Western Klamath Restoration Partnership: Somes Bar Integrated Fire Management Project Lower Middle Klamath River Watershed

Home , Boise Creek, Klamath River, Red Salmon Complex fire

BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT AND BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION

For

Threatened, Endangered, Proposed, and Sensitive Anadromous Fish Species

That may be affected by:

Western Klamath Restoration Partnership: Somes Bar Integrated Fire Management Project Lower Middle Klamath River Watershed

* Ukonom Ranger District of the Klamath National Forest and Orleans Ranger District of the Six Rivers National Forest

Klamath Province Humboldt and Siskiyou County, California

April 20, 2018

Prepared by: ______Date: April 20, 2018 LeRoy Cyr District Fisheries Biologist

Reviewed by: ______Date: April 20, 2018 Karen Kenfield Forest Level I Coordinator

*Note: The Ukonom Ranger District is administratively managed by the Six Rivers National Forest.

Somes Bar Integrated Fire Management Project – Fisheries BA/BE – April 2018

PROJECT NAME: Somes Bar Integrated Fire Management Project

ADMINISTRATIVE UNITS: Klamath National Forest - Ukonom Ranger District and Six Rivers National Forest - Orleans Ranger District

ANALYSIS WATERSHEDS:  4th field scale - Middle Klamath River: 984,709 acres  6th field scale - Ti Creek: 13,623 acres  6th field scale - Reynolds Creek: 34,611 acres  6th field scale - Boise Creek: 31,343 acres WATERSHED ANALYSES:  Ishi-Pishi/Ukonom Ecosystem Analysis (USDA 1998)

NEPA Documentation: Somes Bar Integrated Fire Management Project EA  Expected signature date: May 2018

ESA LISTED SPECIES CONSIDERED:  Southern Oregon/Northern California Coasts Coho salmon ESU (Oncorhynchus kisutch)

ESA CRITICAL HABITAT:  Southern Oregon/Northern California Coasts Coho salmon CH

ESA DETERMINATIONS: The project may affect, not likely to adversely affect Southern Oregon/Northern California Coasts coho or their designated Critical Habitat.

ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT (EFH): The project may affect, not likely to adversely affect Chinook and Coho Salmon Essential Fish Habitat.

Sensitive Species:  Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) Upper Klamath & Trinity Rivers ESU  Steelhead trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) Klamath Mountains Province DPS  Pacific lamprey (Entosphenus tridentatus)  Klamath River lamprey (Entosphenus similis)  Cutthroat Trout (Oncorhynchus clarki)  Western Brook lamprey (Lampetra richardsoni)  California Floater (Anodonta californiensis)  Pristine Springsnail (Pristinicola hemphilli)  Chace juga (Juga chacei)

Sensitive Species Determinations:  This project may impact individuals but will not lead to a trend towards listing for UKTR Chinook salmon, KMP steelhead trout, as well as, Pacific and Klamath River lampreys.

 This project will have no effect on Cutthroat Trout, Western Brook Lamprey, California Floater, Pristine Springsnail, or Chace Juga.

Table of Contents I. Introduction ...... 1 Background ...... 1 Landscape Character ...... 1 Legal locations of project area: ...... 2 Map of Project Area Overview ...... 3 Threatened, Endangered, Proposed and Forest Service Sensitive Species ...... 4 ESA- Listed: Threatened...... 4 Forest Service Sensitive Anadromous Salmonids ...... 5 Non-Salmonid Forest Service Aquatic Sensitive Species ...... 5 II. Consultation to Date ...... 5 III. Management Direction ...... 6 Action Area ...... 7 Map of 6th Field Hydrologic Units ...... 8 Map of Fish Distribution, Roads and Water Drafting sites ...... 10 IV. Description of the Proposed Action ...... 11 Summary of Proposed Actions ...... 11 Summary Table of Proposed Actions ...... 12 Treatment/Prescription Descriptions – Numbers on Maps ...... 14 Coho Distribution on maps ...... 14 Proposed Action ...... 23 Riparian Reserves ...... 23 Treatment Prescription Descriptions ...... 25 Mechanical treatment of fuels ...... 25 Manual Treatment of Fuels ...... 34 Burning and Prescribed Fire ...... 35 Strategic Fire Control Features ...... 36 Connected Actions ...... 39 Wet Weather Operation Standards ...... 49 Project Monitoring ...... 49 Project Implementation ...... 49 V. Existing Environment ...... 51 Species Accounts ...... 51 Somes Bar Integrated Fire Management Project – Fisheries BA/BE – April 2018

Fish Distribution in the Action Area...... 56 VI. Literature Review ...... 59 Thinning ...... 59 Roads, Landings and Hauling ...... 59 Prescribed Fire ...... 60 Pile Burning ...... 60 Water Drafting ...... 61 Definitions...... 62 Direct Effects to Coho Salmon from Somes Bar Project...... 63 Indirect Effects Analysis Framework - Habitat ...... 63 Summary of Project Element Effects to Indicators ...... 66 Indirect Effects Analysis Framework - Exposure and Response ...... 67 Indirect Effects of Project on Habitat ...... 67 Water Quality - Chemical Contamination Indicator ...... 67 Turbidity and Substrate Indicators ...... 69 Exposure and Response Analysis ...... 74 Indirect Effects of Sediment-Turbidity to SONCC Coho ...... 74 Effects to Critical Habitat ...... 75 Aggregated Federal Effects ...... 76 ESA Cumulative Effects ...... 76 VIII. ESA Effects Summary and Determination ...... 77 Determinations Guidance for ESA-listed species ...... 77 ESA Determination for SONCC Coho Salmon ...... 77 Essential Fish Habitat Determination ...... 77 Forest Service Sensitive Fish Species Determination ...... 78 IX. Contributors and References...... 78 Contributors ...... 78 References and Literature Cited ...... 78 APPENDICES ...... 82 Appendix A: Aquatic Conservation Strategy Objectives ...... 83 Four Components of ACS ...... 83 Somes Bar Integrated Fuels Management Project ...... 84 Appendix B: Best Management Practices and Watershed Project Design Features ...... 89

Aquatic Ecosystems Management Activities...... 89 Somes Bar Integrated Fire Management Project – Fisheries BA/BE – April 2018

Facilities and Non-recreation Special Uses Management Activities ...... 90 Wildland Fire Management Activities ...... 90 Road Management Activities ...... 91 Mechanical Vegetation Management Activities ...... 93 Appendix C: Table of Project Unit Treatments by 6th field HUC ...... 96 Appendix D. Wet Weather Operation Standards ...... 117 A. General Guidelines:...... 117 B. Roads: ...... 118 C. Skid Trails/Cableways/Harvest Areas:...... 120 D. Landings: ...... 121 E. Fueling Sites: ...... 122 Appendix E. Matrix of Pathways and Indictors and Baselines ...... 129 Indirect Effects Analysis Framework - Habitat ...... 130 Appendix E-1 Fire History...... 146 Appendix E-2 Sixth-Field HUC Analysis: ...... 147 Appendix E-3 Klamath National Forest Tributaries Matrix of Factors and Indicators: ...... 148 Appendix E-4 Ti Creek Watershed ...... 152 Appendix E-5 Reynolds Watershed ...... 153 Appendix E-6 Lower and Middle Klamath – 4th Field ...... 154 ATTACHMENT A - Biological Evaluation ...... 156 I. Introduction ...... 1 Background ...... 1 Landscape Character ...... 1 Legal locations of project area: ...... 2 Map of Project Area Overview ...... 3 Threatened, Endangered, Proposed and Forest Service Sensitive Species ...... 4 ESA- Listed: Threatened...... 4 Forest Service Sensitive Anadromous Salmonids ...... 5 Non-Salmonid Forest Service Aquatic Sensitive Species ...... 5 II. Consultation to Date ...... 5 III. Management Direction ...... 6 Action Area ...... 7 Map of 6th Field Hydrologic Units ...... 8

Map of Fish Distribution, Roads and Water Drafting sites ...... 10 Somes Bar Integrated Fire Management Project – Fisheries BA/BE – April 2018

IV. Description of the Proposed Action ...... 11 Summary of Proposed Actions ...... 11 Summary Table of Proposed Actions ...... 12 Treatment/Prescription Descriptions – Numbers on Maps ...... 14 Coho Distribution on maps ...... 14 Proposed Action ...... 23 Riparian Reserves ...... 23 Treatment Prescription Descriptions ...... 25 Mechanical treatment of fuels ...... 25 Manual Treatment of Fuels ...... 34 Burning and Prescribed Fire ...... 35 Strategic Fire Control Features ...... 36 Connected Actions ...... 39 Wet Weather Operation Standards ...... 49 Project Monitoring ...... 49 Project Implementation ...... 49 V. Existing Environment ...... 51 Species Accounts ...... 51 Fish Distribution in the Action Area...... 56 VI. Literature Review ...... 59 Thinning ...... 59 Roads, Landings and Hauling ...... 59 Prescribed Fire ...... 60 Pile Burning ...... 60 Water Drafting ...... 61 Definitions...... 62 Direct Effects to Coho Salmon from Somes Bar Project...... 63 Indirect Effects Analysis Framework - Habitat ...... 63 Summary of Project Element Effects to Indicators ...... 66 Indirect Effects Analysis Framework - Exposure and Response ...... 67 Indirect Effects of Project on Habitat ...... 67 Water Quality - Chemical Contamination Indicator ...... 67 Turbidity and Substrate Indicators ...... 69 Exposure and Response Analysis ...... 74

Somes Bar Integrated Fire Management Project – Fisheries BA/BE – April 2018

Indirect Effects of Sediment-Turbidity to SONCC Coho ...... 74 Effects to Critical Habitat ...... 75 Aggregated Federal Effects ...... 76 ESA Cumulative Effects ...... 76 VIII. ESA Effects Summary and Determination ...... 77 Determinations Guidance for ESA-listed species ...... 77 ESA Determination for SONCC Coho Salmon ...... 77 Essential Fish Habitat Determination ...... 77 Forest Service Sensitive Fish Species Determination ...... 78 IX. Contributors and References...... 78 Contributors ...... 78 References and Literature Cited ...... 78 APPENDICES ...... 82 Appendix A: Aquatic Conservation Strategy Objectives ...... 83 Four Components of ACS ...... 83 Somes Bar Integrated Fuels Management Project ...... 84 Appendix B: Best Management Practices and Watershed Project Design Features ...... 89 Aquatic Ecosystems Management Activities...... 89 Facilities and Non-recreation Special Uses Management Activities ...... 90 Wildland Fire Management Activities ...... 90 Road Management Activities ...... 91 Mechanical Vegetation Management Activities ...... 93 Appendix C: Table of Project Unit Treatments by 6th field HUC ...... 96 Appendix D. Wet Weather Operation Standards ...... 117 A. General Guidelines:...... 117 B. Roads: ...... 118 C. Skid Trails/Cableways/Harvest Areas:...... 120 D. Landings: ...... 121 E. Fueling Sites: ...... 122 Appendix E. Matrix of Pathways and Indictors and Baselines ...... 129 Indirect Effects Analysis Framework - Habitat ...... 130 Appendix E-1 Fire History...... 146 Appendix E-2 Sixth-Field HUC Analysis: ...... 147 Appendix E-3 Klamath National Forest Tributaries Matrix of Factors and Indicators: ...... 148

Somes Bar Integrated Fire Management Project – Fisheries BA/BE – April 2018

Appendix E-4 Ti Creek Watershed ...... 152 Appendix E-5 Reynolds Watershed ...... 153 Appendix E-6 Lower and Middle Klamath – 4th Field ...... 154 ATTACHMENT A - Biological Evaluation ...... 156 List of Figures Figure 1. View of Mid-Klamath Watershed. Photo by Will Harling, MKWC Director...... 2 Figure 2. Somes Bar Project Overview showing Wildland-Urban Interface...... 3 Figure 3. Action Area for Somes Bar Integrated Fire Management Project...... 8 Figure 4. Map of Project Area with Fish Distribution, Roads and Water Drafting Locations ...... 10 Figure 5. Treatment unit prescriptions and follow-up entries found within the Ti Bar Focal Area ...... 15 Figure 6. Landings, Roads and Strategic Fuelbreaks for Ti Bar Project Area ...... 16 Figure 7. Treatment unit prescriptions and follow-up entries found within the Patterson Focal Area ...... 17 Figure 8. Landings, Roads and Strategic Fuelbreaks for Patterson Project Area...... 18 Figure 9. Treatment unit prescriptions and follow-up entries found within the Rogers Focal Area...... 19 Figure 10. Landings, Roads and Strategic Fuelbreaks for Rogers Project Area ...... 20 Figure 11. Treatment unit prescriptions and follow-up entries found within the Donahue Focal Area...... 21 Figure 12. Landings, Roads and Strategic Fuelbreaks for Donahue Project Area ...... 22 Figure 13. Outer 80’ Riparian Reserve Treatment Units found within the Ti Creek and Patterson ...... 32 Figure 14. Outer 80’ Riparian Reserve Treatment Units found within the Rogers Creek and Donahue...... 33 Figure 15. Fuels Treatments including locations of strategic fuelbreaks for Ti Bar and Patterson ...... 37 Figure 16. Fuels Treatments including locations of strategic fuelbreaks for Rogers Creek and Donahue. .... 38 Figure 17. New landings and roads found within the Somes Bar Integrated Fire Management Project...... 44 Figure 18. Haul Routes for Somes Bar Fuel Project ...... 45 Figure 19. Location of Water Drafting Sites ...... 48 Figure 20. Lower Reach of Ti Creek (RM 0.6) foud south on the southern edge of the Ti Bar Focal Area ... 54 Figure 21. 1984 - 2017 Fall Chinook spawning escapement results for miscellaneous middle Klamath tributaries ...... Error! Bookmark not defined. Figure 22. 1985-2015 Summer-run steelhead totals for middle Klamath tributaries including Wooley Creek...... Error! Bookmark not defined. Figure 23. Somes Bar Project Units that overlap fish bearing riparian reserves in the Northern Focal Areas...... 70 Figure 24. Somes Bar Project Units that overlap fish bearing riparian reserves in the Southern Focal Areas...... 71

List of Tables Table 1. Summary of fish species occupancy in relation to Watershed Scale and Project Focal Areas...... 9 Table 2. Summary of Integrated Fire Management Treatments ...... 12 Table 3. Connected Actions for the Somes Bar Integrated Fuels Project...... 13 Table 4. Crown class and fuel-type classes for vegetation greater than 6 inches...... 25 Table 5. Units with Mechanical Treatments in the Outer 80' of Riparian Reserves ...... 28 Table 6. Units within 0.5 miles of coho habitat. Unit 2142 overlaps a fish-bearing stream (320’ buffers) .... 31 Table 7. Landings for Mechanical and Mastication units ...... 39 Table 8. Maintenance Level 1 (ML 1) system road use...... 41 Table 9. Proposed type of road, # of miles and stream crossings by 6th field watershed ...... 42 Table 10. Legacy Site Treatments ...... 42

Somes Bar Integrated Fire Management Project – Fisheries BA/BE – April 2018

Table 11. Water Drafting Sites – all sites have perennial flow and a CFS > 7.8 cfs (CDF/CDF&W minimum flow for 350 gpm) ...... 47 Table 12. General display of the timing of the Proposed Action – Actual time line based on ecological conditions and funding...... 50 Table 13. Salmonid life stages found within project streams ...... 57 Table 14. First entry Project treatment units located adjacent to fish bearing streams and their proximity to occupied coho habitat...... 58 Table 15. Summary of Project Element Effects to Indicators ...... 66 Table 16. Riparian mechanical treatment units and distance to downstream occupied salmonid habitat ...... 69

Somes Bar Integrated Fire Management Project – Fisheries BA/BE

I. INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this document is to review the proposed action in the Somes Bar Integrated Fire Management Project (Project) Environmental Assessment in sufficient detail to analyze the effects on Threatened, Endangered or Proposed anadromous fish species and their associated habitat that may be affected by Project activities. This Biological Assessment (BA) was prepared in accordance with legal requirements set forth under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) [19 U.S.C. 1536 (c)], and follows standards established in the Forest Service Manual direction (FSM 2672.42). Background This Project is implementing the goals of the National Cohesive Wildland Fire Management Strategy (Cohesive Strategy 2014), in accordance with traditional ecological knowledge (TEK) and customs, as a framework for living with fire in the western Klamath Mountains of northern California. The proposed land management treatments were designed to meet the Klamath and Six Rivers National Forest’s Land and Resource Management Plans (KNF and SRNF LRMPs or forest plans; USDA Forest Service 20101 and 1995, respectively) and records of decision (ROD(s)), and informed by the Karuk Tribe Eco-Cultural Resource Management Plan (Karuk Tribe 2010), Katimiin Memorandum of Understanding (MOU; Karuk Tribe and USDA Forest Service 2017), and the Orleans/Somes Bar Community Wildfire Protection Plan (CWPP; CWPP 2012). The MOU between the Karuk Tribe and the Forest Service provides a platform for both parties work together to meet mutually beneficial goals and objectives for management of this area. The purpose of the collaborative Somes Bar Project is to demonstrate that by reducing fuels through thinning, ladder and ground fuel treatments and prescribed fire, wildfires can regain their importance in maintaining a resilient ecosystem and would revitalize balanced human relationships with our dynamic landscape The Project development occurred over three years, involved extensive on the ground surveys and incorporated traditional ecological knowledge regarding fire integration and actions to maintain or restore culturally important Karuk focal species and traditional practices. Site specific actions were identified to benefit focal species that include Roosevelt elk, Northern spotted owl, fisher, pacific giant salamander and willow and while these actions (i.e., protecting a wood rat nest tree) would have no effect on ESA-listed species individually, as a whole, they create a diversity of treatments that results in more resilient and spatially heterogeneous forest and riparian habitats. Landscape Character The project area is positioned in the western Klamath Mountains region, primarily along the Klamath River corridor. Wildfire is one of the primary natural disturbances in the landscape. All the natural vegetation types have adapted to a fire-disturbance regime, and many are dependent upon fire for their persistence. Over the past century, fire suppression along with intensive timber

1 The KNF LRMP Record of Decision was originally signed in 1995. The 2010 version contains updated information and corrections. 1

Somes Bar Integrated Fire Management Project – Fisheries BA/BE – April 2018

harvest practices (clearcutting) have altered vegetation types, favoring Douglas-fir rather than true oak species, Pacific madrone, and ponderosa and sugar pine. The terrain can be steep and rugged, ranging from 20 to 85 percent slopes (Figure 1). Elevations within the project area range from about 800 to 3,000 feet. The climate is Mediterranean, characterized by hot, dry summers, followed by cold, wet winters. Most of the precipitation is rainfall, accumulating an average of 60 inches per year in the valley. The project area supports important habitats for resident and anadromous fish species, northern spotted owl, Roosevelt elk and black-tailed deer, to name a few.

Figure 1. View of Mid-Klamath Watershed. Photo by Will Harling, MKWC Director. The Somes Bar Project area is composed of 5,570 acres over four distinct project (or focal) areas— Donahue Flat, Patterson, Rogers Creek and Ti Bar—that surround isolated private and tribal land parcels. The four project areas were selected for their strategic value to help protect dispersed private land inholdings and the community of Somes Bar that are within the wildland-urban interface (WUI) from wildfire. The WUI is an area where human habitation is mixed with areas of flammable wildland vegetation. It extends out from the edge of developed private land into Federal, private, and State jurisdictions. This project is an initial effort in the WKRP goal to restore fire into the ecosystem for natural and cultural resource benefit. The Project will prepare the community for prescribed fire treatments and reduce the risk from potential large-scale, catastrophic wildfires. This work will be accomplished through a series of vegetation treatments (reducing fuel loading through thinning, treatment of fuels and burning) as described below in the proposed action. The Project also proposes actions that support the Project including new and existing temporary roads and landings, maintaining existing National Forest Transportation system roads and. decommissioning roads with legacy sediment issues. Legal locations of project area: T14N R6E Sections 35, 36 T13N R6E Sections 2-5, 8-10, 20-23, 26-28 T12N R6E Sections 9-16, 19-20, 29-32 T12N R7E Section 18 T11N R6E Sections 5-6

2 Somes Bar Integrated Fire Management Project – Fisheries BA/BE – April 2018

Map of Project Area Overview

Figure 2. Somes Bar Project Overview showing Wildland-Urban Interface.

3 Somes Bar Integrated Fire Management Project – Fisheries BA/BE – April 2018

Threatened, Endangered, Proposed and Forest Service Sensitive Species Threatened, Endangered, and Proposed fish species were identified from the NOAA Fisheries web site on September 5, 2017 and confirmed via Level 1. Forest Service Sensitive anadromous species are analyzed in this document in the event they become listed over the life time of the project.

ESA- Listed: Threatened Southern Oregon / Northern California Coasts (SONCC) ESU Coho Salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) and designated Critical Habitat

Coho Salmon Critical Habitat NOAA Fisheries designated CH for coho salmon on May 5, 1999. For the SONCC coho, CH encompasses coho-accessible reaches of all rivers (including estuaries and tributaries) between Cape Blanco, Oregon and Punta Gorda, California.

Essential Fish Habitat The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA), as amended by the Sustainable Fisheries Act of 1996 (P.L. 104-267), requires Federal agencies to consult with NOAA Fisheries on all actions and proposed actions authorized, funded or undertaken by the agency that may adversely affect Essential Fish Habitat (EFH). All EFH assessments must include: 1) a description of the proposed action; 2) an analysis of the effects, (including cumulative effects of the proposed action on EFH), the managed species and associated species, including life history stages potentially affected; 3) the Federal agency’s views regarding the effects of the action on the EFH; and 4) proposed mitigation, where applicable (50 CFR 600.920(g)(2)). The information prepared by the federal agency for formal or informal consultation under the ESA (50 CFR 402.12) may serve as the EFH assessment curtailing the need for separate analysis. EFH for Pacific salmon includes all streams, lakes, ponds and wetlands and other currently viable water bodies and habitat historically accessible to salmon in California, Oregon, Washington state and Idaho, except areas upstream of certain impassable barriers (i.e., natural waterfalls). The 1996 amendment to the MSA set forth a number of new mandates for NOAA Fisheries, regional fishery management councils, and federal action agencies to identify and protect important marine and anadromous fish habitat. Effects to EFH related to the project were analyzed using habitat data derived from available historical fish species inventories and habitat assessments on record at the Orleans/Ukonom Ranger District.

4 Somes Bar Integrated Fire Management Project – Fisheries BA/BE – April 2018

Forest Service Sensitive Anadromous Salmonids Chinook salmon (Upper Klamath-Trinity Rivers ESU) Spring2 and Fall runs (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) Steelhead (Klamath Mountains Province DPS) Summer and Winter runs (Oncorhynchus mykiss)

Non-Salmonid Forest Service Aquatic Sensitive Species Attachment A contains the biological evaluation for the remaining Forest Service aquatic sensitive species that are located in the analysis area (see Region 5 list by Forest dated July 2015). Species considered from the Klamath National Forest list include: Pacific lamprey, Klamath River lamprey, and Western brook lamprey. Additional Six Rivers National Forest FSS species include California floater, Pristine springsnail, Chace juga and Coastal-run cutthroat trout.

II. CONSULTATION TO DATE

The Forest operates under local operating guidelines under the 2013 Streamlining MOU that describes consultation process between NMFS and SRNF which does not direct what analysis process to follow with the exception of providing sufficient information on a proposed action and baseline to support the effects analysis and determination. The original July 1999 Streamlining Agreement supported the use of The Matrix of Pathways and Indicators (MPI) that provides values and ranges of aquatic habitat and watershed conditions to determine whether existing conditions are “Properly Functioning”, “At Risk”, or “Not Properly Functioning”. See Appendix E for MPI analysis and baseline conditions. The analysis in this BA also pulls from the Analytic Process (2005) developed by NMFS in conjunction with USFS. The effects analysis procedure is described in detail in the “Analytical Process for Developing Biological Assessments for Federal Actions Affecting Fish within the Northwest Forest Plan Area” (USDA/USDI/DOC. 2004). A copy of the scoping document was e-mailed by LeRoy Cyr, USFS Fisheries Biologist, to Leslie Wolff of NOAA Fisheries on February 21, 2017. Project area treatments and maps were further discussed with Leslie Wolff at her office in Arcata, California on March 28, 2017. On April 14, 2017, a field review of different Riparian Reserves located within the project area were visited by Leslie Wolff of NOAA Fisheries, Molly Gorman, NMFS fisheries consultant, Johnathon Meurer of the State Water Resources Control Board, Kenny Sauve of the Karuk Tribe, Corrine Black, Natalie Cabraera and LeRoy Cyr of the Forest Service. Field visit included a visit to unit 2142, which is identifed as the only unit with mechanical treatments (for Tree of Heaven removal) adjacent to occupied coho habitat. On July 13, 2017, a Level 1 team meeting with held at the SRNF Eureka office and it was discussed that the determination of May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect (MANLAA) was

2 The National Marine Fisheries Service began a 12-month review process on February 28, 2018 on whether the Klamath River’s spring Chinook should be listed under the ESA. If NMFS determines that a listing may be warranted, and spring Chinook are proposed for listing, this Project would require additional consultation with NMFS. The Analysis within this BA/BE may form the basis of that consultation. 5 Somes Bar Integrated Fire Management Project – Fisheries BA/BE – April 2018

appropriate for this project, however, the final determination would occur upon completion of an agreed upon BA. The proposed action was sent to the Level 1 team on November 11, 2017. Recommended edits included additional project specific information and details surrounding the timing of implementation. The first draft BA was submitted to Leslie Wolff on February 28, 2018. The Level 1 team met on March 20 to review and additional clarification was sought on water drafting, use of roads for logging and including a section on monitoring. A second draft BA/BE was submitted on March 31, 2018 and represents inclusion of both reviews to provide information necessary to support the determination of May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect. NMFS provided comments back on April 6, 2018. The final draft with completed reference section and appendices was submitted on April, Friday the 13th for NMFS final review. On April 19, NMFS informed SRNF that it was a final agreed upon BA. Minor edits (correcting figure numbers, typos and formatting) occurred between the April 13th draft and the final agreed upon BA/BE (signed April 20, 2018) that will be submitted for informal consultation with National Marine Fisheries Service.

III. MANAGEMENT DIRECTION

LRMP Management Direction: This collaborative project was developed by the Forest Service, Karuk Tribe, Orleans-Somes Bar Fire Safe Council, Mid-Klamath Watershed Council staff and other partners to address public concerns regarding the potential impacts associated with the high risk of damaging wildfire within this wildland urban interface. The KNF and SRNF LRMPs are consistent with standards and guidelines in the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement Record of Decision (FSEIS ROD) for amendments to Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management planning documents within the range of the Northern Spotted owl (USDA and USDI 1994b). This Project meets the Aquatic Conservations Strategy objectives (Appendix A) and the May 7, 2005 letter of direction on determining ACS consistency. Clean Water Act: The protection of water quality and quantity is an important part of the mission of the Forest Service (USDA Forest Service 2012). Management activities on NFS lands must be planned and implemented to protect the hydrologic functions of forest watersheds, including the volume, timing, and quality of streamflow. The Klamath Basin is TMDL listed for nutrient and temperature impairment. While the mainstem Klamath is listed as impaired, its smaller tributaries within the project area provide year-round excellent cold freshwater quality and quantity. The Project, as proposed, would comply with the Clean Water Act, Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act, applicable water quality control plans, and the North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board waiver of waste discharge requirements. A waiver application will be filed after the Decision Notice is signed. The Basin Plan contains water quality objectives, implementation plans for meeting those objectives, and other policies of the State Water Quality Control Board and the Federal Government, which are applicable to timber and fuel treatment projects. The water quality standards in the Basin Plan that most closely apply to this Proposed Action are sediment, turbidity, temperature and dissolved oxygen.

6 Somes Bar Integrated Fire Management Project – Fisheries BA/BE – April 2018

2014 SONCC Coho Salmon Recovery Plan: NOAA Fisheries staff released the final SONCC Coho Salmon Recovery Plan on September 30, 2014 (USDOC 2014). The goal of the plan is to restore SONCC coho salmon to healthy, self-sustaining numbers so that the protections of the Endangered Species Act are no longer necessary. The Middle Klamath River Coho Salmon Population was identified as a Non-Core 1, potentially independent population. This coho population reflects a moderate extinction risk and is found within the project’s action area. In the 2014 SONCC Coho Salmon Recovery Plan, the key limiting stresses to this population were described as: 1) impaired water quality; and 2) lack of floodplain and channel structure. The key limiting threats were related to: 1) high severity fire; and 2) dams/diversions. This Project addresses recovery actions outlined in Table 33-5 of the 2014 SONCC Coho Salmon Recovery Plan as described below. SONCC-MKR.7.1.9 Riparian SONCC-MKR.7.1.9.1 Develop fire hazard reduction educational materials SONCC-MKR.7.1.9.2 Develop a plan for fire break stewardship and defensible space SONCC-MKR.7.1.9.3 Implement fire-safe community action plans in identified areas SONCC-MKR.7.1.9.4 Reduce stand densities through prescribed burning and thinning to reduce high severity fire

SONCC-MKR.8.1.2 Sediment SONCC-MKR.8.1.20.1 Assess and map mass wasting hazard, prioritize treatment and determine appropriate actions SONCC-MKR.8.1.21.1 Assess/prioritize road-stream connection, and appropriate treatments SONCC-MKR.8.1.21.2, 3 & 4 Decommission, upgrade and maintain roads, guided by assessment Action Area The Somes Bar Integrated Fire Management Project includes 5,570 acres of public land located on the Orleans and Ukonom Ranger District of the Six Rivers National Forest. The action area is defined as all areas where ESA-listed fish and their CH may be affected directly or indirectly by Project implementation, and not merely the immediate project area, as defined under 50 CFR 402.02. Therefore, the ESA action area for this project was defined as the three 6th field watersheds that encompas the four focal areas, water drafting sites and National Forest Transportation System (NFTS) and non system roads found along the lower-mid Klamath corridor (Figure 3 and Figure 4). The action area includes the mainstem Klamath River at river mile 55.5 near the mouth of the Boise Creek, upstream to approximately river mile 82, near the mouth of the Kennedy Creek as well as tributaries. The three 6th field watersheds assessed for this project are found within the 4th field Middle Klamath River watershed (984,709 acres), and include Ti Creek watershed (13,623 acres), Reynolds Creek watershed (34,611 acres), and Boise Creek watershed (31,343 acres). The Project boundary of the Ti Bar, Patterson and Rogers focal areas extend from the Klamath River corridor upstream to the upper headwaters of small adjoining tributaries. Donahue focal area is upslope of the Klamath River corridor.

7 Somes Bar Integrated Fire Management Project – Fisheries BA/BE – April 2018

Map of 6th Field Hydrologic Units

Figure 3. Action Area for Somes Bar Integrated Fire Management Project.

8 Somes Bar Integrated Fire Management Project – Fisheries BA/BE – April 2018

Table 1 summarizes the overlap between the Somes Bar Integrated Fire Management Focal Areas, 4th and 6th field watersheds, miscellaneous Klamath tributaries affected by the Project, and known fish distribution. The fish distribution is based on over 20 years of stream surveys (see Environmental Baseline for more information). The project action area extends downstream to the confluence of the Klamath and Boise Creek. Habitat for fish is a place, and for migratory fishes a set of places, in which a fish, a fish population or assemblage can find the physical and chemical features needed for survival such as suitable water quality, migration routes, spawning grounds, feeding sites, resting sites and shelter from enemies and adverse weather. Table 1. Summary of fish species occupancy in relation to Watershed Scale and Project Focal Areas.

Project Focal Area (s):

Rogers Donahue Patterson Ti Bar (994 acres) (1,343 (Reynolds: 1,441 acres & Boise: 102 (1,690 acres) acres) acres)

4th Field 6th Field Watershed HUC (s): HUC:

Fish Boise Species Ti Creek Reynolds Creek Creek (13,623 acres) (34,611 acres) (31,343 acres) Misc. Klamath Tributaries: Upstream fish distribution from their confluence with the Klamath mainstem (Distance in river miles) Unnamed Sandy tributary Total Burns Kennedy Ti Stanshaw Rogers Teneyck Natuket Donahue

mid Klamath River Mainstem Klamath mid

- Bar (North of Trib Creek Creek Creek Creek Creek Creek Creek Flat Creek Creek Teneyck miles

Lower Creek) Coho & 3.53 26.4 0.1 0.1 1.2 0.3 0.3 0.9 0.2 0.03 0.2 0.2 Chinook miles Steelhead 12.6 & Rainbow 26.4 0.5 0.1 2.8 1.8 2.8 2.7 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.8 miles trout Pacific 26.4 P P P P P P P P P P ND Lamprey Klamath River 26.4 P P P P P P P P P P ND Lamprey P- Potential presence; ND- No data available Since Ripairian Reserve widths are based on fish-bearring or non fish bearring, both resident and anadromous fish salmonid species distribution are depicted in Figure 4 for this project. Tributaries with no fish distribution are a combination of high stream gradient at the confluence with the mainstem Klamath and, to a lesser extent, culverts along Hwy 96 that both prevent upstream migration of anadromous salmonids.

9 Somes Bar Integrated Fire Management Project – Fisheries BA/BE – April 2018

Map of Fish Distribution, Roads and Water Drafting sites

Figure 4. Map of Project Area with Fish Distribution, Roads and Water Drafting Locations

10 Somes Bar Integrated Fire Management Project – Fisheries BA/BE – April 2018

IV. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION

The Somes Bar Integrated Fire Management Project will prepare this lower-mid Klamath landscape for restorative fire by reducing fuels and implementing prescribed burning treatment, along critical fuel breaks and access routes, and sensitive cultural, archaeological, and natural sites. The WKRP and Forest Service Interdisciplinary Team (IDT) designed a series of phased entry, integrated fuels reduction and ecological restoration land management treatments for 15 years, to the degree fire suppression tactics would no longer be the primary choice for fire managers in the near future. The following describes the types of actions/treatments that were developed during the collaborative process (also see Table 2 and Table 3). A complete description of the activities with maps and design features follows the tables. Summary of Proposed Actions Vegetation and Fuel Treatments The WKRP IDT designed a series of phased entry, integrated fuels reduction and ecological restoration land management treatments for 15 years, to the degree suppression would no longer be the primary choice for fire managers in the near future. These treatments are intended to be a turning point at which a full range of response options for using prescribed fire and unplanned wildfire ignitions as a restoration tool could be employed to heal the natural world in balance with people, benefiting amenities, TEK and natural resources. The implementation strategy entails pre-treating select areas where crown and/or ladder fuels would hamper safe application of prescribed fire. Where mechanical pre-treatments are implemented, manual treatments of understory ladder reduction would occur, followed by prescribed burning. Where crown and ladder fuels are not excessive and/or no access exists, initial entry would commence with prescribed burning. After each phase or entry, the areas are assessed to determine what follow up treatment is needed for the entire unit or portions of each unit. Mechanical Treatments: For 106 units3, the first entry is pretreating crown and ladder fuels through thinning of commercial (sawlogs, pole and firewood) and noncommercial vegetation on 1,420 acres using ground-, cable- and road-based heavy equipment (e.g., yarders, tractors, masticators). These same units would then treat the activity fuels under “manual treatments” (lop and scatter, jackpot and construct piles for burning). Road-Based Fuel Reduction: Where implemented, these roads will also provide cost effective linear features to stop wildfires and start prescribed fires. To allow for safe access and egress and ease of prescribed fire implementation, mechanical followed by manual treatments will occur about 100-300’ from the roadside. Fuels would be treated in identified units through thinning of commercial and noncommercial vegetation. Riparian: Of the total 1,420 acres to be treated mechanically, 146 are located within Riparian Reserves with less than 0.5 acre adjacent to coho habitat. Manual Treatments: Where handheld equipment (e.g., chainsaws, loppers) are utilized to thin (cut), limb, or girdle small-diameter ladder fuels (less than 6” in diameter) and to break up the

3 “unit” is used to describe an area on the map and does not indicate a type of treatment. 11 Somes Bar Integrated Fire Management Project – Fisheries BA/BE – April 2018

continuity of high concentrations of shrub species. This would include the up to 1,421 acres and an additional 2,658 acres (first entry for 195 additional units4) where smaller diameter fuel reduction is necessary to prepare the ground for follow up prescribed burning. Prior to any burning under Manual Treatment or use of Prescribed Fire, all strategic fire control features (fuelbreaks and handlines) would be constructed. Strategic Fire Control Features: Strategic ridges identified throughout the project area will be used as control features for prescribed burning and future wildland fire response tactics. The initial establishment as well the reuse of the 1987 dozerline are designed to alter the behavior of wildland fire entering the fuel-altered zone by reducing surface and crown fire behavior. Coupling fuelbreaks with area-wide fuel treatments are expected to reduce the size, intensity, and effects of wildland fires within this portion of the lower-mid Klamath. Establishment of strategic firelines will include: a/ Ridgetop Modified Shaded Fuelbreaks (total of approximately 105,524 feet) and b/ placement of handlines (total of approximately 145,298). Prescribed Fire: Following the mechanical plus manual treatments described above, the 305 units would be in a lower fuel condition to allow prescribed fire treatments to occur. Prescribed fire would occur after jackpot and handpiles are burned. Prescribed fire could also occur on the remaining 37 units or 1,491 acres; these units were identified as not needing pre-treatment prior to burning.

Summary Table of Proposed Actions The following table summarizes the integrated fire management treatments and connected actions. The first entry treatment along with Project and Riparian Reserve acres are shown. The final column identifies the 2nd and 3rd entry treatments that could occur based on the unit specific fuel conditions after the first initial entry. Table 3 includes all remaining connected actions including landings, roads and water drafting information. The 3,605 includes stream, pond and geologic riparian reserves. Table 2. Summary of Integrated Fire Management Treatments

Initial 1st Entry Follow Up Treatments Initial Treatments Area and/or Within Riparian 2nd and 3rd Entries Length Reserves Vegetative Treatments –Total Acres Acres Outer 80 feet Thinning - Mechanical - cable system 176 45 Manual, Prescribed Fire Thinning - Mechanical - ground-based 1,058 83.5 Manual, Prescribed Fire Mastication – along former skid roads and logging roads to 187 17.9 Manual, Prescribed Fire facilitate manual treatments as identified on maps. Total Mechanical Acres 1,420 146.4

Manual: no vegetation cut over 6” dbh, ladder fuels removed 2,658 1,664.3 Prescribed Fire  Pile Burning is included under Manual treatments acres n/a n/a Prescribed Fire – would occur after strategic fire control No ignition within features have been constructed. 1,491 RR5 Maintenance Burning (1074.3 – incl geo) Total Treatment Acres 5,570 3,605

4 No opportunity for forest by-products, such as firewood and commercially valuable sawlogs 5 Exceptions based on safety and site specific conditions are described in the design features below. 12 Somes Bar Integrated Fire Management Project – Fisheries BA/BE – April 2018

Strategic Fire Control Features Within RR Feet Follow Up Treatment Control Features are in place prior to any prescribed burning Reserves Ridgetop Shaded Fuelbreak – 100’ wide chainsaw brushing cut 6-8” dbh supported by a 2’ wide handline cut down to bare mineral soil –water bar 105,524 39,261 Maintain Fuelbreaks  Existing Fireline Maintenance – 1987 Dozer line – maintain as shaded fuel break water bar Handlines 6’ wide chainsaw brushing cut supported by a 2’ Maintain strategic 145,298 75,211 wide handline cut down to bare minimal soil –water bar handlines

Table 3. Connected Actions for the Somes Bar Integrated Fuels Project. Initial Within Riparian Connected Actions Area and/or Follow Up Treatments Reserves Length (Acres) Landings – Mechanical and Mastication units only Acres Outer 80 feet 130 Existing Landing - 16 within Riparian Reserves 63 Place in hydrologically 6.7 30 New Landing 13 stable condition 0 160 Total 76

Temporary Use Road – Access to Mechanical and Miles Miles Mastication units Existing Mastication Access Road 2.3 Decommission 0 Existing Temp Roads 8.1 Decommission 0 New Temp Road 0.6 Decommission 0 Total 11.0

Existing Roads - Existing NFTS – includes Haul Routes – no add’l upgrades Maintain under Forest – Wide Routine Road Mtnce Level 1 Roads to Level 2 for Project Duration - Closed annually Road Maintenance/ for Wet Weather Total 4.7 upgrades then return to 1 culvert miles Level 1 status and closed upgrade following project completion. Legacy Road Sediment Source Restoration 9 crossings (no Total 1.09 Block vehicle access exiting miles culverts) Water Sources – must be approved drafting sites. water 0 within 30 n/a drafting for dust abatement and as needed for prescribed fire. Anadromous Hazard Trees – No more than 5 trees per mile 45 miles of if LRMP standards met, HT Leave on site roads could be removed The following series of maps illustrate the vegetation fuel treatments and connected actions. Some of the maps show two of the focal areas – the Northern Focal area contains Ti Bar and Patterson and the Southern Focal Areas include Rogers and Donahue: The maps are in this order: Northern Focal Areas:  Ti Bar Proposed Action – Figure 5 and Figure 6  Patterson Proposed Action – Figure 7 and Figure 8  Riparian Reserves for Mechanical Treatments in Ti Bar and Patterson – Figure 9  Fuel Treatments for Northern Focal Areas – Ti Bar and Patterson – Figure 10

Southern Focal Areas:  Rogers Creek Proposed Action – Figure 11 and Figure 12  Donahue Proposed Action – Figure 13 and Figure 14  Riparian Reserves for Mechanical Treatments in Rogers Creek and Donahue – Figure 15  Fuel Treatments for Southern Focal Areas – Rogers Creek and Donahue – Figure 16

13 Somes Bar Integrated Fire Management Project – Fisheries BA/BE – April 2018

The maps for Landings and Roads, Water drafting and Haul routes are located after the description of those connected actions.

