Appendix R - Assessment of Species Vulnerability and Prioritization

Home , Abronia alpina, Aquilegia pubescens, Arctostaphylos nissenana, Artemisia rothrockii, Astragalus anxius, Astragalus lentiformis

table of contents Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment Appendix R - Assessment of Species Vulnerability and Prioritization

The scope and scale of conservation issues has increased as land management and conservation focus has evolved from single species to more integrative ecosystem perspectives. Bioregional assessments have become valuable tools for assessing the status and condition of large-scale ecosystems and have provided an opportunity to incorporate science into the land management policy arena (Johnson et al. 1998). However, uncertainty exists regarding what methods constitute the best approach to use for bioregional assessments (Franklin 1998). A fundamental goal of ecosystem management is to conserve or restore the full complement of species, as species are integral to the structure, composition, and functioning of ecosystems, and land management agencies must satisfy legal and regulatory requirements to ensure viable populations (e.g., National Forest Management Act, Endangered Species Act). Objective approaches are needed to prioritize species for conservation to focus management attention and limited funding on species in most need of conservation actions and to provide a basis for determining appropriate levels of monitoring that are commensurate with the conservation status of the species.

A number of approaches have been proposed for assessing risk or the conservation status of species. These approaches range across a gradient from purely qualitative to point scoring systems to rigorous quantitative analyses that estimate extinction probabilities over time (e.g., Ahern et al. 1985, Millsap et al. 1990, Mace and Lande 1991, Akcakaya 1992, Molloy and Davis 1992, Given and Norton 1993, Mace 1994, Lunney et al. 1996, Mace and Kershaw 1997). Each of the approaches has associated strengths and weaknesses. One strength of qualitative assessments is that they have modest data requirements, although lack of explicit criteria for determining status can introduce inconsistencies into these schemes (Chalson and Kieth 1995, Todd and Burgman 1998). Point scoring systems are a considerable advance over qualitative assessments because they make explicit use of relevant ecological criteria in setting conservation priorities and are both transparent and repeatable. However, arbitrary weighting across numerous variables, lack of justification for consistent weighting of variables across taxa, and lack of independence among variables can result in an unreliable ranking of conservation priorities (Lunney et al. 1996, Todd and Burgman 1998). All of these methods also have a common flaw in that they ignore uncertainty in the data (Todd and Burgman 1998). Demographic models, either deterministic or stochastic and/or spatially explicit, can provide insight into population dynamics and their relation to landscape pattern and to predict extinction probabilities, in relative or absolute terms, over time and/or to compare different management strategies. However, these types of models are data hungry and model projections can be sensitive to uncertainty in parameters (Rucklehaus et al. 1997). Further, model projections also assume that future conditions remain similar to those that occurred when the data used to parameterize the models was collected. Thus, given differences in the potential strengths and weaknesses of each different approach, careful consideration needs to be directed at determining which approach is most appropriate for a given application based on; 1) the goals and objectives of the assessment; 2) the types and quality of data available; and 3) how the results of the assessment will be used for conservation planning, management, and monitoring.

FEIS Volume 4, Appendix R-1 - Assessment of Species Vulnerability and Prioritization Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment

Vulnerability assessments were separately conducted for three taxa; Terrestrial Vertebrates (amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals), Fish, and Plants. The objective of the vulnerabilitity assessments was to identify those species that were at greatest risk to loss of viability within the Sierra Nevada Bioregion. Individual viability assessments were completed and presented in Chapter 3 for each of the species at risk that were identified through this process.

Vulnerability assessments were conducted separately for each of the taxonomic groups because of basic differences in distribution and abundance patterns and in the current state of knowledge for each taxa, although certainly other groupings could have been used (e.g., combine fish with other vertebrates; combine amphibians with fish). Only those species that were known to occur within the Sierra Nevada planning area for this project were included in the vulnerability assessment. The Appendix is structured with a subsection for each taxa that describes the methods used and results of the vulnerability assessment for that particular taxon.

Upon completion of the vulnerability analysis, a final screening process for Terrestrial Vertebrates and Fish was conducted to identify those species at greatest risk and would be subject to further analysis. This group included:

• All federally listed Endangered, Threatened, Candidate and Proposed species. • All State of California Threatened and Endangered Species. • All U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Species of Special Concern. • All U.S. Forest Service Sensitive Species. • All High Vulnerability Species. • All species identified in the Sierra Nevada Framework Notice of Intent. • Moderate vulnerability species meeting one the following combinations of conditions that, using principles of conservation biology (small population size or known population decline), were judged to place a species at risk to loss of viability:

1. Population size = 2 (1-100 individuals); 2. Population trend = 1 (know population decline), except when Population Size = 5 (> 10,000 individuals); 3. Or new information since the specialists’ rating indicated a valid viability concern (sage grouse, band-tailed pigeon).

From this resulting group of species a preliminary evaluation was conducted to determine the type of analysis that would be conducted for each species.

• Full viability analysis presented in Chapter 3; • Limited discussion presented for the species and presented in Appendix R for those species judged to be peripheral (known to occur within the Sierra Nevada Bioregion but not known from NFS lands), extirpated from NFS lands, transient, accidental or extremely peripheral to the extent that no know self-sustaining breeding populations occurred on NFS lands within the planning area; • Local endemic that only occurs on 1-2 forests within the Sierra Nevada planning area or peripheral on NFS lands but common on other lands within the Bioregion. A preliminary analysis was conducted for these species with the following possible outcomes: from a coarse filter analysis, features of one or more alternatives provided the ecological conditions to provide a high likelihood of maintaining viable populations (full treatment in Chapter 3); if no alternative provided the high likelihood – e.g. did not specifically address stressors placing

FEIS Volume 4, Appendix R-2 - Assessment of Species Vulnerability and Prioritization Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment

the species at risk, then 1 or 2 outcomes resulted: 1) management direction was developed sufficient to provide for a high likelihood of providing the environmental conditions to maintain viable populations or 2) conclude that management direction at the Sierra Nevada Bioregion scale was too coarse and pass responsibility for maintaining habitat to support viable populations to the specific National Forest.

, 7HUUHVWULDO 9HUWHEUDWHV 0HWKRGV

The objective of this assessment was to develop a defensible approach for assessing the vulnerability status of all native terrestrial vertebrates within the Sierra Nevada Bioregion and to determine how species in the different vulnerability groups were distributed among the high priority environments at risk (westside foothill oak woodland; late-seral/old-growth forest; and riparian, meadow and aquatic) in the Sierra Nevada (Graber 1996). We used the boundaries of the entire SNEP study area to define the Sierra Nevada Bioregion. We then queried the CWHR to develop a list of species reported to occur within the Bioregion. This resulted in a total of 493 species. We examined the initial list and eliminated “edger” species from further detailed analysis. Edger species were species whose distribution only extended into the edges of the Bioregion and whose primary ranges encompassed vegetation types that predominantly occur in adjacent bioregions to the Sierra Nevada. These were primarily Mojave Desert, Great Basin, Pacific Northwest, and some Central Valley species. We focused the assessment on native species and eliminated exotic species from further evaluation.

A total of 427 species were retained for further analysis after this initial filter. We assessed the vulnerability status of 427 native vertebrate species that currently occur or previously occurred prior to European colonization of the Sierra Nevada Bioregion using three variables: population size, population trend, and change in distribution (Table R.1). We focused on these three variables for determining the vulnerability status of a species because they have been widely acknowledged in the scientific literature to be associated with extinction risk. The data for each of these variables were obtained via questionnaire to a single, recognized taxa expert with expertise specific to the Sierra Nevada Bioregion (Table R.2). Categories within each variable were scored from 0-10 with higher scores associated with categories of greater conservation vulnerability (Table R.1)(Millsap et al. 1990). We summed the scores for the three variables to calculate a distribution-trend-abundance (DTA) score that was used to generate a linear ranking of the vulnerability status for each of the 427 species.

FEIS Volume 4, Appendix R-3 - Assessment of Species Vulnerability and Prioritization Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment

Table R.1. Population variables and scoring used to assess the vulnerability status of vertebrates in the Sierra Nevada Bioregion. Score 1. Sierra Nevada Population Size - The estimated number of adults of the species throughout the Sierra Nevada. a) Species has not been reported for a number of years but may still exist 10 b) 1-100 individuals 7 c) 101-1,000 individuals, or population size is unknown but suspected to be small 4 d) 1,001-10,000 individuals 1 e) >10,000 individuals, or population size is unknown but suspected to be large. 0 2. Sierra Nevada Population Trend - Overall trend in the number of individuals of the species throughout the Sierra Nevada since 1900, or later depending on the date of the earliest information for the species. a) Population size known to be decreasing 10 b) Trend unknown but population size suspected to be decreasing 7 c) Population formerly experienced serious declines but is presently stable 4 d) Population size stable or suspected to be stable or increasing 1 e) Population size known to be increasing 0 3. Sierra Nevada Range Change - Percent change in the area occupied by the species since historic times. This is an estimate of change in the proportion of the total range that is occupied or utilized; it may or may not equal the change in total range. For example, a species may still be found throughout its historic range yet within that range it may currently occupy only 50% of the area historically occupied. a) Area occupied suspected to have declined by 90-100% 10 b) Area occupied suspected to have declined by 50-89% 7 c) Area occupied unknown but suspected to have declined by >50% 4 d) Area occupied suspected to have declined by 1-49% 1 e) Area occupied unknown but suspected to have declined by <50% 1 f) Area occupied suspected to be stable or has increased 0 4. Number of Populations in the Sierra Nevada (FISH ONLY) - The estimated number of populations of the species throughout the Sierra Nevada since 1900, or later depending on the date of the earliest information for the species. a) Area occupied suspected to have declined by 90-100% 10 b) 1-10 populations 7 c) 11-1000 populations, or populations unknown but suspected to be small 4 d) >100 populations, or populations unknown but suspected to be large 0

FEIS Volume 4, Appendix R-4 - Assessment of Species Vulnerability and Prioritization Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment

Table R.2. List of technical experts queried to provide expertise on species vulnerability.

Taxa Taxonomic Group Species Experts Salamanders, Lizards, Snakes Amphibians Robert Hansen Frogs Amphibians Gary Fellers Frogs Amphibians Roland Knapp Salamanders Amphibians David B. Wake Neotropical Migratory Birds Birds Dave DeSante Owls Birds Gordon Gould Ducks, Waterbirds, Shorebirds Birds Lewis Oring Game Birds Birds James Bland Game Birds Birds Sam Blankenship Diurnal Raptors Birds John Keane Lamprey, Sculpin Fish Larry Brown Lamprey, Tui Chubs, Hitch, Roach, Splittail, Sculpins Fish Peter Moyle Trout Fish Dave Lentz Chinook Salmon Fish Colleen Harvey-Arrison Tui Chubs Fish Stafford Lehr Steelhead Fish Dennis McEwan Rainbow Trout Fish Theresa Pustejovsky Rainbow Trout Fish Eric Gerstung Tui Chubs, Suckers Fish Marty Yamagiwa Trout Fish Dennis Maria Trout, Suckers Fish Darrell Wong Tui Chubs Fish Paul Chappell Blue Chub, Suckers Fish Gary Scoppettone Blackfish Fish Steve Vanicek Shad Fish Don Stevens Shad Fish Ivan Paulsen Kokanee Fish Russ Wickwire Catfish, Sunfish, Bullhead Fish Jim Houk Bass, Carp, Bass, Perch Fish Dennis Lee Bass, Pike Fish Nick Villa Yellow Perch Fish Mark Buettner Small Mammals Mammals Dan Williams Bats Mammals Dixie Pierson Carnivores Mammals William Zielinski Ungulates Mammals Tom Kucera Snakes, Lizards Reptiles Harry Green Snakes Reptiles Gerold Merker Lizards Reptiles Rick Staub

Whereas the linear ranking provides an overall vulnerability score, we further explored inter- relationships among the variables using cluster analysis and classification decision tree-based models in an exploratory multivariate analytical framework (Dawkins et al. 1994) to identify vulnerability status groups (VG) based on the same three variables and scoring system described for the linear ranking method. Dawkins et al. (1994) recommend that the combined use of cluster analysis to suggest groups based on the data itself, and the use of classification decision trees to provide characterizations of the groups, leads to a more effective analysis. We used procedure QUICKCLUSTER in SPSSPC+ (SPSS 1990) to separately cluster species into three clusters after sorting the species in descending order based on DTA scores. Procedure QUICKCLUSTER is a useful procedure for clustering large data sets and is based on the nearest centroid sorting method and clusters species into an apriori defined number of clusters (SPSS 1990).

We then used classification decision tree-based models in S-PLUS (Venable and Ripley 1994) to assess the characterization of the three clusters based on the three population variables to aid in the final decision-making step of determining the vulnerability group membership for each species.

FEIS Volume 4, Appendix R-5 - Assessment of Species Vulnerability and Prioritization Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment

We identified species hypothesized to be dependent on each of the high-risk environments in the Sierra Nevada (late-seral/old-growth (LSOG), western foothill (WF), riparian/meadow (RM), and aquatic (AQ)) as identified in SNEP (Graber 1996). We started with the information in Graber (1996), in which he used the California Wildlife Habitat Relationships (CWHR) database to assign species to one of three categories designating the degree of a species habitat association with the LSOG, WF, and RM environments. The CWHR database ranks the habitat suitability of each vegetation type and structural stage for each species as “high,” “medium,” “low,” or “none” and is based on expert opinion (Ziener 1990a, b, c). A species was scored a “1” when it was hypothesized to be dependent on the environment, a “2” if it was hypothesized to use the environment, and a “3” if it does not use the environment. A species was hypothesized to be dependent on one of the environments if the overall suitability ranking was “high” for that environment and not ranked “high” for any other environment. A species was deemed to use one of the environments if it was ranked “high.” A species was determined not to use an environment when the overall suitability was ranked “none” for that environment (Graber, pers. comm.).

Prior to our selection of species dependent on each of the environments we reviewed the classification generated by Graber (1996) to determine if each of the rankings was logical based on current scientific knowledge of species habitat relationships in the Sierra Nevada. Given the subjective nature of the habitat relationship data in the CWHR database we determined that this review was warranted to incorporate new information and to identify possible uncertainty resulting from a ranking based on these data (cite recent CB paper). The amphibians and reptiles were reviewed by Amy J. Lind and Hartwell H. Welsh, Jr. (Pacific Southwest Research Station, USDA Forest Service), the mammals by William J. Zielinski (Pacific Southwest Research Station, USDA Forest Service), and the birds by John J. Keane, Sallie Hejl, and Rose Stefani (Sierra Nevada Framework Project, USDA Forest Service). The majority of proposed changes involved changing a species score from a “3” to a “2” to reflect that a species uses the environment. Only changes that affected whether a species was classified as “1” (dependent on the environment) influenced the results of the analysis in this paper. Further details on the proposed changes are available from the authors or by comparing the results in Graber (1996) with the results in this paper.

The AQ association variable was developed by the Biosphere Working Group of the Sierra Nevada Province Assessment and Monitoring Team (USDA Forest Service). Each species was subjectively scored as to their use of aquatic environments in the Sierra Nevada. A species was scored a “1” if the species is an aquatic species, a “2” if it is a “semi-aquatic” species, and a “3” if it does not use aquatic habitats based on a general review of the species biology. A species was deemed “semi-aquatic” if was dependent on aquatic habitats for some portion of their life cycle. For example, many amphibian species lay their eggs in aquatic environments but live in terrestrial environments as adults. These species cannot persist without some form of aquatic habitat.

5HVXOWV

Mean values for each of the three values were 2.93 (sd = 1.17) for population trend, 4.90 (sd = 1.31) for change in distribution, and 4.04 (sd = 1.10) for population size. The DTA scores for the 427 species ranged from 0-30 (Table R.3). Twenty-five species had scores greater than 20. Five species, consisting of three extirpated species (California condor, grizzly bear, gray wolf) and two species apparently extirpated as breeders that have not been reported for a number of years (harlequin duck, Barrow’s goldeneye), had the maximum score of 30. Scientific names for all species are presented in Table R.3. Eighty-nine species had DTA scores ranging from 10-19. Finally, 313 species had DTA scores less than 10.

FEIS Volume 4, Appendix R-6 - Assessment of Species Vulnerability and Prioritization Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment

Table R.3. List of Species by Vulnerability Group and Descending Distribution, Trend, Abundance (DTA) Score WHR ID Common Name Scientific Name Vulnerability DTA Pop Pop Range Late Seral Old Western Riparian/Meadow Aquatic Group Score Size Trend Change Growth Foothills High Vulnerability Group B096 Harlequin Duck Histrionicus histrionicus H 30 10 10 10 3 3 1 3 B102 Barrow's Goldeneye Bucephala islandica H 30 10 10 10 3 3 1 3 B109 California Condor Gymnogyps californianus H 30 10 10 10 3 2 3 1 M303 Gray Wolf Canis lupus H 30 10 10 10 3 3 3 1 M302 Grizzly Ursus arctos H 30 10 10 10 3 2 2 1 A040S1 California red-Legged Frog Rana aurora draytonii H 27 7 10 10 2 2 1 2 B413 Bell's Vireo Vireo bellii H 27 10 7 10 3 1 1 1 M159 Wolverine Gulo gulo H 27 10 10 7 2 3 3 1 A043 Foothill Yellow-Legged Frog Rana boylii H 24 4 10 10 2 2 1 2 B259 Western Yellow-Billed Cuckoo Coccyzus americanus H 24 7 7 10 3 2 1 1 M068 San Joaquin Antelope Squirrel Ammospermophilus nelsoni H 24 4 10 10 3 3 3 1 M301 Sierra Nevada Red Fox Vulpes vulpes necator H 24 10 10 7 2 3 3 1 M183 Mountain Sheep Ovis canadensis H 24 4 10 10 3 3 3 1 A028 Western Spadefoot Scaphiopus hammondii H 21 4 10 7 3 1 1 2 A041 Spotted Frog Rana pretiosa H 21 10 7 7 3 3 1 2 A042 Cascade Frog Rana cascadae H 21 4 10 7 2 3 1 2 A045 Northern Leopard Frog Rana pipiens H 21 7 4 10 3 3 1 2 B154 Snowy Plover Charadrius alexandrinus H 21 7 10 7 3 3 3 2 B269 Burrowing Owl Athene cunicularia H 21 7 7 7 3 1 3 1 B273 Short-Eared Owl Asio flammeus H 21 7 10 7 3 2 2 1 B315 Willow Flycatcher Empidonax traillii H 21 4 7 10 2 2 1 1 B385 Swainson's Thrush Catharus ustulatus H 21 4 10 7 2 2 1 1 M111 San Joaquin Kangaroo Rat Dipodomys nitratoides H 21 1 10 10 3 3 3 1 R004 Western Pond Turtle Clemmys marmorata H 21 4 10 7 3 1 1 2 A044 Mountain Yellow-Legged Frog Rana muscosa H 20 0 10 10 2 3 1 2 A001 Tiger Salamander Ambystoma tigrinum H 18 4 7 7 3 1 1 2 A033 Yosemite Toad Bufo canorus H 18 4 10 7 2 3 1 2 B235 Black Tern Chlidonias niger H 18 4 10 7 3 3 1 2 B260 Greater Roadrunner Geococcyx californianus H 18 4 7 7 3 1 3 1 B476 Blue Grosbeak Guiraca caerulea H 18 7 7 7 3 1 1 1 R019 Blunt-Nosed Leopard Lizard Gambelia silus H 18 4 7 7 3 2 3 1 B510 White-Crowned Sparrow Zonotrichia leucophrys H 17 0 10 7 3 2 1 1 M050 White-Tailed Hare Lepus townsendii H 17 0 10 7 3 3 3 1 B272 Long-Eared Owl Asio otus H 15 4 7 7 2 2 2 1 B338 Purple Martin Progne subis H 15 4 7 7 3 2 3 1 B467 Yellow-Breasted Chat Icteria virens H 15 4 7 7 3 1 1 1 M033 Western Red Bat Lasiurus blossevillii H 15 4 7 7 3 1 2 1 M037 Townsend's Big-Eared Bat Corynorhinus townsendii H 15 1 10 7 3 2 2 1 M044 Pygmy Rabbit Brachylagus idahoensis H 15 1 7 7 3 3 3 1 M155 Fisher Martes pennanti H 15 4 7 7 1 3 3 1 R029 Coast Horned Lizard Phrynosoma coronatum H 15 1 10 7 3 2 3 1 M139 Muskrat Ondatra zibethicus H 14 0 7 7 3 1 1 3

FEIS Volume 4, Appendix R-7 - Assessment of Species Vulnerability and Prioritization Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment

WHR ID Common Name Scientific Name Vulnerability DTA Pop Pop Range Late Seral Old Western Riparian/Meadow Aquatic Group Score Size Trend Change Growth Foothills Moderate Vulnerability Group A020 Black Salamander Aneides flavipunctatus M 18 10 7 1 2 2 2 1 B042 American White Pelican Pelecanus erythrorhynchos M 15 4 10 1 3 3 3 3 B050 Least Bittern Ixobrychus exilis M 15 7 7 1 3 3 2 2 B058 Green-Backed Heron Butorides striatus M 15 7 7 1 3 1 2 2 B062 White-Faced Ibis Plegadis chihi M 15 4 10 1 3 3 2 2 B173 Long-Billed Curlew Numenius americanus M 15 4 10 1 3 3 1 2 B233 Forster's Tern Sterna forsteri M 15 4 10 1 3 3 1 3 A018 Tehachapi Slender Salamander Batrachoseps stebbinsi M 15 4 10 1 2 2 2 1 B299 Red-Breasted Sapsucker Sphyrapicus ruber M 14 0 10 1 2 2 2 1 B469 Summer Tanager Piranga rubra M 14 7 7 0 3 3 1 1 B298 Red-Naped Sapsucker Sphyrapicus nuchalis M 14 7 7 0 2 3 1 1 A031 Black Toad Bufo exsul M 12 4 7 1 3 3 1 2 A032 Western Toad Bufo boreas M 12 1 10 1 2 2 1 2 B006 Pied-Billed Grebe Podilymbus podiceps M 12 4 7 1 3 2 2 3 B044 Double-Crested Cormorant Phalacrocorax auritus M 12 4 7 1 3 3 3 3 B049 American Bittern Botaurus lentiginosus M 12 4 7 1 3 2 2 2 B150 Sandhill Crane Grus canadensis M 12 4 4 7 3 3 1 2 B199 Common Snipe Gallinago gallinago M 12 4 7 1 3 2 1 2 B211 Bonaparte's Gull Larus philadelphia M 12 4 7 1 3 3 3 2 B227 Caspian Tern Sterna caspia M 12 4 7 1 3 3 2 3 B271 Great Gray Owl Strix nebulosa M 12 4 7 1 1 3 1 1 B281 Vaux's Swift Chaetura vauxi M 12 4 7 1 1 2 3 1 B286 Black-Chinned Hummingbird Archilochus alexandri M 12 4 7 1 3 1 3 1 B410 Loggerhead Shrike Lanius ludovicianus M 12 4 7 1 3 1 3 1 B487 Rufous-Crowned Sparrow Aimophila ruficeps M 12 4 7 1 3 1 3 1 B494 Vesper Sparrow Pooecetes gramineus M 12 4 7 1 3 1 3 1 B520 Tricolored Blackbird Agelaius tricolor M 12 4 7 1 3 1 1 1 M112 Beaver Castor canadensis M 12 1 4 7 3 2 1 2 M158 Mink Mustela vison M 12 4 7 1 3 2 1 2 M163 River Otter Lutra canadensis M 12 4 7 1 3 2 1 2 R052 Coachwhip Masticophis flagellum M 12 4 7 1 3 1 3 1 A016 Pacific Slender Salamander approx. = Batrachoseps diabolicus, B. kawia, B. M 12 1 10 1 2 2 3 1 A0XX Relictual Slender Salamander complex regius, B. relictus A017 Kern Canyon Slender Salamander Batrachoseps simatus M 12 4 7 1 2 2 2 1 B121 Swainson's Hawk Buteo swainsoni M 12 4 7 1 3 2 3 1 B124 Ferruginous Hawk Buteo regalis M 12 4 7 1 3 2 3 1 B139 Gambel's Quail Callipepla gambelii M 12 4 7 1 3 3 2 1 B275 Lesser Nighthawk Chordeiles acutipennis M 12 4 7 1 3 2 2 1 B279 Black Swift Cypseloides niger M 12 4 7 1 3 2 3 1 B294 Lewis' Woodpecker Melanerpes lewis M 12 4 7 1 2 2 3 1 B400 Leconte's Thrasher Toxostoma lecontei M 12 7 1 7 3 3 3 1 B493 Black-Chinned Sparrow Spizella atrogularis M 12 4 7 1 3 3 3 1 M026 Fringed Myotis Myotis thysanodes M 12 4 7 1 3 3 2 1 M027 Long-Legged Myotis Myotis volans M 12 4 7 1 2 2 2 1

