United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service East Fork Illinois River Channel and Floodplain Restoration Project Wildlife BE and Specialist Report
Wild Rivers Ranger District, Rogue River – Siskiyou National Forest, Josephine County, OR
Prepared By: /s/ Bonnie Allison February 27, 2015
Bonnie Allison, Zone Wildlife Biologist Wild Rivers and Siskiyou Mountains Ranger Districts
Contents Contents ...... i Introduction ...... 1 Proposed Project Location ...... 1 Purpose and Need ...... 2 Action Alternatives ...... 3 Regulatory Setting ...... 4 Forest Plan Management Direction ...... 4 ESA Consultation to Date ...... 5 Other Relevant Laws, Policies and Regulations ...... 5 Scale of the Analysis, Methodology, and Proposed Indicators and Metrics ...... 6 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences ...... 7 Existing Condition ...... 7 Species Accounts and Presence in the Project Area ...... 4 Federally Listed Species and Habitat ...... 4 Region 6 Sensitive Species ...... 10 Management Indicator Species ...... 18 Neo-tropical Migratory Birds and Landbirds ...... 21 Analysis of Effects ...... 22 Considerations for Cumulative Effects ...... 22 Late Successional Reserve ...... 23 Federally Listed Species and Habitat ...... 24 Region 6 Sensitive Species ...... 27 Management Indicator Species ...... 34 Neo-tropical Migratory Birds and Landbirds ...... 38 Conclusions ...... 40 References ...... 42 Personal Communications ...... 52 APPENDIX A ...... 53
List of Tables
Table 1. Terrestrial Wildlife Special Status Species and Habitat Presence in the in the Project Analysis Area or Associated Subwatersheds...... 9 Table 2. Acres of northern spotted owl habitat within the spotted owl action area and designated critical habitat. (Source: Interagency Regional Montioring Program owl habitat relative habitat suitability model and habitat classification “owlhabrhs1”)...... 7 Table 3. Wildlife Management Indicator Species and Habitat Represented ...... 19 Table 4. 2008 Birds of Conservation Concern and Partners in Flight Focal Migrant Bird Species and Associated Habitat ...... 22 Table 5. Summary of effects for Federally listed and USDAFS Region 6 Sensitive Species...... 40
i East Fork Illinois River Channel and Floodplain Restoration Project, Wildlife BE and Specialist Report
Introduction The East Fork Illinois River Channel and Floodplain Restoration Project, hereafter the Project, proposes to improve fisheries habitat and water quality in the Dunn Creek and Upper East Fork Illinois River watersheds through side-channel construction, placement of large wood structures for channel stability and establishment of riparian forest vegetation in barren and disturbed areas. This project is located on the Wild Rivers Ranger District of the Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest.
This Biological Evaluation and specialist report discloses the existing conditions for late successional reserve and special status wildlife species and anticipated direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental effects that would result from the Project proposed action and alternatives. The document is organized into the following parts:
Project Description: This section describes the project location, purpose and need and action alternatives. Regulatory Setting and Methodology: This section summarizes regulations regarding project analysis for special status species, metrics or environmental indicators used to conduct the analysis, and desired conditions (as appropriate). Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences: This section presents existing conditions and environmental effects of implementing the proposed action and alternatives. The effects of the No-Action Alternative are described first to provide a baseline for evaluation and comparison of other alternatives that follow. Consultation and Coordination: This section provides a list of preparers and agencies consulted during the development of this document. References: This section lists bibliographical information of any literature cited and personal communications used to write this report. Appendices: The appendices provide more detailed information to support the analyses presented in the report.
Proposed Project Location The Project is located in Del Norte County in California, approximately 12 miles upstream of Cave Junction, Oregon, where it joins the West Fork Illinois River before proceeding to the Pacific Ocean via the Rogue River. The legal description of the project area includes the stream channels of Dunn Creek and the East Fork Illinois River in T. 19 N., R. 5 E., Sections 33, 34, 35 and T. 18 N., R. 5 E., Sections 1, 2, 3, 4, 12 of the Humboldt Meridian (Appendix A, Map 1). Dunn Creek and Upper East Fork Illinois River 6th field subwatersheds (26,828 acres, Appendix A, Map 2) located within the East Fork Illinois River 5th field watershed (57,779 acres), which makes up 9 percent of the 628,000 acre Illinois River subbasin within the Southern Oregon Coastal Basin, which has been identified by the Forest Service Pacific Northwest Region as a priority basin.
1 East Fork Illinois River Channel and Floodplain Restoration Project, Wildlife BE and Specialist Report
Approximately 64% of the East Fork Illinois River watershed is lands managed by the Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest, 9% managed by the BLM and the remaining 27% under mixed private ownership including portions of the city of Cave Junction and the town of Takilma (USDA Forest Service and USDI BLM, 2000).
A Watershed Restoration Action Plan (WRAP) was completed for the East Fork Illinois River watershed in 2014. The WRAP identified priority aquatic restoration projects within the watershed for the improvement and recovery of water quality, fish habitat, and riparian forest conditions with an interdisciplinary and partnership approach. The East Fork Illinois River watershed consists of three subwatersheds: Lower East Fork Illinois River, Upper East Fork Illinois River, and Dunn Creek. Dunn Creek was determined to be a priority subwatershed for the following reasons:
It provides critical habitat for an independent population of Southern Oregon/Northern California Coast Coho Salmon, a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act.
The East Fork Illinois River is listed as water quality limited for summer water temperatures under section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act, and improving stream shade in Dunn Creek will decrease temperatures of the water flowing into the East Fork Illinois River.
The East Fork Illinois River is a primary contributor to the Illinois River basin salmonid population. About 40 percent of the Rogue River basin coho production may come from the Illinois River.
The East Fork Illinois River Channel and Floodplain Restoration project area has been impacted by past and present hydraulic and placer mining activities, timber harvest, and roads. Stream survey data indicates that overall there is a lack of spawning habitat for anadromous fish. Additional disturbance responses are also present, including increased channel width and lack of channel depth, loss of pool habitat, loss of side channel habitat, and loss of channel structure and habitat.
Riparian areas have been altered by two relatively recent and significant natural events; the 1964 100-year flood and the 1987 Longwood Fire (USDA Forest Service and USDI BLM, 2000, Appendix A, Map 2) as well as through past timber harvest and mining. These events resulted in a loss of mature trees in the riparian zone and the current dominance of small diameter vegetation. Currently, riparian habitat does not provide adequate stream shading or in-channel large wood along the East Fork Illinois River or Dunn Creek. There is a lack of large wood in the stream and along the floodplain, with the quantity well below benchmark levels of 80 pieces per stream mile (USDA, USDI 1995 and Fox and Bolton 2007). The East Fork Illinois River is listed as water quality limited for summer water temperatures under section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act. Purpose and Need The purpose of the East Fork Illinois River Channel and Floodplain Restoration Project is to improve fisheries habitat and water quality in the Dunn Creek and Upper East Fork subwatersheds. The proposed restoration actions are needed to address impacts to fish habitat and water quality associated with past land management activities.
2 East Fork Illinois River Channel and Floodplain Restoration Project, Wildlife BE and Specialist Report
Action Alternatives
Alternative 1 - No Action Under the no-action alternative, none of the proposed actions would occur and existing hydrology and habitat within Dunn Creek and East Fork Illinois River would remain the same. No large woody debris would be added to the stream system, no side channel construction would occur and no riparian vegetation planting would be done.
Alternative 2 - Proposed Action The Forest Service proposes to implement restoration activities along portions of Dunn Creek, Poker Creek, North Fork Dunn Creek, Bybee Gulch, and the East Fork Illinois River. The majority of restoration activities would involve placement of large wood structures within the stream channel and floodplain (Appendix A, Map 1). Other activities include construction of a side channel and establishment of a riparian forest community. A portion of Dunn Creek flows through private land owned by Sun Star Country Club. No actions will occur on private land unless an agreement with the landowners is obtained.
All in-channel stream work would occur during the California Department of Fish and Wildlife instream construction timing window (June 15 to November 1) to minimize impacts to salmon. Further details about the proposed action are as follows:
Construction of a side channel – A side channel of approximately 1,500 feet would be constructed through old mine tailings in adherence to the pattern, dimension, and profile appropriate for this stream and valley type. This would include building a small (~ 6’ wide) meandering stream channel designed to flow during high flow events, which generally occur from December through March. Stream habitat would be constructed, including pools, riffles, runs, and glides appropriate for this system. Sediment used to construct the stream including fines, gravels and cobbles would likely be sorted on-site from the material that is removed during construction. The channel would be constructed using an excavator(s) and a dozer. No trees greater than 8 inches DBH would be removed during construction, unless needed for safety purposes. Large wood structures would also be installed as described in the section below.
Placement of large wood structures - Structures would be used to: 1) provide grade control, 2) enhance fish habitat, 3) reintroduce and stabilize large wood for fisheries and stream channel stability, and 4) provide energy dissipation. Large wood pieces obtained from plantation thinning covered by the 2002 East IV Managed Stands EA or from privately owned land, would be placed using ground-based placement methods with excavators and other heavy equipment. Helicopter placement may also be used in areas that cannot be accessed by ground-based equipment. This placement includes multiple log complex structures within the stream channels. For these structures, key pieces would be buried into the banks and existing near-bank large riparian trees would be used to buttress the instream wood and create stability. Depending on site conditions, boulders may also be used to anchor the logs in place and tree tips may be buried from 4 to 6 feet.
Establishment of a riparian forest community – Barren and disturbed riparian and upland sites throughout the restoration portion of the project area would be revegetated with a mix of native deciduous and conifer species (riparian gallery forest) consistent with the potential vegetation of the site. Willow cuttings would be taken from willows present along the streams. Disease- resistant Port-Orford-cedar would be included in the mix of native conifers planted. Revegetation activities would accelerate the development of stream shading and stream side habitats, minimize
3 East Fork Illinois River Channel and Floodplain Restoration Project, Wildlife BE and Specialist Report short-term erosion potential, and facilitate the long-term re-establishment of upland forest habitat and site productivity. These areas will involve planting in cobble on old mine tailings, stream terraces, floodplain, and upland soils. Planting will be accomplished manually and/or mechanically. Raw materials for the project such as trees and plants would be obtained from Forest Service-managed land near the project area and/or from commercial sources.
The project proposes to significantly increase coho salmon spawning and rearing habitat by creating side channel habitat, creating pools, riffles, and glides within the main channel, constructing large wood complexes, and planting a riparian gallery forest. In addition, the project also proposes to improve riparian habitat through planting of conifers, hardwoods, and shrubs.
Regulatory Setting Forest Plan Management Direction Management direction from the 1990 Rogue River National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (hereafter Forest Plan) as amended by the 1994 Northwest Forest Plan (NWFP) related to terrestrial wildlife species within the East Fork Illinois Watershed are as follows:
Late Successional Reserve “As a general guideline, non-silvicultural activities located in Late-Successional Reserves that are neutral or beneficial to the creation and maintenance of late-successional habitat are allowed. While most existing uses and development are envisioned to remain, it may be necessary to modify or eliminate some current activities in Late-Successional Reserve that pose adverse impacts. This may require the revision of management guidelines, procedures, or regulations governing these multiple-use activities. Adjustments in standards and guidelines must be reviewed by the Regional Ecosystem Office.” NWFP Record of Decision (hereafter NWFP ROD), 1994 p. C-16
Special Status Species Following is a summary of Standards and Guidelines from Chapter 4 of the Siskiyou Forest Plan pertaining to the wildlife species and habitats addressed by this report:
“Fish and wildlife habitat resources on the Siskiyou, in particular the habitat of management indicator species, shall be managed in cooperation with state and Federal Fish and Wildlife agencies. At the Forest level, fish and wildlife habitat shall be managed to maintain viable populations of all existing native and desired non-native plant and animal species. Distribution of habitat shall provide for species viability and maintenance of populations throughout their existing range on the Forest” (Siskiyou National Forest Plan, IV-26).
“Endangered, threatened and sensitive species shall be identified and managed in cooperation with the USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, Oregon Department of fish and Wildlife (animals),… and California Department of Fish and Game (animals and plants). Legal and biological requirements for the conservation of endangered, threatened and proposed plants and animals shall be met. Habitat for existing Federally-classified threatened and endangered species shall be managed to achieve objectives of recovery plans” (Siskiyou National Forest Plan, IV-27).
4 East Fork Illinois River Channel and Floodplain Restoration Project, Wildlife BE and Specialist Report
“Biological evaluations shall be prepared for each project authorized, funded or conducted on National Forest land to determine the possible effects the proposed activity will have on endangered, threatened, proposed or sensitive species” (FSM 2672.4, Including R-6 Supplement 41).
“If endangered, threatened or proposed species are found in a project area, consultation requirements with the USDI Fish and Wildlife Service shall be met in accordance with the Endangered Species Act (Public Law 93-205) and FSM 2671.4. Before a project can be carried out, protection or mitigation requirements shall be specified (NFMA, 36 CFR 219.27(a)(8))” ( Siskiyou National Forest Plan, IV-27).
Furthermore, when sensitive species are known or found in a project area, avoidance or other mitigation to minimize impacts to local populations shall be used for those species whose viability has been identified as a concern. At a minimum, no action shall result in loss of species viability or create significant trends toward Federal listing (FSM 2670.32).
Species identified as Survey and Manage, Protection Buffer, or for which additional mitigation measures are defined by the 2001 NWFP ROD (USDA and USDI 2001) which is an amendment to the Forest Plan, are addressed in the conclusions of this report. ESA Consultation to Date To meet ESA Section 7 Consultation requirements, this project adheres to and is covered by conservation measures set forth in the Programmatic Biological Opinion for Aquatic Restoration Activities in the States of Oregon, Washington, and portions of California, Idaho and Nevada (ARBO II) [FWS reference: 01EOFW00-2013-F-0090]. This biological evaluation evaluates project effects to federally listed species that occur or have suitable habitat within the project area and requires conservation measures to reach determinations consistent with ARBO II. Other Relevant Laws, Policies and Regulations
The Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 (MBTA) This Act implements various treaties and conventions between the U.S., Canada, Japan, Mexico and the former Soviet Union for the protection of migratory birds. Under the act, it is unlawful to pursue, hunt, take, capture (or kill) a migratory bird except as permitted by regulation (16 U.S.C. 703-704). The regulations at 50 CFR 21.11 prohibit the take, possession, import, export, transport, sale, purchase, barter, or offering of these activities, or possessing migratory birds, including nests and eggs, except under a valid permit or as permitted in the implementing regulations (Director's Order No. 131). A migratory bird is any species or family of birds that live, reproduce or migrate within or across international borders at some point during their annual life cycle.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) is the lead federal agency for managing and conserving migratory birds in the United States; however, under Executive Order (EO) 13186 all other federal agencies are charged with the conservation and protection of migratory birds and the habitats on which they depend. In response to this order, the BLM and Forest Service have implemented management guidelines that direct migratory birds to be addressed in the NEPA process when actions have the potential to negatively or positively affect migratory bird species of concern. This EO directs federal agencies to avoid or minimize the negative impact of their actions on migratory birds, and to take active steps to protect birds and their habitat.
5 East Fork Illinois River Channel and Floodplain Restoration Project, Wildlife BE and Specialist Report
EO 13186 also requires federal agencies to develop Memorandum of Understandings (MOU) with the FWS to conserve birds including taking steps to restore and enhance habitat, prevent or abate pollution affecting birds, and incorporating migratory bird conservation into agency planning processes whenever possible. On June 20, 2014, the expiration of the current MOU signed in 2008 was extended from December 8, 2013 to December 8, 2015. Under this MOU the FS Shall:
Within the NEPA process, evaluate effects of agency actions on migratory birds, focusing first on species of management concern along with their priority habitats and key risk factors. To the extent practicable:
a. Evaluate and balance long-term benefits of projects against any short- or long-term adverse effects when analyzing, disclosing, and mitigating the effects of actions.
b. Pursue opportunities to restore or enhance the composition, structure, and juxtaposition of migratory bird habitats in the project area.
c. Consider approaches, to the extent practicable, for identifying and minimizing take that is incidental to otherwise lawful activities, including such approaches as:
1. altering the season of activities to minimize disturbances during the breeding season; 2. retaining snags for nesting structures where snags are underrepresented; 3. retaining the integrity of breeding sites, especially those with long histories of use and;
4. giving due consideration to key wintering areas, migration routes, and stop-over habitats. 5. minimizing or preventing the pollution or detrimental alteration of the environments utilized by migratory birds whenever practical by assessing information on environmental contaminants and other stressors relevant to migratory bird conservation. Scale of the Analysis, Methodology, and Proposed Indicators and Metrics This section discusses the special status species, their biology and relevant information about the distribution and abundance of these species within the project area and on the Siskiyou portion of the Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest. Also presented is the existing condition of the East IV LSR (Appendix A, Map 2).
Project effects to the East IV LSR and special status species are based on proposed restoration activities described previously under the description of the project alternatives.
Analysis of project effects to the East IV LSR includes short-term and long-term changes in aquatic and riparian habitat and late successional reserve values.
Project effects to wildlife are evaluated by number of known sites affected, acres of impacts or changes to specific habitat(s), and extent, duration and timing of disturbance. The scale and methodology for evaluating effects of the alternatives differ by species based on their habitat requirements and the type of status they have. Appendix A, Map 2 displays the Project analysis area as a variable buffer along Dunn Creek, North Fork Dunn Creek, Poker Creek and East Fork Illinois River where project activities such as riparian vegetation and in-stream modifications
6 East Fork Illinois River Channel and Floodplain Restoration Project, Wildlife BE and Specialist Report would occur. This area was mapped as a 300 foot buffer of these streams or beyond this distance to existing roads that may be used to access project work sites such as the side channel construction site. The analysis area comprises approximately 160 acres (1.5%) of the Upper East Fork Illinois River subwatershed, and approximately 342 acres (2%) of the Dunn Creek watershed. These 6th field subwatersheds are used to evaluate effects to species with larger home ranges, or even larger areas such as the entire forest for MIS species. More detail about the scale and context is provided in the effects analysis for each species. Furthermore, mandatory and recommended Project Design Criteria or mitigation measures are discussed for each species as appropriate. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Existing Condition
Late Successional Reserve
East Illinois Valley (IV) /Williams-Deer LSR The East IV/Williams-Deer LSR spans National Forest and BLM lands from the headwaters of the West Fork and East Fork of the Illinois River in Del Norte County, California just east of Oregon Mountain, eastward to the ridgeline dividing the Sucker Creek watershed from Carberry Creek watershed on the Siskiyou Mountains Ranger District, then northward onto BLM lands in the Williams Creek, Murphy Creek and Deer Creek watersheds. The East IV portion of this LSR is approximately 62,809 acres of federal lands and the Williams-Deer portion is 59,717 acres.
The Southwest Oregon Late Successional Reserve Assessment (USDA Forest Service, 1995) estimated that the entire LSR is 35% managed stands and approximately 36% is late successional forest, of which 7% is interior late-successional habitat. This LSR provides high elevation true fir forest connectivity between the mountains of the eastern Illinois Valley and the coastal part of the Siskiyou Mountains. It also provides connectivity between the Rogue and Illinois River Valleys and between the BLM, Klamath, and Six Rivers National Forests. , this LSR serves an “elevator effect” through corridors of late-successional forest habitat from lower elevations of the Dunn Creek and East Fork Illinois River drainages to the highest peaks of these watersheds at 6000 feet. These habitat corridors allow species to respond to seasonal temperature changes, precipitation and food availability.
The approximate 502 acres of National Forest Lands within the Project analysis area occurs within the East IV portion of this LSR. The Dunn Creek and Upper East Fork Illinois River subwatersheds support northern spotted owls, red tree voles, goshawks, mollusks and other species associated with late successional habitat. According to the LEMMA Gradient Nearest Neighbor method (GNN) vegetation dataset developed by Oregon State University for the Klamath Province, (http://www.fsl.orst.edu/lemma/) based on LANDSAT imagery from 2000, approximately 190 acres ( 34%) of the Project analysis area is identified as late successional and old growth habitat (LSOG = ‘Y’) upstream of the proposed side channel. The 20-acre site proposed for side channel reconstruction is within the burned area of the 1987 Longwood Fire. Existing vegetation includes sparse distribution of individual large (> 20 in dbh) conifers, mostly Douglas fir and clumpy distribution of smaller alder, black oak, madrone, some Douglas fir, incense and port orford cedar, and ponderosa pine. Total tree canopy cover is estimated at 10- 20% average over the site. Shrub species present on site include hazel, manzanita, poison oak,
7 East Fork Illinois River Channel and Floodplain Restoration Project, Wildlife BE and Specialist Report currant, and Himalayan blackberry. There is also considerable riparian grasses and moss cover throughout the site. Large wood structure construction would occur in-stream and affect very little vegetation beyond the stream banks.