Treatment/Prescription Descriptions – Numbers on Maps During treatment (prescription) development, the IDT rigorously explored rate of change and scale of adaptive treatment methods, including entry cycles, seasonal timing, and spatial scale and position, recognizing implications for affecting TEK, water resources, plants, animals, aquatic species and people. The numbers in the parenthesis below are tied to the prescriptions. The maps showing the proposed action (first entry) uses the following eight prescriptions that are based on the management history, proposed treatment type and whether or not they involve commercial thinning.  Managed stands with commercial timber and no significant pine component (1a)  Managed stands with commercial timber and a significant pine component (1b)  Natural stands with commercial timber (2)  Managed stands with mastication (3)  Managed stands with manual treatment (4a)  Natural stands with manual treatment (4b)  Managed stands with prescribed fire only (5a)  Natural stands with prescribed fire only (5a) It is important to point out that there is considerable variation between the individual stands/units in each grouping specified above. Stands that were regenerated (clear-cut) are called managed stands, and even those natural stands that have had previous thinning, are called natural stands. A previously thinned natural stand has more in common with the structural characteristics of a natural stand with no management, than with a managed stand, sometimes also called a plantation. Second entry for mechanical would be treating activity fuels and any remaining ladder (4c) as needed. The final entry would be prescribed fire (mechanical units - 5b, manual units - 5c, mastication units - 5d), again, as needed.

Coho Distribution on maps Included on the Proposed Action Map is the approximate location of known coho distribution. The distribution is based on 24 years of surveys by L.Cyr, Fisheries Biologist on the Orleans Ukonom Ranger District.  A indicates stream occupancy, and a is for use of the mouth as incidental use and known refugia as per USFS surveys.  The symbol identifies cool water refugia as identified in the Middle Klamath River Population Profile (2014 SONCC coho recovery plan). The Middle Klamath River Population did not identify any IP habitat in the tributaries within the project area.  Hwy 96 is a barrier to upstream migration for coho in Sandy Bar Creek, and Stanshaw Creek as well as many of the other tributaries.

14 Somes Bar Integrated Fire Management Project – Fisheries BA/BE – April 2018

Map of Ti Bar Vegetation and Fuel Prescriptions

Figure 5. Treatment unit prescriptions and follow-up entries found within the Ti Bar Focal Area

15 Somes Bar Integrated Fire Management Project – Fisheries BA/BE – April 2018

Map of Ti Bar Connected Actions

Figure 6. Landings, Roads and Strategic Fuelbreaks for Ti Bar Project Area

16 Somes Bar Integrated Fire Management Project – Fisheries BA/BE – April 2018

Map of Patterson Vegetation and Fuels Prescriptions

Figure 7. Treatment unit prescriptions and follow-up entries found within the Patterson Focal Area

17 Somes Bar Integrated Fire Management Project – Fisheries BA/BE – April 2018

Map of Patterson Connected Actions

Figure 8. Landings, Roads and Strategic Fuelbreaks for Patterson Project Area

18 Somes Bar Integrated Fire Management Project – Fisheries BA/BE – April 2018

Map of Rogers Creek Vegetation and Fuels Prescriptions

Figure 9. Treatment unit prescriptions and follow-up entries found within the Rogers Focal Area.

19 Somes Bar Integrated Fire Management Project – Fisheries BA/BE – April 2018

Map of Rogers Connected Actions

Figure 10. Landings, Roads and Strategic Fuelbreaks for Rogers Project Area

20 Somes Bar Integrated Fire Management Project – Fisheries BA/BE – April 2018

Map of Donahue Vegetation and Fuels Prescriptions

Figure 11. Treatment unit prescriptions and follow-up entries found within the Donahue Focal Area.

21 Somes Bar Integrated Fire Management Project – Fisheries BA/BE – April 2018

Map of Donahue Connected Actions

Figure 12. Landings, Roads and Strategic Fuelbreaks for Donahue Project Area

22 Somes Bar Integrated Fire Management Project – Fisheries BA/BE – April 2018

Proposed Action

Riparian Reserves Riparian Reserves were delineated by Forest hydrologists, geologists, and fisheries biologists for the project. LiDar imagery provided a digital elevation model (DEM), and from this a stream delineation model was utilized to reveal precise locations of stream channels in the project area. The DEM was also used to investigate and map unstable and potentially unstable geologic landforms. Stream delineation model results, along with the mapped unstable lands were validated by these resource specialists in 2016 and 2017. Subsequently, Riparian Reserves layers were created to assist with project planning efforts, quantify proposed treatment acres and refinement of project design features for Riparian Reserves, including unstable areas. Geologic Assessment Unstable lands are defined as active landslides, all inner gorges, margins and toe zones of dormant landslides, and severely weathered and dissected granitic lands. Vegetation management within all unstable lands meet Aquatic Conservation Strategy objectives as project activities do not accelerate mass movement above background rates. This is largely achieved by restricting mechanical vegetation management to outside of unstable lands. No mechanical vegetation management activities are occurring on the geologically unstable lands defined above. Mechanical treatments occurring on areas mapped as unstable lands occur only within the dormant sections of deep-seated earthflows, are very minimal in area, and use low impact ground-based, road-based and cable methods. The majority of the 15 acres of unstable lands proposed to be treated mechanically is by cable yarding in one unit in the Donahue area (2460) on a maximum of 9.2 acres. The remaining 5.7 acres are divided nearly equally between two mechanical road based units (2120, 2158), and one mechanical ground based unit (2119) in the Ti Creek area. The very small number of acres where mechanical treatments may be applied (15 acres, 1% of all mechanical treatment areas), in tandem with other factors, results in minimal to low risk of impacts in the form of changes in rate or extent of landslide activity in the four unit areas. The focus of the project is to thin stands leaving the majority of trees, which greatly decreases the risk of landslide activation due to loss of root strength and increase in pore pressures from increased groundwater volume known to be associated with total loss of vegetation (Reid 2010, Ziemer 1981, Robichaud 2000, Bosch and Hewlett 1982). Stream riparian buffers for this project consist of the perennial, intermittent or ephermal streams and the area on each side of these stream channels ranging between 160’ slope distances for “non- fish bearing” streams up to 320’ slope distances for “fish bearing” streams. These streams have a definable channel and evidence of annual scour or deposition. Forested ponds, wetland features and associated aquatic vegetation have designated equipment exclusion zones buffered to a slope distance of at least 25 feet. It is also important to note, however, that plantations and previously harvested units, comprise about 41 percent of the project treatment area and they predate the Northwest Forest Plan and the Klamath and Six Rivers LRMPs. Within some of these old logging units that reveal riparian features, these Riparian Reserves had a very small stream buffer (up to 50’ width) or showed no

23 Somes Bar Integrated Fire Management Project – Fisheries BA/BE – April 2018

sign at all of streamside management zone (SMZ) protections at the time of previous harvesting. Appendix C is a complete list of the units with management history and riparian reserve acres. Based upon field reconnaissance of the project, it was determined that some mechanical entry into the outer 80’ of the stream Riparian Reserves was warranted within these plantations and previously harvested units in order to efficiently reduce high fuel loads and improve stand structure (see Figure 13 and Figure 14 below). The Northwest Forest Plan recognized the need to manage within Riparian Reserves to address legacy issues of old silvicultural practices that encroached or even eliminated large trees within riparian and adjacent stream channels such as in plantations (LRMP, IV-110, IV-49).

Water Quality / Riparian Reserves Design Features Applicable to All Treatments  No new roads or landings would be constructed within Riparian Reserves, including unstable lands.  All ground disturbing activities will be implemented according to the Forest’s Wet Weather Operations Standards (WWOS). Standards in these WWOS guides are further clarified in the WWOS Field Guide and BMP "Yardsticks" and "Checklist” (Appendix D)  Water Quality Best Management Practices (BMP) would be implemented (Appendix B). Key BMPs include: o Fac-6. Hazardous Materials Petroleum products would be stored at roads or landings outside of riparian reserves wherever possible and a minimum distance from streams, ponds, and wet areas such that fuels and other harmful materials would not reach any waterbody and, Road-10. Equipment Refueling and Servicing of equipment would occur at landings outside of riparian reserves wherever possible and a minimum distance from streams, ponds, and wet areas such that fuels and other harmful materials would not reach any waterbody. Containers of fuel and oil are expected to be removed daily off-site. Since equipment will be serviced at least 160 feet from any non-fish bearing stream,(320 feet for fish bearing), pond or wet area and spill containment and clean up systems will be in place, there is negligible risk for hazardous spills to reach ground or surface waters . No new landings would be constructed in Riparian Reserves. XX existing landings are located in the outer 80’ of non-fishbearing streams. These landings are hydrologically disconnected from stream channels . Appropriate spill containment measures would be on site and would be employed as needed (for example, absorbent pads, drip pans and containment trays). Containers of fuel and oil are removed daily off-site. o Road-4. Avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects to soil, water quality, and riparian resources by controlling road use and operations and providing adequate and appropriate maintenance to minimize sediment production and other pollutants during the useful life of the road.

24 Somes Bar Integrated Fire Management Project – Fisheries BA/BE – April 2018

. Haul roads would be maintained during the life of the project specially to minimize sediment production. ML 1 roads that are upgraded to ML 2 roads and all temporary use roads would be used only during normal operating periods and physically closed and winterized in the wet weather season.

Treatment Prescription Descriptions The IDT developed the treatments in context of crown class, fuel type and canopy closure. This approach was taken to allow for micro-scale specific “best fit” adaptive treatment variations during fieldwork, responsive to the collaborative’s recommendation that treatments not be arbitrarily constraining. Crown class is defined relative to the tree’s structural vertical position in the forest and horizontal live crown ratio. Fuel type is defined as an identifiable association of fuel elements of distinctive species, form, size, arrangement, or other characteristics that will cause a predictable rate of spread or resistance to control under specified weather conditions. Table 4 provides crown class and fuel-type classifications and definitions. Table 4. Crown class and fuel-type classes for vegetation greater than 6 inches.

Crown Class Fuel Type Definition Predominant (Protected and retained during Crown Larger, older trees that pre-date the current age of the stand and all entries) have large limbs, live-crown ratios generally greater than 50 percent. Dominant (Protected and retained during all Crown Trees with crowns extending above the general level of the crown entries) cover and receiving full light from above and partly from the sides; larger than the average trees in the stand and with crowns well developed but possibly crowded on the sides. Codominant Crown Trees with crowns forming the general level of the crown cover and receiving full light from above but comparatively little from the sides; usually with medium-sized crowns more or less crowded on the sides. Intermediate Ladder Trees shorter than those in the two preceding classes, but with crowns either below or extending into the crown cover framed by the codominant and dominant trees, receiving a little direct light from above but none from the sides; usually with small crowns considerably crowded on the sides. Suppressed Ladder Trees with crowns entirely below the general level of the crown cover receiving no direct light either from above or from the sides.

Mechanical treatment of fuels Mechanical treatments include conventional timber harvesting techniques, such as ground, cable and road-based yarding systems. Yarders and tractors will be utilized to remove excessive fuel build up in plantations over 40 years of age and where there are opportunities for by-products (firewood, saw logs). These mechanical treatments are also used to thin and remove ladder fuels and reduce competition between Douglas-fir species and other more fire resilient hardwood and conifer species (for example, black oak and sugar pine), and alongside roads. Prescription numbers on the map include (1a) – Plantation (Douglas-fir), (1b) – Plantation (Pine), (2) – Natural Stands (non-plantation) and (3) – Plantation ladder fuel Mastication.  Riparian Reserves: No heavy equipment will be allowed to enter within the inner 80’ of non-fish bearing stream riparian buffers or inner 240’ of fish bearing stream buffers (with the exception of existing roads that cross stream channels).

25 Somes Bar Integrated Fire Management Project – Fisheries BA/BE – April 2018

 Riparian Reserves: Where mechanical treatments occur within the outer 80 feet of the Riparian Reserve Canopy cover within the Riparian Reserves would not be reduced below 60%.  Outside of riparian reserves in plantations, residual canopy closure would be maintained between 40-60% of existing conditions with the higher number being in suitable owl habitat. o Stands will be marked using variable density retention methods. Maximum canopy reduction of the area to be treated based on size of the selected retention patches, openings and target canopy cover retention. o Retention patches6 will be determined by the size of the unit and size of retention patches chosen. Areas such as inner Riparian Reserves, unstable areas, and high quality wildlife habitat may be considered as retention patches. Other patches may include taller trees and closed canopy, as well as, uneven complex structure, including understory cover where applicable.  All predominant and dominant trees within the Project will be retained.  Mechanical treatment in non-plantation areas where no history of regeneration harvest exists, trees of interest7 will be selected. o Important cultural and ecological plant species would be targeted for enhancement wherever possible. For example, older stands where larger black and white oak or sugar pine are being encroached by other less fire tolerant conifer species, efforts would be aimed at culturing around these more fire tolerant species to promote their health and vigor and to help ensure these species continue to thrive in the project area.  Masticators occurs on 187 acres will work where on reducing fuel loading on and adjacent to linear features, including roads and former skid trails. In essence, create a path through dense plantations from which crews can conduct planned burning operations. o Masticate small diameter vegetation, generally less than 6” dbh along existing linear features in the treatment units. o Mastication could occur in 17.94 acres in the outer 80 feet of Riparian Reserves along exiting linear features within the following units: 2139, 2212, 2214, 2229, 2240, 2427, 2428, 2441, 2477, 2486, 2487, and 2489.  Activity fuels or cut small diameter trees, shrubs, and existing slash, would be manually piled, jackpot or lopped and scattered depending on fuel loading conditions.

Riparian Reserve PDFs for Mechanical Treatment  No new landings and disposal sites are located within Riparian Reserves.

6 Retention patches are those areas of high-stand density and are to be interspersed throughout the unit. 7 Trees of interest are any identified species in a unit where management occurs to promote their health and vigor. 26 Somes Bar Integrated Fire Management Project – Fisheries BA/BE – April 2018

 Equipment would only enter the outer 80’ of stream riparian buffers found within plantations or previously harvested units, where slopes were less than 40% (Kla LRMP).  No heavy equipment will be allowed to enter within the inner 80’ of non-fish bearing stream riparian buffers or inner 240’ of fish bearing stream buffers throughout the entire project area.  In areas mapped as large deep-seated earthflows, mechanical ground disturbance will occur only within the dormant area as determined by the forest geologist. Disturbance should be completely remediated by ripping or subsoiling compacted areas to restoring infiltration capacity, and by installing water bars on skid trails and landings. This was incorporated into project planning, not needed as a stand alone PDF.  Active landslides, inner gorges, and active areas within large deep-seated earthflows that display recent active landslide features such as active scarps, tension cracks, very hummocky topography with leaning or distorted trees, or recent (bare or unvegetated) disruption by landslide activity, will be excluded from ground-based mechanical treatments. These features will be flagged in the field as “no-touch” areas to be excluded from units and include buffer distances prescribed by the forest geologist that prohibit removal of rooted vegetation by mechanical methods (LRMP S&Gs).  Project design features require any heavy equipment that operates within the riparian reserve do so in such a manner (linear passes and no turning of machinery) that does not displace or compact soils. The use of modern equipment maybe used to reduce, or avoid soil displacement and compaction during implementation.  Endlining out of the outer 80’ of Riparian Reserves occurs from temporary or system roads and landings that are located outside of Riparian Reserves.  Canopy cover within Riparian Reserves would not be reduced below 60% of existing conditions. There would be no change in RR canopy cover in the inner buffer and in manual units.

Maps of Mechanical Units with overlap in Outer 80’ of Riparian Reserves The following maps (Figures 13 and 14) show which mechanical units overlap the outer 80 feet of the Riparian Reserves. Mechanical units with no overlap with Riparian Reserves are not highlighted orange or green. Table 5 is a list of the units that overlap the outer 80’ of Riparian Reserves. This list includes average slope, total RR unit acres and acres treated in the outer 80’ by unit. No riparian reserves are mechanical treated in Rogers Focal Area. Table 6 is a list of the units that contain units in the outer 80’ of Riparian Reserves that are within 0.5 miles of occupied coho habitat. Only one of these, 2142 in Ti Bar, is a fish bearing stream (a 320 foot RR which results in a 240 foot buffer where no equipment or thinning would occur).

27 Somes Bar Integrated Fire Management Project – Fisheries BA/BE – April 2018

Table 5. Units with Mechanical Treatments in the Outer 80' of Riparian Reserves

Focal Area Treatment Management History Treatment Method in RR Size of Avg Slope Total RR Approx outer Unit No. Method Unit (Percent) Unit 80' RR (acres) Acres Treatment Acres Ti Bar 2101 Plantation Ground-based Equipment Use 9.7 21 0.29 0.29 Ti Bar 2105 Plantation Ground-based Equipment Use 7.4 33 2.79 1.26 Ti Bar 2111 Plantation Ground-based Equipment Use 8.1 43 0.02 0.01 Ti Bar 2112 Plantation Ground-based Equipment Use 16.5 30 6.56 2.55 Ti Bar 2113 Unmanaged / Natural Ground-based Equipment Use 13.3 27 7.53 3.76 Ti Bar 2114 Previously Thinned Ground-based Endline 16.4 33 6.41 2.87 Ti Bar 2116 Previously Thinned Ground-based Endline 19.6 25 5.25 1.99 Ti Bar 2117 Plantation Ground-based Endline 12.4 17 3.20 1.92 Ti Bar 2119 Previously Thinned Ground-based Equipment Use 3.2 26 3.21 2.56 Ti Bar 2120 Unmanaged / Natural Road based Endline 6.1 35 6.07 1.77 Ti Bar 2127 Previously Thinned Ground-based Endline 35.2 30 2.11 1.13 Ti Bar 2130 Plantation Mastication Equipment Use 6.8 41 0.04 0.04 Ti Bar 2131 Plantation Ground-based Equipment Use 8.0 24 0.10 0.10 Ti Bar 2132 Previously Thinned Ground-based Endline 11.2 23 5.83 2.89 Ti Bar 2142 Previously Thinned Ground-based Equipment Use 9.0 12 0.40 0.34 Ti Bar 2158 Previously Thinned Road based Endline 2.8 43 2.83 1.28 Patterson 2200 Plantation Ground-based Equipment Use 5.8 28 0.11 0.11 Patterson 2203 Plantation Ground-based Endline 13.4 28 2.68 0.34 Patterson 2212 Plantation Mastication Equipment Use 13.7 25 1.81 0.65 Patterson 2214 Plantation Mastication Equipment Use 5.1 52 1.23 0.92

28 Somes Bar Integrated Fire Management Project – Fisheries BA/BE – April 2018

Focal Area Treatment Management History Treatment Method in RR Size of Avg Slope Total RR Approx outer Unit No. Method Unit (Percent) Unit 80' RR (acres) Acres Treatment Acres Patterson 2217 Plantation Ground-based Equipment Use 24.2 17 0.12 0.12 Patterson 2221 Plantation Ground-based Equipment Use 10.1 28 4.26 3.08 Patterson 2224 Unmanaged / Natural Ground-based Endline 2.9 20 0.62 0.61 Patterson 2225 Unmanaged / Natural Ground-based Endline 7.3 24 3.33 2.95 Patterson 2226 Plantation Ground-based Equipment Use 3.7 40 1.89 1.22 Patterson 2227 Plantation Ground-based Equipment Use 33.3 22 4.60 2.68 Patterson 2229 Plantation Mastication Equipment Use 12.3 25 4.13 1.77 Patterson 2230 Plantation Ground-based Equipment Use 16.4 25 2.57 2.00 Patterson 2231 Previously Thinned Road based Endline 1.4 26 1.39 0.28 Patterson 2235 Plantation Ground-based Equipment Use 9.5 23 1.56 1.11 Patterson 2237 Plantation Ground-based Equipment Use 17.2 23 5.35 2.31 Patterson 2240 Plantation Mastication Equipment Use 29.7 34 6.96 1.17 Patterson 2242 Plantation Ground-based Equipment Use 25.8 22 6.55 3.03 Patterson 2248 Previously Thinned Ground-based Equipment Use 29.4 26 20.65 8.92 Patterson 2249 Previously Thinned Ground-based Equipment Use 78.4 29 35.43 13.52 Patterson 2260 Previously Thinned Ground-based Endline 5.6 34 0.98 0.79 Patterson 2264 Plantation Ground-based Equipment Use 25.8 23 14.55 8.17 Patterson 2265 Plantation Ground-based Equipment Use 39.6 34 0.21 0.21 Patterson 2273 Unmanaged / Natural Ground-based Endline 3.4 28 0.13 0.12 Donahue 2400 Previously Thinned Ground-based Equipment Use 34.3 18 1.34 1.10 Donahue 2401 Unmanaged / Natural Road based Endline 1.8 30 0.02 0.00

29 Somes Bar Integrated Fire Management Project – Fisheries BA/BE – April 2018

Focal Area Treatment Management History Treatment Method in RR Size of Avg Slope Total RR Approx outer Unit No. Method Unit (Percent) Unit 80' RR (acres) Acres Treatment Acres Donahue 2402 Plantation Ground-based Equipment Use 7.2 18 2.77 1.69 Donahue 2404 Plantation Ground-based Equipment Use 4.3 30 4.03 2.27 Donahue 2405 Plantation Ground-based Equipment Use 4.4 27 1.78 0.80 Donahue 2407 Plantation Ground-based Equipment Use 26.0 26 6.37 2.76 Donahue 2411 Plantation Ground-based Equipment Use 23.5 27 7.08 4.24 Donahue 2412 Plantation Ground-based Endline 18.9 32 5.97 1.73 Donahue 2419 Plantation Ground-based Equipment Use 7.8 21 1.93 1.09 Donahue 2421 Plantation Ground-based Equipment Use 19.1 21 5.43 2.42 Donahue 2422 Previously Thinned Ground-based Equipment Use 5.4 15 0.85 0.56 Donahue 2423 Previously Thinned Road based Endline 6.1 22 5.25 2.41 Donahue 2425 Plantation Endling Endline 17.0 36 4.86 3.03 Donahue 2427 Plantation Mastication Equipment Use 22.0 26 6.68 3.07 Donahue 2428 Plantation Mastication Equipment Use 3.0 29 1.38 0.93 Donahue 2431 Unmanaged / Natural Road based Endline 16.2 20 7.01 2.14 Donahue 2434 Unmanaged / Natural Road based Endline 5.4 35 4.47 1.65 Donahue 2441 Plantation Mastication Equipment Use 9.5 20 4.75 2.08 Donahue 2452 Previously Thinned Ground-based Equipment Use 6.1 28 1.33 0.82 Donahue 2454 Previously Thinned Ground-based Endline 30.7 24 5.79 3.05 Donahue 2456 Plantation Ground-based Equipment Use 8.7 19 2.01 1.08 Donahue 2461 Plantation Ground-based Endline 44.1 28 2.40 0.50 Donahue 2465 Plantation Road based Endline 10.2 58 4.35 1.49

30 Somes Bar Integrated Fire Management Project – Fisheries BA/BE – April 2018

Table 6. Units within 0.5 miles of coho habitat. Unit 2142 overlaps a fish-bearing stream (320’ buffers)

Focal Area Treatment Management History Treatment method in RR Size of Avg Slope Total RR Approx outer Unit No. Method Unit (Percent) Unit 80' RR (acres) Acres Treatment Acres Ti Bar 2119 Previously Thinned Ground-based Equipment Use 3.2 26 3.21 2.56 Ti Bar 2142 Previously Thinned Ground-based Equipment Use 9.0 12 0.40 0.34 Patterson 2260 Previously Thinned Ground-based Endline 5.6 34 0.98 0.79 Patterson 2264 Plantation Ground-based Equipment Use 25.8 23 14.55 8.17

31 Somes Bar Integrated Fire Management Project – Fisheries BA/BE – April 2018

Map of Riparian Reserves for Mechanical Units in Ti Bar and Patterson

Figure 13. Outer 80’ Riparian Reserve Treatment Units found within the Ti Creek and Patterson

32 Somes Bar Integrated Fire Management Project – Fisheries BA/BE – April 2018

Map of Riparian Reserves for Southern Focal Areas – Rogers Creek and Donahue

Figure 14. Outer 80’ Riparian Reserve Treatment Units found within the Rogers Creek and Donahue.

33 Somes Bar Integrated Fire Management Project – Fisheries BA/BE – April 2018

Manual Treatment of Fuels Manual treatments will include hand cutting, pruning, hand piling and hand pile burning of ladder fuels. This treatment will reduce ladder fuels by breaking up fuel continuity (both horizontal and vertical) of high concentrations. High priority treatment areas are those associated with strategic control features (private property, roads and ridges) and in areas identified as having unacceptably high fuel loading which would lead to negative prescribed fire effects. Prescription numbers on the map include first entry: (4a) – Plantation ladder fuel, (4b) – Non-Plantation (Natural) ladder fuels; and second entry for mechanical treatments: (4c) Manual fuel treatments.  Manual treatments will generally occur in plantations where there is no opportunity for restoration bi-products (typically firewood and sawlogs) and exclusion zones where mechanical treatments are not permitted. This can be due to the topography (not conducive to heavy equipment access) or in larger more mature stands where only smaller diameter fuel reduction is necessary to prepare the ground for follow up prescribed burning.  Small-diameter trees and shrubs, generally up to 6-inch dbh, would be manually cut from beneath overstory trees, and/or aggregations of small-diameter Douglas-fir plantation trees would be thinned or limbed to reduce density of intermediate and suppressed trees. o Manual treatments would be implemented within select riparian areas. Most of the perennial and intermittent streams in the project area provide a natural obstacle to the rate of spread and consumption from understory/jackpot burning and may not require much treatment as the first entry. o Where thinning of small-diameter ladder fuels is needed adjacent to streamcourses to ensure positive prescribed burning effects, vegetation that provides stream bank stability would not be removed.  Maximum residual spacing of trees will range between 16’ to 24” based on the type of unit. Residual canopy closure would be maintained at 40-60% of existing conditions. Important cultural and ecological plant species would be targeted for enhancement wherever feasible. o Riparian Reserves residual canopy closure would be maintained at 60%. Overstory canopy would not be affected by manual treatments.  Slash generated would be hand piled and burned (or scattered where concentrations are low) in preparation for understory or jackpot burning. Hand pile dimensions are up to 5’L x 5’W x 5’H in size, piled on slopes up to 65 percent, and away from the drip line of predominant trees. Piles are covered with paper and ignited during favorable weather conditions. o Within Riparian Reserves - seek a balance between number and location of piles near streams to protect adjacent large downed woody debris, key habitat components for Pacific giant salamanders while still reducing fuel concentrations. o Within Riparian Reserves, whenever possible, construct piles greater than 25’ from active channel considering slope and potential for delivery of sediment when burned. This distance would provide greater protection for Pacific giant salamander.  Follow-up manual treatments (2nd entry) will also occur to reduce fuel loads following mechanical and mastication units, where needed to get the units ready for prescribed fire.

34 Somes Bar Integrated Fire Management Project – Fisheries BA/BE – April 2018

 Feather manual treatments within the inner 80 feet of riparian reserve by retaining 30-40% of the vegetation available to cut in a mosaic pattern.

Burning and Prescribed Fire Burning, including hand pile, understory and jackpot burning, will occur on days with favorable atmospheric, weather, and fuels conditions to reduce risk of escapement and minimize flame lengths according to the Burn Plan developed (see Figure 15 and 16) It is acknowledged that not every acre of these units would be treated; however, prescribed fire would be used to break up the continuity of fuel loading and maintain existing openings where appropriate.  Treatments in these areas would be conducted only after the fuelbreaks and other treatment unit work has been completed. Handlines would be constructed by manual methods prior to ignition. This type of burning would be initiated when fuel moistures are low enough to carry fire and still within prescription parameters. Burn Plans are created that include language would give clear resource and prescribed fire objectives to ensure that implementation actions would minimize resource concern elements. Important cultural and ecological plant and tree species would be protected from adverse fire effects, either by installing temporary firelines or altering ignitions patterns as identified in a burn plan. Burning would only be initiated on “burn days” or with an approved variance. Prescription numbers on the map include first entry: (5a) – Prescribed Fire in units with low fuel concentrations; second entry (5c) – Prescribed Fire in Manual units (4a & 4b); and third entry (5b and 5d) – Prescribed Fire in units initially treated mechanically (1a, 1b, 2, 3).  Understory burning of surface and some ladder fuels under the canopy layer will occur when the controlled application of prescribed fire within a determined boundary (before or after pretreatment and to maintain conditions in the long term) can be implemented.  Jackpot burning will take place by covering and burning fuel concentrations of natural and treatment-generated fuels found within a given perimeter.  Prescribed burning would target the reduction of small diameter ladder fuels and breaking up the continuity of excessive fuel build up. Prescribed burning would retain 50-90% of existing duff layer.  Important cultural and ecological plant and tree species would be protected from adverse fire effects, either by installing temporary fire lines or altering ignitions patterns.  Portions of the project area that are not accessible due to very steep terrain or they are already in the condition (more open stands, no ladder fuels) may achieve the desired effects from burning without any pre-treatments.  Follow up entries and future maintenance will require understory or jackpot burn treatments which would occur approximately every 2-7 years according to site specific objectives. However, this recurrent interval would decrease over time as the stand composition and fuel models shift from higher to lower fuel loading.

35 Somes Bar Integrated Fire Management Project – Fisheries BA/BE – April 2018

Riparian Reserve PDF for Burning – Piles and prescribed fire  No ignition would occur within Riparian Reserves except the following circumstances: o Within Riparian Reserves, burning of hand piles (within 25’ based on slope) to stream channels will be minimized seeking a balance between number and distribution of piles to reduce sedimentation, as well as protect adjacent large downed woody debris a key habitat components for Pacific giant salamanders  Riparian areas would not be directly ignited, however, fire may be permitted to back or flank into Riparian Reserves with the condition that fire effects would be of low to moderate severity.  In rare circumstances (potential for burning material to roll down into riparian reserves, safety, and protection of resources (plants, cultural)) handlines in Riparian Reserves can be constructed where necessary to minimize undesired fire effects. Pre-planning and adherence to the burn plan would reduce the likelihood of this occurring.  Prescribed fire will be allowed to move freely across the landscape under prescription and burn plan guidance. Ignition in sensitive areas such as active landslide features should be avoided. Concentrations of manually cut fuels should be moved at least two rooted tree widths, or 30-50 feet away from active landslide features as possible prior to ignition (incorporated into buffers around slides and are flagged in field).

Strategic Fire Control Features Ridgetop Modified Shaded Fuelbreaks: This strategically located wide block or strip, where the cover of dense and heavy vegetation will be changed, will serve to lower fuel volume or reduce flammability in the area (see Figure 15 and 16).  Create shaded Fuelbreaks that include a 100’ wide manual brush cut (under 8” dbh) with handpile burning or lop and scattering of fuels off ridge features, supported by a two-foot wide handline construction down to mineral soil.  Maintain the 1987 dozer line in the Ti Bar Focal Area is an existing fireline break that serves as an important strategic control feature for private land dwellings within the footprint of this Project.  These firelines would be maintained as more of a “true fuel break” where most of the shrubs and small diameter trees are thinned while preserving the larger trees to provide some shade/canopy cover.  Waterbar fuelbreak handlines within riparian reserves. Handlines have been identified and would be constructed under minimal impact guidelines. General description of the handline activity would be a 6’ chainsaw brush cut supported by a 2’ wide handline which would be cut down to bare mineral soil.  Only small diameter trees (under 6” dbh) would be cut during handline installation.  Handpile burning or lop and scattering of fuels may occur.  Handlines will be constructed with waterbars and left in a free draining condition.

36 Somes Bar Integrated Fire Management Project – Fisheries BA/BE – April 2018

Maps of Fuel Treatments including Strategic Fuelbreaks.

Map of Fuel Treatments for Northern Focal Areas – Ti Bar and Patterson

Figure 15. Fuels Treatments including locations of strategic fuelbreaks for Ti Bar and Patterson

37 Somes Bar Integrated Fire Management Project – Fisheries BA/BE – April 2018

Map of Fuel Treatments for Southern Focal Areas – Rogers Creek and Donahue.

Figure 16. Fuels Treatments including locations of strategic fuelbreaks for Rogers Creek and Donahue.

38 Somes Bar Integrated Fire Management Project – Fisheries BA/BE – April 2018

Connected Actions

Landings, Roads and Legacy Site Treatments

Landings Landings have been designated by various resource specialists (eg. forester, hydrologist, geologist, archaeologist, soil scientist, and wildlife/fisheries biologists) participating on the project interdisciplinary team. Mechanically treated areas where commercial by-products are anticipated will require the use of landings and/or disposal areas. Landings are either existing or new site locations between ¼ and ½ acre in size located near Forest Service system and temporary roadways. About 160 landings totaling 76 acres are planned for this project as shown in Table 7 below. A maximum number is proposed to allow flexibility for contractors during implementation of the Project, however, fewer landings may actually be used. Table 7. Landings for Mechanical and Mastication units

Mechanical and Mastication Landings HUC 6 # Existing # Existing Landings # New # New Landings Total # of Subwatersheds Landings within Stream RRs Landings within Stream RRs Landings

Ti Creek- 24.0 4.0 10.0 0 34 Klamath River 11.6 acres 1.8 acres 5.0 acres NA 16.7 acres

Reynolds Creek- 103.0 12.0 20.0 0 123.0 Klamath River 50.1 acres 4.9 acres 7.6 acres NA 57.7 acres

Boise Creek- 3.0 0 0 0 3.0 Klamath River 1.8 acres NA NA NA 1.8 acres

130 16 30 0 160 Project Totals: 63 acres 6.7 acres 13 acres NA 76 acres

 No new landings or disposal sites will be placed within Riparian Reserves.  Preexisting landings and disposal sites will be utilized, when the opportunity exists. The existing landings within stream RRs can be used as they are located within the outer 80’ and do not have hydrologic connectivity to the stream channel8.  Unstable areas or excessive excavation shall be avoided when developing the new landings.  Rehabilitate landings by decompacting, outsloping, and mulching with slash or seeding with native grasses. Landings will be left in a free draining condition, free of berms or other obstacles that would concentrate water during storm events.

8 Landings that are connected to roads with inboard ditches theoretically could be connected to a stream channel, however cross drains are already installed in such situations in order to prevent concentrated flows in the ditches. Since existing landings are located greater than 80’ from a channel (outer 80), at least one, if not more cross drains are between the landing and the channel. Cross drain frequency increase with the slope of the road. 39 Somes Bar Integrated Fire Management Project – Fisheries BA/BE – April 2018

Roads To access the Somes Bar Integrated Fire Management Project area are a series of Forest Service system and temporary roads that exit to State Highway Route 96 near the town of Somes Bar. Existing roads range in condition from meeting the objective maintenance standards they were designed for; to being partially closed due to lack of maintenance opportunities, or because they were placed in storage for future management needs. All roads would require routine or deferred maintenance for the proposed project activities that would be consistent with the Forest-wide Routine Road Maintenance CE. See Figures 17 and 18. Maintenance Level 3 (ML 3) and 4 (ML 4): A total number of 29 miles of roads are ML 3 and ML 4. Forest Service roads: 12N52, 13N11, 13N12, 13N18, 13N29, 13N30, 14N01 and 15N01 are the main routes found within the four focal areas of the project. These type of maintenance levels are assigned to roads that are open and maintained for safe travel by users and are typically considered a minor arterial or collector road. These roads connect to Hwy 96 and are the main routes for hauling as well. Dust abatement (water drafting) is typically not needed for ML 3 and 4 due to pavement/aggregate surfacing. Dust is not an issue on these roads. Maintenance Level 2 (ML 2): A total of 7.8 miles of roads are ML 2.Some roads maybe single lanes with turnouts. The surface type of these roads are comprised of native material, crushed aggregate or gravel, and asphalt or a bituminous surface treatment. The following roads: 11N12, 11N12C, 12N13, 13N02, 13N12B, 13N14, 13N27, 13N27A, 13N29, 13N40, 13N44 and 14N14 are classified as Level 2 roads that are open for high clearance vehicles and have similar road surface types as previously described. These roads might require water drafting for dust abatement may be required. Maintenance Level 1 (ML 1): These roads are classified as closed to vehicular traffic for a period of greater than one year but still exist on the forest transportation system for potential future use. Approximately 4.7 miles of Forest Service Level 1 roads would be brought into service and utilized as Level 2 roads for the life of the project (Table 8). Bringing an ML 1 road up to ML 2 standards often requires some site-specific repair and travelway reconditioning using heavy equipment (e.g., graders, excavators, and dump trucks). Road 13N14A needs a new culvert installed and placed in clean rock fill. The travelway on 13N14E and 13N14A has accumulated dirt and debris that will be removed and stored at designated locations. All roads would be brushed (using hand-held equipment) to improve visibility and travelways cleared of debris and vegetation.  These ML 1 roads being brought up to ML 2 are to be used during the normal operating period (dry season).  13N14A does require one stream crossing to be repaired. This crossing is located in Nantucket Creek (Donahue Focal Areas) and is approximately 2 miles upstream of the Klamath River and occupied habitat. (See Figure 17 for location). This work entails installing a properly sized culvert (to meet the predicted 100-year flood flows) and importing clean rock and fill to bring it up to Forest Service specifications. The roadbed will be outsloped at the crossing to minimize diversion potential. This work would only occur during the dry season and therefore would not require any dewatering prior to installation.

40 Somes Bar Integrated Fire Management Project – Fisheries BA/BE – April 2018

 Once brought up to ML 2 standards, these roads would receive routine road maintenance to facilitate access for equipment and workers for the life of the project in alignment with the Six Rivers Road Maintenance Project, authorized in January 2016. Incorporated by reference, all previously authorized road maintenance design and mitigation measures would apply. These roads would be closed annually to vehicle traffic during the wet weather season. All ground disturbing work would occur during low flow periods between July 15-Aug 30 Table 8. Maintenance Level 1 (ML 1) system road use.

Road ID Mileage Road ID Mileage 13N12A 0.9 13N14E 0.5 13N14A 1.2 13N18A 0.3 13N14C 0.2 13N18E 0.5 13N14D 0.5 14N15 0.5 Temporary Roads: About 10.4 miles of existing temporary road will be used for mechanical and mastication unit treatments only. These type of roads have alignments that follow historic or existing non-system roads. Because these roads are on existing alignments some ground disturbance is anticipated and construction activities are principally vegetation removal, road surface preparation, and erosion prevention in the form of waterbars and rolling dips. New temporary road construction is limited to approximately ½ mile of road for the project.  No new temporary roads are found within Riparian Reserves.  Of the existing 10.4 miles of temporary roads, four acres are found within riparian reserves, with only 1 stream crossing. All temporary roads shall be winterized and closed to vehicle traffic every rainy season, typically October 30 to June 1, for the life of the project. When no longer needed for operations, leave in a free draining condition and physically close to vehicle traffic. All temporary roads would be decommissioned. Decommissioning includes installing water bars, installing a physical barrier to prevent motor vehicle access, and seeding with native grasses where appropriate. Table 9 reveals existing Level 1 and temporary roads that will be utilized for the project and depicts their length and amount of stream crossings that are located along these routes. Ten stream crossings are over perennial or intermittent channels; none of these stream crossings are within anadromous salmonid habitat (or resident trout habitat).

41 Somes Bar Integrated Fire Management Project – Fisheries BA/BE – April 2018

Table 9. Proposed type of road, # of miles and stream crossings by 6th field watershed

HUC 6 Type of Road(s) Miles # of Stream Crossings Subwatersheds

FS Maintenance Level 1 Roads 0.5 1 Existing Temporary Roads 1.6 0

River

Klamath Klamath New Temporary Roads 0.4 0

Ti Creek Ti Ti Creek Total: 2.6 1.0

- FS Maintenance Level 1 Roads 3.2 6

Existing Temporary Roads 8.7 1

River

Creek

Klamath Klamath Reynolds Reynolds New Temporary Roads 0.2 0 Reynolds Creek Total: 12.1 7.0

- FS Maintenance Level 1 Roads 1.0 2 Existing Temporary Roads 0.1 0

River

Boise

Creek Klamat New Temporary Roads 0.0 0 Boise Creek Total: 1.1 2.0

FS Maintenance Level 1 Roads 4.7 9.0 HUC 6 Totals Existing Temporary Roads 10.4 1.0 New Temporary Roads 0.6 0.0

Legacy site treatments Legacy site treatments are considered connected actions. Restoration actions Table 10. Legacy Site Treatments would occur at existing legacy HUC 6 Route # of # of Stream sediment sites, scheduled for Subwatersheds Numbers Miles Crossings treatment in compliance with the 9100 0.35 2 Clean Water Act as a condition of the 9101 0.13 2 North Coast Regional Water Quality Ti Creek- Klamath River Control Board waiver of waste 9102 0.22 3 discharge requirements (Order No. 9103 0.19 0 9400 0.09 0 R1-2015-0021). There are 6 Reynolds Creek- segments, totally 1.1 miles of legacy Klamath River 9402 0.11 2 logging roads found in the project area Total 1.1 9.0 – 2 Acres (see Table 10). Two acres of riparian would be restored. Restoration of legacy roads includes removing culverts and associated fill, storing fill in stable locations, placing waterbars or dips to prevent water from concentrating on the roadbed and seeding with native grasses. Earthen log barriers are installed in location that would effectively block motor vehicle access. All restoration work would occur during the dry season, have appropriate erosion control plans developed and closely monitored by qualified personnel

42 Somes Bar Integrated Fire Management Project – Fisheries BA/BE – April 2018

experience in road restoration activities. No legacy sites are found within anadromous salmonid habitat (or resident trout habitat).

Hazard Tree Removal Hazard trees include dead or dying trees, dead parts of live trees, or unstable live trees (due to structural defects or other factors) that are within striking distance to people or property. Hazard trees have the potential to cause property damage, personal injury or fatality in the event of a failure. Safety of the public and employees are the central concern (Angwin 2012). Incidental felling would only occur in the event they pose an immediate safety risk to firefighters or a containment risk during implementation.  Hazard tree removal, would include approximately 1-5 trees per mile for one tree length from the road, following use of Regional hazard tree guidelines  When roads cross stream channels, hazard trees within Riparian Reserves would be felled if they pose a safety risk. Felled trees will be kept on-site, when needed, to meet coarse woody debris objectives.  Roadside hazard trees may be reserved for use for fisheries restoration, decked and stored, sold, or left on site. o If removal occurred (restoration, decked, sold) no equipment would leave the roadbed, any ground disturbance would be water barred or mulched.  Removal of hazard trees would occur on existing roads.  Treatment of slash associated with hazard tree abatement may include hand pile, jackpot pile or understory burning, chipping, and/or lop and scatter, as necessary following the design features above.

