terrestrial wildlife analysis...

Terrestrial Wildlife Analysis Report

1


Big PinesRestoration Project

High Cascades Ranger District, Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest

/s/ Jeff von Kienast Date: 02/13/2017

Jeff von Kienast

District Wildlife Biologist

/s/ Sheila Colyer Date: 02/13/2017

Sheila Colyer

Wildlife Biologist

Big Pines Project

2

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

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

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

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

procedural requirements for effects from projects to wildlife.

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

migratory birds, and other rare and uncommon species. The silvicultural andfuels treatments

considered under the Big Pines Restoration Project (Big Pines) require a BE to be completed

(Forest Service Manual (FSM) 2672.4). This report is designed to complement the Terrestrial

Wildlife BE, for other terrestrial wildlife species. Both reports were prepared for the proposed

Big Pines Project, which would be authorized, funded, and conducted on the High Cascades

Ranger District of the Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest. See the Big PinesDecision Memo

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

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

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

Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest and the Big Pines planning area. Also included in

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

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

Restoration Project planning area.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(FSM 2621.1). An indicator species represents all other wildlife species which utilize a similar

habitat type. Indicator species act as a barometer for the health of various habitats and will be

monitored to quantify habitat changes predicted by implementation of the Forest Plan (USDA

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

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

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

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

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

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

evaluations, and viability assessments.


3

The terrestrial wildlife analysis area for the Big Pines Restoration Project is defined as the project

planning area. For these analyses, the ―Highway 62 Pines‖ planning area was used (Figure 1).

This area is approximately 4,242 acres and is located within and includes federally managed

lands in the following subwatersheds within the (5th field) Headwaters Rogue River watershed:

Bar Creek-Rogue River, Mill Creek, and Takelma-Gorge Rogue River drainages. Only National

Forest System Lands (NFSL) would be treated.

The project planning area is within the area analyzed under the 1995 Upper Rogue River

Watershed Analysis (USDA Forest Service 1995). The legal description is Township 31 and 32

South, Range 3 East, Willamette Meridian, Jackson County, Oregon. Treatments would occur

within 5 project units located within the broader Big Pines Restoration Project planning area.

Figure 1. Big Pines Restoration Project Planning Area.

Big Pines Project

4

Table 1. Management Indicator Species (MIS) on the Rogue River National Forest and Big Pines Restoration Project planning area

Species Habitat

represented

Habitat present in Big Pines Project planning

area

Species present in Big Pines Project planning

area

Spotted owl Older forest habitat

(mature and old-growth forest)

Yes (mature forest) Documented

Pileated woodpecker Mature forest Yes Documented

American marten Mature forest No No

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

Wildlife trees (snags)

Yes

Downy – Documented

Hairy – Documented

N. flicker – Documented

Roosevelt elk Winter range and

thermal cover Yes Documented

Black-tailed deer Winter range,

thermal cover, and non-forested habitat

Yes Documented

Habitat for American marten (Martes americana) is not present within the Big Pines planning

area as the entire project is below 4,000’ elevation. In addition, there are no records of marten

observations within the project planning area. Therefore, further analysis and discussion of the

species under the Big Pines project will not be necessary.

A. Habitats for MIS Species

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

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

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

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

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

refined using information from field verification on a sample of the units by the District

Silviculturist and Wildlife Biologists.

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

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

and provides consistent vegetation characteristics throughout the analysis areas regardless of

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

Siskiyou National Forest.

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

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

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

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

MIS species on the Forest are identified in table 2. Baseline habitat determinations for MIS

species within the Big Pines Project planning area are identified in table 3.

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


5

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

Deer Acres Elk Acres

American marten

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

Acres Spotted

owl Acres

Pileated woodpecker

Acres Cavity

nesters Acres

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

Grass / shrub

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

Seed / sap / pole

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

Seed / sap / pole

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

Young 11 to 19.9”

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

Low quality snag hab

15,728 Low

quality snag hab

15,728

Young 11 to 19,9”

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


74,979 Low

quality snag hab

74,979

Young 11 to 19.9”

>70% CC

Thermal / hiding

141,625 Thermal / hiding

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

141,625

Mature, >20”

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


6,066 Low

quality snag hab

6,066

Mature, >20”

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

Snag hab

29,912

Mature, >20”

>60% CC

Optimal thermal/ hiding

203,402 Optimal thermal/ hiding

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

203,402

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

American marten section below and table 20.

Big Pines Project

6

Table 3. MIS Species and baseline habitats on the Big Pines Restoration Project Planning Area.

Deer Acres Elk Acres

American marten (4,000 to 6,800 feet

elev only)

Acres Spotted

owl Acres

Pileated woodpecker

Acres Cavity

nesters Acres

Grass / shrub

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

Seed / sap / pole

3 to 11”, <40% CC Forage 7 Forage 7 Forage 0 Non hab 7 Non hab 7 Non hab 7

Seed / sap / pole

3 to 11”, >40% CC Hiding 2 Hiding 2 Forage 0 Non hab 2 Non hab 2 Non hab 2

Young 11 to 19.9”

<40% CC Forage 37 Forage 37 Forage 0 Non hab 37


37 Low quality snag hab

37

Young 11 to 19,9”

40 to 70% CC Hiding 90 Hiding 90 Forage 0 Dispersal 90



90

Young 11 to 19.9”

>70% CC

Thermal/ hiding

27 Thermal/

hiding 27 Forage 0 Dispersal 27 Snag hab 27 Snag hab 27

Mature, >20”

<40% CC Forage 139 Forage 139 Den/Rest 0 Non hab 139



139

Mature, >20”

40 to 60% CC Hiding 190 Hiding 190 Den/Rest 0 Dispersal 190 Snag hab 190 Snag hab 190

Mature, >20”

>60% CC

Optimal thermal/ hiding

3482 Optimal thermal/ hiding

3482 Den/Rest 0 NRF 3482 Snag hab 3482 Snag hab 3482


7

B. Coarse Woody Debris (CWD) and Snags

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

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

nesting/denning habitats for northern spotted owl, pileated woodpecker, , and the cavity nesting

MIS species. Coarse woody debris and snags also provide resting sites and prey/foraging habitats

for these species.

1. DecAID Analysis

An advisory system called ―DecAID‖ is a planning tool intended to help advise and guide land

managers on conserving and managing coarse woody debris for biodiversity for Oregon and

Washington. DecAID assists in evaluating effects of proposed management activities on

organisms that use CWD.

The DecAID Advisor arose from the recognition by Pacific Northwest Region, USDA Forest

Service, of the growing need to update guidelines for managing snags and down wood. It was

described in the wildlife Species Habitat Project of Washington and Oregon (Rose et al. 2001,

Johnson and O’Neil 2001). DecAID developed into a major data synthesis project under USDA

Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region, and Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland,

Oregon, with contributions of expertise from USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, and other agencies

and institutions. The analysis is based on ―vegetation conditions‖ which include wildlife habitat

type, vegetation alliance, structural condition, and subregion. Habitat types and structural

conditions were derived from those defined in the Species Habitat Project (Chappell et al. 2001).

It also provides a summary of forest inventory data that representing the natural and current

conditions of coarse woody debris across ownerships and historic activities.

The DecAID analysis uses the GNN satellite imagery as this is considered the best available

dataset. A primary limitation to using the GNN data is that it is to be used at a minimum of 12,800

acres. Therefore, the DecAID analyses were conducted at the HUC10 watershed level for the

entire Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest. The Big Pines Restoration Project is located within

the Headwaters of the Rogue River watershed and was used for the project’s CWD analysis for

small snags, large snags, and downed wood. The current condition for all CWD uses the 2012

GNN dataset and the wildlife habitat type that best represents the Big Pines project planning area

is the ―Southwest Oregon Mixed Conifer-Hardwood Forest‖. The reference or natural condition

was derived from Landfire data.

The following tables compare the current snag conditions to reference (natural) snag conditions

by HUC10 watershed and Wildlife Habitat Type (WHT). Reference conditions are weighted

averages using unharvested plot data from DecAID, and weighted by the relative mix of

structural condition classes (using early, mid, late as a representation as open, small/medium

trees, and large trees) that you expect under a natural disturbance regime. Snags were

summarized in two size cutoffs 20‖ diameter and above and 10‖ diameter and above, which

includes data of >20‖ diameter.. Downed wood was summarized in two size cutoffs 20‖

diameter and above and 5‖ diameter and above, including those in the 20+‖ group.

Big Pines Project

8

Figure 1. Upper Rogue Watershed SW Oregon Mixed Conifer-Hardwood Forest.

Comparison of percent snags/acre ( >10” DBH)for reference and current conditions.


Comparison of percent snags/acre (>20” DBH)for reference and current conditions.


9


Comparison of percent cover for downed wood (>5”)for reference and current conditions

across the watershed.


Comparison of percent cover for downed wood (>20”)for reference and current conditions

across the watershed.

Big Pines Project

10

For both snag size classes (>10‖ and >20‖), the current condition has higher densities at a higher

percentage throughout the entire Headwaters of the Rogue River Watershed compared to the

reference condition (Figure 1 and Figure 2). Pockets of root rot disease and subsequent insect

damage within the treatment units have resulted in varying sizes of snags, particularly ponderosa

and sugar pine snags that are >20‖. Wildlife habitat inventory plots (n=32) for the Big Pines

project treatment units resulted in a range of 0-26 snags/acre and mean of 3.5 snag/acre (+0.9 SE)

for those 11-19‖ DBH. For snags >20‖ DBH, habitat measurements resulted in a range of 0-4

snags/acre and a mean of 1 snag/acre (+ 0.20 SE).

The current condition of downed wood within the Upper Rogue Watershed for both >5‖ and >20‖

is generally a higher percent cover over a higher percentage than the reference condition across

the watershed. A higher percentage of downed wood percent cover may be attributed to the higher

number of snags per acre present on the landscape as these turn into downed wood over time. For

the Big Pines treatment units, wildlife habitat inventory plots did not include a measurement for

downed wood percent cover specifically. However, linear feet/acre for downed wood 11-19‖ and

>20‖ was measured. Across all of the treatment units, the amount of downed wood measured

resulted in a mean of 183 feet/acre (+ 43 SE) and 180 feet/acre (+45 SE) for 11-19‖ and >20‖ size

classes, respectively.

Under the proposed action of this project, large snags will be retained during implementation

unless they are a safety hazard. Proposed fuels treatments for the project will result in a decrease

in small downed wood initially, but low intensity underburning should maintain the larger sized

downed wood. In addition, fuels treatments will increase snags within the planning area, which

will become downed wood over time. Since root rot has been documented as very common

throughout the Prospect corridor (Goheen et al. 1997), the presence of large snags due to root rot

disease and subsequent downed wood will persist outside of the Big Pines treatment units.

Site-specific snag and down wood data were collected for the Cascade Province on the Rogue

River-Siskiyou National Forest by the Southwest Oregon Ecology Group. These data were

collected within unmanaged forest ecology plots that are identified within specific plant series

(Hochhalter 2010). Tables 4 and 5 identify the mean and standard deviations of these data. The

project planning area falls almost entirely within the White fir plant series in these tables.

Table 4. Coarse woody material levels (mean length/acre).

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

10 to 19.9 inches ≥20 inches

Douglas-fir (n=14) 535 (521) 93 (153)

White fir (n=90) 663 (534) 239 (334)

Table 5. Snag levels (trees/ acre).

Plant series

Diameter class mean (trees/acre) (SD)


Douglas-fir (n=17) 6 (13) 2 (4)

White fir (n=97) 4 (6) 4 (5)

Table 6. Coarse woody material and snag levels on the Big Pines Project planning area.

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


CWD (n=32) 184 179

Snag (n=32) 4 1


11

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

Biologists during field verification of wildlife habitats. Table 6 provides these data, expressed as

the mean across all units measured for both the 10 to 19.9-inch and ≥20-inch size classes, for

comparison of CWD and snags in unmanaged forest stands (tables 4 and 5). The current mean for

snags and CWD under the Big Pines project falls below the Plant Series recommendation for

snags in the ≥20 inch size class. The low number of large snags is likely due to the location of the

treatment units, which are directly adjacent to Highway 62. Large snags are often removed along

highways when they pose a threat to public safety. Under the Big Pines project, large snags will

be maintained if they are not deemed an imminent threat to operations or Highway 62. The

expectation of maintaining snags is contrary to public safety hazards therefore, the project will

result in fewer snags that are within the 200’ highway prism. Although a decrease in snags is

expected if they fall within the highway prism, additional snags are available adjacent to the units

and within the planning area. Past management activities within the Big Pines planning area

included snag creation projects, which were completed within the last 3 years under the Highway

62 Pines project.

Outside of the Highway 62 corridor and powerline road prism (200’), it’s recommended that the

snag and down wood guidelines by Plant Series identified by Hochhalter (2010) for the Cascade

Province of the Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest. Maintain the mean ± 1 SD for snags and

down wood in the 11 inches DBH and 20 inches DBH classes. The minimum Rogue River Land

and Resource Management Plan guidelines for snags must be met.

C. Northern Spotted Owl (Strix occidentalis caurina)

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

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

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

Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest, and within the Big Pines Project planning area, please

refer to the Terrestrial Biological Evaluation for the Big Pines Restoration Project.

The Forest has identified 8 known, historic, or suspected spotted owl sites in or adjacent to

(within 1.2 miles of the planning area boundary) the Big Pines Project planning area from

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

activity centers (Knob Hill and Bonk Hill) fall within the Big Pines Project planning area

boundary and overlap with treatment units. Therefore, the remaining 6 spotted owl sites will not

be addressed and were not addressed further in the Terrestrial Wildlife BE. Barred owls were

detected within the planning area during surveys in 2014 and 2015.

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

Big Pines Project planning area were surveyed to protocol in 2014 and 2015.

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

action in the Terrestrial Wildlife BE for the Big Pines Restoration Project.

