SPECIES: Scientific [common] Aegolius funereus [Boreal ]

Forest: Salmon–Challis National Forest Forest Reviewer: Mary Friberg Date of Review: 4/3/2018 Forest concurrence (or recommendation Yes if new) for inclusion of species on list of potential SCC: (Enter Yes or No)

FOREST REVIEW RESULTS:

1. The Forest concurs or recommends the species for inclusion on the list of potential SCC: Yes_X__ No___

2. Rationale for not concurring is based on (check all that apply): Species is not native to the plan area ______Species is not known to occur in the plan area ______Species persistence in the plan area is not of substantial concern ______

FOREST REVIEW INFORMATION:

1. Is the Species Native to the Plan Area? Yes_x__ No___

If no, provide explanation and stop assessment.

2. Is the Species Known to Occur within the Planning Area? Yes_x__ No___

If no, stop assessment. Table 1. All Known Occurrences, Years, and Frequency within the Planning Area

Year Ob- Number Location of Observations (USFS Source of Information served of Indi- District, Town, River, Road Inter- viduals section, HUC etc.) 1994-2007 5 Middle Fork Ranger District Idaho Fish and Wildlife Infor- mation System (January 2017); USFS NRIS Wildlife (April 2017)

1985-1994 5 Salmon-Cobalt Ranger District Idaho Fish and Wildlife Infor- mation System (January 2017); USFS NRIS Wildlife (April 2017)

1984-2011 18 North Fork Ranger District Idaho Fish and Wildlife Infor- mation System (January 2017); B. Waterbury 2011

a. Are all Species Occurrences Only Accidental or Transient?

Yes___ No_x__

If yes, document source for determination and stop assessment.

b. For species with known occurrences on the Forest since 1990, based on the number of observations and/or year of last observation, can the species be presumed to be established or becoming established in the plan area?

Yes_x__ No___

If no, provide explanation and stop assessment

c. For species with known occurrences on the Forest predating 1990, does the weight of evidence suggest the species still occurs in the plan area?

Yes___ No___

Provide explanation for determination N/A. Occurrences have been recorded since 1990.

If determination is no, stop assessment

d. Map 1, Range in Idaho (IDFG 2017a).

IDFG (Idaho Department of Fish and Game). 2017a. Boreal Owl Aegolius funereus. Internet website: https://idfg.idaho.gov/species/taxa/19007. Accessed on August 14, 2017.

a. Map 2, Boreal Owl Range in Montana (MNHP and MFWP 2017).

MNHP and MFWP (Montana Natural Heritage Program and Montana Fish, Wildlife, and Parks). 2017. Montana Field Guide. Boreal Owl - Aegolius funereus. Internet website: http://fieldguide.mt.gov/speciesDetail.aspx?elcode=ABNSB15010. Accessed on August 14, 2017.

e. Map 3, Boreal Owl Observations on Salmon-Challis NF (Idaho Fish and Wildlife Information System [January 2017], USFS Natural Re- sources Information System Wildlife [April 2017]).

3. Is There Substantial Concern for the Species’ Capability to persist Over the Long-term in the Plan Area Based on Best Available Scientific In- formation?

Table 2. Status summary based on existing conservation assessments

Entity Status/Rank (include definition if Other)

NatureServe G5 - Demonstrably widespread, abundant, and secure. Global Rank NatureServe S1 - Critically imperiled because of extreme rarity or because some factor of its biology makes it especially vulnerable State Rank to (typically 5 or fewer occurrences).

Idaho State IDAPA – protected non-game List Status Not an SGCN

USDA Forest Region 4 sensitive Service

USDI FWS Not listed as an endangered or threatened species Other IUCN Red List Category: LC - Least concern

Table 3. Status summary based on best available scientific information.

