westside watershed restoration project south fork...

of 28

United States Department of Agriculture

Forest Service – Pacific Southwest Region

Wildlife Sensitive Species Biological Evaluation

for the

WESTSIDE WATERSHED RESTORATION PROJECT South Fork Management Unit

Shasta-Trinity National Forest

Trinity County, California

Prepared By: /s/ Paula Crumpton Date: January 21, 2011

Paula Crumpton, Forest Wildlife Biologist

Shasta-Trinity National Forest

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Sensitive Species determinations are “may effect” for riparian-associated wildlife species in

the Westside Watershed Restoration project (Westside) because some of the project roads are

within riparian habitat and may remove vegetation in the riparian area. For upland Sensitive

wildlife species, the determinations are “no effect” because their forested suitable habitat is not

treated or affected. For several species, the Westside project area is a “no effect” determination

since the project area is far outside these Sensitive species range (e.g. Shasta County) and the

project is not occupied by these species. Further rationale for determinations: project design

criteria will be incorporated for protections such as LOP, and riparian conservation measures.

Additionally, any Survey & Manage species that is not also a Sensitive Species is under the

Survey & Manage exemptions in the Northwest Ecosystem Alliance v. Rey, No. 04-844-MJO

(W.D. Wash. Oct. 10, 2006); specifically items #b. for culverts replacement and #c. for road

decommissioning for riparian and stream improvement projects.

of 28

Westside Watershed Restoration project - Sensitive Species Biological Evaluation

PROJECT OVERVIEW

The proposed action is watershed restoration (in seven Westside areas: Rattlesnake, Smoky, Salt,

Soldier, Clear Creek, Middle Fork Cottonwood and Upper Hayfork) to improve water quality

and reduce existing negative environmental impacts by decommissioning roads that risk water

quality, upgrading stream crossings, or downgrading a road to a trail.

1) Decommission 18 miles of closed unauthorized routes.

2) Decommission 21 miles of closed high clearance system roads

3) Decommission 9 miles of open high clearance system roads.

4) Upgrade 5 stream crossings.

5) Convert 0.3 miles of passenger car system road to motorized trail.

Roads to decommission are overgrown with vegetation or cause erosion and sedimentation

problems; 30 culverts will be removed on 51 miles of these roads. Roads with issues at stream

crossings will be upgraded with larger culverts and crossings upgrade designs will install a

drainage dips, waterbars, or ditch relief culverts. See the project files for more information.

Some of the Westside project roads are in Critical Habitat, as well as in Late-Successional

Reserves (LSR). The LRMP Standards & Guidelines are pertinent for wildlife and habitat

protection and management measures for the Westside project are in the Appendix.

The analysis area for the Westside project are in three blocks known as South (between Platina

and Forest Glen), Northeast (at Trinity and Lewiston Lakes), and Northwest (between Junction

City and Hayfork Bally). Westside project roads are within over 12 miles in Riparian Reserves.

With these treatments, some forest and understory vegetation may be temporarily effected in

riparian areas. This vegetation is expected to grow back quickly after treatments activities are

completed. There are 30 places where project roads intersect or cross streams; six crossings are

at perennial streams with the other 24 at intermittent streams. No mature overstory trees are

affected in either riparian or upland habitats; only shrubs, other understory vegetation, and

seedling or sapling trees may be removed during culvert installation or road decommissioning.

of 28

Westside Project Map

BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION

Sensitive species are managed under the authority of the National Forest Management Act (PL

94-588) and the USDA Forest Service Manual Direction (FSM 2600). Sensitive species are

administratively designated by the Regional Forester (FSM 2670.5). This document is prepared

in accordance with current policy and follows the standards established in Forest Service Manual

direction (FSM 2670.32). Management goals for sensitive species in the Shasta-Trinity National

Forests Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP) (pgs.3-27 and 28) will be directed toward

maintaining or, if possible, increasing existing viable populations of sensitive species.

• Pg. 4-5 Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive Species (Plants and Animals): Manage

habitat for sensitive plants and animals in a manner that will prevent any species from

becoming a candidate for Threatened and Endangered status.

The following table of sensitive species (from the October 15, 2007 Regional Forest Sensitive

species list) are in the Westside project area and are evaluated in this report (see full list for the

Forest in the project file). Westside project surveys for these species have likely not occurred.

Northern goshawk Accipiter gentilis

Willow flycatcher Empidonax trailii

Bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus

Pallid bat Antrozous pallidus

Townsend’s big-eared bat Corynorhinus townsendii

Western red bat Lasiurus blossevillii

California wolverine Gulo gulo luteus

American marten Martes americana

Pacific fisher Martes pennanti pacifica

Southern torrent salamander Rhyacotriton variegatus

Foothill yellow-legged frog Rana boylii

Cascade frog Rana cascadae

Northwestern pond turtle Clemmys marmorata marmorata

Big Bar/Pressley hesperian snail Vespericola pressleyi

of 28

The following Sensitive species have a distribution range are outside the project area.

Additionally, some of these species habitat is not known within the project roads. Also project

actions do not measurably affect suitable habitat for the some of these species. These species are

dropped from further analysis because my determination is that the Westside project will

have “no effect” upon them:

Species dropped from further analysis Determination of Effects Shasta sideband snail Monadenia

troglodytes

troglodytes

No effect: Only known to occur in Shasta County CA.

Not known or expected to occur in or near project area.

Wintu sideband snail Monadenia

troglodytes wintu

No effect: Outside of the known locations and not

known or expected to occur in or near project area.

Shasta chaparral snail Trilobopsis roperi No effect: Only known to occur in Shasta County and

not known or expected to occur in or near project area.

Tehama chaparral

snail

Trilobopsis

tehamana

No effect: Outside of range and is not known or

expected to occur in or near project area

Shasta hesperian snail Vespericola shasta No effect: Occurrences limited to Shasta County and

not known or expected to occur in or near project area.

Nugget pebblesnail Fluminicola

seminalis

No effect: Known populations occur in Shasta and

Tehama Counties and are not known or expected to

occur in or near the project area.

California floater Anodonta

californiensis

No effect: Occurrences limited to the Fall and Pit

Rivers in Shasta County and not known or expected to

occur near project area.

Scalloped juga Juga occata No effect: Known populations limited to Pit River in

Shasta County and not known or expected to occur in

or near the project area.

Montane peaclam Pisidium

ultramontanum

No effect: Not known or expected to occur in or near

the project area.

Shasta salamander Hydromantes

shastae

No effect: Not known to occur on the Trinity portion

of the Shasta-Trinity National Forest and not expected

to occur in or near the project area.

of 28

SPECIES EVALUATIONS

Northern goshawk Accipiter gentilis

Forest records indicate no sightings or nests of this forest-dwelling hawk in the project area

within ½ mile from project roads. Goshawks are typically associated with late-successional and

old-growth conifer habitat. Within 1.3 miles of roads to be treated, there are 12,659 acres of high

capability habitat and 32,801 acres of moderate capability habitat for northern goshawk (sum is

45,460 acres capable for goshawk according to LRMP model). Goshawk habitat capability,

though, is likely lower because this analysis does not account for slope steepness - gentle slopes

are preferred. The project area includes some areas of steep terrain, though. Within the project,

12.8 miles of roads are in high or moderate capability habitat. About 64 roads to be treated are

within high or moderate capability habitat for northern goshawk.

Forest LRMP Northern Goshawk Habitat Capability Model (Appendix

G) - crosswalk to LRMP GIS Data Dictionary.

Goshawk Habitat+ High Capability

(preferred) Moderate Capability

(required)

Forest Types

all 4N and 4G

[Tree size 4: 25-40 inch dbh;

G: >70 % crown cover. N: 40 - 69% crown cover]

all 3N and 3G

[Tree size 3: 13-24 inch dbh;

G: >70 % crown cover. N: 40 - 69% crown cover]

+Does not account for percent slope (high 0-25%; moderate > 25-35%)

Acres Goshawk Habitat within 1.3 miles of roads to be treated

12,659 High capability

32,801 Moderate capability

45,460 Sum

12.8 Miles of road in high or moderate capability

It is my determination that the proposed action will have no effect on northern goshawk

based upon the following rationale: No forested goshawk habitat will be modified by the

treatments with all the habitat acreages remaining the same post-project. Limited operating

periods are to be implemented to mitigate human-caused disturbance within ½ mile of nest sites

during project implementation (see Appendix for LOP time period).

