Wildlife Biological Evaluation for the Travel Management Project ...

Wildlife Biological Evaluation 

Motorized Travel Management 

I. Introduction 

Management of terrestrial wildlife and habitat, and maintenance of a diversity of animal 

communities, is an important part of the mission of the Forest Service (Resource 

Planning Act of 1974, National Forest Management Act of 1976). Management activities 

on National Forest System (NFS) lands are planned and implemented so that they do not 

jeopardize the continued existence of threatened or endangered species or lead to a trend 

toward listing or loss of viability of Forest Service Sensitive species. Management 

decisions related to motor vehicle travel can affect terrestrial species by increasing 

human-caused mortality, changing behavior due to disturbance, and modifying habitat 

(Gaines et al. 2003, Trombulek and Frissell 2000, USDA Forest Service 2000). It is 

Forest Service policy to minimize damage to vegetation, avoid harassment to wildlife, 

and avoid significant disruption of wildlife habitat while providing for motor vehicle use 

on NFS lands (FSM 2353.03(2)). Therefore, management decisions related to motor 

vehicle travel on NFS lands must consider effects to wildlife and their habitat. 

The purpose of this Biological Evaluation (BE) is to present the likely effects of 

the actions proposed in the Travel Management Environmental Impact Statement to 

Forest Service Sensitive species (mammals, birds and terrestrial invertebrates – reptiles, 

amphibians, aquatic invertebrates and fish will be considered in separate documents). 

Sensitive species are an internal Forest Service designation to enable Forest to better 

track species of concern and in particular, to monitor possible effects of projects on their 

population status and how that may affect Federal decisions to list species as endangered 

or threatened. 

This document is prepared in accordance with current policy and follows the 

standards established in Forest Service Manual direction (FSM 2670.32). 

II. Effects Analysis Methodology 

The following lists assumptions that were applied generally to terrestrial wildlife analysis 

in the project Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS). 

Assumptions Specific to the Terrestrial Wildlife Analysis 

1) All vehicle types or classes result in the same amount of disturbance effect to 

wildlife. Vehicle class restrictions on added roads and trails (including the proposals 

for level 2 roads which would allow all vehicle classes) and the proposed motorized 

mixed-use on the existing level 3 NFTS roads are not expected to have any detectable 

impact on wildlife. The source of disturbance, whether an auto, truck, or OHV, is 

assumed to provide the same magnitude of impact for this analysis. There was no 

analysis done for any proposed changes to vehicle class or motorized mixed-use. 

Shasta-Trinity National Forest - 2



2) The road-effect zone (Habitat Influence Zone) 1 of any given unauthorized route, 

open ML 2 road, or motorized NFS trail is equal distance on either side from center. 

Actual road-effect zones which vary on either side based upon slope, vegetation 

density, habitat suitability, prevailing winds, traffic volume, and numerous other 

mechanisms (Trombulak and Frissell 2000, Forman et al. 2003, Gaines, et al. 2003)) 

cannot be readily factored in for this analysis so a fixed distance is used instead. 

3) Unauthorized routes that are retained on the FTS for limited administrative use and 

also closed to motorized access (ML 1 roads and NFS trails) are assumed to have no 

measurable adverse effect to wildlife, unless local data or knowledge indicates 

otherwise. 

4) The spatial boundaries of the analysis are across the entire forest and account for the 

exclusion of wilderness, private lands, other state or federal non-NFS lands, and large 

perennial water bodies. 

5) Winter activities using snowmobiles or other over-snow vehicles are outside the 

scope of this project analysis as are the effects of motorized boating traffic. The 

effects of cross-country use by snowmobiles and lake traffic from boats were not 

analyzed. 

6) Existing non-motorized uses on the forest are assumed to continue. 

7) Vehicle collisions with terrestrial wildlife are very unlikely on local Maintenance 

Level 1 and 2 roads, motorized NFTS trails, or unauthorized routes. The vehicle rate 

of speed on a Maintenance Level 2 road is typically less than 25 mph, and a 

Maintenance Level 2 road is intended for high-clearance vehicles on native road 

surface. This assumption is supported by literature review and conclusions presented 

in Forman et al. (2003). 

8) Location of a route is equal to disturbance effects from that route (i.e., assume all 

routes provide the same level of disturbance), unless local data or knowledge indicate 

otherwise. 

9) Habitat is already impacted in the short-term. In the long-term, habitat will still be 

impacted on added routes, but would become less impacted due to passive restoration 

in areas where cross-country travel is prohibited and unauthorized routes are not 

added to the NFTS. 

1 The Habitat Influence Zone or HIZ is the area of natural habitat on either side of a road that is assumed to 

be affected by the more open and exposed nature of the road and the road use itself. In terms of 

microclimate and other ecological effects this is commonly referred to as the stand edge effect. 




10) There will be fewer miles of unauthorized routes in late successional reserves as a 

result of the action alternatives. 

11) LRMP standard and guide C-16 allows for removal of hazard trees along right of 

ways, therefore it’s permissible to remove hazard trees along added routes. 

12) Passive restoration of non-system routes will recover and improve late-successional 

habitat for those routes which are not added to the system. 

III. Data Sources 

� Compiled list of species to be considered from: 

� Region 5 Sensitive Species list amended 15 October 2007, 

� Survey and Manage list of Species for pre-disturbance surveys from 2003, 

� California Department of Fish and Game list of California Species of Special 

Concern (March 2009) 

� The Western Bat Working Group list of high or moderate priority species 

(Updated 2005) 

� Completed site-specific surveys/assessment of wildlife habitats with routes proposed 

to be added to the NFTS. Compiled habitat, distribution, and disturbance concern 

information for species, including limited operating periods and disturbance buffer 

zones, LRMP standards and guidelines, GIS habitat definitions, elevation limits, 

soil/rock types, need for permanent water, Late-Successional Reserve (LSR) 

Assessment recommendations, etc. 

� GIS shapefiles and coverages for wildlife sighting data, two NRIS FAUNA 

geodatabases [May 2008 and October 2007], LRMP prescriptions and land 

allocations, habitat/vegetation layers, and California Wildlife Habitat Relationship 

(WHR) model, transportation layer, user- created routes, streams, air photos, 

topographical maps, and orthophotos. 

IV. Terrestrial Wildlife Indicators 

Studies have documented that motorized travel can affect terrestrial species by 

increasing human-caused mortality, changing behavior due to disturbance, and modifying 

habitat (Gaines et al. 2003; Trombulek and Frissell 2000; USFS 2000). For each 

alternative, wildlife resources are analyzed for direct and indirect short-term impacts (1 

year) and cumulative long-term impacts (20 years). The following indicator measures 

related to motorized routes have been used in the Project Draft Environmental Impact 

Assessment (DEIS) to analyze the impacts of the project actions located in or near 

special interest wildlife occurrences or habitats. 




Indicator 1- Acres open to motor vehicle use and miles of unauthorized routes 

within terrestrial wildlife habitat. 

Miles and acres open to motorized use have the potential to affect wildlife in a number of 

ways. Effects to wildlife may range from behavioral changes, increased stress, or changes 

in reproductive success. The number of miles and acres open to motorized use is used to 

measure relative disturbance potential to terrestrial wildlife species on the STNF. Route 

designation tables and suitable habitat project maps are located in the project file. 

Indicator 2 - Density of Roads, Motorized Trails and Open Routes for Habitat 

Effectiveness 

Road and/or motorized trail and route density has often been used as a surrogate to 

estimate habitat effectiveness or the direct and indirect effects of motorized travel on 

terrestrial wildlife. Road and/or trail and route density thresholds for wildlife have not 

been established on the STNF, and thresholds for wildlife in the literature can vary by 

season and by geographic location. Therefore, road/trail density “thresholds” will not be 

used to determine effects of the project alternatives, but rather the density of roads, trails, 

and open unauthorized routes, on a forestwide basis is used for a relative index of the 

impact. 

Indicator 3 - Miles of Motorized Routes to Measure Potential Disturbance 

Use of motorized routes has the potential to affect wildlife in a number of ways. Effects 

to wildlife may range from behavioral changes, increased stress, or changes in 

reproductive success. The number of miles of motorized routes is used to measure 

relative disturbance potential to terrestrial wildlife species on the STNF. 

Indicator 4 - Number of sensitive sites within 1/2 mile of added routes for 

threatened, endangered and sensitive species. 

Number of sensitive sites within 1/2 mile of added routes for threatened, 

endangered and sensitive species would affect these species through behavioral changes, 

increased stress, or changes in reproductive success. The number of sites (e.g., PACs, 

nest sites, winter roost areas) is used to measure relative disturbance potential to 

threatened, endangered and sensitive species on the STNF. 2 

Indicator 5 - Zone of Influence [Amount of a Species (or Species Group’s) Key 

Habitat that is influenced by Motorized Routes] 

Motorized routes have a Zone of Influence within which habitat effectiveness or 

suitability is assumed to be reduced and wildlife population densities lower (Trombulak 

2 Note: This analysis was conducted using a 1/2 buffer from habitat and 

important/sensitive terrestrial wildlife areas rather than the more generally accepted ¼ 

mile for northern spotted owls. This more conservative approach is a standard Forest 

practice for preliminary analysis. 




and Frissell 2000, Forman et al. 2003, Gaines, et al. 2003). The effects to wildlife extend 

beyond the immediate road prism itself, into what can be referred to as a Zone of 

Influence adjacent to motorized roads and trails. The degree of effect of the various 

factors associated with roads and trails can be evaluated more effectively when the 

amount of a given species habitat that occurs within this Zone of Influence of motorized 

routes is considered. Wildlife species behaviors and habitats are modified within various 

distances from motorized routes. The distances of the Zone of Influence for individual 

species that are used in the analysis of effects are based upon the best available science in 

the literature. Because there are limited data and studies for many species, assumptions 

and generalizations were made for some species where no data were available. The Zone 

of Influence is a relative index of habitat effectiveness that is used to compare 

alternatives. The primary zone considered for this indicator is the Habitat Influence Zone 

(HIZ), which means the habitat for the species group is altered by human activity along 

the route i.e. firewood cutting, dispersed camping, picnicking, off-road travel, and wetseason 

travel. 

The HIZ is calculated by buffering the available routes forestwide that occur in a 

species’ habitat (both unauthorized and NFTS) by 60 meters on both sides; except for 

bald eagle which has an HIZ of 300 meters, the minimum distance recommended 

(Anthony and Issac, 1989; Fraser et al, 1985;McGarigal, 1988). At 400 meters width, 

HIZ zones from separate roads, given average density of roads within bald eagle habitat, 

would overlap. So for one mile an HIZ for 60 meters would equal 47.64 acres and for 300 

meters would equal 238.2 acres. The amount of suitable habitat within the HIZ is divided 

by the total amount of suitable habitat forestwide to determine the proportion of habitat 

that could be influenced by available routes. Following rankings developed by Gaines et 

al. (2003), the level of influence is as follows: 

� Less than 30 percent suitable habitat within habitat influence buffer is a low level of 

human influence. 

� Thirty to 50 percent within the habitat influence buffer is a moderate level of human 

influence. 

� More than 50 percent within the habitat influence buffer is a high level of human 

influence. 

V. Species Considered 

The species considered in this document are the mammals, birds, and invertebrates from 

the latest Regional Forester’s Sensitive species list dated October, 2007. Reptiles, 

amphibians, aquatic invertebrates, and fishes will be considered in separate documents. 

Mammals 

� Pacific fisher (Martes pennanti pacifica) 

� American marten (Martes americana) 


� California wolverine (Gulo gulo luteus) 

� pallid bat (Antrozous pallidus) 

� Townsend's big-eared bat (Corynorhinus townsendii) 

� western red bat (Lasiurus blossevillii) 

Birds 

� bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) 

� northern goshawk (Accipiter gentilis) 

� willow flycatcher (Empidonax traillii) 

Invertebrates 

� Shasta sideband snail (Monadenia troglodytes troglodytes) 

� Wintu sideband snail (Monadenia troglodytes wintu) 

� Shasta chaparral snail (Trilobopsis roperi) 

� Tehama chaparral snail (Trilobopsis tehamana) 

� Pressley hesperian snail (Vespericola pressleyi) 

� Shasta hesperian snail (Vespericola Shasta) 



Species Dropped From Further Analysis 

The following species will not be further discussed except in the determinations section 

for the reasons discussed below: 

Several unconfirmed California wolverine observations have been reported 

throughout the STNF. Several Wolverines occupy a wide variety of habitats remote from 

humans and human development (Banci 1994). Dr. Keith Aubrey (2007) reviewed the 

historical and current records on wolverine occurrence across the United States and did 

not find any credible sightings in northern California. However in February 2009, a 

wolverine was caught on camera in the central Sierra Nevada mountain range, north of 

Lake Tahoe on the Tahoe National Forest, before this latest occurrence the last verifiable 

sighting in California occurred in the southern Sierras in 1922. Given the lack of suitable 

habitat due to the high human use in the project area, wolverines are not likely to be 

found within or near the project area. 

The pallid bat depends on oak woodland habitat for foraging (USDA 1998). The 

project would have no effect on this bat because GIS habitat mapping revealed none of 

these special habitat components lie within or near areas proposed for routes. 