D. Pileated Woodpecker (Dryocopus pileatus)

1. Conservation Status

USDA Forest Service – MIS on all forests

NatureServe

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

Global – G5 – Widespread, abundant, secure

Oregon – S4 – Apparently secure

Washington – S4 – Apparently secure

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

Big Pines Project

12

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

Cascades Slopes and Foothills, Klamath Mountains)

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

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

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

Candidate

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service Birds of Conservation Concern

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

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

Conservation Regions occurring in Oregon and Washington.

BCR 5 – No

BCR 9 – No

BCR 10 – No

2. Distribution

Global:

NatureServe

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

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

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

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

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

Oklahoma, and Texas (AOU 1983).‖

Oregon and Washington:

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

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

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

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

and foraging (Marshall et al. 2003).

3. Habitat Use

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

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

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

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

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

2006).In the Coast Range of western Oregon, pileated woodpeckers preferred deciduous riparian

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

al. 2004).

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

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

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

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



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


13

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

trees per year (Aubry and Raley 2002).

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

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

maple, and western redcedar (Mellen 1987).

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

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

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

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

Type of use

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

Number of studies

Citations 30% tl

50% tl (mean)

80% tl

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

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

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

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

Source: Mellen-McLean et al. 2009.

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

Type of use

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

Number of studies

Citations 30% tl

50% tl (mean)

80% tl

Nesting and roosting

11.7 (4.7)

17.4 (7.0)

26.0 (10.4)

169 2 Aubry and Raley 2002; Mellen 1987

Foraging 19.0 (7.6)

30.2 (12.1)

47.0 (18.8)

86 1 Raley and Aubry 2006

Source: Mellen-McLean et al. 2009.

Big Pines Project

14

Home Range

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

Geographic area Home range size Citations

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

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

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

Northeast Oregon

Paired birds

Mean = 407 hectares (1,005 acres)

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

Single birds

Mean = 597 hectares (1,475 acres)

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

Bull and Holthausen (1993)

Olympic Peninsula

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

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

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

Aubry and Raley (1996)

4. Population Trend and Viability

Rogue River Land and Resource Management Plan (1990)

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

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

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

roosting.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

growth forest.

Northwest Forest Plan

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

analysis using Pacific Meridian Landsat (PMR) data.

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

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

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


15

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

of LSRs for the Forest.

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

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

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

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

harvest (table 11).

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

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

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

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

Northwest Forest Plan.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

matrix.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

successional associated species such as the pileated woodpecker.

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

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

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

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

stable.

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

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

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

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

slightly increasing on that route.

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

GNN dataset Congressionally Reserved acres

LSR acres Administratively Withdrawn acres

All Forest acres

>70% Medium Mature (20+ DBH)

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

>70% Old Growth 11,884 27,210 1,015 63,181 40 to 70% Medium Mature 9,410 9,117 1,951 29,562 40 to 70% Old Growth 4,073 6,414 396 18,354

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

Big Pines Project

16

5. Existing Condition (2011)

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

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

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

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

also provide suitable habitat for pileated woodpecker.

Table 12. Pileated woodpecker habitat 2011


LSR acres Administratively Withdrawn acres

All Forest acres

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

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

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

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

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

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

foraging habitats for northern spotted owls.

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

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

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

would be provided for across the Forest.

Pileated woodpeckers were documented in suitable and dispersal habitats within the Big Pines

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

documented for pileated woodpecker use.

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

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

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

Oregon and Washington. The Wildlife Habitat Relationship Model (WHR) was developed by

reviewing the literature on pileated woodpecker habitat to determine vegetation types and

structural stages used by the woodpecker. Each combination of VDDT (Vegetation Dynamics

Development Tool) State Class and PVT (Potential Vegetation Type) was determined to be habitat

or non-habitat for each VDDT modeling zone. The model identified that approximately 20 to 40

percent of the habitat within theUpper Rogue Watershed is considered to be pileated woodpecker

habitat.

Within the project planning area, there are 3,482 acres (36 percent) of mature habitats (20 inches

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

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

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


17

6. Effects of Silvicultural and Fuels Treatments on Pileated Woodpecker

Direct and Indirect Effects

Variable density thinning under the proposed action will occur on approximately 675 acres, in

which 101 acres of NRF habitat will be maintained and 574 acres will be downgraded to dispersal

habitat (maintaining 40% canopy closure).

Small group selectionwill occur on approximately 75 acres (10 percent) of the treatment units,

harvesting most trees in a small area within a stand in order to create gaps where shade intolerant

trees, such as the pines, can become established; openings would generally be ¼ to ¾ acre in size.

Such openings would be created near large pines so that they are near a seed source for natural

regeneration or created in areas of Douglas-fir and true fir root rot where pines would serve as

non-host species.

Under the proposed action, all large, legacy trees will be maintained and are most likely to

support pileated woodpeckers as they are the oldest, largest trees, with a high potential for

cavities. Low thinning with small group selection would likely reduce stand complexity due to

removal of the mid-story canopy in nesting/foraging habitats. Depending on the extent of the

removal of sub-dominant commercial trees, low thinning has the potential to retard recruitment of

sub-dominant trees into the large tree component of the stand which serve as nesting/foraging

structures. Removal of these trees would reduce foraging/nesting opportunities on those acres due

to loss of individual trees with potential nesting habitats if the tree also has cavities. All coarse

downed wood and snags will be maintained under the proposed action unless snags are deemed a

threat to human safety. Therefore, existing coarse woody debris for foraging and nesting will be

maintained during silviculture treatments.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

used to reduce Fire Regime Condition Class (FRCC) within the Big Pines Project planning area

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

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

evolved and persisted under these conditions.

Cumulative Effects

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

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

effects are Cascades Managed Stands and Mill Creek timber sales because they overlap spatially

and/or temporally.

The Mill Creek Vegetation Management project was designed to maintain forest health and

habitat diversity, reduce risk of insect and disease infestations, reduce fuel loading and the

potential effects of wildfire, and increase the quality of riparian vegetation. There are

approximately 73 acres of Mill Creek timber sale units within the Big Pines Project planning area.

These stands are composed of both commercial and precommercial sizes trees.

The Cascade Managed Stands (CMS) Environmental Assessment identified11,720 acres of

candidate stands potentially eligible and in need of commercial or non-commercial thinning

Big Pines Project

18

treatments.Of these, there are approximately 95 acres within the cumulative effects analysis

area.These stands are young (30 to 60 years old) and even-aged.

Determination of Effect

Since treated stands under the Big Pines Restoration Projectwould retain the largest, oldest trees,

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

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

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

most of whichprovide highquality habitats for late-successional species. These stands will

continue to provide nesting, roosting, and foraging sites for pileated woodpeckers into the future.

The Big Pines Restoration project will also reduce canopy closure from 60 percent or greater to

approximately 40 percent on 655 acres of suitable pileated woodpecker habitats, the cumulative

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

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

the scale of the Forest. Therefore, the project actions for the Big Pines Restoration Project are

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

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

E. Primary Cavity Nesters

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

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

Table 21. Conservation status of cavity-nesting MIS

Species USFS

sensitive

NatureServe ranks1 USFWS Birds of

Conservation Concern2

ODFW3 WDFW

4

Global OR WA

Downy woodpecker G5 S4 S4S5 Hairy woodpecker G5 S4 S5 Northern flicker G5 S5 S5

1 NatureServe Ranks: (NatureServe 2010) (http://www.explorer.natureserve.org/)

G5 or S5 – Widespread, abundant, secure

G4 or S4 – Apparently secure

G3 or S3 – Vulnerable

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

2. Distribution

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

Species General distribution Oregon and Washington distribution

Downy woodpecker

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

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

Hairy woodpecker

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

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

Northern flicker

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

Oregon and Washington: Common resident across both states

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

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

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

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


19

3. Habitat Use

Downy woodpecker

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

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

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

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

were detected during surveys within the Big Pines Project planning area.

Hairy woodpecker

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

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

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

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

woodpeckers were documented in several seral stages within the Big Pines Project planning area.

Northern flicker

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

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

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

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

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

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

Table 23. General habitat associations of snag associated MIS

Species Habitat description Citations

Downy woodpecker

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

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

Hairy woodpecker

General: Dry and wet coniferous forests at low to mid-elevations. Also use deciduous forest and riparian areas, especially if adjacent to coniferous forest. Use all ages of forest stands, though some authors report preference for older stands for nesting. Nest primarily in moderately decayed snags.Occur in higher densities in mature and old-growth stands on the west side of the Cascades.

Post-fire: These woodpeckers reach their highest densities in un-salvaged, recent (1 to 5 years) post-fire habitat with moderate to high densities of snags. Older burns do not support the high levels of wood-boring beetles that attract them to the recent burns. Nest densities were 2.5 times lower in partially salvaged burns than in unsalvaged burns; nest survival was significantly reduced in partially salvaged burns Habitat models: Idaho– post-fire habitats – nest sites – positive association with increasing patch area, pre-fire crown closure >40 percent, high snag densities, and larger (~15 inches DBH) than available snags, and unsalvaged areas


Huff and Raley (1991)

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

Saab et al. (2009)

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

Big Pines Project

20

Species Habitat description Citations

Northern flicker

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

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

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

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


Post-fire:Haggard and Gaines (2001)

Saab et al. (2007)

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

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

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

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

Downy woodpecker Red alder

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

Moderate to hard Douglas fir, western hemlock

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

Soft to moderate Douglas-fir, western hemlock

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

Species

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

Green forests Recent post-fire

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

Downy woodpecker 50% tl = 97.5 50% tl = 26.7 Hairy woodpecker 58.0, 85.8, 125.6 8.5, 19.6, 35.4 Northern flicker 67.6, 94.7, 132.9 7.6, 20.2, 37.8

Home Range

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

Species Home range size Density estimates Citations

Downy woodpecker 5 to 17 acres

5 to 9 acres

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

Hairy woodpecker

Up to 25 acres

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

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

Northern flicker Home range – 62 acres Territories – 17.5 acres

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

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

4. Population Trend and Viability

Woodpecker Surveys and Trends on the Forest

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

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

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


21

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

survey observation, all 4 species have remained stable.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

northern flicker.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

populations of primary cavity nesters would be maintained through time.

Big Pines Project

22


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

the original Forest Plan.

Table 27. Primary cavity nester high potential habitat 1994

PMR dataset Congressionally Reserved acres

LSR acres

Administratively Withdrawn acres

All Forest acres

>70 percent Medium Mature (20+ DBH) 5,339 16,287 1,144 43,005 >70 percent Old Growth (32+ DBH 11,884 27,210 1,015 63,181 40 to 70 percent Medium Mature 9,410 9,117 1,951 29,562 40 to 70 percent Old Growth 4,073 6,414 396 18,354 Total NRF 30,706 59,028 4,506 154,102



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


23

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

woody debris within the Matrix.

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

Species Outcome likelihood

A B C D

Hairy woodpecker 100 0 0 0 Northern flicker 100 0 0 0

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

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

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

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

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

Land Management 1994a, page J2-453).

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





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

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

successional associated MIS.

5. Current Condition (2011)

According to the 2011 Gradient Nearest Neighbor (GNN) dataset

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

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

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

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

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

core areas also provide for suitable habitat for woodpeckers.

Table 29. Woodpecker habitat 2015


LSR acres


All Forest acres

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

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

woodpeckers than was planned for in the original Forest Plan. It is very likely that the Forest is

providing habitat for far more woodpecker pairs than originally thought to be needed across the

Forest to provide for long-term viability of this species.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Big Pines Project

24

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

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

Within the project planning area, there are nearly5,000 acres (36 percent) of mature habitats (20

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

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

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

ranges, and 81 northern flicker home ranges within the Big Pines Project planning area. The

Forest believes that the population trend for this species group is up and that viability would be

provided for on the Forest.

6. Effects of Silviculture and Fuels Treatments on Primary Cavity Nesters










non-host species.

Under the proposed action, all large, legacy trees will be maintained and are most likely to

support woodpeckers as they are the oldest, largest trees, with a high potential for cavities. Low

thinning with small group selection would likely reduce stand complexity due to removal of the

mid-story canopy in nesting/foraging habitats. Depending on the extent of the removal of sub-

dominant commercial trees, low thinning has the potential to retard recruitment of sub-dominant

trees into the large tree component of the stand which serve as nesting/foraging structures.

Removal of these trees would reduce foraging/nesting opportunities on those acres due to loss of

individual trees with potential nesting habitats if the tree also has cavities. All coarse downed

wood and snags will be maintained under the proposed action unless snags are deemed a threat to

human safety. Therefore, existing coarse woody debris for foraging and nesting will be

maintained during silviculture treatments.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

to reduce Fire Regime Condition Class (FRCC) within the Big Pines Project planning area to

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

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

evolved and persisted under these conditions.

Cumulative Effects


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


25

effects are Cascades Managed Stands and Mill Creek timber sales because they overlap spatially

and temporally.









area.These stands are young (30 to 60 years old) and even-aged.


Since treated stands under the Big Pines Restoration Project would retain the largest, oldest trees,

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

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

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

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

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

woodpeckers into the future.

The Big Pines Restoration project will also reduce canopy closure from 60 percent or greater to

approximately 40 percent on 655 acres of suitable woodpecker habitats, the cumulative effects

would result in a small adverse trend of habitat by reducing canopy closure in those stands. The

effects of the project action on woodpecker habitat would be insignificant at the scale of the

Forest. Therefore, the project actions for the Big Pines Restoration Project are consistent with the

Forest Plan, and thus continued viability of woodpecker is expected on the Rogue River portion

of the Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest.

G. Roosevelt Elk (Cervus elephus roosevelti)


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

Global – G5T4 – Widespread, abundant, apparently secure

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) –

Harvested as a game animal west of Cascade Crest

(http://www.dfw.state.or.us/resources/hunting/big_game/index.asp#big_game_regs)

Distribution

West of Cascade Crest in Oregon.

2. Habitat Use

Elk require a mosaic of early, forage-producing stages and later, cover-forming stages of forest in

close proximity (Harper et al. 1987). In western Oregon, clear-cuttings compose the primary

foraging areas, attaining peak production and use 5 to 8 years after logging. Production of prime

forage is related positively to the degree of soil disturbance, whereas use of elk is related

negatively to distance from cover (Verts and Carraway 1998).

