PROTECTING  THE  ENDEMIC  OLYMPIC  

TORRENT  SALAMANDER  (Rhyacotriton  olympicus)  

 

Habitat  Conservation  in  the  Olympic  Experimental  State  Forest  

 

A  report  prepared  for  the  Washington  State  Department  of  Natural  Resources  

 

 

 Hana  Dubail  hdubail@uw.edu    

Michelle  Fischer  fischm3@uw.edu    

Robert  Godfrey  godfrr@uw.edu    

Lisa  Miller  lisam6@uw.edu    

Zak  Williams  zbw@uw.edu  

Photo  by  John  P.  Clare  Conservation  and  Governance  of  Rare  Species,  ESRM  458,  Winter  Quarter  

University  of  Washington    

March  17,  2014  

Executive  Summary    

The Olympic torrent salamander (Rhyacotriton olympicus), endemic to the Olympic

Peninsula, is highly sensitive to ecological change. This species is associated with cold, fast-

flowing perennial streams, particularly on steeper gradients in the cover of mature forests (Kroll

et al. 2008). The salamander’s narrow range of ecological tolerance and the severe fragmentation

of its preferred habitat have led the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) to

classify it as ‘Vulnerable’ (IUCN 2014). Additionally, the Centre for Biological Diversity has

prepared a petition proposing that the species be listed under the Endangered Species Act (Griese

et al. 2012); the petition is currently under review (USFWS 2014). Much of the species’

population occurs on state lands, and the actions of state agencies will be integral in protecting

the species (WDFW 2014). We have chosen to focus our research on the Olympic Experimental

State Forest (OESF), and evaluate whether the OESF’s Forest Land Plan (FLP) provides

sufficient protections for R. olympicus. As R. olympicus is notably absent from the OESF’s

Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP), the species is protected only indirectly under the HCP

multispecies conservation strategy (Minkova 2014). This strategy focuses primarily on

protecting umbrella species, such as the marbled murrelet (Brachyramphus marmoratus), the

northern spotted owl (Strix occidentalis caurina), and salmonids (Salmonidae) (DNR 2013). The

objective of this report is to assess existing provisions indirectly extending to R. olympicus under

the HCP, as well as current forest management practices within the OESF, in order to determine

whether the species is being adequately protected. It provides relevant background information

and compares current practices and conservation measures as outlined in the FLP against the

species’ requirements in order to identify areas for improvement. As R. olympicus is a stream

species, we shall focus primarily on the HCP’s riparian strategy, which centers on salmonids.  

Table  of  Contents  

THE  OLYMPIC  TORRENT  SALAMANDER  (RHYACOTRITON  OLYMPICUS)  .................................................  1  

MORPHOLOGY  .............................................................................................................................................  1  

HABITAT  .....................................................................................................................................................  2  

REPRODUCTION  ...........................................................................................................................................  3  

POPULATION  DISTRIBUTION  ...........................................................................................................................  3  

THE  OLYMPIC  EXPERIMENTAL  STATE  FOREST  .......................................................................................  4  

GEOGRAPHIC  AND  ENVIRONMENTAL  DESCRIPTION  OF  THE  OESF  ..........................................................................  4  

GOALS  AND  OBLIGATIONS  OF  THE  OESF  ..........................................................................................................  5  

OLYMPIC  TORRENT  SALAMANDER  WITHIN  THE  OESF  .........................................................................................  7  

THE  MULTISPECIES  CONSERVATION  STRATEGY  ....................................................................................  8  

SALMONIDS  .................................................................................................................................................  8  

NORTHERN  SPOTTED  OWL  .............................................................................................................................  9  

MARBLED  MURRELET  .................................................................................................................................  10  

DISCUSSION  AND  RECOMMENDATIONS  .............................................................................................  10  

IMPROVEMENTS  TO  RIPARIAN  MANAGEMENT  .................................................................................................  10  

HABITAT  IMPROVEMENT  RECOMMENDATIONS  ................................................................................................  12  

GOING  FORWARD  ......................................................................................................................................  14  

CONCLUSIONS  ....................................................................................................................................  15  

REFERENCES  .......................................................................................................................................  16  

APPENDIX  ..........................................................................................................................................  21  

   

   

1  

The  Olympic  Torrent  Salamander  (Rhyacotriton  olympicus)  

The amphibian family Rhyacotritonidae is a monotypic taxon endemic to North America,

of which the single genus Rhyacotriton is found only within the Northwest of the United States,

from northern California to Washington State (Good and Wake 1992). Of the four rhyacotritonid

(torrent salamander) species, the Olympic torrent salamander, Rhyacotriton olympicus (Gaige

1917), has the narrowest distribution, being endemic to the Olympic Peninsula within Clallam,

Grays Harbor, Jefferson, and Mason Counties (Good and Wake 1992, Blaustein 1995). Currently

this species is listed as ‘Under Review’ by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)

and a ‘Monitor Species’ for Washington State (S3), owing to the species relatively small range

(extent of occurrence <20,000 km2) and narrow habitat requirements contribute to its current

status as a state-monitored species. Additionally, its classification is ‘Vulnerable’ (B1) under the

IUCN Red List, and ‘Vulnerable’ by NatureServe (G3, N3, S3) (USFWS, WDFW, IUCN,

NatureServe 2014). While much of their life history remains understudied, available information

on the species is presented below; where necessary, observations of other torrent salamanders

will be provided to fill gaps in our knowledge of R. olympicus, and noted as appropriate (Kroll et

al. 2008).  

