Appendix A. Management Indicator Species Viability Assessment Ochoco National Forest Ochoco Summit OHV Project January 2014

Transcription

1 Appendix A Management Indicator Species Viability Assessment Ochoco National Forest Ochoco Summit OHV Project January 2014 The Ochoco National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP) identified the pileated woodpecker, northern flicker, primary cavity excavators, golden eagle and prairie falcon, Rocky Mountain elk and mule deer as terrestrial management indicator species (MIS). MANAGEMENT IDICATOR SPECIES AND THEIR ASSOCIATED HABITATS Species Rocky Mountain Elk and Mule Deer Pileated Woodpecker Northern Flicker Primary Cavity Excavators Golden Eagle and Prairie Falcon Habitat Types Species that are commonly hunted and indicators of big game habitat. Mature and old growth forest Old growth juniper Snag habitat Rock and cliff habitats Management indicator species are species selected because their welfare is presumed to be an indicator of the welfare of other species using the same habitat or whose condition can be used to assess the impacts of management actions on a particular area, or other species of selected major biological communities. Management indicator species are selected from several categories including State or Federal Threatened or Endangered species lists; species commonly hunted, fished, or trapped; non-game species of special interest; and species with special habitat needs that may be influenced significantly by planned management programs. The 1982 National Forest System Land Resource Management Planning Regulations (implementing the National Forest Management Act of 1976) directed that fish and wildlife habitat shall be managed to maintain viable populations of existing native and desired non-native vertebrate species in the planning area. For planning purposes, a viable population shall be regarded as one which has the estimated numbers and distribution of reproductive individuals to insure its continued existence is well distributed in the planning area. In order to insure that viable populations will be maintained, habitat must be provided to support, at least, a minimum number of reproductive individuals and that habitat must be well distributed so that those individuals can interact with others in the planning area. The planning regulations further state that in order to estimate the effects of each alternative on fish and wildlife populations, certain vertebrate species present in the area shall be identified and selected as management indicator species and the reasons for their selection will be stated.

2 For project-level planning and environmental analysis the use of habitat abundance and quality, and the distribution of habitat have been used to estimate project effects on MIS. It has been determined by court decision that where population monitoring data are not available, due to lack of funding or feasibility of monitoring populations, the amount and quality of habitat can be used as a proxy for determining viability effects of projects on MIS (Lands Council v. McNair, 2010). In order to use habitat as a proxy the project analysis must at a minimum include: 1) a clear relationship between the species and its habitat based on habitat relationship models that utilize the best available science; 2) the amount of habitat available at the Forest scale; 3) species presence in the project area; 4) the amount of habitat being impacted at the project level in terms of both quality and quantity; 5) a determination of the project impact on viability at the Forest scale. This assessment addresses the LRMP direction for MIS viability, as developed following the 1982 Planning Regulations and the 1976 National Forest Management Act direction. It also addresses the court s decision and criteria for using habitat as a proxy for determining viability effects on MIS. The specific objectives of this assessment are to: evaluate population trends and conservation status of each MIS at multiple scales establish habitat relationships in the Blue Mountains and ONF for each MIS determine habitat abundance, quality, and distribution on the ONF for each MIS provide the framework and context to make forest-scale MIS viability determinations Other sources of information utilized to identify and describe population trends, conservation status, and habitat abundance and distribution are provided by the Regional Forester s Sensitive Species List (USFS R6 2008); Breeding Bird Survey (U.S. Geological Survey); Partners-in- Flight database (based on Breeding Bird Survey data); Interior Columbia Basin Project; Source Habitats for Terrestrial Vertebrates of Focus in the Interior Columbia Basin: Broad-Scale Trends and Management Implications (Wisdom et al. 2000); Ochoco District WMU Big Game Population Statistics (ODFW, 2002 to 2010); the Oregon Conservation Strategy (ODFW 2006) and Birds of Oregon (Marshall et al. 2003). Viability Assessment for Pileated Woodpecker on Ochoco National Forest Introduction The pileated woodpecker was chosen as a terrestrial management indicator species (MIS) for mature and old-growth forest (LRMP 1989, p. 243 and 251). It is assumed that if good habitat is provided for pileated woodpeckers and their population is maintained at some desired level, that adequate habitat is also being provided for other species that share similar habitat requirements (LRMP FEIS p. 3-21). The pileated woodpecker plays an important ecological role by excavating nest cavities that are later used by other birds and small mammals (Thomas 1979) and by feeding on forest insect pests. In the Blue Mountains of northeastern Oregon, 22 species of birds and 24 species of mammals utilize vacated woodpecker cavities for reproduction, roosting, shelter, and hibernation (Bull and Meslow 1977). Examples of other wildlife species in the Blue Mountains that utilize nest cavities or roost sites include; bushytail woodrats, flying squirrels, red squirrels, Vaux s swifts, and American marten. Species associated with the same or similar

