direct and indirect effects common to all action...

of 72

Direct and Indirect Effects Common to all Action Alternatives

TES (Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive)

Table wl-A Terrestrial PETS Determinations by Alternatives and Occurrence in Project Area (PA)

Species

Scientific Name Status

No

Action

Proposed

Action

Alternative

Three Occurrence

Terrestrial Species

Gray Wolf Canus lupus

E NE NE NE HD/N

Northern Bald Eagle Hailaeetus leucocephalus

S NI NI NI HD/D

North American Lynx Lynx canadensis

T NE NE NE HN/N

American Peregrine Falcon

Falco perigrinus anatum

S NI NI NI HN/N

California Wolverine Gulo gulo luteus

C NI NI NI HD/N

Pygmy Rabbit Brachylagus idahoensis

S NI NI NI HD/N

Bufflehead Bucephala albeola

S NI NI NI HN/N

Greater Sage Grouse Centrocercus urophasiarus

C NI NI NI HN/N

Wallowa Rosy Finch Leucosticte tephrocotis

wallowa

S NI NI NI HN/N

Bobolink Dolichonyx oryzivorus

S NI NI NI HN/N

Upland Sandpiper Bartramia longicauda

S NI NI NI HN/N

Lewis’ woodpecker Melanerpes lewis

S NI BI BI HD/N

Grasshopper Sparrow Ammodramus savannarum

S NI NI NI HD/N

White-headed woodpecker

Picoides albolarvatus

S MIIH BI BI HD/D

Pallid bat Antrozous pallidus

S NI NI NI HD/S

Townsends big-eared bat

Corynorhinus townsendii

S NI NI NI HD/N

Fringed myotis Myotis thysanodes

S NI MIIH/BI MIIH/BI HD/S

Silver-bordered fritillary Boloria selene

S NI NI NI HD/N

Johnson’s Hairsteak Callophrys johnsoni

S NI NI NI HN/N

Status

of 72

E Federally Endangered

T Federally Threatened

S Sensitive species from Regional Forester’s list

C Candidate species under Endangered Species Act

Occurrence

HD Habitat Documented or suspected within the project area or near enough to be impacted by project activities

HN Habitat Not within the project area or affected by its activities

D Species Documented in general vicinity of project activities

S Species Suspected in general vicinity of project activities

N Species Not documented and not suspected in general vicinity of project activities

Effects Determinations

Threatened and Endangered Species

NE No Effect

NLAA May Effect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect

LAA May Effect, Likely to Adversely Affect

BE Beneficial Effect

Sensitive Species

NI No Impact

MIIH May Impact Individuals or Habitat, but Will Not Likely Contribute to a Trend Towards Federal Listing or Cause a Loss

of Viability to the Population or Species

WIFV Will Impact Individuals or Habitat with a Consequence that the Action May Contribute to a Trend Towards Federal

Listing or Cause a Loss of Viability to the Population or Species

BI Beneficial Impact

HD – Habitat Documented or suspected or near enough to be impacted by project activities

HN – Habitat Not within the project area or affected by its activities

D – Species Documented in general vicinity of project activities

S – Species Suspected in general vicinity of project activities

N – Species Not documented and not suspected in general vicinity of project activities

The following species are not known to occur nor have any habitat within or immediately adjacent to the Dove Project area:North American lynx,bufflehead, upland sandpiper, bobolink, Wallowa rosy finch, Johnson’s hairstreak,andAmerican peregrine falcon. There will be no adverse effects to these species or their habitats by the activities common to alternatives; therefore a No Impact (NI) call is made for them. Gray wolf-

Direct and Indirect Effects from No Action: Currently there is no evidence of gray wolves occupying Dove project area based on camera sets and field surveys. The No Action Alternative would have no direct effect to gray wolves. Leaving stands at higher timber stand densities provides hiding cover for wolves dispersing into the area. It can be assumed if the habitat is providing adequate habitat for ungulate populations; it has potential to be habitat for wolves in the future. Future degradation of big game winter range is likely with the expansion of ponderosa pine and juniper. This could indirectly affect wolves in the mid to long term if wolves moved into the area due to potential of distributing big game onto private lands due to lack of forage. There is concern that winter and transitional big game ranges are being impacted by junipers and pine, therefore affecting big game distribution. However, current conditions are not impacting prey for wolves yet. There would be no road treatments with this alternative therefore the human interactions with any wolves that could venture into area would remain relatively high. However road densities are favorable for wolves in most of the winter ranges and only

of 72

the Venator Creek summer range has road densities above forest standards. This alternative would not treat any roads; therefore increasing the likelihood of wolf human interactions in the future. There would not be any aspen and riparian treatments in the Dove project improving big game habitat and subsequently habitat for wolves. These activities would most likely not occur therefore no improvement in habitat for ungulates and potentially wolves. Lack of riparian and hardwood treatments reduces fawning and calving habitat and could impact wolves if they moved into the project area. Because the potential for wolves to exist in the project area is low and no documented sightings have occurred and habitat is not limited by ungulate populations this alternative would not have any impacts to wolves or wolf habitat. No Impact (NI) determination is given for the No Action Alternative.

Direct and Indirect Effects Common to all Action Alternatives: No direct effects to gray wolf are expected since no populations have been identified on the Malheur Forest at current time. Incidental occurrence could be possible during implementation of the proposed projects, but the probability is extremely low. Occasional wolf could wander into the project area as exemplified by wolf OR-7 that moved through the Emigrant Creek Ranger District to southern Oregon and other vagrant wolves that have occurred on the Malheur Forest. Proposed projects within the Corral Creek subwatershed is expected to modify the highest potential for wolf habitat within the project area due to low road densities, juxtaposition of the Corral Creek drainage with Utley Butte wildlife area, and surrounding ranches that contain high concentrations of elk. As described in the Big Game section, habitat improvements through vegetation manipulation can be beneficial to big game by converting high timber stand densities to foraging areas. Conversely, the reduction in cover can affect big game distribution and vulnerability to human disturbance(s) and accidental shooting of any wolf. Proposed road treatments would ameliorate effects on cover reduction as described in the Roads Section within the Big Game. Projects improving big game distribution and reducing the likelihood of ungulate displacement onto to private lands may help any livestock wolf interactions and is assumed to be beneficial to wolf habitat. Since meadows and riparian areas are potential rendezvous sites for wolves and the proposed treatments would enhance these unique habitats,improvements to potential wolf habitat are expected from conifer reduction and encroachment. However, wolf territories are extremely large and subwatersheds such as Venator Creek have high road densities. Dove project is adjacent to large livestock ranches and the project area has a fair amount of livestock grazing, increasing seasonal human disturbances. During hunting seasons (approximately August-November) the project area has a large number of hunters recreating, which is not conducive for wolves. While there would be modifications to wolf habitat, it can be determined with all the action alternatives a No Impact (NI) due to the following:

of 72

Although individuals have been documented, no gray wolf packs or occupied

territories have been verified on the Malheur National Forest. If wolves are present, they would most likely avoid the area during project activities.

No denning or rendezvous sites have been verified on the Malheur National Forest.

Limited habitat exists due to high road densities and lack of security areas from human disturbances, excluding the Utley Butte Wildlife Area.

Wolves are habitat generalist and populations in Oregon are expanding. Wolves are compatible with most management activities that do not reduce prey or increase human activities.

Cumulative Effects from All Alternatives

All the proposed vegetation and restoration projects would modify habitat for wolves, which are habitat generalist; however habitat would not be impacted to a degree that would eliminate wolves from the project area.Due to the reasons stated above, no cumulative impacts are anticipated from any of the alternatives. Bald eagle-

Direct and Indirect Effects from No Action:

While bald eagles have not been documented in the project area, potential roosting is suspected. Lack of understory treatments can indirectly affect old growth ponderosa pine trees used as roosting habitat. Untreated stands of timber are vulnerable to stand replacement fires as seen in the Canyon Creek complex north of the project area. Winter bald eagle roosts have been lost to large scale stand replacement fires on the Emigrant Creek Ranger District in the past. Since there are no known or documented winter roost sites or bald eagle nests in Dove and the No Action Alternative would not disturb or displace any bald eagles a No Impact determination is given for this alternative.

Direct and Indirect Effects Common to all Action Alternatives:

If any bald eagle nests or winter roost sites were found, protection measures would eliminate any disturbances that would impact these birds. Proposed vegetation treatments are expected to reduce the probability of a large scale stand replacement fire in the future. A large wildfire with the magnitude and intensity similar to Canyon Creek complex in 2015 on the Malheur National Forest would kill old growth trees reducing potential for nesting or roosting bald eagles. Vegetation treatments in the South Fork

of 72

John Day River and especially on the north and northwest slopes of Alsup Mountain would maintain the potential for winter bald eagle roosts. Proposed treatments in the remaining drainages would not affect bald eagles since these areas are not expected to have bald eagles use the area except incidental foraging or migration. Juniper and shrub-steppe projects that remove juniper could improve water conditions on the landscape, but the headwaters of South Fork John Day River are still a small stream not conducive for bald eagles. It may benefit the lower drainage outside the project area. There has been no bald eagle roosts or nests found during field surveys. Habitat, primarily large old growth ponderosa pine trees, that could be used for roosting, perching, or nest trees would not be impacted with the exception of incidental removal due to hazard conditions. Since bald eagle disturbance would be mitigated through seasonal or timing restrictions, and old growth trees would not be removed in any potential roosting or nesting areas, a No Impact (NI) determination is given for ProposedAction.

Bald eagle nests or winter roosts within the Utley Butte wildlife area (MA-20B) are unlikely and the proposed road treatment are not within probable bald eagle nesting or roosting areas so a No Impact (NI) determination is given for Alternative Three also.


Since there are no direct or indirect effect to bald eagles or bald eagle habitat, there will be no cumulative effects. If any bald eagles are found in the project area they would be protected by the Bald Eagle Act and through Malheur LRMP direction. Seasonal operational restrictions may occur and/or prescription modifications to assure habitat protection measures are met. North American Wolverine-


Since there is no reproductive habitat in the project area and this alternative would not change the potential dispersal habitat a No Impact determination is given for this specie. Road densities would remain at current levels and human disturbance could be high depending on the season of use in most subwatersheds. Venator Creek subwatershed would remain above forest standards increasing likelihood of disturbance for any vagrant wolverine that could occur in the project area.


of 72

Since there is no source habitat for wolverine in the Dove project area, there would be no direct impact to wolverine. Snow Mountain and adjoining Utley Butte Wildlife Area does not have the high elevation cirque basins, which are considered source habitat. High seasonal recreation use and roads reduces solitude needed for denning habitat. Dove project is not close to any source habitat so dispersal through this area is expected to be rare. Since wolverine disperse through a variety of habitats, with the exception of large wildfire burns and stem exclusion stands (Wisdom, 2000), proposed treatments are expected to have little to no impacts to habitat for wolverine. Reduction in potential prey habitat for wolverine is expected in treatment units where thinning and landscape burning are combined. These dual treatments can reduce complexity of stands by removing downed log numbers, which provide habitat for rodents. However, connectivity habitat would not receive treatments reducing complexity and due to forest plan requirements connectivity is dispersed throughout the project area. This specie does not tolerate human disturbance therefore all road treatments are expected to improve dispersal habitat, once vehicle traffic is limited. Connectivity is improved with road treatments and like other wildlife; roads can become trails for movement if a wolverine wandered into the area. Banci (in Ruggiero et. al., 1994) stated researchers generally agree wolverine habitat is probably best defined in terms of adequate food supply rather than specific types of topography or plant associations. Prescribed fire and burning of slash piles has the highest potential to affect prey base for wolverine. Small mammal habitat can be consumed by fire thus reducing small mammal populations in burn blocks that remove most of the down woody material. This is short term affect until down wood is recruited from snags, blow downs, and other woody debris. Between connectivity, designated old growth, riparian, and Utley Butte Wildlife Emphasis Area (MA-20-B), dispersal habitat is adequate for wolverine and other carnivore movements within the projects area. Alternative Three would include prescribed fire in the roadless area, but the burn prescription includes low intensity burning, which is expected to have minimal impacts on rodent habitat and would leave proposed connectivity intact post burning. Wolverine dispersal would not be impacted by any of the proposed activities. Since source habitat does not exist in the watershed and most of project area is dry ponderosa pine, juniper, or shrub-steppe habitats, wolverine habitat is limited in Dove; therefore a No Impact (NI) determination is given for all action alternatives.

Cumulative Effects from All Alternatives Since there is no source habitat and dispersal habitat would not be impacted to any measurable degree from proposed activities, there are no impacts to wolverine.There are no anticipated cumulative effects from any of the action alternatives, since there is no future projects planned in the watershed and this project area is not adjacent to any source habitat for wolverines.

of 72

Lewis’ woodpeckers-


Lack of fire and loss of old growth ponderosa pine has reduced habitat in the Dove project. This action could have both positive and negative responses to Lewis’s woodpecker habitat. By leaving stands at a high risk of a stand replacement fire, and if a wildfire occurred in the project area; there would be habitat created in the future for this fire dependent species. However, current conditions are not favorable for this specie due to the lack of large ponderosa pine structure, and this alternative would not apply prescribed fire on the landscape, which could enhance habitat for Lewis’s woodpeckers. This alternative would not enhance the growth of large ponderosa pines and would allow the establishment of less desirable species (ie abies, fir) for this woodpecker. There would be no improvement in riparian conditions which are considered desired habitat for this specie. Riparian areas would be too dense and lack preferred hardwood tree species for Lewis’s. This alternative would not treat roads and reintroduce fire on the landscape thus no improvement in snag retention, snag creation, shrub production, and associated mast, which supply forage for Lewis’ woodpeckers. Habitat suitability for Lewis’ woodpecker would be minimal, if at all, until a disturbance such as stand replacement fire occurred. Due to the nature of the alternative a No Impact (NI) determination is given for Lewis’ woodpecker, since it cannot be determined when the next stand replacement event would occur in the project area.

Direct and Indirect Effects Common to all Action Alternatives: Since there is no source habitat for this woodpecker in the project due to lack of fire, no direct impacts to this specie is likely.Primary source habitat for Lewis’ woodpeckers is post fire. Vegetation projects reducing the probability of stand replacement fires indirectly affects wildfires,whichcould create habitat conditions for this woodpecker. Risk of wildfire still occurs in the un-treated areas within the project area therefore the indirect effects are localized. Areas such as Utley Butte roadless areas potentially could have a stand replacement fire enhancing habitat for this fire dependent specie. Proposed vegetation treatments would restore open ponderosa pine habitat needed for foraging. Conversion of multi-stratum old growth stands to open stands creates openings for foraging. Application of prescribed fire creates future snags, maintains open stands, and stimulates shrubs like Ceanothusall beneficial to Lewis’s woodpeckers.Use of prescribed fire is a conservation strategy recommended in Partners in Flight conservation plans for this woodpecker specie (Altman, 2000). Thinning from below enhances growth of remaining trees to develop future old growth pine forests.

of 72

Restoration thinning projects within riparian areas that enhance shrub production are beneficial for Lewis’s woodpeckers as long as snag habitat is present or is not jeopardized during implementation. Bear Creek and South Fork of John Day River are two riparian areas that are likely to benefit from treatments to Lewis’s woodpecker. Aspen and cottonwood treatments adjacent to two above mentioned drainages could be beneficial to this woodpecker. In the fall prior to migration, this woodpecker forages on mast and berries such as currants (Ribes sp.). Vegetation treatments, especially in the lower elevations, that reduce juniper and other conifer competition enhance shrub production and subsequent mast production benefitting birds. Where large ponderosa pine are present within or adjacent to shrub-steppe or juniper woodland treatments, potential Lewis’s woodpecker habitat may be created through thinning and burning. As with all woodpeckers that nest in ponderosa pine snags, road treatments are beneficial because of future snag retention. There is expected minimal impacts to potential nesting for incidental removal of ponderosa pine snags posing hazards to operations as discussed in snag section. Because thinning and prescribed fire would improve habitat for this specie of woodpecker and these prescriptions are planned in a large part of the dry ponderosa pine areas of Dove, a determination of Beneficial Impact (BI) is given for all action alternatives.

Cumulative Effects from All Alternatives Cumulative effects analysis for this specie is at the watershed level. This is a post fire species so projects that apply prescribed fire create habitat for this specie. Habitat is limited due to affective fire suppression actions. Future fire suppression may have negative cumulative impacts, since this species requires high intensity fires to create open conditions and in ponderosa pine forests an understory of brush such as ceanothus. Since this is like othercavity excavator species, effects to snag habitat discussed in MIS section apply. Removal of ponderosa pine snags for firewood, especially the large snags, impact potential habitat for this specie forest wide in the hot dry plant associations or along riparian areas. There are no other planned projects within the South Fork John Day watershed that entails habitat creation through fire; therefore the beneficial impacts described in the above section would cumulative benefit this specie through thinning and prescribed fire.

Viability Assessment-

of 72

Because this woodpecker is a MIS in the Malheur LRMP a viability assessment is required to assure the proposed projects would not jeopardize this species. Assessments are made at the forest level to address broad habitat issues. Table xx displays the estimated amount of habitat on the forest based on habitat modeling. This specie has the least amount of secondary habitat due to fire suppression and lack of open ponderosa pine savanna type structure conditions on the forest. Primary habitat is not displayed in the table ss but is represented by stand replacement fires that occurred in the five to twenty years. On the Emigrant Creek RD in 2007, the Egley complex fires created an abundance of habitat for this post fire species. Habitat issues affecting this specie occur on the winter ranges primarily like the Willamette Valley where oak woodlands have diminished considerably. Dove project is expected to improve habitat for this species by reducing stem densities and applying prescribed fire on the landscape. Because the potential habitat is limited in the project area and only less than one percent of the secondary habitat on the forest would be treated, the benefits of the proposed project would not contribute to positive trend in viability. However, the proposed projects concur with conservation measures for Lewis’s woodpeckers and would not contribute to a negative trend in population viability. White-Headed Woodpecker-


There are no direct effects, since no management activities will occur. There will be no incidental loss of snag habitat from the proposed management activities. There is no creation of future snags from prescribed fire. White-headed woodpeckers have also nested in aspen stands occasionally and as described in Unique Habitat Section, no aspen enhancement is occurring and aspen degeneration is ongoing. Road densities would remain at higher levels and it is unlikely in-effective road closures would be improved in the near future. Lack of road treatments can result in removal of potential nest snags since snags could be utilized for firewood, although this area doesn’t receive a lot of firewood cutting based on field observations. No Action Alternative would leave stands with high canopy densities unsuitable for this woodpecker’s nesting habitat. Restoration of large structure ponderosa pine stands requires thinning from below to develop large trees. Large tree structure is needed for future snags for nesting and large trees produce cone seeds, which are key winter forage for white-headed woodpecker. Another threat to this woodpecker in some stands in Dove is the composition change to grand or Douglas fir from continued fire suppression. Future recruitment of large ponderosa pine in the mid to long term is jeopardized with fire suppression and lack of thinning. Loss of old structure ponderosa pine affects winter foraging habitat by removing cone sources. Several white-headed woodpeckers were observed during field reconnaissance which confirmed fairly high occurrence in the project area. The over stocked density of pole and sapling trees will continue to degrade white-headed woodpecker habitat in the

of 72

future. Since these conditions are not favorable for white-headed woodpeckers a MIIH (May Impact Individuals or Habitat, but will not likely contribute to a trend towards federal listing or cause loss of viability) determination is stated due to current conditions. The No Action would not reduce stem densities to HRV levels and the probability of stand replacement fire would remain high (see fuels and silvilculture reports).

