prepared by: rolando r. mendez-trenemana123.g.akamai.net/7/123/11558/abc123/forestservic...the...

Wildlife Biological Evaluation Pyramid Thin Project Revised 2009

Pyramid Thin Project

BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION – WILDLIFE

Gold Beach Ranger District Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forests

Prepared by: Rolando R. Mendez-Treneman Date: February 28, 2007

Rolando R. Mendez-Treneman Revised: February 26, 2008 District Wildlife Biologist Revised: April 28, 2009 Gold Beach R.D.

Revised by: Michael Miller, Wildlife Biologist, Gold Beach R.D. Reviewed by: Dave Clayton, Forest Wildlife Biologist INTRODUCTION US Forest Service Manual Direction require the review of all federal activities on species listed under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 as Threatened, Endangered and Proposed species, as well as those species identified as Sensitive on the Regional Forester’s Special Status Species List (February 2008) through a Biological Evaluation (BE) analysis (FSM 2672.4). This document constitutes the biological evaluation (BE) for the Pyramid Thin Project proposal. The purpose of this evaluation is to determine the possible effects that the proposed activity and alternatives would have on any Endangered, Threatened, Proposed, or Sensitive (TES) wildlife species (FSM 2672.4). The Biological Evaluation process provides a description of office/field analysis for each TES species, and mitigation activities necessary to ensure proposed management actions will not likely jeopardize the continued viability of any TES species.

PROJECT LOCATION The Pyramid Thin Project is located in Curry County, Oregon, 8 air miles southeast of the City of Gold Beach, Oregon. The 311 acre project includes 277 acres located within the 66,806 acre Pistol River Watershed, and 34 acres within the 28,467 acre Hunter Creek Watershed. The legal description is Township 37 South, Range 13 West, Sections 17, 20, 29, 30 and 31, Township 38 South, Range 13 West, Section 6, Willamette Meridian, Curry County, Oregon. The Pyramid Thin Project is entirely within matrix lands. THE PROPOSED ACTION, ALTERNATIVE 2 The Proposed Action would commercially thin dense, over-stocked stands within lands allocated as matrix while allowing Riparian Reserve areas to continue undisturbed. The potential effects of the Proposed Action (Alternative 2) for the Pyramid Thin Project to Proposed, Endangered, Threatened, and Sensitive (PETS) wildlife species, and Critical Habitat impacts were analyzed for a 11,850-acre analysis area extending 1.3 miles out from the treatment units. Data and information from several sources were used to conduct the analysis. Alternative 2 is the most potentially impacting of the project alternatives analyzed.


Timber Harvest Activities: Approximately 4.67 million board feet of timber (mmbf) would be harvested from commercially thinning approximately 13 treatment units totaling 311 acres. Harvest activities would use a combination of helicopter, skyline, and ground based logging systems including pre-bunching with a mechanical harvester. (These figures are estimates based on observations made during preliminary field review.)

Helicopter – 83 acres and 1.19 mmbf Skyline – 213 acres and 3.18 mmbf Tractor – 15 acres and 0.30 mmbf

Pre-Bunching - In areas designated for skyline or helicopter yarding where slopes are considered stable, less than 35% and outside of Riparian Reserves; yarding activities would be analyzed to have the option to incorporate the use of a track-mounted, single-grip harvester for the purpose of “pre-bunching” logs. Pre-bunching means the mechanical falling, limbing, bucking and bunching of trees to improve efficiency and economic removal by expensive aerial yarding systems. The track-mounted machine would travel up and down (parallel to slope) the hillside on favorable slopes while “walking” on slash generated from its limbing operations. Resultant detrimental soil conditions would not exceed 15% detrimental soil conditions within the activity area. For the purpose of effects analysis and possible implementation, 170 acres of potential pre-bunching within this project would be considered a threshold.

Roading Activities: Approximately ten temporary road segments totaling 1.8 miles would be constructed. Temporary roads would be rehabilitated and closed following harvest operations. No permanent roads are proposed to be constructed. Existing roads would be brought up to specifications to facilitate log hauling through normal road maintenance activities. This work would consist of roadside brushing, road blading, and culvert/ditch clean-out. There are several road locations where surface rock would need to be replaced. Road 1703 (M.P. 2.2) Culvert Replacement – Road condition surveys found a need to improve a 24” culvert to 30” to improve drainage and reduce future maintenance costs. Road 1703 (M.P. 2.7) Culvert Replacement – Road condition surveys found a need to improve a 24” culvert to 30” to improve drainage and reduce future maintenance costs. Road 1703 (M.P. 4.3) Culvert Installation – Road condition surveys found a need to install an 18” culvert to improve drainage and reduce future maintenance costs. Road 1703.190 (M.P. 0.6) Culvert Replacement – Road condition surveys found a need to replace an 18” culvert and repair a small road failure (slump) to improve drainage and reduce future maintenance costs. Fuel Reduction Activities: During tractor and skyline yarding activities adjacent to Forest Road 1703, tree-tops of trees removed would be yarded and piled on landings. Following timber harvest, logging slash adjacent to Forest Road 1703 would be piled by hand and burned. Following timber harvest, all landing piles of slash would be burned.

Machine pile and burn landing piles – 6.7 acres Leave tops attached while yarding to the landing – 228.0 acres Hand pile and burn slash concentrations – 18.3 acres


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The potential effects of the Pyramid Thin Project (including the associated activities with helicopter landings, temp roads, road repair, and burning) on Proposed, Endangered, Threatened and Sensitive (PETS) species occurring on the Gold Beach Ranger District were analyzed (Table 1). Two federally-listed species occur on the District: marbled murrelet and northern spotted owl. Marbled Murrelet, and Northern Spotted Owl. May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect

(NLAA). The project is considered NLAA for marbled murrelet and northern spotted owl, because of habitat degradation (stand simplification of spotted owl dispersal habitat). A Limited Operating Period prevents harassment of potentially nesting spotted owls and murrelets adjacent to operating areas. “Informal Consultation with the USDI Fish and Wildlife Service has been completed (Letter of Concurrence (LOC)_TAILS-13420-2009-I-0044, dated March 19, 2009) on Pyramid Thin Project (USDI, 2009).

Critical Habitat. No Effect (NE). Harvest units are not within northern spotted owl or marbled

murrelet Critical Habitat Units (CHU).

a. No Impact (NI). The project is considered NI on the following Region 6 Sensitive species: bald eagle, harlequin duck, Townsend’s big-eared bat, Northwestern pond turtle, foothill yellow-legged frog, insular blue butterfly, Mardon skipper, Coronis fritillary, hoary elfin, Pacific walker, robust walker, highcap lanx and western ridged mussel. There is No Impact because these species are associated with habitats that would be unaffected by the project.

T lifornia w lack saspsn not oc

his project is outside the known range for white-headed woodpecker , northern waterthrush, Caolverine , Pacific pallid bat, fringed myotis, Oregon spotted frog, Siskiyou Mt. salamander, blamander, Siskiyou short-horned grasshopper, Franklin’s bumblebee, Siskiyou Hesperian, pristine ringsnail , Crater Lake tightcoil, traveling sideband, Chace sideband, scale lanx, Oregon shoulderband ail, Klamath rim pebblesnail, and evening fieldslug. There is No Impact because these species do cur within the analysis area.

b. May Impact. The project is considered May Impact Individuals or Habitat, but is not likely to contribute to a trend towards federal listing or cause a loss of viability to the population or species (MIIH) for the following species: Lewis’ woodpecker, Pacific fisher, California slender salamander, green sideband, and Johnson’s hairstreak. It is unlikely that surveys would detect all individuals, and surveys for all species were not done. It is more accurate to state “may impact….” than “no impact” on these species. Impacts on these species are considered unlikely, immeasurable, and or minor. Populations for these species are not considered small, vulnerable, and are tolerant of small scale loss of individuals without compromising short and long term viability.

Table 1. Project effect determinations for special status wildlife species in the Pyramid Thin Project Analysis Area. Highlighted

cells indicate specific mitigation measures are called for. Pre-Field Review1 Field Reconnaissance2

Wildlife Species Sighting/Habitat Sighting/Habitat Determination of Effects

Proposed, Endangered, or Threatened Species; Critical Habitat.

Marbled murrelet Habitat Sightings and Habitat2 May Affect, NLAA3

Marbled murrelet CRITICAL HABITAT

No No No Effect

Northern spotted owl Habitat Sightings and Habitat2 May Affect, NLAA3

Northern spotted owl CRITICAL HABITAT

No No No Effect


Pre-Field Review1 Field Reconnaissance2


Forest Service Region 6 Sensitive Species

Bald eagle No No No Impact

American peregrine falcon No No No Impact

Pacific fisher Habitat Habitat May Impact

Harlequin duck No No No Impact

Lewis’ woodpecker Habitat Habitat May Impact

White-headed woodpecker No No No Impact4

Northern waterthrush No No No Impact4

California wolverine No No No Impact4

Pacific pallid bat No No No Impact4

Townsend’s big-eared bat Habitat Habitat No Impact

Fringed myotis No No No Impact4

Northwestern pond turtle No No No Impact

Oregon spotted frog No No No Impact4

Foothill yellow-legged frog Habitat Habitat No Impact

Siskiyou mountains salamander

No No No Impact4

California slender salamander No No No Impact4

Black salamander No No No Impact4 Siskiyou short-horned grasshopper

No No No Impact4

Coronis fritillary Habitat Habitat No Impact

Mardon Skipper Habitat Habitat No Impact

Insular blue butterfly No No No Impact

Hoary elfin No No No Impact

Johnson’s hairstreak Habitat Habitat May Impact

Franklin’s bumblebee No No No Impact4

Siskiyou Hesperian No No No Impact4

Pristine springsnail No No No Impact4

Crater Lake tightcoil No No No Impact4

Pacific walker Habitat No No Impact

Robust walker Habitat No No Impact

Traveling sideband No No No Impact4

Green sideband Habitat Habitat May Impact

Chace Sideband No No No Impact4

Scale lanx No No No Impact4

Highcap lanx Habitat Habitat No Impact

Oregon shoulderband snail No No No Impact4

Klamath rim pebblesnail No No No Impact4

Evening fieldslug No No No Impact4


Pre-Field Review1 Field Reconnaissance2


Western ridged mussel Habitat No No Impact

1 Maps, photographs, databases, and other information were examined to determine the presence of individuals or habitat.

2 Individuals or habitat were observed during field reconnaissance specifically for this project. 3 NLAA = Not Likely to Adversely Affect. 4 Outside of known range. May Impact = May Impact Individuals or Habitat, but is not likely contribute to a trend towards federal listing or cause a loss of viability to the population or species

ANALYSIS OF EFFECTS Proposed, Endangered, or Threatened Species Marbled Murrelet (Brachyramphus marmoratus) Status: Federal - Threatened; State of Oregon – Threatened The marbled murrelet is a small seabird found from Alaska to California. The marbled murrelet spends most of its life at sea but typically nests in trees (Paton and Ralph 1990, Csuti et al. 1997, USDI FWS 1997, Marshall 1998). Nests are almost exclusively located in mature or old-growth conifer trees with large moss-covered branches (Hamer and Nelson 1995a, Jordan and Hughes 1995, Kerns and Miller 1995, Csuti et al. 1997, USDI FWS 1997, Witt 1998). Often the largest trees are selected; however, the nest platform is more important than the tree size (Hamer and Nelson 1995a, Kerns and Miller 1995, USDI FWS 1997). Besides large branches, nesting platforms may be created by mistletoe blooms, limb deformations, decadence, and tree damage (Hamer and Nelson 1995a). Nests are typically located in trees with high overhead cover immediately above the nest and in stands with an average canopy closure of 49% (R = 26 - 72) in the Pacific Northwest (Hamer and Nelson 1995a). Other characteristics associated with nesting areas include multi-layered canopies, low elevation, and close proximity to water (Hamer and Nelson 1995a). The breeding season (egg laying, incubation, and fledging) for marbled murrelets in Oregon begins in late April and extends through the end of September (Hamer and Nelson 1995b). In the Pacific Northwest, murrelets have been found as far inland as 53 miles (USDI FWS 1997). Dillingham et al. (1995), examining murrelet survey data for the Rogue River-Siskiyou N.F., found that no murrelets were detected more than 32 miles from the ocean, although surveys had been conducted up to 47 miles inland. South of the divide between the Rogue and Coquille Rivers, the farthest inland murrelets had been detected was 17 miles (Dillingham et al. 1995). The Pyramid Thin Project is approximately 7 miles from the ocean. FWS listed the marbled murrelet as Threatened under the Endangered Species Act in 1992 (USDI FWS 1992b). The primary reasons postulated for the decline in marbled murrelet numbers included a loss of nesting habitat and poor reproductive success (USDI FWS 1997). Predation via corvids and or rodents is also considered a threat to reproductive success. Critical habitat for marbled murrelets was designated in 1996 and corresponds primarily to areas designated as Late-Successional Reserve in the Northwest Forest Plan (USDA and USDI BLM 1994, USDI FWS 1996).


