Wildlife Report Prepared for the Little Applegate Pilot Watershed Analysis
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
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