43 Somes Bar Integrated Fire Management Project – Fisheries BA/BE – April 2018

Map of New Landings and Roads

Figure 17. New landings and roads found within the Somes Bar Integrated Fire Management Project.

44 Somes Bar Integrated Fire Management Project – Fisheries BA/BE – April 2018

Map of Haul Routes for Somes Bar Project

Figure 18. Haul Routes for Somes Bar Fuel Project

45 Somes Bar Integrated Fire Management Project – Fisheries BA/BE – April 2018

Water Drafting An estimated 30 water drafting locations are expected to be needed during project implementation as depicted in Table 11 below. No additional drafting sites will be developed for this project. Water drafting will occur at preexisting sites as shown in Figure 19 below. Conduct operations at water source developments in such a manner as to avoid, minimize or mitigate adverse effects to aquatic species and habitats from water drafting. In addition, the following measures will be required for water drafting during project operations.  All drafting sites will occur outside of occupied coho habitat. Identification of coho habitat is based on 24 years of surveys (see environmental baseline).  Follow National Core Best Management Practices, Operations in Aquatic Ecosystems (pgs. 21-23) and Water Uses Management Activities (pgs. 145-146). These correspond to design features given to all water drafting operators as part of the SRNF contracting processes. https://www.fs.fed.us/biology/resources/pubs/watershed/FS_National_Core_BMPs_April20 12.pdf  Operations are restricted to one hour after sunrise to one hour before sunset.  Seek streams and pools where water is deep and flowing, as opposed to streams with low flow and small isolated pools.  Pumping rate shall not exceed 350 gallons per minute (gpm) with typical truck size on SRNF being 4,000. Operators know that it would take approximately 11 minutes at 350 gpm to fill the truck and therefore regulate the pumping rate accordingly.  The pumping rate shall not exceed ten percent of the stream flow as measured by a visual observation of water level in relation to a moss line or rock to determine if stream level is dropping due to pumping.  For Somes Bar – it is anticipated that 1 to 2 trucks would be accessing drafting sites. In a single day each truck would will fill up in one spot, based on the activity, and as the activity moves, the water drafting trucks would likely change water hole locations. Only one truck would be drafting at a time.  The number of visits in a day is dependent on needs; weather, surface type, volume of log haul. Based on past use, this could be between one to 4 times a day.  Streams with drafting locations low water flow conditions are such that 10% of the flow would not reached during any drafting occurrence.  Each pumping operations shall use a fish screen. The screen face should be oriented parallel to flow for best screening performance. The screen shall be designed and used such that it can be submerged with at least one-screen-height clearance above and below the screen.  Operators shall keep a log on the truck containing the following information: Operator’s Name, Date, Time, Pump Rate, Filling Time, Screen Cleaned (Y or N) Screen condition, and Comments  Ti Creek (13N11 MP 5.6) requires fish screen for resident trout,

46 Somes Bar Integrated Fire Management Project – Fisheries BA/BE – April 2018

Table 11. Water Drafting Sites – all sites have perennial flow and a CFS > 7.8 cfs (CDF/CDF&W minimum flow for 350 gpm)

Water Drafting Sites HUC 6 Approximate Resource Concerns9 Drainage/Site Name Road # Subwatersheds Road Mile No Resource Concern Trib to Burns Creek 13N02 0.6

No Resource Concern Unnamed trib to Klamath 13N11 0.7 Requires fish screen for 13N11 5.6 Ti Creek resident trout Unnamed trib to Klamath 13N13 0.4 No Resource Concern 14N01 4.7 No Resource Concern Klamath River Trib to Ti Creek

- No Resource Concern Trib to Ti Creek 14N01 7.6 No Resource Concern Burns Creek 14N14 1.3

Ti Creek Ti Creek No Resource Concern Carter Creek 14N14 2.3 No Resource Concern Mud Creek 14N21 0.3

No Resource Concern Unnamed Trib to Klamath 12N13 0.8 No Resource Concern Trib to Rogers Creek 12N52 2.3 No Resource Concern Irving Creek 13N11 14.8 No Resource Concern Sandy Bar Creek 13N11 8.5

No Resource Concern Trib to Stanshaw Creek 13N12 2.4 No Resource Concern Unnamed Trib to Klamath 13N14 4.0 No Resource Concern Teneyck Creek 13N14 2.6 No Resource Concern Unamed Trib to Natuket 13N14 0.9

Klamath River Klamath

- No Resource Concern Trib to Reynolds 13N18 6.3 No Resource Concern Halverson Creek 13N18 10.3 No Resource Concern Unnamed Trib to Klamath 13N18 5.2 No Resource Concern Teneyck Creek 13N18 4.4

Reynolds Creek No Resource Concern Natuket Creek 13N18 2.7 No Resource Concern Trib to Stanshaw 15N17 16.4 No Resource Concern Trib to Rogers Creek 15N17 8.8 No Resource Concern Rogers Creek 15N17 9.3 Standpipe Somes Bar Workstation HWY 96 *66.7

- upstream of Hwy 96 Five Mile Creek HWY 96 *63.2 upstream of Hwy 96 Whitmore Creek HWY 96 *62.7 Standpipe Orleans Ranger Station HWY 96 *59.1

Boise Creek Boise Creek Pond Klamath River Ullathrone Creek 11N46 2.2 * Denotes the ~ river mile along the Klamath River where sites are found along Highway 96.

9 Existing water drafting locations have been identified in the Six Rivers National Forest Pre-Attack Fire Atlas and were reviewed by specialists for any resource concern. 47 Somes Bar Integrated Fire Management Project – Fisheries BA/BE – April 2018

Map of Water Drafting Locations

Figure 19. Location of Water Drafting Sites

48 Somes Bar Integrated Fire Management Project – Fisheries BA/BE – April 2018

Wet Weather Operation Standards The project is proposed to take place during the Normal Operating Season (NOS) that is defined as May 1st to October 31st. All ground disturbing activities, whether inside or outside of the NOS, will be implemented according to the Forest’s Wet Weather Operations Standards (Klamath and Six Rivers National Forest, 2002). Standards in these WWOS guides are further clarified in the WWOS Field Guide and BMP "Yardsticks" and "Checklist” (USFS 2002) ( Appendix D). All use of non-paved roads shall cease during periods when precipitation is sufficient to generate overland flow off the road and/or when use of the road would cause road damage and/or adverse environmental effects. Once road use has ceased due to the foregoing conditions, use shall not resume until and unless the road surface is dry. A dry road is one in which moisture is less than or equal to that found during normal watering (dust abatement) treatments or light rain, and soil is not rutting or pumping fines causing a visible increase in turbidity in a drainage facility or road surface, any of which drains directly to fish-bearing streams, permanently flowing nonfish-bearing streams, intermittent and seasonally flowing streams, wetlands, lakes, and ponds. This provision shall apply according to a rule of reasonableness, and it shall not prohibit, for example, use of a small segment of wet road on an otherwise dry road. If any permitted use results in damage to the road surface, drainage facilities, water bars, or stream crossings, the damage will be repaired within 24 hours after it occurs to eliminate the likelihood of related sediment reaching streams or other water bodies.

Project Monitoring Somes Bar Integrated Fire Management Project activities in relation to water quality impacts will be monitored according to the BMP Effectiveness Program. The basis of the effectiveness monitoring program is twofold: 1) to ensure application of S&Gs related to BMPs, and 2) to test BMP effectiveness and recommend changes/improvements if necessary. Reports are prepared annually and will be sent to NMFS. The Somes Bar Integrated Fire Management Project also created a multiparty monitoring (MPM) plan which will provide a way for this collaborative to learn together through this partnership. The partnership has identified two (2) types of monitoring that will take place throughout the project: 1) implementation and 2) effectiveness. Although validation monitoring is beyond the scope of this project, the partnership will pursue this type of monitoring with the help of researchers. The MPM team will meet annually to determine monitoring priorities. Based on team capacity, there are several components within each monitoring type that may be included. This capacity is largely dependent on funding availability. The overarching goal of this monitoring effort is to evaluate implementation and the effectiveness of treatments in achieving desired condition and function including reintroduction of fire as a step towards restoring and maintaining resilient ecosystems, communities, and economies in the interest of revitalizing balanced human relationships with this dynamic landscape.

Project Implementation Project implementation is planned to begin in the fall of 2018. The Project duration is anticipated to be phased over 15 years, as funding becomes available.

49 Somes Bar Integrated Fire Management Project – Fisheries BA/BE – April 2018

An implementation strategy was developed that entails entering identified areas and first pretreating crown and ladder fuels that would hamper safe application of prescribed fire. The order of operations for fuels reduction would begin with lowering and altering crown fuel distribution through the use of mechanical treatments. Next, manual treatments of understory ladder reduction would be applied either as a follow-up to mechanical treatments, or as an initial entry, where fuel loading concentrations would fuel flame lengths >4 feet. Prescribed fire would be the last entry in mechanical treated areas, the second entry in manually treated areas and, the first/only entry in those locations were fuel conditions would support prescribed fire with no additional treatments. Light blue indicates potential need for maintenance. For upgrading ML 1 roads to ML 2 roads, the “w” signifies the need to close the road to public traffic each winter and to ensure road is hydrologically maintenance free. The following table gives a general idea of the scheduling of the work to be accomplished over the 15 year period. Table 12. General display of the timing of the Proposed Action – Actual time line based on ecological conditions and funding.

Somes Bar Integrated Fire Management NEPA Project Activities Estimated Timeframe (Years following signed decision memo) Years out Entry Acres 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Strategic Fuelbreaks Construct Temp Roads, landings Upgrade ML 1 roads to ML 2 w w w w w w w w w w w w w w Hazard Trees Implement Prescriptions 1a, 1b, 1st 1,234 2 - Thinning Implement 4c – where necessary 2nd Implement 5b - 2 yrs post in 2nd or areas with trees of interest 3rd Implement Prescription 3 - 1st 187 Mastication Implement 4c – where necessary 2nd Implement 5d 2nd or delay 2-5 years post masticate 3rd Implement Prescription 4a and 1st 2,658 4b Implement 5c 2nd Implement 5a – Prescribed Fire 1st 1,491 Restore Roads to Level 1, Decommission Temp Roads Legacy Road Work Monitoring

50 Somes Bar Integrated Fire Management Project – Fisheries BA/BE – April 2018

V. EXISTING ENVIRONMENT

The Somes Bar Integrated Fire Management Project is located along the lower mid-Klamath River mainstem near the town of Somes Bar, CA. The climate is one of a temperate, Mediterranean type, typified by hot, dry summers, and cool, moist winters. The hot summers in this landscape are occasionally moderated by coastal fog moving up the Klamath River valley. Precipitation ranges from an annual rainfall of about 64″ in the lower elevations near the Klamath River to about 95″ in the highest elevations, with approximately 90% falling between the months of October and May. The Project is within the deeply dissected and complex terrain of the Klamath Mountains. Prominent ridges range between 1,207 m (3,960 ft) and 1,645 m (5,400 ft). Elevations in the Project footprint range from about 243 m (800 ft) to 914 m (3,000 ft). The complexity of the geology and terrain have a strong influence on the structure, composition and productivity of vegetation. The parent materials for soils are predominately metamorphic rocks and also include granitic rocks and ultramafic outcrops. The vegetative cover is primarily of mixed evergreen type. The Douglas-fir/tanoak type dominates, but grades to a Douglas-fir/live oak type on harsher sites. A scattering of shrub/forb, meadows, and riparian vegetation occur throughout the project area. As discussed, wildfire is the primary natural disturbance in the landscape. All of the natural vegetation types have adapted to a fire disturbance regime, and many are dependent on fire for their persistence. At the time the Ishi Pishi-Ukonom Ecosystem Analysis was prepared in July 1998, the Ti Creek watershed was designated an Area with Watershed Concerns (AWWC) primarily because of high road density. The AWWC designation means that there a higher risk of unacceptable watershed impacts stemming from heavy precipitation and/or peak flows. Road decommissioning since the WA has significantly lowered road density and improved the quality of the Ti Creek watershed. Ti Creek is no longer an AWWC designation and both the Ti Creek and Kennedy subwatersheds are below threshold for adverse Cumulative Watershed Effects (CWE). Both the CWPP and the SONCC recovery plans identify the risk of high severity fire as a primary threat to the mid Klamath watershed, including the Mid Klamath Population of SONCC coho salmon. Habitat Indicators for existing watershed condition and the status of aquatic habitats for anadromous salmonids (Environmental Baseline) in the Ti Creek and Reynolds Creek subwatersheds, and the mid-Klamath River corridor are described in Section VI and summarized in Environmental Baselines (Appendices E1 – E4). Species Accounts Southern Oregon/Northern California Coasts Coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) Status: Federally Threatened ESU and Designated Critical Habitat Most Current Status Review/Information: Status Update for Pacific Salmon and Steelhead Listed Under the Endangered Species Act: Southwest (Williams et al. 2011)

Local Population Within the larger Klamath River basin, early gill net catches were on the order of 11,000 for coho salmon in 1919 (Snyder 1931). Large declines in the basin were thought to occur between 1940 and 1960 due to large-scale timber harvest, mining, and associated habitat loss (Weitkamp et al. 1995). By the 1980s, the annual escapement of coho salmon in the basin was down to around

51 Somes Bar Integrated Fire Management Project – Fisheries BA/BE – April 2018

15,000 to 20,000 fish, and this estimate included a large portion of hatchery fish (Leidy and Leidy 1984). Some have concluded that salmon runs across the ESU declined by over 90 percent between the 1940s and 1980s (Weitkamp et al. 1995, California Department of Fish and Game [CDFG] 2004). Today, the Middle Klamath coho salmon population is thought to be extremely reduced compared to historic levels. Regional biologists estimate that the total population size is around 1,000-1,500 in strong run years and 0-500 in weaker run years (Ackerman et al. 2006). Cooperative adult coho surveys are attempted annually during peak spawning periods when low to moderate precipitation and reduced stream flow levels are conducive to accomplish surveys, access and clear visibility exists for observations, funding, personnel and resources are available, and lastly when precautionary measures are undertaken to address surveyor safety. Adult coho data collected by the Klamath Basin Collaborative Partnership has been summarized by LeRoy Cyr, District Fish Biologist, for the Orleans/Ukonom RD from 1994 to present. Even in the most productive, low gradient, spawning reaches found on the District, the number of live adults and redds counted are well below threshold for spawners. In addition, juvenile coho salmon surveys have been conducted during the spring and summer months over the past several decades by various parties including the Karuk Tribe, MKWC, and USFS. Approximately 70 river miles of coho critical habitat is snorkeled every year to assess presence and absence of juvenile coho by Orleans/Ukonom RD biologists, technicians and interns. Lower Middle Klamath surveys between 2002 and 2016 have been summarized and the results indicate that juvenile coho salmon are most abundant in Aikens, Bluff, Boise, Camp, Red Cap, Sandy Bar, Slate, and Stanshaw Creeks (Data on File). Peak juvenile coho counts over this period reflect the following results for the lower reaches of these tributaries found within the action area: Rogers Creek (15), Stanshaw Creek (156), Sandy Bar Creek (239), and Ti Creek (10). Accurate surveys for coho spawners is difficult due to the time of year, however spawning is known to occur within the mainstem Klamath, Ti Creek and Rogers (three redds have been documented – L. Cyr., n.s. personal communication). Direct observations in the proximity of the project are typically young of the year coho and 1+ juveniles utilizing the lowermost reaches of tributaries, and rearing in Klamath River refugia. Many of these coho are considered non-natal. Natal rearing is likely confined to those tributaries where sufficient spawning and rearing habitat exists (Boise, Aikens, Bluff, Slate, Thompson, Red Cap, Elk, Indian, Independence, Titus, Seiad, Horse, China, Beaver, Clear, and Camp Creeks). None of these tributaries are found within the action area. None of the tributaries were identified in the SONCC Recovery plan as having any Intrinsic Potential (IP) habitat. Also, the SONCC Recovery plan identified the confluence of Ti Creek, Sandy Bar, Stanshaw and Rogers Creek were identified as key cool water refugia.

52 Somes Bar Integrated Fire Management Project – Fisheries BA/BE – April 2018

Upper Klamath-Trinity Rivers ESU Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) Status: Forest Service Sensitive in the Klamath River Most Current Status Review/Information: Upper Klamath and Trinity River Chinook Salmon Biological Review (Williams et al 2011) -ESA listing was not warranted

Local Population Both spring and fall-run Chinook inhabit the lower-mid Klamath River. This section of river is used primarily as a migration corridor for this species, but also provides limited spawning and holding and areas for adults, facilitates movement of juveniles into and between tributaries, provides rearing habitat for fry and juveniles produced in tributaries, and provides habitat for smolts as they emigrate from tributaries and migrate to sea. Mixed and anadromous-resident fish assemblages also exist in the mainstem and lower reaches of many tributaries. The 1963 historical abundance was approximately 168,000 adults, with the number split about evenly between the Klamath (88,000) and Trinity (80,000) rivers (CDFG 1965). Recent fall-run populations in this ESU are at relatively high abundances and escapement (Myers et al 1998). In contrast, however, spring-run abundance is at only 10% of historical levels, and much of the present production is hatchery-derived. A remnant population of spring-Chinook occupies a wide range of habitats within the Salmon River basin, downstream of the project area. Since 1988, estimates of spring-run Chinook have been based on direct observations from annual summer surveys of approximately 75 river miles within the mainstem, Wooley Creek, as well as, North and South Forks. Resting pool counts of adult spring-run Chinook show low spawner abundances ranging from 233 to 1,081 for 2006-2010. Numbers of spring-run Chinook are also very low within many mid-Klamath tributaries. These springers are typically found holding in the lower reaches of Bluff, Red Cap, Boise and Camp Creeks during annual surveys conducted in July and August. A few adult spring Chinook are observed on occasion holding during July and August within thermal refugia areas found along the Klamath River mainstem near the project area (L. Cyr, pers. obs.). With the exception of the Klamath River mainstem, suitable fall-run Chinook habitat within the project is very limited due to steep, high gradient (> 8% over 200 distance), cobble-boulder dominated stream channels. There are some streams that have different channel types because of their low-to-moderate gradient such as Irving, Rogers and Ti Creeks (example shown in Figure 20 below) that host some spawning and rearing opportunities in the lower reaches but there are very few within this action area. Spawner abundance and population productivity within all project area tributaries are considered to be extremely reduced from historic levels.

53 Somes Bar Integrated Fire Management Project – Fisheries BA/BE – April 2018

Figure 20. Lower Reach of Ti Creek (RM 0.6) foud south on the southern edge of the Ti Bar Focal Area Since 1984, cooperative fall Chinook escapement surveys have been accomplished within a number of these miscellaneous tributaries from Iron Gate Dam downstream to the Trinity River. The purpose of this survey is to gather information needed to make sound management decisions affecting this species in the Klamath Basin. For the past 25 years, approximately 400 river miles of anadromous fish habitat has been surveyed annually from October through December through this Klamath Basin Collaborative Partnership. This survey objective is to estimate the number of naturally spawning fall Chinook, determine their age composition, timing and distribution, recover coded wire tags to determine hatchery contribution and straying rates and locate and quantify spawning redd locations. Figure 21 displays the total number of fall Chinook redds identified through this collaborative survey effort that were found on the Orleans and Happy Camp Ranger Districts during this period.

54 Somes Bar Integrated Fire Management Project – Fisheries BA/BE – April 2018

1984-2017 Fall Chinook Surveys Data Collected by the Klamath Basin Collaborative Partnership Orleans / Happy Camp Ranger Districts 4000 Orleans 3500 Happy Camp 3000

2500

2000

1500

1000

Total Number Total Number of Redds 500

1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Survey Year Figure 21. 1984 - 2017 Fall Chinook spawning escapement results for miscellaneous middle Klamath tributaries

Klamath Mountain Province DPS Steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss) Status: Forest Service Sensitive Most Current Status Review/Information: Reevaluation of the Status of KMP Steelhead (Williams et al. 2011)

Local Population Approximate total run size for both winter and summer-run adult steelhead were estimated at 130,000 fish for the Klamath (Busby et al. 1994). Both summer and winter-run steelhead are known to inhabit the lower-mid Klamath River mainstem and its tributaries; they primarily use this area for migration, holding, spawning and juvenile rearing. Difficult field conditions during the winter and the remoteness of spawning grounds contribute to the lack of specific information regarding winter-run steelhead. However, juvenile steelhead and rainbow trout show moderate-to-high abundances for the area when enumerated via downstream migrant trapping efforts undertaken at Big Bar on the Klamath River, Turtle Rock on the Salmon River, and within nearby tributaries of Camp and Red Cap Creeks. In addition, annual adult snorkel surveys have been performed in the summer in a number of middle Klamath River tributaries. Summer-run steelhead observed during this time often hold in cool, deep pools until spawning occurs in late winter. The overall health and likelihood of persistence of steelhead are affected by the abundance, productivity, connectivity and diversity of component populations. Dillon and Wooley Creek watersheds are located above and below the action area. Both of these watersheds support critically important steelhead habitat for the survival of this metapopulation within the lower-mid Klamath River. Approximately 90 miles of suitable

55 Somes Bar Integrated Fire Management Project – Fisheries BA/BE – April 2018

tributary habitat have been snorkeled every summer to assess the abundance of adult summer steelhead since 1985. Figure 22 shows the results of those summer-run steelhead surveys indicating an abundance ranging between 300-2700 individuals during this period.

1985-2015 Summer Steelhead Totals Data Collected by the Klamath Basin Collaborative Partnership Orleans / Happy Camp Ranger Districts 3000

2500 Adults Half Pounders 2000

1500

1000 Total Number of SteelheadTotal of Number 500

Survey Year

Figure 22. 1985-2015 Summer-run steelhead totals for middle Klamath tributaries including Wooley Creek.

Fish Distribution in the Action Area There are approximately 16.4 miles of the Klamath River mainstem where resident and anadromous fish assemblages exist between river miles 65.5 near the mouth of the Salmon River, upstream to approximately river mile 82, near the mouth of the Kennedy Creek for the project. This section of mainstem is used primarily as a migration corridor for fish species, but also provides spawning and holding areas for adults, facilitates movement of juveniles into and between tributaries, provides rearing habitat for fry and juveniles produced in tributaries, and provides habitat for smolts as they emigrate from tributaries and migrate to sea. Existing anadromous fish and other aquatic organism barriers are found on Kennedy, Sandy Bar, Stanshaw, and other small creeks of the project resulting from impassable stream crossings related to Highway 96 or other roads. Corrugated metal pipes, footings and/or concrete walls block fish passage and upstream migration. Most of these high gradient tributaries steepen to where large cobble, boulder dominated stream channels, cascades and waterfalls exist. These sites were evaluated and assessed on various occasions to determine if they were suitable for potential fish restoration projects (2001-USFS, 2003-Karuk Tribe, 2004-Cal Trans). After these reviews, it was concluded that fish passage improvements were not economical or feasible at these site locations. The range of anadromy (stream mile distance from confluence with the Klamath mainstem) for resident rainbow, steelhead trout, coho and Chinook salmon were previously outlined in Table 1 for

56 Somes Bar Integrated Fire Management Project – Fisheries BA/BE – April 2018

the Action Area. Within miscellaneous mid-Klamath tributaries of the project, anadromous and resident fish habitat are defined by the existing steepness and gradient barriers found within these stream channels (e.g. slopes > 8% over a > 200’ distance). In general, suitable tributary fisheries habitat mostly occurs within lowermost reaches, within low-to-moderate stream gradients, found near their confluence with the Klamath River mainstem. Anadromous fish streams potentially affected by project activities include: Burns, Kennedy, Ti, Sandy Bar, Stanshaw, Rogers, Teneyck, Unnamed tributary (North of Teneyck Creek), Natuket and Donahue Flat Creeks. Critical Habitat (for Coho salmon) and Essential Fish Habitat (for Coho and Chinook) have been delineated for each stream where applicable. Salmonid life stages commonly found with project streams are further described in Table 13 below.

Table 13. Salmonid life stages found within project streams

HUC Stream Resident Coho Chinook Steelhead Watershed Name Rainbow Trout Limited Spawning Limited Spawning, Juvenile & Adult Middle Juvenile & Adult Klamath Juvenile & Adult Juvenile & Adult Migration, Klamath Migration, Spawning, Mainstem Migration, Holding & Migration, Holding & Spawning, River Holding & Rearing Rearing Rearing Holding & Rearing Burns Limited Holding & Limited Holding & Limited Holding & Limited Spawning Creek Rearing Below Hwy 96 Rearing Below Hwy 96 Rearing Below Hwy 96 & Rearing Limited Holding & Kennedy Limited Holding & Limited Holding & Limited Holding & Ti Creek Rearing Below Creek Rearing Below Hwy 96 Rearing Below Hwy 96 Rearing Below Hwy 96 Hwy 96 Limited Spawning & Limited Spawning & Spawning & Ti Creek Spawning & Rearing Rearing Rearing Rearing Holding & Rearing Holding & Rearing Below Limited Spawning & Spawning & Sandy Bar Below Hwy 96 Hwy 96 Rearing Below Hwy 96 Rearing Holding & Rearing Holding & Rearing Below Limited Spawning & Spawning & Stanshaw Below Hwy 96 Hwy 96 Rearing Below Hwy 96 Rearing Limited Spawning & Limited Spawning & Spawning & Rogers Spawning & Rearing Rearing Rearing Rearing Unnamed Limited Holding & Limited Holding & Limited Holding & Reynolds trib Limited Spawning Rearing due to Rearing due to Channel Rearing due to Channel Creek (North of & Rearing Channel Gradient Gradient Gradient Teneyck) Limited Holding & Limited Holding & Limited Holding & Teneyck Limited Spawning Rearing due to Rearing due to Channel Rearing due to Channel Creek & Rearing Channel Gradient Gradient Gradient Limited Holding & Limited Holding & Limited Holding & Natuket Limited Spawning Rearing due to Rearing due to Channel Rearing due to Channel Creek & Rearing Channel Gradient Gradient Gradient Limited Holding & Limited Holding & Limited Holding & Donahue Limited Spawning Boise Creek Rearing due to Rearing due to Channel Rearing due to Channel Flat Creek & Rearing Channel Gradient Gradient Gradient Note: Limited refers to lack of adequate substrate & cover, restricted habitat, complexity, depth, pools to spawning areas & LWD Limited spawning = little evidence of spawning activity noted during 20+ years of annual surveys; and Summer/winter rearing with limited spawning: juvenile & adult utilization based upon annual snorkel counts of refuge areas Table 14 depicts all 6th field HUC watersheds and proposed treatment prescriptions where fuel treatments are found adjacent to fish bearing streams. For this project, there are 45 treatment units (out of the 342 project units) found near fish bearing streams. Thirty-six units are found near the

57 Somes Bar Integrated Fire Management Project – Fisheries BA/BE – April 2018

Klamath mainstem, Sandy Bar, Stanshaw or Roger Creeks within the Reynolds Creek subwatershed. The remaining 9 are located near the Klamath mainstem, Ti or Kennedy Creeks within the Ti Creek subwatershed. No treatment units are located in close proximity to fish bearing streams within the Boise Creek subwatershed of the project. It is important to also note that only 19 units of the 45 are found adjacent to coho or Chinook occupied habitat for the project. One mechanical ground based treatment (Unit 2142) is located along the Ti Bar River Access where some “Tree of Heaven” vegetation is found. The proposed treatment within this unit will be to remove this exotic tree species which grows rapidly and competes with native vegetation. Other units include 5 manual treatments (2139, 2134, 2140, 2165 and 2141) located within the Ti Creek subwatershed, and 8 manual treatments (2274, 2258, 2257, 2259, 2325, 2357, 2358 and 2359) within the Reynolds Creek subwatershed. The remaining 5 units are burn only prescriptions located within Units 2269, 2270, 2324, 2337 and 2339. All of these burn only units are found within the Reynolds Creek subwatershed. Table 14. First entry Project treatment units located adjacent to fish bearing streams and their proximity to occupied coho habitat.

Overlaps RR 6th Field HUC Overlaps Overlaps Proposed Treatment Coho/Chinook Watershed w/in Fish bearing RR Steelhead/ RR Reach 2204, 2205, 2208, 2209, 2268, 2269, 2269, 2270, 2324, Rx Burn Only* 2270, 2315, 2317, 2337 and 2339. 25'

2324, 2337, 2339, 25'

2340, 2342, 2344 2243, 2244, 2247, 2255, 2256, 2257, 2274, 2258, 2257, 2258, 2259, 2301, 2259, 2325, 2357, Manual 25' 2316, 2325, 2333, 2358 and 2359 Reynolds CreekReynolds 2343, 2357, 2358, 25' 2274, 2285, 2359

Mechanical - ground- based 2248, 2264 0 2248 & 2264- 240'

2134, 2136, 2137, 2139, 2134, 2140,

2139, 2140, 2141, 2143 - Manual 2165 and 2141 2142, 2143, 2163, 25' 25' 2165

Ti CreekTi Mechanical – ground-based 2142 2142

* Note: Avoid handline construction or burning ignition (unless necessary to minimize intensity) within RRs. Information on fish distribution were derived from: (1) SRNF fish distribution GIS data; (2) Ecosystem Analyses; (3) survey data from: (a) historical CDF&G surveys, (b) USFS, MKWC and Karuk Fisheries surveys, (c) juvenile coho and salmonid surveys (2002-present), (d) adult fall Chinook and coho surveys of mid-Klamath tributaries (1984-present), (e) adult summer steelhead and spring Chinook surveys of mid-Klamath tributaries (1985-present); and (4) my professional judgment based on over 20 years’ experience on District (L. Cyr, Fish Biologist, 2-15-18).

58 Somes Bar Integrated Fire Management Project – Fisheries BA/BE – April 2018

VI. LITERATURE REVIEW

Fuel reduction treatments are land management actions taken to reduce the threat of severe wildland fire and are being planned and implemented on public lands throughout the United States (Ager et al. 2014). Most treatments have the overall goal of decreasing the risk of high-severity fire by fragmenting the forest canopy, removing ladder fuels, and reducing the abundance of ground fuels (Agee and Skinner 2005). Fuel reduction treatments typically target crown, ladder, and surface fuels (Hunter et al. 2007; Jain et al. 2012; Peterson et al. 2007) and include prescribed fire, thinning, and other silvicultural operations(Graham et al. 2004, 2010; Rummer 2010).

Thinning Effects from mechanical operations that include thinning to reduce fuel concentration does not differ from thinning to improve forest characteristics (improve seral stages) or to provide a commercial product. In regions where fire suppression has resulted in high riparian fuel loads, understory thinning might be required to reduce fire risk (Messier et al. 2012; Van de Water and North 2011). The immediate goal of most fuel reduction treatments is to change vegetative structure and reduce fuel continuity to reduce crown fire behavior and potential wildfire size. Overland flow and sheet erosion are typically minimal in undisturbed forests, but steep slopes of many forested watersheds are susceptible to sediment transport via channelized flow even in the absence of disturbance (Megahan et al. 1992).

Mastication Chipping and mastication treatments, and the amount of woody debris added, can vary considerably among sites depending on equipment and operational differences (Jain et al. 2012), as can the influence of treatments on soil properties. However, soil carbon and moisture generally increase following the addition of mastication material, and maximum summer soil temperature and understory vegetation generally decrease. Woody debris additions can have variable effects on soil nutrients; in some cases, soil nitrogen availability decreased as carbon-rich woody material stimulated microbial nitrogen immobilization (Binkley et al. 2003; Blumfield and Xu 2003; Lalande et al. 1998); in other cases, availability of soil N increased (Rhoades et al. 2012). The potential for upland chipping or mastication to significantly alter nutrient and sediment movement into riparian areas partly depends on the horizontal continuity and depth of woody material additions. The impacts of masticated mulch additions on riparian soils and nutrient cycling are likely similar to those observed in uplands. Research is needed to address this management practice in riparian areas, because it is being applied in many watersheds impacted by bark beetle infestations (Miller 2015).

Roads, Landings and Hauling Mechanical operations and other ground-disturbing activities, such as road and fire break construction associated with fuel management activities, can also increase suspended sediment yield (Binkley and Brown 1993; Swanson et al. 1987; Wondzell 2001). Use of roads for hauling may result in sedimentation, however the condition of the road surface and time of year would influence the level of effect.

59 Somes Bar Integrated Fire Management Project – Fisheries BA/BE – April 2018

Prescribed Fire Results of the study by Arkle and Pilliod (2010) indicate that the effects of prescribed fires are much smaller and shorter-lived (i.e., not ecologically comparable) to the effects of wildfire. Spring prescribed burns in Idaho were ignited in the mixed-conifer uplands and allowed to burn into the riparian area (Arkle and Pilliod 2010). The prescribed fire burned with low to moderate severity in the uplands but left much of the riparian area unburned and had no effect on riparian cover or instream large wood. In addition, the prescribed fires did not burn any of the riparian forest at high severity (Arkle and Pilliod 2010). These results indicate that the ecological effects of prescribed fires are much different (weaker) than those of wildfire in this mixed-conifer forest type, because burn severity and extent of burn were notably lower in treated areas. Fuel reduction treatments could potentially have impacts on vegetative shade similar to those of low-severity wildfire, although effects are likely to be patchy and short term. In a comparative study of reference basins and a basin treated with prescribed fire, Arkle and Pilliod (2010) found no difference in percent riparian canopy cover between basins. In this case, the fuel treatment was typical of many projects being conducted in conifer-dominated forests of the western United States, where a large prescribed fire was ignited in the uplands and allowed to move into the adjacent riparian areas (Dwire et al. 2016). Prescribed fire treatments could potentially influence the recruitment of instream large wood. Prescribed burns are typically conducted in spring or fall when predicted fire severity is low to moderate due to cool air temperatures and higher relative humidity and fuel moisture (Knapp et al. 2005, 2009). Under these conditions, live trees do not generally burn and large, downed wood does not readily ignite (especially pieces in and over the stream channel), although rotten pieces are consumed (Bêche et al. 2005; Brown et al. 2003; Stephens and Moghaddas 2005). In mixed-conifer forests in central Idaho, Arkle and Pilliod (2010) found no difference in percent coverage of instream large wood between reference, unburned streams, and a stream in a basin treated with a largely upland prescribed fire. The effects of fuel treatments on aquatic food webs will depend on the types and sequence of methods used and the extent to which they alter the quality or quantity of allochthonous inputs. As noted above, Arkle and Pilliod (2010) found no difference in percent riparian canopy cover between reference, unburned basins, and a basin treated with a largely upland prescribed fire. As might be expected given the effect on riparian condition, they also found no differences in macroinvertebrate density, percent EPT, or species richness. Aquatic macroinvertebrate communities showed no detectable response to prescribed burning (Bêche et al. 2005). Prescribed fire may top-kill certain riparian trees and shrubs but is unlikely to negatively affect belowground structures. The contribution of woody roots to streambank stabilization was modeled for forested reaches and predicted to extend approximately one-half the average crown diameter (Wu 1986). Native trees growing along the banks are important for maintenance of streambank stability in most locations, and we suggest that they be retained and protected during mechanical fuel reduction treatments

Pile Burning Slash pile burning is a common practice used to dispose of woody residues accumulated from logging and postharvest site preparation (Fornwalt and Rhoades 2011; Rhoades and Fornwalt 2015). In the past, burn piles were located in uplands, away from streams, to eliminate the risk of nutrient release to surface water however, with the need to treat fuels within riparian areas, the

60 Somes Bar Integrated Fire Management Project – Fisheries BA/BE – April 2018

practice is increasing. The impacts of pile burning on riparian areas are expected to be similar to those observed in uplands, but additional research is needed to determine short- and long-term effects on wildlife and aquatic habitat. Research on the best methods for burn scar rehabilitation is ongoing; currently, researchers recommend that larger burn pile scars (>5 m in diameter) be revegetated with seeding (Miller 2015; Rhoades et al. 2015). Burning piles within or near riparian areas may have a potential effect on nutrient release and, ultimately water quality. Hubbert et al. (2015) looked at three contrasting fuel bed types (large wood, mixed-diameter slash, small- diameter slash) and despite post-fire increases in repellency and decreases in surface water infiltration, runoff the results showed that pile burning – regardless of fuel composition had a limited effect on downslope water quality when piles were burned greater than 21 feet away. Mechanical fuel reduction prescriptions usually target nonmerchantable material, so mechanical chipping and mastication operations are frequently used after thinning to treat and distribute woody fuels on site. These combined treatments rearrange the amount, size, and orientation of surface woody fuels (Battaglia et al. 2010). Researchers found that mulching lowered maximum summer soil temperatures and increased soil moisture, and that added mulch had a lower N concentration and wider C:N ratio than natural material of similar size in untreated areas. They also found that 3 to 5 years after mulch addition, available N was 32 percent higher in mulched fuel reduction treatments compared to untreated sites. Although heavy mulch addition can temporarily reduce availability of soil N in some areas, fuel reduction mulch treatments increased available soil N in this study.

Water Drafting Drafting operations can disturb holding or spawning adult fish, as well as impinge or entrain juveniles (Sicking 2003). However in Somes Bar, no drafting would occur in anadromous streams. Additionally, water drafting operations can mobilize suspended sediment to nearby downstream aquatic habitat. Suspended sediment increases turbidity, exposing juvenile fish to gill damage and reduced oxygen uptake, and/or reduced vision and compromised feeding effectiveness. A study by CDF&W, Humboldt Redwoods and Green Diamond (Simpson, House and Wright n.d.) found that of two-timber related water drafting tanks operations were able to maintain macroinvertebrate community downstream when a maximum of 25% drafting rate was implemented in a non-fish bearing reach.

61 Somes Bar Integrated Fire Management Project – Fisheries BA/BE – April 2018

VII. Effects Analysis Under the ESA, “effects of the action” means the direct indirect effects of an action on the species or critical habitat, together with the effects of other activities that are interrelated or interdependent with that action, that are added to the environmental baseline (50 CFR 402.02).

Definitions10 Direct effects cause an immediate impact to listed fish at the time of the activity. Indirect effects are those that are caused by the action and are later in time, or further removed in distance, but are still reasonably foreseeable occur to individual fish or habitat components upon which they rely. Insignificant Effects – relate to the magnitude of the impact: the effects cannot be meaningfully detected, measured, or evaluated, and should never reach the scale where a “take” occurs. Discountable Effects – related to the likelihood of the impact: the effects are extremely unlikely to occur. This has a habitat component and a biological one. The effects to indicators that are minor and of short duration, have been mitigated through best management practices, timing of activity and other design criteria such that impacts are unlikely to occur. Beneficial Effects – positive effects without any adverse effects. Determinations for ESA-listed species “No Effect” determination is the appropriate conclusion when there is no effect whatsoever including small effects, effects that are unlikely to occur, and beneficial effects (all of which are recognized as “may affect” determinations). A no effect determination is only appropriate if the proposed action will literally have no effect whatsoever on the species and/or critical habitat, not a small effect, an effect that is unlikely to occur, or a beneficial effect. “Not Likely to Adversely Affect” determination is the appropriate conclusion when effects are expected to be discountable, or insignificant, or completely beneficial. That is, ESA listed species would not be exposed to potential stressors (sediment, chemicals, changes to temperature etc), or, if they are exposed, then they are not likely to respond or, any response would not reduce their individual performance. In addition, “take” of a listed species would not occur. “Likely to Adversely Affect” determination is appropriate if any adverse effect to listed species may occur as a direct or indirect result of the proposed action or its interrelated or interdependent actions, and the effect is not: discountable, insignificant, or beneficial (see definition of "is not likely to adversely affect"). That is ESA listed species are exposed to potential stressors and they are likely to respond in a way that results in greater than insignificant or discountable effects such that individual performance is affected. In addition, “take” of a listed species has the possibility of occurring.

10 The following definitions are from a combination of the ESA Section 7 Consultation Handbook: www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/laws/esa_section7_handbook.pdf and the NOAA Effects Determination Guidance May 2014. 62 Somes Bar Integrated Fire Management Project – Fisheries BA/BE – April 2018

Direct Effects to Coho Salmon from Somes Bar Project As no o project actions, including water drafting, occur within the mainstem Klamath River or within those tributary reaches containing anadromous fish. Therefore, no direct effects would occur to ESA listed coho salmon or FS sensitive anadromous species. Indirect Effects Analysis Framework - Habitat This analysis combines two effects methodology to capture the effects of the Somes Bar Project: Matrix of Pathways and Indicators (MPI) (1999) (Appendix E) which examines pathways and indicators as to the effects of the action on the baseline for each of the seventeen indicators. This analysis also pulls from the Analytic Process (2005) developed by NMFS in conjunction with USFS. The effects analysis procedure is described in detail in the “Analytical Process for Developing Biological Assessments for Federal Actions Affecting Fish within the Northwest Forest Plan Area” (USDA FS et al. 2004). Both analysis rely on identification of the parts of each action (Project Elements), and an evaluation of these PEs for each habitat indictor resulting in a summary statement for each PE using terms neutral, positive, or negative. The analysis evaluates the potential causal mechanism for effects to an Indicator from a PE or PE group. If an effect is possible, then the PE or PE group is evaluated using the following factors in the following order: Proximity, Probability and Magnitude. Analysis is done to determine if there are purely neutral and/or positive effects on fish habitat Indicators, or if negative effects are negligible or discountable. An indicator-by-indicator analysis following the Analytic Process is provided in Appendix E, summarized below and in the Table 15. The results of the analysis identifies the following 17 indicators would not result in an affect and that Sediment/Turbidity and Chemical Contamination would need to be carried forward to for Expose – Response analysis. Water Quality  Temperature: The project design delineates extensive riparian reserve buffers and residual canopy cover at 60 percent in the outer 80 feet of the acres treated mechanically (147 acres) to protect stream temperatures. No project elements will alter canopy cover within the inner stream riparian, therefore, a neutral effect to the Temperature Indicator will occur. In the long term, a more fire-resilient stand would promote and maintain appropriate shade over time, provide for larger trees and a diversity of desired species in the riparian area.  Sediment-Turbidity – Potential for turbidity to enter stream channels could occur from culvert upgrade on 13N14E, road maintenance, pile burning, water drafting and legacy road decommissioning: CARRIED FORWARD  Chemical Contamination – Potential for chemical contamination to streams could occur from use of chainsaws inside riparian reserves, culvert upgrade, water drafting and legacy road decommissioning: CARRIED FORWARD Habitat Access  Barriers: The project does not result in any actions that would influence barriers.