Direct and Indirect Effects Common to all Action Alternatives: Direct effects to nesting habitat are discussed in the snag section. Disturbance during nesting season could cause abandonment. This specie nests later than other woodpeckers occurring during harvest and thinning operations. Prescribed fire most likely would not affect nestlings since burning usually occurs prior to June before “green up”. Open ponderosa pine stands are needed for white-headed woodpeckers. Current high density stands are not suitable habitat and the lack of large structure ponderosa pine is a concern for this sensitive species. As addressed with Lewis’s woodpecker, the action alternatives concur with conservation objectives for ponderosa pine restoration and habitat enhancement for this woodpecker (Altman, 2000; Wisdom, 2000). Frenzel (2000) found nesting to occur in open canopy less than 15 percent in the Deschutes and Winema NF’s. Proposed action activities through harvesting, biomass thinning and prescribed fire create suitable habitat for white-headed woodpeckers. Unlike Lewis’ woodpecker, white-headed woodpeckers need low complexity understory without shrubs. Shrubs and downed logs harbor rodents, which are considered nest predators. Proposed vegetation treatments would create favorable habitat for white-headed woodpeckers. Thinning and burning accelerates the development of old structure ponderosa pine which are preferred foraging habitat for white-headed woodpecker. Larger trees produce more cones, which pine seeds are key forage for white-headed woodpeckers, especially during winter months when insects are dormant. Table Wl-f illustrates treatments within the GIS classified habitat for this woodpecker. Commercial harvest treatments would occur on approximately 1,791acres of primary and secondary habitats. Harvest prescriptions would leave larger ponderosa pine trees and remove the shade tolerant firs, favoring habitat for white-headed woodpeckers. Aspen and riparian treatments would be beneficial, especially where snag habitat and remnant ponderosa pine are left in the stands. Conifer reduction creates open stands needed for nesting. These treatments comply with conservation objectives for white-headed woodpeckers also (Altman, 2000). White-headed have nested in juniper. Juniper removal could reduce nesting habitat if ponderosa pine snags are limited in the area. Retaining old growth juniper and juniper with cavities would alleviate effects of juniper removal and potential loss of nest habitat. Proposed treatments would create and maintain existing habitat for white-headed woodpeckers. Since these treatments are beneficial for this specie a Beneficial Impact

of 72

(BI) determination is given with short term negative impacts from disturbance during implementation. Where nests were found, seasonal restrictions would take place as stated in Design Criteria and protection buffers were mapped and flagged to protect nest tree. In addition to all the positive impacts described above, Alternative 3 would improve white-headed woodpecker habitat with prescribed fire and road treatments that are expected to improve habitat. This alternative would benefit habitat therefore a beneficial impact (BI) determination is given for this alternative.


Cumulative effects to this woodpecker are similar to Lewis’s except this species requires low intensity fires compared to high; therefore fire suppression actions do not adversely affect this woodpecker. Any projects that restore ponderosa pine forests are beneficial. Since no other vegetation treatments are planned in the watershed, cumulative effects are the same direct and indirect. Forest wide restoration projects that enhance ponderosa pine and maintain large structure benefit this species. White-headed woodpeckers also nest in aspen stands; therefore projects enhancing and protection aspen can benefit this species also.

Viability Assessment- As like the Lewis’s woodpecker, white-headed woodpeckers are MIS also. They occur in OFSS (old forest single-stratum) ponderosa pine requiring old growth pine for nesting and foraging. Restoration treatments preserving ponderosa pine benefits this specie. In Dove project approximately 62 percent of the habitat would receive mechanical treatments either PCT, harvest, or both treatments enhancing ponderosa pine forest structure. Landscape prescribed fires could occur on the approximate 15,000 acres of white-headed habitat enhancing nesting and foraging. While this is roughly four percent of the habitat on the forest, combined with other ongoing restoration projects on the forest this project is expected to increase population viability for white-headed woodpeckers. A positive viability trend is anticipated from both action alternatives with Alternative 3 having slightly a higher trend due to added prescribed fire and road treatments that may help preserve snag habitat. Bats (including: Pallid, Townsends big-eared, and Fringed myotis)


These bats, sometimes roost in old growth ponderosa pine snags. There would be no incidental loss of potential roost trees with this alternative. Since these species forage in open forests or shrublands, this alternative would continue to allow expansion of pine and juniper in potential foraging habitats because no treatments would occur.

of 72

No prescribed fire occurring with this alternative therefore no incidental loss of potential roost trees or creation of hollow trees by fire. Prescribed fire could reduce foraging habitat for one year depending on burn coverage. Lack of prescribed fire increases likelihood of a stand replacement fire which could eliminate roosting or foraging habitat for some species of bats. Due to the nature of No Action without any treatments, there would be no impacts to these sensitive bat species. A No Impact (NI) determination is given for all the sensitive bats.


Direct impacts from hazard tree removal or burning of snags as described in snag section can adversely affect maternal or diurnal roosts. Bats roost in mid-decay large diameter snags which can be easily consumed by fire and pose immediate threat to harvest operations if snags occur near landings, skid roads, and log haul routes. Alternative 3 would add prescribed fire in Corral Creek and Rail Creek drainages which could reduce potential roosts on ridges between the drainages. Prescribed fire could create more roosts in the future from tree mortality and hollowing out of trees by fire. Due to intensity of wildfire, it can be surmised that prescribed fire would have a much reduced effect on roost sites and the effectiveness of reducing a wildfire is enhanced with the proposed action treatments compared to no treatment. Since bats require water and use riparian corridors for flyways, riparian treatments are expected to benefit bats. Enhancement of riparian hardwoods could increase insect production benefitting forage. Taylor (2006) explains how forestry practices that open canopy gaps in denser forests and creation of edge habitat develop foraging habitat for bats, especially near riparian areas. Reduction in juniper could increase watering opportunities for bats and may be beneficial in the mid to long term. Road treatments are similar as described in snag section since these bats utilize snags for roosts. Alternative 3 would leave certain roads in current state, which could help retain snag habitat for bat roosting. Because there would be a potential for loss of roosting habitat by prescribed fire or incidental loss as a hazard to operations, a MIIH determination is given for fringed myotis; but as described above, a BI determination is also given for the mid to long term due to improvement in foraging habitat and riparian restoration treatments. Since occurrences would be rare with pallid and Townsend’s big-eared bat and these two species roosts more in rock crevices and caves respectively, a No Impact (NI) determination can be given for these species of bat for all action alternatives.


This bat roosts in later decayed snags therefore cumulative effects described in the snag section apply to this specie. Firewood cutting may have a greater impact on this species habitat since they use older decayed snags which are more seasoned for fuelwood.

of 72

Positive effects are expected from creating forest openings and projects that improve riparian conditions will enhance habitat for this bat. Future riparian projects within the South Fork of the John Day River may benefit bats by enhancing watershed conditions improving watering and flyways.

Management Indicator Specie

Direct and Indirect Effects from No Action to all PCE’s:

The No Action Alternative would increase tree mortality due to the overstocked stands in the proposed Dove units. In the short term overstocked trees would increase mostly smaller snags (<15”dbh) and some larger snag recruitment, improving foraging and nesting habitat for PCE’s. The replacement of the larger old growth trees is limited due to overstocked conditions. Studies have indicated larger trees were used for foraging (Hughes 2000, Dixon 1995) and larger snags are preferred by nearly all the PCE’s for nesting habitat (Bull, et.al. 1997).Jackson (1979) suggested larger trees have deeper bark furrows providing for larger numbers and a higher diversity of bark fauna.Overstocked stands retard the development of large structured stands which provide habitat for PCE’s. In addition to suppressing growth of the pole sized trees in the stands, the current stocking levels increase the probability of a stand replacement fire. Stand replacement fire would increase habitat for black-backed woodpecker, hairy woodpecker and Lewis’s woodpecker for up to ten years following the event, however it would take centuries before snag habitat would be replenished, once snags fall.

Fire is a natural disturbance agent that can enhance habitat for some species of PCE’s and is vital for species like blacked-back woodpeckers. This alternative would not re-introduce fire in the project area which reduces a disturbance needed for some PCE’s. Fire is necessary for several species of secondary cavity nesters like bluebirds also.

Species such as northern flicker prefer forest edge and more open habitat. With this alternative, more closed canopy is expected with snag recruitment more in the smaller diameter size not suitable for northern flickers and most of the other PCE’s. The perpetuation of larger snags (>20” dbh) in the long term is one concern for this guild of wildlife. Nesting habitat can be limiting factor determining presence of PCE in ponderosa pine forests (Bull, 1986).

Direct and indirect effects From the action alternatives common to all PCE’s Harvest and thinning operations during nesting periods can cause nest abandonment. Most of the woodpeckers will re-nest if the first brood fails. Many of the woodpeckers begin nesting early in the spring during break-up period where no logging or slash piling with equipment occurs. Because of the wet soil conditions, nest disturbance is minimized. Furthermore, the amount of disturbance is localized and impacts to reproduction are expected to be low from implementation.

of 72

There would be some displacement offoraging birds due to equipment operations during the non-breeding period, since some of the woodpeckers do not migrate. Some altitudinal migration may take place, minimizing disturbance during winter logging operations when harvesting occurs at higher elevations. Late autumn and winter operations are most favorable season to operate for minimal disturbance.

Indirect effects include reduction in future snag recruitment, change in forest structure and complexity, and the reduction in risk of a stand replacement event. In addition, the enhancement of future large snags is a primary concern for most of the species of PCE. The proposed prescription for vegetation treatment would promote growth and allow for future large snag development in the long term.

Removal or felling of snags for safety concerns reduces nesting and foraging habitat for PCE, since snags are usually excavated for nests or roosts by PCE’s. Snags provide substrate for insects, therefore are primary foraging sites for most of the PCE’s. Some of the PCE forage on downed logs, which are impacted by machinery and skidding operations. Application of fire affects logs subsequently affecting some PCE. (See snag and downed log section for more on effects to these habitat features). Prescribed fire during spring months has potential to cause mortality of young woodpeckers by burning snags or smoke from the fire. Adult mortality is expected to be rare since adults would fly from the fire or smoke. However, spring season of prescribed fire retains higher amount of the preferred snags for most PCE’s due to the higher moisture content in snags and surrounding debris. Restoration including shrub steppe treatments, aspen, and riparian would affect habitat for PCE’s differently, depending on specie of PCE. Affects to particular species are addressed below, combining species with similar habitat needs. Riparian areas are usually high reproductive areas for most PCE’s due to high snag densities and diversity of habitats; therefore riparian treatments are positive for most species. Road treatments can have a substantial benefit for snag retention by reducing fuelwood extraction. Each mile of road treated potentially could enhance up to three to five nesting territories for PCE, depending on specie. Approximately 40 acres of snag habitat can be preserved with each mile of road treated based on current firewood policy. The Proposed Action plans to treat about 30 miles of road preserving approximately 1,200 acres of PCE nesting, roosting, and foraging habitat. Alternative 3 would not open roads that were closed with previous decisions; therefore potential for snag retention would be higher by approximately 120acres.

Table Wl-f

MIS

Acres of

habitat

in Dove

Ac. In

WHA

Habitat

not

treated

PCT

treatment

Harvest

& thin

Habitat

Ac. in

MA-20B

Ac. Habitat

in

Watershed

Ac.

habitat

on

Forest

Piwo 3,323 1,430 1,863 1137 456 213 5,195 148509

of 72

Bbwo 20,475* 7,533 8,417 5686 3437 666 32,323 654839

Whwo 15,086** 3,945 5,568 7,712 1,791 685 350097

Lewo* 467 236 286 121 17 38 25131

Wisa 8,934 2,330 3,432 3,939 1,084 250 12,838 361909

Rnsa

Dowo

4,130 235 3,425 585 ~120 150 5,015 29469

Hawo 16,456 5,793 6,369 7,336 2,200 254 25,830 735375

Nofl 13,598 4,330 4,944 7,063 1,591 251 16,735 125846 * is secondary habitat; ** primary & secondary habitats. WHA = wildlife habitat areas i.e. old growth,

connectivity, etc. PCT = pre-commercial thin, trees<10” dbh. MA20B= Utley Butte Wildlife Emphasis Area

(mostly roadless).

Snags & Downed logs

The majority of research studies report that thinning or thinning and burning treatments resultindecrease in populations of cavity nesters owing to loss of dead trees used for nesting and roosting (Pilliod, et. al. 2006). Preliminary results of a study in southeastern British Columbia indicate that thinning treatments in dry Douglas-fir and ponderosa pine forests resulted in a decline in snag densities, cavity-nesting bird densities, and species richness of cavity nesters in the first two breeding seasons following thinning (Machmer 2002). In contrast, some studies report short-term benefit in creating snags used for foraging due to increase in bark beetles caused by the treatment, usually burning. Horton and Mannan (1988) found a 20 fold increase in new snags (<15 cm); 64 percent of new snags created were used by woodpeckers. Harrod et. al (2009) in Washington found that thinning stands reduces snags compared to burned or thin/burned stands where snags have increased by an average of 37 snags per hectare. Snag loss in thinned stands was contributed to safety removal, which is common for all the studies indicating snag loss from thinning operations. Felling of trees can create snags from broken tops and scarred trees due to skidding operations.

The No Action Alternative would not remove incidental snags on skid trails, landings, and roads since no equipment would be in the area. However, due to current firewood cutting policy on the district, snag removal is available along open roads in Dove. There would be no road treatments therefore more roads would be left open allowing access to firewood, which reduces nesting, foraging, and roosting habitat for PCE’s and other cavity nesters. Prescribed fire can have both positive and negative effects on snags. Soft snags, ones with later decay, can be consumed by fire, especially late season prescribe burns. Prescribed fire creates an abundance of smaller diameter snags (Hessburg et al., 2010) and some authors have found large snags slightly increase from prescribed fire. Large snags are created sometimes due to duff accumulation from decades of fire suppression. Root scorching causes mortality of old growth trees. It could be surmised that large scale vegetation projects reduce snag recruitment in the mid-term due to reducing stocking rates of trees thinned. The larger snags, which are most important to wildlife, can be created over time from prescribed fire. Moreover, recruitment of these

of 72

larger snags in the long term (>50 years) is enhanced due to increase in growth rates of remaining trees. Snag pulses are anticipated from prescribed fire moving snag distributions closer to reference conditions, where these high snag densities are below desired levels. Alternative 3 proposes to add prescribed fire on additional 1,695 acres which would create snag habitat in a roadless area. Mechanical thinning would not occur prior to the burn allowing for more possible snags to be created. This is beneficial for woodpeckers that require high snag densities for foraging. Incidental crushing of older decay classes of downed logs is expected from log skidding and treatment of thinning slash. Avoidance of logs occurs most of the time during operations, since downed logs are obstacles for operations. There would be no harvesting of downed logs and slash piles would not be piled on downed logs (Design Criteria). Prescribed fire is expected to reduce the later decayed logs especially during late season burning. Logs lying in the sun during the summer months lose moisture content and are more susceptible to prescribed fire. Spring burning reduces fewer logs then fall burning and produces a patchier burn (Knapp et al. 2005). As fire creates snags, more downed log recruitment is anticipated, but there is a time lag before snags fall. However, some of the trees would burn and fall creating downed logs.


The cumulative effects analysis area for primary cavity excavators is at the Forest and watershed levels. Large sized snag habitat has declined in managed stands throughout the South Fork John Day watershed and most watersheds on the Malheur National Forest. This is due to past timber harvesting, firewood gathering, and an extensive road system. Longevity of snags, especially of ponderosa pine is an issue because a percentage of burned snags in the Egley burn in 2007 have fallen. Continued removal of old growth ponderosa pine snags negatively affects MIS woodpeckers. Bull and other researchers have commented on limited snag availability for cavity nesting birds and the need to retain large snags.

Continued fire suppression effects habitat for PCEs, creating denser forests. While these conditions may benefit hairy woodpeckers from the influx of insects, this habitat type may not be suitable for white-headed woodpecker, which requires more open forest conditions. One of the bigger concerns is the recruitment of large trees and subsequent future large snags. Overstocked forest conditions limit recruitment of large trees. In the long-term this would be detrimental for PCEs that require large snags for nesting such as the pileated woodpecker and white-headed woodpecker, which have habitat concerns due to the lack of large snags. Fire suppression reduces probability of disturbance agent that creates pockets of snags needed for woodpeckers. With the exception of insect outbreaks in lodgepole pine, pulses of larger snags in the watershed is absent. Landscape projects thinning from below may create a snag recruitment gap until these trees grow and become snags in the mid to long term. Leaving un-treated stands of timber like connectivity, dedicated old growth, and the Utley Butte Wildlife Area within S. F. John Day watershed, and wilderness and other un-treated stands on

of 72

the forest, snag habitat is expected to be adequate to sustain PCE until the treated stands develop and produce larger snag habitat.

Past wildfires on the Malheur National Forest (Canyon Creek complex, South Fork, Bald Sisters, Egley, Parrish Cabin) have had both negative and beneficial effects for PCE habitat. The level of habitat creation or eliminated is dependent on fire intensity, forest composition before the fire, and which PCE species are dependent on fire disturbed habitats. For example, in areas of moderate to severe fire intensity in a forested stand with high crown density, acres of habitat for black-backed woodpeckers will increase for about ten years. Then over time, this habitat will decrease in value for black-backed woodpeckers as the small snags fall and insects recede. If the stand has been opened enough and there are sufficient large trees/snags remaining, Lewis’ woodpeckers would benefit until all the snags fall down. This could last 20 or more years. (Saab et al. 2002, Dudley 2005). Quantifying the amount of habitat created or lost is dynamic, which changes habitats for species both spatially and temporally. Introduction of fire on landscape level projects periodically will enhance snag habitat and maintain recruitment of snags benefiting snag dependent species. Fire disturbance could have adverse effects on some MIS species such as pileated woodpeckers depending on the amount of decadent wood consumed in the fire.

Past and future road closures help retain snags for MIS habitat. The ineffective closures and lack of maintenance on old barriers have resulted in snag loss due to firewood cutters in some areas.In Dove project several roads that are deemed open have grown in with vegetation and currently do not have vehicle traffic and consequently no snag removal. Past harvesting practices are a main reason for low snag densities in Dove. Cumulative effects from any of the action alternatives would improve long term recruitment of MIS habitat and move large snag densities towards forest standards by reducing firewood cutting access, with the exception of the roads that would receive maintenance and become passable for vehicles. In contrast maintaining existing treatments on previously closed roads would offset road maintenance. Proposed ATM (access travel management) plans may improve snag retention. Current increase in firewood permits from 10 cord per household to 16 increases the loss of snag habitat affecting forest level snags. Due to the location of the Dove project from cities of Burns and John Day, an increase in the snag removal from firewood cutting is expected to be low and would not cumulatively affect the snag densities at the watershed or forest level to measureable amounts.

Figures wl-xx and xx illustrate estimated snag projections based on FVS simulator with the

different alternatives. There is little to no difference detected with the modeling between the two

action alternatives. As the graphs indicate, snag densities are inherently low in ponderosa pine

forest types. Tolerance levels would remain above the 80% for the 10 inch dbh and slightly

below the 80% tolerance levels for the larger snags (>20” dbh) projected out 50 years.

Figure 3-8. Short- and long-term changes to density of snags > 10” DBH. The shaded box represents the 30 to 80% tolerance interval in the PPDF Wildlife Habitat Type from DecAID (weighted averages from values in Table inv.3b). Data is for the South Fork John Day watershed.

of 72

Figure 3-9. Short- and long-term changes to density of snags > 20” DBH. The shaded box represents the 30 to 80% tolerance interval in the PPDF Wildlife Habitat Type from DecAID (weighted averages from values in Table inv.4b). Data is for the South Fork John Day watershed.

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070

Snag

s p

er

Acr

e

YEARS

Snag Trends > 10 inch dbh

NA PA Alt. 3

30-80%TL

of 72

Pileated woodpecker-

Direct and Indirect Effects from No Action: Lack of vegetation management is sometimes beneficial to this species because it allows higher fir composition. Fuels treatments, primarily prescribed fire, reduces forage habitat by consuming downed logs, stumps, and snags containing insects (Bull, 1987, Pilliod, 2006). The smaller diameter thinning prescriptions would not occur with this alternative, which could enhance old growth in the long term and increase sustainability of the stands and protect against insects, disease, or stand replacement fire. Leaving stands overstocked can lead to future deterioration of the mid-layer canopy, which can affect cover for pileated woodpecker. The preferred composition of grand and Douglas fir is more favorable with this alternative, since in mixed composition stands, firs are usually cut in preference to ponderosa pine. Moreover, grand fir is less tolerant to fire so with absence of prescribed fire this specie of conifer is more prevalent. Future development of old growth would be hindered by high tree stocking densities, possibly affecting pileated woodpecker habitat in the long term. Maintenance of existing designated old growth (DOG’s) would not occur; therefore these stands are vulnerable to stand replacement fires. Enhancement of future old growth trees would not occur. This could result in a decline in nesting habitat in the mid to long term since recruitment of old growth ponderosa pine could be limited in some stands. There would no road treatments with the No Action Alternative which allows for firewood removal and potential loss of valuable snag habitat.