Willow flycatcher Empidonax trailii

Willow flycatcher is a migratory bird that breeds usually in shrubby, often wet habitats from

Maine to British Columbia and as far south as southern Arizona and southern California. It

winters from southern Mexico to northern South America. Willow flycatcher is restricted to river

corridors and moist or wet shrubby habitats in the arid West. It is also absent from most of

California with currently known breeding locations restricted primarily to Sierra Nevada/

Cascade region (southeast Shasta County south to Kern County, including Alpine, Inyo, and

Mono Counties), and Santa Barbara, Riverside, and San Diego Counties (Sedgwick 2000). In

California, Sedgwick (2000) quoted from Grinnell and Miller in 1944, “strikingly restricted to

thickets of willows, whether along streams in broad valleys, in canyon bottoms, around

mountain-side seepages, or at the margins of ponds and lakes”. Willow flycatcher is known from

the Trinity River corridor at the MAPS station at Whites Bar, along the Trinity River. In the

Westside project, roads proposed to be treated are within 12 miles in Riparian Reserves and there

of 28

are six places where road crossings are at perennial streams. It is my determination that the

proposed action may impact individual willow flycatcher but would not cause a trend

towards federal listing or a loss of viability based upon the following rationale: some project

roads are in Riparian Reserves and cross perennial stream where there is a possible presence of

suitable habitat for willow flycatcher. No mature overstory trees are affected in riparian habitats,

though; only shrubs, other understory vegetation, and seedling or sapling trees may be removed

during culvert installation or road decommissioning. This vegetation is expected to grow back

quickly after treatments activities are completed. Aquatic and riparian protections will be

provided by Best Management Practices (BMP), project design criteria, and LRMP standards.

Dispersal of aquatic and riparian species would be improved by the stream crossing upgrades,

and culvert removal. With the removal of roads, restoration of riparian and upland habitat

function will occur in the treatment areas. Fragmentation of habitat would be substantially

reduced, as well.

Bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus

Bald eagle requires large trees protected from disturbance for nesting and late-successional and

old growth forests relatively close to large rivers or lakes for winter roosting sites. Trinity River

and its’ tributaries, provide suitable nesting and foraging habitat. Records indicate that bald eagle

have been documented near the Trinity dam area within ½ mile from roads proposed to be

treated: 3 eagle nests are at Stuart, Tannery, Buckeye areas and near roads 34N34YA, 34N36,

and 34N80B. It is my determination that the proposed action may impact individual bald

eagle but would not cause a trend towards federal listing or a loss of viability based upon the

following rationale: project roads are in Riparian Reserves and cross perennial stream. No

mature overstory trees are affected in riparian habitats. Limited operating periods will be used at

nest sites from January 1 to August 15 within ½ mile the project roads (e.g. 34N34YA, 34N36,

and 34N80B). Aquatic and riparian protections will be provided by Best Management Practices

(BMP), project design criteria, and LRMP standards. Dispersal of aquatic and riparian species

would be improved by the stream crossing upgrades, and culvert removal. With the removal of

roads, restoration of riparian and upland habitat function will occur in the treatment areas.

Fragmentation of habitat would be substantially reduced, as well.

Pallid bat Antrozous pallidus

Pallid bat is a locally common yearlong resident of in California. Though it is mostly abundant in

deserts, it is also in coniferous forests (Sherwin and Rambaldini 2005). It occurs throughout

California except for the high Sierra Nevada from Shasta to Kern counties, and the northwestern

corner of the state - from Del Norte and western Siskiyou counties. Pallid bats tend to roost

gregariously. Day and night roosts are in a variety of structures: rocky outcrops, cliffs, caves,

mines, hollow trees, under pine or oak bark, bridges, buildings, and has been found roosting near

the ground (Sherwin and Rambaldini 2005). Pallid bat mating occurs from October to February;

parturition from late April to July; weaning in August; and maternal colonies disperse between

August and October (Sherwin and Rambaldini 2005). It prefers access to open habitats for

foraging: grasslands, open pine forests, talus slopes, gravel roads, fruit orchards and vineyards.

Pallid bat habitat in northern California is also oak woodlands (Angerer pers. comm.). Pallid bats

are opportunistic and generally feed on mostly arthropods and insects. In 1997, the Shasta-

Trinity National Forests began surveys in areas where proposed activities could affect potential

roost sites. During the course of a five year (1996-2000) bat mist net monitoring at the nearby

Pilot Creek watershed area, no pallid bats were found (Weller and Lee 2007). It is my

determination that the proposed actions may impact individual pallid bat but would not

cause a trend towards federal listing or a loss of viability based upon the following rationale:

of 28

Four culverts (potential bat-use structures) will be replaced by larger culverts which are expected

to project more roosting habitat. Other potential bat-use structures, such as cliffs, caves, talus

slopes and rock outcrops are not affected by treatments; and some if its foraging habitat will not

be affected or are not present (e.g. grasslands, talus slopes, fruit orchards and vineyards). Aquatic

and riparian protections will be provided by Best Management Practices (BMP), project design

criteria, and LRMP standards. Dispersal of aquatic and riparian species would be improved by

the stream crossing upgrades, and culvert removal. With the removal of roads, restoration of

riparian and upland habitat function will occur in the treatment areas. Fragmentation of habitat

would be substantially reduced, as well.

Townsend’s big-eared bat Corynorhinus townsendii

The colonial Townsend’s big-eared bat is distributed in the west of North America from British

Columbia south into Mexico. They require with caves and cavernous roosts (e.g. mines)

throughout their lives, which are not distributed evenly across the landscape (Gruver and

Keinath, 2006). Townsend’s big-eared bats occur in limestone caves in Trinity County, as well

as in caves in Shasta County, of the Forest (Pierson and Rainer 1998). In coastal California,

Fellers and Pierson (2002) found both males and females foraged along the Douglas-fir forest

edges often along riparian corridors. There are no records in the forest data of this bat species in

the planning area. It is my determination that the proposed actions may impact individual

Townsend’s big-eared bat but would not cause a trend towards federal listing or a loss of

viability based upon the following rationale: Four culverts (potential bat-use structures) will be

replaced by larger culverts which are expected to project more roosting habitat. Other potential

bat-use structures, such as cliffs, caves, talus slopes, rock outcrops, bridges, buildings, or mine

adits are not affected by treatments. Project roads are in Riparian Reserves and cross perennial

stream where there is a possibility of suitable foraging habitat for Townsend’s big-eared bat. No

mature overstory trees are affected in riparian habitats; only shrubs, other understory vegetation,

and seedling or sapling trees may be removed during culvert installation or road

decommissioning. This vegetation is expected to grow back quickly after treatments activities

are completed. Dispersal of aquatic and riparian species would be improved by the stream

crossing upgrades, and culvert removal. With the removal of roads, restoration of riparian and

upland habitat function will occur in the treatment areas. Fragmentation of habitat would be

substantially reduced, as well.

Western red bat Lasiurus blossevillii

Zeiner (1990) wrote that red bats are locally common in some areas of California; occurring

from Shasta County to the Mexican border, west of the Sierra Nevada/Cascade crest and deserts.

Red bat winter range includes western lowlands and coastal regions south of San Francisco Bay.

They have relatively short migrations between summer and winter ranges in California; in spring

(March-May) and autumn (September-October). The western red bat is typically solitary,

roosting primarily in the foliage of trees or shrubs (Bolster 2005). Their day roosts are commonly

in edge habitats adjacent to streams or open fields, in orchards, and sometimes in urban areas.

There is an association with intact riparian habitat, particularly willows, cottonwoods, and

sycamores (Bolster 2005). Red bats require water. In 1997, the Shasta-Trinity National Forests

began surveys in areas where proposed activities could affect potential roost sites. Western red

bats have been detected on the Shasta Forest in recent years at Trout Creek and in a McCloud /

Pit River survey (Derby pers. comm.). Additionally, during the course of a five year (1996-2000)

bat mist net monitoring at the nearby Pilot Creek watershed area, one western red bat was found

(Weller and Lee 2007). It is my determination that the proposed actions may impact

individual western red bats but would not cause a trend towards federal listing or a loss of

of 28

viability based upon the following rationale: Four culverts (potential bat-use structures) will be

replaced by larger culverts which are expected to project more roosting habitat. Other potential

bat-use structures, such as cliffs, caves, talus slopes, rock outcrops, bridges, buildings, or mine

adits are not affected by treatments. Project roads are in Riparian Reserves and cross perennial

stream where there is a possibility of suitable foraging habitat for western red bat. No mature

overstory trees are affected in riparian habitats; only shrubs, other understory vegetation, and

seedling or sapling trees may be removed during culvert installation or road decommissioning.

This vegetation is expected to grow back quickly after treatments activities are completed.

Aquatic and riparian protections will be provided by Best Management Practices (BMP), project

design criteria, and LRMP standards. Dispersal of aquatic and riparian species would be

improved by the stream crossing upgrades, and culvert removal. With the removal of roads,

restoration of riparian and upland habitat function will occur in the treatment areas.

Fragmentation of habitat would be substantially reduced, as well.

California wolverine Gulo gulo luteus

Wolverines, in the Distinct Population Segment (DPS) of the contiguous United States, are

proposed to warrant protection under the Endangered Species Act. The USFWS proposed this

determination in a 12-month finding on December 14, 2010. This review found that this

wolverine DPS is primarily threatened by the impact of climate warming on its alpine habitat

http://www.fws.gov/mountainprairie/species/mammals/wolverine/75FR78030.pdf

Wolverines are opportunistic feeders that primarily scavenge carrion, but also prey on small

animals, and eat fruit and insects USDI (2003). Wolverine home ranges are generally extremely

large; availability and distribution of food is likely the primary factor in determining wolverine

movements and home range (USDI 2003). Home ranges of adult wolverines range from less than

38.5 square miles to 348 square miles (Banci 1994). The current range in the contiguous United

States is believed to include Idaho, Montana, Oregon, Washington, Wyoming, and California

(Banci 1994). Wolverine naturally occurs in low densities (Banci 1994). Wolverines are difficult

and expensive to study and are rarely observed, so a lack of sightings does not necessarily mean

that wolverines are not present (Banci 1994). There have been few surveys of wolverines in the

contiguous United States that were designed to estimate population size at even a local scale. The

North American wolverine, Gulo gulo luscus, was petitioned for federal listing, though

determined that it does not warrant listing (USDI 2008).

