September 7, 2016 Randall J. Gould District Ranger Feather River Ranger District Plumas National Forest 875 Mitchell Avenue Oroville, California 95965 Sent via email to: [email protected]Re: Comments on the Proposed Challenge Community Protection and Fuels Reduction Project Dear Randall: Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the scoping notice for the Proposed Challenge Community Protection and Fuels Reduction Project (Challenge). One of our primary concerns is that the proposed project will reduce spotted owl habitat quality beyond what is necessary to create forest conditions that are resilient to wildfire, minimize the threat of wildfire to the communities, and provide for firefighter safety. We ask that you consider the science information provided in these comments and minimize the short and long term effects of the proposed project to spotted owl habitat. We also ask that the preferred alternative be based on the Interim Recommendations for the Management of California Spotted Owl Habitat on National Forest System Lands (IRs). 1. Best Available Science Information on Spotted Owl Demography, Ecology and Conservation In 2006, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service determined that listing the California spotted owl was not warranted (Service 2006). The 2006 determination was primarily based on three factors: (1) there was inconclusive evidence that California spotted owl populations were in decline, (2) high severity wildfire represented the greatest threat to the species, and (3) Forest Service- implemented fuels treatments did not represent a significant long-term (greater than 20 years) threat to the species and were necessary to mitigate the long-term threat of high severity wildfire. Since 2006, a substantial body of science literature has been published that calls into question the basis of the Service’s 2006 not warranted determination, including: (1) conclusive evidence of a range-wide decline in California spotted owl abundance and occupancy on all Forest Service- managed lands with long-term demographic monitoring data (Conner et al. 2013; Tempel and Gutiérrez 2013; Tempel et al. 2014a); (2) correlation between activities that reduce canopy cover (i.e., Forest Service logging) and reduced colonization, reproduction, and increased territory abandonment probabilities (Seamans and Gutiérrez 2007; Stephens et al. 2014; Tempel et al. 2014b); (3) wildfire within territories has had no discernable effect on occupancy throughout the
Transcript
September 7, 2016 Randall J. Gould District Ranger Feather River Ranger District Plumas National Forest 875 Mitchell Avenue Oroville, California 95965 Sent via email to: [email protected] Re: Comments on the Proposed Challenge Community Protection and Fuels Reduction Project Dear Randall: Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the scoping notice for the Proposed Challenge Community Protection and Fuels Reduction Project (Challenge). One of our primary concerns is that the proposed project will reduce spotted owl habitat quality beyond what is necessary to create forest conditions that are resilient to wildfire, minimize the threat of wildfire to the communities, and provide for firefighter safety. We ask that you consider the science information provided in these comments and minimize the short and long term effects of the proposed project to spotted owl habitat. We also ask that the preferred alternative be based on the Interim Recommendations for the Management of California Spotted Owl Habitat on National Forest System Lands (IRs).
1. Best Available Science Information on Spotted Owl Demography, Ecology and Conservation
In 2006, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service determined that listing the California spotted owl was not warranted (Service 2006). The 2006 determination was primarily based on three factors: (1) there was inconclusive evidence that California spotted owl populations were in decline, (2) high severity wildfire represented the greatest threat to the species, and (3) Forest Service-implemented fuels treatments did not represent a significant long-term (greater than 20 years) threat to the species and were necessary to mitigate the long-term threat of high severity wildfire. Since 2006, a substantial body of science literature has been published that calls into question the basis of the Service’s 2006 not warranted determination, including: (1) conclusive evidence of a range-wide decline in California spotted owl abundance and occupancy on all Forest Service-managed lands with long-term demographic monitoring data (Conner et al. 2013; Tempel and Gutiérrez 2013; Tempel et al. 2014a); (2) correlation between activities that reduce canopy cover (i.e., Forest Service logging) and reduced colonization, reproduction, and increased territory abandonment probabilities (Seamans and Gutiérrez 2007; Stephens et al. 2014; Tempel et al. 2014b); (3) wildfire within territories has had no discernable effect on occupancy throughout the
SFL Scoping Comments on Challenge 2
Sierra Nevada (Lee et al. 2012); (4) low and moderate severity burned forests maintain essential habitat characteristics and do not affect occupancy (Roberts et al. 2011); (5) mixed and high severity burned forests are used for foraging and do not represent a categorical loss of habitat (Bond et al. 2009, Bond et al. 2013); and (6) post-fire management practices (i.e., salvage logging and industrial reforestation) on public and private lands results in the long-term degradation of foraging habitat and nesting and roosting habitat. Over the past two years, two petitions to list the California spotted owl have been submitted to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Based on the information presented in the petitions, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service issued a positive 90-day finding to list the California spotted owl. A positive 90-day finding indicates the Service believes that substantial scientific or commercial information was provided by the petitioner and that the petitioned action may be warranted. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service recently committed to complete a 12-month status review in 2019. The Forest Service’s response to the spotted owl population decline and best available science will weigh heavily on the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s listing decision. In response to the recognized decline and concern for spotted owl persistence, the Forest Service in late 2014 asked a group of owl scientists, including owl scientists, to develop interim recommendations to conserve spotted owl until a longer term strategy was developed. The resulting IRs are based on the best available science information regarding habitat use and risk of territory abandonment and represent the best available science information on the conservation of the species. The IRs support actions that both conserve habitat for spotted owl and reduce the risk of wildfire. These are both outcomes that would provide for species viability and community wildfire protection. We ask that you adopt the IRs in the Challenge project. a. Population Decline on Forest Service Ownerships All California spotted owl populations on Forest Service-managed lands with long-term demographic data declined over their respective study periods. The best available science information indicates that:
• Tempel and Gutiérrez (2013, page 7) compared occupancy modeling with the statistical methods typically employed to calculate the annual rate of population change (λt) in previous studies and found that occupancy results mirrored the change in population results, but the confidence intervals of the occupancy results did not overlap 1. From 1993 to 2010, spotted owl occupancy declined by 30 percent, territory extinction increased over time, and colonization rates were insufficient to maintain occupancy at its initial level on the Eldorado demographic study area (Tempel and Gutiérrez 2013, page 7).
