mud springs fuel break projecta123.g.akamai.net/7/123/11558/abc123/forestservic... · mud springs...

Mud Springs Fuel Break Project – Wildlife Biological Evaluation

Mud Springs Fuel Break Project

Wildlife Biological Evaluation

USDA Forest Service

Pacific Southwest Region

Shasta-Trinity National Forest

South Fork Management Unit

May 2012

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The proposed action will have no effect on California wolverines, bald eagles, southern torrent

salamanders, Shasta salamanders, California floaters, topaz jugas, montane peaclams, nugget

pebblesnails, Shasta sideband snails, Wintu sideband snails, Shasta chaparral snails, Tehama

chaparral snails, Shasta Hesperian snails and Pressley Hesperian snails. The proposed action

may affect individual Pacific fishers, American martens, pallid bats, Townsend’s big eared bats,

western red bats, northern goshawks, willow flycatchers, western pond turtles, cascade frogs and

foothill yellow-legged frogs, but potential effects to populations of these species will be minor

and will not cause a trend toward listing for any of these species.


TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction ....................................................................................................................................3

Table 1. Sensitive Species List ....................................................................................................4

Proposed Action ............................................................................................................................5

Species Evaluations .......................................................................................................................6

Mammals .....................................................................................................................................6

Birds ...........................................................................................................................................10

Reptiles .......................................................................................................................................11

Amphibians ................................................................................................................................12

Aquatic and Terrestrial Invertebrates .........................................................................................14

Cumulative Effects .......................................................................................................................15

Contacts and Contributors..........................................................................................................15

Literature Cited ...........................................................................................................................16

Appendix 1. Forest Plan Management Direction .....................................................................22

Appendix 2. Wildlife Resource Protection Measures .............................................................24


I. INTRODUCTION

The USDA Forest Service defines sensitive species as those plant and animal species identified

by a Regional Forester for which population viability is a concern, as evidenced by significant

current or predicted downward trends in population numbers or density, or significant current or

predicted downward trends in habitat capability that would reduce the distribution of the species.

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

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

The purpose of this biological evaluation is to assess the potential effects of the proposed Mud

Springs Fuel Break Project in sufficient detail to determine if it may affect sensitive wildlife

species and cause a trend toward listing under the federal Endangered Species Act. The

Sensitive Species List for the Pacific Southwest Region was updated in October, 2007, and the

sensitive wildlife species evaluated in this document are displayed in Table 1. This analysis is

based on information collected from Forest databases and numerous site visits to the project area.

Eight sensitive wildlife species are also designated as Survey and Manage species (Table 1).

They are addressed in this document using the analysis criteria that apply to Forest Service

Sensitive species. They are also addressed in the Wildlife Survey and Manage Report for this

project (see project record), using the analysis criteria that apply to Survey and Manage species.

The Shasta-Trinity National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan) provides

additional protection to sensitive species in the form of management goals to maintain or

increase existing viable populations of sensitive species (pp. 3-26, 4-5). It also includes

Standards and Guidelines, management direction pertaining to individual species of wildlife, and

specific management direction for each Management Area on the Forest. The Forest Plan

provisions pertinent to this proposed action are listed in Appendix 1 of this document.


Table 1. Sensitive Species list - USDA Forest Service Pacific Southwest Region

Common name Scientific name Also a Survey

and Manage

species (Y/N)? MAMMALS

Pacific fisher Martes pennanti pacifica N

American marten Martes americana N

California wolverine Gulo gulo luteus N

Pallid bat Antrozous pallidus N

Townsend’s big-eared bat Corynorhinus townsendii N

Western red bat Lasiurus blossevillii N

BIRDS

Bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus N

Northern goshawk Accipiter gentilis N

Willow flycatcher Empidonax traillii N

REPTILES

Western pond turtle Clemmys marmorata marmorata N

AMPHIBIANS

Cascade frog Rana cascadae N

Foothill yellow-legged frog Rana boylii N

Southern torrent salamander Rhyacotriton variegatus N

Shasta salamander Hydromantes shastae Y

AQUATIC AND TERRESTRIAL INVERTEBRATES

California floater Anodonta californiensis N

Topaz juga Juga (Calibasis)acutifilosa N

Montane peaclam Pisidium (Cyclocalyx) ultramontanum N

Nugget pebblesnail Fluminicola seminalis Y

Shasta sideband snail Monadenia troglodytes troglodytes Y

Wintu sideband snail Monadenia troglodytes wintu Y

Shasta chaparral snail Trilobopsis roperi Y

Tehama chaparral snail Trilobopsis tehamana Y

Pressley (Big Bar) Hesperian snail Vespericola pressleyi Y

Shasta Hesperian snail Vespericola Shasta Y


II. PROPOSED ACTION

The Shasta-Trinity National Forest, South Fork Management Unit proposes to treat

approximately 256 acres of forested stands to the south and west of the community of

Post Mountain (Trinity Pines). The purpose of the project is to protect resource and

property loss from wildland fire that may originate on either public or private land

holding. The need for the action is to create more favorable fuels conditions along the

boundary of public and private lands to increase fire suppression capability, and to

provide for firefighter and public safety. A more detailed description of the proposed

action can be found in the project Decision Memorandum (see project record).

Proposed treatments are as follows:

Pre-Commercial Thinning/Ladder Fuel Reduction (PCT/LFR) – Thin trees up to 8”

DBH to 20-foot (110 TPA) spacing. This will reduce vertical continuity and crown fire

initiation.

o Direct effects- Killing of smaller diameter trees.

o Indirect effects- Opening up the forest may increase ground cover.

Pruning – After thinning prune the lower limbs from residual trees to raise the canopy

base height to eight feet or half the live crown. This will reduce crown fire initiation.

o Direct effect- Decrease ladder fuels without removing larger trees that provide

shade.

o Indirect effect – Increased fuel loading on the ground.

Hand Piling- Hand pile activity fuel from thinning and pruning into piles

approximately 5’X5’X5’. This will break up horizontal continuity of ground

fuels, reducing fire spread.

o Direct effects- increase in surface fuels.

o Indirect effects- Creating wildlife piles.

Hand pile burning – Burning of handpiles will occur when conditions favor low

intensity fires to protect soils and residual trees. This lowers flame lengths, spotting, and

adverse soil affects.

o Direct effects- Short term hydrophobic soils, scorching of some

standing trees.

o Indirect effects- Downwind smoke concerns and visibility issues.