In California, wolverine occurred throughout the Sierra Nevada, Cascades, Klamath, and

northern Coast ranges in forests in alpine, boreal forest and mixed forest vegetation types

(Schempf and White 1977). California Department of Fish and Game Wildlife Habitat

Relationships System notes the wolverine is a scarce resident of North Coast mountains and the

Sierra Nevada. Sightings have ranged from Del Norte and Trinity counties, east through Siskiyou

and Shasta counties in the Coast Range, and south through Tulare County. Wolverines

predominately use coniferous forest, but their significant use of non-forest alpine habitats

distinguishes them from the fisher and marten (Banci 1994). In north coastal areas, wolverines

were observed in Douglas-fir and mixed conifer habitats, and probably use red fir, lodgepole,

wet meadow, and montane riparian habitats. Most sightings in this region range from 1600 to

4800 feet elevation, according to California Department of Fish and game records from 2005.

Wolverines appear to select areas that are free from significant human disturbance, especially

during the denning period from late winter through early spring. Wolverines that occur in

forested areas use dense forest cover for travel and resting, especially in the winter. In the last 20

years in California, surveys for wolverines using remote cameras at high elevation locations, and

of 28

Forest track plate surveys, have been unsuccessful in detecting them except the February 2008

photo documentation at Tahoe National Forest. There are unconfirmed wolverine sightings on

the Shasta-Trinity National Forest over the past 20 years; though Forest records include no

sightings of wolverine in the project area. Trinity Alps and Yolla Bolly Wilderness may provide

the large secluded areas this species requires. It is my determination that the proposed actions

will have not effect on California wolverine based upon the following rationale: its coniferous

forests and non-forest alpine habitats are not modified by project treatments; Wilderness areas

are nearby to provide the large secluded tracts of habitat.

American marten Martes Americana

American marten is associated with higher elevation (> 4,500 feet) old white fir and red fir

stands (Buskirk, et al. 1994; Freel, 1991) and to a lesser extent lower elevation conifer forest

similar to fisher habitat. There is one records of a marten sighting in the northwest project area.

The project area includes 12,659 acres of moderate capability habitat. Within the project, 2.6

miles of roads (along 14 different roads) to be treated are in moderate capability habitat for

American marten.

Forest LRMP American Marten Habitat Capability Model

(Appendix G) – crosswalk to LRMP GIS Data Dictionary.

Marten

Habitat

High Capability (preferred)

Moderate Capability (required)

Forest

Types

4N and 4G (red fir only)

[Tree size 4: 25-40 inch dbh; G: > 70 % crown cover.

N: 40 - 69% crown cover]

3N and 3G (red fir)

4N and 4G (not red fir)

[Tree size 3:13-24 inch dbh]

Marten Habitat Within 1.3 miles of roads to be treated

12,659 acres moderate capable habitat

It is my determination that the proposed actions will have no effect martens based upon the

following rationale: no forested marten habitat will be modified and all of its suitable habitat will

remain post-project.

Pacific fisher Martes pennanti pacifica

Forested vegetation – According to Federal Register Volume 69, Number 68, Powell and

Zielinski (1994) suggest that habitat suitable for rest and den sites may be more limiting for

Pacific fisher than foraging habitat. Much Pacific fisher habitat research has occurred in and near

Shasta-Trinity National Forest. During recent late-winter and spring months on the Shasta-

Trinity National Forest, research surveys conducted by Lindstrand (2006) found 13 Pacific fisher

around Shasta Lake where vegetation types were in open second-growth conifer, hardwood-

conifer, and hardwood habitats that has extensive chaparral components. Shasta Lake is in a

transitional area between the southern Klamath Mountains, the southern Cascades, and the

northern Central Valley. Lindstrand (2006) described vegetation as generally open- to moderate-

canopied hardwood-conifer stands dominated by oaks and ponderosa pine, with occasional

Douglas-fir; many of these stands had dense shrubs. Lindstrand considered the survey area to be

a high precipitation area of mountainous terrain (Lindstrand 2006b).

of 28

Yaeger (2005) speculated that fisher in Trinity County are not dependant on large tracts of late-

seral forests; though generally select larger trees for resting. Early work by Buck et al. 1983

tracked radio-collared fisher, on the Shasta-Trinity National Forest in Trinity County; fisher

preferred heavy forest stands of mixed tree species (60% of triangulations), though ranged

widely to include second-growth, harvested forests, and forest openings (40% of triangulations).

Buck calculated that the differences between habitat availability and use were primarily from

adult female fisher.

Self (2001) studied Pacific fisher rest locations and habitat on private land area nestled between

the Shasta and the Trinity National Forests – Castle Creek watershed in Shasta county (adjacent

to the east edge of Trinity County). Fisher used habitat types non-randomly. Self (2001) found

fisher selectively used Klamath mixed conifer (CWHR type) and montane hardwood conifer

over 95% of the time while the watershed comprised just 65% on these forest types. Less than

10% of Self’s study area was old-growth conditions – CWHR 5M, 5D and 6 (see Appendix A).

Fisher used open stands with shrubs that could provide cover, as well as dense trees stands with a

wide range of tree diameter sizes. Contrasting to habitat availability, Self (2001) found fisher

selectively used CWHR size/closure classes 3D, 4D, 5P and 5M greater than expected; fisher

used 4P, 4M and 6 as expected; fisher selected against using 3S and 4S. Fisher used the

landscape differently by seasons. Self (2001) found fisher used open stands (P) substantially

more in the summer (39%) than winter (13%). Self (2001) found fisher used dense stands (D)

predominately in winter (60%). Moderately dense stands (M) were used by fisher similarly in

summer and winter. Large trees (5 and 6) and pole (3) stand use increased in summer; small tree

(4) stands were used in winter. Self (2001) found fisher significantly selected 4D stands in

winter; in summer significantly selected 3D, 4D, 4P, 5P, and 5M stands.

Fisher rest habitat adjacent to Shasta-Trinity National Forest. Self, 2001

Summer use (wider variety) Winter use

open stands CWHR P dense stands CWHR D

large trees CWHR 5, 6; and pole trees 3 small tree CWHR 4

3D, 4D, 4P, 5P, and 5M stands 4D stands

Over 77% of the rest sites were in CWHR 4 size forest stands at the Self’s study sites (Self

2001). Self found most rest sites were in small aggregations of trees, less than 5 acres in size,

with canopies greater than the general stand. For example, stringers of trees 50-300 feet wide

that were between open or brushy areas. Self found these stringers were also used as travel

corridors.

Rest structures – When fisher are not hunting or traveling, they use structures for resting. These

structures serve as secure locations from predators, prey consumption, and thermal regulation in

both summer and winter. At his Hoopa study site in northern California, Yeager (2005) found

drainage bottoms to be used more often for resting compared to ridge-tops and mid-slope

locations. Yaeger (2005) thought that drainage bottoms offered water, increase prey abundance,

larger trees, and denser canopy clover. Riparian areas also importantly provide concentrations of

rest site elements, such as broken-top trees, snags, and coarse woody debris. Selecting resting

sites is an important decision for fisher since locations protect fisher from bad weather and

predators (Zielinski et al. 2006). In more xeric areas, rest sites were frequently in drainage

bottoms (Zielinski et al. 2004b).

of 28

Yaeger (2005) analyzed fisher rest sites near Trinity Lake in Shasta-Trinity National Forest.

Here, he found most rest sites were platforms (81%; e.g. large lateral tree limbs, fan-shaped

branch arrays) and then cavities used to a lesser degree (19%). Platforms were generally in live

conifers with hardwoods housing cavities. Shasta-Trinity fisher used live conifer trees most

frequently (64%) for rest locations; live hardwoods were used 12% of the time (Yaeger (2005);

snags and logs were used much less frequently. Douglas-fir was used for rest stops most often

(65%), then ponderosa pine (10%) and black oak (10%) by Shasta-Trinity fisher. Yaeger (2005)

found his data characterized resting locations to be in stands that include large diameter trees,

extensive canopy cover, presence of water within 328 feet, and a greater number of hardwood

species (no count given), with a greater distance to roads and human disturbance (no measures

provided) compared to random locations on the Shasta-Trinity National Forest. For Shasta-

Trinity canopy cover, 97.6% of the rest sites had more than 50% canopy cover, with 87.5% of

those had greater than 75% canopy cover. Yaeger (2005) speculated that live hardwoods were an

important element of fisher resting habitat; for the Shasta-Trinity Forest, this means a greater

expected use of hardwoods, compared to availability. Thusly, black oaks (e.g. cavities) were

used more than they were available by Shasta-Trinity fisher. Regarding rest tree size, Yaeger

(2005) stated that Zielinski reported Shasta-Trinity rest site conifer trees were 38.8 inch

diameter; hardwoods were 28.3 inch diameter.