Morphology  

Morphological variation among torrent salamanders is minimal, aside from species-

specific and geographic variations in color patterns (Good and Wake 1992). Torrent salamanders

range from 95 to 100mm total length, with females being larger than males (Blaustein 1995).

They are generally brown dorsally with block spotting and yellow ventrally, with proportionally

large, black eyes. Rhyacotriton olympicus is unique in that it lacks ventral mottling, with a wavy

line dividing the contrasting colors, but occasionally has large, dark ventral blotches (Good and

   

   

2  

Wake 1992).  

Larvae vary little morphologically within the genus, and appear similar to adults (Good

and Wake 1992). Juveniles are aquatic, possessing typical larval salamander characteristic

including flattened bodies, a laterally flattened tail, and short gills (Nussbaum and Tait 1977);

they range from 14 to 44mm snout to vent length during their juvenile stage. Larval torrent

salamanders’ color patterns are distinct among species, resembling adult forms.  

Habitat  

Torrent salamanders as a whole are found within forested perennial streams, seepages,

and springs, or rarely within riparian and splash-zones within one meter of the water (Blaustein

1995). They are generally found in small, well-shaded and fast-flowing streams with rocky or

gravel substrate, under cover in riffle habitat (Nussbaum and Tait 1977, Blaustein 1995); they are

more abundant in streams with a northerly aspect and a steep gradient (Corn and Bury 1989,

Stoddard and Hayes 2005, Howell and Roberts 2008). Adult individuals prefer microhabitats

containing loose rocks of five inches or more, particularly within the splash zones of waterfalls,

while juveniles are most abundant in percolated gravel (Good and Wake 1992); individuals are

rarely found in resting water exceeding a few millimeters, but will seek deep, swift water for

refuge if disturbed (Myers 1943).  

Rhyacotriton olympicus possess an extremely narrow temperature tolerance, with a

thermal maximum of 27.8 – 29.0°C, and are the most susceptible known terrestrial salamander to

body water loss (Ray 1958; Brattstrom 1963). As such, torrent salamanders require humid

coniferous forests, up to 1200m elevation, and are positively associated with mature and old-

growth forests, but are significantly more abundant in old-growth (Welsh 1990, Good and Wake

1992). This association to older stands is likely related to canopy shading (i.e. thermally stable,

   

   

3  

low solar radiation) and other microclimate influences (Brosofske et al. 1997).  

Reproduction  

Fecundity in torrent salamanders is low, with female R. olympicus laying a single clutch

per year averaging approximately eight eggs (Good and Wake 1992). Furthermore, torrent

salamanders have the lowest embryonic period of any known egg-laying salamander species,

requiring up to 290 days incubation (8.3 – 9.1°C), and have a total larval period of 3.5 years.

Following metamorphosis, torrent salamanders take another 1 – 1.5 years for sexual maturity

(Blaustein 1995); in total members of this genus require approximately 6 – 7 years before

becoming reproductive.  

Population  Distribution  

As stated, R. olympicus is endemic to the Olympic Peninsula, as far south as the Chehalis

River Valley (Leonard et al. 1993); see Figure 1 in the Appendix for the state distribution map. A

survey of Olympic National Park found the species to be fairly widespread within its range,

occurring in 41% of the 168 streams, and 47% of the 235 seeps surveyed (Bury and Adams

2000). Taking its total assumed range into account, approximately 1,556,328 acres (39%) occur

on federal land (i.e. Olympic National Park, Olympic National Forest, BLM lands) (Howell and

Roberts 2008).

Populations of R. olympicus are likely historically fragmented via vicariance within and

among river systems, as observed in other members of the genus (Good and Wake 1992; Miller

et al. 2006). In the case of the southern torrent salamander, R. variegatus, three genetically

distinct populations are known, and conservation strategies to maintain this genetic diversity

have been suggested (Miller et al. 2006). Currently, information on R. olympicus

phylogeography is limited.  

   

   

4  

While surveys have been conducted to ascertain the salamander’s distribution, there

seems to be a paucity of census data available. While there is evidence for its occurrence

throughout the Olympic Peninsula, relatively little seems to be known of its abundance, with no

published population estimates. The IUCN Red List assessment states that the species’

population is decreasing, largely due to a continuing decline in the extent and quality of its forest

habitat, but provides no estimate of abundance (Hammerson 2004).  