Species (Scientific and Common Name): Aegolius funereus [Boreal owl]

Criteria Rank Rationale Literature Citations 1 B2 Boreal are thought to be year-round residents of mature subalpine eBird. 2017. eBird: An online data- Distribution on forests on the SCNF (pers. commun. Beth Waterbury). Within the SCNF, base of distribution and abun- Salmon–Challis Na- occurrences have been documented in the North Fork, Salmon-Cobalt, dance [web application]. eBird, tional Forest and Middle Fork Ranger Districts (see Table 1 and Sections 2d and 2e). Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, In addition, eBird, an online database of unverified observations submit- New York. Available: ted by the public, includes a observation made in June 2016 in the Lemhi http://www.ebird.org. Accessed: Mountain Range near Mill Creek on the Lost River Ranger District. Based 2/23/2018. on observations and habitat distributions, the boreal owl is expected to be broadly, but patchily distributed across the Forest (IDFG 2005; IDFG Idaho Department of Fish and 2017b; MNHP and MFWP 2017; SAS 2017; note SAS provides North Game (IDFG) 2005. Boreal Owl. In- American range map with expected density). ternet website: https://fishandgame.idaho.gov/ifwi Confidence in Rank: High, Medium, or Low s/cwcs/pdf/Boreal%20Owl.pdf. Ac- cessed on August 14, 2017.

Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG). 2017b. Idaho State Wildlife Action Plan, 2015. Boise ID.

MNHP and MFWP (Montana Natu- ral Heritage Program and Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks). 2017. Montana Field Guide - Boreal Owl. Internet website: http://fieldguide.mt.gov/speciesDetail. aspx?elcode=ABNSB15010. Accessed on August 14, 2017.

Seattle Audubon Society (SAS). 2017. Boreal Owl. Internet website: http://www.seattleaudubon.org/bi rdweb/bird/boreal_owl. Accessed on August 14, 2017. 2 C Boreal owls are distributed throughout boreal and montane forests of Idaho Department of Fish and Distribution in sur- northern Eurasia, Canada, Alaska, the Cascade Range, Blue Mountains, Game (IDFG) 2005. Boreal Owl. In- rounding geographic south central Oregon (Cascade and Blue Mountains), and the Rocky ternet website: area Mountains ranges south through Washington, northern and central Ida- https://fishandgame.idaho.gov/ifwi ho, Montana, Wyoming, and Colorado to northern New Mexico (Nature- s/cwcs/pdf/Boreal%20Owl.pdf. Ac- Serve 2017). In Idaho, they inhabit high-elevation, mixed- forests cessed on August 14, 2017. in the northern, central, and southeastern parts of the state (IDFG 2005). They inhabit higher elevations in summer and may move downslope in NatureServe. 2017. NatureServe winter (NatureServe 2017). Thus, these owls are widely distributed out- Explorer: An online encyclopedia of side the Forest, but distributions are typically patchy (Wisdom 2000). life [web application]. Version 7.1. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Confidence in Rank: High, Medium, or Low Internet website: http://explorer.natureserve.org. Accessed on August 14, 2017.

Wisdom, M. J. et al. 2000. Source habitats for terrestrial vertebrates of focus in the Interior Columbia Basin: Broad-scale trends and man- agement implications. FS General Technical Report. 3 B Boreal owls do not regularly migrate, but they may periodically travel Hayward, Gregory D. 1994. In: Dispersal Capability south in winter in search of prey, and their average annual home range is Hayward, G. D. and J. Verner, tech. large for a small owl (>1000 ha) (Hayward 1994). (Hayward 1994). Suita- eds. Flammulated, boreal, and ble habitat directly south of SCNF is very limited. Though there is poten- great gray owls in the United tial to travel longer distances to the southeast (Wyoming, Colorado, States: a technical conservation as-

Species (Scientific and Common Name): Aegolius funereus [Boreal owl]

