Singleton Project. Terrestrial Wildlife Biological Assessment. Klamath National Forest. Contact Person: Sam Cuenca, (530)

Transcription

1 Singleton Terrestrial Wildlife Biological Assessment Salmon Scott River Ranger District Klamath National Forest Contact Person: Sam Cuenca, (530) February 23, 2012 Prepared by: Date: Sam Cuenca Wildlife Biologist Salmon Scott River Ranger District Klamath National Forest Reviewed by Date: Susan Stresser Forest Biologist Klamath National Forest Approved by: Date: Russell Hays, District Ranger Salmon Scott River Ranger District Klamath National Forest

2 I. INTRODUCTION The Salmon/Scott Ranger District of the Klamath National Forest proposes the following actions to meet the purpose and need, and focus forest management towards a desired resource late successional reserve (LSR) condition for the Singleton Area. The Singleton is within southern portion of the Collins Baldy LSR. Legal descriptions for the project area are listed below (Table 1). Table 1. Legal Location of the Singleton Singleton Legal Locations T.45N. R.9E. Sec. 10, 16, 18, 20, 30, 32. T.45N. R.10E. Sec. 24, 26. Humboldt Meridian (Siskiyou County, CA) Species Addressed within this document FEDERALLY LISTED SPECIES A forest-wide list of federally listed species was obtained online September 23, 2010 at (reference # ) and again on October 5, 2011 One federally-listed Threatened species is known to occur within the Analysis Area (northern spotted owl). The following wildlife species from that list will be addressed within this document: Threatened: Northern spotted owl (Strix occidentalis caurina) Critical Habitat for the northern spotted owl was designated by the USFWS on January 15, Revised Critical Habitat was designated on August 13, 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. II. CONSISTENCY WITH RECOVERY PLANS OR CONSERVATION AGREEMENTS 1

3 NSO Recovery: A Recovery Plan for the NSO was prepared by a Recovery Team consisting of Federal agencies, State governments, and other interested parties. The Revised Recovery Plan was published in June 28, This replaced the 1992 Draft Recovery Plan, which had been used as a foundation for the 1994 Northwest Forest Plan. The 2011 Revised Recovery plan 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 necessary steps to addressing these threats. The Recovery Plan also identifies physiographic provinces as Recovery Units, and offers recommendations that are specific to some of these Recovery Units. Recovery Actions listed in Table 2 apply to the Singleton. Table 2. Recovery Actions Applicable to the Singleton Recovery Description Action 10 Conserve spotted owl sites and high value spotted owl habitat to provide additional demographic support to the spotted owl population Applicable Recommendations 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: design standards have been incorporated to maintain and improve habitat stand conditions inside and outside known NSO home ranges for short and long-term; habitat modification will not preclude NSO use of the area and significant impacts are not expected to habitat or individuals. 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: High quality spotted owl habit stands meeting intent of RA 32 have not been proposed for commercial thinning. Stands proposed for thinning treatment have developed dense understories and mid-stories and are much more heavily stocked and homogeneous than historic conditions. Variable density thinning would retain all large and old trees, create stands that are more diverse structurally, and provide increased growth and vigor in all trees and so grow large trees faster than would occur under current stand conditions. Additionally, the re-introduction of low intensity fire returns an important ecological function which contributes to maintaining and creating important habitat features in this landscape. III. CONSULTATION TO DATE The Singleton Information Form was introduced to the Klamath/USFWS Level One team on April 15, General overview of the proposed action, habitat conditions, and distribution of known NSO territories were discussed. The comparison of the E-veg (2003) NSO habitat layer was made with 1995 LRMP NSO habitat layer; for this project the group agreed that LRMP layer is more accurate for the federal land but the E-veg is more accurate for private lands 2

4 and that the final project layer will be some combination of the two, field verification, and handtyping. Karen West, FWS, Yreka Field Office wildlife biologist conducted detailed field unit reviews with USFS biologists and USFS planner during the 2010 (June 9, July 19, August 4, August 19) and 2011 (May 23, June 8, July 7) field seasons. These field trips focused on unit design and the setting of prescription objectives. Past use of the term degrade has applied to management actions that modify habitat but do not reduce it to another habitat class. The group discussed applicability of this if, as in the case of Singleton project, the focus is restoration and habitat improvement. The term degrade has been used due to limitations in the NSO habitat tracking data base; there is no modify option in the database. L1 agreed that it would be appropriate to use a different term when habitat is being modified but not degraded, or modified improved. A draft BA was provided to the Level One Team on 11/18/2011. Comments to that draft were incorporated. A final agreed-upon document was dated February 21, IV. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION Purpose and Need for Action The Klamath National Forest proposes to protect and enhance conditions of late-successional and old growth forest ecosystems, which serve as habitat for late-successional and old growth related species including species listed under the ESA as threatened and endangered. The project area is located about 15 miles west of Yreka and 4 miles east of Scott Bar within the Salmon/Scott Ranger District, Klamath National Forest, California. This action is needed to promote the continued development and retention of late-successional and old-growth (LSOG) forest conditions, protect late and mid seral vegetation from loss to large-scale disturbance events such as wildfire or insects and disease, and promote connectivity of LSOG stands. The overriding purpose of the project is to move the forest conditions towards the desired conditions as described in the Forest Plan (Klamath National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 1995) and Forest-wide Late-Successional Reserve Assessment (LSRA) (1999). Analysis of the Area indicates there are certain conditions that warrant action to respond to this direction. This project is proposed under the authority of the Healthy Forest Restoration Act of 2003 and was developed based on public comment on the notice of intent to prepare this project, in addition to resource specialist review and input. Based on the analysis in the LSRA, late-successional habitat is currently deficient in this LSR and has been slow to develop due to dense vegetation from past mining and logging activities. Mortality from insects and disease has been located throughout the LSR and is most prevalent in older pine plantations. Fire risk in this Collins Baldy LSR is one of the highest of the LSRs on the Forest due to the checkerboard ownership; the high fire risk, coupled existing fuel loadings on adjacent private lands are, in large part, the basis for the need to implement fuel-reduction action on NFS lands. 3