FEIS Volume 4, Appendix R-8 - Assessment of Species Vulnerability and Prioritization Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment

WHR ID Common Name Scientific Name Vulnerability DTA Pop Pop Range Late Seral Old Western Riparian/Meadow Aquatic Group Score Size Trend Change Growth Foothills M029 Small-Footed Myotis Myotis ciliolabrum M 12 4 7 1 3 2 2 1 M036 Spotted Bat Euderma maculatum M 12 4 7 1 3 2 2 1 M046 Nuttall's Cottontail Sylvilagus nuttallii M 12 4 7 1 3 3 3 1 M151 Black Bear Ursus americanus M 12 4 7 1 2 2 2 1 M160 Badger Taxidea taxus M 12 4 7 1 3 2 2 1 M177 Elk Cervus elaphus M 12 1 1 10 2 3 2 1 R041 Panamint Alligator Lizard Elgaria panamintina M 12 4 7 1 3 3 2 1 B003 Common Loon Gavia immer M 11 4 7 0 3 2 3 3 B111 Black-Shouldered Kite Elanus caeruleus M 11 4 7 0 3 1 3 1 B293 Belted Kingfisher Ceryle alcyon M 11 0 10 1 3 2 1 2 B552 Juniper Titmouse Baeolophus ridgwayi M 11 4 7 0 3 3 3 1 B370 Winter Wren Troglodytes troglodytes M 11 4 7 0 1 3 1 1 B377 Blue-Gray Gnatcatcher Polioptila caerulea M 11 4 7 0 3 1 3 1 B501 Grasshopper Sparrow Ammodramus savannarum M 11 4 7 0 3 1 3 1 B544 Lawrence's Goldfinch Carduelis lawrencei M 11 4 7 0 3 1 2 1 B251 Band-Tailed Pigeon Columba fasciata M 11 0 10 1 2 2 3 1 B282 White-Throated Swift Aeronautes saxatalis M 11 0 10 1 3 2 3 1 B309 Olive-Sided Flycatcher Contopus cooperi M 11 0 10 1 2 2 3 1 B311 Western Wood-Pewee Contopus sordidulus M 11 0 10 1 2 2 2 1 B489 Chipping Sparrow Spizella passerina M 11 0 10 1 2 2 2 1 R062 Western Terrestrial Garter Snake Thamnophis elegans M 11 0 10 1 2 2 2 1 R069 Southwestern Black-Headed Snake Tantilla hobartsmithi M 11 4 7 0 2 2 2 1 A039 Pacific Treefrog Hyla regilla M 10 0 10 0 2 2 1 2 B348 Scrub Jay Aphelocoma coerulescens M 10 0 10 0 3 1 3 1 B538 House Finch Carpodacus mexicanus M 10 0 10 0 3 1 3 1 B346 Steller's Jay Cyanocitta stelleri M 10 0 10 0 2 3 2 1 B389 American Robin Turdus migratorius M 10 0 10 0 2 2 2 1 B543 Lesser Goldfinch Carduelis psaltria M 10 0 10 0 3 2 2 1 B009 Eared Grebe Podiceps nigricollis M 9 1 7 1 3 2 3 3 B010 Western/Clark's Grebe Aechmophorus occidentalis/clarkii M 9 1 7 1 3 2 3 3 B117 Northern Goshawk Accipiter gentilis M 9 1 7 1 1 3 2 1 B163 Black-Necked Stilt Himantopus mexicanus M 9 1 7 1 3 3 1 2 B164 American Avocet Recurvirostra americana M 9 1 7 1 3 3 1 2 B165 Greater Yellowlegs Tringa melanoleuca M 9 1 7 1 3 3 1 2 B170 Spotted Sandpiper Actitis macularia M 9 1 7 1 3 2 1 2 B270 Spotted Owl Strix occidentalis M 9 1 7 1 1 2 2 1 B342 Bank Swallow Riparia riparia M 9 1 7 1 3 3 1 1 M038 Pallid Bat Antrozous pallidus M 9 1 7 1 3 1 2 1 M154 Marten Martes americana M 9 1 7 1 1 3 2 1 M156 Ermine Mustela erminea M 9 1 7 1 3 3 1 1 B115 Sharp-Shinned Hawk Accipiter striatus M 9 1 7 1 2 2 2 1 B137 Sage Grouse Centrocercus urophasianus M 9 1 4 7 3 3 3 1 B263 Flammulated Owl Otus flammeolus M 9 1 7 1 2 3 3 1 B264 Western Screech Owl Otus kennicottii M 9 1 7 1 3 2 2 1 M008 Inyo Shrew Sorex tenellus M 9 1 7 1 3 3 2 1

FEIS Volume 4, Appendix R-9 - Assessment of Species Vulnerability and Prioritization Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment

WHR ID Common Name Scientific Name Vulnerability DTA Pop Pop Range Late Seral Old Western Riparian/Meadow Aquatic Group Score Size Trend Change Growth Foothills M015 Shrew-Mole Neurotrichus gibbsii M 9 1 7 1 2 3 2 1 M021 Little Brown Myotis Myotis lucifugus M 9 1 7 1 2 3 2 1 M025 Long-Eared Myotis Myotis evotis M 9 1 7 1 3 3 2 1 M030 Silver-Haired Bat Lasionycteris noctivagans M 9 1 7 1 2 2 2 1 M034 Hoary Bat Lasiurus cinereus M 9 1 7 1 2 2 2 1 M042 Western Mastiff Bat Eumops perotis M 9 1 7 1 3 2 2 1 M089 White-Eared Pocket Mouse Perognathus alticola M 9 1 7 1 3 3 3 1 M122 Southern Grasshopper Mouse Onychomys torridus M 9 1 7 1 3 2 3 1 B197 Long-Billed Dowitcher Limnodromus scolopaceus M 8 0 7 1 3 3 1 2 B398 California Thrasher Toxostoma redivivum M 8 0 7 1 3 1 2 1 B463 Wilson's Warbler Wilsonia pusilla M 8 0 7 1 3 2 1 1 B497 Sage Sparrow Amphispiza belli M 8 0 7 1 3 1 3 1 M002 Mt. Lyell Shrew Sorex lyelli M 8 0 7 1 3 3 1 1 M006 Ornate Shrew Sorex ornatus M 8 0 7 1 2 1 1 1 M010 Water Shrew Sorex palustris M 8 0 7 1 2 3 1 2 M300 Preble's Shrew Sorex preblei M 8 0 7 1 3 3 1 1 M039 Brazilian Free-Tailed Bat Tadarida brasiliensis M 8 0 7 1 3 1 2 1 M045 Brush Rabbit Sylvilagus bachmani M 8 0 7 1 3 1 3 1 M047 Desert Cottontail Sylvilagus audubonii M 8 0 7 1 3 1 3 1 M052 Mountain Beaver Aplodontia rufa M 8 0 7 1 2 3 1 1 M080 Northern Flying Squirrel Glaucomys sabrinus M 8 0 7 1 1 3 3 1 M095 California Pocket Mouse Chaetodipus californicus M 8 0 7 1 3 1 3 1 M104 Heermann's Kangaroo Rat Dipodomys heermanni M 8 0 7 1 3 1 3 1 M105 California Kangaroo Rat Dipodomys californicus M 8 0 7 1 3 1 3 1 M129 Western Red-Backed Vole Clethrionomys californicus M 8 0 7 1 1 3 2 1 R063 Western Aquatic Garter Snake Thamnophis couchii M 8 0 7 1 2 2 1 2 A012 Ensatina Ensatina eschscholtzi M 8 0 7 1 2 2 3 1 A022 Arboreal Salamander Aneides lugubris M 8 1 7 0 2 2 2 1 B127 American Kestrel Falco sparverius M 8 1 7 0 3 2 2 1 B134 Blue Grouse Dendragapus obscurus M 8 0 7 1 2 3 3 1 B276 Common Nighthawk Chordeiles minor M 8 0 7 1 3 2 2 1 B337 Horned Lark Eremophila alpestris M 8 0 7 1 3 2 3 1 M013 Merriam's Shrew Sorex merriami M 8 0 7 1 3 3 3 1 M049 Snowshoe Hare Lepus americanus M 8 0 7 1 3 3 2 1 M060 Merriam's Chipmunk Tamias merriami M 8 0 7 1 3 2 3 1 M064 Panamint Chipmunk Tamias panamintinus M 8 0 7 1 3 3 3 1 M069 Townsend's Ground Squirrel Spermophilus townsendii M 8 0 7 1 3 3 3 1 M070 Belding's Ground Squirrel Spermophilus beldingi M 8 0 7 1 3 3 2 1 M077 Western Gray Squirrel Sciurus griseus M 8 0 7 1 2 2 3 1 M082 Townsend's Pocket Gopher Thomomys townsendii M 8 0 7 1 3 3 2 1 M097 Dark Kangaroo Mouse Microdipodops megacephalus M 8 0 7 1 3 3 3 1 M107 Panamint Kangaroo Rat Dipodomys panamintinus M 8 0 7 1 3 3 3 1 M110 Merriam's Kangaroo Rat Dipodomys merriami M 8 0 7 1 3 3 3 1 M116 California Mouse Peromyscus californicus M 8 0 7 1 3 2 3 1 M121 Northern Grasshopper Mouse Onychomys leucogaster M 8 0 7 1 3 3 2 1

FEIS Volume 4, Appendix R-10 - Assessment of Species Vulnerability and Prioritization Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment

WHR ID Common Name Scientific Name Vulnerability DTA Pop Pop Range Late Seral Old Western Riparian/Meadow Aquatic Group Score Size Trend Change Growth Foothills M126 Desert Woodrat Neotoma lepida M 8 0 7 1 3 2 3 1 M127 Dusky-Footed Woodrat Neotoma fuscipes M 8 0 7 1 2 2 2 1 M128 Bushy-Tailed Woodrat Neotoma cinerea M 8 0 7 1 3 3 2 1 M138 Sagebrush Vole Lemmiscus curtatus M 8 0 7 1 3 3 3 1 M157 Long-Tailed Weasel Mustela frenata M 8 1 7 0 3 2 2 1 R024 Side-Blotched Lizard Uta stansburiana M 8 0 7 1 3 2 2 1 R043 California Legless Lizard Anniella pulchra M 8 0 7 1 2 2 2 1 R046 Rubber Boa Charina bottae M 8 0 7 1 2 2 2 1 R053 California Whipsnake Masticophis lateralis M 8 0 7 1 2 2 2 1 R054 Striped Whipsnake Masticophis taeniatus M 8 0 7 1 2 3 3 1 R057 Western Gopher Snake Pituophis catenifer M 8 0 7 1 2 2 2 1 R059 California Mountain Kingsnake Lampropeltis zonata M 8 0 7 1 2 2 2 1 R060 Long-Nosed Snake Rhinocheilus lecontei M 8 0 7 1 3 2 3 1 R076 Western Rattlesnake Crotalus viridis M 8 0 7 1 2 2 2 1 B158 Killdeer Charadrius vociferus M 7 0 7 0 3 2 2 2 B255 Mourning Dove Zenaida macroura M 7 0 7 0 3 1 3 1 B296 Acorn Woodpecker Melanerpes formicivorus M 7 0 7 0 3 1 3 1 B358 Oak Titmouse Baeolophus inornatus M 7 0 7 0 3 1 3 1 B546 Evening Grosbeak Coccothraustes vespertinus M 7 0 7 0 1 2 2 1 B291 Rufous Hummingbird Selasphorus rufus M 7 0 7 0 3 2 2 1 B340 Violet-Green Swallow Tachycineta thalassina M 7 0 7 0 3 2 2 1 B341 Northern Rough-Winged Swallow Stelgidopteryx serripennis M 7 0 7 0 3 2 2 1 B356 Mountain Chickadee Poecile gambeli M 7 0 7 0 2 3 2 1 B362 White-Breasted Nuthatch Sitta carolinensis M 7 0 7 0 2 2 3 1 B375 Golden-Crowned Kinglet Regulus satrapa M 7 0 7 0 2 2 2 1 B380 Western Bluebird Sialia mexicana M 7 0 7 0 3 2 3 1 B382 Townsend's Solitaire Myadestes townsendi M 7 0 7 0 3 2 3 1 B475 Black-Headed Grosbeak Pheucticus melanocephalus M 7 0 7 0 2 2 2 1 B477 Lazuli Bunting Passerina amoena M 7 0 7 0 3 2 2 1 B512 Dark-Eyed Junco Junco hyemalis M 7 0 7 0 2 2 2 1 M181 Mule Deer Odocoileus hemionus M 7 0 7 0 3 2 2 1 R048 Ringneck Snake Diadophis punctatus M 7 0 7 0 2 2 2 1 R049 Sharp-Tailed Snake Contia tenuis M 7 0 7 0 2 2 2 1 R051 Racer Coluber constrictor M 7 0 7 0 3 2 2 1 R061 Common Garter Snake Thamnophis sirtalis M 7 0 7 0 2 2 2 1 Low Vulnerability Group B084 Northern Shoveler Anas clypeata L 12 7 4 1 3 1 2 3 B052 Great Egret Casmerodius albus L 9 4 4 1 3 2 2 2 B053 Snowy Egret Egretta thula L 9 4 4 1 3 2 2 2 B076 Wood Duck Aix sponsa L 9 7 1 1 3 2 2 2 B080 Northern Pintail Anas acuta L 9 4 4 1 3 2 2 2 B082 Blue-Winged Teal Anas discors L 9 7 1 1 3 2 2 2 B089 Canvasback Aythya valisineria L 9 4 4 1 3 2 3 3 B090 Redhead Aythya americana L 9 4 4 1 3 3 3 3 B091 Ring-Necked Duck Aythya collaris L 9 4 4 1 3 2 2 3

FEIS Volume 4, Appendix R-11 - Assessment of Species Vulnerability and Prioritization Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment

WHR ID Common Name Scientific Name Vulnerability DTA Pop Pop Range Late Seral Old Western Riparian/Meadow Aquatic Group Score Size Trend Change Growth Foothills B094 Lesser Scaup Aythya affinis L 9 4 4 1 3 2 3 2 B114 Northern Harrier Circus cyaneus L 9 4 4 1 3 2 2 1 B086 Eurasian Wigeon Anas penelope L 8 7 1 0 3 2 2 2 B093 Greater Scaup Aythya marila L 8 7 1 0 3 3 3 3 B334 Eastern Kingbird Tyrannus tyrannus L 8 7 1 0 3 2 1 1 B129 Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus L 8 7 1 0 3 2 3 1 B290 Broad-Tailed Hummingbird Selasphorus platycercus L 8 7 1 0 3 3 2 1 B345 Gray Jay Perisoreus canadensis L 8 7 1 0 2 3 3 1 B409 Northern Shrike Lanius excubitor L 8 7 1 0 3 3 3 1 B415 Plumbeous Vireo Vireo plumbeus L 8 7 1 0 3 3 3 1 B427 Virginia's Warbler Vermivora virginiae L 8 7 1 0 3 3 3 1 B530 Hooded Oriole Icterus cucullatus L 8 7 1 0 3 2 2 1 B216 Herring Gull Larus argentatus L 7 7 0 0 3 3 2 2 B051 Great Blue Heron Ardea herodias L 6 4 1 1 3 2 2 2 B059 Black-Crowned Night Heron Nycticorax nycticorax L 6 4 1 1 3 1 2 2 B067 Tundra Swan Cygnus columbianus L 6 4 1 1 3 2 2 2 B070 Greater White-Fronted Goose Anser albifrons L 6 4 1 1 3 2 2 2 B072 Ross' Goose Chen rossii L 6 4 1 1 3 2 2 2 B077 Green-Winged Teal Anas crecca L 6 4 1 1 3 1 2 2 B087 American Wigeon Anas americana L 6 4 1 1 3 1 2 2 B103 Bufflehead Bucephala albeola L 6 4 1 1 3 2 2 2 B107 Ruddy Duck Oxyura jamaicensis L 6 4 1 1 3 2 2 3 B145 Virginia Rail Rallus limicola L 6 4 1 1 3 2 2 2 B146 Sora Porzana carolina L 6 4 1 1 3 2 2 2 A025 Limestone Salamander Hydromantes brunus L 6 4 1 1 2 3 2 1 B126 Golden Eagle Aquila chrysaetos L 6 4 1 1 3 2 3 1 B131 Prairie Falcon Falco mexicanus L 6 4 1 1 3 2 3 1 M073 Mohave Ground Squirrel Spermophilus mohavensis L 6 1 4 1 3 3 3 1 A019 Inyo Mountains Salamander Batrachoseps campi L 5 4 1 0 2 3 1 1 B101 Common Goldeneye Bucephala clangula L 5 4 1 0 3 3 2 2 B104 Hooded Merganser Lophodytes cucullatus L 5 4 1 0 3 2 1 3 B105 Common Merganser Mergus merganser L 5 4 1 0 3 2 1 2 B110 Osprey Pandion haliaetus L 5 4 1 0 3 2 1 2 B113 Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus L 5 4 0 1 3 2 1 2 B119 Red-Shouldered Hawk Buteo lineatus L 5 4 1 0 3 1 1 1 B308 Pileated Woodpecker Dryocopus pileatus L 5 4 1 0 1 3 3 1 B372 Marsh Wren Cistothorus palustris L 5 4 1 0 3 2 1 1 B393 Northern Mockingbird Mimus polyglottos L 5 4 1 0 3 1 2 1 B408 Phainopepla Phainopepla nitens L 5 4 1 0 3 1 3 1 B461 Common Yellowthroat Geothlypis trichas L 5 4 1 0 3 2 1 1 B496 Black-Throated Sparrow Amphispiza bilineata L 5 4 1 0 3 1 3 1 B506 Lincoln's Sparrow Melospiza lincolnii L 5 4 1 0 3 2 1 1 B535 Pine Grosbeak Pinicola enucleator L 5 4 1 0 2 3 1 1 B545 American Goldfinch Carduelis tristis L 5 4 1 0 3 1 2 1 M004 Dusky Shrew Sorex monticolus L 5 0 4 1 2 3 1 1

FEIS Volume 4, Appendix R-12 - Assessment of Species Vulnerability and Prioritization Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment

WHR ID Common Name Scientific Name Vulnerability DTA Pop Pop Range Late Seral Old Western Riparian/Meadow Aquatic Group Score Size Trend Change Growth Foothills B125 Rough-Legged Hawk Buteo lagopus L 5 4 1 0 3 2 3 1 B128 Merlin Falco columbarius L 5 4 1 0 3 2 2 1 B292 Allen's Hummingbird Selasphorus sasin L 5 4 1 0 3 2 3 1 B306 Black-Backed Woodpecker Picoides arcticus L 5 4 1 0 2 3 3 1 B550 Cordilleran Flycatcher Empidonax occidentalis L 5 4 1 0 3 2 3 1 B357 Chestnut-Backed Chickadee Poecile rufescens L 5 4 1 0 2 3 2 1 B390 Varied Thrush Ixoreus naevius L 5 4 1 0 2 2 3 1 B514 Lapland Longspur Calcarius lapponicus L 5 4 1 0 3 2 3 1 B533 Scott's Oriole Icterus parisorum L 5 4 1 0 3 3 2 1 B534 Rosy Finch Leucosticte arctoa L 5 4 1 0 3 3 3 1 M051 Black-Tailed Hare Lepus californicus L 5 0 4 1 3 2 3 1 M088 Great Basin Pocket Mouse Perognathus parvus L 5 0 4 1 3 3 3 1 B215 California Gull Larus californicus L 4 4 0 0 3 2 3 2 A029 Great Basin Spadefoot Scaphiopus intermontanus L 3 1 1 1 3 3 1 2 B079 Mallard Anas platyrhynchos L 3 1 1 1 3 2 2 2 B168 Willet Catoptrophorus semipalmatus L 3 1 1 1 3 3 1 2 B200 Wilson's Phalarope Phalaropus tricolor L 3 1 1 1 3 2 3 2 B262 Common Barn Owl Tyto alba L 3 1 1 1 3 1 3 1 M031 Western Pipistrelle Pipistrellus hesperus L 3 1 1 1 3 1 2 1 B116 Cooper's Hawk Accipiter cooperii L 3 1 1 1 2 2 2 1 B274 Northern Saw-Whet Owl Aegolius acadicus L 3 1 1 1 2 2 3 1 M152 Ringtail Bassariscus astutus L 3 1 1 1 3 2 2 1 M182 Pronghorn Antilocapra americana L 3 1 1 1 3 3 3 1 A006 Rough-Skinned Newt Taricha granulosa L 2 1 1 0 2 2 1 2 A007 Sierra Newt Taricha torosa L 2 0 1 1 2 1 1 2 B071 Snow Goose Chen caerulescens L 2 0 1 1 3 2 2 2 B075 Canada Goose Branta canadensis L 2 0 1 1 3 2 2 2 B083 Cinnamon Teal Anas cyanoptera L 2 0 1 1 3 2 2 2 B085 Gadwall Anas strepera L 2 0 1 1 3 3 2 2 B108 Turkey Vulture Cathartes aura L 2 1 1 0 3 1 3 1 B185 Least Sandpiper Calidris minutilla L 2 1 1 0 3 2 1 2 M003 Vagrant Shrew Sorex vagrans L 2 0 1 1 2 3 1 1 M153 Raccoon Procyon lotor L 2 1 1 0 3 2 1 1 A023 Mount Lyell Salamander Hydromantes platycephalus L 2 1 1 0 2 3 2 1 B123 Red-Tailed Hawk Buteo jamaicensis L 2 1 1 0 2 2 2 1 B140 California Quail Callipepla californica L 2 0 1 1 3 2 3 1 B265 Great Horned Owl Bubo virginianus L 2 1 1 0 3 2 3 1 B267 Northern Pygmy Owl Glaucidium gnoma L 2 1 1 0 2 2 2 1 B404 American Pipit Anthus rubescens L 2 1 1 0 3 2 3 1 M018 Broad-Footed Mole Scapanus latimanus L 2 0 1 1 3 2 2 1 M028 California Myotis Myotis californicus L 2 0 1 1 3 2 2 1 M032 Big Brown Bat Eptesicus fuscus L 2 0 1 1 3 2 2 1 M054 Least Chipmunk Tamias minimus L 2 0 1 1 3 3 3 1 M055 Yellow-Pine Chipmunk Tamias amoenus L 2 0 1 1 3 3 3 1 M057 Allen's Chipmunk Tamias senex L 2 0 1 1 3 3 3 1

FEIS Volume 4, Appendix R-13 - Assessment of Species Vulnerability and Prioritization Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment

WHR ID Common Name Scientific Name Vulnerability DTA Pop Pop Range Late Seral Old Western Riparian/Meadow Aquatic Group Score Size Trend Change Growth Foothills M062 Long-Eared Chipmunk Tamias quadrimaculatus L 2 0 1 1 3 3 3 1 M063 Lodgepole Chipmunk Tamias speciosus L 2 0 1 1 3 3 3 1 M066 Yellow-Bellied Marmot Marmota flaviventris L 2 0 1 1 3 3 2 1 M075 Golden-Mantled Ground Squirrel Spermophilus lateralis L 2 0 1 1 3 3 3 1 M079 Douglas' Squirrel Tamiasciurus douglasii L 2 0 1 1 2 3 3 1 M113 Western Harvest Mouse Reithrodontomys megalotis L 2 0 1 1 3 2 2 1 M117 Deer Mouse Peromyscus maniculatus L 2 0 1 1 3 2 2 1 M118 Canyon Mouse Peromyscus crinitus L 2 0 1 1 3 3 3 1 M130 Heather Vole Phenacomys intermedius L 2 0 1 1 2 3 2 1 M136 Long-Tailed Vole Microtus longicaudus L 2 0 1 1 3 3 2 1 M143 Western Jumping Mouse Zapus princeps L 2 0 1 1 2 3 2 1 M145 Porcupine Erethizon dorsatum L 2 0 1 1 2 2 2 1 M146 Coyote Canis latrans L 2 1 1 0 3 2 3 1 M149 Gray Fox Urocyon cinereoargenteus L 2 1 1 0 3 2 2 1 M161 Western Spotted Skunk Spilogale gracilis L 2 1 1 0 3 2 3 1 M162 Striped Skunk Mephitis mephitis L 2 1 1 0 3 2 3 1 M165 Mountain Lion Felis concolor L 2 1 1 0 3 2 3 1 M166 Bobcat Felis rufus L 2 1 1 0 3 2 3 1 R036 Western Skink Eumeces skiltonianus L 2 1 1 0 2 2 2 1 R056 Glossy Snake Arizona elegans L 2 1 1 0 3 2 3 1 R058 Common Kingsnake Lampropeltis getula L 2 0 1 1 2 2 2 1 A003 Long-Toed Salamander Ambystoma macrodactylum L 1 0 1 0 2 3 1 2 B214 Ring-Billed Gull Larus delawarensis L 1 1 0 0 3 2 3 2 B277 Common Poorwill Phalaenoptilus nuttallii L 1 0 1 0 3 2 3 1 B287 Anna's Hummingbird Calypte anna L 1 0 1 0 3 2 3 1 B289 Calliope Hummingbird Stellula calliope L 1 0 1 0 3 2 1 1 B302 Nuttall's Woodpecker Picoides nuttallii L 1 0 1 0 3 1 2 1 B303 Downy Woodpecker Picoides pubescens L 1 0 1 0 3 2 1 1 B339 Tree Swallow Tachycineta bicolor L 1 0 1 0 2 2 1 1 B352 Yellow-Billed Magpie Pica nuttalli L 1 0 1 0 3 1 2 1 B360 Bushtit Psaltriparus minimus L 1 0 1 0 3 1 2 1 B361 Red-Breasted Nuthatch Sitta canadensis L 1 0 1 0 1 3 3 1 B363 Pygmy Nuthatch Sitta pygmaea L 1 0 1 0 1 3 3 1 B364 Brown Creeper Certhia americana L 1 0 1 0 1 3 2 1 B366 Rock Wren Salpinctes obsoletus L 1 0 1 0 3 1 3 1 B368 Bewick's Wren Thryomanes bewickii L 1 0 1 0 3 1 3 1 B369 House Wren Troglodytes aedon L 1 0 1 0 3 2 1 1 B373 American Dipper Cinclus mexicanus L 1 0 1 0 3 2 1 2 B391 Wrentit Chamaea fasciata L 1 0 1 0 3 1 3 1 B417 Hutton's Vireo Vireo huttoni L 1 0 1 0 3 1 3 1 B438 Hermit Warbler Dendroica occidentalis L 1 0 1 0 1 2 3 1 B460 Macgillivray's Warbler Oporornis tolmiei L 1 0 1 0 3 2 1 1 B484 California Towhee Pipilo crissalis L 1 0 1 0 3 1 3 1 B495 Lark Sparrow Chondestes grammacus L 1 0 1 0 3 1 3 1 B499 Savannah Sparrow Passerculus sandwichensis L 1 0 1 0 3 1 2 1

FEIS Volume 4, Appendix R-14 - Assessment of Species Vulnerability and Prioritization Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment

WHR ID Common Name Scientific Name Vulnerability DTA Pop Pop Range Late Seral Old Western Riparian/Meadow Aquatic Group Score Size Trend Change Growth Foothills B505 Song Sparrow Melospiza melodia L 1 0 1 0 3 2 1 1 B519 Red-Winged Blackbird Agelaius phoeniceus L 1 0 1 0 3 2 1 1 B521 Western Meadowlark Sturnella neglecta L 1 0 1 0 3 1 3 1 B522 Yellow-Headed Blackbird Xanthocephalus xanthocephalus L 1 0 1 0 3 1 1 1 B532 Northern Oriole Icterus galbula L 1 0 1 0 3 1 2 1 B536 Purple Finch Carpodacus purpureus L 1 0 1 0 1 2 2 1 B537 Cassin's Finch Carpodacus cassinii L 1 0 1 0 1 3 2 1 B539 Red Crossbill Loxia curvirostra L 1 0 1 0 1 3 2 1 M120 Pinyon Mouse Peromyscus truei L 1 0 1 0 3 1 3 1 M133 Montane Vole Microtus montanus L 1 0 1 0 3 3 1 1 A014 California Slender Salamander Batrachoseps attenuatus L 1 0 1 0 2 2 3 1 A015 Black-Bellied Slender Salamander Batrachoseps nigriventris L 1 0 1 0 2 2 3 1 B141 Mountain Quail Oreortyx pictus L 1 0 1 0 3 2 3 1 B300 Williamson's Sapsucker Sphyrapicus thyroideus L 1 0 1 0 2 3 3 1 B304 Hairy Woodpecker Picoides villosus L 1 0 1 0 2 2 2 1 B307 Northern Flicker Colaptes auratus L 1 0 1 0 2 2 2 1 B317 Hammonds' Flycatcher Empidonax hammondii L 1 0 1 0 2 2 3 1 B318 Dusky Flycatcher Empidonax oberholseri L 1 0 1 0 2 2 2 1 B319 Gray Flycatcher Empidonax wrightii L 1 0 1 0 3 3 3 1 B320 Pacific-Slope Flycatcher Empidonax difficilis L 1 0 1 0 3 2 2 1 B323 Say's Phoebe Sayornis saya L 1 0 1 0 3 2 3 1 B326 Ash-Throated Flycatcher Myiarchus cinerascens L 1 0 1 0 3 2 3 1 B333 Western Kingbird Tyrannus verticalis L 1 0 1 0 3 2 3 1 B344 Barn Swallow Hirundo rustica L 1 0 1 0 3 2 2 1 B349 Pinyon Jay Gymnorhinus cyanocephalus L 1 0 1 0 3 2 3 1 B350 Clark's Nutcracker Nucifraga columbiana L 1 0 1 0 2 3 3 1 B351 Black-Billed Magpie Pica pica L 1 0 1 0 3 3 2 1 B353 American Crow Corvus brachyrhynchos L 1 0 1 0 3 2 3 1 B367 Canyon Wren Catherpes mexicanus L 1 0 1 0 3 2 2 1 B376 Ruby-Crowned Kinglet Regulus calendula L 1 0 1 0 2 2 3 1 B381 Mountain Bluebird Sialia currucoides L 1 0 1 0 3 3 2 1 B386 Hermit Thrush Catharus guttatus L 1 0 1 0 2 2 2 1 B394 Sage Thrasher Oreoscoptes montanus L 1 0 1 0 3 3 3 1 B407 Cedar Waxwing Bombycilla cedrorum L 1 0 1 0 3 2 3 1 B554 Cassin's Vireo Vireo cassinii L 1 0 1 0 3 2 2 1 B425 Orange-Crowned Warbler Vermivora celata L 1 0 1 0 3 2 2 1 B426 Nashville Warbler Vermivora ruficapilla L 1 0 1 0 2 2 2 1 B430 Yellow Warbler Dendroica petechia L 1 0 1 0 2 2 2 1 B435 Yellow-Rumped Warbler Dendroica coronata L 1 0 1 0 2 2 2 1 B436 Black-Throated Gray Warbler Dendroica nigrescens L 1 0 1 0 2 2 3 1 B437 Townsend's Warbler Dendroica townsendi L 1 0 1 0 2 2 3 1 B471 Western Tanager Piranga ludoviciana L 1 0 1 0 2 2 3 1 B482 Green-Tailed Towhee Pipilo chlorurus L 1 0 1 0 2 3 3 1 B483 Rufous-Sided Towhee Pipilo erythrophthalmus L 1 0 1 0 3 2 3 1 B491 Brewer's Sparrow Spizella breweri L 1 0 1 0 3 3 3 1

FEIS Volume 4, Appendix R-15 - Assessment of Species Vulnerability and Prioritization Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment

WHR ID Common Name Scientific Name Vulnerability DTA Pop Pop Range Late Seral Old Western Riparian/Meadow Aquatic Group Score Size Trend Change Growth Foothills B509 Golden-Crowned Sparrow Zonotrichia atricapilla L 1 0 1 0 3 2 2 1 B524 Brewer's Blackbird Euphagus cyanocephalus L 1 0 1 0 3 2 2 1 B542 Pine Siskin Carduelis pinus L 1 0 1 0 2 2 2 1 M012 Trowbridge's Shrew Sorex trowbridgii L 1 0 1 0 2 3 3 1 M023 Yuma Myotis Myotis yumanensis L 1 0 1 0 2 2 2 1 M043 Pika Ochotona princeps L 1 0 1 0 3 3 3 1 M053 Alpine Chipmunk Tamias alpinus L 1 0 1 0 3 3 3 1 M065 Uinta Chipmunk Tamias umbrinus L 1 0 1 0 3 3 3 1 M081 Botta's Pocket Gopher Thomomys bottae L 1 0 1 0 3 2 3 1 M083 Northern Pocket Gopher Thomomys talpoides L 1 0 1 0 3 3 2 1 M085 Mountain Pocket Gopher Thomomys monticola L 1 0 1 0 3 3 2 1 M119 Brush Mouse Peromyscus boylii L 1 0 1 0 3 2 3 1 M134 California Vole Microtus californicus L 1 0 1 0 3 2 2 1 R022 Western Fence Lizard Sceloporus occidentalis L 1 0 1 0 2 2 2 1 R023 Sagebrush Lizard Sceloporus graciosus L 1 0 1 0 2 2 2 1 R037 Gilbert's Skink Eumeces gilberti L 1 0 1 0 2 2 2 1 R039 Western Whiptail Cnemidophorus tigris L 1 0 1 0 2 2 2 1 R040 Southern Alligator Lizard Elgaria multicarinata L 1 0 1 0 2 2 2 1 R042 Northern Alligator Lizard Elgaria coerulea L 1 0 1 0 2 2 2 1 R071 Night Snake Hypsiglena torquata L 1 0 1 0 2 2 3 1 B149 American Coot Fulica americana L 0 0 0 0 3 2 2 2 B305 White-Headed Woodpecker Picoides albolarvatus L 0 0 0 0 1 3 3 1 B321 Black Phoebe Sayornis nigricans L 0 0 0 0 3 2 1 1 B343 Cliff Swallow Petrochelidon pyrrhonota L 0 0 0 0 3 2 2 1 B354 Common Raven Corvus corax L 0 0 0 0 3 2 3 1 B418 Warbling Vireo Vireo gilvus L 0 0 0 0 2 2 2 1 B504 Fox Sparrow Passerella iliaca L 0 0 0 0 2 2 2 1 M072 California Ground Squirrel Spermophilus beecheyi L 0 0 0 0 3 2 3 1

FEIS Volume 4, Appendix R-16 - Assessment of Species Vulnerability and Prioritization Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment

The cluster analysis generated clusters with seemingly biologically meaningful groups of species associated with differing degrees of conservation concern. All three of the variables in the cluster analysis had significant F-values (P < 3.3331), with population trend (F = 1888.1) having the greatest F-value followed by change in distribution (F = 884.7) and population size (F = 51.1). The first cluster was characterized by declining population trends, contracting ranges and smaller population sizes. The second cluster was characterized by declining population trends, stable or increasing ranges, and large population sizes. Finally, the third cluster was characterized by stable and/or increasing population trends and ranges, and large populations.

The classification decision tree-based model generated a tree with population trend explaining the majority of the variation, followed by change in distribution. Population size explained only a very small proportion of the variation in the distal branches of the tree. We pruned the tree to remove branches that explained little of the variation. The final tree contained only the branches that were useful for explaining the primary structure of the tree. Species were first classified into groups by the population trend variable as either trend known to be declining or trend unknown but suspected declining (categories 1 or 2) versus population formerly declined but presently stable, trend unknown but suspected stable or increasing, or trend known to be increasing (categories 1-5). This first split resulted in 234 species classified in the former group (known or suspected declining trends) and 221 species in the latter group. Within the known or suspected declining population trend branch (i.e., the 234 species), the species were then split based on change in distribution into two groups. The first group (41 species) was composed of those species with known or suspected reductions in area occupied of >53% (categories 1-1). We considered this group to be the High Vulnerability Group (VG) because the species in this group have both declining population trends and have experienced large reductions in their distributions in the Sierra Nevada Bioregion. The second group (161 species) was composed of those species with a <53% reduction in area occupied to those with stable and increasing ranges (categories 4-6). We considered the species in this group to comprise the Moderate VG because they have declining trends, yet have experienced smaller or no changes in distribution. Within the former declines, suspected stable or increasing, and known increasing population trend branch (i.e., the 221 species), the species were then split based on the same grouping of change in distribution categories as previously described. Of these species, 217 of them were those with a <53% reduction in area occupied to those with stable and increasing ranges (categories 4-6). We considered these species to comprise the Low VG because they were characterized by stable or increasing populations and relatively stable distributions. The remaining 6 of the 221 species were grouped based on known or suspected reductions in area occupied of >53% (categories 1-1). We lumped these six species into either the high or moderate VG based on their estimated range contractions. One species (northern leopard frog) was placed into the High VG because in addition to a large range contraction, the species had also experienced previous population declines. The remaining five species (LeConte’s thrasher, beaver, elk, sandhill crane, sage grouse) were placed in the Moderate VG (Table R.3).

The completed assessment resulted in a final distribution of 42 species in the High VG, 168 species in the Moderate VG, and 217 species in the Low VG (Tables R.3). Twenty-one (53%) of the High VG species are dependent on riparian/meadow and aquatic environments in the Sierra Nevada, whereas 13 (24%) are dependent on western foothills environments, and one (2%) is dependent on late- seral/old-growth forest environments (Table R.3). As described in detail in the introduction this appendix, a final screening process was applied to the results of the vulnerability assessment to identify those species judged to be at greatest risk and subject to further analysis. This final set of species and the level of analysis and treatment each species received are listed in Table R.4.

FEIS Volume 4, Appendix R-17 - Assessment of Species Vulnerability and Prioritization Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment

Table R.4. List of Species and Subspecies in order of WHR ID codes. The list identifies Taxon, analysis category for the EIS, Vulnerability Status and Federal, State and Forest Service status ranking. Treatment refers to the level of analysis provided, F = Full viability analysis in Chapter 3; L = Limited analysis in Appendix R; OB = Out of bioregion, not on USFS lands, no further treatment.

WHR ID Common name Scientific Name Treatment Vul. Federal State Sensitive Group Status Status Amphibians A012S1 Yellow-blotched ensatina Ensatina eschscholtzi F SC croceator A017 Kern canyon slender salamander Batrachoseps simatus F M T 1 A018 Tehachapi slender salamander Batrachoseps stebbinsi F M T 1 A019 Inyo mountains salamander Batrachoseps campi F L SC 1 A020 Black salamander Aneides flavipunctatus F M 2 A023 Mount lyell salamander Hydromantes platycephalus F L SC SC 2 A025 Limestone salamander Hydromantes brunus F L T, FP 1 A033 Yosemite toad Bufo canorus F/NOI H SC SC 1 A040S1 California red-legged frog Rana aurora draytonii F/NOI H T SC 2 A041 Spotted frog Rana pretiosa F H C 1 A042 Cascade frog Rana cascadae F/NOI H SC 1 A043 Foothill yellow-legged frog Rana boylii F/NOI H SC SC 1 A044 Mountain yellow-legged frog Rana muscosa F/NOI H SC SC 1 A045 Northern leopard frog Rana pipiens F/NOI H SC 1 AOXX Relictual slender salamander Batrachoseps diabolicus, B. F SC 1 complex kawia, B. regius, B. relictus AOXX Breckenridge mt. Slender Batrachoseps spp. F SC 1 salamander AOXX Kern Plateau Slender Salamander Batrachoseps spp. F L 1 Birds B050 Least bittern Ixobrychus exilis L M SC 2 B058 Green-backed heron Butorides striatus L M 2 B062 White-faced ibis Plegadis chihi L M SC SC 2 B096 Harlequin duck Histrionicus histrionicus L H SC SC 2 B102 Barrow's goldeneye Bucephala islandica L H SC 2 B109 California condor Gymnogyps californianus F H E E, FP 2 B113 Bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus F L T E, FP 2 B117 Northern goshawk Accipiter gentilis F/NOI M SC SC 1 B124 Ferruginous hawk Buteo regalis F M SC SC 2 B129 Peregrine falcon Falco peregrinus F L D E, FP 1 B137 Sage grouse Centrocercus urophasianus L M SC 2 B150 Sandhill crane Grus canadensis F M 1 B154 Snowy plover Charadrius alexandrinus OB H T SC 2 B173 Long-billed curlew Numenius americanus L M SC 2 B233 Forster's tern Sterna forsteri F M 2 B235 Black tern Chlidonias niger F H SC 2 B251 Band-tailed pigeon Columba fasciata F M 2 B259S1 California yellow-billed cuckoo Coccyzus americanus F H E 1 occidentalis B260 Greater roadrunner Geococcyx californianus F H 2 B269 Burrowing owl Athene cunicularia F H SC 2 B273S2 Northern spotted owl Strix occidentalis F M 1 B273S1 California spotted owl Strix occidentalis occidentalis F/NOI SC

B271 Great gray owl Strix nebulosa F M E 1

B272 Long-eared owl Asio otus F H SC 2 B273 Short-eared owl Asio flammeus L H SC 2 B298 Red-naped sapsucker Sphyrapicus nuchalis L M 2 B309 Olive-sided flycatcher Contopus borealis F M 2 B315S1 Southwestern willow flycatcher Empidonax traillii extimus F E B315S2 Little willow flycatcher Empidonax trailii brewsteri F/NOI B315S1 Great Basin willow flycatcher Empidonax trailii adastus F/NOI

FEIS Volume 4, Appendix R-18 - Assessment of Species Vulnerability and Prioritization Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment

WHR ID Common name Scientific Name Treatment Vul. Federal State Sensitive Group Status Status B338 Purple martin Progne subis F H SC 2 B342 Bank swallow Riparia riparia F M T 2 B385 Swainson's thrush Catharus ustulatus F H 2 B400 Leconte's thrasher Toxostoma lecontei L M SC 2 B413S1 Least bell's vireo Vireo belli pusilius L E E B467 Yellow-breasted chat Icteria virens F H SC 2 B469 Summer tanager Piranga rubra L M SC 2 B476 Blue grosbeak Guiraca caerulea L H 2 B510S1 "Mountain" white-crowned sparrow Zonotrichia leucophrys F H oriantha B520 Tricolored blackbird Agelaius tricolor L M SC SC 2 Mammals M025 Long-eared myotis Myotis evotis F M SC 2 M026 Fringed myotis Myotis thysanodes F M SC 2 M027 Long-legged myotis Myotis volans F M SC 2 M329 Small-footed myotis Myotis ciliolabrum F M SC 2 M030 Silver-haired bat Lasionycteris noctivagans F M 2 M033 Western red bat Lasiurus blossevillii F H 1 M034 Hoary bat Lasiurus cinereus F M 2 M036 Spotted bat Euderma maculatum F M SC SC 2 M037S1 Pacific western big-eared bat C.t. townsendi F SC M037S2 Pale townsend's big-eared bat C.t. pallescens F SC M038 Pallid bat Antrozous pallidus F M SC 1 M042S1 Greater western mastiff bat Eumops perotis californicus F SC M044 Pygmy rabbit Brachylagus idahoensis F H SC SC 2 M049S1 Sierra nevada snowshoe hare Lepus americanus tahoensis F SC M050 White-tailed hare Lepus townsendii F H SC 2 M052S1 Mono basin mountain beaver Aplodontia rufa californica L SC M068 San joaquin antelope squirrel Ammospermophilus nelsoni OB H T 2 M073 Mohave ground squirrel Spermophilus mohavensis OB L T 2 M089 White-eared pocket mouse Perognathus alticola OB M SC 1 M301 Sierra nevada red fox Vulpes vulpes necator F/NOI H M154 Marten Martes Americana F/NOI M 1 M155 Fisher Martes pennanti F/NOI H SC SC 1 M159 Wolverine Gulo gulo F/NOI H T,FP 1 M183S1 California bighorn sheep Ovis canadensis californiana F H E E Reptiles R004S1 Northwestern pond turtle Clemmys marmorata F H SC SC marmorata R019 Blunt-nosed leopard lizard Gambelia silus OB H E E,FP 2 R029 Coast horned lizard Phrynosoma coronatum F H 12 2 R314S1 Sierra night lizard Xantusia vigilis sierrae F R041 Panamint alligator lizard Elgaria panamintina F M 1 R043 California legless lizard Anniella pulchra F M 1 Invertebrates I001 Vernal pool tadpole shrimp Lepidurus packardi F E I002 Vernal pool fairy shrimp Branchinecta lynchi F T I003 Shasta crayfish Pacifastacus fortis F E E I004 Valley elderberry longhorn beetle Desmocerus californicus F T dimorphus I005 California floater (mussel) Anodonta californiensis F 1 I006 Great basin rams-horn (aquatic Helisoma newberryi newberryi F 1 snail) I007 Scalloped juga (aquatic snail) Juga acutifilosa F 1 I008 Topaz juga (aquatic snail) Juga occata F 1 I009 Montane peaclam Pisidium ultramontanum F 1 I010 Owen's valley springsnail Pyrgulopsis owensensis F 1 I011 Wong's springsnail Pyrgulopsis wongi F 1 I012 Kern primrose sphinx moth Euproserpinus euterpe OB T Fish (Native) FN01 Kern brook lamprey Lampetra hubbsi F M SC SC 2 FN02 Pacific lamprey Lampetra tridentata tridentata F H SC 2

FEIS Volume 4, Appendix R-19 - Assessment of Species Vulnerability and Prioritization Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment

WHR ID Common name Scientific Name Treatment Vul. Federal State Sensitive Group Status Status FN03 Goose lake lamprey Lampetra tridentata ssp. F M SC SC 1 FN06 Central valley spring run chinook Oncorhynchus tshawytscha F H T T 1 salmon FN07 Central valley winter run chinook Oncorhynchus tshawytscha F H E E 2 salmon FN08 Central valley fall run chinook Oncorhynchus tshawytscha F L C 1 salmon FN09 Central valley late fall run chinook Oncorhynchus tshawytscha F M C SC 2 salmon FN11 Central valley winter steelhead Oncorhynchus mykiss irideus F H T 2 FN12 Eagle lake rainbow trout Oncorhynchus mykiss F M SC SC 1 aquilarum FN10 Kern river rainbow trout Oncorhynchus mykiss gilberti F H SC SC 2 FN14 Little kern golden trout Oncorhynchus mykiss whitei F H T 2 FN15 Volcano creek golden trout Oncorhynchus mykiss F H SC SC 1 aguabonita FN16 Warner valley redband trout Oncorhynchus mykiss ssp. F M SC SC 1 FN17 Goose lake redband trout Oncorhynchus mykiss ssp. F L SC SC 1 FN19 Lahontan cutthroat trout Oncorhynchus clarki F H T 2 henshawi FN20 Paiute cutthroat trout Oncorhynchus clarki seleniris F M T 2 FN21 Bull trout (considered extinct) Salvelinus confluentus F H T E 2 FN22 Goose lake tui chub Gila bicolor thalassina F M SC 1 FN23 Lahontan lake tui chub Gila bicolor pectinifer F L SC 1 FN25 Owens tui chub Gila bicolor snyderi F H E E 2 FN28 High rock spring tui chub Gila bicolor ssp. F H SC 2 (considered extinct) FN32 Sacramento hitch Lavinia exilicauda exilicauda F H 2 FN35 Sacramento roach Lavinia symmetricus F L 2 symmetricus FN34 Pit roach Lavinia symmetricus mitrulus F H SC SC 2 FN35 San joaquin roach Lavinia symmetricus ssp. F H SC 2 FN38 Sacramento splittail Pogonichthys macrolepidotus OB H T SC 2 FN39 Hardhead Mylopharodon conocephalus F L SC 1 FN42 Owens speckled dace Rhinichthys osculus ssp. F H SC SC 2 FN45 Goose lake sucker Catostomus occidentalis F M SC SC 1 lacusanserinus FN47 Owens sucker Catostomus fumeiventris F H SC 2 FN48 Klamath largescale sucker Catostomus snyderi F M SC SC 2 FN49 Lost river sucker Deltistes luxatus F M E E 2 FN51 Modoc sucker Catostomus microps F M E E, FP 2 FN52 Shortnose sucker Chasmistes brevirostris F M E E 2 FN53 Owens pupfish Cyprinodon radiosus F H E E, FP 2 FN54 Threespine stickleback Gasterosteus aculeatus F H 2 FN60 Rough sculpin Cottus asperrimus F L SC T, FP 2

Key To Table R.4 Codes: Code FEIS Treatment Category Federal and State Status F Full treatment in Chapter 3. E Endangered L Limited treatment in Appendix R T Threatened Vulnerability Group SC Special Concern H High C Candidate for Listing M Moderate FPD Federal Proposed Delisting L Low D Delisted USFS Sensitive: Sensitive 1 Sensitive 2 Not Sensitive 1 Sensitive at a supspecific level only

FEIS Volume 4, Appendix R-20 - Assessment of Species Vulnerability and Prioritization Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment

7HUUHVWULDO 9HUWHEUDWHV 6SHFLHV $FFRXQWV

Following are the species accounts for those terrestrial species receiving limited analysis as indicated in Table R.4. Species receiving full treatment are located in Chapter 3 of the FEIS.

