Johnny O'Neil Late Successional Reserve Habitat Restoration and ...

Johnny O’Neil Late Successional Reserve 

Habitat Restoration and Fuel Reduction Project 

Forest Service Sensitive Species 

Biological Evaluation 

September 2011 

Updated May 2012 

Jan Johnson 

Please Note: Due to minor differences between action alternatives in effects to Forest Service 

Sensitive Species, the discussion of the effects of these alternatives is combined. Environmental 

baseline material is extracted from the Klamath National Forest (KNF) list of Wildlife and 

Federally listed plants / Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Species Reference Document for 

the KNF (as updated June 2009). Exceptions to this include updated and or supplemental 

information for Fisher, blue-gray taildropper, Tehama chaparral snails, and Siskiyou 

Mountains/Scott Bar Salamander. The Johnny O’Neil project FEIS and all resource reports cited 

in this document are available on the KNF website at http://www.fs.fed.us/nepa/fs-usdapop.php/?project=31052. 

Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) 

Environmental Baseline 

Nesting territories are usually associated with lakes, reservoirs, rivers, or large streams and are 

usually within close proximity of water bodies that support adequate food supply (Lehman 

1979). Bald eagle nests are usually located in uneven-aged, multi-storied stands with old-growth 

components (Anthony et al., 1982). Most nests in California are located in ponderosa pine/mixed 

conifer stands and nest trees are most often ponderosa pine (Jurek 1988). Bald Eagles are 

common during migration and in winter along major river systems such as the Klamath and Scott 

Rivers, and in agricultural areas such as Scott Valley. Nine nest sites and four roost sites are 

known to occur on the KNF. Three nest sites are on the west side of the KNF and the remaining 

sites are on the east side. 

Single large trees suitable for nesting occur in the Horse Creek 6 th field watershed but the project 

area is located about two miles from the Klamath River, and is separated topographically from 

the river by the Johnny O’Neil Ridge. Known nest sites do not occur within or immediately 

adjacent to the project area. The closest known bald eagle nest site to the Johnny O’Neil project 

is at the mouth of the Scott River, adjacent to the Horse Creek 6 th field watershed but about three 

1

miles from the project area. Two other known nest sites are located at Caroline Creek and Dona 

Creek, approximately four and five miles from the project area. 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

Alternative 1-No Action 

Under Alternative 1, activities would not occur so no direct or indirect effects would result. 

However, fire behavior is expected to increase over time including: a constant or increasing 

crown fire potential under both moderate and severe weather conditions; an increase in 

surface fire intensity under both moderate and severe weather conditions; and either a 

constantly high or increasing level of basal area mortality (Johnny O’Neil Vegetation and 

Fuels resource reports). This alternative could result in long-term consequences for bald 

eagles by increasing the potential for fire to remove or reduce the desired structural 

components of bald eagle nesting and roosting habitat. 

Action Alternatives 

Direct or indirect effects to bald eagles are not anticipated from thinning activities; habitat 

suitable for bald eagle nesting will not be affected and noise activity disturbance to known 

eagles will not occur. Smoke generated by prescribed fire activities will occur, but the 

effects of smoke to eagles that may be foraging along the Klamath River would not be 

different or would not likely exceed smoke naturally occurring from wildfires. Smoke 

impacts to air quality would generally be confined to no more than a few hours, or at most 

a few days. The cumulative effect of prescribed fire on air quality is short-term, because 

once the burn is over and the smoke has dissipated, the effect is over (Final Air Quality 

Specialist Report) 4. Action alternatives are expected to decrease the risk of high intensity 

fire within the analysis area, thereby providing long-term benefits to eagles and their 

habitat in this landscape. 

Cumulative Effects 

There are no known non-federal timber harvests or other related actions proposed at this time so 

cumulative effects are not expected. 

Determination 

Because of the distance of the project area from known eagle nest sites, the lack of suitable 

habitat affected by the project, and the low likelihood that foraging eagles could be affected 

by smoke generated by prescribed fire, this project may affect individuals but is not 

expected to result in a trend toward federal listing or loss of viability. 

2

Northern goshawk (Accipiter gentilis) 


The goshawk is a forest hawk associated with late successional forest, or with mid-successional 

forests with late successional elements, in mixed conifer or true fir habitat types. Foraging 

habitat is variable and includes mid- and late-successional forest, natural and man-made 

openings, and forest edges. Moderate and high quality habitats contain abundant large snags and 

large logs for prey habitat and plucking posts (Hall 1984). Goshawks generally breed in olderage 

coniferous, mixed and deciduous forest habitats. This habitat provides large trees for nesting, 

a closed canopy for protection and thermal cover, and open spaces allowing maneuverability 

below the canopy (Hall 1984). Forest stands containing nests are often small, approximately 25- 

250 acres (Reynolds et al. 1982, Woodbridge and Detrich 1994); territories may contain 1–5 

alternative nest areas. In northern California, maximum distance between alternative nest stands 

was about 1 mile, and approximately 85% of alternate nest stands were

zone (.5 mile radius) and a foraging habitat zone (1 mile radius) around all known goshawk nest 

sites. Approximately 300 acres of mature conifer forest should be maintained within the primary 

nest zone, and 900 acres of mid-mature and mature forest in the foraging zone. In addition, 

seasonal restrictions are required for habitat modification within ½ mile of known sites and for 

noise generating activities within ¼ mile of known sites. 

For the purpose of this analysis, the analysis area chosen for the goshawk is the same as used for 

the northern spotted owl (NSO), recognizing the goshawk use area may be slightly smaller. 

Approximately 18,900 acres of suitable habitat occur in the analysis area. Due to the dominance 

of early and dense mid-successional stands in the project area, existing high quality habitat is 

primarily limited to the lower slope positions within the east and west forks of Horse Creek and 

in Crawfish Gulch in the LSR. Other suitable habitat is patchy, of small stand size, and/or of low 

quality. 

Three GMAs occur within the Horse Creek 6 th field watershed (OK9, OK10, and OK11). One to 

three visits per year in 2009-2010 were conducted using broadcast surveys and visual stand 

searches of all suitable habitat within GMAs. Year of action surveys will be conducted within 

0.5 mile of the proposed treatments inside designated GMAs; Primary Nest and Foraging Habitat 

Zones will be created in the event occupancy is determined. 

OK9 (Middle Creek) - Surveys at OK9 determined a pair with young in 2009 and a single in 

2010. The pair location was about one mile from the nearest proposed burn unit and about 1.5 

mile from the nearest proposed thinning unit. 

OK10 (Upper East Fork Horse) – There are no historic KNF records of single or nesting 

goshawks in any of these sites (T. Burnett personal communication). There were no goshawk 

detections or sign during 2009-2010 surveys. Because there are no nesting records for this site, 

no Primary Nest or Foraging Habitat Zones as described in the LRMP have been delineated. 

OK11 (Seiad Low Gap) - There are no historic KNF records of single or nesting goshawks at this 

site (T. Burnett personal communication). There were no goshawk detections or sign during 

2009-2010 surveys. Because there are no nesting records for this site, no Primary Nest or 

Foraging Habitat Zones as described in the LRMP have been delineated. 

Additional surveys were conducted in two areas where incidental observations outside of 

established GMAs had been made during the planning of the Johnny O’Neil project (Horse 

Creek Section 36 and Hamburg Gulch). At the Hamburg Gulch site, nesting was suspected in 

2009 and a pair was found in 2010. There are no commercial thinning units proposed within one 

mile of the Hamburg site. In August 2011, a pair of goshawks were found in Unit 453, in the 

northeast quarter of Section 36; a nest or young were not located. This unit is located within the 

0.5 mile of a northern spotted owl core that has not been recently occupied (KL1152). 

4



No activities would occur so there would be no direct effects to goshawks. In the absence 

of large-scale natural disturbance it is unlikely that the amount of goshawk habitat in the 

analysis area will significantly change in the near future. Fire behavior is expected to 

change in the long term, increasing the potential to remove existing and future goshawk 

habitat in the event of a fire start within the analysis area. There would be no treatments 

that attempt to retain late-successional elements, diversify stands, or treat dense plantations. 

The No Action Alternative does little to promote the development or retention of goshawk 

habitat and it increases the potential for wildfire to reduce habitat in the long term. 


NSO nesting, roosting, and foraging habitat is used as a surrogate for goshawks in this 

analysis. Combining these habitat classifications, thinning is proposed to occur within 

approximately 880 acres of habitat in Alternative 2, with fewer acres proposed in other 

action alternatives (Table 1). Treatment is proposed within and adjacent to suitable habitat; 

however, habitat is not expected to be lost or degraded. The implementation of project 

design standards will minimize or avoid significant effects to goshawks. Thinning, 

underburning, or the combination of both could affect goshawks in the short term, but are 

expected to be beneficial in the long term. 

Table 1. Treatments within NSO Habitat, by Alternative 

CT=Commercial thinning; NCT = Non-commercial thinning; UB=Underburning; HP=handpiling 

Silviculture/Fuels 

Acres Roosting¹ Acres Foraging 

Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 

CT with HP or UB 2 2 2 6 6 6 

CT/NCT with HP or UB 69 55 51 658 659 577 

NCT with UB or HP 96 43 43 46 15 15 

Mastication 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Thinning Total 167 100 96 710 680 598 

Underburn Only 

1986 

(NR) 

2053 

(NR) 

2057 

(NR) 

1790 1820 1902 

Total 2153 2153 2153 2500 2500 2500 

5

Thinning - While canopy cover may be variable within units, overall canopy cover percentages 

post-thinning would be maintained at ≥60% for portions of units with identified NSO roosting 

habitat. This would be accomplished by limiting tree spacing treatments, focusing on reducing 

the number of trees

Roads and landings- Construction of roads and landings may affect habitat for the northern 

goshawk by reducing canopy closure in forested stands. However, goshawks are associated with 

habitat that is intermixed with forest openings for foraging. The proposed locations of temporary 

spurs and landings are distributed across the project area, and the size of openings created would 

not preclude use by foraging goshawks. The project design criteria would minimize disturbance 

to known pairs so there are no significant effects expected from these actions. 

OK9 GMA – This pair is located about one mile from prescribed fire unit and about 1.5 mile 

from a thinning unit. The proposed action does not occur within the primary or secondary zone. 