Although the Townsend’s big-eared bat also makes use of man-made structures 

such as abandoned buildings, water diversion tunnels, and bridges its distribution is 

strongly correlated with the availability of caves and cave-like roosting habitat (Maser 

1998; Pierson and Fellers 1998; USDA 1998; Fellers and Pierson 2002). The project 

would have no effect on this bat because GIS habitat mapping revealed none of these 

special habitat components lie within or near areas proposed for routes. 




The western red bat is dependent on riparian and riparian edge habitats (not to be 

confused with Riparian Reserves that often do not include riparian associated vegetation) 

and roosts in riparian foliage (USDA 1998). The project would have no effect on the 

western red bat because no riparian or riparian edge habitat lies within or near areas 

proposed for routes. 

The willow flycatcher occupies relatively large wet meadows adjacent to large 

streams, and tends to nest in large clumps of willows separated by openings (Marcot, 

1979). The project would have no effect on the willow flycatcher because GIS habitat 

mapping revealed no suitable habitat within or near areas proposed for routes. 

No suitable habitat exists for Shasta sideband snails, Wintu sideband snails, 

Shasta chaparral snails, Tehama chaparral snails, Pressley hesperian snails, Shasta 

hesperian snails, Siskiyou sideband, or Klamath shoulderband 

For information concerning the Cascade frog, Foothill yellow-legged frog, 

Western pond turtle, Shasta salamander and Southern torrent salamander please see the 

Herpetofauna Biological Evaluation. 

VI. Interagency Technical Assistance 

Consulting biologists (Keith Paul and Lyle Lewis) with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service (USFWS, Red Bluff Field Office) have been involved with the Travel 

Management EIS project through numerous, meetings and phone conversations since 

November 2008 to present. Field discussions have included review of proposed routes 

and proposed actions in reference to species associated with late-successional forest 

habitat including the northern spotted owl and Pacific fisher. The Pacific fisher is a 

federal candidate species as well as a Forest Service sensitive species. The northern 

spotted owl is a Federal threatened species, not a sensitive species, and is fully analyzed 

in the Biological Assessment (BA) submitted to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service as 

part of the consultation process under the Endangered Species Act. 

VII. Current Management Direction 

The Shasta-Trinity National Forest (STNF) is currently operating in full compliance with 

the Record of Decision for Amendments to Forest Service and Bureau of Land 

Management Planning Documents Within the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl (ROD; 




USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management, 1994). The Regional 

Forester approved the STNF Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan or 

LRMP) on April 28, 1995 and it became effective as of June 5, 1995. The Northwest 

Forest Plan ROD was incorporated into the Forest Plan. 

The Forest Plan adopts the ROD as the Federal contribution to the management 

and/or recovery of species associated with late-successional forest ecosystems such as the 

northern spotted owl and Pacific fisher. The STNF expects the network of areas 

withdrawn from active timber management (e.g., wilderness, late-successional reserves, 

riparian reserves, and administratively withdrawn areas) along with standards and 

guidelines related to snag, log, and hardwood retention to provide habitat adequate to 

maintain viable well-distributed populations of Forest Service Sensitive species. 

VIII. Description of Proposed Action 

Project Location 

The Shasta-Trinity National Forest is located in northern California, encompassing 2.1 

million acres of national forest system lands. The area analyzed for travel management 

includes all Shasta-Trinity National Forest System lands outside of designated 

wilderness, an area covering approximately 1.6 million acres. Private, state, county, other 

Federal lands, or other ownerships are excluded from the project area. 

Purpose and Need 

The National Forest Transportation System, as authorized by the National Forest 

Management Act and implemented through 16 USC 1608 – sec 1608, is installed to meet 

the “anticipated needs on an economical and environmentally sound basis.” The existing 

system consists of roads authorized for public use by the Shasta-Trinity National Forest 

and maintained by the Forest to standards established in the LRMP and by the Forest 

Service. 

Except in specific areas where Forest Orders have restricted off-highway vehicle 

use, the Forest has generally been open to public use. Although this use is 

‘unauthorized’, it has not been illegal. Over the years, Forest users have created 

unauthorized trails and rough roads through motorized and un-motorized off-road 

recreational use of the Forest. The presence of these recognizable, although unauthorized, 

roads and trails foster continued use from the public. In order to protect trust resources 

and provide a safe recreational environment for the public, there is a need to regulate 

unmanaged motorized vehicle travel by the public. The Travel Management Rule, 36 

CFR Part 212, Subpart B, provides a policy for managing this trend of unauthorized route 

proliferation through the designation of authorized NFS roads, trails and areas for 

motorized use, and the prohibition of cross-country motorized travel. 




In order to develop a management approach to this unauthorized use, the Forest 

did the following: 

1. Conducted an inventory of unauthorized routes. 3 

a. 5,085 separate unauthorized routes were considered for review totaling 

about 1,198 miles. 

b. Public meetings were held to solicit input and recommendations from the 

public. 

2. Solicited District Ranger recommendations on use and utility of each of the 

routes. 

a. Initially, 282 routes were recommended for review. 

3. Each route was then reviewed for Land and Resource Plan (LRMP) direction, for 

instance whether or not is was in wilderness, roadless areas, old-growth forest, 

etc. 

4. Field surveys identified road conditions and resource impacts including roadbed 

condition, route width, evidence of use, riparian and aquatic impacts, etc. 

a. Not all routes were surveyed due to constraints related to summer fires and 

other issues. 

b. Any routes that were not surveyed were not included in the final 

recommendations for NFTS inclusion. 

5. Routes that were not excluded from preliminary considerations due to LRMP 

direction or evident resource issues were analyzed by an interdisciplinary team for 

other resource or use issues. 

a. For example, routes on serpentine soils were eliminated due to concerns 

that naturally occurring asbestos would create a health hazard. 

6. Rangers then reviewed the environmental analysis and made recommendations 

for inclusion. 

The final proposed action does the following: 

a. Closes down 1,156 miles of unauthorized roads and trails (90.8% of all the 

miles initially identified). 

b. Closes down general unauthorized off-road use on the remaining 1.6 

million acres that had been unregulated previously. 

3 Note that the inventory and review only included unauthorized routes. Existing authorized routes that are 

part of the National Forest Transportation System were not reviewed or analyzed as part of this process, nor 

were other recreational uses such as hiking or boating. 


Baseline 



c. Authorizes the existing use (with some restrictions) of 106 miles of roads 

and trails (about 9.2% of all the miles initially identified). 

The current baseline of use consists in unauthorized, legal and relatively unrestricted use 

of about 1,156 miles of user-created roads and trails. 4 The use on each of these routes is 

highly variable ranging from occasional use sufficient to maintain visual evidence of a 

road or trail, to consistent and frequent public use. The proposed action will prohibit 

OHV traffic on about 91% of these areas and will allow the existing use on about 9% of 

these areas to continue. Although existing use will continue on some of these areas, 

overall, this action will significantly reduce the overall use of these areas. 

Existing vegetation on these sites has been impacted by past use, but the proposed 

action does not permit additional modifications of vegetation. Maintaining these area to 

USFS standards in the future will likely to prevent any re-growth. 

Proposed Action 

The proposed action is designed to address the need to regulate unmanaged motor vehicle 

use, provide motor vehicle access to existing dispersed recreation opportunities, and 

provide a diversity of motorized recreation opportunities. The proposed action was 

published in the Federal Register on August 8, 2008, initiating this environmental 

analysis and seeking public comment. 

The proposed action was developed using a five-step process. 

1. First, district rangers made recommendations on unauthorized routes to add to the 

Forest transportation system based on known recreation use. Routes requested for 

addition by the public during review of the inventory maps were also considered. 

2. All unauthorized routes were reviewed for consistency with land management 

plan direction and applicable laws, regulations, and policy. There is management 

direction for wilderness areas, non-motorized recreation areas, wildlife habitat, 

old growth forests, and riparian areas among others. 

3. Field surveys were conducted on most routes recommended by the district rangers 

to collect site-specific data regarding the physical condition of the route, 

proximity to water bodies, apparent uses, and suitability for public use. Not all 

recommended routes were surveyed due to time constraints, wildfires, and 

4 Some small percentage of these areas had existing restrictions such as wilderness that allowed 

enforcement. These areas that had existing legally enforceable restriction were not considered and will 

receive the additional legal protection of the Forest Closure Order. 




weather conditions. If a route was not surveyed, it was not included in the 

proposed action. 

4. The Forest interdisciplinary team conducted preliminary effects analysis on routes 

recommended by rangers. The team analyzed such things as: fish habitat, 

threatened and endangered wildlife, heritage resources, sensitive plants, unstable 

areas and water quality concerns. Some routes were screened out because of 

resource concerns. 

5. Finally, district rangers reviewed the routes and preliminary effects analysis with 

the interdisciplinary team and made the final choices on the proposed action. 

Some routes were included even if resource concerns were noted because of high 

recreation use; for example, access to the Trinity River through riparian reserves. 

The proposed action has been refined slightly since the publication of the NOI in 

August 2008 due to database updates and additional analysis. These modifications are 

described in detail in Chapter 2 under alternative 2. In addition to changes in some of the 

proposed unauthorized routes, the original proposals regarding vehicle class and speed 

limit restrictions below the high-water marks of Shasta Lake and Trinity Lake have been 

expanded to propose those areas as additions to the NFTS as managed facilities. Seasonal 

restrictions and cultural resource protection measures were added on routes and below the 

high water mark on Shasta Lake and Trinity Lake. Other modifications to the proposed 

action include a non-significant Forest Plan amendment to allow six specific routes in or 

near cultural sites identified in the Forest Plan under Prescription XI: Heritage Resource 

Management; and also an added mitigation measure to retain felled hazard trees along 

routes in late-successional reserves to provide habitat for TES species and their prey. 

In the Notice of Intent and on the maps of the inventory and the proposed action, 

the Forest included motorized trails in the Chappie-Shasta OHV area that are under the 

jurisdiction of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). The STNF and BLM Redding 

Field Office co-manage the Chappie-Shasta OHV area. However, in the future, motorized 

trails which are the jurisdiction of BLM will not be included in the miles and on the 

maps. Based on this distinction, there are 87.7 miles of NFTS motorized trails open for 

wheeled vehicles on the Forest rather than the 152 miles reported in the NOI. 

The proposed action would: 

� Prohibit cross-country motor vehicle travel off designated NFTS roads, motorized 

trails, and areas by the public except as allowed by permit or other authorization 

(excluding snowmobile use). 

� Amend the Forest Plan to be consistent with the Travel Management Rule (36 

CFR Part 212, Subpart B) prohibiting cross-country motorized vehicle travel off 

designated NFTS roads and trails outside of designated areas by removing 

reference to OHV cross-country travel in the Forest Plan and including as a 




forestwide standard “Prohibit wheeled vehicle travel off designated roads and 

trails except for administrative use or uses under permitted activities or within 

designated areas.’’ 

� Add routes to the NFTS: The STNF currently manages and maintains 

approximately 5,329 miles of NFTS roads open to public travel, and 87 miles of 

NFTS motorized trails (excluding snowmobile trails). Based on the stated purpose 

and need to provide motorized access to dispersed recreation sites and to provide 

a diversity of experience, the STNF proposes to add 36.51 miles to its NFTS 

roads and 7.69 miles to its NFTS motorized trails, bringing the total of NFTS 

roads open to public motor vehicle travel to approximately 5,365 miles and NFTS 

motorized trails to approximately 95 miles. These routes are proposed because 

they provide important access to dispersed recreation sites and allow for diverse 

riding experiences. The NFTS road and trail additions are listed in appendix A in 

the DEIS and under “alternative 2” along with the permitted vehicle class and, if 

applicable, season of use. 

� Add open areas below the high-water marks of Shasta Lake (28,403 acres) and 

Trinity Lake (14,870 acres) with vehicle class restricted to highway-legal vehicles 

and a maximum speed limit of 15 miles per hour. Seasonal restrictions and 

cultural resource protection measures would be applied to portions of both open 

areas. This action will address the need to prevent resource damage caused by 

unmanaged motor vehicle use by the public. These areas would be considered part 

of the NFTS and managed as facilities. 

� Amend the Forest Plan to allow six specific routes in or near cultural sites 

identified in the Forest Plan under Prescription XI: Heritage Resource 

Management. The non-significant amendment to the Forest Plan would state 

“Off-highway vehicle use will be permitted on the following roads and trails to 

provide dispersed recreation access and connectivity for motorized recreation 

opportunities: SE314, SE476, SE477, SFMU13, SW256, and U42N18A.” The 

added routes will meet the purpose and need to enhance motorized access and the 

motorized riding experience. 

A detailed description of the proposed action can be found in chapter 2 of this 

EIS. Maps depicting the proposed action can be viewed at 

www.fs.fed.us/r5/shastatrinity/, requested on CD from the Shasta-Trinity National Forest 

headquarters, or viewed at Forest headquarters and ranger stations. 




Additional Design Criteria for further Protection of Forest Resources 

(Mitigation Measures) 

Design criteria were developed to reduce or avoid impacts to forest resources. Below are 

those that closely relate to wildlife issues: 

1) Limited Operating Periods (LOPs) would be implemented to avoid direct adverse 

impacts to the northern goshawk and bald eagle. From February 1 through August 15 

for the northern goshawk and January 1 to August 15 for the bald eagle, all use of 

unauthorized routes will be prohibited within 1/2 mile of suitable nesting/roosting 

habitat. These LOPs may be lifted if surveys using currently accepted protocols 

indicate specific areas are not occupied by breeding goshawk or eagles or if a more 

detailed biological evaluation indicates that projected disturbance levels would not be 

likely to adversely affect the protected individuals. 

