HomeMy WebLinkAbout2015-04-14 FINAL_HOH_Survey_Report v-1 deliverable_stamped
BIOLOGICAL SURVEY REPORT
Upper Hoh River Road Project
Task Order No. DTFH7015F19003
IDIQ Contract No. DTFH 70-10-D-00019
Project No. WA Jefferson 91420(1)
Prepared for:
Federal Highway Administration
Western Federal Lands Highway Division
610 East Fifth Street
Vancouver, Washington
Prepared by:
David Evans and Associates, Inc.
2100 SW River Parkway
Portland, Oregon 97201
April 2015
Biological Survey Report Upper Hoh River Road Project
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................... 1
2. METHODS .............................................................................................................................................. 1
2.1 Research and Coordination ............................................................................................................ 1
2.2 Field Reconnaissance .................................................................................................................... 2
3. RESULTS ............................................................................................................................................... 2
3.1 Vegetation ...................................................................................................................................... 2
3.2 General Field Observations ............................................................................................................ 4
3.3 Federally-Listed Wildlife, Fish, and Plant Species ......................................................................... 4
3.3.1 Marbled Murrelet ............................................................................................................................... 6
3.3.2 Northern Spotted Owl ........................................................................................................................ 6
3.3.3 Pacific Fisher ..................................................................................................................................... 7
3.3.4 Fish .................................................................................................................................................... 7
3.4 Federal Species of Concern ........................................................................................................... 8
3.4.1 Tailed Frog ........................................................................................................................................ 9
3.4.2 Western Toad .................................................................................................................................... 9
3.4.3 Van Dyke’s Salamander .................................................................................................................... 9
3.4.4 Olympic Torrent Salamander ........................................................................................................... 10
3.4.5 Peregrine Falcon ............................................................................................................................. 10
3.4.6 Bald Eagle ....................................................................................................................................... 10
3.4.7 Northern Goshawk ........................................................................................................................... 10
3.4.8 Olive-Sided Flycatcher .................................................................................................................... 10
3.4.9 Bats ................................................................................................................................................. 11
3.4.10 Potential Effects ............................................................................................................................... 11
3.5 Special Status Wildlife Species (USFS and State Species)......................................................... 12
3.5.1 Harlequin Duck ................................................................................................................................ 14
3.5.2 Bats ................................................................................................................................................. 15
3.5.3 Mollusks .......................................................................................................................................... 15
3.5.4 Butterflies......................................................................................................................................... 15
3.5.5 Potential Effects ............................................................................................................................... 16
3.6 Special Status Plant Species (USFS and State Species) ............................................................ 16
4. REFERENCES ..................................................................................................................................... 18
Page i April 2015
Upper Hoh River Road Project Biological Survey Report
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Dominant Species within the Study Area ........................................................................................ 3
Table 2: Federally Threatened, Endangered, Proposed, and Candidate Species with the Potential to
Occur In or Near the Study Area .................................................................................................... 5
Table 3: Federal Species of Concern with the Potential to Occur in or Near the Study Area ...................... 8
Table 4: Special Status Wildlife Species Potentially Occuring in the Study Area ....................................... 13
Table 5: Special Status Plant Species Potentially Occurring in the Study ARea ....................................... 17
APPENDICIES
Appendix A – Figure 1 Study Areas
Appendix B – Photographs
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
BA Biological Assessment
BLM Bureau of Land Management
DEA David Evans and Associates, Inc.
EA Environmental Assessment
ESA Endangered Species Act
FHWA Federal Highway Administration
IPaC Information, Planning, and Conservation System
LWD large woody debris
MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act
ONP Olympic National Park
PHS Priority Habitats and Species
USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
USFS U.S. Forest Service
WDFW Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
WNHP Washington Natural Heritage Program
April 2015 Page ii
Biological Survey Report Upper Hoh River Road Project
1. INTRODUCTION
David Evans and Associates, Inc. (DEA) has been contracted by the Federal Highway Administration
(FHWA) to provide biological services on the Upper Hoh River Road Project (Project) located in
Jefferson County, Washington. The Upper Hoh River Road is an 18-mile road that extends east from
Highway 101 along the north side of the Hoh River and ends in Olympic National Park (ONP).
Jefferson County owns and maintains the 12 westernmost miles of the road and ONP maintains the
remaining 6 miles within the park. The project consists of bank stabilization efforts to protect the
existing assets, and bridge and culvert replacement to address current hydraulic concerns at those
locations.
DEA was tasked with developing a list of species for which additional information, including
surveys, may be needed in order to assess impacts. This report provides a summary of DEA’s
approach and documentation for this task. Since it is still early in the process of Project design, the
details of the Project have not yet been determined, and coordination with the appropriate agencies
will continue as the project develops.
2. METHODS
Information on biological resources in the vicinity of the proposed project was gathered from
existing documentation and references, coordination with state and federal agencies, and a field
reconnaissance conducted by biologists. Five study areas have been identified along the Upper Hoh
River Road, and are shown in Appendix A.
This analysis addresses the potential effects of the proposed project on threatened, endangered,
proposed and sensitive wildlife, fish, and vascular and non-vascular plants, in accordance with the
National Environmental Policy Act (42 USC 4321 et seq.) and the federal Endangered Species Act
(ESA) (16 USC 1531 et seq.). It also addresses sensitive species as defined by the U.S. Forest
Service (USFS) and the State of Washington.
2.1 RESEARCH AND COORDINATION
The following resources were used to create a list of species with the potential to occur in or near the
study area.
• Information, Planning, and Conservation System (IPaC) Resource List for the Upper Hoh
River study area. January 2015.
• Washington Natural Heritage Program (WNHP) Priority Habitats and Species (PHS)
database search results within two miles of the project. January 2015.
• Washington Natural Heritage Information System List of Known Occurrences of Rare Plants
in Jefferson County, Washington. February 2015.
• Washington State Species of Concern Lists (WDFW 2015).
• Interagency Special Status/Sensitive Species Program website. January 2015.
Page 1 April 2015
Upper Hoh River Road Project Biological Survey Report
In addition to these resources, the Environmental Assessment (EA) for the Calawah Watershed Road
Decommissioning Project (USFS 2014), hereafter referred to as the Calawah EA, was used to
provide relevant local information and assessment of potential effects from the Upper Hoh River
Road project. The Calawah watershed lays two drainages and less than 10 miles to the north of the
Hoh River, and contains similar low elevation forest habitat to that found within the project study
area. Other studies reviewed to inform this report are referenced within the text of the document.
Personal Communications with Agency Personnel, January and February, 2015
• Greg Wahl, Environmental Coordinator, USFS, Olympia, Washington
• Theresa Powell, Habitat Biologist, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW)
Habitat Program, Port Angeles, Washington
• Steve Allison, Natural Resource Director, Hoh Tribe, Washington
2.2 FIELD RECONNAISSANCE
Two DEA biologists, familiar with the vegetation and wildlife of the region, conducted a
reconnaissance level survey (site recon) to document habitat conditions within the study area and
vicinity on February 2 through 5, 2015. The study area is shown in Appendix A.
Concurrent with the site recon, a wetland delineation was conducted to identify any wetlands in the
study area using the Level 2 Routine Delineation Method described in the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (USACE) Wetlands Delineation Manual (USACE 1987) and further supported by the
Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual (USACE 2010).