Summer elk forage consists of a combination of lush forbs, grasses, and shrubs high in nutrients

and easily digestible. Generally, higher elevation wet meadows, springs, and riparian areas in

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

http://www.dfw.state.or.us/resources/hunting/big_game/index.asp#big_game_regs

Big Pines Project

26

close proximity to forested stands offer these conditions for the longest period. Such areas

provide nutritious forage and moist, cool places for bedding and escaping summer heat and

insects (ODFW 2003).

Elk achieve peak body condition during late summer and fall. Winter survival depends on fat

reserves animals are able to store, thus, quality forage during summer and fall is crucial.

Additionally, this forage is needed to meet the rigors of breeding and migration for those animals

moving to winter ranges. The late summer/fall period can be critical on many elk ranges during

drought years (ODFW 2003).

Winter is when elk survival is severely tested. Day length shortens, temperatures drop, and rain

and snow increase. Forage becomes less abundant and accessible, and nutritional quality declines.

Elk energy requirements can be high, and during this time they are dependent on stores of body

fat. At this time they increasingly seek out an environment that helps minimize energy

consumption. Such areas typically provide protection against weather and offer security for

minimizing harassment or disturbance. During a typical winter, elk may lose 20 to 25 percent of

their body weight. Elk losing more than 30 percent of their body weight likely would not survive

(ODFW 2003).

Cover is an important component of elk habitat and provides both thermal and hiding properties.

During summer it provides cooler, shaded areas for elk to bed during the heat of the day. During

winter it provides a warmer, protected environment out of the cold, wind, rain, or snow. Lichens

and other plants associated with cover can be an important source of forage for wintering animals.

Adequate thermal cover reduces the energy needed by elk and contributes to over winter survival

(ODFW 2003).

Research by Cook et al. (2004) has shown that forested habitats may not be necessary for thermal

regulation in elk. Cook et al (2004) reviewed four thermal cover studies conducted on elk and

deer across North America and concluded that they indicate the thermal cover benefit attributed to

dense forest cover is probably not operative across a considerable range of climate, including

climates in boreal ecosystems of the northeastern United States, maritime ecosystems of the

inland Pacific Northwest, and in cold, dry ecosystems of the central Rocky Mountains.Cook et al.

(2004) also concluded that the experimental studies outlined above evaluated the weather

moderating influences of forest cover (i.e., influences on wind speed, ambient temperature, and

long- and short-wave radiation fluxes). They did not evaluate other potentially beneficial aspects

of forest cover, which under some circumstances could include enhanced security, reduced snow

depth and a better foraging environment. Thus, results of these experimental studies cannot be

used to categorically reject all potential benefits of forest cover to elk.

Hiding cover is also referred to as security cover and allows elk to escape and hide from

intrusions or disturbances. These intrusions can be human (hunters, vehicles, hikers, etc.) or

natural (predators). Factors affecting elk security are topographic relief, vegetation density, and

proximity to human activity. Hiding cover becomes more important if other components that

provide security are absent. This can be particularly important where predator numbers or human

intrusions are high. Inadequate security or hiding cover can make elk more vulnerable to

predators, harvest by hunters, or other sources of mortality that can lead to abandonment of

traditionally used areas. Regulating hunters can sometimes help, however this provides little

benefit if predation and/or other human disturbance are occurring (ODFW 2003).

Shifts in elk distribution away from roads used by motorized vehicles have been documented

across many areas of the western United States (Rowland et al. 2000). Many National Forests in

the west have incorporated this information into road density management objectives for Big-

Game Winter Range areas in their Land and Resource Management Plans. However, road density

and the effects of motorized use on elk are not limited to the winter period.

Evidence is consistent and overwhelming that vehicular traffic on forest roads evokes an

avoidance response by elk. Even though habitat near roads is not denied to elk, it is not fully used


27

(Lyon 1983). Christenson et al. (1993) reported that even primitive roads that see little summer

use are often used extensively during the hunting season. During the General Cascade Bull Elk

Season, the Upper Rogue Cooperative Travel Management Area effectively reduces road density

in the project planning area. However, there are no travel management restrictions on

maintenance level 2 to 5 roads during any of the other elk seasons or outside of hunting seasons

in the Rogue Wildlife Management Unit.

3. Food Habits

Seventeen locations within the High Cascade Ranger District were evaluated for elk presence and

forage utilization between June 14, 2007 and August 23, 2007 (Korfhage and Roche 2007). Fresh

fecal material was collected for analysis of plant epidermal cell fragments. Field observations

were recorded from meadows, grasslands, adjacent forests, and recent timber harvest areas.

Evidence of elk presence (beds, fecal material, tracks) and forage utilization were noted.

Specimens were collected of grazed plants and suitable elk forage species. Korfhage and Roche

(2007) keyed 170 plant specimens, which were pressed, mounted and placed in the Medford

District BLM herbarium. They collected fresh fecal material where it was available and noted

habitat characteristics as well as elk behavior in field reports for each site. Epidermal cell

characteristics were noted and drawn for leaves of 67 voucher specimens to use in identification

of epidermal fragments in elk fecal material. Elk fecal samples collected at eight sites were

processed using fecal analysis techniques (Korfhage 1974).

Identifiable epidermal fragments in the fecal material were cataloged and a general food habit

summary was recorded for each site. Forty-three plant species were identified in elk feces.

Although grasses and sedges were observed most frequently, fragments of some forbs and a few

shrubs and trees were also present.

Long-stolon sedge (Carex inops), blue wildrye (Elymus glaucus), Ross’ sedge (Carex rossii),

smooth woodrush (Luzula hitchcockii), western needlegrass (Achnatherum occidentale),

orchardgrass (Dactylis glomerata), timothy (Phleum pratense), monkshood (Aconitum

columbianum), and bracken fern (Pteridium aquilinum), were found most frequently in samples.

Orchardgrass and blue wildrye were the two species seen most frequently in the fecal material

that are used in Forest Service seeding projects (Korfage and Roche 2007).

4. Populations Trend and Viability

Home Range

In northeastern Oregon, home-range areas of female elk in summer ranged from less than 375

acres to more than 16,250 acres (Verts and Carraway 1998). In the Coast Range, minimum-area

home ranges of individual female elk followed by radiotelemetry ranged from 148-714 acres;

home ranges were largest in summer and smallest in winter (Verts and Carraway 1998).


Elk herds were commonly found in the Cascades portion of the Forest. The main herds were

found on the Prospect and Butte Falls Ranger Districts which together consisted of about 800

animals produced on the Forest. The Cascade portion of the Ashland Ranger District had about

100 animals that summer along the western boundary (USDA Forest Service 1990b, page III-83).

Management of winter range is critical to maintenance of the existing elk herds. Elk winter range

generally lies less than 4,000 feet elevation but due to changing aspect, elevation can vary. The

Forest manages about 204,800 acres of winter range mostly located on the Prospect and Butte

Falls Ranger Districts. Of this, about 67,700 acres is identified as core winter range (USDA

Forest Service 1990b, page III-84).

Big Pines Project

28

Winter range was considered to be the limiting factor on elk populations during the development

of the 1990 Rogue River Forest Plan. It was predicted that the carrying capacity would improve

through time based on the management emphasis of the Forest Plan (USDA Forest Service

1990a).

The projected production capability was expected to rise at a steady rate of about 12 percent per

decade through the fifth decade then remain relatively constant through the tenth decade. By the

end of the fifth decade, it was expected that a production capability of 2,600 to 2,700 elk could be

achieved. The level was about 54 percent above the projected ODFW benchmark level of 1,750

elk. It was presumed that actual population levels could exceed benchmark levels by the end of

the second decade, and remain above projected benchmark levels through the tenth decade

(USDA Forest Service 1990b, page IV-93).


The Record of Decision (ROD) for amendments to Forest Service and Bureau of Land

Management planning documents within the range of the northern spotted owl [commonly

referred to as the Northwest Forest Plan], amended Standards and Guidelines of existing Forest

Plans on over 24 million acres of federal lands within the range of the northern spotted owl

(USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management 1994b). The Rogue River Land

and Resource Management Plan was amended by this decision. Standards and Guidelines in

existing plans still applied where they were more restrictive or provided greater benefits to late-

successional forest-related species than the standards and guidelines in the Northwest Forest Plan

ROD.

Since inception of the Forest Plan, the Rogue River National Forest has emphasized retention of

both nesting/roosting/foraging (NRF) and dispersal habitats for northern spotted owl. Generally,

this habitat is multistoried, 80 years old or more (depending on stand type and structural

condition), and has sufficient snags and down wood to provide opportunities for nesting, roosting,

and foraging. The canopy closure generally exceeds 60 percent. Other attributes include a high

incidence of large trees with various deformities (e.g., large cavities, broken tops, mistletoe

infestations, and other evidence of decadence); large snags; large accumulations of fallen trees

and other woody debris on the ground; and sufficient open space below the canopy for owls to fly

(Thomas et al. 1990).

When these stands meet the 70 percent canopy cover minimum, they are generally considered to

be optimal thermal cover for deer and elk. Dispersal habitat is forested habitat with canopy

closure more than 40 percent, average diameter greater than 11 inches, and flying space for owls

in the understory but does not provide the components found in NRF. Where dispersal stands

meet the 70 percent canopy cover minimum, they are generally considered to be thermal cover for

deer and elk.

Since implementation of the Northwest Forest Plan, silvicultural prescriptions for timber sales

have emphasized thinning in both NRF and dispersal stands. Thinning prescriptions, as opposed

to regeneration prescriptions, resulted in a major change in the resultant stands in terms of habitat

for both deer and elk. Prior to implementation of the Northwest Forest Plan , regeneration

harvests (clear cuts, seed tree cuts, and shelterwoods) provided high-quality forage areas for big

game adjacent to both thermal and optimal thermal stands. Natural succession allowed for the

forb and shrub layers to propagate at high-densities throughout the harvest unit for a period of 5

to 10 years or more until seedlings over-topped and shaded out the forage species.

Attainment of probable sale quantity (PSQ) required covering much larger planning areas and

timber harvesting over many more acres after the Northwest Forest Plan was implemented.

Silvicultural prescriptions in young commercial (dispersal) stands typically reduces the canopy

cover to near 40 percent, which still allows for spotted owls to use them for moving between NRF

stands. Reducing canopy cover to near 40 percent provides openings and allows sunlight to reach


29

the forest floor. This can stimulate the growth of the herbaceous and shrub layer if these plants

already occur in the understory. This can provide a short-term (5 to 15 year) increase in the forage

base for both elk and deer until canopy of the remaining trees once again shade out the understory

growth. The same prescription reduces thermal cover for big game if the stand was at 70 percent

or greater canopy cover prior to harvest. It may also reduce hiding cover for a period of time until

the shrub layer reaches 3 to 5 feet in height. Thinning in older (NRF) stands generally retains

optimal thermal conditions because silvicultural prescriptions retain multi-layered structure and

more than 60 percent canopy cover.

Tables 30 to 33 provide the 1994 baseline for habitat conditions used by Roosevelt elk on the

Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest.

Table 30. Elk and deer potential optimal thermal habitat 1994


LSR acres


All Forest acres

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

Table 31. Elk and deer potential thermal habitat 1994


LSR acres


All Forest acres

>70% Medium Mature (20+ inches DBH) 5,339 16,287 1,144 43,005 >70% Old Growth (32+ inches DBH) 11,884 27,210 1,015 63,181 Total thermal (includes optimal thermal)

17,223 43,497 2,159 106,186

Table 32. Elk and deer potential foraging habitat 1994


LSR acres


All Forest acres

Grass/Shrub/Sparse Vegetated 10,129 16,587 4,129 61,956 11 to 40% CC, Seed/Sap/Pole 18,537 44,818 2,595 143,021 11 to 40% CC, Medium/Mature 89 511 3 1,841 11 to 40% CC, Old Growth 68 292 1 949 Total foraging habitat 28,823 62,208 6,728 207,767

Table 33. Elk and deer potential hiding cover 1994


LSR acres


All Forest acres

40 to 70% CC, Seed/Sap/Pole 23,390 29,310 3,387 113,612 >70% CC, Seed/Sap/Pole 21,086 55,798 2,922 151,072 40 to 70% CC, Medium/Mature 9,410 9,117 1,951 29,562 >70% CC, Medium/Mature 5,339 16,287 1,144 43,005 40 to 70%CC, Old Growth 4,073 6,414 396 18,354 >70% CC, Old Growth 11,884 27,210 1,015 63,181 Total Hiding Cover 75,182 144,136 10,815 418,786



and USDI Bureau of Land Management 1994b). Roosevelt elk was one of 15 mammals

determined to be closely associated and interact with late-successional and old growth forests

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

1994a, page 3&4-182). A viability assessment was completed by the Forest Ecosystem

Management Assessment Team (FEMAT) (1993). The viability outcome for the elk was 96

percent likelihood of Outcome A – ―Habitat is of sufficient quality, distribution, and abundance to

allow the species population to stabilize, well distributed across federal lands‖ (USDA Forest

Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management 1994a, page 3&4-184). This outcome

Big Pines Project

30

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

Standards and Guidelines for Riparian Reserves; 3) retain live, old growth trees; and 4) retention

of green trees, snags, and coarse woody debris within the Matrix.

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





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

The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) conducts an annual census of elk herds in

their Wildlife Management Units (WMU) during the winter months. These censuses are generally

conducted during between February and April when elk are concentrated on the winter range.

Censuses are conducted by ODFW biologists by aerial surveys using helicopters. Actual elk

counts are entered into a model developed by ODFW to develop an estimated annual population.

Due to variable weather conditions during winter, and number of flights conducted due to budget

constraints, these counts can be highly variable between years. During winters with heavy

snowpack, elk tend to be more concentrated on the winter range and are more easily detected.

When snowpack is light, elk are generally more dispersed across the winter range and detection

may be more difficult. Weather conditions during winter are also highly variable and may

influence elk counts. Some conditions, such as fog, low clouds, and poor lighting can preclude

the ability of biologists to detect elk. However, multiple years of census provides the best means

of determining populations over time. Table 34 provides the annual estimated elk population on

the Rogue WMU.

