Terrestrial Wildlife Species Habitat Descriptions

Home , Eriogonum spergulinum, Gerber Reservoir, Potentilla diversifolia, Southeastern Oregon

TERRESTRIAL WILDLIFE SPECIES HABITAT DESCRIPTIONS

Fremont-Winema National Forest Fremont Land and Resource Management Plan Eastside of the Forest - Bly, Lakeview, Paisley, and Silver Lake Districts

JULY 17, 2017 PREPARED BY Cheran Cavanaugh – Eastside Wildlife Biologist and Isaac Gansberg – Eastside Assistant Wildlife Biologist Table of Contents Introduction ...... 3 Mammals ...... 5 American marten ...... 5 Canada lynx ...... 8 Gray Wolf ...... 9 Fringed myotis ...... 11 Mule Deer ...... 12 Pacific Fisher – West Coast Distinct Population Segment (DPS) ...... 15 Pallid bat ...... 16 Pygmy rabbit ...... 17 Townsend’s big-eared bat...... 19 Wolverine ...... 20 Birds ...... 23 American peregrine falcon ...... 23 American white pelican ...... 24 Bald Eagle ...... 25 Black-backed woodpecker ...... 26 Bufflehead ...... 30 Goshawk ...... 31 Greater sage-grouse ...... 34 Landbirds ...... 36 Lewis’s woodpecker ...... 42 Northern spotted owl ...... 43 Pileated Woodpecker...... 45 Purple martin ...... 47 Red-naped Sapsucker ...... 48 Red-necked grebe ...... 50 Tricolored blackbird ...... 51 Upland sandpiper ...... 52 White-headed woodpecker ...... 54 Yellow-billed cuckoo (Western DPS) ...... 56 Yellow rail ...... 54

Amphibians and Reptiles ...... 56 Columbia spotted frog ...... 56 Northern Leopard Frog ...... 58 Oregon spotted frog ...... 59 Western Pond Turtle ...... 60 Invertebrates ...... 62 Crater Lake tightcoil ...... 62 Gray-blue butterfly ...... 62 Johnson’s Hairstreak ...... 64 Leona’s little blue butterfly ...... 65 Mardon skipper ...... 68 Modoc Rim sideband ...... 70 Siskiyou Hesperian ...... 71 Traveling sideband ...... 71 Western Bumble bee ...... 73 Primary Excavators and Dead Wood Dependent Species ...... 75 References ...... 76

Introduction

This document describes habitat for terrestrial wildlife species considered during environmental analysis. Species and habitat descriptions for all species listed in Table 1 are included in this document. Species that could potentially be affected by the project (“yes” in Table 1) will be addressed in full detail in the Terrestrial Wildlife report or in the project Environmental Analysis. For those species that will not be addressed in full detail (“no” in Table 1), habitat descriptions and assessment of habitat within the project area are also included in this document. Species descriptions are listed by Class, then in alphabetical order by common name.

Though the Fremont-Winema National Forest is one forest, it is still managed under two Land Resource Management Plans. The Bly, Lakeview, Paisley, and Silver Lake Districts make up the portions of the Forest managed under the Fremont Land and Resource Management Plan (USDA 1989). Species and habitats will therefore be analyzed based on their occurrence or proximity only to the Fremont National Forest, and follow the Standards and Guidelines of the Fremont LRMP. The Fremont National Forest falls within the East Cascades (EC) and Northern Basin and Range (NBR) ecoregions of the Oregon Conservation Strategy.

The United States Fish and Wildlife Service 12/14/2017 list of threatened, endangered, proposed, and candidate species was reviewed for species that may be present on the Fremont- Winema National Forest and found within or immediately adjacent to the Fremont National Forest. After a review of habitat requirements and existing habitat components, it was determined that there is no habitat within the Fremont National Forest for northern spotted owl, Oregon spotted frog, or wolverine. Habitat for yellow-billed cuckoo and Canada lynx is not present on the Fremont-Winema National Forest, and therefore not evaluated as part of the R6 Sensitive Species List.

The Forest Service’s Special Status/Sensitive Species Program (ISSSSP) and the Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species List are proactive approaches for meeting the Agency’s obligations under the Endangered Species Act, the National Forest Management Act (NFMA), and National Policy direction as stated in the 2670 section of the Forest Service Manual. The primary objectives of the Sensitive Species program are to ensure species viability and to preclude trends toward endangerment that would result in a need for federal listing. Species identified by the USFWS as proposed or candidate for listing under the ESA are included on the Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species Lists. All terrestrial species on the July 2015 Region 6 Sensitive Species list are addressed below.

Management Indicator Species (MIS) are selected species whose welfare is believed to be an indicator of the welfare of other species using the same habitat or a species whose condition can be used to assess the impacts of management actions on a particular area.

Table 1: List of Threatened, Endangered, Proposed, Region 6 Sensitive species, and Fremont National Forest LRMP Management Indicator Species. T, E, C, P, SS, or Species and/or Common Name Scientific Name MIS Habitat Present Mammals Mammals Mammals Mammals Gray wolf Canis lupus E Yes

Canada lynx Lynx Canadensis T No Pacific Fisher No Pekania pennanti SS West Coast DPS Wolverine Gulo gulo luscus P & SS No Pygmy rabbit Brachylagus SS No idahoensis Pallid bat Antrozous pallidus SS Yes Fringed myotis Myotis thysanodes SS Yes Townsend’s big-eared bat Corynorhinus SS No townsendii Odocoileus MIS Yes Mule deer hemionus American marten Martes americana MIS Yes Birds Birds Birds Birds Northern spotted owl Strix occidentalis T No caurina Bald eagle Haliaeetus SS & MIS Yes leucocephalus American peregrine falcon Falco peregrinus SS & MIS No anatum Greater sage grouse Centrocercus SS Yes urophasianus Red-necked grebe Podiceps grisegena SS No Bufflehead Bucephala albeola SS Yes Yellow rail Coturnicops SS Yes noveboracensis Upland sandpiper Bartramia SS No longicauda Tricolored blackbird Agelaius tricolor SS No Lewis’s Woodpecker Melanerpes lewis SS Yes White-headed woodpecker Picoides SS Yes albolarvatus Purple martin Progne subis SS No American white pelican Pelecanus SS Yes erythrorhynchos Yellow-billed cuckoo Coccyzus SS & T No Western DPS americanus occidentalis Northern Goshawk Accipiter gentilis MIS Yes Pileated woodpecker Dryocopus pileatus MIS Yes Sphyrapicus MIS Yes Red-naped sapsucker nuchalis Black-backed woodpecker Picoides arcticus MIS Yes Primary Excavators Multiple species MIS Yes Amphibians and Reptiles Amphibians Amphibians Amphibians and Reptiles and Reptiles and Reptiles Oregon spotted frog Rana pretiosa T No Columbia spotted frog Rana luteiventris SS No Northern leopard frog Lithobates pipiens SS Yes

Western pond turtle Actinemys Yes SS marmorata Invertebrates Invertebrates Invertebrates Invertebrates Johnson’s hairstreak Callophrys Yes SS johnsoni Mardon skipper Polites mardon SS No Leona’s little blue butterfly Philotiella leona SS No Gray-blue butterfly Plebejus podarce SS No klamathensis Western bumblebee Bombus SS Yes occidentalis Traveling sideband Monadenia fidelis SS No celeuthia Modoc Rim sideband Monadenia fidelis SS No ssp. nov. Crater Lake tightcoil Pristiloma crateris SS No Siskiyou hesperian Vespericola SS No sierranus T – Federally listed as Threatened E – Federally listed as Endangered P – Federally listed as Proposed C- Federally identified as Candidate SS – Region 6 Sensitive Species List MIS – Fremont National Forest Land Resource Management Plan Management Indicator Species Mammals American marten

Photo by Lacy Robinson

Habitat Use: The American marten was chosen as a MIS species due to its close association with late successional mixed conifer and lodgepole pine forests. American marten are typically associated with late-seral coniferous forests with closed canopies, large trees, and abundant snags and downed wood (Zielinski et al. 2001). Researchers list subalpine and montane forests in old

multi- and single-story, and unmanaged young multi-story structural stages as providing source habitat for American marten in the Columbia Basin; lower montane forests are not listed as source habitat (Wisdom et al. 2000). Snags and down logs are identified as special habitat features of source habitat for marten (Wisdom et al. 2000). Down logs provide habitat for prey and subnivean access points. Raphael and Jones (1997) found down wood and slash piles were important resting and denning structures in the eastern Cascades of central Oregon. Forests in their study area were dominated by lodgepole pine. In central Oregon lodgepole pine-dominated areas, no relationship was found between resting sites and streams (Raphael and Jones 1997). While marten preference for major vegetation types varies across geographic areas, their preference for structure near the ground appears to be constant across their range. Structure near the ground may be contributed in various ways through coarse woody debris recruited by gradual tree death and fall or by fire, lower branches of living trees, rock and talus fields, shrubs, herbaceous plants, or squirrel middens as well as combinations of these structures (Ruggiero et al. 1994).

In the Cascades, marten selected sites with higher canopy closure during snow periods than during snow-free periods (Raphael and Jones 1997). In Oregon, canopy closure at rest sites in lodgepole pine dominated stands averaged 36% in snow periods and 27% in snow-free periods (Raphael and Jones 1997). Research has also found larger patch sizes of habitat were important for marten occurrence. Marten used patches over 100 ha (247 acres) at higher rates than availability (Slauson et al. 2007). At the 1-km radius scale, a 10% increase in amount of logged area was associated with a 23% decrease in marten occurrence (Slauson et al. 2007). Martens were not detected at any sample unit with more than 50% of area logged in the 1-km radius circle (Slauson et al. 2007). The MIS Information Sheet American Marten (Martes americana) is incorporated by reference (Mellen-McLean 2011a).

Threats: • Past extensive logging and trapping for pelts led to extirpation in some areas. Loss/ degradation of habitat due to timber harvest remains a threat in some areas. (NatureServe 2017). • Loss of down wood, resultant loss in prey availability and subnivean access, due to fuels reduction treatments (Bull and Heater 1995). • Reduction in amount of late-seral forest and associated large snags and logs (Wisdom et al. 2000). • Fragmentation of habitat (Wisdom et al. 2000; Hargis et al. 1999). • Availability of prey can limit marten populations (Wisdom et al. 2000).

Diet: Includes bird eggs and nestlings, insects, fish, shrews, deer mice, red squirrels, heather voles, northern flying squirrels, and Douglas squirrels (Witmer et al. 1998, Ruggiero et al. 1994).

Distribution: Globally, marten are distributed throughout Canada and Alaska, south through the Rockies, Sierra Nevada, northern Great Lakes, and northern New England (NatureServe 2017). In Oregon and Washington, marten are distributed throughout montane forests of the southern Oregon Coast Range, Siskiyou Mountains, Cascade Mountains, Blue Mountains, Olympic Peninsula, and northeast Washington (Marcot et al. 2003). Marten are absent from the northern Oregon and 6

southern Washington coastal mountains, and are rare in the Olympic Peninsula (Zielinski et al. 2001).

Conservation Status: NatureServe • Global – G5 – Widespread, abundant, secure • Oregon – S3S4 – Vulnerable to Apparently secure ODFW • Sensitive • Harvested as a furbearer state-wide

Population Trend: Zielinski et al. (2001) determined marten distribution in coastal California, Oregon, and Washington from 1900 to 1949 using museum and trapping records compared to recent (1989- 1998) detections at camera and track-plate stations. Martens were detected at only 12 of 237 (5.1%) survey sample units and may have declined on the Olympic Peninsula of Washington. Few data exist from northwestern Oregon and southwestern Washington, but limited amounts of protected public land and absence of reported road kills are reasons for concern for populations in this region. Martens still occur in the central and southern coastal mountains of Oregon. In the coastal area of the Pacific states, detections are clumped in 4 locations, separated by significant distances, which presents a conservation challenge.

Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project (ICBEMP): The assessment process used by the ICBEMP is based on using the concept of Historic Range of Variability (HRV) to assess likelihood of maintaining viable populations of species. By managing habitat within HRV it is assumed adequate habitat will be provided because species survived those levels of habitat in the past to be present today. Thus, if we manage current habitats within the range of historic variability, we will likely do an adequate job of ensuring population viability for those species remaining (Landres et al. 1999).

Viability analysis for MIS can tier to large-scale assessments, especially where a viability assessment has not been completed for the Forest. Source Habitats for Terrestrial Vertebrates of Focus in the Interior Columbia Basin: Broad-Scale Trends and Management Implications (Wisdom et al. 2000) provides valuable information on habitat trends in the Columbia Basin. Ecological Reporting Units (ERUs) divide the Columbia Basin into 13 Units analyzed for changes between historical and current habitat conditions. The Fremont National Forest falls primarily within the Upper Klamath ERU. A portion of the Forest (primarily in the Warner Mountains) falls within the Northern Great Basin ERU.

Table 2. Percent of Ecological Reporting Units (ERUs) in American marten habitat for current and historical conditions, and the relative change in habitat (Wisdom et al. 2000).

American Marten Percent of Percent of ERU in ERU in Source Source Habitat1 Habitat1 ERU Relative ERU Name Number Historical Current Change1 Trend Category Upper Klamath 3 13.35 35.40 >100 Strongly increasing Northern Great Basin 4 6.16 13.67 >100 Strongly increasing 1From Volume 3 - Table 5 – pg 493.

Canada lynx

Photo credit USFWS

Canada Lynx are generally found in the boreal forest regions of North America with their range coinciding with that of their main prey, the Snowshoe Hare (Ruggiero et al. 2000). In the contiguous United States, lynx historically occurred in 24 states (McKelvey et al. 2000), however, it is uncertain whether an occurrence (or even multiple occurrences) indicate this is part of the historic range (McKelvey et al. 2000). Canada lynx are federally listed in 14 states, including Oregon. The USFWS identified 6 “core” areas for recovery where there has been evidence of lynx reproduction within the last 20 years. Oregon was not one of the areas chosen for a “core” area, the closest being the northern Cascade range of Washington State (Vashon 2016). Canada lynx are on the R6 Federal TEP list for the Colville, Okanogan-Wenatchee, Umatilla, and Malheur National Forests only. Although a museum specimen records Klamath County as its origin, the Fremont-Winema National Forest is not within the current range of the lynx (USFWS 2017c). No self-sustaining populations of lynx occur in Oregon, and there are no records of lynx reproducing in Oregon.

Hares make up one-third to nearly all of the lynx diet (Ruggiero et al. 2000), so as its primary prey, good snowshoe hare habitat is considered good lynx habitat. Snowshoe hare habitat consists of dense conifer thickets interspersed with small patches of grasses, forbs and ferns (Mowat and Slough 2003). Lynx prefer high altitudes with deep winter snow cover and across North America have home ranges average 15-50 km2 and tend to be larger on the southern periphery of their geographic distribution suggesting southern ranges have marginal habitat (Vashon 2016). Home ranges vary with snowshoe hare abundancy, seasonally, and by age and

8 sex (Ruggiero et al. 2000). The Forest has some components of lynx habitat, but not in sufficient quantities to sustain viable populations. Based upon current knowledge, the Forest does not have plant associations that can be developed into sufficient suitable habitat for lynx.

Figure 1. USFWS map of Canada Lynx potential habitat in Oregon.

The Fremont National Forest does not occur in or near designated core habitat areas for Canada Lynx and there is no potential habitat for lynx on the Forest. Projects on the Fremont National Forest will have no impact to Canada lynx.

Gray Wolf

Photo credit ODFW

The federally endangered gray wolf is delisted in the far Eastern part of Oregon (see Figure 1.) and was removed from the Oregon state endangered list in 2015. The Fremont-Winema National Forest is entirely within the portion listed under federal protection as well as the Oregon Wolf

Plan. Critical habitat has not been designated and no recovery plan has been published. NatureServe (2017) ranks the gray wolf as globally apparently secure to secure (G4G5), but state critically imperiled to vulnerable (S1S2). Threats include direct human-caused mortality, reduction of prey populations and habitat loss due to development.

Figure 2. Location of Federally listed and delisted portions of Oregon for gray wolf under the Endangered Species Act.

Wolves are habitat generalists, meaning they are able to thrive in a wide variety of environmental conditions and can make use of a variety of different resources. Wolves live throughout the northern hemisphere, only requiring ungulate prey and human-caused mortality rates that are not excessive. Ungulates such as deer, elk, and moose are the typical prey of wolves, but wolves can also utilize smaller mammals, birds, and fish, with beaver among the smallest important prey. Wolves will also readily scavenge, and when necessary eat insects, nuts, and berries. Wolf packs defend their territories from other wolves. Territory size is a function of prey density and can range from 25-1,500 square miles. Both male and female wolves disperse at equal rates and equal distances, generally 40-60 miles from their source pack, however dispersals of more than 500 miles have been reported.

Female wolves begin to bear young when they are about 2 years old. Breeding usually occurs only between the dominant male and female in a pack, with the breeding season peaking in mid- to late February. Pregnancies last for two months and usually result in a litter of three to five pups. Wolf packs generally range in size from 3 to 19 wolves, and all adults in a pack share in the raising of pups.

Between April 1 and July 15, pack activity is centered near the den or at one or more rendezvous sites in close proximity to the den, as the adult wolves hunt and return with food for the pups. Rendezvous sites are typically located in meadows or forest openings near the den, but can be

several miles away as pups become more mobile. Adults carry small pups between rendezvous sites, where pups stay until they are able to travel and hunt with the pack, which usually occurs by September. Pups normally stay with the pack until > 1 year old (ODFW 2017). Pack boundaries and territory sizes vary from year to year depending on changes in prey availability, distribution, conflict with nearby wolf packs, or the establishment of a new neighboring pack.

The Fremont National Forest has had several documented sightings of wolves across the Forest. Currently there are no designated packs or known breeding pairs on the Forest. Vegetation and Fuels Management activities on the Fremont-Winema National Forest in regards to gray wolf are documented in the Fremont-Winema National Forest Forest-wide Programmatic Biological Assessment on file at the Lakeview Interagency Office.

Fringed myotis

Fringed myotis or the fringe-tailed bat, is found throughout western North America. In Oregon it occurs along the coast range, Willamette Valley, southern Cascades, and Blue Mountains and has been documented in Lake and Klamath Counties (NatureServe 2017). Fringed myotis is an Oregon sensitive species ranked as sensitive in the East Cascades (EC) and Northern Basin and Range (NBR) as well as the Coast Range (CR), Klamath Mountains (KM), West Cascades (WC), and Willamette Valley (WV) ecoregions (ODFW 2016). NatureServe (2017) ranks this species as apparently secure globally (G4) and nationally (N4), and imperiled in the state of Oregon (S2).

Fringed myotis is found in a variety of habitats including desert scrub, mesic coniferous forest, grassland, and sage steppe (Bradley et al. 2005). Distribution is patchy, and it is considered rare in the Pacific Northwest, but the fringe-tailed bat seems to prefer drier woodland (oak, pinyon- juniper, ponderosa pine) or riparian areas (Bradley et al. 2005, Csuti et al. 1997). One young is born in late June to mid-July. Maternity colonies may number several hundred individuals. Roosts include caves, mines, rock crevices, tree cavities, conifer snags, bridges, and buildings. Use of large decadent trees and snags for roosting is common throughout its range, and tree structure is thought to be more important in snag/tree selection than species (Bradley et al. 2005). Fringe-tailed bats migrate between summer and winter roosts, but little is known about the type or locations of winter roosts. They eat beetles, moths, crickets, and other insects captured in flight or by gleaning from a surface.

Threats to fringed myotis focus on loss or modification of roosting habitat through closure or reopening of mines, recreational caving, loss of current and future large decadent trees, replacement of buildings and bridges with non-bat friendly structures, and removal of large blocks of forest or woodland (Bradley et al. 2005).

Habitat for fringed myotis occurs across the Fremont National Forest in areas of ponderosa pine, dry mixed conifer, juniper woodland, riparian, and sage steppe habitat, particularly open stands with large trees.

Mule Deer

Photo by USFS - Lakeview Ranger District

Optimal mule deer habitat is generally described as a mix of hiding, thermal, and fawning cover, and foraging habitat. A number of factors including road density, distance between sources of water, forage utilization by cattle and amount and arrangement of cover and forage patches would impact habitat use by mule deer.

Mule deer in Central Oregon are a migratory group of animals roaming a vast mountainous summer range and crowding into relatively small winter ranges (Dealy 1971). Mule deer are not believed to have been abundant prior to 1850 in this region, and remained at low numbers through the early 1900s (Peek et al. 1999). Mule deer began to increase around 1915, probably because of increased shrublands due to improved rangelands as a response to fire and logging on summer ranges (Salwasser 1979; Peek et al. 1999). Shrublands have since continued to mature across western ranges because of fire suppression and improved grazing practices (Urness 1990; Peek et al. 1999) and this is the case throughout much of the planning area. Public interest and use have initiated management of mule deer populations at higher than historical numbers.

Cover and Forage Habitat Cover: Summer thermal cover minimizes metabolic and time costs associated with heat dissipation (Demarchi & Bunnel 1993). Lost foraging time or energetic costs of increasing metabolism can translate into decreased summer weight gains (Demarchi & Bunnell 1993). Thermal cover can also be provided by shrubs, juniper woodlands, or physical objects such as boulders and ledges (Peek et al. 1999). Gay (1998) also found animals are as likely to bed in the shade of a single conifer, rock outcrop, or cut-bank in the midday, as in high canopy closures.

Hiding cover habitat is used for escape and protection from predators and humans (Peek et al. 1999). Although, under current management, optimal habitat is defined as within 600 feet (183m) of cover (cover being defined as a stand of at least 60 percent cover), Gay (1998) did not find concentrated deer use within 600 feet of hiding cover. In fact, fewer than 20 percent of study animals concentrated in habitat within 600 feet of hiding cover (Gay 1998). Although not in the LRMP, a long-standing definition of cover used in management is: a stand in which greater than or equal to 60 percent of the area can hide 90 percent of a deer at 200 feet. This omits less dense vegetation types which deer also recognize as cover (Gay 1998). Thermal cover is defined in the Winema LRMP as forest stands with at least 50% canopy closure, provided by trees or shrubs at least 6 feet tall, in 2 to 5 acre patches of a minimum width of 300 feet.

Well-planned reductions in forest cover are expected to increase carrying capacity and increase herd size; however, road closures would need to accompany reductions in cover to avoid overexploitation during hunting season (Gay 1998). Due to fire suppression and past harvest regimes, there are extensive acres of overstocked ponderosa pine stands in the Pacific Northwest (McConnell & Smith 1970). Leaving less dense vegetation as deer cover would result in forests more resistant to stand replacement fire, and large-scale insect and pathogen induced tree mortality (Agee 1994; Gay 1998). Studies have shown thinning pine stands produces significant increases in understory vegetation (McConnell & Smith 1970). Thinning overstocked ponderosa pine stands would promote forage growth and would reduce risk of stand replacing wildfire events by eliminating mid-level ladder fuels.

Bitterbrush: Antelope bitterbrush (Purshia tridentata) has an extensive range in Central Oregon, both in open sagebrush lands and as a component of forest communities on the east slope of the Cascade Mountains (Sherman & Chilcote 1972). It is a very valuable browse species for mule deer because bitterbrush twigs and leaves contain high levels of protein (Clark 1979). Bitterbrush is an important component of summer range habitat as Gay (1998) found bitterbrush, along with other non-sprouting shrubs, dominates summer deer diets in pumice influenced zones.

Several factors are important in bitterbrush sprouting following a fire, including geographic location, soil types, season of burning, soil moisture and plant phenology at time of burning, fire intensity, rodent populations, growth form, and age of the plant. Antelope bitterbrush in the pumice soils of central Oregon have reported infrequent sprouting following fires (Driscoll 1963; Nord 1965; Busse et al. 1999) and underburn monitoring on this Forest supports this theory. Burning early in the growing season provides greater recovery time for plants with sufficient carbohydrate reserves to sprout and resume photosynthesis (Agee 1993; Busse et al. 1999). Studies by Clark (1979) discovered better sprouting by plants burned in spring versus plants burned in fall. Recovery of bitterbrush following fire also relies on seedling recruitment from rodent seed caching (West 1968; Busse et al. 1999). West (1968) found 90 percent of germinating bitterbrush seedlings develop in clusters, and fire can play an important role by reducing the needle cast and duff layer making rodent caching more accessible (Nord 1965; Sherman & Chilcote 1972; Gay 1998). Busse et al. (1999) agrees with earlier studies (Simon 1990), that plant age influenced sprouting success of bitterbrush and plants between 5 and 20 to 40 years of age are most successful at sprouting.

