MANAGEMENT INDICATOR SPECIES (MIS) PECIALIST REPORTa123.g.akamai.net/7/123/11558/abc123/forestservic.download.akamai.… · Project Manager: Tom Henry 5558 California Avenue, Suite

MANAGEMENT INDICATOR SPECIES (MIS) SPECIALIST REPORT

PETERSBURG PINES RESTORATION PROJECT

P R E P A R E D F O R :

USDA Forest Service Klamath National Forest Salmon‐Scott River Ranger District 11263 N. Highway 3 Fort Jones, CA 96032 Contact: Carl Varak (530) 468‐5351

P R E P A R E D B Y :

ICF International Specialist Report Authors: Pablo A. Herrera, Kenneth Roby, William “Bud” Widdowson, and Margaret Widdowson Project Manager: Tom Henry 5558 California Avenue, Suite 310 Bakersfield, CA 93301 661‐859‐1852

November 2010

ICF International. 2010. Management Indicator Species (MIS) Specialist Report. November. (ICF 00760.09.) Bakersfield, CA. Prepared for: USDA Forest Service, Salmon‐Scott River Ranger District.

Management Indicator Species Specialist Report Petersburg Pines Restoration Project i

November 2010ICF 00760.09

Contents

Page

Chapter 1 Introduction ............................................................................................................. 1‐1

1.1 Direction Regarding the Analysis of Project‐Level Effects on MIS ................................... 1‐1

1.2 Direction Regarding Monitoring of MIS Population and Habitat Trends at the Forest Scale ...................................................................................................................... 1‐2

1.2.1 Habitat Status and Trend ............................................................................. 1‐2

1.2.2 Population Status and Trend ........................................................................ 1‐3

Chapter 2 LRMP Monitoring Requirements for MIS Selected for Project‐Level Analysis .................................................................................................................... 2‐1

2.1 MIS Monitoring Requirements ........................................................................................ 2‐1

2.2 How MIS Monitoring Requirements Are Being Met ........................................................ 2‐1

2.2.1 Steelhead Trout ............................................................................................ 2‐2

2.2.2 Rainbow Trout .............................................................................................. 2‐5

Chapter 3 Summary of the Proposed Action and Alternatives ................................................... 3‐1

3.1 Alternative 2 – Proposed Action ...................................................................................... 3‐1

3.2 Alternative 3 .................................................................................................................... 3‐1

3.3 Issue Significance ............................................................................................................. 3‐2

Chapter 4 Selection of Project‐Level MIS .................................................................................. 4‐1

Chapter 5 MIS Environmental Baseline and Effects of Proposed Project ................................... 5‐1

5.1 Hardwood Association: Acorn Woodpecker and Western Gray Squirrel ........................ 5‐1

5.1.1 Indicator for which MIS Were Selected, Descriptions of the Amount of Potentially Affected Habitat ....................................................... 5‐1

5.1.2 Environmental Baseline and Population Trend ............................................ 5‐1

5.1.3 Implementation of Klamath LRMP Standards and Guidelines ..................... 5‐2

5.1.4 Effects of the Project on Hardwood Species Association: Acorn Woodpecker and Western Gray Squirrel ..................................................... 5‐2

5.2 River/Stream Species Association – Steelhead and Rainbow Trout ................................ 5‐3



5.2.3 Effects of the Project on River/Streams Association: Steelhead and Rainbow Trout ....................................................................................... 5‐4

5.3 River/Streams Association – Non‐Fish ............................................................................. 5‐6


Management Indicator Species Specialist Report Petersburg Pines Restoration Project ii



5.3.3 Implementation of Klamath LRMP Standards and Guidelines ..................... 5‐8

5.3.4 Effects of the Project on River/Streams Association: Tailed Frog and American Dipper ................................................................................... 5‐8

5.3.5 Effects of the Project on River/Streams Association: Northern Water Shrew and Long‐Tailed Vole ............................................................ 5‐11

5.4 Snag Species Association: Pileated Woodpecker, White‐headed Woodpecker, Hairy Woodpecker, Downy Woodpecker, Red‐breasted Sapsucker, and Vaux’s Swift........................................................................................... 5‐13

5.4.1 Indicator for which MIS Were Selected, Descriptions of the Amount of Potentially Affected Habitat ..................................................... 5‐13

5.4.2 Environmental Baseline and Population Trend .......................................... 5‐14

5.4.3 Implementation of Klamath LRMP Standards and Guidelines ................... 5‐16

5.4.4 Effects of the Project on Snag Species Association: Pileated Woodpecker, White‐headed Woodpecker, Hairy Woodpecker, Downy Woodpecker, Red‐breasted Sapsucker, and Vaux’s Swift ............. 5‐16

Chapter 6 Summary of MIS Information for Inclusion into NEPA Document .............................. 6‐1

Chapter 7 References ............................................................................................................... 7‐1

7.1 Printed References ........................................................................................................... 7‐1

Management Indicator Species Specialist Report Petersburg Pines Restoration Project iii


Tables

Page

Table 1 Comparison of Treatment Acreages for the Proposed Action and Alternative 3........................................................................................................................................... 3‐2

Figures

Page

Figure 1 Escapement of Summer Steelhead Trout (1988‐2005), Salmon River, California (Quiñones 2006) ............................................................................................................. 2‐3

Figure 2 Number per Mile of Summer Steelhead Half‐Pounders and Adults, North Fork and South Fork Salmon River, California, 1993 to 2005.............................. 2‐3

Figure 3 Adult Steelhead Returns to Iron Gate Hatchery, Klamath River, California, 1967 to 2005 (Quiñones 2006) ............................................................................... 2‐4

Figure 4 Abundance Indices (no. fish/km) of Adults and Half‐Pounders Observed in Clear Creek, Elk Creek and Wooley Creek, Klamath River basin, California, 1987 to 2005 ...................................................................................................... 2‐4

Figure 5 Number of Summer Steelhead Adults per Miles of Stream Surveyed from 2000 to 2005, Smith River, California .............................................................................. 2‐5

Figure 6 Number of Rainbow Trout Counted per Miles Surveyed from 2000 to 2005, Smith River, California (Reedy 2005) ............................................................................. 2‐7

Management Indicator Species Specialist Report Petersburg Pines Restoration Project iv


Acronyms and Abbreviations

Acronym/Abbreviation Definition AREMP Aquatic and Riparian Effectiveness Monitoring Plan BBS Breeding Bird Survey BCR5 Bird Conservation Region 5 CDFG California Department of Fish and Game CWD Coarse Woody Debris CWHR California Wildlife Habitat Relationship ERAs Equivalent Roaded Acres KNF Klamath National Forest LRMP Land and Resource Management Plan LWD Large Woody Debris MIS Management Indicator Species PIF Partners in Flight S&G Standards and Guidelines

Management Indicator Species Specialist Report Petersburg Pines Restoration Project 1‐1


Chapter 1 Introduction

The purpose of this report is to evaluate and disclose the impacts of the Petersburg Pines Restoration Project on the Management Indicator Species (MIS) identified in the Klamath National Forest (KNF) Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP) (USDA 1995) which was developed under the 1982 National Forest System Land and Resource Management Planning Rule (1982 Planning Rule) (36 CFR 219).

The current rule applicable to project decisions is the 2004 Interpretive Rule, which states “Projects implementing land management plans…must be developed considering the best available science in accordance with §219.36(a)…and must be consistent with the provisions of the governing plan.” (Appendix B to §219.35). This report documents the effects of two alternatives (Proposed action‐Alternative 2) and No Action (Alternative 1), for the Petersburg Pines Restoration Project on the habitat of selected MIS. Detailed descriptions of the project alternatives are found in Chapter 2 of the Petersburg Pines Restoration Project Environmental Assessment.

This report discloses the existing conditions and any direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental effects that would result from the proposed action and alternatives. The document is organized into the following parts:

Regulatory Setting and Methodology: This section presents the metrics or environmental indicators used to conduct the analysis, as well as the desired conditions (as appropriate).

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences: This section presents the existing conditions and the environmental effects of implementing the proposed action and other alternatives. The effects of the No‐Action Alternative are described first to provide a baseline for evaluation and comparison of the other alternatives that follow.

Consultation and Coordination: This section provides a list of preparers and agencies consulted during the development of this document.

References: This section lists bibliographical information of any literature cited and personal communications used to write this report.

1.1 Direction Regarding the Analysis of Project‐Level Effects on MIS

The Monitoring Requirements in Chapter 5 of the Klamath National Forest LRMP do not require population monitoring or surveys on any MIS except for steelhead trout and rainbow trout. For MIS listed on LRMP Page 4‐38 to 4‐41, project‐level MIS effects analyses are informed by project‐ and landscape‐scale habitat analysis alone. Project‐level effects on MIS are analyzed and disclosed as part of environmental analysis under the National Environmental Policy Act. This involves examining the impacts of the proposed project alternatives on MIS habitat by discussing how direct, indirect, and cumulative effects will change the quantity and/or quality of habitat in the landscape and project area (LRMP Page 4‐39). The LRMP requirements for MIS analyzed for the Petersburg

USDA Forest Service Chapter 1. Introduction



Pines Restoration Project are summarized in Part I of the MIS Report. Adequately analyzing project effects on MIS involves the following steps:

Identifying which MIS have habitat that would be either directly or indirectly affected by the project alternatives; (LRMP Standards and Guidelines (S&G) 8‐21 through and including 8‐34). This information is documented in Part I of the MIS Report.

Identifying the LRMP forest‐level monitoring requirements for this subset of forest MIS (LRMP Chapter 5, Table 5‐1). This information is documented in Part I of the MIS Report.

Analyzing landscape‐ and project‐level effects on habitats for which the MIS was selected to indicate in the LRMP.

Relating project‐level impacts on MIS habitat to habitat and population trends for fish MIS, per the LRMP.

The MIS Report Parts I and II document application of the above steps to select and analyze MIS for the Petersburg Pines Restoration Project.

1.2 Direction Regarding Monitoring of MIS Population and Habitat Trends at the Forest Scale

Forest scale monitoring requirements for the KNF MIS are found in Table 5‐1 of Monitoring Plan by Resource of the LRMP.

1.2.1 Habitat Status and Trend The requirement to evaluate landscape and project‐level impacts on habitat conditions associated with the Species Associations and related MIS is identified in the LRMP on Page 4‐39. Habitat monitoring requirements are summarized in the MIS Report Part I. “Habitats” are the vegetation types (for example, mixed conifer forest) and/or ecosystem components (for example, river and ponds) and special habitat elements (for example, snags) as identified in the LRMP. “Habitat status” is the current amount of habitat on the KNF. “Habitat trend” is the direction of change in the amount of habitat between the time the LRMP was approved and the present. The methodology for assessing habitat status and trend is

1. Use the GIS vegetation layers to describe the location of habitat for non‐fish MIS within a project area,

2. Determine the distribution of fish MIS species using the KNF GIS layer for fish distribution,

3. Consider the reason the MIS habitat was selected as an Indicator, and determine the potential effects to that habitat for which an MIS was selected for.

