Terrestrial Wildlife Analysis Reporta123.g.akamai.net/7/123/11558/abc123/forestservic.download.akamai... · determinations for MIS species within the Clarks Fork project planning

Terrestrial Wildlife Analysis Report

1


Clarks Fork Fuels Treatment and Wildlife Habitat Enhancement Project

High Cascades Ranger District, Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest

/s/ Jeff von Kienast Date: 8/22/2013

Jeff von Kienast

District Wildlife Biologist

/s/ Sheila Colyer Date: 8/22/2013

Sheila Colyer

Wildlife Biologist

Clarks Fork Wildlife Habitat Enhancement and Fuels Treatment Project

2

I. Introduction This report includes discussion on terrestrial species and habitats other than those covered in the

biological evaluation (BE). The Rogue River Land and Resource Management Plan (USDA

Forest Service 1990b) was amended by the Northwest Forest Plan (USDA Forest Service and

USDI Bureau of Land Management 1994b) and is the primary planning document that establishes

procedural requirements for effects from projects to wildlife.

This report discusses and analyzes Forest Plan Management Indicator Species, neo-tropical

migratory birds, and other rare and uncommon species. The fuels treatments considered

under the Clarks Fork Wildlife Habitat Enhancement and Fuels Treatment Project (Clarks Fork

Project) require a BE to be completed (Forest Service Manual (FSM) 2672.4). This report is

designed to complement the Terrestrial Wildlife BE, for other terrestrial wildlife species. Both

reports were prepared for the proposed Clarks Fork Project, which would be authorized, funded,

and conducted on the High Cascades Ranger District of the Rogue River-Siskiyou National

Forest. See the Clarks Fork Wildlife Habitat Enhancement and Fuels Treatment Project Decision

Memo (DM) or the BE for more detail on the actions proposed and analyzed in this report.

This report discusses the species of concern, their listing status and references, species biology,

and other relevant information about the distribution and abundance of these species on the

Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest and the Clarks Fork project planning area. Also included in

attachment 1 are recommendations for project design criteria and/or mitigation measures, as

appropriate. The scale for effects analyses for all species in this document includes the Clarks

Fork project planning area.

II. Management Indicator Species (MIS) The National Forest Management Act (NFMA) requires that each Forest identify management

indicator species (MIS) in the planning process and that "fish and wildlife habitats will be

managed to maintain and improve habitat of selected management indicator species." By

monitoring the habitat changes or trends of these particular indicator species, the effects of

management activities on the associated animal communities can theoretically be determined.

Since the habitats of these indicator species cover the majority of the vegetative seral stages on

the Forest, it is assumed that meeting the requirements of these species will assure that the needs

of associated species will be met (USDA Forest Service 1990a).

Management indicators representing overall objectives for wildlife, fish, and plants may include

species, groups of species with similar habitat relationships, or habitats that are of high concern

(FSM 2621.1). 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 Forest Plan (USDA

Forest Service 1990b). Management Indicator Species and habitats are identified in table 1.

MIS species, habitats, and pre-field and reconnaissance results are summarized in table 1. The

Forest has developed the Rogue River National Forest MIS Forest-Wide Environmental Baseline

and Species Account [RRMBSA (USDA Forest Service 2011)] which this document incorporates

by reference. Please refer to this document for background information that includes a more

exhaustive review of habitat use and ecology, distribution of the species, Forest-level habitat

evaluations, and viability assessments.


3

The terrestrial wildlife analysis area for the Clarks Fork Project is defined as the project planning

area. This area is approximately 14,040 acres and is located within and includes Federally

managed lands in the following subwatersheds within the (5th field) Big Butte Creek watershed:

Clarks Fork Creek-Fourbit Creek, Upper South Fork Big Butte Creek, and Willow Creek

drainages. Only National Forest System Lands (NFSL) would be treated.

The project planning area is within the area analyzed under the 1995 Upper Big Butte Watershed

Analysis (USDA Forest Service 1995). The legal description is Township 35 and 36 South, Range

3 and 4 East, Willamette Meridian, Jackson County, Oregon. Treatments would occur within

several project areas located within the broader Clarks Fork project planning area.

Table 1. Management Indicator Species (MIS) on the Rogue River National Forest and Clarks Fork project planning area

Species Habitat

represented

Habitat present in Clarks Fork project planning

area

Species present in Clarks Fork project

planning area

Spotted owl Older forest habitat

(mature and old-growth forest)

Yes Documented

Pileated woodpecker Mature forest Yes Documented

American marten Mature forest Yes Documented

Primary cavity nesters (downy woodpecker, hairy woodpecker, northern flicker)

Wildlife trees (snags)

Yes

Downy – Documented

Hairy – Documented

N. flicker – Documented

Roosevelt elk Winter range and

thermal cover Yes Documented

Black-tailed deer Winter range,

thermal cover, and non-forested habitat

Yes Documented

A. Habitats for MIS Species

Habitat data for MIS species analyses was derived from the wildlife habitat parameter of the

existing vegetation dataset for the Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest. This basis for this

dataset used 2006 Geographic Information System (GIS) coverages developed by the Landscape

Ecology, Modeling, Mapping & Analysis (LEMMA) team using a Gradient Nearest Neighbor

(GNN) methodology (http://www.fsl.orst.edu/lemma/splash.php). These datasets were further

refined using information from stand exams where they were available and field verification on a

sample of the units by the District and Assistant Forest Silviculturists.

The analysis is based primarily on satellite imagery. The use of satellite imagery allows large

areas to be assessed on a consistent basis and is considered the “best available” data that maps

and provides consistent vegetation characteristics throughout the analysis areas regardless of

ownership. The LEMMA data set encompasses all lands administered by the Rogue River-

Siskiyou National Forest.

It is important to note some limitations in terms of the satellite imagery used for this analysis. The

imagery was classified over a large area, and as such individual pixels of data may not exactly

match on the ground. Though, when viewed at the landscape or analysis area scale, the imagery

presents a consistent “snapshot” which is useful for design of actions and planning.

http://www.fsl.orst.edu/lemma/splash.php


4

The GNN dataset was queried by the unit wildlife biologists and the Forest Wildlife Biologist for

habitats known to support the ecology and biology of the MIS species identified on the Rogue

River National Forest. These habitat types were further refined based on specific habitat

requirements and Rogue River Forest Plan direction. Final baseline habitat determinations for

MIS species on the Rogue River National Forest are identified in table 2. Baseline habitat

determinations for MIS species within the Clarks Fork project planning area are identified in table

3.


5

Table 2. MIS species and baseline habitats on the Rogue River National Forest

Deer Acres Elk Acres

American marten

(4,000 to 6,800 feet elev only)

Acres Spotted

owl Acres

Pileated woodpecker

Acres Cavity

nesters Acres

Farm develop Forage 5,827 Forage 5,827 Non hab 760 Non hab 5,827 Non hab 5,827 Non hab 5,827

Grass / shrub

Sparse vegetation Forage 8,837 Forage 8,837 Forage 4,497 Non hab 8,837 Non hab 8,837 Non hab 8,837

Seed / sap / pole

3 to 11”, <40% CC Forage 35,830 Forage 35,830 Forage 14,215 Non hab 35,830 Non hab 35,830 Non hab 35,830

Seed / sap / pole

3 to 11”, >40% CC Hiding 89,844 Hiding 89,844 Forage 43,788 Non hab 89,844 Non hab 89,844 Non hab 89,844

Young 11 to 19.9”

>70% CC, <40% CC Forage 15,728 Forage 15,728 Forage 7,593 Non hab 15,728

Low quality snag hab

15,728 Low

quality snag hab

15,728

Young 11 to 19,9”

40 to 70% CC Hiding 74,979 Hiding 74,979 Forage 31,407 Dispersal 74,979


74,979 Low

quality snag hab

74,979

Young 11 to 19.9”

>70% CC

Thermal / hiding

141,625 Thermal / hiding

141,625 Forage 66,569 Dispersal 141,625 Snag hab 141,625 Snag hab

141,625

Mature, >20”

<40% CC Forage 6,066 Forage 6,066 Den / rest 3,982 Non hab 6,066


6,066 Low

quality snag hab

6,066

Mature, >20”

40 to 60% CC Hiding 29,912 Hiding 29,912 Den / rest 14,954 Dispersal 29,912 Snag hab 29,912

Snag hab

29,912

Mature, >20”

>60% CC

Optimal thermal /

hiding 203,402

Optimal thermal /

hiding 203,402 Den / rest 97,947 NRF 203,402 Snag hab 203,402

Snag hab

203,402

1 Acres reported for American marten in table 2 are for the High Cascades Ranger District only. New information regarding marten habitats are included in the

American marten section below and table 20.


6

Table 3. MIS Species and baseline habitats on the Clarks Fork project planning area

Deer Acres Elk Acres

American marten (4,000 to 6,800 feet

elev only)

Acres Spotted

owl Acres

Pileated woodpecker

Acres Cavity

nesters Acres

Grass / shrub

Sparse vegetation Forage 0 Forage 0 Forage 0 Non hab 0 Non hab 0 Non hab 0

Seed / sap / pole

3 to 11”, <40% CC Forage 101 Forage 101 Forage 0 Non hab 101 Non hab 101 Non hab 101

Seed / sap / pole

3 to 11”, >40% CC Hiding 62 Hiding 62 Forage 18 Non hab 62 Non hab 62 Non hab 62

Young 11 to 19.9”

<40% CC Forage 1024 Forage 1024 Forage 240 Non hab 1024


1024 Low quality snag hab

1024

Young 11 to 19,9”

40 to 70% CC Hiding 77 Hiding 77 Forage 7 Dispersal 77



77

Young 11 to 19.9”

>70% CC

Thermal / hiding

3118 Thermal / hiding

3118 Forage 1255 Dispersal 3118 Snag hab 3118 Snag hab 3118

Mature, >20”

<40% CC Forage 4631 Forage 4631 Den/Rest 858 Non hab 4631



4631

Mature, >20”

40 to 60% CC Hiding 104 Hiding 104 Den/Rest 29 Dispersal 104 Snag hab 104 Snag hab 104

Mature, >20”

>60% CC

Optimal thermal /

hiding 253

Optimal thermal /

hiding 253 Den/Rest 3 NRF 253 Snag hab 253 Snag hab 253


7

B. Coarse Woody Debris (CWD) and Snags

Coarse woody debris and snags are critical habitat components for several of the MIS species

found on the Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest. These habitat components provide

nesting/denning habitats for northern spotted owl, pileated woodpecker, American marten, and

the cavity nesting MIS species. Coarse woody debris and snags also provide resting sites and

prey/foraging habitats for these species.

Site-specific snag and down wood data are collected on the Rogue River-Siskiyou National

Forest by the Southwest Oregon Ecology Group. These data are collected within unmanaged

forest ecology plots that are identified within specific plant series (Hochholter 2010). Tables 4

and 5 identify the mean and standard deviations of these data. The project planning area falls

almost entirely within the white fir plant series in these tables.

Table 4. Coarse woody material Levels (number of pieces/acre and mean length)

Plant series Diameter class mean length (feet) / acre (SD)

10 to 19.9 inches ≥20 inches

Douglas-fir 535 (521) 93 (153)

white fir 663 (534) 239 (334)

Table 5. Snag levels (per acre)

Plant series Diameter class mean (SD)


Douglas-fir 6 (13) 2 (4)

white fir 4 (6) 4 (5)

Coarse woody debris and snag data were collected on some portions of the project planning area

(not within the Big Butte Springs harvest units) by Biologists during field verification of wildlife

habitats. Table 6 provides these data, expressed as the mean across all units measured for both the

10 to 19.9-inch and ≥20-inch size classes, for comparison of CWD and snags in unmanaged

forest stands (tables 4 and 5). Course woody debris and snags fall below the mean for these

PAG’s. The Clarks Fork Project is expected to increase snag habitats initially and coarse woody

debris with 1 to 2 decades after treatment through prescribed burning.

Table 6. Coarse woody material and snag levels on the Clarks Fork project planning area

Plant series CWD length (feet / acre and snags / acre


CWD 42 39

Snag 1.31 1.12

C. Northern Spotted Owl (Strix occidentalis caurina)

The northern spotted owl was selected as an indicator of older forest habitat in the Rogue River

National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (USDA Forest Service 1990b). For a

complete description of northern spotted owl ecology and biology across its range, within the

Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest, and within the Clarks Fork project planning area, please

refer to the Terrestrial Biological Evaluation for the Clarks Fork Project.

The Forest has identified 12 known, historic, or suspected spotted owl sites in or adjacent to

(within 2.4 miles of the planning area boundary) the Clarks Fork project planning area from

historical information, protocol surveys, NEPA field evaluations, or incidental observations.

Three activity centers fall within the Clarks Fork project planning area boundary.


8

All of these sites are monitored annually by the Oregon State University Demographic Study

crew. One of the sites has been unoccupied since 2007. One site has been unoccupied since 2004

but had a male detected in 2008. The third site is still occupied by a pair of spotted owls. Barred

owls have been detected at all 3 sites within the last decade. An additional nine spotted owls sites

overlap the project planning area where nest patch, core area, or home ranges overlap. Table 7

provides the history of the three northern spotted owl sites within the Clarks Fork project

planning area for the last decade.

All suitable habitats not already being surveyed by OSU for the demographic study within the

Clarks Fork project planning area were surveyed in 2013.

Direct, indirect, and cumulative effects to northern spotted owl are described for the proposed

action in the Terrestrial Wildlife BE for the Clarks Fork Project.


9

Table 7. Site Status of Northern Spotted Owls within the Clark’s Fork Planning Area (12 Total).

Year Northern Spotted Owl Site Status

#2223A Bowen

Creek (BLM)

#3260O Clementcheria

(BLM) #3307 Sheep Camp

#3308 Juniper

Ridge #3322 Indian Creek #3331 Whiskey Spring

2003 Unoccupied No surveys conducted. Male NSO detected.

Barred owl pair detected.

Male NSO

detected.

NSO Pair. Nesting

status unknown. NSO pair. 2 young.

2004 Unoccupied No surveys conducted. Unoccupied by NSO.


Unoccupied by

NSO. Barred owl

(unknown sex)

detected.

Male NSO detected.

Barred owl male

detected.

NSO pair w/young.

2005 Single response. Unoccupied Unoccupied by NSO.

Barred owl male detected Unoccupied Unoccupied

NSO pair. Nesting

failed.

2006 Unoccupied Unoccupied Unoccupied by NSO.

Barred owl male detected

Unoccupied by

NSO. Barred owl

male detected.

Unoccupied by NSO.

Barred owl male

detected.

NSO pair. Nesting

failed. Barred owl

male detected.

2007 Single response. Unoccupied Unoccupied

Unoccupied by

NSO. Barred owl

female detected.

Unoccupied by NSO.

Barred owl female

detected.

Unoccupied by NSO.

Male and juvenile

Barred owls detected.

2008 Unoccupied NSO Pair. Nesting status

unknown. Male NSO detected. Unoccupied

Unoccupied by NSO.

Male Barred owl and

Great horned owl.

Unoccupied by NSO.

Male Barred owl

detected

2009 NSO pair, 2 young

fledged Unoccupied

Barred owl female

detected. Unoccupied

Unoccupied by NSO.

Male Barred owl and

Great horned owl.

Unoccupied

2010 Unoccupied NSO Pair. Nesting status

unknown. Unoccupied Unoccupied

Unoccupied by NSO.

Barred owl male

detected.

Unoccupied by NSO.

Barred owl male

detected.

2011 Unoccupied Unoccupied Unoccupied Female NSO

detected.

Unoccupied by NSO.

Male Barred owl and

Great horned owl.

Unoccupied

2012 Unoccupied No surveys conducted. Unoccupied.by NSO.

Male Barred owl detected. Unoccupied

Unoccupied by NSO.

Barred owl pair.

Unoccupied by NSO.

Barred owl male


10

Table 7. Site Status of Northern Spotted Owls within the Clark’s Fork Planning Area (12 Total) continued.

Year Northern Spotted Owl Site Status

#3332 Sand

Piper #3336 Oak Mountain #3355 Stanley Meadows #3358 Snowshoe Butte #3361 Fechner

#9016 East

Skeeter

Swamp

2003

(historic site)

surveyed in close

proximity

unoccupied?

(historic site)

surveyed in close

proximity

unoccupied?

NSO pair. Non-nesting. NSO pair, 2 young fledged

(historic site) surveyed in

close proximity

unoccupied?

Site not

surveyed.

2004 No survey No survey Unoccupied NSO pair located, no young

detected No survey

NSO pair, 2

young

fledged

2005 No survey No survey

NSO pair. Nesting status

unknown. Barred owl

pair.

NSO pair located, no young

detected No survey

NSO female

detected.

2006 No survey No survey Unoccupied by NSO.


NSO pair located, no young

detected. Barred and Great

Horned owls detected at site

No survey

NSO pair

detected,

nest failed.

2007 No survey No survey

Unoccupied by NSO.

Barred owl male

detected.

Unoccupied No survey NSO pair.

Non-nesting.

2008 No survey No survey Unoccupied Unoccupied No survey NSO female

detected.


detected No survey Unoccupied


detected. Barred owl detected. No survey Unoccupied

2011 No survey No survey Unoccupied NSO pair, 2 young fledged.

Barred owl detected. No survey Unoccupied

2012 No survey No survey Unoccupied NSO pair. Non-nesting. No survey NSO female

detected.


11

D. Pileated Woodpecker (Dryocopus pileatus)

1. Conservation Status

USDA Forest Service – MIS on all forests

NatureServe

(http://www.natureserve.org/explorer/servlet/NatureServe?searchName=Dryocopus+pileatus)

Global – G5 – Widespread, abundant, secure

Oregon – S4 – Apparently secure

Washington – S4 – Apparently secure

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) – Vulnerable (Blue Mountains, Eastern

Cascades Slopes and Foothills, Klamath Mountains)

(http://www.dfw.state.or.us/wildlife/diversity/species/docs/SSL_by_taxon.pdf)

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) – Priority species

(http://www.wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/phs/list/2008/2008-sept_woodpeckers.pdf), rank

Candidate

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service Birds of Conservation Concern

(http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/NewReportsPublications/SpecialTopics/BCC2008/BCC2008

.pdf) – The pileated woodpecker is not listed as a species of concern in any of the Bird

Conservation Regions occurring in Oregon and Washington.

