IMPACTS ON ANIMALS Foraging areas for the birds occupying the known nest site are unknown and a conflict could arise. The northern spotted owl is dependent on old-growth, closed canopy forests. Pursuant to the Oregon Endangered Species Task Force recommendations, a joint agreement with the State of Oregon, U.S. Forest Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service was signed, and BLM has agreed to protect 14 pairs of owls in the Medford District. Eight of these have been assigned to the JKSYUs. The management plan calls for total protection of 300 acres of old-growth core area (if available) and an additional 900 acres to be managed to provide at least 50 percent of the acreage in stands of 30+ year-old forests. The eight pairs receiving protection may change occasionally as new pairs are located or new timber replacement stands become available. Additional northern spotted owls in excess of the eight pairs may have their habitat reduced or eliminated if it is in a sale area. The results of this action are unknown. However, if it is assumed that all lands are at carrying capacity, then it is likely these owls would be eliminated. Two nest trees are within the boundaries of Sales 81-21 and 82-18. Five nest trees in Sales 80-22, 80-23, 81-4 and 82-20 are within one-third mile of areas scheduled for shelterwood harvest in the first 3 years. It is possible that the owls Occupying these nest trees would be eliminated due to removal of their habitat. The bobcat is a creature of wide habitat range and it can adapt to many situations. While those individuals located in a cutting area would be displaced within 3-4 years, clearcut areas would provide suitable habitat and probably be reoccupied. Clearcuts may be beneficial to surrounding populations as many of the species which make up the bobcat's food supply increase greatly after clearcutting. River otters need clean water and an aquatic-oriented food supply although they occasionally do eat other things such as bird eggs (Ingles 1965). Clearcutting alone does not influence water quality, therefore little impact is expected. Conclusion Clearcutting may have a severe adverse impact on those populations of Siskiyou Mountain salamanders dwelling inside areas that would be harvested. No known locations of salamanders are scheduled to be harvested during the first 3 years. The impact to the species as a whole for the remainder of the decade is impossible to predict without site specific information. Seven known nest trees are within one-third mile of proposed sale areas and individual spotted owls may be adversely impacted by clear cutting, shelterwood harvest and overstory removal. By following recommendations of the interagency management committee, the species as a whole would be only moderately affected. IMPACTS ON ANIMALS Bobcats may benefit by clearcutting as their prey would probably increase. Although individual animals may be displaced by clearcutting, the overall effects are expected to be slight. River otter would not be adversely impacted by harvesting. Bald eagles and peregrine falcons are not expected not expected to be adversely impacted by the proposed action. 3.6.4.2 Yarding This practice may prove to be detrimental to Siskiyou Mountain salamanders living in the area so treated. It probably would not be greatly accumulative on top of harvest practices as the shade removal from harvest would likely produce the primary adverse impact. Yarding does does increase soil disturbance; therefore, water quality could be affected. River otters may be locally impacted, but impacts would be of low significance to the species as a whole within the SYUS. Yarding practices would have negligible affects on spotted owls, bald eagle, peregrine falcons and bobcats. 3.6.4.3 Road Construction and Maintenance Road systems are not expected to affect not expected to affect threatened and endangered species to any degree that is quantifiable. The roads themselves may destroy habitat but may provide new habitat for Siskiyou Mountain salamanders. Nussbaum (1974) points out that many times road cuts provide good habitat into which surrounding populations can expand. Logging roads are the greatest source of human-caused inorganic stream sediments (Gibbons and Salo 1973). Therefore, the habitat of the river otter may be adversely affected. The other species would probably be affected only to the extent that access by vehicle would be provided to previously unaccessible This impact cannot be quantified or qualified. 3.6.4.4 Developmental Practices The proposed development practices would not affect threatened and endangered species any differently than other species. When these practices are employed, the forest has been cut; therefore the major habitat modifications have already taken place. IMPACTS ON ANIMALS The habitats of the river otter and Siskiyou Mountain salamander could be adversely impacted by gross yarding, accidental burning along streams and scarification. It has been shown by Gashwiler (1970) that populations of some small mammal species do increase after burning. Some of these are prey species of bobcats and therefore could have a local positive benefit. Other threatened and endangered species are not expected to be impacted. Planting may benefit river otter by improving water quality. The impacts would be difficult to assess without site specific information. Planting also may restore shade needed to reestablish any Siskiyou Mountain salamander