Mono Lake Mountain Beaver (Aplodontia rufa californica) Life history Little research has been done on the mountain beaver in general. Most studies have been conducted on the more abundant subspecies of Aplodontia rufa rufa and A. r. pacifica, primarily those in Oregon and Washington. Nevertheless, knowledge of the biology and ecology of the genus is limited and often based solely on anecdotal records. Given its ancient lineage, unusual physiological characteristics, unique food nich and fascinating behavior, this animal could provide insights in a variety of fields.

Mountain beaver are seldom seem, being most often identified by extensive underground burrow systems that have numerous openings to the outside (Taylor 1914, Camp 1918). These openings are approximately 15 centimeters (6 inches) in diameter and occur every few feet (Racy 1922). Burrows are usually in moderately firm soil where digging is easy, but mountain beaver have been known to dig is other soil types, even sticky clay (Hubbard 1922). Tunnels generally run within 0.3 meter (1 foot) of the surface, but sometimes descend to depths of 1 to 1.5 meters (3 to 5 feet) (Racy 1922, Martin 1971). Burrow systems vary in size. Camp (1918) reported a burrow system of A. r. phaea that extended for more than 100 meters (330 feet) in one direction. The burrow territory of a single animal, however, probably does not exceed 25 meters (80 feet) (Voth 1968). Burrow excavations have shown that mountain beaver burrows contain narrow tunnels (Ingles 1965) that seem to be related to animal size, so that the whiskers can reach both sides (Voth 1968). Tunnels seem to meander with no apparent plan (Scheffer 1929). Burrow openings may be used for entrance and exit, for pushing out excavated earth or debris, or may result from erosion or cave-ins (Scheffer 1929). Burrow activity decreases in the winter (Scheffer 1929). Voth (1968) found that mountain beaver cut and store about 2.5 times more food that they eat. However, through part of the winter season or during the full moon, much less is harvested than is eaten, suggesting storage facilities for as much as a 2-week supply of forage. Storage locations are numerous, including outside caches, covered caches, and food chamber caches (Voth 1968).

Mountain beaver are not colonial animals and exhibit little social interaction (Scheffer 1929). The burrows of several animals are often connected, which led early investigator to misname them colonies (Camp 1918), a misconception that continues to create confusion. Mountain beaver exhibit a “contagious” distribution, that is, the presence of one or more animals in a given are seems to encourage the settlement of others (Gloslow 1964). However, they are solitary animals, except during a short breeding period (Godin 1964).

Mountain beaver are not found in continuous burrow systems, one after the other (T. Wooster 1997). Populations are generally found in a “clumpy” distribution (Cafferata 1992) with groups of burrow systems separated by varying distances.

Habitat Relationships The Mono Lake population apparently utilizes a unique habitat. In 1976, an adult male animal was observed (Steele 1986) foraging at a seep on the shore of Mono Lake within sagebrush scrub. This animal foraged on curly dock (Rumex crispus) and scaled grass (Poa palustrus) associated with the

FEIS Volume 4, Appendix R-21 - Assessment of Species Vulnerability and Prioritization Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment

spring-fed location and used calcium carbonate deposits for shelter. It appears that a population of unestimated size exists in riparian habitat consisting mainly of cottonwood (Populus spp.), willow, alder, and wild rose.

Population Density: There are no hard data available on the density of mountain beaver populations. Population estimates are crude, and have been based on observations and conservative counts of approximately 5 to 10 burrow openings per animal. The burrow openings that honeycomb the ground may appear to indicate a large population, but this is probably not the case. Population density is difficult to determine, because several animals may share the same contiguous burrow system with each individual’s portion having many openings to the outside. Camp (1918) found that total 11 A. r. phaea in a burrow system measuring 30 by 152 meters (100 by 150 feet) with over 100 burrow entrances. Population estimates have ranged from 0.61 to 0.81 individuals per hectare (0.25 to 0.33 per acre) in studies of A. r. rufa and A. r. pacifica, respectively (Neal and Borrecco 1991, Lovejoy and Black 1979), to 3.6 to 4 individuals per hectare (1.5 to 1.6 per acre) in a study of A. r. phaea (Camp 1918). Temporary high densities have been estimated at 6.5 per hectare (2.6 per acre) in studies of A. r. pacifica (Voth 1968). At least one small site in Kings County Washington had a mountain beaver density of 14 per hectare (5.7 per acre) (Morris et al. 1995).

Nest: There are five types of underground chambers within mountain beaver burrows – nest, food, refuge, fecal pellet, and earth ball storage (Voth 1968). The nest is an enlarged chamber, often 50 to 60 centimeters (20 to 25 inches) in diameter and 36 centimeters (14 inches) high, and is usually deeper than other parts of the burrow (Voth 1968). Nests used by adults may contain as much as 0.3 square meter (1.2 square feet) of vegetative material, while subadult nests contain less (Martin 1971). Voth (1968) found differences between the nest of males and females, both in nesting material and the fact that female nests had fewer parasites. Nests are constructed of two shells – an outer shell of coarse vegetation and an inner shell with soft, dry vegetation (Martin 1917). Only one animal lives in a nest (Hubbard 1922, Martin 1971).

Mountain beaver spend about 75 percent of their time in the nest chamber (Ingles 1959, Kinney 1971). The burrow system and nest chamber offer a cool, moist refuge in the summer and a warm and protected environment during the winter (Johnson 1971).

Burrow Community: Mountain beaver burrow systems support a community of vertebrates and other animals (Scheffer 1945). Skunks, salamanders, moles, voles, shrews, chipmunks, ground squirrels, mice, woodrats, gophers, weasels, mink, hares, and brush rabbits have all been recovered from mountain beaver burrows (Pfeiffer 1953, Voth 1968, Whitaker et al. 1979, Maser et al. 1981). These animals may have been present as commensals, predators, or by accident.

Mountain beaver live in underground burrow systems with openings under vegetation (Scheffer 1929), often on steep north-facing slopes or in gullies (Steele 1986). The burrows are found in moist areas with well-drained soils (Ingles 1965). Studies suggest that the most important factors in habitat use are a cool thermal regime, adequate soil drainage, and abundant food supply (Beier 1989), a high percent cover of small diameter woody material, and soft soil (Hacker and Coblentz 1993). Mountain beaver require large amounts of lush vegetation for survival (Voth 1968). Distribution limits are associated with rainfall and soil conditions that promote lush vegetation and high humidity within burrows (Voth 1968).

FEIS Volume 4, Appendix R-22 - Assessment of Species Vulnerability and Prioritization Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment

Within the range of the Point Arena mountain beaver subspecies (Aplodonita rufa nigra) it was found that the historical conversion of heavily forested areas to agriculture, including grazing, might have altered the distribution of populations (T. Wooster 1997). As of this report, no burrow systems of the Point Arena mountain beaver have been found in a forest setting of large trees with large root systems. Studies done in Oregon subspecies of mountain beaver (Humboldt mountain beaver and Pacific mountain beaver), have confirmed that population are very low in dense conifer stands (Hooven 1973). Brushy openings in stands provide suitable habitat that often supports population of these subspecies (Hooven 1973). Populations of the Point Arena mountain beaver are found in a variety of habitat types (Steele 1986).

In the Sierra Nevada Mountains, high elevation is probably preferred because it is associated with lower mean temperatures (Beier 1989). Steep gradients appear to be preferred by mountain beaver. This may be important because it promotes water drainage, thus preventing burrow from flooding. Beier (Ibid) showed that willow, alder, and fir are important foods and also provide thermal and escape cover.

The Mono Lake mountain beaver is unique in that is utilizes small suitable sites in a semi-desert, Great Basin type habitat (Harris 1982).

Foraging: Mountain beavers are strict herbivores (Ingles 1965). They are known to eat a wide range of plant species, which often includes just about all the species within reach of the burrows (Camp 1918, Scheffer 1929). Herbaceous plants are eaten whole, while woody plants are discarded after the bark has been peeled off for food (Scheffer 1929). Clipped vegetation can often be observed near burrow systems (D. Steele pers. Obs.)

Mountain beaver are voracious eaters (E. Ingles 1960). Studies have shown that 73 percent of their active time is spent gathering, handling and eating food (Ingles 1959). They seldom venture far from their burrows, which may open directly into suitable vegetation (Camp 1918, Martin 1971). The animals forage for short distances above ground and then carry or drag the cut vegetative material, which may vary in length from a few inches to several feet, to the burrow (Scheffer 1929). There, the material is cut into short sections at the burrow entrance and carried into the burrow to be eaten or stored (Scheffer 1929, Martin 1971). Animals may eat vegetation outside of the burrow, but most often consume it in feeding chambers, adjacent to the nest (Martin 1971).

While mountain beaver gather many of the plants in their vicinity, there seems to be a decided preference for certain types of plants (Camp 1918, Voth 1968, Allen 1969) including shrubs and small trees (Crouch 1968). The coastal mountain beaver subspecies are predominately fern and root eaters (Camp 1918). Some of their preferred foods include plants that are unpalatable or toxic to other mammals such as bracken fern (Pteridium aquilinum), sword fern, stinging nettles, thistles (Cirsium spp.), corn lily (Veratum sp.) salal (Gaultheria shallon), foxglove (Digitalis purpurea), larkspur (Delphinium sp.) and skunk cabbage (Lysichitum americanum) Voth 1968, Lacy 1991). This gives the mountain beaver a largely uncontested food niche (Johnson 1971). This ability to consume plants with such a variety of toxic secondary compound is unusual and may involve a metabolic “cost” to the animal (Lacy 1991).

FEIS Volume 4, Appendix R-23 - Assessment of Species Vulnerability and Prioritization Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment

Status (from Steele 1986) Little population work has been done on this subspecies. Many earlier workers discussed A. r. californica colonies, but most trapping records indicate a single-animal-per- runway system except, during the breeding season

In 1899, a single pair of A. r. californica was collected from one location on Mount Shasta (Merriam 1899). Two, small unquantified “Colonies” were reported near the springs at the Red Point Big-Tree Grove near Placer County (Price 1984). Fifteen fresh burrows were identified at Blue Canyon, Placer County but no estimates were made of populations size (Grinnell 1913). A male-female pair was capture along a short stretch of stream at Chinquapin in Yosemite National Park (Camp 1918). Camp also described similar conditions at many other locations in the park.

Three populations were monitored near Huntington Lake, Fresno County, for over 13 years, without estimation of population size (Ingles 1959). Three separate populations were identified in southern Sequioa National Park (Wright 1969). Intensive live-trapping at these locations yielded three adult males, two adult females, and two young females. Continued trapping did not yield additional animals. Sequioa Park record indicate fluctuating low numbers and periodic disappearance since 1924. Recent survey work only located three populations out of twelve described in ranger notes (Wright 1969). The populations located in Sequoia National Park were at Woodstock Meadow, Stoney Creek and Atwell Mill. Other burrow systems were identified but appeared abandoned. Considerable habitat was available but unused. Sequoia National Park Service personnel have records of mountain beaver observation at Atwell Mill from as early as 1024.

The population in the Deadman Pass vicinity of Mono County is a newly discovered one. Another new population was discovered at Mono Lake, Mono County, but was not quantified during this study. One animal was observed on the shore of Mono Lake in 1976 apparently the first observation in the Mono Basin. No estimate has been made of the Mono Basin population.

Historic and Current Distribution The subspecies A. r. californicus is wide spread, albeit in small somewhat isolated population, throughout the Sierra Nevada planning area. Historical records indicate that this is a long-standing pattern, because the Sierra Nevada apparently offers only marginal habitat conditions. Field notes from C. L. Camp and T. I. Storer suggest that suitable habitat has been scarce in the Sierra Nevada. The Mono Lake Mountain beaver is a population of mountain beaver isolated to the Mono Lake Basin in Mono County. Because of the unique habitat of the Mono Basin population in semi-desert surroundings and because water-flow in Lee Vining Creek was historically diverted by the Los Angeles Metropolitan Water District, this populations could be in jeopardy.

Risk Factors Although little research has taken place on the Mono Lake Mountain beaver specifically, may of the same threats may be affecting this species. Steele (1989) identified human disturbance, primarily from recreational activities, as posing a significant threat to many of the isolated populations of A. rufa in California. Today, grazing is considered to be the most important limiting factor to the expansion of extant Point Arena mountain beaver populations (US Fish and Wildlife Service 1998). Livestock physically step on burrows and destroy runways. Other threats include road construction, water diversion, urban development, and feral pets resulting from human development in or adjacent to mountain beaver habitat.

FEIS Volume 4, Appendix R-24 - Assessment of Species Vulnerability and Prioritization Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment

There are a number of risk factors not within the control of the Forest Service. The City of Los Angeles owns and controls flows from Lee Vining Creek. U.S. Highway 395 bisect the western portion of Mono Basin and may also be bisect Mountain beaver habitat. There are a number of private inholdings along the western shore and along most of the drainages into Mono Lake.

There is a single risk factor within the control of the Forest Service that may influence the Mono Lake mountain beaver population, recreational use along the Mono Lake shore and Lee Vining Creek. Recreational vehicle use is limited to designated routes (R. Perloff pers comm.).

Assumptions and Limitation This assessment assumes the Mono Lake mountain beaver is isolated within the lower reaches of Lee Vining Creek, Post Office Creek and other smaller drainage immediate adjacent to Mono Lake in the sagebrush scrub or non-forest vegetation types. None of the actions proposed in this FEIS will affect this population.

References Beier, P. 1989. Use of habitat by mountain beaver in the Sierra Nevada. Journal of Wildlife Management. 53(3):649-654.

Cafferata, S.L. 1992. Chapter 11. Mountain Beaver. In: Silviculture approaches to animal damage management in Pacific Northwest Forests. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, OR. General Tech. Report. PNW-GTR-287.

Camp, C. 1918. Excavation of burrows of the rodent Aplodontia with observations on the habits of the animal. University of California Publication in Zoology. 17(10):517-535.

Crouch, G. 1968. Clipping of woody plants by mountain beaver. Journal of Mammalogy. 49 (1):151-152.

Godin, A. 1964. A review of the literature on the mountain beaver. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Special Scientific Report. Wildlife #78.

Goslow. G. 1964. The mountain beaver, Aplodontia rufa. Unpublished MA Thesis. Humboldt State College, Arcata. CA.

Hacker, A. and B Coblentz. 1993. Habitat selection by mountain beavers recolonizaing Oregon coast range clear-cuts. Journal of Wildlife Management. 57(4):847-853.

Hubbard. C. 1922. Some data upon the rodent Aplondontia. Murrelet 3(1):14-18.

Harris, J.H. 1982. Mammals of the Mono Lake – Tioga Pass region. David Gaines/Kutsavi Books. Lee Vining, CA. 55 pp.

Ingles, E. 1960. Underground dwellers in the forest. Aududon Magazine 210-213.

Ingles, L. 1959. A quantative study of mountain beaver activity. American Midland Naturalist. 61(2):419-423.

FEIS Volume 4, Appendix R-25 - Assessment of Species Vulnerability and Prioritization Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment

Johnson, S. 1971. Thermoregulation, microclimate and distribution of Aplondontia rufa. Unpublished PhD Thesis, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR.

Kinney, J. 1971. Environmental physiology of a primitive rodent (Aplodontia rufa). Unpublished PhD Thesis, University of Oregon, Eugene.

Lacy, T. 1991. Comparison of the digestible and metabolizable energy of plants consumed by mountain beaver (Aplodontia rufa). Unpublished MA Thesis. Humboldt State University, Arcata, CA.

Lovejoy, B.H. and H. Black. 1979. Population analysis of the mountain beaver, Aplodontia ruga pacifica in Western Oregon. Northwest Science 53(2):82-89.

Martin. P. 1971. Movements and activities of the mountain beaver (Aplodontia rufa). Journal of Mammalogy 52(4):717-723.

Maser, C., B. Mate, J. Franklin and C. Oyrness. 1981. Natural history of Oregon Coast mammals. U.S. Forest Service General Technical Report PNW-133.

Morris, K., C. Champ, G. Morris, and J. Ha. 1995. The influence of proximity to humans on population density and home range size of mountain beaver (Aplodontia rufa). Annual Conference of the Society for Northwestern Vertebrate Biology.

Neal, F. and J. Borrecco. 1981. Distribution and relationship of mountain beaver to openings in sapling stands. Northwest Science 55(2):79-82.

Pfeiffer, E. 1953. Animals trapped in mountain beaver (Aplodontia rufa) runways, and the mountain beaver in captivity. Journal of Mammalogy 34(3):396.

Racey, K. 1922. The mountain beaver (Aplodontia rufa). Canadian Field Naturalist 36:30-32.

Scheffer, T. 1929. Mountain beaver in the Pacific Northwest: their habits, economic status and control. U.S. Department of Agriculture Farmers Bulletin #1598.

Scheffer, T. 1945. Burrow association of small mammals. Murrelet. 26(2):24-26.

Steele, D. 1989. An ecological survey of endemic mountain beaver (Aplodontia rufa) in California. 1979-1983. State of California, Department of Fish and Game, Wildlife Management Division, Administrative Report #89-1

Taylor, W. 1914. A previously undescribed Aplodontia from the middle north coast of California, University of California Publications in Zoology.

Todd, P. A. 1992. Mountain Beaver Habitat use and Management Implications in Yosemite National Park. Natural Areas Journal 12 (1):26-31

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1998. Point Arena Mountain Beaver (Aplodontia rufa nigra) (Rafinesque) Recovery Plan. Region 1, Portland, OR 71 pp.

FEIS Volume 4, Appendix R-26 - Assessment of Species Vulnerability and Prioritization Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment

Voth, E. 1968. Food habitat of the Pacific mountain beaver Aplodontia rufa pacifica. Unpublished PhD Thesis, Oregon State, Corvallis.

Whitaker Jr., J., C. Maser, W. Wallace. 1979. Parasitic mites of the mountain beaver (Aplodontia rufa) from Oregon. Northwest Science 53(4):264-267.

Williams, F.W. 1986. Mammalian Species of Special Concern in California. Wildlife Management Division Administrative Report 86-1. 112 pp.

Bank Swallow (Riparia riparia) The bank swallow is also called the sand swallow, ground swallow, bank martin, and sand martin (Bent 1942). It breeds throughout the entire Northern Hemisphere and winters in South America, Africa, and India (Bent 1942).

Life history The bank swallow nests colonially in open country in natural or artificial vertical banks or rivers, quarries, gravel pits, cliffs, railroad and highway cuts, that are near water (Harrison 1979; Peterson 1990; Griggs 1997; Baicich and Harrison 1997). Nests are usually built near the top of a nearly vertical bank of a stream or lake (Bent 1942). It has also been reported to nest in sawdust piles and dry well walls (Harrison 1979; Bent 1942). In the Plumas National Forest a small colony nested in a large mine tailing pile.

Nest holes average 34 inches in depth (Bent 1942). Nests are lined with dried grass, weeds and feathers (Bent 1942). Usually lays 4-5 eggs with both parents incubating for 12-16 days. Young leave the nest after 18-24 days (CWHR).

Banding studies have shown that bank swallows exhibit some site tenacity to nest sites (Ehrlich et al. 1988). Bank swallows are reported to sleep in the nest holes of the previous year (Terres 1991). However, site tenacity is not thought to be as high as it is for other swallows due to the dynamic nature of their habitat due to erosion (Garrison pers. Comm. 1998). They are more likely to return to the same general area to nest (Bent 1942).

The breeding season begins in late April in the south and mid June in the north (Baicich and Harrison 1997). In California the breeding activity peaks from mid-May to mid-June (CWHR). Nests colonially and has a tendency for synchronous breeding (Ehrlich et al. 1988). Forms large communal roosts prior to migration and often migrates in large flocks (National Geographic Society 1987; Ehrlich et al. 1988). The bank swallow is a rare cowbird host (Ehrlich et al. 1988; Terres 1991 It orages close to the nest site, where it feeds on insects that it captures while in flight; foraging primarily over open riparian areas, but also over brush, grassland, wetlands, water, and cropland (CWHR). Predators of the bank swallow include skunks, mink, weasels, badgers, rats, mice, house cats, snakes, and raptors. Gopher snakes (Pituophis melnoleucus) and American kestrels (Falco sparverius) are the most common predators in California (CWHR).

The bank swallow arrives in California in March, with the highest numbers arriving by early May (CWHR). This bird leaves colonies in July and August (CWHR). In the fall, it will flock with other species of swallows or martins (Bent 1942).

FEIS Volume 4, Appendix R-27 - Assessment of Species Vulnerability and Prioritization Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment

Habitat relationships On its breeding grounds the bank swallow is a habitat specialist (Carter and Barker 1992). Banks and burrows are essential to bank swallow reproduction (USDA Forest Service 1994). Vertical banks and cliffs of fine textured or sandy soils that are near streams, rivers, ponds, lakes and the ocean are required for nesting (CWHR). It is associated with all successional stages of valley-foothill riparian, montane riparian, coastal scrub, and annual and perennial grasses (USDA Forest Service 1994). They are found in alluvial flood plain areas; therefore, any substantial valley within the Sierra Nevada has the potential to have bank swallows in the other habitat criteria exist (Garrison pers comm. 1998).