• Over the 18-year study period, Conner et al. (2013, page 1456) found that it is probable that the populations of CSO in the Lassen-Plumas and Sierra National Forest demographic study areas declined. Estimates suggest that the population declined by 21 to 22 percent on Lassen-Plumas demographic study area and 11 to 16 percent on the Sierra demographic study area (Conner et al. 2013, page 1454).
• The only population with long-term demographic data that has been found to be stable or increasing was in Sequoia-Kings Canyon National Park (Conner et al. 2013, page 1454), suggesting the decline is not a Sierra Nevada-wide phenomenon.
SFL Scoping Comments on Challenge 3
• Using a new statistical method called an integrated population model, Tempel et al. (2014a, page 91) calculated the posterior means of realized population change for the Eldorado demographic study area and found that between 1990 and 2012, the population declined by 50 percent, with 95 percent credible intervals suggesting the true decline was between 38 and 61 percent.
It is important to note that from the early 1990s through 2012 there was very little to no high severity wildfire activity within the four Sierra Nevada demographic study areas. This means that the observed declines were unrelated to the effects of wildfire or post-fire salvage logging. It is also important to recognize that confidence intervals that overlap zero do not indicate a population is stable. Conner et al. (2013, p. 1450) point out the limitations of such interpretations finding that, “In the past, the confidence intervals (CI) for estimates of mean λt and of Δt were used to evaluate population decline. That is, if the CI included 1, even if just barely, the conclusion was that there was no evidence for a decline. However, with this methodology, the influence and probability of a Type II error (inability to detect a decline or change) cannot be eliminated from the interpretation of no decline.” It was precisely for this failing that Conner et al. developed their method to robustly estimate risk, or probability of declines, for retrospective analyses of monitored populations. b. Habitat Use within a Territory in Unburned Forests Since 2004, a number of studies have evaluated habitat use of unburned forests by spotted owls. The best available science information overwhelmingly indicates that the amount and alteration of high canopy cover forest within a CSO territory (defined as half the mean nearest neighbor distance) can cause significant effects to important demographic parameters:
• Alteration of 50 acres or more of mature conifer forest (conifer forest with greater than 70% canopy cover dominated by medium and large trees) within a spotted owl territory increased dispersal probability and reduce colonization; and territory extinction was negatively related to the amount of mature conifer forest within a territory (Seamans and Gutiérrez 2007, page 573).
• Home range size increased with the amount of logging within the home range (Gallagher 2010, page 20).
• Medium-intensity timber harvests, characteristic of proposed fuel treatments, were negatively related to reproduction of spotted owls, with reproduction appearing sensitive to modest amounts of medium-intensity harvests (Tempel et al. 2014b, page 2098).
• Reductions in canopy cover were associated with reductions in spotted owl survival and territory colonization rates, as well as increases in territory extinction rates (Tempel et al. 2014b, page 2099).
• There was a positive association between the amount of high (greater than 70 percent) canopy cover forest dominated by medium- or large-sized trees and owl demographic rates (Tempel et al. 2014b, page 2100).
• Greater than 90% of medium intensity timber harvests, characteristic of proposed fuel treatments, converted high-canopy forests into lower-canopy vegetation classes, suggesting that landscape-scale fuel treatments could have negative impacts on populations of California spotted owls (Tempel et al. 2014b, page 2103).
SFL Scoping Comments on Challenge 4
• The effects of implementing medium intensity timber harvests immediately decreased average habitat suitability, with a difference still present after 30 years of simulated forest growth (SNAMP 2015, page 58).
• Declines in occupancy were expected under climate change when the amount of closed-canopy forest was constant over the modelling period, as well as in most cases when the amount of closed-canopy forest increased; however, increases in the amount of closed-canopy forest always moderated declines in occupancy (Jones et al. 2016a, page 5).