OK10 GMA - Two units totaling 21 acres are proposed for commercial thinning within the 

GMA. This site has no records of nesting goshawks. The variable thinning prescription and 

project design features will result in habitat that will retain the suitability post-treatment. Year of 

action surveys will be conducted within 0.5 mile of the proposed treatments inside designated 

GMAs; Primary Nest and Foraging Habitat Zones will be created in the event occupancy is 

determined. 

OK11 GMA - Non-commercial thinning and underburning are proposed; this GMA has not been 

determined to be occupied by goshawks. Year of action surveys will be conducted within 0.5 

mile of the proposed treatments inside designated GMAs; Primary Nest and Foraging Habitat 

Zones will be created in the event occupancy is determined. 

Hamburg and Section 36 pair sites - Year of action surveys will be conducted within 0.5 mile of 

the proposed treatments. Findings from additional surveys will inform location of the Primary 

Nest and Foraging Habitat Zones that will be established for occupied sites as described in the 

LRMP. 


The Checkerboard Hazard project proposes to remove snags, dying trees, or small trees limiting 

drivers’ visibility along the road system in the project area. This may affect individual habitat 

elements along the roadsides for the goshawk and prey species or may result in disturbance to 

individuals; however, existing roadsides do not provide high quality habitat. Overall, cumulative 

effects from the Checkerboard or other actions are not expected to be measurable. 

7

These effects would be limited to areas adjacent to roadsides, so if goshawks could be disturbed 

if they were nesting in close vicinity to the roadside. Habitat impacts to goshawks are not 

expected to be significant. No known non-federal timber harvest is proposed at this time. Past 

timber harvest on adjacent private lands has resulted in a reduction in the amount of suitable 

goshawk habitat within the analysis area, either from clear cut harvests, intensive selection 

harvest or salvage. Effects of private land timber harvest have been accounted for in the baseline 

amount of habitat as discussed above. There are private residences and ranches in the analysis 

area that include private access roads and grazing. Activities in and around these properties have 

negligible effects or no effect to goshawk habitat. 

Determination 

Due to the factors described above, the Johnny O’Neil project may affect individuals but is 

not expected to result in a trend toward federal listing or loss of viability. 

Great Gray Owls (Strix nebulosa) 

Great Gray Owls are typically associated with old growth red fir, mixed conifer, or lodgepole 

pine for nesting, and with the presence of wet montane meadows for foraging (CDFG 1990). The 

great gray owl is considered sensitive because of its limited distribution in California. Loss of 

mature forest habitat for nesting and the degradation of montane meadows remain the major 

sources of concern. Intermittent surveys for great gray owls have been completed on the KNFF, 

but no there have been no observations of pairs or individuals. Single incidental detections of 

great gray owls have been recorded on the Salmon River, Scott River, and Goosenest Ranger 

Districts, and an incidental sighting in the vicinity of the Siskiyou Crest near Mt. Ashland in 

2005 (C. Oakley, pers. comm. 2005, cited in USDA 2008). Known pairs have been recorded in 

atypical habitat on the Rogue River National Forest to the north of the KNF. The nearest 

location to the project area is an incidental location about six miles north of the Siskiyou Crest 

(more than 6 miles from the project area) (D. Clayton, personal communication). There are 

some small high elevation meadows within the Horse Creek 6 th field watershed, about two miles 

from the project area. Suitable habitat for this owl does not occur within or adjacent to the 

project area. Surveys will not be conducted for this species. 



The nearest incidental location to the project area is more than six miles away and suitable 

habitat for this owl does not occur within or adjacent to the project area. Therefore, there will be 

no effect to great gray owls. 


8

Since the nearest incidental location to the project area is more than six miles away, suitable 

habitat for this owl does not occur within or adjacent to the project area. Therefore, there will be 

no effect to great gray owls. 


Since there are no direct or indirect effects, there are no cumulative effects. 

Willow Flycatcher (Empidonax virescens) 

The willow flycatcher is a “rare to locally uncommon” summer resident in wet meadow and 

montane riparian habitats at 2000–8000’ in the Sierra Nevada and Cascade Range. In California, 

this species most often occurs in broad, open river valleys or large mountain meadows with lush, 

high foliage-volume willows (Harris et al. 1987; CDFG 2005). Across its range, willow 

flycatchers typically select willows for nesting but may use other species of shrubs, typically low 

growing shrubs and bushes near water (as reviewed in Sedgwick 2000). 

Habitat for willow flycatchers in or near the Horse Creek 6 th field watershed is primarily located 

along the Klamath River and the larger adjacent streams, Seiad Creek, Grider Creek and 

Thompson Creek. For the past 13 years, willow flycatchers have been captured at the Constant 

Effort Mist Netting Station in willow habitat along the Klamath River near Seiad Valley. This 

mist-netting station is about five miles from the project area. Breeding adults have been captured 

in the spring, and young of the year have been captured in the fall, indicating that the species 

likely breeds in the upper basin of the Klamath River and in areas of the Marble Mountains and 

Siskiyou Crest; recent surveys at the mouth of Horse Creek have detected willow flycatchers in 

willow thickets at the mouth of Horse Creek on the Klamath River (S. Cuenca, personal 

communication 2011). Small patches of low quality habitat (primarily alders and small clusters 

of willow) occur on non-federal ownership along the lower reaches of Horse Creek in limited 

areas along Road 46N50, more than 2 miles from the project area. Surveys have not been 

conducted for willow flycatchers specifically for the Johnny O’Neil project. Surveys will not be 

conducted for this species as the project does not occur within or adjacent to suitable habitat. 



Under Alternative 1 none of the proposed activities would be implemented; therefore, 

there would be no direct effects to willow flycatcher. In the absence of large-scale natural 

disturbance it is unlikely that the amount of willow flycatcher habitat in the Horse Creek 

6 th field watershed will significantly change in the near future. However, in the event of a 

wildfire, fire could burn through riparian areas in the lower reaches of Horse Creek 

outside the project area, potentially removing riparian shrub habitat. 

9


Habitat for willow flycatchers does not occur within the project area, so there would be no 

direct effects to flycatchers or their habitat. Small patches of habitat, usually one acre or 

less, adjacent to the project area could contain individuals or breeding pairs; however, this 

habitat is considered as low quality, so the likelihood of willow flycatcher occupancy is 

low. The temporary increased vehicle traffic along Road 46N50 during project 

implementation could result in the disturbance of, or direct impacts to, willow flycatchers 

along the lower Horse Creek adjacent to the project area if they were to occur there, but 

these effects would be limited in time and space. 


There are no similar actions proposed on federal lands that could affect willow flycatchers; 

however, the Horse Creek Grazing Allotment encompasses the project area and extends outside 

of the project area into the upper reaches of the watershed. 85 cow-calf units currently are 

permitted to free range in this allotment from April 15-October 15 (USDA 2011, Horse Creek 

Allotment Grazing Permit). Most of the riparian areas within the allotment are inaccessible 

because they are steep and heavily vegetated (USDA 1996). Potential impacts from the 

permitted grazing could occur within the suitable habitat on federal lands within the meadow 

complexes within Reeves Ranch Springs and Sheep Camps, which are located outside of the 

project area. Previous analyses for this area suggested, that there is a low risk of nest disturbance 

and nestlings as the nesting period (mid-June-mid August) when the cattle are least likely to 

utilize shrubs (Van Sickle, pers. comm, as cited in USDA 1996). Potential nesting habitat could 

be degraded, or breeding activities could be disrupted, by livestock movement or ongoing 

grazing in these meadows and on private lands along the lower reaches of Horse Creek outside 

the project area as cattle access water. These actions could be additive to potential effects from 

temporary increased vehicle movement on road 46N50 (described above), but are not likely to be 

significant when combined with the effects of the actions proposed in the Project. 

Determination 

Due to the factors described above, the Johnny O’Neil project may affect individual 

Willow Flycatchers but is not expected to result in a trend toward federal listing or 

loss of viability. 

Wolverine (Gulo gulo) 


Sightings of this species are rare in northern California; sightings range from Del Norte 

and Trinity Counties east through Siskiyou and Shasta Counties, and south through Tulare 

County. Habitat distribution in California is poorly known for the North Coast and 

northern Sierra Nevada. In northern California, wolverines range from 500-1500 m 

elevation (1,600 to 4,800 feet) in Douglas-fir and mixed conifer and true fir habitats 

10

(Zeiner et al. 1990). For the purposes of this analysis, NSO nesting and roosting habitat is 

used as a proxy for wolverine habitat; a similar analysis area is considered due to 

wolverines’ large annual home range use. Approximately 260,200 acres of higher quality 

(NSO nesting/roosting) habitat occurs on the KNF, with approximately 9,600 acres 

occurring in the analysis area. 

Camera stations and track plate surveys have been conducted on the KNF but these 

surveys did not find wolverines. There are ten documented detections of wolverines on the 

KNF but no den sites are known. Surveys for wolverines have not been conducted within 

the project area. Due to the large home ranges used by wolverines, their ability to travel 

long distances over rugged terrain, the variety of habitats that they use, and the proximity 

of remote, rugged habitats in Wilderness areas, it is expected that wolverines may disperse 

into or forage in the project area, either as part of individual home ranges or as individuals 

dispersing through the area. 



No activities would occur and there would be no direct effects to wolverines. Vegetation 

modeling suggests that habitat will not significantly change in the near future but will trend 

toward a higher risk of late-successional habitat loss. Fire behavior is expected to change in 

the long term, thereby increasing the potential to remove existing and future wolverine 

habitat in the event of a fire start within the project area. No activities would occur with the 

intent of retaining late-successional elements. Thus, the No Action Alternative does little to 

promote the development or retention of wolverine habitat and it increases the potential for 

wildfire to reduce habitat in the long term. 


There would be no significant direct effects to wolverine under the action alternatives but 

individuals in the area could be disturbed in the short term during implementation of 

project activities. Noise disturbance related to project activities would be short-lived and 

last for one season in any given location. 

Mechanical thinning and prescribed fire will occur in or adjacent to habitat that could be 

used by wolverine; habitat will not be removed or modified to the extent that degrades its 

quality. Variable density thinning from below will use a “skip-and-gap” approach that will 

help maintain or introduce stand heterogeneity, habitat connectivity and prey availability. 

Areas for “skips” will be located around large-diameter leave trees, aggregations of 

vigorous dominant or co-dominant conifers, and/or other wildlife features such as snags, 

dead/downed logs, and large California black oaks. 