Self (2001) studied Pacific fisher rest locations and habitat on private land area nestled between

the Shasta and the Trinity National Forests – Castle Creek watershed in Shasta county (adjacent

to the east edge of Trinity County). With nine fisher tagged, three male fisher were tracked via

radio telemetry and 34 fisher rest sites described. Green trees were used mostly for rest sites

(79%), conifer snag cavities were used 15%, and logs used 6% (Self 2001). The green trees were

Douglas-fir (74%), ponderosa pine (15%), black oak (7%) and incense cedar (4%; Self 2001).

Used most often in green trees were mistletoe brooms (81%) for rest structures, then cavities

(8%), squirrel or bird nests (8%), and forked trees (4%; Self 2001). Self found about 30% of rest

sites to have at least one tree greater than 40 inch diameter and 50% with at least one tree greater

than 30 inch diameter. Rest trees averaged 85% of both the height and diameter of the largest

trees measured in the plots (Self 2001).

Whether for prey availability, water access, riparian vegetation or microhabitat conditions, Self

(2001) found fisher selectively used areas within 500 feet of water positively (85% of rest sites);

used areas between 500 to 1,100 feet as expected; and selected against use of areas farther than

1,100 feet from water.

Zielinski had a rest habitat study (Zielinski et al. 2004c) in Trinity County that including radio-

marked fisher on the Shasta-Trinity National Forest (his Coastal study site by South Fork

Mountain and included mostly Six Rivers National Forest). Here, fisher rest trees were mostly

live trees (46.4%), Douglas fir trees (65.6%), and larger than the average available tree. Black

oak cavities were also used 11% in the coastal study area. Male fisher used tree branch platforms

significantly more than females; females in the coastal study area (14.3%). Females, being

smaller, may want more protection from predators and weather extremes, thus use cavities more,

speculated Zielinski (Zielinski et al. 2004c). Large logs were used less frequently as rest

structures. Zielinski (Zielinski et al. 2004c) found that rest structures were not used often more

than once (3.5% re-use) in the coastal study area. Rest sites were used for short time periods -

hours (Zielinski et al. 2006). Zielinski (Zielinski et al. 2004c, 2006) speculated that fisher do not

restrict themselves to a few central locations; instead use multiple rest structures distributed

throughout their home range. With the different climate zone, forest types and larger bodied

of 28

individuals, Aubry (2006) found that southern Oregon fisher remain at rest sites for several hours

(including greater that 24 hours) and occasionally re-use structures. Aubry (2006) noted timber

harvest cull piles to be used occasionally for resting by these larger southern Oregon fisher.

Looking at the results of the coastal site as well as his southern Sierra study site, Zielinski

(Zielinski et al. 2004c) calculated that rest site habitat and rest site trees had larger diameter trees

compared to random sites. In the coastal area, rest site tree greater than 24 inch diameter was the

most frequently used. Tree stands at rest sites were greater than 60% canopy closure. Compared

to random sites in the coastal study area, rest sites had greater canopy closure, larger maximum

tree size, and at least one large conifer snag (greater than 40 inch diameter).

Truex (Truex et al. 1998) found at the Shasta-Trinity National Forest study site (his Eastern

Klamath study area), that fisher rested more frequently on platforms (growths on tree branches

and nests in trees and snags) than Sierra study area. Douglas fir was the most common tree

species for resting in northern California with fisher resting more often in small diameter trees

and logs on the Shasta-Trinity National Forest compared to the two other study areas (Truex et

al. 1998). Platforms in small trees may not provide enough shelter for reproductive female fisher,

speculates Truex, since large tree cavities would be more protective.

On the Weaverville Ranger District, Shasta-Trinity National Forest, Seglund (1995) found that

fisher rest sites occurred in large woody structures averaging 39 inches in patches with higher

tree basal area, greater hardwood and shrub cover, and larger trees than sites sampled at random.

Dens – Female fisher, and their kits, use two types of dens: natal and maternal dens. Natal dens -

where females give birth to kits and nurse them - were used in southern Oregon to late

Mate/early June (study site on Rogue River National Forest and Crater lake National Park,

Aubry 2006). Maternal dens – used by female and kits when kits are still dependant on food from

their mother which lasts until mid-summer in southern Oregon – were used for extended periods

of time (e.g. greater than two weeks) where there were two kits or more (Aubry 2006). With just

one kit, female fisher were more mobile. Structures used later in the season by female fisher and

kits are classified as rest sites. To keep out predators, natal den cavities are often high up in live

trees and just large enough to fisher to fit through: heartwood hollows, knot holes, and narrow

cracks in tree boles (Aubry 2006). Maternal dens, in contrast, could be in tree butts or logs,

besides live trees or snags (Aubry 2006).

In California, natal and maternal dens were trees large enough for cavities as documented by

Truex et al. (1998): average conifer diameter was 45 inches; with 25 inches for hardwoods.

Thompson (2003) found natal dens in Simpson Resource Company lands in coastal northwestern

California, to be in mostly decadent hardwood tree cavities or in conifer snags from 24.6 to 37.5

inches diameter. Maternal dens found by Thompson were also all cavities in tanoak, Douglas fir

snags or western cedar snags from 24.6 to 72.5 inches. Yeager (2005) speculated that hardwoods

provide an important role in providing den cavities in northern California. Through personal

communications with Golightly in 2000, Yaeger (2005) was told that Shasta-Trinity fisher had

six dens located with four of those within hardwood cavities.

Thompson (Thompson et al. 2007) conducted fisher radio telemetry surveys in Humboldt and

Del Norte Counties, California, and located nine fisher dens for five females: four natal and five

maternal dens. The dens were in four “highly decadent” live hardwoods, one “sound” hardwood

and four conifer snags. Natal dens were all in cavities: Two were located in tanoak, one in

of 28

chinquapin, and one in a Douglas-fir snag. Mean diameter was 30 inches (range 24.6 to 37.5

inches). Maternal dens were also all in cavities. Three cavities appeared to be created by pileated

woodpecker and two were created by old fire scars. The maternal cavities were in larger trees:

two tanoak, two Douglas fir snags and one western red cedar snag, with a mean diameter of 44

inches (range 24.6 to 72.6 inches; Thompson et al. 2007).

Foraging habitat and diet - According to Federal Register Volume 69, Number 68, Pacific

Fisher appear to be dietary generalists, and therefore, flexible in their foraging habitat

requirements. Golightly (Golightly et al. 2006) found that fisher at his Shasta-Trinity study sites

were opportunistic, consuming all prey they encountered as influenced by seasonal changes. He

states that season patterns are present based on prey availability, change in capture effort, and

change in fisher energy demand. In Idaho, fisher used a broader range of habitats for hunting

than resting (Jones 1991). Jones (1991) found that younger aged forests appeared suitable for

hunting with simpler stand structures were used for hunting.

Golightly (Golightly et al. 2006) reported that on the Shasta-Trinity National Forest, mammals

were 88.5% of the fisher diet in his frequency analysis of 148 scat samples. Rodents (41.2%)

were the most frequently found food item, he states as different from fisher diets outside

California. Also unlike fisher in other parts of its range and other parts of California, their diet

was very diverse in the Klamath region: Shasta-Trinity National Forest fisher ate reptiles at a

frequency of 35.8%, and insects at 65.5% (with more in summer and autumn). Seasonal variation

existed with reptiles being the most prevalent in spring and summer on the Shasta-Trinity

National Forest. Shasta-Trinity had greater deer carrion use (common in autumn and winter) than

his other Klamath region study sites. On the Shasta-Trinity National Forest, birds were eaten in

summer only; bird eggs were consumed in the spring. A diet of sciurids (e.g. squirrel and

chipmunk; eaten throughout the year) replaced woodrat in the comparing drier Shasta-Trinity to

wetter Hoopa marine conditions. This Klamath study found that fisher regularly consumed these

prey: mammals (e.g. rodents, moles and cervid carrion [e.g. deer carcass]), bird, snake, lizard,

amphibian, insects, and huckleberry fruits. Notably absent locally were rabbit and porcupine,

which are in fisher diets elsewhere.

Yaeger (2005) speculated that mast-producing black oak and tanoak in northern California are

important for fisher prey species (rodents). Yaeger (2005) speculated that prey availability along

riparian areas is one reason for fisher resting in drainage-bottoms.

Golightly (Golightly et al. 2006) speculated that fisher diet differences may be reflective of use

within different forest seral stages; some important prey species increase in numbers in logged

forests. Some prey may be more associated with forest openings and edges while conversely tree

squirrels and chipmunks are abundant in forest cover and use conifer and oaks as their food base

(Golightly et al. 2006. Small mammals use down logs.

Home range - Zielinski (Zielinski et al. 2004b) found the average home range size for Pacific

fisher in his northwest coast study area, which included the Shasta-Trinity National Forest, to be

14,348 acres for males and 3,702 for females. Yaeger (2005) calculated male fisher home range

on the Shasta-Trinity National Forest to be 9,457 acres (+ 2212 acres); female fisher range was

5,800 acres (+ 1164 acres). With Truex’s (1998) findings, he speculated that fisher habitat is

poorer quality on the Shasta-Trinity National Forest than his north coast and Sierra study areas.