BCR 5 – No

BCR 9 – No

BCR 10 – No

2. Distribution

Global:

NatureServe

(http://www.natureserve.org/explorer/servlet/NatureServe?searchName=Dryocopus+pileatus)

“RESIDENT: from southern and eastern British Columbia and southwestern Mackenzie across

southern Canada to Quebec and Nova Scotia, south in Pacific states to central California, in the

Rocky Mountains to Idaho and western Montana, in the central and eastern U.S. to the eastern

Dakotas, Gulf Coast, and southern Florida, and west in the eastern U.S. to Iowa, Kansas,

Oklahoma, and Texas (AOU 1983).”

Oregon and Washington:

Wide-spread resident in forested areas of Oregon and Washington including the Olympic

Peninsula, Coastal Mountains, Klamath Mountains, Cascade Mountains, Blue Mountains,

Northeast Washington, and forested fringes of the Puget Trough, Willamette, Rogue, and Umpqua

Valleys. Absent from higher and lower elevations due to lack of large trees for nesting, roosting,

and foraging (Marshall et al. 2003).

3. Habitat Use

Pileated woodpeckers use mature and older, closed canopy stands for nesting and roosting, but

may use younger (40 to 70 years), closed-canopy stands for foraging if large snags are available;

large snags and decadent trees are critical habitat components for pileated woodpeckers; down

logs do not appear to be an important foraging substrate for pileated woodpeckers on the west

side of Oregon and Washington (Hartwig et al. 2004; Mellen et al. 1992; Raley and Aubry 2006).

http://www.natureserve.org/explorer/servlet/NatureServe?searchName=Dryocopus+pileatus

http://www.dfw.state.or.us/wildlife/diversity/species/docs/SSL_by_taxon.pdf

http://www.wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/phs/list/2008/2008-sept_woodpeckers.pdf

http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/NewReportsPublications/SpecialTopics/BCC2008/BCC2008.pdf

http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/NewReportsPublications/SpecialTopics/BCC2008/BCC2008.pdf

http://www.natureserve.org/explorer/servlet/NatureServe?searchName=Dryocopus+pileatus


12

In the Coast Range of western Oregon, pileated woodpeckers preferred deciduous riparian

habitats and forest stands greater than 40 years of age for foraging, however, nests and roosts

were located only in forest stands greater than 70 years of age (Mellen et al. 1992).

On the Olympic Peninsula, sites used for foraging had higher densities of large snags [more than

51centimeters (21 inches) DBH and more than 7.5 meters (25 feet) tall]; the average density of

large snags in plots with recent pileated woodpecker foraging activity was 100 percent greater

than in plots with no recent foraging activity (Raley and Aubry 2006). Patches of these large,

relatively hard snags in closed-canopy habitat conditions provide optimal foraging habitat.

On Vancouver Island pileated woodpeckers used mature structural stages for nesting (Hartwig et

al. 2004).

Large snags and decadent trees are used for nesting (tables 8 and 9).

Olympic Peninsula – nest trees were in both decadent live trees and snags; Pacific silver

fir was the preferred species, but many nests were in decadent (dead top) western

hemlock trees; snags with nests were primarily broken topped (Aubry and Raley 2002).

Oregon Coast Range – nests were predominantly in broken topped snags; Douglas-fir

was the primary species used, with a few nests in red alder (Mellen 1987).

Large snags, decadent trees and hollow cedar are used for roosting (tables 8 and 9).

Olympic Peninsula – roost trees were larger than nest trees; typically roosts were in

western hemlock snags or live western redcedar; roost trees contained extensive hollows

created by heartwood decay; pileated woodpeckers used an average of 7 different roost

trees per year (Aubry and Raley 2002).

Oregon Coast Range – roosts were in snags and live trees and significantly larger in DBH

than nest trees; Douglas-fir was the predominant species used, but also red alder, big-leaf

maple, and western redcedar (Mellen 1987).

Large snags are important foraging substrate for pileated woodpeckers (tables 8 and 9).

Olympic Peninsula – foraging snags were primarily more than 51 centimeters (20 inches)

DBH and were sound or moderately decayed (Raley and Aubry 2006).

Table 8. Sizes of snags and trees by tolerance level (tl) used by pileated woodpeckers for nesting, roosting and foraging in western Oregon and Washington and coastal British Columbia, in the westside lowland conifer-hardwood forest, larger trees vegetation condition class (DecAID Tables WLCH_L.sp-17, 18, 19, & 25)

Type of use

Snag size (DBH in inches) Sample size 50% tl (30 and 80% tl)

Number of studies

Citations 30% tl

50% tl (mean)

80% tl

Nesting 25.3 32.3 43.0 83 (74) 6 (4)

Aubry and Raley 2002; Hartwig 1999; Hartwig et al. 2004; Lundquist 1998; Mannan et al. 1980; Mellen 1987; Nelson 1988

Roosting 42.8 36.0 54.2 44 2 Aubry and Raley 2002; Mellen 1987

Foraging 14.2 26.4 33.3 125 (94) 2 (1) Hartwig 1999; Mannan et al. 1980

Source: Mellen-McLean et al. 2009.


13

Table 9. Densities Of large snags [more than 50 centimeters (20 inches) DBH] by tolerance level (tl) at pileated woodpecker nesting, roosting, and foraging sites in the westside lowland conifer-hardwood forest, larger trees vegetation condition class (DecAID tables WLCH_ L.sp-22 and WLCH_ S.sp-22)

Type of use

Snag size (DBH in inches) Sample size 50% tl (30 and 80% tl)

Number of studies

Citations 30% tl

50% tl (mean)

80% tl

Nesting and roosting

11.7 (4.7)

17.4 (7.0)

26.0 (10.4)

169 2 Aubry and Raley 2002; Mellen 1987

Foraging 19.0 (7.6)

30.2 (12.1)

47.0 (18.8)

86 1 Raley and Aubry 2006

Source: Mellen-McLean et al. 2009.

Home Range

Table 10. Home range sizes of pileated woodpeckers by geographic area

Geographic area Home range size Citations

Western Oregon Mean = 478 hectares (1,180 acres)

Range = 267 to 1,056 hectares (660 to 2,608 acres)

Mellen (1987); Mellen et al. (1992)

Northeast Oregon

Paired birds

Mean = 407 hectares (1,005 acres)

Range = 321 to 630 hectares (793 to 1,556 acres)

Single birds

Mean = 597 hectares (1,475 acres)

Range = 200 to 1,464 hectares (494 to 3,616 acres)

Bull and Holthausen (1993)

Olympic Peninsula

Females: mean = 960 hectares (2,371 acres)

Males: mean = 894 hectares (2,208 acres)

Pairs: mean = 863 hectares (2,132 acres)

Aubry and Raley (1996)

4. Population Trend and Viability

Rogue River Land and Resource Management Plan (1990)

Habitat for the pileated woodpecker represents over 160 wildlife species which utilize mature

forest habitat. The pileated woodpecker is a primary cavity excavator and dwelling species which

uses large standing dead trees (snags) and mature/old-growth (older forest) habitat for nesting and

roosting.

Three-hundred acres of mature and old-growth timber (trees having diameters of 21 inches DBH

or greater) were considered necessary for a pair of pileated woodpeckers. Areas were located

within 5 miles of each other, center-to-center, and evenly spaced over the Forest to allow

interaction of the pairs between suitable territories. Based on the management requirements for

the Forest, 9 pileated woodpecker areas were established. The SOHAs set aside for northern

spotted owls were also thought to function as habitat for the pileated woodpecker. Therefore,

there were a total of 34 areas managed to provide habitat for pileated woodpeckers outside of

Wilderness and other withdrawn areas. It was expected that the withdrawn areas may be able to

support an additional 150 pairs (USDA Forest Service 1990a).

Under the 1990 Rogue River Forest Plan Forest-wide capability for pileated woodpeckers was

expected to decrease by 8 percent in the first two decades due to harvest of mature and old-

growth forest.


14

Northwest Forest Plan

The selected alternative for the Northwest Forest Plan was determined to meet the NFMA

requirement to provide for a diversity of plant and animal communities (USDA Forest Service

and USDI Bureau of Land Management 1994a). The Northwest Forest Plan amended the Rogue

River Forest Plan, significantly so for spotted owls and old-growth habitat. While the Old Growth

and Spotted Owl Management Strategies (MS-15 and MS-19) were removed from the Rogue

River Forest Plan, five large mapped Late-successional Reserves (LSRs) were identified across

the Forest to provide for clusters of breeding spotted owl pairs; this LSR allocation covered

approximately 238,000 acres and the LSRs contained approximately 60,000 acres of spotted owl

habitat (Mature and Old Growth habitat greater than 40 percent canopy closure) according to

analysis using Pacific Meridian Landsat (PMR) data.

In addition, the direction in the Forest Plan directed that 100-acre core areas were to be identified

around all existing spotted owl pairs and territorial singles to provide for short-term owl

management and long-term dispersal capability for owls and other late-successional associated

species. One hundred and sixty-two 100-acre cores equaling 16,215 acres were identified outside

of LSRs for the Forest.

In 1994, according to PMR data the entire Forest had approximately 154,102 acres of suitable

habitat for spotted owls, over 94,000 acres of that were located in LSR and other reserve lands

such as Congressionally Reserved Lands (Wilderness and Wild and Scenic River), and

Administratively Withdrawn (RNA and Botanical reserves) lands with no programmed timber

harvest (table 11).

At the time the Northwest Forest Plan was adopted, the amount and spatial juxtaposition of

mature and old-growth habitat in reserve land allocations (94,000 acres) far exceeded the amount

identified previously as habitat to be managed for pileated woodpeckers. The potential habitat

capability trend for pileated woodpecker likely increased on the Forest due to adoption of the

Northwest Forest Plan.

The pileated woodpecker was one of 36 birds determined to be closely associated with late-

successional and old-growth forests, with occurrence of large snags necessary for optimal habitat

(USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management 1994a, page 3&4-177). A viability

assessment was completed by the Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment Team (FEMAT)

(1993). The viability outcome for the pileated woodpecker was 100 percent likelihood of

Outcome A – “Habitat is of sufficient quality, distribution, and abundance to allow the species

population to stabilize, well distributed across federal lands” (USDA Forest Service and USDI

Bureau of Land Management 1994a, page 3&4-179). This outcome determination was based on

provisions of: 1) a large system of late-successional reserves; 2) Standards and Guidelines for

Riparian Reserves; and 3) retention of green trees, snags, and coarse woody debris within the

matrix.

The USDA Forest Service has been implementing the Northwest Forest Plan and monitoring late-

successional habitat trends since 1994. The 10-year monitoring report (Haynes et al. 2006) states

“…it appears that the status and trends in abundance, diversity, and ecological functions of older

forests are generally consistent with expectations of the Plan. The total area of late-successional

and old-growth forest (older forests) has increased at a rate that is somewhat higher than

expected, and losses from wildfires are in line with what was anticipated.” As a result, projects

consistent with the Northwest Forest Plan should be expected to maintain viability of late-

successional associated species such as the pileated woodpecker.

There are two long-term Breeding Bird survey routes on the High Cascades Ranger District that

have been surveyed annually for the last 14 years. The Whiskey Springs route shows consistent

observations of up to four species of woodpeckers, including pileated woodpecker (3.33 per

mile). Over the 14 years of survey observations, pileated woodpecker populations have remained

stable.


15

The Prospect route, just west and slightly lower in elevation than the Whiskey Springs route,

shows consistent observations of pileated woodpecker (1.17 per mile). Pileated woodpeckers

show a stable trend. Another long-term survey route on the Forest is in the Applegate Valley.

From 1992 to 2007, the Ruch BBS route shows the pileated woodpecker trends are stable or

slightly increasing on that route.

Table 11. Rogue River National Forest pileated woodpecker high potential habitat 1994

GNN dataset Congressionally Reserved acres

LSR acres Administratively Withdrawn acres

All Forest acres

>70% Medium Mature (20+ DBH)

5,339 16,287 1,144 43,005

>70% Old Growth 11,884 27,210 1,015 63,181

40 to 70% Medium Mature 9,410 9,117 1,951 29,562

40 to 70% Old Growth 4,073 6,414 396 18,354

TOTAL NRF 30,706 59,028 4,506 154,102

5. Existing Condition (2011)

Suitable habitat for pileated woodpeckers, represented by mature and late-successional forest, on

the Forest is approximately 203,402 acres; of that, 133,163 acres (65 percent) are in reserve land

allocations with no programmed timber harvest (table 12). There are still 153 100-acre spotted

owl core areas totaling 15,300 acres identified outside of LSRs on the Forest. These core areas

also provide suitable habitat for pileated woodpecker.

Table 12. Pileated woodpecker habitat 2011


LSR acres Administratively Withdrawn acres

All Forest acres

NRF = >20+ DBH and >60% CC 37,909 75,893 19,361 203,402

Currently, there is far more pileated woodpecker habitat available and more habitat within reserve

land allocations for pileated woodpeckers than was planned for in the original 1990 Rogue River

Forest Plan. Suitable habitats for pileated woodpeckers on the Rogue River National Forest

continues to trend upwards due to implementation of the Northwest Forest Plan and silvicultural

prescriptions designed to maintain late-successional characteristics in nesting, roosting, and

foraging habitats for northern spotted owls.

In addition, RA-32 habitats have been excluded from harvest on the Rogue River National Forest

in recent years. Based on stable or increasing trends identified by Breeding Bird Surveys and the

trend of increasing habitats on the Rogue River National Forest, the Forest believes that viability

would be provided for across the Forest.

Pileated woodpeckers were documented in suitable and dispersal habitats within the Clarks Fork

project planning area during field reconnaissance. There are approximately 203,402 acres of

suitable habitats available to pileated woodpeckers across the Rogue River National Forest.

Approximately 133,163 acres of these habitats are within Congressionally Reserved allocations.

The 203,402 acres of pileated habitats on the Rogue River National Forest would support an

estimated 78 to 308 pairs of home ranges on the Forest (based on the ranges defined for Western

Oregon, table F2-9, for pileated woodpeckers). This is likely an extremely conservative estimate

because this estimate is based on late-successional habitats only and does not incorporate

inclusions of younger stands, such as northern spotted owl dispersal habitats, which is

documented for pileated woodpecker use.

A pileated woodpecker model was developed as part of the ILAP (Integrated Landscape

Assessment Project). The wildlife habitats module was led by Anita Morzillo of Oregon State

University’s College of Forestry (Mellen-McLean 2011). The model was developed for western

Oregon and Washington.


16

The Wildlife Habitat Relationship Model (WHR) was developed by reviewing the literature on

pileated woodpecker habitat to determine vegetation types and structural stages used by the

woodpecker. Each combination of VDDT (Vegetation Dynamics Development Tool) State Class

and PVT (Potential Vegetation Type) was determined to be habitat or non-habitat for each VDDT

modeling zone. The model identified that approximately 20 to 40 percent of the habitat within the

Big Butte Springs Watershed is considered to be pileated woodpecker habitat.

Within the project planning area, there are nearly 5,000 acres (36 percent) of mature habitats (20

inches or greater DBH). This equates to approximately 2 percent of the Forest’s habitat base.

Based on reported home range sizes in Western Oregon (table 10), the Forest estimates that there

are between 2 to 8 pileated woodpecker pair home ranges within the project planning area.

6. Effects of Silvicultural and Fuels Treatments on Pileated Woodpecker

Direct and Indirect Effects

Underburning and fuels reduction units could reduce small woody debris. Burning prescriptions

would be designed to maintain large wood and snags that may be used as nesting/foraging

habitats for pileated woodpeckers. Since prescribed fire has the potential to consume some large

wood and snags even while conducted under prescribed conditions, there is a potential that some

of these structures would be consumed or partially consumed. Under these same conditions,

prescribed fire may create some snags through mortality of live trees. These trees would snag

habitats and eventually provide CWD on the project planning area. Prescribed fire would be used

to reduce Fire Regime Condition Class (FRCC) within the Clarks Fork project planning area to

attain the historic range of variability (HRV) to reduce the risk of stand-replacement fire in the

future. Attainment of HRV is expected to benefit pileated woodpeckers because this species

evolved and persisted under these conditions.

Cumulative Effects

The list of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions was reviewed to determine

potential effects to pileated woodpeckers. Actions that would contribute to potential cumulative

effects are Big Butte Springs Timber Sales because they overlap spatially and temporally.

The Big Butte Springs Timber Sales were designed to maintain forest health and habitat diversity,

reduce risk of insect and disease infestations, reduce fuel loading and the potential effects of

wildfire, and increase the quality of riparian vegetation.

There are approximately 4,095 acres of Big Butte Springs timber sale units within the Clarks Fork

project planning area, in which 681 acres of units are not included in the Clarks Fork Project.

These stands are composed of both commercial and pre-commercial sizes trees. Three Big Butte

Springs timber sale units, totaling 158 acres of treatments, will reduce canopy closures below

60% in stands with larger trees.

Determination of Effect

Since treated stands under the Clarks Fork Project would retain the largest, oldest trees, co-

dominant trees, mid-story canopy and the majority of large snags for nesting and foraging, the

Forest expects these stands to retain the structural attributes necessary to provide for pileated

woodpecker biology and ecology. Treated stands would be interspersed with untreated stands,

some of which are the highest-quality habitats for late-successional species (i.e., owl nest patches,

100 acre cores). These stands will continue to provide nesting, roosting, and foraging sites for

pileated woodpeckers into the future.


17

Since the Big Butte Springs Timber Sale project could reduce canopy closure from 60 percent or

greater to approximately 40 percent on 158 acres of suitable pileated woodpecker habitats, the

cumulative effects would result in a small adverse trend of habitat by reducing canopy closure in

those stands. The effects of the project action on pileated woodpecker habitat would be

insignificant at the scale of the Forest. Therefore, the project actions for the Clarks Fork Project

are consistent with the Forest Plan, and thus continued viability of pileated woodpecker is

expected on the Rogue River portion of the Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest.