In Alternative 2, of the approximate 9,600 acres of NSO nesting/roosting habitat (used as a 

proxy) occurring within the analysis area, 71 acres are proposed for commercial thinning, 

11

(or commercial thinning combined with non-commercial thinning) and 96 acres are 

proposed for non-commercial thinning with less proposed in other action alternatives (see 

NSO roosting habitat, Table 1). The total acreage of commercial thinning and commercial 

thinning combined with non-commercial thinning represents about 0.7 percent of the 

available habitat; this thinning is not proposed in what would be considered suitable 

wolverine habitat (analogous to NSO nesting/roosting habitat). 

The potential loss of large trees that could be incidentally removed for operational safety 

may affect current or future wolverine habitat but these losses would be limited and not 

expected to be significant to the population. 

Thinning and other fuel reduction activities will produce heat, smoke, visual, and noise 

disturbance that could disturb wolverines in the project area. Disturbance related to the 

proposed activities that could affect foraging or denning would be short-lived and last for 

one season in any given location. Project activities would be limited in space at any one 

time and, with the wolverines’ ability to move away from disturbance combined with the 

availability of habitat on the landscape, these activities will have inconsequential direct 

effects on individuals and will have insignificant effects to the population as a whole. 

Given the natural low densities of wolverines, and their tendency to avoid human activities, 

it is expected that disturbance or disruption of normal breeding/feeding activities would not 

be significant. These activities will have inconsequential effects on individuals and will 

have no overall effect on the population. 


No known non-federal actions are proposed at this time, so there would be no significant additive 

effects expected to wolverine. The Checkerboard Hazard project proposes to remove snags, 

dying trees, or small trees limiting drivers’ visibility along the road system in the project area. 

This may affect individual habitat elements along the roadsides for the wolverine and prey 

species or may result in disturbance to individuals; however, existing roadsides do not provide 

high quality habitat for the elusive wolverine. Overall, cumulative effects from the Checkerboard 

or other actions are not expected to be measurable. 

Determination 

Due to the factors described above, this project may affect individual wolverines but is 

not expected to result in a trend toward federal listing or loss of viability. 

12

Fisher (Martes pennanti) (also a Candidate for Federal listing) 


Fisher habitat distribution occurs from Del Norte and Trinity counties east through 

Siskiyou and Shasta Counties, and south through the Sierra Nevada to Tulare County 

(Zeiner et al. 1990). In a compilation of published and unpublished fisher literature from 

South-Central British Columbia, Western Washington, Western Oregon, and California, 

fishers are found to be associated with habitats containing moderate to dense forest canopy 

in low and mid-elevational areas; home ranges include mosaics of different vegetation 

types and forest age classes with complex forest structure for denning, resting, and 

foraging (Lofroth et al. 2010). Some home ranges throughout the range were positively 

associated with the presence of younger successional stages which likely provide source 

habitat for fisher prey. In evaluation of fisher resting site selection in three study areas 

including the Klamath Mountains, Buskirk and others (2010) found when compared to 

random sites, fishers selected areas with mesic (balanced) moisture and temperature 

regimes, higher vegetation cover, steeper in slope, and contained a relatively high basal 

area of conifers, hardwoods, and snags, and relatively large diameter conifer and 

hardwoods. In one study located on the Trinity River, California, use areas appeared to be 

negatively associated with non-forested or open shrub habitats (as reviewed in Lofroth et 

al. 2010). 

While home ranges may contain mosaics of different vegetation types and age classes, this 

species is highly associated with large trees, alive and dead, and related structural features. 

Fishers are known to use multiple rest trees in their home range and typically are located in 

large live trees with some form of deformity such as mistletoe, avian or mammal platform 

nests, and cavities. Den sites average 1.7-2.8 times the diameter of other available trees 

within the vicinity; in Northern California den sites are commonly located in hardwoods 

(in Lofroth et al. 2010). Fishers on Hoopa Tribal Lands and on the Shasta Trinity National 

Forest were found to use both conifers and hardwoods; black oak trees were used more 

than expected at both study areas. Fishers selected sites made up of stands with large 

diameter trees and dense canopy cover that were generally situated in drainage-bottoms 

(Yeager 2005). Similar findings are reported by others for northern California and 

southern Oregon (Lofroth, E.C.et al. 2010). In mixed conifer habitats similar to Johnny 

O’Neil, Thompson et al. (2011) found fishers often in areas with high numbers of small 

(

area has detected numerous fishers, and two fishers were collected in the Horse Creek 6 th 

field watershed in January 2011 as part of a relocation project (Swiers and Powell 2011, 

unpublished data). Fishers have been detected in the Dutch Creek drainage to the north of 

the project area (D. Clayton, pers. comm. 2010). Incidental sightings of fisher have also 

occurred on the KNF, for the most part along major roads and highways associated with 

rivers or large creeks, but no den sites have been located. Most detections on or adjacent 

to the KNF have been in mid- to late-seral true fir, mixed conifer and mixed coniferhardwood 

habitats (Farber and Criss, unpublished data 2006, Farber and Franklin, 

unpublished data 2005, Yaeger, personal communication 2011.) 

NSO nesting/roosting habitat is considered as a proxy for high quality fisher denning and 

resting habitat because of the presence of large trees, denser canopy cover, and structural 

complexity. In the Johnny O’Neil landscape, NSO foraging habitat is also considered as a 

proxy for suitable fisher foraging habitat because of the presence of large trees and 

proximity to higher quality stands. About 260,200 acres of suitable denning/resting habitat 

and about 259,000 acres of lower quality habitat (NSO ‘foraging’) for the fisher occur on 

the KNF. Excluding larger contiguous areas of early successional habitat such as found in 

the post-fire burn area located in the northwest portion of the project area, the analysis area 

for fisher includes about 9,575 acres of denning/resting habitat and 14,540 acres of suitable 

foraging habitat. This foraging value may be an underestimate; additional forested stands 

dominated by small diameter trees or areas considered too dense for owls to fly through 

were not included in classification of suitable NSO habitat but may still be suitable for 

fisher foraging, especially along edges of, and when intermixed with mid- and latesuccessional 

stands. Many proposed treatment stands contain large black oaks that are 

surrounded by small diameter Douglas firs that are growing through the black oak crowns. 

Additionally, successful black oak regeneration is limited due to the density of pole-sized 

conifers and lack of small openings. 



Under the No Action Alternative, activities designed to retain late-successional habitat 

would not occur so there would be no direct effects to fisher. Large den and rest trees 

would be slightly slower to develop, dense conifer stands would persist, and growth and 

diversity would remain limited. Significant habitat features such as large California black 

oaks would gradually be reduced in the landscape and competition-based mortality would 

continue as would decreased oak regeneration. Models project an increase in surface fuels 

and constant or increasing crown fire potential under both moderate and severe weather 

conditions. An increase in surface fire intensity under both moderate and severe weather 

conditions would likely result in more acres of late-successional habitat affected by high 

intensity fire. Therefore, the No Action Alternative does little to promote the development 

14

or retention of large tree/denning/resting habitat and increases the potential for fire to 

remove existing large snags. 


NSO nesting, roosting, and foraging habitat is used as a surrogate for fisher in this analysis. 

Refer also to discussion as applied to goshawk effects; in general, there is a high degree of 

overlap of habitat use of goshawk, fisher, and NSOs in this portion of the species ranges so 

effects to them are similar. Combining these habitat classifications, thinning is proposed to 

occur within approximately 880 acres of habitat (about 5 percent of the available habitat in 

the analysis area) in Alternative 2, with fewer acres proposed in other action alternatives 

(Table 1). Of the 880 acres, about 167 acres are proposed for thinning within higher quality 

denning/resting habitat (NSO roosting) habitat. Of these,71 acres are commercial and 

commercial/non-commercial thinning and 96 acres are non-commercial thinning; the 71 

acres represent about 0.7 % of the higher quality (denning/resting) habitats and about 

within the fisher analysis area]. Additionally, Alternative 2 proposes about 664 acres of 

commercial and commercial/non-commercial thinning and 46 acres of non-commercial 

within suitable ‘foraging’ habitat; combined these represent five percent of the available 

foraging habitat in the fisher analysis area. 

Mechanical thinning and prescribed fire will occur within or adjacent to habitat that could 

be utilized by fisher, but habitat will not be removed or modified to the extent that degrades 

its quality. Project design features are intended to result in long term development and 

retention of habitat and individual key habitat elements for fisher such as large trees 

(hardwoods in particular), snags, or trees containing structures associated with fisher use; 

large California black oaks are features that are a focus in this project. Long-term, 

beneficial effects are expected by reducing the proportion of the suitable habitat on the 

landscape affected by high intensity fire and the long term retention of key features such as 

large hardwoods. 

Variable density thinning from below will be implemented using a “skip-and-gap” 

approach that will help maintain or introduce stand heterogeneity, habitat connectivity and 

prey availability. Areas for “skips” will be located around large-diameter leave-trees, 

aggregations of vigorous dominant or co-dominant conifers, and/or other wildlife features 

such as snags, dead/downed logs, and large California black oaks. Thinning and other fuels 

reduction treatments may remove or fall individual trees or snags that may be used for 

denning or resting. By meeting the recommendations for snags in the KNF LRMP (USDA 

Forest Service 1994), and because the felling or removing of large trees would only occur 

under limited circumstances, such removals of denning or resting trees are expected to be 

minimal and not expected to be significant to the population. 

Because this species is sensitive to disturbance, the Johnny O’Neil project has the potential 

to affect individuals if fishers are present. Thinning and other fuels reduction activities will 

15

produce heat, smoke, visual, and noise disturbance that could disturb fisher in the project 

area. Disturbance related to project activities that could affect foraging or denning would 

be short-lived and last for one season in any given location. Project activities would be 

limited in space at any one time and, with the fishers’ ability to move away from 

disturbance combined with the availability of habitat on the landscape, these activities will 

have inconsequential direct effects on individuals and will have insignificant effects to the 

population as a whole. 


Reasonable foreseeable future actions that might affect suitable habitat include the Checkerboard 

Hazard project which proposes to remove snags, dying trees, or small trees limiting drivers’ 

visibility along the road system in the project area. This may affect individual habitat elements 

along the roadsides for the fisher and prey species or may result in disturbance to individuals; 

however, existing roadsides do not provide high quality habitat for the fisher. Overall, 

cumulative effects from the Checkerboard or other actions are not expected to be measurable. 

Given the availability of habitat throughout the remainder of the project area, and that no known 

non-federal actions are proposed at this time, no significant additive effects to the fisher are 

expected to occur. 