Current management direction for the marbled murrelet comes from the Northwest Forest Plan ROD and the Marbled Murrelet Recovery Plan (USDA and USDI BLM 1994, USDI FWS 1997). If surveys determine a stand is occupied, then a Late-Successional Reserve is set up to protect all contiguous existing and recruitment habitat (i.e. stands that are capable of becoming marbled murrelet habitat within 25 years) within one-half mile of the occupied site. Suitable habitat is generally 80 years of age or older, is a minimum of 36 inches DBH at the stand level, contains multiple canopy layers, and contains platforms or nesting branches > 5.9 inches in diameter (USDI 2006). Scattered throughout the area around the Pyramid Thin Project, are small pockets and scattered, individual large trees (legacy structure) some of which could serve as nesting habitat and is considered “potential nesting structure” (Roberts, 2004). Approximately 98 acres of potential marbled murrelet nesting structure was surveyed to protocol in 2005 & 2006 within portions of units 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 13. No murrelets were detected. Protocol surveys have occurred in the analysis area in 1994, 1995, 1997, 1998, 2005 and 2006. This has resulted in 23 sightings of marbled murrelets within the analysis area, none of which are within proposed treatment units. Six occupied marbled murrelet areas have been designated within the analysis area. Units 11 and 13 are located immediately adjacent to occupied marbled murrelet habitat. Units 1, 3, 9, 11, 11A and 13 are within specified disturbance distances of occupied or unsurveyed suitable habitat. Marbled Murrelet Project Design Criteria - Mitigation Measures To protect marbled murrelets from disturbance; the following Project Design Criteria (PDC) from the USDI Fish and Wildlife Service Letter of Concurrence (LOC_TAILS-13420-2009-I-0044) dated March 19, 2009 (USDI, 2009) will be applied to proposed activities. Table 2. Project Design Criteria and affected harvest units for the Pyramid Thin Project

Activity Zone of Restricted Operation Harvest Unit

Blast of > 2 pounds of explosive 1 mile N/A Blast of <= 2 pounds of explosive 120 yards N/A Impact pile driver, jackhammer, or rock drill 120 yards N/A Helicopter or single-engine airplane 120 yards for small helicopters Portions of 1, 3, 11 &

13 Helicopter or single-engine airplane 0.25 miles for Type 1 or 2 helicopters 9, 11, 11a & 13, Chainsaws (hazard trees, tree harvest, etc.) 120 yards Portions of 1, 3, 11 &

13 Heavy equipment 120 yards Portions of 1, 3, 11 &

13

Table 3. Project Design Criteria for the protection of marbled murrelet.

Disturbance

For Survey Areas A and B work activities (such as tree felling, yarding, road and other construction activities, hauling on roads not generally used by the public, muffled blasting) which produce noises above ambient levels will not occur within specified distances (see Table 2) of any occupied stand or unsurveyed suitable habitat between April 1 – August 5. For the period between August 6 – September 15, work activities will be confined to between 2 hours after sunrise to 2 hours before sunset.

Disturbance

Blasting (open air/unmuffled) – No blasting activities 1 April through 15 September within 1.0 mile of occupied stands or unsurveyed suitable habitat. This distance may be shortened if significant topographical breaks or blast blankets (or other devices) muffle sound traveling between the blast and nest sites or less than 2 lbs of explosives are used If so, then use described distance.

Disturbance Recommended Delay project implementation until after September 15 where possible

Disturbance Recommended Between 1 April and 15 September, concentrate disturbance activities spatially and temporally as much as possible (e.g., get in and get out, in as small an area as possible; avoid spreading the impacts over time and space).


Helicopter operations During helicopter operations, flights over suitable marbled murrelet habitat will be restricted (helicopter should be a least 1,500 feet above ground level); if not possible, fly a minimum of 500 feet above suitable habitat (above canopy). Trash removal Clean up trash and garbage daily at all construction and logging sites. Keep food out of sight so as not to attract crows and ravens (predators on eggs or young murrelets). Fuels treatment

(I) Burning would not take place within 0.25 mile of known occupied marbled murrelet sites, or unsurveyed marbled murrelet habitat between April 1 and August 6 unless smoke will not drift into the occupied site.

(II) All broadcast and under-burning operations (except for residual “smokes”) will be completed in

the period from two hours after sunrise to two hours before sunset. Direct Effects for the Proposed Action The Proposed Action is considered “May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect”(NLAA) for the marbled murrelet. The project is considered NLAA for marbled murrelet because a Limited Operating Period prevents harassment of potentially nesting murrelets adjacent to operating areas. Approximately 98 acres of potential marbled murrelet nesting structure will be maintained. Treatment Units #11 & 13 are adjacent to occupied marbled murrelet Late-Successional Reserves. Portions of units 1 and 3 are adjacent to unsurveyed suitable habitat. The Limited Operating Period minimizes the potential for harassment to nesting murrelets. The proposed thinning would remove 33 to 40 percent of the trees within the harvest units while leaving the largest trees. Over the long term, the thinning should allow the remaining trees to reach a larger diameter and develop larger branches sooner than would be possible if no thinning occurred. The planned major haul route is on roads already open to public use suggesting a murrelet tolerance to motorized traffic on these roads including road maintenance and road improvement activities. The Proposed Action is considered “No Effect” (NE) to marbled murrelet critical habitat. The project is considered NE because harvest units are not within marbled murrelet Critical Habitat Units and the proposed action will not impact or modify any primary constitute elements of marbled murrelet Critical Habitat (CHU). Indirect Effects for the Proposed Action Under the Proposed Action, indirect effects include the potential for harassing, via noise, of undetected murrelet in the analysis area. However, seasonal restrictions included in the Project Design Criteria should minimize this potential. Cumulative Effects Cumulative effects include the effects of foreseeable future State, local, or private activities that are reasonably certain to occur within the action area. There is little habitat on private land for murrelets in the analysis area. Cumulative effects include the effects of loss of habitat and harassment potential associated with forest fires, e.g. Biscuit Fire of 2002 and Blossom Complex 2005 which reduced suitable murrelet habitat by approximately 37,000 acres.


Density management effects of this project also combine with those of district-wide pre-commercial and commercial thinning operations; Equine Thin proposes to treat approximately 1,275, including 1,000 acres of potentially suitable habitat for murrelets. The Long Ridge-Sorrel Project proposes to treat approximately 300 acres for meadow restoration including approximately 10 acres of suitable habitat for murrelets. The Mineral Fork Timber Sale treated 114 acres of forest and Low Meadow proposes to treat 152 acres, some of these acres are potentially murrelet habitat. Southwest Thin (522 acres) and Too Wild treated 529 acres. Coastal Healthy Forest Treatment (47,400 acres) would not treat habitat, though any projects that could potentially treat murrelet habitat would have protocol surveys conducted during implementation and prior to treatment. Based on surveys, no occupied habitat would be treated. Northern Spotted Owl (Strix occidentalis caurina) Status: Federal – Threatened; State of Oregon - Threatened

The northern spotted owl was listed as a Threatened species by FWS on 26 June 1990 (USDI FWS 1990). The Final Recovery Plan for the Northern Spotted Owl (USDI FWS 2008a) relies on Federal lands to provide the major contribution for spotted owl recovery. In the western Physiographic Provinces, Managed Owl Conservation Areas (MOCAs) are recommended to provide habitat for the recovery of the spotted owl. Outside of MOCAs, substantially all older and more structurally complex multi-layered confer (high quality) forests on Federal lands are to be maintained in the western Provinces. In the fire-prone Provinces (East Cascades Provinces of Washington and Oregon, California Cascades), a landscape management approach is recommended to allow spotted owl recovery in an area strongly influenced by natural disturbances. In the Oregon and California Klamath Provinces, this Plan calls for an adaptive management approach to fire management and spotted owl recovery. Conservation Support Areas (CSAs) are also described and are intended to support the MOCA network and the landscape-management approach. The MOCA network is based on previous designs of conservation areas for the spotted owl (Thomas et al. 1990; USFWS 1992b), and is intended to support a stable number of breeding pairs of spotted owls over time and allow for movement of spotted owls across the network. Conservation Support Areas (CSAs) outside of Federal lands were added to support the MOCA network and assist in achieving the Recovery Criteria (USDI FWS 2008a). Critical habitat for the northern spotted owl was designated on 1 January 1992 (USDI FWS 1992a). A revised designation of critical habitat was published in the Federal Register in August 2008 (USDI FWS 2008b). Critical habitat for the northern spotted owl corresponds closely with those areas designated as Late-Successional Reserve in the Northwest Forest Plan (USDA and USDI BLM 1994). The spotted owl’s listing reflected primarily the loss of suitable habitat for spotted owls. In their 2004 evaluation of the status of the northern spotted owl, Courtney et al. (2004) state that present major threats to the species include the effects of past and current timber harvest; loss of habitat to fire; and barred owls. The 2004 authors go on to state that other threats are also present but of threats identified at the time of listing, only one (predation linked to fragmentation) is not well supported.


In their five year status review of the spotted owl, Courtney et al. (2004) report that predation on spotted owls has not been directly observed though great horned owls (Bubo virginianus) are presumed to be a major spotted owl predator. Furthermore, an evaluation of numerous corpses strongly indicate predation as the cause of death (Courtney 2004). Miller (1989) does report predation of juvenile spotted owls by great horned owls and starvation as the two main causes of mortality. Johnson (1992) implicates northern goshawks (Accipiter gentiles), Cooper’s hawks (Accipiter cooperi), red-tailed hawks, and great horned owls as potential avian predators. In their work in western Oregon, Forsman et al. (1984; 1998) identify great horned owls as a spotted owl predator. The five year status review includes a report by Leskiw and Gutiérrez (1998) of perhaps having recorded the predation of a spotted owl by a barred owl (Strix varia); Gutiérrez et al. (1995) share that fisher (Martes pennanti) have been seen climbing in spotted owl nest trees and may eat spotted owl eggs and young. It appears then that predation of adult spotted owls, their young, and or eggs could be preyed upon by wildlife species associated with late seral conifer forest as well as those associated with edge habitat. Current management direction for the northern spotted owl has its basis in A Conservation Strategy for the Northern Spotted Owl (Thomas et al. 1990). Direction stems from the Northwest Forest Plan, which amended current forest planning documents and established a system of Late-Successional Reserves (LSR) across the landscape to provide habitat for the recovery of spotted owl populations. The Pyramid Thin Project analysis area is within the Southwest Oregon Mixed Conifer-Hardwood Forest (SOMC-H Forest) habitat type where northern spotted owl is known to breed and forage (O’Neil et al. 2001). Structural conditions, within the SOMC-H Forest habitat type used by the spotted owl include the Small tree (10-14” DBH) – Single story – Open (10-39% canopy cover) condition for feeding, to the Giant (>29” DBH) – Multi-story condition used for feeding and breeding. Thomas et al. (1990) disclosed northern spotted owls’ use of old-growth forests almost exclusively and rarely use clearcuts or young forest plantations. When young stands are used, they typically contain remnant large trees (Thomas et al. 1990). Where timber harvest has occurred, spotted owls are usually found in the remaining patches of old-growth and mature forest (Forsman 1982). Habitat features associated with forests used by spotted owls include multi-layered canopies, relatively high canopy closure, large diameter trees, and numerous snags and logs (Forsman 1982, Thomas et al. 1990). These stand features are related to requirements for feeding, nesting, and roosting (Forsman 1982). Spotted owls most commonly nest in tree cavities or on platforms created by debris or mistletoe infections (Thomas et al. 1990). The proposed treatment units are dominated by the mid-seral stage and consist largely of dispersal only habitat for spotted owls. The mid seral stage is defined as areas with trees less than 22 inches dbh. The average diameter at breast height of trees in the units is 12 to 20 inches; average stand ages is from 65 - 90 years. Thinning would remove the smaller trees leaving between 60-65% percent of the trees on site. The remaining trees may include some exceeding 30 inches dbh. These trees are not old trees, just young trees growing well on good growing sites. A few larger diameter trees may be cut and removed, primarily associated with temporary road construction. The expected canopy closure after thinning is approximately 42-59 percent. Spotted owl sightings for the analysis area were associated with spotted owl surveys of 2003, 2004 and 2008; with an incidental detection during murrelet surveying in 2006. (Table 4). The analysis area is being surveyed in 2009. No suitable nesting, roosting, foraging habitat occurs within treatment units. If spotted owls are detected, Project Design Criteria (PDC) from the USDI Fish and Wildlife Service Letter of Concurrence (LOC) on Informal Consultation on Vegetation Management Activities proposed by the Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest (FWS TAILS-13420-2009-I-0044), March 2009) will be followed.


Table 4. Summary of the 2003, 2004 and 2008 spotted owl surveys for the Pyramid Thin Project. Includes Incidental Detections AREA COMMENTS

Section 16, near the northern end of the project area. 2003 & 2004. Male spotted owl. Vicinity of a historic activity center.

Southwest corner of the project area 2003. A barred owl was detected two visits in 2003 but not in 2004.

Section 32, about 2.5 miles south of the section 16 detection.

2004. Spotted owl. Not detected in 2003. Within a historic activity center and in nesting status.

Southwest corner of the project area.