5 The objectives of the Singleton are to: Promote the continued development and retention of late-successional and old-growth forest conditions Protect late successional and old growth (LSOG) vegetation from loss to large-scale disturbance events such as wildfire or insects and disease Promote connectivity of late-successional and old-growth stands Specifically, the following needs for action have been identified. #1 Promote the continued development and retention of late-successional and oldgrowth (LSOG) forest conditions Mid-seral stands currently account for 57% of the capable land base and early seral pole and seedling/sapling account for an additional 30%. The protection and management of these stands is critical to the future development of late successional habitat. Stocking control will be essential to the development of future late-successional habitat (USDA, 1999, Forest-wide LSR Assessment). The mortality due to high and moderate severity fire would likely be detrimental to the early and mid-seral vegetation of the LSR (USDA, 1999, Forest-wide LSR Assessment). With an elevated risk of fire-related mortality in this LSR, mid and early seral vegetation stands need to be protected from wildfire through fuels reduction, allowing succession towards the desired condition of late-seral forest habitat (USDA, 2004, Forest Westside LSR Assessment). #2 Protect early and mid-successional forest vegetation from loss to large-scale disturbance events such as wildfire or insects and disease Late-successional habitat is currently lacking within the Collins-Baldy LSR, with only 13% of the capable ground in this condition (LSRA 1999). Natural establishment of late-successional habitat has been slow to develop within this LSR. Portions of this LSR are still recovering from impacts created during the peak mining operations during the 1850s. Areas within the vicinity of Scott Bar and Mill Creek were heavily cut during that time period, which has created many of the dense stand conditions that are observed today. Stand density may be a contributing factor to the slow development of latesuccessional habitat as there are numerous dense mid and pole size stands. Stand stagnation is apparent throughout the LSR. The overstocking problem is reinforced by the high and moderate levels of mortality that occurred within the LSR during the early 90s (USDA, 1999, Forest-wide LSR Assessment, pp. 2-84). The level of mortality in the LSR has raised concerns about future fire effects and behavior. As a result of these past events, combined with the pattern of checkerboard ownership this LSR has an elevated fire risk. The area is likely to have mixed levels of mortality due to fire which would be detrimental to the LSR character (USDA, 1999, Forest-wide LSR Assessment). Due to the fragmented nature of LSOG habitat, the existing patches of LSOG need to be protected from wildfire to maintain this habitat (USDA, 2004, Forest Westside LSR Assessment, pp. 1-3). #3 Promote connectivity of late-successional and old-growth stands 4

6 There are few stands of LSOG forest in Collins Baldy LSR. The few stands of LSOG forest that occur are located in the upper reaches of Kinsman Creek, Dona Creek, and Franklin Gulch; all which occur outside of the project area. Overall, the distribution of LSOG habitat throughout the LSR ranks low. Dense, mid-successional stands and pole stands comprise most of the vegetation in the LSR. Stands of dense, mid-successional habitat span sections of LSR in the northern portion of Collins Baldy, and provide some connectivity. However, the predominance of pole stands in the southern portion of the LSR, and habitat conditions in adjacent private Sections, negatively affect connectivity of habitats in this LSR. The promotion of connectivity of these stands would help to promote the functioning of this LSR by providing opportunity of movement or dispersal of species across the landscape. The checkerboard ownership condition of this LSR will always limit the amount and quality of habitat available for spotted owls and other LSOG-associated species. Overall, the distribution and connectivity of LSOG habitat throughout the LSR ranks low (USDA, 1999, Forest-wide LSR Assessment). Connectivity of LSOG stands needs to be promoted by the development of mid-seral stands and protecting these stands from wildfire (USDA, 2004, Forest Westside LSR Assessment,). Proposed Action In developing the proposed action, a Forest Service interdisciplinary (ID) team inventoried the project area to identify resource concerns and management opportunities. These resource concerns were developed into needs for the project area by comparing Forest Plan desired conditions with existing conditions on the ground. The Salmon/Scott Ranger District of the Klamath National Forest proposes the following actions to meet the purpose and need, and focus forest management towards a desired resource condition for the Singleton Area (Tables 3 and 4): Table 3. Summary of Singleton Actions. Objective Action Approximate Area () or Length (Feet) Develop healthy, resilient forest stands Habitat Improvement Protection of forest stands and LSOG Commercial thinning of plantations Commercial thinning and non commercial treatments on non-plantations (or natural stands) Non-commercial thinning of plantations Roadside fuels reduction treatments