Past timber harvest on adjacent private lands has resulted in a reduction in the amount of suitable 

fisher habitat within the analysis area, from clear cut harvests, intensive selection harvest or 

salvage. Although the overall distribution of late-successional forest habitat is similar to historic 

patterns, it has been estimated that the overall amount of habitat has been reduced within the 

Horse Creek 6th field watershed through wildfire, timber harvest, fire salvage and road building 

on both public and private lands since the 1930s (USDA Forest Service 2002). Stands that have 

been burned or harvested, for the most part, are in early or mid-successional forest stages and are 

capable of becoming late-successional forest habitat in the future; some of these could be 

currently utilized by fisher. 

Availability of large hardwoods associated with fisher denning and resting in the Klamath 

Province have been significantly reduced on industrial timberland. Effects of private land timber 

harvest have been accounted for in the baseline amount of habitat as discussed above. There are 

private residences and ranches, which include private access roads and grazing, in the lower 

portions of the Horse Creek 6 th field watershed but none are within the project area; activities in 

and around these properties have negligible effects or no effect to fisher habitat. For a discussion 

of the amount of late-successional habitat and fragmentation in the Horse Creek 6th field 

watershed, refer to the Horse Creek Ecosystem Analysis (USDA 2002). 

16

Determination – Due to the factors described above, the Johnny O’Neil project 

may affect individual fishers but is not expected to result in a trend toward 

federal listing or loss of viability. 

American marten (Martes americana) 


This species uses mature and old growth forest habitats, typically distributed at a higher 

elevation than the fisher. Generally, mature and over-mature true fir/hemlock/pine habitat 

occurring above 5000 feet in elevation with a dense canopy (>40%) and adequate large, coarse 

woody debris is considered marten habitat (Jameson and Peeters 1988; CDFG 1990 In most 

studies of habitat use, martens were found to prefer late-successional stands of mesic coniferous 

forest, especially those with complex physical structure near the ground (Buskirk and Powell 

1994). Xeric forest types and those with a lack of structure near the ground are used little or not 

at all. The preference and apparent need for structure near the ground, especially in winter, 

appears universal (Ruggiero et al. 1994). The marten is predisposed by several attributes to 

impacts from human activities, including: its habitat specialization for mesic, structurally 

complex forests; its low population densities; and its low reproductive rate for a mammal of its 

size (Ruggiero et al. 1994). Extensive logging and forest fires reduce the value of areas to 

martens, sometimes for many years (Strickland and Douglas, 1987). 

The distribution of marten on the west side of the KNF is not well known due to the lack of 

marten-specific survey data. Surveys for forest carnivores have been described above (see 

fisher); marten have not been detected at any of the survey stations to date. Incidental sightings 

of marten have been recorded on four ranger districts of the KNF (excluding Oak Knoll), but 

cannot be confirmed. Positive detections at camera survey stations on the Goosenest Ranger 

District of the KNF have found marten using true fir habitats near 7000 feet in elevation. 

Martens are considered as an uncommon to common permanent resident of California’s North 

Coast regions and Sierra Nevada, Klamath, and Cascades Mountains. Optimal habitats are 

various mixed evergreen forests with >40% crown closure, large trees and snags. Important 

habitats include red fir, lodgepole pine, subalpine conifer, mixed conifer, Jeffrey pine, and 

eastside pine (Grinnell et al. 1937, Schempf and White 1977, Clark et al. 1987, as cited in Zeiner 

1990). On the KNF, marten have been observed in higher elevations, typically within true fir, 

lodgepole pine, and subalpine conifer stands. 

For the purposes of this analysis, NSO habitat above 4,500 feet is considered as suitable habitat 

for martens. Standards and Guidelines for both species require retaining canopy cover and 

retaining large down logs and snags; 144,466 acres of marten habitat is estimated to occur on the 

KNF. There are only a few areas proposed for treatment occurring above 4,500 feet (Section 20 

on the NE side of the project area and Section 23 of the NW side of the project area). Section 20 

contains about 115 acres of low quality marten habitat. This area lacks structural components 

17

due to past harvest and is surrounded entirely by heavily managed non-federal land. The portion 

of Section 23 occurring above 4,500 feet was burned at high intensity during 1987 and does not 

currently contain suitable habitat for marten. 



No activities would occur and there would be no direct effects to marten. Fire behavior is 

expected to worsen in the long term due to increasing tree mortality, stand density, and 

increases in surface fuels; this would increase the potential for removal of existing and 

future habitat associated with marten in the event of a fire start within the project area. 

Thus, the No Action Alternative does little to promote the long-term retention of marten 

habitat and increases the potential for wildfire to reduce higher elevation habitat in the long 

term. 


Suitable habitat for marten is very limited within and adjacent to the project area. However, 

surveys have not and will not be conducted for this project, so the occurrences of marten 

are unknown. Thinning using mechanical equipment will occur in three units in or adjacent 

to low quality habitat that could be utilized by marten (Units 478, 479, and 482) affecting 

19 acres of habitat. Foraging behavior patterns of individuals could be temporarily 

disrupted during project implementation. Habitat will not be removed or modified to the 

extent that degrades its quality; project design features are designed to result in long term 

development and retention of habitat and individual key habitat elements such as large 

trees, snags, or trees containing structures. Long-term, beneficial effects are expected by 

reducing the proportion of the landscape affected by high intensity fire, decreasing the 

amount of habitat loss resulting from high intensity fire within the analysis area. 

The potential loss of large trees that could be incidentally removed for operational safety 

may affect current or future marten habitat but these losses would be limited and are not 

expected to be significant to the population. If present, individuals could be disturbed in 

the short term by project activities within or adjacent to the marginal habitat that does occur 

in proposed treatment units, though habitat will not be removed or degraded for this 

species. These activities will have inconsequential direct effects on individuals and will 

have insignificant effects to the population as a whole. 


Proposed activities in the reasonably foreseeable future that might affect suitable habitat include 

the Checkerboard Hazard project, which proposes to remove snags, dying trees, or small trees 

limiting drivers’ visibility along the road system in a very small portion of the project area 

containing potentially suitable habitat. This may affect individual habitat elements along the 

roadsides for the marten and prey species or may result in disturbance to individuals; however, 

18

existing roadsides do not provide high quality habitat for the marten. Overall, cumulative effects 

from the Checkerboard project are not expected to be measurable given the scope of this 

analysis. No known non-federal actions are proposed at this time, so there would be no additive 

effects to marten. 

Determination - Due to the factors described above, the Johnny O’Neil Project may affect 

individual martens but is not expected to result in a trend toward federal listing or 


Pallid Bats (Antrozous pallidus) 


The pallid bat is a California Species of Special Concern. Throughout California the pallid bat is 

usually found in low to middle elevation habitats below 6000 ft. (Philpott 1997); however, the 

species has been found up to 10,000 ft. in the Sierra Nevada (Sherwin pers. comm. 1998). 

Populations have declined in California within desert areas, in areas of urban expansion, and 

where oak woodlands have been lost (Brown 1996). This species, like many other bats, is 

extremely sensitive to disturbance at roosting and nesting sites. 

A variety of habitats are used, including grasslands, shrublands, woodlands, and coniferous 

forests (Philpott 1997). Pallid bats are most common in open, dry habitats that contain rocky 

areas for roosting. They are a yearlong resident in most of their range and hibernate in winter 

near their summer roost (Zeiner et al. 1990). Occasional forays may be made in winter for food 

and water (Philpott 1997). Pallid bats are unusual in that most of their food consists of large 

insects captured on the ground (Verts and Carraway, 1998). 

Day roosts may vary but are commonly found in rock crevices and tree hollows; and have been 

documented in large conifer snags, inside basal hollows of redwoods and giant sequoias, and 

bole cavities in oaks (pers. comm. Sherwin 1998). Cavities in broken branches of black oak are 

very important and there is a strong association with black oak for roosting (pers. comm. Pierson 

1996). Roosting sites are usually selected near the entrance to the roost in twilight rather than 

total darkness. The site must protect bats from high temperatures, as this species is intolerant of 

roosts in excess of 104 degrees Fahrenheit. Pallid bats are also very sensitive to roost site 

disturbance (Zeiner et al. 1990, Philpott 1997). Night roosts are usually more open sites and may 

include open buildings, porches, mines, caves, and under bridges (Philpott 1997, pers. comm. 

Sherwin 1998, Pierson 1996). 

Suitable roost sites for pallid bats in the form of large trees and snags occur in the project area. 

Other structures, including buildings and bridges, also occur within or adjacent to the Horse 

Creek 6 th field watershed but are much more limited. As a proxy, the 9,600 acres of 

nesting/roosting northern spotted owl habitat in the analysis area is considered as suitable pallid 

bat habitat due to the presence of large live or dead conifers and hardwoods in these types of 

19

stands. Other large trees with cavities or other suitable structures can be found in other “lesser 

quality” habitats (i.e. NSO foraging habitat). Surveys have not been conducted within the 

project area but, because suitable large tree roost sites are fairly common, it is reasonable to 

conclude that pallid bats are present within the project area. Surveys will not be conducted for 

this species. 


Alternative 1 – No Action 

Under the No Action Alternative there would be no direct effects to pallid bats. Under the 

No Action Alternative, activities designed to retain late-successional habitat would not 

occur. Large roost trees would be slightly slower to develop, and density related mortality 

is expected to continue, increasing surface fuels over time. Existing fire behavior is 

expected to worsen over time including: a constant or increasing crown fire potential under 

both moderate and severe weather conditions; an increase in surface fire intensity under both 

moderate and severe weather conditions would likely result in more acres of latesuccessional 

habitat affected by high intensity fire. The No Action Alternative does little to 

promote the development or retention of large tree/roost habitat and increases the potential 

for fire to remove existing large snags. 


Thinning, temporary road construction, and fuels reduction activities are proposed within 

and adjacent to potential roosting habitat. These treatments may remove or fall individual 

trees or snags that may be used for roosting; however, by meeting the recommendations for 

snags in the KNF LRMP (USDA Forest Service 1994), and because the felling or removal 

of trees >20” DBH would only occur under limited circumstances, the impacts to pallid 

bats and their habitat are expected to be minimal. Because this species is sensitive to 

disturbance at roost sites, the Johnny O’Neil project has the potential to disrupt roosting 

individuals if pallid bats are present. Disturbance at any specific roost would be short term 

and occur only during the year of project implementation. 

