table of contentsa123.g.akamai.net/7/123/11558/abc123/forestservic... · 2014-07-28 · pt n...

Wildlife Biological Assessment Salmon Salvage Project 2

Table of Contents INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................................3

FEDERALLY LISTED SPECIES .......................................................................................3

Consistency with Recovery Plan and Conservation Agreements ........................................4

Consultation History ............................................................................................................6

METHODS ..........................................................................................................................7

NSO Analysis ...................................................................................................................... 8

Salvage harvest tree selection ............................................................................................. 9

Roadside hazard tree selection ............................................................................................ 9

Desired Future Condition .....................................................................................................9

Description of Proposed Action .........................................................................................10

Salvage Harvest (330 acres).............................................................................................. 11

Hazard Tree Reduction (973 acres) .................................................................................. 13

Interrelated and Interdependent Actions ............................................................................14

PROJECT DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS ..........................................................................14

Threatened, Endangered, or Proposed Species Account ...................................................16

Environmental Baseline .................................................................................................... 16

Direct and Indirect Effects of the Proposed Action on Northern Spotted Owls ............... 24

Effects to Northern Spotted Owl....................................................................................... 27

Effects to NSO Critical Habitat ........................................................................................ 35

Cumulative Effects............................................................................................................ 37

DETERMINATION OF EFFECTS ...................................................................................38


INTRODUCTION The Salmon Salvage Project (Project) was developed in response to the August 2013 Salmon Fire Complex (the fire) on the Salmon River Ranger District of the Klamath National Forest (KNF). The fire burned approximately 14,779 acres of Klamath National Forest land in Siskiyou County, CA between July 31 and August 30, 2013. The fire was a combination of the Boulder and the Shelly fires that were human-started along the Sawyer’s Bar road (County road 1C01). The fire re-burned steep granitic watersheds that had burned at high intensity during the 1987 fires and to a lesser degree during the Hog Fire of 1977. These relatively frequent fires have shaped the diverse and variable habitats within the project area and led to the dramatic loss of forested habitat.

For the purposes of this analysis, the Project area is defined by the Salmon Complex fire perimeter. The analysis area was established by a 1.3 mile buffer around treatment units and NSO home range that intersects the treatment unit buffers. The treatment area is the area for which the action will occur.

This document is a site-specific Biological Assessment (BA) to identify and evaluate the effects of proposed Forest Service actions on Threatened and Endangered (T&E) species. This BA will provide biological information to ensure USDA Forest Service and the Klamath National Forest compliance with the National Forest Management Act (NFMA), National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), Forest Service Manual 2670, Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended [16 U.S.C. 1536 (c) et seq. 50CFR 402], and follows the standards established in the Forest Service Manual direction (FSM 2672.42) and 1995 Record of Decision for the Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan) for the Klamath National Forest. This document complies with the requirements of the Endangered Species Act to disclose effects on listed species and their habitats.

FEDERALLY LISTED SPECIES A forest-wide list, from the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), Arcata Field Office of Proposed, Endangered, and Threatened species, which may occur in or be affected by projects in the area of the Klamath National Forest (#906170809-8423), was accessed on June 16, 2014(Table 1).

Table 1. Species list of threatened, endangered and candidate species

Common Name Scientific Name

Status

Critical Habitat

Invertebrates Vernal pool fairy shrimp Branchinechta lynchi T Y Fish Shortnose sucker Chasmistes brevirostris E P

Lost River sucker Deltistes luxatus E P S. OR/N. CA Coho salmon*

Oncorhynchus kisutch T Y

green sturgeon* Acipenser medirostris T Y tidewater goby Eucyclogbius

newberryi E Y

Birds Western yellow-billed cuckoo

Coccyzus americanus PT N

Northern spotted owl Strix occidentalis T Y


caurina marbled murrelet Brachyramphus

marmoratus T Y

Mammals gray wolf Canis lupus E Y Fisher Martes pennant C N

Status = Threatened (T), Endangered (E), or Candidate (C). Critical habitat = Yes (Y), no (N), or proposed (P). *Species covered under the National Marine Fisheries Service are covered under the Fisheries Biological Assessment and are therefore not covered in the terrestrial wildlife BA.

Critical Habitat for the vernal pool fairy shrimp was designated on August 11, 2005. Critical Habitat for the shortnose sucker and Lost River sucker was re-proposed on December 7, 2011. Critical Habitat for tidewater goby was designated on February 6, 2013. Critical Habitat (revised) for the northern spotted owl was designated on November 21, 2012. Critical Habitat (revised) for the marbled murrelet was designated on October 5, 2011. Critical Habitat for gray wolves was designated on March 9, 1978.

The northern spotted owl (NSO) is the only Federally-listed Threatened species known to occur within the Analysis Area. The fisher (West Coast DPS) is candidate species and does not require consideration under this analysis. However, the fisher is a Forest Sensitive species and will be analyzed as such in the Salmon Salvage Biological Evaluation. The proposed western yellow-billed cuckoo is not known to occur in the analysis area nor does suitable habitat occur within the analysis area; therefore, the cuckoo will not be addressed further.

The gray wolf (Canis lupus) was added to the USFWS species list after the GPS-collared wolf known as OR-7 dispersed from Oregon into California. As of the writing of this document, OR-7 has returned to Oregon. While OR-7’s dispersal event suggests that unmarked wolves may occur in California without our knowledge, OR-7 was the only recorded wolf in California since 1924 and was never recorded to have interacted with potential unmarked individuals in California. Therefore, because there are currently no known, established wolves in California and the only wolf known to have dispersed from Oregon has not been observed within or anywhere near the Project area, the Project is expected to have no effect to gray wolves and the species will not be addressed further in this document.

The Project area is outside the range of the marbled murrelet (Brachyramphus marmoratus), tidewater goby (Eucyclogobius newberryi, shortnose sucker (Chasmistes brevirostris), Lost River sucker (Deltistes luxatus), and vernal pool fairy shrimp (Branchinechta lynchi) and is not within these species’ designated or proposed Critical Habitat. The proposed Project will not affect the marbled murrelet, tidewater goby, shortnose sucker, Lost River sucker, or the vernal pool fairy shrimp or their designated or proposed Critical Habitat. These species will not be further addressed in this document.

CONSISTENCY WITH RECOVERY PLAN AND CONSERVATION AGREEMENTS NSO Critical Habitat: In the 2012 designation of NSO critical habitat, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife developed management suggestions for managing within critical habitat. These suggestions included conserving high quality habitat and actively managing forests to restore ecosystem health such as natural fire regimes. Although the Final Rule doesn’t explicitly address the use of post-fire harvest of dead trees within critical habitat, the USFWS did comment on the need to conserve and recruit high quality NSO habitat and the need for LSR management to be consistent with Standard and Guides of the Northwest Forest Plan (NWFP).

Northwest Forest Plan (NWFP): The NWFP was adopted in 1994 to guide the management of


more than 9.7 million hectares (24 million acres) of Federal land in portions of western Washington and Oregon, and northwestern California within the range of the NSO. The Klamath National Forest Plan incorporates the NWFP and is intended to provide the basis for conservation of the NSO and other late-successional and old-growth forest associated species. The NWFP identifies the high risk of large scale disturbance in mixed conifer forests and suggests, in the event of a stand replacing fire, the resulting excessive fuel loads may interfere with stand regeneration. Excessive fuel loads also elevate the potential for future fires that may expand into existing high quality habitat. The Salmon Salvage Project uses the Forest Plan Standards and Guides to minimize impacts to habitat and reduce the risk of additional fires resulting from the excessive fuel load through land management. This project will not eliminate the potential of future fires in the Salmon Fire perimeter, but it will reduce the potential of high severity fire moving into additional habitat.

Forest-wide Late-Successional Reserve Assessment (LSRA). The Klamath National Forest Forest-wide Late-successional Reserve Assessment (1999) sets the objective that salvage effects in LSRs must be neutral and should have a long-term positive effect on late-successional habitat. Salvage should not diminish suitable habitat now or in the future. The Salmon Salvage project is designed to meet these LSR objectives by adhering to the salvage treatment standards identified in the LSR Assessment.

NSO Recovery: The 2011 NSO Revised Recovery Plan (RRP) was prepared by a Recovery Team consisting of Federal agencies, State governments, and other interested parties. The RRP was published in June 28, 2011 (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2011a). This replaced the 1992 Draft Recovery Plan which had been used as a foundation for the 1994 Northwest Forest Plan, and the 2008 Final Recovery Plan. The 2011 RRP identifies three main threats to NSO (current and past habitat loss and competition with barred owls) and describes a Recovery Strategy which includes habitat conservation and active forest management as means by which to address these threats. As a result, the RRP identified a series of Recovery Actions to guide activities that would contribute to recovery objectives. For this Project, Recovery Action 10, 12, and 32 are most applicable.

Recovery plans are not regulatory documents and are not required to be addressed as part of Section 7 consultation under the ESA. However, in order to provide decision makers and the USFWS, with relevant information, and to address the general compliance requirements as listed under 7(a)(1) of Endangered Species Act, we have provided information regarding project consistency with the Recovery Plan in Table 2. Table 2. Recovery Actions Applicable to the Salmon Salvage Project

Recovery Action Description

Applicable Recommendations

10 Conserve spotted owl sites and high value spotted owl habitat to provide additional demographic support to the spotted owl population

Intent of this recovery action is to protect, enhance, and develop habitat in the quantity and distribution necessary to provide for the long-term recovery of spotted owls. Action: Project design specifications have been incorporated to maintain key habitat features such as large snags and large coarse woody debris (Table 6). Proposed treatments were designed to minimize effects to existing habitat and promote stand development throughout the treatment areas. The treatments provide for long term improvement to the habitat by removing fuels and consequently reducing the potential of high severity fire moving across the treatment into exisiting NSO habitat.


Recovery Action Description

Applicable Recommendations

Since the proposed action doesn’t affect high quality NSO habitat or habitat that may provide additional support to the spotted owl, the proposed treatments are consistent with RA10.

12 In lands where management is focused on development of spotted owl habitat, post-fire silvicultural activities should concentrate on conserving and restoring habitat elements that take a long time to develop (e.g., large trees, medium and large snags, downed wood)

Intent of this recovery action is to protect, enhance, and develop habitat in the quantity and distribution necessary to provide for the long-term recovery of spotted owls. Action: In salvage units, snags and downed logs will be retained in designated riparian reserve leave areas and in clumps throughout the treatment units (Table 6). Snags in retention clumps will be of the largest size class to maximize long term persistance for future stand development. Outside of these treatment areas, snags and logs of all size classes will be retained and appear to be abundant and well distributed. The proposed salvage is expected to accelerate the regrowth of suitable habitat by reducing competition. Salvage will also reduce the fuels accumulations and reduce the potential of future fires carrying into the adjacent habitats.

32 Federal and non-federal landowners should work with the Service to maintain and restore older and more structurally complex multi-layered conifer forests …allowing for other threats, such as fire and insects to be addressed by restoration management actions.

Maintaining forests with high-quality habitat will provide additional support for reducing key threats faced by NSO; protecting these forests should provide NSO high-quality refugia habitat from negative competitive interactions with barred owls that are likely occurring where the two species’ home ranges overlap. Action: Treatments will not occur in stands that currently provide RA-32 characteristics.

CONSULTATION HISTORY Initial conservations regarding the Salmon Salvage Project were made with the Level 1 team on 9/9/13 as the Salmon Fire Complex was coming to a close. The initial interdisciplinary team field trip to the project to review post-fire habitat conditions occurred on 10/29/2013 with Bob Carey (USFWS Yreka Field Office). On 11/6/2013, Level 1 Team was given a short presentation on post-fire habitat typing. Areas burned with high severity effects were mapped as areas that no longer provided long-term habitat for NSO. Areas burned at low and moderate severity areas were generally unchanged from the original pre-fire habitat condition. A follow-up field trip to the project area was made on 11/20/2013 with Bob Carey to review more of the burned areas. Another brief salvage project update was given to the Level 1 Team on 12/2/2013.

An additional progress update was presented to the Level 1 Team on 3/6/2014. There was a key change in USFWS representation on this project from Bob Carey to Jan Johnson (FWS biologist). A meeting to transfer information occurred on 3/7/2014. This meeting allowed the FS Interdisciplinary Team leader Travis Coughlin and FS wildlife biologist Sam Cuenca to give a


complete review of the analysis process to Jan Johnson. Current maps were made available and project design specifications were discussed including snag standards in LSRs (> 8 per acre in clumps of largest trees of the stand). Snags levels and LSR/CH objectives were also discussed on a follow-up meeting on 4/7/2014. On 4/22/12014, Jan Johnson made a field visit to review salvage units and hazard tree mark within two known NSO home ranges (KL1043 and KL4042) with Travis Coughlin and Lauren McChesney. During this field trip additional snags were marked for retention in Units 284 and 285 in the LSR. A brief update was made to the Level 1 Team on 5/1/2014 and a draft biological assessment was submitted to USFWS on 5/2/2014. Comments to the draft were provided by USFWS on May 19, 2014 which included LOPs for the project. A final draft BA was submitted to USFWS on June 18, 2014 and an agreed upon BA was finalized and dated on June 20, 2014.

METHODS The Project area is defined by the Salmon Complex fire perimeter. The analysis area was established by a 1.3 mile buffer1 around treatment units and NSO home range that intersects the treatment unit buffers. The treatment area is the area for which the action will occur. Short-term is the period of time encompassing implementation and the time for the habitat to respond to the treatment defined as ≤10 years. Long-term will be the time period during stand development in 30 years.

