WILDLIFE REPORT PREPARED FOR THE LITTLE APPLEGATE PILOT WATERSHED ANALYSIS

May 1995

prepared by Matt Broyles INTRODUCTION

This report was prepared as part of the pilot watershed analysis effort on the Little Applegate Watershed, The first iteration of which was completed in May of 1995.

The intents of this report are fourfold. 1) Address the issues, concerns, and key questions that the team developed regarding biological diversity. 2) Catalog and summarize what is and is not known about the biological diversity and associated ecological processes in the Little Applegate watershed. 3) identify "hotspots", either geographical areas or ecological processes in need of attention or management. 4) Make some general recommendations as to how to proceed with projects and what additional data and further analysis should be done.

The intended users of this report are professional wildlife biologist, ecologists and members of the public with fairly extensive knowledge of biological and ecological processes and concepts.

Questions regarding the preparation and content of this report should be directed to Matt Broyles,-wildlife biologist, Ashland Resource Area, Medford BLM, Medford Oregon (503)- 770-2320. (

(, TABLE OF CONTENTS

QUICK REFERENCE This report is divided into 5 sections as follows:

PAGE 1.0 CURRENT AND-HISTORIC SPECIES RICHNESS 1

2.*0 CURRENT STATUS AND PREDICTED TRENDS FOR VERTEBRATES 2

3.0 MULTI SPECIES HABITAT SUITABILITY ANALYSIS 29 4.0 SPECIAL HABITATS 41.50TEPEIETSNRHETFRSPLNNDTEBDVRIT

OF THE LITTLE'APPLEGATE WATERSHED

DETAILED TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 CURRENT AND HISTORIC SPECIES RICHNESS1

1..1. CUTRREN~T SPECIES RICHNESS ...... #...... 1 1...2 HISTORIC SPECIES RICHNESS ...... ** ...... 1

2.0 CURRENT STATUS AND PREDICTED TRENDS FOR YERTEBRATES 2

2 .1 GAME SPECIES ...... o...... 2 2 .1. 1 Wild p i gs...... 2 2. 1.2 Blacktailed deer ...... 2 2.1. 3 2. 1.4 B lack bear and cougar...... o ...... 4 2.1. 5 Upland birds and small,...... 5 2.1. 6 2 .1.7

2. 2 SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES ...... * ...... 6 2.2. 1 Endangered species...... -. 6 2 . 2 . la Peregrine falcon ...... 2. 2 .2 Threatened species...... *...... o.....6 2.2 .2a Bald eagle...... 6 2.2.2b 2 .2.2c Northern spotted owl ...... o...... 7 2 .2.3 Federal Candidates for listing (except bats) ...... 14 2.2. 3a Siskiyou Mountain salamander ...... 14 TABLE OF CONTENTS CONTINUED

Federal candidates continued PAGE

2.2.3b Foothill yellow-legged frog ...... 15 2.2.23c western pond turtle .1.5...... 15 2.2.3d Tailed Frog ...... <...... 16 2.2.3e Red-legged frog ...... 17 2.2.3F Northern sagebrush .lizard ...... 18

2.2.3g Northern goshawk ...... * f C £ * .18 2.2.3h White-footed vole ...... i 8.... 2.2.3i Red tree vole ...... 19 2.2.3j Fisher ...... 0...... 0 ...... 1 9 2.2.3k mountain quail ...... 19 2.2.4 Candidate bats ...... 20 2.2.4a Townsend's big-eared bat ...... 20 2.2.4b Yuma myotis ...... 20 2.2.4c Fringed myotis ...... 21 2.2.4d Long-legged myotis ...... 21 2.2.4e long-eared myotis ...... 21 2.2.5 Other species for which ROD requires special mgmt ..... 22 2.2.6 Invertebrates ...... so...... 22

2.3 INTRODUCED SPECIES AND COMPETITION WITH NATIVES ...... 22 2.3a European Starling ...... 22 C 2.3b Bull frog ...... 22 2.3c Large mouthed bass ...... 23 2.3d Wild turkey ...... 23 2.3e English sparrow ...... c. c c ,*. 23 2.3f Virginia opossum ...... 24 2.3g Livestock ...... 24 2.3h Domestic dogs ...... 25 2.3i Domestic and feral cats ...... 25

3.0 MULTI SPECIES HABITAT SUITABILITY ANALYSIS 26

3.1 THE GUILDING PROCESS.*..* ...... #...... 26 3 *2 VEGETATION MAP PREPARATION ...... e c . *...... 29 3.3 MATCHING VEGETATION TO GUILDS ...... t...c 29 3.3.la Terrestrial guild process ...... 29 3.3.lb Terrestrial guild results and findings ...... 29 3.3.2a Riparian guild process ...... C c C.. *.. 33 3.3.2b Riparian guild results and findings ...... 34 3.3.3 Special habitat guild ...... 36

4.0 SPECIAL HABITAT CONDITIONS AND TRENDS 36

4.1 Buildings and bridges ...... c ee_36 4.2 Talus...... 0.00. o**o ...... 37 TABLE OF CONTENTS CONTINUED Special habitats continued PAGE 4.3 Large trees ...... * 37 4.4 Boulder fields ...... 38 4.5 Wet meadows ...... 38 4.6 Ponds ...... *...... 39 4.7 Snags ...... o ... 40 4.7a Creation ...... 40 4.7b Destruction ...... o... 40 4.7c Wildlife use of snags ...... 41 4.8 Down logs ...... 42 4.9 Tunnels/adits ...... o..# ...... 43 4.10 Plowed fields ...... o...... o...... 43 4.11 Forest duff ...... o ...... o...... o...44 4.12 Dry meadows ...... -44 4.13 Cliffs ...... ,-45 4.14 Shrubby wetlands...... 45

5.0 THE PRESIDENT'S NORTHWEST FOREST PLAN AND THE BIODIVERSITY OF THE LITTLE APPLEGATE WATERSHED 45

GLOSSARY - ...... -47

BIBLIOGRAPHY ...... oo...... oo ...... 48

APPENDICES- ... .o . . .o . *...... o ...... 50

HABITAT SUITABILITY AND DISTRIBUTION MAPS 1.0 CURRENT AND HISTORIC SPECIES RICHNESS 1.2 Current species richness The diversity of aspects, elevations, soils, and resultant diversity of habitat types supports a wide variety of animal and bird species in the Little Applegate Watershed (L.A.W.), From Clark's nut-crackers to brown towhees; tailed frogs to striped whip-snakes. All within 72,235 acres. There are 272 species of wild terrestrial vertebrates which are either known or suspected to occur in-the L.A.W.. A list of these species can be found in appendix A. This list also indicates the management status assigned to each species by various agencies and organizations. This list was developed from a list covering the entire Applegate River watershed prepared by Bill Haight (Medford BLM) at the request of the Applegate Partnership. Bill's list was modified to fit the species assemblage in the L.A.W. Information used to modify this List included BLM neotropical migratory bird survey data, ELM and Forest Service wildlife sighting records, contracted amphibian survey results, field guides, and professional judgement. A draft list was prepared by the team's wildlife biologist, and was reviewed by Mario Mamone and Dave Clayton, wildlife biologists at ( the Applegate Ranger District, Rouge River Nat. Forest: and George Arnold, wildlife biologist, Ashland Resource Area, Medford BLM. Of these 272 species, 138 are documented as present in records at the BLM or Forest Service, or are personally known by the team biologist to occur in the watershed. The remaining 134 species are suspected to occur in the watershed based on published range maps and the presence of suitable habitat. However, there are no records regarding these species. Fifteen of these suspected species have special status with state or federal agencies and their presence, distribution, and population levels are unknown in the L.A.W. (see DataGaps section).

1.2 Historic species richness Terrestrial vertebrate species known to have been extirpated from the watershed since the arrival of Euro-American trappers/settlers include bighorn sheep, (Bailey, 1936) grey wolf, California condor, and grizzly bear. Pronghorn antelope may also have been present in the Little Applegate (se@ K)istory report). Wolverine may have been in the L.A.W. but it is doubtful that there are any now due to the relative scarcity of 1 the un-roaded alpine ridge habitat that they prefer, and the predator control efforts of the early livestock operators on the siskiyou crest area. See The History report for a description of predator control efforts. All of the above mentioned species are relatively large or had some economic significance, that is why they were mentioned in historic notes and records. It is almost certain that other "less important" species have been either intentionally or un- intentionally extirpated from the L.A.W. since Euro-American settlement. No records exist for these species.

2.0 CURRENT STATUS AND PREDICTED TRENDS FOR VERTEBRATES. 2.. GAME SPECIES Big game species present include Black-tailed deer, Black bear, Elk and Cougar. 2.1.1 Wild Pigs/Feral Hogs In the Kid-late 1800's there were large numbers of feral hogs in. the Applegate Valley and they were probably in the L.A.W. These hogs were hunted extensively. There is no evidence to indicate that there are any stray or feral hogs in the L.A.W. today. See History report for a discussion of hogs in the Applegate. 2.1.2 Blacktailed Deer

The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) uses population composition and age structure parameters to describe the health of deer herds. The data to calculate these parameters is collected on annual surveys. Two survey routes are located entirely within the L.A.W., both are named Goat Cabin Ridge, one is a spring time walking route and the other is a fall (after hunting season) driving/spotlighting route. A summary of the herd composition and count data collected on these routes during the last 30+ years can be found in appendix B. In summary, the deer herd in the L.A.W. appears to have decreased slightly in numbers since 1961 and the fawn-to-adult ratio appears to have increased slightly in the same time period. These trends should be used with caution as they represent the results of only 1 survey route and may not indicate the true condition of the deer population in the L.A.W. They are an index rather than a population estimate. The area where this route is located is one of the areas that has probably experienced the least vegetative change in the watershed. It is open grassy slopes and brushfields, and has probably been in roughly the same condition as far back as the 1860's (History report, Vegetation report).

2 There is some limited deer winter range utilization data available as the result of pellet group count transects on BLM lands in the Applegate watershed which were monitored over the winter of 1993-1994. This on-going project is intended to investigate the amount of deer use on various habitat types and winter range areas. The data collected to date indicate that scarified and burned areas receive much higher use than non scarified and un-burned areas. Also use of some areas seems to be largely weather dependent. The one scarified area sampled was treated in 1981 and is now an almost pure stand of wedgeleaf ceonothus. This area receives the highest deer use of any area sampled, indicating that a successful scarification can be a big benefit to deer for several decades. An area burned over by wildfire in 1987 received 42% more use than a comparable area less than 2 miles away in the same drainage with the same slope aspect and pre-fire vegetative community; This data should be used with caution because of the small sample size and limited number of replications. Appendix C summarizes the results of this work. By all accounts, blacktailed deer were much more abundant in the Applegate valley when it was settled by Euro-Americans than they are today. This is not to say that there have not been periods of low population numbers in the past, only that the recorded Euro-- American History indicates generally much higher numbers than today. See History report for a discussion of deer populations in the L.A.W. at the time of settlement by Euro-Americans

The trend for deer in the L.A.W. is variable in the short term (20 year) and probably downward in the long term (100 year) due to loss and degradation of habitat, particularly winter range. This degradation and loss is due primarily to interuption of the fire cycle, but other factors including rural housing development, noxious weeds, agriculture and road building all contribute to the lose of habitat quality and quantity. The implementation of the President's Forest Plan will probably have a slightly beneficial effect on this species because the plan calls for closing numerous existing roads on federal lands.

2.1.3 Elk The Applegate big game management unit is classified as an elk de-emphasis unit by O.D.F.W. because of concerns of potential conflicts between wintering elk and agriculture. The elk herd in the L.A.W. is estimated at approximately 65 head, and is largely confined to the Yale Creek area. This herd is so small that it doesn't draw much hunting pressure. In the fall of 1996, for the first time, hunters who draw an Evans Creek unit antlerless elk tag will also be able to hunt antlerless elk in the Applegate unit including the herd in the L.A.W.

3 f A This herd has suffered some poaching losses in the last few years. The extent of this poaching is unclear as are it's effect on the herd structure and size. There are occasional reports of single or small bands of elk along the Siskiyou crest area, and down the ridge to the north towards Wagner Gap and Anderson Butte. The infrequency of these reports and the dearth of sign indicate that these animals are exploring the frontiers of their current range, but do not seem to have taken up residence in the area. Much of the L.A.W. appears to be suitable elk habitat, especially the headwaters areas on Forest Service. Why elk have not expanded further into the drainage is not clear. See History report for a discussion of elk populations in the L.A.W. at the time of settlement by Euro-Americans The trend for elk in the L.A.W. is unclear. It appears that the habitat is suitable, but as stated above, there seems to be some factor (or factors) preventing the expansion of the existing herd. Without O.D.F.W. support for increased herd numbers it is unlikely that the herd will grow very -fast. If the public and public land managers wish to have more elk in this area they need to make it known to ODFW. A study of the habitat use and migratory patterns of this small herd would shed some light on the possibilities for elk in the L.A.W. The over-all effects of implementation of the President's Forest Plan on this herd are unknown. However, the reduction in open road density prescribed in the plan will benefit elk.

2.1.4 Bear and Cougar Fred Way, wildlife biologist on the Ashland Ranger District, feels that the population densities of bear and cougar in the L.A.W. are among the highest in the state. This is based on anecdotal evidence in the form of sightings of individuals, scat and other signs. The Local Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife biologists agree that the populations appear to be relatively high in this area (John Theibes, pers. comm.). Hunting (with dogs and with bait), of these species did occur on a limited basis in the L.A.W., but these practices were made illegal state-wide by a vote of the citizens in November of 1994. Banning hunting with dogs and bait has removed the only effective means of hunting these species. Consequently, the impact of legal hunting on bear and cougar populations statewide will be essentially nil. Poaching will no doubt occur but the extent is unknown. Most houndamen seem fairly certain that in the absence of effective, hunting the populations of bear and cougar and the number of human/animal conflicts will grow at a dramatic rate. They feel that this will cause the people of the state to re- think the issue and change the law to allow hunting with bait and 4 dogs again. Because of this belief, these houndsmen have recognized the need to police their ranks with regard to

poaching. Poaching would lower bear and cougar populations and ( would hurt their chances of getting the ban repealed. As cougar and bear numbers increase and more homes are built in the L.A.W. we can expect to see more conflicts. Historically, black bear were very abundant. Grizzly bear were also present. One settler reported shooting 3 bear in one day in Sterling Creek (History report). Trends for bear in the L.A.W. are probably up slightly in the short term due to decrea+-d hunting pressure; and probably level in the long term as homesite encroachment on habitat balances the increase from- lack of hunting. The effects of implementation of the President's Forest Plan are likely to be beneficial as roads are closed and old clearcuts grow back into a brushy condition. Cougar were probably much more abundant in the pro Euro-American L.A.W. than they are today. Modern human settlement, decreased deer herds and increased road access for hunters have all contributed to probable general decline in cougar numbers. See the History report for a historical perspective of cougars in the L.A.W. The predicted trend for cougars is similar to that for bear with the exception that cougar seem less intimidated by human habitation than bear. Also, Cougar are more closely tied to deer as a food source than bear are. In the long term, in general, as the deer population goes, so goes the cougar population. (

2.1.5 UPLAND BIRDS AND SMALL GAME go There is very little small game or upland bird hunting in the L.A.W. Most small game and upland species taken by hunters are taken incidentally to big game hunting activities. The populations of small game are healthy, however the steepness of the terrain and thickness of the vegetation discourage the pursuit of small game. Most hunters feel it is not worth the effort of hiking up and down all day through thick broth to bag a few quail or grouse. T

2.1.6 WATERFOWL

Water fowl present in the L.A.W. are generally dabbling ducks, such as mallards, and Canadian geese. The water bodies in the L.A.W. are not big enough to attract the more open water associated species such as pintail and widgeon with any regularity.

There is very little if any waterfowl hunting in the LYA 2 Ce due to the lack of large water bodies on public lands. Sme birds 5 may occasionally be taken on the small farm ponds on private land. There is an interesting historical account of some miners downing some geese with a water cannon (see History report).

2.1.7 WILD TURKEY Wild turkey are present in the L.A.W. and receive light hunting pressure. The population of turkeys is small but growing. Turkey hunting is a rapidly growing activity in Oregon and as the flock in the L.A.W. increases we can expect to see more hunters. Turkeys were introduced in to the Applegate Valley in 1985 and 1987 near the Applegate dam and at Mule Mountain saddle by O.D.F.W.. The population in the L.A.W. appears to be the result of these introductions. See section 3.34 for a discussion of the effects that this introduced species has on native species.

2.2 SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES The state of ODFW and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). each keep their own separate lists of Special Status species. The BELM and Forest Service also keep lists of Special Status species. The watershed is home to approximately 48 terrestrial vertebrate species that have special status with either state or federal agencies. This estimate includes semi-aquatic species and birds. An agency specific List of Special Status species occurring in the L.A.W. can be found in appendix D.

2.2.1 Endangered species The peregrine falcon is the only species listed as Endangered by the U.S.F.W.S. that uses the L.A.W. It is almost certain that this species does not breed in the L.A.W. as there are no suitable cliffs. Any sightings in the watershed are probably non-resident birds migrating-through. The closest known peregrine falcon nest is approximately 11 miles from the closest edge of the watershed. -'

2.2.2 Threatened species 2.2.2a Bald Eagles Bald Eagles may be seen on occasion in the L.A.W., but they are almost certainly just migrating through the area. There are no large water bodies in the L.A.W. that would support nesting bald eagles. Wintering and non breeding subadult eagles are not

6 necessarily tied to water bodies and they may rarely be seen in the L.A.W. Their occasional presence generally will not C influence agency land management decisions as would a nesting pair. 2.2.2b Marbled Murrelet There are no marbled murrelet sightings or suspected nest sites in the L.A.W.. The entire L.A.W. is east (outside) of the 50- mile-from-the-coast Marbled Murrelet management zone.

2.2.2c Northern Spotted Owl Known sites and site histories There are 33 known spotted owl activity centers in the watershed. The Forest Service spotted owl site history data is in considerable disarray. This unfortunate situation appears to be the result of a lack of direction and or funding to manage this information. Until this data is entered into a standardized database it will be virtually impossible to determine the site history of individual sites and the reproductive rates of owls in the L.A.W. (see data gaps section). The spotted owl population in the Klamath Province was described as moderately high and well distributed across the province in the Final Draft Recovery Plan for the Northern Spotted Owl (USDI, 1992). The draft recovery plan was written in 1991-1992 and there have been numerous new sites discovered throughout the province since then. The high density of owl sites in the L.A.W. reflects this. Species viability No species viability analysis was performed for the L.A.W. report because that level of analysis is not appropriate at this scale. The FEMAT team performed this analysis at the subspecies range level. Adherence to the standards and guidelines in the R.O.D. should ensure the continued existence of this species well distributed across it's, range. Although no formal analysis was performed for the Little Applegate report, some rough predictions can be made as to the future population levels of this species in the L.A.W. based on the provisions of the R.O.D.. These predictions are detailed in section 5.0..

Late successional reserves

There are no acres in the watershed that are designated as xz-qlped Late Successional Reserves (LSR's) in the R.O.D.. However, the 100 acre core areas around the spotted owl sites known as of Jan. 7 K 1 1994 are to be managed as late successional reserves under the R.O.D. (R.0.D. pg C-10). All of the spotted owl sites known in the watershed on federal lands as of the above noted date have had these 100 acre core areas designated except those on the Ashland Ranger District. As site monitoring data is gathered the boundaries of these 100 ac. cores will need to be adjusted to reflect the habitat use patterns of the owls inhabiting the sites.

Critical habitat

Critical Habitat for the northern spotted owl was designated by the USFWS in January of 1992. There are 21,807 acres of designated Critical Habitat in the L.A.W. Appendix E includes a map of the critical habitat in the L.A.W. Private lands within Critical Habitat unit (CHU) boundaries are not designated as Critical Habitat. There are parts of two CHUs that fall into the L.A.W., numbers OR-75 and OR-76. The R.O.D. did not address Critical Habitat, Consequently the federal agencies still have a mandate to undertake special protective measures pursuant to the protection of this habitat. Twenty of the 33 spotted owl sites in the L.A.W. fall within designated Critical Habitat.

Protection of sites

The 100 acre core areas and seasonal restrictions on disturbance are the only protection afforded most of the spotted owl sites in the L.A.W. under the R.O.D. The federal agencies still have an obligation to avoid unpermitted incidental take, and to consult with the U.S.F.W.S. on "may effect" actions. Spotted owl sites (nest groves) outside of LSR's found after January 1994 can be harvested subject to permits issued by the USFWS. The BLM and USFS managers have the option to buffer and protect these sites if they wish to do so.

Diet analysis Spotted owl diet analysi-s is on-going on the Medford BLK district. Regurgitated pellets containing prey item bies are collected incidentally to the implementation of the interagency spotted owl monitoring protocol. However, the majority of sites in the Little Applegate are monitored by the Forest Service or researchers from Oregon State university. Any pellets collected at those sites have not been made available to the Medford BLM District for analysis. Preliminary analysis of pellets collected from BLK sites throughout the Applegate Watershed since 1990 indicate that the spotted owl diet consists mainly of woodrats and flying squirrels 8 If by occurrence and bi-, iss. These two species combined account for - 77% percent of the pzzy items in the Applegate basin pellet ( sample (woodrats 51%, flying squirrels 26%). The next most common prey item (deer mice) represents less than 6% of the diet by occurrence. _The woodrat\flying squirrel ratio in the Applegate diet differs from the diet represented in the pellet samples from entire Medford BLM District in that the ratio of these two species in the district wide diet is essentially 1 to 1 as opposed to the 2 to 1 ratio in the Applegate sample. Biomass analysis has not been completed at this time but woodrats and flying squirrels are the largest prey items taken by the owls on a regular basis, so their importance in the diet is even greater than indicated by their percent occurrence. See appendix F for a display of the preliminary owl diet data for the Applegate River basin. On the Medford BLM district as a whole, there appears to be an elevational shift in diet. Spotted owls at higher elevation sites seem to be eating a larger percentage of flying squirrels than their lower elevation conspecifics. However, the sample size is too small to permit any meaningful hypothesis testing. This elevational trend probably holds true in the L.A.W. as well but there is no high elevation diet data specific to this area available at this time. Pocket gophers are a small but regular part of the diet, particularly at higher elevations. This may be a point to consider in planning future gopher control measures near spotted owl sites. It may be prudent to consider the potential effects of baiting on spotted owl diets and the possibility of poisoning owls. These concerns need to be compared with the need to achieve reforestation objectives.

Habitat use Habitat use by spotted owls in the lower elevations of the L.A.W. is somewhat different from the norm. Throughout most of the range of the owl, cavities in tree boles and broken top v ees and snags are the most common structural features used for neat sites. In the L.A.W. and surrounding area, large Douglas fir dwarf mistletoe A3ceuthobiun Gouqlasii brooms and platforms are the most common nest substrate. On BLM lands in the L.A.W. approximately 100% of the identified nests are on mistletoe brooms. Also, spotted owls here are capable of successfully reproducing in younger stands composed of smaller trees than is typical of the species. Much of the habitat that owls in this area use, apparently successfully, would be considered unsuitable or substandard in other parts of the range of the species. The key to spotted owls' use of this younger habitat seems to be

9 large horizontal structure provided by hardwoods (usually Pacific madrone or black oaks), a scattering of large, heavily infected live mistletoe trees, high canopy closure, and a significant snag component. Some of the traditional ideas about owl habitat seem to hold true here. Very few if any of the known nests in the L.A.W. are in previously harvested stands. The nests that do occur in previously harvested stands in SW Oregon are typically in clumps of residual trees that were left during the harvest operation, and now constitute small islands of older habitat within the younger stands. These islands increase structural diversity and are important to many other species also. _ Many of the stands that are often described as "over dense" and "forest health risks" are suitable habitat for nesting, roosting and foraging. This is a potential point of conflict in that long term "forest health" benefits must be balanced against the short term incremental loss or degradation of suitable owl habitat through thinnings if retention of suitable owl habitat is a goal. Certainly suitable habitat will be lost of a stand replacing fire moves through it, but it may also be degraded by treatments intended to reduce it's susceptibility to such fires.

Evidence is mounting that in SW Oregon it is possible to harvest timber in suitable owl habitat and retain some or most of the stand attributes that owls seem to select for. However, this is not an exact science and thinning prescriptions with owl habitat suitability objectives need to be very site specific, and need to be developed in conjunction with wildlife biologists. Treatments that temporarily degrade owl habitat in the short term with the intention of benefiting the owl and other late successional associates in the long term may be useless if the benefits come on line after the species is locally extirpated or extinct because of the immediate detrimental effects of the treatment. Approximately 72 percent of the total acreage in the L.A.W. is considered to be capable of growing merchantable timber based on BLM and Forest Service timber production capability data. For the purposes of this analysis it, is assumed that acres capable of growing timber are also capable of growing suitable (nesting and roosting quality) spotted owl habitat. The capability of private lands was assessed through photo interpretation, current dominant use, and proximity to classified federal lands. 78 percent of the "capable" acres in the watershed are in a vegetative condition considered acceptable for spotted owl dispersal based on the "50-11-40" rule (USDA, 1990). The Standards and Guidelines in the R.O.D. regarding green tree retention and riparian reserves, 100 acre cores, and 1Xlate 10

. successional forest retention are intended to provide for spotted owl dispersal habitat needs across the landscape between LSR's. The amount of suitable spotted owl nesting habitat in the L.A.W. it somewhat -irrelevant because according to the strategy adopted in the R.O.D., this area is not intended to support large populations of owls like in the LSR's. There is no direction in the R.O.D. to manage for suitable habitat outside the LSR's. Most of the suitable nesting/roosting habitat in the L.A.W has been surveyed to interagency protocol at least once since 1990. That is to say that the acres were covered 6 times in one year or were covered 3 times in each of two consecutive years.- Consequently it is likely that we know where most of the existing owl sites are. There is still a need for project level owl surveys in order to avoid unpermitted incidental take of currently unknown sites.

Spotted owls and the effects of lona term lack of fire When one reads the descriptions of the open parklike forest stands in southwestern Oregon from the mid-late 1800's, the question arises; "where were the species that need closed canopy, multi-layered, highly decadent stands of large trees living back then?" While it is generally agreed by most biologists, ecologists and silviculturists in SW Oregon that forested stands in this region were generally more open and less densely stocked in the past, how much of any particular watershed was in this open forest condition is not well known. There is also some debate as to conditions before Euro-American written accounts. It is almost certain that the pre-Euro American L.A.W. landscape was a mosaic of stands of different densities, most of which were below today's densities. However, not all the stands had tSe open canopy, parklike appearance that is so often described, and some of the landscape was occupied by stands similar to what we see today. Table 1 displays some general vegetation information extracted from the 1947 vegetation mapping in the L.A.W.. While the mapping was done at a coarse grained level of detail, it gives a general feel for the vegetative conditions present in the late 1940's. For more information on this mapping refer to the. Vegetation Report.

11 Table (1)

Estimated Historic Spotted Owl Habitat Suitability in the L.A.W.

STOCKING SUITABILITY STAND TYPE ACRES LEVEL FOR OWIS Large pine 14,887 probably dispersal (>22" DBH) open foraging nesting ? Mixed 551 unknown dispersal. species foraging (>22" DBH) ___ nesting ? Douglas fir 11,918 probably suitable old growth fully for all stocked functions

It is likely that some of the stands typed as Large pine had high enough stocking levels and enough minor species in the understory to function as suitable for all spotted owl needs. This is probably also true for the Mixed species stands, maybe more so. The most striking data is the presence of almost 12,000 acres of Douglas fir old growth. Today we have 5,746 acres of this type according to the L.A.W. current vegetation database.

There are owls breeding in places today where there were no owls 150 years ago. We know this because we have owl sites in stands where the majority of the trees are less than 150 years old. An uncalculated but probably substantial amount of habitat has grown into suitable habitat for late successional species in the last 150 years. Most if not all of these "new" habitat stands developed into suitable habitat from relatively open stands of scattered large trees that eventually filled in with Douglas fir and true fir in the mid and understories. Whether there are more spotted owls in the L.A.W. today because of the long term effects of lack of fire on habitat is not an easy question to answer because as the younger stands were growing into suitable condition, much of the habitat that the owls used historically was being harvested. Refer to the Vegetation Report for information on seral shifts in the L.A.W. As described in the History report, timber harvesting activities (of the last 50 years in particular) were not evenly distributed across the landscape. The harvest occurred in the very stands that had the characteristics of typical southwestern Oregon suitable spotted owl habitat. Timber harvest tended to be concentrated on old stands of big trees with lots of decadence on north and east slopes. The loggers went where the high value timber was. That's where most of the owls probably were too. As

12 a result, the owl population is probably distributed differently on the landscape than it was historically, having been displaced from some of it's original habitat to newer, younger habitat. The effects of this probable shift in distribution are not known.

Effects of wildfire on spotted owls The direct effects of wildfire on Spotted owls in southwestern Oregon are not clear. The East Evans Creek Fire of 1992 and the Hull Mountain fire of 1994, both just north of the town of Rogue River, can shed some light on the topic. Owls from burned over sites did different things. Some remained at the site, some have never been seen again, and some have moved to other areas and have reproduced. In the 1994 blaze, two juvenile owls were recovered by firefighters and treated for smoke inhalation. What the owls did after their sites burned seems to depend on how hot the site burned. Owls that stayed put were generally in areas that experienced relatively low intensity underburns, owls that either disappeared or moved were generally in areas that burned relatively hot. While long term monitoring of these burned over sites is needed to provide clearer answers to the questions regarding owls and fire, it appears that spotted owls are somewhat capable of surviving wildfire without moving depending on the intensity of the burn. The ability of a burned over site to support a reproductive pair is still not clear.

Summary of spotted owl knowledge in the Oregon portion of the Klamath Province including the L.A.W. 1. The owl density in the area is relatively high. 2. Owls in this area use different nesting substrates than their conspecifics in other areas. 3. The owls here appear to eat different prey items and in different proportions than their conspecifics in other areas.

4. Owls in this area nest and produce fledglings in younger stands than is typical for the species if suitable structures are present. 5. Owls in this area are capable of surviving and reproducing in (at least in the short term) in what appears to be a highly fragmented and modified landscape. 6. Spotted owls in this area seem to be able to tolerate some types of habitat modification through timkie : particularly partial cuts. However, this is not voll documented and caution is advised. 13 2.2.3 FEDERAL CANDIDATES FOR LISTING With the exception of the Mountain Quail, all of the candidate species discussed below are category 2 species which means that they may warrant listing as Threatened or Endangered by the U.S.F.W.S., but a lack of information precludes a listing decision at this time. 2.2.3a Siskiyou Mountain Salamander The Siskiyou mountain salamander is endemic to a small area (350,000-500,000 acres) in Siskiyou County California and Jackson County Oregon. This is the only place on earth that it occurs. The extreme northwest corner of the L.A.W. extends into the known range of the species. The actual northern, southern and eastern boundaries of the range of this species are unknown. The southern and eastern boundaries are being expanded as further surveys are conducted. Limited surveys have indicated that the Little Applegate River is a boundary on the northeast edge of the range (see map, Appendix G). The area known to be inhabited by the Siskiyou Mountain Salamander in the L.A.W. is limited to the Resistant Metavolcanic geomorphic unit in the north west corner of the L.A.W. The range of the species in this area seems to be controlled by two main factors. First, the geomorphic units immediately to the north, east and south are composed of highly weathered soil and rock that are on not conducive to the development of the stabilized talus that the species needs. Second, for the species to expand beyond it's presently known range within the watershed, individuals would have to cross the Little Applegate river and climb over the hot, dry south facing slopes along the north side of the river and encounter suitable habitat to the east or north.

There are no known sightings in the watershed farther south than Grouse Creek. The eastern edge of the known range is not well defined and further survey work will probably expand the known range in this area. Skunk Gulch has some talus that has potential for habitat (Fred Way, pers. coin.).

14 There is a cooperative research project in progress to identify the geographical range, and fine tune our understanding of habitat association for this species. Dave Clayton at the Applegate Ranger District is heading up this project. Cooperators include:

U.S. Forest Service - Oak Knoll R.D. (R5) - Applegate R.D. (R6) - P.S.W. (Arcata Lab)) U.S.BLM - Ashland Resource Area, (Medford Dist.) Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife California Department of Fish and Game Fruitgrower's Corporation Timber Products Corp. (Shasta)

The Applegate Ranger District has mapped all of it's potential habitat for this species based on gross landtype polygons. This mapping needs to be validated. The BI4 has not developed such a map and probably will not until the above mentioned cooperative study is completed.

Implementation of the P.F.P. will benefit this species because the plan calls for specific protection measures for this species, including buffering known sites from management activity ( R.O.D. pg c-28 pg.).

2.2.3b Foothill yellow-legged frog

This species uses river and stream habitat with rocky and gravelly bottoms. This species is not found far from water as are some other frog species. Yellow-legged frogs were encountered by fish survey crews in the L.A.W. These locations are recorded in the fish survey data in the working files for the compiled report. Implementation of the P.F.P. will benefit this species because the plan calls for wider riparian buffers which will reduce water temperatures and reduce sediment.

2.2.3c Western Pond Turtle This is the only native turtle in southern Oregon. This species appears to be fairly well distributed in the lower 1/2 of the watershed. In the summer, adults can be seen regularly in ponds and occasionally as they cross roads. Roads can present dispersal barriers to western pond turtles, and other herptiles because the animals get squished by vehicles or collectat as pets (Holland pers. comm.) In the L.A.W. there are 13$ siDes it ',:Fd within the interim riparian reserves along streams. Adult turtles have been seen from the mouth of the Little Applegate upstream as far as Muddy Gulch, and up Yale Creek as far as Dog Fork. There has been no intensive survey of this species in the L.A.W.. There are 4 known sites (counting the mainstem of the Little Applegate and Yale creek as 1 site). The presence of adults does not necessarily indicate a healthy population as it appears that recruitment of juveniles of this species is problematic throughout it's range. Predation on young by bass, bullfrogs and other predators which humans have either introduced or accidentally encouraged is known to be a major cause of low juvenile survival (Holland, pers.comm.).

The site with the best physical habitat appears to berthe ponds on private land just downstream from Buncos. There are many adult turtles at the site, but it is also heavily infested with bull frogs. There is a common misconception that pond turtles are restricted to aquatic habitats. This species has been known to over winter in the water and on dry land as far as 300 meters from the water. In one study some turtles spent 9 out of 12 months of the year on dry land buried in duff (Reese Pers. comm.). Heavy clay soils on south and west facing slopes are the preferred nesting locations. and turtle nests have been documented as far as 400 meters from the water (Holland Pers. comm). Nests are often destroyed by raccoons and opossums. Cattle use of turtle-occupied waterholes and ponds can alter the soil and vegetative conditions in the area and can result in direct physical damage to turtles and their buried eggs through trampling. These impacts are no doubt occurring in the L.A.W. however, their frequency and magnitude are unknown.

Implementation of the P.F.P. will have negligible effects on this species in the L.A.W. for several reasons. First, the vast majority of turtle habitat in the L.A.W. is on private lands un affected by the plan. Secondly, this species is not associated with late successional habitats and as such was not addressed in the plan. This species will benefit somewhat from actions taken to improve stream conditions for anadramous fish under the plan, such as road closures in the riparian zones.

2.2.34 Tailed Frogs Generally, Tailed Frogs inhabit only cool, high gradient streams (Stream ecosystem report). In the L.A.W. the range of this species appears to be restricted to stream reaches above 3600 feet in elevation (see figure 7 in stream ecosystem report). Information on the distribution of this species was gathered coincidental to the fish shocking effort for this report. Aquatic herptile surveys performed in the summer of 1994 did not extend 16 the range of distribution downstream beyond that identified by shocking. Appendix I is a map depicting the known range of C distribution of Tailed frogs in the L.A.W. A comparison-of the documented tailed frog distribution in the L.A.W. and the stream temperature data shows that tailed frogs are surviving in stream reaches with temperatures in the 13 - 18 degree C range. Tailed-frog eggs will not develop in water temperatures higher than 18.5 degrees C, and water temperatures above 23-24 C are lethal to adult tailed frogs (Welsh et. al. 1993). Tailed frogs in the L.A.W. are living in waters with temperatures in the extreme upper end of their physiological range of tolerance.

In May of 1983 there was a massive landslide / debris flow in upper Sheep Creek. This event is described in the document titled "Stability of Greely Timber Sale, Ashland Ranger District. June 4, 1985." A copy of this report can be found in the L.A.W. background files. Immediately after the event Sheep Creek was almost certainly un-inhabitable by tailed frogs. This assumption is based on the condition of the creek following the slide as depicted in photos taken immediately after the event. In summer of 1994 a reptile and amphibian survey crew on contract from Oregon State University placed a survey transect in upper Sheep Creek above the 22 road in the exact area of the 1983 slide. The survey found 14 tailed frog larvae in the 10 meter transect, the second highest density of any transect in the Applegate Watershed. This suggests that Sheep Creek recovered as far as C tailed frogs were concerned, and was repopulated within 11 years. The field notes taken by the survey crew (who knew nothing of the slide) said:

" This stream is clean - clear and cool, but smaller and less rapid than others we have seen ASTR (tailed frogs) in." This landslide was not an isolated event, in the Shallow Granitics geomorphic unit (see Geomorphology and Mass Wasting reports). The relationship of tailed frogs to their habitat in areas where slides are common is an area worthy of further research. Implementation of the P.F.P. will benefit this species through wider riparian buffers that will keep the streams cooler.

2.2.3- Red-legged frog Two Red-legged frogs were reported by the O.S.U aquatic herptile survey crew in 1994, one in upper Macdonald Creek, and one in upper Split Rock Creek. The McDonald Creek individual escaped before the crew could get a good look at it, so the identification is a best guess. Red-legged frogs heavc not Green previously reported in this area and there is some tepticism among local biologists (none of whom saw the specimens in

17 question) as to the accuracy of the identification. If this species were to be confirmed in this area it would be a most unusual find. Implementation of the P.F.P. will benefit this species through wider riparian buffers that will keep the streams cooler. _

2.2.3f Northern sagebrush lizard

This dryland species is most common in sagebrush area t., but also occurs in open Ponderosa pine forests, and dry, brushy, meadows, This is a ground dwelling species but occasionally may be seen resting on limbs of low brush. Implementation of the P.F.P will have no effect on this species as it's range is controlled mostly by climatic conditions.

2.2.3g Northern goshawk There are two confirmed and several suspected) nesting territories in the L.A.W. Most of these sites were discovered incidentally while surveying for spotted owls. No formal surveys have been performed for this species in the L.A.W. although reported sightings are usually followed-up to determine the status of the bird seen. Standards and Guidelines in the R.O.D. are designed to ensure the viability of this species throughout the geographic area covered by the P.F.P. The goshawk is a late successional habitat nesting species. While these birds forage along forest edges and in small openings, their nests tend to be in patches of closed canopy forest.

At the provincial scale, implementation of the P.F.P will benefit this species because the Late Successional Reserves will provide substantial protection to nesting habitat. Effebts of implementation of the P.F.P on this species in the L.A.W. will depend on where on the landscape the nests fall. Nests located in the matrix lands will receive less protection than those falling in spotted owl core areas and in Critical Habitat Units. Refer to the Rouge River Nat. Forest "Forest Plan" and the BLM Medford District Resource Management Plan for additional guidance on this species. 2.2.3h White-footed vole The presence or absence of the white footed vole in the L.A.W. is unknown. If present, this would probably constitute the eastern most population. This species is usually associated with small coastal streams with a significant alder component. The L.A.W has some small streams with an alder component, however the 18 coastal climatic influence is minimal. A small mammal survey of the upland and riparian habitats would assist greatly in determining the presence/absence of this species and several others including late successional forest dependant species like the red tree-vole. Implementation of the P.F.P. will benefit the white-footed vole through the adoption of wider riparian reserves.

2.2.3i Red Tree Vole This arboreal vole lives in Douglas fir, spruce and hemlock forests. The diet consists entirely of the needles of, the trees in which they live. Nests are constructed of discarded resin ducts, a by product of feeding. Nests are typically 15-100 feet up in the canopy, close to the bole, and may measure up to about one cubic foot in size. Nests are built up with time and may be occupied by several generations. The P.F.P. calls for specific management actions to benefit this species (R.O.D. pg C-59).

2.2.3j Fisher The presence or absence of fisher in the L.A.V is unknown. At present there is no established survey protocol for this species. Fisher habitat consists of old growth and mature coniferous forests, usually with 40-70 % canopy closure. Activity seems to be concentrated along riparian zones in high elevation late successional coniferous forest types. Dens are usually in down v logs, large snags and large green trees with defect. Implementation of the P.F.P will benefit this species through the down wood retention guidelines, wider riparian buffers, and LSR's.

2.2.3k Mountain quail The Mountain quail was recently down-listed to Category 3 by the U.S.F.W.S.. This means that information gathered since the species was listed as C2 has shown that the species population status better than previously thought. Mountain quail were supposedly identified as candidates for listing because of concerns about population viability in the north central part of the state and in the foothills of the Willamette Valley. Populations of this species appear to be very healthy in the L.A.W., although no formal surveys are conducted for this species in this area. The presence of this species is noted onz4 neotropical migrant bird survey routes in the L.A.W.. These routes will continue to provide some basic information on this species. This species uses a mix of habitats but, detNi!' - prefers brush fields, old clearcuts and forest edged 19 t Consequently mountain quail are somewhat dependant on disturbed habitat types. Fire suppression and the resultant encroachment of conifers on brushfields and oak/grass woodland habitats may be detrimental to this species in the long term. This species will probably be removed from the candidate list within two years.

2.2.4 Candidate bats.

All bats in the L.A.W. are known to forage over water, and need smooth surfaces of water to drink from. Smooth water sources include ponds, lakes and pump chances. Roost site characteristics are better known than-foraging habitat characteristics. Appendix X is a table copied from Chrissey and West (1993), which describes habitat use by bat species. The R.O.D. provides special protection buffers for all forest bats (pg C-43). See appendix J for a summary of bat inventory effort in the L.A.W.

2.2.4a Townsend's big-eared bat This species is not well documented in the L.A.W. However it is present and probably reproducing at least in Sterling Creek. Also, several sites are known just outside the L.A.V in this general area. This species is probably most common in the Valley Floor and the two Metavolcanic geomorphic units. Abandoned mines, buildings, and bridges are used for roosting, hibernating and breeding. Hibernating individuals of this species are especially sensitive to human disturbance and efforts should be taken to prevent or limit human entry into known sites.

