Management Indicator Species (MIS) Report - Part IIa123.g.akamai.net/7/123/11558/abc123/forestservic...MIS (LRMP Chapter 5, Table 5-1). This information is documented in Part I of

MIS Report Part II Mt. Hebron Restoration Project 1

Management Indicator Species (MIS) Report - Part II

For the Mt. Hebron Restoration Project

Klamath National Forest Goosenest Ranger District

Male Black-backed woodpecker

Prepared by __ ________ Date: April 16, 2010___ Patricia Johnson

Wildlife Biologist

USDA Forest Service

VMS Enterprise Unit

Reviewed by: _______________________ Date:_____________ Christy Cheyne

Wildlife Biologist

Goosenest Ranger District

Klamath National Forest

Approved by: ____________________ Date: ____________ Laura Allen

District Ranger

Goosenest Ranger District

Klamath National Forest


INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this report is to evaluate and disclose the impacts of the Mt. Hebron Restoration

Project on the Management Indicator Species (MIS) identified in the Klamath National Forest

(NF) Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP) (USDA 1995) which was developed under

the 1982 National Forest System Land and Resource Management Planning Rule (1982 Planning

Rule) (36 CFR 219). This report documents the effects of the four alternatives; Proposed Action

(Alternative 2) and the action Alternatives 3 & 4, and No Action (Alternative 1), for the Mt.

Hebron Restoration Project on the habitat of selected MIS. Detailed descriptions of the project

alternatives are found in the Mt. Hebron Restoration Project Environmental Analysis.

Direction Regarding the Analysis of Project-Level Effects on MIS

The Monitoring Requirements in Chapter 5 of the Klamath National Forest Land and Resource

Management Plan (LRMP) do not require population monitoring or surveys on any MIS except

for steelhead trout and rainbow trout. For MIS listed on LRMP Page 4-38 to 4-41, project-level

MIS effects analyses are informed by project- and landscape-scale habitat analyses alone.

Project-level effects on MIS are analyzed and disclosed as part of environmental analysis under

the National Environmental Policy Act. This involves examining the impacts of the proposed

project alternatives on MIS habitat by discussing how direct, indirect, and cumulative effects will

change the quantity and/or quality of habitat in the landscape and project area (LRMP Page 4-39).

The LRMP requirements for MIS analyzed for the Mt. Hebron Restoration Project are

summarized in Part I of the MIS Report. Adequately analyzing project effects to MIS, involves

the following steps:

□ Identifying which MIS have habitat that would be either directly or indirectly affected

by the project alternatives; (LRMP Standards and Guidelines (S&G) 8-21 through and

including 8-34). This information is documented in Part I of the MIS Report.

□ Identifying the LRMP forest-level monitoring requirements for this subset of forest

MIS (LRMP Chapter 5, Table 5-1). This information is documented in Part I of the

MIS Report.

□ Analyzing landscape- and project-level effects on habitats for which the MIS was

selected to indicate in the LRMP.

□ Relating project-level impacts on MIS habitat to habitat and population trends for fish

MIS, per the LRMP.

The Management Indicator Species (MIS) Report Parts I and II document application of the

above steps to select and analyze MIS for the Mt. Hebron Restoration Project.

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

Scale

Forest scale monitoring requirements for the Klamath National Forest (KNF) MIS are found in

Table 5-1 of Monitoring Plan by Resource of the LRMP.

Habitat Status and Trend

The requirement to evaluate landscape and project-level impacts to habitat conditions associated

with the Species Associations and related MIS is identified in the LRMP on Page 4-39. Habitat


monitoring requirements are summarized in the MIS Report Part I. “Habitats” are the vegetation

types (for example, mixed conifer forest) and/or ecosystem components (for example, river and

ponds) and special habitat elements (for example, snags) as identified in the LRMP. “Habitat

status” is the current amount of habitat on the KNF. “Habitat trend” is the direction of change in

the amount of habitat between the time the LRMP was approved and the present. The

methodology for assessing habitat status and trend is

1. Use the GIS vegetation layers to describe the location of habitat for non-fish MIS

within a project area,

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

distribution,

3. Consider the reason the MIS habitat was selected as an Indicator, and determine

the potential effects to that habitat for which an MIS was selected for.

4. Identify the indicated habitat using habitat relationships data or models in the

LRMP Appendix I and California Wildlife Habitat Relationship (CWHR) System

(CWHR 2005). The CWHR System is considered “a state-of-the-art information

system for California’s wildlife” and provides the most widely used habitat

relationship models for California’s terrestrial vertebrate species (ibid).

5. Detailed information on the habitat relationships for MIS on the KNF and on the

CWHR System can be found in the Klamath National Forest MIS Report Part I.

6. MIS habitat trend is monitored using ecological and vegetation data for the KNF

and stream surveys. These data include spatial ecological and vegetation layers

created from remote-sensing imagery obtained at various points in time, which

are verified using photo-imagery, on-the-ground measurements, and tracking of

events that change vegetation and stream conditions (for example, vegetation

management, floods, and wildland fires).

Population Status and Trend

“Population status” is the current condition of the steelhead trout and rainbow trout. “Population

trend” is the direction of change in that population measure over time. Population monitoring data

are collected and/or compiled at the stream scale rather than the project scale because site

specific monitoring or surveying of a proposed project or activity area is not required” (36 CFR

219.14(f) and the actual treatment areas of an action may not contain streams, but may affect

streams through sediment delivery or flow changes.

