability Great gray owl May impact individuals, but not likely to lead to a trend toward Federal listing or loss of viability Willow flycatcher May impact individuals, but not likely to lead to a trend toward Federal listing or loss of viability California wolverine May impact individuals, but not likely to lead to a trend toward Federal listing or loss of viability Pacific fisher May impact individuals, but not likely to lead to a trend toward Federal listing or loss of viability American marten No effect Pallid bat No effect, outside range Townsend’s big-eared bat May impact individuals, but not likely to lead to a trend toward Federal listing or loss of viability Northwestern pond turtle May impact individuals, but not likely to lead to a trend toward Federal listing or loss of viability Foothill yellow-legged frog No effect Cascade frog No effect Blue-gray taildropper May impact individuals, but not likely to lead to a trend toward Federal listing or loss of viability Tehama chaparral No effect, outside range Siskiyou mountains salamander May Impact individuals, but not likely to lead to a trend toward Federal listing Swainson’s hawk No effect; no habitat in project area Greater sandhill crane No effect; no habitat in project area Southern torrent salamander May impact individuals, but not likely to lead to a trend toward Federal listing or loss of viability Sierra Nevada red fox Outside of range

58

Literature Cited

Alig, R.J.; Zheng, D.; Spies, T.A.; Butler, B.J. 2000. Forest cover dynamics in the Pacific Northwest west side: regional trends and projections. Res. Pap. PNW-RP-522. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 22 p.

Alegria, J., L. Folliard, J. Lint, S. Madsen, T. Max, and L. Webb. 2002. Southwest Oregon inland survey assessment for marbled murrelets. Final Report U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland OR

Alexander, J. D., N. E. Seavy, and P. E. Hosten. 2007. Using conservation plans and bird monitoring to evaluate ecological effects of management: an example with fuels reduction activities in southwest Oregon. Forest Ecology and Management 238:375-383.

Andersen, D. E., O.J. Rongstad, and W. R. Mytton. 1989. Response of nesting red-tailed hawks to helicopter overflights. The Condor 91: 296-299.

Anthony, R. G., E. D. Forsman, A. B. Franklin, D. R. Anderson, K. P. Burnham, G. C. White, C.J. Schwarz, J. Nichols, J. E. Hines, G. S. Olson, S. H. Ackers, S. Andrews, B. L. Biswell, P. C. Carlson, L. V. Diller, K. M. Dugger, K. E. Fehring, T. L. Fleming, R. P. Gerhardt, S. A. Gremel, R. J. Gutiérrez, P. J. Happe, D. R. Herter, J. M. Higley, R. B. Horn, L. L. Irwin, P. J. Loschl, J. A. Reid, and S. G. Sovern. 2006. Status and trends in demography of northern spotted owls, 1985-2003. Wildlife Mongraphs. 163:1-48.

Anthony, R. G., and F. B. Isaacs. 1989. Characteristics of bald eagle nest sites in Oregon. Journal of Wildlife Management. 53:148–159.

Ashton, D. T., A. J. Lind, and K. E. Schlick. 1997. Western Pond Turtle (Clemmys marmorata). Natural History. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Soutwest Research Station, Redwood Sciences Laboratory, Arcata, CA.

Aubrey, K.B., M.J. Crites, and S.D. West 1991. Regional paterns of small mammal abundance and community composition in Oregon an dWashington. In Wildlife and vegetation of unmanaged Douglas-fir forests (L.F. Ruggiero, K.B. Aubry, A.B. Carey, and M.G. Huff, tech Cords.) USDA Forest Service. GTR-PNW-285, 532pp

Austin, K. K. 1993. Habitat use and home range size of breeding northern goshawks in the southern Cascades. M.S. Thesis. Oregon State University, Corvalis, OR.

Bart, J. 1995. Amount of suitable habitat and viability of northern spotted owls. Conservation Biology 9:943-946.

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

59

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

Bigley, R. E., and J. F. Franklin. 2004. Habitat trends. Pages 6-2 to 6-35 in Courtney et al. Scientific evaluation of the status of the northern spotted owl. Sustainable Ecosystems Institute, Portland, OR.

Biswell, B., M. Blow, R. Breckel, L. Finley, J. Lint. 2002. Survey Protocol for the Red Tree Vole. Version 2.1, Revision October 2002.

Blakesley, J. A., A. B. Franklin, and R. J. Gutiérrez. 1992. Spotted owl roost and nest site selection in northwest California. Journal of Wildlife Management. 56:388-392.

Blakesley, J. A., W. LaHaye, J. M. Marzluff, B. R. Noon, and S. P. Courtney. 2004. Demography. Pages 8-2 to 8-46 in Courtney et al. Scientific evaluation of the status of the northern spotted owl. Sustainable Ecosystems Institute, Portland, OR.

Blaustein, A. R., J. J. Beatty, D. H. Olson, and R. M. Storm. 1995. The biology of amphibians and reptiles in old-growth forests in the Pacific Northwest. General Technical Report PNW-GTR-337. USDA Pacific Northwest Research Station, Corvallis, OR.

Bloxton, T. D. 2002. Prey abundance, space use, demography, and foraging habitat of northern goshawks in western Washington. M.S. Thesis. University of Washington, Seattle, WA.

Boleyn, P. C. 1997. Pileated woodpecker (Dryocopus pileatus) habitat use study on Six Rivers National Forest, California. M.S. Thesis. Humboldt State University, Arcata, CA.

Bolsinger, C.L.; Waddell, K.L. 1993. Area of old-growth forest in California, Oregon, and Washington. Resour. Bull. PNW-RB-197. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 26 p.

Bousfield. Greg. 2010. Hydrology Report for the Two Bit Vegetation Management Project Internal report. Bradley, R.W.; McFarlane Tranquilla, L.A.; Vanderkist, B.A. [et al.]. 2002. Sex differences in nest visitation by chick-rearing marbled murrelets. Condor. 104: 178-183.

Brown, H. A., R. B. Bury, D. M. Darda, L. V. Diller, C. R. Peterson, and R. M. Storm. 1995. Reptiles of Washington and Oregon. R. M. Storm and W. P. Leonard Buchanan, J. B., R. E. Rogers, D. J. Pierce, and J. E. Jacobson. 2003. Nest-site habitat use by white- headed woodpeckers in the eastern Cascade Mountains, Washington. Northwestern Naturalist. 84:119–128.

60

Buehler, D. A., T. J. Mersmann, J. D. Fraser, and J. K. Seegar. 1991. Nonbreeding bald eagle communal and solitary roosting behavior and habitat use on the northern Chesapeake Bay. Journal of Wildlife Management. 55:273–281.