Although fire intervals in the ponderosa pine series in eastern Oregon were as frequent as seven years (Agee 1994), fire frequencies of less than 20 years would likely result in sparse distribution and low densities of bitterbrush (Gay 1998). Implementing prescribed burns mimicking these historical fire intervals would result in substantial reductions in deer forage on forested portions of winter range in the pumice soil zone (Gay 1998). According to Busse and Riegel (2009), balancing the need to limit fire risk yet provide adequate bitterbrush habitat for wildlife browse would likely require a mosaic pattern of burning at the landscape scale or a burning frequency well beyond 11 years to allow a bitterbrush seed crop to develop.

Grass and Forbs: Actual usage of grass and forbs by mule deer is difficult to determine because microhistological analysis (examination of stomach contents under a microscope) is not credible due to near complete digestion of new and rapidly growing grasses and forbs (Zyzner & Urness 1969; Gay 1998). Grasses and forbs compose the bulk of spring diets. Gay’s (1998) studies found in April and May of 1995, when there was no snow cover and an abundance of new grasses and forbs, deer were seldom seen feeding on anything other than new herbaceous growth. Forbs especially showed high use with 25 to 44 percent in June and July, and 15 to 57 percent in August and September (Gay 1998).

Fire may affect forage resources by changing both forage quality and quantity. Burning increases short term plant production and nutritional quality accompanied by increases in species richness and diversity of the plant community (Van Dyke and Darragh 2007). Forage characteristics potentially affected by fire include: protein, phosphorus and fiber content, and subsequent changes in digestibility. Cook et al. (1994) found substantial increases in crude protein of herbs after burning. Fire-stimulated flowering is another phenomenon increasing seedling abundance in burned areas, as Walstad (1990) found increased flowering and seed vigor following fire for grasses in pine forests and high desert regions east of the Cascades. Small burns dispersed over space and time provide ungulates with continual accessibility to newly burned sites which provide a higher quality and quantity of forage (VanDyke and Darragh 2007).

Season of Burning: Season of burning can be very important in determining fire impacts and vegetative responses as they relate to mule deer forage. Spring burning occurs at a time when buds are flushing and can be very susceptible to fire, while, later in the season, buds have hardened and are much more capable of withstanding heat (Agee 1993). Spring burning before the growing season would weaken and can kill sprouting shrubs because they are often at yearly lows in terms of carbohydrate reserves in roots due to demand to produce new shoots, roots, and flowers (Agee 1993). Spring burning can also kill fine conifer roots, which may predispose trees to moisture stress during the coming dry season (Agee 1993). Higher densities of species of snowbrush and manzanita seedlings have been reported following fall burns compared to spring burns (Walstad 1990). While fall burning is performed under dryer conditions, burns tend to be more intense and there may be a higher risk of not meeting burn objectives. This is most likely due to the greater abundance of ungrazed forage in deferred units during grazing season (Skovlin et al. 1968).

Threats (per ODFW Mule Deer Initiative):

• Invasive plants like cheatgrass and medusahead rye have replaced bitterbrush, sagebrush and other forage. • Less fire and less logging have led to fewer early succession forests and rangelands, which provide important browse, forbs, and grasses for deer. • Junipers have encroached on shrub-steppe habitat, crowding out nutritious plants. • Stands of aspen trees have declined. • Some of the best mule deer habitat in Oregon has been permanently lost to development, particularly on low-elevation winter range. • Mule deer populations never rebounded from severe winters and dry summers in the 80s and early 90s. Drought sends deer into winter with fewer fat reserves and deep snow and ice kept deer from reaching food and increasing their vulnerability to predation. • Some predator populations, including cougars and coyotes, have grown in the past few decades. The extent to which predators affect mule deer populations varies with circumstances surrounding each herd at any particular time. • Off-highway vehicle (OHV) trails and cross country travel have increased exponentially in the past few decades, and can displace mule deer into unfamiliar or less productive habitat. New roads through migratory routes leave deer vulnerable to vehicle collisions.

Distribution: Mule deer are native to western North America. Scattered populations occur as far east as western Minnesota and Iowa. In Mexico, they occur south to Baja California (including some islands in the Sea of Cortez) and the southern end of the Mexican Plateau. They have been introduced in Hawaii and several islands in Prince William Sound (Innes 2013). Major gaps in mule deer distribution occur in the Mojave and Sonoran deserts in southeastern California, southern Nevada, southwestern Arizona, and northwestern Sonora, Mexico; the high-elevation or cold deserts and plains grasslands of northeastern Arizona and southeastern Utah; the Central Valley of California; and probably the Great Salt Lake desert region.

Winter and summer range habitat for mule deer is found across the Fremont National Forest.

Pacific Fisher – West Coast Distinct Population Segment (DPS)

Photo by USFS Figure 3. Current distribution of fishers in the West Coast Distinct Population Segment (USFWS)

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS 2004) defines the West Coast DPS for Pacific fisher as: in Oregon and Washington the Cascade Mountains and all areas west, to the coast; and in California, the north coast from Mendocino County north to Oregon, east across the Klamath (Siskiyou, Trinity, and Marble) Mountains, across the southern Cascade Mountains and south through the Sierra Nevada Mountains. The mountainous areas east of the Okanogan River in Washington and the Blue Mountains west to the Ochoco National Forest in eastern Oregon are not included in this DPS due to their geographical isolation from the remainder of the DPS.

Pacific fisher is an Oregon sensitive species ranked as sensitive-critical in the Coast Range (CR), Klamath Mountains (KM), and the West Cascades (WC) ecoregions (ODFW 2016). NatureServe (2017) ranks the West Coast DPS species as imperiled (T2), nationally as imperiled to vulnerable (N2N3), and imperiled in the state of Oregon (S2).

Pacific fishers inhabit upland and lowland forests, including coniferous, mixed, and deciduous forests. They occur primarily in dense coniferous or mixed forests, including early successional forest with dense overhead cover (Powell et al. 2003). They generally avoid areas with little forest cover or significant human disturbance. Pacific fisher is adapted for climbing but is primarily ground-dwelling. It is a generalized predator with major prey of small to medium-sized mammals and birds, and carrion (Powell 1981).

Threats: • Habitat loss, modification and fragmentation (NatureServe 2017). • Historical trapping may have caused a severe population decline, trapping closures and other furbearer management methods that have been in place now for many decades have reduced, but not eliminated, the threat of deleterious population effects due to trapping (USFWS 2011b). • Anthropogenic factors that are threats to fisher include contaminants, pest control programs, non-targeting poisoning, collision with vehicles, and accidental trapping in manmade structures (USFWS 2011b).

The closest known area to the Fremont National Forest for the West Coast DPS for Pacific fisher is the Cascade Mountains. The Forest does not include the Cascade Mountains and is not considered to be within the potential range for fisher (Figure 3). Projects on the Fremont National Forest will have no impact to Pacific fisher.

Pallid bat

Figure 4. Range Map Compilers: NatureServe, 2002; Sechrest, 2002

Pallid bat is found throughout western North America. In Oregon the species occurs in Crook, Curry, Douglas, Grant, Harney, Jackson, Jefferson, Josephine, Malheur, Morrow, Wasco, Wheeler, Klamath and Lake Counties (NatureServe 2017). Pallid bat is an Oregon sensitive species ranked as sensitive in the East Cascades (EC) and Northern Basin Range (NBR), as well as the Blue Mountains (BM), Columbia Plateau (CP), and Klamath Mountains (KM) ecoregions (ODFW 2016). NatureServe (2017) ranks this species as apparently secure globally (G4), nationally (N5) secure, and imperiled in the state of Oregon (S2).

Pallid bats are found throughout southern and eastern Oregon but are absent from coastal Oregon and higher elevations in the Cascades. This large species roosts in colonies and may use multiple day roosts (Sherwin and Rambaldini 2005). Pallid bats use various arid habitat types including open forests, sagebrush, juniper and salt-desert scrub, as well as open, large-diameter ponderosa pine stands (Csuti et al. 1997; Sherwin and Rambaldini 2005). More specifically, pallid bats use rock crevices, live trees with deep furrowed bark, cliffs, large diameter snags, abandoned mines, buildings, and bridges for roosting and/or nesting. They hibernate in winter, but little is known about their winter locations. Pallid bats are among the few bats typically bearing multiple young (two), which are born in May or June. Pallid bats forage on the ground, which is unusual for a bat, and feed on Jerusalem crickets, beetles, grasshoppers, and scorpions, and have even been known to eat lizards and pocket mice. Pallid bats will readily abandon a roost site if disturbed (Sherwin and Rambaldini 2005).

Threats to the species in Oregon include timber harvest, demolition, bat exclusion, extensive modification of primary foraging habitat caused by cheat grass invasion, fire, urban development, excessive livestock grazing, and pesticide use (Wills and Bast 2000).

Habitat for pallid bat occurs across the Fremont National Forest in areas of ponderosa pine, dry mixed conifer, juniper and scrub habitat, particularly open stands with large trees.

Pygmy rabbit

Photo by Betsy Demay Photo by WDFW

Pygmy rabbit is found across the Great Basin (Figure 5) and adjacent intermountain areas of the western United States with a small isolated population in east-central Washington (NatureServe 2017). The range of pygmy rabbit in Oregon has not been determined, but generally occurs with the distribution of big sagebrush. Recent surveys have found rabbits in Lake, Harney, Malheur, and Deschutes counties (Figure 6). Known areas include Foster Flat, Warner Valley, and north of Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) (Beauvais et al. 2008). Pygmy rabbit is an Oregon sensitive species ranked as sensitive in the Northern Basin and Range (NBR) ecoregion (ODFW 2016). NatureServe (2017) ranks this species as apparently secure globally (G4) and nationally (N4), and imperiled (S2) in the state Oregon.

Figure 5: Range map for pygmy rabbit (NatureServe) Figure 6: Range map for pygmy rabbit in Oregon based on habitat Potential (e.g. big sagebrush). (Csuti et al. 2003).

Pygmy rabbits are highly dependent upon big sagebrush (Artemesia tridentata) for food, thermal cover, and protection from predation (USFWS 2005a, McAdoo et al. 2004). While big sagebrush is the main food of this species, native grasses and forbs are also eaten in mid-late summer. Pygmy rabbit mainly occupies big sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata) desert habitats, especially where the vegetation is very dense. It forms burrows in soft, deep soils, in areas such as alluvial fans, often burrowing into a slope or rise in land elevation (Dobler and Dixon 1990). Weiss (1984) found the mean soil depth, shrub height, and shrub cover at sites occupied by

pygmy rabbit was significantly greater than in adjacent sites. Females construct natal burrows separate from residential burrow systems. Natal burrows have a single entrance backfilled with soil often located at the base of shrubs (Rachlow et al. 2005).

Pygmy rabbit is dependent on big sagebrush and sensitive to habitat loss. Fragmentation of suitable habitat can lead to isolation of populations and limit dispersal, as pygmy rabbit will not cross large open areas. (Dobler and Dixon 1990). Threats to the species in Oregon include fire (natural and managed), flooding, conversion to agriculture, exotic plants, decadence and overgrazing.

Pygmy rabbit is not known to occur on the Fremont National Forest due to lack of suitable habitat, though it does occur on adjacent BLM lands.

Townsend’s big-eared bat

Photo by the National Park Service (NPS) Figure 7. Range Map Compilers: NatureServe.

Townsend’s big-eared bat occurs from southern British Columbia and the western U.S. to the southeastern U.S. and southern Mexico. In Oregon, it occurs state wide and has been documented in both Lake and Klamath Counties (NatureServe 2017). Townsend’s big eared bat is an Oregon sensitive species ranked as sensitive-critical in the East Cascades (EC) and Northern Basin and Range (NBR) as well as the Blue Mountains (BM), Coast Range (CR), Columbia Plateau (CP), Klamath Mountains (KM), West Cascades (WC), and the Willamette Valley (WV) ecoregions (ODFW 2016). NatureServe (2017) ranks this species as globally apparently secure (G4), nationally vulnerable (N3), and imperiled in the state of Oregon (S2).

Townsend’s big-eared bats inhabit a wide variety of habitats from old-growth forests to extreme desert. Distribution is strongly correlated to the availability of caves and cave-like roosting habitat, but Townsend’s big-eared bat is also known to roosts in buildings, mines, rock crevices, bridges, and hollow trees. Use of roost sites varies within seasons and among years, though where roost availability is low, site fidelity may be quite high (Sherwin and Piaggio 2005). Maternity colonies form between March and June, with one young being born between April and July (Maser et al. 1981). Townsend’s big-eared bats feed primarily on moths, with over 90% of its diet composed of moths, but will also eat beetles, true bugs, and flies. It captures prey in flight or by gleaning from foliage (Csuti et al. 1997). They have been known to travel long distances while foraging, with recorded movements of over 150km in a single evening (Sherwin

and Piaggio 2005). Big-eared bats hibernate in winter and are not known to migrate long distances. These bats are very intolerant of human disturbance at either winter hibernacula or summer roosts (Csuti et al. 1997). Significant declines in total number of animals and average colony size have been documented.

Primary threats to Townsend’s big-eared bat appear to be disturbance and/or destruction of roost sites resulting from: recreational caving or mine exploration; mine reclamation; renewed mining in historic districts; destruction/decay of buildings used as roosts, or reuse by people or deliberate exclusion of bats from such buildings (Sherwin and Piaggio 2005, Hayes and Wiles 2013). Surveys in Oregon and California indicate human visitation and renewed mining in recent years has negatively impacted current and historic roost sites in recent years, with a moderate to sizeable reduction in numbers at most reported colonies (Sherwin and Piaggio 2005). Sherwin and Piaggio (2005) state in general, the long term persistence of North American bat species is threatened by the loss of clean, open water; modification or destruction of roosting and foraging habitat; and, for hibernating species, disturbance or destruction of hibernacula. Chemicals in the environment that affect bats or their prey are also a threat. Because of low fecundity, high juvenile mortality, and long generational turnover, many bat populations may be vulnerable to human-induced pressures.

Habitat for Townsend’s big-eared bat occurs across the Fremont National Forest in a wide variety of habitats including areas of ponderosa pine, dry mixed conifer, juniper woodland, riparian, and sage steppe habitat, particularly open stands with large trees.

Wolverine

Photo by Igor Shpilenok / naturepl.com

North American wolverine has a large range in northern Canada and Alaska, and was likely extirpated (or nearly so) from most of its former range the western states (from Montana south to New Mexico and west to the coast) in the early 20th century, though there are signs of semi- recovery in selected western states (NatureServe 2017). It is difficult to precisely determine the present range of wolverine, as after breeding they can make long distance movements over short periods of time through habitats unsuitable for long-term survival. Distinguishing occurrence records representing established populations from short-term occupancy and exploratory movements with no potential for establishment of home ranges, reproduction, and eventually populations is challenging (USFWS 2011). The closest known historical populations of wolverine are from the Northern Cascades in Washington, the Sierra Nevada, and the Rocky

Mountains. Currently populations appear to have expanded back into in the North Cascades and northern Rocky Mountains. While individuals have been seen in recent years, populations have not yet been reestablished in the Sierra Nevada Range or southern Rocky Mountains (USFWS 2011). NatureServe (2017) ranks this species as apparently secure globally (T4) and nationally (N4), and critically imperiled (S1) in Oregon.

Figure 7. Areas of the western United States predicted to be maternal wolverine habitat (suitable for use by reproductive females), primary wolverine habitat (suitable for survival, i.e., use by resident adults), female dispersal habitat (suitable for relatively brief female dispersal movements), and male dispersal habitat (suitable for relatively brief male dispersal movements) based on resource selection function modeling developed with wolverine telemetry locations from the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem, of Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming, USA, 2001–2010 (Inman 2013).

Deep, persistent, and reliable spring snow cover (April 15 to May 14) is the best overall predictor of wolverine occurrence in the contiguous United States (Aubry et al. 2007, Copeland et al. 2010). Wolverines don’t appear to specialize on specific vegetation or geological habitat aspects, but instead select cold areas with enough winter precipitation to reliably maintain deep persistent snow late into the warm season (Copeland et al. 2010). Typical habitats are areas with dense coniferous forests and open sub-alpine forests up to and beyond the timberline where there is enough winter precipitation to provide to provide necessary snow cover (Aubry et al. 2007; Copeland et al. 2010). The requirement of cold, snowy conditions means that, in the southern portion of the species’ range, where ambient temperatures are warmest, wolverine distribution is restricted to high elevations, while at more northerly latitudes, wolverines are present at lower elevations and even at sea level in the far north (Copeland et al. 2010). In the contiguous United States, wolverine habitat is restricted to high-elevation alpine mountains in the west, and areas with good evidence of persistent wolverine populations (North Cascade and Rocky Mountains) contain large and well distributed areas of deep snow cover that persists through the wolverine denning period (Aubry et al. 2007, Copeland et al. 2010). Wolverines are dependent on this deep persistent snow cover for successful denning and rearing of young, and concentrate their year- round activities in areas that not only maintain deep snow into spring, but cool temperatures throughout summer (USFWS 2011).

Wolverine typically use high elevation alpine wilderness areas in the summer and montane forest habitats in the winter. They are associated with rocky outcrops, steep mountainous areas, and transition zones between primary cover types. Forested riparian zones at upper elevations are likely to be important forage habitats for these furbearers, and provide relatively safe travel corridors, allowing for animals to move within and between watersheds.

Wolverines require a lot of space. Home ranges are large, varying greatly in size depending on availability of food, gender and age, and differences in habitat quality (USFWS 2011). Female wolverines use natal (birthing) dens excavated in snow from February through May. A requirement for natal denning is persistent, stable snow greater than 5 feet deep as it provides security for offspring and buffers cold winter temperatures. In Montana and Idaho, natal den sites occur at 7,800 – 8,200 feet on north aspects in rocky sites (Idaho) and alpine habitats (Montana). Offspring are born between mid-February through March, with natal dens used through late April or early May when they are abandoned due to water accumulation from snow melt. After the den is abandoned, rendezvous sites are used through July and are generally areas with natural cavities formed by large boulders, downed logs (including avalanche debris), and snow (USFWS 2011).

Within its current range, extensive human activities continue to pressure wolverine populations and habitat (Krebs et al. 2004). Overhunting (often trapping), as well as predator-poisoning programs and resource extraction caused wolverine populations to contract in the eastern and south-western portions of the specie’s historical range in north America since the early 1900s (Banci 1994).

The Fremont National Forest is outside of the areas considered primary wolverine habitat (Figure 7), and recorded sightings of wolverine on the Forest were most likely from dispersing individuals. While there are small areas of potential habitat on the Forest in vicinity of Slide Mountain and possibly the Warner Mountains or Gearhart Wilderness, the Forest lacks the large

22 and well distributed areas of consistently deep snow that persists through the denning period required for the establishment of breeding populations. Projects on the Fremont National Forest will have no effect to breeding populations of wolverine. Birds American peregrine falcon

Photo by Dawn Key/iStock

The American peregrine falcon was federally listed as an endangered species in 1970 and delisted in 1999 after making a dramatic recovery (USFWS 2006). Decline of peregrine falcons was linked to chemical pollution causing egg shell thinning which limited successful reproduction. Chemicals contributing to eggshell thinning were banned, and over time species were able to dramatically recover and be removed from the Endangered Species list. American peregrine falcon is an Oregon sensitive species ranked as sensitive in the Northern Basin and Range (NBR) as well as the Coast Range (CR) ecoregions. NatureServe (2017) ranks this species as apparently secure globally (G4) and nationally (N4B, N4N), and critically imperiled within the state of Oregon (S1).

Peregrine falcon nesting habitat consists of tall cliffs near surface water (streams, marshes, rivers, reservoirs, or lakes). Cliffs used for nesting can range from 26 – 1,300 feet high, but 160 – 650 feet is preferred (White et al. 2002), though Cade (USFWS 2006) states productivity and tradition at cliffs may be as important as their physical structure. While listed as an endangered species, the Fremont National Forest did nesting habitat surveys on potential and historical peregrine falcon nesting sites. High probability sites along Winter Rim, Crane Mountain, and the Gearhart Wilderness were chosen for helicopter and aerial survey. While potential habitat was found in 75% of surveyed sites, only one area along Winter Rim has ever been documented to have nesting peregrine falcons (Boyce Jr. et al. 1980). When last observed, this site was being used by prairie falcons with no sign of peregrines.

Peregrine falcons forage in wooded areas, marshes, open grasslands, and shorelines with prey species consisting almost entirely of birds. Waterfowl, shorebirds, passerines, and galliformes are the main part of the diet (White et al. 2002). According to USFWS (2006) peregrines vigorously defend their nests, but may abandon them if severely or continuously harassed. Threats to peregrines includes disturbance at nest sites and degradation of nesting habitat or prey habitats (White et al. 2002).

Projects occurring on the Silver Lake Ranger District in vicinity of the one known eyrie on the Fremont National Forest will have project design criteria and resource protection measures in place to mitigate any potential disturbance to peregrine falcons.

American white pelican

Photo by Kent Mas Figure 6. Google Maps satellite image of Anaho Island NWR. Anaho Island is an example of breeding habitat as American white pelicans are known to breed on this small isolated island in Pyramid Lake, NV.

American white pelican is found throughout North America, and in Oregon regularly occurs only east of the Cascades (Herziger and Ivey 2003). American white pelican is an Oregon sensitive species ranked as sensitive in the East Cascades (EC) and Northern Basin and Range (NBR) ecoregions. NatureServe (2017) ranks this species as apparently secure globally (G4) and nationally (N4), and imperiled within the state of Oregon (S2B).

American white pelican breed in colonies on isolated islands in freshwater lakes and marshes (Herziger and Ivey 2003). Isolated nesting islands are generally in large lakes or on ephemeral islands in shallower wetlands, and free from ground based predators. Varying water levels, food availability, and island availability cause fluctuations in year to year size and location of breeding colonies (Gilligan et al. 1994). Breeding season begins within 3-4 weeks of early spring migration between March and April. The closest known breeding areas to the Fremont side of the Fremont-Winema National Forest are Malheur, Upper Klamath, and Lower Klamath National Wildlife Refuges, Summer Lake Wildlife Area, and in the Warner Basin east of the Warner Mountains (ODFW 2017b).

After the breeding season, breeders join with migrants and non-breeders to spend the summer foraging on large lakes and reservoirs (Gilligan et al. 1994). On the Fremont, American white pelican are a common site at most large lakes and reservoirs across the forest. Foraging areas are commonly over 50 km from breeding areas (Knopf and Evans 2004). American white pelicans feed in shallow water where fish concentrate in shallow marshes, rivers, and lake edges. They do not dive for food but dip their bills into the water while swimming. White pelicans will also feed cooperatively in shallow water by encircling fish or driving them to the shallows with bill dipping and wing beating (Herziger and Ivey 2003). Sensitive to human disturbance during the breeding season, on foraging grounds they are quite tolerant of human presence.

Foraging habitat for American white pelican is found throughout the Fremont National Forest on large lakes and reservoirs.

Bald Eagle

Photo by Eastside Wildlife Crew

The bald eagle ranges throughout much of North America, nesting on both coasts and north into Alaska, wintering as far south as Baja California. The largest breeding populations in the contiguous United States occur in the Pacific Northwest states, the Great Lake states, Chesapeake Bay, and Florida. Following population recovery which resulted in their removal from the Federal Endangered list in 2007, NatureServe (2017) ranks this species as secure globally (G5) and nationally (N5B, N5N), and apparently secure within the state of Oregon (S4B, S4N). Oregon and Washington are important for wintering bald eagles in the conterminous United States.