As demonstrated by the science information above, mature conifer forests (CWHR 4, 5, and 6) with canopy cover greater than 70 percent that include a large tree component is a necessary ecological condition on which CSO depend at the territory-scale. In late 2014, the Forest Service commissioned a group of prominent spotted owl scientists and forest ecologists from within and outside of the Forest Service to recommend changes needed to reduce risks to the California spotted owl and meet current goals for the conservation of the species. The culmination of this effort was the IRs. A major feature of these recommendations is to maintain at least 400 acres of this necessary ecological condition within a territory. According to the interim recommendations:
“Recent research, primarily in the central Sierra Nevada, indicates that successful territories (i.e., sustained survival and occupancy of a territory) have more than the 300 acres of high quality nesting/roosting habitat (defined as ≥ 70% canopy cover) in the vicinity of the activity center. We assume this new information is relevant and thus applicable to all locations in the Sierra. Two criteria for habitat designation and management at the territory scale are indicated: a minimum amount of habitat with ≥ 70% canopy cover, and total amount of habitat with ≥50% canopy cover (including the minimum ≥ 70% canopy cover) (Fig. 2). Research from the central Sierra Nevada has provided strong evidence that maintaining 375 acres or more of habitat with ≥ 70% canopy cover within the territory has significant benefits in terms of occupancy and site fidelity.” (IRs, p. 6).
c. Conservation Assessment and Interim Recommendations
The IRs were developed based Gutierrez et al. (in press). Both of these documents were developed by some of the leading spotted owl and Sierra Nevada forest and fire ecologists and represent the best available science on the species and the effects of habitat management. Important findings from Gutierrez et al. (in press) that should be incorporated into the project analysis include:
• “strategies that reduce canopy cover, the complexity of forest structure, or large tree density have the potential to impact spotted owl populations negatively in both the short- and long-term” (p. 217)
• “spotted owl populations may be small compared to historical levels and limited by the spatial extent of old forest and forests with legacy elements” (p. 218)
SFL Scoping Comments on Challenge 5
• “expansion of treatments that simplify forest structure and decrease forest tree canopy cover in owl habitat could exacerbate population declines and increase the probability of extirpation of owls from the region” (p. 218)
• “whether fuel treatments will protect spotted owl habitat from high-severity fire sufficiently to compensate for potential short-term impacts to populations is unknown” (p. 218)
• “treatments would occur primarily in areas of the landscape dominated by younger forests with high small tree density and be designed to enhance foraging habitat and foster growth rates of large” (p. 218)
• “halting and reversing substantial recent population declines of a species of concern, like the spotted owl, is an essential component of a conservation program” (p. 218)
• “territory occupancy and demographic rates are likely to fare better with a gradient of less intensive to more intensive forest management activities within owl habitat as a function of distance from activity centers” (p. 220)
• “maintaining existing nesting habitat (particularly at sites that have a history of use) is likely to promote viable populations” (p. 220)
• “within territories, spotted owl occupancy and fitness appear to be positively related to acreage of high quality habitat (i.e., forests dominated by large trees and particularly higher canopy cover), and a landscape populated by territories containing a sufficient amount of these habitat conditions is likely to promote viable spotted owl populations.” (p. 221)
• “At [the home range scale], there is an opportunity to place greater emphasis on fuels management and forest restoration, particularly approaches that enhance forest resilience, landscape heterogeneity, and spotted owl foraging habitat” (p. 221)
Finally, Gutierrez et al. (in press) found that “the viability of spotted owls in the Sierra Nevada depends on carefully balancing fuel and restoration treatments with the maintenance and enhancement of existing owl habitat.” (Gutierrez et al. in press, p. 220) Based on this finding, they recommend the completion of a quantitative risk assessment that would require close coordination among wildlife ecologists, forest and fire ecologists, and remote-sensing scientists, as well as the development of an integrated model that links fire behavior, forest conditions, and spotted owl habitat/demography at the appropriate spatial and temporal scales.” (Id.) Until this range-wide evaluation is completed, the IRs represent the best available science on spotted owl conservation to arrest the ongoing Forest Service-wide decline.
2. Effective Fuel Treatments Do Not Need to Degrade Spotted Owl Habitat Quality The scoping notice perpetuates the idea that high canopy cover forests are somehow inherently susceptible to high severity wildfire and conflict with community protection. However, there is significant scientific evidence that it is not necessary to significantly reduce canopy cover or remove trees greater than 16 to 20 inches dbh to reduce wildfire hazard:
• According to the Forest Service (http://www.fs.fed.us/postfirevegcondition/index.shtml), for two of the three largest fires on the Plumas National Forest since 2008 (i.e., BTU Lightning Complex, Chips, and Canyon Complex, respectively), outside of wilderness
and within Forest Service boundaries, more evergreen open canopy forest burned at high severity than evergreen closed canopy forest. On the BTU Lightning Complex Fire, 12% more evergreen closed canopy forest burned at high severity and on the Chips fire that figure was 2%. For all fires over 20,000 acres in the Sierra Nevada during this time, this trend holds true (Attachment A).