The  Olympic  Experimental  State  Forest  

Geographic  and  Environmental  Description  of  the  OESF  

The OESF is located on the Olympic Peninsula, in western Clallam and Jefferson

counties (DNR 2013). The forest is a temperate rainforest characterized as a maritime climate

with high seasonal rainfall (precipitation averages 140 inches per year) (DNR 2008). Its

boundaries enclose approximately 1.3 million acres of forest land, including state, federal, tribal,

and private property holdings; please see Figure 2 in the Appendix for a map of the OESF. The

Department of Natural Resources manages approximately 21% (270,382 acres) of the OESF’s

total land area (DNR 2008). Bounded by the Pacific Ocean to the west and the Strait of Juan de

Fuca to the north, one of the most notable features of the OESF is the presence of numerous river

drainages. The OESF has an extensive network of rivers and streams, totalling 10,730 miles,

2,785 miles of which are state-owned (DNR 2013). Most material on the forest peninsula

consists of uplifted marine sedimentary rock, alpine glacial deposits and marine basalts (DNR

2008; Welsh 1990).There are several major rivers that either surround or run directly through the

OESF and include Queets, Clearwater, Hoh, Bogachiel, Calawash, Sol Duc, Quillayute, Ozette,

Clallam and Pysht. Riparian land and river buffers provide large woody debris, leaf and needle

   

   

5  

litter recruitment, stream shade, microclimates, stream bank stability and sediment control (DNR

2008).  

The OESF is dominated by a mix of coniferous forests with the majority of forested lands

lying between 500 and 1,500 ft in elevation. Sitka spruce vegetation dominates along the coastal

side of the peninsula while western hemlock zones comprise a majority within the forest (DNR

2013). The old growth forest within OESF contains older, taller and more structurally complex

trees (Welsh 1990). The biomass accumulation stands contain large diameter trees (preferably

15-20 trees per sq. mile averaging 30 inches in diameter)(DNR 2013). The trees throughout the

OESF are sufficiently mature, producing large cone crops, which supply food for wildlife and

seeds to generate the next successional cover (DNR 2008).  

Goals  and  Obligations  of  the  OESF    

According to DNR, the vision for OESF is as a “commercial forest in which ecological

health is maintained through innovative integration of forest production activities and

conservation—with an added focus on experimentation, research and monitoring” (1997). The

OESF is managed in compliance with the 1997 Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) and, now, the

Forest Land Plan (FLP), intended to implement existing DNR policy direction and legal

commitments as outlined in the 1997 HCP. The FLP includes goals, objectives, and the

management strategies that will be used to meet them. Its principal goals are revenue generation,

implementation of the riparian conservation strategy (as described in the 1997 HCP),

implementation of the northern spotted owl conservation strategy, and implementation of the

adaptive management process (DNR 2014).  

Under the existing EIS, management objectives for the OESF are based on the DNR 1997

HCP and 2006 Policy for Sustainable Forests (DNR 2013); these objectives include: manage and

   

   

6  

conserve northern spotted owl and marbled murrelet habitat, conserve riparian habitat for

salmonid and other stream and riparian species, meet conservation objectives as outlined by the

multispecies conservation strategy, and implement research and monitoring, all while providing

sustainable revenue. Two strategies are proposed for this action, the “No Action Alternative” and

“Landscape Alternative,” which differ in implementation of management (DNR 2013);

descriptions of rejected alternatives are also included in the EIS. The “No Action Alternative”

represents the current management practices of the DNR and no other changes will occur, thus

DNR will “design one timber sale, one watershed at a time using maps, databases, and other

existing tools” (DNR 2013). The Landscape Alternative utilizes computer modeling to consider

immediate and long term effects of management, including management objectives, from a

“landscape perspective” (DNR 2013); a period of 100 years was utilized for constructing models.  

The FLP clearly states the DNR’s priorities regarding the OESF: it should be noted that it

is, first and foremost, a commercial operation. Approximately 57% or 146,734 acres of DNR-

managed lands in the OESF are considered “operable”, meaning they are available for harvest

(DNR 2013). Presently, 576 million board feet of lumber are harvested per decade in the OESF

by the DNR (DNR 2013). The DNR’s timber harvest lands are operated as trust lands, with the

revenue generated by the sale of timber supporting numerous trust beneficiaries. The OESF trust

lands are managed with two primary goals: habitat protection and funding public institutions,

such as schools and state institutions. Balancing the benefit to both of these goals is difficult

because the management practices needed to individually maximize habitat and profits often

conflict. Therefore, when DNR proposes management plans many stakeholders have an active

interest. Currently, the outcome of the proposed FLP for the Olympic Environmental State Forest

(OESF) will affect species viability and available funding for beneficiaries. The beneficiaries

   

   

7  

themselves, such as the University of Washington, will want the FLP to conserve species, but

also support land profits. Silviculture and conservation can be maintained on the OESF, but the

extent of each is a careful balance. If the FLP is not adequate for protecting the species covered

by the 1997 HCP, conservation efforts could suffer and members of the public and beneficiaries

will not trust future DNR management plans. However, if the FLP maximizes species

conservation, timber harvests would be lower, and profits would diminish. Finding a favorable

compromise for the management plan will involve the input of many agencies, beneficiaries, and

members of the public. (See Table 1 in the Appendix for a thorough stakeholder analysis.)  