3 cover types and seral-structural stages include the Vaux s swift, Williamson s sapsucker, Hammond s flycatcher, chestnut-backed chickadee, brown creeper, winter wren, golden-crowned kinglet, varied thrush, silver-haired bat, and hoary bat (Wisdom et al. 2000). The Land and Resource Management Plan established Old Growth Management Areas (MA-F6) to provide habitat for the pileated woodpecker and other old growth associated species as part of the Regional Foresters Minimum Management Requirement (MMR). In addition supplemental feeding habitat was allocated (outside of Wilderness and Research Natural Areas). In all, approximately 39,140 acres were allocated with the intention to maintain habitat for pileated woodpeckers. It was estimated that over the long-term that old-growth forest would amount to approximately 55,000 acres, including reserves of old-growth in areas not allocated as Old Growth Management Areas (LRMP p. 4-4). In 1995, the Interim Direction for Timber Sale Planning (Eastside Screens) amended the LRMP. The Eastside Screens deferred harvest of certain late and old structure stands and prohibited the harvest of live trees greater than twentyone inches diameter at breast height. The implementation of the screens resulted in the conservation of a greater amount of old growth forest than originally scheduled in the 1989 LRMP. A great deal of research and scientific literature on the pileated woodpecker was generated from studies conducted in the Blue Mountains from the late 1970 s till near present, Research conducted by Evelyn Bull, Charles Meslow, Richard Holthausen, Mark Henjum, Torolf Torgensen, Nicole Nielsen-Pincus, Barbara Wales, Jane Hayes, Abe Clark, Jay Shepherd, and others have defined much of the science and current understanding of the pileated woodpecker in the Blue Mountain region and is particularly relevant to this species assessment. Their research was used in preparing this assessment and is considered the most recent and best available science on this species. Refer to the sections above for summarized background information, desired and existing conditions for this species in this project area. More detailed information used in this viability assessment follows: Species Distribution The pileated woodpecker is a resident of forested habitats of eastern North America, from Canada to southern Florida, and west to forested river bottoms extending into the Great Plains. Its range extends from eastern North America along a forested corridor northwestward across southern Manitoba, central Saskatchewan, and central Alberta south through montane regions of western Montana, northern Idaho, and northeast Oregon. It is also found in the Pacific Northwest from central British Columbia south through Washington, Oregon west of the Cascade summit to central California. In Oregon, it is an uncommon but permanent resident in older forests in the Blue, Cascade, and Klamath Mountains, in the Coast Range, and Willamette, Umpqua and Rogue Valleys (Marshall et al 2003). This species is well distributed within suitable habitat across Ochoco National Forest.

4 Figure 1. Pileated Woodpecker Distribution in North America. Habitat Characteristics The pileated woodpecker occurs primarily in dense mixed-conifer forest in late seral stages or in deciduous tree stands in valley bottoms. It is occasionally seen in younger stands lacking largediameter trees, particularly in winter. It is rarely found in stands of pure ponderosa pine. The association with late seral stages stems from the need for large diameter snags or living trees with decay for nest and roost sites, large diameter trees and logs for foraging on ants and other arthropods, and a dense canopy to provide cover from predators (Marshall et al 2003). In northeast Oregon, the pileated woodpecker prefers mature, unlogged grand fir stands with at least 60% canopy closure, multiple canopy layers (> 2), and high snag density (Bull and Meslow 1977, Bull 1987, Bull and Holthausen 1993). Bull et al. (2007) found that high tree mortality and loss of canopy closure in stands of grand fir and Douglas-fir did not appear to be detrimental to pileated woodpeckers provided that large dead or live trees and logs were abundant and that stands were not subject to extensive harvest. Closed canopy forests were not essential for use by pileated woodpeckers, although nest success was higher in home ranges that had greater amounts of forested habitat with >60% canopy closure (Bull et al. 2007).

5 Figure 2. Historic Pileated Woodpecker Habitat and Species Distribution in Oregon. ( Figure 3. Current Pileated Woodpecker Habitat and Species Distribution in Oregon. (

6 The pileated woodpecker nests in large, dead trees. Typical nest trees have little bark remaining, few limbs, are more than 30 feet tall, and have broken tops (Bull 1987). In northeastern Oregon, Bull and Meslow (1977) reported all nests from their study area were greater than 23 inches in diameter at breast height (d.b.h.). Bull (1987) reported a strong selection of trees larger than 21 inches dbh for nesting. Large diameter trees are required to accommodate the large nest cavity (8 inches diameter and 22 inches deep). In a study conducted on the Starkey Experimental Forest, all but one of 123 different nests were located in dead trees. Ponderosa pine (73%) and western larch (25%) are most commonly used on the east side of the Cascade Range (Bull 1987). Pileated woodpeckers select nest snags from clusters of snags in dense types or stands (Bull and Meslow 1977). Nest trees are larger and have fewer entrance holes than roost trees. Nest cavities are excavated just prior to nesting (Bull 1987), occurring in late March and early April and take 3-6 weeks to complete (Bull and Meslow (1988). Some pairs begin excavation of several cavities but complete only one. The partially completed cavities were sometimes completed in later years and used as nests (Bull and Meslow 1988, Hoyt 1957). Pileated woodpeckers roost inside tree cavities at night. Roost trees are presumed to be used to reduce predation and to conserve energy by minimizing heat loss in the winter. Trees used for nesting and roosting differ. In northeastern Oregon (Union, Baker, and Umatilla Counties) the majority of roost trees were in grand fir (62%), both live and dead, that were extensively decayed by Indian paint fungus (Echinodontium tinctorium) and had a hollow interior. Conks of Indian paint fungus were seen on 92% of the roost trees in grand fir (Bull et al. 1992). Roost trees are used all year with pileated woodpeckers using multiple roost trees. Bull et al. (1992) reported an average of 7 roost trees being used by an individual bird over a 3-10 month period (range 4-11 roost trees). Some birds used the same roost every night while others changed every few weeks. The pileated woodpecker gains entry to the hollow interior by excavating an entrance hole to the hollow interior of the tree or entering through broken tree tops. Most roost trees have >1 entrance/exit hole. Old growth stands of grand fir, with >60% canopy closure and little or no logging activity are preferred sites for roosting (Bull et al. 1992). Pileated woodpeckers feed primarily on insects in dead wood in snags, logs, and naturally created stumps (Bull and Meslow 1977, Bull et al. 1986). Numerous authors have reported carpenter ants (Camponotus spp.) as the primary food of pileated woodpeckers (Beal 1911, S.Y. Hoyt 1950, Conway 1957, S.F. Hoyt 1957, Jackman 1975, Bull and Jackson 1995). Carpenter ants comprised 95% of the diet of pileated woodpeckers on the Starkey Experimental Forest (Beckwith and Bull 1985). In addition they are known to consume fruits, nuts, woodboring beetle larvae, and other insects. In northeastern Oregon, snags and logs >15 inches diameter were preferred, as were Douglas-fir and western larch (Beckwith and Bull 1985, Bull and Holthausen 1993, Bull et al. 1992a), but foraging was documented on dead woody material as small as 2 inches in diameter. Stands with higher density of snags and logs were preferred for foraging (Bull and Meslow 1977). Bull and Meslow (1977) reported that the minimum density for one pair was 1,620 acres of forest. During nesting, territories ranged from 320 to 600 acres (Bull and Meslow 1977). Bull (1987) reported an average nesting territory size of approximately 544 acres (220 hectares). Bull and Holthausen (1993) found that pileated woodpeckers in northeastern Oregon have an average home range size of 900 acres (range 800 1,575 acres).