4. Identify the indicated habitat using habitat relationships data or models in the LRMP Appendix I and California Wildlife Habitat Relationship (CWHR) System (CDFG 2010a). The CWHR System is considered “a state‐of‐the‐art information system for California’s wildlife” and provides the most widely used habitat relationship models for California’s terrestrial vertebrate species (CDFG 2010a).

USDA Forest Service Chapter 1. Introduction



5. Detailed information on the habitat relationships for MIS on the KNF and on the CWHR System can be found in the Klamath National Forest MIS Report Part I.

6. MIS habitat trend is monitored using ecological and vegetation data for the KNF and stream surveys. These data include spatial ecological and vegetation layers created from remote‐sensing imagery obtained at various points in time, which are verified using photo‐imagery, on‐the‐ground measurements, and tracking of events that change vegetation and stream conditions (for example, vegetation management, floods, and wildland fires).

1.2.2 Population Status and Trend “Population status” is the current condition of the MIS population. “Population trend” is the direction of change in that population measure over time. Population monitoring data are collected and/or compiled at the stream scale rather than the project scale because site specific monitoring or surveying of a proposed project or activity area is not required” (36 CFR 219.14(f) and the actual treatment areas of an action may not contain streams, but may affect streams through sediment delivery or flow changes.



Chapter 2 LRMP Monitoring Requirements for MIS Selected for

Project‐Level Analysis

2.1 MIS Monitoring Requirements MIS are animal species identified in the KNF LRMP, which was developed under the 1982 Planning Rule (36 CFR 219). Guidance regarding MIS set forth in the KNF LRMP directs Forest Service resource managers to: (1) at the landscape and project scale, analyze the effects of proposed projects on the habitats of each MIS listed in LRMP Standards and Guidelines 8‐21 through 8‐34; and (2) assess presence of goshawk in suitable habitat and determine the number of pairs of northern spotted owls in Late Successional Reserves, and to conduct implementation monitoring to determine population trends and relationship to habitat changes for steelhead trout, and rainbow trout.

2.2 How MIS Monitoring Requirements Are Being Met

Project level assessment of northern spotted owls and goshawks is not required as an MIS species per LRMP S&G 8‐21 through 8‐34. Impacts to northern spotted owls are evaluated as a species listed under the Endangered Species Act and the impacts to goshawks are evaluated as a species designated as Sensitive by the Forest Service.

There are several ways that spotted owl presence is being determined: 1) Surveys have been conducted in LSRs in coordination with the US Fish and Wildlife Service, 2) Habitat evaluations have been conducted by USDI Fish and Wildlife Service (in coordination with the Forest Service Research Station) to predict northern spotted owl presence, 3) Habitat loss and potential Take throughout the Forest is reported to USDI Fish and Wildlife Service annually, and 4) Monitoring is accomplished through the formal monitoring programs of the Northwest Forest Plan area. (<http://www.reo.gov/ monitoring/trends/index.htm>, <http://biology.usgs.gov/s+t/SNT/noframe/pn172.htm>, and <http://www.reo.gov/monitoring/nso/index.htm>). The monitoring results can be used to adapt management practices, as coordinated with the Fish and wildlife Service (<http://www.fws.gov/ oregonfwo/Species/Data/NorthernSpottedOwl/Recovery>). Chapter 5 of the LRMP indicates the Standard requiring further action will be set by the Recovery Plan (which is in development).

Chapter 5 of the LRMP states that goshawk occupancy in suitable habitat will be determined. Surveys are done at the project level where a potential for impacts (to habitat or noise disturbance) may be significant. The majority of habitat and survey work is conducted on the Goosenest Ranger District of the KNF because of the high likelihood of presence. Also, Goshawk Management Areas have been identified throughout the KNF, with specific a Standards and Guideline (8‐20) to project goshawks. Chapter 5 of the LRMP says that the variation from the Standard requiring further action will be determine in a Regional Conservation Strategy, which has not yet been completed. Therefore,

USDA Forest Service Chapter 2. LRMP Monitoring Requirements for MIS

Selected for Project‐Level Analysis



there is no standard to measure against. Survey information has been provided to the US Fish and Wildlife Service for evaluation and development of a Regional Conservation Strategy.

Population trend data for steelhead trout is collected and consolidated by the KNF in cooperation with State, tribal, and Federal agency partners such as the California Department of Fish and Game, Karuk Tribe, USDI Geological Survey, and USDI Fish and Wildlife Service and other conservation partners such Universities and watershed restoration councils. Fish presence data for steelhead trout and rainbow trout are collected using a number of direct and indirect methods, such as stream surveys and fishing results (creel census). The KNF’s MIS monitoring program for species typically hunted, fished, or trapped (such as steelhead and rainbow trout) was designed to be implemented in cooperation with California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG), consistent with direction in the 1982 Planning Rule to monitor forest‐level MIS population trends in cooperation with state fish and wildlife agencies to the extent practicable (36 CFR 219.19(a)(6)). To be biologically meaningful for wide‐ranging MIS, presence data are collected and tracked not only at the forest scale, but also at larger scales, such as range‐wide (range of the northern spotted owl), state, province (Northern California), or important species management unit (for example, Klamath River Basin). In 2006, available data on steelhead and rainbow trout were analyzed to determine the population trends of these species.

2.2.1 Steelhead Trout In the Klamath River basin, natural steelhead trout spawning historically extended into the upper Klamath basin. Their current distribution in the basin is now limited to downstream of Iron Gate Dam, although remnant steelhead runs now reside upstream the dam. South of Cape Blanco, Oregon, steelhead are known to occur in the Rogue, Smith, Klamath, Trinity, Mad, and Eel Rivers, and in Redwood Creek (Busby et al. 1996).

KMP Steelhead Trends

In 2006, Rebecca Quinones of the Klamath National Forest worked with the US fish and Wildlife Service to complete a status review of current survey data. The following information is from that effort.

In 2001, NMFS reconsidered the status of KMP steelhead under the ESA (66 FR 17845, April 4, 2001) and determined that KMP steelhead do not warrant listing as threatened or endangered at this time. However, abundance trends since 1970 have declined to the point that some stocks, particularly those of summer steelhead, are considered to be at risk of extinction (Busby et al. 1996).

Our trend analysis was based on instream adult survey data, primarily for summer steelhead adults, because we found no abundance estimates for winter steelhead. However, we separately analyzed escapement estimates of hatchery (Iron Gate Hatchery) and natural populations. We used least‐squares regression to describe trends in escapement numbers and two‐tailed t tests to test whether the trends were significantly different from zero at a level of significance of 0.05. A line with a slope of zero depicted a trend that was neither or increasing or decreasing over time.

Escapement numbers collected in the Salmon River for summer steelhead adults and half‐pounders were regressed on year (1988 to 2005). Estimates of escapement were collected by continuous and concurrent direct observation (snorkel) surveys in the South Fork, North Fork and mainstem Salmon River (Quiñones 2006, Figure 1). Summer steelhead escapement did not significantly vary throughout the sampling period (p = 0.31, r2 = 0.06). Regression of the natural log of escapement against year yielded similar results (p = 0.32, r2 = 0.06).





Figure 1. Escapement of Summer Steelhead Trout (1988‐2005), Salmon River, California (Quiñones 2006)

Because adult and half‐pounder steelhead were reported separately since 1993, we were able to analyze each age class separately (Figure 2). We found a significant increase in the number per mile of half‐pounders found in the North and South Forks of the Salmon River from 1993 to 2005 (p = 0.0024, r2 = 0.58). In comparison, adult numbers showed no significant increase or decrease (p = 0.85). However, the trend line for adults had a very poor fit to the data (r2 = 0.0034). Also, our trend analysis may reflect numbers of large resident trout that were sometimes incorrectly identified as half‐pounders.

Figure 2. Number per Mile of Summer Steelhead Half‐Pounders and Adults, North Fork and South Fork Salmon River, California, 1993 to 2005

Although the abundance of steelhead adults in the Salmon River appeared to be unchanging, the numbers of summer steelhead adults returning to Iron Gate Hatchery decreased significantly since 1967 (Figure 3; p = 0.00038, r2 = 0.29). Hatchery escapement numbers were assumed to reflect the total run for each year because the fish ladder, allowing access into the facility, was open throughout

y = -0.2183x + 9.2234R2 = 0.0638

0.00

5.00

10.00

15.00

20.00

25.00

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

year

no. f

ish/

mile

1/2 lbrs: y = 0.1981x + 1.7481R2 = 0.5837

Adults: y = 0.0065x + 1.2627R2 = 0.0034

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Year

No.

fish

/mi

1/2 lbrs adults





the duration of the run (Rushton 2006). Hatchery estimates of summer steelhead numbers include numbers of “fall‐run” steelhead as in Busby et al. (1996).

Figure 3. Adult Steelhead Returns to Iron Gate Hatchery, Klamath River, California, 1967 to 2005 (Quiñones 2006)

We also analyzed escapement estimates for summer steelhead adults returning to three creeks: Clear Creek, Elk Creek and Wooley Creek (Figure 4). Clear Creek and Elk Creek are tributaries to the Klamath River near Happy Camp. Wooley Creek is a tributary to the mainstem Salmon River, approximately 4.8 km (3 miles) upstream from the mouth. Escapement data from these creeks were collected through direct observation (snorkel surveys) of index reaches.

Numbers of summer steelhead adults returning to Clear Creek (p = 0.62, r2 = 0.015), Elk Creek (p = 0.66, r2 = 0.012), and Wooley Creek (p = 0.26, r2 = 0.073) did not exhibit any apparent increasing or decreasing trends (Figure 3). Instead, the data suggested that adult numbers from 1987 to 2005 had a bimodal distribution, where the peaks were separated by low numbers throughout the 1990s.

Figure 4. Abundance Indices (no. fish/km) of Adults and Half‐Pounders Observed in Clear Creek, Elk Creek and Wooley Creek, Klamath River basin, California, 1987 to 2005

y = -59.613x + 2556.5R2 = 0.2921

0500

100015002000250030003500400045005000

1967

1968

1969

1970

1971

1972

1973

1974

1975

1976

1977

1978

1979

1980

1981

1982

1983

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

Year

Adu

lt re

turn

s

05

10152025303540

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

Year

No.

fish

/km

Clear Elk Wooley





Laslty, we analyzed data collected by the Smith River Alliance from 2000 to 2005 (Figure 5). We standardize the data to the number of summer steelhead trout counted per miles of stream surveyed, so that numbers could be directly compared. The abundance trend for summer steelhead in the Smith River was not significantly different from zero

(p =0.13, r2 = 0.48). Therefore, the abundance of summer steelhead in the Smith River did not significantly change from 2000 to 2005.

Figure 5. Number of Summer Steelhead Adults per Miles of Stream Surveyed from 2000 to 2005, Smith River, California

Based on our analysis of the data with the longest time series (escapement to Iron Gate Hatchery), we concluded that summer steelhead abundance is significantly declining in the Klamath River basin. The stable trend seen in natural escapement possibly resulted from conducting analysis on a shorter time series (< 20 years vs. 38 years). Also, we theorized that the significantly increasing abundance of summer steelhead half‐pounders in the Salmon River was compounded by the misidentification of large resident trout as half‐pounders. More reliable estimates were needed to further substantiate the trend of half pounders in the Salmon River. Our conclusions reflected similar conclusions drawn by Moyle (2002) and Busby et al. (1996).