E. American Marten (Martes americana)


USDA Forest Service – MIS on all forests

NatureServe (http://www.natureserve.org/explorer/servlet/NatureServe)

Global – G5 – Widespread, abundant, secure

Oregon – S3S4 – Vulnerable to Apparently secure

Washington – S4 – Apparently secure

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) –

Vulnerable (Blue Mountains, Coast Range)

(http://www.dfw.state.or.us/wildlife/diversity/species/docs/SSL_by_taxon.pdf)

Harvested as a furbearer state-wide

(http://www.dfw.state.or.us/resources/hunting/small_game/regulations/docs/2010-

2012_Furbearer_Regs.pdf)

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) –

Priority species, Criterion 3. Species of Recreational, Commercial, and/or Tribal

Importance: Native and non-native fish and wildlife species of recreational or

commercial importance, and recognized species used for tribal ceremonial and

subsistence purposes, whose biological or ecological characteristics make them

vulnerable to decline in Washington or that are dependent on habitats that are highly

vulnerable or are in limited availability.

(http://www.wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/phs/list/2008/2008-

sept_terrestrial_carnivores.pdf)

Harvested as a furbearer state-wide (http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/00769/wdfw00769.pdf)

2. Distribution

The current geographic range of the American marten is temperate to arctic and spans the

continent from east to west, including offshore islands. The main portion of the distribution

comprises the boreal and taiga zones of Canada and Alaska. South of this area, the distribution

becomes insularized, with fingers and islands following western mountain ranges southward

(Buskirk and Ruggiero 1994). In Region 6, marten are found in the montane forests of the

southern Oregon Coast Range, Siskiyou Mountains, Cascade Mountains, Blue Mountains,

Olympic Peninsula, and northeast Washington (Marcot et al. 2003). Marten are absent from the

northern Oregon and southern Washington coastal mountains, and are rare in the Olympic

Peninsula (Zielinski et al. 2001). In the southern Oregon Cascades, marten are typically found at

elevations 4,000 feet or greater. Forest carnivore surveys on the Rogue River National Forest

have documented that martens are well-distributed across the High Cascades Ranger District at

elevations 4000 feet or greater. Approximately the eastern 1/5 of the Clarks Fork project planning

area provides habitat for marten.

http://www.natureserve.org/explorer/servlet/NatureServe


http://www.dfw.state.or.us/resources/hunting/small_game/regulations/docs/2010-2012_Furbearer_Regs.pdf

http://www.dfw.state.or.us/resources/hunting/small_game/regulations/docs/2010-2012_Furbearer_Regs.pdf

http://www.wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/phs/list/2008/2008-sept_terrestrial_carnivores.pdf

http://www.wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/phs/list/2008/2008-sept_terrestrial_carnivores.pdf

http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/00769/wdfw00769.pdf


18

On March 3 2012, a single American Marten (Martes americana) was captured during the course

of a fisher trapping effort ongoing in the Bear Creek watershed. The animal was captured

approximately three miles up Tolman Creek Road at approximately 3,600 feet in elevation 40

meters from the road in a riparian area where several fisher had previously been captured. Due to

its relatively small size, the animal was not tranquilized and processed as a fisher would have

been. Consequently, it is not known what gender the animal was; however due the size and

behavior of the animal, it is suspected to be a male. Photographs of the animal were taken, hair

samples were collected for genetic analysis, and the animal was released.

In July of 2012, another marten was captured by Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife

personnel on lower Tolman Creek road; this animal was released without any genetic material

being collected.

This is the first confirmed detection of marten in the eastern Siskiyou Mountains that the Forest

has any record of. There are very few anecdotal and unconfirmed records from this area and there

are only three historic records in National USDA Forest Service NRIS database of marten in the

eastern Klamath (upper Sucker Creek in the Illinois and two in the Little Applegate) but these

were sightings not documented by photos, body, hair, or tracks.

3. Habitat Use

Hargis et al. (1999) stated that in North America, American martens are closely associated with

mature conifer stands with complete canopy closure, and small (less than 100 meters), limited,

and interspersed openings that are used as forage areas. Thomas et al. (1993) and Forest

Ecosystem Management Assessment Team [FEMAT (1993)] list marten as “closely associated”

with late-successional and old-growth forests and the old-growth elements of large snags and

down logs. The reports also indicate a strong relationship between marten and riparian areas.

Buskirk (1992) reported that knowledge is almost completely lacking regarding behavioral or

population responses of martens to such landscape attributes as stand size and shape, area of stand

interiors, amount of edge, stand insularity, use of corridors, and connectivity.

Marten use a variety of structures for rest and den sites. Resting and denning sites offer protection

from predation and thermal stress; thus, availability of quality denning sites likely increases the

rates of survival and fecundity in marten (Raphael and Jones 1997).

In the Cascades, marten select sites with higher canopy closure during snow periods than during

snow-free periods (Raphael and Jones 1997). In Washington canopy cover at rest sites averaged

75 percent in snow periods and 67 percent in snow-free periods. In Oregon, canopy closure at rest

sites in lodgepole pine dominated stands averaged 36 percent in snow periods and 27 percent in

snow-free periods.

In the Washington Cascades, Jones and Raphael (1991) found martens resting in live trees (42

percent), snags (23 percent), and slash piles (11 percent). Large diameter trees were used more

often than smaller trees with an average DBH of live trees of 100 centimeters (39 inches) and 81

centimeters (32 inches) for snags. They also located 5 natal dens in large diameter live trees or

snags near water. The predominant species of den tree was western hemlock.


19

Table 13. Structures (percent) used as resting and denning sites by American marten in the Washington Cascade Mountains

Structure Resting sites Den sites Comments

Live tree 46 54

Snag 21 31

Logs 8 4

Slash pile 9 8 More important when snow was present

Rock 4 4

Subnivean 3 0

Other 8 0

Sample size 391 26

Source: From table 1 in Raphael and Jones (1997), comments added.

Raphael and Jones (1997) found that down wood and slash piles were important resting and

denning structures in the eastern Cascades of central Oregon. Forests in their project area were

dominated by lodgepole pine.

Table 14. Structures (percent) used as resting and denning sites by American marten in the lodgepole pine dominated sites in the Oregon Cascade Mountains

Structure Resting sites Den sites Comments

Live tree 7 19

Snag 9 16

Logs 21 32

Slash pile 43 29

Rock 1 0

Subnivean 15 0 During winter, subnivean use for rest sites increased to 76 percent

Other 4 4

Sample size 261 31

Source: From table 1 in Raphael and Jones (1997), comments added.

In the Blue Mountains of northeastern Oregon, Bull et al. (2005) found density of potential rest

sites was significantly higher (P<0.01) in marten home ranges than unoccupied areas, with

average densities of structures (number/hectare) of 2.7 versus 1.0 trees with cavities, 2.7 versus

1.3 hollow logs, and 13.6 versus 7.3 trees with platforms.

Table 15. Structures (percent) used as resting and denning sites by American martens in northeastern Oregon

Structure Resting

sites Den sites

Post-natal dens

Comments

Platforms 43 percent Platforms were in usually in brooms caused by rust fungi or dwarf mistletoes.

Cavities 23 percent 73 percent 21 percent Cavities were mostly in grand fir and western larch with hollows created by Indian paint fungus, brown trunk rot and red ring rot.

Subnivean 23 percent

Martens spent most of their time in subnivean rest sites during winter. These sites were usually associated with accumulation of logs or slash piles, single large logs, or hollow logs.

Hollow log 6 percent 58 percent Majority of hollow logs were grand fir or and western larch.

Underground 3 percent 27 percent 10 percent Tunnels, clusters of rocks or talus, and root wads.

Slash piles 1 percent 10 percent

Sample size 1,184 11 19

Source: From table 1 in Bull and Heater (2000), comments added.


20

In northwestern California, Slauson and Zielinski (2009) found marten rest sites primarily in old-

growth stands, which were used disproportionately to their availability. In serpentine habitats,

rock piles and shrub clumps made up 42 percent of rest sites.

Table 16. Structures (percent) used as resting sites by American martens in northwestern California (Klamath-Siskiyou and Northern California Coastal Forest Ecoregions)

Structure Resting

sites Comments

Snag 37 percent Primarily conifer, DBH range 41 to 140 centimeters (16 to 55 inches)

Log 23 percent All conifer, diameter range 44 to 122 centimeters (17 to 48 inches)

Live tree 17 percent Conifer and hardwood, DBH range 57 to 165 centimeters (22 to 64 inches)

Slash pile 10 percent Used by a single male; composed of some large (>60 centimeters (32 inches) diameter) logs

Rock pile 8 percent Used more commonly in serpentine habitats

Shrub clump 6 percent

Sample size 56

Source: From table 1 in Bull and Heater (2000), comments added.

Food Habits

The diet of American martens is highly diverse. In the western United States in winter, most prey

are captured beneath the snow surface, but squirrels may be caught in trees (Buskirk and

Ruggiero 1994). Snags, downfall, and large woody material provide cover, denning sites, and

access points to forage areas below the snow (subnivean habitat). Zielinski and Duncan (2004)

found that in the southern Sierra Nevada, marten and fisher diets were more diverse than

previously reported for North America. Of the major taxonomic groups, mammals were most

common followed by insects and plants (mostly fruits).

4. Home Range

Marten home ranges are large by mammalian standards, 3 to 4 times larger than predicted for a 1

kilogram terrestrial carnivoran, and about 30 times that predicted for an herbivorous mammal of

that size (Buskirk and Ruggiero 1994). Home ranges for marten in Oregon and Washington have

been reported for two studies (table 17). Home range size is highly variable and is likely

dependent on habitat quality as well as sex, and geographic area. Kirk and Zielinski (2009)

reported that their study in the California Cascades was consistent with previous studies which

concluded that more habitat, larger patch sizes, and larger areas of interior forest were important

predictors of marten occurrence.

Table 17. Reported home range sizes of American marten in the Pacific Northwest

Geographic area

Home range size Citations

Washington Cascades

Males: average 1,745 hectares (4,328 acres) Females: average 1,032 hectares (2,559 acres)

Jones and Raphael (1991)

Blue Mountains

Males: average 2,717 hectares (6,710 acres), range 1,237 to 4,750 hectares (3,055 to 11,732 acres) Females: average 1,416 hectares (3,498 acres), range 393 to 2,738 hectares (971 to 6,763 acres) HR Overlap: female-female 3 percent; male-male 13 percent; female-male 64 percent; male-female 28 percent

Jones and Raphael (1991)

The largest tracts of high-quality habitats for marten in the Clarks Fork project planning area are

located the eastern portion of the project planning area. Older stands in the eastern portion of the

project planning area fall within the elevation range for marten and likely provide resting/denning

habitats. These stands are connected to forested land, which provides connectivity east to

unmanaged stands in the Sky Lakes Wilderness.


21

High-quality habitats along the major drainages are also providing resting/denning habitats.

Nearly all of the suitable marten habitat lies to the east of the Clarks Fork Planning Area. Habitats

west of the planning area are too low in elevation to be suitable for marten. Nearly all of the

project planning area is forested and younger stands that are above 4,000 feet elevation are likely

providing habitat for foraging martens.



The American marten represents those species utilizing mature conifer forests above 4,000 feet in

elevation in the South Cascades. A maximum spacing of habitat areas (to allow interaction with

adjacent animals) was considered to be 3 miles (USDA Forest Service 1990a). Based on

distributional requirements, the management recommendation of managing habitat to maintain

viable populations of wildlife was thought to be met with the establishment of 29 (minimum 160

acre) marten areas above 4,000 feet in elevation. A predictive model based upon habitat seral

stages indicated a capability of supporting over 250 marten on the Forest (USDA Forest Service

1990a). This was based on the combined habitat networks for spotted owl, pileated woodpecker,

and pine marten, along with the intertwined riparian, minimum management, and reserved areas,

which served as an interlocking habitat system for all species utilizing older forest and mature

habitat (USDA Forest Service 1990a). Marten populations and habitat was expected decrease by 1

percent in the first two decades due to timber harvest.


The Northwest Forest Plan amended the Rogue River Forest Plan in 1994, significantly so for

spotted owls and old growth habitat. While the Old Growth and Spotted Owl Management

Strategies (MS-15 and MS-19) were removed from the Forest Plan, 5 large mapped Late-

successional Reserves (LSRs) were identified across the Forest to provide for clusters of breeding

spotted owl pairs; this LSR allocation totaled approximately 238,000 acres and the LSRs

contained approximately 60,000 acres of spotted owl habitat (Mature and Old Growth habitat

greater than 40 percent canopy closure) according to analysis using Pacific Meridian Landsat

(PMR) data. In addition, the direction in the Forest Plan directed that 100-acre core areas were to

be identified around all existing spotted owl pairs and territorial singles to provide for short-term

owl management and long-term dispersal capability for owls and other late-successional

associated species.

One hundred and fifty three 100-acre cores totaling 15,300 acres were identified outside of LSRs

for the Forest. In 1994, according to PMR data the entire Forest had approximately 154,102 acres

of suitable habitat for spotted owls, over 94,000 acres of that were located in LSR and other

reserve lands such as Congressionally Reserved lands (Wilderness and Wild and Scenic River),

and Administratively Withdrawn (RNA, Botanical reserves) lands with no programmed timber

harvest. At the time of the Northwest Forest Plan adoption, the amount and spatial juxtaposition

of mature and old growth habitat on the Prospect and Butte Falls Ranger Districts above 4,000

feet in elevation (41,759 acres) far exceeded the amount identified previously as habitat to be

managed for marten (14,880 acres) (table 18).

In addition, American martens are thought to be closely associated with mature conifer stands

with complete canopy closure, and small (less than 100 meters), limited, and interspersed

openings that are used as forage areas.

However, during helicopter surveys conducted for wolverine in the Southern Oregon Cascades,

marten tracks have been detected in openings where they were interspersed among timbered

habitats and above timberline in the Mt. Thielsen and Sky Lakes Wilderness Areas.


22

On the High Cascades Ranger District, marten tracks have also been detected during snowmobile

tracking surveys in openings (meadows and regeneration harvest units) where they were

interspersed with timbered stands along the western edge of both the Sky Lakes Wilderness and

Crater Lake National Park (personal observation).

Canopy closures reported by Raphael and Jones (1997) varied widely between studies in

Washington and east of the Cascade crest in Oregon. This indicates that marten probably use the

largest structures and highest canopy closures that are available in the habitats that can support all

other life-history requirements. Consequently the Forest believes that while mature and old

growth habitat is important denning habitat for marten, most other vegetation types, canopies, and

sizes are suitable for foraging by marten. At the time the Rogue River Forest Plan was written, it

was estimated that the marten had a home range of about 450 acres. A minimum contiguous area

of 160 acres (with a crown closure 50 percent or greater in mature and old-growth seral stage was

considered necessary for denning and resting habitat for marten. The potential habitat capability

trend for marten likely increased on the Forest due the adoption of the Northwest Forest Plan.



and USDI Bureau of Land Management 1994a). The American marten was one of 15 mammals

determined to be closely associated with late-successional and old-growth forests (USDA Forest

Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management 1994a, page 3&4-182). A viability assessment

was completed by the Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment Team (1993). The viability

outcome for the American marten was:

67 percent likelihood of Outcome A – “Habitat is of sufficient quality, distribution, and

abundance to allow the species population to stabilize, well distributed across federal

lands”

27 percent likelihood of Outcome B – “Habitat

3 percent likelihood of Outcome C

3 percent likelihood of Outcome D

Additional mitigation measures were implemented to increase the likelihood of Outcome A for

the preferred alternative to be similar to 83 percent likelihood of Option 1 (most restrictive

alternative). The mitigation measures were to increase the amount of “coarse woody debris” in

the Matrix and to implement wider riparian reserves. Implementation of these mitigation

measures “would be sufficient to support a stable, well-distributed population throughout most of

its range. However, marten populations are low in the Olympic Peninsula and the Oregon Coast

Range, and there is some chance that populations may not recover in those provinces” (USDA

Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management 1994a, page J2-473).

The Forest Service has been implementing the Northwest Forest Plan and monitoring late-





expected, and losses from wildfires are in line with what was anticipated.”

As a result, projects consistent with the Northwest Forest Plan should be expected to maintain

viability of late-successional associated species such as the marten. Projects designed to enhance

late-successional forest should result in a call of improving habitat conditions.

Table 18. Marten potential habitat 1994

PMR dataset Forage Denning

Marten habitat 176,950 acres 41,759 acres


23

6. Existing Condition (2011)

At the current time according to the 2006 Gradient Nearest Neighbor (GNN) dataset

(http://www.fsl.orst.edu/lemma/main.php?project=imap&id=home), suitable habitat for marten

(represented by mature and late-successional forest), on the High Cascades Ranger District is

currently approximately 116,883 acres; of that, 90,923 acres (78 percent) are in reserve land

allocations with no programmed timber harvest (table 19). In addition, there are still ninety-five

100-acre spotted owl core areas totaling 9,500 acres identified outside of LSRs on the Cascade

side of the Forest. These core areas also provide suitable habitat for marten.

Table 19. Marten potential habitat on the High Cascades Ranger District 2012

GNN dataset Forage Denning


Given the recent capture of a marten in the Siskiyou Mountains, a new analysis has been

conducted for potential marten habitat above 3,500 feet in elevation on the Siskiyou Mountains

Ranger District. This shows that there are 56,581 acres of potential denning and 84,121 acres of

forage habitat on the Siskiyou Mountains Ranger District (table 20). There also approximately

forty-four 100-acre owl cores providing habitat for marten on the Siskiyou Mountains Ranger

District. These core areas also provide for suitable habitat for marten.

Table 20. Marten potential habitat on the Siskiyou Mountains Ranger District 2012

GNN dataset Forage Denning


Currently there is far more marten denning and resting habitat available and more habitat within

reserve land allocations for marten than was planned for in the original Rogue River Forest Plan.

It is very likely that the Forest is providing a sufficient amount of habitat and in a spatial

juxtaposition for far more marten than was originally thought to be needed across the Forest to

provide for long-term viability for this species. The Forest believes that the population trend for

this species is likely stable and that population viability would be provided for within reserve

lands and by maintaining late-successional habitats in Matrix lands on the Forest.

American marten occupy elevations generally 4,000 feet or greater in the eastern portion of the

Clarks Fork project planning area. The project planning area is connected to forest habitat that

provides connectivity to large expanses of high-quality marten habitats within Sky Lakes

Wilderness areas to the east of the planning area.

Based on the GNN dataset, there are approximately 168,069 acres of foraging/dispersal habitats,

and 116,883 acres of denning/resting habitats available for marten on the High Cascades Ranger

District. Approximately 90,923 acres of these habitats are Congressionally Reserved. There are

approximately 2,642 acres that are 4,000 feet elevation or greater within the project planning

area. Of these, there are 1,520 acres of foraging/dispersal habitats (11 percent of the project

planning area), and 890 acres (6 percent of the project planning area) of denning/resting habitats.