Table 34. Estimated annual elk population, Rogue Wildlife Management Unit (ODFW personal

communication 2015).

Year Population estimate

1987 1,600 1989 1,700 1990 1,800 1991 2,000 1992 2,200 1993 2,600 1994 3,000 1995 3,100 1996 3,100 1997 3,200 1998 3,300 1999 3,300 2000 3,300 2001 3,300 2002 3,000 2003 3,000 2004 2,900 2005 2,900 2006 2,900 2007 2,900 2008 2,900 2009 2,900 2010 2,900 2011 2,900 2012 2,800 2013 2,800 2014 2,800 2015 2,600


31

Northwest Forest Plan (1994)

5. Current Condition (2011)

Implementation of the Northwest Forest Plan has had dramatic effects on elk habitats on the

Rogue River National Forest. Based on analyses, over the course of nearly 17 years, optimal

thermal and thermal cover habitats combined have increased by an estimated 379,000 acres and

hiding cover has increased nearly 121,000 acres, while foraging habitats have decreased by over

141,000 acres (tables 35-38). Although elk were selected as an MIS species to represent winter

range and thermal cover, ecotones (where different types of vegetation are juxtaposed) and early

successional communities are important to elk (Skovlin et al. 2002). Based on ODFW’s elk

population estimates, elk populations increased through the 1990s and began to decline by the

early 2000s. Population estimates for 2010 through 2015 are the lowest recorded in the past 20

years. This may be due, in part, to loss of foraging habitats on the Rogue River National Forest.

Table 35. Elk and deer potential optimal thermal habitat 2011


LSR acres


All Forest acres

Mature, >20 inches DBH, >60% CC 37,909 75,893 19,361 203,402

Table 36. Elk and deer potential thermal habitat 2011


LSR acres


All Forest acres

Young 11 to 19.9 inches DBH, >70% CC 36,140 34,754 11,625 141,625 Mature, >20 inches DBH, >60% CC 37,909 75,893 19,361 203,402 Total thermal (includes thermal and optimal thermal)

74,049 110,647 30,986 345,027

Table 37. Elk and deer potential foraging habitat 2015


LSR acres


All Forest acres

Grass/Shrub/Sparse Vegetated 2,521 3,086 3,234 8,837 Seed/Sap/Pole, 3 to 11 inches DBH, <40%CC

2,708 11,786 1,677 35,830

Young, 11 to 19.9 inches DBH, <40% CC

1,432 6,107 2,408 15,728

Mature,>20 inches DBH, <40% CC 799 2,480 532 6,066 Total foraging habitat 7,460 23,459 7,851 66,451

Table 38. Elk and deer potential hiding cover 2015


LSR acres


All Forest acres

Seed/Sap/Pole, 3 to 11 inches DBH, >40%CC

9,539 28,311 6,069 89,844

Young, 11 to 19.9 inches DBH, 40%-70%CC

7,309 24,151 7,680 74,979

Young, 11 to 19.9 inches DBH, >70% CC

36,140 34,754 11,625 141,625

Mature,>20 inches DBH, 40 to 60% CC 4,001 13,502 3,739 29,912 Mature,>20 inches DBH, >60% CC 37,909 75,893 19,361 203,402 Total hiding cover 94,898 176,611 48,474 539,762

Big Pines Project

32

6. Big-Game Winter Range

For MS-14, the Forest Plan requires Big-Game Winter Range habitat to provide a minimum of 50

percent thermal cover on each 500 to 1,000 acre analysis area. At least two-thirds of the thermal

cover (30 percent of the analysis area) should meet optimal thermal cover requirements (USDA

Forest Service 1990b, page 4-166). Thermal cover is defined as cover used by (big game) animals

to lessen the effects of weather, typically a stand of coniferous trees 40+ feet tall with an average

crown closure of 70 percent or greater. Optimal thermal cover includes these parameters as well

as an average stand diameter of 21+ inches DBH (USDA Forest Service 1990b).

In other allocations associated with the Big Pines project planning area, standards and guidelines

are to maintain at least 20 percent thermal cover for an area generally 500 to 1,000 acres. Hiding

cover should be dense enough to hide 90 percent of a deer or elk from view at 200 feet. Hiding

cover need not be continuous but gaps between screens should not exceed one-quarter of a mile.

A restricted operating period from April 1 to June 30 may be imposed in identified deer or elk

fawning or calving areas (USDA Forest Service 1990b, page 4-240).

To facilitate cover analysis, the District has developed a winter range block system to track

thermal cover over time. Because the Rogue River Forest Plan requires tracking of 500 to 1,000

acre blocks, the basis utilized for these winter range blocks is a section (approximately 640

acres). Where winter range does not include the entire section, these portions of the winter range

were added to winter range in an adjacent section, as long as they do not exceed 1,000 acres.

Winter range blocks may be entirely or partially within the project planning area. Thermal cover

values are managed within the assigned winter range block and not by individual project or

planning area boundary so they can be tracked through time. Table 39 provides the current

condition thermal cover values for the winter range blocks that intersect the project planning area.

Table 39. Big-Game Winter Range thermal cover values.

Block # Block total acres

Thermal total acres

Thermal percent

Optimal thermal

total acres

Optimal thermal percent

Total percent optimal thermal

and thermal

1 974 240 25 528 54 79 2 516 172 33 263 51 84 3 824 0 0 402 49 49 4 772 81 11 385 50 60 5 587 12 2 326 56 58 6 941 52 6 472 50 56 7 526 163 31 276 52 84 8 663 33 5 350 53 58

7. Effects of Silviculture and Fuels Treatments on Roosevelt Elk










non-host species.


33

Variable density thinning treatments are proposed on 675 acres and 75 acres of group selection.

All of the treatment units fall under Management Strategy14, Big-Game Winter Range. The

current conditions for optimal and thermal cover within the Big Pines planning area are above the

50% threshold required in the Forest Plan for thermal cover. The proposed action of variable

density thinning and small group selection would downgrade thermal cover in all of the treatment

acres that overlap in blocks 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8. Approximately 28 and 72 acres of thermal cover will

be maintained in blocks 1 and 2, respectively. The remaining thermal cover within the treatment

acres in blocks 1 and 2 will also be downgraded. However, the thermal cover acres will be

maintained at or above the 50% threshold for all big game winter range blocks post-treatment.

Under all action alternatives, all activities within Big-Game Winter Range including felling,

yarding, road construction, road haul, and prescribed fire are subject to a restriction from

December 1 to April 30 unless a specific waiver is authorized by the District Ranger.

Underburning treatments in both natural and activity fuels reduction units could reduce small

woody material allowing room for forage plants to grow. This would provide additional forage

benefits for big game. Fuels treatments would be designed to retain the majority of hiding cover

within both winter and summer range. However, fuels prescriptions may reduce hiding cover on

some acres. In general, fuels treatments would benefit big game by increasing forage.

Commercial timber harvest, precommercial thinning, and fuels treatments in the project planning

area would increase the forage component in many stands for big game for a period of 5 to 15

years. These same treatments would reduce hiding cover over the same acres and over the same

time period. All action alternatives would maintain minimum thermal cover standards required by

the Rogue River Forest Plan.

Temporary roads and/or road reconstruction proposed under all action alternatives would likely

result in increased disturbance and vulnerability to big game while the roads remain open.

Decommissioning would alleviate these effects within an estimated two decades. Road

decommissioning would also help reduce disturbance and vulnerability.

Cumulative Effects


potential effects to Roosevelt elk. Action which would contribute to potential cumulative effects

are the Mill Creek timber sales and Cascade Managed Stands (CMS) project because the effects

may overlap in time and space.





These stands are composed of both commercial and precommercial sizes trees. These timber sales

are also within Big Game Winter Range, but thermal cover has been maintained.




area.These stands are young (30 to 60 years old) and even-aged. These stands are also within Big

Game Winter Range and thermal cover has been maintained.

The Mill Creek Vegetation Management Project and CMS project have the potential to improve

forage for big game by reducing canopy closure which would allow sunlight to penetrate the

canopy and invigorate the grass, forb, and shrub component in the understory on an estimated 530

acres. Precommercial thinning could also provide a forage benefit to big game.

Big Pines Project

34


Commercial timber harvest, precommercial thinning, and fuels treatments in the Big Pines project

planning area would increase the forage component in many stands for big game for a period of 5

to 15 years. These same treatments would reduce hiding cover over the same acres and over the

same time period. All action alternatives would maintain minimum thermal cover standards

required by the Rogue River Forest Plan. Temporary roads and/or road reconstruction proposed

under all action alternatives would likely result in increased disturbance and vulnerability to big

game while the roads remain open. Decommissioning would alleviate these effects within an

estimated two decades. Road decommissioning would also help to reduce disturbance and

vulnerability. Based on these factors the overall direct, indirect, and cumulative effects would

result in a small positive trend of habitat by increasing forage in the project planning area.

Therefore, the proposed action for the Big Pines Project would not contribute to an adverse trend

in viability on the Rogue River National Forest for elk, and are consistent with the Forest Plan,

and thus continued viability of elk is expected on the Rogue River portion of the Rogue River-


H. Black-Tailed Deer (Odocoileus hemionus columbianus)


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

Global – G5 – Secure

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) –

Harvested as a game animal west of Cascade Crest

(http://www.dfw.state.or.us/resources/hunting/big_game/index.asp#big_game_regs)

Distribution

West of Cascade Crest in Oregon.

2. Habitat Use

Black-tailed deer are an edge-adapted species using dense hiding cover during the day, emerging

in the morning and evening to feed in more open areas (Maser et al. 1981). Throughout much of

western Oregon, black-tailed deer reside year-round in relatively flat areas at mid to low

elevations, on south facing slopes dominated by vine maple (Acer circinatum), huckleberry

(Vaccinium spp), and salal (Gaultheria shallon) plant communities (ODFW 2008).

Black-tailed deer rely upon several different successional stages of vegetation to meet their life

needs. Areas with heavy canopy closure are used during all seasons. In summer, areas of heavy

canopy closure are used to facilitate thermal regulation during periods of high temperatures.

During winter, heavy canopy closure moderates temperatures and intercepts snowfall during

winter storms.

The reduction of snow depth under heavy canopy reduces energetic expenditure during

movements of deer and provides areas of browse that would normally be under the snow surface.

Areas with little or no overstory canopy cover are important for deer as forage areas. Forest gaps

and natural openings provide optimal conditions for shrubs and forbs to grow, which deer depend

on for forage.

Very few black-tailed deer remain on the High Cascades Ranger District in winter. Deer generally

migrate sometime in October to lower elevation private timberlands to seek acorns and avoid

deep snow. Snowpack covers available forage and makes movement difficult, resulting in an

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

http://www.dfw.state.or.us/resources/hunting/big_game/index.asp#big_game_regs


35

energy deficit. Deer generally begin migrating back on to the District in March to May depending

on annual snow conditions.

3. Food Habits

Deer are relatively small ruminants unable to process large volumes of poor quality forage, as

compared to elk and cattle. Deer require high-quality forage, and overall body condition affects

many aspects of biology and survival. For example, productivity and winter survival are higher

when deer begin the winter with large reserves of fat (ODFW 2008).

For deer to maintain fitness, particularly during winter and breeding seasons, they must have

access to adequate year-round forage. Plant consumption by black-tailed deer varies and is

affected by seasonal quantity (availability) and quality (nutritional value). The nutritional value of

forage varies by plant species and time of year, generally being higher when the plant is actively

growing and lower after senescence in the fall and winter (ODFW 2008).

The fitness of an animal is dependent on the quality of forage and metabolic requirements of the

animal. The nutritional needs to maintain fitness for adults are normally less than the

requirements for growth and maintenance of young animals. Females that are pregnant or

lactating also require higher quality and quantities of forage. Nitrogen (protein) content is

commonly used as an indicator for nutritional value of forage (Ramsey and Krueger 1986).

Einarsen (1946) found that body condition of back-tailed deer was positively correlated with

crude protein in forage. Only a portion of crude protein is digestible, and insufficient levels of

protein were linked to decreased growth rates in fawns (Verme and Ozogo 1980), reproduction

(Verme 1965), and antler development (French et al. 1956). To maintain optimal growth, adult

deer and elk require about 12 to 16 percent crude protein (7.3 to 10.9 percent digestible protein)

in their diets (French et al. 1956).

The availability of forage varies considerably across Oregon’s black-tailed deer range.

Temperature and precipitation patterns affect forage type and availability, including diversity and

quantity of vegetation. Precipitation in western Oregon varies; in general annual rainfall is higher

in northwest coastal areas and less in the southwest interior.

As an example, Valsetz in northwest Oregon receives 131 inches of precipitation annually, while

Ashland in the southwest interior averages 20 inches per year (Western Regional Climate Center,

1936-2007, unpublished data). Temperature gradients are also diverse across black-tailed deer

range with lower temperatures in the Cascade Mountain and higher elevation Coast Ranges

compared to the interior valleys and coastal areas (ODFW 2008).

In southwestern Oregon Wedgeleaf (Ceanothus cuneatus) provides a bulk of the winter feed for

black-tailed deer in many areas (Randall et al. 1994). Studies have shown that Wedgeleaf makes

up 60 to 90 percent of the winter diet of black-tailed deer in that portion of the region studied, an

area located on the Oregon-California border in the Siskiyou Mountains of southwestern Oregon

(ODFW 1996).

4. Populations Trend and Viability

Home Range

Miller (1970) calculated average annual home range areas for various sex and age-classes of

black-tailed deer in the 138 hectare Cedar Creek enclosure. His findings are as follows: adult

females (69.6 hectares), adult males (100.4 hectares), 2 year-old females (76.9 hectares), 2 year-

old males (98.8 hectares), yearling females (38.9 hectares), and yearling males (59.9 hectares).

Average monthly home ranges ranged from 12.8 to 39.6 percent of average annual home ranges.

Annual census for black-tailed deer is conducted by ODFW biologists on the Rogue WMU,

which includes portions of the Rogue River National Forest and the Big Pines Project planning

Big Pines Project

36

area. Censuses are conducted in both spring and fall, either by walking or driving along pre-

established routes. The results of these censuses are shown in table 40.