7 Objective Action Approximate Area () or Length (Feet) Unit access and reduced skid length Underburning (includes some harvest units) Maintenance on existing fuel breaks/creation of new fuel break) Temporary road on existing road bed Swing skid trail ,500 Feet 300 Feet The is within the Collins-Baldy Late Successional Reserve (LSR) (#355). This LSR is low in distribution of late successional habitat, lacks habitat connectivity, and is vulnerable to wildfire disturbance due to the high fuel loading. Treatment of fuels in stands that surround latesuccessional habitat would potentially reduce future loss to wildfire. Thinning in plantations and younger stands would, over time, increase the abundance and distribution of late successional habitat. Treatment would not occur in northern spotted owl nesting and roosting habitat. Treated foraging habitat would remain foraging habitat when completed. thinning and fuels reduction would protect existing areas of late successional habitat and increase habitat connectivity. Silvicultural Treatments Proposed prescribed fire and silvicultural activities would not remove or downgrade suitable NSO nesting, roosting, or foraging habitat. Within 0.5 mile cores, a minimum of 60% canopy cover would be retained on north facing slopes and would range from 40 to 60% on south or southwest facing slopes. However, some stand-specific prescriptions within suitable NSO foraging habitat may be designed to create openings ranging from <.1 acre to.5 acres to foster hardwood maintenance and recruitment. A minimum of 60% canopy cover would be retained in all existing NSO nesting and roosting habitat. Commercial thinning, defined as thinning of trees greater than 10 inches and less than 20 inches diameter at breast height (DBH), is proposed on approximately 180 acres of plantation stands and a combination of commercial thinning/non-commercial thinning is proposed on approximately 504 acres of non-plantation stands. Non-commercial thinning is defined as thinning of trees less than 10 inches DBH. Treatments in the pine plantations would increase stand composition diversity and reduce stand density to make the stand more resilient to wildfire. stands would be less dense, have less fuel loading, and develop increased grasses and forbs in the understory. Stand density index would remain below 230 to preclude inter-tree competition induced mortality. In stands where offsite stock was planted, naturally regenerated conifers would be retained. 6

8 Treatments in the non-plantation stands are focused on habitat improvement. The treatments are designed to develop structural diversity, including a diversity of age classes and species across the landscape, late successional conditions, and canopy closures at 40-60% (depending on aspect and slope position). Douglas fir and Ponderosa Pine would be the preferred species in these stands with lesser components of sugar pine and incense cedar (silviculture report, pp. 11). There would also be a presence of hardwoods. The stands would be thinned from below at variable spacing focusing on small tree removal (trees from 4 to 20 inches DBH). Large ponderosa pine, incense cedar, sugar pine and Douglas fir would be retained with some large tree culturing occurring were appropriate. The variation within this treatment would be in the form of skips and gaps that lend to more stand heterogeneity. The skips would be areas of no or little thinning, i.e. retaining current stand structure. The gaps would be areas that are more heavily thinned. Current stand composition and structure will help define these areas. For example clumps of large, dominant trees would be chosen as a place to skip, or retain as is. On the other hand to retain hardwoods in a stand, thinning more heavily to create a gap around the hardwood to enhance its growth and persistence would occur. These skips and gaps would range from1/4 to1.25 acres in size and together constitute 25-30% of the stand. The remainder of the stand would receive a more uniform thinning from below. Where hardwoods exist they would be retained and their growth encouraged by thinning around them (silviculture report, p. 13). Biomass reduction would be accomplished via hand piling and burning; no tractor piling would be implemented. Two non-plantation stands along the ridgelines ( and ) would be thinned from below to a stand density index of less than 150 followed by treatment of the existing fuels and activity fuels. Canopy closure would range between 20-40% (Silviculture Report). The treatments are designed to curtail degradation of exiting nesting/roosting or foraging habitat. The shelterwood treatment (Unit ) would occur in approximately 30 acres or nonplantation stand. The treatment is not the typical shelterwood prescription but would lead to a more open stand post-treatment than a variable density thin. The treatment would leave all trees 10 dbh and greater along with any hardwoods. These stands would be reforested as appropriate with conifer seedlings. Hand grubbing and browse protection would also be implemented as needed (silviculture report, pp. 6). Riparian Reserve buffers (170 feet for perennial streams and 100 feet for intermittent streams) would exclude commercial harvest. Ground-based equipment entry would not occur in perennial streams and would be minimized in intermittent streams and require consultation with a watershed specialist before implementation. Table 4. Singleton Unit Descriptions Unit Unit Type Land Allocations of RR of LSR Total Rx Logging Method Fuels Rx % Canopy Closure Pre Post* Pine Thin Skyline Underburn - - 7