Several mine tunnels in the Sterling Creek area were visually surveyed in the summer of 1994. One complex of tunnels that looks particularly promising has some unsafe features that prevented a full visual survey. In the winter of 1994 the safe portions of these tunnels were surveyed again looking fia hibernating bats. Three hibernating big eared-bats were Ybund. The tunnel complex which constitutes the only known roost location in the L.A.W. for this species is a popular "party spot" for young people and it's ability to provide suitable habitat for bats is severely impacted by the human disturbance. 2.2.4b Yuma myotis (bat) In southwestern Oregon, this small bat species seems to be very closely associated with man-made-structures near water including 20 mine tunnels, bridges, and buildings. There are no records of this species reproducing or hibernating in natural substrates (Cross, pers.comm.). This lack of data should not be C interpreted to mean that natural substrates are not used, only that data is lacking. This species is in good condition in this part of the state (Cross, pers.comm.). See appendix J for a summary of bat trapping efforts in the L.A.W. 2.2.4c Fringed myotis This crevice roosting species uses mines, cliffs, buildings and snags. They have been captured in openings and in mid seral stage coniferous forests. Beetles, butterflies and moths make up the diet. There are no records of this species in the L.A.W.. There are several known sites elsewhere in'the Applegate Valley, all at abandoned mine tunnels. The distribution of this species in this area is not well understood, as it is a relatively hard species to sample and appears to be rather rare. 2.2.4d Long-legged myotis

This open forest dweller roosts in rock cliffs, crevices, caves and buildings. Snags are used as maternity roosts. 2.2.46 Long-eared myotis This species resides in mountainous coniferous forests living in crevices in snags, live tree bark and under loose bark. This species is not closely associated with cliffs, rock or tunnels C though it may use these habitat features as-occasional night roosts.

21. 2.2.5 OTHER SPECIES FOR WHICH THE R.O.D. REQUIRES SPECIAL MANAGEMENT

Table (2) _ Little Applegate species for which the R.O.D. calls for special protection buffers but have no other federal special status. …______Species R.O.D. Page Pallid bat C-43 Little brown myotis C-43 Big brown bat C-43 Black-backed woodpecker C-45. Flammulated owl C-45 Great Gray owl C-21 White-headed woodpecker C-45 Silver-haired bat C-43 Hoary bat C-43 ______

2.2.6 INVERTEBRATES There is almost no information available regarding invertebrates in the L.A.W.. Appendicies K and R list invertebrate species that may occur in the L.A.W. and their official status. Some of these species have special status.

2.3 INTRODUCED SPECIES/ COMPETITION WITH NATIVES

2.3a Starlings Starlings compete for food and nest sites with native bird species. Native cavity nesters are usually the most heavily impacted by this species. The current population and distribution of starlings is unknown within the L.A.W. However, starlings are usually associated with buildings, agricultural fields, and other disturbed areas close to human habitation. This species, if present, is most common in the Valley Floor geomorphic unit.

2.3b Bull frogs Bullfrogs are known predators of juvenile western pond turtles, ducklings, young songbirds, crayfish, aquatic insects, native fish, and other species of frogs (Bury, pers.comm.) If it moves and will fit in a bullfrogs mouth a bullfrog will eat it.

22 The "turtle ponds" on private land (T. 39s R. 3w Sect. 13 SE of NW) are heavily infested with bull frogs. A bull frog was C discovered in a slow stretch of the mainstem of the Little Applegate by the team's fisheries biologist while shocking fish. This species is most common in the Valley Bottom geomarphic unit.

2.3c Largemouth bass Largemouth bass, like Bullfrogs, are known predators of juvenile western pond turtles, ducklings, young songbirds, crayfish, aquatic insects, native fish, and other species of frogs. If it is alive, in the water, and will fit in a bass's mouth a bass will eat it. The extent of infestation of the water bodies in the L.A.W. is unknown. However, it is likely that this species is restricted almost exclusively to ponds on private lands. The two larger ponds in a series of ponds in Armstrong Gulch were snorkeled in 1993. Largemouth bass were observed in both ponds. One of these ponds is on BLM land and was inhabited by at least one large 12+ inch bass. The other pond on Boise Cascade land was inhabited by. approximately 50 bass about 6-7 inches long.

2.34 Wild Turkey This introduced game species competes with deer and rodents for mast crops, and with grouse and quail for insects and smaller seeds. The degree of competition between turkeys and native species is not clear. The turkey population is small but appears to be growing. As it grows, the effects of competition will become more widespread throughout the L.A.W.. Most turkeys in the L.A.W. seem to be in the Rush Creek area as far west as Muddy Gulch. None of the native species with which turkeys may be competing are special status species except that the turkeys may eat Siskiyou Chloealtis grasshoppers, a category two Candidate. See sections 3.1g and 3.3d for more information on turkeys in the L.A.W.

2.3- English sparrow English sparrows like starlings compete with native birds for food and nest sites. This species can be quite prolific and like the starlings seems to do best around people and buildings. The abundance, distribution, and effect of this species in the L.A.W. are unknown. If present in the L.A.W., this species is probably most prevalent in the Valley Bottom geomorphic unit.

23 2.3f Virginia opossum This species is a relatively recent arrival to southern Oregon (last 10-15 years) most likely having come down the I-5 corridor from the north where they were introduced in the 1940s. Opossums are omnivorous and have a very high reproductive potential. They also seem to prefer to use roads as travel/dispersal corridors, often eating road kill carrion, and becoming road kills themselves. Nests of ground nesting birds, and small mammals often fall prey to this species. Population numbers of this species in the L.A.W. are not known.

2.3g Livestock Livestock compete with native ungulates and rodents for forage, and alter native vegetation. The degree and effect of the competition depends on the species involved and the condition of the range in question. Livestock grazing on public lands in the west has been implicated as a major causal factor in the loss of plant, terrestrial animal, and aquatic biological diversity (Fleisa4or 1994). Depending on intensity and duration of grazing, 4me impacts are. quite obvious while others are harder to quantify Through modification of vegetation, disturbance of sensitive habitats, and competition with native species, livestock can have wide ranging, relatively low intensity, long term effects on biological diversity that are hard to prove with statistical certainty. However, there is a growing body of evidence documenting the degradation of biological systems as a result of grazing. The Article by Fleishner in appendix P summarizes much of the current research on the topic. The Fleischner article is reprinted with permission from the Society for Conservation Biology and Blackwell Scientific publications. The level of disturbance and loss of biological diversity in the L.A.W. that can be attributed to the presence of livestock is unclear. However, there are areas on public and private lands in the L.A.W. where cattle have been allowed to do obvious physical damage to wet meadows (McDonald basin) stream banks (Glade Creek, Yale Creek, Little Applegate), and lakeshores (Monogram Lakes). cattle are also a trampling threat to species which live in and around water sources used by the cows. For example, The only known occurrence of spotted sandpipers in the L.A.W. is at Monogram Lakes. This is a ground nesting species and cattle pose a trampling threat to the nests. Cattle also modify the vegetation at the lake edge thus reducing the hiding cover for the nest and birds. While the spotted sandpiper has no official special status, it is part of the biological diversity in the L.A.W., and it's loss would be unfortunate if one of our goals as land management agencies is to maintain and restore biological diversity and ecosystem health. 24 Some species of frogs and salamanders breed in small ephemeral ponds, laying their eggs on stalks of emergent vegetation. The C structure of the vegetation around and within these ponds is often impacted by cattle. In cases of heavy use by cattle the dissolved oxygen content, PH and other water chemistry parameters can be changed by the byproducts of bovine feces decomposition. Some of these changes can result in algae blooms and other effects on the organisms living and reproducing in the pond. These effects have been observed by team members in the L.A.W. in the Monogram Lakes area and are probably occurring elsewhere in the watershed. There are two terrestrial insects which are candidates (C2) for listing as Threatened or Endangered that ate probably in the watershed that would be in direct conflict/competition with cattle. The Arctic Blue butterfly (C2) lives in high elevation meadows. Specimens have been collected on Mount Ashland. Changes to the physical structure of the vegetation or the vegetative species composition in high elevation meadows could negatively effect this species. The Siskiyou Chloealtis grasshopper (C2) lays it's eggs in the pith of elderberry stalks in meadows. Cattle are known to be destructive to elderberry bushes in the L.A.W. (see Appendix C of vegetation report). Also adult grasshoppers could be in direct competition with cattle for food. Duration and intensity of grazing varies considerably throughout the watershed. For a discussion of past and current grazing practices in the L.A.W. see the History and Range/Gra Lna reports.

2.3h Domestic dogs Many L.A.W. residents do not follow accepted rural pet control practices. They let their pets run. The result is dogs running loose to harass wildlife. There is no meaningful way to measure this effect but it is well documented that free running pet dogs harass and kill wildlife.

2.31 Domestic and feral cats House cats are another import to the L.A.W. Recent studies have documented that even well fed cats will hunt small mammals and birds. Consequently, cats are competing directly for food with native predators, and are having an effect on small - populations. While the species viability threat posed to species 25 preyed upon by cats is probably small, the loss of individual small animals to cats is unnecessary and easily prevented by keeping cats inside.

SECTION 3

3.0 MULTI SPECIES HABITAT SUITABILITY ANALYSIS Several of the key questions that the team came up with dealt with the effects of human activity on the watershed's terrestrial biological diversity and watershed's ability to provide and maintain biological diversity. In order tQ address these questions it was necessary to look at habitat suitability at the landscape scale across all ownerships for all terrestrial vertebrate species present in the L.A.W. The number of species present precluded analysis on a species by species basis, so an approach which grouped species into ecological guilds was employed. Two computerized analysis tools were used to analyze the condition and distribution of the habitat in the L.A.W. with regard to terrestrial vertebrate species: a guilding program, and a set of patch aggregation models. The documentation for this process and the Paradox based computer programs are in Appendix M.

3.1 The guilding process A computerized process was employed to assign each of the 272 species to a group (guild) of species based on habitat preference, home range size, habitat use patterns, and affinity to riparian and special habitats. For most of the species analyzed, the species specific habitat association data left much to be desired. The links between the species and their habitat have not been thoroughly explored by researchers. Consequently, much of the data entered into the model was based on professional judgement. We have much: to learn about how non-game and non. - "economically important," species interact with their environment. Appendix L lists sources of habitat association information used for model input. While all 272 species analyzed are basically terrestrial, as opposed to aquatic species like fish, some of these terrestrial species make significant use of riparian and special habitats. This use is reflected in their assignment to riparian or special habitat guilds. In this analysis there are three main groups of guilds, Terrestrial, Riparian, and Special. 26 The Terrestrial guilds are composed of species which make little use of riparian or special habitats or use them incidentally. These species may use riparian and special C habitats to a small degree but they are not tied to these habitats as-tightly as Riparian and Special guild members. Riparian guild members are essentially dependent on riparian vegetation of some sort. Some of these species may also use in- stream aquatic habitats.

The Special Habitat guild is composed of species that require or specialize in the use of one or several of the following special habitat features for at least part of their litecycle. buildings\bridges talus large trees (super-dominants) boulder fields wet meadows ponds down logs snags tunnels\caves plowed fields cliffs wet meadows dry meadows shrubby wetlands f Seeps and springs Many species in the riparian and terrestrial guilds use the above listed Special Habitats to varying degrees but they are not as strongly tied to the habitats as the Special Habitat guild members. Also many species use both riparian and special habitats. These species were classified into the guild that was tied most closely the limiting habitat feature of the species. Appendix N displays which species use which special habitats and how the habitats are used. Keep in mind that many species listed in appendix N are not in the Special Habitat guild. If a species makes even minor use of a special habitat it will show up in Appendix N listed under that special habitat. The 272 terrestrial vertebrate species known or suspected to occur in the L.A.W. were grouped into the 18 guilds listed in table 3 below.

27 Table (3)

GUI LDS PRESENT IN THE LITTLE APPLEGATE WATERSHED AND HABITAT USE ATTRIBUTES USED TO A.SSIGN SPECTES TO r.TTTTfnq GUILD GUILD HOME HABITAT USE SERAL NUMBER CODE GROUP RANGE PATTERN STAGE SPECIES SIZE PREFF. IN

______(ac.) ______GUILD TSPE TERREST. 20 PATCH EARLY 36 TSPL TERREST. 20 PATCH LATE 2 TLML TERREST. 3007 MOSAIC LATE 2 TMME TERRJEST. 1001 MOSAIC EARLY 4 TMML TERREST. 500 MOSAIC LATE 4 TSME TERREST. 52 MOSAIC -EARLY 7 TMC TERREST. 500 EDGE/CONTRAST NA 4 TSC TERREST. 52 EDGE/CONTRAST NA 2 TLGG TERREST. NA GENERALIST ALL 4 TMGG TERREST. NA GENERALIST ALL 10 TSGG TERREST. NA GENERALIST ALL 40 TSGEM TERREST. 52 GENERALIST E AND M 5 TSGML TERREST. 52 GENERALIST M AND L 13 LAXARE RIPARIAN NA NA EARLY 4 (LAKE/ RIPARIAN

______PO N D )______RIVRE RIPARIAN NA NA EARLY 8 (RIVER/ RIPARIAN

______CREEK .) ______

RIVARG RI PARIAN NA NA EARLY * 7

(RIVER/ -. RIPARIAN

______CREEK ) ______RIVRML RIPARIAN NA NA N AND L 4 (RIVER/ RIPARIAN

______CREEK ) ______SPECIAL SPECIAL NA NA NA 116 * Ues oth in-stream aquatic habit-at and riparian vegetation.

For more information on the habitat analysis modeling assumptions see appendix M.

28 3.2 Vegetation map preparation ( A vegetation map depicting "Early", "Mid", and "Late" successionaL stands across all ownerships was created from existing vegetative databases and aerial photo interpretation. The data used to generate the base vegetation map came from several sources, and varied in accuracy and detail from poor to very good. Considerable effort was invested in searching old agenchy records, maps and documents for clues about past harvest and other treatments. The resulting database is the most comprehensive and up to date that the available data will allow. and is easily queried. See appendix A of the Vegetation report for a description of stand data used in this analysis and methods used to create vegetation maps and classify sta-gs.

3.3 Matching vegetation to the needs of guilds: or Looking at the vegetation through the eyes of each guild. Habitat analysis methods models and results for each guild group are described below.

3.3.1a Habitat Analysis Methods for Terrestrial Guilds The base vegetation map was modified using one of three patch aggregation models, one for each of the habitat use patterns "Patch", "Mosaic", and "Contrast". The patch models built patches of suitable habitat from the base vegetation map based on the habitat use pattern, home range size, and seral stage preference of each guild. For more information on the assumptions and run parameters of these three models see table (5) above and Appendix M. 3.3.1b Results of Habitat Analysis for Terrestrial Guilds The habitat suitability analysis for terrestrial guilds resulted in the data contained in table 4. While this analysis gives a good picture of what conditions are like today, it is impossible to say with such certainty how table 4 would have looked if it were filled with stand data from the 1850's. Knowing what the L.A.W. looked like in the 1850's would be interesting and maybe helpful, but it is not necessary. It doesn't matter as much how we got to current conditions as it does what we do in the future given the current conditions, and our management objectives.

29

9 Table (4)

SUITABLE HABITAT FOR TERRESTRIAL GUILDS

SUITABLE % OF ALL CONTRIBUTING GUILD ACRES LAW ACRES ACRES TSPE 22,015 30 0* TSPL 9, 318 13 0* TLML 3,593 5 2,970 TMME 17,476 24 3,716 TMML 7,045 10 719 TSME 22,632 31 114 TMC 7,280 10 0* TSC 4,,621 6 0* TLG& 72,235 100 0* TMGG 72,235 100 l * TSGG 72,235 100 0* TSGEM 60,765 84 0 TSGML 45,776 63 12 * Only guilds analyzed using the mosaic habitat use model have ry contributing habitat. Refer to landscape analysis modeling documentation in appendix M for an explanation of contributing habitat. In interpreting the results of the habitat suitability modeling, I chose 15% as a somewhat arbitrary threshold fot guilds that may be at some risk of declining populations due to future habitat loss or degradation. In other words, if a guild did not have at least 10,835 acres of suitable habitat in the L.A.W. across all ownerships I considered the guild to be sensitive to habitat loss or degradation. The 15%: threshold is based on professional judgement. Fifteen percent is also the specified retention level for late successional Habitat on' federal lands in the matrix according to the R.O.D.(pg C-44). The application of a threshold leads to questions regarding the watershed's potential to produce suitable habitat above the 15% level for some guilds. It is probable that for some guilds there never was, nor or will be, '15% in a suitable condition. This fact does not lessen the need to proceed with caution when proposing modifications to what limited suitable habitat there is today for these guilds if we intend to maintain the biodiversity

30 present in the watershed. For these guilds it doesn't matter as much how we got to current conditions as it does what we do in C the future given the current conditions. Findings: Late successional associated guilds The current amount and distribution of late successional stands across the landscape is the result of fragmentation of late successional stands through logging and an expression of the natural level of fragmentation in the watershed. However, the large seral shift from Late to Mid and Early seral conditions experienced by many stands since 1947 indicates that logging has had a major effect on the amount and fragmentation of late successional conifer stands in the L.A.W. ' Species dependant on late successional habitat in the L.A.W. are particularly sensitive to where within the watershed we harvest late successional habitat, not just how much. I The current amount and distribution of Late successional stands is reflected in the low amounts of suitable habitat for all of the guilds which depend on this successional stage in the L.A.W., including the contrast guilds which live in the edge habitat between Late and Early successional stands. The R.0.D. requires the retention of 15% of the capable acres on federal lands in a late successional condition. Currently the L.A.W. exceeds this threshold (Vegetation Report). The possibility of local extirpation for some species still exists ( under the R.O.D. if suitable habitat levels drop low due to cumulative effects of public and private lands logging, and habitat loss from other factors. The following is a listing of the terrestrial guilds for which less than 15% of the L.A.W. is suitable.

TLKL- (5%) Individuals of species in this guild have large home ranges, can use multiple patches of suitable habitat scattered within the home range, and are late successional associates. The northern goshawk is an-example species. Late successional stands currently make up only 15.1% of all of the acres across all ownerships in the L.A.W. (In 1947 approximately 48* of L.A.W. acres were in late successional stands) Not all of the late successional stands currently in the watershed are suitable for this guild. When the home range size and minimum patch size restrictions are applied by the patch aggregation model roughly 7200 acres drop out of suitability because of its distribution pattern across the landscape. This explains the discrepancy between total acres in I-a stt eŽ l stands and acres of suitable habitat for this guild.

31 TSPL- (13%) Individuals of species in this guild have small home ( ranges, need 1 contiguous patch of suitable habitat, and are late successional associates. Example species include: Acorn woodpecker and Pacific slope flycatcher. The same factors affecting habitat for all of the late successional dependant guilds apply to this guild. However, species in this guild are probably less sensitive to fragmentation than some of the others. Late successional associated guilds

TMML- (10%) Individuals of species in this guild have medium sized home ranges, can use multiple patches of suitable habitat scattered within the home range, and are late successional associates. An example species is the White-headed woodpecker. The same factors affecting habitat for all of the late successional dependent guilds apply to this guild. However, this guild has a larger home range and is more sensitive to fragmentation than the TSPL guild, and less sensitive than the TLML guild.

TMC- (10%) Individuals of species in this guild have medium sized home ranges and specialize in the use of the edges between Late and Early successional habitats. An example species is the American kestrel. It appears that the low amount of late successional acres is limiting the amount of habitat for this guild. TSC- (6%) Individuals of species in this guild have small home ranges and specialize in the use of the edges between Late and Early successional habitats. An example species is the olive sided flycatcher. It appears that the low amount of late successional acres is limiting the amount of habitat for this guild.

Findings: Early successional dependent guilds

The guilds which depend on early successional habitat are all above the 15% threshold, with the exception of the two contrast guilds which are also dependant on Late successional stands. Fire suppression has resulted in'a loss of much early successional habitat to the mid successional stages through the natural process of succession. The rate at which this seral shift has occurred is faster than the rate of creation of early successional habitat through human disturbance because succession is occurs on all 72,235 acres everyday in the L.A.W, our activities are not. Consequently, the early successional habitat dependant species in the L.A.W. are sensitive to where, and how much regeneration harvest we do; but more so to how many acres we allow or cause to burn.

32 Findings: Terrestrial generalist guilds

The generalist guilds (TLGG, TMGG, TSGG,) have no shortage of habitat because all acres in the L.A.W. are suitable for the species in these three guilds.

3.3.2a Habitat analysis methods for Riparian guilds

Riparian habitat guilds were not analyzed with a patch aggregation model because the habitat that they use is more linear than patchy. The patch aggregation models do not work on linear features. A Geographic Information System (G.I.S.) was use to overlay several types of data to determine the numbers of acres of habitat present in the L.A.W.- for each of the riparian guilds. The following methods and parameters were used:

Guild: LAKRE Habitat: All early seral habitat within 100 feet* of lakes and ponds. Data Sources Vegetation: L.A.W. vegetation database\GIS theme. Poands and Lakest L.A.W. GIS theme created from U.S4.S. maps and stream survey field work.

Guild: RIVRE Habitat: All early seral habitat within 100 feet* of (_ lakes, ponds, class 1-3 streams, and class 4 streams with riparian vegetation. Data Sources Vegetation: L.A.W. vegetation database\GIS theme. Ponds and Lakes: L.A.W. GIS theme created from U.S.G.S. maps and stream survey field work.

Guild: RIVARG Habitat: All habitat within 100 feet* of lakes, ponds, and' class 1-3 streams. Data Sources Vegetationt L.A.W. vegetation database\GIS theme. Ponds and Lakess L.A.W. GIS theme created from U.S.G.S. maps and stream survey field work.

3 3 Guild: RIVRML Habitat: All Mid and Late seral habitat within loo feet* of lakes, ponds, class 1-3 streams, and class 4 streams with riparian vegetation. Data Sources- Vegetation: L.A.W. vegetation database\GIS theme. Ponda and Lakes: L.A.W. GIS theme created from U.S.G.S. maps and stream survey field work. * The distance 100 feet was chosen because the species in these guilds are very closely associated with riparian habitats and riparian vegetation and less so with the upland habitats. A 100 foot strip along each bank of the stream should encompass most if not all of the riparan vegetation and probably doesn't include too much upland type vegetation.

3.3.2b Results of habitat analysis for Riparian guilds

Table 5

SUITABLE HABITAT FOR RIPARIAN GUILDS

SUITABLE % OF ALL GUILD ACRES LAW ACRES LAXARE 38.3 0.05 RIVRE 1,679 2.3 RIVARG 3,519 4.9 RIVRML 4,008 15.6

Findings: riparian guilds

The Low percentages of suitable habitat in the L.A.W. for these guilds is a partially a function of the relatively low percentage of the watershed acres that are within 100 feet of the streams. The scarcity of suitable habitat for these guilds should serve as a reminder of how important riparian areas are to the maintenance of biodoversity. The loss of even a few acres of riparian habitat can bring the suitability percentages for theses guilds down very sharply. For example, a loss of 1000 acres of habitat for the RIVRKL guild brings the suitable acreage percentage down to 4.1 %. A loss 1000 acres of habitat for the RIVRE guild brings the percentage of suitable habitat down to 0.93% of the watershed. W

34 Human factors effecting riparian habitat in the L.A.W include logging, road building, agricultural practices,, and rural development, and historic mining.

Many homeowners clear riparian vegetation in order to obtain better views of the water. This results in a reduction in available riparian habitat.

As far as can be determined, the only mineral extraction currently on going in the L.A.W. Riparian Zone is recreational or casual placer panning for gold. However, historic mineral extraction through hydraulic mining had enormous effects on channel morphology which in turn affected the suitabili y of a stream habitat for a variety of species. These effects are still present today in some places. The quality of the effects is

35 species dependent. For a discussion of ponds as habitat features in the L.A.W. see section 5.6. For a more detailed discussion of how historic mining altered stream morphology refer to the Hydrology and Stream Ecosystem reports. Miners in need of timber harvested trees closest to the banks of the river and tributaries. This harvest, combined with the introduction of livestock, altered the vegetative community in the riparian transition zone in the lower Little Applegate subwatershed.

The effects of agriculture on wildlife in this zone depend a great deal on the type of agriculture being practiced. The most common practice in the L.A.V. seems to be-grazing of pastures. Grazing an pasture maintenance practices-can effect wildlife through trampling, crushing, modifying vegetative structure, modifying soil structure and modifying species composition. Like homeowners, agriculturists may clear riparian vegetation, either directly for purposes of expanding pasture area, or indirectly by allowing cattle to knock down and or eat the vegetation. Riparian shrubby vegetation is important to yellow warblers, yellow breasted chats, northern orioles, and other riparian species.

3.3.3 Habitat analysis for the Special Habitat guild No analysis was performed for this guild because the habitat features do not lend themselves to analysis. The special habitat structures and features are usually specific points rather than polygons of habitat. Many of. these features occur at the within- stand level and as such are not easily inventoried, or analyzed. Section 5.0 of this report is a discussion of the special habitats in the L.A.W. including their occurrence patterns and predicted trends.

i SECTION 4

4.0 SPECIAL HABITATS; WHERE ARE THEY, WHO USES THEM, WHAT'S THE TREND?

4.1 Buildings\Bridges Most of the buildings and all of the bridges are in Valley Floor geomorphic unit. As development of rural housing continues, more

36 houses will be located in the uplands of the lower 1/2 of the watershed. See appendix N for a list of species which use this ( special habitat.

4.2 Talus Talus is most common in the Resistant Metavolcanics and Glaciated Headwaters geomorphic units. The formation of talus is dependant on the maturity of the landscape and the properties of the bedrock. Talus is most commonly found in highly fractured yet hard rock (ie: metavolcanics) and on slopes that are !over steepened" such as headwalls and cirques. Typically talus originates from large outcrops on the upper slopes. Highly weathered granitic rocks do not possess the proper fracturing qualities for talus production. The trend for talus production/maintenance is probably stable as it depends on processes that operate at a very slow pace (geologic time) with the exception of quarrying for rock sources. Under the P.F.P. the BLM and Forest Service are not likely to be looking for new rock sources in the L.A.W. because road densities should be reduced, not increased under the plan (at least on Forest Service lands). There may be a need for rock to surface or resurface some roads as part of restoration activities. See appendix N for a list of species which use this special habitat

4.3 Large trees (super-dominants)

These trees are usually the remnants of a previous stand that occupied a site. They are part of the biological legacy that survived whatever event caused the current stand to be started (in the L.A.W., usually fire). Commonly these tides are of different species than the rest of the stand, such as ponderosa pine giants in a stand of Douglas fir timber. They are much older and larger than the rest of the stand, and often have structural defects, rot, and large limbs. Broken tops, deeply. furrowed bark, loose bark, and cavities are common features of these trees that make them especially important to wildlife. In the lower elevations these trees tend to occur in stands on north and east slopes. The large isolated pines in brush fields and oak stands also fit in this category. Super dominants may be found scattered throughout the upper elevation stands. These trees are rare in managed stands because they were removed as hazard trees if they had significant defect, or they were cut for the high quality, tight grained wood they contain if not a defect tree.

The trend for these trees is downward. Because of their size, age and potential timber value, these trees are particularly 37 susceptible to loss from a variety of causes including mortality/sanitation salvage (appendix Q), regular timber sales (Vegetation report), lightning strikes, hazard tree reduction projects, windthrow, and drought stress (Vegetation report). Because of these factors, these super dominant trees are being lost faster than they are being created. See appendix N for species which use this special habitat.

4.4 Boulder fields (actually a form of talus but larger pieces) The only boulder field that the team is aware of is in the Monogram Lakes basin below the cliff face. The rock pieces range in size from 1 to 6-8 feet in diameter. There are many hollows formed by the naturally jumbled, loose stacking of these boulders. Some of these hollows are large enough for a human (or bear) to seek shelter in. This area is probably used as denning habitat by bears and a variety of other wildlife. The trend for boulder field production/maintenance is probably stable as it depends on processes that operate at a very slow pace (geologic time) with the exception of quarrying for rock sources. Under the P.F.P. the Forest Service is not likely to be looking for new rock sources in the L.A.W. because road densities should be reduced, not increased under the plan. Also the Monogram basin is not a good candidate site for rock source development. See appendix N for a list of species which use this special habitat

4.5 Wet meadows Most natural wet meadow habitat is located in the Hard Amphibolotes, Glaciated headwaters, Glaciated granitics, and Bench and Earthflow geomorphic types. Many of these meadows are glades with seeps and springs or headwaters streams flowing through them. Wet meadows perform a variety of ecological functions including late summer forage production for wild and domestic ungulates, habitat for plant species associated with moist soils, and if standing water is present at times, breeding sites for some amphibians. Low spots- in irrigated pastures and ditthes can perform some of the ecological functions of wet meadows, however, their ability to perform these functions may be reduced by the seasonality of irrigation, or the lack of irrigation in some years. Also, land uses such as livestock grazing, and cultivation in and around these artificial wet meadows reduces their utility. The trend for wet meadows is probably downward asfWuccs ion and forest encroachment take place. Also, cattle grating cM alter the shape and depth of stream channels thus reducing the amount 38 of water near the surface in the meadows. As the residential population in the L.A.W. changes from a more agrarian base to a more commuter oriented base, it is probable that fewer acres in ( the L.A.W. will be irrigated. This will probably reduce the amount of artificial wetland in the watershed. See appendix N for a list of species which use this special habitat.

4.6 Ponds In general, year-round ponds add a great deal of diversity to the landscape by supporting riparian vegetation, providing surface water to terrestrial species, and warm water aquatic habitat. In the L.A.W. bats and swallows forage over and drink from ponds, western pond turtles feed, bask, and hibernate in ponds. Appendix 0 is list of terrestrial species which occur in the Little Applegate and are dependant on ponds or slack water for all or part of their life functions. While many more species use ponds, most can use other sources of water also. The species listed in appendix 0 need water that is either slow or slack and / or warmer than that of most streams. Ponds can act as heat sinks and contribute to warmer water temperatures if they are flow-through ponds which discharge water back to a channel. With the exception of the three permanent Monogram Lakes and one or two small sag ponds, all ponds in the L.A.V are man made. Most of the man made ponds are on private lands in the valley bottoms. Some ponds along the mainstem of the Little Applegate River near Buncom, and up Sterling Creek were created by miners. ( Other ponds were built for stock watering and irrigation water storage. Some large fire fighting pump chances on federal lands perform some of the ecological functions of larger ponds. See appendix N for species which use this special habitat. Unfortunately, people have a tendency to introduce exotic species to ponds, these include bullfrogs and largemouth bass. Both of. these species are voracious predators and consequently do a lot of damage to the pond ecosystems which they invade. See sections 3.3b and 3.3c for a discussion these predators and their effects on native species. The introduction of aquatic exotics into man- made ponds on private lands is generally not a threat to native species viability at the landscape scale as long the exotics remain in their "artificially created* habitat, and significant percentages of natives are not drawn out of their regular habitat and into the artificial habitat. The trend for ponds is unclear. As the residential population in the L.A.W. changes from a more agrarian base to a more commuter oriented base, it is probable that fewer acres in the L.A.W. will be irrigated, thus decreasing the need for ponds aaseciated with irrigation. However, many rural residents want pns& aesthetic or fire prevention purposes. As the demand for 39 1 fi

domestic water and instream water for declining fish stocks increases it is likely that regulatory agencies will more closely control the building and filling of ponds.

4.7 Snags - There is only limited data available that assesses the quantity, quality or distribution of snags at the landscape level for the L.A.W.. Some snag data was gathered for the BLM Buncom project in 1992 and 1993, but the format in which the data is recorded makes it difficult to extract. However, this data should be used for project planning purposes in that area. Fred Way, Ashland Ranger district biologist, gathered some snag and down woody material data as part of a timber sale planning effort in Skunk Gulch. This data, collected in stands that were typical of mature SW Oregon Mixed Conifer, showed that snag density for snags over 17" DBH were quite variable. The observed range was from 0 to 36 snags/acre on the 9 plots sampled. The mean was 9.3 snags/acre. While this sample is too small to be of much use for extrapolation purposes it gives a general feel for the diversity of stand structure in L.A.W. stands.

Creation Snags are created when trees die and don't fall over immediately. Death can occur from a variety of causes. The tree species and the cause of death can influence the pattern and rate of decay (Brown et al.). In the L.A.W. snags are being created at an accelerated rate due to drought, overstocking, and bugkill (AMA Ecosystem Assessment). Some snags on Forest Service lands have been intentionally created in the Yale Creek area as mitigation for snags lost in timber harvest activities. The "natural. or "normal" rates of snag creation and loss in the L.A.W. are not known. However it is a general consensus that overall snag numbers are increasing in the short term at the landscape level.

Destruction Generally, snags are lost through cutting by humans for fuel wood, visual purposes, 'timber, safety hazards and fire hazard reduction (Brown et al 1985 pg 146). Firewood availability is a major issue with rural residents in the Applegate Valley (Priester). One of the most common complaints about management of federal lands in the Applegate Valley is that federal land managers are not removing unsightly snags adjacent to private lands and residences (Priester). Snags are also being lost to natural processes such as wildfire, decay, and windthrow. Decay is probably the most common chronic cause of snag loss across the landscape in the L.A.W. at this time.

40 In a large wildfire situation, many snags are created at one time. If the stand is totally killed, then the area may be snag rich for several decades but will undergo a period of low snag density after the fire killed trees all fall over. The fire- killed snags-will fall over before new trees on the site are big enough or sick enough to contribute to snag numbers.

Many of the late successional stands in the L.A.W. are composed of relatively large, open spaced pine overstories with thick, suppressed, Douglas and true fir understories. In many stands the pine overstories are dying out, and there is little or no viable pine reproduction. This condition is not conducive to the production and maintenance of large, persistent snags of a variety of species over time. Left as they are, these stands face a high likelihood of being destroyed quickly in stand replacement fires, or slowly by moisture limitations, overstocking, and associated bugkill (Vegetation report). While destruction of these stands by wildfire would result in a large number of snags for a short time, there would be none to replace the blackened snags as they fell over time. Overstocked stands experiencing bugkill tend to loose the large pine component first (Vegetation report). If the stands are not destroyed by bugs or fire, or harvested, they will eventually become dominated by true fir and/or Douglas fir with an almost total loss of the pine component and associated large pine snag component. Past timber harvest methods employed in the L.A.W. have resulted in many acres of clearcuts and shelterwoods/seedtrees with few or no snags or wildlife trees present. Some species that depend on snags will use them less or not at all if they are not in a forested setting. Flickers, swallows, some bats and to some degree pileated woodpeckers will use isolated snags. However, flying squirrels, denning black bear., fisher, marten and other interior forest associated species generally will not. Use by wildlife Snags play a key role in providing habitat for birds (feeding,nesting, hunting perches), bats (roosting, hibernacula) small mammals (denning,.foraging) and herptiles. In general, larger snags provide habitat for a wider variety of species than smaller ones (Brown et al). Larger snags also tend to survive longer (Hannan et al 1980 in Brown et al 1985) . Snags of different species have different survival potential as they decay at different rates (Brown et al 1985). This differentiation in decay characteristics results in differing suitability for wildlife (Brown et al). Snags of different species also seem to have different limb configuration and retention patterns which may be important to wildlife. Some wildlife species prefer snags of a specific species, size and decay condition ( fn

41 V There is no data on snag use by wildlife specific to the L.A.w., however, there is no reason to believe that species use snags any differently here than elsewhere. Many of the-species which depend on snags for nesting substrate and other functions are the natural biological control agents for some of the tree killing insects which are attacking L.A.W. stands. The mortality that theses predators inflict on forest pest insects serves to buffer the severity of insect outbreaks. This relationship should be kept in mind when considering salvage harvest as a "forest health" treatment. Radio telemetry of Pallid Bats in the Applegate valley has indicated that large ponderosa pine snags are often used as roosts. The bats seem to be using the fissures created by decay of the twisted grain in these "buckskin" snags.

4.8 Down logs (coarse woody debris) Coarse woody debris (C.W.D.) is most common in old unmanaged stands with low fire return intervals. Many of the low elevation stands of Douglas fir that are in the 90-120 year old range have very little coarse woody debris because any that was present burned in the fires that generated the current stand or it decomposed after the fires. In general, managed stands tend to have less C.W.D. because it was yarded out, burned in site preparation, or cut for firewood. Also, many managed stands were left with few if any snags. Recruitment of C.W.D. has been, and will continue to be slowed in these stands. Some anecdotal information exists regarding down wood amounts left after salvage operations on the BLM lands in the L.A.W. in the early 1990's. It seems that the salvaged stands had more C.W.D. than similar stands that were not salvaged. Much of the woody debris in the salvaged stands was the result of salvage operations. Tops of trees, cull logs, and broken chunks of logs all contributed to the higher amount of C.W.D. Again, this is not statistically valid data, but rather the observations of professional foresters who looked at the stands. Fred way collected some very limited C.W.D. data at 9 piots in typical mature SW Oregon Mixed Conifer stands in the Skunk Gulch area. For pieces that were at least 16" at the small end and at least 16' long the results were as follows. The number of pieces per plot ranged from 0 to 5 with an average of 2.7 pieces per plot. The number of lineal feet in pieces of minimum size ranged from 0 to 310 with an average of 134. Most of the plots had several pieces that were either shorter than 16' or smaller in diameter than 16", or smaller in both parameters. While this

42 data is so variable that it is of little use for extrapolation purposes, it gives a general picture of what is out there in mature mixed conifer stands. The effects-of low amounts of C.W.D. on wildlife vary with species. While none of the herpetofauna in the L.A.V specialize in the use of standing trees, all of the lizards, most of the salamanders and most of the snakes in the L.A.V. use down logs for cover. Some species of rodents such as the red backed vole, deer mouse and woodrat use logs extensively. Down logs are important sources of moisture in an otherwise dry summertime landscape. They provide habitat for a wide variety of invertebrate life upon which other organisms feed, and the burrows of mammals associated with logs are used extensively by some species of salamanders. Refer to the Stream Ecosystem Report for a discussion of the role of wood in streams and it's effects. In general, wood removal activities that reduce the amount of coarse woody debris available to the forest floor and stream ecosystems, either in the short or long term, will reduce the amount and quality of habitat for many species. However, some species are much less dependant on logs than others. Siskiyou Mountain Salamanders are highly associated with tallus, not logs. Striped whipsnakes, racers, and gopher snakes are not as likely to use logs as are the other species of snakes because they generally inhabit more open, non forested type habitats. The same is true for gophers and moles. Refer to the Site Productivity report for more information on down woody material. See appendix N for species which use this special habitat

4.9 Tunnels\adits The only open mine tunnels that the team is aware of in the L.A.W. are in the Resistant Metavolcanics geomorphic type in Sterling Creek and Grouse Creek. The Sterling Mine Ditch passes through a small tunnel in Tunnel Ridge. There are reportedly caved tunnels in the Brickpile Ranch and Monogram Lakes areas. The trend for tunnels will depend on prices for metals which are known to be present in the L.A.W. Predicting the prices of precious metals is something best left to commodity brokers. See appendix N for species which use this special habitat

4.10 Plowed fields This habitat type occurs exclusively on private lands in the Valley Floor geomorphic type, and is very limited in ext4ent as most agricultural land in the L.A.W. is used for u '.el cultivated crops. As the residential population in the L.A.W.

43 changes from a more agrarian base to a more commuter oriented base, it is probable that fewer acres in the L.A.W. will be cultivated on an annual basis. See appendix N for L.A.W. species which use this special habitat

4.11 Duff Forest duff is home to many species of invertebrates which are the primary decomposers of organic matter. Some species of vertebrates forage and hide in the duff layer. Younger and more recently disturbed stands tend to have less duff than older, less often disturbed stands. Also, higher elevation stands-tend to have more duff accumulation than lower elevation stand*. Hot fires which consume the duff layer can have detrimental effects on tree health. Large, old ponderosa and sugar pine trees in stands which have not been burned on a regular basis often have a large pile of shed bark scales at their base. This material would usually be consumed in small amounts by frequent low intensity ground fires. The unusually large accumulation of bark scales seen in some places today represents enough stored heat (fuel) to kill these trees in some cases. This is a point to consider when using prescribed fire in stands with heavy duff build up. The trend for duff is unclear. Refer to Table 5 in the Site Productivity Report for more information on forest duff. See appendix N in this report for L.A.W. species which use this special habitat.

4.12 Dry meadows This habitat is used by ground nesting birds, snakes, lizards, deer and many other species. Most of the dry meadow habitat is in the lower reaches of the L.A.W. and on south facing slopes. This habitat is also important deer winter range.

Factors contributing to creation and perpetuation of dry meadows and slopes in the L.A.V. include: shallow soils, nutrient deficient soils, grazing, and fire. It is estimated that much of the current dry meadow habitat would remain in that habitat type for the forseeable future regardless of man's influence on the land. These areas simply do not have the site potential to grow anything except grass and maybe some scattered brush. The rest of the dry meadow habitat that currently exists is dependent on some type of disturbance for it's maintenance. In the 1850s there was much more of this vegetative type than we currently see. Grazing may have had some effect in that trees and shrubs encroaching on meadow edges may have suffered loss of growth as a result of cattle, sheep, goats or horses eating them. However, 44 this effect was probably minimal because the species which we see K invading are generally not as palatable as grass, and as such k were eaten secondarily, and only when grass was not available. The trend is- downward as we loose this type to seral succession and rural development. See appendix N for L.A.W. species which use this special habitat

4.L3 Cliffs The only real cliffs in the L.A.W. are above Monogram Lakes in the headwall of the glacial cirque. The suitability of these cliffs for raptor nesting sites and recreational rock climbing is unknown. In 1994 a pair of prairie falcons was observed in the vicinity of Dutchman peak which is a few miles away from the cliffs. See appendix N for L.A.W. species which use this special habitat.

4.14 Shrubby wetlands

This habitat type is characterized by the presence of alders. and is important to many of the species in the riparian guilds as well as the special habitat guild. In the sitka alder wetlands associated with the Subalpine Forest Park and High Temperate Coniferous Forest communities, encroachment by conifers is likely to be slow, if it occurs at all, due to high soil moisture. The White alder wetlands are typically streamside riparian ve - tation at mid and lower elevations, and are likely to be encroac. i upon by conifers more rapidly. Trend for this habitat type I probably downward as these areas are encroached on by, conzers and riparian vegetation is cleared on private lands. "

SECTION 5 5.0 THE PRESIDENT'S FOREST PLAN AND IT'S EFFECTS ON THE L.A.W. ECOSYSTEM If one assumes that the plan will be fully implemented, the results should be beneficial to most of the species in the L.A.W. Road density should decrease, the amount of regeneration harvest should decrease, the amount of high quality riparian habitat should increase. The P.F.P. addressed species viability at a regional scale. The strategy was to ensure species viability for late successional associated species by reserving large blocks of habitat across the landscape and also ensuring that species could disperse between the large blocks. The strategy can be described as clusters and connectivity, or reserves and matrix. Because there is no late Successional Reserve, and is part of the "matrix" within the Applegate A.M.A., some late successional 45 species may not fair well under the plan in the L.A.W. We can expect to see the population numbers of species like spotted owls, goshawks, and fisher decrease as their habitat is harvested. There is nothing in the plan that requires that harvest be done in a way that maintains any late successional characteristics on the harvest unit basis. One provision of the plan that may come into play eventually is the requirement that 15 percent of the federal lands capable of growing late successional stands be kept in a late successional condition. The plan assumes that the combination of riparian reserves, 100 acre owl core areas, the 15% retention of late seral stands and the green tree retention guidelines for matrix lands will provide for the dispersal needs of species which disperse through forested stands. This is a big assumption and will no doubt be a main subject of research and monitoring efforts.