Pre- and Post-fire Habitat Conditions

For this analysis, suitable NSO habitat was split into three categories: nesting/roosting, foraging, and dispersal. Nesting/roosting is generally described as mid- to late-seral forests that contain stands of large trees with high canopy cover, multilayered canopies, and nesting platforms. Foraging habitat can be described as slightly reduced canopy cover, less large trees, and enough space for NSO to maneuver through the trees for hunting prey when compared to nesting/roosting habitat. Dispersal habitat contains a moderate level of canopy closure and trees large enough to provide shelter and potential foraging opportunities for traveling NSO. For this analysis, suitable habitat is defined as stated above in this paragraph.

Pre-fire habitat condition was initially assessed using CALVEG and Remote Sensing Lab data (eVeg) along with National Agriculture Imagery Program (NAIP) and the Salmon/Scott Ranger District vegetation GIS layers (combination of on-the-ground habitat assessment and aerial photographs interpreted by district biologist). Since a suitable habitat assessment within the analysis area was not completed prior to the fire, these data sources were heavily used to determine pre-fire habitat condition. Based on prior experience using eVeg and CALVEG, these data sources provide a coarse filter to the process but consistently overestimate habitat quality.

1 An analysis area is often established by a 1.3 mile buffer around all identified NSO activity centers within, or adjacent to, the project area. The actual configuration of an NSO home range is rarely known. Therefore a 1.3 mile radius centered on each activity center, based on radio telemetry data (Thomas 1990), represents the median home range size of NSO in California. Suitable NSO habitat within the home range would likely be utilized to some extent within any given year by territorial owls, if present. The USFWS identified the 0.5 mile radius circle around an owl activity center to delineate the area with the greatest use by owls during the nesting period called the “core area”. These areas (home range and core area) define the biologically referenced spatial bounds for the analysis to estimate the possible effects to owl habitat resulting from the proposed actions.


To evaluate post-fire habitat conditions, fire severity data was overlaid on to the project area and treatment units. The post-fire assessment used Rapid Assessment of Vegetation Condition after Wildfire (RAVG) data which is a vegetation burn severity modeling approach to assess the change in vegetation condition resulting in an estimated change in forested habitat condition; these changes in vegetation can be used to estimate the change NSO habitat. On-the-ground habitat verification was assessed through multiple field visits in 2013 and 2014. All burn severities within all NSO habitat types were evaluated.

NSO Habitat Suitability

Habitat is the biotic and abiotic features that meet the needs of a species for reproduction and survival. Suitable habitat for NSO is commonly separated in to nesting, roosting, foraging, and dispersal habitat; these habitat types are described in detail in the NSO Recovery Plan (USFWS 2011). Determination of NSO habitat suitability considers many factors including size of stand and adjacency to other habitat types which owls may use. Forested stands affected by past land management activities or natural disturbance such as wildfire can remove or reduce many of the important habitat attributes essential to individual owl needs. Wildfire, especially high severity fire, can potentially limit foraging resources by removing prey species cover and food resources during the short term while regeneration of vegetation occurs. Areas with low to moderate severity burns may increase in prey species abundance. Wildfire can also affect NSO cover needed to avoid predation (e.g. great-horned owl) or provide adequate thermal cover. The possible benefits from abundant prey versus the vulnerability of NSO in areas where escape cover is lacking may limit NSO use of high severity burn areas for foraging to the edges where existing nesting/roosting or foraging habitat is adjacent to the high severity burn areas. The adjacent habitat can provide escape and thermal cover in close proximity.

NSO Analysis

The northern spotted owl analysis is split into multiple biologically relevant spatial scales to estimate direct and indirect effects to habitat in 1) critical habitat (landscape scale), 2) analysis area (watershed scale), and 3) home range (individual scale). The habitat analysis estimates the number of acres of habitat affected by the proposed action within the analysis area. The home range analysis estimates the effects of the proposed treatment on habitat within the NSO home range and resulting effects to NSO reproduction. The critical habitat analysis estimates the effects to habitat within critical habitat that may occur as a result of the proposed actions.

NSO Habitat Analysis: NSO Habitat was analyzed within the analysis area which encompasses an area larger than the project area. This was determined to be approximately 36,226 acres. Direct or indirect effects to habitat were assessed by estimating the level of change from the known existing habitat quality to the anticipated post-treatment habitat condition. Physical attributes, canopy closure, basal area, number of large trees (>26in dbh) per acre, and the quadratic mean diameter, were used in this analysis. The resulting level of effects to the habitat was determined to be either no effect, degraded, downgraded, or removed. No effect means that the action will not decrease any of the four measurable attributes. Degrade means the effects are minimal and the habitat remains functional at the same level prior to treatment. Downgrade means the habitat has been affected to the point where the habitat will not continue to function at its initial level and it will drop down one level in habitat type. Removal means the once habitat is no longer habitat.

NSO Activity Center Analysis: This analysis will focus on the potential effects to NSO nesting territories by assessing potential effects to habitat at the two spatial scales: 1) home range and 2)


nest core. Because the actual configuration of a home range is rarely known, the estimated mean annual home range of a northern spotted owl pair in the California Klamath Province is represented by a 1.3-mile radius circle (3,340 acres) centered upon an owl activity center (e.g. nest site). A 0.5-mile radius circle around an owl activity center is used to delineate the area most heavily used (“core area”) by owls during the nesting season. Temporal bounding for disturbance effects is narrowed to the time during project implementation when the possibility of disturbance is greatest to NSO, if present.

The amount of suitable habitat within both the home range and core has been shown to influence NSO productivity and survivorship (Bart 1995; Franklin et al. 2000; Dugger et al. 2005). Based on results of these studies, the USDI Fish and Wildlife Service has concluded that significant impacts are not likely to occur if management activities retain a higher proportion (at least half, or 250 acres) of the core area’s high quality nesting/roosting habitat and 150 acres of foraging habitat (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2008). The home range is recommended to contain at least 250 acres of nesting/ roosting habitat and 1085 acres of foraging habitat to avoid significant effects. These measures for NSO core and home range were used to analyze potential effects of the proposed actions.

NSO Critical Habitat Analysis: Critical habitat analysis is focused on potential effects to the biologically important features (primary constituent elements) used to identify critical habitat. Since all the proposed actions occur within the Project Area, the analyzed area was confined to the portion of critical habitat within the project area. For this project, the critical habitat analysis area is smaller than the project area. Only changes to the Primary Constituent Elements as a result of proposed actions were analyzed. These effects to critical habitat were analyzed over the short- and long-term.

Salvage harvest tree selection Trees that are dead or dying will be selected for harvest in the salvage harvest units. Fire salvage marking guidelines will be based on tree mortality models developed through the latest scientific research by Forest Health Protection (Marking Guidelines for Fire-Injured Trees in California, Report #RO-11-01, May 2011). The project will use a predicted probability of mortality (Pm) of 0.70 (70% chance of dying). All coniferous trees meeting or exceeding this Pm will be selected for removal except those designated and retained as wildlife trees.

Roadside hazard tree selection Hazard trees will be identified using the Regional Hazard Tree Guidelines for Forest Service Facilities and Roads in the Pacific Southwest Region (Angwin et al, 2012). Because of safety concerns associated with hazard trees, the responsible official has chosen to salvage trees with a 0.6 probability of mortality. This means fire affected trees with a 60% or greater chance of dying over a 3-5 year period will be harvested harvest within 200 feet of the identified areas of the project area.

DESIRED FUTURE CONDITION The long-term desired future condition for the area affected by the Salmon Complex Fire is a mosaic of healthy forest stands comprised of a variety of vegetation species. The composition of individual stands would vary considerably depending on forest type and seral stage development, but generally lands capable of growing trees would be forested. Although openings with hardwoods, shrubs, grasses and forbs are apparent, forest stands would consist primarily of conifers.


In the short to mid-term, the Project Area desired future condition includes stands with and without salvage harvest, stands with full site preparation and planting, and completely untreated stands. Treated areas would have a forest composition and structure more resilient to wildfires approaching or exiting the Marble Mountain Wilderness. Fuel loads and snag hazards would not endanger the public or forest workers. Riparian reserves within the project area would be stocked with healthy conifer regeneration that would quickly re-establish soil-binding root mass and trend the reserves toward providing future shade and coarse woody debris to streams.

DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION Objectives include:

1. Reduce safety hazards to the public and forest workers from falling trees. Trees killed or severely burned by wildfire are often unstable and at risk for falling or snapping off, especially during high wind events. It is important that infrastructure, especially roads and trailheads, are maintained for use by public and Forest workers (i.e, abating “hazard trees”). Furthermore, dead and dying trees within proposed salvage areas present a safety hazard to fire fighters (should the area burn again), visitors and forest workers.

2. Obtain the maximum economic commodity value from burned timber by offering a sale while the wood is still marketable. The Forest Plan directs the Forest to harvest dead or dying trees to produce wood products as consistent with Forest goals. Dead timber loses significant value if left standing beyond two winters and is most profitable if salvaged even sooner. Capturing the marketability of the timber provides the agency a viable means of meeting this and other project needs, since the timber sale can be used to fund implementation. If treatment is delayed beyond the marketability period of the timber, the Forest Service will need to pay for the hazard tree abatement and removal of dead and dying trees in order to meet the first need described above. By contrast, if salvage occurs during the marketability period, funds gained from the salvage sale can be used for additional restoration work.

3. Increase the likelihood and speed by which burned conifer stands are reforested. Although wildfires have benefits (e.g. snag and downed wood creation), intensely burned forested areas may be slow to recover or may not recover at all and heavy fuel loading will result from fallen snags. Following a high severity wildfire, heavy fuel loading predisposes an area to future higher intensity and severity wildfires that inhibit conifer regeneration and may result in stand type changes to brush or other non-conifer stand types. Forest Plan goals include providing a programmed flow of timber products sustainable through time, accelerating the development of late-successional conditions for wildlife habitat, and providing for a resilient, forested ecosystem for future generations.

4. Forest-wide goals (Forest Plan, pages 4-4 and 4-5) include pursuing ecosystem sustainability through integrated resource objectives, managing for a diverse and productive environment, and managing with the highest standards of stewardship by working to meet the needs of the Nation for wood, water, forage, wildlife, recreation, and other resources.

Description of Proposed Actions This proposed action includes two types of treatments: (1) salvage harvest with fuels treatment, and (2) hazard tree reduction with fuels treatment. The proposed action will treat about 330 acres of salvage harvest and about 973 acres (23 miles) of roadside hazard within the 36,226 acre Analysis Area. The


proposed treatments fall within five Management Area types which each have different management objectives (Table 3).

The proposed actions will occur in less than 4% of the analysis area. A portion of Roadside hazard treatment will occur in current NSO habitat and the remaining portion of the treatment was pre-fire habitat that was lost to the fire or wasn’t habitat before the fire. The salvage harvest units contain no NSO habitat and were patchy with NSO habitat before the fire. Overall, the proposed action will occur within 214 acres of areas that once provided suitable habitat. This represents approximately 25% of the 860 acres of suitable NRF habitat lost in the wildfire (Table 8). The remaining 645 acres (75%) of burned NRF habitat will remain un-treated.

Table 3- Acres of Management Areas (MAs) Management Area Management Objectives Acres

MA 5-Special Habitat, LSR Provide habitat conditions and management activities that contribute to the recovery of

Federally listed T&E species 605

MA 10-Riparian Area (Hydrologic)* Provide benefits to riparian-dependent and associated species other than fish 109

MA 13-Recreational River Preserve the Recreational Rivers in a free-flowing condition 9

MA 15-Partial Retention VQO Manage for sustained yield of wood products in areas capable, available, and suitable for timber

productions 462

MA 17-General Forest

Maintain stand health as well as resilience to wildland fire, insect, disease, and other damage.

Emphasize salvage and restoration from catastrophic events.

119

Grand Total 1,303 *Although salvage units contain hydrologic Riparian Areas within their boundaries, no salvage treatment will occur in hydrologic Riparian Reserves.

Salvage Harvest (330 acres) Salvage harvest treatments occur in areas classified as having high severity fire effects (greater than 75% canopy cover killed) with a small number of acres that burned with moderate severity effects on the edges or interwoven with areas of high severity fire effects. Severity classes are defined in the Fire and Fuels Resource Report for this project. About 4,470 acres (30% of the fire area) burned at moderate to high severity (25% at high severity and 5% at moderate severity). About 1,440 acres of conifer stands greater than 10 inch average diameter at breast height (dbh) were classified with moderate to high burn severity. From these 1,440 acres, 507 acres (about 3% of the project area) were evaluated for potential salvage but the potential treatment area was reduced mainly by Forest Plan guidance and potential resource concerns. Of these reduced acres, 330 acres (1% of the analysis area) were determined feasible for implementation and met the 70% probability of mortality and are proposed for salvage logging treatments within 16 units. In some treatment units, both salvage and roadside hazard treatments overlap. The salvage harvest will be initiated in late summer of 2014 and possibly into 2015.

Salvage harvest units 353 and 295 have a small portion (about 11 acres and 1.3 acres respectively) of each unit overlap with LSR and NSO Critical Habitat that will not be salvage harvested. The described portion unit 295 is entirely contained within roadside hazard treatment boundary (unit


401) which will still receive roadside hazard treatment. The small portion of unit 353 within LSR and NSO CH will still receive roadside hazard treatment, but the majority will be untreated. These small portions of unit 353 and 295 will not be removed from the unit boundaries, but will be identified in the project record as a “skip” area, meaning no salvage harvest.