7 Threats to the Species Threats to the pileated woodpecker are avian predators, including northern goshawks (Accipiter gentilis), sharp-shinned hawk (Accipiter striatus; Smith 1983) and Cooper's hawks (A. cooperi; Michael 1921), red-tailed hawks (Buteo jamaicensis) and great-horned owls (Bubo virginianus). Bull (2003) and Bull et al. (2007) report that timber harvest has had a negative effect on habitat of this species. Removal of large diameter live and dead trees, of down woody material, and of canopy reduces nest and roost sites, foraging habitat, and protective cover. In addition, prescribed fire may eliminate or reduce the number of snags, logs, and cover (Bull 2003). Prescribed fire and mechanical fuel reduction treatments were found to reduce the amount of foraging habitat (snags, stumps, and down logs) and abundance of ants (prey) of the pileated woodpecker in the short term (1 to 3 years) (Bull et al. 2005). Firewood collection and snag felling along roadsides also reduces the availability of snags for nesting and roosting. Bate et al. (2007) found that snag numbers were lower adjacent to roads due to removal for safety considerations, removal as firewood, and other management activities. Other literature has also indicated the potential for reduced snag abundance along roads (Wisdom et al. 2000). Other reports indicate that major threats are (from greatest to least): (1) conversion of forest habitats to non-forest habitats, (2) short rotation, even-age forestry, (3) monoculture forestry, (4) forest fragmentation, (5) removal of logging residue, downed wood, and pine straw that would ultimately put nutrients back into the ecosystem and provide foraging substrate, (6) lightning striking cavity/roost trees because they are often the oldest, tallest trees within a stand, (7) deliberate killing by humans, and (8) toxic chemicals (Jackson et al. 1998). Conservation Status The conservation status of a species is an indicator of the likelihood of that species continuing to survive either in the present day or the future. Many factors are taken into account when assessing the conservation status of a species: not simply the number remaining, but the overall increase or decrease in the population over time, breeding success rates, known threats, and others. The conservation status of the pileated woodpecker was identified at the global, national, and state of Oregon geographical areas by NatureServe; by listing status from Federal and State Threatened and Endangered Species lists and Sensitive Species lists; by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Birds of Conservation Concern; by the Oregon Conservation Strategy; and by the Partners in Flight bird conservation Strategy - Conservation Strategy for Landbirds in the Northern Rocky Mountains of Oregon and Washington. NatureServe is a non-profit organization based in Arlington, Virginia that provides scientific information about rare and endangered species and threatened ecosystems. The information provided is based on biological inventories or natural heritage programs that operate in all 50 U.S. states, Canada, Latin America and Caribbean. NatureServe information and products are available to conservation groups, government agencies, academia, corporations, and the public. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service maintain a list of Birds of Conservation Concern. Birds of Conservation Concern are species, subspecies, and populations of all migratory nongame birds that, without additional conservation actions, are likely to become candidates for listing under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of They represent species that have the highest conservation priorities in the United States, including island "territories" in the Pacific and Caribbean. The Oregon Conservation Strategy (Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife 2006) identified strategy habitats and strategy species by conservation region (i.e. Blue Mountains eco-region). The Partners in Flight bird conservation plans identify priority habitats and species (focal species)