Special Status Species Table 1 lists current federally listed, Forest Service Region 6 sensitive, and management indicator species identified in the 1989 Siskiyou National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan and and other special status species identified in the Northwest Forest Plan Record of Decision.
Table 1, column 3 indicates whether the species is known to occur within the East Fork Illinois River Channel and Floodplain Restoration Project analysis area based on the Forest NRIS wildlife database or confirmed other observation data in the District records. Table 1, column 5 indicates whether potential habitat is present in the analysis area.
8 East Fork Illinois River Channel and Floodplain Restoration Project, Wildlife BE and Specialist Report
Table 1. Terrestrial Wildlife Special Status Species and Habitat Presence in the in the Project Analysis Area or Associated Subwatersheds. Species Present Habitat Wildlife Species (Common Name) Scientific Name Habitat Needs on Present Record Federally Threatened Species Late successional mixed conifer/hardwood with at least Northern spotted owl1 (NSO) Strix occidentalis caurina Yes 60% canopy cover, large diameter trees, snags, dwarf Yes mistletoe and down wood. NSO Designated Critical Habitat KLW -7 Yes In S OR/N CA, tanoak/hemlock forest with large conifer No Marbled Murrelet (MAMU) Brachyramphus marmoratus No trees MAMU Designated Critical Habitat None ( Zone 1, Area E) No Forest Service Sensitive Species Late successional mixed conifer/hardwood with > 60% Pekania pennanti (formerly Pacific Fisher No canopy cover, large diameter trees, snags, dwarf Yes Martes pennanti) mistletoe and down wood. Mixed conifer-hardwood forests, deciduous woodlands, open hillsides, meadows, and forested riparian areas, Black Salamander Aneides flavipunctatus No Yes from sea level to ~4,500 ft elevation, rocky substrates, intermittent streams and down wood. California Slender Salamander Batrachoseps attenuates No Range: Curry County, Rogue River to HWY 199. No Range: N Siskiyou Co CA in Klamath River valley, and Siskiyou Mtn. Salamander2 Plethodon stormi No Jackson Co. north of Siskiyou crest, and extreme SE No Josephine Co. Low-gradient, perennial streams that have exposed Foothill yellow-legged frog Rana boylii No Yes bedrock or rock, gravel, or sand bottoms. Oregon Spotted Frog Rana pretiosa No Wasco, Klamath, Jackson, Deschutes, Lane Counties No Rivers, streams, waterbodies and wetland habitats with Actinemys marmorata Northwestern Pond Turtle Yes deep, slow-flowing pools, warm water, underwater cover Yes marmorata and emergent basking sites, often logs. Multi-storied conifer stands with old-growth components Northern Bald Eagle1 Haliaeetus leucocephalus Yes near waterbodies with adequate food supply. Project not Yes in prime habitat identified in Recovery Plan. Cliffy areas and rock outcrops near habitat with adequate American Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus anatum Yes Yes avian prey species. Relatively undisturbed, low gradient, meandering or Harlequin Duck Histrionicus histrionicus No braided mountain streams with >50% shrubby riparian Yes cover and mid-stream islands, boulders or log jams. Lewis’ Woodpecker Melanerpes lewis No Ponderosa pine/oak savannah habitats Yes White-headed Woodpecker2 Picoides albolarvatus Yes Dry, open forest stands with large trees and snags Yes Northern Waterthrush Seiurus noveboracensis No Range: Central Cascade Mountains No Buildings, bridges, rock outcrops, and large decadent Pallid Bat Antrozous pallidus No Yes trees and snags with loose bark. Townsend’s Big-Eared Bat Corynorhinus townsendii No Caves, abandoned buildings, mines, and hollow trees. Yes
9 East Fork Illinois River Channel and Floodplain Restoration Project, Wildlife BE and Specialist Report Species Present Habitat Wildlife Species (Common Name) Scientific Name Habitat Needs on Present Record Crevices, cliffs, buildings, caves, mines, decadent trees Fringed Myotis Myotis thysanodes No Yes and snags. California Wolverine Gulo gulo luteus No Remote alpine and sub-alpine forest Yes Evening Fieldslug2 Deroceras hesperium No Range: Oregon Cascades No Klamath Rim Pebblesnail2 Fluminicola sp. nov. No Range: Klamath Basin No Rocky areas within forest habitats with woody debris, Oregon Shoulderband2 Helminthoglypta hertleini No often adjacent to areas with substantial grass or seasonal Yes herbaceous vegetation. Rocky or talus habitats in dry conifer and mixed Chace Sideband2 Monadenia chaceana No conifer/hardwood forest communities as well as oak Yes communities. Green Sideband Monadenia fidelis beryllica No Range: West slope of Oregon coast range to the coast. No Low elevation unaltered, somewhat dry and open forest, talus and rock outcrops, rocky spring runs, moist Traveling Sideband Monadenia fidelis celeuthia No Yes vegetation and moss, and silty alluvial benches adjacent to creeks within mixed conifer-hardwood forest. Crater Lake Tightcoil2 Pristiloma arcticum crateris No Range: Oregon Cascades No Range: Upper Klamath Lake, Crater Lake, Klamath River Siskiyou Hesperian Vespericola sierranus No No drainage on RRSNF Old-growth and mature conifer forests with western dwarf Johnson's Hairstreak Callophrys johnsoni No Yes mistletoe. Seaside Hoary Elfin Callophrys polios maritime No Coastal bluffs and sand dunes with kinnikinnick hostplant. No Coastal Greenish Blue Butterfly Coastal stream edges, bogs, or wet meadows and Plebejus saepiolus littoralis No No (formerly insular blue) roadsides or dry open meadows with blooming clovers. High elevation (>5000 ft) wet montane meadows with lush Gray Blue Butterfly Plebejus podarce Klamathensis No No grasses and shooting star larval food plant. Grassy forest openings and roadside meadows, and Mardon Skipper Polites mardon No Yes grass-dominated tree plantations. In Josephine County this species is generally associated with serpentine influenced, rocky hill-slopes dominated by Coronis Fritillary Speyeria coronis coronis No Yes Jeffery pine and other serpentine associated forbes and grasses and brush. Larvae feed on various spp of viola. Areas with sufficient supply of floral resources to provide Franklin's Bumblebee Bombus franklini No continuous nectar source throughout spring/summer/early Yes fall seasons. Areas with sufficient supply of floral resources to provide Western Bumblebee Bombus occidentalis No continuous nectar source throughout spring/summer/early Yes fall seasons. Tall grass prairie specialist, this subspecies inhabits Vanduzeeina borealis California Shield-backed Bug No medium to high elevation (e.g. 900 m) natural balds and No californica meadows. Blue elderberry used for oviposition, feed on grasses in Siskiyou Short-horned Grasshopper Chloealtis aspasma No Yes grassy/brushy areas.
10 East Fork Illinois River Channel and Floodplain Restoration Project, Wildlife BE and Specialist Report Species Present Habitat Wildlife Species (Common Name) Scientific Name Habitat Needs on Present Record LRMP Management Indicator Species Odocoileus hemionus Black-tailed deer Yes Early seral habitat Yes colubianus Roosevelt elk Cervus elephus roosevelti No Early seral habitat Yes American marten Martes americana No Mature and old-growth forest Yes Osprey Pandion haliaetus No Habitat along major rivers Yes Pileated woodpecker and other Dryocopus pileatus Yes Mature and old-growth forest and snags Yes woodpeckers 1 Also a Forest management indicator species. 2 Also a Survey and Manage species
11 East Fork Illinois River Channel and Floodplain Restoration Project, Wildlife BE and Specialist Report
The project area is either out of the range or has no habitat for species where table 1 columns 3 and 5 = “No”. Therefore the project would have no impact on the following and they will not be discussed further: marbled murrelet traveling sideband California slender salamander Crater Lake tightcoil Siskiyou salamander Siskiyou Hesperian Oregon spotted frog seaside hoary elfin northern waterthrush coastal greenish blue butterfly evening fieldslug gray blue butterfly Klamath rim pebblesnail California shield-backed bug green sideband
Furthermore, the the project would have no impact to the following species because habitats they are associated with that occur in the project area would not be affected by the project activities: side channel construction, large wood structure placement or riparian forest planting.
California wolverine There are no confirmed occurrences of wolverines in southwest Oregon. There are no known sightings of wolverines on record in the Project analysis area or in either affected subwatershed. The analysis area ranges from 1800 to 2600 feet in elevation. Persistent snowpack though winter and late spring is not usual in the project analysis area. Wolverines are not commonly known to use habitat near roads or frequent human disturbance such as those in and around the project analysis area. Proposed activities would not modify or remove habitat required by wolverines. The East Fork Illinois River Channel and Floodplain Restoration Project would have no impact on the California wolverine.
Harlequin duck Harlequin ducks nest along mountain streams and rivers on rocky islands or banks and winter in rough coastal waters along rocky shores or reefs (Cassirer et al. 1993, Cornell 1993, Wiggins 2005). They require relatively undisturbed, low gradient, meandering mountain streams with dense shrubby riparian areas (greater than 50% streamside shrub cover), and woody debris for nesting and brood rearing; also need mid-stream boulders or log jams and overhanging vegetation for cover and loafing; indicator of high water quality (Spahr et al. 1991). As described by Wiggins (2005), breeding habitat characteristics that appear to be preferred across the range of harlequin ducks include: wide riparian vegetative zones clear, clean water of low acidity braided or multi-channel streams with islands for nesting and roosting rocky substrate a stream gradient of 1 to 7 percent, with some quiescent areas
There is potential habitat in the project analysis area along the wider sections of the East Fork Illinois River and Dunn Creek, however there are no records of harlequin ducks occurring in the Project analysis area or either affected watershed. The nearest recorded observation of harlequin ducks is in the South Fork of the Coquille River in 2007. Because these ducks require relatively
12 East Fork Illinois River Channel and Floodplain Restoration Project, Wildlife BE and Specialist Report undisturbed riparian habitat, it is not likely that they would use habitat next to roads areas along these waterways where mining and recreation activities frequently occur. For these reasons, the East Fork Illinois River Channel and Floodplain Restoration Project is expected to have no impact to harlequin ducks and may benefit this species by improving riparian habitat.
Johnson’s hairstreak This small brown butterfly is an old-growth obligate and spends most of its time in the tops of mature conifer forests. They do nectar on some lower plants, like Oregon grape and males will use damp earth sites, such as seeps and springs for moisture and minerals. Caterpillars feed on western dwarf mistletoe (Arceuthobium campylopodum) which grows on conifers (hemlock and pine trees).
Populations of this butterfly occur on the Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest in the coastal mountains of Coos, Curry and Josephine counties and in northern Jackson County around Crater Lake National Park. There is one observation of this species documented in the NRIS database on the northeast ridgeline of the Dunn Creek subwatershed, but there are none within the project analysis area.
Project activities are not expected to affect suitable habitat for this species. Any trees cut for project activities would be less than 8 inches dbh, or snags identified as hazard trees in work areas. Removal of trees used for in-stream large wood structure is covered by the 2002 East IV Managed Stands EA.
Proposed side channel construction, placement of large wood or establishment of riparian forest is not expected to impact mature conifers with dwarf mistletoe and is unlikely to affect individual butterflies. The East Fork Illinois River Channel and Floodplain Restoration Project would have no impact on the Johnson’s hairstreak.
Mardon Skipper Mardon skipper populations in southern Oregon occupy small (0.5 to10 ac; 0.25 to 4 ha) high- elevation (4,500 to 5,100 ft; 1,372 to 1,555 m) grassy meadows within mixed conifer forests. The habitat features where Mardon skipper habitat is found are dominated by fescue grasslands and the primary nectar plants being utilized are diverse-leaved cinquefoil (Potentilla diversifolia), narrow-leaved mule’s ears (Wyethia angustifolia), small-flowered penstemon (Penstemon procerus), and sea blush (Plectritis congesta) (Ross 2007a; Beyer and Black 2007, p. 16).
Mardon skippers use several graminoid species for oviposition and larval food. Host plant species vary by geographic location and vary depending upon the species available at a particular site (Beyer 2009, p. 22, Beyer and Schultz 2010, p. 866). In the Oregon Cascades, the most common oviposition plant was California oatgrasss (Danthonia californica) (Beyer and Black 2007).
Suitable habitat for this species is limited within the project analysis area and is not present within proposed work areas. The project analysis area is generally lower in elevation than habitats known to be occupied by this species in southern Oregon. There are no known occurrences of this species in the project analysis area. Proposed side channel construction, in-stream placement of large wood or establishment of riparian forest are not expected to affect suitable habitat or individuals of this species. The East Fork Illinois River Channel and Floodplain Restoration Project would have no impact on the mardon skipper.
2 East Fork Illinois River Channel and Floodplain Restoration Project, Wildlife BE and Specialist Report
Northern bald eagle Bald eagle habitat on the Rogue River-Siskiyou N.F. is protected and managed in accordance with the Pacific Bald Eagle Recovery Plan (USDI FWS 1986), and Standards and Guidelines 4-3 and 4-4 of the Siskiyou National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (USDA 1989). As part of the recovery plan, key nesting habitat areas have been identified on the Rogue River- Siskiyou N.F. along the Rogue, Illinois, and Sixes Rivers (USDI FWS 1986). In 2011, an estimated 39,536 acres of prime bald eagle habitat (within 1 mile of the Rogue and portions of the Illinois and Chetco rivers) is available on the Siskiyou National Forest. The East Fork Illinois River Channel and Floodplain Restoration Project is not within this prime habitat.
There are two sightings of bald eagles near the analysis area at lower Dunn Creek, one in January 1986 and one in January 1990. There are no known bald eagle nests or roosts within the analysis area; the project is beyond the distance where the most suitable nesting structure occurs along the Rogue and Illinois Rivers outside and downstream of the analysis area. Proposed side channel construction, placement of large wood structures or establishment of the riparian forest community would not remove or modify potential nesting or roosting habitat for bald eagles and improvement of fish habitat is expected to improve foraging habitat for bald eagles in the long- term. The East Fork Illinois River Channel and Floodplain Restoration Project would have no impact on the bald eagle and may benefit foraging habitat for eagles. For this reason, the Project will not contribute toward a negative trend in viability on the Siskiyou portion of the Rogue River National Forest for the bald eagle as management indicator species.
Peregrine falcon There is a peregrine falcon management area in the upper portions of the two affected subwatersheds, but it does not include the Project analysis area. The nearest boundary of the Proejct analysis area is 0.5 miles from the tertiary boundary of the peregrine falcon management area and over 2 miles from the known eyrie. Proposed side channel construction, placement of large wood structures in streams or establishment of riparian forest would not remove or modify any rock outcrops or cliff areas that may provide potential habitat for peregrine falcons in the Project analysis area. Helicopter flight paths would avoid the southernmost portions of the affected subwatersheds to the extent possible. The East Fork Illinois River Channel and Floodplain Restoration Project would have no impact on the American peregrine falcon.
Siskiyou Short-horned Grasshopper
Chloealtis aspasma distribution is in two general areas, one from southern Oregon, near the California border and the other in Benton County. The type locality is in the Siskiyou Mountains of Jackson County, Oregon (T41S R1E Sec13) where specimens were collected on a ridge between 5,000 and 5,800 feet elevation in a treeless summit bald covered with an almost impenetrable brushy scrub through which were scattered grassy areas (Rehn and Hebard 1919).
This species occurs in grassland/herbaceous habitats. It appears to be associated with elderberry plants. Females may lay their eggs in the pith of blue elderberry plants, Sambucus caerulea Raf. (Foster 1974, BLM 1995). This plant is native from Alberta, Canada to Mexico. It grows in gravelly, rather dry soils on stream banks, margins of fields, woodlands.
Blue elderberry is a deciduous plant with handsome showy clusters of white flowers, and the attractive dark blue berries. Female grasshoppers lay eggs in the pith of elderberry stems in the summer (Foster 1974). The eggs hatch the following year. Juvenile stages forage in open
3 East Fork Illinois River Channel and Floodplain Restoration Project, Wildlife BE and Specialist Report meadows near the ground. Juveniles look similar to the adults except the wings are much shorter and the individuals are smaller.
There are no known occurrences of this species in the project area. No blue elderberry has been seen on the site proposed for channel reconstruction. Blue elderberries are important forage for many species. It is not likely that proposed side channel reconstruction or in-stream large wood placement would impact potential habitat or individuals of this species. Vegetation clearing for project work sites would avoid removal of blue elderberry to the extent possible. East Fork Illinois River Channel and Floodplain Restoration Project is expected to have no impact on the Siskiyou short-horned grasshopper. Species Accounts and Presence in the Project Area
Federally Listed Species and Habitat
Northern Spotted Owl Status: Federal – Threatened; State of Oregon – Threatened
Range, Distribution and Abundance
A detailed account of the taxonomy, ecology, and reproductive characteristics of the northern spotted owl is found in the 1987 and 1990 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Status Reviews (USDI FWS 1987, 1989, 1990a); the Inter-Agency Scientific Committee (ISC) Report (Thomas et al. 1990); and the final rule designating the spotted owl as a threatened species (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 1990b). Demographic studies between 1990 and 2008 indicate that the northern spotted owl population (range wide) was declining by approximately 3 to 4 percent per year (Anthony et al. 2006, Forsman et al. 2010). Population declines were most significant in Washington and northern Oregon. Three study areas in southern Oregon appeared to have been relatively stable during that time. The NWFP was expected to limit the extent of population decline by protecting all spotted owl sites within LSRs and by providing spotted owl dispersal habitat through the matrix and Adaptive Management Area (AMA).
Conservation of the species was also to be provided by allowing currently unsuitable habitat to develop within the LSRs. Active management designed to advance forest conditions in LSRs includes density management, precommercial thinning, and fertilization. As habitat develops within the LSRs, spotted owl populations are expected to stabilize across its range. The range expansion of barred owl into spotted owl territories is a complicating factor. The ultimate outcome of barred owl/spotted owl interactions is uncertain. As discussed previously, the East Fork Illinois River Channel and Floodplain Restoration Project analysis area is within the East IV LSR.
A report summarizing the meta-analysis of demography of the spotted owls throughout its range was released in September of 2004 (Anthony et al. 2004). The report showed a decline of approximately 3.7 percent across the range of the owl and showed significant declines of populations in some areas, in particular Washington State and northern Oregon. Only four study areas within the range of the spotted owl did not show evidence of spotted owl declines. In southern Oregon, three study areas did not show declines and appeared to have relatively stable or increasing populations based on the 95 percent confidence intervals.
4 East Fork Illinois River Channel and Floodplain Restoration Project, Wildlife BE and Specialist Report
More recently, the 2010 spotted owl meta-analysis of demography report (Forsman et al. 2011) showed that survival rates were declining on 7 of the 11 study areas. The average rate of population decline for all study areas combined was 2.9% per year. Declines were greatest for study areas in Washington. Site occupancy reported for the Klamath and South Coast Demographic Study Areas in 2013 (Davis et al 2014 and Forsman et al 2014 respectively) represent the lowest occupancy rates in these study areas since 1990.
The three major threats to the northern spotted owl identified in the 2011 Revised Recovery Plan (USFWS 2011) are timber harvest, wildland fire and barred owls. Approximately 93% of 100,700 acres of habitat loss from 1996 to 2006 in the Oregon Klamath Province was due to wildland fire. Other potential threats included effects associated with West Nile Virus, and Sudden Oak Death.
Barred owls (Strix varia) are native to eastern North America, but have slowly moved west into spotted owl habitat. Since barred owls are less selective about the habitat they use and the prey they feed on, they are out competing northern spotted owls for habitat and food. The final 2011 Recovery Plan for the Northern Spotted Owl identified competition from the barred owl as a considerable threat to the spotted owl (USFWS 2011).
There are no known barred owl locations within the Project analysis area. The nearest known location according to the Forest NRIS database is an observation in 2003 near Butcherknife Creek, about 20 miles north of the analysis area.
Threats from Sudden Oak Death and West Nile virus are thought to be potential stressors to the northern spotted owl population. Sudden Oak Death (SOD) or Phytopthora canker disease kills or injures many species of trees and shrubs, and may affect habitat components important to spotted owls and their prey. However, SOD is only known for the coastal region of NW California and SW Oregon and is not known to occur in the analyses area. West Nile virus infects birds, although as of April, 2005, no wild spotted owl infections have been documented. Information from Oregon Health Authority about West Nile virus detections in Oregon for 2013 indicates that the virus has not been detected in Josephine County. It is unknown when and to what extent this threat may become a risk for the spotted owl.