The interior Shasta-Trinity has less moisture, thus less tree growth, than coastal forests. The

larger home range in northern California, compared to Sierra, may be indicative of individuals

of 28

using larger areas because of poorer quality or because the larger fisher body size in north

California. Zielinski (Zielinski et al. 2006b) characterized fisher home range as

‘disproportionately large’. In his analysis area, which included the Shasta-Trinity National

Forest, he found the Late Successional Reserves had 55% of the predicted habitat value for the

fisher. Late Successional Reserves, though, have a greater percentage of habitat value than

Wilderness, though (Zielinski et al. 2006b).

Home Range acres for

Trinity County fisher

Male

Female

Zielinski 14,348 3,702

Yaeger 9,457 5,800

Forest LRMP Fisher Habitat Capability Model (Appendix G)

- crosswalk to LRMP GIS Data Dictionary

Fisher

Habitat

High Capability (preferred)

Moderate Capability (required)

Forest

Types

all 3G and 4G

[Tree size 3: 13-24 inch dbh. Tree size 4: 25-40 inch dbh;

G: > 70 % crown cover.]

all 3N and 4N

[N: 40 - 69% crown cover]

Fisher Habitat Within 1.3 miles of roads to be treated

27,319 acres high capable habitat

17,811 acres moderate capable habitat

45,130 acres Total capable habitat

In the Westside analysis area, suitable fisher habitat constitutes over 45,130 acres within 1.3

miles of roads to be treated. Within the project, 12.8 miles of roads (along 64 different roads) are

in high or moderate capability habitat for pacific fisher. There are 155 records of fisher sightings

within the three project planning areas and within ½ mile of treatments. These records of fisher

were recorded from 1968 to 2005 and include surveys, research trappings and incidental

sightings.

The West Coast DPS of Pacific fisher is warranted for federal listing, but precluded with a

priority number of six in the listing process. No change in the trend toward federal listing is

expected with this project. As a Forest Service Region 5 Sensitive Species, it is my

determination that the proposed actions will have no effect on Pacific fisher for the

following reasons: no forested fisher habitat will be modified and all of its suitable habitat will

remain post-project.

Southern torrent salamander Rhyacotriton variegatus

Southern torrent salamander occurs in aquatic habitats in conifer forests at elevations below 1449

meters in the coast range from Mendocino County, California to northwestern Oregon (Welsh

and Lind 1996). They occur in springs, seeps, small streams, and margins of larger streams

where they avoid open water and seek the cover of moss, rocks, and organic debris in shallow

cold, percolating water; these are closed canopy, mature coniferous forests from sea level to

of 28

4,850 feet in elevation (Welsh and Lind 1996). Southern torrent salamander seldom ventures

away from saturated streamside areas and occurs within a relatively narrow range of physical and

microclimatic conditions and is associated with cold, clear headwater to low-order streams with

loose rocky substrates (low sedimentation) in humid forest habitats with large conifers, abundant

moss, and greater than 80% canopy closure (Welsh and Lind 1996). Records indicate that there

are no sightings of this salamander in the project area. It is my determination that the

proposed actions may impact individual Southern torrent salamander but would not cause

a trend towards federal listing or a loss of viability based upon the following rationale: project

roads are in Riparian Reserves and cross perennial stream where there is a possibility of suitable

habitat for Southern torrent salamander. No mature overstory trees are affected in riparian

habitats; only shrubs, other understory vegetation, and seedling or sapling trees may be removed

during culvert installation or road decommissioning. This vegetation is expected to grow back

quickly after treatments activities are completed. Aquatic and riparian protections will be

provided by Best Management Practices (BMP), project design criteria, and LRMP standards.




reduced, as well.

Foothill yellow-legged frog Rana boylii

Historically, foothill yellow-legged frog were found in the Coast Range drainages in Oregon

south to the Los Angeles County, California, and along the west slopes of the Sierra

Nevada/Cascade crest in most of central and northern (Seltenrich and Pool 2002). Though, most

researchers believe that these frogs no longer inhabit about half of their historic range in

California. They are a highly aquatic amphibian, spending most or all of their life in or near

streams (Seltenrich and Pool 2002). Foothill yellow-legged frogs use a variety of aquatic habitat

types depending on life stage and the time of year: pools, riffles, and runs; rivers and their

smaller tributary streams. Adults are along main stem rivers during spring to breed in pools and

then return to basking and foraging sites at stream tributaries. Juvenile frogs tend to migrate to

upstream tributaries in late summer and early fall (Seltenrich and Pool 2002). In a local natural

history review along part of the main stem of Trinity River on the Forest (Aston et al 1997) from

Lewiston Dan downstream to Helena (at the North Fork Trinity River confluence which is

between Junction City and Big Bar), it was found that the adult frogs congregate in clusters at the

limited suitable habitat of gravel bars and cobble area. Breeding is from April through late June

here. High flows and seasonal flooding from storm events and dam releases can wash eggs

masses away downstream. In summer, adults are, then, scarce along the Trinity River mainstem

(Aston et al 1997). At Westside project area, records indicate 7 sightings of foothill yellow-

legged frogs within ¼ mile of treatments - one in each of the three project planning areas. It is

my determination that the proposed actions may impact individual yellow-legged frog but

would not cause a trend towards federal listing or a loss of viability based upon the following

rationale: project roads are in Riparian Reserves and cross perennial stream where there is a

possibility of suitable habitat for foothill yellow-legged frog. No mature overstory trees are

affected in riparian habitats; only shrubs, other understory vegetation, and seedling or sapling

trees may be removed during culvert installation or road decommissioning. This vegetation is

expected to grow back quickly after treatments activities are completed. Aquatic and riparian

protections will be provided by Best Management Practices (BMP), project design criteria, and

LRMP standards. Dispersal of aquatic and riparian species would be improved by the stream


of 28



Cascade frog Rana cascadae

Cascade frog inhabits high altitude ponds, lakes, and streams within open coniferous forest from

Washington to northern California (Brigg 1987). Cascade frog ranges from fragmented

populations in north-central California, to northern Washington. In California, Cascade frog is

distributed from the Shasta-Trinity region eastward toward the Modoc Plateau and southward to

the Lassen region and the upper Feather River system (CA Dept. Fish and Game 2007). The

elevation range in California extends from 656 feet (Butte County) to 8200 feet (Emerald Lake,

Lassen National Park, Shasta County; CA Dept. Fish and Game 2007). Numerous Cascade frog

sightings are in eastern Siskiyou County and from the upper McCloud River system (Colby

Meadows). They are also known in the Trinity Alps Wilderness and believed to be relatively

abundant (Fellers et al 2007). CA Dept. Fish and Game field surveys during 1990 found that

Cascade frog was moderately to extremely abundant in lake and ponded streams where few or no

fishes were present. Of the lakes in the Westside project area and on Forest system lands, the two

lakes are at 3200 feet elevation. There are no records of Cascade frog sightings in the project

area. It is my determination that the proposed actions may impact individual Cascade frog

but would not cause a trend towards federal listing or a loss of viability based upon the

following rationale: project roads are in Riparian Reserves and cross perennial stream where

there is a possibility of suitable habitat for Cascade frog. No mature overstory trees are affected

in riparian habitats; only shrubs, other understory vegetation, and seedling or sapling trees may

be removed during culvert installation or road decommissioning. This vegetation is expected to

grow back quickly after treatments activities are completed. Aquatic and riparian protections will

be provided by Best Management Practices (BMP), project design criteria, and LRMP standards.




reduced, as well.

Northwestern pond turtle Clemmys marmorata marmorata

The western pond turtle occurs in a variety of habitat types associated with permanent or nearly

permanent water (Holland 1991), and they are often concentrated in low flow regions of rivers

and creeks, such as side channels and backwater areas. Western pond turtle prefer creeks that

have deep, still water and sunny banks. Hatchlings are poor swimmers and require shallow

edgewater areas with minimal current. Basking sites such as rocks and logs are important.

Nesting habitat consists of dry grassy areas with a predominantly south or southwest aspect.

Overwintering habitat varies and includes forested areas. Records indicate that there are 7

western pond turtle sightings frogs within ¼ mile of treatments - one in each of the three project

planning areas. It is my determination that the proposed actions may impact individual

pond turtles but would not cause a trend towards federal listing or a loss of viability based

upon the following rationale: project roads are in Riparian Reserves and cross perennial stream

where there is a possibility of suitable habitat for western pond turtle. No mature overstory trees

are affected in riparian habitats; only shrubs, other understory vegetation, and seedling or sapling

trees may be removed during culvert installation or road decommissioning. This vegetation is

expected to grow back quickly after treatments activities are completed. Aquatic and riparian

protections will be provided by Best Management Practices (BMP), project design criteria, and

LRMP standards. Dispersal of aquatic and riparian species would be improved by the stream


of 28



Big Bar hesperian snail Vespericola pressleyi

Big Bar hesperian, is a riparian land snail species and is only known from vicinity of Big Bar

(Burke et al. 1999), which is part of the Westside project area. Vespericola pressleyi is a also

Survey & Manage (SM) species and past Forest Service SM protocol surveys have resulted in 28

new detections, all within Trinity County. In the Westside project area, records indicate no

sightings of this species are in the planning area; the closest known site is about 1.77 miles from

a project road planned for treatment. The Big Bar hesperian inhabits perennially damp

conifer/hardwood forest in the immediate vicinity of seeps, springs, streams; and riparian areas.