Thinning is expected to have long-term benefits for pallid bats by promoting the retention of 

large-diameter trees which may provide suitable roosting sites. Also the proposed thinning 

and fuel treatments would change expected fire behavior over time, resulting in fires of less 

intensity and reducing the potential that existing habitat will be lost. 

Prescribed fire could indirectly benefit bats by creating additional snags and cavities; the 

reintroduction of fire would likely create basal hollows and other cavities used by bats. 

Short-term loss of vegetation could reduce the abundance of aerial and terrestrial insect 

prey. In the medium term, however, invigorated growth of herbaceous and shrubby 

vegetation in areas affected by fire could increase the abundance of insect prey and provide 

suitable open foraging conditions for bats. 

20


Reasonable foreseeable future actions that might affect suitable habitat include the Checkerboard 

Hazard project which proposes to remove snags, dying trees, or small trees limiting drivers’ 

visibility along the road system in a very small portion of the project area containing potentially 

suitable habitat. This may affect individual habitat elements or may result in disturbance to 

individuals but these would occur within reach of the road so would be limited given the scope 

of this analysis and the availability of habitat occurring in this landscape. Overall, cumulative 

effects from the Checkerboard project are not expected to be measurable given the scope of 

habitat available to the pallid bat. There are no other proposed or anticipated non-federal actions 

that would combine with the action alternatives to cause significant cumulative effects on pallid 

bats, or their habitat, beyond the project’s direct and indirect effects. 

Determination - Due to the factors described above, the Johnny O’Neil Project may affect 

individual Pallid Bats but is not expected to result in a trend toward federal listing or 


Townsend’s big eared bat (Corynorhinus townsendii) 


Townsend's big-eared bats occur throughout the western United States. In California, the species 

is generally associated with cave systems but they also found under older bridges, basal tree 

hollows and in the crevices of old buildings and mining structures (Pierson and Rainey 1998; 

Fellers and Pierson 2002, Mazurak 2004). This species has been found Pluto Caves and other 

caves in the area north of Mount Shasta. Foraging associations include edge habitats along 

streams and areas adjacent to and within a variety of wooded habitats (Fellers and Pierson 2002). 

The Townsend's bat is a moth specialist, with >90% of its diet composed of lepidopterans 

(Sherwin 1998). 

Townsend’s big-eared bats are sensitive to disturbance at roost sites (Humphrey and Kunz 1976) 

and may abandon a roost site following a single disturbance (CDFG 1990). 

Surveys have not been conducted for Townsend’s big eared bats and no known locations occur 

within the project area. Caves or open mines are not known to occur within the project area; 

however, suitable roost sites for Townsend’s big-eared bats in the form of large diameter trees 

are scattered throughout the project area. As a proxy, the 9,600 acres of nesting/roosting northern 

spotted owl habitat in the analysis area is considered as suitable Townsend’s big eared bat habitat 

due to the presence of large live or dead conifers and hardwoods in these types of stands. Other 

large trees with cavities or other suitable structures can be found in other “lesser quality” habitats 

(i.e. NSO foraging habitat), so it is reasonable to assume that Townsend’s big-eared bats are 

present in the project area; surveys will not be conducted for this species. 

21


Effects to these bats are similar to those for Pallid bats. Roost sites could be disturbed in the 

short term by project activities within or adjacent to suitable habitat, but loss of habitat features 

are not expected except in the event individual trees >20” DBH are removed as deemed 

necessary for operational safety. 


Proposed activities in the reasonably foreseeable future that might affect suitable habitat include 

the Checkerboard Hazard project, which proposes to remove snags, dying trees, or small trees 

limiting drivers’ visibility along the road system in a very small portion of the project area 

containing potentially suitable habitat. This may affect individual habitat elements or may result 

in disturbance to individuals but these would occur within reach of the road so would be limited 

given the scope of this analysis and the availability of habitat occurring in this landscape. 

Overall, cumulative effects from the Checkerboard or other actions are not expected to be 

measurable given the scope of habitat available to the Townsend’s big eared bat. These effects 

would be limited to areas adjacent to roadsides. There are no other known ongoing or proposed 

non-federal actions that would combine with the action alternatives to cause cumulative effects 

to Townsend’s big-eared bats or their habitat, beyond the project’s direct and indirect effects. 

Determination - Due to these factors, the Johnny O’Neil Project may affect individual 

Townsend’s big eared bat but is not expected to result in a trend toward federal 

listing or loss of viability. 

Northwestern Pond Turtle (Clemmys marmorata marmorata) 


The northwestern pond turtle is recognized as a subspecies of the western pond turtle (Stebbins 

2003), and is found throughout California excepting desert regions (Morey 2000). Western pond 

turtles are a highly aquatic species that can be found in ponds, lakes, streams, rivers, marshes, 

and irrigation ditches that have a muddy or rocky bottom and abundant vegetation (Stebbins 

2003). They feed on aquatic plants, insects, worms, fish, and carrion (ibid). 

Western pond turtles use terrestrial habitat for nesting and sometimes for overwintering. Females 

lay their eggs in soil and have been recorded nesting up to 300’ from water (Holland 1991). 

Reese and Welsh (1998) reported that individuals moved an average of 600’ from water to their 

overwintering sites. 

Surveys for pond turtles have not been conducted for the Johnny O’Neil Project. Potential low 

quality habitat for northwestern pond turtles is present in the lower reaches of Horse Creek, in 

addition to the Klamath River and the Klamath’s larger tributaries such as Seiad Creek, Grider 

22

Creek. This potential habitat will not be affected by the Johnny O’Neil project; surveys will not 

be conducted for this species. 



There are no direct or indirect effects expected on the western pond turtle or its habitat 

from taking no action. The increased likelihood of wildfire predicted with taking no action 

is not likely to directly affect individual pond turtles because they are rarely found away 

from aquatic habitat during the fire season but it can affect microsite conditions at 

overwintering or nesting habitat. The indirect effects of fire would vary with fire intensity. 

Indirect effects could also occur from increases in sedimentation from high intensity fires. 

Negative consequences to aquatic habitats from that type of disturbance could affect short 

and long-term water quality and aquatic vegetation could affect pond turtles and their 

habitat. 


Habitat for western pond turtles does not occur within the project area, so there would be 

no direct effects to turtles or their habitat. The temporary increased vehicle traffic during 

project implementation could result in the disturbance of or direct impacts to individual 

western pond turtles that may be transitioning from aquatic to overwintering habitat along 

the lower portion of Horse Creek on Road 46N50. Therefore, effects would be limited in 

time and space. 


Adding the effects of these alternatives to the effects of reasonable foreseeable future actions will 

not result in cumulatively significant effects. The Horse Creek Road Rehabilitation project is 

projected to reduce the potential for landslide-related sediment within the in the Lower Horse 

Creek 7th field watershed (Final Geology Specialist Report, Project File). This leads to indirect 

beneficial effects to downstream aquatic habitats including the western pond turtle. The Horse 

Creek Grazing Allotment currently permits 85 cow calf units to free range, but only the lower 

reaches of Horse Creek contain potentially suitable habitat for the Western pond turtle. Impacts 

to water quality or direct impacts from grazing activities could occur but when combined with 

low likelihood of impacts from the action, it is unlikely that significant cumulative effects on the 

Western pond turtle, or its habitat, will result. 

Determination – With the factors described above, the Johnny O’Neil project may affect 

individual Northwestern Pond Turtle but is not expected to result in a trend toward 

federal listing or loss of viability. 

23

Siskiyou Mountain/Scott Bar Salamander (Plethodon stormi / Plethodon asupak) 


Siskiyou Mountain salamanders are typically found on forested slopes where rocky soils and 

talus outcrops occur. Occupied habitat for the species ranges from small, isolated rock outcrops 

to entire hillsides (Clayton et al. 2004). In a review by Ollivier and others (2001), the species is 

commonly associated with closed canopy forests on north-facing slopes but can also be 

associated with diverse habitat variables including more open canopy, different slope aspects, 

slope position, and varying climatic conditions (Clayton et al. 2004, CDFG 2005, DeGross and 

Bury 2007). The available data suggest overall that these species are mainly associated with talus 

and fissured rock outcrops and are generally associated with moist, cool surface microclimates. 

While they may occur in variable conditions, they are likely more common in mature and oldgrowth 

forest than in other forest classes. Overall, available moisture and rocky talus appear to 

be the two most important habitat conditions for these two species (DeGross and Bury 2007). 

Siskiyou Mountain salamanders are lungless salamanders that require moisture in order to respire 

through their skin and avoid desiccation (Nussbaum et al. 1983). These traits limit the time the 

species can be active at the surface where they forage (Nussbaum et al. 1983, Clayton et al. 

1999). 

Although these salamanders may occasionally be detected under scattered surface rocks or 

woody debris, most detections are within layered rock (talus) with interstitial spaces that 

provide underground refugia from unfavorable environmental conditions. 

The range of the Siskiyou Mountain Salamander is limited to portions of three counties in 

southwestern Oregon and northern California (Clayton & Nauman 2005). On the KNF, 

known locations occur on the Oak Knoll and Scott River Districts; three known locations 

occur within the project area. Two locations are documented in burn units (UB-N and UB- 

R) and one is outside of any treatment unit (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service and Natural 

Resources Geospatial 2007). Suitable habitat occurs throughout the project area. The 

Maxent Model for Siskiyou Mountain/Scott Bar Salamander was utilized to identify areas 

with moderate-high probability of occupancy to assist in determining survey needs in cable 

units. This model evaluates the likelihood of occupancy based on biotic and abiotic 

variables including soil type, slope position, aspect, elevation, and vegetation (See Survey 

and Manage Analysis, Figure 1). The majority of moderate to high probability habitat 

occurs within the tractor units which were surveyed in 2009; 56 patches of potentially 

suitable habitat were located and mapped in 28 units. Talus patch sizes ranged from 0.06 

acre to 3.8 acres, with the mean of about 0.5 acre; the majority of patches were about 0.1 

acre (project file). 