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060 2070

Snag

s p

er a

cre

Years

Snags Trends >20 inch dbh

NA PA Alt.3

30-80% TL

of 72

Direct and Indirect Effects Common to all Action Alternatives: Timber harvesting and other thinning operations would disturb and possibly displace pileated woodpeckers in the stands proposed for treatment. These woodpeckers do not migrate, therefore any operations could displace birds for the short term. Disturbance during incubation or during egg laying period most likely causes nest abandonment. While no pileated woodpecker nest sites were located with intense surveys from wildlife personnel, with the current foraging sign present, nesting is likely in the project area. Pileated woodpecker nesting can commence as early as April in the project area and timber harvest activities can be delayed until post incubation, reducing potential for nest abandonment, if moist soil conditions delay harvest operations. Research in northeastern Oregon indicates pileated woodpecker foraging declined in treated units compared to untreated areas. The amount of unharvested stands and closed canopy stands in home ranges were positively correlated with reproductive success in 2003–05 (Bull, et. al. 07). Reduction in canopy cover can expose birds to predation. Moving stands to historic open canopy conditions is not favorable for this specie of woodpecker, except in stands lacking large structure. Conversion of stands dominated by grand fir to stands dominated by ponderosa pine likely reduces suitable habitat for pileated woodpecker (Bull, in Marshall, 2003).

Table Wl-f illustrates the amount of pileated woodpecker habitat impacted by the various proposed treatments. There is potential to displace pileated woodpeckers on some of the harvest blocks, however only about 14 percent or approximately 456 acres of potential pileated woodpecker habitat would be harvested.One to two potential nesting territories could be altered from selective timber harvesting. A variable density silviculture prescription may lessen impacts and foraging for pileated woodpeckers is likely if snags and/or downed logs can be retained in the harvest units. Stands with higher densities of fir would be impacted less.

Understory thinning helps maintain old growth stands and pileated habitats outside DOG’s protecting stands from a wildfire and sustaining large structure in the stands since these treatmentsonly thin trees up to 10 inches in diameter. Some cover loss and stand complexity reduction is expected with thinning, but habitat should remain suitable for pileated woodpeckers. There would be approximately 1137 acres of potential pileated woodpecker habitat with small diameter thinning occurring.

As alluded to in the snag and downed log section, the loss of snags and downed logs is a concern for this specie. Since carpenter ants are primary prey and ants were found more abundant in downed logs, management activities affecting downed logs can adversely affect pileated woodpecker. Logs are expected to be minimally impacted with the mechanical treatments, but prescribed fire in the mixed conifer stands can reduce the existing downed logs and reduce foraging habitat. Moreover, stumps, which can contain ant colonies, are also consumed during burning operations. As previously stated, season of burning is important for retaining dead and downed habitat features. Design Criteria omitting direct ignition in Riparian Habitat Conservation Areas (RHCA)

of 72

helps maintain foraging habitat for pileated woodpecker and absence of vegetation treatments in these areas maintains pileated woodpecker breeding habitat. Approximately 1035 acres of designated connectivity would provide source habitat for pileated’s until vegetation recovery recovers from the proposed treatments. This dispersal habitat would alleviate stand reduction treatments and could serve as refugia. Moreover, the Utley Butte roadless area contains suitable habitat and could function as refugia, however that is assuming the habitat is not occupied with other pairs of pileatid’s. Riparian treatments would impact approximately 234 acres of identified pileated habitat. Riparian treatments would reduce suitable habitat in the short to mid- term, but is expected to enhance development of large structure and reduce probability of wildfire causing a stand replace event, which eliminates habitat for pileated woodpeckers. Most of the RHCA treatments are smaller diameter thinning, with the exception of approximately 60 acres of commercial harvest in potential pileated habitat.Other proposed restoration projects are not in pileated woodpecker habitat and would not affect this woodpecker. With Alternative 3prescribed fire would occur on approximately 995 acres of dedicated old growth and about 175 acres of source habitat for pileated woodpecker potentially reducing foraging or nesting habitat from snag and downed logs being consumed by fire as described above. Prescribed fire would help reduce the potential for a stand replacement fire in the mid- to long term and may protect the remaining Utley Butte Wildlife Area outside the project area from a future stand replacement fire. Alternative 3 road treatments could protect about 370 additional acres of dedicated old growth and associated habitat including 65 acres of pileated habitat. As stated in the snag section about 90 acres of snag habitat could be protected with this alternative compared to the Proposed Action by leaving road status as addressed in previous projects.

Cumulative Effects from All Alternatives Cumulative effects analysis is at the watershed and forest level for habitat analysis. At the forest level, habitat is above HRV due to effective fire suppression and development of shade tolerant fir species. At the watershed level less than 10 percent of the potential habitat would have treatments that adversely affect pileated habitat. South Fork John Day River watershed habitat for pileated woodpeckers would remain high assuming a large scale stand replacement does not occur. Future landscape restoration projects are expected to move pileated woodpecker habitat towards historic levels and expected reduction in habitat for the short to mid- term is likely. For more information on habitat alteration and population viability refer to PCE section on snags and stand structure.


of 72

As described above, pileated woodpecker habitat is above HRV levels due to decades of fire suppression that has changed composition of ponderosa pine forest to more fir dominated forest and has increase canopy closure to desirable levels for this specie. Harvesting of pileated habitat in Dove project is estimated at approximately 14 percent of the mixed conifer stands leaving remaining habitat at high stem densities. At the watershed scale about nine percent of the habitat is planned for mechanical treatments with some of PCT treatments possibly enhancing habitat for pileated woodpeckers. At the forest scale about one percent of the potential habitat would be altered. Other restoration projects on the forest are expected to reduce habitat for pileated woodpeckers as old forest multi-stratum stands are converted to single stratum more represented of historic conditions. On the Emigrant Creek district the combination of Wolf and Jane project in the Wolf Creek watershed impacted an estimated 80 percent of the potential pileated habitat compared to less than 15 percent in Dove. Because this Dove project is treating such a small percentage of the habitat on the forest, the project would not contribute to a negative trend in population viability for this specie. Moreover, the proposed treatments occurring adjacent to existing pileated habitat may protect habitat in the future from a stand replacement event like wildfire. Three-toed woodpecker& black-backed woodpecker-

Direct and Indirect Effects from No Action: These species are combined due to similar habitat requirements and both are associated with post fire or areas with high tree mortality from insect infestations. Treatments in lodgepole pine habitat would affect these species of woodpecker if suitable habitat exists. Insect infestations occurred in portions of the planning area however lack of large structure was apparent. This alternative would not develop large structure lodgepole pine since no treatments would occur. No prescribed fire with this alternative, which creates nesting and foraging habitat for these species by killing trees. Potential for stand replacement fire is higher with this alternative and the probability of insect mortality is higher. This alternative would not follow Hutto (1995) suggested management application where prescribed fire is used periodically to create habitat for these fire dependent species. Without planned application of fire, it could be decades before habitat creation for these species occurred in the project area, assuming effective fire suppression efforts and/or no ignition sources for wildfires in the project area.


Based on modeling there appears to be no habitat for three-toed woodpeckers within the project area.These species are dependent on fire to create a pulse of insect outbreaks for foraging. Insect outbreaks can occur without fire as illustrated in the project proposal from overstocked and stressed trees. Removal of high stocked stands reduces wildfire potential and thus reduces probability of stand replacement fire.

of 72

Thinning reduces the potential for insect outbreaks thus reducing secondary habitat for these species primarily black-backed woodpeckers. Reducing stem densities through harvesting and understory treatments in mixed conifer areas negatively affects these woodpeckers the most. Approximately 3437 acres of blacked-backed secondary habitatwould be affected through harvesting and thinning treatments. There would be about a 17 percent reduction in habitat from the proposed harvest at the project level. Additional 5686 acres would be treated with understory or PCT treatments that remove small diameter trees from the stands (Table Wl-f).Pre-commercial thinning of small diameter firs and pine would affect about 28 percent of secondary blacked-back habitat within the project area. Approximately 8417 acres would be left un-treated and would function as sink habitat until fire killed trees became available. Untreated stands account for roughly 41 percent of the project area and would maintain secondary or potentially converted to primary habitat depending on the burning patterns and intensity of future burns. Application of prescribed fire benefits these fire dependent species by creating foraging and nesting habitat due to the tree mortality of smaller diameter trees and the influx of insects drawn to the burn units. Where a stand replacement fire may benefit these two species for up to five years, it would take a century or more to replace the forest, where a prescribed fire applied over time can create a pulse of snags both spatial and temporal. About three to five thousand acres a year are usually burned with prescribed fire on the Emigrant Creek RD. The 10 proposed burn blocks in Dove would create snags attracting beetles and other insects providing a pulse of food preferred for these woodpeckers. Prescribed fire can convert secondary habitat into primary habitat by creating an abundance of snags and insects needed for reproduction and feeding of young birds. Creation of source habitat from prescribed fire offsets negative impacts from thinning and timber harvest. The degree of tree mortality determines the amount of source habitat created by the prescribed fire. Fall season burning may provide more primary habitat for these woodpeckers than spring burns, due to increase in small tree mortalities. Prescribed fire is recommended by Hutto (1995) to sustain habitat for blacked-backed woodpeckers and is necessary to offset conversion of habitat by thinning and/or harvesting. In Alternative 3 an additional 1650 acres of secondary blacked-back woodpecker habitat would most likely be converted to primary habitat through prescribed fire in burn block 101. Because part of the burn block would only be thinned with prescribed fire, high enough densities of small tree mortality are likely. Large blocks of high tree mortality are preferred for this specie.

The biggest adverse effects to these species of woodpeckers may be from the proposed shelterwood treatments because of the removal of insect infested lodgepole pine. Lodgepole pine is a primary tree species for three-toed woodpeckers and black-backed. Treatments would occur on 275 acres and would remove most of the infected trees if the wood fiber could be utilized. At the current time there would be no other refugia of lodgepole mortality within the project area, but continued morality is inevitable to some extent.However, diameter limit of 15 inches in these shelterwood units would

of 72

minimize effects to woodpeckers. Within the Lonesome and Venator Creek drainages this could have short to mid-term impacts on these species because these drainages lack a disturbance such as fire, but the proposal to reintroduce fire back into the system would offset the impacts and create primary habitat as addressed in the above paragraph. Riparian thinning and aspen treatmentsare expected to alter about850 acres of secondary blacked-backed habitat, but it is only fourpercent of the estimated habitat in the project area. None of the other restoration projects would affect blacked-back habitat, even though some juniper removal may occur in suitable habitat. Road treatments with Alternative 3 currently bisect an estimated 300 acres, including the entire polygons of secondaryhabitat, which would have efficient snag protection for future nesting and foraging habitat, if this alternative is selected.

Cumulative Effects from All Alternatives Cumulative effects for black-backed are at the watershed level. There are no cumulative effects to three-toed since no identified habitat exists in the project area even though lodgepole pine does occur in Dove. Potential black-backed habitat could be reduced by 28 percent from mechanical thinning and harvesting. No other vegetation projects are planned in the watershed and the Utley Butte area contains high tree densities conducive for black-backs. At least 40 percent of the watershed is expected to contain secondary habitat if all the proposed thinning was to occur. Primary habitat is expected to occur from re-introduction of fire; therefore positive effects are expected. Overall any of the action alternatives are expected to produce positive cumulative effects primarily from prescribed fire applications. Due to additional prescribed fire with Alternative 3, an estimated 1000 acres of additional primary habitat could be created with this alternative compared to Proposed Action.


Since there is no three-toed woodpecker habitat within the Dove project area, the assessment pertains to black-backed woodpecker only. Since there would be no effect to three-toed woodpeckers, the viability assessment is no affect to population trends. Approximately 45 percent of the black-backed woodpecker habitat would be thinned and/or harvested reducing foraging habitat. However, as with the pileated habitat, decades of effective fire suppression has increased secondary habitat but has reduced primary habitat. However, recent burns like Canyon Creek in 2015 have created thousands of acres of black-backed habitat on the forest. At the watershed scale only about 28 percent of the secondary black-backed habitat would be mechanically thinned. At the forest scale about one percent of the secondary habitat would be treated. In contrast, prescribed fire would offset some of the stem density reduction in the project area and on the Malheur Forest. Thinning of small diameter trees with fire would create primary habitat from the insects attracted to the fire. Because this project would not

of 72

eliminate habitat for this specie and would create habitat by prescribed fire Dove project would not contribute to a negative trend in population for black-backed woodpeckers. Williamson's Sapsucker -


Discussion of effects similar to red-naped sapsucker and downy woodpecker apply to this species also in regards to aspen and cottonwood. Absence of riparian and aspen treatments would continue to reduce future nesting habitat for this specie. Since this specie has been found nesting in stands with high snag densities similar to pileated woodpeckers, thinning creates both positive and negative results to habitat conditions outside riparian areas. Fewer snags are usually present after thinning treatments but more open canopy is expected favoring this specie. With the No Action Alternative higher canopy closure is expected, which is not preferred habitat for this sapsucker. Change in composition to more true fir type (abies sp) will reduce foraging availability since Williamson’s sapsuckers use sapwells from Douglas fir or ponderosa pine trees.

Proposed treatments would reduce the probability of a stand replacement fire, which would eliminate habitat for this MIS woodpecker. As stand composition changes to a more fir dominated nesting and foraging habitat may be reduced. This species of primary excavator prefers more open understory type forest; therefore some understory thinning is beneficial. No understory thinning would occur with this alternative.


Harvesting activities in potential habitat for Williamson’s sapsucker is expected to be around 1084 acres which is about 12% of available habitat in the project, based on course scale analysis by Wales. Dry or xeric ponderosa pine is considered marginal habitat because it usually doesn’t contain the higher density of snags required for nesting. Information in DecAid (Mellen-McClean, 2014) stated this specie requires higherdensity of snags than most PCE. However, studies have shown selective harvesting has only minimal impacts on this specie of excavator, if snag habitat is retained. Drever et. al. (2015) suggested treatments similar to ponderosa pine restoration with understory thinning coupled with prescribed fire in stands containing large structure western larch is considered necessary to maintain open large structure stands with adequate snags for nesting.

Alternative 3 would treat an additional 425 acres of sapsucker habitat with prescribe fire only, which would create snag densities favorable for this specie of cavity excavator. Road treatments bisect or parallel about 120 acres of Williamson’s sapsucker habitat which would help retain the higher densities of snag habitat needed for nesting.

Proposed vegetation treatments, including riparian treatments, and prescribed burning would create open understory and maintain large structure on the landscape benefitting this species. This primary excavator also forages and nests in riparian areas like the red-naped sapsucker and downy woodpecker; therefore similar positive effects as

of 72

described for red-naped and downy woodpecker. Where aspen and riparian treatments adjoin large structure, positive enhancement of Williamson’s sapsucker habitat is likely.

Cumulative Effects from All Alternatives Since timber harvesting has the greatest potential to reduce snag patches needed for nesting and no other planned vegetation projects would occur in the watershed, the direct and indirect effects would be the same as the cumulative effects. Only approximately eight percent of the potential Williamson’s sapsucker habitat would have harvest in it leaving most of the habitat at high densities for snag habitat. No adverse cumulative effects are expected to this specie.

Viability Assessment- Like for all MIS viability assessments are at the forest level. Habitat is abundant for this specie at the forest level with estimated habitat at approximately 361,000 acres of habitat on the forest. Only one percent would be altered with Dove project, which would not impact viability for this specie. Any of the proposed projects would not contribute to a negative trend in population viability. Red-naped Sapsucker & Downy woodpecker-

Direct and Indirect Effects from No Action: These two MIS species require riparian hardwoods for nesting and downy woodpeckers forage on hardwoods. Continue decline of hardwoods is expected without either a stand replacement fire or conifer reduction. Where recent conifer treatments occurred new regeneration of aspen is apparent, which will eventually become future snag or nesting habitat for these species. Prescribed fire has been affective at stimulating aspen suckering after some conifer reduction. No prescribed fire would occur with this alternative and due to overstocked stand conditions; future degradation of habitat for these MIS species is inevitable. Road and riparian treatments would benefit these excavators by retaining more snags and reducing conifer competition in the riparian areas. Similar as the Williamson’s sapsucker, reducing competing firs to enhance ponderosa pine improves future foraging habitat for red-naped sapsuckers also.

Direct and Indirect Effects Common to all Action Alternatives: Since these species are riparian hardwood dependent all treatments outside RHCA’s are expected to have minimal to no impact on these species habitats. Red-naped sapsuckers are focal species for aspen in Partners in Flight conservation plans (Altman, 2000). Assessment for habitat for these species is addressed in the aspen section but in summary conifer reduction, including juniper near and in RHCA’s would improve habitat

of 72

for these species in the mid to long term as aspen and other hardwoods become established from eliminating competing conifers. Aspen treatments on approximately 517 acres, riparian treatments on roughly 1290 acres, and meadow enhancement on 25 acres would improve habitats for these species and secondary habitat nesters. As described in the aspen section, prescribed fire stimulates aspen regeneration and would benefit these two species. Prescribed fire could damage sap well trees but most of forage trees are older ponderosa pine or Douglas fir that are fire tolerant and would not be affected by the fire. Alternative 3 could enhance another estimated up to 300 acres of riparian habitat in the Corral Creek and Rail Creek drainages through prescribed fire. Regeneration of hardwoods and aspen are expected with habitat enhancement from conifer reduction and stimulation from prescribed fire. Benefits are expected in the mid to long term as trees develop into potential nesting and foraging habitat.

Cumulative Effects from All Alternatives Cumulative effects for these two MIS are addressed in the Unique Habitat section under aspen. In summary, riparian projects that enhance hardwoods benefit these species. In contrast, activities that retard the growth of hardwoods have adverse effects on hardwood regeneration and subsequent loss of source habitat for these species of MIS that nest and forage on broadleaf trees including aspen, alder, cottonwood, and willow. Past projects that removed conifer out of aspen and juniper out of riparian areas all have positive effects on habitat for these MIS species. Excluding livestock by fencing and/or placement of thinning slash has been effective in reducing browse damage on aspen. These enhancement measures assure future regeneration of hardwoods and nesting habitat for these species of MIS.

Viability Assessment- Since it has taken decades to cause the decline in riparian hardwoods such as aspen, it will take decades for recovery to a state that would be beneficial for these cavity excavators. Aspen restoration projects have commenced on the forest for some time and have been successful in reversing the declining trend. This Dove project would help recover some of the prime riparian habitat for these species and would help increase the past declining trends in habitat. Dove project would not contribute to a negative trend in population for both these MIS species that are associated with riparian habitat. Hairy woodpecker &Northern flicker -

Direct and Indirect Effects from No Action: These species are combined since they are both habitat generalist and habitat is abundant throughout the project area. Both these species prefer edge habitat and open

of 72

forest conditions. Since flickers forage on the ground and eat mast from shrubs, this alternative would not benefit this specie. High conifer densities reduce foraging habitat over time from shading mast producing shrubs. Both of these species prefer large diameter old growth ponderosa pine for nesting, which could be limiting over the mid to long term as firs replace the recruitment of ponderosa pine. Both these species prefer southern slopes due to open canopy conditions, but without vegetation manipulation, these areas would develop into denser stands reducing suitable habitats.

There would be no prescribed fire which creates clumps of snags. These pockets of snags are essential for hairy woodpecker nesting. Because prescribed fire would reduce substrate for ants and other insects, this alternative would retain foraging opportunities for flickers in existing habitat until closed canopy develops. Lack of road treatments impacts all cavity nesting birds due to potential for loss of snag habitat.

Direct and Indirect Effects Common to all Action Alternatives: These two species occur in a variety of habitats but prefer forest edges and open canopy forests. The proposed prescriptions for timber harvest including variable density spacing of trees, and application of skips and gaps, creates more edge potentially improving habitat for these woodpeckers. Wildlife field crews identified snag patches and protective leave areas (ATP’s) were put into GIS. These protective areas are habitat for hairy woodpeckers. Hairy woodpeckers utilize thinned stands more in younger age stands than un-thinned (Hagar et. al, 1996). Harvesting opens forest floor for production of mast plants like currant (Ribes sp.) improving habitat for northern flickers. Flickers tend to be more ground foragers and harvesting can affect downed logs and subsequent forage such as ants due to incidental skidding and felling of trees.