Individuals may move away from these areas during wet weather. Associated cover objects

include decaying hardwood leaves, woody debris, and loose rocks. It is my determination that

the proposed actions may impact individual Big Bar hesperian snail but would not cause a

trend towards federal listing or a loss of viability based upon the following rationale: Project

roads are in Riparian Reserves and cross perennial stream where there is a possibility of suitable

habitat for Big Bar hesperian. No mature overstory trees are affected in riparian habitats; only

shrubs, other understory vegetation, and seedling or sapling trees may be removed during culvert

installation or road decommissioning. This vegetation is expected to grow back quickly after

treatments activities are completed. Aquatic and riparian protections will be provided by Best

Management Practices (BMP), project design criteria, and LRMP standards. Dispersal of aquatic

and riparian species would be improved by the stream crossing upgrades, and culvert removal.

With the removal of roads, restoration of riparian and upland habitat function will occur in the

treatment areas. Fragmentation of habitat would be substantially reduced, as well.

Cumulative Effects

The cumulative effects analysis is bound in space and time to properly evaluate if there would be

any overlap of effects caused by this project with effects of other past, present, or future

foreseeable actions. The analysis is bounded by 15 feet along the sides of treated road. Project-

associated compaction and vegetative re-growth could persist for 5 to 10 years, though most

vegetation growth and water quality improvement would recover immediately. Cumulative

effects analysis considers the influence of past actions, the likely effects of future foreseeable

actions during this time, and examines if any significant impacts are likely to occur to any

wildlife species when/if additive effects are identified.

This action, due to its localized and relatively low impact nature taken with the past, present, and

foreseeable future actions, is not anticipated to contribute to any significant cumulative effects to

any species listed herein.

With restoration is the goal of the project activities, impacts of the Westside Watershed

Restoration Project are for the most part benign or conclude as a benefit to the majority of

sensitive wildlife species analyzed. Dispersal of aquatic and riparian species would be improved

by the stream crossing upgrades, and culvert removal. With the removal of roads, restoration of

riparian and upland habitat function will occur in the treatment areas. Fragmentation of habitat

would be substantially reduced, as well. The use of limited operating periods will protect against

noise and vibration disturbance during spring and early summer breeding seasons.

Affected acres provides sensitive species habitat that recovers and is restored over time after

project treatments. Proposed actions include relatively intense, but very localized and short term

of 28

entries into identified roads, culverts and stream crossings. Other projects are not expected to

occur at these specific sites.

Although the extent of impacts to species habitat on the acres of privately owned lands within the

assessment area is unknown, it is expected that important components of habitat have been may

have been removed. Reasonably foreseeable future actions within the project area include small

scale timber harvest on private lands. Such harvests contribute to habitat loss and fragmentation

within the area, and increase sediment deposit to streams within the area. However, most private

lands within the analysis area have been subject to these activities in the past, and impacts from

these actions have, in most cases, already occurred. The proposed action compensates for such

activities, and does not contribute to such impacts. The relatively small scale of these current

private land actions, and current timber harvest regulations, reduces the likelihood that they will

contribute significantly to cumulative impacts within the watershed.

Federal actions within the analysis area are discussed in the hydrologist report. Federal projects

or activities planned in the assessment area include ongoing pre-commercial thinning in existing

plantations, timber harvest, grazing, and dispersed recreation. Previous timber harvest has likely

had impacts to wildlife due to reduction of habitat for late-seral species, while increasing

available early-seral habitat within the area. Previous road construction has increased

fragmentation of habitat and the potential for discharges of sediment into streams within the

analysis area. Present and future pre-commercial thinning, grazing activities, and dispersed

recreation are, and will continue to be, of minimal or no impacts to the sensitive species.

of 28

RECOMMENDATIONS:

WESTSIDE DESIGN CRITERIA FOR ALL PROJECT ROADS

• Within nesting habitat and following the established protocol, annual surveys for nests the R5

Sensitive Species such as Northern goshawk and bald eagle are needed. Establish Limited

Operating Periods for Northern goshawk nest sites from February 1st to August 15

th within ½

mile of the nest. Establish Limited Operating Periods for bald eagle nest sites from January

1st to August 15

th within ½ mile of the nest.

• If any peregrine falcon nests are within a ½ mile radius of roads. Establish Limited Operating

Periods for nest sites from February 1st to August 15

th.

of 28

Appendix

LRMP STANDARDS AND GUIDELNES

Forest –wide Standards & Guidelines:

Over time, provide the necessary number of replacement snags to meet density requirements

as prescribed for each ROD allocation and/or management prescription. Live, green culls and

trees exhibiting decadence and/or active wildlife use are preferred (LRMP page 4-14).

Where hardwoods occur naturally within existing conifer types on suitable timber lands,

manage for a desired future condition for hardwoods as identified during ecosystem analysis

consistent with management prescription standards and guidelines. Retain groups of

hardwoods over single trees (LRMP page 4-14).

Remove only biomass material that is in excess of that required to meet the standards for soil

quality, wildlife diversity, and natural fire regimes (LRMP page 4-14).

Manage habitat for Neotropical migrant birds to maintain viable population levels (LRMP

page 4-29).

Where possible, provide for line-of-sight barriers, consisting of vegetation and/or

topography, along open roads in important deer areas (LRMP page 4-29).

Use seasonal or permanent road closures to reduce disturbance during critical periods such as

fawning season (LRMP page 4-29).

Use seasonal or permanent road closures to reduce disturbance during critical cub rearing

periods in selected black bear areas within Prescriptions VI and VII (LRMP page 4-30).

Require Limited Operating Periods adjacent to active goshawk nesting sites until the young

have fledged (LRMP page 4-30).

Late-Successional Reserves, Managed Late-Successional Areas, and Other Threatened,

Endangered, or Sensitive Species – Prescription 7.

Thinning or other silvicultural treatments inside reserves are subject to review to ensure that

the treatments are beneficial to the creation of late successional forest conditions (LRMP

page 4-37).

Large-scale disturbances are natural events, such as fire, that can eliminate spotted owl

habitat on hundreds or thousands of acres. Certain risk management activities, if properly

planned and implemented, may reduce the probability of these major stand-replacing events.

Silvicultural activities aimed at reducing risk shall focus on younger stands in Late-

Successional Reserves. The objective will be to accelerate development of late-successional

conditions while making the future stand less susceptible to natural disturbances. Treatments

should be designed to provide effective fuel breaks wherever possible. However, the scale of

salvage and other treatments should not generally result in degeneration of currently suitable

owl habitat or other late-successional conditions (LRMP page 4-37).

Surviving trees will provide a significant residual of larger trees in the developing stand. In

addition, defects caused by fire in residual trees may accelerate development of structural

of 28

characteristics suitable for associated species. Also, those damaged trees that eventually die

will provide additional snags (LRMP page 4-38).

Snags provide a variety of habitat benefits for a variety of wildlife species associated with

late-successional forests. Accordingly, following stand-replacing disturbance, management

should focus on retaining snags that are likely to persist until late-successional conditions

have developed and the new stand is again producing large snags (LRMP page 4-38).

Following a stand-replacing disturbance, management should retain adequate coarse woody

debris quantities in the new stand so that in the future it will still contain amounts similar to

naturally regenerated stands. The analysis that determines the amount of coarse woody debris

to leave must account for the full period of time before the new stand begins to contribute

coarse woody debris (LRMP page 4-38).

Removal of snags and logs may be necessary to reduce hazards to humans along roads and

trails, and in or adjacent to campgrounds. In other areas, such as along roads, leaving

material on site should be considered. Also, material will be left where available coarse

woody debris is inadequate (LRMP page 4-38).

Where green trees, snags, and logs are present following disturbance, the green-tree and snag

guidelines will be applied first, and completely satisfied where possible. The biomass left in

snags can be credited toward the amount of coarse woody debris biomass needed to achieve

management objectives (LRMP page 4-38).

Logs present on the forest floor before a disturbance event provide habitat benefits that are

likely to continue. It seldom will be appropriate to remove them (LRMP page 4-38).

Road maintenance may include felling hazard trees along rights-of-way. Leaving material on

site should be considered if available coarse woody debris is inadequate. Topping trees

should be considered as an alternative to felling (LRMP page 4-39).

In Late-Successional Reserves, a specific fire management plan will be prepared prior to any

habitat manipulation activities. This plan, prepared during watershed analysis or as an

element of province-level planning or a Late-Successional Reserve assessment, should

specify how hazard reduction and other prescribed fire applications will meet the objectives

of the Late-Successional Reserve (LRMP page 4-40).

Exclude management activities within occupied Goshawks nest stands during the nesting

period (LRMP page 4-44).