Bald eagles are most common along coasts, major rivers, lakes, and reservoirs (USFWS 1986), and require accessible prey and trees for suitable nesting and roosting habitat (Stalmaster & Newman 1978). Food availability, such as aggregations of waterfowl or salmon runs, is a primary factor attracting bald eagles to wintering areas and influences the distribution of nests and territories. Bald eagles feed primarily on fish during the breeding season, and eat waterfowl, seabirds, and carrion during the winter (USFWS 1995). Away from dense populations of coastal and river fish populations (e.g. salmon), bald eagles can be more opportunistic feeders,

25 consuming a variety of fish, waterfowl, mammals, reptiles, and carrion throughout the year. Kralovec et al. (1992) found after examining the prey remains of over 70 bald eagle nests in Colorado and Wyoming, over half of the prey items were from mammals, with birds and fish making up the other half in almost equal numbers.

Bald eagles usually nest in trees near water, but are known to nest on cliffs and (rarely) on the ground. Nest sites are usually in large trees along shorelines in relatively remote areas free of disturbance. The trees must be sturdy and open to support a nest that is often 5 feet wide and 3 feet deep. Adults tend to use the same breeding areas year after year, and often the same nest, though a breeding area may include one or more alternative nests (USFWS 1999).

Wintering eagles can be found concentrated at salmon spawning areas and waterfowl wintering areas. Wintering eagles can sometimes be found in large communal roosts. Isolation is an important feature of winter habitat and night roosts are usually in remote areas with less human disturbance. In Washington, 98 percent of wintering eagles tolerated human activity at a distance of 300 meters (m), but only 50 percent tolerated activity within 150 m (Stalmaster & Newman 1978).

As of August 8, 2007, the bald eagle is no longer protected under the Endangered Species Act. However, bald eagles remain protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) (16 U.S.C. 703-712) and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (Eagle Act) (16 U.S.C. 668-668c).

Take is prohibited under both the MBTA and Eagle Act. The MBTA defines “take” as “pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, possess or collect.” The Eagle Act defines “take” as “pursue, shoot, shoot at, poison, wound, kill, capture, trap, collect, molest, or disturb.” The definition of disturb was further clarified on June 5, 2007, in the Federal Register: “Disturb means to agitate or bother a bald or golden eagle to a degree that causes, or is likely to cause, based on the best scientific information available, (1) injury to an eagle, (2) a decrease in its productivity, by substantially interfering with normal breeding, feeding, or sheltering behavior, or (3) nest abandonment, by substantially interfering with normal breeding, feeding, or sheltering behavior.”

With the delisting of the bald eagle imminent, the USFWS released new National Bald Eagle Management Guidelines (USFWS 2007). The guidelines contain recommendations for avoiding disturbance to nesting, roosting, and foraging eagles. The activity and distance recommendations are generally to keep activities such as building construction, mining, chainsaw operation, and clearing of vegetation a minimum of 660 feet away from nests. Topography, visibility from the nest, and ongoing similar activities in the area are modifying factors and some activities may occur as close as 330 feet from the nest or may require a buffer greater than 660 feet.

Habitat for bald eagle is available across the Fremont National Forest in forested areas with trees with large structure (particularly ponderosa pine) in vicinity of large lakes, reservoirs, rivers, and some large fish-bearing streams.

Black-backed woodpecker

Photo by Glenn Bartley/VIREO

The Fremont National Forest is considered to be outside of the range of three-toed woodpeckers. Black-backed woodpecker has been substituted for three-toed woodpecker as an MIS species for the Fremont National Forest, since both species have similar habitat requirements.

Habitat Use: Black-backed woodpecker is used as an indicator for overmature and mature lodgepole pine forests. It is distributed from Alaska to California, through Canada to South Dakota, and elsewhere in northern and eastern U.S. Black-backed woodpeckers occur in conifer forests with snags, especially recently burned or bark beetle killed forests. In Central Oregon, they predominantly occupy lodgepole pine and lodgepole pine-dominated mixed conifer forests (Goggans et al. 1989), but can also be found in burned and unburned ponderosa pine-lodgepole pine-white fir (Forristal 2009, Russell et al. 2009, Latif et al. 2013). Snags of all sizes are necessary for black-backed woodpeckers with preferred habitat being dense stands of snags with a variety of snag diameters, but particularly smaller snags used for nesting, roosting, and foraging. Goggans et al. (1989) found in Central Oregon black-backed woodpeckers foraged predominantly on lodgepole pine trees with a mean DBH of 14 inches with recently dead trees used in greater proportion than available. They nest in live trees with heart rot or dead trees, and can use smaller trees for nest cavities. Forristal (2009) found in burned dry mixed conifer forests in southern Oregon, nest tree DBH averaged 11 inches. Their main diet is larvae of wood-boring beetles gathered from under bark of trees (Mellen-McLean 2011b).

Black-backed woodpeckers utilize green and recently burned forests differently. For green forests in northeast Oregon, Bull et al. (1986) found black-backed woodpeckers nesting primarily in ponderosa pine forest types, using ponderosa pine and lodgepole pine snags and live trees as nest sites. While foraging in all forest types, they showed a strong preference for foraging on beetle-infested lodgepole pine trees and snags. Nielsen-Pincus and Garton (2007) found nesting habitat included mature and old trees infested with disease or heart-rot, or dead trees in the early

stages of decay. Nest sites were positively associated with high density of small (9-15 inch DBH) snags. In lodgepole pine dominated forests of central Oregon, Goggans et al. (1989) reported black-backed woodpeckers selected mature and overmature forest, and avoided logged areas and immature stands within their home ranges while foraging. The majority (89%) of nests were in lodgepole pine stands, and all were in lodgepole pine trees or snags with heart-rot. Mountain pine beetle infestation occurred at 66% of nest stands.

In recently burned forests in central Oregon, Cahall and Hayes (2009) reported relative abundance of black-backed woodpeckers increased with density of snags greater than fourteen inch DBH in a stand-replacing burn in conifer forests of primarily ponderosa pine. Relative abundance of black-backed woodpeckers were higher in unsalvaged stands than in salvaged stands, and negative response to salvage was not mitigated by a lower intensity of salvage logging (Cahall 2007). In south-central Oregon, Forristal (2009) found snag density was the strongest predictor of nest-site selection, with odds of nest occurrence nearly doubling for every fifty additional snags over nine inches DBH. However black-backed woodpeckers selected smaller snags for nesting with every two inch increase in tree diameter over six inch DBH, decreasing odds of a black-backed woodpecker nesting in the snag by fifteen percent. Thus snags of all sizes are necessary for black-backed woodpeckers, with preferred habitat being dense stands of snags with a variety of snag diameters but particularly smaller snags used for nesting, roosting and foraging.

Threats:

Black-backed woodpeckers The following list of threats is from Dixon and Saab (2000), NatureServe (2017), and Wisdom et al. (2000) • Salvage of fire-killed or insect-infested trees • Altered frequency of stand-replacing fire due to fire suppression • Altered pattern of beetle outbreaks through silvicultural practices • Decline in availability of snags infected with heart rot • Decline in late-seral montane forests

Distribution: Global: Black-backed woodpecker - North America: NatureServe “RESIDENT: often locally, from western and central Alaska to northern Saskatchewan and central Labrador, south to southeastern British Columbia, central California, northwestern Wyoming, southwestern South Dakota, central Saskatchewan, northern Minnesota, southeastern Ontario, and northern New England (AOU 1983). Wanders irregularly south in winter.”

Black-backed woodpecker - Oregon and Washington: A rare to locally common resident in both states. In Oregon, the bird occurs at high elevations of the west Cascades, is more widespread on the east slope of the Cascades with its center of abundance lodgepole pine forests from Bend to Klamath Falls, is uncommon in the Blue Mountains, and occasionally seen in the

Siskiyou Mountains (Powell 2003). In Washington, it occurs at mid to high elevations east of the Cascade crest, rarely west of the crest (Mellen-McLean 2012).

Conservation Status: NatureServe • Global – G5 – Widespread, abundant, secure • Oregon – S3 – Vulnerable • Washington – S3 – Vulnerable ODFW • Sensitive (Blue Mountains and Eastern Cascades)

Population Trend: The reliability rating given to the Breeding Bird data used for population trend information in Oregon is given a low reliability rating, meaning these data reflect deficiencies such as low abundance, small sample size, or quite imprecise (Sauer et al. 2008). Given the caution in these data, here is the available information regarding population trends of black-backed woodpeckers and three-toed woodpeckers. Partners In Flight (PIF) Species Assessment Process evaluates six factors related to biological vulnerability and two measures of area importance for each North American bird species to generate global or regional status assessments of birds. The six factors considered include population size, breeding distribution, non-breeding distribution, threats to breeding, threats to nonbreeding, and population trend. Simple numerical scores are generated that rank each species in terms of its biological vulnerability and regional status. Each score is based on the best available science and is heavily reviewed by experts both within and outside the PID science committee (Panjabi 2005).

Partners in Flight (PIF) Database

Table 3. Summary of Black-backed Woodpecker Species Assessment Scores for the Great Basin Bird Conservation Region (9). Score Qualitative Definition Threats to Breeding 3 Slight to moderate decline in the future suitability of breeding or non-breeding conditions is expected. Population Trend 3 Stable or possible decrease. Regional Concern No species

Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project: The assessment process used by the ICBEMP is based on using the concept of Historic Range of Variability (HRV) to assess likelihood of maintaining viable populations of species. By managing habitat within HRV it is assumed adequate habitat will be provided because species survived those levels of habitat in the past to be present today. Thus, if we manage current habitats within the range of historic variability, we will likely do an adequate job of ensuring population viability for those species that remain (Landres et al. 1999).

Viability analysis for MIS can tier to large-scale assessments, especially where a viability assessment has not been completed for the Forest. Source Habitats for Terrestrial Vertebrates of Focus in the Interior Columbia Basin: Broad-Scale Trends and Management Implications (Wisdom et al. 2000) provides valuable information on habitat trends in the Columbia Basin. Ecological Reporting Units (ERUs) divide the Columbia Basin into 13 units analyzed for changes between historical and current habitat conditions. The Fremont National Forest falls primarily within the Upper Klamath ERU. A portion of the Forest (primarily in the Warner Mountains) falls within the Northern Great Basin ERU.

Table 4. Percent of Ecological Reporting Units (ERUs) in black-backed woodpecker habitat for current and historical conditions, and the relative change in habitat (Wisdom et al. 2000). Percent of Percent of Black-backed ERU in ERU in Woodpecker Source Source Habitat1 Habitat1 ERU Relative Trend ERU Name Number Historical Current Change2 Category Upper Klamath 3 31.60 59.32 87.70 Strongly increasing Northern Great 4 25.17 35.62 41.52 Increasing Basin 1From Volume 3 - Table 5 – pg. 497. 2From Volume 1 – page 33

Habitat for black-backed woodpecker occurs across the Fremont National Forest in areas of lodgepole pine and mixed conifer stands, particularly those with recent bark beetle activity or fire mortality.

Bufflehead

Photo by Michaelfurtman.com

The bufflehead is a cavity-nesting, diving duck whose population has declined throughout some of its range due to clear cutting, over harvest of habitat, and in some locations throughout its range, over-hunting (Scheuering 2003). Breeding primarily in the boreal forest and aspen parklands of Alaska and Canada, they have a wide range potential across North America. Bufflehead are common in Oregon and Washington during winter, but are rare during the breeding season. Isolated breeding populations occur in Oregon, but are rare and local, primarily in the Cascade Mountains (Gauthier 2014). NatureServe (2017) lists bufflehead as globally (G5) and nationally (N5B/N) secure. Within the state of Oregon the small breeding population is ranked as imperiled (S2B), while the non-breeding population is considered secure (S5N).

For nesting, bufflehead use ponds and small mountain lakes with little or no emergent vegetation surrounded by woodlands with snags (mostly aspen, but it will use ponderosa pine and Douglas- fir). Aspen or poplar trees near water are a common feature of breeding habitat, as Populus spp. are a major cavity tree. Bufflehead use cavities excavated by Northern Flicker (and occasionally Pileated Woodpecker), and unlike some other cavity nesting ducks, are able to utilize un- enlarged flicker holes (Gauthier 2014). Nest site availability is often dependent on densities of flickers, cavity durability, and interspecific competition with other cavity nesting species (Gauthier 2014). In Oregon buffleheads are known to use a high preponderance of artificial nest boxes.

Buffleheads eat animal matter, with common diet items including aquatic insects and larvae, snails, fish, and sometimes herring eggs or salmon carrion. They also eat seeds of aquatic plants, such as smartweed, alkali bulrush, and sago pondweed (Scheuering 2003).

Threats to bufflehead include hunting, toxic contaminants in prey, and habitat degradation. Clear-cutting of aspen parkland and boreal forest in the main breeding range is the biggest threat to bufflehead habitat degradation (Gauthier 2014).

Habitat for bufflehead occurs across the Fremont National Forest in the vicinity of ponds and lakes with adequate snags and preferably aspen nearby.

Goshawk

Photo by the USFS – Fremont-Winema NF

Habitat Use: The northern goshawk is the largest North American accipiter and was chosen as a MIS species due to its association with mature and late and old structure (LOS) ponderosa and mixed conifer forest structural stages for nesting. The goshawk's home range encompasses about 6,000 acres

and is composed of a nest core area, post-fledging area (PFA), and a foraging area. Various forest structural stages are associated with components of the home range. Nest areas often occur on north aspects, along stream zones or other areas where a dense forest canopy and LOS forest conditions are present. Preferred nest stands have a minimum of 40% canopy closure; and nest sites within these stands have >60% canopy closure (Reynolds et al. 1991). Published literature pertaining to goshawks in the Blue Mountains of the Malheur National Forest is relevant to goshawk ecology and management in the East Cascades portions of the Fremont- Winema National Forest because of the many similarities in forest composition. Goodell and Seager (2015) found in studies across Eastern Oregon, that while goshawks have been found to nest in a variety of tree species, ponderosa pine was found to be the most common nest tree species used, even in mixed conifer stands. On the ground surveys and review of historical goshawk nests across the Fremont National Forest have shown a similar preference. The Fremont National Forest was also one of four areas included by McGrath et al. (2003) in their study of goshawks in Eastern Oregon, where they found that while goshawk habitat selection was most likely to be discriminating closer to the nest, it was more diverse and general at the territory/landscape scale. Goshawks are cited as often using stands of old growth forest as nesting sites (Daw and DeStefano 2001, Reynolds et al. 1991), but in their comprehensive study of Eastern Oregon nest sites, McGrath et al. 2003 found a more detailed description to be mid to late successional areas of high canopy closure, understory re-initiation, and stem exclusion with higher basal area than the surrounding landscape on low topographic positions. They also found canopy closure to be closer to 50% with higher levels of canopy closure generally coming from nesting goshawks in the Southwest portion of their range. PFAs usually resemble nest areas, but also include a variety of forest types and conditions were hiding cover (for young) and prey availability is present (Reynolds et al. 1991), with higher habitat variability at the PFA scale compared to random sites (McGrath et al. 2003). McGrath et al. (2003) found that nest cores and PFAs were often characterized by a “protective” core of forest vegetation in immediate proximity to the nest tree which graded into more open foraging habitat with increasing distance from the nest. Foraging areas may be as closely tied to prey availability as to habitat structure and composition. These areas often contain a mixture of various forest structural stages with snags, downed logs, large trees, and small openings with an herbaceous and/or shrubby understory present.

The Northern Goshawk (Accipiter gentilis) Management Indicator Species Assessment Wallowa- Whitman National Forest is incorporated by reference (Keown 2011).

Threats: • Habitat alteration due to timber and fire management practices (Squires and Kennedy 2006). • Fire suppression may lead to increased susceptibility of stand replacing fire and insect and disease outbreaks, which can result in the deterioration or loss of nesting habitat (Wisdom et al. 2000). • Loss of foraging habitat due to dense conifer understory as a result of fire suppression. Dense understories may obstruct flight corridors used by goshawks to hunt prey (Wisdom et al. 2000). Distribution:

Conservation Status: NatureServe • Global – G5 – Widespread, abundant, secure • Oregon – S3 – Vulnerable in Eastern and Western Cascade Mountain Range

Population Trend: The reliability rating given to the Breeding Bird data used for the population trend information in Oregon is given a red reliability rating, meaning data reflect deficiencies such as very low abundance, very low sample size, or very imprecise (Sauer et al. 2008). Given the caution in these data, here is the available information regarding the population trends of goshawks. Partners In Flight (PIF) Species Assessment Process evaluates six factors related to biological vulnerability and two measures of area importance for each North American bird species to generate global or regional status assessments of birds. The six factors considered include population size, breeding distribution, non-breeding distribution, threats to breeding, threats to nonbreeding, and population trend. Simple numerical scores are generated that rank each species in terms of its biological vulnerability and regional status. Each score is based on the best available science and is heavily reviewed by experts both within and outside the PID science committee (Panjabi 2005).

Partners in Flight Species Database

Table 5. Summary of Northern Goshawk Species Assessment Scores for the Great Basin Bird Conservation Region (9).

Score Qualitative Definition Threats to Breeding 3 Slight to moderate decline in the future suitability of breeding or non-breeding conditions is expected. Population Trend 4 Possible moderate decrease. Regional Concern Yes species

Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project: The assessment process that was used by the ICBEMP is based on using the concept of Historic Range of Variability (HRV) to assess likelihood of maintaining viable populations of species. By managing habitat within HRV it is assumed adequate habitat will be provided because species survived those levels of habitat in the past to be present today. Thus, if we manage current habitats within the range of historic variability, we will likely do an adequate job of ensuring population viability for those species that remain (Landres et al. 1999).

Habitat for northern goshawk occurs across the Fremont National Forest in forested areas with adequate canopy cover. Fremont National Forest LRMP Standards and Guidelines (S&Gs) for goshawks, as amended by the Regional Forester’s Amendment #2, are to protect a 30-acre nest core, to delineate a 400-acre post fledging area (PFA) with an emphasis of maintaining existing LOS stands and moving younger stands toward LOS condition, and to protect every known active and historical nest site from disturbance. Historical refers to known nesting activity occurring at the site in the last 5 years. To meet the direction of the Regional Forester’s Amendment #2, a nest stand and a post fledging area (PFA) are identified for each known nest within a project area.

Greater sage-grouse

Photo by Jennie Stafford

Greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) was a candidate for listing by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, but was removed from the list in 2015 when it was determined the species remained relatively abundant and well-distributed across its range (USFWS 2015). Removal from consideration for federal listing was due in part to conservation efforts by public and private landholders to improve habitat and reduce habitat loss. In 2015, Oregon adopted a state- wide conservation plan, The Oregon Sage-Grouse Action Plan (SGCP 2015), to carry out the conservation actions in the plan to protect greater sage-grouse and their habitat. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) designated sage-grouse Core Areas represent the most productive sage-grouse habitat with 90% of the breeding population in Oregon (SGCP 2015).

Greater sage-grouse is an Oregon sensitive species listed as sensitive in the Northern Basin and Range (NBR) ecoregion. NatureServe (2017) ranks this species as vulnerable globally (G3), vulnerable to apparently secure nationally (N3N4) and vulnerable within the state of Oregon (S3). Although greater sage-grouse is widely distributed and relatively common in the core of its range, that range has contracted significantly and now encompasses about half of the potential pre-settlement distribution. Declines are attributed to loss, fragmentation and degradation of sagebrush habitat. Energy development, invasive species, wildfire, grazing management, urbanization, West Nile virus, and infrastructure pose the greatest risk to long-term conservation of sage-grouse (Connelly et al. 2011).

The range of greater sage-grouse extends from southeast Alberta, Canada south through east- central California and east to western South Dakota. This species is found in eight eastern Oregon Counties including Lake County, Klamath County and Harney County (NatureServe 2017).

Primary habitat for greater sage-grouse varies by season and includes dense stands of big sagebrush for nesting and wintering sites, open areas for breeding displays (leks) and semi-open wet grassy areas for rearing and/or foraging habitat for young chicks. Primary habitat usually involves large open big sagebrush areas with few if any trees. Low sagebrush and/or interspersed grasslands may also occur near lek areas. Nesting occurs at the base of dense sagebrush patches where cover and adjacency to food supplies are present (Schroeder et al. 1999). Greater sage- grouse are either resident, have separate summer and winter ranges; or have separate breeding (spring), summer, and winter ranges. Migration between these ranges can exceed thirty to forty square miles (Schroeder et al.1999, Connelly et al. 2000). This species requires an extensive mosaic of sagebrush of varying densities and heights throughout the year for security, shade, and forage (Gregg et al. 1994, Remington and Braun 1985). In summer, high levels of native grass cover provide areas for nesting and high-protein forbs and insect foods (Barnett and Crawford 1994). Open sites surrounded by sagebrush but adjacent to quality nesting and brood-rearing habitat serve as leks, breeding display grounds for males (Schroeder et al 1999). These leks and nesting sites are typically in the same specific areas in successive years (Fischer et al. 1993). Hens with broods tend to use sagebrush uplands adjacent to nest sites and will move to wetter sites in June and July as spring habitats dry (Connelly et al. 1988; Drut et al. 1994; Dunn and Braun 1986). This upland habitat for brood-rearing in early spring is critical to brood survival.

Primary threats to greater sage-grouse are loss and fragmentation of sagebrush primarily from wildfires, invasive plants (annual grasses), and juniper/conifer encroachment (USFWS 2015).

Locally, designated sage-grouse Core Areas occur primarily on BLM land, with a small amount occurring on Forest where there is a shared boundary with BLM core habitat. Areas of Core greater sage-grouse habitat on the Fremont National Forest occur in the north east and south east edges of the Warners, south of Cox Flat, and south of Silver Lake/Picture Rock Pass (see Figure 7 below). The closest known active lek to the Forest occurs in the north east portion of the Warner Mtns. Projects occurring within these core areas or in vicinity of the lek will have project design criteria and/or resource protection measures in place to prevent disturbance to greater sage-grouse and to improve habitat where it is out of the range of historical variability and no longer functions as good sage-grouse habitat.

Figure 7. ODFW greater sage-grouse core area map.

Landbirds

Flammulated Owl – Photo by Green-tailed towhee – Photo by Loggerhead shrike – Photo by Audubon.org Audubon.org Roger Shaw PIF Bird Conservation Regions (BCR’S) Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs) are ecologically distinct regions in North America with similar bird communities, habitats, and resource management issues. BCRs are a hierarchical framework of nested ecological units delineated by the Commission for Environmental Cooperation (CEC). The CEC framework comprises a hierarchy of 4 levels of eco-regions. At each spatial level, spatial resolution increases and eco-regions encompass areas that are progressively more similar in their biotic (e.g., plant and wildlife) and abiotic (e.g., soils, drainage patterns, temperature, and annual precipitation) characteristics.

A mapping team comprised of members from United States, Mexico, and Canada assembled to develop a consistent spatial framework for bird conservation in North America. The team's US members met in to apply the framework to the United States and developed a proposed map of BCRs. The map was presented to and approved by the US North American Bird Conservation Initiative (NABCI) Committee during its November 1999, meeting. The map is a dynamic tool. Its BCR boundaries will change over time as new scientific information becomes available. It is expected that the map will be updated every three years.

The overall goal of these BCR lists are to accurately identify the migratory and resident bird species (beyond those already designated as federally threatened or endangered) that represent our highest conservation priorities.

BCR lists are updated every five years by the US Fish and Wildlife Service.

Figure 8. Bird Conservation Regions (BCR) across North America.

The Birds of Conservation Concern 2008 In December, 2008, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service released The Birds of Conservation Concern Report (BCC) which identifies species, subspecies, and populations of migratory and resident birds not already designated as federally threatened or endangered that represent highest conservation priorities and are in need of additional conservation actions.

While the bird species included in BCC 2008 are priorities for conservation action, this list makes no finding with regard to whether they warrant consideration for Endangered Species Act (ESA) listing. The goal is to prevent or remove the need for additional ESA bird listings by implementing proactive management and conservation actions. It is recommended that these lists be consulted in accordance with Executive Order 13186, “Responsibilities of Federal Agencies to Protect Migratory Birds.” In the BLM and FWS MOU, both parties shall: Work collaboratively to identify and address issues that affect species of concern, such as migratory bird species listed in the Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC) and FWS’s Focal Species initiative. (BLM and FWS MOU, 2012, Section VI, page 4).