LRMP Monitoring Requirements for MIS Selected for Project-Level Analysis

MIS Monitoring Requirements

MIS are animal species identified in the Klamath National Forest (KNF) LRMP, which was

developed under the 1982 National Forest System Land and Resource Management Planning

Rule (1982 Planning Rule) (36 CFR 219). Guidance regarding MIS set forth in the KNF Land

and Resource Management Plan (LRMP) directs Forest Service resource managers to: (1) at the

landscape and project scale, analyze the effects of proposed projects on the habitats of each MIS

listed in LRMP Standards and Guidelines 8-21 through8-34; and (2) assess presence of goshawk

in suitable habitat and determine the number of pairs of northern spotted owls in Late

Successional Reserves, and to conduct implementation monitoring to determine population

trends and relationship to habitat changes for steelhead trout, and rainbow trout.

How MIS Monitoring Requirements are Being Met

Project level assessment of northern spotted owls and goshawks is not required for northern

spotted owl and goshawks as an MIS species per LRMP S&G 8-21 through 8-34. Impacts to


northern spotted owls are evaluated as a species listed under the Endangered Species Act and the

impacts to goshawks are evaluated as a species designated as Sensitive by the Forest Service.

There are several ways that spotted owl presence on the Forest is being determined: 1) Surveys

have been conducted in LSRs in coordination with the US Fish and Wildlife Service, 2) Habitat

evaluations have been conducted by USDI Fish and Wildlife Service (in coordination with the

Forest Service Research Station) to predict northern spotted owl presence, 3) Habitat loss and

potential Take throughout the Forest is reported to USDI Fish and Wildlife Service annually, and

4) Monitoring is accomplished through the formal monitoring programs of the Northwest Forest

Plan area. (http://www.reo.gov/monitoring/trends/index.htm and

http://biology.usgs.gov/s+t/SNT/noframe/pn172.htm, and

http://www.reo.gov/monitoring/nso/index.htm). The monitoring results can be used to adapt

management practices, as coordinated with the Fish and wildlife Service.

(http://www.fws.gov/news/newsreleases/showNews.cfm?newsId=2E89B871-9B9F-78A7-

9593E1997BB12FD2). Chapter 5 of the LRMP indicates the Standard requiring further action

will be set by the Recovery Plan (which is in development)

Chapter 5 of the LRMP states that goshawk occupancy in suitable habitat will be determined.

Surveys are done at the project level where a potential for impacts (to habitat or noise

disturbance) may be significant. The majority of habitat and survey work is conducted on the

Goosenest Ranger District of the KNF because of the high likelihood of presence. Also, Goshawk

Management Areas have been identified throughout the KNF, with specific a Standards and

Guideline (8-20) to project goshawks. Chapter 5 of the LRMP says that the variation from the

Standard requiring further action will be determined in a Regional Conservation Strategy, which

has not yet been completed. Therefore, there is no standard to measure against. Survey

information has been provided to the US Fish and Wildlife Service for evaluation and

development of a Regional Conservation Strategy.

Population trend data for steelhead trout is collected and consolidated by the KNF in cooperation

with State, tribal, and Federal agency partners such as the California Department of Fish and

Game, Karuk Tribe, USDI Geological Survey, and USDI Fish and Wildlife Service and other

conservation partners such Universities and watershed restoration councils. Fish presence data for

steelhead trout and rainbow trout are collected using a number of direct and indirect methods,

such as stream surveys and fishing results (creel census). The KNF’s MIS monitoring program

for species typically hunted, fished, or trapped (such as steelhead and rainbow trout) was

designed to be implemented in cooperation with California Department of Fish and Game

(CDFG), consistent with direction in the 1982 Planning Rule to monitor forest-level MIS

population trends in cooperation with state fish and wildlife agencies to the extent practicable (36

CFR 219.19(a)(6)). To be biologically meaningful for wide-ranging MIS, presence data are

collected and tracked not only at the forest scale, but also at larger scales, such as range-wide

(range of the northern spotted owl), state, province (Northern California), or important species

management unit (for example, Klamath River Basin). In 2006, available data on steelhead and

rainbow trout were analyzed to determine the population trends of these species.


DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT

Existing Condition of the Project Area

The Tennant Fire was an uncharacteristically intense wildland fire that resulted in severe tree

mortality throughout much of the project area. The vegetation within the project area is composed

mostly of severely burned coniferous forest, including about 30% mixed conifer and 70% eastside

pine types. These conifer stands are interspersed with antelope bitterbrush, manzanita, mountain

mahogany, rabbit brush, and various ceonothus species. The Tennant Fire burned approximately

79% of the forested land into a deforested condition within the fire perimeter.

Table 1: Proportion of the Tennant Fire burned with high to moderate

(H/M) severity

The Proposed Action (Alternative 2)

The Proposed Action is designed to meet the purpose and need of the project. The Proposed

Action will treat approximately 2,051 acres across the project area; acres by treatment (as

described below) do not account for overlapping treatments types.

The Proposed Action is comprised of four overlapping treatment types; (1) dead tree removal, (2)

reforestation, (3) felling, hand piling and burning, and (4) browse species planting and/or seeding.

Trees will be removed and harvested by whole-tree yarding and ground-based tractor logging

systems. Machine piling will be limited to landing sites. In addition, the Proposed Action

includes the temporary access for treatment along 5.11 miles of system and 4.11 miles of existing

non-system road within the project area. For a detailed description of the proposed activities see

Chapter 2 of the Mt. Hebron Restoration Project Environmental Analysis (EA).

There are 4 alternatives for this project. Alternative 1 is the No Action alternative. Alternative 2

is the Proposed Action. Alternatives 3 and 4 were developed in response to significant issues

raised during public scoping. The action alternatives (2, 3, and 4) all use the same resource

protection measures or Project Design Features (PDFs). Table 2 shows the Comparison of

Alternatives by Treatment.