Table 40. Estimated annual deer population, Rogue Wildlife Management Unit (ODFW personal communication 2015).

Year Population estimate

1971 9,293 1972 16,806 1973 18,466 1974 15,109 1975 17,497 1976 23,873 1977 26,109 1978 28,179 1979 29,496 1980 24,082 1981 23,454 1982 20,131 1983 27,364 1984 25,148 1985 22,890 1986 26,652 1987 22,304 1988 22,597 1989 21,761 1990 25,482 1991 22,388 1992 25,168 1993 16,556 1994 16,388 1995 17,225 1996 15,406 1997 13,462 1998 14,277 1999 14,716 2000 12,124 2001 15,657 2002 12,961 2003 10,348 2004 11,037 2005 16,159 2006 20,858 2007 20,388 2008 24,786 2009 20,879 2010 20,737 2011 21,555 2012 20,003 2013 20,901 2014 23,880


Deer winter range was considered to be less than 4,000 feet elevation in the 1990 Rogue River

Forest Plan. Core winter range is that portion of total winter range occupied by 90 percent of the

population 90 percent of the winters. If unusually severe snow conditions make core winter range

unsuitable, the deer tend to move off-Forest to lower elevation private and BLM lands. These

areas were referred to as critical winter range.


37

The presumption in 1990 was that deer exhibited the same habitat needs as elk, and that deer did

not appear to be as sensitive to changes in those conditions. Summer range requirements were

also presumed to be similar to those of elk. Meadows, brush fields, and other early successional

stages (artificially created and otherwise) provided the majority of forage for both deer and elk.

Thermal cover was also considered to be needed on the summer range to reduce heat stress on

animals (USDA Forest Service 1990a, page III-86).

As with elk, winter range was initially considered to be limiting deer production capability on the

Forest. It was expected that the 67,700 acres allocated to winter range management would

improve carrying capacity as management objectives for winter range were implemented (USDA

Forest Service 1990b, page IV-92). Habitat capability projections were expected to increase in the

first two decades (17 and 33 percent respectively) after the Forest Plan was implemented due to

improved winter range conditions. During the third decade, summer range would begin to

become limiting on deer production capability. By the end of the fifth decade, deer production

capability was expected to return to about 10 percent above the 1990 levels. From the sixth

through tenth decades, production capability would fluctuate between 5 percent below to 8

percent above 1990 levels (USDA Forest Service 1990b, page IV-93).

In 1990, there were no surveys available that indicated the actual number of deer on the Forest.

Trend counts were conducted by Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) personnel,

but were only an index of herd size in relation to past years. Establishing the baseline for deer on

the Forest at the time the Forest Plan was written is problematic. There are three separate

references in the Rogue River Forest Plan Final Environmental Impact Statement which appear to

be in conflict. Based on the ODFW estimates of the total deer population and the percentages of

suitable habitat within the three Oregon Wildlife Units on the Forest, the Forest’s population was

estimated to be approximately 12,000 animals.

The Forest used a population model that, based upon seral stages, predicted an existing

population of approximately 21,000 deer fforest-wide. The model was indexed to the figures

derived from ODFW surveys. The model was not capable of predicting actual carrying capacity

of deer, but was an index of overall habitat quality expressed in numbers of animals (USDA

Forest Service 1990b, page III-86).

Northwest Forest Plan (1994)

The Record of Decision (ROD) for amendments to Forest Service and Bureau of Land

Management planning documents within the range of the northern spotted owl [commonly

referred to as the Northwest Forest Plan], amended Standards and Guidelines of existing Forest

Plans on over 24 million acres of federal lands within the range of the northern spotted owl

(USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management 1994b). The Rogue River Land

and Resource Management Plan was amended by this decision. Standards and guidelines in

existing plans still applied where they were more restrictive or provided greater benefits to late-

successional forest-related species than the standards and guidelines in the Northwest Forest Plan

ROD.

Since inception of the Forest Plan, the Rogue River National Forest has emphasized retention of

both nesting/roosting/foraging (NRF) and dispersal habitats for northern spotted owl. Generally,

this habitat is multistoried, 80 years old or more (depending on stand type and structural

condition), and has sufficient snags and down wood to provide opportunities for nesting, roosting,

and foraging. The canopy closure generally exceeds 60 percent. Other attributes include a high

incidence of large trees with various deformities (e.g., large cavities, broken tops, mistletoe

infestations, and other evidence of decadence); large snags; large accumulations of fallen trees

and other woody debris on the ground; and sufficient open space below the canopy for owls to fly

(Thomas et al. 1990). When these stands meet the 70 percent canopy cover minimum, they are

generally considered to be optimal thermal cover for deer and elk. Dispersal habitat is forested

habitat with canopy closure greater than 40 percent, average diameter greater than 11 inches

Big Pines Project

38

DBH, and flying space for owls in the understory, but does not provide the components found in

NRF. Where dispersal stands meet the 70 percent canopy cover minimum, they are generally

considered to be thermal cover for deer and elk.

Since implementation of the Northwest Forest Plan, silvicultural prescriptions for timber sales

have emphasized thinning in both NRF and dispersal stands. Thinning prescriptions, as opposed

to regeneration prescriptions, resulted in a major change in resultant stands in terms of habitat for

both deer and elk. Prior to implementation of the Northwest Forest Plan, regeneration harvests

(clear cuts, seed tree cuts, and shelterwoods) provided high-quality forage areas for big game

adjacent to both thermal and optimal thermal stands. Natural succession allowed for the forb and

shrub layers to propagate at high-densities throughout the harvest unit for a period of 5 to 10

years or more until seedlings over-topped and shaded out the forage species.

Attainment of probable sale quantity (PSQ) required covering much larger planning areas and

timber harvesting over many more acres after the Northwest Forest Plan was implemented.

Silvicultural prescriptions in young commercial (dispersal) stands typically reduces the canopy

cover to near 40 percent, which still allows for spotted owls to use them for moving between NRF

stands. Reducing canopy cover to near 40% provides openings and allows sunlight to reach the

forest floor.

This can stimulate the growth of the herbaceous and shrub layer if these plants already occur in

the understory. This can provide a short-term (5 to 15 years) increase in the forage base for both

elk and deer until canopy of the remaining trees once again shade out the understory growth.

The same prescription reduces thermal cover for big game if the stand was at 70 percent or more

canopy cover prior to harvest. It may also reduce hiding cover for a period of time until the shrub

layer reaches 3 to 5 feet in height. Thinning in older (NRF) stands generally retains optimal

thermal conditions because silvicultural prescriptions retain multi-layered structure and 60

percent canopy cover.

5. Elk and Deer Current Condition (2011)

Currently, forage habitat for elk and deer is the primary limiting factor on the Forest, constituting

less than 10 percent of the Forest land base (table 37). The west side of the Forest provides good

forage in designated Big-Game Winter Range for black-tail deer (there are very few if any elk on

that side of the Forest) due to a preponderance of low elevation non-conifer forest lands and an

active fuels and habitat enhancement program (over 5,500 acres of Big-Game Winter Range on

the Siskiyou Mountains Ranger District have been treated in the last 5 years). However, the

Cascade portion of the Forest, due to different forest types and management activities, is deficient

in the amount of forage habitat available to elk and deer. Elk and deer thermal and hiding cover

have increased significantly across the Forest, although in some areas of Big-Game Winter

Range, still not to that amount prescribed in the original Rogue River Forest Plan (tables 35, 36

and 38).

6. Big-Game Winter Range

For MS-14, the Forest Plan requires Big-Game Winter Range habitat to provide a minimum of 50

percent thermal cover on each 500 to 1,000 acre analysis area. At least two-thirds of the thermal

cover (30 percent of the analysis area) should meet optimal thermal cover requirements (USDA

Forest Service 1990b, page 4-166). Thermal cover is defined as cover used by (big game) animals

to lessen the effects of weather, typically a stand of coniferous trees 40 feet or more tall with an

average crown closure of 70 percent or more. Optimal thermal cover includes these parameters as

well as an average stand diameter of at least 21 inches (USDA Forest Service 1990b).

In other allocations associated with the project planning area, standards and guidelines are to

maintain summer range to provide 20 percent forage, and at least 20 percent thermal cover for an

area generally 500 to 1,000 acres. Hiding cover should be dense enough to hide 90 percent of a


39

deer or elk from view at 200 feet. Hiding cover need not be continuous, but gaps between screens

should not exceed one-quarter of a mile. A restricted operating period from April 1 to June 30

may be imposed in identified deer or elk fawning or calving areas (USDA Forest Service 1990b,

page 4-240).

To facilitate cover analysis, the District has developed a winter range block system to track

thermal cover over time. Please see section G, 6, above for more detail on analysis for Big-Game

Winter Range.

7. Effects of Silviculture and Fuels Treatments on Black-tailed Deer










non-host species.

Variable density thinning treatments are proposed on 675 acres and 75 acres of group selection.

All of the treatment units fall under Management Strategy14, Big-Game Winter Range. The

current conditions for optimal and thermal cover within the Big Pines planning area are above the

50% threshold required in the Forest Plan for thermal cover. The proposed action of variable

density thinning and small group selection would downgrade thermal cover in all of the treatment

acres that overlap in blocks 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8. Approximately 28 and 72 acres of thermal cover will

be maintained in blocks 1 and 2, respectively. The remaining thermal cover within the treatment

acres in blocks 1 and 2 will also be downgraded. However, the thermal cover acres will be

maintained at or above the 50% threshold for all big game winter range blocks post-treatment.

Under all action alternatives, all activities within Big-Game Winter Range including felling,

yarding, road construction, road haul, and prescribed fire are subject to a restriction from

December 1 to April 30 unless a specific waiver is authorized by the District Ranger.

Underburning treatments in both natural and activity fuels reduction units could reduce small

woody material allowing room for forage plants to grow. This would provide additional forage

benefits for big game. Fuels treatments would be designed to retain the majority of hiding cover

within both winter and summer range. However, fuels prescriptions may reduce hiding cover on

some acres. In general, fuels treatments would benefit big game by increasing forage.

Commercial timber harvest, precommercial thinning, and fuels treatments in the project planning

area would increase the forage component in many stands for big game for a period of 5 to 15

years. These same treatments would reduce hiding cover over the same acres and over the same

time period. All action alternatives would maintain minimum thermal cover standards required by

the Rogue River Forest Plan.

Temporary roads and/or road reconstruction proposed under all action alternatives would likely

result in increased disturbance and vulnerability to big game while the roads remain open.

Decommissioning would alleviate these effects within an estimated two decades. Road

decommissioning would also help reduce disturbance and vulnerability.

Big Pines Project

40

Cumulative Effects


potential effects to Roosevelt elk. Action which would contribute to potential cumulative effects

are the Mill Creek timber sales and Cascade Managed Stands (CMS) project because the effects

may overlap in time and space.





These stands are composed of both commercial and precommercial sizes trees. These timber sales

are also within Big Game Winter Range, but thermal cover has been maintained.




area.These stands are young (30 to 60 years old) and even-aged. These stands are also within Big

Game Winter Range and thermal cover has been maintained.

The Mill Creek Vegetation Management Project and CMS project have the potential to improve

forage for big game by reducing canopy closure which would allow sunlight to penetrate the

canopy and invigorate the grass, forb, and shrub component in the understory on an estimated 530

acres. Precommercial thinning could also provide a forage benefit to big game.


Commercial timber harvest, precommercial thinning, and fuels treatments in the Big Pines project

planning area would increase the forage component in many stands for big game for a period of 5

to 15 years. These same treatments would reduce hiding cover over the same acres and over the

same time period. All action alternatives would maintain minimum thermal cover standards

required by the Rogue River Forest Plan. Temporary roads and/or road reconstruction proposed

under all action alternatives would likely result in increased disturbance and vulnerability to big

game while the roads remain open. Decommissioning would alleviate these effects within an

estimated two decades. Road decommissioning would also help to reduce disturbance and

vulnerability. Based on these factors the overall direct, indirect, and cumulative effects would

result in a small positive trend of habitat by increasing forage in the project planning area.

Therefore, the proposed action for the Big Pines Project would not contribute to an adverse trend

in viability on the Rogue River National Forest for elk, and are consistent with the Forest Plan,

and thus continued viability of elk is expected on the Rogue River portion of the Rogue River-


Neo-Tropical Migratory Birds/Landbirds

The Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 (MBTA).

Implements various treaties and conventions between the U.S., Canada, Japan, Mexico and the

former Soviet Union for the protection of migratory birds. Under the act, it is unlawful to pursue,

hunt, take, capture (or kill) a migratory bird except as permitted by regulation (16 U.S.C. 703-

704). The regulations at 50 CFR 21.11 prohibit the take, possession, import, export, transport,

sale, purchase, barter, or offering of these activities, or possessing migratory birds, including nests

and eggs, except under a valid permit or as permitted in the implementing regulations (Director's

Order No. 131). A migratory bird is any species or family of birds that live, reproduce or migrate

within or across international borders at some point during their annual life cycle.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) is the lead federal agency for managing and

conserving migratory birds in the United States; however, under Executive Order (EO) 13186 all


41

other federal agencies are charged with the conservation and protection of migratory birds and the

habitats on which they depend. In response to this order, the BLM and Forest Service have

implemented management guidelines that direct migratory birds to be addressed in the NEPA

process when actions have the potential to negatively or positively affect migratory bird species

of concern.

Executive Order 13186 (66 Fed. Reg. 3853, January 17, 2001)

“Responsibilities of Federal Agencies to Protect Migratory Birds”

This Executive Order directs federal agencies to avoid or minimize the negative impact of their

actions on migratory birds, and to take active steps to protect birds and their habitat. This

Executive Order also requires federal agencies to develop Memorandum of Understandings

(MOU) with the FWS to conserve birds including taking steps to restore and enhance habitat,

prevent or abate pollution affecting birds, and incorporating migratory bird conservation into

agency planning processes whenever possible.