Riparian Reserves

Design fuel treatment and fire suppression strategies, practices, and activities to meet Aquatic

Conservation Strategy objectives, and to minimize disturbance of riparian ground cover and

vegetation. Strategies should recognize the role of fire in ecosystem function and identify

those instances where fire suppression or fuels management activities could be damaging to

long-term ecosystem function (LRMP page 4-56).

Fell trees in Riparian Reserves when they pose a safety risk. Keep felled trees on-site when

needed to meet coarse woody debris objectives (LRMP page 4-58).

of 28

Matrix

Coarse woody debris already on the ground should be retained and protected to the greatest

extent possible from disturbance during treatment (e.g., slash burning and yarding) which

might otherwise destroy the integrity of the substrate (LRMP page 4-61).

Down logs should be left within forest patches that are retained under green-tree retention

guidelines in order to provide the microclimate that is appropriate for various organisms that

use this substrate (LRMP page 4-61).

Emphasize green-tree and snag retention in Matrix management (LRMP page 4-61).

Specific measures for green tree and snag retention:

As a general guide, 70 percent of the total area to be retained should be aggregates of

moderate to larger size [snags and green trees for retention] (0.2 to 1 hectare or more) with

the remainder as dispersed structures (individual trees, and possibly including smaller clumps

less than 0.2 ha.) (LRMP page 4-61).

As a minimum, snags are to be retained within the harvest unit at levels sufficient to support

species of cavity-nesting birds at 40 percent of potential population levels based on published

guidelines and models or an average of 1.5 snags per acre greater than 15 inches in diameter

and 20 feet in height (LRMP page 4-62).

Provide additional protection for caves, mines, and abandoned wooden bridges and buildings

that are used as roost sites for bats. As an interim measure, timber harvest is prohibited

within 250 feet of sites containing bats (LRMP page 4-62).

Many species of soil and litter-dwelling organisms, such as fungi and arthropods, are

sensitive to soil and litter disturbance. Prescribed fires should be planned to minimize the

consumption of litter and coarse woody debris (LRMP page 4-62).

White- headed Woodpecker, Black- backed Woodpecker, Pygmy Nuthatch, and

Flammulated Owl These species will not be sufficiently aided by application of mitigation measures for riparian

habitat protection (LRMP page 4-63). Maintain adequate numbers of large snags and green-

tree replacements for future snags within the four species’ ranges in appropriate forest types.

Where feasible, green-tree replacements for future snags can be left in groups to reduce

blowdown. Specifically, the Scientific Analysis Team recommends that no snags over 20

inches dbh be marked for cutting (LRMP page 4-63).

For the longer term, provide for sufficient numbers of green trees to provide for the full (100

percent) population potential of each species…

The 100 percent population potential for white-headed woodpeckers is 0.60 conifer snags

(ponderosa pine or Douglas-fir) per acre in forest habitats; these snags must be at least 15

inches dbh (or largest available if 15 inch dbh snags are not available) and in soft decay

stages, and must be provided in stands of ponderosa pine and mixed pine/Douglas-fir.

The 100 percent population potential for black-backed woodpeckers is 0.12 conifer snags

per acre in forest habitats: these snags must be at least 17 inches dbh (or largest available

if 17 inch dbh snags are not available) and in hard decay stages, and must be provided in

of 28

stands of mixed conifer and lodgepole pine in higher elevations of the Cascade Range.

Provision of snags for other cavity- nesting species, including primary cavity-nesters,

must be added to the requirements for these two woodpecker species.

Pygmy nuthatches use habitat very similar to those of white-headed woodpeckers. Pygmy

nuthatches require large trees, typically ponderosa pine within the range of the northern

spotted owl, for roosting. Provision of snags for white-headed woodpeckers is assumed to

provide for the needs of pygmy nuthatch, as no species-specific guidelines for the species

have been developed.

Flammulated owls are secondary cavity-nesters and use cavities, in snags and live trees,

created by woodpeckers or, less often, that occur naturally (LRMP page 4-63).

Wildlife Mgt – Rx 6

Use this Prescription to help provide additional habitat for fisher, marten, and goshawk

(LRMP page 4-66).

Commercial Wood Products – Rx 8 and Roaded Recreation Rx 3

Maintain an average of 5 tons of unburned dead/down material per acre on slopes less than

40 percent. Preference is to have a portion of this tonnage in large material (4 to 6 logs over

10 feet long at the largest available diameter). Where feasible, maintain the same amount on

slopes greater than 40 percent (LRMP page 4-65 and 66).

LRMP GUIDANCE FOR SPECIES DISTURBANCE

In Appendix G of the LRMP, wildlife species habitat capability models provide protection

measures to limit disturbance during breeding seasons. These ‘no treatments’ time frames are

commonly known as “limited operating periods” (LOP):

Bald eagle – January 1 to August 15 within ½ mile of nest site.

Northern goshawk – February 1 to August 15 within ½ mile of nest site.

Peregrine falcon – February 1 to August 15 within ½ mile of nest site.

of 28

LITERATURE:

Angerer, Linda. 2008. Phone conversation with USDA Forest Service wildlife biologist,

Mendocino National Forest, CA. February 14, 2008.

Ashton, D.T., A.J. Lind, and K.E. Schlick. 1997. Foothill yellow-legged frog (Rana boylii)

natural history. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station, Redwood Sciences

Laboratory, CA. 19 pp.

Aubry, K and C. Raley. 2006, Ecological Characteristics of Fishers (Martes pennanti) in the

Southern Oregon Cascade Range Update: July 2006. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest

Research Station, Olympia, WA. 31p.

Banci, V. 1994. Wolverine. In: The scientific basis of conserving forest carnivores, American

marten, fisher, lynx, and wolverine in the Western United States. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-254.

USDA, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experimental Station. Ft. Collins,

CO. pp: 99-123.

Bogener, D.J. and P. Brouha. 1979. Shasta Salamander (Hydromantes shastae), Shasta-Trinity

National Forest, Comprehensive Species Management Plan and Species Status Report. USDA

Forest Service. 35pp.

Bolster, B.C. 2005. Western Red Bat. Western Bat Working Group Species Accounts.

http://wbwg.org/species_accounts/vespertilonidae/labl.pdf

Briggs, J.L., Sr. 1987. Breeding Biology of the Cascade Frog, Rana cascadae, with Comparisons

to R. aurora and R. pretiosa. Copeia 1987 (1):241-245.

Buck, S.C., Mullis, and A. Mossman. 1983. Final report: Corral Bottom – Hayfork Bally fisher

study. USDA Forest Service, Region 5, CA.

Burke, T.E., J.S. Applegarth, and T.R. Weasma. 1999. Management Recommendations for

Survey and Manage Terrestrial Mollusks, Version 2.0, Section No. 11 pages 1-10. USDA Forest

Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management.

Buskirk, S.W. and L.P Ruggiero. 1994. American Marten. In: The scientific basis of conserving

forest carnivores, American marten, fisher, lynx, and wolverine in the Western United States.

Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-254. Ft. Collins, CO. USDA, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and

Range Experimental Station. pp: 7-37.

Carroll, C., W.J. Zielinski, and R.F. Noss. 1999. Using presence-absence data to build and test

spatial habitat models for the fisher in the Klamath region, U.S.A. Conservation Biology 13 (6):

1344-1359. December 1999.

Derby, Debbie. 2008. E-mail correspondence with USDA Forest Service wildlife biologist,

Shasta-Trinity National Forest, CA. February 13, 2008.

Duncan N., T. Burke, S. Dowlan and P. Hohenlohe. 2003. Survey Protocol for Survey and

Manage Terrestrial Mollusk Species from the Northwest Forest Plan, Version 3.0, 70 pp. USDA

Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management.

of 28

Farber, S. and S. Criss. 2006. Cooperative mesocarnivore surveys for the Upper and West Fork

of Beaver Creek watersheds in interior northern California. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,

Yreka Field Office, CA. July 31, 2006.

Fellers, G.M. and E.D. Pierson. 2002. Habitat use and foraging behavior of Townsend’s big-

eared bat (Corynorhinus townsendii) in coastal California. J. of Mammal. Vol. 83(1):167-177.

Fellers, G.M., K.L. Pope, J.E. Stead, M.S. Koo, and H.H. Welsh, Jr. 2007. Turning Population

Trend Monitoring Into Active Conservation: Can We Save the Cascades Frog (Rana cascadae)

in the Lassen Region of California? Herpetological Conservation and Biology 3(1):28-39.

Freel, M. 1991. A literature Review for the Management of the Marten and Fisher on National

Forests in California. Unpublished document. USDA Forest Service, San Francisco, CA.

Frest, T.J. and E.J. Johannes. 1993. Mollusc Species of Special Concern Within the Range of the

Northern Spotted Owl. Final Report to Forest Ecosystem Management Working Group, USDA

Forest Service. Deixis Consultants, Seattle, WA. 98 pp.

Frest, T.J. and E.J. Johannes. 1999. Field Guide to Survey and Manage Freshwater Mollusk

Species. Bureau of Land Management, Oregon State Office, Portland, OR. 117 pp.

Furnish, J., T. Burke, T. Weasma, J. Applegarth, N. Duncan, R. Monthey, and D. Gowan. 1997.

