Biological Assessment

Threatened and Endangered Species

1st 48 Roadside Fuelbreak Collaborative Project

Klamath Province

Six Rivers National Forest

Mad River Ranger District

April 9, 2018

Prepared by: /s/ Krista Smith Date: April 9, 2018

Krista Smith

Wildlife Biologist

Six Rivers National Forest

Reviewed by: /s/ Bryan Yost Date: April 9, 2018

Level 1 Representative 

 Wildlife Biologist 

Six Rivers National Forest
I. Introduction

The purpose of this document is to review and evaluate 1st 48 Roadside Fuelbreak Collaborative Project 

in sufficient detail to determine if the action may affect any of the threatened, endangered, or proposed 

(TEP) wildlife species listed for the Mad River Ranger District. This biological assessment/evaluation 

(BA/BE) is prepared in accordance with legal requirements set forth under Section 7 of the Endangered 

Species Act (19 U.S.C. 1536©, 50 CFR 402).

This BA/BE tiers to the Forest-wide Reference Document (USDA Forest Service, January 31, 2018), and 

contains specific information and analysis for the project.

List of Species Considered

The following endangered, threatened, proposed, and Forest Service sensitive (TESP) wildlife species are 

addressed in this document. These species are known to or are suspected to occur on the Mad River

Ranger District (Forest-wide Reference Document, January, 2018). TESP plants and fish species are 

addressed in separate documents.

Endangered

None

Threatened 

Northern spotted owl (Strix occidentalis caurina)

Critical Habitat

Northern spotted owl

Proposed

None

Forest Service Sensitive Wildlife Species

Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus)

Northern goshawk (Accipiter gentilis)

Pacific fisher (Martes pennanti pacifica) 

California Wolverine (Gulo gulo leteus)

American marten (Martes americana)

Townsend's big-eared bat (Corynorhinus townsendii)

Fringed myotis (Myotis thysanodes)

Southern torrent salamander (Rhyacotriton variegatus)

Northern red-legged frog (Rana aurora aurora)

Foothill yellow-legged frog (Rana boylii)

Western pond turtle (Clemmys marmorata) 

Mardon Skipper (Polites mardon mardon)

Western Bumblebee (Bombus occidentalis)
II. Consultation to Date

The US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) lists threatened, endangered, and proposed species that occur 

on the Six Rivers National Forest. Table 1 contains the terrestrial T&E wildlife species listed for the Mad 

River Ranger District on Six Rivers National Forest. The USFWS provides a species list through a 

national website “IPaC” or “Information for Planning and Conversation” (ecos.fws.gov/ipac/); however, 

this process may not contain the most accurate list. Therefore, the list of species will be confirmed during 

the Level 1 process (Streamlining MOU, 2013). The approved list is provided in the current Reference 

Document (January 31, 2018).

Table 1. Federally listed wildlife species analyzed for the 1st 48 project

Species Status Determination of effect 

Northern spotted owl (NSO) Federally threatened May affect, not likely to 

adversely affect. 

2012 NSO Critical Habitat May affect, not likely to 

adversely affect

Informal consultation on the 1st 48 Project occurred on December 13, 2017 and February 7, 2018 between 

John Hunter (FWS) and Krista Smith and Bryan Yost (USFS). In addition, a field visit was conducted on 

June 13, 2016. Although the project will modify currently functioning nesting/roosting (N/R) and 

foraging (F) habitat, the habitat is expected to remain suitable post-project. It was determined that due to 

the project design features and limited scope of the project, the project was not likely to adversely affect 

the NSO or NSO Critical Habitat. 

NSO Analysis Process 

On August 25, 2011 the Level 1 Team met to discuss adoption of new analysis radii that research shows 

best reflects actual use areas for the spotted owl, which is consistent with other forests in the Province. 

The Level 1 Team discussed the information presented in the white paper prepared by the Yreka Fish and 

Wildlife office titled “Regulatory and Scientific Basis for U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Guidance for 

Evaluation of Take for Northern Spotted Owls on Private Timberlands in California’s Northern Interior 

Region” (2009) and how that compilation of information may influence the analysis of “take” on the Six 

Rivers. The white paper represents a thorough review of the published literature used to determine 

northern spotted owl habitat use and home range size.

The USFWS has determined minimum habitat thresholds, or the minimum amount of N/R and F habitat, 

that must be maintained in a territory within a specific distance from the core area of use in order for an 

NSO pair to persist at the site. Further habitat removal below this minimum threshold may be considered 

“take” under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). These habitat thresholds are also used to assess the 

relative condition of the activity center (AC). Six Rivers also uses the relative condition of an AC to 

evaluate the level of impact from habitat treatments (manipulating the habitat but maintaining habitat 

function) even though no take will occur.

In 2009, the USFWS determined that the “accumulation of published research results, combined with 

direct field experience with management of NSO and their habitat, resulted in substantial changes in the 

quantity and quality of habitat the USFWS considered necessary to maintain continued occupancy and 

reproduction at NSO territories.” The USFWS prepared the 2009 white paper because “the large 

number of recently published studies requires that a full synthesis of current knowledge be conducted and 
incorporated into updated take evaluation guidelines.” The white paper represents the synthesis of the best 

available science in the development of the habitat retention guidelines.

The USFWS recognized that “habitat retention guidelines must incorporate the range of habitat 

conditions used by NSO for nesting, roosting, and foraging, while at the same time ensuring that habitat 

conditions are not degraded to the point where significant impairment of breeding, feeding, and sheltering 

occurs. The USFWS guidelines achieve this balance and provide a robust method for evaluating the 

likelihood of take because they describe a range of habitat conditions representing the central tendency 

for high-quality nesting habitat, nesting/roosting habitat, foraging habitat, and low-quality foraging 

habitat that may provide prey resources”.

The USFWS has updated the guidelines (thresholds) to be used in evaluating take. Thresholds represent 

the preponderance of evidence derived from careful evaluation of the results and conclusions of many 

published studies. The USFWS guidelines provide the scientific and biological foundation for the 

determining the likelihood of incidental take. The 2009 white paper provides the scientific basis for the 

USFWS guidelines. 

The Six Rivers Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP USDA 1995) describes the analysis area for 

“take” at 0.7 mile from the center of use. The white paper presents evidence and a recommendation to 

modify the analysis area (or core area) for NSO take thresholds from 0.7 mi to 0.5 mi. This 

recommendation is based on the literature describing core areas of use and predictability of occupancy 

(Zabel et al. 2003, Bingham and Noon 1997). The white paper also provided evidence to change the 

proportions and types of habitat to be maintained within the core area. Evidence presented in the white 

paper indicated that the highest use areas were within 0.5 mi of the nest and contained a combination of 

nesting/roosting and foraging habitat. The white paper found that the relationship of N/R to F is important 

in predicting NSO presence. 

The evidence presented in the white paper strongly supports the use of 0.5 mi core analysis area for the 

Six Rivers. The Bingham and Noon (1997) study tracked NSO with radio telemetry on the Six Rivers 

(Mad River), as well as the Klamath (Ukonom) and Lassen National Forests. The results indicated that 

the majority of use occurred within 0.5 mi. Other studies also suggest that 0.5 miles is a biologically 

meaningful scale to conduct a habitat analysis. The model developed by Zabel et al (2003) used NSO 

data from all four Northern California forests, including the Six Rivers. They found that the model best 

predicted NSO presence at the 200 ha or 0.5 mi scale, and that the highest likelihood of presence 

depended on the proportion of N/R to F within 0.5 mi.

Evidence from all the studies combined (including data from the Six Rivers) found that the mean 

proportion of at least 50% of the 0.5 mi should consist of older forests. The white paper states “The 

averages for all combinations of habitat associated with a high probability (>0.70) of occupancy were 48 

percent nesting-roosting and 28 percent foraging habitat.” Applying these percentages rounded up to the 

0.5 mi scale results in the thresholds described in the white paper: 250 acres should be older forests 

(nesting and roosting) and 150 acres should be in intermediate forests (foraging habitat). 

Although the minimum habitat thresholds are the same for both private and federal lands, the white paper 

was written specially for use on private lands in the Klamath interior region. Private companies are only 

responsible for avoiding unauthorized “take” under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The Forest 

Service is not only responsible for avoiding “take” but also for using its authority to conserve the species, 

including recovery of the species under section 7(A)1 of the ESA . Therefore, in recognition of the 

broader ranging Federal responsibilities towards the owl, the L1 Team believed that the following

additional criteria for the entire home range should be added to those found in the white paper as well as 

changes to definitions of to reflect regional differences. 
The threshold for the home range is to maintain 1336 acres of N/R and F within 1.3 miles, 400 acres

within 0.5 mi and 936 between 0.5 and 1.3 miles of the activity center. Because the white paper was 

written for use on private lands, it allowed the 936 acres to consist of foraging-only habitat. While this 

configuration is likely to prevent take under ESA, the L1 Team believed it was not likely to aid in the 

recovery of the species. In an effort to address the Forest’s 7(A)(1) responsibilities, the L1 Team proposes 

that 936 acres consist of a minimum of 300 acres N/R and 636 acres foraging. The 0.5 mile is the core for 

nesting and the outer area, out to 1.3 mile, provides other elements critical to their life histories such as 

foraging. It is also important to recognize the difference between the use of habitat thresholds in the 

determination of take under ESA versus descriptions of desired habitat conditions for conservation of 

NSO.

The proportion of N/R to F in the 936 acres is extremely important. Some recent studies have shown the 

need for higher levels of foraging in the outer ring than nesting (Williams 2008). A ratio or proportion of 

N/R to F is not given; however, Williams found that as N/R increased past a point, the suitability of an 

area decreased. 

Williams (2008) found that for foraging, mature forests (old growth and late mature) with 40–70% 

overstory canopy cover had a high relative probability of selection in patches <25 acres (in other words 

foraging occurs in NR as well as foraging-only stands), however, as patch sizes increased in this type and 

overall area covered by this type increases, use for foraging decreases accordingly. Mature forests with 

>70% canopy cover (high quality nesting habitat; HQN) did not have a high relative probability of 

selection by owls for foraging. Owls using this class foraged more closely to transition areas than random 

points. It has been noted that spotted owls frequently forage in transitional edges (Bent 1938, Zabel et al. 

1995, Sakai and Noon 1997, Ward et al. 1998). A transition area is one forested type to another and not 

'edge.' Clearcut to forest is considered “edge”, whereas a forest type to a different forest type is transition, 

due to age or species composition.

Williams (2008) also noted that spotted owls in his study area selected home ranges that contained a 

higher proportion of old-growth and mature forests relative to its availability in the core area. However, 

when habitat use was analyzed at the foraging scale, these vegetation classes did not have as high a 

probability of selection. Owls may not require these vegetation classes for foraging, but because sites 

selected for foraging are located in close proximity to areas having higher proportions of mature forests 

(nesting/roosting) relative to their availability, mature forests may provide habitat characteristics that 

satisfy requirements other than foraging. Provided nesting habitat requirements are met, owls are able to 

select areas within their home range that provide the best hunting opportunity (i.e., areas with high prey 

abundance and physical characteristics conducive to owl hunting maneuverability). Younger conifer 

forests provide such opportunities. These younger stands are more desirable to the owls if they are 

associated with mature forest areas that offer protection from storms and predation in the terms of 

roosting. Nesting/roosting stands may also be used as the platform from which to hunt the larger patches 

of younger forest. This would support the idea that small patches of mature forest within and adjacent to 

younger stands are selected more for foraging than large patches of mature forest. Williams (2008) 

hypothesized that as an area progresses towards older trees, higher quality owl prey locations are lost. 

Although Williams found that as overall area within a home range covered by mature forest increases use 

for foraging decreases accordingly, Franklin et al (2000) found that an area devoid of mature forests 

typically will not even support foraging for spotted owls There is also some indication that more 

homogenous landscapes of either young or mature stands benefit the expansion of the barred owl with its 

generalist prey characteristics (Livezey 2007) where as a more diverse mosaic benefits the development 

of rodents and therefore the spotted owl. 
As discussed above, research indicates that a proportion of the outer ring needs to be comprised of mature 

forest as well as younger stands. However, there is no information on what the ratio should be. The 

Level 1 Team proposes a ratio of a 1/3 NR to 2/3 F for the 936 acres, or 300 acres NR and 635 acres F as 

a minimum thresholds for calculating ‘take’ in the 936 acres of the outer ring. At a minimum it affords 

greater protection and support to the owls than the current white paper requirement of 936 acres of 

foraging only.

Based on the above information as well the results of an analyses conducted on habitat use by known 

NSO pairs on the Six Rivers, the Level 1 team has agreed that the Forest will use the 0.5 mi analysis area 

with the 250 acre nesting/roosting to 150 acre F ratio. The Forest will use a modified ratio within the 

outer ring of the territory of 300 acres NR and 636 acres F (total 936). 

Although the Six Rivers Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP) requires an analysis at the 0.7 

mile scale, it is only required for formal consultations involving adverse effects to nesting/roosting 

habitat. In those instances, an analysis will be conducted at the 0.7 mi to be consistent with the LRMP as 

well as the more biologically meaningful 0.5 mi scale. No nesting/roosting habitat is being removed for 

this project. The Level 1 Team determined that the Little Jones Creek Project was not likely to cause 

adverse effects and therefore will only require analysis at the 0.5 mile scale.

III. Current Management Direction

See the Six Rivers National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP), which fully 

incorporates the Northwest Forest plan, and the Forest-wide Reference Document (January 2018).

NSO Recovery Plan

On June 28, 2011, the USFWS released the Revised Recovery Plan for the Northern Spotted Owl (Strix 

occidentalis caurina). The purpose of recovery plans is to describe reasonable actions and criteria that 

are considered necessary to recover a listed species. The 2011 Revised Recovery Plan (RP) for the 

Northern Spotted Owl represents the “best available science.” The Forest has taken has taken special steps 

to ensure that the 1st 48 Project is consistent with the recovery actions of the 2011 Revised RP.

The 2011 RP recognizes the importance of maintaining, and restoring, habitat for the recovery and longterm survival of the spotted owl. The 2011 RP relies on Federal lands to provide the major contribution 

for recovery (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2011).

Northern Spotted Owl Revised Critical Habitat 

On December 4, 2012 the Final 2012 Northern Spotted Owl Critical Habitat rule was published (77 Fed 

Reg. 71876-72068). Critical habitat consists of those areas which have “physical or biological features (I) 

essential to the conservation of the species and (II) which may require special management considerations 

or protection.” 16 U.S.C. § 1532(5)(A). In total, approximately 9,577,969 acres (ac) (3,876,064 hectares 

(ha)) in 11 units and 60 subunits in California, Oregon, and Washington fall within the boundaries of the 

Critical Habitat designation Federal agencies are required to consult on any project that may affect newly 

designated Critical Habitat under the ESA. The rule became effective on January 3, 2013. 
IV. Description of the Proposed Action

Introduction

The US Forest Service (USFS or Forest Service) and the Trinity County Collaborative (TCC)1 prepared 

the 1

st 48 Roadside Fuelbreak Collaborative Project Draft Environmental Assessment (1st 48 Project) to 

determine if the Proposed Action on Mad River Ranger District (RD) of the Six Rivers National Forest 

(SRNF or forest), could significantly affect the quality of the human environment warranting an 

environmental impact statement per the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).

The Proposed Action would establish roadside fuelbreak networks (both tree shaded and unshaded where 

open forest conditions occur) over approximately 821 acres within the wildland urban interface (WUI)2.

All proposed treatments would occur at varying widths up to 300 feet along either side of Forest Service 

Roads (FSR) 01S23 (Route23), 02S02, 2S47, 2S48, 2S49, 2S50, 2S51, 2S52, and 2S53) and one 

motorized trail (8E20).

All proposed treatments are designed to reduce and breakup continuous, while maintaining sufficient tree 

shade to curb brush response, benefiting forest health and resiliency. The Proposed Action involves 

thinning of intermingled densely growing ladder and crown fuels, hand cutting, chipping, mastication, 

machine- and hand- piling debris, manually lopping and scattering surface and small ladder fuels, 

prescribed jackpot burning, and underburning in oak woodlands.

Additionally, the proposed treatments would thin entire plantations bordering roadways (which extend 

beyond 150 feet of the road), along with an additional 150-foot flank or buffer around their outer perimeter. 

In addition, oak woodlands within fuelbreak segments featuring high-density conifer encroachment with 

high fuel concentrations would be enhanced and maintained by removing competing conifers, followed by 

application of prescribed underburning to stimulate oak regeneration.

Trinity County Collaborative (TCC)

The 1st 48 Project is designed to aid the protection of dispersed private property, residents and the at-risk 

community of Ruth3, in alignment with the National Cohesive Wildland Fire Management Strategy. The 

 

1 Trinity County Collaborative (TCC): The collaborative is composed of 55 diverse stakeholders including 

landowners, business owners, local and regional conservation groups, timber industry representatives, fire safe 

councils, local non-governmental organizations, federal and county government agencies.

2 Wildland Urban Interface (WUI): The wildland urban interface (WUI) zone is an area where human habitation is 

mixed with areas of flammable wildland vegetation. It extends out from the edge of developed private land into 

federal, private, and state jurisdictions. The WUI boundaries generally extend approximately 11⁄4 miles out from the 

defense zone boundary; however, actual extents of threat zones are based on fire history, local fuel conditions, 

weather, topography, and natural barriers to fire.

3 The community of Ruth, population 195 (US Census 2010) is located in southern Trinity County. The State of 

California in 2001 in accordance with the 2001 Federal Register (FR 66:3) designation of “communities at risk” 

adjacent to federal lands that are at high-risk from wildfire, identified Ruth as a community at risk. In 2010, the 
Cohesive Strategy seeks to ensure that the values and concerns of the public and all governments are 

accurately understood and reflected. This demands a more comprehensive understanding of the diverse 

perspectives that underlie this situation—encompassing both the social/human and science dimensions.

The TCC’s vision is to build on the success of earlier initiatives to bridge organizations and gain traction 

to address environmental, economic and social concerns identified during the development of the 

Weaverville Community Forest Strategic Plan (2010). With seventy-six percent of land-base in Trinity 

County under the jurisdiction of federal agencies (USFS and BLM), the Trinity County Collaborative 

(TCC) was formed in response to controversy over the management of national forest lands, wildfire risks 

and impacts, water use and rights and the decline of the natural resource-based economies.

In 2013, the TCC brought forward a “proof of concept” proposal seeking collaboration with forest 

leadership, to take action now and establish a network of linear, roadside shaded fuelbreaks on national 

forest lands to facilitate safe evacuation, firefighter access and landscape fire management. An integral 

component of the proposal is to learn by doing, so incremental adaptive adjustments can be incorporated 

into future projects, accelerating planning and on-the-ground work attainments.

Project Location

The project area (Figure 1) is located in Trinity County, California on the Mad River Ranger District of 

the SRNF lies within T2S, R8E, Sections 6, 7, 8, 18, 19, 20, 21, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33; and T2S, R7E, 

Sections 11, 12 and 13, Humboldt Baseline and Meridian. The Proposed Action is near the community of 

Ruth, ranging in elevation from 2,700 feet to 5,800 feet at the top of South Fork Mountain.

 

Trinity County Community Wildfire Protection Plan was updated. Federal, state and local organizations convened 

information to refine the spatial designation of the WUI.
The Proposed Action represents an opportunity for the Forest Service and members of the Trinity County 

Collaborative (TCC) to co-develop the 1

st 48 Project to establish and maintain shaded roadside fuelbreaks 

along Forest Service roads (FSRs) classified as Maintenance Level (ML) 2 and 3, open to the public and 

visitors that also provide access for firefighters during a wildfire.

The Proposed Action would alter live and dead surface, ladder and crown fuels on approximately 821 

acres on national forest land over the next 15 years. Implementation would be phased beginning with 

application of mechanical treatments (thin from below and mastication), following by manual (hand) 

cutting and piling, pruning, and/or lopping and scattering woody debris, periodic prescribed jackpot 

burning and underburning in oak woodlands between three (3) to five (5) years apart. Fuelbreak 

maintenance using primarily mastication would occur as needed to cut vegetative re-sprouting, 

accumulated forest litter, and natural regeneration (tree seedlings).

Figure 1. Project area vicinity map.
The Proposed Action would establish roadside fuelbreak networks (both tree shaded and unshaded where 

open forest conditions occur) over approximately 821 acres within the wildland-urban interface (WUI)4. 

All proposed treatments would occur at varying widths, from a minimum of 25 feet on one side up to 275 

on the other, not exceeding a total 300 foot width. Fuelbreaks would be established along either side of 

Forest Service Roads (FSR) 01S23 (Route 23), 02S02, 2S47, 2S48, 2S49, 2S50, 2S51, 2S52 and 2S53) 

and one motorized trail (8E20). All proposed treatments would reduce hazardous surface and ladder fuels 

and breakup intermingled tree crown fuels, while maintaining sufficient tree shade to curb brush response.

The Proposed Action would thin suppressed, intermediate and co-dominate trees using cable- and groundbased mechanical methods (tractor). Hazardous fuels (trees up to 8-inch diameter at breast height (dbh)) 

would be hand-cut with chainsaws, chipped, pruned and brush masticated, followed by machine (dozer or 

small excavator equipped with a brush rake) and hand-piling debris, manually lopping and scattering 

surface and small ladder fuels, prescribed jackpot burning and underburning in oak woodlands to 

stimulate oak regeneration.

In addition, the Proposed Action would thin trees growing in plantations and oak woodlands bordering 

roadways, which extend beyond 275 feet on one side. Hazardous fuels reduction (HFR) treatments would 

occur for an additional 150-foot flank or buffer around their outer perimeter, intersecting with the road. 

In the areas burned by high-intensity wildfire in 2011, proposed treatments target hazardous fuels 

reduction to decrease post-fire, jackstraw snags and dead woody material.

The proposed treatments considered in this project were developed in accordance with the TCC’s “proof 

of concept” criteria as follows:

Thin existing stands to retain the best, healthiest trees that have a high canopy capacity (those with 

the strongest crown to bole ratio, have the highest needle or leaf cover and provide the most shade 

to the forest floor), capable of maintaining those objectives for a long time.

Designate for removal suppressed, intermediate, and codominant conifer trees that compete with the 

best, healthiest trees that have a high canopy capacity, retaining trees per acre (TPA) objective by 

stand type.

Reduce fuel loading to consistent with the Six Rivers National Forest (SRNF) Land and Resource 

Management Plan (LRMP or forest plan), including brush and down logs, maintaining largest 

downed wood to meet soil and terrestrial wildlife standards and guidelines (S&Gs) incorporated 

into the project design features (PDFs).

Outside the dripline of larger trees designated for retention, provide for crown separation to prevent 

torching, while retaining vigorous clumps of healthy intermediate mixed conifer trees to provide 

for more complex stand diversity and a source of future mature trees.

Retain hardwood trees. Thin hardwood clumps to one to three dominant stems where appropriate.

Trees that provide valuable wildlife structures would be considered as part of the shade retention 

objective.

 

4 Wildland Urban Interface (WUI): The wildland-urban interface (WUI) zone is an area where human habitation is 

mixed with areas of flammable wildland vegetation. It extends out from the edge of developed private land into 

federal, private, and state jurisdictions. The WUI boundaries generally extend approximately 11⁄4 miles out from the 

defense zone boundary; however, actual extents of threat zones are based on fire history, local fuel conditions, 

weather, topography, and natural barriers to fire.
No new temporary road construction is permitted. Reuse of existing skid trails, temporary roads and 

Forest Service roads classified ML 1, closed roads opened temporarily to expedite operations, 

would be prioritized.

Directional tree felling and cable end lining would occur in areas requiring limited skidding.

Where fuel reduction prescriptions result in utilizable material, products such as sawlogs, post and 

poles, commercial and personal firewood would be offered.

Roadside decking and reuse of existing landings and turnouts would occur. New landings on roads 

would be considered on a limited basis, but would not be located in riparian reserves.

Retain all snags greater than 20-inch dbh, unless the snag would jeopardize the effectiveness of the 

fuelbreak or could be considered a hazard tree. Hazard trees that meet the Region 5 Hazard Tree 

Guidelines (April 2012 Report # RO-12-01) would be felled and removed or, if unmerchantable, 

would be left on-site for coarse down wood retention. Snags not considered a hazard that are 

located greater than 100 feet from a road may be left standing to be utilized by wildlife, or felled 

and left onsite limbed with bole unbucked.

Developing, Establishing and Maintaining Fuelbreaks

The proposed treatments apply to a diverse range of fuel conditions associated with variable fuel profiles, 

vegetative types, tree densities and age, and crown classes. The following presents the proposed treatment 

methods under two overarching categories—shaded fuelbreaks and unshaded fuelbreaks.

Shaded Fuelbreaks (SFB)

A shaded fuelbreak is a wide-strip or block strategically located where fuel concentrations and forest 

vegetative flammability has been reduced and some forest canopy is retained to affect fire behavior, so 

that fires burning into them can be more readily controlled. In addition to reducing ground and understory 

ladder fuels, and increasing crown spacing, a shaded fuelbreak should maintain effective shade to subdue 

understory re-growth. It is recognized tree species is relevant to the trees potential to provide shade, as 

conifers maintain live tree crown year-round, whereas hardwoods lose their leaves seasonally. Slope 

steepness can affect the width of the area that provides effective shade. As slope steepness decreases, the 

width of the area providing effective shade will be narrower; as slope steepness increase, the width of the 

area producing effective shade will increase. The sun’s position throughout the day and the topographic 

characteristics influence the angle and timing of maximum shade, as depicted in Figure 2.

Shaded fuelbreaks would be established where existing live-tree overstory canopy closure of roadside 

forest stands is greater than 60 percent. These forested stands are predominately Douglas-fir dominated, 

inter-mixed with incense cedar, ponderosa and sugar pine and hardwoods. These conditions are termed 

“natural stands”, although most have experienced some level of land management such as individual tree 

selection and sanitation. Treatments within shaded fuelbreaks would be implemented as follows:

Initial Entry: Thin from below (TFB), treating crown fuels and larger ladder fuels.
Secondary Entry: Hazardous fuels reduction (HFR) treating smaller ladder fuels and surface fuels 

using mechanical, manual and prescribed jackpot burning (see HFR section below for the 

treatment description).

Maintenance: Hazardous fuels reduction accomplished primarily using mastication, unless slope or 

resource protection prohibits mechanical ground-disturbance, whereby manual treatments and 

jackpot burning would occur.

Thin from Below (TFB)

Thin from Below (TFB) is the removal of trees when forest conditions are overly dense, with high crown 

density and ladder fuels. The TFB treatments are designed to retain sufficient tree canopy to provide shade 

to suppress brush response, while separating intertwined crowns that would likely carry flames from treetop to tree-top. The remaining fuels material post TFB operations would be treated during a second entry, 

as described under the HFR section below.

Crown Class

Crown class is a method to identify leave trees in the field by its tree height relative to other trees around it (

Table 2; Helms 1998). For the purposes of this EA, crown class is correlated the trees’ potential to provide 

shade, tree health and growth rate. Thin from below treatment prescriptions would leave the largest trees 

with the fullest crowns (refer to the discussion about live crown ratio below) at or above the average canopy 

height. The trees selected for retention would have sufficient vigor to respond to thinning release to sustain 

healthy live crowns and shade for the long-term. In order to achieve the desired tree density, thinning would 

begin with the smallest diameter trees and move up in size class until the desired canopy base height, 

spacing between trees, and spacing between live tree crowns are achieved. The live crown is the top part of 

a tree, the part that has green leaves (as opposed to the bare trunk, bare branches, and dead leaves).

Figure 2. Shade created by a healthy tree crown.
Table 2. Crown class definitions.

Crown Class Definition

Pre-dominant A tree whose crown has grown above the general level of the upper canopy.

Dominant

A tree whose crown extends above the general level of the main canopy in even-aged stands, or in unevenage stands, above the crowns of the tree’s immediate neighbors and receiving full light from above and 

partial light from the sides.

Co-dominant

A tree whose crown helps form the general level of the main canopy in even-aged stands, or in uneven-age 

stands, the main canopy of the tree’s immediate neighbors, receiving full light from above and comparatively 

little from the sides.

Intermediate

A tree whose crown extends into the lower portion of the main canopy of even-aged stands, or in unevenaged stands, into the lower portion of the canopy formed by the tree’s immediate neighbors, but shorter in 

height than the co-dominants; receiving little direct light from above and none from the sides.