2) Hazard trees felled along routes within LSRs for safety reasons would be left on site 

as logs. 

IX. Existing Environment 

The late-successional forest group of sensitive species is comprised of northern goshawk, 

American marten, and Pacific fisher. These species are associated with mature to old 

forests that contain characteristics of late-successional stages. These characteristics 

include large trees, relatively high canopy closure, elevated amounts of decadence in the 

form of snags, down logs, tree decay and deformity. 

Table 1. Routes within Late Successional Reserves 

Alternative Route No 

Miles in LSR 

RC 330 

Miles in LSR 

RC 331 

Miles in LSR 

RC 332 

Miles in LSR 

RC 334 

2, 5 JG30 0.18 

2, 5 JG31 0.21 

2, 5 JM244 0.10 

2, 5 JM44 0.15 

2, 5 NRA1 0.26 

2, 5 PM2004 0.32 

2, 5 PM702 0.04 

2, 5 RM1036 0.52 

2, 5 SFMU4 0.02 

2, 5 SFMU6 0.02 

2, 5 SFMU7 0.01 

2, 5 TC1098 0.05 

Miles in LSR 

RC 357 


Alternative Route No 

Miles in LSR 

RC 330 

Miles in LSR 

RC 331 

Miles in LSR 

RC 332 



Miles in LSR 

RC 334 

Miles in LSR 

RC 357 

2, 5 TC1238 0.04 

2, 5 TC1249 0.06 

2, 5 TC319 0.12 

2, 5 TC828 .08 

2, 5 TRMU2 0.54 

2, 5 TRMU3 0.15 

2, 5 TRMU5 0.19 

2, 5 TRMU6 0.14 

2, 5 U29N28C 0.51 

2, 5 U31N02Q 0.28 

2, 5 U35N85A 0.02 

2, 5 U40N13D 0.10 

2, 5 U4N12D 3.29 

2, 5 UT29N30HA 0.23 

Grand Total = 7.60 miles 4.64 0.79 1.16 0.92 0.10 

The unauthorized routes do not constitute a change to habitats but are an existing 

condition whose vegetation-change impacts have already occurred. 

Pacific Fisher 

Studies on the habitat use of fishers in the western United States demonstrate that the 

fisher is strongly associated with mature and late successional forests (Seglund 1995, 

Campbell 2004, Zielinski et al. 2004). In particular, fishers are generally found in stands 

with high canopy closure, large trees and snags, large woody debris, large hardwoods, 

and multiple canopy layers. Trees must be large and old enough to bear the type of 

stresses that initiate cavities, and the type of ecological processes (e.g., decay, 

woodpecker activity) that form cavities of sufficient size to be useful to fishers; tree 

species that typically decay to form cavities in the bole are more important than those that 

do not (Zielinski et al 2004). These characteristics are virtually identical to those 

associated with late-successional (especially the old-growth subset). The major structural 

components of resting/denning habitat are typically found in greater density and larger 

sizes in the old-growth subset of late-successional forest. 

Fishers are opportunistic, generalist predators with a diverse diet, including birds, 

porcupines (Erethizon dorsatum), snowshoe hares (Lepus americana), squirrels (Sciurus 

spp., Tamiasciurus spp.,Glaucomys spp.), mice and voles (Clethrionomys gapperi, 

Microtus spp., Peromyscus spp.), shrews(Blarina spp., Sorex spp.), insects, carrion of 

deer (Odocoileus spp.) and moose (Alces alces), vegetation, and fruit (Zielinski et al. 

1999, Weir et al. 2005, Bowmen 2006). 




The combination of sighting reports, monitoring results, and study findings 

demonstrate fisher are widely distributed across a variety of habitat types throughout the 

Shasta-Trinity National Forest (STNF). Data from the STNF GIS database shows over 

284 observational and/or capture fisher records from 1941 to 1991. Research surveys 

conducted by Lindstrand from 2003 to 2005,(Lindstrand III 2006) recorded 13 new fisher 

sites. Yaeger (2005) captured 22 individual fishers from 1992 to 1996 in the Trinity Lake 

area. (Zielinski et al. 2004) radio-marked 22 individual fishers in his coastal study area 

(Six Rivers and Shasta-Trinity National Forest). 

Roads can impact fisher through direct mortality and habitat fragmentation. The 

total amount of fisher habitat on the STNF is 360,732 acres. Fisher appear to be well 

distributed across the forest according to the observation records. Similar to marten there 

is only one documented den site on the forest. It is likely, due to the number of 

observations, that most den sites are unknown. 

American Marten 

Marten prefer coniferous forest habitat with large diameter trees and snags, large down 

logs, moderate-to-high canopy closure, and an interspersion of riparian areas and 

meadows. Important habitat attributes are: vegetative diversity, with predominately 

mature forest; snags; dispersal cover; and large woody debris (Allen 1987). Marten are 

managed by the provisions in the NWFP that provide for retaining canopy cover and the 

provision of decadence in the form of large down logs and snags. On the Shasta-Trinity 

National Forest, the marten is associated with higher elevation (>4,500 feet) latesuccessional 

red-fir stands (Buskirk and Powell 1994); Freel, 1991) and to a lesser extent 

lower elevation conifer forest similar to fisher habitat. The total amount of suitable 

habitat on STNF is 360,732 acres. Marten appear to be well distributed across the forest 

according to the observation records. There is only one documented den site on the forest. 

It is likely, due to the number of observations, that most den sites are unknown. 

At a landscape scale, patches of preferred habitat and the distribution of openings with 

respect to habitat patches may be critical to the distribution and abundance of martens 

(USDA 1994). While marten use small openings, and particularly meadows for foraging, 

these openings must occupy a small percent of the landscape. Martens have not been 

found in landscapes with greater than 25 percent of the area in openings (Hargis and 

Bissonette 1999; Potvin et al. 2000). Gaines et al. (2003) reported than marten may be 

affected by the following road and motorized trail-associated factors:, direct mortality 

from vehicles, displacement or avoidance, habitat loss or fragmentation, snag reduction, 

down log reduction, edge effects, movement barrier or filter, and route for competitors. 

Martens are known to be sensitive to changes in overhead cover, such as roads or 

trails (Hargis and McCullough 1984, USDA 1994). Roads and trails can fragment habitat, 

thus affecting the ability of marten to use otherwise suitable habitat on either side of the 

route. Roads may decrease prey and food availability for marten (Allen 1987) due to prey 




population reductions from road kills and/or behavioral avoidance of roads. In a study 

conducted on the Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit and Sierra National Forest, 

however, Zielinski (2007) found that marten occupancy or probability of detection did 

not change in relation to the presence or absence of motorized routes and OHV use when 

the routes (plus a 50 meter buffer) did not exceed about 20 percent of a 50 square 

kilometer area, and traffic did not exceed one vehicle every 2 hours. The study did not, 

however, measure behavioral changes or changes in use patterns and the study authors 

caution that application of their results to other locations would apply only if OHV use at 

the other locations is no greater than reported in their study. 

High levels of coarse woody debris (snags, downed logs, root masses, large 

branches) are an essential component of marten habitat, especially during the winter 

months when marten require subnivian structures for cover and hunting opportunities. In 

addition, large logs with cavities provide rest and den sites for marten and fisher. 

Activities that remove large logs are therefore likely to degrade marten habitat (USDA 

1994). Hazard tree removal along roads will reduce numbers of snags (future down logs) 

within a zone of influence of about 60 meters alongside roads. In addition, motorized 

routes provide access for fuelwood collection, which also contributes to decreased levels 

of snag and down wood within roadside corridors. However, snag removal within 60 

meters of roads may be less consequential considering that displacement and avoidance 

factors may reduce marten habitat use adjacent to motorized routes. 

Northern Goshawk 

Observations and surveys have documented that the northern goshawk is welldistributed 

across the northeastern section of the Forest where aggregations of large trees 

with moderate to dense canopy cover provide suitable nesting and foraging conditions. 

The total amount of suitable habitat on the STNF is 622,581 acres. There are 38 known 

territories within the forest boundary. Five territories are within ½ mile of unauthorized 

routes (see Table 2). All routes within Table 2 will have a limited operating period of 

February 1 to August 15 to avoid disturbance effects to the goshawk. 

Table 2. Routes with Limited Operating Period (LOP) for Goshawk 

Route ID Miles LOP Season of Use Alternative 

EA284 0.68 Feb 1-Aug 15 Aug 16-Jan 31 5 

MC090 0.16 Feb 1-Aug 15 Aug 16-Jan 31 4, 5 

U40N50A 0.15 Feb 1- Aug15 Aug 16-Jan 31 5 

SFMU18 0.03 Feb 1- Aug15 Aug 16-Jan 31 2, 5 

TC1249 0.06 Feb 1- Aug15 Aug 16-Jan 31 2, 5 

Collection, habitat loss, fragmentation, disturbance at a specific site, and edge 

effects were described by Gaines et al. (2003) as being road- and trail-associated factors 

that potentially affect the northern goshawk. Human disturbance has the potential to 

cause goshawks to abandon nesting during the nesting and post fledging period (February 

15 through September 15). Roads and trails provide easy flight access. These sites can 

potentially be areas of conflict as these roads are opened up in the spring. Grubb et al. 




(1998) reported that vehicle traffic from roads did not elicit any discernable behavioral 

response from goshawks at distances exceeding 400 meters (0.25 miles) from nests. 

A network of roads and motorized trails can fragment goshawk habitat by 

reducing canopy closure (Beier and Drennan 1997, Daw and DeStefano 2001) and by 

reducing forest interior patch size. However, how habitat fragmentation from roads and 

trails affects goshawk habitat suitability is not well understood. Generally, as road width 

increases, so does fragmentation. Native surfaced roads and trails probably do not pose as 

much a risk to habitat fragmentation as do surfaced roads which, due to their higher use, 

typically are wider and have more regular maintenance and hazard tree management. 

BALD EAGLE 

Bald eagles are dependent on riparian and river systems to provide foraging 

locations for fish and waterfowl (Zeiner 1990). They primarily use large trees for nest 

locations that are close to the shore of lakes or streams. Jenkins (1992) found that bald 

eagles on the middle Pit River used trees that averaged 44.2 inches in diameter and 

averaged 1,391 feet from the water’s edge. Within the STNF, 46 bald eagle breeding 

territories (31 Shasta sites and 15 Trinity sites) have been identified in recent years. The 

analysis area was a ½ mile buffer around all major water bodies within the STNF. The 

total amount of suitable habitat on the STNF is 405,787 acres. For the purposes of this 

analysis an HIZ of 300 meters was used to either side of routes added to NFTS. This 

means that for one mile the HIZ is equal to 238.2 acres. 

One nest site is within ½ mile of an unauthorized route (see Table 3). The route 

within Table 3 will have a limited operating period of January 1 to August 15 to avoid 

disturbance effects to the eagle. 


Table 3. Route with Limited Operating Period (LOP) for Bald Eagle 

Route ID Miles LOP Season of Use Alternative 

JM72 0.06 Jan 1-Aug 15 Aug 16-Dec31 2, 5 



LOPs were also established with the lake bottoms of Shasta Lake and Trinity 

Lake for Alternatives 2, 4, and 5. 

On July 9, 2007, USDI Fish and Wildlife Service in a Final Rule announced that 

the bald eagle would be removed (delisted) from the Federal List of Endangered and 

Threatened Wildlife in the lower 48 states. The bald eagle continues to be protected by 

the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act and Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Upon 

delisting, the bald eagle was placed on the Regional Forester’s list of Sensitive Species. 

The road and motorized trail-associated factors that have been identified for the 

bald eagle include poaching, disturbance at specific site (nests and roost sites), and 

avoidance and displacement (Skagen et al. 1991, Stalmaster and Newman 1978). Several 

studies reported that eagles avoid or are adversely affected by human disturbance during 

the breeding period, which may result in nest abandonment and reproductive failure 

(Buehler et al. 1991, Grubb and King 1991, Grubb et al. 1992, Chandler et al. 1995, 

Grubb 1995). 

The response of bald eagles to human activities is variable. Individual bald eagles 

show different thresholds of tolerance for disturbance. The distance at which a 

disturbance causes bald eagles to modify their behavior also is affected by the sight 

distance of the motorized use. For example, forested habitat can reduce the noise 

generated by motorized activity. In addition, if the noise-generating activity is hidden 

from the nest site, disturbance thresholds may be reduced. Some studies report that bald 

eagles seem to be more sensitive to humans afoot than to vehicular traffic (Grubb and 

King 1991, Hamann 1999). Anthony et al. (1989) found that the mean productivity of 

bald eagle nests was negatively correlated with their proximity to main logging roads, 

and the most recently used nests were located in areas farther from all types of roads and 

recreational facilities when compared to older nests in the same territory. However, other 

studies indicate bald eagles can tolerate a certain amount of human disturbance (Harmata 

and Oakleaf 1992 in Gaines et al. 2003). Disturbance is most critical during: nest 

building, courtship, egg laying, and incubation (Dietrich 1990). In general, recommended 

buffer distances to reduce potential disturbance to bald eagles during the breeding season 

have ranged from 300 to 800 meters (Anthony and Isaacs 1989, Fraser et al. 1985, 

McGarigal 1988). Grubb et al. (1992) found that eagles are disturbed by most activities 

that occur within 1500 feet; and they take flight when activities occur within 600 feet. 