Northern Spotted Owl Habitats
Four categories of spotted owl habitat are used for this analysis: non-habitat, capable, dispersal and NRF (Nesting, Roosting and Foraging).
NRF habitat for northern spotted owls is used for nesting, roosting, and foraging and may also function as dispersal habitat. Generally, this habitat is multistoried, 80 years old or more with at least 60 percent canopy closure; a high incidence of large trees with various deformities (e.g., large cavities, broken tops, mistletoe infestations, and other evidence of decadence); large snags; large accumulations of fallen trees and other woody debris on the ground; and sufficient open space below the canopy for owls to fly (Thomas et al. 1990).
NRF habitat in southwest Oregon is typically mixed-conifer habitat with recurrent fire history, patchy habitat components, and a high incidence of woodrats or red tree voles, which are high quality spotted owl prey species in the area. It may consist of somewhat smaller tree sizes and more tree species diversity within each stand than NRF habitat northwestern Oregon. One or more important habitat components, such as dead down wood, snags, dense canopy, multistoried
5 East Fork Illinois River Channel and Floodplain Restoration Project, Wildlife BE and Specialist Report stands, or mid-canopy habitat, might be lacking or even absent, however, southwest Oregon NRF can support nesting owls if those components are available across the immediate landscape.
The Forest generally defines spotted owl NRF habitat in the Oregon Klamath Province as stands with an average of at least 21 inches DBH with a minimum canopy closure of 60 percent. For this analysis, a habitat layer from the Pacific Northwest Interagency Regional Monitoring Program derived from the LEMMA Gradient Nearest Neighbor method (GNN) vegetation 2000 dataset developed by Oregon State University (http://www.fsl.orst.edu/lemma/) was used.
Capable habitat for the northern spotted owl is forest land that is currently not habitat but can become NRF or dispersal in the future, as trees mature and canopy fills in.
Dispersal is a subcategory of “all dispersal” habitat for northern spotted owls. Dispersal habitat is forested habitat with canopy closure more than 40 percent, average diameter greater than 11 inches, and flying space for owls in the understory but does not provide the components found in NRF. It provides temporary shelter for owls moving through the area between NRF habitat and some opportunity for owls to find prey, but does not provide all requirements to support an owl throughout its life (Thomas et al. 1990). Owls also disperse through NRF habitat, but the term “dispersal-only” is used to refer to habitat that does not meet NRF habitat criteria, but has adequate cover to facilitate movement between areas of NRF habitat.
Northern Spotted Owl Recovery Plan
The USFWS (“the Service”) published a draft revised recovery plan for the northern spotted owl in 2008 and finalized the revised recovery plan on June 28, 2011 (USFWS 2011). The revised recovery plan identifies 34 recovery actions for the northern spotted owl. The Forest continues to work with the Service to incorporate recovery goals and actions consistent with Forest Service laws and regulations. Two of these recovery actions with the most applicability to the project are described below.
Recovery Action 10 - Conserve spotted owl sites and high value spotted owl habitat to provide additional demographic support to the spotted owl population.
This recovery action is intended to protect, enhance and develop existing habitat quantity and distribution necessary to achieve long-term recovery of spotted owls. The Recovery Plan provides descriptions of high value spotted owl habitat that land management agencies use to identify existing habitat that meets the intent of this recovery action. Spatial habitat modeling efforts conducted by the Service also assist to identify areas to consider for habitat protection, enhancement and development to support recovery of spotted owls and, where appropriate, seek additional public review and comment (e.g., as part of proposed critical habitat).
Recovery Action 32: Because spotted owl recovery requires well distributed, older and more structurally complex multi-layered conifer forests on Federal and non-federal lands across its range, land managers should work with the Service as described below to maintain and restore such habitat while allowing for other threats, such as fire and insects, to be addressed by restoration management actions. These high-quality spotted owl habitat stands are characterized as having large diameter trees, high amounts of canopy cover, and decadence components such as broken-topped live trees, mistletoe, cavities, large snags, and fallen trees.
6 East Fork Illinois River Channel and Floodplain Restoration Project, Wildlife BE and Specialist Report
Maintaining or restoring forests with high-quality habitat will provide additional support for reducing key threats faced by spotted owls. Protecting these forests should provide spotted owls high-quality refugia habitat from the negative competitive interactions with barred owls likely occurring where the two species’ home ranges overlap. Maintaining or restoring these forests should allow time to determine both the competitive effects of barred owls on spotted owls and effectiveness of barred owl removal measures. Forest stands or patches meeting the described conditions are a subset of NRF habitat and actual stand conditions vary across the range.
The Project is designed to conserve known spotted owl sites and protect existing high value habitat for the northern spotted owl.
Northern Spotted Owl Sites within the Project Analysis Area
The Forest has documented one spotted owl activity center within 0.5 mile of the project analysis area in the Dunn Creek drainage. There are no other known activity centers within the 1.3 mile home ranges distance from the analysis area for this project. According to the Forest NRIS wildlife observation database, this site was last surveyed in 1992 with a pair status. There have been no protocol surveys completed for the East Fork Illinois River Channel and Floodplain Restoration Project. Consequently, this activity center and any unsurveyed suitable NRF habitat within the analysis area are considered occupied by spotted owls for this analysis.
Northern Spotted Owl Habitat in the Project Area
For this analysis, the area used to evaluate effects to northern spotted owl habitat is within a 1.3 mile buffer of the Project analysis area. This buffer distance represents the estimated home range size for northern spotted owls in the Oregon Klamath Province. The total spotted owl habitat action area is 13,565 acres. Approximately 95% of it is Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest lands. Table 2 displays owl habitat acreages on NFS lands within this action area by land allocation. Designated critical habitat for spotted owls is quantified in Table 2 for the affected subwatersheds and occurs only in the Dunn Creek subwatershed, and also within the Project analysis area.
Table 2. Acres of northern spotted owl habitat within the spotted owl action area and designated critical habitat. (Source: Interagency Regional Montioring Program owl habitat relative habitat suitability model and habitat classification “owlhabrhs1”). Total NRF CAPABLE DISPERSAL Sucker Creek Legacy Roads Project TOTAL HABITAT HABITAT ONLY Spotted Owl Action Area ACRES ACRES ACRES (% total) (% total) (% total) 6,179 All Ownerships 13,565 2,324 (28) 3,829 (17) (46) 5,952 Rogue River-Siskiyou NF 12,893 2,176 (17) 3,612 (28) (46) RRSNF Land Management Allocations Late-Successional Reserves 10,604 4,791 (45) 1,854 (17) 2,927 (28) Riparian Reserves (within Matrix only) 490 262 (53) 59 (12) 141 (29) Matrix 1,479 770 (52) 182 (12) 458 (31) Partial Retention Visual 313 124 (40) 74 (24) 78 (25) Special Wildlife Site 7 0 3 0 Designated Critical Habitat for Northern Spotted Owl within Dunn Creek subwatershed CHU 9 KLW-7 2,794 1,549 (55) 298 (11) 831 (30) Designated Critical Habitat for Northern Spotted Owl within Project Anaysis Area
7 East Fork Illinois River Channel and Floodplain Restoration Project, Wildlife BE and Specialist Report
Total NRF CAPABLE DISPERSAL Sucker Creek Legacy Roads Project TOTAL HABITAT HABITAT ONLY Spotted Owl Action Area ACRES ACRES ACRES (% total) (% total) (% total) CHU 9 KLW-7 270 187(69) 15 (5) 65(24)
The Project analysis area provides approximately 355 acres of NRF and 132 acres of dispersal habitat for northern spotted owls. This represents approximately 6% of the NRF and 4% of dispersal only on the RRSNF within the spotted owl action area.
Designated Critical Habitat for the Northern Spotted Owl
Designation of critical habitat serves to identify lands considered essential for the conservation and recovery of listed species. The functional value of critical habitat is to preserve options for the species’ eventual recovery. Critical habitat for the northern spotted owl was first designated in 1992 with the most recent revision finalized on December 4, 2012 which became effective January 3, 2013 (77 FR 233: 71876-72068).
Critical habitat is defined as (1) specific areas within the geographical area occupied by the species at the time it is listed, on which are found those physical or biological features that are essential to the conservation of the listed species and may require special management considerations or protection, and (2) specific areas outside the geographical area occupied by the species at the time it is listed that are essential for the conservation of a listed species. Regulations focus on the “primary constituent elements,” or PCEs, in identifying these physical or biological features. The PCEs essential to the conservation of the northern spotted owl are forested lands that are used or likely to be used for nesting, roosting, foraging, or dispersing.
A portion of proposed Critical Habitat Unit (CHU) 9 subunit 7, referred to as “Klamath West 7” ( KLW-7) overlaps the Project Analysis Area (Appendix A, Map 2). All of CHU 9 contains 1,290,687 ac (522,322 ha) of the western portion of the Klamath Mountains Ecological Section M261A, based on section descriptions of forest types from Ecological Subregions of the United States (McNab and Avers 1994c, Section M261A). A long north-south trending system of mountains (particularly South Fork Mountain) creates a rainshadow effect that separates this region from more mesic conditions to the west. This region is characterized by very high climatic and vegetative diversity resulting from steep gradients of elevation, dissected topography, and the influence of marine air (relatively high potential precipitation).
The KLW-7 subunit consists of approximately 255,779 acres in Del Norte, Humboldt and Siskiyou Counties, California and includes lands managed by the Forest Service and BLM as directed by the NWFP (USDA and USDI 1994, entire). Special management considerations or protection are required in this subunit to address threats from current and past timber harvest, losses due to wildfire, effects on vegetation from fire exclusion, and competition with barred owls. This subunit is expected to function for demographic support to the overall spotted owl population.
The Service has determined that all unoccupied and likely occupied areas in this subunit are essential for conservation of the species to meet the recovery criterion that calls for continued maintenance and recruitment of spotted owl habitat (USFWS 2011, RA-32). The increase and enhancement of spotted owl habitat is necessary to provide long-term viability of populations of
8 East Fork Illinois River Channel and Floodplain Restoration Project, Wildlife BE and Specialist Report spotted owls by supporting population expansion, successful dispersal, and buffering from competition with barred owls.
A 2,795 acre portion of KLW-7 is located entirely within the Dunn Creek subwatershed. Within this portion of KLW-7, approximately 270 acres overlap the Project Analysis Area (Table 2).
Primary Constituent Elements of Critical Habitat
Based on current research of northern spotted owl life history, biology, and ecology and required habitat to sustain its essential life history functions, the Service has identified the following PCEs for the northern spotted owl (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, 2012):
1) Forest types that may be in early-, mid-, or late-seral states and support the northern spotted owl across its geographical range
2) Habitat that provides for nesting and roosting. This habitat must provide:
a) Sufficient foraging habitat to meet the home range needs of territorial pairs of northern spotted owls throughout the year.
b) Stands for nesting and roosting that are generally characterized by:
(i) Moderate to high canopy closure (60 to over 80 percent), (ii) Multilayered, multispecies canopies with large (20- 30 in (51-76 cm) or greater dbh) overstory trees, (iii) High basal area (greater than 240 ft2/acre (55 m2/ha)), (iv) High diversity of different diameters of trees, (v) High incidence of large live trees with various deformities (e.g., large cavities, broken tops, mistletoe infections, and other evidence of decadence) (vi) Large snags and large accumulations of fallen trees and other woody debris on the ground, and (vii) Sufficient open space below the canopy for northern spotted owls to fly. 3) Habitat that provides for foraging, which varies widely across the northern spotted owl’s range, in accordance with ecological conditions and disturbance regimes that influence vegetation structure and prey species distributions. (see specific description for the Klamath province below).
4) Habitat to support the transience and colonization phases of dispersal, which in all cases would optimally be composed of nesting, roosting, or foraging habitat (PCEs (2) or (3)), but which may also be composed of other forest types that occur between larger blocks of nesting, roosting, and foraging habitat.
Furthermore, characteristics specific Klamath Province Foraging Habitat PCEs include “Forest patches within riparian zones of low-order streams and edges between conifer and hardwood forest stands” (USDI Fish and Wildlife 2012, 77(233):71907).
As displayed in Table 2, approximately 270 acres of KLW-7 overlap the Project Analysis Area. The majority of these acres (69%) are suitable NRF habitat.
9 East Fork Illinois River Channel and Floodplain Restoration Project, Wildlife BE and Specialist Report
Region 6 Sensitive Species Background information about species listed below is primarily from the Region 6 Interagency Special Status and Sensitive Species Program website: http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/sfpnw/issssp/ , USFWS Species Fact Sheets, and Species Conservation Assessments on file in the project record.
Black Salamander Status: USDA Forest Service Region 6 – Sensitive; U.S.D.I. Bureau of Land Management, Oregon – Bureau Sensitive; Oregon State Sensitive - Peripheral; Oregon State imperiled (S2), list 2 – taxa that are threatened with extirpation or presumed to be extirpated from the state of Oregon.
The species complex occurs from southwestern Oregon to northwestern California, with several disjunct populations including one as far south as Santa Cruz, California, although a potential to describe 2-4 species across this area is currently being considered. In Oregon, the current known range of the species is about 187,400 ha (463,075 acres), primarily in the Applegate watershed of Jackson County, Oregon. However, a portion of this range is uncertain at this time. The five site records nearest Cave Junction are uncertain (R.B. Bury, R.S. Nauman, D.R. Clayton, pers. comm.). These localities and this portion of the potential species range warrant confirmation; black salamanders can be confused with other species, such as its congener the clouded salamander, A. ferreus, which is thought to occur at these locations.
The black salamander is a terrestrial salamander that does not need standing or flowing water for breeding or any other part of its life cycle, although it may be found close to creeks or seeps (Stebbins 1985, Nauman and Olson 2004). The black salamander occurs in coniferous forests, mixed coniferous-hardwood forests, deciduous woodlands, open hillsides, coastal grasslands, meadows, and forested riparian areas, from sea level to ~4,500 ft (1,400 m) elevation (Bury 2005). At many interior sites, dry site conditions are apparent. However, in one California study, Welsh et al. (2005) found black salamanders occurred in higher abundances in late-seral forests in comparison to mixed grasslands. Welsh and Lind (1991) found the black salamander was not associated with forest age classes (young, mature, old) but was most abundant in mature stands. It can occur along streams and near seeps, and may be restricted there at some interior sites (Nauman and Olson 2004a, Bury 2005). Welsh et al. (2005) found a significant association of black salamander abundance with intermittent stream reaches. Microhabitat for black salamanders includes surface cover such as down wood (in or under logs, under bark or boards) and rocks (Lynch 1981). They frequent talus slopes and have been found in the talus exposed by road cuts. At interior sites, they have been found among rocks along streams. There is uncertainty regarding the species’ reliance on any one type of microhabitat attribute, and its use of microhabitat features may be dependent on overall site conditions. Strategic surveys for survey and manage salamanders conducted in the 1990s located several Del Norte salamanders in the Dunn Creek subwatershed; however no black salamanders were documented from these surveys. Surveys for black salamanders were not conducted within the proposed work sites for the East Fork Illinois River Channel and Floodplain Restoration Project. Potential habitat in the project area occurs in riparian vegetation, rocks and litter along the stream drainages. There are no known occurrences of this species in the project analysis area.
Foothill yellow-legged frog Status: Federal - USDA FS Sensitive (Region 6); State of Oregon – Vulnerable
10 East Fork Illinois River Channel and Floodplain Restoration Project, Wildlife BE and Specialist Report
The foothill yellow-legged frog lives in or near streams with rocky or gravel substrates (Nussbaum et al. 1983, Cockran and Thoms 1996). Streams with sandy or muddy bottoms are occasionally used as are moist, rocky outcrops (Nussbaum et al. 1983). Adults commonly live among clumps of sedge at the edges of deep pools, among cobbles on the bottom of pools, or in bedrock at the edge of the main stream channel (Cockran and Thoms 1996). Eggs are deposited during late spring or early summer in clusters attached to rocks on the bottom or edges of streams (Nussbaum et al. 1983, Cockran and Thoms 1996). Tadpoles live in pools for three to four months before metamorphosing into adults (Nussbaum et al. 1983, Cockran and Thoms 1996).
The Forest NRIS database contains no records of foothill yellow-legged frogs in the Project analysis area or in the affected subwatersheds. It is assumed that much of the riparian habitat in the project area would be suitable for these frogs.
Northwestern Pond Turtle Status: Federal - USDA FS Sensitive (Region 6); State of Oregon – Critical
Northwestern pond turtles are capable of living in a wide variety of aquatic habitats. The northwestern pond turtle inhabits marshes, ponds, lakes, reservoirs, sloughs, and slow moving portions of creeks and rivers (Nussbaum et al. 1983, Stebbins 1985, Storm et al. 1995). Pond turtles may also be found in abandoned gravel pits, stock ponds, and sewage treatment plants (Holland 1994). In the Rogue River drainage, records of pond turtle sightings are almost equally divided amongst rivers, larger-order streams, and small ponds (Holland 1994).
The size of habitats used by northwestern pond turtles is quite variable from place to place. Turtles have been observed using small ephemeral ponds only a few square meters in size (Holland 1994). On the other hand, turtles are also known to live in Upper Klamath Lake which covers an area of several dozen square kilometers. In areas where water is present only part of the year, turtles aestivate in the mud in the watercourse or in upland areas during late summer or early spring (Holland 1994). Pond turtles seem to prefer areas that possess some type of refugia such as undercut banks, submerged vegetation, rocks, logs, or mud (Nussbaum et al. 1983, Stebbins 1985, Holland 1994, Storm et al. 1995). Areas containing basking sites for thermoregulation such as rocks, logs, or emergent vegetation are also preferred (Nussbaum et al. 1983, Stebbins 1985, Holland 1994, Storm et al. 1995). Partially submerged logs, vegetation mats, mud banks, rocks, and tree branches provide areas for sunning (Nussbaum et. al. 1983, Stebbins 1985).
The Forest NRIS wildlife database has no records of northwestern pond turtles in the Project analysis area however there is one record of northwestern pond turtles near a small waterbody approximately 1 mile northwest of the Project analysis area in the Lower East Fork Illinois River subwatershed. Potential suitable habitat in the project area for this species is present in eddies and backwater areas of Dunn Creek and the East Fork Illinois River where sand bars and soft substrate is available in the creek channels.
Pacific fisher Status: Federal – Proposed; USDA FS Sensitive (Region 6); State of Oregon – Critical
The Pacific fisher is a federal Candidate species. As of October 7, 2014 the West Coast Distinct Population Segment of Pacific fisher is proposed for federal listing as “threatened” by the USFWS (79 FR 76950-76951). The public comment period on the proposed rule closed in February 2015 and the final rule is expected in September of 2015.
11 East Fork Illinois River Channel and Floodplain Restoration Project, Wildlife BE and Specialist Report
The fisher occurs from southern Yukon and southwestern Northwest Territories southeast throughout Canada. Its distribution extends south through several forested areas of the northeastern United States, the upper peninsula of Michigan, and northern Wisconsin and Minnesota. There is also a population in West Virginia. In the western United States, fisher populations are known in western Montana, the Idaho panhandle, the southern Sierra Nevada of California, the Klamath and Siskiyou mountains of northwestern California and southwestern Oregon, and the southern Cascade Range of southwestern Oregon.
Currently, there are two documented populations in southern Oregon which appear to be genetically isolated from each other (Aubry et al. 2004). This is considered to be due to the presence of potentially strong ecological and anthropogenic barriers including the white oak savanna habitat of the Rogue Valley and Interstate 5. Based on DNA analyses, individuals in the southern Oregon Cascades appear to be descendents of animals re-introduced from British Columbia and Minnesota during the late 1970s and early 1980s by the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (Drew et al. 2003). Animals in the eastern Siskiyou Mountains of Oregon are genetically related to individuals in the northwestern California population, which is indigenous (Wisely et al. 2004, Farber and Franklin 2005).
Reproduction, Home Range, Movement, and Dispersal
Fishers exhibit intra-sexual territoriality, where individuals defend a home range against members of the same sex, but there is considerable overlap between sexes. These territories are maintained year-round except at times during the breeding season when males may trespass on each other’s territories while they search for receptive females (Powell 1993).
In Oregon, the breeding season begins in early February when adult males became more active and start to make longer distance movements often well beyond their non-breeding season home ranges (Aubry et al. 2004). Kits are typically born from mid-March through early April, and the natal denning period lasts until late-May early June. (Meyer 2007, Aubry and Raley 2006 ). After the natal denning period, females will move kits to maternal dens that may be used for 2 or more weeks (Aubry and Raley 2006). In the Ashland watershed in 2012 during an ongoing fisher monitoring study for the Ashland Forest Resiliency Project, natal and maternal dens were found in pine and hardwood trees with cavities that had relatively small entrance holes several feet from the ground.