46 6.0 GLOSSARY OF TERMS AND PHRASES 50-11-40 rule: Part of the-Interagency Spotted Owl Committee plan for management of spotted owls. ("Thomas Report") The idea was to provide for spotted owl dispersal across the landscape by having each 1/4 township in which the federal government had ownership have 50* of the federal lands in stands with at least 40% canopy closure of trees at least 11 inches DBH. See USDA 1990 conservation strategy for the northern spotted owl for more information. Critical Habitat (Critical Habitat Unit): Habitat designated by the Secretary of the Interior as being essential to the recovery of a Threatened or Endangered species (in our case the spotted owl). The management provisions for Critical Habitat do not apply to private lands within the boundaries of the Critical Habitat Units. Candidate species (C2): Those species which the USFWS has determined may warrant listing as threatened or endangered, but for which a lack of biological information precludes a listing determination at this time. Sensitive species: Those species that (1) have appeared in the Federal Register as proposed for classification and are under consideration for official listing as endangered or threatened species or (2) are on an official state list or (3) are recognized by the U.S. Forest Service or other management agency as needing special management to prevent their being placed on federal ot state lists. Survey and xanage species: A species listed in table C-3 in the R.O.D.

R.O.D*: U.S.D.A. Forest Service, U.S.D.I. BLM, 1994, Record of Decision For Amendments to Forest Service and Bureau of Land Manaaement Planning Documents Within The Range of The Northern Spotted Owl.

47 ( 7.0 Bibliography

Armitage, Steve; Forest operations lead, Medford BLM, Ashland Resource Area. Baily, V. 1936 Mammals and Life Zones of Oregon No. 55 in the series "North American Fauna" U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Bureau of Biological Survey. 416 pages

Bury, bruce; Research Biologist, National Biological-Survey, Corvallis, Oregon

Brown, Ken; lead timber sale contract administrator, U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Medford District, Ashland Resource area, Medford Oregon

Christy, R.E.; S.D. West. 1993 Biology of Bats in Doualas Fir Forests U.S.D.A. Forest Service, General Technical Report PNW- GTR-308. Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, Oregon.

Cross, Steven; Professor of Biology, Southern Oregon State College, Ashland, Oregon. Federal Register, January 15 1992. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 50 CFR part 17, Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Determination of Critical Habitat for the Northern Spotted Owl; Final Rule Fleischner, T. L. Ecological Costs of Livestock Grazing in Western North-America. Cons. Biol. Vol. 8 No. 3. Sept. 1994 Furnish, Joseph; Aquatic ecologist, BLM, Oregon/washington state office, portland oregon.

Mannan, R.W.; Meslow, E.C.; Wright, H.M. Use of Snags by Birds, in Douglas Fir Forests, Western Oregon. J. Wildl. manage. 44(4): 787-797; 1980. Reese, Devan. University of California, Berkely, Department of Investigative Biology. Berkely, California Rogue Institute for Ecology and Economy, 1994. Words Int2 Action: A Community Assessment of The Applecate Valley. (Prepared by Kevin Preister for the Applegate Partnership). Theibes, John; Wildlife Biologist, Rogue District, Oregon Dept. of Fish and Wildlife. Central Point Oregon. 48 U.S.D.A. Forest Service, 1985. Management of wildlife and Fish Habitats in Forests of Western Oregon and Washington. ( 2 parts) E. Reade Brown technical editor. U.S.D.A., 19-9 Forest Service; tU.S.D.I., Bureau of Land Management, Fish and Wildlife Service, Park Service.__ conservation Strategy for the Nor~the-rn ftotted Owl. A Re-port of the interagency Scientific Committee to Address the Conservation of the Northern Spotted Owl. U.S.D.A. Forest Service, U.S.D.I. BX24, 1994, Record of Decision For Amendments to Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management Planning Documents Within The Rance of The Northern Spotted Owl. U.S.D.A., Forest Service; U.S.D.I., Bureau-of Land Management, Fish and Wildlife Service, Park Service; U.S. Dept. of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries service; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1993 Forest Ecosystem-Management: An Ecological. Economic. and Social Assessment. (A.K.A. FEMAT report) U.S.D.A. Forest Service, U.S.D.I. BLK, 1994, Final Sup21emental Environmental Impact Statement on Management of Habitat for Late- Succss onal and Old-arowth Forest Related Species Within the Rance of The Northern Sj~otted Owl, Ap~endix 32 Results of Additional Stpecies Analysis. U.S.D.A. Forest Service, U.S.D.I. BLI4, 1988. From the Forest to the Sea: A Story of Fallen Trees. General Technical Report PNW- GTR-229. U.S.D.I., Fish and Wildlife Service, 1992. Recovery plan for the Northern spotted Owl (DRAFTI. Way, fred;- Wildlife biologist, U.S. Forest Service, Rouge River Nati. For. Ashland Ranger District, Ashland Oregon Welsh, H.H.; A.J. Lind; L.M. Olliver; D.L. Waters. 1993. A Hierarchical Analysis of the Habitat Associations of the Tailed Frog (Ascaphus trusi) ji; the Mixed Coniferous/Hardwood Forests of Northwestern California. U.S.D.A,. Forest Service. Redwood Sciences Laboratory, Pacific Southwest Experiment Station

49 APPENDICES

APPENDIX SUBJECT A Species list and guild assignment B Blacktailed deer herd composition data C Blacktailed deer pellet count data (winter range) D Special status species (state and federal) E Spotted owl designated Critical Habitat map F Spotted owl diet analysis results G Siskiyou mountain salamander map (within L.A.W.) H Intentionally omitted I Tailed frog distribution map J L.A.W. bat trapping results K Special status invertebrates list L Information sources for habitat modelling input M Habitat suitability modelling documentation N Special habitats and species using them 0 Terrestrial species needing slow or slack water P Article: Ecological Costs of Live stock Grazing in Western north America. X Q Discussion of recent BLM salvage sales in L.A.W. R Mollusk species found in Appendix J-2 of the R.O.D. which may be in the L.A.W. S Generalized distribution map of Spotted owl sites T Data gaps and recommended wildlife Research U Explanation of the FEMAT viability rating codes V Recommendations regarding riparian reserves W Dispersal capability of the L.A.W. species X Use of various structures by bats.

MAPS DEPICTING SUITABLE HABITAT AS PREDICTED BY HABITAT MODELING Appendix A cont.

Species and guild assignments sorted by guild assignment Pag(r

Species GUILD SPECIESDESCRIPTION ANPL LAKARE mallard CLM.A LAKARE western pond turtle RACAT LAKARE bullfrog ACMA LAKARE spotted sandpiper RA.AU RIVARG red-legged frog ASTR RIVARG tailed frov BOLE RIVARG american bittern BUST RIVARG green-backed heron CASCAN RIVARG beaver RABO RIVARG foothill yellow-legged frog THHY RIVARG oregon Varter snake ANS P RIVRE water pi APRU RIVRE mountain beaver CHVO RIVRE killdeer DEPE RIVRE yellow warbler GAGA RIVRE common snipe GETR RIVRE common yellowthroat GRCA RIVRE sandh~ill crane MITO RIVRE townsend's vole EMTR RIVRML willow flycatcher 'CVI RIVRML yellow-breasted chat NEGI RIVRML shrew-mole PHAL RIVRML white-footed vole AEAC S PCL northern saw-whet owl AGPH SPCL red-winged blackbird ( AIS P SPCL wood duck AMMlA SPCL long-toed salamander ANFE SPCL clouded salamander ANFL SPCL black salamander ANPA S PCL pallid bat AQCH{ S PCL golden ,eagle ARAL SPCL black-chinned hummingbird ARHE S PCL great blue heron AIRLO SPCL red tree vole BAAS SPCL ring-tailed cat BRCA SPCL canada. goose BUBO SPCL western toad. BULI SPCIL red-shouldertd. hawk BTUVI SPCL great horned owl CAAU SPCL turkey vulture CEAL SPCL belted kingfisher CEAM SPCL brown creeper CHMI SPCL common nighthawk CHVA SPCL vaux's swift C IME SPCL american dipper CI PA SPCL marsh wren

1ki 0/95 0/95 ~~~~~StandardReport Pg 1 ( Page 2

Species GUILD SPECIESDESCRIPTrION CLCA SPCL western red-backed vole COAUJ SPCL northern flicker COLI SPCL rock dove CONTE SPCL sharptail snake DITE SPCL paLcific giant salamander DIVI SPCL virginia opossum ORPI SPCL pileated woodpecker EMOB SPCL dusky flycatcher ENES SPCL ensatina EPFU SPCL big brown bat ERDO SPCL porcupine EUCY SPCL brewer's blackbird FAME SPCL prairie falcon FAPE SPCL peregrine falcon FECA SPCL house cat (feral) FECO SPCL mountain lion GLGN SPCL northern pygmy-owl GLSA SPCL northern flying squirrel HALE SPCL bald eagle HIPY SPCL cliff swallow HIRtJ SPCL barn swallow LACI SPCL hoary bat V- 'C SPCL common kingsnake, (cal. ssp.) SPCL silver-haired bat L.._j SPCL california mountain kingsnake LUCA SPCL river otter MAAM SPCL marten ?4AFL SPCL yellow-bellied marmot MAPE SPCL fisher MELE SPCL lewils, woodpecker MERME SPCL common merganser MUER SPCL ermine MUFR SPCL long-tailed weasel NUMrJ SPCL house mouse MtJVI SPCL mink MYEV SPCL long-eared myotis M1Y LU SPCL little brown~myotis MYCCA SPCL california m Otis MYTH SPCL fringed myotis MYTO SPCL townsend's solitare MYVO SPCL long-legged myotis MYYU SPCL yuma myotis NECI SPCL bushy-tailed woodrat ONZI SPCL muskrat OPTO SPCL macgillivray's warbler OTFL SPCL flammuulated owl OTKE SPCL western screech-owl 4/20/95 4/20/95~~~~Standard Report PagP~ species GUILD SPECIESDESCRIPTION PAAT S PCL black-capped chickadee PADO S PCL house sparrow PAGA S PCL mountain chickadee PARA SPCL osprey PAIN SPCL plain titmouse PARU SPCL chestnut-backed chickadee PEMA SPCL deer mouse PETR SPCL pinion mouse PIAR SPCL black-backed woodpecker PIME SPCL gopher snake PIVI SPCL ha~iry wodpecker PLST SPCL siskiyou mountain salamander PLTO SPCL townsend's big-eared bat PRLO SPCL raccoon PRSU SPCL purple martin PS RE SPCL pacific tree frog RANO S PCL norway rat RIRI SPCL bank swallow SANI SPCL black phoebe SAO B SPCL rock wren SASA S PCL say's phoebe SI CAR SPCL white-breasted nuthatch SI CU SPCL mountain bluebird S IME SPCL western bluebird S ITCA SPCL red-breasted nuthatch C7 SOBE SPCL pacific water shrew SOPAL SPCL water shrew SOTRO S PCL trowbridge' s shrew SOVA S PCL vagrant shrew S PNU SPCL red-naped sapsucker SPRU SPCL red-breasted sapsucker SPTH SPCL williamson's sapsucker STNE SPCL great gray owl STOC SPCL northern spotted owl STSE SPCL northern rough-winged swallow STVA SPCL barred owl STVU SPCL european starling TABI SPCL tree swallow-' TABR SPCL brazillian free-tailed bat TAGR S PCL roughskin newt TATH SPCL violet-green swallow THOR SPCL northwestern garter snake THS I SPCL common garter snake TYAL S PCL barn owl TYVE SPCL western kingbird. URAM SPCL black bear BUJA TLGG red-tailed hawk

I.k- 4 /20/95 Standard Report Page species GUILD SPECIESDESCRIPTION COBR, TLGG american crow URCI TLGG gray fox vUVtU TLGG red fox ACGE TLML northern goshawk LOXCU TLML red crossbill BUJLA TMC rough-legged hawk CALAT TMC coyote CEE L TMC elk FAS P TMC american kestrel BOGA TMGG bohemian waxwing COFA TMGG band-tailed pigeon CORCO TMGG common raven COVE TMGG evening grosbeak CRVI TMGG western rattlesnake LYRUJ TMGG bobcat MEGA TMGG wild turkey ODHE TNGG black-tailed deer PECA TMGG gray jay PHNU TMGG common poorwill CICY TMM1E northern harrier FACO TMME merlin MEMEP TMME striped skunk SPPUJ TMME spotted skunk TMML cooper's hawk TMM2L sharp-shinned hawk A. TMML long eared owl PIAL TMML white-headed woodpecker CACAS TSC cassin's finch COBO TSC olive-sided flycatcher CARME TSGEM house finch EMOC TSGEM cordilleran flycatcher EUSK TSGEM western skink ME LME TSGEM song sparrow MOAT TSGEM4 brown-headed cowbird BOCE TSGG cedar waxwing BOUM TSGG ruf fed grouse CAA.N TSGG annals hummingbird CAPI TSGG pine siskin,. CAPS TSGG lesser goldfinch CARPU TSGG purple finch CAUS TSGG swainson's thrush CHBO TSGG rubber boa COSO TSGG western wood-pewee CYST TSGG steller's jay DENCO TSGG yellow-rumped warbler DEOB TSGG blue grouse DI PU TSGG ringneck snake 4/20/95 4/20/95~~~~Standard Report P Pag (_

Species GUILD SPECIES DES CRIPTION no r t h e r n al l i g a t o r -li------d- -ar ELCO TSGG southern alligator lizard ELI4U TSGG EM4HA TSGG hammond' s flycatcher JUHY TSGG dark-eyed junco LEAM TSGG snowshoe hare NEFU TSGG dusky-footed woodrat PAIL TSGG fox sparrow PIER TSGG rufous-sided towhee PIP' TSGG black-billed magpie RECA TSGG ruby-crowned kinglet SCOR TSGG coast mole SERUF TSGG rufous hummingbird SPtA TSGG golden-mantled ground squirrel SPPA TSGG chipping sparrow SYBA TSGG brush rabbit TAAM TSGG yellow-pine chipmunk TASI TSGG siskiyou chipmonk TATO TSGG townsend' s chipmonk THBE TSGG bewick's, wren TRAE TSGG house wren TRTR TSGG winter wren TUMI TSGG american robin VERU TSGG nashville warbler VIGI TSGG warbling virec Viso TSGG solitary vireo WIPU TS GG wilson's warbler ZEMA TSGG mourning dove CAGU TSGML hermit thrush DENI TSGML black-throated gray warbler DEOC TSGML hermit warbler DETO TSGML townsends 's warbler ICOGA TSGML northern oriole IXNA TSGML varied thrush NUCO TSGML clark' s nutcracker PHME TSGML black-headed grosbeak PILU TSGML western tanager PI PU TSGML downy woodpecker RESA TSGML golden-crowned kingl et. SCIGR TSGMIL western gray,'squirrel' TADO TSGML douglas squirrel APCO TSME scrub jay CACAL TSME california quail CATR TSME american goldfinch LAEX TSME northern shrike ORPI TSME mountain quail PSMI1 TSME bushtit. STELCA TSM4E calliope hummingbird 4 /2 0/95 Standard Report Page 6 species GUILD SPECIES DESCRIPTION CACO TSPBE costa's hum~mingbird CHFA TSPBE wrent it CHGR TSPE lark sparrow COLCO TSPE racer DI CA TS PE california kangaroo rat EMWR TSPE gray flycatcher ERAL TSPE horned lark LECA TSPBE black-tailed rabbit MATA TSPE striped whipsnake MELI TSPE lincoln's sparrow MICA TSPE california vole MI LO TSPE long-tailed vole MIOR TSPE oregon meadow vole (creeping) MYCI TSPE ash-throated flycatcher PAAMO TS PE lazuli bunting PASA TSPBE savannah sparrow PHCO TSPE rin¶-necked pheasant P1ICR TSPE california towhee POCA TS PE s ora POLCA TSPE blue-grey gnatcatcher POOGR TSPE vesper sparrow RALI TSPE virginia rail REME TSPE western harvest mouse SI-- TSPE sagebrush lizard s TSPE western fence lizard TSPE california ground squirrel STUNE TSPE western meadowlark TuHBO TS PE botta's pocket gopher THEL TSPE western terrestrial garter snake TSPE western pocket gopher VECE TSPE orange-crowned warbler VI HU. TSPE hutton's vireo ZATR TSPBE pacific jumping mouse ZOAL TSPE white-throated sparrow ZOAT TS PE golden-crowned sparrow .,OLE TSPE white-crowned sparrow .MD1I TSPL pacific slope: flycatcher ,4EF 0 TSPL acorn woodpe3cker I Appendix A cont. Species and guild assignments sorted by species common name Pa[f

Species GUILD SPECIES DESCRIPTION - - - -…------MEFO TSPL acorn woodpecker BOLE RIVA.RG american bittern COBR TLGG american crow C IME S PCL american dipper CATR TSME american goldfinch FAS P TMC, american kestrel TUMT TSGG american robin CAAN TSGG annals hummingbird MY CT TSPE ash-throated flycatcher MALE S PCL bald eagrle COFA TMGG band-tailed pigeon RIRI SPCL bank swallow TYALI SPCL barn owl HIRtU S PCL barn swallow STVA SPCL barred owl CAS CAN RIVARG beaver CEAL S PC L belted kingfisher THBE TSGG bewick's wren EPFTJ SPCL big brown bat URAM SPCL black bear SANI SPCL black phoebe ANFL, SPCL black salamander PIAR SPCL black-backed woodpecker PIP' TSGG black-billed magpie PAAT S PCL black-capped chickadee C ARAL SPCL black-chinned hummingbird PHME TSGML black-headed grosbeak ODHE TMGG black-tailed deer LECA TSPE black-tailed rabbit DENI TSGML black-throated gray warbler DEOB TSGG blue grouse POLCA TSPE blue-grey gnatcatcher LYRUt TMGG bobcat BOGA TMGG bohemian waxwing THBO TS PE botta's pocket gopher TABR S PCL brazillian free-tailed bat EUCY S PCL brewer's blackbird CEAM SPCL brown creeper MOAT TSGEM brown-headed cowbird S YBA TSGG brush rabbit RACAT LAKAR~E bullfrog PSMI TSME bushtit NECI S PCL bushy-tailed woodrat SPBEE TSPE california ground squirrel DICA TSPE california kangaroo rat LAZO0 S PCL california mountain kingsnake

III 0/9 5 ( 0/95 ~~~~~StandardReport PagePg species GUILD SPECIESDESCRIPTION MYOCA S PCL california myotis CACAL TSME california quail PI CR TSPE california towhee MICA TSPE california vole STELCA TSME calliope hummingbird BRCA SPCL canada goose CACAS TSC cassin's finch BOCE TSGG cedar waxwing PARU SPCL chestnut-backed chickadee- SPPA TSGG chipping sparrow NUCO TSGML clark' s nutcracker HIPY SPCL cliff swallow ANFE SPCL clouded salamander SCOR TSGG coast mole THS I S PCL common garter snake LAG EC SPCL common kingsnake (cal. ssp.) MERME SPCL common merganser CHMI SPCL common nighthawk PHNU TMGG common poorwill CORCO TMGG common raven GAGA RIVRE common snipe GETR RIVRE common yellowthroat P -I TMML cooper's hawk TSGEM cordilleran flycatcher

CA - TSPE costa's hummingbird CALAT TMC coyote JTJHY TSGG dark-eyed junco PEMA SPCL deer mouse TADO TSGML douglas squirrel ~PIP TSGML downy woodpecker EMO B SPCL dusky flycatcher NEFU TSGG dusky- footed woodrat CEEL TMC elk ENES SPCL ensatina MUER S PCL ermine STVU S PCL european starling COVE TMGG evening grosbeak MAPE S PCL fisher I OTFL SPCL flammulated owl RABO RIVARG foothill yellow-legged frog PAIL TSGG fox sparrow MYTH SPCL fringed myotis AQCH SPCL golden eagle RESA TSGML golden-crowned kinglet ZOAT TSPE golden-crowned sparrow S PLA TSGG golden-mantled ground squirrel PIME SPCL gopher snake 4/20/95 4/20/95 ~~~~StandardReport Page(- '_ species GUILD SPECIESDESCRIPTION EMWR TS PE gray flycatcher URCI TLGG gray fox PE CA TMGG gray Jay ARHiE SPCL great blue heron STNE SPCL great gray owl BUVI SPCL great horned owl BUST RIVARG green-backed heron PIVI SPCL hairy woodpecker EMHA TSGG hammond's flycatcher CAGU TSGML hermit thrush DEOC TSGML hermit warbler LACI S PCL hoary bat ERAL TSPE horned lark FE CA SPCL house cat (feral) CARME TSGEM house finch SPCL house mouse PADO SPCL house sparrow TRAE TSGG house wren TSPE hutton's vireo CHVO RIVRE killdeer CHGR TSPE lark sparrow PAAMO TSPE lazuli bunting CAPS TSGG lesser goldfinch MELE SPCL lewils woodpecker MELI TSPE lincoln's sparrow MYLU SPCL little brown myotis. C ASOT TMML long eared owl MYEV SPCL long-eared myotis MYVO SPCL long-legged myotis MILO TSPE long-tailed vole MUFR SPCL long-tailed weasel AMMA SPCL long-toed salamander OPTO SPCL macgillivray' s warbler ANPL LAKARE mallard CI PA S PCL marsh wren MAAM S PCL marten FACO TMME merlin NUVI S PCL mink APRU RIVRE mountain beav~er SI CU SPCL mountain bluebird PAGA SPCL mountain chickadee FECO S PCL mountain lion ORPI TSME mountain quail ZEMA TSGG mourning dove ONZ I SPCL muskrat VERU TSGG nashville warbler ELCO TSGG northern alligator lizard Pg I 0/95 0/95 ~~~~~StandardReport Page 4 species GUILD SPECIESDESCRIPTION C^OAU SPCL northern flicker GLSA S PCL northern flying squirrel ACGE TLML northern goshawk TM~ME northern harrier TSGML northern oriole SPCL northern pygmy-owl SE SPCL northern rough-winged swallow SPCL northern saw-whet owl TSME northern shrike SPCL northern spotted owl :'CE SPCL northwestern garter snake SPC L norway rat TSC olive-sided flycatcher HOR TSPE orange-crowned warbler RIVARG oregon garter snake TSPE oregon meadow vole (creeping) SPCL osprey 'CE SPCL pacific giant salamander TS PE pacific jumping mouse TSPL pacific slope flycatcher SPCL pacific tree frog .TR S PCL pacific water shrew SPCL pallid bat SPCL pe~regrine falcon ~2P SPCL pileated woodpecker TSGG pine siskin SPCL pinion mouse SPCL plain titmouse SPCL porcupine 7Nt SPCL prairie falcon TSGG. purple finch SPCL purple martin .TCA SPCL raccoon TSPE racer _RPU TLML red crossbill TLGG red fox SPCL red tree vole SPCL red-breasted' nuthatch' SPCL red-breasted sapsucker RIVARG red-legged frog SPCL red-naped sapsucker TCA SPCL red-shouldered hawk TLGG red-tailed hawk S PCL red-winged blackbird TSPE ring-necked pheasant SAAS SPCL ring-tailed cat DIPU TSGG ringneck snake 4/20/95 Standard Report Pag(

Species GUILD SPECIESDESCRIPTION LUCA SPCL river otter COLI SPCL rock dove SAOB SPCL rock wren BULA TMC rough-legged hawk TAGR SPCL roughskin newt CHBO TSGG rubber boa RECA TSGG ruby-crowned kinglet BOUM4 TSGG ruf fed grouse SERUF TSGG rufous hummingbird PIER TSGG rufous-sided towhee SCGR TSPE sagebrush lizard GRCA RIVRE sandhill crane PASA TSPE savannah sparrow SASA SPCL say's phoebe APCO TSME scrub jay ACST TMML sharp-shinned hawk CONTE SPCL sharptail snake NEGI RIVRML shrew-mole LANO SPCL silver-haired bat TASI TSGG siskiyou chipmonk PLST SPCL siskiyou mountain salamander LEAM TSGG snowshoe hare Viso TSGG solitary vireo MELME TSGEM song sparrow( POCA TSPE sora ELMU TSGG southern alligator lizard ACMA LAY-ARE spotted sandpiper SPPU TMME spotted skunk CYST TSGG steller's jay MEMEP TMME striped skunk MATA TSPE striped whipsnake CAUS TSGG swainson's thrush ASTR RIVARG tailed frog PLTO SPCL townsend's biq-eared bat TATO TSGG townsend's chipmonk MYTO SPCL townsend's solitare MITO RIVRE townsend's vale DETO TSGML townsends's warbler TABI SPCL tree swallow SOTRO SPCL trowbridge's shrew CAAU SPCL turkey vulture SOVA SPCL vagr~ant shrew IXNA TSGML varied thrush CHVA SPCL vaux's swift POOGR TSPE vesper sparrow TATH SPCL violet-green swallow DIVI SPCL virginia. opossum I

)/95 *)/95 ~~~~StandardReport PgPage 6

)ecies GUILD SPECIESDESCRIPTION k.LI TSPE virgini'a rail [GI TSGG warbling vireo ISP RIVRE water pipit )PAL SPCL water shrew :ME SPCL western bluebird TS PE western fence lizard I1IGR TSGML western gray squirrel 'ME TSPE western harvest mouse WE SPCL western kingbird 1UNE TSPE western meadowlark [MA TSPE western pocket gopher jMA LAKARE western pond turtle WI TMGG western rattlesnake jCA SPCL western red-backed vole IKE SPCL western screech-owl rS K TSGEM western skink :LU TSGML western tanager [EL TSPE western terrestrial garter snake rBQ S PCL western toad ISO TSGG western wood-pewee *CAR SPCL white-breasted nuthatch ILE TSPE white-crowned sparrow RIVRML white-footed vole TMM4L white-headed woodpecker TSPE white-throated sparrow ~GA TMGG wild turkey ITH SPCL williamson's sapsucker :TR RIVRML willow flycatcher PU TSGG wilson's warbler .TR TSGG winter wren SP SPCL wood duck FA TS PE wrentit PE RIVRE yellow warbler FL SPCL yellow-bellied marmot VI RIVRML yellow-breasted chat AM TSGG yellow-pine chipmunk NCO TSGG yellow-rumped warbler YU SPCL yumna myotis puaiJj sippe 00 L/sumvJ_,.! JweA

"b .A~ ... .&4 -& " ..."- -& " .A -& -4 ." -" .. .& -A

g~~:q X ,4 X4 4. I Dtt N m 4 DG 0 _ __ 0

-n IeD 'to In -o (D P2. 09 x m

0 CL0

0o%

OaI

tP66 - 96

Mv:GO Pela5ueU JeU!M efp!U uiqeo WoD ) ) ( ( -(

putt Jaa fee1o± Joao [eIOJ.

-& " -A -A -.6 " -A. " -.4 " " -& -4 -.16 " " -& " -.& " " -4 -& -.& -& , -& -4 " -a -& -& ..& -.&

§H §§801-84 -4 -A 0

09

0-I ooW g

OOL VP1 0(D :Po 10 crh 51 00aOZCD x 0 w V} CD 0 OmZ 0

6 L - Lu96

MWAGO apt reued6 JG1UIM efp!U Uiqeuo Age Appendix C

SUMMARY OF RESULTS OF DEER PELLET GROUP COUNTS ON THE APPLEGATE WATERSHED WINTER RANGE IN THE ASHLAND RESOURCE AREA, WINTER OF 1993-1994

MVAeqrrT 1~TMF! Tnr(AVTOnW CO)MM Wifrcq

DEMING GULCH * 39S,2W, 9,NWSE CLEAR CUT '87, NOW GRASS SPENCER GULCH 39S,3W,2iNWNW SCARIFIED '81, NOW WEDGELEAF BOAZ GULCH 39S, 3W, 27, SWNE OAK WOODLAND AND BRUSH STAR GULCH 39S,3W, 19,SENE BURNED '87, CLEARCUT '89 NINEMILE CREEK 395,4W, 17,SWSW BURNED '87, SALVAGE CUT '89 GOSPEL MISSION 38S14W,7,NENE OAK WOODLAND AND BRUSH CANTRALL BURN * 39S, 2W, 28 ,NENE BURNED '87, NOW GRASS/BRUSH BEAR GULCH * 39S,2W, 23,SWSW OAKS+GRASS NEXT TO THICK BRUSH

USE DAYS BY MONTH ** T~RANSECT HAMFP 1993-199A WTUTRR

S ite Jan. Feb. Mar, Total

DEMING GULCH * ...... * *. 1...... 2.2...... 0.0..... 2 5 SPENCER GULCH...... 30 ...... * 0.*.... *2.2...... *.3 35 BOAZ GULCH...... 6.6...... 8...... 7..... **.5 26 STAR. GULCH...... 17...... 6.6...... 2..#.... *.6 31 NINEMILE CREEK ...... 6.6..... 3*3...%...0....** .15 24 GOSPEL MISSION ...... 1...... 3..-.*...22...... 0 6 CANTRALL BURN * ...... 13 ...... 3 ...... 2 ...... 1 19 B EAR GULCH * ...... 2...... 5* .. 11

Month Total 76 25 20 36

Grand Total 157

* Transect is located in the Little Applegate Watershed

** Sample periods varied between 21 and 36 days. Deer use day data presented here have been adjusted to account for this variation. 0-y Appendix D

Special Status Species in the Little Applegate Watershed

Species Federal Oregon BLM USFS ROD Status Status Status Status Status ACORN WOODPECKER PS SUP NS WP BALD EAGLE LT LT LT LT BIG BROWN BAT NS NGN NS NS SPB BLACK SALAMANDER NS SRP NS SP BLACK-BACKED WOODPECKER PS SCP AS WP SRG CALIFORNIA MOUNTAIN KINGSNAKE NS SRP AS SS CALIFORNIA MYOTIS NS NGN NS NS SPB CLOUDED SALAMANDER NS SCP AS WP COMMON KINGSNAKE (CAL. SSP.) NS SRP AS SS FISHER C2 SCP AS SP FLAMMULATED OWL PS SCP AS SP SRG FOOTHILL YELLOW-LEGGED FROG C2 SUP NS WP FRINGED MYOTIS C2 SVP C2 SP SPB GREAT GRAY OWL PS SVP AS SP SPB HOARY BAT NS NGN NS WP LEWI'S WOODPECKER PS SCP AS SP LITTLE BROWN MYOTIS NS NGN NS NS SPB LONG-EARED MYOTIS C2 NGN C2 NS SPB LONG-LEGGED MYOTIS C2 NGN C2 NS MARTEN NS SCF AS SP MERLIN PS NGP NS SP MOUNTAIN BLUEBIRD PS NGP NS WP MOUNTAIN QUAIL C3 GB NS NS NORTHERN GOSHAWK C2 SCP C2 SP NORTHERN PYGMY-OWL PS SUP NS WP NORTHERN SAW-WHET OWL PS NGP AS WP NORTHERN SPOTTED OWL LT LT LT LT SPB PALLID BAT NS SVP AS SP SPB PEREGRINE FALCON LE LE LE LE PILEATED WOODPECKER PS SCP AS WP PURPLE MARTIN PS SCP NS SP RED TREE VOLE NS NGN NS SP SM2 RED-LEGGED FROG C2 NGP C2 SS RING-TAILED CAT NS SUP NS WP SANDHILL CRANE GB SVP NS SS SHARPTAIL SNAKE NS SCP AS WP SILVER-HAIRED BAT NS NGN NS WP SISKIYOU MOUNTAIN SALAMANDER C2 SVP C2 SS SM1&2, SPB TAILED FROG NS SVP AS WP TOWNSEND'S BIG-EARED BAT C2 SCP C2 SS SPB VAUX'S SWIFT PS NGP NS SP WESTERN BLUEBIRD PS SVP AS WP WESTERN POND TURTLE C2 SCP C2 SS WESTERN TOAD NS NGN NS WP WHITE-FOOTED VOLE C2 SRP NS SS WHITE-HEADED WOODPECKER PS SCP AS SP SRG WILLOW FLYCATCHER PS NGP NS SP YUMA MYOTIS C2 NGN C2 NS Appendix D cont.

Status code deffinitions

LT = LISTED, THREATENED SPECIES ** LE = LISTED, ENDANGERED SPECIES ** C2 = FEDERAL CATEGORY 2 CANDIDATE FOR LISTING PS = FEDERAL PROTECTED SPECIES NGN = STATE NONGAME, NOT PROTECTED NGP = STATE NONGAME, PROTECTED GA = STATE GAME AMPHIBIAN GB = GAMEBIRD STATE AND/OR FEDERAL GM = STATE GAME MAMMAL F = STATE FURBEARER SCP = STATE SENSITIVE, CRITICAL, PROTECTED SVP = STATE SENSITIVE, VULNERABLE, PROTECTED SRP = STATE SENSITIVE, NATURALLY RARE OR PERIPHERAL, PROTECTED SCF = STATE SENSITIVE, CRITICAL, FURBEARER, (NOT PROTECTED) SS = BLM SENSITIVE SPECIES AS = BLM ASSESSMENT SPECIES TS = BLM TRACKING SPECIES Ss = U.S.F.S. R6 SENSITIVE SP = U.S.F.S. PROPOSED FOR R6 SENSITIVE LIST WP = U.S.F.S. PROPOSED FOR R6 WATCH LIST NS = NO STATUS UNDER THIS ORGANIZATION NR = SPECIES NOT RATED IN F.E.M.A.T. REPORT SPB = SPECIAL PROTECTION BUFFER (FROM R.O.D.) SRG = SNAG RETENTION GUIDANCE (FROM R.O.D.) SM1 = R.O.D. SURVEY AND MANAGE STRATEGY 1 * SM2 = R.O.D. SURVEY AND MANAGE STRATEGY 2 *

See appendix U for an explaianation of the FEMAT rating system.

* See R.O.D. page C-4 for an exlaination of the Survey and Manage guidelines.

** The Oregon Department, of Fish and Wildlife and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service each keep seperate lists of Threatened and Endangered species. APPENDIX E LITTLE APPLEGATE WATERSHED SPOTTED OWL CRITICAL HABITAT UNITS

Major Stream Little Applegate Watershed

Critical Habitat Units

0 3000 60004 Appendix F

PRELIMINARY SPOTTED OWL DIET ANALYSIS FOR BLM SITES IN THE APPLEGATE WATERSHED, 1990-1993 DATA.

# PELLETS COLLECTED ...... 86 * # SITES SAMPLED .. 25 TOTAL # PREY ITEMS FOUND ...... 149 # PREY SPECIES FOUND ...... 16 **

NUMBERS OF PREY ITEMS BY SPECIES % OF DIET BY OCCURANCE

DF WOODRAT...... 76 ...... 51.0 BT WOODRAT ...... 0 0.0

FLYING SQUIRREL...... 39 ...... 26.2 SHREW MOLE...... 1 0.7

GOPHERS...... 6 ...... 4.0

RED BACKED VOLE...... 6 ...... 4.0 RED TREE VOLE ...... 2 1.3 OTHER VOLES...... 1 0.7 DEER/PINION MICE...... 8 5.4 MOLES ...... *...... 2 1.3 SHREWS...... 2 1.3

LARGE SQUIRRELS...... 2 ...... 1.3 DOUGLAS SQUIRREL ...... 0 0.0 CHIPMONKS...... 1 0.7 RABBITS ...... 1 0.7

LG. BIRDS...... 1 ...... 0.7 MED. BIRDS...... 4 2.7 SM#BIRDS ...... 3 2.0 INSECTS...... 0 0.0 REPTILES...... 0 0.0

BATS.... ;...... 0 ...... 0.0

HOUSE MOUSE ...... 0 ...... 0.0 JUMPING MICE ...... 0 0.0

* Some collections consisted of one bag with multiple pellets and pellet fragments from one site. Consequently, an accurate pellet count is impossible.

** Some prey types were grouped at a taxanomic level higher than species, ie: "large birds". This treatment is indicated in the prey item titles above by pluralization.

*** The skelletal differences between these two species is minimal. Further analysis is necessary to determine if individuals tentatively identified as dusky-footed are in fact bushy-tailed.

**** This is the species used in baiting owls. Appendix G Known Range of Siskiyou Mountain Salamander In The Little Applegate Watershed

Meters 0 3000 8000~iii 0o 3000 6000 Appendix H

Appendix H was planned to be a map of yellow legged frog locations. I was unable to get this information into a suitable format before the publication deadline. As a result Appendix H was omitted intentionally. The frog location data is available in field survey forms in the fisheries report working files. SCREENS INPUT OUTPUT GUILD SHY SHN = _ _ MPS HRS_ 1-3_ _ FILE_ -_ . _FILE TLML 40 3007 50-50-70 PAL40.MAP L EH MOL40.MAP TMME 20 1001 50-50-70 PAE20.MAP E L,M MOE20.MAP TMML 20 500 50-50-70 PAL20.MAP L EM MOL2O.MAP TSME 5 52 50-50-70 PAE5.MAP E L,M MOE5.MAP

MPS=Minimum Patch Size HRS=Hom6 Range Size SHY=Seral code on pixcels in input file (Suitable Habitat Yes) SHN=Seral code on pixcels in input file (Suitable Habitat No)

Output files are in ASCII Input files are in ASCII and are the result of running PATCH.EXE

CONTRAST GUILDS

Individuals of species in these guilds specialize in the use of edge habitat. For this modeling effort only the edges between Early and Late seral habitat were considered suitable. Both of the guilds require the same input files: PAElO.MAP, and PALlO.MAP. The file that contains the model programming is "CONTRAST. EXE".

ACRES % IN IN TYPE TYPE OUTPUT GUILD MPS HRS BW EDGE EDGE 1 HAB 2 HAB FILE TMC | 10 500 200 20 100 25 25 COMlO.MAP TSC 10 0 20 10 125 25 COMlO.MAP

MPS=Minimum Patch Size HRS=Home Range Size SHY=Seral code on pixcels in input file (Suitable Habitat Yes) SHN=Seral code on pixcels in input file (Suitable Habitat No) BW=Width of the strip of habitat that is suitable along an edge.

Output files are in ASCII Input files are in ASCII and are the result of running PATCH.EXE

GENERALIST GUILDS Individuals of most of the species in these guilds use habitat in all seral stages. Consequently, no analysis of habitat suitability is necessary because all acres in the watershed are considered suitable. The two exceptions to the above rule are the TSGML and TSGEN guilds. These two guilds were anylized as if they were Mosaic guilds using the patch aggregation model contained in the "SUIT.EXE" file.

SCREENS INPUT OUTPUT GUILD MPS HRS 1-3 FILE SHY SHN FILE TSGEM 5L52 | 50-50-70 PAML5.MAP EM L SGEM.MAP TSGML 5 52 50-50-70 PAEM5.MAP M,,L E SGML.MAP

MPS=Minimum Patch Size HRS=Home Range Size SHY=Seral code on pixcels in input file (Suitable Habitat Yes) SHN=Seral code on pixcels in input file (Suitable Habitat No) Output files are in ASCII Input files are in ASCII and are the result of running PATCH.EXE ' x

Iso a t'4_04 I" c 0 (A I E " a 1.4.4- to 040 I ;n _ 60 M . . I1 vi

I

a 4

. of

L .41

_ r

IV May 1')9:1

INTERPRETING LANDSCAPE PATTERNS: A VEiRTEBRATE HABITAr RELATIONSHIPS APP1ROACHf

KIM MELLEN, Mt. Hfood/Gifford Pincnto: NatnLonal [orests, Wildlife Ecologist MARK HUFF, Pacific Northwest I.5OUL'Ch tatiGO , Wildlife/Forest Ecologist RICHf HAUESTEDT, Mt. flood N;Aional Fores t, Annalyst

INTRODUCTION

Most wildlife habitat relationship ini'ormat:icn is available at the stand scale. For the Pacifi( Nort:hwest this information has been compiled in BLron (1985) furJ the westtsidIe of the Cascade Mounlai.ins and in Thomas (1979) for. th.. Blue Mountains. Hansen and Urban (lI992) assossed avian habitat at the landscape scale using stand based habiclt rela.tioDnship) inform(Uation and speci.-. life history information. They asstwnwid that patches of habitat have to be a minimuL11 sizo, at; least as large as t.11ehome range ofL a given specie us *or ic LO occur in a part icular laindscape.

It has been recognized that distributiotn of habitat at a larger scale, in particular fragmenitation of habitat blocks, may also be an important component of wildlifo habitat relationships (Lehmkuhl. and Huggiero, 1991). However, attempts to link habitat use to land,3scape pattern indices has not been very successfl'I. Only a few species have been Linked to 'interior habitat" in thle Pacific Northwest (Hansen and(l Urban, 1992). L.ehnikuhl and Raphael (1993) did find that amount of habitat, variation in patch sizes, and an isolation index (a proximity index) did diffeL between1 sites occupied by northern spotted owls (Strix occidentalis caurina) and ran.iom sites.

We developed a methodology to assess habita1; suitability at the lanldscape scale for all 307 terrestrial vertern-aces and aquatic amphibians on the Mt. Hood National Forest. By building on the concep1presetsby lHansen and Urban (1992), we grouped all these species into "life--history guilds" based onl home Lange size, patch configuration use, and ge'llel.a]. habitat us tand scale). e W then assessed habitat suitability for cacti gpuild, Lhroughia circular "moving window" that represented the home range of species within the guild. To determine suitability, the "moving window" evaluates type and amount of vegetation structure classes, minimum patch size, and landscape context Lneighborhood). This process assesses landscape paramenters similar to those Lehmnkuh land Raphael (1993) found to effect spotted owl habitat use.

This "life-history guild" 4ProaCl is a suggested procedure in the Wildlife Habitat Module (steps l-4L) of "A FederalAgency Guide for Pilot Watershed Anialys is"1.t

OBJECTIVE

Develop an analysis procedure to predict terrestrial vertebrate and aquatic amphibian occurrence relative to landscape patterns.

ASSUMPTI ONS ANI) LIMITATIONS l) Habitat assessment determines the potential of species occupancy based on individuals not populations. 2) Primary or good haB`t is assessed 1lot secondary or m1arginal habitat. 3) IlomHUe LtaIIgo sizes are gene-alIi 7l For each gfi Id [he home ra1ge S . e ; Iarge enJnotigh to covet Iie(, ne'-ds of' tLhe species in the guild Wi.lth lsie largest home range size. '[he ontent. is a list; ot species that may occu r the landscape and the rnumbIer of acres available for the guild to which c;ih species belongs. If a species is on tile list it is assumed that tie landscape is capable ot ,LIpPoLtinng at least, I individual of the spccies er the list. The acres availabl ror each guild can be used to estimate te-Ir expected number of individuals of a species, based on that species home Lange sizc (Iot, n(ecessarily the gui]d home range size), tihat may oCc UL' in the lanldscape. ThCre are species in somne guild5that have smnaler.- home rarlFe sizes thIanl that cTTi

TIHE PROCEDURE

The analy.(zis procedure involves linking a wildlife habitat relationship and life history datahIMase to a spatially-referenced vegetation database by using a common vegetation/habitat classifIcation_ scheme. Ihie 'databases are TT'in Paradox 4.J0 so that UTOOLS/UIMAP (Ager 1993) can be used for analysis and display.

Wildlife Habitat Relationship/Life History (WHR/LH) Database

Appendix 3 of 'Management of Wildlife and Fish Habitats in Forests of Western Oregon and Washington", Brown (]985) was used as a starting point for the databases. O(regon Department of Fish and Wildlife's OSIS (Oregon Species Information System) was also used for distribution and habitat use information for most species. Additional literature and sources of information were used to update and create the databases. "Wildlife and vegetation of unmanaged Douglas-fir forests", Ruggiero et al. (1991) was used extensively to update the database. The Lu''crITED database contains a complete citation list.