Understory thinning has more of an impact on hairy woodpeckers than flickers. Hairy woodpeckers utilize these high density stands during winter as a forage source (Hagar et. al, 1996). Understory thinning is expected on 7336 acres of hairy woodpecker habitat and harvest would occur on additional 2200 acres. It is estimated about 58 percent of the hairy woodpecker habitat would be treated in project area with potential foraging habitat reduction (Table Wl-f). Proposed leave patches in the thinning units provide some edge habitat while timber harvesting creates openings for these species of MIS. Un-thinned patches of small trees within proposed burn blocks may provide future foraging habitat for hairy woodpeckers after prescribed fire. Northern flicker habitat would be improved considerably with thinning because they forage on the ground or berries from shrubs. Thinning would occur on an estimated 7,063 acres of potential flicker habitat and harvest on 1,591. An estimated 64 percent of potential flicker habitat would receive favorable treatments to improve foraging habitat. However, juniper reduction can reduce potential nesting habitat if most of the juniper are removed. Leaving the older juniper would alleviate some of the potential loss and if large ponderosa pine snags are available in juniper and shrub steppe habitats, impacts would be minimal. Most of the juniper and shrub steppe habitat does not contain snag

of 72

habitat for hairy woodpeckers, therefore no effects on hairy woodpeckers from juniper treatments. Effects from prescribed fire for hairy woodpecker are similar to blacked-backed with habitat improvements expected from insect influx from burned trees. In contrast, northern flicker are usually adversely affected by fire, since they are ground foragers and insect populations such as ants can be impacted by burning in the short term. Mast producing shrubs can be enhanced by burning, but can also be reduced, depending on burn intensity,coverage of burn, and shrub species. Alternative 3 would enhance at least one thousand acres of hairy woodpecker by prescribed fire in areas that did not receive mechanical thinning therefore an increase in forage habitat would occur.


Since these two species of MIS are habitat generalist and there are no other planned vegetation treatments within the watershed, the direct and indirect effects are similar the cumulative effects. Large old growth ponderosa pine snags are preferred nesting substrate and as discussed in the snag sections, there is a concern to maintain this habitat on the landscape. Removal of snags for firewood coupled with high miles of roads lends to reduction in large snags on the landscape. Potential habitat for these two species at the watershed level would be impacted from timber harvesting on approximately nine and ten percent for hairy and flickers respectively. The impact to snags for roosting, nesting, or foraging for these species is very minimal. While hairy woodpecker habitat would be thinned with understory treatments on about 28 percent within the South Fork John Day watershed, remaining habitat would be untreated leaving high density stands for nesting and winter foraging. Moreover, prescribed fire would create habitat for hairy woodpeckers. Juniper thinning outside the project area reduces habitat for flickers. Proposed juniper reduction in Dove reduces some nesting and foraging habitat for flickers, however the prescriptions are designed to retain older structure or old growth characteristic junipers, which can provide nesting and foraging for flickers.


Habitat is abundant in the project area and on the forest for these habitat generalist. Both these

species are adaptable to management activities and the proposed projects are not expected to

affect their habitats to measurable adverse degrees. Habitat is estimated at approximately

735,375 acres and 125,850 acres for hairy and flickers respectively forest wide. Slightly over one

percent of the Malheur forest hairy woodpecker habitat would be reduced by mechanical

thinning in the project area therefore no concerns to viability. Even with the larger landscape

prescribed fire proposed and assuming 50 percent of the flicker habitat would be modified by

burning, this Dove project could impact up to five percent of the habitat on the forest. The effects

would be short term at most and no impacts to viability to flickers would be expected.

of 72

Implementation of the proposed activities with either of the action alternatives would not

contribute to a negative trend in population viability for these two habitat generalist.

Big Game

Big game will be analyzed concurrently for mule deer and elk because no standards in the Malheur LRMP occur for mule deer. The need for cover and forage are similar but quality of forage is extremely important for mule deer production. There are no intentions to measure forage production or nutritional estimates with the proposed projects. The cover:forage analysis is performed by a GIS analysis and is just an estimate of the habitat attributes used to determine the effects of the proposed treatments. Roads analysis is also performed in GIS and sometimes does not reflect the season of use, whether or not the road is actually closed or open on the ground, and the amount of use by vehicle traffic, which is the ultimate impact to big game. Roads are not theissue; it is human impact on the roads that cause adverse effects to big game. The model developed by Thomas (1988) is used to determine habitat effectiveness index (HEI) from the proposed treatments based the cover, arrangements of cover and forage, forage quality and quantity and road densities. Malheur LRMP has standards for index values. The model is not used to determine population numbers just the influences of different treatments to the landscape. The model does not reflect the concerns of ODF&W on big game distributions. As previously stated, populations of big game are governed by ODF&W. Big game cover forage analysis

There would be some direct disturbance to big game during implementation of the vegetation treatments, but the impacts would be short term and localized. Once animals become accustomed to workers in the thinning units, disturbance is decreased. Ungulate displacement is expected during thinning and burning operations. Disturbance from logging operations and associated traffic from log haul cause animals to move to un-disturbed security areas. In areas where topography is steep or ridges separate logging operations, big game movement is expected to be minimal. Edge (1982) reported elk moved to 0.67 mile and Lieb (1981) found average displacement of 0.9 mile in Montana from logging operations. Under most circumstances, displacement of elk by human activities during logging is temporary. Some animals may return during night and weekends, when logging operations cease (Edge, 1982). Elk and deer become habituated to logging during non-hunted seasons due to the influx of quality food from lichens and moss on the felled trees. Winter and late autumn logging benefits big game because food can be limiting during these seasons. Design criteria minimizes disturbance during winter logging by restricting harvest within big game winter range.

Most mechanical treatments convert marginal and satisfactory cover into forage. Table WL-E01 illustrates the cover changes by alternative. Harvesting combined with small diameter biomass treatments are expected to convert cover to forage. Canopy reduction below 40 percent is considered forage. In a study in Montana, highest forage use by elk was in openings between 0 and 25 percent crown closure. Higher diversity of plants

of 72

occurredin these open canopy areas. However, some of these proposed larger treatment areas do not contain cover patches to retain animals or provide bedding areas for protection. Habitat suitability for elk and possibly deer are reduced in the larger (greater than 100 acre) treatment blocks. Clary (in Thomas, 2002) within ponderosa pine forest, recommended retaining a 40 to 80 basal area prescription with thickets for bedding. Since elk are more social animals, requirements for small cover patches on summer ranges were estimated to be between 30 and 60 acres. Malheur LRMP requires a minimum of 10 acres of high density stands to be considered cover. Elk and mule deer are ecotone species where the highest use is where a diversity of habitats are interspersed. Harvesting and thinning can create these micro-habitats especially where un-treated blocks are adjacent to the treatments. Reduction in cover can have adverse effects on big game by increasing vulnerability. The increase in vulnerability can be contributed to factors such as road densities, spatial arrangements of roads, hunter densities, off-road travel, availability of escape cover, and movements of elk and deer associated with traveling to and from water, bedding, and foraging areas. If an increase in disturbance occurs, elk would move to areas with security cover.If animals have to move long distances from bedding areas to foraging, more energy is expended. This is really important for mule deer fawns going into winter in fit condition. Survival is higher if animals are fit. With limited cover, animal disturbance can be greater especially near open roads to vehicle traffic. Prescribed fire will increase palatability, plant nutrition, vigor, and plant production for some species of plants in the proposed burning blocks. Research has indicated fire improves big game habitat. An increase in bunchgrass and forb production is anticipated following application of prescribed fire. Prescribed fire creates edges with unburned vegetation and provides a mosaic of cover and forage. The close proximity of high quality forage to cover allows elk and deer to acquire energy with little expenditure. Historically it is claimed that Native Americans used this practice to attract big game populations. Aspen, meadow, and riparian restoration treatments are expected to improve big game habitat within two growing seasons from treatments. These habitats are extremely important for fawning and fawn rearing. Elk feed in meadows and aspen areas regularly. These are some of the highest forage production areas in the project area. These projects are supported by Southern Blues Collaboration, Harney High Desert Partnerships, and conservation organizations like Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation and Mule Deer Initiative regularly fund these types of projects. Likewise as above, shrub-steppe and juniper projects reduce conifer competition on upland shrubs and bunchgrasses. Juniper reduction would release more forage and possible water into the ecosystems benefitting ungulates. Southworth (2015) of the Southern Blues Collaboration suggested juniper treatments beginning at the riparian areas progressing upslope. This approach would improve riparian ecotone with the sagebrush steppe habitats and would benefit ungulate big game winter ranges and

of 72

transitional ranges.


North American ungulates, including deer and elk are generally associated with a mosaic of open areas used for foraging and forested areas used for cover. Some ungulates use dense thickets of shrubs and trees as thermal cover and as cover to hide from predators, for day-beds, and for fawning. All species are associated with areas of abundant forage, such as grasses, forbs, and shrubs. The proximity of these two habitats is important (Pilliod et. all, 2006). Cumulative effects from Dove project and previous timber harvesting can have both positive and negative impacts to big game habitat. While the increase in forage from the various proposed thinning prescriptions can be beneficial during late winter, spring, and summer months, the reduction in cover can have adverse effects on these hunted species during the fall hunting seasons. Recent projects within Murders Creek hunt unit like Star and Damon which created a mosaic of habitats. Past timber harvest practices created a forest mosaic with smaller harvest blocks surrounded by forest cover stands. Some of the harvest blocks were later burned with prescribed fire. Where these old harvest blocks were located away from major roads prime ungulate habitat was created for a short time period.No wildfires have occurred in the watershed but one lightning start occurred during field work. Wildfires create an abundance of forage. The current and most likely future fuels reduction projects plan on thinning large blocks of saplings, poles, and saw timber to reduce the potential for a stand replacement fire and move stands to historic conditions (open park-like in dry pine sites). Open park-like stands do not provide hiding cover for wild ungulates during hunting seasons to escape human pressures. Moreover, some of the stands would not provide calving and fawning cover for concealment during parturition period (May-July) possibly increasing predation, which was a concern of ODF&W biologist for declining mule deer populations. The proposal in Dove is to retain some cover patches and apply cut gaps in the canopy creating early seral plant communities. The variable density thinning prescriptions in Dove should improve big game habitat by creating more edge habitat compared to the previous projects like Marshall Devine which applied less diverse vegetation thinning prescription.

of 72

Table WL-E01. Subwatershed cover and forage percentages with acres for elk

summer/winter ranges. No Action Proposed Action Alternative 3

Sub-

watershed

Elk

Habitat

Type

% S

atisfactory

% M

argin

al

%T

otal C

ov

er

% S

atisfactory

% M

argin

al

%T

otal C

ov

er

% S

atisfactory

% M

argin

al

%T

otal C

ov

er

Corral Creek

Summer

Range

(6915 ac)

28.2 25.7 53.9 25.4 24.0 49.4 22.9 25.5 48.4

Winter

Range

(559 ac)

15.9 16.4 32.2 11.8 16.4 28.1 11.8 16.4 28.1

Headwaters

South Fork

John Day

River

Summer

Range

(15,426

ac)

20.4 23.1 43.5 9.8 22.6 32.4 12 21.5 33.5

Winter

Range

(2116 ac)

25.5 37.4 63 19.3 38.3 57.6 19.7 37.9 57.6

Lonesome

Creek

Summer

Range

(8499 ac)

28.2 36.2 64.4 12.3 42.8 55.1 12.3 42.8 55.1

Winter

Range

(1616 ac)

13.5 34.5 48 5.8 42.3 48 10 39.9 48

Venator

Creek

Summer

Range

(7,484

ac)

16.2 34.9 51.1 7.3 43.7 51 12.6 38.5 51

Winter

Range

(1,276

ac)

15.8 9.6 25.4 4.7 20.7 25.4 10 17.2 25.4

Indicates area not meeting minimum FP standards.

of 72

Roads

Road density reduction would ameliorate the negative effects from the landscape thinning treatments. Limiting motorized travel on approximately 51 miles of roads reduces harassment, displacement, and disturbance on animals and can improve overall health of big game. There could be a higher probability of bulls and bucks staying within the project area as opposed to leaving in the late summer and early autumn to avoid huntersimproving recreation experiences. With an improvement in recreation, benefits to local economies are likely.

Research on the effects of roads and traffic on elk and elk management have focused on 3 broad, yet inter-related ways roads may potentially affect elk: 1) physiologic and energetic effects, 2) effects on distribution and habitat use, and 3) effects on vulnerability to mortality and, potentially, population dynamics (McCorquodale, 2013). Roads per se are not the issue it is human disturbances that affect the health and well-being of elk and mule deer. The proposed road treatments can reduce stress of ungulates and help maintain fitness for winter preparation. Reducing traffic can also improve fawning/calf rearing areas. This can help offset the negative effects from cover and cover complexity reduction from thinning, timber harvesting, and prescribed fire. Reduced time mule deer fawns spend feeding affects the condition of the animal going into winter thus these animals are more susceptible to predation and starvation. Cole et. al. (1997) found elk home ranges declined considerably when road densities were reduced.

Research has determined as road densities increased above 2 miles of open road per square mile, habitat effectiveness (i.e., percent of expected use) declined rapidly (loss of 55-80% habitat effectiveness). Road densities factor into forest plan habitat effectiveness models but science from Rowland et al. (2000) found that spatial arrangements of roads are more important where distance bands away from roads affect distribution of elk. Farther habitat is from roads, the more use received by elk. The Proposed Action would improve minimum security (1/4 mile from roads) by approximately 600 acres and improve moderate security (~0.6 mile from roads) by approximately 665 acres (Table xxx). Alternative 3 would increase security by an additional 220 acres and 210 acres for ¼ mile and ½ mile respectively.Proposed road treatments would improve habitat effectiveness and ameliorate the reduction in cover from proposed vegetation and prescribed burning treatments. Table xxx. Big game Security by Alternatives based on habitat secluded from open roads Alternatives

Minimal Security beyond 400 meter Moderate Security beyond 900 meters

Ac w/out treatment

Ac. Heavy treatments

Total Ac. Of min. security

Ac w/out treatment

Ac. Heavy treatments

Total Ac. Of mod.security

No Action 9753 0 9753 3941 0 3941

Proposed 3653 1425 10,347 2790 153 4605

Alt. 3 3764 1454 10,568 2923 153 4815

of 72

Heavy treatments = harvesting/thinning combined

Research from Starkey has indicated that mule deer behavior seemed to be affected more by elk than by roads. Mule deer tended to avoid elk and so the deer often used areas near roads. Mule deer are more likely to use areas least used by elk, which displaces deer near roads with the most traffic. This increases their vulnerability to human disturbance and affects their ability to forage and condition for winter. With mule deer population declines in the past decade, access management is a concern. Road treatments in the Venator Creek drainage would reduce road densities to more favorable levels and be within levels recommended in the Malheur Forest Plan. Road treatments would be in compliance with the Forest Plan and the all the treatments move road density levels towards desired levels for ungulates. Road treatments in or adjacent to riparian areas improve fawn rearing habitat considerably. There are about 7.5 miles of roads proposed for treatment in riparian zone. For every one mile of road treated potentially 320 acres or ½ section of deer or elk habitat could be improved. Seasonal closures, as proposed and recommended by collaborative group during earlier meetings, would reduce disturbance and harassment during hunting seasons when pressure is high on these ungulates. By gating a single road in the Corral Creek drainage near Utley Butte wildlife area, over 900 acres of security habitat would be created and may retain elk on the national forest instead of pushing them onto private lands during hunting seasons.


In the 1960’s and 1970’s roads were constructed in most of the South Fork John Day River watershed and other parts of the management units for fire suppression and timber extraction. These roads can have adverse effects to big game and reduce the effectiveness of existing habitat. In Dove, the proposed road treatments enhance the effectiveness of habitat and increase big game security. These mitigations can offset some of the cover reduction from proposed projects.Road closure treatments have occurred throughout the district improving big game habitat, however the effectiveness of the treatment varies. Public compliance with road treatments is not always supportive, which brings in the issues of cross country travel with other motor vehicles (ie. ATV’s). Malheur National Forest is currently working on a national proposal to regulate motorized cross country travel, which will improve security and reduce disturbance to wild ungulates. All action alternatives in Dove Project will not adversely affect the continued viability of elk on the Malheur National Forest or jeopardize any of the ungulate hunts within the Murders Creek or Silvies hunt units. Surplus of male mule deer and both sexes of elk are expected to be available for limited harvest.

Road closures have not been effective in some areas of the subwatersheds. The greatest potential

for impact is during hunting season, when hunter traffic, and the associated “stimulus” associated

of 72

with those activities are at their highest level. Road closures are difficult to enforce, even those

with barricades and gates, due to flat topography, open forest vegetation and a lack of

enforcement personnel. A reduction in open road densities would benefit big game, this would

change the overall HEr and HEI.

Perhaps more important than the impacts of open road densities upon elk habit use is the spatial

relationships of those roads. Recent studies at the Starkey Experimental Station analyzed road

distribution and its impacts on elk habitat use (PNW Science Update Issue 13). Researchers

found a strong correlation between road activity and habitat selection. Female elk consistently

selected areas away from open roads in both spring and summer. Elk response was affected by

traffic rates, amount of forest cover near roads, and the type of road (which related to traffic

rates). Once the elk were farther away from roads, they were more influenced by other factors

such as conditions affecting forage. When elk were unable to avoid roads and trails, subsequent

studies showed that animals increased their movement rates, which can increase energy

expenditures. Higher movement rates could thus reduce the animals’ fat reserves and undermine

general animal condition and winter survival.

These results indicate that roads are an important factor in elk management. Study results were

incorporated into a model that uses distance bands 328 feet wide as a basis for calculating

disturbance to elk from roads. The research had shown that distance bands were more accurate

for estimating disturbance to elk than road density alone.

The same research indicated that mule deer behavior seemed to be affected more by elk than by

roads. Mule deer tended to avoid elk and so the deer often used areas near roads. That is, mule

deer are more likely to use areas least used by elk, which means deer end up in areas near roads

with the most traffic. This increases their vulnerability to human disturbance.

Ninety-nine percent of all habitats in the analysis area are within 1,000 meters of an open road.

About 89% of the area is within 500 meters of an open road. Therefore, the presence of open

roads likely reduces the habitat effectiveness of the area. This effect would gradually decrease as

distance from open roads increased.

Wisdom et al. (1999a) identified 13 major road-associated factors that negatively affected habitat

or terrestrial wildlife found throughout the Interior Columbia Basin (Table WL-9). Most of these

effects can be seen at some level in the Little Emigrant and Whiskey Creek Watersheds. Effects

of these factors can be direct, such as habitat loss and fragmentation, or indirect, such as

population displacement or avoidance of areas near roads. However, no site-specific data linking

certain roads to negative impacts were available. Disturbances are caused by the physical

presence of roads themselves and by the increased contact with humans that they provide. Roads

and associated act ivies disturb wildlife habitat in a number of different ways, favoring some

species while harming others. Roads offer a competitive advantage to disturbance-adapted

species. Roads create both edge habitat and habitat fragmentation. Roads serve as corridors for

pests and non-native plant species, but also sever the travel corridors used by some species. Road

construction and failed culverts threaten aquatic populations in some areas with increased silt

and sediment.

Table WL-9. Road-associated Factors that Negatively Affect Habitat or Terrestrial Wildlife

Factor Effect

Snag Reduction Removal of large snags for safety and for firewood.

of 72

Down Log Retention Loss of down wood due to loss of snags removed for safety and for firewood.

Habitat Loss and Fragmentation *

Loss and fragmentation due to establishment and maintenance of roads and road right-a-ways.

Negative Edge Effect Creation of linear edge created by the road.

Overhunting * Non-sustainable or non-desirable legal harvest by hunting, as facilitated byroad access. This can be compensated by controlling the number of hunting permits issued for a given area.

Overtrapping Non-sustainable or non-desirable legal harvest by trapping, as facilitated by road access.

Poaching * Increased illegal take, as facilitated by road access

Collection Collection of live animals for pets, as facilitated by the physical characteristics of roads or by road access.

Harassment or Disturbance *

Increased disturbance at specific use sites due to human or motorized activities, as facilitated by road access.

Collisions * Death or injury resulting from a motorized vehicle running over or hitting an animal on a road.

Movement Barrier * Interference with dispersal, migratory or other movements as posed by a road itself or by human activities on or near a road or road network.

Displacement or Avoidance *

Spatial shifts in populations or individual animals away from a road or road network in relation to human activities on or near a road or road network.

Chronic Negative Interaction with Humans *

Increased mortality of animals due to increased contact with humans, as facilitated by road access.

* indicates factors that directly or indirectly affect big game.

Road treatments are the same for all action alternatives; therefore the effects are similar for any

of action alternatives. Road density reduction would ameliorate the negative effects from the

landscape thinning treatments. Limiting motorized travel on approximately 51 miles of roads

reduces harassment, displacement, and disturbance on animals and can improve overall health of

big game. There could be a higher probability of bulls and bucks staying within the project area

as opposed to leaving in the late summer and early autumn to avoid hunters.

The proposed road treatments can reduce stress of ungulates and help maintain fitness for winter

preparation. Reducing traffic can also improve fawning/calf rearing areas. This can help offset

the negative effects from cover and cover complexity reduction from thinning, timber harvesting,

and prescribed fire.