Utilization – Utilize slash whenever possible (Fuel wood, wood chips, etc.)

o Direct effect-Decrease fuel loading on the ground.

o Indirect effect-Less slash to pile and burn and lower emissions.


The fuel treatments will reduce down, dead wood in all size classes; raise the crown

base height, decrease ladder fuels, and lower the fuel bed depth over the treatment area.

Regularly scheduled maintenance will be required to maintain the effectiveness of these

treatments. These activities will be analyzed under subsequent NEPA documentation.

III. SPECIES EVALUATIONS

Pacific fisher (Martes pennanti pacifica)

Species account: Pacific fishers are most closely associated with late successional and old

growth conifer forests throughout their range, with California populations showing a

preference for riparian areas (Powell 1993, Powell and Zielinski 1994, Freel 1991).

Numerous studies have documented that resting/denning fishers in the western United States

favor forest stands with large trees, large snags, coarse woody-debris, dense canopy closure,

multiple-canopy layers, large diameter hardwoods, and steep slopes near water (Powell and

Zielinski 1994; Seglund 1995; Dark 1997; Truex et al. 1998; Self and Kerns 2001; Aubry et

al. 2002; Carroll et al. 1999; Mazzoni 2002; Yeager 2005, Zielinski et al. 2004b). Resting

and denning trees must be large enough to bear the type of stresses that initiate cavities, and

the type of ecological processes (e.g., decay, woodpecker activity) that form cavities of

sufficient size to be useful to fishers (Zielinski et al. 2004b). Yeager (2005) also found that

on the Shasta-Trinity National Forest (STNF) fisher favored resting locations away from

roads and human disturbance. Pacific fishers are opportunistic predators with a diverse diet

that includes birds, squirrels, mice, shrews, voles, reptiles, insects, carrion, vegetation and

fruit, and they forage in a wide variety of habitats (seral stages) associated with this diverse

prey base (Powell 1993; Martin 1994; Zielinski et al. 1999).

Effects determination: Pacific fishers have been observed across the South Fork

Management Unit. Forest databases include no observations within the project units, but

numerous observations in the vicinity. STNF vegetation databases indicate there are

approximately 162 acres of suitable Pacific fisher habitat within project units (all high-

quality), and 241 acres of suitable habitat within 0.25 miles of project units (217 acres high-

quality and 24 acres medium-quality habitat). Although the land adjacent to the project area

is heavily roaded with many rural residences, some of the acres identified as suitable may be

used by fishers despite the level of human development in the area.

Project activities are not expected to cause any decrease in habitat suitability for this species.

Snags will be retained, and only very small trees will be removed. Project activities are not

expected to negatively affect food availability to fishers. Changes in vegetation will be

minimal, and post-implementation vegetative conditions are expected to be favorable to

fisher prey species. Mechanical thinning, pruning and pile burning may cause some

disturbance to Pacific fishers in the project area and vicinity (0.25 miles), but these effects

will be short in duration. Based on these factors, it is my determination that the proposed

action may affect individual Pacific fishers, but the potential effects are very limited

and short-term, and will not cause a trend toward listing.

American marten (Martes americana)


Species account: On the STNF this species is associated with higher elevation (>4,500 feet)

late-successional red-fir stands (Buskirk and Powell 1994; Freel 1991), and to a lesser extent

with lower elevation conifer forest habitats similar to fisher habitat. Marten stand-level

habitat characteristics are the same as those discussed previously for fisher resting/denning

habitat. The presence of fishers often excludes martens from the area (Buskirk and Powell

1994; Krohn et al. 1997; Small et al. 2003; Ruggierra et al. 2007). Habitat stratification

appears to occur between these species, with marten occupying the higher elevations that

support greater snow loads throughout winter months. To persist in deep snow, martens rely

on subnivean (below snow level) hunting strategies, facilitated by high amounts of dead and

down woody material and other ground level cover components that form protected and

connected travelways beneath the snow surface. Extensive survey work on the STNF using

techniques suitable for detecting martens detected numerous fishers but no martens (Yeager

2005; Zielinski et al. 2004b; Seglund 1995).

Effects determination: American martens have not been observed in the project area. The

nearest recorded observation was approximately 3 miles to the northwest. Maximum

elevation in the project area is approximately 3,700 feet, which is lower than typical habitats

for this species. STNF vegetation databases indicate there are approximately 106 acres of

suitable American marten habitat within project units (all low in quality), and 857 acres of

suitable habitat within 0.25 miles of project units (all low in quality). However, the adjacent

area is heavily roaded, with numerous rural residences, and fishers have been observed

repeatedly in the vicinity. As a result, American martens are unlikely to inhabit this area. If

they do use the project area, project activities will cause no decrease in habitat suitability for

this species. Only very small trees will be removed, and snags will be retained. Project

activities are not expected to negatively affect food availability to martens. Changes in

vegetation will be minimal, and post-implementation vegetative conditions are expected to be

favorable to marten prey species. Mechanical thinning, pruning and pile burning may cause

some disturbance to American martens in the project area and vicinity, but these effects will

be short in duration. Based on these factors, it is my determination that the proposed

action may affect individual American martens, but the potential effects are very

limited and short-term, and will not cause a trend toward listing.

California wolverine (Gulo gulo luteus)

Species account: Coniferous forests are the primary habitats of wolverines, but they also

make significant use of alpine habitats (Banci 1994). In north coastal areas, wolverines were

historically observed in Douglas-fir and mixed conifer habitats, and likely also used red fir,

lodgepole, wet meadow, and montane riparian habitats. They are opportunistic feeders that

primarily scavenge carrion, but also eat fruit and insects and prey on small animals (USDI

Fish and Wildlife Service 2003). Wolverine home ranges are generally extremely large, and

availability and distribution of food is considered a primary factor in determining wolverine

movements and home range. Wolverines appear to select areas that are free of significant

human disturbance, especially during the denning period from late winter through early

spring (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2003).

In California, wolverines historically occurred throughout the Sierra Nevada, Cascade,

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


(Schempf and White 1977). Zeiner et al. (1990) noted the wolverine is a scarce resident of

North Coast mountains and the Sierra Nevada. Sightings have ranged from Del Norte and

Trinity Counties, east through Siskiyou and Shasta counties in the Coast Range, and south

through Tulare County. Most reported sightings in this region range from 1600 to 4800 feet

in elevation, according to California Department of Fish and game records from 2005. There

have been unconfirmed wolverine sightings reported on the Shasta-Trinity National Forest

over the past 20 years, but no documented observations. Surveys conducted in California

over that time span using remote cameras and track plate surveys, including survey sites on

the Shasta-Trinity National Forest, have resulted in only one confirmed observation in the

state, on the Tahoe National Forest in February, 2008 (Heil et al. 2008), and the project area

is outside the current known range of this species (California Department of Fish and Game

2010).

