biological assessment addendum -...

Elk Late-Successional Reserve Enhancement Project – October 2016 Biological Assessment Addendum

Biological Assessment Addendum Elk Late-Successional Reserve Enhancement Project

Introduction

The purpose of this Biological Assessment Addendum is to document and analyze the summer 2016 detection of a northern spotted owl (NSO) pair in the Elk Late-Successional Reserve Enhancement project area. It includes updated information on gray wolf monitoring in the project area and surrounding areas.

Project Design Feature WL-36 in the April 1, 2016 Final Biological Assessment (BA) states “If a new NSO (non-nesting or nesting) or barred owl detection occurs prior to or during project implementation, technical advice or re-initiation with the FWS will be required” (USDA-FS 2016 p. 33). The US Fish and Wildlife Service’s June 21, 2016 Biological Opinion also states “Detection of any additional NSOs in the action area will require technical assistance or reinitiation with the Service” (p. 6). Prior to the detection of the NSO pair in August 2016, a single subadult male NSO was detected in June 2016. This information was shared with the Service (FWS) and it was incorporated into the Biological Opinion (USDI-FWS 2016 p. 5). The Survey Background section below describes the subsequent NSO survey results for the 2016season. It also summarizes the results of ongoing carnivore monitoring for the project area and Management Unit, and correspondence from the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) regarding gray wolf activity in California.

Under 50 CFR § 402.16, reinitiation of formal consultation is required when discretionary Federal agency involvement or control over the action has been maintained (or is authorized by law) and if: 1) the amount or extent of incidental take is exceeded; 2) new information reveals effects of the action that may affect listed species or critical habitat in a manner or to an extent not previously considered; 3) the action is modified in a manner causing effects to listed species or critical habitat not previously considered; or 4) a new species is listed or critical habitat designated that may be affected by the action. For this project:

1) Incidental take was not issued, and therefore the amount or extent is not exceeded.2) While the NSO pair constitutes new information not previously considered, the effects of the

action on NSO, its habitat and its critical habitat are not changed. This Addendum includes ananalysis of the treatment effects within the new pair’s home range and core ‘use area’.

3) While the action has not been modified in a manner that causes or will cause an effect to a listedspecies or critical habitat not previously considered,1 the project has been changed through theincorporation of an additional protection measure. This additional protection measure andtreatment limitation in the form of a Limited Operating Period (LOP) will restrict noise above

1 The project treatments, as presented in the Final Biological Assessment (BA), have not changed; treatment activities remain the same as described in the BA. Therefore, the general effects of various treatments on NSO habitat, and NSO critical habitat, remain the same as described in the BA.


ambient levels, and habitat altering/smoke-generating activities within 16 treatment units in and outside of the NSO pair’s core ‘use area’. This measure will be incorporated into any timber harvest implementation contracts under stewardship provision G.2.4 (Protection Measures Needed for Plants, Animals, Cultural Resources, and Cave Resources) and any other operating plans.2 This provision specifically permits the Forest Service to contractually prohibit activities within specified areas. This protection measure will effectively postpone treatment in the 16 units and allow the Forest Service to assess how the new pair utilizes, or does not utilize, the area. Specific to the NSO, future planned surveys and additional LOPs (as need is determined) will help to inform the Forest Service of use patterns, and more critically, protect individual animals.3 This protection measure will extend from the date that any implementation contract(s) are issued in fall 2016 through September 15, 2017. If 2017 surveys detect that the pair is nesting or residing outside of the designated protection area, the additional LOP that restrict activities within 0.25 mile of the nest site or use area will be added (as described in Table 6 of the BA, WL-33 and WL-34). If surveys reveal the pair is still occupying the area, additional technical assistance or reinitiation will occur and the measure may extend for an additional year. If surveys show the pair is not present, additional technical assistance will also occur to determine if the protection measure is still warranted. The original LOPs for NSO, gray wolf and other Forest Service sensitive species and habitat resources, as described in the BA and other project analysis documents, will remain in effect during this timeframe and all subsequent project activities. This interim measure is solely intended to provide the new NSO pair some additional protection from direct effects during a potentially vulnerable period and allow the Forest Service, through planned surveys, to determine if the pair remains in the project area, nests, does not nest, or disperses out of the project area.

4) No new species have been listed in the action area, and no new or revised critical habitat designations have occurred in the action area since completion of the Final BA (USDI-FWS 2016a).

Survey Background

The NSO and carnivore survey history within and near the project area, and protocols/methods used, is fully described in the BA (Appendix D, pp. D-10 through D-12). In 2016, the Forest Service continued

2 Force account work by Forest Service or other contracted personnel to conduct piling of surface or activity fuels, or prescribed fire operations, is not expected to begin until completion of mechanical thinning activities (estimated to take three to five years). However, if these actions are permitted to begin prior to completion of mechanical thinning activities, the same protection measure and treatment unit limitation will be discussed with Management Unit fire and fuels personnel and incorporated into respective operating plans. 3 The BA includes and the NEPA analysis incorporated similar protection measures for new discoveries of gray wolf den and rendezvous sites. The same contract provision would be employed if planned future surveys or other best available information is provided to the Forest Service that demonstrates a den or rendezvous site within or near the project area (see project design features in the BA - Table 6, WL-44).


with the three-visit modified spot check surveys and stand searches for NSO in accordance with the January 2012 NSO Survey Protocol and its guidance for annual survey coordination with the FWS and landowners (USDI-FWS 2012 pp. 4-6). The 2016 planned, agreed-to spot check surveys for NSO had not concluded however when the Final BA was submitted to the FWS. The last of these planned surveys occurred on June 9 and resulted in an aural detection of a male NSO. This initial detection, and results of the follow-up survey that confirmed the male NSO was a subadult, was documented in a memo-to-the file and shared with the FWS on June 16. The FWS incorporated this information into the Biological Opinion (USDI-FWS 2016 p. 5).

Subsequent daytime stand searches to monitor the subadult male NSO between June 16 and July 31 resulted in no detections. Based on this, the Forest Service completed a fourth spot check survey in the project area near the June 9 detection area on August 5. The male was aurally detected at Call point 16 (BA Map 5), along with a female NSO during this nighttime calling survey.

A follow-up survey was completed the evening of August 9. The pair was found in the same area where the subadult male was observed on June 10. The Forest Service crew verified the female is an adult (based on tail banding/coloration) and that the male is the same subadult NSO. They were designated as a territorial pair based on detection proximity and per the 2012 survey protocol (USDI-FWS 2012 pp. 24-25; 16.1.1 - Item 1). A second evening visit was completed August 10 and the pair was observed in the same area. Additional visits occurred on September 7 and 15 to confirm the pair was still present. They were not detected on the first visit, but did respond on the second visit. No additional stand searches or spot checks have been completed to date. The Forest Service plans to complete at least two additional daytime stand searches/walking transects near the detection area and the old ST-215 activity center before mid-October, and will resume surveys in late winter/spring 2017 as close to March 15 as feasible (USDI-FWS 2012 p. 8).