Status The Bank Swallow has a global abundance rating of uncommon to fairly common including locally common (Thompson et al. 1992). Along the Sacramento River the estimated breeding population in 1986 was 16,149 pairs; the statewide population number is unknown (USDA Forest Service 1994). The California Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB) state ranking is S2S3 meaning that there are estimated to be between 1,000-3,000 or 3,000-10,000 individuals (Natural Diversity Data Base 1997). The statewide estimate for 1987 was approximately 16,000 pairs from about 120 active colony sites; currently there are estimated to be 10,000-15,000 pairs in California (Garrsion pers comm. 1998). Listed as a threatened species by the State of California since March of 1989 (CWHR).

Based on 26 years of Breeding Bird Survey (BBS) data, 1966-1991, the bank swallow is declining in California, but not in North America (Manley and Davidson 1993). Based on BBS data from 1982- 1991 the population trend of the bank swallow in California is ranked as unknown because the sample size for this species is insufficient (Carter and Barker 1992). Although the population on the Sacramento River is low, it is thought to be stable (Garrison pers comm. 1998). For other western states the trend is as follows: unknown due to insufficient BBS sample size for Colorado, Oregon and Utah; unknown due to no existing quantitative monitoring information for Alaska, New Mexico and Nevada; decreasing based on 14 or more BBS routes without statistical significance and/or the proportion of increasing and decreasing routes do not agree with overall trend for Montana, Washington and Wyoming; statistically significant increasing trend based on 14 or more BBS routes in Idaho. The bank swallow is a sensitive species in Oregon, and a species of special concern in Kentucky (Garrison 1998). A non-significant decline is reported for populations in northeastern states (Smith et al. 1992).

The bank swallow is thought to have been extirpated from its former range in southern California (Ehrlich et al. 1992). Once locally abundant throughout the lowlands and along coastal bluffs of California, the bank swallow no longer breeds in most of its former range south of San Francisco (Steinhart 1990). However, recently a colony of bank swallows nested along the Santa Clara River in southern California (Laymon in Cougoulat 1998).

Historical and Current Distribution California represents less than 1 percent of the species range in the United States (Carter and Barker 1992). The Bank Swallow is a regular breeder in California (Ziener et al. 1990). The California Wildlife Habitat Relationships (CWHR) range maps show shows its summer range to be within Del Norte, Siskiyou, Modoc, Shasta, Lassen, Plumas, Tehama, Glenn, Butte, Colusa, Sutter, Yolo, Sacramento, Yuba, Tuolumne, Mono, San Mateo, Santa Cruz, and Monterey Counties (Zeiner et al.

FEIS Volume 4, Appendix R-28 - Assessment of Species Vulnerability and Prioritization Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment

1990). In California the breeding range is from southern California at Oceanside and Huntington Beach, northward throughout the state (Bent 1942).

Since 1900, it is estimated that the California range of the bank swallow has been reduced by 50 percent. Only a few breeding colonies are thought to remain in the state, with 75 percent estimated to be along the banks of the Central Valley streams and rivers (Zeiner et al. 1990). About 50 percent of the population occurs along the Sacramento River, and 25 percent along the Feather River from Oroville downward into the Valley; the remainder of the population is thought to occur primarily in the Tule Lake, Klamath, and Pit River area (Garrison pers comm. 1998).

The August 1997 CNDDB shows 199 entries of bank swallow occurrences for the following counties (shown with the year of the last reported occurrence in decreasing order for the number of years reported): Sutter, 1988; Glenn, 1990; Butte, 1990; Tehama, 1993; Colusa, 1987; Shasta, 1992, Yuba, 1988; Yolo, 1987; Modoc, 1987; Siskiyou, 1993; Sacramento, 1995; Monterey, 1987; Lassen, 1987; Plumas, 1993; San Francisco, 1987; San Mateo, 1987; Santa Cruz, 1987; Mono, 1987; San Diego, 1925; Del Norte, 1987, Alameda, 1983; Inyo, 1992; Los Angeles, 1864; Ventrua, 1976; Santa Barbara, 1980. The counties with 21 or more occurrences include Sutter, Glenn, Butte, and Tehama; counties with 6 or more occurrences are Colusa, Shasta, Yuba, Yolo, Modoc, Siskiyou, and Sacramento; all other counties had less than 6 occurrences.

National Forests that are in the counties where the Bank Swallow is reported to occur in summer include the Klamath, Lassen, Modoc, Plumas, Shasta-Trinity, Mendocinio, Toiyabe, and Los Padres. The summer range shown on the 1990 CWHR range maps are not totally accurate. For example, there are 3 occurrences of nesting bank swallows on private land in central Plumas County when the CWHR summer range for Plumas County is shown to be only along the northeast boundary of the county (Natural Diversity Data Base 1977; USDA Forest Service 1998). Within the Sierra Nevada Forest planning area, the bank swallow occurs in both the northern and southern provinces of the Sierra Nevada, but the Sierra Nevada is on the edge of the range for this species (USDA Forest Service 1998).

Several Forest Service wildlife biologists were contacted to determine if bank swallows occur on National Forest Land. In the mid 1980's bank swallows nested on the Butte Valley National Grassland (Woodbridge pers comm. 1998). Although they have not been observed nesting at this location since then, large flocks have been observed during late summer. On the Modoc National Forest, no banks swallows have been found nesting on Forest Service land, but they have nested on private land in the nearby town of Fall River Mills (Studinski per comm. 1998). There may be suitable habitat on the Modoc National Forest (Yamagiwa pers comm. 1998). Sections of the Pit River within the Modoc National Forest may contain suitable habitat (Studinski pers comm. 1998). Other National Forests that may contain suitable habitat include the Lassen, Shasta-Trinity, Mendocino, Toiyabe, and Los Padres; however, biologists from these forests were not contacted.

The amount of suitable habitat on National Forests is unknown. Most of the substantial alluvial flood plain valleys where bank swallows tend to nest are privately owned land; therefore, the amount of suitable nesting habitat on Forest Service land is likely to be low. The ephemeral nature of nesting colonies, due to changes in habitat, means that even though a colony may appear at a particular site, it may not persist over time. This means that protection of individual nesting sites is not likely to be effective over the long term, and that extensive amounts of habitat over a large area must be provided to adequately protect this species. Large areas of suitable habitat on National Forest land are not

FEIS Volume 4, Appendix R-29 - Assessment of Species Vulnerability and Prioritization Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment

known to occur. Therefore, until substantial amount of suitable habitat can be identified on National Forest land, the ability of the Forest Service to provide and protect extensive amounts of habitat for this species is very limited.

Risk Factors Habitat risk factors within control of the Forest Service include watershed improvement projects such as riprap installations along stream and river banks for prevention of bank erosion and flooding. River channelization and flood control projects that prevent the meandering flow, and soil erosion and deposition that naturally occurs results in loss of nesting habitat for the bank swallow. Other risk factors are, 1) Permitting of water releases from reservoirs to downstream habitat. Water management policies that allow water levels to rise and destroy nest colonies during the breeding season (Garrison in Cougoulat 1998), 2) Forest service roads that are conducive to high speed travel and are adjacent to riparian areas, and 3) Off-highway vehicle travel is a potential threat in some areas. For example, hill-climbing motorcyclists were thought to be threat to the colony on the Pajaro River in Monterey County (Remsen 1978).

Habitat risk factors not within control of the Forest Service include watershed improvement projects on private land adjacent to National Forest land. Projects include riprap installations along riverbanks for prevention of bank erosion and flooding. Approximately 130 miles of Sacramento River banks, the bank swallows most important breeding area, have been riprapped, and numerous other bank protection projects are proposed (Steinhart 1990). Plans to channelize the Sacramento River is a threat to what is thought to be the primary breeding habitat (Ehrlich et al. 1992).

Non-habitat risk factors not within the control of the Forest Service include predation, and competition with other species. House sparrows and starlings sometimes drive bank swallows from their nest cavities (Bent 1942). Prolonged cold or rainy spells may also contribute to mortality (Bent 1942).

References Baicich, P. J. and C. J. O. Harrison. 1997. A Guide to the Nests, Eggs, and Nestlings of North American Birds, Second Edition. Academic Press.

Bent, A. C. 1942. Life Histories of North American Flycatchers, Larks, Swallows, and Their Allies. Dover Publications, Inc. New York.

Carter, M.F. and K. Barker. 1992. An Interactive Database for Setting Conservation Priorities for Western Neotropical Migrants. In Status and Management of Neotropical Migratory Birds. U.S. Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. GTR RM-229. September 21-25.

Cougoulat, Y. 1998. Meeting Notes from the Riparian Habitat Joint Venture Bird Conservation Plan Workshop. Santa Nella, California. March 12.

Ehrlich, P. R., D. S. Dobkin, and D. Wheye. 1992. Birds in Jeopardy, The Imperiled and Extinct Birds of the United States and Canada Including Hawaii and Puerto Rico. Stanford University Press. Stanford, California.

FEIS Volume 4, Appendix R-30 - Assessment of Species Vulnerability and Prioritization Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment

Ehrlich, P. R., D. S. Dobkin and D. Wheye. 1988. The Birder's Handbook. A field guide to the natural history of North American Birds. Simon & Schuster Inc. New York.

Garrison. B. 1998. California Partners in Flight Riparian Bird Conservation Plan for the Bank Swallow. Unpublished Report. California Department of Fish and Game, Wildlife Management Division. Sacramento, California.

Griggs. J. E. 1977. American Bird Conservancy's Field Guide - All the Birds of North America. Roundtable Press, Inc.

Harrison, H. H. 1975. Peterson Field Guide, Birds' Nests. Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston.

Manley, P. and C. Davidson. 1993. Assessing Risks and Setting Priorities for Neotropical Migratory Birds in California. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region. October 18.

Natural Diversity Data Base. 1997. Natural Heritage Division, California Department of Fish and Game. August.

Peterson, R. T. 1990. A Field Guide to Western Birds. Third Edition. Houghton Mifflin Co. Boston.

Remsen, J. V. Jr. 1978. Bird species of special concern in California. Calif. Dept. of Fish and Game, Sacramento. Wildl. Manage. Admin. Rep. No. 78-1. 54pp.

Smith, C. R., D. M. Pence, and R. J. O'Connor. 1992. Status of Neotropical Migratory Birds in the Northeast: A Preliminary Assessment. In Status and Management of Neotropical Migratory Birds. U.S. Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. GTR RM-229. September 21-25.

Steinhart, P. 1990. California's Wild Heritage, Threatened and Endangered Animals in the Golden State. California Department of Fish and Game. California Academy of Sciences. Sierra Club Books.

Terres, J. K. 1991. The Audubon Society Encyclopedia of North American Birds. Wings Books, New York.

Thompson, F. R., S. J. Lewis, J. Green, and D. Ewert. 1992. Status of Neotropical Migrant Landbirds in the Midwest: Identifying Species of Management Concern. In Status and Management of Neotropical Migratory Birds. U.S. Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. GTR RM-229. September 21-25.

USDA Forest Service. 1994. Neotropical Migratory Bird Reference Book. Volume 1. Pacific Southwest Region, Fisheries and Wildlife. May 1.

USDA Forest Service. 1998. Sierran All Species Information Database. Region 5.

Zeiner, D. C., W.F. Laudenslayer, Jr., K. E, Mayer, and M. White. 1990. California's Wildlife, Volume II Birds. California Statewide Wildlife Habitat Relationships System. State of California, The Resources Agency, Department of Fish and Game. Sacramento, Califnornia. November.

FEIS Volume 4, Appendix R-31 - Assessment of Species Vulnerability and Prioritization Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment

Barrow’s goldeneye (Bucephala islandica) Life history Barrow’s goldeneyes select nest sites that are usually located near relatively shallow lakes and ponds that have extensive beds of submerged aquatic and marsh vegetation; deep lakes with with barren margins support few breeding birds (Bellrose 1976). At reproductive sites, drakes defend a nest territory (Zeiner et al 1990). Females defend brood territories (Zeiner et al 1990). Pair formation occurs mostly on winter range. Clutch size averages 9-11 eggs; young attain flight at about 8 weeks (Zeiner et al 1990).

The California wintering population migrates to breeding grounds in Oregon, Washington, western Canada and Alaska (Zeiner et al 1990).

Habitat relationships The diet of Barrow’s goldeneyes is primarily animal foods, including mollusks and crustaceans in saltwater, and aquatic insects and crustaceans in freshwater (Zeiner et al 1990). Also eats fish eggs and young, was well as algae and the seeds, leaves and stems of aquatic plants (Zeiner et al 1990). Juvenile diets are composed almost entirely of aquatic invertebrates (Zeiner et al 1990). Will dive and take food from the bottoms of water bodies, and prefers water 0.9-3 m deep (Zeiner et al 1990).

Primarily a cavity nester, but where tree cavities are unavailable, may nest in rock crevices, buildings or even under shrubs; will also use nest boxes (Bellrose 1976, Zeiner et al 1990). In California, preferred tree cavities near wooded mountain lakes or large streams (Zeiner et al 1990, Gaines 1988). Erection of nest boxes apparently increased the number of breeding pairs of Barrow’s goldeneyes in a study area in British Columbia (Savard 1988). Nests are usually within 100 feet of water, but may be up to 400-500 yards distant (Bellrose 1976).

Distribution and movements of Barrow’s goldeneye young have been related to the availability and abundance of aquatic invertebrates (Einarsson 1987), and overland movements between lakes by non- fledged common goldeneye young have been correlated with the food supply in the different lakes (Eriksson 1978). Eriksson (1978) found that the selection of lakes by goldeneye ducklings was dependent on the abundance of food, at least in seasons with comparatively low food supplies. Numerous studies have indicated that waterfowl brood use is strongly correlated with invertebrate availability, and, because of dietary overlap, fish-mediated reductions in invertebrate availability may reduce habitat use and availability for waterfowl broods (see review by Bouffard and Hanson 1997). The presence of fish may reduce suitability of potential breeding lakes; effects of fish on common goldeneyes (Bucephala clangula) have been shown.

Eriksson (1979) found common goldeneye density to be negatively correlated with fish density in Scandinavian lakes, removal of fish from one lake resulted in increased use of that lake by common goldeneyes, and abundance of invertebrate food was significantly reduced in lakes with fish compared to fishless lakes. Eadie and Keast (1982) found that there was a high dietary overlap between perch and common goldeneyes, and state that competition for food resources during the brood rearing season might be critical to goldeneyes due to large amounts of invertebrate foods necessary for energy demands. Mallory et al (1994) found that female common goldeneyes nesting on high quality, fishless lakes laid heavier clutches than did females at low quality lakes with fish, and that goldeneyes nesting on fishless lakes should benefit from reduced competition for common prey. McNicol and Wayland (1992) also found that common goldeneyes seemed to select fishless

FEIS Volume 4, Appendix R-32 - Assessment of Species Vulnerability and Prioritization Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment lakes, and that broods preferred lakes without large fish species that probably compete for macrobenthic and nektonic prey. The potential impact of fish stocking to Barrow’s goldeneye in the Sierra Nevada is unknown, however, the above research indicates that the presence of fish may decrease habitat suitability for Barrow’s goldeneyes, especially on lakes with low productivity.

Status This species is a California Species of Special Concern and a harvest species (Zeiner et al 1990). Graber (1996) considered Barrow’s goldeneye to be extirpated from the state as a breeding species, and Gaines (1988) also considered this species to have disappeared from the Sierras. Zeiner et al (1990) stated that the breeding population within the state has been apparently extirpated.

Barrow’s goldeneye have not been reported breeding within Yosemite NP since the 1934 documentation provided by Gaines (1988) (Steve Thompson, pers. comm. 2000). Since 1997, extensive annual surveys for bufflehead broods have been conducted on the Almanor and Eagle Lake Ranger Districts of the Lassen NF, and in Lassen Volcanic National Park; over 200 lakes and ponds, including Mahogany Lake (see below), have been surveyed in this effort. No Barrow’s goldeneyes have been documented during these surveys. Also, no breeding Barrow’s goldeneyes have been reported at Butte Lake, in Lassen Volcanic NP, since Grinnell’s report (Grinnell 1930) (Arnold pers. comm.)

The apparent extirpation of the breeding population may have been related to disturbance from fishing, boating and shooting, and possibly removal of large trees that provided nesting cavities (Remsen 1978). However, removal of large trees likely was not a contributing factor within Yosemite and Lassen Volcanic NPs.

Historical and current distribution In western North America, Barrow’s goldeneyes apparently reach their highest breeding densities in British Columbia (Bellrose 1976). Reports of Barrow’s goldeneye reproduction are limited within California, and Grinnell et al (1918) state that Barrow’s goldeneyes had not been documented breeding within the state at that time. Bellrose (1976) reported a small number to breed in California, as far south as far south as Fresno County. Gaines (1988) stated that Barrow’s goldeneyes formerly nested on the west slope of the Sierra, but found no records of reproduction since 1934. Grinnell et al (1930) reported a female with a brood of 8 young at Butte Lake, in Lassen Volcanic National Park, in 1926, and breeding was also suspected at Buttle Lake in 1928. In 1929, adult male Barrow’s goldeneyes were observed on two lakes in the Caribou Wilderness area, east of Lassen Volcanic NP (Grinnell et al 1930).

Several sightings of Barrow’s goldeneyes occurred in northern California in 1987 and 1988. Of five observation records since the 1970s from Lassen Volcanic NP, four of the five occurred in 1987 (3) and 1988 (1), including observations of a pair at Rainbow Lake in July and August, 1987; the remaining sighting was in 1978 (Jon Arnold, pers. comm. 2000). In 1988, Rhys Bowen reported a female with a brood on Mahogany Lake, on the Eagle Lake Ranger District of the Lassen National Forest (on file at the Eagle Lake district office). This has been the last documented record of breeding by Barrow’s goldeneyes in the state, and apparently the only record since 1934 (Zeiner et al 1990, Gaines 1988).

FEIS Volume 4, Appendix R-33 - Assessment of Species Vulnerability and Prioritization Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment

During winter, this species is considered to be rare and local on inland lacustrine and riverine waters (Zeiner et al 1990). The bulk of the population winters along the Pacific coast from the Aleutian Islands to San Francisco Bay (Bellrose 1976).

Risk Factors Habitat risk factors in control of the FS would include the elimination of large diameter snags near lakes and large rivers suitable for breeding; possibly fish stocking. Establishment of nest boxes may enhance the suitability of some areas.

Habitat risk factors not in control of the FS would include land management activities in national parks within the historic breeding range.

Non-habitat risk factors in control of the FS would include correcting the current lack of knowledge regarding the status of this species on FS administered lands. Funding a breeding season survey effort in potential habitat, especially in watersheds where individuals or broods have been previously observed, would be an important first step.

Non-habitat risk factors not in control of the FS would include disturbance levels at potential breeding sites in national parks within the historic breeding range.

Conservation Measures The limited breeding record of this species indicates that, historically, Barrow’s goldeneyes were not well distributed on NF system lands. Also, despite the one observation of reproduction in 1988, they appear to have been extirpated from the state as a breeding species. Reasons for this extirpation are unknown. Therefore, it is unlikely that one or more of the DEIS alternatives would provide environmental conditions to provide a high likelihood of maintaining a well distributed population of Barrow’s goldeneyes on NF system lands. Treatment of this species should be dismissed in the FEIS and responsibility be passed on to Forests within the historic breeding range (Fresno County north).

Remsen (1978) recommended: 1) Survey of potential breeding sites in the Sierra Nevada to determine if breeding birds still exist, 2) Restrict boating during breeding season and provide nest boxes at any lake found to contain breeding pairs, and 3) discourage dead tree removal in areas where cavities may be used as nesting sites.

Additional measures Forests might take would include, 1) avoidance of including historically occupied breeding sites within land exchange proposals in which the sites would pass into private ownership, and, 2) establishment of properly sized nest boxes at historically occupied reproductive sites. Nest box dimensions used by Savard (1988) in British Columbia were 23 X 30 X 61 cm, with entrance diameters of 12 cm.

References Arnold, John. October 2000. Ecologist, Lassen Volcanic National Park, personal communication.

Bellrose, F.C. 1976. Ducks, geese and swans of North America. Stackpole Books, Harrisburg, PA.

Bouffard, S.H., and M.A. Hanson. 1997. Fish in waterfowl marshes: Waterfowl managers perspective. Wildlife Society Bulletin 25(1): 146-157.

FEIS Volume 4, Appendix R-34 - Assessment of Species Vulnerability and Prioritization Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment

Eadie, J.M., and A. Keast. 1982. Do goldeneye and perch compete for food?

Oecologia 55: 225-230.

Einarsson, A. 1988. Distribution and movements of Barrow’s goldeneye (Bucephela islandica) young in relation to food. Ibis 130: 153-163.

Eriksson, M.O.G. 1978. Lake selection by goldeneye ducklings in relation

Eriksson, M.O.G. 1979. Competition between freshwater fish and goldeneyes Bucephala clangula (L.) for common prey. Oecologia 41: 99-107.

Gaines, D. 1988. Birds of Yosemite and the east slope. Artemisia Press, Lee Vining, CA.

Graber, D. 1996. Status of terrestrial vertebrates. In, Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project, Final report to Congress, vol. 2, chapter 25. Davis: University of California, Centers for Water and Wildland Resources.

Grinnell, J., H.C. Bryant, and T.I. Storer. 1918. The game birds of California. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA.

Grinnell, J., J. Dixon, and J.M. Linsdale. 1930. Vertebrate history of a section of northern California through the Lassen Peak region. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA.

McNicol, D.K., and M. Wayland. 1992. Distribution of waterfowl broods in Sudbury area lakes in relation to fish, macroinvertebrates, and water chemistry. Canadian Journal Fish. Aquat. Sci., Vol. 49(Suppl. 1).

Mallory, M.L., D.K. McNicol, and P.J. Weatherhead. 1994. Habitat quality and reproductive effort of common goldeneyes nesting near Sudbury, Canada. Journal of Wildlife Management 58(3): 552-560.

Remsen, J.V. 1978. Bird species of special concern in California. CA Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, CA. Wildl. Manage. Admin. Rep. No. 78-1. 54 p.

Savard, J.L. 1988. Use of nest boxes by Barrow’s goldeneyes: Nesting success and effect on the breeding population. Wildlife Society Bulletin 16: 125-132.

Thompson, Steve. October 2000. Wildlife Biologist, Yosemite National Park. Personal communication.

Zeiner, D.C., W.F. Laudenslayer, K.E. Mayer, and M. White (editors). 1990. California’s Wildlife, Volume 2, Birds. California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, CA.

FEIS Volume 4, Appendix R-35 - Assessment of Species Vulnerability and Prioritization Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment

Blue grosbeak (Guiraca caerulea) The blue grosbeak has also been called California blue grosbeak, blue pop, big indigo, and western grosbeak (Terres 1991). Although males are deep, rich blue they appear black and may be easily mistaken for cowbirds when foraging on the ground (Terres 1991). There are three subspecies in the United States; G. c. caeruls occurs in the southeastern and south central U.S.; G. c. interfusa occurs in the southwestern U.S. and northern Mexico, and G. c. salicaria is found in the Central Valley of California, and the southeastern deserts/valley floors, from Oasis, Mono and Owens Valleys, Armagosa River, southwestern California to northwestern Baja and east to the Virgin River in southwestern Utah and the Colorado River in Arizona (Phillips et al. 1964 in White 2000).

Life history The blue grosbeak is a neotropical migrant that arrives in California in April and returns to wintering grounds in Mexico and Central America in August and September (Dobkin and Granholm 1983). It winters in Panama, Bahamas, and Cuba (Ehrlich et al. 1988). The wintering grounds for G. c. salicaria are western Mexico from southern Sonora to Guerrero (USFWS in White 2000).

Although there is one fall record for Yosemite Valley it does not appear to be an upslope migrant (Gaines 1977 in USDA Forest Service 1994).