Salvage logging treatments will be accomplished by ground-based, skyline, and helicopter logging systems; acres are broken down in Table 4 below.

Table 4.-Acres by Logging System

It is anticipated that the majority of the trees within salvage units will be salvaged, as most burned at high severity. The majority of trees to be harvested are ≤ 26” dbh, but we anticipate a few larger trees (>26” dbh) may be harvested also (Figure 1). Figure 1. Total Number of trees to be salvaged in Units by diameter class.

Snag Retention

Project design features for wildlife will dictate the number of snags left standing in order to meet or exceed Forest Plan forest-wide standards and guidelines (Table 6). Snag retention guidelines will be used in the salvage-only portion of treatment units. Leaving snags within the roadside hazard tree treatments (described below) would be contrary to management direction, not meet the purpose and need element of providing safety for forest workers and visitors, and would be most likely to be cut for fuelwood due to proximity to the road. Snags left in each unit will vary based on unit size, shape, and land allocation in which units occur. Where snags are retained, they will be left in groups to provide structure and cover for wildlife. There are about 36 acres of snag retention areas within

Logging System Salvage Only Salvage- Roadside Overlap Total Acres

Ground Based 15 3 18

Skyline 102 82 184

Helicopter 121 7 128 Total 238 92 330


salvage units (Appendix A). These areas range from a tenth acre to eight acres in size, and were identified during project layout. The majority of these retention areas are within hydrologic riparian reserves, where there are generally larger trees due to water availability. The objective for snag retention in LSRs will be >8 snags per acre representing some of the largest size class for each particular unit left in clumps to allow for long term snag persistence. Outside of LSRs, snags will be left > 5 per acre representing some of the largest size class for all the treatment units and retained in clumps when possible.

Hazard Tree Reduction (973 acres) About 973 acres of hazard tree treatment are proposed within 200 feet of the roads, along about 23 miles of maintenance level 2 (about 18 miles) and level 3 (about 5 miles) National Forest Transportation System (NFTS) roads. The total treatments include approximately 873 acres of roadside hazard only, and approximately an additional 100 acres of roadside that overlaps with salvage units. Both the mileage and acres are an estimate of treatment proposed and are likely an overestimation; the numbers are merely representative of the entire length and area being evaluated for hazard trees. Trees along the roadway and within these areas will only be removed if they are identified as a hazard. Hazard trees within Riparian Reserves would felled and maintained as coarse woody debris. This action should be completed in 2014, but it may extend into 2015.

Fuels Treatment

Fuel treatments being considered include: yarding, lop and scattering, chipping, broadcast burning, jackpot burning, and pile burning. Within salvage units, fuels treatments will be used to treat non-commercial dead material and activity-generated fuels. Fuels treatments in salvage areas will not remove snags retained for wildlife habitat needs. To provide safe access to a defensible area, removal of all fire-killed hazard trees, followed by fuels treatment including hand piling and burning, is prescribed for all hazard tree treatments. Within hazard tree units, only fuels generated by the hazard tree reduction activities will be treated. Table 5 shows anticipated fuels treatments for the salvage and hazard tree (roadside) units; the fuels treatment may change after salvage and hazard tree reduction depending upon location on slope, proximity to natural and man-made fire breaks, fuel loading, existing soil cover, abundance of natural regeneration, and concentration of hazard trees felled. Burning will not occur in snag retention areas. Fuels treatments will be initiated following completion of salvage operations and are expected to be implemented in the spring, winter, or fall over a 3 year period.

Table 5. Treatment units and associated logging system and fuels treatment Unit Acres Acres in Critical

Habitat* Acres in LSR* Logging System Post-Activity Fuels Treatment

300 3.0 0 0 Ground Based Whole Tree Yard; Landing Burn 316 1.2 0 0.3 Ground Based Whole Tree Yard; Landing Burn 345 12.6 12.6 0 Ground Based Whole Tree Yard; Landing

Burn. Handpile slash on and adjacent to trail.

315 1.5 0 0 Endline Lop and Scatter tops and limbs; Landing Burn

311 26.0 0 0.75 Helicopter Jackpot Burn 353b 57.6 0b 0b Helicopter Jackpot Burn 308 28.9 28.9 0 Helicopter Jackpot Burn 312 2.4 2.4 0 Skyline Hand Pile and Burn


347 16.8 16.3 0 Skyline Broadcast Burn 307 30.0 25.7 0 Skyline Broadcast Burn 352 6.1 5.7 0 Skyline Hand Pile and Burn 296 7.3 0 0 Skyline Broadcast Burn 295b 17.3 0b 0b Skyline Hand Pile and Burn 285 10.9 16.3 10.9 Helicopter Hand Pile and Burn 329 40.8 46.9 40.8 Skyline Broadcast Burn 284 43.0 46.3 43.0 Skyline Broadcast Burn 401a 585.8 471 453 Roadside Lop and Scatter, Machine/ Hand

Pile and Burn 402a 387.7 292 29 Roadside Lop and Scatter, Machine/ Hand

Pile and Burn * Acres of Critical habitat and Late Successional Reserve may overlap a Roadside treatment acres overlap with salvage harvest b The portion of unit 353 and 295 within LSR and NSO CH will not receive salvage harvest

treatment. Roads, Landings, and Trails

There will be no new construction of system roads or temporary roads in this project. System roads will be maintained as needed for project implementation. Project access will mainly require the use of NFTS roads and County Roads. Access to Unit 345 will be on a temporary road on an existing roadbed which also functions as small section of the Garden Gulch Trail. After the proposed salvage operation is complete, drainage control features along the Garden Gulch Trail will be constructed to restore the trail back to an 18- to 24-inch wide tread, suitable for single track hiking/equestrian/bicycle use. This stabilization shall include constructed rolling dips, nicks (shallow cuts in the trail to drain water), grading, and berm removal. The public will have access to slash piles for firewood cutting for a two week period following thinning operations. After this period, vehicle access will be closed and drainage control features will be installed where needed.

Unit 307 contains another small segment of road on existing roadbed about 250 feet in length. The road is not within NSO habitat. Overall, two roads on existing road beds will be used for temporary access to salvage units, totaling about 1,600 feet.

About 5 of the 13 landings needed for the project will be constructed varying in size about 0.5 -2.0 acres. Landings and temporary roads will be closed and hydrologically stabilized upon project completion. No new landings will be within any known NSO cores.

INTERRELATED AND INTERDEPENDENT ACTIONS Interrelated and interdependent activities include normal road maintenance specific to this project. Due to the increased use of the roads, we expect road maintenance such as road grading, road wetting, and cleaning culvert pipes to occur during the implementation of the project.

PROJECT DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS The project design specifications were designed to minimize the impacts to listed species, spotted owls for this analysis (Table 6). The PDSs below describe several situations for minimizing impacts to NSO habitat or separating the proposed actions from the time periods when NSO maybe nesting.


Table 6. Project Design Specifications for the northern spotted owl Wildlife – 1 Retain important northern spotted owl habitat components in treatment

units when possible. Important components include large snags and downed logs, large diameter conifers and hardwoods, trees with previous indications of wildlife use (cavities, platform nests) or other characteristics such as large horizontal limbs or mistletoe brooms that provide wildlife value. Retained components will be arranged in multi-layer stands and clumps where feasible.

Units 284, 285, 295, 307, 308, 311, 312, 329, 345, 347, 352, and 353

Wildlife -2

Retain downed logs to an average of at least six logs/acre (greater than 20” diameter and 10’ long) when possible, but do not exceed the fuel management objectives.

All Units

Wildlife - 3 Within Late-Successional Reserves (LSRs), when available, retain at least 8 snags per acre representing some of the largest size class snags within each salvage unit (excluding roadside hazard overlap) stand (as per Forest Plan EIS for high capability northern spotted owl habitat Appendix I-4, Table I-1). Priority for retention should be given to snags with physical attributes for wildlife value such as cat faces, broken tops, and cavities that will last the longest. Based on human safety concerns, in units proposed for broadcast burning (helicopter treatments), retain these snags on the downhill lower 1/3 of the units. For treatment areas above the road retain clumps on the upper portions of the units to reduce potential removal from public firewood harvesting. In units proposed for handpiling, pile away from the retained snags. Retained snags or clumps of snags will be distributed throughout the treatment areas when possible. Coordination with marking crew and biologist will be incorporated to clarify snag retention.

Units 329, 285, and 284

Wildlife – 4 Outside of LSRs, retain five (5) snags per acre. Snags will be left in clumps (skips of 0.25 to one acre in size) where possible. Snags will be retained to provide wildlife habitat value and priority for retention will be based on physical structure and longevity (snags appearing to likely remain standing for the longest period of time). Based on human safety concerns, in units proposed for broadcast burning (helicopter treatments), retain these snag clumps on the downhill lower 1/3 of the units. For treatment areas above the road retain clumps on the upper portions of the units to reduce potential removal from public firewood harvesting. In units proposed for handpiling, pile away from the retained snags. These will be distributed throughout the treatment areas. Coordination with marking crew and biologist will be incorporated to clarify snag retention.

Units 315, 316, 312, 352, 311, 347, 307, 308, 345, 296, 300, and 353

Wildlife - 5 Cull trees, large diameter hardwood (>15”dbh), and snags identified for retention will remain standing unless otherwise identified as a safety hazard. If these trees are felled as a safety hazard, retain as downed wood. When retaining snags and burned trees to meet snag PDFs, those with cat faces, broken tops, and cavities will be retained where possible.

All Units

Wildlife – 6 Treatments that occur between road 40N51 from the junction with 40N51B spur and the junction of the 40N33 road will have a seasonal restriction of February 1st to September 15th. This Limited Operating Period can be lifted if protocol surveys determine NSOs are not nesting on year of action.

Units 285, 284, and portion of 401 and 329

Wildlife – 7 For helicopter units restrict over-flight paths to avoid noise disturbance that may affect nearby nesting northern spotted owls.

Units 285, 311, and 308


Wildlife – 8 Surveys will follow regionally approved protocol or as agreed upon by local Level One Team (team of Forest and U.S. Fish and Wildlife specialists).

All units except 353, 296, 295, and portion of 401 (west of Boulder Gulch)

Wildlife – 9 When burning in spring, manage smoke so that light to moderate dispersed smoke may be present within a canyon or drainage but dissipates or lifts within 24 hours. When spring burning is conducted within 0.25 miles and uphill of a known northern spotted owl activity center or within 0.25 miles of un-surveyed nesting/roosting habitat (separated by a topographic feature), smoke is managed as described above, and ignition will be discontinued if heavy, concentrated smoke begins to inundate suitable habitat late in the afternoon.

All Units except 353, 296, 295, and portions of 401 (west of Boulder Gulch)

Wildlife - 10 Pre-implementation review of specific salvage units by Forest Service and Fish and Wildlife Service biologists will help to ensure the retention areas of snags meet PDS Wildlife -3 and -4. Shortly after the initiation of operations (within 2-5 days), a Forest Service wildlife biologist in cooperation with the Fish and Wildlife Service will evaluate the implementation of the project in the field and ensure the retention standards are being adequately applied. Adjustments to retention standards will be made to ensure consistency with PDS’s

Units 345, 329, 285, and 284

THREATENED, ENDANGERED, OR PROPOSED SPECIES ACCOUNT

Environmental Baseline The Project Area has experienced a few wildfires over the recent decades that resemble historic fire frequency. The western half of the Salmon Complex Fire burned in the 1977 Hog Fire which, at that time, contained mature conifer stands that were lost to the fire. Then in 1987, some of this same area burned again during the Yellow Fire. Unlike the western side of the project area, most of the eastern half of the project area burned in the Salmon Complex Fire for the first time since fire records have been kept on the forest. Although much of eastern portion burned at low intensity, there are numerous areas of moderate and high intensity. Research has determined the average fire return intervals for the project area range from 11.5 and 16.5 years prior to effective fire suppression in the West (Taylor and Skinner, 2003).

Recent evaluation of NSO nesting/roosting and foraging across the entire Klamath National Forest reported, in 2011, about 260,054 acres of nesting roosting and 258,655 acres of foraging habitat. Substantial loss of approximately 30,000 acres of NR habitat and 13,385 acres of foraging habitat from wildfire and suppression actions occurred during the 2006-2008 fire seasons (USDA Forest Service 2009b). In addition, nesting/roosting and foraging habitat was reduced by the Goff Fire (2012), but the actual number of affected habitat acres has not been calculated for this fire (Biological Assessment in review).

Prior to the Salmon Complex Fire, the Project Area contained a diversity of vegetation types influenced by fire, but reflective of the ecological diversity found throughout the Klamath Province. Forested stands occur as a result of soil type, aspect, harvest history, fire history, and slope position. Past wildfire still influence the forest types in the landscape. Yellow Jacket Ridge contained only


small portions of NSO habitat surrounded by early seral habitat. The Kelly Gulch area had foraging habitat, but due to the abiotic features, the area had low capability of becoming high quality habitat especially nesting/roosting habitat. The remaining area within the project area had less obvious wildfire influenced habitat distribution especially south of the County Road (1C01). Hardwoods were a dominant feature in the understory of all seral conditions. Generally, the Salmon River area contained few areas that support foraging and nesting/roosting habitat conditions on the upper 1/3 of slopes while the lower 2/3 of slope in the watersheds provided high quality mid- to late-successional forest habitats.

