USDA =----=

United States Wildlife Departm ent of Agriculture Biological Assessment Forest Service Batched Consultation July 2018 Seiad-Horse Risk Reduction Project, Oak Roadside Hazard Project, Horse Creek - Robinson Project, Johnny a O'Neil Project, Thom Seider Project & 2017 Emergency Consultation for Fire Suppression Actions Conducted During the 2017 Wildfires

Happy CampfOak Knoll District Siskiyou County. California

Prepared by: Patricia Johnson Wildlife Biologist US Fo rest Service Enterprise Unit

Chad Bell Wildlife Biologist Klamath National Forest

In accordance with Federal civil rights law and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) civil rights regulations and policies, the USDA, its Agencies, offices, and employees, and institutions participating in or administering USDA programs are prohibited from discriminating based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity (including gender expression), sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, political beliefs, or reprisal or retaliation for prior civil rights activity, in any program or activity conducted or funded by USDA (not all bases apply to all programs). Remedies and complaint filing deadlines vary by program or incident. Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication for program information (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, American Sign Language, etc.) should contact the responsible Agency or USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TTY) or contact USDA through the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339. Additionally, program information may be made available in languages other than English. To file a program discrimination complaint, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, AD- 3027, found online at How to File a Program Discrimination Complaint and at any USDA office or write a letter addressed to USDA and provide in the letter all of the information requested in the form. To request a copy of the complaint form, call (866) 632-9992. Submit your completed form or letter to USDA by: (1) mail: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, D.C. 20250-9410; (2) fax: (202) 690-7442; or (3) email: [email protected]. USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender.

Batched Re-initiation and Post-fire Consultation Wildlife Biological Assessment

Table of Contents

I. Introduction ...... 6 Project Summaries...... 10 Project Grouping for Batched Consultation ...... 11 Species Considered for Consultation ...... 11 Species Dropped from Detailed Discussion ...... 13 II. Consistency with Recovery Plans and Other Guidance ...... 14 III. Consultation History ...... 17 IV. Description of the Project Actions and Project Design Features ...... 18 ACTIONS FOR REINITIATED PROJECTS: ...... 18 Thom Seider Project ...... 18 Johnny O’Neil Project ...... 19 Horse Creek -Robinson Project ...... 21 PROPOSED POST-FIRE MANAGEMENT ACTIONS ...... 24 Seiad-Horse Risk Reduction Project ...... 24 Oak Roadside Hazard Tree Removal Project ...... 29 Project Design Features for Post-Fire Projects (Seiad–Horse, Oak, and Horse Creek - Robinson projects) 30 V. Methods, Definitions and Assumptions ...... 31 Methods for Assessing Pre-fire NSO Habitat Suitability ...... 34 Methods for Assessing Wildfire Effects to NSO Habitat ...... 35 Methods for Estimating Effects to NSO Habitat, Individual Activity Centers, and Critical Habitat ...... 44 Methods for Assessing RA10 Sites ...... 46 Methods for Assessing Impacts to Individual Activity Centers ...... 48 Methods for Evaluating Cumulative Effects ...... 49 Assumptions for this Analysis ...... 49 VI. Existing Environment ...... 51 Environmental Baseline ...... 51 General Vegetation with the Action Area ...... 51 2017 Abney and Oak Fire Information ...... 52 VII. Species Life History and Status ...... 53 NSO Use of the Post-fire Landscape ...... 54 Status of the NSO Habitat within the Action Area ...... 58 NSO Habitat Impacted by the 2017 Wildfires ...... 58 Status of the NSO Activity Centers in the Action Area ...... 60 Survey History and Strategy ...... 64 Status of the NSO Critical Habitat in the Action Area ...... 64 VIII. Effects of the Proposed Activities ...... 65 Estimated Effects from Re-initiated Projects ...... 66 Thom Seider Project ...... 66 Johnny O’Neil Project ...... 67 Estimated Effects from Post-fire Projects - Horse Creek-Robinson, Seiad-Horse, and Oak Roadside Hazard Projects ...... 69

2

Batched Re-initiation and Post-fire Consultation Wildlife Biological Assessment

Horse Creek-Robinson Project ...... 69 Seiad-Horse and Oak Projects ...... 77 Combined Effects to Individual Activity Centers from Multiple Management Actions ...... 96 Interdependent and Interrelated Actions ...... 113 IX. Cumulative Effects ...... 116 X. NSO Critical Habitat ...... 118 Physical or Biological Features ...... 118 Disturbance Regimes ...... 119 The Pattern and Distribution of Habitat ...... 120 Forest Community Type (Composition)...... 120 Population Spatial Requirements ...... 120 Threats to Critical Habitat...... 121 Summary of Effects to Critical Habitat from Wildfire ...... 122 Effects to Critical Habitat from Proposed Post-fire Projects ...... 122 Summary Tables for Proposed Post-fire Management Actions in Critical Habitat ...... 125 XI. Future Beneficial Effects for NSO and its Habitat ...... 130 XII. Determinations of Effects ...... 131 Species Not Affected by the Proposed Project...... 131 Northern Spotted Owl ...... 132 Northern Spotted Owl Critical Habitat ...... 132 XIII. References Used and Literature Cited ...... 133 XIV. Maps and Appendices ...... 139 Appendix A: Emergency Consultation BA ...... 139 Appendix B: Activity Center Status ...... 140 Appendix C: Consistency of Project with NSO Recovery Plan ...... 143 Appendix D: Maps...... 148 Appendix E: Critical Habitat Review and Summary ...... 151

Table of Tables

Table 1: Federally listed species derived from the species portal lookup on the USFWS website (IPaC Trust Resource Report) on April 30, 2018...... 12 Table 2. Recovery Actions Applicable to the Seiad-Horse, Horse Creek-Robinson and Oak analysis areas. Recovery actions applicable to the re-initiated projects are described within their respective Biological Assessments...... 15 Table 3: Remaining thinning units in the Johnny O’Neil re-initiation analysis area...... 20 Table 4: Remaining underburn units in the Johnny O’Neil re-initiation analysis area...... 20 Table 5: Treatments within the Horse Creek – Robinson analysis area...... 21 Table 6: Proposed post-fire management actions proposed for the Seiad-Horse project...... 24 Table 7: Project design features relevant to the batched Biological Assessment. Additional project design features are described in the associated NEPA documents...... 31 Table 8: Cross walk for assessing the post-fire NSO habitat type based on pre-fire habitat type and RAVG. 43

3

Batched Re-initiation and Post-fire Consultation Wildlife Biological Assessment

Table 9: Pre-fire and post-fire NSO habitat, PFF1 and PFF2 within the Seiad-Horse Project, Oak Project, and Horse Creek-Robinson analysis areas following the 2017 Abney Fire and Oak Fire...... 58 Table 10: Pre-and Post-fire NSO habitat and fire severity in the Seiad-Horse Project, Oak Roadside Hazard Project, and Horse Creek-Robinson Project analysis areas and associated fire severity...... 59 Table 11: Acres of suitable nesting/roosting and foraging habitat within all NSO activity centers within the action area following the 2017 fires, but prior to implementation of any of the proposed activities...... 62 Table 12: Acres of NSO Critical Habitat within the Critical Habitat analysis area, broken out by the Seiad- Horse Project, Horse Creek-Robinson, and Oak project areas – pre- and post-fire...... 65 Table 13: Acres of nesting/roosting and foraging habitat in underburn units in the Thom Seider re-initiation analysis area using the current KNF NSO habitat layer...... 67 Table 14: Acres of habitat within NSO activity centers affected by the Abney Fire and contain action units remaining to implement within the Thom Seider re-initiation analysis area...... 67 Table 15: Acres of NSO habitat in action units that remain to be treated in the Johnny O’Neil re-initiation analysis area...... 68 Table 16: Acres of nesting/roosting and foraging habitat within each of the Activity Centers affected by the remaining actions to implement for the Johnny O’Neil project...... 69 Table 17: Total acres of NSO habitat in the Horse Creek – Robinson analysis area...... 72 Table 18: Acres of NSO habitat affected by each treatment type within the Horse Creek – Robinson analysis area. Fuels reduction adjacent to private land (WUI) Prescription 1 and Fuel Management Zone (FMZ) Prescription 1 (from the original Horse Creek project prescriptions) do not occur within the analysis area and are therefore not listed in the table below...... 72 Table 19: Summary of NSO habitat within the core and home ranges of ACs in the Horse Creek – Robinson project and the effects to habitat resulting from the proposed treatments; acres cannot be totaled at the bottom of columns due to overlapping activity centers (AC)...... 76 Table 20: Crosswalk for establishing the effects of post-fire management actions to NSO habitat both individually and in combination with other treatments. This table focuses on effects to habitat and does not reflect potential effects from disturbance or any other source of direct effects...... 82 Table 21: Riparian reserves and retention patches occurring in salvage harvest units (salvage is only proposed within the Seiad-Horse Project) ...... 84 Table 22: Acres of habitat affected by treatment type within Seiad-Horse Project analysis area. Overlap occurs across treatment units that results in the appearance of increased acres of treatment...... 94 Table 23: Acres of habitat affected by treatment type within Oak Project analysis area...... 95 Table 24: Acres of habitat affected by each project for the Seiad-Horse Project, Oak Project, and Horse Creek- Robinson analysis areas. The acres in this table account for the overlapping treatments. Percentages of habitat represent the proportion of available habitat within the analysis area that would be treated. ... 95 Table 25: Summary of NSO habitat within the core and home range and the effects to habitat resulting from each of the proposed post-fire projects - acres cannot be totaled at the bottom of columns due to overlapping activity centers (AC)...... 100 Table 26: Summation of acres of habitat affected within the action area by the overall treatment footprint from the Seiad-Horse, Oak, Johnny O’Neil, Thom Seider, and Horse Creek-Robinson projects...... 103 Table 27: Summary of NSO habitat within core areas and home ranges and the effects to habitat resulting from the proposed management actions. Effects are for the total treatment footprint regardless of which

4

Batched Re-initiation and Post-fire Consultation Wildlife Biological Assessment project the actions are associated to - acres cannot be totaled at the bottom of columns due to overlapping activity centers (AC)...... 104 Table 28: Activity Center determinations for Seiad-Horse, Johnny O’Neil, Thom Seider, and Horse Creek- Robinson projects ...... 107 Table 29: Activity Center determinations for the Oak Roadside Hazard Removal project...... 111 Table 30: The acres of NSO habitat affected by the actions within the timber harvest plans and emergency timber notice of operations proposed on industrial timber lands within the cumulative effects analysis area ...... 117 Table 31: Cumulative effects on NSO habitat from private land that may be harvested within NSO activity centers...... 118 Table 32: Total acres of NSO Critical Habitat within the Seiad-Horse Project, Horse Creek-Robinson, and Oak project areas – pre- and post-Abney Fire - summarized...... 122 Table 33: Acres of Critical Habitat within the Seiad-Horse analysis area and the effects from treatments in suitable nesting/roosting, foraging, dispersal, and PFF habitat within the portion of the Critical Habitat subunit KLE6 that overlaps the project area...... 126 Table 34: Acres of Critical Habitat within the Horse Creek - Robinson analysis area and the effects from treatments in suitable nesting/roosting, foraging, dispersal, and PFF habitat within the portion of the Critical Habitat subunit KLE6 that overlaps the project area...... 127 Table 35: Acres of Critical Habitat within the Oak Roadside Hazard analysis area and the effects from treatments in suitable nesting/roosting, foraging, dispersal, and PFF habitat within the portion of the Critical Habitat subunit KLW7 that overlaps the project area...... 128 Table 36: Summation of acres of Critical Habitat within the Seiad-Horse, Johnny O’Neil, Thom Seider, and Horse Creek - Robinson (Oak Project does not overlap KLE6) project areas and the effects from treatments in suitable nesting/roosting, foraging, dispersal, and PFF habitat within the portion of the Critical Habitat subunit KLE6 that overlaps the project area...... 128 Table 37: Summation of acres of Critical Habitat within the Oak project Critical Habitat analysis area (Seiad- Horse, Johnny O’Neil, Thom Seider or Horse Creek- Robinson Projects do not overlap KLW7) and the effects from treatments in suitable nesting/roosting, foraging, dispersal, and PFF habitat within the portion of the Critical Habitat subunit KLW7 that overlaps the project area...... 129 Table 38: Species Not Affected by the Proposed Project ...... 131

5

Batched Re-initiation and Post-fire Consultation Wildlife Biological Assessment

I. Introduction The following Batched Biological Assessment analyzes the effects of multiple different management actions and disturbances to an area on the west side of the Klamath National Forest following the 2017 wildfires. Within the 2017 Abney fire footprint, two separate projects had been planned, consulted on and partially completed prior to the Abney fire; these projects are: Johnny O’Neil Late Successional Reserve Restoration Project (Johnny O’Neil project) and the Thom Seider Vegetation Management and Fuels Reduction Project (Thom Seider project). Both of these projects had begun at prior to the 2017 wildfires and were each in various stages of completion (see Consultation History below). In addition, a portion of the Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project (Horse Creek Project) was also impacted by the 2017 wildfires. With the advent of the Abney fire, management actions in seven activity centers affected by the fire were deferred, and consultation on these actions was suspended, until the impacts from the wildfire to the habitat baseline for northern spotted owls (NSO) could be assessed. This deferred area of the Horse Creek project is now referred to as the Horse Creek-Robinson Project in order to clearly distinguish this area from the original Horse Creek project that had been consulted on and where actions were actively being implemented. The Horse Creek-Robinson project area is comprised of the twelve activity centers that were originally part of the larger Horse Creek Project and that were either 1) impacted by the Abney fire and/or associated fire suppression actions for which consultation was not completed or 2) activity centers whose home ranges overlapped the actions that were deferred following the Abney fire. In effect, this batched consultation BA is a re-initiation of the two previous consultations listed above and will cover the effects to NSO habitat baseline where treatments have not yet been completed. In addition, it will analyze effects to the twelve activity centers in the Horse Creek-Robinson area from activities that were deferred from implementation following the changed condition that resulted from Abney fire. In Appendix A, the effects from the 2017 wildfires and wildfire suppression actions are also analyzed and a summary of this analysis is provided within this BA. This BA will also cover the effects from the post-fire management actions proposed with the Seiad-Horse Risk Reduction Project and the Oak Roadside Hazard Reduction Project. This BA provides a summation of effects to NSO, NSO habitat, and Critical Habitat from 1) the 2017 wildfires and associated fire suppression actions, 2) previously planned and partially completed projects in adjacent project areas, and 3) proposed post-fire management actions. Consolidating the effects from wildfire with past or future potential management actions provides a comprehensive and site-specific analysis that reflects the sum total of effects to NSO and NSO habitat where potential additive effects may occur from multiple projects and associated management actions occurring in close proximity to each other (see Consultation History section below for additional rationale).

6

Batched Re-initiation and Post-fire Consultation Wildlife Biological Assessment

Figure 1: Map of Seiad-Horse, Horse Creek – Robinson, Thom Seider, and Johnny O’Neil projects1.

1 This map displays the portion of the Abney Fire boundary that occurs on the KNF. The Abney Fire boundary extends up to the north onto the Rogue River Siskiyou National Forest and other land ownerships. 7

Batched Re-initiation and Post-fire Consultation Wildlife Biological Assessment

Figure 2: Oak Roadside Hazard Project

8

Batched Re-initiation and Post-fire Consultation Wildlife Biological Assessment

Figure 3: Action area for this batched BA. Seiad-Horse, Horse Creek-Robinson, Johnny O’Neil, Thom Seider, and Oak analysis areas. 9

Batched Re-initiation and Post-fire Consultation Wildlife Biological Assessment

Project Summaries Seiad-Horse Risk Reduction Project The Happy Camp/Oak Knoll Ranger District proposes the Seiad-Horse Risk Reduction Project to reduce safety hazards along roads and in concentrated stands, reduce fuels adjacent to private property, and to reduce the risk of future large-scale high severity fire losses of late successional habitat. With this proposal, 7,503 acres would receive some type of fuels treatment and/or salvage harvest and 41 miles of roadside hazard tree removal within the 10,800-acre project boundary. Replanting would occur in only the most severely burned, larger stands where natural regeneration is unlikely. The project is located within the Seiad Creek-Klamath River and Horse Creek-Klamath River 5th field watersheds. The project is about five miles North to Northeast of Seiad Valley, California, in Siskiyou County: Township 47 North, Range 11 West, Sections 8-28, 33, and 35, Mount Diablo Meridian. Vicinity and project maps are enclosed. Elevation ranges from 2,000 to 6,000 feet. Oak Roadside Hazard Removal Project The Happy Camp/Oak Knoll Ranger District also proposes the Oak Fire Roadside Hazard Tree project to reduce threats to public safety along National Forest Transportation System (NFTS) roads within the Oak Fire perimeter. This proposal treats approximately 39 miles within the 71,237-acre Oak Fire perimeter (portion of the Oak Fire on the KNF). Johnny O’Neil Late Successional Reserve Restoration Project The Johnny O’Neil project is located within the Indian Creek, Ukonom Creek-Klamath River, Dillon Creek and Clear Creek 5th field watersheds. The project is about two to ten miles southwest of Happy Camp, California, in Siskiyou County. Elevation ranges from 1,200 to 6,000 feet. The Johnny O’Neil project was designed in 2012 to move the existing forested condition toward a more resilient state by reducing fuels within the project area. The objectives of the project were to establish a desired condition post-implementation that includes improvement of early successional habitat for prey species, the restoration of the black oak component, reduced risk of losing spotted owl habitat to wildfire, protection of mid-and early seral forest and promotion of late-successional old- growth habitat in Late Successional Reserves. These conditions would be achieved through both commercial and non-commercial variable density thinning, mastication, and prescribed burning. At the time of the initial consultation, the Johnny O’Neil project had a determination of “may affect, not likely to adversely affect” NSO and its Critical Habitat. Consultation was re-initiated following the 2014 and 2016 wildfires in addition to an implementation error that occurred in 2016. The determination at that time was changed to a Likely to Adversely Affect NSO and May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect Critical Habitat. Thom Seider Vegetation Management and Fuels Reduction Project The Thom Seider project was designed in 2009 to reduce risk of high severity fire, increase species diversity, promote late-successional habitat, and reduce fuels around private property. The project was designed to promote the development of late-successional habitat by reducing stocking levels in overstocked stands and to create stands that are more resilient to wildfire by reducing surface and ladder fuels and restoring the landscape to a species composition more resembling historic conditions. Originally, the project included variable density thinning, roadside fuels, private property boundary understory thinning, and prescribed burning. 10

Batched Re-initiation and Post-fire Consultation Wildlife Biological Assessment

Currently, underburning is the only remaining action to implement for the Thom Seider project that falls within the action area analyzed with this BA and is part of this re-initiation process. The Thom Seider project occurs within the California Klamath and Oregon Klamath Mountains physiographic provinces (USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management 1994b) and is approximately 1 mile east of Happy Camp, California, and is located both north and south of the Klamath River to just east of Hamburg California. The project is located on the Happy Camp Ranger district. At the time of the initial consultation, the Thom Seider project had a determination of “may affect, not likely to adversely affect” NSO and its Critical Habitat. The same determination was made for the re- initiation of consultation following the 2014 and 2016 fires. Project Grouping for Batched Consultation For the analysis within the following Biological Assessment (BA), projects have been grouped together based on their temporal, geographic and/or ecological similarities in order to provide context for the scope, scale and magnitude of the effects from each of the proposed projects as well as from the suppression actions conducted during the 2017 wildfires. Thom Seider and Johnny O’Neil projects are pre-fire projects that are directly adjacent to each other and have already been analyzed and consulted upon but not all of the proposed actions had been implemented prior to the 2017 fires; the project areas subsequently incurred changes to the habitat baseline from the 2017 fires thus triggering the need to re-initiate consultation. The Horse Creek-Robinson, Seiad-Horse, and Oak Roadside Hazard Removal projects are proposed as post-fire projects following the 2016 or 2017 wildfires. The Horse Creek–Robinson and Seiad-Horse projects occur either directly adjacent to or in close proximity to the remaining actions in the Thom Seider and Johnny O’Neil projects. The Oak project occurs about 18 miles from these projects but has very similar fire effects and need for hazard abatement as the other two post-fire projects. All of the projects described above were affected by the 2017 wildfires (Abney fire and Oak fire) and/ or fire suppression actions.

Species Considered for Consultation This BA analyzes the potential effects of the proposed USDA Forest Service management actions, the Seiad-Horse Risk Reduction Project, Oak Fire Roadside Hazard Removal Project, and Horse Creek- Robinson Project, on threatened or endangered species listed under the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) or on their designated Critical Habitat in accordance with the ESA and regulatory guidance. In addition, two other projects (Thom Seider and Johnny O’Neil) are also analyzed for effects to threatened or endangered species listed under ESA by reinitiating consultation. Within this BA we considered:  only those organisms that appear on the official species list as seen in Table 1 (below), and  only those wildlife species under the regulatory jurisdiction of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) within the area of the project as determined by the USFWS. If warranted for analysis, fish and plant species found on the USFWS list under the jurisdiction of the National

11

Batched Re-initiation and Post-fire Consultation Wildlife Biological Assessment

Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) or USFWS will be considered in a separate document. Therefore, federally listed fish and plants are addressed in separate documents. Species that will not be affected by the proposed activities will be considered briefly and eliminated with justification from further, more detailed, consideration. We will consider in detail those species that may be present in the action area and may be affected by the proposed activities. We will also consider the effects of the proposed projects on the primary constituent elements (PBFs) and/or physical and biological features of designated Critical Habitat that may be affected by the proposed activities. This document is prepared in accordance with the requirements of the ESA and its implementing regulations. It is also prepared in accordance with current Forest Service (FS) policy and follows the standards established in Forest Service Manual direction (FSM 2670) and the guidance provided in the USFWS Consultation Handbook (USDI FWS and NMFS 1998). Additionally, this BA is prepared in coordination with the USFWS as described in the ESA Section 7 Consultation Handbook (1998). This analysis is based on the best scientific and commercial data available at the time this document was written. This includes information such as data collected from Forest databases, remote sensing vegetation analysis, field surveys, the most recent and appropriate scientific research or species information, and direct observation on site visits to the project areas. The analysis areas for each project were used to generate a list of Proposed, Endangered, and Threatened species that the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) has identified as possibly occurring in or potentially affected by proposed management actions (IPaC Trust Resource Report Consultation Code: 08EYRE00-2018-SLI-0126 and 08EYRE00-2018-SLI-0125) accessed most recently on April 30, 2018. Table 1: Federally listed species derived from the species portal lookup on the USFWS website (IPaC Trust Resource Report) on April 30, 2018.

t Does Critical Common Name Scientific Name Status Critical Habitat Habitat occur in Designated? project area?

Mammals Gray wolf Canis lupus E N N Conservancy Fairy Branchinecta conservatio E Y N Shrimp Vernal pool fairy Crustaceans Branchinechta lynchi T Y N shrimp Vernal pool tadpole Lepidurus packardi E Y N shrimp Western yellow-billed Coccyzus americanus T N N Birds cuckoo Northern spotted owl Strix occidentalis caurina T Y Y Amphibians Oregon spotted frog Rana pretiosa T Y N

12

Batched Re-initiation and Post-fire Consultation Wildlife Biological Assessment

Species Dropped from Detailed Discussion Gray wolf (Canis lupus) – A single male gray wolf , designated OR7, was radio-collared by the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) in February 2011. Tracking data from the collar indicates that this animal entered California on December 28, 2011. The wolf traveled hundreds of miles within California, and since April 2013 has returned to Oregon. OR7 found a mate and formed their pack in the southern Cascades south of Crater Lake National Park. They have since produced litters in 2014, 2015, 2016, and 2017. One of the pups from the 2014 litter was detected in eastern Siskiyou County in January of 2017 traveling in a southeasterly direction. No new detections of this single wolf have been made, and the future movements of this animal are unpredictable. Evidence suggests that OR7 is still in Oregon with the Rogue wolf pack. In July 2015, another wolf was detected in Siskiyou County, California that was not OR7 or the pup from its pack. Further investigation of the sighting resulted in the California Department of Fish and Wildlife confirming two adults, and five pups in Siskiyou County and these wolves became the Shasta wolf pack. The Shasta wolf pack was regularly detected from August through November of 2015. There were no detections from November into May of 2016 until a lone male was detected traveling through the previously used pup-rearing sites. The current status of the pack is unknown, although evidence suggests that there was at least one wolf roaming the area during the summer and fall of 2017. Although the California Department of Fish and Wildlife has not released the exact location where the wolves were located, the information suggests that the Shasta wolf pack is at least 60 miles from the analysis area. The Keno wolf pack use area is about 30 miles to the northeast of the analysis area in Oregon. The Keno wolf use area has been monitored by Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, and three wolves were detected in 2016 and early 2017, but no reproduction has been recorded. Based on distance, the Keno wolves are likely closer to the project than the Shasta pack. In January of 2018 a GPS collared wolf was tracked crossing the Oregon-California border state line in eastern Siskiyou County. This wolf has been identified as a young female, OR-54, and is a member of the Rogue pack. It is likely that this female is offspring of OR-7 and is now dispersing, or exploring new ground in search of a mate or pack. There has not been any new information to suggest that OR-54 has moved closer to the project area. Despite the wolves detected to the north and east of the analysis area, there have been no wolf detections in the analysis area. Although the wolf is not known to occur within the area, the species could occur in or near the project areas and not yet be detected. If a wolf was present in the area where treatments would occur, it would be most likely a dispersing individual. Wolves are generalist predators and if present in the project area, a wolf could find enough food to survive. Despite many unconfirmed reported observations of wolves in recent years made to the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, there has been no confirmed presence of the species, no den sites and no rendezvous sites recorded anywhere near the analysis area. In addition, wolves generally avoid areas of concentrated human use such as the project area. It is unlikely that a wolf would be present in the area during implementation due to the high levels of human disturbance in the area, and it is therefore 13

Batched Re-initiation and Post-fire Consultation Wildlife Biological Assessment highly unlikely that the proposed management actions would have any measurable effect to the wolves. Therefore, we conclude the project will have “no effect” on the gray wolf and will not be further discussed in this document. If wolves are detected within or near the project area, the Forest will initiate consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Conservancy fairy shrimp (Branchinecta conservation), Vernal pool fairy shrimp (Branchinechta lynchi ) and Vernal pool tadpole shrimp (Lepidurus packardi) - The analysis area is outside the range of vernal pool tadpole shrimp. There are no management actions proposed within or near any suitable habitat for vernal pool fairy shrimp and conservancy shrimp and will therefore have “no effect” on any of these three species. These species will not be further discussed in this document. Western yellow-billed cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus) – The cuckoo is strongly associated with dense riparian vegetation typically composed of woodlands with low, scrubby, dense vegetation and surface water. On the Forest, cuckoo habitat is limited in distribution to small areas along the Klamath River and portions of tributaries with low gradients. The Forest has no record of a cuckoo detection and the closest known detection is located near Arcata, California which is about 80 miles from the analysis area. There are no management actions proposed within cuckoo habitat. The project will not modify habitat nor disturb potentially nesting cuckoo thus the project will have “no effect” on cuckoo. In addition, the Forest doesn’t contain any proposed cuckoo Critical Habitat thus this project will have “no effect” on proposed cuckoo Critical Habitat. The cuckoo will not be further discussed in this document. Oregon spotted frog (Rana pretiosa) - The areas proposed for treatment are well outside of the sub- basins where this species is either historically or currently extant2, as identified in the Final Rule for Listing (USDI 2014), and there is therefore a discountable chance for it to occur within areas proposed for management actions. The project is outside designated Critical Habitat for this species. Therefore, this project will have “no effect” on this species or its Critical Habitat and it will not be further discussed in this document. The Northern Spotted Owl and its Critical Habitat are the focus of this document.

II. Consistency with Recovery Plans and Other Guidance The content of this BA complies with legal requirements set forth under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (19 U. S. C. 1536 (c), 50 CFR 402), and standards established in Forest Service Manual direction (FSM 2672.42). Northern spotted owl (NSO) Critical Habitat: In the 2012 designation of NSO Critical Habitat, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife (USFWS) developed suggestions for managing within Critical Habitat. These suggestions included conserving high quality habitat and actively managing forests to restore ecosystem health such as natural fire regimes. Although the Final Rule doesn’t explicitly address the

2 Lost River sub-basin: Lower Klamath Lake, Upper Pit River sub-basin: Pine Creek-South Pit River (near Alturas), Lower Pit River sub-basin: Town of Pittville-Pit River (near Fall River Mills).

14

Batched Re-initiation and Post-fire Consultation Wildlife Biological Assessment use of post-fire harvest of dead trees within Critical Habitat, the USFWS did comment on the need to conserve and recruit high quality NSO habitat and the need for late-successional reserve (LSR) management to be consistent with Standard and Guides of the Northwest Forest Plan (NWFP). Northwest Forest Plan (NWFP): The NWFP was adopted in 1994 to guide the management of more than 9.7 million hectares (24 million acres) of Federal land in portions of western Washington and Oregon, and northwestern California within the range of the NSO. The Klamath Forest Plan incorporates the NWFP and is intended to provide the basis for conservation of the NSO and other late-successional and old-growth forest associated species. The NWFP identifies the high risk of large scale disturbance in mixed conifer forests and suggests, in the event of a stand-replacing fire, the resulting excessive fuel loads may interfere with stand regeneration. Excessive fuel loads also elevate the potential for future fires that may expand into existing high quality habitat. The proposed projects use the Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines to minimize impacts to habitat and reduce the risk of additional fires resulting from the excessive fuel load through land management. These projects will not eliminate the potential of future fires within the project areas but are intended to, in part, reduce the potential of large-scale high-severity fire which, in turn, will reduce the loss of additional habitat. Forest-wide Late-Successional Reserve Assessment (LSRA): The Klamath Forest-wide Late-successional Reserve Assessment (1999) sets the objective that salvage effects in LSRs should be neutral and should have a long-term positive effect on late-successional habitat. Salvage should not diminish suitable habitat now or in the future. NSO Recovery Plan: The 2011 NSO Revised Recovery Plan (RRP) was prepared by a Recovery Team consisting of Federal agencies, State governments, and other interested parties. The RRP was published in June 28, 2011 (USDI 2011). This replaced the 1992 Draft Recovery Plan which had been used as a foundation for the 1994 Northwest Forest Plan, and the 2008 Final Recovery Plan. The 2011 RRP identifies three main threats to NSO (current and past habitat loss and competition with barred owls) and describes a Recovery Strategy which includes habitat conservation and active forest management as a means by which to address these threats. As a result, the RRP identified a series of Recovery Actions to guide activities that would contribute to recovery objectives. For this analysis, Recovery Actions 10, 12, and 32 are most applicable. Recovery plans are not regulatory documents and are not required to be addressed as part of Section 7 consultation under the ESA. However, in order to provide decision makers and the USFWS, with relevant information, and to address the general compliance requirements as listed under 7(a)(1) of Endangered Species Act, we have provided information regarding project consistency with the Recovery Plan in Table 2. In addition, see Appendix C for a description of all other Recovery Actions and the manner in which they were addressed for this project.

Table 2. Recovery Actions Applicable to the Seiad-Horse, Horse Creek-Robinson and Oak analysis areas. Recovery actions applicable to the re-initiated projects are described within their respective Biological Assessments. Recovery Description Applicable Recommendations Action 10 Conserve spotted owl sites and Intent of this recovery action is to protect, enhance, and develop high value spotted owl habitat to habitat in the quantity and distribution necessary to provide for the provide additional demographic long-term recovery of spotted owls. support to the spotted owl

population

15

Batched Re-initiation and Post-fire Consultation Wildlife Biological Assessment

The project was designed to maintain key habitat features such as large snags and large coarse woody debris. Many of the proposed treatments were designed to minimize effects to existing habitat and promote stand development.

Prescribed fire provides for long term improvement to the habitat by removing fuels and consequently reducing the potential of high severity fire to move across the treatment areas and into existing NSO habitat.

Treatments were modified in order to reduce the estimated effects from the proposed activities across the entire project area where practicable.

NSO activity centers have been analyzed for their potential to contribute to the demographic support of the NSO population in the area. Where feasible, minimization measures were established within sites identified as having enough habitat for NSO to reproduce and potentially provide demographic support to the NSO population in the action area. An assessment of RA10 contribution was based on the level of habitat within the activity center and was additionally informed by recent survey information where it existed.

In the Seiad-Horse project area, approximately 90% of the activity centers had been surveyed prior to the Abney fire, thus providing more current information regarding which sites have been reproductively active in that analysis area. The activity centers that were identified as RA10 sites have additional site specific design criteria and protective measures.

12 In lands where management is Intent of this recovery action is to focus silvicultural activities on focused on development of conserving and restoring habitat elements that take a long time to spotted owl habitat, post-fire develop such as legacy components, large trees and snags, and large downed wood for the benefit of future stand development. silvicultural activities should

concentrate on conserving and All projects within this batched BA were designed to retain high restoring habitat elements that value trees and snags that are important habitat components in a take a long time to develop (e.g., developing stand of future suitable habitat. Post-fire projects large trees, medium and large would achieve this by excluding treatment from within portions of snags, downed wood) salvage harvest units and retaining high valued snags within the salvage harvest units.

In roadside hazard treatments, where hazardous trees/snags over 40 inches DBH (Horse Creek-Robinson) or 45 inches DBH (Seiad- Horse and Oak) and trees that exhibit high quality habitat characteristics (i.e. signs of decay and defect, cavities, broken or multiple tops, very large lateral branches and flattened canopy) must be abated, they would not be removed from the site but would be left on site and whole as future downed logs.

32 Federal and non-federal Maintaining forests with high-quality habitat will provide landowners should work with the additional support for reducing key threats faced by NSO; Service to maintain and restore protecting these forests should provide NSO high-quality refugia older and more structurally habitat from negative competitive interactions with barred owls complex multi-layered conifer that are likely occurring where the two species’ home ranges forests …allowing for other overlap. 16

Batched Re-initiation and Post-fire Consultation Wildlife Biological Assessment

threats, such as fire and insects Salvage treatments will avoid stands that currently provide RA-32 to be addressed by restoration characteristics. Fuels treatments are designed to reduce the management actions. likelihood of negative effects to habitat from stand replacing fire. Fuels treatments will contribute to the overall reduction of stand replacing fire within areas of high quality habitat through the strategic placement of fuel breaks.

III. Consultation History

The Klamath National Forest is consulting on the proposed management actions by batching this analysis into one Biological Assessment (BA). The purpose of batching this analysis is 1) to evaluate the activity centers that include both the previously planned actions and the currently proposed post- fire actions, and 2) to capture the overlapping timeline of the Abney fire and the Oak fire that created very similar hazardous conditions along the roads in the action area thus necessitating post-fire management actions, and 3) to improve the efficiency of this consultation process by grouping projects together that share spatial and temporal boundings as well as similar potential effects to NSO and NSO Critical Habitat. We have grouped projects together based on their geographic, temporal and ecological similarities in order to provide context for the scope, scale and magnitude of the effects from these projects as well as from the suppression actions conducted during the 2017 wildfires.

The batched consultation approach within this BA was discussed with FWS biologists, Chad Anderson, Shaughn Galloway, Laura Finley, and Christine Jordan, during multiple meetings that occurred in December 2017, January, March and April 2018. The FWS biologists helped outline the format and general approach and were in agreement that a batched BA was an appropriate approach for the current circumstances. The basis and rationale for providing a batched BA is described in more detail below. The Abney fire occurred during the summer of 2017 in a portion of the Klamath NF where management actions were planned as part of an overall landscape strategy of forest health and resilience as well as community and forest visitor safety. The area affected by the Abney fire overlapped areas where two separate projects were previously planned, consulted on, and partially completed (Johnny O’Neil and Thom Seider projects). Although actions started for the Thom Seider project in 2010 and Johnny O’Neil project in 2013, many of the planned project actions had not yet been implemented prior to the Abney Fire. The Johnny O’ Neil and Thom Seider projects were impacted by the 2014 wildfires and consultation had been reinitiated in January of 2016, due to the changed condition of the NSO habitat that resulted from the 2014 fires. The Johnny O’Neil project was impacted by wildfire again during the 2016 Gap Fire. Following that re- initiation, the Abney Fire occurred in 2017, causing yet another change in NSO habitat condition that triggered this re-initiation of consultation for Johnny O’Neil and Thom Seider projects. The anticipated effects to federally listed species from the Johnny O’Neil and Thom Seider projects as they were originally analyzed are re-evaluated within this BA as part of the overall assessment of effects to NSO within the analysis area; such that effects from these projects are accounted for as they were previously estimated, as well as how they may now be estimated in the context of the large scale wildfire and the proposed post-fire management actions.

17

Batched Re-initiation and Post-fire Consultation Wildlife Biological Assessment

The Oak fire did not overlap with previously planned projects but occurred at the same time as the Abney fire and so created a very similar hazardous condition along the roads within the fire perimeter, thus initiating post-fire management actions to abate these hazards. Effects from the Oak fire and the associated fire suppression actions are accounted for within the Emergency Consultation Biological Assessment (Appendix A) and are incorporated into this BA along with the analysis of potential effects from the proposed Oak Roadside Hazard project. The purpose of analyzing the previously planned projects in conjunction with the proposed post-fire projects is to effectively summarize the sum total of effects to the NSO in the areas that overlap in time and/or space. In some cases, an NSO activity center may be potentially affected by actions from multiple projects, i.e. the past projects that were already analyzed, the 2017 wildfires and/or fire suppression actions, and the proposed post-fire management actions. It is for this reason that all actions, including the 2017 wildfires, are analyzed comprehensively within this batched BA and the Emergency Consultation BA. Portions of the Johnny O’Neil and Thom Seider project areas that did not have a change in condition in the NSO habitat baseline resulting from the 2017 wildfires are not addressed in this BA.

IV. Description of the Project Actions and Project Design Features

The projects analyzed within this BA, and the proposed management actions within each, are described below – for a description of the spatial and temporal bounding of each analysis area and the action area see the Methods and Definitions section below. For the projects that have already been consulted upon, a brief description of the remaining actions that are part of this analysis is provided. Only those actions left to implement that fall within this action area will be described, as the rest of the management actions within each project have either already been implemented or remain to be implemented but fall outside of the area that experienced a change in condition to the NSO habitat. Conditions within areas outside of the area affected by the 2017 wildfires (where actions have yet to be implemented) are assumed to be the same as they were when originally analyzed, or when previously analyzed for re-initiation following a changed habitat condition (see Consultation History above). A more detailed description for the proposed post-fire management actions (Seiad-Horse, Oak and Horse Creek-Robinson projects) is provided below since these actions have not yet been consulted upon. Summaries of the Johnny O’Neil and Thom Seider projects are described below; more detailed descriptions can be found within their respective BAs. Management actions associated with each individual project are described below. Effects to NSO and NSO Critical Habitat for each project are described in section VIII and summarized in table 26 below.

ACTIONS FOR REINITIATED PROJECTS: Thom Seider Project The Thom Seider project was designed in 2009 to reduce risk of high severity fire, increase species diversity, promote late-successional habitat, and reduce fuels around private property. Originally, the project included variable density thinning, roadside fuels, private property boundary understory thinning, and prescribed burning. Currently, underburning that falls within the area that experienced a change in condition is the only remaining action to implement for the Thom Seider project and is considered in this BA as part of this re-initiation process. 18

Batched Re-initiation and Post-fire Consultation Wildlife Biological Assessment

Underburning (1,204 acres): There are three underburn units (A55, A57, and A202) for a total of 1,204 acres. No additional temporary roads or landings would be constructed for this action. There are three activity centers that were analyzed in the Thom Seider BA that overlap the Abney fire footprint and are therefore part of this re-initiation: KL1160, KL1161, and KL1163. These ACs were also analyzed by the Johnny O’Neil BA (see below) since these projects are adjacent to each other. The underburning remaining to be implemented and considered here occurs within 548 acres of NSO Critical Habitat (including nesting/roosting, foraging, dispersal, and non-habitat). See Methods and Definitions section below for additional details on the scale of the analysis area. Johnny O’Neil Project The Johnny O’Neil project was designed in 2012 to move the existing forested condition toward a more resilient state by reducing fuels within the project area. The objectives of the project were to establish a desired condition post-implementation that includes improvement of early successional habitat for prey species, restoration of black oak component, reduced risk of losing spotted owl habitat to wildfire, protection of mid-and early seral forest and promotion of late-successional old- growth habitat in Late Successional Reserves. These conditions would be achieved through both commercial and non-commercial variable density thinning, mastication, and prescribed burning. Currently, the actions remaining to implement for the Johnny O’Neil project are mastication, commercial and non-commercial thinning (both types of thinning may occur within the same unit) and prescribed burning. As described in the Johnny O’Neil BA, “Tree thinning would retain trees of all size classes retaining stands that are uneven-aged and multi-story. The commercial component consists of trees between 10 and 20 inches diameter at breast height (DBH). The non-commercial component consists of trees from 3 inches to 10 inches DBH. To facilitate future mid-story development, the retention of trees less than 10 inches will be variable and all size classes within that group will be represented in a similar proportion to that of the commercial component. Thinning of trees <10” in DBH will follow the same principles so that a portion of trees are left in patches, small groups, or as individual trees to provide or maintain an element of vertical diversity or a lower canopy layer. Trees greater than 20 inches DBH will not be removed except as needed for operational safety and implementation purposes (for example road or landing construction)”. Landings and temporary roads will also be constructed or reconstructed to facilitate the implementation of these actions. Mastication (68 acres): There are four mastication units (613, 614, 617, and 618) (totaling 68 acres) in the analysis area that still need treatment. The other units in the analysis area were either completed as prescribed or were dropped from the project due to the effects of the Abney or Gap fires. Thinning (440 acres): There are 28 thinning units (totaling 440 acres) remaining to be treated in the analysis area. The other units in the analysis area were either completed as prescribed or were dropped from the project due to the effects of the Gap and Abney fires. The remaining thinning units that still need treatment occur outside the Abney Fire perimeter.

19

Batched Re-initiation and Post-fire Consultation Wildlife Biological Assessment

Table 3: Remaining thinning units in the Johnny O’Neil re-initiation analysis area.

Thinning Thinning Acres Acres Unit Number Unit Number 431 5.1 453 52.7 433 7.6 455 66.0 438 24.1 456 5.3 439 8.1 458 42.2 441 4.5 460 36.0 442 9.1 461 17.0 443 12.1 462 7.7 446 25.3 465 14.5 447 38.4 474 3.0 448 5.8 479 13.6 449 11.2 482 5.1 450 6.2 484 6.0 451 4.0 494 3.1 452 5.0 500 0.9

Underburning (882 acres): There are 11 underburn units (totaling 882 acres) remaining to be treated in the analysis area. The other units in the analysis area were either completed as prescribed or were dropped from the project due to the effects of the Abney or Gap Fire.

Table 4: Remaining underburn units in the Johnny O’Neil re-initiation analysis area.