This represents less than 1 percent of foraging/dispersal habitats, and less than 1 percent of

denning/resting habitat on the Rogue River National Forest.

An American marten model was developed as part of the ILAP (Integrated Landscape Assessment

Project). The Wildlife Habitats module was led by Anita Morzillo of Oregon State University’s

College of Forestry (Mellen-McLean 2011). The model was developed for western Oregon and

Washington.

http://www.fsl.orst.edu/lemma/main.php?project=imap&id=home


24

The Wildlife Habitat Relationship Model (WHR) was developed by reviewing the literature on

American marten habitat to determine vegetation types and structural stages used by martens.

Each combination of VDDT (Vegetation Dynamics Development Tool) State Class and PVT

(Potential Vegetation Type) was determined to be habitat or non-habitat for each VDDT modeling

zone. The model identified that approximately 20 to 40 percent of the habitat within the Big Butte

Springs Watershed is considered to be American marten habitat.

The 425,654 acres of marten habitat on the Rogue River National Forest would support an

estimated 63 to 98 home ranges for males, and 122 to 166 home ranges for females if there was

no overlap within sexes and complete overlap between sexes based on the mean minimum and

maximum home range sizes reported for the Washington Cascades and Blue Mountains of

Oregon in table 17. This is a conservative estimate considering there is overlap both within and

between sexes. Within the Clarks Fork project planning area, there are 2,410 acres of marten

habitats, less than 1 percent of the Forest’s habitat base. The Forest estimates that there is

approximately 1 female and 1 male home ranges within the project planning area.

7. Effects of Fuels Treatments on American Marten


The Clarks Fork units will treat 429 acres of marten habitat. Of these units, there are

approximately 22 acres of denning/resting habitat and 407 acres of foraging habitat. No overstory

removal is planned for fuels treatment; therefore, habitat will be maintained.

Underburning treatments and fuels reduction units could reduce small woody debris. Burning

prescriptions would be designed to maintain large wood that may be used as subnivean access

points and foraging habitats for marten. Since prescribed fire has the potential to consume some

large wood and snags even while conducted under prescribed conditions, there is a potential that

some of these structures would be consumed or partially consumed. Under these same conditions,

prescribed fire may create some snags through mortality of live trees. These trees would

eventually provide CWD on the project planning area. Prescribed fire would be used to reduce

Fire Regime Condition Class (FRCC) within the Clarks Fork project planning area to attain the

HRV and reduce the risk of stand-replacement fire in the future. Attainment of HRV is expected

to benefit American marten because this species evolved and persisted under these conditions.

Cumulative Effects


potential effects to American marten. Actions that would contribute to potential cumulative

effects are Big Butte Springs Timber Sales because they overlap spatially and temporally.




There are approximately 570 acres of Big Butte Springs timber sale units within marten habitat in

the Clarks Fork planning area. Of these units, 46 acres denning/resting habitat and 524 acres are

foraging habitat. Approximately 141 acres of Big Butte Springs timber sale units are within

marten habitat and do not have actions related to the Clarks Fork Project. These stands are

composed of both commercial and pre-commercial sizes trees.

Since the Big Butte Springs Timber Sale units will not remove overstory within marten habitat,

these treatments are not expected to cumulatively increase risks to American marten.


25


Since treated stands would retain the largest, oldest trees for denning and resting, and maintain

overstory canopy closure, the Forest expects these stands to retain the structural attributes

necessary to provide for American marten biology and ecology. Treated stands would be

interspersed with untreated stands that are the highest-quality habitats for late-successional

species, including American marten, available on the Clarks Fork project planning area.

Because this project impacts less than 1 percent of suitable habitat across the Forest, the overall

direct, indirect, and cumulative effects would result in a small adverse trend of habitat by

reducing canopy closure in thinned stands. The effects of the project on American marten habitat

would be insignificant at the scale of the Forest. Therefore the Clarks Fork Project is consistent

with the Forest Plan, and thus continued viability of American marten is expected on the Rogue

River portion of the Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest.

F. Primary Cavity Nesters

Primary cavity nesters include downy woodpecker (Picoides pubeseus), hairy woodpecker

(Picoides villosus), and northern flicker (Colaptes auratus).

Table 21. Conservation status of cavity-nesting MIS

Species USFS

sensitive

NatureServe ranks1 USFWS Birds of

Conservation Concern2

ODFW3 WDFW

4

Global OR WA

Downy woodpecker G5 S4 S4S5

Hairy woodpecker G5 S4 S5

Northern flicker G5 S5 S5 1 NatureServe Ranks: (NatureServe 2010)

G5 or S5 – Widespread, abundant, secure

G4 or S4 – Apparently secure

G3 or S3 – Vulnerable

G2 or S2 – Imperiled 2 Species of Concern in any BCR (Bird Conservation Region) Listed (USFWS 2008) 3 Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife Sensitive Species (http://www.dfw.state.or.us/wildlife/diversity/species/docs/SSL_by_taxon.pdf) 4 Washington Department of Wildlife (http://www.wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/phs/list/2008/2008-sept_woodpeckers.pdf)

2. Distribution

Table 22. General distribution and distribution in Oregon and Washington for MIS1

Species General distribution Oregon and Washington distribution

Downy woodpecker

Widespread permanent resident from Alaska across Canada, south to southern California across to the Gulf coast to south Florida

Oregon and Washington: Across both states in appropriate habitats at low to moderate elevations

Hairy woodpecker

Widespread permanent resident from Alaska across Canada, south to Baja California across to the Gulf coast to south Florida, the Bahamas and west Panama

Oregon and Washington: Across both states in appropriate habitats at low to moderate elevations

Northern flicker

Breeds from southeast Alaska, east to the west edge of the Great Plains, south to Mexico

Oregon and Washington: Common resident across both states

1 Marshall et al (2003); Wahl et al. (2005).


http://www.wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/phs/list/2008/2008-sept_woodpeckers.pdf


26

3. Habitat Use

Downy woodpecker

This species is found mostly at low to moderate elevation in deciduous and mixed deciduous-

coniferous forests, and less often in coniferous forests (Marshall et al. 2003). All but one of

several nest reports from Oregon were located in dead trees. A preference is shown for decayed

wood for nesting, though sound wood is also utilized (Marshall et al. 2003). Downy woodpeckers

were detected during surveys within the Clarks Fork project planning area.

Hairy woodpecker

This species is resident in forests throughout Oregon, with the exception of juniper. It is common

throughout most of range, but uncommon to fairly common along the coast and in western

interior valleys. Found primarily in mixed-conifer and ponderosa pine forests, as well as adjacent

deciduous stands, especially during the breeding season (Marshall et al. 2003). Hairy

woodpeckers were documented in several seral stages within the Clarks Fork project planning

area.

Northern flicker

Northern flickers are a common resident throughout Oregon (Marshall et al. 2003). Northern

flickers may be encountered in almost any terrestrial habitat, but are generally most abundant in

open forests and forest edges adjacent to open country. They typically avoid dense forest

(Marshall et al. 2003). Most nests in forested areas are in older open forests, along older forest

edges, and in larger-diameter remnant snags (Marshall et al. 2003). Northern flickers were

documented in several seral stages within the project planning area (USDA Forest Service 2009).


27

Table 23. General habitat associations of snag associated MIS

Species Habitat description Citations

Downy woodpecker

General: Deciduous riparian woodlands and lowland deciduous forest (alder, cottonwood, willow, aspen, and oaks). Also found in urban parks and orchards. Low and mid-elevations. Nest primarily in dead trees.

General: Marshall et al. (2003), Wahl et al. (2005)

Hairy woodpecker

General: Dry and wet coniferous forests at low to mid-elevations. Also use deciduous forest and riparian areas, especially if adjacent to coniferous forest. Use all ages of forest stands, though some authors report preference for older stands for nesting. Nest primarily in moderately decayed snags.

Occur in higher densities in mature and old-growth stands on the west side of the Cascades.

Post-fire: These woodpeckers reach their highest densities in un-salvaged, recent (1 to 5 years) post-fire habitat with moderate to high densities of snags. Older burns do not support the high levels of wood-boring beetles that attract them to the recent burns.

Nest densities were 2.5 times lower in partially salvaged burns than in unsalvaged burns; nest survival was significantly reduced in partially salvaged burns

Habitat models: Idaho – post-fire habitats – nest sites – positive association with increasing patch area, pre-fire crown closure >40 percent, high snag densities, and larger (~15 inches DBH) than available snags, and unsalvaged areas


Huff and Raley (2001)

Post-Fire: Cahall (2007), Cahall and Hayes (2008), Haggard and Gaines (2001), Kreisel and Stein (1999), Saab et al. (2007)

Saab et al. (2009)

Habitat models: Russell et al. (2007), Saab et al. (2009)

Northern flicker

General: Habitat generalists, though most abundant in open forests or forest edges. Use coniferous and deciduous forest, riparian woodlands, and urban areas. Nests are in large snags.

Post-fire: NOFL are most abundant in areas with medium snag density.

NOFL densities significantly higher in unsalvaged areas and 5 or more years post-fire

Habitat models: Idaho – post-fire habitats – nest sites – positive association with increasing patch area, increasing snag DBH (~20 inches DBH)


Post-fire: Haggard and Gaines (2001)

Saab et al. (2007)

Habitat models: Saab et al. (2009), Russell et al. (2007)

Table 24. Snag characteristics used by MIS cavity nesting species in westside-lowland conifer-hardwood forests

Species / group Snag size (inches) for 30, 50, and

80 percent tolerance levels (tl) Snag decay Primary snag species

Downy woodpecker Red alder

Hairy woodpecker Nesting: 19.6, 29.0, 41.6 Foraging: 50 percent tl = 24.2

Moderate to hard Douglas fir, western hemlock

Northern flicker Nesting: 22.1, 30.3, 42.3 Foraging: 50 percent tl = 37.1

Soft to moderate Douglas-fir, western hemlock


28

Table 25. Snag densities surrounding nest and/or roost sites in southwest Oregon mixed conifer-hardwood forests (no data for green forests)

Species

Snag density / acre for 30, 50, and 80 percent tolerance levels (tl)

Green forests Recent post-fire

≥9 inches DBH ≥21 inches DBH ≥9 inches DBH ≥21 inches DBH

Downy woodpecker 50% tl = 97.5 50% tl = 26.7

Hairy woodpecker 58.0, 85.8, 125.6 8.5, 19.6, 35.4

Northern flicker 67.6, 94.7, 132.9 7.6, 20.2, 37.8

Home Range

Table 26. Home range size and densities for cavity nesting MIS

Species Home range size Density estimates Citations

Downy woodpecker 5 to 17 acres

5 to 9 acres

Johnson and O’Neil (2001), Marshall et al. (2003)

Hairy woodpecker

Up to 25 acres

Home range – 22 to 37 acres, territories – 6 to 9 acres

Johnson and O’Neil (2001), Marshall et al. (2003)

Northern flicker Home range – 62 acres Territories – 17.5 acres

Densities – up to 13 birds / 100 acres in SW Oregon mixed conifer forest

Marshall et al. (2003), Elchuk and Wiebe (2003)


Woodpecker Surveys and Trends on the Forest

According to the Breeding Bird Survey (http://www.mbr-pwrc.usgs.gov/bbs/bbs.html),

approximately 57 percent of all cavity nesting birds observed encountered on more than 14

survey routes, including woodpeckers of all species, across the western United States has a

positive population trend, including the black-backed, pileated, and white-headed woodpeckers.

Eighteen percent of this group has a significant negative trend, including some of the sapsuckers

and the flicker. In Oregon, the black-backed, sapsuckers species, and downy woodpeckers all

show a declining trend, while the pileated woodpeckers show a slight increasing trend.

There are two long-term Breeding Bird survey routes on the High Cascades Ranger District that

have been surveyed annually for the last fourteen years. The Whiskey Springs route shows

consistent observations of up to 4 species of woodpeckers, including hairy woodpeckers (2.67 per

mile), pileated woodpeckers (3.33 per mile), and flickers (5.25 per mile). Over the 14 years of

survey observation, all 4 species have remained stable.

The Prospect route, just west and slightly lower in elevation than the Whiskey Springs route,

shows consistent observations of up to 6 species of woodpeckers, including downy woodpeckers

(0.75 per mile) Hairy woodpeckers (0.58 per mile), pileated woodpeckers (1.17 per mile), and

flickers (7.50 per mile). Four species show a slight negative trend (sapsucker, downy, hairy, and

acorn), one species shows a stable trend (pileated), and the flicker is on an increasing trend.

Another long-term survey route on the Forest is in the Applegate Valley. From 1992 to 2007, the

Ruch BBS route shows the pileated woodpecker trends are stable or slightly increasing on that

route. Hairy and flicker trends on this route appear to be stable while downy woodpeckers were

only seen twice, thus no trend is available for this species.

http://www.mbr-pwrc.usgs.gov/bbs/bbs.html


29


Primary cavity excavators, as management indicators, represent animals which require dead and

defective woody material for nesting, roosting, and foraging. In the 1990 Rogue River Forest

Plan, they consist of the following woodpeckers: downy woodpecker, hairy woodpecker, and

northern flicker.

At the time the Forest Plan was signed, the population trend was estimated to be going down due

to the loss of snag habitat through timber harvest, salvage, and firewood cutting activities. While

wildland fires did produce snag habitats, it was Forest policy to not let fires burn to a large extent.

The viable population to preserve the gene pool was undetermined at the time. The habitat

characteristics thought to be needed to maintain primary cavity excavators at 20 percent of their

potential population (generally considered to be the minimum viable level in the 1990 Forest

Plan) was considered to be 45 snags per 100 acres. Habitat to maintain viable population levels

where the species have an opportunity to interact within their environment was considered to be

135 snags per 100 acres, ranging in size from 11 inches DBH to 25+ inches DBH, which equates

to 40 percent of their potential population level. A population model based upon these parameters

predicted an existing population of more than 60,000 other woodpeckers on the National Forest.

It was estimated that all management areas with no programmed timber harvest would provide

100 percent capability in snag habitat for cavity nesters. All other land management allocations

would be managed at the 40 percent snag capability level across the Forest.

In 1990, cavity excavator populations were based on mixes of forest habitat types. It was

projected that populations would remain relatively constant through the fourth decade (possibly

rising 3 to 5 percent the first and second decades), and then would increase to 110 percent of

existing capability in the fifth decade. Other woodpecker production capability would level out at

about 116 percent of current levels through the tenth decade. Habitat capability, as measured by

snag habitat management levels, was likely to be about 67 percent of habitat potential by the end

of the fifth or sixth decade and would remain at about that level. It was estimated that viable

populations of primary cavity nesters would be maintained through time.


Northwest Forest Plan amended the Rogue River Forest Plan in 1994. While the Old Growth and

Spotted Owl Management Strategies (MS-15 and MS-19) were removed from the Forest Plan,

five large mapped Late-successional Reserves (LSRs) were identified across the Forest to provide

for clusters of breeding spotted owl pairs; this LSR allocation covering approximately 238,000

acres and the LSRs contained approximately 60,000 acres of spotted owl habitat (Mature and Old

Growth habitat 40 percent or more canopy closure) according to analysis using Pacific Meridian

Landsat (PMR) data. In addition, the direction in the Forest Plan directed that 100-acre core areas

were to be identified around all existing spotted owl pairs and territorial singles to provide for

short-term owl management and long-term dispersal capability for owls and other late-

successional associated species. One hundred and fifty three 100-acre cores totaling 15,300 acres

were identified outside of LSRs for the Forest that every likely continue to provide habitat for

primary cavity nesters. In 1994, according to PMR data ,the entire Forest had approximately

154,102 acres of mature and old growth habitats, over 94,000 acres of that were located in LSR

and other reserve lands such as Congressionally Reserved lands (Wilderness and Wild and Scenic

River), and Administratively Withdrawn (RNA and Botanical reserves) lands with no

programmed timber harvest (table 27). This unmanaged habitat was likely providing very good

snag levels for primary cavity nesters in addition to other areas with programmed timber harvest

where the Forest was required to maintain snags across the landscape per the Rogue River Forest

Plan. The potential habitat capability trend for primary cavity nesters likely increased on the

Forest due the adoption of additional lands identified for late successional habitat retention under

the Northwest Forest Plan as well as Forest Plan and newer requirements for snag retention.


30

In the years since the Rogue River Forest Plan was signed, it has become clear that managing for

cavity nesters based on the snag/population capability model is not supported by new science.

Consequently, the Forest has prescribed snag and down wood levels for all vegetation

management activities based on local plant series and long-term ecoplot data that has been

collected on unmanaged stands across southwestern Oregon series (Hochholter 2010). These

levels vary by plant association, position on the landscape, and are specific to size and number of

snags needed to provide what the Forest believes to be sufficient levels of snag habitat for cavity

nesters and other snag dependent wildlife across the landscape. The Forest believes that this

method of snag management is more credible that what was recommended for cavity nesters in

the original Forest Plan.

Table 27. Primary cavity nester high potential habitat 1994

PMR dataset Congressionally Reserved acres

LSR acres

Administratively Withdrawn acres

All Forest acres

>70 percent Medium Mature (20+ DBH) 5,339 16,287 1,144 43,005

>70 percent Old Growth (32+ DBH 11,884 27,210 1,015 63,181

40 to 70 percent Medium Mature 9,410 9,117 1,951 29,562

40 to 70 percent Old Growth 4,073 6,414 396 18,354

Total NRF 30,706 59,028 4,506 154,102



and USDI Bureau of Land Management 1994a). Ten cavity-nesting MIS were determined to be

closely associated with late-successional and old-growth forests, with occurrence of large snags

necessary for optimal habitat (USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management

1994a, page 3&4-177). A viability assessment was completed by the Scientific Analysis Team

(SAT) (Thomas et al. 1993). The viability outcome for all but the black-backed woodpecker was

100 percent likelihood of Outcome A – “Habitat is of sufficient quality, distribution, and

abundance to allow the species population to stabilize, well distributed across federal lands”

(USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management 1994a). This outcome

determination was based on provisions of: 1) a large system of late-successional reserves; 2)

Standards and Guidelines for Riparian Reserves; and 3) retention of green trees, snags, and coarse

woody debris within the Matrix.