Criteria Rank Rationale Literature Citations northern New Mexico), they are not known to be long-distance migrators sessment. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-253. (NatureServe 2017). Distributions suggest that boreal owl dispersal is USDA Forest Service, Rocky Moun- strongly limited by physiological, behavioral, and/or ecological barriers tain Forest and Range Experiment (Hayward 1994). Thus, the owl’s capability for dispersal is limited, and a Station, Fort Collins, CO: 139-147. ranking of B was assigned to this criterion. NatureServe. 2017. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Version 7.1. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Confidence in Rank: High, Medium, or Low Internet website: http://explorer.natureserve.org. Accessed on August 14, 2017. 4 B There is limited data on the abundance of boreal owls on the SCNF, but Idaho Department of Fish and Abundance on the surveys conducted by the IDFG suggests they are uncommon (see Map Game (IDFG) 2005. Boreal Owl. In- Salmon–Challis Na- 3). No North American Breeding Bird Survey (BBS), Christmas Bird Count ternet website: tional Forest (CBC), nor Integrated Monitoring in Bird Conservation Regions (IMBCR) https://fishandgame.idaho.gov/ifwi program data exist for this species over the past 10 years (NAS 2017, s/cwcs/pdf/Boreal%20Owl.pdf. Ac- Sauer et al 2017, IMBCR 2017). This may partly be due to the difficultly of cessed on August 14, 2017. surveying this species (IDFG 2005). Based on the area of spruce–fir habi- tat, the estimated abundance of boreal owls in the state of Idaho as of National Audubon Society (NAS). 2005 was 1000–3000 individuals (IDFG 2005). 2017. The Christmas Bird Count Historical Results. Availa- ble: http://www.christmasbirdcoun t.org. Accessed on August 14, 2017. Confidence in Rank: High, Medium, or Low Sauer, J. R., D. K. Niven, J. E. Hines, D. J. Ziolkowski, Jr, K. L. Pardieck, J. E. Fallon, and W. A. Link. 2017. The North American Breeding Bird Sur- vey, Results and Analysis 1966 - 2015. Version 2.07.2017 USGS Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, Laurel, MD. 5 D Long-term population trends are unknown at both continental and state Hayward, Gregory D. 1994. In: Population Trend on levels due to the technical difficulty of surveying this species. (Hayward Hayward, G. D. and J. Verner, tech. the Salmon–Challis 1994; IDFG 2005). BBS, CBC, IMBCR data do not exist for this species over eds. Flammulated, boreal, and National Forest the past 10 years (IMBCR 2017; NAS 2017; Sauer et al. 2017) owing to the great gray owls in the United timing of the surveys, low detectability of the species, irregular/nomadic States: a technical conservation as- movement, fluctuating prey abundance, and forest fires that could dislo- sessment. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-253. cate populations. Montana Field Guides (MNHP and MFWP 2017) reports USDA Forest Service, Rocky Moun- that long-term trends are unknown but believed to be relatively stable. tain Forest and Range Experiment Therefore, there is insufficient information to determine population Station, Fort Collins, CO: 139-147. trend on the Forest (Rank D). Idaho Department of Fish and Confidence in Rank: High, Medium, or Low Game (IDFG) 2005. Boreal Owl. In- ternet website: https://fishandgame.idaho.gov/ifwi s/cwcs/pdf/Boreal%20Owl.pdf. Ac- cessed on August 14, 2017.

Integrated Monitoring in Bird Con- servation Regions (IMBCR). 2017. http://www.rmbo.org/new_site/ad c/QueryWindow.aspx#. Accessed on August 14, 2017.

MNHP and MFWP (Montana Natu- ral Heritage Program and Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks). 2017. Montana Field Guide - Boreal Owl. Internet website: http://fieldguide.mt.gov/speciesDe tail.aspx?elcode=ABNSB15010. Ac- cessed on August 14, 2017.

National Audubon Society (NAS). 2017. The Christmas Bird Count Historical Results. Availa- ble: http://www.christmasbirdcoun t.org. Accessed on August 14, 2017.

Species (Scientific and Common Name): Aegolius funereus [Boreal owl]