Because nesting or non-nesting status cannot be confirmed per protocol guidance, it is considered unknown (USDI-FWS 2012 pp. 26-27). Nesting is unlikely however, given that the subadult male NSO, and the pair, was moused during all follow-up visits and the owls either consumed the mice or ignored them. The subadult male was never observed taking a mouse to the female (Thomas 2016) and no young were observed during the June 10 visit, or latter visits. Neither owl was banded. On August 18, 2016, Robert Feamster (Sierra Pacific Industries wildlife biologist) banded both birds.4 It is likely that the NSO pair is utilizing the area they were detected in due to a higher level of prey base (early seral stands mixed with mid and late seral habitat). No fledglings were observed during any of the follow-up visits or the banding effort by Robert Feamster (Feamster 2016).

The Forest Service notified the adjacent landowners, SPI and Olympic Resource Management, on June 14 and August 8, 2016 of the NSO detections and locations. The California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) was also contacted on August 12 to discuss placement of a new activity center (see below).

4 Upon request of the Forest Service, as SPI is an adjacent landowner and possess a current banding permit.


Monitoring for forest carnivores (fisher, marten, others including gray wolves) has also been ongoing in 2016 and will continue throughout and after project implementation, as described in the BA (pp. 35-36). No confirmed observations of denning/rendezvous site use or individual wolves have occurred in the project area, or on the Management Unit, since completion of the BA. The Forest Service has consistently monitored areas within and surrounding the project area this season (camera stations in proximity to suitable denning/rendezvous site habitats, road surveys) along with other similar surveys on the Management Unit. The FWS provided an update from the CDFW on gray wolf activity in California with the Forest Service on October 7, 2016. The update from CDFW summarized that the Shasta Pack’s location has not been confirmed since fall 2015, and that aside from a detection of one individual animal in May 2016 within the area used by the Shasta Pack in 2015, there have been no other confirmed observations in this area (USDI-FWS 2016b). The CDFW also provided information on other wolf activity in northern California (Lassen County and a report on OR-25). Based on this best available information, combined with the Forest Service’s ongoing monitoring within and near the project area, there are no current confirmed wolf packs or known individuals in or near the project area. (USDI-FWS 2016b).

Consultation and Technical Assistance History to Date

The consultation history from project design through Final BA submittal is included in BA Appendix B. The June 16 memo-to-the-file regarding the subadult male NSO detection was submitted to the FWS after the Final BA. This correspondence was incorporated into the Biological Opinion (USDI-FWS 2016 p. 5) and despite not being included in the Final BA; it is part of the project’s administrative record (USDI-FWS 1998 pp. I-14 to I-15) and consultation. Telephone communications regarding subsequent stand searches and survey results, and in-person discussions regarding the project and additional protection measure(s) are as follows:

• On August 8, Christine Jordan notified Chad Anderson at the Yreka FWS office that a female NSOwas detected during the August 5 nighttime calling effort and that follow-up survey(s) would beconducted.

• On August 12, Jordan and Anderson discussed the survey findings and jointly agreed a new activity center location was warranted. The placement of the new activity center was based on where the subadult male had been initially detected during the June 10 follow-up survey, the August 5 nighttime detection of the male and female, and the location where the territorial pair was detected during follow-up visits on August 9 and August 10 (see Map 1). These owls (either as individuals or as the pair) had not been detected in or near the ST-215 activity center/nest tree or nesting habitat during these surveys/follow-up visits. Jordan shared with Anderson that the Forest Service would prepare an analysis of the new information to address 50 CFR § 402.16.

• Also on August 12, Jordan contacted Kate Keiser at the CDFW to request establishment of a newactivity center at the detection area. Keiser created the activity center in the California Natural


Diversity Database (CNDDB) and issued a new State Identification Number (SIS 0594). The Forest Service’s internal designation of this activity center is ST-227.

• On August 18, Anderson conducted a field review of the detection area units and other portions of the project area.

• On September 7, Anderson, Jordan, Laura Finley (FWS wildlife biologist) and Lee Simons (USFS wildlife biologist) discussed the survey results and new information analysis at the monthly Level 1 meeting. Jordan shared with the group that while a new activity center and core/home range ‘use area’ had been established, none of the project treatments have changed and the effects of the treatments are the same as described in the Final BA. Additional protection measure options were discussed at this meeting, but not solidified.

• On September 15, Anderson and Jordan evaluated options for reducing direct effects from project operations in the short term to the new pair. Jordan and Anderson re-discussed that the project treatments are specifically designed to benefit NSOs over the short and long term by reducing the risk of habitat loss, accelerating habitat development over time, and increasing individual tree and stand resilience to large-scale disturbances. They also re-discussed the project design features, the delineation of Recovery Action 32 stands and unthinned patch areas, and how the treatments in NSO habitat are designed to maintain and promote NSO habitat elements. While these factors have not changed, the new owl pair currently present on the landscape was not evaluated in the BA and constitutes new information. Anderson and Jordan jointly agreed that postponement of treatments in the ST-227 core use area would provide protection to the new pair, allowing them to remain in the area undisturbed while the Forest Service more fully evaluates their status and dependence on the area, if any, over the next year. Until the Forest Service and FWS fully understand the use and dependency of this newly established pair on the landscape, the postponement of treatments is considered a prudent and biologically meaningful measure that will maintain the potential direct and indirect effects of the project on the pair at an insignificant and discountable level.

• On September 20, Jordan and Anderson discussed the contractual protection measures and limited operating period(s) that could be used to postpone treatment. They revalidated the September 15 discussion regarding insignificant and discountable effects with the measure in place. See Table 8 for a list of units that are subject to the LOP.

• On September 21, a draft of this analysis was transmitted to Anderson at the Yreka FWS office. • On October 7, Jordan and Anderson discussed the draft analysis. • On October 14, the Forest submitted this analysis with a formal request for reinitiation of

consultation to Jenny Ericson at the Yreka FWS office.