This report should also be used to develop research, monitoring, and management initiatives. BCC 2008 is intended to stimulate coordinated and collaborative proactive conservation actions among Federal, State, Tribal, and private partners. The hope is that, by focusing attention on

these highest-priority species, this report will promote greater study and protection of the habitats and ecological communities upon which these species depend, thereby contributing to healthy avian populations and communities.

The Project Area includes portions BCR 9 (Great Basin). Table WLDF 25 lists the bird species in BCR 9 that are known or are likely to occur within the Project Area.

Table 6: Bird Species of Conservation Concern Bird Species* BCR

greater sage grouse, eared grebe (nb), black swift, calliope hummingbird, Lewis’ woodpecker, Williamson’s sapsucker, white-headed woodpecker, willow flycatcher (b), loggerhead shrike, pinyon jay, sage thrasher, Virginia’s 9 warbler, green-tailed towhee, Brewer’s sparrow, sage sparrow, tricolored blackbird, bald eagle (a), ferruginous hawk, golden eagle, peregrine falcon (a), yellow rail, long-billed curlew, flammulated owl *Table only includes those species known to occur on the Fremont-Winema National Forest. (a) ESA delisted, (b) non-listed subspecies or population of T or E species, (c) MBTA protection uncertain or lacking, (nb) non-breeding in this BCR.

Avian Conservation Planning: (Migratory and Resident Birds): Migratory birds are those breeding in the U.S. and wintering south of the border in Central and South America. Many of our well-known passerine songbirds, flycatchers, vireos, swallows, thrushes, warblers, and hummingbirds, fall in this category. Most others are included in the resident category. Birds are a vital element of every terrestrial habitat in North America. Conserving habitat for birds will therefore contribute to meeting the needs of other wildlife and entire ecosystems (Partners In Flight Continental Plan). Continent wide declines in population trends for many avian species has developed into an international concern and led to creation of the North American Bird Conservation Initiative (NABCI). Under this initiative, plans have been developed for conservation of waterbirds, shorebirds, seabirds and landbirds. The landbird initiative known as Partners-In-Flight (PIF) has developed a series of bird conservation plans for every state. PIF has gained wide recognition as a leader in the landbird conservation arena.

The Oregon and Washington Chapter of PIF was formed in 1992 and has since developed a series of publications aimed at assisting private, state, tribal and federal agencies in managing for landbird populations. The most recent and applicable publications for the two-state area have been Conservation Plans for landbirds.

PIF Bird Conservation Plans: Five conservation plans have been developed by PIF covering various geographic regions found in Oregon and Washington. These documents have been prepared to stimulate and support a proactive approach to conservation of landbirds throughout Oregon and Washington. They represent collective efforts of multiple agencies and organizations within Oregon and Washington. Participants included biologists from federal and state agencies, industry, private consulting firms, environmental organizations, and academia in order to ensure a full range of ideas and practicalities were addressed by the plans.

Recommendations included in the documents are intended to inform planning efforts and actions of land managers, and stimulate monitoring and research to support landbird conservation. Recommendations are also expected to serve as a foundation for developing detailed conservation strategies at multiple geographic scales to ensure functional ecosystems with healthy populations of landbirds.

Plans can be found on the OR-WA PIF web site  Conservation Strategy for Landbirds in the Columbia Plateau of Eastern Washington and Oregon  Conservation Strategy for Landbirds of the East-Slope of the Cascade Mountains in Washington and Oregon

The overall goal of PIF Bird Conservation Planning is to ensure long-term maintenance of healthy populations of native landbirds. These documents are intended to facilitate that goal by identifying conditions and habitat attributes important to the landbird community, describing the desired landscape based on habitat relationships of a select group of species, providing interim management targets (i.e., biological objectives) to achieve desired conditions, and recommending management actions (i.e., conservation options) which can be implemented by various entities at multiple scales to achieve the biological objectives.

Implementation of parts or all of the strategy should help prevent reactionary approaches typically needed to address listed species issues. When these ecosystem-driven indicator species concept, conservation strategies are fully implemented at large geographic scales, the aggregated effect will be the creation of landscapes which should function to conserve ecosystem biodiversity and their characteristics.

The strategy for achieving functioning ecosystems for landbirds is described through the habitat requirements of "focal species". By managing for a group of species representative of important components in a functioning coniferous forest ecosystem, many other species and elements of biodiversity also will be conserved. E.O. 13186 and the MOUs signed by the FS and BLM with the FWS require agencies to incorporate migratory bird conservation into agency planning processes whenever practicable. The PIF plans assist federal agencies in achieving this direction.

Table 7. Priority Habitat Features and Associated Focal Species for Conservation in Priority and Unique Habitats in the Central Oregon and Klamath Basin Sub-provinces of the East Slope of the Cascades (Altman 2000). Focal Species for Central Habitat Habitat Feature Oregon/Klamath Basin Large patches of old forest with large snags White-headed woodpecker Large trees Pygmy nuthatch Ponderosa Pine Open understory with regenerating pines Chipping sparrow Patches of burned old forest Lewis’s woodpecker Large trees Brown creeper Large snags Williamson’s sapsucker Interspersion grassy openings and dense thickets Flammulated owl

Focal Species for Central Habitat Habitat Feature Oregon/Klamath Basin Mixed Conifer1 Multi-layered/dense canopy Hermit thrush Edges and openings created by wildfire Olive-sided flycatcher Large conifer trees and snags Lewis’ woodpecker Lodgepole Pine Old growth Black-backed woodpecker Whitebark pine Old growth Clark’s nutcracker Meadows Wet/dry Sandhill Crane Aspen Large trees with regeneration Red-naped sapsucker Subalpine fir Patchy presence Blue Grouse 1LS – Late Successional

Table 8. Priority Habitat Features and Associated Focal Species for Conservation in Priority and Unique Habitats in the Great Basin Sub-province of the Columbia Plateau of Eastern Oregon and Washington (Altman & Holmes 2000). Table only includes those habitats/species found on the Fremont-Winema National Forest. Habitat Habitat Feature Focal Species for Great Basin Shrub-Steppe Steppe Native bunchgrass cover Grasshopper Sparrow Steppe- Interspersion of tall shrubs and openings Loggerhead Shrike Shrubland Large areas of sagebrush with diverse understory Sage Grouse

of native grasses and forbs Sagebrush Large unfragmented patches Sage Sparrow Sagebrush cover Brewer’s Sparrow Sagebrush height Sage Thrasher Shrublands Ecotonal edges of herb, shrub, and tree habitats Lark Sparrow Upland sparsely vegetated desert scrub Black-throated Sparrow Juniper-Steppe Scattered mature juniper trees (savannah) Ferruginous Hawk Riparian Large snags (cottonwood) Lewis’s Woodpecker Woodland Large canopy trees Bullock’s Oriole Subcanopy foliage Yellow Warbler Shrub Shrub density Willow Flycatcher Shrub-herbaceous interspersion Lazuli Bunting Unique Habitats Aspen Large trees and snags with regeneration Red-naped Sapsucker Juniper Mature juniper with regeneration Gray flycatcher Woodland Cliffs and Undeveloped foraging areas Prairie Falcon Rimrock

Habitat Habitat Feature Focal Species for Great Basin Mountain Large diameter trees with regeneration Virginia’s Warbler Mahogany

Lewis’s woodpecker

Photo by Roy Morris Photo by Paul Bannick

Lewis’s woodpecker is distributed across the western states from southern British Columbia and Alberta down to southern California and New Mexico with the breeding range matching the approximate distribution of ponderosa pine across the west (Vierling et al. 2013). East of the Cascades in Oregon, Lewis’s woodpecker breeds in Hood River, Wasco, Jefferson, Deschutes, Lake, Union, Wallowa, Baker, and Grant counties, as well as locally elsewhere (NatureServe 2017).

Lewis’s woodpecker is an Oregon sensitive species ranked as sensitive-critical in the East Cascade (EC) as well as the Blue Mountains (BM), Columbia Plateau (CP), Klamath Mountains (KM), and West Cascades (WC) ecoregions (ODFW 2016). NatureServe (2017) ranks this species as apparently secure globally (G4) and nationally (N4B, N4N); and imperiled to vulnerable within the state of Oregon (S2S3B).

Cavity nesting Lewis’s woodpecker typically reuses existing nest holes or natural cavities. Cavities are in trunks or large branches of large, dead or decaying trees. Regardless of species, nest trees are almost always in an advanced state of decay. Nest tree species include cottonwood; ponderosa, Jeffrey, and lodgepole pine; white fir, juniper, willow, and paper birch. Lewis’s woodpecker primarily nest in open ponderosa pine forest, open riparian woodlands dominated by cottonwood, and logged or burned pine forests, but can also be found in oak woodlands, fruit orchards, pinon pine-juniper woodlands, and a variety of mixed conifer forest and agricultural areas. Characteristics of breeding habitat often include open canopy with a brushy understory, dead or downed woody debris, available perches, and plentiful insects (Vierling et al. 2013). Burned ponderosa pine forest provide highly productive habitat during breeding, though suitability varies by region with postfire age, and size and intensity of the burn. Unlike other postfire dependent woodpecker species, Lewis’s woodpecker has been known to occupy burn areas 5- 20 years after a fire, though they have been observed utilizing post-burn areas 2-3 years postfire as well. Utilization of post burn areas appears to be correlated with nest predation risk (Vierling et al. 2013).

Lewis’s woodpecker are opportunistic feeders with a diet primarily composed of free-living (not wood boring) insects in spring and summer, with acorns or other nuts, and fruits consumed in fall and winter. Insects are often collected by fly-catching, though some are gleaned from tree trunks and branches, in bushes, or from the ground. Approximately 50% of their insect diet is obtained by fly-catching. Lewis’s woodpeckers cache acorns, other nuts, and grains in the furrowed bark of mature cottonwood trees for fall and winter and protect their cache throughout the year. Insects consumed are primarily ants, bees, wasps, beetles, and grasshoppers, while plants include acorns, cultivated nuts and fruits, wild fruits (such as serviceberry, hawthorn, dogwood, elderberry and sumac), as well as cultivated grains and wild seeds (Vierling et al. 2013).

Threats include loss of nesting sites (large snags) from logging and development, loss of open park-like stands of ponderosa pine due to fire suppression, and degradation of prey habitat by drought and overgrazing (NatureServe 2017).

Habitat for Lewis’s woodpecker is found across the Fremont National Forest in areas of large open ponderosa pine and dry mixed conifer habitat with available large snags in an advanced state of decay.

Table 9. Percent of Ecological Reporting Units (ERUs) in goshawk habitat for current and historical conditions, and the relative change in habitat (Wisdom et al. 2000). Percent of Percent of ERU in ERU in Goshawk Source Source Habitat1 Habitat1 ERU Relative Trend ERU Name Number Historical Current Change1 Category Upper Klamath 3 32.73 58.10 77.52 Strongly increasing Northern Great 4 25.20 34.03 33.05 Increasing Basin 1From Volume 3 - Table 5 – pg. 492.

Northern spotted owl

Photo by USFWS

Spotted owls historically were found in most forests throughout southwestern British Columbia, western Washington and Oregon, and northwestern California. Decline of spotted owl through most of their historic range is due to loss and adverse modification of spotted owl nesting, roosting, and foraging habitat caused by timber harvest, land conversions, and natural disturbances, though the rate of loss has slowed. Current potential range for spotted owl in Oregon occurs from the coast east to the Cascade range (Figure 8).

Spotted owls inhabit late-successional and old-growth Douglas-fir forests with multiple canopy layers, canopy gaps, and patchy understory (USFS 1994). Nesting stands typically include moderate to high canopy cover (60-80%); a multilayered, multispecies canopy with large (greater than 30 inch DBH) overstory trees; a high incidence of large trees with various deformities (e.g. large cavities, broken tops, mistletoe, and other evidence of decadence); large snags, large accumulations of down wood, and sufficient open space below the canopy for flight (Thomas et al. 1990). Predominant prey species are northern flying squirrels and dusky-footed woodrats, with diet varying geographically and by forest type (Gutierrez et al. 1995).

Currently, the most concerning threat to the persistence of northern spotted owl is thought to be competition with encroaching barred owls (NatureServe 2017). For more information, the USFWS Northern Spotted Owl Information Site provides links and information regarding critical habitat, the recovery plan, and the threat from barred owls.

The closest known area of Critical Habitat for spotted owl to the Fremont National Forest occurs in East Cascades South, located west of Klamath Falls. The Fremont National Forest is not within the current or historical range for northern spotted owl (Figure 8) and projects on the Forest will have no effect on northern spotted owl.

Figure 9. USFWS Potential Range map for northern spotted owl

Pileated Woodpecker

Photo by Gerrit Vyn Figure 10. NatureServe range map for pileated woodpecker. Range Map Compilers: WILDSPACETM 2002 Habitat Use: Pileated woodpeckers in the Columbia Basin are associated with late-seral stages of subalpine, montane, lower montane forests. Specifically, the old-forest single- and multi-strata stages of grand fir-white-fir, interior Douglas-fir, western larch, western white pine, western red cedar- western hemlock; and the old-forest multi-strata stage of Engelmann spruce-subalpine fir, Pacific silver fir-mountain hemlock (Wisdom et al. 2000). Special habitat features are snags, down logs, and large hollow trees (Wisdom et al. 2000). The MIS Information Sheet Pileated Woodpecker (Dryocopus pileatus) is incorporated by reference (Mellen-McLean 2011c).

Threats: • Habitat loss (NatureServe 2017) • Declines in densities of large snags (>21” DBH) and large hollow trees (Wisdom et al. 2000). • Possibly unsustainable conditions in late-seral montane forests. Due to fire exclusion and past management, forests are susceptible to catastrophic fire, insect, and disease problems in parts of the Columbia Basin (Wisdom et al. 2000).

Distribution: Global: NatureServe “RESIDENT: from southern and eastern British Columbia and southwestern Mackenzie across southern Canada to Quebec and Nova Scotia, south in Pacific states to central California, in the Rocky Mountains to Idaho and western Montana, in the central and eastern U.S. to the eastern Dakotas, Gulf Coast, and southern Florida, and west in the eastern U.S. to Iowa, Kansas, Oklahoma, and Texas (NatureServe 2017).”

Oregon and Washington: Wide-spread resident in forested areas of Oregon and Washington including the Olympic Peninsula, Coastal Mountains, Klamath Mountains, Cascade Mountains, Blue Mountains, Northeast Washington, and forested fringes of the Puget Trough, Willamette, Rogue and Umpqua Valleys. Absent from higher and lower elevations due to lack of large trees for nesting, roosting, and foraging (Bull 2003).

Conservation Status: NatureServe • Global – G5 – Widespread, abundant, secure • Oregon – S4 – Apparently secure ODFW – Sensitive (Blue Mountains, Eastern Cascades Slopes and Foothills, Klamath Mountains)

Population Trend: The reliability rating given to the Breeding Bird data used for population trend information in Oregon is given a yellow reliability rating, meaning data reflect deficiencies such as low abundance, small sample size, or quite imprecise (Sauer et al. 2008). Given the caution in these data, here is the available information regarding population trends of pileated woodpecker. Partners In Flight (PIF) Species Assessment Process evaluates six factors related to biological vulnerability and two measures of area importance for each North American bird species to generate global or regional status assessments of birds. The six factors considered include population size, breeding distribution, non-breeding distribution, threats to breeding, threats to nonbreeding, and population trend. Simple numerical scores are generated ranking each species in terms of its biological vulnerability and regional status. Each score is based on the best available science and is heavily reviewed by experts both within and outside the PID science committee (Panjabi 2005).

Partners in Flight Species Database

Table 10. Summary of Pileated Woodpecker Species Assessment Scores for the Great Basin Bird Conservation Region (9). Score Qualitative Definition Threats to Breeding 3 Slight to moderate decline in the future suitability of breeding or non-breeding conditions is expected. Population Trend 2 Possible increase. Regional Concern No species

46 primarily within the Upper Klamath ERU. A portion of the Forest (primarily in the Warner Mountains) falls within the Northern Great Basin ERU.

Table 11. Percent of Ecological Reporting Units (ERUs) in pileated woodpecker habitat for current and historical conditions, and the relative change in habitat (Wisdom et al. 2000). Percent of Percent ERU in of ERU Pileated Woodpecker Source in Source Habitat1 Habitat1 ERU Relative ERU Name Number Historical Current Change2 Trend Category Upper Klamath 3 1.21 29.80 >100 Strongly increasing Northern Great Basin 4 0.22 12.91 >100 Strongly increasing 1From Volume 3 - Table 5 – pg. 494. 2From Volume 1 – page 33

Pileated woodpecker habitat is located across the Fremont National Forest in areas of mixed conifer, in late-seral stages of subalpine, montane, and lower montane forests. Particularly in old- forest single and multi-strata stages of mixed conifer with snags, down logs, and large hollow trees.

Purple martin

Photo by Greg Lavaty

Purple martin breeds throughout much of the United States, except for the plains states and the Rocky Mountains, extending into Mexico and portions of Canada. Locally it is found mainly west of the Cascades in both Oregon and Washington, but has been documented in both Lake and Klamath counties (Nature Serve 2017), though it is considered rare to very rare east of the Cascades (Horvath 2003). During surveys in 1998 throughout Oregon for purple martin, Horvath (1999) found no breeding martins in Lake or Klamath counties where they formerly bred. The purple martin is an Oregon sensitive species ranked as sensitive-critical in the Coast Range (CR), Klamath Mountains (KM), West Cascades (WC), and the Willamette Valley (WV) ecoregions (ODFW 2016). NatureServe (2017) ranks this species as globally secure (G5) and nationally secure (N5B), and imperiled as a breeding species (S2B) in Oregon.

Purple martin is believed to primarily use artificial nest boxes for colonial nesting in this area, with any natural nesting occurring in woodpecker holes or natural cavities. Almost three quarters of Oregon surveyed nests were found in artificial nest boxes, with the remaining quarter in old woodpecker holes in snags and pilings, as well as crevices in manmade structures (Horvath 1999). Little is known about natural nest sites as most studies have been on the larger populations in the eastern U.S. where they almost exclusively utilize artificial nest boxes. During his surveys in Oregon, Horvath (1999) found the area within 10 meters of nest sites varied substantially, and included open water, grassy fields, and recent clearcuts and burns with brush and young trees. No martins were found nesting any closer than 6 meters from the edge of the canopy of large trees, seeming to prefer exposed locations away from trees. Most nests are near rivers and estuaries, as the birds forage over open water and fields. Purple martin diet is composed entirely of flying insects caught on the wing making the species very vulnerable to spring and summer cold/rainy weather which may temporarily reduce their food supply. While some sightings and small populations are known to occur in the north, the climate of middle and northern North America is typically not suitable for purple martin. This species winters in South America (Brown and Tarof 2013).

As a secondary-cavity nester, purple martin has suffered from introduction into North America of European Starlings (Sturnus vulgaris) and House Sparrows (Passer domesticus), which compete with it for nest sites throughout much of the eastern half of the continent. Without human intervention and management of colony sites, starlings and sparrows can cause local extinction of martins by appropriating their nest cavities and making them permanently unsuitable for martin use. Adverse weather kills more purple martins than all other sources of mortality combined. Birds cannot find insects in cold weather, and when such conditions extend >37-39 degrees F◦ for 3 days or more, mortality can be substantial (Nature Serve 2017).

Potential habitat for purple martin occurs on the Fremont National Forest wherever snags available for nesting occur in the vicinity of riparian habitats, though Horvath’s surveys of Lake County in the late 90’s found no evidence of purple martin in high probability habitat. Purple martin has been documented nesting on the Fremont National Forest in 2 locations. In natural cavities on private lands around Drews Reservoir from the late 1920’s, and in artificial nest boxes (supposedly provided by the FS) on the Bly District where Alder Creek and N Fork Sprague come together from the early 1980’s.

Red-naped Sapsucker

Photo by Lois Manowitz 48

Habitat Use: Red-naped sapsuckers are closely associated with aspen and deciduous riparian or forest stands. Sapsucker species require older trees with heart rot for nesting as well as adjacent conifers or mountain mahogany for sapwell feeding. Habitat recommendations include greater than 10 percent cover of aspen saplings in the understory to provide adequate representation of younger seral stages for replacement, greater than 4 trees and greater than 4 snags per 1.5 acres, where trees and snags are greater than 39 feet in height and 10 inches DBH; and a mean canopy closure of 40 to 80 percent (Altman & Holmes 2000). Conservation issues identified for the maintenance of aspen for red-naped sapsuckers are the lack of recruitment of aspen due to livestock grazing and fire suppression, reduced presence of large aspen trees and snags due to limited replacement, and the encroachment of conifer trees (Altman & Holmes 2000). Cattle often graze young aspen trees later in the summer when the grass dries out. Therefore, the negative impacts of grazing on aspen regeneration are often more pronounced when pastures experience late season grazing year after year.

Aspen stands provide ecological as well as aesthetic diversity to the landscape, forage and cover for ungulates, nesting, feeding and migratory habitat for a variety of avian species, and habitat for a wide variety of small mammals. Other species benefitting from large aspen trees and snags are nesting woodpeckers, raptors, and small song birds. Generally, aspen stands are declining throughout the western U.S. and may be currently at only 10 to 40 percent of pre-settlement occurrence (Kay 1997). Conifers are becoming more dominant in aspen stands on the Fremont- Winema National Forest due to the over grazing, fire protection, and lack of thinning (Seager et al. 2013).

Threats (Altman 2000): • Lack of recruitment of young aspen due to livestock grazing and fire suppression • Reduced presence of large aspen trees and snags due to limited replacement • Encroachment of conifer trees into aspen stands

Distribution (NatureServe): Nesting range includes the Rocky Mountain region from the southeastern quarter of British Columbia, southwestern and southeastern Alberta, western and central Montana, and the Black Hills of South Dakota south, east of Cascades and Sierra Nevada, to east-central California, southern Nevada, central Arizona, southern New Mexico, and extreme western Texas (Davis and Guadalupe mountains) (NatureServe 2017). During the nonbreeding season, the range extends from southern California (casually in southern Oregon and northern Utah), southern Nevada, Utah, and central New Mexico south to southern Baja California.

Conservation Status: NatureServe • Global – G5 – Widespread, abundant, secure • Oregon – S4B,S3N – Apparently secure

Population Trend: The reliability rating given to Breeding Bird data used for population trend information in Oregon is given a yellow reliability rating, meaning these data reflect deficiencies such as low abundance, small sample size, or quite imprecise (Sauer et al. 2008). Given the caution in these data, here is the available information regarding population trends of red-naped sapsuckers. Partners In Flight (PIF) Species Assessment Process evaluates six factors related to biological 49 vulnerability and two measures of area importance for each North American bird species to generate global or regional status assessments of birds. The six factors considered include population size, breeding distribution, non-breeding distribution, threats to breeding, threats to nonbreeding, and population trend. Simple numerical scores are generated ranking each species in terms of biological vulnerability and regional status. Each score is based on best available science and is heavily reviewed by experts both within and outside the PIF science committee (Panjabi 2005).

Partners in Flight Species Database Table 12. Summary of Red-naped Sapsucker Species Assessment Scores for the Great Basin Bird Conservation Region (9). Score Qualitative Definition Threats to Breeding 3 Slight to moderate decline in the future suitability of breeding or non-breeding conditions is expected. Population Trend 2 Possible increase. Regional Concern species No

Red-necked grebe

Photo by Kurt Kirchmeier Figure 12. Distribution map for red-necked grebe

Red-necked grebe is found throughout the northern portions of North America. Within its range, occurrence of red-necked grebe is sporadic and limited to suitable water bodies, with the breeding range primarily in Alaska, Canada, and some of the northern states. In Oregon it occurs along the coast line and along the migratory flight paths with species occurrence documented in Coos, Deschutes, Hood River, Jackson, Wasco, Washington, and Klamath counties (NatureServe 2017). The only known breeding area in Oregon is from a small breeding population on Upper Klamath Lake. Red-necked grebe is an Oregon sensitive species ranked as sensitive critical in the East Cascades (EC) ecoregion (ODFW 2016). NatureServe (2017) ranks this species as globally (G5) and nationally secure (N5B,N5N), and critically imperiled (breeding) to apparently secure (non-breeding) (S1B,S4N) in Oregon.