• Collins et al. (2011, page 84) compared the effectiveness of three different diameter limits on flame length across a landscape over a 30 year period (Figure 1). Their results suggest that across the landscape, there was virtually no difference in conditional burn probability between stands that had a 12 inch, 20 inch, or 30 inch diameter limit.
Figure 1. “Mean conditional burn probabilities across the Last Chance landscape for which simulated flame lengths are >2 m. Three diameter-limited thinning scenarios along with a no treatment scenario are reported. Each scenario was modeled into the future based on output from the Forest Vegetation Simulator, using our 2007 field inventory plot data as a baseline. Probabilities are based on 5,000 randomly placed ignitions simulated using RANDIG (see Methods for explanation). Note that the [results of the] three thinning scenarios are nearly indistinguishable, with the exception of a slight departure for the 30.5-cm scenario in 2037.” (From Collins et al. 2011, page 84, emphasis added). • Agee and Skinner (2005, page 9) state: “Some effective fuelbreaks had only surface fuels
and ladder fuels treated, with residual canopy cover exceeding 60–70%. Even though canopy bulk density was insignificantly reduced, fire severity was significantly reduced, suggesting that reductions in canopy bulk density are not always needed to reduce wildfire severity.”
• Thompson and Spies (2009, page 1690) found that (Figure 2), “Open tree canopies with high levels of shrub-stratum cover were associated with the highest levels of tree crown damage, while closed canopy forests with high levels of large conifer cover were associated with the lowest levels of tree crown damage.”
SFL Scoping Comments on Challenge 7
Figure 2. Partial dependence plots from random forest predictions of total crown damage on percent shrub cover; total damage on large conifer cover; conifer damage on percent shrub-stratum cover, and hardwood damage on elevation. Partial dependence is the predicted value of the response based on the value of one predictor variable after averaging out the effects of the other predictor variables in the model. From Thompson and Spies (2009, page 1690)
• Fry et al. (2015) found that the higher canopy cover forests of the Sugar Pine study area
were more resilient to fire than the lower canopy cover forests of the Last Chance study area. Treatment of 29 percent of one of the study areas, which included a 16 inch diameter limit for tree removal applied to a significant portion of the treatment area, reduced modeled fire size from 3,200 acres to about 123 acres and conditional burn probability was reduced by about half after treatment.
• North et al. (2009, page 24) states: “What is achieved by thinning intermediate sized (20- to 30-in d.b.h.) trees? Some research suggests that for managing fuels, most of the reduction in fire severity is achieved by reducing surface fuels and thinning smaller ladder-fuel trees (see summaries in Agee et al. 2000, Agee and Skinner 2005, Stephens et al. 2009). What is considered a ladder fuel differs from stand to stand, but typically these are trees in the 10- to 16-in d.b.h. classes. If trees larger than this are thinned, it is important to provide reasons other than for ladder-fuel treatment.”
• Spencer et al. (2016) show, in the panel below, that as the amount of high canopy cover forest and mean basal area in a fisher home range increases the observed proportion of high severity fire tends to decrease:
SFL Scoping Comments on Challenge 8
The best available science information overwhelmingly suggests that removing medium and large trees is unnecessary to improve fire resiliency and effective fire resilience can be achieved by removing surface and ladder fuels. These data also suggest mechanical fuels treatments, regardless of treatment intensity, have a similar and short-term effect on reducing wildfire hazard (approximately 15 years; Collins et al. 2011, page 84). The EA should acknowledge the findings of these studies. We ask that Forest Service complete a thorough wildfire modeling analysis for each of the alternatives analyzed in the Challenge EA. Although the IRs do not include a dbh limit when conducting mechanical treatments in IR-designated spotted owl habitat, the IRs state (conservation measure 6d, p. 17): “In instances where mechanical thinning in designated habitat is warranted, we recommend that silvicultural prescriptions be informed by and follow to the degree possible the concepts in GTR-220 and 237.” The IRs also state (p. 16): “Fuel reduction treatments that are consistent with habitat enhancement are likely to be very modest (e.g., removal of smaller diameter trees in dense stand, prescribed fires).” Since GTR 220 states that ladder fuels are rarely larger than 16 inches, with some exceptions up to 20 inches dbh (North et al. 2009, p. 24), we ask that you design a preferred alternative for this project that applies a 16-inch dbh limit, with exceptions for trees up to 20 inches that represent ladder fuel hazards, within IR-designated spotted owl habitat for which treatment has been determined necessary to provide for community protection and forest resilience to wildfire. We ask that Forest Service complete a thorough wildfire modeling analysis for each of the alternatives analyzed in the Challenge EA. With respect to any alternatives analyzed, we ask that underburning “over much of the area” be included in any alternative, consistent with the proposed action, and that the effects of the underburning be included in the wildfire modeling analysis.