Due to the project schedule and urgency in stabilizing the eroding slopes within the project, the site
visits did not occur during the flowering season for the sensitive plant species with potential to occur
within the five study areas, which are described below. However, general habitat conditions were
noted in order to better understand which species may be present, and representative photographs
were taken, which are included in Appendix B. These general habitat conditions were determined
from direct observation aided by aerial photo interpretation.
3. RESULTS
3.1 VEGETATION
The project is located in the Westside Lowland Conifer-Hardwood Forest habitat type, as described
in Wildlife-Habitat Relationships in Oregon and Washington (Johnson and O’Neil 2000). Vegetation
was quite homogenous throughout the study areas, and dominant species are shown in Table 1.
Elevations within the study area range from approximately 250 to 400 feet in elevation.
Most of the study area is occupied by native upland and wetland forest vegetation, except for the
ditches and cleared areas adjacent to the roadside, where the non-native species shown in Table 1 are
present. The following provides a brief and approximate description of forest structure and
composition by study area.
April 2015 Page 2
Biological Survey Report Upper Hoh River Road Project
Table 1: Dominant Species within the Study Area
Trees -
Common Name Scientific Name Abundance
Red alder Alnus rubra Dominant
Western hemlock Tsuga heterophylla Dominant
Sitka spruce Picea sitchensis Common
Shrubs and Woody Vines -
Common Name Scientific Name Abundance
Salmonberry Rubus spectabilis Dominant
Vine maple Acer circinatum Common
Trailing blackberry Rubus ursinus Common
Devil’s club Oplopanax horridus Uncommon
Red elderberry Sambucus racemosa Uncommon
Himalayan blackberry Rubus armeniacus* Uncommon
Herbs and Grasses -
Common Name Scientific Name Abundance
Youth-on-age Tolmiea menziesii Dominant
Swordfern Polystichum munitum Dominant
Water parsely Oenanthe sarmentosa Dominant
Kentucky bluegrass Poa pratensis* Common
Oregon oxalis Oxalis oregana Common
Slough sedge Carex obnupta Common
Creeping buttercup Ranunculus repens* Common
*Non-native or invasive species
Study Area C-1: North of the road, a matrix of mid-mature wetland and upland forest is present, as
dictated by slight changes in topography, groundwater movement, and presence of berms created by
historic digging of ditches adjacent to the road. Soils are dominated by silty clay loams. Average
height of trees is 75-100 feet, with a few trees approximately 125 feet in height. A few larger snags
are standing, but large woody debris (LWD) is somewhat limited, especially in the western portion of
the study area, which is dominated by red alder/salmonberry forest, and is primarily wetland. Upland
areas are dominated by Western hemlock and swordfern. A narrow band of riparian vegetation is
present south of the road in places, but has eroded away within much of the study area, and the
roadway drops steeply to the Hoh River. An emergency repair section of the roadway lies near the
center of the study area.
Page 3 April 2015
Upper Hoh River Road Project Biological Survey Report
Study Area C-2: This study area is very similar to C-1, but the forest is somewhat younger and
topography much steeper. Soils are derived primarily from sandstone, which is visible in cut banks
and results in much better drainage than that found in C-1. Similar to C-1, only a narrow band of
riparian vegetation is present in places, except where it has eroded away completely.
Study Area C-3: Forest in this study area is older than the other four sites, with greater cover by
Sitka spruce, and an average tree height of approximately 100-125 feet. Fewer red alder are present,
but they are older and covered by moss and lichen, as are the few big-leaf maple (Acer
macrophyllum) that are present. Sword fern is dense in the understory, with fewer wetlands and less
cover by salmonberry and vine maple. LWD and snags are relatively large and abundant.
Study Area C-4: This site is very similar to C-1, but with larger, mossy red alder and more cover by
slough sedge in the wetlands. Several large spruce and alder snags present, but LWD is somewhat
limited, especially within wetlands. Tower Creek, a tributary to the Hoh River, flows through this
site.
Study Area C-5: Also very similar to C-1, but this study area is dominated almost entirely by mid-
mature red alder that lies on steep slopes leading down to Canyon Creek, which lies in the center of
the study area. Canyon Creek is a tributary to the Hoh River, which lies outside the study area.
Swordfern is the dominant species in the understory, and the study area is surrounded primarily by
recent clearcuts, except for a few patches of older hemlock forest to the southwest and southeast. No
wetlands are present.
3.2 GENERAL FIELD OBSERVATIONS
Appendix B includes representative photos taken during the site recon, which shows the relatively
homogenous nature of the site. Little wildlife was observed during the site visits, likely due to the
time of year and weather during the visits, though common resident bird species and scat from deer
was noted. The study area is used by raptors (including owls), migratory birds, amphibians, mollusks,
and other species, as described below.
3.3 FEDERALLY-LISTED WILDLIFE, FISH, AND PLANT SPECIES
Federally-listed threatened and endangered species are those plant and animal species formally listed
by the USFWS under authority of the ESA. Table 2 displays those federally-listed species with the
potential to occur in or near the study area that are listed as occurring by the IPaC Resource List for
the study area (USFWS 2015) and by the list for Jefferson County, Washington (USFWS 2009). The
federally-threatened spotted owl, marbled murrelet, and several fish species are documented in and
near the study area, and Critical Habitat for marbled murrelet and spotted owl has been identified
within the study area. In addition, the Pacific fisher is a federal Candidate species, and is known to
occur in the Olympic National Forest.
Since there are no federally-listed vascular plants, bryophytes, fungi, or lichens documented or
suspected on the Olympic Ranger District of the ONF (USFS and Bureau of Land Management
[BLM] 2015), it is assumed that no federally-listed species are present within the study area, and
therefore no plants are included in Table 2. Chinook, coho, and steelhead are anadramous fish
species regulated by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). All other species listed in
April 2015 Page 4
Biological Survey Report Upper Hoh River Road Project
Table 2 are regulated by the USFWS. Species with potential to occur are discussed in the text
following the table.
Table 2: Federally Threatened, Endangered, Proposed, and Candidate Species with the Potential
to Occur In or Near the Study Area
Common Name Scientific Name
USFWS or
NMFS
Status
Habitat Requirements*
Potential
Occurrence in
the Study
Area?