Unit Number Acres UB-J 170.5 UB-N 193.5 UB-O 211.0 UB-P 164.7 UB-Q 60.0 UB-R 33.0 UB-T 0.2 UB-U 13.1 UB-V 11.4 UB-W 7.3 UB-Y 17.2

Landings and temporary roads: There are about 13 segments of new or existing temporary road needed to complete the remaining actions from the Johnny O’Neil project. There are four new temporary road segments totaling about 0.6 mile and nine existing temporary road segments totaling about 1.8 miles. There are about 19 existing and 41 new landings needed to complete the remaining actions in the analysis area.

20

Batched Re-initiation and Post-fire Consultation Wildlife Biological Assessment

Eight activity centers were analyzed in the Johnny O’Neil BA that overlap with the Abney fire perimeter and are therefore part of this re-initiation: KL1150, KL1152, KL1153, KL1154, KL1155, KL1160, KL1161, and KL1163.

Horse Creek -Robinson Project In August/September 2017, the Abney Fire crossed into the northwest portion of the Horse Creek Biological Assessment (BA) analysis area, impacting seven northern spotted owl activity centers (AC) that were analyzed as part of the BA for the Horse Creek project. The seven NSO activity centers within the analysis area for the Horse Creek project Biological Assessment that occurred within the Abney fire perimeter are: KL1150, KL1152, KL1153, KL1154, KL1160, KL1161, and KL1163. Without spatially explicit fire severity information for these seven ACs at the time directly following the Abney fire, we were unable to qualitatively or quantitatively analyze the impacts of the Abney fire as part of the overall habitat baseline for these ACs. Due to this lack of information on the changed condition, actions planned for the Horse Creek project that overlapped either the core area or home range of these ACs were deferred and dropped from consultation until we were able to obtain site specific information on the current condition of the NSO habitat within each AC. In addition to these seven ACs, there were five ACs that contained deferred project actions but that were not affected by the Abney fire; these ACs are KL0149, KL0253, KL4132, KL4149, and 4149B. Currently, actions that were deferred from implementation from the original Horse Creek project, were not consulted on, and that are now being referred to as the ‘Horse Creek – Robinson Project’ area are: roadside hazard tree removal, treatment of fuels adjacent to private property, and construction of fuel management zones (FMZ). Additional detail on the differences between the actions consulted on within the original Horse Creek project BA and the Horse Creek-Robinson consultation are described in section VIII below.

Table 5: Treatments within the Horse Creek – Robinson analysis area.

Treatment Type Acres1 of Treatment

Roadside Hazard Only 10.7 miles (304 acres)

Fuels reduction adjacent to private land (WUI) 2 69

Fuels reduction adjacent to private land (WUI) 3 2

Fuel Management Zone (FMZ) 2 94

Fuel Management Zone (FMZ) 3 23 1Treatment units overlap so the acres of each treatment in this table can’t be added together to determine the footprint of all treatment. While there is a WUI 2 and 3, and FMZ 2 and 3, there is no reference to WUI 1 or FMZ 1 that were part of the original Horse Creek Project because they are not part of the Horse Creek – Robinson project.

Roadside Hazard Tree Removal (10.7 miles): Trees adjacent to National Forest System roads or along county roads adjacent to National Forest System lands within the project area will be evaluated 21

Batched Re-initiation and Post-fire Consultation Wildlife Biological Assessment for hazard tree removal. Two different assessments will be made to determine roadside hazard trees. First, to identify fire-injured or fire-killed trees that are likely to die within three to five years, the following guidelines will be used: Report #RO-11-01 “Marking Guidelines for Fire-Injured Trees in California” (Smith and Cluck 2011). Using the marking guidelines to determine the probability of mortality and on-the-ground evaluation to determine whether the fire-injured tree is a hazard to a road:

 Trees less than or equal to 40 inches diameter at breast height with a 70 percent or greater chance of dying and are a hazard to the road will be cut and removed; or  Trees greater than 40 inches diameter at breast height with a 90 percent or greater chance of dying and are a hazard to the road will be cut and retained on site if the cut tree occurs within late-successional reserve or northern spotted owl Critical Habitat otherwise the cut trees will be removed. Second, for trees less than or equal to 40 inches diameter at breast height that have a less than 70 percent chance or trees greater than 40 inches diameter at breast height that have a less than 90 percent chance of dying within three to five years due to fire-injury, Report #RO-12-01 “Hazard Tree Guidelines for Forest Service Facilities and Roads in the Pacific Southwest Region” (Angwin et al. 2012) will be used to identify if these trees are moderate or high potential hazards to the roadway. This report provides guidance on whether or not the tree is a hazard to a road. The tree can be fire- killed, green with a high hazard potential, or not fire affected but dead with a high hazard potential. Trees less than or equal to 40 inches diameter at breast height identified as having high hazard potential will be cut and removed. Trees greater than 40 inches diameter at breast height that occur in late successional reserve or spotted owl Critical Habitat identified as a high hazard potential will be cut and left on site as long as the retention of the felled tree does not pose a risk to facilities (e.g. roads) or human safety; if the hazards occur outside these areas, then they will be cut and possibly removed. Trees identified as having a moderate hazard will be monitored and evaluated for possible future abatement². Removal of merchantable roadside hazard trees will include the use of ground-based and skyline logging systems. Non-merchantable roadside hazard trees will be piled and burned where the treatment is along a strategic road for roadside fuels treatments, described below (i.e. roadside fuels treatment). Non-merchantable roadside hazard trees will be cut and left when they are not along a road defined as strategic for fire suppression and needing fuels treatment. Per agency policy, the public may obtain a permit to remove felled trees for firewood in accordance with permit requirements. The agency anticipates the local public will remove firewood along roadways, particularly where they occur near communities or residences.

Fuels Reduction Adjacent to Private Property (also referred to as ‘WUI’) (71 acres): For simplicity, the description of the action “fuels reduction adjacent to private property” will use the term “WUI” (wildland urban interface); so, in general, from this point forward in the analysis the action will be referred to as “WUI”.

² The exact timing, extent and number of moderate hazards is unknown at this time. When hazards are abated in the future is it assumed that they will occur sporadically as occasional hazards along Forest Service roads and the appropriate LOPs will be in place when they are abated. 22

Batched Re-initiation and Post-fire Consultation Wildlife Biological Assessment

Fuels reduction treatments are proposed within 500 feet of National Forest System lands adjacent to private property that was affected by the fire. Treatments would involve removing dead vegetation and live understory vegetation, including smaller diameter conifer trees, to reduce fire behavior activity; specifically, to reduce flame length, crown fire potential and fire intensity to meet desired conditions. Pruning retained conifers up to seven feet high within this zone would increase canopy base height and reduce the potential for crown fire initiation. Activity-generated fuels would be disposed of by a variety of methods to meet the desired conditions. Segments of the WUI units will receive two possible prescriptions (the original Horse Creek project had three prescriptions, but one of those does not occur within the Horse Creek – Robinson analysis area and so only prescription #2 and #3 are described below). Prescription 2 will be applied inside the larger patches of NSO habitat. Prescription 3 will be applied to a very small segment of a unit located within an activity center core area. WUI Prescription 2 (69 acres)  Cut live conifers up to 8 inches diameter at breast height at 20 to 25 foot spacing;  Cut dead trees up to 12 inches diameter at breast height; and  Cut hardwoods up to 6 inches diameter at breast height at 20 to 25 foot spacing between trees. WUI Prescription 3 (2 acres)  Cut live conifers up to 8 inches diameter at breast height at 15 foot spacing. Leave trees should be left in a clumped fashion over at least ten percent of the unit;  Cut dead trees up to 10 inches diameter at breast height; and  Cut hardwoods up to 6 inches diameter at breast height at 20 to 25 foot spacing between trees.

Developing and Maintaining Fuels Management Zones (FMZ) (117 acres): During the Gap Fire, strategic dozer lines that were built during the Beaver Fire in 2014 or from other past wildfires were reopened. This treatment proposes that strategic ridge systems, many containing these historic fire lines, would be maintained by removing dead vegetation and live understory vegetation along with smaller diameter live conifer trees. Pruning retained conifers up to seven feet high within these zones would increase canopy base height and reduce the potential for crown fire initiation. Activity- generated fuels would be disposed of by a variety of methods, including manual and mechanical treatments, to meet desired conditions. Each segment of the fuel management zone unit would receive two possible prescriptions (the original Horse Creek project had three prescriptions, but one of those does not occur within the Horse Creek – Robinson analysis area and so only prescription #2 and #3 are described below). Prescription 2 would be applied to segments of the fuelbreak unit inside the larger patches of spotted owl habitat. Prescription 3 would be applied to three small segments that are located in either an activity center core or in the home range of a high valued activity center. FMZ Prescription 2 (94 acres)  Cut live conifers up to 8 inches diameter at breast height at 20 to 25 foot spacing;  Cut dead trees up to 18 inches diameter at breast height. For dead trees up to 16 inches at breast height and pile and burn the fuels. Leave cut dead trees 16 inches to 18 inches at breast height on site as woody debris; leave whole when possible; and

23

Batched Re-initiation and Post-fire Consultation Wildlife Biological Assessment

 Cut hardwoods up to 6 inches diameter at breast height with 20 to 25 foot spacing between trees. FMZ Prescription 3 (23acres)  The dozer line would be maintained by removing brush and trees up to 8 inches diameter at breast height. This prescription is applied only to the existing dozer line footprint for three fuel management zone segments.

PROPOSED POST-FIRE MANAGEMENT ACTIONS

Seiad-Horse Risk Reduction Project This project includes the following types of treatments: (1) roadside hazard tree removal (2) fuels reduction adjacent to private property; (3) developing and maintaining fuels management zones; (4) salvage harvest with strategic site preparation and planting; (5) site preparation and planting (without salvage); (6) prescribed burning and 7) large woody debris placement.

Table 6: Proposed post-fire management actions proposed for the Seiad-Horse project.

Treatment Type Amount* of Treatment

Roadside Hazard Only 37.7 miles Roadside Hazard Only - 1.3 miles Modified Fuels reduction adjacent to 90 acres private land (WUI 1) Fuels reduction adjacent to 49 acres private land (WUI 2) 1,814 acres** Salvage Harvest (Net salvage harvest acres =1,269)

Site Prep/Plant 955 acres

Underburn only 4,508 acres

Fuel Management Zone 87 acres

Large Woody Debris 1.4 miles 8 new (~1.75 mile) Temporary Roads 6 existing ( ~0.75 mile) ~ 40 new Landings 26 existing *Treatment units overlap so the acres of each treatment in this table can’t be added together to determine the footprint of all treatment. **Total acres salvage acres = 1,814. After subtracting retention areas = 1,269.

24

Batched Re-initiation and Post-fire Consultation Wildlife Biological Assessment

Roadside Hazard Tree Removal (39 miles): Trees adjacent to National Forest System roads within the project area will be evaluated for hazard tree removal. Three different assessments will be made to determine roadside hazard trees. First, for trees less than 45 inches in diameter, fire-injured or fire-killed trees that have a 70 percent or greater chance of dying within three to five years, the Report #RO-11-01 “Marking Guidelines for Fire- Injured Trees in California” would be used to identify trees that meet these criteria. These fire-injured or fire-killed trees must have a 70 percent or greater probability of mortality within three to five years in order to be considered a hazard tree. Second, for trees that do not have a 70 percent or greater probability of mortality within three to five years due to fire-injury, Report #RO-12-01 “Hazard Tree Guidelines for Forest Service Facilities and Roads in the Pacific Southwest Region” would be used to identify if these trees are moderate or high potential hazards to the roadway. This report provides guidance on whether or not the tree is a hazard to a road. The tree can be fire-killed, green with a high hazard potential, or not fire affected but dead with a high hazard potential. Trees identified as having high hazard potential would be removed or abated and left on site where necessary to meet downed log requirements of the Forest Plan. Trees identified as having a moderate hazard would be monitored and evaluated for possible future removal². Third, for trees equal to or greater than 45 inches in diameter, we would identify any fire-injured trees that have a 90 percent probability of dying in the next three to five years using the criteria in Report #RO-11-01 “Marking Guidelines for Fire-Injured Trees in California”. These fire-injured trees that have 90 percent or greater probability of mortality within three to five years would be considered potential hazards and would be marked for cutting, and either removed or left on site if necessary to meet the requirements of the Forest Plan (e.g., for hazard trees within riparian reserves, as described below) unless the felled hazard poses a hazard to human safety or facilities. Those felled hazard trees that still pose a safety concern may be removed. Removal of merchantable roadside hazard trees would include the use of ground-based and skyline logging systems.

 Roadside Hazard – Modified (1.3 miles) A specific roadside hazard tree abatement prescription would apply within the RA10 NSO core area (KL1163 – Salt Gulch). Along the segment of road 47N70 in Salt Gulch from its junction with road 47N74 to its junction with 47N67 (about 1.3 miles), all hazard trees would be felled according to the hazard tree evaluations described above; the difference is in what happens to a hazard tree once it has been felled. On this road segment within a northern spotted owl activity center core use area, roadside hazard trees equal to or greater than 30 inches in diameter at breast height would be felled and left on site as whole logs according to the following criteria: 1) the faller can safely fell the hazard tree away from the road and the fallen tree would not present a direct hazard to the road; and 2) once fallen, the tree would not disrupt flow through a drainage structure.

² The exact timing, extent and number of moderate hazards is unknown at this time. When hazards are abated in the future is it assumed that they will occur sporadically as occasional hazards along Forest Service roads and the appropriate LOPs will be in place when they are abated. 25

Batched Re-initiation and Post-fire Consultation Wildlife Biological Assessment

Hazard trees along this road segment where these criteria are not met, or that are less than 30 inches in diameter at breast height, would be felled and removed.

 Roadside Hazard - within riparian reserves In stream course riparian reserves, all hazard trees would be felled according to the hazard tree evaluations described above; the difference is in what happens to a hazard tree once it has been felled. Within stream course riparian reserves, roadside hazard trees equal to or greater than 24 inches diameter at breast height would be felled and left on site according to the following criteria: 1) the faller can safely fell the hazard tree away from the road and the fallen tree would not present a direct hazard to the road; and 2) once fallen, the tree would not disrupt flow through a drainage structure. Hazard trees in stream course riparian reserves where these criteria are not met, or that are less than 24 inches in diameter at breast height, would be felled and removed.

Fuels Reduction adjacent to Private Property – (also referred to as ‘WUI’) (139 acres): Fuels reduction treatments are proposed within the 500 feet of National Forest System lands adjacent to private property that were affected by the fire. Treatment would include removing dead vegetation and live understory vegetation including conifer trees less than 12 inches in diameter at breast height to reduce fire behavior activity, specifically reduce flame length, crown fire potential, and fire intensity to meet desired conditions. Pruning retained conifers up to seven feet high within this zone would increase canopy base height and reduce the potential for crown fire initiation. Every piece of ground will be different, but in general the fuels reduction would use a spacing of 25 feet for Private Property 1 (15 foot spacing for Private Property 2), keeping the larger healthier trees in place. Both manual and mechanical methods would be used to cut or masticate standing dead trees depending on slope steepness, accessibility, and feasibility. Activity-generated fuels would be treated using a variety of methods including machine piling or hand piling and burning, underburning, or lop and scattering. Two separate prescriptions were created (below). For simplicity, the description of the action “fuels reduction adjacent to private property” will use the term “WUI” (wildland urban interface); so, in general, from this point forward in the analysis the action will be referred to as “WUI”. WUI Prescription 1 was developed as a prescription for areas outside of northern spotted owl activity center core use areas: • Cut live conifer trees up to 12 inches in diameter at breast height with 25 foot spacing; • Cut live hardwood trees up to 6 inches in diameter at breast height with 25 foot spacing; • Cut dead trees up to 12 inches in diameter at breast height; • Prune retained conifers up to seven feet high; and • Treat activity-generated fuels. WUI Prescription 2 was developed as a prescription within the northern spotted owl activity center core use area: • Cut live conifer trees up to 8 inches diameter at breast height with 15 feet spacing; • Cut live hardwoods up to 6 inches diameter at breast height at a spacing of 15 feet; • Cut dead trees up to 10 inches diameter at breast height; • Leave trees should be left in a clumped fashion over at least ten percent of the unit; and • Treat activity-generated fuels.

26

Batched Re-initiation and Post-fire Consultation Wildlife Biological Assessment

Developing and Maintaining Fuel Management Zones (87 acres): A north to south ridge was identified as a location where a fuel management zone would be beneficial to achieve the purpose and need of the project (see maps in Appendix D). This ridge has been used during past wildfires, including the Abney, Gap, and Goff Fires. A 600 foot fuel break (approximately 87 acres) is proposed to be maintained by removing dead vegetation and live understory vegetation along with live conifer trees less than 12 inches in diameter at breast height. Pruning retained conifers up to seven feet high within this zone would increase canopy base height and reduce the potential for crown fire initiation. Both manual and mechanical methods would be used to cut or masticate standing dead trees depending on slope steepness, accessibility, and feasibility. Activity-generated fuels would be treated using a variety of methods including machine piling or hand piling and burning, underburning, or lop and scattering. The fuel break would be constructed on and straddling a ridge. Less than two acres of hydrologic riparian reserves are included in this fuelbreak. These two acres are at the top ends of the hydrologic riparian reserve of intermittent channels and more than one-half site potential tree height distance from the intermittent channels.

Salvage Harvest with Site Preparation and Planting (1,814 acres including retention – 1,269 net acres):

Standing dead trees 14 inches in diameter at breast height or greater would be considered for salvage using the guidelines in Report #RO-11-01 “Marking Guidelines for Fire-Injured Trees in California” (Smith and Cluck 2011). Fire-killed and fire-injured trees with a 70 percent or greater chance of dying within the next three to five years would be considered for salvage harvest. Trees identified as hazards using the “Hazard Tree Guidelines for Forest Service Facilities and Roads in the Pacific Southwest Region” along roads within salvage units would be felled to abate the hazard. Snags for wildlife would be retained based on 100-acre landscape areas according to numerical and diameter standards in the Forest Plan (p. 4-26). In any 100-acre area, snags within and outside salvage harvest units may contribute to these standards. Within harvest units, snags and snag retention patches would be retained in all riparian reserves (stream, active landslides and inner gorges) and as clumps in designated snag retention areas as necessary to meet these standards. Individual snags within harvest units would not be retained unless they have high quality habitat characteristics such as signs of decay and defect, cavities, broken or multiple tops, very large lateral branches and flattened canopy. In order to contribute to Recovery Action 12, very large snags that have these characteristics and are likely to persist until the next stand is capable of producing large snags should be retained wherever they occur, provided safety considerations can be addressed. If a wildlife snag must be felled for safety reasons, the entire tree would be left in place and shall not be bucked into smaller logs. Salvage logging treatments would be accomplished by a combination of ground-based, skyline, or helicopter logging systems. All salvage units would be site prepped and reforested as described in the site-preparation and planting section below. Salvage is only proposed within the late-successional reserve management area. The potential for benefit to species associated with late-successional forest conditions from risk reduction salvage harvest is greatest when stand-replacing events are involved. Salvage in disturbed sites of greater than 10 acres and where the disturbance reduced live canopy closure is less than 40 percent is included (Forest Plan MA5-30(1), pg. 4-97). Salvage is only being proposed within the late- successional reserve management area. No salvage harvest is proposed within the inventoried released roadless area. 27

Batched Re-initiation and Post-fire Consultation Wildlife Biological Assessment

Site Preparation with Planting (without salvage) (955 acres): Forest stands selected for site preparation and tree planting are predominately plantations composed of standing dead trees generally under 16 inches in diameter at breast height. Planting would be strategic and not all acres would be planted. Planting would focus on the most productive sites that have the greatest likelihood of success in reestablishing fire-resilient coniferous forests as soon as possible (Forest Plan S&G MA5- 28). Both manual and mechanical methods would be used to cut or masticate standing dead trees depending on slope steepness, accessibility, and feasibility. Activity-generated fuels would be treated using a variety of methods including machine piling or hand piling and burning, underburning, or lop and scattering. Reforestation would be accomplished by directly planting nursery-grown seedlings or by allowing natural regeneration. Tree species and spacing would depend on a variety of environmental factors, including considerations of climate change, elevation, slope steepness, slope position, aspect, and soil productivity. Reforestation would avoid creation of densely stocked plantations that would prevent the reintroduction of low intensity prescribed fire at a later date. Seedling survival rates and competition from brush species would create a natural mosaic of species and stocking densities. Hardwoods would be considered when determining whether desired stocking objectives have been met. No mechanized equipment would be used within hydrologic riparian reserves except from existing roads and landings. No felling of snags would occur within 50 feet of perennial and intermittent streams except for safety. Outside of 50 foot buffer in hydrologic riparian reserves, felling of snags would be limited to trees that are less than or equal to 16 inches in diameter at breast height. No felling of snags would occur where the riparian zone is hardwood dominated. Planting could occur anywhere in the hydrologic riparian reserves where planting can be safely accomplished.

Underburning (4,508 acres): Underburns are designed to utilize key holding features (e.g. roads, ridges, and creeks) and are aimed at reducing fuel loading to abate the threat of high severity fire into the future. It is anticipated that a mosaic of burn patterns would occur, from low intensity with some areas unburned to moderate or high intensity where fuel has accumulated. These burn patterns are largely dependent on burn intensity and severity from the Abney Fire, fuel loading, and vegetation response post-fire. Prescribed fire would be allowed to back down into hydrologic riparian reserves. However, there would be no ignition in hydrologic riparian reserves except to eliminate jackpot fuels. These fuels would otherwise cause high severity burn or fire runs from burning material rolling down from upslope underburning if the jackpots were not treated first.

Large Woody Debris Placement (along 1.4 mile stretch of Horse Creek): During scoping, the interdisciplinary team identified an opportunity within the project area to complete some in stream habitat restoration. Large woody debris would be placed in a 1.4 mile long, low-gradient, unconstrained reach of the main stem of Horse Creek at up to 27 placement sites using a helicopter. Large woody debris would consist of rootwads with short (20 feet) boles of 24 inches diameter at breast height or greater or logs that are at least 1.5 times the active channel width (i.e. at least 45 feet long). One to three pieces of large woody debris would be placed at each of the 27 candidate placement sites. Large woody debris would be placed so that entire pieces or one end of pieces are within the wetted channel. After helicopter delivery, large woody debris pieces could be moved into optimum configurations using grip hoists and block and tackle. Road Access

28

Batched Re-initiation and Post-fire Consultation Wildlife Biological Assessment

About 8 new temporary roads (1.75 miles) and 6 existing temporary roads (0.75 miles) will be needed for project implementation. Access for this project would be mainly accomplished by use of roads on the National Forest Transportation System. Temporary roads are estimated at this time and will be finalized to comply with standards and guidelines as designated within the Forest Plan. Both new and existing temporary roads will be hydrologically stabilized at the end of the project. Landings About 40 new landings and 26 existing landings will be needed for project implementation. Existing landings will be used where possible. Landing size will be commensurate with operational safety. Skyline landings will use roads where possible. Skyline landings off the road system, ground-based and helicopter landings may average one acre or less in size but will not exceed 1.5 acres in size. Both new and existing landings will be hydrologically stabilized at the end of the project. Legacy Sediment Site Treatments Legacy sediment sites would be treated within the Horse Creek 6th field watershed. The Seiad Creek 6th field watershed legacy sediment sites are already scheduled for treatment under the Klamath National Forest watershed condition framework. All sites would be checked by a hydrologist to determine if they are in need of treatment, and new sites may be discovered prior to treatment scheduling. Site treatments generally include upgrading undersized culverts to pass the 100 year flow requirement, removing excess road fill, improving road drainage and diversion potential, and reestablishing natural channel geometry. Treatment of legacy sediment sites is a benefit to water quality and a requirement of the North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board Waiver of Wastewater Discharge Requirements to bring the Project into compliance with the Clean Water Act.

Oak Roadside Hazard Tree Removal Project The proposed action will treat approximately 39 miles of roads within the Oak Fire perimeter. Of the system roads within the fire perimeter, roads were selected for treatment because they are needed either for public access or administrative use (i.e. fire suppression tactics) and were burned at a moderate to high severity resulting in hazard trees along the roadway. A map of the proposed treatments is located in Appendix D.

Roadside Hazard Tree Removal (39 Miles): Trees adjacent to National Forest System roads or along county roads adjacent to National Forest System lands within the project area will be evaluated for hazard tree removal. Two different assessments will be made to determine roadside hazard trees. First, to identify fire-injured or fire-killed trees that have a 70 percent or greater chance of dying within three to five years, the following guidelines will be used: Report #RO-11-01 “Marking Guidelines for Fire-Injured Trees in California” (Smith and Cluck, 2011). This guideline only looks at a tree that has been fire killed or fire-injured; it does not give it a rating towards being a hazard to the road. These fire-injured or fire-killed trees must have a 70 percent or greater chance of dying within three to five years in order to be considered a hazard tree. Second, for trees that do not have a 70 percent or greater chance of dying within three to five years due to fire-injury, Report #RO-12-01 “Hazard Tree Guidelines for Forest Service Facilities and Roads in the Pacific Southwest Region” (Angwin et al 2012) will be used to identify if these trees are moderate or high potential hazards to the roadway. This report provides guidance on whether or not the tree is a hazard to a road. The tree can be fire-killed, green with a high hazard potential, or not fire 29

Batched Re-initiation and Post-fire Consultation Wildlife Biological Assessment affected but dead with a high hazard potential. Trees identified as having high hazard potential would be removed or abated and left on site where necessary to meet the requirements of the Forest Plan. Trees identified as having a moderate hazard would be monitored and evaluated for possible future removal. Third, for trees equal to or greater than 45 inches in diameter, we will identify any fire-injured trees that have a 90 percent probability of dying in the next three to five years using the criteria in Report #RO-11-01 “Marking Guidelines for Fire-Injured Trees in California” (Smith and Cluck, 2011). Those fire-injured trees that have 90 percent or greater probability of mortality would be considered potential hazards and would be marked for cutting, and either removed or left on site if necessary to meet the requirements of the Forest Plan (e.g., for hazard trees within riparian reserves, as described below).  Hazard tree removal - within riparian reserves A specific hazard tree removal prescription would be implemented where it occurs within riparian reserves. In stream course riparian reserves, all hazard trees will be felled according to the hazard evaluation described above; the difference is in what happens to a hazard tree once it has been felled. Within stream course riparian reserves, roadside hazard trees equal to or greater than 24 inches diameter at breast height will be felled and left on site if the following criteria are met: 1) the faller can safely fell the hazard tree away from the road without causing excessive damage to residual tree crowns or boles; 2) removal would cause excessive soil disturbance such as gouging; 3) the tree does not lean towards the road; 4) once fallen the tree would not disrupt flow through a drainage structure; 5) where leaving the felled tree would not contribute to or cause excessive fuel loading (this threshold may be met sooner in areas identified for fuels reduction); and 6) felled trees that are the furthest from the road, below the road, and on steeper slopes below the road will be favored for leaving. Hazard trees in stream course riparian reserves where these criteria are not met, or that are less than 24 inches in diameter at breast height, will be felled and removed.

Project Design Features for Post-Fire Projects (Seiad–Horse, Oak, and Horse Creek - Robinson projects) The project design features listed in the following table are the design features pertinent to this analysis and not a complete list of all project design features. The complete list of all project design features for the post-fire proposed management actions can be found in chapter 2 of the Environmental Assessment for the Seiad-Horse project, the Categorical Exclusion document for Oak Roadside Hazard project, and the Environmental Impact Statement for the Horse-Creek Project (as it applies to the Horse Creek-Robinson project). The project design features for the Johnny O’Neil and Thom Seider projects are listed in their respective Biological Assessments and NEPA documents, but none are presented here. Project design features for each project may vary slightly by project but the intention for each minimization or protective measure is the same – to avoid direct and indirect effects to northern spotted owls, their suitable habitat and their designated Critical Habitat to the degree practicable.

30

Batched Re-initiation and Post-fire Consultation Wildlife Biological Assessment

Table 7: Project design features relevant to the batched Biological Assessment. Additional project design features are described in the associated NEPA documents.

Project Design Description Feature

Wildlife 1 No project actions that modify Northern Spotted Owl (NSO) nesting/roosting or foraging habitat, or that occur within an NSO activity center core, will occur from February 1st to September 15th. If surveys result in determining no NSO nesting is occurring, the restricted project actions may be lifted for the year. Wildlife 2 No project actions that create loud and/or continuous noise within 0.25 mile of nesting/roosting or foraging habitat or that occur within an NSO activity center core, will occur from February 1st to July 9th. If surveys result in determining no NSO nesting is occurring, the restriction on project actions may be lifted for the year. This project design feature is not intended to be applied to motor vehicle travel on roadways or log haul routes. Wildlife 3* No more than 50 percent of the nesting/roosting and foraging habitat within an NSO core area or no more than 50 percent of the nesting/roosting and foraging habitat within an NSO home range will be underburned annually. Wildlife 4* No underburning will occur in NSO core areas from February 1st to September 15th. If surveys result in determining no NSO nesting is occurring, the restriction on project actions may be lifted for the year. * These two PDFs apply to Seiad-Horse, Oak, Johnny O’Neil, and Thom Seider projects; the Horse Creek – Robinson project does not contain underburning.

V. Methods, Definitions and Assumptions

Because this batched BA provides a summation of effects to NSO and NSO habitat from 1) two previously planned and partially completed projects, 2) three proposed post-fire management actions and 3) a summation of effects that resulted from the 2017 wildfires and associated fire suppression actions, where pertinent to this analysis. The spatial bounding and context will vary depending on the project being discussed. A more comprehensive assessment of effects to NSO habitat from the 2017 wildfires and suppression actions is provided in Appendix A – Emergency Consultation Biological Assessment. Activity Center (AC): For this analysis, an activity center is the combined area of the home range and core area (see below); also referred to as an owl ‘site’. Core or Core area: “Core” and “core area” are used interchangeably and refer to the same area. The core is the area within a 0.5 mile radius (~500 acres) centered on the most biologically relevant point of an NSO activity center; the center usually represents (in order of importance) an NSO nest, pair sighting, daytime detection, or individual detection. Home range: The home range is typically defined as the area within a 1.3 mile radius from the center of the activity center (e.g. most recent nest site) which would include the core area; for the purpose of this analysis to explain effects in the core (0 to 0.5 mile) versus effects to the “outer ring” of the home range (0.5 to 1.3 mile), we are using the “core” and “home range” as two separate portions of the activity center. The core is defined above. The home range is the area that begins at the edge of the 31

Batched Re-initiation and Post-fire Consultation Wildlife Biological Assessment core area and extends out to a 1.3 mile radius (so, a ‘donut’ shaped area 0.5 to 1.3 miles from the center of the activity center). Project Area: The term ‘project area’ is used to encompasses all the treatment units within a given area using logical, on-the-ground boundaries such as ridges, creeks, and roads, and is the bounding used in the scoping documents to define the area that contains the proposed management actions.

 Horse Creek – Robinson project area: Is defined as the portion of the Horse Creek Project area that overlaps the Horse Creek – Robinson deferred area.

Treatment Units: The areas on the ground that are planned to receive management actions. These are a subset of the larger project area, and are areas that would be directly impacted by the proposed activities.

Action Area: The term used for all areas where management actions are proposed; so the term used for the combined analysis areas is the ‘action area’.

Analysis Areas: Because this is a batched BA and as such contains multiple project areas and project area boundaries, the spatial bounding for this BA is commensurate with each of the projects being analyzed. For Seiad-Horse, Oak and Horse Creek-Robinson projects, the analysis bounding follows the standard process for an analysis of effects, and uses three scales: 1) the NSO habitat analysis, 2) the activity center analysis, and 3) the Critical Habitat analysis.  The habitat analysis area is defined as the area within a 1.3 mile buffer of all proposed treatments.  The Critical Habitat analysis area is the portion of the Critical Habitat subunit that falls within a given project area.  The activity centers selected for this analysis are those that have proposed treatment occurring in the core and/or home range. For projects where consultation is being re-initiated, the analysis bounding uses aspects of the project being consulted upon, such as specific treatment unit boundaries, and accounts for the changed condition that resulted from the 2017 wildfires and triggered the re-initiation. Each project’s spatial bounding is defined below. Thom Seider project BA: The re-initiation analysis area for the Thom Seider project is the area within the three ACs from the original Thom Seider analysis that were impacted by the Abney fire that still had actions remaining to implement from the original Thom Seider project. Only the ACs from within the original Thom Seider BA that were impacted by the Abney fire will be analyzed. Johnny O’Neil project BA: The re-initiation analysis area for the Johnny O’Neil project is the area within the seven ACs from the original analysis that were impacted by the Abney fire and that had actions still remaining to implement from the original Johnny O’Neil project. Only the ACs from within the original Johnny O’Neil BA that were impacted by the Abney fire will be analyzed. Temporal Bounding: Temporal bounding for this batched BA analysis is both short term and long term. The short-term bounding is the time during project implementation because it is tied directly to the potential for noise disturbance and habitat alteration. The vast majority of the salvage harvest and 32

Batched Re-initiation and Post-fire Consultation Wildlife Biological Assessment hazard tree removal will be completed in the first two years; fuels treatments and site preparation and planting activities may continue for multiple years as funding allows, potentially up to ten years. Long-term bounding is the time needed for a coniferous forest overstory to begin to recover from a severe wildfire and begin to regain its original habitat functional, or at least 40 years. This bounding also encompasses the time needed for the re-establishment of the understory components such as duff, litter and large woody debris and any structural components that may have been lost to fire within the understory. NRF: Nesting/Roosting and Foraging habitat – as defined in detail below. PFF: Post-fire Foraging habitat – as defined in detail below. RAVG: RAVG data are essentially remotely sensed vegetation burn severity data that is derived from Landsat Thematic Mapper imagery taken following a wildfire. The pre-fire and post-fire sub-scenes were used to create a Relative Differenced Normalized Burn Ratio (RdNBR). The RdNBR is correlated to the variation of burn severity within a fire. The RdNBR data are calibrated with the Composite Burn Index (CBI) as well as tree mortality variables. See the USGS National Burn Severity Mapping web site at: http://burnseverity.cr.usgs.gov/fire_main.asp for background information on fire severity mapping procedures. The severity ratings provided by the derived products are based on the vegetation burn severity. Following the each wildfire, RAVG grid code severity ratings for changes in basal area were converted to a vector format and overlaid with the NSO EVEG habitat layer (pre-wildfire habitat layer) in order to analyze effects to NSO habitat from wildfire. Placement of Activity Centers: The center of an activity center is typically identified using survey data, biotic and abiotic features, and habitat quality. We used the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) and the Forest Service species observations and survey database, Natural Resource Information System (NRIS), to identify the locations where NSO have been detected. Since these NSO detections can span 30 or more years, the landscape has changed and some of the older locations may not reflect current habitat condition. Several natural and manmade disturbances have occurred and resulted in changes to habitat quality, quantity, and distribution; all of which influence current NSO habitat use. Therefore, each AC was reviewed for this analysis in order to capture the most biologically relevant placement using the historic and/or most recent survey data along with the existing habitat and abiotic features (e.g. topography). We started with the known activity centers that have been compiled within the databases and all the survey data. Nest sites were the most biologically relevant location for activity center placement. Lacking nest site information, other observation information was used to place the center of an activity center, such as pair detections, daytime detections, and single individuals (in order of relevance). In general, the most recent NSO detections were used for AC placement if more than one year of detections was available; with the most recent nest detection having the most relevance for placement. For example, an NSO nest detection last year is typically a better placement of the center of an activity center than a nest location identified several years ago. However, the collection of the recent and past detections can provide insight into the concentrated area of use. Comparing these detections, known activity center locations, and current habitat conditions (quality, quality, and distribution), the activity center locations where adjusted as needed. NSO detections up to 2016

33

Batched Re-initiation and Post-fire Consultation Wildlife Biological Assessment surveys were used in the placement or adjustment of NSO activity centers when available. NSO surveys are currently underway, but were not complete at the time of writing this document. However, in the project area, some ACs may largely overlap in their core and home range. This overlap may represent separate NSO activity centers, especially when the ACs are divided by drainages or ridges, or other large topographical features. In other situations, the delineated ACs may largely overlap and occur within the same drainage; the overlap may represent the same NSO moving from one location to another and back again for many possible reasons. For example, this can occur when, during surveys, one pair of NSO associated with an area is not found within the delineated circle of a given core area but NSO detections are recorded nearby and often within the same drainage resulting in effectively sharing two activity centers assigned to them in the system. Without consistent, consecutive years of surveys, this process of identifying ACs very likely represents an inflated number of ACs across the project area. However, for this analysis, all ACs on record for the analysis area were analyzed because we lack consistent survey data; nor do we have uniquely marked owls that would help to identify possible AC shifts, possible AC losses, or newly established ACs. Some of the ACs in the project area remain in the AC database even though they contain markedly less habitat as would be needed to meet the thresholds described by the FWS necessary for the basic needs of an NSO for either occupation or reproduction. These ACs have not had NSO detections in the area of the original observations following the occurrence of some of the largest, most severe fires in these areas.

Methods for Assessing Pre-fire NSO Habitat Suitability

NSO habitat is commonly separated into nesting/roosting (NR), foraging (F), and dispersal (D) habitat; these habitat types are described in detail in the NSO Recovery Plan (USDI 2011). Nesting/roosting is described generally as mid- to late-seral forests that contain stands of large trees with high canopy cover, multilayered canopies, and nesting platforms. Foraging habitat can be described as slightly reduced canopy cover, fewer large trees, and enough space for NSO to maneuver through the trees for hunting prey when compared to nesting/roosting habitat. Dispersal habitat contains a moderate level of canopy closure and trees large enough to provide shelter and potential foraging opportunities for traveling NSO, but does not contain adequate amounts of other essential habitat components for long term NSO occupation, reproduction or survival. For this analysis, suitable habitat is defined as stated above in this paragraph and is generally referencing NR and F unless otherwise specified. Multiple aspects of suitable habitat are required for habitat to be considered suitable or high quality habitat, such as the presence of defect and decay in the stand, large downed logs and snags, and the presence of water in appropriate distance and juxtaposition to stands that contain these attributes (USDI 2011). These habitat elements cannot be queried from the EVEG data; for specific areas of the project, these elements were assessed through the project biologist’s field evaluation, NAIP imagery, and discussions with field personnel familiar with the project area vegetative conditions, so the actual quantity of suitable habitat may be somewhat overestimated. Due to the scope, scale, and timing of this project, it was not practical to field validate the remotely sensed habitat data (EVEG) for all areas affected by all project activities, though focused evaluations occurred within areas proposed for salvage harvest. Areas across the action area that were field evaluated showed that the NSO habitat layer was a reasonably accurate assessment of the NRF habitat on the ground. Where errors occurred 34

Batched Re-initiation and Post-fire Consultation Wildlife Biological Assessment it was generally in the splitting of NR from F rather than in the identification of suitable habitat. Even though NR and F are sometimes presented separately in this analysis, most of the analysis combines NR and F to reduce this potential error. Older, original habitat layers used in the Thom Seider and Johnny O’Neil projects were reviewed for this analysis and it was determined that they did not represent the most current available site specific information for these areas, since the imagery and remotely sensed data used for much of those analyses has improved in quality and accuracy since the time of the original analyses. Therefore, the Klamath NF EVEG NSO Habitat layer was the primary NSO habitat layer used to represent the amount of suitable habitat present across the batched consultation action area (Johnny O’Neil, Thom Seider, Horse Creek – Robinson, Seiad-Horse, and Oak RSH analysis areas); additional on the ground evaluations were incorporated into the batched consultation NSO habitat evaluation as needed to more precisely depict habitat suitability in areas where further on the ground validation was deemed necessary. By using the more current habitat information, the acres of NSO habitat calculated for various aspects of this analysis may differ somewhat from the acre figures represented within the original Thom Seider and Johnny O’Neil project BAs. In addition, the habitat baseline acres for several activity centers within the Horse Creek-Robinson analysis area were adjusted to reflect the anticipated harvest on private land that began following the Gap fire and that continues to occur in the analysis area. The Horse Creek project BA captured much of this anticipated harvest; however, additional notifications of intended harvest continued to be submitted by private landowners after the Horse Creek project consultation was concluded. Therefore, the total acres of NRF habitat within the affected ACs in the Horse Creek BA are different than the total acres of NRF described in this batched BA. Harvest on private land within currently suitable habitat is expected to render that habitat as unsuitable for the foreseeable future. This expectation is based on the pattern observed within this area for post-fire harvest on private land, particularly on industrial timber lands, but also on other privately held parcels. Additional descriptions of the assumptions regarding private land harvest is described in the Cumulative Effects section below.

Methods for Assessing Wildfire Effects to NSO Habitat

To evaluate post-fire habitat conditions, the fire severity data (RAVG) and the percent basal area loss in the RAVG classes described below were applied to the project area, the EVEG NSO habitat layer, and the treatment units using GIS. Interpretation of the RAVG data allows the spatially explicit assessment of fire effects to vegetation, including changes in the live tree density and canopy cover. In addition to changes in vegetation from the wildfire, changes in vegetation from all sources were also captured in the analysis. Loss of vegetative cover from fire suppression actions of the 2017 fires was also captured and was incorporated into the post-fire habitat baseline. Fire suppression actions that affected NRF habitat were captured and accounted for in the project level, post-fire habitat layer and are described in more detail in the Emergency Consultation BA (Appendix A).