PIF Bird Conservation Regions (BCR’S)

Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs) are ecologically distinct regions in North America with

similar bird communities, habitats, and resource management issues. BCR’s are a hierarchical

framework of nested ecological units delineated by the Commission for Environmental

Cooperation (CEC). The CEC framework comprises a hierarchy of 4 levels of eco-regions. At

each spatial level, spatial resolution increases and eco-regions encompass areas that are

progressively more similar in their biotic (e.g., plant and wildlife) and abiotic (e.g., soils, drainage

patterns, temperature, and annual precipitation) characteristics.

A mapping team comprised of members from United States, Mexico, and Canada assembled to

develop a consistent spatial framework for bird conservation in North America. The team's US

members met in to apply the framework to the United States and developed a proposed map of

BCRs. The map was presented to and approved by the US North American Bird Conservation

Initiative (NABCI) Committee during its November 1999, meeting. The map is a dynamic tool.

Its BCR boundaries will change over time as new scientific information becomes available. It is

expected that the map will be updated every three years. More information on BCR’s can be

found at http://www.nabci-us.org/bcrs.htm.

The overall goal of these BCR lists are to accurately identify the migratory and resident bird

species (beyond those already designated as federally threatened or endangered) that represent

our highest conservation priorities.

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

http://www.nabci-us.org/bcrs.htm

Big Pines Project

42

The Birds of Conservation Concern 2008- updated every 5 years

In December, 2008, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service released The Birds of Conservation

Concern Report (BCC) which identifies species, subspecies, and populations of migratory and

resident birds not already designated as federally threatened or endangered that represent highest

conservation priorities and are in need of additional conservation actions.

While the bird species included in BCC 2008 are priorities for conservation action, this list makes

no finding with regard to whether they warrant consideration for Endangered Species Act (ESA)

listing. The goal is to prevent or remove the need for additional ESA bird listings by

implementing proactive management and conservation actions. It is recommended that these lists

be consulted in accordance with Executive Order 13186, ―Responsibilities of Federal Agencies to

Protect Migratory Birds.‖

Description of Species, Habitat and Management Requirements

The Conservation Strategy for Landbirds in Coniferous Forests of Western Oregon and

Washington version 2.0 (Altman and Alexander 2012) and BCC species list for BCR 5 for the Big

Pines Restoration Project area was reviewed. Those species and habitats that are within the

project area are incorporated and effects disclosed in this analysis. Table 41 displays a list of

Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC) in the Big Pinestreatment units that are known or likely to

be present in the Planning Area and could be affected by the proposed actions. In addition,

priority bird species for varying habitats within the project planning area are summarized in Table

42.

Table 41. Partners in Flight focal bird species and habitat in coniferous forests of western Oregon

and Washington (Altman and Alexander, 2012, Table 9)

B. Effects of No-Action

No-action identifies and describes the current conditions of the environments associated with the

candidate stands. Alternative 1 would not authorize any silvicultural or fuels treatments, or other

connected and associated actions to obtain the purpose and need for the Big Pines Project.

Implementing no-action would have similar impacts to neo-tropical bird species as those

discussed previously under the MIS section. No direct or indirect effects would occur.

Habitat Condition Habitat attribute Bird species

Coniferous forest Old-growth / Mature Large snags; large trees; mid-

story tree layers Pileated woodpecker; Brown

creeper; Varied thrush

Coniferous forest Mature/Young Varied canopy closure;

deciduous understory; forest floor complexity;

Hermit warbler; Hammond’s flycatcher; Wilson’s warbler; Winter

wren

Coniferous forest Sapling/Seedling Deciduous shrub layer Orange-crowned warbler

Coniferous forest Pole Deciduous

subcanopy/understory Hutton’s vireo

Coniferous forest Early-seral Residual canopy trees,

deciduous vegetation; nectar-producing plants

Olive-sided flycatcher, western bluebird, orange-crowned warbler,

rufous hummingbird

Mixed Forest Unique Large hollow trees; landscape

mosaic forest Vaux’s swift; Blue (Sooty) grouse

Mixed Forest SW Oregon Mixed

Forest

dense shrub understory; shrub-herbaceous interspersion; forest

canopy edge; post-fire

Nashville warbler; Hermit thrush; Western tanager; Lazuli bunting


43

C. Effects of Proposed Action

Effects to NTMBs are variable depending on the habitat associations of the individual species and

effects to the habitats described above. Impacts to habitat for some species may occur from

vegetation management of forests; however, due to the limited amount of area affected by the

proposed action for this project, relative to the Forest, effects to NTMBs are expected to be

minimal.

It is expected that vegetation management activities may remove some snags (danger trees) and

thus have a potential adverse effect on cavity nesting birds in certain areas. However, analysis has

shown that all activities should leave amounts of dead wood sufficient for the needs of cavity-

dependent species, and where needed, snags and down wood would be created.

Due to their association with large trees, snags and higher canopy closures, Vaux’s swift, pileated

woodpecker, brown creeper, red crossbill, varied thrush, hermit warbler, Hammond’s flycatcher,

and Pacific-slope flycatcher populations may be somewhat reduced for some time within the units

until canopy closure and structural attributes associated with these birds increase.

Some species such as olive-sided flycatcher, western bluebird, orange-crowned warbler, and

rufous hummingbird may be adversely affected because of habitat associations that are retained or

increased due to the proposed treatments.

Overall, potential population numbers for grass and shrub nesting birds are expected to increase.

The long-term impacts of fuels reduction may have beneficial impacts by maintaining grasses

through reducing brush competition for available space.

Another benefit is the creation of some snag trees (usually 1 to 2 per acre) caused by scorching

from burning activities; although there are mitigations to help limit this, some may occur. Thus,

creating some foraging and nesting habitat for woodpeckers and secondary cavity nesters. Lastly,

the remnants of some unburned or partially burnt piles may benefit nesting and cover habitat in

areas that currently lack these components.

The hermit warbler and Pacific-slope flycatcher are associated with well-developed forest

canopies and are predicted to be affected as a result of reduced canopy cover resulting from

vegetation treatments. Winter wren and Hutton’s vireo are associated with understory vegetation

and are also predicted to be affected as a result of reduced sub-canopy and shrub vegetation.

Two species are predicted to benefit in the near and mid-term as a result of timber harvest and

fuels reductions treatments. Hammond’s flycatcher is associated with an open sub-canopy and is

predicted to benefit as a result of reduced complexity in the forest canopy. The olive-sided

flycatcher, associated with residual canopy trees, is predicted to benefit as a result of leaving

larger trees in more open habitats where vegetation treatments occur.

It is expected that many of the species that are predicted to initially respond adversely to

vegetation treatments would benefit over the long-term. Species that are associated with mature

forests, such as hermit warbler and pileated woodpecker should benefit from vegetation

treatments that are designed to ultimately enhance and maintain late-successional habitat

characteristics (density management).

Impacts of fuels treatments to NTMBs will also vary depending on the habitats of different bird

species listed above and varying species life history strategies. Project actions will not be

removing additional mid to overstory canopy and consist of controlled, low-severity

underburning. Saab et al. 2007 analyzed several avian response studies to low-severity prescribed

burning and concluded that resident and migratory bird species in the Pacific Northwest more

Big Pines Project

44

frequently respond positive or neutral after the first year of burning. Few species respond

negatively and studies suggest that the impacts are few and lasting only one year post-treatment.

Species that are associated with large trees, snags and mid-story tree layers will benefit from fuels

treatments. Habitat for pileated woodpecker, brown creeper, varied thrush, vaux’s swifts, hermit

warbler and Hammond’s flycatcher will be maintained as overstory and midstory tree layers will

not be removed. Bark/wood foragers and aerial insectivores respond more favorably to low-

severity, prescribed burning after one year due to an increase in insects for forage and cavities for

nesting (Smucker et al. 2005; Saab et al. 2007). It is possible to lose large diameter trees to

prescribed burning activities due to scorching, but mitigations are implemented to limit this.

However, scorching of some large diameter trees will increase the number of snags that provide

nesting and foraging for bark/wood foragers and aerial insectivores (Saab et al. 2007). Fuels

treatments will also benefit bird species associated with mature forest because treatments will

reduce the possibility of severe, stand replacement wildfires.

Woodpeckers within the planning area include pileated woodpecker, hairy woodpecker, downy

woodpecker and northern flicker. Generally, insectivorous bird species benefit from burning as

insect availability increases (Saab et al. 2007). Aerial insectivores have been documented as

having positive responses and increases in populations after low-severity fires. In particular,

mountain and western bluebird have shown dramatic population increase after 0-4 years after

underburning (Smucker et al. 2005; Saab et al. 2007).

Winter wren and orange-crowned warblers are associated with young, seedling/sapling habitat

and specific understory features. It is predicted that initial fuels treatments will remove understory

conditions required for winter wren, orange-crowned warbler and other species with similar

requirements. However, low-severity underburning that maintains soil temperature below 175

degrees C stimulates regrowth of vegetation and understory features will return to original

conditions as well as provide additional habitat. Areas that are not burned or partially burned can

provide birds that require early-seral, understory features refugia while vegetation regrows in

treated areas.

It is also predicted that species persisting in mixed forest, particularly associated with a dense

shrub understory, will be impacted only in the short-term by fuels treatments. Nashville warbler

and hermit thrush will benefit as vegetation regrowth provides an increase in foliage insects for

foraging.

Disturbance operations and smoke is a concern for NTMBs. Efforts should be made to reduce

impacts to nesting birds that may be present in the project planning area that may be directly

impacted by underburning operations. Timing of operations should occur outside of the spring

breeding/nesting season to the extent possible (May 15-July 15). Underburning and pile burning

operations must be conducted within the specified prescription identified in the burn plan.


45

Table 42. Bird Conservation Region (BCR) 5- Northern Pacific Rainforest and USFWS Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC) found on within the Big Pines Project planning area and effects of proposed project actions. Species listed are those that are not already addressed in the PIF focal species.

D. Cumulative Effects

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

potential for adverse cumulative effects. Actions which would contribute to potential cumulative

effects are the Mill Creek timber sales and the Cascade Managed Stands (CMS) project because

the effects may overlap in time and space.

Species General habitat requirements Impacts to species

Northern Goshawk (Accipiter gentillis)

Nests in mature forests with larger trees; and open understories. Average patch size of the core nest area varies based on available habitat conditions, 74 acres found by McGrath et al. (2003) in northeastern Oregon and central Washington.

Goshawk nesting habitat will not be impacted. If goshawk nests are detected, they will be protected from smoke and noise disturbance during the nesting season from March 1 to August 31. Foraging habitat will be increased and maintained by the reduction of understory layers so that prey is more visible.

Olive-sided Flycatcher (Contopus cooperi)

Associated with natural or man-made openings in conifer forest with tall trees or snags available for perching and singing. Found near water along wooded shores; at the juxtaposition of late- and early-successional forest; and in open or semi-open forest stands with low percentage canopy cover.

Project treatments will be benefit olive-sided flycatchers by maintaining open areas and reducing shrubs. The species will also benefit as vegetation regrowth recruits insects for foraging. Fuels treatments will also maintain and possibly create snags for perching and singing.

Rufous Hummingbird (Selasphorus rufus)

Found in wide variety of habitats, though it shows a breeding preference for late-successional forest with well-developed understory of flowering herbaceous plants and shrubs. Primarily associated with forest edges and openings.

Silviculture and fuels treatments will benefit hummingbirds by stimulating regrowth of herbaceous and nectar-producing plants as well as increase insects for foraging. Treatments will also benefit the species by maintaining and creating openings for aerial courtship display.

Purple Finch (Carpodacus purpureus)

Breeds primarily in moderately moist open or semi-open coniferous forests. Also frequently found in mixed coniferous-deciduous forests, edges of bogs, and riparian corridors at low to mid-elevations.

Habitat for purple finch will be maintained and treatments will benefit foraging opportunities as thinning and burning will stimulate growth of vegetation and insect populations.

Oregon Vesper Sparrow (Pooecetes gramineus affinis)

Elevated perches for singing and a grass-dominated understory for foraging and nesting. In the Rogue River basin, Browning (1975) reported occurrence in open habitats of mixed-conifer forest zone during breeding, and throughout the valley during migration.

Thinning and fuels treatments will maintain and may create snags for perching and singing. The species is predicted to benefit from treatments as a result of increased grass habitat and open areas for foraging and nesting.

Big Pines Project

46

The Cascade Managed Stands project was designed to maintain forest health and habitat diversity,

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

increase the quality of riparian vegetation. All of the CMS stands are less than 80 years old. There

are approximately 95 acres of managed stands within the Big Pines project planning area. These

stands are composed of both commercial and precommercial sized trees. An estimated 1/3 of

these stands would have a commercial component. None of these treatments would remove or

degrade large tree habitat. Although silvicultural prescriptions have not been developed,

treatments would likely consist of precommercial thinning in very young stands and thinning to

approximately 40 percent canopy closure in commercial-aged stands.






Cumulative effects of the Mill Creek timber sales and CMS project have the potential to impact

foraging habitats for some species due to the potential of reducing snag density for operator

safety requirements if these stands are experiencing density-dependent mortality. The CMS stands

are not considered to be nesting habitats for some species such as pileated woodpeckers because

they are too young and do not meet the 20+ inches DBH class. Since these stands are not

considered to be nesting habitats and some percentage of the snags would still be retained, it is

expected that they would still be used as foraging habitats. Vegetation management treatments are

not expected to cumulatively and adversely increase risks to NTMB species.

IV. Other Rare and Uncommon Species

A. Rare or Uncommon Species – Northwest Forest Plan

On December 17, 2009, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington issued an

order in Conservation Northwest, et al. v. Sherman, et al., No. 08-1067-JCC (W.D. Wash.),

granting Plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment and finding NEPA violations in the

Final Supplemental to the 2004 Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement to Remove or

Modify the Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines (USDA Forest

Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management, June 2007). In response, parties entered into

settlement negotiations in April 2010, and the Court filed approval of the resulting Settlement

Agreement on July 6, 2011.On April 25, 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

issued an Opinion that reversed the U.S. District Court Western District of Washington's order

approving the Survey & Manage Settlement Agreement (Conservation Northwest, et al. v.