Marbled murrelet Brachyramphus
marmoratus Threatened
Large or forked branches, deformities,
mistle-toe infections, or other similar
structures
Yes
Northern spotted
owl Strix occidentalis caurina Threatened
Canopy closure, multi-layered, multi-
species canopy with large overstory
trees with various deformities
Yes
Streaked horned
lark
Eremophila alpestris
strigata Threatened Large expanses of bare or thinly
vegetated land*
Not present due to
lack of habitat
Yellow-billed
cuckoo Coccyzus americanus Threatened
Deciduous riparian woodland, especially
including dense stands of cottonwood
and willow*
Not present due to
lack of habitat
Pacific fisher Martes pennanti Candidate Mature forest cover and late-
successional forests Yes
Olympic
(Mazama) pocket
gopher
Thomomys mazama
melanops Candidate Glacial outwash prairies of the higher
Olympic Mountains
Not present due to
lack of habitat
Taylor’s
checkerspot Euphydryas editha taylori Candidate Dry prairies or prairie-like native
grassland*
Not present due to
lack of habitat
Chinook salmon Oncorhynchus
tshawytscha
Depends
upon run**
Cold rivers and streams with low to
moderate gradient*
Present within
Hoh River
Coho salmon Oncorhynchus kisutch Depends
upon run**
Cold rivers and streams with low to
moderate gradient*
Present within
Hoh River
Steelhead Oncorhynchus mykiss Depends
upon run**
Cold rivers and streams with low to
moderate gradient*
Present within
Hoh River and
some runs in
Tower Creek
Bull trout Salvelinus confluentus Threatened Deep pools in cold rivers and large
tributary streams*
Present within
Hoh River and
some runs in
Tower Creek
Dolly varden Salvelinus malma
Threatened**
(similarity of
appearance)
Deep runs and pools of creeks and small
to large rivers*
Present within
Hoh River and
some runs in
Tower Creek
Source of Habitat Requirements: USFS 2014 unless noted with an asterisk: *Natureserve 2015
State Status: SC = State Species of Concern; Scan = State Candidate; SE = State Endangered; SS = State Sensitive; ST = State Threatened;
**Please refer to text for description of “Depends on Run” and “Similarity of Appearance”
Page 5 April 2015
Upper Hoh River Road Project Biological Survey Report
The federally-listed fish and wildlife species with the potential to occur in the study area are highly
mobile. Avoidance and conservation measures for these species will be provided in consultation with
the appropriate agencies, which will be documented in the Biological Assessment (BA). Since any
need for additional surveys for these species will be determined in consultation with the USFWS and
NMFS as the Upper Hoh River Project progresses, they are discussed only briefly below.
3.3.1 Marbled Murrelet
Attributes that provide nesting platforms for murrelets include large or forked branches, deformities,
mistletoe infections, and “witches brooms” or other similar structures greater than 4 inches in
diameter). These attributes are generally found in old-growth and mature forests, but can be found on
remnant trees in younger forests (USFWS 1996). Suitable nesting habitat for marbled murrelet can
generally be approximated by northern spotted owl suitable habitat (nesting, roosting, foraging). By
contrast, dispersal habitat for northern spotted owl is not suitable nesting habitat for marbled
murrelet.
Numerous detections of the species occur near all study areas; all study areas lie within sections
containing murrelet detections or within the 3/4-mile buffer of those sections. Study Area C-3
provides the most suitable habitat for murrelets due to the presence of larger trees for nesting.
3.3.2 Northern Spotted Owl
Suitable habitat for the northern spotted owl consists of habitat that supports facets of the spotted
owl’s life history such as nesting, roosting, and in general, foraging. Nesting and roosting habitat
generally includes attributes such as a moderate to high canopy closure (60-80 percent); a multi-
layered, multi-species canopy with large (greater than 30 inches diameter at breast height [dbh])
overstory trees; a high incidence of large trees with various deformities (e.g., large cavities, broken
tops, mistletoe infections, and other evidence of decadence); large (greater than 30-inches dbh)
snags; large accumulations of fallen trees and other woody debris on the ground; and sufficient space
below the canopy for owls to fly (Thomas et al. 1993).
A wider range of habitats is used for foraging and dispersal. Habitat that meets nesting and roosting
requirements also provides for foraging and dispersal (USFWS 1992). Dispersal habitat is considered
that habitat which functions to assist juvenile dispersal and breeding dispersal of adult spotted owls,
and also connects suitable habitat patches with one another. The general rule for classifying dispersal
habitat is to have a stand with an average tree diameter of 11 inches dbh within a canopy cover of 40
percent (Thomas et al. 1993).
For the Olympic Peninsula, the mean nesting core and median home range areas are approximated by
1.4 and 2.7 miles radii circles, respectively, around an activity center. According to the WNHP,
“Territorial, non-territorial, and historic spotted owl sites” include much of the study area. These sites
are provided as large polygons and do not necessarily pinpoint the nest site. These home range areas,
which may or may not be currently occupied, encompass Study Areas C-3, C-4, and C-5, and nearly
touch C-1 and C-2. No surveys were conducted specific to this project; but based on the field
reconnaissance, Study Area C-3 provides the most suitable habitat for spotted owl. Further
clarification regarding actual spotted owl presence will be obtained for the biological assessment
being written for the project.
April 2015 Page 6
Biological Survey Report Upper Hoh River Road Project
3.3.3 Pacific Fisher
The Pacific fisher commonly occurs in landscapes dominated by mature forest cover and has been
categorized by some researchers as “closely-associated” with late-successional forests (Thomas et al.
1993). Until recently the fisher was considered extirpated from the Olympic Peninsula.
Reintroductions of fisher to the Olympic Peninsula began in 2008, and all introduced animals were
radio-collared. Several different radio-collared fishers were documented in the Calawah watershed
from 2008-2010, while collars were still functioning (USFS 2014).
Although no denning was documented in the Calawah watershed (which lies two drainages to the
north of the Hoh River), it is assumed that fishers are still periodically using the Calawah watershed,
and could conceivably migrate to the Hoh River watershed. Fishers could be found in older stands
adjacent to project activity areas, especially within the older forest found in Study Area C-3
(although they could move through any of the study areas).
3.3.4 Fish
Error! Reference source not found.shows the federally-listed fish species mapped within the study
area. As mentioned, conservation measures and potential surveys for these species will be developed
in consultation with the appropriate agencies, which will be documented in the BA. Therefore, they
are not discussed in further detail here. However, the “similarity of appearance provision” for the
Dolly Varden could use further explanation:
“The Dolly Varden is proposed for listing under the similarity of appearance provisions
because of its close resemblance to bull trout. On November 1, 1999, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service added the bull trout to the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife as a
threatened species throughout its range in the coterminous United States. This listing
included bull trout within the Coastal-Puget Sound region of Washington, where both bull
trout and Dolly Varden occur.
These two species of “native char” were previously considered a single species, and referred
to by the common name Dolly Varden. Now the bull trout and the Dolly Varden are formally
recognized as two separate species based on technical taxonomic characteristics. However,
the two species are virtually impossible to tell apart visually, even by specialists. The Dolly
Varden would be treated as if it were a listed species only where its range overlaps with that
of the Coastal-Puget Sound population segment of bull trout in Washington State”
(http://www.fws.gov/pacific/news/2001/2001-06q-a.htm).
In addition, the conservation status of several fish species in Table 3is shown as “Depends upon run,”
since the status of separate populations may differ dramatically in the timing of adult migration and,
to a lesser extent, timing of spawning. More detail in this regard will be provided in the BA.
Page 7 April 2015
Upper Hoh River Road Project Biological Survey Report
3.4 FEDERAL SPECIES OF CONCERN
The USFWS maintains a list of Federal Species of Concern for Jefferson County, Washington, which
are shown in Table 3 (USFWS 2009). These species do not warrant the same level of protection as
threatened or endangered species. There is no legal protection for Federal Species of Concern and the
term does not necessarily mean they will be listed. Many of these Federal Species of Concern are
also found on Washington State and USFS sensitive species list. All Federal Species of Concern with
the potential to occur are addressed in the text following Table 3, while State and USFS sensitive
species that are not found on the Federal Species of Concern list are discussed in the text following
Table 4.
Table 3: Federal Species of Concern with the Potential to Occur in or Near the Study Area
Common Name Scientific
Name
USFS/
State
Status
Habitat Requirements*
Potential
Occurrence
in the Study
Area?