3. Increasing Drought and Bark Beetle Resilience Similar to wildfire resilience, the best available science suggests that logging trees larger than 20 inches dbh is not necessary to increase drought and beetle resilience. We are not aware of any data that suggests that limiting tree removal to small and intermediate sized trees (less than 20 inches dbh) is insufficient and removing medium and large trees (greater than 20 inches) is necessary to increase stand resilience to drought and bark beetles. According to North et al. (2009):
SFL Scoping Comments on Challenge 9
“Clusters of intermediate to large trees (i.e., >20 inches diameter at breast height [d.b.h.]) are sometimes marked for thinning with the belief that they are overstocked and thinning would reduce moisture stress. Some evidence, however, suggests these groups of large trees may not be moisture stressed by within-group competition because they have deep roots that can access more reliable water sources including fissures in granitic bedrock (Arkley 1981, Hubbert et al. 2001, Hurteau et al. 2007, Plamboeck et al. 2008). Reconstructions of Sierran forests with active fire regimes (Barbour et al. 2002, Bonnicksen and Stone 1982, Minnich et al. 1995, North et al. 2007, Taylor 2004) have consistently found large trees in groups. These groups, however, can be at risk if intermediate and small trees grow within the large tree groups. Thinning these small and intermediate trees will reduce fire laddering.”
A recent study on the ongoing drought and beetle mortally in the southern Sierra Nevada found that prescribed fire and fire managed for resource benefits, without pre-fire logging, significantly increased resilience to drought mortality (van Mantgem et al. 2016, p. 19). It is also worth noting that the results of van Mantgem et al. show that the burned plots, which were more drought- and beetle-resilient, had higher basal areas, higher quadratic mean diameters, but lower average stem density than the unburned and unresilient plots, suggesting the increased resilience was achieved through a reduction of smaller diameter trees. If it is proposed that trees larger than 20 inches dbh should be removed for drought and bark beetle resilience purposes within IR-designated spotted owl habitat, we ask that scientific evidence be provided for why it is necessary to remove such trees and that increased resilience could not be achieved by removing trees less than 20 inches dbh and/or underburning.
4. Consistency with the IRs We have translated and summarized the IRs for the central Sierra Nevada (Attachment B). This translation is adapted from one prepared by Region 5 for the forest plan revision process in the southern Sierra Nevada. We ask that this translation be used to develop a preferred alternative that adopts the IRs for the Challenge EA. If an alternative is developed purporting to be consistent with the IRs, but is not consistent with the attached IR-translation, we ask that any deviations clearly be identified and an explanation for the deviation be included in the EA. Conclusion We believe that forest and community resilience to wildfire can be achieved by thoughtfully implementing the IRs, with post-treatment fire-hazard outcomes similar to those that would be achieved by the proposed action. It is our experience that the removal of canopy cover in spotted owl territories is being done almost entirely for economic purposes, not fuels purposes. Thinning trees greater than 16 to 20 inches dbh and reducing canopy cover cannot continue to occur in spotted owl territories at the levels observed over the last 20 years without continuing to push the species toward extinction throughout much of the Sierra Nevada. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service will soon commence another 12-month status review on the species. Unlike the last 12-month status review, there is now conclusive evidence of a Forest Service-wide decline and
SFL Scoping Comments on Challenge 10
mounting scientific evidence that the decline is correlated with reductions in high canopy cover forest from logging. Designing projects that meet or exceed the habitat protections afforded by the IRs and increasing wildfire resilience is the only scientifically defensible way to justify that an activity does not result in a trend to federal listing. Thank you for your time and attention. Please direct any questions or comments to Ben Solvesky ([email protected]; 928-221-6102). Sincerely, Ben Solvesky, Wildlife Ecologist Sierra Forest Legacy PO Box 244 Garden Valley, CA 95633 Attachment A: Canopy cover and large high severity fires in the Sierra Nevada, 2008 to 2015 Attachment B: Summarized Description of the Forest Plan Components Consistent with the 29 May 2015 California Spotted Owl Interim Recommendations
SFL Scoping Comments on Challenge 11
References Agee, J.K. and C.N. Skinner. 2005. Basic principles of forest fuel reduction treatments. Forest Ecology and Management. 211: 83-96. Bond, M.L., D.E. Lee, R.B. Siegel, and J.P. Ward. 2009a. Habitat use and selection by California spotted owls in a postfire landscape. Journal of Wildlife Management 73:1116-1124. Bond, M.L., D.E. Lee, R.B. Siegel, and M.W. Tingley. 2013. Diet and home-range size of California spotted owls in a burned forest. Western Birds 44:114-126. Collins, B.M., S.L. Stephens, G.B. Roller, and J.J. Battles. 2011. Simulating fire and forest dynamics for a landscape fuel treatment project in the Sierra Nevada. Forest Science 57:77-88. Conner, M.M., J.J. Keane, C.V. Gallagher, G. Jehle, T.E. Munton, P.A. Shaklee, R.A. Gerrard. 2013. Realized population change for long-term monitoring: California spotted owl case study. Journal of Wildlife Management 77:1449-1458. Fry, D., Battels, J. J., Collins, B., M., and Stephens, S. L. 2015. Appendix A: Fire and Forest Ecosystem Health Team Final Report. Sierra Nevada Adaptive Management Project. University of California, Berkeley, CA. August 31, 2015. Gallagher, C.V. 2010. Spotted owl home range and foraging patterns following fuels-reduction treatments in the northern Sierra Nevada, California. M.S. Thesis, University of California Davis. Gutiérrez, R.J.; Manley, Patricia N.; Stine, Peter A., tech. eds. [In press]. The California spotted owl: current state of knowledge. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR. Albany, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station. Jones, G.M., R.J. Gutiérrez, D.J. Tempel, B Zuckerberg, and M.Z. Peery. 2016a. Using dynamic occupancy models to inform climate change adaptation strategies for California spotted owls. Journal of Applied Ecology doi: 10.1111/1365-2664.12600. Jones, G.M., Gutiérrez, R.J., Tempel, D.J., Whitmore, S.A., Berigan, W.J. and Peery, M.Z., 2016b. Megafires: an emerging threat to old-forest species. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 14(6), pp.300-306. LaHaye, W.S., G.S. Zimmerman, and R.J. Gutiérrez. 2004. Temporal variation in the vital rates of an insular population of spotted owls (Strix occidentalis occidentalis): contrasting effects of weather. The Auk 121:1056-1069. Lee, D.E., M.L. Bond, and R.B. Siegel. 2012. Dynamics of breeding-season site occupancy of the California spotted owl in burned forests. The Condor 114:792-802. North, M., P. Stine, K. O’Hara, W. Zielinski, and S. Stephens. 2009. An ecosystem management strategy for Sierra mixed conifer forests. USDA Forest Service, General Technical Report PSW-GTR-220. Pacific Southwest Research Station, Albany, California.