Late-Successional Reserve

The Project Area is partially within the North Fork/ Crapo LSR (RC347). The LSR is 9,197 acres and is located on the North Fork of the Salmon River. This LSR was determined to be capable of developing mid to late successional habitat on 59% of the LSR at the time of the Forest-wide Late Successional Assessment (1999). The Regional Ecosystem Office (REO) found the assessment sufficient under the requirements of the NWFP and Forest Plan, and emphasized the need for fuels treatment to the extent possible to be done while minimizing the effects to late-successional habitat.

Pre- and Post-fire habitat conditions

The purpose of this Biological Assessment is not to estimate fire affected habitat changes, but rather estimate the possible effects of the proposed action on the current habitat condition and resulting affects to NSO. The estimates of post-fire habitat type are used to describe the existing condition within the analysis area (36,226 acres) along with the amount of pre-fire habitat estimate for comparison (Table 7).

The Salmon Complex Fire ranged in burn severity from low to high severity which resulted in a diverse range of changes to the vegetation. Approximately 30% of the fire acreage burned at medium to high severity and about 33% burned at low intensity (Fuels Report, Table 4). About 1,440 acres of the high severity burn were previously conifer stands with an average diameter at breast height of more than ten inches (Silviculture Report). The forested stands that burned at high severity ranged in species composition and structure from shrub/oak stands, to single layered 25 year conifer plantations, to multi layered, mixed conifer stands and one stand in the higher elevations of true fir. Douglas fir was the dominant species in the overstory, less the true fir stand, and in the mixed conifer stands, hardwoods were very common in the understory.

Table 7. Acres of NSO habitat pre- and post-fire in the Analysis Area

Habitat Pre-fire Acres Post-fire Acres Loss of Habitat Acres

Dispersal 4,955 4,771 183

Foraging 11,888 11,065 823

Nesting/Roosting 2,767 2,731 37

Total Habitat Acres 19,610 18,567 1,043

NORTHERN SPOTTED OWL (Strix occidentalis caurina) Status: Federal Threatened; State of California-species of special concern


Spotted owl habitat is generally associated with older, dense forests that provide opportunities for nesting, roosting, and foraging. Nesting/roosting habitat is generally described as a multilayered, multi-species canopy with large overstory trees with various deformities (large cavities, broken tops, mistletoe infections, and other decadence); large snags; large accumulation of fallen trees; sufficient open space below the canopy for spotted owl flight (Thomas et al. 1990). Foraging habitat generally has attributes similar to those of nesting/roosting habitat but contains less canopy cover, forest structure complexity, and large trees. Dispersal habitat consists of adequate tree size and canopy closure to provide protection from avian predators and minimal foraging opportunities (USFWS 2008).

Nesting/Roosting Habitat

In 2009, the USFWS conducted a thorough review and synthesis of published literature, unpublished data sets and direct communication with NSO researchers to develop guidance for describing NSO habitat and evaluating the effects of habitat management on NSO within the interior Klamath Province. Nesting/roosting habitat for this analysis is generally defined by (1) average crown closure >60%, (2) average diameter at breast height for canopy trees (>18 inches), basal area (>180 square feet per acre), and trees with cavities or platforms.

On the Klamath National Forest, in the California Klamath and Cascade provinces, 41% of 29 nests were in cavities and 59% on platforms, with cavity nests occurring predominantly in Douglas-fir forest and platform nests found mainly in mixed conifer forest. Eighty-six percent of the 29 nests were in Douglas-fir trees. Marshall et al. (2003) noted that approximately 90% of known Spotted Owl nests on the Applegate Ranger District of the Rogue River National Forest (Klamath Province, Oregon, 50 miles northwest of the Project area) were in dwarf mistletoe brooms in Douglas-fir trees.

In the analysis area, the existing 2,731 acres of nesting and roosting habitat is fragmented and limited due to past fire history, past logging and natural fragmentation. Most of this habitat occurs on the lower 2/3 of the slopes within the watersheds. Fire histories in the Salmon River area have resulted in few areas that support nesting and roosting habitat conditions on the upper 1/3 of slopes. Early vegetative mapping from the 1940s indicate that upper slopes were represented by more open canopy pine dominate stands with low growing shrub understory (Salmon Salvage Project Silviculture Report).

Foraging Habitat The 2009 NSO Guidance describes foraging habitat as including a mix of basal areas ranging from 120-180+ square feet, and > 15 Quadratic Mean Diameter (QMD) with ≥ 5 trees per acre of ≥ 26” DBH and a mix of >40% to 100 % canopy closures. It also recognizes “low quality” foraging habitat as a mix of basal areas ranging from 80-120+ square feet, ≥ 11” QMD and > 40% canopy closure (USDI USFWS 2008, Irwin et al. 2013).

In the analysis area, the 11,065 acres of foraging habitat is fragmented and limited due to past fire history, past logging and natural fragmentation. Most of this habitat occurs on the lower 2/3 of the slopes on the eastern and southern portion of the project area. In recent years, with fire exclusion, white fir ingrowth and stand diseases have influenced stand conditions to be denser in canopy on the upper slopes (Silviculture Report). This may have provided some level of increase in foraging habitat for NSO. Fire histories show that these upper slope stands will not be sustainable under


conditions of wildfires due to the high probability of stand replacing fires on the upper 1/3 of slopes (Fuels Report).

Dispersal Habitat

Dispersal of animals can be defined as the relatively permanent movement of individuals from one location to another. Usually dispersal is the movement of juveniles from their natal area to a site where they eventually settle to breed (Thomas, et al. 1990).

Modeling efforts by Thomas et al. (1990) indicated that long-term spotted owl persistence is unusually sensitive to the distance between blocks of suitable habitat in relation to the percentage of the landscape that a dispersing individual can search before perishing. The distance between adjacent pairs or groups of breeding owls should be such that the dispersal of juveniles can replace losses among existing pairs and provide for the colonization of suitable, unoccupied habitats. They suggested that the distance between Habitat Conservation Areas (the concept of HCAs was used in the NWFP to develop LSRs) should be within the known dispersal distances of at least two-thirds of all juvenile owls (Thomas, et al. 1990); 12 miles is the distance that satisfied that criteria. To provide an additional measure of security for smaller HCAs, they suggested using shorter distances to increase the likelihood of successful dispersal; they selected 7 miles, which is less than the median distance estimated from banded birds and within the dispersal range of more than 75% of all radio-marked juveniles studied (Thomas, et al. 1990).

In addition to short distances between habitat areas (<7 miles), Thomas et al. (1990) suggest that management practices, such as visual corridors, riparian corridors, streamside management zones, geologic reserves, and other special management zones, provide habitat attributes conducive to spotted owl dispersal between habitat areas. To facilitate dispersal between habitat patches, they suggest maintaining 50% of each quarter-township in forest crown closure over 40% with average diameter at breast height of 11 inches.

Dispersal habitat in the analysis area (4,771 acres) (excluding NR and F habitat) across the Salmon Salvage Project area is patchy and is influenced by geology, past fire and past timber harvest. Dispersal habitat is provided in stands with larger than 11” DBH and greater than 40% canopy closure. This dispersal habitat is distributed within riparian reserves, geological reserves, visual corridors and untreated areas and nesting, roosting, foraging and dispersal habitat. As with nesting, roosting, and foraging habitat distribution in the watershed, dispersal habitat is limited and not sustainable on the upper 1/3 of the slopes in the project watershed.

Potential barriers to dispersal for late-successional forest-related species would include large areas that currently do not support late-successional or mid-successional forest. The surrounding landscape is characterized by a forest influenced by past fire history, timber harvest, and natural fragmentation. There are an estimate of 9,435 acres of non-habitat areas composed of openings of plantations, small meadows and shrubs. These areas of non-habitat are distributed throughout the analysis area, but mostly occur in the northeast and west-southwest boundaries resulting from repeated effects of high severity fires in 1977 and 1987.

NSO Prey

Northern spotted owls feed mainly on small forest mammals, particularly arboreal and semi-arboreal species (Courtney et al. 2004). Northern flying squirrels and woodrats comprise a bulk of the diet, but secondary species such as mice (Peromyscus sp.) may be important for survival and reproduction. In portions of the NSO range, deer mice, red-backed voles, and two species of


lagomorphs are considered locally and/or seasonally important in the diet (Courtney et al. 2004). Within the analysis area, it is expected that woodrats and flying squirrels are the most likely prey item based on available habitat.

NSOs within the Analysis Area

The analysis area contains five known historical NSO activity centers. Four of the five home ranges overlap a portion of the proposed actions.

Survey Summary

Site occupancy and reproductive rates have been shown to exhibit substantial annual variation that may be influenced by individual’s site fidelity, climatic extremes, shifts in prey availability, or presence of other raptors (Loschl 2008; Olson et al. 2005; Anthony et al. 2006). Activity centers in this project have displayed some of this variation in occupancy, but these ACs are still considered important for current or future NSO demographics.

Limited surveys for NSO were conducted in the analysis area in the 1980’s, mid-1990’s, and 2002. Recent protocol surveys in the portions of Salmon Salvage analysis area were conducted in 2009 thru 2013 as part of other projects: Little Cronan, Kelly Thin, and Little North Fork Plantation Project. These surveys determined presence in two of the five activity centers since 2010; KL0233 is the only Activity Center (AC) with a recent pair (2012), but no recent reproduction has been detected. Comprehensive protocol surveys for this project will commence during the 2014 survey season and be conducted throughout the life of the project. Survey histories are summarized in Table 8.

Table 8. NSO Survey Summary NSO Activity

Center Year First Recorded/

Status

Highest Status/ Year

Recent Surveys/ Status

Project Specific Mitigation

KL0233 Shiltos

1991- Occupancy Pair

Occupancy Pair 1991, 1998, 2002, 2012

2012 – occupancy pair (3 surveys), 2013 –single male (3 surveys), 2014- no response (6 surveys)

Core use area is outside project area.

KL1043 Little North Fork/Garden Gulch

1987- Occupancy Pair

1989-Reproductive Pair

2009 – no response (3 surveys), 2010 – single male presence (3 surveys), 2011-2013 no response (3 surveys), 2014 – no response (6 surveys)

Project Area will be surveyed for each year of action prior to implementation, for the duration of the project.

KL1052 Specimen

1988 – Reproductive Pair

1991- Reproductive Pair

2010-2011 – no response (3 surveys), 2014 – no response (6 surveys)


KL1053 Sur Cree

1988 – Single Presence

1989 Occupancy Pair

2010- single presence(3 surveys), 2011-2013 – no response(3 surveys), 2014 – no response (6 surveys) (barred owl observed in NSO core)



NSO Activity Center

Year First Recorded/

Status

Highest Status/ Year

Recent Surveys/ Status

Project Specific Mitigation

KL4042 Jackass

1981- Single Presence

1984 – Reproductive Pair

2009 – single presence(3 surveys), 2010-2011 no response (3 surveys), 2014 – no response (6 surveys)


CNDDB (California Natural Diversity Database) and Forest records were examined to confirm all Activity Centers locations were considered in the project area for analysis. The same five ACs in the Klamath NF Activity Center database were accounted for in the CNDDB with no additional ACs in CNDDB thus confirming we are considering all the known ACs for this project. Four of the five CNDDB activity center locations were shifted about 0.25 mile when compared to the Klamath NF database AC locations. After examining the NSO survey data within the project area, the NSO pair observations (pairs and family observations) closely align with the Klamath NF database AC locations. Therefore we used the Klamath NF database AC locations for this project analysis.

Home Range and Core NSO Habitat Summary

The purpose of this BA is not to analyze the effects of the Salmon Complex Fire on NSO, but the change in habitat is important to describe the current habitat condition. The current (post-fire) habitat conditions of the known activity centers provide a baseline condition of the AC prior to any treatment.

Three of the five 1.3 mile home ranges (KL0233, KL1053, and KL4042) are above the 250 acres of NR (nesting/ roosting) and 1085 acres of F (foraging) habitat as suggested by USFWS (2008) (Table 9). Sur Cree home range contains relatively abundant NR habitat; NR habitat can function for all aspects of NSO needs so the deficient F habitat for this home range can be supplemented by the excess NR habitat to exceed thresholds at the home range scale. The Specimen AC hasn’t been active in the last four years and it is likely to remain inactive given the lack of NSO habitat in the home range or in the near area. The Little North Fork home range contains a small amount of NR habitat that may limit reproduction until the habitat improves.

The analysis for the activity center core (0.5 mile) shows three of the five core areas (KL0233, KL1043, and KL4042) are deficit of the threshold of 250 acres of NR, but contain sufficient amount of F habitat (150 acres). KL1052 contains no NR or F habitat in the core as a result of the Specimen Fire which burned the area at high fire intensity. KL1053 is slightly under the recommended acres of F habitat which wouldn’t appreciably change the foraging dynamics of the core. However, the core needs both NR and F to support NSO reproduction and all five cores examined in this analysis are well below the recommended acres of NR and/or F.

Without long-term monitoring data it is difficult to determine demographic trends within the Analysis Area. For the purposes of this analysis, it is assumed that not all activity centers are occupied consistently through time, and that “currently” unoccupied activity centers that have been occupied in the past could remain important to NSOs in the Salmon Salvage Project’s landscape.