Burn severity is defined as the degree of environmental change caused by fire, or how much fire has affected the ecological community, and is generally analyzed on a landscape level. Burn severity can

35

Batched Re-initiation and Post-fire Consultation Wildlife Biological Assessment be related to changes in vegetation by comparing the pre-fire vegetation to the post-fire vegetation condition. Burn severity is used to determine the likely effects of fire on habitat. Fire intensity is the driver for burn severity, but that relationship is not necessarily constant, as the ecological community will show varying responses and degrees of sensitivity to fire (USGS-NPS 2010). With all fires, there is a large degree of heterogeneity and range between very low and very high impacts, which results in a mosaic of effects, including patches that remain relatively unaffected among areas of high impact. Burn severity is a measure along that gradient of change (USGS-NPS 2010). General categories used in this analysis to indicate burn severity are as follows: Very Low or Unchanged: 0% – 25% Basal Area (BA) killed; grid code 1: This means the area may be indistinguishable from pre-fire conditions. This does not necessarily indicate that the area did not burn. Low: 25% – 50% BA killed; grid code 2: This represents areas of surface fire with little change in cover and little mortality of the structurally dominant vegetation. Moderate: 50% to 75% BA killed; grid code 3: This severity class indicates a mixture of effects between low and high on the structurally dominant vegetation. High: 75% to 100% BA killed; grid code 4: This represents areas where the dominant vegetation incurred high to complete mortality. Due to the availability of the local Biological Opinion from the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) on the several recent fire recovery projects on the Klamath NF (Westside Fire Recovery Project – February 2016 and the Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project) as well as the Biological Opinion on a post-fire timber harvest project proposed by the Bureau of Land Management in southern Oregon (Douglas Complex Post-fire Salvage Project – June 2014), considerable information has been compiled and reviewed on the impacts of both wildfire and post-fire management actions on NSO. Most recently, the Yreka USFWS office created guidance for evaluating impacts to NSO when proposing post fire management actions (“Evaluating the Effects of Wildfire and Post-Fire Forest Management Activities on Spotted Owls and Their Habitat”- USFWS 2017); this BA incorporates the recommendations and includes information summarized within that guidance document. As the regulatory agency, the USFWS is the authority on the recovery of NSO and the effects to NSO from actions proposed by the Forest. Therefore, the USFWS compilation and review of the most recent and pertinent research on NSO use of the post fire landscape, as well as the determination of effects from the actions proposed in the Westside, Horse Creek and Douglas projects, had considerable influence on the effects analysis within this batched BA. Information from within each of these Biological Opinions, as well as from within the USFWS guidance document on post fire management, has been incorporated into the analysis within this BA of potential NSO use of a post-fire landscape and the assessment of effects from the proposed management actions. As described in the USFWS guidance document, predictions of how spotted owls may use a burned landscape for nesting, roosting and foraging should be made based on the history of previous use by spotted owls, the extent and severity of the fire and the distance between severely burned areas and moderately, lightly, or unburned areas (USFWS 2017). Our approach to analyzing post-fire NSO habitat use incorporates recent research on spotted owl use of burned habitat and the estimated NSO use patterns and site fidelity to areas within their territories that burned at various fire severities, including but not limited to the following research; Rockweit et al 2017, Eyes et al. 2017, Jones et al. 2016, Lee and Bond 2015, Comfort et al. 2016 and 2013, Clark et al. 2011 and 2013, Tempel et. al. 2014, 36

Batched Re-initiation and Post-fire Consultation Wildlife Biological Assessment

USDI 2011, and Clark 2007 (see the References Used and Literature Cited section for the complete list). Estimated effects from wildfire and the proposed post fire management actions are discussed in multiple sections below. It is generally agreed within the scientifically sound research that habitat quality for spotted owls declines following high severity fire, though the actual use of the post-fire habitat by spotted owls is a topic for some debate. While some studies have demonstrated that owls may use the habitat for foraging, it is generally understood that severely burned habitat is no longer suitable for nesting (King et al. 1998, Clark 2007, Bond et al. 2009, Spies et al. 2009, Clark et al. 2011, Clark et al. 2013, Jones et al. 2016, Rockweit et al 2017). The results from research on the influence of post fire management actions, particularly salvage harvest, on spotted owl habitat quality and their subsequent use (or lack thereof) of the harvested areas are variable, inconclusive, and at times contradictory. Results are confounded by small sample size, prior management, variations in burn severity and pattern, and variations in post-fire harvest methods. According to recent research, the extent and location of high severity fire tends to strongly influence spotted owl occupancy in burned landscapes (in USFWS 2017). Jones et al. (2016) found that the probability of extirpation of an owl site is seven times higher after being burned at high severity than before the fire. Rockweit et al. (2017) found that survival and recruitment were negatively affected when over 50 percent of an owl territory burned at high or moderate severity. Some research suggests that the likelihood of NSO occupancy of a site that has burned with high severity is negatively affected by post fire management actions such as salvage (Hansen et al. 2018); though this finding is not supported by robust analysis and has been refuted by other research from the same study area (Jones and Peery, unpublished response to Hansen et al. 2018). Wildfire can reduce the amount of NSO habitat and consequently create more edge between suitable habitat and non-habitat. For NSO, breeding season home range size may increase with an increase in habitat edge thus suggesting that owls need to travel farther to acquire prey in areas with higher levels of habitat fragmentation (Schilling et al. 2013). Although edges can provide more prey and diversity of prey for NSO, the owls foraging at the edge have less cover and possibly experience a higher risk of predation (Schilling et al. 2013). Recent research has found that patch size and spatial configuration of fire severity within a fire perimeter has a significant influence on how spotted owls use the landscape (Clark 2007, Bond et al. 2009, Lee et al. 2012, Comfort 2013, Comfort et al. 2016, and Eyes et al. 2017). Comfort et al. 2016 found that NSO are more likely to use smaller patches of high-severity fire edges within larger low- severity fire patches of suitable habitat; these small patches of high severity may improve habitat for small mammal prey by creating openings that allow for regeneration of brush and conifers, thereby increasing the number of prey species and consequently NSO use at these edges. However, the interior portion of large patches of high-severity fire that are more distant from edges are likely used less by NSO because it is located too far from suitable habitat (cover) and is therefore more risky to foraging NSO (Comfort 2013 and Comfort et al. 2016). Comfort (2013 and 2016) found that spotted owls had a strong negative association with hard edge after accounting for habitat suitability, disturbance severity, and amount of diffuse edge. Hard edge occurs on the landscape where there is high severity disturbance adjacent to low severity disturbance (Comfort et al. 2016). Hard edges may also be created by disturbance events such as logging where

37

Batched Re-initiation and Post-fire Consultation Wildlife Biological Assessment the disturbance is adjacent to mature forest. Diffuse edges often occur where less severe disturbance has occurred, or as the hard edges age. In most landscapes edges generally occur as a gradient depending on factors such as the severity of fire/disturbance and the pre-fire vegetation type. Diffuse edges may also create better access for hunting small mammals, in general, while simultaneously providing adjacent closed canopy cover habitat. Shrub fields adjacent to old forests may increase NSO’s access to woodrats, who travel between the shrubs fields and openings in the old forest (Sakai and Noon 1997). Bond et al. (2016) found no edge selection for California spotted owls whereas Eyes et al (2017) found California spotted owls to select for fire created edges, especially high contract edges. It can be inferred from this research, that the amount and type of edge likely influences spotted owl use of high severity patches; such that too much edge may result in negative associations while low levels of edge may have positive association with use. The concept of “post-fire foraging” areas (PFF) is an important aspect of the post-fire habitat effects analysis and was intended to incorporate the findings of many of these studies. More details on effects to this habitat type from the proposed project are described in the Effects of the Proposed Action section below.

“Post-fire foraging” (PFF) areas were delineated in order to capture the potential for continued use by NSO of previously suitable NRF that burned at moderate or high fire severity, at least until the ultimate deterioration of the burned habitat and loss of standing trees. Even with the loss from high severity fire of canopy cover and key habitat components generally associated with NRF habitat, some studies have indicated that burned areas can still function as foraging after a fire, depending on many factors including patch size, edge type, burn severity, and proximity to suitable unburned habitat and known owl sites (Bond et al. 2016, Bond et al. 2002, Bond et al. 2009; Clark 2007, Clark et al. 2011, and Clark et al. 2013). The Level 1 team recognized the importance of tracking this habitat and analyzing the effects from post-fire salvage; the assumption moving forward was that foraging habitat is important for providing a food supply necessary for NSO survival and reproduction, and PFF, although physically different from foraging habitat, may provide foraging opportunity. In addition, research on spotted owl use of post-fire landscapes indicates that spotted owls that use these burned forests may be affected by post-fire salvage occurring within areas of post-fire foraging (USDI 2011). As described above, the EVEG NSO Habitat Layer (as well as some areas of on-the-ground habitat verification from the Johnny O’Neil project) provided the baseline of suitable NRF that existed prior to the fire (a.k.a. pre-fire NRF). Post-fire foraging habitat was then determined by applying the RAVG data to the pre-fire NRF. PFF was delineated where moderate fire severity (grid code 3) or high fire severity (grid code 4) occurred in pre-fire nesting/roosting or foraging habitat. Because a large portion of PFF is forest that burned at the highest severity and therefore contains minimal amounts of structure or cover, it was anticipated that NSO would be less likely to use PFF when it occurred too far from existing cover. Recent research has found that patch size and configuration of fire severity within a fire perimeter has a significant influence on how spotted owls will use the landscape (Comfort 2013). Comfort (2013) also found that high-severity fire edges that occur as small patches within larger low-severity fire patches, may improve habitat for small mammal prey by creating openings that allow for regeneration of brush and conifers, thereby increasing spotted owl use at these edges. However, edges that occur adjacent to large openings created by high-severity fire may create some

38

Batched Re-initiation and Post-fire Consultation Wildlife Biological Assessment limited prey habitat, but are located too far from suitable habitat (cover) and are therefore less useful to NSO as foraging habitat (Comfort 2013, Comfort 2016). The research does not provide a precise distance that an owl may venture from the edge of suitable habitat into high severity burned areas; nor does it provide a way to measure the relative value of a particular edge for NSO, and the subsequent expected use of that edge. This is most likely due to the highly variable conditions present in any given wildfire or similar disturbance and the subsequent inability to make site specific recommendations for such a wide variety of conditions. In a fire affected landscape, NSO need suitable habitat for foraging, but in cases where a sufficient level of NRF may not be present, NSO may venture into PFF to forage. According to recent literature described above, NSO are more likely to forage in PFF that is closer to NRF than they are to forage in PFF that is farther away from NRF. Therefore, in order to incorporate the information described above on NSO use of edge habitat in a post fire landscape, the post-fire foraging (PFF) category was further refined; using GIS, a 500-foot buffer was applied to areas of currently suitable NRF (greater than 5 acres), and overlaid with PFF. When PFF occurred within this 500-foot buffer, it was identified as PFF1. When PFF occurred outside this 500-foot buffer, it was identified as PFF2 (see below). We estimated the most likely maximum distance NSO would forage from the edge of suitable NRF (low fire severity or no fire effects) into suitable habitat burned at moderate or high fire severity to be approximately 500 feet. This distance was derived from a combination of reviews of recent literature on the use of edge habitat as described above, consultation with Level 1 USFWS biologists, and professional judgment, and is anecdotally supported by our detections of NSO during surveys completed in 2015 and 2016 within the 2014 Beaver, Whites, and Happy Camp Complex fire perimeters. Using NSO standard protocol surveys within these 2014 fire perimeters, we have detected NSO within suitable habitat or within 500 feet from the edge of suitable habitat using daytime and nighttime survey methods. Our 2015 and 2016 survey data within the 2014 fire perimeters shows that about 90% of NSO detections (133 out of 147 daytime and nighttime detections combined) are within suitable, unburned NSO habitat or within 500 feet of NSO habitat. We acknowledge that this information is a simplified, preliminary review and it does not necessarily factor in all aspects of NSO use (or lack thereof) of burned areas, but these observations are consistent with the methodology used for our analysis of PFF.

39

Batched Re-initiation and Post-fire Consultation Wildlife Biological Assessment

Figure 4: Examples of contiguous areas burned at high severity with the lowest likelihood of NSO use due to a lack of cover and structure.

Figure 5: Example of post-fire foraging habitat (PFF) with limited cover and structure; possible foraging opportunities, but substantially reduced function for NSO.

When the same habitats and burn severities as described for PFF1 occurred outside of the 500-foot buffer, it was identified as PFF2 and was mainly considered in the analysis of Critical Habitat and the development of future stand conditions rather than areas of likely use by NSO; however, it is acknowledged that use of these areas by foraging NSO is possible but far less likely. An analysis of future habitat development was considered in the tracking of the post fire effects to habitat within designated Critical Habitat. 40

Batched Re-initiation and Post-fire Consultation Wildlife Biological Assessment

Within this analysis, when ‘PFF’ is described, it is in reference to PFF1 unless otherwise specified. PFF2 is described for the Critical Habitat analysis and for the affected environment to differentiate between habitat types present in the analysis area and/or affected by project activities.

Figure 6: Example of PFF. Figure 3: Example of PFF.

41

Batched Re-initiation and Post-fire Consultation Wildlife Biological Assessment

Figure 7: Edge habitat between areas burned at low severity adjacent to moderate and high severity, viewed at a distance.

42

Batched Re-initiation and Post-fire Consultation Wildlife Biological Assessment

In summary, the exact distance that NSO will forage into burned stands with limited cover is unknown; for this analysis we have assumed that NSO are more likely to venture into PFF to forage when these stands are juxtaposed with low severity and unburned stands of habitat. Research on NSO use of forest edges has indicated that they will use areas of transition between an opening (or area lacking sufficient cover) and suitable habitat for foraging but the extent of use depends on the amount of diffuse edge versus hard edge (Eyes 2014, Comfort 2013) as well as the patch size of the unburned and burned areas. Studies indicate NSO use of diffuse edge, as would be found in PFF and areas of lower burn severity, but findings differ on the frequency and extent to which NSO will use these areas. PFF typing was heavily dependent upon remote sensing data and used in conjunction with the post- fire RAVG assessment. However, individual salvage harvest units were visited and field validated for the presence of suitable habitat and the degree of modification or loss resulting from the wildfire. Therefore, assumptions of both habitat suitability and fire effects were made in order to facilitate a practical and timely evaluation of effects. Table 8 describes the outcome of this application and the result of the assumptions made for the effects of each RAVG class on NSO habitat suitability. Assumptions for post-fire habitat suitability derived from RAVG outcomes were agreed upon during the Level 1 consultation process.

Table 8: Cross walk for assessing the post-fire NSO habitat type based on pre-fire habitat type and RAVG.

Pre-fire Habitat RAVG Basal Area LOSS type Grid code 1 Grid code 2 Grid code 3 Grid code 4 0-25% 25-50% 50-75% >75% Nesting/Roosting Nesting/Roosting Nesting/Roosting** Post-Fire Foraging – Post-Fire Foraging – (PFF1) when (PFF1) when occurring occurring within 500’ within 500’ of of currently suitable currently suitable NRF* NRF* Foraging Foraging Foraging** Post-Fire Foraging Post-Fire Foraging - (PFF1) when (PFF1) when occurring occurring within 500’ within 500’ of of currently suitable currently suitable NRF* NRF* Dispersal Dispersal Dispersal Non-habitat Non-habitat *patches of NRF greater than 5 acres in size. **The effects to habitat from grid code 2 severity will be highly variable and will depend on the pre-fire condition of the habitat as well as the pre-fire basal area and pre-fire canopy cover. For example, if pre-fire, high quality nesting/roosting habitat burned at the lower end of the 25 to 50% basal area lost bracket, then it would very likely continue to function as nesting/roosting habitat. But, if marginal quality nesting/roosting habitat burned at the higher end of the 25 to 50% basal area lost bracket, then the potential exists that the habitat would no longer function as nesting/roosting habitat and may be functionally closer to foraging habitat. The occurrence of these variable effects from grid code 2 fire severity are captured by grouping nesting/roosting habitat with foraging habitat for the vast majority of the habitat calculations within this BA.

43

Batched Re-initiation and Post-fire Consultation Wildlife Biological Assessment

Methods for Estimating Effects to NSO Habitat, Individual Activity Centers, and Critical Habitat

An effects analysis for northern spotted owls is generally split into three biologically relevant spatial scales to estimate direct and indirect effects: 1) the NSO habitat at the analysis area scale, 2) the individual activity center scale, and 3) the Critical Habitat scale. The habitat analysis estimates the number of acres of habitat affected by the proposed activities within the analysis area. The activity center analysis estimates the effects of the proposed treatment on habitat within an NSO home range and core area and resulting potential effects to NSO reproduction. The Critical Habitat analysis estimates the effects to Critical Habitat that may occur as a result of the proposed activities. 1) NSO Habitat Analysis: The NSO habitat analysis area encompasses an area larger than the project area; generally, the analysis area includes all treatment units plus a 1.3 mile buffer around those units. However, for this batched consultation this bounding is somewhat modified depending on which project is analyzed, as described above in the Methods and Definitions section. As described within the 2017 USFWS Biological Opinion for the Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project, specific terms are used to categorize the estimated degree of change to NSO habitat elements that may or are likely to be caused by the proposed management actions. The consequences of the changes to NSO habitat likely to be caused by proposed activities, and whether these changes are likely to adversely affect NSOs or their Critical Habitat, is based on an analysis of existing site conditions and the scope and scale of the proposed management actions. The analysis contained within this BA uses the following specific terms that categorize the estimated degree of change (effect) to NSO habitat:

Maintain/Beneficial – indicates that changes in the habitat may be neutral or beneficial to habitat function even though habitat elements may be modified.

Degrade – signifies when treatments have a negative influence on the quality of habitat due to the removal or reduction of NSO habitat elements but not to the degree where existing habitat function is changed.

Downgrade – applies to treatments that reduce habitat elements to the degree that the habitat will not function in the capacity that exists pre-treatment, but activities will not remove habitat entirely (i.e., downgrade from nesting/roosting to foraging habitat). To ‘Downgrade to Dispersal’ means that previously suitable NR or F habitat has had enough of the canopy cover and stand structure removed or altered through treatment as to lose function as NR or F and would not be suitable for long-term occupation, but it would retain just enough cover and structure to function as dispersal habitat.

Remove – pertains to treatments that reduce habitat elements to the degree that habitat will no longer function as suitable for NSO.

Direct or indirect effects to habitat were assessed by estimating the level of change from the known existing habitat quality to the anticipated post-treatment habitat condition. Physical attributes such as

44

Batched Re-initiation and Post-fire Consultation Wildlife Biological Assessment canopy closure, basal area, and the quadratic mean diameter were used in this analysis to determine the level of change.

2) NSO Activity Center Analysis: This analysis focuses on the potential effects to NSO territories by assessing potential effects to habitat at the two spatial scales associated more directly with reproduction: 1) home range; and 2) core area. The core area is a 0.5-mile radius circle (~500 acres) used to delineate the area most heavily used by owls during the nesting season and is centered upon the most biologically relevant point representing (in order of importance) a nest, pair sighting, daytime detection, or individual NSO detection. Because the actual configuration of a home range is rarely known, the estimated mean annual home range of a northern spotted owl pair in the California Klamath Province is represented by a 1.3-mile radius circle (3,340 acres) (USDI 2011). It is recognized that spotted owls may adjust the shape of their home ranges to encompass as much older forest habitat as possible (Carey et al. 1992). As such, the use of circles may not correspond exactly with the areas used by spotted owls which may be more defined by other factors such as topographic features (e.g., drainages), abundance and availability of prey species, and the distribution and/or abundance of competitors and predators (USDI 2011). 3) NSO Critical Habitat Analysis: Critical habitat analysis is focused on potential effects to the physical and biological features (PBF) used to identify Critical Habitat. Areas of previously suitable NRF habitat that burned at moderate and high fire severity (RAVG grid code 3 and 4) were summarized to reflect the effects of the wildfire on the physical and biological features of Critical Habitat. However, the overall effect of the wildfire on the entire area within each Critical Habitat unit was not analyzed in this batched BA; only changes to the physical and biological features (PBF) related to the proposed activities were analyzed here. Changes to PBFs within all Critical Habitat units affected by wildfire and/or suppression actions were evaluated within the Emergency Consultation BA (see appendix A). Specific elements of the physical or biological features that provide for a species’ life-history processes and are essential to the conservation of the species. In the Critical Habitat rule the physical and biological features focus on four components, the first of which must be included along with one of the last three. The four elements are: 1. Forest types that may be in early-, mid-, or late-seral stages and that support the northern spotted owl across its geographical range, 2. Nesting and roosting habitat, 3. Foraging habitat (subdivided into four ecological zones, two of which apply to the Klamath NF) and, 4. Dispersal habitat (subdivided into transience and colonization phases of dispersal).

45

Batched Re-initiation and Post-fire Consultation Wildlife Biological Assessment

In the following analysis, we will refer to these PBF categories as PBFs 1, 2, 3 and 4 with subdivisions discussed as appropriate. This document only evaluates project effects in relation to the 2012 Critical Habitat ruling and supersedes as appropriate any previous analysis of Critical Habitat effects.

Methods for Assessing RA10 Sites

Recovery Action 10 within the 2011 Revised Recovery Plan (RRP) was developed in an attempt to reverse the downward population trend by recommending agencies conserve NSO sites with a high likelihood to contribute to the demographic support of the NSO population. The RA10 recommendation provides interim guidance to prioritize known and historic sites for conservation and/or maintenance of existing levels of habitat. As stated within the interim guidance, for a site to be considered as an ‘RA10 site’ a specific amount and distribution of suitable habitat must be present in the core area and home range; the core area should be comprised of at least 50% (~250 acres) NRF habitat and the total acres within the core area and home range should be at least 40% NRF (~1,336 ac.). The intent of Recovery Action 10 is to protect, enhance, or develop habitat in the quantity and distribution necessary to provide for the long term recovery of northern spotted owls, specifically by retaining occupancy and reproduction at established sites. Priorities for conservation are based on past occupancy, reproductive status and the availability of suitable habitat (USDI 2011-Interin Guidance III-44). To combat the main threats to NSO (competition with barred owls, as well as past and current habitat loss) the 2011 Revised Recovery Plan recommends conserving occupied spotted owl sites and retaining structurally complex or high-quality habitat to provide demographic support and to provide refugia from competition with barred owls. These recommendations are described under Recovery Action 10 and 32. Where the amount of habitat in a home range and core area is well above recommended minimum levels of habitat, proposed management activities have a lower potential for adverse effects to the owls that potentially occupy that site when compared to sites at or near the recommended habitat minimums. Where habitat levels are at, near, or below the recommended levels described above, a higher potential exists for adverse effects to NSO through loss or degradation of suitable habitat, particularly when actions reduce available habitat below recommended levels. When the quantity of suitable habitat within an owl’s home range and/or core area falls below recommended levels, fitness and/or fecundity can be adversely affected, and that site’s contribution to the demographic support of the area may be diminished (Franklin et al 2000, USDI 2011). Twenty-seven activity centers occur within the action area and are therefore analyzed within this BA. Activity centers within the action area were assessed with consideration to RA10 recommendations in order to identify sites that have a higher likelihood of contributing to the recovery of the NSO based on high levels of suitable habitat and informed by surveys regarding recent reproduction. However, there is a lack of consistent survey information across the action area, so that some areas have had almost complete survey coverage for multiple years (Johnny O’Neil and Thom Seider projects), some areas have had partial survey coverage (Horse Creek-Robinson), and other areas have had very little survey

46

Batched Re-initiation and Post-fire Consultation Wildlife Biological Assessment coverage in the past twenty years (Oak Roadside Hazard project and the northern portion of the Seiad- Horse project). Without recent survey information for each AC, we were unable to use past reproduction to help inform the RA10 evaluation; thus we identified RA10 sites based on habitat alone. When evaluating which ACs in the action area could be identified as RA10 sites, the amount of habitat within each core area and home range was established as relative to the recommended minimum levels of habitat (USDI 2011). We identified ten ACs that contained abundant habitat and thus had the potential to be RA10 sites, using the best information available at the time of the analysis - KL1150, KL1152, K1153, KL1154, KL1161, KL0253, KL4132, KL0292, KL4210, and KL4224 (see Status of Activity Centers in the Action Area section below). We will continue to evaluate the process of identifying RA10 sites, and will be using future survey info and any other pertinent information regarding the conservation of RA10 sites. Ongoing and future surveys will provide additional information that will help identify which of the potential RA10 sites are actually contributing to the demographic support of the NSO, thus providing the rest of the information needed to more precisely identify RA10 sites for the area. Therefore, given the effects to NSO from recent wide spread wildfires on the west side of the Klamath NF, as well as the lack of information regarding NSO reproduction in the action area as a whole, we evaluated opportunities to minimize effects to all viable activity centers in the action area during prescription design and development of project design features. We considered RA10 in our evaluation of each of the ACs in the action area, but upon further assessment of the ACs in the area on the whole, we opted to develop minimization measures that would be applied to all ACs rather than concentrated on just the RA10 sites. Minimization measures were applied across the project area and in all ACs that contained enough habitat to be considered as viable territories (though not necessarily enough to indicate an RA10 site). Minimization measures in the post-fire projects included a modified prescription for the WUI and FMZ treatments that reduced diameters of cut trees, large downed log promotion through the retention of large diameter hazard trees identified for felling, a reduced maximum diameter for hazards retained as downed logs when within riparian reserves, reduction in the number of spur roads identified for hazard tree removal, and numerous snag and green tree retention patches throughout salvage harvest units. Most of these measures are included in the Seiad-Horse project because it had more opportunity to incorporate minimization measures because of the wider variety of treatment types proposed, as compared to Oak project where only roadside hazard removal was proposed. We also identified any individual AC where it was possible to apply additional minimizations and still meet the purpose and need of the project. So, where opportunities existed to further reduce treatment effects, additional minimization measures were developed, beyond those already incorporated into project design; this opportunity occurred in KL1163. While KL1163 does not contain the abundant level of habitat as some of the other ACs, recent survey information was available for this site and it indicated that NSO in this AC have had relatively consistent reproduction that likely contributes to the demographic support of the NSO in the area. Actions proposed within KL1163 have been reduced from those originally described in the proposed action by adjusting the prescription in order to reduce overall effects to NSO habitat within a high value activity center. Within KL1163, the minimum DBH of

47

Batched Re-initiation and Post-fire Consultation Wildlife Biological Assessment a roadside hazard tree that would be removed after felling was reduced from 45 to 30 inches DBH3 for the 1.3 mile section of road that crosses through the core area (see Proposed Actions for Seiad-Horse project above); this would contribute to the large downed log component within the core area.

Methods for Assessing Impacts to Individual Activity Centers

This effects analysis describes the anticipated effects resulting from each proposed activity or activities that occur in each activity center. An AC is typically divided into the core (0 to 0.5 mile from the center of the AC) and home range (0.5 to 1.3 mile from the center of the AC) to represent the anticipated relative use of an activity center by a reproducing NSO pair. The home range is generally defined as an area traversed by NSO for foraging, caring for young and mating. The core area, which is contained within the home range, receives concentrated use, primarily because the core typically contains the nest site, and its use is usually related to foraging, reproduction, and resting activities (Rosenberg and McKelvey 1999). The quality, distribution, and amount of habitat within the core and home range are important for the function of the activity center to provide enough resources to support an NSO pair and offspring. There are several approaches to evaluating the quality, quantity, and distribution of habitat and the relationship to reproduction (for example: Franklin et al., 2000, Zabel et al. 2003, Olson et al. 2005, and Dugger et al. 2005). Even though several studies have provided various combinations of important habitat components related to NSO reproduction, one common thread runs through the research – NSO are strongly associated with older, dense, structurally complex conifer forest (Carey et al. 1992, Hunter et al. 1995, Zabel et al. 2003, and Dugger et al. 2005). This habitat description is very similar to “nesting/roosting” habitat defined for the analysis in this project. Foraging habitat has a broader description than nesting/roosting and is important for nesting success, especially when nesting/roosting habitat may be limited. Foraging habitat has generally less canopy cover, smaller average tree size, absence of nesting platforms, and possibly less stand complexity when compared to nesting/roosting habitat. The importance of the core area to NSO reproduction is likely indicated by the concentrated use of relatively small area. During nesting, the core provides most of the resources for the NSO pair and any offspring. Dugger et al. (2005) and Franklin et al. (2000) provide evidence that the amount, distribution, and quality of habitat in the core can influence NSO survival and reproduction. The reason for this relationship between cores with greater amounts of high quality habitat and increased survival and reproduction may be a result of a single factor or a combination of factors; however, the relationship between the amount and quality of habitat in the core may be a function of less habitat fragmentation (less low quality habitat or non-habitat) in these cores. Increased habitat fragmentation may result in increased predator (e.g. great horned owl) and competitor (e.g. barred owl) interactions that will negatively affect NSO reproduction.

3 Hazard trees that have a DBH of 30 inches or greater will be left on site as whole downed logs after felling and not removed or bucked into smaller pieces. 48

Batched Re-initiation and Post-fire Consultation Wildlife Biological Assessment

Abiotic factors such as slope position, elevation, and proximity to water can strongly influence the spatial area used in the core and home range. NSO typically use lower slope positions more frequently than higher slope positions (Irwin et al. 2007). This relationship is likely related to the higher quality habitat that typically grows at lower slope positions with higher humidity and cooler microclimates than compared to the hotter, drier upper slope positions (Skinner et al. 2006). The lower slope positions are also commonly closer to water sources that are also important for prey species. Topography also relates to habitat use patterns for NSO. Even though NSO have been detected on all slope positions that contain habitat, an NSO, though capable, is not likely to expend the energy to travel over a prominent ridgeline from its nest to forage in an adjacent drainage.

Methods for Evaluating Cumulative Effects Under the Endangered Species Act, cumulative effects on the environment are “those effects of future State or private activities, not involving Federal activities, that are reasonably certain to occur within the action area of the Federal action subject to consultation” (50 CFR 402.02). Cumulative effects on the environment result from the anticipated additive effects of future State and private actions that are reasonably certain to occur along with the likely effects of the proposed Federal action. This should be distinguished from effects that may accumulate when small, incremental amounts of habitat are lost over time through a variety of management activities and natural events that occur across a landscape. These kinds of effects are addressed in the environmental baseline. In order to evaluate future actions on private lands within the analysis area, the Timber Harvest Plan database was accessed to determine if future forest management actions were planned within the analysis area (Table 30). In addition to timber harvest plans, which are prepared for lands that typically have not been affected by wildfire, Emergency Notice of Timber Operations (ENTO) were also evaluated for the analysis area. ENTOs are generally non-specific plans for timber harvest on industrial timber lands that are time sensitive and are commonly used to harvest timber after a wildfire or other disturbance.

Assumptions for this Analysis The following assumptions were made for this Biological Assessment in order to establish a baseline of information for an analysis of effects from the proposed activities to NSO and its Critical Habitat. The following list is an attempt to capture areas where knowledge gaps or uncertainty exist and where assumptions were needed in order to facilitate an effective analysis. The assumptions below are not a complete listing of all assumptions that must be made for any effects analysis, but are a description of the uncertainty for particular aspects of the species’ biology, in the habitat and/or species location data, and/or where an increased potential exists for differing interpretations of the project design and assumptions were stated for clarity.

 The NSO habitat layer, derived from the EVEG 2007 remotely sensed data, provides a generally accurate depiction of pre-fire NSO habitat at the scale at which it was used for this analysis; however, variations exist across the landscape, where habitat will be under-typed in some areas and over-typed in others; generally the habitat is depicted accurately. The majority of the uncertainty in the habitat typing within the layer stems from the category assigned to the

49

Batched Re-initiation and Post-fire Consultation Wildlife Biological Assessment

habitat (i.e. ‘nesting/roosting’ or ‘foraging’), but the designation as ‘suitable’ is generally correct.  Habitat for Seiad-Horse analysis was validated with on-the-ground habitat evaluations during the fall/winter of 2017 until weather conditions precluded access to the area; estimates of habitat suitability are sufficiently accurate. The initial habitat analysis in the Oak project area used GIS to estimate habitat suitability and verify fire effects to habitat. It was conducted over the winter and spring and necessitated the use of remote sensing data and imagery, as a lack of access to the area precluded on the ground evaluation. Once the area became accessible, field review of the habitat, burn pattern and severity, and hazard trees within the Oak analysis area was conducted by an interagency group of biologists in June of 20184. Based on this review, it was established that the initial evaluation likely overestimated, to some degree, the available habitat and total amount of hazard trees in the analysis area; though initial estimates were sufficient for the effects analysis of the Oak project.  RAVG data are as accurate of a depiction of burn severities as we are able to estimate at this time.  The fire effects (RAVG) on pre-fire NSO habitat (EVEG) are accurate and the resulting change in habitat type or loss of habitat is sufficiently accurate (see the crosswalk of changes to habitat).  NSO home ranges and core areas represent the “best” placement of an activity center that we can make given the lack of recent surveys for portions of the action area and the uncertainty inherent in using simple circles to represent owl use patterns at the home range and core area scale.  When salvage units contain inclusions of habitat that burned at low severity (RAVG grid code 1 and 2), the areas that burned at low severity will not be harvested but will instead be delineated as retention clumps; these clumps will be excluded from treatment unless specific circumstances occur where implementation is hampered and these areas must be entered or crossed in order to access a road. When this occurs, all efforts will be made to retain trees that don’t meet the set probability of mortality.  For roadside hazard removal, it is estimated that hazards likely to occur along roadsides for a distance of 125 ft. on either side of the road (250 ft. total). Where high and moderate severity fire has impacted the roadsides, there will be more hazards identified. In areas of low or no fire severity, we are assuming that fewer hazards will be identified.  When hazard trees are identified along roads that are not within burned areas they will occur as scattered individual trees that occur randomly and are generally widely spaced along the road; areas of unburned forest will not have a substantial opening of the canopy as a result of hazard tree removal.  Post-fire foraging (PFF) is most likely to be used by NSO within 500 feet of an existing patch of suitable habitat (patch size is >5 acres of NR and F combined). PFF is not equivalent to foraging habitat, but PFF may provide foraging opportunity for NSO (see discussion on post fire foraging).

4 - Field review conducted by an interagency group of biologists from USFS and USFWS during June 2018. 50

Batched Re-initiation and Post-fire Consultation Wildlife Biological Assessment

 To estimate the effects on habitat resulting from temporary road construction, a 60 foot width was used along the estimated path of the new temporary road. This represents the approximated width of the roadbed of 20 feet, plus the brushing out, clearing and removal of any obstacles that pose a hazard or impede progress for road use along approximately 20 feet of either side of the roadbed.  For cumulative effects, where NSO habitat is estimated to occur on private land within the boundary of either the 2016 or 2017 fires, post fire harvest will occur; it is assumed that this harvest will render the habitat no longer suitable for NSO.  For cumulative effects, treatments on private land that occur within the analysis areas will render the habitat no longer suitable for NSO.

VI. Existing Environment

The existing environment refers to the current conditions of the analysis area that would affect listed species. It is a component of the environmental baseline for any listed species, as maintained by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The environmental baseline includes: “… the past and present impacts of all Federal, State, or private actions and other human activities in an action area, the anticipated impacts of all Federal projects in the action area that have already undergone formal or early section 7 consultation, and the impact of State or private actions which are contemporaneous with the consultation in process” [50 CFR §402.02]. The past and present impacts of all Federal, State and private activities in the action area, along with the natural disturbance events and the in-growth of vegetation result in the current conditions. These current or existing conditions fully reflect the aggregate impact of all prior human actions and natural events that have affected the environment and have contributed to the environmental baseline. The existing environment also best represents the biological baseline relative to listed species for the analysis of project-related effects. The past and present impacts of Federal, State and private actions are reflected and summarized in the current conditions. For the purposes of this analysis, the existing environment analysis focuses on the habitat and species status for NSO within the analysis area. It will also include other aspects of the existing environment such as the known or possible presence of a competitor like the barred owls, as relevant to species level effects. Environmental Baseline The Environmental Baseline conditions for NSO in the analysis area are a product of timber harvest activities of various intensities, wildfires, and a century of fire suppression on both public and private lands. Forest-wide, there are about 545,896 acres of NSO NRF habitat (176,512 acres of nesting/ roosting habitat and 369,384 acres of foraging habitat) as reported for 2017. These acres include the effects of the 2017 wildfires, fire suppression actions, and suppression repair actions during these fires, all past activities on Federal lands, and all past salvage activities on private lands have been included in the NSO habitat baseline for this project. Acres of habitat and treatment are described in more detail within the following analysis.

General Vegetation with the Action Area 51

Batched Re-initiation and Post-fire Consultation Wildlife Biological Assessment

Vegetation types within the analysis areas generally consist of mixed conifers, oaks, brush, and grasses. Oaks, brush, and grasses are typically found on low-elevation sites on shallow, rocky soils located on the southerly and westerly aspects. These southerly and westerly aspects exhibit harsher conditions as opposed to the northerly and easterly aspects. Deeper, more developed soils than those at low elevations support mixed conifer stands of Douglas-fir, ponderosa pine, incense cedar, and sugar pine. Higher elevation sites within the analysis areas provide more favorable conditions for Douglas-fir and white-fir survival and growth, with white fir representing a substantial component of the mixed conifer type. Hardwood species, including Pacific madrone, California black oak, canyon live oak, Oregon white oak, tanoak, and bigleaf maple are generally a lesser component of mixed conifer stands. At the highest portion of the analysis area, patches of red fir occur among areas of shrubs, meadows, or naturally occurring barrens. 2017 Abney and Oak Fire Information In 2017, the Klamath National Forest (KNF) experienced a series of lightning storms from late July to mid-August that started several fires on the Happy Camp/Oak Knoll and Salmon/Scott Ranger Districts. Some of those fire starts grew into large fires and consequently, for fire management purposes, these fires were grouped into the Eclipse Complex or the Salmon-August Complex. Fire behavior was primarily influenced by heavy fuel accumulations, many years of drought, and strong erratic winds. Although all of these fires and associated suppression actions are evaluated in the KNF 2017 Emergency Consultation Biological Assessment (Appendix A), the fires discussed within this biological assessment are the Oak Fire and Abney Fire of the Eclipse Complex as these areas are proposed for post-fire management actions. The Oak Fire started on the KNF on about August 11th as a result of a lightning storm. The fire started about five miles west of Happy Camp, CA in the upper part of the Oak Flat Creek drainage near the Baldy Mountain lookout. Overall, the Oak Fire burned in a more mosaic pattern which resulted in burning a few patches of high fire severity that were surrounded by lower fire severity. Less than 30 percent of the fire burned at moderate and high severity. The patches of moderate or high severity fire range in size from less than one acre to almost 2,500 acres with most patches less than 100 acres in size. On August 14th, a series of lightning storms started several small fires including the Abney Fire as the storms moved across the area to the north of the KNF. The Abney Fire started on the Rogue River- Siskiyou National Forest in southern Oregon, and the fire burned south towards the KNF. On September 2nd, the Abney Fire entered onto the KNF at which time the suppression efforts occurring on the KNF were transferred to the California Interagency Incident Management Team. About half of the Abney Fire burned at moderate or high severity on the KNF. There are two large patches of moderate and high severity fire: one patch is more than 3,600 acres while the second is more than 1,200 acres in size. There are many small patches of moderate or high severity fire that are less than 100 acres (most are less than 10 acres) in size. Several plantations that were planted after the 1987 wildfires burned at moderate or high fire severity and these plantations made up portions of the larger patches of moderate or high fire severity.

52

Batched Re-initiation and Post-fire Consultation Wildlife Biological Assessment

In terms of general habitat changes, the Abney and Oak fires reduced a large amount of mid- to late- successional mixed conifer habitat and set back the regeneration of forested areas that were future mid- to late successional conifer habitat. The fire affected portions of mid- and late-seral habitat in some areas to the point where the habitat no longer functions in its previous role or the quality of the habitat is greatly reduced. These fire affected areas are now set back to an early seral stage. In low severity burn areas, most of the stand mortality occurred in smaller understory trees. Over time, these smaller trees will fall to the forest floor and contribute to future fuel loading, but in much smaller quantities than forested areas that experienced moderate to high severity fire. Overall, most of the moderate and high severity affected areas will not support the same wildlife species as they did pre-fire for many years; while the low severity burned habitat is likely to continue to function similarly to the pre-fire condition and support many of the same wildlife species as it did prior to the fire.

VII. Species Life History and Status

Species Status refers to the known or likely occurrence of a species within the project area and focuses on those actual or assumed individuals that are likely to be affected by the proposed project. Larger biologic and demographic issues of species status are best summarized by species specialists in cited literature, Recovery Plans and Critical Habitat designations and will be cited and referenced as appropriate in this document. Aspects of the species biology and ecology that are relevant to the project analysis will be described and cited in the effects analysis section. The following is a species account summary for the NSO and is not a complete life history. For additional information on the life history of the NSO, including threats to the species and the status of the species’ recovery, see the 2011 Revised Recovery Plan for the northern spotted owl. Aspects of the species’ biology pertinent to the potential effects to the individual NSO that may occupy the analysis area, in addition to potential impacts to prey or suitable nesting/roosting or foraging habitat, are discussed below. The Revised Recovery Plan also contains a detailed description of threats to the northern spotted owl from West Nile virus, sudden oak death and inbreeding depression, genetic isolation, and reduced genetic diversity. These threats were not applicable to this analysis as the discussion of these issues goes beyond the scope and scale of this analysis. Spotted owl habitat is generally associated with older, dense forests that provide opportunities for nesting, roosting, and foraging. Nesting/roosting habitat is generally described as a multilayered, multi-species canopy with large overstory trees with various deformities (large cavities, broken tops, mistletoe infections, and other decadence); large snags; large woody debris resulting from fallen trees; and sufficient open space below the canopy for spotted owl flight (Franklin et al. 2000). Foraging habitat generally has attributes similar to those of nesting/roosting habitat but contains less canopy cover, forest structure complexity, and large trees. Dispersal habitat consists of adequate tree size and canopy closure to provide protection from avian predators and minimal foraging opportunities but does not contain sufficient amounts of other essential habitat components for long term NSO occupation, reproduction or survival (USDI 2011).

53

Batched Re-initiation and Post-fire Consultation Wildlife Biological Assessment

The Klamath Province NSO habitat distribution is influenced by wildfire which is affected by the complex interactions of the region’s topography, climate, and fuels (Taylor et al. 2003). The result of wildfire is a patchwork of seral stages creating a dynamic system of habitat types where spotted owl nesting and roosting would occur in areas that experienced lower fire severity and retain the habitat elements associated with nesting/roosting habitat while foraging would occur in all seral stages including early seral created by high fire severity, especially smaller patches (Franklin et al. 2000). Larger patches of high fire severity likely influence NSO foraging use by creating conditions where foraging in the interior portion would occur far less than the portion adjacent to suitable habitat (Jones et al, 2016). Overall, wildfires resulting in larger patches of higher fire severity can be detrimental to spotted owls by reducing survival and loss of sites (Jones et al. 2016 and Rockweit et al. 2017).

Nesting/Roosting Habitat For the Klamath Province, nesting/roosting habitat for this analysis is generally defined by (1) average crown closure equal to or greater than 60%, (2) average DBH for canopy trees (equal to or greater than 18 inches DBH), basal area (equal to or greater than 180 square feet per acre), and trees with cavities or platforms (USDI 2011). Foraging Habitat For the Klamath Province, foraging habitat is generally described as a mix of basal areas ranging from 120 to180+ square feet, and equal to or greater than 15 Quadratic Mean Diameter (QMD) with at least 5 trees per acre of equal to or greater than 26” DBH and a mix of at least 40%, up to 100 %, canopy closures. It also recognizes “low quality” foraging habitat as a mix of basal areas ranging from 80-120+ square feet, ≥ 11” QMD and > 40% canopy closure (USDI 2011, USDI 2009, Irwin et al. 2004, Irwin et al. 2007). NSO Prey Northern spotted owls feed mainly on small forest mammals, particularly arboreal and semi-arboreal species (USDI 2011, Courtney et al. 2004). Northern flying squirrels and woodrats comprise the bulk of their diet but secondary species such as mice (Peromyscus sp.) may also be important for survival and reproduction. In portions of the NSO range, deer mice, red-backed voles, and two species of lagomorphs are considered locally and/or seasonally important in their diet (Courtney et al. 2004). Within the Klamath Province, it is expected that mice, woodrats, and flying squirrels are the most likely prey item based on available habitat.