2004. A single spotted owl was detected during a fourth survey in July, indicating the possibility of another spotted owl center in this vicinity

Southern portion of the project area. 2006. A male spotted owl was detected during marbled murrelet surveys. It was determined, with a follow-up visit, to be a non-nesting single male.

Adjacent to Owl Activity Center #375

2008 A male spotted owl was detected at night. Not re-located during the follow-up survey.

Southwest portion of project area 2008. A male spotted owl was detected. Not re-located during the follow-up survey.

Southern portion of the project area. 2008. A male spotted owl was detected. Not re-located during the follow-up survey.

Adjacent to Owl Activity Center #375

2008. A barred owl heard 1/3 mile North of 1503035A

Southwest portion of project area 2008. A barred owl heard 1703101A

Portions of three northern spotted owl activity center provincial home ranges occur within the analysis area. No nesting, roosting and foraging suitable habitat occurs within proposed treatment areas. Table 5. Nesting, Roosting & Foraging Acres within NSO Activity Center Patch, Core & Mean Home Range

Patch (300M) Core (0.5miles) Home Range

(1.3miles) NOS Activity Center Acres % Acres % Acres %

81 37 53% 277 55% 1,503 45% 361 40 57% 212 42% 933 28% 375 19 27% 188 38% 1,348 40%

Managed Owl Conservation Areas (MOCAs) and Conservation Support Areas (CSAs). The proposed project is not within any designated Managed Owl Conservation Areas or Conservation Support Area. Critical Habitat Units. The proposed project is outside of designated northern spotted owl Critical Habitat Units.


Late-Successional Reserves. The proposed project is outside of Mapped Late-Successional Reserves. Connectivity. To provide connectivity between habitats, the conservation strategy for the northern spotted owl (Thomas et al. 1990) recommends maintaining 50 percent of the forest landscape outside Habitat Conservation Areas with a mean tree diameter at breast height of 11 inches and 40 percent canopy closure. The proposed thinning would maintain the canopy closure above 40 percent and would not reduce the mean tree diameter below 11 inches dbh. The existing connectivity function and dispersal habitat (about 72% of the analysis area) would remain after treatment. Unroaded Habitat Area. A 1,780 acre area with low levels of existing road is present in the northeastern portion of the analysis area (also see Wildlife Habitat Examination for this project). This area is a combination of mid-sere, mature, and legacy structure conifer forest habitat (see Structural Condition section for definitions). The unroaded habitat area is relatively unique for the analysis area in its having contiguous, high canopy closure (>60%) forest cover. Legacy structure, that is forest components that are remnant from a prior habitat condition, occupies about 303 acres (17%) of the unroaded habitat area. This legacy structure can form and serve as foci for “old-growth forest” habitat. The unroaded habitat area shows connectivity to the North Fork Pistol River drainage which promotes dispersal potential for those wildlife species more closely associated with moderate to high canopy closure, and late sere habitat associated species, e.g. northern spotted owl and marbled murrelet. Two spotted owl activity centers are present within this area. Owl activity center #81 is in the northern half of the “unroaded habitat” area and on the eastern side of the North Fork Pistol River. Owl activity center #375 is in the southern half of the “unroaded habitat” area. The closest treatment unit to spotted owl center #81 is Unit #1 at 0.9 miles. The closest treatment unit to spotted owl center #375 is Unit #7 at 0.3 miles. The Proposed Action (most of Unit 3 and portions of Units 1, 2 and 5) reduces canopy closure along the west-southwestern border of this area. Almost a mile of temporary roads would be constructed (0.95 miles), closed and rehabilitated after use to access timber within the “unroaded habitat” area. No roads would be constructed under Alternatives #3 and #4. In addition, landings would be constructed along existing roads within the “unroaded habitat” area. Northern Spotted Owl Project Design Criteria - Mitigation Measures For treatment units or portions thereof within specified distances of known nest or spotted owl activity centers, work activities which produce noise and are above ambient levels will not occur during the period March 1 through June 30 (USDI 2009). This measure decreases the likelihood of treatment activities impairing reproduction or substantially altering animal behavior. Given current information, including surveys in 2003, 2004 and 2008, ground operations are not temporally limited at any of the treatment units. Treatment Unit #7 has a spotted owl center (#375) about 0.28 miles to the northeast; Treatment Unit #1 has a center (#81) about 0.9 miles to east-northeast; Treatment Unit #12 has a center (#361) about 1 mile to the east-southeast. To minimize disturbance to northern spotted owls the following Project Design Criteria (PDC) from the USDI Fish and Wildlife Service Letter of Concurrence (LOC) on Informal Consultation on Vegetation Management Activities proposed by the Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest (FWS TAILS-13420-2009-I-0044), March 2009.


Table 6. Project Design Criteria and affected harvest units for the Pyramid Thin Project

Activity Zone of Restricted Operation Harvest Unit

Blast of > 2 pounds of explosive 1 mile N/A Blast of <= 2 pounds of explosive 120 yards N/A Impact pile driver, jackhammer, or rock drill 60 yards N/A Helicopter or single-engine airplane 120 yards for small helicopters none Helicopter Type 1 or 2 0.25 miles for Type 1 or 2 helicopters Adjacent to unit 7

(NSO activity center #375)

Chainsaws (hazard trees, tree harvest, etc.) 65 yards none Heavy equipment 35 yards none

Table 7. Project Design Criteria for the protection of northern spotted owl. Any of the following Mandatory PDCs may be waived in a particular year if nesting or reproductive success surveys conducted according to the Service-endorsed survey guidelines reveal that spotted owls are non-nesting or that no young are present that year. Waivers are valid only until March 1 of the following year. Previously known sites/activity centers are assumed occupied unless protocol surveys indicate otherwise.

Disturbance

1) Work activities (such as tree felling, yarding, road construction, hauling on roads not generally used by the public, prescribed fire, muffled blasting) that produce loud noises above ambient levels, or produce thick smoke that would enter the stand, will not occur within specified distances (see Table above) of any nest site or activity center of known pairs and resident singles between 1 March and 30 June (or until two weeks after the fledging period) – unless protocol surveys have determined the activity center to be not occupied, non-nesting, or failed in their nesting attempt. The restricted zone is 1.0 mile for any unmuffled blasting. This distance may be shortened if significant topographical breaks or blast blankets (or other devices) muffle sound traveling between the blast and nest sites. March 1 – June 30 is considered the critical early nesting period; the action agency biologist has the option to extend the restricted season during the year of harvest, based on site-specific knowledge (such as a late or recycle nesting attempt). The boundary of the prescribed area may be modified by the action agency biologist using topographic features or other site-specific information. The restricted area is calculated as a radius from the assumed nest site (point).

Disturbance 2)Broadcast burning will not take place within 0.25 mile of known active northern spotted owl nests between 1 March and 30 June (or until two weeks after the fledging period) unless smoke will not drift into the nest stand.

Disturbance

3) If an active spotted owl nest or activity center is located within or adjacent to a project area, delay the project activity until September 30th or until an action agency biologist determines that young are not present. For a given situation, the “adjacent” distance is determined by the action agency biologist. If any project activity is so close to a known or suspected owl site that the disturbance would flush a nesting spotted owl, curtail the project activity until September 30. The field biologist has the discretion to conduct surveys and determine fledging activity.

Direct Effects for the Proposed Action The Proposed Action is considered “May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect” for the northern spotted owl. The project is considered NLAA for northern spotted owl because of habitat degradation (stand simplification of spotted owl dispersal habitat). A Limited Operating Period prevents harassment of potentially nesting spotted owls adjacent to operating areas. The Proposed Action is considered “No Effect” (NE) to northern spotted owl critical habitat. The project is considered NE because harvest units are not within northern spotted owl Units (CHU). The Proposed Action is considered “No Effect” (NE) to northern spotted owl Managed Owl Conservation Areas (MOCAs) and Conservation Support Areas (CSAs) because the proposed project is not within any designated Managed Owl Conservation Areas or Conservation Support Area.


The Proposed Action is considered “No Effect” (NE) to Late-Successional Reserves because the proposed project is outside of Mapped Late-Successional Reserves. The proposed action would treat and maintain 291 acres of spotted owl dispersal habitat and treat 20 acres of non-habitat. The Pyramid Thin Project is determined to be “May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect” for the northern spotted owl. The resultant canopy closure (42-59%) and residual tree structure (the larger tree component) is likely to maintain the dispersal function of the treated stands. The reduced structural complexity, e.g. loss of snags and vertical canopy diversity, is a degradation of habitat quality for late-successional associated species but the effect on wildlife of this degree of change is likely quite low. Northern spotted owls already using the area would most likely continue doing so and their ability to disperse across, into, and through the North Fork Pistol River drainage is not likely to be impeded. The project area has been surveyed to protocol and detected spotted owls are not nesting within any of the units. Detected owls may be using the project area for foraging and would likely continue to do so. Originally, some larger trees existed within the units; however, boundaries for the harvest units were re-delineated or units were dropped to avoid areas where large diameter trees were common and there was potential for suitable habitat for spotted owls. The nature of the treatment prescription would retain the largest overstory trees. A few of the larger diameter trees may be removed as part of temporary road construction (see Temporary Road Report, Appendix A). Over the long term, the thinning should allow the remaining trees to reach a larger diameter and develop larger branches sooner than would be possible if no thinning were done. No snags or down woody material is proposed for removal. Dispersal habitat would be maintained within all units. Indirect Effects for the Proposed Action Harvest and vegetation treatments may improve foraging habitat conditions for prey (USDI, 2009). Lemkuhl et al. (2006) confirmed the importance of maintaining snags, down wood and mistletoe. Primary prey species of spotted owls are small mammals that include northern flying squirrels (Glaucomys sabrinus) and dusky-footed (Neotoma fuscipes) and bushy-tailed (N. cinerea) woodrats, followed by tree voles (Arborimus and Clethrionomys) and mice (Peromyscus spp.). While flying squirrels tend to increase in abundance in older forests, they can also be common in younger stands. Dusky-footed wood rats tend to be more abundant in younger and drier forest stands and bushy-tailed woodrats are often associated with cliffs, rock outcrops, and talus, but they also occupy hollow trees and logs. Tree voles appear to show a positive correlation with stand age and are more abundant in old-growth forests. Density management can have short term (less than 5 years) adverse impacts on prey species and foraging and dispersal habitat given the removal of vegetative cover for small mammals. However, Gomez et al. (2005) noted that commercial thinning in young stands of Coastal Oregon Douglas-fir (35-45 yr) did not have a measurable short-term effect on density, survival or body mass of northern flying squirrels, an important prey species for spotted owls. Gomez et al. (2005) also noted the importance of fungal sporocarps, which were positively associated with large down wood. Some disturbance of habitat may improve forage conditions, provided under-story structure and cover are retained. Removal of some tree canopy, provided it is not too extreme, would bring more light and resources into the stand, stimulating forbs, shrubs and other prey food. Once the initial impact of disturbance recovers (6 months to two years), the understory habitat conditions for prey food should increase over the next few years, until shrubs and residual trees respond to again close in the stand.


In addition, residual trees, snags and down wood that are retained in the thinned stands would provide some cover for prey species over time, and would help minimize harvest impacts to some prey species. Some arboreal prey species would venture into harvest units a short distance for food. Northern spotted owls seldom venture far into non-forested stands to hunt. However, edges can be areas of good prey availability and potentially increased vulnerability (i.e. better hunting for owls) (Zabel 1995). The retained trees may respond favorably to more light and resources and gain height and canopy over time (USDI, 2009). Indirect effects of the proposed action (timber harvest activities, haul, road maintenance, fuels, etc.) to prey species of the proposed action is expected to be minor. Cumulative Effects Cumulative effects include the effects of foreseeable future State, local, or private activities that are reasonably certain to occur within the action area. There is little habitat on private land for spotted owls in the analysis area. Cumulative effects include the effects of loss of habitat and harassment potential associated with forest fires, e.g. Biscuit Fire of 2002 and Blossom Complex 2005 which reduced suitable spotted owl habitat by approximately 65,000 acres. Vegetation management projects that may treat spotted owl suitable habitat are ongoing on the District; Equine Thin proposes to treat approximately 1,275 acres, including 1,000 acres of potentially suitable habitat for spotted owls. The Long Ridge-Sorrel Project proposes to treat approximately 300 acres for meadow restoration including approximately 100 acres of potentially suitable habitat for spotted owls. The Mineral Fork Timber Sale treated and maintains 114 acres of suitable habitat and Low Meadow proposes to treat 152 acres of suitable habitat. Density management effects of this project combine with those of forest-wide pre-commercial and commercial thinning operations, e.g. Coastal Healthy Forest Treatment (47,400 acres) and Southwest Thin (522 acres) and Too Wild treated 529 acres; these sales treat dispersal habitat and would maintain dispersal habitat. These sales would likely increase growth and allow young stands to become suitable for spotted owls sooner than if they were not treated.