Construction of temporary roads for timber extraction would have negative short term effects to

ungulates by decreasing security and aiding in all the effects described in the affected

environment to wild ungulates. While traffic on the temporary roads are expected to low

therefore, harassment, disturbance, and displacement are expected to be low. If these temporary

roads are constructed into key security areas or along ungulate travel routes, short term displace

is more likely. Any construction in riparian or near water sources would have negative effects

and may displace ungulates (Thomas and Toweill, 1982). Design criteria to restore the temporary

roads by planting native grasses may improve foraging and the roads may be used as travel

corridors once human disturbances seize.

of 72

Elk security areas are generally found away from open road systems and are defined as marginal

areas of which are at least 400 meters (~1/4 mile from roads) or moderate security areas located

at 800 meters from open roads (~1/2 mile). Distance of open roads has been determined to be

major factor in elk distribution (Thomas & Toweill, 1982) and Rowland et.al. (2004) suggested

the use of distance bands from roads for habitat effectiveness. Proposed road treatments are

expected to increase security at the marginal level, 400 meters, from approximately 7887 acres to

11,934 acres post treatments, assuming affective treatments and maintaining past treatments.

This is approximately 43 percent increase in elk security areas. At the moderate level or 800

meters, security would increase from about 1977 acres to 3180 acres with the proposed road

treatments increasing security by approximately 61 percent. Increase in security reduces

vulnerability of elk and mule deer and helps maintain ungulate populations on national forest

lands. Increase in security areas ameliorates substantial loss of hiding cover from vegetation and

prescribed fire treatments.

Results of the proposed road treatments are displayed in Table WL-E02 for all alternatives. The

treatments move road density towards desired levels and are below Malheur LRMP standards in

both subwatersheds in both winter and summer elk ranges. Road density reduction would

ameliorate the negative effects from the landscape thinning treatments. Possible reduction in

vehicle traffic during the spring and summer months allow better foraging opportunity for

ungulates by reducing disturbance. There could be a higher probability of bulls and bucks

staying within the project area as opposed to leaving in the late summer and early autumn to

avoid hunters, since disturbance could be reduced.

The proposed road treatments can reduce stress of ungulates and help maintain fitness for winter

preparation. Reducing traffic can also improve fawning/calf rearing areas. This can help offset

the negative effects from cover and cover complexity reduction from thinning, timber harvesting,

and prescribed fire. Construction of temporary roads for timber extraction would have negative

short term effects to ungulates by decreasing security and aiding in all the effects described in the

affected environment to wild ungulates (ie. disturbance, harassment, displacement). While traffic

on the temporary roads is expected to be low therefore, harassment, disturbance, and

displacement are expected to be low. If these temporary roads are constructed into key security

areas or along ungulate travel routes, short term displace is more likely. A GIS analysis of

temporary roads in established wildlife corridors indicated that only 8.7 acres or 0.09% of the

wildlife corridors will be affected. This is a very small amount of area affected and the effects

should be proportionate to area affected. Any construction of temporary roads in riparian or near

water sources would have negative effects and may displace ungulates (Richard, et. al, 1998).

Design criteria to restore the temporary roads by planting native grasses may improve foraging

and the roads may be used as travel corridors once human activities from timber harvest

operations are completed.

Security areas for big game would improve by approximately 3% beyond 900 meters and about

6% beyond 500 meters after proposed road treatments. It is estimated that an additional 946 acres

of security area will be created past 900 meters and 1,721 acres past 500 meters, once road

treatments are implemented, See Table WL-E02b. Security cover is dense vegetation located

beyond the stated distances of open roads.

of 72

Summer range within the Venator Creek subwatershed currently does not meet Malheur Forest

Standards for road densities. Current road densities are based on GIS analysis using data that is

not correct with the landscape due to roads stated as open area not and roads supposed to be

closed are currently being driven on (See Roads analysis by Lundbom et. al, 2015 for more

information on road conditions).

Table Wl-05. Road densities by range type for each subwatershed in Dove.

Summer Range Winter Range

Subwatershed Miles open

road

Open Road

Density

Miles open

road

Open Road

Density

Corral Creek 12.03 1.11 4.85 1.0

Headwaters S.F. John Day 56.75 2.35 xx xx

Venator Creek 39.04 3.34 2.07 1.04

Lonesome Creek 36.5 2.75 0.63 2.35

Forest Plan

Standards 3.2 2.2

Shading indicates not meeting forest plan standards.

High road densities usually reduce elk security, when open roads are dispersed in the project

area. To evaluate the potential for elk security 400 and 800 meter buffers were placed on all open

roads to represent minimal security areas and moderate security areas in Dove project area to

assess potential security areas for elk. There were an estimated 7,585 acres of security habitat

beyond 400 meters from current open roads and 1,975 acres of security habitat beyond 800

meters. Most of the security lies near forest boundary by private lands. The northern upper 1/3 of

the planning lacked any elk security due to the high road densities and juxtaposition of the roads

with other open roads. With the lack interior security areas the probability of big game becoming

displaced on private is fairly high. There is a need to improve elk security within the Dove PA.

Habitat Effectiveness Index (HEI)

Malheur LRMP employs a habitat effectiveness index model (HEI) developed by Thomas et.al

(1988) to illustrate potential effects from management activities to elk habitat. The model

computes the interactions between cover stand size and spacing, road density, and cover quality.

The forage value for winter range values was estimated to be 0.5, since no data was collected on

bunchgrass populations. Since forage is usually not a limiting factor on summer range, the forage

value is not computed in the index. Table WL-06 displays habitat index values by subwatershed.

Table WL-06 Current Habitat Effectiveness Index values for Dove Project.

Subwatershed

HEc HEs HEr HEf HEcsr (HEI)

of 72

Forest Plan Standard SR WR SR WR SR WR SR WR SR WR

.3 .4 .3 .3 .4 .5 * .4 .4 .5

Corral Creek .58 .69 .72 .39 .44 .6 * .5 .55 .53

Upper S.F. John Day River

.64 .67 .74 .78 .46 .43 * .5 .57 .58

Venator Creek .71 .61 .6 .75 .38 .3 * .5 .53 .51

Lonesome Creek .82 .95 .45 .85 .34 .45 * .5 0.5 .65

HEI = Habitat Effectiveness Index * = not used

HEc = habitat effectiveness derived from the quality of cover HEs = habitat effectiveness derived from the size and spacing of cover HEr = habitat effectiveness derived from the density or roads HEf = habitat effectiveness derived from the quality of forage

Hash marks indicate not meeting forest standards.

Habitat Effectiveness Index (HEI)

Factors that affect habitat for big game are discussed above. HEI values are compared to forest

standards and various alternatives by subwatersheds and seasonal ranges (winter and summer).

Table xx illustrates estimated index values for each alternative. Proposed Action improved the

HEr index in the Venator Creek drainages increasing the values to more desirable levels for big

game on the forest.

Old Growth

A/B. Designated Old Growth (DOG)/ Replacement Old Growth (ROG)


There would be no enhancement of these special areas since no understory thinning of conifer would occur. These stands would remain in a multi-stratum structure and vulnerable to a stand replacement fire, which eliminated ten allocated old growth stands in the Egley wildfire in 2007 on the Emigrant Creek Ranger District and several old growth stands currently in the Canyon Creek complex north of Dove on the Malheur National Forest. Until a large disturbance occurs such as stand replacement event from fire or insect infestation, these multi-stratum stands are providing good habitat for species preferring dense vegetation. Overstocking of younger trees increases mortality of the larger trees, creating snag habitat for the guild of wildlife requiring dead and defective habitat as discussed in the MIS and snag sections. In DOG’s at higher elevation in mixed conifer, this alternative would be favorable for wildlife requiring high density stands with more complexity. The fir composition would

of 72

increase in these stands providing more diversity over time. However, future recruitment of large ponderosa pine old growth trees and subsequent snags and downed logs would be suppressed with the lack of disturbance or mechanical thinning. Large ponderosa pine snags are favorable nesting habitat for old growth dependent species such as pileated and white-headed woodpeckers (Bull, 87; Dixon, 95). The most substantial impacts may be to the ROG’s. The objective of ROG’s is the potential to replace DOG’s in the event of a catastrophic occurrence (Malheur LRMP, IV-105, #5). The No-Action Alternative would not designate ROG’s. In addition with the absence of stand improvement treatments, the current overstock conditions will limit development of old growth trees and increase the vulnerability of the stands to a stand replacement event; therefore not meeting the objective of the Malheur LRMP and wildlife that depend on large structure timber stands.


With the exception of OG-010, DOG’s would receive minimal to no harvest treatments in the stands. Treatments within DOG’s, ROG’s, and pileated feeding areas are displayed in Table xx. Harvests treatments are designed to maintain existing old growth trees and enhance growth of mature trees to help sustain old characteristics. There could be short-term displacement of pileated woodpeckers and other species requiring multi-stratum stands until tree canopies recover and multi-layer stands are developed. Stand improvement prescriptionwith commercial thinning combined with pre-commercial treatments have the potential to reduce habitat for pileated woodpeckers and other wildlife occurring in these denser stands. Approximately 45 % of the ROG’s would be mechanically thinned with 19 % harvested. Combination thinning and harvesting reduces complexity and in fir dominated standscomposition changes can affect wildlife cover for the short to mid-term until trees are re-established. However, the objectives of ROG’s in Malheur LRMP are to sustain these stands through vegetation manipulation to increase stand resilience and sustain old growth characteristics. Since some of the ROG’s would not be treated (~36%), the impacts to species such as pileated woodpeckers and northern goshawks from the proposed projects are expected to be minimal within designated DOG’s and ROG’s. This does not include DOG 004 located in the Utley Butte Wildlife Area, which is an approximate 995 acre old growth that would not receive mechanical treatments.

Table xx. Treatment acres in Designated Old Growth and associated habitats

OG 215 OG 005 OG010 OG038

OG RO FA OG RO FA OG RO FA OG RO FA

Rip 21 9 25 15 19 60 8 0 17 6 0 7

PCT 258 193 143 74 26 53 58 0 22 212 121 117

Harv 3 17 15 34 7 109 101 141 66 0 0 9

No Treat

39 115 241 248 121 248 87 11 206 51 39 217

of 72

OG= designated old growth, RO= replacement old growth, FA= feeding areas for pileated woodpecker. Rip= riparian thinning, PCT = thinning up to 10 inch dbh, includes juniper treatments; Harv.= timber harvesting up to 21 inch dbh; No treat= acres excluded from mechanical treatments.

As required in Malheur LRMP (Standard #49 IV-30) pileated feeding areas were designated to augment DOG’s and provide foraging habitat for pileated woodpeckers and other species requiring similar habitats. Less than 10 % of the designated feeding areas would receive commercial harvest and about 1/3 of the area would have understory seedling/sapling size trees thinned with the mid and overstory trees left intact. Overall, these combined treatments are expected to have negligible effect to the habitat because most of the designated foraging habitat would not be mechanically thinned. Primary concern for designated feeding areas is retention of snag and downed log habitat. Prescribed fire may have more of an impact on these habitat components than harvesting and thinning. While prescribed fire may create more snags in these feeding areas, fire killed snags are not as favorable for pileated woodpeckers as there are for blacked-back woodpeckers. Approximately 930 acres of feeding areas are on north slopes or riparian areas which would receive little to no prescribed fire; therefore minimal impacts on snag, downed logs and cover for wildlife. Prescribed fire can consume downed logs that harbor ants and can remove snag habitat (Pilliod, 06). Other restoration treatments would have no effect on old growth habitat since none of the treatments would occur in old growth, with the exception of corridor treatments described in next section.

C. LOS & Connectivity Corridors

Late-old structure stands and departure from historic conditions are described in the vegetation section (Giles, 2016). The need to develop and protect these stands is addressed in the purpose and need (Bailey, 2016) and in the fuels section (McGovern, 2016).


LOS-

Late old structure stands would remain predominantly in the multi-stratum condition favorable for species like pileated woodpecker but exclude species preferring the single-stratum LOS stands like white-headed woodpecker or white-breasted nuthatches. The open “park-like stands” would continue to decline and conditions and habitat for single-stratum species would decline. With this alternative there would not be any enhancement for future development of LOS by thinning understory vegetation. There would be no accelerating development to LOS stands from stem-exclusion or young- forest multi-stratum stands due to the high tree stocking densities.

of 72

Connectivity--

Connectivity would not be limited to the designed areas as proposed in the action alternatives. There would be no limitations in connectivity from stem density reduction with the exception of lack of large structure in some stands and the fragmentation caused from roads and past timber harvesting practices. With the No Action Alternative, no prescribed fire would occur possibility reducing connectivity. Any fire can reduce downed woody material, snags, and affect stand complexity limiting animal movements, primarily small mammals, including carnivores that use ground structure for cover. The lack of vegetation complexity and downed logs near roads can fragment habitat for some wildlife. This alternative would not treat any roads and allow for development of future connectivity. Roads located in riparian areas and ridge saddles can fragment key connectivity areas. The overall condition of riparian habitats in general would not be improved with this No Action Alternative. There would be no improvement of aspen. Aspen stands, because of their location in riparian zones and the complexity of aspen stands provide excellent connectivity, when regeneration is apparent.

Direct and Indirect Effects Common to all Action Alternatives: To meet desired conditions LOS is treated to maintain late and old structure by thinning mid and under-story vegetation. Table xx displays the amount and type of treatments in existing LOS. Treatments enhance old growth in the future and protect stands from a high intensity fire. Species diversity may decline but wildlife adapted to more open stand conditions would be favored due to the treatments. Treatments would change composition to a more ponderosa pine dominant stands compared to fir dominant. Less complexity and vertical diversity is expected in the treated stands. Increase in vigor and enhancement of large structure is expected from the proposed treatments including application of prescribed fire. Table wl-xx Acres of LOS treated by stratum-type. Treatments Single-stratum LOS Multi-stratum LOS Totals

Riparian/aspen 49 387 436

PCT 282 4328 4610

Harvest(s) 148 823 1021

No treatments 135 959 1094

1120 acres of LOS are located on north slopes, RHCA’s, or contain a fir dominant overstory that may not have Rx burning. These stands would contain more multi-strata consistency and be favorable for wildlife requiring higher stand canopy density. Restoration projects would not impact LOS. Thinning juniper would help retain some of the large ponderosa pine. Old structure juniper would not be thinned as designed. High

of 72

percentage of the PCT acres in the above table includes juniper reduction, which enhances conifer production.

Connectivity was designated as required in Regional Foresters Amendment(s) between DOG’s and LOS. Table wl- xx displays the proposed treatments within the designated wildlife corridors.

Table wl-xx. Proposed treatments within Wildlife Connectivity

Treatments Acres Potential effects on wildlife

Aspen/RHCA’s 599 Minimal where hardwoods occur

PCT 1,967 Minimal impacts from juniper, moderate with thinning in mixed conifer stands.

Harvest 284 Moderate, depending on prescription. SI would have short term adverse effects if adjacent stands were also treated.

No treatments 5,410 No effect, retains existing structure.

Vertical and horizontal complexity would remain intact and dispersal habitat should remain throughout the project area, therefore no direct effects to wildlife connectivity. Future concerns develop from connectivity functioning as a chimney during a wildfire. Continuous fuels can create high intensity fires and jeopardize old growth and other important wildlife habitats such as the Utley Butte wildlife area.

D. Old growth associated wildlife-


As previously addressed, retention of legacy structure such as snag habitat is critical for most of the old growth associated wildlife that are a concern. Refer to sections on snags and MIS- particular on pileated woodpeckers addressing snag habitat and effects of no management. In summary, with this alternative, there would be no incidental removal of snags for hazard tree during harvest operations or log hauling; however no roads would be treated increasing firewood removal of snag habitat. Species requiring open old growth ponderosa pine like white-breasted and pygmy nuthatches would not benefit from this alternative and mid to long term decline of their habitat is expected, without a disturbance that maintains open understory with large ponderosa pine structure in the overstory. Two species, winter wren and northern flying squirrel would benefit from this alternative due to absence of prescribed fire and mechanical thinning. Wrens prefer thick understory and abundance of downed logs which will be decreased in the proposed treatment units through prescribed burns.Incidental loss of logs would not happen from equipment crushing orpiling of slash during harvest or slash treatment. In contrast, there

of 72

would be no habitat created for fire adapted species like olive-sided flycatchers that use edge habitat adjacent to burned stands for nesting and foraging. Absence of riparian and meadow enhance would occur possibly reducing habitat for the bat species that forage in riparian or near meadows. Potential great gray owl habitat could be reduced as meadows are encroached by juniper and other conifers. Meadow at the head of Grasshopper Creek is an example of a meadow in need of restoration.


Since eastside screens are in effect to limit harvest of trees greater than 21 inch dbh and the harvest prescriptions are designed to thin from below, proposed harvest units are expected to have minimal impacts to old growth associated species. Two of the nuthatch species (white-breasted and pygmy) require habitat similar to white-headed woodpecker so the impacts are the same. Thinning and burning produce positive results for these two birds and are necessary for sustainability of large ponderosa pine stands. Nearly all the species associated with old growth structure require large snags or large trees for foraging or nesting. Impacts to snag habitat are addressed in the snag and downed wood section and only incidental loss of habitat for safety concerns is expected.Understory thinning would have minimal impacts to these old growth dependent species since these species rely on large structure and legacy components- snags and downed logs. Application of prescribed fire would benefit flycatchers and conservation plans for olive-sided flycatcher recommend fire to create openings and edge habitat for foraging (Altman, 2000).

Meadow restoration would benefit great grey owl by maintaining meadow conditions. Reducing conifer and juniper around meadows helps maintain open meadows for foraging. As mentioned in the MIS section, road treatments help retain valuable snag habitat.

Cumulative Effects from All Alternatives Dedicated old growth, connectivity, and wildlife species associated with this habitat is combined for cumulative effects, since habitats and species are inter-related. Watershed level analysis is sufficient to evaluate cumulative effects. Old growth dependent species requiring single-stratum (OFSS) type habitats have declined due to past and present management activities- historic timber harvest practices and fire suppression (refer to vegetation report and HRV analysis for the amount of deficiency in OFSS). The OFMS stands are above HRV but are at a risk of stand replacement fire.Dove project would move some of the stands towards OFSS, which is habitat forflammulated owls, white-breasted and pygmy nuthatches. There are no other projects in the immediate future that would modify existing old growth habitats so cumulative effects are similar to direct/indirect effects.

of 72

Nearly all the old growth associated species are dependent on large legacy structures such as snags for roosting, nesting, foraging, or singing perches. Snag analysis for the Dove project indicated a shortage of large snags from surveys conducted. Refer to the snag section on cumulative effects on snag habitat. Reduction in snags could impact long term populations of these old growth species in the future. Current wood cutting policies and lack of law enforcement may be detriment to future snag habitat in the South Fork John Day watershed. Expansion of conifers and junipers into meadows and grasslands negatively impacts birds like great gray and flammulated owls. Concentrated livestock use around water sources may impact bats by reducing insects. Prescribed fire and thinning of conifers may distribute livestock and ameliorate impacts near riparian and water sources, benefiting bats and owls associated with the adjacent large timber. Aspen restoration to thin small conifers and to protect aspen stands has commenced and shows promise for riparian shrub enhancement. Small diameter thinning, aspen stand protection such as fencing combined with commercial removal of larger conifers is expected to have positive cumulative effects and aspen regeneration is expected. Riparian treatments could have similar results on hardwoods such as alder and cottonwood in the Bear Creek, Venator Creek, Lonesome Creek, and South Fork John Day River drainages,which is expected to improve long term habitat needs for species like Williamson’s sapsucker, especially when aspen and riparian treatments are adjacent to old growth habitat. Future riparian projects enhancing streams could have a positive effect to aspen and would benefit wildlife associated with riparian hardwoods

Featured Species

Pronghorn antelope-


Because pronghorn antelope require open habitat this alternative has adverse effects to antelope in the mid to long term, unless a disturbance such as wildfire occurred. Proposed sagebrush steppe treatments are necessary to maintain the open habitat conditions recommended in the Malheur forest plan. Juniper and pine encroachment through fire exclusion have moved most of the potential antelope habitat to low quality or non-habitat. Few observations of antelope in the project area confirm this assessment. Since antelope water near open riparian or ponds with vegetation lacking high density of conifers, it could be assumed riparian treatments could benefit antelope. In contrast lack of vegetation treatments in riparian areas hinders antelope use and displaces antelope as vegetation develops. Lack of treatments, especially juniper reduction, reduces available watering areas for ungulates due to less surface water.

of 72

This alternative does not meet the objective in the Malheur LRMP (Standard # 52) to maintain openness characteristic of antelope habitat and does not move road densities to desired levels increasing vulnerability, harassment, displacement, poaching, and other human impacts associated with open roads.