Effects determination: There have been no documented occurrences of wolverines on the

STNF for the last 20 years. If wolverines do occur on the Forest, it is highly unlikely they

inhabit this project area. Road density and human usage is high compared to the interior

portions of remote areas such as the Trinity Alps and Yolla Bolly Wilderness Areas, which

are much more likely to provide the large secluded areas this species requires. In addition,

the proposed action will not modify the suitability of any California wolverine habitat or

affect the likelihood of occurrence of this species. Based on these factors, it is my

determination that the proposed action will have no effect on California wolverines.

Pallid bat (Antrozous pallidus)

Species account: The pallid bat has a wide distribution throughout the western United States,

and can be abundant in many arid, low elevation regions (Sherwin and Rambaldini 2005).

They roost in deep crevices in rock faces, caves, mines, bridges, cavities in trees, and

occasionally in open buildings. Roosts protect bats from high temperatures. Pallid bats feed

almost entirely on the ground, commonly preying on crickets, grasshoppers, beetles and

scorpions. They are colonial and tend to hibernate in deep rock crevices and caves rather

than migrating (Tuttle 1997).

Effects determination: STNF records show no observations of pallid bats in the project area.

The nearest recorded observation was approximately 9 miles to the east. Habitat in the

project area may potentially be suitable for this species. If so, project activities are not

expected to cause any decrease in habitat suitability. Removal of roost sites is unlikely.

Caves, cliffs and rock crevices will not be affected, only very small trees will be removed,

and snags will be retained. Project activities are not expected to negatively affect insect

availability to pallid bats. Changes in vegetation will be minimal, and post-implementation

vegetative conditions are expected to be favorable to pallid bat prey species. Mechanical

thinning, pruning and burning may cause some disturbance to pallid bats in the project area

and vicinity, but these effects will be short in duration. Based on these factors, it is my

determination that the proposed action may affect individual pallid bats, but the

potential effects are limited and short in duration, and will not cause a trend toward

listing.

Townsend’s big-eared bat (Corynorhinus townsendii)


Species account: This species occupies a variety of habitats ranging from coniferous forests

and woodlands to deciduous riparian woodlands, semi-desert and montane shrublands.

Townsend’s big-eared bats are strongly correlated with the availability of caves and cave-like

roosting habitat, although they also make use of man-made structures such as abandoned

buildings, water diversion tunnels, and bridges (USDA Forest Service 1998; Zeiner 1990;

Arizona Game and Fish Department 1993). This species feeds primarily on small moths and

appears to show a preference for foraging along edges of riparian vegetation where conifers

and deciduous riparian species support Lepidopteran prey species (Fellers and Pierson 2002,

Arizona Game and Fish Department 1993).

Effects determination: STNF records show no observations of Townsend’s big-eared bats in

or near the project area. The nearest recorded observation was approximately 9 miles to the

northeast. If Townsend’s big-eared bats do use the project area, project activities are not

expected to cause any decrease in habitat suitability for this species. Removal of roost sites

is unlikely. Caves, cliffs and rock crevices will not be affected, only very small trees will be

removed, and snags will be retained. Project activities are not expected to negatively affect

food availability to this species. Changes in vegetation will be minimal, and post-

implementation vegetative conditions are expected to be favorable to Townsend’s big-eared

bat insect prey species. Mechanical thinning, pruning and pile burning may cause some

disturbance to Townsend’s big-eared bats in the project area and vicinity, but these effects

will be short in duration. Based on these factors, it is my determination that the proposed

action may affect individual Townsend’s big-eared bats, but the potential effects are

limited and short in duration, and will not cause a trend toward listing.

Western red bat (Lasiurus blossevillii)

Species account: Western red bats are typically solitary, roosting primarily in the foliage of

trees and shrubs and feeding on a variety of insects (Bolster 2005). Their day roosts are

commonly in edge habitats adjacent to streams or open fields, in orchards, and sometimes in

urban areas. There is an association with intact riparian habitat, particularly willows,

cottonwoods, and sycamores (Bolster 2005). Red bats are locally common in some areas of

California, occurring from Shasta County to the Mexican border, west of the Sierra

Nevada/Cascade crest and deserts (Zeiner et al. 1990).

Effects determination: STNF records show no observations of Western red bats within 15

miles of the project area, but habitat in the project area may potentially be suitable for this

species. If Western red bats do inhabit the project area, vegetation removal may have some

effect on roost sites. However, the limited extent of vegetation removal will limit its effect

on availability of roost sites to this species. Project activities are not expected to negatively

affect insect availability to Western red bats. Changes in vegetation will be minimal, and

post-implementation vegetative conditions are expected to be favorable to Western red bat

prey species. Mechanical thinning, pruning and pile burning may cause some disturbance to

Western red bats in the project area and vicinity, but these effects will be short in duration.

Based on these factors, it is my determination that the proposed action may affect

individual Western red bats, but the potential effects are very limited, and will not

cause a trend toward listing.


Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus)

Species account: On the STNF Bald eagles typically utilize large trees protected from

disturbance for nests, and late successional and old growth forests relatively close to large

rivers or lakes for winter roosting sites. Their primary food source is fish, which are taken

live or as carrion (Anthony et al. 1992; USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 1986). On the STNF

many large conifers provide potential nest sites on slopes overlooking Trinity Lake, Lewiston

Lake, and the Trinity River.

Effects determination: STNF records show no bald eagle nest sites in or near the project

area. The nearest recorded observation was approximately 9 miles to the northwest, and

there are no large bodies of water suitable for bald eagles in the project area. The proposed

activities will also have no effect on habitat suitability for this species. Based on these

factors, it is my determination that the proposed action will have no effect on bald

eagles.