Forest Service Region 6 Sensitive Species Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) Status: Federal - USDA FS Sensitive (Region 6), State of Oregon – Threatened, USDI FWS 2008c Birds of Conservation Concern Bald eagles were listed as Endangered in Oregon and elsewhere by the FWS in 1967 (USDI FWS 1967). In 1995, bald eagles were down listed to threatened status (USDI FWS 1995. The bald eagle was removed from the federal list of endangered and threatened plants and wildlife by a ruling published in the Federal Register on July 9, 2007 and effective August 8, 2007 (72 FR37346). Bald eagles continue to be protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940. The Act prohibits disturbance, recently defined by FWS as:

“to agitate or bother a bald or golden eagle to a degree that causes, or is likely to cause, based on the best scientific information available, 1) injury to an eagle, 2) a decrease in its productivity, by substantially interfering with normal breeding, feeding, or sheltering behavior, or 3) nest abandonment, by substantially interfering with normal breeding, feeding, or sheltering behavior.” (72 FR 31332).


Bald eagle habitat on the Rogue River-Siskiyou N.F. is protected and managed in accordance with the Pacific Bald Eagle Recovery Plan (USDI FWS 1986), and Standards and Guidelines 4-3 and 4-4 of the Siskiyou National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (USDA 1989). As part of the recovery plan, key nesting habitat areas have been identified on the Rogue River-Siskiyou N.F. along the Rogue, Illinois, and Sixes Rivers (USDI FWS 1986). Most bald eagles nest within 0.6 to 1.2 miles of aquatic foraging areas, which is typically a lake, reservoir, large river, or coastal estuary (Anthony et al. 1982, Stalmaster 1987, Anthony and Isaacs 1989, Johnsgard 1990, Garrett et al. 1993). Nest trees are usually the dominant trees in the stand, often much larger than the surrounding trees (Anthony et al. 1982, Stalmaster 1987). The nest trees provide adequate support for the large nests, an open flight path to the nest, and a view of the surrounding terrain (Stalmaster 1987). Although bald eagles usually nest near water, they will search areas away from water to find suitable structure for their nest (Anthony et al. 1982, Stalmaster 1987). Young stands are avoided, but eagles do desire large openings in the canopy provided by lakes, rivers, and meadows (Stalmaster 1987). Roosting and perching habitat is also important. Roost trees are often the largest trees in the stand (Anthony et al. 1982). When selecting roost trees, eagles choose trees providing greater shelter versus trees close to food (Stalmaster 1987). On the other hand, trees used for perching are usually near water and food (Stalmaster 1987). Perches are used for resting, hunting, and eating (Stalmaster 1987). The species of tree is less important than the location and form of the tree (Stalmaster 1987). Bald eagles require an abundant supply of food because of their large size (Stalmaster 1987, Johnsgard 1990). Bald eagles feed on fish, waterfowl, small mammals, and carrion (Stalmaster 1987, Johnsgard 1990). The specific diet may vary by season and location (Stalmaster 1987). On the Rogue River-Siskiyou N.F., major rivers provide the best habitat for bald eagles. The Rogue River is the nearest large river to the Pyramid Thin Project analysis area. The Rogue River is approximately 7 miles NW of the analysis area. The only known nests near the Pyramid Thin Project occur along the Rogue River near Libby Creek, Quosatana Creek, Blue Jay and Watson Creek. No suitable habitat for bald eagles exists in or adjacent to the Pyramid Thin Project, and no documented sightings are on record. There are no rivers or other large water bodies in the area large enough to support nesting bald eagles. The Pyramid Thin Project is considered “No Impact” on the bald eagle. American Peregrine Falcon (Falco peregrinus anatum) Status: USDA Forest Service – Sensitive, USDI FWS 2008c Birds of Conservation Concern References: Johnsgard (1990), USDI Fish and Wildlife Service (1999) The American peregrine falcon was identified as an endangered species in the 1970s and then delisted in 1999. Peregrine falcons are typically associated with cliffs, which serve as nesting and perching sites. Nest site criteria include ledges, potholes, and small caves that are near water, inaccessible to mammalian predators, and offer protection from rain and snow, and heat and cold. Peregrine falcons feed almost exclusively on birds.


Cliffs with suitable ledges provide nesting habitat for peregrine falcons. Peregrine habitat on the Siskiyou portion of the Forest is managed in accordance with the Regional Forester's letter of July 19, 1999 (USDA 1999b) and Standard and Guideline 4-5 of the Land and Resource Management Plan for the Siskiyou National Forest (1989). To date, six active nests are known on the Siskiyou. On 25 August 1999, the USDI (1999) Fish and Wildlife Service removed (delisted) the American peregrine falcon throughout its range as a threatened species from the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife, thereby removing all protections provided by the Act. A strategy for the 5-year monitoring plan that follows the delisting ahs been developed and in being implemented (FWS 2003). Evaluation of impacts of Proposed Actions on the peregrine falcon should follow the process described in FSM 2673.4 and be documented in the Biological Evaluation. If a proposed project may potentially impact the species or its habitat, surveys using the Regional protocol (Pagel 1988) should be conducted. No sightings of peregrine falcons have been reported in the Pyramid Thin analysis area, Hunter Creek watershed or Pistol River watershed. The Pyramid Thin Project will have “No Impact” on the American peregrine falcon. No suitable habitat exists within the Pyramid Thin Project analysis area and no peregrines falcons have been observed in the area. Lewis’ Woodpecker (Menalerpes lewis) Federal – Region 6 Sensitive References - Gilligan et al. (1994), Janes et al. (2002) Lewis’ woodpeckers are migratory in southwestern Oregon, with sporadically large populations in the winter and scattered breeding pairs in the summer reported. Gilligan et al. (1994) reports that they are common breeders in summer in Jackson and Josephine Counties but in the last 10 years they have not been documented (N. Barrett 2008, pers. com.) and there are few recent breeding records (Janes et al. 2002). This species is closely tied to the ponderosa pine/oak savannah habitats of eastern and southwest Oregon. Nests are often in the large Ponderosa Pine snags or mature oaks while the birds forage on insects and acorn meat. In winter they store acorn meat in crevices in trees and power poles. Because this woodpecker does not usually excavate its own cavity, they have a close tie to older snags within the forest that are likely to contain cavities and have crevices for food storage. Conservation: The population of Lewis’ woodpeckers has fallen dramatically across Oregon as pine – oak woodlands are lost (Gilligan et al. 1994). A contributing factor in the decline has been the spread of the European Starling, which aggressively out competes this species for available cavities. Habitat loss is due to a wide variety of concerns that include urbanization of valley floors, fire suppression and encroachment of conifer forests, timber harvest of pine components in the oak forests, etc. This species would benefit from a variety of active management practices designed to enhance large ponderosa pine snags in an open stand. This includes wide spaced thinning of Ponderosa pine, and commercial thinning of young pine stands. Snag creation within pine stands would also benefit the species. Treatments that remove the large trees and older snags from stands would be detrimental to the species. The species has been detected within the analysis area, close to the northeastern edge of Unit #8. Treatment units 7 & 8 have Oregon white oak and pine trees. Lewis’s woodpecker may be negatively impacted by the felling of snags associated with logging operations and temporary road construction which would reduce the availability of standing dead wood and increase the amount of down dead wood. However, the thinning prescription leaves all hardwoods and conifers other than Douglas-fir. If the creation of snags by girdling or topping following sale activities occurs there would be an increase in the amount of larger snags currently available within treatment units.


The Pyramid Thin Project is considered a “May Impact Individuals and or Habitat but not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of viability.” project for Lewis’ woodpecker because of potential disturbance to individuals and limited adverse effects to habitat from treatments. Adverse effects are limited because the scale of impacts is very small compared to the scale of the distribution of these species. Cumulative Effects Cumulative effects include the effects of foreseeable future State, local, or private activities that are reasonably certain to occur within the action area. There is likely little habitat on private land for the woodpecker in the analysis area. Cumulative effects include the effects associated with forest fires, e.g. Biscuit Fire of 2002 and Blossom Complex 2005 which may have reduced oak woodlands to some extent, but also likely greatly increased snag habitat over the approximately 470,000 acres within those fires. District-wide pre-commercial and commercial thinning operations are ongoing; Equine Thin proposes to treat approximately 1,275 acres of forest lands. The Mineral Fork Timber Sale proposes to treat and maintain 114 acres of suitable habitat and Low Meadow proposes to treat 152 acres. The Coastal Healthy Forest Treatment may treat 47,400 acres and Southwest Thin (522 acres) and Too Wild treated 529 acres. All of these projects could potentially impact snag habitat for woodpeckers but may also increase forage and snag habitat for the woodpecker. The Long Ridge-Sorrel Project proposes to treat approximately 300 acres for meadow restoration which would likely increase early seral habitat and snag habitat for Lewis’ woodpeckers. Other meadow restoration projects in the Gold Beach RD would also increase habitat opportunities for this species by eliminating conifers encroaching into historical meadow habitat. Pacific Fisher (Martes Pennanti) Status: Federal - USDA FS Sensitive (Region 6); State of Oregon – Critical The Pacific fisher was petitioned for listing by the Center for Biological Diversity and several other environmental organizations in November 2000. After a 12-month review, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service found Pacific fisher to be a distinct population segment (DPS) and gave a “warranted but precluded” decision to the petition, designating the West Coast DPS a Federal Candidate species (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2004). Other rankings include: U.S.D.A Forest Service, Region 6 – Sensitive, Region 5 - Sensitive; U.S.D.I. Bureau of Land Management, Oregon – Sensitive, California - Sensitive; Oregon State Sensitive – Critical species, California State – Species of Special Concern; The Natural Heritage Program ranks this species as Globally demonstrably widespread (G5), Oregon State (S2) imperiled because of rarity or other factors, and ORNHIC List 2. Range and Distribution According to reviews, the fisher occurs from southern Yukon and southwestern Northwest Territories southeast through British Columbia and possibly extreme southeastern Alaska, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario, southern Quebec, and New Brunswick to Nova Scotia. Its distribution extends south through several forested areas of the northeastern United States including Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, northern New York, Pennsylvania, western Massachusetts, the upper peninsula of Michigan, and northern Wisconsin and Minnesota. There is also a population in West Virginia. In the western United States, fisher populations are known to occur in western Montana, the Idaho panhandle, the southern Sierra Nevada of California, the Klamath and Siskiyou mountains of northwestern California and extreme southwestern Oregon, and the southern Cascade Range of southwestern Oregon. The fisher may be extirpated from Washington (Meyer 2007). However, there has been a recent fisher reintroduction effort in the Olympic Peninsula in 2007 and 2008 (Happe et al. 2008).


The geographic distribution of fishers in the Pacific Coast states has been greatly reduced in extent from pre-settlement conditions. Prior to extensive European settlement, the fisher occupied most coniferous forest habitats in Washington, Oregon, and California (Aubry and Lewis 2003). Persistence of fishers in Washington is questionable. Lewis and Stinson (1998) reported that the fisher is very rare in Washington. Extensive surveys by the Washington Dept. of Fish and Wildlife and the U.S. Forest Service have failed to locate a fisher population, or confirm the presence of a fisher in areas where recent reports are concentrated (Lewis and Stinson 1998). Fishers have recently been reintroduced on the Olympic Peninsula. One telemetry study and several surveys conducted by various agencies and individuals have documented fishers in the southern Oregon Cascades and Siskiyou Mountains (Aubry et al. 1997, Slauson and Zielinski 2001, Aubry and Raley 2006, E. Weir 2003, Aubry et al. 2005, Farber and Criss 2006). The presence of fishers in California is well-documented (Zielinski et al. 1995, Farber and Franklin 2005, Farber and Criss 2006). Populations The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has determined that fishers in the Cascade Range and all areas west, to the coast in Oregon and Washington; and in California, the North Coast from Mendocino County north to Oregon, east across the Klamath Mountains, across the southern Cascade Range and south through the Sierra Nevada as the West Coast Distinct Population Segment (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2004). Currently, there are two documented populations in southern Oregon which appear to be genetically isolated from each other (Aubry et al. 2004). This is considered to be due to the presence of potentially strong ecological and anthropogenic barriers including the white oak savanna habitat of the Rogue Valley and Interstate 5. Based on DNA analyses, individuals in the southern Oregon Cascades appear to be descendents of animals re-introduced from British Columbia and Minnesota during the late 1970s and early 1980s by the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (Drew et al. 2003). Animals in the eastern Siskiyou Mountains of Oregon are genetically related to individuals in the northwestern California population, which is indigenous (Wisely et al. 2004, Farber and Franklin 2005). Fisher home range sizes exhibit substantial variation throughout their range and within habitat types, although male home ranges are generally larger than those of females. Home range size for fishers is likely related to availability of resources including abundance and diversity of prey and suitable habitats for den and rest sites. Male home range sizes may be influenced by availability of females. Mean home range sizes of males in the southern Cascades of Oregon was 147 km2 during the breeding season and 62 km2 during the non-breeding season compared to female home ranges of 25 km2 (Aubry and Raley 2006). The Pacific Southwest Research Station (PSW) conducted a smokeplate track survey in 1997 (following Zielinski and Kucera 1995) for marten and fisher across the Gold Beach and Chetco Ranger Districts. Marten were detected in the Lower Rogue, Hunter Creek, Pistol River and Chetco watersheds. Fisher were detected in the North Fork Smith watershed. Spotted skunk, gray fox, ringtail, and northern flying squirrel were also detected. Remote cameras sets were installed at four locations along Agness Road in 1993 (1 station) and 1996 (3 stations). Spotted skunk, gray fox and turkey vultures were captured on film. No fishers were recorded. Recent surveys by the Coos Bay BLM detected fisher in the Upper Pistol River and North Fork Chetco River watersheds (Greg Bennett pers. comm.). Suitable habitat for fishers exists in the Pyramid Thin Project analysis area. There is a 1966 record of a fisher approximately 2 miles south of treatment unit 13. A total of 35.5 miles of snow track surveys within the Hunter Creek watershed and 33 miles within Pistol River watershed were completed in 1994 and 1997(Dillingham, 1997). Additional surveys within these watersheds occurred on 27 Jan 1999 and 30 Jan 1999. No fisher tracks were observed, however marten, cougar, bear and other wildlife tracks were identified.