Criteria Rank Rationale Literature Citations 6 B On the SCNF, boreal owls are found in late-seral subalpine forests with Halofsky, J. E., D. L. Peterson, J. J. Habitat Trend on multiple canopy layers (pers. commun. Beth Waterbury). They prefer Ho, N. J. Little, and L. A. Joyce, edi- the Salmon–Challis mixed stands of subalpine fir and Englemann spruce near more open ar- tors. 2018 (in press). Changes in National Forest eas for foraging (IDFG 2005). They also inhabit mature Douglas-fir, lodge- climate vulnerability and adaption pole pine, and mixed conifer habitats. In Idaho, 75% of breeding sites are in the Intermountain Region. Gen. at elevations >5183 ft. Boreal owls typically nest in tree hollows and old Tech Rep, RMRS-GTR-XXX. Fort Col- woodpecker holes, and thus prefer mature and old-growth forests with lins, CO: U.S. Department of Agri- large trees and snags. They roost under dense cover, and choose cooler culture, Forest Service, Rocky sites in the summer. Within their home-range, boreal owls are adapted Mountain Research Station. Xxx p. to patchy landscapes and make use of several habitat types (Hayward et al. 1993). Hayward, G. D., P. H Hayward, and E. O. Garton. 1993. Ecology of bo- Lower subalpine forest, which is preferred by boreal owls, makes up real owls in the northern Rocky roughly 15 percent, or 660,000 acres, of the SCNF. Based on the Landfire Mountains, U.S.A. In: Kirkpatrick, the vegetation condition of the majority (75%) of lower subalpine forest R.L., ed. Wildlife Monographs, No. on the SCNF is lowly departed from historical conditions (USFS 2017a). 124. The Wildlife Society. Roughly 3% is at or near historical conditions, 19% is low-moderately de- parted, 3% is moderately-highly departed. The natural fire regime for Idaho Department of Fish and these forest is mixed severity, which creates a patchwork of forest Game (IDFG) 2005. Boreal Owl. In- burned with low, medium, and high severity (i.e. stand killing) fire (USFS ternet website: 2017a). Between 1984 and 2015, roughly 233,000 acres of subalpine for- https://fishandgame.idaho.gov/ifwi est burned on the SCNF with 38% burned at high severity, 61% burned at s/cwcs/pdf/Boreal%20Owl.pdf. Ac- medium severity, and 1% at low severity (USFS 2018). This suggests an cessed on August 14, 2017. imbalance towards high severity fires within this habitat type. Indeed, larger more severe wildland fires have increased on the SCNF over the Wisdom, M. J. et al. 2000. Source last 20 years with several fires over 100,000 acres. Although patch analy- habitats for terrestrial vertebrates sis has not been completed, visual review indicates these burned with of focus in the Interior Columbia mixed severity, but that patches of high severity fire were uncharacteris- Basin: Broad-scale trends and man- tically large. agement implications. FS General Technical Report. Where fire has not occurred, fire suppression has likely improved habitat conditions for the boreal owl in the short-term. USFS (United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service). 2017a. Although the effects of logging pales in comparison to the recent large Salmon Challis National Forest Data fires (USFS 2017), selective logging has reduced old-growth forest struc- Assessment, Terrestrial Ecosystems ture on the SCNF (USFS 2017b), although commercial harvesting has Section (Draft). largely been in ponderosa pine and more recently Douglas fir (Bill Baer pers. commun.). Forest-wide, conifer forest may consist of 7-10% old USFS (United States Department of growth based on 67% confidence (USFS 2017a). Englemann spruce and Agriculture Forest Service. 2017b. Englemann spruce mixed with subalpine fir is 10-23% old-growth and Salmon-Challis National Forest subalpine fir is 3-10% old-growth (again, with 67% confidence). Draft Assessment Report.

At a larger scale, source habitat for the boreal owl is estimated to have USFS (United States Department of moderately–severely decreased in ~80% of watersheds within the Co- Agriculture Forest Service). 2018. lumbia River Basin. Moderate–severe habitat reductions have been pro- Summary of burn severity by BPS jected for over 50% of watersheds in the Central Idaho Mountain ERU group using MTBS; (Ecological resource unit as defined in Wisdom et al. 2000), with the larg- 20180205_PVTBPS_byMTBSburnse est reductions in old-forest, single- and multi-storied Douglas fir (Wisdom verity.xlsx. Data on file at Salmon- 2000). Challis National Forest, Salmon, ID.

Thus, boreal owl habitat is thought to be stable or have declined on the Forest, although our confidence is low.

Confidence in Rank: High, Medium, or Low 7 B Subalpine spruce-fir forests are vulnerable to altered fire regimes that Behrens, P.N., R.E. Keane, D.L. Pe- Vulnerability of Hab- have resulted from 100 years of fire suppression and more recently terson, and J.J. Ho. 2018. Chapter itats on the Salmon– warmer and dryer conditions (See criterion 6). They are also moderately 6: effects of climatic variability and Challis National For- vulnerable to climate warming. To project the future climate and impacts change on forest vegetation. In est to resources in the Intermountain Region including the Salmon-Challis, Halofsky, J.E., D.L. Peterson, J.J. Ho, the Intermountain Adaptation Partnership (IAP) used Representative N.L. Little, L.A. Joyce, editors. 2018. Concentration Pathway [RCP] 4.5 and 8.5, which capture a moderate and Changes in climate vulnerability high future warming, respectively (Halofsky et al. 2018). Although path- and adaptation in the Intermoun- ways predicting lower warming exist, the 4.5 and 8.5 pathways were cho- tain Region. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS- sen by the IAP because they are, in comparison, well studied providing a GTR-xxx. Fort Collins, CO: US De- large set of projections that enhance our understanding of the possible partment of Agriculture, Forest range in future climate. Thus, this represents best available science for Service, Rocky Mountain Research our Forest with regard to a warming climate. Station. Xxx p.