Northern goshawk (Accipiter gentilis)

Species account: Northern goshawks primarily occupy ponderosa pine, mixed-species, and

spruce-fir forests. They prefer late successional and old growth conifer forests and slopes

generally less than 35 percent, and may be susceptible to disturbance during the breeding

season. Northern goshawks build stick nests, typically 25-50 feet off the ground, and

aggressively defend nest sites. They are opportunistic predators, preying mostly on birds and

small mammals. Many habitats suitable for northern spotted owls are likely to provide

suitable habitat for northern goshawks (USDA Forest Service 1998, Hall 1984; Squires and

Reynolds 1997; Reynolds et al. 1992).

Effects determination: STNF records show no observations of this species within the project

area but numerous observations in the vicinity. The nearest recorded observation was

approximately 1.8 miles to the northeast. STNF vegetation databases indicate there are

approximately 246 acres of suitable northern goshawk habitat within project units (47 acres

medium-quality and 199 acres low-quality habitat), and 1,816 acres of suitable habitat within

0.25 miles of project units (195 acres medium-quality and 1,621 acres low-quality habitat).

The proposed action is unlikely to have a negative effect on habitat suitability for northern

goshawks. Only very small trees will be removed, and snags will be retained. This is likely

to improve goshawk foraging opportunities by facilitating pursuit of prey through the forest

understory. Project activities are not expected to negatively affect food availability to

goshawks. Changes in vegetation will be minimal, and post-implementation vegetative

conditions are expected to be favorable to goshawk prey species. Mechanical thinning,

pruning and pile burning may cause some disturbance to northern goshawks in the project

area and vicinity, but these effects will be short in duration. A Limited Operation Period

(February 1 through July 31) has been incorporated into the project design to avoid

disturbance to northern spotted owls during their breeding season. This will apply to all

activities producing loud and continuous noise or smoke that will potentially disturb spotted

owls. This protection measure will further decrease potential effects to northern goshawks

during their breeding season. Based on these factors, it is my determination that the

proposed action may affect individual northern goshawks, but the potential effects are

limited and short in duration, and will not cause a trend toward listing.


Willow flycatcher (Empidonax traillii)

Species account: Willow flycatchers are restricted to river corridors and moist or wet shrubby

habitats in the arid West. Sedgwick (2000) quoted Grinnell and Miller (1944) as concluding

that in California it is “strikingly restricted to thickets of willows, whether along streams in

broad valleys, in canyon bottoms, around mountain-side seepages, or at the margins of ponds

and lakes”. Today it is absent from most of California, with currently known breeding

locations restricted primarily to the Sierra Nevada/Cascade region (southeast Shasta County

south to north Kern County, including Alpine, Inyo, and Mono Counties), and Santa Barbara,

Riverside, and San Diego Counties (Sedgwick 2000).

Effects determination: STNF records show no observations of this species in or near the

project area. The nearest recorded observation was approximately 22 miles to the north.

Vegetation removal in riparian habitats may potentially affect habitat suitability for this

species. However, only very small trees will be removed, and any resulting effects to willow

flycatcher populations will likely be very limited in scope and intensity. Mechanical

thinning, pruning and burning may cause some disturbance to willow flycatchers in the

project area and vicinity, but these effects will be short in duration. A Limited Operation

Period (February 1 through July 31) has been incorporated into the project design to avoid

disturbance to northern spotted owls during their breeding season. This will apply to all

activities producing loud and continuous noise or smoke that will potentially disturb spotted

owls. This protection measure will further decrease potential effects to willow flycatchers.

Based on these factors, it is my determination that the proposed action may affect

individual willow flycatchers, but the potential effects are very limited and will not


Western pond turtle (Clemmys marmorata marmorata)

Species account: Western pond turtles occur in a variety of habitat types associated with

permanent or nearly permanent water. They concentrate in ponds and low flow regions of

rivers and creeks such as side channels and backwater areas, and prefer creeks that have

deep, still water and sunny banks. Basking sites such as rocks and partially submerged logs

are important habitat components. Western pond turtles are omnivorous, but their diet

typically consists primarily of insects, crayfish and other aquatic invertebrates (Jennings and

Hayes 1994, Holland 1991, Wilson et al. 1991). During the spring or summer females may

travel great distances away from ponds to find sites suitable for nesting, although the travel

distance to most nest sites is <300 meters. Dry grassy areas are used as nest sites. The

young emerge the following spring (March-April) and travel from nest sites to watercourses

(Jennings and Hayes 1994, Zeiner et al. 1988; Reynolds et al. 1992, Holland 1991). In warm

climates they may be active year-round, but in colder areas they hibernate in the winter in

bottom mud or in upland areas, including forested areas. These upland hibernation sites can

occur as far as 500 meters from occupied aquatic habitat (Jennings and Hayes 1994, Reese

and Welsh 1998).

Effects determination: STNF records show no observations of this species in the project

area. The nearest recorded observation was approximately 34 miles to the southeast. The

streams in the project area are tributaries of Hayfork Creek, and although this species is more


commonly found in larger waterways, there is some limited potential for suitable western

pond turtle habitat to exist in standing or slow-moving water in the watercourses present in

the project area.

If western pond turtles do use the project area, mechanical activities may affect this species

by disturbing individual turtles, and it could possibly injure or kill individual turtles. These

potential effects to western pond turtle populations will be short in duration, and protection

measures for riparian habitats will reduce potential effects to individual turtles. Riparian

protection measures will also reduce potential indirect effects to both aquatic and riparian

habitats. A Limited Operation Period (February 1 through July 31) has been incorporated

into the project design to avoid disturbance to northern spotted owls during their breeding

season. This will apply to all activities producing loud and continuous noise or smoke that

will potentially disturb spotted owls. This protection measure will further decrease potential

effects to female Western pond turtles traveling to nesting sites and young turtles traveling

from nest sites. Based on these factors, it is my determination that the proposed action

may affect individual western pond turtles, but the potential effects are limited in scale

and duration and will not cause a trend toward listing.

Cascade Frog (Rana cascadae)

Species account: Cascade frogs inhabit high-altitude ponds, lakes, and streams within open

coniferous forests from Washington to northern California. They can survive in ephemeral

water bodies where at least some substrate remains saturated. Open, shallow water that

remains unshaded during the hours of strong sunlight provide egg-laying sites. Cascade

frogs hibernate in bottom mud in winter (Briggs 1987, Jennings and Hayes 1994, USDA

Forest Service 1998). This species is believed to be relatively abundant in the Trinity Alps

Wilderness (Fellers et al. 2007).

Effects determination: STNF records show no observations of cascade frogs in or near the

project area. The nearest recorded observation was approximately 62 miles to the northeast.