The WHR/LH database is actually a set of relational databases. The data dictionary for the database is attached as appendix A. Refer to the appendix for information on the databases and the fields within the databases.

Vegetation Database

The vegetation database is really the engine that drives the analysis procedure. Each acre of the analysis area (Mt. Hood National Forest in our case) must be assigned to a vegetation/habitat classification category.

The Mt. Hood Vegetation Database was developed by importing data from MOMs (Mature and Over-mature inventory data), MOSS, and OSIS into a Paradox database using UTOOLS/UMAP. The Forest was divided into l hectare (2.47 acre) pixels (cells). Vegetation information and other data was assigned for each pixel on the forest, resulting in a very large database with almost 1/2 million records. Information stored for each pixel included county, district, presence of special habitats, presence of riparian buffer, associated watershed and tie following vegetation information for u1p to 3 canopy layers: tree species composition, average dbh of trees, canopy cover and vegetation series. Tile vegetation information was used to classify each pixel into a series of categories, from a complex classification scheme to a simple scheme. The most: complex scheme has up to 18 structural categories within each vegetation series (community) and the simplest scheme hlas Only 3 structural categories (early, mid, and Late seral). The '"ni.cliuin"' scheIIle yelate-s d(itveerLy t:o !.h;e bLL It categories in the WIRI/LH dao abase.

Guilding Species

Wildlife species were grouped into "life-history guilds". Spec ies were first divided into 3 groups: _e habitathscd cdaun obligates, r iL) arianrauL habitat obligates, and terLrestrial habitat users. The r arian habi t:at: and lerrestrial habitat groups w(ere then furt:her divided into guilds. The spec, iL and c Fri7 T7I- r Uf gfil.d tltJ wre tL' terd as indiv idull specieS.

The terrestri;il habitat grGoup was divided into guilds based on coiiibi nations ni' hom01e range sizo cattLgory, patch configuration use, and use of ear.ly, mid, oL late? scrsal habitats. lHomo range size categories included: snmi .icf J6i

mdigaLs0(- 1, 00() acres) anld .arge (>1.,00( acres). Patch cOnf iakltltion -~ c-ategories incluuded: patclf(use I foThogeneous patch) , mosaic (aggrreate patches). contrast (use 2 dii ferent seral stages in cloe___xint Iy) , anit g rlist (use a variety!, F rtaio-) . The patch configur atioLn *.ategorLir(s are described ain more detail in Appendix A under the INFO.DB Patch/.Mosaic i ic Id.

The riparian habitat group was fuLLther divided into guilds based on combinations of assouiation withI eaterbody,i aquticq or terpcstri. portion os' ripariaa habitat, and early or mid/late seral stages. Water body categories included takes, riverine, or lake and riverine. Aquatic/terrestrial categories included association with aquatic portion of L'iparian habitat only, terrestrial portion of aquatic habitat only, or both.

As a result of thte process 285 species were grouped into 18 terrestrial gUi ld,;

and 13 'iparipn.n guiltds; 22 species were special and unique habitat obligates -< that were not guilded. , -r&h4zi6oNl(y

Some species needed to be placed in guilds based on professiona.L Judgemient because they did not fit the rules used to group species. Each guild was reviewed to ensure the species in the groups were applicable based on Our knowledge of the species. Several hardwood obligates and bats were guilded using professional judgement rather than a strict application of the rules.

Linkage Analysis - Linking the Vegetation and WHR/Lif Databases

Once the vegetation and llfR lI databases are complete it is relatively splu to create habitat maps for individual species through UTOOLS/UMAP. Each pi:el that is in a classificatiot-r'category that the species uses is mapped. Iccr. even though each pixel stores information about vegetation structure and composition needed to evaluate habitat suitability, that information applies onlly to each individual pixel. and not the surrounding landscape.. "Linkage analysis" was developed to assess the adeq~uacy of amount and distributtion oi habitat for guilds of species from a landscape perspective. TIhe steps in linkage analysis are outlined below.

Step I - CREATE PATCH MAP

An isolated 2.5 acre pixel of "habitat" is probably not adequate to SUppOrt most species. Thus it was necessary to determine if'each pixel belongs to a patch, antd to determine the size of the patch. A FORTRAN program was writrcsi to "grow" pixels into patches based on the type of habitat surrounding each pixe eparate atch maPS were created for arly, mid, and late setajL_ habitats. Early/mid seral and mid/late serlol patches were also cLeated to I ' U.%S ISb II l I 1)(-t.eeL I !, (,LL.t ct 1. L s '~ i lIt,l. ;1!Ielt'- e . ;ltt-(d :x * :Lh (r 1 L 'm.1): 1:r!, . 1', stages.

Step 2 - DETERMINE SUITABILITY FOR EACH GUILD

Ohce each pixel was identified as belonging to a patch each pixel wAas a ssessed f'or suitability for guilds. Habitat for patch species was assessed by determining if each pixel belonged to a minimum sized patch. For mosaic and contrast species the assessment, wlas done by centering a home ranlge sizod circ]e 6dn each pixel an(1 analyzing amount and distributLon of habitat within that; circ]e. The pixel needed to be the correct seral stage and be part of a eatch of mdinfminnsi' sizesTeze toe s4T e Jh also -iiee-ed<,d to be a mimilmlu arnount: ot' habitat within or'adjcent _to th lLomerangeecircle,,orthe pixel to be consid!Jred habitat.

For mosair and contrast species 4 different home range radii were used. 'he 225 m radius (52 acres) relates to the small home range category, 600 Im (',C( ac~res) relatcs to l!_)nit spe~ieS~ --hle medium homle range category, 1135`5in acres) 'relates to soine species in botfh me-iunm and farge home range categories, ~and thle 197 m1(30 acre r7ei at esto mosl speclhs in the large home range category. The home range radius applied to each guild depended on average hcme ranige size of the najority of species in the guild. These radii can be challedi to any home rnnge size during intiation of the programl.

The rules used for each group on the Mt. Hood follow. The parameters c an all be changedl at the beginning of the program to account for better local information or 4.1 erntassuiptions . fe p conservative. Our _iLxbjective q

GENERALIST SPECIES

All pixels are considered habitat

PATCH SPECIES 1 -3

Home Range Class Minimum patch size

Small 20 acres

Medium 500 qcres

Large nospecies |

MOSAIC SPECIES - this includes "generalists" that use jus early and tid oi just mid and late seral stages.

Home Range Radius Acres Min patch size % 1laib tat Total Auitable

225 m 52 14.8 acres 50% 30 acres (70"o)

800 mn 500 20 acres 50% 350 acres (70,')

L135 in 100l 20 acres 50% 700 acres (70°)

1970 in 3007 40 acres 50% 2100 ac (70'd)

' Home Range Radius = the scan distance froil tihe ceniter of, each pixl-a r-elates to the hlome range s Lze for tL±GII gUild,

Acres = the number of acres encompassed by the circle, home range size

Min patch size= each pixel must belong t~o a patch of habitat at Least this size to be considered a habitat patch

7'%habitat = percent of area within the c.Lrcle that mulst be. in habitat patches

K,(of minimum size) averaged for all pixels in the patch- 50% is based onl information on composition of home ranges of' northern spotted owls (Bart. UAnd

If' -~Foresman, 199)2), pileated woodpeckers (IDryocopus pileattus) (!Aellen et mlr., 1992) , anld pine marten (~Iartes amer~icana) (Jones and Raphael, 1991) "'Total suitable= amount of habitat kwhich must be in patches within the circde or in patches that the outer edge 'of' thO Circle tOLcheOs - 11oSt Of these nr :

Ou~tcomeS - each pixel is assigned a number based on how it contributes to habitat

o not suitable seral stage - pixel is not the correct seral. stage to be * - habitat

I = pixel is part of suitable large patch - part of a habitat patch that is 50% of the home range size or larger

2 = pixel is part of suitable >aggregation - part of a habitat patch which mie(ts minimumn patch size and 50%- of area of circle around the patch is inl habi cat;

3= pixel, is part of suitable dispersed habitat - part of a habitat patch thich meeits minimum patch, size and enough habitat is intersected by the radius olr the circle around the pixel to meet total suitable habitat requiremont; (acres ecjual to 70%/ if home range size)

/4 pixel is not suitable but contributing - meets minimuttm habitat patch size and contributes to making another pixel in another habitat patch suitabl)e; there is not enough habitat around #/4l pixels to call it habitat; but when the circle is moved to t]he center of another pixel the #/4 Contributes to total suitable habitat for the patch to which the pixel belongs

5 pi41---rpCsial isolated - meets, minimum patch size,' but, doesn'tL rt:(iL tha~yr 704 rules and doesn' t contribute to another patch, that is

6 pixel is not suitable size - part of a patch that doesn't meet the mi aimu-11 patch size Decision 171-owchavt

Suitable Seral Stage?

YE'S NO ------Not. suitablp sermi stage (Ou~tcoM 0)

Pixel in patch .larger than minimnUm size?

YES NO------> Not suitable size (Outcome 6)

Large patch >= 50%. of' lome range size? I,I NO YES ------> Suitable large patch (Outcome I)

>minimum patch size and > 50% fil suitable?

NO Y~ES ------> Suitable aggregation (Outcome 2)

) inmum patch size and > total suitable habitat patches at, edge of' home range circle?

NO YE~S------> Suitable dispersed (Outcome 3)

> .inmumpatch size and contributes to making another patch suitable?

NO Y~ES------> Not sulitable but contributing (Outcome 14)

) minimum patch size only?

YES------> Not suitable isolated (Outcome 5) CONTRAST SPECIES 4 ,JV t /< t X,

Step 1 - generate a separate patch maps with late seral and early seral paichcls:s which meet inijmum patch SiZO. An >KS

Step 2 - merge the early and late seival pat~ch maps 0 f

Step 3 - take each pixel that is withini a 1ate patch and ______~~~~~(iL i!iac -vwdetrine-determine if'aif an 0'aLly,al ^lz'-4 seral pixel is w Lh in a given d i.s taice (buffer Wid th) - if so codrke a:3 A late] contLra!-st habitait. Repeat Cor marly seral pixels

1 S tep 4 - within tile home range radius oi' each contrast pixel determine the? number of acres in early contrast and late contrast habitat. Early awl late contrast habitat must each bl Li at least 25% of total contrast habitat to ensure adequate contrast. Late and early contrast habitat combined must Lbe at Ileast 20'. of the area of' the home range circle around the pixel L'or the pixel to remain suitable. Both the 25% contrast and 20% total habitat c:an be modified in the program.

Home Range Radius A c res Mml patch s ize Buffer width Habitat

225 III 52 .8 ac es 10011l 20 %

800 II 500 10 acres 200 20%

1135 Il 1001 10 acres 200 20%

1970 m 3007 20 acres 400 20%

Outcomes

0 = pixel is not; suitable

1 = pixel is Suitable and is part of an early patch

2 = pixel is suitabile and is part of a late patch

List of Species and Acres of Habitat- by Landscape (Watershed)

The Linkage Analysis was conducted at the l'orest scale. Lists of guilds, § species and amount of habitat was assessed at the Watershed scale. Because species will readily cross watershed boundaries, habitat outside the watershed contributed to making pixels of habitat within the watershed suitable. However, only pixels within the watershed wtere tallied to calculate amount of habitat in the watershed.

Each watershed was analyzed for all guilds on the forest. If adequate amounts and distribution of habitat was available for the guild the guild was initially listed as having habitat in the watershed. The next step was to examine the list of species in those guilds to determlne %-hichl species in the guilds might occur in the watershed. IC the species occurred in counties that were included in the watershed and the species used habitats in communities (vegetation series) that~occurred in the watershed then the species were listed as potentially occurring in the watershed. [tI Io I t t oFitI ' I:it. ' ..Ili i I!5 I i 1':' i d rit: OqiL C I ot ctIres he irg .a-.:ilab Ia farach- *-:.c s wi EL ii thi guild. -_ '281 iI ;iyl , to_1ssess ing-in ELtaLti. men.rlU 'tTnoia sreen- et -eru i ne-if-r.adeq Liutc jlijj, I o(curs in a waters"'wd for grotips of species that we nxpecttotreaL to_ uJFfjrent (TislrFitlo-ns .na amouats of h11abit.ats ill rinmlar ways. Th( anir int; oL acres of habi6tat;For each gui.d till aiTin dte in~iig relative amounts oL habitat for different groups of species. For those euilds with very little habitat in the watershed a closer look at t.he spe(ies within the gui tl Play7 T1) wtarranHted-. ' --

LITERATURE CITED

Ager, .Alan. UjOTI,.S /U'l4AP. Computer software. Umatilla National Forest.

BPlrt, .Jonathan; Forsman , Fric D. 1992. Dependence of norther spoti ed ow ls StriX occiden alis cau il on hld-growth foreslts in the western USA. 13i.ological. Conservatioan 62:95-100.

5lfnl'en, Andrew J. ; Urban, Deall L. 1992. Avian ressponse to lanldscape pattern: the role of spe-Cies life histories. Landscape Ecology 7(3): 163-iSo.

Jones, I.awrence I. ; Raphael, 'artin G. 1991. Eycology and management of marten in tr'vgemented halbi tats of the Pacific Northwest. Progress Report.: FiscaL Year 1'391. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Olympia, WA. Unpublished report. 26 + pp).

Lehmkuhl, John F.; Raphael, Martin G. 1993. Hlibi tat pattern around northern spotted owl locations on thle Olympic Peninsula, Washington. Journal of Wildlife Management 57:302-315.

Lehmkuhl, John F.; Ruggiero, Leonard F. 1991. Forest fragmentation in tihe Pacific Northwest and it.; potential effects on wildlife. In: Ruggiero, Leonard F.; Atibry, Keith 13. ; Carey, Andrew B.; Huff, Mark H., tech. coords. Wildlife and vegetation of unmanaged DougLas-fir forests. Gen. TEcch. Rep. PNW-GTR-28.35. Portland, UR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station: 35-116.

Mellen, T. Kim; Meslow, F. Charles; Mannan, R. William. 1992. Summertime home range and habitat use of pileated %woodpeckers in western Oregon. J. Wildl. Manage. 56(l):96-103.

Ruggiero, Leonard F.; Aubry, Keith B.; Carey, Andrew B.; Huff, Mark 1., tech. coords. Wildlifeand vegetation of unmanaged Douglas-fir forests. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-285. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station:

Thomas, Jack Ward, tech. ed. 1979. Wildlife habitats in managed forests: the Blue Mountains of Oregon and Washington. Portland, OR: U.S. DepartmenlL of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Forest and RAnge Experiment Station. 512 p. APIPENDIX A

Data dictionary f'or WHR/L~i da~tabase September 1994 INSTRUCTIONS FOR PATCH AND HABITAT SUITABILITY PROGRAMS Th1TERPRETING LANDSCAPE PATTERNS: A VERTEBRATE HABITAT RELATIONSHIPS APPROACH

series of programs and scripts need to be run to complete the analysis of wildlife habitat as it relates to different landscape patterns. Read the README.DOC file first, then read through the steps in this document once before working through each step one at a time. To install the programs, copy WHRPROG.EXE to the desired directory and type "WHRPROG" to extract the files. The WHRPROG.EXE file is a self-extracting zip file that contains the following files: README.DOC - a text file that documents the analysis approach and concepts used PATCH.SC - a Pa-adox script to create the input file for PATCH.EXE PATCII.EXE - a Fortran program that creates patches from pixels PATCfI.ELP, - help screens for the PATCH.EXE program SUIT.EXE - a Fortran program that analyzes suitable habitat for mosaic spocies SUIT.HLP - help screens for the SUIT.EXE program CONTRAST.EX8 - a Fortran program that analyzes suitable habitat for contrast species CONTRAST.HLP - help screens for the CONTRAST.EXE program LOAD-MAP.SC - a Paradox script that loads the output file from the PATCIH.EXE program into Paradox databases LOAD-PAT.SC - a Paradox script that loads the output files from the PATCH.EXE and SUIT.EXE programs into Paradox databases LOAD-CON.SC - a Paradox script that loads the output file from the CONTRAST.EXE program into a Paradox database BASE-ADJ.DB, BASE-MAP.DB, BASESTAT.DB, BASESUIT.DB, AND BASE-CON.DB are all table structures for the Paradox databases created by the LOAD-PAT.SC and LOAD-CON.SC scripts - the load scripts need these to run. DEF04.PRM - default patch creation parameters for creating patches with PATCH.EXE when minimum size of a patch is 4-9 acres DEFlO.PRM - default patch creation parameters for creating patches with PATCH.EXE when minimum size of a patch is 10-19 acres DEF20.PRM - default patch creation parameters for creating patches with PATCH.EXE when minimum size of a patch is 20-39 acres DEF40.PRM - default patch creation parameters for creating patches with PATCH.EXE when minimum size of a patch is 40-99 acres DEF10O.PRM - default patch creation parameters for creating patches with PATCH.EXE when minimum size of a patch is 100 or more acres DOSXMSF.EXE - a Fortran file that must be in the path to run the PATCH.EXE, SUIT.EXE, and CONTRAST.EXE programs The user should become familiar with the documentation of the process in "Interpreting landscape patterns: a vertebrate habitat relationships approach" by Kim Mellen, Mark Huff and Rich Hagestedt before running any of the programs. This document is the README.DOC file. These instructions will refer the reader back to that document. BASIC STEPS: 1 - Create input file for PATCH.EXE program - run once, file will be used for all guilds. 2 - Run PATCIH.EXE program to create patches using default parameters or your own parameters. This program needs to be run for each combination of habitat type and minimum patch size - basically once for each guild (with some exceptions). 3 - Run LOAD-MAP.SC script to import results into a Paradox database. - Run SUIT.EXE program for each mosaic guild. Run LOAD-PAT.SC script to import results into Paradox databases. - Run CONTRAST.EXE program for each contrast guild. 7 - Run LOAD-CON.SC script to import results into a Paradox database. Additional steps may include creating a Paradox database with a separate fi for each guild indicating suitability of each pixel. UMAP or UVIEW may also be used to view habitat for each guild. A MOSS export program is available from Rich Iiagestedt to create MOSS map files from the output files which can be printed at any scale through MOSS GIS systems.

**** STEP BY STEP INSTRUCTIONS FOR EACH TYPE OF GUILD ****

** ALL GUILDS ** COMPLETE BASICS STEP 1 - Create the input file for PATCH.EXE program The PATCH.EXE program is a compiled Fortran program that requires and ASCII file for input. The input map file must have UTM coordinates and a SINGLE character attribute for habitat type (eg "L" for late seral habitat). The Paradox script PATCH.SC will extract the UTM coordinates and attribute codes fromn the Paradox vegetation database and format them for use in the PATCH.EXE program. The vegetation database must have at a minimum a field for UTM coordinates and a field with a single character habitat code. Read the PATCHoHLP document for more detailed information (this is a text file that can be printed separately or accessed from within the PATCH.EXE program- instruction for access from within program occur later in this document). To run PATCH.SC the user needs to have the script and the vegetation database in the same directory. Then the user can either log on to that directory and type "PARADOX PATCH.SC" or start Paradox and then play the PATCH.SC script. The screens will prompt the user to indicate the table and fields in which t data are located. Use the arrow keys to highlight the seIected :able or fields. The first screen will give some information, the Xsecond screen will have the user select the database, the third screen will have the user select the field containing the UTM coordinates, and the 4th screeln wi.l. have the user select the field containing the habitat code. The last screen-t will prompt the user for the output filename. Enter a name that will be nasy to remember, the program will automatically add the file extension .TXT to the file name. The script will automatically exit out of Paradox when it is done.

The output of this script is a map file in ASCII format that contains UTAH coordinates and a single character habitat type code. THIS STEP ONLY NEEDS TO BE DONE ONCE - THE FILE IS USED AS THE INPUT MAP IN THE PATCH PROGRAM4 FOR EVERY GUILD OR RUN OF THE PATCH PROGRAM.

COMPLETE BASIC STEP 2 - Run the PATCH.EXE program to create a patch map Before proceeding further it may be useful to create a matrix displaying the different combinations of habitat type and minimum patch size used for each guild to be analyzed. This will allow the user to see if some patch maps created in Basic Step 2 can be used for more that one guild. EXAMPLE MATRIX (used for Mt. Hood Guilds) - see the README.DOC file for more information and guild codes.

GUILD MIN PATCH SIZE HABITAT TYPE(S) rs PE 20 Early PIME 20 Early PLC 20 Early TLC 20 Late PMML. 20 Late TSPL 20 Late TIjlML 20 Late LML 40 Late LME 40 Early %1MPE 500 Early TS PM 20 Mid TSC 4.8 Late TSC 4.8 Early TSME 4.8 Early TSMM 4.8 Mid rsGE14 4.8 Early & Mid TSGML 4.8 Mid & Late TMC 10 Early IFMc 10 Late

NOTE: Each Contrast guild needs 2 maps - an early and a late in the Mt. Hood case. Also TSGEM and TSGML need maps-of two habitat types together on the same map. These parameters can all be changed in the program if local conditions or information warrant. To begin the program make sure the PATCH.EXE, PATCH.HLP, and the text file created in Basic Step 1 are all in the same directory., The DOSXMSF.EXE file also needs to be in the directory or in the path. The PATCH program requires 2 types of inputs in 2 different steps. The first part is to identify the Basic Run Parameters. The second part is to identify the Patch Creation Assumptions. ID THE BASIC RUN PARAM4ETERS rype "PATCH" to begin running the program. The screens will give some formation and prompt the user for input. IF AT ANY POINT AN ENTRY ERROR IS ,DE DON'T PANIC - THE PROGRAM ALLOWS CHANGES TO BE MADE AFTER ALL PARAMETERS

The first screen will ask -

***** ******************************************************************* **** * * * Do you want to: * * 1) Run the program interactively, entering values when prompted? * * 2) Run the program from the parameters stored in a control file? * * 3) View additional information screens before proceeding? * 0) Quit? * * ,* * Please enter a number from 0 to 3: * *E * ** ** ***** ** **** ** ******** ***** ********* ************ ** ************ ** * *********

If the user has not already printed out and read the PATCH.HLP file select "3" and view the help screens before proceeding. These help screens give details about running the program that will not be repeated entirely in these instructions!!! For option 2) read the help screens for details. AthenI"I" is selected the program will prompt the user for a the Basic Run Parmeters as follows: ********* * ***************** ************************************************* * Enter the name of the input file: * Or ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~* * * *** * ******** *** *********************** ******** ******i** ** *********** *** **** This is the output file from the PATCH.SC script with the *.TXT extension that was created in Basic Step 1. The user must type in the full file name _ including the .TXT extension. After the output file is entered the screan will prompt:

********** ****** ******** * * *** * ******** ******* ******* **** ****** ***** ***** ** **** * *** * * k Enter the name of the patch output file [PATCH.MAPI:- * * * * ** ********* ******* ********** *** * ***** ********** **** ***** ****** ***** **** ***k** At this point determine the name of the output file with a .MAP extenstion. The subsequent steps will vary depending on whether the default file name is used or a new name is designated. If the default file name is designated the user should run through all the steps for each guild - from creating the patch map up through loading the output files into Paradox - before renaming any files. This will allow the user to use the Paradox LOAD-***.SC scripts without editing them. After completing the last step for each guild all the output files and databases will need to be renamed before re-runing any of the programs so that the files will not be overwritten. If just the ENTER key is pressed the program will automatically select PATCH.MAP as the output file name. If the user decides to create new output file names, a suggested naming convention is PAT***.MAP with *** indicating the habitat type and patch size (eg PATL20.MAP would be the patch map for late seral habitat with a 20 acre minimum patch size). If the user decides to designate a unique name for each OL Paradox LOAD-***.SC scripts will need to be edited to load the correct output files.

Note: Before running the CONTRAST program at least one of the 2 patch maps required by the program will need to be renamed. If the patch map is also used by a Patch or Mosaic guild, complete the analysis for those guilds firs if you want to use the LOAD-***.SC scripts without editiing them. After an output file name is designated the program will prompt:

* ** ***** * ****** ************** *********** ** **** * ******** ** *** ** ************ **** * * * Enter pixel size in meters per side: * * ,* k***************************************************************** ***********

Enter the pixel size from the vegetation database/map (eg. 1 ha pixels =lOOm, and 2 acre pixels = 90 m). The program will then prompt:

**** *** *** ** ******************* ************* ************** **** *** *** ** ****.* **** * * * Enter the patch attribute codes. * A; ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~* k Enter a patch code: *~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ s****************** *********** ********************** **** * * * *** ** *** * ******** ¢* **-xk

At this point enter the code(s) that are to be considered habitat for the run. They need to be 1 character and the program is case sensitive - ie. if the database has caps, enter the code in caps. The user can enter up to 10 codes as habitat. Enter each code on a separate line by pressing ENTER after typing each separate habitat code. Pressing the ENTER key withol. a code will move the user on to the next prompt. For example the sequence fo a Mid/Late generalist guild would be:

* * * * * ***** ********* * * ** ******* ******* **** * ********* * * *** *** ******** **** *** * * * a * * Enter a patch code:m * Enter a patch code:L Enter a patch code: k

The program will next prompt the user:

A **** ** **** ************* ** ***** ****r** ***** *** *** ** *** ******* **** ***** ** ** * * ** * * * * Enter the non-patch attribute codes. * * * Enter a non-patch code: * * * *** * ************* **** **** *** *** **** *** **** *** ***** ************* ***** ** **** *****

At this point enter the codes of any vegetation types that should not be considered habitat. Again the user can enter up to 10, 1 character codes. Again, pressing the ENTER key without a code will move the user on to the next prompt. Following the Mid/Late generalist example E (for early) and N (for non-vegetated) would be non-patch codes entered as follows:

* * * Enter a non-patch code:E- * Enter a non-patch code:N * * Enter a non-patch code: * * * *************************************************************************** ***

The program will next prompt the user:

************************************************************************** **** * Enter the minimum patch size in acres: *

Enter the minimum patch size for the guild being analyzed. Refer to the the example matrix above to see which minimum patch sizes were used for guilds on the Mt. Hood National Forest. The program will then summarize the values that have been input on the screen and prompt -

* '* * Do you want to: * * 1) Run the program with these values? * -k 2) View/Change the patch creation assumptions? * * 3) Change a single entry? 4) Start over and enter all the values again? * * 5) Save the current parameters for future use? * * 0) Quit? * * * * Please enter a number from 0 to 5: * * *

If an input error was made choose "3" or "4" and follow instructions on the screen. If the same parameters will be used again they can be saved in a 'ntrol file - see the help screens for more information. A control file is ,ood way to save and document the parameters that were used. ID THE PATCH CREATION ASSUMPTIONS At this point the user needs to provide the second part of the input for the-- program - identify the Patch Creation Assumptions. Before choosing "1" and running the program select "2" and check on the Patch Creation Assumptions. The program will display a screen with the Patch Creation Assumptions and. will prompt -

******* ** ********** * ***** ******* **** ****** *********** **** ** *** **** *** **** *** ** * * * * V Do you want to: * * 1) Run the program with these values? * * 2) View/change the basic run parameters? * 3) Modify these values? * 4) Read a stored set of customized values? X 5) Store the displayed values as a customized set? * * 6) Reset the values to ,-he defaults? * * 0) Quit? * ** * Please enter a number from 0 to 6: * A* *** ****** **** ***** **** ***** *** **** ** **** **** *********** **** ******* ********* * ** *

The details as to what the patch creation assumptions indicate will be forthcoming in a separate document. It is recommended that the user select "'4" and use the default parameters in the DEF**.PRM files provided with the program. The ** in the name indicates the file contains patch creation assumptions that have been tested for a for minimum patch size of **. See the description of files on the first page for the range of minimum patch sizes for which each *.PRM file is applicable. These default parameters have been created and tested for databases/maps with a pixel size of 100 meters. If the pixel size is less than about 80 meters or greater than about 120 meters the user will want to test different patch creation assumptions and examine the logic of the resulting patches. If new assumptions are created it is recommended that the user select "5"1 and store them for documentation and future use. After selecting "4" and entering the default file name, the program will display the new patch creation assumptions and give the same prompt as before. At this point select "1"' to run the program or "12" to go back to the 1st input screen if the user has changed their mind about the Basic Run Parameters and wants to change habitat types or minimum patch size, etc. The program will take several minutes to an hour or so to run depending on the size of the vegetation database. The computer will beep when it is done and the screen will state "Done!". The output file will be a comma delimeted ASCII file with UTM'coordinates for each pixel, and Patch type, and patch number to which each pixel belongs. The 3 possible patch type codes are P, S, N. "P" indicates the pixel belongs to a patch of habitat that meets the minimum patch size; "S" indicates the pixel is scattered habitat, it is the correct seral stage but belongs to a patch that is smaller than the minimum patch size; "N" indicates the pixel is non-habitat - the wrong seral stage. only those pixels with a "P" are assigned a patch number in the last column.

** GENERALIST GUILDS ** By definition all seral stages provide habitat for Generalist species,. so there is no need to run an analysis on these guilds. The exceptions are the Mid/late and Early/mid generalists guilds (eg. TSGML and TSGEM) - these guilclM should be treated as MOSAIC guilds - see instructions below. I ** PATCH GUILDS ** COMPLETE BASICS STEPS 1 AND 2 AS DESCRIBED ABOVE. Remember, Basic Step At only needs to be completed once for each analysis area. The Teated file will be used as the input to Basic Step 2 for every guild or run. ft'f the default file name was used for the output file from the PATC11.EYX program, complete all steps for each guild in order, guild by guild. if i-he user designated new file names for the output files each step can be run one at a time - ie step by step instead of guild by guild. For patch guilds the output file from the PATCH program (Basic Step 2) will provide the information needed to determine habitat for the guild. Patch type "P" is habitat for these guilds. If the patch size is also desired, the user can run the steps for the Mosaic guilds - patch size is calculated and displayed in the output file PATSUIT.MAP. See instructions for running the program for Mosaic species below. COMPLETE BASIC STEP 3 - Run LOAD-MAP.SC to import output file into Paradox If the output fro-in the PATCH program is determined to be the adequate amount of information (don't care about patch size) the output file can be loaded into Paradox at this point. The output file is in ASCII format and will he easier to view and interpret if loaded into Paradox. UMAP or UVIEW can then be used to view habitat for each guild. The LOAD-MAP.SC script will import the output file from the PATCH program into Paradox. The script uses the structure in the 13ASE-MAP.DB to create a Paradox table. The script runs only in Paradox for DOS version 4.0 or greater. If the default output file name was used in the PATCH program just get into Paradox and play the script or type "PARADOX LOAD-MAP.,SC" from the DOS prompt. The output file, BASE-MAP.DB, and script must be in the same directory. If the default file name was not used in the PATCH program the script will need to be edited to change the default file name to the file name used.

** MOSAIC GUILDS ** COMPLETE BASICS STEPS 1 AND 2 AS DESCRIBED ABOVE. Remember, Basic Step 1 only needs to be completed once for each analysis area. The created file will be used as the input to Basic Step 2 for every guild or run. If the default file name was used for the output file, complete all steps for aach guild in order, guild by guild. If the user designated new file names for the output files each step can be run one at a time - ie step by step instead of guild by guild.

COMPLETE BASIC STEP 4 - run SUIT.EXE program for each Mosaic guild rhe next step is to run the SUIT.EXE program. The program needs to be run for aach MOSAIC guild. It is highly recommended that the user read the SUIT.HLP Jocument by printing out the file or reading the screens within the SUIT.EXE program. ro run the program make sure the SUIT.EXE, SUIT.H{LP, and the output file created by the PATCH.EXE program for each guild (or other source - see next: naragraph) are in the same directory. The DOSXMSF.EXE: file also needs to be in the directory or in the path.

If the user already has a map with patches identified the program can be run ising that information rather than the map Venerated from the PATCH.EXE ?rogram. The information would need to be in a ASCII format with the ;tructure descriped in the help screens. You would also need to eliminate . patches smaller than the minimum patch size from consideration as habitat -he patch code for the smaller patches would need to be "S" instead of "tp". Pype "SUIT" to begin running the program. The screens will give some information and prompt the user for input.

rhe first screen will ask -

*** **** ******************* *** **** ** ******** ***** ** ***k*** ********* * ** **** **** *** * * k Do you want to: * 1) Run the program interactively, entering values when prompted? * k 2) Run the program from the parameters stored in a control file? * * 3) View additional information screens before proceeding? * * 0) Quit? * * * * Please enter a number from 0 to 3: * * .*

if the user has not already printed out and read the SUIT.HLP file, select "3" and view the help screens before proceeding. Phese screens give details about running the program that will not be repeated entirely in these instructions!'! For option 2) read the help screen under "Program Operation" for more details. Phe user will usually select option "1" to run the program. IF AT ANY POINT .NN ENTRY ERROR IS MADE DON'T PANIC - THE PROGRAM ALLOWS CHANGES TO BE MADE AFTER ALL PARAMETERS ARE ENTERED BUT BEFORE RUNNING THE PROGRAM. The program will then prompt the user for a number of input parameters as follows:

** ***** ** *********** ********************************************************** * * k Enter the name of the patch file [PATCH.MAP]: * k******* ** **** **** ** * ************ *************** ******* ******** **** ***** ***** *

Nt this point the user needs to enter the name of the patch map either from the PATCH.EXE program or other source. If the default file name was used in the PATC11.EXE program just press ENTER. She next 3 prompts ask the user for the name of output files.

* ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~* e Enter a patch suitability map filename [PATSUIT.MAP): *

4******* *********************************************************************** k * * Enter a suitability statistics filename [PATSTAT.TBL]: * .t *

* * k Enter a neighboring patch list filename (PATADJ.TBL]: *

'. **************** ********************** ***************************** ******* ** *

Phe user may determine names for the output files. If the ENTER key is Dressed the program will automatically name the files with the names in Drackets. The LOAD-PAT.SC will look for these default output names, incl.uding :he input file, PATCH.MAP. If the user names the output files by a different lames the LOAD-PAT.SC script will need to be edited before playing the script. [f the default names are used the user will need to run LOAD-PAT.SC and then _ cename the resulting Paradox databases weith a names that relate to the run just completed. If the user wants to save the ASCII files they will need to )e renamed before the program is run again. The program will overwrite the lefault file names the next time the program is run and the output will be Lost if not renamed. ** **** *** **** ******** **** *************** ***** ****** ************* ** ** * ****b*** * * I * * Enter pixel size in meters per side: *

Enter the pixel size from the vegetation database/map, (eg 1 ha pixels =0oom, and 2 acre pixels = 90 m).

** ***********t********** ****************************** ******** ********* **** **** * * * Enter home range size in acres: * * ***,6*** ********* *** ** * ******* **** ************* ** ****** **** *** ******* * ******* ****

Enter the size of the home range for the guild being analyzed. The home range size will vary with the guild and the species in the guild. For mosaic and contrast species 4 different home range sizes were used. The 52 acre size relates to the small home range category guilds, 500 acre relates to most vuilds in the medium home range category, 1001 acre relates to some guilds in both medium and large home range categories, and 3007 acre relates to most guilds in the large home range category. These home range sizes are not even numbers because the program must aggregate whole pixels to form a home range circle - the result is odd numbers. The home range size applied to each guild depended on average home range size of the majority of species in the guild. See the table below for home range sizes used for guilds on the Mt. Hood National Forest. HR Category HR Acres Guilds Small 52 TSPE, TSPM, TSPL, TSME, TSMM, TSGEM, TSGML, TSC Medium 500 TMML, TMC ad or Large 1001 TMME Large 3007 TLME, TLML, TLC These home range sizes can be changed to any home range size during initiation of the program if local knowledge or conditions suggest different home range sizes.

The next 3 prompts will ask the user for the percentage of the home range size that is required'to meet suitability screens 1, 2, and 3.

* * **** ********* ** * ** *** ** ** *** *** * ** ** ** * ***** ** ** ** *F* ** * ** *** * ******** * *** k* * .* * To meet suitability screen #1, the individual patch must * * be a minimum size. k * ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~* * Enter the percentage of home range size that is required: * * * ** ********* ** ********************* ***** ****** * ** * ** * * **** * ** ***** ** *** * ****.** * * * To meet suitability screen #2, the patch must be located * in a home range that has a minimum number of acres in * suitable habitat. ** * Enter the percentage of home range size that is required: *

* ******** ******* **** **** ** *** * **** ************** ****** *** ***** ** **** ** * ** ** * ., ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~* 'To meet suitability screen #3, the patch and other connected patches must have a total acreage that is; an acceptable percentage of the home range size. A * * patch is connected if one pixel in that patch is * k within the home range. * * * * Enter the percentage of home range size that is required

**** * ***** **** **** ***** * * *** ** ***** ******* **** ** *** **** ******** ** **** *******':

Refer to the table below for the Percentages used for each guild on the Mt. Hood National Forest. These percentages can be changed if local conditions, objectives, or information warrant. These percentages are conservative - the Mt. Hood objective was to identify the good habitat not marginal habitat. HR Category Screen I Screen 2 Screen 3 Small 50% 50% 70% Medium 50% 50% 70% [4ed or Large 50% 50% 70% Large 50% 50% 70%

Screen 1 -- pixel is part of a SINGLE habitat patch that is 50% of the home range size or larger Screen 2 - pixel is part of a habitat patch which meets minimum patch size and > 50% of area of home range sized circle around the patch is in habitat patches greater than the minimum patch size. Screen 3 - pixel is part of a habitat patch which meets minimum patch size and enough habitat is intersected by the radius of the circle around the pixel to meet total suitable habitat requirement (acres equal to 70% of home range size) - rationale is there is enough habitat at the edge of the home range to make it worthwhile for the animal to travel the of the home range radius to use the habitat at the edge. After percentages are entered, the program will list the selected run parameters. Note that the program may use a home range size different from that entered by the user. The program evaluates a circular home range area and must count each pixel as either in or out. Therefore, it uses the number of pixels that most closely relates to the home range size that was input. At the bottom of the screen the program will ask-

* * * Do you want to: * * 1) Run the program with these values? * * 2) Change a single entryl * 3) Start over and enter all the values again? * * 4) Save the current parameters for future use? * 0) Quit? * * * * Please enter a number from 0 to 4: * .e ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~* x* **** ********** * ** *************** ******** * * ** ** ** ** * *********** * *** * ** * ******

If the user made an input error choose "12"' or "3" and follow the instructions Dn the screen. If the same parameters will be used again they can be saved in a control file by selecting "4". A control file is a good way to save and locument the parameters used for each guild. Select "1" to run the program. _ Fhe program will take several minutes to an hour or so to run depending on th size of the database. The computer will beep when it is done and the screen Fill state "Done!". All three output files are comma delimited ASCII files with information on pixels and patches. The PATSUIT.MAP output file contains the following nformation for each pixel: UTM Coordinate, Patch # the pixel belongs to, Wuitability score for the patch the pixel belongs to, and Patch Size for the patch the pixel belongs to. Suitability scores range! from 0 to 6 as follows: 0 = not suitable habitat - pixel is not the correct s;eral/structural stage 1-3 = see Screens 1-3 above 4 = pixel is not suitable, but may contribute to suitability of another pixel 5 = pixel is not suitable, isolated habitat - not enough habitat in home circle 6 = pixel is not suitable, part of a patch that doesn't meet the minimum patch size See the README.DOC file for more information and a decision flowchart.

COMPLETE BASIC STEP 5 - Run LOAD-PAT.SC to import results into Paradox The 3 output files from the SUIT.EXE are in ASCII format. The tables are easier to view and interpret if they are loaded into Paradox. UI4AP or UVIEW can then be used to view habitat for each guild. The LOAD-PAT.SC will import the output files from SUIT.EXE and the patch map file from PATCH.EXE into Paradox. The script uses the database structure in the B3ASE***.DBs to create the Paradox tables. The script runs only in Paradox for DOS version 4.0 or greater. If the default file names in the PATCH.EXE and SUIT.EXE programs were used just get into Paradox and play the scripts or type "PARADOX LOAD-PAT.SC". All the output files, base databases, and the script must be in the same directory. If new names were created for the output files the script will need to be edited to change the names of the default files to the names used. ie "PATCHMAP" database contains the fields: UTM, Type, and Patch#. For the w-iype field, "N" is non-habitat, "PI' is a patch larger than the minimum patch size, and,'IS" is scattered habitat smaller than the minimum patch size. The "PATSUIT" database contains the fields: UTM East UTM North, Patch #, Suitability, and Patch Size. The Patch field lists the patch number which relates to the "PATCHMAP" database. The Suitability field lists the outcomes as described above in Step 4. Patch size is in acres. NOTE THIS IS A CHANGE FROM EARLIER VERSIONS OF THE PROGRAM WHICH LISTED PATCH SIZE IN PIXELS. If the date on file SUIT.EXE is 7-08-94 the program is the old version and the patch size is in pixels. If the date on file SUIT.EXE is 8-31-94 the program is the new version and the patch size is in acres. Check the date on the file by using the DOS "'dir" command 6. use a DOS shell that: displays dates of files.

The PATSUIT database contains all the information needed to map habitat for the mosaic guilds and to calculate number of acres of habitat for each mosaic guild. The following databases contain information that may be helpful for further more detailed analysis of spatial relationships between patches. The "PATSTAT" database has numerous fields with information about adjacent patches and percent of the home range around the patch in suitable habitat. The first 3 fields are the most important. The Patch field is patch number and relates to the 2 previously mentioned databases. Suitability is the same as for the "PATSUIT" database except by patch instead of UTM. The Adjacent Size field lists the average of total acres of all habitat patches within the home range circles around the patch (average of values for -very pixel in the patch). Percent is average percent of habitat within the ne range circles around each habitat patch (average of values for every Xel in the patch). In the last 2 fields habitat is considered patches of Che correct type that meet minimum patch size for the guild. The next 10 fields contain information on the type of patches within the home range circle for the patch - again averaged for each pixel in the patch. # Suit * is the number of patches that meet suitability screen *. Size Suit * is the average number of acres in the home range circle that meet suitability screep--v

The "PATCHADJW" database lists, for each patch number, which other patches are within the home range surrounding that patch.