At 2-3 months of age, juveniles begin foraging for themselves, though they remain on their mother’s home range until they disperse at 6-12 months of age (Powell 1993). Riparian corridors (Heinemeyer and Jones 1994) and forested saddles between major drainages (Buck 1983) may provide important dispersal habitat or landscape linkages for fishers.
Fisher Habitat
Habitat specialization appears to be tied primarily to denning and resting needs. The varied diet of fishers suggests they may forage in a variety of habitats.
Rest Structures Several studies have shown that fishers appear to be highly selective of resting structures by choosing the largest diameter trees available in a particular landscape with a significantly high canopy closure immediately adjacent to the rest site (Zielinski et al. 2004, Yeager 2005, Aubry and Raley 2006). In the southern Oregon Cascades, rest structures used by fishers include live
12 East Fork Illinois River Channel and Floodplain Restoration Project, Wildlife BE and Specialist Report trees, especially with mistletoe brooms or rodent nests, logs and cull piles, snags, and cavities in both conifers and hardwoods (Zielinski et al. 2004, Aubry and Raley 2006).
Den Structures As with resting structures, both conifers and hardwoods provide habitat for fisher dens (Yeager 2005). In the southwestern Oregon Cascades fishers have used both live trees and snags with openings that accessed hollows created by heartwood decay for natal dens (Aubry and Raley 2006). Structures used for maternal dens are found to be more variable than those used for natal dens, and include cavities in the bole or butt of large live trees and snags, and large hollow logs (Aubry and Raley 2006). As with resting sites, high canopy closure (above 80%) has been shown to be important for den sites. (Aubry and Raley 2006, Yeager 2005, and Zielinski 2004). Reduction of canopy closure to below 80% around large live trees and snags that are clumped and large logs where there is a multi-storied stand component likely has the potential to have the most detrimental effect on potential den and rest sites. Since fishers use the largest live and dead trees for den and resting habitats, loss of these structures can also reduce habitat quality for resident animals.
Foraging Habitat Although the fisher is reported to be a specialist in late-seral, mixed conifer-hardwood forests, recent analysis of the diet of fishers portray a gerneralist predator with opportunistic foraging strategies (Aubry and Raley 2006, Zielinski and Duncan 2004, Aubry et al. 2002, Zielinski et al. 1999, Powell 1993). Mammals, birds, reptiles, insects and plants have been found in the diet of fishers (Zielinski et al. 1999, Aubry and Raley 2006). While fishers require structures provided by older aged or residual stands for denning and resting, they appear to use a broad array of stand conditions for foraging from stands with high volumes of coarse woody material, to pole-sapling forestes, edge habitats and gaps in forest cover with fruit-bearing shrubs and forbs (Weir and Harestad 2003, Jones and Garton 1994).
Surveys and Presence in the Project Area
No surveys have been conducted for fisher in the Project analysis area. There are known and historic sites near HWY 199 at the Oregon/California border, and one in the Headwaters Applegate River watershed northeast of the project area.
The Dunn Creek and Upper East Fork Illinois River subwatersheds (approximately 26,800 acres) are used as the analysis area for Pacific fishers. Suitable habitat for fishers is present throughout the project analysis area and the subwatersheds. Potential denning and resting habitat for this analysis was defined as predominantly conifer forest with > 60% canopy closure and a diameter of > 20” dbh. The 2000 LEMMA GNN data estimates 14,800 acres of denning/resting habitat in the Dunn Creek and Upper East Fork Illinois River subwatersheds collectively. Dispersal and foraging habitat is sapling/pole conifer forest ( 9-19.9” dbh) with > 60% canopy closure. The 2000 LEMMA GNN data estimate 1,578 acres of dispersal/foraging habitat mapped within the project area, though practically the entire project area may provide foraging opportunities given the general nature of their food habits.
Pallid Bat Status: USDA FS Region 6 Sensitive
Pallid bats are known to occur throughout SW Oregon and NW California. Suitable roost habitat types include buildings, bridges, rock outcrops, and large decadent snags with loose bark. Pallid
13 East Fork Illinois River Channel and Floodplain Restoration Project, Wildlife BE and Specialist Report bats have been captured from several sites on the RRSNF, including some locations on the Siskiyou Mountains Ranger District. They have also been observed roosting under bridges on the Applegate River.
Pallid bats have not been documented in the Project analysis area or in the two subwatersheds, though the presence of bridges, abandoned buildings and large decadent snags in the project analysis area provide potential roosting habitat for pallid bats.
Townsend’s Big-Eared Bat Status: USDA FS Region 6 Sensitive
Townsend’s big-eared bats occur in a wide variety of habitats, its distribution tends to be geomorphically determined and is strongly correlated with the availability of caves or cavelike roosting habitat (e.g., old mines) (Pierson et al. 1999). The species may also use hollow trees for roosting. Suitable roosts sites and hibernacula fall within a specific range of temperature and moisture conditions. Moths make up the majority of the diet for C. townsendii.
These bats are not documented to occur in the Project analysis area, however, abandoned buildings and mine adits within the project analysis area would provide potential roost or maternity sites for Townsend’s big-eared bats.
Fringed Myotis Status: USDA FS Region 6 Sensitive
Fringed Myotis (M. thysanodes) bats range through much of western North America from southern British Columbia, Canada, south to Chiapas, Mexico and from Santa Cruz Island in California, east to the Black Hills of South Dakota. M. thysanodes occurs from sea-level to 2850 m but is most common at middle elevations 2100 m. Distribution is patchy. It appears to be most common in drier woodlands (oak, pinyon-juniper, ponderosa pine) but is found in a wide variety of habitats including desert scrub, mesic coniferous forest, grassland, and sage-grass steppe.
M. thysanodes roost in crevices in buildings, underground mines, rocks, cliff faces, and bridges. Roosting in decadent trees and snags, particularly large ones, is common throughout its range in western U. S. and Canada. M. thysanodes roosts have been documented in a large variety of tree species and it is likely that structural characteristics (e.g. height, decay stage) rather than tree species play a greater role in selection of a snag or tree as a roost. Information available on hibernation is largely limited to an accounting of the types of structures used as hibernacula including: caves, mines and buildings.
Potential habitat exists in the Project analysis area although there are no known occurrences documented for this species documented in the analysis area or the two affected subwatersheds.
Lewis’ woodpecker Status: USDA FS Region 6 Sensitive
Lewis’ woodpeckers are migratory in southwestern Oregon, with sporadically large populations in the winter and scattered breeding pairs in the summer reported. Gilligan et al. (1994) reports that they are common breeders in summer in Jackson and Josephine Counties but in the last 10 years they have not been documented (N. Barrett 2008, pers. com.) and there are few recent breeding records (Janes et al. 2002). The population of Lewis’ woodpeckers has fallen dramatically across Oregon as pine – oak woodlands are lost (Gilligan et al. 1994). A
14 East Fork Illinois River Channel and Floodplain Restoration Project, Wildlife BE and Specialist Report contributing factor in the decline has been the spread of the European Starling, which aggressively out-competes this species for available cavities. Habitat loss is due to a wide variety of concerns that include urbanization of valley floors, fire suppression and encroachment of conifer forests, timber harvest of pine components in the oak forests, etc.
This species is closely tied to the ponderosa pine/oak savannah habitats of eastern and southwest Oregon. Nests are often in the large Ponderosa Pine snags or mature oaks while the birds forage on insects and acorn meat. In winter they store acorn meat in crevices in trees and power poles. Because this woodpecker does not usually excavate its own cavity, they have a close tie to older snags within the forest that are likely to contain cavities and have crevices for food storage.
Potential habitat does exist for this species in the Project analysis area, though there are no known occurrences of this species documented in the Project area.
White-headed woodpecker Status: USDA Forest Service Region 6 – Sensitive
White-headed woodpeckers have been confirmed breeding along the California border into Josephine County. These woodpeckers breed in pine and mixed conifer forests. Thinned stands with large remnant trees provide suitable habitat, as well as old growth forests. Nest predation by small mammals has been found to be a common cause of nest failure for white-headed woodpeckers and they have been found to have better nesting success in pine stands with lower shrub cover (Mellen-McLean et al. 2013). On the Rogue River–Siskiyou National Forest any dry, open forest stands with large trees and snags may serve as suitable foraging and breeding habitat for the species. This species is not migratory and can be found on the forest year round (Janes et al. 2002).
There are 2 documented observations of this species in the higher elevations of the Black Creek drainage in the Dunn Creek subwatershed, but none in the Project analysis area.
Chace Sideband Snail Status: USDA Forest Service – Sensitive, Survey and Manage
This species is endemic to northern California and southwest Oregon. In California, this species has been reported mainly from the Klamath Basin in northern Siskiyou County, from the vicinity of Happy Camp east to the Shasta and Little Shasta River Drainages, in the Goosenest Ranger District of the Klamath National Forest, with a few locations reported as far south and west as Trinity County, on the eastern slopes of the Trinity Mountains in the Weaverville Ranger District of Shasta-Trinity National Forest. In Oregon, sites occur in southern and eastern Jackson and Douglas Counties, in the Klamath-Siskiyou Mountains and the west slopes of the Cascades, north to the Umpqua River basin. One site has been reported from the Klamath River Basin in southwestern Klamath County, Oregon.
Chace sidebands are associated with forested and open talus or rocky areas. Vegetation types include dry conifer and mixed conifer/hardwood forest communities as well as oak communities. Mollusks which inhabit rocky habitats also utilize the surrounding forest areas for foraging and dispersal during moist, cool conditions. Seasonal deep refugia include talus deposits and outcrops, which contain stable interstitial spaces large enough for snails to enter. These seasonal refugia also provide protection from fire and predation during inactive periods. Within rocky
15 East Fork Illinois River Channel and Floodplain Restoration Project, Wildlife BE and Specialist Report habitat, the species is also associated with subsurface water, herbaceous vegetation and deciduous leaf litter. In some forested sites, especially in the OR Cascades Province, the species has been found associated with down wood where few rock substrates occur. Areas with frequent fire return intervals where rock crevice refugia are available may have historically favored this species over other, larger forms of Monadenia. Forested areas along creeks with rocky habitat, herbaceous vegetation, deciduous leaf litter and coarse woody debris, provide potential habitat for this species within the Project analysis area. There are no documented observations of this species in the affected watersheds or the Project analysis area. The area proposed for side channel reconstruction has been disturbed frequently by fire and seasonal flooding within the last 80 years and is not considered to be contributing significantly to habitat that provides a reasonable assurance of persistence for this species.
Oregon Shoulderband Status: USDA Forest Service Region 6 – Sensitive, Survey and Manage
This terrestrial snail is endemic to northern California and southwest Oregon. In California, this species has been reported in Siskiyou County, in the Klamath River Basin from the vicinity of Happy Camp east to the Shasta and Little Shasta River Drainages in the Klamath National Forest. The range extends south into Trinity County, with the westernmost edge of the range on the eastern slopes of the Trinity Mountains in the Weaverville Ranger District of Trinity National Forest. Additional sites occur to the east in Shasta County, within the Shasta National Forest. In Oregon, the range includes Jackson, Josephine, and Douglas Counties, with verified locations in Roseburg and Medford BLM Districts and the Umpqua National Forest. Habitat The Oregon shoulderband is associated with rocks and woody debris in rocky areas within forest habitats, often adjacent to areas with substantial grass or seasonal herbaceous vegetation. Seasonal deep refugia include talus deposits and outcrops, which contain stable interstitial spaces large enough for snails to enter. These seasonal refugia also provide protection from fire and predation during inactive periods. Within rocky habitat, the species is also associated with subsurface water, herbaceous vegetation and deciduous leaf litter, generally within 30 m. (98 ft.) of stable talus deposits or rocky inclusions. Vegetation types where the species has been located include dry conifer and mixed conifer/hardwood forest communities as well as oak communities. Forest canopy cover moderates the extremes in environmental conditions and may provide additional moisture to the site in the form of condensation drip. Woody debris and deciduous leaf litter is often used as daily refugia during foraging and dispersal in the moist seasons. No strong riparian association has been identified. The species occurs with Monadenia chaceana at some sites.
Several sites in Roseburg BLM have been located in rock quarries and riparian areas adjacent to them. Additional sites were found on roadsides where large material from those quarries was used for the construction of culvert crossings, riprap for slope stabilizing, and other road-related uses. It is not known whether populations at these roadside locations are natural or were colonized by individuals transported there with quarry material.
Surveys and Field Reconnaissance
Forested areas along creeks with rocky habitat, herbaceous vegetation, deciduous trees and leaf litter and coarse woody debris, provide potential habitat for this species. The project area contains suitable rocky, talus areas in stream drainages with hardwood and herbaceous components that
16 East Fork Illinois River Channel and Floodplain Restoration Project, Wildlife BE and Specialist Report also provide potential habitat, however the area proposed for side channel reconstruction has been disturbed frequently by fire and seasonal flooding within the last 80 years and is not considered to be contributing significantly to habitat that provides a reasonable assurance of persistence for this species. There are no documented observations of this species occurring in the affected subwatersheds or the Project analysis area.
Coronis fritillary A relatively large (~ 3in.) butterfly that occurs in lower Rogue & Illinois River valleys of Jackson and Josephine counties. It is expected in Coos, Curry and Douglas counties. Locally distributed in the Siskiyous.
The coronis fritillary inhabits lower elevation canyons and grasslands as well as mid-montane meadows and forest margins and openings (Pyle 2002). Caterpillars spend winter in first instar before feeding (Pyle 2002). In spring larvae feed mostly on Viola hallii, found in rocky serpentine habitats (Hammond 2006, pers. comm. with E. Scheuering.). Adults seem to move uphill shortly after emerging, probably in search of nectar (Warren 2005). Adult’s nectar on bull thistle, other composites, and chokecherry (Pyle 2002). Females, at least, apparently return to basin habitats later in the season to deposit eggs. The single annual brood flies from mid-May to mid-September.
The coronis fritillary has been documented in Josephine County, approximately fifteen miles northwest of the project area near 8-Dollar Mountain. There are no known occurrences of this butterfly in the East Fork Illinois River Channel and Floodplain Restoration Project analysis area. Rocky serpentine meadow habitat that would support associated viola spp. occurs in the vicinity of the Project analysis area, but has not been observed where proposed side channel or riparian forest planting would occur. However, these areas provide potential nectar sources for the adult butterflies.
Franklin’s bumblebee Status: USDA Forest Service Region 6 – Sensitive,
Franklin’s Bumble Bee is a typical primitively eusocial bumble bee. Females are generalist foragers for pollen, especially from lupine (Lupinus) and California poppy (Eschscholzia), and for nectar, especially from horsemint (Agastache) and mountain penny-royal (Monardella). They may collect both pollen and nectar from vetch (Vicia) and rob nectar from it (P. Schroeder pers. com.). Its nesting biology is unknown, but it probably nests in abandoned rodent burrows as is typical for other members of the subgenus Bombus sensu stricto (Hobbs 1968). Its flight season is from mid-May to the end of September (Thorp et al. 1983).
Franklin’s Bumble Bee has the most limited geographic distribution of any bumble bee in North America and possibly the World (Williams 1998). It is known only from southern Oregon and northern California between the Coast and Sierra-Cascade Ranges. Stephen (1957) recorded it from the Umpqua and Rogue River Valleys of Oregon. Thorp et al. (1983) also recorded it from northern California and suggested its restriction to the Klamath Mountain region of southern Oregon and northern California. Its entire distribution, including recent range extensions (Thorp 2005), can be covered by an oval of about 190 miles north to south and 70 miles east to west between 122o to 124o west longitude and 40o 58’ to 43o 30’ north latitude.
17 East Fork Illinois River Channel and Floodplain Restoration Project, Wildlife BE and Specialist Report
It is known from Douglas, Jackson, and Josephine counties in Oregon and Siskiyou and Trinity counties in California. Elevations of localities where it has been found range from 540 feet (162 m) in the north to above 7,800 feet (2340 m) in the south of its historic range.
There is a historic location near Bigelow Lakes in the Sucker Creek watershed over 10 miles to the northeast of the project area (Thorp. pers. com.). The East Fork Illinois River Channel and Floodplain Restoration project analysis area offers limited potential habitat for these bees. Lack of deep soil and disturbance from flooding limit the availability of flowers in the proposed side channel construction area and locations for in-stream wood placement are also not expected to provide abundant nectar sources for these bees.
Western bumblebee Status: USDA Forest Service Region 6 – Sensitive
The western bumblebee (Bombus occidentalis) was widespread and common throughout the western United States and western Canada before 1998 (Xerces Society 2009). The former range of U.S. states included: northern California, Oregon, Washington, Alaska, Idaho, Montana, western Nebraska, western North Dakota, western South Dakota, Wyoming, Utah, Colorado, northern Arizona, and New Mexico. Unfortunately, since 1998 populations of this bumblebee have declined drastically throughout parts of its former range. Populations of the western bumblebee in central California, Oregon, Washington and southern British Columbia have mostly disappeared. It is difficult to accurately assess the magnitude of these declines since most of this bee’s historic range has not been sampled systematically.
The following from Evans et. al, 2008 describes survey efforts conducted in southern Oregon: “Robbin Thorp has extensively searched several sites in southern Oregon and northern California where B. occidentalis used to be common. He has only found one B. occidentalis individual since 2002 (Thorp 2008). In yearly surveys of southern Oregon and northern California sites in which a total of 15,573 bumble bees were observed from 1998 to 2007, 102 B. occidentalis were observed in 1998, nine in 1999, one in 2000, one in 2001, one in 2002, and none in 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, or 2007 (Thorp 2008, Figure 9). In 2008, a single B. occidentalis specimen was captured on Mt. Ashland in Oregon in a survey that included over 2,000 bees that were caught in blue vane traps (R. Thorp, personal communication, September 2008). An additional 2,000 bumble bees were examined foraging at flowers. No additional B. occidentalis were observed, indicating that although present, B. occidentalis is still extremely rare. “
This bee also typically uses pre-existing holes such as abandoned rodent holes for nesting. These bees likely use a wide variety of flowering and pollen producing plants as most native bees.
There are no known occurrences of this bee in the Project analysis area though potential habitat is present, however the abundance of flowering nectar sources is limited by low soil productivity and seasonal flooding at the proposed side-channel and in-stream work locations.
Management Indicator Species Management Indicator Species (MIS) associated with the Siskiyou NF LRMP, hereafter SNFP, (USDA Forest Service 1989) represent the issues, concerns, and opportunities to support recovery of Federally-listed species, provide continued viability of Sensitive species, and enhance management of wildlife and fish for commercial, recreational, scientific, subsistence, or aesthetic values or uses. Management indicators representing overall objectives for wildlife, fish, and plants may include species, groups of species with similar habitat relationships, or habitats that
18 East Fork Illinois River Channel and Floodplain Restoration Project, Wildlife BE and Specialist Report are of high concern (FSM 2621.1). The current condition of habitat and trends for all MIS species is discussed in the Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest MIS Forest-wide analysis documents (USDA Forest Service 2012). An indicator species represents all other wildlife species which utilize a similar habitat type. Indicator species act as a barometer for the health of various habitats and will be monitored to quantify habitat changes predicted by implementation of the SNFP (1989 pages IV-10 and 11, FEIS page III-102). MIS and habitats include bald eagle (habitat along major rivers), osprey (habitat along large rivers), spotted owl (late-successional forest), pileated woodpecker and American marten (mature/interior forest), black-tailed deer and Roosevelt elk (early successional forest stages, and woodpeckers/cavity nesters (wildlife trees [snags]). Table 3 identifies Management Indicator Species and their habitat represented within the project areas. Bald eagles and spotted owls were discussed previously.
Table 3. Wildlife Management Indicator Species and Habitat Represented Habitat Present in Species Present in Species Habitat Represented Analysis Area Analysis Area Bald Eagle Habitat corridors along Yes Documented major rivers Osprey Habitat corridors along large Yes Documented creeks and rivers Spotted owl Old-growth forest Yes Documented Pileated woodpecker Mature forest Yes Documented American marten Mature forest Yes Documented Woodpeckers Snags (standing dead trees) Yes Documented Black-tailed deer, Early successional forest Deer Documented, Yes Roosevelt elk stages Elk not likely
Osprey (Pandion haliaetus) are commonly observed along the Rogue River, and in the Chetco Illinois, and Coquille fifth-field watersheds. This species is closely associated with open water (lakes, rivers, and streams). It breeds in the major habitat types but only when adjoining open water. Ospreys arrive during early spring (March), nest, and then leave for wintering grounds by October. Their primary diet includes fish and eels, which they hunt while in flight. Osprey monitoring from 1992 to 2001 on the lower Rogue River detected an increase in active osprey nests. Osprey nests have also recently been monitored on the South Fork Coquille and Elk Rivers. In 2011, approximately 39,563 acres of prime habitat for osprey were identified within 1 mile of the Rogue River and sections of the Illinois and Chetco Rivers. The East Fork Illinois River Channel and Floodplain Restoration project is not within this prime habitat. There are documented observations of osprey in the Project analysis area or within the affected watersheds. The steeper gradients and smaller creek sizes in the Project analysis area don’t offer high quality foraging opportunites for osprey as compared to local mountain lakes and the Illinois River. Pileated woodpecker (Dryocopus pileatus) is generally associated (feeds and breeds) with the Mixed forest habitat type, and present in the Oak habitat type. This species feeds and breeds in a variety of structural conditions especially in a landscape mosaic of habitat types.