Suppressed 

(overtopped) A tree whose crown is completely overtopped by the crowns of one or more neighboring trees.

Live Crown Ratio

Live crown ratio (LCR) provides a measure of tree vigor and crown shading potential. The LCR is a 

measure used to determine tree health and the level of competition with neighboring trees, in terms of 

ratio of crown length relative to total tree height, or the percentage of a tree’s total height that has foliage 

as illustrated in Figure 3.

Tree-level productivity can be assessed using crown size and aboveground vigor, but light availability 

ultimately controls growth. Thin from below involves the selective cutting, disposal or removal of some 

trees within a stand, in order to reduce over-topping and provide space between tree crowns to promote 

tree bole and crown growth. Lowering tree densities reduces competition of underground root systems for 

Figure 3. Live Crown Ratio: the ratio of live crown to total tree 

height; expressed as a percentage.
limited resources (water and soil nutrients) between the remaining trees. The proposed treatments are 

designed to:

Maintain and enhance the existing vegetative diversity, including hardwoods.

Retain pre-dominant and dominant trees that provide the healthiest shade-producing canopy and leaf 

density, while removing suppressed, intermediate, and some codominant trees that interfere with 

the health or canopy of the designated retained trees.

First priority for removal would be the smaller suppressed and intermediate crown classes, as these 

smaller diameter trees have the poorest crown and tend to grow below the forest canopy. They are at the 

highest risk for tree mortality, due to competition for limited light, water and nutrients.

Some codominant trees would be felled to meet desired stand conditions. The following conditions for 

removal of codominant conifers include where:

Codominant conifers do not have growing space in the canopy for further crown development, or 

removal of codominant trees are needed to reduce stand density to desired levels.

Removal of codominant conifers adjacent to dominant and predominant conifers and hardwoods, or 

pockets of smaller diameter hardwoods, would facilitate the survival of these trees.

Thin from Below (TFB) – Treatment Descriptions by Vegetative Stratum

The TFB treatment prescriptions are in context of variable tree canopy spacing and retention of trees per 

acre, as presented in Table 3.

Table 3. Treatment crown spacing and trees per acre by seral type.

Seral Stage5 Age Dominant Tree Species Trees per Acre Proposed Treatment Spacing 

between Trees Crowns (ft.)

P 35-45 DF 120-180 5-10

EM 70-100 DF-BO 55-80 5-15

EM/MM 70-120 DF-PP-BO 45-60 5-15

MM 100-120 DF-BO 45-55 5-10

EM 60-100 WF 90-105 2-5

As linear roadside treatment units feature multiple stratum and seral stages, tree canopy spacing and number 

of trees per acre would vary in response to stratum types discussed below and micro-site conditions.

White Fir Dominated – Thin from Below

White fir dominates the higher elevations, generally above 4,600 feet and down to 4,000 feet on northerly 

slope aspects. Douglas-fir is a component of these stands at lower elevations, with the higher elevations 

stands primarily composed of white fir. Ponderosa pine, sugar pine, incense cedar, black oak and white 

oak are minor components, dispersed throughout the strata.

Below 4,000 feet, natural stands are dominated by Douglas-fir, inter-mixed with cedar, pine and 

hardwoods with varying structural complexity and age classes.

The priority consideration for identifying desired shade trees to be retained for the long term are those 

tree with healthy, full, live crown characteristics. Tree crown separation would be variable (hardwood 

canopy would not be taken into account for crown spacing).

 

5 Pole (P), Early Mature (EM), Mid-mature (MM)
Oak Dominated Woodlands – Thin from Below and Prescribed Burning

The early and mid-mature stands dominated by hardwoods and grasses include black oak, white oak and 

big-leaf maple. Through restoration activities, the oak woodlands within 150 feet of the roadside would 

also contribute to the function of the shaded fuelbreaks. Fire exclusion has allowed vegetation such as 

shrubs and Douglas-fir to encroach upon the oak woodlands. Forage value for wildlife species has 

declined, choked out by competing, decadent brush. Regeneration of oak has waned, as thick dead and 

matted grass is preventing seedling germination, establishment and survival.

The following criteria define healthy black oaks to be retained:

Greater than 6-inch dbh (in the case of groups of trees or in stands with very little hardwood 

component).

Relatively straight (lean is less than 20 degrees from base to top of crown).

Live crown ratio of at least 20 percent

Basal portion of bole of trunk mostly sound with less than 50 percent noticeable rot or large cavity 

present.

Thin from below treatments in oak woodlands would:

Remove conifers (suppressed, intermediate and co-dominant trees) competing with hardwoods, that 

would respond favorably to increased sunlight, as depicted in Figure 4.

Retain pre-dominant and dominant conifers.

Figure 4. Competition between suppressed and intermediate trees growing 

underneath and around a healthy predominant black oak with a full, healthy live 

crown, being measured by a forester.
In areas of extensive brush, pre-treatment (hand piling and burning) of shrubs and small diameter trees 

may be necessary prior to underburning to promote low-intensity fire behavior. In some cases, debris 

would be manually raked away from the base of predominant trees to protect surface roots and trees from 

scorching and heating, as well as to buffer a Forest Service Sensitive-listed lichen species to protect 

habitat.

The project would restore the grassy areas through pre-treatment to allow for application of prescribed 

fire aimed at rejuvenating and reinvigorating the grass and other grassland species and to remove 

encroaching vegetation. Low intensity fire would be allowed to creep into brushy areas, killing the brush 

and small diameter trees, maintaining approximately 10 to 20 percent of the small trees in these areas. Not 

all areas of brush would be burned; some would be retained as cover areas for wildlife. Some post 

treatment piling and burning may also occur, in areas where brush is not completely consumed during the 

first entry burning operations. These areas maybe burned more than once in order to achieve the desired 

results. Burning the area more than once would allow the use of low intensity fire, which would maintain 

80 to 90 percent of the overstory trees, while reducing the amount of brush and small trees.

Understory burning would be prescribed in the oak woodland to help maintain the desired species 

composition and retard conifer encroachment in these units. Maintenance burns would be implemented up 

to 15 years.

Unshaded Fuelbreaks

Unshaded fuelbreaks (USFB) occur where current overstory forest canopy cover is less than 60 percent. 

These conditions are associated with forest stands managed using even-age land management practices 

such as clearcutting (existing plantations), shelterwood and seed tree harvesting, and moderate and high 

severity burn areas within the Ruth Fire perimeter, where isolated live tree canopy exists.

The HFR treatments in USFB would implemented as follows.

Initial Entry: Hazardous fuels reduction treating small and mid-size ladder fuels and surface fuels 

using mechanical and manual treatments, and prescribed jackpot burning.

Maintenance: Hazardous fuels reduction accomplished primarily using mastication, unless slope or 

resource protection prohibits mechanical ground-disturbance whereby manual treatments and 

jackpot burned would occur.

Hazardous Fuels Reduction (HFR) Treatment Methods

A combination of the following HFR treatment methods maybe applied, depending on the variability of 

fuel concentrations, distribution and size of hazardous material.

Hand Cutting of Trees and/or Shrubs

This treatment is the manual cutting of dense brush or small trees using chainsaws. This method entails 

the removal or rearrangement of forest understory vegetation and is often used in conjunction with lop 

and scatter.

Where large overstory trees are not present, a mosaic of smaller, vigorous trees and large shrubs such as 

old growth manzanita would be maintained to provide shade.

Removal

This involves removing cut material not removed as sawlogs, poles or firewood, in excess of wildlife 

standards. Ground based equipment, such as a dozer or small excavator (equipped with a brush rake) are 
used on slopes less than 35 percent to remove material to the roadside or nearby landings. On slopes 

greater than 35 percent, a block and tackle cable system is used to achieve one-end suspension.

Tree and Large Shrub Pruning

The objective of this method is to eliminate ladder fuels and raise crown base height by cutting branches 

from residual trees or mature shrubs. Large trees would be pruned above the ground and smaller trees to 

about 50 percent of the live canopy. Large shrubs would be pruned to remove dead limbs and lower 

branches. This is typically accomplished with chain saws or long-handled pole saws.

Lop and Scatter

Lop and scatter is a method of slash reduction where down fuel accumulations and concentrations are 

manually cut and dispersed to a maximum depth of 18 inches (with chainsaws and hand labor). This 

places woody material in proximity to the soil, where decomposition and soil building processes occur.

Mastication

Masticators are typically small tracked vehicles such as a skid steer with a forward mounted drum-like 

attachment with external masticating teeth that are used to cut and shred woody material and live 

vegetation. Excavators may also be employed, utilizing a smaller masticating head (drum or rotary), 

which attaches to the boom. Mastication within treatment units would occur on slopes less than 35 

percent. Cutting brush and small trees within road prism cut and fill slopes greater than 35 percent may be 

accomplished by an excavator masticator (while positioned in the road) in lieu of cutting and chipping. 

Shrubs and trees generally less than 8-inch dbh may be masticated to achieve desired inter-tree (ladder 

fuel) spacing and be applied to treat re-sprouting brush, regrowth and fallen debris to maintain desired 

fuelbreak conditions.

Chipping

Roadside mechanical cutting and shredding of existing surface fuels and slash created from tree felling 

and yarding. Existing ground fuels, thinning and pruning residue, and cut brush would be pulled to the 

road and chipped into small pieces using a chipper. Chipping residue would be distributed back into the 

treatment unit, utilized for biomass, or utilized as a cover to reduce the risk of invasive plant 

establishment at landings.

Machine or Grapple Pile

This method would utilize equipment to pile slash and surface fuels into larger piles.

Handpile

Down fuel accumulations and concentrations are mechanically broken up (with chainsaws and hand 

labor) and manually piled in concentrations of 3 to 6 feet in diameter. Excessive existing forest debris, 

along with woody debris (slash) from tree felling and shrub cutting, would be manually gathered into 

small piles.

Pile Burning

Piles would be covered with Kraft paper to allow woody debris to dry out prior to ignition, promoting 

rapid consumption of debris to minimize smoke production. Piles are usually burned after the area has 

received sufficient rainfall so that fire does not spread pile to pile.

Jackpot Burning

Jackpot burning is the burning of discontinuous, concentrated areas of slash created from vegetation 

treatments or natural fuel concentrations. Burning would typically occur following an extended period of 
dry weather to allow the slash to cure for optimal consumption. Fuel concentrations would be burned just 

prior to or during wet weather conditions to ensure controlled fire.

Underburning – Oak Woodlands

Prescribed underburning involves the controlled application of fire to understory vegetation and coarse 

woody material. This would occur when fuel moisture, soil moisture, and weather and atmospheric 

conditions allow the fire to be confined to a predetermined area and intensity can be managed to achieve 

the desired resource objectives. Where no local features are present to contain prescribed fire (roads, 

trails, streams), hand fire line or a wet control line would be established along the outside edge of 

treatment burn areas.

Hand Fireline Construction

Hand constructed control lines (typically 18 to 20 inches wide), involving scrapping duff and debris to 

expose bare mineral soil, would be used to contain prescribed fire within burn plan specifications.

Hazardous Fuels Reduction Treatment Descriptions by Stand Type

Plantations

Treatments within plantations would be designed to improve tree vigor and fire resiliency of the stand. 

For the purposes of this EA, plantations represent stands managed prior under even-age forestry practices 

(clearcut, shelterwood and seed tree methods). The goal of hazardous fuels reduction treatments are to 

retain the largest trees with the best crowns promoting bole and crown growth and tree vigor. The 

management of tree densities aims to reduce inter-tree competition for limited resources in overstocked, 

reforested stands (plantations), as environmental stressors can make trees prone to disease and insects, 

slowing growth or resulting in tree mortality. As the objective is to develop shaded fuelbreak conditions, 

maintaining sufficient live tree canopy becomes essential to achieve long-term goals.

Where trees of different species are clumped, and any species would achieve desired canopy closure, 

preference for leave trees would be native species (over planted off-site pine). Residual overstory trees 

(dominant shade trees) scattered within plantations would be retained, except in the event it is highly 

infested with mistletoe (over 80 percent) and/or there are visible signs of imminent mortality. These 

overstory trees would be felled and left on-site.

Hazardous fuels reduction would increase inter-spacing to 5- to 20-foot spacing (15-plus-foot tall or more 

desired leave trees), depending on the size of trees growing within plantations. In addition, ladder and 

surface fuels would be treated in the 150-foot-wide buffer around them. One or more of the following 

treatments may be applied:

Hand treatments would be by chainsaw.

Mastication would occur in the ground-based units only (less than 35% average slope) and use low 

ground-pressure mechanical equipment to cut live vegetation.

Material would be masticated to treat surface and ladder fuels above the ground surface. 

Approximately 48 acres may be masticated depending on cost and availability of equipment.

If mastication does not occur, the units would be hand piled and burned. Two of the units, 409 and 615, 

have larger diameter boles with the potential to be removed and utilized commercially as poles.

Remaining trees would have limbs pruned on the bole from the ground, maintaining at least 50 

percent of the crown.
“Jeep” Trail 8E20

Hazardous fuel reduction would occur along the Jeep Trail 8E20, considered a strategic feature during fire 

suppression as a containment fireline. Along the 8E20 trail, overly stocked live early to mid-mature white 

fir stands exist. Dead snags would either be masticated, pushed over with a small dozer and/or machine 

piled and burned (10% of the handpiles would be left for wildlife).

Hazardous fuels reduction treatments would include thinning ladder fuels and may involve cutting of 

understory vegetation, tree pruning, chipping and/or mastication of surface and small ladder fuels, 

lopping and scattering of fuel, hand or grapple piling of fuel, and jackpot and, or pile burning.

In areas dominated by brush and grass, live trees would be maintained to provide shade and their 

limbs pruned to six feet above the ground.

Burned Forests – Mixed and High-Severity Burn Areas

Mixed and high severity burn areas within the 2011 Ruth Fire footprint are composed of mostly dead 

standing trees (snags), scattered and small patches of live trees, and areas of brush. Since sufficient live 

overstory crowns are not present to establish shaded fuelbreaks, the Proposed Action would treat these 

unshaded fuelbreaks as follows:

In high severity burn areas dominated by snags, all green trees would be retained.

In low or moderate severity burn areas, some green trees would be removed.

Standing dead trees may be either masticated, pushed over with a small dozer and/or grapple piled 

and burned (10% of piles would be left for wildlife).

Within riparian reserves, limit snag felling within 160-foot buffer using chainsaws only. Hand pull 

slash concentrations upslope to the outer 80 to 160 feet of riparian buffers.

Handpile and burn slash.

A small meadow enhancement area on the south edge of the burn is primarily composed of off-site pine 

and standing, dead burned fir. All dead conifers would be removed. Live oaks, madrone, and maples 

would be retained.

Maintenance of Fuelbreaks

Once initial treatments have been completed, maintenance would be performed as needed over 15 years. 

The areas may be retreated by utilizing a combination of aforementioned treatments (Table 4). On slope 

less than 35 percent, mastication would be the primary maintenance method. On steeper slopes, lop and 

scatter and/or handpiling and/or jackpot burning would be applied.

Understory burning would be the primary maintenance method applied in the oak woodland stand. This 

method would have mutual benefits to maintain the desired species composition and retard conifer 

encroachment. Site-specific review by a fuels specialist would be conducted prior to understory burning 

to assess fuel loading and necessity for manual pre-treatment to ensure that a low-intensity underburn can 

be achieved.

Table 4: Proposed Action treatment unit summary.
Unit # Acres Treatment Types Forest Byproducts6 N/R,F, OR D 

HABITAT

100 3 Shaded Fuelbreak and Hazardous Fuel Reduction Pole and Firewood MQNR

101 3 Shaded Fuelbreak and Hazardous Fuel Reduction Timber MQNR

102 4 Shaded Fuelbreak and Hazardous Fuel Reduction Timber MQNR

103 2 Shaded Fuelbreak and Hazardous Fuel Reduction Timber MQF

104 7 Shaded Fuelbreak and Hazardous Fuel Reduction Timber MQNR

105 5 Shaded Fuelbreak and Hazardous Fuel Reduction Timber MQNR

106 8 Shaded Fuelbreak and Hazardous Fuel Reduction Timber MQNR

107 1 Shaded Fuelbreak and Hazardous Fuel Reduction Timber MQNR

108 3 Shaded Fuelbreak and Hazardous Fuel Reduction Timber MQNR

109 11 Shaded Fuelbreak and Hazardous Fuel Reduction Timber MQNR

111 5 Shaded Fuelbreak and Hazardous Fuel Reduction Pole and Firewood MQNR

112 2 Shaded Fuelbreak and Hazardous Fuel Reduction Pole and Firewood MQF

201 3 Shaded Fuelbreak and Hazardous Fuel Reduction Timber LQNR

202 1 Shaded Fuelbreak and Hazardous Fuel Reduction Timber MQF

203 2 Shaded Fuelbreak and Hazardous Fuel Reduction Timber LQNR

204 2 Shaded Fuelbreak and Hazardous Fuel Reduction Timber LQNR

205 7 Shaded Fuelbreak and Hazardous Fuel Reduction Pole and Firewood LQF

206 3 Shaded Fuelbreak and Hazardous Fuel Reduction Pole and Firewood LQF

207 10 Shaded Fuelbreak and Hazardous Fuel Reduction Firewood LQNR

301 4 Shaded Fuelbreak and Hazardous Fuel Reduction Timber MQF

302 3 Shaded Fuelbreak and Hazardous Fuel Reduction Timber MQF

303 0.5 Shaded Fuelbreak and Hazardous Fuel Reduction Timber MQF

304 0.5 Shaded Fuelbreak and Hazardous Fuel Reduction Timber MQF

305 1 Shaded Fuelbreak and Hazardous Fuel Reduction Timber MQF

306 13 Shaded Fuelbreak and Hazardous Fuel Reduction Timber MQF

307 1 Shaded Fuelbreak and Hazardous Fuel Reduction Timber MQF

308 3 Hazardous Fuel Reduction Firewood MQF

309 1 Shaded Fuelbreak and Hazardous Fuel Reduction Elk Habitat; Timber and 

Firewood

MQF

310 1 Shaded Fuelbreak and Hazardous Fuel Reduction Firewood MQF

311 2 Shaded Fuelbreak and Hazardous Fuel Reduction Pole and Firewood MQF

312 7 Shaded Fuelbreak and Hazardous Fuel Reduction Pole and Firewood MQF

313 1 Shaded Fuelbreak and Hazardous Fuel Reduction elk habitat MQF

401 19 Shaded Fuelbreak and Hazardous Fuel Reduction Timber MQF

402 15 Shaded Fuelbreak and Hazardous Fuel Reduction Timber MQF

403 7 Shaded Fuelbreak and Hazardous Fuel Reduction Timber LQNR

404 4 Oak Woodland Maintenance – Hazardous Fuel Reduction Elk Habitat; Timber and 

Firewood

NONE

405 12 Shaded Fuelbreak and Hazardous Fuel Reduction Pole and Firewood LQNR

406 4 Shaded Fuelbreak and Hazardous Fuel Reduction Pole and Firewood MQF

407 16 Shaded Fuelbreak and Hazardous Fuel Reduction Timber MQF

408 6 Shaded Fuelbreak and Hazardous Fuel Reduction Pole and Firewood MQF

409 15 Plantations – Hazardous Fuel Reduction Pole and Firewood D

410 9 Shaded Fuelbreak and Hazardous Fuel Reduction Pole and Firewood LQNR

411 16 Shaded Fuelbreak and Hazardous Fuel Reduction Timber LQNR

 

6 Timber – potential commercial sale of sawlogs; Poles – potential for commercial forest products sale. Firewood –

potential for commercial firewood sale or where roadside or on landings, potential for personal firewood cutting.
Unit # Acres Treatment Types Forest Byproducts6 N/R,F, OR D 

HABITAT

412 24 Shaded Fuelbreak and Hazardous Fuel Reduction Pole and Firewood MQNR

413 30 Hazardous Fuel Reduction Timber MQF

414 20 Hazardous Fuel Reduction Firewood LQF

415 3 Hazardous Fuel Reduction Pole and Firewood LQF

416 3 Oak Woodland Maintenance – Hazardous Fuel Reduction Elk Habitat; Timber and 

Firewood

NONE

419 17 Hazardous Fuel Reduction Pole and Firewood LQNR

420 26 Shaded Fuelbreak and Hazardous Fuel Reduction Firewood LQNR

421 2 Shaded Fuelbreak and Hazardous Fuel Reduction Pole and Firewood MQNR

422 2 Shaded Fuelbreak and Hazardous Fuel Reduction Pole and Firewood MQNR

423 6 Shaded Fuelbreak and Hazardous Fuel Reduction Pole and Firewood MQNR

424 4 Shaded Fuelbreak and Hazardous Fuel Reduction Pole and Firewood MQNR

501 6 Shaded Fuelbreak and Hazardous Fuel Reduction Timber LQNR

502 5 Shaded Fuelbreak and Hazardous Fuel Reduction Timber LQNR

503 3 Shaded Fuelbreak and Hazardous Fuel Reduction Timber LQF

504 4 Shaded Fuelbreak and Hazardous Fuel Reduction Timber LQF

505 1 Shaded Fuelbreak and Hazardous Fuel Reduction Timber LQF

506 14 Hazardous Fuel Reduction Firewood LQF

507 31 Hazardous Fuel Reduction Firewood MQF

508 12 Plantations – Hazardous Fuel Reduction Pole and Firewood D

509 13 Shaded Fuelbreak and Hazardous Fuel Reduction Pole and Firewood LQNR

510 8 Plantations – Hazardous Fuel Reduction Pole and Firewood D

511 2 Hazardous Fuel Reduction Firewood MQNR

601 6 Hazardous Fuel Reduction Firewood MQNR

602 4 Hazardous Fuel Reduction Firewood LQNR

603 7 Hazardous Fuel Reduction Firewood LQF

604 12 Hazardous Fuel Reduction Firewood LQF

605 41 Shaded Fuelbreak and Hazardous Fuel Reduction Timber, Pole and Firewood LQNR

606 20 Plantations – Hazardous Fuel Reduction Pole and Firewood D

607 11 Plantations – Hazardous Fuel Reduction Pole and Firewood D

608 32 Plantations – Hazardous Fuel Reduction Pole and Firewood D

609 7 Hazardous Fuel Reduction Firewood LQNR

610 5 Oak Woodland Maintenance – Hazardous Fuel Reduction Elk Habitat; Timber and 

Firewood

NONE

611 8 Shaded Fuelbreak and Hazardous Fuel Reduction Pole and Firewood LQF

612 2 Plantations - Hazardous Fuel Reduction Pole and Firewood D

613 25 Oak Woodland Maintenance – Hazardous Fuel Reduction Elk Habitat; Timber and 

Firewood

NONE

614 2 Shaded Fuelbreak and Hazardous Fuel Reduction Pole and Firewood LQF

615 8 Plantations Hazardous Fuel Reduction Pole and Firewood D

616 8 Shaded Fuelbreak and Hazardous Fuel Reduction Pole and Firewood LQNR

617 7 Shaded Fuelbreak and Hazardous Fuel Reduction Pole and Firewood LQNR

801 15 Shaded Fuelbreak and Hazardous Fuel Reduction Timber LQF

802 37 Shaded Fuelbreak and Hazardous Fuel Reduction Timber LQF

803 10 Shaded Fuelbreak and Hazardous Fuel Reduction Timber LQF

804 7 Shaded Fuelbreak and Hazardous Fuel Reduction Timber LQF

805 23 Shaded Fuelbreak and Hazardous Fuel Reduction Timber LQF

806 27 Shaded Fuelbreak and Hazardous Fuel Reduction Timber LQF
Unit # Acres Treatment Types Forest Byproducts6 N/R,F, OR D 

HABITAT

807 18 Hazardous Fuel Reduction Firewood LQF

Total Acres – 821

The Proposed Action would establish a network of roadside fuelbreaks either side of open FSR roads that 

abut private lands and along Route 23, as displayed in Figure 5.Connected Actions
Figure 5. Proposed Action treatment map.
In addition to the aforementioned Proposed Action treatments, there are additional and inherent connected 

actions associated with off-site removal of fuels. According to Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) 

Regulations, §1508.25, connected actions are closely related actions that automatically trigger (or are 

triggered by) other actions, cannot or would not proceed unless other actions are taken previously or 

simultaneously, and/or are interdependent parts of a larger action and depend on the larger action for their 

justification. The provisions to avoid, rectify or minimize adverse effects of connected actions are 

disclosed in the following project design features (PDFs) and mitigation measures section.

Road Decommissioning

The 1

st 48 Project proposes to decommission FSR 2S54. This ML 2 road is 1.95-miles long, and has four 

low-water crossings and three culverted stream crossings. Two of the culverted crossings have small fills 

(150 and 318 cubic yards). One crossing is larger (800 cubic yards). There is a large landslide near milepost 

(MP) 0.65, encompassing the entire road prism, making it impassable for motor vehicles. This landslide 

would not be treated, nor would any other decommissioning activities take place beyond the slide.

Decommissioned NFTS roads are managed in a maintenance-free condition (i.e., drainage structures are 

removed and natural drainage patterns restored). They are not drivable by motor vehicles and are not part 

of the NFTS. Decommissioning FSR 2S54 would require the following activities:

Waterbar. Water dispersion treatments are designed to stop water from concentrating on the travelway 

surface, reduce the potential for stream diversions (i.e., prevent water from flowing down the road 

or trail), which reduces the potential for off-site sediment delivery to water resources.

Remove culverts and associated fill. This action is aimed at eliminating the need for road 

maintenance, re-establishing pre-road construction drainage patterns, and placing the stream 

crossing road fill in stable locations, away from streams.

Culvert disposal. Culverts, once removed, would be removed from government property and 

disposed.

Erosion control. Newly excavated stream channel banks and fill disposal sites would be mulched to 

reduce surface erosion. Mulch would consist of locally available slash, wood chips, wood straw, 

or certified weed-free rice or barley straw.

Barricade. This includes the placement of an earth mound barrier at the entrance to a road or route. The 

objective is to prevent motorized use and the promotion of passive restoration of the travelway.

Timing. Work would occur after the limiting operation periods (LOPs) for wildlife are lifted and 

before the onset of winter weather.

Invasive Plant Species and Aquatic Organisms. If there is a risk of spread of invasive plants from an 

existing occurrence on or along the road to be decommissioned into unoccupied wildland settings 

(e.g., in settings where the vegetative ground and canopy cover in the adjacent habitat is minimal), 

implement the following mitigations prior to decommissioning as per Best Management Practices: 

Invasive Plant Species and Aquatic Organisms, Six Rivers National Forest (2014), forest roadrelated projects (e.g., maintenance including storm-proofing, and road decommissioning):

Remove entire plant (including roots).

Mechanically or manually remove any invasive plant occurrence (remove entire plant) at the 

intersection of the decommissioned road and forest system road.

Apply ground cover in the form of native mulch/finely masticated material spread to depth of 

6 inches over the area where plants were removed, or
If feasible, de-compact/rip and revegetate area with suitable native planting stock that 

optimizes resistance to invasive plant establishment (e.g., tree stock, earlysuccessional/disturbance tolerant shrubs).

Felled Tree and Slash Removal

The removal of timber byproducts such as sawlogs, posts and poles, or firewood generated from 

implementing TFB treatments would accomplished through:

Whole tree yarding and yarding tops to landings. Sawlog material would generally be removed at the 

time of felling operations; posts/poles and firewood may be removed at the time of felling 

operations, decked for future removal, or disposed of by chipping or burning. If these areas are not 

large enough to accommodate the volume of material, existing landings along haul routes that are 

not associated with proposed harvest units could serve as alternate sites for the excess material.

Any remaining logging/skidding slash concentrations would be treated by one or more methods 

including:

Lopping and scattering slash to a maximum depth of 18 inches.

Hand or grapple piling and burning of piles, including jackpot burning.

Yarding materials to landings or disposal areas for future treatment by chipping, burning or 

firewood gathering.

Landings

The project would require one (1) to two (2) landings/disposal sites per unit. Existing landings, roadside 

turnouts and natural openings would be used to the extent they are safe and feasible. The majority of 

additional ground and cable landings would be located within the roadbed; however, some limited 

expansion may be needed. Landings are up to approximately 0.25 acres in size (0.33 acre for disposal 

sites).