9 Unit Unit Type Land Allocations of RR of LSR Total Rx Logging Method Fuels Rx % Canopy Closure Pre Post* Pile Burn Pile Burn Pile Burn Pile Burn Pile Burn Pile Burn Pile Burn Pile Burn Pile Burn Silviculture Thin Underburn Silviculture Thin Underburn Silviculture Thin Underburn Silviculture Thin Skyline Underburn Silviculture Thin Underburn Fuelbreak Pile Burn Pile Burn - - 8

10 Unit Unit Type Land Allocations of RR of LSR Total Rx Logging Method Fuels Rx % Canopy Closure Pre Post* Silviculture Thin Skyline Underburn Silviculture Shelterwood Cable Underburn Roadside Commercial Underburn/ Pile Burn e Roadside Commercial Underburn g Roadside Hazard Tree,, and Underburn, Underburn h Roadside Commercial Underburn i Roadside Hazard Tree,, and Underburn, Underburn j Roadside Commercial Underburn k Roadside Hazard Tree,, and Underburn, Underburn l Roadside Commercial Underburn a Roadside Hazard Tree,, and Underburn, Underburn - - 9

11 Unit Unit Type Land Allocations of RR of LSR Total Rx Logging Method Fuels Rx % Canopy Closure Pre Post* c Roadside Commercial Underburn d Roadside Commercial Underburn Pine Thin Underburn a Roadside Hazard Tree Removal Only none b Roadside Hazard Tree Removal Only none c Roadside Hazard Tree,, and Underburn, Underburn d Roadside Hazard Tree Removal and Underburn Underburn Roadside Hazard Tree Removal Only none a Roadside Commercial Underburn b Roadside Commercial Underburn

12 Unit Unit Type Land Allocations of RR of LSR Total Rx Logging Method Fuels Rx % Canopy Closure Pre Post* c Roadside Hazard Tree,, and Underburn, Underburn a Roadside Commercial Underburn b Roadside Hazard Tree Removal Only none d Roadside Hazard Tree Removal and Underburn Underburn e Roadside Hazard Tree,, and Underburn, Underburn f Roadside Hazard Tree Removal Only none g Roadside Hazard Tree,, and Underburn, Underburn h Roadside Commercial Underburn a RxFire Underburn Underburn Underburn

13 Unit Unit Type Land Allocations of RR of LSR Total Rx Logging Method Fuels Rx % Canopy Closure Pre Post* 537-b Rx Fire Underburn Underburn Underburn c Rx Fire Underburn Underburn Underburn d Rx Fire Underburn Underburn Underburn Pine Thin Skyline Underburn Pile Burn Pile Burn Pile Burn Pile Burn Pile Burn Pile Burn Pile Burn Pile Burn Pile Burn Silviculture Thin Cable/ Underburn Silviculture Thin Underburn Silviculture Thin Underburn

14 Unit Unit Type Land Allocations of RR of LSR Total Rx Logging Method Fuels Rx % Canopy Closure Pre Post* Silviculture Thin Underburn Silviculture Thin Underburn Silviculture Thin Underburn 85 > Fuelbreak Pile Burn Roadside Commercial Underburn a Roadside Commercial Underburn b Roadside Hazard Tree Removal and Underburn Underburn c Roadside Hazard Tree Removal and Underburn Underburn d Roadside Hazard Tree,, and Underburn, Underburn Roadside Hazard Tree Removal Only none b Roadside Commercial Underburn c Roadside Commercial Underburn

15 Unit Unit Type Land Allocations of RR of LSR Total Rx Logging Method Fuels Rx % Canopy Closure Pre Post* d Roadside Hazard Tree Removal Only none a Roadside Hazard Tree,, and Underburn, Underburn b Roadside Hazard Tree Removal Only none c Roadside Hazard Tree,, and Underburn, Underburn d Roadside Hazard Tree Removal Only none e Roadside Commercial Underburn f Roadside Hazard Tree,, and underburn, Underburn g Roadside Hazard Tree Removal Only none

16 Unit Unit Type Land Allocations of RR of LSR Total Rx Logging Method Fuels Rx % Canopy Closure Pre Post* h Roadside Hazard Tree Removal Only none Pile Burn Rx Underburn Underburn Underburn e Rx Underburn Underburn Underburn Pine Pine Pine Pine Thin Underburn Thin Underburn Thin Underburn Thin Underburn Pile Burn Pile Burn Pile Burn Pile Burn a Roadside Underburn - - = non-commercial thinning. *Post canopy closure estimates include expected <5% changes after underburn. Activity fuels reduction would be accomplished via hand piling and burning. 1 Silviculture = commercial and non-commercial thinning. 15