Sherman, et al., July 6, 2011 Order (W.D. Wash)). The 9th Circuit remanded the case back to the

district court for further remedy proceedings consistent with its Opinion. On June 19, 2013, the

Ninth Circuit Court issued its formal mandate, such that their April 2013 ruling takes effect. The

case was remanded back to the district court and remedy is pending.

Projects that are within the range of the northern spotted owl are subject to the Survey and

Manage standards and guidelines in the 2001 ROD, as modified by the 2011 Settlement

Agreement. The Northwest Forest Plan provided Protection Buffers (USDA Forest Service and

USDI Bureau of Land Management, page C-19) and additional standards and guidelines for those

species determined to be specific rare and locally endemic species, and other uncommon species


47

in the forest Matrix. Most of these species habitat have been discussed in previous sections of this

analysis. For a summary of survey and manage species for the High Cascades Ranger District and

Big Pines Restoration planning area see Table 1 in Attachment 2.

The species which use snag or cavity nesting habitat and may occur in the Big Pines Project

planning area are: bats (fringed, long-eared, and long-legged myotis; silver-haired, pallid, and

Townsend’s big-eared). The effects for the species that are known or suspected to be present in

the project planning area are discussed in the sensitive species section of the Terrestrial Wildlife

Biological Evaluation.

B. Survey and Manage Species

1. Chace Sideband (Monadenia chaceana)

This species is endemic to northern California and southwestern Oregon. The currently

understood range of this species extends from the middle and Upper Klamath River and Shasta

River basins in Siskiyou County, California north to the Umpqua River basin in Douglas County,

Oregon.

The species is associated with forested and open talus or rocky areas. Vegetation types include

dry conifer and mixed conifer/hardwood forest communities as well as oak communities.

Mollusks which inhabit rocky habitats, also utilize the surrounding forest areas for foraging and

dispersal during moist, cool conditions. Seasonal deep refugia include talus deposits and

outcrops, which contain stable interstitial spaces large enough for snails to enter. These seasonal

refugia also provide protection from fire and predation during inactive periods. Within rocky

habitat, the species is also associated with subsurface water, herbaceous vegetation, and

deciduous leaf litter. In some forested sites, especially in the Oregon Cascades Province, the

species has been found associated with down wood where few rock substrates occur. Areas with

frequent fire return intervals where rock crevice refugia are available may have historically

favored this species over other, larger forms of Monadenia (Duncan 1998).

Little is known about the habitat requirements for M. chaceana in this area due to the few sites

that have been identified. Monadenia chaceana have not been identified on the High Cascades

Ranger District and were not detected on the Big Pines project planning area during protocol

surveys for mollusks.

2. Great Gray Owl (Strix nebulosa)

In North America, this owl is found from Alaska south to the Sierra Nevadas in California, and

east to Ontario and Maine. They are known to occur within the range of the northern spotted owl.

Winter range is similar to the breeding range except for the species’ tendency to wander

irregularly south in winter (Bull and Duncan 1993). The range for this species includes the Big

Pines project planning area. This species is purportedly associated with meadows and natural

openings greater than 10 acres, which is not currently available in the Big Pines planning area and

no known records have been documented for the species’ presence.

3. Red Tree Vole (Arborimus longicaudus)

The red tree vole (Arborimus longicaudus) is a small arboreal microtine that is endemic to the coniferous forests of western Oregon and northwestern California (Howell 1926, Maser 1966, Verts and Carraway 1998). Red tree voles are primarily arboreal but will come to the

Big Pines Project

48

ground to move between trees if there are no branch pathways between trees (Swingle and Forsman 2009). Needles and twig bark of Douglas-fir, grand fir, western hemlock, and Sitka spruce are the only known foods eaten by red tree voles (Walker 1930, Maser 1966). Red tree voles are prey to many species of mammals and birds, including weasels (Mustela spp.) and the northern spotted owl (Forsman et al. 1984, 2004; Graham and Mires 2005; Swingle et al. 2010). In areas where they are particularly abundant they may provide 30–50% of the items consumed by spotted owls (Forsman et al. 1984).

The High Cascades Ranger District overlaps with the Xeric Survey Zone for red tree voles (Huff et al. 2012) and includes the Big Pines project planning area. Surveys were conducted along the Prospect Highway 62 Corridor in 2010. Four active nests were detected within the project planning area. These nests were buffered by 10 acres of suitable habitat and were removed from the treatment units. Under the proposed action, the Big Pines project will restore and enhance large legacy trees and consequently promote growth of crowns and large limbs lower in the crown, which is beneficial for red tree vole habitat. Fuels treatments will also reduce the risk of stand-replacement fires that could remove existing and potential red tree vole habitat in close proximity to these areas.

C. Forest Plan Species

The 1990 Rogue River Forest Plan contains standards and guidelines for the northern spotted owl

(discussed as a federally threatened species in the Terrestrial Biological Evaluation), cavity nester

species (discussed as MIS species in this Wildlife Analysis Document), deer and elk (discussed as

MIS species in this Wildlife Analysis Document), bald eagle (discussed as a Forest Service

sensitive species in Terrestrial Biological Evaluation), and peregrine falcon (discussed as a Forest

Service sensitive species in Terrestrial Biological Evaluation). Bald eagle,osprey and peregrine

falcon do not occur within the Big Pines Project planning area. Goshawks are discussed below.

Habitat and individuals are present within and/or adjacent to the project planning area.

1. Pygmy Nuthatch (Sitta pygmaea)

This species requires ponderosa pine as a habitat component. This species has only been

documented once on the High Cascades Ranger District (Barrett 2010). The individual was in a

winter mixed-species flock east of Willow Lake. Pygmy nuthatches have not been documented

within the Big Pines project planning area. Treatments that favor large pine species as well as

snag mitigations would assist in the retention of suitable nesting and foraging habitat for the

species.

2. Flammulated Owl (Otus flammeolus)

This species is closely associated with the mixed conifer forest habitat type, but it requires

ponderosa pine in its habitat. This species is closely associated with multi-story, moderate-closed

canopy closure structural conditions. Trees with cavities are an important habitat element for this

species. Some of the project units are considered suitable for this species, though its presence has

not been documented within the project planning area. The maintenance of multi-story, moderate

canopy closure stands and snag retention mitigation recommendations should maintain sufficient

habitat for the species within the project planning area.


49

3. Northern goshawk (Accipter gentiles)

Reproductive home ranges for this species consist of three components: foraging, nesting, and

post-fledgling areas. Foraging habitat consists of a mosaic of large trees, snags, and down logs

interspersed with openings, which support a wide array of prey species. Nests are typically built

on one of the largest trees within dense patches of large old trees within a stand; they can use

alternative nest sites from year to year. Post-fledgling areas surround the nest and are made up of

a 300 to 600 acre mosaic of large mid-aged trees and snags with large down logs and small

opening with herbaceous cover (Marshall et al. 2003).

Currently, there are no known goshawk nests within the Big Pines Project planning area. No nests

were detected by field biologists during field reconnaissance for project planning efforts.

However, the habitat is currently suitable for goshawk. If goshawk nest sites are detected, they

would be protected from disturbing activities during the nesting season from March 1 to August

31. If monitoring has shown that no nesting attempt has been initiated or that a nesting attempt

has failed by June 1, the nest site would be considered inactive and the nest site restriction may be

waived.

Big Pines Project

50

Literature Cited American Ornithologist Union. 1983. Checklist of North American Birds. Baltimore, Maryland.

Altman, B. and J.D. Alexander. 2012. Table 9 in Habitat Conservation for Landbirds in

Coniferous Forests of Western Oregon and Washington. Version 2.0. Oregon-Washington

Partners in Flight (www.orwapif.org) and American Bird Conservancy and Klamath Bird

Observatory.

Aubry, K.B. and C.M. Raley. 2002. ―Selection of nest and roost trees by pileated woodpeckers in

coastal forests of Washington.‖ Journal of Wildlife Management 66(2): 392-406.

Barrett, N.M. (retired High Cascades Ranger District wildlife biologist). 2010. Personal

communication with Jeff VonKienast.

Browning, M. R. 1975. The distribution and occurrence of the birds of Jackson County, Oregon,

and surrounding areas. North American Fauna, 1-69.

Bull, E. L., &J. R. Duncan 1993. Great Gray Owl: Strix Nebulosa. American Ornithologists'

Union.

Bull, E.L. and R.S. Holthausen. 1993. ―Habitat use and management of pileated woodpeckers in

northeastern Oregon.‖ Journal of Wildlife Management 57(2): 335-345.

Cahall, R.E. and J.P. Hayes. 2008. ―Influences of postfire salvage logging on forest birds in the

eastern Cascades, Oregon, USA.‖ Forest Ecology and Management 257: 1119-1128.

Cahall, R. E. 2007. Influences of salvage logging on forest birds after fire in the eastern

Cascades, Oregon (Doctoral dissertation).

Chappell, C. B., R. C. Crawford, C. Barrett, J. Kagan, D. H. Johnson, M. O'Mealy, G. A. Green,

H. L. Ferguson, W. D. Edge, E. L. Greda, and T. A. O'Neil. 2001. Wildlife habitats:

descriptions, status, trends, and system dynamics. Pp. 22-114 in: D. H. Johnson and T. A.

O'Neil, editors. Wildlife-habitat relationships in Oregon and Washington. Oregon State

University Press, Corvallis OR.

Christensen, A.G., L.J. Lyon, and J.W. Unsworth. 1993. Elk management in the northern region:

considerations in forest plan updates or revisions. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-303. Ogden, UT:

USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station.

Cook, J.G, L.L. Irwin, L.D. Bryant, R.A. Riggs, and J.W. Thomas. 2004. Thermal cover needs of

large ungulates: a review of hypothesis tests in transactions of the 69th North American

Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference: 708-726.

Duncan, N. 1998. Monadenia chaceana Conservation Assessment. Bureau of Land Management.

Einarsen, A.S. 1946. Crude protein determination of deer food as an applied management

technique. Transactions North American Wildlife Conference 11: 309-312.

Elchuk, C.L. and K.L. Weibe. 2003. Home range size of northern flickers (Colaptes auratus) in

relation to habitat and parental attributes. Canadian Journal of Zoology. 81(6);954-961.


51

Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment Team (FEMAT). 1993. Forest ecosystem

management: an ecological, economic, and social assessment. U.S. Government Printing

Office 1993-793-071.

Forsman, E.D., E.C. Meslow, and H.M. Wight. 1984. Distribution and biology of the spotted owl in Oregon. Wildlife Monograph 87:1–64 (Supplement to Journal of Wildlife Management 48).

Forsman, E.D., R.G. Anthony, and C.J. Zabel. 2004. Distribution and abundance of red tree voles based on occurrence in pellets of northern spotted owls. Northwest Science 78:294–302.

French, C.E., A.S. McEwan, N.D. McGruder, R.H. Ingram, and R. W. Swift. 1956.―Nutrient

requirements for growth and antler development in white-tailed deer.‖Journal of Wildlife

Management 20: 221-232.

Goheen, E.M., K. Marshall, D.J. Goheen. 1997. Insect and disease conditions in the Highway 62

scenic corridor: Prospect to Union Creek. Southwest Oregon Forest Insect and Disease

Technical Center, USDA Forest Service. Central Point, Oregon.

Graham, S.A., and G.W. Mires. 2005. Predation on red tree voles by owls and diurnal raptors. Northwestern Naturalist 86:38–40.

Haggard, M. and W.L. Gaines. 2001. ―Effects of stand-replacement fire and salvage logging on a

cavity-nesting bird community in Eastern Cascades, Washington.‖ Northwest Science

75(4): 387-396.

Hargis, C.D., J.A. Bissonette, and D.L. Turner. 1999. ―The influence of forest fragmentation and

landscape pattern on American martens.‖ Journal of Applied Ecology 36: 157-172.

Harper, J.A., et al. 1987. Ecology and management of Roosevelt elk in Oregon. Revised edition.

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife.

Hartwig, C.L. 1999. Effect of forest age, structural elements, and prey density on the relative

abundance of pileated woodpecker (Dryocopus pileatus abieticola) on south-eastern

Vancouver Island. Masters Thesis. University of Victoria, British Columbia.

Hartwig, C.L., D.S. Eastman, and A.S. Harestad. 2004. ―Characteristics of pileated woodpecker

(Dryocopus pileatus) cavity trees and their patches on southeastern Vancouver Island,

British Columbia, Canada.‖ Forest Ecology and Management 187: 225-234.

Haynes, R.W., B.T. Bormann, D.C. Lee, and J.R. Martin (tech. eds.). 2006. Northwest Forest

Plan—the first 10 years (1994-2003): synthesis of monitoring and research results. Gen.

Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-651. Portland, OR: USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest

Research Station. Available online at: http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/publications/gtr651/

Hochholter, P.A. 2010. Course woody debris, region and series, by decay class and snags, region

and series, final. Unpublished data. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region,

Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest, Medford, Oregon.

Howell, A.B. 1926. Voles of the genus Phenacomys. II. Life history of the red tree mouse

Phenacomys longicaudus. North American Fauna 48:39-64.

http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/publications/gtr651/

Big Pines Project

52

Huff, M.H. and C.M. Raley. 1991. ―Regional patterns of diurnal breeding birds communities in

Oregon and Washington.‖ In: Wildlife and Vegetation of Unmanaged Douglas-fir Forests.

PNW-GTR-285. (Portland, Oregon: USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research

Station), 177-205.

Huff, R., K. Van Norman, C. Hughes, R. Davis and K. Mellen-Mclean. 2012. Survey Protocol for the Red Tree Vole, Version 3.0. Portland, OR. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Oregon/Washington, and U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service Regions 5 and 6. 52 p.

Johnson, D.H. and T.A. O’Neil (eds.). 2001. Wildlife-habitat relationships in Oregon and

Washington. Oregon State University Press, Corvallis, Oregon.

Korfhage, R.C. 1974. Summer food habits of elk in the Blue Mountains of northeastern Oregon

based on fecal analysis. Masters Thesis. Washington State University.