Thirty-three (33) existing landings would be made available to expedite operations, and up to 20 new 

landings would be constructed. Existing and new cable and ground landings would be located either 

within, or adjacent to, treatment units. New landings are generally an expansion of existing areas that 

exhibit some previous ground disturbance located in natural openings within units or roadside turnouts. 

Anchor points above landings/unit would be needed for safety support of cable logging systems. Anchor 

points include 18- to 20-inch trees, sound snags, or heavy equipment parked above the landing. After 

landings have served operations, they shall be ditched and sloped to permit water to drain or spread. 

Unless agreed otherwise, cut and fill banks around landings shall be sloped to remove overhangs and 

otherwise minimize erosion.

Change in Road Maintenance Level

Forest Service Road 2S02B (MP 0.0 to 0.2) is an ML 1 classified road closed to public and administrative 

uses. The maintenance-level classification correlates to how the agency administers the intended use—

type of vehicle and season(s), closed or open for travel—and maintenance frequency and methods, based 

upon road design, surface conditions, intended vehicle speed, season and amount of motor-vehicle use7.

 

7 Maintenance Level (ML): The Forest Service maintains NFS roads and NFS trails to meet user needs, protect 

natural resources and ensure public safety. There are five maintenance level classifications (FSH 7709.56), 
Machinery access and log hauling would require this segment of road be upgraded to an ML 2 road, 

allowing for administrative uses. During operations, regular road maintenance would be applied; 

frequency would depend on road surface type and weather. The road would be downgraded to an ML 1 

classification, placed in a hydrologically maintenance-free condition and barricaded to prevent motorized 

access upon completion of the TFB and HFR treatments.

Road Maintenance

In 2015, the forest supervisor authorized the Six Rivers Road Maintenance Project to implement road 

maintenance across the forest (ML 1 to 5), confined to previously maintained surfaces, ditches, culverts 

and cut-and-fill slopes within the road prism, not intended to substantially improve conditions above 

those originally constructed (i.e., did not change maintenance levels). The Forest Service would 

coordinate with the landowners to protect the waterline infrastructure during operations. The following 

maintenance would be completed as previously authorized to expedite operations:

2S02B: Heavy brushing, blading, ditch cleaning, and removal of five (5) waterbars.

2S02C: Pre-haul blading, moderate brushing, ditch cleaning, and removal of two (2) waterbars.

2S47: Pre-haul blading, light brushing, culvert and ditch cleaning, berm removal and removal of two 

(2) waterbars. There is a low-water crossing at about MP 0.8 that would likely dry up during the 

normal operating season. If the road were needed for commercial log hauling a temporary 

crossing may be required, which involves layering coarse aggregate and removing it post-haul. 

The Forest Service would coordinate with the private land owner prior to operations to ensure 

protection of above ground waterline which supplies water to Ruth Mutual Water Company; 

recently moved in coordination with the permittee to just the outside of the road berm, roughly a 

foot or two from the edge of the road.

2S02: The Forest Service would coordinate with the landowner to protect the waterline strung across 

Littlefield Creek near the low water crossing.

2S48C: Pre-haul blading, light brushing, culvert and ditch cleaning.

2S49: Pre-haul blading, light brushing, and ditch cleaning.

2S50: Pre-haul blading, light brushing, culvert and ditch cleaning.

2S51: Pre-haul blading, light brushing, waterbars, culvert and ditch cleaning.

2S52: Pre-haul blading, light brushing, culvert and ditch cleaning. The forest would coordinate with the 

landowner to protect the waterline that crossed under FSR 2S52 through a Forest Service culvert.

2S53: Heavy blading, ditch cleaning, removal of two (2) waterbars, and moderate brushing. There is a 

low-water crossing at MP 0.4 on Littlefield Creek, the same stream as the crossing on 2S02 

downstream. If water is not present during operations, commercial log hauling may proceed. If 

water is present, a temporary low water crossing would be required:

Temporary vented ford. Install three (3) parallel 36-inch culverts, 30-feet long and build the 

road prism above them. A geotextile would be laid as the foundation of the structure and 

the road prism built on top of it.

 

responsive to road or trail management objectives, design standards, quantity and types of traffic, and availability of 

funds.
Existing Temporary Roads

The proposed action includes using up to thirteen existing temporary road spurs, totaling 1.06 miles. 

These existing temporary roads would be barricaded post operations, once the thin from below and 

hazardous fuels reduction treatment operations are complete to prevent motorized vehicle access. The 

closure activities would involve actions needed to achieve hydrologically maintenance-free conditions.

Haul Routes, and Temporary Trail and Road Closures

Operations occurring on or along forest roads and the existing SRNF system trail 8E20 would require 

temporary closures for public safety during logging operations (tree felling and hauling). There are inherent 

dangers associated with logging with heavy equipment working on and adjacent to the roads, log truck 

traffic, branches, and other debris falling from the canopy. These forest roads are single-lane roads with 

minimal turnouts and it would be difficult to provide for public safety during logging operations. These 

hazards to the public and logging operators would be mitigated through the implementation of temporary 

road and area closures. The following roads and trail (Table ) may be subject to temporary closures.

Table 5. NFTS temporary road and trail closures.

Road / Trail Maintenance Level Operations

2S47, 2S48, 2S49, 2S50, 2S51, 2S52, 2S53, 2S02 2

1S23 3 Tree removal and hauling

8E20 Motorized Trail

Project Design Features and Mitigation Measures

This section discusses PDFs and mitigation measures to avoid, rectify or minimize adverse effects (or 

implement positive impacts) during implementation of the Proposed Action. These measures would be 

applied during implementation. Upon a final decision, as documented in a Decision Notice, selected 

measures would become a requirement.

The Forest Service is required by CEQ regulations to implementing the procedural provisions of NEPA to 

identify all relevant, reasonable mitigation measures that could improve the project. Mitigation, as defined 

in the CEQ regulations (40 CFR 1508.20) includes:

Avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an action.

Minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its implementation.

Rectifying or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and maintenance operations during the 

life of the action.

Compensating for the impact by replacing or providing substitute resources or environments.

Rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating or restoring the affected environment.

In order to meet S&Gs, minimize impacts to resources and implement project objectives design features 

and mitigation measures were generated by the SRNF interdisciplinary team (IDT) and TCC:

Air Quality

 Dust abatement with water would be required during hauling operations (see Water Drafting PDFs).

 Burning would only be conducted on days approved by the North Coast Unified Air Quality 

Management District (NCUAQMD).
 To reduce negative effects to local air quality, handpiled material would be covered with Kraft paper to 

maintain dry conditions so that when burning does occur the material will be consumed and not smolder.

Aquatic Resources

 The forest would follow the guidance of the wet weather operation standards. The wet weather/winter 

season normally begins October 16 and ends around May 14, but wet weather conditions can happen 

anytime of the year. The Forest Service would monitor ground conditions and make a determination 

when wet weather conditions apply.

 Handlines would be constructed prior to burning operations. After operations are complete and before 

the wet weather season, waterbars would be constructed and the handline footprint would be covered 

(at least 50%) with mulch or duff.

 Riparian Reserves. According to the Northwest Forest Plan (NWFP) S&Gs, the Aquatic Conservation 

Strategy (ACS) was developed to improve and maintain the ecological health of watersheds and 

aquatic ecosystems contained within them on public lands. The following design and mitigation 

measures would be applied to attain ACS objectives:

All riparian reserves would be buffered on both sides of stream channels. Perennial non-fish bearing, 

intermittent, and ephemeral with scour stream buffers are 160 feet, fish-bearing stream buffers are 

320 feet, unless intersecting with road networks. The “inner” riparian reserve boundary generally 

extends from the stream channel to one-half the width of the total buffer or break-in-slope, with 

the “outer” riparian reserve boundary corresponding to the full width of the riparian reserve. In 

the case of Littlefield Creek, a fish-bearing stream, the “inner” riparian reserve south of the 

stream would extend to the edge of the road, which is less than 160 feet in many areas. This 

buffer is considered adequate to prevent impacts to the stream because the area is so flat.

Canopy closure in the outer riparian reserve buffers would be maintained at 60 percent or greater where 

the shaded fuelbreaks intersect riparian reserves. In unshaded fuelbreaks and oak woodlands, 

existing live trees providing shade would be retained.

No tree removal is permitted within the inner riparian reserve buffers. Exceptions include handcutting (e.g., chainsaws, brush cutters) trees less than 6-inch dbh within 25 feet where riparian 

reserves intersect roads.

Directional felling away from streams is required for all vegetation removal within the riparian 

reserves.

Within the oak woodlands, underburning ignition may occur within riparian reserves only when 

necessary to minimize prescribed fire behavior intensity and/or the potential for burning material 

to roll down into a riparian reserve. No fire lines (scraped to mineral soil) would be constructed 

within riparian reserves; however, a hand-cut brush-only control line would be allowed for 

holding purposes on prescribed fires. Hand piling and pile burning may only occur within a 

riparian reserve if the hand piles are 6 feet or less in diameter, and less than 6 feet in height.

Best Management Practices (BMPs) would be followed for activities associated with the project to 

comply with the Clean Water Act.

 Water Drafting

Draft water only at designated water drafting sites.

Conduct operations at water source developments in such a manner as to avoid, minimize or mitigate 

adverse effects to aquatic species and habitats from water drafting.
Adhere to Water Quality BMP water-drafting specification and guidelines at designated water sources 

including:

Pumping rate would not exceed 350 gallons-per-minute or 10 percent of the flow in 

anadromous reaches. Otherwise pumping rate would not exceed 50 percent of surface flow.

Make no improvements to drafting sites.

Water drafting by more than one truck shall not occur simultaneously.

Coordinate with district or forest fisheries biologists, to the extent practical, so any potential 

effects from water drafting are avoided.

Botany

 Dendriscocaulon intriculatum (Manage Known Sites) – in Unit 802

Dendriscocaulon intricatulum is a lichen that grows on the bole and branches of oak trees. Lichens 

exchange water and gases through their “skin” and thus is influenced by changes in atmospheric 

moisture. In light of these ecological variables associated with lichens, the 1

st 48 Project includes 

design features to reduce potential negative effects of heat and smoke as well as maintain residual 

substrate for Dendriscocaulon intricatulum.

A 0.25-acre buffer (radius approximately 50 feet) was established at the detection in Unit 802. This 

buffer area is considered a no-disturbance buffer. Trees shall not be fallen into the buffered area.

 Cypripedium montanum (Pre-disturbance Surveys and Site Management) – Adjacent to Unit 421

Potential habitat disturbing activities related to Cypripedium montanum known sites pertain to 

mechanical disturbance that removes plants, disrupts upper soil horizons, triggers a shift in 

associated species composition, and opens the canopy beyond the tolerance threshold of mountain 

lady’s slipper. To reduce the potential for edge effects to known sites, buffers, their size and 

dimension, would be established considering aspect, slope position, and proximity to riparian 

areas in mind.

A 0.5-acre buffer would be established around the occurrence in the riparian zone adjacent to Unit 

421, in order to account not only for protection of the plants but to account for habitat elements 

associated with Cypripedium montanum, specifically overstory shading and existing canopy 

layers, existing moisture conditions, maintenance of coarse woody debris, maintenance of 

existing tree, shrub and forb diversity, and adequate habitat around the existing plants for shortrange dispersal of seeds and rhizome. Trees shall not be fallen into the buffered area.

 Ptilidium californicum (Pre-disturbance Surveys and Site Management) – Within Units 419 and 805

Dead and down woody debris may be hand removed from the buffered area. No understory burning 

or pile burning would occur within 50 feet of the occupied tree to protect plants.

Potential habitat disturbing activities related to Ptilidium californicum pertain to extent of canopy 

opening and vegetation manipulation in the vicinity of the documented occurrence which could 

increase drying effects of solar radiation and wind, removal of mature trees around the occupied 

tree which would remove sites for future dispersal opportunities, and broadcast burning that could 

result in torching the base of the occupied tree.

Two occurrences of Ptilidium californicum were detected, one in Unit 419 and the other in Unit 805, 

both on the base of a 36-inch-diameter white fir in a mid-mature stands.
A no-disturbance buffer of approximately 0.5 acres was established around the occupied trees to 

ensure the retention of the existing vegetation and stand structure, which provides the shade to the 

forest floor surrounding the occupied tree. The buffer incorporated mature trees for future 

dispersal opportunities. Trees shall not be fallen into the buffered area.

 Peltigera gowardii (PEGO, veined water lichen, Sensitive) in Dashield Creek – Unit 421, Outside 

Unit 418

PEGO sites found in units 421 and 418 are afforded protection based on their locations in the creek.

The no-disturbance buffer would be established around sensitive plant sites in Unit 421 and the one 

outside Unit 418 to protect them from damage.

 Ramaria rubrievanescens (Equivalent Effort Surveys and Site Management) – Immediately adjacent 

to Unit 402

Ramaria rubrievanescens, a Category B Survey and Manage fungi effects are linked to potential 

habitat disturbing activities such as removal or severance of mycelial components (which 

comprise the fungal organism) residing in the organic or topsoil layer for mycorrhizal fungi, 

reduction in canopy shade and organic forest floor cover, reduction in the abundance of host trees 

and refuge species to sustain inoculum through periods of successional change in the stand, 

removal or reduction of forest floor organics and coarse woody debris which form the primary 

micro-habitat for saprobic species, and breakdown of soil structure (e.g., compaction) which not 

only affects the mycelia therein but also damages fine root tips to which the mycelia attach 

(Amaranthus et al. 1996).

A no-disturbance buffer would be established.

Soil porosity would be maintained to at least 90 percent of its natural condition over at least 85 

percent of the unit area.

Skid roads and trails would be limited to no more than 15 percent of the harvest area. At the end of 

project activities, a layer of litter and duff would occur over at least 50 percent of the activity area.

Retain at least five logs per acre of existing coarse woody debris (at least 20 inches in diameter and 

10 feet long) on the ground.

All existing large snags (20 inches or greater in diameter) would be retained in units unless they pose 

a safety concern.

Trees shall not be fallen into the buffered area.

Heritage

 Standard Resource Protection design/mitigation measures as defined in the Programmatic Agreement 

among the USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region (Region 5), California State Historic 

Preservation Officer, Nevada State Historic Preservation Officer, and the Advisory Council on Historic 

Preservation Regarding the Processes for Compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act for Management of Historic Properties by the National Forests of the Pacific 

Southwest Region (R5 PA) would be applied to archaeological sites within the APE as follows:

 All known sites would be flagged and heavy equipment would be excluded from working within site 

boundaries.

FS Site 05-10-54-384, located in a hazardous fuel reduction unit, shall be flagged as an equipment 

exclusion zone prior to implementation.
FS Site 05-10-54-385 was located in a hazardous fuel reduction/shaded fuelbreak unit, but was 

excluded from the unit after discussions between district archaeologist, district foresters, and 

District Ranger concluded it would be best for the protection of the resource.

 No landings shall be located within fifty feet of archaeological sites FS Site 05-10-54-384 and FS Site 

05-10-54-385.

 No roadwork shall be done within the boundary of archaeological site FS Site 05-10-54-384.

 No firelines shall be constructed within the boundary of archaeological sites FS Site 05-10-54-384 

and FS Site 05-10-54-385.

 In the event any cultural resources are discovered during implementation, all work in the area shall 

cease and the forest heritage program manager shall be notified immediately. Work shall not continue 

at the location until authorized by the forest heritage program manager.

 Should inadvertent effects to or unanticipated discoveries of human remains be made on Region 5 

lands, the county coroner (California Health and Safety Code 7050.5(b)) shall be notified 

immediately. If the remains are determined to be Native American or if Native American (Indian) 

cultural items pursuant to NAGPRA are uncovered, the provisions of NAGPRA and its regulations at 

43 CFR 10 and ARPA at 43 CFR 7 shall be followed on federal lands (Stipulation 7.9 (a)).

Invasive Species

In keeping with Forest Service policy on Invasive Species Management (USDA/USFS 2011), the 

following project design features are identified to reduce the risk of introduction and spread of Centaurea 

solstitialis (yellow star thistle) from its current risk rating of high to a low risk. Priority areas for 

treatment along 2S50 and 2S48 would be flagged in the field prior to treatment. All mechanical 

equipment used in the project, including equipment related to road maintenance, shall be pressured 

washed prior to operating on the forest (USDA/USFS 2014).

All mechanical equipment used in the project shall be washed after operating if moving from an 

infested to an un-infested area.

Treatment of mechanical units shall follow a progression of work schedule, whereby treatment occurs 

first where invasive plants are limited to non-existent before moving to heavily infested areas 

(e.g., the lower infested stretch of 2S48). If progression of work is not feasible, equipment 

operating in infested road segments shall be cleaned before relocating (USDA/USFS 2014). 

Progression of work applies to road maintenance associated with this project as well (see 

Appendix C).

Avoid yarding/skidding through yellow star-thistle infestations.

Immediately before using existing landings occupied by yellow star thistle, mechanically remove the 

plants to the edge of the landing, away from where equipment would be operating; then pile and 

subsequently burn. Use native material (e.g., wood chips produced on site) to mulch landings 

following their use.

Avoid masticating sections of 2S50 and 2S48 occupied by yellow star thistle.

Where yellow star-thistle infestations are present, surface blade 2S48 in such a way that bladed 

material in not reincorporated into the road travel way but rather is push completely off the travel 

way to prevent it from re-establishment. At landings, use equipment to blade localized invasive 

population to an area where it would not be disturbed.
In the Fall, following surface blading, manually pull or use tools to remove individual plants, 

removing as much of the roots as possible.

Pile treated plants and burn where treated, or if plant numbers are few, incorporate plant material into 

a nearby burn pile.

Include treated areas in the prescribed burn footprint.

If practicable, stockpile wood chips generated on site for application to treated yellow star thistle 

sites.

 Progression of Work. Successful control of yellow star thistle would necessitate periodic monitoring 

and evaluation of treatment efficacy. If present after initial treatment, manually pull or use tools to 

remove individual plants in the late spring of the year (before fruiting/seeding) ensuring removal of the 

roots as much as possible. Pile treated plants and burn where treated or if plant numbers are few, 

incorporate plant material into a nearby burn pile. The following units occur near yellow star-thistle 

infestations and, as such should be treated last in order to reduce the risk of introduction and spread: 

308, 401, 402, 403, 404, 405, 406, 407, 408, 409, 410, 411, 418 and 421. If this progression of work 

cannot be implemented, equipment shall be cleaned operating in any of the units associated with the 

section of road identified above, before operating elsewhere.

Range

The southern half of the project area is an active allotment (Van Horn Allotment, Barry Creek sub-unit), 

which includes the upper half of FSR 2S48 road, including all of the Jeep road, and the portion of 1S23 

south of the Jeep road, all of FSRs 2S47, 2S53 and 2S54, along with the portion of FSR 2S02 in project 

area. Prior to operations, the Forest Service would coordinate with the permittee to ensure cattle are 

protected from harm.

Recreation and Public Safety

 Utilize temporary trail closures during periods of log hauling operations to minimize the potential for 

accidental injury to recreationists during operations. Utilize advanced notice of closures, signing at 

appropriate locations, and notification of various user groups to keep users safe when operations are 

being implemented.

 Identify recreational features (trails, trailheads, signs) on the ground for protection during project 

implementation.

Soils

Minor modifications of PDFs may be allowed with mutual concurrence of the project soil scientist, 

hydrologist, silviculturist, and sale administration staff.

 Heavy equipment operations shall occur when soils are dry enough to avoid deep rutting or puddling; 

operate over a duff and slash “cushion” if possible.

 Limit heavy equipment operations to slopes 35 percent or less.

 Limit temporary roads, landings and skid trails collectively to less than 15 percent of the unit area; 

this is the 15 percent of the area with allowable soil disturbance.
 Maintain 50 to 70 percent soil cover in all units at all times; duff and fine litter less than 3 inches in 

diameter are the most desired soil cover components, but rock and larger wood also technically count 

as cover.

 Re-utilize old temporary roads and landings and equipment trails to the maximum extent possible, 

thus minimizing new ground disturbance and avoiding cumulative effects.

 Avoid soil displacement: do not blade topsoil from skid trails, or landings when possible; full bench 

skid trails shall not be constructed.

 Feller-buncher, masticator, and excavator routes are generally NOT restricted to 15 percent of the 

area; however, these are limited to dry soil conditions as with all heavy equipment, and effort should 

be made to minimize turning-related (skid-steer) soil displacement.

 Fuels piling operations (hand and machine): seek a balance between size, number, and distribution of 

piles to maintain overall soil cover requirements and keep bare areas separated by filter strip areas. 

Do not place burn piles adjacent to streams or wet areas to avoid sediment delivery. Place burn piles 

away from existing large woody material.

 Machine piling operations: equipment shall operate from existing skid trails wherever possible to limit 

trafficked area, except where a dozer is necessary for larger material in the burn scar; minimize soil to 

disturbance in order to leave duff in place and keep piles free of topsoil to the extent practicable.

 Burning operations: include in the burn plan specific means to achieve residual soil cover 

requirements of greater than 50 percent cover on slopes less than 50 percent and greater than 70 

percent on slopes greater than 50 percent; preference is for duff and fine litter cover; monitor fuel/duff 

moisture content prior to ignition so that duff will not be consumed over too much area. Protect 

existing large woody material to the extent feasible.

 Cable and end-lining operations: maintain at least one-end suspension of the butt-end of the tree when 

possible so the top canopy end is dragged on the ground; linear gouging of the soil where it occurs 

shall require hand-waterbars and raking of duff and slash back onto the bare area in a timely manner 

with other erosion control measures.

 Rehabilitate temporary roads and landings upon completion of a unit, consider de-compaction by 

ripping with conventional rock rippers (or “dibbling” using an excavator bucket), followed by recontouring if benched or constructed (created using cut and fill), and mulching with native materials 

and/or seeding using Forest Service-approved seed mix. Exceptions may be applied where the project 

soil scientist determines erosion risk is low.

 Erosion control measures shall be kept concurrent with operations, and shall be in place 1) prior to 

any shutdown for anticipated storm events, 2) prior to weekend shutdown if storm events are 

expected, or 3) prior to seasonal shutdown.

 Sale administration staff should request a site visit by the project soil scientist for units where soil 

disturbance appears severe or excessive (>15% area), for the soil scientist to assess possible 

rehabilitation needs for LRMP compliance.

 Bare soil areas: larger areas (>1/5 acre, not including landings) rendered bare by mechanical 

operations or burning should be monitored for adequate and timely natural revegetation; areas that do 

not revegetate naturally over one (1) winter should be prescribed for mulching and/or seeding with 

Forest Service-approved seed mix to stabilize soils, particularly if signs of erosion are present.
Wildlife

 Shaded fuelbreak construction may occur in suitable threatened, endangered and sensitive species 

habitat. All predominant or dominant trees would be retained. Canopy closure would be maintained at 

60 percent or greater in all treatment areas.

 The project would not remove potential threatened, endangered, and sensitive species nest trees 

(predominant or dominant trees) or affect the canopy around potential nest trees in suitable 

nesting/roosting habitat.

 Treatments in suitable NSO habitat within 0.5 miles of AC 347 will maintain all overstory trees, 

existing snags (20′′ dbh or greater) unless they pose a safety hazard, and downed logs (20′′ dbh or 

greater and 10 feet long). Only understory brush and small diameter trees less than 8-inch dbh maybe 

manually cut. Snags felled for safety reasons would be left on site. These restrictions apply to the 

following units: 413, 414. 415. 416, 419, the eastern half of 420 and the southern half of 806.

 Directional falling away from “leave trees” would be required to protect them from incidental 

breakage during felling operations.

 Snags and logs would be retained as per SRNF LRMP, S&Gs Table IV-8, and Appendix L 

(Treatments within Late Successional Reserves (LSRs)), riparian reserves, units within Critical 

Habitat, and suitable northern spotted owl habitat (regardless of land allocation) would maintain 

snags (20-inch dbh and greater or the largest available in younger seral stages) and downed logs (20 

inches and greater and at least 10 feet long or the largest available) at the 80 to 100 percent level, 

unless they pose a safety hazard or would not meet fuel treatment objectives.

 Surveys for the northern spotted owl (NSO) have been conducted to determine occupancy and nesting 

status. Prohibit all timber harvest, heavy equipment use, chainsaw use, and smoke producing 

activities within 0.25 miles of known NSO activity centers (AC) from February 1 through July 31

(Appendix A). Surveys to protocol would continue for the life of the project or additional seasonal 

restrictions would be imposed on any treatment in or within 0.25 miles of nesting/roosting habitat. A 

September 15 LOP would be used in occupied (breeding pair) or nesting/roosting habitat if no 

surveys are conducted.

 One mapped NSO AC, #237, within this project occurs near FSR 2S48, where a nest tree is located 

approximately 75 feet outside the treatment unit. Although no NSO detections have been recorded 

since 1992, in order to protect the nest tree and maintain the effectiveness of the fuelbreak, hazardous 

fuel reduction treatments would limited to within 50 feet of the road, following the standard fuelbreak 

prescription described above.

 Surveys for goshawk in the project have been conducted, with no detections. If nesting goshawks are 

subsequently found within 0.25 miles of any treatment units, prohibit all timber harvest, heavy 

equipment use, chainsaw use, and smoke producing activities within 0.25 miles of the occupied site 

between March 1 and August 31.

 Surveys for fisher, marten and wolverine have been conducted and fishers have been detected in three 

(3) areas. Although no den sites have been located, prohibit all timber harvest activities including 

heavy equipment use, chainsaw use, and smoke producing activities within 0.25 miles of fisher 

suitable denning habitat around detection areas from February 1 to May 31 (Appendix A).

 In early seral-stage stands lacking downed woody debris (shrub and pole seral stages), small diameter 

slash would be piled and left on site to provide cover for small mammals, birds, reptiles and 

amphibians. The size of the piles would vary depending on the availability of slash; however, the 

preferred size is at least 6 feet in diameter and 4- to 6-feet tall. Small diameter debris decomposes 
quickly, so large piles may have greater longevity. The number of piles per acre would be dependent 

on the location and potential fire risk. In high public-use areas, only one (1) or two (2) piles per acre 

would be left in the stand. In other areas, three (3) to four (4) piles per acre would be left in the stand. 

No piles would be left within 100 feet of roads.

Monitoring

This section discusses the monitoring strategy linked to proposed management activities under the NEPA 

process.

Implementation and Effectiveness Monitoring

Monitoring is important for tracking the implementation of a project; ensuring activities are implemented 

as planned, as well as to measure success in meeting the purpose of required mitigation. Monitoring and 

evaluation are separate, sequential activities that provide information to determine whether programs and 

projects are meeting forest plan direction. Monitoring collects information, on a sample basis, from sources 

specified in the forest plan. Evaluation of monitoring results is used to determine the effectiveness of the 

forest plan and the need either to change the plan through amendment or revision, or to continue with the 

plan. Overall direction is found in FSM 1922.7, FSH 1909.12 (Chapter 6), and 36 CFR 219.12(k).

Project activities would be monitored during and after implementation of management actions to ensure 

that mitigation measures are implemented as specified. Monitoring is also proposed to evaluate the 

effectiveness of planned activities, including standard practices and mitigation measures, in achieving 

desired project outcomes. Lessons learned from monitoring and evaluation would be incorporated into 

future project planning efforts. A full spectrum of techniques and methods may be used including:

Formal joint management and collaborative field reviews;

Site-specific observations by on-site resource specialists;

Field assistance trips by other technical specialists;

On-going accomplishment reporting processes;

Discussions with other agencies and various public users; and/or

Interdisciplinary team reviews of monitoring results.

Best Management Practices

Apply and monitor relevant national best management practices (BMPs), associated with all project 

activities, including timber harvest and road activities and development. The following BMPs from the 

USDA Forest Service National Core BMPs would apply to soil and water-quality protections and 

protection of unstable or potentially unstable areas within or adjacent to units.

Best management practice sites would be identified on the ground and recorded by unit. Best management 

practices would be subject to 100 percent implementation monitoring post-harvest, by means of a 

checklist and maps and cards (standard waiver provision), and to effectiveness monitoring following one 

or more post-harvest winters. Effectiveness monitoring results, and any follow-up corrective measures 

taken, would be reported to the Water Board by July 15 in the year following operations. Effectiveness 

monitoring results would be scored and reported using Best Management Practices Evaluation Program 

(BMPEP) methodology. A complete listing of BMPEPs is included in Appendix C of this EA.
Invasive Plants

Successful control of yellow star thistle would necessitate periodic monitoring and evaluation of 

treatment efficacy. If present after initial treatment, manually pull or use tools to remove individual plants 

in the late spring of the year (before fruiting/seeding) ensuring removal of the roots as much as possible. 