Moyle (2002) concluded that Klamath Mountains Province winter steelhead were widely distributed and fairly common, although in largely reduced numbers. In comparison, summer steelhead were in danger of extinction, with population estimates at less than 10% of historic levels. He cited dam construction, poor watershed management, decreased flows (resulting in increased temperatures and changes to stream channel morphology/composition), and interactions with hatchery produced steelhead as contributing factors to the decline in Klamath Mountains Province steelhead abundance.

2.2.2 Rainbow Trout Rainbow trout are native to Pacific slope drainages from the Kuskokwim River in Alaska to Baja California, Mexico (Moyle 2002). However their distribution has expanded significantly, including previously fishless streams and lakes, due to introductions. Rainbow trout is a MIS in all three Forests: Klamath National Forest, Shasta‐Trinity National Forest, and Six Rivers National Forest.

Rainbow trout inhabit a wide variety of habitats. However, stream dwelling rainbows tend to prefer waters with a higher percentage of riffles than pools (Moyle 2002). In the summer, they prefer habitats with water temperatures between approximately 10 and 20oC (50 and 68oF) and will move

y = 0.0852x + 0.0093R2 = 0.477

00.10.20.30.40.50.60.7

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005





to deeper, cooler water at temperatures above 21° C (70° F) (Froese and Pauly 2002). Optimal habitat conditions include a high saturation of dissolved oxygen (up to 80 percent saturation), pH between 7 and 8 (Mills 1971) and temperatures between 7 and 17° C (Moyle and Cech 2000). Temperatures above 28° C are known to be lethal to rainbow trout.

Adult forage and dispersal patterns appear to vary with local conditions, environmental factors, and the presence of other fish species (Moyle 2002). Rainbow trout are typically diurnal, opportunistic feeders. They are carnivores that feed in a rover‐predator style. The majority of their diet consists of aquatic insects, although they will eat crayfish, grasshoppers, winged bugs, worms, salamanders, and other fish (including other trout). They occasionally feed on benthic invertebrates when the benthic food supply is great and/or when there is increased competition for prey form the water column (Behnke 1992).

Rainbow trout usually spawn between the ages of 2 to 4 years old. Age of first spawn can vary greatly depending on size and genetics (Behnke 1992). Female fecundity ranges from 1,200‐3,200 eggs per kilogram of body weight (Behnke 1992). Rainbow trout spawning behavior typically begins during the spring but can begin as early as in December and varies due to temperature and water flow conditions. Temperatures of 3‐6oC often initiate spawning behavior, although actual spawning does not usually occur until temperatures reach 6‐9° C (Behnke 1992). In lakes, this often means moving from the lake into their natal stream. If the lake is not stream‐fed, rainbow trout will move into near‐shore shallow waters (Moyle and Cech 2000). In rivers, rainbow trout will migrate from feeding areas into smaller, cool‐water tributaries (Moyle and Cech 2000). Both rainbow and steelhead trout are iteroparous, meaning that they can spawn more than once throughout their lifetime.

Rainbow Trout Trends

One data set met the same analysis criteria as was done in the 2006 Quinones‐USFWS report. The criteria was that abundance data had to be collected for a minimum of six continuous years using the same methods, similar to the criteria set by the Biological Review Teams conducting status reviews for the National Marine Fisheries Service. Least‐squares regression was used to describe trends in numbers and two‐tailed t tests to test whether the trends were significantly different from zero at a level of significance of 0.05. A line with a slope of zero depicted a trend that was neither increasing nor decreasing over time.

The Smith River Alliance has been conducting adult fish surveys since 2000 in order to record annual abundance and distribution of salmonids in the Smith River (Reedy 2005). Surveys are conducted through direct observation (snorkel dives) in reaches of the mainstem, and Middle and South Forks of the river. The data was standardize data as the number of rainbow trout counted per miles of stream surveyed, so that numbers could be directly compared.

Based on the Quinones analysis, in the Smith River, the number of resident rainbow trout per mile significantly increased from 2000 to 2005 (p = 0.03, r2 = 0.74; Figure 6). During the sampling period, numbers of rainbow trout ranged from 2 (2000) to 46 (2005). However, the number of rainbow trout counted per mile peaked in 2004, with a total of 39 individuals counted that year.





Figure 6. Number of Rainbow Trout Counted per Miles Surveyed from 2000 to 2005, Smith River, California (Reedy 2005)

Because of the paucity of data on rainbow trout abundance in the Klamath, Shasta‐Trinity and Six Rivers National Forests, we were unable to conclusively determine the status of this species. However, data collected in the Smith River and conclusions drawn by Moyle (2002) suggest that rainbow trout abundance is on the increase throughout most of its range. The interpretation of abundance trends may also be confounded by the common practice of introducing rainbow trout into many of the rivers and lakes within these three Forests.

Both steelhead trout and rainbow trout are fished for by recreationists, therefore it is not accurate to make a strong tie between instream habitat conditions and population trend. The link between instream habitat conditions and the steelhead trout population trend is further complicated by the influence of ocean conditions. A link between instream habitat conditions and rainbow trout is further complicated by the State’s rainbow trout stocking program, which adds thousands of individual rainbow trout to streams throughout the Klamath River basin.

For aquatic habitat monitoring, a comprehensive monitoring approach is conducted through the Aquatic and Riparian Effectiveness Monitoring Plan (AREMP). AREMP is designed for the regional and species range scales. It is intended to characterize the ecological condition of watersheds and aquatic ecosystems, determine present watershed condition, track trends in watershed condition over time, and report on the Forest Plan’s effectiveness across the region. Impacts to MIS habitat are also tracked at the project level by updating the LRMP MIS GIS layer and through Stream Condition Inventories and Fish Habitat Typing Surveys conducted at the project level and the watershed level.

y = 0.465x - 0.3023R2 = 0.7438

00.5

11.5

22.5

33.5

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005



Chapter 3 Summary of the Proposed Action and Alternatives

3.1 Alternative 2 – Proposed Action Alternative 2 was designed to meet the purpose and need for action. It will treat approximately 7,350 acres in 126 treatment units as summarized in Table 1 below. Activities include variable density thinning of conifer stands and fuel treatments to reduce potential wildfire severity; activities will also be responsive to the objectives of the Klamath National Forest’s Elk Habitat Strategy. Activity fuels will be treated in all stands. Road actions consist of the addition of 1,700 feet of existing road surface to the permanent road system and the decommissioning of 3,740 feet of existing road surface in order to restore ecological function. Temporary roads and landings will be constructed for project implementation and will be hydrologically restored after the project is implemented; however, existing facilities will be used to the greatest extent possible. A full description of the Proposed Action and Alternative 3 is available in Chapter 2 of the EA, along with the design features and Best Management Practices.

3.2 Alternative 3 Alternative 3 was designed to respond to the concern raised by members of the public regarding potential effects on habitat quality and quantity and watershed effects in riparian reserves, while still meeting the purpose and need for action to reduce fuels and improve wildlife habitat. Given the sensitive nature of habitat and water resources provided by riparian reserves, the Forest Service developed this alternative in order to address these concerns. Alternative 3 will treat approximately 7,212 acres in 131 treatment units. This alternative reduces the amount of commercial entry and harvesting acres treated in riparian reserves. It also modifies the proposed treatments in some of the riparian reserves by limiting treatments to hand treatments and prescribed burning to treat ladder and understory fuels as a means to reduce potential wildfire behavior. This alternative includes 171 acres of hand treatment only in riparian reserves. The Proposed Action, by contrast, includes commercial entry and harvesting in all of the riparian reserves that are within the silvicultural treatment units. The amount of roads and support activities listed under the Proposed Action are applicable to Alternative 3 except that there will be 5 fewer landings required for ground‐based system tree removal due to reductions in areas being harvested in riparian reserves.

The following table displays acres of the Proposed Action and Alternative 3 for each management area and by treatment type and logging system.

USDA Forest Service Chapter 3. Summary of the Proposed Action and

Alternatives



Table 1. Comparison of Treatment Acreages for the Proposed Action and Alternative 3

Silviculture – Conifer Stand Thinning and

Fuel Reductions

Prescribed Understory Burning (conifer stands) Fuelbreaks

Roadside Fuel

Treatments Private Land

Buffer

Riparian Reserves Fuel Reduction (PCT/piling/LOP and Rx burn) Totals

Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 2 Alt 3

Management Area 10 – Riparian Reserves

708 216 652 754 84 93 368 473 53 85 0 171 1,865 1,792

Tractor 284 159 Yarder 354 53

Helicopter 70 4 Management Area 13 – Designated and Recommended Recreational River

367 350 74 74 7 7 55 57 1 0 0 0 504 488


Helicopter 112 111 Management Area 15 – Partial Retention Visual Quality Objective

1,207 1,181 1,513 1,478 694 697 742 750 44 44 0 0 4,200 4,150


Helicopter 68 68 Management Area 17 – General Forest

50 45 514 520 94 94 123 123 0 0 0 0 781 782


Total Acres 2,332 1,792 2,753 2,826 879 891 1,288 1,403 98 129 0 171 7,350 7,212

3.3 Issue Significance No significant issues related to wildlife habitat were identified through the analysis of scoping comments. This determination is documented in the Scoping Summary Report for the Petersburg Pines Restoration Project. The Forest Supervisor determined that there were no significant issues. There were numerous comments submitted regarding the need to fully disclose the effects of the project on wildlife and aquatic habitat, and there were also numerous concerns about the potential effects on Northern Spotted Owl. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Fisheries Marine Service (NOAA) have been closely involved in collaborative field reviews to refine the project details as well as Level 1 consultation efforts with the Forest Service. The Forest Supervisor approved the development of Alternative 3 to be responsive to public concerns regarding potential effects to riparian habitat.



Chapter 4 Selection of Project‐Level MIS

MIS for the KNF are identified in the LRMP S&G 8‐21 through 8‐34. A review was conducted using the MIS Report Part I ‐ Project Level Assessment Checklist to determine: 1) if the project is within the range of any MIS, 2) if habitat for which the species is an indicator is present within or adjacent to the proposed treatment areas, and 3) if there are potential direct, indirect or cumulative effects on habitat components.

The following associations and MIS will not be further discussed because the habitats for which these species were selected are not in or adjacent to the project area as documented in the Project Level Assessment Part I. Therefore, the project will not directly or indirectly affect the habitat for these species and will, therefore, have no impact on forest‐level habitat or population trends for these species:

Grassland/ShrubSteppe Association

Pronghorn (Antilocarpa americana)

Montane vole (Microtus montanus)

Loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus)

Swainson’s hawk (Buteo swainsoni)

Sage thrasher (Oreoscoptes montanus)

Burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia)

Mature Ponderosa Pine Association

Flammulated owl (Otus flammeolus)

White‐headed woodpecker (Picoides albolarvatus)

Pinyon jay (Gymnorhinus cyanocephalus)

The following species associations and MIS were selected for analysis for the Petersburg Pines Restoration Project because suitable habitat is present that may be impacted by the project activities, as described in the MIS Project Level Assessment Part I. Species associations and MIS associated with habitats that may be affected by project activities are analyzed below.