Acres of tennant fire Acres and % of Tennant

fire burned with h/m

severity

3,191 2,520 = 79%


Table 2: Comparison of Alternatives (Treatments)

Treatments

Alternative 1

No Action

(acres)

Alternative 2

Proposed

Action

(acres)

Alternative 3

(acres)

Alternative 4

(acres)

Dead tree removal

0 851 830 851

Reforestation 0

2,033

2,033

2,033

Felling, Hand piling, & burning 0

143 167 143

Browse Species Planting and/or

Seeding

0 Less than 50 Less than 300 Less than 50

Subsoiling for planting site

preparation

0 0 0 406

Total Acres of Treatment1

0 3,077 3,330 3,483

Total Acres of Disturbance

within Project Area

2

0 2,051 2,051 2,051

Non-system roads (miles) 0 4.11 miles 4.11 miles 4.11 miles

System roads (miles) 0 5.11 miles 5.11 miles 5.11 miles

Mechanical Treatment in Forest

Plan-designated Riparian

Reserves3

No

Yes

No

Yes

Snag Retention4 Not

Applicable

6-10 snags/ac

≥10” DBH; 8

snags/ac >19”

DBH

≥ 10 snags/ac

≥10” DBH; 10

snags/ac >19”

DBH

3-5 snags/ac

≥10” DBH; 4

snags/ac >19”

DBH

Dead Tree Removal limited to

frozen ground or snow

Not

Applicable

Yes Yes No

1Total Acres of Treatment listed here does not account for overlapping treatment types 2Total Acres of Disturbance within the Project Area accounts for overlapping treatments 3 Forest Plan-designated Riparian Reserves within this project area have been field-verified and were determined to be

Pond Management Zones (PMZs), including intermittent and perennial stock ponds. None of these sites meet the

criteria for Riparian Reserve allocation under Forest Plan guidance, but their treatment has been limited as described in

Alternative 3 and in the watershed project design features for all alternatives. 4For more detail regarding snag retention, see the alternative descriptions and wildlife project design features.


Table 3: Acres and percentages of the Tennant fire burned with high and moderate (H/M)

severity proposed for treatment with Alternative 2 (Proposed Action)

Alternative 3

This alternative was developed in response to issues brought forward by the public during

scoping. It addresses the disagreements about treatment in Forest Plan-designated Riparian

Reserves and snag retention. Forest Plan-designated Riparian Reserves within this project area

have been field-verified and were determined to be Pond Management Zones (PMZs), including

intermittent and perennial stock ponds. None of these sites meet the criteria for Riparian Reserve

allocation under Forest Plan guidance, but their treatment has been limited as described in

Alternative 3 and in the watershed project design features (PDFs) for all alternatives.

Treatments in Alternative 3 are identical to Alternative 2 (Proposed Action) with the exception of

the differences described below:

• There will be no mechanical tree removal within the PMZs. Treatment in PMZs will

be limited to felling, hand piling, and burning of material less than 10” DBH.

• A minimum of 10 snags per acre greater than or equal to 10” DBH will be retained

by stand; 10 snags per acre of the snags retained will be greater than 19” DBH

where present. Other than the number of snags retained, retention will be in the same

manner as described in Alternative 2 (Proposed Action).

• Browse species (mountain mahogany and antelope bitterbrush) will be planted and/or

seeded on less than 300 acres within Forage and Winter Range Management Areas, in

the same manner as described in the Proposed Action.

Table 4: Acres and % of the Tennant fire burned with high and moderate (H/M) severity

and proposed for treatment with Alternative 3

Acres of

tennant

fire

% of the

tennant

fire

proposed

for tree

removal

Acres and

% of

Tennant

fire

burned

with h/m

severity

Acres and

% of h/m

severity

burn

proposed

for tree

removal

Acres and %

of total

disturbance

Acres and %

of H/M

severity

burned area

proposed for

reforestation

3,191 27% 2,520 = 79% 851 34% of H/M

severity burn

2,051 80%of the H/M severity burn

2,033 = 81%

Acres of

tennant

fire

% of the

tennant

fire

proposed

for tree

removal

Acres and

% of

Tennant

fire burned

with h/m

severity

Acres an d

% of h/m

severity

burn

proposed

for tree

removal

Acres and %

of total

disturbance

Acres and %

of H/M

severity

burned area

proposed for

reforestation

3,191 26% 2,520 = 79% 830 33% of H/M

severity burn


2,033 = 81%


Alternative 4

This alternative was developed in response to issues brought forward by the public during

scoping. It addresses the disagreements about snag retention, subsoiling for planting site

preparation, and feasibility of limiting tree removal operations to frozen ground or snow.

Treatments in Alternative 4 are identical to Alternative 2 (Proposed Action) with the exception of

the differences described below:

• A minimum of 3-5 snags per acre greater than or equal to 10” DBH will be retained

by stand; 4 snags per acre of the snags retained will be greater than 19” DBH where

present. Other than the number of snags retained, retention will be in the same manner

as described in Alternative 2 (Proposed Action).

• Subsoiling will be considered on 406 acres (approximately 20% of project area) for

planting site preparation as follows:

o Subsoiling will be limited to portions of the project area designated for dead tree

removal, elevations greater than 5,000 ft., and slopes of less than 20%.

o Within treated areas (406 acres), subsoiling will take place along contours and

will treat approximately 50% of the surface, by skipping every other pass along

the contour.

o Subsoiling will only take place where surface rock content (cobbles and stones)

does not exceed 35%.

o Subsoiling will not take place within the foreground view (within 350’) of

Highway 97.