Project
Effects?
Animals
Tailed frog Ascaphus truei -- / Smon
Fast, cold streams, sea level to
approx. 5,000’, with cobble or
boulder substrates*
Yes May Impact
Western toad Bufo boreas --/ --
Ponds/shallow lakes, but may be
found near streams during dry
periods*
Yes May Impact
Van Dyke's salamander Plethodon
vandykei S/ SC Seepages and streams but can also
be observed far from water Yes May Impact
Cascades frog Rana cascadae --/ Smon
Small lakes, ponds, marshy areas
adjacent to streams. Usually found
above 2,000 feet elevation*
Unlikley due to
elevation No Effect
Olympic torrent salamander Rhyacotriton
olympicus S/ Smon Near the splash zone of cold, clear
streams, seepages, or waterfalls Yes May Impact
Birds
Northern goshawk Accipiter gentilis --/ SC Coniferous forests with open
understories Yes May Impact
Olive-sided flycatcher Contopus cooperi --/ --
Coniferous forests with uneven
canopies,openings and wet areas,
dead or partially dead trees
Yes May Impact
American peregrine falcon Falco peregrinus
anatum S/ SS Cliff nester; forages near large
concentrations of prey birds Yes No Effect
Bald eagle Haliaeetus
leucocephalus S/ SS Mature forest/snags within 1 mile of
large bodies of water Yes May Impact
Townsend's big-eared bat Corynorhinus
townsendii S/ SC
Large trees and manmande
structures can provide suitable
roosting habitat
Yes May Impact
Long- eared myotis Myotis evotis --/ Smon Coniferous forests, tree cavities,
rock crevices Yes May Impact
Long-legged myotis Myotis volans --/ Smon Coniferous forests, tree cavities,
rock crevices Yes May Impact
April 2015 Page 8
Biological Survey Report Upper Hoh River Road Project
Common Name Scientific
Name
USFS/
State
Status
Habitat Requirements*
Potential
Occurrence
in the Study
Area?
Project
Effects?
Valley silverspot Speyeria zerene
bremnerii S/ SC Open prairies, arctic-alpine tundra,
and subalpine glades
Not present due
to lack of
habitat
No Effect
Fish
Westslope cutthroat trout Oncoryhchus clarki
lewisi --/ --
Small mountain streams, main
rivers, and large natural lakes;
requires cool, clean, well-
oxygenated water*
Present within
Hoh River and
creeks
May Impact
Source of Habitat Requirements : USFS 2014 unless noted with an asterisk: *Natureserve 2015
State Status: SC = State Species of Concern; Smon = State Monitor; SS = State Sensitive
USFS Status: S= Sensitive or Strategic
3.4.1 Tailed Frog
Suitable habitat for the tailed frog consists of fast, clear, cold streams with cobble or boulder
substrates and little silt, from sea level to high elevation (Corkran and Thoms 2006). Adults can also
be found occasionally along stream banks and in riparian forests where they forage for insects. The
species is known to occur in the drainage to the north of the Hoh River (WNHP 2015), but would
also be expected to occur in the upper reaches of the tributaries to the Hoh River where similar
habitat is likely to occur. It is less likely to occur within the study area because that habitat lies lower
in the watershed, which is not their preferred habitat but it could be present.
Because they spend the majority of their life in aquatic environs, the tailed frog is vulnerable to
management practices that alter the riparian or aquatic zones of streams, especially those that change
the moisture regime, increase stream temperature, increase sediment load, reduce woody debris input,
and change stream bank integrity (Leonard et al. 1993, Hallock and McAllister 2005a).
3.4.2 Western Toad
The western toad occurs in a variety of terrestrial habitats. Transformed toads are terrestrial but often
can be found near streams or other water bodies during dry periods. Breeding waters can include
wetlands, ponds and shallow lakes, reservoir coves, and still-water off-channel habitats of rivers
(Corkran and Thoms 2006, Hallock and McAllister 2005b). This species could potentially occur in
the area, although there are no known sightings.
3.4.3 Van Dyke’s Salamander
The Van Dyke’s salamander is rare and generally considered the most “aquatic” of the woodland
salamanders. It is usually associated with seepages and streams but can also be observed far from
water (Leonard et al. 1993). It can be found in the splash zones of creeks or waterfalls under debris,
or under logs, bark, and bark on logs near water. It is also found in wet talus and forest litter from sea
level to 3,600 feet (Nordstrom and Milner 1997). The Van Dyke’s salamander has been documented
in several areas of the watershed (WNHP 2015) and is assumed to be present in the study area.
Habitat exists along the streams within the project area.
Page 9 April 2015
Upper Hoh River Road Project Biological Survey Report
3.4.4 Olympic Torrent Salamander
The Olympic Torrent salamander is nearly always found around the splash zone of cold, clear
streams, seepages, or waterfalls. Seepages running through talus slopes also provide habitat. The
streams and riparian forest in the project area provide habitat for this species. The species has been
documented in the watershed (WNHP 2015) and is assumed to be present in the study area. Habitat
exists along the streams within the project area.
3.4.5 Peregrine Falcon
There are no documented observations of Peregrine falcon within the project area. Peregrine falcon
need cliffs or rock outcrops for suitable nesting habitat. No such cliffs were visible from the study
area, and the species is not documented within more than a mile of the study area (WNHP 2015). It is
assumed that although it could forage above the study area, it would not be affected by the project.
3.4.6 Bald Eagle
There are seven bald eagle nests or communal roosts within a mile of the study area; one is located
on the south bank of the Hoh River across from the project. The 360-foot nest buffer overlaps with
Study Area C-1 (WNHP 2015). In addition to nesting habitat, adequate forage resources are also a
critical component of bald eagle wintering and breeding habitat, especially anadromous fisheries
(USFWS 1986), which are present in the Hoh River.
3.4.7 Northern Goshawk
The northern goshawk uses mid- to large-diameter trees for nesting and perching, and requires an
open flight corridor beneath the canopy to be successful in searching for food and capturing prey.
There are records of this species in the watershed, dating back to the 1990s (Washington State
Heritage Database). Suitable nesting habitat for the northern goshawk includes mature or old
coniferous forest, with relatively closed canopies and multiple canopy layers, and a high density of
larger trees (>23 inches in diameter). Suitable goshawk habitat occurs in the area (especially Study
Area C-3), and a single goshawk was documented in 1994 outside and northwest of study area C-1.
3.4.8 Olive-Sided Flycatcher
The olive-sided flycatcher is a long-distance, neotropical migrant that breeds throughout coniferous
forest in western Washington and Oregon. Preferred habitat consists of mid- to high-elevation
montane and coniferous forests. This bird species is positively associated with edge habitats (natural
or man-made), landscape heterogeneity, and juxtaposition of early and late-seral habitats (Shirley and
Smith 2005, Altman and Hagar 2007). Marginally suitable habitat for the olive-sided flycatcher
exists in the study area, which may be too low in elevation to provide preferred habitat for the
species.
April 2015 Page 10
Biological Survey Report Upper Hoh River Road Project
3.4.9 Bats
The Townsend’s big-eared bat is potentially present in the forest surrounding the project area.