Hardwood Species Association

Acorn woodpecker (Melanerpes formicivorus)

Western gray squirrel (Sciurus griseus)

River/Stream Species Association

Rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss)

Steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss)

Tailed frog (Ascaphus truei)

USDA Forest Service Chapter 4. Selection of Project‐Level MIS



Cascades frog (Rana cascadae)

American dipper (Cinclus mexicanus)

Northern water shrew (Sorex palustris)

Long‐tailed vole (Microtus longicaudus)

Marsh/Lake/Pond Species Association

Western pond turtle (Actinemys marmorata)

Northern red‐legged frog* (Rana aurora aurora)

*The northern red‐legged frog range is not within or adjacent to the Petersburg Pines Project Area and is not discussed further in this document.

Snag Species Association

Red‐breasted sapsucker (Sphyrapicus rubber)

Hairy woodpecker (Picoides villosus)

White‐headed woodpecker (Picoides albolarvatus)

Vaux’s swift (Chaetura vauxi)

Downy woodpecker (Picoides pubescens)

Pileated woodpecker (Dryocopus pileatus)

Black‐backed woodpecker (Picoides arcticus)



Chapter 5 MIS Environmental Baseline

and Effects of Proposed Project

5.1 Hardwood Association: Acorn Woodpecker and Western Gray Squirrel

5.1.1 Indicator for which MIS Were Selected, Descriptions of the Amount of Potentially Affected Habitat

The acorn woodpecker was selected as an indicator for diversity of oak species and larger conifers. The western gray squirrel was selected as an indicator for mature hardwood and mixed‐conifer–hardwood. There are 187 acres of mapped oak and 6 acres of mature hardwood habitats in the Assessment Area.

Habitat suitable for acorn woodpeckers in the Assessment Area is generally restricted to open hardwood stands, predominately black oak, at lower elevations. Their abundance is unknown, but they are probably rare to uncommon in the Assessment Area because open hardwood stands are infrequent.

Habitat suitable for gray squirrels in the Assessment Area is widespread and is expected to include a minimum of the 187 acres of mapped oak habitat plus adjacent mixed and conifer habitats.

Most of the 187 acres of oak habitat will be treated by the project: 69 acres by prescribed fire and 78 acres by silviculture prescriptions designed to remove encroaching conifers.

5.1.2 Environmental Baseline and Population Trend

Acorn Woodpeckers

Acorn woodpeckers are found in hardwood, hardwood‐conifer, or conifer habitats with mature oaks and snags. In the conifer belt, they are usually found in open stands with tree‐sized oaks such as Oregon white oak, California black oak, and canyon live oak; dense tanoak stands are typically avoided. The California population of acorn woodpeckers, as reported by the USFWS Breeding Bird Survey (BBS) data (1966–2007), is slightly increasing at a rate of 0.4 percent annually (p=0.37, n=122) (Sauer et al. 2008). This data should be interpreted with caution as the BBS suggests that there are many factors that can influence the validity and use of the information, and any analysis of the data should carefully consider the possible problems with the data (Sauer et al. 2008). The Partners in Flight (PIF) population trend data for Bird Conservation Region 5 (BCR5) is uncertain for the acorn woodpecker (Panjabi et al. 2005).

Western Gray Squirrel

Western gray squirrels are dependent on mature oak and mixed‐conifer habitats and require large trees, mast crops, and snags. Suitable habitat found throughout the forest includes deciduous or

USDA Forest Service Chapter 5. MIS Environmental Baseline and

Effects of the Proposed Project



broad‐leafed woodlands dominated by oak, riparian areas, and mixed forests. The Klamath forestwide directive suggests maintaining a significant component of mature, mast‐producing hardwoods and oak species where these species occur within conifer stands. The western gray squirrel is fairly common in the Assessment Area and is considered a game species in California. CDFG estimates approximately 30 million acres of western gray squirrel habitat in the state, which are occupied by approximately 18 million squirrels just before the breeding season (CDFG 2000). Estimates suggest a net increase of about 1.2 million squirrels annually after consideration of a 50 percent juvenile mortality, 50 percent adult mortality, and a harvest rate due to hunting of less than 1 percent each year, although environmental and density‐dependent mechanisms help keep the populations in check with their habitats.

5.1.3 Implementation of Klamath LRMP Standards and Guidelines

The Klamath LRMP Standards and Guidelines (8‐31) require that projects maintain a significant component of mature, mast‐producing hardwoods and oak species (for example, 10 to 35 square feet basal area per acre) in areas where oak stands occur within conifer stands. The project proposes to favor hardwoods for retention, and retain larger trees, and selectively remove conifers from stands with a significant hardwood component.

5.1.4 Effects of the Project on Hardwood Species Association: Acorn Woodpecker and Western Gray Squirrel

Alternative 1: No Action

Direct and Indirect Effects

In the absence of wildfire and with no fuel reduction activities under the no‐action alternative, it is likely that conifers would continue to encroach into stands of white oak and black oak, increasing tree density and competing with the oaks for water, light, and nutrients, leading to increases in competitive stress, insect, and drought‐related mortality. These changes would result in a detrimental effect on oak stands and a reduction in habitat quality for acorn woodpeckers and gray squirrels.

Under the no action alternative, the risk of unplanned fire would increase over time. Preliminary fire modeling indicates that the Petersburg Pines Restoration Project area has the potential for stand‐replacing wildfire because fire intensity and crown fire potential would be higher, causing tree mortality. Mortality of oaks as a result of crown fire would remove habitat for acorn woodpeckers and gray squirrels.

Cumulative Effects

Past activities such as conifer plantation, wildfire suppression, and to a lesser extent timber harvest, have probably led to a regional reduction in hardwood habitat for grey squirrel and acorn woodpecker and increased the risk of medium and high intensity wildfire. There are no reasonably foreseeable actions that would combine with the no action alternative to cause cumulative effects on the Hardwood MIS Association beyond the project’s direct and indirect effects discussed above. Local community fuel reduction projects would decrease the risk of fire in the Assessment Area, but





those areas represent a small fraction of the area surrounding the Assessment Area and would not affect fire behavior originating inside the Assessment Area.

Alternative 2: Proposed Action and Alternative 3


The proposed action and Alternative 3 would have similar effects on the hardwood association species, acorn woodpecker and gray squirrel, and are discussed together.

Thinning and fuel reduction activities may remove important structural components of hardwood habitats such as large‐diameter trees, snags, and CWD. However, the removal of large‐diameter trees would only occur under limited circumstances; large snags or groups of snags would be retained over most of the landscape, and large‐diameter hardwoods and CWD would be retained where consistent with project objectives, and overall, effects on hardwood habitat are expected to be minimized by employing the Klamath LRMP Standards and Guidelines for snag and large‐diameter tree retention Therefore, effects on the distribution and abundance of these habitat components are expected to be minimal. The project will not result in a loss of hardwood habitat.

The conifer removal and dripline thinning and opening around oaks under the proposed action are expected to have beneficial indirect effects in the long term by improving the health of oak trees and oak stands. The proposed action would reduce the risk of stand‐replacing fire, which could destroy oak trees and other hardwoods. Large diameter trees, including mast trees, favored by acorn woodpecker and gray squirrel would increase over the long term as a result of the proposed action or Alternative 3.

Cumulative Effects

Past activities such as hydraulic mining, road construction, wildfire suppression, and to a lesser extent timber harvest, have probably led to a reduction in hardwood habitat. Reasonably foreseeable future actions in the Project Area include small scale timber harvest on private lands, on‐going dispersed recreation and hunting, on‐going suppression of wildfire, road maintenance, and community fuel reduction projects. KNF Forest Plan S&Gs ensure that actions on federal lands in the region will have minimal impacts on hardwood habitat. Other projects or activities expected to occur within the Project Area include ongoing pre‐commercial thinning and dispersed recreation. Combined with community fuel reduction projects and similar activities on federal lands, including the Eddy Gulch LSR project, these projects aim to create habitats more resistant to wildfire, resulting in a lower risk of medium and high intensity wildfires.

5.2 River/Stream Species Association – Steelhead and Rainbow Trout


Resident rainbow trout and steelhead trout are indicators of perennial montane streams with dense vegetation. Specifically, these species are an indicator for water quality, bottom substrate, stream





flow, in‐stream woody debris, and channel condition. These factors are all responsive to changes in land management activities. The project area includes approximately 45 miles of perennial streams habitat and another 90 miles of seasonally flowing stream habitat. These perennial streams provide about 19 miles of rainbow trout habitat and about 10 miles of steelhead trout habitat that could potentially be affected by the project.

5.2.2 Environmental Baseline and Population Trend Water quality of streams within the area is generally good and the substrate‐sediment, channel condition and habitat indicators are considered Properly Functioning (ICF 2010). The Salmon River has been listed as impaired for water temperature, and two sub‐watersheds and the SF Salmon 5th field watersheds are rated as functioning at risk for temperature (ICF 2010). Based on V* measurements of the SF Salmon, pool filling from sediment is low. Field reviews of project streams, turbidity is very low, except during times of intense precipitation when surface erosion and mass wasting activity is high. Streams within the project area are typically high‐gradient and coarse‐bedded. Channels typically run in steep narrow gorges that do not support floodplains.

5.2.3 Effects of the Project on River/Streams Association: Steelhead and Rainbow Trout



In the absence of wildfire, and with no fuel reduction activities under the no‐action alternative, water quality, for example stream temperatures, nutrient levels, and turbidity, would not change in the short term and therefore habitat conditions for rivers/streams association species, steelhead and rainbow trout, would remain the same.

Under the no action alternative, the risk of unplanned fire would increase over time. Preliminary fire modeling indicates that the Petersburg Pines Restoration Project area has the potential for stand‐replacing wildfire because fire intensity would be higher, causing tree mortality and loss of riparian vegetation; however fire would not directly affect perennial stream aquatic habitat, unless fires burned hot enough to remove in‐stream large wood. Indirect effects on aquatic habitat after a stand‐replacing fire would include increased sedimentation that could increase mortality of eggs, alevins and fry, and reduce the availability of preferred macroinvertebrate prey. Fires that burned at high severity in streamside areas would reduce shade in the short term, and increase water temperatures. This would increase biological activity and could stress adult steelhead and trout during summer low flow periods. Fire could increase the recruitment of Coarse Woody Debris (CWD) and Large Woody Debris (LWD) to streams, but very long‐term recruitment (well beyond 20 years) of CWD would eventually approach zero in areas burned by stand‐replacing fire.

Cumulative Effects

The no‐action alternative would not add project‐related incremental effects to the effects of past, present/ongoing, or future projects because no management activities are proposed. However, the no action alternative could result in significant adverse cumulative effects if a wildfire occurred under existing conditions, which includes high fuel loadings across the watersheds in the project





area. Aquatic habitat is recovering from past disturbances, including road construction, hydraulic mining, and timber sales. Thus, a severe wildfire, in combination with past, present/ongoing, and future actions, could result in significant cumulative effects on aquatic habitats.