.~*CONTRAST GUILDS**

COMPLETE BASICS STEPS 1 AND 2 AS DESCRIBED ABOVE. Remember, Basic Step 1 only needs to be completed once for each analysis area. The created file will be used as the input to Basic Step 2 for every guild or run. The CONTRAST program requires 2 different patch maps for input - it analyzes t:he contrast between the 2 maps. Thus if the user decided to use the detault output file name from the PATCH program for ease in playing LOAD-PAT.SC or LOAD-MAP.SC, at least 1 of the output maps needs to be renamed prior to running the CONTRAST program. If the output map is also used for a Patch or Mosaic guild complete the analysis for those guilds, guild by guild, prior to running( the contrast program - the patch maps at that point should have been renamed after loading the ASCII files into Paradox for each guild. COMPLETE BASIC STEP 6 - Run CONTRAST.EXE program for each contrast guild rhe CONTRAST.EXE program needs to be run for each Contrast guild. It is highly recommended that the user read the CONTRAST.HLP document by printing out the file or reading the screen within the CONTRAST.EXE program. It is also recommended that the user run the SUIT.EXE program before the CONTRAST.EXE program. The SUIT.EXE program is better documented and with .nore detailed help screens. The concepts between the 2 programs are similar and experience with the SUIT.EXE program will aid in running the CONTRAST. EXE program. The CONTRAST.EXE program requires 2 patch maps - one for each type of habitat. The program analyzes the amount of contrast between 2 habitat types. As with the SUIT.EXE program, the maps can be generated from the PATCH.EXE program or from information from an existing map with patches delineated. Refer to instructions for Step 4 for details. To run the program make sure the CONTRAST.EXE, CONTRAST.HLP, and the 2 PAT***.MAP files created by the PATCH.EXE program or other source are in the same directory. The DOSXMSF.EXE file also needs to be in the directory or in the path. Type "CONTRAST" to begin running the program. The screens will give some general information and prompt the user for input. IF AT ANY POINT AN ENTRY ERROR IS MADE DON'T PANIC - THE PROGRAM ALLOWS CHANGES TO BE MADE AFTER ALL PARAMETERS ARE ENTERED BUT BEFORE RUNNING THE PROGRAM. The first screen will ask-

* Do you want to: * 1) Run the program interactively, entering values when prompted? * k 2) Run the program from the parameters stored in a control file? * * 3) View additional information screens before proceeding? * * Q) Quit? *

* Please enter a number from 0 to 3:

7** * **** ************** * ****** ** ****** *** ***:**** ** ********************* ** **** ** *

If the user has not already printed out and read the CONTRAST.HLP file, select "3" and view the help screen before proceeding. For option 2) refer to Step 4 - the concept is the same. F - "he user will usually select option "1" to run the program. The program will ien prompt the user for a number of input parameters as follows:

***** ****** ****** * ** ******* **** *** * ******* **** ******** ******** ** * ** ****** **** ** * *1* i Enter the filename for the first patch map: ** * * ********** ********** **** ******* **** *********** ***** **** ****** **** ** *** *** ** * Enter the name of one of the input maps. In the results from the program habitat determined suitable from this map will be given a "1".

***** * *** ************* **** ********** ***** ************ **k**** *********** * **** *** k

* Enter the filename for the second patch map: ** ***** ***** ***** * ** ********** ************ ******** ****** *** ******** *** ****** **** Enter the name of the other input map. In the results from the program habitat determined suitable from this map will be given a "2". Both these patch maps can be outputs from the PATCH.EXE program with the minimum patch size that relates to a Contrast guild - see Step 2. If an existing patch map is used, small patches will have to be coded as non-habitat or code "S". Refer to information on using other maps in Step 4.

** ** ** *********** *** ******* ************* ************ ***** ********** ************ * * * Enter a contrast map filename [CONTRAST.MAP]: * * *

,is prompt is asking the user for the name of the output file. If the '-ZNTER key is pressed the program will automatically name the output file CONTRAST.MAP. The LOAD-CON.SC script will look for this default name. If the user names the output file a different name the LOAD-CON.SC script will need to be edited before it is played. If the default name is used the user will need to run the LOAD-CON.SC script and rename the resulting Paradox database with a name that relates to the run just completed. The. program will overwrite the default file the next time the program is run.

* ***** ******** ** ** **** ************** * ****** ******** * * ******** ******** * *********# * :* * Enter pixel size in meters per side: * * * * ***** ****** * *** * *** ** ** * ** *** * * *** ****************** ** * ** ************ **** * ** **

Enter the pixel size from the vegetation database/map (eg. 1 ha pixels lOom, and 2 acre pixels = 90m).

****** *** ****** **** ************* * *** ********* ********k***** *** ** ** **** **** * * ** ** * ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~* * Enter the maximum distance in meters between contrasting pixels: * * **** * ****~~~~~***** *** ** ********** * * *****, ******** * * *** *y *** * * * **

The distance between contrasting pixels is the "buffer width" listed for the Contrast guilds in the table below. These are the values used for the analysis on the Mt. Hood. These values can be changed if local conditions, formation, or objectives warrant. These values result in a conservative sessment of habitat - the Mt. Hood objective was to identify the good qAbitat not marginal habitat. Refer to the README.DOC for more information. HR Category HR Acres Buffer Width % Habitat (Acres) % Type 1/2 small 52 100 m 20% (10) 25/25 Medium 500 200 m 20% (100) 25/25 Med/Large 1000 200 m 20% (200) 25/25 Large 3000 400 m, 20% (600) 25/25

**** ****************** * ******* ********** ******** *** ************* ** *** * ***** ** * * * * Enter the home range size in acres: * *.*

Enter the size of the home range for the guild being analyzed. See the table above for sizes used for the Mt. Hood analysis. As with the Mosaic guilds -- the home range size applied to each guild will depend on the average home range size of the majority of the species in the guild (especially important to determine for 1000 acre category).

** ********** ************************* ***************************************** * * * Within the HRR, enter minimum acres of contrast habitat: * * * ****** ************************************************************************

HRR means home range radius. Refer to the % habitat (acres) for Contrast guilds in the above table. Note that the input is in acres within the home range not percent so number of acres needs to be entered not percent. This prompt and input tells the program what portion of the home range circle-. around each pixel must be in contrast habitat, where contrast habitat is defined as any habitat from input map 1 or 2 that is within the buffer width of habitat from the opposite input map. For example and early seral pixeL is considered habitat for a small home range guild if it is within 100 m of a late seral patch of at least the minimum patch size and visa versa.

***** **************************************************************k********.*** * * * Within the HRR, what percentage must be patch type 1: * * * **************************************************************************** ** * * * Within the HRR, what percentage must be patch type 2: * * O* *** ****************************************** *****************'********* *** ****X

These two prompts ask what percent of the total contrast habitat must be in type 1 or type 2 habiat to ensure adequate contrast. Refer to the table above under the %Type 1/2 column to see percentages used for the Mt. Hood analysis. This input is designed to make sure that there is enough contrast in the habitat in the home range - the contrast habitat should not be dominated by type 1 or type 2 habitat. Answering the prompt with minimum of 25% from both type 1 and 2 gives a ratio of no larger than 3:1 of one type of habitat to the other. After the percentages are entered the program will list the selected run parameters. Note that the program uses a home range size different from that entered by the user. The program evaluates a circular home range area and must count each pixel as either in or out. Therefore, it uses the number : of pixels that most closely relates to the home range size that was input. At the bottom of the screen the program will ask- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~* Do you want to: 1) Run the program with these values? * 2) change a single entry? * 3).Start over and enter all the values again? * 4) Save the current parameters for future use? * 0) Quit? * he ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~* e Please inter a number from 0 to 4: * t \ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~* * **** ********* ****** **** * *************** * ************ * ********* ** * ***** ***** *

rf the user made an input error choose "2" or "3" and follow the instructions )n the screen. If the same parameters will be used again they can be saved in a control file by selecting "4". A control file is a good way to save and Jocument the parameters used for each guild. ;elect "I" to run the program. rhe program will take several minutes to an hour or so to run depending on the ;ize of the database. The computer will beep when it is done and the screen jill state "Done!". Che output file is a comma delimited ASCII file with 2 columns - the UTM :oordinates and "1" or "2" to indicate that each pixel is considered suitable iabitat of type 1 or type 2 habitat (en. early or late). Unlike the output Crom the SUIT.EXE program the output file does not list all UTMs in the nalysis area - just those that are suitable habitat.

:OMPLETE BASIC STEP 7 - Run LOAD-CON.SC script to import results into Paradox The CONTRAST.EXE program creats an output file in ASCII format. he1 file is easier to view and interpret if it is loaded into Paradox. XP or UVIEW can then be used to view habitat for each guild. The -AD-CON.SC script will import the output file from CONTRAST.EXE into Paradox. che script uses the database structure in the BASE-CON.DB to create the Paradox table. The script runs only in Paradox for DOS version 4.0 or greater.

Cf the default file name "CONTRAST.MAP" was used for the output file just get into Paradox and play the script. Or you can type "PARADOX LOAD-CON.SC" from :he DOS prompt. The output file, base database, and the script must be in the ;ame directory. If a new name was created for the output file the script will ieed to be edited to change the name of the default file to the name used. If the default file name was used the database and ASCII file will need to )e renamed before running the CONTRAST program again or the file will be Overwritten and the data lost. MTe "CONTRAST" database contains the fields: UTM East UTM North and Contrast labitat. The Contrast Habitat field contains ls and 2s indicating the pixel net the habitat suitabliliy rules and came from either the first (1) or ;econd (2) input map.

'*ADDITIONAL STEPS** \t this point the user may wish to create one database with a field for each juild analyzed by UTM coordinate (pixel) so that all the guild information is in one database. In Paradox create a table with all the UTM coordinates and other information of interest by querying the vegetation database and ecting (checking) the desired fields. Use the modify/restructure ,Jmmand to add fields for each guild. Query with changeto commands and example 2lements in the UTM fields and guild suitability fields to populate the fields Appendix N

Species Which Use Large Trees in the Little Applegate Watershed

Species Use Species Use Code Code CALIFORNIA MYOTIS 1 LITTLE BROWN MYOTIS 1 CORDILLERAN FLYCATCHER 2 LONG-EARED MYOTIS 3 DUSKY-FOOTED WOODRAT 2 LONG-LEGGED MYOTIS 2 DOUGLAS SQUIRREL 1 MARTEN 1 HAMMOND'S FLYCATCHER 1 NORTHERN FLYING SQUIRREL 2 PALLID BAT 3 NORTHERN GOSHAWK 1 PACIFIC SLOPE FLYCATCHER 2 NORTHERN SPOTTED OWL 1 RED-SHOULDERED HAWK 3 OSPREY 2 TOWNSEND'S CHIPMUNK 2 PILEATED WOODPECKER 2 VAUXS SWIFT 1 RED TREE VOLE 1 YUMA MYOTIS 1 RED-BREASTED NUTHATCH 2 BALD EAGLE I RED-BREASTED SAPSUCKER 2 BIG BROWN BAT 4 RED-NAPED SAPSUCKER 1 BROWN CREEPER 1 SHREW-MOLE 1 BUSHY-TAILED WOODRAT 2 SILVER-HAIRED BAT 4 CHESTNUT-BACKED CHICKADEE 2 TURKEY VULTURE 4 CLOUDED SALAMANDER 1 VARIED THRUSH 2 COMMON MERGANSER 2 WHITE-BREASTED NUTHATCH 1 DEER MOUSE 2 WHITE-HEADED WOODPECKER 3 FISHER 1 GREAT GRAY OWL 1 Use Code Definitions GREAT HORNED OWL 1 I - Primary Use for Reproduction HERMIT WARBLER 1 2 - Secondary Use for Reproduction HOARY BAT 3 3 - Primary Use for Other Than Reproduction 4 - Secondary Use for Other Than Reproduction

I - Appendix N

Species Which Use Snags in the Little Applegate Watershed

Species Use Species Use Code Code ACORN WOODPECKER 1 MOUNTAIN CHICKADEE 1 AMERICAN KESTREL 1 NORTHERN FLICKER 1 ASH-THROATED FLYCATCHER 1 NORTHERN FLYING SQUIRREL 1 BALD EAGLE 3 NORTHERN GOSHAWK 4 BARN OWL 1 NORTHERN PYGMY-OWL 1 BARRED OWL I NORTHERN SAW-WHET OWL 1 BELTED KINGFISHER 3 NORTHERN SPOTTED OWL 2 BEWICK'S WREN 2 OLIVE-SIDED FLYCATCHER 4 BIG BROWN BAT I OSPREY 1 BLACK BEAR 2 PACIFIC SLOPE FLYCATCHER 2 BLACK-BACKED WOODPECKER 1 PALLID BAT 3 BLACK-CAPPED CHICKADEE 2 PEREGRINE FALCON 4 BOBCAT 2 PILEATED WOODPECKER 1 BROWN CREEPER 1 PINON MOUSE 2 BUSHY-TAILED WOODRAT 2 PLAIN TITMOUSE 2 CALIFORNIA MYOTIS I PORCUPINE 2 CHESTNUT-BACKED CHICKADEE 1 PURPLE MARTIN 1 CLOUDED SALAMANDER 2 RACCOON 1 COMMON MERGANSER I RED TREE VOLE 2 COOPER'S HAWK 4 RED-BREASTED NUTHATCH I CORDILLERAN FLYCATCHER 2 RED-BREASTED SAPSUCKER I DEER MOUSE 2 RED-NAPED SAPSUCKER 1 DOUGLAS' SQUIRREL 1 RED-SHOULDERED HAWK 3 DOWNY WOODPECKER 2 RED-TAILED HAWK 4 DUSKY FLYCATCHER 4 RING-TAILED CAT 1 DUSKY-FOOTED WOODRAT 1 SAY'S PHOEBE 2 ERMINE 2 SHARP-SHINNED HAWK 4 EUROPEAN STARLING 1 SILVER-HAIRED BAT 1 FISHER I SISKIYOU CHIPMONK 1 FLAMMULATED OWL I SPOTTED SKUNK 2 FRINGED MYOTIS 3 TOWNSEND'S CHIPMUNK 2 GOLDEN EAGLE 4 TREE SWALLOW 1 GRAY FOX 2 TURKEY VULTURE 4 GREAT GRAY OWL VAUX'S SWIFT 1 GREAT HORNED OWL .2 VIOLET-GREEN SWALLOW I HAIRY WOODPECKER I VIRGINIA OPOSSUM 1 HAMMOND'S FLYCATCHER 4 WESTERN BLUEBIRD 1 HOARY BAT 4 WESTERN GRAY SQUIRREL I HOUSE FINCH 2 WESTERN KINGBIRD 4 HOUSE WREN 1 WESTERN SCREECH-OWL 1 LEWIS' WOODPECKER I WHITE-BREASTED NUTHATCH I LITTLE BROWN MYOTIS 1 WHITE-HEADED WOODPECKER 1 LONG-EARED MYOTIS 1 WILLIAMSON'S SAPSUCKER I LONG-LEGGED MYOTIS 1 WINTER WREN 1 LONG-TAILED WEASEL 2 WOOD DUCK 1 MARTEN 1 YELLOW-BELLIED MARMOT 2 MERLIN 4 YELLOW-PINE CHIPMUNK 2 YUMA MYOTIS 1 MOUNTAIN BLUEBIRD Appendix N

Species Which Use Snags in the Little Applegate Watershed

Use Code Definitions I- Primary Use for Reproduction 2 - Secondary Use for Reproduction 3 - Primary Use for Other Than Reproduction 4 - Secondarv Use for Other Than Reproduction

I - Appendix N

Species in Little Applegate Watershed Which Use Boulder Fields

Species Use Species Use Code Code BLACK BEAR 1 PRAIRIE FALCON 2 BLACK SALAMANDER I RACCOON 1 BOBCAT ' 1 RACER 2 BRUSH RABBIT 2 RED FOX 1 BUSHY-TAILED WOODRAT 2 RED-TAILED HAWK 4 CALIFORNIA GROUND SQUIRREL 2 RING-TAILED CAT 1 CALIFORNIA MOUNTAIN KINGSNAKE 2 RINGNECK SNAKE 4 CLOUDED SALAMANDER 3 ROCK WREN 1 COMMON GARTER SNAKE 2 RUBBER BOA 4 COMMON KINGSNAKE (CALIF. SUB. SPP.) 1 SAGEBRUSH LIZARD 1 COYOTE 2 SISKIYOU CHIPMONK 2 DEER MOUSE 1 SISKIYOU MOUNTAIN SALAMANDER 2 DUSKY-FOOTED WOODRAT 2 SNOWSHOE HARE 2 ENSATINA 2 SOUTHERN ALLIGATOR LIZARD 2 ERMINE I SPOTTED SKUNK I FISHER 1 STRIPED SKUNK 2 GOLDEN EAGLE 4 WESTERN FENCE LIZARD I GOLDEN-MANTLED GROUND SQUIRREL 1 WESTERN RATTLESNAKE 1 GRAY FOX 1 WESTERN SKINK 2 GREAT HORNED OWL 4 WESTERN TERRESTRIAL GARTER SNAKE 2 LONG-TAILED WEASEL 1 WESTERN TOAD 4 LONG-TOED SALAMANDER 4 YELLOW-BELLIED MARMOT I MARTEN 2 YELLOW-PINE CHIPMUNK 1 MOUNTAIN LION I NORTHERN ALLIGATOR LIZARD 2 NORTHWESTERN GARTER SNAKE 1 OREGON GARTER SNAKE 2 Use Code Definitions PACIFIC TREEFROG 4 I - Primary Use for Reproduction PEREGRINE FALCON 4 2 - Secondary Use for Reproduction PINON MOUSE 1 3 - Primary Use for Other Than Reproduction PORCUPINE I 4 - Secondary Use for Other Than Reproduction Appendix N

Species in the Little Applegate Watershed which use Cliffs

Species Use Species Use Code Code AMERICAN DIPPER 2 LONG-LEGGED MYOTIS 1 AMERICAN KESTREL 2 LONG-TAILED WEASEL 2 BANK SWALLOW 3 MARTEN 4 BARN OWL 2 MOUNTAIN LION 1 BELTED KINGFISHER 1 NORTHERN ROUGH-WINGED SWALLOW 1 BIG BROWN BAT 1 PACIFIC TREEFROG 4 BLACK BEAR 3 PALLID BAT 1 BLACK PHOEBE 2 PEREGRINE FALCON 1 BLACK SALAMANDER 4 PINON MOUSE 2 BOBCAT 1 PORCUPINE 1 BRAZILIAN FREE-TAILED BAT 3 PRAIRIE FALCON 1 BUSHY-TAILED WOODRAT 1 RED FOX 4 CALIFORNIA MOUNTAIN KINGSNAKE 2 RED-TAILED HAWK 2 CALIFORNIA MYOTIS 1 RING-TAILED CAT I CLIFF SWALLOW 1 ROCK WREN 1 COMMON KINGSNAKE (CALIF. SUB.SPP.) 2 SAGEBRUSH LIZARD 1 COMMON NIGHTHAWK 4 SILVER-HAIRED BAT 1 COMMON POORWILL 1 SISKIYOU CHIPMONK 2 COMMON RAVEN 1 STRIPED SKUNK 4 COYOTE 2 TOWNSEND'S SOLITAIRE 1 DEER MOUSE 2 TURKEY VULTURE 1 DUSKY-FOOTED WOODRAT 2 VIOLET-GREEN SWALLOW 1 ERMINE 4 WESTERN FENCE LIZARD 3 - EUROPEAN STARLING 2 WESTERN RATTLESNAKE 1 FISHER 4 WESTERN SKINK 4 FRINGED MYOTIS 1 YELLOW-BELLIED MARMOT 2 GOLDEN EAGLE 2 YELLOW-PINE CHIPMUNK 2 GOLDEN-MANTLED GROUND SQUIRREL 2 GRAY FLYCATCHER 3 HOUSE FINCH 2 Use Code Definitions LITTLE BROWN MYOTIS 2 I - Primary Use for Reproduction LONG-EARED MYOTIS 4 2 - Secondary Use for Reproduction 3 - Primary Use for Other Than Reproduction 4 - Secondary Use for Other Than Reproduction Appendix N

Species in Little Applegate Watershed Which Use Caves and Tunnels

Species Use Species Use Code Code BARN OWL 2 LONG-TAILED WEASEL 2 BIG BROWN BAT 1 MARTEN 2 BLACK BEAR 2 MOUNTAIN LION 1 BOBCAT 1 PACIFIC GIANT SALAMANDER 4 BRAZILIAN FREE-TAILED BAT 3 PACIFIC TREEFROG 4 BUSHY-TAILED WOODRAT 2 PALLID BAT 1 CALIFORNIA MYOTIS 1 PINON MOUSE 2 COMMON KINGSNAKE (CALIF. SUB.SPP.) 2 PORCUPINE 2 COYOTE 1 PRAIRIE FALCON 1 DEER MOUSE 2 RACCOON 2 DUSKY-FOOTED WOODRAT 2 RING-TAILED CAT 1 ERMINE 2 SILVER-HAIRED BAT 1 FRINGED MYOTIS 1 TOWNSEND'S BIG-EARED BAT 1 GOLDEN EAGLE 2 TURKEY VULTURE 1 GRAY FOX 2 YUMA MYOTIS I HOARY BAT 3 HOUSE CAT (FERAL) 1 Use Code Definitions LITTLE BROWN MYOTIS I I - Primary Use for Reproduction LONG-EARED MYOTIS 2 2 - Secondary Use for Reproduction LONG-LEGGED MYOTIS 1 3 - Primarv Use for Other Than Reproduction 4 - Secondary Use for Other Than Reproduction Appendix N

Species in the Little Applegate Watershed which Use Buildings

Species Use Species Use Code Code BLACK PHOEBE 1 CLIFF SWALLOW 1 BRAZILIAN FREE-TAILED BAT 1 DEER MOUSE 2 CALIFORNIA MOUNTAIN KINGSNAKE 2 HOUSE MOUSE 1 CALIFORNIA MYOTIS 1 HOUSE SPARROW 1 DUSKY-FOOTED WOODRAT 1 HOUSE WREN 2 EUROPEAN STARLING 1 LITTLE BROWN MYOTIS 1 HOUSE CAT (FERAL) 1 LONG-EARED MYOTIS 1 NORWAY RAT 1 LONG-LEGGED MYOTIS 1 PALLID BAT 2 PORCUPINE 2 PINON MOUSE 2 RING-TAILED CAT 1 SAGEBRUSH LIZARD 2 ROCK DOVE 1 TOWNSEND'S BIG-EARED BAT 2 SILVER-HAIRED BAT 1 VIRGINIA OPOSSUM 1 YUMA MYOTIS 1 Use Code Definitions BARN OWL 1 I - Primary Use for Reproduction BARN SWALLOW 1 2 - Secondary Use for Reproduction BIG BROWN BAT 1 3 - Primary Use for Other Than Reproduction BUSHY-TAILED WOODRAT 1 4 - Secondary Use for Other Than Reproduction Appendix N

Species Which Use Tallus in the Little Applegate Watershed

Species Use Species Use Code Code AMERICAN KESTREL 4 OREGON GARTER SNAKE 2 BLACK BEAR 3 PACIFIC GIANT SALAMANDER 4 BLACK SALAMANDER 1 PACIFIC TREEFROG 4 BOBCAT 1 PEREGRINE FALCON 4 BUSHY-TAILED WOODRAT 1 PRAIRIE FALCON 4 CALIFORNIA MOUNTAIN KINGSNAKE 2 RED FOX 2 CLOUDED SALAMANDER 2 RED-TAILED HAWK 4 COMMON GARTER SNAKE 2 RING-TAILED CAT 1 COMMON KINGSNAKE (CALIF. SUB.SPP.) 2 RINGNECK SNAKE 4 COMMON NIGHTHAWK 1 ROCK WREN 1 COMMON RAVEN 4 ROUGHSKIN NEWT 4 COYOTE 4 RUBBER BOA 4 DEER MOUSE 1 SAGEBRUSH LIZARD 2 DUSKY-FOOTED WOODRAT 2 SHARPTAIL SNAKE 3 ENSATINA 2 SISKIYOU CHIPMONK 2 ERMINE 1 SISKIYOU MOUNTAIN SALAMANDER 1 FISHER 1 SOUTHERN ALLIGATOR LIZARD 2 GOLDEN-MANTLED GROUND SQUIRREL 1 SPOTTED SKUNK 3 GRAY FLYCATCHER 3 STRIPED SKUNK 4 GRAY FOX 2 TAILED FROG 4 GREAT HORNED OWL 4 TOWNSEND'S CHIPMUNK 1 LONG-TAILED WEASEL 2 TOWNSEND'S SOLITAIRE 2 LONG-TOED SALAMANDER 4 WESTERN FENCE LIZARD 3 MARTEN 2 WESTERN RATTLESNAKE 1 MINK 2 WESTERN SKINK 1 MOUNTAIN LION 1 WESTERN TERRESTRIAL GARTER SNAKE 2 NORTHERN ALLIGATOR LIZARD 2 WESTERN TOAD 4 NORTHWESTERN GARTER SNAKE 1 YELLOW-BELLIED MARMOT 1 YELLOW-PINE CHIPMUNK 1

Use Code Definitions I - Primary Use for Reproduction 2 - Secondary Use for Reproduction 3 - Primary Use for Other Than Reproduction 4 - Secondary Use for Other Than Reproduction Appendix N

Species Which Use Wet Meadows in the Little Applegate Watershed

Species Use Species Use Code Code AMERICAN BITTERN 2 ELK 3 AMERICAN CROW 3 ERMINE 4 AMERICAN GOLDFINCH 1 EUROPEAN STARLING 3 AMERICAN KESTREL 3 FLAMMULATED OWL 3 AMERICAN ROBIN 3 FOOTHILL YELLOW-LEGGED FROG 4 ANNA'S HUMMINGBIRD 3 FOX SPARROW 4 ASH-THROATED FLYCATCHER 3 FRINGED MYOTIS 3 BALD EAGLE 3 GOLDEN EAGLE 4 BANK SWALLOW 6 GOLDEN-CROWNED SPARROW 4 BARN OWL 3 GOLDEN-MANTLED GROUND SQUIRREL 4 BARN SWALLOW 3 GOPHER SNAKE 3 BEAVER 2 GRAY FOX 4 BIG BROWN BAT 3 GREAT BLUE HERON 3 BLACK BEAR 3 GREAT GRAY OWL 3 BLACK PHOEBE 4 GREAT HORNED OWL 4 BLACK-CHINNED HUMMINGBIRD 3 GREEN-BACKED HERON 1 BLACKTAILED DEER 1 HAMMOND'S FLYCATCHER 3 BLUE GROUSE 3 HORNED LARK 4 BLUE-GREY GNATCATCHER 2 HOUSE FINCH 3 BOBCAT 3 HOUSE MOUSE 8 BOTTA'S POCKET GOPHER 1 KILLDEER 1 BREWER'S BLACKBIRD 1 LARK SPARROW 3 BROWN-HEADED COWBIRD 3 LINCOLN'S SPARROW 1 BRUSH RABBIT 3 LITTLE BROWN MYOTIS 4 BULLFROG 3 LONG EARED OWL 3 CALIFORNIA GROUND SQUIRREL 2 LONG-EARED MYOTIS 3 CALIFORNIA KANGAROO RAT 2 LONG-LEGGED MYOTIS 3 CALIFORNIA MYOTIS 3 LONG-TAILED VOLE 2 CALIFORNIA QUAIL 2 LONG-TAILED WEASEL 1 CALIFORNIA TOWHEE (BROWN TOWHEE) 4 LONG-TOED SALAMANDER 3 CALIFORNIA VOLE 2 MALLARD 1 CALLIOPE HUMMINGBIRD 3 MARSH WREN 1 CANADA GOOSE 1 MARTEN 4 CASSIN'S FINCH 4 MERLIN 3 CHIPPING SPARROW 4 MINK 1 CLIFF SWALLOW 3 MOUNTAIN BLUEBIRD 2 COAST MOLE 1 MOUNTAIN LION 3 COMMON GARTER SNAKE 1 MOUNTAIN QUAIL 2 COMMON KINGSNAKE (CALIF. SUB.SPP.) 4 MOURNING DOVE 3 COMMON NIGHTHAWK 1 NORTHERN ALLIGATOR LIZARD 2 COMMON POORWILL 2 NORTHERN FLICKER 3 COMMON RAVEN 3 NORTHERN HARRIER 1 COMMON SNIPE 1 NORTHERN ORIOLE 4 COMMON YELLOWTHROAT 1 NORTHERN PYGMY-OWL 4 COOPER'S HAWK 4 NORTHERN ROUGH-WINGED SWALLOW 9 COSTA'S HUMMINGBiRD 2 NORTHERN SAW-WHET OWL 3 COYOTE 1 NORTHERN SHRIKE 3 DARK-EYED JUNCO 1 NORTHWESTERN GARTER SNAKE 2 DEER MOUSE 1 OREGON GARTER SNAKE 1 OREGON MEADOW VOLE 1 Appendix N

Species Which Use Wet Meadows in the Little Applegate Watershed

Species Use Species Use Code Code PACIFIC JUMPING MOUSE I SHREW-MOLE I PACIFIC TREEFROG 1 SILVER-HAIRED BAT 4 PACIFIC WATER SHREW 8 SNOWSHOE HARE 2 PALLID BAT 3 SONG SPARROW 1 PEREGRINE FALCON 3 SORA 1 PINE SISKIN 3 SPOTTED SANDPIPER 1 PINON MOUSE 2 STRIPED SKUNK I PORCUPINE 2 STRIPED WHIPSNAKE 2 PRAIRIE FALCON 4 TOWNSEND'S BIG-EARED BAT 3 PURPLE FINCH 3 TOWNSEND'S VOLE 1 PURPLE MARTIN 3 TREE SWALLOW 3 RACCOON 3 TURKEY VULTURE 3 RACER 2 VAGRANT SHREW 3 RED FOX 1 VAUX'S SWIFT 3 RED-LEGGED FROG 1 VIOLET-GREEN SWALLOW 3 RED-SHOULDERED HAWK 3 VIRGINIA OPOSSUM 3 RED-TAILED HAWK 4 VIRGINIA RAIL 1 RED-WINGED BLACKBIRD 3 WATER PIPIT 1 RING-NECKED PHEASANT 1 WATER SHREW 1 RINGNECK SNAKE 1 WESTERN BLUEBIRD 1 RIVER OTTER 2 WESTERN KINGBIRD 4 ROCK DOVE 4 WESTERN MEADOWLARK 4 ROUGH-LEGGED HAWK 3 WESTERN POCKET GOPHER 2 ROUGHSKIN NEWT 3 WESTERN POND TURTLE 3 RUBBER BOA 2 WESTERN SCREECH-OWL 3 RUFFED GROUSE 1 WESTERN TERRESTRIAL GARTER SNAKE 1 RUFOUS HUMMINGBIRD 3 WESTERN TOAD 3 RUFOUS-SIDED TOWHEE 4 WHITE-CROWNED SPARROW 2 SANDHILL CRANE I WHITE-THROATED SPARROW 4 SAVANNAH SPARROW i WILLOW FLYCATCHER 4 SCRUB JAY 4 WOOD DUCK 3 SHARPTAIL SNAKE 2 YELLOW-BELLIED MARMOT 4 YELLOW-PINE CHIPMUNK 2 YUMA MYOTIS 4

Use Code Definitions I - Primary Use for Reproduction 2 - Secondary Use for Reproduction 3 - Primary Use for Other Than Reproduction 4 - Secondary Use for Other Than Reproduction Appendix N

Species Which Use Wetland Shrub Habitat in the Little Applegate Watershed

Species Use Species Use Code Code AMERICAN BITTERN 2 DARK-EYED JUNCO 1 AMERICAN CROW 1 DEER MOUSE 2 AMERICAN GOLDFINCH 1 ELK 1 AMERICAN KESTREL 4 ERMINE 2 AMERICAN ROBIN 1 EUROPEAN STARLING 4 ANNA'S HUMMINGBIRD 1 EVENING GROSBEAK 3 ASH-THROATED FLYCATCHER 3 FLAMMULATED OWL 4 BALD EAGLE 3 FOX SPARROW 1 BAND-TAILED PIGEON 3 FRINGED MYOTIS 3 BANK SWALLOW 3 GOLDEN-CROWNED KINGLET 4 BARN OWL 4 GOLDEN-CROWNED SPARROW 3 BARN SWALLOW 3 GOLDEN-MANTLED GROUND SQUIRREL 4 BARRED OWL 1 GRAY FOX 2 BEAVER 1 GRAY JAY 3 BELTED KINGFISHER 3 GREAT BLUE HERON 3 BEWICK'S WREN 1 GREAT HORNED OWL 4 BIG BROWN BAT 3 GREEN-BACKED HERON 1 BLACK BEAR 3 HAMMOND'S FLYCATCHER 3 BLACK PHOEBE 2 HERMIT THRUSH 1 BLACK-CAPPED CHICKADEE 1 HOARY BAT 3 BLACK-CHINNED HUMMINGBIRD 1 HOUSE FINCH 2 BLACK-HEADED GROSBEAK 1 HOUSE WREN 1 BLACK-THROATED GRAY WARBLER 3 HUTTON'S VIREO 1 BLACKTAILED DEER 1 LAZULI BUNTING BLUE GROUSE 4 LESSER GOLDFINCH 1 BLUE-GREY GNATCATCHER 2 LINCOLN'S SPARROW 1 BOBCAT 1 LITTLE BROWN MYOTIS 3 BREWER'S BLACKBIRD 1 LONG EARED OWL 3 BROWN-HEADED COWBIRD 1 LONG-LEGGED MYOTIS 3 BRUSH RABBIT 4 LONG-TAILED WEASEL 2 BUSHY-TAILED WOODRAT 8 LONG-TOED SALAMANDER 4 CALIFORNIA MYOTIS 4 MACGILLIVRAY'S WARBLER 1 CALIFORNIA QUAIL 2 MALLARD CANADA GOOSE 1 MARSH WREN 1 CASSIN'S FINCH 4 MERLIN 3 CEDAR WAXWING 1 MINK 1 CHESTNUT-BACKED CHICKADEE 4 MOUNTAIN BEAVER 1 CHIPPING SPARROW 1 MOUNTAIN LION 4 CLIFF SWALLOW 4 MOUNTAIN QUAIL 2 COAST MOLE 1 MOURNING DOVE 24 COMMON GARTER SNAKE 1 NASHVILLE WARBLER 4 COMMON MERGANSER 2 NORTHERN ALLIGATOR LIZARD 2 COMMON NIGHTHAWK 1 NORTHERN FLICKER 4 COMMON RAVEN 3 NORTHERN HARRIER 1 COMMON YELLOWTHROAT 1 NORTHERN ORIOLE 4 COOPER'S HAWK 4 NORTHERN PYGMY-OWL 4 CORDILLERAN FLYCATCHER 1 NORTHERN ROUGH-WINGED SWALLOW 9 COSTA'S HUMMINGBIRD 2 NORTHERN SAW-WHET OWL 4 COYOTE 1 NORTHERN SHRIKE 3 ORANGE-CROWED WARBLER 1 Appendix N 4,

Species Which Use Wetland Shrub Habitat in the Little Applegate Watershed

Species Use Species Use Code Code OREGON GARTER SNAKE 1 SPOTTED SKUNK 1 OREGON MEADOW VOLE 1 STELLER'S JAY 4 PACIFIC JUMPING MOUSE 1 STRIPED SKUNK 1 PACIFIC TREEFROG I SWAINSON'S THRUSH 1 PACIFIC WATER SHREW 8 TOWNSEND'S BIG-EARED BAT 4 PALLID BAT 3 TOWNSEND'S CHIPMUNK 2 PEREGRINE FALCON 3 TOWNSEND'S VOLE 2 PINE SISKIN 3 TREE SWALLOW 3 PORCUPINE 1 TURKEY VULTURE 4 PRAIRIE FALCON 4 VAGRANT SHREW 2 PURPLE FINCH 2 VARIED THRUSH 2 PURPLE MARTIN 3 VAUX'S SWIFT 3 RACCOON 1 VIOLET-GREEN SWALLOW 3 RED FOX 2 VIRGINIA OPOSSUM 1 RED-LEGGED FROG 2 WARBLING VIREO 1 RED-SHOULDERED HAWK 3 WATER PIPIT 3 RED-TAILED HAWK 2 WATER SHREW 1 RED-WINGED BLACKBIRD 1 WESTERN BLUEBIRD RING-NECKED PHEASANT 2 WESTERN KINGBIRD 2 RING-TAILED CAT 2 WESTERN MEADOWLARK 4 RIVER OTTER 1 WESTERN POND TURTLE 3 ROUGH-LEGGED HAWK 3 WESTERN SCREECH-OWL 3 RUBY-CROWNED KINGLET 3 WESTERN TANAGER 3 RUFFED GROUSE 1 WESTERN TERRESTRIAL GARTER SNAKE 1 RUFOUS HUMMINGBIRD 1 WESTERN TOAD 3 RUFOUS-SIDED TOWHEE 1 WESTERN WOOD-PEWEE 4 SANDHILL CRANE I WHITE-CROWNED SPARROW 1 SAVANNAH SPARROW 4 WHITE-THROATED SPARROW 1 SCRUB JAY 2 WILLOW FLYCATCHER SHARP-SHINNED HAWK 4 WILSON'S WARBLER 1 SHREW-MOLE 2 WOOD DUCK 8 SNOWSHOE HARE 2 WRENTIT 2 SONG SPARROW 1 YELLOW WARBLER 1 SOUTHERN ALLIGATOR LIZARD 2 YELLOW-BREASTED CHAT 1 SPOTTED SANDPIPER 2 YELLOW-PINE CHIPMUNK 1 YELLOW-RUMPED WARBLER 1 YUMA MYOTIS 3

Use Code Definitions I - Primary Use for Reproduction 2 - Secondary Use for Reproduction 3 - Primary Use for Other Than Reproduction 4 - Secondary Use for Other Than Reproduction Appendix N

Species Which Use Down Logs in the Little Applegate Watershed

Species Use Code WILD TURKEY 1 WINTER WREN 2 WOOD DUCK 3 YELLOW-PINE CHIPMUNK 2

Use Code Definitions I - Primary Use for Reproduction 2 - Secondary Use for Reproduction 3 - Primary Use for Other Than Reproduction 4 - Secondary Use for Other Than Reproduction Appendix N

Species Which Use Cultivated Fields in the Little Applegate Watershed

Species Use Species Use Code Code AMERICAN CROW 4 LINCOLN'S SPARROW 4 AMERICAN GOLDFINCH 4 LONG-TAILED VOLE 2 AMERICANi KESTREL 3 LONG-TAILED WEASEL 4 AMERICAN ROBIN 3 MALLARD 3 ASH-THROATED FLYCATCHER 4 MERLIN 4 BAND-TAILED PIGEON 4 MOUNTAIN BLUEBIRD 4 BARN OWL 3 MOURNING DOVE 3 BARN SWALLOW 3 NORTHERN ALLIGATOR LIZARD 4 BLACK-TAILED RABBIT 4 NORTHERN HARRIER 2 BLACKTAILED DEER 3 NORTHERN ROUGH-WINGED SWALLOW 4 BOBCAT 4 NORTHERN SHRIKE 4 BOTTA'S POCKET GOPHER 1 NORTHWESTERN GARTER SNAKE 2 BREWER'S BLACKBIRD 3 NORWAY RAT 2 BROWN-HEADED COWBIRD 1 OREGON GARTER SNAKE 2 BRUSH RABBIT 4 OREGON MEADOW VOLE 2 CALIFORNIA GROUND SQUIRREL PACIFIC TREEFROG 4 CALIFORNIA MOUNTAIN KINGSNAKE 4 PEREGRINE FALCON 4 CALIFORNIA QUAIL 1 PINON MOUSE 3 CALIFORNIA TOWHEE (BROWN TOWHEE) 4 PORCUPINE 4 CALIFORNIA VOLE 2 PRAIRIE FALCON 4 CANADA GOOSE 4 PURPLE FINCH 4 CHIPPING SPARROW 3 RACER 4 CLIFF SWALLOW 4 RED FOX 3 COMMON GARTER SNAKE 2 RED-TAILED HAWK 4 COMMON KINGSNAKE (CALIF. SUB. SPP.) 2 RED-WINGED BLACKBIRD 4 COMMON NIGHTHAWK 3 RING-NECKED PHEASANT 2 COMMON POORWILL 2 RINGNECK SNAKE 4 COMMON RAVEN 4 ROCK DOVE 4 COMMON SNIPE 2 ROUGH-LEGGED HAWK 3 COOPER'S HAWK 4 RUBBER BOA 4 COYOTE 3 SAGEBRUSH LIZARD 2 DARK-EYED JUNCO 4 SAVANNAH SPARROW 2 DEER MOUSE 1 SAY'S PHOEBE 2 EUROPEAN STARLING 3 SHARPTAIL SNAKE 4

GOLDEN EAGLE -; 4 SONG SPARROW 4 GOLDEN-CROWNED SPARROW 3 SOUTHERN ALLIGATOR LIZARD 4 GOLDEN-MANTLED GROUND SQUIRREL 1 SPOTTED SKUNK 4 GOPHER SNAKE 2 STRIPED SKUNK 4 GRAY FOX 3 STRIPED WHIPSNAKE 2 GREAT BLUE HERON 4 TOWNSEND'S VOLE 2 GREAT HORNED OWL 3 TURKEY VULTURE 4 HORNED LARK 3 VAUX'S SWIFT 4 HOUSE CAT (FERAL) 3 VESPER SPARROW 2 HOUSE FINCH 3 VIRGINIA OPOSSUM 3 HOUSE MOUSE 1 WATER PIPIT 3 HOUSE SPARROW 3 WESTERN BLUEBIRD 3 KILLDEER 2 WESTERN FENCE LIZARD 2 LARK SPARROW 3 WESTERN HARVEST MOUSE 2 LESSER GOLDFINCH 3 WESTERN KINGBIRD 2 WESTERN MEADOWLARK 1 Appendix N

Species Which Use Cultivated Fields in the Little Applegate Watershed

Species Use Species Use Code Code WESTERN POCKET GOPHER 2 WHITE-CROWNED SPARROW 3 WESTERN POND TURTLE 2 WHITE-THROATED SPARROW 3 WESTERN RATTLESNAKE 3 WILD TURKEY 4 WESTERN SCREECH-OWL 3 WESTERN SKINK 4 Use Code Definitions WESTERN TERRESTRIAL GARTER SNAKE 1 I - Primary Use for Reproduction WESTERN TOAD 4 2 - Secondary Use for Reproduction WESTERN WOOD-PEWEE 4 3 - Primary Use for Other Than Reproduction 4 - Secondary Use for Other Than Reproduction

., Appendix N

Species Which Use Edges in the Little Applegate Watershed

Species Use Species Use Code Code NORTHERN PYGMY-OWL 1 STRIPED SKUNK 1 NORTHERN ROUGH-WINGED SWALLOW 4 STRIPED WHIPSNAKE 2 NORTHER^N SAW-WHET OWL 1 TOWNSEND'S BIG-EARED BAT 3 NORTHERN SHRIKE 3 TOWNSEND'S CHIPMUNK 2 NORTHWESTERN GARTER SNAKE 1 TOWNSEND'S SOLITAIRE 1 OLIVE-SIDED FLYCATCHER 1 TOWNSEND'S VOLE 2 ORANGE-CROWED WARBLER 1 TURKEY VULTURE 3 OREGON GARTER SNAKE 1 VAGRANT SHREW OREGON MEADOW VOLE 1 VAUX'S SWIFT 1 PACIFIC GIANT SALAMANDER 4 VIRGINIA OPOSSUM 3 PALLID BAT 4 WARBLING VIREO PEREGRINE FALCON 4 WATER SHREW 2 PINE SISKIN 1 WESTERN BLUEBIRD 1 PINON MOUSE 2 WESTERN FENCE LIZARD 2 PLAIN TITMOUSE 2 WESTERN GRAY SQUIRREL 1 PRAIRIE FALCON 3 WESTERN HARVEST MOUSE 2 PURPLE FINCH 1 WESTERN KINGBIRD I1 PURPLE MARTIN 1 WESTERN POCKET GOPHER 1 RACER 1 WESTERN SCREECH-OWL 1 RED FOX 1 WESTERN SKINK 4 RED-BREASTED SAPSUCKER 2 WESTERN TANAGER 1 RED-SHOULDERED HAWK 3 WESTERN TERRESTRIAL GARTER SNAKE 1 RED-TAILED HAWK 1 WESTERN TOAD 4 RING-NECKED PHEASANT 1 WESTERN WOOD-PEWEE I RING-TAILED CAT 2 WHITE-CROWNED SPARROW 1 RINGNECK SNAKE 1 WHITE-HEADED WOODPECKER 1 ROUGH-LEGGED HAWK 4 WHITE-THROATED SPARROW 1 RUBBER BOA 1 WILD TURKEY 2 RUBY-CROWNED KINGLET 3 WILLOW FLYCATCHER 1 RUFFED GROUSE 1 WILSON'S WARBLER I RUFOUS HUMMINGBIRD 1 WINTER WREN 1 RUFOUS-SIDED TOWHEE 1 WOOD DUCK 2 SAVANNAH SPARROW 2 WRENTIT I SCRUB JAY 1 YELLOW WARBLER 1 SHARP-SHINNED HAWK 4 YELLOW-PINE CHIPMUNK 2 SILVER-HAIRED BAT 3 YELLOW-RUMPED WARBLER SISKIYOU CHIPMONK 1 YUMA MYOTIS 4 SNOWSHOE HARE I SONG SPARROW 1 Use Code Definitions SOUTHERN ALLIGATOR LIZARD 2 I - Primanr Use for Reproduction SPOTTED SKUNK 2 2 - Secondary Use for Reproduction STELLER'S JAY 1 3 - Primary Use for Other Than Reproduction 4 - Secondary Use for Other Than Reproduction Appendix N