In California the blue grosbeak breeds from April to late July; the breeding season peaks from early June to early July (Dobkin and Granholm 1983). Breeding territories are approximately 6.2 ha (15.3ac) (Odum and Kuenzler in Dobkin and Granholm 1983). They build open cup type nests using stems, twigs, bark strips, rootlets, dead leaves, corn husks, cotton, paper, cast snake skins; lined with fine rootlets or grasses, hair, tendrils (Baicich and Harrison 1997). Nests are built from 0.5 to 25 ft from the ground; although most range between 2-10 ft above ground (Stabler 1959 and Bent 1968 in Ingold 1993; Dobkin and Granholm 1983; (Baicich and Harrison 1997). On the Sacramento and Consumnes River the average nest height was about 22 inches (White 2000). The female blue grosbeak incubates 3-5 eggs for 11-12 days and with assistance from the male may raise 2 broods per year in some areas (Dobkin and Granholm 1983). Young fledge at 9 to 13 days (Baicich and Harrison 1997).

The blue grosbeak forages on the ground, and in shrubs and trees (Terres 1991). It eats insects, snails, spiders, grain, weed seeds, fruit (Terres 1991), and grasshoppers and crickets (Ingold 1993).

Habitat relationships The blue grosbeak inhabits riparian habitat of foothills and the Central Valley lowlands during the breeding season, but is not limited to this habitat post breeding or in migration (Dobkin and Granholm 1983). They use low, dense riparian habitats, thickets of willow, cottonwoods, nettle, knotweed, arrow weed, or tamarisk for cover during the breeding season (Dobkin and Granholm 1983). Blue grosbeaks typically nest in shrubs or vines at the edge of an open area (Harrison 1975), along forest edges, or roadsides (Ingold 1998). In its southern California breeding range the blue grosbeak requires open grassy areas and low dense vegetation near water (Unitt 1984 in Ingold 1993). The plant growth form appears to be more important than species; they prefer upright growth forms for nesting (USDA Forest Service 1994; White 2000). At least a few taller trees for high song perches and shade for nests are a habitat component (USDA Forest Service 1994). Although willows and cottonwoods originally supplied the tree element non-natives such as tamarisks, and orchard trees

FEIS Volume 4, Appendix R-36 - Assessment of Species Vulnerability and Prioritization Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment are also used (USDA Forest Service 1994). The non-native Himalayan berry is also used by blue grosbeaks (White 2000).

Blue grosbeaks forage in openings, grasslands and croplands (Dobkin and Granholm 1983; Terres 1991). During migration it uses a variety of other habitats (Dobkin and Granholm 1983). They form flocks and feed in grain fields, grasslands, and rice fields after the breeding season prior to migration (Ehrlich et al. 1988). On its wintering grounds it is less of a habitat specialist (Carter and Barker 1992).

Terres (1991) reported that in California the blue grosbeak is found in these habitats from 200 to 4,000 feet in elevation; however, there are few records of blue grosbeaks nesting above 1,000 feet in elevation (Dobkin and Granholm 1983; White 2000).

Status Globally, the blue grosbeak is ranked G5, which is defined as secure, meaning that although it may be rare in parts of its range, it is common, widespread and abundant and not vulnerable in most of its range. Analysis of Breeding Bird Survey (BBS) data showed a 50 percent decline in the North American population over the last 25 years (Sauer 1992). This estimate is based on habitat for all three North American subspecies, not specifically for G. c. salicaria, the subspecies that occurs in California.

The California BBS data for 1966 to 1988 shows a significantly increasing trend of 3.5 percent per year in California (USGS 2000a). However, according to Manley and Davidson (1993), due to the large variation in detections over BBS routes, there is inadequate BBS data to determine trends for California. The BBS cannot detect trends of rare or locally distributed species (DeSante 1995). For BBS routes in California there have been fewer than five blue grosbeaks per route per year (Ingold 1993). In recent decades breeding populations of blue grosbeaks in California have declined due to habitat degradation and destruction, and cowbird parasitism (Gaines 1974a, McCaskie et al. 1979, 1988; Garrett and Dunn 1981 in Dobkin and Granholm 1983). The threats on breeding grounds in California are estimated to be moderate with habitat loss at 11-25 percent; however there are only a few specific references (Carter and Barker 1992). Although declines were noted for the San Joaquin Valley and southern California it was not added to the California Department of Fish and Game list of bird species of concern because it was thought to be a common species in many areas (Willet 1912, and DeSante and Le Valley 1971 in Remsen 1978).

Historical and Current Distribution The breeding range of the blue grosbeak is from eastern California, southern Nevada, Utah, and southern Colorado east to central South Dakota and southern New Jersey south to Costa Rica (Terres 1991). There has been a northward expansion of breeding range into central New Jersey, southern Ohio, and southern North Dakota (Robbins et al. 1986; Andrle and Carroll 1988; Peterjohn 1989; Zeranski and Baptist 1990 in Ingold 1993).

Blue grosbeak populations in California represent 1-10 percent of the species total distribution (Carter and Barker 1992). It is an uncommon to locally common summer resident and breeder in dense valley foothill riparian habitat, and of the Central Valley lowlands of southern California (Dobkin and Granholm 1983). At the Sacramento National Wildlife Refuge Complex they are uncommon in the spring and summer, but may be found nesting there (US Fish and Wildlife Service 1994). Blue grosbeaks nest along the Lower Sacramento River and Comumnes River (Winter 2000). It occurs

FEIS Volume 4, Appendix R-37 - Assessment of Species Vulnerability and Prioritization Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment

along the Kern River above Lake Isabella and the coastal lowlands from San Luis Obispo Co. southward (Dobkin and Granholm 1983). In southern California it is a summer resident in Owens, Imperial, Coachella and Colorado River Valleys; also along larger watercourses and oases of desert areas (Dobkin and Granholm 1983). Blue grosbeaks are breeding residents and migrants in the Northeast Interior Zone of California; breeding at Independence and Lone Pine (Airola 1980; DeSante 1995). Vagrants can occur as far north as Shasta and Del Norte Counties (Dobkin and Granholm 1983).

It appears that the breeding distribution of the blue grosbeak in the Sierra Nevada is not well known. Verner and Boss (1980) reported that the potential Sierra Nevada breeding range includes Kern, Tulare, Fresno, Madera, Mariposa, Tuolomne, Calavaras, Amador, El Dorado, Placer, Nevada, and Yuba Counties. According to DeSante (1995) the Blue grosbeak probably was more common in riparian areas of the Sierran foothills than it is today. Past activities such as logging, dams and water diversions, grazing, and residential and agricultural development probably eliminated most individuals from the foothills of the west slope (DeSante 1995). In recent review of the published literature it was found that "The California range of the blue grosbeak lies nearly or entirely outside the National Forests; and any overlap would encompass only a tiny fraction of the species' population" (USDA Forest Service 1994).

The blue grosbeak is rare or locally distributed in the lower foothills of the Sierra; it breeds in few sites above 1,000 feet in the foothills the western Sierra Nevada (DeSante 1995). Verner and Boss (1980) reported that there are breeding sites above 1,000 feet along the Kern River above Lake Isabella, and one record of a blue grosbeak breeding at 1,700 feet in Mariposa County. The only positive breeding record in the Sierra was along the Merced River at 1,700 feet (Gaines 1988 in DeSante 1995).

In the Kern River Valley it is fairly common nesting species (Barnes 2000). It is noted as rare in Fresno and Madera Counties during the summer (Fresno Audubon Society 1996). In eastern Fresno County nesting was suspected, due to repeated sightings of a pair, near Highway 180 and Crawford Road at the base the of foothills about 8 miles west of the Sequoia National Forest (Brock 1998). A blue grosbeak was reported at this same area in the following spring (Brock 1999). One was also seen during the summer along the Kings River in Fresno County (Brock 1996).

Several wildlife biologists working in National Forests in Sierra Nevada were contacted to determine if the blue grosbeak was known to occur on Forest Service land. They have not been seen in the Sierra National Forest (Drynan and Purcell pers comm. 2000). The blue grosbeak is thought to possibly be rare visitor to the Stanislaus National Forest (Rich pers comm. 2000), but not known to occur on the Lassen (Smith and Rickman pers. comm. 2000), Plumas (Roberts pers comm. 2000), Tahoe (Mark, Triggs, and Wilson pers comm. 2000), and Eldorado (Boatner and Yasuda pers comm. 2000) National Forests

Data from 26 individual BBS routes adjacent to and within National Forests in the Sierra Nevada were reviewed to determine if blue grosbeaks had been detected. Blue grosbeaks had been detected on only two of those BBS routes, Oroville Cal-159 and Orange Cove Cal-054; both routes do not occur on national forest land. In 1984 there was one blue grosbeak detected on the Orange Cove Cal- 054 BBS route in eastern Fresno County (USGS 2000b). In Butte County, one was detected on the Oroville Cal-159 BBS route in 1990, 1994, and 1997 (USGS 2000b). In May 1984 one male was

FEIS Volume 4, Appendix R-38 - Assessment of Species Vulnerability and Prioritization Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment found along French Creek in Butte County near the western edge of the Plumas National Forest (Snowden pers comm. 2000).

The blue grosbeak is not listed on the Modoc National Wildlife Refuge Bird List (US Fish and Wildlife Service 2000). In the Sacramento Valley west of the Tahoe National Forest they are an uncommon nesting species on the Sacramento National Wildlife Refuge Complex (US Fish and Wildlife Service 1994). In 1969 a pair nested east of the Tahoe National Forest, in Reno, Nevada (Airola 1980). On a BBS route east of the Inyo National Forest, four blue grosbeaks were detected in 5 out of 8 years that the survey was conducted in the vicinity of Lone Pine (Airola 1980).

The Sierra Nevada bioregion is peripheral to the range of the blue grosbeak (Graber 1996). There does not appear to be a substantial population of blue grosbeaks on national forest land. The areas where blue grosbeaks have been detected in the sierra foothills are primarily under private ownership and not in control of the Forest Service. However, surveys of avian species at the lower elevations of national forest land have been very limited due to lack of adequate funding or personnel. Lack of surveys for the blue grosbeak is also likely to be due to Forest Service focus on species that have special status (i.e., are either listed as threatened or endangered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or are listed as Forest Service sensitive species). Through the Partners in Flight Program, approximately 47 additional BBS routes were added to national forest land in 1997 and 1998 (Rich pers comm. 2000). Data from these routes will not be available until 2001 or 2002, and it is uncertain how many are at the lower elevations where the blue grosbeak would be expected to occur.

Risk Factors Habitat risk factors within control of the Forest Service possibly include grazing within riparian areas in the lower foothills, below 2,000 feet, of the Sierra Nevada. Grazing to the intensity that removes the dense riparian habitat reduces the quality and quantity of breeding habitat for the blue grosbeak. In some areas, it is likely that grazing pressures have resulted in the loss of riparian habitat; possibly eliminating blue grosbeak populations that previously existed.

Habitat risk factors not within control of the Forest Service are loss of winter habitat in Latin America due to conversion of land for cattle grazing (Ehrlich et al. 1988). Although there are few specific references, habitat loss on wintering grounds is estimated to be minor with losses of 1-10 percent (Carter and Barker 1992). It is moderately widespread over its wintering grounds and uses a variety of habitats during the winter (Carter and Barker 1992).

Another habitat risk factor that is not within the control of the Forest Service is the continued expansion of agricultural and residential development of private lands of foothills adjacent to National Forests that is also a threat to habitat for this species. The riparian habitat along the west- slope streams and rivers is one of the habitats that is most threatened by this type of development (Graber 1996).

Non-habitat risk factors within the control of the Forest Service may include mortality due to collision with television towers (Crawford 1974 in Ingold 1993), and Forest Service roads conducive to high-speed travel and are near riparian areas.

Another non-habitat risk factor that may be within control of the Forest Service is the brown-headed cowbirds that are strongly associated with the grazing. The grazing that is permitted on Forest Service land in the foothills may be contributing to cowbird parasitsm. The blue grosbeak is a

FEIS Volume 4, Appendix R-39 - Assessment of Species Vulnerability and Prioritization Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment common cowbird host (Dobkin and Granholm 1983; Ehrlich et al. 1988; Terres 1991) and may be heavily parasitized by brown-headed cowbirds (Ingold 1993). Brown-headed cowbird parasitism rates for G. c. salicaria were 10.8 percent, which is lower than for the other two subspecies (Friedmann et al. 1977 in Ingold 1993). Population trends of the blue grosbeak in the Sierras are probably negative and therefore, at greater risk to brown-headed cowbird parasitism (DeSante 1995). Flocks of brown-headed cowbirds have been observed foraging along side of cattle grazing on Forest Service land. For example, they have been seen along the Kings River in the Sierra National Forest.

Non-habitat risk factors not within the control of the Forest Service include State highways and county roads that are conducive to high speed travel and are near riparian areas. Conservation measures

The population viability of the blue grosbeak requires foothill and riparian habitat (Graber 1996). As most of the remaining riparian forest in the Central Valley is gone, the remaining riparian habitat in the lower foothills becomes essential to species such as the blue grosbeak which now has a limited amount of habitat and is at critically low population levels (Graber 1996). Although the blue grosbeak peripheral to the Sierra Nevada there may be localized populations on national forest land that could benefit, along with other birds that utilize similar habitats, from conservation measures applied to riparian habitats in the lower foothills.

Through the Partners in Flight effort two conservation strategies that are being developed that provide conservation measures for avian species throughout California. The Draft Avian Conservation Plan for the Sierra Nevada Bioregion provides conservation priorities and strategies for safeguarding Sierra bird populations (Siegel and DeSante 1999). This plan provides conservation recommendations for priority habitats in the Sierra Nevada, montane meadows, non-meadow riparian habitat, late succesional/old growth forest, and oak woodland. The Riparian Bird Conservation Plan, developed through the Riparian Habitat Joint Venture (RHJV) is a strategy for reversing the decline of riparian associated birds in California (RHJV 2000).

The historical breeding range of the blue grosbeak includes the Sierra Nevada Bioregion (RHJV 2000). The blue grosbeak is one of 14 focal species addressed in the RHJV Riparian Bird Conservation Plan. For conservation of non-meadow riparian habitat, Siegel and DeSante (1999) suggest the comprehensive riparian conservation objectives developed through the Riparian Habitat Joint Venture. Of the 14 RHJV riparian conservation objectives and recommendations, only those that would partially or fully mitigate the risk factors that are within the control of the Forest Service are summarized below. See the RHJV Riparian Bird Conservation Plan for further details.

Objective 1: Prioritize riparian sites for protection and restoration. Recommendations: 1.1. Prioritize potential riparian protection sites according to current indicators of avian population health. 1.2. Prioritize restoration sites according to their proximity to existing high quality sites. 1.3. Protect and restore riparian areas with intact adjacent upland habitats. 1.4. Prioritize sites with an intact natural hydrology or the potential to restore the natural processes of the system. 1.5. Prioritize according to surrounding land use. Management of riparian areas at a watershed-level is the best method for conserving bird populations.

FEIS Volume 4, Appendix R-40 - Assessment of Species Vulnerability and Prioritization Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment

Objective 2: Promote riparian ecosystem health (i.e., a self-sustaining functioning system). Recommendations: 2.1. Ensure that the patch size, configuration, and connectivity of restored riparian habitats adequately support the desired populations of riparian-dependent species. 2.2. Restore natural hydrology in riparian systems wherever possible. Objective 3: Increase the value of ongoing restoration projects for bird species. Recommendations: 3.1. Restore and manage riparian forests to promote structural diversity and volume of the understory. The blue grosbeak is one of seven of the focal species addressed in this plan that have suffered the greatest range reductions and/or are declining tend to depend upon early successional riparian habitat, particularly willow-alder shrub habitats with dense understory. 3.2. Restore the width of the riparian corridor.

Objective 4: Design and implement cultivated restoration projects that mimic the diversity and structure of a natural riparian plant community. Recommendations: 4.1. Plant a minimum of two or more species of native shrubs or trees (i.e., avoid monotypic plantings). 4.2. Increase shrub richness, shrub density, and the rate of natural reestablishment by including plantings of understory species in restoration design. 4.3. Plant native forb and sedge species. 4.4. Plant willows and other vegetation common to early successional riparian habitat in a mosaic design with dense shrub patches interspersed with trees to achieve a semi-open canopy, which invigorates shrub growth. 4.5. Retain at least some existing trees on restoration sites, planting around them, to promote occupancy of the plot by birds requiring mature trees (e.g., cavity nesters, orioles etc.). 4.6. Connect patches of existing riparian habitat with strips of dense, continuous vegetation that are at least 3-10 meters wide. 4.7. Cultivate willow, alder, herb cover, and diversity of tree species to benefit birds in the Central Valley and foothill riparian habitats.

Objective 5: Implement and time land management activities to increase avian reproductive success and enhance populations. Recommendations: 5.1. Manage riparian and adjacent habitats to maintain a diverse and vigorous understory and herbaceous layer, particularly during the breeding season. • Control star thistle and other "weedy" non-native species to promote a diverse herb layer. • Manage grazing intensity and location to ensure riparian deciduous shrubs are able, recruiting well, and are not "high-lined" (i.e. cattle do not destroy all the foliage within their reach). • Manage grazing intensity and timing to avoid direct impacts on low-nesting birds during breeding season. • If burning must be used as a management technique, burn the groundcover in riparian habitats after the end of the breeding season. 5.2. Manage or create "soft" edges (through establishment of hedgerows at field margins) appropriate to historical vegetation patterns. 5.3. Avoid the construction or use of facilities and pastures that attract and provide foraging habitat for brown-headed cowbirds.

FEIS Volume 4, Appendix R-41 - Assessment of Species Vulnerability and Prioritization Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment

• Management should avoid aggregations of livestock and associated livestock facilities (e.g., corrals, pack stations, salting areas and feed lots) near riparian nest sites during the breeding season whenever possible. Furthermore, managers should discourage human habitation near riparian areas. Livestock, livestock facilities, and human habitation provide foraging areas for cowbirds (Mathews and Goguen 1997, Tewksbury et al. 1998), who feed in short-stature vegetation within "commuting distance" of their laying areas. Grazing and human facilities within one kilometer of breeding sites affect reproductive success more negatively than facilities located farther away. 5.4. Brown-headed cowbird trapping should only be used as an interim/emergency measure. Trapping can save or maintain a threatened population of host species while sustainable, habitat- based solutions are developed, but should not be considered a long-term solution. 5.5. Manage or influence management at the landscape level (i.e., land surrounding riparian corridor or, preferably, the whole watershed). • Landscape-scale land use patterns significantly affect the population levels of brown-headed cowbirds and avian predators in an area. Managers should discourage certain adjacent land uses that subsidize cowbirds and avian predators, including intensive grazing, golf courses, human habitation and recreation areas, and pack stations. Livestock pastures bordering riparian areas should avoid grazing during the breeding season. • If grazing must occur in riparian zones, establish wide pastures and move cattle often to avoid the devastating impacts of year-round grazing. 5.6. Limit restoration activities and disturbance events such as grazing, disking, herbicide application, and high-water events to the non-breeding season. When such actions are absolutely necessary during the breeding season, time disturbance to minimize its impacts on nesting birds. In general the breeding season in California may begin as early as March and continue through August.

Objective 6: Protect, enhance or recreate natural riparian processes, particularly hydrology and associated high-water events, to promote the natural cycle of channel movement, sediment deposition, and scouring that create a diverse mosaic of riparian vegetation types. Recommendations: 6.1. Avoid impacts on the natural hydrology of meadows, streams, and river channels, particularly in high-priority areas managed for riparian species. • Protect areas where grazing may be drying meadows or streams through soil compaction and gullying; provide alternative water sources for cattle. • Limit or contain recreational use of meadows (e.g., off-road vehicles, horses, camping) that can compact soils and negatively affect hydrology. • Manage upslope areas (e.g., timber harvest, road building) so that hydrologic function is maintained. • Implement revegetation projects such as "willow walls" to prevent erosion and provide habitat. • See also Recommendation 1.4. 6.3. Control and eradicate non-native plant species. Such control is best planned and implemented on a watershed scale.

Objective 7: Provide data on pressing conservation issues affecting birds. Recommendations: 7.1. Consider reproductive success and survival rates when monitoring populations, assessing habitat value, and developing conservation plans.

FEIS Volume 4, Appendix R-42 - Assessment of Species Vulnerability and Prioritization Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment

7.2. Conduct intensive, long-term monitoring at selected sites. In order to analyze trends, long-term monitoring should continue for more than five years. 7.3. Monitor the relationship between herbaceous vegetation height and avian productivity and recruitment, especially in wet meadows. 7.5. Conduct selective monitoring at critical sites to determine the effects of cowbird parasitism on the willow flycatcher, Bell's vireo, warbling vireo, common yellow throat, blue grosbeak, Wilson's warbler and yellow warbler.

Objective 8: Maximize the effectiveness of ongoing monitoring and management efforts. Recommendations: 8.1. Increase communication and coordination between land managers and specialists hired to implement specific projects and conduct monitoring. 8.2. Use standardized monitoring protocols.

Objective 9: Increase protection and management actions to benefit severely declining or locally extirpated bird species in California. Recommendations: 9.2. Develop a map displaying the extent of riparian and associated oak woodland habitats throughout the state at sufficient scale for the analysis of bird data in association with the occurrence of various habitat types.

In the Draft Avian Conservation Plan for the Sierra Nevada Bioregion, Siegel and DeSante (1999) offer the following recommendations to meet conservation objectives for avian species in the entire Sierra Nevada region:

Objective 10: Continue and expand current Sierra-wide bird monitoring efforts. Recommendations: 10-1. Recruit committed observers to continue surveying the Sierra BBS routes, including the 20 new routes generated since 1997. 10-2. Design and implement a long-term, off-road, habitat specific avian monitoring program. 10-3. Deploy additional MAPS stations throughout the Sierra to better understand the primary demographic parameters responsible for Sierra-wide populations trends of numerous species. 10-4. Implement effective monitoring efforts for habitats, species, and seasons for which current efforts are insufficient.

Objective 11: Focus hypothesis-driven research on the effects of specific land management practices on breeding, dispersing, migrating, and over-wintering birds, and on the relationships between spatial patterns of productivity, survivorship, and population trends, for selected target species. Recommendations: 11-1. Deploy additional MAPS stations in locations that will test the effects of specific land management practices on avian productivity and survival and the relationships between productivity, survivorship, and population trends. 11-2. Deploy nest-monitoring studies throughout the Sierra to provide a mechanistic understanding of how various habitat variables and land management practices affect nesting productivity.

FEIS Volume 4, Appendix R-43 - Assessment of Species Vulnerability and Prioritization Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment

Objective 12: Focus research efforts on the effects on bird populations of ongoing ecological in the Sierra including those caused by factors both internal and external to the Sierra. Recommendations: 12-1. Encourage the collection of data that will enable prediction of how ongoing changes in forest composition and structure brought on by management actions in the Sierra will affect avian community composition and population dynamics. 12-2. Encourage the collection of data that will elucidate the likely effects on Sierra bird populations of environmental factors originating from or acting outside of the Sierra.

Objective 13: Maintain and restore habitat diversity throughout the Sierra Nevada. Recommendations: 13-1. Revise fire management regimes to mimic natural fire systems wherever possible. 13-2. Integrate components of this avian conservation plan into management plans developed by federal agencies for their Sierra landholdings and into plans being created by counties and communities in the Sierra to guide growth and residential and commercial development.

Through the Partners in Flight movement, the USDA Forest Service is partner in the development of the RHJV Riparian Bird Conservation Plan. The Forest Service has also prepared The Landbird Strategic Plan as a component of the Forest Service Natural Resource Agenda (USDA Forest Service 2000). The key strategy areas of this plan are: Partnership Enhancement, Institutional Commitment, Organizational Effectiveness, Recreation and Economics, Research, and Monitoring. The conservation recommendations of the RHJV (2000), Siegel and Desante (1999), and the goals and actions of this strategic plan should be carried fourth through the revision of the forest plans for the Modoc, Lassen, Plumas, Tahoe, Eldorado, Stanislaus, Sequoia, Sierra and Inyo National Forests in California, the Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit, and the portion of the Humboldt-Toyabe National Forest in the Sierra Nevada.