Decadent wood and snags are essential habitat components and are available throughout the affected subwatersheds mostly due to 4,732 acres of wildland fire that occurred in 1987 including the Longwood Fire. Of this burned area, 226 acres is within the Project analysis area including the proposed side channel location. There are 2 confirmed observations of pileated woodpeckers in the affected subwatersheds, east of Dunn Creek.
19 East Fork Illinois River Channel and Floodplain Restoration Project, Wildlife BE and Specialist Report
Pileated woodpecker habitat has decreased from 41% of the Forest in 1989 to 34% (368,428 acres) in 2011. The total amount of habitat protected has increased from 179,737 acres with the 1989 Siskiyou NF LMP to 315,231 acres in 2011 with the added NWFP direction. Currently 86% of pileated woodpecker habitat is in protected land allocations on the Siskiyou side of the Forest mostly due to the 467,702 acres burned in the 2002 Biscuit fire. Additional fires since 2002 on the Wild Rivers Ranger District have added nearly 12,000 acres of additional snag habitat. Recovery Action 32 for the northern spotted owl retains high quality nesting, roosting and foraging habitat in the remaining land allocations. Eighty-three percent of the Forest is in an unmanaged condition and providing snags at natural levels. The amount of available habitat for this species on the Forest is above 1989 SNFP projections and is consistent with Forest Plan direction, thus continued viability of the pileated woodpecker is expected on the Siskiyou National Forest (USDA Forest Service 2012).
American marten (Martes americana) are strongly associated with mature conifer forest (Zielinski et al, 2001). They may den in snags, down logs, and rock outcrops. The Pacific Southwest Research Station (PSW) conducted a smoke-plate track survey in 1997 (following Zielinski and Kucera 1995) for marten and fisher across the Gold Beach and Chetco Ranger Districts. Marten were detected in the Lower Rogue, Hunter Creek, Pistol River and Chetco watersheds. Fisher was detected in the North Fork Smith watershed. Spotted skunk, gray fox, ringtail, and northern flying squirrel were also detected. Remote camera sets were installed at four locations along Agness Road in 1993 (1 station) and 1996 (3 stations). Spotted skunk, gray fox and turkey vultures were captured on film, no martens.
The nearest documented marten observation to the Project analysis area is approximately 12 miles east of Dunn Creek. Suitable habitat for marten is similar to NRF habitat described previously for the northern spotted owl. Given this, the Project analysis area provides approximately 255 acres of suitable mature conifer forest habitat for American marten.
Marten habitat at the Siskiyou National Forest scale is estimated to be between 34-36%. The American marten model (USDA, 2011a) estimates that 36% of the Siskiyou National Forest currently provides suitable habitat. Marten habitat has decreased from 41% of the Forest in 1989 to 34% in 2011. The total amount of habitat protected has increased from 179,737 acres with the 1989 SNFP to 315,231 acres in 2011with the SNFP as amended by NWFP direction. Currently 86% of marten habitat is in protected land allocations. Spotted Owl Recovery Action 32 retains high quality nesting, roosting and foraging habitat in the remaining land allocations. Eighty- three percent of the Forest is in an unmanaged condition and providing snags and down wood at natural levels. The amount of available habitat for this species on the Forest is above 1989 Forest Plan projections and is consistent with Forest Plan direction, thus continued viability of the American marten is expected on the Siskiyou National Forest.
The woodpecker group includes acorn, pileated, downy, hairy, and white-headed woodpeckers, as well as northern flickers and red-breasted sapsuckers. These species are generally associated with oak woodland, mixed forest, and/or grassland habitat types. Woodpeckers excavate nests in snags and trees. They also forage in decayed wood. Black-backed woodpeckers tend to be associated with recently burned forested areas and are unlikely inhabitants of the Project analysis area.
As mentioned earlier with the pileated woodpecker, the affected subwatersheds offer over 4,000 acres of snag habitat just from past wildland fires in addition to snags from other natural processes in the landscape. Undocumented observations of woodpeckers are known in the vicinity of the proposed side channel work and numerous snags are present.
20 East Fork Illinois River Channel and Floodplain Restoration Project, Wildlife BE and Specialist Report
Currently, there is far more habitat available on the Forest for woodpeckers than was planned for in the original LRMP. It is very likely that the forest is providing habitat for far more woodpecker pairs than originally thought to be needed across the Forest to provide for long term viability for this species (USDA Forest Service 2012). In addition to the reserve land allocations on the Forest, the Forest has specific snag and down wood requirements using local long term eco-plot data that the Forest believes contributes to maintaining woodpecker viability across all land allocations better than the original snag habitat capability requirement under the LRMP (USDA Forest Service 2001). The Biscuit Fire burned through 467,702 acres within the Siskiyou National Forest and provides areas with high amounts of snags.
Blacktail deer (Odocoileus hemionus columbianus) and Roosevelt elk (Cervus elaphus roosevelti) use all successional stages to meet their habitat needs for cover, forage and reproduction. Natural or created openings provide the majority of foraging habitat, which is assumed to be the most restrictive habitat component in this region (Forest Plan FEIS, III-106- 107). Deer and elk represent more than 180 wildlife species that need early successional stages to meet some or all of their requirements (Brown, 1985). Forage habitat is available within existing meadows, harvest units less than 10 years old and open canopy forested areas.
The amount of area with programmed timber harvest, expected to provide a sustainable forage base, on the Forest has declined from 505,000 acres (46%) to 78,713 acres (7%). The amount of forage available from timber harvest activities has declined from 48,785 acres in 1989 to 9,132 in 2011. The amount of forage available from fires has increased from 103,646 in 1989 to 471,176 in 2011. Forage created from regeneration harvest and fires are transitory, which generally has a benefit for deer and elk for 5-10 years until canopy closure resumes. The amount and quality of forage provided by the Biscuit Fire is beginning to decline as tree canopies begin to close.
Current elk and deer populations are below Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) management objectives. ODFW estimates of the Roosevelt elk population were over 130,000 from 1993-2001. Since 2001 the population estimate has fluctuated between 120,000 and 130,000 (Oregon Forest Resource Institute, 2013). The black-tailed deer population is more difficult to estimate because they typically inhabit more densely vegetated cover than elk and other deer species. In 1979, ODFW estimated the black-tailed deer population in Oregon at 452,000. In 2004 it was estimated at 320,000 (Oregon Forest Resource Institute, 2013).
Evidence of black-tailed deer use has been observed within the Project analysis area and known to be common in the affected subwatersheds. Based on the East Fork Illinois River Watershed Analysis (USFS 2000) Roosevelt elk have been present in these subwatersheds however none have been documented in the Forest NRIS database within the Project analysis area.
Forested conditions provide hiding cover (vegetation capable of hiding 90% of a standing adult deer or elk at 200 feet or less), thermal cover (a forest stand > 40ft tall with > 70% canopy cover) and optimal cover (a forest stand with overstory, sub-canopy, shrub, and herbaceous strata and >70% canopy). The 2000 LEMMA GNN vegetation mapping indicates approximately 11,222 acres of habitat with > 70% canopy cover in the affected subwatersheds (42%), and 350 acres within the Project analysis area. Neo-tropical Migratory Birds and Landbirds Within the National Forest System, conservation of migratory birds focuses on providing a diversity of habitat conditions at multiple spatial scales. The Rogue River-Siskiyou NF is within Bird Conservation Region 5 (Northern Pacific Forest).
21 East Fork Illinois River Channel and Floodplain Restoration Project, Wildlife BE and Specialist Report
This analysis is based on neo-tropical migratory birds/landbird focal species identified by Partners in Flight (PIF): Conservation Strategy for Landbirds in Coniferous Forest of Western Oregon and Washington. As per the Partners In Flight Bird Conservation Plan “… if you provide all of the habitats to some degree over some landscape, then you will probably be taking care of most if not all of the landbirds in that habitat. The conservation emphasis is on ecosystems, habitats, and habitat conditions, not species.” Priority bird species for varying habitats within the East Fork Illinois Channel and Floodplain Restoration Project are summarized in Table 4.
Bird conservation objectives are tied to focal species that represent habitat attributes and/or ecological functions of various forest age classes. For example, Vaux’s Swifts use large snags in old-growth systems, olive-sided flycatchers use residual canopy trees in early seral stages, and hermit warblers use the closed canopy in young to mature-aged forests. These habitats and their attributes, in certain quantities and combinations, should be maintained on landscapes in a shifting mosaic of conditions. The Dunn Creek and Upper East Fork Illinois River subwatersheds provide potential nesting, dispersal, foraging, and cover habitat for variety of bird species.
Table 4. 2008 Birds of Conservation Concern and Partners in Flight Focal Migrant Bird Species and Associated Habitat Habitat Condition Habitat Attribute Bird Species Coniferous Old-growth / Large snags Vaux’s swift, pileated woodpecker forest Mature Coniferous Old-growth / Large trees; conifer cones; Brown creeper; red crossbill; varied forest Mature mid-story tree layers thrush Varied canopy closure; Hermit warbler, Hammond’s Coniferous Mature / deciduous canopy & flycatcher; Pacific-slope flycatcher; forest Young understory; complex forest Wilson’s warbler; winter wren, floor Northern goshawk, purple finch Coniferous Young / Deciduous canopy Black-throated gray warbler forest Pole Coniferous Deciduous subcanopy / Pole Hutton’s vireo forest understory Residual canopy trees, snags, Olive-sided flycatcher; western Coniferous Early-seral deciduous vegetation; nectar- bluebird; orange-crowned warbler; forest producing plants rufous hummingbird Coniferous Unique Mineral springs Band-tailed pigeon forest California quail, western screech-owl, Oak woodlands Nutall’s woodpecker, oak titmouse, (including non- Unique wrentit, California thrasher, black- forested prairie) chinned sparrow, Oregon vesper sparrow, horned lark Cliffs, waterfalls Cliffs near waterfalls within Unique Black swift & forest forested habitat. Large trees adjacent to major Riparian Riparian Bald eagle, willow flycatcher rivers. Dense shrub habitat. Large cliffs Unique Peregrine falcon
Analysis of Effects
Considerations for Cumulative Effects Cumulative effects are evaluated based on direct and indirect effects of proposed project activities in conjunction with similar effects of other past, present or foreseeable future activities within a common area of influence or occurring in a similar timeframe. For this project, effects such as
22 East Fork Illinois River Channel and Floodplain Restoration Project, Wildlife BE and Specialist Report localized, short-term disturbance of aquatic habitat at the side channel reconstruction site during low summer flows would be considered with other projects that may impact aquatic habitat in the same stream within the same timeframe. For wildlife, the area considered for cumulative effects varies by species based on habitat requirements, mobility of the animals, and the level of effects evaluation based on status. For example, effects to management indicator species are considered for the population and habitat distribution at the forest level.
Other Federal actions considered within the East Fork Illinois River Channel and Floodplain Restoration Project area that would result in similar impacts to wildlife include manual gold panning on 13 active mining claims throughout the project area (suction dredging is currently prohibited in California). Hazard tree treatments at developed recreation sites and along roads open for public use occur annually with applied design criteria and mitigations for resource impacts. Road maintenance activities such as culvert cleaning, removal of fallen trees, brushing and surface grading also occur on open roads annually as needed and require design criteria to minimize or avoid resource impacts.
Reasonably foreseeable future activities include reduction of conifer and brush encroachment in Dunn-Hogue Meadows to maintain upland meadow habitat and plantation thinning and fuels reduction within the Longwood Fire scar. These projects would encompass approximately 300 acres in upland areas surrounding the proposed side channel restoration site and would implement the Forestwide Meadow Enhancement CE or the East IV Managed Stands EA design criteria to minimize or avoid resource impacts.
Approximately 242 acres (1%) of the Dunn Creek and East Fork Illinois River subwatersheds are privately owned, of which 65 acres are within the Project analysis area. These properties are mostly residential or agricultural and are expected to continue to provide existing habitat conditions indefinitely. Late Successional Reserve
East IV LSR The analysis area for considering impacts to the East IV LSR is approximately 62,809 acres of federally managed lands. This includes about 3,000 acres of overlap with botanical areas and backcountry recreation land allocations in the Forest LMP.
Alternative 1
Direct and Indirect Effects
Under alternative 1, the no-action alternative, none of the proposed restoration work would occur in the Dunn Creek or East Fork Illinois River subwatersheds. There would be no effect on late successional habitat or associated species in the East IV LSR from implementation of Alternative 1. Natural processes such as large floods, fires and natural succession would slowly accumulate large wood and alter stream channels in Dunn Creek and the East Fork of the Illinois River over many decades.
Cumulative Effects
There are no direct or indirect effects of taking no action that would be add to cumulative effects to late-successional habitat within the East IV LSR.
23 East Fork Illinois River Channel and Floodplain Restoration Project, Wildlife BE and Specialist Report
Alternative 2 – Proposed Action
Direct and Indirect Effects
Project activities under the proposed action would not modify existing late successional or old growth habitat. Vegetation that may be removed for side channel reconstruction does not currently provide late successional habitat. Potential hazard trees along project access roads or in work areas would be treated and left for down wood or in stream woody debris. Roadside hazard trees are expected to be occasional and may result in a loss of snags within the criteria for roadside hazard tree treatment specified in the 2015 Forest-wide BA and BO for miscellaneous activities. Several snags ranging from 8-20” dbh in and around the channel reconstruction area will likely be felled for safety. As discussed previously, snags are abundant within over 9,000 acres of the LSR that burned in the 1987 fires, so the amount felled for hazard trees during this project would be a small proportion of snag habitat available in the LSR. Proposed project activities would improve long-term riparian habitat and water quality in the affected streams and are expected to have neutral or beneficial effects to late successional habitat and LSR values (NFWP ROD, 1994 p C-16 to 17).
Cumulative Effects
Felling of standing snags as hazard trees may add to cumulative loss of snags within the East IV LSR from other projects that treat hazard trees such as annual road and recreation site maintenance and potential vegetation treatments on up to 300 acres of meadows and plantations in the vicinity of the project. However, because this is a wildland fire area, the number of snags is disproportionately high in this part of the East IV LSR and the affected habitat is early to mid- successional. Therefore, the contribution of Alternative 2 to cumulative effects to LSR values is minor. Federally Listed Species and Habitat
Norhtern Spotted Owl
Alternative 1 Direct and Indirect and Cumulative Effects
The no-action alternative would have no direct, indirect or cumulative effects to the northern spotted owl. Therefore, Alternative 1 would have no impact on the northern spotted owl.
Alternative 2 Direct and Indirect Effects
Vegetation removal for side channel reconstruction or in-stream large wood placement would involve trees less than 8” dbh. Side channel reconstruction and associated hazard tree treatments would occur in an area that is not currently providing suitable NRF or dispersal habitat for northern spotted owls. Large wood structure construction would occur in-stream. Where ground- based equipment would be used for large wood placement, trees and shrubs less than 8 inch dbh may be cut for access to the stream work site. Locations where placement would be by helicopter would have no need for vegetation clearing except for potential hazard trees, which would be avoided as much as possible. The total vegetation modification for large wood placement is
24 East Fork Illinois River Channel and Floodplain Restoration Project, Wildlife BE and Specialist Report expected to be less than an acre. Any existing NRF or dispersal habitat at these locations would be maintained.
Noise produced by project activities that exceeds ambient noise levels in a project area are considered for their potential to flush or otherwise increase stress of northern spotted owls during the breeding season. Such disturbance can result in the failure or abandonment of a nest.
Restrictions on operation of equipment that produce noise above ambient levels are applied during the critical breeding season for northern spotted owls when nests and young are most vulnerable (March 1 through July 15). The ARBO II consultation and the Forest use 65 yds (59 m) as a noise disturbance threshold from occupied owl sites or suitable unsurveyed nesting habitat for chainsaw use and other mechanized equipment use, and 35 yds (32 m) as a disturbance threshold for heavy equipment operation.
In addition, restrictions on operation of helicopters from March 1-September 30 are required within the following distances of occupied owls sites or suitable nest trees in unsurveyed nesting habitat: Type I helicopters (Chinook47d) is restricted within 266 yds, Type II helicopters are restricted within 151 yds, and Types III and IV are restricted within 111 yards. These restrictions are applied to meet Section 7 consultation requirements for projects that result in a “May Affect, but Not Likely to Adversely Affect” determination for spotted owls under ARBO II consultation (USFWS 2013).
Futhermore, vegetation removal for the side channel construction and ground based access for placement of large woody material are not expected to appreciably impact prey species for the northern spotted owl. The side channel work site does not provide quality habitat for spotted owl primary prey species and is not considered suitable foraging habitat for spotted owls. Vegetation removal or disturbance by ground-based equipment at locations for large wood structures would affect very small amounts of riparian habitat that may be used by certain prey species; however the function of any NRF or dispersal habitat at these locations would be maintained.
Cumulative Effects
Ongoing Forest implemented and permitted mining, road maintenance, and recreation hazard tree treatments and potential for up to 300 acres of meadow and plantation treatments in the spotted owl action area and Project analysis area are expected to continue with required design criteria to minimize and avoid impacts to spotted owls.
Alternative 2 would implement seasonal restrictions on noise producing activities during the breeding season for owls. Vegetation removal for channel reconstruction would not affect owl habitat and for large wood placement would maintain functionality of existing owl habitat. There are no direct or indirect effects of the project that would be additive to past, present or foreseeable activities that would contribute to cumulative effects to spotted owls.
Determination
The Forest expects no appreciable effects from implementation of the East Fork Illinois River Channel and Floodplain Project Alternative 2 and makes the determination of “May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect” northern spotted owls or their habitat with the following rationale:
1. Vegetation removal for channel reconstruction on less than 20 acres of non-habitat, and up to one acre for in-stream large wood structure work may occur at the edges of existing
25 East Fork Illinois River Channel and Floodplain Restoration Project, Wildlife BE and Specialist Report
NRF and dispersal habitats, but would not result in a measurable change to the functionality or reduce the canopy cover of suitable spotted owl NRF or dispersal habitat. 2. Project activities that produce noise above ambient levels within disturbance distances would be restricted between March 1 and July 15, the critical breeding season for spotted owls: no operation of chainsaws or other mechanized equipment within 65 yds of unsurveyed NRF habitat or operation of heavy equipment within 35 yds of NRF habitat unless protocol surveys determine the habitat to be unoccupied by spotted owls. 3. In addition, noise restrictions to be implemented between March 1 and September 30 are: operation of Type I helicopters (Chinook47d) within 266 yds of unsurveyed NRF habitat or operation of Type II within 151 yds, and no operation of Type III or IV helicopters within 111 yds of unsurveyed nesting habitat unless protocol surveys determine the habitat to be unoccupied by spotted owls. This determination is consistent with the Programmatic Biological Opinion for Aquatic Restoration Activities in the States of Oregon, Washington and portions of California, Idaho and Nevada (ARBO II) [FWS reference: 01EOFW00-2013-F-0090].
DESIGNATED CRITICAL HABITAT
Alternative 1 Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects
There would be no direct, indirect or cumulative effects to designated critical habitat for northern spotted owls as a result of implementing Alternative 1, no action. Therefore, Alternative 1 would have no impact on designated critical habitat for northern spotted owls.
Alternative 2 Direct and Indirect Effects
Potential direct effects to designated critical habitat unit KLW-7 for spotted owls would include any disturbance or removal of primary constituent elements described earlier. The proposed 20- acre channel reconstruction work site is not within designated critical habitat for the northern spotted owl.
Vegetation removal of trees and brush less than 8 inches dbh for access to ground-based placement of in-stream large woody debris structures in the upper part of Dunn Creek within unit KLW-7 would not measurably affect primary constituent elements of critical habitat. Felling of hazard trees at these ground-based or the helicopter work sites may result in a loss of snags within critical habitat, however they will be avoided as much as possible and are expected to be minimal for these locations. If any are felled they would be left for down woody debris or in-stream structure.