Species Which Use Down Logs in the Little Applegate Watershed

Species Use Species Use Code Code ACORN WOODPECKER 4 PACIFIC GIANT SALAMANDER 3 BARRED OWL 4 PACIFIC JUMPING MOUSE 1 BEWICK'S WREN 1 PACIFIC TREEFROG 3 BLACK BEAR 1 PACIFIC WATER SHREW 1 BLACK SALAMANDER 4 PILEATED WOODPECKER 3 BLACK-BACKED WOODPECKER 4 PINON MOUSE 1 BLACKTAILED DEER 4 PORCUPINE 1 BLUE GROUSE 3 RACCOON 4 BOBCAT 1 RED FOX 1 BUSHY-TAILED WOODRAT 2 RED-BREASTED NUTHATCH CALIFORNIA KANGAROO RAT 4 RING-TAILED CAT 1 CALIFORNIA MOUNTAIN KINGSNAKE 1 RINGNECK SNAKE 1 CALIFORNIA MYOTIS 2 RIVER OTTER 4 CALIFORNIA QUAIL 2 ROUGHSKIN NEWT 4 CLOUDED SALAMANDER 1 RUBBER BOA 1 COAST MOLE 2 RUFFED GROUSE 1 COMMON GARTER SNAKE 1 RUFOUS-SIDED TOWHEE 1 COMMON KINGSNAKE (CALIF. SUB.SPP.) I SAGEBRUSH LIZARD 1 COOPER'S HAWK 4 SHARP-SHINNED HAWK 4 COYOTE 1 SHARPTAIL SNAKE 1 DARK-EYED JUNCO 2 SHREW-MOLE 1 DEER MOUSE 1 SISKIYOU CHIPMONK 1 DOUGLAS' SQUIRREL 3 SNOWSHOE HARE 2 DOWNY WOODPECKER 4 SONG SPARROW 2 DUSKY-FOOTED WOODRAT 1 SOUTHERN ALLIGATOR LIZARD 1 ENSATINA 1 SPOTTED SKUNK 1 ERMINE 1 STELLER'S JAY 4 FISHER 1 STRIPED SKUNK 2 GOLDEN-MANTLED GROUND SQUIRREL 1 TAILED FROG 3 GOPHER SNAKE 4 TOWNSEND'S CHIPMUNK 1 GRAY FOX 1 TOWNSEND'S SOLITAIRE 1 HAIRY WOODPECKER 3 TROWBRIDGE'S SHREW 1 HOUSE WREN 1 TURKEY VULTURE 1 LEWIS' WOODPECKER 3 VAGRANT SHREW 2 LITTLE BROWN MYOTIS 2 VIRGINIA OPOSSUM 1 LONG-TAILED WEASEL 1 WATER SHREW 1 LONG-TOED SALAMANDER 3 WESTERN FENCE LIZARD 3 MARTEN 2 WESTERN GRAY SQUIRREL 4 MINK 1 WESTERN HARVEST MOUSE 1 MOUNTAIN BEAVER 3 WESTERN POND TURTLE 3 MOUNTAIN CHICKADEE 2 WESTERN RATTLESNAKE 1 MOUNTAIN LION 2 WESTERN RED-BACKED VOLE 1 NORTHERN ALLIGATOR LIZARD 1 WESTERN SKINK 1 NORTHERN FLICKER 3 WESTERN TERRESTRIAL GARTER SNAKE 1 NORTHERN FLYING SQUIRREL 4 WESTERN TOAD 3 NORTHERN GOSHAWK 4 WHITE-BREASTED NUTHATCH 2 NORTHWESTERN GARTER SNAKE 2 WHITE-FOOTED VOLE 1 OREGON GARTER SNAKE I WHITE-HEADED WOODPECKER 4 A OREGON MEADOW VOLE 1 WHITE-THROATED SPARROW 4 Appendix N

Species Which Use Forest Duff in the Little Applegate Watershed

Species Use Species Use Code Code CALIFORNIA TOWHEE (BROWN TOWHEE) 1 SISKIYOU CHIPMONK 1 CLOUDED SALAMANDER 1 SISKIYOU MOUNTAIN SALAMANDER 4 COMMON kINGSNAKE (CALIF. SUB.SPP.) 2 WATER SHREW I DEER MOUSE 3 WESTERN HARVEST MOUSE 2 DUSKY-FOOTED WOODRAT 2 WESTERN RED-BACKED VOLE 1 NORTHERN FLYING SQUIRREL 3 PACIFIC GIANT SALAMANDER 3 Use Code Definitions PINON MOUSE 1 I - Primary Use for Reproduction ROUGHSKIN NEWT 3 2 - Secondary Use for Reproduction SAGEBRUSH LIZARD 2 3 - Primarv Use for Other Than Reproduction SHREW-MOLE 1 4 - Secondar Use for Other Than. Reproduction Appendix N

Species Which Use Edges in the Little Applegate Watershed

Species Use Species Use Code Code AMERICAN BITTERN 1 COOPER'S HAWK 3 AMERICAN CROW 2 COSTA'S HUMMINGBIRD 1 AMERICAN GOLDFINCH 1 COYOTE 1 AMERICAN KESTREL 1 DARK-EYED JUNCO 1 AMERICAN ROBIN 1 DEER MOUSE 1 ANNA'S HUMMINGBIRD 1 DOUGLAS' SQUIRREL 2 ASH-THROATED FLYCATCHER 1 DOWNY WOODPECKER 2 BALD EAGLE 4 DUSKY FLYCATCHER 1 BAND-TAILED PIGEON 1 ELK 1 BARN OWL 1 ENSATINA 1 BARN SWALLOW 4 ERMINE 3 BARRED OWL 4 EUROPEAN STARLING 1 BELTED KINGFISHER 1 FLAMMULATED OWL 1 BEWICK'S WREN 1 FOX SPARROW 1 BIG BROWN BAT 3 GOLDEN EAGLE 1 BLACK PHOEBE 2 GOLDEN-CROWNED SPARROW 3 BLACK-BILLED MAGPIE 1 GOLDEN-MANTLED GROUND SQUIRREL 2 BLACK-CAPPED CHICKADEE 1 GREAT BLUE HERON 4 BLACK-CHINNED HUMMINGBIRD 3 GREAT GRAY OWL 1 BLACK-HEADED GROSBEAK 1 GREAT HORNED OWL 1 BLACK-TAILED RABBIT 1 HAIRY WOODPECKER 2 BLACK-THROATED GRAY WARBLER 1 HAMMOND'S FLYCATCHER 1 BLACKTAILED DEER HOARY BAT BLUE GROUSE 1 HOUSE CAT (FERAL) 3 BLUE-GREY GNATCATCHER 2 HOUSE FINCH 1 BOBCAT 1 HOUSE WREN 1 BOHEMIAN WAXWING 3 HUTTON'S VIREO 1 BREWER'S BLACKBIRD 1 LARK SPARROW 1 BROWN-HEADED COWBIRD LAZULI BUNTING 1 21 BRUSH RABBIT 1 LEWIS' WOODPECKER 1 BUSHTIT I LINCOLN'S SPARROW 1 BUSHY-TAILED WOODRAT 2 LITTLE BROWN MYOTIS 3 CALIFORNIA GROUND SQUIRREL 2 LONG EARED OWL 3 CALIFORNIA KANGAROO RAT 2 LONG-TAILED WEASEL 2 CALIFORNIA MOUNTAIN KINGSNAKE ,: 2 MACGILLIVRAY'S WARBLER 1 CALIFORNIA MYOTIS 3 MARSH WREN 1 CALIFORNIA QUAIL 1 MARTEN 3 CALIFORNIA TOWHEE (BROWN TOWHEE) 1 MERLIN 3 MOUNTAIN BEAVER CALLIOPE HUMMINGBIRD 1 1 MOUNTAIN BLUEBIRD CASSIN'S FINCH 1 1 CHESTNUT-BACKED CHICKADEE 1 MOUNTAIN CHICKADEE CHIPPING SPARROW 1 MOUNTAIN LION 3 CLARK'S NUTCRACKER 2 MOUNTAIN QUAIL 1 CLOUDED SALAMANDER 1 MOURNING DOVE 1 COAST MOLE 2 NASHVILLE WARBLER 1 COMMON KINGSNAKE (CALIF. SUB.SPP.) 2 NORTHERN ALLIGATOR LIZARD 2 COMMON NIGHTHAWK 1 NORTHERN FLICKER 1 COMMON POORWILL 1 NORTHERN FLYING SQUIRREL 2 COMMON RAVEN 1 NORTHERN GOSHAWK NORTHERN ORIOLE I Appendix N

Species which use Dry Meadows in the Little Applegate Watershed

Species Use Species Use Code Code STRIPED WHIPSNAKE 1 WESTERN RATTLESNAKE 1 TOWNSEND'S BIG-EARED BAT 3 WESTERN SCREECH-OWL 4 TREE SWALLOW 4 WESTERN SKINK 1 VAUX'S SWIFT 4 WESTERN TOAD 4 VESPER SPARROW I WHITE-CROWNED SPARROW 1 VIOLET-GREEN SWALLOW 4 WILD TURKEY 4 WATER SHREW 2 YELLOW-BELLIED MARMOT 1 WESTERN BLUEBIRD 3 YUMA MYOTIS 4 WESTERN FENCE LIZARD I WESTERN HARVEST MOUSE I Use Code Definitions WESTERN KINGBIRD 4 I - Primary Use for Reproduction WESTERN MEADOWLARK 1 2 - Secondary Use for Reproduction WESTERN POCKET GOPHER 2 3 - Primary Use for Other Than Reproduction 4 - Secondary Use for Other Than Reproduction

I . Appendix N

Species which use Dry Meadows in the Little Applegate Watershed

Species Use Species Use Code Code AMERICAN CROW 4 HOUSE CAT (FERAL) 4 AMERICAN GOLDFINCH 3 HOUSE FINCH 4 AMERICAN KESTREL 3 KILLDEER 4 ANNA'S HUMMINGBIRD 4 LARK SPARROW 1 ASH-THROATED FLYCATCHER 4 LAZULI BUNTING 4 BARN OWL 3 LESSER GOLDFINCH 4 BARN SWALLOW 3 LEWIS' WOODPECKER 4 BIG BROWN BAT 3 LITTLE BROWN MYOTIS 4 BLACK BEAR 4 LONG-TAILED VOLE 1 BLACK-BILLED MAGPIE 2 LONG-TAILED WEASEL 1 BLACK-TAILED RABBIT 1 MERLIN 4 BLACKTAILED DEER 3 MOUNTAIN BLUEBIRD 3 BLUE GROUSE 4 MOUNTAIN LION 3 BLUE-GREY GNATCATCHER 1 MOUNTAIN QUAIL 1 BOBCAT 3 MOURNING DOVE 4 BOTTA'S POCKET GOPHER 1 NORTHERN FLICKER 4 BROWN-HEADED COWBIRD 3 NORTHERN HARRIER 4 BUSHY-TAILED WOODRAT 8 NORTHERN PYGMY-OWL 4 CALIFORNIA GROUND SQUIRREL 1 NORTHERN ROUGH-WINGED SWALLOW 9 CALIFORNIA KANGAROO RAT 1 NORTHERN SHRIKE 4 CALIFORNIA MOUNTAIN KINGSNAKE 1 OREGON GARTER SNAKE 2 CALIFORNIA MYOTIS 4 PACIFIC TREEFROG 3 CALIFORNIA QUAIL 1 PEREGRINE FALCON 4 CALIFORNIA TOWHEE (BROWN TOWHEE) 1 PINON MOUSE 1 CALIFORNIA VOLE 1 PLAIN TITMOUSE 2 CALLIOPE HUMMINGBIRD 3 PRAIRIE FALCON 3 CANADA GOOSE 4 RACCOON 2 CASSIN'S FINCH 4 RACER 1 CHIPPING SPARROW 3 RED FOX 1 CLIFF SWALLOW 3 RED-SHOULDERED HAWK 4 COMMON GARTER SNAKE 1 RED-TAILED HAWK 3 COMMON KINGSNAKE (CALIF. SUB.SPP.) 1 RING-NECKED PHEASANT 2 COMMON NIGHTHAWK 1 RING-TAILED CAT COMMON POORWILL I RINGNECK SNAKE 1 COMMON RAVEN 3 ROCK DOVE 3 COOPER'S HAWK 4 ROCK WREN COSTA'S HUMMINGBIRD 3 ROUGH-LEGGED HAWK 4 COYOTE 1 RUBBER BOA 1 DARK-EYED JUNCO 4 RUFOUS HUMMINGBIRD 3 DEER MOUSE 2 RUFOUS-SIDED TOWHEE 4 ELK 3 SAGEBRUSH LIZARD 2 EUROPEAN STARLING 3 SANDHILL CRANE 2 FLAMMULATED OWL 3 SAVANNAH SPARROW 1 GOLDEN EAGLE 3 SAY'S PHOEBE 1 GOLDEN-MANTLED GROUND SQUIRREL 1 SCRUB JAY 4 GOPHER SNAKE 1 SHARP-SHINNED HAWK 4 GRAY FLYCATCHER 3 SILVER-HAIRED BAT 4 GREAT HORNED OWL 3 SONG SPARROW 4 HORNED LARK 1 STRIPED SKUNK 1 Appendix N

Species in the Little Applegate Watershed which Use Bridges

Species Use Code BARN SWALLOW 1 Use Code Definitions BIG BROWN BAT 2 I - Primary Use for Reproduction BLACK PHOEBE 1 2 - Secondarv Use for Reproduction BRAZILIAN FREE-TAILED BAT 3 3 - Primarv Use for Other Than Reproduction CALIFORNIA MYOTIS 2 4 - Secondary Use for Other Than Reproduction CLIFF SWALLOW 1 LITTLE BROWN MYOTIS 1 LONG-LEGGED MYOTIS 3 PALLID BAT 1 YUMA MYOTIS 1 Appendix 0

Species Requiring Slow/Slack Water or Relatively Warm Water in the Little Applegate Watersht

Species AMERICAN BITTERN BANK SWALLOW BARN SWALLOW BIG BROWN BAT BRAZILIAN FREE-TAILED BAT BULLFROG CALIFORNIA MYOTIS CANADA GOOSE CLIFF SWALLOW COMMON SNIPE FRINGED MYOTIS GREAT BLUE HERON GREEN-BACKED HERON HOARY BAT LITTLE BROWN MYOTIS LONG-EARED MYOTIS LONG-LEGGED MYOTIS MALLARD MARSH WREN NORTHERN ROUGH-WINGED SWALLOW OSPREY PALLID BAT PURPLE MARTIN RED-WINGED BLACKB4RD SANDHILL CRANE SILVER-HAIRED BAT SORA SPOTTED SANDPIPER TOWNSEND'S BIG-EARED BAT TREE SWALLOW VIOLET-GREEN SWALLOW VIRGINIA RAIL WESTERN POND TURTLE WESTERN TOAD WOOD DUCK YUMA MYOTIS Appendix P I Incorporated with permission from Blackwell Scientific Reviews Publications, Cambridge Mass.

II Ecological Costs of Livestock Grazing in Western North America

THOIMAS L. FLEISCHNER Prescott Colicg# Environmental Studies Program 220 Grove Avenue Prescott, AZ 8630 1, US.A.

Abstract: Livestock grazing is the most widespread land Costos ecol6gicos del pastoreo de ganado en el oeste de mjanagem ent practice in western North America Seventy per. Estados Unidos cent of the western United States is graze4 including wilder- ness areas, w'ildlife refuges; national forests; and even some Resumen: El pastoreo de ganado es la prdctica de utanejfo national parks. The ecological costs of this nearly ubiqui- de la tierra mdzs amp liamente utilizada en el oeste de Norte tous form of land rise can be dramatic. £-ramples of such A.-ne~ica El setenta por ciento del oeste de Estados Un idos se costs include loss of biodiversity,- lowering of population utitizapara pastoreo, incluyendoiireassilvestres, refugios de densitiesfor a wide variety of taxt-; disruption of ecosystem v'ida silvestre, bosques nacionales e inclusive algunos functions, including nutrient cycling and succession,- change parques nacionaleiEl costo ecot6gico de estaforma uibicua in community organization; and change in the physical de uso de la tierra puede ser dramdtico. Ejemplos de este characteristics of both terrestrial and aquatic habitats. Be. costa incluyen perdida de la blodiversidad, decrecimiento cause livestock congregate in riparian ecosystemns, which are de las densidades depoblacidnpara una amplia variedad de among the biologically richest habitats in arid and sem iarid taxones; alteraciones en las funciones del ecosistem, in- regions; the ecological costs of grazing are magnified in cluyendo ciclos d1e nutrientes y sucesiones; cambios en la these sites, Range science has traditionally, been laden with organizacicinde la comunidady cambios en las caracteris- economsic assumptions favoring resource use. Conservation ticas fisicas de hdbitas terrestres y aczciticos. Dado que el biologists are encouraged to contribute to tbe ongoing social ganado se congrega en ecosistemas ribere~ios, los cuak's es- and scientific dialogue on grazing issues t~n entre los hdibitas bioldgicamente muds ricos den Iro de las regiones dridas y semi-dridas; las costos ecoldgicos r-el pas-s toreo se magnifican en estos sitios. Tradicionalrnente. la ciencia depastizales; ha estado cargadade suposiciones eco- n6micas que fatorecen el uso del recurso. Se alienta a los bidlogos conservacionistas a contribuir al didlogo soil Y cientifico en los problemas del pastoreo.

Introduction ening evidence that we no longer work alone. But what- about a world of wounds? The wounding of natural pro- Aldo Leopold (1953) once said that to be an ecologist is cesses accelerates, but some wounds are more conspic- to live "alone in a world of wounds." The spectacular uous than others. Recognizing a clearcut forest is easy, groundswell of interest in conservation biology is heart- but it often takes a trained eye to comprehend damage to rangelands. The destruction caused by livestock graz- Paper submitted August 16. 1993; revised manuscript accepted Feb- ing is so pervasive and has existed for so long that it ruary 14, 1994. frequently goes unnoticed. Livestock grazing has re- 629

Car,%ervatjon Biology. Nges 629-644 k'm I 'ko 3. 5ePrt",l'. 1tOQl 630 Ecologicil Costs of Gcrzrng Fleischn~er

ceived far less attention from conservation biologists grazed (see Rummell 1951). (3) Areas that intentionally than its widespread influence would suggest is appro- exclude livestock (exclosures) provide a before-grazing priate. When I recently surveyed the first six volumes of and after-grazing comparison. Exclosures can be moni- this journal, for example, I found almost three times as tored as they recover from the effects of grazing and can many articles on deforestation as on grazing-related topics. be compared with adjacent grazed sites. Almost all ex- Livestock grazing is the most widespread influence on closures share two characteristics: (I) their areas are native ecosystems of western North America (Wagner usually quite small (Bock et al. 1993a), often less than 1978; Crumpacker 1984). Grazing by livestock, primar- 50 ha; and (2) they have been grazed prior to exclosure. ilv cattle, is nearly ubiquitous throughout this region. In other words, very few studies of truly ungrazed land- Approximately 70% of the II western states of the scapes exist. Most recreational impact studies concur United States (Montana, Wyoming, Colorado, New Mex- that the original impact upon a pristine site is the most ico, and westward) is grazed by livestock (Council for severe (Cole 1981; Cole & Marion 1986); thus, exclo- Agricultural Science and Technology 1974; Longhurst et sure studies probably underestimate the true extent of al. 1984; Crumpacker 1984), including a broad diversiry grazing effects because they cannot monitor the most of ecosystem types and virtually all types of land man- drastic damage, which occurred long ago. In addition, agement designations. Grazing occurs in creosotebush virtually all exclosure studies examine areas too small to deserts, blackbrush deserts, slickrock mesas, sagebrush encompass landscape-level diversity. In summary, we flats, pinyonl-juniper woodlands, chaparral, ponderosa lack a clear ecological benchmark for determining the pine forests, and alpine meadows above timberline. effects of grazing. Grazing occurs on the majority of federal lands in the Attempts to discern grazing effects are also hampered West, including most of the domains of the U.S. Bureau by the difficulty in distinguishing between different of Land Management (BLM) and the U.S. Forest Service, range management practices. Management variables in- as well as in many national wildlife refuges, federal clude grazing intensity ("stocking rate"), livestock spe- wilderness areas, and even some national parks. In 16 cies, seasonality of grazing, and degree of active man- western states, approximately 165 million acres of BLM agement, such as movement of livestock between land and 103 million acres of Forest Service land are pastures. Unfortunately, the management history of grazed by 7 million head of livestock, primarily cattle many sites is unknown. Many studies do not describe (U.S. General Accounting Office 1988a). Of the BLf grazing intensity (see, for example, Glinski 1977; Reyn- lands in these states, 94% is grazed. Of federal wilder- olds & Trost 1980; Crouch 1982). Furthermore, stan- ness areas, 35% have active livestock grazing allotments dardized terminology is lacking for different grazing in- (Reed et al. 1989; this figure is from a nationwide sur- tensities. Relative terms, such as "heavy," "moderate," vey-the percentage for the West is probably higher). and "light" grazing, may be undefined (see Jeffries & Urbanized areas, some dense coniferous forests, and a Klopatek 1987) or qualitatively defined in very different few rock-and-ice peaks are about all that is free from the ways. Among the criteria used are presence of livestock, influence of livestock. Given the ubiquity of livestock, it presence of trails, range condition (seeJones 1981), and behooves us to understand the consequences of its pres- amount of herbage remaining after a grazing season (see ence on the Western landscape. Welch et al. 1991). Studies that have quantified grazing Understanding the influence of domestic livestock intensity have do so inconsistently. For example, two upon native ecosystems is a problematic process. Ascer- studies (Mosconi & Hutto 1982; Baker & Guthery taining the potential natural vegetation of most Western 1990) analyzing the effect of "hieavy" grazing differed in ecosystems is difficult because ungrazed la'd is ex- their definition by a factor of seven. The much-used tremely rare. Ecologists have gained insight into the ef- term "overgrazing" is wrought with controversy and fects of grazing primarily in three ways: (1) Historic lack of clarity; even specific discussions of overgrazing records provide perspective on the dramatic changes fail to define it (see Menke & Bradford 1992). This ru- that have transpired since the introduction of livestock dimentary state of knowledge interferes with analysis of to the West (see Cooper 1960). As Hastings (1959) the role of different grazing practices on biodiversity. pointed out, however, one must be cautious in inter- Available evidence indicates that livestock grazing has preting historical records, due to the subjectivity of dif- profound ecological costs. Autecological, synecological, ferent observers. Historic photographs have also been and geomorphological studies have confirmed that na- used in an attempt to recreate an ecological baseline tive ecosystems pay a steep price for th~e presence of (see Hastings & Turner 1965); Bahre (1991) reviewed livestock. Three primary attributes of ecosystems have the necessary cautions in interpreting historic photo- been elucidated: composition, function, and structure graphs. (2) Areas excluded from grazing through seren- (Franklin et al. 1981). Livestock grazing has a profound dipity, such as isolated mesa tops, provide startling con- impact on all three. The ecological costs of livestock trast to adjacent areas that have been continuously grazing can be summarized as follows:

Cunscr20tio0n Biology Vuolume 8,No. 3, Sc-ptember 1994 - - -

I Flei.chner Ecnhgic:tj Coti (f 631

(1) Alteration of species composition of communi- stock grazing activity have been observed in a wvide va* ties, including decreases in density and biomass of ricty of western ecosystems (Table I). individual species, reduction of species richness, Grazing also can exert a great impact on animal pop- and changing community organization. ulations, usually due to indirect effects on habitat struc- (2) Disnuption of ecosystem functioning including ture and prey availability (Wagner 1978; Jones 1981; interference in nutrient cycling and ecological Mosconi & Hutto 1982; Szaro et al. 1985; Quinn & Wal- succession. genbach 1990). The deleterious effects of grazing have (3) Aiteration of ecosystemn structure, including been observed in all vertebrate classes (Table 2). The changing vegetation stratification, contributing to response of native wildlife to grazing varies by habitat. soil erosion, and decreasing availability of water to Bock et al. (1993b) reviewed the effect of grazing on biotic communities. Neotropical migratory landbirds in three ecosystem types and found an increasingly negative effect on abun- dances of bird species in grassland, riparian woodland, Alteration of Species Composition of Communities and intermountain shrubsteppe (almost equal Lumbers That the introduction of a large-bodied herbivore of species with positive and negative responses to graz- should have dramatic effects on the species composition ing in grassland; six times as many with negative as pos- of plant communities in arid and semiarid regions itive responses In shrubsteppe). Due to their mobility should not be surprising. Congressional investigation and visual orientation, birds may be better able to cope into rangeland conditions on BLM and Forest Service with grazed landscapes than marnmals are (Bock et al. lands showed that over 50% of public rangelands ad- 1984). Platts (1979, 1981) reviewed the interaction of ministered by these two agencies were in "poor" or biological and geomorphological factors that degrade fish "fair" condition, meaning that less than half the range habitat. was 50% similar to the presumed climax community The relationship of grazing to insect populations is (U.S. General Accounting Office 1988e 199 Ia). Graz- unclear (Table 3). Studies of grasshoppers (Acrididae) ing affects the species composition of plant communi- on rangelands have yielded contradictory results: some ties in essentially two ways: (1) active selection by her- report an increase in grasshopper densities on heavily bivores for or against a specific plant taxon, and (2) grazed lands, and others report a decrease (summarized differential vulnerability of plant taxa to grazing (Szaro in Welch et al. 1991). Recent research has clarified that 1989). Decreases in density of native plant species and duration of grazing, seasonal differences in plant and diversity of native plant communities as a result of live- insect communities, and plant community architecture

Table 1. Deleterious effects of livestock grazing on plant communities Inwestern North America. Habitat Location Effect Authority Sonoran Dcsertscrub Arizona Perennial grasses and Krameria (palatable shrub) Blydenstein et al. (1957) showed dramatic density decreases with grazing Mojave Desertscrub California 60% reduction in above -ground biomass of annuals, Webb & Stielstra (19'9) 16-29% decrease in cover of perennial shrubs with grazing Sagebrush Desert Idaho Grazed site had 'A species richness of ungrazed site Reynolds & Trost (1980) Desert Grassland New Mexico 'Grass density increased by 110% after 30 years of Gardner (1950) protection from grazing Semidesert Grassland Arizona Species richness increased. as did canopy cover for Brady et al. ( 1989) midgrass, shortgrass. shrub. and forb groups, after removal of libestock Semidesert Grassland Arizona Woody plants significantly more abundant after Bock et al. ( 1984) removal of livestock Ponderosa Pine Washington Decreased species richness on grazed sites RummeU ( 195 1) Forest Mountain Canyon Utah Absence or near absence of 10 grass species on grazed Cottarn & Evans (1945) sites Riparian Oregon Species richness increased from 17 to 45 species nine Winegar (1977) years after removal of livestock Riparian Arizona Herbaceous cover of grazed plot less than half that of Szaro & Pase (1983) ungrazed plot Riparian Colorado Shrub canopy coverage increased 5.5 times, willow Schulz & Leininger (1990) canopy coverage 8 times after removal of livestock

i I

Conservtion Biology Volumc 8. No 3. Strtember 1994 632 Ecologicai Costs of Gazing Flei.schlltreolic

Table 2. Deleterious effects of livestock grazing on vertebrate animals in iiestern North 4america. Organisni(s~) Location Effect Awbtorit)v Small Mamnmals Idaho Density and diversiry reduced on grazed Reynolds & Trust ( 1980) sites Small Mammals Nevada Density over one-third lower, diversity Medin & Clar-y ( 1989) almost half on grazed sites Songbirds, Raprors, and Small Utah 350% increase in use and diversity after 8 Duff ( 1979) Mtainmals years rest from grazing Ducks and all Terrestrial Colorado All more abundant in ungrazed habitat Crouch ( 1982) Nongame Birds Upland Sandpiper (Harirainia North Dakota Nest density, reduced on grazed sites lBowen & Kruhe ( 1993) longicauda) Riparian Birds Montana Species composition altered by grazing; Mosconi & Ilutto ( 1982) densities of '4 of bpecies differed significainly between heavily and lightly grazed sns~4of these were higher on lightly grazed sites Riparian Passcrines Southeastern Oregon Species richness decreased on grazed sites Taylor ( 1986) Willow Flycatcher Southeastern Oregon Abundance increased from 0 to 30 when Taylor & Littletield ( 1986) (Empidonax traillii) grazing intensity reduced by 4 times Yellow Warbler (Dendroica Southeastern Oregon Abundance increased by 8 times when Taylor & Littielield ( 1980) petechia) grazing intensity reduced by -I times IDickcissel (Spiza americana) Okldaboma Populations 50% lower on grazed sites Overmire ( 1963) and Bell's Vireo (Vireo bellii) Lizards California Abundance 2 times and biomass 3.7 times Busack & Bury ( 1974) higher on ungrazed site lizards Arizona Abundance and diversity higher on Jones ( 1981, 1988) ungrazed sitc in -I of 5 vegetation types Wandering Garter Snake New Mexico 5 times more abundant in ungrazed sites Szaro et al. ( 1985) (Tbamnnopbis elegans vagrans) Desert Tortoise (Gopberus Western U.S-A. livestock trample young tortoises, damage Berry ( 1978); Camnpbe~ll - N agassizi) burrows and shrubs used for shelter, (1988) and remove critical forage Trout (Sairnonidae) Great Basin Average increase in production of 184% Bowers et al. ( 19779) when grazing reduced or eliminated Trout (Salmnonidac) Idaho More abundant, larger fish after removal Keller & Burnhamn (19822) of livestock Trout (Salmonidac) Colorado Standing crop doubled after removal of Stuber ( 1985) livestock are important factors in determining the effect of graz- Mexico from grassland to crcosotebush (Larrea) desert ing on grasshopper populations. (Whitfield St Anderson 1938; York & Dick-Pcddie Grazing-induced changes in particular species trans- 1969). Kennedy ( 1977) noted that grazing thoroughly late into major conversions of community ot'lanization. changed the primary plant species in most Southwest Grazing is credited with transforming southern New riparian zones. He referred to these changes as "coni-

Table 3. Effects of livestock grazing on insect. location Effe ct Autbority Arizona Grasshopper density 3.7 times greater on protected site in summer, 3.8 Jepson-Innes & Bock ( 1989) times greater on-grazed site in fall (different subfamilies, with different food preferences dominant in each season) Australia Ant abundance increased as sheep density increased; all other groups liutchinson & King ( 1980) reduced substatially at highest livestock density Colorado Grasshoppers significantly more abundant on a lightly grazed site than Welch et al, (1991) on a heavily grazed site; because there was no difference berween the same sites 19 years earlier, a long-term effect of grazing is indicated Oklahoma Decreases in abundance of most insect groups, dramatic increase in Smith ( 1940) grasshoppers South Dakota Plant community architecture changed from midgras/tailgrass to Quinn & Walgenbach (1990) shortgrass, which changed grasshopper species composition

Conscrvation Biology Volume a,No. 3, SeptembL-r 1994 t1eischner EWlir)q]WJ Clost. 0/ ( rL'14 (h33

pletc type conversions." Grazing can eliminate a willow (Klciner & Harper 1977), increased soil stability I «stand within 30 years (Kovalchik & Elmore 1992). In (Kieiner & Harper 1972; Rychert et al. 1978), and in- I I Oregon, grazing delayed plant phenology two weeks creased soil water infiltration (Loope & Gifford 1972; (Kauffman et al. 1983b); such changes could have dra- Rychert et al. 1978). Crusts also play an important role 40 i matic effects on communities of pollinators and dispers- in ecological succession because they provide favorable I ers. Grazing has also been observed to alter animal for- sites for the germination of vascular plants (St. Clair et I aging guilds (Table 4). al. 1984). I communities by aiding the Given the fragile nature of microbiotic crusts, it fol- i Grazing destabilizes plant r spread and establishment of exotic species, such as tam- lows that they are easily damaged by livestock grazing. arisk (Tarnarix) (Ohmart & Anderson 1982; Hobbs & In numerous studies, grazing has been correlated with Huenneke 1992). Livestock help spread exotic plant the loss of microbiotic cover (Wullstein 1973; Johansen species by (I) dispersing seeds in fur and dung; (2) et al. 1981; Anderson et al. 1982; Jeffries & Klopatek opening up habitat for weedy species, such as cheatgrass 1987). Crusts can be severely disrupted even while they (Bromus tectonum; Gould 1951; lack 1981), which (Belnap 1993) and the more conspicuous vascular plant thrive in disturbed areas; and (3) reducing competition communities (Kleiner & Harper 1972; Cole 1990) ap- from native species by eating them. As D'Antonio and pear healthy. Microbiotic species richness has also been Vitousek (1992) pointed out, alien grass invasions in shown to decrease under grazing pressure (Anderson et North America have been most severe in the arid and al. 1982). Recent studies on the Colorado Plateau have semiarid West, where invasion by many species (includ- dramatically demonstrated that soil surface disturbances ing Brornus tectonrm, B. rubens,B. mollis, B. diandruls can virtually stop nitrogen fixation. Nitrogenase activity Taeniathe-um asperum, and Avena spp.) was associ- was reduced 8(0-100% in the microbiotic crust under a ated with grazing. single human footprint, as well as under vehicle tracks (Belnap, personal communication; Belnap 1994; Belnap et al. 1994), and nitrogen content in the leaves of dom- Disruption of Ecosystem Functioning inant plant species was lower in trampled than untrarn- The deleterious effects of livestock on native ecosvs- pled areas (Belnap, personal communication; Hlarper & tems are not limited to changes in species composition. Pendleton 1993). If a single footprint can bring a local Grazing also disrupts the fundamental ecosystem func- nitrogen cycle almost to a halt, the impact of a century's tions of nutrient cycling and succession. work of livestock hoofprints can easily be imagined. An often overlooked characteristic of arid and semi- Grazing also can disrupt ecological succession. The arid ecosystems is the presence of microbiotic (or cryp- cumulative impact of long-term livestock use has pro- togamic) soil crusts, delicate symbioses of cyanobacte- duced and maintained early seral vegetation throughout ria, lichens, and mosses from a variety of taxa. The much of the West (Longhurst et al. 1982). Glinski essential role of these microbiotic crusts in nutrient cy- (1977) demonstrated that cattle grazing of small seed- cling of arid ecosystems has been increasingly appreci- lings prevented cottonwood (Populus fremontii) re- ated. Crusts perform the major share of nitrogen fixation generation in a southern Arizona riparian zone. He con- in desert ecosystems (Rychert et al. 1978). The avail- cluded that long-term grazing could eliminate or reduce ability of nitrogen in the soil is a primary limiting factor the upper canopy by preventing the establishment of on biornass production in deserts. In the Great Basin saplings. Carothers et al. (1974) noted the lack of cot- Desert, at least. it is second in importance only to the tonvood regeneration in grazed areas along the Verde lack of moisture (James & Jurinak 1978). Microhiotic River, Arizona. Prevention of seedling establishment due crusts in arid ecosystems have been correlated with in- to grazing and trampling by livestock has transformed a creased organic matter and available phosphorus variety of Southwest riparian systems into even-aged.

Table 4. Effects of livestock grazing on animal foraging guilds in western North America.

Oranisms Location Effect Authori4 Riparian Birds Montana Flycatching guild. ground-foraging thrush guild and Mosconi & Hutto ( 1982) foliage-gleaning insectivore guild affected: bark-foraging guild unaffected Riparian Birds Oregon Grazed sites preferred by insectivores, ungrazed sites by Kauffman et al. ( 1982) herbivores and granivores Lizards Arizona Mlore sit-and-wsvait lizards on grazed sites; open-space Jones (1981) foragers and widc-ranging foragers decreased on grazed sites Grasshoppers South Dakota Obligate grass-feeders dominated on grazed sites, Quinn & Walgenbach (1990) mixed-forb and-grass-feeders on ungrazed sites

Conservauon Biologv I Volume 8. No 3. St-ptember 1994 t t Ecologscil Costusf(arizng H'et~llOner

nonreproducing vegetative communities (Carothers rangelands of the Intermountain West, which are now 1977; Szaro 1989). 'ii Oregon, grazing retarded succes- almost completely absent (Kovalchik & Elmore 1992). sion in the willo iack cottonwood (Salix-Populus Grazing structurally changed habitat for the wandering trichocarpa)comn:, .uty, and there was little if any re- garter snake (7T1aminopbis elegans vagrans) through generation of alder, AtOnus) or cottonwoods (Kauffman the loss of small trees and shrubs (Szaro et al. 1985). In et al. 1983b). Davis (1977) concluded that livestock central Arizona, lizard habitat was changed when live- grazing was "probably the major factor contributing to stock reduced low-height vegetation by totally consum- the failure of riparian comMunities to propagate them- ing perennial grasses and severely reducing palatable selves." shrubs (uoncs 1981). In Oregon, Taylor ( 1986) noted Ascertaining patterns of ecological succession in xc- that lower v-egetative strata were affected by grazing. In ric rangelands is not easy; thus, the effect of livestock on blackbrush (Coleogyne ram-osissimpia) desert habitat, successional processes is unclear. Traditionally, range ungrazed sites had significantly more shrub and herba- management was based upon Clellments' (1916) classic ceous cover (Jeffries & Klopatek 1987). In a high- model of ecological succession, where seral stages lead altitude wvillow riparian community in Colorado, grazing to a stablc climax. Early on, this concept of predictable, iniluenced the spacing of plants and the wvidth of thic directional succession was applied to range ecosy'stemLs riparian zone (Knopf & Cannon 1982). (Sampson 1919). This "range succession model' even- Grazing removes soil litter, which can have both tually formed the basis of range condition classification. physical and biological effects. Schulz and Leininger as exemplified by government manuals and early range (1990) observed twice as much litter in an exclosure as management textbooks (Stoddart & Smith 1943), and in surrounding grazed habitat. In Oregon, removal of summarized in an extensive review by Ellison ( 1960). soil litter was thought to be the cause of delayed i ;.ant In the arid West, however, vegetation change due tO phentology (Kauffman et al. 1983b), which in turn c.-ld grazing has not followed the prediction of this linear affect communities of animal pollinators. model. Recent evidence suggests that range ecosystems Researchers have long recognized that grazing con- have not evolved as well-balanced communities with tributes to the deterioration of soil stability and porosity stable species compositions (Johnson & Mayeux 1992). and increases erosion and soil compaction. Seventy More recently, a less ClemenEsian view of xeric range- years ago, Aldo Leopold (1924) declared that "grazing is land succession, referred to as the "state-and-transition the prime factor in destroying watershed values" in Ar- mno!c:l," has been proposed (Westoby et al. 1989). Ac- izona. Grazing reduces the roughness coefficient of w a- cotuong to this model, relatively stable .discrete vegeta- tersheds, resulting in more surface runoff, more soil ero- tion states go through transitions induced by natural sion, and massive flooding (Ohmart & Anderson 1982). episodic events such as fire or by management actions Grazing in the upper Rio Grande changed plant cover. such as grazing (Laycock 1991). As Friedel ( 1991 ), Lay. thus increasing flash floods and, consequently, erosion cock ( 1991), and others have discussed, transitions be- (Cooperrider & Hendricks 1937). As grazing-induced tween states sometimes cross successional "thresholds." gullying lowered the stream channel along an Oregon Once certain thresholds have been crossed, as in severe stream, associated plant communities changed from wet soil erosion, succession may not be reversible except by meadow to the more xeric sagebrush-rabbitbrush strong, active management. Although this model is in its (Chbrysothamnnos) type (Winegar 1977). Davis (1977) infancy, it may someday provide a means to predict if concluded that removal of upland vegetation by live- grazing can cause long-term degradation by inducing stock was a major factor in the increase in devastating irreversible succession across thresholds. floods. Numerous authors have noted extreme erosion and gullying when comparing heavily grazed to un- grazed sites (see Cottam & Evans 1945; Gardner 1950; Alteration of Ecosystem Structure Kauffman et al. 1983a). Ellison (1960) concluded that "as a result of some degree of denudation, accelerated The physical structure of ecosystems, including vegeta- soil erosion is inseparably linked with overgrazing on tion stratification, is often changed by livestock grazing. arid lands the world over." In central Washington, grazing was responsible for Grazing has also repeatedly been shown to increase changing the physical structure of ponderosa pine forest soil compaction and thus decrease water infiltration (Al- from an open, park-like tree overstory with dense grass derfer & Robinson 1949; Orr 1960; Rauzi & Hanson cover to a community characterized by dense pine re- 1966; Bryant et al. 1972; Rauzi & Smith 1973; Kauffman production and lack of grasses (Rummell 1951). Graz- & Krueger 1984; Abdel-Magid et al. 1987; Orodho et al. ing was at least partially responsible for similar struc- 1990). In arid and semiarid lands where water is the tural changes in ponderosa pine forests of northern primary ecological limiting factor, major losses of water Arizona (Cooper 1960). Historic records indicate that from ecosystems can lead to severe desertification. extensive willow stands once occurred throughout the Some controversy exists as to whether livestock grazing