8 that represent priority habitats within bird conservation regions (BCR). The Blue Mountains are within the Northern Rockies BCR which is addressed by the Conservation Strategy for Landbirds in the Northern Rocky Mountains of Eastern Oregon and Washington. Conservation Status of the Pileated Woodpecker. NatureServe Status Federal Status State Status Other Global Status National Status State Status Federally Listed, Proposed, Candidate, Delisted Species and Species of Concern Regional Forester s Sensitive Species USFWS Birds of Conservation Concern Threatened, Endangered, and Candidate Fish and Wildlife Species in Oregon ODFW Sensitive Species List (2008) Oregon Conservation Strategy Conservation Strategy for Landbirds in the Northern Rocky Mountains of Oregon and Washington *G5-- Secure *N5-- Secure *S4-- Apparently Secure Not listed. Not listed. Not listed. Not listed. **Vulnerable in Blue Mountains, Eastern Cascades Slopes and Foothills, Klamath Mountains Strategy Species in the Blue Mountains Eco-region. Not a focal species * NatureServe conservation status ranks are based on a one to five scale, ranging from critically imperiled (G1) to demonstrably secure (G5). Status is assessed and documented at three distinct geographic scales-global (G), national (N), and state/province (S). The numbers have the following meaning: 1 = critically imperiled 2 = imperiled 3 = vulnerable 4 = apparently secure 5 = secure. **The Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife Sensitive Species List status of Vulnerable signifies that the species are facing one or more threats to their populations and/or habitats. Vulnerable species are not currently imperiled with extirpation from a specific geographic area or the state but could become so with continued or increased threats to populations and/or habitats. Population Trend The population trend of the pileated woodpecker was assessed at the continental, eco-regional, bird conservation region, and Blue Mountains scales to provide the context from which projectlevel effects and forest-scale viability determinations can be made. The Blue Mountains are within the Northern Rockies Bird Conservation Region. The population trend was determined by using data and analyses from the North American Breeding Bird Survey Project (U.S. Geological Survey) and the Partners in Flight Landbird population estimates and species assessments database. Breeding Bird Survey (BBS) is a large-scale, long-term survey of North American birds designed to provide a continent-wide perspective of population change ( It is a roadside survey, primarily covering the continental United States and southern Canada, although survey routes have recently been initiated in Alaska and northern Mexico. The BBS was started in 1966, and more than 3,500

9 routes are surveyed in June by experienced birders. Breeding Bird Surveys are conducted during the peak of the nesting season, primarily in June, although the timing of survey depends on location. Each route is 24.5 miles long, with a total of fifty stops located at 0.5 mile intervals along the route. Routes are randomly located in order to sample habitats that are representative of the entire region (Sauer et al. 2008). Figure 4. Breeding Bird Survey Route Locations in Oregon The breeding bird survey (BBS) data provide an index of population abundance that can be used to estimate population trends and relative abundances at various geographic scales. Various agencies and organizations, including the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Partners in Flight, utilize BBS trends along with other indicators to assess bird conservation priorities. Breeding bird survey data is categorized into three credibility categories based on the quality of the data. The quality of BBS data is affected by small sample sizes, low relative abundances on survey routes, imprecise trends, and missing data. When considering the data for the pileated woodpecker for Oregon and the Northern Rockies Bird Conservation Region (BCR) the credibility rating was yellow, indicating that there was a deficiency in one or more of the following categories and that the data should be used with caution: The regional abundance is less than 1.0 birds/route (low abundance), The sample is based on less than 14 routes for the long term (small sample size),

10 The results are so imprecise that a 3%/year change would not be detected over the longterm (quite imprecise) The sub-interval trends are significantly different from each other (P less than 0.05, based on a z-test). For the pileated woodpecker, in both Oregon and the Northern Rockies Bird the regional abundance of the pileated woodpecker was less than one bird per route (low abundance). In addition, in the Northern Rockies BCR the P value is less than 0.05 The BBS indicate that the population trend of the pileated woodpecker is increasing in both Oregon and the Northern Rockies BCR during all time intervals. The trend represents the yearly percentage change. During the period of the 1966 to 2006, there was an estimated 2 percent population increase per year in Oregon and a 4.6 percent population increase per year in the Northern Rockies BCR. In figure 5, N represents the sample size and indicates the number of survey routes on which the species was detected over the long-term. During the same time period, , the pileated woodpecker was detected on 61 survey routes in Oregon and 98 survey routes in the Northern Rockies BCR. Figure 5. Pileated Woodpecker Population Trends in Oregon and the Northern Rockies Bird Conservation Region trends Region Trend P N ( 95% CI ) R.A. Trend P N Trend P N Oregon Northern Rockies Figure 6. North American Breeding Bird Survey Trend Results for Oregon (ORE) and the Northern Rockies Bird Conservation Region (S10) ORE S10

11 Figure 7. BBS Summer Distribution Map, and BBS Trend Map, Partners in Flight Database Partners In Flight (PIF) is a partnership of federal and state agencies, industry, non-governmental organizations, and many others, with the goal of conserving North American birds. In 1991, PIF began developing a formal species assessment process that could provide consistent, scientific evaluations of conservation status across all bird species in North America, and identify areas most important to the conservation of each species. This process applies quantitative rule sets to biological data on the population size, distribution, population trend, threats, and regional abundance of individual bird species to generate simple numerical scores that rank each species in terms of its biological vulnerability and regional status (Panjabi 2005). The Partners in Flight species assessment database can be used to examine and compare the conservation status of individual bird species at various geographical areas. The Blue Mountains and Ochoco National Forest are located in the Blue Mountains eco-region, which is within the Northern Rockies Bird Conservation Region (BCR 10). The Northern Rockies BCR is a portion of the much larger Central Rockies physiographic area (64). The PIF Landbird Conservation Strategy, Conservation Strategy for Landbirds in the Northern Rocky Mountains of Eastern Oregon and Washington addresses bird focal species and conservation issues and measures in the Blue Mountains. The pileated woodpecker is not identified as a focal species in the Conservation Strategy. Table 3. Summary of Pileated Woodpecker Species Assessment Scores for the Northern Rockies Bird Conservation Region. ( Score Qualitative Definition Threats to Breeding 2 Expected future conditions for breeding populations are expected to remain stable; no known threats. Population Trend 1 Large population increase *Regional Combined Score for the Breeding Season 10 Not a species of regional concern. *The regional combined score for the breeding season is the sum of 5 scores and can range from 5 to 25. The species is considered of regional concern if the score is >13.