Table 28. Outcome likelihoods for the preferred alternative under the Northwest Forest Plan

Species Outcome likelihood

A B C D

Hairy woodpecker 100 0 0 0

Northern flicker 100 0 0 0

Additional mitigation measures were implemented because the outcome likelihood for the black-

backed woodpecker was less than 80 percent. Mitigation measures involved modified salvage

logging guidelines that considered foraging needs of this species (USDA Forest Service and

USDI Bureau of Land Management 1994b, pages C-45 and 46), which was expected to raise the

likelihood of outcome A to more than 80 percent (USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of

Land Management 199a, page J2-453).






expected, and losses from wildfires are in line with what was anticipated.” As a result projects

consistent with the Northwest Forest Plan should be expected to maintain viability of the 10 late-

successional associated MIS.


31

5. Current Condition (2011)

According to the 2006 Gradient Nearest Neighbor (GNN) dataset

(http://www.fsl.orst.edu/lemma/main.php?project=imap&id=home), suitable habitat for

woodpeckers (represented by unmanaged mature and late-successional forest), on the Forest is

approximately 203,402 acres of which 133,163 acres (56 percent) are in reserve land allocations

with no programmed timber harvest (table 29). There are still one hundred and fifty three 100-

acre spotted owl core areas covering 15,300 acres identified outside of LSRs for the Forest. These

core areas also provide for suitable habitat for woodpeckers.

Table 29. Woodpecker habitat 2011


LSR acres


All Forest acres

NRF = >20+ DBH and >60 percent CC 37,909 75,893 19,361 203,402

Currently there is far more habitat available and more habitat within reserve land allocations for

woodpeckers than was planned for in the original Forest Plan. 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 of this species.

In addition to the reserve land allocations on the Forest, the Forest has specific snag and down

wood requirements using local long-term ecoplot data that the Forest believes contributes to

maintaining woodpecker viability across all land allocations better than the original snag habitat

capability requirement under the Forest Plan. The 203,402 acres of late-successional woodpecker

habitats on the Rogue River national Forest would support an estimated 22,600 to 40,680 downy

woodpecker home ranges, 5,497 to 9,246 hairy woodpecker home ranges, and 3,281 northern

flicker home ranges on the Forest (based on the home range sizes defined in table 26, for MIS

woodpeckers). This is likely an extremely conservative estimate because this estimate is based on

late-successional habitats only and does not incorporate inclusions of younger stands, such as

NSO dispersal habitats, which documentation shows both hairy woodpeckers and northern

flickers using. And, generally, these home ranges support a pair of birds.

Within the project planning area, there are nearly 5,000 acres (36 percent) of mature habitats (20

inches or greater DBH). This equates to approximately 2 percent of the Forest’s habitat base.

Based on reported home range sizes in table 26, the Forest estimates that there are an estimated

294 to 1,000 downy woodpecker home ranges, 135 to 227 hairy woodpecker home ranges, and 81

northern flicker home ranges within the Clarks Fork project planning area. The Forest believes

that the population trend for this species group is up and that viability would be provided for on

the Forest.

6. Effects of Fuels Treatments on Primary Cavity Nesters


Underburning treatments and fuels reduction units could reduce small woody debris. Burning

prescriptions would be designed to maintain large wood and snags that may be used as

nesting/foraging habitats for cavity nesting woodpeckers. Since prescribed fire has the potential

to consume some large wood and snags even while conducted under prescribed conditions, there

is a potential that some of these structures would be consumed or partially consumed. Under these

same conditions, prescribed fire may create some snags through mortality of live trees. These

trees would eventually provide CWD on the project planning area. Prescribed fire would be used

to reduce Fire Regime Condition Class (FRCC) within the Clarks Fork project planning area to

attain the HRV and reduce the risk of stand-replacement fire in the future. Attainment of HRV is

expected to benefit cavity nesting woodpeckers because these species evolved and persisted under

these conditions.

http://www.fsl.orst.edu/lemma/main.php?project=imap&id=home


32

Cumulative Effects


potential effects to cavity-nesting woodpeckers. Actions that would contribute to potential

cumulative effects are Big Butte Springs Timber Sales because they overlap spatially and

temporally.




There are approximately 4,095 acres of Big Butte Springs timber sale units within the Clarks Fork

project planning area, in which 681 acres of units are not included in the Clarks Fork Project.

These stands are composed of both commercial and pre-commercial sizes trees. These stands are

composed of both commercial and pre-commercial sizes trees. Three Big Butte Springs timber

sale units, totaling 158 acres of treatments, will reduce canopy closures below 60 percent in

stands with larger trees.


Since treated stands under the Clarks Fork Project would retain the largest, oldest trees, co-

dominant trees, mid-story canopy and the majority of large snags for nesting and foraging, the

Forest expects these stands to retain the structural attributes necessary to provide for cavity nester

biology and ecology. Treated stands would be interspersed with untreated stands that are the

highest-quality habitats for late-successional species, including cavity-nesting woodpeckers,

available on the project planning area.

Since the Big Butte Springs Timber Sale project could reduce canopy closure from 60 percent or

greater to approximately 40 percent on 158 acres of suitable cavity-nesting woodpecker habitats

the cumulative effects would result in a small adverse trend of habitat by reducing canopy closure

in those stands. The effects of the project action on cavity nesting woodpecker habitat would be

insignificant at the scale of the Forest. Therefore, the project actions for the Clarks Fork Project

are consistent with the Forest Plan, and thus continued viability of cavity-nesting woodpeckers is



33

G. Roosevelt Elk (Cervus elephus roosevelti)



Global – G5T4 – Widespread, abundant, apparently secure


Harvested as a game animal west of Cascade Crest

(http://www.dfw.state.or.us/resources/hunting/big_game/index.asp#big_game_regs)

Distribution

West of Cascade Crest in Oregon.

2. Habitat Use

Elk require a mosaic of early, forage-producing stages and later, cover-forming stages of forest in

close proximity (Harper et al. 1987). In western Oregon, clear-cuttings compose the primary

foraging areas, attaining peak production and use 5 to 8 years after logging. Production of prime

forage is related positively to the degree of soil disturbance, whereas use of elk is related

negatively to distance from cover (Verts and Carraway 1998).

Summer elk forage consists of a combination of lush forbs, grasses, and shrubs high in nutrients

and easily digestible. Generally, higher elevation wet meadows, springs, and riparian areas in

close proximity to forested stands offer these conditions for the longest period. Such areas

provide nutritious forage and moist, cool places for bedding and escaping summer heat and

insects (ODFW 2003).

Elk achieve peak body condition during late summer and fall. Winter survival depends on fat

reserves animals are able to store, thus, quality forage during summer and fall is crucial.

Additionally, this forage is needed to meet the rigors of breeding and migration for those animals

moving to winter ranges. The late summer/fall period can be critical on many elk ranges during

drought years (ODFW 2003).

Winter is when elk survival is severely tested. Day length shortens, temperatures drop, and rain

and snow increase. Forage becomes less abundant and accessible, and nutritional quality declines.

Elk energy requirements can be high, and during this time they are dependent on stores of body

fat. At this time they increasingly seek out an environment that helps minimize energy

consumption. Such areas typically provide protection against weather and offer security for

minimizing harassment or disturbance. During a typical winter, elk may lose 20 to 25 percent of

their body weight. Elk losing more than 30 percent of their body weight likely would not survive

(ODFW 2003).

Cover is an important component of elk habitat and provides both thermal and hiding properties.

During summer it provides cooler, shaded areas for elk to bed during the heat of the day. During

winter it provides a warmer, protected environment out of the cold, wind, rain, or snow. Lichens

and other plants associated with cover can be an important source of forage for wintering animals.

Adequate thermal cover reduces the energy needed by elk and contributes to over winter survival

(ODFW 2003).

Recent research by Cook et al. (2004) has shown that forested habitats may not be necessary for

thermal regulation in elk. Cook et al (2004) reviewed four thermal cover studies conducted on elk

and deer across North America and concluded that they indicate the thermal cover benefit

attributed to dense forest cover is probably not operative across a considerable range of climate,

including climates in boreal ecosystems of the northeastern United States, maritime ecosystems

of the inland Pacific Northwest, and in cold, dry ecosystems of the central Rocky Mountains.


http://www.dfw.state.or.us/resources/hunting/big_game/index.asp#big_game_regs


34

Cook et al. (2004) also concluded that the experimental studies outlined above evaluated the

weather moderating influences of forest cover (i.e., influences on wind speed, ambient

temperature, and long- and short-wave radiation fluxes). They did not evaluate other potentially

beneficial aspects of forest cover, which under some circumstances could include enhanced

security, reduced snow depth and a better foraging environment. Thus, results of these

experimental studies cannot be used to categorically reject all potential benefits of forest cover to

elk.

Hiding cover is also referred to as security cover and allows elk to escape and hide from

intrusions or disturbances. These intrusions can be human (hunters, vehicles, hikers, etc.) or

natural (predators). Factors affecting elk security are topographic relief, vegetation density, and

proximity to human activity. Hiding cover becomes more important if other components that

provide security are absent. This can be particularly important where predator numbers or human

intrusions are high. Inadequate security or hiding cover can make elk more vulnerable to

predators, harvest by hunters, or other sources of mortality that can lead to abandonment of

traditionally used areas. Regulating hunters can sometimes help, however this provides little

benefit if predation and/or other human disturbance are occurring (ODFW 2003).

Shifts in elk distribution away from roads used by motorized vehicles have been documented

across many areas of the western United States (Rowland et al. 2000). Many National Forests in

the west have incorporated this information into road density management objectives for Big-

Game Winter Range areas in their Land and Resource Management Plans. However, road density

and the effects of motorized use on elk are not limited to the winter period.

Evidence is consistent and overwhelming that vehicular traffic on forest roads evokes an

avoidance response by elk. Even though habitat near roads is not denied to elk, it is not fully used

(Lyon 1983). Christenson et al. (1993) reported that even primitive roads that see little summer

use are often used extensively during the hunting season. During the General Cascade Bull Elk

Season, the Upper Rogue Cooperative Travel Management Area effectively reduces road density

in the project planning area. However, there are no travel management restrictions on

maintenance level 2 to 5 roads during any of the other elk seasons or outside of hunting seasons

in the Rogue Wildlife Management Unit.

3. Food Habits

Seventeen locations within the High Cascade Ranger District were evaluated for elk presence and

forage utilization between June 14, 2007 and August 23, 2007 (Korfhage and Roche 2007). Fresh

fecal material was collected for analysis of plant epidermal cell fragments. Field observations

were recorded from meadows, grasslands, adjacent forests, and recent timber harvest areas.

Evidence of elk presence (beds, fecal material, tracks) and forage utilization were noted.

Specimens were collected of grazed plants and suitable elk forage species. Korfhage and Roche

(2007) keyed 170 plant specimens, which were pressed, mounted and placed in the Medford

District BLM herbarium. They collected fresh fecal material where it was available and noted

habitat characteristics as well as elk behavior in field reports for each site. Epidermal cell

characteristics were noted and drawn for leaves of 67 voucher specimens to use in identification

of epidermal fragments in elk fecal material. Elk fecal samples collected at eight sites were

processed using fecal analysis techniques (Korfhage 1974).

Identifiable epidermal fragments in the fecal material were cataloged and a general food habit

summary was recorded for each site. Forty-three plant species were identified in elk feces.

Although grasses and sedges were observed most frequently, fragments of some forbs and a few

shrubs and trees were also present.


35

Long-stolon sedge (Carex inops), blue wildrye (Elymus glaucus), Ross’ sedge (Carex rossii),

smooth woodrush (Luzula hitchcockii), western needlegrass (Achnatherum occidentale),

orchardgrass (Dactylis glomerata), timothy (Phleum pratense), monkshood (Aconitum

columbianum), and bracken fern (Pteridium aquilinum), were found most frequently in samples.

Orchardgrass and blue wildrye were the two species seen most frequently in the fecal material

that are used in Forest Service seeding projects (Korfage and Roche 2007).

4. Populations Trend and Viability

Home Range

In northeastern Oregon, home-range areas of female elk in summer ranged from less than 375

acres to more than 16,250 acres (Verts and Carraway 1998). In the Coast Range, minimum-area

home ranges of individual female elk followed by radiotelemetry ranged from 148-714 acres;

home ranges were largest in summer and smallest in winter (Verts and Carraway 1998).


Elk herds were commonly found in the Cascades portion of the Forest. The main herds were

found on the Prospect and Butte Falls Ranger Districts which together consisted of about 800

animals produced on the Forest. The Cascade portion of the Ashland Ranger District had about

100 animals that summer along the western boundary (USDA Forest Service 1990b, page III-83).

Management of winter range is critical to maintenance of the existing elk herds. Elk winter range

generally lies less than 4,000 feet elevation but due to changing aspect, elevation can vary. The

Forest manages about 204,800 acres of winter range mostly located on the Prospect and Butte

Falls Ranger Districts. Of this, about 67,700 acres is identified as core winter range (USDA

Forest Service 1990b, page III-84).

Winter range was considered to be the limiting factor on elk populations during the development

of the 1990 Rogue River Forest Plan. It was predicted that the carrying capacity would improve

through time based on the management emphasis of the Forest Plan (USDA Forest Service

1990a).

The projected production capability was expected to rise at a steady rate of about 12 percent per

decade through the fifth decade then remain relatively constant through the tenth decade. By the

end of the fifth decade, it was expected that a production capability of 2,600 to 2,700 elk could be

achieved. The level was about 54 percent above the projected ODFW benchmark level of 1,750

elk. It was presumed that actual population levels could exceed benchmark levels by the end of

the second decade, and remain above projected benchmark levels through the tenth decade

(USDA Forest Service 1990b, page IV-93).


The Record of Decision (ROD) for amendments to Forest Service and Bureau of Land

Management planning documents within the range of the northern spotted owl [commonly

referred to as the Northwest Forest Plan], amended Standards and Guidelines of existing Forest

Plans on over 24 million acres of federal lands within the range of the northern spotted owl

(USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management 1994b). The Rogue River Land

and Resource Management Plan was amended by this decision. Standards and Guidelines in

existing plans still applied where they were more restrictive or provided greater benefits to late-

successional forest-related species than the standards and guidelines in the Northwest Forest Plan

ROD.


36

Since inception of the Forest Plan, the Rogue River National Forest has emphasized retention of

both nesting/roosting/foraging (NRF) and dispersal habitats for northern spotted owl. Generally,

this habitat is multistoried, 80 years old or more (depending on stand type and structural

condition), and has sufficient snags and down wood to provide opportunities for nesting, roosting,

and foraging. The canopy closure generally exceeds 60 percent. Other attributes include 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).

When these stands meet the 70 percent canopy cover minimum, they are generally considered to

be optimal thermal cover for deer and elk. 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. Where dispersal stands

meet the 70 percent canopy cover minimum, they are generally considered to be thermal cover for

deer and elk.

Since implementation of the Northwest Forest Plan, silvicultural prescriptions for timber sales

have emphasized thinning in both NRF and dispersal stands. Thinning prescriptions, as opposed

to regeneration prescriptions, resulted in a major change in the resultant stands in terms of habitat

for both deer and elk. Prior to implementation of the Northwest Forest Plan , regeneration

harvests (clear cuts, seed tree cuts, and shelterwoods) provided high-quality forage areas for big

game adjacent to both thermal and optimal thermal stands. Natural succession allowed for the

forb and shrub layers to propagate at high-densities throughout the harvest unit for a period of 5

to 10 years or more until seedlings over-topped and shaded out the forage species.

Attainment of probable sale quantity (PSQ) required covering much larger planning areas and

timber harvesting over many more acres after the Northwest Forest Plan was implemented.

Silvicultural prescriptions in young commercial (dispersal) stands typically reduces the canopy

cover to near 40 percent, which still allows for spotted owls to use them for moving between NRF

stands. Reducing canopy cover to near 40 percent provides openings and allows sunlight to reach

the forest floor. This can stimulate the growth of the herbaceous and shrub layer if these plants

already occur in the understory. This can provide a short-term (5 to 15 year) increase in the forage

base for both elk and deer until canopy of the remaining trees once again shade out the understory

growth. The same prescription reduces thermal cover for big game if the stand was at 70 percent

or greater canopy cover prior to harvest. It may also reduce hiding cover for a period of time until

the shrub layer reaches 3 to 5 feet in height. Thinning in older (NRF) stands generally retains

optimal thermal conditions because silvicultural prescriptions retain multi-layered structure and

more than 60 percent canopy cover.

Tables 30 to 33 provide the 1994 baseline for habitat conditions used by Roosevelt elk on the

Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest.

Table 30. Elk and deer potential optimal thermal habitat 1994


LSR acres


All Forest acres

>70% Old Growth (32+ inches DBH) 11,884 27,210 1,015 63,181

Table 31. Elk and deer potential thermal habitat 1994


LSR acres


All Forest acres

>70% Medium Mature (20+ inches DBH) 5,339 16,287 1,144 43,005

>70% Old Growth (32+ inches DBH) 11,884 27,210 1,015 63,181

Total thermal (includes optimal thermal)

17,223 43,497 2,159 106,186


37

Table 32. Elk and deer potential foraging habitat 1994


LSR acres


All Forest acres

Grass / Shrub / Sparse Vegetated 10,129 16,587 4,129 61,956

11 to 40% CC, Seed / Sap / Pole 18,537 44,818 2,595 143,021

11 to 40% CC, Medium/Mature 89 511 3 1,841

11 to 40% CC, Old Growth 68 292 1 949

Total foraging habitat 28,823 62,208 6,728 207,767

Table 33. Elk and deer potential hiding cover 1994


LSR acres


All Forest acres

40 to 70% CC, Seed/Sap/Pole 23,390 29,310 3,387 113,612

>70% CC, Seed/Sap/Pole 21,086 55,798 2,922 151,072

40 to 70% CC, Medium/Mature 9,410 9,117 1,951 29,562

>70% CC, Medium/Mature 5,339 16,287 1,144 43,005

40 to 70%CC, Old Growth 4,073 6,414 396 18,354

>70% CC, Old Growth 11,884 27,210 1,015 63,181

Total Hiding Cover 75,182 144,136 10,815 418,786



and USDI Bureau of Land Management 1994b). Roosevelt elk was one of 15 mammals

determined to be closely associated and interact with late-successional and old growth forests

necessary for optimal habitat (USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management

1994a, page 3&4-182). A viability assessment was completed by the Forest Ecosystem

Management Assessment Team (FEMAT) (1993). The viability outcome for the elk was 96

percent likelihood of Outcome A – “Habitat is of sufficient quality, distribution, and abundance to

allow the species population to stabilize, well distributed across federal lands” (USDA Forest

Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management 1994a, page 3&4-184). This outcome

determination was based on provisions of: 1) a large system of late-successional reserves; 2)

Standards and Guidelines for Riparian Reserves; 3) retain live, old growth trees; and 4) retention

of green trees, snags, and coarse woody debris within the Matrix.






expected, and losses from wildfires are in line with what was anticipated.”