Reproduction Fishers exhibit intra-sexual territoriality, where individuals defend a home range against members of the same sex, but there is considerable overlap between sexes. These territories are maintained year-round except at times during the breeding season when males may trespass on each other’s territories while they search for receptive females (Powell 1993). In Oregon, the breeding season begins in early February when adult males became more active and start to make longer distance movements. Males sometimes moved well beyond their non-breeding season home ranges, presumably to find reproductive females (Aubry et al. 2004). Mating occurs shortly after parturition, although the fertilized eggs do not implant for approximately 10 months. Active pregnancy typically begins in February and lasts until March or early April, when fishers give birth to an average of 2 to 3 kits (Meyer 2007). In southwestern Oregon, adult females gave birth to kits from about 17 March to 5 April, and the natal denning period lasted until late-May or the beginning of June (Aubry and Raley 2006). Home Range, Movement, and Dispersal The size of fisher home ranges varies both regionally and by habitat condition, although male home ranges are generally larger than those of females. Home range size for fishers is likely related to the availability of resources, including abundance and diversity of prey and suitable habitats for den and rest sites. Male home range sizes may also be influenced by the availability of females. Mean home range sizes of males in the southern Cascades of Oregon was 147 km2 during the breeding season and 62 km2 during the non-breeding season compared to female home ranges of 25 km2 (Aubry and Raley 2006). Male home ranges near the north coast of California averaged 58 km2 compared to 15 km2 for females (Zielinski et al. 2004). Seasonal movements are generally related to the breeding period for males. In southwest Oregon, male home ranges were twice as large during the breeding season compared to the non-breeding season (Aubry and Raley 2006). One adult male who resided on the east slope of the Cascade Range during the non-breeding season traveled approximately 30 km across the Cascade crest to the west slope during 3 successive breeding seasons (Aubry et al. 2004). Aubry and Raley (2006) used fixed-wing aircraft to monitor two adult males during the breeding season and reported that a 3 year old male occupied a 226 km2 area, and a 6 year old male occupied a 100 km2 area. The younger male made excursions far to the south of his non-breeding season home range, and the older male moved primarily within his non-breeding home range with some excursions beyond his usual activity area. During the denning season, females on the Hoopa Reservation used an average of 3.1 dens/season and moved kits a cumulative average distance of 871 m with a range of 85-2,228 m. Dens were located an average of 414 m apart. Despite the distance between den structures, dens used each year were located within a small, concentrated area of each females home range (Mathews 2006). In southwestern Oregon, when females moved their kits from the natal den, subsequent use of maternal dens was variable. Females that only had 1 kit were relatively mobile and few maternal dens were found. In contrast, when females had ≥2 kits, maternal dens were found regularly and at least some of the dens were used for >2 weeks (Aubry and Raley 2006). At 2-3 months of age, juveniles begin foraging for themselves, though they remain on their mother’s home range until they disperse at 6-12 months of age (Powell 1993). Riparian corridors (Heinemeyer and Jones 1994) and forested saddles between major drainages (Buck 1983) may provide important dispersal habitat or landscape linkages for fishers.


Reported dispersal distances for fishers vary. In a study in Maine, dispersal distances ranged from 4 to 19 km, and there was no significant difference in dispersal distances between males and females (Arthur et al. 1993). The authors believed that these dispersal distances were short compared to the size of an adult home range, and probably resulted from the study population being trapped, creating many unoccupied home ranges. However, these dispersal distances are not greatly different from those reported in Oregon and California. In the southern Oregon Cascades, Aubry and Raley (2006) documented 7 juvenile dispersals (4 females, 3 males). By approximately the end of May, most 1-year-old fishers had settled into the area where they eventually established a home range. Males dispersed an average of 29 km, mean dispersal distance of females was 6 km. Two of the 4 females did not disperse from their natal areas; these females appeared to establish home ranges adjacent to and slightly overlapping their mother’s home range (Aubry and Raley 2006). On the Hoopa Reservation in northern California, 1 female dispersed 1-2 km from her natal den and set up a home range. Another female moved up to 10 km from her natal den and was apparently moving towards her mother’s home range when she died. One male dispersed 3-4 km from his natal den and set up a home range. There has been high turnover in female fishers in recent years on the Hoopa Reservation, suggesting that there are a high percentage of vacant home ranges that could be occupied by dispersing individuals (M. Higley 2007, pers. comm.). Currently, forested areas surrounding the project area provide opportunities for movement and dispersal of fishers. Food Habits Powell (1993) reported that the primary prey of fishers throughout most of their range is snowshoe hares (Lepus americanus) and porcupines (Erethizon dorsatum). Although the fisher is reported to be a specialist in late-seral, mixed conifer-hardwood forests, recent analysis of the diet of fishers in the southern Sierra Nevada portray an opportunistic predator with a diverse diet. Zielinski et al. (1999) characterized fisher diets by analyzing 201 fisher scats and found that mammals were the most frequent food item. Reptiles (20.4%) and insects (55.7%) were also major components in the diet (Zielinski et al. 1999). In southwest Oregon Aubry and Raley (2006) analyzed 303 scats from 11 female and 84 scats from 8 male fishers. Food items from 5 major taxa groups were identified; Mammalia (female 85%, male 76%), Aves (female 28%, male 27%), Reptilia (females 7%, males 5%), Insecta females (25%, males 27%), and Planta (females 14%, males 13%). Their results suggested that female fishers were capturing smaller-bodied prey more frequently than larger-bodied prey, and males were capturing larger-bodied prey more frequently. Aubry and Raley (2006) also found evidence that males, but not females were preying upon porcupines. These findings suggest that fishers, at least in the western states, are a generalist predator. FISHER HABITAT The fisher is one of the most habitat-specialized mammals in western North America (Buskirk and Powell 1994). Specialization appears to be tied primarily to denning and resting habitats. The varied diet of fishers suggests they may forage in a variety of habitats. Fishers use landscapes at different spatial scales for different behaviors and activities (Powell 1994, Weir and Harestad 2003). For example, fishers may establish their home ranges at the landscape scale, forage at the patch scale, and select habitat for resting or denning at the patch scale as well as at a finer scale of habitat characteristics of elements within a patch (Powell 1994, Powell and Zielinski 1994, Weir and Harestad 2003).


Rest Structures Several studies have shown that fishers appear to be highly selective of resting structures. In California, Zielinski et al. (2004) found that resting structures were in the largest diameter trees available. Average dbh for live conifers was 117 cm (46”) for live conifers, 120 cm (47”) dbh for conifer snags, and 69 cm (27”) dbh for hardwoods. On the Hoopa Valley, and Shasta-Trinity study areas, Yeager (2005) determined that rest trees used by fisher had a significantly larger dbh than the average dbh of the four largest trees on the rest site plots. In the Hoopa Valley, the rest tree was one of the four largest trees on 91 percent of the rest site plots measured, and was the single, largest tree on 46 percent of the rest site plots. In southwest Oregon, Aubry and Raley (2006) reported that the average diameter of live trees used by females for resting was slightly greater than those used by males: 88 cm (35”) dbh versus 64 cm (25”) dbh. In California, Zielinski et al. (2004) found that fishers select rest sites with significantly higher canopy closure immediately adjacent to the rest site (93.4 %) when compared to random sites (88.8 %). Yeager (2005) reported that on the Hoopa Valley study area, 86.8 % of all rest sites had more than 50 % canopy cover and 59.7 % had greater than 75 % canopy cover. At Shasta- Trinity 97.6 % of all rest sites had more than 50 % canopy cover and 87.5 % had greater than 75 % canopy cover. In SW Oregon fishers selected rest sites with canopy closure greater than 80 % (Aubry and Raley 2006). In the southern Oregon Cascades, Aubry and Raley (2006) located and typed 641 different resting structures. Fourteen percent of the rest structures were reused by the same animal on more than 1 occasion, and 3 %were used by another radio-collared fisher at some time during the study. Both male and female fishers primarily used live trees for resting. Use of logs and cull piles by females and males was similar. Females used a greater proportion of snags for resting than males. Both male and female fishers used mistletoe brooms in live trees more than any other micro-site (females 31%, males 21%). Mistletoe brooms in live trees were suspected rest sites for an additional 44 % of live trees used by females, and 33 %of live trees used by males. Rodent nests were used in 24 % of the trees used by male fishers. Cavities in both conifers and hardwoods are used by fishers for resting. However, to create suitable rest cavities, trees must be old enough to have suffered the type of stresses that create infection courts for heartrot fungi, and large enough to form cavities large enough to be used by fishers (Zielinski et al. 2004). Large trees also provide platform-type resting structures such as mistletoe brooms, clumped branches that support rodent nests, or rust brooms that can support the weight of fishers. Once these large trees die and fall, they become the type of log that fishers have been known to use as rest sites. Removal of understory and mid-story canopies around large structures may also reduce the effectiveness of the structure as a secure rest site because they contribute to the microclimate of the site. Under- and mid-story canopies probably also provide some protection for female and juvenile fishers from predation or harassment by large raptors and mobbing by corvids because sight distance is reduced in dense, multi-storied stands.


Den Structures As with resting structures, both conifers and hardwoods provide habitat for fisher dens. Yeager (2005) categorized 18 fisher dens in the Hoopa and Shasta-Trinity study sites. Sixteen were located in hardwoods, and 2 in conifers. Of these 18 dens, all but 3 were located in live trees. On both study areas, black oaks were used in 50% of all dens categorized. Other species used were tanoak, white oak, canyon live oak, chinquapin, Douglas-fir, and ponderosa pine. In southwestern Oregon, Aubry and Raley (2006) located 13 natal and 18 maternal dens. For natal dens, fishers used both live trees and snags with openings that accessed hollows created by heartwood decay. The most commonly used tree species were incense cedar, true fir, and western white pine. Douglas-fir, incense cedar and true firs were used as maternal dens. Structures used for maternal dens were more variable than those used for natal dens, and included cavities in the bole or butt of large live trees and snags, and large hollow logs (Aubry and Raley 2006). Natal den trees need to be large enough to accommodate a cavity capable of containing an adult female fisher and multiple kits (Aubry and Raley 2006). In the southern Cascades of Oregon, the average dbh and height of live trees used for natal dens was 92 cm (36”) and 40 m (131’) respectively. The average dbh and height of snags used for natal dens was 89 cm (35”) and 26 m 85’) respectively (Aubry and Raley 2006). Foraging Habitat Based on their diverse diet, fishers appear to be a generalist predator that is opportunistic in its foraging strategies (Aubry and Raley 2006, Zielinski and Duncan 2004, Aubry et al. 2002, Zielinski et al. 1999, Powell 1993). There is some indication of seasonal variation in the fisher’s diet (Zielinski et al. 1999) which is likely linked to seasonal abundance of prey and forage species. While fishers require structures provided by older aged or residual stands for denning and resting, they appear to use a broad array of stand conditions for foraging. Weir and Harestad (2003) found that fishers exhibited selectivity for stands and patches with high volumes of coarse woody material (CWM) and specific closures of high and low shrub layers. However, they hypothesize that an overly complex forest floor may affect the hunting success of fishers by reducing the likelihood of capturing prey. Fishers avoided stands with >80% closure of the low shrub layer. Jones and Garton (1994) found that fishers did not use non-forested sites while resting or hunting, but did use pole-sapling forests for hunting significantly more than for resting. The inclusion of berries in the fisher’s diet suggests that they do forage, at least occasionally or seasonally, in forest gaps or along edges of forested stands where many fruit-bearing shrubs and forbs are found. Effects of the Proposed Action Suitable habitat for fishers exists in the Pyramid Thin Project analysis area; however habitat within units is likely only used as forage habitat as it lacks structural characteristics for denning and denning by fisher. Removal of understory and some mid-story canopies around large structures may reduce the effectiveness of the structure as a secure rest site because they contribute to the microclimate of the site. Under- and mid-story canopies probably also provide some protection for female and juvenile fishers from predation or harassment by large raptors and mobbing by corvids because sight distance is reduced in dense, multi-storied stands.