17 Fuels Reduction Non-commercial thinning of plantations Some proposed treatment areas have a component of young overstocked trees that are growing and developing slowly due to inter-tree competition. These treatments would promote the faster development of late successional habitat. Thinning these areas would increase growth to provide for larger trees in a shorter period of time (DeBell and others, 1997). This will be designed to develop future late successional forest habitat. Spacing would be somewhat variable depending on species, aspect, site quality, and slope position. Cut material is usually lopped and scattered to decompose or hand piled and burned. Small diameter (non-commercial) thinning is proposed on approximately 312 acres. This includes the cutting and piling ground and ladder fuels <10 diameter. The handpiles would be less than 4 x 4 in size and would be burnt once they are created. Cutting is primarily in conifer plantations less than forty years of age. Non-commercial thinning improves forage, forest health conditions, and reduces fuels. Many stands currently have a young component of overstocked trees that are growing and developing slowly due to inter-tree competition. Thinning these areas would increase growth to provide for larger trees in a shorter period of time. Spacing would be somewhat variable depending on species, aspect, site quality, and slope position. Weeding and cleaning of understory trees is similar to non-commercial thinning but there is no implied spacing and pertains more to scattered individuals and clumps of understory trees that are not healthy and thrifty. It involves the removal of small (three to ten inches in diameter) trees of poor vigor and form, or diseased trees that would not develop into a larger healthy tree in the future. Also small trees of less desired species would be removed. It is not a technique to eliminate disease within a stand but rather to lessen its impacts. This treatment removes small trees from an already disease infected stand, reducing the number of trees getting infected, and concentrating growth on the remaining trees in the stand. Ladder fuels are also reduced. Cut material would be lopped and scattered, hand piled and burned, masticated or removed to a designated disposal area. Roadside fuels reduction treatment is proposed on approximately 485 acres. These roadside treatments include four types of treatment, summarized in Table 5: Commercial thinning; Hazard tree removal, non-commercial thinning, and underburn; hazard tree removal and underburning; and hazard tree removal only. Treatments would decrease ladder fuels, increase opportunities for fire suppression, break up the continuity of fuels over the large landscape, provide areas of reduced fuels surrounding patches of suitable NSO habitat, and provide anchor points for future fuels treatments (such as underburning). Desired condition would allow community members/ firefighters to safely drive through the road system during fire events. Roadside treatments would vary in size and depth depending on fuel arrangements but generally would be thinning (commercial and non commercial), hand piling, hazard tree removal and underburning along a maximum 200 buffer on both sides of the road. Widths of the roadside treatments will be variable as little as 50 feet in some areas where fuels are light (Note: for the purposes of describing the proposed action, acreages figures in this BA and units portrayed on attached maps reflect the maximum 200-feet wide buffer on either or both sides of roads.). Treatments within the treatment buffer will not be uniform and are expected to continue to provide high vegetative diversity after treatment. Hazard trees would be removed; small diameter conifer trees (<10 diameter) and ladder fuels would be cut and piled, and the target 16

18 canopy closure would not be below 50%. No roadside treatments will occur in suitable NR habitat. Table 5. Roadside Treatment Types and Roadside Treatment Commercial Thinning 178 Hazard tree removal, non-commercial thinning, and underburn 105 Hazard tree removal and underburning 47 Hazard tree removal only 155 Underburns would occur throughout the project area, since slash left after treatments would be susceptible to wildfire until surface fuels were dealt with. Generally, fuels treatments would occur within 3 to 5 years after silviculture treatments have been implemented. There is no expected change in canopy closure beyond 5% after implementation. Prescribed fire would be used to mimic the natural fire regime until stand conditions allow natural fire to burn through the stands while causing only minimal damage. These treatments would re-introduce fire to the project area under prescribed conditions that would reduce stands down toward low to mixed-severity fire conditions. Benefits of these actions include fuels reduction and vegetation diversity. Some nesting roosting habitat does occur within proposed underburn areas. The six underburning blocks will occur on approximately 740 acres which encompasses approximately 400 acres of other treatment units (which are in essence double counted but they are summarized here to provide transparency to the proposed action). The objective for these blocks is to help reduce the chance of negative effects of unplanned ignitions and to protect LSOG. There is additional underburning proposed in the remaining 685 acres of silvicultural treatment units to treat pre and post-harvest fuels. The underburn areas were also designed to work synergistically with the silviculture treatments and fuel breaks that have been proposed. In the cases of overlapping treatments, prescribed burning will be the last treatment to occur. As a result of burning, there will be no more than a 5% loss of total crown closure in suitable NSO habitat overall. Effects of mosaic burns may result in small openings created from crown burned individual trees or small groups of trees less than 12 inches. Crown closure of stands will not go below 60% in NSO nesting/roosting habitat, 40% in NSO foraging habitat (this includes hardwood, subdominant and dominant tree component above 15 feet). Fuels treatments would include maintenance of an existing fuel break (24 acres), creation of new fuel break (11 acres), and underburning (740 acres).construction of a new fuel break is proposed on approximately 11 acres (537-65) and maintenance on an existing fuel break is proposed of approximately 24 acres (538-79). Both the construction and maintenance of the fuel breaks will reduce canopy closure, remove ladder and ground fuels, and utilize natural features along the ridge top. The target treatment depth is 200 on each side of the ridge, but will vary among aspect, slope, and fuel types. 17