Suitable roosts are critical components for the survival of the Townsend’s big-eared bat (Woodruff
and Ferguson 2005). The Townsend’s uses manmade structures for roosts as well as natural
structures. The species feeds on insects and could be expected to be found foraging over riparian
areas or other open areas within the project area, and may use trees in the study area for roosting.
Both the long-eared myotis and the long-legged myotis inhabit coniferous forests where they roost
under bark, in tree cavities, and rock crevices. Bats in the Pacific Northwest tend to use old-growth
Douglas-fir stands disproportionately more than young or mature stands. This is presumably due to
increased roost availability in old-growth stands and the paucity and lesser suitability of roost trees in
second-growth stands (Wunder and Carey 1996, Grindal 1998). They may occur within the study
area.
3.4.10 Potential Effects
For the amphibian species, effects to aquatic environments are generally viewed as the greater threat
than terrestrial effects (USFS 2014). Project activities may have an adverse effect on western toads
and terrestrial phases of other amphibians if individuals are present in the forested areas, but would
likely be minimal in terms of effects upon the entire population. Amphibians in the aquatic phase
could be impacted by changes in water quality, which could be avoided or minimized by best
management practices. It may also be possible to offset impacts by conducting salvage of amphibians
prior to construction, depending on construction schedule.
The Van Dyke’s salamander aquatic form is generally found in association with streams or seeps.
Any effects to the aquatic form would likely be minor and short-term. The terrestrial form of this
species could be found moving through upland areas of the project area, but impacts to this species
would likely be minimal.
The Olympic torrent salamander is not likely to be found in project areas outside of stream crossings.
Potential for incidental direct mortality exists, but this would be unlikely and restricted to very few
individuals.
Project activities would not impact the nesting habitat of the olive-sided flycatcher if Migratory Bird
Treaty Act (MBTA) seasonal restrictions were observed. The nesting season for migratory birds is
approximately March 1 to August 31, but should be coordinated with local biologists as the project
progresses. Goshawks, if present and nesting within the study area or vicinity could be impacted by
the project, and nest surveys may need to be conducted to determine whether they are present.
Goshawk nests would need to be protected from disturbance if any were located in proximity to
project activities. Tree removal could also impact individual long-legged myotis and long-eared
myotis if they are roosting in them.
Page 11 April 2015
Upper Hoh River Road Project Biological Survey Report
If construction were to occur outside the nesting season for bald eagle, (January 1 - August 31), the
species would not be impacted by the project. For construction between January 1 and August 31,
nesting surveys would need to be conducted, which entail direct observation of historic nests to
determine occupancy. Aquatic conservation measures would ensure there would be no measurable
impacts to bald eagle prey species.
Townsend’s big-eared bat could be found roosting in snags or hollow trees, and tree removal could
potentially remove a roost tree, but the incidence and likelihood of this is expected to be low.
Overall, potential impacts would only be incurred at the individual level and would not impact the
populations as a whole.
3.5 SPECIAL STATUS WILDLIFE SPECIES (USFS AND STATE SPECIES)
In addition to the federally-listed species described above, Washington State maintains a list of
Species of Concern which can be found on their website (WDFW 2015). These include native
wildlife species that have need of protection and/or management to ensure their survival as free-
ranging populations in Washington.
The USFS (in association with the BLM) maintains lists of Sensitive Species and Strategic Species.
Sensitive Species are species that could easily become endangered or extinct and should be managed
such that activities on federal lands do not contribute to their listing. Strategic Species are species
whose actual protection status is unknown due to data gaps or taxonomic uncertainties. Collectively,
the USFS refers to both lists as Special Status Species.
The Interagency Special Status/Sensitive Species Program (previously Survey and Manage species
program) at the regional USFS headquarters office is responsible for updating the Strategic Species
status as information about each species becomes known. The USFS has developed this approach to
meet their obligation under the ESA as well as the National Forest Management Act. Since the
project lies within the Olympic district, the Sensitive and Special Status Species list for the Olympic
District was consulted (USFS and BLM 2015) and cross-referenced with the WDFW list of Species
of Concern (WDFW 2015).
Based on these results, a list of plant and animal species that could potentially occur within the
project area, or be affected by the proposed project, was generated. USFS and Washington State
wildlife species with the potential to occur in or near the study area are provided in Table 4, and the
State Status code key is provided at the bottom of the table (all species in the table are on the
Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species list). Only species that may be impacted by the project are
discussed in the text. Federal Species of Concern that were discussed in the text of Section 3.4 (such
as peregrine falcon and others) are not addressed again in the text of this section. They are marked
with a double asterisk (**) in Table 4.
April 2015 Page 12
Biological Survey Report Upper Hoh River Road Project
Table 4: Special Status Wildlife Species Potentially Occuring in the Study Area
Common Name Scientific
Name
USFS/
State
Status
Habitat Requirements
Potential
Occurrence
in the Study
Area
Potential
Effects?
Amphibians
Van Dyke's salamander** Plethodon
vandykei S/ SC Seepages and streams but can
also be observed far from water Yes May Impact
Olympic torrent salamander** Rhyacotriton
olympicus S/ Smon
Near the splash zone of cold,
clear streams, seepages, or
waterfalls
Yes May Impact
Birds
Common loon Gavia immer S/ SS Nesting and foraging in inland
lakes and ponds Not present due
to lack of habitat No Effect
American peregrine falcon** Falco peregrinus
anatum S/ SS Cliffs or rocks outcrops for
suitable nesting habitat Yes No Effect
Bald eagle** Haliaeetus
leucocephalus S/ SS Large trees for nesting habitat,
and adequate forage resources Yes May Impact
Harlequin duck Histrionicus
histrionicus S/ --
Winters along rocky Pacific
coasts and moves inland to
breed in the Olympic Mountains
Yes May Impact
Mammals
Townsend's big-eared
bat**
Corynorhinus
townsendii S/ SC
Large trees and manmande
structures can provide suitable
roosting habitat Yes May Impact
Keen’s myotis bat Myotis keenii S/ SC Sloughing bark, most often found
on old-growth trees and snags Yes May Impact
Pacific fisher Martes pennanti S/ SE Mature forest cover and late-
successional forests Yes
May Impact-
refer to
Section 3.3
Olympic (Mazama)
pocket gopher
Thomomys
mazama
melanops
S/ ST
Glacial outwash prairies;
restricted to subalpine habitat of
the higher Olympic Mountains
Not present due
to lack of habitat No Effect
Olympic marmot Marmota
Olympus S/ ST Found in sub-alpine and alpine
meadows and talus slopes
Not present due
to lack of habitat No Effect
Mollusks
Puget Oregonian (snail) Cryptomastix
devia S/ --
Hardwood shrubs and trees,
particularly big leaf maple and
vine maple
Yes May Impact
Burrington's (keeled) jumping slug Hemphillia
burringtoni S/ -- Hardwoods and large fallen logs
may be found in forested areas Yes May Impact
Malone's jumping slug Hemphillia
malonei S/ -- Hardwoods and large fallen logs
may be found in forested areas Yes May Impact
Blue-gray taildropper (slug) Prophysaon
coeruleum S/ SC Hardwoods and large fallen logs
may be found in forested areas Yes May Impact
Page 13 April 2015
Upper Hoh River Road Project Biological Survey Report
Common Name Scientific
Name
USFS/
State
Status
Habitat Requirements
Potential
Occurrence
in the Study
Area
Potential
Effects?