63 Somes Bar Integrated Fire Management Project – Fisheries BA/BE – April 2018

Habitat Elements  Substrate – Sedimentation – Potential for introduction of sediment to enter stream channels could occur from culvert upgrade on 13N14E, road maintenance, pile burning, water drafting and legacy road decommissioning: CARRIED FORWARD  Large Woody Debris – No mechanical thinning would occur within 80-240 feet of a stream channel. Thinning in the outer 80 would retain 60% canopy leaving sufficient trees to provide LWD over time. Within the 80-240 inner riparian reserves, vegetation up to 6” could be removed, however all larger vegetation would remain. Hand Thinning and Pruning PE will have neutral effects to LWD in the short term but could have slight positive effects in the long term in that with the ladder fuels removed, fire could not reach the canopy and fire-caused mortality is unlikely. Snags and larger trees would be protected by pulling back excess fuels from the base. Reducing the risk of high intensity fire may theoretically reduce LWD input however all of these potential effects would be insignificant and discountable to the limited habitat.  Pool Frequency: None of the project elements changes sediment or LWD regime to the extent where pool volume/structure are affected. In addition, no in-channel work will occur, therefore a neutral effect to the Pool Frequency indicator will occur.  Off Channel Habitat: Off-channel floodplain habitat is only found in a few areas along the Klamath River mainstem and no project elements are anticipated to effect these isolated locations.  Refugia: The Project elements or activities will have neutral effect on the eleven Indicators that are the determinants of refugia habitat for anadromous salmonids although actions may reduce the risk of catastrophic fire from spreading. Tributaries and cool water refugia would be not be affected given that stream temperature would not change and the discountable changes to stream flow due to drafting would not change refugia locations. The reduction in risk of high intensity wildfire would protect refugia location.  Width/Depth Ratio: Vegetation of any size that makes up streambank stability would not be cut. No changes to streambanks would occur, and the negligible amount of sediment would not result in any changes to W/D ratio. Channel Condition and Dynamics  Streambank: No alterations would occur to streambanks either directly or indirectly. Water drafting would not modify any steambanks. No vegetation (trees, saplings, brush etc) would be cut that influence bank stability.  Floodplain: No ground disturbance would occur on the floodplains adjacent to the Klamath River. All actions to vegetation (manual fuel treatments and actions to improve willow stands) would not affect floodplain development maintenance and condition. Flow/Hydrology  Peak/Base Flow: Water drafting will have no detectable changes in flow in anadromous salmonid habitat from drafting operations. The design feature of the maximum 10% of the flow is identified as the maximum that could be removed during pumping. Existing stream flows, even at base flows are sufficient enough such that (4,000 gallons) 1-4 times a day

64 Somes Bar Integrated Fire Management Project – Fisheries BA/BE – April 2018

(maximum likely number of visits in a day) would not approach the 10%. In addition, 29 (out of 46 miles) miles are ML 3 and 4 which do not produce the level of dust. Water drafting for prescribed fire would be include tankers filled and stage in areas where prescribed fire would occur. Water drafting would not result in a stressor to SONCC coho or their designated critical habitat.  Drainage Net Increase: The project adds 0.6 miles of temporary roads (outsloped, surfaced etc.) that are located outside of riparian reserves and therefore no hydrologic connectivity. In addition, all temporary roads would be closed and 1.09 legacy roads would be decommissioned. Skid trails and handlines could potentially increase the drainage network, however, these linear features would have water bars to disperse flows and they would not be hydrologically connected to any stream channel. Existing inboard ditches have cross drains that disconnect the inboard ditch from stream channels. Watershed Condition In assessing CWEs, all past, current and reasonably foreseeable actions on both private and public lands were assessed within all affected watersheds and related to beneficial uses and sensitivities within these watersheds (KNF LRMP EIS Appendix G, SRNF LRMP pp. IV-71, 1-10 and 11; FSH 2509.22 Ch. 20). Methodology incorporates an Equivalent Roaded Acres (ERA) model used by the Pacific Southwest Region. The ERA model is a measure of hydrologic disturbance of a watershed. Disturbances, such as roads, timber harvest and wildfire, are converted into ERAs, approximating the amount of disturbance associated with 1 acre of road. The total ERAs are divided by the watershed area (acres) and multiplied by 100 to obtain the percent ERA for affected watersheds. This percentage is then compared to the Threshold of Concern (TOC) that is established in the LRMPs. Where ERAs approach or exceed a given watershed’s TOC, further fieldwork would be necessary to ascertain whether CWE are present and if land management activities would adversely add to those effects and result in detrimental impacts to beneficial uses. Results of the ERA model indicate that current conditions of the watersheds in the project area are well below the TOC for adverse CWEs. The current conditions of Ti Creek and Reynolds Creek watersheds are due in a large part to the NWFP revisions in 1995, of which both the KNF and SRNF LRMPs were updated to align with this new direction. In response to this new direction, the SRNF completed the East Ishi Pishi Road Restoration Environmental Assessment (2001). As a result, approximately 156 miles of road were stormproofed and 62 miles of road decommissioned. Additionally, the bulk of past timber harvest areas are well over 30 years old and much of the hydrologic processes impacted by past timber harvest activities have since recovered, and there have been limited timber harvesting (primarily commercial thinning for hazardous fuels reduction) in the Ti and Reynolds creek watersheds. Results from the ERA model indicates that implementation of the project would not push the affected watersheds near or beyond the TOC, indicating that implementation of the Proposed Action would not result in added detrimental CWE. Field investigations within the affected watersheds corroborate the ERA model estimation of low risk of CWE and indicate that past management actions have few legacy impacts. Approximately 1 mile of legacy road sediment sources discovered in the project area would be rehabilitated, further reducing impacts from past management actions. Low impact and limited in scope, treatments within riparian reserves are designed to reduce ladder fuel concentrations and promote long-term heterogeneity.

65 Somes Bar Integrated Fire Management Project – Fisheries BA/BE – April 2018

Summary of Project Element Effects to Indicators Table 15. Summary of Project Element Effects to Indicators

Potential Effects to Pathways and

Indicators

Piling & Piling

0 equals neutral effect

+ equals positive effect

fting - /+ equals short neg/long term pos - equals short term negative

Burning)

Features

* equals insignificant/discountable Treatments

WaterDra

Fuels Reduction

Carry Forward to Carry to Forward

(Mechanical/Manual

Exposure Response?

Strategic Fire Control Strategic Fire Control R – A risk or threat has been lowered HazardTree Removal

Landings/Roads/Legacy Site Landings/Roads/Legacy Site

Vegetation Removal, Water Quality Temperature 0 0 0 0 0 N Turbidity -* -*/R -* -*/R -* Y Chemical Concentration/Nutrients -* -* -* -* -* Y Habitat Access Physical Barriers N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Habitat Element Substrate/Sediment -* -*/R -* -* -* Y R/ N Large Wood 0 0 0 0 +*&-* Pool Frequency and Quality 0 0 0 0 0 N Off-Channel Habitat 0 0 0 0 0 N Refugia 0 0 0 0 0 N Channel Condition and Dynamics Width/Depth Ratio 0 0 0 0 0 N Streambank Condition 0 0 0 0 0 N Floodplain Connectivity 0 0 0 0 0 N Flow/Hydrology Changes in Peak/Base Flows 0 0 0 0 -** N Increase in Drainage Network 0 0 0 0 0 N Watershed Condition Road Density and Location 0 0 0 +* 0 N1 R/ N1 Riparian Reserves 0 0 0 0 +*&-* Disturbance History 0 +*/R 0 0 0 N1 N1 – Actions that change watershed condition are not conducive to a strict Exposure/Response analysis as they address risk reduction and improved ecological processes within the watershed.

66 Somes Bar Integrated Fire Management Project – Fisheries BA/BE – April 2018

Indirect Effects Analysis Framework - Exposure and Response Following the habitat analysis, the information is summarized and compiled as to the potential stresses for the exposure/response analysis. Assumptions: Fish bearing as first level surrogate for coho distribution: In order to conservatively identify the potential for impacts, the following analysis of direct and indirect effects is based on “fish bearing” reaches. These reaches have a riparian reserve buffer width of 320 feet. With 24 years of surveying for coho juveniles, Forest staff have a very good idea of the distribution of coho salmon, as well as, Chinook and steelhead. The Klamath River within the action area is about 26.4 miles in length. Tributary mouths within the Klamath River over this segment have identified cool water habitat known as refugias. Within the 10 fish bearing tributaries of the project, coho and Chinook occupy about 3.5 total miles of stream habitat, and steelhead and rainbow trout have about 12.6 miles of residency. Resident rainbow trout has the greatest distribution throughout the project area. The analysis considers known distribution of coho salmon when looking at proximity, probability and magnitude of the exposure, and related response for final ESA determination on coho salmon. Impacts from the Proposed Action would have negligible effects to anadromous salmonids and their habitat within the Klamath River mainstem: This assumption is based on the environmental baseline, long term distribution surveys and the habitat analysis outlined above. With no change to stream temperature or stream flow, cool water refugia for juvenile coho in the Klamath and accessible portions of tributaries would not be affected. Given the size of the Klamath River and associated flow regime, any sediment or chemical contamination would be diluted to an unmeasurable level. Indirect Effects of Project on Habitat Based on the Matrix Pathways and Indicators and Analytic Process analyses done in Appendix E the following habitat components could result in a change to the habitat indictor from the Project Element Group.

Water Quality - Chemical Contamination Indicator The Strategic Fire Control Features PE Group, Fuels Reduction PE Group, and Landings, Roads and Legacy Site Treatments PE Group all have a potential causal mechanism to introduce Chemical Contamination into the stream channel. All PE groups use heavy equipment, chained saws and vehicles. With the exception of water drafting, all equipment is kept out of the water and streambanks. Water Drafting PE: No drafting occurs in anadromous habitat. There is minimal risk that fuels will spill into a stream during re-fueling or servicing because that will be done in town or outside of the RR (160 to 320 feet from a stream channel) with spill containment and cleanup systems in place. Drips of oil from water tenders or pumps are possible  Appropriate spill containment measures would be on site at this location and others within the project and they would be employed as needed (for example, absorbent pads, drip pans and containment trays). Containers of fuel and oil are expected to be removed daily off-site. Since equipment will be serviced at least 160 to 320 feet from any stream, pond or wet area and spill containment and clean up systems will be in place, there is negligible risk for

67 Somes Bar Integrated Fire Management Project – Fisheries BA/BE – April 2018

hazardous spills to reach ground or surface waters. Oil and grease drips from heavy equipment will be infrequent, minor and dispersed.  In addition, hand crews will be using chainsaws to cut brush, hand thin, prune, and hand pile trees for future prescribed burning along handline control features. Chainsaws and drip torches will be re-fueled, re-oiled, and adjusted on the work site in designated locations (160 to 320 feet) away from the edge of a stream channel not within RRs. Some minor spillage of gas/oil mixture is more likely than not when refueling and oiling chainsaws and refilling drip torches.  During normal operation of a chainsaw, environmental contamination can occur from bar oil that is sprayed out into the wood during chainsaw use. Spills during refueling and re- oiling will be minor and infrequent (a few grams of either gas /oil mix or bar oil per spill). Most of the gas in the small gas/oil mix spills will largely vaporize into the air rather than soaking into the soil but will leave an oily residue. Some of the mix will be left on vegetation, duff, or soil in the treatment areas and even could be later burned with subsequent treatments. Intermittent, residues left behind by gas/oil mixture are expected, for the most part, to vaporize and/or be broken down biologically on vegetation or the ground surface, or in the first inch or so of soil. Some unknown minor amount of a fuel mix may get into ground and surface waters with unknown impacts to anadromous fish. Vegetable-based bar oil for chainsaws and propane for torches may be used to reduce the potential for water contamination, when opportunities exist. Project operations would adhere to all best management practices (BMPs) pertaining to containment and prevention of all petroleum product spills from reaching water bodies.  Heavy equipment fueling would only occur on roads and landings.  Chainsaw fueling or storing of fuel would not occur adjacent to stream courses.  Spill trays and absorbent padding would always accompany fueling or storage of fuel and oil during operations.  Containers of fuel and oil are removed daily off-site.  Project PDFs are expected to be effective in preventing hydrologic connectivity between treatment areas and surface waters so contamination of streams or other waterways via surface flow is unlikely.  Spill plans will be implemented to prevent and minimize the probability of chemical contamination related to landings, roads or legacy site treatments from entering the stream network, either through spills or leaks. Conclusion: All PEs are likely to leave minor oil residues (widely spaced drips from equipment and/or oil residue from spilled chainsaw fuel/oil mix) left on the ground in a few localized areas. If any residue petroleum product was transported into a channel, it would be dispersed quickly; therefore, an immeasurable effect on water quality would not be expected to change the Chemical Contamination Indicator singly or in aggregation. It is expected that there will be no detectable oil residues downstream in anadromous fish habitat or that undetectable levels will not adversely affect salmon and trout. Therefore, the chance of exposing any Coho salmon life stage to petroleum products is discountable. Chemical contamination is not carried forward to fish response analysis.

68 Somes Bar Integrated Fire Management Project – Fisheries BA/BE – April 2018

Turbidity and Substrate Indicators The Strategic Fire Control Features PE Group, Fuels Reduction PE Group, and Landings, Roads and Legacy Site Treatments PE Group and water drafting PE Group all have a potential causal mechanism to introduce sediment/turbidity into the stream channel. Strategic Fire Control Features PE Group: Potential effects from sediment associated with both of these type of strategic fire control features within or near RRs will be prevented and minimized through implementation of BMPs outlined in Appendix B and previously described watershed PDFs. Proposed strategic fuelbreaks and handlines would be constructed using hand-held tools (such as, chainsaws, loppers, shovels, and McLeods), have limited impact on canopy closure and do not create significant ground disturbance near riparian reserves that could lead to off-site sedimentation. These actions are limited in scope, primarily located on ridgetops away from inner riparian reserves. Strategic fuelbreaks are designed to facilitate planned and unplanned ignitions, and as such would be maintained throughout the life of the project. Fuelbreaks require minimal soil disturbance. An approximately 2-foot-wide scrape (supported with 100-foot thinning of ladder fuels) is the actual ground disturbance associated with these features. As mentioned before under manual treatments, thinning of small diameter trees is not a ground disturbing action. Fuelbreaks would have waterbars installed at the appropriate spacing, dependent on slope steepness, to prevent erosion and subsequent sedimentation during the rainy season. Handlines also have a 2-foot-wide scrape, but are supported with only a 6-foot-wide brush cut and are more of a temporary feature designed and located to support planned ignitions. Fuels Reduction PE Group: The effects of the fuel reduction project may include small, temporary increases in mobilized sediments through ground disturbing activities associated with mechanical, manual, piling and burning treatments. Mechanical: The following table displays the Ti and Reynolds watersheds where mechanical entries may only occur within the outer 80’ stream riparian, and represents their distance to downstream occupied salmonid habitat in river miles (rm). Out of a total of 45 units (146 outer riparian acres) that are being mechanically treated, only three units (11.86 acres) are within 1.0 miles of coho habitat (240’ inner no mechanical treatments.).

Table 16. Riparian mechanical treatment units and distance to downstream occupied salmonid habitat

Proximity to Proximity to HUC 6 Treatment Mechanical Treatment Steelhead/Resident Coho/Chinook Subwatershed Unit No. Methods Rainbow habitat habitat (rm) (rm) Ti Creek 2142 Mech - ground-based 0.1 0.1 Reynolds Creek 2248 Mech – ground-based 1.0 0.2 Reynolds Creek 2264 Mech - ground-based 0.5 0.2

Manual: A total of 45 manual treatment units are located near fish bearing streams within the project (see Figure 23 and 24 below). Of the 45 treatment units, a total of 19 units that border coho or Chinook occupied habitat and would seem to have a higher likelihood of delivering sediment due to proximity to occupied streams. However, the project is designed to target fuel accumulations, such as trees less than 6” DBH which can be thinned within the inner riparian, and over story trees will not be removed, reducing the potential for soil disturbance within areas that

69 Somes Bar Integrated Fire Management Project – Fisheries BA/BE – April 2018

could deliver sediment to streams. Five manual treatments (2139, 2134, 2140, 2165 and 2141) are located within the Ti Creek subwatershed, and 8 manual treatments (2274, 2258, 2257, 2259, 2325, 2357, 2358 and 2359) within the Reynolds Creek subwatershed. The remaining 5 units are burn only prescriptions located within Units 2269, 2270, 2324, 2337 and 2339.

Figure 23. Somes Bar Project Units that overlap fish bearing riparian reserves in the Northern Focal Areas.

70 Somes Bar Integrated Fire Management Project – Fisheries BA/BE – April 2018

Figure 24. Somes Bar Project Units that overlap fish bearing riparian reserves in the Southern Focal Areas. Burning: Slash generated would be hand piled and jackpot burned. In addition, understory burning will take place on the landscape, taking advantage of natural control features. Ignition for understory burns would not occur within riparian reserves (exceptions exist for safety and instances necessary to maintain a low intensity burn), but prescribe fire would be allowed to back or creep within the area. If fuel loading is determined to be heavy, temporary handlines maybe installed, away from stream banks when necessary, to minimize unintended fire effects. Jackpot or

71 Somes Bar Integrated Fire Management Project – Fisheries BA/BE – April 2018

understory burning may remove soil cover and increase the potential for erosion, but these patches will be localized. Landings, Roads and Legacy Site Treatments PE Group: No new landings or disposal sites will be constructed within stream Riparian Reserves. Landing construction will remove soil cover, and increase the potential of erosion, but these site locations will be localized and will occur outside of inner riparian reserve buffers. Roads can have a major impact on sediment and drainage network. Most of the main routes are in good condition because of their surface types comprised of native material, crushed aggregate or gravel, and asphalt or a bituminous surface treatment. Hauling on these routes would not result in sedimentation that would be measurable. Approximately 4.7 miles of Forest Service Level 1 roads would also be brought into usage as Level 2 roads. In addition, 10.4 miles of existing temporary road will be reopened. These temporary roads have alignments that follow historic or existing non-system roads. Because these roads are on existing alignments some ground disturbance is anticipated and construction activities are principally vegetation removal, road surface preparation, and erosion prevention in the form of waterbars and rolling dips. New temporary road construction is limited to approximately ½ mile of road (4 short segments- 2 within Ti Bar and 2 within the Patterson Focal Areas) for the project. No new temporary roads are found within Riparian Reserves. Out of all of these existing Level 1 roads and temporary roads that will be utilized, only 10 roads are hydrologically connected with stream crossings over perennial or intermittent channels. It is important to note that none of these stream crossings are found within anadromous salmonid habitat or resident trout habitat. The highest likelihood of sediment transport to Project streams is during Forest Road 13N14A reconstruction and decommissioning of legacy road treatment sites. Minor sediment effects are anticipated at site scale but the duration is very short term (less than 30 minutes) and the magnitude of impact is typically less than 20 channel widths below the construction site (C. Black, pers. comm., 2017). Based upon site review and proper implementation of BMPs and PDFs, the intensity of effects of all of these roads would be low. Also, it was determined that sediment input along some of the routes would be remediated, resulting in long-term reduction is sedimentation. Legacy Roads: Threatened and sensitive fish species occupy habitat ranging between 1.0 and 1.7 miles downstream of these legacy road treatment sites. Restoring these roads and crossings may cause effects at the site, but the potential for effects to resident and anadromous fish found downstream is negligible, and the expected response will be insignificant. The amount of road fill that will be removed from the legacy road site treatments is estimated to be 1,100 cubic yards across 6 different old logging road locations. Based on the post-treatment road decommissioning monitoring results conducted on Forest in the past, on average 3% of the total stream crossing fill volume removed will be lost due to post-treatment erosion and sedimentation. This erosion and sedimentation is mostly a short-term impact that is greatest during the first year after treatment and declines significantly in subsequent years as the rehabilitated stream-crossing site stabilizes. The six legacy sites are located in tributaries with little to no anadromous fish habitat (4 in Kennedy Creek (Ti Creek Focal Area) and 2 in Donahue Focal Area (Tenekyck Creek and unnamed tributrary)), therefore the closes anadromous fish occupancy is the confluence of these tributaries with the Klamath River.

72 Somes Bar Integrated Fire Management Project – Fisheries BA/BE – April 2018

As described, some sediment may be generated from this decommissioning effort, and from anticipated road reconstruction efforts, but it is expected to be a small amount due to existing project minimization measures for reducing sediment In summary, watershed PDFs and BMPs will be implemented to prevent and minimize the probability of sediment from entering the stream network. The potential for exposing all life stages of coho to project related sediment from the landings, roads and legacy site treatments is negligible and the expected response of salmonids would be discountable. Water Drafting PE: Water drafting can cause local direct delivery of sediment into the stream and result in turbidity if preventive measures are not in place when accessing a water source and pumping water. Water will be drafted out of an estimated 30 locations from within various miscellaneous Klamath tributary streams outside of occupied coho habitat. PDFs are expected to be effective in preventing the introduction of any new sediment to the stream channel but drafting actions could dislodge or wash back some existing channel sediment back into the wetted area causing a small amount of localized turbidity. Placing and removing the intake nozzle may also create some brief turbidity within a few square feet. No measurable turbidity or increase in fines is expected beyond the immediate drafting site location or the next riffle downstream. Drafting operations can disturb holding or spawning adult fish, as well as impinge or entrain juveniles (Sicking 2003). Additionally, water drafting operations can mobilize suspended sediment to nearby downstream aquatic habitat. Suspended sediment increases turbidity, exposing juvenile fish to gill damage and reduced oxygen uptake, and/or reduced vision and compromised feeding effectiveness. While screening intakes can reduce effects to fingerlings and fry, minimization of impingement requires the use of specific mesh sizes, pumping rates, and sufficiently large screen areas, as outlined in the 2001 NMFS Water Drafting Specifications. There is a very low probability of impingement given that fish have been routinely observed to temporarily move away from a drafting pump site when a truck or hose is detected. Based on observations, it is anticipated that fish temporarily avoiding water drafting activities are not likely to experience reduced feeding success, nor be exposed to a significantly higher probability of exposure to prey. Water drafting can result in minor, short-term and localized decreases in flow, especially in smaller streams, affecting water quality. This is particularly true during drought conditions, which may occur during project implementation. However, NMFS 2001 specifications don’t allow drafting volumes to exceed 10% of stream flow within fish-bearing streams, to allow for adequate downstream flow to support fish, aquatic insects, amphibians, and other biota. Project BMPs don’t allow drafting volumes to exceed 50% of stream flow outside of CH. Additionally, SRNF fish biologists will be consulted prior to water drafting operations so that they can ensure that sites with rearing TEP salmon and steelhead are avoided and sites that are not suitable for fish (primarily due to high stream temperatures) are prioritized for use. Due to PDFs that have been designed to minimize drops in stream flow and associated changes to water quality (PDF 18), the requirement to adhere to NMFS 2001 water drafting specifications and SRNF BMPs, the proposed action will have insignificant effects on water quality and anadromous salmonid habitat, and minor effects on TEP salmon and steelhead. Conclusion: PDFs will be effective in minimizing surface erosion and hydrologic connectivity that could result in sediment delivery to waterways within the project. This Project will not increase mass wasting processes that deliver fine and course sediments. The Hazard Tree and Water Drafting PE will have neutral effects on Substrate and Sediment-Turbidity in the short term and long term. The Strategic Fire Control Features PE group, Fuels Reduction Treatment 73 Somes Bar Integrated Fire Management Project – Fisheries BA/BE – April 2018

PE group and Landings, Roads and Legacy Site Treatment PE group does have slight negative effects on Substrate and Sediment-Turbidity in the short term but these effects will only be detectable at the site scale in the vicinityof the impact. Aggregated PEs are not expected to change the functioning levels of the Substrate and Sediment-Turbidity Indicators, however there is the potential for sediment and turbidity to reach occupied SONCC habitat therefore carried forward to exposure/response. Exposure and Response Analysis

Indirect Effects of Sediment-Turbidity to SONCC Coho The Project Aggregated PEs have the potential for sediment/turbidity to reach occupied SONCC habitat, therefore, the following analysis focuses on the effects of Sediment/Turbidity on SONCC coho. Increased turbidity during the summer and early fall may result in short-term behavioral changes of anadromous salmonids (Newcombe and Jensen 1996). Behavioral changes include changes in feeding, predator detection, and avoidance of sediment plumes up to a few hundred feet downstream of the disturbance, such that juvenile coho salmon and steelhead may temporarily be displaced into different habitat. The amount of ground disturbance, and the measures for limiting fine sediment delivery, will minimize exposure to individuals. However, even small pulses of turbid water will cause salmonids to disperse from established territories (Waters 1995), which can displace fish into less suitable habitat and/or increase competition and predation, decreasing chances of individual survival. The 18 out of the 19 units that border occupied coho habitat would have little to no ground disturbance. Unit 2142 straddles the Ti Bar River Access Road located on the flat next to the Klamath River. The majority of this unit is outside of the 320 foot buffer of the mainstem Klamath on a river terrace. Given the flatness of the landscape and the minimal treatment (no commercial component) it is not anticipated to add sediment into the mainstem Klamath. The potential for Project-related sediment mobilization to affect aquatic resources downstream is based on site conditions (including unit-specific slope stability, soil types, disturbance potential, and effects minimization measures that are to be implemented).Increases in suspended sediment and turbidity is expected to be minor and temporary due to the small work footprint of most projects, the work season window, (dry season, low flow conditions), and that the majority of the ground disturbing projects covered by this BA will not occur in 80-240’ buffer along all stream channels and, a distance greater than 0.5 miles from coho habitat. Ivanovich and Hamid (2014) reviewed information about aquatic ecosystem quality over a wide range of sediment concentrations, durations of exposure, species, life stage and severity of ill effect for fish. Using a decision tree methodology, they determined that exposure duration is the most important parameter for significant severity of ill effect predictions. For the Somes Bar project, most sediment/turbidity would occur within the first storm events (minimized by lack of ground disturbance within the inner riparian reserves and best management practices) and not during the warmest months when juvenile coho are seeking cool water refugia (primarily below Hwy 96). Juvenile coho found within the tributaries are likely to be non-natal (see environmental baseline) and present in low numbers. Therefore, it is expected that coho exposure and displacement would be discountable.

74 Somes Bar Integrated Fire Management Project – Fisheries BA/BE – April 2018

Effects to Critical Habitat A thorough MPI analysis for project effects to aquatic species yields an adequate and effective analysis of project effects to the features and functions of Primary Constituent Elements (PCEs) for CH and EFH. Based on the crosswalk analysis (below) between pertinent MPI indicators and PCEs, effects to PCEs from the proposed action are fully consistent with those effects identified for ESA listed fish species. Table 16. Crosswalk between Critical Habitat PCEs and MPI for ESA-listed salmon species. Primary Constituent MPI Pathways, Indicators that Summary of effects to Elements (PCEs) crosswalk with PCEs MPI Indicators Spawning Habitat as defined Pathway: Water Quality No changes to temperature or by water quality, water Indicators: Temperature, stream flows are anticipated. quantity and substrate Suspended Sediment, Sediment input would be Substrate negligible and immeasurable to spawning habitat. Pathway: Flow/Hydrology Lowering the risk of having Indicator: Change in Peak/Base flows a catastrophic wildlife would prevent fire-related impacts Pathway: Habitat Elements from occurring. Indicator: Substrate/Embeddedness Rearing as defined by Pathway: Channel Overall proposed actions are adequate water quantity and Conditions and Dynamics neutral to rearing habitat. No floodplain connectivity Indicators: Floodplain connectivity changes to stream flow conditions from water drafting Pathway: Flow/Hydrology will occur. Indicator: Change in Peak/Base flows

Pathway: Habitat Elements Indicator: Substrate/Embeddedness Rearing as defined by Pathway: Water Quality Sediment input that would adequate water quality and Indicators: Temperature, Substrate affect water quality would be forage of short duration and Pathway: Habitat Elements insignificant. Riparian Indicator: Large wood, Pool conditions supporting Frequency and Quality, Off-channel macroinvertebrates and future habitat, riparian LWD would not be affected in the short turn and the risk of Non Pathway: Forage – fire reaching the canopy Macroinvertebrates would be reduced, protecting Non Pathway: Cold water refugia long term LWD input. Drafting would not occur in anadromous reaches. Rearing as defined by adequate Pathway: Habitat Elements Overall activities have no effect natural cover on large wood, pool quality and Indicator: Large wood, Pool Frequency off channel habitats. and Quality, Large Pools, Off-channel habitat

75 Somes Bar Integrated Fire Management Project – Fisheries BA/BE – April 2018

Primary Constituent MPI Pathways, Indicators that Summary of effects to Elements (PCEs) crosswalk with PCEs MPI Indicators Migration as defined Pathway: Habitat Access The project would have by habitat free of Indicators: Physical Barriers no effect on adult or artificial obstructions, juvenile migration. and adequate water Pathway: Water Quality quality, water Indicators: Temperature quantity, and natural cover Pathway: Flow/Hydrology Indicator: Change in Peak/Base flows

Pathway: Habitat Elements Indicator: Large wood, Pool Frequency and Quality, Large Pools Estuarine Areas N/A – SRNF & KNF does not manage estuarine habitat

Aggregated Federal Effects Aggregated federal effects do not include NLAA actions. Therefore, the effects of past and present projects that are in and near the current footprint such as Roots and Shoots Cultural Burn Project, Orleans Community Fuels Reduction Project, and Katimiin Thin Project are included as part of the environmental baseline (Appendix E). The only future project that may include some of the Project boundary is the Six Rivers Forest-wide Aquatic Restoration Project, which is still under development (EA anticipated to be completed- Fall 2018). While the Somes Bar Project is part of a larger scale fuels reduction planning effort, no other Federal land management action has been developed to the point of being able to meaningfully analyze effects at the appropriate watershed scale which may overlap with this Project boundary in the near future.

ESA Cumulative Effects “Cumulative effects” 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). Future Federal actions that are unrelated to the proposed action are not considered in this section because they require separate consultation pursuant to Section 7 of the ESA. The watersheds within this Project are primarily Federally-owned and administered by the Six Rivers National Forest. A small percentage within the project footprint are private land parcels and residences. Soils and watershed processes in the project areas and watersheds have greatly recovered from the era of past large scale timber harvesting and road building that occurred in the project over 50 years ago. Recent past actions that have occurred within these watersheds include road decommissioning on National Forest land, and fuels reduction work on private lands. There are no known harvest plans filed for private lands at this time. CWEs are decreasing in these watersheds due to recent road decommissioning and natural recovery from historic large scale logging.

76 Somes Bar Integrated Fire Management Project – Fisheries BA/BE – April 2018

VIII. ESA EFFECTS SUMMARY AND DETERMINATION Determinations Guidance for ESA-listed species  “No Effect” determination is the appropriate conclusion when there is no effect whatsoever including small effects, effects that are unlikely to occur, and beneficial effects (all of which are recognized as “may affect” determinations). A no effect determination is only appropriate if the proposed action will literally have no effect whatsoever on the species and/or critical habitat, not a small effect, an effect that is unlikely to occur, or a beneficial effect.  “Not Likely to Adversely Affect” determination is the appropriate conclusion when effects are expected to be discountable, or insignificant, or completely beneficial. That is, ESA listed species would not be exposed to potential stressors (sediment, chemicals, changes to temperature etc), or, if they are exposed, then they are not likely to respond or, any response would not reduce their individual performance. In addition, “take” of a listed species would not occur.  “Likely to Adversely Affect” determination is appropriate if any adverse effect to listed species may occur as a direct or indirect result of the proposed action or its interrelated or interdependent actions, and the effect is not: discountable, insignificant, or beneficial (see definition of "is not likely to adversely affect"). That is ESA listed species are exposed to potential stressors and they are likely to respond in a way that results in greater than insignificant or discountable effects such that individual performance is affected. In addition, “take” of a listed species has the possibility of occurring. ESA Determination for SONCC Coho Salmon No direct effects to SONCC coho salmon and SONCC coho salmon critical habitat are expected to occur as activities do not occur within occupied or potentially occupied habitat. Analysis of the effects of the Project Elements and their corresponding potential stressors on the habitat indicators has found insignificant and discountable negative effects related to the proximity of SONCC Coho salmon and SONCC Coho salmon critical habitat. Based on the limited amount of sediment/turbidity produced, it is not likely that any life stage of coho salmon would respond. The Proposed Action has the beneficial long term effect of reducing the risk of high intensity fire both within the Focal Area footprints and, to a lesser extent, within the mid-Klamath Bioregion by breaking up the continuous fuel accumulation within the Action Area. Therefore, it is my determination that activities associated with implementation of the Somes Bar Integrated Fire Management Project “may affect and are not likely to adversely affect” SONCC Coho salmon and their designated critical habitat. Essential Fish Habitat Determination It is my determination that the Somes Bar Project may affect EFH for SONCC coho salmon or UKTR Chinook salmon. Beneficial actions to aquatic habitat by the project will yield long-term improvements by improving ecosystem health and functioning, increasing resilience to stochastic

77 Somes Bar Integrated Fire Management Project – Fisheries BA/BE – April 2018

events, and promoting native vegetation. Benefits include reducing potential fire severity and associated watershed impacts, such as surface erosion, landsliding, loss of riparian vegetation, channel sedimentation, and altered flow regimes. Analysis of the effects of the Project Elements on the habitat indicators has found that negative effects of insufficient probability (discountable) and insufficient magnitude (insignificant) will affect Essential Fish Habitat. There are no project elements that may significantly impact Coho salmon and Chinook salmon habitat. Forest Service Sensitive Fish Species Determination The Somes Bar Integrated Fire Management Project may affect individuals but are not likely to trend towards Federal listing or loss of viability of KMP steelhead, UKTR Chinook salmon or Pacific and Klamath River lampreys. Due to the expected long term beneficial impacts associated with removing ladder fuel accumulations, reducing crown fire potential, increasing fire resistance and holding potential, increasing community protection and their water sources, and improving forest health adjacent to occupied habitat, the Somes Bar Project has the potential to contribute to the recovery of viability of these species.

IX. CONTRIBUTORS AND REFERENCES Contributors Corrine Black, Hydrologist and Project Interdisciplinary Team Lead, Six Rivers National Forest Kenny Sauve, GIS Technician, Department of Natural Resources, Karuk Tribe Karen Kenfield, Fisheries Biologist and Forest Level 1 Representative, Six Rivers National Forest Leslie Wolff, Hydrologist and Level 1 Representative, NOAA Fisheries West Coast Region Natalie Cabrerra, Geologist, Six Rivers National Forest References and Literature Cited Agee, J.K. and Skinner, C.N. 2005. Basic principles of forest fuel reduction treatment. Forest Ecology and Management, Vol. 211, Pages: 83-96. Ager, A.A.; Day, M.A.; McHugh, C.W.; Short, K.; Gilbertson-Day, J.; Finney, M.A.; Calkin, D.E. 2014. Wildfire exposure and fuel management on western US national forests. Journal of Environmental Management. 145: 54–70. 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 April 2012. Report # RO-12-01. Arkle, R.S. and Pilliod, D.S. 2010. Prescribed fires as ecological surrogates for wildfires: A stream and riparian perspective. Forest Ecology and Management, Vol. 259, Pages: 893-903. Battaglia, M.A.; Rocca, M.E.; Rhoades, C.C.; Ryan, M.G. 2010. Surface fuel loadings within mulching treatments in Colorado coniferous forests. Forest Ecology and Management. 260: 1557–1566. Bêche, L.A.; Stephens, S.L.; Resh, V.H. 2005. Effects of prescribed fire on a Sierra Nevada (California, USA) stream and its riparian zone. Forest Ecology and Management. 218: 37–59.

78 Somes Bar Integrated Fire Management Project – Fisheries BA/BE – April 2018

Binkley, D.; Bird, S.; Ryan, M.G.; Rhoades, C.C. 2003. Impact of wood chips on forest soil temperature, moisture, and nitrogen supply. Report to: Colorado State University, Interior West Center for the Innovative Use of Small Diameter Wood. Binkley, D.; Brown, T.C. 1993. Forest practices as nonpoint sources of pollution in North America. Water Resources Bulletin. 29: 729–740. Blumfield, T.J.; Xu, A.H. 2003. Impact of forest residues on soil mineral nitrogen dynamics following clearfall harvesting of a hoop pine plantation in subtropical Australia. Forest Ecology and Management. 179: 55–67. Brown, G.W. 1983. Forestry and water quality. 2nd ed. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University, College of Forestry. Brown, J.K.; Reihhardt, E.D.; Kramer, K.A. 2003. Coarse woody debris: Managing benefits and fire hazard in the recovering forest. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-105. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 16 p. Busby, P.J., T.C. Wainwright, G.J. Bryant, L.J. Lierheimer, R.S. Waples, F.W. Waknitz, and I.V. Lagomarsino. 1996. Status review of west coast steelhead from Washington, Idaho, Oregon, and California. U.S. Dept. of Commerce., NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-NWFSC-27. 261 p. California Department of Fish and Game. 2004. Recovery strategy for California coho salmon. Report to the California Fish and Game Commission. 594 pp. Copies/CDs available upon request from California Department of Fish and Game, Native Anadromous Fish and Watershed Branch, 1416 9th Street, Sacramento, CA 95814, or on-line: http://www.dfg.ca.gov/nafwb.cohorecovery Fornwalt, P.J.; Rhoades, C.C. 2011. Rehabilitating slash pile burn scars in upper montane forests of the Colorado Front Range. Natural Areas Journal. 31: 177–182. Graham, R.T.; McCaffrey S.; Jain, T.B., eds. 2004. Science basis for changing forest structure to modify wildfire behavior and severity. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-120. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 43 p. Hunter, M.E.; Shepperd, W.D.; Lentile, L.B.; Lundquist, J.E.; Andreu, M.G.; Butler, J.L.; Smith, F.W. 2007. A comprehensive guide to fuels treatment practices for ponderosa pine in the Black Hills, Colorado Front Range, and Southwest. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-198. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 93 p. Ivanovich, E. V., K. Hamid. 2014. An Alternative Approach for Assessing Sediment Impact on Aquatic Ecosystems Using Single Decision Tree (SDT). Journal of Water Sustainability 4(3): 181-204. DOI: 10.11912/jws.2014.4.3.181-204 Jain, T.B.; Battaglia, M.A.; Han, A.S.; Graham, R.T.; Keyes, C.R.; Fried, J.S.; Sandquist, J.E. 2012. A comprehensive guide to fuel management practices for dry mixed conifer forests in the northwestern United States. Gen.Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-292. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 331 p. Knapp, E.E.; Estes, B.L.; Skinner, C.N. 2009. Ecological effects of prescribed fire season: A literature review and synthesis for managers. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-224. Albany, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station. 80 p. Knapp, E.E.; Keeley, J.E.; Ballenger, E.A.; Brennan, T.J. 2005. Fuel reduction and coarse woody debris dynamics with early season and late season prescribed fire in a Sierra Nevada mixed conifer forest. Forest Ecology and Management. 208: 383–397. Lalande, R.; Furlan, V.; Angers, D.A.; Lemieux, G. 1998. Soil improvement following addition of chipped wood from twigs. American Journal of Alternative Agriculture. 13: 132-137.