Analysis of ST-227 Core and Home Range Use Area

As described on page 39 of the BA, an NSO home range surrounds the activity center and includes an approximate 500-acre core. Habitat in a home range provides foraging and alternate nest/roost sites that support NSO occupancy, survival and reproduction and sizes vary across the NSOs range based on prey availability and habitat conditions (USDI-FWS 2011 p. G-2). Typically, about 40 percent of a home range


is composed of mature forest, or other fairly high-quality NSO habitat, as described in the life history requirements sections of the NSO Recovery Plan and Final Rule for NSO Critical Habitat (USDI-FWS 2011, 2012). Actual NSO home ranges likely conform to the distribution of higher-quality habitat that is also influenced by slope, aspect, distance to and availability of water, and tree species composition. In the Elk LSR project area, this area is primarily associated with the ‘linear’ Ash Creek riparian reserve. While it is recognized that NSO home range and core use areas are generally non-circular, these ‘circular’ spatial analyses represent a reasonable approximation of the areas within which territorial NSOs in the California Cascades province obtain resources.

The ST-215 activity center analysis in the BA evaluated habitat conditions within a 1.3-mile radius (3,398-acre ‘circle’, including the 500-acre core) around the last verified NSO nest site in 1990, and single subadult female detection in 2003 (Thomas et al. 1990; USDI-FWS 2009). The analysis for ST-227 is similar, and as described in the Surveys and Consultation sections above, the activity center location is based on the detection area of the subadult male and pair.

Table 1 displays NSO habitat in the ST-227 home range and core use areas. Map 1 displays ST-227 and the portions of its core and home range use areas that extend north and east of Forest Service lands are on private lands administered by Olympic Resource Management.5 There are approximately 264 acres of suitable habitat in the core use area, and 1,101 acres of suitable habitat in the home range use area.

Table 1. NSO habitat within ST-227 home range and core use areas

Home Range (inclusive of core)

Nesting / Roosting

(NR)

High Quality Foraging

(HQF) Foraging

(F) Dispersal

(DI) Capable

(CA) Non-Habitat

(Non) Suitable

Acres 126 83 892 720 322 1255 1101 Forest Service 120 83 729 169 321 601 932

Private 6 0 163 551 1 654 169 Core NR HQF F DI CA Non Suitable Acres 2 20 242 98 64 74 264

Forest Service 2 20 217 46 64 61 239 Private 0 0 25 52 0 13 25

Compared with the ST-215 home range, there is a higher proportion of non-habitat in the ST-227 home range analysis area, and a lower proportion of suitable habitat. This is primarily due to the stand conditions to the north on private lands, and the pine-dominated stands in the eastern portion of the project area that do not support NSO habitat (BA pp. 13, 26, D-15, D-16). Also as described in the BA (p. D-15), while individual ponderosa pine trees may contribute to stand structure and species diversity in habitats used by NSOs, they generally avoid forest stands dominated by ponderosa (or lodgepole or

5 Previously owned and managed by Hancock; currently managed by Black Fox Timber Management Group, Inc.


knobcone) pine. The relative probability of stand use by NSOs has also been shown to decline with an increasing basal area of ponderosa pine (Irwin et al. 2007, 2012; USDI-FWS 2011).

Similar to the ST-215 home range (BA p. D-22), the ST-227 home range does not currently contain sufficient suitable habitat to support survivorship and productivity for NSOs per FWS guidance (USDI-FWS 2009). If the project area did not have any history of NSO reproduction or occupancy, the habitat analysis would primarily be conducted at the project area scale (or habitat analysis approach). Taking the scale of just the project area into account, and areas of likely concentrated use by territorial or dispersing NSOs (expected to be centered along the Ash Creek riparian corridor), the overall project area and expected use areas in their existing condition also do not contain sufficient suitable habitat to support survivorship and productivity for NSOs per FWS guidance (USDI-FWS 2009). Over the short and long term, however, suitable habitat levels are expected to increase at the ST-215, ST-227 and overall project area analysis scales from treatments that maintain and improve nesting, roosting and foraging habitat, that transition foraging to nesting habitat, and that transition capable habitat toward dispersal and low-quality foraging habitat (BA pp. 75-76, 90-93; Final EIS pp. 110-111). While there are two home range analyses now associated with the Elk LSR project’s effects analysis, the overall project area is still only expected to support one pair of territorial NSOs, as described in the BA (pp. 72, 107) and Final EIS (pp. H-20, I-109, I-125, I-126).

The larger proportion of suitable habitat on Forest Service lands at both the ST-215 and ST-227 core and home range scales, and the management direction for the Elk Flat LSR (contrasted with past and ongoing private lands management) also affords an opportunity to affect structural and compositional changes in NSO habitat and to increase its resilience and long-term suitability. As described in the BA, the ST-215 activity center and home range was not considered a priority for conservation under the Revised Recovery Plan with respect to its ability to support long-term occupancy or annual/semi-annual reproduction of NSOs, as this was not supported by the last nine years of annual surveys and results (BA pp. 71, D-11, Table 32). With respect to ST-227, it is too early to determine what dependency the new NSO pair might have on the current home range/core use area or project area. The postponement of treatments in the 16 units that comprise the core use area and portions of the outer home range for at least one year, or longer, will help the Forest Service determine and understand what dependency, if any, the new pair has on the ST-227 core use area and home range.

ST-227 Home Range Treatment Effects

Table 2 displays the acres of NSO habitat maintained/benefitted, improved, degraded, downgraded, or removed within the ST-227 analysis area.


Table 2. Acres of treatment effects by habitat type in the ST-227 home range analysis area (based on planning acres, and not accounting for the 289 acres of unthinned patches in thinning units)

Habitat Function Maintained /

Benefitted through low-intensity

prescribed fire only

Improved through thinning treatments in plantations and

natural stands Degraded Downgraded Removed

Nesting/Roosting 120 0 0 0 0 High Quality

Foraging 83 0 0 0 0

Foraging 169 NA 491 69 0 Total Suitable 372 NA 491 69 NA

Percent of Suitable 34% 0% 45% 6% 0% Dispersal 46 0 95 0 28 Capable 6 315 0 0 0

601 acres of non-habitat will be treated / remain as non-habitat: 490 acres of thinning and 111 acres of underburning only

The project design features and overall effects for various treatments (BA pp. 30-38 for project design features, including Tables 6-9; pp. 45-69 for treatment effects) are the same within the ST-227 home range and core analysis areas. The exception is that the additional protection measure prohibits noise above ambient levels, and habitat altering/smoke-generating activities within 16 treatment units for at least one year, if not longer, in and surrounding the ST-227 core use area (see Table 8 for a list of units). All other project design features and treatment activities are the same as what is described in the BA and Biological Opinion.