19 Interrelated and Interdependent Activities Interrelated and interdependent activities include temporary road construction and landing construction which would facilitate thinning activities and temporary material storage. No new road construction is being proposed in this project. The utilization of approximately 2,500 feet of temporary road on an existing road bed is being proposed to access unit The road will require brushing and grading in preparation of use. A short (approximately 300 feet) swing trail used for skidding is proposed to provide mechanical equipment access to unit The swing will be placed on flat ground (<30%) and will not require any cut or fill. This does not occur in suitable habitat. The majority of proposed landings are considered as continuous landings which are widened areas of existing road bed sufficient to facilitate operation of cable yarders and swing loaders. This project will utilize approximately 59 landings ranging in size from one quarter to three quarters of an acre in size. There will be approximately 36 new landings constructed. The remaining 23 landings will occur on existing sites. Design Features Thinning operations and fuels reduction activities have the potential to create noise and smoke above ambient levels, so the implementation of site specific temporal and or spatial project design features (PDFs) are proposed to minimize or avoid significant impacts from disturbance or direct effects to NSO (see Table 6). Table 6. NSO Design Features Resource Wildlife-1 Wildlife-2 Wildlife-3 Wildlife-4 Design Feature Marking crews will coordinate with a wildlife biologist to ensure suitable NSO habitat is retained as described in the unit specific prescriptions. A seasonal restriction of February 1st to September 15th will apply to all activities that modify habitat (including activities that degrade or are beneficial) within 0.25 mile of a NSO activity center or within unsurveyed nesting/roosting habitat. LOP may be lifted if protocol surveys determine NSOs are not nesting in the year of action.. Noise-producing activities that are above ambient noise levels within 0.25 miles of an occupied NSO activity center or unsurveyed suitable nesting/roosting habitat a seasonal restriction will be applied from February 1 thru July 9. LOP may be lifted if protocol surveys determine NSOs are not nesting in the year of action. Surveys will follow regionally approved protocol, or as agreed upon by the Local Level One Team. 18

20 Resource Wildlife-5 Design Feature In order to not treat more than 50% of an occupied NSO home range within any given year: Within occupied or unsurveyed suitable habitat, no more than 50% of the nesting, roosting, or foraging habitat will be burned or mechanically treated in a single year in any one 7th-field watershed up to 3500 acres in size. If the 7th-field watershed is >3500 acres, apply the design criteria at the 8th field watershed scale or in some other manner that meets the intent of the design feature. Wildlife - 6 Wildlife-7 No more than 50% of suitable NSO habitat within 0.5 mile of an NSO 0.5-mile core will be underburned in a given year. When burning in spring, smoke is managed 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 mile and uphill of a known NSO activity center or within 0.25 mile of unsurveyed nesting/roosting habitat (separated by a topographic feature), smoke is managed as described above, and ignition should be discontinued if heavy, concentrated smoke begins to inundate suitable habitat late in the afternoon Treatments in NSO Critical Habitat The Singleton occurs entirely within the Collins LSR, and within Critical Habitat Unit (CHU). All treatments will retain habitat conditions of NR, F and Dispersal after treatments. V. T&E SPECIES ACCOUNT AND EFFECTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION NORTHERN SPOTTED OWL Environmental Baseline The present range of the NSO encompasses an area from southwestern British Columbia south through the coastal mountains and Cascade Range of Washington and Oregon, south into southwestern Oregon and northwestern California north of San Francisco (Thomas et al. 1990). The Singleton area lies in northwestern California in the Klamath Mountains within the range of the NSO. The NSO was listed as Threatened under the ESA throughout its range due to loss and adverse modification of suitable habitat as a result of timber harvesting and exacerbated by catastrophic events such as fire, volcanic eruption, and wind storms. At the time of listing, significant threats 19