Red-necked grebe nests on shallow freshwater lakes (4.9 acres or greater) or shallow protected marsh areas and seclude bays of larger lakes with emergent vegetation. Nests are most often found in flooded emergent vegetation, but also in open water on thick mats of submergent vegetation, or anchored to lake bottom or submerged stumps, logs, or beaver food caches (Stout and Neuchterlein 1999). Placement of nests over water helps deter predators. Red-necked grebe feed primarily on fish, crustaceans, and aquatic insects and forage from just above the water surface to the bottom of the waterbody. They prefer to forage in open water areas where aquatic vegetation doesn’t impede swimming and diving (Stout and Neuchterlein 1999).

Photo by Gary Nuechterlein depicting red-necked grebe over-water nest placement.

Threats to red-necked grebe productivity and population declines have been attributed to organochlorine residues, recent increases in unnatural predators (raccoon), human recreational activities, commercial gill-nets, habitat degradation from wetland draining/development, and marine oil spills (DeSmet 1987, Stout and Neuchterlein 1999).

Red-necked grebe has never been recorded on the Fremont National Forest. The only known breeding area in Oregon is from a small breeding population around Upper Klamath Lake.

Tricolored blackbird

Photo from the Center for Biological Diversity Figure 13. NatureServe distribution map for tricolored blackbird (Range Map Compilers: NatureServe, 2002).

Tricolored blackbirds are found primarily in California, with more than 99% of the population occurring in California, mostly in the Central Valley and surrounding foothills. Scattered populations are located outside of this area in California, Oregon, central Washington and western Nevada. In Oregon, tricolored blackbird breeds locally in southern Klamath and Jackson

counties, at several isolated locations across north central Oregon, and in 1 location in Lake County near Summer Lake. Scattered summer reports elsewhere in Oregon include the Willamette Valley (Beedy et al. 2014). NatureServe (2017) ranks this species globally as critically imperiled (G1), nationally vulnerable to apparently secure (N3N4), and imperiled (breeding) in the state of Oregon (S2B).

Tricolored blackbird nesting usually occurs in dense stands of cattails and tulles, with nests located a few feet above water. Nests may be located as far as 4 miles from foraging areas. Tricolored blackbirds are highly colonial nesters, requiring nesting areas large enough to support as least 50 pairs, and nest in larger marshes and selects denser vegetation than red-winged blackbirds (Beedy et al. 2014). Roosting areas for large winter flocks usually are in extensive stands of marsh vegetation (Beedy et al. 2014).

The species has undergone a long-term population decline, primarily due to losses and fragmentation of breeding and foraging habitats caused by urban and agricultural land conversions, and water diversions (Tricolored Blackbird Working Group 2007).

Tricolored blackbird has never been documented on the Fremont National Forest as the Forest lacks the large marsh areas preferred for breeding. The only area of potential habitat would be Sycan Marsh, where the species has never been recorded.

Upland sandpiper

Photo by Brian Sullivan

Upland sandpiper is a relatively abundant species in the central and northern Great Plains where 70% of this population breeds (Vickery et al. 2010), with sparse and often isolated populations (Dechant et al. 2002) found west of the Rocky Mountains in Alaska, British Columbia, western Idaho, and Oregon. Upland sandpiper persist in small numbers in scattered breeding areas in eastern Oregon, and on the Fremont National Forest have been documented around Sycan Marsh. Upland sandpiper is an Oregon sensitive species ranked as sensitive-critical in the Blue Mountain (BM) ecoregion. NatureServe (2017) ranks this species as secure globally (G5) and nationally (N5B), and critically imperiled (breeding) in the state of Oregon (S1B).

Upland sandpiper is a completely terrestrial sandpiper, an obligate grassland species, and is rarely associated with coastal or wetland habitats. Though most habitat information for upland sandpiper refers to their Great Plains distribution, western populations tend to be found in high-

altitude meadows. Breeding individuals spend a short period, typically four months, in their breeding habitats arriving in Oregon around the beginning of May, and departing in mid-July to late August, with fall migration starting earlier at more northern latitudes (Vickery et al. 2010). Upland sandpipers are long distance migrants, wintering in South America for approximately 8 months a year.

Upland sandpiper in general prefers habitat including large areas of short grass for feeding and courtship with interspersed or adjacent taller grasses for nesting and brood cover; in the northeastern U.S., airfields currently provide the majority of suitable habitat, though grazed pastures and grassy fields also are used. Populations of upland sandpiper in northeastern Oregon differ from their eastern counterparts because of altitude (3,400 – 5,200 ft.), use of sedge stands and slightly elevated mounds in wet meadows, and location within 300 feet of forest edge. Upland sandpiper require a relatively large home range for successful breeding which also provides extensive feeding and loafing areas nearby (Houston et al. 2011). Many seemingly ideal habitats within the breeding range are too small to be acceptable (Buss 1951). The recommended minimum grassland size is 150 acres for each breeding pair (Houston et al. 2011).

Nest preparation begins approximately 2 weeks after arrival to the breeding grounds, with northeastern Oregon nests generally initiated from mid-late May through mid-June (Houston et al. 2011). Upland sandpiper will sometimes nest in loose colonies. Nests are generally dry grass lined depressions concealed on drier portions of habitat amid grass arching over grass scrape. Typically, nests are selected in ungrazed, upland habitats with moderately tall, dense vegetation to provide concealment (Kirsch and Higgins 1976, Ailes 1980, Bowen and Kruse 1993). Breeding pairs have 1 brood of approximately 4 eggs per season, with eggs in the east hatching in mid to late June. Incubation is generally 21-27 days followed by fledging 30-31 days after that. In Oregon, both adults sometimes stayed with the brood until at least 8 days after young flew, and young are generally raised near the nest (Houston et al. 2011).

Upland sandpiper prefer foraging in habitat with shorter vegetation (generally <10 cm tall (Houston et al. 2011)) than found in nesting or brooding grounds (Dechant et al. 2002). In northern Colorado they were found to move from lush grass for nesting cover to rich, but more open sites for chick-rearing. In its North American habitat, upland sandpiper diets consist of 95- 97% small invertebrates with the remaining 3-5% in weed seeds. Invertebrates consist of primarily grasshoppers, crickets, and weevils, with beetles, cutworms, flies and fly larvae, moths, ants, bugs, centipedes, millipedes, spiders, snails, and earthworms also being consumed (Houston et al. 2011).

Upland sandpiper typical habitat – Texas. Photo by Brian Sullivan

Threats to upland sandpiper include conversion of grasslands for agriculture use, encroachment of woody vegetation, urban development, and the spread of invasive plants. Burning reduces encroachment of woody vegetation and creates a mosaic of different grass heights across the territory, but should be conducted outside of the breeding season. Moderate grazing can improve habitat, but should be done after young fledge to avoid trampling eggs or young (Houston et al. 2011).

The only documented occurrence of upland sandpiper on the Fremont National Forest is on private lands in the Sycan Marsh area. Sycan marsh likely represents the only area on Forest with a large enough grassland to support breeding upland sandpipers.

White-headed woodpecker

Photo by Robert A. ‘Spike’ Baker/Vireo Figure 14. Columbia River Basin range map for white-headed woodpecker (Garrett et al. 1996)

White-headed woodpecker is distributed from British Columbia to southern California, east to Idaho and Nevada. In Oregon it occurs in Baker, Crook, Deschutes, Douglas, Grant, Harney, Jefferson, Josephine, Klamath and Lake County (NatureServe 2017). White headed woodpecker is an Oregon sensitive species ranked as a sensitive critical in the East Cascades (EC) as well as the Blue Mountains (BM), and Klamath Mountains (KM) ecoregions (ODFW 2016).

NatureServe (2017) ranks this species globally (G4) and nationally (N4) as apparently secure, and imperiled to vulnerable (S2S3) in Oregon.

White-headed woodpecker is a cavity nesting bird strongly associated with pine dominated coniferous forests, mainly in open ponderosa pine or dry mixed-conifer forests dominated by ponderosa pine (Mellen-McLean et al. 2013). Ponderosa pine is the dominant pine thorough out much of their range, but other important pine species include sugar pine, lodgepole pine, white fir, incense cedar, and Douglas-fir. Throughout its range white-headed woodpeckers can also be found in mixed conifer forests containing red fir, black oak, Jeffrey pine, Coulter pine and western white pine. They are not usually found in forests dominated by small or serotinous coned species such as lodgepole pine, knobcone pine, or singleleaf pinyon pine (Garrett et al. 1996).

In south central and central Oregon, white-headed woodpeckers inhabit multistoried old- growth ponderosa pine habitats where they prefer large diameter trees averaging over 61 cm diameter at breast height (DBH). Throughout their range they prefer areas with ample mature pine, a 50-70% open canopy, sparse vegetative understory, and plenty of snags and stumps for nesting (Garrett et al. 1996). Hollenbeck et al. (2011) suggests a juxtaposition of low and high canopy cover ponderosa pine patches was selected for nest-site suitability, which suggest a preference for heterogeneity in stand structure. Home ranges average from 104-342 ha depending on how fragmented the habitat is, with larger home ranges occurring over the more fragmented habitat. Site fidelity is high for both nesting and home range (Garrett et al. 1996). They excavate cavities in large, moderately decayed ponderosa pine snags as well as stumps, logs, and dead tops of live trees (Mellen-McLean et al. 2013).

White-headed woodpeckers tend to congregate in burned forested areas and also in selectively logged forests where live and dead large diameter trees remain standing. In south central Oregon, nest success was found to be higher in burned habitats than unburned habitats (Mellen-McLean et al. 2013). Their diet consists mainly of invertebrates (especially ants), larvae, beetles, scale insects, and conifer seeds. They will glean insects off bark, foliage, and branches, sometimes catching them on the wing, as well as peck, flake and chip at bark to get to them. In Oregon and the Sierra Nevadas, white-headed woodpeckers have also been seen drilling wells for sap sucking while in British Columbia they have been observed consuming seeds of common mullein (Verbascum thapsus). Cone excavation includes chipping at the cone to extract the seed then wedging it in bark crevices to crack the seed for eating. Their tendency to eat a lot of pine seeds and other vegetative seeds requires that they drink more water compared to other woodpeckers.

Habitat degradation is the primary threat to white-headed woodpecker. Preferred large- diameter trees are prized for their commercial value and logging practices (such as clear-cuts, even-aged stand management, snag removal, and salvage logging) and forest fragmentation have contributed to local declines, especially in the northern half of the species range (Garrett et al. 1996). Fire suppression over the past 50 years has altered fire regimes so that ponderosa pine forests are no longer maintained by frequent natural fire, but are being replaced by Douglas-fir and true fir developing in the understory, closing up desirable open stand habitat and making them more susceptible to stand-replacing fires (Garrett et al. 1996).

White-headed woodpecker habitat is available across the Fremont National Forest in open ponderosa pine or mixed conifer forests dominated by ponderosa pine. Stands are usually old growth or have old growth components as well as plenty of dead and downed wood from insects and disease or fire.

Yellow-billed cuckoo (Western DPS)

Photo by Phil Swanson

Yellow-billed cuckoo is found throughout much of the United States, southeastern Canada, the Greater Antilles, and Mexico, though range boundaries have been confused by recurrent observations of nonbreeding individuals away from breeding sites (Hughes 2015). Historically yellow-billed cuckoo bred throughout much of North America, but distribution west of the Rockies has declined substantially in the last 50 years, and the species is considered extirpated from the Pacific Northwest. Likely never common in Oregon, there are no known breeding populations in Oregon, with the last confirmed breeding records from the 1940’s. Historically they could be seen in willow bottoms along the Willamette and Columbia rivers, with few recorded sightings east of the Cascades, mostly around the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge and in Harney, Malheur, and Deschutes counties. Approximately 20 individuals have been sighted east of the Cascades in Oregon between 1970 and 1994 (Hughes 2015). NatureServe (2017) ranks this species globally as imperiled (T2) and nationally imperiled and vulnerable (N2N3B), and possibly extirpated in the state of Oregon (SHB).

Figure 15. Breeding and migration Figure 16. USFWS Western U.S. DPS range map for distribution of the yellow-billed cuckoo. yellow-billed cuckoo

Yellow-billed cuckoo prefer open woodland with clearings and low, dense, scrubby vegetation. They are generally absent from heavily forested areas (Hughes 2015) and prefer dense willow- cottonwood-ash areas greater than 60 acres in size, within 100 meters of water (USFWS 2017b). In the western U.S., nest sites are often in willow, cottonwood, and mesquite, and may be concealed by moss, mistletoe, poison oak, or grape vines. Unlike many other species of cuckoos who are brood parasites (laying their eggs in other birds’ nests), yellow-billed cuckoo often builds its own nest and raises its own young, and have even been recorded breeding cooperatively in California (USFWS 2017b, Hughes 2015). Parasitism, when it occurs, has been observed to be intraspecific and interspecific, with at least 11 species recorded as hosts; most frequently the American robin, gray catbird, and wood thrush (Hughes 2015). Yellow-billed cuckoo diet is primarily large insects including caterpillars and cicadas and, occasionally, small frogs and lizards. Breeding generally coincides with the emergence of cicadas and tent caterpillar.

The primary reason for population decline is thought to be destruction and degradation of its streamside habitat, where they breed in dense willow and cottonwood stands in river floodplains. Clearing land for agriculture, modification of natural hydrological processes (such as flood control, surface and ground water diversion, damming rivers, etc.), and urbanization are the biggest contributors to habitat loss, though conversion to invasive nonnative vegetation has contributed to habitat loss as well (Hughes 2015).

There is no potential habitat designated for yellow-billed cuckoo on the Fremont National Forest (Figure 15). Projects on the Forest will have no effect to yellow-billed cuckoo.

Figure 17. USFWS map of potential yellow-billed cuckoo habitat in Oregon

Yellow rail

Photo by Jeff Hoppes Figure 18. Distribution map for yellow-rail (Leston and Bookhout 2015)

Yellow rail breeds from central and eastern Canada south to New England, Great Lakes region, and northern Midwest (e.g. North Dakota, Montana). The Pacific Northwest populations are disjunct from the main range, are extremely limited, and were thought to have disappeared early this century (Stern and Popper 2003). The Oregon Natural Heritage Information Center and The Nature Conservancy began doing surveys in 1988 to increase existing information on the Oregon population. Recent surveys have included Klamath Marsh, Sycan Marsh, Big Marsh and areas in eastern Oregon (Stern and Popper 2003; Bienz and Halstead 2010; USFWS 2010). Yellow rail is an Oregon sensitive species ranked as a sensitive critical in the East Cascades (EC) ecoregion (ODFW 2016). NatureServe (2017) ranks yellow rail as globally apparently secure (G4), 54

nationally vulnerable to apparently secure (N3N4), and as critically imperiled (S1B - breeding) in the state of Oregon.

Yellow rails inhabit freshwater marshes and wet meadows with a growth of sedges, usually surrounded by willows, and often with standing water up to a foot deep during the breeding season. Yellow rail is very secretive, and little is known about its habits in Oregon. The species is primarily found east of the Rocky Mountains, however a small population exists in southcentral Oregon and into northern California (Leston and Bookhout 2015; Stern and Popper 2003). Stern et al. (1993) found yellow rail occupying wet meadows located near cold water springs, seeps, flowing creeks, or river floodplains in southcentral Oregon. Rails have been mainly detected through vocalizations during the breeding season. Yellow rails are rarely seen or heard during the day but during the breeding season, male yellow rails can be detected as they call at night almost continuously (Stern and Popper 2003). Winter residence of Oregon populations of yellow rail is unknown, but the species will winter in and migrates through freshwater and brackish marshes, dense, deep grass, and grain fields (NatureServe 2017).

Yellow rails arrive at breeding grounds in late April/early May, and begin fall migration in September/October. Egg laying begins in mid to late May with caring for young late June to early September. In Oregon, nesting areas are characterized by broadleaved sedges, principally Carex vesicaria, C. simulata, and C. rostrata (Stern et al. 1993). Nests are situated beneath dead, procumbent vegetation and rest either on the ground or as much as 15 cm above it. Yellow rail are known to use two nests, one for incubation of eggs and one for brooding of young (Leston and Bookhout 2015). Nests for incubation are made of fine sedges and grasses woven into a cup with materials apparently obtained near nest sites and covered with a concealing canopy of dead vegetation. If the canopy is disturbed, female will restore it. Nests for brooding of young lack canopies and the female broods chicks for 3 weeks after hatching (Leston and Bookhout 2015).

Photo by T.A. Bookhout of typical yellow rail habitat in Michigan

Yellow rails are reported to eat invertebrates, seeds of sedges and rushes, and freshwater snails in their eastern habitats (Leston and Bookhout 2015), but diet information for Oregon is not available.

Loss of wetlands to human activity is probably the most serious factor affecting yellow rail populations across their range, and drainage of wetlands for agriculture is the primary threat to yellow rail in Oregon (Stern et al. 1993). Drainage of marshes may explain why the southern boundary of breeding areas has moved northward in the 20th century. Ditching and draining of wetlands are active threats in Oregon and have been responsible for the loss of several known summering sites since 1985 (Stern et al. 1993). Grazing by cattle reduces the height of emergent vegetation and has a greater effect on emergent vegetation near shore; negative effects on yellow rail habitat therefore might be expected because of the species' occupation of drier sites (Eddleman et al. 1988). Mowing of marshlands prevents usual vegetative succession and may help perpetuate breeding habitat for yellow rails (Leston and Bookhout 2015). Male territories average 19 acres and may overlap several female territories of approximately 3 acres each (Bookhout and Stenzel 1987).

Small yellow rail populations have been found on private land located on the Fremont National Forest in Sycan Marsh on the Silver Lake Ranger District and Camas Prairie on the Lakeview Ranger District. Surveys in 1991 detected calling males at both locations, but follow up surveys in 1992 found no sign of yellow rail in Camas Prairie. The Camas Prairie location is the easternmost occurrence of yellow rail in Oregon, and is unique from all other Oregon sites in being a closed drainage outside of the Upper Klamath Lake watershed (Stern et al. 1993). Amphibians and Reptiles Columbia spotted frog

Columbia spotted frog is an Oregon sensitive species ranked as sensitive-critical in the Northern Basin and Range (NBR) as well as the Blue Mountains (BM) ecoregions (ODFW 2016). NatureServe (2017) ranks this species as apparently secure globally (G4) and nationally (N4), and vulnerable to imperiled in Oregon (S2S3). The global range for Columbia spotted frog extends from Alaska, British Columbia, and Alberta south to Nevada and Utah. The Great Basin population occurs in southwestern Idaho, southeastern Oregon, and Nevada (NatureServe 2017). In Oregon, the Great Basin population is known to occur in Malheur, Lake, Harney, and possibly Grant Counties. The single area of a known population of Columbia Spotted Frog in Lake County is depicted in Figure 17 (below) in the most south western location on the map. This isolated population occurs in a creek on BLM portions of the Warner Mountains. Surveys of

potential habitat in the surrounding Warner Mountains failed to find Columbia Spotted Frogs, and the nearest known population to the Warners is approximately 70 miles to the north east (Pearl et al. 2010).

Figure 19. USFWS potential range map of Columbia Spotted Frog in Oregon

Columbia spotted frogs are highly aquatic and usually stay near permanent, quiet water along the grassy/sedgy margins of lakes, ponds, slow streams, and marshes (Bull 2005) with movement between habitats limited to wet riparian corridors. This frog uses stream-side small mammal burrows as shelter (NatureServe 2017) but a deep silt or muck substrate may be required for hibernation and torpor (Bull 2005). In colder portions of their range, Columbia spotted frogs will use areas where water does not freeze, such as spring heads and undercut stream banks with overhanging vegetation. Within sage-juniper shrublands, they occur in riparian areas where emergent vegetation and standing water are present. In the Northwest, the Columbia spotted frog prefers areas with thick algae and emergent vegetation, but may use sunken, dead or decaying vegetation as escape cover. Usually breeds in shallow water in ponds or in other quiet waters (Bull 2005). Diet consists of a wide variety of insects, as well as mollusks, crustaceans, and arachnids (NatureServe 2017).

Major threats include destruction, fragmentation, and degradation of wetlands, as well as introduction of non-native predators such as bullfrogs and bass (USFWS 2009).

Columbia spotted frog has not been detected during amphibian surveys across the Forest. The Fremont National Forest is outside the known range for Columbia spotted frog. Projects on the Forest would have no impact on Columbia spotted frog.

Northern Leopard Frog

Photo from animalspot.net

Northern leopard frog is found throughout the U.S. and Canada, and is still widespread and common in many areas. Populations have declined in some areas due to habitat loss and degradation as well as competition/predation by non-native species, such as bull frogs. In some locations, northern leopard frog has disappeared from ecosystems with apparently undisturbed wetland habitats and acceptable water quality (NatureServe 2017). NatureServe (2017) ranks this species as globally (G5) and nationally secure (N5), and imperiled to critically imperiled within the state of Oregon (S1S2). In eastern Oregon, the species has only been known to occur in Malheur County and has not been observed in recent years in the few historically known localities (see Figure 18).

Northern leopard frogs are a highly aquatic species found in the vicinity of springs, slow streams, marshes, bogs, ponds, canals, flood plains, reservoirs, and lakes. Water at breeding sites must persist long enough to permit the completion of larval development. Shoreline cover, submerged and emergent aquatic vegetation, appears to be an important habitat characteristic. For reproduction leopard frogs prefer shallow permanent or semi-permanent ponds, slow moving streams with shallow, marshy borders, or extensive marshes (Jones et al. 2005). Gravel pits, stock ponds, and beaver ponds are commonly used for breeding. Vegetation is an important feature in breeding areas as eggs are attached to emergent vegetation. After breeding, adults disperse from the breeding site to water margins and make considerable use of uplands during summer (Jones et al. 2005). Despite their very aquatic nature, these frogs will disperse across upland areas to reach breeding ponds, overwintering sites, and during migration (Smith 2003). Some northern leopard frogs have been measured moving up to 5 km from the point they were marked (Smith 2003).

At colder localities, adults hibernate on the bottoms of unfrozen bodies of water, though some may overwinter underground (NatureServe 2017). Submerged vegetation is apparently

unnecessary for hibernation cover. Individuals do not hibernate in southern California, but may become inactive during the coldest periods. Adults are opportunistic feeders, taking a variety of aquatic and terrestrial prey. They primarily eat small adult insects, but sow bugs, spiders, leeches, snails, small fishes, amphibians (cannibalism has been reported), small snakes, and birds are also taken (Smith 2003). Tadpoles probably feed primarily by filtering algae and diatoms, but may also consume some plant material and animal food incidentally encountered.

Figure 20. IUCN Redlist species range map for northern leopard frog

Northern leopard frog has not been detected during amphibian surveys across the Forest. The Fremont National Forest is outside the known range for Northern leopard frog. Projects on the Forest would have no impact on northern leopard frog.

Oregon spotted frog

Photo by William Leonard Figure 21. USFWS potential range map for Oregon Spotted Frog. 59

Oregon spotted frog is found on the west coast of North American. In Oregon, it occurs along the east side of the Cascades and has been found in Baker, Benton, Clackamas, Deschutes, Hood River, Jackson, Lane, Linn, Marion, Multnomah, Union, Wasco, and Klamath Counties (NatureServe 2017). Oregon spotted frog is a federally threatened species and an Oregon sensitive species ranked as sensitive-critical in the East Cascades (EC) as well as the West Cascades (WC) ecoregions (ODFW 2016). NatureServe (2017) ranks this species globally (G2) and nationally imperiled (N2), and imperiled (S2) in the state of Oregon.

Oregon spotted frog is the most aquatic native frog in the Pacific Northwest. Almost always found in or near a perennial body of water with zones of shallow water and abundant emergent or floating aquatic plants used for basking and cover. Oregon spotted frog seems to prefer fairly large, warm marshes (minimum size 9 acres) able to support a large enough population to counteract high predation rates and sporadic reproductive failures. Large populations have been found when habitat has reliable water levels during breeding, year-round water during and connecting overwintering and breeding sites, and fishless, predator-less water. Tadpoles feed on algae, detritus, and probably carrion, while adults feed primarily on insects (USFWS 2014).