Grubb and King (1991) assessed pedestrian traffic and vehicle traffic on bald eagle 

nesting activities and recommended buffers of 550 meters for pedestrians and 450 meters 

for vehicles. 


X. Description of Alternatives 



For this analysis all unauthorized routes will be referred to as “routes.” These user 

created routes will not be further defined as roads or motorized trails in the description of 

alternatives. The splitting does not further inform the analysis. The use of all motorized 

vehicles on these routes has similar enough effects to resources to allow lumping these 

areas into one category of routes. 

No Action – Alternative 1 

Under this alternative no changes would be made to the current NFTS (approximately 

5,329 miles of roads and 87 miles of trails open to wheeled motor vehicle travel) and no 

cross-country travel prohibition would be implemented in areas that are currently open to 

cross-country summertime use. The Travel Management Rule would not be implemented, 

and no motor vehicle use map (MVUM) would be produced. Motor vehicle travel by the 

public would not be limited to designated routes and would continue on the existing 

unauthorized routes (1,252 miles). Cross-country travel could continue on 1,632,316 

acres of national forest lands outside of designated Wilderness. Unrestricted motor 

vehicle use below the high water marks on the reservoirs would continue. The agency 

would take no affirmative action on any unauthorized routes or open areas. 

Approximately 264 miles of routes in Late-Successional Reserves across the 

forest will remain open for use. Six sensitive species nest sites; five goshawk and one 

bald eagle, are located within ½ mile of unauthorized routes. 

Alternative 2 – Proposed Action 

Under this alternative: 

� Prohibits cross-country motor vehicle travel. 

� Adds 36.51 miles of NFTS roads and 7.69 miles of NFTS motorized trails, with 

seasonal and vehicle class restrictions assigned to some routes. 

� Adds open areas below the high-water marks of Shasta Lake (28,403 acres) and 

Trinity Lake (14,870 acres) with vehicle class restricted to highway-legal vehicles 

and a maximum speed limit of 15 miles per hour. Seasonal restrictions and cultural 

resource protection measures would be applied to portions of both open areas. 

� Amends the Forest Plan with a non-significant amendment to be consistent with the 

Travel Management Rule in prohibiting cross-country motor vehicle travel 




� Amends the Forest Plan to allow six specific routes in or near cultural sites identified 

in the Forest Plan under Prescription XI: Heritage Resource Management. 

Approximately 8 miles of unauthorized routes would be added to LSR areas on 

the STNF. Three sensitive species nest sites; two goshawk and one bald eagle, are located 

within ½ mile of unauthorized routes. Those routes will have an LOP of February 1 to 

August 15 for goshawks and January 1 to August 15 for bald eagle to avoid disturbance 

effects. 

A total of approximately 44.2 miles of routes would be added to the NFTS in this 

alternative and the use of approximately 1,206 miles of unauthorized, use created routes 

will be prohibited. Additionally, this alternative would add 8 miles of unauthorized routes 

within mapped LSR areas on the STNF. 

Alternative 3 – Cross Country Travel Prohibition 

Alternative 3 responds to issues related to quiet, non-motorized recreation and impacts to 

natural resources (significant issues #2 and #3) by prohibiting cross-country motor 

vehicle travel off of designated roads, trails, and areas. No facilities would be added to 

the NFTS. This alternative provides a baseline for comparing the impacts of other 

alternatives that propose additions to the NFTS. Alternative 3: 

� Prohibits cross-country motor vehicle travel 


Travel Management Rule in prohibiting cross-country motor vehicle travel. 

Zero miles of routes would be added in LSRs across the forest. 

A total of zero miles of routes would be added to the NFTS in this alternative and 

the use of approximately 1,250 miles of unauthorized, use created routes will be 

prohibited. Additionally, no more routes could be created by motorized vehicle users 

across the forest in LSRs. 

Alternative 4 – Minimize Impacts to Natural Resources and Roadless Areas 

Under this alternative the number of additions to the NFTS is limited and restrictions are 

increased to reduce conflicts and to provide additional resource protection. This 

alternative prohibits cross-country travel and avoids additions and changes to the NFTS 

in areas where resource concerns were raised by the public. 


� Adds 0.88 miles as NFTS roads and 14.68 miles as NFTS motorized trails, with 

seasonal and vehicle class restrictions assigned to some routes. 




� Adds open areas below the high-water marks of Shasta Lake (28,403 acres), Trinity 

Lake (14,870 acres), and Iron Canyon Reservoir (429 acres) with vehicle class 

restricted to highway-legal vehicles and a maximum speed limit of 10 miles per hour. 

Seasonal restrictions and cultural resource protection measures would be 

applied to portions of all open areas. 

� Proposes motorized mixed-use on 30.41 miles of existing NFTS maintenance level 3 

roads, pending a mixed-use analysis and decision by the responsible official. 


Travel Management Rule in prohibiting cross-country motor vehicle travel. 

One goshawk nest site is located within ½ mile of an unauthorized route. This 

route will have an LOP of February 1 to August 15 to avoid disturbance effects. 

A total of 15.56 miles of previously unauthorized user created routes would be 

added to the NFTS and the use of approximately 1,234 miles of unauthorized, use created 

routes will be prohibited. Additionally, no more routes could be created by motorized 

vehicle users across the forest in LSRs. 

Alternative 5 – Improved Access and Motorized Recreation Opportunities 

Under this alternative additional routes are provided and restrictions are reduced. Route 

additions and motorized mixed-use road segments were chosen to provide loops and 

extended rides. This alternative would maximize motorized recreation opportunities, 

including those accessing dispersed recreation activities. 


� Adds 43.49 miles as NFTS roads and 62.62 miles as NFTS motorized trails, with 

vehicle class and seasonal restrictions assigned to some routes. 

� Adds open areas below the high-water marks of Shasta Lake (28,403 acres), Trinity 

Lake (14,870 acres), and Iron Canyon Reservoir (429 acres) with all vehicle classes 

allowed, a maximum speed limit of 10 miles per hour, and seasonal restrictions and 

cultural resource protection measures applied where needed. 

� Proposes motorized mixed-use on 30.41 miles of existing NFTS maintenance level 3 

roads, pending a mixed-use analysis and decision by the responsible official. 


Travel Management Rule in prohibiting cross-country motor vehicle travel 

� Amends the Forest Plan to allow seven specific routes in or near cultural sites 

identified in the Forest Plan under Prescription XI: Heritage Resource Management. 




Approximately 7.6 miles of unauthorized routes would be added to LSR areas on 

the STNF. Six sensitive species nest sites; five goshawk and one bald eagle, are located 



effects. 

A total of 106.12 miles of previously unauthorized user created routes would be 

added to the NFTS and the use of approximately 1,144 miles of unauthorized, use created 

routes will be prohibited. Additionally, this alternative would add 8 miles of unauthorized 

routes within mapped LSR areas on the STNF. 

Comparison of Environmental Consequences by Alternative 

Table 4. Indicator values by alternative 

Indicator - Terrestrial Biota Alternatives 

Indicator Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Alt. 5 

1 - Acres open to motor vehicle use 

and miles of unauthorized routes 

within terrestrial wildlife habitat 

2 - Density of Roads, Motorized 

Trails and Open Routes for northern 

goshawk 


Trails and Open Routes for marten 


Trails and Open Routes for Pacific 

fisher 


Trails and Open Routes for bald 

eagle 

3 - Miles of Motor vehicle routes at 

forest-wide scale and within habitat 

for late-successional species group 

– northern goshawk 




– marten 




– Pacific fisher 



for riparian species group – bald 

eagle 

4 - Number of sensitive sites within 

½ mile of added routes for 

threatened, endangered and 

1,632,316 ac 

1,252 mi 

33,254 ac 

44.2 mi 

32,845 ac 

0 mi 

33,039 ac 

15.56 mi 

33,697 ac 

106.12 mi 

1.16 1.01 1.0 1.01 1.0 

1.42 1.16 1.15 1.15 1.16 

1.42 1.16 1.15 1.15 1.16 

1.23 0.99 0.98 0.98 1.0 

1,126 979 974 975 982 

800 652 649 649 653 

800 652 649 649 653 

782 631 624 624 633 

15 5 0 7 15 


Indicator - Terrestrial Biota Alternatives 



Indicator Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Alt. 5 

sensitive species 

5 - Zone of Influence – Late- 

Successional species – northern 

goshawk 


Successional species – marten 


Successional species – Pacific 

fisher 

5 - Zone of Influence – Riparian 

species – bald eagle 

XI. Direct and Indirect Effects 

8.6 7.5 7.5 7.5 7.5 

10.6 8.6 8.6 8.6 8.6 

10.6 8.6 8.6 8.6 8.6 

45.9 37.0 7.3 36.6 37.2 

Gaines et al. (2003) conducted a literature review of 71 late-successional, forestassociated 

wildlife species and identified negative effects on these species that can result 

from route-associated factors. These impacts include direct loss of habitat, diminished 

quality of habitat attributes or fragmentation, and road avoidance or displacement 

resulting from direct harassment or noise disturbance. Various studies have shown that 

this species group is vulnerable to disturbance, changes in habitat, or displacement by 

habitat generalists. 

Alternative 1- No Action 

Direct/Indirect Effects of the prohibition of cross –country motor vehicle travel 

There would be no prohibition of cross-country travel under this alternative. A large 

impact, both in the short term and the long term would be disturbance that would cause 

individuals to move or alter behavior. The potential for disturbance to focal species 

within this group can be evaluated using Indicator 1 (table 5). The miles of unauthorized 

routes that currently exist within the LSR is 264. 

Table 5. Alternative 1: Measurement Indicator 1 - Miles of Routes and acres affected within Potential 

Habitat. 

Species 

Northern 

goshawk 

Total 

Acres of 

Habitat 

Miles of 

Unauthorized 

Routes within 

Habitat on NF 

Combined Miles of NFTS 

and Unauthorized 

Routes within Habitat on 

NF 

622,581 152 1,126 

Acres of habitat 

affected by combined 

routes (habitat 

influence zone)(sq 

miles) 

53,643 (83.82) 

American 360,732 151 800 38,112 (59.55 


Species 

marten 

Pacific 

fisher 

Total 

Acres of 

Habitat 

Miles of 

Unauthorized 

Routes within 

Habitat on NF 


and Unauthorized 

Routes within Habitat on 

NF 

360,732 151 800 



Acres of habitat 

affected by combined 

routes (habitat 

influence zone)(sq 

miles) 

38,112 (59.55) 

Bald eagle 405,787 158 782 187,258 (291) 

Northern goshawks actively defend nest sites during portions of the breeding 

season. Cross-country travel could lead to disturbance that disrupts pair-bonding, causes 

exposure of eggs or young to inclement weather, and increases adult energy expenditures. 

Marten and fisher could be affected by loss of dens, increased disturbance of 

individuals, and by indirect impacts to prey. Vehicles have the potential to collapse den 

sites, albeit slight, resulting in the potential loss of adults or young. Vehicles can also 

increase disturbance, resulting in additional energy expenditures. Prey populations may 

be impacted by increased disturbance resulting in lowered energy reserves available for 

the production of young. If cross-country travel occurs to the extent that soil compaction 

was to occur, food resources for prey species could be diminished. Reduced production 

of young and reduced production of food would reduce the size of prey populations 

available for marten and fisher. 

This alternative contains approximately 158 miles of existing unauthorized routes 

within modeled bald eagle habitat. Although it appears that some bald eagles will 

habituate to human presence, eagles appear to be generally wary and thus are considered 

susceptible to disturbance. This may be because human contact is infrequent. 

Disturbance to eagle activities could occur along routes causing increased energy 

expenditures, lowered fat reserves, and ultimately lower reproduction. However, the 

amount of disturbance is likely limited because of the low volume of traffic that occurs 

on the unauthorized routes. 

Cross-country travel could impact eagles because they appear to be more sensitive 

to foot travel than vehicle travel (Gaines et al. 2003). Access by vehicles under 

incubating birds or winter roosting birds is presumed to be detrimental. Vehicle use under 

nest and roost trees probably results in lowered reproductive success. Vehicles can also 

increase disturbance, resulting in additional energy expenditures. 

Although occasional direct mortality to adults may occur from collisions with 

vehicles on highways, this is not known to have occurred from slower moving vehicles 

off road. If off-road vehicle collisions with the focal species in this group do occur, such 

occurrence appears to be an exceedingly rare event and has not been reported within the 

Forest. At the long-term analysis point (20 years in the future), assuming an increase of 

off-highway use, direct mortality of adults would still be unlikely. 