Olympic  Torrent  Salamander  within  the  OESF  

The Olympic Torrent Salamander (Rhyacotriton olympicus) occurs in isolated

populations within the coniferous forests of the OESF. They are generally restricted to springs

and cold headwater streams (Hammerson 2004). This salamander relies on the moss and organic

debris found within late seral forest (Welsh 1990). Within the old growth, the salamander has

been found in greater numbers around stands of Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) as well as

in shallow, cold and percolating water (Welsh 1990).  

Recent research has found a strong correlation between torrent salamander occurrence

and forest stand age (Russell 2005). This suggests R. olympicus depends heavily on old growth

forest habitat. As stated, R. olympicus is incredibly sensitive to desiccation and increased

temperature (Russell et al. 2005), and the microhabitat and microclimatic conditions it requires

generally exist only in older forests (Welsh 1990). The OESF hosts unique and environmentally

sensitive streams for the species. Larvae occur under stones in shaded streams, while adults

inhabit such streams, or streamsides with wet, mossy talus (ie. Scree, cobble). Due to R.

olympicus’s extreme sensitivity to increased sedimentation and temperature, Corn and Bury

   

   

8  

found that timber harvest affects torrent salamanders more than any other sympatric amphibians

(1989). Timber harvest within the OESF has resulted in fragmentation of R. olympicus habitat

and the existence of isolated populations with little or no gene flow (Russell et al. 2005).  

Management practices and activities that are intended and designed to protect threatened

and endangered species covered under current policies, such as the 1997 HCP, may also enhance

habitat features important to the conservation of R. olympicus. Many of the practices already in

place may benefit the salamander with little or no changes to management, other activities will

require specific modifications that pertain to amphibian life history.  

The  Multispecies  Conservation  Strategy  

As R. olympicus is not explicitly named in the OESF EIS, any “protection” it currently

receives within the OESF is an indirect outcome of the multispecies conservation strategy, which

serves to support unlisted species by conserving three umbrella species/taxa: northern spotted

owls, marbled murrelets, and salmonids. Our intent is to determine whether the multispecies

conservation strategy is adequately protecting R. olympicus. Our analysis focuses primarily on

the HCP’s riparian (salmonid) conservation strategy, as it is most relevant to the conservation of

riparian amphibian species. Indeed, the stated purpose of the riparian habitat conservation

strategy is to “protect, maintain, and restore habitat capable of supporting viable populations of

salmonid species as well as for other non-listed and candidate species that depend on in-stream

and riparian environments” (emphasis added).  

Salmonids  

The salmonid and other residential fish requirements outlined for preservation parallel R.

olympicus requirements, including cool (50 – 57°F), well-oxygenated, unpolluted water and

   

   

9  

moderate stream flows (DNR 1997). Sixteen native fishes (including salmonids) occur within

and spawn in the OESF streams and rivers, and may act as umbrella species for conserving R.

olympicus habitat, assuming similar requirements (DNR 2013); at least 418 miles of fish bearing

streams are located within the OESF, containing at least 52 salmonid stocks of moderate to high

extinction risk, providing an extensive number of preexisting protected R. olympicus habitat

(DNR 1997).  

As outlined in the EIS, several criteria for fish habitat are utilized for assessing habitat

quality, of which three indicators may prove relevant for R. olympicus: peak flow (maximum

discharge, negatively influencing stream complexity), stream shade (affects stream temperature

via canopy density), and fine sediment delivery (suspended soil particles, reduces overall water

quality) (DNR 2013). A meta-analysis study of nineteen publications investigating or including

Rhyacotriton habitat use in the Pacific Northwest reveals the following relationship of torrent

salamanders to the aforementioned fish habitat criteria: positive effect of stream complexity

(gradient, larger substrate size), positive effect of shading (stand age, buffer width, and water

temperature), and a negative effect from fine sediments (Kroll 2009). In order to maintain fish

habitat quality, several riparian management plans have been outlined which include riparian

buffers, however these will prove inadequate for protecting R. olympicus.  

Northern  Spotted  Owl  

The most commonly known threats to the northern spotted owl (Strix occidentalis

caurina) are competition with barred owls (Strix varia) and loss of habitat. Effects of habitat

loss and the key ecosystem functions needed for S. occidentalis caurina to be successful are

covered in detail in the Revised Recovery Plan for the Northern Spotted Owl drafted by the U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service (2011).  

   

   

10  

Residual trees found in young forests show increased nesting for the spotted owl, these

residual trees are also noted to be the larger and older trees in the vicinity. Where the owls are

found in younger forest stands with an increased number of residual trees per acre their

reproductive rates are reported as higher (Thome et al. 1999). Thus, management should be

encouraged to retain some live, standing trees to amend a habitat in lieu of waiting for succession

to an old growth system.  

Marbled  Murrelet    

Ecological services provided by residual remnant trees include shade, leaf litter

accumulation, moisture retention, and food and habitat resources. The marbled murrelet has been

shown to utilize residual trees in several areas along the Pacific Coast, primarily California

(Hunter and Bond 2001). When the 1,573,340 hectares (3,887,800 acres) of critical habitat for

the murrelet was designated in 1996, most of the critical habitat units were located on late-

successional forests on federal lands (Marbled Murrelet Recovery Plan 1997). Leaving standing,

live trees with deformed appearances have been associated with high levels of wildlife use (Bull

et al. 1997).  