Pile treated plants and burn where treated, or if plant numbers are few, incorporate plant material into a 

nearby burn pile. Monitor annually and retreat as necessary until no plants persist. A complete listing of 

BMPs is included in Appendix C of this EA.

Proposed Action Summary

Table 6 summarizes all treatment proposed for the 1st 48 Roadside Fuelbreak Collaborative Project

Table 6. Proposed Action Summary 

Unshaded Fuelbreak (Hazardous Fuel Reduction) 

# Units 16

Acres 215

Shaded Fuelbreak with Thin From Below

# Units 61

Acres 461

Miles of existing temporary roads used 1.06

Miles of new temporary road constructed 0

# Existing Landings/natural openings 33

# New landings 20

Plantation thinnings

# Units 8

Acres 108

Restoration (Oak woodland )

# Units 4

Acres 37

Total

# Units 89

Acres 821
37

V. Existing Environment 

A. Species Account

Presence or absence of wildlife species in the project area is based on the known range of each species, habitat suitability,

survey information, records in the Six Rivers National Forest Wildlife Sighting Database, the Smith River Ecosystem 

Analysis: Basin and Sub-basin analyses, and Late-Successional Reserve Assessment (USDA 1995c), the Forest’s 

Geographic Information System (GIS) vegetation and wildlife species layers and incidental observations. This represents 

the best available information about the likelihood of species occupying territories/habitat where they could be affected by 

the project. See the Six Rivers National Forest wide Reference Document (USDA Forest Service, Six Rivers National 

Forest, January 2018) for species life history information.

Northern Spotted Owl (Strix occidentalis caurina)

Status: Federally Threatened

Recovery Plan

On June 28, 2011, the USFWS released the Revised Recovery Plan for the Northern Spotted Owl (Strix occidentalis 

caurina). The purpose of recovery plans is to describe reasonable actions and criteria that are considered necessary to 

recover a listed species. The 2011 Revised Recovery Plan (RP) for the Northern Spotted Owl represents the “best 

available science.” The Forest has taken special steps to ensure that the 1st 48 Project is consistent with the recovery 

actions within the 2011 Revised RP.

The 2011 RP recognizes the importance of maintaining, and restoring, habitat for the recovery and long-term survival of 

the spotted owl. The 2011 Recovery Plan relies on Federal lands to provide the major contribution for recovery (USDI 

Fish and Wildlife Service 2011).

The 2011 RP states: 

“This Revised Recovery Plan was developed using the best scientific information available and a “step-down” 

approach of objectives, criteria and actions. Recovery objectives are broad statements that describe the conditions 

under which the Service would consider the spotted owl to be recovered. Recovery criteria serve as objective, 

measurable guidelines to assist in determining when an endangered species has recovered to the point that it may 

be downlisted to threatened, or that the protections afforded by the ESA are no longer necessary and the species 

may be delisted. Recovery actions are the Service’s recommendations to guide the activities needed to 

accomplish the recovery criteria. Recovery actions are recommended throughout the U.S. range of the spotted 

owl and are designed to address the specific threats identified in this Revised Recovery Plan” (emphasis 

added).

The RP states due to “The continued decline of the spotted owl populations and low occupancy rates in large habitat 

reserves, and the growing negative impact from barred owl invasions of spotted owl habitats (Forsman et al. 2011, Dugger 

et al. in press), which is greater than anticipated in the NWFP. We recommend increased conservation and restoration 

of spotted owl sites and high-value spotted owl habitat to help ameliorate this impact” (emphasis added). 

The 1st 48 Project was designed to meet the objectives of the 2011 RP as follows: 

Recovery Action 32 states: 

“Maintaining or restoring forests with high-quality habitat will provide additional support for reducing key threats 

faced by spotted owls” and “Protecting these forests should provide spotted owls high-quality refugia habitat 

from the negative competitive interactions with barred owls that are likely occurring where the two species’ home 

ranges overlap. Maintaining or restoring these forests should allow time to determine both the competitive effects 

of barred owls on spotted owls and the effectiveness of barred owl removal measures”. 
38

Forsman et al 2011 recommended that all potential NSO habitats should be considered, not just old-growth. The Six 

Rivers definition of suitable nesting/roosting (N/R) NSO habitat includes mid-mature (starting at 21” dbh), late-mature 

and old-growth seral stages. All potential habitat was considered during project evaluation, and all high quality habitat (no 

matter what seral stage) was dropped from treatment. Low quality habitats were evaluated for habitat improvements 

measures. If the habitat could benefit from a silvicultural treatment, then it was considered for the project.

The definition of NSO N/R habitat used for this project was based on the definition found in the Six Rivers Land and 

Resource Management Plan (LRMP) and field verified by biologists with extensive experience with the species. The 

LRMP definition was based on the extensive amount of published literature and represents the best available science for 

the Six Rivers habitat types. 

Suitable NSO N/R habitat, as defined by the Forest Service, is comprised of mature timbered stands having multi-layered 

conditions, an average canopy closure of 60 percent or greater (both conifers and hardwoods) and obvious decadence. 

The overstory should be comprised of conifer trees 21 inches or greater diameter at breast height (dbh). Conifer canopy 

closure should be 40 percent or greater. This habitat is used primarily for nesting/roosting. This definition shows its 

accuracy when compared to the actual nest locations on the Six Rivers National Forest where it is the predominant type 

used by nesting spotted owls. High quality N/R (HQN) is defined as multi-layered, old stands (most late mature and old 

growth stands and some mid-mature stands with predominants,) with an average Dbh 40” or larger and an overall canopy 

of 85% or greater. Moderate and low quality habitat stands occur in one or more of the following: 1) younger stands, 2) 

smaller average DBH, 3) lacking secondary canopy layer, and/or 4) or have lower canopy closure. Some late mature 

stands, such as those derived from older plantations, lack the appropriate characteristics to be identified as high quality 

nesting/roosting.

All stands were field verified assessed based on the experience of the wildlife biologist. Those stands labeled as midmature that lack some of the qualities of nesting /roosting, such as tree structures and deformities, were classified as 

foraging habitat. Some mid-mature stands lacked the structural components needed to be suitable nesting/roosting and 

were labeled as foraging habitat. 

All high-quality stands were dropped from treatment on this project. Approximately 96 acres of moderate quality N/R 

habitat and 194 acres of low-quality N/R will receive fuels reduction (removing brush and small diameter trees less than 

8” dbh) and/or thinning treatments within 150 ft. of a high-use road. Treatment of these areas will help protect existing 

high-quality NRF habitat from human-caused fires. This project meets the intent of Recovery Action 32 and the need to 

reduce inter-specific competition between spotted and barred owls. 

Recovery Action 10 requires that agencies: 

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

spotted owl population”. 

“When planning management activities, Federal and non-federal land managers should work with the Service to 

prioritize known and historic spotted owl sites for conservation and/or maintenance of existing levels of habitat.”

Because the Six Rivers strives towards recovery of the spotted owl, all ACs receive the same level of protection and are 

not prioritized with some ACs getting less protection as allowed by the Recovery Plan. This exceeds the requirement of 

the RA 10 of the 2011 RP. In addition, the USFWS requires a 70-acre nest grove protection zone. In this project we 

exceeded 100 acres around each known AC, which was incorporated into the project design. No activities will occur 

within the nest groves.

Recovery Action 6 states 

“In moist forests managed for spotted owl habitat, land managers should implement silvicultural techniques in 

plantations, overstocked stands and modified younger stands to accelerate the development of structural 

complexity and biological diversity that will benefit spotted owl recovery.”
39

The 1st 48 Project is designed to restore and accelerate development of important habitat characteristic for the spotted owl. 

This includes plantations and overstocked stands that, if treated, will increase the available habitats for the spotted owl 

and help reduce inter-specific competition between the barred owl and the spotted owl. Treatment of these stands will 

have an immediate benefit to the spotted owl.

This project has protected all high quality habitat, all spotted owl territories (not just high priority sites, RA10) and is 

designed to restore and accelerate important habitat characteristic for the spotted owl (RA6) in young overstocked stands. 

Such long-term protection of owl habitat is consistent with the recommendations in the 2011 Recovery Plan.

The 2011 Plan states “Dugger et al. (in press) found an inverse relationship between the amount of old forest within the 

core area and spotted owl extinction rates from territories” when barred owls were present. The RP also states due to the

“growing negative impact from barred owl invasions of spotted owl habitats (Forsman et al. 2011, Dugger et al. in press) 

...,We recommend increased conservation and restoration of spotted owl sites and high-value spotted owl habitat to 

help ameliorate this impact” (emphasis added). In other words, without treatment of non- or poor-quality habitats in 

deficit core areas we may lose these sites to barred owls. The Recovery Strategy of 2011 Recovery Plan supports “active 

forest management” and states that “In addition to describing specific actions to address the barred owl threat, this 

Revised Recovery Plan continues to recognize the importance of maintaining and restoring high value habitat for the 

recovery and long-term survival of the spotted owl.”. The 1st 48 treatments within owl territories, including core areas, 

are designed to accelerate the development of old forest characteristics, which will improve habitat conditions within 

spotted owl territories. The project meets the objectives of the 2011 Recovery Plan.

Barred owl

Barred owls are recognized as a significant threat to the recovery of the NSO (USFWS 2011). The RP addresses barred 

owls under RA 32 and RA 10 which are found under the “Barred Owl Recovery Actions”. The barred owl recovery 

actions were developed under the assumption that barred owls now occur at some level in all areas used now or in the past 

by spotted owls. This is true for the 1st 48 area as well. Surveys for this project found three barred owl sites. The 2011 RP 

addresses the threat to the NSO from the barred owl through the preservation of existing high quality habitat (RA 32) and 

preservation of high priority NSO territories (RA 10). The RP also addresses the need to restore additional habitat for the 

owl in order to ameliorate the impact of the barred owl. While additional barred owls may or may not be present in the 

action area, implementation of RA 10 and RA 32 fully meets the best available barred owl mitigation measures by 

protecting, maintaining and restoring spotted owl habitat. 

The 2011 RP was informed by Forsman et al 2011 and Dugger et al (in press at the time but subsequently published in 

2011). The RP states due to “The continued decline of the spotted owl populations and low occupancy rates in large 

habitat reserves, and the growing negative impact from barred owl invasions of spotted owl habitats (Forsman et al. 2011, 

Dugger et al. in press), which is greater than anticipated in the NWFP. We recommend increased conservation and 

restoration of spotted owl sites and high-value spotted owl habitat to help ameliorate this impact”. 

Recovery Action 32 specifically states: “Maintaining or restoring forests with high-quality habitat will provide 

additional support for reducing key threats faced by spotted owls” and “Protecting these forests should provide 

spotted owls high-quality refugia habitat from the negative competitive interactions with barred owls that are likely 

occurring where the two species” home ranges overlap. Maintaining or restoring these forests should allow time to 

determine both the competitive effects of barred owls on spotted owls and the effectiveness of barred owl removal 

measures”. All high-quality stands were dropped from treatment on the 1st 48 Project due to this recovery action and the 

need to reduce inter-specific completion of the owls and restoration activities are proposed for non-habitat or low-quality 

habitat stands.

Recovery Action 10 requires that agencies “Conserve spotted owl sites and high value spotted owl habitat to provide 

additional demographic support to the spotted owl population”. Maintaining all historic ACs is a standard Six Rivers 

National Forest protection measure. The Six Rivers database includes NSO ACs that predates the 1990 listing of the 

NSO. All historic ACs (currently occupied or not) that meet the criteria of an AC (described in the USFWS survey 
40

protocol) are considered during project evaluation. The 1st 48 Project has 8 historic ACs mapped. However, AC 347 was 

moved after the Ruth Fire burned the entire nest grove at high intensity. The AC was shifted to the 2017 detection site 

(single male) and the remaining suitable nesting/roosting habitat within the core area. All high quality habitat, regardless 

if it was located within an active AC, was dropped from consideration during project design. In addition, the USFWS 

requires a nest grove protection zone of a minimum of 70-acres around each known AC, which was exceeded for this 

project and incorporated into the project design. No activities will occur with the nest groves. The 1st 48 Project meets 

Recovery Action 10. 

The 1st 48 Project has protected all high quality habitats (not just old-growth), all spotted owl territories (not just high 

priority sites) and is designed to restore, maintain, and accelerate important habitat characteristic for the spotted owl. 

“Maintaining or restoring these forests should allow time to determine both the competitive effects of barred owls on 

spotted owls and the effectiveness of barred owl removal measures” (II-67 of the 2011 Plan). Protecting these forests 

should provide spotted owls high-quality refugia habitat from the negative interactions with barred owls that are likely 

occurring where the two species’ home ranges overlap. The 1st 48 Project will not exacerbate competitive interactions 

between the two species.

Barred owls occupy a broad range of forest conditions, from younger seral stages and highly fragmented forests in 

managed landscapes to pristine forests in wilderness areas (Hamer 1988, Herter and Hicks 2000, Kelly et al 2003). 

Barred owls use a wider range of forest types than spotted owls (Kelly et al. 2003, Hamer et al. 2007). Consequently, the 

loss of late-successional old-growth forest and fragmentation of these forests has decreased the amount of suitable habitat 

for spotted owls. Without the implementing the additional protection measures and recovery actions of the 2011 RP, the 

barred owl may be successful in out-competing the spotted owl. It is imperative to the spotted owl’s recovery to take such 

actions. The 1

st 48 Project is meeting the objectives of the 2011 RP. 

Fire

Another threat to the NSO addressed by the 2011 Recovery Plan is fire. The 2011 RP identifies stand-replacing wildfire as 

one of the three top threats to the recovery of species stating “currently the primary source of habitat loss is catastrophic 

wildfire ....” The RP further notes that wildfire size and frequency have been increasing in the western US and that acres 

burned are expected to continue to increase due to climate changes and past land management practices. This overall 

increase in acres burned translates to a corresponding increase in the acres of spotted owl habitat lost to fire. While the 

risk of habitat loss to wildfire varies by location, the 2011 RP emphasized that the Klamath region is one of the main areas 

at risk: 

“fire-prone provinces (including) California Klamath scored high on threats from ongoing habitat loss as a result 

of wildfire and the effects of fire exclusion on vegetation change.” 

“In view of the increasing risk posed to northern spotted owl habitat by wildland fire in the dry forests of the 

California Klamath Province, the Recovery Plan calls for management actions that result in forests that are more 

fire resilient and fire-resistant.”

The Six Rivers National Forest area is within the Moist Forest zone of the spotted owl’s range as delineated in the 2011 

Recovery Plan. However, the area’s dry, hot summers and extreme departure from its historic fire return interval mean that 

owl habitat within many areas of the Forest is at risk of being lost to, or significantly degraded by, severe fire. The 1999 

Megram Fire (120,000 acres), 2002 Biscuit Fire (500,000 acres), the 2008 Lightening Complex (45,000), the 2013 Butler 

(14,600 acres), the 2013 Coral fire (12,500 acres), the 2015 lightning fires (100,000 acres forest-wide), the 2017 lightning 

fires (54,387 acres forest-wide) and many other, smaller fires including the 2011 Ruth Fire (1,414 acres), all removed 

suitable NSO habitat on the Six Rivers, and demonstrates that the fire risk on the Forest is genuine. Active management to 

reduce the fire hazard and increase resilience, as well as to accelerate the development of higher quality NSO habitat, 

should contribute to the spotted owl’s persistence and recovery. Such long-term protection of owl habitat is consistent 

with the recommendations in Forsman 2011 as well as the 2011 Recovery Plan and 2012 Revised NSO Critical Habitat 

Rule. 
41

Impacts to Pacific Northwest forests from wildfire appear to be increasing along with fire occurrence, size, and intensity. 

Although some researchers disagree on the magnitude of these changes and what to do about them (e.g., Hanson et al. 

2009, Baker 2012), most researchers believe, as does the USFWS (USDI 2012b), that these changes are happening, and 

that active management should be considered (e.g., Hessburg et al. 2007, Healy et al, 2008, Heyerdahl et al. 2008, 

Kennedy and Wimberly 2009, Latta et al. 2010, Littell et al. 2009, 2010, Spies et al. 2010, Perry et al. 2011, Syphard et al. 

2011, Waring et al. 2011, Jenkins et al. 2012, Mallon et al. 2012, Miller et al, 2009, 2012). Thus, this project takes the 

active management intervention approach rather than a passive approach to restoring NSO habitat. This approach is what 

was envisioned by the Northwest Forest Plan, the 2011 NSO RP, and the 2012 Revised NSO Critical Habitat Rule.

Northern Spotted Owl Habitat 

Nesting/Roosting

The average home range of the northern spotted owl is 3,398 acres in this portion of its range, which equates to a circle 

with a 1.3 mile radius from the center of the territory or “activity center “(AC). Research indicates that the most activity 

within a territory occurs within 0.5 miles of the nest tree. Northern spotted owl territories with at least 400 acres of 

suitable nesting/roosting/foraging habitat within 0.5 miles and 1,336 acres within 1.3 miles of the nest tree are generally 

thought to have a higher chance of occupation.

Suitable NSO N/R habitat, as defined by the Forest Service, is comprised of mature timbered stands having multi-layered 

conditions, an average canopy closure of 60 percent or greater (both conifers and hardwoods) and obvious decadence. 

The overstory should be comprised of conifer trees 21 inches or greater diameter at breast height (dbh). Conifer canopy 

closure should be 40 percent or greater. This habitat is used primarily for nesting/roosting. This definition shows its 

accuracy when compared to the actual nest locations on the Six Rivers National Forest where it is the predominant type 

used by nesting spotted owls.

Nests are usually in snag cavities or broken tops of large trees in mature/old-growth forest. Daytime roost sites in 

northern California are in dense, multi-layered canopy forests, and average 550 feet from water. 

Foraging

NSO forage in forested habitats with hunting perches and a stand structure that allows for flight in the understory and 

access to prey. The 1st 48 planning area includes a variety of habitats that provide the NSO with foraging opportunities. 

In 2009, the Yreka Fish and Wildlife Office in northern California prepared an unpublished white paper titled “Regulatory 

and Scientific Basis for U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Guidance for Evaluation of Take for Northern Spotted Owls on 

Private Timberlands in California’s Northern Interior Region”. In the paper the USFWS stated that “The USFWS has 

conducted a thorough review and synthesis of published literature, unpublished data sets, and direct communication with 

NSO researchers in support of a rigorous process for evaluating the effects of habitat management on NSO.” The paper 

included information on the NSO across California with research specific to the Six Rivers National Forest.

In the white paper the USFWS acknowledged that 

“Habitats used by NSO are highly variable, particularly in the diverse conifer-hardwood forests of the Klamath 

Province”

“Spotted owls also forage within intermediate (younger and/or more open) forest classes. One study (Zabel et al. 

2003) found a positive association between NSO in the Klamath Province and moderate amounts of intermediate 

forest at the core area scale. This habitat class was based on conditions known to be used by foraging NSO.”

“Foraging habitat encompasses nesting and roosting habitat but includes a broader range of structure and might 

not support successful nesting by NSO (Gutiérrez 1996, USFWS 2008). Foraging NSO generally use older, 

denser, and more complex forest than expected based on its availability, but they also use younger forest (Solis 

and Gutiérrez 1990, Carey et al. 1992, Zabel et al. 1993, Carey and Peeler 1995, Anthony and Wagner 1999, Irwin 

et al. 2007b).”
42

“foraging habitat encompasses a broad range of structure, and low-quality foraging habitat includes younger and 

more open habitats that may be important for prey production”

Based on the extensive research review conducted, the USFWS went on to define “infrequently-used”, low-quality 

foraging habitat as having a minimum of 40% canopy cover and 11 inch dbh conifer trees.

In the 2012 Critical Habitat Rule, the USFWS acknowledged that “Compared to other zones, (in the Klamath and 

Northern California Interior Coast Ranges) additional foraging habitat for this zone showed greater divergence from 

nesting habitat, with much lower canopy cover and tree size.” 

In the 2011 Recovery plan for the Northern Spotted Owl, the USFWS stated “Because the characteristics of the stands or 

patches targeted by this recovery action vary widely across the range of the species, the Service believes implementation 

and/or mapping of this recovery action is best left to interagency teams with localized expertise.”

As stated in the white paper (USFWS 2009) “Determination of the amount of suitable habitat that must be retained in 

order to avoid incidental take of NSO is strongly influenced by the range of forest conditions that are classified as suitable 

habitat.” Narrowly defining what constitutes suitable habitat can severely underestimate impacts to the NSO. The Six 

Rivers National Forest/Arcata Fish and Wildlife Service Level 1 Team, and this document, conservatively and broadly 

defines low-quality foraging habitat as having a minimum of 40% canopy cover and 11 inch dbh conifer trees. 

The 1

st 48 Project would treat 96 acres of moderate-quality nesting/roosting habitat, 194 acres low-quality 

nesting/roosting habitat and 221 acres of low-quality foraging habitat and 165 acres moderate-quality foraging habitat. 

The 290 acres of nesting/roosting habitat and 386 acres of foraging habitat would be modified through the creation of a 

shaded fuelbreak and HFR treatments. The remaining acres are considered non-habitat for spotted owls and are primarily 

fuels treatments within hazardous fuels stands within the fire scar of the Ruth Fire.

Prey Species

In this portion of the northern spotted owls range (below about 4100 feet in southern Oregon and northern California), 

dusky-footed wood rats (Neotoma fuscipes), are the most important prey species of spotted owls, both in frequency and 

biomass (Forsman 1975, Barrows 1980, Solis 1983, Forsman et al. 1984, Ward 1990, Carey et al. 1992, Zabel et al. 1995, 

White 1996, Ward et al. 1998 Forsman et al. 2004 and Hansen and Mazurek 2010).

In a study conducted on the Six Rivers National Forest, Sakai and Noon (1993) found the highest abundance of woodrats 

occurred in 15-30 year-old plantations resulting from past clearcut timber harvest. The study used radio telemetry to track 

the movement of woodrats and found that although the woodrats inhabited younger stands, woodrats would often cross 

distinct ecotonal boundaries between forest types. Woodrats tracked during evening telemetry sessions made intermittent, 

short distance movements into adjacent old-growth forests occupied by spotted owls. A substantial number of radio tagged 

woodrats were killed by predators, with carcasses most often found in adjacent old forest. This is presumably due to the 

fact that these younger, dense plantations are difficult if not impossible for the owl to forage in and must wait until the 

prey leave these refugia to be preyed upon.

Ward et al (1998) found that owls foraged along late-seral forest edges where dusky-footed woodrats were more abundant. 

Woodrats living in or dispersing from adjacent shrub lands may be more available for owls hunting along the ecotonal 

edges between habitat types. Edge or transitional habitats appear to be more important to foraging spotted owls when 

woodrats dominate the diet (Zabel et al. 1995, Ward et al. 1998). Edges may provide cover to conceal owls from predators 

while making them inconspicuous to wood rats. 

These results suggest that the infrequent use of younger stands by foraging spotted owls is not due to low abundance of 

prey. Simply increasing prey densities within a stand may not result in an increase in prey available to spotted owls if their 

foraging efficiency is low in these stands (Noon, Rosenberg, Zabel 1994). High tree densities and homogeneous canopies 

in second-growth forests may reduce flight maneuverability and the ability of owls to capture prey (Rosenberg and 

Anthony 1992). However, silvicultural procedures that maintain or enhance woodrat populations adjacent to spotted owl 

habitat may benefit spotted owls (Sakai and Noon 1993, Irwin et al. 2007).
43

Stands occupied by woodrats gradually decline in suitability. Data from Sakai and Noon (1993) suggest that this occurs 

when the dominant trees (usually Douglas-fir) begin to over top and eventually suppress the low-to-mid-canopy level 

vegetation (< 3-6 m). In the inland forests of northwestern California, the decline in habitat quality occurs in regenerated 

stands at about 40-50 years after harvest. To enhance dusky-footed woodrat populations, Sakai and Noon proposed 

retaining brush patches during precommercial thinning and creating brush patches in younger stands. The existence of 

shrub fields or younger stands adjacent to older forest may increase the availability of woodrats to spotted owls that 

exploit prey from a variety of habitats but spend the majority of their time hunting in late seral stage forests (Sakai and 

Noon 1993).

The northern flying squirrel (Glaucomys sabrinus) is a smaller component of the biomass collected by the spotted owl in 

this portion of the province. In northwestern California, flying squirrels constitute only 9.3% of the biomass of NSO diet, 

while dusky-footed woodrats constitute 70.9% of the biomass of NSO diet (Ward et al. 1998). 

Forsman et al. (1984) described potential negative impacts to flying squirrels through the loss of the truffle crop; however 

the conditions described by Forsman occurred in heavily thinned mature and old growth stands. No high quality habitat 

nesting/roosting is being treated under the 1st 48 Project. Thinning might also affect flying squirrels through reduction or 

development of other important resources, such as shrubs, hardwoods, arboreal lichens, or deformed trees and snags 

(Williams et al. 1992, Carey 1995). The 1st 48 Project will protect these important habitat components. Hansen and 

Mazurek (2010) found “mixed” results in relation to the flying squirrel, with some studies showing no effect at all from 

the thinnings compared to unharvested stands. 

Northern Spotted Owl Status within the 1st 48 Project 

There are 8 identified northern spotted owl activity centers located within the 1st 48 planning area. Table 7 summarizes 

the territory status and land allocations associated with each northern spotted owl territory within or adjacent to the 

planning area.

The project area is 32,892 acres in size, with 12,777 acres of NSO nesting/roosting habitat and 8,069 acres of foraging 

habitat. Three of the ACs home ranges (1.3 miles) extend beyond the project area. An action area has been defined that 

addresses the entire home ranges of the three (3) NSO territories that extend beyond the project area. The action area is 

36,267 acres. There are 13,686 acres of NSO nesting/roosting habitat and 8,648 of foraging habitat in the action area.

There are also four (4) additional ACs outside of the project area whose home ranges overlap the project area (ACs 238, 

250, 274, and 388); however, no treatments would occur in the home ranges. These ACs were not addressed any further.

Nesting/roosting habitat was originally determined through use of current geospatial data. Field verification of this data 

was conducted by wildlife biologists. All high quality N/R habitat was dropped from treatment. 

Northern spotted owl protocol surveys were conducted, using the 2012 USFWS protocol, in all suitable habitats for the 1st 

48 Project in 2017, with the second year of surveys scheduled for 2018. In addition, northern spotted owl surveys were 

conducted within the planning area in the early and mid-1990s. There are three 100-acre LSRs located in association with 

ACs 290, 239 and 236; however, the LSR does coincide with the actual nest grove (which is based on the owl’s location) 

for the AC. Therefore, no treatment would occur within these 100-acre LSRs.

Table 7 Northern spotted owl activity centers within the 1st 48 planning area, last year of detection, highest 

reproductive status recorded, and land allocation where ACs are located.

AC 

No.

Territory 

Name

Last 

year 

detected

Land allocation Reproductive 

status

236 South Fork 2011 Matrix/CHU Pair

290 Slide Creek 2011 Matrix/LSR/CHU Pair
44

237 Anada 

Creek 1992 Matrix/LSR/CHU Pair with 2 young

347 Jonathan 

Creek 2017 Matrix/ LSR/CHU Single Male

251 LittleField 

Creek 2008 Matrix/CHU Single Male

252 Ruth 

Airport 2015 Matrix/CHU Single Male

239 Long Glade 2015 Matrix/CHU Single Male

387 Maple Flat 2014 Matrix/CHU Pair

 LSR=Late Successional Reserve; CHU= northern spotted owl Critical Habitat Unit

All northern spotted owl activity centers in the 1st 48 project are within 2012 Critical Habitat.

Barred owls have been detected in the 1st 48 Project area. In 2017, a single barred owl was detected near AC 237 along 

the 2S49 road. Another barred owl was detected along the 2S47 road below AC 347. Barred owls were also detected in 

both AC 251 and AC 239 in 2015 and 2016 surveys. 

Activity Center Survey History and Habitat Condition

The USFWS has determined minimum habitat guidelines, or the minimum amount of nesting/roosting (N/R) and foraging 

(F) habitat, that must be maintained in a territory within a specific distance from the core area of use in order for an NSO 

pair to persist at the site. 