Alternative 2: Proposed Action


Potential direct impacts to aquatic species are limited to water drafting that will occur at 5 sites. No adverse impacts to either listed and sensitive anadromous fishes, or resident MIS species rainbow trout are expected, due to controls required for water drafting by NOAA Fisheries on the KNF. These measures include specifications for screening, pumping rates, and flow requirements.

Indirect effects to aquatic species could occur if habitat were altered as a result of changes in the delivery of sediment, flow, large wood, and energy as a result of project activities. The project is not expected to adversely affect the recruitment of large wood, the delivery of sediment and water, or solar radiation to perennial streams that might raise water temperatures. The most likely change is positive: an improvement in large wood recruitment in treated Riparian Reserves.

Also positive are treatment effects on response of treated stands should a wildfire occur. Wildfires are likely to burn at lower severity in treated stands. As a result, there is lower likelihood of tree and stand mortality, and increases in sediment production, water temperature and peak flows should a wildfire occur.

Cumulative Effects

Past, present, and ongoing activities within the Petersburg Pines Restoration project area and downstream in SF Salmon River that may contribute to cumulative effects on watershed and aquatic resources include: past mining activities, past timber activities, the transportation system (unhealed roads, road crossings, and skid trails), recreation (degradation of localized riparian areas from excessive camping or motorized vehicle use), prescribed fire, wildfire and the dwellings and cabin sites in the Cecilville area and elsewhere. Collectively, these activities may contribute excessive fine sediment or otherwise alter water quality into downstream reaches, though available in‐channel survey data from SF Salmon Creek indicates the level of pool filling in and immediately downstream of below the project area is very low.

The proposed action was designed to minimize potential adverse effects to the SF Salmon River watershed, in recognition of current watershed condition, project area aquatic resources including stream and river habitats. The integrated design features and other portions of the proposed action should minimize the risk of potential erosion and sedimentation. Because of this, there is a very low risk that the proposed action would contribute toward adverse cumulative watershed effects. Although treatments will occur within the RRs, in the long term they will improve riparian function and meet ACS objectives.

The proposed action was analyzed in terms of road density, Equivalent Roaded Acres (ERAs), soil erosion (USLE), and mass wasting risk. Existing road density is moderately high in two project area sub‐watersheds: Rays‐Gibson and Cecil Creek. Due to generally good location and recent road treatment efforts, the existing road system does not appear to be having substantial negative impacts to stream habitat in these watersheds. The ERA for the three sub‐watersheds reflects a low level of overall disturbance before and after the project. Likewise, The mass wasting GEO in the KNF





methodology) ratio is not changed substantially by the project. Due to the amount of treatments in the Cecil Creek watershed, the USLE ratio is relatively high (>.9 for both alternatives) but remains below the threshold of 1.0. Reasonably foreseeable future actions in the Project Area include small scale timber harvest on private lands, on‐going dispersed recreation and hunting, on‐going suppression of wildfire, road maintenance, and community fuel reduction projects. These activities are not likely to adversely affect stream and river habitats.

Alternative 3


The primary difference between the two action alternatives is that Alternative 3 would treat 172 acres of Riparian Reserve by hand to reduce fuel loading and improve stand characteristics, while Alternative 2 would treat these acres mechanically. There would be no difference in stream shade, and no difference in potential to affect stream temperatures. The amount of vegetation removed would be nearly identical in the two alternatives. Therefore, changes in soil moisture and water yield would be very similar. Runoff from any compaction resulting from mechanical treatment in Alternative 2 would be buffered by the mechanical exclusion zone adjacent to channels, so no difference in peak flows would be expected.

Risk of increased erosion and sediment production are also similar, because the primary sources of erosion, roads and landings, would not be located on the 172 acres. The lack of mechanical equipment on the 172 acres represents a reduced risk of impacts to the treated areas, rather than a measurable amount of sediment. Mechanical treatment in Alternative 2 would undoubtedly result in greater damage to residual vegetation than hand treatment. Because indirect effects to stream and river habitat between the two alternatives are nearly indistinguishable, there is no difference in affects to aquatic habitats between Alternatives 2 and 3.

Cumulative Effects

Because the 172 acres are distributed among the project area watersheds, and represent a small percentage of both treated acres and the treated watersheds, there would be no difference in the risk of cumulative effects between the alternatives.

5.3 River/Streams Association – Non‐Fish


The river/stream association non‐fish species comprise tailed frog, Cascade frog, American Dipper, northern water shrew, and long‐tailed vole. The tailed frog was chosen to represent perennial montane streams with dense vegetation; specifically, tailed frogs are an indicator for water quality, bottom substrate, stream flow, in‐stream woody debris, and channel condition. There are 15 miles of perennial streams within the Petersburg Pines Restoration Project area that provide suitable habitat for tailed frog. Cascade frogs prefer high‐elevation stream habitat that is not found within the project area. American dipper was chosen to represent cold, swift, perennial streams; specifically they were chosen as an indicator for water quality, in‐stream woody debris, bottom





substrate, and flows. There are 15 miles of perennial streams within the Petersburg Pines Restoration Project analysis area that provide suitable habitat for American dipper.

Northern water shrew was chosen to represent riparian vegetation along streams and rivers with dense grass‐forb cover; specifically, they are an indicator of riparian vegetation including canopy, deciduous vegetation, and grasses and forbs along streams. There are 40.9 miles of perennial and intermittent streams within the Petersburg Pines Restoration Project analysis area that provide suitable habitat for northern water shrew. Longtailed vole is selected as an indicator of riparian vegetation, including canopy, deciduous vegetation, and grass‐forb cover. The habitat is the same as the northern water shrew with the addition of riparian vegetation associated with springs and ponds (40.9 miles) and several small springs as shown on the GIS layer for Riparian Reserves.

5.3.2 Environmental Baseline and Population Trend

Tailed Frog

Tailed frogs are found in clear, cold, rocky streams that contain large stones, stable boulders, and riffle and cascade microclimates (Stebbins 2003) in conifer‐dominated habitats. The species occurs more frequently in mature or late‐successional stands and uses submerged rocks and logs in streams for cover.

Potential habitat for tailed frogs in the Assessment Area occurs in approximately 15miles of perennial streams. Tailed frogs have been collected from Taylor Creek, South Fork Taylor Creek, and Dry Gulch north and northeast of the Petersburg Pines Restoration Project area (CDFG 2010b).

American Dipper

American dippers live along clear, fast‐flowing, unpolluted perennial streams and rivers with rock faces, waterfalls, large boulders, or other features that provide similar niches for nesting (Kingery 1996). Important habitat elements include gravel and cobble within the stream, instream or streamside boulders for perching, and overhanging ledges and crevices for nesting. Fallen logs and tree roots are sometimes used for nesting and roosting (Kingery 1996).

There are approximately 15 miles of perennial streams that provide suitable habitat for American dippers throughout the Assessment Area. American dippers are common and widespread in the region and are likely to occur along suitable perennial streams in the project area.

Northern Water Shrew

Northern water shrews are common to abundant small mammals that are closely associated with streams and ponds and inhabit montane riparian habitats and coniferous forests adjacent to riparian areas (Csuti 1997). The species is seldom found further than 100 feet from water. Streams containing habitat suitable for northern water shrews occur throughout the Assessment Area.

When interpreting acreages of potential habitat, the acres of Riparian Reserves (all perennial and intermittent streams in the Assessment Area with required buffer) were used, which totals 1,865 acres of potential habitat for the northern water shrew. This acreage is likely to be overstated for the shrew because it includes buffers that are larger than the shrew is known to travel from water; however, there are not enough data in the Forest Service datasets to extrapolate a more realistic





(reduced) number. Other potential habitat for northern water shrews includes a small pond mapped on private land in Summerville in the southeast portion of the project area.

Long‐tailed Vole

Long‐tailed voles are small mammals that are common residents of herbaceous understories of many forest habitat types, and they are expected to be abundant in montane riparian, forests with herbaceous understories, wet meadows, and grasslands (Csuti 1997). They nest in burrows in soft soils or within or beneath logs and seek cover in dense herbaceous vegetation. Potential habitat for long‐tailed voles may occur throughout the Assessment Area but is limited by a lack of meadows, grasslands, or other habitats with a well‐developed herbaceous layer.

Like the northern water shrew, when interpreting acreages of potential habitat, the total of 1,865 acres of Riparian Reserves was used to approximate the amount of potential habitat for the long‐tailed vole. This acreage, too, is likely overstated; however, there are not enough data in the Forest Service datasets to extrapolate a more realistic (reduced) number.


The Klamath LRMP Standards and Guidelines (USFS 1995) related to river/stream‐dependent species, and that are being implemented as part of the project, include a 340‐foot buffer on both sides of fish‐bearing streams and a 170‐foot buffer on both sides of permanently flowing nonfish‐bearing streams and intermittent streams (Klamath LRMP page 4‐133). Project treatments within Riparian Reserves are designed to meet Aquatic Conservation Strategy goals, and the Petersburg Pines Restoration Project is therefore consistent with Aquatic Conservation Strategy goals and Riparian Reserve guidelines, including maintaining and restoring riparian‐dependent structures and functions, providing benefits to riparian dependent and transition zone species, and providing habitat connectivity.

Klamath LRMP Standards and Guidelines and resource protection measures for thinning and fuels reduction in Riparian Reserves are designed to ensure that the reserves are intact and functioning following treatment and that existing stream shading is not reduced. Klamath LRMP BMPs and resource protection measures for temporary road construction ensure that sediment delivery to streams from this activity is minimized. The resource protection measures and BMPs found in the Aquatics Resources Report for the Petersburg Pines Restoration Project address protection for the following as they relate to stream habitat: streamsides, erosion control, water temperature, underburning, and Riparian Reserves.

5.3.4 Effects of the Project on River/Streams Association: Tailed Frog and American Dipper



In the absence of wildfire, and with no fuel reduction activities under the no‐action alternative, water quality, for example stream temperatures, nutrient levels, and turbidity, would not change in





the short term and therefore habitat conditions for rivers/streams association species, tailed frog and American Dipper, would remain the same.

Under the no action alternative, the risk of unplanned fire would increase over time. Preliminary fire modeling indicates that the Petersburg Pines Restoration Project area has the potential for stand‐replacing wildfire because fire intensity would be higher, causing tree mortality and loss of riparian vegetation; however fire would not directly affect perennial stream aquatic habitat. Indirect effects on aquatic habitat after a stand‐replacing fire would include increased sedimentation that could bury egg masses, reduce the availability of macroinvertebrate prey, and reduce the ability of American dipper to find prey underwater. Fire could increase the recruitment of CWD and LWD to streams, but very long‐term recruitment (well beyond 20 years) of CWD would eventually approach zero in areas burned by stand‐replacing fire.

Cumulative Effects

The no‐action alternative would not add project‐related incremental effects to the effects of past, present/ongoing, or future projects because no management activities are proposed. However, the no action alternative could result in significant adverse cumulative effects if a wildfire occurred under existing conditions, which includes high fuel loadings across the watersheds in the project area. Aquatic habitat is recovering from past disturbances, including road construction, hydraulic mining, and timber sales. Thus, a severe wildfire, in combination with past, present/ongoing, and future actions, could result in significant cumulative effects on aquatic habitats.