Buehler, D. A. 2000. Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus). In A. Poole and F. Gill editors. The Birds of North America, No. 506. The American Ornithologist’ Union, Washington, D.C.; The Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, PA.

Bull, E. L., and J. A. Jackson. 1995. Pileated woodpecker (Dryocopus pileatus). In A. Pooleand F. Gill editors. The Birds of North America, No. 148. The American Ornithologist’Union, Washington, D.C.; The Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, PA.

Bull, E. L. 1987. Ecology of the pileated woodpecker in northeastern Oregon. Journal of Wildlife Management. 51:472–481.

Bull, E. L., and R. S. Holthausen. 1993. Habitat use and management of pileated woodpeckers in northeastern Oregon. Journal of Wildlife Management. 57:335– 345.

Bull, E. L., R. S. Holthausen, M. G. Henjum. 1992. Roost trees used by Pileated woodpeckers in northeastern Oregon. Journal of Wildlife Management. 56:786– 793.

Bull, E. L., and J. E. Hohmann. 1993. The association between Vaux’s swifts and old Growth forests in northeastern Oregon. Western Birds. 24: 38–42.

Bull, E. L., and H. D. Cooper. 1991. Vaux’s swift nests in hollow tree. Western Birds. 22:85-91.

Bull, E. L., and C. T. Collins. 1993. Vaux’s swift (Chaetura vauxi). In A. Poole and F. Gill editors. The Birds of North America, No. 148. The American Ornithologist’Union, Washington, D.C.; The Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, PA.

Bull, E. L. 1991. Summer roosts and roosting behavior of Vaux’s swifts in old-growth forests. Northwestern Naturalist. 72:78–82.

Bull, E. L., S. R. Peterson, and J. W. Thomas. 1986. Resource partitioning among woodpeckers in northeastern Oregon. USDA Forest Service. Research note PNW- 444. Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, Oregon.

Burke, T. E., N. Duncan, and P. Jeske. 2000. Management recommendations for terrestrial mollousk species. Regional Interagency Executive Committee Survey and Manage Work Group.

Bury, R. B. 1968. The distribution of Ascaphus truei in California. Herpetologica. 4:39– 46.

61

Buskirk, S. W. 1984. Seasonal use of resting sites by marten in southcentral Alaska. Journal of Wildlife Management. 48:950–953.

Buskirk, S. W., S. C. Forrest, M. G. Raphael, and H. J. Harlow. 1989. Winter resting site ecology of marten in the central Rocky Mountains. Journal of Wildlife Management. 53:191–196.

Buskirk, S. W., and R. A. Powell. 1994. Habitat ecology of fishers and american martens. Pages 283–296 in Buskirk et al. editors. Martens, sables, and fishers biology and conservation. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY.

Buskirk, S. W., and L. F. Ruggerio. 1994. American marten. Pages 7–37 in Ruggerio et al.editors. The scientific basis for conserving forest carnivores: American marten, fisher, lynx, and wolverine in the western United States. General technical report RM-254. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, FortCollins, CO.

California Department of Fish and Game. 1988. California’s Wildlife Volume I Amphibians and Reptiles. Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, CA.

California Department of Fish and Game. 1990. California’s Wildlife Volume II Birds

California Department of Fish and Game. 1990. California’s Wildlife Volume III Mammals. Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, CA.

California Department of Fish and Game. 2005. Petition to the State of California Fish and Game Commission supporting information for Siskiyou Mountains Salamander (Plethodon stormi). California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, CA.

Carey, A. B. 1991. The biology of arboreal rodents in Douglas-fir forests. I(M.H. Huff, R.S. Holthausen, and K.B. Aubry, tech Coords.) Biology and management of Old-growth forests. USDA Forest Service, PNW-GTR-276.

Carey, A. B. 1993. Prey ecology and northern spotted diet. Abstract of presentation, Spotted Owl Symposium, annual meeting of the Raptor Research Foundation, Inc., Bellevue, WA, November 11-15, 1992. Journal of Raptor Research 27:53-54.

Carey, A. B., T. M. Wilson , C. C. Maguire, and B. L. Biswell. 1997. Dens of northern flying squirrels in the Pacific Northwest. Journal of Wildlife Management. 61:684-699.

Carey, A. B., C. C. Maguire, B. L. Biswell, and T. M. Wilson. 1999. Distribution and abundance of Neotoma in western Oregon. Northwest Science. 73:65-80.

Carey, A. B. 2000. Ecology of northern flying squirrels: implications for ecosystem management in the Pacific Northwest, USA. Pages 45-66 in R. Goldingay and J. Scheibe (eds.) Biology of gliding mammals. Filander Press, Furth, Germany. 62

Carey and Wilson 2001. Induced spatial heterogeneity in forest canopies: response of small mammals. Journal of Wildlife Management 65:1014–1027 Carter, H. R. and R. A. Ericksin, 1992. Status and conservation of the marbled murrelet in California, 1892-1987. In Carter HR, Morrison ML, editors. Status and conservation of the marbled murrelet un Northern America. Proceedings of the Western Foutdation of Vertebrate Zoology 5:92-108.

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.\

Carter, H.R., S.G. Sealy. 1987 Inland records of downy young and fledgling marbled murrelets in North America. Murrelet 68: 58-63.

Chester, D. N., D. F. Stauffer, T. J. Smith, D. R. Luukonen, and J. D. Fraser. 1990. Habitat use by nonbreeding bald eagles in North Carolina. Journal of Wildlife Management. 54:223-234.

Clayton. D. R., D. H. Olson, and R. S. Nauman. 2004. Conservation assessment for the Siskiyou Mountains salamander (Plethodon stormi). USDI, Fish and Wildlife Service and USDA, Forest Service. Unpublished report.

Clayton, D., and R. Nauman. 2005. Siskiyou Mountains salamander. Pages 137–138 in Amphibians of the Pacific Northwest. Seattle Audobon Society, Seattle, WA.

Conaway, C. H. 1952. Life history of the water shrew (Sorex palustris navigator). American Midland Naturalist. 48:219–248.

Copeland, J. P., and R. E. Yates. 2006. Wolverine population assessment in Glacier National Park. Spring 2006 Progress Report. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Missoula, MT.

Corkran CC and C Thoms. 1996. Amphibians of Oregon, Washington, and British Columbia. Lone Pine Publishing, Renton, Washington, 175 pp.

Corn, P.S. and R.B. Bury. 1986. Habittat use and terrestrial activity by red tree voles (Arbprimous longicaudus) in Oregon. J. Mammology 67: 404-406.

63

Corn, P.S. and R.B. Bury 1991. Small mammal communities in the Oregon Coast Range. In wWildlife and vegetation of unmanages Douglas-fir forests (L. F. Ruggiero, K.B. Aubry, A.B. Caqrey, and M.G. Huff, tech cords.) USDA Forest Service, GTR-PNW- 285, 532pp.