The minimum habitat guidelines are as follow: 

For the 0.5 mile core: Nesting/Roosting (N/R): 250 acres, Foraging (F): 150 acres

For the entire 1.3 mile home range: N/R: 550 acres, foraging 786 acres

The total NRF minimum habitat guidelines for the 1.3 mile home range 1,336 acres. Table 8 displays the current amount 

of NRF habitat within the 1st 48 activity centers.

Table 8. NRF habitat by AC 

AC # AC Name F habitat 

within 0.5 

miles of 

AC

N/R habitat 

within 0.5 

miles of 

AC

F habitat 

within 1.3 

miles of 

AC

N/R habitat 

within 1.3 

miles of 

AC

236 South Fork 117 42 768 426

290 Slide Creek 147 209 850 1307

237 Anada Creek 135 212 1146 1300

347 Jonathan Creek 90 85 668 885

251 Little Field 

Creek

199 168 1127 771

239 Long Glade 69 206 861 720

387 Maple Flat 192 115 1368 749

252 Ruth Airport 217 179 1489 774
45

Although the AC’s listed above are deficit in NR and/or F at 0.5 miles and/or 1.3 miles, two AC’s have been severely 

impacted by fire. Both AC 236 and AC 347 have been greatly impacted by fire, AC 236 by the Journey Fire in 2015 and 

AC 347 by the Ruth Fire in 2011. Both of these owl site are now deficit because of the impacts of those fires. 

Surveys 

For the most part, all surveys have been conducted using the most current, USFWS-approved protocol. However, in 2010 

and 2011 the Six Rivers conducted a forest-wide status review of all known ACs across the Forest. The surveys were 

done using an abbreviated version of the protocol and are therefore not considered “to protocol” although surveys to 

protocol were also occurring in 2010 and 2011 across the Forest for specific projects. Incidental detections are also 

recorded and would also not be considered to protocol. Whether or not the surveys were conducted to protocol in a 

specific year is indicated in Tables 9-16 below. The following tables delineate survey or detection years and whether or 

not the surveys were conducted to protocol. 

Survey History and Results for AC’s:

Table 9. South Fork AC236

Year Surveyed Owl Status How Detected Protocol Survey

1980 Single adult Aural ------

1991 Single adult Aural Yes

2011 Pair Aural No

2017 No Detections ------- Yes

Table 10. Slide Creek AC290

Year Surveyed Owl Status How Detected Protocol Survey

1991 Adult Male Aural Yes

1992 Adult Male Aural Yes

1995 Unknown Adult Aural Yes

1996 Unknown Adult Aural Yes

2000 Pair with Juvenile Visual and Aural Yes

2001 Adult Male Visual Yes

2011 Pair Aural No

2017 No Detections ------- Yes

Table 11. Anada Creek AC237

Year Surveyed Owl Status How Detected Protocol Survey

1990 Single Adult Male Aural Yes

1992 Pair with 2 Young Visual Yes

2011 No Detections ------ No

2017 No Detections ------- Yes
46

Table 12. Jonathan Creek AC347

Year Surveyed Owl Status How Detected Protocol Survey

1992 Adult Male Aural Yes

2011 Adult Male Aural No

2017 Adult Male Aural and Visual Yes

Table 13. LittleField Creek AC # 251 

Year Surveyed Owl Status How Detected Protocol Survey

1974 Unknown Adult Aural No

2008 Adult Male Aural Yes

2011 No Detections ______ No

2012 Unknown Adult Aural Yes

2013 No Detections ------- Yes

2014 No Detections ------- Yes

2015 No Detections ____ Yes

2016 No Detections --------- Yes

2017 No Detections ------- Yes

Table 14. Ruth Airport AC # 252 

Year Surveyed Owl Status How Detected Protocol Survey

1989 Single Male Aural -----------

2008 Single Female Aural Yes

2009 Single Female Aural Yes

2012 Pair SPOW

Single BDOW

Aural

Aural

Yes

2013 Pair Aural and Visual Yes

2014 No Detections ------- Yes

2015 Single Male SPOW

Single BDOW 

detected

Aural

Aural

Yes

2016 No Detections ---------- Yes

Table 15. Long Glade AC # 239

Year Surveyed Owl Status How Detected Protocol Survey

1979 Adult Unknown Aural No

1991 Male Adult Aural Yes

2011 No Detections -------- No

2012 No Detections --------- Yes

2013 No Detections ---------- Yes

2014 Male Adult Visual and Aural Yes

2015 Male Adult Aural Yes

2016 No Detections ---------- Yes

2017 No Detections ------- Yes

Table 16. Maple Flat AC # 387

Year Surveyed Owl Status How Detected Protocol Survey

2008 Pair Aural Yes

2012 Adult Male Aural Yes

2014 Adult Female

Adult Male

Aural and Visual

Aural and Visual

Yes
47

2015 No Detections ---------- Yes

2016 No Detections ----------- Yes

2017 No Detections ------- Yes

Nest Groves

Although no high quality habitat will treated anywhere in the project, nest groves have been delineated for all 8 ACs. All 8 

activity centers have more than the requisite 70 acres protected (Table 17). Nest groves have been identified for the 

highest quality NR habitat around the best detection location (following the USFWS protocol for determining AC status) 

and using vegetation GIS layers in conjunction with aerial photos and field review. In cases where the detection location 

occurred in foraging habitat or patches of NR habitat was separated by patches of foraging habitat, the foraging habitat 

was incorporated into the nest grove but the total acreage for the nest grove was increased to account for including 

foraging habitat (only N/R was included in the nest grove acreage count). No actions will occur in designated nest groves.

Two ACs (236 and 347) have been severely impacted by fires and no longer have 100 acres of N/R habitat in close 

proximity to the AC. In order to protect these ACs, “nest protection areas” were delineated around the best location for 

the ACs (i.e. the nest protection area for AC 347 used the 2017 detection location). The nest protection areas consist of 

N/R and F but also includes non-habitat areas. Some areas of habitat are still shown on the Six Rivers NF geospatial 

habitat-typing maps as suitable; however, field verification found much of the habitat had been burned by high severity 

fire and is no longer be suitable. No actions will occur within the nest protection areas. AC 236 has no activities planned 

within 0.5 mile core and activities within 0.5 miles of AC 347 will be limited to understory fuels reduction (brush and 

small diameter trees only).

AC 252 has a large nest grove due to having two nest sites located within the same AC. The 311 acres is the combined 

total for the two separate nest groves for the two nest sites. 

AC 387 has a delineated nest grove of 158 acres. The nest grove was defined to include the best contiguous habitat. To 

maintain the integrity of the nest grove, 22 acres of NRF (12 acres NR, 10 acres F) were dropped from treatment within 

the Kelsey fuels corridor treatments. These acres are in a fuelbreak (12 acres) and a commercial thinning unit (unit11, 19 

acres). The fuelbreak and commercial thinning unit overlap in one area; therefore, the total dropped acres are less than the 

combined total.

Table 17. Acres of each designated nest grove.

NSO AC Acres

290 106

236 108

237 100

239 116

F251 106

347 143

387 159

252 311

See Appendix B for maps of each AC showing nest groves and proposed treatments. 
48

Northern Spotted Owl Critical Habitat

Critical habitat consists of those areas which have “physical or biological features (I) essential to the conservation of the

species and (II) which may require special management considerations or protection.” 16 U.S.C. § 1532(5)(A). 

Approximately 28,413 acres of the 36, 267 acre action area occurs within the Unit 11, Interior California Coast Subunits 1 

and 2 of the 2012 NSO Critical Habitat. Under the Proposed Action, there are 16 units to be treated for hazardous fuel 

reduction (215 acres), 4 units of oak woodland restoration (37 acres), 8 units of plantation thinning (108 acres) and 61

units (461 acres) of fuelbreak construction that would occur in NSO CHU. A total of 821 acres would be treated in CHU, 

39 acres would be treated in ICCS 1 and 784 acres would be treated in ICCS 2. A total of 784 acres of NSO 

nesting/roosting/foraging/dispersal habitat and 37 acres non-habitat would be treated between the two subunits of CHU

(Table 18). 

Table 18. Treatments in NSO Critical Habitat

Treatment Type Habitat 

Type/PCE

Critical Habitat Subunit

ICCS 1 ICCS 2

SFB

PCE2/NR 228 ACRES (88 MQNR, 140 LQNR)able 6

PCE3/F 39 LQF 196 ACRES (101 MQF, 95 LQF)

PCE4/D 0

HFR 

PCE2/NR 62 ACRES (54 LQNR, 8 MQNR)

PCE3/F 151 ACRES (64 MQF, 87 LQF)

PCE4/D 0

PLANTATIONS

PCE4/D 108 ACRES

OAK 

WOODLANDS

NON 

HABITAT

Total PCEs 

treated 

PCE2-290 acres

PCE3- 386 acres

PCE4- 108 acres

The 2012 CHU Rule states: 

“we encourage land managers to consider implementation of forest management practices recommended in the 

Revised Recovery Plan to restore natural ecological processes where they have been disrupted or suppressed (e.g., 

natural fire regimes), and application of ecological forestry management practices (e.g., Gustafsson et al. 2012, 

entire; Franklin et al. 2007, entire; Kuuluvian and Grenfell et al. 2012 entire) within critical habitat to reduce the 

potential for adverse impacts associated with commercial timber harvest when such harvest is planned within or 

adjacent to critical habitat. In sum, the Service encourages land managers to consider the conservation of existing 

high-quality northern spotted owl habitat, the restoration of forest ecosystem health, and the ecological forestry 

management practices recommended in the Revised Recovery Plan that are compatible with both the goals of 

northern spotted owl recovery and Standards and Guidelines of the NWFP.”
49

This project and the type of habitat proposed for treatment meets the recommendations of and are consistent with the 2012 

CHU (and 2011 RP). 

Forest Service Sensitive Species

Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus)

 

Nesting habitat is composed of low elevation, open (less than 40% canopy cover), mature/old-growth stands near 

permanent lakes and free-flowing rivers. Platform stick nests are built in large trees (greater than 36 inches dbh) with open 

branches, but some foliage usually shades the nest. Nests are located 50-200 feet (16-61 m) above ground, usually below 

tree crowns. Tree height and size appear to be more important than species

There is no suitable bald eagle nesting habitat within the planning area.

Pacific fisher (Martes pennanti pacifica) 

Fisher use habitats similar to the NSO. The 1st 48 Project would treat 96 acres of moderate-quality and 194 acres lowquality denning habitat and 221 acres of low-quality and 165 acres moderate-quality foraging habitat. The 290 acres of 

denning habitat and 386 acres of foraging habitat would be modified through the creation of a shaded fuelbreak and HFR 

treatments.

Surveys for fisher were conducted in the 1st 48 Project area in 2017. Fisher were detected in 3 locations. Although no 

den sites were found, LOPs have been imposed on suitable denning habitat within 0.25 miles of the detection sites.

Humboldt Marten (Martes caurina) 

The current known distribution of the Pacific marten includes the northern districts of the SRNF. Martens are not known 

to occur on the Mad River District.

Northern Goshawk (Accipiter gentilis) 

Goshawks are known to use mature forest habitats for nesting and foraging. Nesting stands are typically in dense pockets 

of large trees, often on north-facing, bench slopes near water. Foraging habitats are often more open to allow for the 

aerial ambush foraging strategy of the goshawk. 

Goshawks occupy similar habitat to that of the NSO. There are approximately 13,686 acres of suitable goshawk habitat in 

the 1

st 48 Project area. Surveys were conducted in the 1st 48 Project area in 2017. No goshawks were detected.

Townsend's big-eared bat (Corynorthinus townsendii)

The Townsend's big-eared bat occurs in a variety of habitats, and is strongly correlated with the availability of caves or 

cave-like roosting habitat. It has been found from sea level to 8700 ft. elevation and occurs in xeric to mesic habitats; 

although throughout much of its range it occurs in mesic habitats characterized by deciduous and coniferous forests. 

Because of this, it is difficult to define measurable habitat variables. The most limiting factor appears to be availability of 

suitable roost sites. 

Little is known on the species abundance and distribution, although potentially suitable roost sites exist within the MRRD. 

This species is known to roost in caves, mine shafts and abandoned buildings. No surveys have been conducted for this 

species; however, incidental sightings have been recorded. There are no known roost sites within the project area. 

Fringed Myotis (Myotis thysanodes)

The fringed myotis is rare across its range but may be quite common locally from sea level to 1,950m (6,400ft). It occurs 

in a wide range of habitats from desert scrub to high elevation coniferous forests (Pierson & Rainey, 1998). It uses open 
50

habitats, early successional stages, streams, lakes and ponds as foraging areas. They roost in snags, caves, mines, crevices 

and man-made structures (Zeiner et al. 1990). 

Maternity and overwintering roosts have been most commonly reported in caves, buildings and mines. However, tree 

roosting has been observed in heavily forested environments in the northern part of the range (Pierson & Rainey, 1998). 

Like other tree-roosting Myotis species, the fringed myotis switches roosts less than every two days on average (Weller & 

Zabel, 2001) and requires a large number of suitable roost sites in an occupied area. Roost choice appears to vary 

throughout the range of the fringed myotis with snags exhibiting greater importance in California, New Mexico and 

Arizona and a heavy reliance on rock crevices in South Dakota, Oregon and Washington (Lacki & Baker, 2007). Weller 

& Zabel (2001) found that fringed myotis prefer large (>30cm dbh) snags in decay class 2 or 3 that are the tallest in the 

stand and have reduced canopy cover (necessary for thermoregulation). This is consistent with the few snags reported by 

Lacki & Baker (2007) who also found that female the fringed myotis in arid climates used rock crevices that were 1-4cm 

wide and located in non-forested areas. It is unclear if the fringed myotis actually prefers rock crevices in these areas or if 

there is a deficient amount of quality snags.

Little is known on the species abundance and distribution, although potentially suitable roost sites exist within the MRRD. 

This species is known to roost in caves, mine shafts and abandoned buildings. There are no detections of this species in 

the project area and no known roost sites within the project area. 

Western Pond Turtle (Clemmys marmorata)

The western pond turtle inhabits fresh or brackish permanent and intermittent water from sea level to about 4500 feet 

(1372 m). Turtles are often concentrated in low gradient and low velocity sections of creeks and rivers, especially in 

sloughs, side channels and backwater areas. They prefer creeks that have deep still water and sunny banks. Hatchlings 

prefer shallow edge water areas with minimal current, including vernal pools. Adults prefer deep-water pools with lots of 

underwater debris, presumably for escape cover. Basking structures are important habitat elements. Potential basking 

sites include protruding or floating woody debris, protruding rocks, emergent vegetation, overhanging vegetation that 

touches the water, and banks. Young turtles also bask on algae or small surface debris.

The pond turtle has been sighted in the Mad River both above and below the Ruth Dam. There have been no surveys 

conducted specifically for turtles, however, there is suitable habitat for the species on the MRRD, due to the geology and 

geomorphology of the Mad River. The project does not occur in potential suitable western pond turtle habitat.

Northern Red-legged Frog (Rana aurora aurora)

Red-legged frogs are inhabitants of moist forests and riparian areas usually below 2876 ft. (850 m) in elevation. They are 

generally found near permanent bodies of quiet water including small ponds, quiet pools along streams, springs, lakes, and 

marshes. Red-legged frogs are found in ponds and intermittent and permanent streams with slow or still water. 

Intermittent streams must retain surface water pools year-round in order for the frogs to survive. Deep pools are necessary 

for many aspects of the red-legged frog’s life cycle.

The project does not occur in potential suitable red-legged frog habitat.

Yellow-legged Frog (Rana bolyii)

The foothill yellow-legged frog is found in or near rocky streams or rivers in a variety of habitats. In California, breeding 

and egg-laying usually wait until the end of spring flooding, and may commence anytime from Mid-March to mid-June, 

depending on the occurrence of spring rains. Foothill yellow-legged frogs are diurnal with adults often basking on 

exposed rock surfaces near streams. When disturbed, they dive into the water and take refuge under submerged rocks or 

sediments. 
51

Suitable habitat for foothill yellow-legged occurs in the planning area. In August 2017, tadpoles and adult frogs were 

observed in Littlefield Creek at the low water crossing on at MP 0.4 on 2S53 (K. Kenfield personal observation). If water 

is not present during operations, commercial log hauling may proceed. If water is present, a temporary low water crossing 

would be required. Currently noncommercial vehicles drive through the low water ford. Installation of the temporary 

vented ford (three 36-inch pipes laid over geotextile cloth on the stream bed with fill on top) would cause disturbance to a 

30 foot by 10 feet section of stream. The installation of the vented ford would eliminate vehicles entering the water while 

it is installed. 

Southern Torrent Salamander (Rhyacotriton variegatus)

This species is associated with seeps, small streams, and waterfalls in wet or mesic coastal forested habitats. Changes to 

forest canopied and the hydrology of seeps and streams can affect southern torrent salamanders. 

No surveys have been completed for this species; however they are known to occur on the District. Habitat for this species 

is present in the planning area; All riparian reserves would be buffered on both sides of stream channels (non-fish bearing 

buffers are 160 feet, fish-bearing buffers are 320 feet or two site potential tree heights), unless intersecting with road 

networks. In the case of Littlefield Creek, the no-cut buffer (“inner riparian reserves”) south of the stream would extend to 

the edge of the road, which is less than 160 feet in many areas, but this buffer is still considered adequate to prevent 

impacts to the stream because the area is so flat. Canopy closure in the outer riparian reserve buffers would be maintained 

at 60 percent or greater.

Western Bumblebee (Bombus occidentalis)

Western bumble bees require open meadows with rich supplies of floral resources with continuous blooming from spring 

to autumn. Western bumble bees have been observed taking nectar from a variety of flowering plants.

Historically the western bumble bee ranged from central California north to Alaska, east through Alberta and western 

South Dakota and southward into Arizona and New Mexico. Surveys in 2007 found isolated populations in northern 

Arizona, Utah, Nevada and northern California. The species has declined dramatically in the west (Washington, Oregon, 

California, British Columbia and Alaska) since the mid-1990s with most areas seeing a complete absence of the species 

from 2002-2007. Although the general distribution trend is steeply downward, especially in the west coast states, some 

isolated populations in Oregon and the Rocky Mountains appear stable (Rao et al. 2011, Koch and Williams 2012). The 

overall status of populations in the west is largely dependent on geographic region: populations west of the Cascade and 

Sierra Nevada mountains are experiencing dire circumstances with steeply declining numbers, while those to the east of 

this dividing line are more secure with relatively unchanged population sizes. The reasons for these differences are not 

known. 

With the exception of data from the Lower Trinity Ranger District, there is little information regarding the distribution of 

the western bumblebee on the Forest. Until recently, the nearest confirmed detections were of two workers in 1997 in the 

Marbled Mountain Wilderness on Klamath National Forest. In September 2014, two western bumblebees were detected 

on Route 1, one north of Grouse Mountain and the other north of Ammon Ridge on the Lower Trinity Ranger District. 

There is no potentially suitable habitat for western bumble bee in the project area. 

Wolverine (Gulo gulo luteus)

In North America, wolverines occur within a wide variety of alpine, boreal, and arctic habitats, including boreal forests, 

tundra, and western mountains throughout Alaska and Canada. The southern portion of the species’ range extends into the 

contiguous United States, including high-elevation alpine portions of Washington, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, California, 

and Colorado (USFWS 2011c). Wolverines do not appear to specialize on specific vegetation or geological habitat 

aspects, but instead select areas that are cold and receive enough winter precipitation to reliably maintain deep persistent 

snow late into the warm season (USFWS 2011c). The requirement of cold, snowy conditions means that, in the southern 

portion of the species’ range where ambient temperatures are warmest, wolverine distribution is restricted to high 
52

elevations, while at more northerly latitudes; wolverines are present at lower elevations and even at sea level in the far 

north (USFWS 2011c).

Female wolverines use natal dens that are excavated in snow. Consistent snow cover greater than 5 feet deep appears to be 

a requirement for natal denning, because it provides security for offspring and buffers cold winter temperatures. Deep, 

persistent, and reliable spring snow cover (April 15 to May 14) is the best overall predictor of wolverine occurrence in the 

contiguous United States (USFWS 2011c). 

There is no potentially suitable habitat for wolverine in the project area. Surveys were conducted in the 1st 48 project area 

in 2016 using camera stations. No wolverine were detected.

B. Habitat Status

The proposed project occurs in and within 0.25mi of suitable NSO, fisher habitat, and yellow-legged frog. The 1st 48 

Project will treat 290 acres of nesting/roosting/denning habitat for the NSO and fisher. The project will treat 383 acres of 

foraging habitat for the NSO and fisher and remove approximately 3 acres of foraging for landing construction. One 

stream crossing occurs in yellow-legged frog habitat. The project will treat 290 acres of PCE2, 386 acres of PCE3 (3 

acres of which will be removed for landing construction), and 108 acres of PCE4 in NSO Critical Habitat.

The project occurs within LSR 330 and NSO Critical Habitat (Unit 11, Interior California Coast Subunits 1 and 2).

VI. Effects of the Proposed Action

Federally Threatened Species

Northern Spotted Owl

Nesting/roosting and Foraging Habitat

Initial potential treatment units were selected by a silviculturist from a vegetative database and then field verified as to 

stand density and structure. Field verification to determine potential habitat status was completed by a wildlife biologist.

Mid-mature stands with predominant trees were ground verified as to whether they contained stand structure 

characteristics that would be classified as high quality nesting roosting habitat. All high quality nesting/roosting habitat 

stands were dropped from treatment

Direct and Indirect Effects

The following discussions group direct and indirect effects into two primary categories, nesting/roosting and foraging 

habitat. Within each broad habitat category effects will be grouped into direct habitat removal and habitat maintenance, as 

well as impacts to activity centers. Disclosing impacts by individual activity center can be misleading because the same 

acre treated may be reported more than once due to an overlap of activity centers. 

The USFWS defines “habitat maintenance” as a reduction in stand density, but the current habitat function would be 

maintained immediately post project with the purpose of improving habitat quality over time. “Removal” occurs when the 

habitat no longer functions as nesting/roosting or foraging habitat (e.g., clear cutting). Habitat maintenance treatments are

treatments designed to maintain and enhance habitat. A “downgrade” is taking a higher habitat quality down to a lower 

habitat type; such as removing too much canopy and making a nesting/roosting stand only suitable as foraging habitat.

No habitat removal or downgrading would occur under the 1st 48 Project except for landing construction. Twenty new 

landings constructed for the project, up to approximately 0.25 acres in size. Twelve of these landings would be 

constructed in foraging for a total of 3 acres of low-quality foraging habitat. These are negligible amounts of habitat 

reduction in any one area. The majority of landings that would be used for this project are existing openings that would 

only need minor expansion and brushing for safe operations; therefore, 3 acres of foraging habitat removed is an 

overestimate.
53

The USFWS has determined minimum habitat guidelines, or the minimum amount of nesting/roosting (N/R) and foraging 

(F) habitat, that must be maintained in a territory within a specific distance from the core area of use in order for an NSO 

pair to persist at the site. Habitat removal or downgrading that further reduces habitat below this minimum guidelines

may be considered “take” under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Habitat removal that did not reduce the amount of 

habitat below these guidelines was not considered take, although the impacts could still be considered adverse. For 

example, depending on the location (spatial relationship of proposed treatment areas to existing habitat), amount treated, 

and intensity of the treatment, actions that modify habitat but maintain habitat functionality without any habitat removal 

could still have adverse impacts on the owl if a territory was already below the “take” guidelines. The Level 1 Team 

developed the Project Scope and Intensity Analysis (PSIA), a series of questions that guide the biologist through an 

analysis of potential effects for each owl AC within the project area. The PSIA was conducted that evaluated all 8 NSO 

ACs within the analysis area and is integrated throughout the document, which addressed each AC for the current amount 

of NRF in relation to the guidelines, the amount and location of proposed treatments, and the percentage of NRF affected. 

The results of the PSIA were used to further modify the treatments in order to ensure that no adverse effects would occur 

and that restoration activities would benefit the NSO. 

The stands selected for treatment minimally met the definition of suitable NRF habitat, but have a lower likelihood 

contributing to survivorship or reproduction. The stands had one or more features of suitable habitat, but lacked other 

important characteristics that reduce their likelihood of occupancy or use. For example, a stand may have adequate 

average tree size and canopy cover, but may be even-aged and lack large (potential nest) trees or multi-layered canopy 

conditions. The 1st 48 Project was designed to maintain current characteristics of nesting/roosting and foraging habitat 

but, more importantly, to create the currently lacking, critically important habitat characteristics, including habitat 

components the woodrats depend upon. The stands selected for treatment have limited or are devoid of understory 

vegetation, and provide little habitat for this key prey species. 

Mast-producing hardwoods (such as Quercus spp.) and shrubs provide a key food resource for dusky-footed woodrats, as 

well as cover from predators (Williams et al. 1992, Innes et al. 2007). Burning could reduce prey species habitat 

temporarily in the immediate area, but is expected to be a discountable short-term effect. The 2011 Recovery Plan says 

“Research has suggested that thinning or associated practices (e.g., burning slash piles) could be detrimental to duskyfooted woodrats if it reduces hardwoods, shrubs, or downed wood, yet treatments could ultimately benefit woodrats if 

they result in growth of shrubs or hardwoods (Williams et al. 1992, Innes et al. 2007)”. In contrast to an unplanned 

wildfire, prescribed burning will be conducted under conditions where the flame length and intensity will be low. Dead 

and down materials are usually large enough in diameter that the logs are not burned completely and continue to provide 

key habitat features such as refugia and escape cover. The stands selected for treatment are currently lacking those 

components, and burning and thinning will open the stand and increase sunlight to the forest floor. Some of these stands 

once treated will be immediately improved for foraging by owls. In addition, owls are known to forage within the burned 

areas once the understory vegetation begins to grow again (Ecology and Management of the Northern Spotted Owl, 

USDA-FS, 1985; Clark 2007, Bond 2009). 

The oak woodland treatments will restore oak grassland areas that are being encroached upon by dense brush and Douglas 

fir. None of these treatments occur in suitable NSO NRF habitat. 

The 1

st 48 Project would treat 96 acres of moderate-quality nesting/roosting habitat, 194 acres low-quality nesting/roosting 

habitat and 221 acres of low-quality foraging habitat and 165 acres moderate-quality foraging habitat. The 290 acres of 

nesting/roosting habitat and 386 acres of foraging habitat would be modified through the creation of a shaded fuelbreak 

and HFR treatments. The remaining acres are considered non-habitat for spotted owls and are primarily fuels treatments 

within hazardous fuels stands within the fire scar of the Ruth Fire.

There are 13,686 acres of nesting/roosting habitat and 8,648 of foraging habitat in the action area. It is expected that current 

habitat function would be maintained in all treatment areas immediately post-project (as was seen in the post-treatment Level 

1 Team review of other SRNF habitat restoration projects); however, approximately 98 percent of the 

nesting/roosting/foraging habitat in the action area would not have any treatment. Therefore, “adequate alternative habitat” as 

suggested by Forsman (2011) is being left untreated. The project will develop functional prey habitat that is currently 

lacking in the stands and should lead to higher survival and reproduction rates for the owls. 
54

Approximately 228 acres of nesting/roosting habitat, and approximately 232 acres of foraging habitat would be 

commercially thinned for the construction of the shaded fuelbreak. Approximately 62 acres nesting/roosting and 151 acres 

of foraging will be treated through hazardous fuels reduction. The 1

st 48 Project is a low-intensity TFB that would not 

remove any predominant or dominant trees and canopy closure would be maintained at 60 percent or greater in all 

nesting/roosting/foraging habitat. No treatments would occur in spotted owl nest groves or high-quality nesting/roosting 

habitat. Adequate alternative habitat (98% nesting/roosting/foraging habitat untreated) exists in the action area.

This project has protected all high quality habitat and all spotted owl home ranges (not just high priority sites, RA10) and 

is designed to restore and accelerate important habitat characteristic for the spotted owl (RA6) and protect existing 

suitable habitat from stand replacing fire. Such long-term restoration and protection of owl habitat is consistent with the 

recommendations in the 2011 Recovery Plan.

Nesting/Roosting Habitat

Treatments by activity center within nesting/roosting and foraging habitat are presented in Table 19 below.