• Dead tree removal will not be limited to frozen ground or snow, but will follow Best

Management Practices (BMPs) and Wet Weather Operations (WWOs) to meet Soil

Quality Analysis Standards (SQAS).

Table 5: Acres and % of the Tennant fire burned with high and moderate (H/M) severity

and proposed for treatment with Alternative 4

Acres of

tennant

fire

% of the

tennant

fire

proposed

for tree

removal

Acres and

% of

Tennant

fire

burned

with h/m

severity

Acres and

% of h/m

severity

burn

proposed

for tree

removal

Acres and %

of total

disturbance

Acres and % of

H/M severity

burned area

proposed for

reforestation

3,191 27% 2,520 = 79% 851 33% of H/M

severity burn


2,033 = 81%


SELECTION OF PROJECT-LEVEL MIS

Management Indicator Species (MIS) for the KNF are identified in the LRMP S&G 8-21 through

8-34. A review was conducted using the MIS Report Part I - Project Level Assessment Checklist

to determine: 1) if the project is within the range of any MIS, 2) if habitat for which the species is

an indicator is present within or adjacent to the proposed treatment areas, and 3) if there are

potential direct, indirect or cumulative effects on habitat components.

The following associations and MIS will not be discussed further because the habitats for which

these species were selected are not in or adjacent to the project area as documented in the Mt.

Hebron Restoration project MIS Project Level Assessment Part I. Therefore, the project will not

directly or indirectly affect the habitat for these species and will, therefore, have no impact on

forest-level habitat or population trends for these species:

Hardwood Species Association Acorn woodpecker

Western gray squirrel

River/Stream Species Association

Rainbow trout

Steelhead

Tailed frog

Cascades frog

American dipper

Northern water shrew

Long-tailed vole

Marsh/Lake/Pond Species Association

Northern red-legged frog

Western pond turtle

Grassland/Shrub-Steppe Species Association Pronghorn

Montane vole

Loggerhead shrike

Swainson’s hawk

Sage thrasher

Burrowing owl

Mature Ponderosa Pine Species Association (Eastside Pine) Flammulated owl

White-headed woodpecker

Pinyon jay

The following species associations and MIS were selected for analysis for the Mt. Hebron

Restoration Project due to the presence of suitable habitat that may be impacted by the project

activities, as described in the Mt. Hebron Restoration MIS Project Level Assessment Part I.

Species associations and MIS associated with habitats that may be affected by project activities

are analyzed below.

Snag Association Black Backed Woodpecker

White-headed woodpecker


Downy woodpecker

Red breasted sapsucker

Hairy woodpecker

Pileated woodpecker

Vaux's swift

The MIS snag dependent species association will be discussed as a group because the snag habitat

within the analysis area is the result of high intensity wildfire and the recently burned and/or

killed trees are not typical snag habitat. The cavity nesting, snag associated MIS species that

would be impacted by the proposed project have interdependent and complex life cycles, many of

which rely specifically on this habitat type (i.e. black-backed woodpecker) with habitat needs that

focus almost exclusively on snags and burned trees for both foraging and nesting.

Klamath National Forest – Forest Plan Standards & Guides for selected MIS

Species Associations (Guilds/Management Indicator Species, Assemblages)

8-21 Use Species Associations listed below, the most current research information, Wildlife

Habitat Capability Models or Wildlife Habitat Relationships Models to assess landscape and

project-level impacts to habitat conditions. Develop and update these species associations and

models based on local information and new research information.

Snag Association:

Downy woodpecker, Red breasted sapsucker, Hairy woodpecker, Black Backed

Woodpecker, White-headed woodpecker, Pileated woodpecker, Vaux's swift

8-22 Assess the availability of snags within each landscape. Provide for an average of 5 snags

per acre, in a variety of size and decay classes, within each landscape. These snags need not be

equally distributed. The actual number of snags to be maintained in areas managed for timber

production may vary from 2 to 5, depending on the amount of snags available within the

surrounding landscape and the desired future condition of that landscape.

8-23 Maintain snag densities through the full timber rotation by providing green replacement

trees to become snags of adequate size when existing snags fall. The size of snags and green trees

to be retained within a given managed stand should be greater than the average diameter of the

stand.

8-24 Retain snags and replacement snags in clumps when possible. Consider the susceptibility of

snags to windthrow and site preparation activities. Designated wildlife trees should be protected

from woodcutting and Forest management activities.

8-25 Retain snags with the largest DBH as they tend to last longer and make the best wildlife

habitat.

Use Tables 4-4 and 4-5 as guidelines in ecosystem analysis and project-level planning. The

relative numbers of hard and soft snags in various size classes show the habitat needs of the

different cavity-association Forest wildlife species. The number of snags on a given acre will

vary, depending on the site and on the number of snags within the landscape.


LRMP Table 4-4. Numbers of Snags Required per 100 acres to Support "Good" Quality

Habitat for Primary Cavity-Association Species. ( ) = Number of Snags per 100 acres

Snag diameter

(DBH) General snag decay stage

Total snags by

diameter class

Hard (2-3) Soft (4-5) 11+ Downy (16) (16)

15+ Red Breasted/Black-Backed (45) Hairy/White Hd. (225) (270)

20+ Vaux's swift (200+) (200+)

24+ Pileated (14) (14)

Total snags: (500)

LRMP Table 4-5. Green Tree Retention for Future Snags (to be provided in a range of the above DBH

classes)

High capability Moderate capability Low capability

> 5 per acre 2 - 5 per acre < 2 per acre

PROJECT DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS and EFFECTIVENESS RATIONALE

KNF Forest Plan Standards and Guides 8-21, 8-22, 8-23, 8-24, 8-25 will be exceeded with the snag retention

guidelines within the Project Design Specifications.