79 Somes Bar Integrated Fire Management Project – Fisheries BA/BE – April 2018

Messier, M.S.; Shatford, J.P.A.; Hibbs, D.E. 2012. Fire exclusion on riparian forest dynamics in southwestern Oregon. Forest Ecology and Management. 264: 60–71. 128 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-352. 2016. Miller, S. 2015. Slash from the past: Rehabilitating pile burn scars. Science You Can Use Bulletin. Issue 15, July/August 2015. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Rocky Mountain Research Station. Moyle, P.B. 2002. Inland fishes of California: revised and expanded. University of California Press, Berkeley. Myers, J.M., R.G. Kope, G.J. Bryant, D. Teel, L.J. Lierheimer, T.C. Wainwright, W.S. Grant, T.W. Waknitz, K. Neely, S.T. Lindley, and R.S. Waples. 1998. Staus review of Chinook salmon from Washington, Idaho, Oregon, and California. U.S. Dep. Commer., NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS- NWFSC-35, 443 p. National Marine Fisheries Service. 2014. Final Recovery Plan for the Southern Oregon/Northern California Coast Evolutionarily Significant Unit of Coho Salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch). National Marine Fisheries Service. Arcata, CA. Newcombe, C.P., and J.O.T. Jensen. 1996. Channel suspended sediment and fisheries: A synthesis for quantitative assessment of risk and impact. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 16:693-727. Olson, D.L.; Agee, J.K. 2005. Historical fires in Douglas-fir dominated riparian forests of the southern Cascades, Oregon. Fire Ecology. 1: 50–74. Peterson, D.L.; Evers, L.; Gravenmier, R.; Eberhardt, E. 2007. A consumer guide: Tools to manage vegetation and fuels. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-690. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 151 p. www.treesearch.fs.fed. pubs/25953. Reeves, G.H.; Bisson, P.A.; Rieman, B.E.; Benda, L.E. 2006. Postfire logging in riparian areas. Conservation Biology. 20 (4): 994–1004. Rhoades, C.R.; Battaglia, M.A.; Rocca, M.E.; Ryan, M.G. 2012. Short-and-medium-term effects of fuel reduction mulch treatments on soil nitrogen availability in Colorado conifer forests. Forest Ecology and Management. 276: 231–238. Rhoades, C.R.; Fornwalt, P.J. 2015. Pile burning creates a fifty-year legacy of openings in regenerating lodgepole pine forests in Colorado. Forest Ecology and Management. 336: 203–209. Rhoades, C.R.; Fornwalt, P.J.; Paschke, M.W.; Shanklin, A.; Jonas, J.L. 2015. Recovery of small pile burn scars in conifer forests of the Colorado Front Range. Forest Ecology and Management. 347: 180– 187. Robichaud, P.R. 2000. Fire effects on infiltration rates after prescribed fire in Northern Rocky Mountain forests, USA. Journal of Hydrology. 231/232: 220–229. Rosgen, D.L. 1994. A classification of natural rivers. Catena 22. Page 176-179 Rummer, B. 2010. Tools for fuel management. In: Elliot, W.J., Miller, I.S.; Audin, L., eds. Cumulative watershed effects of fuel management in the western United States. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR- 231. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station: 69–78. Skinner, C.N. 2003. A tree-ring based fire history of riparian reserves in the Klamath Mountains. In: Faber, P.M., ed. Proceedings, California riparian systems: Processes and floodplains management, ecology,

80 Somes Bar Integrated Fire Management Project – Fisheries BA/BE – April 2018

and restoration; 2001 March 12–15; Sacramento, CA. Sacramento, CA: Riparian Habitat Joint Venture: 116–119. Stephens, S.L.; Moghaddas, J.J. 2005. Fuel treatment effects on snags and coarse woody debris in a Sierra Nevada mixed conifer forest. Forest Ecology and Management. 214: 53–64. Strahler, A.N. 1957. Quantitative Analysis of Watershed Geomorphology. Transactions, American Geophysical Union. Pages 913-920. Vol. 38, No. 6, December 1957. Swanson, F.J.; Benda, L.E.; Duncan, S.H.; Grant, G.E.; Megahan, W.F.; Reid, L.M.; Ziemer, R.R. 1987. Mass failures and other processes of sediment production in Pacific Northwest forest landscapes. In: Salo, E.O.; Cundy, T.W., eds. Streamside management: Forestry and fishery interactions. Contribution #59. Seattle, WA: University of Washington, Institute of Forest Resources: 9–38. USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management. 1994b. Record of decision for amendments to Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management planning documents within the range of the northern spotted owl, and standards and guidelines for management of habitat for late-successional and old-growth forest related species within the range of the northern spotted owl (FSEIS ROD). Portland, OR. Apr. 13, 1994. USDA Forest Service et al. 2004. Analytical Process for Developing Biological Assessments for Federal Actions Affecting Fish Within the Northwest Forest Plan Area, November 2004. USDA Forest Service. 1995. Six Rivers National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan. Six Rivers National Forest, Pacific Southwest Region, USDA Forest Service. USDA Forest Service. 1998. Ishi Pishi-Ukonom Ecosystem Analysis. Klamath National Forest. Yreka, CA. USDA Forest Service. 2005. Forest Service Manual for Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive Plants and Animals. Amendment 2600-2005-1. National Headquarters (WO). Washington, DC. 22 p. USDA Forest Service. 2010. Klamath National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (Klamath LRMP) 1995 w/2010 revision. Pacific Southwest Region. Vallejo, CA. USDA Forest Service. 2012. National Best Management Practices for Water Quality Management on National Forest System Lands. Volume 1: National Core BMP Technical Guide. 165 p. USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-352. 2016. 137 USDOC NOAA-NMFS 2014. SONCC Recovery Plan Van de Water, K.; North, M. 2011. Stand structure, fuel loads, and fire behavior in riparian and upland forests, Sierra Nevada Mountains, USA: A comparison of current and reconstructed conditions. Forest Ecology and Management. 262: 215–228. Williams, T. H., S. T. Lindley, B.C. Spence, and D.A. Boughton. 2011. Status Update for Pacific Salmon and Steelhead Listed Under the Endangered Species Act: Southwest. 17 May 2011 – Update to 5 January 2011 report. National Marine Fisheries Service. Southwest Fisheries Science Center. Santa Cruz, CA. Wondzell, S.M. 2001. The influence of forest health and protection treatments on erosion and stream sedimentation in forested watersheds of eastern Oregon and Washington. Northwest Science. 75: 128–140. Wu, T.H. 1986. Root geometry model and simulation. National Science Foundation Grant CEE-811253. USDA Forest Service Grant PNW-83-317. Unpublished final report on file at: Department of Civil Engineering, Ohio State University. 62 p.

81 Somes Bar Integrated Fire Management Project – Fisheries BA/BE – April 2018

APPENDICES

Appendix A: Aquatic Conservation Strategy Objectives Appendix B: Best Management Practices Appendix C: Table of Project Unit Treatments by 6th Field HuC Appendix D: Wet Weather Operating Guidelines Appendix E: Supporting Effects Analysis  Matrix of Pathways and Indicators and Baselines o Appendix E-1: Fire History Map o Appendix E-2: Sixth Field HUC Analysis o Appendix E-3: Klamath National Forest Matrix of Factors and Indicators o Appendix E-4: Ti Creek Watershed Checklist (6th field HUC) o Appendix E-5: Reynolds Creek Watershed Checklist (6th field HUC)

ATTACHMENT A: Biological Evaluation for Non-salmonid and Aquatic FS Sensitive Species

82 Somes Bar Integrated Fire Management Project – Fisheries BA/BE – April 2018

Appendix A: Aquatic Conservation Strategy Objectives In order to make the finding that a project “meets” or “does not prevent attainment” of the Aquatic Conservation Strategy (ACS) objectives the analysis must include a description of the existing condition, a description of the range of natural variability of the important physical and biological components of a given watershed, and how the proposed project or management action maintains the existing conditions or moves it within the range of natural variability (1994 ROD Attachment B p B-10). The ACS outlines specific objectives regarding forest goals in the management of aquatic and riparian resources. Project NEPA decisions must be consistent with the wording regarding ACS consistency, including consistency with the nine ACS objectives, as ACS consistency is described in the 1994 Northwest Forest Plan (NWFP) Record of Decision (1994 ROD) on page B-10 and in the May 22, 2007 Memorandum.

Four Components of ACS The ACS has four components: 1) key watersheds, 2) watershed or ecosystem analysis, 3) watershed restoration, and 4) riparian reserves. Within riparian reserves are standards that prohibit and regulate activities that retard or prevent attainment of ACS objectives. This analysis documents the consistency of the project with the ACS objectives at the site scale and the 5th-field watershed scale. The consistency is analyzed at the short-term (during implementation up to the first 1 to 2 years) and the longer-term scales (greater than 2 years).

Riparian Reserves Riparian reserves maintain riparian-dependent aquatic and terrestrial processes around running and still waters, and could function as corridors for movement of upland species. Lands along streams, meadows, seeps and springs including potentially unstable areas where special standards and guidelines direct land use. These standards and guidelines prohibit and regulate activities in riparian reserves that retard or prevent attainment of the ACS objectives. The three key standards and guidelines pertaining to Somes Bar Project are:  Apply silvicultural practices for riparian reserves to control stocking, reestablish and manage stands, and acquire desired vegetation characteristics needed to attain ACS objectives.  Design fuel treatment and fires suppression strategies, practices and activities to meet ACS objectives, and to minimize disturbance of riparian ground cover and vegetation. Strategies should recognize the role of fire in ecosystem function and identify those instances where fire suppression or fuels management activities could be damaging to long-term ecosystem function.  Design prescribed burn projects and prescriptions to contribute to attainment of ACS objectives. For the purposes of this analysis, riparian reserve includes the interim riparian buffers along intermittent and perennial streams (stream course riparian reserves) and inner gorges. Active landslides, toe zones of dormant landslides and steep-weathered granitic lands are also geologic riparian reserves but for this report, they will be referred to as unstable lands to avoid confusion. See below for analysis as to how the Somes Bar Project meets the ACS objectives.

83 Somes Bar Integrated Fire Management Project – Fisheries BA/BE – April 2018

Key Watersheds Key watersheds are the existing refugia for at-risk species, or are areas with high water quality. Key watersheds can have a mix of reserve, riparian buffer, and matrix allocations. A system of large refugia comprised of watersheds that are crucial to at-risk fish species and stocks and provide high water quality. The Somes Bar Project does not occur within a key watershed.

Watershed Analysis Watershed analysis forms the basis to evaluate geomorphic and ecologic processes and enables planning to achieve ACS objectives. Analysis that evaluates geomorphic and ecologic processes and enables planning to achieve ACS objectives. The Ishi Pishi Ecosystem Analysis was completed in 1998 recommended actions to reduce the risk of high-intensity wildfires.

Watershed Restoration Watershed restoration is a long-term program to restore watershed health and aquatic ecosystems that…  Reduces the risk of high intensity wildfire, and  Decommissions 1.1 miles of legacy roads.

Somes Bar Integrated Fuels Management Project

Riparian Reserves The riparian reserve network, a cornerstone of the ACS, defines the spatial extent of the riparian ecosystem based on the distance from the stream at which the key ecological processes occur. Riparian reserve widths of two-site potential tree-heights on fish-bearing streams and one site- potential tree-height on non-fish-bearing streams were established when the Northwest Plan was adopted. Riparian areas provide the ecological functions and processes necessary to create and maintain habitat for aquatic and riparian-dependent organisms over time, dispersal corridors for a variety of terrestrial organisms and connectivity of streams within a watershed (FEMAT 1993). After 15 years under the riparian reserves system, 70 percent of the watersheds had improved and 18 declined (Lanigan et al. 2012). The primary factors for improvement were an increase in the number of large trees (>20 inches dbh) in riparian areas and reduction in road densities in watersheds. Watersheds in which conditions declined have recently experienced wildfires (Reeves et al. 2006). Ecologically diverse riparian corridors are maintained by active natural disturbance regimes, including fires that operate over a range of spatial and temporal scales. However, the role of fire, the streamside factors that influence fire properties and the response of riparian and aquatic communities to fire can differ widely, depending on characteristic of both the fire and the riparian area (Dwire et al. 2016). Fire regimes in riparian areas relative to adjacent uplands vary depending on the physical features of the watershed, location within a given watershed, vegetation type and fuel characteristics, and disturbance and land use history (Olson and Agee 2005, Van de Water and North 2011). In the Klamath Mountains of Northern California, Skinner (2003) found that the median fire return intervals were approximately twice as long in riparian reserves as in upland sites, indicating that fires occurred less frequently in riparian areas. However, fires can be less

84 Somes Bar Integrated Fire Management Project – Fisheries BA/BE – April 2018

severe or as severe as those in adjacent uplands, depending on the local topography, vegetation characteristics (especially fuel moisture and loading), and fire weather (Dwire et al. 2016). Headwater streams are among the most dynamic portions of aquatic ecosystems (Naiman et al. 1992). Tributary junctions between headwater streams and larger channels are important nodes for regulating material flows in a watershed (Benda et al. 2004). It is also important to note, however, that plantations and previously harvested units, comprise about 41 percent of the project treatment area and they predate the NWFP and the Klamath and Six Rivers land and resource management plans (LRMPs). Within some of these old logging units that reveal riparian features, these riparian reserves had a very small stream buffer (up to 50-foot width) or showed no sign at all of streamside management zone (SMZ) protections at the time of previous harvesting. Based upon field reconnaissance of the project, it was determined that some mechanical entry into the outer 80 feet of the stream riparian reserves was warranted, within these plantations and previously harvested units, in order to efficiently reduce high fuel loads and improve stand structure. The NWFP recognized the need to manage within riparian reserves to address legacy issues of old silvicultural practices that encroached or even eliminated large trees within riparian reserves and adjacent stream channels such as in plantations.

ACS Objectives The following is a summation of the environmental analysis from Chapter 3 regarding consistency with the elements and components of the ACS Objectives. Additional discussion and rationale may be found in Chapter 3 in the Watershed Values, Soils, Invasive Species and Wildlife sections. ACS Objective 1. Maintain and restore the distribution, diversity, and complexity of watershed and landscape-scale features to ensure protection of the aquatic systems to which species, populations and communities are uniquely adapted. The Proposed Action is expected to have no effect on watershed and landscape-scale features because they are largely avoided. Riparian areas are part of the landscape and may need fuel treatments based on fuel loading within and in surrounding uplands. Vegetation management for fuels treatment would occur within the outer 80 feet of non-fish bearing stream riparian reserves, however canopy closure would not be reduced below 60 percent overall as thinning would target the suppressed and intermediate trees. The majority of these units are in previous plantations. Treatments would reduce the risk of uncharacteristically high intensity fires from occurring and improving resiliency in stand structure and composition in the watersheds. Connected actions such as temporary roads would be developed outside of riparian reserves, utilized and decommissioned after use. Mechanical ground based and cable systems and use of temporary and existing roads would follow project design criteria. The type of fuel treatments in the riparian reserves would not vary from upslope, but design features would be implement such that canopy cover and large woody debris levels would not change significantly. Reducing the risk of uncharacteristically high severity fire in riparian areas can limit the effects to riparian dependent species such as TEK focal species willow and pacific giant salamander as well as limit the spread of invasive species. Wood recruitment typically comes from the inner half of a site potential tree-height; therefore, managing the outer half of the riparian reserves should maintain wood recruitment process in non-

85 Somes Bar Integrated Fire Management Project – Fisheries BA/BE – April 2018

fish-bearing streams. The inner riparian reserve would have manual fuel treatments with vegetation up to 6 inches removed to reduce the fuel loading. Also included in the proposed actions is the restoration of six (6) segments, 1.1 miles total of legacy roads discovered in the project area. Restoration of legacy roads includes removing one culvert and associated fill, storing fill in stable locations, covering of excavation sites and storage areas with suitable material to minimize surface erosion until native vegetation is reestablished, seed with native grass where needed, placing waterbars or dips to prevent water from concentrating on the roadbed, and decompacting the travelway. The Proposed Action would have an insignificant and undetectable effect with a long-term beneficial effect on watershed and landscape-scale features. Alternative 2 was designed so as components are put together, management for the focal species, including willow and Pacific giant salamander would provide a realistic and holistic approach to whole landscape management, which aligns with this objective. ACS Objective 2. Maintain and restore spatial and temporal connectivity within and between watersheds. Lateral, longitudinal, and drainage network connections include floodplains, wetlands, upslope areas, headwater tributaries, and intact refugia. These network connections must provide chemically and physically unobstructed routes to areas critical for fulfilling life history requirements of aquatic and riparian-dependent species. The Proposed Action is expected to maintain spatial and temporal connectivity within and between watersheds. Vegetation treatments would occur within portions of non-fish bearing stream riparian reserves; however, canopy closure would not be reduced below 60 percent overall as thinning would target suppressed and intermediate trees. Treatments would improve stand structure and composition. Connected actions such as new temporary roads and landings would be developed outside of riparian reserves, utilized and decommissioned after use. Logging systems and use of temporary and existing roads for haul would employ extensive Project Design Criteria and Mitigation Measures. The Proposed Action may impact spatial connectivity for terrestrial species during project implementation, however, would have no effect on long-term network connections and would not create any physical obstructions. There would be no measurable effect on aquatic and riparian dependent species, with a long-term beneficial effect. ACS Objective 3. Maintain and restore the physical integrity of the aquatic system, including shorelines, banks, and bottom configurations. The Proposed Action is expected to maintain physical integrity of the aquatic system as shorelines, banks and stream bottoms would not be affected. Vegetation treatments would improve stand structure, composition and the integrity of the aquatic system. All mechanical treatments would occur in the outer 80 feet of both fish-bearing and non-fish-bearing streams. Connected actions such as temporary roads would be developed outside of riparian reserves, utilized and decommissioned after use. ACS Objective 4. Maintain and restore water quality necessary to support healthy riparian, aquatic, and wetland ecosystems. Water quality must remain within the range that maintains the biological, physical, and chemical integrity of the system and benefits survival, growth, reproduction, and migration of individuals composing aquatic and riparian communities. The Proposed Action is expected to maintain water quality. Project operations would adhere to all BMPs pertaining to containment and prevention of all petroleum product spills from reaching water

86 Somes Bar Integrated Fire Management Project – Fisheries BA/BE – April 2018

bodies. Heavy equipment fueling would only occur on roads and landings. Chainsaw fueling or storing of fuel would not occur adjacent to stream courses. Spill trays and absorbent padding would always accompany fueling or storage of fuel and oil during operations. Containers of fuel and oil are removed daily off-site. Chemical contamination would not occur. ACS Objective 5. Maintain and restore the sediment regime under which aquatic ecosystems evolved. Elements of the sediment regime include the timing, volume, rate, and character of sediment input, storage, and transport. The Proposed Action is expected to maintain the sediment regime under which aquatic ecosystems evolved, with an insignificant and undetectable effect on sediment regime. Interdisciplinary team (IDT) members representing disciplines of hydrology, soils, geology, forestry and fisheries carefully evaluated potential impacts from heavy equipment use within riparian reserves and ground based cable harvesting (endlining) outside of riparian reserve buffers. Because this is a fuel reduction project, the intent is to remove smaller diameter trees, while retaining the larger, more fire resilient trees in the stand. No equipment or other ground disturbing activities would occur within the inner 80 feet of the riparian reserve (immediately adjacent to the stream channel) or within active landslides, providing for adequate buffers and filtering of soil that may have become displaced in the outer riparian reserve, thus posing a low risk to sedimentation. Kreutzweiser and Capell (2001) found no significant input of sediment when machine travel was greater than 10 feet from streams and harvesting equipment did not create channeled flow paths. Manual and mechanical would not result in significant expose of disturbed soil with the implementation of best management practices (BMPs). In the long term, as a result of these activities, the potential for road-related sedimentation is expected to be reduced to a minor degree due to restoration of 1.1 miles of legacy road and because the overall hydrologic function of treated roads would be improved. The integration of BMPs during project planning and implementation phase would also reduce the risk for long term and short term adverse impacts to water quality. The stream crossings in the legacy roads would not fail; therefore, up to 1,100 cubic yards of sediment would not be delivered. At the watershed scale, changes in the overall sediment rates will not be detectable given the high variability in natural rates of sediment input. ACS Objective 6. Maintain and restore in-stream flows sufficient to create and sustain riparian, aquatic, and wetland habitats and to retain patterns of sediment, nutrient, and wood routing. The timing, magnitude, duration, and spatial distribution of peak, high, and low flows must be protected. The Proposed Action is expected to maintain stream flow. Water drafting to support prescribed burns and dust abatement for watering roads could occur from developed water sources near the project area. It is unlikely that flows would be affected from the drafting as relatively small amounts would be removed and the area would be continually recharged from upstream. BMPs require less than 10 percent of base flow be drafted at any given time. For these reasons, implementation of the project would not adversely impact the volume or timing of streamflow. There would be no measurable effect on stream flow. ACS Objective 7. Maintain and restore the timing, variability, and duration of floodplain inundation and water table elevation in meadows and wetlands.

87 Somes Bar Integrated Fire Management Project – Fisheries BA/BE – April 2018

The Proposed Action is expected to have no effect on the timing, variability, and duration of floodplain inundation and water table elevation in meadows and wetlands. ACS Objective 8. Maintain and restore the species composition and structural diversity of plant communities in riparian reserves and wetlands to provide adequate summer and winter thermal regulation, nutrient filtering, appropriate rates of surface erosion, bank erosion, and channel migration, and to supply amounts and distributions of coarse woody debris sufficient to sustain physical complexity and stability. The Proposed Action is expected to maintain and enhance the species composition and structural diversity of plant communities in riparian reserves and wet areas (springs and seeps). Manipulation of vegetation within riparian reserves would be generally avoided. No effects are anticipated that would adversely affect species composition and structural diversity of plant communities within riparian reserves and wet areas. ACS Objective 9. Maintain and restore habitat to support well-distributed populations of native plant, invertebrate and vertebrate riparian-dependent species. The Proposed Action is expected to maintain habitat to support well-distributed populations of native plant, invertebrate and vertebrate riparian-dependent species. Fuel-reduction treatments can potentially assist in riparian and stream restoration by returning fuel loads and vegetation, and result in more spatially diverse range of habitat components with long-term benefits for multiple wildlife species, including TEK focal species Roosevelt elk. There would be no measurable adverse effects, with a long-term beneficial effect. Therefore, as an overall determination, the impacts associated with the Proposed Action, either directly, indirectly, individually or cumulatively, would not prevent attainment of Aquatic Conservation Strategy, nor the nine ACS Objectives, at the site (Project Area), watershed (Analysis Area) or landscape (Mid Klamath watershed) scales.

Consistency Finding Project implementation does not prevent attainment of ACS objectives at the HUC 6 and larger scales in the short-term, and promotes attainment of ACS objectives in the long-term. Fuel treatments are in accord with recommendations in the Ishi Pishi Ecosystem Analysis (1998). CWE would remain below threshold for adverse watershed effects. Minimal disturbances are not expected to adversely affect anadromous fish and habitat because PDFs would contain effects to the project site and the effects are negligible in the action area. The project would maintain and help restore many of the Indicators of the HUC 6 subwatersheds in the short term and are expected to improve aquatic habitats and watershed conditions for fish populations in the Ti Creek, Boise Creek and Reynolds Creek composite subwatersheds, and in the lower mid-Klamath River in the long term.

88 Somes Bar Integrated Fire Management Project – Fisheries BA/BE – April 2018

Appendix B: Best Management Practices and Watershed Project Design Features National Best Management Practices (BMPs) are derived from the Forest Service publications National Best Management Practices for Water Quality Management on Nation Forest System Lands (USDA Forest Service 2012). The Somes Bar Integrated Fire Management Project (Somes Bar Project) will follow all applicable water quality BMPs. The purpose of this summary is to emphasize a selection of methods employed by the project that exemplify how the project meets applicable BMPs.

Aquatic Ecosystems Management Activities

AqEco-1 Aquatic Ecosystem Improvement and Restoration Planning “Reestablish and retain ecological resilience of aquatic ecosystems and associated resources to achieve sustainability and provide a broad range of ecosystem services.” The project has undergone four years of extensive planning using a rigorous approach combining best available science, professional experience, and traditional ecological knowledge to ensure site-specific maintenance, improvement, and restoration of unique waterbodies to meet the objectives of the AqEco-1 BMPs. Specific project planning that adheres to the AqEco BMPs are recognizing that inhabitants and uses alter the ecosystem, considering potential future environmental changes as a result of the project such as changes in runoff and species distribution, and prioritization of sites and sequence of implementation within a watershed to be most effective in achieving restoration goals.

AqEco-2 Operations in Aquatic Ecosystems Avoid, minimize or mitigate adverse impacts to water quality when working in aquatic ecosystems. The project meets AqEco-2 objectives specifically by prohibiting any operations directly in waterbodies with the exception of water drafting, clearly defining the locations of riparian reserves, identifying aquatic and aquatic-dependent species, adhering to clear erosion control plans, wet weather operating standards, using low ground pressure equipment where applicable, and scheduling mechanical based operations in dry periods to avoid and minimize soil, water and species impacts.

AqEco-3 Ponds and Wetlands Design and implement pond and wetlands projects in a manner that increases the potential for success in meeting project objectives and avoids, minimizes or mitigates adverse effects to soil, water quality and riparian resources. The project mitigates potential impacts to ponds by excluding all operations from within 25 feet of the winter-wetted perimeter. There are no wetlands in the project area.

WatUses-3. Administrative Water Developments Avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects to soil, water quality, and riparian resources when developing and operating water sources for Forest Service administrative and resource management.

89 Somes Bar Integrated Fire Management Project – Fisheries BA/BE – April 2018

Conduct operations at water source developments in such a manner as to avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects to aquatic species and habitats from water drafting purposes. The project uses existing water sources outside of occupied coho habitat. Operations would be conducted at water source developments in such a manner as to avoid, minimize or mitigate adverse effects to aquatic species and habitats from water drafting. Pumping rate will not exceed 350 gallons- per-minute or 10 percent of the flow in anadromous reaches.

Facilities and Non-recreation Special Uses Management Activities

Fac-6. Hazardous Materials Avoid or minimize short- and long-term adverse effects to soil and water resources by preventing releases of hazardous materials. Petroleum products would be stored at roads or landings outside of riparian reserves wherever possible and a minimum distance from streams, ponds, and wet areas such that fuels and other harmful materials would not reach any waterbody. Appropriate spill containment measures would be on site and would be employed as needed (for example, absorbent pads, drip pans and containment trays). Containers of fuel and oil are removed daily off-site.

Fac-7. Vehicle and Equipment Wash Water Avoid or minimize contamination of surface water and groundwater by vehicle or equipment wash water that may contain oil, grease, phosphates, soaps, road salts, other chemicals, suspended solids, and invasive species. Heavy equipment and vehicles will be washed and cleaned off-site at designated locations prior to entering project area to prevent spread and introduction of invasive weeds and chemicals to waterbodies. A progression of work has been established in order to reduce the risk for spreading of invasive weeds. In the event that the progression of work cannot be adhered to, subsequent washing of heavy equipment at designated locations would be required.

Wildland Fire Management Activities

Fire-1. Wildland Fire Management Planning Use the fire management planning process to develop measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects to soil, water quality, and riparian resources during wildland fire management activities. The project’s core goals and values of landscape and forest restoration adhere well to the Fire-1 BMPs because the project has undergone extensive analysis to arrive at project design features that meets the BMP objectives for low prescribed burning fire effects. As discussed in Fire-1, the proposed actions uses a series of scheduled prescribed fire over the next 15 years to address the greatest need for fuel reduction around wildland-urban interface (WUI) areas. By planning to apply prescribed fire during periods of higher fuel moisture, using natural and constructed fire control lines, the burn area is intended to have a minimal risk of escape and a high likelihood for controlling the burn intensity at low to moderate intensities. These prescribed fire prescriptions result in minimal ground disturbance and minimal adverse effects to soil, water quality and riparian resources. As is specified in the Fire-1 BMPs, the project has identified areas where the adverse effects of unplanned wildfire outweigh any benefits it may bring, therefore making prescribed 90 Somes Bar Integrated Fire Management Project – Fisheries BA/BE – April 2018

burning a highly appropriate approach. Site-specific design features, such as no direct ignition in riparian reserves, are used throughout the project area. Water sources needed as part of a prescribed burn plan are evaluated in the project and are at existing locations that minimize impacts to waterbodies and riparian reserves.

Fire-2. Use of Prescribed Fire Avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects of prescribed fire and associated activities on soil, water quality, and riparian resources that may result from excessive soil disturbance as well as inputs of ash, sediment, nutrients, and debris. The project specifically meets the Fire-2 BMPs by keeping staging areas as small as possible and outside of riparian reserves, constructing fire control lines at a minimum size needed to achieve objectives, prohibiting ignition within and keeping moderate to high-intensity fire out of riparian reserves, controlling fire spread and intensity by timing burning during periods of high soil moisture content, having clear design specifications that minimize size of hand piles to be burned, thereby minimizing area of soil impacts and avoiding adverse soil impacts, prevent surface erosion, and promote rapid natural revegetation.

Road Management Activities

Road-2 Road Location and Design Locate and design roads to avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects to soil, water quality, and riparian resources. The project specifically meets Road-2 BMPs by not using or constructing temporary use roads on unstable slopes, selecting existing temporary roads with an emphasis on roads far from wet areas, ponds, and streams, applying site specific design specifications to disperse and direct flow away from waterbodies and prevent direct discharge to water bodies, using only temporary roads that have very few and small stream crossings, and using proper road shaping and installing drainage features for roads remaining intact during wet seasons.

Road-3 Road Construction and Reconstruction Avoid or minimize adverse effects to soil, water quality, and riparian resources from erosion, sediment, and other pollutant delivery during road construction or reconstruction. No new permanent roads are proposed. Less than five (5) miles of closed Level 1 roads would require some minor reconstruction, most only require maintenance and brushing. Level 1 roads requiring reconditioning or reconstruction actions would be done in the normal operating season when conditions are favorable to control an minimize any erosion or sedimentation that could occur during these operations. Erosion control plans are reviewed and approved prior to commencing work. Sidecasting is prohibited in or adjacent to streamcourses. Storm damage repair on 13N14A requires a new stream crossing culvert, appropriately sized to meet land and resource management plan (LRMP) standards and constructed in a rock fill.

Road-4 Road Operations and Maintenance Avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects to soil, water quality, and riparian resources by controlling road use and operations and providing adequate and appropriate maintenance to minimize sediment production and other pollutants during the useful life of the road. 91 Somes Bar Integrated Fire Management Project – Fisheries BA/BE – April 2018

Haul roads would be maintained during the life of the project specially to minimize sediment production. Level 1 roads and all temporary use roads would be used only during normal operating periods and physically closed and winterized in the wet weather season.

Road-5 Temporary Roads Avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects to soil, water quality, and riparian resources from the construction and use of temporary roads. No new temporary use roads are proposed to be constructed in riparian reserves. About a half mile of new construction would occur where soils, water quality and riparian resources are not affected. Existing temporary roads that cross or are adjacent to riparian reserves would be utilized during normal operating periods, and closed and winterized during the wet weather season. Upon completion of the project, all temporary roads used for the project would left in a stable and maintenance free condition and closed to vehicle traffic.

Road-6 Road Storage and Decommissioning Avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects to soil, water quality, and riparian resources by storing closed roads not needed for at least one (1) year (intermittent stored service) and decommissioning unneeded roads in a hydrologically stable manner to eliminate hydrologic connectivity, restore natural flow patterns, and minimize soil erosion. Level 1 roads brought into service for the life of the project would be left in a hydrological stable condition and returned closed status when no longer needed for implementation. The project will restore 1.1 miles of legacy roads discovered in the project area. Restoration of legacy roads includes disconnecting any hydrologic connectivity thereby restoring natural flow patterns that may have been disrupted when the road was constructed. All excavated fill would be stored away from streams in a stable location. All stored and closed roads would be closed to vehicle traffic when no longer in service.

Road-7 Stream Crossings Avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects to soil, water quality, and riparian resources when constructing, reconstructing, or maintaining temporary and permanent waterbody crossings. New planned stream crossings (one on 13N14A) will be appropriately sized to best accommodate anticipated 100-year-flood events, have no diversion potential, and placed in clean rock fill. Stream crossings in the project area would be cleaned annually where needed and associated debris removed stored in a stable location. Any temporary road that may need a new stream crossing culvert (none are anticipated) would be removed each wet weather season and closed to vehicle traffic.

Road-8 Snow Removal and Storage Avoid or minimize erosion, sedimentation, and chemical pollution that may result from snow removal and storage activities. Snow removal is not an anticipated action associated with this project. Much of the project area is at elevations below where snow typically accumulates.

92 Somes Bar Integrated Fire Management Project – Fisheries BA/BE – April 2018

Road-9 Parking and Staging Areas Avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects to soil, water quality, and riparian resources when constructing and maintaining parking and staging areas. No new landings are proposed in riparian reserves. Drainage of existing landings within or adjacent to riparian reserves would be directed and dispersed that rainfall flows away from streamcourses and prevents direct delivery.

Road-10 Equipment Refueling and Servicing Avoid or minimize adverse effects to soil, water quality, and riparian resources from fuels, lubricants, cleaners, and other harmful materials discharging into nearby surface waters or infiltrating through soils to contaminate groundwater resources during equipment refueling and servicing activities. Servicing of equipment would occur at landings outside of riparian reserves wherever possible and a minimum distance from streams, ponds, and wet areas such that fuels and other harmful materials would not reach any waterbody. Appropriate spill containment measures would be on site and would be employed as needed (for example, absorbent pads, drip pans and containment trays). Containers of fuel and oil are removed daily off-site.

Road-1 Travel Management Planning and Analysis Use the travel management planning and analysis processes to develop measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects to soil, water quality, and riparian resources during road management activities. Selection of roads for use was guided according to the Road-1 BMPs by prioritizing use of existing system roads and existing temporary roads, and emphasizing use of the minimum length of roads necessary to achieve project objectives. No new permanent road construction would occur. About 4.7 miles of Level 1 (closed system road) would be brought into service for the life of the project as a Level 2, and rehabilitated and returned to closed status upon completion of the project. New temporary road use is limited to only a half mile and is not located in riparian reserves. Every effort was made to utilize previous logging spurs. Less than 6.5 miles of existing temporary roads segments are located within riparian reserves. Temporary road use would occur during normal operating season and closed to traffic during seasonal wet weather. When the temporary road is no longer needed, it would be left in a free draining condition (no culverts or other structure that would require maintenance to maintain effectiveness) and travelway ripped to promote infiltration where needed so as to not concentrate flow on the old travelway and lead to off-site erosion and sedimentation. For the small percentage of existing and temporary roads and landings within riparian reserves, detailed site-specific design features have been developed to mitigate and prevent potential adverse effects to soil, water, and riparian resources and adhere to all road BMPs.

Mechanical Vegetation Management Activities

Veg-1 Vegetation Management Planning Use the applicable vegetation management planning processes to develop measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects to soil, water quality, and riparian resources during mechanical vegetation treatment activities.

93 Somes Bar Integrated Fire Management Project – Fisheries BA/BE – April 2018

The project places an emphasis on achieving the desired goals and objectives of fuel reduction in and outside of riparian reserves while also incorporating measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects to soil, water quality, and riparian resources. Great effort has gone into planning the appropriate site-specific treatment type to address treatment timing, treatment of existing fuel types and levels, and promotion of desired enhancement of forest structure and species. Treatment types and locations were developed collaboratively among several local partners over many years to arrive at methods with minimal impact and high chance of success. All areas were evaluated by resource and cultural specialists and their findings intricately incorporated into vegetation management planning. Treatment prescriptions were determined in accordance with needs regarding sensitive soils, unstable slopes, ponds, wet areas, sensitive species and riparian reserves in order to avoid and minimize adverse impacts. Rock and water sources have been identified and evaluated. Contracts will include and adhere to all applicable Vegetation Management BMPs, and will contain clear mapping of all riparian reserves and site-specific requirements. The project will meet the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process in the form of an environmental assessment (EA).

Veg-2 Erosion Prevention and Control Avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects to soil, water quality, and riparian resources by implementing measures to control surface erosion, gully formation, mass slope failure, and resulting sediment movement before, during, and after mechanical vegetation treatments. The project meets Veg-2 BMPs through adherence to quantitative standards and guides set in the Six Rivers (SRNF) and Klamath (KNF) national forests LRMPs. The project specifically meets Veg-2 BMPs by limiting percent area of soil disturbance, setting conditions and requirements for applying ground cover and erosion structures, prohibiting ground based mechanical treatment on steep and unstable slopes and on sensitive soils, limiting operations to dry periods, careful planning of locations for skids, roads, landings, cable corridors and other mechanical treatment infrastructure, and prescribing avoidance areas where needed.

Veg-3 Aquatic Management Zones Avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects to soil, water quality, and riparian resources when conducting mechanical vegetation treatment activities in the aquatic management zones (AMZ). The project specifically meets Veg-3 BMPs by identifying extent and type of streams and springs based on specialist investigations, and defining the widths of riparian reserve boundaries according to the SRNF and KNF LRMPs. All riparian reserves will be identified in implementation plans, and clearly marked on the ground. Mechanical treatments in the outer 80 feet of riparian reserves will be selectively applied to achieve a variety of cultural and natural resource-desired conditions and objectives. Project design features will maintain riparian and aquatic ecosystem structure, function, and processes while also avoiding, minimizing, or mitigating soil disturbance, damage to the waterbody, and loss of large woody debris recruitment, and shading. Streams and water bodies will not be entered or crossed by mechanical equipment in riparian reserves. Residual canopy cover would be maintained to at least 60 percent in riparian reserves to provide shading, bank stabilization, and as a future source of large woody debris within riparian reserves. Limitations on types of treatments, equipment, and equipment movements are incorporated into the project specifically for minimization of ground surface disturbance in riparian reserves.

94 Somes Bar Integrated Fire Management Project – Fisheries BA/BE – April 2018

Veg-4 Ground-Based Skidding and Yarding Operations Avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects to soil, water quality, and riparian resources during ground-based skidding and yarding operations by minimizing site disturbance and controlling the introduction of sediment, nutrients, and chemical pollutants to waterbodies. Project design features require the use of existing skid trails wherever possible. Because much of the project area was previously harvested using ground base operations, the need to create new skid trails is low. Some units have explicit project design features that restrict new skid trail use to avoid any adverse effects to soils and water quality. Where equipment is permitted in the outer portions of riparian reserves, project design features require that low-impact equipment that works in linear passes be used to avoid subsequent soil displacement. Limit or avoid skidding and yarding operations avoid on steep and geologically unstable slopes, and saturated, highly erodible, or easily compacted soils, skidding upslope and away from waterbodies, prohibiting skidding across or through waterbodies. Skidding and yarding operations would occur in the normal operating season to minimize site disturbance. All skidding and yarding operations would require an approved erosion control plan prior to implementation.

Veg-5 Cable and Aerial Yarding Operations Avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects to soil, water quality, and riparian resources during cable and aerial yarding operations by minimizing site disturbance and controlling the introduction of sediment, nutrients, and chemical pollutants to waterbodies. Cable systems employed would not yard across or through streamcourses and 60 percent canopy closure would be maintained within riparian reserves. Cable systems would require one end suspension of harvested material.

Veg-6 Landings Avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects to soil, water quality, and riparian resources from the construction and use of log landings. No new landings would be constructed in riparian reserves. Existing landing use within the outer riparian reserve requires proper surface shaping and drainage structures where necessary to direct and disperse flow away from riparian reserves to prevent direct delivery to waterbodies. All heavy equipment operations require approved erosion control plans when working outside of the normal operating season.

Veg-8 Mechanical Site Treatment Avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects to soil, water quality, and riparian resources by controlling the introduction of sediment, nutrients, chemical, or other pollutants to waterbodies during mechanical site treatment. Mechanical treatments include cutting and piling; chipping or mulching; roller chopping or masticating using heavy equipment; and pushing over vegetation. Mechanical site treatments would be conducted primarily with masticators and chippers, working from existing roads or skid trails. Chainsaws are employed to cut understory vegetation where designated. All mechanical treatments in riparian reserves retain at least 30 percent of the vegetation to be cut and maintain a minimum of 60 percent canopy closure in the riparian reserves.