Cumulative Effects
Ongoing Forest implemented and permitted road maintenance, mining access, recreation hazard tree treatments and potential treatment of meadows and plantations within unit KLW-7 are expected to continue with design criteria where applicable to avoid or minimize impacts to designated critical habitat for spotted owls.
26 East Fork Illinois River Channel and Floodplain Restoration Project, Wildlife BE and Specialist Report
The potential loss of a few snags that may be felled as hazard trees may be additive to similar effects of past, present or foreseeable activities within KLW-7 and have a minor contribution to cumulative effects to primary constituent elements of designated critical habitat for spotted owls.
Determination
The Forest expects minor effects from implementation of the East Fork Illinois River Channel and Floodplain Restoration Project Alternative 2 and makes the determination of “May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect” designated critical habitat for northern spotted owls with the following rationale:
1. Vegetation removal for in-stream large wood structure work would occur at small locations spread within upper Dunn Creek in critical habitat unit KLW-7 for a maximum of 1 acre and the functionality of this critical habitat unit would be maintained. 2. A small number of snags potentially felled as hazard trees at in-stream work sites within KLW-7 would be left for down wood or in-stream structure. This minor loss of standing snags is not expected to alter the functionality of this critical habitat unit. This determination is consistent with with the Programmatic Biological Opinion for Aquatic Restoration Activities in the States of Oregon, Washington and portions of California, Idaho and Nevada (ARBO II) [FWS reference: 01EOFW00-2013-F-0090].
Region 6 Sensitive Species
Pacific Fisher Alternative 1
Direct and Indirect Effects
There would be no direct, indirect or cumulative effects of implementation of Alternative 1, no action, to Pacific fisher. Therefore, Alternative 1 would have no impact to the Pacific fisher.
Alternative 2
Direct and Indirect Effects
Direct effects to Pacific fishers under Alternative 2 would include potential loss of snags that may provide suitable denning or resting sites in locations where in-stream large wood placement may occur. Location of these in-stream structures would avoid snags as much as possible so there are not expected to be more than a few lost. The channel reconstruction site does not provide suitable denning or resting habitat for Pacific fishers, so vegetation clearing on that site of trees and shrubs less than 8 inches dbh would not affect suitable habitat for fishers.
Seasonal restrictions for noise disturbance implemented for northern spotted owl nesting habitat would also benefit potential reproductive female fishers and their kits. Otherwise they would be expected to avoid areas of project activity during implementation.
Cumulative Effects
Ongoing Forest implemented and permitted road maintenance, mining access, recreation and the potential for up to 300 acres of meadow and plantation vegetation management activities in the
27 East Fork Illinois River Channel and Floodplain Restoration Project, Wildlife BE and Specialist Report vicinity of the project area are expected to continue with design criteria that avoid or minimize impacts to fishers.
Potential loss of snags at in-stream large wood locations under Alternative 2 may be a minor contribution to cumulative effects to fisher habitat when combined with hazard tree removal for other Forest implemented activities within the Dunn Creek and Upper East Fork Illinois River subwatersheds.
Conclusion
Implementation of the East Fork Illinois River Channel and Floodplain Restoration Project Alternative 2 “May Impact Individuals and or Habitat but not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of viability to the population or species.” for Pacific fisher because there is potential for these animals to temporarily avoid habitat near project activities during implementation and snag removal for hazard tree abatement may result in minor loss of suitable habitat.
Black Salamander Alternative 1 Direct and Indirect and Cumulative Effects Implementation of Alternative 1, no action, would have no direct, indirect or cumulative effects to the black salamander. Therefore Alternative 1 would have no impact to this species.
Alternative 2
Direct and Indirect Effects
Because previous salamander surveys have not located this species in the Project analysis area or affected watersheds, and suitable habitat for these species is likely to be more upland of the stream channels where project activities are proposed, there is a low likelihood that black salamanders inhabit the channel reconstruction worksite, in-stream large wood sites or areas where riparian vegetation planting would occur. However, to avoid direct harm, any salamanders found during culvert work would either be left unharmed or moved to suitable moist, shaded habitat undisturbed by project activities if there is potential for harm.
In addition, excavation of streambed and streambank material and localized disturbance of riparian habitat would be a short-term degradation of any existing suitable habitat for these salamanders.
Long-term potential beneficial effects of Alternative 2 to black salamanders is that proposed riparian habitat improvements would increase stream habitat quality and connectivity.
Cumulative effects
Forest implemented projects in riparian habitat would include measures to protect the quality of the habitat and minimize impacts to associated species. Ongoing mining and recreation in the project area are expected to continue and may have negative impacts on riparian habitat. Potential impacts to salamanders from short-term degradation of riparian habitat in the project area under Alternative 2 may be additive to cumulative effects to black salamander habitat in the Project analysis area during and immediately after project implementation, but those effects
28 East Fork Illinois River Channel and Floodplain Restoration Project, Wildlife BE and Specialist Report would dissipate and riparian habitat would be expected to improve within months of implementation.
Conclusion
Considering the direct, indirect and cumulative effects and long-term beneficial effects of Alternative 2 and the lack of confirmed occurrence of black salamanders in the project area, implementation of the East Fork Illinois River Channel and Floodplain Restoration Project Alternative 2 “May Impact Individuals and or Habitat but not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of viability to the population or species” of black salamanders.
Foothill Yellow-Legged Frog Alternative 1
Direct and Indirect and Cumulative Effects
There are no anticipated direct, indirect or cumulative effects to foothill yellow-legged frogs from implementation of Alternative 1, no action. Therefore Alternative 1 would have no impact on this species.
Alternative 2
Direct and Indirect Effects
There is potential for adult and juvenille frogs or developing tadpoles to be present in mid-late summer and early fall when proposed work activities would occur. These frogs stay relatively close to water at all times. Frogs and tadpoles would most likely move away from potential harm during in-stream work activities and would not likely be on the dry site where channel excavation work would occur. There is a low likelihood that adults or tadpoles would be harmed or killed during project activities. Any frogs seen on-site during proposed treatment activities will be moved to suitable adjacent habitat to avoid direct harm. In addition, potential for temporary minor in-stream sediment delivery during work activities may temporarily degrade habitat quality for these frogs or tadpoles, but is not expected to cause mortality or habitat loss. Potential short-term disturbance of stream-side habitat from channel reconstruction and large wood placement would affect less than 10% of stream habitat available in the Project analysis area (less than 0.5 mile of approximately 6 miles).
Long-term beneficial effects of Alternative 2 to foothill yellow-legged frogs are that proposed side channel reconstruction and in-stream large wood structure would result in pools of slow moving water that are more suitable breeding habitat for these frogs. Establishment of riparian forest vegetation would result in long-term restoration of natural stream habitat structure and riparian habitat quality.
Cumulative effects
Forest implemented projects in riparian habitat would include measures to protect the quality of the habitat and minimize impacts to associated species. Ongoing mining and recreation in the project area are expected to continue and may have negative impacts on riparian habitat and frogs. The potential for minimal direct impacts to foothill yellow-legged frogs from proposed work activities under Alternative 2 may be additive to cumulative effects to foothill yellow- legged frogs in the Project area during and immediately after project implementation, but those
29 East Fork Illinois River Channel and Floodplain Restoration Project, Wildlife BE and Specialist Report effects would dissipate and riparian habitat would be expected to improve within months of implementation.
Conclusion
Considering the direct, indirect and cumulative effects and long-term beneficial effects of Alternative 2 to riparian habitat, implementation of the East Fork Illinois River Channel and Floodplain Restoration Project Alternative 2 “May Impact Individuals and or Habitat but not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of viability to the population or species” of foothill yellow-legged frogs.
Northwestern Pond Turtle Alternative 1 Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects Implementation of Alternative 1, no action, would have no direct, indirect or cumulative effects to northwestern pond turtles. Therefore, Alternative 1 would have “no impact” to northwestern pond turtles.
Alternative 2
Direct and Indirect Effects
Northwestern pond turtles are not documented in the Project analysis area and no sign of them has been found on field visits to the project sites. Deep, slow-flowing pools with underwater cover are non-existent or limited in the areas proposed for channel reconstruction and in-stream work. Some sandy areas exist within the channel reconstruction area that may provide suitable breeding habitat. There is a low likelihood of these turtles being directly harmed during project activities. Any eggs found on-site would be avoided and protected from project activities. Juveniles or adults found without eggs present would be moved to a suitable location away from disturbance during work activities. Channel reconstruction may redistribute some of the sandy areas present in the work site, but the resulting habitat is expected to be better quality for turtles and provide better connectivity to the existing stream channel.
Long-term potential beneficial effects of Alternative 2 is that proposed channel reconstruction and in-stream large wood structure would provide more suitable deep water pools and basking habitat and increase habitat availability for western pond turtles. Establishment of riparian forest vegetation within the project work site would result in long-term improvement of natural stream habitat structure and riparian habitat quality.
Cumulative effects
Forest implemented projects in riparian habitat would include measures to protect the quality of the habitat and minimize impacts to associated species. Ongoing mining and in the project area are expected to continue and may have negative impacts on riparian habitat and turtles. Minor potential direct impacts to western pond turtles from proposed culvert work Alternative 2 may be additive to cumulative effects in the Project area during and immediately after project implementation, but those effects would dissipate and riparian habitat would be expected to improve within months of implementation.
Conclusion
30 East Fork Illinois River Channel and Floodplain Restoration Project, Wildlife BE and Specialist Report
Considering the direct, indirect and cumulative effects and long-term beneficial effects of Alternative 2 to riparian habitat, implementation of East Fork Illinois River Channel and Floodplain Restoration Project Alternative 2 “May Impact Individuals and or Habitat but not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of viability to the population or species” of northwestern pond turtles.
Pallid Bat, Townsend’s Big-Eared Bat And Fringed Myotis Alternative 1
Direct and Indirect Effects
Implementation of Alternative 1 would have no direct, indirect or cumulative effects to these bat species. Therefore, Alternative 1 would have no impact on pallid bats, Townsend’s big-eared bats or fringed myotis.
Alternative 2
Direct and Indirect Effects
Potential direct effects to these bats under Alternative 2 would include disturbance or felling of snags that may provide roosting habitat within the channel reconstruction or in-stream large wood placement locations. Any bats roosting in these snags during felling operations would be expected to flee to avoid harm. Snag felling would be minimized as much as possible and the channel reconstruction site where most snags are expected to be felled is surrounded by abundant snag habitat from the Longwood fire.
Cumulative Effects
Ongoing Forest implemented and permitted road maintenance, recreation site maintenance and potential treatment of up to 300 acres of meadow and plantations in the vicinity of the project area would potentially involve some felling of snags as hazard trees. The Forest limits the number of hazard trees removed along roads and within recreation sites annually under the Miscellaneous Projects Programmatic Section 7 Consultation for spotted owls. The loss of several snags for hazard tree abatement under Alternative 2 may add to cumulative loss of snag habitat for bats when combined with past, present or foreseeable activities in the Upper East Fork Illinois River and Dunn Creek subwatersheds.
Conclusion
Implementation of the East Fork Illinois River Channel and Floodplain Restoration Project Alternative 2 “May Impact Individuals and or Habitat but not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of viability to the population or species” of pallid bats, Townsend’s big-eared bats or fringed myotis due to potential loss of suitable snag habitat.
Lewis’ And White-Headed Woodpeckers Alternative 1
Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects
Implementation of Alternative 1 would have no direct, indirect or cumulative effects to these woodpecker species. Therefore, implementation of Alternative 1, no action, would have no impact to Lewis’ or white-headed woodpeckers.
31 East Fork Illinois River Channel and Floodplain Restoration Project, Wildlife BE and Specialist Report
Alternative 2
Direct and Indirect Effects
Potential direct effects to these woodpeckers under Alternative 2 would include disturbance or felling of snags with cavities that provide potential habitat within the channel reconstruction or in-stream large wood placement locations. Any woodpeckers in these snags during felling operations would be expected to flee to avoid harm. Snag felling would be minimized as much as possible and the channel reconstruction site where most snags are expected to be felled is surrounded by abundant snag habitat from the Longwood fire.
Cumulative Effects
Ongoing Forest implemented and permitted road maintenance, recreation site maintenance and potential treatment of up to 300 acres of meadow and plantations in the vicinity of the project area would potentially involve some felling of snags as hazard trees. The Forest limits the number of hazard trees removed along roads and within recreation sites annually under the Miscellaneous Projects Programmatic Section 7 Consultation for spotted owls. The loss of several snags for hazard tree abatement under Alternative 2 may add to cumulative loss of snag habitat for woodpeckers when combined with past, present or foreseeable activities in the Upper East Fork Illinois River and Dunn Creek subwatersheds.
Conclusion
Implementation of the East Fork Illinois River Channel and Floodplain Restoration Project Alternative 2 “May Impact Individuals and or Habitat but not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of viability to the population or species.” for Lewis’ woodpeckers or white-headed woodpeckers due to potential loss of suitable snag habitat.
Chase Sideband and Oregon Shoulderband
Alternative 1 Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects
Implementation of Alternative 1 would have no direct, indirect or cumulative effects to these terrestrial snails. Therefore, Alternative 1, no action, would have no impact on Chase sideband or Oregon shoulderband snails.
Alternative 2 Direct and Indirect Effects
There is low likelihood that the area to be excavated for channel reconstruction under Alternative 2 would provide suitable habitat for these snails. The site is mostly early and mid-successional habitat and lacks canopy cover to keep this habitat cool and moist. Proposed in-stream large wood placement under Alternative 2 may harm individuals or disturb a small amount of potential streamside habitat for these species where streambanks would be disturbed to anchor large wood. This would be less than 1 acre of available habitat within the Project analysis area. Vegetation removal of trees and shrubs less than 8 inches dbh for ground-based access to in-stream large wood sites would not change overstory canopy that may contribute to microsite habitat suitability. Snags felled as hazard trees would be left for large woody material or added to in-stream structure. Any snails present at these locations are more likely associated with surrounding
32 East Fork Illinois River Channel and Floodplain Restoration Project, Wildlife BE and Specialist Report habitat that would remain undisturbed. Proposed activities under Alternative 2 are not expected to have a negative impact to persistence of this species if they are present at or near any proposed work locations.
Cumulative Effects
The small potential for direct harm and disturbance of suitable habitat to this species at proposed work locations may be cumulative to similar effects caused by routine road maintenance, ongoing mining and recreation activities within the Upper East Fork Illinois River and Dunn Creek watersheds.
Conclusion
Implementation of the East Fork Illinois River Channel and Floodplain Restoration Project Alternative 2 “May Impact Individuals and or Habitat but not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of viability to the population or species.” of the Chace sideband or Oregon shoulderband snails due to low likelihood for direct mortality or harm and a small amount of potential habitat disturbance at in-stream large wood structure work locations.
Franklin’s And Western Bumblebees
Alternative 1 Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects
Implementation of Alternative 1 would have no direct, indirect or cumulative effects to these bee species. Therefore Alternative 1, no action, would have no impact on Franklin’s or western bumblebees.
Alternative 2 Direct and Indirect Effects
Because these species are very rare and have not been documented in or near the project area, it is very unlikely they would be directly affected by project activities. Proposed vegetation disturbance and removal where excavation would occur at the side channel reconstruction site under Alternative 2 would disturb and remove potential nectar and pollen producing plants for these species. This would affect less than 20 acres in the two affected subwatersheds and establishment of riparian forest vegetation at the site would increasingly replace food sources following the project.
Cumulative Effects
Short-term removal of potential foraging habitat for these species under Alternative 2 may have a minor contribution to cumulative effects of ongoing invasive weed removal and potential brush cutting in plantations that would reduce foraging habitat in the project area. These effects are short-term and foraging habitat would increase on the project site within months of implementation.
Conclusion
Implementation of the East Fork Illinois River Channel and Floodplain Restoration Project Alternative 2 “May Impact Individuals and or Habitat but not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of viability to the population or species.” of the Franklin’s bumblebee
33 East Fork Illinois River Channel and Floodplain Restoration Project, Wildlife BE and Specialist Report or western bumblebee due to low potential for harassment of individuals and short-term removal of a forage habitat from the side channel reconstruction site.
Coronis fritillary
Alternative 1 Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects
Implementation of Alternative 1 would have no direct, indirect or cumulative effects to this butterfly species. Therefore Alternative 1, no action, would have no impact on the coronis fritillary.
Alternative 2 Direct and Indirect Effects
Because this species has not been documented in or near the project area, it is unlikely they would be directly affected by project activities. Suitable serpentine habitat with associated violet species for larvae is not present in the proposed channel reconstruction site and would be avoided for in- stream large wood placement locations. Vegetation that may be disturbed or removed where excavation would occur at the side channel reconstruction site under Alternative 2 provide potential nectar sources for adults of this species. This would affect less than 20 acres in the two affected subwatersheds and establishment of riparian forest vegetation at the site would increasingly replace nectar sources following the project.
Cumulative Effects
Short-term removal of potential nectar sources for these butterflies under Alternative 2 may have a minor contribution to cumulative effects of ongoing invasive weed removal and potential brush cutting in plantations that would reduce foraging habitat in the project area. These effects are short-term and foraging habitat would increase on the project site within months of implementation.
Conclusion
Implementation of the East Fork Illinois River Channel and Floodplain Restoration Project Alternative 2 “May Impact Individuals and or Habitat but not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of viability to the population or species.” of the Coronis fritillary due to low potential for disturbance of individuals and short-term removal of nectar sources from the side channel reconstruction site.
Management Indicator Species
Osprey Alternative 1
Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects
In 2011, approximately 39,563 acres of prime habitat for osprey were identified within 1 mile of the Rogue River and sections of the Illinois and Chetco Rivers. Implementation of Atlernative 1 would not result in direct, indirect or cumulative effects to any available habitat for pileated
34 East Fork Illinois River Channel and Floodplain Restoration Project, Wildlife BE and Specialist Report woodpeckers at the forest scale, and continued viability of pileated woodpeckers on the Siskiyou portion of the Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest would be expected.
Alternative 2
Direct and Indirect Effects
Potential direct effects to osprey under Alternative 2 would include disturbance or removal of snags within proposed channel construction and in-stream large wood locations where hazard trees may be felled during work activities. Osprey often use snags next to wide streams for hunt perches and nest sites. Due to the relatively small size of creeks and streams in the project area, osprey would be more likely to use snags in the project area for resting and hunting. Snag felling would be avoided as much as possible and it is not likely that many felled snags would be next to open water frequently used by osprey. For these reasons loss of snags in the project work sites would represent a small amount of these habitat features available at the forest level.
Furthermore, long-term improvement of stream habitat for fish species under Alternative 2 would benefit osprey by increasing foraging opportunities.
Cumulative Effects
Ongoing Forest implemented hazard tree mitigation for road maintenance, recreation site maintenance and future vegetation management projects are expected to occur across the forest. The Forest limits the number of hazard trees removed along roads and within recreation sites annually under the Miscellaneous Projects Programmatic Consultation. Hazard tree felling under Alternative 2 would have a minor contribution to cumulative effects to osprey habitat at the forest level when combined with past, present or foreseeable activities.
Conclusion
Implementation of Atlernative 1 or 2 for the East Fork Illinois River Channel and Floodplain Restoration Project would not impact prime habitat available on the Forest for osprey, and continued viability of osprey on the Siskiyou portion of the Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest would be expected.
Pileated Woodpecker Alternative 1
Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects
Implementation of Atlernative 1 would not result in direct, indirect or cumulative effects to available habitat for pileated woodpeckers at the forest scale, and continued viability of pileated woodpeckers on the Siskiyou portion of the Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest would be expected.
Alternative 2
Direct and Indirect Effects
Potential direct effects to pileated woodpecker habitat under Alternative 2 would loss of a minor amount of snags identified as hazard trees during in-stream large wood placement activities that
35 East Fork Illinois River Channel and Floodplain Restoration Project, Wildlife BE and Specialist Report are situated within or next to late successional habitat. This is anticipated to be a minor number of snags because these would be located to avoid large snags as much as possible.
Proposed road decommissioning, roads converted to trails and roads put into storage may improve habitat potential for pileated woodpeckers in the long-term where road-related disturbance and hazard tree removal would be reduced.
Cumulative Effects
Ongoing Forest implemented hazard tree mitigation for road maintenance, recreation site maintenance and for vegetation management project are expected to continue. The Forest limits the number of hazard trees removed along roads and within recreation sites annually under the Miscellaneous Projects Programmatic Section 7 Consultation. Hazard tree felling under Alternative 2 would have a minor contribution to cumulative effects to pileated woodpecker habitat when combined with past, present or foreseeable activities at the Forest level.