Pronghorn antelope-

Harvesting and thinning of small diameter trees in the South Fork John River around forest fringe primarily in the shrub-steppe habitat may produce habitat for antelope. Antelope require open forest and savannah habitats to escape predators and for nutritional forage. Harvesting of small ponderosa pine opens timber stands and allows forage production for ungulates including antelope. Reduction in juniper may enhance shrubs such as bitterbrush, which is key browse specie.

While restoration projects entailing juniper and ponderosa pine reduction in shrub-steppe would enhance most suitable habitat, thinning and harvest units within the project may create open forest stand conditions allowing antelope to move into suitable habitats such as Sunflower flat and possibly in the lower Venator or Lonesome Creek drainages from BLM lands. Since pronghorns are a hunted species, road treatments in upper South Fork, Venator, and Lonesome drainages would be favorable, reducing vulnerability, displacement, disturbance, poaching, improvement in fawning habitat, harassment from reduced motorized vehicles and humans. Alternative 3 would not have any additional effects on antelope, since the proposed activities are not in antelope habitat.

Cumulative Effects from All Alternatives Cumulative effects for specie will be evaluated at the watershed level. South Fork John Day watershed within the forest boundaries has little opportunities to enhance antelope habitat due to the steeper terrain, at least with the drainages occurring within the Dove project. Current and future projects opening stands would have some benefit to this species that requires open habitat for foraging and predator protection. Based on terrain and the amount of potential suitable habitat within the watershed, proposed projects are not expected to improve habitat for this specie like other projects have in the past due to location and steep terrain within this watershed. Incidental use, especially by antelope bucks is probable.

Dusky Grouse-


of 72

Desired habitat for this grouse would not be enhanced through vegetation treatments. This species prefers edges and treatment units for foraging and roosting. Without some of the proposed treatments, habitat for this grouse would continue to decline in the mid to long term. Dusky grouse forage in shrub dominated stands eating mast, buds, and berries like snowberry. Conifers would continue to shade out hardwoods and important shrubs, therefore reducing habitat overtime. Lack of treatments would retain existing mistletoe infested Douglas fir trees which can be targeted during harvest operations. However, standard # 50 of the Malheur LRMP would retain some mistletoe Douglas fir for wintering dusky grouse, making action and no action alternatives comparable in retaining mistletoe firs for wintering habitat.


Dusky grouse breed early in the spring, most likely during down time for logging operations, therefore direct mortality to young grouse is unlikely. Timber harvest and thinning is recommended practices to create habitat for this specie of grouse. Pelren (1996) found this grouse more in open stands of timber compared to dense stands. Timber harvesting can affect winter habitat when Douglas fir is cut off ridges, especially mistletoe infested firs. Malheur LRMP standard # 50 (IV-30) assures that protection of mistletoe firs are not removed off the upper slopes. Prescribed fire is another recommended method to create habitat for blue grouse. Fire enhances forbs and stimulates growth of some shrubs like snowberry, a preferred mast for grouse. Fire maintains plant diversity for grouse but reduces downed logs, a valuable nesting substrate (Pelren & Crawford, 1999). Prescribed fire could reduce ants and other insects, which are valuable food for brood rearing. None of the restoration treatments would affect grouse habitat, but aspen and riparian treatments may improve habitat when hardwood regeneration occurs. Road treatments would benefit grouse since this specie is hunted and are vulnerable to roadside mortality during hunting seasons. Alternative 3 should increase grouse habitat with prescribe fire in the Utley Butte wildlife area and surrounding area. As described above, forage would be enhanced and maintaining road treatments would benefit grouse by reducing roadside mortality from incidental hunting,


This bird has altitudinal movements within its home range so using watershed boundaries for cumulative effects is appropriate. Forest standards and amendments that protect removal of large Douglas fir trees sustains winter and escape habitat for this specie. Since this is a forest grouse, effective fire suppression efforts benefit this specie.

of 72

Vegetation treatments described above apply to cumulative effects as well since no other vegetation treatments are planned within the watershed. Positive effects are expected from the proposed activities but there may be a time lag on vegetation recovery from prescribed burning. Since this is a species that is hunted, road treatment can be beneficial, especially in grouse habitat like in the upper Corral Creek drainage.

Osprey

Since osprey nesting habitat is usually adjacent to a large body of water such as the John Day River and no large trees would be removed near the river with any of the alternatives, it can be assumed that the No Action Alternative would be the same as the action alternatives. However, the probability of stand replacement fire of the same magnitude as the Canyon Creek complex in 2015 where entire riparian areas were burned by a stand replacement fire is much higher with this alternative. Large stand replacement fires would eliminate nesting habitat, if all the old growth ponderosa pine were killed by fire. Forest plan requires maintenance of old growth structure for osprey nesting and lack of understory treatments does not constitute maintenance, since the understory will enhance mortality of these important trees.

Bighorn Sheep

There is no habitat for this specie in project area, therefore no direct, indirect, or cumulative effects from any alternatives.

Northern goshawk-


Lack of vegetation treatments would maintain abundance of source habitat for goshawks in the short term. It is been estimated the Malheur forest is above HRV levels for goshawks based on 2014 habitat modeling. With the No Action Alternative, there are no direct effects of disturbing nesting birds by treatment activities. In some of the closed canopy stands stem density can become too dense for goshawks, reducing foraging opportunity. Goshawks need dense overhead canopy with open understory with complex structure such as downed logs and debris (Reynolds, 1992; Daw and DeStefano, 2001). Goshawks favor large tree structure for nesting and foraging (Coleman, D. and Crocker-Bedford, 1990, Reynolds, et. al. 1982). This No Action Alternative would retard the development of large tree structure and may leave some stands too dense for foraging. Since no prescribed burning will occur there is no probability of incidental burning nest stands, reducing downed logs which provide prey habitat, or burning soft snags, which

of 72

provide hunting perches and substrate for key prey species. Timber stands would remain overstocked, which keeps other raptors such as red-tailed hawks from competing with goshawks. However, absence of treatments leave stands at a higher probability of a stand replacement fire as mentioned previously in Canyon Creek Complex Fire, which would eliminate goshawk use from the known five territories found during field surveys. Road treatments will not occur with the No Action Alternative. Road treatments protect snag and downed log habitat, which are important for goshawks and their prey. There would not be treatments in aspen stands, which are high productive areas for potential prey. Goshawks have also nested in aspen stands (Squires and Ruggiero, 1996), but no aspen stand improvement would occur with this alternative. There may be long-term indirect effects from the No Action Alternative. Absence of treatments in riparian and meadows reduces foraging and nesting use in the mid to long term,due to these areas becoming too dense or declining in size.Prey base may decline as meadows are encroached by conifers. Loss of edge habitat can be apparent from lack of disturbances, reducing foraging habitat for goshawks.


This featured raptor nests in dense canopy, rears young in an intermediate canopy densities and forages in a forest mosaic of openings and variable spacing of trees. Direct impacts are normally mitigated by seasonal restrictions during the nesting period, with the exception of spring burning. Prescribed burning during spring has potential to affect nesting since egg clutches are usually complete by early April. Within known nesting territories prescribed burning is usually conducted in the fall to ameliorate effects to nesting birds. Direct effects are expected to be minimal and would not affect goshawk production within the project area. Proposed harvest methods are expected to enhance goshawk habitat because of the variable density prescriptions. These prescriptions create openings and leave a patchy tree distribution. Variable density prescriptions with incorporating “skips and gaps” create more edge producing a higher prey base for goshawks. Proposed harvest prescriptions comply with guidelines suggested by Reynolds (1992); however Malheur NF does not require specific guidelines for goshawks with the exception of Regional Foresters Amendment direction. Goodell and Seager (2015) re-emphasized goshawks as generalists and stated that protection measures in Regional Foresters Amendments are outdated and not supported by science however the known goshawk nests found through field surveys would be protected and PFA established as required. However, Goodell and Seager’s recommendations of incorporating PFA’s into old growth, connectivity, and RHCA’s were implemented allowing for planned dry forest restoration activities to occur in adjacent stands. Table XX illustrates the known goshawk nest sites and proposed activities within the PFA’s and other designed functions of PFA’s. Table xx. Goshawk PFA with proposed treatments and other wildlife areas

of 72

Treatments

PFA name Acres No treatment

Juniper Riparian Aspen

Harvest Other WHA ac.

Model Nogo Hab.

Total PFA ac.

Alsup 314 46 38 38 347 37 436

Donivan 431 64 35 0 377 203 530

Grasshopper 302 32 42 15 243 64 391

Fall Creek 316 50 54 0 383 74 420

South Venator

246 184 35 0 383 193 465

WHA= wildlife areas ie. Connectivity, old growth etc., Model habitat is acres habitat defined as NOGO based on stand type GIS modeling.

Two harvest blocks are planned within known goshawk PFA’s in the Alsup nesting territory. Unit 347 in the Alsup drainage is only 22 acres but adjoins the known nest stand and riparian area. Due to proximity to the nest stand potential short term adverse effects could occur causing displacement, however most of the PFA would remain intact. Harvest block 1307 would receive a ponderosa pine prescription on 16 acres within the Alsup PFA but this treatment is not expected to impact goshawk rearing habitat due to juxtaposition with current nest stand. Seasonal timing restrictions would be employed to reduce disturbance during nesting period. One harvest block in the Grasshopper PFA would have lodgepole treatments reducing stand density to possible unfavorable nesting habitat. However, snags would be retained providing good prey habitat. Since nearly 80 percent of the designated Grasshopper PFA would not be treated, the approximate 15 acres of harvest is not expected to impact goshawk nesting within the Grasshopper Creek area. Timber harvesting would occur on approximately 13 percent or about 478 acres of primary source habitat for goshawks. Secondary habitat would have harvest on about 20 percent of the habitat or about 839 acres. Thirty-five percent of the primary and secondary habitats would not be treated and would provide biological diversity, cover for prey, and dispersal habitat for future goshawks and other wildlife that occupy dense forest structure. Understory thinning can enhance habitat for goshawks if downed logs and snags are available in the thinned units to provide cover for prey. Thinning opens stands allowing for shrubs and grasses to grow which is favorable for some prey. Thinning allows for goshawks to locate and capture prey. However, too much thinning opens stands for other avian predators like red-tailed hawks and alters complexity of timber stands, possibly reducing biodiversity. Prescribed fire is a recommended treatment in ponderosa pine forests for restoration. It is also recommended in goshawk habitat to maintain open conditions for foraging, creating edge habitat for diversity of prey species, increasing herbaceous vegetation for prey, reducing the risk of stand replacement fires, and maintaining forest structure (Reynolds, 1992, Graham, 1999). Prescribed fire could have negative effects depending

of 72

on the intensity and coverage of the fire because of the potential loss of important habitat features such as downed logs, snags, and downed woody debris. As emphasized in snag and downed log section, moisture content under spring conditions is necessary to retain some downed woody material needed for prey and plucking posts for goshawks. Burning is expected to occur on approximately 50 percent of the project area in the next 10 years. There would be no direct ignition in the goshawk nest stands as directed by forest plan amendment. It is anticipated at least 500 to 600 acres of PFA habitat would not be underburned because of the slope aspect and high concentration of mixed conifers or riparian areas. The further northern PFA in Grasshopper Creek has a stand of cold dry plant association, dominated with lodgepole pine and western larch and maynot receive broadcast burning. Restoration treatments, especially aspen and riparian, would be beneficial for goshawks. Aspen regeneration would increase prey availability and possibly produce viable nesting habitat for goshawks in the mid to long term. Meadows provide suitable hunting areas for goshawks so meadow restoration projects would be beneficial. While sagebrush steppe and upland shrub projects may not be within nest territories, enhancement projects promoting shrubs could help goshawks during migration to and from winter habitat by increasing avian diversity. Once juniper reduction is complete there could be a reduction in habitat for prey species such as robins and flickers that use juniper for nesting and a food source, but impacts are expected to be minimal since older structure juniper would be left on site.Due to acreage of juniper on the project area, completion is not expected within a decade under current funding.

Cumulative Effects from All Alternatives The cumulative effects analysis area for northern goshawk is the watershed level (South Fork John Day River). Past harvesting practices that removed old growth timber reduced potential nesting habitat for goshawks. At the forest level, even with the amount of stand replacement wildfires that occurred in the past decade, it is estimated source habitat for this specie has increased by at least 20 to 25 percent on the Malheur National Forest. Decades of fire suppression has contributed to an increase in goshawk habitat due to increase in fir composition creating multi-story nesting and PFA habitats. At the watershed scale, with the proposed action alternative there would be approximately 3021 acres (~52%) of primary goshawk habitat within the watershed that would not receive any treatments and only about 478 acres would receive harvest within source habitat. Portion of the watershed within the Utley Butte Wildlife Area may receive light under-burning with Alternative 3 affecting about 200 acres of primary habitat and additional 250 acres of secondary habitat. With the abundance of potential nesting habitat throughout the watershed and the Malheur Forest containing above HRV levels of source habitat, no negative cumulative impacts are expected with any of the proposed action alternatives in Dove.

of 72

Thinning/harvesting prescriptions are designed to ameliorated canopy reduction effects yet reduce potential for a stand replacement fire, disease, or insect infestations. Dove project would incorporate a variable density harvest prescription with skips and gaps creating clumps of un-thinned patches and small openings in the stands. The proposed prescriptions are expected to improve habitat compared to previous stand prescriptions. Variable density produces more edge habitat and should enhance habitat for some prey species due to more understory vegetation. Proposed project is expected to reduce the probability of a stands replacement fire, which if occurred would eliminate goshawk habitat in the watershed.

Unique and Special Habitats

Where these habitats have been identified to comply with the Malheur LRMP these special habitats would be protected under all alternatives therefore the impacts are the same. Quaking Aspen-


Aspen habitat has an inversely proportional value to wildlife compared to its abundance on the landscape. Currently aspen stands in the project area are in decline. The No-Action Alternative would not reverse this trend. Conifer reduction in aspen would not happen thus continued competition of conifer in aspen stands and continued decline in aspen regeneration.Without the aid of a disturbance agent (i.e. wildfire) a continued decline in aspen populations is expected in the mid to long term. Current decline in aspen regeneration would be detrimental to all wildlife species dependent on aspen (See Swainson et al 2010 for wildlife species list for aspen).


Treatments, including timber harvesting in aspen and riparian area are designed to regenerate aspen and riparian shrubs by removing competing conifers. Historically wildfire would have maintained these stands of aspen and riparian shrubs. Collaboration members agreed with the proposed prescription assuming snag densities and downed log numbers meet standards. Positive results are expected within the five years of treatment. Regeneration of shrubs would occur if browsing does not retard growth. Indirect effects to aspen may be positive from harvest blocks adjacent to aspen by possibly releasing more light and moisture into the stand. There could be some short term loss of nesting habitat for birds from conifer reduction. Since harvest activities would occur outside the breeding season for birds, no direct disturbance is expected. All juniper treatments are expected to have some benefit to aspen where junipers are established near aspen stands.

of 72

Prescribed fire stimulates suckering of aspen and creates a dark surface allowing for suckering due to increase in soil temperatures. This alternative complies with Malheur Forest Plan Standard #57 (IV-31) to maintain, enhance, and protect aspen stands.Approximately additional 60 acres in seven aspen stands would be enhanced with prescribed fire under Alternative 3 compared to the Proposed Action. Alternative 3 would considerably benefit aspen in the Rail Creek drainage and would most likely be the only treatment to enhance aspen in this creek. All the proposed aspen treatments follow recommendations in Bates et. al. (2010), Swainson (2010), and DeByle (85), to enhance and protect aspen suckers for future regeneration. These proposed projects are expected to improve over 500 acres of important wildlife habitat within the next decade following treatments.


Since aspen usually grow within the drainages, the extent of the cumulative effects analysis is withinSouth Fork John Day River watershed. Aspen occurring in the designated roadless area with Utley Butte Wildlife Area (MA-20B) would not be managed and the cumulative effects of no treatments could cause a decline in aspen regeneration in stands within roadless areas. Three small aspen stands would decline over time in the Rail Creek drainage.

Past activities such as fire suppression, grazing, road construction, and associated activities degrading watershed conditions have contributed to the decline of aspen across the landscape. Ongoing aspen enhancement projects have currently commenced in and adjacent to the project area, especially in the Corral Creek, Bear Creek, and Venator Creek drainages. Conifer reduction has proven to be effective in enhancing aspen stands where shading has occurred where sucker browsing is not extensive. Some protected stands have increased aspen suckering and regeneration where livestock damage is extensive. Cumulative effects to aspen are similar as direct and indirect because no other vegetation treatments are planned within the watershed. All proposed aspen treatments have been implemented on the Malheur Forest and are described in Swainson et. al., 2010. Increase in aspen regeneration and wildlife diversity are expected with implementation of vegetation projects whichreduce conifers and apply prescribed fire. Rimrocks, cliffs, caves, and talus slopes

Direct and Indirect Effects Common to all alternatives:

Since none of these unique habitats were identified during field reconnaissance and would be protected from management activities as required in Malheur LRMP, no direct, indirect, or cumulative impacts would occur with any of the alternatives.

of 72

Meadows, springs, seeps and bogs

Direct and Indirect Effects from No Action: Long term effects to meadows from conifer encroachment is inevitable without a major disturbance such as wildfire. Loss of foraging habitat for wild ungulates, small mammals like voles, and song birds like juncos will occur without a disturbance or mechanical treatments that reduce conifers in the approximate 300 acres of meadows in Dove project. Since most springs, seeps, and bogs are protected from damage by mechanical equipment or thinning operations as described in the design criteria, this alternative is similar as action alternatives in regards to direct effects. However, reduction of vegetation, especially junipers, around water sources like springs, has improved the water flow at these springs for wildlife. Continued juniper and ponderosa pine encroachment around these wet areas reduces surface water. Encroachment would occur without mechanical or fire treatments.


Treatment units adjacent to these wet areas would help maintain these areas, especially where juniper reduction occurs. Meadow restoration was designed to reduce encroaching conifers and maintain integrity of the meadows. Meadow restoration is included in other treatments such as aspen and riparian projects. These sensitive sites would not have machinery in the footprints unless implemented over snow. Best Management Practices (BMP’s) would be employed so negative direct effects to these are negated. Positive indirect effects would occur from reducing trees encroaching on meadows. Slash from treatments may reduce trampling, over grazing of certain vegetation, and re-distribution of livestock. Where meadows have fences for aspen protection,native meadow vegetation recovery is more likely. At least 300 acres of these sensitive habitats improvements is expected with the Proposed Action. Alternative 3 would have similar effects as the PA since no additional meadow habitat would be enhanced.


Meadows and wet areas like seeps are areas where livestock concentrate causing habitat degradation. Vegetation projects can alleviate impacts by enhancing forage in adjoining uplands and by creating brush barriers from thinning slash. Vegetation manipulation can have positive short to mid-term cumulative effects to meadows and wet areas by possibly distributing livestock to treatment blocks away from these sensitive sites. Aquatic restoration environmental document addressed potential projects applying to any activities in springs, seeps, or wet meadows within RHCA’s. Izee Range Analysis

of 72

addressed potential projects within South Fork John Day watershed including projects such riparian thinning to enhance riparian shrubs, and inhibit livestock trailing along stream courses. There are no other future planned projects in the watershed that would affect these unique habitats. Animal dens, nest sites, and elk wallow


While no dens were noted during wildlife surveys, abundance of downed logs were inventoried and denning is likely in some of the downed logs for small mammals. Some animal denning is suspected in downed logs in project area; therefore this alternative would have no effects to animals since no downed logs or snags would be consumed during application of prescribed fire. (See downed logs/snags sections for impacts to these habitat components.) Nest sites found during field surveys are addressed by bird species and all known nests would be protected. This alternative would not alter any bird nests in the project area since no treatments occur. Elk wallows are usually in spring or seep areas. Elk usually approach wallows through dense cover patches. This alternative would maintain a higher density of trees and may provide more security for elk to wallow. In contrast, as described in the above section, more water may be available for wallowing if trees were removed; therefore this alternative may not provide as much water due to high densities of juniper and other conifer surrounding the water sources.