24

In 2005, genetic studies revealed that the group of Plethodon salamanders found in the 

southern and eastern part of the range is a distinct species, Plethodon asupak, or Scott Bar 

salamander (Mahoney 2004, Mead et al. 2005) based on analysis of molecular 

(mitochondrial DNA) and morphological data from Plethodon populations near the 

confluence of the Klamath and Scott rivers in Siskiyou County. Scott Bar salamander is 

not listed as a Region 5 sensitive species. However, it is not readily distinguished from 

Siskiyou Mountain salamander in the field, the ranges of the two species are not firmly 

distinguished from one another, and both species are found in or near talus and fissured 

rock outcrops. Therefore, the KNF has extended Sensitive Species protection to the Scott 

Bar salamander and the following discussion on habitat for the Siskiyou Mountain 

salamander will apply to both. The Scott Bar salamander has not been located within the 

project area; the nearest recorded location for this salamander occurs about 3 miles from 

the project area. 



There will be no direct effects to Siskiyou Mountains/Scott Bar salamanders from this 

alternative. In the absence of large-scale natural disturbance it is unlikely that the amount of 

Siskiyou Mountains/Scott Bar salamander habitat in the project area will significantly 

change in the near future. However, projected wildfire that would burn more acres, with 

higher intensity, is likely to affect habitat by removing the protective influence of the 

overstory. The effects of such wildfires on Siskiyou Mountains/Scott Bar salamanders are 

unclear, as the salamanders have evolved with mixed severity fires. In areas where the talus 

is shallow, the lack of an overstory may cause heating and drying of the talus leading to the 

loss of the salamanders at those sites; however, in areas with deep talus, the salamanders 

would be expected to survive high severity fires and the loss of individuals would be 

minimized. 


In ground-based treatment units, suitable habitat, plus a one tree height buffer within 

ground-based treatment units, will be flagged and avoided in action alternatives. This will 

minimize or avoid direct effects on the Siskiyou Mountain/Scott Bar salamanders. 

Additional pre-project surveys for those thinning units not yet surveyed (both those 

proposing to use ground-based and skyline harvest equipment) will be conducted prior to 

operations. In cable units, all occupied talus habitat will be flagged and protected by a one 

site tree no-cut buffer. This will minimize or avoid direct and indirect impacts of thinning to 

occupied salamander habitat. Individuals that may be above the surface or just below the 

surface could be killed by equipment or from construction of temporary road spurs. In 

addition, road spurs may fragment suitable habitat; however, talus habitat will be avoided 

which will minimize potential impacts to salamanders. Prescribed fire is intended to mimic 

25

the low intensity wildfire that is a common attribute of the Klamath physiographic province. 

Individual salamanders may be impacted but, due to the mosaic effects of underburning, the 

effects are not likely to be significant to salamander populations that could occur in the 

Horse Creek 6 th field watershed. Due to project design standards, and the temporal and 

spatial distribution of both mechanical and prescribed fire treatments, potential impacts will 

be limited or short in duration. The combination of proposed thinning and other fuels 

treatments is expected to provide long term benefits by modifying fire behavior over time, 

resulting in wildfires of less intensity, and reducing the proportion of high intensity wildfire 

that would occur across this landscape. 


Proposed activities in the reasonably foreseeable future that could affect suitable habitat include 

the Checkerboard Hazard project, which may result in ground disturbing activities on or adjacent 

to talus patches that could kill or injure individuals, but it is likely this represents a small 

proportion of suitable salamander habitat in this landscape. Given the scope of this analysis and 

the availability of habitat occurring in this landscape, overall, cumulative effects from the 

Checkerboard or other actions are not expected to be measurable. There are no other known 

ongoing or proposed non-federal actions that would combine with the action alternatives to cause 

cumulative effects to Siskiyou Mountain/Scott Bar salamander or their habitat, beyond the 

project’s direct and indirect effects. 

Determination – With the factors above, the Johnny O’Neil Project may affect 

individual Siskiyou Mountain/Scott Bar salamander but is not expected to result 

in a trend toward federal listing or loss of viability. 

Southern Torrent Salamander (Rhyacotriton variegatus) 


The southern torrent salamander is a small salamander occurring from northwestern 

California (Mendocino County) northward through the Coast Range of Oregon (Polk, 

Tillamook, and Yamhill Counties) in mid- to low elevations (Blaustein et. al. 1995). 

Southern torrent salamanders can be found in and near cold mountain streams, springs, and 

seepages that are well shaded (Stebbins 2003). Distribution is somewhat patchy 

throughout northwestern California, showing a strict association with headwaters and low 

order tributaries in mature and old growth mixed conifer forests (Welsh and Lind 1992, in 

Welsh and Lind 1996). They require water for all stages of their life cycle and are seldom 

more than one meter from free-running water (Nussbaum and Tait 1977). Suitable habitat 

can be found throughout the KNF, particularly on the west side. The project area is located 

east of most known southern torrent salamander sites; however, several populations have 

been located in areas outside of the established rangeline including Seiad Valley and 

26

adjacent to the Klamath River below the mouth of Grider Creek (Thom Seider Vegetation 

Management Fuels Reduction Project FEIS, page 179). Surveys have not been conducted 

for southern torrent salamanders in Johnny O’Neil but potentially suitable habitat is 

present within the project area along the upper-most reaches of Horse Creek and its 

tributaries. Pre-project surveys for this species will not be conducted. 



There will be no direct effects on southern torrent salamanders as a result of this alternative. 

With no action, fire behavior is projected to be more intense in the long term, increasing the 

potential to burn a large number of acres across the project area. It would be likely that 

wildfire would burn through riparian areas, potentially removing riparian habitat that provides 

protective cover for the salamander. High severity wildfires would also increase sediment in 

the streams. Increased temperatures and sediment could adversely affect southern torrent 

salamanders. The No Action Alternative does little to retain southern torrent salamander 

habitat and increases the potential for wildfire to reduce habitat in the long term. 


Thinning with ground-based and skyline equipment, underburning and road use may have 

negligible, short-term indirect effects on stream habitat as a result of the potential for 

sediment delivery to streams within the project area; however, implementation of Best 

Management Practices (refer to the FEIS, Fish and Hydrology resource reports) and project 

design features will reduce or eliminate most potential effects in the upper reaches of Horse 

Creek and its tributaries such that significant effects are not anticipated. 

The combination of proposed thinning and other fuels treatments is expected to change fire 

behavior over time, resulting in fires of less intensity and reducing the potential that a smaller 

proportion of high intensity fire would occur across this landscape. 






beneficial effects to downstream aquatic habitats including the southern torrent salamander, 

though much of the potentially suitable habitat could be upstream from the Horse Creek Road 

Rehabilitation project. 

The Horse Creek Grazing Allotment currently permits 85 cow calf units to free range, but most 

of the suitable habitat in the cold streams, springs, and seepages are likely too steep or 

27

inaccessible to cattle. Water quality or direct impacts from grazing activities could occur but 

when combined with low likelihood of impacts from the action, it is unlikely that significant 

cumulative effects on the species, or its habitat, will result. There are no other reasonable 

foreseeable projects currently planned or being implemented that would combine with either 

alternative to cause cumulative effects on the southern torrent salamander, or its habitat, beyond 

the project’s direct and indirect effects. 

Determination - With factors described above, the project may impact individuals 

but is not likely to result in a trend toward federal listing or loss of viability for 

southern torrent salamanders. 

Foothill Yellow-legged frog (Rana boylii) 


Known distributions of the foothill yellow-legged frog range through most Pacific drainages 

west of the Sierra/Cascade Crest from the Santiam River in Oregon to the San Gabriel Drainage 

in southern California (Jennings and Hayes 1988). The frogs are typically found at elevations 

below 1800 feet (Corkran and Thoms, 1996). Current distribution and abundance of this species 

has been reduced in the southern portion of its range but still occurs in significant numbers in 

some coastal drainages. Listed as a California Species of Special Concern, the foothill yellowlegged 

frog is at risk due to various anthropogenic and environmental threats throughout their 

range. Among some of the larger rivers in California, predation from introduced bullfrogs has 

been implicated as a cause of their decline. Increased sediment loads in breeding streams have a 

potential to reduce survival of eggs. 

Breeding occurs in the spring, where adults congregate in habitats consisting of shallow, slow 

flowing water with pebble and cobble substrate, preferably with shaded riffles and pools (Fuller 

and Lind, 1992). This species is also known to utilize moderately vegetated backwaters, isolated 

pools, and slow moving rivers with mud substrates in a variety of habitats, including valleyfoothill 

hardwood, valley-foothill hardwood-conifer, valley-foothill riparian, ponderosa pine, 

mixed conifer, coastal scrub, mixed chaparral, and wet meadow types (Morey 2000b; Blaustein 

et al. 1995). 

Surveys for the foothill yellow-legged frog have not been conducted in the Horse Creek 6 th field 

watershed and no known locations occur in the project area. The majority of in-stream 

environments within the project area are not suitable for the foothill yellow-legged frog as they 

are characterized by steeper gradients and/or fast currents. The lower reach of Horse Creek 

consists of slower lower gradient/slow moving streams, and most likely contains suitable habitat 

for foothill yellow-legged frogs, so it is reasonable to assume that this species is present in the 

Horse Creek 6 th field watershed. Pre-project surveys for this species will not be conducted. 

28



There are no direct or indirect effects expected on the foothill yellow-legged frog or its 

habitat. The increased likelihood of high intensity wildfire predicted with taking no action is 

not likely to directly affect individual foothill yellow-legged frogs because they are rarely 

found away from aquatic habitat during the fire season but it can affect microsite conditions 

at surrounding aquatic vegetation. The indirect effects of wildfire would vary with fire 

intensity. Indirect effects could also occur from increases in sedimentation from high 

intensity fires. Negative consequences to aquatic habitats that could affect short and longterm 

water quality and aquatic vegetation may affect frogs and their habitat. 


Potentially suitable habitat for the foothill yellow-legged frog occurs in the lower reaches of 

Horse Creek but this habitat will not be directly affected by the project. Thinning with 

ground-based and skyline equipment, underburning and road use may have negligible, shortterm 

indirect effects on downstream habitat as a result of the potential for sediment delivery 

to streams within the project area; however, the implementation of Best Management 

Practices (BMPs - refer to the FEIS, Fish and Hydrology resource reports) and project design 

features will minimize or avoid potential downstream effects. No new temporary roads will 

be constructed in stream course RRs; the application of BMPs and project design features 

will ensure that use of temporary roads will not cause adverse effects to aquatic conditions in 

upper or lower stream reaches. 






beneficial effects to downstream aquatic habitats including the foothill yellow-legged frog. The 

Horse Creek Grazing Allotment permits 85 cow calf units to free range, but only the lower 

reaches of Horse Creek contains potentially suitable habitat. Water quality or direct impacts from 

grazing activities could occur but when combined with negligible, short-term indirect effects 

from the action, it is unlikely that significant cumulative effects on the species, or its habitat, will 

result. 