21 to the spotted owl included low and declining populations, limited and declining habitat, poor distribution of habitat or populations, isolated provinces, predation and competition, a lack of coordinated conservation measures, and vulnerability to natural disturbance. Recovery plan identified past habitat loss, current habitat loss, and competition from barred owls as the most pressing threats to the spotted owl. Current Habitat Loss In recent years timber harvest has declined on Federal lands. This has resulted in a reduced threat of habitat loss as a result of management actions. In dry forest disturbance regimes there has been a significantly larger effect due to the loss of habitat from high intensity wildfires. On the Klamath National Forest, approximately 25,030 acres of suitable habitat have been lost to wildfire since the listing of the NSO. Between 2005 and 2009, during peak wildfire years, 19,630 acres of habitat were lost. Loss of habitat to wildfire continues to be a significant threat to NSOs. Barred Owl Barred owls have been documented in the project area. New information suggests that hybridization with the barred owl (Strix varia) is less of a threat (Kelly and Forsman 2004) and competition with the barred owl is a greater threat than what was previously anticipated (Courtney et al. 2004). Since 1990, the barred owl has expanded its range south into Marin County, California and the central Sierra Nevada Mountains, such that it is now roughly coincident with the range of the NSO. Additionally, barred owl populations appear to be increasing throughout the Pacific Northwest, particularly in Washington and Oregon (Courtney et al. 2004, Livezey 2009). They appear to compete with spotted owls through a variety of mechanisms that include prey and habitat-overlap (Dark et al 1998). New information on encounters between barred owls and NSOs comes primarily from anecdotal reports that corroborate initial observations that barred owls react more aggressively towards NSOs than the reverse (Courtney et al. 2004). There is also limited circumstantial evidence of barred owl predation on NSOs (Leskiw and Gutiérrez 1998). Suitable Habitat Northern spotted owls generally inhabit older forested habitats because they contain the structures and characteristics required for nesting, roosting, foraging, and dispersal (Forsman et al. 1984; Gutiérrez 1996; Blakesley et at 1992, LaHaye & Gutiérrez 1999). Specifically, habitat features that support nesting and roosting include a multi-layered, multi-species canopy dominated by large overstory trees; moderate to high canopy closure (60 to 90 percent); a high incidence of trees with large cavities or other types of deformities (e.g., broken tops, mistletoe, etc.); numerous large snags; an abundance of large, dead wood on the ground; and open space within and below the upper canopy for NSOs to fly within (Thomas et al. 1990, Bull et all 1997). Basal areas within nest stands often exceed 200 ft2/acre (Solis & Gutiérrez 1990). Foraging habitat generally consists of attributes similar to those in nesting and roosting habitat, but much variation exists over the NSO range. Dispersal habitat, at minimum, consists of stands with adequate tree size and canopy closure (> 40 percent) to provide protection from avian predators and some foraging opportunities (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 1992). 20

22 For this analysis, suitable NSO habitat (nesting/roosting and foraging) was identified using the definition above, Spotted Owl Habitat Modeling (USDA Forest Service 1999, Appendix G), application of Suitable Spotted Owl Habitat Definitions using GIS, aerial photography, and ground verification. Recent analysis of KNF baseline NSO nesting/roosting and foraging reported in 2009 that there are 260,229 acres of nesting roosting and 259,125 acres of foraging habitat on the Klamath National Forest. This baseline accounts for habitat lost and/or degraded as a result of 2008 wildfires which had a significant effect on habitat wildfire effect resulted in an approximate loss of 15,450 acres of NRF habitat and downgrading of approximately 15,724 acres of NR to F habitat. The NWFP emphasizes protection of large blocks of habitat (LSRs) to provide for clusters of breeding pairs of NSOs that are connected by habitat (matrix) to support survival and movement across the landscape between reserves. The NWFP reserve network is designed to protect latesuccessional forest species, such as the NSO. While scientists expected NSO populations to decline in the matrix over time, populations were expected to stabilize and eventually increase within LSRs as habitat conditions improve over the next years (USDA and USDI 1994). For the Singleton the analysis area is inclusive of eight 1.3 mile radius home range circles (21,289 acres). Table 7 shows that in the analysis area, approximately 15% of the area provides nesting roosting habitat, 33% of the area provides foraging habitat, and 13% provides dispersal habitat. This habitat is very fragmented by natural conditions and private and USFS past harvest history. Table 7. Distribution of NR, F, dispersal and non habitat in the Singleton Analysis Area. Total Dispersal Nesting/Roosting Foraging Non-Habitat (excluding NRF) Analysis Area 21,289 3,105 6,890 2,683 8,611 Nesting/Roosting Habitat Nesting/roosting habitat for this analysis is measured 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 includes trees with cavities or platforms (usually created by dwarf mistletoe). 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 (USDI 2008). Eighty-six percent of the 29 nests were in Douglas-fir trees (USDI 2008). 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, 15 miles northwest of the area) were in dwarf mistletoe brooms in Douglas-fir trees. 21