NSO Use of the Post-fire Landscape NSO prey in burned habitat Wildfire can potentially limit foraging resources by reducing prey abundance as well as reducing the essential cover for protection for foraging endeavors, predator avoidance, and thermal protection required by NSO. These essential habitat elements can be depreciated or lost when high-intensity wildfire moves through a forested stand.

54

Batched Re-initiation and Post-fire Consultation Wildlife Biological Assessment

Habitat attributes such as coarse woody debris (CWD) for prey habitat and cover for foraging (multi- layered stands) can be altered drastically and be limiting after severe wildfire until fire-killed trees fall. Replacement woody debris may replenish from falling snags and trees or may remain in areas where fire intensity was less severe. Foraging impacts from direct mortality of prey species due to immediate changes in habitat or direct kill are also associated with wildfires. Additionally, these forested stands that have burned at high severity and fail to provide the necessary levels of protection from weather and predators will take many years to re-establish the multi-layered stands necessary to compliment other essential suitable habitat attributes. Burned forests can influence small mammal populations and distribution (Zwolak and Foresman 2007). Zwolak and Foresman (2007) found small mammal communities differed between burned and unburned forest habitat. Generally, burned areas had a higher proportion of deer mice when compared to other species captured in the study area, but species diversity increased the year following the fire. Generally, deer mice numbers increased in fire affected areas (Zwolak and Foresman 2008). However, red-backed voles, bushy-tailed wood-rats, and flying squirrels avoided burned areas for at least two years after the fire. This avoidance of burned areas was attributed to the possible reduction in food resources, predation, and distance from cover. The primary prey species associated with NSO in California is the dusky-footed woodrat, northern flying squirrel, red tree vole, and deer mice presented in order of importance (Franklin 1997). The action area contains all these species except red tree vole. When comparing frequency and biomass, the woodrat and flying squirrel are the most important prey species (Franklin 1997). Woodrats are associated with brush habitat and are in low abundance in old-growth forests (Sakai and Noon 1993). Northern flying squirrels are associated with mid- and late-seral forests (Carey et al. 1992). Because high severity fire has affected many acres of the project area, deer mice are likely present and will likely increase in density. Shrubs are likely to establish within most areas that lack tree canopy cover. After shrubs establish, woodrats should become more abundant and these woodrats may enter the adjacent closed canopy forest where NSO could capture these prey. Prey capture in the brushy areas is difficult for NSO (Franklin 1997). However, until brush covers these fire affected areas, deer mice are likely accessible to NSO as a food source. Northern flying squirrels are not likely present in high severity fire affected areas since these areas lack tree canopy cover. As the forest develops into mid-seral conditions, flying squirrels may return to these areas but this will likely take several decades before flying squirrel habitat may regenerate in high fire severity areas. NSO use of burned habitat Areas burned with high burn severity are no longer considered suitable habitat for NSO nesting, roosting or long term occupation by spotted owls because these areas no longer supply the habitat attributes needed for thermal protection, nesting structure and cover from predators necessary for long term viability (see description of suitable NSO habitat in Affected Environment and Species Account section above). While these stands do not contain the attributes that define NSO habitat, burned forest has been found to be used by NSO, at least in the short-term, particularly if the habitat was nesting/roosting or foraging habitat before the fire.

55

Batched Re-initiation and Post-fire Consultation Wildlife Biological Assessment

While spotted owls may use former nesting, roosting, and foraging habitat burned with high- and moderate-severity located within their home range for foraging, the overall importance of these areas to spotted owls is still unclear (see description of PFF in Methods for Assessing Wildfire Effects to NSO Habitat above). Results from radio-telemetry studies of spotted owls in post-fire landscapes indicate that spotted owls will use forest stands that have been burned, but many other factors dictate the extent and degree to which this will occur (Bond et al. 2002, Bond et al. 2009, Lee et al. 2013, Lee and Bond 2015). Current research offers differing perspectives in regards to the use of severely burned coniferous forests by spotted owls (Elliot 1985, Gaines 1997, Bond et al. 2002, Bond et al. 2009, Clark 2007, Clark et al. 2013, Comfort 2013, Eyes 2014, Lee and Bond 2015). Some studies have shown owls to exhibit site fidelity, mate fidelity, and reproductive success after fires have burned a portion of their territories at varying severity levels, including high severity (Bond et al. 2002, Lee et al. 2012). Others studies have shown owls to move completely away from previously occupied areas after high severity burns (Elliot 1985, Gaines 1997) particularly when burns occurred within core areas of resident birds. Bond (2010) reported 30 percent of California spotted owls’ nonbreeding-season roost locations were within the fire’s perimeter. In another study, radio-telemetry locations demonstrated that the owls selected low-severity burned forests for roosting during the breeding season, and selected low, medium, and high-severity burned forests for foraging when within 1.5 km of the nest or roost site (Bond et al. 2009). Irwin et al. (2012) found that NSO in the Klamath region would often forage within more open stands that contained brush or a low basal area of conifer trees, and that the presence of a few scattered trees or snags likely facilitated hunting for prey such as woodrats, citing a particular telemetered pair that made extensive use of a burned area with manzanita shrubs and scattered live trees. This would indicate that, at least under certain circumstances, NSO will venture into more open habitats, such as areas burned at high and moderate severity, when enough structure is present to offer perching or a certain degree of cover, though the exact level of cover is unknown. Lee et al. (2013) found that California spotted owls in southern California forests had an increased likelihood of site abandonment only when >50ha (124 acres) of their 81 ha (200 acre) core areas burned at high severity. This represents approximately 62% of their core use area, suggesting strong site fidelity. In addition, for spotted owls affected by the Rim Fire, Lee and Bond (2015) concluded that fire severity did not affect pair occupancy, which also suggests strong site fidelity. Clark (2007) found that severe wildfires in NSO home ranges caused owls to increase their home range size in order to encompass more suitable habitat. He also found that spotted owls with territories located immediately adjacent to moderate- and high-severity burned areas, avoided these areas and had < 5% of their locations fall within the boundaries of the fire. Owls that ventured into the burned areas were typically individuals that were displaced by fire and periodically visited their old territory. According to Clark’s study, when given the opportunity, owls focused their activities in unburned habitat. In his study, several owls with territories inside the fire frequently traveled long distances to forage in unburned habitat, supporting his prediction that owls would focus activities in the oldest forest stands with the least amount of fire damage (Clark 2007). While severely burned coniferous forest is not considered suitable nesting or roosting habitat for NSO (USDI 2011), Clark (2007) study included telemetry detections of NSOs in Oregon within some areas

56

Batched Re-initiation and Post-fire Consultation Wildlife Biological Assessment that were burned with high and moderate severity. The condition of the burned stands in Clark’s study area, such as the percentage of overstory mortality, the presence or absence of green trees, the ratio of high, moderate and low burn severities, and the juxtaposition of suitable NSO habitat in relation to severely burned areas wasn’t reported. While in Clark’s study owls were present within severely burned areas, it was not concluded that these areas were suitable habitat for nesting, roosting or long-term occupation by spotted owls. The burned areas may have contained individual features that were providing a short term structure for either roosting or foraging but were not suitable for long-term sustainability of a given owl or owl pair. It is the spatial context of the overall habitat available for use by spotted owls that is critical for an analysis of habitat suitability. The proportion and arrangement of unburned or low burn severity suitable habitat in relationship to moderate- or high-severity burn areas within an NSO home range is one of the key factors in determining the likelihood of use by NSOs (USDI 2014, USDI 2011). This relationship is important because NSOs will focus their use of burned areas for foraging in areas with adjacent cover. This distance to cover is a key factor influencing use of burned areas (Comfort 2013). Because habitat selection by NSO is strongly influenced by abiotic features such as distance to water, proximity to nest, slope position, and elevation, it is possible that use of the burned habitats by NSO as described by Clark et al. (2013) or Bond et al. (2009) may occur due to the juxtaposition of the burned areas in relation to some other feature, such as a pre-fire nest location or water, rather than based on the “suitability” of the area, particularly if the owls were accustomed to using the area prior to the fire. Factors involved in the NSO’s periodic selection of burned areas for foraging are not known at this time, and further research is needed to account for the many other aspects of a burned landscape that would factor into the NSO selection process. Owl use of burned areas is well documented but links between owl use, fire severity, and intensity of salvage are not clear. Researchers were typically unable to separate effects of pre-fire timber harvest, wildfire, and post-fire salvage harvest. Research results are highly variable, depending on methods, burn severities, proximity of NSO to fire, and spatial arrangement of habitat. Research of NSO use of burned areas has also been confounded by small sample sizes. In addition, general terms used in the literature including “moderate severity” and “salvage logging” make comparison to specific conditions found within the proposed project area difficult. Most references to “salvage logging” in the literature refer to clear-cut logging, and do not factor in design features used by the Forest Service such as leave tree groups, legacy tree retention, core area avoidance or even limited operating periods. Studies noting changes in owl behavior or habitat selection after wildfire and/or salvage harvest have been largely unsuccessful in assigning causal factors. Clark (2007) was unable to separate the potential effects of pre-fire land management, high-severity fire and salvage harvest on NSO. Lee et al. (2012) and Clark et al. (2013) were also unable to distinguish the effects of salvage harvest in comparison to, or in combination with, other variables studied. Findings from within recent research, including but not limited to, Clark (2007), Bond et al. (2009), Clark et al. (2012), Lee et al. (2012), Irwin et al. (2012), Lee et al. (2013), Eyes (2014), Comfort (2013 and 2016), Rockweit et al (2017), Jones et al. (2016), Tempel et. al. (2014) and USFWS (2017) pertinent to this analysis include the following:

57

Batched Re-initiation and Post-fire Consultation Wildlife Biological Assessment

 NSO appear to display site fidelity by returning to burned areas that were suitable pre-fire, even if they no longer meet the definition of suitable NSO habitat.  NSO foraging activity in moderate and high severity burned areas is supported in the literature, although the value of this foraging opportunity as it pertains to survival and reproduction is not known.  NSO select unburned or low fire severity affected habitat for nesting.  NSO use of burned areas may be influenced by standing snags and surviving green trees as perch sites for foraging, particularly along edges where sufficient cover is available.  The likelihood of a burned area being used by NSO is strongly affected by the pre-fire habitat type and distance from suitable forest cover; NSO may be more likely to use the edge between suitable habitat and high fire severity affected areas than the interior portion of a high severity burned area.  Most studies on NSO use of burned areas examine short term occupancy and use and have been unable to factor in duration or persistence at a site over an extended period time.

Status of the NSO Habitat within the Action Area

NSO Habitat Impacted by the 2017 Wildfires NSO habitat in the northwestern portion of the Abney fire area was patchy in distribution prior to the fire, with small pockets of higher quality habitat typically near riparian areas. The larger patches of habitat were located in the southern and western portion of the Abney fire area which generally met the needs of the NSO in the area. Within this area, the combination of the 2017 Abney fire and 2016 Gap Fire resulted in a large portion of NSO habitat being further impacted by moderate and high severity fire. In addition, where private industrial timber lands occurred in a checkerboard ownership pattern, the areas were heavily harvested following each of the fires, causing further fragmentation. NSO habitat in the northwestern portion of the Abney fire area was heavily impacted by past wildfires, particularly the 1987 fires where high levels of high severity fire were followed by intense post fire management actions of salvage harvest, site prep and planting and road building. Pockets of high severity fire were created by the 2017 fires within plantations that were established following the 1987 fires. Like the Abney fire area, the Oak fire area was also affected by wildfire in 1987, although the level of effects may not have been as severe.

Table 9: Pre-fire and post-fire NSO habitat, PFF1 and PFF2 within the Seiad-Horse Project, Oak Project, and Horse Creek-Robinson analysis areas following the 2017 Abney Fire and Oak Fire.

58

Batched Re-initiation and Post-fire Consultation Wildlife Biological Assessment

Habitat Pre-fire Acres Post-fire Acres

Seiad-Horse Project Nesting/Roosting 5,055 3,799 Foraging 5,392 4,657 Dispersal 4,341 3,407

Post-Fire Foraging (PFF1)* 85*** 1,386

Post-Fire Foraging (PFF2)** 11*** 701 Oak Project Nesting/Roosting 5,054 4,767

Foraging 11,671 10,357

Dispersal 12,641 11,729

Post-Fire Foraging (PFF1)* ----- 1,142

Post-Fire Foraging (PFF2)** ----- 458 Horse Creek – Robinson Nesting/Roosting 4,034 4,021

Foraging 4,053 3,988

Dispersal 2,105 1,993

Post-Fire Foraging (PFF1)* 207*** 242

Post-Fire Foraging (PFF2)** 138*** 172 *Acres of pre-fire NR and pre-fire F that burned at grid code 3 and 4 within the 500 foot buffer (PFF1). ** Acres of pre-fire NR and pre-fire F that burned at grid code 3 and 4 outside the 500 foot buffer (PFF2). *** The acres of PFF are a result of the 2016 Gap Fire and these acres of PFF are added to the PFF resulting from the 2017 Abney Fire in the adjacent column labeled “Post-fire Acres”.

Table 10: Pre-and Post-fire NSO habitat and fire severity in the Seiad-Horse Project, Oak Roadside Hazard Project, and Horse Creek-Robinson Project analysis areas and associated fire severity.

RAVG assessment* Pre-fire Post-Fire Habitat Habitat Very low Low (grid Moderate (grid High (grid Habitat (Acres) (grid code code 2) code 3) code 4) (acres) 1)

Seiad-Horse Project

Nesting/Roosting 4,788 1,434 129 108 881 3,799

59

Batched Re-initiation and Post-fire Consultation Wildlife Biological Assessment

Foraging 5,392 1,822 135 101 634 4,657

Dispersal 4,322 1,328 180 148 767 3,407

Oak Project

Nesting/Roosting 5,054 2,800 136 87 200 4,767

Foraging 11,671 5,423 446 281 1,033 10,357

Dispersal 12,641 6,715 452 277 635 11,729

Horse Creek - Robinson Project

Nesting/Roosting 4,034 811 16 4 9 4,021

Foraging 4,053 677 32 16 49 3,988

Dispersal 2,105 287 31 24 88 1,993

* These analysis areas contains the fire-affected area plus an area outside the Abney Fire perimeter; thus the acres of habitat affected by fire presented in this table will not equal the acres in “Pre-fire Habitat” or “Post-Fire Habitat”.

Status of the NSO Activity Centers in the Action Area Twenty-seven NSO activity centers (ACs) occur within the action area; eleven within the Oak analysis area and sixteen within the Seiad-Horse analysis area; many of these ACs are the same ACs analyzed for the Horse Creek-Robinson, Thom Seider and Johnny O’Neil projects. Table 11 lists these ACs and the acres of suitable habitat within each. The degree and intensity of treatments within each AC varies considerably, as described below in the discussion of Combined Effects to Individual Activity Centers. Without long-term monitoring data, it is problematic to try to determine the demographic trends within the action area. For the purposes of this analysis, it is assumed that not all activity centers are occupied consistently through time, and that currently unoccupied activity centers that have been occupied in the past could re-activate at any time, as long as habitat conditions are adequate and consistent over time. Site occupancy and reproductive rates have been shown to exhibit substantial annual variation that may be influenced by individual NSO site fidelity, climatic extremes, shifts in prey availability, or presence of other raptors (Loschl 2008, Olson et al. 2005, Anthony et al. 2006); activity centers in the action area have displayed much of this variation in occupancy. Generally, activity centers are considered to have sufficient habitat to support occupancy and/or reproduction when at least 50 percent of the core (approximately 250 acres) contains nesting/roosting and foraging habitat, and 40 percent of the combined core and home range contain at least 1,336 acres of nesting/roosting and foraging habitat (USDI 2011).

60

Batched Re-initiation and Post-fire Consultation Wildlife Biological Assessment

All but three of the ACs in the action area (KL1159, KL1160, and KL4217 as currently delineated) were considered to have at least some potential to be viable and some may contribute to current or future NSO demographics. While there are minimum levels of habitat needed for an AC to be considered viable, below which is considered an insufficient amount of habitat for NSO reproduction, there is no set amount of habitat that would ensure that an activity center would be capable of supporting reproduction. Activity centers that have a high level of habitat tend to provide more opportunity for food and shelter, as well as nesting structures, needed for reproduction; while ACs with lower levels of habitat tend to provide less of one or more of these needs. ACs that have had a high level of fire effects from past or recent wildfires within their core, may have shifted their core use area away from the original fire affected core, into suitable habitat within their home range that has not been as impacted by high severity fire. Such that a given territory may have abundant habitat in the home range but insufficient habitat in the core area as delineated, but given the highly territorial nature of NSO, for reproductive purposes, the NSO may move away from the core areas that have been severely impacted by fire, and into more suitable habitat within their home range, thus in essence “re-delineating” a new core within their home range. About half of the ACs in this analysis are centered on detections from over 20 years ago and have not been surveyed consistently prior to 2018. Therefore, if core areas have shifted, it may have happened as a result of fires or other disturbances that have may have occurred prior to the 2017 wildfires as well as from the most recent fires. Activity centers in this analysis will be re-centered or shifted as needed following pre-implementation protocol surveys in each project area. Effects from the proposed management actions are analyzed by incorporating the potential capacity for viability of an AC, as well as the capacity to absorb effects to suitable habitat and/or disturbance that occurs within their AC/territory. This analysis is described below in the “Combined Effects to Individual Activity Centers from Multiple Management Actions”.

61

Batched Re-initiation and Post-fire Consultation Wildlife Biological Assessment

Table 11: Acres of suitable nesting/roosting and foraging habitat within all NSO activity centers within the action area following the 2017 fires, but prior to implementation of any of the proposed activities. Total acres of Pre-Implementation Pre-Implementation NRF in core Habitat within Core (acres) Habitat within Home Range (acres) area plus home

AC# range 0 - 0.5 mile 0.5 - 1.3 mile

NRF PFF1 NRF PFF1

KL0215 231 41 686 9 917 KL0216 307 8 547 153 854 KL0217 142 0 921 92 1,063 KL0251 257 0 981 3 1,238 KL0292 351 14 1,139 24 1,490 KL1150 426 0 1,652 75 2,078 KL1152 316 0 1,374 11 1,690 KL1153 463 0 1,647 118 2,110 KL1154 436 0 1,788 246 2,224 KL1155 138 261 1,009 367 1,147 KL1159 66 16 265 99 331 KL1160 8 9 825 36 833 KL1161 389 2 1,459 91 1,848 KL1163 194 11 785 104 979 KL4210 248 0 1,109 3 1,357 KL4214 177 0 841 43 1,018 KL4215 197 0 991 44 1,188 KL4216 130 6 1,033 191 1,163 KL4217 19 56 884 158 903 KL4224 338 0 1,080 3 1,418 KL0149 249 12 795 19 1,044 KL0253 226 0 1,782 39 2,008 KL4132 430 29 1,648 172 2,078 KL4149 190 11 725 129 915 KL4149B 224 0 810 41 1,034 RSNF15 130 12 800 258 930 RSNF2 195 78 611 119 806

Two activity centers in the action area have extremely low levels of habitat in their core areas and home ranges and are not expected to be viable territories as delineated - KL1160 and KL1159. KL1159 contains less than 665 acres of nesting/roosting and foraging habitat in core and home range combined and so is not considered to be a viable territory (see table 11). The other AC (KL1160) is not expected to be viable due to the lack of available suitable habitat in the core in conjunction with

5 There are two NSO activity centers that are centered on the Rouge River – Siskiyou National Forest and the activity center number system is different from the KNF so for convenience, the two activity centers are identified as: “RSNF1” (11481B_905) and “RSNF2” (11481P_1994905). 62

Batched Re-initiation and Post-fire Consultation Wildlife Biological Assessment the close proximity of other, directly adjacent, potentially occupied ACs that could preclude the NSO associated with KL1160 from shifting away from their original core. KL1160 has had multiple episodes of high severity wildfire, particularly in 1987 and 2017, which have strongly influenced the amount, distribution and condition of the habitat within the core and home range. The amount of habitat within KL1159 and KL1160 is so far below minimum levels of habitat needed for viability that there is no expectation that NSO occupy, much less reproduce within, these ACs as they are currently delineated. There have been no detections in these ACs since the early 1990’s (see Appendix B). In addition, the surrounding area has very little suitable habitat and so offers almost no viable options for a ‘shifting’ of the territory to more suitable and abundant habitat. Thus, these sites are not expected to be occupied currently, or in the reasonably foreseeable future, until the forested landscape has had sufficient time to recuperate and can begin to function again in its role as suitable NSO habitat. One AC in the action area also has a very low level of habitat in the core (KL4217) and has also been substantially altered by high severity fire and is also highly unlikely to be occupied in its current delineation. NSO have not been detected in this AC since the early 2000’s. However, this AC has at least some level of suitable habitat within relatively close proximity to the original placement of the AC as to provide some opportunity to shift into more abundant and/or higher quality habitat. However, without recent, consistent surveys we continued with the analysis using the current placement of the AC. ACs will be repositioned if new surveys indicate detections that would initiate shift in the location of the ACs. Six other ACs contain less than 220 acres of nesting/roosting or foraging habitat in the core area alone (RSNF1, RSNF2, KL4149, KL0142, KL1155, and KL4217). These ACs may have sufficient opportunities to shift away from the currently delineated core area to elsewhere in their home range where habitat is more abundant. Two of the activity centers with low levels of habitat in their cores are centered on the Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest (RRSNF) in Oregon (RSNF1 and RSNF2). Because of the general practice of delineating home ranges using a 1.3 mile circle centered on the core use area, the circles that indicate these two home ranges are bisected by the major ridge line that serves in this part of the state as the boundary between California and Oregon as well as the national forest boundaries. NSO associated with these two ACs are not expected to travel over this major ridge line into the portion of their home range that lies within the Klamath NF; this is due in part because of the general tendency of NSO to avoid these types of major topographic features, but also due to the unsuitable condition of the habitat on the Klamath NF side of this ridge, where high severity fire has impacted the majority of the habitat within this portion of the delineated home ranges. Habitat use patterns for the NSO associated with these ACs is much more likely to include the pockets of suitable habitat that occur on the landscape within drainages and north facing slopes that occur on the RRSNF side of the ridge. Future surveys may provide detection information that could initiate a re-delineation of these ACs that more closely resembles the expected habitat use pattern for the associated NSO. The remaining activity centers in the action area have sufficient levels of habitat (as defined above) throughout their home range and/or core areas as to be considered viable and some may potentially contribute to the demographic support of the NSO population in the area (table 11). Ten of these activity centers contain abundant habitat, well over the recommended minimum levels of habitat, and could be considered as potential RA10 sites based on the amount of habitat within each; these sites include KL1150, KL1152, K1153, KL1154, KL1161, KL0253, KL4132, KL0292, KL4210, and

63

Batched Re-initiation and Post-fire Consultation Wildlife Biological Assessment

KL4224. Additional information will be gathered following pre-implementation protocol surveys for these ACs regarding their potential contribution to demographic support for the NSO in the area. In summary, of the twenty-seven activity centers in the action area, three contain extremely low levels of habitat such that the sites are not considered viable territories as currently delineated, two are not expected to use the areas within their home ranges that fall within the KNF or the project area, and twenty-two ACs contain sufficient levels of habitat to be considered as viable territories and potentially occupied; some of which contain an abundant level of habitat such that they could be identified as RA10 sites and may have a higher likelihood of providing demographic support for the recovery of the NSO in the area. Survey History and Strategy In the Seiad-Horse project analysis area, some surveys routes may not cover the standard distance from activities and may not be completed to protocol due to limited access issues. These areas include the Upper portion of West Fork-Horse Creek, the north slope of the Siskiyou crest and the area within the West Girard Inventoried Roadless Area west of Seiad Creek; see maps in Appendix D. Surveys are intended to reduce the possibility of direct harm and/or disturbance that could result from implementing project activities (i.e. felling trees, removing understory fuels) within an area occupied by NSO during the reproductive period when owls are less mobile and therefore less capable of moving away from a source of disturbance. Restricted operating periods will be in place, which means that project implementation will occur outside the reproductive period or NSO surveys will be completed prior to project actions that occur within NSO suitable habitat or within 0.25 mile of suitable habitat. If the survey results conclude that no owls are nesting, then the restricted operating period may be lifted within the area surveyed. If surveys determine that nesting is occurring, then project implementation will not occur until after the nesting period. This process will occur each year during implementation. Surveys will follow the 2012 revised Protocol for Surveying Proposed Management Activities that May Impact Northern Spotted Owls or as agreed upon with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. It is important to note that surveys will cover areas of nesting/roosting and foraging habitat that burned with all severities, including high severity, so that occupancy and use of potential treatment areas can be determined, in addition to establishing occupancy of core areas or home ranges. Surveying the high and moderately burned previously suitable NRF will help to inform the analysis in regards to the assumptions made about NSO use of post-fire habitat, at least on a site specific level, though additional monitoring would be needed to further our understanding.

Status of the NSO Critical Habitat in the Action Area The project area is located within subunits KLE6 and KLW7. These subunits were established to function as NSO demographic support (USDI 2012 page 71933); resource agencies are encouraged to work toward maintaining or enhancing the characteristics of older forest and providing large habitat blocks and associated forest conditions. Regional variations should be taken into account; in the Klamath Province this means providing mosaics of interior habitats and edges to provide for the diversity of prey. Management activities that contribute to recovery goals through risk reduction such as the removal of ground and ladder fuels, and the restoration of ecosystem processes that lead to the

64

Batched Re-initiation and Post-fire Consultation Wildlife Biological Assessment development or replacement of spotted owl habitat, are recommended. The current number of acres for PBF 2, 3, and 4 are presented in the following table. Additional details on the Critical Habitat analysis for this BA are found in section IX below.

Table 12: Acres of NSO Critical Habitat within the Critical Habitat analysis area, broken out by the Seiad-Horse Project, Horse Creek-Robinson, and Oak project areas – pre- and post-fire. Acres of NSO Critical Pre-Fire Critical Habitat Post-Fire Critical Habitat and PFF Critical Habitat Nesting/ Nesting/ Habitat subunit in Foraging Dispersal Foraging Dispersal roosting roosting PFF1* PFF2* Subunit analysis (acres) (acres) (acres) (acres) area (acres) (acres) KLE6 (Seiad- 4,874 2,113 1,072 809 1,301 764 438 687 433 Horse) KLE6 (Horse 2,192 418 831 257 418 831 257 63 11 Creek- Robinson) KLW7 9,736 1,375 2,196 3,105 1,345 2,086 2,900 136 4 (Oak) *Acres of PFF1 and PFF2 include all PFF in the Critical Habitat analysis area. The Critical Habitat analysis area only overlaps PFF that resulted from the Abney Fire.

VIII. Effects of the Proposed Activities

The analysis contained herein uses specific terms that categorize the estimated degree of change (effect) to spotted owl habitat elements so that management actions may result in removing, downgrading, downgrading to dispersal habitat, degrading, maintaining or benefitting NSO habitat (see Methods section, pg. 44 above). The project effects description in this section covers both direct and indirect effects as described in the Endangered Species Act. Direct effects are those effects that are caused by or result from proposed activities and take place at the time of implementation. Generally these effects are a result of project implementation acting directly in suitable habitat where individuals may reside. For example, if the smoke from a prescribed burn irritates an individual animal or when noise flushes an individual from its nest, these are both direct effects. Effects that are likely to adversely affect a listed species are not discountable, insignificant or wholly beneficial. A discountable effect would be determined to be extremely unlikely to occur and would be based on professional judgment and best available scientific information. Insignificant effects relate to the size of the impact and the effects would not be expected to reach the scale where take occurs. Using the best available data and professional judgment, a person would not be able to meaningfully measure, detect or evaluate insignificant effects. Indirect effects are those effects that are caused by or will result from proposed activities and take place later in time but are reasonably certain to occur (50 CFR §402.02). Generally these are effects on resources that act indirectly on the listed species such as when changes to vegetation modify the abundance or availability of prey.

65

Batched Re-initiation and Post-fire Consultation Wildlife Biological Assessment

Estimated Effects from Re-initiated Projects The following description is derived from the original project BA’s and from the Re-initiation Letters for both projects following the re-evaluation of the changed conditions that resulted from the 2017 wildfires that affected the respective project areas. The descriptions below are summaries of effect and do not provide the same level of detail as newly proposed projects; for additional information on each project, see the project Biological Assessments for the Johnny O’Neil and Thom Seider projects and their associated Re-initiation Letters on file.

Effects to individual ACs from projects for which consultation was re-initiated, in combination with the effects from the proposed post-fire projects in this batched consultation, will vary by activity center. Where multiple management actions are planned for an individual AC, those effects may be amplified if the actions were to occur within close proximity to each other in time or space or if effects to habitat overlap. These effects are described in more detail in the section on Combined Effects to NSO from Multiple Management Actions, and are summarized in tables 26, 27 and 28 below.

Thom Seider Project______As described in earlier sections, underburning is the only action remaining to implement for the Thom Seider project within the re-initiation analysis area for this BA. Underburn: Approximately 1,204 acres of underburning remain to be implemented within the re- initiation analysis area, of which 552 acres are NRF habitat. Although the original Thom Seider BA presents an additional 460 acres of underburn occurring in the original project area, these 460 acres were burned in the Abney Fire and were subsequently incorporated into the proposed post-fire management actions (Seiad-Horse). Effects to Individual NSO As described in the original Thom Seider project BA, implementation of protocol surveys in conjunction with Limited Operating Periods serve to avoid potential direct impacts to individual NSO. All projects analyzed within this batched BA will implement minimization measures to avoid direct impacts to NSO. More detail on the effects of underburning on NSO are available within the Thom Seider BA.

Effects to NSO Habitat Within the Thom Seider project BA, and later in the Re-initiation Letter (January 2016), prescribed underburning was described as a management action that would degrade NRF habitat that was suitable at the time the letter was written (prior to the 2017 Abney fire). An estimated 552 acres of NRF would be degraded by underburning from the Thom Seider project. The effects from prescribed underburning to NRF habitat are described in the original BA and the 2016 Re-initiation Letter as removing some of the brush and/or herbaceous vegetation plus torching an occasional tree. The remaining actions are designed to reduce fuels in strategic locations and will have long-term benefits to future wildfire behavior and suppression efficacy. Underburning is expected to have only minimal and short term effects to prey species. The NRF habitat affected by the proposed treatments would remain functional as its current habitat type.

66

Batched Re-initiation and Post-fire Consultation Wildlife Biological Assessment

No change in the total acres of available NRF habitat is anticipated within the re-initiation analysis area from the implementation of the remaining acres of underburning treatment from Thom Seider project.

Table 13: Acres of nesting/roosting and foraging habitat in underburn units in the Thom Seider re-initiation analysis area using the current KNF NSO habitat layer. Acres of habitat within underburning units Action Nesting/Roosting Foraging Underburning 415 137

Effects to NSO Activity Centers As described within the 2016 Re-initiation Letter for the Thom Seider project, the actions remaining to be implemented will not downgrade or remove any suitable habitat within the three affected NSO activity centers (see table 14). Because the proposed activities would not change the current function of the habitat in its role within each AC, the total amount of habitat within each AC would remain the same following implementation. Thus, implementation of the remaining actions would not cause any of the affected ACs to fall below the recommended levels of suitable habitat.

Table 14: Acres of habitat within NSO activity centers affected by the Abney Fire and contain action units remaining to implement within the Thom Seider re-initiation analysis area. AC number Current Conditions – Acres of habitat Acres of habitat affected by Underburn Core 0-0.5 mile Home range 0.5-1.3 mile Core 0-0.5 mile Home range 0.5-1.3 mile

NRF PFF1 NRF PFF1 NRF PFF1 NRF PFF1 1160 8 9 825 36 0 0 130 0 1161 389 2 1,459 91 144 0 371 0 1163 194 11 785 104 0 0 69 0

The final effects determination for the actions that remain to be implemented from the Thom Seider project is incorporated into the section below titled “Combined Effects to Individual Activity Centers from Multiple Management Actions”.

Johnny O’Neil Project______As described in earlier sections, mastication, underburning, and variable density thinning with associated landings and temporary roads are the actions remaining to implement for the Johnny O’Neil project within the re-initiation analysis area for this BA. Effects to NSO Habitat The BA concluded that no NSO nesting/roosting or foraging habitat would be removed, downgraded or degraded by the thinning and underburning treatments. The proposed mastication treatment would not occur in any suitable nesting/roosting or foraging habitat. NSO habitat would be maintained due to the retention of the late successional habitat elements where they occur within treatment units. Habitat may be degraded by connected actions such as temporary roads and landing construction.

67

Batched Re-initiation and Post-fire Consultation Wildlife Biological Assessment

Effects to Individual NSO Direct and indirect effects from project actions to the individual NSO that may occupy the Johnny O’Neil re-initiation analysis area are estimated and described within the Johnny O’Neil project BA and in the January 26, 2016 re-initiation letter to the USFWS. As described in the original Johnny O’Neil project BA, implementation of protocol surveys in conjunction with Limited Operating Periods serve to avoid potential direct impacts to individual NSO.

Table 15: Acres of NSO habitat in action units that remain to be treated in the Johnny O’Neil re-initiation analysis area. Acres of habitat within units Action Nesting/Roosting Foraging Dispersal Mastication 0 0 0 Thinning 9 225 38 Underburning 501 261 12

The thinning in the Johnny O’Neil project was designed as “a multi-faceted approach focused on the ecological restoration of a portion of a large LSR through combinations of commercial thinning, non- commercial thinning (utilizing a variable-density silvicultural method) and prescribed underburning”. The combined effects of density reduction treatments and prescribed fire would have long-term beneficial effects by reducing the potential for loss of habitat due to high intensity wildfires. Effects to NSO Activity Centers There are eight activity centers that were affected by the 2016 and/or 2017 wildfires that contain project actions proposed in the Johnny O’Neil project yet to be implemented (KL1150, KL1152, KL1153, KL1154, KL1155, KL1160, KL1161, and KL1163). Project design features within the Johnny O’Neil project are intended to avoid or minimize negative impacts to NSO. According to the project BA, “nesting/roosting or foraging habitat would not be removed, degraded, or downgraded within activity centers; therefore, the acres of habitat within cores and home ranges are the same pre-and post-project. The degree of habitat modification is not significant to any home range or core due to the variable nature of the thinning prescriptions and underburning, therefore significant negative effects on NSO activity centers are not expected”. The effects to individual ACs from the Johnny O’Neil project, in combination with the effects from the other projects in this batched consultation, will vary by activity center. Where multiple management actions are planned for an individual AC, those effects may be amplified if the actions were to occur within close proximity to each other in time or space. These effects are described in more detail in the Combined Effects to Individual Activity Centers from Multiple Management Actions as analyzed in this batched BA and are summarized in tables 28-29 below.

68

Batched Re-initiation and Post-fire Consultation Wildlife Biological Assessment

Table 16: Acres of nesting/roosting and foraging habitat within each of the Activity Centers affected by the remaining actions to implement for the Johnny O’Neil project. Acres of habitat Acres of habitat Current Conditions – acres of Acres of habitat affected by affected by habitat affected by Thinning Underburn Mastication AC# 0 - 0.5 mile 0.5 - 1.3 mile 0 - 0.5 0.5-1.3 0 - 0.5 0.5 - 1.3 0 - 0.5 0.5 - 1.3 mile mile mile mile mile mile NRF PFF1 NRF PFF1 NRF NRF NRF NRF NRF NRF

KL1150 426 0 1,652 75 4 288 0 16 0 0 KL1152 316 0 1,374 11 79 287 117 81 0 0 KL1153 463 0 1,647 118 252 245 0 142 0 0 KL1154 436 0 1,788 264 125 295 0 26 0 0 KL1155 138 261 1,009 367 0 19 0 0 0 0 KL1160 8 9 825 36 0 62 0 8 0 0 KL1161 389 2 1,459 91 65 98 7 6 0 0 KL1163 194 11 785 104 4 141 0 8 0 0

Estimated Effects from Post-fire Projects - Horse Creek-Robinson, Seiad-Horse, and Oak Roadside Hazard Projects

Horse Creek-Robinson Project______As described above, the actions in Horse Creek-Robinson analysis area are Roadside Hazard Tree Removal, Fuels Reduction Adjacent to Private Property (also referred to as WUI treatments), and Developing and Maintaining Fuels Management Zones (FMZ) treatments.

Effects to Individual NSO Surveys are intended to reduce the possibility of direct harm and/or disturbance that could result from implementing project activities within an area occupied by NSO during the reproductive period when owls are less mobile and therefore less capable of moving away from a source of disturbance. If NSO are detected, adverse impacts would be avoided by shifting operations that occur within the core area of the detected bird to after July 9, when both breeding adults and fledgling young are mobile. If nesting is confirmed, the operations are shifted to after September 15, as this time frame is generally accepted among the FWS, the USFS and research biologists as the end of the reproductive period for NSO and is used by the FWS during consultation (based on review of years of research and professional expertise). Each management action for this project has the potential to cause effects to individual NSO as a result of disturbance from noise, smoke, and tree falling associated with project implementation. Disturbance from Noise and Smoke Activities associated with fuels treatments, WUI treatments, and roadside hazard tree removal may cause noise and smoke levels to rise above ambient levels. If these treatments were to occur within 0.25 miles of suitable nesting/roosting habitat, or foraging habitat being used for nesting/roosting,

69

Batched Re-initiation and Post-fire Consultation Wildlife Biological Assessment during the NSO breeding season, they have the potential to affect NSO breeding success by causing loud and continuous noise disturbance and/or smoke disturbance to NSO. Mechanized equipment typically creates noise above ambient levels and at times, the combination of multiple types or pieces of equipment may create noise well above ambient levels. This noise usually occurs during the daytime hours and can last for a few days. The duration of noise generating activity is generally relatively short (i.e. a few days). In some situations, the noise could last for a longer duration (i.e. weeks) because of the position of the treatment (i.e. across a drainage or on top of a ridge) and the number of acres being treated. However, the application of the restricted operating period described above in the project design features, in addition to the extensive NSO surveys, is intended to alleviate the possibility of noise disturbance to NSO from project activities. The project is proposing to burn piles of fuels within treatment units that will produce smoke within or near (0.25 mile) NSO habitat; this may result in smoke occurring near nesting NSO, particularly if the smoke is concentrated near the ground in an area used by NSO. Piles are most commonly burned during the wetter months of the year, typically November through March, but this timing can vary depending on the amount and duration of the precipitation occurring in the given year. Pile burning is commonly short in duration and small in magnitude; typically, a small number of piles are burned over a couple days in a given drainage. If pile burning occurred during the reproductive period and NSO associated with nearby activity centers are nesting they may be impacted by a moderate level of smoke, though this would occur intermittently and for a short duration and is not likely to disrupt their normal activities. Given the timing of pile burning, smoke may cause a minor amount of disturbance in small localized areas. But in general, a small amount of smoke would occur over a short period of time, but would not be of a magnitude that would cause meaningful effects to individual NSO. Disturbance from Hazard Tree Removal Dead or fire injured, dying trees within the Horse Creek – Robinson project area that are likely to fall and impact a Forest system road and that have been determined to have a 70 or 90 percent or greater chance of mortality within the next 3 to 5 years due to fire damage (as indicated by “Marking Guidelines for Fire Injured Trees”; Smith and Cluck 2011) will be felled and left on site or the hazard will be harvested and removed (see specifics on marking guidelines in the proposed action section). The majority of hazard trees occur within areas of high and moderate fire severity (RAVG grid code 3 and 4), and generally within larger blocks of high tree mortality and are therefore not considered NSO nesting/roosting or foraging habitat. Treatments in these areas would remove PFF or non-habitat. The potential for direct effects to NSO from treatment in these areas is reduced due to pre- implementation surveys, restricted operation periods, and the low likelihood that NSO would be using these areas for nesting and so would be capable of moving away from disturbance-generating activities. Areas indicated by RAVG as grid code 2 had lower severity fire and are presumed to contain fewer fire- killed trees; though these areas are indicated as having between 25 to 50 percent basal area lost, and the fire resulted in varying levels of tree mortality. Acres of grid code 2 may be indicated as suitable habitat, due to a lack of fire effects, or they may be included in a roadside hazard unit, due to a small pocket of mortality that may have occurred along the road. Generally, NSO habitat that has burned at grid code 2 continues to serve as habitat and remains within the category to which it was assigned (i.e.

70

Batched Re-initiation and Post-fire Consultation Wildlife Biological Assessment nesting/roosting or foraging) post-fire. Treatments in grid code 2 have an increased potential for direct effects due to the increased likelihood that an NSO may occur in areas of suitable NRF in the areas immediately surrounding the treated areas. Grid code 1 is indicative of a range from 0 to 25 percent basal area lost and so is either unburned or slightly burned to the degree that very minimal change is detected in the overstory canopy or basal area. These areas are less likely to contain fire-killed trees, and as a result, would have very few, if any, trees removed. Within these low severity areas, there is a small chance that an occasional tree (or small pocket of trees) may have been killed by the fire and would therefore be identified as a hazard to the road, but this is expected to be infrequent and only occur sporadically across the project area. RAVG mapping was not able to capture the delayed mortality occurring along roadsides in the project area. Because RAVG data is modeled as a snap shot at the time relatively soon following the fire, it does not account for delayed tree mortality that may result from site specific conditions such as heat stress, drought stress, or impacts from beetles and may not therefore fully capture all mortality that may occur post fire. Mortality guidelines do capture delayed tree mortality and the use of these guidelines for marking fire- killed trees is therefore likely to capture the delayed tree mortality alongside roads in the project area that may or may not be indicated by RAVG. So, where RAVG data may indicate that no basal area loss occurred as a result of the fire at the time the RAVG data was gathered (i.e. grid code 0), additional mortality has occurred in some areas since that time and these dead/dying trees would be targeted for removal if they could fall and hit the road. The majority of the hazard trees marked within the Horse Creek-Robinson project area are fire killed trees that meet the Mortality Guidelines (Smith and Cluck 2011). A small proportion of hazard trees are not fire killed and thus do not meet these Mortality Guidelines, but are instead identified as high hazard potential trees based on criteria outlined in the Regional Hazard Tree Marking Guidelines. High hazard potential trees in low burn severities or unburned habitat are possible but less common in the project area than fire killed trees. There is a low likelihood that an NSO may be nesting within a hazard tree slated for abatement because protocol surveys will be completed prior to implementation and it is assumed that nesting NSO will be detected and avoided during the nesting season. In addition, where hazard trees are located along level 2 roads there is a lower likelihood that NSO are using these for nesting because of their location in areas with higher volume of traffic and noise. It is more likely that an NSO would use hazard trees within high and moderately burned areas for foraging, and may use some of the fire killed trees as perches for hunting or resting, and may therefore be disturbed by the activities associated with implementation. However, the act of removing perch sites is unlikely to cause a meaningful level of disturbance to an NSO that may be using the area. In summary, while some of the direct effects to individual NSO are reduced for the reasons listed above, the risk to NSO from the felling of trees and snags of all sizes, ages, and decay classes regardless of their location on the landscape has inherent risks to any NSO that may be occupying the area and using the trees that are deemed a hazard. This is particularly true if the hazard occurs in suitable habitat and/or in an area of increased use by NSO such as a core or home range. Some of the risk can be mitigated through pre-implementation surveys, but there is no guarantee that an NSO would not be

71

Batched Re-initiation and Post-fire Consultation Wildlife Biological Assessment directly impacted by hazard tree removal; though risk of this occurring has been minimized to the extent practicable.