12 Figure 8. Partners in Flight Bird Conservation Regions. Figure 9. Partners in Flight Physiographic Areas.

13 Partners in Flight also provides a population estimate database which provides estimates at a continental scale (including global or range-wide population estimates for North American species), population estimates for Bird Conservation Regions, estimates for individual states and provinces, and estimates where BCRs overlap with states and provinces. Estimates were derived from Breeding Bird Survey data from the 1990 s, and thus reflect average population sizes during that decade. Data quality is rated with ratings scaled from green (relatively good data quality and quantity), through beige, yellow and orange to red (very little data or based on extrapolation from a neighboring region), reflecting a decreasing quality and/or quantity of data on which estimates were based. Table 4. Partners in Flight Population Estimates of the Pileated Woodpecker at the Continental Scale, Northern Rockies Bird Conservation Region (BCR 10), and BCR 10 in Oregon. Scale Population Estimate from Estimated Percent of Global Breeding Bird Survey Average Area of Region (mi2) Data Reliability Rating Breeding Bird Survey Population Birds/Route Continental 930, % - North Green America BCR 10 71, % ,040 Green BCR 10 in Oregon 7, % ,711 Yellow Also, when looking at the cavity nesting species group trends in the western breeding bird survey region, the pileated woodpecker has a significant (P <0.05) increasing trend. Habitat Analysis Habitat trends of the pileated woodpecker were assessed at the Interior Columbia Basin, Blue Mountains ecological reporting unit (ERU), and Ochoco National Forest scales using information provided by Source Habitats for Terrestrial Vertebrates of Focus in the Interior Columbia Basin (Wisdom et al. 2000) and the Viable Ecosystems analysis at the local level. Wisdom et al. (2000) defined habitat requirements (source habitats) and assessed broad-scale trends of 91 species of terrestrial vertebrates within the Interior Columbia Basin, including that of the pileated woodpecker. They evaluated change in source habitat from pre-european settlement (historical, circa ) to current (circa ) conditions for each species and for hierarchically nested groups of species and families of groups for which habitat could be estimated reliably using a large mapping unit (pixel size of 100 hectares [247 acres]). Spatial scales analyzed included the watershed (5 th field hydrologic unit code [HUC]), sub-basin (4 th HUC), ERU, and basin (private and public lands in the interior Columbia Basin). The interior Columbia basin is an area that extends over 145 million acres in Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Montana, and small portions of Nevada, California, Utah, and Wyoming. Source habitats are defined as those characteristics of macro-vegetation (vegetation that can be measured accurately using 100 hectare [247 acres] pixel) that contribute to stationary or positive population growth for a species in a specified area and time and to long-term population persistence. Source habitats contribute to source environments, which represent the composite of all environmental conditions that result in stationary or positive population growth for a species in a specified area and time. Source habitats are distinguished from habitats simply associated with species

14 occurrence; species occurrence by itself does little to indicate the capability of the environment to support long-term persistence of populations (Wisdom et al. 2000). Table 5. Cover Type and Seral-Structural Stages of Pileated Woodpecker Source Habitat in the Blue Mountains ERU. A value of 1 indicates source habitat (Wisdom et al. 2000, Vol. 3 Table 1). Old single story Old multistory Stand Initiation Engelmann sprucesubalpine fir Interior Douglas-fir Western larch Grand firwhite fir Unmanaged young multi-story Managed young multistory Understory reinitiation Stemexclusion closed canopy In the source habitat assessment the pileated woodpecker is in Family 2, the Broad Elevation Old Forest Family and Group 6, resident year-long. Other species in this group include the Vaux s swift, Williamson s sapsucker, Hammond flycatcher, chestnut-backed chickadee, brown creeper, winter wren, golden-crowned kinglet, varied thrush, silver-haired bat, and hoary bat. In the Blue Mountains Ecological Reporting Unit (ERU) source habitat of the pileated woodpecker is provided by late seral single and multi-strata stages of the Engelmann spruce-subalpine fir, Interior Douglas-fir, grand fir-white fir, and western larch cover types. The assessment process that was used by the ICBEMP is based on using the concept of Historic Range of Variability (HRV) to assess likelihood of maintaining viable populations of species. By managing habitat within HRV it is assumed that adequate habitat will be provided because species survived those levels of habitat in the past to be present today. Thus, if we manage current habitats within the range of historic variability, we will likely do an adequate job of ensuring population viability for those species that remain (Landres et al. 1999). Source Habitats for Terrestrial Vertebrates of Focus in the Interior Columbia Basin: Broad- Scale Trends and Management Implications (Wisdom et al. 2000) provides valuable information on habitat trends in the Columbia Basin.