23 Foraging Habitat Foraging habitat is defined for this analysis as (1) stands with >40% canopy closure; (2) average dbh of stands 13 inches or better; and (3) basal areas ft 2. In 2009, the FWS conducted a thorough review and synthesis of published literature, unpublished data sets and direct communication with NSO researchers to develop a process for evaluating the effects of habitat management on NSO. The result was issuance of guidance to avoid take of individual owls. That guidance describes foraging habitat as including a mix of basal areas ranging from square feet, and > 15 QMD and > 5 TPA > 26 DBH and a mix of > 40% to 100 % canopy closure. It also recognizes low quality foraging habitat as a mix of basal areas ranging from square feet, and > 11 QMD and > 40% canopy closure (USDI FWS 2009). Stands exhibiting these characters are consistent with foraging habitat as described in the guidance for evaluation of take by USDI Fish and Wildlife (2009). Northern spotted owls feed mainly on small forest mammals, particularly arboreal and semiarboreal species (Courtney et al. 2004). Northern flying squirrels and woodrats comprise a bulk of the diet, but secondary species may be important for survival and reproduction. Deer mice, red tree voles, red-backed voles, and two species of lagomorphs are considered locally and/or seasonally important in the diet (Courtney et al. 2004). Within the project area, it is expected that woodrats are the most likely prey item based on available habitat. Woodrats Dusky-footed woodrats are nocturnal, arboreal herbivores that are a major prey species for owls below 1,250 m (4,100 feet). Generally, dusky-footed woodrat densities appear to follow stages influenced by habitat quality. The progression follows as: unsuitable habitat (recently burned clearcuts), to optimal habitat (sapling/bushy poletimber years old and young redwood forest 5-20 years old), then a gradual decline to marginal habitat (small and large sawtimber stands/intermediated-aged forests) with a possible second peak in abundance in old forest as openings form in the canopy structure creating patches of stable, bushy understory (Courtney et al. 2004, Appendix 4). Optimal habitats for bushy-tailed woodrats are rock outcrops associated with coniferous forests, montane riparian, montane chaparral, and alpine dwarf-shrub. Other preferred habitats include montane hardwood-conifer, Douglas-fir, redwood, red fir, Jeffrey pine, and subalpine conifer (CDFG 1990). Distribution and abundance seem to be limited largely by availability of shelter. Dens are made of sticks, foliage, and debris and are built at the entrance to crevices, caves, and in forks of trees (CDFG 1990). Bushy-tailed woodrats may occur within the Singleton area. 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 22

24 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 across the Singleton area is patchy and is influenced by geology and timber harvest on checkerboard ownership interspersed private lands and Forest Service managed lands. 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. Approximately 58% of the surrounding analysis area provides dispersal habitat. Table 8 shows the distribution of dispersal habitat based on the surrounding ¼ townships. The area with low availability of dispersal habitat (45N 9W NE) is in the eastern portion of the project area. implementation proposes to create conditions that will enhance the availability and distribution of dispersal habitat. Table 8. of dispersal, nesting/roosting and foraging habitat (also used for dispersal), in the surrounding ¼ Townships. Dispersal habitat for the NSO has been defined as stands having at least 40% canopy closure and a minimum mean diameter of 11 inches dbh. ¼ Township Total Nesting/Roosting Foraging Additional Dispersal (excluding NRF) Total Dispersal (% of watershed) 45N 9W SW 5, ,305 1,229 59% 45N 9W NW 4, ,826 1,264 78% 45N 10W SE 3, % 45N 9W NE 4, % Barriers to Dispersal 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 harvested private forest lands in a checkerboard ownership 23

25 distribution. There are openings and large areas of oak woodland and chaparral that occur along ridgetops and south and east facing slopes of the area. The combination of these conditions do not provide habitats that are favorable for NSO NR and F habitats but may still provide dispersal opportunities for NSO in this landscape. Exclusion of fire in portions of the project area has resulted in changes to forest structure and species composition. Fire suppression has changed the fire regime from frequent low intensity surface fires, to infrequent, but potentially devastating, stand-replacing fires. The results of these conditions include increased susceptibility to disease, increases in dead and live fuel, development of ladder fuels, and a more dense forest with a closed canopy that can sustain a crown fire. These conditions create the potential for large-scale loss of dispersal habitat to wildfire which could result in barriers to dispersal. Analysis Area and Treatment Area High quality habitat in the analysis area is limited and not well distributed. Suitable northern spotted owl habitat was identified and quantified using a combination of sources, in a step down approach. Klamath National Forest-wide Late-Successional Reserves Assessment (USDA Forest Service 1999), and the Land and Resource Management Plan (USDA Forest Service 1994) were used for general information pertaining to the existing and desired conditions. Northern spotted owl habitat in the 1.3 mile home range for all known spotted owl activity centers potentially affected by the Proposed Action within the Action Area was identified and mapped by using Google Earth imagery, aerial photography and field review this then was digitized into a Forest GIS layer Singleton working habitat layer. Table 9 display suitable NSO habitat in the Analysis and Treatment Unit Area. Table 9. of NSO habitat within Analysis Area and Treatment Habitat Type Analysis Area Treatment Forage 6, Nesting/Roosting 3, Dispersal 2, Non-Habitat 8, Total 21,289 1,862 Habitat suitability within the Treatment Area was evaluated in the field by a Forest Service wildlife biologist and a representative wildlife biologist from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Foraging habitat is variable depending on stand specific conditions, such as average tree size, number of larger diameter trees, species composition, proximity to higher quality stands, or slope position. Many of the proposed treatment stands are dominated by small diameter conifers but contain features within them, such as scattered legacy trees exceeding 30 inches dbh, that are significant to NSO for preybase (i.e. large hardwoods and large Douglas-fir trees). Most treatment areas contain a mix of size classes, large logs and snags, and possess conifer and 24