Direct/Indirect Effects of adding facilities to the NFTS 



Table 6. Measurement Indicators 2-5 for Alternative 1 

Indicators: 2 3 4 5 

Species 

Group 

LSR 

Species Total 

habitat (sq 

miles) 

Density of 

routes 

within 

habitat 

Miles of 

routes 

within 

habitat 

# of TES 

sites within 

a ½ mile of 

added 

routes 

Percent of habitat 

affected by route 

(habitat influence 

zone) 


goshawk 

973 1.16 1,126 5 8.6 – Low rank 

Marten/Fisher 564 1.42 800 0 10.6 – Low rank 

Riparian Bald eagle 634 1.23 782 1 45.9 – Moderate rank 

Route density was averaged forestwide, to give an approximate coarse measure of habitat 

effectiveness for late-successional species. The type of impacts to these species depends 

on the type of route, amount and type of use, and season of use (Gaines 2003). Ouren and 

Watts (2005) concluded that proximity of secondary routes to arterial roads, highways, 

and population centers has a large influence on the intensity of use on these routes; the 

utility of road density analysis at the low-use end of the spectrum diminishes. Route 

density thresholds for late-successional species are not well understood. Route densities 

therefore are presented to compare relative effects between the alternatives. Under this 

alternative which does not prohibit cross-country travel or on unauthorized routes, route 

density is 1.16 miles/sq miles for goshawk, and 1.42 for marten and fisher. 

Unauthorized and NFTS routes affect approximately 11 percent of modeled 

marten and fisher habitat, approximately 9 percent of modeled goshawk habitat, and 

approximately 46 percent of modeled bald eagle habitat through alteration and 

disturbance. The potential impact to these species is low according to the rankings used 

in this analysis. This would indicate a low level of impact for marten, fisher and goshawk 

from edge effects, snag and downed log reduction, and habitat loss and fragmentation 

resulting from route-associated factors (Gaines et al. 2003). The potential impact for the 

bald eagle is moderate according to the rankings used in this analysis. This would 

indicate a moderate level of impact from mostly route-associated disturbance (Gaines et 

al. 2003). Most of the effects revealed by the habitat influence analysis are from the 

existing approved transportation system. Unauthorized routes constitute 1,252 miles (965 

miles of roads and 287 miles of trails) while the transportation system extends across 

approximately 6,760 miles (5,329 miles of roads open to the public and 1,431 miles of 

trails). 

Six sensitive species nest sites; five goshawk and one eagle, are located within ½ 

mile of unauthorized routes. Under Alternative 1 disturbance effects would continue as 

no Limited Operating Periods (LOPs) would be placed on routes or lake bottoms. 




Roads can contribute to habitat fragmentation since the fisher generally avoids 

entering open areas that have no overstory or shrub cover. Roads, and the associated 

presence of vehicles and humans, can also cause animals to modify their behavior near 

roads (USDA Forest Service 2001). Previous studies have reported a negative correlation 

between detections of fisher and roads (Dark 1997, Golightly et al. 2006). Indirect effects 

would include the effects on prey populations that may also avoid or be killed by 

vehicles. 

Direct/Indirect Effects of changes to the NFTS 

Under this alternative there would be no changes to the existing NFTS. Miles of available 

NFTS routes within the late-successional or riparian species habitat and potential acres 

affected by routes would be unchanged from values shown in Table 6 for the short term. 

Present season of use and vehicle class on NFTS routes would continue. 

Cumulative Effects 

Present and reasonably foreseeable actions are those actions identified on the STNF 

Schedule of Proposed Actions (see Appendix B in the DEIS). Projects include ongoing 

and future timber harvest, vegetation restoration, fuels management, grazing allotments, 

road management including closures, and decommissioning, recreation use, fire salvage, 

and mining reclamation which could have effects that would mitigate, or add to the 

effects of this action. In addition, unplanned events such as wildfires and tree mortality 

related to periodic droughts will continue to affect habitat. Removal of trees has the 

potential to impact species in this group. Generally, this group of species is affected 

negatively by actions that reduce the average tree size, or that reduce canopy closure. 

Long-term trends have generally been negative for this species group, as can be seen by 

the changes in the amount of late successional forest is a concern as seen by the 

identification of Forest Service “Sensitive” species such as northern goshawk, marten, 

and fisher. Road maintenance and hazard tree removal will continue on the existing 

NFTS will continue to potentially affect the 60m Habitat Influence Zone (HIZ). Many of 

the actions listed in Appendix B in the DEIS could have the potential to increase road 

density temporarily (i.e. forest product projects with timber harvest, fuels management 

projects, pre-commercial thinning projects, grazing allotments, and mining). The primary 

effects of increases in road density are related to increased disturbance and habitat 

fragmentation. 

The actions in Appendix B in the DEIS total 5.60 miles of unauthorized routes 

proposed for addition to the NFTS, or 2% of the NFTS amount proposed to be closed, 

abandoned, or decommissioned. This proportion of the total proposed actions forestwide 

is not expected to have significant impacts. Furthermore, the unauthorized routes do not 

constitute a change to habitat, but rather are an existing condition whose vegetation 

change impact has already occurred and whose conditions would continue into the future. 

Overall, vehicle-related impacts from this alternative appear to aggregate with other 

impacts occurring on the landscape. The scope and intensity of foreseeable actions is 

much smaller an impact than that of the already existing unauthorized routes. 




Furthermore, the unauthorized routes do not constitute a change to habitat, but 

rather are an existing condition whose vegetation change impact has already occurred and 

whose conditions would continue into the future. Overall, vehicle-related impacts from 

this alternative appear to aggregate with other impacts occurring on the landscape. The 

scope and intensity of foreseeable actions is much smaller an impact than that of the 

already existing unauthorized routes. 

Alternative 2 - Proposed Action 

Direct/Indirect Effects of the Prohibition of Cross –Country Motorized Vehicle 

Travel 

Under this alternative cross-country travel would be prohibited. This alternative would 

prevent disturbance and habitat alteration to the species from cross-country travel. In the 

long-term, species habitat would be expected to passively recover from soil and 

vegetation impacts caused by unmanaged motorized travel, where unauthorized routes no 

longer receive motorized traffic. Additionally, future route proliferation would also be 

stopped. The potential impacts discussed under Alternative 1 from cross-country travel 

would not occur. The unauthorized routes that currently exist within the LSR is 264 

miles. The use of 256 miles or about 97% of all unauthorized user created routes within 

the LSR would be stopped allowing the areas to begin recovering naturally. Species 

would not be affected by disturbance, habitat fragmentation or indirect impacts to prey or 

food resources from cross-country vehicle travel. Under this alternative, compared to 

Alternative 1 there would be less potential for breeding disturbance, less stress and 

behavior change from cross-country travel. 

Table 7. Alternative 2: Measurement Indicator 1 - Miles of Routes and acres affected within Potential 

Habitat for the Late-Successional Group 

Species 

Miles of Routes Added 

to the NFTS within 

Habitat on NF 


and Added Routes 

within Habitat on NF 

Acres of habitat affected 

by combined routes 

(habitat influence zone) 

(sq miles) 

Northern goshawk 4 979 46,640 (72.9) 

American marten 3 652 31,061 (48.53) 

Pacific fisher 3 652 31,061(48.53) 

Bald eagle 7 631 150,304 (235) 

Table 7 displays the route mileage of both the existing system roads and the 

proposed unauthorized additions within habitats used by the species. This alternative 

would add a total of 44.2 miles of unauthorized routes to the NFTS. This would affect 

species mostly through disturbance, although it would only add 8 miles of unauthorized 

routes within mapped late-successional reserve (LSR) areas on the STNF, or 381 acres 

HIZ. 




This alternative would reduce the potential for disturbance by reducing route 

mileage within northern goshawk, marten and fisher habitat by approximately 148 miles, 

and within bald eagle habitat by approximately 151 miles over the existing condition. 


Direct/Indirect Effects of adding facilities to the NFTS 





Species 

Group 

LSR 

Species 

Total 

habitat (sq 

miles) 

Density of 

routes 

within 

habitat 

Miles of 

routes 

within 

habitat 

# of TES 

sites within 

a ½ mile of 

added 

routes 




zone) 


goshawk 

973 1.01 979 2 7.5 – Low rank 



Under this alternative the addition of 44.2 miles of unauthorized routes would be 

added to the NFTS, 8 miles of which are in LSR. Route density was averaged forestwide, 

to give an approximate coarse measure of habitat effectiveness for late-successional 

species. The type of impacts to these species depends on the type of route, amount and 

type of use, and season of use (Gaines 2003). Ouren and Watts (2005) concluded that 

proximity of secondary routes to arterial roads, highways, and population centers has a 

large influence on the intensity of use on these routes; the utility of road density analysis 

at the low-use end of the spectrum diminishes. Route density thresholds for latesuccessional 

species are not well understood. Route densities therefore are presented to 

compare relative effects between the alternatives. Under this alternative which does not 

prohibit cross-country travel or on unauthorized routes, route density is 1.01 miles/sq 

miles for goshawk, 1.16 for marten and fisher, and 0.99 for bald eagle. 

Unauthorized and NFTS routes affect approximately 8.6 percent of modeled 

marten and fisher habitat through alteration and disturbance. They also affect 

approximately 7.5 percent of modeled goshawk habitat and 37.0 percent of modeled bald 

eagle habitat. The potential impact to marten, fisher, and goshawk species is low 

according to the rankings developed by Gaines et al (2003) used in this analysis. This 

would indicate a low level of impact from edge effects, snag and downed log reduction, 

and habitat loss and fragmentation resulting from route-associated factors (Gaines et al. 

2003). The potential impact for the bald eagle is moderate according to the rankings used 

in this analysis, above in this report, Section 1.5. This would indicate a moderate level of 

impact from mostly route-associated disturbance (Gaines et al. 2003). Most of the effects 

revealed by the habitat influence analysis are from the existing approved transportation 

system. Unauthorized routes constitute 1,252 miles (965 miles of roads and 287 miles of 

trails) while the existing transportation system extends across approximately 6,760 miles 

(5,329 miles of roads open to the public and 1,431 miles of trails). 

Three sensitive species nest sites; two goshawk and one bald eagle, are located 



effects. 




A mitigation to leave felled hazard trees along routes in Late-Successional 

Reserves applies to all routes within LSRs. This will benefit all focal species by 

increasing important habitat components. 

New Forest Manual and Forest direction is to allow parking and dispersed 

camping within one vehicle length of a designated route. The disturbance effect would be 

minimal and short term given the parking and/or camping is temporary and would not be 

over 30 feet from the edge of a travel route. 

Under this alternative motorized use of lake bottoms (areas below high water 

mark) would be allowed on Shasta Lake and Trinity Lake. LOPs of January 1 to August 

15 would be established within 1/2 mile for bald eagle nest sites that are adjacent to the 

shoreline of both lakes to reduce the disturbance potential of this species during critical 

nesting and brood rearing seasons. See table 9 for the total amount of acres. Some other 

restrictions on this use are a 15 mph speed limit restriction for resource protection and 

highway-legal vehicles only. Expected effects will be similar to the intrusive character of 

motor vehicle routes. 

Table 9. Alternative 2: Total Open Area acres restricted for bald eagle protection 

Open Areas Bald Eagle Acres 

Shasta Lake Area 2,205 

Trinity Lake Area 649 

Total 2,854 

Direct/Indirect Effects of changes to the existing NFTS 

This alternative proposes no changes to the NFTS and therefore would have no direct or 

indirect effects. 















NFTS as well as the routes that are added to the system under this document and will 




continue to potentially affect the 60m HIZ. Many of the above actions also have the 

potential to temporarily increase road density (i.e. forest product projects with timber 

harvest, fuels management projects, pre-commercial thinning projects, grazing 

allotments, and mining) The primary effects of increases in road density are related to 

increase disturbance and habitat fragmentation. 

This alternative would add approximately 44.2 miles of routes to the NFTS, and 

would prohibit cross-country travel and discontinue use of unauthorized routes. Some 

impacts to species in this group would contribute to cumulative effects because of the 

additional 44.2 miles of unauthorized routes added to the NFTS which would then be 

expected to have higher levels of maintenance over time. However, the physical habitat 

impact would be small. This means that the 4 miles of unauthorized routes added to the 

NFTS in northern goshawk in this alternative is equivalent to a HIZ of 191 acres and for 

marten and fisher this equates to approximately 143 acres. For bald eagle this equates to 

approximately 1,666 acres. These route additions are offset at the 20-year, long-term 

point by the prohibition on cross-country travel and the passive restoration that is 

expected to occur on the routes not added to the NFTS that would have begun to improve 

habitat conditions for late-successional species. In this alternative the impacts from the 

route system are substantially reduced compared to the impacts of Alternative 1, and 

augmented additionally by the cessation of impacts from cross-country travel. Overall, 

impacts from this alternative appear to be a reduction in cumulative effects to habitat by 

offsetting the addition of 44.2 miles to the NFTS with the passive restoration of 1,208 

miles of unauthorized routes, and eliminating the potential habitat degradation from 

cross-country travel. This alternative is expected to provide a measurable reduction in 

cumulative effects from disturbance by substantially reducing the area of Habitat 

Influence. 

In addition to the existing seasonal closures which affect 220 NFTS routes and 

two reservoirs, mitigation for LSR and riparian species under this alternative are seasonal 

closures for 3 other routes. This number although low is specific to two goshawk nest 

sites and one bald eagle nest site. Seasonal closure would be added protection for 13% of 

known goshawk nest sites and 2% of known eagle nest sites on the forest. See Appendix 

D in the DEIS for a full list of routes. 













Alternative 3 - Cross-County Travel Prohibition– No Additions to the 

Existing NFTS 

Direct/Indirect Effects of the Prohibition on Cross –Country Motorized Vehicle 


This alternative would prevent disturbance to the focal species within this group by 

prohibiting cross-country travel, including continued use of approximately 1,252 miles of 

unauthorized routes. In the long-term period (20 years), focal species habitat would be 

expected to recover from soil and vegetation impacts caused by unmanaged motorized 

travel. The potential impacts discussed under Alternative 1 from cross-country travel 

would not occur. The focal species would not be affected by disturbance, or indirect 

impacts to prey or food resources. 