15 Table 6. Historical and Current estimates of areal extent (percentage of area) of Pileated Woodpecker Source Habitat by Cover Type and Structural Stages in the Blue Mountains ERU (Wisdom et al. 2000, Vol. 3 Table 4). Cover Type Structural Stage Historical Estimate (H) Current Estimate (C) Absolute Change (ACH)* Relative Change (RCH)** Engelmann sprucesubalpine fir old forest multi-story old forest single story Interior Douglas-fir old forest >100 multi-story old forest single story Western larch old forest multi-story old forest >100 single story Grand fir-white fir old forest >100 multi-story * ACH = C - H ** RCH = ([C - H]/H) X 100; the relative change value was used to develop trend categories. Refer to table 7. Table 7. Historical and Current estimates of percentage of area in source habitats at the Basin and Blue Mountains Ecological Reporting Unit (ERU) Scales (Wisdom et al. 2000, Vol. 1 Table 7 & Vol. 3, Table 5). The resulting changes in source habitats are based on absolute change (ACH), relative change (RCH) and trend categories (TC) of relative change. Scale Historical Current ACH RCH TC Basin-Wide * Blue Mountains ERU >100 Strongly Increasing *The trend category of negative one (-1) indicates that source habitat has decreased from historical conditions and corresponds to relative change values of greater than or equal to a 20 percent but less than 60 percent decline. With the exception of the western larch cover type, all cover types in the Blue Mountains ERU that constitute pileated woodpecker source habitat have strongly increased. This is in contrast to the Basin (private and public lands in the interior Columbia Basin) which has experienced a decrease in the percentage of area providing source habitat. Western larch represents approximately 10 percent of the total live tree volume in the Blue Mountains, with a gradient of more to less abundance from north to south. Although Wisdom et al. (2000) documents a strong decrease in source habitat in the western larch cover type, this apparent decrease is not likely significant in regard to the abundance and distribution of source habitat for pileated woodpeckers in the Blue Mountains. Stands dominated by western larch are not rare, but they represent a

16 minor proportion of the forested landscapes in the Blue Mountains. Basin-wide, the amount of source habitat of the pileated woodpecker has declined from historical conditions. The reduction of source habitat reflects a basin-wide decline in late seral forest conditions in the Engelmann spruce, interior Douglas-fir, western larch, and grand fir-white fir cover types. It also reflects declines in large diameter (> 21 inches dbh) snags, hollow trees, and logs. For species, such as the pileated woodpecker, which prefer large diameter snags the snag analysis considers density classes based on the abundance of snags that were >50 cm dbh (19.6 in.) in size. Refer to the discussion on snag analysis in the section on Primary Cavity Excavators. Timber harvest techniques, exclusion of fire, and resulting changes in insect and disease infestation dynamics are the primary causes for trends. Suppression of wildfires has resulted in a shift in stand composition from shade-intolerant species such as western larch and ponderosa pine to shade tolerant species that are preferred by the pileated woodpecker such as grand fir and Douglas-fir. Some past timber harvest techniques have had a similar effect as fire suppression in shifting stand composition by favoring the removal of ponderosa pine and larch and leaving the fir species (Wisdom et al. 2000). However, many past timber harvest activities have reduced the amount of source habitat in many areas. Analysis of pileated woodpecker primary nesting habitat on Ochoco National Forest was conducted in 2011 using updated vegetation data and viable codes. The output from the updated GNN analysis is restrictive in terms of identifying nesting habitat. Pileated woodpeckers may utilize forested areas that did not meet the criteria to be identified in the GNN data analysis, and thus total nesting habitat may be more abundant than described below for priority nesting habitat. For the purposes of this analysis the nesting habitat resulting from the GNN data will be referred to as priority nesting habitat. From that analysis it was estimated that at the forest level there are approximately 14,508 acres of priority nesting habitat. There are a total of 34 watersheds (5 th field HUC) on Ochoco National Forest. Priority nesting habitat for the pileated woodpecker is distributed within 23 of these watersheds. The mapped habitat was compared to records of observations of pileated woodpeckers stored in the NRIS database. There are approximately 200 sighting records in the NRIS database on Ochoco National Forest. The majority of the pileated woodpecker records are associated with blocks or aggregated patches of mapped nesting habitat across the Forest. Within the project area the majority of the sighting records coincide with blocks or aggregations of mapped nesting habitat. Conclusion - The broad-scale source habitat analysis conducted by Wisdom et al. (2000) indicated that there have been basin-wide declines of source habitat of the pileated woodpecker in the interior Columbia Basin, however, habitat of the pileated woodpecker is strongly increasing in the Blue Mountains Ecological Reporting Unit. In the Blue Mountains ERU there was more than a 100% increase in the amount of source habitat from historical conditions. This analysis was a coarsescale analysis and based on a large pixel size (100 hectares or 247 acres), and included both private and public lands. A fine-scale analysis of source habitat on National Forest lands on Ochoco National Forest indicated that primary nesting habitat is currently within HRV and would continue to be within HRV under all action alternatives. In addition, priority nesting habitat of the pileated woodpecker is still available in adequate amounts and distribution to