Conclusion
In 2011, approximately 368,428 acres of late-successional habitat which provides foraging and nesting habitat for pileated woodpeckers is distributed across the Siskiyou National Forest. The small number of snags potentially felled under Atlernative 2 for in-stream large wood placement in the East Fork Illinois Channel and Floodplain Restoration Project would not result in detectable impacts to available habitat for pileated woodpeckers at the forest scale, and continued viability of pileated woodpeckers on the Siskiyou portion of the Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest would be expected.
American Marten
Alternative 1
Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects
In 2011, approximately 368,428 acres of late-successional habitat which provides foraging and nesting habitat is distributed across the Siskiyou National Forest. Implementation of Alternative 1, no action, would not result in direct, indirect or cumulative effects to habitat for American marten, and continued viability would be expected for this species on the Siskiyou portion of the Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest.
Alternative 2
Direct and Indirect Effects
Potential direct effects to American marten habitat under Alternative 2 would include potential felling of large snags at locations for in-stream large wood placement that are situated within or near late successional habitat. Large snags would be avoided as much as possible when these locations are selected so the number of large snags felled is expected to be minor when compared to the availability of large snags across the Forest.
Cumulative Effects
Ongoing Forest implemented hazard tree mitigation for road maintenance, recreation site maintenance and for vegetation management project are expected to continue. The Forest limits the number of hazard trees removed along roads and within recreation sites annually under the
36 East Fork Illinois River Channel and Floodplain Restoration Project, Wildlife BE and Specialist Report
Miscellaneous Projects Programmatic Section 7 Consultation. Hazard tree felling under Alternative 2 would have a minor contribution to cumulative effects to pileated woodpecker habitat when combined with past, present or foreseeable activities at the Forest level.
Conclusion
In 2011, approximately 368,428 acres of late-successional habitat which provides foraging and nesting habitat for American martens is distributed across the Siskiyou National Forest. The small number of large snags that would be potentially felled as hazard trees under Atlernative 2 for the East Fork Illinois River Channel and Floodplain Restoration Project would not result in detectable impacts to available habitat for American marten at the forest scale, and continued viability of American marten would be expected on the Siskiyou portion of the Rogue River- Siskiyou National Forest.
Woodpecker Group
Alternative 1
Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects
Implementation of Alternative 1, no action, would have no direct, indirect or cumulative effects to available habitat for woodpeckers at the forest scale, and continued viability would be expected for these species on the Siskiyou portion of the Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest.
Alternative 2
Direct and Indirect Effects
Potential direct effects to habitat for this group of woodpeckers under Alternative 2 would include felling of conifer or hardwoods snags identified as hazard trees within the channel reconstruction and in-stream large wood placement locations. These activities are expected to actually affect much less of the 20 acre site where channel reconstruction would take place, a portion of which is oak woodland habitat.
Cumulative Effects
Ongoing Forest implemented hazard tree mitigation for road maintenance, recreation site maintenance and for vegetation management project are expected to continue. The Forest limits the number of hazard trees removed along roads and within recreation sites annually under the Miscellaneous Projects Programmatic Section 7 Consultation. Hazard tree felling under Alternative 2 would have a minor contribution to cumulative effects to woodpecker habitat when combined with past, present or foreseeable activities at the Forest level.
Conclusion
The Biscuit Fire and subsequent fires on the Wild Rivers Ranger District since 2002 provide over 470,000 acres within the Siskiyou National Forest and provides diverse forested areas with high amounts of conifer and hardwood snags. Less than 20 acres of vegetation clearing that would involve felling of snags identified as hazard trees under Alternative 2 for the East Fork Illinois River Channel and Floodplain Restoration Project would be a minor loss of available snag habitat for the woodpecker group at the forest scale, and continued viability of these woodpeckers would be expected on the Siskiyou portion of the Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest.
37 East Fork Illinois River Channel and Floodplain Restoration Project, Wildlife BE and Specialist Report
Black-Tailed Deer And Roosevelt Elk
Alternative 1
Direct and Indirect Effects
Implementation of Alternative 1 would have no direct, indirect or cumulative effects to habitat available for black-tailed deer or Roosevelt elk, and continued viability would be expected for these species on the Siskiyou portion of the Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest.
Alternative 2
Direct and Indirect Effects
Foraging habitat is experiencing the most decline of the required habitats for these species across the Forest as forested areas that have been harvested or burned in the last 20 years are maturing. Implementation of Alternative 2 would result in loss of a small amount of early successional habitat where side channel reconstruction would occur. Riparian vegetation would be re- established on a portion of the 20 acres site where this work would take place. In-stream large wood placement would have negligible impacts on habitat available for these species.
Cumulative Effects
The reduction of a small amount of early seral foraging habitat that would be converted to stream channel under Alternative 2 would be a minor contribution to cumulative effects to available deer and elk habitat when combined with the overall maturing of forested habitat which reduces early seral habitat across the Forest.
Conclusion
Implementation of Atlernative 2 for the East Fork Illinois River Channel and Floodplain Restoration Project would result in minor impacts to habitat for black-tailed deer and Roosevelt elk at the Forest scale, and continued viability of these species is expected on the Siskiyou portion of the Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest.
Neo-tropical Migratory Birds and Landbirds Alternative 1
Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects
Implementation of Alternative 1, no action, would have no direct, indirect or cumulative effects to migratory birds in the Upper East Fork Illinois River or Dunn Creek watersheds. Existing habitat use and population viability of these birds would be expected to continue.
Alternative 2
Direct and Indirect Effects
Effects to neo-tropical migratory birds/landbirds under Alternative 2 are variable depending on the habitat associations of the individual species.
Vegetation cleared for side channel reconstruction would remove small areas of early seral vegetation. This would affect less than the 20-acre site where identified for this activity because it
38 East Fork Illinois River Channel and Floodplain Restoration Project, Wildlife BE and Specialist Report would only be long-term removal for the actual side-channel. Re-establishment of riparian forest is proposed for the rest of the affected area which would increase habitat quality for riparian related bird species over time.
Proposed vegetation and ground disturbing activities have the potential to disturb nesting birds that use the affected areas for nesting, though these activities are scheduled to begin mid-late summer during low water flows after many bird species have fledged young. Any active bird nests found during proposed activities would be avoided for up to 100m to the extent possible, until young have left the nest. No impacts are expected to bald eagles or peregrine falcons, or old- growth/mature obligate species such as brown creeper, red crossbill and varied thrush because these species would not likely use these early-mid seral habitats.
The diversity of riparian shrubs, forbs and hardwoods on the proposed channel reconstruction site may provide suitable foraging habitat for many bird species. Though the forest structure is very open at this site there is some potential habitat for species tied to deciduous canopy and complex forest understory such as Hermit warblers, Hammond’s flycatcher, Pacific-slope flycatcher, Wilson’s warbler, winter wren, Northern goshawk and purple finch, of which a small amount throughout the 20-acre channel reconstruction site would be disturbed or removed by this project.
The majority of the vegetation clearing would be brush and seedling/sapling/pole (< 8 inches dbh) conifer and black oak woodland or riparian hardwood such as alder. Impacts to species such as Olive-sided flycatcher; western bluebird; orange-crowned warbler; Rufous hummingbird, California quail, western screech-owl, Nutall’s woodpecker, oak titmouse, wrentit, California thrasher, black-chinned sparrow, Oregon vesper sparrow, or horned lark that use these types of habitat would be minimal considering the limited area that would be affected long-term when compared to the amount of habitat available in the subwatersheds and proposed establishment of riparian forest after channel reconstruction. Riparian habitat is valued for the diversity of species that use it; long-term benefits to bird species from riparian habitat improvement that would follow implementation of Alternative 2 are expected.
Cumulative Effects
Ongoing Forest implemented and permitted road maintenance such as culvert cleaning, mining and recreation activities that disturb or remove riparian habitat are expected within the Upper East Fork Illinois River and Dunn Creek subwatersheds. With measures to avoid harming any active bird nests and the relatively small amount of riparian, oak woodland and early and mid-seral forest habitat that would be disturbed in the short-term or removed long-term due to stream channel reconstruction, the direct and indirect effects of Alternative 2 would have a minor contribution to cumulative effects to migratory birds in these affected subwatersheds.
Conclusion
Implementation of Alternative 2 of the East Fork Illinois River Channel and Floodplain Restoration Project would mostly affect species associated with early forest successional stages oak woodland and riparian habitat, with no more than minimal (M) impacts for any species considering the small amount of vegetation that would be affected at the subwatershed scale and measures would be implemented to protect any nesting birds present during project activities.
39 East Fork Illinois River Channel and Floodplain Restoration Project, Wildlife BE and Specialist Report
Conclusions For comparison, Table 9 displays the impact determinations for Federally listed and USDA Region 6 Sensitive Species for each alternative.
Table 5. Summary of effects for Federally listed and USDAFS Region 6 Sensitive Species.
Wildlife Species (Common Name) Alternative 1 Alternative 2
Federally Threatened Species Northern spotted owl (NSO) No Effect NLAA NSO Designated Critical Habitat No Effect NLAA Marbled Murrelet (MAMU) No Effect No Effect MAMU Designated Critical Habitat No Effect No Effect Forest Service Sensitive Species Pacific Fisher NI MIIH Black Salamander NI MIIH California Slender Salamander NI NI Siskiyou Mtn. Salamander NI NI Foothill yellow-legged frog NI MIIH Oregon Spotted Frog NI NI Northwestern Pond Turtle NI MIIH Northern Bald Eagle NI NI American Peregrine Falcon NI NI Harlequin Duck NI NI Lewis’ Woodpecker NI MIIH White-headed Woodpecker NI MIIH Northern Waterthrush NI NI Pallid Bat NI MIIH Townsend’s Big-Eared Bat NI MIIH Fringed Myotis NI MIIH California Wolverine NI NI Evening Fieldslug NI NI Klamath Rim Pebblesnail NI NI Oregon Shoulderband NI MIIH Chace Sideband NI MIIH Green Sideband NI NI Traveling Sideband NI NI Crater Lake Tightcoil NI NI Siskiyou Hesperian NI NI Johnson's Hairstreak NI NI Seaside Hoary Elfin NI NI Coastal Greenish Blue Butterfly NI NI (formerly insular blue) Gray Blue Butterfly NI NI Mardon Skipper NI NI Coronis Fritillary NI MIIH Franklin's Bumblebee NI MIIH Western Bumblebee NI MIIH California Shield-backed Bug NI NI Siskiyou Short-horned Grasshopper NI NI NLAA = May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect; NI = No Impact; MIIH = May Impact Individuals or Habitat.
Furthermore, implementation of Alternative 1 and Alternative 2 would be neutral to Late Successional Reserve values.
40 East Fork Illinois River Channel and Floodplain Restoration Project, Wildlife BE and Specialist Report
Suitable habitat availability will be maintained to support continued viability of management indicator species populations on the Siskiyou portion of the Rogue River – Siskiyou National Forest.
Survey and Manage Compliance The East Fork Illinois River Channel and Floodplain Restoration Project is consistent with the January 2001 Record of Decision and Standards and Guidelines for Amendments to the Survey and Manage, Protection Buffer, and other Mitigation Measures Standards and Guidelines. This project utilizes the December 2003 species list. Surveys are not required for these species because this project falls under one of four categories of projects exempted from Survey and Manage Standards and Guidelines by Judge Pechman (October 11, 2006, “Pechman exemptions”): c) Riparian and stream improvement projects where the riparian work is riparian planting, obtaining material for placing in-stream, and road or trail decommissioning; and where the stream improvement work is the placement of large wood, channel and floodplain reconstruction, or removal of channel diversions Furthermore, known locations of red tree voles and Del Norte salamanders exist in the affected subwatersheds. However these sites and their protection buffers do not occur within the Project analysis area. Analysis of project impacts to bat roots and habitat for cavity nesting birds were provided previously in this report.
Migratory Bird Treaty Compliance Alternative 1 would have no impacts to migratory birds. Alternative 2 would measures to avoid and protect any active bird nests to the extent practicable. Vegetation removal or disturbance under Alternative 2 is expected to have minimal impacts to species that use riparian, oak woodland and early –mid seral forest habitats and proposed establishment of riparian forest would benefit migratory birds. Therefore, implementation of Alternative 2 would meet compliance with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act because measures would be taken to minimize short-term impacts and enhance habitat for these birds in the long term.
Of the two alternatives evaluated for impacts to wildlife, Alternative 2 best meets Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines for wildlife and management allocations while meeting the purpose and need of improving and restoring stream habitat for fish and aquatic species.
41 East Fork Illinois River Channel and Floodplain Restoration Project, Wildlife BE and Specialist Report
References Altman, B. and J.D. Alexander. 2012. Habitat conservation for landbirds in coniferous forests of western Oregon and Washington. Version 2.0. Oregon-Washington Partners in Flight (www.orwapif.org) and American Bird Conservancy and Klamath Bird Observatory.
Anthony, R.G. and F.B. Isaacs. 1989. Characteristics of bald eagle nest sites in Oregon. Journal of Wildlife Management. 53: 148–159.
Anthony , R.G., R.L. Knight, G.T. Allen, B.R. McClelland, and J.I. Hodges. 1982. Habitat use by nesting and roosting bald eagles in the Pacific Northwest. Transactions of the forty-seventh North American Wildlife andNatural Resources Conference. 47:332- 242.
Anthony, R.G., E.D. Forsman, A.B. Franklin, D.R. Anderson, K.P. Burnham, G.C., White, C.J. Schwarz, J. Nichols, J.E. Hines, G.S. Olson, S.H. Ackers, S., Andrews, B.L. Biswell, P.C. Carlson, L.V. Diller, K.M. Dugger, K.E. Fehring, T.L. Fleming, R.P. Gerhardt, S.A. Gremel, R.J. Gutiérrez, P.J. Happe, D.R. Herter, J.M. Higley, R.B. Horn, L.L. Irwin, P.J. Loschl, J.A. Reid and S.G. Sovern. 2006. Status and trends in demography of northern spotted owls, 1985–2003. Wildlife Monograph No. 163.
Applegarth, J.S. 1995. Invertebrates of special status or special concern in the Eugene district. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management.
Arizona Game and Fish Department, Habitat Branch. 2006. Guidelines for culvert construction to accommodate fish and wildlife movement and passage.
Aubry K. B and D.B. Houston. 1992. Distribution and status of the fisher (Martes pennanti) in Washington. Northwestern Naturalist 73:69-79.
Aubry, K.B. and C. Raley. 2006. Ecological characteristics of fishers (Martes pennanti) in the southern Oregon Cascade Range. USDA Forest Service. Olympia Forestry Sciences Laboratory. Olympia, WA
Aubry, K.B., J. von Kienast, and D. Clayton. 2005. Remote camera surveys and non-invasive genetic sampling of fishers in the northern Siskiyou Mountains of Oregon. Final report. USDA Forest Service, Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest, High Cascades Ranger District.
Aubry, K.B., S.M. Wisely, C.M. Raley, and S.W. Buskirk. 2004. Zoogeography, spacing patterns, and dispersal in fishers: insights gained from combining field and genetic data in Bailey, V. 1936. The mammals and life zones of Oregon. North American Fauna, 55:1-416. Barrett, N.M. 2008. Wildlife Biologist. Rogue River National Forest, Prospect, OR.
42 East Fork Illinois River Channel and Floodplain Restoration Project, Wildlife BE and Specialist Report
Aubry, K.B., C.M. Raley, T.J. Catton, and G.W. Tomb. 2002. Ecological characteristics of fishers in the southern Oregon Cascade Range: final progress report: June 1. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Olympia, WA.
Bull, Evelyn L., and Thad W. Heater. 2001. Home range and dispersal of the American marten in northeastern Oregon. Northwestern Naturalist 82:7-11.
Bury, R.B. 2005. Black salamander: Aneides flavipunctatus Strauch. Pp. 90-93 In: Jones, L.L.C., W.P Leonard, and D.H. Olson (eds.). Amphibians of the Pacific Northwest. Seattle Audubon Society.
Buskirk,S.W. and R.A. Powell. 1994. Habitat ecology of fishers and American martens. Pages 283-296 in S.W. Buskirk, A.S. Harestad, M.G. Raphael, and R.A. Powell, editors. Martens, sables and fishers: biology and conservation. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, New York, USA.
Buskirk, S.W. and L.F. Ruggiero.1994. American marten in Ruggiero, L.F., K.B. Aubry, S.W. Buskirk, S.W. [et al.], tech. eds. The scientific basis for conserving forest carnivores in the Western United States: American marten, fisher, lynx, and wolverine. Gen. Tech. Rep. GTR-RM-254. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station: 7–37.
Buskirk, S. W., and W. J. Zielinski. 2003. Small and mid-sized carnivores. Chapter 7 in C. J.Zabel, and R. G. Anthony, eds. Mammal Community Dynamics: management and conservation in the coniferous forests of western North America. Cambridge University Press. 732 pp.
Center for Biological Diversity. 2000. Petition to list the fisher (Martes pennanti) as an endangered species in its west coast range. Center for Biological Diversity, Tucson, Arizona, USA.
Cooper J.M., C. Siddle, and G. Davidson. 1998. Status of the Lewis’ woodpecker (Melanerpes lewis) in British Columbia. Wildlife Working Report No. WR-91. B.C. Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, Wildlife Branch, Victoria, BC.
Corkran, C.C.; Thoms, C.R. 2006. Amphibians of Oregon, Washington and British Columbia: A field identification guide. Lone Pine Press, Redmond, Washington, USA.
Corn, P.S., and R.B. Bury. 1986. Habitat use and terrestrial activity by red tree voles (Arborimus longicaudus) in Oregon. Journal of Mammalogy 67:404–406.
Davis, R., R. Horn, P. Caldwell, R. Crutchley, K. Fukuda, T. Kaufmann, C. Larson, H. May, and H. Wise. 2012. Demographic characteristics of northern spotted owls (Strix occidentalis caurina) in the Klamath Mountain Province of Oregon, 1990-2011. Annual research report for 2011.USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research
43 East Fork Illinois River Channel and Floodplain Restoration Project, Wildlife BE and Specialist Report
Station, Corvallis, OR and Dept. of Fish and Wildlife, Oregon State Univ., Corvallis, OR. 20p.
Delaney, D.K., T.G. Grubb, P. Beier, L.L. Pater, and M.H. Reiser. 1999. Effects of Helicopter Noise on Mexican Spotted Owls. Journal of Wildlife Management 63(1):60-76.
Dornfeld, E.J. 1980. The Butterflies of Oregon. Timber Press, Forest Grove, Oregon. 276 pp.
Drew, R.E., J.G. Hallett, K.B. Aubry, K.W. Cullings, S.M. Koepf, and W.J. Zielinski. 2003. Conservation genetics of the fisher (Martes pennanti) based on mitochondrial DNA sequencing. Molecular Ecology 8, 1351-1362.
Duncan, N., T. Burke, S. Dowlan, and P. Hohenlohe. 2003. Survey and Manage Protocol, Terrestrial Mollusks Version 3.0. Portland, OR. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Oregon/Washington, and U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service Regions 5 and 6. 70 p.
Evans, E., R. Thorp, S. Jepsen, S.H. Black. 2008. Status review of three formerly common species of bumble bee in the subgenus Bombus. Xerces Society. 63 pp.
Farber, S. and S. Criss. 2006. Cooperative mesocarnivore surveys for the upper and west fork of Beaver Creek watersheds in interior Northern California. Report to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Yreka Field Office. Yreka, California.
Farber, S. and T. Franklin. 2005. Presence-absence surveys for Pacific fisher (Martes pennanti) in the eastern Klamath Province of interior northern California. Timber Products Company. Timberlands Office. Yreka, California.
Forsman, E.D., R.G. Anthony, K.M. Dugger, E.M. Glenn, A.B. Franklin, G.C. White, C.J. Schwarz, K.P. Burnham, D.R. Anderson, J.D. Nichols, J.E. Hines, J.B. Lint, R.J. Davis, S.H. Ackers, L.S. Andrews, B.L. Biswell, P.C. Carlson, L.V. Diller, S.A. Gremel, D.R. Herter, J.M. Higley, R.B. Horn, J.A. Reid, J. Rockweit, J. Schaberl, T.J. Snetsinger and S.G. Sovern. 2011. Population demography of northern spotted owls: 1985–2008. Studies in Avian Biology. Cooper Ornithological Society.
Foster, D.E 1974. Ovipositional behavior of Chloealtis aspasma (Orthoptera: Acrididae). Pan Pacific Entomologist 50(2):207-208.
Frest and Johannes 2000. A Baseline Mollusk Survey of Southwestern Oregon, with Emphasis on the Rogue and Umpqua River Drainages. Deixis Consultants, Seattle, WA. p.213.