The maximum elevation in the project area is approximately 3,700 feet. If cascade frogs do

inhabit the project area, mechanical activities may affect this species by disturbing individual

frogs, and it could possibly injure or kill individual frogs in or near riparian habitats. These

potential effects to Cascade frog populations will be short in duration, and protection

measures for riparian habitats will reduce potential effects to individual Cascade frogs.

Riparian protection measures will also reduce potential indirect effects to both aquatic and

riparian habitats. Based on these factors, it is my determination that the proposed action

may affect individual cascade frogs, but the potential effects are limited in scale and

duration and will not cause a trend toward listing.

Foothill yellow-legged frog (Rana boylii)

Species account: Foothill yellow-legged frogs are found in or near permanent rocky streams

in a variety of habitats, including ponderosa pine, mixed conifer and mixed chaparral. They

are highly aquatic, spending most or all of their life in or near streams. They require shallow,

flowing water, and display an apparent preference for small to moderate-sized streams with

at least some cobble-sized substrate. They breed in shallow, slow flowing water with only

partial shading. Insects are likely the primary food source for adults (Jennings and Hayes


1994, USDA Forest Service 1998, Zeiner 1988). Adult foothill yellow-legged frogs are often

seen breeding in pools on the main stem of the Trinity River in spring and moving to basking

and foraging sites in the tributaries in the summer. This species is widely distributed across

the Trinity portion of the STNF.

Effects determination: STNF records show no observations of foothill yellow-legged frogs in

or near the project area. The nearest recorded observation was 4 miles to the northeast. If

foothill yellow-legged frogs do use the project area, mechanical activities may affect this

species by disturbing individual frogs, and it could possibly injure or kill individual frogs in

or near riparian habitats. These potential effects to foothill yellow-legged frog populations

will be short in duration, and protection measures for riparian habitats will reduce potential

effects to individual foothill yellow-legged frogs. Riparian protection measures will also

reduce potential indirect effects to both aquatic and riparian habitats. Based on these factors,

it is my determination that the proposed action may affect individual foothill yellow-

legged frogs, but the potential effects are limited in scale and duration and will not


Southern torrent salamander (Rhyacotriton variegatus)

Species account: Southern torrent salamanders occur in aquatic habitats of conifer forests in

the Coast Range from Mendocino County, California to northwestern Oregon. They occur in

springs, seeps, small streams, and margins of larger streams, where they avoid open water

and seek the cover of moss, rocks, and organic debris in shallow, cold water (Welsh and Lind

1996, Jennings and Hayes 1994). They occur within a relatively narrow range of physical

and microclimatic conditions. They are associated with cold, clear headwater to low-order

streams with loose rocky substrates (low sedimentation) in humid forest habitats with large

conifers, abundant moss, and greater than 80% canopy closure. Adults eat mostly

amphipods, springtails and insect larvae (Jennings and Hayes 1994). The southern torrent

salamander demonstrates an ecological dependence on streamside conditions of microclimate

and habitat structure that in northwestern California are typically best created, stabilized, and

maintained within late seral forests (Welsh and Lind 1996, Jennings and Hayes 1994).

Effects determination: STNF records show no recorded observations in or near the project

area, and the project area is likely outside the range of this species. Southern torrent

salamanders are closely associated with coastal areas, and the project area is approximately

60 miles from the Pacific Coast. Vegetation in the project area is also not suitable for this

species. The forest is relatively dry and moss is rare. Based on these factors, it is my

determination that the proposed action will have no effect on southern torrent

salamanders.

Shasta salamander (Hydromantes shastae), California floater (Anodonta californiensis), topaz

juga (Juga [Calibasis]acutifilosa), montane peaclam (Pisidium [Cyclocalyx] ultramontanum),

nugget pebble snail (Fluminicola seminalis), Shasta sideband snail (Monadenia troglodytes

troglodytes), Wintu sideband snail (Monadenia troglodytes wintu), Shasta chaparral snail

(Monadenia troglodytes troglodytes), Tehama chaparral snail (Trilobopsis tehamana) and

Shasta Hesperian snail (Vespericola Shasta).


Species accounts: Shasta salamanders inhabit moist rocky areas such as limestone outcrops.

Their distribution is limited to a small area near Lake Shasta, California (USDA Forest

Service 1998). California floaters are aquatic mollusks associated with lakes and slow rivers.

Their distribution on the STNF is restricted to the Fall and Pit River systems in Shasta

County (Furnish 2007). Topaz jugas are aquatic mollusks associated with large springs and

their outflows. Their distribution on the Shasta-Trinity National Forest (STNF) is restricted

to Siskiyou County (Furnish 2007). Montane peaclams are aquatic mollusks associated with

sand-gravel substrates. There are historical records of this species from the Pit River system,

but there are no known extant populations on the STNF (Furnish 2007, USDI Bureau of Land

Management 1997). Nugget pebblesnails are aquatic mollusks typically associated with

large streams that have gravel-cobble substrate and clear, flowing water. Their distribution is

limited to the area around Lake Shasta, California (Furnish 2007, USDA Forest Service and

USDI Bureau of Land Management 1999). Shasta sideband snails and Wintu sideband snails

are associated with limestone areas including caves and talus slopes. Their distribution on

the STNF is limited to the area east of Shasta Lake, California (USDI Bureau of Land

Management 1999). Shasta chaparral snails are associated primarily with rockslides. Their

distribution on the STNF is limited to the area east of Shasta Lake, California (USDI Bureau

of Land Management 1999). Tehama chaparral snails are associated with rocky talus areas.

Their distribution on the STNF is limited to the area east of Shasta Lake, California (USDI

Bureau of Land Management 1999). Shasta Hesperian snails inhabit moist bottomlands and

caves around Lake Shasta, California (USDI Bureau of Land Management 1999).

Effects determinations: The project area lies outside the known range of all of these species

(USDI Bureau of Land Management 1999, USDA Forest Service 1998). Based on this

factor, it is my determination that the proposed action will have no effect on any of these

species.

Pressley (Big Bar) Hesperian snail (Vespericola pressleyi)

Species account: Pressley (Big Bar) Hesperian snails inhabit conifer and/or hardwood forest

habitat in permanently damp areas within 200 meters of seeps, springs and stable streams.

Herbaceous vegetation and leaf litter are common habitat elements associated with this

species. Woody debris and rock refugia near water are used by the species during dry and

cold periods (USDI Bureau of Land Management 1999, Roth 1985).