Csuti, B., A. J. Kimerling, T. A. O’Neil, M. M. Shaughnessy, E. P. Gaines, and M. P. Huso. 1997. Atlas of Oregon Wildlife. Oregon State University Press, Corvallis, OR.

Dillingham, C.P.; Miller, R.C.; Webb, L.O. 1995. Marbled murrelet distribution in the Siskiyou National Forest of southwestern Oregon. Northwestern Naturalist. 76: 33-39.

Dixon, R. D. 1995. Density, nest-site and roost-site characteristics, home-range, habitat- use, and behavior of white-headed woodpeckers: Deschutes and Winema National Forests, Oregon. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. Nongame Report 93- 3-01.

Dixon, R. D., and V. A. Saab. 2000. Black-backed woodpecker (Picoides arcticus). In A.Poole and F. Gill editors. The Birds of North America, No. 509. The American Ornithologist’ Union, Washington, D.C.; The Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, PA.

Delaney, D. K., T. G. Grubb, P. Beier, L. L. Pater, and M. H. Reiser. 1999. Effects of helicopter noise on Mexican spotted owls. Journal of Wildlife Management 63:60-76.

Drennan, J. E., and P. Beier. 2003. Forest structure and prey abundance in winter habitat of northern goshawks. Journal of Wildlife Management 67:177–185.

Dunbar, D. L., B. P. Booth, E. D. Forsman, A. E. Hetherington, and D. J. Wilson. 1991. Status of the spotted owl, Strix occidentalis, and barred owl, Strix varia, in southwestern British Columbia. Canadian Field Naturalist 105:464-468.

Duncan, N, T. Burke, S. Dowlan, and P. Hohenlohe. 2003. Survey protocol for survey and manage terrestrial mollusk species from the Northwest Forest Plan. USDA Forest Serviceand USDI Bureau of Land management.

Dunk , J.R. and Hawley J. J. V.G. 2007. Red tree vole habitat and reserve associations in Oregon and Northern California. Department of Environmental and Natural Resource sciences, Humboldt State University.

Dugger, K. M., F. Wagner, R. G. Anthony, and G. S. Olson. 2005. The relationship between habitat characteristics and demographic performance of northern spotted owls in southern Oregon. The Condor 107:863-878.

Enderson, J. E, and G. R. Craig. 1997. Wide ranging by nesting peregrine falcons (Falcoperegrinus) determined by radiotelemetry. Journal of Raptor Research. 64

31:333–338.

Farber, S., R. Hawkins, and J. Whitaker. 2001. Habitat relationship of Sikiyou Mountain salamander (Plethodon stormi) on Timber Products forestlands in northern California. Timber Products Company report submitted to the California Department of Fish and Game.

Farber, S., and T. Franklin. 2005. Presence-absence surveys for pacific fisher (Martes pennanti) in the Eastern Klamath Province of interior northern California. Timber Products Company report submitted to the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

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

Folliard, L. B., K. P. Reese, and L. V. Dillard. 2000. Landscape characteristics of northern spotted owl nest sites in managed forests of northwestern California. Journal of Raptor Research. 34:75-84.

Forsman, E. D. 1976. A prelimenary investigation of the spotted owl in Oregon. M. S. Thesis. Oregon State University, Corvalis, OR.

Forsman, E. D., R. G. Anthony, J. A. Reid, P. J. Loschl, S. G. Sovern, M. Taylor, B. L. Biswell, Ellingson, E. C. Meslow, G. S. Miller, K. A. Swindle, J. A. Thrailkill, F. F. Wagner, and D. E. Seaman. 2002. Natal and breeding dispersal of northern spotted owls. Wildlife Monographs 149:1-35.

Forsman, E. D., R. G. Anthony, E. C. Meslow, and C. J. Zabel. 2004. Diets and foraging behavior of northern spotted owls in Oregon. Journal of Raptor Research 38:214-230.

Forsman, E. D., I. A. Otto, S. G. Sovern, M. Taylor, D. W. Hays, H. Allen, S. L. Roberts, and D. E. Seaman. 2001. Spatial and temporal variation in diets of spotted owls in Washington. Journal of Raptor Research 35:141-150.

Forsman, E. D., E. C. Meslow, and H. M. Wight. 1984. Distribution and biology of the spotted owl in Oregon. Wildlife Monographs 87:1–64.

Franklin, A. B., D. R. Anderson, R. J. Gutiérrez, and K. P. Burnham. 2000. Climate, habitat quality, and fitness in northern spotted owl populations in Northwestern California.Ecological Monographs 70:539–590.

Forsman, E. D., R. G. Anthony, E. C. Meslow, and C. J. Zabel. 2004. Diets and foraging behavior of northern spotted owls in Oregon. Journal of Raptor Research 38:214-230.

Fuller, D. D., and A. J. Lind. 1992. Implications of fish habitat improvement structures for other stream invertebrates. Pages 96–104 in H. M. Kerner editor. Proceedings of the 65

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.

Gillesberg, A. and A.B. Carey. 1991. Arboreal nests of Phenacomys longicaudis in Oregon. Journal of Mammology 72: 784-787.

Glenn, E. M., M. C. Hansen, and R. G. Anthony. 2004. Spotted owl home-range and habitat use in young forests of western Oregon. Journal of Wildlife Management 68: 33- 50.

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

Gomez, D.M. 1992. Small mammal and herptofauna abundance in riparian and upslope areas of five forest conditions. Master’s Thesis Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR

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

Grunbaum, Jon. 2010a. Fisheries Report for the Two Bit Vegetation Management Project. Internal report. 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.

66

Hagar, J. C., W. C. McComb, and W. H. Emmingham. 1996. Bird communities in commercially thinned and unthinned Douglas-fir stands of western Oregon. Wildlife Society Bulletin 24:353-366.

Hamer, T.E. 1996. A predictive model of habitat suitability for the marbled murrelet and habitat rating strategy for the Elliott State Forest. Coos Bay, OR: Oregon Department of Forestry. 45 p.

Hamer, T. E., D. L. Hays, C. M. Senger, and E. D. Forsman. 2001. Diets of northern barred owls and northern spotted owls in an area of sympatry. Journal of Raptor Research 35:221-227.

Hamm, K. A. 1995. Abundance of dusky-footed woodrats in managed forests of northern California. M. S. Thesis. Humboldt State University, Arcata, CA.

Hansen, A.J.; Spies, T.A.; Swanson, F.J. [et al.]. 1991. Conserving biodiversity in managed forests. BioScience. 41: 382-392.

Hargis, C. D., C. McCarthy, and R. D. Perloff. 1994. Home ranges and habitats of northern goshawks in eastern California. Studies in Avian Biology. 16:66–74.