Table 9. Home Range and Core Post fire Habitat Acres of NSO Activity Centers.


Activity Center Number

Activity Center Name

0.5 mi Radius Entire 1.3 mi Radius Total

NR` F Total NR F Total

KL0233 Shiltos 10 346 356 630 1,884 2,514 KL1043 Little

North Fork 101 329 430 101 1,679 1,780

KL1052 Specimen 0 0 0 123 444 567 KL1053 Sur Cree 5 246 251 1,095 541 1,636 KL4042 Jackass 55 317 372 252 1997 2,249

NSO Critical Habitat Critical habitat for a listed species contains the physical or biological features (primary constituent elements) essential to the conservation of the species. For the northern spotted owl, the physical or biological features (PBFs) essential to the conservation of the species are forested areas that are used or likely to be used for nesting, roosting, foraging, or dispersing. PBFs are the basis of primary constituent elements that provide one or more of the following life-history requirements:

1. Space for individual and population growth and for normal behavior; 2. Food, water, air, light, minerals, or other nutritional or physiological requirements; 3. Cover or shelter; 4. Sites for breeding, reproduction, or rearing (or development) of offspring; and 5. Habitats that are protected from disturbance or are representative of the historical,

geographical, and ecological distributions of a species.

Primary Constituent Elements Primary constituent elements are those specific elements of the physical or biological features that provide for a species’ life-history processes and are essential to the conservation of the species.

In the 2012 Critical Habitat ruling the Primary Constituent Elements (PCEs) focuses on four components, the first of which must be included along with one of the last three. The four elements are

1. Forest types that may be in early-, mid-, or late-seral stages and that support the northern spotted owl across its geographical range,

2. Nesting and roosting habitat, 3. Foraging habitat, 4. Dispersal habitat (subdivided into transience and colonization phases of dispersal).

These PCEs are quoted from the final rule and included as Appendix 4. In the following analysis, we will refer to these PCE categories as PCEs 1, 2, 3 and 4 with subdivisions discussed as appropriate.

PCE 1, Forest Type These activities can occur in early-, mid-, or late-seral forest types identified in the PCEs in the final rule. On the Klamath, this includes the mixed conifer and mixed evergreen type, the Douglas-fir


type, the Shasta red fir type and a small amount of the moist end of the ponderosa pine, coniferous forest zones.

PCE 2, Nesting and Roosting habitat 1. Sufficient foraging habitat to meet the home range needs of territorial pairs of northern

spotted owls throughout the year. 2. Stands for nesting and roosting that are generally characterized by:

o moderate to high degrees of canopy closure (60 to over 80 percent): o Multilayered, multispecies canopies with large (20–30 in (51–76 cm) or greater dbh)

overstory trees; o High basal area values (greater than 240 ft2/ac (55 m2/ha)); o High diversity of different diameters of trees; o High incidence of large live trees with various deformities (e.g., large cavities,

broken tops, mistletoe infections, and other evidence of decadence); o Large snags and large accumulations of fallen trees and other woody debris on the

ground; and o Sufficient open space below the canopy for northern spotted owls to fly.

PCE 3, Foraging habitat in the East Cascades and Klamath/Northern California Interior Coast Ranges Ecological Zones Klamath and Northern California Interior Coast Ranges

1. Stands of nesting and roosting habitat; in addition, other forest types with mature and old-forest characteristics;

2. Presence of the conifer species, incense-cedar, sugar pine, Douglas-fir, and hardwood species such as big leaf maple, black oak, live oaks, and madrone, as well as shrubs;

3. Forest patches within riparian zones of low-order streams and edges between conifer and hardwood forest stands;

4. Brushy openings and dense young stands or low-density forest patches within a mosaic of mature and older forest habitat;

5. High degrees of canopy cover (87 percent at frequently used sites); 6. Multiple canopy layers; 7. Mean stand diameter greater than 21 in (52.5 cm); 8. Increasing mean stand diameter and densities of trees greater than 26 in (66 cm) increases

foraging habitat quality; 9. Large accumulations of fallen trees and other woody debris on the ground; and 10. Sufficient open space below the canopy for northern spotted owls to fly.

PCE 4, Habitat supporting the transience and colonization phases of dispersal Habitat supporting the transience phase of dispersal, which includes:

1. Stands with adequate tree size and canopy cover to provide protection from avian predators and minimal foraging opportunities; in general this may include, but is not limited to, trees with at least 11 in (28 cm) dbh and a minimum 40 percent canopy cover; and

2. Younger and less diverse forest stands than foraging habitat, such as even-aged, pole-sized stands, if such stands contain some roosting structures and foraging habitat to allow for temporary resting and feeding during the transience phase.


3. Habitat supporting the colonization phase of dispersal, which is generally equivalent to nesting, roosting, and foraging habitat as described in PCEs (2) and (3), but may be smaller in area than that needed to support nesting pairs.

Threats to Critical Habitat

One of the primary threats to NSO is identified as past and current habitat loss. While loss due to timber harvest has slowed considerably since the time of listing, loss due to high severity fires in some portions of the range remains high. Recent information pertaining to habitat lost to wildfire in the relatively dry East Cascades and Klamath Provinces suggests that fire may be more of a threat than was previously thought. Specific to the California Klamath Province, approximately 40,000 acres of NSO nesting and roosting habitat has been lost to fires between 1996 and 2006, most of which is in reserved land allocations (Davis et al. 2011).

Critical Habitat Unit

The Salmon Salvage Project occurs within the almost 1.2 million acre Klamath West (KLW) Critical Habitat Unit (CHU). The KLW CHU is located along the western portion of the Klamath Mountains with very high climatic and vegetative diversity. CHU subunit KLW8 covers a large portion of the analysis area and overlaps a portion of the Little North Fork/Crapo LSR along with other land allocations including General Forest. This subunit provides an important low to mid elevation habitat link from the Marble Mountain Wilderness to the Trinity Alps wilderness.

The subunit was established to function as NSO demographic support (USDI FSW 2012 pg. 71933) and resource agencies are encouraged to work toward maintaining or enhancing the characteristics of older forest and provide large habitat blocks and associated forest conditions. Regional variations should be taken into account; in the Klamath Province this means providing mosaics of interior habitats and edges to provide for the diversity of prey. Management activities that contribute to recovery goals through risk reduction such as the removal of ground and ladder fuels, and the restoration of ecosystem processes that lead to the development or replacement of spotted owl habitat are recommended. The current number of acres for PCE 2, 3, and 4 are presented in Table 10. Table 10. Existing Acres of Nesting/Roosting and Foraging habitat in Critical Habitat in the Analysis Area

Habitat Acres % of Analysis Area

Dispersal 1,983 16%

Foraging 5,731 47%

Nesting/Roosting 2,004 16%

Non-habitat 2,547 21%

Total Acres 12,265 100%

Direct and Indirect Effects of the Proposed Action on Northern Spotted Owls All three spotted owl subspecies indicate variability in spotted owl’s use of fire-affected habitat, dependent on fire severity and the function of the habitat prior to the fire (i.e. nesting, roosting, or foraging). A few studies have linked spotted owl use of fire-affected forests with fitness (i.e. occupancy of nesting territories and survival rates) to provide a better understanding of the potential tradeoffs (e.g. lower survival). In southwest Oregon, NSO occupancy and survival rates of northern


spotted owls were found to be lower in burned areas compared to unburned areas, but the results were unclear because of prior land management of the area and post-fire harvest (Clark 2007, Clark et al. 2011). Jenness et al. (2004) found decreased occupancy of Mexican spotted owls in burned areas compared to unburned areas, although the authors concluded the relationship statistically weak. Roberts et al. (2011) found no difference in occupancy of California spotted owls between burned and unburned areas, although their burned areas were predominately of low and moderate severity. Bond et al. (2002) compared survival rates of all three subspecies of spotted owls in burned sites with overall survival estimates recorded in the literature and found them to be similar.

The effects of salvage harvest on spotted owls is relativity unknown because of the complex nature of the landscape and competing effects of natural and human caused habitat changes. Recently, two studies have attempted to explore the effects of salvage harvest within a larger burned area using spotted owl occupancy (Clark et al. 2013 and Lee et al. 2013). These two documents represent the most recent literature available and are briefly presented below for consideration in this document.

Clark et al. (2013) examined the potential effects on nesting territory occupancy in areas that recently experienced fire and suggested that past timber harvest, high severity fire, and salvage within the core nesting area best explained a decrease in NSO occupancy, but high severity fire effects to occupancy were confounded with past timber harvest and salvage logging suggesting that NSO may not persist in burned landscapes. This is not surprising given the fact that timber harvest and high severity fire (typically the prelude to salvage) commonly remove habitat attributes associated with NSO habitat that lead to a reduction in habitat quality or habitat loss. Salvage logging in this study area used clear cutting where all the trees were harvested within an area with no areas untreated (often call retention areas). Retention areas in salvage treatments can provide needed structure by NSO (Clark 2007). Clark (2007) examined NSO use of burned areas and found 60% of owl locations within salvaged areas were in retention areas (clumps or along riparian areas) within the unit, suggesting that owls may use salvage areas with remnant structures. The Salmon Salvage Project proposes retention areas in clumps or along riparian areas at 5 to 8 snags per acre of larger size classes.

In southern California, Lee et al. (2013) found no statistically significant effects of fire or salvage logging on spotted owl occupancy. However, the authors claim that the weak evidence may be biologically meaningful. They describe an inverse relationship between the amount of high severity burn in the core and occupancy, but this effect could be exacerbated by salvage logging (i.e. clear cut). Salvage logging effects alone could not be separated from the fire effects and the spatial configuration of the salvage was not provided for a qualitative assessment. The authors, however, described the 203ha cores on average containing 106ha of habitat where 24ha burned at high severity and 63ha was salvaged logged. The Salmon Salvage Project proposes 7 acres of salvage harvest in one unit within one NSO core area (0.5 mile radius from activity center, 203ha) which is a sharp contrast to the 155 acre (63ha) average of salvage presented by Lee et al. (2013). Lee et al. (2013) did not provide any information on the prescription of the salvage in his study except the salvage was visible using satellite or aerial imagery. The Salmon Salvage Project was designed to create an irregular or diffuse edge with retention areas of snags dispersed inside the unit which will resemble naturally occurring openings in the landscape.

Another study used an observation approach to estimate NSO use of fire-affected forest within the home range, but without a measure of fitness, the results are inconclusive or correlative. Bond et al. (2009) studied four spotted owl territories (4 males and 3 female) within a wildfire perimeter about four years after the fire; they found the owls foraged in all burn severities, with a selection for high


severity burned areas. Although this study has been widely used to demonstrate the importance of high severity burned forests for NSO, the study is limited by the small sample size, brief study period (12 weeks), and non-random owl selection. The authors provide a snapshot of information without any link to potential effects to survival or reproduction. The observation of NSO in a severely burned forest does not equate fire affected forest to foraging habitat. We don’t argue the use of high severity burned forests by NSO especially for potential foraging, but the use of these areas are likely associated with the quality of habitat prior to the fire, current adjacent habitat quality, and the spatial arrangement and amount of habitat within the AC.

Nesting/Roosting

Spotted owl reproduction and nesting have been observed in burned landscapes and in core areas in which some portion was burned by high-severity fire with high tree mortality. A few studies have shown owls to exhibit site fidelity, mate fidelity, and reproductive success after fires have burned with low to moderate severity within their territories (Bond 2002). Others studies have shown owls to move completely away from previously occupied areas after high intensity burns (Elliot 1985, Gaines 1997) particularly when burns occurred within nest core areas of resident birds. Clark (2007) found that severe wildfires in NSO home ranges caused owls to increase their home range size in order to encompass more suitable habitat. He also found that spotted owls with territories located immediately adjacent to moderate and high severity burned areas avoided these areas and had < 5% of their locations fall within the fire-affected area. Owls that ventured into the burned areas were typically individuals that were displaced by fire and periodically visited their old territory. So, according to Clark’s study, when given the opportunity, owls focused their activities in unburned habitat. In his study, several owls with territories inside the fire frequently traveled long distances to forage in unburned habitat, supporting his prediction that owls would focus activities in the oldest forest stands with the least amount of fire damage (Clark 2007).

Clark (2007) determined that owls were present in severely burned areas but did not determine these areas to be suitable habitat for nesting, roosting, or long-term occupation by spotted owls in a territory. The burned areas may have contained individual features providing a short-term structure for either roosting or foraging but were not suitable for long-term sustainability of a given owl or owl pair. Foraging Northern spotted owls frequently select foraging habitat according to the distribution of prey species which can be abundant along edges between older forests and young saplings and brushy pole-timber (Franklin 2000). Edges of burned habitat adjacent to NSO habitat may provide similar increases to prey species as other natural disturbances. Increases in prey abundance may explain spotted owls observed foraging in forested areas that experienced wildfire for all severities especially near edges where burned forest meet unburned forest (Clark 2007, Bond et al. 2009). Comfort (2013) assessed the influence of edge configuration on owl use in a post-fire habitat condition. She found spotted owls avoided large contiguous patches of high-severity burn. She also determined that high-severity burned areas that occur near unburned or low-severity burned habitat had a higher likelihood of post-fire foraging use and post-fire prey density for NSO when the edge was configured in a diffuse edge versus a hard edge. She also determined that patch size, configuration of fire resilient features, and past frequency of fire influenced post-fire habitat foraging use by NSO. The Salmon Fire resulted in low amount of high-severity burn areas within moderate- and low-severity burn. This burn pattern created an irregular shape edge or diffused edge between high


severity burn areas and foraging habitat. The proposed salvage treatments will follow the natural irregular burn edge along with the retention of snag clumps to maintain diffuse edges between treated areas and non-treated areas (typically low or moderate severity burn). These snag clumps will also help to provide NSO with a perch for rest or locating prey. As snags begin to deteriorate and shrubs begin to become established (estimate of 5 to 20 years) cover for NSO prey will increase thus possibly allowing for additional NSO foraging opportunities. However, if the shrubs and woody debris become too dense, then NSO foraging may be limited by its’ ability to capture prey. Clark (2007) found that 60% of NSO detections within the salvaged/burned areas on his study sites were associated with patches of untreated wildlife leave groups and riparian buffers also known as snag retention areas. If NSO use these features (i.e. burned trees or snags) within the harvest units, these retention areas may increase their prey availability, cover and subsequent foraging success.