Additional Design Specifications are in place for the proposed project. Only those

specifications that were directly pertinent to this evaluation are listed below. For all other

Project Design Features designed for the Mt. Hebron Restoration project see Chapter 2 of

the EA.


SNAG RETENTION

o Retain all pre-existing larger snags (>14”dbh). If these must be felled, then

leave on landscape whole as downed wood.

Retention of large snags created by insect, disease or lightening strike that existed prior to the

fire is of increased biological importance as these are biological legacies and will continue to

provide a variety of habitat needs for a wide range of species.

o Retain the largest snags in clumps or groups, situated around live trees if

possible.

Leave groups would be distributed throughout harvest units and consist of the largest

snags available, situated with large, live trees if possible. Snags or dying trees that

contain cat faces, broken or forked tops, hollows or cavities would be first priority

for retention. The total number of snags per acre required within each harvest unit

may be captured within leave groups. Leave groups may contain the total number of

snags retained for an individual harvest unit, represented as a percentage of the

overall area rather than on a snag per acre basis. These snags would be retained as

groupings within harvest units, rather than distributed individually on each acre

within the unit.

Retaining denser clumps of large snags would promote the longer-term persistence of suitable

snags as nesting habitat for cavity-nesting birds (Russell 2006). Snags in large burned areas

have greater exposure to wind, causing them to fall at high rates. Haggard and Gaines (2001)

found that treatments with snags distributed in clumps and individually dispersed had the highest

abundance and species richness of cavity nesting species. Saab and Dudley (1998) found in their

study that all bird species selected nest sites with higher tree densities than that measured at

random sites, and cavity nesters as a group selected clumps of snags rather than snags that were

retained in uniform, evenly-spaced distributions.

o Prioritize snags with broken tops retention

Many studies have found that broken top snags are the most frequently used type of snag for

nesting for multiple species of cavity excavators (Hutto l995, Saab and Dudley 1998, Haggard

and Gaines 2001). A broken top provides an avenue for heart rotting fungi which makes the snag

more suitable for cavity excavation. Broken top trees are especially important in burns because

they provide nest sites for the first few years following a high intensity fire when other trees are

not as easily excavated due to case-hardening (Saab and Dudley 1998).

o Overall snag retention

Treatments

Alternative 1

No Action

(acres)

Alternative 2

Proposed

Action

(acres)

Alternative 3

(acres)

Alternative 4

(acres)

Snag Retention Not

Applicable

6-10 snags/ac

≥10” DBH; 8

snags/ac >19”

DBH

≥ 10 snags/ac

≥10” DBH;

10 snags/ac

>19” DBH

3-5 snags/ac

≥10” DBH; 4

snags/ac >19”

DBH


It is important to note that while these guidelines would be applied to harvest units they would

likely vary throughout the project area, depending on the burn pattern and severity, and on the

locations of unburned patches and trees.

In addition, only burned trees that meet the criteria for mortality (see Chapter 2 for a description

of Mortality Guidelines) would be selected for removal, leaving many trees that may die but do

not meet these criteria within the units. This may also result in additional remaining snags,

above required levels, within the project area. The remaining burned areas of the forest that

would not be treated would provide abundant snags along the perimeter of the project area and

the forested areas beyond.

ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE

The vegetation within the project area is composed mostly of severely burned coniferous forest,

including about 30% mixed conifer and 70% eastside pine types. These conifer stands are

interspersed with antelope bitterbrush, manzanita, mountain mahogany, rabbit brush, and various

ceonothus species. The project area is contained within the Butte Creek 5th field watershed

(118,684 acres).

The majority (79%) of the Tennant fire burned with moderate or high severity across

approximately 3,191 acres. Areas proposed for tree removal represent 33% of the high and

moderate severity burned areas (Tables 6 & 7). Other treatments proposed for the burned area

(i.e. reforestation, browse planting, fuels treatments) cover approximately 2,051 acres or 64% of

the burned area.

Table 6 - Acres burned with the Tennant Fire within the 5

th field watershed

Total acres

of Butte

Creek 5th

field

watershed

Acres Acres Acres Acres burned

with Tennant

fire – all

severities

AcresAcresAcresAcres burned

with Tennant

fire with highighighigh h h h

or moderateor moderateor moderateor moderate

severity

% % % % of Tennant

fire burned

with high or high or high or high or

moderatemoderatemoderatemoderate

severity

% % % % of

watershed

burned in high high high high

or moderateor moderateor moderateor moderate

severity

118,684 3,191 2,520 79% 2.1%

Table 7 - Area affected by proposed tree removal (Proposed Action)

Methodology The project area burned with variable intensity and severity of impacts, ranging from severe,

stand-replacing intensity to low intensity, with the majority of the area falling into the moderate

and high severity categories (see above). Fire severity mapping is generated for the Burned Area

Total Acres

proposed for

harvest

% of high to moderate % of high to moderate % of high to moderate % of high to moderate

severity burned areaseverity burned areaseverity burned areaseverity burned area

proposed for harvest

% of total % of total % of total % of total

watershedwatershedwatershedwatershed

proposed for

harvest

851 36% .7%


Emergency Rehabilitation (BAER) team and is used to target areas for rehabilitation. Fire

severity levels are mapped according to the following definitions of low burn severity, moderate

burn severity, and high burn severity. Fire severity is mapped using remote sensing (satellite) and

aerial photography and is provided soon after the fire is controlled. The definitions provided

below from Parsons et al. (2003) include other indicators that are valuable in determining fire

effects to vegetation and habitat (see Burn Severity Classification discussion below). Fire

severity classifications were reviewed in the field to determine how the fire effects to vegetation

correlated with effects to soil condition. Safford (2007) surveyed areas where BAER soil severity

maps had identified moderate burn severity and found that actual impacts to the vegetation were

total overstory and vegetative mortality, indicating that grouping the two severity categories for

analysis of impacts to habitat is an appropriate methodology.