Discussion  and  Recommendations  

Improvements  to  Riparian  Management  

Taking either “No Action” or “Landscape Alternatives” into consideration (as described

in the FLP), streams within the OESF will not be adequately protected for R. olympicus habitat

requirements (streams Type 2 – 4 [F/Np]) (Table 2). Under the “No Action Alternative,” an

interior-core buffer of 30 feet will act as an equipment limiting zone, bordered by an exterior

buffer of 150 or 50 feet for Type 1 – 3 and Type 4 streams, respectively (DNR 1997, DNR

   

   

11  

2013). Under the “Landscape Alternative,” an interior-core buffer of 30 feet is again utilized,

however a greater exterior buffer of 150 feet for Type 1 – 2 or 100 feet for Type 3 – 4 or

proposed (DNR 1997, DNR 2013). Under these management options, exterior buffers will only

be applied to habitat segments with 5% or greater probability of severe windthrow, with

modeling predicting only 1% of segments for Type 1 - 4 streams in the OESF requiring exterior

buffers to be established (DNR 2013); therefore, for most riparian habitat, only the 30 feet

interior-core buffer will be applied.  

Under the current riparian management strategy, proposed riparian buffer sizes fall short

of conserving R. olympicus and similarly sensitive amphibian species in the OESF. Management

recommendations by Vesely and McComb (2002), in response to their findings on salamander

abundance in riparian buffers include establishment of buffer zones of at least 65 feet without

disturbance, including permanent headwater streams that lack anadromous fish but “may be the

highest quality breeding habitats for torrent salamanders”. Furthermore, increasing the exterior

buffer will improve in-stream and surrounding riparian habitat suitability for R. olypmicus, and

an additional 85 to 920 feet of buffer width will maintain an unaltered microclimate (Brosofke et

al. 1997); this is supported by findings from Stoddard and Hayes (2005), who found a 178%

increase in torrent salamander encounters within streams surrounded by closed, old-growth forest

bands of at least 150 feet.  

In order to improve the suitability of riparian habitat for R. olympicus and ecologically

similar amphibians (e.g. Ascaphus truei), headwater areas should be managed specifically. A

larger interior-core buffer of 75 feet has been demonstrated to eliminate stream temperature

changes post-harvest in other forested regions (Wilkerson et al. 2006), and may be worth

pursuing in the OESF; furthermore, special headwater habitat consideration may enhance

   

   

12  

downstream habitat for fishes, which may not necessarily utilize headwaters directly, by

enhancing downstream temperature stability. Finally, timber harvest and other environmental

disturbances should be avoided in proximity to headwaters on steep gradients with low sediment

loading, as these habitats are of particular importance to R. olympicus (Kroll 2009).  

Besides improving R. olympicus habitat, a more protective approach to buffer zones may

also work to further protect other stream species, notably salmon. For example, additional

distance from disturbance may decrease sediment loading in streams (i.e. road building,

landslides, or erosion), and headwater protection would benefit a great distance of downstream

habitat, safeguarding it from material deposition (Swanson 1980; Corn and Bury 1989; Vesely

and McComb 2002). Additionally, there are several other amphibian species in the Olympic

Peninsula region sharing habitat with R. olympicus or in the neighboring riparian habitat that

would benefit, including: Van Dyke’s salamander (Plethodon vandykei), western red-backed

salamander (P. vehiculum), Cope’s giant salamander (Dicamptodon copei), long-toed salamander

(Ambystoma macrodactylum), Oregon ensatina (Ensatina eschscholti), and tailed frog (Ascaphus

truei) (Blaustein 1995; Welsh 1990; Bury et al. 2001; USNPS 2014).  

Habitat  Improvement  Recommendations  

When treating a forest system as a whole functioning unit it is possible that improving the

habitat for one species can also improve the habitat for others. Here we discuss how protecting

marbled murrelet and northern spotted owl habitat may benefit species with very different life

histories.  

In addition to direct effects of habitat loss from harvesting there are also negative impacts

corresponding to edge effects. Not all edges affect the marbled murrelet (Brachyramphus

marmoratus) equally, thus it is important to take into consideration the type and location of

   

   

13  

edges that will be created during future harvests (Malt and Lank 2007). In landscapes where the

proportion of the edge to the interior habitat area is greater (small forest fragments) management

may need to concentrate on conserving the productive habitats. Two contradictory details are

apparent where abrupt, hard edges occur; predation risk is greater and B. marmoratus selects

nesting sites near those areas. Data from Malt and Lank (2007) suggest predation is greater at

edges than interior habitat regardless of the type of edge (forest practice, successional, or

natural). Therefore, the recommended management goal is to minimize edge to interior

proportions. Both avian and mammalian predation may be managed in areas near recent harvest

by accelerating the process of succession by re-vegetation work or thinning, but not clear-

cutting.  