The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) conducts an annual census of elk herds in

their Wildlife Management Units (WMU) during the winter months. These censuses are generally

conducted during between February and April when elk are concentrated on the winter range.

Censuses are conducted by ODFW biologists by aerial surveys using helicopters. Actual elk

counts are entered into a model developed by ODFW to develop an estimated annual population.

Due to variable weather conditions during winter, and number of flights conducted due to budget

constraints, these counts can be highly variable between years. During winters with heavy

snowpack, elk tend to be more concentrated on the winter range and are more easily detected.

When snowpack is light, elk are generally more dispersed across the winter range and detection

may be more difficult. Weather conditions during winter are also highly variable and may

influence elk counts. Some conditions, such as fog, low clouds, and poor lighting can preclude

the ability of biologists to detect elk. However, multiple years of census provides the best means

of determining populations over time. Table 34 provides the annual estimated elk population on

the Rogue WMU.


38

Table 34. Estimated annual elk population, Rogue Wildlife Management Unit

Year Population estimate

1987 1,600

1989 1,700

1990 1,800

1991 2,000

1992 2,200

1993 2,600

1994 3,000

1995 3,100

1996 3,100

1997 3,200

1998 3,300

1999 3,300

2000 3,300

2001 3,300

2002 3,000

2003 3,000

2004 2,900

2005 2,900

2006 2,900

2007 2,900

2008 2,900

2009 2,900

2010 2,800

Northwest Forest Plan (1994)

5. Current Condition (2011)

Implementation of the Northwest Forest Plan has had dramatic effects on elk habitats on the

Rogue River National Forest. Based on analyses, over the course of nearly 17 years, optimal

thermal and thermal cover habitats combined have increased by an estimated 379,000 acres and

hiding cover has increased nearly 121,000 acres, while foraging habitats have decreased by over

141,000 acres (tables 35-38). Although elk were selected as an MIS species to represent winter

range and thermal cover, ecotones (where different types of vegetation are juxtaposed) and early

successional communities are important to elk (Skovlin et al. 2002). Based on ODFW’s elk

population estimates, elk populations increased through the 1990s and began to decline by the

early 2000s. Population estimates for 2010 are the lowest recorded in the past 17 years. This may

be due, in part, to loss of foraging habitats on the Rogue River National Forest.

Table 35. Elk and deer potential optimal thermal habitat 2011


LSR acres


All Forest acres

Mature, >20 inches DBH, >60% CC 37,909 75,893 19,361 203,402

Table 36. Elk and deer potential thermal habitat 2011


LSR acres


All Forest acres

Young 11 to 19.9 inches DBH, >70% CC 36,140 34,754 11,625 141,625


Total thermal (includes thermal and optimal thermal)

74,049 110,647 30,986 345,027


39

Table 37. Elk and deer potential foraging habitat 2011


LSR acres


All Forest acres

Grass / Shrub / Sparse Vegetated 2,521 3,086 3,234 8,837

Seed / Sap / Pole, 3 to 11 inches DBH, <40%CC

2,708 11,786 1,677 35,830

Young, 11 to 19.9 inches DBH, <40% CC

1,432 6,107 2,408 15,728

Mature, >20 inches DBH, <40% CC 799 2,480 532 6,066

Total foraging habitat 7,460 23,459 7,851 66,451

Table 38. Elk and deer potential hiding cover 2011


LSR acres


All Forest acres

Seed / Sap / Pole, 3 to 11 inches DBH, >40%CC

9,539 28,311 6,069 89,844

Young, 11 to 19.9 inches DBH, 40%-70%CC

7,309 24,151 7,680 74,979

Young, 11 to 19.9 inches DBH, >70% CC

36,140 34,754 11,625 141,625

Mature, >20 inches DBH, 40 to 60% CC 4,001 13,502 3,739 29,912


Total hiding cover 94,898 176,611 48,474 539,762

6. Big-Game Winter Range

For MS-14, the Forest Plan requires Big-Game Winter Range habitat to provide a minimum of 50

percent thermal cover on each 500 to 1,000 acre analysis area. At least two-thirds of the thermal

cover (30 percent of the analysis area) should meet optimal thermal cover requirements (USDA

Forest Service 1990b, page 4-166). Thermal cover is defined as cover used by (big game) animals

to lessen the effects of weather, typically a stand of coniferous trees 40+ feet tall with an average

crown closure of 70 percent or greater. Optimal thermal cover includes these parameters as well

as an average stand diameter of 21+ inches DBH (USDA Forest Service 1990b).

In other allocations associated with the Clarks Fork project planning area, standards and

guidelines are to maintain summer range to provide 20 percent forage, and at least 20 percent

thermal cover for an area generally 500 to 1,000 acres. Hiding cover should be dense enough to

hide 90 percent of a deer or elk from view at 200 feet. Hiding cover need not be continuous but

gaps between screens should not exceed one-quarter of a mile. A restricted operating period from

April 1 to June 30 may be imposed in identified deer or elk fawning or calving areas (USDA

Forest Service 1990b, page 4-240).

To facilitate cover analysis, the District has developed a winter range block system to track

thermal cover over time. Because the Rogue River Forest Plan requires tracking of 500 to 1,000

acre blocks, the basis utilized for these winter range blocks is a section (approximately 640

acres). Where winter range does not include the entire section, these portions of the winter range

were added to winter range in an adjacent section, as long as they do not exceed 1,000 acres.

Winter range blocks may be entirely or partially within the project planning area. Thermal cover

values are managed within the assigned winter range block and not by individual project or

planning area boundary so they can be tracked through time. Figure F2-1 identifies these blocks

as associated with Big-Game Winter Range and table 39 provides the current condition thermal

cover values for the winter range blocks that intersect the project planning area.


40

Table 39. Big-Game Winter Range thermal cover values

Block # Block total acres

Thermal total acres

Thermal percent

Optimal thermal

total acres

Optimal thermal percent

Total percent optimal thermal

and thermal

110 644 110 17 26 4 21

113 650 74 11 19 3 14

114 751 264 35 122 16 51

117 864 266 31 107 12 43

116 646 319 49 74 11 61

115 891 276 31 80 9 40

119 481 161 33 201 42 75

Figure 1: Big Game Winter Range Blocks

7. Effects of Fuels Treatments on Roosevelt Elk


Underburning treatments could reduce small woody material allowing room for forage plants to

grow. This would provide additional forage benefits for big game. Fuels treatments would be

designed to retain the majority of hiding cover within both winter and summer range. However,

fuels prescriptions may reduce hiding cover on some acres by scorching small diameter (3 inches

or less DBH) trees. Loss of hiding cover could lead to a slight increase in vulnerability for elk

during hunting seasons. However, much of this area is already relatively open and roaded.

Implementation of underburns will increase forage values and habitats and the project is expected

to have an beneficial impact on elk overall


Fuels treatments in the Clarks Fork project planning area would increase the forage component in

many stands for big game for a period of 5 to 15 years. These same treatments would slightly

reduce hiding cover over the same acres and over the same time period. The proposed action

would maintain thermal cover values in treated stands because underburning treatments are

designed to have minimal effect on forest canopies.


41

Based on these factors the overall direct, indirect, and cumulative effects would result in a

positive trend of habitat by increasing forage in the project planning area. Therefore, the Clarks

Fork Project would not contribute to an adverse trend in viability on the Rogue River National

Forest for elk, and are consistent with the Forest Plan, and thus continued viability of elk is


Cumulative Effects


potential effects to Roosevelt elk. The only actions which would contribute to potential

cumulative effects is the Big Butte Springs Timber Sales Project because the effects may overlap

in time and space.

The scale for cumulative affects analyses to elk is the Clarks Fork project planning area. The Big

Butte Springs Timber Sales fall within the Clarks Fork project planning area. This project was

designed to maintain forest health and habitat diversity, reduce risk of insect and disease

infestations, reduce fuel loading and the effects of wildfire, and increase the quality of riparian

vegetation. There are approximately 4,006 acres of Big Butte Springs Timber Sale units within

the Clarks Fork project planning area. Of the 4,006 acres, there are approximately 681 acres of

Big Butte Springs units that are not included in the Clarks Fork Project.

This project was designed to maintain forest health and habitat diversity, reduce fuel loading and

the effects of wildfire, and increase the quality of habitats for elk and other species. The Clarks

Fork Project will contribute to higher quality elk habitats by increasing the quality and quantity of

forage.

H. Black-Tailed Deer (Odocoileus hemionus columbianus)



Global – G5 – Secure


Harvested as a game animal west of Cascade Crest

(http://www.dfw.state.or.us/resources/hunting/big_game/index.asp#big_game_regs)

Distribution

West of Cascade Crest in Oregon.

2. Habitat Use

Black-tailed deer are an edge-adapted species using dense hiding cover during the day, emerging

in the morning and evening to feed in more open areas (Maser et al. 1981). Throughout much of

western Oregon, black-tailed deer reside year-round in relatively flat areas at mid to low

elevations, on south facing slopes dominated by vine maple (Acer circinatum), huckleberry

(Vaccinium spp), and salal (Gaultheria shallon) plant communities (ODFW 2008).

Black-tailed deer rely upon several different successional stages of vegetation to meet their life

needs. Areas with heavy canopy closure are used during all seasons. In summer, areas of heavy

canopy closure are used to facilitate thermal regulation during periods of high temperatures.

During winter, heavy canopy closure moderates temperatures and intercepts snowfall during

winter storms.


http://www.dfw.state.or.us/resources/hunting/big_game/index.asp#big_game_regs


42

The reduction of snow depth under heavy canopy reduces energetic expenditure during

movements of deer and provides areas of browse that would normally be under the snow surface.

Areas with little or no overstory canopy cover are important for deer as forage areas. Forest gaps

and natural openings provide optimal conditions for shrubs and forbs to grow, which deer depend

on for forage.

Very few black-tailed deer remain on the High Cascades Ranger District in winter. Deer generally

migrate sometime in October to lower elevation private timberlands to seek acorns and avoid

deep snow. Snowpack covers available forage and makes movement difficult, resulting in an

energy deficit. Deer generally begin migrating back on to the District in March to May depending

on annual snow conditions.

3. Food Habits

Deer are relatively small ruminants unable to process large volumes of poor quality forage, as

compared to elk and cattle. Deer require high-quality forage, and overall body condition affects

many aspects of biology and survival. For example, productivity and winter survival are higher

when deer begin the winter with large reserves of fat (ODFW 2008).

For deer to maintain fitness, particularly during winter and breeding seasons, they must have

access to adequate year-round forage. Plant consumption by black-tailed deer varies and is

affected by seasonal quantity (availability) and quality (nutritional value). The nutritional value of

forage varies by plant species and time of year, generally being higher when the plant is actively

growing and lower after senescence in the fall and winter (ODFW 2008).

The fitness of an animal is dependent on the quality of forage and metabolic requirements of the

animal. The nutritional needs to maintain fitness for adults are normally less than the

requirements for growth and maintenance of young animals. Females that are pregnant or

lactating also require higher quality and quantities of forage. Nitrogen (protein) content is

commonly used as an indicator for nutritional value of forage (Ramsey and Krueger 1986).

Einarsen (1946) found that body condition of back-tailed deer was positively correlated with

crude protein in forage. Only a portion of crude protein is digestible, and insufficient levels of

protein were linked to decreased growth rates in fawns (Verme and Ozogo 1980), reproduction

(Verme 1965), and antler development (French et al. 1956). To maintain optimal growth, adult

deer and elk require about 12 to 16 percent crude protein (7.3 to 10.9 percent digestible protein)

in their diets (French et al. 1956).

The availability of forage varies considerably across Oregon’s black-tailed deer range.

Temperature and precipitation patterns affect forage type and availability, including diversity and

quantity of vegetation. Precipitation in western Oregon varies; in general annual rainfall is higher

in northwest coastal areas and less in the southwest interior.

As an example, Valsetz in northwest Oregon receives 131 inches of precipitation annually, while

Ashland in the southwest interior averages 20 inches per year (Western Regional Climate Center,

1936-2007, unpublished data). Temperature gradients are also diverse across black-tailed deer

range with lower temperatures in the Cascade Mountain and higher elevation Coast Ranges

compared to the interior valleys and coastal areas (ODFW 2008).

In southwestern Oregon Wedgeleaf (Ceanothus cuneatus) provides a bulk of the winter feed for

black-tailed deer in many areas (Randall et al. 1994). Studies have shown that Wedgeleaf makes

up 60 to 90 percent of the winter diet of black-tailed deer in that portion of the region studied, an

area located on the Oregon-California border in the Siskiyou Mountains of southwestern Oregon

(ODFW 1996).


43

4. Populations Trend and Viability

Home Range

Miller (1970) calculated average annual home range areas for various sex and age-classes of

black-tailed deer in the 138 hectare Cedar Creek enclosure. His findings are as follows: adult

females (69.6 hectares), adult males (100.4 hectares), 2 year-old females (76.9 hectares), 2 year-

old males (98.8 hectares), yearling females (38.9 hectares), and yearling males (59.9 hectares).

Average monthly home ranges ranged from 12.8 to 39.6 percent of average annual home ranges.

Annual census for black-tailed deer is conducted by ODFW biologists on the Rogue WMU,

which includes portions of the Rogue River National Forest and the Clarks Fork project planning

area. Censuses are conducted in both spring and fall, either by walking or driving along pre-

established routes. The results of these censuses are shown in table 40.

Table 40. Estimated annual deer population, Rogue Wildlife Management Unit

Year Population estimate

1971 9,293

1972 16,806

1973 18,466

1974 15,109

1975 17,497

1976 23,873

1977 26,109

1978 28,179

1979 29,496

1980 24,082

1981 23,454

1982 20,131

1983 27,364

1984 25,148

1985 22,890

1986 26,652

1987 22,304

1988 22,597

1989 21,761

1990 25,482

1991 22,388

1992 25,168

1993 16,556

1994 16,388

1995 17,225

1996 15,406

1997 13,462

1998 14,277

1999 14,716

2000 12,124

2001 15,657

2002 12,961

2003 10,348

2004 11,037

2005 16,159

2006 20,858

2007 20,388

2008 24,786

2009 20,879

2010 20,737


44


Deer winter range was considered to be less than 4,000 feet elevation in the 1990 Rogue River

Forest Plan. Core winter range is that portion of total winter range occupied by 90 percent of the

population 90 percent of the winters. If unusually severe snow conditions make core winter range

unsuitable, the deer tend to move off-Forest to lower elevation private and BLM lands. These

areas were referred to as critical winter range.

The presumption in 1990 was that deer exhibited the same habitat needs as elk, and that deer did

not appear to be as sensitive to changes in those conditions. Summer range requirements were

also presumed to be similar to those of elk. Meadows, brush fields, and other early successional

stages (artificially created and otherwise) provided the majority of forage for both deer and elk.

Thermal cover was also considered to be needed on the summer range to reduce heat stress on

animals (USDA Forest Service 1990a, page III-86).

As with elk, winter range was initially considered to be limiting deer production capability on the

Forest. It was expected that the 67,700 acres allocated to winter range management would

improve carrying capacity as management objectives for winter range were implemented (USDA

Forest Service 1990b, page IV-92). Habitat capability projections were expected to increase in the

first two decades (17 and 33 percent respectively) after the Forest Plan was implemented due to

improved winter range conditions. During the third decade, summer range would begin to

become limiting on deer production capability. By the end of the fifth decade, deer production

capability was expected to return to about 10 percent above the 1990 levels. From the sixth

through tenth decades, production capability would fluctuate between 5 percent below to 8

percent above 1990 levels (USDA Forest Service 1990b, page IV-93).

In 1990, there were no surveys available that indicated the actual number of deer on the Forest.

Trend counts were conducted by Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) personnel,

but were only an index of herd size in relation to past years. Establishing the baseline for deer on

the Forest at the time the Forest Plan was written is problematic. There are three separate

references in the Rogue River Forest Plan Final Environmental Impact Statement which appear to

be in conflict. Based on the ODFW estimates of the total deer population and the percentages of

suitable habitat within the three Oregon Wildlife Units on the Forest, the Forest’s population was

estimated to be approximately 12,000 animals.

The Forest used a population model that, based upon seral stages, predicted an existing

population of approximately 21,000 deer fforest-wide. The model was indexed to the figures

derived from ODFW surveys. The model was not capable of predicting actual carrying capacity

of deer, but was an index of overall habitat quality expressed in numbers of animals (USDA

Forest Service 1990b, page III-86).

Northwest Forest Plan (1994)

The Record of Decision (ROD) for amendments to Forest Service and Bureau of Land

Management planning documents within the range of the northern spotted owl [commonly

referred to as the Northwest Forest Plan], amended Standards and Guidelines of existing Forest

Plans on over 24 million acres of federal lands within the range of the northern spotted owl

(USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management 1994b). The Rogue River Land

and Resource Management Plan was amended by this decision. Standards and guidelines in

existing plans still applied where they were more restrictive or provided greater benefits to late-

successional forest-related species than the standards and guidelines in the Northwest Forest Plan

ROD.


45

Since inception of the Forest Plan, the Rogue River National Forest has emphasized retention of

both nesting/roosting/foraging (NRF) and dispersal habitats for northern spotted owl. Generally,

this habitat is multistoried, 80 years old or more (depending on stand type and structural

condition), and has sufficient snags and down wood to provide opportunities for nesting, roosting,

and foraging. The canopy closure generally exceeds 60 percent. Other attributes include 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). When these stands meet the 70 percent canopy cover minimum, they are

generally considered to be optimal thermal cover for deer and elk. Dispersal habitat is forested

habitat with canopy closure greater than 40 percent, average diameter greater than 11 inches

DBH, and flying space for owls in the understory, but does not provide the components found in

NRF. Where dispersal stands meet the 70 percent canopy cover minimum, they are generally

considered to be thermal cover for deer and elk.