95 Somes Bar Integrated Fire Management Project – Fisheries BA/BE – April 2018

Appendix C: Table of Project Unit Treatments by 6th field HUC

Use of Total Endline Ti Creek Size of Avg Type of Equip. Treatment RR within Treatment Mgt History Unit Slope Riparian within Method Unit Outer Unit No. (acres) (%) Reserve Outer 80' Acres 80' RR RR

Unmanaged Stream, 2100 Manual 84.25 35 84.25 NA NA / Natural Unstable

Mech - 2101 Plantation ground- 9.66 21 Stream 0.29 Allowed Allowed based

2102 Plantation Manual 6.93 48 Stream 0.46 NA NA

Stream, Unmanaged 2103 Manual 4.55 43 Spring or 2.96 NA NA / Natural Wet Area

Mech - Stream, 2105 Plantation ground- 7.37 33 Spring or 2.79 Allowed Allowed based Wet Area

2107 Plantation Manual 4.76 53 Stream 3.63 NA NA 2108 Plantation Manual 4.97 69 Stream 1.98 NA NA

Mech - 2110 Plantation ground- 5.70 36 None NA NA based

Mech - Stream, 2111 Plantation ground- 8.13 43 0.02 Allowed Allowed Unstable based

Stream, Mech - Unstable, 2112 Plantation ground- 16.48 30 6.56 Limited Limited Spring or based Wet Area

Mech - Stream, Unmanaged 2113 ground- 13.28 27 Spring or 7.53 Limited Limited / Natural based Wet Area

Mech - Previously Stream, 2114 ground- 16.42 33 6.41 Limited No Thinned Unstable based

Stream, 2115 Plantation Manual 44.17 35 39.79 NA NA Unstable

96 Somes Bar Integrated Fire Management Project – Fisheries BA/BE – April 2018

Use of Total Endline Ti Creek Size of Avg Type of Equip. Treatment RR within Treatment Mgt History Unit Slope Riparian within Method Unit Outer Unit No. (acres) (%) Reserve Outer 80' Acres 80' RR RR

Stream, Mech - Previously Unstable, 2116 ground- 19.57 25 5.25 Allowed No Thinned Spring or based Wet Area

Stream, Mech - Unstable, 2117 Plantation ground- 12.40 17 3.20 Allowed No Spring or based Wet Area

Stream, Previously Unstable, 2118 Manual 14.04 28 14.04 NA NA Thinned Spring or Wet Area

Mech - Previously Stream, 2119 ground- 3.21 26 3.21 Allowed Limited Thinned Unstable based Unmanaged Mech - Stream, 2120 6.07 35 6.07 Allowed No / Natural road-based Unstable

Stream, Previously Unstable, 2121 Manual 14.58 23 13.35 NA NA Thinned Spring or Wet Area

Unmanaged Stream, 2122 Manual 7.74 28 5.23 NA NA / Natural Unstable Previously Stream, 2123 Manual 11.75 29 11.75 NA NA Thinned Unstable Stream, Previously Mech - Unstable, 2124 3.99 18 0.40 No No Thinned cable Spring or Wet Area Unmanaged Stream, 2125 Manual 3.63 46 3.63 NA NA / Natural Unstable

Unmanaged Stream, 2126 Manual 22.18 41 15.73 NA NA / Natural Unstable

Mech - Previously 2127 ground- 35.21 30 Stream 2.11 Limited No Thinned based Mech - 2128 Plantation ground- 2.52 33 None NA NA based 2129 Plantation Manual 6.31 60 Stream 0.68 NA NA

2130 Plantation Mastication 6.76 41 Stream 0.04 NA Allowed

97 Somes Bar Integrated Fire Management Project – Fisheries BA/BE – April 2018

Use of Total Endline Ti Creek Size of Avg Type of Equip. Treatment RR within Treatment Mgt History Unit Slope Riparian within Method Unit Outer Unit No. (acres) (%) Reserve Outer 80' Acres 80' RR RR

Mech - 2131 Plantation ground- 8.04 24 Stream 0.10 Allowed Allowed based

Mech - Previously 2132 ground- 11.23 23 Stream 5.83 Allowed No Thinned based

Unmanaged 2133 Manual 3.10 58 Stream 0.94 NA NA / Natural Unmanaged Stream, 2134 Manual 12.20 15 11.69 NA NA / Natural Unstable

Unmanaged Stream, 2135 Manual 11.77 43 8.23 NA NA / Natural Unstable

Unmanaged Stream, 2136 Manual 81.29 52 74.13 NA NA / Natural Unstable

Unmanaged Stream, 2137 Manual 27.60 56 25.97 NA NA / Natural Unstable

Unmanaged Stream, 2138 Manual 6.31 40 6.31 NA NA / Natural Unstable

Unmanaged Stream, 2139 Manual 26.23 54 22.83 NA NA / Natural Unstable

Unmanaged Stream, 2140 Manual 20.81 46 20.81 NA NA / Natural Unstable

Unmanaged 2141 Manual 19.63 17 Stream 13.31 NA NA / Natural

Mech - Previously 2142 ground- 8.96 12 Stream 0.40 Allowed Allowed Thinned based

Unmanaged Stream, 2143 Manual 8.37 31 8.37 NA NA / Natural Unstable

Unmanaged Stream, 2144 Rx Burn 72.99 36 72.54 NA NA / Natural Unstable

Mech - Unmanaged 2145 ground- 19.93 31 None NA NA / Natural based

Stream, Unmanaged Unstable, 2146 Manual 40.42 52 31.31 NA NA / Natural Spring or Wet Area

Unmanaged Stream, 2147 Manual 17.25 83 5.49 NA NA / Natural Unstable

98 Somes Bar Integrated Fire Management Project – Fisheries BA/BE – April 2018

Use of Total Endline Ti Creek Size of Avg Type of Equip. Treatment RR within Treatment Mgt History Unit Slope Riparian within Method Unit Outer Unit No. (acres) (%) Reserve Outer 80' Acres 80' RR RR

Mech - Previously Stream, 2148 ground- 5.04 48 0.17 NA No Thinned Unstable based

Unmanaged Stream, 2149 Manual 7.91 35 5.82 NA NA / Natural Unstable

Stream, 2150 Plantation Manual 2.88 17 2.88 NA NA Unstable

Mech - 2151 Plantation ground- 1.25 39 None NA NA based

Stream, Previously Unstable, 2152 Manual 10.93 34 10.93 NA NA Thinned Spring or Wet Area

Stream, Unmanaged Unstable, 2153 Manual 13.55 39 11.61 NA NA / Natural Spring or Wet Area

Previously 2154 Manual 8.78 65 None NA NA Thinned

Unmanaged 2155 Manual 7.86 33 Stream 5.50 NA NA / Natural

Unmanaged Stream, 2156 Manual 8.46 53 3.15 NA NA / Natural Unstable

Previously Mech - 2157 0.46 14 Unstable 0.01 NA No Thinned road-based

Previously Mech - 2158 2.83 43 Unstable 2.83 Limited No Thinned road-based

Unmanaged 2159 Manual 7.76 61 Stream 4.18 NA NA / Natural

Previously Stream, 2160 Manual 9.77 28 9.77 NA NA Thinned Unstable

Unmanaged Stream, 2161 Manual 8.53 57 8.53 NA NA / Natural Unstable

Previously Stream, 2162 Manual 9.20 32 5.57 NA NA Thinned Unstable

Unmanaged Stream, 2163 Manual 21.75 40 12.19 NA NA / Natural Unstable

99 Somes Bar Integrated Fire Management Project – Fisheries BA/BE – April 2018

Use of Total Endline Ti Creek Size of Avg Type of Equip. Treatment RR within Treatment Mgt History Unit Slope Riparian within Method Unit Outer Unit No. (acres) (%) Reserve Outer 80' Acres 80' RR RR

Previously Stream, 2164 Manual 5.49 37 5.49 NA NA Thinned Unstable

Unmanaged Stream, 2165 Manual 19.09 11 14.63 NA NA / Natural Unstable

Stream, Previously 2166 Manual 35.54 21 Spring or 2.84 NA NA Thinned Wet Area

Previously 2167 Manual 1.29 20 None NA NA Thinned

Unmanaged 2168 Manual 8.40 56 None NA NA / Natural

Stream, Previously Unstable, 2169 Manual 4.46 25 4.46 NA NA Thinned Spring or Wet Area

994 660

Use of Reynolds Total Endline Size of Avg Type of Equip. Creek Mgt Treatment RR within Unit Slope Riparian within Treatment History Method Unit Outer (acres) (%) Reserve Outer 80' Unit No. Acres 80' RR RR

Mech - 2200 Plantation ground- 5.84 28 Stream 0.11 Allowed Allowed based

Unmanaged Stream, 2201 Rx Burn 12.10 42 11.80 NA NA / Natural Unstable

Unmanaged Stream, 2202 Manual 11.68 32 11.68 NA NA / Natural Unstable

Mech - Stream, 2203 Plantation ground- 13.39 28 2.68 Allowed No Unstable based

Unmanaged Stream, 2204 Rx Burn 19.67 64 18.96 NA NA / Natural Unstable

Unmanaged Stream, 2205 Rx Burn 15.10 54 5.92 NA NA / Natural Unstable

100 Somes Bar Integrated Fire Management Project – Fisheries BA/BE – April 2018

Stream, Previously Unstable, 2206 Manual 18.26 45 11.50 NA NA Thinned Spring or Wet Area

Stream, 2207 Plantation Manual 12.00 33 2.32 NA NA Unstable

Stream, Unmanaged Unstable, 2208 Rx Burn 59.07 56 58.14 NA NA / Natural Spring or Wet Area

Unmanaged Stream, 2209 Rx Burn 31.50 45 31.36 NA NA / Natural Unstable

Stream, Unstable, 2210 Plantation Manual 14.44 40 14.08 NA NA Spring or Wet Area

Stream, Unmanaged Unstable, 2211 Manual 10.63 28 5.15 NA NA / Natural Spring or Wet Area

Stream, 2212 Plantation Mastication 13.67 25 1.81 NA Limited Unstable

Unmanaged 2213 Manual 10.06 46 Unstable 6.05 NA NA / Natural

Stream, 2214 Plantation Mastication 5.12 52 1.23 NA Allowed Unstable

Unmanaged 2215 Rx Burn 10.85 35 Stream 4.39 NA NA / Natural

Unmanaged 2216 Manual 3.53 53 Stream 3.37 NA NA / Natural

Mech - 2217 Plantation ground- 24.19 17 Stream 0.12 Allowed Allowed based Mech - Stream, Previously 2218 ground- 9.96 38 Spring or 0.17 NA NA Thinned based Wet Area

Unmanaged 2219 Manual 4.30 48 Stream 2.67 NA NA / Natural

2220 Plantation Manual 19.82 21 Stream 1.20 NA NA

101 Somes Bar Integrated Fire Management Project – Fisheries BA/BE – April 2018

Mech - Stream, 2221 Plantation ground- 10.10 28 Spring or 4.26 Allowed Allowed based Wet Area

Unmanaged Stream, 2222 Manual 10.21 44 9.72 NA NA / Natural Unstable

Unmanaged Stream, 2223 Manual 6.72 45 6.64 NA NA / Natural Unstable

Mech - Unmanaged 2224 ground- 2.89 20 Stream 0.62 Allowed No / Natural based Mech - Unmanaged 2225 ground- 7.34 24 Stream 3.33 Allowed No / Natural based Mech - 2226 Plantation ground- 3.72 40 Stream 1.89 Limited Limited based Mech - Stream, 2227 Plantation ground- 33.28 22 Spring or 4.60 Allowed Allowed based Wet Area

Previously Mech - 2228 7.67 29 Stream 0.52 NA NA Thinned road-based

Stream, Unstable, 2229 Plantation Mastication 12.30 25 4.13 NA Allowed Spring or Wet Area

Mech - 2230 Plantation ground- 16.36 25 Stream 2.57 Allowed Allowed based

Previously Mech - 2231 1.39 26 Stream 1.39 Limited No Thinned road-based

Unmanaged Stream, 2232 Rx Burn 3.91 37 0.95 NA NA / Natural Unstable

Stream, 2233 Plantation Manual 8.38 25 6.39 NA NA Unstable

Stream, 2234 Plantation Rx Burn 6.96 25 4.46 NA NA Unstable

Mech - 2235 Plantation ground- 9.52 23 Stream 1.56 Allowed Allowed based

Stream, 2236 Plantation Manual 6.12 33 5.81 NA NA Unstable

102 Somes Bar Integrated Fire Management Project – Fisheries BA/BE – April 2018

Stream, Mech - Unstable, 2237 Plantation ground- 17.20 23 5.35 Allowed Allowed Spring or based Wet Area

Unmanaged 2238 Rx Burn 4.35 25 Stream 1.72 NA NA / Natural

Stream, Previously Unstable, 2239 Manual 2.68 51 1.76 NA NA Thinned Spring or Wet Area

Stream, Unstable, 2240 Plantation Mastication 29.71 34 6.96 NA Limited Spring or Wet Area

Stream, Unmanaged 2241 Manual 2.05 34 Spring or 2.05 NA NA / Natural Wet Area Mech - Stream, 2242 Plantation ground- 25.81 22 Spring or 6.55 Allowed Allowed based Wet Area

Unmanaged Stream, 2243 Manual 27.93 34 24.59 NA NA / Natural Unstable

2244 Plantation Manual 5.90 33 Stream 1.75 NA NA

Unmanaged 2245 Manual 5.56 37 Stream 4.02 NA NA / Natural

Previously Stream, 2246 Manual 10.81 29 4.86 NA NA Thinned Unstable

Previously Stream, 2247 Manual 14.00 35 11.14 NA NA Thinned Unstable

Stream, Mech - Previously Unstable, 2248 ground- 29.40 26 20.65 Limited Limited Thinned Spring or based Wet Area

Stream, Mech - Previously Unstable, 2249 ground- 78.39 29 35.43 Allowed Limited Thinned Spring or based Wet Area

103 Somes Bar Integrated Fire Management Project – Fisheries BA/BE – April 2018

Unmanaged Stream, 2250 Manual 18.04 40 16.62 NA NA / Natural Unstable

Unmanaged Stream, 2251 Manual 7.24 67 4.85 NA NA / Natural Unstable

Unmanaged 2252 Manual 25.27 27 Stream 21.98 NA NA / Natural

Unmanaged Stream, 2253 Manual 59.28 39 37.20 NA NA / Natural Unstable

Unmanaged Stream, 2254 Manual 11.79 38 10.79 NA NA / Natural Unstable

Unmanaged Stream, 2255 Manual 23.82 53 22.79 NA NA / Natural Unstable

Unmanaged Stream, 2256 Manual 27.98 55 25.95 NA NA / Natural Unstable

Unmanaged Stream, 2257 Manual 9.95 31 6.25 NA NA / Natural Unstable

Unmanaged Stream, 2258 Manual 9.23 47 9.23 NA NA / Natural Unstable

Unmanaged Stream, 2259 Manual 103.98 47 101.17 NA NA / Natural Unstable

Mech - Previously 2260 ground- 5.65 34 Stream 0.98 Allowed No Thinned based

Stream, 2261 Plantation Manual 6.16 41 6.16 NA NA Unstable

Previously Stream, 2262 Manual 2.03 50 1.49 NA NA Thinned Unstable

Unmanaged Stream, 2263 Manual 21.06 48 14.16 NA NA / Natural Unstable

Stream, Mech - Unstable, 2264 Plantation ground- 25.83 23 14.55 Limited Limited Spring or based Wet Area

104 Somes Bar Integrated Fire Management Project – Fisheries BA/BE – April 2018

Mech - 2265 Plantation ground- 39.58 34 Stream 0.21 Allowed Allowed based Mech - Previously 2266 ground- 6.79 29 Unstable 0.02 NA NA Thinned based

2267 Plantation Manual 2.07 34 Stream 0.08 NA NA

Stream, Unmanaged Unstable, 2268 Rx Burn 361.72 47 292.89 NA NA / Natural Spring or Wet Area

Unmanaged Stream, 2269 Rx Burn 18.07 43 17.54 NA NA / Natural Unstable

Unmanaged Stream, 2270 Rx Burn 13.36 13 13.14 NA NA / Natural Unstable

Previously Stream, 2271 Manual 7.32 26 6.77 NA NA Thinned Unstable

Mech - Previously 2272 ground- 2.89 38 None NA NA Thinned based Mech - Unmanaged Stream, 2273 ground- 3.38 28 0.13 Allowed No / Natural Unstable based Unmanaged Stream, 2274 Manual 9.58 47 9.58 NA NA / Natural Unstable

Unmanaged 2275 Manual 2.75 35 Stream 2.70 NA NA / Natural

Stream, 2276 Plantation Manual 4.24 22 Spring or 1.84 NA NA Wet Area

2277 Plantation Manual 3.18 43 Stream 0.27 NA NA

Stream, 2278 Plantation Manual 4.90 44 Spring or 0.45 NA NA Wet Area 2279 Plantation Manual 3.91 36 Stream 3.22 NA NA Stream, Previously 2280 Manual 2.56 27 Spring or 2.27 NA NA Thinned Wet Area Previously 2281 Manual 4.44 17 None NA NA Thinned

105 Somes Bar Integrated Fire Management Project – Fisheries BA/BE – April 2018

Unmanaged Stream, 2282 Manual 3.63 42 3.41 NA NA / Natural Unstable

Previously 2283 Manual 2.99 22 None NA NA Thinned Previously Stream, 2284 Manual 17.36 33 14.94 NA NA Thinned Unstable

Unmanaged Stream, 2285 Manual 5.93 35 3.89 NA NA / Natural Unstable

Unmanaged Stream, 2286 Manual 7.00 40 7.00 NA NA / Natural Unstable

Stream, Unstable, 2287 Plantation Manual 4.76 40 4.73 NA NA Spring or Wet Area

Unmanaged Stream, 2288 Manual 12.04 56 8.79 NA NA / Natural Unstable

Previously Stream, 2289 Manual 1.63 44 1.63 NA NA Thinned Unstable

Stream, Unmanaged 2290 Manual 20.36 33 Spring or 16.81 NA NA / Natural Wet Area

Unmanaged 2291 Manual 9.55 48 Stream 7.85 NA NA / Natural

Previously 2292 Manual 1.59 23 Stream 1.59 NA NA Thinned

Previously Stream, 2293 Manual 13.25 45 10.37 NA NA Thinned Unstable

Previously 2294 Manual 5.00 50 None NA NA Thinned

2295 Plantation Manual 4.37 38 Stream 0.46 NA NA

2296 Plantation Rx Burn 6.25 21 Stream 0.19 NA NA Previously 2300 Manual 61.40 30 Unstable 0.12 NA NA Thinned

2301 Plantation Manual 14.61 56 Stream 7.84 NA NA

2302 Plantation Manual 4.46 59 Stream 0.30 NA NA

106 Somes Bar Integrated Fire Management Project – Fisheries BA/BE – April 2018

Unmanaged Stream, 2303 Manual 36.19 51 6.21 NA NA / Natural Unstable

2304 Plantation Rx Burn 28.29 47 Unstable 8.56 NA NA

Stream, Unstable, 2305 Plantation Manual 5.44 47 5.35 NA NA Spring or Wet Area Stream, 2306 Plantation Rx Burn 19.21 47 16.34 NA NA Unstable Stream, Unstable, 2307 Plantation Manual 10.55 52 8.35 NA NA Spring or Wet Area

Stream, Unstable, 2308 Plantation Manual 22.11 63 4.61 NA NA Spring or Wet Area

Stream, Unstable, 2309 Plantation Manual 14.12 62 4.43 NA NA Spring or Wet Area

2310 Plantation Rx Burn 24.85 68 Unstable 20.05 NA NA

Unmanaged 2311 Manual 10.64 78 None NA NA / Natural Unmanaged 2312 Manual 6.45 49 None NA NA / Natural

2313 Plantation Manual 5.36 68 Stream 2.30 NA NA

Stream, Unmanaged Unstable, 2314 Manual 39.81 65 17.72 NA NA / Natural Spring or Wet Area

Unmanaged Stream, 2315 Rx Burn 15.61 83 15.03 NA NA / Natural Unstable

Unmanaged Stream, 2316 Manual 4.23 82 2.94 NA NA / Natural Unstable

Stream, 2317 Plantation Rx Burn 15.39 67 10.11 NA NA Unstable

Stream, 2318 Plantation Manual 6.98 64 4.27 NA NA Unstable

Stream, 2319 Plantation Manual 17.72 42 13.52 NA NA Unstable

107 Somes Bar Integrated Fire Management Project – Fisheries BA/BE – April 2018

Mech - 2320 Plantation 3.84 54 None NA NA cable Unmanaged Mech - 2321 9.46 61 Unstable 0.02 NA NA / Natural cable Stream, Unmanaged Unstable, 2322 Manual 32.56 52 23.84 NA NA / Natural Spring or Wet Area

Stream, Unmanaged Unstable, 2323 Manual 47.42 54 25.06 NA NA / Natural Spring or Wet Area

Unmanaged Stream, 2324 Rx Burn 18.89 60 18.89 NA NA / Natural Unstable

Unmanaged Stream, 2325 Manual 14.93 50 11.12 NA NA / Natural Unstable

2326 Plantation Manual 13.86 44 Unstable 0.32 NA NA

2327 Plantation Manual 5.24 48 None NA NA

Mech - 2328 Plantation ground- 11.71 40 None NA NA based

Unmanaged 2329 Manual 13.72 59 Unstable 0.19 NA NA / Natural

Previously Stream, 2330 Manual 9.79 62 3.66 NA NA Thinned Unstable

Stream, 2331 Plantation Manual 6.31 46 4.59 NA NA Unstable

Stream, 2332 Plantation Manual 5.61 53 1.17 NA NA Unstable

Unmanaged Stream, 2333 Manual 25.51 36 25.51 NA NA / Natural Unstable

Unmanaged Stream, 2334 Manual 11.77 42 11.77 NA NA / Natural Unstable

Unmanaged Stream, 2335 Manual 30.10 45 15.94 NA NA / Natural Unstable

108 Somes Bar Integrated Fire Management Project – Fisheries BA/BE – April 2018

Unmanaged Mech - 2336 16.78 51 None 0.00 NA NA / Natural cable

Unmanaged Stream, 2337 Rx Burn 9.78 58 2.33 NA NA / Natural Unstable

Unmanaged 2338 Rx Burn 31.35 36 Stream 3.38 NA NA / Natural

Unmanaged Stream, 2339 Rx Burn 172.27 60 144.31 NA NA / Natural Unstable

Unmanaged Stream, 2340 Rx Burn 129.48 59 67.80 NA NA / Natural Unstable

Unmanaged Stream, 2341 Rx Burn 29.90 52 12.77 NA NA / Natural Unstable

Unmanaged Stream, 2342 Rx Burn 72.12 68 46.86 NA NA / Natural Unstable

Unmanaged Stream, 2343 Manual 18.74 39 17.72 NA NA / Natural Unstable

Unmanaged Stream, 2344 Rx Burn 18.92 68 15.25 NA NA / Natural Unstable

Unmanaged 2345 Manual 3.21 52 Unstable 2.50 NA NA / Natural Stream, 2346 Plantation Manual 16.49 52 11.37 NA NA Unstable

2347 Plantation Manual 2.34 39 None NA NA

Unmanaged 2348 Manual 17.06 48 Unstable 3.42 NA NA / Natural

2349 Plantation Rx Burn 1.92 48 Unstable 0.16 NA NA

Stream, 2350 Plantation Rx Burn 2.98 66 0.28 NA NA Unstable Stream, 2351 Plantation Manual 2.20 65 0.85 NA NA Unstable

2352 Plantation Manual 10.30 43 Unstable 9.12 NA NA

Unmanaged 2353 Rx Burn 8.92 63 None NA NA / Natural

Unmanaged Stream, 2354 Manual 20.18 50 15.65 NA NA / Natural Unstable

109 Somes Bar Integrated Fire Management Project – Fisheries BA/BE – April 2018

Unmanaged 2355 Manual 7.06 72 Unstable 1.56 NA NA / Natural

Unmanaged 2356 Manual 38.16 70 Stream 6.63 NA NA / Natural

Stream, Unmanaged Unstable, 2357 Manual 30.26 56 22.18 NA NA / Natural Spring or Wet Area

Unmanaged Stream, 2358 Manual 24.77 57 13.32 NA NA / Natural Unstable

Unmanaged 2359 Manual 6.03 10 Stream 6.03 NA NA / Natural

2360 Plantation Manual 6.82 40 Unstable 6.63 NA NA

Stream, Unmanaged Unstable, 2361 Manual 20.85 52 15.56 NA NA / Natural Spring or Wet Area

Mech - Stream, Previously 2400 ground- 34.30 18 Spring or 1.34 Allowed Limited Thinned based Wet Area Unmanaged Mech - Spring or 2401 1.83 30 0.02 Allowed No / Natural road-based Wet Area Mech - 2402 Plantation ground- 3.76 18 Stream 1.00 Allowed Allowed based

Unmanaged 2403 Manual 0.20 43 None 0.00 NA NA / Natural

Mech - 2405 Plantation ground- 0.60 27 None Allowed Allowed based

Stream, Unmanaged Unstable, 2406 Manual 12.54 39 3.18 NA NA / Natural Spring or Wet Area Mech - Stream, 2407 Plantation ground- 25.95 26 6.37 Limited Limited Unstable based Stream, 2408 Plantation Manual 3.93 62 3.93 NA NA Unstable Mech - 2409 Plantation ground- 9.01 22 None NA NA based Unmanaged 2410 Manual 8.86 50 Stream 7.02 NA NA / Natural

110 Somes Bar Integrated Fire Management Project – Fisheries BA/BE – April 2018

Stream, Mech - Unstable, 2411 Plantation ground- 23.48 27 7.08 Allowed Allowed Spring or based Wet Area

Stream, Mech - Unstable, 2412 Plantation ground- 18.89 32 5.97 Limited No Spring or based Wet Area

2413 Plantation Mastication 5.80 27 None NA NA

Stream, Mech - Unstable, 2414 Plantation 6.58 50 3.17 No No road-based Spring or Wet Area

2415 Plantation Manual 10.62 28 Stream 10.03 NA NA

Unmanaged 2416 Manual 6.12 53 None NA NA / Natural Unmanaged 2417 Manual 29.43 61 Stream 8.58 NA NA / Natural Unmanaged 2418 Manual 8.95 29 None NA NA / Natural Mech - Stream, 2419 Plantation ground- 7.80 21 Spring or 1.93 Allowed Allowed based Wet Area Stream, 2420 Plantation Manual 7.01 37 Spring or 1.82 NA NA Wet Area Mech - Stream, 2421 Plantation ground- 19.08 21 Spring or 5.43 Limited Limited based Wet Area Mech - Previously 2422 ground- 5.44 15 Stream 0.85 Allowed Allowed Thinned based Stream, Previously Mech - 2423 6.11 22 Spring or 5.25 Allowed No Thinned road-based Wet Area

Unmanaged 2424 Manual 1.98 52 Stream 0.03 NA NA / Natural

Mech - Stream, 2425 Plantation 17.00 36 4.86 Limited No cable Unstable

Unmanaged Mech - 2426 5.64 41 Stream 2.79 No No / Natural road-based

Stream, Unstable, 2427 Plantation Mastication 20.12 26 5.95 NA Limited Spring or Wet Area

2428 Plantation Mastication 2.95 29 Stream 1.38 NA Allowed

111 Somes Bar Integrated Fire Management Project – Fisheries BA/BE – April 2018

2429 Plantation Manual 1.01 44 Stream 0.39 NA NA

Stream, Unmanaged Unstable, 2430 Manual 17.39 53 11.15 NA NA / Natural Spring or Wet Area

Stream, Unmanaged Mech - 2431 16.22 20 Spring or 7.01 Allowed NA / Natural road-based Wet Area

Unmanaged Stream, 2432 Manual 13.34 66 10.43 NA NA / Natural Unstable Mech - 2433 Plantation ground- 7.97 20 None NA NA based Unmanaged Mech - 2434 5.36 35 Stream 4.47 Allowed No / Natural road-based Unmanaged 2435 Manual 13.03 70 Stream 12.43 NA NA / Natural Unmanaged 2436 Manual 5.06 45 None NA NA / Natural

2437 Plantation Manual 12.43 43 Stream 2.19 NA NA

Unmanaged 2438 Manual 3.32 48 None NA NA / Natural

Previously 2439 Manual 20.43 50 None NA NA Thinned

Unmanaged 2440 Manual 22.17 27 Stream 6.87 NA NA / Natural

Stream, 2441 Plantation Mastication 9.49 20 Spring or 4.75 NA Limited Wet Area Unmanaged Stream, 2443 Rx Burn 160.63 56 83.07 NA NA / Natural Unstable Unmanaged Stream, 2444 Rx Burn 2.89 73 2.89 NA NA / Natural Unstable Previously 2445 Rx Burn 2.32 51 Stream 2.32 NA NA Thinned Unmanaged Stream, 2446 Rx Burn 51.37 54 36.19 NA NA / Natural Unstable Unmanaged 2447 Rx Burn 11.01 47 Stream 9.69 NA NA / Natural Previously Stream, 2449 Manual 5.28 38 0.71 NA NA Thinned Unstable Unmanaged 2450 Manual 4.79 47 Stream 0.39 NA NA / Natural Previously 2451 Manual 2.17 50 None NA NA Thinned

112 Somes Bar Integrated Fire Management Project – Fisheries BA/BE – April 2018

Mech - Previously Stream, 2452 ground- 6.10 28 1.33 LImited Limited Thinned Unstable based Mech - Previously 2453 ground- 6.92 15 None NA NA Thinned based Mech - Stream, Previously 2454 ground- 30.73 24 Spring or 5.79 Allowed No Thinned based Wet Area Stream, Unmanaged 2455 Manual 6.27 37 Spring or 3.09 NA NA / Natural Wet Area Mech - Stream, 2456 Plantation ground- 8.74 19 Spring or 2.01 Allowed Allowed based Wet Area Stream, 2457 Plantation Mastication 7.37 14 Spring or 0.51 NA No Wet Area

Stream, Unmanaged Unstable, 2458 Manual 11.42 57 5.15 NA NA / Natural Spring or Wet Area Stream, 2459 Plantation Manual 19.74 49 16.69 NA NA Unstable Stream, Mech - Unstable, 2460 Plantation 20.38 47 18.75 No No cable Spring or Wet Area Mech - Stream, 2461 Plantation ground- 44.12 28 2.40 Allowed No Unstable based

Unmanaged Mech - Stream, 2462 25.48 59 7.37 No No / Natural cable Unstable

Mech - 2463 Plantation ground- 11.21 28 None NA NA based

2464 Plantation Manual 16.32 57 Unstable 1.19 NA NA

Stream, Mech - Unstable, 2465 Plantation 10.25 58 4.35 Allowed NA road-based Spring or Wet Area Mech - 2466 Plantation ground- 7.50 32 Stream 0.68 Allowed No based Mech - 2467 Plantation ground- 11.44 33 Stream 0.06 Allowed Allowed based Unmanaged 2468 Manual 4.59 34 Stream 2.25 NA NA / Natural

2469 Plantation Manual 15.86 57 Stream 9.81 NA NA

113 Somes Bar Integrated Fire Management Project – Fisheries BA/BE – April 2018

Mech - 2470 Plantation ground- 10.25 34 Stream 1.07 Allowed No based Unmanaged 2471 Manual 5.36 57 Stream 4.29 NA NA / Natural Stream, Unstable, 2472 Plantation Manual 26.09 43 6.64 NA NA Spring or Wet Area Previously Stream, 2473 Manual 7.59 49 6.89 NA NA Thinned Unstable Stream, Mech - Unmanaged Unstable, 2474 ground- 23.41 25 10.57 Allowed No / Natural Spring or based Wet Area Previously 2479 Manual 31.42 33 Stream 3.80 NA NA Thinned

Mech - Stream, 2480 Plantation ground- 17.47 36 Spring or 4.08 Allowed Allowed based Wet Area

Mech - 2481 Plantation ground- 25.94 24 Stream 5.63 Allowed Allowed based

2482 Plantation Manual 2.72 43 Stream 0.73 NA NA

2484 Plantation Mastication 9.01 32 Stream 1.62 NA No

Unmanaged 2485 Manual 9.70 26 Stream 4.31 NA NA / Natural

2486 Plantation Mastication 30.22 23 Stream 2.57 NA Allowed

2487 Plantation Mastication 7.13 30 Stream 2.79 NA Limited

2488 Plantation Manual 6.51 41 Stream 3.18 NA NA

2489 Plantation Mastication 6.90 37 Stream 0.87 NA Allowed

2490 Plantation Mastication 14.95 27 None NA NA

Unmanaged 2491 Manual 8.78 32 None NA NA / Natural Stream, Mech - Unstable, 2492 Plantation ground- 4.35 32 0.36 Limited No Spring or based Wet Area Mech - Previously 2493 ground- 29.31 25 Unstable 0.35 NA NA Thinned based

114 Somes Bar Integrated Fire Management Project – Fisheries BA/BE – April 2018

Unmanaged Mech - 2494 6.03 47 None NA NA / Natural cable Unmanaged 2495 Manual 17.07 52 Unstable 12.46 NA NA / Natural Unmanaged 2496 Manual 15.11 36 Stream 8.72 NA NA / Natural Stream, Previously Unstable, 2498 Manual 10.77 66 9.51 NA NA Thinned Spring or Wet Area

Stream, Unmanaged Unstable, 2499 Manual 18.98 57 5.56 NA NA / Natural Spring or Wet Area

Mech - Previously 2500 ground- 34.86 20 None NA NA Thinned based

Stream, 2501 Plantation Manual 4.69 53 0.64 NA NA Unstable Stream, Unstable, 2503 Plantation Manual 6.93 53 6.93 NA NA Spring or Wet Area Stream, 2504 Plantation Manual 3.63 49 1.61 NA NA Unstable Mech - 2505 Plantation ground- 7.67 38 Stream 0.32 Allowed Allowed based Stream, 2506 Plantation Rx Burn 18.45 42 18.45 NA NA Unstable Stream, 2507 Plantation Rx Burn 9.04 55 5.59 NA NA Unstable Unmanaged Mech - 2508 2.17 29 Unstable 2.17 Limited No / Natural road-based Stream, Unmanaged Unstable, 2509 Manual 45.70 61 37.13 NA NA / Natural Spring or Wet Area

Unmanaged 2510 Manual 7.17 29 Stream 0.01 NA NA / Natural 4474 2356

115 Somes Bar Integrated Fire Management Project – Fisheries BA/BE – April 2018

Use of Boise Total Endline Size of Avg Type of Equip. Creek Mgt Treatment RR within Unit Slope Riparian within Treatment History Method Unit Outer (acres) (%) Reserve Outer 80' Unit No. Acres 80' RR RR

Mech - 2402 Plantation ground- 3.43 18 Stream 1.77 Allowed Allowed based Mech - Stream, 2404 Plantation ground- 4.32 30 4.03 Allowed Allowed Unstable based

Unmanaged 2403 Manual 8.70 43 Stream 8.14 NA NA / Natural

Mech - 2405 Plantation ground- 3.82 27 Stream 1.78 Allowed Allowed based

Unmanaged Stream, 2448 Manual 16.18 46 13.58 NA NA / Natural Unstable

Stream, Unstable, 2427 Plantation Mastication 1.84 26 0.61 NA Limited Spring or Wet Area

Mech - 2475 Plantation ground- 17.23 27 Stream 2.42 Allowed No based

2476 Plantation Manual 4.04 31 Stream 1.93 NA NA

2477 Plantation Mastication 3.43 22 Stream 0.92 NA Allowed

Stream, Unstable, 2478 Plantation Manual 6.91 46 2.85 NA NA Spring or Wet Area

Unmanaged 2483 Manual 3.38 35 Stream 2.80 NA NA / Natural

Unmanaged 2497 Manual 2.94 45 Stream 2.94 NA NA / Natural

Stream, Unstable, 2502 Plantation Manual 12.67 32 6.50 NA NA Spring or Wet Area

Stream, Mech - Unmanaged Unstable, 2474 ground- 5.28 25 1.83 Allowed No / Natural Spring or based Wet Area

Unmanaged 2510 Manual 7.70 29 Stream 3.74 NA NA / Natural

102 56

116 Somes Bar Integrated Fire Management Project – Fisheries BA/BE – April 2018

Appendix D. Wet Weather Operation Standards Klamath National Forest

TIMBER SALE

Contract Number ______

WET WEATHER OPERATION STANDARDS (05/16/02)

Timber Sale Contract (TSC) Provision B5.12 - Use of Roads by Purchaser, states in part "...Purchaser is authorized to use existing National Forest roads...when such use will not cause damage to the roads or National Forest resources and when hauling can be done safely." Provision B6.31 - Operating Schedule states in part "Subject to B6.6 and when the requirements of B6.65 are met, Purchaser's operations may be conducted outside Normal Operating Season." Logging operations may be conducted outside the Normal Operating Season (NOS), however, certain requirements must be met in order to have operations proceed during this period. Compliance with pertinent Best Management Practices (BMPs) by the Purchaser is necessary to meet water quality requirements as agreed to between the State of California and the US Forest Service. The following standards are intended to further clarify Timber Sale Contract requirements by providing specific criteria for conducting sale operations during wet weather conditions and to facilitate consistent implementation across the Klamath National Forest. The following guidelines are to be used to determine if conditions are favorable for wet weather/winter operations and to provide guidance as to when conditions warrant suspension of operations, when operations may begin or resume, or when and what remedies may be appropriate. These guidelines also apply within the Normal Operating Season (NOS) when prolonged periods of wet weather are encountered. These standards were developed to protect water quality. Protection measures for other resources and facilities, such soils and transportation system, are addressed in the Timber Sale Contract and other Forest Service standards and guides.

A. General Guidelines: * Operations will be continually monitored by the Purchaser and the Forest Service, including: sale administration personnel, purchaser representatives, and resource specialists. Conditions may change as operations progress during the wet season. If detrimental effects to the transportation system, water quality, or soil resources are encountered by either party, immediate notification of designated sale administrative personnel by either the Purchaser or Forest Service shall occur. The Purchaser and Forest Service will work together to develop actions necessary to alleviate these effects. * BMP guidelines dictate that no sediment/contaminant flow into stream courses from any facility used by the Purchaser, including B. Roads, C. Skid Trails, Cableways, or Harvest Areas, D. Landings, and E. Fueling Locations, will be permitted at any time. BMP measurable thresholds, listed in paragraph “2)” under the major headings below (BMP indicators that operations should be curtailed and/or corrective actions implemented), warn the Purchaser and the Forest Service that

117 Somes Bar Integrated Fire Management Project – Fisheries BA/BE – April 2018

BMP violations are possible if action is not taken. Expression of any of these BMP indicators does not necessarily indicate BMP violation(s) and degradation of water quality has occurred.

B. Roads:

General - Hauling/Access Use: * Required road work for prehaul must be accomplished prior to the wet season or periods of precipitation. Saturated road surfaces should not be graded. At least 2" of snow should remain on the road surface after snow plowing. Road surfaces must be at a standard and maintenance level that will support the impacts of wet weather operations. This includes the following:

1) Actions that augment BMP compliance: Wet Conditions * Drainage structures and erosion/sediment prevention actions will be in place and functioning prior to expected precipitation events. * Roads will be properly graded and ditched or outsloped. * Portions of roads that lie within Streamside Management Zones (SMZs) and road locations where eroded material is likely to enter channels will be rocked to Forest Service specifications and geotextile fabric used when appropriate, unless otherwise agreed, with input from a resource specialist and an engineer. * Operations will be scheduled to use roads in order to avoid the risk of rutting during "precipitation events." * By agreement, use of the variable tire pressure option can be used to reduce surface replacement and will reduce purchaser road maintenance costs. Snow Conditions * Snow will be removed without disturbing the road surface, cut bank, fill slope, or drainage structures. No soil or aggregate should be intermixed with the sidecast snow during plowing or grading. At least 2" of snow should remain on the road surface after snow plowing. * Snow berms must be breached, except in sensitive areas, to allow proper road drainage. These outlets must be spaced so as not to concentrate road surface flows (usually spaced no more than 200 feet apart). Erosion control structures (straw bales or filter fence) may be required at the outlets to collect road generated sediment. Frozen Conditions * If the road surface freezes, the road surface segments must remain completely frozen and must be able to support the weight of any vehicle that will be driven on it. If the road thaws, see below... * When any part of the active road length thaws and mitigations, such as rocking, cannot be implemented to ensure water quality protection, the road will not be used. This will

118 Somes Bar Integrated Fire Management Project – Fisheries BA/BE – April 2018

preclude the use of the road by all vehicles (including administrative) unless the activity can be restricted to that portion of the road that remains frozen.

2) BMP indicators that operations should be curtailed and/or corrective action implemented:

CULVERTS: [1] Sediment and/or debris is blocking 30% of inlet or outlet. [2] More than 10% of the flow passes beneath or around culvert, or noticeable piping erosion evident, unless crossing is designed to do so (e.g., coarse material rock fill)

EROSION: [3] Scour and/or sediment deposition evident, and extending more than 20 feet below outlet of cross drain or other drainage structure (e.g., culvert, rolling dip, waterbar). [4] Scour &/or sediment movement into SMZ or drainageway from road surface, cut slope, or fill slope. [5] Material sidecast within 25 feet of a channel, ditch or drainageway, or onto slopes vegetated for erosion control.

PONDING: [6] Ponding present on road surface that is causing fill subsidence or otherwise threatening integrity of fill.

RUTS/RILLS: [7] More than 10% of road segment length has rills or ruts more than 2 inches deep and 20 feet in length which continue off road surface, with potential to deliver sediment to stream channel. [8] Ruts formed that can channel water past erosion control structures. [9] Numerous rills present at stream crossing (>1 rill per lineal 5 ft), apparently active or enlarging, evidence of some sediment delivery to stream.

3) Operating Requirements & Remedies: * If more than 10 percent of the road segment length is rutted 2 inches in depth or greater, purchasers use of the road will be suspended. (Percentage will be determined in one mile increments if road is longer than one mile). If the road is to remain closed, it must have a barrier of some type installed to keep out all vehicular traffic and signed to keep traffic off road surface. * If the roadway dries and can support vehicles without causing rutting, soil displacement, damage to drainage structures, and with no off-site sediment movement, it can be used. If not, it should remain unused. * Roads damaged by Purchaser's Operations and associated damage will be repaired at the Purchaser's expense. A remedy plan will be prepared and implemented. Repair work shall be accomplished immediately when conditions are such that additional damage to the resources will not occur or when designated by the Forest Service.

Native Surfaced Roads and Other Roads Identified for Special Hauling 119 Somes Bar Integrated Fire Management Project – Fisheries BA/BE – April 2018

Requirements * The native surfaced roads and other roads listed below are located in sensitive soils that are prone to road surface damage during wet weather use. There shall be no log hauling on these roads during precipitation events. The timber sale operator shall allow an adequate drying period after a rain occurrence prior to resumption of hauling (normally 1 day depending on soil type and/or as determined by Purchaser and Forest Service Rep.).

Road Number Length (miles) Termini - Termini

Rocking Roads * Locations where road rocking is required to harden the road surface for wet weather haul will be designated in writing and flagged on-the-ground by the Engineering Rep. or Sale Administrator. Minimum depth of rock that meets engineering specifications will be established in writing and inspected by the Forest Service prior to use of the road for hauling outside the NOS.

C. Skid Trails/Cableways/Harvest Areas: Skid trails will be flagged by the Purchaser and approved by the Forest Service in advance of falling.

1) Actions that augment BMP compliance:

General * No more than 15% of the activity area (includes temporary roads, landings, skid trails, and cableways [cable corridors]) should be subjected to detrimental ground-disturbing activities. Ground-disturbing activities produce adverse changes in soil porosity (compaction), soil cover, and soil organic matter. Snow/Frozen Conditions * Snow can act as a cushion to to protect wet soils. Unless otherwise agreed, within the operating area, a minimum of 6 inches of machine compacted snow with a minimum water content of 2 inches is required for over-the-snow logging or the soil should be frozen to a depth of 6 inches for logging operations to occur (frozen soil occurs primarily on the Goosenest District). When the snow depth approaches this minimum, snow conditions must be monitored on a daily basis to verify snow depth is sufficient to start or continue operations. Approval to operate on snow less than indicated above must include an evaluation by a soil scientist or hydrologist. At least 90% of the skidding surfaces must meet the above snow cover standard at all times. If snow cover falls below 90%, see section 2) below for "bare ground" standards. Wet Conditions Skyline - No Specified pre-conditions. Cut-to-Length System - Processing of material on the designated skid trails by a harvester may occur when soils are dry to a depth of 4 inches. Limit harvester to 1 or 2 passes over the same piece of ground. The forwarder will stay on designated skid trails covered with a minimum of 6 inches of slash. 120 Somes Bar Integrated Fire Management Project – Fisheries BA/BE – April 2018

Feller/Buncher System - Movement of material to the designated skid trails by a track laying feller/buncher may occur when soils are dry to a depth 4 inches. Feller/buncher will be limited to 1 or 2 passes over the same piece of ground. Skidding equipment will stay on designated skid trails until soils are dry to a depth of 10 inches. Traditional Tractor Logging - Skidding may occur by conventional high-ground-pressure equipment when soils are dry to a depth of 4 inches. Equipment is restricted to the designated skid trails. Endlining will be used to move material to the designated skid trails until soils are dry to a depth of 10 inches. Equipment may, by agreement, leave designated skid trails when soils are dry to a depth of 10 inches.

2) BMP indicators that operations should be curtailed and/or corrective actions implemented: [10] More than 20% of skid trail or cableway surface lengths have rills present that are over 2 inches deep and more than 10 feet in length. [11] More than 10% of skid trail surface length has ruts greater than 2 inches deep. [12] Rills and/or sediment deposition extends more than 20 feet below waterbar outlet. [13] More than 10% of waterbars fail to divert flow off skid trails or cableways. [14] Erosion within or sediment movement into SMZ. [15] Presence of gullies (erosional features greater than 4" deep and 6" wide).

3) Operating Requirements & Remedies: * Skid trails, cableways and harvest areas damaged by Purchaser's Operations and associated damage will be repaired at the Purchaser's expense. A remedy plan will be prepared and implemented. Repair work shall be accomplished immediately when conditions are such that additional damage to the resources will not occur or when designated by the Forest Service. See the Wet Weather Operation Field Guide for a list of potential remedies.

D. Landings: Landings will be agreed to by Purchaser and designated sale administrative personnel prior to their construction and/or use. Landings will not be located within SMZs or Riparian Reserves unless a resource specialist (hydrologist, geologist, fisheries biologist) is consulted.