Within the ST-227 home range analysis area, 203 acres of nesting/roosting and high quality foraging habitats will be benefitted and improved with low-intensity prescribed fire; no mechanical treatments will occur in these habitats (BA pp. 47-48, 60-63). Approximately 169 acres of foraging habitat, 46 acres of dispersal and 6 acres of capable habitat will also be maintained and improved with prescribed fire-only treatments. This represents about 34 percent of the suitable habitat in the home range, and 12 percent of the entire home range, that would not be subject to mechanical treatment.

Approximately 491 acres6 of foraging habitat in the ST-227 home range analysis area will be degraded (function maintained post-treatment; BA pp. 48-55). Treatments include variable density thinning that may include additional subtreatments of group selections, small (<0.25-acre) gap creation in white fir stands, small area oak release, or machine piling/burning of piles.7 Approximately 69 acres of foraging

6 Based on thinning unit total acres. The actual amount of habitat degraded, downgraded or removed is lower than reported in Table 2 as there are approximately 289 acres in thinning units in the home range analysis area (111 acres in the core) that will not have any treatment, aside from low-intensity prescribed fire. This is due to the unthinned patches that include designated Recovery Action 32 stands, snag concentrations or are riparian reserve areas along Ash Creek (BA pp. 30-32).6 7 Refer to Table 4 for the estimated acreage of machine piling/burning piles treatments in the ST-227 home range analysis area; not all acres will be machine piled/burned, and as described in the BA, only one piling entry would occur.


habitat will be downgraded to dispersal in the home range (outside of the core) from variable density thinning treatments that include black oak release on 27 acres, and variable density thinning treatments that include 42 acres of radial thinning around legacy pine (BA pp. 26, 49, 51-53).8 Foraging habitat function will not be removed within the ST-227 home range analysis area. Approximately 95 acres of dispersal habitat in the ST-227 home range analysis area will be degraded through variable density thinning, with about 28 acres removed from a combination of thinning and radial thinning treatments around legacy pine (BA pp. 63-65). Approximately 315 acres of capable habitat within plantations in the ST-227 home range analysis area will be improved and transitioned toward dispersal and low-quality foraging habitat through thinning, group selection, radial thinning and underburning treatments (BA pp. 65-66).

Table 3 displays the predicted changes in NSO habitat over time from project treatments. Over the short term in the ST-227 home range treatment area, the risk of habitat loss would be reduced and habitat would be more resilient and trending toward suitable conditions. Over the long term (20 or more years), there would be about 1,150 acres of suitable habitat developed in treatment stands just in the Forest Service portion of the home range, barring any large-scale disturbance event(s) that could reset habitat conditions in the home range.

Table 3. Predicted changes in habitat function over time in the ST-227 home range treatment area

Habitat Function Pre-Treatment Condition

Post-Treatment Condition over the Short or Long Term Rationale

Nesting / Roosting 120 203 High quality foraging transitioned toward

nesting/roosting

High Quality Foraging 83 285

Underburned foraging transitioned to higher value habitat and thinning treatment in five stands that accelerates development of higher value foraging (151, 152-1, 161, 164, 166)

Foraging 729 662

Foraging burned in plantations and thinned in other natural stands that maintains function; capable habitat transitioned to low-quality foraging

Total Suitable 932 1,150

Dispersal 169 238 Downgraded foraging, Degraded dispersal and capable transitioned toward dispersal

Capable 321 6 Maintained capable

Non-Habitat 601 629 Maintained non-habitat, includes removed dispersal

8 Note that the Biological Opinion (p. 28) disagreed with the Forest Service’s effects analysis that in regards to radial thinning around legacy pine. The Forest Service and FWS have agreed to disagree with respect to this treatment effect and for purposes of this analysis, the effects of thinning combined with radial thinning around legacy pine is the same as presented in the BA (BA pp. 26, 49, 52-53).


There would be an immediate reduction in foraging and dispersal habitat availability and quality on 7 and 23 percent of these total available habitats in the entire home range. Over the long term, the treatments result in both an increased quantity and quality of suitable and dispersal habitats due to larger, more resilient trees and increased heterogeneity within and between stands. There would be about 200 acres of N/R habitat in the home range within 15-20 years. About 287 acres of the thinned, older plantations in the home range would be functioning as lower quality foraging, resulting in about 947 acres of foraging habitat in the home range, and 1,150 acres of suitable habitat on Forest Service lands in the home range. There would be approximately 1,319 acres of suitable habitat in the entire home range (39%), assuming private land operations do not remove or downgrade foraging habitat and barring any stochastic natural event(s) that can remove or downgrade habitat.

Table 4 displays all treatments and habitat types within units in the ST-227 home range analysis area.

Table 4. Affected habitat types in treatment units in the ST-227 home range analysis area – see bottom of table for treatment and effect clarifications

Unit Stand Type / Age Primary Treatment Machine Pile and Burn NR HQF F DI CA Non

208 10-20 yr plantation (pl) Thin 0 0 0 2* 0 0 25

216 10-20 yr pl Thin 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 1 20-30 yr pl Thin 0 0 0 1* 0 0 34

110 20-30 yr pl Thin 0 0 0 0 0 0 41 113 20-30 yr p Thin / Interplant Mix of Species 0 0 0 0 0 0 36 114 20-30 yr pl Thin 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 115 20-30 yr pl Thin 2 0 0 0 0 2 14 116 20-30 yr pl Thin 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 124 20-30 yr pl Thin / Interplant Mix of Species 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 233 20-30 yr pl Thin 0 0 0 1* 0 1 9

6 40+ yr pl Thin / Radial Thin Pine / Group Selection / Small Area Oak Release 7 0 5* 3 0 50 2

7 40+ yr pl Thin / Radial Thin Pine / Group Selections 0 0 0 2* 0 7 0

13 40+ yr pl Thin / Radial Thin Pine / Group Selections 1 0 0 0 0 8 0

14 40+ yr pl Thin / Radial Thin Pine / Group Selections / Small Area Oak Release 9 0 2* 8* 0 99 0

15 40+ yr pl Thin / Radial Thin Pine 0 0 0 0 0 6 0



151 60-100 yr natural stand (nat stand) VDT / Small <0.25-ac White Fir Gaps 5 1* 0 48 0 1 1

153 60-100 yr nat stand VDT / Black Oak Release / Small

<0.25-ac White Fir Gaps / Radial Thin Pine (in foraging)

0 0 0 83 0 2 0



154 60-100 yr nat stand VDT 38 0 43* 71 0 5 0

155 60-100 yr nat stand VDT / Radial Thin Pine / Small Area Oak Release 0 0 0 69 0 3 2

157 60-100 yr nat stand VDT / Radial Thin Pine / Small Area of Aspen Release 0 0 0 38 1 0 2

165 60-100 yr nat stand VDT / Small Area Oak Release 7 0 8* 7 0 1 0 167 60-100 yr nat stand VDT 0 0 0 4 0 1 0