Effects to NSO Habitat Effects to NSO habitat may occur from each of the management actions within the Horse Creek – Robinson project; roadside hazard tree removal, fuels reduction adjacent to private property (also referred to as WUI treatments), and FMZ treatments. Tables 17 below displays the acres of NRF habitat within the Horse Creek – Robinson analysis area. Table 18 displays the acres of NRF habitat affected by the proposed activities and the change in quantity or quality of the habitat affected. NRF habitat would be degraded and PFF would be removed by the management actions within the Horse Creek – Robinson project; no NRF habitat would be removed or downgraded. Table 17: Total acres of NSO habitat in the Horse Creek – Robinson analysis area Total Acres Nesting/Roosting Foraging Dispersal PFF1* PFF2* in Analysis Area 4,021 3,988 1,993 242 172 17,028 *Acres of PFF1 and PFF2 combined indicates all PFF in the analysis area.

Table 18: Acres of NSO habitat affected by each treatment type within the Horse Creek – Robinson analysis area. Fuels reduction adjacent to private land (WUI) Prescription 1 and Fuel Management Zone (FMZ) Prescription 1 (from the original Horse Creek project prescriptions) do not occur within the analysis area and are therefore not listed in the table below. Nesting/Roosting and Foraging PFF 1* PFF 2* NSO habitat within 8,009 242 172 Analysis Area** NRF NRF NRF NRF PFF 1 PFF 2 Treatment Type Removed Downgraded Degraded Maintained Removed Removed (acres) (acres) (acres) (acres) (acres) (acres) Roadside Hazard Only 0 0 137 0 13 4 Fuels reduction adjacent 0 0 42 0 0 0 to private land (WUI) 2 Fuels reduction adjacent 0 0 0 2 0 0 to private land (WUI) 3 Fuel Management Zone 0 0 38 0 0 0 (FMZ) 2 Fuel Management Zone 0 0 0 0 0 0 (FMZ) 3^ *Acres of PFF1 and PFF2 includes all PFF in the analysis area. ** The process by which the change in the quality of habitat was established is displayed in Table 8 in the sections below, both for individual treatments and when treatments overlap causing additive impacts to the habitat where they occur. ^The FMZ 3 occurs within the dozerline footprint only; suitable NRF may occur adjacent to the treatment polygon, but this treatment does not occur within suitable NRF habitat.

Hazard Tree Removal

RAVG grid codes have been used in the effects analysis in the past to indicate where roadside hazard treatments are most likely to occur. This method uses the assumption that more hazard trees would be removed in areas where high and moderate severity fire occurred and areas with lower fire severity have substantially fewer fire killed/injured trees and would therefore have less treatment.

72

Batched Re-initiation and Post-fire Consultation Wildlife Biological Assessment

However, acres of habitat affected by hazard tree removal can be difficult to evaluate using RAVG grid codes due to the uncertainty as to exactly where, what size, and how many hazard trees would potentially be harvested. In addition, within the Horse Creek - Robinson project area, there are additional areas not indicated by RAVG mapping where fire killed trees occur along roads. In part, this is because of the 30 meter pixel scale at which RAVG data is analyzed; whereas hazard trees are evaluated in the field on a tree by tree basis which may or may not be captured by the RAVG, depending on the size of the polygon in which the affected trees occur. For the Horse Creek – Robinson project, data points were collected for each hazard tree evaluated in the field; each hazard tree location in the sampled roadside hazard segments was recorded (using a global positioning system unit) and the total number of trees was tallied. For the purposes of this analysis, the hazard tree location data was determined to be more accurate for estimating effects from hazard tree removal by indicating where fire killed trees/hazard trees occurred. The width of the originally proposed hazard tree treatment buffer was 250 feet on either side of the road (in the proposed action). However, the collected hazard tree sampling within the roadside hazard units indicated that on the ground conditions did not necessitate a buffer of this width; the estimated width is 125 feet on either side of the road. In order to estimate the acres of habitat affected it was assumed that where NRF occurred within the 250 foot (125 ft. on either side of the road) hazard tree buffer that it would be degraded by hazard tree removal where it occurred as the only treatment; 137 acres of NRF habitat would be degraded by roadside hazard removal, by removing elements of the habitat (i.e. snags) that may be used by foraging NSO. NSO are not likely to use areas that have experienced high severity fire for nesting or roosting, and consequently the removal of the fire-killed trees along roads in high fire severity is not expected to remove nesting/roosting habitat. Additional analysis of the estimated effects of roadside hazard tree removal on NSO habitat is described in more detail in the post-fire Seiad-Horse project analysis below. WUI and FMZ Treatments

WUI treatments and FMZ fuels treatments result in very similar effects to NSO habitat. These treatments are linear shaped, narrow units that are intended to break up the fuel continuity to provide effective breaks for fire control and suppression. FMZ 2 treatment is approximately 150 feet wide; it will remove most of the small trees and shrubs that provide cover habitat for prey species and prune limbs of larger trees. The FMZ 2 treatment will reduce and simplify the understory to the point that nesting/roosting and foraging habitat may be degraded, depending on the size class of tree being cut in any given acre of treatment. FMZ 3 prescription occurs within the existing dozer line footprint only and would therefore occur in a pre-existing cleared and open area; suitable NRF may occur adjacent to FMZ 3 treatment polygon, but no NRF would be affected by this treatment.

Effects to NSO Activity Centers There are seven ACs within the Horse Creek – Robinson analysis area; each of these will have some level of treatment by roadside hazard removal, FMZ and/or WUI. Table 19 below displays effects to habitat within each AC in the analysis area as well as their relative levels of habitat before and after project implementation. It is important to emphasize that none of the currently suitable NRF habitat would be removed from core areas or home ranges of any of the ACs in this analysis area by the proposed activities on national forest lands.

73

Batched Re-initiation and Post-fire Consultation Wildlife Biological Assessment

Of the seven ACs within this analysis area, KL1160 and KL1163 both contain currently low levels of habitat – well below recommended levels. However, no NRF would be degraded, downgraded or removed from either of these ACs by the proposed activities. The ACs in the analysis area that contain more than minimal amounts of treatment that would degrade NRF habitat also contain abundant levels of habitat and effects to these ACs are expected to be inconsequential to the NSO that potentially occupy these sites. Implementation of the management actions in the Horse Creek – Robinson project would not result in any of the affected ACs to fall below the recommended levels of suitable habitat. A relatively small amount of NRF habitat would be degraded by the treatments (see table 19) and no NRF would be removed or downgraded. For more detailed information regarding overall effects from all proposed management activities within this batched consultation analysis, see the Combined Effects to Individual Activity Centers from Multiple Management Actions.

74

Batched Re-initiation and Post-fire Consultation Wildlife Biological Assessment

75

Batched Re-initiation and Post-fire Consultation Wildlife Biological Assessment

Table 19: Summary of NSO habitat within the core and home ranges of ACs in the Horse Creek – Robinson project and the effects to habitat resulting from the proposed treatments; acres cannot be totaled at the bottom of columns due to overlapping activity centers (AC).

Pre- Pre- Post- Post- Implementation Implementation Implementation Acres Acres Implementation Habitat within Habitat within Acres Removed Acres Degraded Habitat within Downgraded Maintained Habitat within Core Home Range Home Range Core

AC# 0 - 0.5 - 0 - 0.5 - 0 - 0.5 0.5 - 1.3 0 - 0.5 mile 0.5 - 1.3 mile 0 - 0.5 mile 0.5-1.3 mile 0.5 1.3 0.5 1.3 0 - 0.5 mile 0.5 - 1.3 mile mile mile mile mile mile mile

NRF PFF1 NRF PFF1 NRF PFF1 NRF PFF1 NRF NRF NRF NRF NRF NRF NRF PFF1 NRF PFF1

Horse Creek – Robinson

KL1150 426 0 1,652 75 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 426 0 1,652 75 KL1152 316 0 1,374 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 19 112 0 2 316 0 1,374 11 KL1153 463 0 1,647 118 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 53 0 0 463 0 1,647 118 KL1154 436 0 1,788 246 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 436 0 1,788 246 KL1160 8 9 825 36 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 9 825 36 KL1161 389 2 1,459 91 0 0 0 13 0 0 0 62 0 0 389 2 1,459 78 KL1163 194 11 785 104 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 194 11 785 104 KL0149 249 12 795 19 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 0 0 249 12 795 19 KL0253 226 0 1,782 39 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 29 0 0 226 0 1,782 31 KL4132 430 29 1,648 172 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 20 0 0 430 29 1,648 165 KL4149 190 11 725 129 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 32 0 0 190 11 725 129 KL4149 224 0 810 41 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 52 2 0 224 0 810 41 B

76

Batched Re-initiation and Post-fire Consultation Wildlife Biological Assessment

Seiad-Horse and Oak Post-fire Projects______The estimated direct and indirect effects from the newly proposed, post-fire Seiad-Horse project and Oak Roadside Hazard project are described below. Acres of habitat affected by treatments and their subsequent effects to NSO habitat are displayed in tables 22, 23, and 24 below following the description of effects. Only roadside hazard tree abatement is proposed for the Oak project. All other treatments described below refer to the actions proposed in the Seiad-Horse project.

Effects to Individual NSO Surveys are intended to reduce the possibility of direct harm and/or disturbance that could result from implementing project activities (i.e. felling trees, removing understory fuels) within an area occupied by NSO during the reproductive period when owls are less mobile and therefore less capable of moving away from a source of disturbance. If NSO are detected, adverse impacts would be avoided by shifting operations that occur within the core area of the detected bird to after July 10 (or July 31 for prescribed burning). If nesting is detected or suspected, the operations are shifted to after September 15, when both breeding adults and fledgling young are mobile, as this time frame is generally accepted among the FWS, the USFS and research biologists as the end of the reproductive period for NSO and is used by the FWS during consultation (based on review of years of research and professional expertise). Disturbance from Noise and Smoke Activities associated with fuels treatments, hazard tree removal, salvage harvest, site preparation and planting, and large woody debris improvement may cause noise and/or smoke levels to rise above ambient levels. If these treatments were to occur within 0.25 miles of unsurveyed, suitable nesting/roosting habitat (or foraging habitat used for nesting )during the NSO breeding season, they have the potential to affect NSO breeding success by causing loud and continuous noise disturbance and/or smoke disturbance to NSO. Ground based and cable yarding harvest equipment typically creates noise above ambient levels and at times, the combination of equipment use may create noise levels well above ambient levels. This noise usually occurs during the daytime hours and can last for a few days. For any given acre of tree harvest, the duration of noise generating activity is relatively short (i.e. days). In some situations, the noise could last for a longer duration (i.e. weeks) because of the position of the treatment (i.e. across a drainage or on top of a ridge) and the number of acres being treated. However, the application of the restricted operating period described above in the project design features (Table 7), in addition to the extensive NSO surveys, are intended to alleviate the possibility of noise disturbance to NSO during the breeding season from project activities. Log trucks and other service vehicles associated with harvest activities are likely to travel Forest roads frequently during operations. Log trucks are more limited to maintenance level 2 and higher roads as these higher level roads tend to connect to other roads and provide a better surface for travel. Level 1 roads are more commonly dead-end roads that do not connect to another road. There are maintenance level 1 roads that will be used to access treatment units but these roads will generally be traveled only during the harvest of the unit(s). A subset of maintenance level 2 and 3 77

Batched Re-initiation and Post-fire Consultation Wildlife Biological Assessment roads will likely be used at a much higher frequency because there are limited number of roads that enter any given drainage and provide more direct access to and from county and state roads. Although the exact maximum number of trucks that may travel in drainage per day is unknown, a typical main road in a drainage may experience up to 20 truckloads a day associated with project implementation, not counting those associated with private land activities. Depending on the amount of work, a given drainage may experience log trucks for days or weeks over a year. These trucks typically only operate during daytime hours when NSO are far less likely to be active. The project design features in Table 7 do not restrict the timing of truck travel/loading or other vehicle travel on the roadways in the project. Using field observations of logging operations in the adjacent drainages to estimate noise for this project, trucks transporting harvested trees in adjacent drainages have produced noise above ambient levels but the noise was not continuous. Usually trucks are loaded one at a time with logs thus logistically trucks are not continuously traveling through a given drainage; trucks are more commonly traveling more sporadically so the noise is more intermittent. Given the lower level of noise of log trucks heard commonly in adjacent projects and the moderate number of trucks traveling in the drainage, the overall level of disturbance to NSO is likely low and the duration of the noise in a drainage is likely to occur intermittently over a few days or weeks in a year. Underburning is proposed across a large proportion of the project area (see map in Appendix D). This action would have a limited operating period when located within a core area or within 0.25 miles of unsurveyed suitable habitat in order to avoid the sensitive reproductive period. Thus disturbance to nesting NSO is not expected. The project is proposing to burn activity generated fuels within treatment units that will produce smoke within or near (0.25 mile) NSO habitat outside of any restricted operating period; this may result in smoke occurring near nesting NSO, particularly if the smoke is concentrated near the ground in an area used by NSO. The methods to burn activity generated fuels are largely dependent on the amount, distribution, and size of the fuels, but for this project, piling6 and burning is most likely to occur. Piles are most commonly burned during the wetter months of the year, typically November through March, but this timing can vary depending on the amount and duration of the precipitation occurring in the given year. Pile burning is commonly short in duration and small in magnitude; typically, a small number of piles are burned over a couple days in a given drainage. Given the timing of burning, smoke may cause a minor amount of disturbance in small localized areas. But in general, a small amount of smoke would occur over a short period of time, but would not be of a magnitude that would cause a meaningful level of effect. Large woody debris placement and legacy sediment site repair are two other types of management actions that will create loud and continuous noise where implemented. These actions will create high noise levels in areas where treatments are planned. For the large woody debris placement, the proposed treatments would use helicopters to place logs collected from log decks located along

6 The use of chainsaws or other equipment to cut the fuels will follow the project design features in Table 7. 78

Batched Re-initiation and Post-fire Consultation Wildlife Biological Assessment roads in close enough proximity to the target stream segment to enable the helicopter to travel between the placement sites and the decks. Helicopter noise will be much louder than ambient levels during operations and has the potential to cause disturbance to any NSO that may be nesting or roosting within areas well over 0.25 miles away. For sediment site repair, trucks and heavy equipment would be used to remove old culverts and install ones, dump gravel, and dig ditches/channels. Noise generated by these actions would also be above ambient levels. However, these actions would be localized to the general area of implementation and would be of a short duration; from between a half day to a few days in length. Effects from these types of disturbance are minimized through the use of limited operating periods during the reproductive period and protocol surveys prior to implementation. Therefore, direct effects to nesting NSO are expected to be avoided. Effects to NSO that may use these areas for foraging would be somewhat offset by the time of day that operations would occur, as operations would occur during daylight hours and in general NSO forage at night. However, the proposed activities are inherently noise-generating actions and would cause at least some level of disturbance wherever they are implemented; to what degree normal NSO activities would be disrupted outside of the nesting season is unknown, but impacts to NSO will be reduced to the extent practicable.

Disturbance from Hazard Tree Removal Dead or fire injured, dying trees that are likely to fall and impact a Forest system road or that have been determined to have a 70 or 90 percent or greater chance of mortality within the next 3 to 5 years due to fire damage (as indicated by “Marking Guidelines for Fire Injured Trees”; Smith and Cluck 2011) will be felled and left on site or the hazard tree will be harvested and removed (see specifics on marking guidelines in the proposed action section). The majority of trees to be harvested occur within areas of high and moderate fire severity (RAVG grid code 3 and 4), and generally within larger blocks of high tree mortality and are therefore not within areas considered NSO nesting/roosting or foraging habitat. Treatments in these areas would remove PFF or non- habitat. The potential for direct effects to NSO from treatment in these areas is reduced due to pre- implementation protocol surveys, restricted operating periods, and the low likelihood that NSO would be using these areas for nesting and so would be capable of moving away from disturbance- generating activities, as described below. Areas indicated by RAVG as grid code 2 had lower severity fire and are presumed to contain fewer fire-killed trees; though these areas are indicated as having between 25 to 50 percent basal area lost, which resulted in varying levels of tree mortality. Acres of grid code 2 may be indicated as suitable habitat, due to a lack of more severe fire effects, or they may be included in a roadside hazard unit, due to a small pocket of mortality that may have occurred along the road. Generally, NSO habitat that has burned with grid code 2 continues to serve as habitat and remains within the category to which it was assigned (i.e. nesting/roosting or foraging) post-fire. Treatments in grid code 2 have an increased potential for direct effects due to the increased likelihood that an NSO may occur in areas of suitable NRF in the areas immediately surrounding the treated areas.

79

Batched Re-initiation and Post-fire Consultation Wildlife Biological Assessment

Grid code 1 is indicative of a range from 0 to 25 percent basal area lost and so is either unburned or slightly burned to the degree that very minimal change is detected in the overstory canopy or basal area. These areas are less likely to contain fire-killed trees, and as a result, would have very few, if any, trees removed. Within these low severity areas, there is a small chance that an occasional tree (or small pocket of trees) may have been killed by the fire and would therefore be identified as a hazard to the road, but this is expected to be infrequent and only occur sporadically across the project area. RAVG mapping for the Abney fire was not able to capture the delayed mortality occurring along roadsides in the project area. Because RAVG data is modeled as a snap shot at the time relatively soon following the fire, it does not account for delayed tree mortality that may result from site specific conditions such as heat stress, drought stress, or impacts from beetles and may not therefore fully capture all mortality that may occur post fire. Mortality guidelines do capture delayed tree mortality and the use of these guidelines for marking fire-killed trees is therefore likely to capture the delayed tree mortality alongside roads in the project area that may or may not be indicated by RAVG. So, where RAVG data may indicate that no basal area loss occurred as a result of the fire at the time the RAVG data was gathered (i.e. grid code 0), additional mortality has occurred in some areas since that time and these dead/dying trees would be targeted for removal if they could fall and hit the road. The majority of the hazard trees marked within the project area are fire killed trees that meet the Mortality Guidelines (Smith and Cluck 2011). Although, a small proportion of hazard trees are not fire killed and thus do not meet these Mortality Guidelines, but are instead identified as high hazard potential trees based on criteria outlined in the Regional Hazard Tree Marking Guidelines. The occurrence of high hazard potential trees in low burn severities or unburned habitat is possible though less common in the action area than fire killed trees. There is a low likelihood that an NSO may be nesting within a high hazard potential tree slated for removal because protocol surveys will be completed prior to implementation and it is assumed that nesting NSO will be detected and avoided during the nesting season. In addition, where hazard trees are located along level 3, and higher, roads there is a lower likelihood that NSO are using these for nesting because of their location in areas with higher volume of traffic and noise. It is more likely that an NSO would use hazard trees within high and moderately burned areas for foraging, and may use some of the fire killed trees as perches for hunting or resting, and may therefore be disturbed by the activities associated with implementation. We estimate that the act of removing perch sites is unlikely to cause a meaningful level of disturbance to an NSO that may be using the area due to the overall abundance of available perch sites in the area. In summary, the potential effects of roadside hazard tree removal treatments are minimized by: o Protocol surveys - all roads targeted for hazard tree removal would receive protocol surveys prior to implementation; if NSO are detected, a restricted operating period from Feb. 1 to July 9 is in place for all actions along the segment of road that crosses the 80

Batched Re-initiation and Post-fire Consultation Wildlife Biological Assessment

occupied core of the detected bird. If NSO are determined or suspected to be using an area for nesting, a restricted operating period from February 1 to September 15 will be applied to all treatments within the core of the known or suspected nest stand. Because surveys are generally conducted from the road, there is an improved chance of detecting NSO nesting near a targeted road or nearby. o Low likelihood of use of fire killed trees for nesting - the majority of the hazard tree removal would occur within areas of high and moderate fire severity, where NSO are least likely to be using trees targeted for removal for nesting or roosting (see description above of NSO use of post-fire landscapes); therefore the potential to directly impact an NSO with hazard tree removal is subsequently reduced. It is more plausible that NSO could be using the burned areas (i.e. PFF) along roads, particularly lower level roads, for foraging or dispersing, depending in large part on the presence and juxtaposition of nearby suitable, unburned (or lightly burned) habitat that would offer cover to foraging NSO. o Large proportion of higher maintenance level of roads treated - maintenance level 3 roads, and higher, have a lower likelihood of use by NSO due to the increased level of traffic and subsequent disturbance. Therefore, hazard tree removal along these roads is expected to have a lower level of impact to NSO than treatment on roads with low levels of traffic. While some of the direct effects to individual NSO are reduced for the reasons listed above, the risk to NSO from the felling of trees and snags of all sizes, ages, and decay classes regardless of their location on the landscape has inherent risks to any NSO that may be occupying the area and using the trees that are deemed a hazard. This is particularly true if the hazard occurs in suitable habitat and/or in an area of increased use by NSO such as when a road crosses through a core or home range. Much of the risk can be mitigated through pre-implementation surveys, but there is no guarantee that an NSO would not be directly impacted by hazard tree removal; though risk of this occurring has been minimized to the extent practicable.

Effects to NSO Habitat Proposed treatments that have the most potential for indirect effects to NSO habitat in the analysis area are salvage harvest, roadside hazard tree removal, WUI and fuels treatments. Site prep and planting does not generally occur within NSO habitat, as described below. Large woody debris improvement and legacy sediment site treatments would not affect suitable NSO habitat.

Table 20 displays the crosswalk with which effects to habitat were established, both for individual treatments and where treatments overlap, causing additive impacts to the habitat where they co- occur. The crosswalk in the table shows the effects resulting from each type of treatment and overlapping hazard tree removal. The affected habitat may be removed, degraded, maintained, downgraded or downgraded to dispersal habitat depending on the type of treatment and the burn severity in which it occurs. Table 24 displays the acres of NSO habitat affected by the proposed activities and the percent change in the quantity or the change in quality (i.e. downgraded to

81

Batched Re-initiation and Post-fire Consultation Wildlife Biological Assessment dispersal) to the habitat affected. Effects to NSO habitat are summarized in Table 22, 23, and 24 below to reflect the process of this crosswalk for each post-fire project.

Table 20: Crosswalk for establishing the effects of post-fire management actions to NSO habitat both individually and in combination with other treatments. This table focuses on effects to habitat and does not reflect potential effects from disturbance or any other source of direct effects. Roadside Hazard Tree Roadside Hazard Tree No overlapping Removal 1 and 2 Treatment Removal 1 and 2 Treatment (RAVG grid codes 0, 1 & (RAVG grid codes 3 & 4) 2) Downgrade to Dispersal Downgrade to Dispersal Fuel Management Zone Remove PFF Habitat* Habitat* Fuels reduction adjacent to private property Downgrade Downgrade Remove PFF (WUI) 1 Fuels reduction adjacent to private property Maintain Degrade Remove PFF (WUI) 2 Salvage Harvest with site Remove PFF Remove PFF Remove PFF preparation and planting Maintain NRFD Degrade NRFD

Site Prep and Planting Maintain^ Degrade Remove PFF

Underburning Maintain*^ Degrade Remove PFF

Stream Improvement No effect Degrade Remove PFF

Landings Downgrade Downgrade Remove PFF

Temporary Roads Downgrade Downgrade Remove PFF

No Treatment No Effect Degrade Remove PFF

*Nesting/roosting and foraging habitat that overlaps this treatment will be downgraded to dispersal habitat. Dispersal habitat will remain dispersal habitat. ^ Although suitable habitat may occur within some of the SPP units, treatments are not designed to effect aspects of the habitat that would change its suitability. *^ A temporary change to prey habitat may result from underburning through the modification of the herbaceous understory where it has already been modified by the most recent fires; but, the habitat is expected to continue to function in the same capacity it was prior to treatment, thus the treatment is indicated as ‘maintaining’ habitat.

Salvage Harvest with Site Preparation and Planting In determining which individual trees will be harvested, standing dead trees 14 inches in diameter at breast height or greater will be considered for salvage using the guidelines in Report #RO-11-01 “Marking Guidelines for Fire-Injured Trees in California” (Smith and Cluck, 2011). These guidelines 82

Batched Re-initiation and Post-fire Consultation Wildlife Biological Assessment were developed using peer-reviewed scientific literature to evaluate tree species in Northern California for mortality following a fire. The guidelines provide a sliding scale of the probability for tree mortality based on percent volume or length of crown scorched by fire. The responsible official has chosen to salvage trees with a 70 percent or greater chance of dying within the next 3 to 5 years. It is anticipated that most, but not all, of the trees within salvage units will be harvested because most units burned at moderate or high fire severity and consequently most trees have a high probability of mortality. There are several ways that trees or snags would be retained within salvage units: green tree retention (low fire severity or unburned) and retention patches, high value wildlife tree retention, and riparian reserves (based on proximity to streams channels or inner gorges). Retention areas may be comprised of patches of trees that burned at low or no fire severity (grid codes 0, 1 or 2) and may be delineated as individual patches of retention, or may be located in riparian reserves within the salvage units; these patches may contain NSO habitat and would not be harvested. Retention patches may also be comprised of forest that burned at high or moderate severity juxtaposed in a way that provides connectivity between other burned areas or between areas that burned at high/moderate severity with areas of unburned or low severity. Retention patches are often identified as PFF1 (see definition of PFF1 in ‘Methods’ above). PFF1 was selected in the delineation of retention patches in salvage units because it is assumed to contain not only the larger trees (since it is defined as previously suitable NRF), and subsequent cover and perch sites, but also to contribute to future stand development, so that when the large snags eventually fall, they would become large downed logs. These retention patches are important particularly in the larger salvage units in order to avoid the creation large openings devoid of snags and large downed logs that would be unlikely to be used by NSO. Where hazard trees occur within retention patches located adjacent to roads, they would be felled; though project design specifies that the larger trees (size is dependent on whether it is within a riparian reserve) would be left on site whole as large downed logs. Riparian reserve retention areas are based on proximity to stream channels or inner gorges regardless of burn severity or NSO habitat suitability, but are often comprised of larger trees due to improved soil and water conditions near stream channels. Riparian reserves are managed differently than the surrounding uplands to protect the aquatic ecosystem (Forest Plan page 4- 107). Riparian reserves are defined on the project scale based on the hillslope, and riparian and channel processes and are consequently divided into several possible categories, but the categories most pertinent to the design of retention areas in the project are: fish bearing streams; permanently flowing non-fish bearing streams; and seasonally flowing/ intermittent streams. The width of the riparian reserves is dependent upon the type of stream (permanent or intermittent) and whether the stream bears fish. Fish bearing streams have a width equal to the height of two site-potential trees, or 300 feet slope distance (600 feet total, including both sides of the stream channel), whichever is greatest. Permanently flowing streams have a width equal to the height of one site- potential tree, or 150 feet slope distance (300 feet total, including both sides of the stream channel), whichever is greatest. Intermittent streams have a width equal to the height of one site-potential tree, or 100 feet slope distance, whichever is greatest. The project area contains all three of types of 83

Batched Re-initiation and Post-fire Consultation Wildlife Biological Assessment riparian reserves in addition to other types described in the Forest Plan. Approximately 534 acres of retention patches and riparian reserve retention are distributed throughout the Seiad-Horse salvage harvest units. Table 21 below lists the acres of retention patches in the Seiad-Horse project.

Table 21: Riparian reserves and retention patches occurring in salvage harvest units (salvage is only proposed within the Seiad-Horse Project) Riparian Reserve Retention Patches in Salvage Unit size Sum of Salvage Unit (RR) in salvage salvage unit but (acres) Retention (acres) unit (acres) outside of RR (acres) 1 106 9 21 30 4 15 5 6 11 5 25 3 0 3 6 51 0 3 3 7 17 0 0 0 8 80 0 6 6 9 127 24 10 34 10 31 0 2 2 16 67 2 3 5 19 16 7 0 7 25 11 0 0 0 26 35 7 0 7 27 16 4 0 4 28 13 3 0 3 31 142 39 2 41 35 19 0 0 0 36 49 9 2 11 37 252 53 13 66 38 13 0 0 0 39 13 0 0 0 41 26 11 0 11 42 13 7 0 7 43 13 1 0 1 44 18 11 0 11 45 10 7 0 7 46 31 20 0 20 47 50 26 2 28 48 16 6 0 6 49 58 2 0 2 50 30 7 2 9 51 37 8 0 8 52 55 30 6 36 84 11 0 0 0 85 26 0 0 0 86 32 4 0 4

84

Batched Re-initiation and Post-fire Consultation Wildlife Biological Assessment

Riparian Reserve Retention Patches in Salvage Unit size Sum of Salvage Unit (RR) in salvage salvage unit but (acres) Retention (acres) unit (acres) outside of RR (acres) 87 92 17 7 24 89 13 0 0 0 90 75 0 72 72 91 52 19 3 22 92 33 6 10 16 93 26 11 3 14

According to the Seiad-Horse Project Environment Assessment, snags for wildlife will be retained based on 100-acre landscape areas according to numerical and diameter standards in the Forest Plan (p. 4-26). In any 100-acre area, snags within and outside salvage harvest units may contribute to these standards. Within harvest units, snags will be retained in all riparian reserves (stream and inner gorges) and in clumps in designated snag retention areas as necessary to meet these standards. Individual snags within harvest units will not be retained unless they have high quality habitat characteristics such as signs of decay and defect, cavities, broken or multiple tops, very large lateral branches and flattened canopy. In order to contribute to Recovery Action 12, very large snags that have these characteristics and are likely to persist until the next stand is capable of producing large snags should be retained wherever they occur, provided safety considerations can be addressed. If a wildlife snag must be felled for safety reasons, the entire tree will be left in place and will not be bucked into smaller logs. High value wildlife trees could be found in any of the retention patches or riparian reserves, or as individual trees anywhere in a unit; their location on the landscape is not currently mapped. Patches of snags/trees will help to provide cover for an NSO to move across the treatment unit from one area of unburned habitat to the next. These retention areas are intended to result in; a reduction in the overall size of openings and an increase in the connectivity between remaining suitable habitat; foraging options within post-fire habitat for NSO; and increased levels of snags and large downed logs for future stand development. For most salvage units, the combination of low fire severity retention patches, riparian reserves, and wildlife tree retention will reduce the size of openings (areas void of snags or trees) created by the salvage harvest which may increase the likelihood of an owl crossing the opening or using the area for foraging. Diffuse edges between habitats are reportedly used by NSO for foraging (Comfort 2013); possibly related to higher prey abundance (Clark 2007, Bond et al. 2009). Woodrats occupy a variety of habitats, but have been reported at high densities in early-seral habitat (brush/sapling) and late- successional forests (Sakai and Noon 1993). Early-seral habitat commonly develops after a high severity burn. Early-seral habitat adjacent to older forest may increase NSO access to woodrats, who travel between early-seral and older forest (Sakai and Noon 1997). Comfort (2013) suggested that a diffuse edge between these habitats could provide additional benefits to NSO for accessing prey. Where salvage harvest units have snag clumps retained, it will create an irregular, diffuse 85

Batched Re-initiation and Post-fire Consultation Wildlife Biological Assessment edge if sufficient amounts of low severity or unburned habitat is present. This diffuse edge would be created between the salvage harvest units that will develop into early seral-habitat and older forest (NR or F habitat) thus creating an opportunity for woodrat density increases. Diffuse edges that provide foraging opportunities will also be facilitated by the retention patches. Areas where fire burned most intensely, especially large patches of continuous moderate- and high- fire severity that do not have nearby cover available, are the least likely to be used by NSOs due to the lack of important habitat attributes such as canopy cover and distance from suitable habitat (see figures 1-5 above). These highly fire affected areas have very little NSO habitat or patches of green trees that would provide cover. Generally, most of the remaining habitat in these highly fire- affected areas is located in the riparian reserves on the lower third of the slope. Recent research on spotted owls indicated that the amount of forest with high canopy cover (>70%) was the primary driver of population growth and occupancy of a site at the scale of individual territories (Tempel et. al 2014). Without adequate canopy cover, spotted owls showed a higher probability of territory abandonment. In sites with high canopy cover, adult survival and territory colonization probabilities were high (Tempel et. al 2014). It is anticipated that salvage harvest units would contain snag retention clumps situated around riparian reserves, drainages, and groups of pre-existing snags that would offer cover adjacent to open areas for prey species. Not every acre within a salvage unit is expected to contain large woody debris after treatment; rather, a mosaic of downed logs of a variety of size and decay classes would provide a heterogeneous layer of cover/habitat for understory regeneration and subsequent prey habitat. As described above in the discussion of “NSO use of the post-fire landscape,” NSO have been observed in high severity burn areas in a variety of settings. In order to capture this aspect of NSO use patterns and foraging behavior and to quantify potential effects of the proposed activities, fire- affected habitat was delineated and analyzed in areas where NSO could be expected to use it. It is difficult to assess the amount of actual use and determine the value of severely burned habitat since precise information about these aspects of NSO habitat and biology is not available. However, these habitat types have been distinguished from other areas of burned forest due to their anticipated, possibly short-term, use by NSO. These habitats are distinguished from each other based on their pre-fire suitability and the severity with which they burned. Salvage Harvest in PFF Post-fire foraging (PFF1 and PFF2) habitat was delineated based on pre-fire habitat suitability and burn severity. PFF is comprised of nesting/roosting and foraging habitat that burned at moderate or high fire severity. A large proportion of PFF is pre-fire foraging habitat that burned at the highest severity and subsequently contains minimal amounts of structure or cover; high severity fire usually consumes most of the understory and branches of the trees that makeup the overstory, and removes the majority of the structure and/or cover within a stand, and is therefore considered the least likely to be used by NSO for foraging (see figures 1-4 above).

86

Batched Re-initiation and Post-fire Consultation Wildlife Biological Assessment

Due to the lack of cover or structure, it was assumed for this analysis that NSO would not use PFF that was too far from cover to escape possible predation. Although the exact maximum distance an owl might travel from the edge of suitable habitat into PFF to forage is unclear, we are assuming the likelihood that an owl will use PFF decreases as the distance from suitable habitat increases; consequently, the value of PFF for foraging will decrease as the distance from suitable habitat increases. After review of research on NSO use of edge habitat (Comfort 2013; Eyes 2014) and in consultation with Level 1 FWS biologists, and professional judgment, we assumed that PFF within a 500 foot buffer from existing, currently suitable NRF was the most likely type of PFF used by foraging owls. A minimum patch size of five acres of suitable NRF was used to delineate this buffer. This does not mean that owls would not use areas beyond 500 feet for foraging, but rather that the incidence of this is likely uncommon. The PFF that occurs within the 500 foot buffer was termed PFF1 (as described in the ‘Methods’ section). PFF2 was termed for PFF habitat that did not fall within the 500 foot buffer but was quantified for the purposes of tracking where burned habitat occurs in the project area and in Critical Habitat. As described in the Assumptions section above, NSO are assumed to be using fire-affected habitat for foraging during the short term, possibly a few years, depending on the time it takes for the branches and needles to fall off and/or fire killed trees to fall. NSO may find patches of unburned or lightly burned suitable habitat within their territories and concentrate their use in these areas, while venturing into the PFF to forage. The ability of an NSO to remain in their core or home range following a high severity fire depends in large part on the availability of these patches of still suitable habitat. The relative amount of suitable NRF habitat remaining post-fire will have a strong influence on the fitness and reproductive potential of the NSO at the affected site. The relative importance of the quantity and distribution of the PFF is unknown. Each activity center that has been affected by fire has a widely differing amount of these habitats. It is unknown how the removal of fire affected habitat will impact NSO that may occupy the affected areas. Each NSO in the action area is likely to respond differently to salvage of PFF depending on a wide variety of factors, with the primary factor being the current distribution and abundance of suitable habitat in their activity center. Salvage harvest units would contain snag retention clumps situated around riparian reserves, drainages, and groups of pre-existing snags that would offer cover and potential edge habitat between the unit and unburned areas in an attempt to offset the effects from the removal of the fire affected habitat and the creation of large openings. Without knowing the exact role that fire affected habitat plays in NSO fitness and fecundity, it is extremely difficult to establish the full extent of effects to NSO from the removal of this habitat. Inferences can be made, when considering the current research on NSO use of post-fire landscape, that when this habitat is present within core use areas (particularly if recently occupied) that it is likely used to some degree for foraging and its removal would constitute a reduction in foraging opportunity, at least in the short term. Snags and large downed logs in salvage units Large snags and large down logs are considered biological legacies in the post-fire environment and play an important role in the long term growth of the future stand (Thorn et al. 2017, Lindenmayer 87

Batched Re-initiation and Post-fire Consultation Wildlife Biological Assessment et al. 2008). Large snags and large down logs are also essential attributes for the development of the old forest ecosystem and associated species such as the NSO. Snags may stand for decades and in time, may become future nest trees as the regenerating forest nears maturity, although few large snags may be expected to remain intact by that time. Snag dynamics are complex and depend on many factors (Cluck and Smith 2007). Once recruited into coarse woody debris on the ground, it serves as an important element in owl habitat as part of many aspects in the life cycles of NSO prey (Verner et al. 1992). Thus, decaying wood serves different functional roles overtime, first providing cover for spotted owl prey in the complex early seral stage of the forest, and ultimately decaying and playing a critical role in soil development of older forests. Downed logs can enhance biodiversity by providing resources for a variety of taxonomic groups, but particularly for saproxylic species important to the development of NSO habitat (Thorn et al. 2017). Conducting salvage harvest in only portions of a wildfire, while retaining areas of burned forest for sources of snags and downed logs provides a benefit to the overall diversity of species in burned areas, particularly saproxylic invertebrates and fungi dependent on dead and downed wood and crucial to the restoration of older forest conditions and NSO habitat (Thorn et al. 2017). The removal of dead/dying trees and down woody material through salvage harvest reduces fuel loading, and the reduction in fuel loading may promote the development of old forest habitat. However, the effectiveness of salvage (and fuels) treatments proposed is difficult to predict and there is considerable uncertainty with how salvage logging influences future fire. A review of recent research on post-wildfire management and the associated controversy can be found in Long et al. (2014). Salvage harvest is controversial because few short-term positive ecological effects and many potential negative effects have been associated with post-fire logging (Long et al. 2014, Thorn et al. 2017). However, it is known that salvage harvest reduces fuel loading over time (i.e. as snags fall, large surface fuel loadings result) and reduced surface fuel loads may reduce soil and forest regrowth damage in a re-burn. The effect salvage logging has on re-burn fire severity of future mature forest habitat is highly variable depending on numerous factors including fuels treatments, fire management, climate and drought conditions. Re-burns in areas of previous high severity fire can lengthen the time for establishment of late successional forest needed for the reproductive success of the NSO (USDI 2011). However, as stated in the Fuels report, reducing fuel loads, especially activity generated fuels, is expected to reduce flame lengths and fire line intensities. Also, preventing high fuel loadings along roadsides is expected to play an important role in reducing fire severity in the developing mature forest habitat, especially where roads are identified as critical fire management features. Salvage harvest may provide some benefit to NSO in the project area by providing some method for reducing the size and effects of future high severity fire that can remove large portions of suitable NSO habitat for extended periods of time, though the degree of effectiveness of treatment is debated in current research.

88

Batched Re-initiation and Post-fire Consultation Wildlife Biological Assessment

In summary, according to the physical characteristics associated with NSO habitat, as defined in multiple peer reviewed documents including the NSO Revised Recovery Plan, severely burned habitat does not meet the characteristics of NSO habitat. Therefore, salvage harvest is not expected to represent a meaningful change in the availability of suitable nesting, roosting or foraging habitat. However, salvage harvest will remove substantial amounts of fire-affected habitat, though the degree to which NSO would be affected by this is relatively unknown and will likely be highly variable depending on habitat conditions within individual NSO territories. Based on the current research, we can anticipate some level of negative effects resulting from the removal of PFF, at least in the short-term. In addition, the effect of salvage harvest on fire behavior and management is controversial and debatable, but it may provide some benefit to NSO through the reduction of potential habitat loss from future high severity fire and the promotion of future habitat. Hazard Tree Removal For Seiad-Horse and Oak projects, data points were collected for hazard trees evaluated in the field; each hazard tree location in the sampled roadside hazard segments was recorded (using a global positioning system unit) and the total number of trees was tallied. According to hazard tree sampling data, the majority of the hazards occur within 125 feet on either side of the road. There are a few hazards that occur beyond 125 feet but those are not common, thus demonstrating that analyzing at the maximum distance a hazard may occur from a road (250 feet on either side of the road as described in the proposed action) would greatly overestimate the level of effects to NSO habitat resulting from roadside hazard abatement. Therefore, in order to estimate the acres of habitat affected it was assumed that where NRF habitat occurred within the 250 foot (125 ft. on either side of the road) hazard tree buffer that it would be degraded by hazard tree removal, by removing elements of the habitat (i.e. snags) that may be used by foraging NSO. Because NSO are not expected to use areas that have experienced high severity fire for nesting or roosting, the removal of the fire-killed trees along roads in high fire severity would not remove elements of nesting/roosting habitat. Treatments occurring within PFF, which remove all dead or dying trees affected by moderate and high fire severity, was assumed to remove PFF, as treatment would remove the large trees needed to provide physical structure for foraging NSO. A level of uncertainty arises from the estimate of acres of habitat within each AC degraded by hazard tree removal because accounting for effects from this action is derived by calculating the acres of suitable habitat that occur within a given hazard tree removal unit (125 ft. strip on either side of a road) and assigning those acres the label of ‘degraded’; however, outcomes for effect from this treatment are variable. It is entirely possible that any given acre of habitat estimated as being ‘degraded’ by hazard tree removal actually goes untreated due to either minimal, or a complete lack of, hazard trees present on that acre. In addition, when a hazard tree is removed from within suitable habitat it may or may not actually degrade that particular patch of habitat, especially if there are only a few hazards abated or if the hazard trees themselves were of low value as NSO habitat due to small size, poor juxtaposition on the landscape, decay class, etc.

89

Batched Re-initiation and Post-fire Consultation Wildlife Biological Assessment

Impacts from roadside hazard tree removal within post fire habitat are expected to be essentially the same as those described for salvage harvest, except that roadside hazard removal would more commonly occur in smaller units, since harvest would generally only occur within 125 feet on either side of the road, primarily in pockets of moderate and high fire severity. However, these harvest areas differ from salvage harvest in that roadside hazard removal units would not contain snag retention patches, high value wildlife trees or riparian reserve retention, as retaining these would defeat the purpose of removing hazards from along the road.