Burn Severity Classification - as used for Burned Area Emergency Rehabilitation (BAER)

Low burn severity. Low soil heating or light ground char occurs; minerals in soil are not

changed; leaf litter may be charred or partially consumed, and the surface of the duff may be

lightly charred with the original forms of surface materials. Indicators including very small

diameter (<1/4 inch) foliage and twigs are consumed but some small twigs may remain.

Generally, foliage may be yellow and above-ground portions of vegetation may be consumed, but

root masses are intact.

Moderate burn severity. Moderate soil heating with moderate ground char; soil structure is

usually not altered and decreased infiltration due to fire-induced water repellency may be

observed. Litter and duff are deeply charred or consumed and shallow light colored ash layer and

burned shoots and rhizomes are usually present. Indicators including understory foliage and

twigs (¼ to ¾ inch) are consumed; rotten wood and larger diameter woody debris are deeply

charred or partially consumed. In forested ecosystems, brown needles or leaves may remain (but

not always) on overstory trees.

High burn severity. High soil heating, or deep ground char occurs. Duff is completely

consumed soil structure is often destroyed due to consumption of organic matter. Top layer of

mineral soil may be changed in color (but not always) and layer below may be blackened from

charring of organic matter in the soil. All or most organic matter is removed and essentially all

plant parts in the duff layer are consumed. Indicators such as large fuels >3/4 inch including

major stems and trunks are consumed or heavily charred. In forested ecosystems, generally no

leaves or needles remain on standing trees.

Overall available habitat

Spatial bounding for this analysis is the total available habitat for post-fire dependent snag

associated species within the 5th field watershed. Available habitat is defined for the purposes of

this analysis as coniferous forest burned within 5 years of the Tennant fire, with high to moderate

intensity, within the Butte Creek 5th field watershed. Temporal bounding was deemed

appropriate for this analysis because after 5 years, the primary cavity nesting bird species

composition changes in response to the life cycle of the wood boring beetles they prey upon

(Hutto 2006, Kotliar 2002). Species composition also changes in response to the loss of foraging

and nesting structures as snags fall. Forest canopies become more open, providing more suitable

foraging conditions for aerial insect foragers. The definition of available habitat was spatially

bounded by the 5th field watershed because it is a large enough area to capture all past wildfires

that may be within close enough proximity to the Tennant fire as to be used by post-fire


associated MIS species occupying the project area. In addition, watershed boundaries provide

logical on the ground boundaries and known acre figures from which to base a comparison

between burned and unburned habitat for the purposes of the analysis.

The only available post-fire habitat within the analysis area is within the area burned by the

Tennant Fire. There are no other wildfires in the last 5 years in the watershed. The proposed

project would affect the post-fire habitat on 830 to 851 acres of the total available habitat, leaving

the majority of the post-fire habitat created by the Tennant Fire unharvested.

DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS

OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT ON PROJECT-LEVEL MIS

MIS CATEGORY: SNAG ASSOCIATION

_____________________________________________________________________

Black-backed woodpeckers are considered habitat specialists, relying heavily on post-fire

conditions (particularly moderate to severely burned coniferous forests), and are therefore most

susceptible to reductions in this specific habitat type. The strength of the association of black-

backed woodpeckers with post-fire snag conditions makes it a useful indicator for wildlife

associated with this habitat (Hutto 1995). Other species such as the hairy, downy and white-

headed woodpecker (and the mountain bluebird, which is not an MIS but uses cavities excavated

in previous years by black-backed woodpeckers) have strong, but not exclusive, associations with

this habitat type.

Conifer stands that have burned with moderate or severe intensity are a distinct type of habitat

and have a distinct set of species that rely on it. Those species can be divided into either primary

cavity nesters or secondary cavity nesters, or into categories defined by the type of food item

foraged upon such as wood/bark foragers or aerial (insect) foragers. For species that forage for

wood boring beetles, the window of opportunity is short, due to the 2-3 year life cycle of most

wood boring beetles (Haggard and Gaines 2001).

The importance of recently burned forests to breeding cavity-nesting birds is well known (Hutto

1995, Saab 2008, Russell 2006). Densities of cavity nesters in burned forests change with time

since the initial fire (Saab 2007). Species that obtain their insect prey from wood, such as black-

backed woodpeckers, rapidly colonize post-fire forests and then experience population declines as

time since fire increases, likely due to declines in bark and wood-boring beetles (Saab 2007).

Post-fire salvage logging removes snags that provide breeding, roosting, and foraging habitat for

many species (Kotliar 2002, Hutto and Gallo 2006). Studies indicate that wood and bark foraging

species favor unlogged burned forests due to greater foraging opportunities in areas with high

snag densities, whereas some aerial insectivores and other open-space foragers can use partially

logged post-fire forests due to more open space for aerial foraging maneuvers (Saab and Dudley

1998, Haggard and Gaines 2001, Saab 2002). Prey availability and predation pressure also differ

between salvage-logged and unlogged areas and may influence the overall use of these areas

(Saab 2007).