Frest and Johannes 1996. Freshwater Mollusks of the Upper Klamath Lake Drainage, Oregon. Report to the Oregon Natural Hertiage program and Klamath Lake Project, USDO Bureau of Reclamation. Deixis Consulatants, Seattle, WA vii+ 200 pp
44 East Fork Illinois River Channel and Floodplain Restoration Project, Wildlife BE and Specialist Report
Gabreilsen, G.W. and E. N. Smith. 1995. Physiological responses of wildlife to disturbance; Pages 95-107 in R. L Knight and E. N. Smith. Wildlife and Recreationists: Coexistence through Management and Research. Island Press, 1995. 372 pp.
Gaines, W L., P.H. Singleton, and R.C. Ross, 2003. Assessing the cumulative effects of linear recreation routes on wildlife habitats on the Okanogan and Wenatchee National Forests. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-586. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 79 p.
Garcia and Associates (GANDA). 2008. Identifying Microclimatic and Water Flow Triggers Associated with Breeding Activities of a Foothill Yellow‐Legged Frog (Rana boylii) Population on the North Fork Feather River, California. California Energy Commission, PIER Energy‐Related Environmental Research Program. CEC‐500‐ 007‐041.
Garrett, M.G., J.W. Watson, and R.G. Anthony. 1993. Bald eagle home range and habitat use in the Columbia River Estuary. Journal of Wildlife Management 57(1):19-27.
George, S. L. and Kevin R. Crooks. 2006. Recreation and Large Mammal Activity in an Urban Nature Reserve. Biological Conservation 133(2006) 107-117.
Gonsolin, T.E. Jr., 2010. Ecology of foothill yellow-legged frogs in Upper Coyote Creek, Santa Clara County, CA. Master’s Thesis Paper 3861. San Jose State University, San Jose, CA.
Hansen, Andrew J., Richard L. Knight, John M. Marzluff, Scott Powell, Kathryn Brown, Patricia H. Gude and Kingsford Jones. 2005. Effects of Exurban Development on Biodiversity: Patterns, Mechanisms and Research Needs. Ecological Applications 15(6) 2005, 1893-1905.
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. p.157- 172
Hickman, S. 1990. Evidence of edge species attraction to nature trails within deciduous forest. Natural Areas Journal. 10: 3-5.
Hobbs, G. A. 1968. Ecology of species of Bombus (Hymenoptera: Apidae) in southern Alberta. VII. Subgenus Bombus. Canadian Entomol. 100(2):156-164.
Holland, D. C. 1994. The Western Pond Turtle: Habitat and History. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife for U. S. Department of Energy Bonneville Power Administration. Final Report.
Huff, R., K. Van Norman, C. Hughes, R. Davis and K. Mellen-Mclean. 2012. Survey Protocol for the Red Tree Vole, Version 3.0. Portland, OR. U.S. Department of the
45 East Fork Illinois River Channel and Floodplain Restoration Project, Wildlife BE and Specialist Report
Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Oregon/Washington, and U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service Regions 5 and 6. 52 p.
Jones, J .L. and E. O. Garton. 1994. Selection of successional stages by fishers in north- central Idaho. In: Buskirk, S.W., Harestad, A.S., Raphael, M.G., Powell, R.A. (Eds.), Martens, Sables, and Fishers: Biology and Conservation. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY, pp. 377-387.
Kerwin, A. and R. Huff. 2007. Conservation Assessment for the Mardon Skipper (Polites mardon). USDA Forest Service, USDI BLM, Interagency Sensitive and Special Status Species Program. Portland Oregon.
Leonard, W.P., H.A. Brown, L.L.C. Jones, K.R. McAllister, and R.M. Storm. 1993. Amphibians of Washington and Oregon. Seattle Audubon Society, Seattle, WA.
Lofroth, E.C., C.M. Raley, J.M. Higley, R.L. Truex, J.S. Yaeger, J.C. Lewis, P.J. Happe, L.L. Finely, R.H. Naney, L.J. Hale, A.L. Krause, S.A. Livingston, A.M. Meyers and R.N. Brown. 2010. Conservation of Fishers (Martes pennanti) in South-Central British Columbia, Western Washington, Western Oregon and California – Volume I: Conservation Assessment. USDI Bureau of Land Management, Denver, Colorado, USA.
Lynch, J.F. 1981. Patterns of ontogenetic and geographic variation in the black salamander, Aneides flavipunctatus (Caudata: Plethdontidae). Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology, No. 324, Washington, D.C. p. 1-53.
MacArthur, R.A., V. Geist, and R.H. Johnston. 1982. Cardiac and behavioral responses of mountain sheep to human disturbance. Journal of Wildlife Management. 46(2): 351– 358.
Markovchick-Nicholls L., H.M. Regan, D.H. Deutschman, A.Widyanata, B. Martin, L. Noreke, and T.A. Hunt. 2008. Relationships between human disturbance and wildlife land use in urban habitat fragments. Conservation Biology. Vol. 22, No. 1: 99-109.
Maser, C. 1998. Mammals of the Pacific Northwest: From the Coast to the High Cascades. Oregon State University Press, Corvallis. 406 p.
Mellen-McLean, K., B. Wales, and B. Bresson. 2013. A conservation assessment for the white-headed woodpecker (Picoides albolarvatus). Prepared for: USDA Forest Service, Region 6 and USDI Bureau of Land Management, Oregon and Washington, Interagency Special Status and Sensitive Species Conservation Planning, Portland, Oregon.
Miller, S.G., R.L. Knight, and C.K. Miller. 1998. Influence of Recreational Trails on Breeding Bird Communities. Ecological Applications 8(1) 162-169.
46 East Fork Illinois River Channel and Floodplain Restoration Project, Wildlife BE and Specialist Report
Nice, C. and R. VanBuskirk. 1996. The butterflies of Mt. Ashland: community surveys along the Siskiyou Crest. Unpublished report. Section of Evolution and Ecology. Division of Biological Sciences. University of California. Davis, CA.
Nauman, R.S. and D.H. Olson. 2004. Surveys for terrestrial amphibians in Shasta County, California with notes on the distribution of Shasta salamanders (Hydromantes shastae). Northwestern Naturalist 85: 29-32
Nussbaum, R.A., E.D. Brodie Jr., and R.M. Storm. 1983. Amphibians and reptiles of the Pacific Northwest. University of Idaho Press. Moscow, ID.
Oregon Forest Resources Institute, 2013. Wildlife in Managed Forests – Deer and Elk. Oregon Forest Resources Institute, Portland Oregon. 30 pp. www.OregonForests.org
ODFW 2010. Annual Big Game Statistical Reports: Elk. Available online at http://www.dfw.state.or.us/resources/hunting/big_game/controlled_hunts/docs/hunt_s tatistics/10/2010_big_game_statistics_d.pdf
ODFW. 2003. Oregon’s Elk Management Plan. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. Salem, OR.
Opler, P. A. and A. B. Wright. 1999. Peterson field guide to western butterflies. Houghton Mifflin Co., Boston. 544 pp.
Oregon State University and USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 2000. Landscape Ecology, Modeling, Mapping & Analysis (LEMMA). Gradient Nearest Neighbor Vegetation Dataset. Available at: http://www.fsl.orst.edu/lemma/.
OR-WA Interagency Wildlife Committee 1989. Working Implementation Plan for Bald Eagle Recovery in Oregon and Washington.
Papouchis, C.M., Singer, F.J., Sloan, W.B. 2001. Responses of desert bighorn sheep to increased human recreation. Journal of Wildlife Management 65: 573 – 582
Paton, P.W.C. 1994. The effect of edge on avian nest success: how strong is the evidence? Conservation Biology 8:17-26.
Popp, D. and F.B. Isaacs. 1995. Draft site-specific management plan for the Emigrant Lake bald eagle nest site. Oregon Eagle Foundation, Klamath Falls, OR.
Powell, R.AL. 1993. The fisher: life history, ecology and behavior. 2nd ed. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Powell, R.A. 1994. Structure and spacing of Martes populations. Pages 101-121 in Martens, sables, and fishers: biology and conservation. S.W. Buskirk, A.S. Harestad, M.G. Raphael, and R.A. Powell, editors. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, New York, USA.
47 East Fork Illinois River Channel and Floodplain Restoration Project, Wildlife BE and Specialist Report
Powell, R.A., and W.J. Zielinski. 1994. Fisher. Pages 38-73 in The scientific basis for conserving forest carnivores: American marten, fisher, lynx, and wolverine in the western United States. L.F. Ruggiero, K.B. Aubry, S.W. Buskirk, L.J. Lyon, and W.J. Zielinski, technical editors, USDA Forest Service, General Technical Report RM-254.
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.
Quintana-Coyer, D.L., R.P. Gerhardt, M.D. Broyles, J.A. Dillon, C.A. Friesen, S.A. Godwin, S.D. Kamrath, K.L. Garvey. 2004. Survey protocol for the great gray owl within the range of the northwest forest plan. Version 3. Prepared for the USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management. January 12, 2004. 46pp.
Ralph, C. J. G.R. Geupel, P. Pyle, T.E. Martin, D.F. DeSante, 1993. Handbook of field methods for monitoring landbirds. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-144-www. Albany, CA: Pacific Southwest Research Station, Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture; 41 p.
Rehn, J.A.G. and M. Hebard. 1919. A new species of grasshopper of the genus Chloealtis (Acridinae) from the Pacific Coast. Trans. Amer. Entomol. Soc. 45:81-87.
Rich, A. C., D.S. Dobkin, and L.J. Niles. 1994. Defining forest fragmentation by corridor width: the influence of narrow forest-dividing corridors on forest-nesting birds in New Jersey. Conservation Biology. 8:1109-1121.
Riley, Seth P.D., 2006. Spatial Ecology of Bobcats and Gray Foxes in Urban and Rural zones of a National Park. The Journal of Wildlife Management 70(5) 1425-1435.
Roth, B. 1993. Critical review of terrestrial mollusks associated with late-successional and oldgrowth forests in the range of the northern spotted owl. Prepared for: Forest Ecosystem Management Working Group, USDA Forest Service. 82 p. + illus.
Sagar, J.P. 2004. Movement and demography of larval coastal giant salamanders (Dicamptodon tenebrosus) in streams with culverts on the Oregon coast range. Master’s Thesis. Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR.
Slauson, K.M. and W.J. Zielinski. 2001. Distribution and habitat ecology of American martens and Pacific fishers in southwestern Oregon: progress report I, July1- Novermber 15, 2001. Unpublished report, USDA forest service , pacific southwest research station, Arcata, California.
Spahr, R. 1990 Factors Affecting The Distribution Of Bald Eagles And Effects Of Human Activity On Bald Eagles Wintering Along The Boise River, 1990. Boise State University, Thesis.
Stalmaster, M.V. 1987. The bald eagle. New York: Universal Books. 227 p.
48 East Fork Illinois River Channel and Floodplain Restoration Project, Wildlife BE and Specialist Report
Stebbins, R. C. 1985. A field guide to western reptiles and amphibians. Second edition. Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston, Massachusetts. xiv + 336 pp.
Stephen W. P. 1957. Bumble bees of western America (Hymenoptera: Apoidea). Oregon State College Agr. Exp. Sta.: Tech. Bull. No. 40. 163pp.
Storm, R. M., W. P. Leonard, H. A. Brown, R. B. Bury, D. M. Darda, L. V. Diller, and C. R. Peterson. 1995. Reptiles of Washington and Oregon. Seattle Audubon Society. 176 pp.
Swarthout, E.C.H. and R. J. Steidl. 2001. Flush Responses of Mexican Spotted Owls to Recreationists. The Journal of Wildlife Management, Vol. 65, No. 2 (April 2001), pp. 312-317.
Taylor, A. R. and R. L. Knight. 2003. Wildlife Responses to Recreation and Associated Visitor Perception. Ecological Applications 13(4) 951-963.
Temple, D. J., and R. J. Gutierrez. 2003. Fecal corticosterone levels in California spotted owls exposed to low-intensity chainsaw sound. Wildlife Society Bulletin 31(3): 698- 702.
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: report of the Interagency Scientific Committee to address the conservation of the northern spotted owl. USDA Forest Service, USDI Bureau of Land Management, USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, and USDI National Park Service. Portland, OR. 427 pp.
Thorp, R. W. 2005. Species Profile: Bombus franklini. In Shepherd, M. D., D. M. Vaughan, and S. H. Black (Eds). Red List of Pollinator Insects of North America. CD-ROM Version 1 (May 2005). Portland, OR: The Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation.
Thorp, R. W. 2008. Franklin’s Bumble Bee, Bombus (Bombus) franklini (Frison) (Hymenoptera: Apidae). Report on 2006-2007 Seasons (Submitted 10 March 2008) in Evans et al. 2008.
Thorp, R. W., D. S. Horning, Jr & L. L. Dunning. 1983. Bumble bees and cuckoo bumble bees of California. Bulletin of the California Insect Survey 23:1–79.
Thurston, E., R.J. Reader, 2001. Impacts of experimentally applied mountain biking and hiking on vegetation and soil of a deciduous forest. Environmental Management 27, 397–409.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service (USDA Forest Service). 2013. Region 6 Interagency Special Status and Sensitive Species Program website. Available at: http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/sfpnw/issssp/.
49 East Fork Illinois River Channel and Floodplain Restoration Project, Wildlife BE and Specialist Report
_____. 2012. Siskiyou National Forest Management Indicator Species, Forest-wide Environmental Baseline and Species Account. Final. Unpublished document on file at Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest, Medford, OR.
_____. 1989. Siskiyou National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan. Pacific Northwest Region. Available at: http://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/rogue- siskiyou/landmanagement/?cid=stelprdb5315100.
USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management (USDA Forest Service and USDI BLM). 2007. Compliance with the Aquatic Conservation Strategy. Forest Service Memorandum 2500/1570/1950 (Regions 5 and 6). Bureau of Land Management Instruction Memorandum No. OR-2007-060. May 22.
_____. 2001. Record of Decision for Amendments to the Survey and Manage, Protection Buffer, and other Mitigation Measures Standards and Guidelines in Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management Planning Documents Within the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl. US Government Printing Office, Portland, OR. January.
_____. 2000. East Fork Illinois River Watershed Analysis, Version 2.0. Prepared by Illinois Valley Ranger District, Siskiyou National Forest, Cave Junction, Oregon and the Grants Pass Resource Area, Medford District Office, BLM, Medford, Oregon. July 25, 2000.
_____. 1994. Record of Decision for Amendments to Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management Planning Documents Within the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl. Portland, Oregon.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2013. Programmatic Biological Opinion for Aquatic Restoration Activities in the States of Oregon, Washington, and portions of California, Idaho and Nevada (ARBO II). [FWS Reference: 01EOFW00-2013-F- 0090] Prepared by Region 1, USFWS, Portland, Oregon. July 1.
_____. 2011. Revised Recovery Plan for the Northern Spotted Owl (Strix occidentalis caurina). Prepared by Region 1, USFWS, Portland Oregon. June 28. Available at: http://www.fws.gov/wafwo/pdf/NSO%20Revised%20Recovery%20Plan%202011.pd f.
_____. 2007. National Bald Eagle Management Guidelines. 23pp.
_____. 2010. Species Assessment and Listing Priority Assignment Form: Mardon Skipper (Polites mardon).
_____. 2003. Rogue River/South Coast Biological Opinion. FY 04-08 for activities that may affect listed species in the Rogue River/South Coast Province for Medford District BLM, Rogue River and Siskiyou National Forests. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Roseburg Field Office, Roseburg. Oregon.
50 East Fork Illinois River Channel and Floodplain Restoration Project, Wildlife BE and Specialist Report
_____. 1990a. The 1990 status review: northern spotted owl: Strix occidentalis caurina. Prepared by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, Oregon. 95 pp.
_____. 1990b. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; determination of threatened status for the northern spotted owl; final rule. 55 Federal Register 123:26114-26194.
_____. 1986. Recovery Plan for the Pacific Bald Eagle. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. Portland, OR. 160 pp.
Verts, B.J., and L.N. Carraway. 1998. Land Mammals of Oregon. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA. 668 p.
Ward, R.L. 2005. The effects of roads and culverts on stream and stream-side salamander communities in eastern West Virginia. Master’s Thesis. West Virginia University, Morgantown WV.
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.
Wasser, S. K., K. Bevis, G. King, and E. Hanson. 1997. Noninvasive physiological measures of disturbance in northern spotted owl. Conservation Biology. Vol 11, No. 4: 1019- 1022.
Weir, R.D. and F.B. Courbold. 2010. Factors affecting landscape occupancy by fishers in north-central British Columbia. Journal of Wildlife Management 74:405-410.
Weir R.D., and A.S. Harestad. 2003. Scale-dependent habitat selectivity by fishers in south- central British Columbia. Journal of Wildlife Management 67:73-82.
Welsh, H.H. Jr., G.R. Hodgson, and A.J. Lind. 2005. Ecography of the herpetofauna of a northern California watershed: linking species patterns to landscape processes. Ecography 28: 521-536.
Welsh, H.H. Jr. and A.J. Lind. 1991. The structure of the herpetofaunal assemblage in the Douglas-fir/hardwood forests of northwestern California and southwestern Oregon. Pp. 394-413 In: Ruggiero, L.F., K.B. Aubry, A.B. Carey, and M.H. Huff (Tech. Coords.), Wildlife and vegetation of unmanaged Douglas-fir forests. USDA Forest Service, General Technical Report, PNW-GTR-285, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, OR.
White, J.A. 2004. Geomorphic analysis of stream crossings in a portion of the Upper Cheat River Basin. Master’s Thesis. West Virginia University, Morgantown, WV.
Williams, P. H. 1998. An annotated checklist of bumble bees with an analysis of patterns of description (Hymenoptera: Apidae, Bombini). Bull. Natur. Hist. Mus. London (Ent.) 67(1):79-152.
51 East Fork Illinois River Channel and Floodplain Restoration Project, Wildlife BE and Specialist Report
Wisdom, M. J., H. K. Preisler, N. J. Cimon, B. K. Johnson. 2004. Effects of Off-Road Recreation on Mule Deer and Elk. Transactions of the North American Wildlife and Natural Resource Conference 69: in press.
Wisely S.M., S.W. Buskirk, G.A. Russell, K.B. Aubry, and W.J. Zielinski. 2004. Genetic diversity and structure of the fisher (Martes pennanti) in a peninsular and peripheral meta-population. Journal of Mammalogy 85:640-648.
Xerces Society 2009. Bumblebees: western bumblebee (Bombus occidentalis) Profile prepared by R.W. Thorp, E. Evans and S.H. Black http://www.xerces.org/western- bumble-bee/. Accessed 9/22/2009 and 12/11/2013.
Yaeger, J. S. 2005. Habitat at fisher resting sites in the Klamath Province of northern California, Thesis, Humboldt State University, Arcata, California, USA.
Yanes, M., J.M. Velasco, and F.Suarez. 1995. Permeability of roads and railways to vertebrates: the importance of culverts. Biological Conservation, 71:217-222.
Zielinski, W.J. and N.P. Duncan. 2004. Diets of sympatric populations of American martens (Martes americana) and fishers (Martes pennanti) in California. Journal of Mammalogy, 85(3).
Zielinski , W.J., N.P. Duncan, E.C. Farmer, R.L Truex, A.P. Clevenger, and R.H. Barrett. 1999. Diet of fishers (Martes pennanti) at the southernmost extent of their range. Journal of Mammalogy 80:961-971.
Zielinski, W.J., R.L. Truax, G.AL. Schmidt, F.V. Schlexer, and R.H. Barrett. 2004. Resting habitat selection by fishers in California. Journal of Wildlife Management, 68(3); 475-492.
Personal Communications Hammond, Paul. 2006. Personal communication with Eric Scheuering in USFS Region 6 ISSSSP species fact sheet for Coronis fritillary.
Schroeder, P. 2006. Personal communication with Robbin Thorp in USFS Region 6 ISSSSP species fact sheet for Franklin’s bumblebee.
Thorp, Robbin. 2013. Personal communication with Bonnie Allison, Wild Rivers district wildlife biologist, during field surveys for bumblebees on Mt Ashland in August 2013.
52 East Fork Illinois River Channel and Floodplain Restoration Project, Wildlife BE and Specialist Report
APPENDIX A
53 East Fork Illinois River Channel and Floodplain Restoration Project, Wildlife BE and Specialist Report
Map 1. East Fork Illinois River Channel and Floodplain Restoration Project Alternative 2, Proposed Action.
54 East Fork Illinois River Channel and Floodplain Restoration Project, Wildlife BE and Specialist Report
Map 2. East Fork Illinois River Channel and Floodplain Restoration Project Wildlife Habitat Analysis Areas.
55