1) Actions that augment BMP compliance: * Landings will be constructed to ensure proper drainage, compaction and stability. Landings will be monitored to ensure that drainage is effective. For example, landings will not create a depression which cannot be properly drained; upslope runoff will be diverted, to an appropriate location, around the activity. * If rocking is required for wet weather operations, landings should be rocked before the surface becomes saturated. * Landings should be identified well in advance of logging activities. This would allow construction be complete within the NOS. But if unavoidable and as a preventative measure, all landing fill slopes constructed outside of the Normal Operating Period should be mulched. Mulch material can consist of wood chips, certified weed-free straw, or any

121 Somes Bar Integrated Fire Management Project – Fisheries BA/BE – April 2018

other Forest Service approved material which will provide slope protection against erosion and rilling. In addition, downslope perimeter erosion control will be required if a potential threat to water quality exists as determined by an earth scientist. * The use of a heel boom loader may be required to minimize landing size and reduce excavation of the site.

2) BMP indicators that operations should be curtailed and/or corrective actions implemented: [16] Rills (greater than 1/2" deep and 10' in length) and/or sediment deposition has extended more than 20 feet below the toe of the landing fill slope. [17] More than 1 cubic yard of material (from erosion or slope failure) has moved into SMZ.

3) Operating Requirements & Remedies: * Landings damaged by Purchaser's Operations and associated damage will be repaired at the Purchaser's expense. Repair work shall be accomplished immediately when conditions are such that additional damage to the resources will not occur or when designated by the Forest Service.

E. Fueling Sites:

1) Action that augment BMP compliance: * Purchaser shall take additional appropriate measures documented in a wet weather fuel storage plan to prevent any oil or oil product spill from entering any stream or drainageway.

2) BMP indicators that operations should be curtailed and/or corrective measures implemented: [18] Evidence of more than 10 gallons of fuel or oil products outside bermed containment area.

3) Operating Requirements & Remedies: * Fueling sites damaged by Purchaser's Operations and associated damage will be repaired at the Purchaser's expense. Repair work shall be accomplished immediately when conditions are such that additional damage to the resources will not occur or when designated by the Forest Service. Forest Service retains the authority to suspend any or all of Purchaser's operations as needed to protect resources.

122 Somes Bar Integrated Fire Management Project – Fisheries BA/BE – April 2018

FIELD GUIDE

For Use with

WET WEATHER OPERATION STANDARDS

The following guide was written to supplement the Klamath National Forest's "Wet Weather Operation Standards" (WWOS). It was designed to provide specific working definitions, practical explanations, and discussions of terms and concepts appearing in WWOS. This guide uses definitions from many sources, but draws primarily from Forest Service Region 5 Best Management Practices (BMP), BMP Evaluation Program handbook, Timber Sale Contract (TSC) language (B & C Provisions), and the Klamath National Forest's Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP).

WET WEATHER

Various phrases such as "wet season", "periods of precipitation", "prior to expected precipitation events", "during precipitation events", "preceding expected seasonal periods of precipitation or runoff", "soil or surface saturation" , and "Normal Operating Season" (NOS) are used in the WWOS and standard TSCs. These phrases refer to two distinct types of activities: (1) erosion control, including prehaul road/landing work (typically grading, drainage maintenance or installation, or rock surfacing) and installation of non-road erosion control measures (such as drainage structures, mulching, etc.), and (2) logging activities, including skidding (&/or yarding) and hauling.

NOS beginning and ending dates for each timber sale are specified in the TSC . "Wet season" and "seasonal periods of precipitation or runoff" therefore refer to that period of the year outside the NOS.

"Periods of precipitation" and "..precipitation events" can occur at any time of the year and are defined as follows: precipitation amounts in intensity and/or duration that cause runoff. In other words, precipitation amounts that exceed the moisture-bearing capacity of the soil or conditions of over-saturation producing runoff of excess moisture. This definition assumes antecedent saturation conditions, either from previous "events" or the early parts of the current "event."

"Prior to expected..." or "preceding expected..." can not be clearly defined. For this initial field guide version, it is when the National Weather Service (or other accepted source) predicts a 50% or higher chance of measurable precipitation for the local area. Discretion should be exercised by the Purchaser &/or Sale Administrator in order to keep this provision reasonable. For example, the weather report should predict more than one day of unsettled weather (summer thunderstorms) and erosion control measures should be prioritized so that key structures are constructed/installed first.

Erosion control work should be current "prior to" or "preceding" an expected precipitation event. All erosion control work shall be current by September 15. After September 15th, erosion control work should be done as promptly as practical. Drainage structures are difficult to construct when landings, temporary roads, skid trails, cable corridors, etc. are wet or have snow on them. If 123 Somes Bar Integrated Fire Management Project – Fisheries BA/BE – April 2018

placement of a rock surface is required for wet weather hauling, it must be done before the surface becomes saturated. Within the NOS, key erosion control work should be done if significant wet weather is anticipated (see paragraph above).

Logging activities can occur outside of the NOS if: (1) conditions are favorable, and (2) erosion control work is current. These conditions (with restrictions and requirements) are delineated in various paragraphs and sections of the WWOS.

DRY SOIL - DRY ROAD

After a "precipitation event" or at the beginning of the season (NOS), it is necessary to determine when conditions are dry enough for logging activities to resume or commence. Local variations in a number of parameters, including soil type, hydro-geomorphology, and road composition, dictate that certain areas or road segments may dry out sooner than others. Therefore, discretion is required and blanket determinations can rarely be made. The term "soil" is used sensu lato and includes any surface material.

Dry Soils: Skidding during very wet soil conditions will cause rutting; under moderately wet condition, soil compaction will result. Puddling in ruts indicates that soil compaction and damage has probably already occurred.

To determine dry soil, a field soil moisture test will be conducted as follows:

(1) On skid trails, at a depth of 4", take 2 or 3 samples along the length of each skid trail to be used. Sample points should be chosen to represent typical moisture conditions for each skid trail. Off skid trails, at a depth of 10", take 2 or 3 samples representative of moisture conditions within the unit.

(2) Form a ball by squeezing the soil sample firmly in the hand. The soil is considered dry enough to begin skidding operations if the sample cannot be molded into a ball or falls apart when rolled in the palm of the hand. If the ball holds it's shape while rolled, the soil is too wet for skidding activities.

Dry Roads: Roads must be determined to be suited for wet weather hauling and general use after "precipitation events" and at the beginning of the NOS. Factors to consider include : surface & sub-surface material, soil type (native-surfaced), drainage condition, maintenance condition, stream crossings (& sensitivity thereof), and volume to be hauled. Subjective judgment must be used and applied to local road segments. Possible remedies to specific problems are shown in Table 1, below.

In general, if the roadway dries and can support vehicles without causing rutting, soil displacement, damage to drainage structures, and with no off-site sediment movement, it can be used. If not, it should remain unused.

ROADS 124 Somes Bar Integrated Fire Management Project – Fisheries BA/BE – April 2018

Three terms are used to describe road degradation: 'ruts', 'rills', and 'gullies'. They are defined as follows: ruts - sunken tracks or grooves left by the passage of vehicles and expressed as vertically and/or laterally displaced road material, rills - depressions in the surface caused by the washing away of material by running water, gullies - large rills, larger than 6" wide and 4" deep.

Road degradation is a function of many factors. Dominant factors are: [1] Traffic - both excess weight &/or high frequency (high use) [2] Road composition & maintenance - weak sub-base, base, or surface, &/or poor drainage [3] Moisture - antecedent (saturation) & event (significant precipitation)

Most rutting is a natural occurrence, the result of normal road use. "Wear grooves" develop in all roads, regardless of usage or moisture conditions. The factors listed above influence the speed and degree of development. However, some rutting can be viewed as a structural failure of the road surface. In other words, load of individual vehicles (e.g. logging trucks) or cumulative loads of many vehicles (heavy traffic) may exceed mechanical strength of road materials, usually when weakened by excess moisture. This type of rutting commonly occurs with native-surfaced roads or at "problem" spots along rock-surfaced roads. `Rutting' should NOT be confused with `rilling' or `gullying', which are erosional processes.

Road surface rutting raises a "yellow flag" warning. The road surface has degraded, but by definition, impacts to water quality have NOT yet occurred. Rutting indicates that the road is in need of maintenance and/or repair. "Wear grooves" suggest routine maintenance, such as grading, is required. "Structural failure" ruts indicate repairs and/or reconstruction is needed to road surface (e.g., rocking) or drainage system (e.g., culvert installation at wet spot). If ruts are not fixed, then future rilling is likely. Rutting calls for immediate mitigation, road closure is but one option (Table 1, below). For example, ruts could be fixed by grading and/or rocking so that they do not channelize water, which leads to erosion (rilling & gullying).

Rills and gullies are defined as the removal of road material by erosional processes. Rills and gullies are "red flags", suggesting adverse impacts to water quality are likely to occur.

The follow table indicates possible remedies to specific problems:

Table 1. `Rutting' means: Factor: Loads too heavy, too frequent &/or Road too weak &/or Too wet Solutions: Reduce loads/freq. by: Strengthen (fix) road by: Water proof by: reducing # of daily loads if drying trend, grade if drying trend, grade no logging trucks, light vehicles only rock, fix drainage, or other "fix-it" measures surface &/or drainage fix reduce tire pressures road closure road freezes 125 Somes Bar Integrated Fire Management Project – Fisheries BA/BE – April 2018

road closure road freezes road closure

STREAMSIDE MANAGEMENT ZONES (SMZ)

BMP documents, TSCs, and the Klamath LRMP use different terms for essentially the same concept: That is, the designation and protection of streams and their buffer zones. BMPs and the BMP Evaluation Program use the term "Streamside Management Zones." TSCs use "Streamcourse Protection" (e.g., B6.5). The Klamath LRMP (& the Northwest Forest Plan ROD) use the term "Riparian Reserves." "SMZ" is used in the WWOS since the WWOS are based primarily on BMPs, implemented in order to protect water quality. On the Klamath National Forest, SMZs are approximately equivalent to hydrologically-defined Riparian Reserves.

"Streamcourses", designated for special protection under B6.5 (&C6.5), are shown as line features on the Sale Area Maps for individual timber sales. Each of the three sources above use different buffer widths for protection zones. Timber sales offered after signing of the Klamath LRMP & the Northwest Forest Plan ROD (1994) defer to Riparian Reserve "interim ROD buffer widths", unless these widths have been modified by a subsequent Watershed Analysis and NEPA process.

126 Somes Bar Integrated Fire Management Project – Fisheries BA/BE – April 2018

BMP "YARDSTICKS" and CHECKLIST

For Use with

WET WEATHER OPERATIONS STANDARDS

The following BMP (Best Management Practices) quantitative guidelines are excerpted from the WWOS (Wet Weather Operations Standards). They provide measurable "yardsticks" to assess whether (or not) sites meet BMPs. This document was designed to provide Sale Administrators and Resource people with an easy to use checklist to utilize in the field.

In general, we are looking for evidence of erosion, or indications that erosion MIGHT take place. We should be "proactive" in this regard and NOT wait until the standards listed below are exceeded, but try to anticipate problems or conditions that could lead to erosion.

Numbers in square brackets ( [1] ) refer to lines in the WWOS document. Alpha-numeric codes in parentheses [(E09)] refer to BMP Evaluation Program forms.

BMP indicators that operations should be curtailed and/or corrective action implemented:

ROADS

Culverts (or cross drains):

[1] Sediment and/or debris is blocking 30% of inlet or outlet. (E09)

[2] More than 10% of the flow to pass beneath or around culvert, or noticeable piping erosion evident, unless crossing is designed to do so (e.g., coarse material/rock fill). (E09)

[3] Scour and/or sediment deposition evident, and extending more than 20 feet below outlet of cross drain or other drainage structure (e.g., culvert, rolling dip, waterbar). (E08)

Erosion of road material:

[4] Scour &/or sediment movement into SMZ or drainageway from road surface, cut slope, or fill slope. (E08, E20)

[5] Material sidecast within 25 feet of a channel, ditch or drainageway, or onto slopes vegetated for erosion control. (E11)

Ponding:

[6] Ponding present on road surface that is causing fill subsidence or otherwise threatening integrity of fill. (E09) 127 Somes Bar Integrated Fire Management Project – Fisheries BA/BE – April 2018

Ruts/rills:

[7] More than 10% of road segment length has rills or ruts more than 2 inches deep and 20 feet in length which continue off road surface, with potential to deliver sediment to stream channel. (E08, E20)

[8] Ruts formed that can channel water past erosion control structures.

[9] Numerous rills present at stream crossing (>1 rill per lineal 5 ft), apparently active or enlarging, evidence of some sediment delivery to stream. (E09)

SKID TRAILS, CABLEWAYS, & HARVEST AREAS

[10] More than 20% of skid trail or cableway surface lengths have rills present that are over 2 inches deep and more than 10 feet in length. (T02)

[11] More than 10% of skid trail surface length has ruts greater than 2 inches deep. (T02)

[12] Rills and/or sediment deposition extends more than 20 feet below waterbar outlet. (T02)

[13] More than 10% of waterbars fail to divert flow off skid trails or cableways. (T02)

[14] Erosion within or sediment movement into SMZ. (T02, T05)

[15] Presence of gullies (erosional features greater than 4" deep and 6" wide).

LANDINGS

[16] Rills (greater than 1/2" deep and 10' in length) and/or sediment deposition has extended more than 20 feet below the toe of the landing fill (fromT04).

[17] More than 1 cubic yard of material (from erosion or slope failure) has moved into SMZ. (T04)

FUELING SITES

[18] Evidence of more than 10 gallons of fuel or oil products outside bermed containment area. (E12)

128 Somes Bar Integrated Fire Management Project – Fisheries BA/BE – April 2018

Appendix E. Matrix of Pathways and Indictors and Baselines The original July 1999 Streamlining Agreement supported the use of The Matrix of Pathways and Indicators (MPI) that provides values and ranges of aquatic habitat and watershed conditions to determine whether existing conditions are “Properly Functioning”, “At Risk”, or “Not Properly Functioning”. The Agreement further stated that Level 1 teams should take the lead in adapting the general Matrix, as necessary, to reflect local geologic and climatic influences on aquatic habitat and watershed conditions within specific physiographic areas. Therefore, the KNF developed a matrix for tributaries to the mid-Klamath River using values from streams that are considered pristine and as supported by the KNF LRMP EIS data to determine “Properly Functioning” indicator conditions for anadromous streams. Values were also estimated for “At Risk” and “Not Properly Functioning” Indicator conditions. If an Indicator for a particular stream is determined to be functioning at its capability (due to morphology, aspect, or size), it is rated as “Properly Functioning” even if it doesn’t meet criteria values (an explanation is included for each instance). In some tributaries, the stream’s morphology, aspect, or size may not support “Properly Functioning” criteria values for one or more habitat Indicators. A total of 8 Pathways and 17 Indicators were evaluated for the Somes Bar Integrated Fire Management Project as outlined in Table 13. No actions affected the Habitat Access Pathway and therefore it is not included in the below analysis. It was determined that 8 of the remaining 16 Indicators did not have a casual mechanism which would result in exposure of the species or its critical habitat, and there was no probability of an effect to occur, therefore, no further factor analyses are required:  Temperature: The project design delineates extensive riparian reserve buffers and residual canopy cover at 60 percent in the outer 80 feet of the acres treated mechanically (147 acres) to protect stream temperatures. No project elements will alter canopy cover within the inner stream riparian, therefore, a neutral effect to the Temperature Indicator will occur. In the long term, a more fire-resilient stand would promote and maintain appropriate shade over time, provide for larger trees and a diversity of desired species in the riparian area.  Pool Frequency: None of the project elements changes sediment or LWD regime to the extent where pool volume/structure are affected. In addition, no in-channel work will occur, therefore a neutral effect to the Pool Frequency indicator will occur.  Off Channel Habitat: Off-channel floodplain habitat is only found in a few areas along the Klamath River mainstem and no project elements are anticipated to effect these isolated locations.  Refugia: Tributaries and cool water refugia would be not be affected given that stream temperature would not change and the insignificant and discountable changes to stream flow would not change refugia locations. The reduction in risk of high intensity wildfire would protect refugia location.  Width/Depth Ratio: No changes to streambanks would occur, and the negligible amount of sediment would not result in any changes to W/D ratio.

129 Somes Bar Integrated Fire Management Project – Fisheries BA/BE – April 2018

 Streambank: No alterations would occur to streambanks either directly or indirectly. Water drafting would not modify any steambanks. No vegetation (trees, saplings, brush etc) would be cut that influence bank stability.  Floodplain: No ground disturbance would occur on the floodplains adjacent to the Klamath River. All actions to vegetation (manual fuel treatments and actions to improve willow stands) would not affect floodplain development maintenance and condtion.  Drainage Net Increase: The project adds 0.6 miles of temporary roads (outsloped, surfaced etc) that are located outside of riparian reserves and therefore no hydrologic connectivity. In addition, all temporary roads would be closed and 1.09 legacy roads would be decommissioned. Skid trails and handlines could potentially increase the drainage network, however, these linear features would have water bars to disperse flows and they would not be hydrologically connected to any stream channel. Existing inboard ditches have cross drains that disconnect the inboard ditch from stream channels. However, the remaining 8 Indicators (Substrate/Sediment, Turbidity, Chemical Concentration - Nutrients, Large wood, Changes in Peak/Base Flows, Road Density and Location, Riparian Reserves and Disturbance History), were determined to necessitate a closer analysis based on literature so they were carried forward for evaluation. In addition, the Substrate - Sediment and Water Quality - Turbidity indicators were grouped and assessed together to streamline this assessment.  Appendix E-1 provides a dichotomous key for determining and categorizing the status of the indicators of stream and watershed health under the Environmental Baseline.  Appendices E2 – E4 Potential effects of Project implementation is summarized in the Watershed Effects Checklists. The effects of Project PEs and the PE group on anadromous fish habitat Indicators are detailed in this section as follows: Pathway (s) – Indictors HUC Environmental Baseline – description of the current status of those habitat Indicators in the Environmental Baselines for the Action Area Potential Effects: Identifying the causal mechanism of how each of the Project Elements could affect indicators of stream health and watershed condition and function.

Indirect Effects Analysis Framework - Habitat

Water Quality & Habitat Elements- Substrate/Sediment/Turbidity Composite HUC 6 subwatershed(s) - Environmental Baseline: Sediment-Turbidity (At Risk). The deep inner gorge canyon of the Klamath River bisecting the steep upland topography of the Action Area, as well as, the disrupted and sheared nature of much of the bedrock, coupled with high rainfall-runoff effects in the wet Mediterranean climate, combine to affect high rates of mass movement (landsliding) and sediment delivery. Large prehistoric landslides are still evident in all four focal areas. Of these, the Ti Bar earthflow has by far the greatest contemporary activity and concerns for project-related effects. Deep-seated landsliding in the Ti and Rogers Creek focal areas are largely associated with shearing along faults and inner gorge activity. All active shallow landslides, inner

130 Somes Bar Integrated Fire Management Project – Fisheries BA/BE – April 2018

gorges, and areas within earthflows that have past evidence of activity were mapped for this project and included as riparian reserves. Suspended sediment delivery and turbidity in anadromous fish bearing reaches of Ti and Kennedy Creek watersheds remain “At Risk”. Turbidity levels at times within these “composite” watersheds can be high, especially during peak flows, because they drain this highly erosive ground associated with old landslides deposits. It is important to note that there has been a significant amount (~ 40 miles) of road decommissioning in the past 10 years to address the high road densities and chronic sites that contributed to the problem within some of these subwatersheds. However, many of these heavily dissected landscapes are still recovering. Some of these smaller tributaries found within the Project area still produce low-to-moderate amounts of erosion and sedimentation - which results in more frequent, longer-lasting, and more intense turbidity. Substrate: (Not Properly Functioning). High percent fines and embeddedness occur in the Ti and Reynolds Creek subwatershed, putting both of these indicators in the Not Properly Functioning range. The Klamath River mainstem is the primary anadromous fish bearing stream in this composite watershed and it has moderate to high percent fines and embeddedness. Mid-Klamath River corridor - Environmental Baseline: Sediment-Turbidity (At Risk). California has listed the portions of the Klamath River within its jurisdiction from the CA/OR state line to the mouth for impairments due to elevated water temperatures, elevated nutrients, and organic enrichment/low dissolved oxygen. In addition, the lower portion of the Klamath River watershed downstream of the Trinity River, partially within the Yurok Reservation, is listed for sedimentation/siltation impairment. Erosion rates and sediment loading has been increased by anthropogenic disturbances along much of the lower mid-Klamath River and its tributaries that drain the Klamath Mountains in the vicinity of the Project. This portion of the Klamath River becomes turbid during moderate to heavy precipitation events. At times in late winter and spring, the lower mid-Klamath River often becomes quite turbid and stays that way for long periods thereafter. Turbidty in the Klamath River from June through December is primarily the result of soluble organics (such as tannins), algae blooms, and dead organic matter – and not suspended sediments. Substrate: (At-Risk). There are a number of subwatersheds (actual or composite) along the middle Klamath River that have moderate to high CWEs due primarily to high road densities on landforms prone to surface erosion and/or mass-wasting (dormant and active landslides, and the Klamath River canyon inner gorge). Sediment delivery to the Klamath River is elevated from some of these disturbances across the mid-Klamath subbasin, and the increased bedload may be overwhelming sediment transport capacity of the river. The Klamath River sediment regime may also be adversely affected by water diversions and hydropower operation up-river, which decrease the rivers ability to move deposition and cleanse the river bed during “flushing” events.

Potential Effects of the Action Project IDT members developed side boards to minimize surface erosion and the risk of mass wasting at the site scale. Project designs, Watershed PDFs, and BMPs minimize effects through avoidance of unstable areas, adequate buffering of stream courses, minimizing ground disturbances, requiring erosion control measures, and implementing effectiveness monitoring procedures.

131 Somes Bar Integrated Fire Management Project – Fisheries BA/BE – April 2018

Strategic Fire Control Feature PE Group: The proposed action includes the development of strategic control features (adjacent to private property boundaries, roads, and ridges) in order to reintroduce fire on the landscapes and achieve desired effects. The initial establishment and/or reopening of existing Ridgetop Modified Shaded Fuel Breaks and handlines can increase soil disturbance, erosion and generate sediment transport.

Proximity – A total of 16.3 acres and 22.7 acres of riparian will be treated as strategic fire controls within the Ti Creek and Reynolds Creek watersheds, respectively. The closest and only mechanical ground based treatment to anadromous fish habitat, a distance of 360’, is found at Unit 2142 along the Ti River Access Road which crosses the broad Klamath River floodplain. However, manual treatments could occur within a 25’ distance from occupied coho habitat.

Probability – No strategic control features occur within the inner stream riparian area. When fuel loading is determined to be heavy, temporary handlines maybe installed, away from stream banks when necessary, to minimize unintended fire effects. Magnitude – Little ground disturbance within riparian reserves are expected. Delineated riparian buffers will minimize soil erosion to streams associated with establishment of strategic fire control features. Where feasible, pre-existing shaded fuel breaks and handline placements, as well as, natural features such as ridges, rock screes, riparian areas, game trails and vegetation breaks will be utilized. Project element summary: There is negligible risk (insignificant effects) that sediment will be delivered to Project streams from the establishment of strategic control features. The Strategic Control Feature PE Group is neutral (lacks a causal mechanism to change the baseline indicator) to the Sediment-Turbidity and Substrate Indicators.

Fuel Reduction PE Group: The effects of the fuel reduction project may include small, temporary increases in mobilized sediments through ground disturbing activities associated with mechanical, manual, piling and burning treatments. A total of 45 treatment units are located near fish bearing streams within the project. Proximity – Of the 45 treatment units, a total of 19 units that border coho or Chinook occupied habitat have the greatest potential to actually deliver sediment to streams within the project. The closest and only mechanical ground based treatment to anadromous fish habitat is Unit 2142 along the Ti River Access Road at a distance of 360 feet. However, manual treatments will occur within the inner riparian at an estimated distance of 25’ from occupied habitat.

Probability – No mechanical equipment entry is permitted within the inner stream riparian. However, hand crews using chainsaws and loppers will manually thin and clear up to 6 inches diameter trees, and reduce the density of suppressed trees within inner riparian areas. Felling trees within the inner riparian buffer can increase sediment delivery to streams if the thinning is too heavy, and/or too close to a stream course or drainage, and/or implemented on unstable ground or inner gorge, and/or implemented in a wetland area. No overstory tree canopy would be cut within the inner RRs. Slash generated would be hand piled and jackpot burned. In addition, understory burning 132 Somes Bar Integrated Fire Management Project – Fisheries BA/BE – April 2018

will take place on the landscape, taking advantage of natural control features. Ignition for understory burns would not occur within riparian reserves, but prescribe fire would be allowed to back or creep within the area. Magnitude – A total of 126 outer stream riparian acres will be mechanically treated within the Ti and Reynolds watersheds. In addition, all of the various types of riparian reserve that are anticipated to receive manual and prescribe burning treatments equal approximately 2,696 project acres. Project element summary: There is negligible risk (insignificant effects) that sediment will be delivered to Project streams from the fuel reduction treatments. The Fuel Reduction PE Group is neutral to the Sediment-Turbidity and Substrate Indicators. Hazard Tree PE Group: Felling imminent hazard trees can increase sediment delivery to streams if they are found too close to a stream course or drainage, and/or implemented on unstable ground, inner gorge, or forested wetland areas. In the Project, no overstory trees or snags would be cut within the RRs unless absolutely necessary to protect life and property. Proximity – The closest possible hazard trees to steelhead, coho, and Chinook habitat is found within 13 manual treatment units at a an estimated distance of 25 feet.

Probability – Light understory thinning, pruning and burning will occur within inner riparian stream buffers. Some hazard trees may be cut for safety concerns during project implementation. Hazard trees would likely only occur outside of the break in slope of a stream course and those trees would be directionally felled.

Magnitude – The designated inner riparian zones at these sites are expected to adequately buffer stream courses from soil disturbances associated with hazard tree removal. The estimated number of hazard trees within these inner riparian buffers are expected to be very low because of the age of these young stands and understory shrubs found within many of these previously harvested and plantations units.

Project element summary: There is negligible risk (insignificant effects) that sediment will be delivered to stream systems due to hazard tree removal. The Hazard Tree PE is neutral to the Sediment-Turbidity and Substrate Indicators. Landings, Roads and Legacy Sites PE Group: Roads and landings can transport sediment to nearby streams from construction, upgrades, routine maintenance and decommissioning. Within the Action Area, Forest Service ML 1-4 roads will be used and maintained throughout the life of this project. An estimated 160 landings will be utilized. Approximately 4.7 miles of Forest Service Level 1 roads would also be brought into usage as Level 2 roads. New temporary road construction is limited to approximately ½ mile of road. Forest Road 13N14A will require reconstruction of the roadbed and some stream crossings. About 10.4 miles of existing temporary road will be reopened. Furthermore, there are 6 road segments, totally 1.1 miles of legacy sites that will be restored. Proximity – Approximately 48 miles of road will be used within the project boundary. Some of these main routes are in close proximity to occupied coho and Chinook habitat (~300’) but they are arterial roads that are in good condition because of their surface types. Sixteen preexisting landings are found within the outer 80’ buffer of non-fish bearing streams. The development of 30 new landing sites are planned outside of RR.

133 Somes Bar Integrated Fire Management Project – Fisheries BA/BE – April 2018

About ½ mile of new temporary road construction is found outside of fish bearing streams. No new temporary roads or landings will be constructed within Riparian Reserves. Forest Road 13N14A will needed to be reconstructed with new culvert replacements at stream crossings that are found 1 mile from occupied habitat. In addition, the legacy road treatments are located between 1.0 - 1.7 miles from downstream occupied coho and Chinook habitat.

Probability – A maximum number of landings are proposed to allow flexibility for contractors, however, fewer landings may actually be used. As discussed, 16 preexisting landings are within the outer 80’ buffer of streams but they do not have hydrologic connectivity to stream courses. No new landings or temporary roads will be constructed within Riparian Reserves. About ½ mile of new temporary road is projected to be constructed but each road segment is not found within RRs. The highest likelihood of sediment transport to Project streams is during Forest Road 13N14A reconstruction and decommissioning of legacy road treatment sites. Minor sediment effects are anticipated at site scale but the duration is very short term (less than 30 minutes) and the magnitude of impact is typically less than 20 channel widths below the construction site (C. Black, pers. comm., 2017).

Magnitude – The amount of road fill that will be removed from the legacy road site treatments is estimated to be 1,100 cubic yards across 6 different old logging road locations. Based on the post-treatment road decommissioning monitoring results conducted on Forest in the past, on average 3% of the total stream crossing fill volume removed will be lost due to post-treatment erosion and sedimentation. This erosion and sedimentation is mostly a short-term impact that is greatest during the first year after treatment and declines significantly in subsequent years as the rehabilitated stream-crossing site stabilizes. As described, some sediment may be generated from this decommissioning effort, and from anticipated road reconstruction efforts, but it is expected to be a small amount due to existing project minimization measures for reducing sediment. Due to the timing of this work, existing PDFs and BMPs negligible amounts will be delivered to the stream network.

Project element summary: There is negligible risk (insignificant effects) that sediment will be delivered to stream systems due to landings, roads and legacy site restoration. The Landings, Roads and Legacy Sites PE Group is neutral to the Sediment-Turbidity and Substrate Indicators. Water Drafting PE: Water drafting can cause local direct delivery of sediment into the stream and result in turbidity if preventive measures are not in place when accessing a water source and pumping water. Water drafting will conform to NMFS specifications and guidelines as previously described so that sedimentation into streams is less likely to occur. Proximity – Water will be drafted by water tenders and trucks out of 30 “existing” drafting site locations situated close to fuel treatment areas with the implementation of this Project. None of these drafting site locations are found within anadromous stream reaches. In addition, no new drafting sites will be constructed for this project. The closest water drafting sites for water tenders to anadromous fish are located 0.3 miles above the Klamath mainstem at the Whitmore and Five Mile Creek sites along Hwy

134 Somes Bar Integrated Fire Management Project – Fisheries BA/BE – April 2018

96. Water pumps (e.g. Mach 3) and hoses are also typically used near a stream channel to draft water from designated site locations. The distance between these water drafting activities and steelhead, coho, and Chinook salmon habitat is at 25’. Probability – PDFs are expected to be effective in preventing the introduction of any new sediment to the stream channel but drafting actions could dislodge or wash back some existing channel sediment (< 8 ounces per filling) back into the wetted area causing a small amount of localized turbidity. Placing and removing the intake nozzle may also create some brief turbidity (short-term) within a few square feet. Magnitude – No measurable turbidity or increase in fines is expected beyond the immediate drafting site location or the next riffle downstream. Project element summary: There is negligible risk (insignificant effects) that sediment will be delivered to streams from water drafting. The Water Drafting PE will have neutral effects to Sediment-Turbidity Indicators beyond the site scale.

Sediment-Turbidity and Substrate Indicators Summary An implicit assumption relative to watershed effects analysis at larger scales is that if impacts or changes are minimized on-site, then off-site project-related cumulative watershed effects will be largely eliminated (MacDonald 2000). The physical and temporal separation between activities, low probability of sediment moving off site and into streams, and the PDFs that will be implemented, minimize hydrologic connectivity and the risk of surface erosion that could result in fine sediment delivery to the stream system. This Project is also not expected to increase mass wasting processes that deliver course and fine sediments to streams. All of the PE groups described above have slight negative effects on the Substrate and Sediment-Turbidity Indicator in the short term and these effects are expected to only be detectable at the site. Due to the limited amounts of sediment that can enter streams, steam mixing, dilution and material sorting, increases in turbidity will be insignificant. In addition, aggregated PEs are not expected to change the functioning levels of the Substrate and Sediment-Turbidity Indicator.

Water Quality- Chemical Contamination/Nutrients HUC 6 subwatershed(s) - Environmental Baseline: (Properly Functioning). Water quality in terms of chemical contamination/nutrients in anadromous fish bearing reaches of Ti Creek and Reynolds Creek subwatersheds are within the Properly Functioning range. Mid-Klamath River corridor - Environmental Baseline: (At Risk). The Klamath River is listed under US-EPA Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act as exceeding TMDLs for nutrients largely from municipal, industrial, and non-point sources such as agricultural return flows from irrigated crop and livestock production and from flow modifications and water withdrawals. The excess nutrients are both organic and inorganic, and can be chemicals such as fertilizers. Chemical contamination can reasonably be expected to accompany municipal, industrial, and agricultural return flows. Potential Effects of the Action The sources for chemical contamination of the aquatic environment from project activities are related to petroleum products (diesel, gas, and lubricants) used to fuel and lubricate equipment. As described, all fueling and servicing actions of equipment and, in particular, specify that all

135 Somes Bar Integrated Fire Management Project – Fisheries BA/BE – April 2018

refueling and maintenance of vehicles will occur outside of the Riparian or drainage feature, and that spill containment systems will be in place at service landings, and other places as necessary. All PEs and PE Groups have the potential for chemical contamination of the soil and/or water because all these elements use machines that need lubrication and use internal combustion engines - from chainsaws to drip torches to water tenders and trucks. Strategic Fire Control Feature PE Group: The proposed action includes the development of strategic control features such as ridgetop shaded fuel breaks and handlines which will require the use of mechanical equipment and hand tools that can spill or leak during operations. Proximity – The closest and only mechanical ground based treatment to anadromous fish habitat is found at Unit 2142, a distance of 360’. If deemed necessary, manual treatments could occur within a 25’ distance from occupied coho habitat.

Probability – Temporary handlines maybe installed with chainsaws and other hand tools, away from stream banks when necessary to minimize unintended fire effects, but these instances are expected to be infrequent. However, handpile burning of fuels using a drip torch will occur. Magnitude – The area of strategic fire controls where heavy equipment usage could occur within the outer riparian is estimated to be about 39 acres within Ti and Reynolds watersheds. Only manual treatments could occur within delineated inner riparian buffers. Also, natural features will be utilized as strategic controls (ridges, rock screes, game trails and vegetation breaks) as much as possible. Project element summary: Operation of mechanical equipment will not be permitted within the inner riparian stream buffer. Refueling and servicing of equipment can only occur outside of the RR. Some petroleum leaks or spills could be triggered by hand crews when using chainsaws and drip torches within the inner riparian but proposed PDFs and BMPs will reduce the potential impact. There is negligible risk (insignificant effects) that petroleum products will be delivered to Project streams from the establishment of these strategic control features. The Strategic Control Feature PE Group is neutral to the Chemical Contamination/Nutrient Indicators. Fuel Reduction PE Group: Fuel reduction treatments will occur with heavy equipment operators (within the outer RR) and hand crews using power tools (within both the inner and outer riparian). Petroleum products, either through spills or leaks, could enter the stream network resulting from these proposed activities. Proximity – A total of 19 fuel reduction treatment units are situated near coho or Chinook streams which have the greatest potential to impact these species and their associated habitat from chemical contamination. One mechanical ground based treatment unit (#2142) is located next to occupied habitat (360’) along the Klamath River mainstem. The remaining treatments are manual applications which are at an estimated distance of 25’ from occupied habitat within the inner riparian zone.

Probability – No mechanical equipment entry is permitted within the inner stream riparian. Hand crews will use chainsaws and loppers to manually thin and small diameter trees within the inner riparian. Slash generated would be hand piled and jackpot burned. Felling trees and burning near streams could increase the potential of petroleum products

136 Somes Bar Integrated Fire Management Project – Fisheries BA/BE – April 2018

reaching these areas. Magnitude – During normal operation of a chainsaw or drip torch, environmental contamination can occur from bar oil or gas that is sprayed out. Spills during refueling and re-oiling will be minor and infrequent (a few grams of either gas /oil mix or bar oil per spill). Most of the gas in the small gas/oil mix spills will largely vaporize into the air rather than soaking into the soil but will leave an oily residue. Some of the mix will be left on vegetation, duff, or soil in the treatment areas and even could be later burned with subsequent treatments. Intermittent, residues left behind by gas/oil mixture are expected, for the most part, to vaporize and/or be broken down biologically on vegetation or the ground surface, or in the first inch or so of soil. Project operations would adhere to all PDFs and BMPs pertaining to containment and prevention of all petroleum product spills from reaching water bodies.

Project element summary: Some unknown minor amount of a petroleum products may get onto ground but there is a negligible risk (insignificant effects) that it will be delivered to Project streams from the fuel reduction treatments. The Fuel Reduction PE Group is neutral to the Chemical Contamination/Nutrient Indicators. Hazard Tree PE Group: In the Project area, no overstory trees or snags would be cut within the RRs unless absolutely necessary to protect life and property. Cutting these imminent hazard trees within the inner riparian can increase the possibility of petroleum products to reach streams if they are found near stream courses. Proximity – The closest potential hazard trees to steelhead, coho, and Chinook habitat is estimated to be a distance of 25 feet.

Probability – Some of these imminent hazards maybe within riparian areas and need to be cut with chainsaws due to their potential to cause property damage, personal injury or fatality in the event of a failure. During use of a chainsaw, contamination can occur from gas or bar oil that is sprayed out into the wood during usage. Refueling and re-oiling will take place outside of the RR.

Magnitude – A small amount of hazard trees have the potential of being cut within these inner riparian buffers because of these existing young stand types found within previously harvested and plantations units. Potential effects from chemical contamination associated with hazard tree removal within RRs will be prevented and minimized through implementation of spill plans and BMPs. Project element summary: Petroleum products that maybe delivered to streams that could expose any life stage of Coho salmon is extremely unlikely to occur (discountable) from hazard tree removal. The Hazard Tree PE will have neutral effects to Chemical Contamination Indicator. Landings, Roads and Legacy Sites PE Group: Utilization of roads and landings by heavy equipment and vehicles can provide a means for chemical contamination to occur. Proximity – Approximately 48 miles of road will be used within the project boundary. Some of these main routes are in close proximity to occupied coho and Chinook habitat (~300’) but they are arterial roads that are in good condition because of their surface types. Sixteen preexisting landings are found within the outer 80’ buffer of non-fish bearing streams. The development of 30 new landing sites are planned outside of RR. 137 Somes Bar Integrated Fire Management Project – Fisheries BA/BE – April 2018

Probability – Most spills occur during refueling and servicing. Since equipment will be serviced outside of RRs and at least 200 feet from any drainage feature, there is less risk that petroleum products could reach a stream course. Spill plans, watershed PDFs and BMPs will be implemented to prevent and minimize the probability of chemical contamination related to landings, roads or legacy site treatments from entering the stream network, either through spills or leaks.

Magnitude – Fuel, oil and grease drips from vehicles and chippers operating on roads will be infrequent, minor and dispersed. PDFs are expected to be effective in preventing hydrologic connectivity between treatment areas and surface waters so contamination of streams via surface flow is unlikely.

Project element summary: There is negligible risk (insignificant effects) that petroleum products will be delivered to stream systems due to landings, roads and legacy site restoration. The Landings, Roads and Legacy Sites PE Group is neutral to the Chemical Contamination/Nutrient Indicators. Water Drafting PE: This Project element could involve using water pumps (eg. Mach 3) by hand crews or the operation of water trucks/tenders pulling up and filling at nearby stream courses. Proximity – In some project locations, water tenders could operate directly adjacent to nearby stream courses. However, vehicles would have to park on existing roads and established staging areas within the project footprint. An estimated 30 water drafting site locations for tenders have been identified for usage and none are found within anadromous stream reaches. The closest water drafting location for water tenders to occupied anadromous fish are found at the Whitmore and Five Mile Creek sites along Hwy 96 which are about 0.3 miles above the Klamath mainstem. Water pumps and hoses are also typically used by hand crews near a stream channel to draft water from various site locations. The distance between these water drafting activities and steelhead, coho, and Chinook salmon habitat is 25 feet. Probability – There is minimal risk that fuels will spill into a stream during re-fueling or servicing because these activities will occur outside of the RR and/or stream channel. In addition, spill containment and hazardous cleanup measures will be in place and adhered for the project. However, drips of oil, grease and gas from water tenders or pumps are possible. Magnitude – Drips of oil, gas, and grease from water tenders and pumps, either through spills or leaks, may be washed into a stream but implementing project spill plans and BMPs should prevent or minimize the probability of hazardous runoff.

138 Somes Bar Integrated Fire Management Project – Fisheries BA/BE – April 2018

Project element summary: Petroleum products from vehicles, pumps and other equipment that could expose any life stage of Coho salmon is extremely unlikely to occur (discountable). The Water Drafting PE will have neutral effects to Chemical Contamination Indicator.

Chemical Contamination Indicator Summary The Water Drafting and Hazard Tree PEs are extremely unlikely to occur (discountable) in project stream-side locations where they could expose any life stage of Coho salmon to petroleum products. All other remaining PEs could leave minor oil residues (widely spaced drips from equipment and/or oil residue from spilled chainsaw or drip torch fuel/oil mix) left on the ground. These PEs are assumed to have a slight negative effect on water quality that is not expected to change the Chemical Contamination Indicator singly or in aggregation. It is unknown but assumed that there will be no detectable oil residues downstream in anadromous fish habitat or that undetectable levels will not adversely affect salmon and trout.

Habitat Element - Large Woody Debris (LWD) HUC 6 subwatershed(s) - Environmental Baseline: (At Risk). LWD levels are low within the Ti Creek and Reynolds subwatersheds because of past timber harvest practices. Timber was harvested within RRs and plantations were “established” in large areas which extended across the inner gorge and existing stream channels. Previous harvests date back at least 50 years and those trees are still relatively young. Most trees in the riparian and upslope portions of the Project areas are overstocked and average height of trees is well below site potential. Stream RRs need treatment to promote forest health, and reduce competition, and/or less vigorous individuals. Mid-Klamath River corridor - Environmental Baseline: (At Risk). The broad floodplain of the Klamath River is so wide, even whole trees with rootwads attached, seldom stay in the channel very long before being transported downstream. Therefore, current levels of LWD in the Klamath River are probably not greatly decreased from historic levels. However, the potential for future LWD recruitment to the river has been significantly reduced because trees within or adjacent to the RR are more accessible to the public near Highway 96 that closely parallels much of the mainstem within the inner gorge. County, state, federal road construction and maintenance practices have removed trees from RRs and decreased the potential for future LWD to the river. LWD recruitment from Klamath River face drainages and tributaries is reduced due to past timber harvest and the Klamath River Highway. These roads also provide access for un-authorized removal of LWD (including firewood) from RRs. Potential Effects of the Action Large woody debris recruitment into stream channels of the Klamath Mountains is typically from two main sources: (1) recruitment from the adjacent stream areas found on each side of the floodplain channel, and (2) from mass wasting and debris flow events that deliver wood downstream. The Strategic Fire Control PE group, Hazard Tree PE, Landing/Roads/Legacy Site Treatments PE Group and Water Drafting PE Group will not alter vegetation within inner RRs. Therefore, these PEs have no causal mechanism to affect the LWD in the short term or long term and will have neutral effects to the Indicator. The Fuel Reduction PE may cause effects related to LWD and therefore, it is further discussed below.