Effects determination: STNF records show no observations of this species in the project

area. The nearest recorded occurrence is approximately 5 miles to the west. Ground

disturbing activities will not occur in any permanently damp areas within 200 meters of

seeps, springs and stable streams; therefore no suitable habitat for this species will be

affected. Based on these factors, it is my determination that the proposed action will

have no effect on Pressley (Big Bar) Hesperian snails.

IV. CUMULATIVE EFFECTS

Analysis of cumulative effects under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) addresses

the impact on the environment that results from the incremental impact of the proposed action


when added to other past, present and reasonable foreseeable future actions, regardless of which

agency (federal or non-federal) or person undertakes these actions (40 CFR 1508.7). The

cumulative effects analysis is bound in space and time to properly evaluate these potential

incremental impacts. To encompass potentially affected individuals of Forest Service Sensitive

species, this analysis is bounded in space to include all areas within 1.3 miles of treatment areas.

Temporal bounding is 20 years to encompass the implementation timeline and full re-growth of

any affected habitats.

The proposed action will have no effect on California wolverines, bald eagles, southern torrent

salamanders, Shasta salamanders, California floaters, topaz jugas, montane peaclams, nugget

pebblesnails, Shasta sideband snails, Wintu sideband snails, Shasta chaparral snails, Tehama

chaparral snails, Shasta Hesperian snails and Pressley Hesperian snails. The proposed action

may affect individual Pacific fishers, American martens, pallid bats, Townsend’s big eared bats,

western red bats, northern goshawks, willow flycatchers, western pond turtles, cascade frogs and

foothill yellow-legged frogs, but potential effects to populations of these species will be minor

and will not cause a trend toward listing for any of these species.

Adjacent lands to the north and east of the project area are primarily private rural residences.

Reasonably foreseeable future actions on these lands include potential small-scale timber harvest

and agriculture. Other ongoing activities on private and federal lands in the analysis area include

annual road maintenance, recreation use and fire suppression. Effects of this project on wildlife

are expected to be minor and short in duration, particularly the potential effects to suitable

habitats. When the potential effects of this project are added to the potential effects of current

and foreseeable future actions, the cumulative effects are expected to be minor and short-term,

and not lead to a trend toward federal listing of any Forest Service Region 5 Sensitive species.

V. CONTACTS AND CONTRIBUTORS

Ken Boucher, Fuels Planner, Shasta-Trinity National Forest

Shalonda Guy, NEPA Planner, Shasta-Trinity National Forest

Kelly Wolcott, Wildlife Biologist, Shasta-Trinity National Forest

Becky Rogers, Wildlife Technician, Shasta-Trinity National Forest

Tom Quinn, Wildlife Biologist, Shasta-Trinity National Forest

VI. LITERATURE CITED

Anthony, R.G., R.L. Knight, G.T. Allen, B.R. McClelland and J.I. Hoges. 1992. Habitat use by

nesting and roosting bald eagles in the Pacific Northwest. Trans. N. Am. Wildl. Nat. Res. Conf.

68pp.

Arizona Game and Fish Department. 1993. Arizona Wildlife Views Special Heritage Edition,

Bats of Arizona. Vol. 36, No. 8. 36 p. Phoenix, AZ.


Aubry, K.B., C.M. Raley, T.J. Catton and G.W. Tomb. 2002. Ecological characteristics of

fishers in the southern Oregon Cascade Range: final progress report: 1 June 2002. Olympia

(WA): USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station.

Banci, V. 1994. Wolverine. In: Ruggiero, L.F.; Aubry, K.B.; Buskirk, S.W.; Lyon, L.J.;

Zielinski, W.J., tech. eds. The scientific basis of conserving forest carnivores, American marten,

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

CO: USDA, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experimental Station, pp. 99-

123.

Blakesley, J.A., Franklin, A.B., and R.J. Gutiérrez. 1992. Spotted owl roost and nest site

selection in northwestern California. Journal of Wildlife Management, 56(2):388-392.

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

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

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

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

Buskirk, S.W. and R.A. Powell. 1994. Habitat ecology of fishers and American martens. In:

Buskirk S.W., A.S. Harestad, M.G. Raphael and R.A. Powell (eds). Martens, sables and fishers:

biology and conservation. Ithaca (NY): Cornell University Press. Pp. 283-296.

California Department of Fish and Game. 2010. California wolverine range map at

http://www.dfg.ca.gov/biogeodata/cwhr/cawildlife.aspx.

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

spatial habitat models for the fisher in the Klamath region, USA. Conservation Biology

13(6):1344-59.

Dark, S.J. 1997. A landscape-scale analysis of mammalian carnivore distribution and habitat use

by fisher [MSc thesis]. Arcata (CA): Humboldt State University.

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

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

Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management.

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

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

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

Forsman, E.D., Meslow, E.C., and H.M. Wight. 1984. Distribution and biology of the spotted

owl in Oregon. Wildlife Monographs 87:1-64.

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

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

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

http://www.dfg.ca.gov/biogeodata/cwhr/cawildlife.aspx


Frest and Johannes. 1996.

Grinnell, J. and A.H. Miller. 1944. The distribution of birds of California. Pacific Coast

Avifauna 27.

Hall, P. 1984. Characteristics of nesting habitat of goshawks in northern California. M.S.

Thesis. Humboldt State University, Arcata, CA. 70pp.

Heil, J., A. Westling, R. Giller and S. Martarano. 2008. Additional evidence of wolverine found

in the Tahoe National Forest. Tahoe National Forest news release, March 21, 2008.

Holland, D.C. 1991. A synopsis of the Ecology and Status of the Western Pond Turtle

(Clemmys marmorata) in 1991. Prepared for the United States Fish and Wildlife Service,

National Ecology Research Center, San Simeon Field Station. 141pp.

IUCN, Conservation International, and NatureServe. 2004. Global Amphibian Assessment.

IUCN, Conservation International, and NatureServe. Washington, DC and Arlington, Virginia,

USA.

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

California. California Department of Fish and Game. 255 pp.

Krohn, W.B., W.J. Zielinski and R.B. Boone. 1997. Relations among fishers, snow and martens

in California: Results from small-scale spatial comparisons, pp. 211-232. In: Proulx, G., Bryant,

H. N., and Woodard, P. M., Martes: taxonomy, ecology, techniques, and management. Provincial

Museum of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada.