Broadwhorl tightcoil
(snail)
Pristiloma
johnsoni S/ -- Hardwoods and large fallen logs
may be found in forested areas Yes May Impact
Butterflies
Johnson’s hairstreak Callophrys
johnsoni S/ SC
Old-growth or more advanced
age second-growth habitat that
contains dwarf mistletoes
Yes May Impact
Taylor’s checkerspot Euphydryas
editha taylori S/ SE Dry prairies or prairie-like native
grassland*
Not present due
to lack of habitat No Effect
Olympic arctic Oeneis chryxus
valerata S/ -- Alpine tundra, at altitudes of
6000-7000' and above*
Not present due
to lack of habitat No Effect
Golden hairstreak Habrodais
grunus S/ -- Oak-covered canyons, ridges,
slopes*
Not present due
to lack of habitat No Effect
Makah copper
Lycaena
mariposa
charlottensis
S/ SC
Pine forests; moist areas,
meadows, seeps. Larval host is
genus Vaccinium*
Not present due
to lack of habitat No Effect
Puget blue or Blackmore’s blue
Plebejus
icariodes
blackmorei
S/ SC Forest clearings with the
presence of Lupine
Not present due
to lack of habitat No Effect
Lupine blue butterfly Plebejus lupini
spangelatus S/ -- Moderate elevations in canyons,
oak woodland, prairies, alpine*
Not present due
to lack of habitat No Effect
Valley silverspot Speyeria zerene
bremnerii S/ SC Open prairies, arctic-alpine
tundra, and subalpine glades
Not present due
to lack of habitat No Effect
Source of Habitat Requirements : USFS 2014 unless noted with an asterisk: *Natureserve 2015
State Status: SC = State Species of Concern; SE = State Endangered; SS = State Sensitive; ST = State Threatened; USFS Status: S= Sensitive or Strategic
** Species discussed in the text of Section 3.4
3.5.1 Harlequin Duck
The Harlequin duck is a sea duck which winters along rocky Pacific coasts and moves inland to
breed in the Olympic Mountains. During the nesting season of April to June, the adults require fast
flowing streams with loafing sites nearby (Lewis and Kraege 1999). It nests along fast moving rivers
and mountain streams on rocky islands or banks, and these streams are braided with many riffles and
rapids. Harlequin ducks require relatively undisturbed, low gradient, meandering streams with dense
shrubby riparian areas (greater than 50 percent streamside shrub cover), and woody debris for nesting
and brood rearing. This habitat is not present along the Hoh River or tributaries within the study area.
A pair of Harlequin ducks was documented in 1996 on the Hoh River near Study Area C-2, but
Harlequin ducks appear to be sensitive to human disturbance (Lewis and Kraege 1999). It is assumed
that the species may move through and forage within the Hoh River occasionally, but no nesting
would occur since no nesting or brood rearing habitat is present and the existing level of human
disturbance, especially from fishing activity, is relatively high within the study area.
April 2015 Page 14
Biological Survey Report Upper Hoh River Road Project
3.5.2 Bats
Keen’s myotis is potentially present in the forest surrounding the project area. Many species of bat,
such as Keen’s myotis, utilize the areas beneath sloughing bark, most often found on old-growth
trees and snags. The species feeds on insects and could be expected to be found foraging over
riparian areas or other open areas within the project area, and may use trees in the study area for
roosting.
3.5.3 Mollusks
The Puget Oregonian snail is associated with hardwood shrubs and trees, particularly big-leaf maple
and vine maple. It is only known on the Olympic National Forest from one shell found on the Hood
Canal Ranger District. Despite extensive surveys across the Olympic National Forest, no other shells
nor live animals have been discovered (Ziegltrum 2006, pers. comm.). However, if it were present, it
may be impacted, depending upon project design.
The broadwhorl tightcoil (snail), blue-gray taildropper, and Burrington’s (keeled) jumping slug are
presumed to be present due to presence of suitable habitat. Typical habitat for these mollusk species
such as hardwoods or large fallen logs may be found in all forested areas adjacent to the road.
The broadwhorl tightcoil tends to occur at exceptionally moist and very diverse forest sites (Frest and
Johannes 1999). Typical site descriptions include abundant ground cover (salal, oxalis, sword fern,
grass spp.), conifer or hardwood overstory, and moderate to deep litter. The Malone’s jumping slug
occurs in moist forested habitats generally over 50 years old with greater than 50 percent canopy
cover, especially where dense sword fern, conifer logs, coarse woody debris, exfoliated bark piles,
and large decaying stumps are present. It can also be found in marshy open sites with dense skunk
cabbage, fallen logs, and other low vegetative cover (Duncan et al. 2003).
The blue-gray taildropper slug occurs in moist conifer and mixed conifer-hardwood forests, usually
located in sites with relatively higher shade and moisture levels than those of general forest habitat. It
is usually associated with partially decayed logs, leaf and needle litter (especially hardwood leaf
litter), mosses, and moist plant communities including big-leaf maple and sword fern plant
associations (Duncan et al. 2003). The keeled jumping slug is locally common and abundant on the
Olympic National Forest (Ziegltrum 2001 and Ziegltrum 2004), and occurs in moist conifer forest.
3.5.4 Butterflies
The Johnson’s hairstreak is found in old-growth or more advanced age second-growth habitat
because the species depends on forests that contain dwarf mistletoes of the genus Arceuthobium,
which mainly occur in western hemlock (USFWS 1995). Emerging larvae feed upon this mistletoe
(Pyle 2002). While the species has not been documented in the project watershed, suitable habitat is
present, and it is assumed to be present.
No habitat is present in the project area for any of the other butterfly species on the list, and none of
these species is documented or suspected to be present. The Puget Blue (or Blackmore’s Blue)
butterfly is a colonial species whose habitat includes forest clearings with the presence of Lupine
(Lupinus spp.), Puget lowland prairies, power line and railroad rights-of-way (Larsen et al. 1995),
and no such habitats are present.
Page 15 April 2015
Upper Hoh River Road Project Biological Survey Report
3.5.5 Potential Effects
Project activities would not result in direct mortality of the Harlequin duck or impacts to breeding or
nesting since no breeding or nesting habitat is present, but project activities adjacent to the Hoh River
could create disturbance capable of displacing individual non-nesting ducks for a short period. As
mentioned above, sedimentation and turbidity effects on aquatic organisms, including Harlequin
duck prey would likely be minor and short-lived; since suitable habitat for nesting is not present,
impacts to individuals would be expected to be minor.
The Keen’s myotis could be found roosting in snags or hollow trees, and tree removal could
potentially remove a roost tree, but the incidence and likelihood of this is expected to be low.
Overall, potential impacts would only be incurred at the individual level and would not impact the
populations as a whole.
For all mollusks that may be present, a small level of incidental mortality could be incurred, but this
would not likely pose a risk to species viability or a trend toward federal listing. Similarly, if
Johnson’s hairstreak were present, the project would not likely pose a risk to species viability or a
trend toward federal listing.
3.6 SPECIAL STATUS PLANT SPECIES (USFS AND STATE SPECIES)
Of the USFS and Washington State special status plant species known to occur on the Olympic
district, the species found in Table 5: Special Status Plant Species Potentially Occurring in the Study
ARea were determined to likely be present within the study area for the Calawah EA (USFS 2014).