Korfhage, R.C. and C. Roche. 2007. Elk forage utilization. Unpublished Report. USDA Forest

Service, Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest, High Cascades Ranger District, Prospect,

Oregon.

Kreisel, K.J. and S.J. Stein. 1999. Bird use of burned and unburned coniferous forest during

winter. Wilson Bull111:243-250.

Lundquist, R.W. 1988. Habitat use by cavity-nesting birds in the Southern Washington Cascades.

Masters Thesis. University of Washington.

Lyon, L.J. 1983. ―Road density models describing habitat effectiveness for elk.‖ Journal of

Forestry 81(9): 592-594, 613.

Mannan, R.W., E.C. Meslow, and H.M. Wight. 1980. ―Use of snags by birds in Douglas-fir

forests, western Oregon.‖ Journal of Wildlife Management 44(4): 787-797.

Marcot, B.G., B.C. Wales, and R. Demmer. 2003. Range maps of terrestrial species in the Interior

Columbia River Basin and Northern Portions of the Klamath and Great Basins. PNW-

GTR-583, Portland, OR: USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, and

USDI Bureau of Land Management. Available online at:


Marshall, D.B., M.G. Hunter, and A.L. Contreras (eds.). 2003. Birds of Oregon: a general

reference. Oregon State University Press, Corvallis, Oregon.

Maser, C., B.R. Mate, J.F. Franklin, and C.T. Dyrness. 1981. Natural history of Oregon Coast

mammals. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-133. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Forest

and Range Experimental Station, Portland, Oregon.

Maser, C.O. 1966. Life histories and ecology of Phenacomys albipes, Phenacomys longicaudus, Phenacomys silvicola. M.S. Thesis, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR. 221 p.



53

McGrath, M. T., DeStefano, S., Riggs, R. A., Irwin, L. L., & Roloff, G. J. 2003. Spatially explicit

influences on northern goshawk nesting habitat in the interior Pacific Northwest. Wildlife

Monographs, 1-63.

Mellen, T.K. 1987. Home range and habitat use of pileated woodpeckers, western Oregon.

Masters Thesis. Oregon State University.

Mellen, T.K., E.C. Meslow, and R.W. Mannan. 1992. ―Summertime home range and habitat use

of pileated woodpeckers in western Oregon.‖ Journal of Wildlife Management 56: 96-

103.

Mellen-McLean. 2011. Pileated woodpecker habitat relationship model. USDA Forest Service.

Pacific Northwest Region. Portland, Oregon.

Mellen-McLean, K., B.G. Marcot, J.L. Ohmann, K. Waddell, S.A. Livingston, E.A. Willhite, B.B.

Hostetler, C. Ogden, and T. Dreisbach. 2009. DecAID, the decayed wood advisor for

managing snags, partially dead trees, and down wood for biodiversity in forests of

Washington and Oregon. Version 2.1. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region

and Pacific Northwest Research Station; USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, Oregon State

Office; Portland, Oregon. Available online at:

http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/nr/wildlife/decaid/index.shtml

Miller, F.L. 1970. ―Distribution patterns of black-tailed deer (Odocoileus hemionus columbianus)

in relation to environment.‖Journal of Mammology 51: 248-260.

Nelson, S.K. 1988. Habitat use and densities of cavity nesting birds in the Oregon Coast Ranges.

Masters Thesis. Oregon State University.

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW). 1996. Deer and decadence-an examination of

management strategies for the rejuvenation of overmature Ceanothus couneatus.

Unpublished Paper by Jim Colloran, CBEC Intern. Edited by ODFW Rogue District

Wildlife Staff.

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW). 2003. Oregon’s Elk Management Plan. Salem,

OR: Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife.

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW). 2008. Draft Oregon black-tailed deer

management plan. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Salem, Oregon.

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW). 2015. Personal communication with Sheila

Colyer.

Raley, C.M. and K.B. Aubry. 2006. ―Foraging ecology of pileated woodpeckers in coastal forests

of Washington.‖ Journal of Wildlife Management 70(5): 1266-1275.

Ramsey, K.J. and W.C. Krueger. 1986. Grass-legume seeding to improve winter forage for

Roosevelt elk: aliterature review. Special report 736. Department of Rangeland

Resources, Agricultural Experiment Station, Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon.

Randall, W.R., R. Keniston, D.N. Bever, and E.C. Jensen. 1994. Manual of Oregon trees and

shrubs. Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon.

http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/nr/wildlife/decaid/index.shtml

Big Pines Project

54

Rose, C. L., B. G. Marcot, T. K. Mellen, J. L. Ohmann, K. L. Waddell, D. L. Lindley, and B.

Schreiber. 2001. Decaying wood in Pacific Northwest forests: concepts and tools for

habitat management. Pp. 580-623 in: D. H. Johnson and T. A. O'Neil, ed. Wildlife-habitat

relationships in Oregon and Washington. Oregon State University Press, Corvallis OR.

Rowland, M.M., M.J. Wisdom, B.K. Johnson, and J.G. Kie. 2000. ―Elk distribution and modeling

in relation to roads.‖ Journal of Wildlife Management 64(3): 672-684.

Russell, R.E., V.A. Saab, and J.G. Dudley. 2007. ―Habitat-suitability models for cavity-nesting

birds in a postfire landscape.‖ Journal of Wildlife Management 71(8): 2600-2611.

Available online at:

http://www.rmrs.nau.edu/publications/russell_et_al_2007/russell_et_al_2007.pdf

Saab, V.A., R.E. Russell, and J.G. Dudley. 2007. ―Nest densities of cavity-nesting birds in relation

to postfire salvage logging and time since wildfire.‖ Condor 109: 97-108.

Saab, V.A., R.E. Russell, and J.G. Dudley. 2009. ―Nest-site selection by cavity-nesting birds in

relation to postfire salvage logging.‖ Forest Ecology and Management 257: 151-159.

Skovlin, J.M., P. Zager, and B.K. Johnson. 2002. ―Elk habitat selection and evaluation in North

American elk ecology and management.‖ Smithsonian Institution Press.

Slauson, K. and W.J. Zielinski. 2009. Characteristics of summer and fall diurnal resting habitat

used by American martens in coastal northwestern California. Northwest Science.

Volume 83, No.1.

Smucker, K.M., R.L. Hutto and B.M. Steele. 2005. Change in bird abundance after wildlife:

importance of fire severity and time since fire. Ecological Applications 15(5): 1535-1549.

Swingle, J.K., and E.D. Forsman. 2009. Home range areas and activity patterns of red tree voles (Arborimus longicaudus) in western Oregon. Northwest Science 83:273–286.

Swingle, J.K., E.D. Forsman, and R.G. Anthony. 2010. Survival, mortality, and predators of red tree voles (Arborimus longicaudus). Northwest Science 84:255–265.

Thomas, J.W., M.G. Raphael, R.G. Anthony, E.D. Forsman, A.G. Gunderson, R.S. Holthausen,

B.G. Marcot, G.H. Reeves, J.R. Sedell, and D.M. Solis. 1993. Viability assessments and

management considerations for species associated with late-successional and old-growth

forests of the Pacific Northwest. Washington, DC: USDA Forest Service, U.S.

Government Printing Office.

Thomas, J. W., Forsman, E. D., Lint, J. B., Meslow, E. C., Noon, B. R., &Verner, J. 1990. A

conservation strategy for the northern spotted owl: report of the Interagency Scientific

Committee to address the conservation of the northern spotted owl. US Forest Service,

US Fish and Wildlife Service, and National Park Service, Washington, DC.

United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1990a. Final Environmental Impact

Statement. Land and Resource Management Plan. Rogue River National Forest. USDA

Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region, Rogue River National Forest, Medford,

Oregon.

http://www.rmrs.nau.edu/publications/russell_et_al_2007/russell_et_al_2007.pdf


55

United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1990b. Rogue River National Forest

Land and Resource Management Plan. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region,

Rogue River National Forest, Medford, Oregon. Available online at:

http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5315122.pdf

United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1995. Upper Big Butte Watershed

Analysis. Rogue River National Forest. Butte Falls, Oregon.

United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2009. Clark’s Fork habitat assessment,

field survey data. Unpublished data. USDA Forest Service, Rogue River-Siskiyou

National Forest, High Cascades Ranger District, Prospect, Oregon.

USDA Forest Service. 2011. Rogue River National Forest Management Indicator Species Forest-

Wide environmental baseline and species accounts. Unpublished Report. USDA Forest

Service, Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest, Medford, Oregon.

United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, and United States Department of the

Interior, Bureau of Land Management. 1994a. Final Supplemental Environmental Impact

Statement and Record of Decision on Management of Habitat for Late-successional and

Old-growth Forest Related Species within the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl. USDA

Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region, Portland, Oregon.

United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, and United States Department of the

Interior, Bureau of Land Management. 1994b. Record of Decision for Amendments to

Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management Planning Documents Within the Range

of the Northern Spotted Owl. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region, Portland,

Oregon. Available online at: http://www.reo.gov/library/reports/newroda.pdfVerme, L.J.

1965. ―Reproductive studies on penned white-tailed deer.‖ Journal of Wildlife

Management 29: 74-79.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2008. Birds of Conservation Concern 2008. United

StatesDepartment of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Migratory Bird

Management, Arlington, Virginia. 85 pp. [Online version available at

<http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/>]

Verme, L. J. 1965. Reproduction studies on penned white-tailed deer. The Journal of Wildlife

Management, 74-79.

Verme, L.J. and J.J. Ozogo. 1980. ―Influence of protein energy intake on deer fawns in autumn.‖

Journal of Wildlife Management 44: 315-324.

Verts, B.J. and L.N. Carraway. 1998.Land mammals of Oregon. University of California Press,

Berkeley, California.

Wahl, T.R., B. Tweit, and S. G. Mlodinow (eds.). 2005. Birds of Washington: status and

distribution. Oregon State University Press, Corvallis, Oregon.

Walker, A. 1930. Notes on the forest Phenacomys. Journal of Mammalogy 11:233–235.

http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5315122.pdf

http://www.reo.gov/library/reports/newroda.pdf

Big Pines Project

56

Attachment 1 – Mitigation and Minimization Measures

Big-Game Winter Range (BGWR) Mitigation

All activities within Big-Game Winter Range including felling, yarding, road construction, road

haul, and prescribed fire are subject to a restriction from December 1 to May 30 unless a specific

waiver is authorized by the District Ranger.

Neotropical Migratory Bird Mitigations

Efforts should be made to reduce impacts to nesting birds that may be present in the project

planning area that may be directly impacted by broadcast burning operations. Timing of

operations should occur outside of the spring breeding/nesting season to the extent possible (May

15 to July 15). Underburning and pile burning operations must be conducted within the specified

prescription identified in the burn plan. Spring/early summer burning operations may be required

during initial entries due to high fuel loading.

Small Mammal

In density management and fuel management units, leave 2 to 5 unburned piles/acre for small

mammal and spotted owl foraging habitat.

Snags and Coarse Woody Material Retention

Follow snag and down wood guidelines by Plant Series identified by Hochholter (2010) for the

Cascade Province of the Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest. Maintain the mean ± 1 SD for

snags and down wood in the 11 inches DBH and 20 inches DBH classes. The minimum Rogue

River Forest Plan guidelines for snags must be met.

For large snags (20 inches or greater DBH), scratch lines will be constructed around the base

prior to ignition operations to reduce potential of consumption by prescribed fire. Wherever

possible, snags that catch fire will be suppressed if they do not pose a safety threat to personnel.

Table 43. Coarse woody material Levels (number of pieces/acre and mean length)

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


Douglas-fir 535 (521) 93 (153)

white fir 663 (534) 239 (334)

Table 44. Snag levels (per acre)

Plant series Diameter class mean (SD)


Douglas-fir 6 (13) 2 (4)

white fir 4 (6) 4 (5)

Northern Goshawk

Northern Goshawk nests are subject to seasonal restrictions outlined in the Rogue River National

Forest Land and Resource Management Plan, Standards and Guidelines.


57

Attachment 2 – Survey and Manage Tracking Form

Survey and Manage Tracking Form: Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest Wildlife Species Survey and Site Management Summary

Project Name: Big Pines Restoration Project

Date: December 10, 2015

Project Type: vegetation management

Location: Upper Rogue Watershed

Survey and Manage Date: 2011 Settlement Agreement Appendix 1

Table 45. The Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest compiled the species listed below from the

2011 Settlement Agreement Attachment 1. The list includes those vertebrate and invertebrate

species with pre-disturbance survey requirements (category A, B, or C species), whose known or

suspected range includes the Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest and the High Cascades

Ranger District, according to survey protocols for the Red Tree Vole, Great Gray Owl, and

Terrestrial Mollusks found here: http://www.blm.gov/or/plans/surveyandmanage/protocols/

Final Statement of Compliance

Table shows the species whose ranges are known or suspected to occur within the project area as

well as all required surveys conducted and the results of all surveys. Red tree vole nests were

detected during protocol surveys on the Big Pines Restoration Project. These sites were buffered

by 10 acres and removed from the proposed treatment units. No other Survey and Manage

vertebrate or non-vertebrate animal species were found during any protocol survey on this project

and no known sites exist for this project planning area. No additional site management

recommendations are appropriate for this area.

http://www.blm.gov/or/plans/surveyandmanage/protocols/

Big Pines Project

58

Table 45). Survey and manage species list for High Cascades Ranger District, Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest.

Species

Survey and

Manage category

Survey triggers Survey results

Site management

Within range of species?

Contains suitable habitat?

Habitat disturbing

?

Surveys required

?

Survey date (month / day /

year)

Sites known or found?

Great gray owl C Yes No No No NA No None

Red tree Vole C Yes Yes Yes Yes 11/02/2010 Yes Yes

Mollusks Monadenia Chaceana B Yes Yes Yes Yes 2014 No No

Fluminicola n. sp. 3 A Suspected No No No NA NA No

Fluminicola n. sp. 11 A Suspected No No No NA NA No

Deroceras hesperium B No No No No NA No No

Pristiloma arcticum

crateris A Yes No No No

NA No No