Snag abundance is a limiting factor for primary cavity excavators because they excavate a nest

cavity each year (Haggard and Gaines 2001). Primary cavity excavators are important members


of forest ecosystems because the cavities they excavate may be used by secondary cavity nesters,

including bats, American marten, many owl species, and other birds and because they influence

insect numbers.

Saab and Dudley (1998) found species such as black-backed and hairy woodpeckers to be most

abundant in stands with a high density of snags. Species that are considered to be more habitat

generalists, and are also more abundant throughout their range, were found to be more abundant

in the stands with the lower snag densities. Species that are associated with open-canopy stands,

such as Vaux’s swift, downy woodpecker, and western bluebird may benefit from post-fire

logging in dense stands where it would take years for the snags to fall on their own to create open

conditions (Saab 2002) though these species are not nearly as restricted to post-fire habitat and

commonly occur in naturally open, unburned, conifer forests as well.

Salvage logging influences densities or relative abundances of cavity nesting and some non-

cavity nesting birds (Cahall 2007, Hutto 2006). Maintaining unsalvaged areas in burned forests

will provide habitat for species of birds negatively influenced by salvage logging (Cahall 2007,

Saab and Dudley 1998, Dudley 2005). Retaining large snags after salvage logging will provide

foraging habitat for multiple species of woodpecker (Cahall 2007).

It is important to emphasize the proportion of area proposed for tree removal in relation to the

overall burned area, and the overall availability of this habitat type, specifically areas that burned

in high and moderate severity that will not be treated (see Tables 6 & 7 above). Within the entire

burned area of the Tennant Fire, there were 2,520 acres burned in high or moderately high

severity with 851 acres (34%) of this proposed for harvest with the Proposed Action. The

remaining 1,669 acres of post-fire habitat will provide snag habitat for species associated with

this habitat type.

Post-fire timber harvest can compound the original impacts to the habitat from the fire, whether

they are negative or positive (Hutto 1995, Hutto and Gallo 2006, Saab and Dudley 1998, Hanson

2008). Removing burned trees/snags from 34 percent of a large wildfire may impact the

availability of this habitat within the watershed. However, the retention of groups of snags that

contain the largest of the available snags in addition to all pre-existing snags will help to maintain

the suitability of the habitat within the areas that have tree removal and retain many of the

important post-fire habitat characteristics.

Actions proposed with the Mt. Hebron Restoration project that would affect habitat for the snag

association species selected for this MIS analysis would be those that impact the availability and

suitability of the habitat within the project area. The only proposed activity that falls into this

category is tree removal. The remaining activities (reforestation, subsoiling, browse planting,

fuels treatments) are not pertinent to this MIS habitat analysis because they do not affect habitat

suitability or availability; nor would the season of operation.

Therefore, the pertinent issue for the effects analysis to MIS snag association habitat is tree

removal.

Alternative 1 (No action)

There are no direct or indirect effects expected from the No Action Alternative because no

treatments would occur that would remove or modify post-fire snag habitat.


Alternative 2 (Proposed Action)

While all alternatives have tree removal proposed, the difference between these alternatives that

is pertinent to this analysis is the number of snags to be retained within tree removal units. The

manner in which the snags are retained will be the same across all action alternatives (i.e. retained

in clumps, situated around live trees where possible, focused on trees with defect and forked tops

and the retention of all pre-existing snags). Alternative 2 would retain 6-10 snags per acre ≥10”

DBH and 8 snags/ac >19” DBH (where available) throughout the tree removal units.

Because the overall suitability of the habitat for post-fire snag associated MIS is directly related

to the number of available snags in post-fire habitat, it would follow that the more snags retained,

the more habitat is available. As discussed above, salvage harvest has impacts on the suitability

of post-fire habitat for snag associated species. Areas that are harvested may decrease in

suitability for some species, but not for all. No unit will be left completely devoid of snags, and

so should not be considered as habitat lost. Instead, the resulting stand may provide habitat for

aerial foragers (such as downy woodpeckers) that require more open areas between snags, rather

than wood/bark foragers (such as black-backed woodpeckers) that require more available

foraging substrate i.e. snags or dying trees. However, all of the MIS species in this analysis

require a relatively large number of snags within the post-fire habitat. It is a matter of the overall

proportion of snags within the stand that dictates for which species it is the most suitable. In

units where tree removal is proposed, an increase in the number of snags retained would have a

subsequent increase in the suitability of the stand as post-fire snag habitat.

The threshold at which removal of fire-killed trees has no limiting effects on overall availability

of post-fire habitat and the species associated with it, is unknown (Saab and Dudley 1998, Saab

2002, Hutto 2006). The abundance of severely burned habitat that will remain untreated and the

project’s snag retention design features will alleviate much of the impact from tree removal

within the project area.

Alternative 3 The differences between this alternative and the Proposed Action that are pertinent to this MIS

analysis are that this alternative raises the minimum number of snags to be retained to ≥ 10

snags/ac ≥10” DBH and 10 snags/ac >19” DBH and reduces the total number of acres proposed

for tree removal. Other than these differences, the proposed activities are essentially the same,

including the Project Design Features and LOPs, as described above for the Proposed Action.

Because the overall suitability of the habitat for post-fire snag associated MIS is directly related

to the number of available snags in post-fire habitat, it would follow that the more snags retained,

the more habitat is available. As discussed above, salvage harvest has impacts on the suitability

of post-fire habitat for snag associated species. The impacts from the proposed project under this

alternative would be an increase in the availability of the post-fire habitat for the MIS species

category selected above. It is unknown how this increase in snag retention and decrease in acres

harvested would affect the species using the habitat. In general, an increase in the quantity and/or

quality of habitat can suggest a subsequent increase in overall habitat capability. However, it is

difficult to establish to what extent this may apply to the Mt. Hebron project area because the

number of individuals and the overall species composition in the project area is unknown.