Although uncertainty exists about the magnitude and rate of changes in Halofsky, J. E., D. L. Peterson, J. J. climate (For a discussion of this see Behrens et al. 2018), warming tem- Ho, N. J. Little, and L. A. Joyce, edi- peratures are the most certain consequence of increased CO2 in the at- tors. 2018 (in press). Changes in mosphere. By 2100, median minimum and maximum temperature in the climate vulnerability and adaption

Species (Scientific and Common Name): Aegolius funereus [Boreal owl]

Criteria Rank Rationale Literature Citations Middle Rockies subregion, which includes the Salmon-Challis, is projected in the Intermountain Region. Gen. to rise about 5-6˚F under the moderate warming scenario and about 10˚F Tech Rep, RMRS-GTR-XXX. Fort Col- under the high warming scenario. Regardless of scenario, the greatest lins, CO: U.S. Department of Agri- departure from historical seasonal minimum temperatures occurs in the culture, Forest Service, Rocky summer. Annual precipitation projections are highly variable with no dis- Mountain Research Station. Xxx p. cernible trend under moderate warming and a slight increasing trend with high warming (Joyce and Talbert 2018). Hill, S. 2014. Upper North Fork HFRA Ecosystem Restoration Pro- The decline in suitable climate for subalpine conifer species is expected ject, Wildlife Report. USDA. to occur slowly and allow for their upslope expansion (Behrens et al. Hayward, Gregory D. 1997. Forest 2018). In addition, growth rates of subalpine fir and Engelmann spruce management and conservation of may increase. However, the increased frequency, intensity, and size of boreal owls in . Jour- forest fires on the SCNF due to climate warming could quickly reduce the nal of Raptor Research 31(2): 114- occurrence of mature trees across the landscape (Behrens et al. 2018) 124. and therefore reduce habitat for the boreal owl. Bark beetle infestations may also be a stressor as they are projected to be more prevalent in Joyce, L.A. and M. Talbert. 2018. Engelmann spruce. Because lodgepole pine and Douglas-fir are more fire Chapter 3: Historical and projected tolerant they will persist and may become more prevalent in the subal- climate. In Halofsky, J.E., D.L. Peter- pine (Behrens et al. 2018). son, J.J. Ho, N.L. Little, L.A. Joyce, editors. 2018. Changes in climate Timber harvest is also a threat to boreal owl habitat, as logging reduces vulnerability and adaptation in the nesting sites (snags and large trees), prey, and foraging sites (Hayward Intermountain Region. Gen. Tech. 1997). Increasingly disjunct source habitat distributions may affect popu- Rep. RMRS-GTR-xxx. Fort Collins, lation structures and species persistence (Hayward 1997). However, log- CO: US Department of Agriculture, ging levels on the Forest are currently low and are projected to remain Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Re- so; roughly 6,000 acres may be harvested over the next 15 years (USFS search Station. Xxx p. 2017b). Lodgepole pine would be the most valuable species of tree har- vested within subalpine forest and as mentioned this species is not pre- USFS (United States Department of ferred by the boreal owl. Agriculture Forest Service). 2017. Salmon Challis National Forest Data Fire management practices could reduce structure in subalpine forests, Assessment, Terrestrial Ecosystems but many areas of the Forest are inaccessible, and in the long-run habitat Section (Draft). may benefit through return of historic fire intervals. Fire-suppression and increases in outbreaks may contribute to the availability of woody debris, snags, and tree cavities made by wood-boring , which are important habitat features for boreal owls. However, increasingly severe and frequent fires could destroy large areas of nesting and foraging habi- tat (Hill 2014). Thus, future forest conditions may be outside the range of natural variation (Rank A), although there is uncertainty in future CO2 emissions and thus the magnitude of changes in climate and impacts to boreal owl habitat.