Since implementation of the Northwest Forest Plan, silvicultural prescriptions for timber sales

have emphasized thinning in both NRF and dispersal stands. Thinning prescriptions, as opposed

to regeneration prescriptions, resulted in a major change in resultant stands in terms of habitat for

both deer and elk. Prior to implementation of the Northwest Forest Plan, regeneration harvests

(clear cuts, seed tree cuts, and shelterwoods) provided high-quality forage areas for big game

adjacent to both thermal and optimal thermal stands. Natural succession allowed for the forb and

shrub layers to propagate at high-densities throughout the harvest unit for a period of 5 to 10

years or more until seedlings over-topped and shaded out the forage species.

Attainment of probable sale quantity (PSQ) required covering much larger planning areas and

timber harvesting over many more acres after the Northwest Forest Plan was implemented.

Silvicultural prescriptions in young commercial (dispersal) stands typically reduces the canopy

cover to near 40 percent, which still allows for spotted owls to use them for moving between NRF

stands. Reducing canopy cover to near 40% provides openings and allows sunlight to reach the

forest floor.

This can stimulate the growth of the herbaceous and shrub layer if these plants already occur in

the understory. This can provide a short-term (5 to 15 years) increase in the forage base for both

elk and deer until canopy of the remaining trees once again shade out the understory growth.

The same prescription reduces thermal cover for big game if the stand was at 70 percent or more

canopy cover prior to harvest. It may also reduce hiding cover for a period of time until the shrub

layer reaches 3 to 5 feet in height. Thinning in older (NRF) stands generally retains optimal

thermal conditions because silvicultural prescriptions retain multi-layered structure and 60

percent canopy cover.

5. Elk and Deer Current Condition (2011)

Currently, forage habitat for elk and deer is the primary limiting factor on the Forest, constituting

less than 10 percent of the Forest land base (table 37). The west side of the Forest provides good

forage in designated Big-Game Winter Range for black-tail deer (there are very few if any elk on

that side of the Forest) due to a preponderance of low elevation non-conifer forest lands and an

active fuels and habitat enhancement program (over 5,500 acres of Big-Game Winter Range on

the Siskiyou Mountains Ranger District have been treated in the last 5 years). However, the

Cascade portion of the Forest, due to different forest types and management activities, is deficient

in the amount of forage habitat available to elk and deer. Elk and deer thermal and hiding cover

have increased significantly across the Forest, although in some areas of Big-Game Winter

Range, still not to that amount prescribed in the original Rogue River Forest Plan (tables 35, 36

and 38).


46

6. Big-Game Winter Range

For MS-14, the Forest Plan requires Big-Game Winter Range habitat to provide a minimum of 50

percent thermal cover on each 500 to 1,000 acre analysis area. At least two-thirds of the thermal

cover (30 percent of the analysis area) should meet optimal thermal cover requirements (USDA

Forest Service 1990b, page 4-166). Thermal cover is defined as cover used by (big game) animals

to lessen the effects of weather, typically a stand of coniferous trees 40 feet or more tall with an

average crown closure of 70 percent or more. Optimal thermal cover includes these parameters as

well as an average stand diameter of at least 21 inches (USDA Forest Service 1990b).

In other allocations associated with the project planning area, standards and guidelines are to

maintain summer range to provide 20 percent forage, and at least 20 percent thermal cover for an

area generally 500 to 1,000 acres. Hiding cover should be dense enough to hide 90 percent of a

deer or elk from view at 200 feet. Hiding cover need not be continuous, but gaps between screens

should not exceed one-quarter of a mile. A restricted operating period from April 1 to June 30

may be imposed in identified deer or elk fawning or calving areas (USDA Forest Service 1990b,

page 4-240).

To facilitate cover analysis, the District has developed a winter range block system to track

thermal cover over time. Please see section G, 6, above for more detail on analysis for Big-Game

Winter Range.

7. Effects of Fuels Treatments on Black-tailed Deer


Underburning treatments could reduce small woody material allowing room for forage plants to

grow. This would provide additional forage benefits for big game. Fuels treatments would be

designed to retain the majority of hiding cover within both winter and summer range. However,

fuels prescriptions may reduce hiding cover on some acres by scorching small diameter (3 inches

or less DBH) trees. Loss of hiding cover could lead to a slight increase in vulnerability for black-

tailed deer during hunting seasons. However, much of this area is already relatively open and

roaded. Implementation of underburns will increase forage values and habitats and the project is

expected to have an beneficial impact on black-tailed deer overall.

Determination of Effects

Fuels treatments in the Clarks Fork project planning area would increase the forage component in

many stands for big game for a period of 5 to 15 years. These same treatments would slightly

reduce hiding cover over the same acres and over the same time period. The proposed action

would maintain thermal cover values in treated stands because underburning treatments are

designed to have minimal effect on forest canopies. Based on these factors the overall direct,

indirect, and cumulative effects would result in a positive trend of habitat by increasing forage in

the project planning area. Therefore, the Clarks Fork Project would not contribute to an adverse

trend in viability on the Rogue River National Forest for black-tailed deer, and are consistent with

the Forest Plan, and thus continued viability of elk is expected on the Rogue River portion of the

Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest.

Cumulative Effects


potential effects to Roosevelt elk. The only actions which would contribute to potential

cumulative effects is the Big Butte Springs Vegetation Management project because the effects

may overlap in time and space.


47

The scale for cumulative affects analyses to elk is the Clarks Fork project planning area. The Big

Butte Springs Timber Sales fall within the Clarks Fork project planning area. This project was

designed to maintain forest health and habitat diversity, reduce risk of insect and disease

infestations, reduce fuel loading and the effects of wildfire, and increase the quality of riparian

vegetation. There are approximately 4,006 acres of Big Butte Springs Timber Sale units within

the Clarks Fork project planning area. Of the 4,006 acres, there are approximately 681 acres of

Big Butte Springs units that are not included in the Clarks Fork Project.

This project was designed to maintain forest health and habitat diversity, reduce fuel loading and

the effects of wildfire, and increase the quality of habitats for elk and other species. The Clarks

Fork Project will contribute to higher quality black-tailed deer habitats by increasing the quality

and quantity of forage.

Neo-Tropical Migratory Birds/Landbirds

The Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 (MBTA).

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.


48

Executive Order 13186 (66 Fed. Reg. 3853, January 17, 2001)

“Responsibilities of Federal Agencies to Protect Migratory Birds”

This Executive Order 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. This

Executive Order 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.

PIF Bird Conservation Regions (BCR’S)

Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs) are ecologically distinct regions in North America with

similar bird communities, habitats, and resource management issues. BCR’s are a hierarchical

framework of nested ecological units delineated by the Commission for Environmental

Cooperation (CEC). The CEC framework comprises a hierarchy of 4 levels of eco-regions. At

each spatial level, spatial resolution increases and eco-regions encompass areas that are

progressively more similar in their biotic (e.g., plant and wildlife) and abiotic (e.g., soils, drainage

patterns, temperature, and annual precipitation) characteristics.

A mapping team comprised of members from United States, Mexico, and Canada assembled to

develop a consistent spatial framework for bird conservation in North America. The team's US

members met in to apply the framework to the United States and developed a proposed map of

BCRs. The map was presented to and approved by the US North American Bird Conservation

Initiative (NABCI) Committee during its November 1999, meeting. The map is a dynamic tool.

Its BCR boundaries will change over time as new scientific information becomes available. It is

expected that the map will be updated every three years. More information on BCR’s can be

found at http://www.nabci-us.org/bcrs.htm.

The overall goal of these BCR lists are to accurately identify the migratory and resident bird

species (beyond those already designated as federally threatened or endangered) that represent

our highest conservation priorities.

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

http://www.nabci-us.org/bcrs.htm


49

The Birds of Conservation Concern 2008- (updated every 5 years

In December, 2008, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service released The Birds of Conservation

Concern Report (BCC) which identifies species, subspecies, and populations of migratory and

resident birds not already designated as federally threatened or endangered that represent highest

conservation priorities and are in need of additional conservation actions.

While the bird species included in BCC 2008 are priorities for conservation action, this list makes

no finding with regard to whether they warrant consideration for Endangered Species Act (ESA)

listing. The goal is to prevent or remove the need for additional ESA bird listings by

implementing proactive management and conservation actions. It is recommended that these lists

be consulted in accordance with Executive Order 13186, “Responsibilities of Federal Agencies to

Protect Migratory Birds.”

Description of Species, Habitat and Management Requirements

The Conservation Strategy for Landbirds in Coniferous Forests of Western Oregon and

Washington version 2.0 (Altman and Alexander 2012) and BCC species list for BCR 5

for the Clarks Fork project area was reviewed. Those species and habitats that are within

the project area are incorporated and effects disclosed in this analysis. Table 41 displays a

list of Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC) in the Clarks Fork treatment units that are

known or likely to be present in the Planning Area and could be affected by the proposed

actions. In addition, priority bird species for varying habitats within the project planning

area are summarized in Table 42.

Table 41. Partners in Flight focal bird species and habitat in coniferous forests of western Oregon

and Washington (Altman and Alexander, 2012, Table 9)

Impacts of fuels treatments to NTMBs vary depending on the habitats of different bird species

listed above and varying species life history strategies. Since the project actions will not be

removing mid to overstory canopy and consist of controlled, low-severity underburning, the

impacts to NTMBs will absent or minimal and short-term. Saab et al. 2007 analyzed several avian

response studies to low-severity prescribed burning and concluded that resident and migratory

bird species in the Pacific Northwest more frequently respond positive or neutral after the first

year of burning. Few species respond negatively and studies suggest that the impacts are few and

lasting only one year post-treatment.

Habitat Condition Habitat attribute Bird species

Coniferous forest Old-growth / Mature Large snags; large trees; mid-story tree layers

Pileated woodpecker; Brown creeper; Varied thrush

Coniferous forest Mature/Young Varied canopy closure; deciduous understory; forest floor complexity;

Hermit warbler; Hammond’s flycatcher; Wilson’s warbler; Winter wren

Coniferous forest Sapling/Seedling Deciduous shrub layer Orange-crowned warbler

Mixed Forest Unique Large hollow trees; landscape mosaic forest

Vaux’s swift; Blue (Sooty) grouse

Mixed Forest SW Oregon Mixed Forest

dense shrub understory; shrub-herbaceous interspersion; forest canopy edge; post-fire

Nashville warbler; Hermit thrush; Western tanager; Lazuli bunting


50

Species that are associated with large trees, snags and mid-story tree layers will benefit from fuels

treatments. Habitat for pileated woodpecker, brown creeper, varied thrush, vaux’s swifts, hermit

warbler and Hammond’s flycatcher will be maintained as overstory and midstory tree layers will

not be removed. Bark/wood foragers and aerial insectivores respond more favorably to low-

severity, prescribed burning after one year due to an increase in insects for forage and cavities for

nesting (Smucker et al. 2005; Saab et al. 2007). It is possible to lose large diameter trees to

prescribed burning activities due to scorching, but mitigations are implemented to limit this.

However, scorching of some large diameter trees will increase the number of snags that provide

nesting and foraging for bark/wood foragers and aerial insectivores (Saab et al. 2007). Fuels

treatments will also benefit bird species associated with mature forest because treatments will

reduce the possibility of severe, stand replacement wildfires.

Winter wren and orange-crowned warblers are associated with young, seedling/sapling habitat

and specific understory features. It is predicted that initial fuels treatments will remove understory

conditions required for winter wren, orange-crowned warbler and other species with similar

requirements. However, low-severity underburning that maintains soil temperature below 175

degrees C stimulates regrowth of vegetation and understory features will return to original

conditions as well as provide additional habitat. Areas that are not burned or partially burned can

provide birds that require early-seral, understory features refugia while vegetation regrows in

treated areas.

It is also predicted that species persisting in mixed forest, particularly associated with a dense

shrub understory, will be impacted only in the short-term by fuels treatments. Nashville warbler

and hermit thrush will benefit as vegetation regrowth provides an increase in foliage insects for

foraging.

Disturbance operations and smoke is a concern for NTMBs. Efforts should be made to reduce

impacts to nesting birds that may be present in the project planning area that may be directly

impacted by underburning operations. Timing of operations should occur outside of the spring

breeding/nesting season to the extent possible (May 15-July 15). Underburning must be

conducted within the specified prescription identified in the burn plan.

Woodpeckers within the planning area include pileated woodpecker, hairy woodpecker, downy

woodpecker and northern flicker. Generally, insectivorous bird species benefit from burning as

insect availability increases (Saab et al. 2007). Aerial insectivores have been documented as

having positive responses and increases in populations after low-severity fires. In particular,

mountain and western bluebird have shown dramatic population increase after 0-4 years after

underburning (Smucker et al. 2005; Saab et al. 2007).


51

Table 42. Bird Conservation Region (BCR) 5- Northern Pacific Rainforest and USFWS Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC) found on within the Clarks Fork project planning area and effects of proposed project actions. Species listed are those that are not already addressed in the PIF focal species

Species General habitat requirements Impacts to species

Northern Goshawk (Accipiter gentillis)

Nests in mature forests with larger trees; and open understories. Average patch size of the core nest area varies based on available habitat conditions, 74 acres found by McGrath et al. (2003) in northeastern Oregon and central Washington.

Goshawk nesting habitat will not be impacted. If goshawk nests are detected, they will be protected from smoke and noise disturbance during the nesting season from March 1 to August 31. Foraging habitat will be increased and maintained by the reduction of understory layers so that prey is more visible.

Olive-sided Flycatcher (Contopus cooperi)

Associated with natural or man-made openings in conifer forest with tall trees or snags available for perching and singing. Found near water along wooded shores; at the juxtaposition of late- and early-successional forest; and in open or semi-open forest stands with low percentage canopy cover.

Project treatments will be benefit olive-sided flycatchers by maintaining open areas and reducing shrubs. The species will also benefit as vegetation regrowth recruits insects for foraging. Fuels treatments will also maintain and possibly create snags for perching and singing.

Rufous Hummingbird (Selasphorus rufus)

Found in wide variety of habitats, though it shows a breeding preference for late-successional forest with well-developed understory of flowering herbaceous plants and shrubs. Primarily associated with forest edges and openings.

Fuels treatments will benefit hummingbirds by stimulating regrowth of herbaceous and nectar-producing plants as well as increase insects for foraging. Treatments will also benefit the species by maintaining and creating openings for aerial courtship display.

Purple Finch (Carpodacus purpureus)

Breeds primarily in moderately moist open or semi-open coniferous forests. Also frequently found in mixed coniferous-deciduous forests, edges of bogs, and riparian corridors at low to mid-elevations.

Habitat for purple finch will be maintained and treatments will benefit foraging opportunities as burning will stimulate growth of vegetation and insect populations.

Willow Flycatcher (Empidonax traillii)

Breeding habitat is characterized by dense shrubs and/or tall herbaceous plants with scattered openings of shorter herbaceous vegetation. Nesting and migratory habitat in sw. Oregon is almost exclusively riparian zones, typically willows.

Initial fuels treatments will reduce dense shrubs and herbaceous plants for willow flycatcher breeding habitat. Impacts will be minimal as treatments will stimulate new growth and increase insect populations for foraging.

Oregon Vesper Sparrow (Pooecetes gramineus affinis)

Elevated perches for singing and a grass-dominated understory for foraging and nesting. In the Rogue River basin, Browning (1975) reported occurrence in open habitats of mixed-conifer forest zone during breeding, and throughout the valley during migration.

Fuels treatments will maintain and may create snags for perching and singing. The species is predicted to benefit from treatments as a result of increased grass habitat and open areas for foraging and nesting.


52

IV. Other Rare and Uncommon Species

A. Rare or Uncommon Species – Northwest Forest Plan

On December 17, 2009, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington issued an

order in Conservation Northwest, et al. v. Sherman, et al., No. 08-1067-JCC (W.D. Wash.),

granting Plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment and finding NEPA violations in the

Final Supplemental to the 2004 Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement to Remove or

Modify the Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines (USDA Forest

Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management, June 2007). In response, parties entered into

settlement negotiations in April 2010, and the Court filed approval of the resulting Settlement

Agreement on July 6, 2011.

Projects that are within the range of the northern spotted owl are subject to the Survey and

Manage standards and guidelines in the 2001 ROD, as modified by the 2011 Settlement

Agreement. The Clarks Fork Project falls within one of the four exemptions listed in the October

11, 2006 modified injunction NEA v. Rey; specifically, exemption (d) The portions of projects

involving hazardous fuels treatments where prescribed fire is applied. Any portions of hazardous

fuel treatment projects involving commercial logging will remain subject to the survey and

manage requirements except for thinning of young stands younger than 80 years old under

subparagraph (a) of this paragraph.

The Northwest Forest Plan provided Protection Buffers (USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau

of Land Management, page C-19) and additional standards and guidelines for those species

determined to be specific rare and locally endemic species, and other uncommon species in the

forest Matrix. Most of these species habitat have been discussed in previous sections of this EA.

The species which use snag or cavity nesting habitat and may occur in the Clarks Fork project

planning area are: bats (fringed, long-eared, and long-legged myotis; silver-haired, pallid, and

Townsend’s big-eared). The effects for the species that are known or suspected to be present in

the project planning area are discussed in the sensitive species section of the Terrestrial Wildlife

Biological Evaluation.

B. Survey And Manage Species

1. Pygmy Nuthatch (Sitta pygmaea)

This species requires ponderosa pine as a habitat component. This species has only been

documented once on the High Cascades Ranger District (Barrett 2010). The individual was in a

winter mixed-species flock east of Willow Lake within the project area. Treatments such as those

proposed in the Clarks Fork Project that favor large pine species as well as improve snag habitats

will assist in the retention and creation of suitable nesting and foraging habitat for the species.

2. Flammulated Owl (Otus flammeolus)

This species is closely associated with the mixed conifer forest habitat type, but it requires

ponderosa pine in its habitat. Flammulated owls are closely associated with multi-story,

moderate-closed canopy closure structural conditions. Trees with cavities are an important habitat

element for this species. Some of the project units are considered suitable for this species, though

its presence has not been documented within the project planning area.


53

The maintenance of multi-story, moderate canopy closure stands and the expected increase of

snag habitats should improve habitat for the species within the project planning area.