The Calawah watershed lays two drainages and less than 10 miles to the north of the Hoh River, and
contains similar low elevation forest habitat to that found within the project study area. Based on the
similarity of habitats between the Calawah River drainage and the Hoh River drainage, it was
assumed that the same species may be present given the presence of suitable habitat. Surveys
conducted by the USFS in May through September, 2012, for the Calawah EA did not result in
detections (USFS 2014). It is not known whether any surveys for plant species have been conducted
within the Hoh River study area. It is assumed that species with the potential to occur within the
study area could be impacted by construction.
April 2015 Page 16
Biological Survey Report Upper Hoh River Road Project
Table 5: Special Status Plant Species Potentially Occurring in the Study ARea
Common Name Scientific
Name
USFS/
State
Status
Habitat Requirements
Potential
Occurrence
in the Study
Area?
Project
Effects?
Pacific lance-leaved spring beauty
Claytonia
lancoelata ssp.
pacifica
S/ ST Vernally moist areas. Flowers
spring to early summer. Yes May Impact
Spleenwort-leaved goldthread Coptis
asplenifolia S/ SS Moist woods and bogs. Flowers
April through May. Yes May Impact
Quinault fawn lily Erythronium
quinaultense S/ ST Openings and rocky ledges in
coniferous forests. Flowers in May. Yes May Impact
Branching montia Montia diffusa S/ -- Moist woods at low elevations.
Flowers April to July. Yes May Impact
Northern grass-of-Parnassus
Parnassia
palustris var.
tenuis
S/ SS
Riparian areas, moist meadows
and bogs; at or near seeps,
springs, and roadside ditches.
Flowers July to August.
Yes May Impact
Great polemonium Polemonium
carneum S/ --
Thickets, woodlands and forest
openings, from near sea level to
moderate elevations in the
mountains.Flowers May to August.
Yes May Impact
Lwatsukiella moss Iwatsukiella
leuchotricha S/ SE
On trunks, twigs, and branches of
conifers along exposed, fog-
drenched, high-elevation coastal
ridges.
No No Effect
Source of Habitat Requirements: USFS 2014. Source of Habitat Requirements: WDNR 2015.
State Status: SC = State Species of Concern; SE = State Endangered; SS = State Sensitive; ST = State Threatened
USFS Status: S= Sensitive or Strategic
Page 17 April 2015
Upper Hoh River Road Project Biological Survey Report
4. REFERENCES
Altman, B. and J. Hagar. 2007. Rainforest birds: A land manager’s guide to breeding bird habitat in
young conifer forests in the Pacific Northwest. US Geological Survey, Scientific Investigations
report 2006-5304. 60p
Corkran, C.C. and C. Thoms. 2006. Amphibians of Oregon, Washington and British Columbia. Lone Pine
Publishing, Redmond, Washington. 175 pp.
Duncan, N., T. Burke, S. Dowlan, and P. Hohenlohe. 2003. Survey protocol for survey and manage
terrestrial mollusk species from the Northwest Forest Plan – Version 3.0.
Ehrlich, P.R., D.S. Dobkin, and D. Wheye. 1988. The birder’s handbook: a field guide to the natural
history of North American birds. Simon and Schuster, New York, New York.
Federal Register. 1986. Interagency Cooperation - Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. Volume
51. No 106. Final Rule. pp. 19957-19963.
Forman et al. 2003. Road Ecology: Science and Solutions. Island Press. 481 pp.
Franklin, J.F., and C.T. Dyrness. 1973. Natural Vegetation of Oregon and Washington. USDA Forest
Service General Technical Report PNW-8.
Frest, T. J. and E. J. Johannes. 1999. Mollusk Survey of southwestern Oregon, with emphasis on the
Rogue and Umpqua river drainages. Final report prepared for Oregon Natural Heritage Program,
Portland, Oregon. Deixis Consultants, Seattle, Washington. 278 pp. plus appendices.
Grindal, S.D. 1998. Habitat use by bats in second- and old-growth stands in the Nimpkish Valley,
Vancouver Island. Northwest Science 72:116-118.
Johnson, D.H., and T.A. O’Neil. 2000. Wildlife-Habitat Relationships in Oregon and Washington.
Oregon State University Press. Corvallis, Oregon.
Hallock, L.A. and K.R .McAllister. 2005a. Coastal Tailed Frog. In Washington Herp Atlas. Washington
Natural Heritage Program, Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife, USFWS Bureau of Land
Management and USDA Forest Service.
Hallock, L.A. and K.R. McAllister. 2005b. Western Toad. In Washington Herp Atlas. Washington
Natural Heritage Program, Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife, USFWS Bureau of Land
Management and USDA Forest Service.
Larsen, E.M., E. Rodrick, and R. Milner. 1995. Management Recommendations for Washington’s
Priority Species, Volume 1: Invertebrates. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife,
Olympia, Washington.
Leonard, W.P., H.A. Brown, L.L.C. Jones, K.R. McAllister, and R.M. Storm. 1993. Amphibians of
Washington and Oregon. Seattle Audubon Society, The Trailside Series, Seattle, Washington.
Lewis, J.C. and D. Kraege. 1999. Harlequin duck. Pages 5-1 to 5-4 in EM Larsen, JM Azerrad, and N
Nordstrom, editors. 2004. Management Recommendations for Washington’s Priority Species,
Volume IV: Birds. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia,Washington, USA.
Linzey, A.V. and G. Hammerson. 2008. Marmota Olympus. In: IUCN 2009. IUCN Red List of
Threatened Species. Version 2009.2. <www.iucnredlist.org>. Downloaded on 08 January
2010.Maser, C. 1998. Mammals of the Pacific Northwest from the coast to the high cascades.
Oregon State University Press, Corvallis, Oregon. 406 pp.
April 2015 Page 18
Biological Survey Report Upper Hoh River Road Project
Natureserve. 2015. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life. Version 7.0. NatureServe,
Arlington, Virginia, U.S.A. Available on-line: www.explorer.natureserve.org.
Nordstrom, N., and R. Milner. 1997. Dunn’s Salamander (Plethodon dunni) and Van Dyke’s Salamander
(Plethodon vandykei). Pages 2-1 to 2-17 in EM Larsen (ed.), Management Recommendations for
Washington’s priority species, Volume III: Amphibians and Reptiles. Washington Department of
Fish and Wildlife.
Pyle, R.M. 2002. The Butterflies of Cascadia. Seattle Audubon Society, Seattle, Washington. 420 pp.
Road Decommissioning Project. March 2014. Pacific Ranger District, Olympic National Forest Clallam
County, Washington.
Shirley, S.M., and J.N.M. Smith. 2005. Bird community structure across riparian buffer strips of varying
width in a coastal temperate forest. Biological Conservation 125:475-489.
Thomas, J.W., M.G. Raphael, R.G. Anthony, E.D. Forsman, A.G. Gunderson, R.S. Holthausen, B.G.
Marcot, G.H. Reeves, J.R. Sedell, and D.M. Solis. 1993. Viability assessments and management
considerations for species associated with late-successional and old-growth forests of the Pacific
Northwest. Portland, Oregon: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest
Region. 523 p.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual.
Technical Report Y-87-1, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg,
Mississippi.
———. 2010. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Western
Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Region. Technical Report TR-08-13, U.S. Army Engineer
Research and Development Center. Vicksburg, Mississippi.