168-1 60-100 yr nat stand

with some black oak in unit

VDT / Small Area Oak Release 1 0 0 6 0 0 1

169 60-100 yr nat stand VDT 15 0 19 11 0 0 171 60-100 yr nat stand VDT 0 2* 0 8 0 0 0 172 60-100 yr nat stand VDT 0 0 0 4 0 0 1

175 60-100 yr nat stand with aspen in unit VDT / Aspen Release 18 0 0 0 0 0 26

178 60-100 yr nat stand


VDT / Small <0.25-ac White Fir Gaps / Small Area Oak Release 0 0 0 14 0 0 0

204 60-100 yr nat stand Thin as Safely Feasible Extensive Mortality Area

10 0 0 0 0 0 15

235 60-100 yr nat stand VDT 7 0 0 17 0 2 1

152-1 80-120 yr nat stand VDT / Group Selections / Small <0.25-ac White Fir Gaps / Radial Thin Pine

(in dispersal) 30 0 6* 68 30 2 2

158 80-120 yr nat stand VDT, Radial Thin Pine 25 0 0 2 38 0 74

160 80-120 yr nat stand VDT / Group Selections in White Fir (in dispersal) 3 0 0 1 5 0 0

161 80-120 yr nat stand VDT 0 3* 5* 24 0 0 1

163 80-120 yr nat stand VDT – Northeast portion of unit within Extensive Mortality Area 35 0 0 49 16 7 17

164 80-120 yr nat stand VDT 15 0 0 5 18 0 8 166 80-120 yr nat stand VDT 8 0 0 12 0 0 0 174 80-120 yr nat stand VDT 6 0 0 11 0 1 0


114 0 0 0 3 0 111

203 10-20 yr pl Underburn / Interplant Mix of Species 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 202 10-20 yr pl Underburn Only 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 214 10-20 yr pl Underburn Only 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 217 10-20 yr pl Underburn Only 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 218 10-20 yr pl Underburn Only 0 0 0 1* 0 0 13 224 10-20 yr pl Underburn Only 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 230 10-20 yr pl Underburn Only 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 231 10-20 yr pl Underburn Only 0 0 0 1* 0 1 24 223 10-20 yr pl Underburn Only 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 112 20-30 yr pl Underburn Only (MPB as needed due 14 0 0 0 0 0 14



to to Extensive Mortality Area) 1-U 60-100 yr nat stand Underburn Only 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 150 60-100 yr nat stand Underburn Only 0 114* 0 23* 0 5 0 156 60-100 yr nat stand Underburn Only 0 0 0 31* 0 0 0



Underburn Only 0 0 14* 0 0 0 0

173 60-100 yr nat stand


Underburn Only 0 0 0 27* 0 0 1

182 60-100 yr nat stand Underburn Only 0 0 0 27* 4 0 2 346 60-100 yr nat stand Underburn Only 0 0 0 11* 40 0 4

346-U 60-100 yr nat stand Underburn Only 0 0 0 1* 2 0 1 152-2 80-120 yr nat stand Underburn Only 0 0 0 8* 0 0 0

402 2-180 yr + Meadow / Open Flat

Meadow Enhancement (remove conifer, aspen release, underburn –

retain all predominant trees and dominant trees with late-successional

characteristics)

0 0 0 0 1 0 24

381 120* 83* 729 169 321 601

Bold text in the Primary Treatment column refers to a downgrade or removal of foraging or dispersal habitat function in a portion of the treatment unit * Where NR habitat or high quality foraging habitat is in a natural stand thin or a plantation thin unit, it is considered part of a RA32 stand or unthinned patch and will not be mechanically treated – these habitat patches will be subject to underburning. Foraging habitat in plantations and foraging habitat in natural stands to be underburned only will also not be mechanically thinned.

ST-227 Core Treatment Effects

The treatment effects in the home range analysis described above include the 500-acre core analysis area. Table 5 displays the acres of NSO habitat maintained/benefitted, improved, degraded, downgraded, or removed.

Approximately 70 acres of suitable habitat (~27 percent of the suitable habitat in the ST-227 core) will be maintained or improved with low-intensity prescribed fire. Of this amount, 22 acres are considered nesting/roosting or high quality foraging habitat (RA 32 stands) and 48 acres are foraging habitat. As with the larger home range analysis area, approximately 111 acres throughout various treatment units in the core’s designated unthinned patches and Recovery Action 32 stands will not be mechanically treated, but burned with prescribed fire (BA pp. 30-32).9 Accounting for areas where no mechanical treatments will occur, about 57 percent of the suitable foraging habitat in the ST-227 core would be mechanically treated; all treatments in the core degrade and do not downgrade or remove foraging habitat function.

9 No thinning, including hand or mechanical thinning, or use of equipment to pile, or conduct any other activities will occur in these areas.


Table 5. Acres of treatment effects in the ST-227 core analysis area (based on planning acres, and not accounting for the 71 acres of unthinned patches in thinning units)

Habitat Function Maintained /

Benefitted through low-intensity

prescribed fire only

Improved through thinning treatments in plantations and

natural stands Degraded Downgraded Removed

Nesting/Roosting 2 0 0 0 0 High Quality

Foraging 20 0 0 0 0

Foraging 48 NA 169 0 0 Total Suitable 70 NA 169 0 NA

Percent of Suitable 27% 0% 64% 0% 0% Dispersal 0 0 38 0 8 Capable 0 64 0 0 0

61 acres of non-habitat will be treated / remain as non-habitat: 59 acres of thinning and 2 acres of underburning only

Approximately 169 acres of foraging habitat in the ST-227 core analysis area will be degraded through a combination of variable density thinning that may include additional subtreatments of group selections (unit 152-1), small (<0.25-acre) gap creation in white fir stands (units 151, 152-1), small area oak release, or machine piling/burning of piles.10 No foraging habitat will be downgraded or removed in the ST-227 core analysis area (BA pp. 48-55). Approximately 38 acres of dispersal habitat in the ST-227 core analysis area will be degraded through variable density thinning, with about 8 acres removed from a combination of thinning and radial thinning treatments around legacy pine (BA pp. 63-65). Approximately 64 acres of capable habitat in the ST-227 core analysis area will be improved and transitioned toward dispersal and low-quality foraging through a combination of thinning, machine piling/burning piles, group selection, radial thinning or underburning (BA pp. 65-66).

The long-term habitat development trends in the ST-227 core use area are similar to those described for the home range above (Table 3), assuming treatment occurs and no large-scale disturbance events occur that can reset the seral stage. Table 6 displays the predicted changes in NSO habitat function over time in the ST-227 core analysis area.