NSO Prey

Habitat that supports prey for NSO is an important component for the survival of owls and their offspring. Changes in habitat can affect presence of prey species and abundance especially after a disturbance like fire. A few prey species may increase after a fire, but the woodrat is likely the most important in terms of frequency and biomass. Woodrats are one of the two more important prey species for NSO on the Klamath NF, the other being northern flying squirrels. Franklin (2000) hypothesized that wildfire may serve to enhance prey abundance by creating openings that would allow for seedlings and brush to regenerate and provide habitat for prey species. After a fire, however, prey species are not likely to be abundant until vegetation can recover to provide adequate cover. In addition to vegetation cover, bushy-tailed woodrats are more abundant in areas with snags and logs for den sites and cover (Zabel et al. 1995), but in areas that lack dead wood structure, woodrats will use mistletoe brooms (Lehmkuhl et al. 2006).

Abiotic Features

Habitat selection by NSOs is strongly influenced by abiotic features such as distance to water, proximity to nest, slope position, and elevation. It is possible that use of the burned habitats by NSO as described by Clark (2007) may be influenced by the juxtaposition of the burned areas in relation to some other feature, such as a nest site or water, rather than based on the “suitability” of the area, particularly if the owls were accustomed to using the area prior to the fire. Factors involved in the NSO’s periodic selection of burned areas for foraging have not been fully explored, and further research is needed to account for the many other aspects of a burned landscape that would factor into the NSO selection process.

Effects to Northern Spotted Owl For purposes of this analysis, areas burned with high burn severity are no longer considered suitable habitat for nesting, roosting, or long-term occupation by spotted owls because these areas no longer supply the habitat attributes needed for thermal protection, nesting structure, and cover from predators necessary for long term viability. Even though some use of high severity burned areas, particularly small patches of high severity that are within a mosaic of unburned, low, and moderate severity burned habitats may still support dispersal or possible foraging use along the edges or transition zones between burn severities or possibly along the edge of existing NSO habitat and high severity burn, these areas do not contain the forest structure to provide persistent foraging opportunity especially after the snags begin the fall over creating obstacles during foraging to capture prey on the ground. Even without snag fall over, areas with high burn severity have a high


likelihood of being dominated by a dense brush understory, few scattered young conifers and high fuels accumulations.

Salvage Harvest

Salvage harvest of 330 acres or about 1% of the 36,226 acres of the analysis area will be distributed in sixteen treatment units containing dead or dying trees. These units currently provide some NSO thermal cover or cover from predators, but this is expected to further degrade as the tree dies and the needles fall off the tree. NSO have been observed in high severity burn areas possibly related to prey species abundance (Bond et al. 2002, 2009, Clark et al. 2013, Lee et al. 2013). If NSO use these areas for foraging, snags could provide a perch for NSO to rest or hunt for prey items. The salvage harvest units will retain several snags in clumps (project design specifications 3 and 4) within the units to provide additional perching structure.

NSO hunting along habitat edges created by human or natural disturbance has been documented in a few studies (Bond et al. 2002, Irwin et al. 2013, Lee et al. 2013). These edges typically occur between existing habitat and disturbed habitat where the existing habitat provides adequate canopy cover and escape cover from predators while a foraging NSO may hunt in an area without canopy cover. For an NSO, hunting in an area without cover could be risky for NSO especially in areas occupied by NSO predators (e.g. great-horned owl). Perhaps staying close to existing habitat may provide the opportunity for NSO to forage while being close to cover (Comfort 2013). Salvage harvest units 353, 295, and 296 are not near NSO habitat and likely provide no foraging opportunity for NSO.

Diffuse edges between habitats have been reported to provide much higher use by NSO (Comfort 2013); possibly related to higher prey abundance (Clark 2007, Bond et al. 2009). Woodrats occupy a variety of habitats, but have been reported at high densities in early-seral habitat (brush/sapling) and late-successional forests (Sakai and Noon 1993). Early-seral habitat commonly develops after a high severity burn; early-seral habitat adjacent to older forest may increase NSO access to woodrats, who travel between early-seral and older forest (Sakai and Noon 1997). Comfort (2013) suggested that a diffuse edge between these habitats could provide additional benefits to NSO for accessing prey. Salvage harvest units will have snag clumps retained in the units to create an irregular, diffuse edge. This diffuse edge will be created between the salvage harvest units that will develop into early seral-habitat and older forest (NR or F habitat) thus creating an opportunity for woodrat density increases. Diffuse edges that provide foraging opportunities will also be facilitated by the riparian reserve retentions.

The proposed salvage could increase the likelihood of seedling survival of natural regeneration by removing fuels that would otherwise increase the probability of high severity fire. The proposed salvage will help prepare the area for natural regeneration and for possible future conifer planting. Artificial regeneration with native conifer seedlings will allow for the return of forest cover in a much shorter time period than natural recovery would allow (Silviculture Report). Conifer planting is included in another project in the same treatment areas (Salmon Reforestation). Adding the benefits of the two projects can accelerate the recovery of habitat for forest wildlife species. Without preparation for reforestation efforts in the Salmon Salvage Project, these areas would likely re-vegetate to grass and shrubs, resulting in the loss of older forest habitat which has determined to be limited in this landscape that has experienced such a high fire frequency.

The proposed harvest of fire-killed trees will remove some of the snags and future woody debris. Woody material is important for several small mammal reproduction and survival; however, the


amount to be removed is small in comparison to the available woody debris in the analysis area. In addition, the salvage harvest units contain retention of snag clumps situated around riparian reserves, drainages, and groups of pre-existing snags would offer cover adjacent to open areas for prey species.

The areas where the fire burned most intensely, especially large patches, are least likely to be utilized by NSOs due to the lack of important habitat attributes such as canopy cover. The project area provides ample amount of unburned and low severity burned habitat that will continue to provide habitat, if present prior to the fire (Table 7). Even though a few studies have shown evidence of NSO using high severity burn areas, it is difficult to assess the amount actual use and determine the quality of severely burned habitat. According to the physical characteristics associated with NSO habitat as defined in several documents such as NSO Recovery Plan, severely burned habitat does not meet the characteristics of NSO habitat. Therefore, removal of standing dead trees from areas is not expected to represent a significant change in the availability of nesting or foraging habitat suitable nesting, roosting or foraging habitat.

Salvage harvest units 353 and 295 have a small portion (about 11 acres and 1.3 acres respectively) of each unit overlap with LSR and NSO Critical Habitat that will not be salvage harvested. The described portion of unit 295 is entirely contained within roadside hazard treatment boundary (unit 401) which will still receive roadside hazard treatment. The small portion of unit 353 within LSR and NSO CH will still receive roadside hazard treatment, but the majority will be untreated. These small portions of units 353 and 295 will not be removed from the unit boundaries, but will be identified in the project record as a “skip” area, meaning no salvage harvest.

Salvage Harvest in Home Ranges

Salvage harvest is proposed in four home ranges (KL1043, KL 4042, KL1053, and KL1052), but KL1052 and KL1053 will have only a small amount (<3 acres and 1 acre respectively) of treatment. KL4042 is located in Kelly Gulch where current habitat conditions are low quality and are influenced by biotic and abiotic conditions. On the upper slopes of Kelly Gulch and western side of the KL4042 home range, the area contains scattered foraging habitat among young dense stands of trees. These dense stands would be difficult for NSO to use for foraging and could have been habitat typed as non-habitat, but the area was typed overall as foraging because of the scattered pockets foraging habitat; this is low quality foraging habitat. The Kelly Gulch area has low predicted NSO use because of the current habitat conditions and habitat quality is not likely to improve in the near future. The proposed treatments are outside the KL4042 core and located on or near the ridgeline where NSO use is typically low. We don’t expect the 101 acres of salvage harvest of non-habitat in KL4042 will change the overall condition of the territory.

KL1043 home range has a discontinuous arrangement of habitat that has been influenced by past natural and human changes. Salvage harvest is proposed in 7 acres (unit 285) of the core. Treatment unit 285 and adjacent units in the Garden Gulch area (284 and 329) units are designed to retain snag clumps throughout the treated area at a rate of > 8 snags per acre of the larger trees and left in clumps to provide for a diffuse edge. A small portion of units 295 and 353 occur within the KL1043 home range but these areas will not be salvage harvested. The 109 acres of salvage harvest of non-habitat is not expected to affect the overall condition of KL1043.

Overall, salvage harvest will continue to allow for foraging opportunities for NSO foraging along the edges of these high severity burn patches. The retention of snags in these units and the design of a diffuse edge along the treatment boundaries will provide structure in units. There is no expected


loss of habitat acres in known cores and home ranges from the salvage harvest. The home ranges are currently deficient in habitat as a result of the fire and the treatment will not further reduce those acres of NR or F habitat. Since no salvage harvest treatment will occur in NR or F habitat, NSO habitat will not be degraded, downgraded, or removed.

Project design specifications include breeding season restrictions for operations in specified areas where habitat suitability and NSO occupancy probability is higher, therefore, there is a low likelihood of potential disturbance to nesting NSO resulting from salvage operations. There may be beneficial effects to the adjacent habitat by reducing fuels in these units. In the event of a high severity wildfire, the reduced fuels will reduce the potential of a fire spreading into adjacent habitat. Table 11. Pre and Post Habitat Salvage Unit Acre by NSO Core and Home Range

Activity Center

Pre Salvage Treatment Acres Post Salvage Treatment Acres

Dispersal Forage Nesting /Roosting

Non Habitat Dispersal Forage Nesting/ Roosting

Non Habitat

KL1043 Core

0 0 0 Unit 285 (7 acres)

0 0 0 Same as Pre-treatment acres

KL1043 Home Range

0 0 0 Unit 284 (46 Acres), Unit 285 (16 acres), and Unit 329 (47 acres)

0 0 0 Same as Pre-treatment acres

KL1053 Core

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Same as Pre- treatment Acres

KL1053 Home Range

0 0 0 Unit 284 (1 acre)

0 0 0 Same as Pre- treatment Acres

KL4042 Core


KL4042 Home Range

0 0 0 Unit 307 (30 Acres), Unit 308 (18 acres), Unit 311 (26 acre), Unit 312 (2 acres), Unit 315 (1 acre), Unit 316 (1 acre), Unit 347 (17 acres), and Unit 352 (6 acres)


KL 0233 Core


KL0233 Home Range



KL1052 Core


KL1052 Home Range

0 0 0 Unit 315 (1 acre), Unit 316 (1 acre)


Roadside Hazard Tree Reduction

Roadside hazard is proposed on 23 miles of road with an estimated 895 trees identified for removal due to safety concerns (average of 39 trees/mile) within 576 acres of NRF habitat (Table 12). The size distribution of trees to be treated as hazard range from 14” to 62” DBH with the majority of the removal occurring on trees <32” DBH (Figure 1). Hazard trees are dead or dying which provide very little canopy cover, if any. Within LSR, hazard tree removal will occur in 12 acres of nesting roosting habitat and 241 acres of foraging habitat. There will be a reduction of snags within the roadside treatment areas; however, the number of trees to be removed will not limit snag habitat distribution on the surrounding landscape. Over the entire project, there will be a varying level of degradation to the 576 or acres of NRF habitat (5% of habitat in analysis area). Hazard trees are not evenly distributed so some portions of this treatment will remove few or no trees. The existing habitat will remain functional after treatments since there is no expected measurable reduction of canopy cover or forest structure. There is no expected downgrading or removal of suitable habitat with this roadside hazard treatment.

Roadside hazard treatments have a low likelihood of affecting NSO nesting due to proximity to abiotic features and low potential of nesting structure. In the Kelly Gulch area, proposed treatments are along the upper portion of a sub ridge where there is lower quality foraging habitat. Past survey efforts in that area have not documented NSO roosting or nesting activity where the proposed treatments are to occur. The portions of roadside treatment along the lower 40N33 and 40N51 road have lower quality foraging habitat and no past or recent history of NSO roosting or nesting activity. These areas have been or are being surveyed for this project and have been surveyed for many recent years as part of the Little Cronan Project. No NSO were detected along these recent survey areas. In the described areas of the project, there is a low likelihood of potential disturbance to nesting NSO.

The exception is along the 40N51 road that occurs near Garden Gulch. Garden Gulch has favorable abiotic features for NSO use (proximity to water, in a draw, midslope elevation) and suitable NRF habitats that were burned at low severity and still retain habitat function. This area is within LSR and within the core of KL1043. Hazard tree removal will have a limited operating period (Table 6, Wildlife-6) for the roadside hazard portions along Road 40N51 from the junction with 40N51B spur and the junction of the 40N33 road. This LOP can be lifted if protocol surveys determine no nesting as described in the PDS.