This alternative would not add any unauthorized routes or open areas to the 

NFTS. The effects of routes would still occur on the 5,416 miles of NFTS roads and 

motorized trails open for use, this is a reduction of 1,252 miles compared to Alternative 

1. This would result in a beneficial effect of 2,254 acres of road prism area being 

passively restored. The unauthorized routes that currently exist within the LSR is 264 

miles, this alternative would provide a benefit of 264 miles to be closed, or 100% of all 

unauthorized routes within the LSR. Table 10 displays the amount of route mileage 

within habitats used by the focal species. 

Table 10. Alternative 3: Measurement Indicator 1 - miles of routes and acres affected within 

potential habitat for the late-successional group 

Species 


goshawk 

American 

marten 

Pacific 

fisher 

Miles Of Routes 

Added to the NFTS 



and Added Routes within 

Habitat On NF 

Acres of habitat affected by 

combined routes (habitat 

influence zone) (sq miles) 

0 974 46,401 (72.5) 

0 649 30,918 (48.3) 

0 649 30,918 (48.3) 

Bald eagle 0 624 148,637 (232) 


Direct and Indirect Effects of adding facilities to the NFTS 





Species 

Group 

LSR 

Species 

Total 

habitat (sq 

miles) 

Density of 

routes 

within 

habitat 

Miles of 

routes 

within 

habitat 

# of TES 

sites within 

a ½ mile of 

added 

routes 




zone) 


goshawk 

973 1.00 974 0 7.5 – Low rank 


Riparian Bald eagle 634 0.98 624 0 7.3 – Low rank 

No additions to the NFTS are proposed under this alternative so there would be no 

direct or indirect effects. 

Direct and Indirect Effects of changes to the NFTS 

This alternative proposes no changes to NFTS so there would be no direct or indirect 

effects. 


This alternative would prohibit cross-country travel including the continued use of 

approximately 1,252 miles of unauthorized routes, and 264 miles within LSR alone. The 

HIZ associated with routes in LSR is 12,577 acres. The impacts to species in this group 

from cross-country travel and from unauthorized routes would cease, and may partially 

counter some of the effects from vegetation management occurring elsewhere. The 

unauthorized routes’ impact would begin to decrease at the 20-year long-term point as the 

routes begin to develop vegetation and downed woody debris and move toward habitat 

for late-successional species. All of these acres would have many decades of growth and 

recovery before they fully became suitable for the species in this group. However, the 

low rate and intensity of impacts from cross-country travel do not appear to be sufficient 

to counter other impacts that are occurring from vegetation management and stochastic 

events such as insect outbreaks and stand-replacing fires. Overall, when aggregated with 

other impacts to the late-successional group, impacts from this alternative appear to be 

insufficient to alter the larger trends occurring on the landscape. 

The SOPA actions in Appendix B in the DEIS total 5.60 miles of unauthorized 

routes proposed for addition to the NFTS, or 2% of the NFTS amount proposed to be 

closed, abandoned, or decommissioned. This proportion of the total proposed actions 

forestwide is not expected to have significant impacts. 




Alternative 4 - Minimize Impacts to Natural Resources and Roadless Areas 




prevent disturbance and habitat alteration to the species from cross-country travel. Bald 

eagles would not be affected by vehicle travel underneath nest or roost trees. In the longterm, 

species habitat would be expected to passively recover from soil and vegetation 

impacts caused by unmanaged motorized travel, where unauthorized routes no longer 

receive motorized traffic. Additionally, future route proliferation would also be stopped. 

The potential impacts discussed under Alternative 1 from cross-country travel would not 

occur. The unauthorized routes that currently exist within the LSR is 264 miles. The use 

of 256 miles or about 97% of all unauthorized user-created routes within the LSR would 

be stopped allowing the areas to begin recovering naturally. Species would not be 

affected by disturbance, habitat fragmentation or indirect impacts to prey or food 

resources from cross-country vehicle travel. Under this alternative, compared to 

Alternative 1 there would be less potential for breeding disturbance, less stress and 

behavior change from cross-country travel. 

Under this alternative the addition of 15.56 miles of unauthorized routes to the 

NFTS, but none in bald eagle habitat. Table 12 displays the route mileage within habitats 

used by the focal species. This alternative would not add any miles of routes in mapped 

late-successional reserve (LSR) habitat. 

Table 12. Alternative 4: Measurement Indicator 1 - miles of routes and acres affected within 

potential habitat for the late-successional group 

Species 


goshawk 

American 

marten 

Pacific 

fisher 

Miles of Routes 

Added to the NFTS 




Habitat on NF 



influence zone) (sq miles) 

1 975 46,449 (72.6) 

0.38 649 30,918 (43.3) 

0.38 649 30,918 (43.3) 

Bald eagle 0 624 148,637 (232) 

Compared to Alternative 1 this alternative would reduce the route mileage within 

northern goshawk, marten and fisher habitat by approximately 151 miles, and within bald 

eagle habitat by approximately158 miles. These small mileage differences between 

alternatives are essentially undetectable against the background fluctuations of weather 

and stochastic events such as fires. 


Direct/Indirect Effects of Adding Unauthorized Routes to the NFTS 





Species 

Group 

LSR 

Species 

Total 

habitat (sq 

miles) 

Density of 

routes 

within 

habitat 

Miles of 

routes 

within 

habitat 

# of TES 

sites within 

a ½ mile of 

added 

routes 




zone) 


goshawk 

973 1.0 975 1 7.5 – Low rank 



Route density was averaged forestwide, to give an approximate coarse measure of 

habitat effectiveness for late-successional and riparian species. The type of impacts to 

these species depends on the type of route, amount and type of use, and season of use 

(Gaines 2003). Ouren and Watts (2005) concluded that proximity of secondary routes to 

arterial roads, highways, and population centers has a large influence on the intensity of 

use on these routes; the utility of road density analysis at the low-use end of the spectrum 

diminishes. Route density thresholds for late-successional and riparian species are not 

well understood. Route densities therefore are presented to compare relative effects 

between the alternatives. Under this alternative which does prohibit cross-country travel 

on unauthorized routes, route density is 1.0 miles/sq miles for goshawk, 1.15 for marten 

and fisher, and 0.98 for bald eagle. 


marten and fisher habitat, approximately 7.5 percent of modeled goshawk habitat and 

approximately 36.6 percent of modeled bald eagle habitat through alteration and 

disturbance. The potential impact to marten, fisher, and goshawk species is low according 

to the rankings used in this analysis. This would indicate a low level of impact from edge 

effects, snag and downed log reduction, and habitat loss and fragmentation resulting from 

route-associated factors (Gaines et al. 2003). The potential impact for the bald eagle is 

moderate according to the rankings used in this analysis, above in this report, Section 1.5. 

This would indicate a moderate level of impact from mostly route-associated disturbance 

(Gaines et al. 2003). Most of the effects revealed by the habitat influence analysis are 

from the existing approved transportation system. Unauthorized routes constitute 1,252 

miles (965 miles of roads and 287 miles of trails) while the transportation system extends 

across approximately 6,760 miles (5,329 miles of roads open to the public and 1,431 

miles of trails). 

Under this alternative one goshawk site is located within ½ mile of an 

unauthorized route. An LOP of February 1 to August 15 for the goshawk would be placed 

on this route to avoid disturbance effects. Therefore, this alternative would have no effect 

on northern goshawk from the use of added routes within 1/2 mile of a goshawk nest site. 





Reserves applies to all routes within the LSRs. This will benefit all focal species by 






Under this alternative, motorized use of lake bottoms (areas below high water 

mark) would be allowed on Shasta Lake, Trinity Lake and Iron Canyon Reservoir. LOPs 

of January 1 to August 15 would be established within ½ mile of bald eagle nests that are 

located near the shoreline on both Shasta and Trinity lakes (no eagle nests are located on 

Iron Canyon Reservoir) to reduce the disturbance potential of this species during the 

critical nesting and brood rearing seasons. See table 14 for the total amount of acres. 

Some other restrictions on this use are a 10 mph speed limit restriction for resource 

protection and highway-legal vehicles only. Expected effects will be similar to the 

intrusive character of motor vehicle routes. 

Table 14. Alternative 4: Total Open Area Acres with bald eagle protection 

Open Areas Bald eagle acres 



Iron Canyon Reservoir 

Area 

Total 2,854 

Direct/Indirect Effects of Changes to the Existing NFTS 

0 

Motorized mixed use is proposed in this alternative. Changes to class of use are not 

expected to have any detectable impact on wildlife. The source of disturbance, whether 

an auto, truck, or OHV, is assumed to be the same for this analysis. Changing the mix of 

use is not expected to have any impacts on wildlife. 


This alternative would discontinue cross-country travel which includes all but the added 

15.56 miles of existing unauthorized routes. The added routes in northern goshawk 

habitat for this alternative, when converted to equivalent-acres of HIZ is approximately 

47.64 acres. For marten and fisher, the area of HIZ affected by adding routes to the 

system equates to about 18 acres and the added routes in bald eagle habitat for this 

alternative is 0. The effects would be similar to Alternative 2 but with fewer miles added 

thereby increasing the beneficial effects of habitat restoration from unauthorized routes 

and less disturbance. Overall, impacts from this alternative appear to be minor even when 




aggregated with other impacts occurring on the landscape as described in the cumulative 

effects sections for Alternative 2 


two reservoirs, mitigation for LSR species under this alternative are seasonal closures for 

1 other route. This is specific to one goshawk nest site. This seasonal closure would add 

protection for 13% of the known goshawk nest sites on the forest. See Appendix D in the 

DEIS for a full list of routes. 










Alternative 5 - Improved Access and Motorized Recreation Opportunities 




prevent disturbance and habitat alteration to the species within this group from crosscountry 

travel. In the long-term, species habitat would be expected to passively recover 

from soil and vegetation impacts caused by unmanaged motorized travel, where 

unauthorized routes no longer receive motorized traffic. Additionally, future route 

proliferation would also be stopped. The potential impacts discussed under Alternative 1 

from cross-country travel would not occur. The unauthorized routes that currently exist 

within the LSR is 264 miles. The use of 256 miles or about 97% of all unauthorized user 

created routes within the LSR would be stopped allowing the areas to begin recovering 

naturally. The focal species would not be affected by disturbance, habitat fragmentation 

or indirect impacts to prey or food resources from cross-country vehicle travel. Under this 

alternative, compared to Alternative 1 there would be less potential for breeding 

disturbance, less stress and behavior change from cross-country travel. 

This alternative would add 106.12 miles of unauthorized routes to the NFTS, although it 

would only add 8 miles of unauthorized routes within mapped late-successional reserve 

(LSR) areas on the STNF, and 9 miles in bald eagle habitat. The miles of unauthorized 

routes that currently exist within the LSR is 264, this alternative would provide a benefit 

of 256 miles to be closed or about 97% of all unauthorized routes within the LSR. The 

effects of these changes to the NFTS are the same as those listed above for Alternative 2. 

The miles of unauthorized routes added to the system in this alternative are displayed in 

Table 15. 




Table 15. Alternative 5: Measurement Indicator 1 - miles of routes and acres affected within potential 

habitat for the late-successional group 

Species 


goshawk 

American 

marten 

Pacific 

fisher 

Miles of Routes Added 

to the NFTS within 

Habitat on NF 



Habitat on NF 



influence zone) 

8 982 46,782 (73.1) 

4 653 31,109 (48.6) 

4 653 31,109 (48.6) 

Bald eagle 9 633 150,781 (236) 

Direct/Indirect Effects of Adding Unauthorized Routes to the NFTS 



Species 

Group 

LSR 

Species 

Total 

habitat (sq 

miles) 

Density of 

routes 

within 

habitat 

Miles of 

routes 

within 

habitat 

# of TES 

sites within 

a ½ mile of 

added 

routes 




zone) 


goshawk 

973 1.0 982 5 7.5 – Low rank 



Route density was averaged forestwide to give an approximate coarse measure of 

habitat effectiveness for late-successional species. The type of impacts to these species 

depends on the type of route, amount and type of use, and season of use (Gaines 2003). 

Ouren and Watts (2005) concluded that proximity of secondary routes to arterial roads, 

highways, and population centers has a large influence on the intensity of use on these 

routes; the utility of road density analysis at the low-use end of the spectrum diminishes. 

Route density thresholds for late-successional species are not well understood. Route 

densities therefore are presented to compare relative effects between the alternatives. 

Under this alternative which does prohibit cross-country travel on unauthorized routes, 

route density is 1.0 miles/sq miles for goshawk, 1.16 for marten and fisher, and 1.0 for 

bald eagle. 


marten and fisher habitat through alteration and disturbance. They also affect 

approximately 7.5 percent of modeled goshawk habitat and 37.2 percent of modeled bald 

eagle habitat. The potential impact to marten, fisher and goshawk species is low 

according to the rankings used in this analysis. This would indicate a low level of impact 




from edge effects, snag and downed log reduction, and habitat loss and fragmentation 

resulting from route-associated factors (Gaines et al. 2003). The potential impact for the 

bald eagle is moderate according to the rankings used in this analysis, above in this 

report, Section 1.5. This would indicate a moderate level of impact from mostly routeassociated 

disturbance (Gaines et al. 2003).Most of the effects revealed by the habitat 

influence analysis are from the existing approved transportation system. Unauthorized 

routes constitute 1,252 miles (965 miles of roads and 287 miles of trails) while the 

transportation system extends across approximately 6,760 miles (5,329 miles of roads 

open to the public and 1,431 miles of trails). 