habitat that had been temporarily degraded by other practices. Significant impacts to threatened or endangered species are not expected from other treatments. Conclusion Development practices would adversely impact water quality in localized areas and therefore may significantly affect river otter habitat. They may also cause increases in some of the bobcats' prey species and have positive effects on the bobcat. Neither impact is quantifiable or expected to be significant compared with the effects of timber harvest or road building. Consultation Officials of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service agreed, during informal consultation, that the proposed action would have no adverse effects on any species listed as threatened or endangered. If the on-site surveys conducted prior to each individual sale uncover the presence of a threatened or or endangered species, then the consultation process may be renewed. 3.6.5 Summary of Conclusions The most significant impact to terrestrial wildlife would be the removal of old-growth timber and its replacement with early successional stage vegetation. Table 1-4 indicates that currently there are about 98,000 acres of trees that are 200 years old or older on high intensity lands. By the end of the first decade, this acreage would be reduced to about 68,000 acres, a 31 percent decrease. Additional old-growth habitat exists on lands withdrawn from harvest (Table 1-8). However, the amount, quality and distribution of this is unknown. IMPACTS ON ANIMALS This 31 percent decrease in old-growth habitat would probably be accompanied by a 31 percent decrease in numbers of old-growth dependent species such as the northern spotted owl, Vaux's swift and northern flying squirrel. This reduction would be significant, adverse and permanent. If the proposed level of harvest is continued, it is projected that by the end of the fourth decade only 19 acres of trees older than 200 years would be left on high intensity lands planned for harvest. Currently there are about 11,000 acres of nonstocked and early stage (less than 15 years old) vegetation on the high intensity lands of the SYUs (Table 1-1). The creation of 31,200 additional early stage acres by clear cutting and regeneration cut of shelterwood harvest would be a harvest would be a 184 percent increase in this successional stage. Therefore, the potential exists for a theoretical 184 percent increase in early successional stage animals. It is unlikely that this large increase would occur due to limiting factors such such as weather, predation and the location of the increased food supply caused by the increase in early successional stages. In total, about 90,000 acres of habitat would be modified by cutting, thinning and road building. This would alter animal use and species composition on those acres. It would adversely impact some species and have a beneficial impact on others. The possibility exists that there are some chronic effects to birds associated with the use of 2,4-D (USDI, BLM 1979). While this has not been shown to occur under field conditions it must be considered as a potential adverse impact. Table 3-8 lists the impacts of the proposed action on those species discussed in Section 2.8. The effects listed are based on habitat requirements and may be subjective. In some instances, impacts are not known or there are conflicting reports in the literature. The impacts shown are for those individuals affected, not for the species as a whole. Each action is divided into short and long-term effects. Short term is considered to be up to 10 years and long term in excess of 10 years. It is recognized that the immediate effects may be different from short term; however, immediate effects are not shown. An example of this is burning. Immediate effects are removal of all vegetation, but the short-term effects are different, e.g., good growth of grasses and shrubs and lush habitat for certain species. Probably the most significant impact on fish is physical habitat alteration. This impact is impossible to quantify due to the non site-specificity of the proposed action and the unpredictability of sediment deposition in streams and lakes. Nonetheless, it is believed that the impact would be significant and adverse, because timber harvesting is known to increase stream sediment loading and the majority of stream habitats in the JKSYUs are known to be currently in poor to fair condition with the amount of 3 Significant SPECIES 0 : 01 ? : ? -1 : 0:00:01-1: 0-1: 0-1: LI S : LI S : : LI S: LI S : L S : LI LI S : LI S : LI S : LI S : LI S : LI S : LI S: L 0 | +1 : +1 | -1 : 01 0 : 0 0 : 0 +1: 01 0 : 01 0 : 0 1 0:0 0: 01-3-31 0:00:01 0:01 0:01 0:01 0:01 0:0! +1 +1 : 0 +1: : : 0-1: 0-1: 0-1: 010: 010: 0 | +1 : 0 +1: 0 : 01 -1 : 0 -1 : 0 | -1 : -3 | 0 : 01 0 : 01 0 : 01 0 : | -1 : -1 -1 : -1 -1 | -1 | -2 -2 1-2 -2 | -1 -1 | 0 : 01 0 +1:01 +1:01 +1: 0-1: 0 1 0 0 1 0:01 0:01 0:01 01 0 : 01 0 : 0 : 01 0 : 0 1 0 : 01 0 : : : 1 : 0 0 0 0 0:0 0:0 0:0 0: 01 0 : 01 0 : 0 1 0 1 0 : 01 0 : 01 0 1 01 0 ! | -1 : 0 0 : 0 +1 : +1 | 0 : 0 1 0 : 01 0 : 01 0 : 0 1 0 : 01 0 : 0 1 0 : 0 1 0 : 0 | +1 :: 0 : 0 1 0: 01 0 : 01 0 +1: 0 1 0 : 0 +1 : 0 +1: 0 -1 : 01 0 : 0 | +1 : 01 0 : 0 1 0 : 0 1 0 : 0 1 0-1 : 0 1 0 : 01 +1 : 0 | +1: -1 : 0 1 0 : 0 1 0 : 01 0 : 01 0 : 0-1 : -1 | 0 : 01 0 : 0 1 0 : 0 0 : 0 1 0 : 01 010: 010: 01 : 0 0 1 : 0 : 0 | -1 -1 | 0 : 01 ? | -1 : ? -1 : 0 0 : 0 -1: -1 0 : 0 Planting Baiting Precommercial Fertilization |