SFL Scoping Comments on Challenge 12
Roberts S.L., J.W. van Wagtendonk, A.K. Miles, and D.A. Kelt. 2011. Effects of fire on spotted owl site occupancy in a late-successional forest. Biological Conservation 144:610-619. Seamans M.E., and R.J. Gutiérrez. 2007. Habitat selection in a changing environment: the relationship between habitat alteration and spotted owl territory occupancy and breeding dispersal. The Condor 109:566-576. Service. 2006. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; 12-month finding for a petition to list the California spotted owl (Strix occidentalis occidentalis) as threatened or endangered. Federal Register 71:29886-29908. Stephens, S.L., S.W. Bigelow, R.D. Burnett, B.M. Collins, C.V. Gallagher, J. Keane, D.A. Kelt, M.P. North, L.J. Roberts, P.A. Stine, and D.H. Van Vuren. 2014. California spotted owl, songbird, and small mammal responses to landscape fuel treatments. BioScience 64:893-906. SNAMP (Sierra Nevada Adaptive Management Program). 2015. Sierra Nevada Adaptive Management Program Final Report: Appendix C. California Spotted Owl Team Report. Spencer, W., H. Ramos, and S. Sawyer. 2016. Southern Sierra Nevada Fisher Conservation Assessment Status Update February 2016. PowerPoint Presentation. Western Section of the Wildlife Society Annual Meeting. Pomona, California. February 23, 2016. Tempel, D.J., and R.J. Gutiérrez. 2013. Relation between occupancy and abundance for a territorial species, the California spotted owl. Conservation Biology 27:1087-1095. Tempel, D.J., M.Z. Peery, and R.J. Gutierrez. 2014a. Using integrated population models to improve conservation monitoring: California spotted owls as a case study. Ecological Monitoring 289:86-95. Tempel, D.J., R.J. Gutiérrez, S.A. Whitmore, M.J. Reetz, R.E. Stoelting, W.J. Berigan, M.E. Seamans, and M.Z. Peery. 2014b. Effects of forest management on California spotted owls: implications for reducing wildfire risk in fire-prone forests. Ecological Applications 24:2089-2106. Thompson, J.R. and Spies, T.A. 2009. Vegetation and weather explain variation in crown damage within a large mixed-severity wildfire. Forest Ecology and Management, 258(7), pp.1684-1694. van Mantgem, P.J., A.C. Caprio, N.L. Stephenson, and A.J. Das. 2016. Does prescribed fire promote resistance to drought in low elevation forests of the Sierra Nevada, California, USA? Fire Ecology 12:13-25.
Translation of IRs into plan components for central SN (September 30, 2015) Page 1
Description of the forest plan components consistent with the 29 May 2015 California Spotted Owl (CSO) Interim Recommendations1.
Background:
Below is a translation of the CSO Interim Recommendations (IR) for the central Sierra Nevada into plan components to inform the design of a project. This translation is adapted from one prepared by Region 5 for the forest plan revision process in the southern Sierra Nevada. Information in brackets (i.e., [1a]) refers to the unique IR conservation measure (see Draft Interim Recommendations for the Management of California Spotted Owl Habitat on National Forest System Lands 29 May 2015) from which the plan component was derived. These plan components, as consistent with the 2012 Planning Rule, generally consist of (1) desired conditions, (2) standards or (3) guidelines consistent with the 2012 planning rule. They are defined as:
Desired Condition - a description of specific social, economic, and/or ecological characteristics of the plan area, or a portion of the plan area, toward which management of the land and resources should be directed. Desired conditions must be described in terms that are specific enough to allow progress toward their achievement to be determined, but do not include completion dates. Standards - A standard is a mandatory constraint on project and activity decision making, established to help achieve or maintain the desired condition or conditions, to avoid or mitigate undesirable effects, or to meet applicable legal requirements. Guidelines - A guideline is a constraint on project and activity decision making that allows for departure from its terms, so long as the purpose of the guideline is met. Guidelines are established to help achieve or maintain a desired condition or conditions, to avoid or mitigate undesirable effects, or to meet applicable legal requirements.