In west coast areas, voluntary management of lands with timber harvesting includes

leaving a specific percentage of residual trees. For example, when watercourses or lake

protection zones are in the harvest area, two residual trees per 0.4 hectares are left by the

Simpson Timber Company. These trees not only provide habitat and other ecosystem services

but also future biomass for large woody debris, and may decrease additional species listings

(Hunter and Bond 2001). Since the murrelet can be found in young forest stands where residual

trees are present, land managers should attempt to leave healthy, large trees with wide or

deformed branches. As mentioned above, retention of large, live trees that aid in the conservation

of both listed avian species also contribute to the habitats of amphibians and small mammals

(Maser and Trappe 1984, Butts and McComb 2000).  

As recommended by the USFWS in the “Revised Recovery Plan of the Marbled

Murrelet” (1997), retention of known occupied sites on non-federal lands should occur for both

short- and long-term benefits. Occupied sites should have buffers of the same stand species

   

   

14  

already present and should be a minimum of 300-600ft. This buffer width is primarily to reduce

loss from nest predation, but can act secondarily to moderate forest floor temperatures and

moisture.  

Going  Forward  

Species-specific management suggestions notwithstanding, there are several more

general ways in which DNR could more effectively work to protect R. olympicus. Firstly, more

regular population monitoring is required. Despite the fact that it is a state-monitored species,

only a handful of surveys have been conducted, none of them focusing specifically on state

timberlands, with the most recent data being collected in 2004 (for WDFW Herp Atlas) (Salzer

2014). Without the necessary data, we have only a rough idea of the population trend, generally

inferred from habitat loss (Hammerson 2004). Identifying the locations of current subpopulations

will help to inform where conservation actions should be directed.  

Furthermore, we feel that GIS technology could be helpful in identifying important areas,

and more conclusively determining whether we can expect multispecies conservation strategy

actions to substantially affect R. olympicus, for example by mapping salamander occurrence

alongside salmon-bearing streams, which would provide more compelling evidence as to the

relevance, or not, of salmonid conservation actions. GIS mapping would help prioritize areas

such as those where northern spotted owl or marbled murrelet habitat overlaps with R. olympicus

habitat (Figures 5 and 6). Furthermore, information on logging plans, and timber acreage values

could be incorporated via GIS to further fine-tune the prioritization of different areas according

to the economic costs of not logging those areas. Such information would be of great importance

in including R. olympicus in the HCP (in the event of listing) and geographically defining where

take and mitigation of the species are expected to occur, as well as the extent of each. Please see

   

   

15  

figures 3-6 for maps prepared using GIS software and publicly-available data.  

Finally, as a state-monitored species known to be incredibly sensitive to logging, R.

olympicus deserves to be named explicitly within the OESF HCP as a species of concern, which

would encourage DNR to more formally consider the salamander’s needs alongside the

provisions of the multispecies conservation strategy. If the species is listed it will have to be

included in the HCP along with a specific conservation plan for its protection and mitigation of

take. The decision to list would, of course, necessitate agency action and implementation of

some of the aforementioned recommendations.

Conclusions  

Given the ecological sensitivity of R. olympicus, it is vital that it be considered

specifically in management planning in order to ensure its persistence in the OESF.

Consideration for this species will require some changes in harvest practices, at least in habitat

where the species is shown to exist, most notably increasing riparian buffer zones to

approximately 150ft or more. Such a change in conservation practice will also benefit other

species within the OESF, including salmonids and other amphibians, allowing R. olympicus to in

turn act as an umbrella species for the protection of other aquatic and riparian species. While

some of these recommendations may be costly, protection of biodiversity within the OESF

should be a priority. As R. olympicus is not currently included in the HCP, it is necessary that the

species be included and strategy for its protection outlined, in order to avoid conflict if and when

the species is listed under the Endangered Species Act.  

   

   

16  

References  

Blaustein, A.R., Beatty, J.J., Olson, D.H., R.M. Storm. 1995. The biology of amphibians and

reptiles in old-growth forests in the Pacific Northwest. US Forest Service, Carvallis, OR.

104 pgs.

Brosofske, K.D., Chen, J., Naiman, R.J., and J.F. Franklin. 1997. Harvesting effects on

microclimate gradients from small streams to uplands in Western Washington. Ecological

Applications 7:1188-1200.

Brown, G.W. and Krygier, J.T. (1970). Effects of clear cutting on stream temperature. Water

Resource Research. V6(1):1131-1139.

Bury, R.B., and M.J. Adams. 2000 Inventory and monitoring amphibians in North Cascades and

Olympic National Parks, 1995-1998. USGS Forest and Rangeland Ecosystem Science

Center, Corvallis, OR

Bury, R.B., Loafman, P., Rofkar, D., and K.I. Mike. 2001. Clutch sizes and nests of tailed frogs

from the Olympic Peninsula, Washington. Northwest Science 75:439-422.

Butts, S. R., and W C. McComb. 2000. Associations of forest-floor vertebrates with coarse

woody debris in managed forests of western Oregon. Journal of Wildlife Management

64:95-104.

Carey, A. B. 1995. Sciurids in Pacific-Northwest Managed and Old-Growth Forests. Ecological

Applications 5:648-661.

Corn, P.S. and B. Bury. 1989. Logging in Western Oregon: responses of headwater habitats and

stream amphibians. Forest Ecology and Management 29:39-57.