10 Refer to Table 7 for the estimated acreage of machine piling/burning piles treatments in the ST-227 core analysis area; not all acres will be machine piled/burned, and as described in the BA, only one piling entry would occur.


Table 6. Changes in habitat function over time in the ST-227 core treatment stands

Habitat Pre-Treatment Post-Treatment over Short or Long Term Rationale

NR 2 22 High quality foraging transitioned toward nesting/roosting

HQF 20 130

Underburned foraging transitioned to higher value habitat, and thinning treatments in five stands that accelerates development of higher value foraging habitat (units 151, 152-1, 161, 164, 166)

F 217 151 Foraging burned in plantations and other natural stands that maintains function; capable habitat transitioned to low-quality foraging

Suitable 239 303 DI 46 38 Degraded dispersal CA 64 0 Maintained capable Non 61 69 Maintained non-habitat, includes removed dispersal

Accounting for unthinned patch areas, there would be a reduction in habitat quality in 57 percent of the foraging habitat in the core, and a similar reduction in quality and availability in 17 percent of dispersal habitat in the core. As described for the home range, the treatments result in both increased acres and improved quality of suitable and dispersal habitats over the long term. There would be about 22 acres of N/R habitat in the core within 15-20 years and 281 acres of overall foraging habitat. The 64 acres of thinned, older plantations would be functioning as dispersal to lower quality foraging, resulting in about 303 acres of suitable habitat in the core on Forest Service lands, and 328 acres of suitable habitat in the entire ST-227 core, assuming private land operations do not remove or downgrade suitable habitat.

Table 7 displays all treatments and habitat types within units in the ST-227 core analysis area.

Table 7. Affected habitat types by treatment unit in the ST-227 core analysis area – see bottom of table for treatment and effect clarifications

Unit Stand Type / Age Primary Treatment Machine Pile and

Burn NR HQF F DI CA Non

1 20-30 yr pl Thin 0 0 0 1* 0 0 34 233 20-30 yr pl Thin 0 0 0 1* 0 1 9

6 40+ yr pl Thin / Radial Thin Pine / Group Selection / Small

Area Oak Release 0 0 1* 0 0 0 0

15 40+ yr pl Thin / Radial Thin Pine 0 0 0 0 0 6 0



151 60-100 yr nat stand VDT / Small <0.25-ac White Fir Gaps 2 1* 0 13 0 0 0

154 60-100 yr nat stand VDT 20 0 13* 42 0 0 0 167 60-100 yr nat stand VDT 0 0 0 4 0 1 0


Unit Stand Type / Age Primary Treatment Machine Pile and

Burn NR HQF F DI CA Non


VDT / Group Selections / Small <0.25-ac White Fir Gaps / Radial Thin Pine

(in dispersal) 30 0 6* 68 30 2 2

163 80-120 yr nat stand VDT – Northeast portion of unit within Extensive

Mortality Area 17 0 0 19 14 4 7

166 80-120 yr nat stand VDT 8 0 0 12 0 0 0 174 80-120 yr nat stand VDT 6 0 0 11 0 1 0


2 0 0 0 2 0 0

112 20-30 yr pl

Underburn Only (MPB as needed due to proximity to Extensive

Mortality Area)

6 0 0 0 0 0 6

1-U 60-100 yr nat stand Underburn Only 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 150 60-100 yr nat stand Underburn Only 0 1* 0 3* 0 0 0

173 60-100 yr nat stand with some black oak

in unit Underburn Only 0 0 0 26* 0 0 1

152-2 80-120 yr nat stand Underburn Only 0 0 0 8* 0 0 0 91 2* 20* 217 46 64 61

Bold text in the Primary Treatment column refers to a downgrade or removal of foraging or dispersal habitat function in a portion of the treatment unit * Where high quality foraging habitat (or NR habitat) is in a natural stand thin or a plantation thin unit, it is considered part of a RA32 stand or unthinned patch and will not be mechanically treated – these habitat patches will be subject to underburning. Foraging habitat in plantations and foraging habitat in natural stands to be underburned only will also not be mechanically thinned.

Table 8. List of units subject to the additional protection measure and limited operating period

Unit Unit Acres Stand Type / Age Treatment NR HQF F DI CA Non

Critical Habitat in

Core 233 11 10-20 yr pl Thin 0 0 1* 0 1 9 0

1 35 20-30 yr pl Thin 0 0 1* 0 0 34 0 15 6 40+ yr pl Thin, Radial Thin Pine 0 0 0 0 6 0 5

16 58 40+ yr pl Thin, Groups, Radial Thin Pine 0 0 8* 0 49 1 0

151 51 60-100 yr nat stand VDT, White Fir Gaps 1* 0 48 0 1 1 13

152-1 108 80-120 yr old nat stand VDT, Groups in White Fir, Radial Thin Pine 0 6* 68 30 2 2 0

154 119 60-100 yr nat stand VDT, Small Oak Release 0 43* 71 0 5 0 0

163 89 80-120 yr old nat stand VDT 0 0 49 16 7 17 0 166 12 80-120 yr old nat stand VDT 0 0 12 0 0 0 0 167 5 60-100 yr nat stand VDT 0 0 4 0 1 0 1


Unit Unit Acres Stand Type / Age Treatment NR HQF F DI CA Non

Critical Habitat in

Core 174 12 80-120 yr old nat stand VDT 0 0 11 0 1 0 0 112 14 20-30 yr pl Underburn 0 0 0 0 0 14 0 150 142 60-100 yr nat stand Underburn 114* 0 23* 0 5 0 5

168-2 14 60-100 yr nat stand Underburn

(some oak in unit) 0 14* 0 0 0 0 0

173 28 60-100 yr nat stand Underburn

(some oak in unit) 0 0 27* 0 0 1 0

152-2 8 80-120 yr old nat stand Underburn 0 0 8* 0 0 0 0

Acres 712 115* 63* 331 46 78 79 24

Acres Mechanical Treatment Subject to LOP - Habitat Type 0 0 263 46 73 64 19 Acres Underburn Treatment Subject to LOP - Habitat Type 115 63 68 0 5 15 5

* Where high quality foraging habitat (or NR habitat) is in a natural stand thin or a plantation thin unit, it is considered part of a RA32 stand or unthinned patch and will not be mechanically treated – these habitat patches will be subject to underburning. Foraging habitat in plantations and foraging habitat in natural stands to be underburned only will also not be mechanically thinned.