Other terminology associated describing plan content includes Management Approach; this is defined as describing the principal strategies and program priorities the Responsible Official intends to employ to carryout projects and activities developed under the plan. Management approaches should relate to desired conditions and may indicate the future course or direction of change.
Plan Components that incorporate the CSO IR:
General Plan Components:
• CSO direction changes from a strategy based on two zones (the Protected Activity Center and Home Range Core Area) to a strategy based on four zones: Protected Activity Center,
1 Draft Interim Recommendations for the Management of California Spotted Owl Habitat on National Forest System Lands 29 May 2015
Translation of IRs into plan components for central SN (September 30, 2015) Page 2
Territory, Home Range Area, and landscape [1a], with all designated habitat areas only on NFS lands [3e].
• No specific plan components are provided for the area outside the Home Range Area circle. However, a potential management approach would apply within the area mapped as the California spotted owl strategy area to manage within the vegetation desired conditions while considering the desired conditions for characteristics of Territory quality and Home Range quality consistent with improving forest resilience [table 1].
• A potential management approach would be added to evaluate California spotted owl habitat at the subwatershed scale (10,000 to 30,000 acres) [8a]. At this scale, designated spotted owl habitat is identified along with opportunities to improve the area towards desired conditions for the PAC, territory, and home range areas [8b].
• Where mechanical treatment is warranted, a standard would require that silvicultural prescriptions would follow the concepts of GTR-220 and 237 and consistent with short-term habitat improvement objectives [6d].
Plan Components within California spotted owl Protected Activity Center (PAC): • The size of a PAC remains 300 acres [table 2] and is designated using guidance in 2004
SNFPA
• A desired condition is added: canopy cover is ≥ 70% (increased from ≥ 60-70%) [2b] • The guideline would require retention of all snags greater than or equal to 15 inches, unless
they pose a safety hazard [2b]
• A guideline is added that provides that unless they are needed to maintain or improve habitat suitability in the short term (1 to 5 years), mechanical treatments are not allowed [6a]. Key features of desired conditions (i.e., multi-layered structure, diversity of diameter classes, moderate to high tree canopy cover) are retained or enhanced as a result of forest management actions. This is likely to limit treatments to the removal of small diameter woody material through hand thinning or prescribed fire. [6a] No exceptions for the WUI Defense or Threat Zones or long term habitat sustainability/resiliency are included.
• A guideline providing for the use of other treatments such as hand thinning of small diameter woody material or prescribed burning is changed to allow and encourage these activities if they maintain or improve key features of desired conditions (i.e. multi-layered structure, diversity of diameter classes, moderate- to high-tree canopy cover) in the short-term [6c].
• A standard is added to require that no overstory trees are removed [6b].
• A guideline is added to require that except where they pose a public safety risk, all trees greater than or equal to 30 inches diameter at breast height are retained [6b]. The existing exemption allowing removal of trees greater than or equal to 30 inches in diameter for equipment operability is not carried forward.
• A standard is changed to require retention of all PACs burned by wildfire in an unsalvaged condition regardless of the severity of fire effects and to augment the PAC to replace acres burned at high intensity (greater than 75 percent mortality) with unburned forest within the 0.6 mile territory circular area, where it exists [7a]. Salvage treatments can be considered in light of potential ecological impacts of leaving large areas of unsalvaged intensely burned forest where there are multiple PACs in close proximity.
Translation of IRs into plan components for central SN (September 30, 2015) Page 3
Plan Components within California spotted owl Territory:
• The Territory is an 1,000 acre circular area surrounding the activity center that is assumed to be used exclusively and is not shared with adjacent owls [table 2, 1b].
• The size of the designated habitat within the Territory is 700 acres [table 2], including the applicable acres within the PAC. Territory designated habitat must not include the PAC or designated territory area of adjacent owls.
• A desired condition is added: at least 400 acres within the entire Territory circle have at least 70 percent canopy cover and 300 acres have at least 50 percent canopy cover [Table 1, Table 2, 3c, 4d] and be in tree patches large enough to provide interior stand conditions, generally 1-2 tree heights from the edge [3d].
o If the territory circle does not contain sufficient suitable habitat, the shortfall is designated in the home range area as close to the habitat within the territory as possible.
• A desired condition is added that of the 700 acres above, at least 400 acres within the entire Territory circle are high quality nesting or roosting habitat defined as having at least 70 percent canopy cover (in descending order of priority, CWHR classes 6, 5D, and 4D) [3a, 3b, 4d]. This includes the applicable acres of the PAC and additional area with greater than 70 percent canopy cover outside of the PAC to meet the acreage target [table 1]. Patch sizes within this designated habitat should be large enough to minimize edge effects (large enough to provide interior stand conditions, generally 1-2 tree heights from the edge). The 400 acres of high quality nesting or roosting habitat should ideally be in the vicinity of the activity center [3a].