Table 12. Acres of pre-treatment habitat in proposed roadside hazard areas and post treatments expected habitat outcomes.

Unit Acre Rx

Pre- Project

Nest Roost

Pre- Project

Foraging

Pre- Project

Disp

Non Habitat

Post- Project

Nest Roost

Post- Project

Foraging

Post- Project

Disp

Non Habitat

401 586 Hazard Tree Removal 6 256 116 207 6 256 116 207


Unit Acre Rx

Pre- Project

Nest Roost

Pre- Project

Foraging

Pre- Project

Disp

Non Habitat

Post- Project

Nest Roost

Post- Project

Foraging

Post- Project

Disp

Non Habitat

402 389 Hazard Tree Removal 29 285 8 67 29 285 8 67

Figure 2. Total Number of Roadside Hazard Trees Treated by Size

Roadside Hazard Reduction in Home Ranges

Roadside hazard treatments will degrade 576 acres of NRF habitat but this habitat will remain suitable after treatment. No roadside hazard tree removal will take place in the core or home range of KL0233 or the core of KL1052. There will be some hazard tree removal and habitat degradation in the cores and home ranges of KL1043, KL4042, and KL1053. Degradation will also occur in the home ranges of KL1052. The effect is expected to be small partly based on the low number of trees to be removed (approximately an average of 39 trees/mile over 23 miles). There is no expected downgrading, or removal of habitat. The proposed salvage will occur in NSO cores and home ranges as described in Table 13. These habitats are expected to remain suitable habitat after treatment.

Table 13. Pre and Post Habitat Acre in Roadside Hazard Areas by NSO Core and Home Range

Activity Center



Non Habitat

Dispersal Forage Nesting/ Roosting

Non Habitat

KL1043 Core

Unit 401 (1 acre),

Unit 401 (17 acres)

Unit 401 (4 acres)

Unit 401 (8 acres)

Same as Pre-treatment acres





Activity Center



Non Habitat

Dispersal Forage Nesting/ Roosting

Non Habitat

KL1043 Home Range

Unit 401 (108 acres)

Unit 401 (214 acres)

Unit 401 (4 acres)

Unit 401 (17 acres)





KL1053 Core

Unit 401 (9 acres)

401 (1 acre)

0 0 Same as Pre-treatment acres



Same as Pre- treatment Acres

KL1053 Home Range

Unit 401 (22 acres)

401 (45 acres)

0 Unit 401 (6 acre)





KL4042 Core

402 (1 acre)

402 (32 acres)

0 402 (7 acres)





KL4042 Home Range

402 (16 acres)

402 (277 acres)

0 Unit 402 (62 acres)





KL 0233 Core

0 0 0 0 Same as Pre-treatment acres




KL0233 Home Range





KL1052 Core





KL1052 Home Range

0 Unit 402 (54 acres)

Unit 402 (8 acres)

Unit 402 (17 acres)





Fuels Treatments

Fuels treatments may occur in the fall, winter, or spring. PDS will minimize the effects. The project proposes to broadcast burn, jackpot burn, or pile/burn to reduce the fuel load within the harvest units. The harvest units burned with moderate to high severity resulting in mostly snags with some large woody debris. These features provide important cover for prey species such as woodrats. Prescribed fire will avoid these features and will focus on small activity fuels generated from the harvest. The prescribed fire will likely be patchy and may burn some smaller existing fuels or herbaceous plants that may provide additional cover to prey species, but the effects are expected to be small and last for a short period of time while vegetation regrows.


The roadside hazard treatment will have varying densities of hazard trees which will create different densities of activity created fuels. In areas where fuels level is low, the woody debris will be lopped and scattered. Many of the areas proposed for treatment burned at high and moderate severity which resulted in consuming most of the small wood debris used by small mammals for cover. Woodrats will commonly use small woody debris for nest construction. In areas that have higher levels of activity fuels, the debris will be piled and burned. These piles will have minor effects on prey species and likely limited effects to the small mammals using the piles during burning.

Fuels treatments will not affect the habitat function for NSO and will not further degrade the fire affected areas. NSO will still be able to use the treatment area after implementation. The use of Project Design Specifications will reduce the potential of disturbing a NSO with smoke generated by the treatment or noise created during implementation.

Roads, Landings, and Trails

The re-construction of roads on existing roadbeds is not expected to change the existing habitat. The existing roadbeds already create a small gap in the trees and the use of these roadbeds is not going to change the habitat function or quality. The construction of possibly five landings ranging in size from 0.5-2.0 acres will create openings in the canopy cover, but the size and distribution of these landings are within the natural variation in the landscape. Exact locations of these new landings is not known but could remove up to 10 acres of foraging habitat along existing roadsides. No new landings are proposed to be constructed in NSO cores.

Effects on Barred Owl / Spotted Owl Interactions

Many studies have found negative correlations between NSOs and barred owls where they co-occur but the effect of forest management on barred and spotted owl interactions is not well documented. Limited habitat availability combined with negative influences of barred owls may compound effects to NSO (Dugger 2005, 2011, Kelly and Forsman 2003, Weins 2012). The Salmon Salvage Project contains NSO habitat that is well distributed throughout the analysis area with most occurring on the lower 2/3 of slope.

Proposed treatments will not downgrade or remove suitable habitat. Therefore, it is unlikely that these actions will have a significant effect on influencing the likelihood or outcome of barred owl and northern spotted owl interactions. The salvage treatment will accelerate the restoration of suitable NSO habitat and reduce fuel loadings and risk of stand replacing fire. At this point, barred owls have not been observed in the Salmon Salvage Project landscape. Barred owls have been detected in 2013 as nighttime detections in the adjacent Jess Project surveys; barred owls were not detected during daytime follow-ups. For 2014, to date, no barred owls have been detected in the Jess Project Area. In the Salmon Salvage Project, one barred owl has been detected in Sur Cree area. The long-term trend of barred owl and spotted owl interactions in this area are not known. The proposed treatments will accelerate the re-establishment of suitable habitat and reduce the fuels accumulations.

Disturbance Effects on NSO

Direct effects on NSOs could occur from noise disturbance associated with use of helicopters, heavy equipment and falling of trees during timber harvest, fuels treatments, landing construction/maintenance and hauling of logs; and potential smoke disturbance associated with burning.


NSOs are highly mobile, and noise and smoke have a low probability of affecting NSOs that are foraging or dispersing across the landscape because of their ability to move away from disturbances. Noise and smoke have a higher likelihood of affecting adult and juvenile NSOs early in the breeding season when they are closely associated with the nest core; this is the period when juvenile owls are not yet able to fly and adults are closely defending the nest core.

The USFWS has determined that creating noise above ambient levels or smoke during the breeding season within 0.25 mile of active nest sites or un-surveyed suitable nesting habitat has the potential to disrupt essential breeding behaviors. To minimize potential noise disturbance to NSO, Project Design Specifications will be applied to all the proposed actions that apply (Table 6. Wildlife- 6, 7, and 8). NSO surveys will be completed to protocol (or otherwise agreed on by Level One) throughout implementation. At the time of the writing of this biological assessment four surveys were completed in the project with no NSO detected. Recent surveys in the Little Cronan Project area (in Little Cronan Gulch) yielded no NSO detections between 2010 and 2013. LOPs as described will help to minimize the potential disturbance effects to nesting NSO that are determine to be active on the year of implementation of the specific activity planned.

Effects to NSO Critical Habitat Approximately 214 acres of salvage harvest and approximately 764 acres (Table 14) of roadside hazard tree removal are proposed in critical habitat. The salvage harvest units do not contain nesting/roosting, foraging or dispersal habitat as described by the 2012 final Critical Habitat rule thus we don’t expect treatment to affect habitat that would provide long-term PCE 2, 3, or 4. Proposed activities are not expected to negatively affect patterns of habitat distribution. Effects of the proposed action on NSO critical habitat is described below by Primary Constituent Elements.

PCE 1 - Proposed activities are expected to have no effect on forest type. As noted above, the proposed activities may act against the conversion of portions of this landscape to areas other than PCE 1 forest types. The proposed planting with the Salmon Reforestation Project includes replanting burned forest areas, replicating as closely as possible the mix of species found prior to the wildfire. Primary species selected for planting are Douglas-fir, ponderosa pine, sugar pine and incense cedar. These are the most common conifer tree species occurring in forests in this area, and this action will result in accelerated and certain reestablishment of forest ecosystems representative of this area. The planting prescriptions to be implemented with the Salmon Reforestation Project will be designed to re-establish suitable NSO habitat in an accelerated timeframe (Silviculture Report).

PCE 2 - Hazard tree removal will occur in 6 acres of nesting roosting habitat, but the treatment will not downgrade or remove habitat. As stated in the analysis of effects to NSO, no salvage will occur in NSO nesting/roosting habitats, and treatments potentially affecting habitat suitability will be limited to hazard tree abatement. The density of hazard trees to be treated is low, and snags will remain abundant in adjacent non-treatment areas. Salvage harvest treatment will not occur in foraging habitat, but it is recognized that these areas may continue to allow for foraging opportunities along the edges of the high severity burn. Leave patches of high snag densities are identified in Appendix A and are expected to retain opportunities for foraging NSO. As a result, treatments are not expected to have any meaningful or measurable effect on functionality of these habitats for NSO. In the long term, prompt implementation is expected to improve the likelihood of timely development of suitable northern spotted owl habitat within the Salmon Complex Fire area


through reestablishment of conifer forest habitat and the specific retention of high habitat value snags, large cull trees, deformed trees, and coarse woody material on the ground.

PCE 3 – Hazard tree removal is proposed to occur in 468 acres of foraging habitat, but the treatment will not downgrade or remove habitat. As stated in the analysis of effects to NSO, no salvage will occur in vegetation types designated by the 2012 final Critical Habitat rule as NSO foraging habitats but will occur in areas that may provide foraging opportunities along habitat edges that occur near high severity burn patches. Treatments potentially affecting habitat suitability will be limited to hazard tree abatement. The density of hazard trees to be treated is low, and snags will remain abundant in adjacent non-treatment areas. As a result, these treatments are not expected to have any meaningfully detectable or measurable effect on functionality of these habitats for NSO.

No salvage harvest will occur in foraging habitat. In the long term, prompt implementation of this treatment is expected to improve the likelihood of timely development of suitable northern spotted owl foraging habitat within the Salmon Complex Fire area through reestablishment of conifer forest habitat (Silviculture Report). Meanwhile, the retention of snags, large cull trees, deformed trees, and coarse woody material on the ground will provide structure that takes many years to develop thus retaining important structure for stand during regeneration. The design of the snag retention areas will retain snags representing the largest size class that are also expected to persist for the longest term and provide a perch and possibly a small amount of cover for NSO that may forage in these units. The natural burn pattern of the high severity fire and the snag retention areas will provide a diffuse edge that may improve prey densities and/or NSO use as suggested by Clark (2007) and Comfort (2013).

PCE 4 – Hazard tree removal is proposed in 143 acres of dispersal habitat, but the habitat is expected to function as dispersal after treatment. Treatments are not expected to have any effect on the dispersal habitat conditions in the analysis area. In the long-term, prompt implementation is expected to have a positive effect to the reestablishment of dispersal habitat restoration through the reduction of fuels and the promotion of conifer forest habitat.

Hazard tree removal will occur in 6 acres of nesting roosting habitat and 468 acres of foraging habitat in critical habitat. The 474 acres of NRF that will be treated will remain suitable after treatment. The habitat will remain functional as dispersal after treatment. Treatments potentially occurring in habitat will be limited to hazard tree abatement. The density of hazard trees to be treated is low, and snags will remain abundant in adjacent non-treatment areas. As a result, these roadside hazard treatments are not expected to have any meaningful or measurable effect on functionality of these habitats for NSO.

Table 14. Acres of NSO Habitat in Roadside Treatment Areas in Critical Habitat

Unit Acres of Habitat in Roadside Hazard Treatments in Critical

Habitat Total Dispersal Forage Nest/Roost Non-Habitat

401 115 245 6 106 471 402 29 223 0 41 293 Total 143 468 6 147 764 Short-term and Long-term Affects to Critical habitat and LSR


When considering temporal bounding of post-fire effects on habitat, one must consider how long a high severity burned patch of snags will remain standing. Hood et al. (2007) reported the fall rate of ponderosa pine snags >24” DBH in Oregon to be at 50% in ten years and 78% in twenty two years in the landscape of the Salmon Fire area. Comparatively, the Salmon Salvage Project fuels report determined that in high severity burn areas, within ten years most of the smaller diameter conifers (<10” DBH) would fall. A majority of the larger diameter (>24”DBH) conifers would fall within twenty years. The fuels report estimated after the twenty year period there is a probably of another high intensity fire which may result in a vegetative type change to brush. Within a twenty year timeframe snag leave areas are not expected to persist. As a result, snag leave areas are expected to be short-term snag habitat. For areas within LSR, snag leave areas were delineated at a rate of 8/snags per acre minimum representing the largest snags in the salvage units (excluding the adjacent roadside hazard treatment area). Outside of LSRs snags are to be retained at 5/per acre (Appendix A). Comfort (2013) described the increase of use of foraging NSO in areas that retain a diffuse habitat edge between high severity and lower severity burned forest. The retention of snag areas at high snag densities (> 8 snags per acre representing the larger snags of the salvage areas) and in clumps will help to retain the diffuse edges. As snags begin to deteriorate and fall diffuse edges may be reduced in snags and replaced with tree regeneration, but it is expected that foraging opportunities along these edges will remain functional.