These special wildlife habitat areas would be protected when located. As described in other sections of the wildlife report, nest sites would receive appropriate buffers and timing restrictions depending on specie. A lot of wildlife denning occurs in downed logs, so the impacts addressed in the MIS section apply to denning habitat(s). No specific dens were found during field surveys. Only incidental damage to potential dens is expected. Prescribed fire would occur on an additional burn block with Alternative 3, therefore more potential dens could be consumed; however low intensity fires should have little impact to any denning habitat and would be short term if occurred. Since larger diameter logs and snags would not be intentionally removed, denning sites would be available and no long term adverse impacts are anticipated. Elk wallows usually are in seeps, bogs, or along drainages. These areas would not have equipment operations directly in these wet areas so no direct impacts from any of the proposed activities. No cut buffers would be placed around any known wallow. None were found during field surveys. As described in the big game section, localized disturbance may occur from harvest and thinning operations but elk would wallow when these occurrences are not happening such as nocturnal hours, weekends, etc. No direct, indirect, or cumulative effects to these special habitats is expected from the proposed projects since buffers would be placed around sites and equipment would be prohibited in potential wallowing areas.

of 72

Mountain mahogany and other upland shrubs


Mountain mahogany and other mountain shrubs are likely to decline over time as conifers develop and out-compete these shrubs for light and moisture. This will become more evident in the ponderosa pine plant associations containing these shrubs. As with aspen, lack of disturbance with this alternative causes a decline in these important shrubs within the project area.


Some proposed harvest units contain small patches of mountain mahogany. Removal of competing conifers helps maintain mahogany. Skidding of logs can scarify soil potentially increasing germination of mahogany. Thinning of smaller diameter trees would improve mahogany regeneration also. Conifer reduction applies to other upland shrubs such as serviceberry, chokecherry, and snowberry all are important forage and cover for wildlife. Application of prescribed fire can also prepare soil for young shrubs by removing duff and exposing soils for seed germination. High intensity fire can kill mountain mahogany in areas where fuel is excessive or where mountain mahogany is growing on a proposed burn boundary. Direct ignition in mountain mahogany stands can cause mortality. However, most established mountain mahogany grow on rocky ridges with little fuel so prescribed fire would have minimal impacts. Alternative 3 proposes to burn approximately 260 acres of ponderosa pine/mountain mahogany plant associations with about 80 acres of this habitat type occurring around the perimeter of the burn. These sensitive areas would receive less direct ignition and objectives to retain mountain shrubs. Therefore, prescribed fire would not cause mortality to existing mountain mahogany shrubs to any measurable degree. Restoration treatments are expected to improve shrub production by removing competing conifers. Shrub-steppe proposal is primarily designed to improve upland shrubs, which are key forage for mule deer and other ungulates, several species of birds, and small mammals. This alternative complies with Forest Standard # 32 (Malheur LRMP, IV-28) to enhance communities of mountain shrubs.

Landbirds Including Neotropical Migratory Birds (NTMB)


With No Action Alternative no direct effects to nesting birds or habitat alterations would occur. Habitat for birds that nest in high density stands would remain in current conditions and would improve, assuming no other disturbance occurs. Species requiring

of 72

open forest conditions or need shrubs or mast for nesting/foraging would see a decline in habitat over time. Birds of Prey

Habitat modification that enhance sagebrush habitat and maintain open shrub-steppe conditions benefits rabbits and small mammals which are key prey for raptors considered birds of conservation concerns. This alternative would not improve habitat and juniper would continue to expand in the shrub-steppe habitat reducing foraging habitat for these raptors. Lack of occupancy for the golden eagle nest could be contributed to the denser forest conditions in the Lonesome Creek drainage. Habitat for flammulated owls would continue to decline since smaller diameter ponderosa pine and firs would replace openings in the ponderosa pine stands. Since this owl is an insectivore and grassy herbaceous vegetation would be replaced by woody stemmed vegetation, habitat will continue to decline for this species as suggested by Hayward (1994). Old growth ponderosa pine may decline overtime due to the lack of recruitment. Snag removal for firewood is likely since road treatments would not occur. As stated previously, meadow habitat would decline without intervening with conifer reduction.

Shrub Habitat Species-

Species of birds such as sage thrasher occupying shrub-steppe were discussed in the birds of prey section since these species use similar sagebrush habitats. All the bird species requiring shrub habitat for nesting, foraging, and roosting which include willow flycatchers and green-tailed towhees in riparian habitats can be impacted by conifers including juniper encroachment. Absence of a disturbance, either by fire or human induced, will cause a long term decline in habitat. This alternative would not be favorable for bird species requiring shrub habitats, since shrub habitat would decline in the future.

Forest or Forest edge species

This No Action Alternative leaves stands overstocked and reduces the development of large cone producing ponderosa pine needed for seed eating birds such as Cassin’s finch, pine siskins, and Clark’s nutcrackers. Change in composition to more fir dominant forest is expected without treatments. Habitat reduction for this guild of forest birds is likely. Hummingbirds require nectar. High conifer density stands inhibit growth of flower producing plants; therefore this alternative would not benefit this species. No prescribed fire occurring with this alternative which stimulates growth of some flowering plants for Calliope hummingbirds. Meadows and riparian areas containing potential nectar plants for hummingbird foraging would continue to decline from conifer encroachment. Lack of fire eliminates habitat potential for fire adapted species like olive-sided flycatchers. This specie occupies burn edges and utilizes snags for foraging

of 72

opportunities and requires the flying insects associated with fire. Without the re-introduction of fire in Dove project, habitat for this species is extremely limited, unless a wildfire occurs and burns in a mosaic fashion, which is unlikely due to stand densities in most of the project area.


Common to all migratory landbirds, proposed activities occurring during nesting period could cause direct effects to seasonal nesting. Some birds would re-nest and others may lose a single nesting season. Most raptor nests are large and identified with appropriate buffers around nest site and seasonal timing restrictions employed to protect nesting birds. Timber harvest during nesting period usually from late May through July could affect nests in dense timber. Species of concern that most likely could be impacted are Cassin’s finch and flammulated owls. Flammulated owls are cavity nesters and potential impacts are discussed in the MIS section of wildlife report. Birds of Prey

All known raptor nests would be protected thus no direct impacts to any raptors. Swainson’s hawk, golden eagle, and ferruginous hawk are potential hawks of concern that could occur in the project. All the proposed harvest and thinning units are expected to be timber stands that would not impact these raptors that occur on the forest fringe or in shrub-steppe habitats. Trees over 21 inches dbh would not be cut which are used as nest trees. Proposed juniper and shrub-steppe treatments are expected to improve habitat for these raptors especially adjacent to agriculture lands in the Venator or Lonesome Creek drainages. Leaving thinned juniper on the landscape would provide habitat (“rabbitat”) for ground squirrels and rabbitsthus enhancing a food source for these raptors.

Prescribed fire would be the most reasonable application to enhance habitat for these species. Burning can enhance herbaceous forage for rabbits and rodents possibly improving habitat for these raptors. However, burning in lower elevations can increase the probability of invasive species like cheatgrass to become established, which is not a preferable option for habitat improvements for these raptors. Alternative 3 would not impact any measurable amount of habitat for these raptors that occur near forest fringe habitat. There is a low probability of occurrence for these raptors in the Rail Creek and Corral Creek drainages. Alternative 3 could be beneficial for flammulated owls by creating openings in the canopy, however in contrast the removal of thickets by fire may reduce roosting habitat, depending on intensity of fire. Potentially up to 600 acres of potential old growth ponderosa pine habitat could be enhanced for flammulated owls with this alternative 3. Other restoration proposals are not expected to impact any of these birds of prey habitat in any measurable way; there no direct, indirect, or cumulative effects from other restoration activities except shrub-steppe proposals as discussed above.

of 72

Flammulated owls are obligated to old growth ponderosa pine forests containing grassy openings. This bird would benefit from proposed actions that restore old growth pine trees and protect snag habitat. Harvesting, thinning, and applying prescribed fire all would aid in ponderosa pine restoration and are needed to protect and sustain habitat for this owl. The “skip and gap” application in the more ponderosa pine dominated stands is expected to improve habitat for this owl, since they roost in thickets of ponderosa pine near openings. However, prescribed fire, depending on intensity and coverage, could reduce foraging substrate for one or two breeding seasons by removing downed logs and woody debris. Meadow restoration and associated treatments creating openings improve foraging habitat for this owl. Grassy openings created from conifer reduction may improve foraging habitat, however downed logs or woody may be necessary to harbor insects, especially crickets, for this owl.

Cumulative Effects from All Alternatives Cumulative effects analysis area is the watershed. With the exception of the flammulated owl, the raptors of concern are associated with open shrub steppe habitat. Since there are no other vegetation projects within the watershed planned in the near future, the indirect effects are same as the cumulative. Continued effective fire suppression would allow the expansion of juniper and possible degradation of habitat for these raptors. Livestock grazing could adversely affect habitat especially near meadows and riparian areas. Vegetation treatments could distribute livestock concentrations away from meadows and riparian areas by enhancing forage in nearby uplands, possibly alleviating livestock damages. Restoration of ponderosa pine forests creating historic open stands is required for flammulated owls. Since this specie nests in cavities in old growth ponderosa pine, firewood cutting of large pines adversely affects this specie. Road treatments and possibly future development of access travel management may help retain nesting habitat for this owl. Shrub Habitat Species-

Migratory birds that use shrub-steppe like brewer’s sparrows, green-tailed towhees, and sage thrashershabitats and effects from proposed treatments were described above in the birds of prey section. In summary, junipers and ponderosa pine have expanded their range into formerly shrub dominated environments due to fire suppression. Proposed treatments would enhance shrubs by removing competing conifers benefitting these birds that rely on shrub dominated habitats. Alternative 3 would add additional 3300 acres of prescribed fire on the landscape possibly creating more shrub habitat depending on intensity and recovery of shrubs from the burn. Most of the prescribed fire is tiered towards forest habitat types and would not affect shrubs within the non-forested types, such as sagebrush dominated areas.

of 72

Shrub habitat specie of concern occupying riparian shrubsis willow flycatchers. They live in willow dominated habitat and are not likely to occur in timbered riparian areas. Thinning in Bear Creek and South Fork John Day River may enhance willows enough to benefit this riparian specie. Calliope hummingbirds prefer open riparian areas containing flowering plants so riparian treatments may encourage flowering plants. Meadow treatments may benefit this bird if flowering plants develop.Prescribed fire could enhance flowering plants benefitting riparian shrub habitat and flowering plants for birds of concern requiring these habitat features. Alternative 3 could enhance vegetation within the Corral Creek and Rail Creek drainages. Due to narrow drainages for the most part, it is doubtful prescribed fire alone would reduce conifer competition in any measurable amount for hummingbirds and flycatchers but no negative effects are anticipated as long as burning occurs outside the breeding period.


There are no other projects planned in the shrub-steppe habitats in the watershed so the indirect habitat impacts cumulatively are the same as above. As addressed above, livestock grazing can impact riparian vegetation and the proposed activities may help re-distribute utilization. Access travel management in the future could reduce impacts in riparian area damage from ATV’s. Off road vehicles can impact willows and other riparian shrubs adversely affecting birds like willow flycatchers and hummingbirds due to impacts on flowering plants.Riparian thinning where slash is left on site, could reduce impacts from ATV’s because of potential barriers. Shrubs, both riparian and upland, should improve with action alternatives. Forest or Forest edge species

These species benefit considerably from timber and fuels reduction management that promote large old growth trees, open areas up for herbaceous plants, and provide a disturbance agent like prescribed fire to create diversity. Cassin’s finch requires seeds from pine cones and grass seeds as food source. Thinning and harvesting stands containing ponderosa pine enhance habitat for this bird and other wildlife like tree squirrels. Proposed treatments would open up forest floor vegetation, producing an increase in grasses and other floral for birds. Prescribed fire is necessary to maintain this open habitat condition. Small patches of high severity fires are important for olive-sided flycatchers that use forest edge habitat adjacent to burns. Absence of fire nearly eliminates habitat for this flycatcher. Prescribed fire can create open conditions where flowering plants can develop enhancing a food source for hummingbirds like calliope’s, which have been a species of concern for some time. Spring burning potentially can have adverse effects on ground nesting birds like juncos and poorwhill family of birds. Pilliod (2006) discussed the effects on migratory birds from fuel reduction treatments. The application of fire can be variable depending on several environmental factors, personnel, techniques, and seasonal variation. Despite the variations in fire application and burn severity, some

of 72

patterns in short-term responses to fire can be determined. These general responses are:

1. Aerial, ground, and bark insectivores favor burned areas. These species include woodpeckers, flycatchers, and most sparrows.

2. Foliage gleaners prefer unburned habitat. ie: warblers, nuthatches, chickadees, kinglets.

3. Species with closed nests, such as cavity nesters, respond more favorably than species with open-cup nests. Most passerine birds construct open-cup nests.

4. Those nesting on the ground and in canopy generally favor burn habitats compared to birds nesting in shrub or seedling/saplings, once recovery occurs. Shrub nesters include thrushes and Brewer’s sparrow.

Restoration treatments in shrub-steppe habitatswould not benefit these forest or forest edge wildlife species because of the different habitat. Aspen, riparian, and meadow treatments are key treatments for restoring valuable bird habitat and are expected to improve nesting and foraging habitats substantially. As discussed before, road treatments are important for snag retention, which can benefit flycatchers, secondary cavity nesters, and raptors. Alternative 3 would add additional3560 acres of prescribed fire enhancing habitat for Cassin’s finches and flycatchers that are species of concern. Olive-sided flycatchers are fire dependent but require patches of high intensity fire. This may occur but usually is rare on prescribed fire, especially in sensitive areas such as Utley Butte Wildlife Area.


Past timber harvesting practices have removed the large trees affecting gleaning birds, (i.e. warblers) seed eaters (finches), and cavity nesters (swallows) by reducing habitat. Past fire suppression has hindered recruitment of larger trees and has altered composition in some of the mixed conifer stands. These past practices have cumulatively affected the large ponderosa pines and subsequent cone production by these trees, affecting seed eating birds such as crossbills, siskins, and finches. Dense stands of younger trees have shaded out grasses and subsequent seed availability for birds. Riparian areas have been impacted by roads, livestock grazing, and fire suppression. Lack of fire has allowed displacement of riparian hardwoods, which are used for nesting and foraging. Projects within Dove are designed to enhance riparian shrubs. The action alternatives would restore native shrub populations and benefit bird nesting habitat, reversing trends created from past management activities. Road treatments are expected to improve riparian habitat and increase NTMB nesting in the future. Cumulative effects from landscape fuels reduction project is beneficial for birds preferring open canopy and non-beneficial for birds nesting in closed canopy forest. Vegetation restoration projects such as Dove comply with bird conservation

of 72

plans and restoration strategies for ponderosa pine forests suggested by Altman (2000); therefore should be beneficial for NTMB species of concern that nest in ponderosa pine forests.

Drever MC, Gyug LW, Nielsen J, Stuart-Smith AK, Ohanjanian IP, Martin K (2015) Using

Field Data and GIS-Derived Variables to Model Occurrence of Williamson’s Sapsucker

Nesting Habitat at Multiple Spatial Scales. PLoS ONE 10(7): e0130849.

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0130849

Connectivity in Dove by PA_Veg

Sum of acres Column Labels

Row Labels Connectivity

Grand Total

Dove 8,261 8,261 Aspen 171 171 Cat 1 RHCA 61 61 Cat4 RHCA 367 367 JunEncroach 1,656 1,656 LP 62 62 PCT 145 145 PP-Rest 16 16 ShrubSteppe 166 166 SI-CT 206 206 No treatment 5,410 5,410

Grand Total 8,261 8,261

LOS using Malstage by Paveg

of 72

Vegetation Treatments 1 2

Grand Total

Aspen 20 129 148 Cat 1 RHCA

8 8

Cat4 RHCA 29 250 279 JunEncroach 282 2,552 2,834 LP

146 146

MC-Rest

75 75 PCT

1,614 1,614

PP-Rest 17 78 95 ShrubSteppe

162 162

SI-CT 181 524 704 Grand Total 528 5,538 6,066

LOS using Malstage in Fuelblock 101 Alt 3.

Sum of NrsaAcres Column Labels

Row Labels 1 2 Grand Total

101 15 734 749

Grand Total 15 734 749

Nest-Site Selection and Nesting Success of Cavity-Nesting Birds in High Elevation Forest Drainages Pingjun Li and Thomas E. Martin The Auk

Vol. 108, No. 2 (Apr., 1991), pp. 405-418

References

Agee, James K. 2002. Fire as a Coarse Filter for Snags and Logs. USDA Forest Service. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW- GTR- 181. Pp 359-368.

Allison, B. 1996. A landscape characterization of nesting goshawk habitat in northern California using remote sensing and GIS. Master’s thesis, College of Arts andSciences, Southern Illinois University at Edwardsville, Edwardsville, Illinois. In Weber, Timothy T., NORTHERN GOSHAWK (ACCIPITER GENTILIS) NESTING HABITAT IN NORTHWESTERN CALIFORNIA. AN EXAMINATION OF THREE SPATIAL SCALES: THE NEST AREA, THE POST-FLEDGING AREA, AND THE HOME RANGE, Masters Thesis, Humboldt State University, Arcata, CA. 66pp.

Altman, Bob. 2000. Conservation Strategy for Landbirds in the Northern Rocky Mountains of Eastern Oregon and Washington. American Bird Conservancy, Corvallis, OR. 126pp.

of 72

Bate, Lisa J., Garton, Edward O., Wisdom, Michael J. {in preparation} Estimating snag and large tree densities and distributions on a landscape for woodpecker management. Gen. Tech. Rep. USDA Portand. OR. Pac, NW Res. Stat.

Bailey, Lori A. 2016. NEPA Coordinator, Emigrant Creek RD, Malheur NF. Bate, L. J., M. J. Wisdom, and B. C. Wales. 2007. Snag densities in relation to human access

and associated management factors in forests of northeastern Oregon, USA. Landscape and Urban Planning 80:278–291.

Bock, C. E. 1970. The ecology and behavior of the Lewis’ woodpecker (Asyndesmus lewis). University of California Publications in Zoology. 92: 1-100.

Brown, Rick. 2000 Thinning, Fire, and Forest Restoration. A Science-based approach for natural forests in the Interior Northwest Defenders of Wildlife Washington DC. West Linn Oregon 41pp.

Bull, Evelyn L. 1980. Resource partitioning among woodpeckers in northeastern Oregon. Ph.D. Dissertation, Univ. Idaho, Moscow. 109 pp.

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

Bull, E. L. 1978. Specialized habitat requirements of birds: snag management, old growth and riparian habitat. P. 74-82 in R.M. DeGraaf, editor. Proceedings: workshop on nongame bird habitat management in the coniferous forests of the western United States. USDA Forest Service Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station General Technical report PNW-64.

Bull, E. L. 1980. Resource partitioning among woodpeckers in Northeastern Oregon. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Idaho, Moscow. 109 pp.

Bull, E.L. 2003. Pileated Woodpecker. Pp. 372-374 in Birds of Oregon: A general reference. D.B. Marshall, M.G. Hunter, and A.L. Contreras, Eds. Oregon State University Press, Corvallis, OR.

Bull, E. L., and E. C. Meslow. 1977. Habitat requirements of the pileated woodpecker in northeastern Oregon. Journal of Forestry 75:335-337.

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.

Bull, E.L., and R. S. Holthausen. 1993. Habitat use and management of Pileated Woodpeckers in northeastern Oregon. J. Wildl. Manage. 57: 335-345.

Bull, E. L., Richard S. Holthausen, and Mark G. Henjum. 1992. Roost Trees Used by Pileated Woodpeckers in Northeastern Oregon. Journal of Wildlife Management Vol. 56 No.4 pp 786-793.

Bull, E.L. et al. 1980. Perpetuating snags in managed mixed-conifer forests of the Blue

Mountains. Or.GTR INT-86P 325-336 Bull, E.L., N. Nielsen-Pincus, B.C. Wales, and J.L. Hayes. 2007. The influence of disturbance

events on pileated woodpeckers in Northeastern Oregon, Forest Ecology and Management 243:320-329.

of 72

Bull, E. L., S. R. Peterson and J. W. Thomas. 1986. Resource partitioning among woodpeckers in northeastern Oregon. USDA For. Serv. Pac. Northw. Res. Station, Portland, Ore., Res. Note PNW-444. 19 pp.

Bull, E.L. and J.H. Hohmann. 1994. Breeding biology of northern goshawks in northeastern Oregon. Studies in Avian Biology 16:103-105.

Bull, Evelyn L., Catherine G. Parks, and Torolf R. Torgersen. 1997. Trees and Logs Important to Wildlife in the Interior Columbia River Basin. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-391. USDA Pac. NW Res. Sta. Pp55.