Critical Habitat

The ST-227 home range analysis area contains 654 acres of critical habitat. Table 9 displays the 568 acres of physical and biological features or PBFs in the home range and core (the 86 acres of non-habitat that is designated as critical habitat is not included in Table 9 as it is not considered a PBF per the Final Critical Habitat Rule (USDI-FWS 2012 pp. 71904-71908; BA p. 79).

In the ST-227 core, there are 24 acres of critical habitat. This is comprised of unit 15 (40-year old plantation thin), unit 150 (60-100 year old underburn unit), and units 151 and 167 (60-100 year old natural stands) which are wholly included in the new additional protection measure area.

Table 9. ECS-3 critical habitat in the ST-227 home range and core analysis area with pre and post-treatment acres by habitat type

Critical Habitat in ST-227 Analysis Area (home range acres include the core)

Pre-Treatment Post-Treatment

HR Core HR Core

PBF1 (capable) acres 155 6 6 1

PBF2 (nesting/roosting) acres 120 1 142 1

PBF3 (foraging) acres 282 17 214 17

PBF4 (dispersal) acres 11 0 206 5

Total 568 24 568 24

The various treatments and effects in critical habitat in the ST-227 home range and core analysis areas are the same as described in the BA (pp. 82-85). The function of PBFs would either be maintained/improved in PBF1 and PBF2 (capable and nesting/roosting habitat); maintained, degraded, or downgraded to


dispersal function in PBF3 (the same 46 acres from the BA analysis would be downgraded); or PBF 4 would be maintained.

There is no change in the effects to, or the overall function of, the PBFs of affected critical habitat at the project area or larger subunit scale from what was analyzed in the BA. The additional protection measure does not change any of the effects expected to occur in critical habitat, or the function of the ECS-3 critical habitat subunit. As with the treatment effects in the ST-227 home range and core analysis areas, the effects to critical habitat PBFs (or PCEs) that are described in the BA are the same (BA pp. 81-90).

Cumulative Effects

A review of the Calfire Timber Harvest Plan database was completed on August 12 and September 9, 2016 for the NSO action area associated with the project. No additional timber harvest plans (THPs) have been filed/submitted or approved in the action area. In addition, the Forest routinely receives notifications regarding planned operations under a Notice of Exemption (NOE), specifically the July 13, 2015 Drought Mortality Exemption. Since completion of the BA, several NOEs have been reviewed and none are within the action area. Olympic Resource Management has been completing operations under a Drought Mortality Exemption in the action area throughout summer 2016 (Calfire 2016). Under this exemption, activities are not permitted to occur within 0.7 mile of a mapped NSO activity center in the CNDDB. As summarized in the Survey Background section above, adjacent private landowners were notified on June 14 and August 8, 2016 of the NSO detections and locations.

Based on this information and review, there are no reasonably certain future private activities proposed in the action area and the cumulative effects analysis is the same as described in the Final BA.

Conclusion and Determination

The treatment effects in the ST-227 home range and core analysis area, including within critical habitat, are the same as described in the Final BA and no treatment activities have changed. An additional protection measure is incorporated into the project’s design to both spatially and temporally reduce, if not eliminate, the potential for direct and indirect effects to the NSO. These effects are well within the bounds of the disclosed effects in the Final BA. See below for rationale.

As described under 50 CFR § 402.16 for reinitiation of formal consultation, reinitiation is required when discretionary Federal agency involvement or control over the action has been maintained (or is authorized by law), and:

1) The amount or extent of incidental take is exceeded:

• Incidental take was not issued for this project, and therefore the amount or extent is not exceeded.

2) New information reveals effects of the action that may affect listed species or critical habitat in a manner or to an extent not previously considered:


• This BA Addendum describes the 2016 NSO survey results and detection of a new NSO pair, the Forest’s responsibility to undergo technical assistance or reinitiation of consultation as described in the BA (p. 33; WL-36) and Biological Opinion (p. 6), and the development of an additional protection measure for the NSO pair. It also includes an analysis of treatment effects within the new pair’s home range and core use area.

• The additional protection measure is intended to supplement the in-place project design features and LOPs for single or nesting NSOs (BA p. 33 Table 6) and to reduce, if not eliminate, the potential for direct effects to the pair through September 15, 2017 (or longer). The additional protection measure effectively postpones all habitat-altering and smoke-generating activities within the pair’s current core use area. This protection measure is new, but the ‘effect’ of it is similar to the effects of other general protection measures included in the Final BA for limiting operations if a nesting or single NSO pair is detected and for routinely limiting operations within 0.25 mile of NR habitat (BA pp. 42-43) until surveys are completed. The additional protection measure is broader in temporal duration and spatial scale however, given that the NSO pair was just detected in late summer 2016. This longer timeframe will allow the Forest Service to evaluate the pair’s potential use and dependency on the area and depending on survey results in 2017, additional technical assistance or reinitiation may be warranted.

• Direct effects to NSO are discussed in the BA (BA pp. 41-45). In summary, the BA addresses direct effects to NSO behaviors of breeding, feeding, sheltering and dispersing due to noise disturbance or habitat modification (if NSO are present). The disturbance effects disclosed include harvesting and fuels treatments (noise from heavy equipment use; falling of trees), smoke from pile burning and underburning; noise from temporary road and landing construction, route decommissioning activities, road maintenance, and hauling of logs and/or chips. These potential effects are not changed by the new information. The Direct Effects section in the BA also addresses new activity centers, discloses that there are no mechanical treatments in any nesting/roosting or other high value habitats for NSO in the project area and addresses new detections during spot checks (BA p. 43). The existing project design features, combined with the additional protection measure, will reduce the potential for direct and indirect effects to an insignificant and discountable level. While direct effects are generally described as those that result in physical harm, death or the disruption of reproductive attempts during project implementation or near occupied habitat, they can also include effects to habitat structure or function.

• The direct and indirect effects sections of the BA, combined with the analysis of the ST-227 home range in this BA Addendum, do not lead to any change in the determination of effects to NSO habitat or NSO critical habitat. The effects of vegetation treatments in the ST-227 home range are no different from those effects to NSO habitat, including critical habitat, described in the BA. Effects are expected to be beneficial, insignificant or discountable to NSOs; and within critical habitat, only significant and adverse at the PBF3 scale. The overall project design and treatment features, resource protection measures for habitat elements, and the thinning treatments


that primarily maintain and improve habitat function further support this conclusion and determination.

• The October 7, 2016 wolf activity update for California shows there are no confirmed packs or individuals within or near the project area. The Shasta Pack has not been re-located by the CDFW, and Forest Service monitoring of the Management Unit and project area has not detected any wolves during the 2016 season to date. Monitoring efforts and coordination will continue, as described in the BA (pp. 35-36).