Hargis, C. D., and D. R. McCullough. 1984. Winter diet and habitat selection of marten in Yosemite National Park. Journal of Wildlife Management. 48:14-146.

Harris, J. H., S. D. Sanders, and M. A. Flett. 1987. Willow flycatchers surveys in the Sierra Nevada. Western birds. 18:27–36.

Herter, D. R., and L. L. Hicks. 2000. Barred owl and spotted owl populations and habitat in the central Cascade Range of Washington. Journal of Raptor Research 34:279 286.

Holland, D. 1994. The western pond turtle: habitat and history. Final report submitted to Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, OR. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Portland, OR.

Hornocker, M. G., and H. S. Hash. 1981. Ecology of the wolverine in northwestern Montana.Canadian Journal of Zoology. 59:1286–1301.

Huff, M.H.; Raphael, M.G.; Miller, S.L.; Nelson, S. K.; Baldwin, J.. 2006 Status and Trends of Populations and Nesting Habitat for the Marbled Murrelet. General Technical Report, PNW-GTR-650. USDA Forest Service Northwest Research Station

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

67

Hunter, J. and R. LeValley. 1996. Improving the reliability of Marbled Murrelet surveys in low abundance areas. Pacific Seabirds 23(1):3-4

Hunter, J.E.; Schmidt, K.N.; Stauffer, H.B. [et al.]. 1998. Status on the marbled murrelet in the inner north Coast Ranges of California. Northwestern Naturalist. 79: 92- 103.

Hutto, R. L. 1995. Composition of bird communities following stand-replacement fires in Northern Rocky Mountain (U.S.A.) conifer forests. Conservation Biology 9:1041- 1058.

Isbell, Clint. 2010. Fire and Fuels Report for the Two Bit Vegetation Management Project. Internal report. 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.

Isbell, Clint and Greg Bousfield, 2010. Air Quality Report for the Two Bit Vegetation Management Project. Internal report. Isbell, Clint. 2010. Fire and Fuels Report for the Two Bit Vegetation Management Project. Internal report. Jackson, J. A., H. R. Ouellet, and S. B. Jackson. 2002. Hairy woodpecker (Picoides villosus). In A. Poole and F. Gill editors. The Birds of North America, No.702. The American Ornithologist’ Union, Washington, D.C.; The Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, PA.

Jennings, M. R. and M. P. Hayes. 1994. Amphibian and reptile species of special concern of California. California Department of Fish and Game. Rancho Cordova. 255pg Johnsgard, P. A. 1990. Hawks, Eagles, and Falcons of North America. Smithsonian Institution Press. Washington, D. C.

Johnson, M.L. and S.B. George 1991. Species limits within the Arborimus longicaudus species-complex (Mammalia:Rodentia) with a description od a new species from California. Contributions in Science 429: 1-16

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

68

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

Kaufman, D. W., E.J. Finck, G. A. Kaufman. 1990. Small mammals and grassland fires In: Collins, S.L., Wallace, L.L. (Eds) Fire in North American Tallgrass Prairies. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman, Oklahoma, USA. Pp 46-80. 34p.

Keister, G. P. and R. G. Anthony. 1983. Characteristics of bald eagle communal roosts in the Klamath Basin. Journal of Wildlife Management. 47:1072–1079.

Kelly, E. G., E. D. Forsman, and R. G. Anthony. 2003. Are barred owls replacing spotted owls? The Condor 105:45-53.

Kingery, H. E. 1996. American dipper (Cinclus mexicanus). In A. Poole and F. Gilleditors.The Birds of North America, No. 229. The American Ornithologist’ Union, Washington,D.C.; The Academy of NaturalSciences, Philadelphia, PA.

Koper, N., and R. J. Brooks. 2000. Environmental constraints on growth of painted turtles (Chrysemys picta). Herpetologica. 56:421–432.

Kotliar, N. B., S. J. Hejl, R. L. Hutto, V. A. Saab, C. P. Melcher, and M. E. McFadzen. 2002. Effects of fire and post-fire salvage logging on avian communities in conifer- dominated forests of the western United States. Studies in Avian Biology 25:49-64.

Krebs, J. A., and D. Lewis. 2000. Wolverine ecology and habitat use in the North ColumbiaMountains: Progress Report. Pages 695–703 in L. M. Darling editor. Proceedings of the conference on the biology and management of species and habitats, Kamloops, British Columbia.

Kucera, T. E., W. J. Zielinski, and R. H. Barrett. 1995. Current distribution of the American marten Martes Americana in California. California Fish and Game. 8:96–103.

Lank, D. B. , N. Parker, E>A> Krebs, and McFarlane-Traquilla. 2003. Geographic distribution, habitat selection, and population dynamics with respect to nesting habitat characteristics of marbled murrelet (Brachyramphus marmoratus). Ctr Wildlife Ecol. Simon Frase University, Vancouver, British Columbia.

LaHaye, W. S., and R. J. Guitierrez. 1999. Nest sites and nesting habitat of the northern spotted owl in northwestern California. The Condor 101:324–330.

Lehman, R. N. 1979. A survey of selected habitat features of 95 bald eagle nest sites in California. Wildlife Management Branch, California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, CA.

Leskiw, T. and R.J. Gutiérrez. 1998. Possible predation of a spotted owl by a barred owl. Western Birds 29:225–226. 69

Leonard, W. P., H. A. Brown, L. L. Jones, K. R. McAllister, and R. M. Storm. 1993.Amphibians of Washington and Oregon. Seattle Audubon Society, Seattle, WA. Lewis, S. E. 1994. Night roosting ecology of pallid bats (Antrozous pallidus) in Oregon. American Midland Naturalist. 132:219–226.

Li, P., and T. E. Martin. 1991. Nest-site selection and nesting success of cavity-nesting birds in high elevation forest drainages. Auk. 108:405-418.

Lyon, L. J., M. H. Huff, E. S. Telfer, D. S. Schreiner, and J. K. Smith. 2000. Fire effects on animal populations. Pages 25–34 in J. K. Smith editor. Wildland fire in ecosystems: effects of fire on fauna. General technical report RMRS-42. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Missoula, MT

Magoun, A., and J.P. Copeland. 1998. Characteristics of wolverine reproductive den sites.Journal of Wildlife Management. 62:1313–1320.

Manaan, R. W. 1984. Summer area requirements of pileated woodpeckers in western Oregon.Wildlife Society Bulletin. 12:265–268.

Manning, J. A. and W. D. Edge. 2008. Small mammal responses to fine woody debris and Forest Fuel reduction in southwestern Oregon Journal of Wildlife Management 72:625-632.