Crawford, J., and R. Semlitsch. 2006. Estimation of Core Terrestrial Habitat for Stream-Breeding

Salamanders and Delineation of Riparian Buffers for Protection of Biodiversity.

Conservation Biology 21:152-158.

Dvornich, K. 1991. Gap Analysis Predicted Distribution Map. Naturemapping Foundation.

<http://naturemappingfoundation.org/natmap/maps/wa/amphibians/WA_olympic_torrent

_salamander.html>

   

   

17  

Forest Resources Division. 2013. Olympic Experimental State Forest HCP Planning Unit Forest

Land Plan Revised Draft - Environmental Impact Statement.in W. S. D. o. N. Resources,

editor. WDNR, Olympia, WA

Giese, C., N. Greenwald, and T. Curry. 2012. Petition to list 53 amphibians and reptiles in the

United States as threatened or endangered species under the Endangered Species Act.

Centre for Biological Diversity.

Gombert, D. 2014. Request for GIS Data.in R. Godfrey, editor. WDFW, Olympia, WA.

Good, D.A., and D.B. Wake. 1992. Geographic variation and speciation in the torrent

salamanders of the genus Rhyacotriton (Caudata: Rhyacotritonidae). University of

California Publications in Zoology 126:1-91.

Hallock, L. 2014. Olympic Torrent Salamander- Request for Information.in R. Godfrey, editor.

Hallock, L., and K. McAllister. 2005. Washington herp atlas: Olympic Torrent Salamander. in

W. D. o. N. Resources, editor. DNR.

Howell, B., and C. Roberts. 2008. A conservation assessment for the Olympic Torrent

Salamander (Rhyacotriton olympicus). Pages 3-31 in F. S. US Department of Agriculture,

Region 6. US Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management, editor., Olympia,

WA, USA.

Hunter, J. E., and M. L. Bond. 2001. Residual trees: wildlife associations and recommendations.

Wildlife Society Bulletin 29:995-999.

International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources. 2013. The IUCN Red

List of Threatened Species. <http://www.iucnredlist.org>

Kroll, A. J., K. Risenhoover, T. McBride, E. Beach, B. J. Kernohan, J. Light, and J. Bach. 2008.

Factors influencing stream occupancy and detection probability parameters of stream-

associated amphibians in commercial forests of Oregon and Washington, USA. Forest

Ecology and Management 255:3726-3735.

Kroll, A.J. 2009. Sources of uncertainty in stream-associated amphibian ecology and responses

   

   

18  

to forest management in the Pacific Northwest, USA: a review. Forest Ecology and

Management 257:1188-1199.

Leonard, W.P., H.A. Brown, L.L.C. Jones, K. McAllister, and R.M. Storm. 1993. Amphibians of

Washington and Oregon. Seattle Audubon Society, Seattle, WA, 168 p.

Malt, J., and Lank, D. Temporal dynamics of edge effects on nest predation risk for the marbled

murrelet. Biological Conservation 140, 160-173 (2007).

Maser, C., and J. M.Trappe. 1984. The seen and unseen world of the fallen tree. United States

Forest Service, General Techni- cal Report PNW-164, Portland, Oregon, USA.

Miller, M.P., Haig, S.M., and R.S. Wagner. 2006. Phylogeography and spatial genetic structure

of the southern torrent salamander: implications for conservation and management.

Journal of Heredity 2006:561-570.

Minkova, T. 2014. Riparian monitoring project questions from UW group.in L. M. Miller, editor.

Myers, G.S. 1943. Notes on Rhyacotriton olympicus and Ascaphus trui in Humboldt County,

California. Copeia:125-126.

NatureServe. 2009. The NatureServe Explorer. <http://explorer.natureserve.org/index.htm>.

Viewed March 5, 2014.

Nussbaum, R.A., and C.K. Tait. 1977. Aspects of the life history and ecology of the Olympic

salamander, Rhyacotriton olympicus (Gaige). American Midland Naturalist 98:176-199.

Ray, C. 1958. Vital limits and rates of desiccation in salamanders. Ecology 39:75-83.

Russell, K., Mabee, T., Cole, M., and M. Rochelle. (2005). Evolutionary biotic and abiotic

influences on torrent salamanders in managed forests of western Oregon. Wildlife

Society Bulletin. V33(4):1413-1424.

Salzer, L. 2014. Olympic torrent salamander locations.in R. Godfrey, editor. Washington

Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, WA

Stoddard, M.A., and J.P. Hayes. The influence of forest management on headwater stream

   

   

19  

amphibians at multiple spatial scales. Ecological Applications 15:811-823.

Swanston, D. N. 1980. Influence of forest and rangeland management on anadromous fish

habitat in western North America. USDA Forest Service Research Paper. PNW-104.

Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station, Portland, OR. 27 p.

Tilley, S.G. 2005. Size frequency relationships and the evolutionary implications in five

desmognathine salamanders. Evolution. V22(1): 806-816.

Vesely, D.G., and W.C. McComb. 2002. Salamander abundance and amphibian species richness

in riparian buffer strips in the Oregon coast range. Forest Science 48:291-297.

Welsh, H.H. 1990. Relictual amphibians and old-growth forests. Conservation Biology 4:309-

319.