Determination - As a result the Johnny O’Neil Project may impact individuals, but is not 

likely to result in a trend toward federal listing or loss of viability of the foothill 

yellow-legged frog. 

29

Cascades Frog (Rana cascade) 


The Cascades frog is a medium sized frog, olive to olive-brown with sharply defined dark 

splotches on the back. It is a montane species found in the Olympic Peninsula of Washington and 

in the Cascade Range of Oregon, Washington, and northern California (Blaustein et. al. 1995). It 

appears that populations are declining throughout the range. Reasons for this decline are not well 

understood but locally populations have been impacted by predation from introduced trout in 

mountain lakes. 

Habitat for this species includes open montane meadows, marshes, ponds, small bodies of water, 

ephemeral pools, potholes without vegetation, and along small creeks (Blaustein et. al. 1995). 

They are typically found at elevations above 2500 feet (Corkran and Thoms, 1996) and are 

closely restricted to water (Stebbins 1966). Aquatic habitat suitable for Cascades frogs is absent 

within the project area. No mapped or unmapped ponds, lakes, or marshes occur within the 

project area. Almost all streams are characterized by steep gradients or, in low-gradient reaches, 

the areas over the streams typically consist of dense canopy. 

Surveys have not been conducted for Cascades Frog and there are no known locations in 

the project area. The most common habitat types associated with Cascade frogs will not be 

affected; therefore, there will be no effect to the Cascades Frog. 

Blue-gray tail dropper (Prophysaon coeruleum) 


The blue-gray tail dropper is a forest-dwelling slug. Typical habitat for this species includes 

moist, usually late-successional forests or mid-successional forests with late-successional 

attributes, mosses and moist plant communities such as big-leaf maple or other hardwoods and 

sword fern associations, partially decayed logs, leaf and needle litter (Burke et al. 2000, Duncan 

et al. 2003). Its habitat has been described as “sites with relatively higher shade and moisture 

levels than those of the general forest habitat” (Duncan et al. 2003). The blue-gray tail dropper 

normally comes to the surface during the fall and spring rainy seasons. Otherwise, it is thought to 

be subterranean. 

The blue-gray tail dropper has been found at scattered sites in British Columbia, in western 

Washington, and commonly in the Coast Range and into the Cascades of Oregon and 

Washington. Pre-project surveys since establishment of the Record of Decision and Standards 

and Guidelines for management of habitat for late successional and old-growth forest related 

species within the range of the northern spotted owl (commonly known as the.Northwest Forest 

Plan (NWFP)) has found wide distribution in Oregon (Burke et al. 2005). The occurrence of the 

30

lue-gray tail dropper on the KNF is limited. Pre-project surveys begun in 1998, and Forest-wide 

random grid surveys in 1999 and 2000 at more than 100 sites, documented locations in three 

areas on the Happy Camp Ranger District (one just south of Jackson Peak and in two areas of 

Indian Creek). There are no known locations within the project area. 



There will be no direct effects to blue-gray tail dropper from this alternative. In the absence 

of large-scale natural disturbance it is unlikely that the amount of blue-gray tail dropper 

habitat in the project area will significantly change in the near future. However, models 

project that indirect effects to habitat could occur. Due to increases in stand density, 

mortality, and increased surface fuels, a higher proportion of the landscape is projected to 

burn at high intensity, thus affecting more potential blue-gray tail dropper habitat. 


There are limited occurrences of this species on the KNF and there are no known 

locations within the project area; however, suitable habitat does exist. Surveys will be 

conducted in a stratified sample of suitable habitat prior to project implementation; 

any new sites located during those surveys will be protected and managed as known 

sites. This and project design features will minimize direct and indirect impacts to 

individuals but may not completely avoid them. Effects that could occur to habitat 

would not likely render such habitat unsuitable so potential effects are not expected to 

be significant to the population if it were to occur in this landscape. 


Reasonable foreseeable future actions that could affect suitable habitat include the Checkerboard 

Hazard project, which may result in ground disturbing activities on or adjacent to suitable habitat 

that could kill or injure individuals, but it is likely this represents a small proportion of suitable 

potential tail dropper habitat in this landscape. Given the scope of this analysis and the 

availability of habitat occurring in this landscape, overall, cumulative effects from the 

Checkerboard or other actions are not expected to be measurable. There are no other known 

ongoing or proposed non-federal actions that would combine with the action alternatives to cause 

cumulative effects to the blue-gray tail droppers or their habitat beyond the project’s direct and 

indirect effects. 

Determination – Due to the factors described above, the Johnny O’Neil Project 

may impact individuals, but is not likely to result in a trend toward federal 

listing or loss of viability of the blue-gray tail dropper. 

31

Tehama chaparral snails (Trilobopsis tehemana) 


Habitat for the Tehama chaparral snails includes shaded talus and rock piles (Burke et al 

1999). When environmental conditions are favorable, individuals may range from their 

refugia and can be found under leaf litter and other debris in adjacent forested habitat 

(Ibid). 

Random grid surveys conducted on the KNF detected one location for Tehama chaparral 

snails along Horse Creek in the center of the project area. Other known locations on the 

KNF occur along the Shasta River on the Scott River Ranger District and in Schutts Gulch 

just west of the project area, found during pre-project surveys for the Thom Seider Project, 

(K. West, personal communication 2009). Units in the Johnny O’Neil area on which 

ground-based yarding is proposed were surveyed for talus habitat in 2009; 56 patches of 

potentially suitable habitat were located and mapped in 28 units. Talus patch sizes ranged 

from .06 acre to 3.8 acres, with the mean of about 0.5 acre (project file). 



There will be no direct effects to the Tehama chaparral snails from this alternative. In the 

absence of large-scale natural disturbance it is unlikely that the amount of Tehama chaparral 

snail habitat will significantly change in the near future. However, in the event of a 

wildfire, it is expected that portions of the project area would burn at high intensity and 

affect habitat, potentially removing the protective influence of the overstory. The effects of 

such wildfires on the Tehama chaparral snails are unclear as the snails have historically 

evolved with mixed severity fires. Where talus areas are shallow, the lack of an overstory 

may cause heating and drying of the talus leading to the loss of the snails at those sites; 

however, in areas with deep talus, the snails would be expected to survive high severity fires 

and the loss of individuals would be minimized. 


Suitable habitat, plus one tree height buffer within ground-based treatment units, will by 

flagged and avoided; this will minimize direct effects on the Tehama chaparral snails. 

Additional pre-project surveys for those ground-based units not yet surveyed and all skyline 

units will be conducted prior to operations will minimize direct and indirect impacts. 

Individuals that may be above the surface or just below the surface could be killed by 

harvest equipment or from construction of temporary road spurs. In addition, road spurs 

may fragment suitable habitat; however, talus habitat will be avoided thereby minimizing 

potential impacts to snails. 

Prescribed fire could affect individual snails or small groups may be impacted but, due to 

the mosaic effects of underburning, the effects are not likely to be significant to populations 

32

that could occur in the Horse Creek 6 th field watershed. Due to the low intensity of the 

burning, combined with the distribution of the project in space and time, it is unlikely these 

effects would be significant to the Tehama chaparral snails. The combination of thinning 

and other fuels reduction treatments is expected to have a long-term beneficial indirect 

effect by substantially reducing the chances and extent of high intensity wildfires; these 

wildfires can remove vegetation and lead to increased temperatures and desiccation. Largediameter 

shade trees and coarse woody debris (CWD) would be maintained over the short 

and long term as a result of the action alternatives. In summary, future surveys and project 

design features will minimize direct and indirect impacts but may not completely avoid 

them. Due to project design features, and the temporal and spatial distribution of both 

mechanical thinning and prescribed fire treatments, potential impacts will be limited or short 

in duration. The combination of proposed thinning and other fuels treatments is expected to 

provide long term benefits by modifying fire behavior over time, resulting in fires of less 

intensity and reducing the proportion of high intensity fire that would occur across this 

landscape. 


Proposed activities in the reasonably foreseeable future that could affect suitable habitat include 

the Checkerboard Hazard project, which may result in ground disturbing activities on or adjacent 

to suitable habitat that could kill or injure individuals, but it is likely this represents a small 

proportion of suitable potential tail dropper habitat in this landscape. Given the scope of this 

analysis and the availability of habitat occurring in this landscape, overall, cumulative effects 

from the Checkerboard or other actions are not expected to be measurable. There are no other 

known ongoing or proposed non-federal actions that would combine with the action alternatives 

to cause cumulative effects to Tehama chaparral snails or their habitat, beyond the project’s 

direct and indirect effects. 

Determination – With the factors described above, the Johnny O’Neil project may 

affect individual Tehama chaparral snails but is not expected to result in a trend 

toward federal listing or loss of viability. 

33

LITERATURE CITED 

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

Nesting and Roosting Bald Eagles in the Pacific Northwest. Trans. N. Am. Wildlife Natural 

Resources Conference. 68pp. 

Blaustein, A.R., J.J. Beatty, D.H. Olson, and R.M. Storm. 1995. The biology of amphibians and 

reptiles in old-growth forests in the Pacific Northwest. U.S. Forest Service. Pacific Northwest 

Research Station. General Technical Report PNW-GTR-337. 

Brown, P.E. 1996. Presentation to the Natural History and Management of Bats in California and 

Nevada Workshop. Nov. 13-15. Sacramento, CA. 

Burke, T.E. 1999. Conservation assessment for Prophysaon coeruleum, Blue-Gray Taildropper. 

Reconfigured October 2005 by N. Duncan. USDA Forest Service Region 6 and USDI Bureau of 

Land Management, Oregon and Washington. 

Burke, T.E., N. Duncan, and P. Jeske. 2000. Management recommendations for terrestrial mollusk 

species. Regional Interagency Executive Committee Survey and Manage Work Group. 

Burke, T.E. 2005. Management recommendations for terrestrial mollusk species. Prophysaon 

coeruleum, Blue-Gray Taildropper & Prophysaon dubium, Papillose Taildropper. Version 2.0. 

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

Buskirk, S.W., Harestad, A.S.; Raphael, M.G., comps, eds. Martens, sables, and fishers: biology 

and conservation. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press: 283-296. 