The proposed action will have no direct impacts on tailed frog and American dipper because project activities will not occur in aquatic systems that provide habitat for these species.

Changes in habitat conditions as a result of the proposed project could result in indirect effects on tailed frog and American dipper.

Nineteen of the units proposed for Silviculture treatments using tractor or yarder contain perennial streams totaling 3.81 miles. The proposed thinning and silvicultural treatments would not have any direct effects on tailed frog and American dipper habitat because the habitat would be protected in the Riparian Reserves under both the Proposed Action and Alternative 3 and project implementation will follow Klamath LRMP Standards and Guidelines and resource protection measures for thinning and fuels reduction. In riparian reserves, thinning and fuel reduction treatments would maintain the existing stream shading. By maintaining stream shading and promoting the development of larger trees in Riparian Reserves and future recruitment of LWD into streams, habitat quality for tailed frogs and American dippers is expected to be enhanced long term. Commercial thinning treatments in riparian reserves could result in a short term increase in sedimentation and turbidity, but these effects are not expected to be significant.

Prescribed fire would be implemented in areas containing an additional 1.98 miles of perennial streams. Prescribed fires that would be implemented in Riparian Reserves may reduce vegetative cover over the short term, but limited low‐intensity fire in Riparian Reserves is not likely to affect the overall habitat quality.





Thinning and fuel reduction activities in fuel breaks and roadside fuel reduction areas would be implemented in areas containing an additional 7.66 miles of perennial streams. Implementation of Klamath LRMP Standards and Guidelines and BMPS for thinning and fuels reduction will protect aquatic habitats for on tailed frog and American dipper.

Thinning and fuel reduction treatments are expected to have a beneficial indirect effect in the long term by reducing the risk and effects of stand‐replacing fires, which can remove riparian vegetation and lead to increases in stream temperature and sedimentation. Large‐diameter shade trees and LWD would increase over the long term as a result of the Proposed Action and Alternative 3, enhancing water quality by maintaining cool water temperatures.

Road‐related activities would not directly affect tailed frog and American dipper because they would not be implemented in the habitat for these species. Road proposed for use and proposed road construction and decommissioning are located outside of Riparian Reserves except for two existing roads that are located in the outer edge of Riparian Reserves in Units 29 and 46—in both cases, the stream is located 250 feet below the road and this distance is expected to be sufficient to buffer upslope activities and maintain riparian and stream processes. No new landings will be constructed in Riparian Reserves. Therefore road related activities would have no indirect effects on aquatic habitats for tailed frog and American dipper.

Cumulative Effects

Streams within the Project area have been and continue to be subject to natural erosion. Past activities such as hydraulic mining, railroad road construction, and timber harvest have probably resulted in significant disturbance of stream habitat and reduction in water quality. Reasonably foreseeable future actions in the Project Area include small scale timber harvest on private lands, on‐going dispersed recreation and hunting, on‐going suppression of wildfire, road maintenance, and community fuel reduction projects. These activities are not likely to adversely affect streams and riparian habitats. Fuel reduction projects on federal lands include the nearby Eddy Gulch LSR project. KNF Forest Plan S&Gs, including implementation of the Aquatic Conservation Strategy, ensure that actions on federal lands within the Project Area will have minimal impacts to riparian reserve habitat.

Alternatives 2 and 3, combined with other fuel reduction projects, including the proposed Eddy Gulch LSR project, would further decrease the risk of high intensity fire inside and near the Assessment Area.

Cumulative effects to tailed frog, American dipper, long‐tailed vole, and northern water shrew habitat are expected to be minimal because functioning riparian reserves will buffer sediment delivery to streams, thinning and fuels treatments will not impact instream habitat structure, and Project design features and LRMP BMPs will ensure that activities within riparian reserves will have minimal impacts. Additionally, at the scale of the Project area, the amount of riparian habitat that may be removed or degraded on both federal and private lands is expected to be insignificant. Thus cumulative effects are not expected to impact the population trends for these species.





Alternative 3


Effects for Alternative 3 are the same as those for the Proposed Action, except that fewer acres would be commercially thinned in riparian reserves, and fuel reduction on 171 acres would be implemented by hand followed by understory burn, with no commercial thinning, This is expected to address water quality issues by reducing the chance of increased sedimentation and turbidity relative to the Proposed Action.

Cumulative Effects

Cumulative effects for Alternative 3 are the same as those for Alternative 2.

5.3.5 Effects of the Project on River/Streams Association: Northern Water Shrew and Long‐Tailed Vole



In the absence of wildfire, and with no fuel reduction activities under the no‐action alternative, habitat conditions for rivers/streams association species, northern water shrew and long‐tailed vole, would not change in the short term.

Under the no action alternative, the risk of unplanned fire would increase over time. Preliminary fire modeling indicates that the Petersburg Pines Restoration Project area has the potential for stand‐replacing wildfire because fire intensity and crown fire potential would be higher, causing tree mortality and loss of riparian vegetation that provides habitat for northern water shrew and long‐tailed vole. High intensity fire also has the potential to cause mortality of northern water shrew and long‐tailed vole if they inhabit riparian vegetation that is destroyed in a fire.

Cumulative Effects

The no‐action alternative would not add project‐related incremental effects to the effects of past, present/ongoing, or future projects because no management activities are proposed. However, the no action alternative could result in significant adverse cumulative effects if a wildfire occurred under existing conditions, which includes high fuel loadings across the watersheds in the project area. Aquatic habitat is recovering from past disturbances, including road construction, hydraulic mining, and timber sales. Thus, a severe wildfire, in combination with past, present/ongoing, and future actions, could result in significant cumulative effects on aquatic habitats.



Changes in habitat conditions as a result of the proposed project could result in indirect effects on these species. The proposed thinning and silvicultural treatments and prescription burns implemented in riparian reserves may reduce vegetation cover in the shrub layer and herbaceous





understory in the short term. Implementation of BMPS, specifically Streamside Management Zone Designation and establishment of no‐treatment‐buffers up to 100 feet on each side of springs, ponds, and perennial channels that are dominated by riparian vegetation with wetland characteristics would protect most of the suitable habitat for northern water shrew and long‐tailed vole. The Petersburg Pines Restoration Project is consistent with Aquatic Conservation Strategy goals, the Riparian Reserve guidelines, and the Klamath LRMP Standards and Guidelines and resource protection measures for thinning and fuels reduction in Riparian Reserves, which are designed to ensure that the reserves are intact and functioning following treatment and that existing stream shading is not reduced. Understory vegetation that is removed is expected to recover within one season and the amount of understory riparian habitat that would be removed is insignificant at the project scale; therefore population trends for these species are not expected to be affected.

Prescribed fires that would be implemented in Riparian Reserves may reduce vegetative cover over the short term, but limited low‐intensity fire in Riparian Reserves is not likely to affect the overall habitat quality and understory vegetation is expected to recover quickly.

Thinning and fuel reduction treatments are expected to have a beneficial indirect effect in the long term by reducing the risk and effects of stand‐replacing fires, which can remove riparian vegetation.

Road‐related activities would not directly affect northern water shrew and long‐tailed vole because they would not be implemented in the habitat for these species. Proposed road construction and decommissioning are located outside of Riparian Reserves except for two existing roads that are located in the outer edge of Riparian Reserves in Units 29 and 46—in both cases, the stream is located 250 feet below the road and this distance is expected to be sufficient to buffer upslope activities and maintain riparian and stream processes. No new landings will be constructed in Riparian Reserves. Therefore road related activities would have no indirect effects on aquatic habitats and dense riparian vegetation associated with perennial streams habitats for northern water shrew and long‐tailed vole.

Cumulative Effects

Streams within the Project area have been and continue to be subject to natural erosion. Past activities such as hydraulic mining, railroad road construction, and timber harvest have probably resulted in significant disturbance of stream habitat and reduction in water quality and riparian vegetation.

Reasonably foreseeable future actions in the Project Area include small scale timber harvest on private lands, on‐going dispersed recreation and hunting, on‐going suppression of wildfire, road maintenance, and community fuel reduction projects. These activities are not likely to adversely affect streams and riparian habitats. Fuel reduction projects on federal lands include the nearby Eddy Gulch LSR project. KNF Forest Plan S&Gs, including implementation of the Aquatic Conservation Strategy, ensure that actions on federal lands within the Project Area will have minimal impacts to riparian reserve habitat.

Alternatives 2 and 3, combined with other fuel reduction projects, including the proposed Eddy Gulch LSR project, would further decrease the risk of high intensity fire inside and near the Assessment Area.

Cumulative effects to, long‐tailed vole, and northern water shrew habitat are expected to be minimal because functioning riparian reserves will buffer sediment delivery to streams, thinning and fuels





treatments will not impact instream habitat structure, and Project design features and LRMP BMPs will ensure that activities within riparian reserves will have minimal impacts. Additionally, at the scale of the Project area, the amount of riparian habitat that may be removed or degraded on both federal and private lands is expected to be insignificant. Thus cumulative effects are not expected to impact the population trends for these species.

Alternative 3


Effects for Alternative 3 are the same as those for the Proposed Action, except that fewer acres would be commercially thinned in riparian reserves, and fuel reduction on 171 acres would be implemented by hand followed by understory burn, with no commercial thinning, This is expected to reduce the amount of understory vegetation disturbed and removed relative to the Proposed Action.

Cumulative Effects

Cumulative effects for Alternative 3 are the same as those for Alternative 2.

5.4 Snag Species Association: Pileated Woodpecker, White‐headed Woodpecker, Hairy Woodpecker, Downy Woodpecker, Red‐breasted Sapsucker, and Vaux’s Swift


Pileated woodpecker, white‐headed woodpecker, hairy woodpecker, downy woodpecker, red‐breasted sapsucker, and Vaux’s swift were selected as indicators of snags as a habitat element within mature mixed conifer, mature dense mixed conifer, and fir habitats in the Project area. They are cavity nesting birds that depend on large‐diameter snags to provide suitable nesting cavities.

Red‐breasted sapsucker habitat is mid‐ to late‐successional mixed‐conifer and riparian deciduous vegetation. The hairy woodpecker uses conifer and riparian habitats with large trees for cavities. The white‐headed woodpecker prefers high‐elevation mixed‐conifer forest and true fir forest. Downy woodpecker occurs in mixed conifer but also favors riparian deciduous habitat. The pileated woodpecker prefers late‐successional coniferous forests. All five woodpecker species are indicators of snags as a habitat element and for other species that depend on woodpeckers for sap wells, cavities, or as prey. Vaux’s swifts use cavities in snags in conifer forest.

Habitat within the action area for hairy woodpecker and downy woodpecker is mature conifer and mature dense conifer; 3,706 acres of these habitat types occur in the project area, of which 3317 acres will be affected by the proposed action. Habitat for white‐headed woodpecker, pileated woodpecker, and Vaux’s swift includes the mixed conifer habitats and also mixed fir, an additional 80 acres, for a total of 3,786 acres, of which 3,376 acres will be affected by the proposed action.