Table 19. Treatments by Activity Center

Activity 

Centers

Habitat 

type

EXISTING "pretreatment" habitat Thinning Fuels 

treatments

Temporary 

roads and new 

construction

Landing 

construction 

Total 

treatment 

acres

% Total 

treatment 

0.5 mi 

acres

1.3 mi 

acres

0.5 mi 

acres

1.3 

mi 

acres

0.5 mi 

acres

1.3 mi 

acres

0.5 mi 

acres

1.3 mi 

acres

0.5 mi 

acres

 1.3 

mi 

acres

0.5 mi 

acres

0.5 mi 

290 NR 209 1307 48 

F 147 850 12 82 1 12 8% 

NON 1 

237 NR 212 1300 12 64 17 12 6% 

F 135 1146 30 148 10 0.75 30 22% 

NON 9 31 30 0.75 9 

347 NR 85 1005 42 13 19 13 18% 

F 150 905 73 38 22 0.25 38 25% 

NON 9 25

251 NR 168 771 25 52 7 19 32 19% 

F 199 1127 11 11 3 30 14 7% 

NON 16 44 16 

239 NR 206 720 3 24 1 3 4 2% 

F 69 861 12 23 

NON 25 7 

236 NR 42 428 11 

F 118 772 12 0.25 

NON

387 NR 115 749 9 6 

F 192 1368 10 18 

NON 10 

252 NR 179 774 3 

F 217 1489 11 

NON
55

Nesting/roosting Habitat Removal

No nesting/roosting habitat will be removed or downgraded for the 1st 48 project.

Nesting/Roosting Habitat Maintenance

Shaded Fuelbreak 

The 1

st 48 Project would treat 96 acres of moderate-quality nesting/roosting habitat and 194 acres lowquality nesting/roosting habitat. Of the 290 acres of nesting/roosting habitat being treated, 88 acres of 

moderate-quality nesting/roosting habitat and 140 acres of low-quality nesting/roosting habitat would be 

modified through the creation of a shaded fuelbreak. A total of 228 acres of nesting/ roosting will be 

treated through a thin from below prescription for the creation of the shaded fuelbreak units. The 

remaining nesting/roosting acres are treated under the unshaded fuelbreak units through hazardous fuel 

reduction.

The total acreage for fuelbreak construction units is 461 acres; 88 acres of that is considered moderatequality nesting/roosting habitat and 140 acres of low-quality nesting/roosting habitat. No high-quality 

nesting/roosting habitat would be treated within the 1st 48 Project. Since sections of this area of fuelbreak 

occur in younger stands, 228 acres overestimates the amount of nesting/roosting habitat being treated.

Thin from below would reduce the stand density of trees to improve growth, enhance stand health, and 

reduce potential tree mortality. Thin from below while maintaining a minimum of 60 percent or greater 

canopy cover is the best management prescription to maintain and recruit the habitat variables critical to 

nesting/roosting habitat (e.g., large old trees and codominant and intermediate conifers with crown space 

in the canopy for crown development) while at the same time improving forest health and reducing risk to 

wildfire and insects and disease. Removal of the codominant trees would only occur when stem densities 

needs reduced for proper heath of another adjacent codominant tree or when culturing around resident 

black oak trees.

The stands within nesting/roosting habitat proposed for treatment are generally even-aged and lack the 

horizontal and vertical diversity components associated with late-mature stands. These stands have the 

potential to achieve rapid diameter and height growth with thinning. As these stands develop, the acres 

suitable for spotted owls and other late-successional associated species should increase. By treating 

currently unsuitable habitat adjacent to existing late-successional habitat, larger patches would develop. 

Silvicultural prescriptions can be applied to these stands in order to accelerate their development toward 

late seral conditions. These treatments can increase the amount of late seral vegetation quicker than would 

occur naturally. Treatments would change the stand structure and allow large trees to develop, promote 

development of an understory canopy, accelerating the development of functional late-successional 

habitat. Silvicultural prescriptions developed for the 1

st 48 Project would ensure retention of existing 

stand structure, species composition, snags, and downed logs.

The stands selected for treatment minimally met the definition of suitable NRF habitat, but had a lower 

likelihood contributing to survivorship or reproduction. The stands had one or more features of suitable 

habitat, but lacked other important characteristics that reduce their likelihood of occupancy or use. For 

example, a stand may have an average tree size of 21” dbh and 60% canopy cover, but lack large nest 

trees and multi-layered canopy conditions. The 1

st 48 project was designed to maintain current 

characteristics of nesting/roosting and foraging habitat but, more importantly, to create the currently 

lacking, critically important habitat characteristics for nesting/roosting and foraging habitat, including 

habitat components the woodrats depend upon. The stands selected for treatment are devoid of 

understory vegetation, and provide little habitat for this key prey species. It is expected that current 
56

habitat function will be maintained in all treatment areas immediately post-project (as was seen in the 

post-treatment review of the Beaverslide Project); however, approximately 98% of the NRF in the project 

area AA will not have any treatment. Therefore, “adequate alternative habitat” as suggested by Forsman 

(2011) remains available in the AA for owl use. The project will develop functional prey habitat that is 

currently lacking in the stands and should lead to higher survival and reproduction rates for the owls. 

The 1

st 48 project is a low-intensity thinning from below that will not remove any predominant trees and 

canopy closure will be maintained at 60% or greater in low quality nesting/roosting. No treatments will 

occur in spotted owl nest groves or high quality nest/roost habitat anywhere in the project area and 

adequate alternative (untreated) habitat exists in the AA.

There would be no removal of habitat due to thinning or fuels reduction treatments. Thinning and fuels 

reduction activities may have a short-term reduction of stand density in suitable northern spotted owl 

nesting/roosting habitat; however, the habitat will remain suitable post project. Canopy closure will be 

maintained at 60 percent or greater in nesting/roosting habitat, no predominant or dominant trees will be 

removed and large snags and downed wood would be maintained at the 80-100 percent level. All high 

quality nesting/roosting habitat consisting of old growth, late mature, and some mid mature stands were 

excluded from commercial harvest. Selected stands for thinning are considered low to moderate quality, 

with the potential to be improved through treatment. 

Hazardous Fuel Reduction

Fuels treatments are not intended to homogenize habitats. Measures intended to maintain heterogeneity 

in treated habitats include burning under specific weather and moisture conditions designed to minimize 

damage to the residual stand, maintain large woody debris and maintain about 50 percent of the duff layer.

“Jackpot” burning (burning concentrations of fuels rather than broadcast burning) may be used in some 

areas. Jackpot burning will create a mosaic effect in the fuels and the understory that will maintain 

habitat for the woodrats while breaking up the overall continuity of the fuels and reducing risk of wildfire. 

Approximately 54 acres of low-quality and 8 acres of moderate-quality nesting/roosting habitat would be 

modified through fuels reduction treatments. Fuels treatment would occur on 215 acres of strategic 

roadside and ridgetop units. These fuels treatments would reduce fuel loadings in order to create a 

defensible space for fire suppression resources, decrease the potential for detrimental wildfire effects to 

the overall project area adjacent to the community of Ruth, and enhance the treated stands resiliency to 

fire

Fuel reduction treatments are designed to reduce ground fuels and the lower understory vegetation that 

create ladders for fire to climb into the canopy. Although multilayered conditions contributing to habitat 

would be slightly reduced by removing brush and understory trees (8” dbh or less in nesting/roosting 

habitat) treatments would result in a greater assurance of long-term maintenance of suitable foraging and 

nesting/roosting habitat within the project area

Thinning and fuels reduction activities may have a short-term reduction of stand density in suitable 

northern spotted owl nesting/roosting habitat; however, the habitat would remain suitable post project. 

Canopy closure would be maintained at 60 percent or greater in nesting/roosting habitat, no predominant 

or dominant trees would be removed and large snags and downed wood would be maintained at the 80 to 

100 percent level. All high-quality nesting/roosting habitat was dropped for treatment. Selected stands for 

thinning are considered low to moderate quality, with the potential to be improved through treatment.
57

Strategically located fuelbreaks would reduce the risk of human-caused fire ignitions along high-use 

forest and county roads and provide greater protection to existing late-successional habitat in the 1st 48 

Project area. Fuel reduction treatments are designed to protect existing habitat characteristics while 

reducing ground and ladder fuels and creating a defensible space to be used in defense of wildfires. 

Treatments include thinning existing stands to retain the best, healthiest trees that have a high canopy 

capacity (those with the strongest crown to bole ratio, have the highest needle or leaf cover and provide 

the most shade to the forest floor), capable of maintaining those objectives for a long period of time 

within the buffer area. All predominant and dominant trees would be retained, while removing 

suppressed, intermediate, and some codominant trees (under specific conditions), and large snags and 

downed wood would be maintained at the 80 to 100 percent level. Cut material in nesting/roosting habitat 

would be lop and scattered or handpiled. The habitat would remain suitable immediately post project.

The thinning units would be hand piled and burned with some units having a follow-up jackpot burn. All

228 acres of nesting/roosting habitat to be thinned may be jackpot burned if conditions are within the 

required limits to maintain a low-intensity burn. Jackpot burning may also be used within fuelbreaks, 

including 62 acres of nesting/roosting habitat. The primary objective of jackpot burning is to reduce 

ground fuels within fuelbreaks. Once the initial treatment has been completed, maintenance burns or 

treatments would be implemented every 5 to 15 years or as need is determined. Because of its low 

intensity, the burn is not uniform in nature creating a mosaic pattern within the stand. Effects of jackpot 

burning would be limited because of this patchiness leaving interspaces of unburned forest floor. Foraging 

habitat would be modified as some understory shrubs and some small saplings would be killed and some 

smaller downed logs would be consumed from the burning in portions of the stand; however, current 

habitat function would be maintained.

Jackpot burning is expected to reduce the quantity of downed woody material to various degrees 

regardless of the season of burning; however, snag and log numbers would be maintained at levels 

designated in the Six Rivers LRMP. Generally, the wetter the conditions during the burn, the less the 

impact would be to the surrounding habitat components. Jackpot burning is designed to produce the least 

damage to the boles of the trees in the unit and to prevent fire from getting into the crowns of the 

overstory. Tree mortality would be minimal and mainly in the smaller size classes. In some cases, lines 

would be scratched around snags and existing downed wood.

Fuels treatments are not intended to homogenize habitats. Jackpot burning would occur under specific 

weather and moisture conditions designed to minimize damage to the residual stand, maintain snags and 

large down logs, and maintain about 50 percent of the duff layer (USFS Region 5 Soil Quality S&Gs). 

Dead and down materials are usually of large enough diameters that the logs are not burned completely 

and continue to provide key habitat features, such as refugia and escape cover. Fuel moistures and 

humidity are monitored to assure that the prescriptions are met. Burn prescriptions are designed to prevent 

severe burn levels.

Although jackpot burning, mastication and the creation of fuelbreaks in nesting/roosting may cause a 

change in conditions contributing to suitable habitat in the short-term by felling small snags and 

understory trees less than 8 inches, it can result in the protection and long-term maintenance of latesuccessional habitat by creating more fire resilient and fire-resistant forests.

Nesting/Roosting Habitat Summary: Thinning and fuels reduction activities may modify 

nesting/roosting habitat through a short-term reduction of stand density; however, the habitat would 

remain suitable post project. Canopy closure would be maintained at 60 percent or greater, no 

predominant or dominant trees would be removed and large snags and downed wood would be 

maintained at the 80-100 percent level. Selected stands for thinning are considered low to moderatequality habitat, with the potential to be improved through treatment. Treatments would be beneficial in the 
58

long term by creating stand conditions that accelerate the development of higher quality habitat in a 

shorter timeframe than would occur without treatment, as well as reducing the risk of stand-replacing wild 

fire. This restoration and maintenance of habitat would aid in bringing these stands along in a manner 

consistent with pre-fire suppression era growth.

Of the 13,686 acres of nesting/roosting habitat within the action area, approximately 96 acres of 

moderate-quality nesting/roosting habitat and 194 acres of low-quality nesting/roosting habitat would be 

treated though both shaded fuelbreak and hazardous fuel reduction. The amount of nesting/roosting 

habitat within the planning area proposed for treatment would be approximately 2 percent (98% 

nesting/roosting in the action area would not receive any treatment).

The 1

st 48 Project was designed to protect existing habitat characteristics. Within nesting/roosting habitat, 

canopy closure will be maintained at 60 percent or greater, post treatment. No predominant or dominant 

trees will be removed and large snags and downed wood would be maintained at the 80-100 percent level. 

LOPs will be implemented for activities within 0.25 mile of any activity center during the breeding 

season to prevent disturbance to nesting owls.

Thinning and fuels reduction treatments will occur in suitable northern spotted owl nesting/roosting 

habitat; however, the habitat will remain suitable post project, and is expected to improve habitat 

conditions over time, including providing more opportunities for prey species

No activities would occur in high-quality nesting/roosting habitat or in 100-plus-acre nest groves of any 

AC, and no activities would occur within 0.25 mile of any AC during the breeding season.

Foraging Habitat

Foraging habitat generally has attributes similar to that of nesting/roosting habitat, however does not 

contain the structural characteristics necessary to support successfully nesting pairs. The foraging habitat 

selected for treatment in the 1st 48 Project is lacking diversity of species and sizes as well as structural 

components such as multi-layered conditions, snags, downed wood and decadent structures such as large 

limbs, broken tops, and cavities. 

There are 8,648 acres of foraging habitat in the action area. The 1

st 48 Project would treat 221 acres of lowquality foraging habitat and 165 acres moderate-quality foraging habitat. Of the 383 acres of foraging 

habitat being treated, 131 acres of low-quality foraging habitat and 101 acres of moderate-quality foraging 

habitat would be modified through the creation of a shaded fuelbreak and 87 acres of low-quality foraging 

habitat and 64 acres moderate-quality foraging habitat would be modified through hazardous fuel 

reduction. An additional 3 acres of low-quality foraging will be removed through landing construction. The 

prescriptions would maintain 60 percent canopy cover and would remain suitable foraging habitat 

immediately post project. Approximately 4 percent of the foraging habitat in the action area would receive 

treatment leaving 96 percent of the foraging-only habitat in the action area untreated.

Northern spotted owl will also forage in nesting/roosting habitat. There are 13,686 acres of 

nesting/roosting habitat and 8,648 of foraging habitat in the action area. It is expected that current habitat 

function would be maintained in all treatment areas immediately post-project (as was seen in the posttreatment Level 1 Team review of the Beaverslide Project on the Mad River RD treated in 2012, which 

implemented similar prescriptions); however, approximately 98 percent of the nesting/roosting/foraging 

habitat in the action area would not have any treatment. Therefore, “adequate alternative habitat” as 

suggested by Forsman (2011) is being left untreated. The project would develop functional habitat that is 

currently lacking in the stands.
59

Foraging Habitat Removal

The only treatments that would remove habitat would be the construction of landings. Twenty new 

landings would be constructed, twelve of which are in low-quality foraging habitat. Each landing would 

be up to 0.25 acres in size. A total of approximately 3 acres of foraging habitat would be removed through 

new landing construction. Removal of habitat for landings is limited to small areas and is considered 

insignificant because after treatment they would be decommissioned and would resemble small forest 

openings. Small openings can be beneficial in stands lacking structural diversity to “maximize individual 

tree development, encourage some understory vegetation development, and encourage the initiation of 

structural diversity” (Interagency Regional Ecosystem Office memorandum 1996). Often the canopy 

above the roads still falls within the 40 percent retention guidelines, but is considered removed to evaluate 

the full potential of affects to any given AC.

The majority of landings that would be used for this project are existing openings that would only need 

minor expansion and brushing for safe operations; therefore, three acres of foraging habitat removed is an 

overestimate. A small number of trees may be removed along cable lines in association with skyline 

landings within the unit boundaries for safety reasons.

Nineteen out of the total 20 new landings occur within ACs. Twelve of these landings are within foraging

habitat. All landings would occur within the outer 1.3-mile radius of the affected ACs. The maximum 

amount of foraging habitat that would be removed in any one AC is 1 acre, 0.25 acre in any one area. 

Total removal by new landing construction would be 3 acres of the 8,648 acres of foraging-only habitat in 

the action area. The loss of habitat in any one area would be negligible and would resemble natural 

assemblages and small forest openings.

The removal of these small patches (0.25 or less in any one area) of low-quality foraging habitat (totaling 

3 acres) would allow the shaded fuelbreak treatment of 386 acres of lower-quality stands of foraging 

habitat. In the long term, this would improve the stands that are currently not providing adequate habitat 

conditions due to high tree density and lack of structural diversity. In the short term, these small openings 

may be utilized by the owls for foraging (North et al. 1999, Carey 1995).

Foraging Habitat Maintenance

Shaded Fuelbreak Construction: Approximately 134 acres of low-quality foraging (3 acres of which 

will be removed for landings) and 101 moderate-quality foraging habitat would be thinned for fuelbreak 

construction. Fuelbreaks would be created along high-use roads to assist in firefighting efforts and to 

protect existing nesting/roosting/foraging habitat within northern spotted owl territories from human 

caused fires. These prescriptions are designed to reduce ground fuels and the lower understory vegetation 

that create ladders for fire to climb into the canopy. Although multi-layered conditions contributing to 

foraging habitat would be slightly reduced by removing brush and understory trees, treatments would 

result in a greater assurance of long-term maintenance of suitable foraging habitat within the project area 

and reduce the risk that existing habitat would be lost due to fire.

Thinning from below in currently functional but lower quality foraging habitat will have a positive impact 

on northern spotted owl foraging habitat since stand growth will be accelerated resulting in older seral 

stages earlier than if left unthinned. Reducing tree density within foraging habitat will improve forest 

health and a reduced risk from fire while it provides for more sunlight to the forest floor for forbs and 

grasses used as food by key spotted owl prey species. Existing structural conditions will be maintained in 

order to support prey occurrence and abundance while allowing for rapid development of additional 

habitat parameters such as low shrub and forb growth. Current foraging habitat could develop into 
60

nesting/roosting habitat over time with accelerated tree growth and development of late successional 

characteristics such as multi-layered conditions and large diameter trees with cavities and large limbs. 

Individual trees with high potential for rapid growth would be widely spaced to accelerate diameter and 

height growth with the expectation of achieving vertical diversity. These trees are also expected to 

develop wide crowns and large limbs. No predominant or dominant trees would be removed. Existing 

snags (20-inch dbh or greater) and downed logs (20-inch diameter or greater and 10-feet long) would be 

maintained unless they pose a safety hazard or reduce the effectiveness of the shaded fuelbreaks.

The low-quality foraging habitat and moderate-quality foraging habitat stands selected for treatment 

minimally met the definition of foraging habitat, but have a lower likelihood contributing to survivorship 

or reproduction. The stands have the tree diameter size and canopy cover of suitable habitat, but lack

other important characteristics (such as multi-layered conditions that provide for prey species) that reduce 

their likelihood of use. Treatments were designed to accelerate the development of important habitat 

components currently lacking in the stands while retaining the existing structural elements, resulting in 

high restoration benefits. The project would improve habitat conditions and restore high-quality habitat 

for the spotted owl. Canopy closure would be reduced in the short-term, but would be maintained at a 

minimum of 60 percent. Foraging habitat would remain suitable immediately post project. In the longterm, the treatments should improve habitat conditions by accelerating the development of stand attributes 

important to the NSO (e.g., multi-storied stands and large-diameter trees with large crowns) and 

contribute to the recovery of the species as well as reducing the risk of stand-replacing wild fire.

Plantation Thinning: Plantation thin treatments would occur in even-aged young stands that are in early 

seral stages of development. These stands of plantations lack the structure needed to be considered for 

NSO foraging habitat such as multiple canopy layers and structure within the stand. The project includes 

108 acres of plantation thinning of mechanical TFB (60-plus percent crown closure) with 15 to 24 foot 

inter-tree crown spacing) in 30 to 45 year old, even-age plantations to promote the development of shaded 

fuelbreak overstory, along with mechanical, manual and jackpot burning.

In the plantations and dense, overstocked, early-seral stands (not currently suitable foraging habitat) the 

benefit to the owl would be immediate. The treatments proposed would reduce the overstocked stems and 

ladder fuels that currently create a “safe haven” for woodrats since the owls cannot effectively forage in 

these dense stands. Treatments of these stands would create more acres of habitat on the landscape, 

helping reduce competitions between the spotted and barred owls for the same habitats.

The stands proposed for treatment are generally even-aged and lack the horizontal and vertical diversity 

components associated with late-mature stands. These young stands have the potential to achieve rapid 

diameter and height growth with commercial thinning. As these stands develop, the acres suitable for 

spotted owls and other late-successional associated species should increase. By treating currently 

unsuitable habitat adjacent to existing late-successional habitat, larger patches would develop. 

Silvicultural prescriptions can be applied to these stands in order to accelerate their development toward 

late seral conditions. These treatments can increase the amount of late seral vegetation quicker than would 

occur naturally. Treatments would change the stand structure and allow large trees to develop, promote 

development of an understory canopy, accelerating the development of functional late-successional 

habitat. Silvicultural prescriptions designed for the 1

st 48 Project would ensure retention of existing stand 

structure, species composition, snags, and downed logs.

Thinning in currently lower-quality foraging habitat is the best prescription to maintain and recruit the 

habitat variables critical to NSO high-quality foraging and nesting/roosting habitat. Treatments would have 
61

a positive impact on NSO foraging habitat since stand growth would be accelerated resulting in older seral 

stages earlier than if left unthinned. Reducing tree density within foraging habitat would improve the owl’s 

ability to forage within the stands as well as improve forest health and reduced fire risk. Thinning provides 

more sunlight to the forest floor for plant species used as food by key spotted owl prey species. Existing 

structural conditions would be maintained in order to support prey occurrence and abundance while 

allowing for rapid development of additional habitat parameters such as low shrub and forb growth. 

Current low-quality foraging habitat could develop into higher quality, more productive foraging habitat 

and even nesting/roosting habitat over time with the accelerated development of late successional 

characteristics (multi-layered conditions and large diameter trees with cavities and large limbs).

Hazardous Fuels Reduction (HFR) Treatments: Approximately 54 acres of low-quality and 87 acres of 

moderate-quality foraging habitat would be modified through fuels reduction treatments. Fuels treatment 

would occur on 215 acres of strategic roadside and ridgetop units. These fuels treatments would reduce 

fuel loadings in order to create a defensible space for fire suppression resources, decrease the potential for 

detrimental wildfire effects to the overall project area adjacent to the community of Ruth, and enhance the 

treated stands resiliency to fire.

The HFR treatment areas are typically dominated by dead standing trees created by the 2011 Ruth Fire 

and areas of brush such as manzanita, where sufficient live overstory does not exist for the development 

of a shaded fuelbreak.

The thinning units would be hand piled and burned with some units having a follow-up jackpot burn. All

383 acres of foraging habitat to be thinned, may be jackpot burned if conditions are within the required 

limits to maintain a low-intensity burn. The primary objective of jackpot burning is to reduce ground fuels 

within fuelbreaks. Once the initial treatment has been completed, maintenance burns or treatments would 

be implemented every 5 to 15 years or as need is determined. Because of its low intensity, the burn is not 

uniform in nature creating a mosaic pattern within the stand. Effects of jackpot burning would be limited 

because of this patchiness leaving interspaces of unburned forest floor. Foraging habitat would be 

modified as some understory shrubs and some small saplings would be killed and some smaller downed 

logs would be consumed from the burning in portions of the stand; however, current habitat function 

would be maintained. The results would be a more complex understory and forest floor that would benefit 

key prey species for the spotted owl such as the dusky-footed woodrat, while breaking up the continuity 

of the fuels in the understory to reduce flame length and spread of wildfire.

Jackpot burning is expected to reduce the quantity of downed woody material to various degrees 

regardless of the season of burning; however, snag and log numbers would be maintained at levels 

designated in the Six Rivers LRMP. Generally, the wetter the conditions during the burn, the less the 

impact would be to the surrounding habitat components. Jackpot burning is designed to produce the least 

damage to the boles of the trees in the unit and to prevent fire from getting into the crowns of the 

overstory. Tree mortality would be minimal and mainly in the smaller size classes. In some cases, lines 

would be scratched around snags and existing downed wood.

Fuels treatments are not intended to homogenize habitats. Jackpot burning would occur under specific 

weather and moisture conditions designed to minimize damage to the residual stand, maintain snags and 

large down logs, and maintain about 50 percent of the duff layer (USFS Region 5 Soil Quality S&Gs). 

Dead and down materials are usually of large enough diameters that the logs are not burned completely 

and continue to provide key habitat features, such as refugia and escape cover. Fuel moistures and 
62

humidity are monitored to assure that the prescriptions are met. Burn prescriptions are designed to prevent 

severe burn levels.

Burning could reduce prey species habitat temporarily in the immediate area, but is expected to be shortterm leading to an overall increase of prey habitat post treatment. In addition, owls are known to forage 

within the burned areas once the understory vegetation begins to grow again (Ecology and Management 

of the Northern Spotted Owl, USDA Forest Service 1985; Clark 2007; Bond 2009). Fuels reduction along 

high-use roads is expected to result in the protection and long-term maintenance of adjacent latesuccessional habitat by creating more fire resilient and fire-resistant forests.

Foraging Habitat Summary

Thinning and fuels reduction activities may modify foraging habitat through a short-term reduction of 

stand density; however, the habitat would remain suitable post project. Canopy closure would be 

maintained at 60 percent or greater, no predominant or dominant trees would be removed and large snags 

and downed wood would be maintained at the 80 to 100 percent level. Selected stands for thinning are

considered low to moderate-quality habitat, with the potential to be improved through treatment. 

Treatments would be beneficial in the long term by creating stand conditions that benefit prey and 

accelerate the development of higher quality habitat in a shorter timeframe than would occur without 

treatment. This restoration and maintenance of habitat would aid in bringing these stands along in a 

manner consistent with pre-fire suppression era growth.

Northern Spotted Owl Activity Center Summary

Direct, indirect and cumulative effects were analyzed for nesting/roosting and foraging habitat. The Fish 

and Wildlife Service considers that the most activity occurs within 0.5 miles of the nest tree. Northern 

spotted owl territories with at least 400 acres of suitable habitat within 0.5 miles and 1,336 acres within 

1.3 miles of the nest tree are generally thought to be more likely to be reproductively successful (USDI 

2009).

Nineteen new landings occur within ACs (Table 19). No landing construction will occur within 

nesting/roosting habitat. Twelve landings occur in low-quality foraging habitat and 8 landings occur in 

non-habitat. All new landing construction would occur within the outer 1.3-mile radius of the affected 

ACs. The maximum amount of foraging habitat that would be removed in any one AC is 1 acre, 0.25 acre 

in any one area. The loss of habitat in any one area would be negligible and would resemble natural 

assemblages and small forest openings.

The total treatments within any one AC would vary from 0 to 19 percent of the available nesting/roosting 

habitat within 0.5 miles and 1 percent to 10 percent within 1.3 miles of the center (treatment 

acres/percentages within 1.3 miles include the acres within 0.5 miles). No nesting/roosting habitat will be 

removed for new landing construction. 

Thinning from below followed by fuel treatments, which maintains the overstory of large trees, will 

maintain current habitat function but is expected to have a positive long term improvement in stand 

conditions moving stands to a more mature condition in an accelerated manner. Most individual activity 

centers would have only minor amounts of nesting/roosting/foraging thinned (see Table 19). 

No AC would have thinning or fuelbreak treatments over 19 percent of the nesting/roosting habitat within 

any one AC. Thinning may modify nesting/roosting habitat but would maintain current habitat function 

immediately post-project. The project is expected to have beneficial effects by accelerating the 
63

development of forest structure to mature conditions more quickly than if left untreated, as well as 

reducing the risk of stand-replacing wild fire.

The total treatments within any one AC would vary from 0 to 25 percent of the available foraging habitat 

within 0.5 mile and 0.4 to 14 percent within 1.3 miles of the center (treatment acres/percentages within 

1.3 miles include the acres within 0.5 miles) (Table 19). Only small amounts of foraging habitat would be 

lost due to new landing construction. A total of 3 acres foraging habitat removed within the action area, 

1acre maximum in any one AC. This loss would be negligible in any one given area and would resemble 

small forest openings after the roads and landings have been decommissioned.

No AC would have thinning or fuelbreak treatments over 25 percent of the foraging habitat within any 

one AC. Thinning may modify foraging habitat but would maintain current habitat function immediately 

post-project. The project is expected to have beneficial effects by accelerating the development of forest 

structure to mature conditions more quickly than if left untreated, as well as reducing the risk of standreplacing wild fire.