Maser, C.O. 1966. Life histories and ecology of Phenacomys albipes, Phenacomys longicaudus, phenacomys silvicola. Master’s Thesis. Humboldt State University, Arcata, CA

Martin, K., K. E. Aitken, and K. L. Wiebe. 2004. Nest sites and nest webs for cavity nesting communities in interior British Columbia, Canada: nest characteristics and niche partitioning The Condor. 106:5-19.

Maser, C. 1998. Mammals of the Pacific Northwest: from the coast to the high Cascades. Oregon State University Press, Corvallis, OR.

Mazurek, M. J. 2004. A maternity roost of Townsend’s big-eared bats (Corynorhinus townsendii) in coast Redwood basal hollows in northeastern California. Northwestern Naturalist. 85:60–62.

McGarigal, K., R. G. Anthony, and F. B. Issacs. 1991. Interactions of humans and bald eagles on the Columbia River estuary. Wildlife Monographs 115:1-47.

Mellen, T. K., E. C. Meslow, and R. W. Manaan. 1992. Summertime home range and habitat use of pileated woodpeckers in western Oregon. Journal of Wildlife Management. 56:96–103.

70

Meyer, C.B.; Miller, S.L. 2002a. Use of fragmented landscapes by marbled murrelets for nesting in southern Oregon. Conservation Biology. 16: 755-766.

Meyer, C.B.; Miller, S.L.; Ralph, C.J. 2002b. Multi-scale landscape and seascape patterns associated with marbled murrelet areas on the U.S. west coast. Landscape Ecology. 17: 95-115.

Meyer, C.B., S.L. Miller, and C.J. Ralph. 2003. Logistic regression accuracy across different spatial and temporal scales for a wide-ranging species, the marbled murrelet. In: Proceedings of the 1st annual conference on resource selection by animals. January 13-15, 2003. Laramie, Wyoming.

Meyer, C.B.; Miller, S.L.; Ralph, C.J. 2004a. Logistic regression accuracy across different spatial and temporal scales for a wide-ranging species, the marbled murrelet. In: Huzurbazar, S., ed. Resource selection methods and applications. Madison, WI: Omnipress: 94-106

Meyer, C.B.; Miller, S.L.; Ralph, C.J. 2004b. Stand scale habitat associations across a large geographic region for an old-growth specialist, the marbled murrelet. Wilson Bulletin. 116:197-210.

Miller, G. S. 1989. Dispersal of juvenile spotted owls in Western Oregon. M.S. Thesis. Oregon State University, Corvalis, OR.

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

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

Morrison, M. L., and E. C. Meslow. 1983. Avifauna associated with early growth vegetation on cleracuts in the Oregon coast ranges. General Technical Report PNW- 305. U.S.D.A. Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station,Portland, OR.

Murphy, E. C., and W. A. Lenhausen. 1998. Density and foraging ecology of woodpeckers following a stand-replacing fire. Journal of Wildlife Management. 62:1359–1372.

Nelson, S.K.; Hamer, T.E. 1995. Nest success and the effects of predation on marbled murrelets. In: Ralph, C.J.; Hunt, G.L., Jr.; Raphael, M.G.; Piatt, J.F., eds. Ecology and conservation of the marbled murrelet. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-152. Albany, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station: 89- 97.

71

Nelson, S.K.; Wilson, A.K. 2002. Marbled murrelet habitat characteristics of state lands in western Oregon. Salem, OR: Oregon Department of Forestry; Portland, OR: Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. 151 p.

Nelson, S.K. 1997. Marbled murrelet (Brachyramphusmarmoratus). In: Poole, A.; Gill, F., eds. Birds of North America, No. 276. Philadelphia, PA: Academyof Natural Sciences; Washington, DC: American Ornithologists Union. 32 p.

North, Mike. 2010. Logging Systems Report for the Two Bit Vegetation Management Project. Internal report. Nussbaum, R. A. 1974. The distributional ecology and life history of the Siskiyou Mountains salamander, Plethodon stormi, in relation to the potential impact of the proposed Applegate Reservoir on this species. Unpublished report submitted to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

Nussbaum, R. A., E. D. Brodie, and R. M. Storm. 1983. Amphibians and reptiles of the Pacific Northwest. University of Idaho Press, Moscow, ID.

Olson, G. S., E. M. Glenn, R. G. Anthony, E. D. Forsman, J. A. Reid, P. L. Loschl, and W. J. Ripple. 2004. Modeling demographic performance of northern spotted owls relative to forest habitat in Oregon. Journal of Wildlife Management. 68:1039- 1053.

Ollivier, L. M., H. H. Welsh, and D. C. Clayton. 2001. Habitat correlates of the Siskiyou Mountains salamander, Plethodon stormi (Caudata: Plethodontidae); with comments on the species’ range. USDA Forest Service, Redwood Sciences Laboratory. Unpublished report.

Paton P.W.C., C. J. Ralph. 1990. Distribution of the Marbled Murrelet at Inland Sites in California. Northwestern Naturalist, Vol. 71, No. 3 pp. 72-84.

Pearson, R. R., and K. B. Livezey. 2003. Distribution, numbers, and site characteristics of spotted owls and barred owls in the Cascade Mountains of Washington. Journal of Raptor Research 37:265-276.

Petrides, G. A. 1992. A field guide to western trees. Houghton Mifflin Company. Boston MA Pierson, E. D., and G. M. Fellers. 1998. Distribution and ecology of the big-eared bat, Corynorhinus (=Plecotus) townsendii in California. Report prepared for the Department of the Interior, U. S. Geological Survey, Biological Resources Division, Species at Risk Program.

Powell, R. A. 1993. The fisher: life history, ecology, and behavior. 2nd edition. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, MN.

72

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.

Ralph, C.J., S.K. Nelson 1992. Methods of surveying Marbled Murrelet at inland forested sites. Pacific Seabird Group Bulletin #1. Oregon Cooperative Wildlife Research Unit, Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon.

Raphael, M. G., and M. White. 1984. Use of snags by cavity nesting birds in the Sierra Nevada.Wildlife Monographs. 86:1–66.

Raphael, M.G.; Evans-Mack, D.; Marzluff, J.M. [et al.]. 2002b. Effects of forest fragmentation on populations of the marbled murrelet. Studies in Avian Biology. 25: 221- 235.

Reese, D. A., and H. H. Welsh. 1997. Use of terrestrial habitat by western pond turtles, Clemmys marmorata: Implications for management. Pages 352–357 in roceedings of the Conservation, Restoration, and Management of Tortoises and Turtles. New York Turtle and Toroise Society.

Rodway, M.S. 1990. Status report on the marbled murrelet in Canada. Ottawa, ON: Committee on the status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. 59 p.