17 maintain pileated viability on Ochoco National Forest. Currently, there are approximately 14,508 acres of priority nesting habitat on Ochoco National Forest, within 23 of the 34 watersheds (68%) on the Forest (including Crooked River National Grassland). Of the watersheds that historically provided priority nesting habitat (Ochoco National Forest excluding Crooked River National Grassland), 23 of 24 watersheds (96%) currently provide priority nesting habitat. Potential impacts to the MMR network result from placement of trails within allocated Old Growth (OGMA) and mapped pileated feeding habitat (pfh). Alternative 2 would include 2.59 miles of routes within OGMA (reproductive habitat) and 2.82 miles within mapped feeding habitat (pfh). Alternative 3 would include 1.44 miles of routes within OGMA (reproductive habitat) and 0.68 miles within mapped feeding habitat (pfh). Alternative 4 would include 2.54 miles of routes within OGMA (reproductive habitat) and 2.85 miles within mapped feeding habitat (pfh). Since pileated woodpeckers are not susceptible to disturbance from OHV use (refer to Wildlife Report and Biological Evaluation) the direct physical alteration of habitat is the only likely impact from the proposed alternatives. If we assume 10 of forest clearing along proposed trails, then the amount of allocated reproductive habitat and mapped pfh impacted under each alternative is as follows: Alternative 2 would be 6.6 acres; Alternative 3 would be 2.6 acres; Alternative 4 would be 5.4 acres. These potential impacts to the MMR habitats very small and not likely to affect reproductive success within these areas. Given the total amount of priority nesting habitat across the project area is over 14,500 acres, the amount of forested habitat potentially impacted by the proposed alternatives is also relatively small (see the section on Physical Alteration of Habitat, in General Effects to Wildlife, in the Wildlife Report and Biological Evaluation). Using the same average width as described above for impacts to forested canopy, impacts to pileated woodpecker primary reproductive habitat and foraging habitat would be as follows: Alternative 2 would be up to 115 acres; Alternative 3 would be up to 86 acres: Alternative 4 would be up to 152 acres. Even if all of the potential impacts to forested canopy were within priority nesting habitat the maximum impact (Alternative 4) would amount to about 1% of the total available within the project area. The pileated woodpecker is widely distributed in North America. Its conservation status globally and nationally is secure and it is apparently secure in the State of Oregon (NatureServe). The pileated woodpecker does not have any special federal listing status as Candidate, Threatened or Endangered but it is listed as Vulnerable in the Blue Mountains on the State of Oregon Sensitive Species list. The State Vulnerable status indicates that the pileated woodpecker is facing one or more threats to their populations but is not currently imperiled with extirpation. The pileated woodpecker is not considered a focal species in the Partners in Flight Conservation Strategy for Landbirds in the Northern Rocky Mountains of Eastern Oregon and Washington and is not a priority species on the USFWS Birds of Conservation Concern. Population trend data from the North American Breeding Bird Surveys indicate that the pileated woodpecker has an increasing population trend in Oregon and in the Northern Rockies Bird Conservation Region. While the interpretation of this data should be done with caution, a steady population increase is indicated. The Partners in Flight species assessment database also indicates a large population increase in the Northern Rockies Bird Conservation Region. This viability assessment indicates the Ochoco National Forest still provides for viability of the pileated woodpecker. The pileated woodpecker is distributed across the Ochoco National Forest

18 and there are adequate amounts, quality, and distribution of habitat to provide for pileated woodpecker population viability. Given the relatively wide range of this species, its increasing population and habitat trends and the amount and distribution of habitat remaining, within the project area, at the forest level and across the eco-region, viability for this species is expected to be provided for on Ochoco National Forest. Given that this project impacts about 1% of the suitable priority nesting habitat within the analysis area, and far less than 1% across the Forest, the overall direct, indirect and cumulative effects will result in a very small negative trend of habitat in the short term. However, this reduction in nesting habitat is insignificant at the Forest scale and is not expected to reduce the viability of this species at the Forest level. For these reasons the Ochoco Summit Trail System project is expected to result in continued viability of pileated woodpeckers on Ochoco National Forest. Viability Assessment for the Northern Flicker on Ochoco National Forest Introduction The northern flicker was chosen as a terrestrial management indicator species (MIS) for old growth juniper (LRMP FEIS 3-21 and 4-96). Many researchers have reported on aspects of behavior and nest use by flickers as part of general studies of cavity nesting birds. Recently such interest has intensified as flickers have been recognized as "keystone" excavators which may influence the abundance of secondary cavity nesters in forest systems (Martin et al. 2004). Species Distribution The Northern Flicker is a common, primarily ground-foraging woodpecker that occurs in most wooded regions of North America. Its taxonomic status has been debated because of hybridization among subspecies groups, each readily distinguished by plumage coloration. Two subspecies, the Yellow-shafted Flicker (Colaptes auratus auratus) of eastern North America and the Red-shafted Flicker (C. a. cafer) of western North America, form a long, narrow hybrid zone on the Great Plains that parallels the rain-shadow of the Rocky Mountains and crosses the Canadian Rockies to reach southern Alaska. This hybrid zone has been of great interest to ornithologists and evolutionary biologists for more than a century. Hybridization occurs on a more limited basis between the Red-shafted Flicker and the Gilded Flicker (C. chrysoides), a separate species that breeds in the Sonoran Desert. Two other subspecies of the Northern Flicker are allopatric; the Cuban Flicker (C. a. chrysocaulosus) occurs on Cuba and Grand Cayman Island, and the Guatemalan Flicker (C. a. mexicanoides) occurs in the highlands of southern Mexico south to northwestern Nicaragua. In western North America, the Cafer Group (Red-Shafted Flicker) includes C. a. cafer (Gmelin, 1788) which includes C. rubricatus (Wagler, 1829), and C. a. saturatior (Ridgway, 1884) and occurs chiefly as a resident in the Pacific Northwest, from southeastern Alaska to northwestern California; vagrant in winter south to southeastern California and east to Great Basin (Patten et al. 2003). This group also includes C. a. canescens (Brodkorb, 1935) which includes C. a. chihuahuae (Brodkorb, 1935) and which breeds throughout Great Basin and Rocky Mountain from southwestern Canada south to north-central Mexico (to Durango and Zacatecas). It winters throughout southern portion of breeding range and to coastal California and Baja California peninsula; vagrant east of Great Plains. Breeding Range (Figure 1) is broadly distributed in diverse woodland habitats throughout North America, generally from tree line in Alaska and Canada, from Pacific Coast to Newfoundland,