LaHaye, W.S. and R.J. Gutiérrez. 1999. Nest sites and nesting habitat of the northern spotted

owl in northwestern California. Condor 101(2):324-330.

Martin, S.K. 1994. Feeding ecology of American martens and fishers. In: Buskirk S.W., A.S.

Harestad, M.G. Raphael and R.A. Powell, eds. Martens, sables and fishers: biology and

conservation. Ithaca (NY): Cornell University Press. Pp. 297-315.

Mazzoni, A.K. 2002. Habitat use by fishers (Martes pennanti) in the southern Sierra Nevada

[MSc thesis]. Fresno (CA): California State University.

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

eared bat (Corynorhinus townsendii) in coastal California. Journal of Mammalogy: February

2002, Vol. 83, No. 1, pp. 167-177.

Powel, R.A. and W.J. Zielinski. 1994. Fisher. In: Ruggiero, L.F.; K.B Aubry, S.W. Buskirk,

L.J. Lyon and W.J. Zielinski, tech. eds. The scientific basis of conserving forest carnivores,

American marten, fisher, lynx, and wolverine in the Western United States. Gen. Tech. Rep.

RM-254. Ft. Collins, CO: U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and

Range Experimental Station, pp. 38-73.


Powell, R. A. 1993. The fisher: life history, ecology and behavior. 2nd

ed. Minneapolis:

University of Minnesota Press.

Reese, D.A. and H.H. Welsh. 1998. Habitat use by western pond turtles in the Trinity River,

California. Journal of Wildlife Management; (62)3:842-53.

Reynolds, R.T., R.T. Graham, M.H. Reiser, R.L. Bassett, P.L. Kennedy, D.A. Boyce, G.

Goodwin, R. Smith, and E.L. Fisher. 1992. Management Recommendations for the Northern

Goshawk in the Southwestern United States. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report

RM-217.

Roth, B. 1985. A new species of Vespericola (Gastropoda: Pulmonata: Polygyridae) from the

Klamath Mountains, California. Wasmann Journal of Biology, volume 42 (for 1984), number 1-

2, pages 84-91, April 8.

Ruggierra, L.F., K.B. Aubry, S.W. Buskirk, L.J. Lyon and W.J. Zielinski, American Fisher,

Marten, Lynx and wolverine: The Scientific Basis for Conserving Forest Carnivores in the

Western United States. PSW-GTR-RM-254. 2007. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest

Research Station.

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

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

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

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

Seglund, A.E. 1995. The use of rest sites by the Pacific fisher [MSc thesis]. Arcata (CA):

Humboldt State University. 66 pp.

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

California. Sierra Pacific Research and Monitoring. Wildlife Research Paper No 6.

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

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

Small, M.P., K.D. Stone and J.A. Cook. 2003. American marten (martes americana) in the

Pacific Northwest: population differentiation across a landscape fragmented in time and space.

Molecular Ecology (12)89-103.

Squires, J. R. and R. T. Reynolds. 1997. Northern goshawk (Accipiter gentilis). Birds of North

America Online (A. Poole, Ed.). Ithaca, New York. Cornell Laboratory of Ornithology. 26

November 2007. http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna.

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


Thomas, J.W., E.D. Forsman, J.B. Lint, E.C. Meslow, B.R. Noon, and J. Verner. 1990. A

conservation Strategy for the Northern Spotted Owl. Interagency scientific committee to address

the conservation of the northern spotted owl.

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

of regional variation in fisher morphology, demography, and habitat ecology in California [draft

report submitted to California Department of Fish and Game]. Arcata, California: USDA Forest

Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station, Redwood Sciences Lab.

Tuttle, M.D. 1997. America’s neighborhood bats. University of Texas Press. Austin, Texas.

Revised 1997.

USDA, Forest Service. 2010. Motorized Travel Management Final Environmental Impact

Statement Record of Decision. Shasta-Trinity National Forest, Redding CA.

USDA, Forest Service. 2000. Protecting People and Sustaining Resources in Fire-Adapted

Ecosystems - A Cohesive Strategy. The Forest Service Management Response to the General

Accounting Office Report GAO/RCED-99-65. October 2000.

USDA, Forest Service. 1998. Regional Forester's Sensitive Species List. Pacific Southwest

Region. Appended April 2004.

USDA, Forest Service. 1995. Shasta-Trinity National Forests Land and Resource Management

Plan. Shasta-Trinity National Forests, Redding CA.

USDA, Forest Service. 1990. Forest Service Manual, Title 2600 – Wildlife, Fish and Sensitive

Plant Habitat Management, as amended. Washington, D.C.

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

Standards and Guidelines for Amendments to the Survey and Manage, Protection Buffer and

other Mitigation Measures Standards and Guidelines. January 2001.

USDA, Forest Service; USDI, Bureau of Land Management. 1999. Survey and Management

Recommendations – Aquatic Mollusks. March 3, 1999.

http://www.blm.gov/or/plans/surveyandmanage/MR/AQMollusks/im99-038.htm.

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

Amendments to Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management Planning Documents Within

the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl; Standards and Guidelines for Management of Habitat

for Late-successional and Old-Growth Forest Related Species Within the Range of the Northern

Spotted Owl. April 1994.

USDA, Forest Service. USDI, Bureau of Land Management. Final Supplemental Environmental

Impact statement on management of habitat for late successional and old-growth forest related

species within the range of the northern spotted owl. February 1994.

http://www.blm.gov/or/plans/surveyandmanage/MR/AQMollusks/im99-038.htm


USDA, Forest Service, NOAA Fisheries, and USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2004.

Alternative Consultation Agreement to Implement Section 7 counterpart Regulations. March

2004.

USDI, Bureau of Land Management. 1999. Field Guide to Survey and Manage Terrestrial

Mollusk Species from the Northwest Forest Plan. BLM, Oregon State Office. June 1999.

USDI, Bureau of Land Management. 1997. Survey Protocol for Aquatic Mollusk Species from

the Northwest Forest Plan, Version 2.0. October 29, 1997.

http://www.blm.gov/or/plans/surveyandmanage/SP/Mollusks/acover.htm.

USDI, Fish and Wildlife Service. 2010. Listed/Proposed Threatened and Endangered Species

for Trinity County, California (Candidates Included). Document # 610531485-16747. Arcata

Fish and Wildlife Office. February 11, 2010.

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

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

October 21, 2003

USDI, Fish and Wildlife Service. 1986. Pacific Bald Eagle Recovery Plan. U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service, Portland, Oregon. 163pp.