Confidence in Rank: High, Medium, or Low 8 B Boreal owls are small, nocturnal, and carnivorous. Females typically in- Hayward, Gregory D. 1994. In: Life History and cubate eggs for 26–32 days. The clutch size is typically 4–6 eggs, but may Hayward, G. D. and J. Verner, tech. Demographics vary based on prey availability or female energy expenditure. Young owls eds. Flammulated, boreal, and fledge at 4–5 weeks, become independent at 5–6 weeks, and are sexually great gray owls in the United mature at ~1 year (NatureServe 2017). Owls typically hunt from perches States: a technical conservation as- in spruce–fir forests at night and are aided by auditory cues. They mainly sessment. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-253. prey on small such as voles, mice, and squirrels, as well as USDA Forest Service, Rocky Moun- small and large insects (NatureServe 2017). Their main predators tain Forest and Range Experiment are other owls and pine martens (MNDNR 2017). Station, Fort Collins, CO: 139-147. Hayward, Gregory D. 1997. “Forest Boreal owl productivity and clutch size vary annually, largely due to prey management and conservation of abundance (Hayward 1997), which may reduce the probability of popula- boreal owls in north America.” tion persistence (Pimm et al. 1988). Estimated survival rates are 20%– Journal of Raptor Research 31(2): 50% for juvenile owls and 45%–80% for adults. However, these estima- 114-124. tions may be imprecise due to limited information on boreal owl survival. Movement to new locations due to environmental stress may contribute MNDNR (Minnesota Department of to periodic local extinction (Hayward 1994). Natural Resources). 2017. https://www.leg.state.mn.us/docs/ The relatively large home range of boreal owl (>1000 ha; relatively large 2015/other/ for a small owl) is a conservation concern because it may cause individu- 150681/PFEISref_2/MDNR%202014 als to become energetically stressed. Clutch size may be reduced if ener- e.pdf. Accessed on August 14, gy is low. In addition, land management must provide suitable habitat 2017. over large areas (Hayward 1994). NatureServe. 2017. NatureServe Given the relatively high mortality rates of juveniles but relatively high Explorer: An online encyclopedia of reproductive rate (large clutch size if females are not energy limited), the life [web application]. Version 7.1. species is suspected to have a moderate ability to recover from disturb- NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. ance, and a ranking of B was assigned to this criterion. Internet website:

Species (Scientific and Common Name): Aegolius funereus [Boreal owl]

Criteria Rank Rationale Literature Citations http://explorer.natureserve.org. Accessed on August 14, 2017.

Confidence in Rank: High, Medium, or Low Pimm, S. L., H. L. Jones, and J. Dia- mond. 1988. On the risk of extinc- tion. American Naturalist (32): 757- 785.

Summary and recommendations: Current conservation rankings at the state level are somewhat contradictor. The Date: 4/3/2018 NatureServe rank indicated the species is critically imperiled, but the recent Idaho State Wildlife Action Plan did not identify the boreal owl as a species of greatest conservation need. Very few sightings of boreal owls have been not- ed on the Salmon-Challis, and populations are likely low, which is natural as this is an uncommon bird. Owls are of- ten not picked up on systematic surveys, so data that would inform their population trends on the Forest is scarce. Habitat on the Salmon-Challis may have declined over the past 20 years due to fire suppression and warmer and dryer conditions that have resulted in several extremely large and more severe fires. Where fire has not occurred, fire suppression may have improved habitat in the short-term. Subalpine forest, which is preferred habitat, is large- ly only lowly departed from historical conditions, but there is evidence to suggest stand replacing fires are becom- ing more prevalent than would be expected under the natural (mixed severity) fire regime. Although there is uncer- tainty in the magnitude of future increases in CO2, changes in climate, and the effects on ecosystems, subalpine for- ests are moderately vulnerable to projected changes in climate and late seral forest required by boreal owls could be reduced or largely eliminated in the near future due to increased fire frequency, size, and severity. Recent fires and weather suggest this is already happening. Given that dispersal is limited by physiological, behavioral, and/or ecological barriers, future changes to habitat could be a concern.

Together these factors, particularly low abundance, limited dispersal, and habitat vulnerability indicate substantial concern for the capability of the boreal owl to persist over the long-term on the Salmon-Challis, and this species is recommended as a species of conservation concern.

Evaluator(s): L. Chipman and Mary Friberg