Long-term timeframes for this project are defined in the Salmon Salvage Silviculture Report at 75 to 85 years after implementation and planting. It is estimated that this is the time when reforested areas start to become large enough to begin to provide trees with large enough DBH and canopy cover where foraging habitat conditions could be present. There will be an expected increase in prey habitat quality as logs and understory cover becomes established. The long-term habitat restoration would become established after this timeframe.

Interrelated and interdependent

Interrelated and interdependent activities that may affect wildlife include using existing road beds as temporary roads and constructing landings which would facilitate thinning activities and temporary material storage. Due to the increased use of the roads, we expect road maintenance such as road grading, road wetting, and cleaning culvert pipes to occur during the implementation of the project.

Cumulative Effects Under the ESA, cumulative effects of this alternative include the direct and indirect effects mentioned above and the effects of non-federal projects being implemented in the area. There are no known projects occurring on private land now or into the known future. Therefore, we don’t expect any actions that would be cumulative to the effects of the Project.

Conclusion of Effects on NSO

• Due to the limited nature of these effects described above, combined with spatial and temporal project design specifications, direct and indirect effects to NSO in this landscape are not expected to be significant. The proposed project will not downgrade or remove northern spotted owl habitat.

• Salvage treatments will retain important skip areas for snag retention representing some of the largest size class in each stands. These will be left as riparian buffers, individual snags, or clumps at levels to meet or exceed Forest-wide Standards and Guidelines for snags habitat.


• Snag retention clumps along riparian areas and within harvest units offer pockets of habitat that may provide a perch for foraging owls

• The use of Limited Operating Period (Table 6. WDL-6) for units with the likelihood of disturbing nesting owls should be minimized. Protocol surveys will be completed prior to project implementation and will be conducted for each year of operation for the duration of the project.

• The proposed roadside hazard treatments should have a low potential of disturbance of nesting NSO since an LOP will be applied to the road segment that has the highest potential of nesting in the Garden Gulch area. The amount of disturbance is expected to be short term and dispersed over 23 miles of road. Hazard tree removal will have no limited operating period applied however removal of trees in nesting roosting habitat will be prioritized for removal during the mid-summer of 2014. The project area will be surveyed to protocol throughout implementation. This is to allow for immediate abatement of the hazard.

• The proposed roadside treatment will occur in 35 acres of nesting/roosting, 541 acres of foraging, and 124 acres of dispersal habitat. The low number of trees to be removed (an average of 39 trees per mile over 23 miles) will not result in any downgrading or removal of these habitats.

• Application of Project Design Specifications are expected to minimize effects to NSO habitat and retain the potential foraging opportunity within and along the edges in salvage harvest units.

• Proposed treatments will not remove or downgrade NSO habitat within the deficit cores or 1.3-mile home ranges.

DETERMINATION OF EFFECTS The following conclusions led to my final determination of the effects that the proposed Salmon Salvage Project would have on federally listed species: 1) Marbled Murrelet: The proposed project area is outside the range of this species and therefore will not affect the marbled murrelet or marbled murrelet designated Critical Habitat. 2) Northern spotted owl: It is my determination that the Salmon Salvage Project may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect northern spotted owls because 1) impacts from this project will be temporary, 2) no suitable nesting/roosting or foraging habitat would be removed, downgraded, 3) year of action protocol surveys will be conducted prior to implementation, and 4) seasonal restrictions within protection buffers would be in place. 3) It is my determination that the proposed Salmon Salvage Project will not adversely affect critical habitat for the northern spotted owl because the proposed action is not expected to change the function of the PCEs of critical habitat.


LITERATURE CITED

Angwin, P. A, D.R Cluck, P. J. Zambino, B. W. Oblinger, W. C. Woodruff. 2012. Hazard Tree Guidelines

For Forest Service Facilities and Roads in the Pacific Southwest Region. Forest Health Protection Pacific Southwest Region April 2012 (Report # RO-12-01)

Anthony, R. G., Forsman, E. D., Franklin, A. B., Anderson, D. R., Burnham, K. P., White, G. C., and

Sovern, S. G. 2006. Status and trends in demography of northern spotted owls, 1985–2003. Wildlife Monographs, 163(1), 1-48.

Bart, J. 1995. Amount of Suitable Habitat and Viability of Northern Spotted Owls. Conservation Biology, Vol. 9, No. 4 (Aug., 1995), pp. 943-946

Bond, M.L., R.J. Gutierrez, A.B. Franklin, W.S. LaHaye, C.A. May, and M.E. Seamans. 2002. Short-term

effects of wildfires on spotted owl survival, site fidelity, mate fidelity, and reproductive success. Wildlife Society Bulletin (30) 1022-1026.

Bond, M. L., Lee, D. E., Siegel, R. B., & Ward, J. P. 2009. Habitat use and selection by California spotted owls in a postfire landscape. The Journal of Wildlife Management, 73(7), 1116-1124.

Clark D.A. 2007. Demography and Habitat Selection of Northern Spotted Owls in Post-Fire Landscapes of Southwestern Oregon. M.S. Thesis. Oregon State University. 218pp.

Clark, D. A., Anthony, R. G., & Andrews, L. S. 2011. Survival rates of northern spotted owls in post-fire landscapes of southwest Oregon. Journal of Raptor Research, 45(1), 38-47.

Clark, D. A., Anthony, R. G., & Andrews, L. S.2013. Relationship between wildfire, salvage logging, and occupancy of nesting territories by northern spotted owls. The Journal of Wildlife Management, 77(4), 672-688.

Comfort, E.J. 2013. Trade-offs Between Management for Fire Risk Reduction and Northern Spotted Owl Habitat Protection in Dry Conifer Forests of Southern Oregon. Phd, Dissertation. Oregon State University. 146 pp.

Courtney, S. P. et al, 2004. Scientific Evaluation of the Status of the Northern Spotted Owl. Sustainable Ecosystems Institute. Portland, Oregon. 51 pp.

Davis, R. J., Dugger, K. M., Mohoric, S., Evers, L., & Aney, W. C. 2011. Northwest Forest Plan—the first 15 years (1994–2008): status and trends of northern spotted owl populations and habitats.

Dugger, K. M., Wagner, F., Anthony, R. G., & Olson, G. S. 2005. The relationship between habitat characteristics and demographic performance of northern spotted owls in southern Oregon. The Condor, 107(4), 863-878.

Dugger, K. M., Anthony, R. G., & Andrews, L. S. 2011. Transient dynamics of invasive competition: barred owls, spotted owls, habitat, and the demons of competition present. Ecological Applications, 21(7), 2459-2468.

Elliott B. 1985. Changes in distribution of owl species subsequent to habitat alteration by fire. Western Birds 16:25-28.


Franklin, A.B., D.R. Anderson, R.J. Gutierrez and K.P. Burnham. 2000. Climate change, habitat quality, and fitness in northern spotted owl populations in northwestern California. Ecological Monographs 70:539-590.

Gaines, W.L. R.A. Strand and S.D. Piper. 1997. Effects of the Hatchery Complex fires on northern spotted owls in the Eastern Washington Cascades. In J.N. Greenlee ed. Proceedings of the Fire Effects on Rare and Endangered species and habitats conference, International Association of Wildlife and Forestry, Coeur d’Alene, Idaho.

Hood, S., S. Smith and D. Cluck. 2007. Delayed conifer tree mortality following fire in California. In: Powers, Robert F., tech. editor. 2007. Restoring fire-adapted ecosystems: proceedings of the 2005 national silviculture workshop. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-203. Albany, CA. Pacific Southwest Research Station, Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. p. 261-283.

Irwin, L. L., Rock, D. F., & Rock, S. C. 2013. Do northern spotted owls use harvested areas?. Forest Ecology and Management, 310, 1029-1035.

Jenness, J. S., Beier, P., & Ganey, J. L. 2004. Associations between forest fire and Mexican spotted owls. Forest Science, 50(6), 765-772.

Kelly, E. G., Forsman, E. D., & Anthony, R. G. 2003. Are barred owls displacing spotted owls?. The Condor, 105(1), 45-53.

Lee, D. E., Bond, M. L., Borchert, M. I., & Tanner, R. 2013. Influence of fire and salvage logging on site occupancy of spotted owls in the San Bernardino and San Jacinto Mountains of Southern California. The Journal of Wildlife Management, 77(7), 1327-1341.

Lehmkuhl, J. F., Kistler, K. D., Begley, J. S., & Boulanger, J. 2006. Demography of northern flying squirrels informs ecosystem management of western interior forests. Ecological Applications, 16(2), 584-600.

Loschl, P. J. 2008. Age-specific and lifetime reproductive success of known age Northern Spotted Owls on four study areas in Oregon and Washington (Doctoral dissertation).

Marshall, David B., M.G. Hunter, and A.L. Contreras. 2003. Birds of Oregon. A General Reference. Chapter 3: Species Account: Barred Owl. Oregon State University Press, Corvallis, OR. In Courtney, S. P., J. A. Blakesley, R. E. Bigley, M. L. Cody, J. P. Dumbacher, R. C. Fleischer, A.B. Franklin, J. F. Franklin, R. J. Gutiérrez, J.M. Marzluff, and L. Sztukowski. 2004. Scientific evaluation of the status of the Northern Spotted Owl. Sustainable Ecosystems Institute, Portland, Oregon.

Olsen, G. S. et al, 2005. Modeling the Site Occupancy Dynamics for Northern Spotted Owls, with Emphasis on the Effects of Barred Owls. Journal of Wildlife Management 69(3); 918-932, 2005.

Roberts, S. L., van Wagtendonk, J. W., Miles, A. K., & Kelt, D. A. 2011. Effects of fire on spotted owl site occupancy in a late-successional forest. Biological Conservation, 144(1), 610-619.

Sakai, H. F., & Noon, B. R. 1993. Dusky-footed woodrat abundance in different-aged forests in northwestern California. The Journal of wildlife management, 373-382.

Taylor AH, Skinner CN. 2003. Fire History and Landscape Dynamics in a Late-Successional Reserve, Klamath Mountains, California, USA. Forest Ecology and Management. 1998;111:285-301. Western


Birds 16:25-8.

Thomas J.W, Forsman E.D, Lint J.B, Meslow E.C., Noon B.R, Verner J. 1990. A Conservation Strategy for the Northern Spotted Owl. Portland (OR): Interagency Scientific Committee to address the conservation of the northern spotted owl. USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management, National Park Service, and Fish and Wildlife Service.

USDA FS 2009a. US Forest Service Manual. FSM 2600 - Wildlife, Fish, and Sensitive Plant Habitat Management Chanter 2670 – Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive Plants and Animals.

USDA FS 2009b. Klamath National Forest. Wildfire suppression actions of 2006-2008 document

USDA Forest Service. 1999. Klamath National Forest Late-successional Reserve Assessment, Klamath National Forest, Yreka, California.

USDA Forest Service. 1995. Klamath National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan. Klamath National Forest, Yreka, California.

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2011. Revised Recovery Plan for the northern spotted owl. http://www.fws.gov/oregonfwo/Species/Data/NorthernSpottedOwl/Recovery/Library/Documents/RevisedNSORecPlan2011.pdf

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2012. Designation of Revised Critical Habitat for the Northern Spotted Owl; Final Rule. Federal Register: December 4, 2012 (Volume 77, Number 233. Pages 71876-72068.

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2008. Final Recovery Plan for the Northern Spotted Owl, Strix occidentalis caurina. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, Oregon. xii + 142 pp.

Weins, J.D. 2012. Competitive interactions and resource partitioning between northern spotted owls and barred owls in western Oregon. Oregon State University – Dissertation pp.156.

Zabel, C. J., McKelvey, K., & Ward Jr, J. P. 1995. Influence of primary prey on home-range size and habitat-use patterns of northern spotted owls (Strix occidentalis caurina). Canadian Journal of Zoology, 73(3), 433-439.

http://www.fws.gov/oregonfwo/Species/Data/NorthernSpottedOwl/Recovery/Library/Documents/RevisedNSORecPlan2011.pdf

http://www.fws.gov/oregonfwo/Species/Data/NorthernSpottedOwl/Recovery/Library/Documents/RevisedNSORecPlan2011.pdf


Appendix A Snag Leave Areas in LSRs

Within Late-successional Reserve salvage treatment areas were left in clumps along draws and edges of units to allow for the highest persistence of habitat and to provide for diffuse edge effects. These areas retained snags at > 8 snags per acre representing the larger size classes available for each unit.

Acres Salvage Only LSR 54.0 Skips in LSR 22.5 Percent Skipped 42.6%

Unit Salvage Only in LSR

Skip Acres

< 24

24-36

> 36 Total Snags/Acre

284 13.8 5.2 40 33 57 130 9.4 285 11.8 4.3 89 13 14 116 9.8 329 28.4 8.4 156 63 27 246 8.7 353 0* 15.2 77 24 6 107 7

54 33.1 362 133 104 599 11


*Unit 353 is 57.6 acres with 15.2 acres as a snag leave clump which occurs in LSR. The remainder of Unit 353 does not occur in LSR however this leave clump applies To the entire unit. The remaining portion of the unit outside of LSR will have a 5 Snag/ac retention.