High canopy closures have been shown to be important to fishers for resting and den sites. Based on the literature, reduction in canopy closure to below 80% could result in the loss of den or resting habitats at a fine-scale. Research that has quantified canopy closure at rest and den sites in northern Oregon and California has focused on a very fine scale, generally 1 acre or less (Aubry and Raley 2006, Yeager 2005, and Zielinski 2004). Reduction of canopy closure to below 80% around large live trees and snags that are clumped and large logs where there is a multi-storied stand component likely has the potential to have the most detrimental effect on potential den and rest sites. Since fishers use the largest live and dead trees for den and resting habitats, loss of these structures can also reduce habitat quality for resident animals. Older trees must also have the types of structures that provide for den and rest sites such as cavities, rust and mistletoe brooms, and large, clumped branches. These types of habitats are rare within treatment units and are widely available in the analysis area. Habitat for the fisher can be enhanced by minimizing forest fragmentation, both in remaining old-growth and in second-growth forest, maintaining a high degree of forest floor structural diversity in intensively managed plantations, preserving large snags and live trees with dead tops, maintaining continuous canopies in riparian zones, and protecting swamps and other forest wetlands (Zielinski and Kucera 1995 GTR PSW 157, Aubrey and Lewis 2003). The abundance and distribution of appropriate prey species and suitable den sites likely contribute to the ability of habitats to support fisher populations (USDA 1994 GTR RM 254, Aubrey and Lewis 2003). Positive direct and indirect impacts could occur by providing large down wood habitat where currently none exists may also provide some denning habitat and prey habitat, if felled trees are retained as large down wood. The Pyramid Thin Project is considered a “May Impact Individuals and or Habitat but not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of viability.” project for Pacific fisher because thinning may degrade foraging habitat. Implementation of buffer and protection guidelines for late seral habitat, along with the scale and intensity of disturbance, make the effects insignificant. Cumulative Effects Cumulative effects include the effects of foreseeable future State, local, or private activities that are reasonably certain to occur within the action area. There is little habitat on private land for spotted owls in the analysis area and no State lands. Cumulative effects include the effects of loss of habitat associated with forest fires, e.g. Biscuit Fire of 2002 and Blossom Complex 2005 which reduced suitable late seral habitat by approximately 65,000 acres. Forest vegetation management projects such as Equine Thin propose to treat approximately 1,275 acres, including 1,000 acres of mature habitat. The Long Ridge-Sorrel Project proposes to treat approximately 300 acres for meadow restoration including approximately 100 acres of potentially suitable habitat for fisher. The Mineral Fork Timber Sale proposes to treat and maintain 114 acres of mature habitat and Low Meadow proposes to treat 152 acres of mature habitat. These projects could reduce canopy closure and structural complexity in these mature stands which could result in a reduction of resting and denning opportunities for fisher. Density management effects of this project combine with those of District-wide pre-commercial and commercial thinning operations, e.g. Coastal Healthy Forest Treatment (47,400 acres) and Southwest Thin (522 acres) and Too Wild treated 529 acres; these sales treat only younger, smaller stands and while they may impact some potential foraging habitats for fisher they would not likely impact resting or denning habitats for fisher.


Northwestern Pond Turtle (Clemmys marmorata marorata) Status: Federal - USDA FS Sensitive (Region 6); State of Oregon – Critical Northwestern pond turtles are capable of living in a wide variety of aquatic habitats. The northwestern pond turtle inhabits marshes, ponds, lakes, reservoirs, sloughs, and slow moving portions of creeks and rivers (Nussbaum et al. 1983, Stebbins 1985, Storm et al. 1995). Pond turtles may also be found in abandoned gravel pits, stock ponds, and sewage treatment plants (Holland 1994). In the Rogue River drainage, records of pond turtle sightings are almost equally divided amongst rivers, larger-order streams, and small ponds (Holland 1994). The size of habitats used by northwestern pond turtles is quite variable from place to place. Turtles have been observed using small ephemeral ponds only a few square meters in size (Holland 1994). On the other hand, turtles are also known to live in Upper Klamath Lake which covers an area of several dozen square kilometers. In areas where water is present only part of the year, turtles aestivate in the mud in the watercourse or in upland areas during late summer or early spring (Holland 1994). Pond turtles seem to prefer areas that possess some type of refugia such as undercut banks, submerged vegetation, rocks, logs, or mud (Nussbaum et al. 1983, Stebbins 1985, Holland 1994, Storm et al. 1995). Areas containing basking sites for thermoregulation such as rocks, logs, or emergent vegetation are also preferred (Nussbaum et al. 1983, Stebbins 1985, Holland 1994, Storm et al. 1995). Partially submerged logs, vegetation mats, mud banks, rocks, and tree branches provide areas for sunning (Nussbaum et. al. 1983, Stebbins 1985). Suitable habitat for the species is not present in the Pyramid Thin Project analysis area. In addition, no recorded sightings of northwestern pond turtles exist in the FAUNA database. The Pyramid Thin Project should have No Impact on the northwestern pond turtle. Suitable habitat for the northwestern pond turtle does not exist in the Pyramid Thin Project analysis area and no pond turtles have been observed in the area. California Slender Salamander (Batrachoseps attenuatus) Status: Federal - USDA FS Sensitive (Region 6); State of Oregon – Peripheral or Naturally Rare In Oregon, the California slender salamander is only found along the southern Oregon coast (Cockran and Thoms 1996). This species is confined to humid, relatively low elevation coastal forests (Nussbaum et al. 1983, Cockran and Thoms 1996). California slender salamanders are most abundant in the redwood belt of northern California (Nussbaum et al. 1983, Cockran and Thoms 1996). During wet weather, individuals can be found on the forest floor under surface debris (Nussbaum et al. 1983, Cockran and Thoms 1996). During dry weather, individuals retreat to burrows in the ground or under or in partially-decayed logs (Nussbaum et al. 1983, Cockran and Thoms 1996). The range and habitat type for this species is outside of the Pyramid Thin Project analysis area. The FAUNA database contains no records of sightings of California slender salamanders in the Pyramid Thin Project analysis area. In addition, no California slender salamanders have been found during extensive salamander surveys of the Hunter Creek or Pistol River watersheds. The Pyramid Thin Project is considered No Impact on the California slender salamander. Foothill Yellow-legged Frog (Rana boylii) Status: Federal - USDA FS Sensitive (Region 6); State of Oregon – Vulnerable


The foothill yellow-legged frog lives in or near streams with rocky or gravel substrates (Nussbaum et al. 1983, Cockran and Thoms 1996). Streams with sandy or muddy bottoms are occasionally used as are moist, rocky outcrops (Nussbaum et al. 1983). Adults commonly live amongst sedge clumps at the edges of deep pools, amongst cobbles on the bottom of pools, or in bedrock at the edge of the main stream channel (Cockran and Thoms 1996). Eggs are deposited during late spring or early summer in clusters attached to rocks on the bottom or edges of streams (Nussbaum et al. 1983, Cockran and Thoms 1996). Tadpoles live in pools for three to four months before metamorphosing into adults (Nussbaum et al. 1983, Cockran and Thoms 1996). Habitat conditions within the Pyramid Thin Project analysis area are not considered suitable for this species. The FAUNA database contains no records of sightings of foothill yellow-legged frogs in the Pyramid Thin Project analysis area. The Pyramid Thin Project should have No Impact on the foothills yellow-legged frog. Johnson’s Hairstreak (Mitoura johnsoni) Callophrys johnsoni Status: USDA Forest Service – Sensitive This small brown butterfly occurs in isolated pockets in the western mountains of California up into British Columbia. On the Rogue River-Siskiyou, range maps indicate a population in the coastal mountains of Coos, Curry and Josephine counties. A second population is in northern Jackson County around Crater Lake National Park. This butterfly is an old-growth obligate and spends a lot of its time in the tops of mature conifer forests, making survey efforts extremely difficult. They do nectar on some lower plants, like Oregon grape and males come into damp earth sites, such as seeps and springs. Caterpillars feed on Pine dwarf mistletoe (Arceuthobium campylopodum) which grows on conifers. Timber harvest of mature forests may be a threat to this species. Other threats include spraying BT for tussock moth and other pests. No surveys have been carried out for this species on the Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest. Old-growth hemlock trees do occur within the analysis area. Very few small hemlock trees occur within treatment units. These may or may not have mistletoe. Thinning prescriptions leave minor species, including hemlock. It is possible that a hemlock tree with mistletoe may be impacted by treatment activities. The Pyramid Thin Project is considered “May Impact Individuals and or Habitat but not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of viability.” for the Johnson’s hairstreak because of potential disturbance to individuals and limited adverse effects to habitat from treatments. Adverse effects are limited because the scale of impacts is very small compared to the scale of the distribution of this species.


Green Sideband (Monadenia fidelis beryllica) Status: USDA Forest Service - Sensitive References: http://web.or.blm.gov/Mollusks/ All known sites of this terrestrial snail currently occur in Curry County, Oregon. The type locality is in a patch of trees and brush near the mouth of the Pistol River, Curry Co., OR. Other areas with reported locations for this species include Port Orford, and “between the Sixes River and Winchuck River, mostly in sites near the Coast or west side of southern Oregon Coast Range. This is the dominant Monadenia on the west side of the Coast Range from Pistol River to the Winchuck River. It does not appear in adjacent California” (Frest 2000), where Monadenia fidelis pronotis and Monadenia fidelis smithiana replace this taxon. Specimens which may be M. f. beryllica have also been collected in the Roseburg District BLM, in the Middle Fork Coquille River watershed. (Duncan, teaching collection). Another taxonomic entity, Monadenia fidelis baxteriana has been described from the immediate vicinity of Sisters Rocks, north of Ophir, in Curry County, OR., but it has a dark brown base, and is smaller (<30 mm). Habitat generally occurs in stands with deciduous trees (including alder), brush in wet relatively undisturbed forest, at low elevations, and also in low coastal scrub (Roth 1981a, 1993). Habits include seasonal climbing of trees in riparian areas and shelter in deep forest floor litter (Roth 1993, p.18). A site on the Roseburg BLM was in a proposed thinning unit, in a mixed conifer/hardwood community with heavy accumulations of residual down wood; the oldest live Douglas fir trees were approximately 80 years of age. This site was not in a riparian community. The proposed action is considered “May Impact Individuals and or Habitat but not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or a loss of viability” for the green sideband because 276 acres impacted by treatment is less than 1% of the watersheds (Pistol(66,869), Cape Ferrelo Frontal (39,418), Chetco (225,217) & Winchuck (45,607)) within the known range of the species and all treatment stands have very few deciduous trees within them. Hardwoods are not prescribed to be cut. No riparian habitat would be impacted. Mardon Skipper (Polites mardon) Status: Forest Service: R-6 Sensitive Federal: Proposed for ESA listing as Threatened This butterfly is a Candidate species for Federal listing and is a species that may be present in the analysis area, upland meadows, but would not be present within the harvest units. The skipper is considered rare and known but from four widely separated locations: the south Puget Sound region (Washington), the southern Washington Cascades, the Siskiyou Mountains of southern Oregon, and coastal northern California (Black et al. 2002; Witt pers. comm.). A unique feature of this species is that it is reported as spending its entire life cycle in one location, without migration. Its dispersal distance is unknown. Eggs are laid into tufts of Festuca spp. bunchgrass upon which the larvae feed for approximately 3 months. Hibernation is believed to occur in the grass as well. There is a historical record of the skipper form 2 miles north of Gold Beach just inland of the beach. The skipper has been found at Lone Ranch Beach in Curry County north of Brookings during surveys in 2007. In 2008, another new site was located in the Signal Butte area on BLM land approximately 0.75 miles west of the forest boundary. No records currently exist for the Gold Beach Ranger District.

http://web.or.blm.gov/Mollusks/


Adult skippers feed on nectar from a variety of herbaceous plants though they also make use of other grass/forbs including such species as common camas (Camassia quamash), western buttercup (Ranunculus occidentalis), and Idaho blue-eyed-grass (Sisyrinchium idahoense). The southern Oregon populations are reported as occupying small (0.5 – 10 ac.) high-elevation (4,500 – 5,100 ft.) grassy meadows with mixed conifer forests. Witt (2007) indicated an apparent association between this butterfly species and serpentine influenced meadows. In California, the populations are located on serpentine balds dominated by Festuca idahoensis in sparse Jeffery pine (Pinus jeffreyi) forests. Two of the California sites are in Del Norte County which is adjacent to the project area county. In both the Oregon and California areas, frequent low-intensity fires are considered to have historically played an important role in maintaining grassland plant communities. The dominant threat to this species is loss of habitat including loss via encroachment by invasive nonnative and native vegetation, and vegetative succession from grassland to forest (Pyle 1989). The proposed action is not expected to impact habitat and is very unlikely to affect individuals. The Pyramid Thin Project is considered “No Impact “for the Mardon skipper. Coronis Fritillary (Speyeria coronis coronis) Status: USDA Forest Service - Sensitive References: NatureServe, Opler et al., 2008, USDA/USDI, 2008 A relatively large (~ 3in.) butterfly that occurs in lower Rogue & Illinois River valleys of Jackson and Josephine counties. It is expected in Coos, Curry and Douglas counties. Locally distributed in the Siskiyous. The coronis fritillary inhabits lower elevation canyons and grasslands as well as mid-montane meadows and forest margins and openings (Pyle 2002). Caterpillars spend winter in first instar before feeding (Pyle 2002). In spring larvae feed mostly on Viola hallii, found in rocky serpentine habitats (Hammond pers. comm.). Adults seem to move uphill shortly after emerging, probably in search of nectar (Warren 2005). Adult’s nectar on bull thistle, other composites, and chokecherry (Pyle 2002). Females, at least, apparently return to basin habitats later in the season to deposit eggs. The single annual brood flies from mid-May to mid-September. Coronis fritillary has not been documented in Curry County. Rocky serpentine meadow habitat occurs in the analysis area. The proposed action is not expected to impact habitat and is very unlikely to affect individuals. The Pyramid Thin Project is considered a “No Impact “for coronis fritillary. Robust Walker (Pomatiopsis binneyi) Status: USDA Forest Service – Sensitive References: (USDI Bureau of Land Management, 2008) The robust walker is a small semi-aquatic snail found in high flow protection areas of perennial seeps, rivulets, mud banks and marsh seepages. Sites for this species have been documented in southern Curry and Jackson Counties, on federal land in the Chetco and Winchuck River basins in the Chetco Ranger District and in the Josephine Creek watershed of the Illinois River basin in the Illinois Valley Ranger District, of Siskiyou National Forest. The Chetco River sites are within 3 miles of Coos Bay District BLM land, Myrtlewood Field Unit (USDI Bureau of Land Management, 2008). The proposed action is not expected to impact habitat due to Riparian Buffers and is very unlikely to affect individuals. The Pyramid Thin Project is considered a “No Impact “for the robust walker.