3) The action is modified in a manner causing effects to listed species or critical habitat not previously considered:

• While the action has not been modified in a manner that causes or will cause an effect to a listed species or critical habitat not previously considered, the project has been changed through the incorporation of the additional protection measure (see # 2 above for discussion).

• The additional protection measure does not change any of the effects disclosed in the BA on listed species or critical habitat, though may prolong the timeframe for treatment completion. A schedule of operations is not currently in place or approved for implementation, and the identified priority treatment units for the project lie primarily outside of the 16 LOP units.11 The planned follow-up treatments of machine piling and burning, and low-intensity prescribed fire, are not expected to occur for at least one season to five or more years after implementation begins (BA p. 17) and therefore the additional protection measure currently has no significant impact on the potential to complete these activities.

• Similar to the existing protection measures that would be in place if nesting NSOs or a single NSO were detected, the additional protection measure results in a temporal and spatial change for the timing of direct and indirect effects to habitat, as well as achieving the project’s purpose and need. Postponing mechanical thinning treatment in 446 acres, including 19 acres of critical habitat (see Table 8), is not expected to result in any significant or detrimental effects on meeting the purpose and need however. The 16 units are not prioritized for treatment completion because of ongoing extensive mortality and higher risk of habitat loss, unlike the prioritized portions of the project area, with the exception of a portion of unit 163. Within the 16 units, 588 acres (83%) are in natural stands, 64 acres (9%) are in older plantations, and 60 acres (8%) are in younger plantations. The postponement of actual mechanical treatment affects 13 percent of the project area, with the postponement of underburning treatments affecting 8 percent of the project area. The postponement of mechanical treatment in suitable habitat affects 21 percent of the suitable

11 One exception is that unit 163 is included in the list of priority units under the project’s stewardship contract. The portion of this unit that is a concern for prioritized treatment is within non-habitat and NSO dispersal habitat, and this area is also partially in the ST-227 core use area. It is expected that a contract modification will occur to address unit 163, and the portion that can be treated outside of ST-227 may still be considered a priority.


habitat in the project area, with the postponement of underburning treatments in suitable habitat affecting 19 percent of the suitable habitat in the project area.

4) A new species is listed or critical habitat designated that may be affected by the action:

• No new species have been listed in the action area, and no new or revised critical habitat designations have occurred in the action area since completion of the Final BA (USDI-FWS 2016a).

Based on the foregoing analysis and rationale, it is my determination that the Elk Late-Successional Reserve Enhancement Project may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect the northern spotted owl and gray wolf; and may affect and is likely to adversely affect northern spotted owl critical habitat.

Prepared by: /s/ Christine J. Jordan

Christine Jordan Wildlife Biologist, Shasta-McCloud Management Unit Shasta-Trinity National Forest

Completed: October 12, 2016

References Calfire. 2016. Email communication regarding 2-15EX-873-SIS from John Ramaley at Calfire. August

24, 2016.

Feamster, R. 2016. Email communication to C. Jordan at the Forest Service regarding the banding effort of the subadult male NSO and adult female NSO on August 18. August 22, 2016.

Irwin, L. L., Rock, D. F. and S.C. Rock. 2012. Habitat Selection by Northern Spotted Owls in Mixed Coniferous Forests. In Journal of Wildlife Management 76 (1): 200-213.

Irwin, L. L., L. Clark, D. Rock, and S. Rock. 2007. Modeling foraging habitat selection by California spotted owls. Journal of Wildlife Management 71(4):1183-1191.

Thomas, S. 2016. Elk LSR Project NSO Survey Outing Forms and personal communications regarding survey efforts and results in 2016. Unpublished data on file and in NRIS at Mount Shasta Ranger Station. Mount Shasta, CA.

Thomas, J.W. 1990. Radio-telemetry data the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service used to estimate the median annual home range size for the northern spotted owl in California. 1990. pp. 1-64.

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2016. Biological Opinion. Includes informal and formal consultation on the Elk Late-Successional Reserve Enhancement Project. June 21, 2016.

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2016a. Updated official list of threatened and endangered species. Accessed online through the IPaC regulatory documents page for the Elk Late-Successional Reserve Enhancement Project. October 12, 2016.


USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2016b. Wolf Update-California. Document from the Klamath Falls FWS Office that included information from the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) on wolf activity and monitoring efforts in California. October 6, 2016.

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2012. 50 CFR Part 17: Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of Revised Critical Habitat for the Northern Spotted Owl; Final Rule. Federal Register Vol. 77, No. 233. December 4, 2012.

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2012a. 2012 Revision of 2011 Protocol for Surveying Proposed Management Activities that May Impact Northern Spotted Owls. Portland, OR. January 9, 2012. 42p.

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2011. Revised Recovery Plan for the Northern Spotted Owl (Strix occidentalis caurina) Region 1 Portland, Oregon. June 28, 2011.

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2009. Regulatory and scientific basis for USFWS guidelines for evaluation of take for northern spotted owls on private timberlands in California’s Northern Interior Region. Unpublished report in: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, editor. 78p.

USDA Forest Service. 2016. Final Biological Assessment. Elk Late-Successional Reserve Enhancement Project. April 1, 2106.

USDA Forest Service. 2016. Memo-to-the-File regarding NSO surveys and treatment unit review/marking changes for the Elk Late-Successional Reserve Enhancement Project. June 16, 2016.

ST-227402

6

14

157

401

150

158

18

154

206

155

153

1

156

163

16

162

152-1

159346

151110

160

113

182

161

124

169

176

164

117

156-U

173

165

178

7

208

231

175

126235

216

13

171

115

226123

204

112

202

218201

114

174

12

203

116

177

166

347107

230

125

318

233

106

221

15

214

179

170

168-2

16-115

222

224 122

152-2

167

172

223

168-1

217

157-U180

181

317

159-U

346-U

1-U

346-U346-U

´

Map 1 - ST-227 NSO Core and Home Range Analysis AreasST-227

2012 Critical Habitat

NSO Habitat-Elk LSR Action Area

Capable

Dispersal

Foraging

High Quality Foraging

Nesting/Roosting

Non-Habitat

Disclaimer: The Forest Service uses the most current

and complete data available. GIS data andproduct accuracy may vary. Data may be:

developed from sources of differing accuracy,accurate only at certain scales, based on

modeling or interpretation, incomplete whilebeing created or revised. Using GIS productsfor purposes other than those for which they

were created, may yield inaccurate or misleadingresults.

The Forest Service reserves the right tocorrect, update, modify, or replace, GISproducts without notification. For more

information, contact:

Shasta-Trinity National Forest3644 Avtech Parkway

Redding, CA 96002

0 10.5 Miles

biological assessment addendum -...

Documents