Rosenberg, D. K., K. A. Swindle, and R. G. Anthony. 2003. Influence of prey abundance on northern spotted owl reproductive success in western Oregon. Canadian Journal of Zoology 81:1715-1725.

Ruggiero, L. F., D. E. Pearson, and S. E. Harvey. 1998. Characteristics of American marten den sites in Wyoming. Journal of Wildlife Management. 62;666–673.

Sakai, H. F., and B. R. Noon. 1993. Dusky-footed woodrat abundance in different-aged forests in northwestern California. Journal of Wildlife Management. 57:373-382.

Schmidt, K.N., Hunter, J.E., Stauffer, H.B., Miller, Ralph, C.J., and Roberts, L. 2000. Status and Distribution of the Marbled Murrelet in Interior Northwestern California: Final Report. Unpublished report on file Six Rivers National Forest, Eureka, CA.

Sedgwick, J. A. 2000. Willow flycatchers (Empidonax traillii). In A. Poole and F. Gill editors.The Birds of North America, No.533. The American Ornithologist’ Union, Washington, D.C.; The Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, PA.

Sharp, Carol. 2010. Silviculture Report for the Two Bit Vegetation Management Project. Internal report. Sherwin, R. 1998. Presentation to the western bat working group. Reno, NV.

73

Siegel, R. B., and D. F. DeSante. 2003. Bird communities in thinned versus unthinned Sierran mixed conifer stands. The Wilson Bulletin 115:155-165.

Simon-Jackson, T. 1989. Spotted owl inventory and monitoring program: annual report for 1989. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region, San Francisco, CA. Unpublished report.

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

Smucker, M. K., R. L. Hutto, and B. M. Steele. 2005. Changes in bird abundance after wildfire: importance of fire severity and time since fire. Ecological applications 15:1535- 1549.

Squires, J. R. and R. T. Reynolds. 1997. Northern Goshawks (Accipiter gentiles). In A. Poole and F. Gill editors. The Birds of North America, No. 298. The American Ornithologist’ Union,Washington, D.C.; The Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, PA.

Stalmaster, M. V., and J. L. Kaiser. 1998. Effects of recreational activity on wintering bald eagles. Wildlife Monographs. 137:1–46.

Stebbins, R. C. 2003. Western reptiles and amphibians, 3rd ed. Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston, MA.

Sterling, J., and P. W. Paton. 1996. Breeding distribution of Vaux’s swift in California. Western Birds. 27:30–40.

Sugihara, N. G., J. W. vanWagtendonk, and J. Fites-Kaufmann. 2006. Fire as an ecological process. Chapter 4 In N. G. Sugihara et al. editors. Fire in California Ecosystems. University of California Press. Berkeley, CA.

Suzuki, N., and J. P. Hayes. 2003. Effects of thinning on small mammals in Oregon coastal forests. Journal of Wildlife Management 67:352–371.

Swarthout, E. C. H. and R. J. Steidl. 2001. Flush response of Mexican spotted owls to recreationists. Journal of Wildlife Management 65:312-317.

Swen, J. E., K. L. Alt, and R. L. Eng. 1986. Ecology of bald eagles in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. Wildlife Monographs. 95:1–46.

Szewczak, J.M., S. M. Szewczak, M. L. Morrison, and L.S. Hall. 1998. Bats of the White and Inyo Mountains of California-Nevada. Great Basin Naturalist. 58:66–75.

74

Sztukowski, L., and S. P. Courtney. 2004. Prey. Pages 4-2 to 4-32 in Courtney et al. Scientific evaluation of the status of the northern spotted owl. Sustainable Ecosystems Institute, Portland, OR.

Thomas, J. W., E. D. Forsman, J. B. Lint, E. C. Meslow, B. R. Noon, and J. Verner. 1990.A conservation strategy for the northern spotted owl: a report of the Interagency Scientific Committee to address the conservation of the northern spotted owl. USDA Forest Service;USDI Bureau of Land Management, Fish and Wildlife Service, and National Park Service, Portland, OR.

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

USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management 1994a. Record of Decision for amendments to Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management planning documents within the range of the northern spotted owl; standards and guidelines for management of habitat for late-successional and old-growth forest related species within the range of the northern spotted owl. Portland, Oregon: U.S.D.A. Forest Service, U.S.D.I. Bureau of Land Management.

USDA Forest Service. 1999a. Thompson/Seiad/Grider Ecosystem Analysis. U. S. Forest Service, Klamath National Forest, Yreka, CA.

USDA Forest Service. 1999b. Forest wide Late Successional Reserve Assessment. U. S. Forest Service, Klamath National Forest, Yreka, CA.

USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management. January 2001. Record of Decision for Amendments to the Survey and Manage, Protection Buffer, and other Mitigation Measures Standards and Guidelines in Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management Planning Documents Within the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl.

USDA Forest Service. 2003. Draft TRTE Local habitat associations and range description.U.S. Forest Service, Klamath National Forest, Yreka, CA.

USDA Forest Service. 2005a. Draft Environmental Impact Statement Ashland Forest Resiliency. U. S. Forest Service, Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest, Medford, OR.

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 1990b. 1990 status review: northern spotted owl: Strix occidentalis caurina. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, OR.

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 1992. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; determination of critical habitat for the northern spotted owl. Federal Register 10:1796- 1838.

75

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 1995. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; proposed special rule for the conservation of the northern spotted owl on non- federal lands. Federal Register 60:9484–9495.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service [USFWS]. 1997. Recovery plan for the marbled murrelet (Brachyramphus marmoratus) in Washington, Oregon and California. Portland, OR: Region 1. 203

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 1998. Status review of the northern goshawk in the forested west. Office of Technical Support, Forest Resources, Portland, OR.

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, 2002. Technical Assistance on the Final Results of Landscape level Surveys for Marbled Murrelets in Southwest Oregon (FWS reference: 1-7-02-TA-6401). Oregon Fish and Wildlife Office, Portland, Oregon.

Walters, E. L., E. H. Miller, and P. E. Lowther. 2002. Red-breasted sapsucker (Sphyrapicus rubber). In A. Poole and F. Gill editors. The Birds of North America, No. 663. The American Ornithologist’ Union, Washington, D.C.; The Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, PA.

Weikel, J. M., and J. P. Hayes. 1999. Foraging ecology of cavity nesting birds in young forests of the northern coast of Oregon. Condor. 101:58–66.

Weir, R. D. 2004. Accounts and measures for managing identified wildlife-version 2004 Wolverine. Ministry of Water, Land and air Protection, British Columbia, Canada.

Weir, R. D., and A. S. Harestad. 2003. Scale-dependent habitat selectivity by fishers in southcentralBritish Columbia. Journal of Wildlife Management. 67:73–82.