• A desired condition is added: territories include up to 300 acres in a fine-scale mosaic of low, moderate, and high canopy cover forest structure designed to achieve heterogeneous forest cover and stand density, defined as mosaics of habitats ranging from 0.03 to 2 acres in size that avoid uniform low tree density and bare understory conditions [4c].
• A potential management approach is added to monitor owl occupancy pre- and post-treatment in treated territories [5f].
• A guideline is added to manage up to 300 acres [4d]2 within the entire Territory circle to create or maintain fine-scale gaps associated with shrubs, meadows, or low tree and canopy densities with a matrix of higher density forests [4a].
• A guideline would be added that in the territory, except where it threatens public safety, all trees greater than or equal to 30 inches diameter at breast height are retained [6b, 8f].
• A guideline would be added that in acres of designated habitat that are within territory and outside of the PAC, except in rare cases (no examples of the ‘rarely removed’ situations given), all overstory trees are retained.
• A guideline is added that provides that unless they are needed to maintain or improve habitat suitability in the short term (1 to 5 years2), mechanical treatments are not allowed within the designated habitat within the territory [6a]. Key features of desired conditions
2 4d as applied to the southern Sierra Nevada 800-acre territories appears to include a typo suggesting that the ‘remaining acres (<100)’ be managed in this way, but after accounting for the 500 designated acres, there are 300 acres remaining, reflected here.
Translation of IRs into plan components for central SN (September 30, 2015) Page 4
(i.e., multi-layered structure, diversity of diameter classes, moderate to high tree canopy cover) are retained or enhanced as a result of forest management actions. This is likely to limit treatments to the removal of small diameter woody material through hand thinning or prescribed fire. [6a] No previous exceptions/allowances are carried forward.
• A guideline providing for the use of other treatments such as hand thinning of small diameter woody material or prescribed burning is changed to allow and encourage these activities in the designated habitat within the territory and outside of the PAC if they maintain or improve key features of desired conditions (i.e. multi-layered structure, diversity of diameter classes, moderate- to high-tree canopy cover) in the short-term [6c].
Plan Components within the California spotted owl Home Range Area:
• The Home Range Area is 4400 (or potentially 3000 acres [table 2]) within a 1.5 mile circle surrounding the activity center [5a].
• The size of the designated habitat within the Home Range Area is 1000-1500 acres [table 2], including the applicable acres within the PAC and the designated acres within the Territory [Table 1].
o Home range area for one owl may overlap with other home range areas of adjacent owls when there is significant overlap but must not include the PAC or territory designated area of any adjacent owls [5c].
• A desired condition is added for a minimum of 1000 acres and expected value of greater than 1500 acres within the entire Home Range Area circle have at least 50 percent canopy cover [table 2, 5b]. Patch sizes within this designated habitat should be large enough to minimize edge effects (large enough to provide interior stand conditions, generally 1-2 tree heights from the edge). This includes applicable acres in the PAC and designated Territory Habitat, and an additional 300-500 acres of designated habitat having greater than 50 percent canopy.
• A desired condition is added that the remaining area of the Home Range, outside of the Territory circle and outside the PAC or territory designated habitat of adjacent owls, contain an average of 40 percent canopy cover, and fine scale heterogeneity [5d].
• A desired condition is added to provide an approximate range of desired canopy covers in the Home Range outside the territory circle that reflects historical forest conditions. Percentages assume no overlap with adjacent owl PACs or territory designated areas [5e]:
o 25 percent or less with less than 25 percent canopy cover; o 10 percent or more with more than 70 percent canopy cover; o 15 percent or more with canopy from 40 to 70 percent canopy cover; o 50 percent is flexible in canopy cover with fine-scale mosaic.
• A guideline would require within the home range area, retention of all overstory trees and all trees greater than or equal to 30 inches diameter at breast height except where they pose a public safety risk [6b, 8f].
• A guideline is added that provides that unless they are needed to maintain or improve habitat suitability in the short term (1 to 5 years2) mechanical treatments are not allowed within the designated habitat within the home range [6a]. Key features of desired conditions (i.e., multi-layered structure, diversity of diameter classes, moderate to high tree canopy cover) are retained or enhanced as a result of forest management actions. This is
Translation of IRs into plan components for central SN (September 30, 2015) Page 5
likely to limit treatments to the removal of small diameter woody material through hand thinning or prescribed fire. [6a] No previous exceptions/allowances are carried forward.
• A guideline providing for the use of other treatments such as hand thinning of small diameter woody material or prescribed burning is changed to allow and encourage these activities in the designated habitat within the home range and outside of the Territory if they maintain or improve key features of desired conditions (i.e. multi-layered structure, diversity of diameter classes, moderate- to high-tree canopy cover) in the short-term [6c].