References Airola, D. A. 1980. Editor of California Wildlife Habitat Relationships Program Northeast Interior Zone. Volume III - Birds. Coordinated by M. T. McCollum. Information provided by L. R. Mewaldt, S. W. Harris, L. Harris, T. Beedy, S. Granholm, And D. A. Airola. September 12.

Andrle, R. F. and J. R. Carroll. 1988. The atlas of breeding birds in New York State. Cornell Univ. Press, Ithaca, NY.

Baicich, P. J. and C. J. O. Harrison. 1997. A Guide to the Nests, Eggs, and Nestlings of North American Birds, Second Edition. Academic Press.

Barnes, B. 2000. Checklist of Birds, Kern River Valley, California. Kern River Preserve. February 26.

Bent, A. C. 1968. Life histories of North American cardinals, grosbeaks, towhees, finches, sparrows, and allies (Part 1). U. S. Natl. Mus. Bull. No. 237.

Boatner, K. October 2000. Wildlife Biologist, Amador Ranger District, Eldorado National Forest. Personal Communication.

Brock, B. 1998. The Yellowbill, Newsletter of Fresno Audubon Society. Vol. 36, No. 1 September.

FEIS Volume 4, Appendix R-44 - Assessment of Species Vulnerability and Prioritization Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment

Brock, B. 1999. The Yellowbill, Newsletter of Fresno Audubon Society. Vol. 37, No. 1 September.

Brock, B. 1996. The Yellowbill, Newsletter of Fresno Audubon Society. Vol. 34, No. 1 September.

California Department of Fish and Game (CDF&G). 2000. California Wildlife Habitat Relationships System. Database Version: 7.0. September 27.

Coues, E. 1874. Birds of the northwest. U.S. Geol. Surv. Misc. Publ. No. 3.

Crawford, R. L. 1974. Bird casualties at Leon County, Florida TV tower. Bull. Tall Timbers Res. Stn. 18:1-27.

DeSante, D. 1995. The Status, Distribution, Abundance, Population Trends, Demographics, and Risks of the Landbird Avifauna of the Sierra Nevada Mountains. A report prepared for the Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project. The Institute for Bird Populations. Point Reyes Station, CA. June 20.

DeSante, D. and R. LeValley. 1971. The nesting season. Middle Pacific Coase Region. Amer. Birds 25:899-904.

Dobkin, D. and S. L. Granholm. 1983. Blue Grosbeak, Guiraca caerulea. In California's Wildlife, Volume II, Birds (D.C.Zeiner, W.F. Laudenslayer, Jr., K.E. Mayer and M. White Eds.) California Statewide Wildlife Habitat Relationships System. State of California, The Resources Agency, Department of Fish and Game. Sacramento, California. November 1990.

Drynan, D. October 2000. Wildlife Biologist, Pacific Southwest Research Station. USDA Forest Service. Fresno, CA.

Ehrlich, P. R., D. S. Dobkin and D. Wheye. 1988. The Birder's Handbook. A field guide to the natural history of North American Birds. Simon & Schuster Inc. New York.

Fresno Audubon Society. 1996. The Birds of Fresno and Madera Counties. Compiled by Fresno Audubon Society in accordance with the American Birding Association checklist (1996).

Friedmann, H., L. F. Kiff, and S. L. Rothstein. 1977. A further contribution to knowledge of the host relations of the parasitic cowbirds. Smithson. Contrib. Zool. No. 235.

Gaines, D. 1988. Birds of Yosemite and the east slope, Revised Ed. Artemisia Press, Lee Vining, California. 352pp.

Gaines, D. 1977. Birds of the Yosemite Sierra: A distributional survey. Calif. Syllabus, Oakland, Calif. 153pp.

FEIS Volume 4, Appendix R-45 - Assessment of Species Vulnerability and Prioritization Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment

Gaines, D. 1974a. A new look at the nesting riparian avifauna of the Sacramento Valley, California. West. Birds 5:61-80.

Graber, D. M. 1996. Status of Terrestrial Vertebrates. In Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project, Final Report to Congress, vol. II, Assessments and Scientific Basis for Management Options (Davis: University of California, Centers for Water and Wildland Resources, 1996).

Harrison, H. H. 1975. Peterson Field Guide, Birds' Nests. Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston.

Ingold, J. L. 1993. Blue Grosbeak (Guiraca caerulea). In The Birds of North America, No. 79 (A. Poole and F. Gill, Eds.). Philadelphia: The Academy of Natural Sciences; Washington, D.C.: The American Ornithologists' Union.

McCaskie, G., P. De Benedictis, R. Erickson, and J. Morlan. 1979. Birds of northern California, an annotated field list. 2nd ed. Golden Gate Audubon Soc., Berkeley. 84pp.

Manley, P. and C. Davidson. 1993. Assessing Risks and Setting Priorities for Neotropical Migratory Birds in California. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region. October 18.

Mark, T. October 2000. Wildlife Biologist, Truckee Ranger District, Tahoe National Forest. Personal Communication.

Mathews, N. and C. Goguen. 1997. Cowbird parasitism and cattle grazing in New Mexico. Quarterly Programmatic Report, April 24, 1998, Project #97-118. National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, Washington, DC.

Odum, E. P. and E. J. Kuenzler. 1955. Measurement of territory and home range size in birds. Auk 72:128-137.

Peterjohn, B. G. 1989. The birds of Ohio. Univ. Indiana Press, Bloomington.

Purcell, K. October 2000. Wildlife Biologist, Pacific Southwest Research Station. USDA Forest Service. Fresno, CA.

Remsen, J. V. Jr. 1978. Bird species of special concern in California. Calif. Dept. of Fish and Game, Sacramento. Wildl. Manage. Admin. Rep. No. 78-1. 54pp.

RHJV (Riparian Habitat Joint Venture). 2000. Version 1.0. The riparian bird conservation plan: a strategy for reversing the decline of riparian associated birds in California. California Partners in Flight. http://www.prbo.org/CPIF/Riparia/Riparian.html

Rich, A. October 2000. Wildlife Biologist, Stanislaus National Forest. Personal Communication.

Rickman, T. October 2000. District Wildlife Biolgist, Eagle Lake Ranger District, Lassen National Forest. Personal Communication.

Robbins, C. S., D. Bystrak, and P.H. Geissler. 1986. The Breeding Bird Survey: its first fifteen years, 1965-1979. U.S. Fish Wildl. Serv. Resour. Publ. No. 157.

FEIS Volume 4, Appendix R-46 - Assessment of Species Vulnerability and Prioritization Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment

Roberts, C. October 2000. District Wildlife Biologist, Feather River Ranger District, Plumas National Forest.

Sauer, J.R. 1992. Monitoring Goals and Programs of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. in Status and Management of Neotropical Migratory Birds. U.S. Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. GTR RM-229. September 21-25.

Siegel, R. B. and D. F. DeSante. 1999. Draft Avian Conservation Plan for the Sierra Nevada Bioregion: A Report to California Partners in Flight. Conservation priorities for safeguarding Sierra bird populations. The Institute for Bird Populations. Point Reyes Station, California. July 9.

Smith, G. October 2000. Forest Wildlife Biologist, Lassen National Forest. Personal Communication.

Stabler, R. M. 1959. Nesting of the Blue Grosbeak in Colorado. Condor 61:46-48.

Terres, J. K. 1991. The Audubon Society Encyclopedia of North American Birds. Wings Books, New York.

Tewksbury, J. J., S. J. Hejl, and T. E. Martin. 1998. Breeding productivity does not decline with increasing fragmentation in a western landscape. Ecology 79:2890-2903.

Triggs, M. October 2000. Wildlife Biologist, Forest Hill Ranger District, Tahoe National Forest. Personal Communication.

USDA Forest Service. 1994. Neotropical Migratory Bird Reference Book, Volume 1. Pacific Southwest Region, Fisheries and Wildlife. May 1.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2000. Modoc National Wildlife Refuge Bird List. www.r1.fws.gov/modoc/birds.htm. October 20.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFSW) 1994. Wildlife of the Sacramento National Wildlife Refuge Complex. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Unpaginated. http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/othrdata/chekbird/r1/sacramen.htm (Version 22May94)

USGS. 2000a. North American Breeding Bird Survey Species Group Summary of Population Change, California. Time Period: 1966 to 1998. Neotropical Migrant Species Group. Patuxent Wildlife Research Center.

USGS. 2000b. North American Breeding Bird Survey. Patuxent Wildlife Research Center.

Unitt, P. 1984. The birds of San Diego County. San Diego Soc. Natl. History., San Diego, CA.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1994. Wildlife of the Sacramento National Wildlife Refuge Complex. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Unpaginated. http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/othrdata/chekbird/r1/sacramen.htm (Version 22May94).

FEIS Volume 4, Appendix R-47 - Assessment of Species Vulnerability and Prioritization Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment

Verner, J. and A.S. Boss. 1980. California Wildlife and Their Habitats: Western Sierra Nevada. U.S. Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station. GTR PSW-37. January.

White, J. 2000. Blue Grosbeak, Guiraca caerulea. Draft Species Account for the Riparian Bird Conservation Plan. Version 1.0 July 2000. Point Reyes Bird Observatory web site www.prbo.org. (Accessed October 13, 2000).

Willet, G. 1912. Birds of the Pacific slope of southern California Pac. Coast Avif. No. 7. Wilson, G. E. October 2000. District Wildlife Biologist, Truckee Ranger District, Tahoe National Forest.

Yasuda, S. October 2000. District Wildlife Biologist, Placerville Ranger District, Eldorado National Forest.

Zeranski, J. D. and T. R. Baptist. 1990. Connecticut birds. Univ. Press New England, Hanover, NH.

Cooper’s Summer Tanager (Piranga rubra cooperi) Species Background There are two subspecies of summer tanagers in North America. Common in the eastern states, the eastern summer tanager (Piranga rubra rubra) breeds in a variety of habitat types and a wide range of elevations. The Cooper’s summer tanager (Piranga rubra cooperi) breeds from west Texas to California, north to southern Nevada and south into Mexico (citation). Cooper’s summer tanager is the subspecies that will be discussed in this species account.

Life History The summer tanager is a neotropical migratory species. Its wintering grounds are in Central and South America. It arrives on its summer breeding grounds in April and May and migrates south by late September. Breeding season lasts from May into early August and peaks in June. Clutch size is 3-5, with an average of 4 (Bent 1958). Summer tanagers have been documented to show specific aggression towards the nest-parasitizing Brown-headed cowbird (Molothrus ater) (T.Gallion pers.comm.).

It is primarily insectivorous, eating both insects and spiders. It will glean from foliage and bark, and hawks flying insects. It also eats small fruits. However, the primary components of the summer tanager’s diet are bees and wasps, and their larvae from hives and nests (Robinson 1996, Isler and Isler 1987, Bent 1958).

Habitat Relationships The Cooper’s summer tanager is a summer resident and breeder in riparian forest habitat along the South Fork Kern River and desert riparian habitat along the Colorado River. This species also occurs very locally in southern California deserts, and occurs in desert habitats in southern California during spring and fall migration periods. It is a rare but regular migrant and winter visitor along the coast of California with most of the records occurring from Los Angeles County and southward (Grinnell and Miller 1944, Garrett and Dunn 1981, Robinson 1996).

FEIS Volume 4, Appendix R-48 - Assessment of Species Vulnerability and Prioritization Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment

Informal studies and observations of the summer tanager on the South Fork Kern riparian forest have found that most of the nesting tanagers are using mature trees, mostly Fremont’s cottonwoods, for both nesting and foraging (T.Gallion pers. comm., S.Laymon pers. comm.). Because of their fondness for bees, they are tied to wild bee colonies in the area, which are usually found in older trees containing cavities (T.Gallion pers. comm., S. Laymon pers. comm.).

Available literature reports that the summer tanager builds its nest 10-20 feet (3-6 m) above the ground on a large, horizontal limb of a riparian deciduous tree, such as a cottonwood or willow (Robinson 1996). However, on the South Fork of the Kern River they have been observed nesting 10-17 m high and using the mid-canopy for foraging and singing (T.Gallion pers. comm.).

Species Status The summer tanager is listed as a California Species of Special Concern. Although the North American breeding population has remained generally stable over the last 20 years, it is much less common in the West (Robinson 1996). It may also be declining along edges of its range in much of the eastern United States (Robinson 1996).

Because the nests of the summer tanager are built inaccessibly high in the treetops, there have been few studies of their basic breeding biology. Despite the fact that summer tanagers spend more than half of the year in the tropics, even less is known about their wintering ecology. Sharp declines in the western subspecies populations may be attributed to almost complete conversion of riparian forests to agricultural lands in the Colorado River valley, where the species has almost completely disappeared.

Historical and Current Distribution While the eastern summer tanager breeds throughout the most of the eastern United States, the western subspecies breeds in the Southwest from California to west Texas and northern Mexico (Robinson 1996).

Historically in California, Cooper’s summer tanager was only known to breed along the Colorado River. Today, however, the State’s largest population occurs along the South Fork Kern River in northeastern Kern County. This shift in the species range could be related to the extensive habitat loss and fragmentation along the Colorado River in the past 60 years (T. Gallion pers.comm., Robinson 1996). In the Owen’s Valley, east of the Sierra Nevada, there have been 1-2 pairs of summer tanagers sporadically breeding on Bureau of Land Management and Los Angeles District Water Project managed lands east of the Inyo National Forest (S.Laymon pers. comm.). Breeding summer tanager populations are also known to occur in Southern California. The first verified breeding pairs of summer tanagers (seven pairs) in Anza-Borrego Desert State Park in San Diego County were documented during the summer of 2000 (P.Jorgensen unpub. data).

Few if any records of summer tanagers have been documented in the Sierra Nevada bioregion. Any historical records of the summer tanager in the Sierra Nevada were almost certain to be vagrants (T.Beedy pers. comm.). Distribution of the species range within NFS lands in the planning area is limited to one known population on the South Fork Kern River, which also happens to be California’s largest nesting population (T.Gallion pers. comm., T.Beedy pers. comm., S.Laymon pers. comm., Robinson 1996). The Sequoia National Forest manages a portion of the breeding habitat for this species along the South Fork Kern River. The total population on the South Fork is estimated to range between 30-35 breeding pairs (S. Laymon pers. comm., T.Gallion pers. comm.). The South Fork Wildlife Area, which is the portion of the South Fork Kern River riparian forest that

FEIS Volume 4, Appendix R-49 - Assessment of Species Vulnerability and Prioritization Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment is managed by the Sequoia National Forest, supports approximately 25-30% of the summer tanager population in this area. Personal observations by wildlife researchers in this area over the years is that the summer tanagers in the South Fork Wildlife Area are moving further west into the South Fork Wildlife Area, as the habitat matures (S. Laymon pers. comm.).

Risk Factors The principle factor that places this species at risk is the current and continuing loss and fragmentation of riparian habitat in the west (Robinson 1996). Very little has been documented about other risk factors for this species. There is also very little available information regarding how habitat fragmentation affects populations on the breeding and wintering grounds for this species (Robinson 1996).

Habitat risk factors within the control of the Forest Service are primarily related to the management of Sequoia National Forest’s South Fork Wildlife Area since it is the only location on NF lands (within the planning area) where summer tanagers occur, and are known to breed. Habitat management within the control of the Forest Service in this area includes the continued protection of the remaining breeding habitat within the South Fork Wildlife Area. This protection eliminates potential risks from livestock grazing and motorized recreation. The South Fork Wildlife Area is fenced and is not utilized for grazing. There are no plans to remove native vegetation in the area and non-native vegetation has not become established in the area. Therefore, it is determined that there are no habitat related risks to the summer tanager on NFS lands at this time that are within the control of the Forest Service.

Habitat risk factors that are not within the control of the Forest Service include the operation of Isabella Reservoir. On high water years the Reservoir can flood foraging habitat that is utilized by the summer tanager, making it unavailable for that year, and with prolonged flooding possibly render the habitat unavailable permanently. It is not known what the direct effects of past flooding have been on summer tanagers and their habitat. However, nest sites observed in the South Fork Kern area for this species are situated high, primarily in cottonwood trees, and are not as likely to flood as lower nesting species, such as the southwestern willow flycatcher.

Channelizing the river channel can also negatively affect the summer tanager. Past channelizing along the South Fork of the Kern River has resulted in the weakening of the root systems of trees that are growing along the river’s edge. This weakened root system has caused trees to prematurely fall, potentially reducing the amount of available summer tanager nesting and foraging habitat (T.Gallion pers.comm., S.Laymon pers.comm..). While the Forest Service has not proposed or implemented river channelization projects along the South Fork of the Kern, private property owners have implemented such projects along the river corridor.

Non-habitat risk factors that are within the control of the Forest Service include recreational use within summer tanager breeding areas in the South Fork Wildlife Area of the Sequoia National Forest. Recreation use in the area is currently low impact, with personal watercraft only allowed to utilize the area at <5 mph. Recently, access roads that led into the South Fork Wildlife Area were closed, and walking access only is allowed for over-land traveling. The most common types of recreation in the South Fork Wildlife Area include kayaking, canoeing, bird watching, hiking, and fishing.

FEIS Volume 4, Appendix R-50 - Assessment of Species Vulnerability and Prioritization Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment

Brown-headed cowbird brood parasitism effects have been documented for the summer tanager, however, the rate of parasitism varies by geographic area (Robinson 1996). Observations made at the South Fork Kern Valley population indicate that very few (only 1 in 16) summer tanager nests were parasitized (T.Gallion pers. comm.). Studies in Illinois, however, have recorded up to 100% parasitism by the brown-headed cowbird on summer tanager nests (Robinson 1992). Although there is limited data available, it is not likely that parasitism is a limiting factor of the population that occurs at the South Fork Kern Valley. There is an active cowbird removal program that has been implemented since the early 1990’s on the South Fork in response to the high parasitism rates documented on the federally endangered southwestern willow flycatcher. It is possible that this program could be benefiting the summer tanager population as well. In addition, the summer tanagers at the South Fork of the Kern appear to place their nests in a higher location than what is reported for the species in other geographic areas.

Other non-habitat risk factors that are not within the control of the Forest Service include the potential for airborne drift of pesticides and herbicides. This risk factor is not considered to be high in the South Fork Valley area, however, it is possible that airborne drift of toxic chemicals from pesticides and/or herbicides could occur near summer tanager nesting areas. What effects this could have on the tanager are not known.

Another potential non-habitat related risk factor are casualties related to TV towers during the summer tanager’s migration period (Robinson 1996). The summer tanager migrates to Central and n. South America, making its travel direction south of the Sierra Nevada bioregion. While there may be TV towers on NF lands that contribute to this risk factor, it would not be applicable to the planning area being analyzed for the Sierra Nevada Framework Project. It is not known what the effects of TV tower casualties has had and will continue to have on this species.

Conservation Measures The only breeding population of this species that occurs on NFS lands within the planning area occurs in the South Fork Wildlife Area (SFWA) of the Greenhorn Ranger District, Sequoia National Forest. This area is not directly affected by the management actions being analyzed under the Sierra Nevada Framework Project. The South Fork Wildlife Area was transferred to Sequoia National Forest in 1990 as part of a land transfer between the US Forest Service and the Army Corps of Engineers. The area is designated as a State Wildlife Area and is currently being managed for the conservation of wildlife. It is recommended that the Sequoia National Forest develop management guidelines for the South Fork Wildlife Area, where this species occurs on this Forest. Guidelines should focus on the long-term conservation of this species on NFS lands.

References Beedy, E.C. and S.L. Granholm. 1985. Discovering Sierra Birds. Yosemite Natural History Association and Sequoia Natural History Association. 229 pp.

Beedy, E.C. October 2000. Wildlife Researcher. Jones and Stokes, Associates. Personal Communication.

Bent, A.C. 1958. Life histories of North American blackbirds, orioles, tanagers, and allies. U.S. Natl. Mus. Bull. 211. 549 pp.

FEIS Volume 4, Appendix R-51 - Assessment of Species Vulnerability and Prioritization Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment

Garrett, K. and J. Dunn. 1981. Birds of Southern California. Los Angeles Audubon Society. 408 pp.

Grinnell, J. and A.H. Miller. 1944. The Distribution of the Birds of California. Pac. Coast Avifauna No. 27. 608 pp.

Gallion, T. October 2000. Wildlife Biologist. Personal Communication.

Isler, M.L. and P.R. Isler. The Tanagers: Natural History, Distribution and Identification. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington D.C., 1987.

Jorgensen, P. 2000. unpublished data; in Wrenderings: A Quarterly Newsletter of the San Diego County Bird Atlas; San Diego Natural History Museum.

Laymon, S.A. October 2000. Wildlife Researcher. Personal Communication.

Robinson, W.D. 1992. Population dynamics of breeding Neotropical migrants in a fragmented Illinois landscape. Pp. 408-418 in Ecology and conservation of Neotropical migrant landbirds (J.Hagan and D.W. Johnston, eds.). Smithson. Inst. Press, Washington, D.C.

Robinson, W.D. 1996. Summer Tanager (Piranga rubra). in The Birds of North America, No. 248 (A. Poole and F. Gill, eds.). The Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, PA, the American Ornithologists Union, Washington, D.C.

Green heron (Butorides virescens) Life history The green heron is a small, stocky wading bird, and a yearlong resident in foothills and lowlands throughout California. It nests primarily in valley foothill and riparian habitats, and migrates locally. Green herons eat mostly fish, insect, and miscellaneous invertebrates. They are one of few species of birds that may bait for fish. They have been observed using mayflies, leaves, twigs, berries, and feathers to attract fish (Davis and Kushlan 1994). In California, green herons breed from late March to July (Cogswell 1977 in CWHR 1999). Clutch size ranges from 3-6. Green herons sometimes double brood, incubating for 19-21 days. Semi-altricial downy, young are tended by both parents (Harrison 1978 in CWHR 1999). They fly at 21-23 days, and are independent at 30-35 days.

Habitat relationships Green herons nest and roost in valley foothill and desert riparian habitats, and feed in fresh emergent wetland, lacrustine, and slow moving riverine habitats. They forage in shallow water of aquatic habitats, or edges of fresh emergent habitats, usually along wooded shores. Nests are built of sticks among the outer or upper branches of trees, often in willows (Cogswell 1977 in CWHR 1999).

Status The green heron is not currently a state-listed or Federally listed species. The Nature Conservancy global conservation status rank for this species is G5; “Secure-Common, widespread, and abundant (although it may be rare in parts of its range, particularly on the periphery). Not vulnerable in most of its range. Typically with considerably more than 100 occurrences and more than 10,000

FEIS Volume 4, Appendix R-52 - Assessment of Species Vulnerability and Prioritization Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment individuals.” The Nature Conservancy National conservation status rank is N5 for the breeding population in the United States , “ Secure—Common, widespread, and abundant in the nation or subnation (state level). Essentially ineradicable under present conditions. Typically with considerably more than 100 occurrences and more than 10,000 individuals.” The Nature Conservancy National conservation status rank is also N5 for the non-breeding population in the United States (NatureServe 2000). No populations are considered to be threatened (Davis and Kushlan 1994). However, since this species is a solitary nester and dispersed widely through marine and freshwater habitats, estimating population trends for this species is difficult.

Historical and Current Distribution Grinnell and Miller (1944) described the green heron’s summer distribution as ranging from the Imperial and Colorado river valleys, north to Yreka, Siskiyou County, and west to Laytonville, CA. The easternmost nesting record documented by Grinnell and Miller (1944) was LaGrange, in Stanislaus County, approximately 25 miles west of the Stanislaus National Forest border. Green herons have not been detected on Stanislaus National Forest (Tom Beck, pers. Comm. 2000) On the Sequoia National Forest, where it overlaps the Kern River Valley, green herons have rarely been seen, in an area with a high density of avid birders and avid birding visitors (Barnes 1998, T. Ritter, pers. comm. 2000). Distribution of this species within the planning area is limited. High latitudes, aridity, and altitude limit their range (Davis and Kushlan 1994).