Survey Protocol for Terrestrial Mollusk Species from the Northwest Forest Plan. Version 2.

79pp. USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management.

Furnish, J. and Monthey, R. 1998. Management recommendations for survey and manage

aquatic mollusks. Version 2.0. USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management,

OR, WA, and CA. December 1998.

Furnish, J. 2005. Sensitive Aquatic Mollusks of the U.S. Forest Service Pacific Southwest

Region. Unpublished report, USDA Forest Service. March 2005.

Golightly, R.T., T.F. Penland, W.J. Zielinski, and J.M. Higley. 2006. Fisher diet in the

Klamath/north coast bioregion. Final report to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. June 2006. 56pp.

Gruver, J.C and D.A. Keinath 2006. Townsend’s Big-eared Bat (Corynorhinus townsendii): a

technical conservation assessment. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region, Species

Conservation Project Report, October 25, 2006. 93pp.

Jennings, M.R. and M. P. Hayes. 1994. Amphibian and reptile species of special concern in

California. Report to CA Dept. of Fish and Game, Inland Fisheries Division. November 1994.

Jones, J.L. 1991. Habitat use of fisher in north-central Idaho. Masters thesis, University of Idaho,

Moscow, Idaho. May 1991.

Kelley, R., S. Dowlan, N. Duncan, and T. Burks. 1999. Field Guide to Survey and Manage

Terrestrial Mollusk Species from the Northwest Forest Plan. Bureau of Land Management,

Oregon State Office, Portland, OR. 114 pp.

of 28

Lindstrand, Len III. 2006. Detections of Pacific fisher around Shasta Lake in northern California.

Transactions of the Western Section of The Wildlife Society, 42:47–52; 2006.

Lindstrand, Len III. 2006b. Shasta Dam Enlargement Project Forest Carnivore Surveys.

Technical presentation at The Wildlife Society conference, CA.

Peterson, D.L., Agree, J.K., Aplet, G.H., Dysktra D.P., Graham, R.T., Lehmkuhl, J.F. Pilloid,

D.S., Potts, D.F., Powers, R.F., and J.D. Stuart. 2009. Effects of timber harvest following

wildfire in western north America. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-776. USDA Forest Service,

Portland, OR. 51pp.

Pierson, E.D. and W.E. Rainey. 1998. Distribution, status, and management of Townsend’s Big-

eared bat (Corynorhinus townsendii) in California. CA Dept Fish and Game report, updated May

1998. BMCP Technical Report Number 96-7.

Powell, R.A. and W.J. Zielinski. 1994. Fisher: in The scientific basis for conserving forest

carnivores: American marten, fisher, lynx, and wolverine in the western United States. USDA

Forest Service. Rocky Mtn. Forest and Range Experiment Station. Gen. Tech Report RM-254:

38-73.

Roth, B. and P.S. Sadeghian. 2003. Checklist of land Snails and Slugs of California. Santa

Barbara Museum of Natural History. No. 3.

Schempf, P.F., and M. White. 1977. Status of six furbearer populations in the mountains of

northern California. USDA Forest Service. Region 5. CA. 51pp.

Sedgwick, J.A. 2000. Willow Flycatcher (Empidonax traillii). In The Birds of North America,

No. 533. The Birds of North America, Inc., Philadelphia, PA.

Seglund, A.E. 1995. The use of resting sites by Pacific fisher. M.S. Thesis. Humboldt State

University, Arcata, CA. 66 p.

Self, S. and S. Kerns. 2001. Pacific fisher use of a managed forest landscape in Northern

California. Sierra Pacific Research and Monitoring. Wildlife Research Paper No 6. April 6, 2001.

Self, S. and R. Callas. 2006. Pacific fisher natal and maternal den study: progress report no. 1

January 9, 2006 to June 9, 2006. Report on file with Sierra Pacific Industries, Anderson, CA and

California Department of Fish and Game, Redding, CA. 12pp.

Seltenrich, C.P. and A.C. Pool. 2002. A Standardized Approach for Habitat Assessments and

Visual Encounter Surveys for the Foothill Yellow-Legged Frog (Rana boylii). Appendix A

Foothill Yellow-Legged Frog (Rana boylii): Life History and Habitat Information. Technical

Report for Pacific Gas and Electric Company. May 2002.

Sherwin, R. and D.A. Rambaldini. Antrozous pallidus. Pallid Bat Working Group 2005.

http://wbwg.org/species_accounts/vespertilonidae/anpa.pdf.

of 28

Thompson, J. and L. Diller. 2003. Fisher (Martes pennanti) use of a managed forest in coastal

northwest California. UC Berkeley Center for Forestry, Redwood Conference. Simpson

Resource Company, Korbel, CA.

Thompson, J., L. Diller, R. Golightly, and R. Klug. 2007. Fisher (Martes pennanti) Use of a

Managed Forest in Coastal Northwest California. USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-

GTR-194. 2007.

Truex, R.L., W.J. Zielinski, R.T. Golightly, R.H. Barrett, and S.M. Wisely. 1998. A meta-

analysis of regional variation in fisher morphology, demography, and habitat ecology in

California. Draft report, California Department of Fish and Game, Wildlife Management

Division, Nongame Bird and Mammal Section, Sacramento, CA.

USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management. 1994. Record of Decision for

Amendments to USFS and BLM Management Planning Documents within the Range of the

Northern Spotted Owl. Standards and Guidelines for Management of Habitat for Late

Successional and Old-Growth Forest Related Species within the Range of the Northern Spotted

Owl. Portland, OR.

USDA Forest Service. 1995. Final EIS Forest Land and Resource Management Plan. Shasta-

Trinity National Forest, Redding, CA.

USDA Forest Service. 2007. R5 Sensitive Animal Species by Forest. Pacific Southwest Region,

San Francisco, CA.

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2003. Finding for a Petition to List as Endangered or

Threatened Wolverine in the contiguous United States. Federal Register Vol. 68, No. 203.

October 21, 2003.

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2004. Notice of 12-Month petition finding for a petition to list

the west coast distinct populations segment of the fisher (Martes pennanti). Federal Register Vol.

69, No 68: 18771. April 8, 2004.

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2006. Annual notice of findings on resubmitted petitions.

Federal Register Vol. 71, No 176. September 12, 2006

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2006b. Species assessment and listing priority assignment form:

Martes pennanti. Fish and Wildlife Service report. August 23, 2006.

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2008. 12-month Finding on a Petition to List the North

American Wolverine as Endangered or Threatened. Federal Register Vol. 73, No. 48. March 11,

2008.

Weller, T.J. and D.C. Lee. 2007. Mist Net Effort Required to Inventory a Forest Bat Species

Assemblage. Journal of Wildlife Management 71(1):251–257; 2007).

Welsh, H.H., and A.J. Lind. 1996. Habitat correlates of the Southern torrent salamander, in

Northwestern California. Journal of Herpetology, Vol. 30, No 3, pp. 385-398.

of 28

Yeager, S. 2005. Habitat at fisher resting sites in the Klamath Province of northern California.

M.S. Thesis. Humboldt State University, Arcata, CA. 75p.

Zeiner, D.C., W.F. Laudenslayer Jr., K.E. Mayer and M. White. 1990. California Statewide

Wildlife Habitat Relationships System. California’s Wildlife; 1-3 vol. California Dept. of Fish

and Game, Sacramento, CA.

Zielinski, W.J, T.E. Kucera, and R.H. Barrett. 1995. The current distribution of the fisher,

Martes pennanti, in California. California Fish and Game 81 (3): 104-112.

Zielinski, W.J., R.L. Truex, L.A. Campbell, C.R. Carroll, and F.V. Schlexer. 2000. Systematic

surveys as a basis for the conservation of carnivores in California forests: progress report II:

1996 – 1999. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station. 38 p.

Zielinski, W.J. 2004. The status and conservation of mesocarnivores in the Sierra Nevada. 185-

193. In Proceedings of the Sierra Nevada science symposium: science for management and

conservation. Pacific Southwest Research Station, USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-

GTR-193.

Zielinski, W.J., R.L. Truex, G. Schmidt, R. Schlexer, K.N. Schmidt, and R.H. Barrett. 2004b.

Home range characteristics of fishers in California. J. Mammal. 85:649-657.

Zielinski, W.J., R.L. Truex, G. Schmidt, R. Schlexer, K.N. Schmidt, and R.H. Barrett. 2004c.

Resting habitat selection by fishers in California. J. Wildl. Manage. 68:475-492.

Zielinski, W.J., R.L. Truex, F.V. Schlexer, L.A. Campbell, and C. Carroll. 2005. Historical and

contemporary distributions of carnivores in forests of the Sierra Nevada, CA. Journal of

Biogeography 2005, Vol. 32, pg 1385–1407.

Zielinski, W.J., R.L. Truex, J.R. Dunk, and T. Gaman. 2006. Using forest inventory data to

assess resting habitat suitability in California. Ecological Applications 16(3): 101-1025.

Zielinski, W.J., C. Carroll, and J.R. Dunk. 2006b. Using landscape suitability models to

reconcile conservation planning for two key forest predators. Bio. Conserv. 133: 409-430.