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

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

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

Northwestern California. Journal of Herpetology, Vol. 30, No 3, pp. 385-398.

Wilson, R.A., A.J. Lind and H. Welsh Jr. 1991. Trinity River Riparian Wildlife Survey, final

report. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Experiment Station Redwood Sciences

Laboratory, Arcata, CA. 98pp.

Yeager, S. 2005. Habitat at fisher resting sites in the Klamath Province of northern California.

[MSc Thesis]. Humboldt State University, Arcata, California. 75p.

Zielinski, W.J., N.P. Duncan, E.C. Farmer, R.L. Truex, A.P. Clevenger and R.H. Barrett. 1999.

Diet of fishers (Martes pennanti) at the southernmost extent of their range. Journal of

Mammalogy 80(3):961-71.

Zeiner, D.C., W.F. Laudenslayer Jr., K.E. Mayer. 1988. California's Wildlife, Vol. I.

Amphibians and Reptiles. California Department of Fish and Game. Sacramento, CA

Zeiner, D.C.; W.F. Laudenslayer Jr., K.E. Mayer and M. White. 1990. California's Wildlife,

Vol. III. Mammals. California Department of Fish and Game. Sacramento, CA

http://www.blm.gov/or/plans/surveyandmanage/SP/Mollusks/acover.htm


Zielinski, W.J., R.L.Treux, F. Schlexer, K.N. Schmidt and R.H. Barrett. 2004a. Home range

characteristics of fishers in California. Journal of Mammology (85)649-657.

Zielinski, W.J., R.L. Truex, G. Schmidt, R. Schlexer, K.N. Schmidt, and R.H. Barrett. 2004b.

Resting habitat selection by fishers in California. Journal of Wildlife Management (68)475-492.

Zielinski, W.J., N.P. Duncan, E.C. Farmer, R.L. Truex, A.P. Clevenger and R.H. Barrett. 1999.

Diet of fishers (Martes pennanti) at the southernmost extent of their range. Journal of

Mammalogy 80(3):961-71.


APPENDIX 1. FOREST PLAN MANAGEMENT DIRECTION

Management Area

The proposed project is within the Hayfork Management Area (Forest Plan page 4-153). Current

management and desired future condition is driven by several factors including Wildlife Habitat,

Fisheries Resources, Water Quality (including domestic supplies), Recreation, Heritage

Resources, and production of Commercial Wood Products.

Standards and Guidelines

Treatments are proposed within the following Forest Plan land management allocations: Riparian

Reserves and Matrix Lands (Roaded Recreation prescription). The Forest Plan Standards &

Guidelines pertinent to this analysis are listed below.

Forest–wide Standards & Guidelines

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

as prescribed for each land management allocation (Forest Plan page 4-14).

Maintain unburned dead/down material in the quantity prescribed for each land management

allocation (Forest Plan page 4-14).

Where hardwoods occur naturally within existing conifer stands, manage for a desired future

condition for hardwoods as identified during ecosystem analysis consistent with standards as

prescribed for each land management allocation. Retain groups of hardwoods over

individual trees (Forest Plan page 4-14).

Provide connecting travel corridors for wildlife species, particularly late-successional

dependent species, by using Riparian Reserves and silvicultural prescriptions (Forest Plan

page 4-14).

Activity fuels that remain after meeting wildlife, riparian, soil and other environmental needs

will be considered surplus and a potential fire hazard. The amount and method of disposal

will be determined in the ecosystem analysis (Forest Plan page 4-17).

Riparian Reserves – prescription #9

Maintain and restore the species composition and structural diversity of plant communities in

riparian areas and wetlands (Forest Plan page 4-53)

Maintain and restore habitat to support well-distributed populations of native plant,

invertebrate and vertebrate riparian-dependent species (Forest Plan page 4-53).

Design fuel treatment to meet Aquatic Conservation Strategy objectives, and to minimize

disturbance of riparian ground cover and vegetation (Forest Plan page 4-56).

Design prescribed burn projects and prescriptions to contribute to attainment of Aquatic

Conservation Strategy objectives (Forest Plan page 4-57).


Matrix Lands

Manage to provide a renewable supply of large down logs well distributed across the matrix

landscape in a manner that meets the needs of species and provides for ecological functions

(Forest Plan page 4-61).

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

extent possible from disturbance during treatment (Forest Plan page 4-61).

Roaded Recreation – prescription #3

Manage hardwoods for sustainability on a landscape basis consistent with desired future

ecosystem conditions (Forest Plan page 4-65).

Maintain an average of 10 tons of unburned dead/down material per acre on slopes less

than 40 percent. The preference is to have a portion of this tonnage in large material (4 to

6 logs over 10 feet long at the largest available diameter). Where feasible, maintain the

same amount on slopes greater than 40 percent (Forest Plan pages 4-65/66).

Sensitive Species

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

becoming a candidate for T&E (threatened/endangered) status (Forest Plan p. 4-5)

Bald eagles and peregrine falcons

Comply with individual nesting territory management plans for known bald eagle and peregrine

falcon nesting sites (Forest Plan p. 3-27). Note: There are no known bald eagle or peregrine

falcon nest sites in or near the project area. The nearest known bald eagle nest site is

approximately 9 miles to the northwest, and the nearest known peregrine falcon nest site is

approximately 3.8 miles to the west.

Northern goshawks

Protect known nest sites during planning and implementation (Forest Plan p. 3-27). Note: There

are no known northern goshawk nest sites in or near the project area. The nearest known

northern goshawk nest site is approximately 1.8 miles to the northeast. Project activities are not

expected to have any effect on this nest site.


APPENDIX 2. WILDLIFE RESOURCE PROTECTION MEASURES

Northern spotted owl (analyzed in project wildlife biological assessment)

A limited operating period (LOP) is incorporated into the project design to avoid disturbance to

spotted owls during their breeding season. This measure will apply to all activities producing

loud and continuous noise or smoke that will potentially disturb this species. Treatments within

0.25 mile of suitable spotted owl habitat will be subject to this LOP from February 1 through

July 31. This measure will also provide substantial protection to many Forest Service sensitive

species during their breeding seasons.

NSO protocol surveys can be used to generate new NSO breeding activity results. If protocol

survey are completed, LOP’s will not be needed in areas where results show no NSO

nesting/roosting activity within ¼ mile of proposed activities.