Welsh, H. H. 1989. Summary of sites sampled for Olympic salamander (Ryacotriton olympicus) on the Klamath National Forest during 1989. Report from the herpetofaunal research group. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station, Redwood Sciences Laboratory. Arcata, CA

Welsh, H. H., and A. J. Lind. 1992. Population ecology of two relictual salamanders from the Klamath Mountains of northwestern California. In D. McCullough and R. Barrett editors.Wildlife 2001 Populations. Elsevier Science Publishers, London, England.

White, C. M., and T. L. Thurow. 1985. Reproduction of ferruginous hawks exposed to controlled disturbance. The Condor 87:14-22.

Williams, D. F., J. Verner, H. F. Sakai, and J. R. Waters. 1992. General biology of major prey species of the California spotted owl. General technical report. PSW-133. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station, Arcata, CA.

76

Wimberly, M.C.; Spies, T.A. 2000. Simulating historical variability in the amount of old forests in the Oregon Coast Range. Conservation Biology. 14: 167-180

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

Zabel, C. J., J. R. Dunk, H. B. Stauffer, L. M. Roberts, B. S. Mulder, and A. Wright. 2003. Northern spotted owl habitat models for research and management application in California (USA). Ecological Applications 13:1027-1040.

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

Zielinski, W. J., R. L. Truex, J. R. Dunk, and T. Gaman. 2006. Using forest inventory data to assess fisher resting habitat suitability in California. Ecological Applications. 16:1010-1025.

Zielinski, W. J., R. L. Truex, G. Schmidt, R. Schlexer, K. N. Schmidt, and R. H. Barrett. 2004a. Home range characteristics of fishers in California. Journal of Mammalogy. 85:649–657.

Zielinski, W. J., R. L. Truex, G. Schmidt, R. Schlexer, K. N. Schmidt, and R. H. Barrett. 2004b. Resting habitat selection by fishers in California. Journal of Wildlife Management. 68:475–492.

Zentner, Phillip L. 1977. The nest of Phenacomys longicaudus in northwestern California. M. A. Thesis, California State Univ., Sacramento, CA. 59pp.

On-line Resources California Department of Fish and Game. 2006. California Department of Fish and Game Habitat Conservation Planning Branch Species Accounts. Available: www.dfg.ca.gov/hcpb/species/search.html88

Personal Communications Cuenca, Sam, 2008. Klamath National Forest, Fort Jones, CA. North Mike, 2008 U.S. Forest Service TEAMs Sharp Carol, 2008. Klamath National Forest, Happy Camp, CA. Woodbridge, Brian. 2008. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Yreka, CA. Yaeger, Scott. 2008. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Yreka, CA.

77

Table 14. In-Progress or Planned Activities within the Indian Creek Watershed

Project Type/Timing Estimated Acreage Happy Camp Fire Protection 03 Fuels management/On-going 742 (CE) Happy Camp Fire Protection Fuels management/On-going 182 Commercial Phase II Thinning (EA) Happy Camp Fire Protection Fuels management/Planned 1168 Phase II Underburning (CE) Happy Camp Fire Protection Fuels management/Planned 328 Phase II Roadside Understory Fuels Reduction (CE) Happy Camp Fire Protection Fuels Management/Planned 722 Phase II Understory Fuels Reduction (CE) Elk Slashing and Reforestation Timber and Fuels 203 (CE) Management/On-going Mill/Luther Watershed Watershed 96.3 miles of road storm-proofing Improvement Project and 11.3 miles road decommissioning Totals 3,345 acres 96.3 miles road storm-proofing 11.3 miles road decommissionnig

Table 15-Acres of completed, in progress or planned activities within the Indian Creek 5th Code Watershed, since 1953

Activity Type Acres Timber harvest or fuels treatments 19,836 acres Wildfires 3,613 acres Road Projects 19.5 miles decommissioned Total 23,449 acres, 19.5 road miles decommissioned

Table 16: Unit summary Two Bit Project Summary Sheet For Analysis 8/11/09

*Note - Codes for treatment types are

defined at the end of the table

LOGGING UNIT GIS ACRES RX FUELS RX SYSTEM

1 26 Mech Harv CTP LPB + UB Mech Harv + 2 26 CTP LPB + UB TE 3 12 Cable CTP UB 4 14 Tractor + TE CTP LPB + UB 78

6 19 Cable CTP UB Mech Harv + 7 20 CTP LPB + UB TE 8 10 Tractor + TE CTP LPB + UB 9 19 Tractor + TE CTP LPB + UB 10 22 Mech Harv CTP LPB + UB 11 12 Tractor + TE CTP LPB + UB Mech Harv + 12 19 CTP LPB + UB TE Mech Harv + 13 15 CTP LPB + UB TE Mech Harv + 16 7 CTP LPB + UB TE Mech Harv + 18 25 CTP LPB + UB TE Mech Harv + 19 31 CTP LPB + UB TE 20 31 Mech Harv CTP LPB + UB Mech Harv + 21 29 CTP LPB + UB TE Handwork + 22 23 CTP + PCT HP Tractor + TE 23 16 Mech Harv CTP LPB + UB Mech Harv + 24 16 CTP LPB + UB TE 26 13 Mech Harv CTP LPB + UB 27 21 Mech Harv CTP LPB + UB 28 7 Mech Harv CTP LPB + UB 29 22 Tractor + TE CTP LPB + UB Mech Harv + 30 20 CTP LPB + UB TE 31 25 Tractor + TE CTP LPB + UB 32 28 Mech Harv CTP LPB + UB Mech Harv + 33 48 CTP LPB + UB TE 36 45 Tractor + TE CTP LPB + UB Mech Harv + 37 23 CTP LPB + UB TE Mech Harv + 38 21 CTP LPB + UB TE 40 10 Tractor + TE CTP LPB + UB 41 27 Mech Harv CTP LPB + UB 42 5 Tractor + TE CTP LPB + UB 43 7 Tractor + TE CTP LPB + UB 46 7 Mech Harv CTP LPB + UB Mech Harv + 47 23 CTP LPB + UB TE Mech Harv + 48 9 CTP LPB + UB TE 49 5 Tractor + TE CTP LPB + UB Mech Harv + 50 9 CTP LPB + UB TE Mech Harv + 51 2 CTP LPB + UB TE 52 9 Tractor + TE CTP LPB + UB 79