Con5n-aTion Biology Volume 8, No. 3, Septcmbcr 1994 IFkischnt'r ftolepcal (,'i)A of Gruug 63i

was the cause of increased flooding and erosion or that riparian conditions throughout the West are non whether the synchrony of increased channel trenching the worst in American history (Chancy et al. 1990). and the introduction of vast livestock herds during the Over 90% of Arizona's original riparian habitat is gone last century was coincidental. Episodes of channel (Johnson 1989), Less than 5% of the riparian habitat in trenching certainly occurred prior to the introduction California's Central Valley remains; 85% of that is in of livestock (Bryan 1925; Karlstrom & Karlstrom 1987). disturbed or degraded condition (Franzreb 1987). The Most reviewers, however, conclude that, at the least, degradation of Western riparian habitats began with se- livestock have been a contributing factor to the en- s-ere overgrazing in the late Nineteenth Century trenching of stream channels in the Southwest (Bryan (Chaney et al. 1990), and grazing remains "the most 1925; Leopold 1951; Hereford & Webb 1992; Betan- insidious threat to the riparian habitat type today" court 1992). This interaction of climatic, geomorphic, (Carothers 1977). An extensive survey of Southwest ri- and biological factors has been summarized as a "trig- parian community types concluded that "livestock ma- ger-pull": long-term climatic trends were already under- be the major cause of excessive habitat disturbance in way when cattle arrived to serve "as the trigger-pull that most western riparian communities" (Szaro 1989). The set off an already loaded weapon" (Hastings 1959). Oregon-Washington Interagency Wildlife Committee (1979), composed of biologists from several govern- ment agencies, concluded that grazing is the most im- Costs of Grazing Magnified: Riparian Habitats in portant factor in degrading wildlife and fisheries habitat the Arid West throughout the 11 western states. Likewise, ecologists in Montana suggested that livestock grazing is the major Livestock, like humans, are adapted to mesic habitats, cause of habitat disturbance in most western riparian and they select riparian areas for the same reasons we communities (Mosconi & Hutto 1982). do: shade, cooler temperatures, and water. In addition, Livestock affect four general component of riparian riparian areas offer an abundance of food. Many observ- systems: (I) streamside vegetation, (2) stream channel ers have noted that cattle spend a disproportionate morphology, (3) shape and quality of the water column, amount of their time in riparian zones (Ames 1977; and (4) structure of streambank soil (Platts 1979, 1981, Kennedy 1977; Thomas et al. 1979; Roath & Krueger 1983; Kauffman & Krueger 1984; Platts & Nelson 1989). 1982; Van Vuren 1982; Gillen et al. 1984). That live- As summarized by Platts (1981), "Grazing can affect the stock actively select riparian habitats, however, is a streamside environment by changing, reducing, or elim- cause for ecological concern because these habitats are inating vegetation bordering the stream. Channel mor- among the biologically richest in many arid and semi- phology can be changed by accrual of sediment, alter- arid regions and are easily damaged. Because livestock ation of channel substrate, disruption of the relation of spend much of their time in riparian communities, and pools to riffles, and widening of the channel. The water because the ecological stakes are highest here, many of column can be altered by increasing water temperature, the adverse impacts of grazing are magnified in these nutrients, suspended sediment, bacterial populations, habitats. and in the timing and volume of strcamflow. l.ivestock Western riparian zones are the most productive hab- can trample streambanks, causing banks to slough off, itats in North America (Johnson et al. 1977), providing creating false setback banks, and exposing banks to ac- essential wildlife habitat for breeding, .wintering, and celerated soil erosion." migration (Gaines 1977; Stevens et 4l, 1977; Brode & Riparian vegetation is altered by livestock in several Bury 1984; Laymon 1984; Lowe 1985)# iparian habitats ways: ( I) compaction of soil, which increases runoff and in the Southwest are home to the North American con- decreases water availability to plants. (2) herbage re- tinent's highest density of breeding birds (Carothers et moval, which allows soil temperatures to rise, thereby al. 1974; Carothers &Johnson 1975), rarest forest type, increasing evaporation; (3) physical damage to vegeta- and more than 100 state and federally listed threatened tion by rubbing, trampling, and browsing: and 4) alter- and endangered species (Johnson 1989). Approxi- ing the growth form of plants by removing terminal mately three-quarters of the vertebrate species in Ari- buds and stimulating lateral branching (Kauffman & zona and New Mexico depend on riparian habitat for at Krueger 1984; Szaro 1989). Livestock grazing is one of least a portion of their life cycles (Johnson et al. 1977; the principal factors contributing to the decline of na- Johnson 1989). Even xeroriparian habitats-normally tive trout in the West. Cattle activities especially dele- dry corridors that intermittently carry floodwaters terious to fish are the removal of vegetative cover and through low deserts-support five to ten times the bird the trampling of over-hanging streambanks (Behnke & densities and species diversity of surrounding desert up- Zarn 1976). Livestock have been shown to decrease lands (Johnson & Haight 1985). water quality of streams (Diesch 1970; Buckhouse & Sadly, these biological treasures are in extreme dan- Gifford 1976). Changes in water chemistry Cleffries & ger. The Environmental Protection Agency concluded Klopatek 1987) and temperature (Van Velson 1979). in

Conservation Biology Volume 8. No 3. Seprtemher 199 i a 636 Ecologicd Cu,- of Grazing FleJ.chllcr

cffect, create an entirelv nev .LtiC ecoSyStelm analysis of sensitive vertebrate species identified live- (Kennedy 1977; Kauffman & 1984). Insights stock grazing as one of five ftactors jeopardizing the: such as these led the Americain *Society to issue northern goshawk (Accipitergentilis) in the Southwvcst a formal position statement x . an overhaul of (Finch 1992). Yet the goshawk management recom- riparian zone management (As u.i et al. 1991). mendations (Reynolds et al. 1992), released by the same office in the same year, did not even mention grazing. Such predilections by agencies reflect similar biases Historical and Management Considerations vithin the range management discipline: a recent 500- page textbook on range management (Holechek et al. By virtually any measure, livestock grazing has serious 1989) devotes one paragraph to nongame wildlife. ecological costs in western North America. Grazing has A variety of justifications are heard for grazing in the reduced the density and biomass of many plant and an- WVest. Because livestock has been such a prominent imal species, reduced biodiversity, aided the spread of component of Euro-American settlement of the West, exotic species, interrupted ecological succession, im- some observers see it as a traditional pastime and as- peded the cycling of the most important limiting nutri- sume it is appropriate for the land. Some range managers ent (nitrogen), changed habitat structure, disturbed maintain that livestock are actually necessamy for eco- community organization, and has been the most severe systcm health, that 'grass needs grazing" (Chase 1988; impact on one of the biologically richest habitats in the Savory 1988). Popular claims such as these are rooted in region. While undoubtedly there are exceptions to this a scientific debate on the consequences of herbivory on theme of destruction, clearly much of the ecological grassland ecosystems. As the "herbivore optimization" integrity of triety of North American habitats is at risk hypothesis goes, loss of tissue to herbivores can actually from this land management practice. increase total productivity of the grazed plant. Such a In addition to grazing per se, the industry of livestock response to herbivory is referred to as "overcompensa- production entails a number of indirect costs to native tion" by the plant (Owen & Wiegart 1976; Dyer et al. biodiversity. Livestock compete with native herbivores 1982). When different levels of ecological hierarchy (in- for forage ("usurpation") and often consume the most dividual, population, community; Belsk-y 1987) and a nutritive species ("highgrading"). Fencing, which is a wide diversity of ecosystem types, geographic settings, fundamental livestock management tool, creates obsta- and degrees of management intensity are lumped to- cles for many native wildlife species, such as the prong- gether into one generalized theory, clarity is lost. Much horn (Antilocapra americana). The livestock industry of the evidence for overcompensation comes from has played a large role in the elimination of native pred- highly productive and intensively managed systems, not ators; some of the most vehement opposition to preda- from arid rangelands (Bartolome 1993). Few studies tor reintroduction continues to come from livestock in- have demonstrated overcompensation in western North terests. Exotic species, such as crested wheatgrass America (Painter & Belsky 1993), where much of the (Agropyron cristaturn), are planted as "range improve- rangeland resource is not grassland. Observations of na- ments." In addition, livestock can transmit disease to tive herbivores lend no support to the idea that com- native animals (Mackie 1978; Longhurst et al. 1983; pensatory growth has any relevance at the community Menke & Bradford 1992). level in western rangelands (Patten 1993). According to Agency management priorities often overemphasize Vicari and Bazely (1993), "there is little evidence that livestock needs at the expense of wildlife. A recent Con- the act of grazing per se increases the fitness of grasses, gressional study of BLM and Forest Service management or any other plant species, except under highly specific confirmed that wildlife receives only a small percentage circumstances." I of available staffing and funding. During fiscal years Other scientists and range managers suggest that live- 1985-1989 the BLM directed only 3% of its total ap- stock, given their capacity for altering so many aspects propriation toward wildlife habitat management, while of ecological organization, could be used as a wildlife 34% of its budget went to its three consumptive pro- management tool (Bokdam & Wallis de Vries 1992; grams: range, timber, and energy and minerals (U.S. Hobbs & Huenneke 1992). In summarizing a sympo- General Accounting Office 1991b). Wildlife at national sium on the topic, Severson (1990) clarified that such wildlife refuges also suffers from management emphasis applications may be very limited, and that what benefits on livestock Cattle grazing and haying occur at 123 one species may prove detrimental to another. Because refuges; at any given site these activities occupy up to two species in the same community may vary in their 50% of refuge funds and 55% of stI ime. Field studies response to grazing (Hobbs & Huenneke 1992), deter- indicated that these livestock-relaicu activities directly mination of its success or failure as a management prac- impeded wildlife conservation (Strassman 1987). Strong tice depends on which species is used as a criterion. On agency bias in favor of grazing often leads to contradic- many national wildlife refuges, grazing and haying occur tory management decisions. A recent Forest Service with the rationale that these practices will benefit wild- 1'0T Conservation Biology VolIuc X, No. 3, Septerrnber 1994 Fleischner Fcnhtglcil Co(Lq of G;r:LZirtg 637

I lie. Upon review of 123 refuges, Strassman (1987) con. idence was somewhat ambiguous and concluded that I cluded that "although in theory cattle grazing and hay- livestock may have contributed to vegetation change in kaw 1 ing can be wildlife management tools, as implemented the region "but have not been the primary agent of they arc tools that do more harm than good." change" (Hastings & Turner 1965). This work has since 1 It is often stated that livestock have merely taken the been widely quoted by livestock interests to support the 1 place of large native herbivores, particularly bison (Bi. idea that historic overgrazing was overstated and, there- son bison). The presettlement abundance of bison on fore, to justify the continuation of grazing in the region. i along the Arizona border- i the Great Plains is legendary. West of the Rocky Mloun- Recently vegetation change tains, however, bison were rare or absent in Holocene lands has received renewed scholarly attention. This times. The species was present in the northern Rockies new work reached a very different conclusion: "proba- marginally present along the northern and west- bly no single land use has had a greater effect on the i region, ern perimeter of the Great Basin (Hall 1981; Mlack & vegetation of southeastern Arizona or has led to more Thompson 1982; Zeveloff 1988; Van Vuren & Deitz changes in the landscape than livestock grazing range 1993) and absent altogether from Arizona (Cockrum management programs. Undoubtedly, grazing since the 1960; Hoffmeister 1986), western New Mexico (Bailey 1870s has led to soil erosion, destruction of those plants 1971), as well as most of California (Jameson & Peeters most palatable to livestock, changes in regional fire ecol- 1988), and Nevada (Hall 1946). The native steppe veg- ogy, the spread of both native and alien plants, and etation of much of the Intermountain West, character- changes in the age structure of evergreen woodlands ized by caespitose bunchgrasses and a prominent micro- and riparian forests" (Bahre 1991), Moreover, the new biotic crust, reflects the absence of large numbers of analysis (Bahre 1991) states that "the present historic large-hooved, congregating mammals. These steppe evidence ... casts serious doubt on the hypothesis that ecosystems have been particularly susceptible to the a shift toward greater aridity is the primary factor for introduction of livestock; microbiotic crusts, as men- regional vegetation changes." Bahre (1991) agrees that tioned earlier, are easily damaged by trampling. In con- climatic oscillations since 1870 have resulted in short- trast, the slightly wetter Great Plains grasslands, charac- term fluctuations in vegetation but insists that long-term terized by rhizomatous grasses and a lack of microbiotic directional changes, including degradation of riparian crusts, were well-adapted to withstand herbivory by habitats and spread of exotic species, have resulted from large ungulates (Stebbins 1981; Mack & Thompson human disturbances, including overgrazing by cattle. 1982). Theoretically, then, the Great Plains should be Bahre challenges the conclusions of The Changing ,Mile better suited to livestock grazing than the arid and semi- on the basis of several factors, including lack of historic arid ecosystems west of the Rockies. It should also be evidence to support several key assumptions in the ear- noted that the ecological analogy between cattle and lier work (for example, that overgrazing had been prac- bison is incomplete. Cattle, unlike bison, spend a dis- ticed since the time of the Mexican occupation), and proportionate amount of time in riparian habitats. In a that the majority of historic photographs were taken comparative study of cattle and bison feeding ecology in after the worst grazing damage had already occurred. In the Henry Mountains, Utah, Van Vuren (1982) noted other words, The Cbhnging Mile made comparisons to that cattle distribution was limited to gentle slopes near the wrong baseline data. For now, the best historic ev- wvater, regardless of forage, while bison roamed widely, idence seems to support the idea that livestock grazing, seemingly unaffected by slope or proxinity to water. interacting with fluctuations in climatic cycles, has been The controversy about flood cycles and arrovo- a primary factor in altering ecosystems of the Southwest. cutting, discussed earlier, is but one part of a larger Human intervention is needed to restore the Wcst to controversy concerning the respective roles of climate ecological health. According to the BLUi's own defini- change and human land use-including livestock graz- tion, over 68%6 of its lands are in "unsatisfactory con- ing-in changing the vegetation of western North Amer- dition (WXald & Alberswerth 1989; U.S. General Ac- ica. The international borderlands of southern Arizona counting Office 199 la). Approximately 464 million and northern Sonora, Mexico, have been the site of the acres of American rangeland have undergone some de- most intensive study of this issue. The appearance of The gree of desertification (Dregne 1983), Attempts at res- Changing Mile (Hastings & Turner 1985) almost three toration of livestock-damaged ecosystems have offered decades ago promoted the then new idea that the re- both good and bad news: riparian areas often show rapid gion's dramatic vegetation change during the previous recovery upon removal of livestock, but more xeric up- century was due to increasing aridity-to natural cli- lands demonstrate little inherent capacity for healing mate change-and not to human land -use patterns. Us- Riparian areas appear to be relatively resilient. At a ing pairs of photographs, one historic and one recent, Sonoran Desert spring, Warren and Anderson (1987) The Changing Mile visually documented vegetation documented dramatic recovery of marsh and riparian change and concluded that its cause was an increasingly vegetation within five years of livestock removal. All arid climate. As for livestock, these authors felt the ev- nine aspects of trout habitat studied along Summit

--.! Consucr, tion Biogpe 1. %'olume 8 N;,) AdScptcmsher 199xA

. _ . . 638 EgCvkOJC4 CoStsof C6wing flmc/ halerr

Creek, Idaho, improved within two years of livestock scale plantings of exotic species. Such activities restore removal (Keller et al. 1979). Mahogany Creek, Nevada, livestock forage, not native ecosystems. also showed major improvement in fisheries habitat af- Is there an ecologically sustainable future for live- ter only two years of exclosure (Dahlem 1979). Beaver stock grazing in vestern North America? This ultimately and waterfowl returned to Camp Creek, Oregon, wvithin is a question of human values, not of science. \X'e must nine years of cattle exclosure (Winegar 1977). Ilow- decide how much wve really care about native diversity ever, the aquatic component of riparian systems often is and ecos)ystem processes and what we are willing to do the quickest to show improvement. Szaro and Pase to sustain them. Ecological science and conservation (1983) observed extremely limited recovery of a cot- biology have a key role to play in helping society make tonwood-ash-willow association in Arizona after four a wFise decision. Scientific input into grazing issues has years. Knopf and Cannon ( 1982) noted that a willow come laden with resource extraction assumptions: one community was slower to heal than the adjacent stream: of the primary goals of range management is to maxi- 10-12 years was insufficient for recovery of the former. mize livestock production (Stoddart & Smith 1943; Bell The U.S. General Accounting Office (1988b) recently 1973; Mecnke & Bradford 1992) or to "improve the out- reviewed riparian restoration efforts on BLM and Forest put of consumable range products" (Holechek et al. Service lands in the West and concluded ( I) that even 1989). Given this economic underpinning, the ecolog- severely degraded habitats can be successfully restored ical merit of livestock in the West has generally gone and (2) that successful restoration to date represents unchallenged. It is time that conservation biologists take only a small fraction of the work that needs to be done. a careful look at the most pervasive land use in western They noted that successful techniques varied consider- North America and scrutinize the practice described as ably from site to site, and that many sites could repair "the single most important factor limiting wildlife pro- themselves, given respite from livestock. Successful ri- duction in the West" (Smith 1977) and "one of the parian restoration efforts are summarized by the U.S. primary threats to biological diversity" (Cooperrider General Accounting Office (1988b) and Chaney et al. 1991). \W'hatever decision society reaches, it will be a (1990). wiser, more informed one if the conservation biology In numerous studies of riparian grazing impact, inves- community contributes its insights to the debate. tigators concluded that total removal of livestock was necessary to restore ecosystem health. Along Mahogany Creek, Nevada, reduction in grazing had little benefit; Acknowledgments I, only a complete removal brought about habitat im- This paper provement (Dahlem 1979; Chaney et al. 1990). Ames benefited considerably from critiques by Walt Anderson, Allen Cooperrider, Reed Noss, Mlark ( 1977) found that even short-term or seasonal use is too Riegner, and an anonymous reviewer. Jayne Belnap much and compared mere reductions in livestock num- shared unpublished bers to letting "the milk cow get in the garden for one data on cryptobiotic soil crusts. The staff of the night." In a recent comparison of 11 grazing systems, Prescott College Library graciously assisted me with bibliographic work. Edie Dillon total exclusion of livestock offered the strongest ecosys- supported this tem protection (Kovalchik & Elmore 1992). As Davis work in numerous ways; River Fleischner kept it grounded. To all these people (1982) put it, "if the overgrazing by livestock is one of I offer my sincere thanks. the main factors contributing to the destruction of the habitat, then the solution would be to ... remove the Literature Cited cause of the problem." Abdel-MNfagid, A. H., M.J. Trlica, and R. Hi Hart. 1987. Soil and The vast majority of damaged rangeland acreagc is on vegetation responses to simulated trampling. Journal of Range arid and semiarid lands, where the prognosis for resto- Management 40:303-306, ration is poor (Allen & Jackson 1992). To rehabilitate arid lands is somewhat analogous to trying to grow a Alderfer, R. B., and R. R. Robinson. 1949. Runoff from pastures in relation to grazing intensity and soil compaction. Journal of garden without water. Perhaps because there is Little the American Society of Agronomy 39:948-958. chance of rapid success, land managers have been slow to take up the challenge of restoring arid rangelands. Allen, E.B., and L L.Jackson. 1992. The arid West, Restoration Cooperrider (1991) noted that "the principal purpose and Management Notes 10:56-59. of most rangeland rehabilitation projects has been res- toration of livestock forage. Such projects typically end Ames, C. R. 1977. Wildlife conflicts in riparian management: up reducing plant and animal species diversity." Some Grazing. Pages 49-51 in R, R.Johnson and D. A.Jones, techni- cal coordinators. Importance, dryland restoration projects preservation, and management touted as success stories of riparian habitat: A symposium. General Technical Report (such as the Vale project in southeastern Oregon; R&f-43. U.S. Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range iI Menke & Bradford 1992), actually have entailed large- Experiment Station, Fort Collins, Colorado. P .

Consemn-ion Biology Volunic 8, N-o 3, Scptcmbcr 1994

VW, ,, ". II I -.I .. I 7-1- 'WIt I.- I

Fleischner Ecolhgical Costs of rn;mt 639

K Anderson, D.C., K. T. Harper, and R. C. loolmngren. 1982. Fac- Bock. C. F., J. Il. Bock, and i. MI.Smith. 1993a Proposal for a tors influencing development of cryptogamic soil crusts in system of federal livestock exclosures on public rangelands in Utah deserts. Journal of Range Management 35:180-185. the western United States. Conservation Biology 7:731-733. %Nw, Armour, C. L, D. A. Duff, and W. Elmore. 1991. The effects of Bock, C. E., V. A. Saab, T. D. Rich, and D. S. Dobkin. 1993b livestock grazing on riparian and stream ecosystems. Fisheries Effects of livestock grazing on Neotropical migratorv landbirds 16:7-11. in western North America. Pages 296-309 in D. MI.Finch and P. W. Stangel, editors. Status and management of Neotropical Bahre, C.J. 1991. A legacy of change: Historic human impact migratory birds. General Technical Report RINM-229. U.S. Forest on vegetation of the Arizona borderlands. University of Ari- Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Sta- zona Press, Tucson, Arizona. tion, Fort Collins, Colorado.

Bailey, V. 1971. Mammals of the Southwestern United States. Bokdam,J., and MX.F. Wallis de Vries. 1992. Forage quality as a Dover Publications, New York. Republication of Bailey, V. limiting factor for cattle grazing in isolated Dutch nature re- 1931. Mammals of New Mlexico. North American Fauna, No. serves. Conservation Biology 6:399-408. 53. Bureau of Biological Survey, Washington, D.C. Bowen, B. S., and A. D. Kruse. 1993. Effects of grazing on nest- Baker, D. L, and F.S. Gutherv. 1990. Effects of continuous ing by upland sandpipers in southcentral North Dakota. Jour- grazing on habitat and density of ground-foraging birds in nal of Wildlife Management 57:291-301. south Texas. Journal of Range Management 43:2-5.

Bartolome, J. W. 1993. Application of herbivore optimization Bowers, W., B. Hosford, A. Oakley, and C. Bond. 1979. Wildlife theory to rangelands of the western United States. Ecological habitats in managed rangelands-the Great Basin of southeast- Applications 3:27-29. ern Oregon- Native trout. General Technical Report PN-W-84. U.S. Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Exper- Behnke, R.J., and NM.Zarn. 1976. Biology and management of iment Station, Portland, Oreg6n. threatened and endangered western trouts. General Technical Report RIM-28. U.S. Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Brady, W. W., NI. R. Stromberg, E. F. Aldon, C. D. Bonham, and Range Experiment Station, Fort Collins, Colorado. S. H. Henry. 1989. Response of a semidesert grassland to 16 years of rest from grazing. Journal of Range Management Bell, H. M. 1973. Rangeland management for livestock produc- 42:284-288. tion. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman, Oklahoma. Brode, J. AM.,and R. B. Bury. 1984. The importance of riparian Belnap, J. 1993. Recovery rates of cryptobiotic crusts: Inocu- systems to amphibians and reptiles. Pages 30-36 in R. E. lant use and assessment methods. Great Basin Naturalist Warner and K. Hendrix, editors. California riparian systems 53:89-95. Ecology, conservation, and productive management. Univer- sity of California Press, Berkeley, California. Belnap.J. (in press). Potential role of cryptobiotic soil crusts in semiarid rangelands. Pages 1-7 in S. B. Mlonson and S. Bn-an, K. 1925. Date of channel trenching (arroyo cutting) in Kitchen, editors. Proceedings of the symposium on ecology, the arid Southwest. Science 62:338-344. management, and restoration of intermountain annual range- lands. General Technical Report INT-XXX. U.S. Forest Service, Bryant, F.T., R. E. Blaser, and J. R. Peterson. 1972. Effect of Intermountain Research Station, Ogden, Utah. trampling by cattle on bluegrass yield and soil compaction of a Mcadovville Loam. Agronomy Journal 64:331-334. Belnap, J., K T. Harper, and S. D. Warren. 1994. Surface distur- bance of cryptobiotic soil crusts: nitrogenase activity, chloro- phyll content, and chlorophyll degradation. Arid Soil Research Buckhouse, J.C., and G.F. Gifford. 1976. Water quality impli- and Rehabilitation 8:1-8. cations of cattle grazing on a semi-arid watershed in south- eastern Utah. Journal of Range Management 29:109-113. Belsky, A.J. 1987. The effects of grazing: Confounding of eco- system, community, and organism scales. American Naturalist Busack, S. D.. and R. B. Bury. 1974. Some effects of off-road 129:777-783. vehicles and sheep grazing on lizard populations in the .Nlojas e Desert. Biological Conservation 6:179-183. Berry, K. H. 1978. Livestock grazing and the desert tortoise. Transactions of the North American Wildlife and Natural Re- Campbell. F. T. 1988. The desert tortoise. Pages 56--581 in sources Conference 43:505-519. W.J. Chandler, editor. Audubon Wildlife Report 1988,1989 Academic Press. San Diego, California. Blydenstein, J., C. R. Hungerford, G. l. Day, and R. R. Hum- phrey. 1957. Effect of domestic livestock exclusion on vege- Carothers, S XV.1977. Importance, preservation, and manage- tation in the Sonoran Desert. Ecology 38:522-526. ment of riparian habitats: An overview. Pages 2-4 in R. R. Johnson and D. A. Jones, technical coordinators. Importance. Bock, C. E., J. H. Bock, W. R. Kenney, and V. MI.Hawthorne. preservation, and management of riparian habitat A sympo- 1984. Responses of birds, rodents, and vegetation to livestock sium. General Technical Report RM-43. U.S. Forest Service, exclosure in a semidesert grassland site. Journal of Range MI-an- Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. Fort agement 37:239-242. Collins, Colorado.

Conscrvation Bioiogy Volume 8. No 5. September 199 i .1_ 6-0 Ecologic;d Custs of Grzang FlIeochner

Carothers, S. W., and R. R. Johnson. 1975. Water management Crumpacker, D. W. 198-i. Regional riparian research and a practices and their effects on nongamne birds in range habitats. multi-Ui versity approach to the special problem of livestock Pages 210-212 in D. R. Smith, editor. Proceedings of the sym- grazing in the Rocky Mountains and Great Plains. Pages . I 3- posium on management of forest and range habitats for non- -i22 in R. E. Warner, and K. lendrix, editors. California ripar- game birds. General Technical Report NYO. 1. U.S. Forest Ser- ian systems: Ecology. conservation, and productive manage. vice, Washington, D.C. mcrnt. University of California Press, Berkeley, California.

Carothers, S. W., R. R.Johnson, and S.W. Aitchison. 1974. Pop- Dahiem, E.A. 1979. The Mahogany Creek watershed-with ulation structure and social organization of Southwestern ri- and without grazing. Pages 31-34 in 0. B. Cope, editor. Pro- parian birds. American Zoologist 14:97-108. ceedings of the Forum-grazing and riparian/stream ecosy s- tems. rrout Unlimited, Demer, Colorado. Chancy, E., W. Elmore, and W. S. Platts. 1990. Livestock graz- ing on western riparian areas. U.S. Environmental Protection DAntonio, C.Ml.. and P. MN.V'itousck. 1992. Biological inva- Agency, Region 8, Den-er, Colorado. sions by exotic grasses, the grassflire cycle. and global change Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 23:63-87. Chase, A. 1988. Range revolutionary: Alston Chase meets rad- ical environmentalist Allan Savory, Conde Nast's Traveler Davis, G. A. 1977. Management alternatives for the riparian 23:56-62. habitat in the Southwest. Pages 59-67 in R. R. Johnson and D. A. Jones, technical coordinators. Importance, preservation. Clements, F. E. 1916. Plant succession: An analysis of the de- and management of riparian habitat: A symposium. General velopment of vegetation. Carnegie Institute of Washington Techinical Report R.M-43. Forest Service, Rocky Mountain For- Publication 242:1-512. est and Range Experiment Station, Fort Collins, Colorado.

Cockrum, E. L. 1960. The recent mammals of Arizona: nheir Davis,J. W 1982. Livestock vs. riparian habitat management- taxonomy and distribution. University of Arizona Press, Tuc- there are solutions. Pages 175-184 in L Nelsonj. M., Peek, and son, Arizona. P. D. Dalke, editors. Proceedings of the wildlife livestock rela- tionships symposium. Forest, Wildlife, and Range Experiment Cole, D. N. 1990. Trampling disturbance and recovery of cryp- Station, University of Idaho, Moscow, Idaho. togamic soil crusts in Grand Canyon National Park. Great Basin Naturalist 50:321-325. Diesch, S.L 1970. Disease transmission of waterborne organ- isms of animal origins. Pages 265-285 in T.L Willrich and G E. Cole, D.N., and J.L Marion. 1986. Wilderness campsite im- Smith, eds. Agricultural practices and water quality. Iowa State pacts: changes over time. Pages 144-151 in R.C. Lucas, com- University Press, Ames, Iowa. piler. Proceedings-national wilderness research conference: current research. General Technical Report INT-212. U.S. For- est Sertvice, Intermountain Research Station, Ogden, Utah. Dregne, H. E. 1983. Desertification of arid lands. Harmood Ac- ademic Publishers, Chur, Switzerland. Cooper, C. F. 1960. Changes in vegetation, structure, and growth of southwestern pine forests since white settlement. Duff, D.A. 1979. Riparian habitat recovery on Big Creek, Rich Ecological Monographs 30:129-164. County, Utah. Pages 91-92 in O.B. Cope, editor. Proceedings of the Forum-grazing and riparian/stream ecosystems. Trout Unlimited, Denver, Cooperrider, A. 1991. Conservation of biodiversity on western Colorado. rangelands. Pages 40-53. in W. E. Hudson, editor. Landscape linkages and biodiversity. Island Press, Washington, D.C. Dyer, M. I., J. K Detling, D. C. Coleman, and D. W. H-lilbert. 1982. The role of herbivores in grassland. Pages 225-261 in Cooperrider, C. K, and B. A. Hendricks. 1937. Soil erosion and J. R Estes, R.J. TyrI, and J. N. Brunken, editors. Grasses and streamflow on range and forest lands of the upper Rip Grande grasslands. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman, Oklahoma. watershed in relation to land resources and humarn welfare. Technical Bulletin 567. US. Department of Agriculture, Wash- Ellison, L 1960. Influence of grazing on plant succession of ington, D.C. rangelands. Botanical Review 26: 1-78.

Cottamn, W. P., and F. R. Evans. 1945. A comparative study of Finch, D.M. 1992. Threatened, endangered, and vulnerable the vegetation of grazed and ungrazed canyons of the Wasatch species of terrestrial vertebrates in the Rocky Mountain Re- Range, Utah. Ecology 26:171-181. gion. General Technical Report RM-215. U. S. Forest Ser-ice, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Fort Council for Agricultural Science and Technology. 1974. Live- Collins, Colorado. stock grazing on federal lands in the 11 western states. Journal of Range Management 27:174-181. Franrklin,J. F., K Cromack, Jr., W. Denison, A. McKee, C. MIaser, J. Sedell, F. Swanson, and G. Juday, 1981. Ecological charac- Crouch, G. L. 1982. Wildlife on ungrazed and grazed bottom- teristics of old-growth Douglas-fir forests. General Technical lands on the South Platte River, northeastern Colorado. Pages Report lPNW-1 18. U.S. Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Forest 186-198 in L. Nelson, J. M. Peek and P. D. Dalke, editors. Pro- and Range Experiment Station, Portland, Oregon. ceedings of the wtildlife-livestock relationships symposium. Forest, Wildlife, and Range Experiment Station, University of Franzrcb, K E. 1987. Perspectives on managing riparian ceco- Idaho, Moscow, Idaho. systems for endangered bird species. Western Birds 18:3-9.

Conscr..tion Biology Vulumr 8, No. 3, S,-ptenibcr I994 Flivishn~er SrEcI,9gicdl : (f Guui(;r:tsti 64i I

Friedel, NI. If 1991. Range condition assessment and the con- James, D. W., and J.j.Jurinak. 1978. Nitrogen fertilization of ccpt of thresholds: A viewpoint. Journal of Rangc Management dominant plants in the northeastern Great Basin Desert. Pages 44:422-426. 219-231 in N. E. WXest and J. Skujins, editors. Nitrogen in des- ert ecosystems. Dowden, Hutchinson. and Ross, Inc., Strouds. Gaines, D. 1977. The valley riparian forests of California: Their burg. Pennsylvania. importance to bird populations. Pages 57-85 in A. Sands, ed- itor. Riparian forests in California: Their ecology and conser- Jameson, E. W., Jr., and H.J. Peeters. 1988. California mam vation. Institute of Ecology Publication No. 15. Institute of mals. University of California Press, Berkeley, California. Ecology, Univcrsity of California, Davis, California. Jeffries, D. L., and J. INl.Klopatek. 1987. Effects of grazing on the Gardner, J L. 1950. Effects of thirty years of protection from vegetation of the blackbrush association. Journal of Range grazing in desert grassland. Ecology 31:4-S50. Management 40:390-392.

Gillen, R. l.., W . C. Krueger, and R. F. Miller. 1984. Cattle dis- Jepson-Innes, K., and C. E. Bock. 1989. Response of grasshop- tribution on mountain rangeland in northeastern Oregon. pers (Orthoptera: Acrididae) to livestock grazing in southeast- Journal of Range Management 37:549-553. ern Arizona: Differences between seasons and subfamilies. Oecologia 78:430-431. Glinski, R. L. 1977. Regeneration and distribution of sycamores and cottonwood trees along Sonoita Creek, Santa Cruz County, JohansenJ. R., S. R. Rushforth, and J. D. Brotherson. 1981. Sub- Arizona. Pages 166-174 in R. R. Johnson and D. A. Jones, tech- aerial algae of Navajo National Monument, Arizona. Great Ba- nical coordinators. Importance, preservation, and manage- sin Naturalist 41:433-439. ment of riparian habitat: A symposium. General Technical Re- port RM-43. U.S. Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Johnson, A. S 1989. The thin, green line: Riparian corridors Range Experiment Station, Fort Collins, Colorado. and endangered species in Arizona and New Mexico. Pages 35-46 in G. Mackintosh, editor. In defense of wildlife: Preserv- Gould, F. W. 1951. Grasses of the southwestern United States. ing communities and corridors. Defenders of Wildlife, W ash- University of Arizona Press, Tucson, Arizona. ington, D.C.

Hall, E. R. 1946. Mammals of Nevada. University of California Johnson, 11. B., and H. S. Mayeux. 1992. Viewpoint: A view on Press, Berkeley, California. species additions and deletions and the balance of nature. Journal of Range Management 45:322-333. Hall, E. R. 1981. The mammals of North America, vol. 2. 2nd edition. John Wiley and Sons, New York. Johnson, R. R., and L T. Haight. 1985. Avian use of xeroriparian ecosystems in the North American warm deserts. Pages 156- H arper, K. T., and R. L Pendleton. 1993. Cyanobacteria and 160 in R. R. Johnson. C. D. Ziebell, D. R. Patton, P. F. Ffolliott, cyanolichens: Can they enhance availability of essential min- and F. H1.Hamre, technical coordinators. Riparian ecosystems erals for higher plants? Great Basin Naturalist 53:59-72. and their management: Reconciling conflicting uses. General Technical Report RINI- 120. U.S. Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Hastings, J. R. 1959. Vegetation change and arroyo cutting in Station, Fort Collins, Colorado. southeastern Arizona. Journal of the Arizona Academy of Sci- ence 1:60-67. Johnson, R. R.. L. T. Haight, and 3. NI. Simpson. 1977. Endan- gered species vs. endangered habitats: A concept. Pages 68-79 in R. R. Johnson and D. A. Jones, technical coordinators. Im- Hlastings, J. R., and R. M. Turner. 1965. The changing mile: An portance, preservation, and management of riparian habitat. A ecological study of vegetation change with time in the lower symposium. General Technical Report RM1-43. U.S. Forest Ser- mile of an arid and semiarid region. University of Arizona vice, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. Press, Tucson, Arizona. Fort Collins, Colorado.

Hereford, R., and R. H. Webb. 1992. Historic variation of Jones, K. B. 1981. Effects of grazing on lizard abundance and warm-season rainfall, southern Colorado Plateau, Southwest- diversity in western Arizona. Southwestern Naturalist 26:107- ern U.S.A. Climatic Change 22:239-256. 115.

Hobbs, R.J., and L F. Hluenneke. 1992. Disturbance, diversity, Jones, K. B. 1988. Comparison of herpetofaunas of a natural and invasion: Implications for conservation. Conservation Bi- and altered riparian ecosystem. Pages 222-227 in R. C. Szaro. ology 6:324-337. K. E. Severson. and D. R. Patton, technical coordinators. Man- agement of amphibians. reptiles, and small mammals in North Hoffmeister, D. F. 1986. Mammals of Arizona. University of America. General Technical Report RM-166. U.S. Forest Ser- Arizona Press, Tucson, Arizona. vice, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. Fort Collins, Colorado. Flolechek, J. L, R. D. Pieper, and C. H. Herbel. 1989. Range management: Principles and practices. Prentice-Hall, Engle- Karlstrom, E. T., and T. N. V. Karlstrom. 1987. Later Quater- wood Cliffs, New Jersey. narv alluvial history of the American West: toward a process paradigm. Geology 15:88-89. Hutchinson, K1)., and K. L King. 1980. The effects of sheep stocking level on invertebrate abundance, biomass and energy Kauffman, J. B., and W. C. Krueger. 1984. Livestock impacts on utilization in a temperate. sown grassland. Journal of Applied riparian ecosystems and strearnside management implications: Ecology 17:369-387. A review. Journal of Range Management 37:430-437.

Conservation Biollgo- Vnlume 8. No 3, -t,¶embtr 1994 __ -11

642 Ecological Coots of Gzming Fleitchritr

Kauffman. J. B., W;. C. Krueger, and MI. \'avra. 1982. Impacts of Leopold, A. 1953. Round River. Oxford Unixersitv Press, Ncw a late season grazing scheme on nongame wildlife in a Wal- York. New edition published 1991 by Northl1Vord Press. Mi- Iowa Mountain riparian ecosystem. Pages 208-220 in L. Nel- nocqua, Wisconsin. son, J. MI. Peek and P. D. Dalke, editors. Proceedings of the wildlife-livestock relationships symposium. Forest, Wildlife, Leopold, L. B. 1951. Vegetation of southwestern watersheds in and Range Experiment Station, Universiry of Idaho, Mooscow, the nineteenth century. Geographical Review 41:295-316. Idaho. Longhurst, W. M., R. E. fiafenfeld, and G. E. Connolly. 1982. Kauffinan,J. B., WV.C. Krueger, and NI. Vavra. 1983a Impacts of Deer-livestock relationships in the Western states. Pages 409- cattle on streambanks in northeastern Oregon. Journal of 420 in L. Nelson, J. N. Peck, and P. D. Dalke, editors. Proceed Range Management 36:683-685. ings of the wildlife-livestock relationships sympostum. Forest, Wildlife, and Range Experiment Station, University of Idaho, Kauffman,J. B., W. C. Krueger, and M. Vavra. 1983b. Effects of Moscow, Idaho. late season cattle grazing on riparian plant communities. Jour- nal of Range Management 36:685-691. Longhurst, W.M.. A. L. Lesperance, NI.Morse. R.J. Nackie. D L. Neal, H. Salwasser. D. Swickard, P. T. Tuelter, P J. Urness. and Keller, C. R., and K. P. Burnham. 1982. Riparian fencing, graz- J D. Yoakum. 1983. Li%estock and wild ungulates. Pages 42 -6 ing, and trout habitat preference on Summit Creek, Idaho. in J. W. Mienke, editor. Proceedings of the workshop on Iiec- North Amnerican Journal of Fisheries Management 2:53-59. stock and wildlife-fisheries relationships in the Great Basin. Special lublication 3301. Division of Agricultural Sciences, University of California, Kennedy, C. E. 1977. Wildlife conflicts in riparian manage- Berkeley, California. ment: Water. Pages 52-58 in R. R. Johnson and D. A. Jones. technical coordinators. Importance, preservation, and man- Lowe, C If. 1985. Amphibians and reptiles in Southwest ripar- agemrent of riparian habitat: A symposium. General Technical ian ecosystems. Pages 339-341 in R.R. Johnson, C.D. Ziebell, Report R.M-43. U.S. Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and D.R. Patton, P F. Folliott, and F.H. Hamre, technical coordina- Range Experiment Station, Fort Collins, Colorado. tors. Riparian ecosystems and their management: reconciling conflicting uses. General Technical Report RN1-120. U.S. For- est Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Kleiner, E. F., and K T. Harper. 1972. Environment and com- Station, Fort Collins, Colorado. muniry organization in grasslands of Canyonlands National Park. Ecology 53:229-309. Loope, W. L., and G. F. Gifford. 1972. Influence of a soil micro- floral crust on select property of soils under pinyon-juniper in Kleiner, E. F., and K T. Harper. 1977. Soil properties in relation southeastern Utah. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation to cryptogamic groundeover in Canyonlands National Park. 27:164-167. Journal of Range Management 30:202-205. Mack, R. N. 1981. Invasion of Brornus tectotum L. into west- Knopf, F. L, and R. W. Cannon. 1982. Structural resilience of a ern North America: An ecological chronicle. Agro-Ecosystenis willow riparian community to changes in grazing practices. 7:145-165. Pages 198-207 in L Nelson, J. M. Peec, and P. D. Dalke, edi- tors. Proceedings of the wildlife-livestock relationships sym- ,Mack, R. N., and J. N. Thompson. 1982. Evolution in steppe posium. Forest, Wildlife, and Range Experiment Station, Uni- with few large, hooved mammals. American Naturalist versiry of Idaho, Moscow, Idaho. 119:757-773.

Kovalchik, B. L, and W. Elmore. 1992. Effects of cattle grazing Mackie, R. J. 1978. Impacts of livestock grazing on wild ungu- systems on willow-dominated plant associations in central Or- lates. Transactions of the North American Wildlife and Natural egon. Pages I 11- 119 in W. P. Clary, E. E. McArthur, D. Be- Resources Conference 43:462-476. dunah, and C. L Wambolt, compilers. Proceedings of the sym- posium on ecology and management of riparian. shrub SMedin, D. E., and W. P. Clary. 1989. Small mammal populations communities. General Technical Report INT-289. US. Forest in a grazed and ungrazed riparian habitat in Nevada. Research Service, Intermountain Research Station, Ogden, Uf4h. Paper INT-413. U.S. Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station, Ogden, Utah. Laycock, W. A. 1991. Stable states and thresholds of range con- dition on North American rangelands; A viewpoint. journal of .\Ienke, J., and G. E. Bradford. 1992. Rangelands. Agriculture, Range Management 44:427-433. Ecosystems, and Environment 42:141-163.

Laymon, S.A. 1984. Riparian bird community structure and Mosconi, S. L., and R. L. Hutto. 1982. The effect of grazing on dynamics: Dog Island, Red Bluff, California. Pages 587-597 in the land birds of a western Montana riparian habitat. Pages RE. Warner and K. Hendrix, editors. California riparian sys- 221-233 in L. Nclson,J. M. Peek, and P. D. Dalke, editors. Pro- tems: ecology, conservation, and productive management. ceedings of the wildlife-livestock relationships symposium. University of California Press, Berkeley. U.S. Forest, Wildlife, and Range Experiment Station, University of Idaho, Moscow, Idaho. Leopold, A. 1924. Grass, brush, timber, and fire in southern Arizona. Journal of Forestry 22: 1-10. Reprinted in S. L Flader Ohmart, R. D., and B. W. Anderson. 1982. North American des- and J. B. Callicott, editors. 1991. The river of the mother of ert riparian ecosystems. Pages 433-479 in G. L Bender, editor. God and other essays. University of Wisconsin Press, Madison, Reference handbook on the deserts of North America. Green- Wisconsin. wood Press, Westport, Connecticut.