All northern spotted owl activity centers in the 1st 48 project are within 2012 Critical Habitat.

Guidelines 

The USFWS has determined minimum habitat guidelines, or the minimum amount of NRF habitat, that 

must be maintained in a territory within a specific distance from the core area of use in order for an NSO 

pair to persist at the site. Habitat removal that reduces habitat below this minimum guideline may be 

considered “take” under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Habitat removal that did not reduce the 

amount of habitat below this guideline was not considered take, although the impacts could still be 

considered adverse. For example, depending on the location (spatial relationship of proposed treatment 

areas to existing habitat), amount treated, and intensity of the treatment, actions that modify habitat but 

maintain habitat functionality without any habitat removal could still have adverse impacts on the owl if a 

territory was already below the “take” guidelines. The Level 1 Team developed the Project Scope and 

Intensity Analysis (PSIA), a series of questions that guide the biologist through an analysis of potential 

effects for each owl AC within a project area. The PSIA was used to evaluate the 8 ACs within the 

analysis area and addressed each AC for the current amount of NRF in relation to the guidelines, the 

amount and location of proposed treatments, and the percentage of NRF affected. The results of the PSIA 

were used to further modify the treatments in order to ensure that no adverse effects would occur and that 

restoration activities would benefit the NSO.

The minimum habitat guidelines are as follow: 

For the 0.5 mile core: Nesting/Roosting (N/R): 250 acres, Foraging (F): 150 acres

For the entire 1.3 mile home range: N/R: 550 acres, Foraging: 786 acres

For the 1.3 mile total of N/R/F: 1,336 acres

Slide Creek AC#290

The 1.3 mile home range of AC 290 contains 850 acres of foraging habitat and 1,307 acres of N/R. This 

totals 2,157 acres and exceeds minimum guidelines by 821 acres. The 0.5 mile core of AC 290 contains 

147 acres of foraging habitat and 209 acres of N/R. The AC is deficit by 3 acres of foraging and is deficit 

41 acres N/R within 0.5 mi. 
64

This AC will have 5% of treatment of NR within the home range and 0% NR within the 0.5 and 8% of 

foraging within 0.5 and 4% of foraging within 1.3 mi treated with shaded fuelbreak construction. 

Anada Creek AC#237

The 1.3 mile home range of AC 237 contains 1146 acres of foraging habitat and 1300 acres of N/R. This 

totals 2,446 acres and exceeds minimum guidelines by 1,110 acres. The 0.5 mile core of AC 237 contains 

135 acres of foraging habitat and 212 acres of N/R. The AC is deficit 15 acres foraging within 0.5 mi

and deficit 38 acres of NR within 0.5 mi. 

This AC will have 6% of N/R within the home range and 6% N/R within the 0.5 and 22% of foraging 

within 0.5 and 14% of foraging within 1.3 mi treated with shaded fuelbreak construction. 

Jonathan Creek AC#347

The 1.3 mile home range of AC 347 contains 905 acres of foraging habitat and 1,005 acres of N/R. This 

totals 1,910 acres and exceeds minimum guidelines by 574 acres. The 0.5 mile core of AC 347 contains 

150 acres of foraging habitat and 85 acres of N/R. The AC meets the minimum guidelines of 150 acres 

foraging and is deficit 165 acres N/R within 0.5 mi. AC 347 was severely impacted by the 2011 Ruth 

Fire. 

This AC will have treatment of 6% N/R within the home range and 18% of N/R within 0.5, 25% of 

foraging within 0.5, and 11% of foraging within 1.3 mi treated with thinning and fuels treatment. 

Treatments within 0.5 miles will be limited to understory fuels reduction treatments only.

The original site for this AC was within the Ruth fire, where almost all of its habitat was removed from 

fire. After protocol surveys for the 2017 season, the AC was still occupied. The AC was moved above the 

2S48 where more suitable habitat remains and where numerous detections were made throughout surveys. 

Littlefield Creek AC #251

The 1.3 mile home range of AC 251 contains 1,127 acres of foraging habitat and 771 acres of N/R. This 

totals 1,898 acres and exceeds minimum guidelines by 562 acres. The 0.5 mile core of AC 251 contains 

199 acres of foraging habitat and 168 acres of N/R. The AC exceeds the minimum guidelines by 18 acres 

foraging within 0.5 mi and deficit 82 acres of NR within 0.5 mi. 

This AC will have treatment of 10% N/R within the home range and 19% of N/R within 0.5, 7% of 

foraging within 0.5, and 4% of foraging within 1.3 mi treated with thinning and fuels treatment.

Long Glade AC#239 

The 1.3 mile home range of AC 239 contains 861 acres of foraging habitat and 720 acres of N/R. This 

totals 1,581 acres and exceeds minimum guidelines by 245 acres. The 0.5 mile core of AC 239 contains 

69 acres of foraging habitat and 206 acres of N/R. This AC is deficit 81 acres foraging and is deficit 44 

acres N/R within 0.5 mi. 

This AC will have treatment of 4% N/R within the home range and 2% of N/R within 0.5, 0% of foraging 

within 0.5, and 4% of foraging within 1.3 mi treated with thinning and fuels treatment.

South Fork AC#236

The 1.3 mile home range of AC 236 contains 772 acres of foraging habitat and 428 acres of N/R. This 

totals 1200 acres and is deficit by 136 acres. The 0.5 mile core of AC 236 contains 118 acres of foraging 
65

habitat and 42 acres of N/R. This AC is deficit 32 acres foraging and is deficit 208 acres N/R within 

0.5 mi. This AC was hit by the Journey Fire in 2015.

This AC will have treatment of 3% N/R within the home range and 0% of N/R within 0.5, 0% of foraging 

within 0.5, and 2% of foraging within 1.3 mi treated with thinning and fuels treatment

Maple Flat AC# 387

The 1.3 mile home range of AC 387 contains 1,368 acres of foraging habitat and 749 acres of N/R. This 

totals 2,117 acres and exceeds minimum guidelines by 781 acres. The 0.5 mile core of AC 387 contains 

192 acres of foraging habitat and 115 acres of N/R. The AC exceeds minimum guidelines by 42 acres 

foraging and is deficit 135 acres N/R within 0.5 mi. 

This AC will have 0% of N/R within 0.5 miles and 2% of NR within 1.3 and 0% of foraging within 0.5 

and 2% of foraging within 1.3 mi treated with thinning and fuels treatment. 

Ruth Airport AC #252

The 1.3 mile home range of AC 252 contains 1489 acres of foraging habitat and 774 acres of N/R. This 

totals 2,263 acres and exceeds minimum guidelines by 927 acres. The 0.5 mile core of AC 252 contains 

217 acres of foraging habitat and 179 acres of N/R. The AC exceeds minimum guidelines by 67 acres 

foraging and is deficit 71 acres N/R within 0.5 mi. 

This AC will have 0% of N/R within 0.5 miles and 1% of NR within 1.3 and 0% of foraging within 0.5 

and 1% of foraging within 1.3 mi treated with thinning and fuels treatment. 

Summary 

The stands selected for treatment minimally met the definition of suitable habitat, but had a lower 

likelihood contributing to survivorship or reproduction. The stands had one or more features of suitable 

habitat, but lacked other important characteristics that reduce their likelihood of occupancy or use. 

Treatments as designed will accelerate the development of important characteristics that are currently 

lacking.

All treated habitat will remain functional immediately post project. In addition, treatment of capable but 

currently unsuitable stands within the ACs will improve habitat conditions for the owls.

No harvest will occur in the 100+ acre nest groves and all 8 activity centers have more than the requisite 

70 acres protected (Table 17).

Effects of the Project on NSO Critical Habitat

Approximately 28,413 acres of 36,267 acres of the action area occurs within the Unit 11, Interior 

California Coast Subunits 1 and 2 of the 2012 NSO Critical Habitat. Under the Proposed Action, there 

are 16 units to be treated for hazardous fuel reduction (215 acres), 4 units of oak woodland restoration (37 

acres), 8 units of plantation thins (108 acres) and 61 units (461 acres) of fuelbreak construction that would 

occur in NSO CHU. A total of 821 acres would be treated in CHU, 39 acres would be treated in ICCS 1 

and 784 acres would be treated in ICCS 2. A total of 784 acres of NSO nesting/roosting, foraging and 

dispersal habitat and 37 acres non-habitat would be treated between the two subunits of CHU (Table 18).

All units within the 1st 48 project are within Critical Habitat and all NSO acres treated and removed is 

identical to the PCE’s treated and removed.
66

Note that all Primary Constituent Elements (PCE) discussed below occur in concert with PCE 1, which is 

coniferous forest types that support the NSO.

Nesting/Roosting Habitat (PCE 2)

Suitable nesting/roosting NSO habitat, as defined by the Forest Service, is composed of mature timbered 

stands having multi-layered conditions, a canopy closure of 60 percent or greater, and obvious decadence 

(large, live coniferous trees with deformities such as cavities, broken tops, and dwarf-mistletoe 

infections). Overstory should be comprised of conifer trees 21 inches or greater dbh and should comprise 

at least 40 percent of the total canopy closure. The forest’s local definition of nesting/roosting habitat also 

includes stands with overstory canopy closure of at least 40 percent because these stands typically have a 

hardwood understory which increases total canopy closure to 60 percent or greater.

Potential treatment units were selected by a silviculturist from a vegetative database and then field 

verified as to density and stand structure. Field verification was completed by the silviculturist and 

wildlife biologist. All stands classified as late mature or old growth were excluded from treatment. Midmature stands with predominant trees were ground verified as to whether they contained stand structure 

characteristics that would be classified as high-quality nesting/roosting habitat.

All high-quality nesting/roosting habitat stands were dropped from treatment.

Of the 28,413 acres of CHU within the action area, 13,686 acres are suitable nesting/roosting habitat 

(PCE2). Approximately 290 acres (2%) of PCE2 is proposed for fuels reduction treatments. The 

treatments would maintain all components of PCE2. 

There would be no removal of PCE2 due to thinning or fuels reduction activities.

Thin from below is a silvicultural method that involves removal of trees from lower canopy positions 

(overtopped, intermediate, and sometimes codominant), retaining the largest and most vigorous trees with 

the best-developed crowns. This type of thinning closely mimics the natural course of stand development 

as it eliminates the trees least likely to grow into the dominant or codominant crown classes. Thinning 

reduces the stand density of trees to improve growth and yield, enhance stand health, and reduce potential 

tree mortality. Thin from below while maintaining a minimum of 60 percent or greater canopy cover is 

the best management prescription to maintain and recruit the habitat variables critical to nesting/roosting 

habitat (e.g., large old trees and codominant and intermediate conifers with crown space in the canopy for 

crown development) while at the same time improving forest health and reducing risk to wildfire and 

insects and disease.

Fuel reduction treatments are designed to reduce ground fuels and the lower understory vegetation that 

create ladders for fire to climb into the canopy. Treatments are limited to pruning lower branches of larger 

trees and removal of brush and small diameter trees 8 inches in diameter or less. No predominant or 

dominant trees would be removed, canopy closure would be maintained at 60 percent or greater, and 

snags and downed logs (20-inch dbh or greater) would be maintained unless they pose a safety hazard. 

The habitat would remain suitable post-project.

Fuel treatments are designed to reduce the risk of fire disturbance on a large scale. Although multi-layered 

conditions contributing to PCE2 would be reduced by removing brush and understory trees within 150 

feet of a road, treatments would result in a greater assurance of long-term maintenance of existing latesuccessional habitat within the action area. Fuel treatments in strategic areas along high-use roads would 

reduce the risk of fire ignitions along high use roads and provide greater protection to adjacent latesuccessional habitat. This would protect and enhance owl Critical Habitat in the end.
67

Fuelbreak construction would modify 228 acres of low to moderate quality PCE2 and 62 acres of low to 

moderate quality PCE2 will be treated through hazardous fuels reduction; however, the habitat would be 

maintained as nesting/ roosting habitat post-project. No PCEs would be removed through thinning or 

fuels treatments. 

Fuels reduction activities may modify suitable NSO nesting/roosting habitat PCE; however, the habitat 

would remain suitable post project. Even though the treatment areas would remain suitable immediately 

post-treatment, 13,365 acres (98%) of PCE2 in the action area would remain untreated in this project.

Foraging Habitat (PCE 3)

The 2012 Critical Habitat Rule describes foraging habitat in the Klamath and Northern California Interior 

Coast Ranges Zone as having “very vegetative diversity” and that foraging-only habitat “for this zone 

showed greater divergence from nesting habitat, with much lower canopy cover and tree size.” The Rule 

states that “habitats used for foraging northern spotted owls are much more variable than in northern 

portions of the species’ range” and that “northern spotted owls would forage in younger stands and brushy 

openings with high prey densities and access to prey (Carey et al. 1992; Rosenberg and Anthony 1992; 

Thome et al. 1999; Irwin et al. 2012). Throughout much of the owl‘s range, the same habitat that provides 

for nesting and roosting also provides for foraging, although northern spotted owls have greater flexibility 

in utilizing a variety of habitats for foraging than they do for nesting and roosting.”

Foraging habitat often has attributes similar to that of nesting/ roosting habitat, but such habitat lacks 

specific nesting structures necessary to support successfully nesting pairs. It is often the younger stands 

that provide habitat for those early and mid-successional associated prey species that nesting/roosting 

habitat do not offer. Foraging habitat is identified in the SRNF vegetation GIS layer, which uses the 11-

inch dbh/40 percent canopy closure of the California Wildlife Habitat Relationship (CWHR) classification 

to define the lower end of this habitat type. Due to this, many acres of conifer-dominated stands are 

shown here as foraging habitat rather than as dispersal habitat.

Of the 8,648 acres of potential PCE3 within Critical Habitat in the action area, approximately 383 acres of 

foraging PCE would be treated either through shaded fuelbreak construction (232 acres) and fuels 

reduction treatments (151 acres). An additional 3 acres will be removed for landings (12 landings total). 

The treatments would maintain all components of foraging habitat. No PCE3 will be removed except on 

the 3 acres for landing construction, which will resemble small forest openings. No more than 0.25 acres 

would be removed in any one area. These thinning treatments would accelerate the development of latesuccessional characteristics that favor northern spotted owls and protect existing suitable habitat The loss 

of PCE in any one area would be negligible. All associated landings would be decommissioned after 

project activities are complete.

The stands within foraging habitat proposed for treatment are even-aged and lack the horizontal and 

vertical diversity components associated with late-mature stands. These young stands have the potential to 

achieve rapid diameter and height growth with commercial thinning. Silvicultural prescriptions would 

ensure retention of existing stand structure, species composition, snags, and downed logs. Treatment 

would maintain functional habitat conditions within all currently suitable foraging, and is expected to 

improve conditions within the stands treated in the long term.

Thinning would have a positive impact to NSO foraging PCE since growth would be accelerated resulting 

in multi-layered, older seral stages earlier than if left unthinned. Reducing tree density within foraging 

habitat would improve forest health and a reduced risk from fire. Existing structural conditions would be 
68

maintained in order to support prey occurrence and abundance while allowing for rapid development of 

replacement habitat. Replacement habitat could develop into nesting/roosting habitat over time. Some 

stands would be immediately improved upon completion of the treatment by allowing increased access to 

prey by the owl in the dense stands formerly refugia for the wood rat.

Jackpot burning may be used within the fuelbreaks and the fuels reduction treatment units including the 

383 acres of foraging habitat. The primary objective of jackpot burning is to reduce ground fuels within 

fuelbreaks. Because of its low intensity, the burn is not uniform in nature creating a mosaic pattern within 

the stand. Effects of jackpot burning would be limited because of this patchiness leaving interspaces of 

unburned forest floor. Foraging habitat would be modified as some understory shrubs and some small 

saplings would be killed and some smaller downed logs would be consumed from the burning in portions 

of the stand; however, current habitat function would be maintained. The results would be a more 

complex understory and forest floor that would benefit key prey species for the spotted owl such as the 

dusky-footed woodrat, while breaking up the continuity of the fuels in the understory to reduce flame 

length and spread of wildfire.

Burning would occur under specific weather and moisture conditions designed to minimize damage to the 

residual stand, maintain large woody debris and maintain about 50 percent of the duff layer. Burning 

could reduce prey species temporarily in the immediate area, but is expected to be a short-term effect.

Dead and down material are usually of large enough diameters that the logs are not burned completely 

and continue to provide key habitat features, such as refugia and escape cover. In some areas, fuel 

treatments may be beneficial to the NSO in potential foraging habitat in CHU by opening thick subcanopy vegetation, allowing increased access to prey. In addition, owls are known to forage within the 

burned areas once the understory vegetation begins to grow again.

Fuel corridors would be created along major roads, mainly along ridge tops, to create a defensible space 

and safe access to assist in firefighting efforts and to protect existing nesting/roosting/foraging habitat 

from human-caused fires. Fuel reduction treatments are designed to reduce ground fuels and the lower 

understory vegetation that create ladders for fire to climb into the canopy. Although multi-layered 

conditions contributing to foraging habitat would be slightly reduced by removing brush and understory 

trees treatments would result in a greater assurance of long-term maintenance of suitable foraging and 

foraging PCE within the planning area.

The project would modify approximately 383 (4%) acres of low to moderate quality foraging habitat PCE 

in fuels and thinning; however the habitat would be maintained as foraging habitat immediately post 

project.

Removal of PCE3 for new landing construction would be minimal in any one area (0.25 acres or less). No 

PCEs would be removed through thinning or fuels treatments. The project design would ensure retention 

of existing stand structure, species composition, snags, and downed logs. Canopy closure would be 

reduced in the short term, but would be maintained at a minimum of 60 percent closure. Foraging habitat 

function would be maintained immediately post-project. Treatment would maintain functional PCE 

conditions within all currently suitable foraging habitats and is expected to improve conditions within the 

stands treated in the long term. These treatments would accelerate the development of late-successional 

characteristics that favor northern spotted owls.
69

Dispersal Habitat (PCE 4)

The survivorship of northern spotted owls is likely greatest when dispersal habitat most closely resembles 

nesting, roosting, and foraging habitat, but owls may use other types of habitat for dispersal on a shortterm basis. Dispersal habitat, at a minimum, consists of stands with adequate tree size and canopy cover 

to provide protection from avian predators and at least minimal foraging opportunities. The minimum 

requirement for dispersal-only habitat is forests composed of at least 50 percent of trees with 11 inches 

DBH or greater and a minimum 40 percent canopy cover. Although NSO use nesting/roosting/foraging 

habitat as dispersal habitat, here we define dispersal-only as conifer forest types that fall below the 

definition of foraging but still meet the criteria for dispersal.

Of the 6,505 acres of dispersal-only habitat within the project action area, approximately 108 acres would 

be treated (2% of the dispersal-only habitat in the action area). These units are very low-quality dispersal 

habitat because they are densely stocked with little space for an owl to fly through. Thinning would 

reduce stand density; however, post-treatment canopy cover would be maintained at 60 percent or greater. 

These stands would be immediately improved as dispersal habitat post treatment.

Even though all treatment areas would maintain their current habitat function and maintain a minimum of 

60 percent canopy closure, approximately 98 percent of the dispersal-only habitat in the action area would 

not have any treatment. Since the NSO use nesting/roosting/foraging habitat for dispersal as well, of the 

28,839 acres of nesting/roosting/foraging/dispersal habitat in the action area approximately 99 percent of 

habitat suitable for dispersal would be left untreated in the action area.

Subunit ICC 1 and 2: Approximately 195,097 acres of Unit 11, Interior California Coast Subunit 1 and 2 

occurs on the SRNF with 179,758 acres on the Mad River RD and 28,413 acres within the 1

st 48 Project

action area. Approximately, 290 acres (2%) of PCE2, 383 acres (4%) of PCE 3, and 108 acres (2%) of 

PCE 4 will be treated within the 28,413 acres of the Action Area. The 1st 48 project would leave 98% of 

PCE2, 96% of PCE 3, and 98% of PCE4 untreated within CHU. 

Noise and Smoke 

Noise and smoke-generating activities that occur within or adjacent to suitable northern spotted owl 

habitat has the potential to disturb nesting owls. To avoid disturbance, design features and limited 

operating periods (LOPs) would be implemented as described in the project design features in Section IV.

Prohibit all timber harvest, heavy equipment use, chainsaw use, and smoke producing activities within 

0.25 miles of known NSO activity center (AC) from February 1 through July 31. Surveys to protocol will 

continue for the life of the project or additional seasonal restrictions will be imposed on any treatment in 

or within 0.25 miles of nesting/roosting habitat. No activities will occur between February 1 and 

September 15 in occupied (breeding pair) habitat or unsurveyed nesting/roosting habitat.

Direct Injury or Death

Surveys to the most current, USFWS approved-protocol have been conducted throughout the project area, 

and 8 northern spotted owl territories have been identified. No treatments will occur within the 70+-acre 

nest groves established around each known activity center and no activities will occur in high quality 

nesting/roosting habitat anywhere in the project area. Limited operating periods have been established for 

all activities within 0.25 miles of each activity center (Appendix A). Updated surveys will be maintained 

throughout the life of the project or additional limited operating periods will be implemented on activities 

within 0.25 miles of nesting/roosting habitat without up-to-date surveys. There is a low likelihood that 
70

direct injury or death could occur to an individual northern spotted owl during the implementation of the 

management activities. No activities will occur between February 1 and September 15 in occupied

(breeding pair) habitat or unsurveyed nesting/roosting habitat.

Cumulative Effects

Regarding all the past impacts from land uses (mining, timber harvest, and road constructions), the 1st 48 

Project will facilitate restoration by thinning plantations and young natural stands. The beneficial 

cumulative effects include the reduction of habitat fragmentation and the development of late-seral 

conditions. 

Timber Harvest

Timber harvest activities and the suppression of wildfire in Mad River RD have led to changes in seral 

stages and increases in fuels. This shift in seral stage distribution is highest in the tanoak and Douglas-fir 

series, due to harvest of commercially valuable old growth Douglas-fir stands that began in the late 1950s. 

There has been a reduction in old-growth forests and an increase in shrub, pole, and early mature forests.

Currently three timber sales occur within the Upper Mad River watershed (UMRW) on the Mad River 

RD: Little Doe/Little Gulch, Kelsey Peak and Beaverslide. The action area for Beaverslide overlaps with 

the 1

st 48 Project, but no treatments overlap or occur within any AC associated with the 1st 48 Project. The 

Shasta Trinity Salvage Project also overlaps with the 1

st 48 Project, but no treatments overlap or occur 

within any affected AC. Therefore, these projects would not be discussed any further.

The action areas for the 1st 48 Project and the Kelsey Peak Project overlap. No timber sale units for 

Kelsey Peak are within the overlap; however, 638 acres of the Kelsey fuels corridor overlaps into the 1st

48 Project. The Kelsey fuels corridor connects directly into the 1st 48 Project shaded fuelbreak creating an 

extended fuelbreak near the town of Ruth.

The Kelsey Peak Project has proposed treatments in 414 acres and 2,175 acres of nesting/roosting and 

foraging respectively. This equates to 3 percent nesting/roosting habitat being treated and 10 percent 

foraging habitat combined for the two projects being treated within the UMRW. All acres of these 

treatments would maintain its current habitat function except for a negligible amount removed for 

landings that resemble small forest openings and would be decommissioned post-project. This leaves 97 

percent and 90 percent of the available nesting/roosting and foraging habitat untreated and available as 

alternative habitat for the use by spotted owls.

Because the effects of thinning and fuel treatments are primarily beneficial to NSO, similar projects 

(Beaverslide) in the area should be considered to have achieved the desired conditions and provided 

positive cumulative effects to the area, as recommended by the Recovery Plan and the CHU Rule.

Within or overlapping the boundaries of the Upper Mad River Watershed there are over 85 NSO ACs. 

Since the two projects are immediately adjacent to each other, four ACs overlap Kelsey and 1st 48 (Tables 

20 and 21).

Northern spotted owls are yearlong residents and maintain individual territories. The average home range 

of the northern spotted owl is approximately 1.3 miles from the nest site, with the most activity occurring 

within 0.5 mile of the nest tree. The ridges and draws associated with watersheds create natural barriers 

between territories. Additionally, the Upper Mad River Watershed is a large watershed bordered by South 

Fork Mountain to the north and Mad River Ridge and Jones Ridge to the south. These ridges are many 
71

miles long and often exceed 5,000 feet in elevation. Northern spotted owls within the watershed are likely 

to disperse within the watershed as opposed to crossing the major ridges to disperse into an adjoining 

drainage. It is more likely they would disperse into the sub-watersheds associated with the Upper Mad 

River Watershed. 

Habitats

Four of the eight ACs in the 1st 48 Project area also overlap the Kelsey Peak Project planning area. 

Incorporating the entire home ranges for these four NSO has defined the action area and has been 

evaluated throughout this document. The combined effects of the 1st 48 and Kelsey Peak projects are 

displayed in tables below.

Table 20. Combined treatments for 1st 48 (48) and Kelsey Peak (KP) projects in foraging habitat by 

activity centers (AC) that overlap both projects.

AC#

Acre Total for 

48

Acre Total for 

KP

Acre Total for 

Both

Acre Total Habitat 

Avail % Habitat Impact

0.5 

miles

1.3 

miles

0.5 

miles

1.3 

miles

0.5 

miles

1.3 

miles 0.5 miles 1.3 miles 0.5 miles 1.3 miles

239 0 35 0 246.5 0 281.5 69 861 0% 33%

251 14 41 54 294 68 335 199 1127 34% 30%

387 0 28 69 495 69 523 192 1368 36% 38%

252 0 11 42 444 42 455 217 1489 19% 31%

Table 21. Combined treatments for 1

st 48 (48) and Kelsey Peak (KP) projects in Nesting/ Roosting 

habitat by activity centers (AC) that overlap both projects.

AC#

Acre Total for 

48

Acre Total for 

KP

Acre Total for 

Both

Acre Total Habitat 

Avail % Habitat Impact

0.5

miles

1.3 

miles

0.5 

miles

1.3 

miles

0.5 

miles

1.3 

miles 0.5 miles 1.3 miles 0.5 miles 1.3 miles

239 4 27 10 27 14 54 206 720 7% 8%

251 32 71 0 27 32 98 168 771 19% 13%

387 0 15 9 40 9 55 115 749 8% 7%

252 0 3 21 5 21 8 179 774 12% 1%

The only treatment occurring in these four (4) ACs for both projects is fuelbreak construction along high 

use roads. No predominant or dominant trees were or would be removed and existing canopy was or 
72

would be maintained. Snags and downed logs were and would be maintained at the 80 to 100 percent 

level. All treated acres in both project is or would remain suitable immediately post project.

The maximum amount of acres treated within an AC for the two project combined is 19 percent of 

nesting/roosting and 38 percent of foraging. Although current habitat function has been or would be 

maintained in all treated areas, approximately 98 percent of the available nesting/roosting and 90 percent 

foraging within the UMRW would be left untreated and available as alternative habitat for the use by 

spotted owls.

All treatment areas in the action areas would remain suitable immediately post project. Treatments were 

designed to maintain and restore habitat function in low to moderate quality habitat in all project areas.

Post treatment monitoring was conducted by the Level 1 Team on the Kelsey Peak Project, as well as on 

similar projects elsewhere on the Forest. All the units exceeded canopy closure requirements, and 

protected predominant trees, snags, and downed logs. The units are still functional habitat and should 

respond well to the treatments. 

All treated acres in all vegetation management projects in the planning areas projects will remain suitable 

immediately post project. Treatments were designed to maintain and restore habitat function in low to 

moderate quality habitat in all project areas.

Post treatment monitoring was conducted by the Level 1 Team on the Beaverslide and the Little Doe Low 

Gulch projects. All the units exceeded canopy closure requirements, and protected predominant trees, 

snags, and downed logs. The units are still functional habitat and should respond well to the treatments. 

It was agreed by the Level 1 Team these types of treatments would have a beneficial effect on the future 

habitat conditions of the area by creating more alternative habitats for owls to use as additional treatments 

occur on the landscape. These projects maintained habitat conditions: therefore, the combination of 

treatments amongst the Little Doe/Little Gulch, Kelsey Peak, Beaverslide and 1st 48 timber sales within 

the Mad River Watershed, all with similar prescriptions, did not decrease the habitat baseline acres for the 

NSO in the watershed.