139 Somes Bar Integrated Fire Management Project – Fisheries BA/BE – April 2018

Fuel Reduction PE Group: The Project will obtain a set of core objectives important to address fuel reduction such as: reduction of surface fuels, increasing the height to live crown, decreasing crown density, and retaining large trees of fire–resistant and culturally significant species. The potential effects to the species and their habitat for the Action Area were carefully evaluated since this project spans multiple watersheds. Treatments involve manual, mechanical and prescribed fire treatments over the next 15 years. Thirteen percent (4,487 acres) of the 34,611 acre Reynolds Creek watershed, and 8% (1,045 acres) of the 13,623 acre Ti Creek watershed are within the project.

Proximity – Trees will be thinned, pruned and later burned adjacent to perennial and intermittent streams within the project riparian. These activities in RRs could occur within 25′ directly adjacent to steelhead, coho, and Chinook salmon habitat.

Probability – Trees to be thinned and pruned in RRs are understory shrubs that are small diameter (< 6″). Thinning and removing these trees will have minor effect on quantity of LWD in the stream channel if they were to fall towards the stream now or in the near future (short term). Thinning these dense trees in the RRs reduces competition and helps remove less vigorous individuals. Follow-up burning efforts will also increase the growth and health of residual trees, and improves the prospects of future LWD recruitment (long term) to these stream channels.

Magnitude – A total of 3,016 project acres will be treated in riparian reserves found within the Ti and Reynolds watersheds. Plantations and previously harvested units, comprise a large amount of these treatments and most predate the Northwest Forest Plan and the Klamath and Six Rivers LRMPs. The Project would reduce stand density, ladder fuels, potential for crown fire initiation, and the future risk of catastrophic fire damage. It will not retard development of future LWD in the short term or long term but will instead accelerate growth and protect survival of residual native trees that could supply LWD in the future.

Project element summary: The Fuels Reduction PE Group will have neutral effect on the LWD Indicator in the action area in the short term, but would provide a positive effect (immeasurable beneficial effect) in the long-term. The Fuels Reduction PE Group will have neutral effects to LWD Indicator.

LWD Indicator Summary The Strategic Fire Control, Hazard Tree, Landing/Roads/Legacy Site Treatments and Water Drafting PE Groups will not alter vegetation within inner RRs. Therefore, these PEs have no causal mechanism to affect the LWD Indicator. The Fuels Reduction PE Group will have neutral effects to LWD in the short term but will have positive effects (immeasurable beneficial effect) in the long term. The Fuels Reduction PE Group will have neutral effect to the LWD Indicator.

Flow/Hydrology- Peak and Base Flows HUC 6 subwatershed(s) - Environmental Baseline: (At Risk). The majority of landowners that have property within the Project boundary divert and acquire water from nearby streams in their local area. In addition, past large scale regeneration forestry and fire suppression may have changed the flow regime in some subwatersheds, possibly having increased peak flows and decreased base

140 Somes Bar Integrated Fire Management Project – Fisheries BA/BE – April 2018

flows due to roads, landings, extensive young even age stands, not fully recovered plantations, and extensive, densely forested areas. Mid-Klamath River corridor - Environmental Baseline: (Not Properly Functioning). The flow regime in the Mid-Klamath River has been altered by water diversions and hydropower operations. Adverse changes in flow regime has resulted in less water in the spring-summer when juvenile anadromous salmonids need to migrate to the ocean or access off-channel habitats, and less water in fall when fish in the mainstem Klamath River have the greatest need for water during their migrational period. Changes in flow levels caused by diversions and hydropower operations can cause fish stranding, and reduction of size and access to floodplain refugias. Decreases in stream flow can result in impaired water quality. Low flows can cause crowding which increases incidence of disease transmission. Chronic lack of flushing flows hinders the rivers ability to transport sediment and renew its streambed and lotic areas. In flood conditions, peak flows in the Klamath River may be elevated from roads and timber harvest throughout the Klamath Basin, and/or emergency releases from upstream dams which increases channel scour and streambank erosion during flood or near-flood river stages. Potential Effects of the Action Peak and base flows in the 6th field subwatersheds are determined primarily by: (1) amount of disturbed ground including roads, landings, vegetation removal, (2) degree of compaction of disturbed ground, (3) degree of regrowth of vegetation, if any, on roads, harvested areas, and other disturbed ground, (4) degree of hydrologic connectivity of disturbed and/or compacted ground, (5) changes in water demand caused by changes to vegetation from past timber harvest and/or fire suppression, and (6) water diversions. The primary factors determining peak and base flows in the mid-Klamath mainstem portion of the project are a result of water diversions and regulated flows coming into the river from agriculture and power production in the upper Klamath basin. The Strategic Fire Control PE group, Hazard Tree PE, Landing/Roads/Legacy Site Treatments PE Group and Fuels Reduction PE Group will have no effect on TES anadromous fish and their habitat related to existing peak and base flows. Therefore, these PEs have no causal mechanism and neutral effects to the Indicator. The Water Drafting PE, however, may cause effects related to peak/base flows and therefore, it is further discussed below. Water Drafting PE: Water drafting reduces streamflow (water diversion).

Proximity – Water will be drafted out of 30 existing site location areas by water tenders situated close to fuel treatments during the implementation of the project. In some locations, water trucks could operate directly adjacent to a stream on existing roads and established staging areas. The closest water drafting location for water tenders to occupied anadromous fish are found at the Whitmore and Five Mile Creek sites along Hwy 96 which are about 0.3 miles above the Klamath mainstem. Water pumps and hoses are also typically used by hand crews near a stream channel to draft water from various site locations. The distance between these water drafting activities and steelhead, coho, and Chinook salmon habitat is 25 feet.

Probability – Water drafting will occur at designated site locations outside of anadromous reaches. Water drafting will occur only at sites that are approved by the Forest Service and that

141 Somes Bar Integrated Fire Management Project – Fisheries BA/BE – April 2018

can meet PDFs. PDFs, including NOAA Fisheries water drafting standards, will limit the rate, timing, and duration of water withdrawals so that reduction in flow volume is negligible. Magnitude – PDFs are expected to be fully effective in preventing detectable changes in flows in anadromous fish range and habitat downstream.

Project element summary: Water drafting will have a slight negative effect on stream flow in the short term but will not cause the Peak/Base Flow Indicator to change in the long term. The Water Drafting PE will have neutral effect to the Peak/Base Flows Indicator.

Peak and Base Flows Indicator Summary Water drafting is the only PE that will affect the peak or base flows Indicator. Water drafting will have extremely slight negative effect to base flow each time water is drafted, however, no detectable changes in flow are expected in anadromous salmonid habitat found downstream from drafting sites. The Water Drafting PE will have neutral effect to the Peak/Base Flows Indicator.

Watershed Condition- Road Density and Location HUC 6 subwatershed(s) - Environmental Baseline: (At Risk). Both project subwatersheds have moderate road densities with sections of road constructed on dormant and active landslide terrain, and smaller segments of road next to streams and/or within an inner gorges. Many of the highest risk roads have been decommissioned in the Project Area dating back to 2001 and overall road densities have been reduced per square mile of watershed. Currently, both project subwatersheds are below Threshold of Concern for risk of unacceptable watershed effects resulting from management related increase in peak flows. Mid-Klamath River corridor - Environmental Baseline: (At Risk). Some of the large mid- Klamath tributaries have valley bottom roads and/or segments of road that are found within the inner gorge. There is moderate increase in drainage network within Klamath River tributaries and the corridor due to the density of roads and their close proximity to streams. There is localized disturbance associated with established public vehicular river accesses every three to ten miles along this river corridor – plus private and un-official roads bisecting adjacent riparian areas. Highway 96 does undercut the lower toe of side slopes along the Klamath River inner gorge for most of its length. Much of the road found along the mainstem is located on inherently unstable or potentially unstable terrain associated with the actively eroding inner gorge of the Klamath River canyon. Roads in these locations greatly increase surface erosion rates and the frequency and severity of mass wasting. Runoff and erosion from inner gorge roads is often hydrologically connected to the river. Potential Effects of the Action The Project is expected to utilize about 48 miles of road. Road construction, upgrades, routine maintenance and decommissioning will occur throughout the life span of this project. Within the Action Area, Forest Service ML 1-4 roads will be used and maintained. Approximately 4.7 miles of Forest Service Level 1 roads would also be brought into usage as Level 2 roads. New temporary road construction is limited to approximately ½ mile of road. Forest Road 13N14A will require reconstruction of the roadbed and some stream crossings. About 10.4 miles of existing temporary road will be reopened. Furthermore, there are 6 road segments, totally 1.1 miles of legacy sites that will be restored.

142 Somes Bar Integrated Fire Management Project – Fisheries BA/BE – April 2018

The Strategic Fire Control PE group, Hazard Tree PE, Fuels Reduction PE Group and Water Drafting PE will have no effect on TES anadromous fish and their habitat related to road density and location. Therefore, these PEs have no causal mechanism and neutral effects to the Indicator. The Landings/Roads/Legacy Site Treatments PE Group, however, may cause effects related to road density and location so it is further discussed below. Landings, Roads and Legacy Sites PE Group: Landings will not be carried forward for this analysis but the 48 road miles that could potentially be utilized will be assessed and discussed below. Proximity – Some main arterial roads are in close proximity to occupied coho and Chinook habitat (~300’). No new temporary roads will be constructed within Riparian Reserves. Forest Road 13N14A will needed to be reconstructed with new culvert replacements at stream crossings that are found 1 mile from occupied habitat. In addition, the legacy road treatments are located between 1.0 - 1.7 miles from downstream occupied coho and Chinook habitat.

Probability – Approximately 4.7 miles of Level 1 roads are expected to access mechanical, manual and prescribed fire units. These roads would be brought up to ML 2 standards when needed to facilitate entry into these treatment areas. About 8.1 miles of existing temporary roads and 2.3 miles of existing mastication access roads will also be utilized. A total of 0.6 miles of new temporary roads will be constructed outside of riparian reserves. About 1.1 miles of legacy road will be restored.

Magnitude – There will only be a small amount (0.6 miles) of new temporary road constructed for this project. In the long term, there will be a beneficial effect because the project will reduce 1.1 miles of legacy road sediment sources along 6 different routes. Excavation would take place at 9 different stream crossings, and would store in stable locations about 1,100 cubic yards of sediment causing a beneficial effect to downstream fish and their habitat. . Project element summary: There is short term negative and a long term positive effect anticipated from project roads and future legacy logging road site treatments. The Landings, Roads and Legacy Sites PE Group is neutral to the Road Density and Location Indicator.

Road Density and Location Indicator Summary The Landings, Roads and Legacy Sites PE Group will have a negative effect from road density and location in the short term but will have positive effects (immeasurable beneficial effect) in the long term resulting from the removal of 1,100 cubic yards of sediment during road decommissioning. Overall, the Landings, Roads and Legacy Sites PE Group will have neutral effect to the Road Density and Location Indicator.

Watershed Condition – Disturbance History HUC 6 subwatershed(s) - Environmental Baseline: (Not Properly Functioning). Large proportions of the Project subwatersheds have been disturbed from previous 40 to 50 year old logging practices and road building efforts, often in areas now considered to be stream riparian reserves or geologic

143 Somes Bar Integrated Fire Management Project – Fisheries BA/BE – April 2018

RRs. Existing disturbance history and condition of riparian reserves is discussed in detail in the Ishi Pishi Ecosystem Analysis (USDA 1998) and this BE/BA analysis. Mid-Klamath River corridor - Environmental Baseline: (At Risk). Most of the subwatersheds (actual or composite) along the mid-Klamath River have moderate CWEs due primarily to high road densities on highly erosive soils. Some of the road construction along the Klamath River corridor are concentrated in unstable or potentially unstable terrain. The Klamath River Highway (State Route 96) closely parallels the lower mid-Klamath River for most of its length and many miles of its length is constructed on unstable ground and/or within the actively eroding Klamath River canyon inner gorge – which has resulted in accelerated fluvial erosion and mass- wasting. River accesses approximately every 3 to 10 miles apart add an element of disturbance within adjacent floodplain. The mid- Klamath River corridor has been impacted by historic large scale hydraulic and dredge mining operations that have left lasting imprints on the river channel and streambanks. Timber harvest and salvage, and other tree removal operations have occurred in moderate to heavy intensities in the past along within the mainstem as roads were constructed, as mines and homes and towns were built, and as private parcels were cleared and developed. Current levels of new timber harvest and clearing of vegetation along the corridor is minor because: (1) the small portion of ground that is developable has for the most part already been developed and, (2) most of the corridor is National Forest lands that are now managed more for visual quality than for timber harvest as in the past. Fire suppression has altered fire regime, and that has resulted in large scale changes in disturbance regime across the landscape. Potential Effects of the Action Project activities are not expected to measurably increase watershed effects in any of the subwatersheds in the short-term. In the long term, there is an immeasurable beneficial effect because the project will reduce the risk of catastrophic stand-replacing fire on the landscape and the associated negative watershed effects. The project will help reduce surface fuels, increase the height to live crown, decrease crown density, and retain large fire–resistant trees. The fuel treatments will make it less hazardous so fire can be reintroduced to the ecosystem in the long term. Therefore, a neutral effect to the Disturbance History Indicator is expected.

Watershed Condition- Riparian Reserves HUC 6 subwatershed(s) - Environmental Baseline: (At Risk). Large portions of the subwatersheds have been disturbed by past logging and road building. Some of the timber practices were clear cut harvests with no stream buffers. Some of the sites were also prepared for planting, and attempted to establish plantations with primarily off-site pine species. Some of these plantations surround the project areas and are currently in poor health, and many areas overgrown through lack of thinning. However, native trees are regenerating, particularly in the stream buffers. Although the off-site pine is unhealthy and dying the stream buffers are in fair condition. Mid-Klamath River corridor - Environmental Baseline: (At Risk). The health of willow plant communities may have started declining in the mid-1900s due to reductions in stress factors (disturbance) that keep them healthy. Since this time, the disturbance regime affecting willow and riparian communities along the Klamath River have been altered by fire suppression, and and water diversions which have decreased the frequency, duration, and magnitude of flushing flows (mainly due to water withdrawals in the spring). The magnitude of peak stream flow events may be increased due to hydrologic connectivity with compacted, paved, and areas with recent timber

144 Somes Bar Integrated Fire Management Project – Fisheries BA/BE – April 2018

harvest and/or roads throughout the basin; sometimes coupled with emergency releases from the dams. Disturbance regime may have changed from annual large sustained peak flows to infrequent very high peak flows with long periods in between without flushing flows. Base flow is lower in spring and summer than historical conditions due to water withdrawals. Changes in flow regime affect substrate, LWD, off-channel habitat, streambank condition, floodplain condition, and particularly the type, amount, and distribution of riparian vegetation that grows streamside, in off-channel areas, and elsewhere on river bars. Noxious weed species have invaded many river bar areas. As mentioned previously, Highway 96 closely parallels the mid- Klamath River for most of its length. Some of the road along the corridor is within the stream buffer RR and/or on unstable or potentially unstable terrain. Road sections in these locations greatly increase surface erosion rates and the frequency and severity of mass wasting. Potential Effects of the Action Implementation of the project will not impact RRs in the short-term because vegetation disturbance in RRs is limited to light thinning, piling and low intensity burning. In the long term, there is an immeasurable beneficial effect because the project will reduce the risk of stand-replacing fire on the landscape and the associated negative watershed effects. The fuel treatments will make it less hazardous so fire can be reintroduced into the ecosystem throughout this project landscape. A neutral effect to the Riparian Reserve Indicator is expected.

145 Somes Bar Integrated Fire Management Project – Fisheries BA/BE – April 2018

Appendix E-1 Fire History

Appendix G1. Fire History Map of the Somes Bar Integrated Fire Management Project.

146 Somes Bar Integrated Fire Management Project – Fisheries BA/BE – April 2018

Appendix E-2 Sixth-Field HUC Analysis:

Efficiency Measures and Refinement of Analysis Each project element was run through the Proximity, Probability and Magnitude criteria previously described to determine where impacts on a particular indicator may occur (from the Analytic Process, NMFS 2004). Using these criteria, all of the three project analysis watersheds (Ti, Reynolds and Boise Creek Watersheds) were considered for exclusion from further analysis and consultation. Project related fuel treatments and their associated connected actions were evaluated to determine if they had no effect based on the proximity of the proposed work to anadromous habitat, the probability (likelihood) that species or their habitat downstream would be exposed or affected by fuel treatments, and if the magnitude or severity and intensity of those treatments would be either positive or negative.

The potential effects to the species and their habitat for the entire action were carefully evaluated since this project spans multiple watersheds. Following this review, it was determined that the Boise Creek watersheds within the project footprint should be excluded because none of the Project Elements would cause either a beneficial or a negative effect to listed anadromous salmonids. The fuel treatment activities are not proximal, therefore, they have no causal mechanism for an effect to occur to TES anadromous fish and their habitat. The rationale for this decision is based upon the following:

A. Boise Creek subwatershed is a total of 31,343 acres B. 120 acres (0.4% of project) are within the Somes Bar Integrated Fire Management Area C. Project units are located within mid-to-upper slopes away from occupied fish habitat D. Suitable fisheries habitat limited- only within lower Natuket and Donahue Flat Creeks E. Unit distances (> 1.2 miles) to downstream occupied salmonid habitat in river miles F. 8.7 acres of mechanical ground based treatments within the outer 80’ RR G. No ridgetop modified shaded fuel breaks H. No new temporary roads or new landing construction I. No proposed legacy site road treatments J. Established water drafting sites exist outside of occupied anadromous fish habitat K. Total existing & predicted Equivalent Roaded Acres (before & after treatment) is 0.8% L. Watershed threshold of concern is 13.7%

As a result of this additional review, it was further determined that the Ti and Reynolds Creek watersheds should be carried forward into the following effects analysis. These watersheds are proximal to fuel treatment activities and both of the areas have some level of probability for a beneficial or negative effect. The Klamath National Forest Matrix of Pathways and Indicators (see Appendix E-1 below) serves as the basis to identify and document the current condition of a project watershed and aquatic habitat within that watershed. These documented existing conditions are termed the “Environmental Baseline”. Expected effects of project implementation on Environmental Baselines for the project watersheds and analysis area are summarized in the “Effects Checklists” (Appendices E-2 through E-4). The project area is found within the Ti Creek and the Reynolds Creek composite watersheds, both 6th field subwatersheds within the lower-middle Klamath River analysis area.

147 Somes Bar Integrated Fire Management Project – Fisheries BA/BE – April 2018

Appendix E-3 Klamath National Forest Tributaries Matrix of Factors and

Indicators:

Factors Indicators Properly Functioning At Risk Not Properly Functioning

Water 1 Temperature (1) Quality: 1st - 3rd Order Streams 69 F degrees or less > 69 to 70.5 degrees F > 70.5 degrees F [instantaneous] 4th-5th Order Streams [7 70.5 degrees F or less > 73.5 degrees F > 70.5 to 73.5 degrees F Day Maximum] ~ 21.4 C ~ 23.0 C Sediment - Turbidity (2) Turbidity Low Turbidity Moderate Turbidity High Moderate levels of Low levels of contamination High levels of contamination contamination from from agriculture, industrial, from agriculture, industrial, agriculture, industrial, and Chemical/Nutrient and other sources; no excess and other sources; high levels other sources; some Contamination (3) nutrients. No Clean Water Act of nutrients. More than one excess nutrients. One (CWA) 303d designated CWA 303d designated reach. CWA 303d designated reaches. reach. Any man-made barriers Any man-made barriers Any man-made barriers present in watershed do present in watershed do not Habitat Access: present in watershed allow not allow upstream and/or Physical Barriers (3) allow upstream and/or upstream and downstream downstream passage at downstream passage at a passage at all flows. base/low flows. range of flows.

15% or greater fines (<2 Less than 15% fines (<2 mm) Greater than 20% fines (<2 mm) in spawning habitat in spawning habitat (pool tail- mm) in spawning habitat (pool (pool tail-outs, low Habitat outs, low gradient riffles, and tail-outs, low gradient riffles, Substrate (4) gradient riffles, and glides) Elements: glides) and cobble and glides) and cobble and/or cobble embeddedness less than 20%. embeddedness greater than embeddedness is 20% or 25%. greater. 20 pieces or less of large More than 20 pieces of large Less than 20 pieces of large wood (>24 inches in wood (>24 inches in diameter wood (>24 inches in diameter diameter and > 50 feet in and > 50 feet in length) per and > 50 feet in length) per length) per mile OR Large Woody Debris (5) mile AND current riparian mile AND current riparian current riparian vegetation vegetation condition near site vegetation condition well condition below site potential for recruitment of below site potential for potential for recruitment of large woody debris. recruitment of large woody large woody debris. debris.

At least 1 pool every 3 to At least 1 pool every 3 to 7 7 bankfull channel widths. bankfull channel widths. These pools should Less than 1 pool every 7 These pools should occupy at occupy at least 50% of the bankfull channel widths Pool Frequency and least 50% of the low-flow low-flow channel width. and/or less than half of the Quality (4) channel width and all have a At least half of the pools pools have a maximum depth maximum depth of at least 36 have a maximum depth of of at least 36 inches. inches. at least 36 inches.

Backwaters with cover, and Some backwaters and Few or no backwaters or off- Off-channel Habitat (3) low energy off-channel areas high energy side channel ponds. (ponds, oxbows, etc.). channels. Habitat refugia exist but Habitat refugia exist and are are not adequately adequately buffered (e.g. by buffered (e.g. by intact Refugia (important intact RRs); existing refugia RRs); existing refugia are remnant habitat for Adequate habitat refugia do are sufficient in size, number insufficient in size, sensitive aquatic not exist. and connectivity to maintain number and connectivity species) (3) viable populations or sub- to maintain viable populations. populations or sub- populations. 1See explanation of footnotes at end of table.

148 Somes Bar Integrated Fire Management Project – Fisheries BA/BE – April 2018

Appendix E-1 (con’t). Klamath National Forest Tributaries Matrix of Factors and Indicators: Factors Indicators Properly Functioning At Risk Not Properly Functioning More than 25% of the W/D ratio < 12 on all reaches More than 10% of the reaches reaches are outside of the that could otherwise best be are outside of the ranges given ranges given for described as ‘A’, ‘G’, and ‘E’ for Width/Depth ratios for the Width/Depth ratios for the Channel channel types. W/D ratio > 12 channel types specified in channel types specified in Condition on all reaches that could Width/Depth Ratio (6) “Properly Functioning” block. “Properly Functioning” and otherwise best be described as Braiding has occurred in some block. Braiding has occurred Dynamics: ‘B’, ‘F’, and ‘C’ channel types. alluvial reaches as a result of in many alluvial reaches as a No braided streams formed due excessive aggradation due to result of excessive to excessive sediment loads high sediment loads. aggradation due to high sediment loads > 90% stable; i.e., on average, Streambank Condition < 10% of banks are actively 80 - 90% stable < 80% stable (3) eroding. Reduced linkage of wetland, Severe reduction in Off-channel areas are floodplains, and riparian areas to hydrologic connectivity frequently hydrologically main channel; overbank flows between off-channel, wetland, linked to main channel; are reduced relative to historic floodplain, and riparian areas; Floodplain Connectivity overbank flows occur and frequency, as evidenced by wetland area drastically (3) maintain wetland functions, moderate degradation of wetland reduced and riparian riparian vegetation, and function, riparian vegetation/succession altered succession. vegetation/succession. significantly.

Watershed hydrograph indicates Some evidence of altered peak Pronounced changes in peak peak flow, base flow, and flow flow, baseflow and/or flow flow, baseflow and/or flow Flow / Change in Peak/Base timing characteristics timing relative to an undisturbed timing relative to an Hydrology: Flows (3) comparable to an undisturbed watershed of similar size, undisturbed watershed of watershed of similar size, geology, and geography similar size, geology, and geology, and geography. geography. Significant (20-25%) Zero or minimum increases in Moderate (5%) increases in Increase in Drainage increases in drainage drainage network density due to drainage network density due to Network (3) network density due to roads. roads. roads. Two to three miles per square Over 3 miles per square Watershed Road Density and Less than 2 miles per square mile, some valley bottom roads. mile, many valley bottom Conditions: Location (3) mile, no valley bottom roads. roads. < 15% ECA (entire watershed) < 15% ECA (entire watershed) > 15% ECA (entire with no concentration of but disturbance concentrated in watershed) and disturbance disturbance in unstable or unstable or potentially unstable concentrated in unstable or potentially unstable areas, and/or Disturbance History (3) areas, and/or refugia, and/or potentially unstable areas, refugia, and/or riparian area; and riparian area; and for NFP and/or refugia, and/or riparian for NFP area (except AMAs), area (except AMAs), 15% or area; does not meet NFP 15% or more retention of LSOG more retention of LSOG in standard for LSOG retention. in watershed. watershed.

The RR system provides Moderate loss of connectivity or RR system is fragmented, adequate shade, large woody function (shade, LWD poorly connected, or provides debris recruitment, and habitat recruitment, etc.) of RR system, inadequate protection of protection and connectivity in all or incomplete protection of habitat and refugia for subwatersheds, and buffers or habitat and refugia for sensitive sensitive aquatic species includes known refugia for aquatic species (approx. 70-80% (approx. less than 70% Riparian Reserves sensitive aquatic species (> 80% intact), and/or for grazing intact), and/or for grazing (hydrologic) (3) intact), and/or for grazing impacts; percent similarity of impacts; percent similarity of impacts; percent similarity of riparian vegetation to the riparian vegetation to the riparian vegetation to the potential natural potential natural potential natural community/composition 25- community/composition is community/composition > 50%. 50% or better. 25% or less.

149 Somes Bar Integrated Fire Management Project – Fisheries BA/BE – April 2018

Appendix E-1. Klamath National Forest Tributaries Matrix of Factors and Indicators Footnotes to Mid-Klamath River Tributaries Matrix of Pathways and Indicators. The Matrix, as designed, suggests values to determine a level of functioning for anadromous fish bearing streams. A note about rigid values to assess level of functioning: In addition to fixed habitat parameters not allowing for natural variability, they set standards that may be geomorphically inappropriate (Bisson et al. 1997). Variability is an inherent property of aquatic ecosystems in the Pacific Northwest and habitats at any given location will change from year to year, decade to decade, and century to century (Bisson et al. 1997). Healthy lotic ecosystems require different parts of the channel system to exhibit very different in-channel conditions and that those conditions change through time (Reid and Furniss 1998). Therefore, a conclusion of function must be evaluated with professional judgment recognizing the streams capability to perform within rigid values. In some cases, a stream’s morphology, aspect or size may not support “Properly Functioning” criteria values for one or more habitat Indicators. If an Indicator for a particular stream is determined to be functioning at its capability (due to morphology, aspect, or size), it is rated as Properly Functioning even if it doesn’t meet Matrix criteria values. The Klamath Tributaries Matrix of Pathways and Indicators serve as the basis to identify relative baseline conditions and effects.

(1) Temperature: (Stream Order according to Strahler, 1957.) Proper Functioning criteria for 4th -5th Order streams is derived from temperature monitoring near the mouth of streams considered to be pristine or nearly pristine (Clear, Dillon, and Wooley Creeks – 7 day maximum temperatures as high as 70.5 degrees F have been recorded on these streams. At Risk criteria for 4th/5th order streams is derived from monitoring in streams that support populations of anadromous fish, although temperatures in this range (70.5 to 73.5 degrees F) are considered sub-optimal. A not Properly Functioning criterion is sustained temperatures above 73.5 degrees F that cause cessation of growth and approach lethal temperatures for salmon and steelhead. Properly Functioning criteria for 1st - 3rd order streams is derived from Desired Future Conditions (DFC) values given in the KNF LRMP EIS p 3-68. At Risk and Not Properly Functioning are assigned on a temperature continuum with values given for 4th/5th order streams, with the maximum instantaneous temperature of At Risk of 1st - 3rd order streams coinciding with the minimum 7 day maximum of 4th/5th order At Risk streams. Stream Order according to Strahler (1957).

(2) Turbidity: NTU data for streams in the Klamath River system on the Klamath National Forest are not available. Instead, professional judgment is used to describe existing conditions and risk of project-caused sediment production is projected. 1. Properly Functioning: Water clarity returns quickly (within several days) following peak flows. 2. At Risk: Water clarity slow to return following peak flows. 3. Not Properly Functioning: Water clarity poor for long periods of time following peak flows. Some suspended sediments occur even at low flows or baseflow.

(3) Criteria unchanged from NMFS matrix included in KNF LRMP Conference Opinion.

(4) Properly Functioning criteria from KNF LRMP EIS p 3-68. The At-Risk and Not Properly Functioning criteria for existing conditions were based on professional judgment. The post-Project condition is derived from professional judgment. The change to substrate conditions considers the post- Project risk of sediment delivery to streams:

(5) Properly Functioning LWD criteria derived from stream surveys of the North Fork of Wooley Creek ((Salmon River and Dillon Creek Watershed Fish Habitat and Channel Type Analysis, 1998). The reaches

150 Somes Bar Integrated Fire Management Project – Fisheries BA/BE – April 2018 from which criteria were derived support anadromous fish and are considered pristine. At Risk and Not Properly Functioning criteria are based on professional judgment. FEMAT concluded that the probability of wood entering the active stream-channel from greater than one tree high is generally low (FEMAT, page V- 26). A buffer of one site potential tree height on westside streams is needed to fully protect riparian function related to LWD when no harvest is allowed in the buffer (Spence, Page 218, 226.).

(6) The Width to depth ratio for various channel types is based on delineative criteria of Rosgen (1994). Properly Functioning means that Width-to-Depth ratio falls within expected channel type as determined by the other four delineative factors (entrenchment, sinuosity, slope, and substrate). Aggradation on alluvial flats causing braiding is well known phenomenon that often accompanies changes in Width-to- Depth ratio as watershed condition deteriorates. Stream width is a function of streamflow occurrence and magnitude, size and type of transported sediment, and the bed and bank materials of the channel (Rosgen 1996). Channel widths generally increase downstream as the square root of discharge (Leopold et al. 1964). Channel widths can be modified by changes in riparian and upslope vegetation, changes in streamflow regimes, and changes in sediment supply. Mean depth of channels varies greatly by reach under different discharges due to the sequence of riffle and pool bed features. Width-to-depth ratios vary with the dimensions of the channel cross section for a given slope, boundary roughness as a function of streamflow and sediment regime, bank erodibility, degree of entrenchment and the distribution of energy in the stream channel (Rosgen 1996). The Matrix indicates that confined or entrenched channel types (such as A, G, and E types) are Properly Functioning when Width-to-Depth ratios are <12, and wider channel types (such as B, C, and F types) are Properly Functioning when Width-to-Depth ratios are >12. To meet the Properly Functioning criteria channels must also have no or minimal braiding due to excessive sediment.

(7) Forest Service Region 5 uses ERA/TOC to determine the existing risk as well as the risk of adverse effects. The values described below are based on informal discussions between Forest Fisheries Biologist, Alan Olson, ESA Coordinator, Julie Perrochet, and Geologist/CWE model consultant, Don Elder. The group concluded that given the limitations of the model, the difficulty in applying models to a dynamic landscape, and assumptions used to develop the model and data used in the model, there was a potential 20% error factor. Properly Functioning: ERA/TOC is less than 0.80 At Risk: ERA/TOC between .80- 1.20 Not Properly Functioning: ERA/TOC is greater than 1.20

(8) The three components of the KNF CWE model are used to determine conditions and risk to this Indicator. The KNF CWE model components replace use of ECA that was originally identified in the Checklist included in the Biological Opinion for the LRMP because ECA is not used in Forest Service Region 5. Agreed to by Yip and Perrochet (Level 1) April 8, 2003.

151 Somes Bar Integrated Fire Management Project – Fisheries BA/BE – April 2018

Appendix E-4 Ti Creek Watershed CHECKLIST FOR DOCUMENTING ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE AND EFFECTS FOR PROPOSED ACTION (S) ON RELEVANT INDICATORS Somes Bar Integrated Fire Management Project Ti Creek Watershed Composite, 6th Field HUC

ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE EFFECTS OF THE ACTION (S) Not Prop Pathways/Indicators: Properly At Risk Functioning RESTORE MAINTAIN DEGRADE Project Elements Functioning

Water Quality X X Temperature

Sediment – Turbidity ND X

Chemical Contamination ND X

Habitat Access X X Physical Barrier Habitat Elements X X Substrate LWD X X Pool Frequency and X X Quality Off-channel Habitat ------NA------NA------

Refugia X X

Channel Condition & ND X Dynamics (W/D Ratio)

Streambank Condition ND X

Floodplain Condition ------NA------NA------Flow /Hydrology ND X Peak/Base Flow Drainage Net Increase X X

Watershed Condition X X Road Density/Location

Disturbance History X X

Riparian Reserves X X

ND = No Data. Baseline determined primarily by professional judgement. N/A: Not Applicable to this channel type. (See Ishi Pishi / Ukonom Ecosystem Analysis (KNF, 1998) for rationale for environmental baseline).

152 Somes Bar Integrated Fire Management Project – Fisheries BA/BE – April 2018

Appendix E-5 Reynolds Watershed CHECKLIST FOR DOCUMENTING ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE AND EFFECTS FOR PROPOSED ACTION (S) ON RELEVANT INDICATORS Somes Bar Integrated Fire Management Project Reynolds Watershed Composite, 6th Field HUC

ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE EFFECTS OF THE ACTION (S) Not Prop Pathways/Indicators: Properly At Risk Functioning RESTORE MAINTAIN DEGRADE Project Elements Functioning

Water Quality X X Temperature

Sediment – Turbidity ND X

Chemical Contamination ND X

Habitat Access X X Physical Barrier Habitat Elements X X Substrate LWD X X Pool Frequency and X X Quality Off-channel Habitat ------NA------NA------

Refugia X X

Channel Condition & X X Dynamics (W/D Ratio)

Streambank Condition X X

Floodplain Condition ------NA------NA------Flow /Hydrology X X Peak/Base Flow Drainage Net Increase X X

Watershed Condition X X Road Density/Location

Disturbance History X X

Riparian Reserves X X

153 Somes Bar Integrated Fire Management Project – Fisheries BA/BE – April 2018

Appendix E-6 Lower and Middle Klamath – 4th Field CHECKLIST FOR DOCUMENTING ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE AND EFFECTS FOR PROPOSED ACTION (S) ON RELEVANT INDICATORS Somes Bar Integrated Fire Management Project *Lower and middle Klamath River Watershed, 4th Field HUC

ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE EFFECTS OF THE ACTION (S) Not Prop Pathways/Indicators: Properly At Risk Functioning RESTORE MAINTAIN DEGRADE Project Elements Functioning

Water Quality Temp & X Temperature TMDL

Sediment – Turbidity X X Temp & Chemical Contamination X TMDL Hwy 96- Habitat Access Passage X Physical Barrier Assessment Habitat Elements X X Substrate LWD X X Pool Frequency and X X Quality Off-channel Habitat X X

Refugia X X

Channel Condition & X X Dynamics (W/D Ratio) Streambank Condition X X

Floodplain Condition X X Flow /Hydrology X X Peak/Base Flow Drainage Net Increase CWE & PJ X

Watershed Condition CWE & PJ X Road Density/Location

Disturbance History CWE & PJ X

Riparian Reserves X X ND = No Data. Baseline determined primarily by professional judgement. N/A: Not Applicable to this channel type. (See Ishi Pishi / Ukonom Ecosystem Analysis (KNF, 1998) for rationale for environmental baseline).

154 Somes Bar Integrated Fire Management Project – Fisheries BA/BE – April 2018

* = The mid-Klamath River area refers to the stretch of the Klamath River from the confluence of Walker Creek with the Klamath River near the town of Seiad downstream to the confluence with the Salmon River near the town of Somes Bar. The lower mid-Klamath River area refers to the stretch of Klamath River from the Salmon River confluence near Somes Bar downstream to the Trinity River confluence near Weitchepec. For this Matrix, the Klamath River corridor is defined as: the Klamath River channel and associated floodplains and streambanks, as well as all the small face drainages that have less than third-order streams (stream order as given by Strahler, 1957). Legends for abbreviations used in lower- and mid-Klamath River corridor Environmental Baseline matrix: TEMP …….. Last ten years water temperature monitoring by USFS, USFWS, Karuk Tribe, researchers, and others. TMDL …….. These indicators are impaired according to US EPA Clean Water Act Section 303(D) for exceeding allowable Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) of pollution. The Klamath River mainstem is TMDL listed for excessive water temperature and excessive nutrients. IP WA …….. Ishi Pishi / Ukonom Ecosystem Analysis (USFS, 1998). LMK WA …. Lower Middle Klamath Watershed Analysis (USFS, 2003). Fish Passage... Collaborative assessment of fish passage barriers throughout 5 County Region CWE 98 …… Westside CWE Analysis 1998 (USFS, 1998). PJ …………. Professional Judgment and observations based on over 20 years of working as a Fisheries Biologist involved in Klamath River Basin fisheries issues, and local fisheries habitat issues, monitoring, and assessment along the mid-and lower mid-Klamath River.

155 Somes Bar Integrated Fire Management Project – Fisheries BA/BE – April 2018

ATTACHMENT A - BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION

Non Salmonid and Aquatic Forest Service Sensitive Species

Introduction The purpose of this attachment is to review the Western Klamath Restoration Partnership: Somes Bar Integrated Fire Management Project in sufficient detail to analyze the effects on non-salmonid USFS Sensitive aquatic species and their associated habitat that may be affected by Project activities. This Biological Evaluation (BE) follows standards established in the Forest Service Manual direction (FSM 2672.42) (USDA 2005). Current Management Direction No species specific management direction exists, therefore, see previously described SRNF management direction found in Section III. Proposed Action and Action Area The proposed action and action area are described in section IV of this BA/BE and are prepared for National Marine Fisheries Service for salmonid fish species. Species: Environmental Baselines and Species Accounts Anadromous FSS fish species were included in the Biological Assessment portion of this document. In the event that any were proposed for listing under the ESA, the analysis within the document could form the basis for conferencing with National Marine Fisheries Service. The remaining aquatic species are described in the Forest Wide Reference Document dated January 30, 2018.

Species Forest Within Action Area Carried where FSS Forward Western Brook KNF, SRNF Data is limited. Species typically occurs No Lamprey within coastal streams. Current populations are likely small and isolated. No known species presence documented within lower- mid Klamath. Pacific Lamprey KNF, SRNF Yes Yes

Klamath River KNF, SRNF Yes Yes Lamprey

Coastal Run SRNF Coastal-run cutthroat trout do not occupy No Cutthroat Trout habitat found within this portion of the lower-mid Klamath. Chace juga SRNF Extreme rarity. No known populations No (snail) within the lower-mid Klamath Region.

156 Somes Bar Integrated Fire Management Project – Fisheries BA/BE – April 2018

Species Forest Within Action Area Carried where FSS Forward

Pristine SRNF This species of snail occupies habitat within No springsnail small, cold streams, springs or seeps. They are found within the Smith River basin to the north but no known populations exist within the lower-mid Klamath. California Floater SRNF Anodonta sp. (likely A. oregoniensis and A. No (mussel) californiensis) have been identified directly below Iron Gate Dam but very few are known to exist downstream. The potential for the occurrence of California Floater is very rare and unlikely to occur within the lower-mid Klamath.

Species Carried Forward Descriptions of the following species life history and distribution can be found in the Forest-wide Reference document dated April 27, 2016. Pacific Lamprey Quantitative data for Pacific Lamprey is limited, especially concerning their historic distribution, abundance and life history patterns. In the Klamath River there may be at least two distinct runs; a spring run that spawns immediately after the upstream migration and a fall run, which holds over winter and spawns in the following spring (Moyle 2002). Ammocoetes are typically found in backwater areas at all times of the year. Pacific lamprey are known to occupy habitat found within the Klamath River mainstem of the project (Cyr, pers. obs). No known data detailing their range and distribution exists within the miscellaneous tributaries of the project. Klamath River Lamprey Klamath River lamprey are found throughout the Klamath basin, typically in the mainstem (Boyce 2002). Little is known about the habitat requirements within tributaries but like Pacific lamprey, they likely coincide with Chinook and coho salmon, their main prey source. It is presumed that ammocoete larvae have the same basic requirements as Pacific lamprey, living in backwaters with soft substrates. They need cold, clear water for spawning and incubation (Moyle 2002). No known data detailing their range and distribution exists within the miscellaneous tributaries of the project.

Effects: The mainstem Klamath River is primarily affected by the presence of multiple hydropower dams, demands for agricultural water and flow management (Goodman and Reid 2015). Based on the effects analysis for anadromous fish species (Section VII) including design features and locations for water drafting, flows would not be altered. However, there is a slight potential for sediment/turbidity to influence lifestages of Pacific and Klamath River lamprey.

157 Somes Bar Integrated Fire Management Project – Fisheries BA/BE – April 2018

Determination: The proposed action may impact individual Pacific lamprey and Klamath River lamprey, but will not result in a trend towards federal listing or loss of viability. The proposed action would have no effect on the remaining FSS aquatic species.

Literature Cited Boyce, J.C. 2002. Genetic differentiation of lamprey populations within the genus Lampetra as determined by mtDNA control region sequence divergence and allozymes. Humboldt State University, Arcata, California. Goodman, D.H. and S.B. Reid. 2015. Regional Implementation Plan for Measures to Conserve Pacific Lamprey (Entosphenus tridentatus), California - North Coast Regional Management Unit. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Arcata Fish and Wildlife Office, Arcata Fisheries Technical Report Number TR 2015-21, Arcata, California. Moyle, P.B. 2002. Inland fishes of California: revised and expanded. University of California Press, Berkeley. Six Rivers National Forest, 2018. Forest-Wide Reference Document Six Rivers National Forest.

158