Hazard tree removal along low maintenance level, low traffic, dead end spur roads has the potential to negatively impact NSO that may occupy the affected area, particularly where treatments would occur in suitable NRF. NSO may be more likely to use habitat that occurs along spur roads within cores than they would be to use areas along main roads with a higher level of traffic and disturbance that could dissuade NSO use. Spur roads located within core areas will be part of the protocol surveys done prior to implementation and a restricted operating period will be in place, so the direct effects from this treatment are expected to be minimized. Felling hazard trees within post fire habitat will make them unavailable as future nest, roost, and perch sites as the future stand develops. Large fire killed trees removed in these areas would have been large downed logs if they were not removed through harvest; removing these large snags may have negative impacts to prey species that use downed logs and woody debris during many of their life stages. However, due to the project design, many of the larger snags will be felled but retained on site as large down wood depending on their location. Fire killed trees are generally more case hardened and do not contain the decay, defect, heart rot and cavities that a snag that occurred prior to the fire would have, and so lack the structural aspects of a nest or roost tree. In addition, fire killed trees commonly occur within areas of high and moderate severity fire where, as discussed above, NSO are unlikely to be nesting or roosting; and so their removal may be less impactful than removing large pre-fire snags. Some hazard tree removal units occur along roads within core areas and may negatively affect the NSO associated with that core. Impacts to NSO would be dependent on the current availability and distribution of habitat within their home range and core areas; so that ACs with sufficient NRF habitat would likely be less affected by the removal of relatively small amounts of PFF and/or individual hazard trees, whereas ACs that were heavily impacted by fire, would be more limited on habitat and the removal of even small amounts of fire-affected habitat may have an increased level of effect. Impacts to individual ACs are described and tabulated in the discussion on individual activity centers and in the tables below. Hazard tree removal in suitable habitat in home ranges and core areas has been accounted for in the individual activity center analysis of effects and is reflected in the overall determination of effect for each. Effects from hazard tree removal vary by project area. Large patches of hazard tree removal within areas burned at moderate/high severity, with subsequent impacts to PFF habitat, occur more 90

Batched Re-initiation and Post-fire Consultation Wildlife Biological Assessment frequently in the Seiad-Horse project area than in the Oak project area. In Seiad-Horse, effects from the Abney fire are more extensive, such that more habitat, and larger blocks of habitat, burned at moderate and high severity. Impacts to NSO activity centers in the Seiad-Horse from moderate and high severity fire are more widespread and affect a larger proportion of each fire-affected activity center. Consequently, more hazards were created by high severity fire along the road network in the Seiad-Horse analysis area. Hazard tree removal in the Seiad-Horse analysis area is likely to adversely affect multiple activity centers by removing large patches of PFF; and, when done in conjunction with other overlapping treatments, may remove substantial amounts of important stand elements in the form of large snags and potential large down wood as well as simplifying the stand structure to the point where NRF habitat would be degraded. Whereas, in the Oak project area, fewer ACs, and a lower proportion of each of AC, were impacted by high severity fire; which resulted in fewer hazard trees. So, overall, within each AC in the Oak analysis area there is less hazard tree removal. Hazard tree removal is spread across the watershed and is generally concentrated in smaller pockets affected by fire. Roadside hazard removal in the Oak project area consists of narrow, linear units that have no overlapping treatments. In general, large openings are not created in suitable habitat that would represent a gap in cover large enough to be a deterrent for use by an NSO. In addition, because of a burn pattern represented by smaller patch size and extent of high severity fire in the Oak project area, there is a reduced likelihood that the owls in the area have shifted their habitat use patterns as a result of the fire. Therefore, it is more likely that most of the NSO in the Oak analysis area would continue to use their pre-fire core and home range, as long as sufficient levels of suitable habitat are present. Of the eleven ACs in the Oak analysis area, only one activity center (KL4217) is expected to have shifted away from the original delineation of the core area due to extensive high severity fire throughout most of the core. Impacts to the NSO from roadside hazard removal in the Oak analysis area are reduced, as compared to the Seiad-Horse project area, due to the lack of the compounding effects from overlapping management actions, smaller size of high severity burn patches (and subsequently smaller roadside hazard unit size), lack of fragmentation from private land harvest, limited amount of zigzagging road treatments within activity centers, and fewer overall hazard trees removed. The reduction in the total number of roads proposed for hazard tree removal from the original proposed action, in addition to the removal of treatment from most of the spur roads within core areas, resulted in a substantial reduction in effects to NSO habitat from hazard tree removal in the Oak project area. Some stand elements within PFF habitat, as well as elements within unburned or lightly burned NRF, will be removed through hazard tree removal but the overall impact to the NSO within the Oak analysis area is expected to be minimal. Fuels Reduction Adjacent to Private Property – also referred to as Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) Prescriptions Two different prescriptions were developed for the purpose of reducing effects to NSO by retaining more vegetation/habitat components. The prescriptions differ by the changes to the size of the live 91

Batched Re-initiation and Post-fire Consultation Wildlife Biological Assessment and dead trees to be cut and the spacing of the live trees remaining after treatment. WUI Prescription 1 will be applied to the fuel unit that occur outside larger patches of nesting/roosting and foraging in the Seiad-Horse project area. WUI Prescription 2 will be applied to the fuel unit segments inside larger patches of nesting/roosting or foraging habitat. These two prescriptions are described in more detail above in the Proposed Activities section. Effects to NSO habitat from these treatments are as follows: WUI Prescription 1 WUI Prescription 1 the most NRF and based on the size and spacing of the trees proposed for removal, this prescription has the most potential to alter habitat characteristics favored by NSO when it occurs within suitable habitat. It is estimated that when this activity occurs within currently suitable NRF habitat it would be downgraded; this would occur on 6 acres of NRF within the Seiad-Horse project area. This fuels prescription cuts the largest diameter live trees (up to 12 inches dbh) and snags (up to 12 inches dbh) and would therefore have the potential to remove or modify some portions of overstory structure. While this prescription removes live conifers only up to 12 inches, in some areas this may constitute a large enough portion of the mid and over story that treatment may impact the overall canopy cover. This treatment also uses 25 foot spacing for retention of remaining live vegetation. The combination of mid story tree removal and wider spacing may constitute enough of an alteration of the understory that the habitat will likely become too open for NSO to find suitable microclimates, thus reducing the quality of the habitat in the treated areas. In addition, when this treatment occurs within suitable NRF, cutting small diameter hardwoods (up to 6 inches dbh), leaving a 20 to 25 foot spacing, is likely to modify the understory structure and cover to the point where it is in an unsuitable condition for prey to find food and cover; thus impacting the accessibility and abundance of foraging opportunities for NSO that may occur in these areas.

WUI Prescription 2 However, while this prescription is similar to WUI Prescription 1 in that it modifies the understory structure for prey, thus impacting foraging opportunities for NSO, it only removes live conifers up to 8 inches dbh and snags up to 10 inches dbh. It is therefore estimated that this prescription will maintain currently suitable NRF habitat. Where WUI Prescriptions 1 and 2 occur in PFF it is estimated that this habitat type will be removed, as dead conifers up to either 12 inches dbh (WUI 1) or 10 inches dbh (WUI 2) would be removed. Areas of PFF where these treatments occur will be modified throughout the stand and what cover may have been left following the fire is unlikely to be present following implementation of WUI treatments. Developing and Maintaining Fuels Management Zones (FMZ) WUI treatments and FMZ fuels treatments would result in very similar effects to NSO habitat. These treatments are intended to break up the fuel continuity to provide effective breaks for fire 92

Batched Re-initiation and Post-fire Consultation Wildlife Biological Assessment control and suppression. These treatments would remove most of the small trees and shrubs that provide cover habitat for prey species, prune limbs of larger trees, and cut and masticate all snags that occur within the width of the FMZ. However, this treatment is not proposed within any currently suitable NRF habitat and would therefore have no impacts to NSO habitat. Where this treatment occurs in PFF it would remove this habitat. Underburning Underburning in suitable NRF habitat does not target overstory canopy, though it may somewhat simplify the understory structure. Underburning is tied to specific burn prescriptions that are typically related to fuel moisture content and other weather related conditions that allow for enough control of the timing and conditions as to result in a typically accurately applied burn. Generally, an underburn will consume most of the fine fuels (e.g. leaf litter) in a mosaic pattern, but occasionally a flare-up may occur and consume small trees. In rare occurrences, an underburn may create enough heat to kill a tree that is contributing to canopy cover. Despite these infrequent alternations to the overstory, the overall effect would not result in a degrading or downgrading of suitable NSO habitat. In addition, underburning would result in the regeneration of new growth in understory herbaceous vegetation and a subsequent increase in the amount of food and cover for NSO prey. It is in this way that underburning is considered to maintain and/or improve NSO habitat.

Site Preparation and Planting Forest stands selected for site preparation and tree planting only are predominately conifer (mostly pine) plantations composed of standing dead (primarily fire killed) trees generally under 16 inches in diameter at breast height. Both manual and mechanical methods would be used to cut or masticate standing dead trees depending on slope steepness, accessibility and feasibility. Activity-generated fuels would be treated using a variety of methods including piling and burning, underburning, or lopping and scattering. Reforestation would be accomplished by directly planting nursery-grown seedlings or by allowing natural regeneration. Tree species and spacing would depend on a variety of environmental factors, including considerations of climate change, elevation, slope steepness, slope position, aspect, and soil productivity. Reforestation would avoid creation of densely stocked plantations that would prevent the reintroduction of low intensity prescribed fire at a later date. The proposed planting prescription of trees is typically a minimum spacing of 12 feet between seedlings. The seedlings have an estimated probability of mortality of about 40-50% thus increasing the spacing between seedlings when mortality occurs. The seedlings will be planted after the fuels are reduced to meet desired fuels conditions in the salvage harvest and site preparation and plant units. No herbicide will be used to control shrubs in the project, but proposed treatments may post-pone shrub growth (i.e. fuels treatment) or interrupt shrub growth in small pockets (i.e. possible hand treatment around seedlings).

93

Batched Re-initiation and Post-fire Consultation Wildlife Biological Assessment

The goal for planted areas is to have a variable spaced conifer stand with a mix of species, densities and distribution. In general, understory brush will naturally regenerate in areas where grubbing around seedlings does not occur. Seedling survival rates and competition from brush species will create a natural mosaic of species and stocking densities. Plantations are not typically used by NSO possibly because of the relatively dense pattern of trees that would be difficult for an NSO to fly through for foraging. Given the small size of the trees in the plantations, NSO are not likely to have used these areas for nesting or roosting prior to the fire; and post-fire NSO are even less likely to use these areas for nesting or roosting. There is a possibility that NSO may use the edges of these areas if prey becomes more accessible after the fire, where openings were created. No NRF habitat would be affected by these treatments. Only 17 acres of marginal habitat are identified within treatment areas; these acres would be maintained in their current role and not degraded or downgraded; 10 acres of PFF1 would be removed. Treatment units will likely have a variety of stages of early seral vegetation that may diversify food sources for foraging for NSO with a wide-range of vegetation conditions. Overall, NSO will have diverse habitat types to forage within, the species and density of which will to reflect the habitat type. Effects to NSO prey are presented in the section below (Effects on prey, competitors, and predators).

Table 22: Acres of habitat affected by treatment type within Seiad-Horse Project analysis area. Overlap occurs across treatment units that results in the appearance of increased acres of treatment. Nesting/Roosting and Foraging PFF 1 PFF 2 Dispersal NSO habitat within Seiad- 8,456 1,386 701 3,407 Horse Analysis Area NRF NRF NRF NRF PFF 1 PFF 2 Dispersal Dispersal Dispersal Treatment Type Removed Downgraded Degraded Maintained Removed Removed Removed Degraded Maintained (acres) (acres) (acres) (acres) (acres) (acres) (acres) (acres) (acres) Salvage Harvest 0 0 0 54 297 315 0 0 72 Roadside Hazard 0 0 282 0 56 73 0 102 0 Only Fuels reduction adjacent to 0 6 0 0 5 1 0 0 35 private land (WUI) 1 Fuels reduction adjacent to 0 0 0 45 1 0 0 0 2 private land (WUI) 2 Fuel Management 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 9 Zone (FMZ) Site preparation 0 0 0 17 10 13 0 0 8 and plant Stream 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Improvement

94

Batched Re-initiation and Post-fire Consultation Wildlife Biological Assessment

Underburn 0 0 0 1,320 338 131 0 0 365

Landings 0 4 0 0 5 8 5 0 0

Temporary Roads 0 0 0 0 1 2 1 0 0

Table 23: Acres of habitat affected by treatment type within Oak Project analysis area. Nesting/Roosting and Foraging PFF 1 PFF 2 Dispersal NSO habitat within the Oak 15,738 1,157 459 12,192 Project Analysis Area NRF NRF NRF NRF PFF 1 PFF 2 Dispersal Dispersal Dispersal Treatment Type Removed Downgraded Degraded Maintained Removed Removed Removed Degraded Maintained (acres) (acres) (acres) (acres) (acres) (acres) (acres) (acres) (acres)

Roadside Hazard 0 0 375 0 17 1 0 390 0 Only

Table 24: Acres of habitat affected by each project for the Seiad-Horse Project, Oak Project, and Horse Creek- Robinson analysis areas. The acres in this table account for the overlapping treatments. Percentages of habitat represent the proportion of available habitat within the analysis area that would be treated.

NRF NRF NRF NRF PFF 1 PFF 2 Dispersal Dispersal Dispersal Removed Downgraded Degraded Maintained Removed Removed Removed Degraded Maintained (acres) (acres) (acres) (acres) (acres) (acres) (acres) (acres) (acres)

Seiad-Horse Project

Acres of habitat and 0 10 282 1, 436 714 543 6 102 491 Percent Change in (0%) (<1%) (3%) (15%) (38%) (67%) (<1%) (3%) (12%) NSO Habitat in Analysis Area Oak Project

Acres of habitat and 0 0 375 0 17 1 390 0 Percent Change in 0 (0%) (0%) (0%) (2%) (0%) (1%) (<1%) (3%) (0%) NSO Habitat in Analysis Area Horse Creek - Robinson 95

Batched Re-initiation and Post-fire Consultation Wildlife Biological Assessment

Acres of habitat and 0 205 2 13 4 0 30 23 Percent Change in 0 (0%) (0%) (3%) (<1%) (5%) (2%) (0%) (2%) (1%) NSO Habitat in Analysis Area

Combined Effects to Individual Activity Centers from Multiple Management Actions The purpose of this portion of the analysis is to determine the level of anticipated effects resulting from the proposed activities for each activity center which will result in a determination of: 1) “likely to adversely affect” (LAA); 2) “may affect, but not likely to adversely affect” (MANLAA); or 3) “no effect” (NE) assigned to each activity center for the purpose of identifying which ACs are at most risk of negative effects from proposed management actions. Each activity center was analyzed for effects to habitat from all post-fire treatment types individually as well as from the additive impact of multiple treatments in the same AC. Activity centers were also analyzed for effects from the other projects described in this batched BA, so that effects from treatments from Seiad-Horse and Horse Creek–Robinson projects were considered together with effects from the remaining actions for which consultation has been re-initiated in the Johnny O’Neil and Thom Seider projects, where they occur in the same activity centers. Activity centers in the Oak analysis area were affected by only one treatment (proposed post-fire roadside hazard), so no additive impacts from multiple projects are anticipated for that portion of the action area. The ACs in the rest of the action area were analyzed for additive effects from multiple treatments from different projects. Effects to individual ACs have the potential to be compounded by multiple types of treatment from more than one project proposed in the same AC. Where this occurs, the potential exists for additive effects to NSO which may be substantial, depending on the extent, location, and configuration on the landscape, of the treatments. Effects to individual ACs in this analysis were evaluated at the home range scale, rather than analyzing effects to the core area and home range separately. The home range scale was used because of the uncertainty regarding the current delineation of many of the ACs. This uncertainty is due to both the unknown effect of the wildfires on how NSO are using the post-fire landscape, in addition to the lack of consistent and/or recent surveys of the analysis areas that would inform the placement of the AC around known areas of concentrated use associated with reproductive behavior. Without knowing this information, we cannot presume that NSO are using their core areas as originally delineated if a large proportion of that core has been impacted by high severity fire. But, if the home range is at or above the recommended minimum levels of habitat, then the home range could be providing the habitat needed for a new core and the AC may then be capable of sustaining a single or reproductive pair. Without consistent, current survey data on reproductive success, levels of suitable habitat provide the basis by which to infer a higher reproductive potential of a given site.

96

Batched Re-initiation and Post-fire Consultation Wildlife Biological Assessment

Therefore, the effects analysis for individual NSO territories considered the whole home range as having the potential to provide habitat that could be used as a core area, in order to account for the potential for NSO to shift their habitat use patterns within their home range to areas less affected by high severity fire. Having abundant suitable habitat (i.e. at or above recommended levels) within their core and home range has been shown to impact NSO survival, fitness, and reproduction (Franklin et al 2000, Dugger et al. 2005, USDI 2008, USDI 2009). Sites with abundant habitat have an increased potential for the owls associated with that site to remain on site, continue to reproduce, and therefore contribute to the demographic support of the spotted owl population in the area, if present. Recent research on spotted owl reproductive success following high severity fire in their core use areas found that spotted owls tended to occupy sites where they were more likely to replace themselves and had a much lower tendency to be disturbed by natural or anthropogenic sources when they had been reproductively successful at that site in the past (Lee and Bond 2015b). Reproductively successful sites are generally those that contain a large proportion of high quality habitat in the core and home range. Therefore, each AC was evaluated and the overall amount of available NRF habitat within the home range and core area was calculated in order to establish whether an AC contains higher or lower than the recommended amounts of NRF habitat. An AC was considered to have a high level of habitat if it contained over 1,336 acres of NRF in the home range and core area combined. It was assumed that having a high level of habitat available in the core and home range improved the ability of the NSO in that AC to withstand impacts from management actions without suffering deleterious effects to reproduction or viability, and it was then possible that insignificant and discountable effects could occur as a result of management actions; though this result would be dependent upon other factors as well. An AC was considered to have a moderate level of habitat if it had between 665 and 1,336 acres of NRF in the home range and core area combined. It was assumed that having a moderate level of habitat in the AC influenced the ability of the NSO in that AC to withstand management actions, but there was an increased potential for negative effects to result from actions implemented in that AC due to the more limited availability of suitable habitat as compared to sites with high levels of habitat. An AC was considered as no longer viable as delineated if it contained less than 665 acres of NRF in the home range and core combined, due to the insufficient level of available suitable habitat. Effects from proposed management actions were evaluated based on their location within the remaining suitable habitat within the AC and the overall proportion of the remaining habitat that would be impacted. In addition, the estimated outcome to NRF habitat following implementation (i.e. degraded, downgraded, or removed) influenced the determination of effect for a given AC. As described above, when an AC has high, or at least sufficient, levels of habitat, it can be more capable of absorbing the loss or degradation of relatively small amounts of habitat, as is the case with many of the ACs in the action area. Whereas, an AC that is already near or below habitat minimums is more susceptible to effects from habitat loss and/or degradation; so that ACs with a lower levels of habitat and high amounts of treatment have more potential for adverse effects from the proposed management actions.

97

Batched Re-initiation and Post-fire Consultation Wildlife Biological Assessment

When an AC is low on habitat, but not at the point of a complete loss of viability, then a removal of any amount of habitat could be the tipping point that impacts viability of that site. It is important to note that this is not expected to occur as a result of the proposed projects since no NRF would be removed from any AC and only a total of 10 acres of NRF would be downgraded. However, substantial amounts of habitat are projected to be degraded by the proposed management actions in multiple ACs; where these actions occur in ACs with a high level of habitat, the degradation of this habitat would have some level of impact, but would not be expected to affect the viability of these territories. It is difficult to estimate the effects of treatments that degrade habitat when they occur within ACs that contain moderate levels of habitat. ACs with a moderate level of habitat may contain enough habitat to support an individual, since habitat minimums are set with regard to reproduction and not just occupation; thus treatments could have negative impacts to the ability of the NSO that may occur within these territories to reproduce by reducing the quality of the already limited available habitat, yet not necessarily influence occupation. Determining whether habitat is being degraded as a consequence of project treatments to the point where deleterious effects to the AC occur is somewhat speculative when consistent surveys have not been conducted and known presence/absence and reproductive history cannot be effectively compared and contrasted between pre- and post-implementation. The tipping point for the exact amount of habitat required within a given AC, at which point the viability of the territory is adversely affected, is unknown and would be very difficult to establish, especially when habitat is being degraded, but not removed. Two ACs in the Seiad-Horse analysis area (KL1160 and KL1159) and one in the Oak analysis area (KL4217) have been highly impacted by the past wildfires and subsequently have very low levels of habitat remaining in the core and home range – well below recommended habitat minimums. These ACs contain insufficient amounts of suitable habitat to persist and contribute to demographics as currently positioned, regardless of any treatment. There is no expectation that NSO are currently occupying these sites as delineated, or will occupy these sites in the near future, until habitat has had enough time to develop into suitable nesting/roosting and/or foraging habitat. Where habitat levels are already so low that a territory is not expected to be viable or occupied, then further loss or degradation of habitat is unlikely to cause additional impacts to NSO because these activity centers are not expected to be occupied in that location in the first place, as is the case with KL1160, KL1159 and KL4217. In addition, some of these depleted ACs are also surrounded by so little suitable habitat that there is no opportunity for a shifting of the territory to nearby areas of better habitat. In addition to effects to NRF habitat from past wildfires, several activity centers in the action area have multiple treatments from different management actions proposed within either the core or home range or both – see map in Appendix D and tables 25-29. Treatments may be near or adjacent to each other with a few areas of overlapping acres. For example, KL1154 core area contains a large amount of treatment proposed by the Johnny O’Neil project and the Horse Creek – Robinson project. KL1153 contains a large amount of treatment from Johnny O’Neil and some from Seiad-Horse and Horse Creek-Robinson in addition to containing private land that will very likely be harvested (see cumulative effects section). KL1161 has a large amount of treatment from Thom

98

Batched Re-initiation and Post-fire Consultation Wildlife Biological Assessment

Seider, as well as treatments from Horse Creek-Robinson and Seiad-Horse projects. It is because of this situation that this BA was written as a batched consultation and effects from overall treatment footprint within each activity center was emphasized within this analysis

99

Batched Re-initiation and Post-fire Consultation Wildlife Biological Assessment

Table 25: Summary of NSO habitat within the core and home range and the effects to habitat resulting from each of the proposed post-fire projects - acres cannot be totaled at the bottom of columns due to overlapping activity centers (AC).

100

Batched Re-initiation and Post-fire Consultation Wildlife Biological Assessment

Pre- Pre- Post- Post- Implementation Implementation Acres Implementation Acres Acres Acres Implementation Habitat within Habitat within Acres Removed Downgraded Habitat within Downgraded Degraded Maintained Habitat within Core Home Range to Dispersal Home Range Core AC# 0 - 0.5 mile 0.5 - 1.3 mile 0 - 0.5 mile 0.5-1.3 mile 0 - 0.5 - 0 - 0.5 - 0 - 0.5 - 0 - 0.5 - 0 - 0.5 mile 0.5 - 1.3 mile 0.5 1.3 0.5 1.3 0.5 1.3 0.5 1.3 NRF PFF1 NRF PFF1 NRF PFF1 NRF PFF1 NRFmile NRFmile NRFmile NRFmile NRFmile NRFmile NRFmile NRFmile NRF PFF1 NRF PFF1

Seiad-Horse Project KL1150 426 0 1,652 75 0 0 0 26 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 221 426 0 1,652 49 KL1152 316 0 1,374 11 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 14 0 242 316 0 1,374 2 KL1153 463 0 1,647 118 0 0 0 94 0 0 0 3 0 28 197 290 463 0 1,644 24 KL1154 436 0 1,788 246 0 0 0 151 0 0 0 3 0 9 114 322 436 0 1,785 95 KL1155 138 261 1,009 367 0 142 0 152 0 0 0 3 5 13 54 158 138 119 1,006 215 KL1159 66 16 265 99 0 12 0 91 0 0 0 0 11 39 50 165 66 4 265 8 KL1160 8 9 825 36 0 9 0 34 0 0 0 5 2 119 5 457 8 0 820 2 KL1161 389 2 1,459 91 0 2 0 25 0 0 0 1 34 143 144 295 389 0 1,458 66 KL1163 194 11 785 104 0 9 0 85 0 0 0 7 38 127 54 187 194 2 778 19 RSNF1 130 12 800 258 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 77 130 12 800 256 RSNF2 195 78 611 119 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 18 0 85 195 78 611 117 Oak Project KL0215 231 41 686 9 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 31 37 0 0 231 35 686 9 KL0216 307 8 547 153 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 23 39 0 0 307 5 547 153 KL0217 142 0 921 92 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 24 0 0 142 0 921 90 KL0251 257 0 981 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 0 0 257 0 981 3 KL0292 351 14 1,139 24 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 47 0 0 351 13 1,139 24 KL4210 248 0 1,109 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 95 0 0 248 0 1,109 3 KL4214 177 0 841 43 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 27 53 0 0 177 0 841 37 KL4215 197 0 991 44 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 68 0 0 197 0 991 44 KL4216 130 6 1,033 191 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 34 0 0 130 0 1,033 191 KL4217 19 56 884 158 0 6 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 19 50 884 157 101

Batched Re-initiation and Post-fire Consultation Wildlife Biological Assessment

KL4224 338 0 1,080 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 21 0 0 338 0 1,080 3 Horse Creek – Robinson KL1150 426 0 1,652 75 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 426 0 1,652 75 KL1152 316 0 1,374 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 19 112 0 2 316 0 1,374 11 KL1153 463 0 1,647 118 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 53 0 0 463 0 1,647 118 KL1154 436 0 1,788 246 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 436 0 1,788 246 KL1160 8 9 825 36 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 9 825 36 KL1161 389 2 1,459 91 0 0 0 13 0 0 0 0 0 62 0 0 389 2 1,459 78 KL1163 194 11 785 104 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 194 11 785 104 KL0149 249 12 795 19 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 0 0 249 12 795 19 KL0253 226 0 1,782 39 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 29 0 0 226 0 1,782 31 KL4132 430 29 1,648 172 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 20 0 0 430 29 1,648 165 KL4149 190 11 725 129 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 32 0 0 190 11 725 129 KL4149B 224 0 810 41 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 52 0 0 224 0 810 41

102

Batched Re-initiation and Post-fire Consultation Wildlife Biological Assessment

Summary of Effects to Individual Activity Centers from ALL Actions Analyzed in this BA In summary, of the 27 NSO activity centers in the action area, there are 11 ‘LAA’ determinations, 13 ‘MANLAA’ determinations, and 3 ‘NE’ determinations based on the effects from the proposed actions (see tables 26 - 28). Table 26: Summation of acres of habitat affected within the action area by the overall treatment footprint from the Seiad-Horse, Oak, Johnny O’Neil, Thom Seider, and Horse Creek-Robinson projects.

Nesting/Roosting and Foraging PFF 1 PFF 2 Dispersal NSO habitat within the 26,227 2,376 1,286 16,019 Action Area

NRF NRF NRF NRF PFF 1 PFF 2 Dispersal Dispersal Dispersal Treatment Removed Downgraded Degraded Maintained Removed Removed Removed Degraded Maintained Type (acres) (acres) (acres) (acres) (acres) (acres) (acres) (acres) (acres)

All Actions 0 10 1,624 2,027 533 477 6 789 373

103

Batched Re-initiation and Post-fire Consultation Wildlife Biological Assessment Table 27: Summary of NSO habitat within core areas and home ranges and the effects to habitat resulting from the proposed management actions. Effects are for the total treatment footprint regardless of which project the actions are associated to - acres cannot be totaled at the bottom of columns due to overlapping activity centers (AC).

Pre- Pre- Post- Post- Implementation Implementation Acres Implementation Acres Implementation Habitat within Habitat within Acres Removed Downgraded Acres Degraded Acres Maintained Habitat within Downgraded Habitat within Core Home Range to Dispersal Home Range Core

AC# 0 - 0.5 - 0 - 0.5 - 0 - 0.5 - 1.3 0 - 0.5 0.5 - 1.3 0 - 0.5 mile 0.5 - 1.3 mile 0 - 0.5 mile 0.5-1.3 mile 0.5 1.3 0.5 1.3 0.5 0 - 0.5 mile 0.5 - 1.3 mile mile mile mile mile mile mile mile mile NRF PFF1 NRF PFF1 NRF NRF NRF NRF NRF NRF NRF PFF1 NRF PFF1 NRF PFF1 NRF PFF1 NRF NRF

Seiad-Horse, Horse Creek-Robinson, Johnny O’Neil, and Thom Seider Projects

KL1150 426 0 1,652 75 0 0 0 26 0 0 0 0 0 24 4 503 426 0 1,652 49 KL1152 316 0 1,374 11 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 124 178 73 527 316 0 1,374 2 KL1153 463 0 1,647 118 0 0 0 94 0 0 0 3 0 192 444 525 463 0 1,644 24 KL1154 436 0 1,788 246 0 0 0 151 0 0 0 3 0 36 236 612 436 0 1,785 95 KL1155 138 261 1,009 367 0 142 0 152 0 0 0 3 2 13 55 176 138 119 1,006 215 KL1159 66 16 265 99 0 12 0 91 0 0 0 0 11 37 50 167 66 4 265 8 KL1160 8 9 825 36 0 9 0 34 0 0 0 5 2 132 5 587 8 0 820 2 KL1161 389 2 1,459 91 0 2 0 38 0 0 0 1 47 214 326 686 389 0 1,458 53 KL1163 194 11 785 104 0 9 0 85 0 0 0 7 38 138 57 353 194 2 778 19 KL0149 249 12 795 19 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 48 0 63 249 12 795 19 KL0253 226 0 1,782 39 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 2 156 0 35 226 0 1,782 31 KL4132 430 29 1,648 172 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 12 75 0 37 430 29 1,648 165 KL4149 190 11 725 129 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 40 0 2 190 11 725 129 KL4149B 224 0 810 41 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 110 2 13 224 0 810 41

104

Batched Re-initiation and Post-fire Consultation Wildlife Biological Assessment

RSNF1 130 12 800 258 0 0 0 75 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 77 130 12 800 183 RSNF2 195 78 611 119 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 18 0 85 195 78 611 45 Oak Project KL0215 231 41 686 9 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 31 37 0 0 231 35 686 9 KL0216 307 8 547 153 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 23 39 0 0 307 5 547 153 KL0217 142 0 921 92 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 24 0 0 142 0 921 90 KL0251 257 0 981 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 0 0 257 0 981 3 KL0292 351 14 1,139 24 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 47 0 0 351 13 1,139 24 KL4210 248 0 1,109 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 95 0 0 248 0 1,109 3 KL4214 177 0 841 43 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 27 53 0 0 177 0 841 37 KL4215 197 0 991 44 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 68 0 0 197 0 991 44 KL4216 130 6 1,033 191 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 34 0 0 130 0 1,033 191 KL4217 19 56 884 158 0 6 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 19 50 884 157 KL4224 338 0 1,080 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 21 0 0 338 0 1,080 3

105

Batched Re-initiation and Post-fire Consultation Wildlife Biological Assessment

106

Batched Re-initiation and Post-fire Consultation Wildlife Biological Assessment

Table 28: Activity Center determinations7 for Seiad-Horse, Johnny O’Neil, Thom Seider, and Horse Creek- Robinson projects. LAA = Likely to Adversely Affect; MANLAA = May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect; NE = No Effect. Acres listed for treatment types include treatment from Seiad-Horse, Johnny O’Neil, Thom Seider, and Horse Creek-Robinson projects. RSH = Roadside Hazard Tree removal; FMZ = Fuel Management Zone; WUI= Wildland Urban Interface/Private Property Fuels Treatments; NRF = Nesting/Roosting and Foraging habitat; AC = Activity Center. Proportion of AC indicated in the table is based on the home range and core area combined.

SEIAD-HORSE, JOHNNY O’NEIL, THOM SEIDER, AND HORSE CREEK-ROBINSON PROJECTS

Activity Primary factors for the determination Center of effects as a result of the proposed Determination and Rationale actions MANLAA – Overlapping treatments from Johnny O’Neil, Seiad-Horse and Horse Creek- Robinson projects. But large amount of treatment in home 1. High level of habitat in AC. range, and very little treatment in core (4 ac.). In 2. Total amount of NRF: addition, the majority of treatment will maintain NRF Degraded = 24 ac. and will be separated in time in this approximate KL1150 Maintained = 507 ac. (underburning) order: 3. Proportion of NRF in AC Degraded = 1%. 1) Salvage units and RSH – within first 2 years. 4. No NRF Downgraded or Removed. 2) FMZ and WUI – within next 5 years. Low level of fire effect in AC overall. 3) Underburning – a minimum of 5 to 10 years out. High level of NRF in AC with very little fire effects to habitat.

LAA -Thinning treatments (Johnny O’Neil) occur in 1. High level of habitat in AC. NRF within core and home range. 2. Total amount of NRF Degraded = 302 ac. -RSH (Horse Creek-Robinson) occurs in NRF in core Maintained = 600 ac. (underburning). and home range. KL1152 3. Proportion of NRF in AC Degraded = 35%. -FMZ and WUI (Horse Creek-Robinson) occur in NRF 4. No NRF Downgraded or Removed. within home range. Salvage harvest of PFF1 (Seiad-Horse) in home range. Large amount of underburning (Johnny O’Neil and Seiad-Horse) occurs in core and home range.

7 Where a MANLAA determination is made, the assumption is that treatments are insignificant or discountable and no meaningfully measurable effects are expected to NSO habitat or to NSO that may occupy this AC from the proposed treatments. Where the determination is made for NE, the assumption is that No effects, including beneficial effects, would occur as a result of the proposed activities. Where a LAA determination is made, the assumption is that effects from the proposed treatments are not insignificant or discountable and may cause adverse effects to that AC. 107

Batched Re-initiation and Post-fire Consultation Wildlife Biological Assessment

LAA – Thinning treatments (Johnny O’Neil) occur in 1. High level of habitat in AC. NRF within home range. 2. Total amount of NRF Degraded = 192 ac. RSH (Horse Creek-Robinson) in NRF in home range. Maintained = 969 ac. FMZ and WUI (Horse Creek-Robinson) in NRF in KL1153 3. Proportion of NRF in AC Degraded = 9 %. home range. 4. Total amount of NRF Downgraded = 3 ac. Large amount of salvage harvest of PFF1 (Seiad- 5. Proportion NRF Downgraded = <0.1% Horse) in home range. Large amount of underburning (Seiad-Horse and Johnny O’Neil) in NRF in core and home range. LAA - Thinning treatments (Johnny O’Neil) occur in 1. High level of habitat in AC. NRF within home range. 2. Total amount of NRF Degraded = 36 ac. RSH (Horse Creek-Robinson) in NRF in home range. Maintained = 848 ac. KL1154 Large amount of salvage harvest of PFF1 (Seiad- 3. Proportion of NRF in AC Degraded = 2 %. Horse) in home range. 4. Total amount of NRF Downgraded = 3 ac. Large amount of underburning (Seiad-Horse and 5. Proportion NRF Downgraded = <0.1% Johnny O’Neil) in NRF in core and home range. LAA – RSH (Seiad-Horse) in NRF in core and home 1. Moderate level of habitat in AC. range. 2. Total amount of NRF Degraded = 15 ac. KL1155 Large amount of salvage harvest (Seiad-Horse) of Maintained = 231 ac. PFF1 in core and home range. 3. Proportion of NRF in AC Degraded = 3 %. Underburning (Seiad-Horse) in NRF in core and home 4. Total amount of NRF Downgraded = 3 ac. range. 5. Proportion NRF Downgraded = <0.1% Core has low level of NRF as is unlikely to be used as Large amount of high and moderate severity delineated, but home range may have sufficient fire in core and home range. habitat to provide for a shift in the core. NE – AC is not expected to be a viable territory, with 1. Low level of habitat in whole AC. (only 331 less than 665ac. NRF in the entire AC, and so well ac. in whole AC) below habitat levels associated with occupied ACs. 2. Total amount of NRF Degraded = 48 ac. KL1159 There is no expectation that NSO are currently Maintained = 217 ac. occupying the site or will occupy the site (as currently 3. Proportion of NRF in AC Degraded = 15 %. delineated) in the near future until habitat has had 4. No NRF Downgraded or Removed. enough time to develop into suitable nesting/roosting or foraging habitat. NE - Core area contains so little NRF that it is not

1. Low to Moderate level of habitat in AC, considered viable as currently delineated. but only 8 ac. in core area. It is highly unlikely that this AC is viable given the lack 2. Total amount of NRF Degraded = 134 ac. of any suitable habitat in the core and the close KL1160 Maintained = 592 ac. proximity of other occupied ACs which encompass the 3. Proportion of NRF in AC Degraded = 16 %. remaining habitat within this home range. At the 4. Total amount of NRF Downgraded = 5 ac. time of this analysis, we did not have current post- Heavily impacted by past fires. fire survey information that would inform a re- delineation or shifting of the AC away from the high severity burned areas. AC has been surveyed from

108

Batched Re-initiation and Post-fire Consultation Wildlife Biological Assessment

2015 through 2017 and have had no detections. Last detection was in 1990. We do not expect this AC to be occupied until habitat conditions have improved. Therefore, treatments in the core and home range would have no effect to NSO. LAA – Thinning treatments (Johnny O’Neil) in NRF in 1. High level of habitat in AC. core and home range. 2. Total amount of NRF Degraded = 261 ac. RSH (Seiad-Horse) in NRF in core and home range. Maintained = 1,012 ac. Salvage harvest (Seiad-Horse) of PFF1 in core and KL1161 3. Proportion of NRF in AC Degraded = 14 %. home range. 4. Total amount of NRF Downgraded = 1 ac. FMZ and WUI (Seiad-Horse) in NRF in home range Heavily impacted by the Abney fire. only.

Underburning (Thom Seider, Seiad-Horse, and Johnny

O’Neil) in NRF in core and home range. LAA –

Thinning treatments (Johnny O’Neil) in NRF in home 1. Moderate level of habitat in AC. range. 2. Total amount of NRF Degraded = 176 ac. RSH (Seiad-Horse) in NRF in core and home range. KL1163 Maintained = 410 ac. Salvage harvest (Seiad-Horse) of PFF1 in home range. 3. Proportion of NRF in AC Degraded = 18%. WUI (Seiad-Horse) in NRF in core and home range. 4. Total amount of NRF Downgraded = 7 ac. Large amount of underburning (Thom Seider, Seiad- Horse, and Johnny O’Neil) in NRF in core and home Heavily impacted by past fires and the Abney range. fire. The magnitude of treatment footprint is substantial – extensive treatment across the AC. At least 75% of the AC has some type of treatment proposed. 1. Moderate level of habitat in AC. LAA – WUI, RSH and underburning in home range; 2. Total amount of NRF Degraded = 49 ac. quantities of treatment in an AC with moderate KL0149 Maintained = 63 ac. amount of habitat are not insignificant or 3. Proportion of NRF in AC Degraded = 5%. discountable. 4. No NRF Downgraded or Removed.

KL0253 1. High level of habitat in AC. 2. Total amount of NRF Degraded = 158 ac. LAA - Thinning, RSH, FMZ in core and home range; Maintained = 35 ac. quantities of treatment are not insignificant or 3. Proportion of NRF in AC Degraded = 8%. discountable. 4. No NRF Downgraded or Removed. 1. High level of habitat in AC. KL4132 2. Total amount of NRF Degraded = 87 ac. LAA - Thinning, RSH, FMZ in home range and thinning Maintained = 37 ac. in core; quantities of treatment are not insignificant 3. Proportion of NRF in AC Degraded = 4%. or discountable. 4. No NRF Downgraded or Removed.

KL4149 1. Moderate level of habitat in AC.

109

Batched Re-initiation and Post-fire Consultation Wildlife Biological Assessment

2. Total amount of NRF Degraded = 40 ac. LAA – Relatively small amount of WUI 2 treatment in Maintained = 2 ac. far outer edge of home range, but occurs in an AC 3. Proportion of NRF in AC Degraded = 4%. with already moderate to low levels of habitat. 4. No NRF Downgraded or Removed. 1. Moderate level of habitat in AC. KL4149B 2. Total amount of NRF Degraded = 110 ac. LAA – RSH, WUI, Thinning, and Underburning in Maintained = 15 ac. home range in quantities that are not insignificant or 3. Proportion of NRF in AC Degraded = 11%. discountable. 4. No NRF Downgraded or Removed.

RSNF1 MANLAA – Small amount of treatment underburn 1. Moderate level of habitat in AC. (that maintains habitat) located south of the major 2. Total amount of NRF Degraded = 0 ac. ridge that divides the RRSNF and KNF and bisects the Maintained = 77 ac. home range. Unlikely that NSO would use this 3. Proportion of NRF in AC Degraded = 0%. portion of their AC given the topography, lack of 4. No NRF Downgraded or Removed. suitable habitat, and the high fire effects that occurred on this side of the AC. MANLAA - RSH and Underburn - located south of the RSNF2 major ridge that divides the RRSNF and KNF and bisects the home range. RSH and underburn is 1. Moderate to Low level of habitat in AC. located primarily in unsuitable habitat except where 2. Total amount of NRF Degraded = 18 ac. it occurs in a small isolated patch of Foraging on the Maintained = 85 ac. south side of the ridge that is surrounded by 3. Proportion of NRF in AC Degraded = 2%. unsuitable habitat. Unlikely that NSO would use this 4. No NRF Downgraded or Removed. portion of their AC given the topography, lack of suitable habitat, and the high fire effects that occurred on this side of the AC.

110

Batched Re-initiation and Post-fire Consultation Wildlife Biological Assessment

Table 29: Activity Center determinations8 for the Oak Roadside Hazard Removal project. LAA = Likely to Adversely Affect; MANLAA = May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect; NE = No Effect. Acres listed are for the Oak RSH project only. RSH = Roadside Hazard Tree removal; NRF = Nesting/Roosting and Foraging habitat; AC = Activity Center. Proportion of AC indicated in the table is based on the home range and core area combined.