Timber Harvest Plans

A search of the CalFire Timber Harvest Plan (THP) database showed that there was one proposed private 

timber-land THP within the 1st 48 Project area. THP #1-17-100TRI is located in T2S, R7E, Sections 11 

and 12. The project will harvest 62 acres using a group selection method. The age of the stand is 

between 40 and 75 years old, and was identified in the THP as low-quality foraging habitat. The project 

allows for openings up to 2.5 acres in size, in no more than 20% of the stand. Average canopy closure 

post-treatment will be 50%. No new roads will be constructed and landings will be 1⁄2 acre or less.

The THP occurs within the home range of AC #290, in the outer 1.3 mile radius. This home range is not 

deficit in foraging habitat (or N/R) within 1.3 mi., and the harvest plan is expected to maintain foraging 

habitat post-project. There will be no cumulative impacts from the THP that would cause adverse effects 

or change the determination for the 1st 48 Project.

Fire 

Historical records and fire evidence show that fires regularly occurred in this area with a variety of fire 

frequencies and intensities. Both wildfires and their exclusion through aggressive suppression affect plant 
73

and animal habitat, including stand structure, number of standing snags, amount of large woody debris, 

soil organic matter content, nutrient availability, and erosion hazard.

The dramatic reduction in wildfire burn acreages over the last 80 years appears to have resulted in 

unnatural fuel profiles that are more continuous, both horizontally and vertically. Given this increased 

conifer density, future wildfires could become larger and more destructive than in the past.

In the prolonged absence of fire, and aggravated by other disturbance factors, these fire-adapted forests 

and grasslands have undergone significant changes in species composition and structure. Intermediate 

canopy layers and higher ground fuel loadings have developed which allow ground fires to reach the 

crown more easily, making fires more difficult to control. Young plantations now occupy most of the 

harvested old-growth sites within the project area. Early and mid-seral stages of Douglas-fir are more 

susceptible to mortality by wildfire than older late seral stands. Thick, corky bark on the lower bole and 

roots of older trees protects the cambium from heat damage. In addition, the tall trees have their foliage 

concentrated on the upper bole, which makes it difficult for fire to reach the crown; however, trees are 

typically not free of lower branches until they are more than 100 years old (Hermann et al, 1990). Stands 

selected for treatment in project area are predominantly 80 years old or less.

The high stem densities in plantations and younger stands also results in greater fire risk. Fire suppression 

activities have significantly reduced the amount of fire over the past 50 years leaving high fuel loads in 

places, which threaten the resiliency of the upland and riparian habitats in the event of a wildfire. In 

addition to these past activities, road building has cut across numerous riparian reserves and fragmented 

habitat in multiple locations throughout the project area, which has the potential to alter the sediment 

routing within the riparian reserve.

Within the 1st 48 Project area there are two large fire scares. The first fire was the 2011 Ruth fire that was 

human caused and affected 1608 acres and the other is the 2015 Journey Fire that affected 1010 acres.

The Ruth Fire was 1,496 acres including those acres that burned on the Shasta-Trinity National Forest. 

Approximately, 1,414 acres burned on the Six Rivers NF. As with many wildfires, some areas within the 

perimeter did not burn or burned at different severities. Of the total fire acreage, 386 were in NSO 

nesting/roosting habitat and 302 were in foraging habitat. The remaining acreage was non-habitat types 

such as young conifer plantations, grasslands, riverine, brush fields, and white oak woodlands. Within 

nesting/roosting habitat the fire burned 57 acres at high severity, 118 acres at moderate severity, and 102 

acres at low severity for a total of 277 acres subjected to fire. The Forest considers the 57 acres of high 

severity to be removed as habitat. The 118 acres of moderate severity was downgraded to foraging. The 

102 acres of low severity fire was degraded, but is maintained as nesting/roosting. Within foraging habitat 

the fire burned 72 acres at high severity, 92 acres at moderate severity, and 48 acres at low severity for a 

total of 212 acres subjected to fire. The Forest considers both the high and the moderate severity burned 

acres (164) of foraging to be removed. The moderate was included in this category due to its pre-fire low 

quality or younger age as foraging. The 48 acres of low severity fire was degraded, but is maintained as 

foraging

Illegal Marijuana Cultivation

A current issues arising in the scientific community is the effect of illegal marijuana grows on public and 

private lands. The use of rodenticide has been linked to death in the Pacific fisher and the northern spotted 

owl. Illegal grow sites have been found in the project area in the past and some exist on private lands as 

well. It is uncertain how much cumulative impacts this will have on the owl at this time, but ongoing 
74

research has shown there is a greater risk to the foraging habits of the Pacific fisher than the NSO because 

of its scavenging activities during parts of the year. The data on these impacts are still being generated; 

however preliminary results indicate adverse impacts to individuals. Whether it is impacting populations 

is still to be determined. 

Marijuana cultivation on Forest Service land is an illegal activity and therefore is beyond the Forest 

Service control. The Forest Service law enforcement actively searches for and removes any grow-sites 

found; however, it is unknown how many sites exist in the Forest. It is hoped that by treating these low 

quality stands and plantations that are not currently habitat that owls will have increased areas to foraging 

and possibly help limit their exposure to the toxins may be found in the forest from illegal activities.

VII. Determination

Northern spotted owl

It is the determination of the wildlife biologist that the implementation of the 1

ST 48 Project “may affect 

but is not likely to adversely affect” the NSO due to modification of 96 acres of moderate-quality N/R, 

194 low quality N/R and 386 acres of moderate- to low-quality foraging habitat in the project area. No 

treatment will occur within 70+ acre nest groves. All current habitat function will be maintained in all 

treated areas and ample alternative (non-treated) habitat exists in all areas. No HQNR will be treated and 

no NSOs will be taken. In the long term, this project is expected to have beneficial effects through 

restoration and protection of higher quality habitats. The project is consistent with the 2011 NSO 

Recovery Plan. LOPs will be imposed to prevent noise and smoke disturbance during the peak breeding 

season. The Six Rivers National Forest/Arcata Fish and Wildlife Service level 1 Team consider the 3 

acres of LQF removed for landings to be insignificant.

The 1

st 48 Project “may affect but is not likely to adversely affect” NSO Critical Habitat due to 

modification of primary constituent elements, although current functionality of the NRFD PCEs will be 

maintained. In the long term, this project is expected to have a beneficial effect on Critical Habitat 

through restoration and protection of higher quality habitats. The project is consistent with the 2012 NSO 

Critical Habitat Rule. Approximately, 290 acres (2%) of PCE2, 383 acres (4%) of PCE 3, and 108 acres 

(2%) of PCE 4 will be treated of the 28,413 acres of NSO CHU within the Action Area. The 1st 48 project 

would leave 98% of PCE2, 96% of PCE 3, and 98% of PCE4 untreated within CHU. The project will 

maintain all habitat and will be suitable directly after treatment. 

Sensitive Species

The project may impact individual fisher through the modification of suitable denning habitat; however, 

all habitat will remain suitable post-implementation, The project may impact individual yellow-legged 

frogs during the replacement of a stream crossing. The project will not cause a trend towards listing for 

either species. The project will have no impact on any other Forest Service Sensitive wildlife species.

VIII. Management Recommendations

There are no management recommendations for this project.

IX. Literature Cited

Also see the Forest-wide Reference Document (January 2018), Six Rivers National Forest. 

Barrows, C. 1980. Feeding ecology of the spotted owl in California. Raptor Research 14:73-78. 
75

Bent, A. C. 1938 (book). Life histories of North American birds of prey. Part 2. U.S. National Museum 

Bulletin, no. 170.

Bingham, B.B., and B.R. Noon. 1997. The use of core areas in comprehensive mitigation strategies. (47k) 

Conservation Biology 12(1):241-243.

Bond, M.L., D.E. Lee, R.B. Siegel and J.P. Ward, Jr. 2009. Habitat use and selection by California 

spotted owls in a postfire landscape. Journal of Wildlife Management 73:1116–1124.

Carey, A.B., S.P. Horton, and B.L. Biswell. 1992. Northern spotted owls: influence of prey base and 

landscape character. Ecological Monographs 62(2):223–250

Carey, AB.1995 Sciurids in Pacific Northwest Managed and Old-Growth Forests. Ecological 

Applications, Vol. 5, No. 3 pp. 648-661

Carroll, C., W.J. Zielinski, and R.F. Noss. 1999. Using presence-absence data to build and test spatial 

habitat models for the fisher in the Klamath Region, U.S.A. Conservation Biology 13: 1344-1359.

Clark, Darren A. 2007. Demography and Habitat Selection of Northern Spotted Owls in Post-fire 

Landscapes of Southwestern Oregon. Master’s Thesis submitted to Oregon State University, 

Corvallis, Oregon. 201pp.

Del Norte Fire Safe Council. 2005. Del Norte Community Wildfire Protection Plan. Crescent City, CA. 

162 pp.

Dugger, K.M., R.G. Anthony and L.S. Andrews. 2011. Transient dynamics of invasive competition: 

barred owls, spotted owls, habitat composition and the demons of competition present. Ecological 

Applications, 21(7), 2011, pp. 2459–2468

Forsman, E.D. 1975. A preliminary investigation of the spotted owl in Oregon. Thesis, Oregon State 

University, Corvallis. 145 pp.

Forsman, E.D., E.C. Meslow, and H.M. Wight. 1984. Distribution and biology of the spotted owl in 

Oregon. Wildlife Monographs 87:1–64.

Forsman, E.D., R.G. Anthony, E.C. Meslow and C.J. Zabel. 2004. Diets and foraging behavior of 

northern spotted owls in Oregon. Journal of Raptor Research 38:214–230.

Forsman, E.D., R.G. Anthony, K.M. Dugger, E.M. Glenn, A.B. Franklin, G.C. White, C.J. Schwarz, K.P. 

Burnham, D.R. Anderson, J.D. Nichols, J.E. Hines, J.B. Lint, R.J. Davis, S.H. Ackers, L.S. 

Andrews, B.L. Biswell, P.C. Carlson, L.V. Diller, S.A. Gremel, D.R. Herter, J.M. Higley, R.B. 

Horn, J.A. Reid, J. Rockweit, J. Schaberl, T.J. Snetsinger and S.G. Sovern. 2011 (book). 

Population demography of northern spotted owls: 1985–2008. Studies in Avian Biology. Cooper 

Ornithological Society.

Franklin, A.B., D. R. Anderson, R. J. Gutiérrez, and K. P. Burnham 2000. Climate, habitat quality, and 

fitness in northern spotted owl populations in northwestern California. Ecological Monographs 

70:539–590

Gould, G. I., Jr. 1974. The status of the spotted owl in California. Calif. Dep. Fish and Game, 

Sacramento, Admin. Rep. No. 74-6. 36pp.
76

Hamer, T. E. 1988. Home range size of the Northern Barred Owl and Northern Spotted Owl in western 

Washington. M.Sc. thesis, Western Washington University, Bellingham, WA.

Hamer, T.E., S. K. Nelson. 1995. Characteristics of Marbled Murrelet Nest Trees and Nesting Stands. 

USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-152

Hamer, T.E., E.D. Forsman and E.M Glenn. 2007. Home range attributes and habitat selection of barred 

owls and spotted owls in an area of sympatry. Condor 109:750–768.

Hansen, D.L., and M.J. Mazurek. 2010. Effects of forest thinning on northern spotted owls. Unpublished 

white paper.

Hanson, C. T., D. C. Odion, D. A. DellaSala, and W. L. Baker. 2009. Overestimation of fire risk in the 

Northern Spotted Owl Recovery Plan. Conservation Biology 23:1314–1319.

Healey, S.P., W. B. Cohen, T. A. Spies, M. Moeur, D. Pflugmacher, M. G.Whitley, and M. Lefsky. 2008. 

The Relative Impact of Harvest and Fire upon Landscape-Level Dynamics of Older Forests: 

Lessons from the Northwest Forest Plan. Ecosystems (2008) 11: 1106–1119

Herter, D. R., and L. L. Hicks. 2000. Barred Owl and Spotted Owl populations and habitat in the central 

Cascade Range of Washington. Journal of Raptor Research 34:279–286.

Hessburg, P. F., R. B. Salter, and K. M. James. Re-examining fire severity relations in pre-management 

era mixed conifer forests: inferences from landscape patterns of forest structure. Landscape 

Ecology 22.1 (2007): 5-24.

Heyerdahl, E.K, A,G, McKenzie, L. D. Daniels, A. E. Hessl, J. S. Littell, and N. J. Mantua. 2008. Climate 

drivers of regionally synchronous fires in the inland Northwest (1651–1900). International 

Journal of Wildland Fire 2008, 17, 40–49 

Innes, R. J., D. H. Van Vuren, D. A. Kelt, M. L. Johnson, J.A. Wilson and P. A. Stine. 2007. Habitat 

Associations of Dusky-Footed Woodrats (Neotoma fuscipes) in Mixed-Conifer Forest of the 

Northern Sierra Nevada. Journal of Mammalogy, Vol. 88, No. 6 (Dec., 2007), pp. 1523-1531

Irwin, L. L., L. A. Clark, D. C. Rock, S. L. Rock. 2007. Modeling Foraging Habitat of California Spotted 

Owls. Journal of Wildlife Management 71(4):1183–1191; 2007)

Irwin, L. L., D. F. Rock, and S. C. Rock. 2012. Habitat Selection by Northern Spotted Owls in MixedConiferous Forests. The Journal of Wildlife Management 76(1):200–213.

Jenkins, M.J, W. G. Page, E. G. Hebertson, M. E. Alexander. 2012. Fuels and fire behavior dynamics in 

bark beetle-attacked forests in Western North America and implications for fire management. 

Forest Ecology and Management 275 (2012) 23–34

Kelly, E.G., E.D. Forsman, and R.G. Anthony. 2003. Are barred owls displacing spotted owls? Condor 

105:45–53.

Kennedy, R.S.H. and M. C. Wimberley. 2009. Historical fire and vegetation dynamics in dry forests of 

the interior Pacific Northwest, USA, and relationships to Northern Spotted Owl (Strix 

occidentalis caurina) habitat conservation. USDA Forest Service Pacific Northwest Research 
77

Station, Forestry Sciences Laboratory, 3200 Forest Ecology and Management 258 (2009) 554–

566

Koch, J., J. Strange, and P.H. Williams. 2012 (book) Bumble bees of the western United States. US 

Forest Service; San Francisco, Calif., 2012.

Lacki, M.J. and M.D. Baker. 2007. Day Roosts of Female Fringed Myotis (Myotis thysanodes) in Xeric 

Forests of the Pacific Northwest. Journal of Mammalogy. Vol. 88(4). 967-973.

Latta, G., H. Temesgen, D. Adams, and T. Barrett. 2010. Analysis of potential impacts of climate change 

on forests of the United States Pacific Northwest. Forest Ecology and Management 259 (2010) 

720–729

Littell, J.S., D. McKenzie, D. L. Peterson, and A. L. Westerling. 2009. Climate and wildfire area burned 

in western U.S. ecoprovinces, 1916–2003. Ecological Applications, 19(4), 2009, pp. 1003–1021

Littell, J.S., E. E. O’Neil, D. McKenzie, J. A. Hicke, J. A. Lutz, R. A. Norheim, M. M. Elsner. 2010. 

Forest ecosystems, disturbance, and climatic change in Washington State, USA. Climatic Change 

(2010) 102:129–158

Livezey, K. 2007. Barred owl habitat and prey: a review and synthesis of the literature J. Raptor Res. 

41(3):177–201

Lofroth, E. C., C. M. Raley, J. M. Higley, R. L. Truex, J. S. Yaeger, J. C. Lewis, P. J. Happe, L. L. 

Finley, R. H. Naney, L. J. Hale, A. L. Krause, S. A. Livingston, A. M. Myers, and R. N. Brown. 

2010. Conservation of Fishers (Martes pennanti) in South-Central British Columbia, Western 

Washington, Western Oregon, and California–Volume I: Conservation Assessment. USDI Bureau 

of Land Management, Denver, Colorado, USA.

Marlon, J.R. , P.J. Bartlein, D. G. Gavin, C.J. Long, R. S. Anderson, C. E. Briles, K. J. Brown, D. 

Colombaroli, D. J. Hallett, M. J. Power, E. A. Scharf, and M. K. Walsh. 2012. Long-term 

perspective on wildfires in the western USA. Published online February 14, 2012

 www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas. 1112839109

Miller, J.D., H. D. Safford, M. Crimmins, and A. E. Thode. 2009. Quantitative Evidence for Increasing 

Forest Fire Severity in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Mountains, California and 

Nevada, USA Ecosystems (2009) 12: 16–32

Miller, J.D., C. N. Skinner, H. D. Safford, E. E. Knapp, and C. M. Ramirez. 2012. Trends and causes of 

severity, size, and number of fires in northwestern California, USA. Ecological Applications, 

22(1), 2012, pp. 184–203

Nelson, S.K., H. Mark, S.L. Miller, and M.G. Raphael. 2006. Chapter 2: Marbled Murrelet Biology: 

Habitat Relations and Populations in Northwest Forest Plan – the First 10 Years (1994-2003): 

Status and Trends of Populations and Nesting Habitat for the Marbled Murrelet. USDA Forest 

Service – General Technical Report. (650) 9-302.

North, M. P., J. F. Franklin, A. B. Carey, E. D. Forsman and T. Hamer. 1999. Forest stand structure of the 

northern spotted owl's foraging habitat. Forest Science 45:520-527.
78

Perry, D. A., P. F. Hessburg, C. N. Skinner, T. A. Spies, S. L. Stephens, A. H. Taylor, J. F. Franklin, B. 

McComb, G. Riegel. 2011. The ecology of mixed severity fire regimes in Washington, Oregon, 

and Northern California. Forest Ecology and Management 262 (2011) 703–717

Pierson, E.D. and W. E. Rainey. 1998. Fringed Myotis, Myotis thysanodes in Terrestrial Mammal 

Species of Special Concern in California. pp. 54-58. Bolster, B.C. Ed.

Rao, S., W.P. Stephen, C. Kimoto and S.J. DeBano. 2011. The Status of the ‘Red-Listed’ Bombus 

occidentalis (Hymenoptera: Apiformes) in Northeastern Oregon. Northwest Science 85: 64-67.

Rosenberg, D. K., and R.G. Anthony. 1992. Characteristics of northern flying squirrel populations in 

young second- and old-growth forests in western Oregon. Canadian Journal of Zoology 70:161–

166.

Rosenberg, D. K., C. J. Zabel, B. R. Noon, and E. C. Meslow. 1994. Northern spotted owls: influence of 

prey base a comment. Ecology, 75(5), 1994, pp. 1512-1515

Sakai, H.F., and B.R. Noon. 1993. Dusky-footed woodrat abundance in different-aged forests in 

northwestern California. Journal of Wildlife Management 57:373–382.

Sakai, H. F., & B.R. Noon. 1997. Between-habitat movement of dusky-footed woodrats and vulnerability 

to predation. The Journal of wildlife management, 61(2): 343-350.

Slauson, K. M., W. J. Zielinski, and J.P. Hayes. 2007. Habitat Selection by American Martens in Coastal 

California. Journal of Wildlife Management 71(2):458–468; 2007)

Slauson, K.M. and W.J. Zielinski. 2009. Characteristics of summer and fall diurnal resting habitat used by 

American martens in coastal northwestern California. Northwest Science 83(1):35–45.

Slauson, K.M., J.A. Baldwin, W.J. Zielinski, and T.A. Kirk. 2009. Status and estimated size of the only 

remnant population of the Humboldt subspecies of the American marten (Martes americana 

humboldtensis) in northwestern California, Final report. Unpublished report 32 November 25, 

2009. USDA FS, PSW, Redwood Sciences Laboratory, Arcata, California.

Spies, T.A., J.D. Miller, J.B. Buchanan, J.F. Lehmkuhl, J.F. Franklin, S.P. Healey, P.F. Hessburg, H.D. 

Safford, W.B. Cohen, R.S.H. Kennedy, E.E. Knapp, J.K. Agee and M. Moeur. 2010. 

Underestimating risks to the northern spotted owl in fire-prone forests: response to Hanson et al. 

Conservation Biology 24:330–333.

Solis, D.M. 1983. Summer habitat ecology of spotted owls in Northwestern California. Thesis, Humboldt 

State University, Arcata, California.

Solis, D.M., and R.J. Gutiérrez. 1990. Summer habitat ecology of northern spotted owls in northwestern 

California. Condor 92:739–748.

Syphard, A.D., R. M. Scheller, B. C. Ward, W. D. Spencer, and J. R. Strittholt. 2011. Simulating 

landscape-scale effects of fuels treatments in the Sierra Nevada, California, USA. International 

Journal of Wildland Fire 2011, 20, 364–383
79

Thome, D. M., C. J. Zabel and L.V. Diller. 1999. Forest Stand Characteristics and Reproduction of 

Northern Spotted Owls in Managed North-Coastal California Forests. The Journal of Wildlife 

Management, Vol. 63, No. 1, pp. 44-59

Thompson, J., L. Diller, R. Golightly and R. Klug. 2007. Fisher (Martes pennanti) Use of a Managed 

Forest in Coastal Northwest California. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report PSWGTR-194. 2pp. 

Thorp, R. W., and M. D. Shepherd. 2005. Profile: Subgenus Bombus. In Shepherd, M. D., D. M. 

Vaughan, and S. H. Black (Eds). Red List of Pollinator Insects of North America. The Xerces 

Society for Invertebrate Conservation, Portland, OR.

USDA Forest Service. 1985. Ecology and Management of the Spotted Owl in the Pacific Northwest. 

Technical PNW -185.

USDA Forest Service. 1995. Six Rivers National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (SRNF 

LRMP). Six Rivers National Forest. Eureka, CA

USDA Forest Service. 1995b. USFS Region 5 Soil Quality Standards and Guidelines. FSH 2509.18 - Soil 

management handbook R5 Supplement No. 2509.18-95-1 San Francisco, California. Effective 

June 11, 1995.

USDA Forest Service 1995c. Smith River Ecosystem Analysis: Basin and Sub-basin analyses, and LateSuccessional Reserve Assessment, version 1.0 (McCain, M., B. Devlin-Craig, C. Black, editors). 

Six Rivers National Forest, Eureka, California, 213 pp.

USDA Forest Service. 2013. Biological Assessment/Evaluation, Forest-wide Reference Document. 

Unpublished report. Original publication 1997, last update 9/12/2013. Six Rivers National Forest. 

111 pp.

USDA-USDI Interagency Regional Ecosystem Office. 1996. Memorandum: Amendment to “Criteria to 

exempt specific silvicultural activities in Late Successional Reserves and managed Late 

Successional Reserves from Regional; Ecosystem office Review”. Portland, OR. 6 pp.

USDA-USDI. 2001. Urban Wildland Interface Communities within the Vicinity of Federal Lands That 

Are at High Risk from Wildfire. Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 160 / Friday, August 17, 2001

USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management. 2001b. Record of Decision for 

Amendment to the Survey and Mange, Protection Buffer, and other Mitigation Measures 

Standards and Guidelines. Portland, OR

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 1997. The recovery plan for the threatened marbled murrelet 

(Brachyramphus marmoratus) in Washington, Oregon, and California populations. Portland, OR. 

171pp.

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2009. Regulatory and Scientific Basis for U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Guidance for Evaluation of Take for Northern Spotted Owls on Private Timberlands in 

California’s Northern Interior Region. Yreka, California 78 pp
80

U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 2011. Final Revised Recovery Plan for the 

Northern Spotted Owl, Strix occidentalis caurina. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, 

Oregon.

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2011b. Endangered and Threated Wildlife and Plants: Designation of 

Revised Critical Habitat for the Marbled Murrelet: Final Rule. 50 CFR Part 17. Fed. Reg. 

76(193) 61599-61621. October 5, 2011.

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2011c. Species assessment and listing priority assessment form: 

Wolverine. 49 pp. April 2011.

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2012. Revised critical habitat for the Northern spotted owl. Federal 

Register Volume 77, Number 233, Pages 71875-72068, FR Doc No: 2012-28714].

USDI. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2012b. Letter from Paul Henson (USFWS) Steve Homer (American 

Bird Conservancy) dated April 30, 2012, regarding the 2012 proposed critical habitat rule, 

climate change, and spotted owl recovery. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, Oregon.

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2012c. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 12-Month 

Finding on a Petition to List the Mardon Skipper as Threatened or Endangered. 50 CFR Part 17. 

Fed Reg. 77 (171): 54332-54352. September 4, 2012.

Ward, J. P., JR. 1990. Spotted owl reproduction, diet and prey abundance in northwest California. M.S. 

Thesis, Humboldt State Univ., Arcata, Calif. 70pp.

Ward, J. P, Jr., R. J. Gutierrez, and B.R. Noon. 1998. Habitat selection by Northern Spotted Owls: the 

consequences of prey selection and distribution. Condor 100:79-92.

Waring R.H., N. C. Coops, S. W. Running, 2011. Predicting satellite-derived patterns of large scale 

disturbances in forests of the Pacific Northwest Region in response to recent climatic variation. 

Remote Sensing of Environment 115 (2011) 3554–3566

Weller, T.J. and C.J. Zabel. 2001. Characteristics of Fringed Myotis Day Roosts in Northern California. 

The Journal of Wildlife Management. 65(3): 489-497.

Williams, D. F., J. Verner, H. F. Sakai, and J. R. Waters. 1992. General biology of the major prey species 

of the California spotted owl.in J. Verner, editor. The California Spotted Owl: A Technical 

Assessment of Its Current Status. General Technical Report PSW-GTR-133 Pacific Southwest 

Research Station, Albany, California.

Williams, P. J. 2008. Home range and foraging habitat selection of spotted owls in the central Sierra 

Nevada. Master’s thesis submitted to the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN. 60 pp.

Zabel, C. J., K. McKelvey, and Ward, J .P. Jr. 1995. Influence of primary prey on home-ranges size and 

habitat-use patterns of Northern Spotted Owls (Strix occidentalis caurina). Can. J. Zool. 73:433-

439.

Zabel, C.J., J. R. Dunk, H. B. Stauffer, L. M. Roberts, B. S. Mulder, and A. Wright. 2003. Northern 

spotted owl habitat models for research and management application in California (USA). 

Ecological Applications, 13(4), 2003, pp. 1027–1040
81

Zielinski, W. J., and R. T. Golightly. 1996. The status of marten in redwoods: is the Humboldt marten 

extinct? Pp. 115-119 in Conference on Coast Redwood Forest Ecology and Management (J. 

LeBlanc, ed.). Humboldt State University, Arcata, California.

Zielinski, W.J., K.M. Slauson, C.R. Carroll, C. J. Kent, D. G Kudrna. 2001. Status of American martens 

in coastal forests of the Pacific states. Journal of Mammalogy; May 2001; 82, 2; pg. 478

Zeiner, D.C., W.F. Laudenslayer Jr., K.E. Mayer, and M. White. 1990. California statewide wildlife 

habitat relationships system. California's wildlife, 3 volumes. Calif. Dept. Fish and Game, 

Sacramento, CA.
82

Appendix A. Units Requiring Limited Operating Periods (LOP)

Table 1. Northern spotted owl: Treatment Areas requiring a LOP (no noise or smoke generating 

operations between February 1 and July 31) A September 15 LOP would occur in areas that are 

unserved or occupied by breeding pairs.

Activity Center Unit # Prescription Acres

Anada Creek #237 411 SFB 17

410 SFB 9

409 P 15

Jonathan Creek #347 413 UFB 30

415 UFB 3

417 UFB 2

414 UFB 20

419 UFB

Littlefield Creek #251 605 SFB 41

607 P 11

609 UFB 7

610 OAK 5

611 SFB 8

617 SFB 7

612 P 2

SFB: Shaded Fuelbreak, UFB: Unshaded fuelbreak/Hazardous Fuels Reduction, P: Plantations, 

OAK: Oak Woodland Restoration

Table 2. Pacific fisher: Treatment Areas requiring a LOP (no noise or smoke generating operations 

between February 1 and May 1)

Unit # Prescription Acres

501 SFB 6

502 SFB 5

504 SFB 4

509 SFB 13

616 SFB 8
83

Appendix B. Maps of Northern Spotted Owl Activity Centers with mapped nest groves

Map 1.
84

Map 2.
85

Map 3.
86

Map 4.
87

Map 5.
88

Map 6.
89

Map 7.
90

Map 8. 
91

Map 9. 
92

Map 10.
93

Map 11.
94

Map 12.