Conmonation Biology Volume 8, No. 3, Sptrembcr 1994 L f71'Mschner EC(1oq!(-:d 0,,,; of 6r.viq4 643

Oregnn-Washington Interagency Wildlife Committee. 1979 Reed, P., G. Hlaas, F. Beum, and L., Sherrick. 1989. Non. Managing riparian ecosystems for fish and wildlife in eastern recreational uses of the National Wilderness Preservation Sys- Oregon and eastern Washington. Oregon-Washington Inter:t- tem: A 1988 telephone survey. Pages 220-228 in IL. 1reilich, gency Wildlife Committee, available from Washington State compiler. Wilderness benchmark 1988: Proceedings of the na- Library, Olympia, Washington. tional wilderness colloquium. General Technical Report SE- 51. U.S. Forest Service, Southeastern Forest Experiment Sta- Orodho, A. B., M. J. Trlica, and C. D. Bonham. 1990. Long-term tion, Asheville, North Carolina. hcavy-grazing effects on soil and vegetation in the Four Cor- ners region. Southwestern Naturalist 35:9-14. Reynolds, R. T, R. T. Graham, NM.H. Reiser, R. L. Bassett, P. L. Kennedy, D. A. Boyce, G. Goodwin, R. Smith. and E. L. Fisher. Orr, fH.K. 1960. Soil porosity and bulk density on grazed and 1992. Management recommendations for the northern gos- protected Kcntucky bluegrass range in the Black Hills. Journal hawk in the southwestern United States. General Technical of Range Management 13:80-86. Report RIL-217. U.S. Forest Service. Rocky Mlountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Fort Collins, Colorado. Overmire, 1'. G. 1963. The effects of grazing upon habitat uti- lization of the dickcissel (Spiza americana) and Bell's virco Reynolds, T. D., and C. H. Trost. 1980. The response of native (Vireo bellsi) in northcentral Oklahoma. Ph.D. dissertation. vertebrate populations to crested wheatgrass planting and Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, Oklahoma. grazing by sheep. Journal of Range Nlanagement 33:122-125. Roath, L R., and W. C. Krueger. 1982. Cattle grazing influence Owen, D. F., and R. G. Wiegert. 1976. Do consumers maximize on a mountain riparian zone. Journal of Range Management Oikos 27:488-492. plant fitness? 35:100-103. Painter, E. L., and A.J. Bclskv. 1993. Application of herbivore Rummel, R.S. 1951. Some effects of livestock grazing on pon- optimization theon- to rangelands of the western United derosa pine forest and range in central Washington. Ecology States. Ecological Applications 3:2-9. 32:594-607. Patten, D. T. 1993. Herbivore optimization and overcompen- Rychert, R. C., J. Skujins, D. Sorensen, and D. Porcella. 1978. sation: Does native herbivory on western rangelands support Nitrogen fixation by lichens and free-living microorganisms in these theories? Ecological Applications 3:35-36. deserts. Pages 20-30 in N. E. West and J. Skujins, editors. Ni- trogen in desert ecosystems. Dowden, Hutchinson, and Ross, Platts, W. S. 1979. Livestock grazing and riparian/stream eco- Inc., Stroudsburg. Pennsylvania. systems-an overview. Pages 39-45 in 0. B. Cope, editor. Pro- ceedings of the Forum-grazing and riparian/strearn ecosys- Sampson, A. W. 1919. Plant succession in relation to range tems. Trout Unlimited, Denver, Colorado. management. BuUetin 791. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C. Platts, NV. S. 1981. Influence of forest and rangeland manage- ment on anadromous fish habitat in Western North America, Savorv. A. 1988. Holistic resource management. Island Press, No. 7. Effects of livestock grazing. General Technical Report Washington, D.C. PNW'-124. U.S. Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station, Portland, Oregon. Schulz, T. T., and W. C. Leininger. 1990. Differences in riparian vegetation structure between grazed areas and exclosures. Platts, W. S. 1983. Vegetation requirements for fisheries habi- journal of Range Management 43:295-299. tats. Pages 184-188 in S. B. Monsen and N. Shaw, editors. Man- Severson, K. E. 1990. Summary: Livestock grazing as a wildlife aging intermountain rangelands-improvement of range and 3-6 in K. E. Severson, techni- wildlife habitats. General Technical Report INT- 157. U.S. For- habitat management tool. Pages cal coordinator. Can livestock be used as a tool to enhance Forest and Range Experiment Sta- est Sen-ice, Intermountain wildlife habitat? General Technical Report RM -194. U.S Forest tion, Ogden, Utah. Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Sta- tion, Fort Collins. Colorado. P1atts, W. S., and R. L. Nelson. 1989. Characteristics of riparian plant communities and streambanks with respect to grazing in Smith, C. C. 1940. The effect of overgrazing and erosion upon northeastern Utah. Pages 73-81 In R. E. Greswell, B. A. Barton, the biota of the mixed-grass prairie of Oklahoma. Ecology and J L. Kershner, editors. Practical approaches to riparian 21:381-397. resource management: An educational workshop. Bureau of Land Management, Billings, Montana. Smith. R J. 19-7. Conclusions. Pages 117-118 in J E. Townsend and R.J. Smith. editors. Proceedings of a seminar on Quinn, M. A., and D. D. Walgenbach. 1990. Influence of grazing improving fish and wildlife benefits in range management history on the community structure of grasshoppers of a FWX'S;OBS-7-7l. Fish and Wildlife Service, Biological Services mixed-grass prairie. Environmental Entomology 19:1756- Program, Washington, D.C. 1766. Snyder, J. MI.. and L. H. Wullstein. 19-3. The role of desert Rauzi, F., and C. L Hanson. 1966. Water intake and runoff as cryptogams in nitrogen fixation. American Midland Naturalist affected by intensit- of grazing. Journal of Range Management 90:257-265. 19:35 1-356. St. Clair, L. L, B. L Webb, J. R. Johansen, and G. T. Nebeker Rauzi, F., and F. NI. Smith. 1973. Infiltration rates: Three soils 1984. Cryptogamic soil crusts: Enhancement of seedling es- with three grazing levels in northeastern Colorado. Journal of tablishment in disturbed and undisturbed areas. Reclamation Range Nlanagement 26:126-129. and Revegetation Research 3:129-136.

Consersvaion B.Io0v Volume 8 No 3 kpefimber 1994 ..0001111

644 Ecological Cosas of Gruzing Fleischnericne

Stebbins. G. L. 1981. Coevolution of grasses and herbivores. U.S. General Accounting Office. 1991lb. Public land manage- Annals of the Missouri Botanical Garden 68:7 5-86, ment: Attention to wildlife is limited. GAO RCED.91.64, U.S. General Accounting Office, Washington, D.C. Stevens, L. E., B. T. Brown, J. M. Simpson, and R. R. Johnson. 1977. The importance of riparian habitat to migrating birds. Van Velson. R, 19 9. Effects of livestock grazing upon rainbow Pages 156-164 in R. R. Johnson and D. A. Jones, technical co- trout in Otter Creek, Nebraska. Pages 53-55 in 0. B. Cope, ordinacors. Importance, preservation, and management of ri- editLor. Proceedings of the Forum-grazing and riparianistream parian habitat: A symposium. General Technical Report RM- ecosystems. Trout Unlimited, Denver, Colorado. 43. U.S. Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Fort Collins, Colorado. Van Vureni, D. 1982. Comparative ecology of bison and cattle in the Ilcnrv Mountains. Utah. Pages 4.0--i57 in L. Nelson, Stoddart, L. A., and A. D. Smith. 1943. Range management Mc- J. M. Puck, and P. D. Dalke, editors. Proceedings of the wildlife- Graw-Hill, New York. livestock relationships symposium. Forest, Wildlife, and Range Strassman, B. 1. 1987. Effects of cattle grazing and hayi~ng on Experiment Station. UniVersity of Idaho. Moscow, Idaho. wildlife conservation at National Wildlife Refuges in the \'an Vuren, D), and F. C. Deitz. 1993. Evidence of Bison bison United States. Environmental Management: 11 :35-44. in the Great Bxsin,.Great Basin Naturalist 53:318-319. Sruber, R.J. 1985. Trout habitat, abundance, and fishing op. Vicari. M., and D. R. B~azely. 1993. Do grasses light back? Th'le portunities in f~enced v's. unfenced riparian habitat along!Sheep- case for antilierbivore defences. Trends in Ecology and Evo- Creek, Colorado. Pages 310-314 in R. R. Johnson. C. D. Zie- lution 8:137-141. bell, D. R. Patton, P. F. Ffolliott. and F. H. larnire. technical co- ordinators. Riparian ecosystems and their management: Rec- Wagner, F. If. 1978. Livestock grazing and the livestock indus- onciling conflicting uses. General Technical Report RM. 120. try. Pages 121-14 5 in IL. P. B~rokaw, editor. Wildlife and Amer. U.S. Forest Seri-ice, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range lExper- ica. Council on Environmental Quality, \Washington, D.C. iment Station, Fort Collins, Colorado. Wald, J., and D. Alberswerth. 1989. Our ailing public range- Sza. R. C. 1989. Riparian forest and scrublind community lands: still ailing. Condition Report 1989. National Wildlife typcb uf Arizona and New Mexico. Dcbcrt Plainis 9(3-4).69- federation and Natural Resources Defense Council, Washing- 138. ton, D.C. Szaro, R. C., and C. P. Pasc. 1983. Short-term changes in a cot- Warren. P. L, and L.S. Anderson. 1987. Vegetation recovery tonwood-ash-willow association on a grazed and an ungrazed following livestock removal near Quitobaquito Spring, Organ portion of Little Ash Creek in Central Arizona. Journal of Range Pipe Cactus National Monument. Technical Report No. 20. Management 36:382-384. Cooperative National. Park Resources Studies Unit, University Szaro, R. C., S. C. Bclfit, J. K. Aitkin, and J.N. Rinne. 1985. Im- of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona. pact of grazing on a riparian garter snake. Pages 359-363 in R.R.Johnson, C. D. Ziebell, D. R. Patton, P. F. Ffolliott, and F. H-. Webb, R. It., and J. L Betancourr. 1992. Climatic variability Hiamre, technical coordinators. R~iparian ecosystems and their and flood frequency of the Santa Cruz River, Pima County, management: Reconciling conflicting uses. General Technical Arizona. Water-Supply Paper 2379. U.S. Geological Survey, Report R.M-120. U.S. Forest Service, Rocky Mfountain Forest Washington, D.C. and Range Experiment Station, Fort Collins, Colorado. Webb, R. HI., and S.S. Sticistra. 1979. Sheep grazing effects on Taylor, D. M. 1986. Effects of cattle grazing on passerine birds M\ojave Desert vegetation and soils. Environmental Manage- nesting in riparian habitat. Journal of Range Management ment 3:517-529. 39:25-4-258. Welch, J. L, R. Redak, and B. C. Kondratieff. 199 1. Effect of Taylor, D. M., and C. D. Littkcfield. 1986. Willow flycatcher and cattle grazing on the density and species of grasshoppers (Or- yellow warbler response to cattle grazing. American Birds thoptera: Acrididae) of the Central Plains Experimental Range, 40:1169-1173. Colorado: A reassessment after two decades. journal of the Kansas Entomological Society 64:337-343. Thomas, J. W., C. Maser, and J. E. Rodick. 1979. Riparian zones in managed rangelands-their importance to wildiIA, Pages Westoby, M., B. Walker, and 1. Noy-Meir. 1989. Opportunistic 21-31 in 0. B. Cope, editor. Proceedings of the Forum- management for rangelands not at equilibrium. journal of grazing and riparian/strearn ecosystems. Trout Unlimited, Den- Range M1aniagement 42:266-274. ver, Colorado. Whiclield, C.J., and H. L Anderson. 1938. Secondary succes- U.S. General Accounting Office. 1988a Rangeland manage. sion in the desert plains grassland. Ecology 19:171-180. ment: More emphasis needed on declining and overstocked grazing allotments. GAO/RCED-88-80. U.S. General Account- Winegar, 11. H. 1977. Camp Creek channel fencing--plant, ing Office, Washington, D.C. wildlife, soil, and water responses. Rangeman's journal 4:1 0- 12. U.S. General Accounting Office. 1988b. Public rangelands: Some riparian areas restored but widespread improvement York, J. C., and W. A. Dick-Peddie. 1969. Vegetation changes in will be slow. GAO/RCED-88-105. U.S. General Accounting Of- southern New Mexico during the past hundred years. Pages fice, Washington, D.C. 1 53- 166 in W. G. MeGinnies and B. J. Goldman, editors. Arid lands in perspective. University of Arizona Press, Tucson, Ar- U.S. General Accounting Office. 199 1c Rangeland manage- izona. ment: Comparison of rangeland condition reports. GAO/ RCED-91-191. U.S. General Accounting Office, Washington, Zeveloff, S. 1, 1988. Mammals of the Intermountain West. Uni- P, D.C. verbity of Utah Press, Salt Lake City, Utah.

Conwnrvauun Biology Voiunic S, No 3, Su.picib~cr i9(94 Appendix Q DISCUSSION OF RECENT MORTALITY SALVAGE IN THE LITTLE APPLEGATE WATERSHED AND IT'S EFFECT ON SNAG TYPE AND DENSITY AND DOWN WOODY MATERIAL. Inforiation presented here regarding volumes and types of trees harvested results from a conversation with Ken Brown, contract administrator for the BLM salvage sales "Go Anderson" and "South Apple". Information presented here on down woody material is from a conversation with Steve Armitage, ELM Forest Manager, Ashland Resource Area. Snags Between 1990 and 1993 the BLM harvested approximately 8.3 million board feet of dead and dying timber from BLM lands in the Little Applegate Watershed (L.A.W.). Roughly 1/2 of this volume was dead, the other half expected to die within 5 years if left unharvested. Estimated volumes by species are listed below in table 1. Table i. Estimated salvage volumes removed from BLM lands in the Little Applegate drainage 1990-1993. (Thousands of board feet by species). ______Douglas fir ...... 4,628 Ponderosa pine..... 3,470 Sugar pine ...... 170 White fir ...... 20 Incense cedar 5...... Total 8,293 ______

Over all, many more "small" trees were harvested than "large" trees, but most of the volume was in the large trees. Most of the ponderosa pine trees harvested were large trees. The large ponderosa pines seemed to be very susceptible to drought-related mortality factors. Big pines in the Grouse Creek area was particularly hard hit with mortality. Because large trees contain more volume, it was worth the loggers time to send the helicopter after individual large trees even if they were considerable distances from the landing. Thus large trees were harvested over a greater geographic area than were smaller trees. While the salvaged areas appear to have numbers of snags sufficient to meet the standards and guidelines in the P.F.P. and the BLM Resource Management Plan, no effort has been made to verify this. Also, there is no data regarding the species mix, decay class, or size of the remaining snags. Without pre and post harvest snag inventories it is impossible to quantify the impact that this type of harvest has on wildlife habitat. Further confounding this type of effects analysis is the fact that fc.- many wildlife species the relationship to, and dependance on, snags has not been examined through research. We simply don't understand how the species interact with the structural components of their environment (including snags) very well. Qualitatively, the salvage operation did reduced the amount and quality of habitat for snag using species. See appendix N for L.A.W species which use this special habitat.

Down woody material Some anecdotal information exists regarding down wood amounts left after salvage operations on the BLM lands in the L.A.W. in the early 1990's. It seems that the salvaged stands had more C.W.D than similar stands that were not salvaged. Much of the woody debris in the salvaged stands was the result of salvage operations. Tops c- trees, cull logs, and broken chunks of logs all contributed to a higher amount of C.W.D. Again, this is not statistically .., id data, but rather the observations of professional foresters who looked at the stands. Also, there is no information on the sizes of material left. We don't know how much of this material met province specific definition of coarse woody debris in FEMAT and the R.O.D.(16'X16). Appendix R MOLLUSK SPECIES ADDRESSED IN THE FEMAT REPORT, AND IDENTIFIED FOR FURTHER REVIEW IN FEMAT APPENDIX J-2 WHICH MAY BE PRESENT IN THE LITTLE APPLEGATE WATERSHED FEMAT PAGE # IN SCIENTIFIC NAME RATING * APPEN. J-2 Helminthoglypta hertleini 32-27-30-12 310 Monadenia call ipeplus 20-22-25-33 315 Monadenia fidel~is celeuthia 33-33-23-10 318 Monadenia fidelis kiamathica 23-27-33-17 32 1 Monadenia fidelis leonina 27-3 3-30-10 322 Monadenia fidelis salmonensis 47-30-23-00 325 Vespericola sierranus 43-33-17-07 342 Prophysaon dubium 57-23-17-03 352 Fluminicola n. sp. 4. 40-25-15-20 359 Fluxninicola n. sp. 5. 40-25-15-20 360 Fluminicola n. sp. 6. 40-25-15-20 361 Fluminicola n. sp. 8. 40-25-15-20 363 Fluminicola n. sp. 10. 40-25-20-15 365 Juga acutifilosa 40-15-15-30 379 Lanx alta 40-15-30-15 391 Anodonta californiensis 30-25-25-20 408 Anodonta wahlametensis 30-25-25-20 409 FEMAT Appendix J-2 recommends specific mitigation measures for each of these species. No inventory of these species has been performed, and no ELM or Forest Service records for presence or absence of these species in the L.A.W. exist. Species were included on this list if their known geographic range of occurrence overlaps the L.A.W. or the species is known to occur in the surrounding regi~n (roughly Jackson and Siskiyou Counties).

* See appendix U

4r Appendix S Generalized distribution of spotted owl sites in the Little Applegate Watershed

CHU Ownership J§f OR- 75 BL M 4-mRMOR-75 PVT M OR-76 FS ASHL ZM OR-76 FS7STAR A10 - OR-76 PVT Little Applegate Watershed Uatm 6000 06- 3=3000 6000 Appendix T

WILDLIFE DATA GAPS/NEEDS IN THE L.A.W. General inventory of small mammals General inventory of special status invertebrates (terrestrial insects, aquatic and terrestriasl mollusks) Forest service spotted owl site history data placed in a readily accessible relational database such as the BLM spotted owl database or the R-6 "strix" database. Survey work to determine the eastern boundary of the range of distribution of the Siskiyou mountain salamander. Analysis of the CHUs' ability to contribute to dispersal between L.S.R.s. Inventory of snags and down wood in stands in various stages of development and forest type. Tie this to organon model or some other predictive model. Research or studies to determine if cattle grazing is significantly altering riparian vegetation, and stream bank geomorphology, and species composition in habitats used by special status terrestrial invertebrates. Identification of pea clam species in monogram lakes. Research into the nature of the bat/snag relationship. Research on effects on closed canopy forest associated species of "forest health" type thinnings down to 140-80 Ba as proposed in AMA eco report.

Research to determine if. R.O.D provisions for landscape level dispersal are working. For example, will spotted owls disperse through\across stands with only 16-25 trees per acre? Will they use wide riparian reserves as dispersal coridoors? What are the effects of large scale salvage operations on woodpecker and bat density?

There is a general lack of information on the presence/absence and habiat needs for many of the C2 and Survey and Manage species. Known sites of these species should be monitored in order to provide information to the U.S.F.W.S. regarding the status of the species and the possible need to list.

I Appendix U

EXPLAINATION AND EXAMPLE OF FEMAT RATING SCHEME AND CODES

FEMAT RATING CODE EXAMPLE:

POSSIBLE OUTCOME CODES (A) (B) (C) (D) SPECIES RATING UNDER OPTION 85-10-05-00

POSSIBLE OUTCOMES CODES DEFINED: A = WELL DISTRIBUTED ACROSS RANGE B = LOCALLY RESTRICTED C = RESTRICTED TO REFUGIA D = EXTIRPATION

Under the option in question, The species in this example has an 85% chance of outcome A, 10% chance of outcome B, 5% chance of outcome C, and 0% chance of outcome D. In other words, this species has a pretty good chance of being well distributed across it's current range, and no chance of extirpation under the option in question. This type of analysis was performed by the FEMAT team for each species, for each alternative.

IN THE LITTLE APPLEGATE WATERSHED ANALYSI. ALL PFEAT RATINGS PREZBNTED ARE FOR OPTION 9. THE SELECTED ALTERNATIV3 IN TE= RECORD OF DECISION FOR THE PRESIDENT'S FOREST PLAN. Appendix V RIPARIAN RESERVES: CHANGES TO BOUNDARIES AND ACTIVITIES WITHIN RESERVES FROM A WILDLIFE HABITAT PERSPECTIVE 1. Purposes of the riparian reserves The riparian reserves are intended to provide habitat for many terrestrial species including mollusks, amphibians, American marten, red tree voles, bats, and spotted owls as well as aquatic species (R.O.D. B-13). Habitat features which contribute to meeting wildlife habitat objectives in riparian reserves include:

Snags Large green trees down logs riparian vegetation Closed canopy forest Connectivity through the matrix (corridors of suitable widths) Relatively moist refugia. Late seral habitat Species listed in Appendix J-2 of the FEMAT report are species which the FEMAT team felt might not be adequately protected under the provisions of option 9, and as such needed further analysis. Mitigation measures were recommended for these species after the additional analysis. For many of these species J-2 recommends adoption of the interim reserve widths as final reserve widths as mitigation measures above and beyond the provisions of Option 9.

2. Things to consider when assessing proposed changes to the interim riparian reserve widths (taking interim reserve acres and making them matrix acres, thus changing the management emphasis and standards and guidelines to be applied to the acres in question). There is no biological benefit to be gained by removing acres from the interim riparian reserve allocation and placing them in the matrix allocation unless the acres in question are not capable of producing the type and quality of habitat that the riparian reserve is supposed to provide (late successional). In this case removing the acres from the reserve would allow management of the acres for other values such as deer winter range. There are however considerable biological benefits to be gained by expanding the reserve boundaries where necessary. If a subwatershed or project area is deficient in large snags and green trees due to past harvest, one option to remedy this shortfall is to expand the riparian reserves. In subwatersheds where past management has resulted in insufficient late successional habitat in riparian reserves to meet all of the riparian reserve objectives, the reserve widths could be increased along stretches where there is late successional habitat in order to make up the shortfall.

3. Things to consider when assessing proposed actions within designated riparian reserves. The R.O.D. makes it clear that all actions within designated riparian reserves are to be conducted with the intent of maintaining or improving the ability of the project area to meet the Aquatic Conservation Strategy and wildlife habitat objectives. Riparian reserve acres are not considered part of the timber base and timber management is generally prohibited in the reserves with few exception (R.O.D. C-31). The following worksheet should aid in assessing the effects of a proposed action within a designated riparian reserve on wildlife habitat values. If the biologist cannot comfortably place a check in either the positive or-neutral box for each resource, then he/she should probably recommend changes to the-proposed action or dropping the action all together (R.O.D. B-10). It may be useful to use the worksheet twice for each prd4sed action, once for immediate effects and once for long-term effects. The trade off of short term negative impacts for longterm benefits needs to be addressed on a site specific basis and what surrounding habitats can provide until the benefits come on line. Keep in mind that most long term benefits are less certain to occur than are most short term impacts. If in doubt-a conservative approach is recommended. WORKSHEET FOR ASSESSMENT OF PROPOSED ACTIONS WITHIN RIPARIAN RESERVES FOR COMPLIANCE WITH WILDLIFE OBJECTIVES IN THE R.O.D.

PROPOSED ACTION_

EFFECTS ANALYSIS TIMEFRAME: (check one)

IMMEDIATE EFFECTS

LONG TERM EFFECTS

RPOTRV I/FtTC!TTON EFFECT

POSITIVE NEGATIVE NEUTRAL UNKNOWN

LATE SUCCESSIONAL HABITAT SNAG DENSITY SNAG DIVERSITY

DOWN LOG DENSITY __ _ CANOPY CLOSURE CONNECTIVITY LARGE GREEN TREES RIPARIAN VEGETATION MOISTURE/HUMIDITY SPOTTED OWL DISPERSAL

OTHERS? .

4l 4. Recommendations There are probably areas where the interim riparian reserve boundaries are in excess of what is needed to meet the Aquatic Conservation Strategy and all of the other functions that the reserves are supposed to perform. However, we lack the ability to accurately identify these areas. There is insufficient information available on the habitat associations, range of distribution, and population numbers of most of the species which the reserves are supposed to support to warrant a biologically sound decision to reduce the widths of the interim reserves at this time. The R.O.D. states that changes to the widths of riparian reserves must be based on "scientifically sound reasoning" (R.O.D. B-16). The information necessary to make a biologically sound decision on riparian reserve widths is not something that an ID team can develop during a site visit. It is the result of species specific research. Once the habitat needs of the various species are understood, then we can compare the needs of the species to the interim riparian reserve widths on a site specific basis. Given the current lack of species specific research and the lack of species and site specific surveys it would be imprudent to decrease the size of the interim reserves upon which many species depend. It would be equally imprudent to undertake activities within designated reserves which reduce the amount or quality of habitat for these species. There are committees working under the auspices of the R.E.O to develop survey and manage guidelines for many of the species which are thought to depend on the riparian reserves. These protocols and guidelines should be available within-I or 2 years for most species. Appendix W

Dispersal Capability of Terrestrial Vertebrates in the Little Applegate Watershed

Species Dispersal Species Dispersal Capability Capability ACORN WOODPECKER 1 CALIFORNIA VOLE 3 AMERICAN BITTERN 1 CALLIOPE HUMMINGBIRD 1 AMERICAN CROW I CANADA GOOSE 1 AMERICAN DIPPER 1 CASSIN'S FINCH AMERICAN GOLDFINCH 1 CEDAR WAXWING 1 AMERICAN KESTREL 1 CHESTNUT-BACKED CHICKADEE 1 AMERICAN ROBIN 1 CHIPPING SPARROW ANNA'S HUMMINGBIRD 1 CLARK'S NUTCRACKER 1 ASH-THROATED FLYCATCHER 1 CLIFF SWALLOW 1 BALD EAGLE . 1 CLOUDED SALAMANDER 1 BAND-TAILED PIGEON I COAST MOLE 13 BANK SWALLOW 1 COMMON GARTER SNAKE 3 BARN OWL 1 COMMON KINGSNAKE (CALIF. SUB. SPP.) BARN SWALLOW 1 COMMON MERGANSER 3 BARRED OWL 1 COMMON NIGHTHAWK 1 BEAVER 2 COMMON POORWILL 1 BELTED KINGFISHER 1 COMMON RAVEN 1 BEWICK'S WREN 1 COMMON SNIPE 1 BIG BROWN BAT 2 COMMON YELLOWTHROAT 1 BLACK BEAR I COOPER'S HAWK 1 BLACK PHOEBE 1 CORDILLERAN FLYCATCHER 1 BLACK SALAMANDER 3 COSTA'S HUMMINGBIRD 1 BLACK-BACKED WOODPECKER 1 COYOTE 1 BLACK-BILLED MAGPIE I DARK-EYED JUNCO 1 BLACK-CAPPED CHICKADEE 1 DEER MOUSE 3 BLACK-CHINNED HUMMINGBIRD 1 DOUGLAS' SQUIRREL 2 BLACK-HEADED GROSBEAK 1 DOWNY WOODPECKER 1 BLACK-TAILED DEER 1 DUSKY FLYCATCHER BLACK-TAILED RABBIT 2 DUSKY-FOOTED WOODRAT 2 BLACK-THROATED GRAY WARBLER 1 ELK 1 BLUE GROUSE 2 ENSATINA 3 BLUE-GREY GNATCATCHER 1 ERMINE 2 BOBCAT 1 EUROPEAN STARLING 1 BOHEMIAN WAXWING I1 EVENING GROSBEAK BOTTA'S POCKET GOPHER 2 FISHER 2l BRAZILIAN FREE-TAILED BAT 1 FLAMMULATED OWL BREWER'S BLACKBIRD 1 FOOTHILL YELLOW-LEGGED FROG BROWN CREEPER 1 FOX SPARRE& 1 BROWN-HEADED COWBIRD I FRINGED MYOTIS BRUSH RABBIT 2 GOLDEN EAGLE 2 BULLFROG 2 GOLDEN-CROWNED KINGLET 3 BUSHTIT 1 GOLDEN-CROWNED SPARROW 1 BUSHY-TAILED WOODRAT 2 GOLDEN-MANTLED GROUND SQUIRREL CALIFORNIA GROUND SQUIRREL 2 GOPHER SNAKE CALIFORNIA KANGAROO RAT 2 GRAY FLYCATCHER CALIFORNIA MOUNTAIN KINGSNAKE 3 GRAY FOX CALIFORNIA MYOTIS 1 GRAY JAY CALIFORNIA QUAIL 2 GREAT BLUE HERON CALIFORNIA TOWHEE (BROWN TOWHEE) 1 GREAT GRAY OWL GREAT HORNED OWL Appendix W

Dispersal Capability of Terrestrial Vertebrates in the Little Applegate Watershed

Species Dispersal S'pecies Dispersal Capability Capability GREEN-BACKED HERON 1 Ntv< [HERN SHRIKE 1 HAIRY WOODPECKER NORTHERN SPOTTED OWL 1 HAMMONDS FLYCATCHER 1 NORTHWESTERN GARTER SNAKE 3 HERMIT THRUSH 1 NORWAY RAT 2 HERMIT WARBLER 1 OLIVE-SIDED FLYCATCHER 1 HOARY BAT 1 ORANGE-CROWED WARBLER 1 HORNED LARK 1 OREGON GARTER SNAKE 3 HOUSE CAT (FERAL) 2 OREGON MEADOW VOLE 3 HOUSE FINCH 1 OSPREY 1 HOUSE MOUSE 3 PACIFIC GIANT SALAMANDER 3 HOUSE SPARROW 1 PACIFIC JUMPING MOUSE 3 HOUSE WREN PACIFIC SLOPE FLYCATCHER HUTTON'S VIREO 1 PACIFIC TREEFROG 2 I 13 KILLDEER PACIFIC WATER SHREW 3 LARK SPARROW 1 PALLID BAT LAZULI BUNTING 1 PEREGRINE FALCON 1 LESSER GOLDFINCH 1 PILEATED WOODPECKER 1 LEWIS' WOODPECKF 1 PINE SISKIN I 1 LINCOLN'S SPARROi PINON MOUSE LITTLE BROWN MYOQI iS I PLAIN TITMOUSE I 1 LONG EARED OWL - PORCUPINE 2 1 LONG-EARED MYOTIS' PRAIRIE FALCON LONG-LEGGED MYOTIS PURPLE FINCH LONG-TAILED VOLE 3 PURPLE MARTIN 1 LONG-TAILED WEASEL 2 RACCOON 2 LONG-TOED SALAMANDER 3 RACER 3 MACGILLIVRAY'S WARBLER 1 RED CROSSBILL MALLARD 1 RED FOX 1 MARSH WREN 2 RED TREE VOLE 3 MARTEN 1 RED-BREASTED NUTHATCH MERLIN I RED-BREASTED SAPSUCKER 1 MINK 2 RED-LEGGED FROG 2 MOUNTAIN BEAVER 2 RED-NAPED SAPSUCKER 1 MOUNTAIN BLUEBIRD 5 RED-SHOULDERED HAWK 1 MOUNTAIN CHICKADEE 1 RED-TAILED HAWK 1 MOUNTAIN LION I RED-WINGED BLACKBIRD 1 MOUNTAIN QUAIL 2 RING-NECKED PHEASANT 2 MOURNING DOVE I RING-TAILED CAT 2 MUSKRAT 2 RINGNECK SNAKE 3 NASHVILLE WARBLER I RIVER OTTER 2 NORTHERN ALLIGATOR LIZARD 3 ROCK DOVE 1 NORTHERN FLICKER 1 ROCK WREN 1 NORTHERN FLYING SQUIRREL 2 ROUGH-LEGGED HAWK 1 NORTHERN GOSHAWK I ROUGHSKIN NEWT' 1 NORTHERN HARRIER I RUBBER BOA 3 NORTHERN ORIOLE RUBY-CROWNED KINGLET 1 I NORTHERN PYGMY-OWL RUFFED GROUSE 2 1 NORTHERN ROUGH-WINGED SWALLOW RUFOUS HUMMINGBIRD I 1 NORTHERN SAW-WHET OWL RUFOUS-SIDED TOWHEE 1 "a SAGEBRUSH LIZARD 3 Appendix W

Dispersal Capability of Terrestrial Vertebrates in the Little Applegate Watershed

Species DIspersal Species Dispersal Capability CapabilIty SANDHILL CRANE WESTERN RED-BACKED VOLE 3 SAVANNAH SPARROW 1 WESTERN SCREECH-OWL 1 SAY'S PHOEBE 1 WESTERN SKINK 3 SCRUB JAY WESTERN TANAGER 1 SHARP-SHINNED HAWK WESTERN TERRESTRIAL GARTER SNAKE 3 SHARPTAIL SNAKE 3 WESTERN TOAD 3 SHREW-MOLE 1 WESTERN WOOD-PEWEE 1 SILVER-HAIRED BAT 1 WHITE-BREASTED NUTHATCH 1 SISKIYOU CHIPMONK 2 WHITE-CROWNED SPARROW 1 SISKIYOU SALAMANDER 3 WHITE-FOOTED VOLE 3 SNOWSHOE HARE 2 WHITE-HEADED WOODPECKER 1 SOLITARY VIREO 1 WHITE-THROATED SPARROW 1 SONG SPARROW 1 WILD TURKEY 2 SORA 1 WILLIAMSON'S SAPSUCKER I SOUTHERN ALLIGATOR LIZARD 3 WILLOW FLYCATCHER 1 SPOTTED SANDPIPER 1 WILSON'S WARBLER 1 SPOTTED SKUNK 2 WINTER WREN 1 STELLER'S JAY 1 WOOD DUCK 1 STRIPED SKUNK 2 WRENTIT 1 STRIPED WHIPSNAKE 3 YELLOW WARBLER 1 SWAINSON'S THRUSH 1 YELLOW-BELLIED MARMOT 2 TAILED FROG YELLOW-BREASTED CHAT 1 TOWNSEND'S BIG-EARED BAT YELLOW-PINE, CHIPMUNK 1 TOWNSEND'S CHIPMUNK 3I YELLOW-RUMPED WARBLER 1 TOWNSEND'S SOLITAIRE YUMA MYOTIS / 1 TOWNSEND'S VOLE 3 I TOWNSEND'S WARBLER Dispersal tapability Code Definitions TREE SWALLOW I - High - Amrss Landscapes TROWBRIDGE'S SHREW 3 2 - Medium - Within Landuppes TURKEY VULTURE 1 3 - Low - Within Patches 1 VAGRANT SHREW 3I VARIED THRUSH VAUX'S SWIFT 1 VESPER SPARROW I VIOLET-GREEN SWALLOW I 1 VIRGINIA OPOSSUM 2 VIRGINIA RAIL 1 WARBLING VIREO 1 WATER PIPIT I WATER SHREW 3 WESTERN BLUEBIRD 1 WESTERN FENCE LIZARD 3 WESTERN GRAY SQUIRREL 2 WESTERN HARVEST MOUSE 3 WESTERN KINGBIRD 1 WESTERN MEADOWLARK 1 WESTERN POCKET GOPHER 3 WESTERN POND TURTLE 3 WESTERN RATTLESNAKE 3 Appendix X

Known roost-site characteristics of bats (adapted from Christy and West 1993 pg. 10.)

. z

Ui M j < n l: I -I 140b 6 IRI0" Iq* * ." 3 4 1 3 3 C kI43 I 0

i£t" 9 .C I C X Co C X C 0~lt cn 2 -0c) 0 9) -(A , b I 0 X f £3 I 07, X

0 0 co~~ Ii inj 0 (A X It w "IvI ao

.z, o rL0

I. 0 cn 0 Cn 0 I

0so C S,0 X CDI OOcCA () 0 GI

0, C C 2 CI CD 0 ~ . I -r CD I 3: O 3 p-I X I I

C :co ;M 9 3 0 co I I0 Little Applegate Watershed Suitable Habitat For TSPEGuild 22.015 acresI Litte Applegate Watershed Suitable and Contributing Habitat For TM ME Guild

17.476 acres suitable 3.716 acres contributing Little Applegate Watershed Suitable and Contributing Habitat For TSME Guild

1111122.632 acres suitable 114 acres contributing tive Applegate Watershed Suitable and Contributing Habitat For TSGML Guild

_ 45.776 acres suitable Ml 12 acres contributing Little Applegate Watershed Suftable Habitat For TSC Guild 4,621 acres Little Applegate Watershed Suitable Habitat For TSPLGuIId 93.31 8 acres Uttle Applegate Watershed Suitable Habitat For TMC Guild 7.280 acres Uttle Applegjate Watershed Suitable and Contributing.. Habitat For TMML Guild-,'.

7,045 acres suitable 719 acres contributing LI-ttle Applegate Water'shed Suitable and Contributing Habitat For TLML Guild 3.593 acres suitable - 23970 acres contributing Little Applegate Watershed Suitable Habitat For TSPL Guild

9.31 8 acres Little Applegate Watershed Suitable and Contributing Habitat For TSGEM Guild . 10,765 acres suitable no contributing habitat SUITABLE HABITAT FOR THE RIVRE GUILD

I I

.&.-. 4 -S.

I "N.. v L.

) . [.- f i. ..)I\ .0'. lb -. N \' d.~'N -N

i ( i . It . %V of

.

1y _5 I _-J & I , . _ ,,. -I 'I

I1 J Ii I A: _ S /

_ V.

;, I _ ., .-

3000 6000 3000 6000 Pt SUITABLE HABITAT FOR THE RIVRM]; GUILD

r~~~" ''

f @ to-' > Be.__ '

* : \ ~ d

.- N - t- - -

AS~..A

i, Ml hcl1 ,2ouSuede S.

''¾/ A~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~et

Lightoy shaded aw Owk shoded aea i

5~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 0 3000 eooo SUITABLE HABITAT FOR THE RIVARG GUILD

Maytm 0 3 00 0 K00 0f 3000 SUITABLE HABITAT FOR LAKARE GUILD

. ,

_ Early Successional Stage Little Applegate Watershed

~~~~~~~~~~~~~ A Figure Ponds and Lakes

Ponds & Lakes Little Applegate Watershed

Momm.. CO 0 0 LITTLE APPLEGATE WATERSHED TAILED FROG DISTRIBUTION

APPENDIX I

ROCK CR

Little Applegate Watershed Streams Sampled Tailed Frog Sampling Area C.80"w bv OWN " fth 40,6wkn &."-# a Sampled none found Sampled found

0 3 0080 0 3000 8000 Appendix 3 RESULTS OF BAT TRAPPING EFFORT AT THREE SITES IN THE LITTLE APPLEGATE WATERSHED, SUMMER 1.994

SITE #1 Pond on Boise Cascade land in Armstrong gulch (T.39s R.2w Sect. 16 NW of SW). Netted 7/13/1994, nets open for 3 hours.

SPECIES TOMAr . M~A TV. WWrwiAT.R. T.1krPAfrT~if ppraVAMTr EPFU 9 2 7 1 2* LANO 4 4 0 0 0 MYVO 2 0 2 0 0 MYCA 1 0 1 0 0 MYYU 1 0 1 0 1 MYOTIS SPP. 2** TOTALS 19 6 11 1 3 *In addition to the two pregnant individuals indicated, two females were determined to be reproductive, stage unknown.

** Two bats of the Myotis genus were captured but escaped before they could be identified to species.

ISITE #2 Piump chance on Forest Service land on Deadman's point (T.40s R.2w sect. 27 NE of NW). Netted on 7/20/94, nets open for I.hour and 45 minutes (closed due to electrical storm hazard).

rpl~fl47a T*. 1RA T 1' VM1A TV nVVnVAVM .j cia s iah. U '... s na . .. nn a.an. UOU a.** - 04U MYEV 13 13 0 0 0 LANO 14 13 1 0 3. MYVO 3 2 1 1 0 MYUM 1 1 0 0 0 EPFU 2 0 0 0 TOTALS 33 31 2 1 3.

SITE #3 Ford across the Little Applegate river (T.40s R.1w sect.4 SW of SE). Netted on 7/27/94, nets open for 3 hours after a late start, may have missed some early fliers.

SPECIES TOTAL MALE FEMALE LACTATING PREGNANT LACI 1 1 0 0 0 EPFU` 1 1 0 0 0 -- -0 - TOTAL - - -- 2------0------0- TOTAL 2 1 0 0 0 Appendix K SPECIAL STATUS INVERTEBRATES WHICH MAY OCCUR IN THE LITTLE APPLEGATE WATERSHED BUT WERE NOT ADDRESSED IN FEMAT APPENDIX J-2

SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME STATUS Bombus franklini Franklin's bumblebee C2 Chloealtis aspasma Siskciyou Chloealtis Grasshopper C2 Agapetus denningi Denning'sa Agapetus Caddisfly C2 Farula davisi Green Sprgs. Mtn. Farulan Caddisfly C2 Hlomoplectia schuhi Shuh' s Homoplectran Caddisfly C2 Rhyacophila colonus O'Brien Rhyacophilan, Caddis fly C2 Rhyacophila fenderi Fender's Rhyacophilan Caddisfly C2 Tinodes siskiyou. Siskiyou Caddisfly C2 Monadenija fidelis minor Oregon Snail C2 Pisidium ultramontanum Oregon Pearly Mussel C2 Ochlodes agricola agricola Rural Skipper Butterfly C2* Acalypta cooleyi Cooley's Tingid Lacebug TS Tanypteryx hageni Montane Bog Dragonfly TS Lycaena mariposa (new ssp) Mariposa Copper Butterfly TS Agriades glandon podarce Arctic Blue Butterfly AS * Colias occidentalis chrysomelas Western Sulphur Butterfly AS* Polites mardon Mardon Skipper C2* Satyrium auretorum Gold Hunter's Hairstreak Butterfly TS* Speyeria coronis coronis Coronis Fritillary Butterfly TS*

There is no available data on the presence or absence of these species in the Little Applegate Watershed. Species were included on this list if their known geographic range of occurrence overlaps the L.A.W., or the species is known to occur in the surrounding region (roughly Jackson and Siskiyou Counties). Appendix K cont. The status of these species was taken from the BLM Special Status Invertebrate species list dated 11/5/92. Sensitive invertebrates which were addressed in FEMAT or FEMAT appendix J-2 are listed in Appendix R. of this report

STATUS CODES C2 = Federal candidate for listing as Threatened or Endangered AS = BLM Assessment species TS = BLM Tracking species * Listing at indicated status is anticipated in the near future (Joe furnish personal comm.) Appendix M These are the run parameters used for each guild in the patch aggregation models. This is the information that the models prompt the user for while running. These tables (particularly the column headings) will not make sense to readers who are unfamiliar with running the models. These tables are intended to serve as documentation of the analysis process used and will probably only be of use to future users of the models, not the casual reader. The run parameters used in the L.A.W. modelling effort were those developed by the originators of the modelon the Mount Hood National Forest. For more information on the origin of these parameters please see the document titled "INTERPRETING LANDSCAPE PATTERNS: A VERTEBRATE HABITAT RELATIONSHIPS APPROACH"N (attached).

PATCH GUILDS Individuals of the species in these guilds use one patch of suitable habitat, and will generally not use multiple patches of suitable habitat. The file that contains the model programming is "PATCH.EXE". This program file is also used to make patch maps to be used as input files for Mosaic and Contrast guilds.

OUTPUT GUILD MPS SHY SHN FILE TSPE 120 |E | L,M |PAE20.MAP | TSPL 20 L E,M PAL20.MAP

MPS=Minimum Patch Size SHY=Seral code on pixcels in input file (Suitable Habitat Yes) SHN=Seral code on pixcels in input file (Suitable Habitat No) Output files are in ASCIi

MOSAIC GUILDS Individuals of the species in these guilds will use patches of suitable habitat scattered across the landscape if the pieces are big enough and close enough together. The file that contains the model programing is "SUIT.EXE".

A*.