OAK ROADSIDE HAZARD PROJECT

Activity Primary factors for the determination Determination and Rationale Center of effects as a result of the proposed actions 1. Moderate level of habitat in AC. MANLAA – Relatively small amount of habitat 2. Total amount of NRF Degraded = 69 acres. affected by treatment; 69 acres of NRF affected KL0215 3. Proportion of NRF in AC treated = 8%. across the AC. 4. No NRF Downgraded or Removed. 1. Moderate level of habitat in AC. MANLAA – Relatively small amount of habitat 2. Total amount of NRF Degraded = 62 acres affected by treatment; 62 acres of NRF affected KL0216 3. Proportion of NRF in AC treated =7% across the AC. 4. No NRF Downgraded or Removed. 1. Moderate level of habitat in AC. MANLAA - RSH occurs in HR only, within a very small 2. Total amount of NRF Degraded = 24 ac. in amount of NRF. Small amount of treatment; 24 acres KL0217 HR only. in home range. Most RSH occurs in non-habitat. 3. Proportion of NRF in AC degraded = 2% 4. No NRF Downgraded or Removed. 1. Moderate level of habitat in AC. MANLAA - Very small amount of habitat affected by 2. Total amount of NRF Degraded = 13 ac. treatment; 13 acres in HR only. RSH topography KL0251 HR only. helps to avoid noise traveling into core and 3. Proportion of NRF in AC degraded = 1%. treatment avoids large contiguous patches of NRF. 4. No NRF Downgraded or Removed. MANLAA – Overall, a low level of fire effects. 1. High level of habitat in AC. Relatively small amount of habitat affected by 2. Total amount of NRF Degraded = 62 ac. KL0292 treatment; 62 acres of NRF affected across an AC 3. Proportion of NRF in AC Degraded = 4%. with a high level of habitat. 4. No NRF Downgraded or Removed.

MANLAA – Overall, a low level of fire effects. 1. High level of habitat in AC. Relatively small amount of habitat affected by 2. Total amount of NRF Degraded = 100 ac. KL4210 treatment; 100 acres of NRF affected across an AC 3. Proportion of NRF in AC Degraded = 7%. with a large amount of habitat. 4. No NRF Downgraded or Removed.

8 Where a MANLAA determination is made, the assumption is that treatments are insignificant or discountable and no meaningfully measurable negative effects are expected to NSO habitat or to NSO that may occupy this AC from the proposed treatments. Where the determination is made for NE, the assumption is that No effects, including beneficial effects, would occur as a result of the proposed activities. Where a LAA determination is made, the assumption is that effects from the proposed treatments are not insignificant or discountable and may cause adverse effects to that AC. 111

Batched Re-initiation and Post-fire Consultation Wildlife Biological Assessment

1. Moderate level of habitat in AC. MANLAA - RSH occurs in non-habitat when in the 2. Total amount of NRF Degraded = 80 ac. core. Majority of RSH occurs in non-habitat or PFF. KL4214 3. Proportion of NRF in AC Degraded = 7%. Relatively low level of treatment; 80 acres affected in 4. No NRF Downgraded or Removed. an AC with moderate level of habitat. Low level of fire effects.

1. Moderate level of habitat in AC. MANLAA – RSH occurs in non-habitat when in the 2. Total amount of NRF Degraded = 81 ac. KL4215 core. Majority of RSH occurs in non-habitat or PFF. 3. Proportion of NRF in AC Degraded = 7%. Relatively low level of treatment; 81 acres affected in 4. No NRF Downgraded or Removed. an AC with moderate level of habitat.

1. Moderate level of habitat in AC. MANLAA – RSH occurs in non-habitat when in the 2. Total amount of NRF Degraded = 39 ac. KL4216 core. Majority of RSH occurs in non-habitat. 3. Proportion of NRF in AC Degraded = 3%. Relatively low level of treatment; 39 acres affected in 4. No NRF Downgraded or Removed. an AC with moderate level of habitat. NE – RSH occurs in the core as it is currently delineated, but core was almost entirely burned at 1. Low level of habitat in core of AC. high severity and NSO are not expected to occur in 2. Total amount of NRF Degraded = 1 ac. KL4217 this AC as delineated. RSH along prominent ridge 3. Proportion of NRF in AC Degraded = <1 %. only. AC will likely shift downslope to the SE in the 4. No NRF Downgraded or Removed. drainage where only remaining habitat occurs (and no RSH is proposed). MANLAA – RSH occurs along a ridgeline that is 1. High level of habitat in AC. separated topographically from the majority of the 2. Total amount of NRF Degraded = 21 ac. NRF within the rest of the AC. Some RSH occurs in Home range only currently suitable NRF along outer portion of home KL4224 3. Proportion of NRF in AC Degraded = 2 %. range. Abundant survey information for this AC 4. No NRF Downgraded or Removed. helps to inform our knowledge of the use patterns of Low level of fire effect in AC overall. this core area and home range. RSH does not occur in areas of known use.

112

Batched Re-initiation and Post-fire Consultation Wildlife Biological Assessment

Interdependent and Interrelated Actions Roads There will be no roads added to the National Forest Transportation System as a result of this project; about 1.6 miles of new temporary roads will be constructed and about 2.0 miles of temporary roads on existing roadbeds will be used for project access. These temporary roads would be used for the implementation of salvage harvest units. The construction of new temporary roads is estimated to downgrade about two acres of NRF.

Landings

Although we don’t know the exact number of landings that will be used in this project or the location of new landings, we can estimate the landings based on the logging systems and the equipment commonly used in other projects to implement prescriptions along with best management practices to minimize effects to resources. Existing landings will be used where possible, but there are not enough existing landings to support implementation for all treatment units. It is estimated that up to 129 landing could be used in the project and this is representing more of a maximum; this estimate consists of 68 new landings and 61 existing landings. Landing size will be commensurate with operational safety and as a result the size of the landing can vary. Landings for this project are estimated to be between 0.1 and 1.5 acre in size; often landings are constructed in such a way as to use the existing road to the greatest extent thus reducing the landing construction cost. There are 105 landings (51 new and 54 existing landings) within home ranges. The remaining 24 landings occur in areas outside cores and home ranges. Given all the new landings, about three acres of NRF is estimated to be downgraded and up to 11.5 acres of NRF degraded.

Activity Generated Fuels Treatments

Treatment of fuels generated by project activities will be necessary in areas where the proposed activities create hazardous fuels conditions. Where activity-created fuels exceed targeted levels of fuels, hand piling with or without burning, burning of concentrations, mastication, and/or chipping to reduce flashy fuel loads may occur. All treatments within suitable NSO habitat will be subject to seasonal restrictions as described in the project design features. Treatment of activity generated fuel concentrations of small-diameter surface fuels is not expected to downgrade or remove NSO habitat. Traffic As a result of the increased level of activity associated with project implementation, a subsequent increase in the amount of traffic on Forest System roads is anticipated across the project area. Higher than normal level of traffic and the associated noise has the potential to disrupt the normal 113

Batched Re-initiation and Post-fire Consultation Wildlife Biological Assessment behaviors of wildlife in the action area, including NSO. Where roads occur near or adjacent to areas used by NSO, there is also an increased chance for a vehicle to collide with an NSO (logging truck, heavy equipment transport, water tenders, personnel vehicles, etc.) likely resulting in mortality. The chance of this occurring is somewhat reduced, though not eliminated, by the generally nocturnal behavior of NSO and the typically diurnal nature of project implementation. Effects on Prey, Competitors or Predators

Prey Species Habitat that supports prey for NSO is an important component for the survival of owls and their offspring. Woodrats are one of the two more important prey species for NSO on the Forest, the other being northern flying squirrels. Snags are an important habitat component for flying squirrels. High quality woodrat habitat includes the shrubby vegetation that is essential for providing cover and food in forest habitat. In addition to brushy vegetation, components associated with NSO habitat such as downed logs, hardwoods and other woody material appear to be important components of woodrat habitat (Sakai and Noon 1993). Fire consumes, alters, and creates snags used by nesting spotted owls and coarse woody debris used by spotted owl prey (USDI 2014). Because the proposed salvage is in post fire forest that is likely no longer functioning in any meaningful way as flying squirrel habitat, it is not expected to further reduce flying squirrels or their habitat. However, fire increases the abundance of shrubby vegetation used by woodrats, and other prey species such as mice and vole species. Edge ecotones created from fire can be areas of increased woodrat abundance and exposure to foraging spotted owls (Zabel 1995). Research suggests that diffuse edges created by fire may be good habitat for woodrats (Sakai and Noon 1997), which are more likely to occur at high densities in areas with a mix of early seral conifer stands and late-successional forest habitat (Sakai and Noon 1993). Salvage harvest removes some of the potential large woody debris that may have become habitat for prey species in the future as the stand canopy develops and cover from above becomes more readily available. In areas where salvage and roadside hazard tree removal is occurring, these areas will have reduced quality of habitat for prey species that rely on abundant large downed wood. However, snag retention areas and riparian reserves will contribute to an overall mosaic of areas with variable amounts of large woody debris, such that some areas will contain more large woody debris for use by NSO prey than others. Site prep and planting will have a somewhat reduced amount of brush directly around conifer seedlings where up vegetation up to 5 feet around the planted seedling will be scraped away (grubbed) in order to allow the seedling to receive as much of the available nutrients and sunlight as possible when it is first established (see discussion above on Site Prep and Planting). This is a temporary loss of brush in small patches within planted areas but the remaining areas of the unit will contain regenerating brush throughout the unit. These areas are not expected to be limited on brush, and cover for NSO prey. However, site prep and plant units may not contain large amounts of large woody debris because many are located in previous plantations where the pre-fire stand contained only mid to early seral conifers and very little size and age class diversity. 114

Batched Re-initiation and Post-fire Consultation Wildlife Biological Assessment

The proposed project may have localized impacts to flying squirrels, woodrats, or other prey species in the action area due to the removal of potential large woody debris and a loss of connectivity and concealment cover in affected areas. Salvage harvest targets standing fire-killed trees which would have provided future potential large woody debris, though in areas outside the salvage harvest areas where there will be abundant large woody debris. Areas that sustained high severity fire provide more open conditions which can accelerate the development of the brush and hardwood understory and thus provide more palatable/nutritious forage and cover for prey species. Shrubs will quickly re-sprout (e.g., the following spring) and provide forage and habitat. Barred Owl / Spotted Owl Interactions

Barred owl specific surveys have not been conducted for this project, but barred owls have been detected during NSO surveys since 2007 within the action area. Several detections of barred owls occurred within the Horse Creek drainage (Horse Creek, Crawfish Gulch, Panther Gulch, and a few smaller tributaries of Horse Creek), Philips Gulch, Coon Creek, and Seiad Creek. Over the years, about five pairs of barred owls have been detected in Horse Creek and one pair in Seiad Creek; though only one pair of barred owls has been observed with offspring. Given the clustering of barred owl detections over time and the topography, it is likely that these observations represent multiple barred owl territories but the exact number of territories is difficult to estimate without barred owl focused surveys.

Many studies have found negative associations between NSOs and barred owls where they co-occur but the effect of forest management on barred and spotted owl interactions is not well documented. Limited habitat availability combined with negative influences of barred owls may compound effects to NSO (Dugger 2005, Dugger 2011, Kelly and Forsman 2003, Wiens 2014). Available evidence suggests that the presence and distribution of barred owls may affect habitat availability for spotted owls (Wiens 2014, Yackulic et al. 2012). Additionally, many studies suggest that the two species compete for resources and maintaining older, high quality forest habitat may help spotted owls persist, at least in the short-term (USDI 2014). Interactions with barred owls can cause deleterious effects to NSO by leaving them more susceptible to predation and less effective as competitors. In addition, ACs that may not have been affected by the post fire management actions may be impacted by the displacement of, and competitive interactions with, other NSO from their adjacent or nearby territories that were highly impacted and depleted of habitat. To date, there are no known forest conditions, including post-fire landscapes, where spotted owls have a competitive advantage over barred owls. It is also not known if forest habitat removal directly results in a local range expansion of barred owls (USDI 2014). In the absence of information on barred owl use of post-fire landscapes and because best available information indicates that barred owls are a forest habitat generalist but select spotted owl NRF habitat similar to spotted owls (Hamer et al. 2007 and Wiens et al. 2014), it can reasonably be assumed that barred owls could also make use of PFF habitat (USDI 2014).

115

Batched Re-initiation and Post-fire Consultation Wildlife Biological Assessment

If there is similar use of this type of habitat, the competitive interactions between the two species may not be exacerbated. However, because there is relatively less overall habitat on the landscape, post-fire, and barred owls are generally the dominant species, it is possible that competitive interactions between the two species may occur where they overlap in post fire habitat. The long-term trend of barred owl and spotted owl interactions in this area is not known. The proposed treatments are intended to aid in the re-establishment of suitable NSO habitat and reduce fuels accumulations that would put high quality NSO habitat at risk during another high severity wildfire. IX. Cumulative Effects The cumulative effects analysis area is comprised of mostly of Federal lands with a mix of private land. There is checkerboard ownership in the eastern half of the analysis area and smaller parcels of private land in the western half of the analysis area. Federal lands are administrated by the Klamath National Forest and Rouge River Siskiyou National Forest (about 95% of the analysis area) as well as private land (about 5% of the analysis area). About 50% of the private land in the analysis area is held by industrial timber companies and the remaining private land is composed of a few independently owned ranches, homes, or trust lands. There are no State owned lands within this analysis area. About 15% of the industrial timber land in the analysis area occurs within the Abney fire perimeter, but none of these industrial timber lands are currently undergoing salvage harvest operations or has been identified for salvage with the State of California, Department of Forestry and Fire Protection as a result of the Abney Fire. This situation is different from the 2014 and 2016 fires for which private lands started filing for salvage harvest soon after the fires and the filing continued for a year or more. From these previous fires, a series of timber salvage harvests on private land occurred within moderate or high fire severity and in some cases, within the adjacent forest that experienced lower fire severity. The 2014 and 2016 private land salvage harvest was not necessarily limited to any particular private land ownership. Since an Emergency Notice of Timber Operations (ENTO) submitted to the State of California, Department of Forestry and Fire Protection typically do not specify the method by which the trees would be identified for removal, the method for evaluating tree mortality and subsequent harvest cannot be determined from these plans. Based on field evaluation of post-harvest conditions on private lands as a result of previous fires on the Happy Camp/ Oak Knoll Ranger District, it can be assumed that fire severity is not the only factor dictating the location and extent of harvest. Post- harvest condition of recent salvage harvest on private land after the 2014 and 2016 fires (footprint where harvest occurred) is not suitable NSO habitat, as land has been cleared of the vast majority of the trees providing overstory canopy cover; the harvested units contain few remaining live trees or snags and do not constitute suitable NSO habitat. Given past observations of post-fire actions on private lands, it is reasonable to assume that there could be salvage harvest on private land that could be filed at any time. Given the past patterns of salvage harvest on private land, and to account for these affects in this analysis, we are assuming 116

Batched Re-initiation and Post-fire Consultation Wildlife Biological Assessment that all private land in the analysis area that was affected by the 2016 or 2017 fires, regardless of ownership, will be salvage harvested. Acres in the tables below reflect what we assume to be all potential harvest on private land in the fire perimeter, whether these acres of possible harvest have been evaluated for future harvest or not. This analysis represents a maximum extent of harvest and may be an overestimate of what will actually occur on the ground because not all private land may necessarily be harvested. Table 30: The acres of NSO habitat affected by the actions within the timber harvest plans and emergency timber notice of operations proposed on industrial timber lands within the cumulative effects analysis area. Habitat within the Habitat on private land Habitat on private land Habitat Type analysis area affected by Abney Fire affected by Oak Fire (acres) (acres) (acres) Nesting/roosting and 26,227 404 0 Foraging 16,019 27 1 Dispersal 2,376 20 0 PFF1

Effects to Activity Centers Prior to the wildfires, NSO habitat on private land in the analysis area was mixed as some land parcels had relatively scarce habitat while other parcels had patchy to contiguously distributed habitat. The current distribution of habitat is related to past high and moderate severity wildfires as well as timber harvest. Some of the ACs in the Seiad-Horse, Johnny O’Neil, and Horse Creek-Robinson analysis areas contain some kind of private land within either their core areas or home ranges or both. The levels of suitable habitat within each AC are highly variable; the vast majority of the suitable NSO habitat tends to occur on national forest land. However, on some of the private land, drainages with pockets of denser canopy and somewhat larger trees can provide enough cover and structure, with enough of a microclimate, that NSO may use these areas for foraging. These pockets of habitat may be especially important for those occupied activity centers that contain currently low levels of habitat. Because fire severity does not appear to be the only factor determining salvage harvest on private land, it is possible that private land harvest may impact NSO within the analysis area more than what is expected from the proposed project itself, due to the modification and/or removal of suitable habitat. Private land harvest within the activity centers within this analysis could have a strongly compounding effect on several activity centers, adding to the effects from the fires and effects from the proposed activities. There is the potential for ENTOs to be filed at any time and the precise location, amount, and degree of harvest within the activity centers that contain private land is unknown. So, when estimating and mitigating effects to NSO, it is necessary to assume the

117

Batched Re-initiation and Post-fire Consultation Wildlife Biological Assessment

maximum extent of harvest reasonably likely to occur given the pattern of private land harvest that resulted from previous fires (2014 and 2016 fires).

Table 31: Cumulative effects on NSO habitat from private land that may be harvested within NSO activity centers.

Post- Post- Post- Post- Implementation Implementation Implementation Implementation Habitat within plus cumulative plus cumulative Habitat within Acres affected by private land Home Range effects to effects to Core (0 – 0.5 likely to be harvested AC# (0.5 – 1.3 habitat within habitat within mile)* miles)* Core (0 – 0.5 Home Range

mile) (0.5 – 1.3 miles)

0 - 0.5 mile 0.5 - 1.3 mile 0 - 0.5 mile 0.5-1.3 mile 0 - 0.5 mile 0.5 - 1.3 mile NRF PFF1 NRF PFF1 NRF PFF1 NRF PFF1 NRF PFF1 NRF PFF1 KL1150 426 0 1,652 49 -18 0 -190 -19 408 0 1,462 30 KL1152 316 0 1,374 2 0 0 -121 0 316 0 1,253 2 KL1153 463 0 1,644 24 0 0 -125 0 463 0 1,519 24 KL1154 436 0 1,785 95 -8 0 -188 -15 428 0 1,597 80 KL1155 138 119 1,006 215 -12 -11 -198 -8 126 108 808 207 KL1160 8 0 820 2 0 0 -3 -1 8 0 817 2 KL1161 389 0 1,458 53 0 0 -67 0 389 0 1,391 53 KL1163 194 2 778 19 -28 0 -86 -1 166 2 692 17

X. NSO Critical Habitat The USFWS revised previous designations of NSO Critical Habitat in 2012. The final rule was published on December 4, 2012 and went into effect on January 3, 2013. The project area is located within Critical Habitat subunits KLE6 and KLW7. These subunits were established to function as NSO demographic support (USDI 2012); resource agencies are encouraged to work toward maintaining or enhancing the characteristics of older forest and providing large habitat blocks and associated forest conditions. Regional variations should be taken into account; in the Klamath Province this means providing mosaics of interior habitats and edges to provide for the diversity of prey. Management activities that contribute to recovery goals through risk reduction such as the removal of ground and ladder fuels, and the restoration of ecosystem processes that lead to the development or replacement of spotted owl habitat, are recommended. Physical or Biological Features

118

Batched Re-initiation and Post-fire Consultation Wildlife Biological Assessment

Past designations of Critical Habitat, including the 2012 final rule for NSO Critical Habitat, have used the terms “PCEs”, “physical and biological features” (PBFs) or “essential features” to characterize the key components of Critical Habitat that provide for the conservation of the listed species. The new Critical Habitat regulations (81 FR 7214) discontinue use of the terms “PCEs” or “essential features” and instead rely exclusively on the use of “physical and biological features (PBF)”, since this terminology is consistent with the statute. To be consistent with that shift in terminology and in recognition that the terms “PBFs”, “PCEs”, and “essential habitat features” are in effect synonymous in meaning, we refer to the term PBF in this Biological Assessment.

For the northern spotted owl, the physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the species are forested areas that are used or likely to be used for nesting, roosting, foraging, or dispersing. PBFs are made up of habitat elements that provide one or more of the following life- history requirements: - Space for individual and population growth and for normal behavior; - Food, water, air, light, minerals, or other nutritional or physiological requirements; - Cover or shelter; - Sites for breeding, reproduction, or rearing (or development) of offspring; and - Habitats that are protected from disturbance or are representative of the historical, geographical, and ecological distributions of a species.

The 2012 ruling addressed several influences on these PBFs, including: - climate; - elevation; - topography; - disturbance regimes; - pattern and distribution of habitat; - forest community type (composition); and - population spatial requirements.

Generally, typical Forest Service management actions such as those proposed cannot alter the first three influences: climate, elevation and topography. These are hard features of the landscape or global system that are not modified by the relatively small scale of single management actions. However, the following four influences addressed in the Revised Recovery Plan may be modified, at least locally, by management actions. Disturbance Regimes Generally management actions do not affect the larger influences of disturbance regimes such as climate and climate patterns but may affect the severity or frequency of events on the local landscape. For example, the overall fire regime of an area is not modified by a single management action but the likely results of an event may be modified by management.

119

Batched Re-initiation and Post-fire Consultation Wildlife Biological Assessment

Excess hazardous fuels that are generated by project activities will be treated through a variety of methods including hand piling with/without burning, burning of concentrations, mastication, and/or chipping to reduce fuel loads. The goal of these treatments is to reduce surface fuels to levels that would allow any future fires in the project area to burn within the historic range of fire severity and intensity. In other words, these treatments would attempt to achieve or maintain conditions that allow for historic levels of fire severity. The Pattern and Distribution of Habitat Suitable forest types in the drier parts of the range (interior northern California, Klamath region, interior southern Oregon, and east of the Cascade crest in Oregon and Washington) occur in a mosaic pattern interspersed with infrequently used vegetation types such as open forests, shrubby areas, and grasslands. As described in the final ruling, natural disturbance processes in these drier regions likely contributed to a pattern in which patches of habitat in various stages of suitability shifted positions on the landscape through time. In the Klamath Mountains Provinces of Oregon and California, and to a lesser extent in the Coast and Cascade Provinces of California, large areas of serpentine soils exist that are typically not capable of supporting northern spotted owl habitat.

The proposed projects are not expected to affect the larger scale mosaic pattern of habitat within the Critical Habitat analysis area. Forest Community Type (Composition) Landscape-level patterns in tree species composition and topography influence the distribution and density of northern spotted owls. Even when different forest types have similar structural attributes, differences in northern spotted owl distribution can occur. This suggests that northern spotted owls may prefer specific plant associations or tree species. NSO infrequently use some forest types, such as pine-dominated and subalpine forests, regardless of their structural attributes. NSO select forests with high proportions of Douglas-fir trees in areas east of the Cascade Crest. The effects of tree species composition on habitat selection also extend to hardwoods within conifer- dominated forests. For example, the USFWS habitat modeling showed that the proportion of hardwoods present negatively affected the habitat value in the central Western Cascades. At the home range and core area scales, locations occupied by northern spotted owls consistently have greater amounts of mature and old-growth forest compared to random locations or unused areas. The proportion of older or structurally complex forest within the home range varies greatly by geographical region but typically falls between 30 and 78 percent (Blakesley et al. 2004). Differences between northern spotted owl sites and random locations diminished as circles of increasing size were evaluated suggesting habitat selection is stronger at the core area scale than at the home range and landscape scales. The proposed projects are not expected to influence landscape level patterns of forest community type or tree composition. Population Spatial Requirements Areas that contain the physical or biological features described in the Final Ruling must provide habitat in an amount and distribution sufficient to support persistent populations. Metapopulations

120

Batched Re-initiation and Post-fire Consultation Wildlife Biological Assessment of reproductive pairs and opportunities for nonbreeding and dispersing owls to move among populations are considered essential aspects of the conservation of the northern spotted owl. Northern spotted owls maintain large home ranges that vary in size across nearly an order of magnitude across the species’ range, from about 1,400 to 14,000 acres (570 to 5,700 hectares), depending on geographic latitude and prey resources. Overlap occurs among adjoining territories, but the large size of territories nonetheless means that populations of northern spotted owls require landscapes with large areas of habitat suitable for nesting, roosting, and foraging. For example, in the northern parts of the subspecies’ range where territories are largest, a population of 20 resident pairs would require at least 100,000 acres (about 40,500 hectares) of habitat that is relatively densely distributed and of high quality. When the northern spotted owl was listed as threatened in 1990 (55 FR 26114; June 26, 1990), habitat loss and fragmentation of old-growth forest were identified as major factors contributing to declines in northern spotted owl populations. As older forests were reduced to smaller and more isolated patches, the ability of northern spotted owls to successfully disperse and establish territories was likely reduced. The effects of the proposed projects will not alter the spatial requirements required for population viability. Threats to Critical Habitat One of the primary threats to NSO is identified as past and current habitat loss. While loss due to timber harvest has slowed considerably since the time of listing, loss due to high severity fires in some portions of the range remains high. Recent information pertaining to habitat lost to wildfire in the relatively dry East Cascades and Klamath Provinces suggests that fire may be more of a threat than was previously thought. Specific to the California Klamath Province, approximately 40,000 acres of NSO nesting and roosting habitat has been lost to fires between 1996 and 2006, most of which is in reserved land allocations (Davis et al. 2011). In the 2012 Critical Habitat rule, physical and biological features (formerly referred to as primary constituent elements) are identified as those specific elements of the physical or biological features that provide for a species’ life-history processes and are essential to the conservation of the species. The focus is on four components, the first of which must be included along with one of the last three. The four elements described in the 2012 Critical Habitat rule are: PBF 1 - Forest types that may be in early-, mid-, or late-seral stages and that support the northern spotted owl across its geographical range. PBF 2 - Nesting and roosting habitat. PBF 3 - Foraging habitat (subdivided into four ecological zones, two of which apply to the Klamath NF). PBF 4 - Dispersal habitat (subdivided into transience and colonization phases of dispersal). 121

Batched Re-initiation and Post-fire Consultation Wildlife Biological Assessment

These PBFs are quoted from the Critical Habitat rule. In the following analysis, we will refer to these PBF categories as PBFs 1, 2, 3 and 4 with subdivisions discussed as appropriate. This document only evaluates project effects in relation to the 2012 Critical Habitat ruling and supersedes as appropriate any previous analysis of Critical Habitat effects.

Summary of Effects to Critical Habitat from Wildfire Acres of Critical Habitat affected by the most recent wildfires are presented below (table 32). For this analysis, PFF1 and PFF2 are components of future PBFs and habitat and are calculated separately.

Table 32: Total acres of NSO Critical Habitat within the Seiad-Horse Project, Horse Creek-Robinson, and Oak project areas – pre- and post-Abney Fire - summarized.

Pre-Fire Critical Habitat Post-Fire Critical Habitat and PFF Acres of NSO Critical Critical Habitat Habitat subunit in Subunit action Nesting/ Nesting/ area Foraging Dispersal Foraging Dispersal roosting roosting PFF1* PFF2* (acres) (acres) (acres) (acres) (acres) (acres)

KLE6 (Seiad- 4,874 2,113 1,072 809 1,301 764 438 687 433 Horse)

KLE6 (Horse 2,192 418 831 257 418 831 257 63 11 Creek- Robinson)

KLW7 9,736 1,375 2,196 3,105 1,345 2,086 2,900 136 4 (Oak)

*Acres of PFF1 and PFF2 include all PFF in the Critical Habitat analysis area. The Critical Habitat analysis area only overlaps PFF that resulted from the Abney Fire; there is no overlap of PFF with the Gap Fire.

Effects to Critical Habitat from Proposed Post-fire Projects Effects to Critical Habitat PBFs for the Horse Creek–Robinson, Seiad–Horse, and Oak post-fire projects are described below. This analysis is done separately from the re-initiated projects because this is an original analysis of Critical Habitat for these projects, rather than a review of

122

Batched Re-initiation and Post-fire Consultation Wildlife Biological Assessment previous analyses, as was done for the Thom Seider and Johnny O’Neil projects summarized below and in Appendix E.

The proposed management actions will affect PBFs 2, 3, and 4. Nesting/roosting, foraging and dispersal habitat types will be both removed and degraded by proposed activities, though in relatively small amounts. The scope and scale of the projects causes increased and additive impacts to Critical Habitat, particularly where treatments overlap each other. Hazard tree removal and salvage harvest will remove large snags and future downed logs across the watershed. Salvage harvest and hazard tree removal will remove snags that would provide for future stand development. However, snag retention areas and riparian reserves will alleviate these effects. Estimated effects to NSO habitat from each treatment type are described above in the Effects to NSO Habitat discussion. As described above, the NSO Critical Habitat analysis area for the Seiad-Horse, Horse Creek- Robinson, and Oak projects is the portion of Critical Habitat subunit that overlaps the respective project areas. The following tables describe the effects from each treatment type to the Critical Habitat subunit in which the treatment occurs and summarize the habitats affected. Acres are calculated in the tables below where treatment occurs within suitable nesting/roosting, foraging, dispersal, and post-fire foraging 1 and 2 within that subunit.

The Seiad-Horse, Horse Creek-Robinson, and Oak projects are located within subunits KLE6 and KLW7. These subunits were established to function as NSO demographic support (USDI 2012); resource agencies are encouraged to work toward maintaining or enhancing the characteristics of older forest and providing large habitat blocks and associated forest conditions. Regional variations should be taken into account; in the Klamath Province this means providing mosaics of interior habitats and edges to provide for the diversity of prey. Management activities that contribute to recovery goals through risk reduction such as the removal of ground and ladder fuels, and the restoration of ecosystem processes that lead to the development or replacement of spotted owl habitat, are recommended. The current amount of PBF 2, 3, and 4, along with the proportion of habitat within each affected subunit, are presented in the following tables. Previously planned projects with a changed condition resulting from the 2017 wildfires, and which occur within the same Critical Habitat subunits as the proposed management actions analyzed within this BA, are summarized in Appendix E. Effects from management actions were analyzed in combination with effects from the 2017 wildfires where they occur within the same subunits. This review of effects was done in order to determine if the level of effects from the proposed post-fire projects exceeded those originally analyzed for projects within the same subunits, to determine if a re-initiation of consultation is necessitated. PBF 1 – Availability of suitable forest types in the appropriate seral stages – the proposed projects would not impact this PBF the since the forest types and/or their seral stages would not be altered. PBF 1 was likely impacted by the wildfires where high severity fire removed later seral

123

Batched Re-initiation and Post-fire Consultation Wildlife Biological Assessment forest and set it back to early seral vegetation. PBF 2 - Nesting and Roosting Habitat - the proposed projects will affect the habitat components: “large snags and large accumulations of fallen trees and other woody debris on the ground”. The felling of hazard trees will reduce potential nest and roost sites from nesting and roosting habitat, though in general the majority of this activity would not occur within currently suitable nesting/roosting habitat.

The “large snags” element of PBF 2 would be affected, and potential nest, roost and perch sites would be reduced by hazard tree removal where it occurs within suitable nesting/roosting habitat. Salvage harvest and hazard tree removal may also affect the future development of the stand by removing the large snags that would fall and become large downed logs. However, the function of the currently suitable nesting/roosting habitat is not expected to be impacted by the removal of stands of fire killed trees because, while these areas may serve a purpose as foraging habitat and large fire killed trees/snags for future stand development, they are not expected to be used as nesting/roosting habitat.

The element of PBF 2 that includes “large accumulations of fallen trees and other woody debris on the ground” will also be affected by the proposed project where these accumulations occur within fuels treatment areas and salvage units. However, the salvage units will not be void of trees, snags, or woody debris. Between the areas of low fire severity, additional snag retention, wildlife tree retention, and retention of pre-fire existing snags, in addition to snags left within areas of units that could not be harvested due to implementation constraints, salvage units will have trees and/or snags retained in the unit. Fuels treatments will remove or re-arrange concentrations of woody debris, though treatments would occur along relatively narrow strips of land that would not be much different than the size and distribution of naturally occurring openings. In addition, where hazards over 40 (Horse Creek-Robinson) or 45 (Seiad-Horse and Oak) inches in diameter at breast height are felled they will be retained on site within Critical Habitat. PBF 3 - Foraging Habitat - the project will affect the habitat component: “large accumulations of fallen trees and other woody debris on the ground”. For the portion of Critical Habitat that will have salvage harvest and hazard tree removal, the future development of the stand may be impacted by removing the large snags that would fall and become large downed logs. In addition, fuel treatments targeting small diameter project-generated fuels will remove or re-arrange some concentrations of woody debris. The function of the fire-affected habitat would be affected by the removal of the fire killed trees that could serve as cover and perch sites possibly used by NSO while foraging. The total amount of fire affected Critical Habitat (NRF habitat) that occurs in the project area is described in the tables above. Treatments would affect the majority of the fire affected habitat in the Critical Habitat analysis areas. Areas of fire affected habitat that will remain untreated, will provide an alternative supply of woody debris.

124

Batched Re-initiation and Post-fire Consultation Wildlife Biological Assessment

Across the Critical Habitat analysis area, no nesting/roosting or foraging habitat in either Critical Habitat subunit would be removed by treatments. Treatments would downgrade an extremely small amount of the NRF in KLE6 that occurs within the analysis area (3 acres) and no acres in KLW7. PBF 4 - Dispersal Habitat - the project will affect the habitat components “some roosting structures and foraging habitat to allow for temporary resting and feeding during the transience phase”. Felling of fire-killed trees will reduce potential perch sites from within foraging and dispersal habitat. In addition, it will reduce these habitat features from within non-suitable NSO habitat, making them unavailable as future stands develop.

Summary Tables for Proposed Post-fire Management Actions in Critical Habitat

125

Batched Re-initiation and Post-fire Consultation Wildlife Biological Assessment

Table 33: Acres of Critical Habitat within the Seiad-Horse analysis area and the effects from treatments in suitable nesting/roosting, foraging, dispersal, and PFF habitat within the portion of the Critical Habitat subunit KLE6 that overlaps the project area.

Critical Habitat Subunit Klamath East 6 NSO habitat within Post-Fire Post-Fire the Seiad-Horse Nesting/Roosting and Foraging (PBF 2 and 3) (acres) Dispersal (PBF 4) (acres) Foraging 1 Foraging 2 Project Critical (acres) (acres) Habitat Analysis Area 2,065 438 687 433 Post-Fire Post-Fire NRF NRF NRF NRF Dispersal Dispersal Dispersal Foraging 1 Foraging 2 Removed Downgraded Degraded Maintain Removed Degraded Maintained Removed Removed (acres) (acres) (acres) (acres) (acres) (acres) (acres) (acres) (acres) Salvage Harvest 0 0 0 37 0 0 42 198 167 Roadside Hazard 0 0 237 0 0 73 0 26 20 Only Fuels reduction adjacent to private 0 0 0 0 0 0 21 0 0 land 1 Fuels reduction adjacent to private 0 0 0 45 0 0 1 1 0 land 2 Fuel Management 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Zone Site/prep and plant 0 0 0 8 0 0 7 5 1 Underburn 0 0 0 1,078 0 0 150 246 95 Landings 0 3 0 0 3 0 0 2 3 Temporary Roads 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 Fire affected Critical Habitat is defined as PFF1, PFF2 2 Habitat affected by landing construction is an overestimate of effects.

126

Batched Re-initiation and Post-fire Consultation Wildlife Biological Assessment

Table 34: Acres of Critical Habitat within the Horse Creek - Robinson analysis area and the effects from treatments in suitable nesting/roosting, foraging, dispersal, and PFF habitat within the portion of the Critical Habitat subunit KLE6 that overlaps the project area.

Critical Habitat Subunit Klamath East 6 NSO habitat within Post-Fire Post-Fire the Horse Creek- Nesting/Roosting and Foraging (PBF 2 and 3) (acres) Dispersal (PBF 4) (acres) Foraging 1 Foraging 2 Robinson Critical (acres) (acres) Habitat Analysis Area 1,249 257 63 11 Post-Fire Post-Fire NRF NRF NRF NRF Dispersal Dispersal Dispersal Foraging 1 Foraging 2 Removed Downgraded Degraded Maintain Removed Degraded Maintained Removed Removed (acres) (acres) (acres) (acres) (acres) (acres) (acres) (acres) (acres) Salvage Harvest 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Roadside Hazard 0 0 105 0 0 27 0 13 4 Only Fuels reduction adjacent to private 0 0 42 0 0 0 10 0 0 land 2 Fuels reduction adjacent to private 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 land 3 Fuel Management 0 0 35 0 0 0 14 0 0 Zone 2 Fuel Management 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Zone 3^ ^FMZ 3 occurs within KLE6 but does not affect suitable NRF. Treatments may occur adjacent to, but not within, NRF habitat.

127

Batched Re-initiation and Post-fire Consultation Wildlife Biological Assessment

Table 35: Acres of Critical Habitat within the Oak Roadside Hazard analysis area and the effects from treatments in suitable nesting/roosting, foraging, dispersal, and PFF habitat within the portion of the Critical Habitat subunit KLW7 that overlaps the project area.

Critical Habitat Subunit Klamath West 7 NSO habitat Post-Fire Post-Fire within the Nesting/Roosting and Foraging (PBF 2 and 3) (acres) Dispersal (PBF 4) (acres) Foraging 1 Foraging 2 Oak Roadside (acres) (acres) Hazard Critical Habitat Analysis 3,431 2,900 136 4 Area Post-Fire Post-Fire NRF NRF NRF NRF Dispersal Dispersal Dispersal Foraging 1 Foraging 2 Removed Downgraded Degraded Maintain Removed Degraded Maintained Removed Removed (acres) (acres) (acres) (acres) (acres) (acres) (acres) (acres) (acres) Roadside Hazard 0 0 346 0 0 366 0 9 0 Only

Table 36: Summation of acres of Critical Habitat within the Seiad-Horse, Johnny O’Neil, Thom Seider, and Horse Creek - Robinson (Oak Project does not overlap KLE6) project areas and the effects from treatments in suitable nesting/roosting, foraging, dispersal, and PFF habitat within the portion of the Critical Habitat subunit KLE6 that overlaps the project area. Critical Habitat Subunit Klamath East 6 NSO habitat Post-Fire Post-Fire within Seiad- Nesting/Roosting and Foraging (PBF 2 and 3) (acres) Dispersal (PBF 4) (acres) Foraging 1 Foraging 2 Horse, Johnny (acres) (acres) O’Neil, Thom Seider, and Horse Creek - Robinson 4,632 798 750 444 Critical Habitat Analysis Areas Post-Fire Post-Fire NRF NRF NRF NRF Dispersal Dispersal Dispersal Foraging 1 Foraging 2 Removed Downgraded Degraded Maintain Removed Degraded Maintained Removed Removed (acres) (acres) (acres) (acres) (acres) (acres) (acres) (acres) (acres) All Actions 0 3 893 1,752 3 221 168 346 274 128

Batched Re-initiation and Post-fire Consultation Wildlife Biological Assessment

1 Fire affected Critical Habitat is defined as PFF1, PFF

Table 37: Summation of acres of Critical Habitat within the Oak project Critical Habitat analysis area (Seiad-Horse, Johnny O’Neil, Thom Seider or Horse Creek- Robinson Projects do not overlap KLW7) and the effects from treatments in suitable nesting/roosting, foraging, dispersal, and PFF habitat within the portion of the Critical Habitat subunit KLW7 that overlaps the project area. Critical Habitat Subunit Klamath West 7 Post-Fire Post-Fire NSO habitat Nesting/Roosting and Foraging (PBF 2 and 3) (acres) Dispersal (PBF 4) (acres) Foraging 1 Foraging 2 within Oak (acres) (acres) Critical Habitat Analysis Area 3,431 2,900 136 4 Post-Fire Post-Fire NRF NRF NRF NRF Dispersal Dispersal Dispersal Foraging 1 Foraging 2 Removed Downgraded Degraded Maintain Removed Degraded Maintained Removed Removed (acres) (acres) (acres) (acres) (acres) (acres) (acres) (acres) (acres) All Actions 0 0 346 0 0 366 0 9 0 1 Fire affected Critical Habitat is defined as PFF1, PFF

129

Batched Re-initiation and Post-fire Consultation Wildlife Biological Assessment

XI. Future Beneficial Effects for NSO and its Habitat Since the mid-1980s, the frequency and intensity high severity wildfire in the range of the NSO has increased (Miller et al. 2009, Schwind 2008, Westerling et al, 2006 cited in Davis et al. 2011). Moeur (2011) noted similar findings related to the loss of late-successional and old-growth forests favored by northern spotted owls. The fifteen year monitoring report for the Northwest Forest Plan (Davis et al. 2011) noted that: Although the relationship between wildfire frequency and severity on owl demography is not fully understood, habitat loss is the primary reason for the owl’s decline and subsequent listing as “threatened” under the Endangered Species Act (USDI 1990). The habitat monitoring results presented in chapter 3 (this report) identified wildfire as the leading cause of current spotted owl nesting and roosting habitat loss (3.4 percent) and its future recruitment on federal lands. This was also the finding in the 10-yearmonitoring report (Davis and Lint 2005), and since completion of that report, several more large wildfires have occurred within the owl’s range and more nesting/roosting habitat has been lost. Thus, loss of habitat to wildfire remains a significant concern for the management and conservation of the spotted owl. The 2011 Recovery Plan for the northern spotted owl also noted habitat loss or degradation from stand-replacing wildfire as one of the most important range-wide threats to the northern spotted owl (USFWS 2011). Davis et al. (2012) mapped areas prone to future large stand-replacing fires, noting the Klamath Province as one of the geographic areas most likely to experience large (>1,000 acres) stand-replacing fires in the future. Verifying this trend, in the wildfires that occurred in the 2014, the Beaver, Whites, and Happy Camp fires, over 7,000 acres of functioning nesting-roosting habitat and 9,600 acres of foraging habitat were lost to stand-replacing fire. In the 2016 Gap fire, and additional 681acres of nesting/roosting and foraging habitat was also lost to stand-replacing fire. It is becoming well established that stand-replacing, high intensity wildfire negatively affects NSO habitat within the Klamath Province and that the potential for future habitat losses in the Klamath Province is high. Given the projected climate change scenarios, the rate of habitat loss from stand-replacement fire is likely to increase. Recovery Action 10 in the NSO Recovery Plan directs agencies to consider both the short-term adverse impacts of fuels treatments and other activities, and long-term benefits (USFWS 2011). Long-term benefits include reducing the risk of future habitat loss from stand-replacing fire and actions that accelerate the development of regenerating habitat. Although the previous sections of this document identify the more clearly discernible effects of the project on NSO and its habitat, there are several other potential beneficial effects that are difficult to estimate given the unpredictable nature of fire. The following project activities may have long-term benefits to NSO habitat because these treatments can reduce fire intensity and severity, and enhance future fire management activities, including fire suppression, managing unplanned ignitions, and the future implementation of prescribed fire.