Mech Harv + 53 10 CTP LPB + UB TE 54 5 Mech Harv CTP LPB + UB Mech Harv + 55 26 CTP LPB + UB TE Handwork + 56 12 CTP + PCT HP Tractor + TE 58 5 Tractor + TE CTP LPB + UB 59 3 Mech Harv CTP LPB + UB 60 10 Cable CTP UB 61 4 Tractor + TE CTP LPB + UB 62 5 Cable CTP UB 63 13 Mech Harv CTP LPB + UB Mech Harv + 64 9 CTP LPB + UB TE 65 6 Mech Harv CTP LPB + UB Mech Harv + 66 41 CTP LPB + UB TE Mech Harv + 67 45 CTP LPB + UB TE 68 21 Mech Harv CTP LPB + UB Mech Harv + 70 16 CTP LPB + UB TE Mech Harv + 71 43 CTP LPB + UB TE 72 14 Cable CTP UB 75 25 Mech Harv CTP LPB + UB 76 5 Cable CTP UB 77 8 Mech Harv CTP LPB + UB 78 5 Mech Harv CTP LPB + UB 79 18 Mech Harv CTP LPB + UB 80 20 Mech Harv CTP LPB + UB 81 6 Mech Harv CTP LPB + UB 83 3 Mech Harv CTP LPB + UB Mech Harv + 84 4 CTP LPB + UB TE 85 2 Mech Harv CTP LPB + UB 86 18 Mech Harv CTP LPB + UB 87 9 Mech Harv CTP LPB + UB 88 8 Mech Harv CTP LPB + UB Mech Harv + 89 13 CTP LPB + UB TE 90 3 Hand Work PCT HP 91 13 Mech Harv CTP LPB + UB Mech Harv + 92 61 CTP LPB + UB TE Mech Harv + 93 10 CTP LPB + UB TE Mech Harv + 94 34 CTP LPB + UB TE 95 12 Mech Harv CTP LPB + UB 96 6 Mech Harv CTP LPB + UB Mech Harv + 97 6 CTP LPB + UB TE 80

99 11 Mech Harv CTP LPB + UB Mech Harv + 100 8 CTP LPB + UB TE 101 5 Mech Harv CTP LPB + UB 102 11 Mech Harv CTP LPB + UB 103 9 Tractor + TE CTP LPB + UB 104 7 Tractor + TE CTP LPB + UB 105 16 Mech Harv CTP LPB + UB 106 24 Mech Harv CTP LPB + UB 108 11 Mech Harv CTP LPB + UB 109 5 Mech Harv CTP LPB + UB 110 13 Mech Harv CTP LPB + UB 111 17 Mech Harv CTP LPB + UB 112 3 Mech Harv CTP LPB + UB 113 19 Mech Harv CTP LPB + UB Mech Harv + 114 15 CTP LPB + UB TE 115 77 Mech Harv CTP LPB + UB 116 11 Mech Harv CTP LPB + UB Mech Harv + 117 19 CTP LPB + UB TE 118 10 Tractor + TE CTP LPB + UB 119 5 Tractor + TE CTP LPB + UB 120 3 Mech Harv CTP LPB + UB 121 13 Cable CTP UB 200 14 Tractor + TE CTN UB 201 17 Mech Harv CTN LPB + UB 203 3 Mech Harv CTN LPB + UB 205 7 Cable CTN UB 206 13 Tractor + TE CTN UB Mech Harv + 208 23 CTN LPB + UB TE Mech Harv + 209 9 CTN LPB + UB TE 211 17 Cable CTN UB 212 3 Mech Harv CTN LPB + UB 213 6 Cable CTN UB 214 19 Cable CTN UB 216 7 Cable CTN UB 217 3 Tractor + TE CTN UB 218 3 Tractor + TE CTN UB 219 15 Cable CTN UB 220 12 Tractor + TE CTN UB 225 6 Mech Harv CTN LPB + UB 226 8 Tractor + TE CTN UB Mech Harv + 227 10 CTN LPB + UB TE 228 9 Mech Harv CTN LPB + UB 229 5 Mech Harv CTN LPB + UB 234 9 Tractor + TE CTN UB 236 2 Tractor + TE CTN UB 81

237 2 Mech Harv CTN LPB + UB 238 10 Mech Harv CTN LPB + UB 242 6 Cable CTN UB 243 4 Cable CTN UB 244 16 Tractor + TE CTN UB Mech Harv + 253 28 CTN LPB + UB TE 254 2 Mech Harv CTN LPB + UB 255 9 Mech Harv CTN LPB + UB 256 5 Mech Harv CTN LPB + UB 257 5 Mech Harv CTN LPB + UB 258 8 Cable CTN UB 300 36 Tractor + TE RS UB 301 44 Hand Work RPT HP 302 40 Hand Work RPT HP 400 18 Mech Harv HR LPB + UB

Subtotal 2120 Underburn

Units UB-1 2043 N/A N/A UB* UB-2 1381 N/A N/A UB* UB-3 1489 N/A N/A UB* UB-4 1486 N/A N/A UB* UB-5 853 N/A N/A UB*

Subtotal 7252 Meadow

Treatments ME-1 4.9 N/A ME HP ME-5 52.3 N/A ME HP ME-8 50.4 N/A ME HP ME-9 5.2 N/A ME HP ME-10 10.8 N/A ME HP ME-11 1.0 N/A ME HP ME-13 2.0 N/A ME HP ME-14 0.1 N/A ME HP ME-15 6.2 N/A ME HP ME-16 10.0 N/A ME HP ME-17 3.1 N/A ME HP ME-18 5.4 N/A ME HP ME-19 0.4 N/A ME HP ME-20 1.2 N/A ME HP ME-21 6.7 N/A ME HP

Subtotal 160

Total 9532

82

TE = Tractor CTP = Endline, Mech Commercial Thin RS = Roadside ME = Meadow Harv = Plantation, CTN Sanitation, RPT LPB = Landing Enhancement Mechanical = Commercial = Roadside Pole Pile Burn, UB = (Encroaching Harvester, Thin Natural Thin, HR = Underburn, HP = Conifer Tractor = Stand, PCT = Hardwood Hand Pile Removal) Conventional Pre-commercial Release Log Skidder Thin UB* = underburn

only, no logging

Two Bit Project Units Sorted

by Category 8/11/09

Mech Harv 719 Acres: Mech Harv + 773 TE Acres: Handwork + 35 Tractor + TE Tractor + TE 339 Acres: Hand Work 87 Acres: Cable Acres: 167

UB Acres In 283 Thinning Units: LPB + UB Acres In 1715 Thinning Units: HP Acres In 122 Thinning units: HP Acres In Meadow 160 Enhancement Units:

UB Acres Outside Of 7252 Thinning Units:

CTP Acres: 1629 CTP + PCT 35 CTN Acres: 315 RS Acres: 36 RPT Acres: 84 PCT Acres 3 HR Acres: 18

83

Map 1: Project Area and Analysis Area for Two Bit Vegetation Management Project

84

Figure 2: Blue Grey Tail Dropper Known Site location and Protection Measures (orange polygons are known Blue-grey taildropper locations)

85 Figure 3: Marbled Murrelet Zone Boundary