Habitat for red‐breasted sapsucker is the mixed conifer types and mid‐seral habitats, totaling 5,942 acres, of which 5,497 acres will be affected by the proposed action.

5.4.2 Environmental Baseline and Population Trend In addition to snags, large diameter trees and LWD are important habitat components for the pileated woodpecker, white‐headed woodpecker, hairy woodpecker, and Vaux’s swift (Bull and Cooper 1991; Raphael and White 1984; Mellen et al. 1992; Bull and Holthausen 1993; Weikel and Hayes 1999; Buchanan et al. 2003). Closed canopy has also been shown to be important habitat component for pileated woodpeckers and Vaux’s swifts (Bull 1987; Bull and Cooper 1991). Red‐breasted sapsucker will nest in cavities in dead portion of living trees (Walters et al. 2002) and is also an indicator for snags in mixed conifer types and mid‐seral habitats.

All five species of woodpeckers and Vaux’s swift occur in the project region, but there is no specific information on their breeding status in the project area.

Snag abundance is a limiting factor for primary cavity excavators because they excavate a nest cavity each year (Haggard and Gaines 2001). Primary cavity excavators are important members of forest ecosystems because the cavities they excavate may be used by secondary cavity nesters, including bats, American marten, many owl species, and other birds and because they influence insect numbers.

Retaining denser clumps of large snags would promote the longer‐term persistence of suitable snags as nesting habitat for cavity‐nesting birds. Snags in large burned areas have greater exposure to wind, causing them to fall at high rates. Haggard and Gaines (2001) found that treatments with snags distributed in clumps and individually dispersed had the highest abundance and species richness of cavity nesting species. Saab and Dudley (1998) found in their study that all bird species selected nest sites with higher tree densities than that measured at random sites, and cavity nesters as a group selected clumps of snags rather than snags that were retained in uniform, evenly‐spaced distributions.

Pileated Woodpecker

Pileated woodpeckers are generally residents of mature conifer or hardwood–conifer habitats near permanent water. They are most common in late‐successional mixed‐conifer forests with moderate to dense canopy cover and large numbers of snags, stumps, and logs (Bull 1987; Bull et al. 1992; Mellen et al. 1992; Bull and Holthausen 1993; Bull and Jackson 1995; Aubry and Raley 2002). Pileated woodpeckers forage primarily on ants and wood‐boring beetles (Bull and Jackson 1995). Downed logs have been shown to be an important substrate for forest‐dwelling ants (Torgersen and Bull 1995) and are often frequented by foraging woodpeckers (Manaan 1984; Bull and Holthausen 1993).

There are approximately 3,786 acres of conifer forest suitable for pileated woodpeckers that are distributed widely throughout the Assessment Area. Pileated woodpeckers occur at low densities in the region, and are likely to occur in the Project area.

White‐headed Woodpecker

White‐headed woodpeckers reside in several types of montane coniferous forests up to higher elevation lodgepole pine and red fir habitats (Raphael and White 1984; Milne and Hejl 1989), but





the species typically reaches its greatest abundance where two or more pine species are present, especially ponderosa pine (Garrett et al. 1996). They are a common year‐long resident of forests up to lodgepole pine and red fir habitats. They nest in open conifer habitats, often near edges or roads or clearings or near natural openings. Nests typically occur in large‐diameter snags and stumps, although live trees may also be used (Raphael and White 1984; Milne and Hejl 1989; Dixon 1995; Buchanan et al. 2003).

There are approximately 3,786 acres of mature dense true fir and mixed‐conifer habitat, potentially suitable for woodpeckers in the Assessment Area. White‐headed woodpeckers are fairly common in the region and are likely to occur in the Project area.

Hairy Woodpecker

Hairy woodpeckers are typically generalist woodpeckers that may occur in many types of conifer and hardwood–conifer habitats, with habitat preference varying geographically (Jackson et al. 2002). In California the species is usually found in open to moderately dense stands of mature conifers with snags of sparse to intermediate density, but they often favor burned stands and also use riparian habitats.

There are approximately 3,706 acres of mixed‐conifer habitat and hardwood conifer habitat potentially suitable for woodpeckers in the Assessment Area. Hairy woodpeckers are common in the region and are likely to occur throughout the Project area.

Red‐breasted Sapsucker

Red‐breasted sapsuckers in California nest in montane riparian, montane hardwood‐conifer, mixed‐conifer, and true fir forests, preferring sites near meadows, clearings, or streams (Manaan et al. 1980; Raphael and White 1984; Walters et al. 2002). The red‐breasted sapsucker breeds from near sea level up to 9,514 feet in elevation, and in British Columbia, they have been observed using orchards, power line rights‐of‐way, and burns. They are more likely to breed in areas with snags than without (Walters et al. 2002). Nest cavities are typically excavated in dead trees or dead portions of live trees (Raphael and White 1984; Joy 2000). Most foraging occurs on live trees, but red‐breasted sapsuckers will forage on snags, logs, and the ground (Raphael and White 1984).

There are approximately 5,942 acres of mid‐successional and mature true fir or mixed‐conifer habitat, potentially suitable for sapsuckers, scattered throughout the Assessment Area. Red‐breasted sapsuckers are fairly common in the region, and the Assessment Area is large enough in size to potentially contain habitat for numerous red‐breasted sapsucker territories.

Vaux’s Swift

Vaux’s swifts are aerial insectivores that nest and roost in large hollow trees and snags. Vaux’s swifts are most common in late‐successional coastal forests, but they also occur in other conifer dominated forests below the zone of true firs. The swifts are reported to be most common in oldgrowth forests with high canopy closure (Bull and Cooper 1991; Bull and Hohmann 1993), but they also occur in burned forests and in towns with no canopy cover as long as large hollow trees or chimneys are available for nesting (Hunter et al. 2005).





There are approximately 3,786 acres of mature dense mixed‐conifer or fir habitat, potentially suitable for swifts, in the Assessment Area. Vaux’s swift is most probably rare as a breeding bird in the region but it is likely to occur in low numbers in the Assessment Area.

Downy Woodpecker

Downy woodpeckers are a common resident of riparian deciduous and associated hardwood and conifer habitats and are closely associated with riparian softwoods.

There are approximately 3,706 acres of mixed‐conifer habitat and hardwood conifer habitat potentially suitable for downy woodpeckers in the Assessment Area. Downy woodpeckers are uncommon in the region but are likely to occur throughout the Project area.


The Klamath LRMP Standards and Guidelines (USFS 1995) that are being implemented as part of the Project (8-21, 8-22, 8-23, 8-24, 8-25) include the retention of an average of two to five snags per acre in a variety of size and density classes across the landscape. This level of snag retention meets the LRMP S&Gs (8‐22) for snag associated species. Additionally, Project design for fuel treatments and conifer thinning include measures to comply with the LRMP S&Gs. Treatment prescriptions for all stands specify the retention of larger healthy trees while removing smaller and poor vigor trees. Before prescribed fire treatment, slash will be removed from the boles of designated wildlife trees to minimize damage from underburning. Thus, project prescriptions will maintain existing snag habitat and areas of snag recruitment, thereby maintaining suitable habitat for snag‐associated species.

5.4.4 Effects of the Project on Snag Species Association: Pileated Woodpecker, White‐headed Woodpecker, Hairy Woodpecker, Downy Woodpecker, Red‐breasted Sapsucker, and Vaux’s Swift



In the absence of wildfire, and with no fuel reduction activities under the no‐action alternative, there would be no direct effects on pileated woodpeckers, white‐headed woodpeckers, hairy woodpeckers, downy woodpeckers, red‐breasted sapsuckers, and Vaux’s swifts. Snags, and mature stands with large‐diameter trees, snags, and LWD would develop over time, albeit slowly. In dense stands, competition would result in tree mortality and accumulation of small snags only. The risk of high‐severity fire would increase.

Wildfire would consume snags that provide nest or roost sites, but fire would also create snags and cavities that provide nest or roost sites. Fire modeling in the Petersburg Pines Restoration Project area suggests a high risk or stand‐replacing fire. This may have some benefit to pileated woodpeckers, white‐headed woodpeckers, hairy woodpeckers, downy woodpeckers, red‐breasted sapsuckers, and Vaux’s swifts by creating nesting and roosting structure and by increasing foraging





opportunities in the short term. However, uncharacteristic wildfire has the potential to remove existing habitat components such as large snags and LWD, to impact recruitment of these components over the long term, and to significantly reduce or create large gaps in the canopy. Fire behavior over time would likely result in long term impacts that would exceed the short term benefits for these species. The actual extent of these effects, whether beneficial or adverse, is dependent upon fire intensity and size (Saab et al. 2007). A high intensity fire may result in successional changes to brush fields that do not provide snag habitat and would have no snag recruitment in the future.

The no‐action alternative would not provide for the long‐term protection of Snag MIS Association habitat in forested settings from the effects of high‐severity wildfire. No other indirect effects are expected as a result of ongoing or future projects.

Cumulative Effects

There are no reasonably foreseeable actions that would combine with the no action alternative to cause cumulative effects on the Snag MIS Association beyond the project’s direct and indirect effects discussed above. Local community fuel reduction projects would decrease the risk of fire in the Assessment Area, but those areas represent a small fraction of the area surrounding the Assessment Area and would not affect fire behavior originating inside the Assessment Area.

Alternative 2: Proposed Action and Alternative 3


The action alternatives would have similar effects on the snag association species, pileated woodpeckers, white‐headed woodpeckers, hairy woodpeckers, downy woodpeckers, red‐breasted sapsuckers, and Vaux’s swifts, and are discussed together except where specifically stated otherwise.

Fuel reduction treatments and temporary road construction are expected to have short‐term minor adverse direct effects on pileated woodpeckers, white‐headed woodpeckers, hairy woodpeckers, downy woodpeckers, red‐breasted sapsuckers, and Vaux’s swifts. Project activities may remove individual trees or snags that may be used for roosting. Destruction of active roosts through felling and/or removal of trees or snags may kill or harm individual pileated woodpeckers, white‐headed woodpeckers, hairy woodpeckers, downy woodpeckers, red‐breasted sapsuckers, and Vaux’s swifts, especially during the breeding season when young may be unable to escape. However, effects on roosting habitat are expected to be minimized by the lack of thinning in mature forest in the NSO core areas, by employing the Klamath LRMP Standards and Guidelines for snag and large‐diameter tree retention, and by implementing limited operating periods for the NSO and northern goshawk that overlap the period when bats rear their young. Noise from project activities could disturb pileated woodpeckers, white‐headed woodpeckers, hairy woodpeckers, downy woodpeckers, red‐breasted sapsuckers, and Vaux’s swifts and cause temporary abandonment of nests if these activities occurred during the breeding season. However, disturbance would be short term and occur only during the year of project implementation.

Thinning and other fuel‐reduction treatments are expected to have long‐term beneficial effects by promoting the development of large‐diameter trees and snags that provide suitable nesting and roosting sites. Felling of snags and removal of logs may reduce the amount of microhabitat available for some insects, but new fire‐killed snags would also provide a new resource for some insects such





as wood‐boring beetles, whose larvae are an important wood source for woodpeckers. Additionally, these activities would change expected fire behavior over time, resulting in fires of lower intensity, thus reducing the potential that existing habitat would be removed in a moderate to high intensity wildfire.