130

Batched Re-initiation and Post-fire Consultation Wildlife Biological Assessment

Salvage Harvest: This action can reduce heavy fuel loading that contributes to future resistance to control, and increased fire severity (Peterson 2014). The lack of salvage can increase the amount of fuels in areas of high severity fire, especially after the dead trees fall to the ground. These accumulated fuels could contribute to the intensity of fire and promote the spread of the fire into adjacent habitat. Fuel Management Zones (FMZ): This action reduces the probability of large stand replacement fire spreading from one drainage to another by providing pre-constructed zones in strategic locations. These pre-constructed zones provide locations for rapid fire-line construction and burnout operations that would otherwise consume limited fire management resources and time during a fire. FMZs play a critical role in contributing to fire suppression success. Roadside Hazard Removal: Maintaining access is a key element of effective fire suppression. Roadside hazard removal on strategic roads reduces hazards along roads for ingress and egress for fire suppression access, which benefits NSO habitat through more effective and timely suppression of high severity, stand replacing fire. Site Preparation and Planting: This action provides additional seed source for areas with large patches of high severity burn. It is possible for conifer forests that experience high severity fire to provide seedlings, however, this isn’t necessarily a guarantee. Likewise, planting isn’t necessarily a guarantee, but the combination of reducing fuels and planting seedlings of a variety of tree species will likely increase the chance that planted seedlings and natural regeneration may reach maturity.

XII. Determinations of Effects

Species Not Affected by the Proposed Project As stated in the Introduction, the following species were considered and found to; not occur within the project areas, or the project areas are outside of the species’ current range, or their suitable habitat occurs outside the affected units.

The following species will not be affected by the proposed project (table 37) for the reasons listed:

Table 38: Species Not Affected by the Proposed Project

Species Reason for No Effect Determination

Gray wolf Based on the best available scientific and commercial information, this species is not known to occur on the action area.

Conservancy fairy shrimp Based on the best available scientific and commercial information, this species’ range is outside of the action area.

Vernal pool fairy shrimp Based on the best available scientific and commercial information, this species is not known to occur on the action area.

131

Batched Re-initiation and Post-fire Consultation Wildlife Biological Assessment

Species Reason for No Effect Determination

Vernal pool tadpole Based on the best available scientific and commercial information, this shrimp species is not known to occur on the action area.

Oregon spotted frog Based on the best available scientific and commercial information, this species’ range is outside of the action area.

Western Yellow-billed Based on the best available scientific and commercial information, this Cuckoo species is not known to occur on the action area.

Northern Spotted Owl The proposed activities are likely to adversely affect the northern spotted owl. The action area contains 27 activity centers. Of these 27 ACs, 11 of these have “Likely to Adversely Affect” determinations. There are 13 activity centers with “May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect”, and 3 activity centers with “No Effect” determinations. These determinations reflect the total effects resulting from all proposed management actions. Northern Spotted Owl Critical Habitat The PBFs of northern spotted owl Critical Habitat are Likely to be Adversely Affected by the proposed management actions.

The removal of large snags across hundreds of acres of Critical Habitat, impacting two subunits, is of a magnitude and scale that is not insignificant or discountable.

132

Batched Re-initiation and Post-fire Consultation Wildlife Biological Assessment

XIII. References Used and Literature Cited

Angwin, P.A., D.R. Cluck, P.J. Zambino, B.W. Oblinger, and W.C. Woodruff. 2012. Hazard tree guidelines for Forest Service, facilities and roads in the Pacific Southwest Region, Forest health protection Pacific Southwest Region, 40 pp. Anthony, R.G., E.D. Forsman, A.B. Franklin, D.R. Anderson, K.P. Burnham, G.C. White, C.J. Schwarz et al. 2006. Status and trends in demography of northern spotted owls, 1985–2003. Wildlife Monographs 163: 1-48. Blakesley, J. A., LaHaye, W., Marzluff, J. M. M., Noon, B. R., & Courtney, S. (2004). Scientific evaluation of the status of the northern spotted owl–demography. Chapter 8. Courtney, S.P., J.A. Blakesley, RE Bigley, M.L. Cody, J.P. Dumbacher, RC Fleischer, AB Franklin, JF Franklin, RJ Gutiérrez, JM Marzluff, L. Sztukowski. Bond, M.L., Bradley, C. and Lee, D.E., 2016. Foraging habitat selection by California spotted owls after fire. The Journal of Wildlife Management, 80(7), pp.1290-1300.

Bond M.L., Siegel R.B., Hutto R.L., Saab V.A., Shunk S.A. 2012. A new forest fire paradigm: The need for high-severity fires. The Wildlife Professional Winter 2012.

Bond M.L., Lee D.E., Siegel R.B. 2010. Winter movements by California spotted owls in a burned landscape. Western Birds 41:174-180. Bond M.L., Lee D.E., Siegel R.B., Ward, J.P. Jr. 2009. Habitat selection and use by California spotted owls in a post-fire landscape. Journal of Wildlife Management 73:1116-1124. Bond, M.L., R.J. Gutierrez, A.B. Franklin, W.S. LaHaye, C.A. May, and M.E. Seamans. 2002. Short-term effects of wildfires on spotted owl survival, site fidelity, mate fidelity, and reproductive success. Wildlife Society Bulletin (30) 1022- 1026. Carey, A. B., Horton, S. P., & Biswell, B. L. 1992. Northern spotted owls: influence of prey base and landscape character. Ecological Monographs, 62(2), 223-250. Clark D.A. 2007. Demography and Habitat Selection of Northern Spotted Owls in Post-Fire Landscapes of Southwestern Oregon. M.S. Thesis. Oregon State University. 218pp. Clark, D. A., Anthony, R. G., & Andrews, L. S. 2011. Survival rates of northern spotted owls in post-fire landscapes of southwest Oregon. Journal of Raptor Research, 45(1), 38-47. Clark D.A., R.G. Anthony, L.S. Andrews. 2013. Relationship between wildfire, salvage logging, and occupancy of nesting territories by northern spotted owls. The Journal of Wildlife Management 77(4):672–688; 2013. Cluck, D.R. and S.L. Smith. 2007. Fall rates of snags: a summary of the literature for California conifer species. NE-SPR-07- 01. Forest Health Protection. Susanville, CA. Comfort, E.J., Clark, D.A., Anthony, R.G., Bailey, J. and Betts, M.G., 2016. Quantifying edges as gradients at multiple scales improves habitat selection models for northern spotted owl. Landscape Ecology, 31(6), pp.1227-1240. Comfort, E. J. 2013. Trade-offs between management for fire risk reduction and northern spotted owl habitat protection in the dry conifer forests of southern Oregon. Dissertation, Oregon State University

133

Batched Re-initiation and Post-fire Consultation Wildlife Biological Assessment

Courtney, S. P., J. A. Blakesley, et al. 2004. Scientific evaluation of the status of the northern spotted owl. Portland, Oregon, Sustainable Ecosystem Institute: 508 pages. Damiani, C., D.C. Lee, et al. 2007. Effects of Noise Disturbance on Northern Spotted Owl Reproductive Success. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station and Redwoods Science Center. Arcata, CA: 16 pp. Davis, R. and J. Lint. 2005. Northwest Forest Plan - the First 10 years (1994-2003): Status and trends of the Northern Spotted Owl populations and Habitat. General Technical Report PNW-GTR-648 Portland, Oregon. Pacific Northwest Research Station, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. Davis, Raymond J.; Dugger, Katie M.; Mohoric, Shawne; Evers, Louisa; Aney, William C. 2011. Northwest Forest Plan— the first 15 years (1994–2008): status and trends of northern spotted owl populations and habitats. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNWGTR- 850. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 147 p. Dugger, K. M., Wagner, F., Anthony, R. G., and Olson, G. S. 2005. The relationship between habitat characteristics and demographic performance of northern spotted owls in southern Oregon. The Condor, 107(4), 863-878. Dugger, K. M., Anthony, R. G., & Andrews, L. S. (2011). Transient dynamics of invasive competition: barred owls, spotted owls, habitat, and the demons of competition present. Ecological Applications, 21(7), 2459-2468. Elliott B. 1985. Changes in distribution of owl species subsequent to habitat alteration by fire. Western Birds 16:25-28. Eyes, S. A., S.L. Roberts, and M.D. Johnson. 2017. California spotted owl (Strix occidentalis occidentalis) habitat use patterns in a burned landscape. The Condor 119(2017) pp. 375-388 Eyes, S. A. 2014. The effects of fire severity on California spotted owl habitat use patterns. Masters Thesis, Humboldt State University. Franklin, A.B., D.R. Anderson, R.J. Gutierrez and K.P. Burnham. 2000. Climate change, habitat quality, and fitness in northern spotted owl populations in northwestern California. Ecological Monographs 70:539-590. Franklin, A. B. (1997). Factors affecting temporal and spatial variation in northern spotted owl populations in northwest California (Doctoral dissertation, Colorado State University). Gaines, W.L. R.A. Strand and S.D. Piper. 1997. Effects of the Hatchery Complex fires on northern spotted owls in the Eastern Washington Cascades. In J.N. Greenlee ed. Proceedings of the Fire Effects on Rare and Endangered species and habitats conference, International Association of Wildlife and Forestry, Coeur d’Alene, Idaho. Hamer, T. E., Forsman, E. D., & Glenn, E. M. (2007). Home range attributes and habitat selection of barred owls and spotted owls in an area of sympatry. The Condor, 109(4), 750-768. Hayward, L. S., A. E. Bowles, et al. 2011. "Impacts of acute and long-term vehicle exposure on physiology and reproductive success of the northern spotted owl." Ecosphere 2(6): 20 pp. Hood, S., S. Smith and D. Cluck. 2007. Delayed conifer tree mortality following fire in California. In: Powers, Robert F., tech. editor. 2007. Restoring fire-adapted ecosystems: proceedings of the 2005 national silviculture workshop. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-203. Albany, CA. Pacific Southwest Research Station, Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. p. 261-283. Hunter, J. E., Gutiérrez, R. J., & Franklin, A. B. (1995). Habitat configuration around spotted owl sites in northwestern California. Condor, 684-693. Irwin, L. L., Clark, L. A., Rock, D. C., & Rock, S. L. 2007. Modeling foraging habitat of California spotted owls. The Journal of Wildlife Management, 71(4), 1183-1191.

134

Batched Re-initiation and Post-fire Consultation Wildlife Biological Assessment

Irwin, L. L., Fleming, T. L., & Beebe, J. (2004). Are spotted owl populations sustainable in fire-prone forests? Journal of Sustainable Forestry, 18(4), 1-28. Irwin, L. L., Rock, D. F., & Rock, S. C. 2012. Habitat selection by northern spotted owls in mixed-coniferous forests. The Journal of Wildlife Management, 76(1), 200-213. Irwin, L. L., Rock, D. F., & Rock, S. C. 2013. Do northern spotted owls use harvested areas? Forest Ecology and Management, 310, 1029-1035. Jenness, J.S. 2000. The effects of fire on Mexican spotted owls in Arizona and New Mexico. MS Thesis, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, Arizona. Jones, G.M., Gutiérrez, R.J., Tempel, D.J., Whitmore, S.A., Berigan, W.J. and Peery, M.Z., 2016. Megafires: an emerging threat to old-forest species. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 14(6), pp.300-306. Kelly, E.G., E.D. Forsman, & R.G. Anthony 2003. Are barred owls displacing spotted owls? The Condor, 105(1), 45-53. Lamberson, R. H., R. McKelvey, et al. 1992. "A dynamic analysis of northern spotted owl viability in a fragmented forest landscape." Conservation Biology 6(4): 505-512. Lamberson, R. H., B. R. Noon, et al. 1994. "Reserve design for territorial species: The effects of patch size and spacing in the viability of the Northern Spotted Owl " Conservation Biology 8(1): 185-195. Lee, D.E, Bond M.L., Siegel R.B. 2012. Dynamics of California Spotted Owl breeding-season site occupancy in burned forests. The Condor. 114:792-802. Lee, D. E., Bond, M. L., Borchert, M. I., & Tanner, R. 2013. Influence of fire and salvage logging on site occupancy of spotted owls in the San Bernardino and San Jacinto Mountains of southern California. The Journal of Wildlife Management, 77(7), 1327-1341. Lee, D. E., M.L. Bond. 2015. Occupancy of California spotted owl sites following a large fire in the Sierra Nevada, California. The Condor, Ornithological Applications 117 pp 228-236. Lee, D. E. and M. L. Bond. 2015b. Previous year's reproductive state affects Spotted Owl site occupancy and reproduction responses to natural and anthropogenic disturbances. The Condor, 117(3):307-319. Lindenmayer, D., Burton, P.J. and Franklin, J.F. 2008 Salvage Logging and Its Ecological Consequences. Island Press, Washington, DC. Long, J.W., Skinner, C., Charnley, S., Hubbert, K., Quinn-Davidson, L. and Meyer, M., 2014. Post-wildfire management. Loschl, P. J. (2008). Age-specific and lifetime reproductive success of known age Northern Spotted Owls on four study areas in Oregon and Washington (Doctoral dissertation). Marshall, K., Mamone, M., & Barclay, R. (2003). A survey of Douglas-fir dwarf mistletoe brooms used for nests by northern spotted owls on the Applegate Ranger District and Ashland Resource Area in southwest Oregon. Western Journal of Applied Forestry, 18(2), 115-117. McIver, J.; and L. Starr. 2000. Environmental Effects of Postfire Logging: Literature Review and Annotated Bibliography. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-486. USDA-Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 72p. Meyer, J. S., L. L. Irwin, et al. (1998). "Influence of habitat abundance and fragmentation on northern spotted owls in western Oregon." Wildlife Monographs 139: 1-51. Miller, J. D., Safford, H. D., Crimmins, M., & Thode, A. E. (2009). Quantitative evidence for increasing forest fire severity in the Sierra Nevada and southern Cascade Mountains, California and Nevada, USA. Ecosystems, 12(1), 16-32.

135

Batched Re-initiation and Post-fire Consultation Wildlife Biological Assessment

Moeur, Melinda; Ohmann, Janet L.; Kennedy, Robert E.; Cohen, Warren B.; Gregory, Matthew J.; Yang, Zhiqiang; Roberts, Heather M.; Spies, Thomas A.; Fiorella, Maria. 2011. Northwest Forest Plan–the first 15 years (1994–2008): status and trends of late-successional and old-growth forests. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-853. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 48 p. NatureServe. 2013. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Version 7.1. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available http://www.natureserve.org/explorer. Olson, G.S., R.G. Anthony, E.D. Forsman, S.H. Ackers, P.J. Loschl, J.A. Reid, K.M. Dugger, E.M. Glenn, and W.J. Ripple. 2005. Modeling of site occupancy dynamics for northern spotted owls, with emphasis on the effects of barred owls. Journal of Wildlife Management 69: 918-932. Parsons, A., Orelemann, A., Davis, M., McCammon, B., Howes, S., Robichaud, P. Sirucek, D., Shovic, H. 2003. Burned area emergency rehabilitation soil burn severity definitions and mapping guidelines. USDA Forest Service. Peterson, D.W., E.K. Dodson, and R.J. Harrod. 2014. Post-fire logging reduces surface woody fuels up to four decades following wildfire. Forest Ecology and Management, 338: 84-91. Rockweit, J.T., Franklin, A.B. and Carlson, P.C., 2017. Differential impacts of wildfire on the population dynamics of an old-forest species. Ecology. Rose, R. and D.L. Hasse. 2005. Rapid response reforestation: studies in fire reforestation. RMRS-P-35. USDA Forest Service Proceedings. Rosenberg, D. K., & McKelvey, K. S. (1999). Estimation of habitat selection for central-place foraging animals. The Journal of Wildlife Management, 1028-1038. Safford, H. D., J. Miller, D. Schmidt, B. Roath, A. Parsons. 2007. BAER Soil Burn Severity Maps Do Not Measure Fire Effects to Vegetation: A Comment on Odion and Hanson (2006). Ecosystems (2007) DOI: 10.1007/s10021-007-9094-z. Sakai, H. F., & Noon, B. R. 1993. Dusky-footed woodrat abundance in different-aged forests in northwestern California. The Journal of Wildlife Management, 373-382.

Sakai, H. F., & Noon, B. R. 1997. Between-habitat movements of dusky-footed woodrats and vulnerability to predation. Journal of Wildlife Management 61(2):343-350. Schilling, J.W., Dugger, K.M. and Anthony, R.G., 2013. Survival and home-range size of Northern Spotted Owls in southwestern Oregon. Journal of Raptor Research, 47(1), pp.1-14. Schwind, B., comp. 2008. Monitoring trends in burn severity: report on the Pacific Northwest and Pacific Southwest fires (1984 to 2005). Unpublished report. Sexton J. Ecological Effects of Salvage Logging and Grass Seeding Following the Lone Pine Fire, Winema National Forest. Fire and Wildlife in the Pacific Northwest-- Research, Policy, and Management: Post-Fire Rehabilitation and Recovery; Spokane, WA. 61-64. Skinner, C. N., Taylor, A. H., & Agee, J. K. (2006). Klamath mountains bioregion. In: N. G. Sugihara, J. W. van Wagtendonk, J. Fites-Kaufmann, K. E. Shaffer, and A. E. Thode, editors. 2006. Fire in California's ecosystems. University of California Press, Berkeley. pp. 170-194 Smith, S.L. and D.R. Cluck. 2011. Marking Guidelines for Fire-Injured Trees in California. US Forest Service, Region 5, Forest Health Protection. May 2011 (Report # RO-11-01) USDA Forest Service.

136

Batched Re-initiation and Post-fire Consultation Wildlife Biological Assessment

Spies, T.A., J.D. Miller, J. B. Buchanan, J.F. Lehmkuhl, J.F. Franklin, S. P. Healey, P.F. Hessburn, H,D. Safford, W.B. Cohen, R.S.H. Kennedy, E.E. Knapp, J.K.Agee, M. Mouer. 2009. Underestimating Risks to the Northern Spotted Owl in Fire- Prone Forests: Response to Hanson et al. Conservation Biology, Volume 24, No. 1, 330–333. Taylor, A.H. and Skinner, C.N., 2003. Spatial patterns and controls on historical fire regimes and forest structure in the Klamath Mountains. Ecological Applications, 13(3), pp.704-719. Taylor AH, Skinner CN. 2003. Fire History and Landscape Dynamics in a Late-Successional Reserve, Klamath Mountains, California, USA. Forest Ecology and Management. 1998;111:285-301. Western Birds 16:25-8. Thelander, C. G. and D. C. Pearson, Eds. (1994). Life on the Edge: A Guide to California's Endangered Natural Resources. Santa Cruz, CA, Biosystems Books. Thompson, J.R., T. A. Spies and L.M. Ganio. 2007. Reburn severity in managed and unmanaged vegetation in a large wildfire. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Volume 104, No. 25: 10743-10748 Thorn, S., D. B. Lindenmayer, S. Seibold, and J. Muller. 2017. Impacts of salvage logging on biodiversity – a meta-analysis. J Appl Ecol. 2018;55:279–289. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.12945 Tempel, D.J., R.J. Gutiérrez, S.A. Whitmore, M.J. Reetz, R.E. Stoelting, W.J. Berigan, M.E. Seamans, and M.Z. Peery. 2014. Effects of forest management on California Spotted Owls: implications for reducing wildfire risk in fire-prone forests. Ecological Applications 24: 2089-2106. Thomas J.W, Forsman E.D, Lint J.B, Meslow E.C., Noon B.R, Verner J. 1990. A Conservation Strategy for the Northern Spotted Owl. Portland (OR): Interagency Scientific Committee to address the conservation of the northern spotted owl. USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management, National Park Service, and Fish and Wildlife Service. USDA Forest Service. 1999. Klamath National Forest Late-successional Reserve Assessment, Klamath National Forest, Yreka, California. USDA Forest Service. 2015. Westside Fire Recovery Project, wildlife biological assessment, Klamath National Forest, Yreka, CA. USDI U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service (1998). Endangered Species Consultation Handbook - Procedures for Conducting Consultation and Conference Activities Under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. U.S. Department of the Interior and the U.S. Department of Commerce. Washington, DC: 371 pp. USDI U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (1999). Survival Strategy for Age-Old Shasta Crayfish outlined in Recovery Plan. U. S. F. a. W. Service. Sacramento, CA. USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2008. Final Recovery Plan for the Northern Spotted Owl, Strix occidentalis caurina. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, Oregon. xii + 142 pp. 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 owl on private timber lands in California’s northern interior region. USDI U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (2011). Revised Recovery Plan for the Northern Spotted Owl (Strix occidentalis caurina). Department of the Interior. Portland, OR: xvi + 258 pp. USDI U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. (2012). "Species Profile Shasta Crayfish (Pacifastacus fortis)." from http://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/speciesProfile.action

137

Batched Re-initiation and Post-fire Consultation Wildlife Biological Assessment

USDI U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. (2012). Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of Revised Critical Habitat for the Northern Spotted Owl; Final Rule. 50 CFR Part 17, 194 pp. USDI U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, USDA Forest Service, and USDOC NOAA Fisheries Service. 2013. Memorandum of understanding among National Marine Fisheries Service Southwest Region, US Fish and Wildlife Service Pacific Southwest Regions, US Forest Service Region 5, and Bureau of Land Management Northern California District regarding implementation of streamlined consultation procedures for section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. 16pp. USDI U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. (2014). Biological Opinion Addressing - The Douglas Post-Fire Salvage Project Proposed by the Medford District of the Bureau of Land Management (FWS Reference Number OlEOFW00-2014-F- 0161). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Roseburg Field Office June 25, 2014. USDI Federal Register. Vol. 79, No. 168. August 29, 2014. Rules and Regulations: Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Threatened Status for Oregon Spotted Frog. Final Rule. USDI U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2016. Biological Opinion – Westside Fire Recovery Project, Klamath National Forest, California (308EYRE00-2015-F-0023), Yreka Field Office, Yreka, California. USFWS 2017. Evaluating the Effects of Wildfire and Post-Fire Forest Management Activities on Spotted Owls and Their Habitat. Internal guidance document distributed by the Yreka Fish and Wildlife Service Field Office. USDI U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1998. Endangered Species Act consultation handbook, procedures for conducting Section 7 consultation and conferences. Verner, J., Gutiérrez, R.J. and Gould, G.J., 1992. The California spotted owl: general biology and ecological relations. Weatherspoon, C.P. and C.N. Skinner. 1995. An assessment of factors associated with damage to tree crowns from the 1987 wildfires in northern California. Forest Science, Volume 41, No. 3: 430-451. Westerling, A. L., Hidalgo, H. G., Cayan, D. R., & Swetnam, T. W. (2006). Warming and earlier spring increase western US forest wildfire activity. Science, 313(5789), 940-943. Wiens, J. D., Anthony, R. G., & Forsman, E. D. 2014. Competitive interactions and resource partitioning between northern spotted owls and barred owls in western Oregon. Wildlife Monographs, 185(1), 1-50. Yackulic, C. B., Reid, J., Davis, R., Hines, J. E., Nichols, J. D., & Forsman, E. (2012). Neighborhood and habitat effects on vital rates: expansion of the Barred Owl in the Oregon Coast Ranges. Ecology, 93(8), 1953-1966. Zabel, C.J., McKelvey, K. and Ward Jr, J.P., 1995. Influence of primary prey on home-range size and habitat-use patterns of northern spotted owls (Strix occidentalis caurina). Canadian Journal of Zoology, 73(3), pp.433-439. Zabel, C. J., Dunk, J. R., Stauffer, H. B., Roberts, L. M., Mulder, B. S., & Wright, A. (2003). Northern Spotted Owl habitat models for research and management application in California (USA). Ecological Applications, 13(4), 1027-1040. Zeiner, David C . ; Laudenslayer Jr., W.F.; Mayer, K.E.. 1988. California's Wildlife, Vol. I. Amphibians and Reptiles. California Department of Fish and Game. Sacramento, CA Zeiner, David C., Laudenslayer Jr., W.F.; Mayer, K .E. White, M. 1990. California's Wildlife, Vol. III. Mammals. California Department of Fish and Game. Sacramento, CA. Zwolak, R., & Foresman, K. R. (2007). Effects of a stand-replacing fire on small-mammal communities in montane forest. Canadian Journal of Zoology, 85(7), 815-822.

138

Batched Re-initiation and Post-fire Consultation Wildlife Biological Assessment

XIV. Maps and Appendices

Appendix A: Emergency Consultation BA

139

Batched Re-initiation and Post-fire Consultation Wildlife Biological Assessment

Appendix B: Activity Center Status

Table A1: Reproductive status of the activity centers in the action area. The most recent barred owl detections where they occurred within a core area and/or home range are also listed below. BAOW = Barred Owl.

AC NRIS CNDDB Placement (Core and Highest AC Most Recent Highest AC Most Recent Most Most Recent Home Status Detection/ Status Level/ Detection/ Activity Recent Barred Owl Activity range Level/ Year Year Year Year Center Year Detection in the Center ID circles are Name Surveyed NSO core or centered on for NSO home range9 identified feature below)

Middle 2013 Nest KL0149 Repro/2013 Single/2017 Repro/2013 Repro/2013 2017 None detected Creek 1 site

Dagget KL0215 1981 Pair Single/2005 Single/2005 Pair/1981 Single/1996 2010 None detected Creek

Slippery 1990 Single KL0216 Single/1990 Single/1990 Single/1996 Single/1996 1996 None detected Creek and habitat

Fourmile KL0217 2003 single Single/2003 Single/2003 Single/2003 Single/2003 2003 None detected Creek

Gasquet KL0251 1991 Pair Pair/1991 Pair/1991 Pair/1996 Pair/1996 2011 None detected Gulch

Upper 1994 BAOW in the KL0253 Walker Family Repro/1994 Single/2007 Repro/1994 Single/2007 2017 Home range Gulch detection

Habitat Home range- Gumboot among KL0292 Single/2010 Single/2010 Single/1996 Single/1996 2011 BAOW single Creek single 2014 detections

East Fork Horse 1984 Nest BAOW in Home KL1150 Repro/1984 Single/2010 Repro/1984 Single/2002 2010 Creek – Site range South

Lower 1992 Pair – Core – BAOW KL1152 Horse Pair/1992 Single/2000 Pair/1992 Pair/1992 2017 day time Single 2017 Extra

9 There are many BAOW detections in the Horse Creek watershed, this column is identifying those BAOW detections in the NSO core or home range. 140

Batched Re-initiation and Post-fire Consultation Wildlife Biological Assessment

AC NRIS CNDDB Placement (Core and Highest AC Most Recent Highest AC Most Recent Most Most Recent Home Status Detection/ Status Level/ Detection/ Activity Recent Barred Owl Activity range Level/ Year Year Year Year Center Year Detection in the Center ID circles are Name Surveyed NSO core or centered on for NSO home range9 identified feature below)

Rainey 2003 Nest Core – BAOW KL1153 Repro/2002 Single/2010 Repro/2003 Repro/2003 2017 Horse Site Pair 2016

Upper 1990 Nest Core – BAOW KL1154 Repro/1990 Repro/1990 Repro/1990 Repro/1990 2011 Horse 1 Site Single 2010

Upper 2003 Nest KL1155 Repro/2002 Pair/2003 Repro/2003 Repro/2003 2010 None detected Horse 2 Site

Upper 1988 Nest KL1159 Seiad Repro/1988 Pair/1990 Repro/1988 Pair/1990 2003 None detected Site Creek

Lower 1988 Nest BAOW in Home KL1160 Seiad Repro/1988 Single/199010 Pair/1987 Single/1988 2017 Site range Creek

Panther 2003 Nest Core – BAOW KL1161 Repro/1987 Single/2014 Repro/2003 Pair/2009 2017 Gulch Site Single 2017

BAOW in Home KL1163 Salt Gulch 2012 Repro Repro/2012 Single/2016 Repro/2012 Repro/2012 2017 range

Little Centered on Core - BAOW KL4210 Grider habitat near Repro/1990 Single/1996 Repro/1998 Repro/1998 2011 single 1998 Creek 1998 Repro

Oak Flat Habitat and KL4216 Pair/2011 Pair/2011 None None 2011 None detected Creek topography

Home range – Phillips KL4215 2006 Pair Pair/2006 Pair/2006 Single/1977 Single/1977 2006 BAOW single Gulch 2012

Wingate Core – BAOW KL4214 2005 Pair Pair/2005 Single/2007 Repro/1989 2005/Pair 2012 Creek pair 2011

Baldly Centered on KL4217 Single/2003 Single/2003 Single/1996 Single/1996 2003 None detected Lookout Habitat south of

10 There is a pair detection in 2007 between the cores of KL1160 and KL1161 and the detection was attributed to the KL1161 based on topography 141

Batched Re-initiation and Post-fire Consultation Wildlife Biological Assessment

AC NRIS CNDDB Placement (Core and Highest AC Most Recent Highest AC Most Recent Most Most Recent Home Status Detection/ Status Level/ Detection/ Activity Recent Barred Owl Activity range Level/ Year Year Year Year Center Year Detection in the Center ID circles are Name Surveyed NSO core or centered on for NSO home range9 identified feature below)

detection

Swillup 2014 Nest KL4224 Repro/2017 Repro/2017 Repro/2012 Repro/2012 2017 None detected Creek Site

Crawfish 2009 pair - Core – BAOW KL4132 Pair/2009 Single/2010 Pair/2009 Single/2010 2017 Gulch daytime single 2016

Lower 1991 Nest KL4149 Middle Repro/1991 Pair/1994 Repro/1991 Pair/1994 2017 None detected site Creek

Lower 2002 KL4149B Middle Pair/2009 Pair/2010 Repro/2002 Pair/2009 2017 None detected Family Creek B

142

Batched Re-initiation and Post-fire Consultation Wildlife Biological Assessment

Appendix C: Consistency of Project with NSO Recovery Plan

SEIAD-HORSE AND OAK PROJECT COMPLIANCE WITH RECOVERY ACTIONS IN THE 2011 REVISED RECOVERY PLAN FOR THE NORTHERN SPOTTED OWL Recovery Action 1: For each State, the FWS will designate offices that will coordinate implementation of the spotted owl recovery plan. These offices will work with local and regional partners to best ensure actions taken within that management jurisdiction are meeting the intention of the recovery plan while taking local context and variation into account. The Oregon Fish and Wildlife Office will remain the overall lead for the species and provide technical assistance and oversight to the other FWS offices as needed. We have established and lead an interagency and interorganizational Northern Spotted Owl Implementation Team (NSOIT) designed to help coordinate implementation of this Revised Recovery Plan throughout the range of the species.  This RA is not applicable at the project analysis level.

Recovery Action 2: Continue annual monitoring of the population trend of spotted owls to determine if the population is decreasing, stationary or increasing. Monitoring in demographic study areas is currently the primary method to assess the status of populations of spotted owls. Other statistically valid monitoring methods (i.e., analytically robust and representative of the entire province and range) may be possible and could potentially fulfill this recovery action.  This RA is not applicable at the project analysis level.

Recovery Action 3: Conduct occupancy inventory or predictive modeling needed to determine if Recovery Criteria 1 and 2 have been met. It is expected this inventory will begin when it appears the spotted owl is close to meeting Recovery Criterion 1. Modeling techniques have improved recently, so predictive modeling may be part of the methodology for estimating spotted owl occupancy across the range.  This RA is not applicable at the project analysis level because it refers primarily to the demographic monitoring areas.

Recovery Action 4: Use the habitat modeling process described above and in Appendix C to identify and implement recovery actions and conservation measures that would contribute to spotted owl recovery, including testing the efficacy of various habitat conservation network scenarios at conserving spotted owl habitat. Use the results from this effort to inform decisions concerning the possible development of habitat conservation networks.  This RA is not applicable at the project analysis level.

Recovery Action 5: – Consistent with Executive Order 3226, as amended, the Service will consider, analyze and incorporate as appropriate potential climate change impacts in long-range planning, setting priorities for scientific research and investigations, and/or when making major decisions affecting the spotted owl.  This RA is not applicable at the project analysis level.

143

Batched Re-initiation and Post-fire Consultation Wildlife Biological Assessment

Recovery Action 6: 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.  This RA is not applicable because the project lies outside Regions that the Recovery Plan considers as including “moist forests”.

Recovery Action 7: Create an interagency Dry Cascades Work Group that is available to assist land managers in developing and evaluating landscape-level recovery strategies for the Eastern Washington, Eastern Oregon, and California Cascades Provinces, including monitoring and adaptive management actions.  This RA is not applicable at the project analysis level.

Recovery Action 8: In Eastern Washington, Eastern Oregon and California Cascades Provinces, analyze existing data on spotted owl occupancy pre- and post-fire and establish a consistent database to track owl occupancy response to fires across the dry Cascades provinces.  This RA is not applicable at the project analysis level.

Recovery Action 9: Create an interagency Klamath Province Work Group that is available to assist land managers in developing and evaluating landscape-level recovery strategies for the Oregon and California Klamath physiographic province, which include monitoring and adaptive management actions.  This RA is not applicable at the project analysis level.

Recovery Action 10: - Conserve spotted owl sites and high value spotted owl habitat to provide additional demographic support to the spotted owl population.  This addressed in the body of the document above in Table 2.

Recovery Action 11: When vegetation management treatments are proposed to restore or enhance habitat for spotted owls (e.g., thinnings, restoration projects, prescribed fire, etc.), consider designing and conducting experiments to better understand how these different actions influence the development of spotted owl habitat, spotted owl prey abundance and distribution, and spotted owl demographic performance at local and regional scales. • The proposed projects addresses this RA by proposing treatments such as planting conifer species in areas burned at high severity in order to accelerate the development of the overstory. In addition, fuels treatments are designed to protect the surrounding unburned habitat by providing breaks in the fuels where suppression actions can be undertaken more quickly and effectively during the next fire event. Removing hazard trees along roads that are the main routes during suppression actions also serves to accelerate the response time and increase the safety for fire fighters. Salvage harvest removes high fuel loading in order to allow the forest to regenerate as conifer rather than reverting to a brush stand with each fire that occurs in the area.

Recovery Action 12: In lands where management is focused on development of spotted owl habitat, post- fire silvicultural activities should concentrate on conserving and restoring habitat elements that take a long time to develop (e.g., large trees, medium and large snags, downed wood). Examples of areas where

144

Batched Re-initiation and Post-fire Consultation Wildlife Biological Assessment we believe this recovery action would greatly benefit future spotted owl habitat development include such fire-affected areas as the Biscuit fire, the Davis fire and the B&B complex.  This RA is addressed in the body of the document above in Table 2.

Recovery Action 13: Standardize province-specific habitat definitions across the range of the spotted owl using a collaborative process.  This RA is not applicable at the project analysis level. However, the KNF is eager to cooperate in establishing habitat definitions for provinces that occur on the Forest.

Recovery Action 14: Encourage applicants to develop Habitat Conservation Plans and Safe Harbor Agreements that are consistent with the recovery objectives.  This RA is not applicable because it applies to Private Property owners and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Recovery Action 15: The Service will solicit individual recommendations from stakeholders to develop a comprehensive set of tools and business and economic incentives that facilitate creative opportunities for nonfederal landowners to engage in management strategies consistent with the recovery objectives.  This RA is not applicable because it applies to Private Property owners and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Recovery Action 16: Federal, State, and local managers should consider long-term maintenance of local forest management infrastructure as a priority in planning and land management decisions.  This RA is not applicable because it applies to Private Property owners and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Recovery Action 17: Monitor for sudden oak death and avian diseases (e.g., WNV, avian flu, Plasmodium spp.) and address as necessary.  This RA is not applicable at the project analysis level. Nonetheless, the KNF is eager to cooperate in monitoring sudden oak death and avian diseases as related to the spotted owl.

Recovery Action 18: The Washington State Forest Practices Board (Board) should use the final recovery plan and the habitat modeling tool to inform the process currently underway to identify areas on non- federal lands in Washington that can make strategic contributions to spotted owl conservation over time. The Service encourages timely completion of the Board’s efforts and will be available to assist as necessary.  This RA is not applicable because it applies to Private Property owners, the Washington State Forest Practices Board, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Recovery Action 19: The Service will request the cooperation of Oregon Department of Forestry in a scientific evaluation of: (1) the potential role of State and private lands in Oregon to contribute to spotted owl recovery; and (2) the effectiveness of current Oregon Forest Practices in conserving spotted owl habitat and meeting the recovery goals identified in this Revised Recovery Plan. Based on this scientific evaluation, the Service will work with the Oregon Department of Forestry and other individual

145

Batched Re-initiation and Post-fire Consultation Wildlife Biological Assessment stakeholders to provide specific recommendations for how best to address spotted owl conservation needs on Oregon’s non-federal lands.  This RA is not applicable because it applies to the Oregon Department of Forestry, Private Property owners, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Recovery Action 20: The Service will request the cooperation of CAL FIRE and individual stakeholders in an evaluation of: (1) the potential recovery role of spotted owl sites and high-quality habitat on nonfederal lands in California, and (2) evaluation and implementation of appropriate conservation tools (e.g., carbon sequestration, Habitat Conservation Plans, Safe Harbor Agreements) to assist with supporting spotted owl recovery actions outlined in this Recovery Plan.  This RA is not applicable because it applies to CAL FIRE and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Recovery Action 21: The Service will provide technical assistance to the California Board of Forestry and Fire Protection and CAL FIRE to develop scientifically based and contemporary Forest Practice Rules to provide for the breeding, feeding and sheltering of spotted owls.  This RA is not applicable because it applies to the California Board of Forestry and Fire Protection, CAL FIRE, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Recovery Action 22: If barred owl removal is determined to be effective, work with the State of California to explore options for managing barred owls using lethal means.  This RA is not applicable because it applies to the State of California and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Recovery Action 23: Analyze existing data sets from the demographic study areas relative to the effects of barred owls on spotted owl site occupancy, reproduction, and survival.  This RA is not applicable at the project analysis level. Nonetheless, the KNF is eager to cooperate with any analyses of existing data sets.

Recovery Action 24: Establish protocols to detect barred owls and document barred owl site status and reproduction.  This RA is not applicable at the project analysis level. Nonetheless, the KNF is eager to cooperate in barred owl detection protocols.

Recovery Action 25: Ensure that protocols adequately detect spotted owls in areas with barred owls.  This RA is not applicable at the project analysis level.

Recovery Action 26: Analyze resource partitioning of sympatric barred owls and spotted owls.  This RA is not applicable at the project analysis level. Nonetheless, the KNF is eager to cooperate in the study of spotted owl and barred owl resource partitioning.

Recovery Action 27: Create and implement an outreach strategy to educate the public about the threat of barred owls to spotted owls.

146

Batched Re-initiation and Post-fire Consultation Wildlife Biological Assessment

 This RA is not applicable at the project analysis level. Nonetheless, the KNF is eager to cooperate in outreach to the public concerning all forest management issues.

Recovery Action 28: Expedite permitting of experimental removal of barred owls.  This RA is not applicable at the project analysis level. The removal of barred owls is an issue between the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the State of California.

Recovery Action 29: Design and implement large-scale control experiments to assess the effects of barred owl removal on spotted owl site occupancy, reproduction, and survival.  This RA is not applicable at the project analysis level. Nonetheless, the KNF is eager to cooperate in experiments to assess the effects of barred owl removal on spotted owl site occupancy, reproduction, and survival.

Recovery Action 30: Manage to reduce the negative effects of barred owls on spotted owls so that Recovery Criterion 1 can be met.  The Project is consistent with this RA because habitat features that benefit the spotted owl will be maintained. Actions that influence the barred owl are not a part of this project.

Recovery Action 31: Develop mechanisms for landowners and land managers to support barred owl management using a collaborative process.  The Project is consistent with this RA because, during the consultation process related to the Endangered Species Act, the KNF collaborates with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on all projects that could potentially impact the spotted owl.

Recovery Action 32: Because spotted owl recovery requires well distributed, older and more structurally complex multi-layered conifer forests on Federal and non-federal lands across its range, land managers should work with the Service as described below to maintain and restore such habitat while allowing for other threats, such as fire and insects, to be addressed by restoration management actions. These high- quality spotted owl habitat stands are characterized as having large diameter trees, high amounts of canopy cover, and decadence components such as broken-topped live trees, mistletoe, cavities, large snags, and fallen trees.  This RA is addressed in the body of the document above in Table 2.

Recovery Action 33: Develop a post-delisting monitoring plan ready for implementation with the States of Washington, Oregon, and California (ESA 4(g)(1)). Such a plan is necessary to meet the requirements of the ESA.  This RA is not applicable at the project analysis level. Nonetheless, the KNF is eager to cooperate in the development of a post-delisting monitoring plan.

147

Batched Re-initiation and Post-fire Consultation Wildlife Biological Assessment

Appendix D: Maps

148

Batched Re-initiation and Post-fire Consultation Wildlife Biological Assessment

149

Batched Re-initiation and Post-fire Consultation Wildlife Biological Assessment

150

Batched Re-initiation and Post-fire Consultation Wildlife Biological Assessment

Appendix E: Critical Habitat Review and Summary The following section is a review of projects within NSO Critical Habitat subunits KLE6 and KLW7 within which the PBFs have undergone a changed condition and management actions are yet to be implemented. Previously planned projects that have not been fully implemented which occur within the same Critical Habitat subunits as the proposed management actions analyzed within this BA were reviewed. Each project was evaluated to determine if the PBFs in the analysis area had a change in condition and if so, would the implementation of the remaining actions result in exceeding those effects described for Critical Habitat in the original BA. Where a changed condition occurred within each project’s Critical Habitat analysis areas, we evaluated the combined effects from the wildfire and the proposed management actions to establish if the level of effects has exceeded those that were consulted upon and if re-initiation has been triggered. The purpose of this section is to provide background information on the Critical Habitat subunits that have experienced changes to PBFs resulting from wildfire in order to fully consider the context and scale of the impacts of the actions remaining to implement for which consultation is re-initiated in this batched BA. Additional information about the overall change to the subunits from the 2017 wildfires on the Klamath NF is described in the 2017 Emergency Consultation BA.

SUBUNIT KLE6  Thom Seider – all actions remaining to be implemented would degrade habitat only; no change to the total acres of available PBFs is expected. Therefore, re-initiation is not triggered.

 Johnny O’Neil - all actions remaining to be implemented would degrade habitat only; treatments will not change the total acres of available PBFs. Therefore, re-initiation is not triggered.

 Westside – downgrading 127 acres of NRF to dispersal. Actions remaining to implement for the Westside project were evaluated in combination with the changed condition to the PBFs in the Critical Habitat analysis area from the 2017 wildfires. We determined that the changed condition of the NSO habitat in the analysis area did not exceed that which was originally analyzed nor did it alter the determination made in the original BA.  Horse Creek – downgrading 51 acres of NRF. Treatments did not change the total acres of available PBFs in the Critical Habitat analysis area. Management actions in the Horse Creek project were evaluated in combination with the changed condition from the 2017 wildfires. We determined that the changed condition of the 151

Batched Re-initiation and Post-fire Consultation Wildlife Biological Assessment

NSO habitat in the analysis area did not exceed that which was originally analyzed nor did it alter the determination made in the original BA.

SUBUNIT KLW 7

 Westside –

o 374 acres of NRF downgraded to dispersal. o 13 acres of N/R downgraded to foraging. o 12 acres of NRF habitat removed. o 414 acres of dispersal habitat removed.

Actions remaining to implement for the Westside project were evaluated in combination with the changed condition from the 2017 wildfires. The changed condition of the NSO habitat in the analysis area did not exceed that which was originally analyzed nor did it alter the determination made in the original BA.

152