United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 2011. Arcata Fish and Wildlife Office. Marbled

murrelet:Brachyramphus marmoratus. Critical habitat GIS data. USFWS, Arcata, CA.

United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 2014. Environmental Conservation Online System.

<http://www.fws.gov/>

United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 2012. Oregon Fish & Wildlife Office. Northern Spotted

Owl Recovery Information Site: Maps-Final critical habitat. Final critical habitat for

northern spotted owl, GIS data. USFWS, Portland, OR.

United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 2011. Revised Recovery Plan for the Northern Spotted

Owl (Strix occidentalis caurina). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, Oregon. xvi +

258 pp.

United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 1997. Recovery Plan for the Threatened Marbled

Murrelet (Brachyramphus marmoratus) in Washington, Oregon, and California. Portland,

Oregon. 203 pp.

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2014. Washington GAP Analysis Program.

Vertebrate Distribution Models: Reptiles and Amphibians. Predicted distribution GIS

data. WDFW, Olympia, WA.

   

   

20  

Washington State Department of Natural Resources. 2014. Available GIS Data: DNR Managed

Land Parcels. GIS shapefiles for public download. WADNR, Olympia, WA.

Welsh, Hartwell H. 1990. Relic tubal amphibians and old growth forests. Conservation Biology.

V4(3): 3009-3019.

Whittaker, K. 2014. HCPs in Washington State: Forest Practices vs OESF.in R. Godfrey, editor.,

Seattle.

Wilkerson, E., Hagan, J.M., Siegel, D., and A.A. Whitman. 2006. The effectiveness of different

buffer widths for protecting headwater stream temperature in Maine. Forest Science

52:221-231.

 

 

   

   

   

21  

Appendix  

 

Figure 1. Distribution map for the Olympic Torrent Salamander (Hallock 2014)  

 

Figure 2. Map of the OESF, with DNR managed land highlighted (DNR 2013)  

   

   

22  

Table 1. Stakeholder matrix.  

 

   

   

23  

   

   

24  

Table 2. Currently proposed and recommended stream buffer widths to accommodate R.

olympicus in the OESF.  

  R. olympicus Habitat Recommendations1,2  

Headwater Habitat Recommendations,4

,5  

No Action Alternative6,7  

Landscape Alternative6,7  

Inner-core buffer size  

65ft   75ft   30ft   30ft  

Exterior buffer size  

> 85ft   > 75ft   0 - 150ft  (Type 1 – 3)  0 - 50ft  (Type 4)  

0 - 150ft  (Type 1 – 3)  0 - 100ft  (Type 3 – 4)  

Total buffer size  

> 150ft   > 85ft   30 - 180ft  (Type 1 – 3)  30 - 80ft  (Type 4)  

30 - 180ft  (Type 1 – 3)  30 - 130ft  (Type 3 – 4)  

1. Wilkerson et al. 2006 2. Kroll 2009 3. Brosofke et al. 1997 4. Vesely and McComb 2002  

5. Stoddard and Hayes 2005 6. DNR 1997 7. DNR 2013  

 

   

   

25  

Table 3. Ecosystem services currently provided for marbled murrelets and northern spotted owls and their operating management plans.  

Ecosystem service   Northern spotted owl   Marbled murrelet  

Forest management plan  

US FWS Revised Recovery Plan3  Northern Spotted Owl Habitat Conservation Plan 6  

Northwest Forest Plan5  

Large woody debris      

Residual trees   In second-growth with residual trees1,2  

Small stands; younger stands with residual trees*  Large branches with deformities for nesting 4  

Vegetation     Douglas fir  Western hemlock4  

Riparian buffer     300-600 feet 6  

Nesting and roosting habitat  

Canopy cover >70%  Large trees >75cm dbh  Large remnant trees3  

Trees with platforms  Forested areas within 0.5mi of those trees  Canopy height one-half SPTH6  

Foraging habitat   Generally lower thresholds of canopy cover, layers and tree size3  

Marine ecosystems 1-2km offshore4  Canopy cover >75% over nest site 4  

1. Folliard 1993 2. Thome, Zabel and Diller 1999

3. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2011. 4. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1997

5. Northwest Forest Plan 1994 6. USFWS Revised Critical Habitat for the Marbled Murrelet 1997

*Personal communication between Hunter et al and T. Bartlett and S. McAllister 2000  

   

   

26  

The following maps were prepared using QGIS software and GIS data retrieved from WDFW and WADNR websites, or requested specifically from the agencies (see citations).

Figure 3. R. olympicus observations and DNR managed land on the Olympic Peninsula (Salzer 2014;WADNR 2014; WDFW 2014).

   

   

27  

Figure 4. WDFW predicted distribution for R. olympicus mapped over DNR managed land (WADNR 2014; WDFW 2014).

   

   

28  

Figure 5. R. olympicusobservations mapped over northern spotted owl critical habitat (Salzer 2014; USFWS 2012; WDFW 2014).

   

   

29  

Figure 6. R. olympicusobservations mapped over marbled murrelet critical habitat (Salzer 2014; USFWS 2011; WDFW 2014)..