According to the USFWS (2013), habitat necessary to support all life stages is continuing to be impacted and/or destroyed by human activities that result in the loss of wetlands to land conversions; hydrologic changes resulting from operation of existing water diversions/manipulation structures, new and existing residential and road developments, drought, and removal of beavers; changes in water temperature and vegetation structure resulting from reed canary grass invasions, plant succession, and restoration plantings; and increased sedimentation, increased water temperatures, reduced water quality, and vegetation changes resulting from the timing, intensity, and location of livestock grazing. Oregon spotted frogs in all currently occupied sub-basins in British Columbia, Washington, and Oregon are subject to one or more of these threats to their habitat. Eleven of the 15 sub-basins are currently experiencing a high to very high level of habitat impacts, and these impacts are expected to continue into the future. Disease continues to be a concern, but more information is needed to determine if disease is a threat to Oregon spotted frogs. At least one nonnative predaceous species occurs within each of the sub-basins currently occupied by Oregon spotted frogs. Introduced fish have been documented within each sub-basin; these introduced species prey on tadpoles, negatively affect overwintering habitat, and can significantly threaten Oregon spotted frog populations, especially during droughts. Bullfrogs (and likely green frogs) prey on juvenile and adult Oregon spotted frogs, and bullfrog tadpoles can outcompete or displace Oregon spotted frog tadpoles. In short, nonnative bullfrogs effectively reduce the abundance of all Oregon spotted frog life stages and pose an added threat to a species that has significant negative impacts range wide from habitat degradation. Nine of the 15 occupied sub-basins are currently experiencing moderate to very high impacts due to predation by introduced species, and these impacts are expected to continue into the future (USFWS 2013).

Oregon spotted frog has not been detected during amphibian surveys across the Forest. The Fremont National Forest is outside the known range for Oregon spotted frog (Figure 19). Projects on the Forest would have no effect on Oregon spotted frog.

Western Pond Turtle

Photo by Jerry Kirkhart/Flickr Figure 22. Range map for western pond turtle (Range Map Compilers: NatureServe2008) Western pond turtles can be found in western North America and in the U.S. in Washington, Oregon, and California. In Oregon, it occurs in Benton, Clackamas, Columbia, Coos, Curry, Douglas, Hood River, Jackson, Josephine, Lane, Linn, Marion, Multnomah, Polk, Tillamook, Wasco, Washington, Yamhill, and Klamath Counties (Nature Serve 2017). Western pond turtle is an Oregon sensitive species ranked as sensitive critical in the East Cascades (EC) as well as the Blue Mountains (BM), Coast Range (CR), Columbia Plateau (CP), West Cascades (WC), and Willamette Valley (WV) ecoregions (ODFW 2016). NatureServe (2017) ranks this species globally vulnerable (G3), nationally vulnerable to apparently secure (N3N4), and imperiled in the state of Oregon (S2).

Western pond turtles inhabit ponds, lakes, marshes, and the slow-moving portions of creeks and rivers. This species is primarily aquatic, but strays from water to lay eggs, disperse to new water bodies, winter out-of-water, and aestivate during periods of prolonged heat or drought. Pond turtles spend a great deal of time basking on logs and other supporting structures at the surface of ponds. Individuals leave water habitats during the spring and summer months to search for egg- laying sites (NatureServe 2017). Egg laying sites are anywhere from 50 to 600 feet from the aquatic environment. Nest sites are usually on open sunny ground, on slopes of 4 to 12 percent, in heavy clay soil, and on a south to southwest facing aspect. Aestivation and overwintering sites can be at the bottom of a pond, or in shrubby or forested uplands under leaf litter or decayed logs. Turtles nest under dry conditions; in fact, too much soil moisture will kill the developing embryos.

Major threats to western pond turtle are 1) loss of hatchlings to bullfrogs, 2) alteration of important features of aquatic or terrestrial habitats, 3) loss of nests to human activities or predators, 4) disease and competition from introduced turtles, and 5) removal from the wild by humans (NatureServe 2017).

On the Fremont National Forest, there is one known population of western pond turtle near Gerber Reservoir on the Bly Ranger District. Individuals have been reported in a few other locations, but no additional breeding areas have been located to date. Habitat for western pond turtle occurs across the Forest in lakes, ponds, marshes and portions of slow moving perennial rivers and streams with adequate basking structures and open banks with heavy clay soil for nest excavation.

Invertebrates Crater Lake tightcoil

Photo by William P. Leonard of Pristiloma crateris from Deschutes County (Burke2013).

Crater Lake tightcoil is an Oregon endemic species of terrestrial mollusk found within a 40-100 square mile range near Crater Lake. Found on the Deschutes, Mt Hood, Rogue River, Umpqua, Winema, and Willamette National Forests (Gowan and Burke 1999), with over 2/3rds of the recorded sites on the Deschutes National Forest. NatureServe (2017) ranks this species as globally (G2) and nationally (N2) imperiled, and imperiled within the state of Oregon (S2).

A small terrestrial mollusk ~2.75 mm in diameter x 1.5 mm in height, Crater Lake tightcoil is usually found in non-acid fens or sedge habitats at elevations from 2750 to 6400 feet above sea level (Gowan and Burke 1999). This species has been found in mature conifer forests (true fir, spruce, Douglas fir, lodgepole pine, and remnant hardwoods) and among rushes, mosses and other surface vegetation or under rocks and woody debris within 10 meters of open water in wetlands, springs, seeps and riparian areas which experience perennially moist conditions and long winters. Located on woody debris, moss, or humus grazing on bacteria, fungi, yeasts, and other microscopic organisms. Likely methods of dispersal are passive with eggs and adults being carried in mud particles by wildlife. Most recorded sites have only a few individuals, and are widely scattered across the range separated by non-habitat. Major treats include loss or degradation of wetland habitat (Gowan and Burke 1999). The Fremont National Forest does not fall within the range of Crater Lake tightcoil.

There are 10 sites recorded on the Klamath Ranger District of the Winema side of the Fremont- Winema National Forest, and while the Fremont National Forest has potential habitat, this species has never been found east of the Klamath Ranger District. Projects on the Forest would have no impact on Crater Lake tightcoil.

Gray-blue butterfly

Plebejus podarce male, Inyo County, California. Photos by Kim Davis and Mike Stangeland, www.kimandmikeontheroad.com).

Gray-blue butterfly is a Sierra Nevada/Klamath Mountains endemic occurring from southern Oregon to northwest California and west-central Nevada (Pyle 2002). In Oregon, it is found in the Southern Cascades and Eastern Siskiyou’s in Douglas, Jackson, and Klamath Counties. Locally it is found at Crater Lake National Park and Bull Swamp fen on the Klamath District of the Winema National Forest (Warren 2005). NatureServe (2017) ranks this species as globally (G3G4) and nationally (N3N4) vulnerable to apparently secure, and imperiled within the state of Oregon (S2).

Figure 23. Records of Plebejus podarce klamathensis in Oregon, relative to Forest Service and BLM lands. BLM District boundaries are shown in black, and Resource Area boundaries are shown in grey. The suspected distribution polygon is based on a distribution map of this species in Pyle (2002) and personal communication with Robert Pyle and Erik Runquist (Scheuring and Huff 2006).

Found in fens and other high elevation wetlands (5,100 – 6,500+ feet), appropriate habitat is described as “marshy slopes and meadows that are lushly overgrown with deep grasses and dense stands of false hellebore (Veratrum viride)” (Dornfeld 1980). The larval foodplant in Oregon has not been reported, but known hostplants in California are Dodecatheon jeffreyi and D. alpinum (Pyle 2002, Warren 2005). Adults can be abundant where they occur but

populations are locally distributed (Warren 2005) as adults are very local and do not appear to wander much beyond their meadow habitat (Scheuring and Huff 2006). Threats include impacts from grazing and recreation, desiccation due to water diversions, and plant succession.

The documented and suspected habitat for gray-blue butterfly does not occur on or near the Fremont National Forest. The closest known area of occurrence to the Forest is Crater Lake National Park. Projects on the Forest would have no impact to gray-blue butterfly.

Johnson’s Hairstreak

Photos by David Nunnallee – Johnson’s hairstreak adult (left) and larvae (right)

Johnson’s hairstreak butterfly ranges from central California to southwest BC, and is found in the Cascade, Blue/Wallowa, Coast Range, and Siskiyou mountains in Oregon. NatureServe (2017) ranks this species as globally (G3G4) and nationally (N3N4) vulnerable to apparently secure, and imperiled within the state of Oregon (S2).

Figure 24. Current known distribution of Johnson’s hairstreak in Oregon dating back to 1891 and updated by 2009-2010 surveys (Davis and Weaver 2011).

Johnson’s hairstreak is linked to old-growth and mature forest habitat. Habitat includes low to high altitude clearings among conifer forests, especially mature ponderosa pine, but also 64

lodgepole, true fir, Douglas-fir, and western larch (Pyle, 2002). Recent surveys have also found Jeffrey pine to be a host species in southwestern Oregon (Davis and Weaver 2011). Females lay pale eggs directly on dwarf mistletoes on a variety of conifers. Caterpillars then feed on dwarf mistletoe growing on western hemlock and Douglas-fir in the western Cascades, and species of pines and true firs elsewhere (Pyle, 2002).

A regional suitability model for Oregon and Washington was developed in 2008 and subsequent surveys performed for Johnson’s hairstreak between 2009-2010 (Davis 2010, Davis and Weaver 2011). The Fremont-Winema National Forest was included in the 2010 survey effort, surveying moderate to high probability habitat in the Warner Mountains. The model shows only a small portion of high probability habitat east of the Cascades. All larval voucher specimens from the Warners were sent in for DNA analysis and identified as thicket hairstreak (C. spinetorum), which in-hand have identical larvae to Johnson’s hairstreak.

Figure 25. Probability of occurrence map based on the version 1.1 habitat suitability map for Johnson’s hairstreak in Oregon (Davis and Weaver 2011).

Threats to this species include loss of habitat from logging, and spraying to kill tussock moths and budworms (Pyle, 2002).

The Fremont National Forest has only one documented sighting of Johnson’s hairstreak located around Sycan Marsh on the Silver Lake Ranger District (Hinchliff 1994). Moderate probability habitat occurs in patches across the Forest, primarily in the Warner Mountains. Larval surveys conducted in 2010 in the Warner Mountains failed to detect Johnson’s Hairstreak.

Leona’s little blue butterfly

Leona’s little blue butterfly Photo by Will Hatcher Third instar larval development of Leona’s little blue (James 2012)

Leona’s little blue butterfly is a local endemic to Klamath County with a single population in the vicinity of Sand and Scott Creeks (Hammond and McCorkle 1999, Pyle 2002). As its name implies, Leona’s little blue is truly little, and at less than ¾” is considered tiny, even for a blue (Pyle 2002). It occurs in volcanic ash and pumice fields that form non-forested meadows in natural shrub openings. The soils in Leona’s little blue habitat form an alluvial fan (fan-shaped deposits of volcanic material) with subsurface moisture and appear to be thicker than other alluvial fans close to the occupied habitat (USFWS 2015b). The plant community as described by Volland (1985) consists of Bitterbrush/Needlegrass-Sedge and Lodgepole Pine/Bitterbrush/Fescue. A variety of annual and perennial plants within occupied habitat include: spurry buckwheat, sulphur-flower buckwheat, least tarweed, Mt. Hood pussypaws, Cascade popcorn flower, hoary aster, wooly groundsel, spreading groundsmoke, silverleaf phaceliea, pale agoseris, rosy pussytoes, and Epilobium spp. (USFWS 2015b). According to USFWS (2015b), habitat characteristics associated with occupied Leona’s little blue habitat appear to be unique and may be limiting the distribution of the species. Following focused surveys from 2009-2013, the known range of Leona’s little blue was found to be just under 13 square miles with an estimated population of 20,000 individuals. The western edge of the population overlaps the Chemult District on the Winema side of the Forest, with approximately 1.5% of Leona’s little blue butterfly range falling on the Fremont-Winema National Forest. Based on surveys of high potential habitat in Oregon and California it is unlikely new populations of Leona’s little blue butterfly will be discovered outside of their existing range (USFWS 2015b).

Figure 26. USFWS map of Leona’s little blue butterfly range and observation locations (USFWS 2015b).

Leona’s little blue lays 1-2 eggs at a time at the base of a flower bud of the larval host plant, spurry buckwheat (Eriogonum spergulinum A. Gray) to reduce mortality from browsing. It is unknown how many eggs Leona’s little blue lays in total during oviposition, though James (2012) counted a mean of 39.3 mature eggs per female during the dissection of six females that died during his study (USFWS 2015b). Larva emerge from the egg within 4-5 days, with larval development taking approximately 10 more days before pupation of 10 to 11 months. Larval development coincides with the budding and flowering of the host plant (James 2012). Adults emerge from pupa in mid-June, with males emerging before females. Mating takes place between late June and early July, soon after females emerge. Adults forage on a variety of nectar producing flowering plants, though sulfur-flower buckwheat (Eriogonum umbellatum Torr.) and least tarweed (Hemizonella minima A. Gray) seem to be favorites. The lifespan of an adult is thought to be only a few weeks (USFWS 2015b).

The biology of Leona’s little blue is very closely tied to its larval host plant, spurry buckwheat. Spurry buckwheat is considered a pioneer plant, colonizing disturbed sites and other open, less vegetated areas (Meyer 2008).

Known stressors to the species and its habitat include timber management, lodgepole pine encroachment, fire, fire suppression, invasive plants, and competition from other invertebrates (USFWS 2015b). The biggest threats to habitat are lodgepole pine encroachment and invasive plants. Timber management can alter or destroy habitat, but the reduction in forested areas provides almost immediate benefits to Leona’s little blue, balancing out negative impacts from timber management and lodgepole pine encroachment (USFWS 2015b).

The single known population of Leona’s little blue butterfly does not occur on or near the Fremont National Forest. Projects on the Forest would have no impact to Leona’s little blue butterfly.

Mardon skipper

Photo by Tom Kogut USFS

Mardon skipper is a rare butterfly found in four disjunct populations in the: 1) south Puget Sound area, 2) Cascade Mountains in southern Washington, 3) Siskiyou Mountains in southern Oregon, and 4) extreme northwest California (see Figure 24). Extensive surveys for over a decade of potential habitat in Washington, Oregon, and California increased the number of known mardon skipper sites from 14 in 1999 to 165 in 2012 in the 4 above listed areas (Hatfield et al. 2015). In Oregon it is found in Curry, and Jackson Counties (Nature Serve 2017). NatureServe (2017) ranks this species as globally imperiled (G2) and nationally imperiled to vulnerable (N2N3); and imperiled in the state of Oregon (S2).

Mardon skippers are part of the grass-feeding butterfly family (Hesperiidae), meaning the larvae feed exclusively on graminoids (Hatfield et al. 2015). It is typically found in small grasslands and meadows, with most known sites in small openings within forests or woodlands (USFWS 2005b). Occupancy within meadow habitats is patchy and distribution is not usually consistent across an entire area. Mardon skipper rely on native, fescue-dominated grasslands (Black et al. 2005), depositing eggs on bunchgrass and sedge species with host plants generally being Idaho fescue (Festuca idahoendsis) (Pyle 2002). While grass species for oviposition varies, there does appear to be plant specificity within localities. Hatched larvae feed on fescue through late 68

summer and into fall before hibernating for winter. Adults do not all emerge on the same date, extending the flight period from May to early July, and live between 5 – 14 days. Adults forage on a variety of flowering species, with the most common observations of foraging in Oregon sites being on Potentilla diversifolia Lehm. (Hatfield et al. 2015).

Figure 27. Mardon Skipper Range Map (Hatfield et al. 2015)

Threats to mardon skipper are mainly from vegetation changes caused by: encroachment of nonnative and native vegetation into meadows and grasslands; succession of grassland to forest from fire suppression, inappropriate fires; human disturbance associated with roads, recreation and development; and grazing, as well as herbicides and pesticide use (USFWS 2010).

The closest known mardon skipper site to the Fremont National Forest is near Hyatt Lake Reservoir within the Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument. The Fremont National Forest is outside the known range for mardon skipper. Projects on the Forest would have no impact to mardon skipper.

Modoc Rim sideband

Modoc Rim sideband is an Oregon endemic terrestrial mollusk documented on only one National Forest (Winema NF) and found in rocky habitats near springs along Upper Klamath Lake. Known only from a small area on the southeast and west of Upper Klamath Lake, in Klamath County Oregon, including sites on the sides of the lake (Stone and Huff 2010). NatureServe (2017) ranks this species globally as critically imperiled (T1) and critically imperiled nationally (N1), and critically imperiled in the state of Oregon (S1).

Modoc Rim sideband is similar to, but approximately 40% smaller than Monadenia fidelis fidelis, but the biology of the species is not well understood. Much of the information for Modoc Rim sideband is for Monadenia fidelis species as a whole, and not this particular subspecies. The extent of the ranges of subspecies of Monadenia fidelis is typically limited, with each subspecies being described from a portion of a physiographic province or even a single county. Where the ranges overlap, significant mixing occurs and intermediate forms are common. Distribution of occupied habitat within each range is uncertain, due to uneven sampling and documentation across all watersheds (Stone and Huff 2010, Frest and Johannes 2000).

The parent species, Monadenia fidelis, is found in mesic forest habitats or near springs or other water sources in forest situations, generally with rock substrates or large woody debris and logs for refugia (Frest and Johannes 2000). Many species are known to be arboreal, climbing trees to forage on lichens and using moss accumulations in the canopy as possible refugia sites in winter.

The Modoc Rim sideband is found on large scale dry and open basalt talus at medium to high elevation. It may also occur under old growth logs and in rockpiles in wetted rocky areas on the lakeshore of Upper Klamath Lake in sage scrub habitat, and in mixed pine-Douglas fir forest or rather open grasslands in such forests west of Klamath Lake in the Cascades. It is typically associated with seeps and springs at the base of talus deposits or in more open settings near the lake (Stone and Huff 2010, Frest and Johannes 2000).

Threats to the species include talus mining and quarrying in the vicinity of remaining sites. Road building and road and railroad track maintenance along US Highway 97 and Oregon Highway 140 corridors also pose a threat, as well as roadside and trackside spraying for weed control. Rockslides occurred in the mid-1990’s in these areas and corrective measures may eliminate colonies (Frest and Johannes 2000).

The Fremont National Forest is outside the limited range of Modoc Rim sideband. Projects on the Forest would have no impact to Modoc Rim sideband.

Siskiyou Hesperian

Photo credit William P. Leonard

Siskiyou hesperian is a small terrestrial mollusk found in northern California and southern Oregon in Jackson, Josephine, Douglas, and Klamath Counties (NatureServe 2017). NatureServe (2017) ranks this species as globally imperiled and nationally imperiled (N2), and critically imperiled (S1) in the state of Oregon. It is a species of conservation concern in the East Cascades (EC) ecoregion.

This small terrestrial snail is found near springs or seeps, in deep leaf litter along stream banks, and under debris on moist ground. It prefers moist valley, ravine, gorge, or talus sites near lower slopes not subject to regular flooding, and may occur in areas with running water or alongside streams and spring pools (Frest and Johannes 1996). This species may also be found in marsh areas under woody debris (Burke 2013). Little is known regarding the feeding habits, growth, reproduction, or life span of Siskiyou hesperian, but Vespericola snails in general feed by scraping algae, yeast, bacteria, and diatoms from rock and woody surfaces, and may also consume green plant materials (Hatfield et al. 2015b).

Threats to Siskiyou hesperian include habitat loss and alteration. Removal of forest overstory from logging can dry important subterranean refugia and result in a loss of aestivating individuals (Frest and Johannes 2000). Refugia includes logs, snags, fallen branches, and other forms of coarse woody debris, as well as areas with thick leaf litter. Since land mollusks are small animals with limited mobility and dispersal capabilities, maintenance of refugia in disturbed habitat is particularly important for this group. Woody debris and litter provide islands of habitat, food, and protection from microclmatic extremes, increasing species’ tolerance of temporarily inhospitable environments (Jordan and Black 2012). Concentrated use of riparian areas by livestock may also degrade habitat, as can development for agriculture or human use (Frest and Johannes 2000).

Siskiyou hesperien has not been documented on the Fremont National Forest during mollusk surveys. The Fremont NF is outside of the known current range for Siskiyou hesperian. Projects on the Forest will have no impact on Siskiyou hesperian.

Traveling sideband

Photo credit William P. Leonard (Burke 2013)

Traveling sideband is an Oregon endemic terrestrial mollusk known from southwest Oregon and extreme northwest California (Del Norte and Siskiyou Counties). In Oregon, it has been documented at low to moderate elevations from Jackson, Douglas, Josephine, and Klamath Counties (Stone et al. 2015). The extent of the ranges of subspecies of Monadenia fidelis is typically limited, with each subspecies being described from a portion of a physiographic province or even a single county. The subspecies traveling sideband is now known to have a broad distribution in Josephine and Jackson Counties and southern Douglas County, OR, with a few records in western Klamath County and far northern Del Norte and Siskiyou Counties, CA. It is suspected on the Fremont-Winema National Forest due to three unconfirmed observations on the Klamath District (Stone et al. 2015). NatureServe (2017) ranks this species as globally (T1) and nationally (N1) critically imperiled, and critically imperiled (S1) in the state of Oregon.

Figure 28. Known records of Monadenia fidelis celeuthia in Oregon on Forest Service and BLM land. (Note: Given taxonomic uncertainty around the subspecies, it is recommended records on this map be re- evaluated, preferably using genetic analysis, to determine species/subspecies identification).

The parent species, Monadenia fidelis, is found in mesic forest habitats or near springs or other water sources in forest situations, generally with rock substrates or large woody depris and logs for refugia (Frest and Johannes 2000). Many species are known to be arboreal, climbing trees to forage on lichens and using moss accumulations in the canopy as possible refugia sites in winter.

Traveling sideband is found at low elevation in unaltered, somewhat dry and open forested terrain (Frest and Johannes 2000). It can be found in basalt talus and rock outcrops with oak and maple overstory component; along spring runs in rocks and moist vegetation and moss within mixed conifer-hardwood forest (western red cedar and maple); and in very moist, silty alluvial benches adjacent to creeks in mixed conifer-hardwood forest (western red cedar, Douglas fir and big-leaf maple) (Stone et al. 2015). Frest and Johannes (1993) suggest it is likely an old growth and riparian associate. Most sites with this taxon are seasonally moist, but rather dry, exposed, and rocky in comparison to nearby sites. Traveling sideband appears to favor shaded basalt talus and outcrops, not open talus.

While the biology of traveling sideband is not well understood, the parent species is known to be mainly crepuscular (active at dawn and dusk) during the moist spring and fall seasons. During the summer, snails aestivate deep in talus accumulations adjacent to streams or springs, which serve as refuge sites from desiccation. In moister seasons, daily refugia can include down wood, rock, or accumulations of litter (Frest and Johannes 2000). The diet of traveling sideband is not known, but other Monadenia species feed on a variety of fungi and plants. Most Monadenia have life spans of 10-15 years, are slow growing, and may not reach maturity for 8-10 years (Perez and Cordeiro 2008).

Threats to traveling sideband include logging and grazing in limited areas of occurrence (Frest and Johannes 2000). Removal or reduction of forest canopy and increased sun exposure from logging or other habitat altering or removal activities can result in drying of important subterranean refugia sites, reduction in fungal food sources, and loss of aestivating individuals. Since many members of this genus are arboreal, at least during portions of the year, tree falling may result in direst mortality to individuals in trees. Concentrated use of riparian areas by livestock may also degrade available loose soil and litter habitat components for foraging and breeding (Stone et al. 2015). Maintaining areas of undisturbed forest, preferably around important habitat features such as moist rock talus and outcrops, old growth forest, large down woody debris, and riparian areas can minimize impacts to traveling sideband.

Traveling sideband has not been documented on the Fremont National Forest during mollusk surveys. The Fremont NF is outside of the known current range for traveling sideband. Projects on the Forest will have no impact on traveling sideband.