Pacific Walker (Pomatiopsis californica) Status: USDA Forest Service – Sensitive References: (USDI Bureau of Land Management, 2008) The Pacific walker is a small semi-aquatic snail found in wet leaf litter and vegetation beside flowing or standing water in shaded and humid areas. There are two documented sites for this species in Oregon. One site is in the Lower Millicoma River sub-basin in northern Coos County. This site is approximately 6 miles from Coos Bay District BLM land, Umpqua Field Unit. The second site is near the Pacific Coast in Lane County, on the Waldport Ranger District of the Siuslaw National Forest land, in the Cape Creek subwatershed of the Alsea River subbasin. The historic range of this species included all of the Pacific Coast, from southwestern Oregon to San Mateo County, CAL. The range has also been described as being confined to within a half-mile of the coast (USDI Bureau of Land Management, 2008). Pacific walker has not been documented in Curry County. The proposed action is not expected to impact habitat due to Riparian Buffers and is very unlikely to affect individuals. The Pyramid Thin Project is considered a “No Impact “for the Pacific walker. Highcap Lanx (Lanx alta) Status: USDA Forest Service – Sensitive References: (Frest and Johannes 1995) The highcap lanx is a limpet like snail found in large rivers and major tributaries with stable cobble-boulder substrate and high water quality. Historical locations for highcap lanx include the counties Josephine, Jackson, and Curry along the Rogue River, including sites within the Siskiyou National Forest. However, sites on the Rogue River National Forest may be extirpated (Frest and Johannes 1995). Although the Rogue River is approximately 7 miles NW of the analysis area, the project area does not contain any large rivers or major tributaries that would qualify as habitat. Riparian Buffers in place for the project would also protect any potential habitat, thus individuals are unlikely to be affected. The Pyramid Thin Project is considered a “No Impact” for the highcap lanx. Western Ridged Mussel (Gonidea angulata) Status: USDA Forest Service – Sensitive References: (USDI Bureau of Land Management, 2008) The western ridged mussel occurs in all sizes of streams within mid to low elevation watersheds, inhabiting mud, sand, gravel, and cobble substrates. They can tolerate moderate amounts of sedimentation, but are usually absent from habitats with highly unstable or very soft substrates (USDI Bureau of Land Management, 2008).Western ridged mussels have been found in the Rogue, Umpqua and Willamette rivers of Oregon, however, it most abundant in the large tributaries of the Snake River and Columbia River in Washington, Idaho, and Oregon. The proposed action is not expected to impact any potential habitat due to Riparian Buffers and is unlikely to affect individuals. The Pyramid Thin Project is considered a “No Impact “for the western ridged mussel.


LITERATURE CITED

Aubry, K.B., C.M. Raley, T.J. Catton, and G.W. Tomb. 2002. Ecological characteristics of fishers in the southern Oregon Cascade Range: final progress report: 1 June, 2002. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Olympia, WAL.

Aubry, K.B. and J.C. Lewis. 2003. Extirpation and reintroduction of fishers (Martes pennanti) in Oregon: implications for their conservation in the Pacific states. Biological Conservation 114 (1):79-90.

Aubry, K.B. and C. Raley. 2006. Ecological characteristics of fishers (Martes pennanti) in the southern Oregon Cascade Range. USDA Forest Service. Olympia Forestry Sciences Laboratory. Olympia, WAL.

Barrett Norm. 2008. Personal Communication Wildlife Biologist Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest.

Bennett, Greg. 2008. Personal Communication. Fisher Survey Contractor for the Coos Bay BLM

Black, S. H., Hitt, K. and M. Vaughan. 2002. Petition to List the Mardon Skipper Butterfly (Polites mardon) as an Endangered Species Under the U.S. Endangered Species Act. The Xerces Society, Gifford Pinchot Task Force, The Northwest Environmental Defense Center, Center for Biological Diversity, Oregon Natural Resources Council, Friends of the San Juans, and Northwest Ecosystem Alliance. 25 pp.

Buskirk, S.W. and R.AL. Powell. 1994. Habitat ecology of fishers and American martens. In: Buskirk, S.W., Harestad, AL.S., Raphael, M.G., Powell, R.AL. (Eds.), Martens, Sables, and Fishers: Biology and Conservation. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY, pp. 283-296.

Catton, S. 2000. Southwest timber sale: biological evaluation - wildlife. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Siskiyou National Forest, Gold Beach, Oregon.

Corkran, C. C,. and C. T. Thoms. 1996. Amphibians of Oregon, Washington and British Columbia: a field identification guide. Lone Pine Publishing, Edmonton, Alberta.

Courtney, S.P., J.AL. Blakesley, R.E.Bigley, M.L.Cody, J.P.Dumbacher, R.C.Fleischer ,AL.B.Franklin, J.F.Franklin, R.J.Gutierrez, J.M.Marzluff, and L.Sztukowski. 2004. Scientific evaluation of the status of the Northern Spotted Owl. Sustainable Ecosystem Institute. Portland, OR. Sept. 2004.

Csuti, B., AL. J. Kimerling, T. AL. O’Neil, M. M. Shaughnessy, E. P. Gaines, and M. M. P. Huso. 1997. Atlas of Oregon wildlife. Oregon State University Press, Corvallis, Oregon.

Dillingham, C. P., R. C. Miller, and L. O. Webb. 1995. Marbled murrelet distribution in the Siskiyou National Forest of southwestern Oregon. Northwestern Naturalist 76:33-39.

Dillingham, C., 1997. Forest Carnivore Survey Results, Gold Beach Ranger District, Siskiyou N.F., letter to Keith Aubry dated February 13, 1997.

Farber, S. and T. Franklin. 2005. Presence-absence surveys for Pacific fisher (Martes pennanti) in the eastern Klamath Province of interior northern California. Timber Products Company. Timberlands Office. Yreka, California.

Farber, S. and S. Criss. 2006. Cooperative mesocarnivore surveys for the upper and west fork of Beaver Creek watersheds in interior Northern California. Report to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Yreka Field Office. Yreka, California.


Forsman, E. D., K. M, Horn, and W. AL. Neitro. 1982. Spotted owl research and management in the Pacific Northwest. Proceedings of the North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference. 47:323-331.

Forsman, E.D., E.C. Meslow, and H.M. Wight. 1984.Distribution and biology of the spotted owl in Oregon. Wildlife Monographs 87:1-64.

Forsman, E.D. 1998. Northern Spotted Owl. In: Mac, M.J., P.AL. Opler, C.E. Puckett Haeker, and P.D. Doran. 1998. Status and trends of the nation's biological resources. Vol. 1 and 2. U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Val. 1-964 pp.

Garrett, M. G., J. W. Watson, and R. G. Anthony. 1993. Bald eagle home range and habitat use in the Columbia River estuary. Journal of Wildlife Management 57:19-27.

Gilligan, Jeff, Mark Smith, Dennis Rogers, and Alan Contraras. 1994. Birds of Oregon – Status and Distribution. Cinclus Press. 330 pp.

Gomez, D., R G. Anthony, and J.P. Hayes. 2005. Influence of thinning of Douglas-fir forests on population parameters and diet of northern flying squirrels. Journal of Wildlife Management 69(4):1670–1682.

Gutiérrez, R.J. and R.G. Tanner. 1995. A partial inventory of northern spotted owls in Redwood National Park, 1994 Annual Report. Annual Report to: National Park Service, Redwood National Park, Cooperative Agreement No. CA 8480-3-9005. Contractor: Humboldt State University. Arcata, CA

Hamer, T. E., and S. K. Nelson. 1995al. Characteristics of marbled murrelet nest trees and nesting stands. Pages 69-82 in Ralph, C. J., G. L. Hunt Jr., M. G. Raphael, and J. F. Piatt, editors. Ecology and conservation of the marbled murrelet. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station, General Technical Report PSW-GTR-152.

Hamer, T. E., and S. K. Nelson. 1995b. Nesting chronology of the marbled murrelet. Pages 49-56 in Ralph, C. J., G. L. Hunt Jr., M. G. Raphael, and J. F. Piatt, editors. Ecology and conservation of the marbled murrelet. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station, General Technical Report PSW-GTR-152.

Holland, D. C. 1994. The western pond turtle: habitat and history - final report. U.S. Department of Energy, Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, Oregon.

Hornocker, M. G., and H. S. Hash. 1981. Ecology of the Wolverine in Northwestern Montana. Canada Journal of Zoology 59:1286-1201.

Janes, Stewart, John Kemper, Norman Barrett, Richard Cronberg, Jim Livaudias, Marjorie Moore, Thomas Phillips, Howard Sands, Gary Shaffer, Joseph Shelton, and Pepper Trail. 2002. The birds of Jackson County, Oregon – Distribution and Abundance. 28 pp.

Johnsgard, P. AL. 1990. Hawks, Eagles, and Falcons of North America. Smithsonian Institution Press. Washington DC.

Johnson, D.H. 1992. Spotted owls, great horned owls, and forest fragmentation in the Central Oregon Cascades. M.S. thesis, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR

Jones, J.L. and E.O. Garton. 1994. Selection of successional stages by fishers in north-central Idaho. In: Buskirk, S.W., Harestad, AL.S., Raphael, M.G., Powell, R.AL. (Eds.), Martens, Sables, and Fishers: Biology and Conservation. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY, pp. 377-387.

Jordan, J. M., and S. K. Hoghes. 1995. Characteristics of Three Marbled Murrelet Nest Trees, Vancouver Island, B. C. Northwest Naturalist 76:29-32.

Leskiw, T. and R.J. Gutiérrez. 1998. Possible predation of a spotted owl by a barred owl. Western Birds 29(3):225-226.

Lemkuhl, J., K.D. Kistler, and J.S. Begley. 2006. Bushy-tailed woodrat abundance in dry forests of eastern Washington. Journal of Mammalogy 87(2).

Marshall, D. B. 1988. Status of the Marbled Murrelet in North America: with Special Emphasis on California, Oregon and Washington. USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, Biological Report 88(30). 19pp.

Maser, C. 1998. Mammals of the Pacific Northwest, from the coast to the high Cascades. Oregon State University Press, Corvallis, Oregon. 406p.

Maser, C.,B. R. Mate, J. F. Franklin, and C. T. Dryness. 1981. Natural history of Oregon coast mammals. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service General Technical Report PNW-133. Pacific Northwest Region, Forest and Range Experiment Station, Portland, Oregon. 496p.

Mellen, K., B.G. Marcot, J.L. Ohmann, K.Waddell, S.AL. Livingston, E.AL. Willhite, B.B. Hostetler, C. Ogden, and T. Dreisbach. 2006. DecAID, the decayed wood advisor for managing snags, partially dead trees, and down wood for biodiversity in forests of Washington and Oregon. V 2.0. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region and Pacific Northwest Research Station; USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, Oregon State Office; Portland, Oregon. http://wwwnotes.fs.fed.us:81/pnw/DecAID/DecAID.nsf

Meyer, R. 2007. Martes pennanti. In: Fire Effects Information System, [Online]. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory (Producer). Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/ [ 2007, December 11].

Miller, G.S. 1989. Dispersal of Juvenile Northern Spotted Owls in Western Oregon. M.S. thesis, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR.

Nelson, S. K., and T. E. Hamer. 1995. Nest success and the effects of predation on marbled murrelets. Pages 89-97 in Ralph, C. J., G. L. Hunt Jr., M. G. Raphael, and J. F. Piatt, editors. Ecology and conservation of the marbled murrelet. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station, General Technical Report PSW-GTR-152.