Buskirk, S.W., C.M. Raley, K. B. Aubry, W.J. Zielinski, M. K. Schwartz, R T. Golightly, K. L. 

Purcell, R. D. Weir, and J.S. Yaeger. 2010. Final Report. Meta-analysis of resting site selection 

by the fisher in the Pacific coastal states and provinces. 

California Department of Fish and Game. May 2, 1988. California’s Wildlife, Volume I, Reptiles 

and Amphibians. California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, California. 272 pp. 

California Department of Fish and Game. November 1990. California’s Wildlife, Volume II, Birds. 

California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, California. 732 pp. 

California Department of Fish and Game. April 1990. California’s Wildlife, Volume III, 

Mammals. California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, California. 407 pp. 

California Department of Fish and Game. 2005. Petition to the State of California Fish and Game 

Commission supporting information for Siskiyou Mountains Salamander (Plethodon stormi). 

California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, CA. 

Clayton, D. R., L. M. Ollivier, and H. H. Welsh. 1999. Survey protocol for the Siskiyou 

Mountains salamander (Plethodon stormi) version 3.0. 

Clayton. D. R., D. H. Olson, and R. S. Nauman. 2004. Conservation assessment for the Siskiyou 

Mountains salamander (Plethodon stormi). USDI, Fish and Wildlife Service and USDA, Forest 

Service. Unpublished report. 

34

Corkran, C. and C. Thoms. 1996. Amphibians of Oregon, Washington and British Columbia. Lone 

Pine Publishing. 

Converse, Sarah J., Gary C. White, Kerry L. Farris, and Steve Zack. 2006. Small mammals and 

forest fuel reduction: national-scale responses to fire and fire surrogates. Ecological Applications 

16:1717–1729. 

DeGross, D. J. and Bury, R. B. 2007. Science review for the Scott Bar salamander (Plethodon 

asupak) and the Siskiyou Mountains salamander (P. stormi): Biology, taxonomy, habitat, and 

detection probabilities/occupancy. Reston, Virginia, U.S. Geological Survey, Open-File Report 

2007-1352, 14 pp. 

Duncan, N., T. Burke, S. Dowlan, and P. Hohenlohe. 2003. Survey protocol for survey and manage 

terrestrial mollusk species from the Northwest Forest Plan. USDA Forest Service and USDI 

Bureau of Land Management. 

Farber, S. and S. Criss. 2006. Cooperative Mesocarnivore Surveys for the Upper and West Fork of 

Beaver Creek watersheds in interior Northern California. Report prepared for U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Yreka Field Office. July 2006. 

Fuller, D. D. and A. J. Lind. 1992. Implications of fish habitat improvement structures for other 

stream vertebrates. In R. Harris and D. Erman (eds.), Proceedings of the Symposium on 

Biodiversity of Northwestern California, pp 96-104. Santa Rosa, California. 

Hall, P.A. 1984. Characterization of nesting habitat of goshawks (Accipiter gentilis) in northwest 

California. Unpublished M.S. Thesis, California State University, Humboldt. Arcata, CA. 70pp. 

Harris, J.H., S.D. Sanders, and M.A. Flett. 1987. Willow flycatcher surveys in the Sierra Nevada. 

Western Birds 18:27-36. 

Holland, D.C., 1991. A Synopsis of the Ecology and Status of the Western Pond Turtle (Clemmys 

marmorata) in 1991. Department of Biology, University of Southwestern Louisiana, Lafayette, 

Louisiana. Prepared for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service National Ecology Research Center, 

San Simeon Field Station. 141 pp. 

Jameson, E.W. and H.J. Peeters. 1988. California Mammals. University of California Press. 403 pp. 

Jennings, M.R. and M.P. Hayes. 1988. Natural history and decline of native ranids in California. Pp. 

61-72 in Proceedings of the Conference on California Herpetology. Eds. H.P. DeLisle, P.R. 

Brown, B. Kaufman, and B.M.McGurty. 

Jurek, R.M. 1988. Five-year status report. Bald Eagle. California Dept. Fish and Game. Sacramento, 

CA 15pp. 

Lehman, R.N. 1979. A survey of selected habitat features of 95 Bald Eagle nests in California. 

Calif. Dept. Fish and Game. Wildlife Management Branch Administration Report 79-1, 

Sacramento, CA 23pp. 

Lofroth, E.C., C.M. Raley, J.M. Higley, R.L. Truax, J.S. Yaeger, J.C. Lewis, P.J. Happe, L.L. 

Finley, R.H. Naney, L.J. Hale, A.L. Krause, S.A. Livingston, A.M. Myers, and R.N. Brown. 

2010. Conservation of Fishers (Martes pennant) in South-Central British Columbia, Western 

Washington, Western Oregon, and California-Vol. 1: Conservation Assessment. USDI Bureau of 

Land Management, Denver, Colorado, USA. 

35

Lyon, L.J., M. H. Huff, E. S. Telfer, D. S. Schreiner, and J.K. Smith. 2000. Fire Effects on Animal 

Populations. J.K. Smith, ed. 2000. Wildland fire in ecosystems: effects of fire on fauna. Gen. 

Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-42-vol. 1. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Rocky Mountain Research Station. 83 p. 

Mahoney, M. 2004. Molecular systematics and phylogeography of the Plethodon elongatus 

species group: combining phylogenetic and population genetic methods to investigate species 

history. Molecular Ecology 13(1):149-166. 

Mead, L. S., D. R. Clayton, R. S. Nauman, D. H. Olson, and M. E. Pfrender. 2005. Newly 

discovered populations of salamanders from Siskiyou County, California represent a species 

distinct from Plethodon stormi. Herpetologica, 61:158-177. 

Nussbaum, R. A., E. D. Brodie Jr., and R. M. Storm. 1983. Amphibians and Reptiles of the Pacific 

Northwest. University of Idaho Press. Moscow, Idaho. (p. 102-104.) 

Ollivier, L. M., H. H. Welsh, and D. R. Clayton. 2001. Habitat correlates of the Siskiyou 

mountains salamander, Plethodon stormi (Caudata: Plethodontidae); with comments on the 

species range. USDA Forest Service, Redwood Sciences Lab, Arcata, CA. Unpublished report. 

Philpot, W. 1997. Summaries of the life histories of California bat species. USFS. Sierra National 

Forest, Pineridge Ranger Station. 30pp. Unpublished Document. 

Pierson, E.D. 1996. Presentation to the Natural History and Management of Bats in California and 

Nevada Workshop. Nov. 13-15. Sacramento, CA. 

Ruggiero, L.F., K.B. Aubry, S.W. Buskirk, L.J. Lyon, and W.J. Zielinski, technical editors. 1994. 

The Scientific Basis for Conserving Forest Carnivores: American marten, fisher, lynx, and 

wolverine in the United States. USDA-FS, General Technical Report RM-254. 183 pp. 

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

Northern California. USDA, Forest Service. San Francisco, CA. 51 pp. 

Seavey, S.E. and J. D. Alexander. 2006. Measuring ecological effects of prescribed fire using birds 

as indicators of forest conditions. Andrews, Patricia L.; Butler, Bret W., comps. 2006. Fuels 

Management—How to Measure Success: Conference Proceedings. 28-30 March 2006; Portland, 

OR. Proceedings RMRS-P-41. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Rocky Mountain Research Station. 

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

Online (A. Poole, Ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology; Retrieved from the Birds of North 

America Online: http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/533. 

Sherwin, R. 1998. Presentation to the Western Bat Working Group Workshop. Feb. 9-13. Reno, 

Nevada. 

Squires, J.R. and R.T. Reynolds. 1997. Northern Goshawk. In The Birds of North America, No. 298 

(A. Poole and F. Gill, editors). The Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, and The 

American Ornithologists’ Union, Washington, D.C. 

Stebbins, R.C. 2003. A field guide to western reptiles and amphibians. Houghton Mifflin Company. 

Boston. 279 pp. 

36

Strickland, M.A., and C. W. Douglas. 1987. Marten. Pp 531-56, in Wild furbearer management and 

conservation in North America (M. Novak, J.A. Baker, M.E. Obbard, and B. Malloch, editors). 

Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Toronto, 1150 pp. 

Swiers, R.C. and R.A. Powell. 2011. Use of non-invasive genetic data to estimate fisher population 

parameters in eastern Siskiyou Mountains of California. Poster presentation at the Western 

Section of the Wildlife Society. Riverside, California. February 9-11, 2011. 

Thompson, C., K. Purcell, J. Garner, and R. Green. 2011. Kings River Fisher Project Progress 

Report. USDA Forest Service Pacific Southwest Research Station. Sierra Nevada Research 

Center. 37 pp. 

Tomocho, Aimee L., C. H. Greenberg, J. D. Lanham, T.A. Waldrop, J. Tomocho, and D. Simon. 

2006. Effects of Fuel Reduction Treatments on Breeding Birds in a Southern Appalachian 

Upland Hardwood Forest. USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-203. 

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

Standards and Guidelines for management of habitat for late successional and old-growth forest 

related species within the range of the northern spotted owl. Washington, DC. 

USDA Forest Service, Klamath National Forest. 1996. Decision Notice and Finding of No 

Significant Impact. Horse Creek and Dry Lake Range Allotments. Siskiyou County, California. 

USDA Forest Service, Klamath National Forest. 2002. Horse Creek Ecosystem Analysis. 

USDA Forest Service, Klamath National Forest. 2007. Allotment NEPA Sufficiency Review and 

Finding. Horse Creek and Dry Lake Allotments. 

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

Service, Portland, Or. 163 pp. 

Verts, B. J. and L.N. Carraway. 1998. Land Mammals of Oregon. University of California Press. 

Berkeley and Los Angeles. 668 pp. 

Woodbridge, B.; Detrich, P. J. 1994. Territory occupancy and habitat patch size of Northern 

Goshawks in the southern Cascades of California. In: Block, W. M.; Morrison, M. L.; Reiser, M. 

H., editors. The Northern Goshawk: ecology and management: Proceedings of a symposium of 

the Cooper Ornithological Society; 1993 April 14-15; Sacramento, CA. Studies in Avian 

biology. Cooper Ornithological Society 16: 83-87. 

Zeiner, D.C., W.F. Laudenslayer, Jr. K.E. Mayer, and M. White. 1990. California Wildlife: Volume 

III. Mammals. California Dept. of Fish and Game. Sacramento Ca. 407 pp. 

37

Johnny O'Neil Late Successional Reserve Habitat Restoration and ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?