Western Bumble bee

Photo credit – Cheran Cavanaugh

Western bumble bee was historically broadly distributed across the west coast of North America from Alaska to central California, east through Alberta and western South Dakota, and south to Arizona and New Mexico (Williams et al. 2014). A range wide analysis including more than 73,000 records of eight bumble bee species suggests that western bumble bee has undergone a 28% range decline between recent (2007-2009) and historic (1900-1999) time periods (Cameron et al. 2011). A separate, unpublished analysis comparing the current (2002-2012) and historic (1805-2001) ranges of western bumble bee (using a database of more than 200,000 records of 43 species of North American bumble bees developed by Williams et al. 2014) suggests that this species has declined from 50% of its historic range (Jepsen et al. 2014). The relative abundance of western bumble bee has declined by 75% (Jepsen et al. 2014). Declines were found to be most significant at the edges of this species’ range (Jepsen et al. 2014). In Oregon and Washington, western bumble bee populations are currently largely restricted to high elevation sites (Jepsen et al. 2014), and the species is no longer found in the western portions of either state where it was once common (Cameron et al. 2011). In Oregon the species occurs in Baker, Clackamas, Hood River, Jackson, Polk, Union, Wallowa, Klamath and Lake Counties (NatureServe 2017). NatureServe (2017) ranks this species as globally apparently secure (G4) and nationally imperiled to vulnerable (N2N3), and critically imperiled (S1) in the state of Oregon.

Western bumble bees form annual colonies initiated by single queens. After mating, new queens dig a hole and hibernate over winter, while the rest of the colony dies out. In the late winter or early spring, each new queen emerges from hibernation and selects a nest site. Underground sites are often a pre-existing hole such as an abandoned rodent hole, while above ground sites can sometime be found in old bird nests. Bumble bees are generalist species gathering pollen and nectar from a wide variety of flowering plants and foraging relatively long distances from the nest (Osborne et al. 1999). They need a constant supply of flowers in bloom (Evans et al. 2008).

Bumble bees are excellent pollinators of many crops and wild flowers, and for some flora are more efficient pollinators than honey bees (Evans et al. 2008). While a flowering plant may receive visits from dozens of different insects, only a few may actually be helping the plant by pollinating it. Although western bumble bee is a generalist pollinator like most bumble bee species, some of the known food plants are: Ceanothus, Centaurea, Chrysothamnus, Cirsium, Geranium, Grindellia, Lupinus, Melilotus, Monardella, Rubus, Solidago, and Trifolium (Williams et al. 2014).

During later stages of colony development, production of new queens is dependent on access to sufficient quantities of pollen (Evans et al. 2008). Non-forested upland habitats and riparian areas on the Forest are likely to provide the most suitable foraging habitat since they contain the greatest abundance and diversity of forbs.

The Fremont-Winema National Forest has a record of 20 historic sites for western bumble bee across the Forest. Most of the historic records date back to the 1930’s, with a few from the late 50’s, one from the 90’s, and three observations of western bumble bee from the same location in 2007 – 2009. Between 2015 and 2018, the Forest surveyed historic sites as well as other high probability habitat. After surveying over 50 sites and recording thousands of bumble bees over 4 years, western bumble bee was only detected at 2 survey sites in 2017, one each on the Winema and Fremont sides of the Forest, and 2 survey sites in 2018 (so far), again with one site on each side of the Forest.

According to Hatfield et al. (2012) threats to the Bombus genus, including western bumble bee, include habitat fragmentation, overgrazing, pesticide use, reduced genetic diversity, introduction of nonnative pathogens, competition with honey bees, and climate change. The main cause of population decline in distribution and abundance of western bumble bee is thought to be the result of an introduction of nonnative fungal and protozoan parasites to North American bumble bees via the commercial bumble bee industry (Evans et al. 2008). While exotic disease organisms may be the main cause of widespread loses of western bumble bee, loss of habitat, habitat fragmentation, insecticide use, invasive plants and insects, air pollution, and climate change may also be playing a role in the decline of this species (Evans et al. 2008).

Primary Excavators and Dead Wood Dependent Species

Northern flicker - Photo by Bill Bunn White-breasted nuthatch – Photo by Mike E. Worthington Primary excavators such as woodpeckers and nuthatches are forest dwelling birds specialized for foraging on and nesting in decaying wood. They require trees with rotted heartwood for excavating nest holes and for a foraging substrate (Jackman 1974). This foraging substrate 75

consists of insects such as bark and wood boring beetles on the surface of trees. The impact of foraging by primary excavators is sometimes great enough to prevent insect outbreaks (Jackman 1974).

The most significant role primary excavators play in the forest community is provision of nest holes for small mammals or for cavity nesting birds that do not excavate their own holes (Jackman 1974). Approximately 31 percent of total bird fauna use snags for nesting and denning, foraging, roosting, communicating, and as hunting and resting perches (Raphael & White 1984). Research identifies 96 wildlife species associated with snags and 86 species associated with down wood (Rose et al. 2001). Most snag-using wildlife species are associated with snags greater than 14.2 inches DBH with about a third of these using snags greater than 29.1 inches DBH.

Dead wood is also a fundamental feature of healthy forests. Logs contribute to the hydrology of a site and provide microhabitats protecting wood-dwelling organisms with moist, thermally stable, predator-protected niches in which to live (Torgersen 2002). Logs can be considered places in which animals such as American marten forage, or places animals such as fawns or black bear use for hiding cover and protection. Logs are also used for lookouts, feeding and reproduction, sources and storage of food, and bedding (Franklin et al. 1981). Persistence of large logs has special importance in providing wildlife with habitat continuity over long periods and through major disturbances (Franklin et al. 1981) and they have more potential uses as wildlife habitat (Rose et al. 2001). Large accumulations of decaying wood provide wildlife habitat and influence basic ecosystem processes such as soil development and productivity, nutrient immobilization and mineralization, and nitrogen fixing. On the other hand, forests east of the Cascade crest are also strongly influenced by accumulations of decaying wood setting the stage for ecosystem disturbances from fire, insects, and disease (Rose et al. 2001).

Studies on effects of prescribed fire on downed wood and forest structure observed increases in snag densities, including large diameter snags (Saab et al. 2006). This study also observed nearly half of all large down wood (greater than 9 inches diameter at the large end) was consumed by prescribed fire (Saab et al. 2006). Other studies have shown a decrease in overall snag densities. Fire severity during burn operations contributes largely to expected impacts to snags and down wood loss and recruitment.

Primary excavators are found across the Fremont National Forest in forested and hardwood areas with standing or down dead wood. References

Agee, J.K. 1993. Fire ecology of Pacific Northwest Forests. Island Press, Washington D.C. 493 pp.

Agee, J.K. 1994. Fire and weather disturbances in terrestrial ecosystems of the eastern cascades. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-320. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 52pp. [Available online] http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/pubs/gtr320.pdf [18 December 2017]

Ailes, I. W. 1980. Breeding biology and habitat use of the Upland Sandpiper in central Wisconsin. Passenger Pigeon no. 42:53-63. 76

Altman, B. 2000. Conservation strategy for landbirds of the east-slope of the Cascade Mountains of eastern Oregon and Washington. Version 1.0. Oregon-Washington Partners in Flight. [Available online] http://www.orwapif.org/sites/default/files/east_slope.pdf. [18 December 2017]

Altman, B., and A. Holmes. 2000. Conservation strategy for landbirds in the Columbia Plateau of eastern Oregon and Washington. Version 1.0. Oregon-Washington Partners in Flight. [Available online] http://www.orwapif.org/sites/default/files/columbia_basin.pdf. [18 December 2017]

Aubrey, K.B., K.S. McKelvey, and J.P. Copeland. 2007. Distribution and Broadscale Habitat Relations of the Wolverine in the Contiguous United States. The Journal of Wildlife Management. Vol. 71, No.7 (Sep., 2007), pp. 2147-2158.

Banci, V. 1994. Wolverine. In: L. F. Ruggiero, K. B. Aubrey, S. W. Buskirk, L. J. Lyon, and W. J. Zielinski (eds), The scientific basis for conserving forest carnivores. American marten, fisher, lynx and wolverine in the western United States, pp. 99–123. United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Fort Collins, Colorado, USA.

Barnett, J. K. and J. A. Crawford. 1994. Pre-laying nutrition of sage grouse hens in Oregon. Journal of Range Management. 47:1114-118.

Beauvais, G.P., E. Sequin, J. Rachlow, R. Dixon, B. Bosworth, A. Kozlowski, C. Carey, P. Bartels, M. Obradovitch, T. Forbes, and D. Hays. 2008. Brachylagus idahoensis. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2008: e.T2963A9507224. http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2008.RLTS.T2963A9507224.en

Beedy, Edward C., W. J. Hamilton III, R.J. Meese, D.A. Airola, and P. Pyle. 2017. Tricolored Blackbird (Agelaius tricolor), version 3.0. In The Birds of North America (P. G. Rodewald, editor). Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, New York, USA. https://doi.org/10.2173/bna.tribla.03

Bienz, C., and K. Halstead. 2010. Oregon Coordinated Aquatic Bird Monitoring: Description of Important Aquatic Bird Site. Sycan Marsh, BCS number: 48-26. http://www.avianknowledgenorthwest.net/images/aknw/pdfs_site_descriptions/east_side_2008/s ycanmarsh_sitedesc.pdf

Black S.H. and D.M. Vaughan. 2005. Species Profile: Polities mardon. In Shepherd, M. D., D.M. Vaughan, and S.H. Black (Eds). 2005. Red List of Pollinator Insects of North America. CD- ROM Version 1 (May 2005). Portland, OR: The Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation.

Bookhout, T. A. and J. R. Stenzel. 1987. Habitat and movements of breeding Yellow Rails. Wilson Bull. no. 99:441-447.

Bowen, B. S. and A. D. Kruse. 1993. Effects of grazing on nesting by Upland Sandpipers in southcentral North Dakota. Journal of Wildlife Management. no. 57:291-301.

Boyce Jr., D.A., C.M. White, B.A. Haak, J.A. Boyce, R.A. Meredith. 1980. Peregrine Falcon Nesting Habitat Survey on the Fremont National Forest. USFS. Wilderness Research Institute, Inc. Sebastopol, CA.

Bradley, P., M. Ports, and T.J. Weller. 2005. Western Bat Working Group Species Info account for Myotis thysanodes – fringed myotis. Available online http://wbwg.org/western-bat-species/ Accessed Jan. 24, 2018.

Brown, C. R, and S. Tarof. 2013. Purple martin (Progne subis). In A. Poole, ed. The Birds of North America Online. Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, NY.

Bull, E.L. 2003. Pileated Woodpecker. Pp. 372-374 in Birds or Oregon: A General Reference. D.B. Marshall, M.G. Hunter, and A.L. Contreras, Eds. Oregon State University Press, Corvallis, OR.

Bull, E.L. 2005. Ecology of the Columbia Spotted Frog in Northeast Oregon. General Technical Report PNW-GTR-640; Portland, Oregon. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 46p.

Bull, E. L., and T. W. Heater. 1995. Intraspecific predation on American marten. Northwestern Naturalist 76:132-134.

Bull, E. L., S. R. Peterson, and J. W. Thomas. 1986. Resource partitioning among woodpeckers in northeastern Oregon. U.S. Dept. Agriculture. Forest Service. Pacific Northwest Research Station. Research Note PNW-444. June 1986.

Burke, T. E. 2013. Land Snails and Slugs of the Pacific Northwest. Oregon State University Press. Corvallis.

Buss, I. O. 1951. The Upland Plover in southwestern Yukon Territory. Arctic no. 4:204-213.

Busse, M.D. and G. M. Riegel. 2009. Response of antelope bitterbrush to repeated prescribed burning in Central Oregon ponderosa pine forests. Forest Ecology and Management 257 (2009) 904–910.

Busse, M.D., S.A. Simon, and G.M. Riegel. 1999. Tree-growth and understory responses to low- severity prescribed burning in thinned Pinus ponderosa forests of central Oregon. Forest Science Vol. 46, No. 2, May 2000.

Cahall, R.E. 2007. Influences of salvage logging on forest birds after fire in the eastern Cascades, Oregon. M.S. Thesis. Oregon State University, Corvallis. 132pp.

Cahall, R.E. and Hayes, J.P. 2009. Influences of postfire salvage logging on forest birds in the Eastern Cascades, Oregon, USA. Forest Ecology and Management 257:3 1119-1128.

Cameron, S. A., J. D. Lozier, J. P. Strange, J. B. Koch, N. Cordes, L. F. Solter, and T. L. Griswold. 2011. Patterns of widespread decline in North American bumble bees. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 108:662–667.

Clark, R.G. 1979. Seasonal response of bitterbrush to burning and clipping in Eastern Oregon. M.S. Thesis, Oregon State Univ., Corvallis. 109 p.

Connelly, J. W., Browers, H. W., and Gates, R. J. 1988. Seasonal movements of sage grouse in southeastern Idaho. J. Wildl. Manage. 52:116-122.

Connelly, J. W., Schroeder, M.A., Sands, A.R., and Braun, C. E. 2000. Guidelines to manage sage grouse populations and their habitats. Wildlife Society Bulletin 28:967-985.

Connelly, J. W., Knick, S.T., Braun, C.E., Baker, W.L, Beever, E.A., Christiansen, T., Doherty, K.E., Garton, E.O., Hanser, S.E., Johnson, D.H., Leu, M. Miller, R.F. Naugle, D.E., Oyler-McCance, S.J., Pyke, D.A., Reese, K.P., Schroeder, M.A., Stiver, S.J., Walker, B.L., and Wisdom, M. J. 2011. Conservation of Greater Sage-Grouse. Pp 549-563 in Knick, S (editor.) Greater Sage- Grouse: Ecology and Conservation of a Landscape Species and Its Habitats, University of California Press, Berkeley California.

Cook, J.G, T.J. Hershey and L.L. Irwin. 1994. Vegetative response to burning on Wyoming mountain-shrub big game ranges. Journal of Range Management. 47:296-301.

Copeland, J.P. et al. 2010. The bioclimatic envelope of the wolverine (Gulo gulo): do climatic constraints limit its geographic distribution. Canadian Journal of Zoology, 2010, 88 (3), 233-246, 10.1139/Z09-136.

Csuti, B.A., A.J. Kimerling, T.A. O’Neil, M.M. Shaughnessy, E.P. Gaines, and M.M. Huso. 1997. Atlas of Oregon Wildlife: Distribution, Habitat, and Natural History. Oregon State University Press, Corvallis, OR. 492 pp.

Davis, R. 2010. Johnson's Hairstreak Surveys in Oregon and Washington. Unpublished report. On file with: interagency Special Status Species Program, USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management, Portland, OR.

Davis, R. and K. Weaver. 2011. Johnson's Hairstreak Surveys in Oregon and Washington. Unpublished report. On file with: interagency Special Status Species Program, USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management, Portland, OR.

Daw, S.K. and S. DeStefano. 2001. Forest Characteristics of Northern Goshawk Nest Stands and Post-Fledging Areas in Oregon. The Journal of Wildlife Management, Vol. 65, No.1 (Jan., 2001), pp. 59-65. Available at http://www.jstor.org/stable/3803277 Accessed Sept. 3, 2016.

Dealy, J.E. 1971. Habitat characteristics for the Silver Lake mule deer range. Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station. Forest Service, US Department of Agriculture, Portland, OR.

Dechant, J. A., M. F. Dinkins, D. H. Johnson, L. D. Igl and C. M. Goldade. 2002. Effects of management practices on grassland birds: Upland Sandpiper. Northern Prairie Wildl. Res. Center 1999a.

Demarchi, M.W. and Bunnell F.L. 1993. Estimating canopy effects on summer thermal cover for Cervidae (deer family). Can. J. For. Res. Vol. 23.

DeSmet, K. D. 1987. Organochlorines, predators and reproductive success of the red-necked grebe in southern Manitoba. Condor 89:460-467.

Dixon, R. D. and V.A. Saab. 2000. Black-backed Woodpecker (Picoides arcticus), The Birds of North America Online (A. Poole, Ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology; Retrieved from the Birds of North America Online: [Available Online]

Dobler F. C. and K.R. Dixon. 1990. Chapter 6: The Pygmy Rabbit Brachylagus idahoensis. In: J. A. Chapman and J. C. E. Flux (eds), Rabbits, Hares and Pikas: Status survey and conservation action plan, pp. 111-115. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland.

Dornfeld, E.J. 1980. The Butterflies of Oregon. Timber Press, Forest Grove, Oregon. Agriades aquilo podarce. 276 pp.

Driscoll, R.S. 1963. Sprouting bitterbrush in central Oregon. Ecology 44:820-821.

Drut, M. S., J.A. Crawford, and M.A. Gregg. 1994. Brood habitat use by sage grouse in Oregon. Great Basin Naturalist. 54:170-176.

Dunn, P. O., and C.E. Braun. 1986. Summer habitat use by adult female and juvenile sage grouse. Journal of Wildlife. Management. 50:228-235.

Eddleman, W. R., F. L. Knopf, B. Meanley, F. A. Reid, and R. Zembal. 1988. Conservation of North American Rallids. Wilson Bull. no. 100:458-475.

Evans, E., R. Thorp, S. Jepsen, and S. H. Black. 2008. Status Review of Three Formerly Common Species of Bumble Bee in the Subgenus Bombus. Prepared for the Xerces Society of Invertebrate Conservation Available Online] http://www.xerces.org/wp- content/uploads/2008/12/xerces_2008_bombus_status_review.pdf. [18 December 2017]

Fischer, R. A., A.D. Apa, W.L. Wakkinen, K.P. Reese, and J.W. Connelly. 1993. Nesting-area fidelity of sage grouse in southeastern Idaho. Condor 95:1038-1041.

Forristal, C. 2009. Influence of postfire salvage logging on black-backed woodpecker nest-site selection and nest survival. M.S. Thesis. Montana State University, Bozeman, MT. 93pp.

Franklin, J.F., K. Cromack, Jr., W. Denison, A. McKee, C. Maser, J. Sedell, F. Swanson, and G. Juday. 1981. Ecological characteristics of old-growth Douglas-fir forests. PNW-GTR-118. USDA Forest Service. PNW Research Station. [Available online] https://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/pubs/pnw_gtr118.pdf [18 December 2017].

Frest, T.J. and E.J. Johannes. 1993. Mollusc species of special concern within the range of the northern spotted owl. Final report to Forest Ecosystem Management Working Group, USDA Forest Service. Deixis Consultants, Seattle, WA. 156 pp. + appendix.

Frest, T. J., and E.J. Johannes. 1996. Freshwater Mollusks of the Upper Klamath Drainage, Oregon. Deixis consultants. Yearly Report Prepared for Oregon Natural Heritage Program, Portland, OR. 234 pp.

Frest, T. J., and E.J. Johannes. 2000. A Baseline Mollusk Survey of Southwestern Oregon, with Emphasis on the Rogue and Umpqua River Drainages. Deixis Consultants Year 2000 Report. Prepared for: Oregon Natural heritage Program. Portland, OR. 213 pp.

Garrett, K. L., M. G. Raphael, and R.D. Dixon. 1996. White-headed Woodpecker (Picoides albolarvatus), version 2.0. In The Birds of North America (P. G. Rodewald, editor). Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, New York, USA. https://doi.org/10.2173/bna.252

Gauthier, G. 2014. Bufflehead (Bucephala albeola), version 2.0. In The Birds of North America (P. G. Rodewald, editor). Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, New York, USA. https://doi.org/10.2173/bna.67

Gay, D. 1998. A test of the southcentral Oregon mule deer habitat suitability index. M.S. thesis, Univ. of Idaho, Moscow, Idaho.

Gilligan, J., M. Smith, D. Rogers, and A. Contreras eds. 1994. Birds of Oregon: Status and Distribution. Cinclus Publications. McMinnville, OR. 330 p.

Goggans, R., R. D. Dixon, and L. C. Seminara. 1989. Habitat use by three-toed and black-backed woodpeckers. Nongame Rep. 87-3-02. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Portland, Oregon.

Goodell, J.M. and S.T. Seager. 2015. The Northern Goshawk on the Southern Blue Mountains and Malheur National Forest: A Technical Review of its Status, Ecology and Management. The Nature Conservancy, Portland, OR. 93p.

Gowan, D. and T.E. Burke. 1999. Conservation Assessment for Pristiloma arcticum crateris, Crater Lake Tightcoil. Originally issued as Management Recommendations October 1999 by Nancy Duncan. Reconfigured by N. Duncan in 2004. USDA Forest Service Region 6 and ISDI Bureau of Land Management, Oregon and Washington. 18 pp.

Gregg, M. A., Crawford, J. A., Drut, M. S., and Delong, A. K. 1994. Vegetation cover and predation of sage grouse nests in Oregon. Journal of Wildlife Management 58:162-166.

Gutiérrez, R. J., A. B. Franklin, and W. S. Lahaye. 1995. Spotted Owl (Strix occidentalis). In A. Poole and F. Gill [eds.], The Birds of North America, No. 179. The Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, and The American Ornithologists' Union, Washington, DC.

Hammond, P.C., and D.V. McCorkle. 1999. A new species of Philotiella from the Oregon Cascade Range (Lepidoptera: Lycaenidae). Holarctic Lepidoptera 6:77-82.

Hargis, C. D., J. A. Bissonette, and D. L. Turner. 1999. The influence of forest fragmentation and landscape pattern on American martens. Journal of Applied Ecology 36:157-172.

Hatfield, R., S. Jepsen, E. Mader, S. H. Black, and M. Shepherd. 2012. Conserving Bumble Bees: Guidelines for Creating and Managing Habitat for America’s Declining Pollinators. The Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation. Available at http://www.xerces.org/bumblebees/guidelines.

Hatfield, R. S.H. Black, S. Jepsen. 2015a. The Imperiled Mardon Skipper Butterfly: An Initial Conservation Success. Https://www.researchgate.net/publication/281463550

Hatfield, R. and S.F. Jordan. 2015b. Species Fact Sheet: Siskiyou Hesperian (Vespericola sierranus). Edited by S. Jepsen.

Hayes, G., and G. J. Wiles. 2013. Washington bat conservation plan. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, Washington. viii + 138 pp.

Herziger, C. and G.L. Ivey. 2003. American White Pelican. Pp 51-53 in Birds or Oregon: A General Reference. D.B. Marshall, M.G. Hunter, and A.L. Contreras, Eds. Oregon State University Press, Corvallis, OR.

Hinchliff, J. 1994. An atlas of Oregon Butterflies. Oregon State University Bookstore, Corvallis; 176 p.

Hollenbeck, J., V. A. Saab, and R. W. Frenzel. 2011. Habitat suitability and nest survival of white- headed woodpeckers in unburned forests of Oregon. Journal of Wildlife Management 75(5):1061-1071. https://www.fs.fed.us/rmrs/publications/habitat-suitability-and-nest-survival- white-headed-woodpeckers-unburned-forests-oregon [18 December 2017].

Horvath, E. G. 1999. Oregon Purple Martins: Distribution, Abundance, and Nest Site Characteristics of Purple Martins in Oregon. Prepared for Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. 7 pp. Available on-line https://www.purple-martin.org/WesternMartins/OregonHorvath.htm Accessed February 14, 2018.

Horvath, E. G. 2003. Purple Martin. Pp. 428-430 in Birds or Oregon: A General Reference. D.B. Marshall, M.G. Hunter, and A.L. Contreras, Eds. Oregon State University Press, Corvallis, OR.

Houston, C. S., C. Jackson, and D. E. Bowen Jr. 2011. Upland Sandpiper (Bartramia longicauda), The Birds of North America (P. G. Rodewald, Ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology; Retrieved from the Birds of North America: https://birdsna.org/Species- Account/bna/species/uplsan/introduction [18 December 2017]

Hughes, Janice M. 2015. Yellow-billed Cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus), version 2.0. In The Birds of North America (P. G. Rodewald, editor). Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, New York, USA. https://doi.org/10.2173/bna.418

Inman, R.M. 2013. Wolverine Ecology and Conservation in the Western United States. Doctoral Thesis No. 2013:4 Faculty of Natural Resources and Agricultural Sciences. Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences. Uppsala. 145 pp.

Innes, R.J. 2013. Odocoileus hemionus. In: Fire Effects Information System, [Online] U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory (Producer). Available www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/animals/mammal/odhe/all.html [2018, August 13].

Jackman, S.M. 1974. Woodpeckers of the Pacific Northwest: their characteristics and their role in the Forests. Master’s thesis. Oregon State University, Corvallis. 147 pp.