US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1986. Recovery Plan for the Pacific Bald Eagle. USDI Fish and
Wildlife Service, Portland, Oregon.
———. 1992. Determination of critical habitat for the northern spotted owl; Final Rule. Federal Register
57: 1796-1838.
———. 1995. Johnson’s (Mistletoe) Hairstreak – Mitoura johnsoni. Pp 7-1 to 7-5 in E.M. Larsen, E.
Rodrick, and R. Milner, editors. 1995. Management Recommendations for Washington’s Priority
Species, Volume I: Invertebrates. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia,
Washington, USA.
———. 1996. Final Designation of Critical Habitat for the Marbled Murrelet. Fed. Reg. 61(102):26256-
26320.
———. 2009. Federally Listed Species for Jefferson County, Washington, as prepared by the
Washington Fish and Wildlife Office (Revised December 16, 2009). Available on-line:
http://www.fws.gov/wafwo/pdf/species_list.pdf
———. 2015. Information, Planning, and Conservation System (IPaC) Resource List for the Upper Hoh
River study area. Accessed on-line on February 2, 2015 at http://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/.
U.S. Forest Service (USFS). 2014. Environmental Assessment for the Calawah Watershed. U.S
Department of Agriculture.
U.S. Forest Service and BLM. 2015. Interagency Special Status/Sensitive Species Program website. U.S.
Department of Agriculture and Bureau of Land Management. Available on-line:
www.fs.fed.us/r6/sfpnw/issssp/agency-policy/.
Page 19 April 2015
Upper Hoh River Road Project Biological Survey Report
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). 2008. Priority Habitat and Species List. Olympia,
Washington. 177 pp. Available online: www.wdfw.wa.gov/publications/00165/wdfw00165.pdf
———. 2012. Threatened and Endangered Wildlife in Washington: 2011 Annual Report. Endangered
Species Section, Wildlife Program. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia. 180
pp.
———. 2015. Washington State Species of Concern Lists. Available on-line:
http://wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/endangered/status/SE/
Washington Deptartment of Natural Resources (WDNR). 2015. Washington Natural Heritage Program
Online Field Guides. Available at: http://www1.dnr.wa.gov/nhp/refdesk/pubs/index.html
Washington Natural Heritage Information System. 2015. List of Known Occurrences of Rare Plants in
Jefferson County, Washington. February 2015. Available on-line:
www1.dnr.wa.gov/nhp/refdesk/lists/plantsxco/jefferson.html
Washington Natural Heritage Program (WNHP). 2015. Priority Habitats and Species (PHS) database
search results within two miles of the project. January 2015.
Woodruff, K and H Ferguson. 2005. Townsend’s Big-eared Bat (Corynorhinus townsendii). Pages 1-13 in
J. Azerrad (ed), Management Recommendations for Washington’s Priority Species: Volume V:
Mammals. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife.
Wunder, L and AB Carey. 1996. Use of the Forest Canopy by Bats. Northwest Science 70:79-85.
Ziegltrum, J. 2001. Olympic National Forest Monitoring Report. Olympia, Washington.
———. 2004. Draft Management Recommendations for Two Species of the Genus Hemphillia. Olympic
National Forest, Olympia, Washington.
———. 2006. Personal communication with Betsy Howell. Olympic National Forest, Olympia,
Washington.
April 2015 Page 20
Biological Survey Report Upper Hoh River Road Project
APPENDIX A – FIGURES
April 2015
Study A rea forSite C1
UpperHohRiverRdHohRiver
Study A rea forSite C2
54
312
101
Shee t 1 Shee t 2 Shee t 3
Figu re 1, Sheet 1Aerial Phot ograph
0 600 1,200Feet
Docu ment Path: P:\F\FHAX000002 17 \0600INFO \G S\Maps\Biological_Resou rces\F ig _01_Bio _Pho topo ints.mxdDate: 2/1 3/201 5 Time: 3:04:50 PM Use r Na me: mmf
ES RI, ArcGIS O nline, W orld Imagery. Microsoft. 2010. UC-G.
Service Layer Credits: National Geographic,Esri, DeLorme, NAVTEQ, UNEP-WCMC,USGS, NASA, ESA, METI, NRCAN, GEBCO,NOAA, iPCSource: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar
Legend
Stu dy Are a
Phot o Points (d irectional )
St udy A rea forSite C4
H o h River
U p per HohRiverRd
Study A rea forSite C3
9
8
7
6
12
1110
101
Shee t 1 Shee t 2 Shee t 3
Figu re 1, Sheet 2Aerial Phot ograph
0 400 800Feet
Docu ment Path: P:\F\FHAX000002 17 \0600INFO \G S\Maps\Biological_Resou rces\F ig _01_Bio _Pho topo ints.mxdDate: 2/1 3/201 5 Time: 3:04:53 PM Use r Na me: mmf
ES RI, ArcGIS O nline, W orld Imagery. Microsoft. 2010. UC-G.
Service Layer Credits: National Geographic,Esri, DeLorme, NAVTEQ, UNEP-WCMC,USGS, NASA, ESA, METI, NRCAN, GEBCO,NOAA, iPCSource: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar
Legend
Stu dy Are a
Phot o Points (d irectional )
Study A rea forSite C5
U p p e r H o h R i v e r R d
H o h R i v e r
1413
101
Shee t 1 Shee t 2 Shee t 3
Figu re 1, Sheet 3Aerial Phot ograph
0 100 200Feet
Docu ment Path: P:\F\FHAX000002 17 \0600INFO \G S\Maps\Biological_Resou rces\F ig _01_Bio _Pho topo ints.mxdDate: 2/1 3/201 5 Time: 3:04:56 PM Use r Na me: mmf
ES RI, ArcGIS O nline, W orld Imagery. Microsoft. 2010. UC-G.
Service Layer Credits: National Geographic,Esri, DeLorme, NAVTEQ, UNEP-WCMC,USGS, NASA, ESA, METI, NRCAN, GEBCO,NOAA, iPCSource: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar
Legend
Stu dy Are a
Phot o Points (d irectional )
Biological Survey Report Upper Hoh River Road Project
APPENDIX B – PHOTOGRAPHS
April 2015
Biological Survey Report Upper Hoh River Road Project
Photo 1: Looking east at Study Area C-1
Photo 2: Looking west at Study Area C-1
April 2015
Upper Hoh River Road Project Biological Survey Report
Photo 3: Looking west at Study Area C-1
Photo 4: Looking east at Study Area C-2
April 2015
Biological Survey Report Upper Hoh River Road Project
Photo 5: Looking east at Study Area C-2
Photo 6: Looking east at Study Area C-3
April 2015
Upper Hoh River Road Project Biological Survey Report
Photo 7: Looking southwest at Study Area C-3
Photo 8: Looking south at Study Area C-3
April 2015
Biological Survey Report Upper Hoh River Road Project
Photo 9: Looking north at Tower Creek from bridge.
Photo 10: Looking east at Study Area C-4.
April 2015
Upper Hoh River Road Project Biological Survey Report
Photo 11: Looking east at Study Area C-4.
Photo 11: Looking north at Study Area C-4.
April 2015
Biological Survey Report Upper Hoh River Road Project
Photo 13: Looking south at Study Area C-5.
Photo 12: Looking northeast at Study Area C-5.
April 2015