Cumulative Effects

Past timber activities in the Project Area has probably impacted pileated woodpeckers, white‐headed woodpeckers, hairy woodpeckers, downy woodpeckers, red‐breasted sapsuckers, and Vaux’s swifts by removing potential roost sites, although large‐diameter trees remain scattered throughout.

Reasonably foreseeable future actions in the Project Area include small scale timber harvest on private lands, on‐going suppression of wildfire, road maintenance, and community fuel reduction projects. Fuel reduction projects on federal land include the nearby Eddy Gulch LSR project. KNF Forest Plan S&Gs ensure that actions on federal lands within the Project Area will have minimal impacts on snag habitat.

Combined with community fuel reduction projects and similar activities on federal lands, including the Eddy Gulch LSR project, these projects aim to create habitats more resistant to wildfire, resulting in a lower risk of medium and high intensity widlfires that could remove snags and large‐diameter trees.



Chapter 6 Summary of MIS Information for Inclusion into NEPA

Document

The proposed actions would result in minor effects on MIS habitats in the Assessment Area. Overall, habitat quality for hardwood, river and stream, and snag‐associated species is not expected to decline or be reduced in volume in the short term (5 years), and habitat quality is expected to be promoted over the long term (20‐30 years). Long‐term cumulative effects on habitat and populations are expected to be beneficial as a result of project actions. The proposed actions would reduce, by a small amount, habitat elements such as individual snags but would not reduce any patches of mature forest habitat scattered throughout the landscape. The project may result in the loss or shifting of individual nest sites or home ranges during project treatment activities, but would have negligible effects on the overall amount of habitat in the Assessment Area and the proposed project is expected to have no effect on populations of any MIS species. High‐capability snag habitat would be retained for the short and long term across the Assessment Area. Riparian Reserves, the reduced thinning in mature forest in the NSO core areas, and conformance to Klamath LRMP Standards and Guidelines for snag retention are expected to provide adequate habitat to maintain viable populations of all MIS. Application of the Aquatic Conservation Strategy goals, the Riparian Reserve guidelines, and the Klamath LRMP Standards and Guidelines and resource protection measures for thinning and fuels reduction in Riparian Reserves, will ensure that the stream habitats, riparian habitats, and Riparian Reserves are intact and functioning following treatment and that existing stream shading is not reduced.



Chapter 7 References

7.1 Printed References 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 66:392‐406.

Behnke, R.J. 1992. Native trout of western North America. Am. Fish. Soc. Mono. 6. 275 pp.

Buchanan, J.B., R.E. Rogers, D.J. Pierce, and J.E. Jacobson. 2003. Nest‐site habitat use by white‐headedwoodpeckers in the eastern Cascade Mountains, Washington. Northwestern Naturalist 84:119‐128.

Bull, E.L. 1987. Ecology of the pileated woodpecker in northeastern Oregon. Journal of Wildlife Management 51:472‐481.

Bull, E.L. and H.D. Cooper. 1991. Vaux’s swift nests in hollow tree. Western Birds 22:85‐91.

Bull, E.L., and J.E. Jackson. 1995. Pileated Woodpecker (Dryocopus pileatus). In The birds of North America, No. 148 (A. Poole and F. Gill, eds.). The Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, PA, and the American Ornithologists’ Union, Washington, D.C. in Robinson, J.C. 2000. California Partners in Flight Coniferous Bird Conservation Plan for the Pileated Woodpecker. USDA Forest Service, 1323 Club Drive, Vallejo, CA. 94592.

Bull. E. L., and Hohmann, J. E. 1993. The Association between Vaux’s Swifts and Oldgrowth Forests in Northeastern Oregon. W. Birds 24:38‐42.

Bull, E.L. and R.S. Holthausen. 1993. Habitat use and management of pileated woodpeckers in northeastern Oregon. Journal of Wildlife Management 57:335‐345.

Bull, E.L., R.S. Holthausen, and M.G. Henjum. 1992. Roost trees used by pileated woodpeckers in northeastern Oregon. Journal of Wildlife Management 56:786‐793.

Busby, P.J., T.C. Wainwright, G.J. Bryant, L.J. Lierheimer, R.S. Waples, F.W. Waknitz, and I.V. Lagomarsino. 1996. Status review for Klamath Mountains Province steelhead. NOAA technical memorandum NMFSNWFSC‐19.

California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). 2000. 2000 Final Environmental Document: Resident Small Game Mammal Hunting. California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento. 153 pp.

CDFG. 2010a. March 18, 2010. California Wildlife Habitat Relationships. Sacramento, CA: California Department of Fish and Game. Available at: www.dfg.ca.gov/whdab/cwhr.

CDFG. 2010b. California Natural Diversity Database. Sacramento, CA: California Department of Fish and Game. Available: <http://www.bios.dfg.ca.gov>.

Csuti, BA. J. Kimerling, T. A. O’Neil, M. M. Shaughnessy, E. P. Gaines, and M. P. Huso.1997. Atlas of Oregon Wildlife. Oregon State University Press, Corvallis, OR.

USDA Forest Service Chapter 7. References



Dixon, R.D. 1995. Density, nest‐site and roost‐site characteristics, home‐range, habitat‐use, and behavior of white‐headed woodpeckers: Deschutes and Winema National Forests, Oregon. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. Nongame Report 93.3.01.

Froese, R. and D. Pauly. Editors. 2002. Fishbase. Worldwide web electronic publication, www.fishbase.org.

Garrett, K.L., M.G. Raphael, and R.D. Dixon. 1996. White‐headed woodpeckers (Picoides albolarvatus). In A. Poole and F. Gill editors. The Birds of North America, No. 252. The American Ornithologists’ Union, Washington, DC; The Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, PA.

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: 387–396.

Hunter, J. E., Fix, D., Schmidt, G. A., and Power, J. C. 2005. Atlas of the Breeding Birds of Humboldt County, California. Redwood Region Audubon Soc., Eureka, CA.

ICF International. 2010. Biological Assessment/Biological Evaluation Specialist Report. Draft. October. (ICF 00760.09.) Bakersfield, CA. Prepared for: USDA Forest Service, Fort Jones, CA.

Jackson, J. A., H. R. Ouellet, and S. B. Jackson. 2002. Hairy woodpecker (Picoides villosus). In A. Poole and F. Gill editors. The Birds of North America, No. 702. The American Ornithologist’ Union, Washington, D.C.; The Academy of NaturSciences, Philadelphia, PA.

Joy, J.B. 2000. Characteristics of nest cavities and nest trees of the red‐breasted sapsucker in coastal montane forests. Journal of Field Ornithology 71:525–530.

Kingery, H. E. 1996. American Dipper, Cinclus mexicanus, in The Birds of North America, No. 229.

Manaan, R.W. 1984. Summer area requirements of pileated woodpeckers in western Oregon. Wildlife Society Bulletin 12:265–268.

Manaan, R.W., E.C. Meslow, and H.M. Wright. 1980. Use of snags by birds in Douglas‐fir forests, western Oregon. Journal of Wildlife Management 44:787‐797.

Mellen, T.K., E.C. Meslow, and R.W. Manaan. 1992. Summertime home range and habitat use of pileated woodpeckers in western Oregon. Journal of Wildlife Management 56:96–103.

Mills, D. 1971. Salmon and Trout: A Resource, Its Ecology, Conservation and Management. Macmillan Co., New York.

Milne, K.A., and Hejl. 1989. Nest‐site characteristics of white‐headed woodpeckers. Journal of Wildlife Management 53:50‐55.

Moyle, P.B. 2002. Inland Fishes of California. University of California Press, Berkeley.

Moyle, P.B. and J.J. Cech, Jr. 2000. Fishes: an introduction to ichthyology. 4th edition. Saddle River, NJ: Prentice‐Hall.

Panjabi, A.O., E.H. Dunn, P.J. Blancher, W.C. Hunter, B. Altman, J. Bart, C.J. Beardmore, H. Berlanga, G.S. Butcher, S.K. Davis, D.W. Demarest, R. Dettmers, W. Easton, H. Gomez de Silva Garza, E.E. Iñigo‐Elias, D.N. Pashley, C J. Ralph, T.D. Rich, K.V. Rosenberg, C.M. Rustay, J.M. Ruth, J.S. Wendt, and T.C. Will. 2005. The Partners in Flight Handbook on Species Assessment. Version 2005.

USDA Forest Service Chapter 7. References



Partners in Flight Technical Series No. 3. Available: <http://www.rmbo.org/pubs/downloads/Handbook2005.pdf>.

Quiñones, Rebecca. September 2006. Rainbow and steelhead trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) Life History and Trend in the Klamath Basin. Unpublished report available from the Klamath National Forest, Yreka, CA.

Raphael, M.G., and M. White. 1984. Use of snags by cavity nesting birds in the Sierra Nevada. Wildlife Monographs 86:1–66.

Reedy, J. 2005. Smith River Adult Trout and Salmon Surveys. California Dept. of Fish and Game. Rushton, K. 2006. California Department of Fish and. Game. Iron Gate adult Steelhead trout Return Data. 1967‐2005. CDFG Iron Gate Hatchery.

Saab, Victoria A.; Dudley, Jonathan G. 1998. Responses of cavity‐nesting birds to standreplacement fire and salvage logging in ponderosa pinelDouglas‐fir forests of southwestern Idaho. Res. Pap. RMRS‐RP‐11. Ogden, UT: U.S:Departmentof Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 17 p.

Saab, V., W. Block, R. Russell, J. Lehmkuhl, L. Bate, and R. White. 2007. Birds and burns of the interior West: descriptions, habitats, and management in western forests. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW GTR‐712. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 23 p.

Sauer, J. R., J. E. Hines, and J. Fallon. 2008. The North American Breeding Bird Survey, Results and Analysis 1966 ‐ 2007. Version 5.15.2008. USGS Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, Laurel, MD. Available: <http://www.mbr‐pwrc.usgs.gov/bbs/bbs.html>.

Stebbins, R.C. 2003. Western Reptiles and Amphibians. 3rd ed. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.

Torgersen, T.R., and E.L. Bull. 1995. Down logs as habitat for forest‐dwelling ants—the primary prey of pileated woodpeckers in northeastern Oregon. Northwest Science 69:294‐302.

USDA Forest Service. 1995. Klamath National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan. Appendix I: Wildlife Habitat Capability Models. Yreka, CA.

Walters, E.L., E.H. Miller, and P.E. Lowther. 2002. Red‐breasted sapsucker (Sphyrapicus ruber). In A. Poole and F. Gill editors. The Birds of North America, No. 663. The American Ornithologists’ Union, Washington, DC; The Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, PA.

Weikel, J. M., and J. P. Hayes. 1999. Foraging ecology of cavity nesting birds in young forests of the northern coast of Oregon. Condor. 101:58–66.

Documents

MANAGEMENT INDICATOR SPECIES (MIS) PECIALIST REPORTa123.g.akamai.net/7/123/11558/abc123/forestservic.download.akamai.… · Project Manager: Tom Henry 5558 California Avenue, Suite