James, D. G. 2012. Observations on the life history and field biology of an imperiled butterfly Philotiella leona (Lepidoptera: Lycaenidae) from South Central Oregon. The Journal of Research on the Lepidoptera 45:93-99.

Jepsen, S., S.F. Jordan, and R. Huff. 2014. Species Fact Sheet for Western Bumble Bee (Bombus occidentalis). Prepared by Sarina Jepsen, Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation. Edited by Sarah Foltz Jordan with final edits by Rob Huff.

Jones, L.L.C., W.P. Leonard, and D.H. Olsen. 2005. Amphibians of the Pacific Northwest. Seattle Audubon Society, Seattle, WA. 227 pp.

Jordan, S.F., and S. H. Black. 2012. Effects of Forest Land Management on Terrestrial Mollusks: A Literature Review. The Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation. Portland, OR. 87 pp.

Kay, C.E. 1997. Is Aspen Doomed? Journal of Forestry, Volume 95, Issue 5, 1 May 1997, Pages 4- 11.

Keown, K. 2011. Northern Goshawk (Accipiter gentilis) Management Indicator Species Assessment Wallowa-Whitman National Forest. On file Fremont-Winema National Forest Supervisor’s Office.

Kirsch, L. M. and K. F. Higgins. 1976. Upland Sandpiper nesting and management in North Dakota. Wildl. Soc. Bull. no. 4:16-20.

Knopf, F. L. and R. M. Evans. 2004. American White Pelican (Pelecanus erythrorhynchos), version 2.0. In The Birds of North America (P. G. Rodewald, editor). Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, New York, USA. https://doi.org/10.2173/bna.57

Kralovec, M. L., R.L. Knight, G.R. Craig, and R.G. McLean. 1992. Nesting productivity, food habits, and nest sites of bald eagles in Colorado and southeastern Wyoming. Southwestern Naturalist 37: 356-361.

Krebs, J., E. Lofroth, J. Copeland, V. Banci, D. Cooley, H. Golden, A. Magoun, R. Mulders, and B. Shults. 2004. Synthesis of survival rates and causes of mortality in North American wolverines. Journal of Wildlife Management 68: 493-502.

Landres, P.B., P. Morgan, and F.J. Swanson. 1999. Overview of the use of natural range of variability concepts in managing ecological systems. Ecological Applications 9(4):1179-1188.

Latif, Q. S., V. A. Saab, J. G. Dudley, and J.P. Hollenbeck. 2013. Ensemble modeling to predict habitat suitability for a large-scale disturbance specialist. Ecology and evolution no. 3 (13):4348- 4364.

Leston, L. and T. A. Bookhout. 2015. Yellow Rail (Coturnicops noveboracensis), The Birds of North America (P. G. Rodewald, Ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology; Retrieved from the Birds of

North America: Cornell Lab of Ornithology. https://birdsna.org/Species- Account/bna/species/yelrai [18 December 2017]

Marcot, B. G., B. C. Wales, and R. Demmer. 2003. Range maps of terrestrial species in the Interior Columbia River Basin and northern portions of the Klamath and Great Basins. PNW-GTR-583, USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, and USDI Bureau of Land Management, Portland, OR. 304 p. [Available Online] http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/publications/gtr583/ [18 December 2017]

Maser C., B.R. Mate, J.F. Franklin, and C.T. Dyrness. 1981. Natural history of Oregon coast mammals. Portland, OR: USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station. General Technical Report PNW-133. 496 p.

McAdoo J. K., S. R. Swanson, B. W. Schultz, and P. F. Brussard. 2004. Vegetation Management for Sagebrush-Associated Wildlife Species. USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-31. 2004

McConnell, B.R. and J.G. Smith. 1970. Response of understory vegetation to ponderosa pine thinning in Eastern Oregon. Journal of Range Management 23:J208-212.

McGrath, M.T, S. DeStefano, R.A. Riggs, L.L. Irwin, and G.J. Roloff. 2003. Spatially Explicit Influences on Northern Goshawk Nesting Habitat in the Interior Pacific Northwest. Wildlife Monographs, No. 154. Pp. 1-63.

Mckelvey, K.S., K.B. Aubry, Y.K. Ortega, L.F. Ruggiero, S.W. Buskirk, G.M. Koehler, C.J. Krebs, and J.R. Squires. 2000. History and distribution of lynx in the contiguous United States. In: L.F. Ruggiero, K.B. Aubry, S.W. Buskirk, G.M. Koehler, C.J. Krebs, K.S. McKelvey and J.R. Squires (eds), Ecology and Conservation of Lynx in the United States, pp. 207-264. University Press of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado.

Mellen-McLean. 2011a. MIS Information Sheet American Marten (Martes americana). On file Fremont-Winema National Forest Supervisor’s Office.

Mellen-McLean. 2011b. MIS Information Sheet Black-backed Woodpecker (Picoides arcticus). On file Fremont-Winema National Forest Supervisor’s Office.

Mellen-McLean. 2011c. MIS Information Sheet Pileated Woodpecker (Dryocopus pileatus). On file Fremont-Winema National Forest Supervisor’s Office.

Mellen-McLean. 2012. Primary Cavity Nesters/Excavators MIS Information Sheet. On file Fremont- Winema National Forest Supervisor’s Office.

Mellen-McLean, K., B. Wales, and B. Bresson. 2013. A Conservation Assessment for the White- headed woodpecker (Picoides albolarvatus). USDA Forest Service, Region 6. USDI Bureau of Land Management, Oregon and Washington.

Meyer, S.E. 2008. Polygonaceae—Buckwheat Family Eriogonum Michx.: wild-buckwheat, buckwheatbrush pp. 499–503 In Bonner, F.T. and R.P. Karrfalt (eds.) The Woody Plant Seed

Manual Agricultural Handbook 727, Washington, DC., U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 1223 pp.

Mowat, G. and B. Slough. 2003. Habitat preference of Canada lynx through a cycle in showshoe hare abundance. Can. J. Zool. 81: 1736-1745. doi: 10.1139/Z03-174.

NatureServe. 2017. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Version 7.1. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available http://explorer.natureserve.org. (Accessed: February 2018).

Nielsen-Pincus, N. and E.O. Garton. 2007. Responses of cavity-nesting birds to changes in available habitat reveal underlying determinants of nest selection. Northwestern Naturalist 88:135–146.

Nord, E.C. 1965. Autecology of bitterbrush in California. Ecological Monographs 35:307-334

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2016. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife Sensitive species list. http://www.dfw.state.or.us/wildlife/diversity/species/docs/2017_Sensitive_Species_List.pdf. (Accessed February 12, 2018).

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2017. About Grey Wolves: Wolf Biology. http://dfw.state.or.us/Wolves/about_gray_wolves.asp. Accessed July 18, 2017.

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2017b. Wildlife viewing for pelicans and cormorants. https://myodfw.com/wildlife-viewing/species/pelicans-and-cormorants Accessed February 15, 2018.

Osborne, J.L, S.J. Clark, R.J. Morris, I.H. Williams, J.R. Riley, A.D. Smith, D.R. Reynolds, and A.S. Edwards. 1999. A landscape-scale study of bumble bee foraging range and constancy, using harmonic radar. Journal of Applied Ecology 36, 519-533.

Panjabi, A. O., E. H. Dunn, P. J. Blancher, W. C. Hunter, B. Altman, J. Bart, C. J. Beardmore, H. Berlanga, G. S. Butcher, S. K. Davis, D. W. Demarest, R. Dettmers, W. Easton, H. Gomez de Silva Garza, E. E. Iñigo-Elias, D. N. Pashley, C. J. Ralph, T. D. Rich, K. V. Rosenberg, C. M. Rustay, J. M. Ruth, J. S. Wendt, and T. C. Will. 2005. The Partners in Flight handbook on species assessment. Version 2005. Partners in Flight Technical Series No. 3. Rocky Mountain Bird Observatory website: http://www.rmbo.org/pubs/downloads/Handbook2005.pdf

Pearl, C.A, S.K. Galvan, M.J. Adams, and B. McCreary. 2010. Columbia Spotted Frog (Rana luteiventris) in Southeastern Oregon: A Survey of Historical Localities, 2009: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2010-1235, 96p.

Peek, J.M., J.A. Korol, and B.C. Dennis. 1999. A review and analysis of habitat relationships and mule deer populations in south-central Oregon. Univ. of Idaho. Moscow, ID.

Perez, K.E. and J.R. Cordeiro. 2008. A Guide for Terrestrial Gastropod Identification. American Malacological Society; Proceedings of the Terrestrial Gastropod Identification Workshop. Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, Illinois. 73 pp.

Powell, R. A. 1981. Mammalian Species: Martes pennanti. The American Society of Mammalogists. No. 156, pp, 1 – 6. May 8 1981.

Powell, R. A., S. W. Buskirk, and W.J. Zielinski. 2003. Fisher and Marten. Martes pennanti and Martes americana. In: Feldhamer, George A.; Thompson, Bruce C.; Chapman, Joseph A., eds. Wild mammals of North America: Biology, management, and conservation. 2nd ed. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press: 635-649.

Powell, H.D. 2003. Black-backed Woodpecker. Pp 368-370 in Birds or Oregon: A General Reference. D.B. Marshall, M.G. Hunter, and A.L. Contreras, Eds. Oregon State University Press, Corvallis, OR.

Pyle, R.M. 2002. The Butterflies of Cascadia. A Field Guide to all the Species of Washington, Oregon, and Surrounding Territories. Seattle Audubon Society. 420 pp.

Rachlow J. L., W.A. Estes-Zumpf, and W.A. Sanchez. 2005. Natal burrows and nest of free-ranging pygmy rabbits. Western North America Naturalist 65(1): 136-139.

Range Map Compilers. Patterson, B.D., G. Ceballos, W. Sechrest, M.F. Tognelli, T. Brooks, L. Luna, P. Ortega, I. Salazar, and B.E. Young. 2003. Digital Distribution Maps of the Mammals of the Western Hemisphere, version 1.0. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia, USA.

Raphael, Martin G., and L.L.C. Jones. 1997. Characteristics of resting and denning sites of American martens in central Oregon and western Washington. pp. 146-165 in G. Proulx, H.N. Bryant, and P.M. Woodard, eds., Martes: taxonomy, ecology, techniques, and management. Provincial Museum of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.

Raphael, M. G. and M. White. 1984. Use of snags by cavity nesting birds of the Sierra Nevada. Wildl. Monogr. 86:1-66. In: Garrett, K. L., Raphael M.G., Dixon, R. D. The birds of North America, No. 509. Philadelphia, PA: The Academy of Natural Sciences; and Washington DC: The American Ornithologists’ Union.

Remington, T.E. and C.E. Braun. 1985. Sage grouse food selection in winter, North Park, Colorado. Journal of Wildlife Management 49:1055-1061.

Reynolds, R.T., R.T. Graham, M. Hildegard Reiser, R.L. Bassett, P.L. Kennedy, D.A. Boyce Jr., G. Goodwin, R. Smith, and E.L. Fisher. 1991. Management Recommendations for the Northern Goshawk in the Southwestern United States. USDA Forest Service, Southwestern Region. 182 pp.

Rose, C.L., B.G. Marcot, T.K. Mellen, J.L. Ohmann, K.L. Waddell, D.L. Lindley and B. Schreiber. 2001. Decaying wood in Pacific Northwest forests: Concepts and tools for habitat management. In: Wildlife habitat relationships in Oregon and Washington. D.H. Johnson and T.A. O’Neil, managing directors. Oregon State University Press. Pp. 580-623.

Ruggiero, L.F., K.B. Aubry, S.W. Buskirk, J.L. Lyon, and W.J. Zielinski, tech eds. 1994. The Scientific Basis for Conserving Forest Carnivores: American Marten, Fisher, Lynx, and Wolverine in the Western United States. Gen. Tec. Rep. RM-254. Ft. Collins, CO: U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 184 p.

Ruggiero, L.F., Aubry, K.B., Buskirk, S.W., Koehler, G.M., Krebs, C.J., McKelvey, K.S., and Squires, J.R. (Editors). 2000. Ecology and conservation of lynx in the United States. University Press of Colorado, Boulder, CO. pp. 265-306.

Russell, R. E., V. A. Saab, J. J. Rotella, and J. G. Dudley. 2009. Detection probabilities of woodpecker nests in mixed conifer forests in Oregon. Wilson Journal of Ornithology no. 121 (1):82-88.

Saab, V.A., L. Bate, J. Lehmkuhl, B. Dickson, S. Story, S. Jentsch, and W. Block. 2006. Changes in Down Wood and Forest Structure After Prescribed Fire in Ponderosa Pine Forests. USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-41.

Sage-Grouse Conservation Partnership. 2015. The Oregon Sage-Grouse Action Plan. Governor's Natural Resources Office. Salem, Oregon. Http://oregonexplorer.info/content/oregon-sage- grouse-action-plan?topic=203&ptopic=179.

Salwasser, H. 1979. The ecology and management of the Devil’s Garden interstate deer herd and its range. Univ. California (Berkley) PhD dissertation. 377 pp.

Sauer, J. R., J. E. Hines, and J. Fallon. 2008. The North American Breeding Bird Survey, Results and Analysis 1966 - 2007. Version 5.15.2008. , Laurel, MD. [Available Online] USGS Patuxent Wildlife Research Center [18 December 2017]

Scheuring, E. and R. Huff. 2006. Species Fact Sheet: Gray-Blue Butterfly (Plebejus (Agriades) podarce). Version 2 prepared by S.F. Jordan, edited by S. Jepsen.

Scheuering, R.W. 2003. Bufflehead. Pp. 124-126 in Birds or Oregon: A General Reference. D.B. Marshall, M.G. Hunter, and A.L. Contreras, Eds. Oregon State University Press, Corvallis, OR.

Schroeder, M. A., Young, J.R. and Braun, C.E. 1999. Greater Sage-Grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus), The Birds of North America Online (A. Poole, Ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology; Retrieved from the Birds of North America Online: http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/425 [Access Date: December 2013]

Seager, S. T., A. Markus, and A.J. Krommes. 2013. Aspen Restoration Strategy for the Fremont- Winema National Forest. Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR. 51p.

Sherman, R.J. and W.W. Chilcote. 1972. Spatial and chronological patterns of Purshia tridentata as influenced by Pinus ponderosa. Ecology, Vol. 53, No.2 pp 294-298.

Sherwin, R. and A. Piaggio. 2005. Western Bat Working Group Species Info account for Corynorhihus townsendii - Townsend's big-eared bat. Available online http://wbwg.org/western- bat-species/ Accessed Jan. 23, 2018.

Sherwin, R. and D.A. Rambaldini. 2005. Western Bat Working Group Species Info Account for Antrozous pallidus - pallid bat. Available online http://wbwg.org/western-bat-species/ Accessed January 23, 2018.

Simon, S.A. 1990. Fire effects from prescribed underburning in central Oregon ponderosa pine plant communities: first and second growing season after burning. Unpublished report on file, Fremont National Forest, Lakeview, Oregon.

Skovlin, J.M., P.F. Edgerton, and R.W. Harris. 1968. The influence of cattle management on deer and elk. Trans. North Am. Wildl. and Nat. Res. Conf. 33:169-181

Slauson, K. M., W. J. Zielinski, and J. P. Hayes. 2007. Habitat selection by American martens in coastal California. Journal of Wildlife Management 71:48-468.

Smith, B. 2003. Conservation assessment for the northern leopard frog in the Black Hills National Forest South Dakota and Wyoming. Custer, South Dakota. 77 pp.: US Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region, Black Hills National Forest.

Squires, J.R. and P.L. Kennedy. 2006. Goshawk ecology: an assessment of current knowledge and information needs for conservation and management. Studies in Avian Biology No. 31:8-62.

Stalmaster, M.V. and J.R., Newman. 1978. Behavioral responses of wintering bald eagles to human activity. Journal of Wildlife Management. 42(3):506-13.

Stern, M. A., J. F. Morawski and G. A. Rosenberg. 1993. Rediscovery and status of a disjunct population of breeding Yellow Rails in southern Oregon. Condor no. 95:1024-1027.

Stern, M.A. and K.J. Popper. 2003. Yellow Rail. Pp. 190-192 in Birds or Oregon: A General Reference. D.B. Marshall, M.G. Hunter, and A.L. Contreras, Eds. Oregon State University Press, Corvallis, OR.

Stone, T. and R. Huff. 2010. Species Fact Sheet for Modoc Rim sideband (Monadenia fidelis n. ssp.). Prepared by Theresa Stone 2009; Edited by Rob Huff 2010.

Stone, T., R. Huff, C. Fallon, and S. Jepsen. 2015. Species Fact Sheet for Traveling Sideband (Monadenia fidelis celeuthia). Version 1. Prepared by Theresa Stone 2009, Edited by Rob Huff 2010; Version 2. Prepared by Candace Fallon; Edited by Sarina Jepson.

Stout, B. E. and G. L. Nuechterlein. 1999. Red-necked Grebe (Podiceps grisegena), version 2.0. In The Birds of North America (P. G. Rodewald, editor). Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, New York, USA. https://doi.org/10.2173/bna.465

Thomas, J. W., E. D. Forsman, J. B. Lint, E. C. Meslow, B. R. Noon, and J. Verner. 1990. A conservation strategy for the northern spotted owl: a report to the Interagency Scientific Committee to address the conservation of the northern spotted owl. U.S. Forest Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and National Park Service, Washington, D.C. 427 pp.

Torgersen, T. R. 2002. Characteristics of log resources in Northeastern Oregon: Case Studies of Four Management Treatments. USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-181.

Tricolored Blackbird Working Group. 2007. Conservation plan for the tricolored blackbird (Agelaius tricolor). Susan Kester, editor. Sustainable Conservation, San Francisco, CA.

Urness, P.J. 1990. Livestock as manipulators of mule deer winter habitats in northern Utah. Pp. 25- 40 in USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-194.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 1989. Land and Resource Management Plan Fremont National Forest. Pacific Northwest Region.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1994. Final supplemental environmental impact statement on management of habitat for late-successional and old-growth forest related species within the range of the northern spotted owl. Published separately is Appendix A: Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment Team. 1993. Forest ecosystem management: an ecological, economic, and social assessment (FEMAT Report).

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1986. Recovery Plan for the Pacific Bald Eagle. Portland, OR: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1995. Endangered and Threatened Species; Bald eagle reclassification; final rule. Federal Register 60(133): 36000-10.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1999. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Proposed rule to remove the bald eagle in the lower 48 states from the list of endangered and threatened wildlife; proposed rule. Washington DC: Federal Register 64(128):36454-64.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2004. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 12-month Finding for a Petition to List the West Coast Distinct Population Segment of the Fisher (Martes pennanti). Portland, OR: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2005a. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 90-Day Finding on a Petition To List the Pygmy Rabbit as Threatened or Endangered.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2005b. Species Fact Sheet Mardon Skipper Polites mardon. https://www.fws.gov/wafwo/species/Fact%20sheets/MardonSkpper_factsheet.pdf

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2006. Peregrine Falcon Fact Sheet. https://www.fws.gov/endangered/esa-library/pdf/Peregrinefactsheet.pdf Accessed January 30, 2018.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2007. National Bald Eagle Management Guidelines. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 23 p.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2009. Species Assessment and Listing Priority Form for the Columbia spotted frog (Great Basin DPS). Http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/candforms_pdf/r8/D027_V01.pdf

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2010. Species assessment and listing priority assignment form: Polites mardon. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Endangered Species Program, Region 1. 36 pp.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2011. Species Assessment and Listing Priority Assignment Form for North American Wolverine (Gulo gulo luscus). April 1, 2011.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2011b. Martes pennanti. Species assessment and listing priority assignment form. USFWS, Region 8.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2013. Threatened status for Oregon spotted frog. Federal Register 78(168):53582-53623. August 23, 2013.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2014. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Threatened Status for Oregon Spotted Frog; Final Rule. Federal Register Vol. 79, No. 168. August 29, 2014.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2015. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 12-Month Finding on a Petition To List Greater Sage-Grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) as and Endangered or Threatened Species; Proposed Rule. 50 CFR Part 17. Federal Register Vol. 80, No. 191. October 2, 2015.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2015b. Species Report for Leona's Little Blue Butterfly (Philotiella leona). 84 pp.

U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2017b. Yellow-billed cuckoo (Western population) https://www.fws.gov/oregonfwo/articles.cfm?id=149489511. Accessed July 18, 2017.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2017c. Canada lynx. https://www.fws.gov/oregonfwo/articles.cfm?id=149489424 Accessed October 18, 2017.

Van Dyke, F., and J. A. Darragh. 2007. Response of Elk to Changes in Plant Production and Nutrition Following Prescribed Burning. The Journal of Wildlife Management, 71(1), 23-29.

Vashon, J. 2016. Lynx canadensis. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2016: e.T12518A101138963. http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2016- 2.RLTS.T12518A101138963.en. Downloaded on 18 October 2017.

Vickery, P. D., D. E. Blanco and B. López-Lanús. 2010. Conservation plan for the Upland Sandpiper (Bartramia longicauda). Version 1.1. Manomet: Manomet Center for Conservation Sciences.

Vierling, K.T., V.A. Saab, and B.W. Tobalske. 2013. Lewis’s Woodpecker: Melanerpes lewis. In: Poole, A., ed. The Birds of North America Online. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University, Cornell Lab of Ornithology. Doi: 10.2173/bna.284.

Volland, L.A. 1985. Plant associations of the central Oregon pumice zone. USDA Forest Service, PNW Region, R6-ECOL-104-1985. 138 pp.

Walstad, J. 1990. Natural prescribed fire in Pacific Northwest forests. Oregon State University Press. Corvallis, Oregon.

Warren, A.D. 2005. Butterflies of Oregon: Their Taxonomy, Distribution, and Biology. Lepidoptera of North America 6. Contributions of the C.P. Gillette Museum of Arthropod Diversity. Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO. 408 pp.

Weiss, N.T. 1984. Habitat and Distribution of Pygmy Rabbits (Sylvilagus idahoensis) in Oregon. M.S. Thesis. Department of Fish and Wildlife. Oregon State University. Corvallis, OR. 35 pp.

West, N.E. 1968. Rodent-influenced establishment of ponderosa pine and bitterbrush seedlings in central Oregon. Ecology 49:1009-1011.

White, C. M., N. J. Clum, T.J. Cade, and W.G. Hunt. 2002. Peregrine Falcon (Falco peregrinus), The Birds of North America (P. G. Rodewald, Ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology; Retrieved from the Birds of North America: https://birdsna.org/Species-Account/bna/species/perfal DOI: 10.2173/bna.660

WILDSPACETM. 2002. Ridgely, R.S., T.F. Allnutt, T. Brooks, D.K. McNicol, D.W. Mehlman, B.E. Young, and J.R. Zook. 2003. Digital Distribution Maps of the Birds of the Western Hemisphere, version 1.0. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia, USA.

Williams, P. H., R. W. Thorp, L. L. Richardson, and S. Colla. 2014. Guide to the Bumble Bees of North America. Princeton University Press. Princeton, New Jersey. 208 pp.

Willis, C.K.R., and M. L. Bast. 2000. COSEWIC assessment and update status report on the pallid bat Antrozous pallidus in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada, Ottawa, Ontario.

Wisdom, M. J., R. S. Holthausen, B. C. Wales, C. D. Hargis, V. A. Saab, D. C. Lee, W. J. Hann, T. D. Rich, M. M. Rowland, W. J. Murphy, and M. R. Eames. 2000. Source Habitats for Terrestrial Vertebrates of Focus in the Interior Columbia Basin: Broad-Scale Trends and Management Implications. General Technical Report PNW-GTR-485, Portland, OR. [Available Online]

Witmer, G.W., S.K. Martin, and R.D. Sayler. 1998. Forest carnivore conservation and management in the interior Columbia basin: issues and environmental correlates. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR- 420. Portland, OR: US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 51p. (Quigley, T.M. ed.; Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project: scientific assessment).

Zielinski, W. J., K. M. Slauson, C. R. Carroll, C. J. Kent, and D. G. Kudma. 2001. Status of American martens in coastal forests of the Pacific states. Journal of Mammalogy 82:478-490.

Zyznar, E. and P.J. Urness. 1969. Qualitative identification of forage remnants in deer feces. Journal of Wildlife Management 33:506-510.