3. Great Gray Owl (Strix nebulosa)

In North America, this owl is found from Alaska south to the Sierra Nevadas in California, and

east to Ontario and Maine. They are known to occur within the range of the northern spotted owl.

Winter range is similar to the breeding range except for the species’ tendency to wander

irregularly south in winter (Bull and Duncan 1993). The range for this species includes the project

planning area. This species is purportedly associated with meadows and natural opening greater

than 10 acres. Although there are no natural openings or meadows within the project planning

area that are 10 acres or greater, the District has four verified records of great gray owls within

the Clarks Fork project planning area. It is assumed that these individuals are using some of the

open forb and grass habitats within the planning area to hunt gophers and voles. All known sites

will be protected from initial spring burns. Fall burns are expected to improve foraging

habitats for this species within the planning area.

4. Red Tree Vole (Arborimus longicaudus)

The project planning area is outside the range of the red tree vole. There are no records of the

species from within the project planning area. Surveys were not conducted for this species.

C. Forest Plan Species

The 1990 Rogue River Forest Plan contains standards and guidelines for the northern spotted owl

(discussed as a federally threatened species in the Terrestrial Biological Evaluation), cavity nester

species (discussed as MIS species in this Wildlife Analysis Document), deer and elk (discussed as

MIS species in this Wildlife Analysis Document), bald eagle (discussed as a Forest Service

sensitive species in Terrestrial Biological Evaluation), and peregrine falcon (discussed as a Forest

Service sensitive species in Terrestrial Biological Evaluation). Bald eagle, osprey and peregrine

falcon do not occur within the Clarks Fork project planning area. Goshawks are discussed below.

Habitat and individuals are present within and/or adjacent to the project planning area.

1. Northern goshawk (Accipter gentiles)

Reproductive home ranges for this species consist of three components: foraging, nesting, and

post-fledgling areas. Foraging habitat consists of a mosaic of large trees, snags, and down logs

interspersed with openings, which support a wide array of prey species. Nests are typically built

on one of the largest trees within dense patches of large old trees within a stand; they can use

alternative nest sites from year to year. Post-fledgling areas surround the nest and are made up of

a 300 to 600 acre mosaic of large mid-aged trees and snags with large down logs and small

opening with herbaceous cover (Marshall et al. 2003).

Currently, there are no known goshawk nests within the Clarks Fork project planning area. No

nests were detected by field biologists during field reconnaissance for project planning efforts.

However, the District has four records of goshawks within the planning area. If goshawk nest

sites are detected, they would be protected from disturbing activities during the nesting season

from March 1 to August 31. If monitoring has shown that no nesting attempt has been initiated or

that a nesting attempt has failed by June 1, the nest site would be considered inactive and the nest

site restriction may be waived.


54

Literature Cited American Ornithologist Union. 1983. Checklist of North American Birds. Baltimore, Maryland.

Altman, B. and J.D. Alexander. 2012. Table 9 in 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.

Aubry, K.B. and C.M. Raley. 1996. Ecology of pileated woodpeckers in managed landscapes on

the Olympic Peninsula. Wildlife Ecology Team 1996 Annual Report, pages 70-74. USDA

Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Olympia Washington.

Aubry, K.B. and C.M. Raley. 2002. “Selection of nest and roost trees by pileated woodpeckers in

coastal forests of Washington.” Journal of Wildlife Management 66(2): 392-406.

Barrett, N.M. (retired High Cascades Ranger District wildlife biologist). 2010. Personal

communication with Jeff VonKienast.

Bull, E.L. and T.W. Heater. 2000. “Resting and denning sites of American martens in northeastern

Oregon.” Northwest Science 74(3): 179-185.

Bull, E.L., T.W. Heater, and J.F. Shepard. 2005. “Habitat selection by the American marten in

northeastern Oregon.” Northwest Science 79(1): 37-43.

Bull, E.L. and R.S. Holthausen. 1993. “Habitat use and management of pileated woodpeckers in

northeastern Oregon.” Journal of Wildlife Management 57(2): 335-345.

Buskirk, S.W. 1992. “Conserving circumboreal forests for martens and fishers.” Conservation

Biology 6: 318-320.

Buskirk, S.W. and L.F. Ruggiero. 1994. “American Marten.” In: The Scientific Basis for

Conserving Forest Carnivores; American Marten, Fisher, Lynx, and Wolverine in the

Western United States. General Technical Report RM-254. (Fort Collins, Colorado:

USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station), 38 -73.

Cahall, R.E. 2007. Influences of salvage logging on forest birds after fire in the eastern Cascades,

Oregon. Masters Thesis. Oregon State University.

Cahall, R.E. and J.P. Hayes. 2008. “Influences of postfire salvage logging on forest birds in the

eastern Cascades, Oregon, USA.” Forest Ecology and Management 257: 1119-1128.

Christensen, A.G., L.J. Lyon, and J.W. Unsworth. 1993. Elk management in the northern region:

considerations in forest plan updates or revisions. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-303. Ogden, UT:

USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station.

Cook, J.G, L.L. Irwin, L.D. Bryant, R.A. Riggs, and J.W. Thomas. 2004. Thermal cover needs of

large ungulates: a review of hypothesis tests in transactions of the 69th North American

Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference: 708-726.

Einarsen, A.S. 1946. Crude protein determination of deer food as an applied management

technique. Transactions North American Wildlife Conference 11: 309-312.


55

Elchuk, C.L. and K.L. Weibe. 2003. Home range size of northern flickers (Colaptes auratus) in

relation to habitat and parental attributes. Canadian Journal of Zoology. 81(6);954-961.

Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment Team (FEMAT). 1993. Forest ecosystem

management: an ecological, economic, and social assessment. U.S. Government Printing

Office 1993-793-071.

French, C.E., A.S. McEwan, N.D. McGruder, R.H. Ingram, and R. W. Swift. 1956. “Nutrient

requirements for growth and antler development in white-tailed deer.” Journal of Wildlife

Management 20: 221-232.

Haggard, M. and W.L. Gaines. 2001. “Effects of stand-replacement fire and salvage logging on a

cavity-nesting bird community in Eastern Cascades, Washington.” Northwest Science

75(4): 387-396.

Hargis, C.D., J.A. Bissonette, and D.L. Turner. 1999. “The influence of forest fragmentation and

landscape pattern on American martens.” Journal of Applied Ecology 36: 157-172.

Harper, J.A., et al. 1987. Ecology and management of Roosevelt elk in Oregon. Revised edition.

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife.

Hartwig, C.L. 1999. Effect of forest age, structural elements, and prey density on the relative

abundance of pileated woodpecker (Dryocopus pileatus abieticola) on south-eastern

Vancouver Island. Masters Thesis. University of Victoria, British Columbia.

Hartwig, C.L., D.S. Eastman, and A.S. Harestad. 2004. “Characteristics of pileated woodpecker

(Dryocopus pileatus) cavity trees and their patches on southeastern Vancouver Island,

British Columbia, Canada.” Forest Ecology and Management 187: 225-234.

Haynes, R.W., B.T. Bormann, D.C. Lee, and J.R. Martin (tech. eds.). 2006. Northwest Forest

Plan—the first 10 years (1994-2003): synthesis of monitoring and research results. Gen.

Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-651. Portland, OR: USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest

Research Station. Available online at: http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/publications/gtr651/

Hochholter, P.A. 2010. Course woody debris, region and series, by decay class and snags, region

and series, final. Unpublished data. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region,

Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest, Medford, Oregon.

Huff, M.H. and C.M. Raley. 1991. “Regional patterns of diurnal breeding birds communities in

Oregon and Washington.” In: Wildlife and Vegetation of Unmanaged Douglas-fir Forests.

PNW-GTR-285. (Portland, Oregon: USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research

Station), 177-205.

Johnson, D.H. and T.A. O’Neil (eds.). 2001. Wildlife-habitat relationships in Oregon and

Washington. Oregon State University Press, Corvallis, Oregon.

Jones, L.L.C. and M.G. Raphael. 1991. Ecology and management of marten in fragmented

habitats of the Pacific Northwest. Progress report: fiscal year 1991. Olympia, WA: USDA

Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station.

http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/publications/gtr651/


56

Kirk, T.A. and W.J. Zielinski. 2009. “Developing and testing a landscape habitat suitability model

for the American marten (Martes americana) in the Cascades Mountains of California.”

Landscape Ecology 24: 759-773.

Korfhage, R.C. 1974. Summer food habits of elk in the Blue Mountains of northeastern Oregon

based on fecal analysis. Masters Thesis. Washington State University.

Korfhage, R.C. and C. Roche. 2007. Elk forage utilization. Unpublished Report. USDA Forest

Service, Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest, High Cascades Ranger District, Prospect,

Oregon.

Kreisel, K.J. and S.J. Stein. 1999. Bird use of burned and unburned coniferous forest during

winter. Wilson Bull 111:243-250.

Lundquist, R.W. 1988. Habitat use by cavity-nesting birds in the Southern Washington Cascades.

Masters Thesis. University of Washington.

Lyon, L.J. 1983. “Road density models describing habitat effectiveness for elk.” Journal of

Forestry 81(9): 592-594, 613.

Mannan, R.W., E.C. Meslow, and H.M. Wight. 1980. “Use of snags by birds in Douglas-fir

forests, western Oregon.” Journal of Wildlife Management 44(4): 787-797.

Marcot, B.G., B.C. Wales, and R. Demmer. 2003. Range maps of terrestrial species in the Interior

Columbia River Basin and Northern Portions of the Klamath and Great Basins. PNW-

GTR-583, Portland, OR: USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, and

USDI Bureau of Land Management. Available online at:


Marshall, D.B., M.G. Hunter, and A.L. Contreras (eds.). 2003. Birds of Oregon: a general

reference. Oregon State University Press, Corvallis, Oregon.

Maser, C., B.R. Mate, J.F. Franklin, and C.T. Dyrness. 1981. Natural history of Oregon Coast

mammals. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-133. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Forest

and Range Experimental Station, Portland, Oregon.

Mellen, T.K. 1987. Home range and habitat use of pileated woodpeckers, western Oregon.

Masters Thesis. Oregon State University.

Mellen, T.K., E.C. Meslow, and R.W. Mannan. 1992. “Summertime home range and habitat use

of pileated woodpeckers in western Oregon.” Journal of Wildlife Management 56: 96-

103.

Mellen-McLean. 2011. Pileated woodpecker habitat relationship model. USDA Forest Service.

Pacific Northwest Region. Portland, Oregon.



57

Mellen-McLean, K., B.G. Marcot, J.L. Ohmann, K. Waddell, S.A. Livingston, E.A. Willhite, B.B.

Hostetler, C. Ogden, and T. Dreisbach. 2009. DecAID, the decayed wood advisor for

managing snags, partially dead trees, and down wood for biodiversity in forests of

Washington and Oregon. Version 2.1. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region

and Pacific Northwest Research Station; USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, Oregon State

Office; Portland, Oregon. Available online at:

http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/nr/wildlife/decaid/index.shtml

Miller, F.L. 1970. “Distribution patterns of black-tailed deer (Odocoileus hemionus columbianus)

in relation to environment.” Journal of Mammology 51: 248-260.

Nelson, S.K. 1988. Habitat use and densities of cavity nesting birds in the Oregon Coast Ranges.

Masters Thesis. Oregon State University.

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW). 1996. Deer and decadence-an examination of

management strategies for the rejuvenation of overmature Ceanothus couneatus.

Unpublished Paper by Jim Colloran, CBEC Intern. Edited by ODFW Rogue District

Wildlife Staff.

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW). 2003. Oregon’s Elk Management Plan. Salem,

OR: Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife.

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW). 2008. Draft Oregon black-tailed deer

management plan. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Salem, Oregon.

Raley, C.M. and K.B. Aubry. 2006. “Foraging ecology of pileated woodpeckers in coastal forests

of Washington.” Journal of Wildlife Management 70(5): 1266-1275.

Ramsey, K.J. and W.C. Krueger. 1986. Grass-legume seeding to improve winter forage for

Roosevelt elk: a literature review. Special report 736. Department of Rangeland

Resources, Agricultural Experiment Station, Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon.

Randall, W.R., R. Keniston, D.N. Bever, and E.C. Jensen. 1994. Manual of Oregon trees and

shrubs. Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon.

Raphael, M.G. and L.L.C. Jones. 1997. Characteristics of resting and denning sites of American

martens in central Oregon and western Washington. In: Martes: taxonomy, ecology,

techniques, and management. (Alberta, Canada: Provincial Museum of Alberta,

Edmonton), 146-165.

Rowland, M.M., M.J. Wisdom, B.K. Johnson, and J.G. Kie. 2000. “Elk distribution and modeling

in relation to roads.” Journal of Wildlife Management 64(3): 672-684.

Russell, R.E., V.A. Saab, and J.G. Dudley. 2007. “Habitat-suitability models for cavity-nesting

birds in a postfire landscape.” Journal of Wildlife Management 71(8): 2600-2611.

Available online at:

http://www.rmrs.nau.edu/publications/russell_et_al_2007/russell_et_al_2007.pdf

Saab, V.A., R.E. Russell, and J.G. Dudley. 2007. “Nest densities of cavity-nesting birds in relation

to postfire salvage logging and time since wildfire.” Condor 109: 97-108.

http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/nr/wildlife/decaid/index.shtml

http://www.rmrs.nau.edu/publications/russell_et_al_2007/russell_et_al_2007.pdf


58

Saab, V.A., R.E. Russell, and J.G. Dudley. 2009. “Nest-site selection by cavity-nesting birds in

relation to postfire salvage logging.” Forest Ecology and Management 257: 151-159.

Skovlin, J.M., P. Zager, and B.K. Johnson. 2002. “Elk habitat selection and evaluation in North

American elk ecology and management.” Smithsonian Institution Press.

Slauson, K. and W.J. Zielinski. 2009. Characteristics of summer and fall diurnal resting habitat

used by American martens in coastal northwestern California. Northwest Science.

Volume 83, No.1.

Smucker, K.M., R.L. Hutto and B.M. Steele. 2005. Change in bird abundance after wildlife:

importance of fire severity and time since fire. Ecological Applications 15(5): 1535-1549.

Thomas, J.W., M.G. Raphael, R.G. Anthony, E.D. Forsman, A.G. Gunderson, R.S. Holthausen,

B.G. Marcot, G.H. Reeves, J.R. Sedell, and D.M. Solis. 1993. Viability assessments and

management considerations for species associated with late-successional and old-growth

forests of the Pacific Northwest. Washington, DC: USDA Forest Service, U.S.

Government Printing Office.

United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1990a. Final Environmental Impact

Statement. Land and Resource Management Plan. Rogue River National Forest. USDA

Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region, Rogue River National Forest, Medford,

Oregon.

United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1990b. Rogue River National Forest

Land and Resource Management Plan. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region,

Rogue River National Forest, Medford, Oregon. Available online at:

http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5315122.pdf

United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1995. Upper Big Butte Watershed

Analysis. Rogue River National Forest. Butte Falls, Oregon.

United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2009. Clark’s Fork habitat assessment,

field survey data. Unpublished data. USDA Forest Service, Rogue River-Siskiyou

National Forest, High Cascades Ranger District, Prospect, Oregon.

USDA Forest Service. 2011. Rogue River National Forest Management Indicator Species Forest-

Wide environmental baseline and species accounts. Unpublished Report. USDA Forest

Service, Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest, Medford, Oregon.

United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, and United States Department of the

Interior, Bureau of Land Management. 1994a. Final Supplemental Environmental Impact

Statement and Record of Decision on Management of Habitat for Late-successional and

Old-growth Forest Related Species within the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl. USDA

Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region, Portland, Oregon.

http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5315122.pdf


59

United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, and United States Department of the

Interior, Bureau of Land Management. 1994b. Record of Decision for Amendments to

Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management Planning Documents Within the Range

of the Northern Spotted Owl. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region, Portland,

Oregon. Available online at: http://www.reo.gov/library/reports/newroda.pdfVerme, L.J.

1965. “Reproductive studies on penned white-tailed deer.” Journal of Wildlife

Management 29: 74-79.

Verme, L.J. and J.J. Ozogo. 1980. “Influence of protein energy intake on deer fawns in autumn.”

Journal of Wildlife Management 44: 315-324.

Verts, B.J. and L.N. Carraway. 1998. Land mammals of Oregon. University of California Press,

Berkeley, California.

Wahl, T.R., B. Tweit, and S. G. Mlodinow (eds.). 2005. Birds of Washington: status and

distribution. Oregon State University Press, Corvallis, Oregon.

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 Mammology

85(3): 470-477.

Zielinski, W.J., K.M. Slauson, C.R. Carroll, C.J. Kent, and D.G. Kudma. 2001. “Status of

American martens in coastal forests of the Pacific states.” Journal of Mammalogy 82:

478-490.

http://www.reo.gov/library/reports/newroda.pdf


60

Attachment 1 – Mitigation and Minimization Measures

Big-Game Winter Range (BGWR) Mitigation

Prescribe fire within Big-Game Winter Range are subject to a restriction from December 1 to

April 30 unless a specific waiver is authorized by the District Ranger.

Neotropical Migratory Bird Mitigations

Efforts should be made to reduce impacts to nesting birds that may be present in the project

planning area that may be directly impacted by broadcast burning operations. Timing of

operations should occur outside of the spring breeding/nesting season to the extent possible (May

15 to July 15). Underburning operations must be conducted within the specified prescription

identified in the burn plan. Spring/early summer burning operations may be required during initial

entries due to high fuel loading.

Fisher/American Marten

For large snags (20 inches or greater DBH), scratch lines will be constructed around the base

prior to ignition operations to reduce potential of consumption of denning habitats by prescribed

fire. Wherever possible, snags that catch fire will be suppressed if they do not pose a safety threat

to personnel.

Snags and Coarse Woody Material Retention

For large snags (20 inches or greater DBH), scratch lines will be constructed around the base

prior to ignition operations to reduce potential of consumption by prescribed fire. Wherever

possible, snags that catch fire will be suppressed if they do not pose a safety threat to personnel.

Great Gray Owl and Northern Goshawk

Great Gray Owl nest sites shall be subject to seasonal restrictions outlined within the Survey and

Manage Settlement Agreement. Northern Goshawk nests are subject to seasonal restrictions

outlined in the Rogue River National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan, Standards and

Guidelines.