Nussbaum, R. AL., E. D. Brodie, Jr., R. T. M. Storm. 1983. Amphibians and Reptiles of the Pacific Northwest. A Northwest Naturalist Book, by the University of Idaho Press. 332pp.

O'Neil, Thomas AL., David H. Johnson, Charley Barrett, Marla Trevithick, Kelly AL. Bettinger, Chris Kiilsgaard, Madeleine Vander Heyden, Eva L. Greda, Derek Stinson, Bruce G. Marcot, Patrick J. Doran, Susan Tank, and Laurie Wunder. Matrixes for Wildlife-Habitat Relationship in Oregon and Washington. Northwest Habitat Institute. 2001. In D. H. Johnson and T. AL. O'Neil (Manag. Dirs.) Wildlife-Habitat Relationships in Oregon and Washington. Oregon State University Press, Corvallis, Oregon, USAL.

Opler, Paul AL., Harry Pavulaan, Ray E. Stanford, Michael Pogue, coordinators. 2006. Butterflies and Moths of North America. Bozeman, MT: NBII Mountain Prairie Information Node. http://www.butterfliesandmoths.org/.


http://wwwnotes.fs.fed.us:81/pnw/DecAID/DecAID.nsf

http://www.butterfliesandmoths.org/


Paton, P. W. and C. J. Ralph. 1990. Distribution of the Marbled murrelet at Inland Sites in California. Northwest Naturalist 71:72-84.

Powell, R.AL. 1993. The fisher: life history, ecology and behavior. 2nd ed. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Roberts, K. 2004. Management of potential marbled murrelet nesting structure in younger stands: Recommendation to supplant your guidance of June 25, 1999. Draft Memorandum from the Chair of the Level 1 Team (terrestrial subgroup) for the North Coast Province, to the Level 2 Team for the North Coast Province.

Ruggiero, L. F., K. B. Aubry, AL. B. Carey, and M. H. Huff, editors. 1991. Wildlife and vegetation of unmanaged Douglas-fir forests. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, Oregon. General Technical Report PNW-GTR-285.

Ruggiero, L. F., K. B. Aubry, S. W. Buskirk, L J. Lyon, and W. J. Zielinski, editors. 1994. The scientific basis for conserving forest carnivores: American marten fisher, lynx, and wolverine in the western United States. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, General Technical Report RM-254.

Slauson, K. and W.J. Zielinski. 2001. Distribution and habitat ecology of American martens and Pacific fishers in southwestern Oregon. Unpublished Progress Report I, July 1 – November 15, 2001. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station and Department of Forest Science, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR 17p.

Stalmaster, M. V. 1987. The bald eagle. Universe Books, New York.

Stebbins, R. C. 1954. Amphibians and reptiles of western North America. McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., New York.

Stebbins, R. C. 1985. A field Guide to Western Reptiles and Amphibians. Peterson Field Guild Series #16, Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston, Mass.

Storm, Robert M., Ronald AL. Nussbaum, and Edmund D. Brodie. 1983. Amphibians and reptiles of the Pacific Northwest. University of Idaho Press, Moscow Idaho.

Thomas, J. W., E. D. Forsman, J. B. Lint, E. C. Meslow, B. R. Noon, and J. Verner. 1990. A conservation strategy for the northern spotted owl: report of the Interagency Scientific Committee to address the conservation of the northern spotted owl. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service; U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Fish and Wildlife Service, and National Park Service. Portland, Oregon.

USDA Forest Service. 1989. Land and Resource Management Plan – Siskiyou National Forest. Pacific Northwest region.

USDA Forest Service. 1994. The scientific basis for Conserving Forest Carnivores - American Marten, Fisher, Lynx and Wolverine in the Western United States. Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Stations. General Technical Report RM-254. Fort Collins, Colorado.

USDA Forest Service. 1995. Ecology and Conservation of the Marbled Murrelet. Pacific Southwest Research Station. General technical report PSW–GTR–152.

USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management. 1994. Record of decision for amendments to Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management documents within the range of the northern spotted owl. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, and U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management.


USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management. 2000. Memorandum to Bureau of Land Management district and field managers and Forest Service forest supervisors from California and Oregon state directors of the Bureau of Land Management and regional foresters for Regions 5 and 6 of the Forest Service regarding management recommendations for the Oregon red tree vole Arborimus longicaudus, version 2.0. 1920/2600 FS, 1630/1736-PFP BLM-OR931; BLM Instruction Memorandum No. OR-2000-086. Dated 27 September 2000.

USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management. 2001. Record of decision and standards and guidelines for amendments to the survey and manage, protection buffer, and other mitigation measures standard and guidelines. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, and U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Portland, Oregon

USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management, 2008. Interagency Special Status / Sensitive Species Program (ISSSSP). http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/sfpnw/issssp/

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 1967. Endangered species list - 1967. Federal Register 32:4001.

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 1986. Recovery plan for the Pacific bald eagle. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, Oregon. 160p.

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 1990. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; determination of threatened status for the northern spotted owl. Final rule. Federal Register 55:26114-26194.

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 1992al. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; determination of critical habitat for the northern spotted owl. Final rule. Federal Register 57:1796-1838.

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 1992b. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; determination of threatened status for the Washington, Oregon, and California population of the marbled murrelet. Final rule. Federal Register 57:45328-45337.

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 1995. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; final rule to reclassify the bald eagle from endangered to threatened in all of the lower 48 states. Final rule. Federal Register 60:35999-36010.

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 1997. Recovery plan for the threatened marbled murrelet (Brachyramphus marmoratus) in Washington, Oregon, and California. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, Oregon. 203pp.

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 1999al. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; final rule to remove the American peregrine falcon from the federal list of endangered and threatened wildlife, and to remove the similarity of appearance provision for free-flying peregrines in the conterminous United States. Final rule. Federal Register 64:46542-46558.

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 1999b. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; proposed rule to remove the bald eagle in the lower 48 states from the list of endangered and threatened wildlife. Proposed rule. Federal Register 64:36453-36464.

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2003. Monitoring Plan for the American Peregrine Falcon, A Species Recovered Under the Endangered Species Act. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Divisions of Endangered Species and Migratory Birds and State Programs, Pacific Region, Portland, OR. 53 pp.

http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/sfpnw/issssp/


USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2004. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants: 12-month finding for petition to list the West Coast distinct population segment of the fisher (Martes pennanti); Proposed Rule. Federal Register, 50 CFR 17:69. p.18,769-18,792.

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, 2006. Formal consultation on activities that may affect listed species on public lands administered by the Rogue River – Siskiyou National Forest (Forest) during fiscal years 2006 through 2008 (FY 06-08) (1-15-06-F-163). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Roseburg Field Office, Roseburg, Oregon.

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, 2008a. Final Recovery for the Northern Spotted Owl, Strix occidentalis caurina, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, Oregon xii + 142 pp. http://www.fws.gov/pacific/ecoservices/endangered/recovery/NSORecoveryPlanning.htm

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, 2008b. Revised Designation of Critical Habitat for Northern Spotted Owl. Final Rule. Federal Register. August 17, 2008. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 1, Portland, Oregon

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2008c. Birds of Conservation Concern 2008. United States Department of Interior, Division of Migratory Bird Management, Arlington, Virginia. 85pp. December, 2008. http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, 2009. Informal Consultation on Vegetation Management Activities proposed by the Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest for Fiscal Years 2009 through 2014 (LOC-13420-2009-I-0044). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Roseburg Field Office, Roseburg, Oregon.

Yaeger, J. S. 2005. Habitat at fisher resting sites in the Klamath Province of northern California. Thesis, Humboldt State University, Arcata, California, USAL.

Yocum, C. F. 1973. Wolverine Record in the Pacific Coastal States and New Records for Northern California. California Fish and Game 59(3):207-209.

Zabel, C. J., K.McKelvey, and J. P. Ward, JR. 1995.Influence of primary prey on home range size and habitat use patterns of Spotted Owls (Strix occidentalis). Canadian Journal of Zoology 73:433–439.

Webb, L. 2001. E-mail message from Lee Webb (U.S. Forest Service, Siskiyou and Rogue River National Forests, wildlife biologist) to John Williams (U.S. Forest Service, Siskiyou National Forest, Gold Beach and Chetco Ranger Districts, west side timber management assistant) on 18 June 2001.

Weir, E. 2003. Ashland and Applegate Ranger District forest carnivore survey; summary of results for photographic bait station and snow tracking surveys conducted on the Ashland and Applegate Ranger Districts of the Rogue River National Forest. USDA Forest Service, Rogue River National Forest, Ashland Ranger District, Ashland, OR.

Wisely, S.M, S.W. Buskirk, G.AL. Russell, K.B. Aubry, and W.J. Zielinski. 2004. Genetic diversity and structure of the fisher (Martes pennanti) in a peninsular and peripheral metapopulation. Journal of Mammology 85(4):640-648.

Witt Holly. 2007. Coos Bay BLM Wildlife Biologist

Zielinski, W.J., and T.E. Kuceral. 1995. American marten, fisher, lynx, and wolverine: survey methods for their detection. USDA Forest Service. Pacific Southwest Research Station. General Technical Report PSW-GTR-157.

http://www.fws.gov/pacific/ecoservices/endangered/recovery/NSORecoveryPlanning.htm

http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/


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):xxx-xxx.

Zielinski, W.J., R.L. Truax, G.AL. Schmidt, F.V. Schlexer, and R.H. Barrett. 2004. Resting habitat selection by fishers in California. Journal of Wildlife Management, 68(3);475-492.

Supplementary Analysis Report Wildlife Report Pyramid Thin Project

SUPPLEMENTARY ANALYSIS REPORT

Pyramid Thin Project

Wildlife Report

Michael Miller, Biological Science Technician March 10, 2009

A. Background Between December 27th and December 30th, 2008 a storm events caused a road failure at mile post 2.6 on Forest System Road (FSR) 1703. This road was planned to be used as part of the haul route to transport forest products from the Pyramid Thin Project. The primary haul route for stands analyzed under the original Proposed Action for Pyramid Thin traveled southwest on FSR 1703 to FSR 3680, then west down Hunter Creek. A preliminary review found that correcting the road damage would not be economically feasible under the Pyramid Thin Project. Due to the changed circumstances, the new haul route would travel over FSR 1703 to FSR 1703100, then south on FSR 1703100 to FSR 1601, then west down Pistol River Due to the new proposed haul route, the road activities identified in the proposed action for FSR 1703 would change. Road 1703 culvert installations at M.P. 2.2, M.P. 2.7 and M.P. 4.3 would no longer be needed for this project. These roading activities along with repair of the washouts at MP 2.6 will be accomplished when funding becomes available. When the lower section of FSR 1703 is repaired haul could be directed down Hunter Creek. All work to facilitate product haul on FSR 1703 to FSR 1703100, then south on FSR 1703100 to FSR 1601, then west down Pistol River falls under normal road maintenance and includes five culverts (4 cross drains (dry) and one ephemeral stream). Wildlife Analysis The project area was surveyed six times for Northern spotted owls between May 16 and August 4, 2008 A single male was detected on two night surveys. No owls were detected during daytime follow-ups. The changed haul route is not within northern spotted owl critical habitat, Managed Owl Conservation Areas (MOCA) or Conservation Support Area (CSA). The location of existing northern spotted owl activity centers did not change from those analyzed. No spotted owl activity centers occur within 0.25 miles of any haul route. Haul down Pistol River will occur through three occupied murrelet stands instead of two associated with hauling down Hunter Creek road. The changed haul route is not within marbled murrelet critical habitat. Haul down Hunter Creek or Pistol River will occur on roads used by the public. Routine road maintenance will occur on whichever haul route is used. These activities are not expected to produce loud noises above ambient levels. Road work not considered routine maintenance will follow Project Design Criteria for the Northern spotted owl and marbled murrelet. There will be no additional direct, indirect or cumulative effects to wildlife species associated with the changed haul route.

Supplementary Analysis Report Wildlife Report Pyramid Thin Project

“Informal Consultation with the USDI Fish and Wildlife Service has been completed (Letter of Concurrence (LOC)_TAILS-13420-2009-I-0044, dated March 19, 2009) on Pyramid Thin Project (USDI, 2009). Information in these referenced documents was used in the subsequent determination of effects of Threatened and Endangered species in this project.

B. Environmental Consequence from Alternative 2 – Proposed Action

There are no measurable changes to the existing direct, indirect or cumulative effects analysis because either haul route occurs on roads open to the public. Routine road maintenance will occur on whichever haul route is used. These activities are not expected to produce loud noises above ambient levels. Road work not considered routine maintenance will follow Project Design Criteria for the Northern spotted owl and marbled murrelet.

C. Environmental Consequence from Alternative 3 Same as Alternative 2 above.

D. Environmental Consequence from Alternative 4 Same as Alternative 2 above.

e. Cumulative Effects Analysis Same as Alternative 2 above.

1. Alternative 2 - Proposed Action Same as Alternative 2 above.

2. Alternative 3 Same as Alternative 2 above.

3. Alternative 4 Same as Alternative 2 above.

prepared by: rolando r. mendez-trenemana123.g.akamai.net/7/123/11558/abc123/forestservic...the...

Documents