Under this alternative the miles of roads and trails is 6,866. This is a reduction of 

1,146 miles compared to Alternative 1. Five goshawk sites and one bald eagle site are 

located within ½ mile of unauthorized routes. An LOP of January 1 to August 15 for the 

bald eagle and February 1 to August 15 for the goshawk would be placed on these routes 

to avoid disturbance effects. Therefore, this alternative would have no effect on northern 

goshawk or bald eagle from the use of added routes within 1/2 mile of a goshawk or 

eagle nest site. 


Reserves applies to all routes within the LSRs. This will benefit all focal species by 


One bald eagle nest site is located within ½ mile of unauthorized routes. An LOP 

of January 1 to August 15 for the eagle would be placed on these routes to avoid 

disturbance effects. Therefore, this alternative would have no effect on bald eagle from 

the use of added routes within 1/2 mile of a bald eagle nest site. 





Under this alternative motorized use of lake bottoms (areas below high water 

mark) would be allowed on Shasta Lake, Trinity Lake and Iron Canyon Reservoir. LOPs 

of January 1 to August 15 would be established within ½ mile of bald eagle nests that are 

located near the shoreline on both Shasta and Trinity lakes (no eagle nests are located on 

Iron Canyon Reservoir) to reduce the disturbance potential of this species during the 

critical nesting and brood rearing seasons. See table 17 for the total amount of acres. 

Some other restrictions on this use are a 10 mph speed limit restriction for resource 

protection and all vehicle classes. Expected effects will be similar to the intrusive 

character of motor vehicle routes. 

Table 17. Alternative 5: Total Open Area Acres with bald eagle protection 






Iron Canyon Reservoir 

Area 

Total 2,854 

0 



Direct/Indirect Effects of changes to the Existing NFTS 

Motorized mixed use is proposed in this alternative. Changes to class of use are not 

expected to have any detectable impact on wildlife. The source of disturbance, whether 

from an auto, truck, or OHV, is assumed to be the same for this analysis. Changing the 

mix of use is not expected to have any impacts on wildlife. 















NFTS as well as the routes that are added to the system under this document and will 

continue to potentially affect the 60m HIZ. Many of the above actions also have the 

potential to increase road density temporarily (i.e. forest product projects with timber 

harvest, fuels management projects, pre-commercial thinning projects, grazing 

allotments, and mining) The primary effects of increases in road density are related to 

increase disturbance and habitat fragmentation. 

This alternative would add approximately 106.11 miles of routes to the NFTS, 

and would discontinue cross-country travel which includes continued use of unauthorized 

routes. Some impacts to species in this group would continue and aggregate with effects 

from vegetation management occurring elsewhere because of the additional 106.11 miles 

of unauthorized routes added to the NFTS. The added routes’ HIZ is 381 acres in 

goshawk habitat, and 191 acres in martin/fisher habitat. These route additions are offset 

at the 20-year, long-term point by the amount of routes not added to the NFTS that would 

have begun to move towards habitat for late-successional species. In this alternative the 

impacts from the route system are somewhat reduced compared to the impacts of 

Alternative 1, and countered additionally by the cessation of impacts from cross-country 

travel. Overall, impacts from this alternative appear to be minor, even when aggregated 




with other impacts occurring on the landscape as a result of the projects listed in 

Appendix B in the DEIS. 


two reservoirs, mitigation for LSR species under this alternative are seasonal closures for 

19 other routes. This number although low is specific to five goshawk nest sites and one 

bald eagle nest site. Seasonal closure would be added protection for 13% of known 

goshawk nest sites on the forest. See Appendix D in the DEIS for a full list of routes. 










XII. Determinations 

Northern Goshawk 

The Shasta-Trinity National Forest Travel Management Project Alternative 1 may 

affect individual northern goshawks as cross-country travel could contribute disturbance 

or direct effects that may cause impacts to breeding and reproductive activities. 

Alternatives 2, 4, and 5 would prohibit cross-country motorized vehicle travel but would 

add mileage (4, 1, and 8 miles, respectively) within habitat to the NFTS. Because 

Alternatives 2, 4, and 5 add mileage to the NFTS there may be some disturbance effects 

to individual goshawks but the extent of disturbance is expected to be minimal due to the 

relatively small amount of miles added. The HIZ acreage represented by the additional 

routes are 191, 48 and 381 acres for Alternatives 2,4 and 5, respectively, or no more than 

0.06% of total northern goshawk habitat on the forest. Five goshawk nest sites are within 

½ mile of proposed routes. LOPs of February 1 to August 15 would be added to these 

routes. Alternative 3 would have no increase in effect as motorized cross-country vehicle 

travel would be prohibited and no additional routes would be added to the NFTS within 

northern goshawk habitat. 

The determination for the northern goshawk is that Alternatives 1, 2, 4, and 5 may 

impact individuals or habitat, but will not likely contribute to a trend towards federal 

listing or cause a loss of viability to the population . Alternative 3 would have no effect to 

northern goshawk or their habitats. Alternatives 2, 4 and 5 show a beneficial effect 

compared to the existing condition in Alternative 1, due to the assumptions that for routes 

in LSRs the impact already exists. There will be fewer miles of unauthorized routes in 

LSRs as a result of the action. Passive restoration of non-system routes will recover and 

improve late-successional habitat for those routes which are not added to the system. 




Direct harm or disturbance to breeding activities would be avoided with a limited 

operating period. 

American Marten and Pacific Fisher 

The Shasta-Trinity National Forest Travel Management Project Alternative 1 may 

affect individual marten and fisher as cross-country travel could contribute disturbance or 

direct effects that may cause impacts to breeding and reproductive activities. Alternatives 

2-5 would have limited impacts above the existing NFTS route system as motorized 

cross-country vehicle travel would be prohibited and less than 4 miles of additional 

routes would be added to the NFTS within marten and fisher habitat. These 4 miles 

equate to 185 acres of HIZ or about 0.05% of total marten and fisher habitat on the forest. 

Alternatives 2, 3, 4 and 5 would therefore have extremely limited effects on marten or 

fisher that are predicted to be imperceptible. 

The determination for the American marten and Pacific fisher is that Alternative 1 

may impact individuals or habitat, but will not likely contribute to a trend towards federal 

listing or cause a loss of viability to the population. Alternatives 2, 3, 4, and 5 would have 

no impact to American marten and Pacific fisher. Alternatives 2 and 5 show beneficial 

effects compared to the existing condition in Alternative 1 due to the assumptions that for 

routes in LSRs the impact already exists. There will be fewer miles of unauthorized 

routes in LSRs as a result of the action. Passive restoration of non-system routes will 

recover and improve Late-successional habitat for those routes which are not added to the 

system. 

Bald Eagle 

The Shasta-Trinity Travel Management Project Alternative 1 may affect 

individual bald eagles as cross-country travel could contribute disturbance or direct 

effects that may cause impacts to breeding and reproductive activities. Alternatives 2 and 

5 would prohibit cross-country motorized vehicle travel but would add mileage (7 and 9 

miles, respectively) within habitat to the NFTS. Because Alternatives 2 and 5 add 

mileage to the NFTS within bald eagle habitat there may be some disturbance effects to 

individual eagles but the extent of disturbance is expected to be minimal due to the 

relatively small amount of miles added. The HIZ acreage represented by the additional 

routes are 1,667 and 2,144 acres, respectively for Alternatives 2 and 5, respectively, or no 

more than 0.5% of total bald eagle habitat on the forest. One bald eagle nest site is within 

½ mile of a proposed route. LOPs of January 1 to August 15 would be added to this 

route. Alternative 3 and 4 would have no increase in effect as motorized cross-country 

vehicle travel would be prohibited and no additional routes would be added to the NFTS 

within bald eagle habitat. 

Motorized use of lake bottoms (areas below high water mark) would be allowed 

under Alternatives 2, 4 and 5 on Shasta Lake and Trinity Lake. LOPs of January 1 to 

August 15 would be established within 1/2 mile for bald eagle nest sites that are adjacent 

to the shoreline of both lakes to reduce the disturbance potential of this species during 

critical nesting and brood rearing seasons. See tables above for the total amount of acres 




under specific alternatives. Expected effects will be similar to the intrusive character of 

motor vehicle routes. 

The determination for the bald eagle is that Alternatives 1, 2, and 5 may impact 

individuals or habitat, but will not likely contribute to a trend towards federal listing or 

cause a loss of viability to the population. Alternatives 3 and 4 would have no effect to 

bald eagle or their habitats. Alternatives 2, 4 and 5 show a beneficial effect compared to 

the existing condition in Alternative 1. Due to the assumptions that passive restoration of 

non-system routes will recover and improve riparian habitat for those routes which are 

not added to the system. Direct harm or disturbance to breeding activities would be 

avoided with a limited operating period. 

California Wolverine 

It is my determination that the proposed actions would have no effect on the wolverine 

based upon the following rationale: 

� This species occupies a wide variety of habitats remote from humans and human 

development. Wolverines are not likely to occur in or near the project area because 

the project area is near humans and/or human development. Wolverines have not 

been credibly sighted on the Forest in several decades. 

It my determination that the proposed actions would have no effect on the pallid bat, 

Townsend’s big-eared bat, western red bat, willow flycatcher, Shasta sideband snail, 

Wintu sideband snail, Shasta chaparral snail, Tehama chaparral snail, Pressley hesperian 

snail , or the Shasta hesperian snail, for the following reason: 

� the project would not affect suitable habitat 

XIII. Literature 

Agee, James K. 1993. Fire Ecology of Pacific Northwest Forests. 1st ed.Island Press. 

Agee, J.K. (1999) Fire effects on landscape fragmentation in interior western forests. 

Forest Fragmentation: wildlife and management implications (Rochelle, James A., 

Lehmann, Leslie A., and Wisniewski, Joe), pp. 43-60. Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, the 

Netherlands. 

Agee, J.S.C. (2005) Basic Principles of Forest Fuel Reduction Treatments. Forest 

Ecology and Management, 211, 83-96. 

Anthony, R.G., R.L. Knight, G.T. Allen, B.R. McClelland and J.I. Hoges. 1992. Habitat use by 

nesting and roosting bald eagles in the Pacific Northwest. Trans. N. Am. Wildl. Nat. Res. Conf. 

68pp. 

Arno, S.F. & Ottmar, R.D. (1994a) Reducing hazards for catastrophic fire. Eastside 

Forest Ecosystem Health Assessment, Volume 1V: Restoration of stressed sites, and 




processes (Everitt, Richard L.), pp. 18-19. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

PNW Research Station, Portland, Oregon. 

Arno, S.F. & Ottmar, R.D. (1994b) Reintroduction of fire into the forests of eastern 

Washington and Oregon. Eastside Forest Ecosystem Health Assessment, Volume 1V: 

Restoration of stressed sites, and processes (Everitt, Richard L.), US Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, PNW Research Station, Portland, Oregon. 

Arthur SM., Krohn WB, Gilbert JB. 1989. Habitat use and diet of fishers. Journal of 

Wildlife Management 53(3):680-8. 

Arthur SM, Krohn WB. 1991. Activity patterns, movements, and reproductive ecology of 

fishers in southcentral Maine. Journal of Mammalogy 72:379-85. 

Arthur SM, Paragi TF, Krohn WB. 1993. Dispersal of Juvenile Fisher in Maine. Journal 

of Wildlife Management 57(4): 868-874. 

Atzet, T. & Martin, R. (1996) Natural Disturbance Regimes in the Klamath Province. 

Fire Ecology and Forest Planning. 

Aubry KB, Houston DB. 1992. Distribution and status of the fisher (Martes Pennanti) in 

Washington. Northwestern Naturalist 73: 69-79. 

Aubry KB, Lewis JC. 2003. Extirpation and reintroduction of fishers (Martes pennanti) 

in Oregon: implications for their conservation in the Pacific states. Biological 

Conservation 114 (1):79-90. 

Aubry KB, Raley CM, Catton TJ, Tomb GW. 2000. Ecological characteristics of fishers 

in southwestern Oregon (Progress report: 1 January – 31 December 1999). Olympia 

(WA): USDA Forest Service Pacific Northwest Research Station. 

Aubry KB, Raley CM, Catton TJ, Tomb GW. 2002. Ecological characteristics of fishers 

in the southern Oregon Cascade Range: final progress report: 1 June 2002. Olympia 

(WA): USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 

Aubrey, Keith, Kevin S. McKelvey, and Jefrey P. Copeland. 2007. "Distribution and 

Broadside Habitat Relations of the Wolverine in the Contiguous United States." Jnl of 

Wildlife Management 71, no. 7 : 2147-58. 

Backer, D.M., Jensen, S.E. & McPherson, G.R. (2004) Impacts of Fire-Suppression 

Activiites on Natural Communities. Conservation Biology, 18. 

Beschta, R.L., Rhodes, J.J., Kauffman, J.B., Gresswell, R.E., Minshall, G.W., Karr, J.R., 

Perry, D.A., Hauer, F.R. & Frissell, C.A. (2004) Postfire management on forested public 

lands of the western United States. Conservation Biology, 18, 957-967. 