Alternative 4


The difference between this alternative and the Proposed Action that is pertinent to this MIS

analysis is that this alternative reduces the minimum number of snags to be retained in areas

where tree removal is planned to 3-5 snags/ac ≥10” DBH and 4 snags/ac >19” DBH. Other than

this difference, effects from the activities proposed are the same, including the Project Design

Features and LOPs, as described above for the Proposed Action.

As discussed above, the overall suitability of post-fire habitat is directly related to the number of

available snags, and the more snags retained, the more habitat is available. The impacts from the

proposed project under this alternative would be a decrease in the availability of the post-fire

habitat for the MIS species category selected above. It is unknown how this decrease in snag

retention would affect the species using the habitat. In general, a decrease in the quantity and/or

quality of habitat can suggest a subsequent decrease in overall habitat capability. However, it is

difficult to establish to what extent this may apply to the Mt. Hebron project area because the

number of individuals and the overall species composition in the project area is unknown.

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS

Alternatives 2, 3, and 4

The spatial and temporal bounding for this analysis is the same as described above for the bounds

of the direct and indirect effects analysis of the MIS snag association.

The untreated areas within Tennant fire would not receive any additional treatment in the

foreseeable future that would have additive impacts to MIS habitat. Private lands in the analysis

area with Timber Harvest Plans are outside of post-fire snag habitat. Federal activities planned

for national forest lands are described in Appendix C of the Environmental Analysis. These

activities would not affect or remove post-fire snag habitat.


REFERENCES

Cahall, R.E. and J.P. Hayes. 2007. Influences of post-fire salvage logging on forest birds in the

Eastern Cascades, Oregon. Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon.

Dudley, J.G. and Saab, V. 2003. Field protocol for monitoring cavity nesting birds. USDA

Rocky Mountain Research Station. RP 44.

Dudley, J.G. 2005. Home range size and foraging habitat of black-backed woodpeckers. MS

Thesis. Boise State University. 76pp.

Haggard, M. and W. L. Gaines. 2001. Effects of Stand-Replacement fire and Salvage Logging on

a Cavity-Nesting Bird Community in Eastern Cascades Washington. Northwest

Science Vol.75., No. 4

Hanson, C. T. and M.P. North . 2008 Post-fire woodpecker foraging in salvage-logged and

unlogged forests of the Sierra Nevada. The Condor 110(4):777–782.

Hood, S., S. Smith and D. Cluck. 2007. Delayed conifer tree mortality following fire in

California. In: Powers, Robert F., tech. editor. 2007. Restoring fire-adapted

ecosystems: proceedings of the 2005 national silviculture workshop. Gen. Tech. Rep.

PSW-GTR-203. Albany, CA. Pacific Southwest Research Station, Forest Service, U.S.

Department of Agriculture. p. 261-283.

Hutto RL. 1995. Composition of Bird Communities Following Stand-Replacement Fires in

Northern Rocky Mountain Conifer Forests. Conservation Biology 9:1041-1058.

Hutto, R.L. and Gallo, S.M. 2006. Effects of post-fire salvage logging on cavity nesting birds.

The Condor 108:817–831.

Hutto, R.L. 2006. Toward meaningful snag guidelines for post-fire salvage logging in North

American conifer forests. Conservation Biology Volume 20, No. 4, 984–993.

Kotliar, N.B., Hejl, S., Hutto, R.L., Saab, V.A., Melcher, C.P., McFadzen, M.E. 2002. Effects of

fire and post-fire salvage logging on avian communities in conifer dominated forests of

the western United States. Studies in Avian Biology. 25:49-64 Russell, R.E., V. Saab, J.

Dudley, and J. J.Rotella. 2006. Snag longevity in relation to wildfire and post-fire

salvage logging. Forest Ecology and Management 232:179–187.

Parsons, A., Orelemann, A., Davis, M., McCammon, B., Howes, S., Robichaud, P. Sirucek, D.,

Shovic, H. 2003. Burned area emergency rehabilitation soil burn severity definitions

and mapping guidelines. USDA Forest Service.

Saab, V., R.E. Russell, J. Dudley. 2008. Nest-site selection by cavity-nesting birds in relation to

post-fire salvage logging. Forest Ecology and Management 257 (2009) 151–159.

Saab, V., R.E. Russell, J. Dudley. 2007. Nest densities of cavity nesting birds in relation to post-

fire salvage logging and time since wildfire. The Condor 109:97–108.


Saab, V., Brannon, R. Dudley, J. Vanderzanden, D. Johnson, V. and H. Lachowski. 2002.

Selection of fire created snags at two spatial scales by cavity nesting birds. USDA

Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-181. 2002.

Saab, V. and J. Dudley. 1998. Responses of cavity nesting birds to stand replacement fire and

salvage logging in Ponderosa pine/Douglas fir forests. USDA Rocky Mountain

Research Station RP 11.

Safford, H. D. , J. Miller, D. Schmidt, B. Roath, A. Parsons. 2007. BAER Soil Burn Severity

Maps Do Not Measure Fire Effects to Vegetation: A Comment on Odion and Hanson

(2006). Ecosystems (2007) DOI: 10.1007/s10021-007-9094-z.

USDA Forest Service. 1994. Klamath National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan.

Klamath National Forest, Yreka, California.

Documents

Management Indicator Species (MIS) Report - Part IIa123.g.akamai.net/7/123/11558/abc123/forestservic...MIS (LRMP Chapter 5, Table 5-1). This information is documented in Part I of