Buskirk, S. W. and R. A. Powell (1994). Habitat ecology of fishers and American martens. Martens, sables, and fishers. S. W. Buskirk, A. S. Harestad, M. G. Raphael and R. A. Powell. Ithaca, NY, Comstock Publishing Associates, Cornell University Press: 283-296.

Buskirk, S. W. and L. F. Ruggiero. 1994. The American marten. Pages in: Ruggiero, L.F., K.B. Aubry, S.W. Buskirk, L.J. Lyon, and W.J. Zielinski, (eds.), American marten, fisher, lynx, and wolverine in the western United States. General Technical Report, RM-254. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station.

Coleman, D. and Crocker-Bedford. 1990. Goshawk Reproduction and Forest Management. Wildlife Society Bulletin Vol. 18, No. 3 pp. 262-269

Covington, W., Fule, P., Moore, M., Hart, S., Kolb, T., Mast, J., Sackett, S. and Wagner, M. (1997). Restoring ecosystem health in ponderosa pine forests of the southwest. Journal of Forestry, 95(4): 23-29.

Csuti, Blair, A. Jon Kimerling, Thomas A. O’Neil, Margaret M. Shaughnessy, Eleanor P. Gaines, Manuela M.P. Huso. 1997. Atlas of Oregon Wildlife. Oregon State University Press. Corvallis, OR. 492pp.

Daw, Sonya K., and Stephen DeStefan. 2001. Forest Characteristics of Northern Goshawk Nest Stands and Post-Fledging Areas in Oregon. The Journal of Wildlife Management, Vol. 65, No. 1 pp. 59-65.

DeGraaf, Richard M., Virgil E. Scott, R.H. Hamre, Liz Ernst, and Stanley H. Anderson. 1991. Forest and Rangeland Birds of the United States USDA Forest Service Agriculture Handbook 688. 625pp.

DeByle N. V., C. D. Bevins, and W. C. Fischer. 1987. Wildfire Occurrence in Aspen in the

Interior Western U.S., Intermountain Research Station, USDA FS, Ogden, UT Dixon, R.D. 1995a. Density, nest-site and roost-site characteristics, home-range, habitat-use,

and behavior of White-headed Woodpeckers: Deschutes and Winema National Forests, Oregon. Oregon Dept. Fish and Wildl. Nongame Rep. 93-3-01.

Dixon, R.D. 1995b. Ecology of White-headed Woodpeckers in the Central Oregon Cascades. Master’s thesis, Univ. of Idaho, Moscow.

Dixon, R. D., and V. A. Saab. 2000. Black-backed woodpecker (Picoides articus). No. 509 IN A. Poole and F. Gill, editors. The birds of North America. The Birds of North America, Inc., Philadelphia, PA. 20pp.

Drever MC, Gyug LW, Nielsen J, Stuart-Smith AK, Ohanjanian IP, Martin K (2015) Using Field

Data and GIS-Derived Variables to Model Occurrence of Williamson’s Sapsucker Nesting

Habitat at Multiple Spatial Scales. PLoS ONE 10(7): e0130849.

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0130849

of 72

Drew, G. S. 1995. Winter habitat selection by American marten (Martes americana) In Newfoundland: Why old growth? Dissertation, Utah State University. Logan. 83 p.

Dudley, Jonathan G. 2005. Home range size and foraging habitat of black-backed woodpeckers. MS Thesis, Boise State University, Boise, ID. 88 pp. http://www.rmrs.nau.edu/publications/jdudley_thesis_final_web/jdudley_thesis_final_web.pdf

Dudley, Jonathan G. and Victoria A. Saab. 2007. Home Range Size of Black-backed woodpecker in Burned Forest of Southwestern Idaho. Western North American Naturalist 67 (4): 593-600.

Edge, W.D. 1982. Distribution, habitat use and movements of elk in relation to roads and

human disturbances in western Montana, 1982, 98. Giles, Joshua. 2016, District Silvilculturist. Emigrant Creek RD, Malheur NF. Goggans, R., R. D. Dixon and L. C. Seminara. 1988. Habitat use by Three-toed and Black-

backed woodpeckers, Deschutes National Forest, Oregon. Nongame Rpt. 87-3-02. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife; Deschutes National Forest, Bend, OR. 49 pp.

Greenwald, Noah D., D. Coleman Crocker-Bedford, Len Broberg, Kieran F. Suckling, and Timothy Tibbitts. 2005. A review of northern goshawk habitat selection in the home range and implications for forest management in the western United States. Wildlife Society Bulletin 33(1):120-128.

Gucinski, H., M. J. Furniss, R. R. Ziemer, and M. H. Brookes. 2001. Forest roads: a synthesis of scientific information. General technical report PNW-GTR-509. U.S. Forest Service, Portland, Oregon.

Frenzel, R.W., and K. J. Popper, 1998. Densities of white-headed woodpeckers and other woodpeckers in study areas on Deschutes National Forests, Oregon in 1997. In Marshall, 2003. Birds of Oregon Unpubl. Report, Oregon Nat. Heritage Program, The Nature Conservancy, Portland, Oregon.

Frenzel, R.W. 2000. Nest-sites, Nesting Success, and Turnover-rates of White-headed Woodpeckers on the Deschutes and Winema National Forests, Oregon in 2000. Unpublished Report, Oregon Natural Heritage Program, The Nature Conservancy, Portland.

J.C. Hagar, W.C. McComb, W.H. Emmingham. 1996. Bird communities in commercially thinned and unthinned Douglas-fir stands of western Oregon. Wildl. Soc. Bull., 24. pp. 353–366

Harrod, Richy J., David W. Peterson, Nicholas A. Povak, Erich K. Dodson. 2009. Thinning prescribed fire effects on overstory tree and snag structure in dry coniferous forests of the interior Pacific Northwest. Forest Ecology and Management Vol. 258 issue 5 pp 712-721.

Hayward, G.D. and R.E. Escano. 1989. Goshawk nest-site characteristics in western Montana and northern Idaho. Condor 91:476-479.

Hessburg, Paul F., Povak, Nicholas A., Salter R. Brion. 2010. Thinning and Prescribed Fire Effects on Snag Abundance and Spatial Pattern in an Eastern Cascade Range Dry Forest., Washington, USA. Forest Science. Vol. 56, number 1. Pp 74-87(14).

http://www.rmrs.nau.edu/publications/jdudley_thesis_final_web/jdudley_thesis_final_web.pdf

http://www.rmrs.nau.edu/publications/jdudley_thesis_final_web/jdudley_thesis_final_web.pdf

of 72

Horton, Scott P.; Mannan, R. William. 1988. Effects of prescribed fire on snags and cavity-nesting birds in southeastern Arizona pine forests. Wildlife Society Bulletin. 16(1): 37-44.

Hughes, Kerry L. 2000. The foraging ecology of Picoides woodpeckers in relation to ponderosa pine decay dynamics. Moscow, ID: University of Idaho; 55 p. M.S. thesis.

Hutto, R.L. 1995a. USFS Northern Region Songbird Monitoring Program: Distribution and

habitat relationships. USDA Forest Service Northern Region internal report, Missoula, MT.

Hutto, R.L. 1995b. Composition of bird communities following stand-replacement fires in northern Rocky Mountain (U.S.A.) conifer forests. Conservation Biology 9:1041-1058.

Hutto, R.L. 2008. The ecological importance of severe wildfires: some like it hot. Ecological Applications 18(8):1827-1834.

Jackson, J. A. 1979. Tree surfaces as foraging substrates for insectivorous birds. In Rall Christopher J. 2006 RESPONSE OF BARK-GLEANING BIRDS AND THEIR PREY TO THINNING AND

PRESCRIBED FIRE IN EASTSIDE PINE FORESTS IN NORTHERN CALIFORNIA, master thesis, Humboldt State University, Arcata ,CA pp146.

Johnson, C.G. and R.R. Clausnitzer. 1992. Plant associations of the Blue and Ochoco

Mountains. Tech. Rept. R6-ERW-TO-036-92. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region, Wallowa-Whitman National Forest. 164 pp.

Johnson, David H. and Thomas A. O’Neil. 2001. Wildlife-Habitat Relationships in Oregon and Washington. Oregon State University Press, Corvallis, OR. 736 pp.

Klus, Rod. 2015- 2016. ODF&W District Wildlife Biologist. Personal communication. Korol, Jerome J., Miles A. Hemstrom, Wendel J. Hann, and Rebecca Gravenmier. 2002. Snags

and down wood in the Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project. In: Laudenslayer, William F., Jr.; Valentine, Brad; Weatherspoon, C. Philip; Lisle, Thomas E., technical coordinators. Proceedings of the symposium on the ecology and management of dead wood in western forests. 1999 November 2-4; Reno, NV. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-181. Albany, CA: Pacific Southwest Research Station, Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. 649-66

Korol, unpublished cited in DecAid http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/nr/wildlife/decaid/index.shtml

Knapp, Eric E., Jon E. Keeley, Elizabeth A. Ballenger, Teresa J. Brennan. 2005. Fuel reduction and coarse woody debris dynamics with early season and late season prescribed fire in a Sierra Nevada mixed conifer forest. Forest Ecology and Management. Vol. 208, Issues 1-3, pp 383-397.

Lands Council v. McNair 2010, 537 F. 3d 981 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc). Lehmkuhl, John F., Keith D. Kistler, James S. Begley, and John Boulanger. 2006. Demography

Of Northern Flying Squirrels. Informs Ecosystem Management Of Western Interior Forests. Ecological Applications 16:584–600.

Lieb, J.W. 1981. Activity, heart rate, and associated energy expenditure of elk in western Montana. Dissertation abstracts international b sciences and engineering, 1981, 42 (3), 848

http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/nr/wildlife/decaid/index.shtml

of 72

Machmer, Marlene. 2002. Effects of Ecosystem Restoration Treatments on Cavity-nesting Birds, Their Habitat, and Their Insectivorous Prey in Fire-maintained Forests of Southeastern British Columbia. USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-181. Pp 121-133.

Mannan, R.W. 1984. Summer area requirements of pileated woodpeckers in western Oregon.Wildlife society bulletin, 1984 12 (3), 265-268

Marshall, David B., Matthew G. Hunter, Alan L. Contreras. 2003. Birds of Oregon: A General Reference. Oregon State University Press, Corvallis OR. 768 Pp.

McCorquodale. Scott M. 2013.A Brief Review of the Scientific Literature on Elk, Roads & Traffic. Wildlife Res. Sci. Washington Department Fish & Wildlfie. Pp26.

Matz, Fred A. 1926, 1928, 1929, 1931, 1932, 1933, 1934;. Descriptive report: Malheur River timber survey project, Malheur National Forest. Available from personal files of Larry Amell. USDA Forest Service. Region 5 Reinvention Lab. T.E.A.M.S enterprise.

Mellen, T. K. 1987. Home range and habitat use by Pileated Woodpeckers. Master’s thesis. Oregon State Univ., Corvallis.

Mellen-McLean, Kim, Bruce G. Marcot, Janet L. Ohmann, Karen Waddell, Susan A. Livingston, Elizabeth A. Willhite, Bruce B. Hostetler, Catherine Ogden, and Tina Dreisbach. 2012. DecAID, the decayed wood advisor for managing snags, partially dead trees, and down wood for biodiversity in forests of Washington and Oregon. Version 2.20. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region and Pacific Northwest Research Station; USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, Oregon State Office; Portland, Oregon. http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/nr/wildlife/decaid/index.shtml

Moore, K.R. and C.J. Henney. 1983. Nest site characteristics of three coexisting Accipiter

hawks in Northeastern Oregon. Journal of Raptor Research 17:65-76. In Weber, Timothy T., NORTHERN GOSHAWK (ACCIPITER GENTILIS) NESTING HABITAT IN NORTHWESTERN CALIFORNIA. AN EXAMINATION OF THREE SPATIAL SCALES: THE NEST AREA, THE POST-FLEDGING AREA, AND THE HOME RANGE, Masters Thesis, Humboldt State University, Arcata, CA. 66pp

Murphy, E.C., Lehnhausen, W.A. 1998. Density and foraging ecology of woodpeckes following a stand-replacement fire. Jrnl Wildl Manage V62:4 pp1359-1372

NatureServe. 2010. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Version 7.1. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available http://www.natureserve.org/explorer.

Nielsen-Pincus, Nicole. 2005. Nest site selection; nest success, and density of selected cavity-nesting birds in northeastern Oregon with a method for improving accuracy of density estimates. M.S. Thesis. University of Idaho, Moscow. 96 pp. Nielsen-Pincus 2005

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

http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/nr/wildlife/decaid/index.shtml

of 72

handbook on species assessment. Version 2005. Partners in Flight Technical Series No. 3. Rocky Mountain Bird Observatory website: http://www.rmbo.org/pubs/downloads/Handbook2005.pdf

Pelren, Eric C. 1996 Blue Grouse winter ecology in northeastern Oregon. PhD thesis, Oregon State University, 67pp.

Pelren, Eric C. & Crawford, John A. 1999. Blue Grouse nesting parameters and habitat associations in northeastern Oregon. Western North American Naturalist. Vol. 59. No.4.

Pilliod, David S; Bull, Evelyn L.; Hayes, Jane L; Wales, Barbara C. 2006. Wildlife and invertebrate response to fuel reduction treatments in dry forest of the western United State: a synthesis. Gen. Tech. Rep. Rocky Mnt. Res. Stat. RMRS-GTR-173. USDA Fort Collins, CO. 34pp.

Pingjun Li and Thomas E. Martin; 1991. Nest-Site Selection and Nesting Success of Cavity-Nesting Birds in High Elevation Forest Drainages.The Auk. Vol.108, No. 2 (Apr., 1991), pp. 405-418

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

Reynolds, R.T., R.T. Graham, M.H. Reiser, R.L. Bassett, P.L. Kennedy, D.A. Boyce, Jr., G. Goodwin, R. Smith, and E.L. Fisher.1992. Management Recommendations for the northern goshawk in the southwestern United States. Forest Service General Technical Report RM-217. United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment station, FortCollins, Colorado.

Reynolds, Richard T., T. Forman and Lauren E. Alexander. 1998. Roads and Their Major Ecological Effects. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics. Vol. 29, pp. 207-231

Richard,T., T. Forman, and Lauren Alexander. 1998. Roads and Their Major Ecological Effects. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 29: 207-231.

Rowland, Mary M.; Wisdom, Michael J.; Johnson, Bruce K.; Penninger, Mark A. 2004. Effects

of roads on elk: implications for management in forested ecosystems. In: Transactions of the 69th North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference: 491-508.

Ruggiero, L.F.; Aubry, K.B., Buskirk, S.W., Lyon, J.L., Zielinski, W.J. 1994. The Scientific Basis

for Conserving Forest Carnivores American marten, Fisher, Lynx, and Wolverine in the western United States.Forest Service General Technical Report RM-254. United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment station, FortCollins, Colorado. 184pp.

Saab, V.A. and J.G. Dudley. 1998. Reponses of cavity-nesting birds to stand-replacement fire and salvage logging in ponderosa pine/Douglas-fir forests of southwestern Idaho. USDA Forest Service Research Paper, RMRS-RP-11.

Saab, Victoria, R. Brannon, J. Dudley, L. Donohoo, D. Vanderzanden, V. Johnson, and H. Lachowski. 2002. Selection of fire-created snags at two spatial scales by cavity-nesting birds. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-181. Pacific Southwest Research Station, Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture.

http://www.fs.fed.us/psw/publications/documents/gtr-181/062_Saab.pdf

http://www.fs.fed.us/psw/publications/documents/gtr-181/062_Saab.pdf

of 72

Dudley, J.; Saab, V. 2003. A field protocol to monitor cavity-nesting birds. Res. Pap. RMRS-RP-

44. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain

Research Station. 16 p. Saab, V.A., R.E. Russell, and J.G. Dudley. 2007. Nest densities of cavity-nesting birds in

relation to postfire salvage logging and time since wildfire. Condor 109:97-108.

Sauer, J. R., J. E. Hines, J. E. Fallon, K. L. Pardieck, D. J. Ziolkowski, Jr., and W. A. Link. 2011. The North American Breeding Bird Survey, Results and Analysis 1966 - 2010. Version 12.07.2011 USGS Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, Laurel, MD Schommer, T. and B. Johnson. 2003. Analysis of elk statistics 1965-2001. Wallowa, Wenaha-Snake, and Umatilla-Whitman Provinces.

Segal, Thomas. 2015, 2016 personal communications. Oregon Department of Fish & Wildlife Habitat Biologist, Ontario, OR

Sherwin, Rick. 1998. Ecology Conservation and Management of Western Bat Species. Western Bat Working Group. White paper. 2p.

Squire, John R. and Leonard F. Ruggiero. 1996. Nest-Site Preference of Northern Goshawks

in South- central Wyoming. The Journal of Wildlife Management Vol. 60, No. 1 pp. 170-177

Swanson, David k., Craig L. Schmitt, Diane M. Shirley, Vicky Erickson, Kenneth J. Schuetz, Michael L. Tatum, and David C. Powell. 2010. Aspen Biology, Community Classification, and Management in the Blue Mountains. USDA General Technical Report, PNW-GTR-806, 117pp.

Taylor, Daniel A.R. 2006. Forest Management and Bats. Bat Conservation International. USDA, NRCS www.batcon.org. 14p.

Thomas J. W, Technical Editor. 1979 Wildlife Habitats in Managed Forests, The Blue Mountains of Oregon and Washington. Agricultural Handbook No. 553. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service.

Thomas, J.W., and D.E. Toweill (eds.). 1982. Elk of North America: Ecology and Management. Wildlife Management Institute, Stockpole Books, Harrisburg, PA.

Thurber, Joanne M.; Peterson, Rolf O; Drummer, Thomas D.; Thomasma, Scott A. 1994 in Wisdom et. al 2000, Gray Wolf response to refuge boundaries and roads in Alaska. Wildlife Society Bulletin. 22(1): 61-68.

Torland, Ryan. 2016. Personal Communications. Oregon Department Fish & Wildlife Biologist, John Day, OR.

USDA Forest Service. 1995. Regional Foresters Amendments No. 1 &2: Decision Notice for the Revised Continuation of Interim Management Direction Establishing Riparian, Ecosystem and Wildlife Standards for Timber Sales. Including Appendices. Signed June 5, 1995 by John Lowe.

USDA Forest Service. 1990. Malheur National Forest land and resource management plan. Malheur National Forest, John Day, OR.

http://www.pwrc.usgs.gov/

http://www.batcon.org/

of 72

USDA Forest Service 2006. Elk, Deer and Cattle: The Starkey Project. Pacific Northwest Research Station, Science Update, Issue 13.

U.S. Fish and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1987. Northern Rocky Mountain wolf recovery plan. .Wildlife Service , Denver, Colorado. 119pp.

Verts, B.J. and L.N. Carraway. 1998. Land mammals of Oregon. University of California Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles, CA. Pages 455-458.

Wales, B. C., Gaines, W.L., Suring, L.H., Mellen-Mclean, K. 2011 (draft). Focal species assessment of current condition and the proposed action (alternative B) for the Blue Mountains forest plan revision. Baker City, OR, Unpublished paper on file at: U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Wallowa-Whitman National Forest, Blue Mountain Forest Plan Revision Team.

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 1995. Status of the pygmy rabbit in Washington. Olympia,WA 25p

Willis, M.J., Keister, Jr. G.P., Immel, D.A., Jones, D.M., Powell, R.M., & Durbin, K.R., 1993. Sage

Grouse in Oregon. Oregon Dept. of Fish and Wildlife, Wildlife Research Report 15, Portland, OR 56p.

Wisdom, M.J., R.S. Holthausen, B.C. Wales, C.D. Hargis, V.A. Saab, D.C. Lee, W.J. Hann, T.D. Rich, M.M. Rowland, W.J. Murphy, and M.R. Eames. 2000. Source habitats for terrestrial vertebrates of focus in the interior Columbia basin: Broad-scale trends and management implications. Volume 1 – Overview. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-485. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/pubs/gtr485/gtr485vl.pdf

Wisdom, M.J.; Cimon, N.J.; Johnson, B.K.; Garton, E.O.; Bryant, L.D.; Thomas, J.W. and Kie, J.G. 1999. Distribution and Spatial Partitioning of Mule Deer and Elk in Relation to Traffic. University of Idaho. Moscow, Idaho. 52 p

Younk, J.V. and M.J. Bechard. 1994. Breeding ecology of the northern goshawk in high-elevation aspen forests of northern Nevada. Studies in Avian Biology 16:119-221.

http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/pubs/gtr485/gtr485vl.pdf

direct and indirect effects common to all action...

Documents