Brown, R.T., Agee, J.K. & Franklin, J.F. (2004) Forest Restoration and Fire: Principles 

in the Context of Place. Conservation Biology, 18, 903-912. 

Buck SG. 1982. Habitat utilization by fisher (Martes pennanti) near Big Bar, California 

[MSc thesis]. Arcata (CA): Humboldt State University. 85 p. 

Buck SG, Mullis C, Mossman AS. 1983. Final report: Corral Bottom-Hayfork Bally 

fisher study. Arcata (CA): Humboldt State University and USDA Forest Service. 

Buck SG, Mullis C, Mossman AS, Show I, Coolahan C. 1994. Habitat use by fishers in 

adjoining heavily and lightly harvested forest. In: Buskirk SW, Harestad AS, Raphael 

MG, Powell RA, editors. Martens, sables and fishers: biology and conservation. 

Ithaca (NY): Cornell University Press. p 368-76. 

Buskirk SW, Powell RA. 1994. Habitat ecology of fishers and American martens. In: 

Buskirk SW, Harestad AS, Raphael MG, Powell RA, editors. Martens, sables and 

fishers: biology and conservation. Ithaca (NY): Cornell University Press. p 283-296. 

Carroll CR. 1997. Predicting the distribution of the fisher (Martes pennanti) in 

northwestern California, USA using survey data and GIS modeling [MSc thesis]. 

Corvallis (OR): Oregon State University. 162 p. 

Carroll CR, Zielinski WJ, Noss RF. 1999. Using presence/absence data to build and test 

spatial habitat models for the fisher in the Klamath region, USA. Conservation 

Biology 13(6):1344-59. 

Coulter MW. 1966. Ecology and management of fishers in Maine [DPhil thesis]. 

Syracuse (NY): Syracuse University. 183 p. 

Cissel, John H., Swanson, Frederick J., Grant, Gordon E., Olson, Deanna H., Gregory, 

Stanley V., Garmon, Steven L., Ashkenas, Linda R., Hunter, Mathew G., Kertis, Jane A., 

Mayo, James H., McSwain, Michelle D., Swetland, Sam G., and Swindle, Keith A. 

Wallin David O. A Landscape Plan based on historical fire regimes for a managed forest 

ecosystem: the Augusta Creek Study. [PNW-GTR-422]. 1998, May. Portland Oregon, 

USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 

Covington, W. W. and Moore, M. M. Presettlement changes in natural fire regimes and 

forest structure: Ecological restoration of old-growth ponderosa pine forests. Sampson, R. 

Neil and Adams, David L. Assessing Forest Ecosystem Health in the Inland West. 153- 

181. 1994. Binghamton, New York, Food Products Press. 1994. 

Dark SJ. 1997. A landscape-scale analysis of mammalian carnivore distribution and 

habitat use by fisher [MSc thesis]. Arcata (CA): Humboldt State University. 

Earle RD. 1978. The fisher-porcupine relationship in Upper Michigan [MSc thesis]. 

Houghton (MI): Michigan Technical University. 




Freel, M. 1991. A literature Review for the Management of the Marten and Fisher on National 

Forests in California. Unpublished document. USDA Forest Service, San Francisco, CA. 

Graham, Russell T. 1994. "Silviculture, Fire and Ecoysystem Management." in Assessing Forest 

Ecosystem Health in the Inland WestBinghamton, New York: Food Products Press, 339-51. 

Graham, Russell T. and others, 1999. "The Effects of Thinning and Similar Stand Treatments on 

Fire Behavior in Western Forests.", PNW-GTR-463 (1999). Portland, Oregon: U.S. Depart,ment 

of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest research Station. 

Graham, Russell T., Sarah McCaffrey, and Theresa B. Jain, 2004. "Science Basis for Changing 

Forest Structure to Modify Wildfire Behavior and Severity.", RMRS-GTR-120 (2004). Rocky 

Mountain Research Station: U.S. Forest Service. 

Gray, A.N. & Franklin, J.F. 1997 Effects of multiple fires on the structure of 

southwestern Washington forests. Northwest Science, 71. 

Jones JL. 1991. Habitat use of fisher in north-central Idaho [MSc thesis]. Moscow (ID): 

Univ. of Idaho. 147 p. 

Jones JL, Garton EO. 1994. Selection of successional stages by fishers in north-central 

Idaho. In: Buskirk SW, Harestad AS, Raphael MG, Powell RA, editors. Martens, 

sables and fishers: biology and conservation. Ithaca (NY): Cornell University Press. 

Kelly, G.M. 1977. Fisher (Martes pennanti) biology in the White Mountain National 

Forest and adjacent areas. Amherst (MA): University of Massachusetts. 

Knapp, Eric E. et al (2005) Fuel reduction and coarse woody debris dynamics with early 

season and late season prescribed fire in the Sierra Nevada context. Forest Ecology and 

Management, 383-397. 

Krohn, W.B., Zielinski, W.J. & Boone, R.B. (1997) Relations among fishers, snow and 

martens in California: Results from small-scale spatial comparisons. Martes: taxonomy, 

ecology, techniques, and management (Proulx, G., Bryant, H. N., and Woodard, P. M.), 

pp. 211-232. Provincial Museum of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada. 

Landram, Mike and Hermit, Ray. Forest Structure and Fire Hazard. Seventeenth Forest 

Vegetation Management Conference. 

Lindstrand III, L. (2006) Detections of pacific fisher around Shasta Lake in Northern 

California. Transactions of the Western Section of the Wildlife Society, 42, 47-52. 

Martin SK. 1994. Feeding ecology of American martens and fishers. In: Buskirk SW, 

Harestad AS, Raphael MG, Powell RA, editors. Martens, sables and fishers: biology 

and conservation. Ithaca (NY): Cornell University Press. p 297-315. 

Mazzoni AK. 2002. Habitat use by fishers (Martes pennanti) in the southern Sierra 

Nevada [MSc thesis]. Fresno (CA): California State University. 




Oliver, Chadwick D. and Bruce C. Larson. 1996. Forest Stand Dynamics. 2nd ed. Biological 

Resource Management Series, McGraw-Hill. 

Omi, Phillip N. and Martinson, Erik J. Effects of Fules Treatment on Wildfire Severity. 

Effects of Fules Treatment on Wildfire Severity. 2002, March 25. 

Powell RA. 1979. Fishers, population models and trapping. Wildlife Society Bulletin 

7(3):149- 54. 

Powell RA. 1993. The fisher: life history, ecology and behavior. 2nd ed. Minneapolis: 

University of Minnesota Press. 

Powell RA. 1994. Effects of scale on habitat selection and foraging behavior of fishers in 

winter. Journal of Mammalogy 75(2):349-56. 

Powell RA, Zielinski WJ. 1994. Fisher. In: Ruggiero LF, Aubry KB, Buskirk SW, 

Zielinski WJ, tech. editors. The scientific basis for conserving forest carnivores: 

American marten, fisher, lynx, and wolverine. Fort Collins (CO): USDA Forest 

Service, Rocky Mtn. Forest and Range Exp. Station. GTR-RM-254. p 38- 73. 

Powell, Roger A. and William J. Zielinski. 2005. Evaluating the Demographic Factors 

That Affect the Success of Reintroducing Fishers (Martes Pennanti), and the Effect of 

Removal on a Source Population. A Final Report to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Yreka, CA. 

Ralph, C. John; Hunt, George L., Jr.; Raphael, Martin G.; Piatt, John F., Technical Editors. 1995. 

Ecology and conservation of the Marbled Murrelet. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-152. Albany, 

CA; Pacific Southwest Research Station, Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture; 420 p. 

Rosenberg KV, Raphael MG. 1986. Effects of forest fragmentation on vertebrates in 

Douglas-fir forests. In: Verner J, Morrison ML, Ralph C, editors. Wildlife 2000: 

Modeling habitat relationships of terrestrial vertebrates. Madison (WI): Univ. of 

Wisconsin Press. p 263-72. 

Roy KD. 1991. Ecology of reintroduced fishers in the Cabinet Mountains of northwest 

Montana [MSc. Thesis]. Missoula (MT): University of Montana. 94 p. 

Ruggierra, Leonard F., Aubry, Keith B., Buskirk, Steven W., Lyon, L. Jack, and 

Zielinski, William J. American Fisher, Marten, Lynx and wolverine: The Scientific Basis 

for Conserving Forest Carnivores in the Western United States. [PSW-GTR-RM-254]. 

2007. USDA Forest Service. 

Skinner, Carl and Weatherspoon, Phil. Plantation characteristics affecting damage from 

wildfire. 17th Forest vegetation Management Conference. pp 137-142. 1996. 

Small, M.P., Stone, K.D. & Cook, J.A. (2003) American marten (Martes americana) in 

hte pacific Northwest: population differentiation across a landscape fragmented in time 


and space. Molecular Ecology, 12, 89-103. 



Taylor, A.H. & Skinner, C.N. (1998) Fire history and landscape dynamics in a latesuccessional 

reserve, Klamath Mountains, California, USA. Forest Ecology and 

Management, 111, 285-301. 

Truex R.L., Zielinski W.J., Golightly R.T., Barrett R.L., Wisely S.M. 1998. A metaanalysis 

of regional variation in fisher morphology, demography, and habitat ecology 

in California [draft report submitted to California Department of Fish and Game]. 

Arcata (CA): USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station, Redwood 

Sciences Lab. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1995. Shasta-Trinity National Forests Land and 

Resource Management Plan. Shasta-Trinity National Forests, Redding CA. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service et al. 1997, Shasta-Trinity National Forest - 

Forest Wide LSR Assessment, Shasta-Trinity National Forest, Redding, CA 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Department of Commerce, 

and the Environmental Protection Agency. 1993. Forest Ecosystem Management: An Ecological, 

Economic, and Social Assessment. Report of the Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment 

Team. Forest Service, Fish and Wildlife Service, National Marine Fisheries Service, National 

Park Service, Bureau of Land Management, Environmental Protection Agency. 

U.S. Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service. 1997. Availability of the draft recovery 

plan for the Shasta crayfish (Pacifastacus fortis) for review and comment. Federal Register Vol. 

62, No. 189. 

U.S. Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service. 1994. Final rule: endangered and 

threatened wildlife and plants; determination of endangered status for the conservancy fairy 

shrimp, longhorn fairy shrimp, and the vernal pool tadpole shrimp; and threatened status for the 

vernal pool fairy shrimp. Federal Register 59:48136. 

U.S. Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service. 1986. Pacific Bald Eagle Recovery 

Plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, Oregon. 163pp. 

U.S. Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service. 1984. Recovery Plan for the valley 

elderberry longhorn beetle. Portland Oregon. 

U.S.Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 2004. Final Twelve Month 

Administrative Finding in Response to a Petition to List the Pacific Fisher. Sacramento, 

CA. 

Yaeger, S. 2005. Habitat at Fisher Resting Sites in the Klamath Province of Northern 

California. 

Zielinski W.J. 1984. Plague in pine martens and the fleas associated with its occurrence. 

Great Basin Naturalist 44(1):170-5. 




Zielinski W.J. 1997. Monitoring mesocarnivore population status. In: Harris J, Ogan C, 

editors. Mesocarnivores of northern California: Biology, management, and survey 

techniques; August 12-15, 1997; Humboldt State University, Arcata. Arcata (CA): 

The Wildlife Society, California North Coast Chapter. p 119-27. 

Zielinski W.J., Barrett RH, Truex RL. 1997c. Southern Sierra Nevada fisher and marten 

study: progress report IV. Arcata (CA): USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest 

Research Station. 

Zielinski W.J., Carroll CR, Campbell LA. 1997a. Using survey data to monitor 

population status and develop habitat models for fishers and other mesocarnivores: 

Progress report 1. Arcata (CA): USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research 

Station, Redwood Sciences Laboratory. 

Zielinski W.J., Duncan NP, Farmer EC, Truex RL, Clevenger AP, Barrett RH. 1999. Diet 

of fishers (Martes pennanti) at the southernmost extent of their range. Journal of 

Mammalogy 80(3):961-71. 

Zielinski W.J., Kucera TE, Barret RH. 1995. Current distribution of the fisher, Martes 

pennanti, in California. California Fish and Game 81(3):104-12. 

Zielinski W.J., Stauffer HB. 1996. Monitoring Martes populations in California: survey 

design and power analysis. Ecological Applications 6:1254-67. 

Zielinski W.J., Truex RL, Campbell LA, Carroll CR, Schlexer FV. 2000. Systematic 

surveys as a basis for the conservation of carnivores in California forests, progress 

report 2: 1996-1999. Arcata (CA): USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research 

Station, Redwood Sciences Laboratory. 

Zielinski W.J., Truex RL, Ogan CV, Busse K. 1997b. Detection surveys for fishers and 

American martens in California, 1989-1994: summary and interpretations. In: Proulx 

G, Bryant HN, Woodard PM, editors. Martes: taxonomy, ecology, techniques, and 

management. Edmonton (Alberta); Canada: Provincial Museum of Alberta. p 372-92. 

Zielinski, W.J., Treux, R.L., Schlexer, F.V., Schmidt, K.N. & Barrett, R.H. 2004) Home 

range characteristics of Fishers in California. Jnl of Mammology, 85, 649-657.

Wildlife Biological Evaluation for the Travel Management Project ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?