19 south to north central Nicaragua, Florida Keys, Cuba, and Grand Cayman I. Yellow-shafted Flicker: central Alaska east to Newfoundland and south to e. Montana, e. Texas, n. Florida Keys, and Gulf Coast. Red-shafted Flicker: w. North America (generally western Great Plains west) south through s. Baja California and in interior and Pacific slope of Mexico to Oaxaca. Guatemalan Flicker: n. Chiapas south through central Honduras and n.-central Nicaragua. Cuban Flicker: Cuba and Grand Cayman Island. Winter Range (Figure 1) for red-shafted Flicker occurs from s. British Columbia and s. Alberta south through remainder of breeding range. Yellow-shafted Flicker generally winters from Newfoundland, extreme s. Quebec, s. Ontario, central Minnesota, s. North Dakota, and s. Alberta south through breeding range and to n. Mexico (recorded from Sonora to Tamaulipas; Howell and Webb 1995). Figure 1. Distribution of the Northern Flicker. Habitat Characteristics As its broad geographic distribution suggests, the Northern Flicker is a generalist in many respects, but in others it is a specialist. It is clearly a species of open woodlands, savannas, and forest edges. It eats mostly ants but also beetle larvae and during late autumn, winter, and early spring a variety of berries. The Northern Flicker is well adapted to habitats altered by humans, commonly breeding in urban as well as suburban and rural environments, and visiting backyard bird feeders. Flickers may be common in clearcuts if snags remain standing (Conner et al. 1975, Conner and Adkisson 1977). In the west, woodland types include subalpine (subalpine fir, Engelmann

20 spruce, limber pine, lodgepole pine; Snyder 1950), oak-juniper-pine woodland (Balda 1970), pine-oak woodland (Marshall 1957), pinyon-juniper, and montane forests (yellow pine, ponderosa pine, Engelmann spruce, Douglas fir, white fir, quaking aspen; Rasmussen 1941, Mannan and Meslow 1980). Also found in cottonwoods in riparian woodlands (WSM), and in burned woodlands (Raphael and White 1984). Nest-tree species are strikingly variable; flickers reported nesting in most tree species in the wide range of woodlands they inhabit. Open or savanna-like structure of the habitat which provides space for foraging is more important than species of tree (Conner et al. 1975). In many northern mixed-wood boreal forests, flickers are particularly common in quaking aspen stands, presumably because aspen is preferred as a nesting tree (Wiebe 2001, Aitken et al. 2002). Threats to the Species No known Historical Changes have occurred at the macro level, but local distributions have doubtless changed as a consequence of habitat alteration by humans. Riparian woodlands that have developed along some drainages of the western Great Plains since 1920 now harbor dense populations of this species (Short 1965a, Moore and Buchanan 1985). In other areas, loss of habitat and competition with the European Starling (Sturnus vulgaris) for nest cavities may be the cause of localized population declines. There are numerous reports of starlings usurping nest cavities from Flickers (Shelly 1935, Bent 1939, Howell 1943, Bent 1950, Brackbill 1957, Fisher and Wiebe 2006a). The intensity with which a flicker defends its nest is related to past experience with starlings but often defense is unsuccessful (Wiebe 2004). Flickers may renest after being displaced but they have smaller clutches later in the season so there are still indirect costs to eviction (Wiebe 2003). Populations not seriously endangered by human activities other than habitat destruction. Removal of snags during forestry operations and urban development seems to reduce habitat suitability (Blewett and Marzluff 2005). Density of Red-shafted Flickers decreased on an experimental plot where ponderosa pine was harvested and snags were removed, but increased on a harvested plot where snags were left and on a control plot that was not harvested (Scott and Oldmeyer 1983). Similarly, flicker density decreased to half its pretreatment level when snags were removed from a burned pine-fir site in California, and the density of flickers was at least 5 times as high in the burned forest as at any unburned site (Raphael and White 1984). Anecdotal deaths from pesticides have been reported (Fleischli et al. 2004) but there is no evidence that populations are particularly at risk from chemicals, ingestion of plastics, lead, etc.; or by entrapment in fishing nets, etc. Collisions with human-made objects have been reported (Johnston and Haines 1957), but are probably not a significant source of mortality. Commonly at nests in or near human habitation, birds are adapting well to disturbance from the presence of humans. Conservation Status The American Ornithologists' Union recently (1995) split the Northern Flicker into two species: Northern and Gilded (Colaptes chrysoides) flicker. Eleven subspecies in four morphologically distinct subspecies groups (Short 1982) have been identified. The group of subspecies that occurs in western North America is cafer, or the red-shafted group.