Risk Factors Habitat risk factors within control of the Forest Service include protection of existing suitable habitat from recreational developments, and habitat disturbance.

Habitat factors not within control of the Forest Service include grazing practices and OHV use on private and other public lands adjacent to National Forest land.

Non-habitat risk factors within the control of the Forest Service include off-highway-vehicle (OHV) use. OHVs may degrade habitat by crushing vegetation, and disturbing species while they nest or roost.

Non-habitat risk factors not within the control of the Forest Service include mortality attributed to collision with motor vehicles or mortality due to predators.

Conservation Measures Because the green heron’s distribution scarcely overlaps national forest lands, and there are no confirmed breeding records on national forest land, it is very unlikely that Forest Service activities would affect this species. However, the historic and current distribution of this species is not well known, and this species may be difficult to detect using conventional survey methods. Therefore, the Sequoia National Forest and other forests that manage land adjacent to the green heron’s range may best serve the core Aquatic Conservation Strategy, by considering and incorporating necessary habitat requirements of the green heron in their watershed analyses. Because this species’ life history is tied closely to riparian environments, this may be the first step in identifying populations of this species, and protecting potential habitat on national forest land.

FEIS Volume 4, Appendix R-53 - Assessment of Species Vulnerability and Prioritization Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment

References: Barnes, B. 1998. Kern River Valley, California, checklist of birds. Audubon-California, Kern River Preserve.

Cogswell, H.L. 1977. Water birds of California. Univ. California Press, Berkeley. 399 pp.

Davis, W. E., Jr., and J. A. Kushlan. 1994. Green Heron (Butorides virescens). In The Birds of North America, No. 129 (A. Poole and F. Gill, Eds.).Philadelphia: The Academy of Natural Sciences; Washington, D.C.: The American Ornithologits’ Union.

Harrison, C. 1978. A field guide to the nests, eggs and nestlings of North American birds. W. Collins Sons and Co., Cleveland, OH. 416 pp.

Ritter, Theresa. 2000. District Wildlife Biologist, Cannell Meadow/Greenhorn Zone, Sequoia National Forest, Personal Communication.

Harlequin Duck (Histrionicus histrionicus) Life history In NW North America, the breeding range for harlequin ducks extends from Alaska, through British Columbia, into Wyoming, Montana and Idaho, and south through Washington, Oregon to northern California (San Louis Obispo County) (Robertson and Goudie 1999, Zeiner et al 1990). The main stronghold is in Alaska (Bellrose 1976). During the winter, the western population along the coast of British Columbia and southern Alaska and the Aleutian Islands, and a few winter as far south as northern California (Robertson and Goudie 1999).

Harlequin ducks form pair bonds during winter and early spring. Clutch size is typically 3-7 eggs, and the birds are single brooded. The young are tended by the female only. Appears to breed first at two years of age.

Habitat relationships Fast-flowing, turbulent streams are used for breeding (Robertson and Goudie 1999).

The diet of harlequin ducks is primarily animal foods, including crustaceans, mollusks, and, on breeding grounds, aquatic insects (Zeiner et al 1990). On breeding grounds in rivers, most often dives for food.

Nests are usually placed within a recess, sheltered overhead by a stream bank, rocks, woody debris or low shrubs (Zeiner et al 1990). Zeiner et al (1990) state that there is no evidence of nesting in tree cavities, however, Robertson and Goudie (1999) cite documentation of two nests within tree cavities in Idaho.

Nest usually within 2 m of water, but may be up to 20 m distant (Zeiner et al 1990). Breeding is along shores of turbulent, west-slope Sierran rivers (Zeiner et al 1990).

FEIS Volume 4, Appendix R-54 - Assessment of Species Vulnerability and Prioritization Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment

Status Harlequin ducks formerly bred in small numbers on west slope rivers of the central Sierra Nevada, from which it has almost completely disappeared (Remsen 1978). This species is a California Species of Special Concern and a harvest species (Zeiner et al 1990), and is a FS Sensitive species in Regions 1, 4 and 6 (Robertson and Goudie 1999). Graber (1996) considered harlequin ducks to be at great risk in the Sierra. Zeiner et al (1990) suggested that harlequins probably continued to be a rare breeder within the state, and other observations indicate harlequin ducks continue as breeders in small numbers (Ted Beedy pers. comm. 2000). Graber (1996) stated that harlequin ducks appear to be at great risk in the Sierra Nevada. Wintering and summering, non-breeding populations along the coast may have declined as well (Remsen 1978).

Historical and current distribution Harlequins are currently considered to be extirpated from Colorado, and localized extirpations have occurred on watersheds in north and southeast Idaho and western Montana (Robertson and Goudie 1999). In the conterminous US, the breeding range of the harlequin is remarkably similar to that of Barrow’s goldeneye (Bellrose 1976). Harlequin ducks formerly bred in small numbers on west slope rivers of the central Sierra Nevada (Remsen 1978). Historic reports (by Belding, cited by Grinnell et al 1918) indicate that harlequin ducks bred on the principal streams of Calaveras and Tuolumne counties, from about 4,000 feet and higher. While never common, they were found in virtually every watershed in Yosemite NP (Gaines 1988). Zeiner et al (1990) state that the breeding range was from Madera to Tuolumne County (Zeiner et al 1990). The only recent report of confirmed reproduction was from the Mokelumne River in Calaveras County where flightless young were seen in 1971, 1972, and 1976, and a lone female in 1968 and 1975 (Remsen 1978).

Gaines (1988) reports that there were no spring or summer records of harlequin ducks within Yosemite NP from 1928-1971. Apparently based on an increase in sightings during the 1970s and 1980, Gaines (1988) suggested harlequin ducks may have been staging a comeback in Yosemite. A male was seen in 1972, and since 1978 individuals or pairs summered almost annually on the South Fork of the Merced River (Gaines 1988). A pair was observed several times in Yosemite Valley in April, 2000 (Thompson pers. comm. 2000).

At least 8 observations on west-slope streams exist for harlequin ducks in the 1990s (Beedy pers. comm. 2000). These include observations on the North Fork of the American River, the Siver Fork of the South Fork of the American River, the Rubicon River, and the North Fork of the Feather River. These observations indicate that the species is present in low numbers in locales further north than reported by Zeiner et al (1990).

Risk Factors Habitat risk factors in control of the FS include issues related to dams, including FERC re-licensing processes during which this species and its habitat should be given consideration.

Non-habitat risk factors in control of the FS would include correcting the current lack of knowledge regarding the status of this species on FS administered lands. Funding a breeding season survey effort in potential habitat, especially in watersheds where individuals have been previously observed, would be an important first step.

FEIS Volume 4, Appendix R-55 - Assessment of Species Vulnerability and Prioritization Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment

Another non-habitat risk factor in control of the FS would be to manage levels of human disturbance in historic or potential reproductive sites. The apparent near extirpation of the breeding population may have been due to disturbance along streams used for breeding, and perhaps damming of rivers (Remsen 1978). Gaines (1988) also asks if human disturbance was a cause of their disappearance from former breeding sites. Robertson and Goudie (1999) state that large-scale rafting operations cause chronic disturbances in heavily used river stretches, and that fishermen may present a problem because they remain on streams for extended periods of time. Robertson and Goudie (1999) cite other studies to indicate that areas chronically disturbed are eventually abandoned by harlequin ducks. Shooting by fishermen, who suspected depredation of harlequin ducks on fish, may also have been a factor early in the century (Beedy pers. comm. 2000).

Habitat risk factors not in control of the FS would include proposals for additional dams on west- slope rivers in the central Sierra. Non-habitat risk factors not in control of the FS would include managing levels of human disturbance in historic and potential reproductive sites on non-FS administered lands.

Conservation Measures The limited breeding record of this species indicates that, historically, harlequin ducks were not well distributed on NF system lands. Also, they appear to have been almost extirpated from the state as a breeding species. Reasons for this reduction are unknown. As a result, it is unlikely that one or more of the FEIS alternatives would provide environmental conditions to provide a high likelihood of maintaining a well distributed population of harlequin ducks on NF system lands. Treatment of this species should be dismissed in the FEIS and responsibility be passed on to Forests which are within the historic breeding range (Madera to Tuolumne counties), which would include the Stanislaus and Sierra NFs, as well as those Forests which contain more recent observations, which would include the Plumas and Eldorado NFs.

Measures which Remsen (1978) suggests include: 1) survey former breeding localities for breeding birds, especially the Mokelumne River, 2) Restrict human access to breeding sites during the breeding season, and, 3) Provide nest boxes if needed at breeding sites.

Additional measures these Forests might take would include, 1) conduct inventory surveys of potential reproductive habitat to document presence/absence/suitability, 2) assessment of potential effects of on-going or proposed recreation and other forms of disturbance, and, 3) consideration of this species during FERC re-licensing projects or other dam proposals. If harlequin ducks are located, site-specific management plans should be generated for occupied sites.

References Beedy, Ted. October 2000. Jones and Stokes Associates, Inc., Sacramento, CA. Personal communication.

Bellrose, F.C. 1976. Ducks, geese and swans of North America. Stackpole Books, Harrisburg, PA.

Gaines, D. 1988. Birds of Yosemite and the east slope. Artemisia Press, Lee Vining, CA.

FEIS Volume 4, Appendix R-56 - Assessment of Species Vulnerability and Prioritization Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment

Remsen, J.V. 1978. Bird species of special concern in California. CA Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, CA. Wildl. Manage. Admin. Rep. No. 78-1. 54 p.

Robertson, G.J., an R.I. Goudie. 1999. Harlequin duck (Histrionicus histrionicus). In, The Birds of North America, No. 466. (A. Poole and F. Gill, eds.) The Birds of North America, Inc., Philadelphia, PA.

Thompson, Steve. October 2000. Wildlife Biologist, Yosemite National Park. Personal communication.

Zeiner, D.C., W.F. Laudenslayer, K.E. Mayer, and M. White (editors). 1990. California’s Wildlife, Volume 2, Birds. California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, CA.

Le Conte’s Thrasher (Toxostoma lecontei)

Life History The Le Conte’s thrasher is a medium-sized songbird that is a permanent resident throughout its range. Food is found in litter of desert vegetation. Most foraging is done while standing on the ground. Its primary diet is arthropods and some plant seeds. Le Conte’s thrasher also consumes bird eggs, small snakes and lizards, and rarely, if ever drinks. Singing begins in early fall, and egg-laying occurs from February through May. However, pair formation has been recorded in all months. Pairs remain together throughout the year. Both sexes incubate the eggs, and average clutch size ranges from 2-5 eggs.

Habitat Relationships LeConte’s thrasher uses sparsely vegetated desert flats, dunes, and alluvial fans frequently with a high proportion of saltbush (Atriplex sp.) and/or cholla cactus (Opuntia sp.). In one study, cholla cactus and saltbush was used in 85% of 289 nest sites. The ground is often bare or interspersed with sparse patches of grasses and annuals. Surface water is rarely present near territories except following infrequent rains. Annual precipitation in its inhabited range is typically 10-16 cm, though it may range 4-20 cm at the extremes of its range.

Status Le Conte’s thrasher is a designated by the California Department of Fish and Game as a Species of Special Concern. The Nature Conservancy and the Natural Heritage Network global conservation status rank for Le Conte’s thrasher is G3; “vulnerable globally either because very rare and local throughout its range, found only in a restricted range (even if abundant in some locations), or because of other factors making it vulnerable to extinction or elimination. Typically there are 12 to 100 occurrences or between 3,000 and 10,000 individuals.” The Nature Conservancy and the Natural Heritage Network national conservation status rank for Le Conte’s thrasher is N4; “apparently secure, uncommon but not rare, and usually widespread in the nation or subnation. There is a possible cause of long-term concern, and there are usually more than 100 occurrences and more than 10,000 individuals.”

FEIS Volume 4, Appendix R-57 - Assessment of Species Vulnerability and Prioritization Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment

Current and Historical Distribution The Le Conte’s thrasher is an uncommon to rare, local resident in southern California deserts from Inyo County south to the Mexican border, and in western and southern San Joaquin Valley. The LeConte’s thrasher is a permanent resident throughout its range. Its primary distribution covers the San Joaquin Valley and Mojave and Colorado deserts of California and Nevada southward into Baja California and Mexico. It is also found in the Sonoran Desert from extreme southwestern Utah and western Arizona south into western Sonora, Mexico. Within its range, its distribution is patchy.

Since the 1950s, it has rarely been recorded north of Kern and Inyo counties (Grinnell and Miller 1944, Garret and Dunn 1981). In the San Joaquin, Antelope, Lucerne, Mojave River, and Apple valleys of California, a considerable amount of habitat has been eliminated by development and agriculture. However, their known distribution has not changed appreciably since the 1890s, except for its more recent discovery in Sonora, Mexico (Sheppard 1996).

On National Forest lands, it may be found in desert habitat on the Sequoia National Forest. In the far southeastern portion of Sequoia National Forest are the Scodie mountains, now partially designated in the Kiavah Wilderness. The Inyo National Forest has historic habitat for the Le Conte’s thrasher between Benton and Owens Lake (Grinnell and Miller 1944).

Risk Factors Habitat risk factors within control of the Forest Service include protection of existing habitat and appropriate management of grazing allotments in suitable habitat for Le Conte’s thrasher. Suitable habitat for Le Conte’s thrasher is currently located primarily in the Kiavah wilderness. The Bureau of Land Management operates a grazing allotment adjacent to the wilderness. There are a couple of water sources on National Forest land that are used by the livestock in this allotment.

Habitat factors not within control of the Forest Service include grazing practices and OHV use on private and other public lands adjacent to National Forest land.

Non-habitat risk factors within the control of the Forest Service include off-highway-vehicle (OHV) use. OHVs may degrade habitat by crushing vegetation, destroying underlying litter and soil surface, and preclude heavily used recreation sites from being used by Le Conte’s thrasher. It has been suggested that grass and brushfires in San Joaquin Valley may destroy all saltbush/shadscale and convert habitat to pure grassland (S. Fitton unpubl. data in Sheppard 1996). This may need to be considered if the Inyo or Sequoia National Forests consider conducting prescribed burns in suitable habitat for Le Conte’s thrasher.

Non-habitat risk factors not within the control of the Forest Service include mortality attributed to collision with motor vehicles, or shooting. Because Le Conte’s thrasher is the largest songbird in its habitat, Sheppard (1996) suggested it might be a tempting target if habitat is located within a few hours of large metropolitan areas.

Because there are no documented occurrences of Le Conte’s thrasher nesting on national forest lands within the planning area, this species is considered to be locally endemic or rare in the planning area on national forest lands. Consequently, no specific management standards and guidelines, mitigations, or viability treatment are proposed for this planning process. The Sequoia and Inyo National Forests should further investigate the presence of this species on national forest lands.

FEIS Volume 4, Appendix R-58 - Assessment of Species Vulnerability and Prioritization Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment

References Grinnell, J. and A. H. Miller. 1944. The distribution of the birds of California. Pac. Coast Avifauna No.27. 608 pp.

Garrett, K., and J. Dunn. 1981. Birds of southern California. Los Angeles Audubon Soc. 408pp.

Sheppard, J. M. 1996. Le Conte’s Thrasher (Toxostoma lecontei). In The Birds of North America, No. 230 (A. Poole and F. Gill, eds.). The Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, PA, and The American Ornithologists’ Union, Washington, D.C.

Least Bell’s vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus) Historic and Current Distribution The least Bell’s vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus) was historically so widespread throughout riparian woodlands of the Central Valley and low elevation riverine valleys of California and northern Baja California that Grinnell and Miller (1944, cited in USFWS 1998b) considered it one of the most abundant birds in the state. An obligate riparian species during the breeding season, this vireo winters in southern Baja California, Mexico, primarily in the mesquite scrub vegetation in arroyos (USFWS 1998b). In the last several decades, the species has undergone a precipitous decline in numbers that has been attributed to extensive breeding habitat loss, and degradation, and brood parasitism by the brown-headed cowbird (Molothrus ater). Populations occurring in Owens Valley, Death Valley, the Sacramento-San Joaquin Valleys, the Sierra Nevada foothills, and Tehama County have been completely extirpated (USFWS 1998b). Further, vast portions of these areas are no longer available for recolonization or expansion due to habitat destruction (USFWS 1998b). By the time the species was federally listed in 1986, the statewide population was estimated at 300 pairs, increasing to 1,346 pairs in 1996 (USFWS 1998b). The least Bell’s vireo is a State and Federal endangered species.

Currently, the least Bell’s vireo is restricted to eight southern counties in California (and portions of northern Baja California), with critical habitat area designations in six of these counties (USFWS 1998b). The tremendous growth that most populations of least Bell’s vireos have been experiencing is attributed to an intensive cowbird removal program that was initiated in some southern counties upon the listing of this species (USFWS 1998b). In addition to an increase in population size, it appears that least Bell’s vireos are expanding their range and recolonizing sites that have been unoccupied for years. As populations continue to grow and disperse northward, they potentially could reestablish in the central and northern portions of their historical breeding range (USFWS 1998b).

Least Bell’s vireo nest monitoring is being conducted by numerous agencies and entities, primarily in southern California, but also on the Santa Clara river where there are now sizable populations (USFWS 1998b). A final recovery plan is in progress. The Draft Recovery Plan identified one of it’s primary objectives is to “Protect and manage riparian and adjacent upland habitats with the least Bell’s vireo’s historical range” (USFW 1998b). Because this species occurs outside of National Forest lands, only presence monitoring is proposed. Any additional monitoring will consist of cooperating with efforts already in existence or development, should the least Bell’s vireo once again occur with the SNEP boundary on National Forest Systems lands.

FEIS Volume 4, Appendix R-59 - Assessment of Species Vulnerability and Prioritization Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment

Vegetation treatment activities proposed in alternatives 1 through 8 and the selected alternative with not effect existing least Bell’s vireo habitat nor will the proposed treatments in these alternative preclude the ability for recolonization of this species within it’s historically range on National Forest System lands, primarily portions of the Inyo National Forest immediately adjacent to the Owen’s Valley.

Least Bittern (Ixobrychus exilis) Life History The least bittern is the smallest member of the heron family and is considered to be one of the most inconspicuous of North American marsh birds (Gibbs et al. 1992). Least bitterns form pairs between late April to early May, with clutches being laid in early June (Gibbs et al. 1992). Incubation lasts 17-20 days (Weller 1961 and Aniskowicz 1981 in Gibbs et al. 1992), and second broods may occur in July (Weller 1961 in Gibbs et al. 1992). The nest is composed of emergent aquatic vegetation and sticks, is formed into an elevated platform with an overhead canopy, and is built into tall, dense stands of emergent or woody vegetation (Weller 1961 in Gibbs et al. 1992). Nests are usually 15-76 cm above water and less than 10m from open water or channels (Aniskowicz 1981 in Gibbs et al. 1992). Little information is known on territory spacing, however nests have been reported as typically scattered evenly through suitable habitat and have been found as close as 10m apart (Weller 1961 in Gibbs et al. 1992). Nesting densities have been reported from 1 to 15 nests/ha (Kent 1951 and Palmer 1962 in Gibbs et al. 1992).

The least bittern migrates between temperate breeding grounds and temperate and subtropical wintering grounds (Gibbs et al. 1992). Populations north of areas with prolonged frosts are migratory (Gibbs et al. 1992). The resident populations reside in areas where the breeding and wintering ranges widely overlap in south Florida, south California, and Baja California (Gibbs et al. 1992). There is no known information on dispersal from the breeding sites or on home range size (Gibbs et al. 1992).

Habitat Relationships Breeding habitat for the least bittern is best described as fresh and brackish water marshes with tall, dense growths of aquatic or semiaquatic vegetation (especially Typha, Carex, Scirpus, Sagittaria, or Myriscus) that is mixed with clumps of woody vegetation and open, deep water (Gibbs et al. 1992, Frederick et al. 1990 in NatureServe 2000). Flooded vegetation is likely required for nesting (Weller 1961 in NatureServe 2000). Stands of cattails at least 15 acres (6.1 ha) in size that are interspersed with open water are most suitable for breeding (Evers 1992 in NatureServe 2000).

Wintering habitat consists mainly of brackish and saline swamps and marshes (Palmer 1962 and Hancock and Kushland 1984 in Gibbs et al. 1992 and in NatureServe 2000), but little is known about wintering habitats (Gibbs et al. 1992).

Status There is little information on population numbers. The species is often overlooked in large-scale bird population surveys because it is so secretive. Therefore, population trend data is somewhat unclear and contradictory (Gibbs et al. 1992). Apparently stable populations have been detected during the period 1966-1989 along the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Breeding Bird Survey (BBS) routes (Robbins et al. 1986 in Gibbs et al. 1992), but least bitterns were observed on just 62 routes during that period. Too little data exists from the BBS to assess populations in any state or province

FEIS Volume 4, Appendix R-60 - Assessment of Species Vulnerability and Prioritization Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment in North America except Florida (Gibbs et al. 1992). The least bittern has been included on the National Audubon Society Blue List since 1979 (Tate 1986 in Gibbs et al. 1992) because birdwatchers reported the species as declining over much of its range and extirpated in some areas (Gibbs et al. 1992).

Historical and Current Distribution The breeding range of the least bittern in the western United States (U.S.) is concentrated in low-lying areas of the Central Valley and Modoc Plateau of California, the Klamath Basin of California and Oregon, the Malheur Basin of Oregon, and along the Colorado River in southwest Arizona and southeast California (Rosenberg et al. 1991 in Gibbs et al. 1992). The least bittern historically nested in marshes of Great Salt Lake (Ryser 1985 in Gibbs et al. 1992), however now is only a rare migrant in most of the Great Basin (Gibbs et al. 1992). On the edge of the Great Basin, nesting has recently been documented on City of Los Angeles lands in the Owens River Valley and on the edge of Owens Lake in Inyo County (Kirk 1995). East of the Great Plains, the bittern breeds from southeast Canada, south through the U.S., Mexico, and Costa Rica (Blake 1977 in Gibbs et al. 1992). It breeds in low- lying areas associated with large rivers, lakes, and estuaries in the U.S. and is mostly absent from higher elevations (Gibbs et al. 1992). Suitable breeding habitat exists for this species in the Lower Klamath, Tule Lake, and Clear Lake National Wildlife Refuges (NWRs) of the Modoc Plateau/Klamath Basin (CWHR 2000), with Clear Lake NWR surrounded by National Forest System (NFS) lands of the Modoc National Forest. Because Clear Lake is a National Wildlife Refuge, it is managed by the USFWS. On the Modoc National Forest, there is a small possibility of breeding habitat occurring in very scattered locations in small wetland areas that have been excluded from grazing (George Studinski, pers comm. 2000). The Modoc National Forest is the only national forest in this assessment that contains potentially suitable nesting habitat for the least bittern.

The winter range of the least bittern is primarily along the Atlantic coastal plain from Maryland and Virginia south to Louisiana and Texas (Root 1988 in NatureServe 2000). Peak numbers also occur in south Florida, along the Rio Grande valley, the lower Colorado River, Baja California, the Greater Antilles, and Central America (Root 1988 in NatureServe 2000, Gibbs et al. 1992). Wintering habitat does not exist on NFS lands considered in this assessment (CWHR 2000).

Risk Factors Habitat risk factors within the control of the Forest Service are related to wetland management on the Modoc National Forest, with the primary threat being from grazing (George Studinski, pers comm. 2000).

Habitat risk factors not within the control of the Forest Service are related to the destruction of low- lying wetland habitat. This is likely the greatest threat to the species. The vast majority of these wetlands occur outside NFS lands. The Klamath Basin historically contained approximately 185,000 acres of shallow lakes and marshes, of which greater than 75% have now been converted into agricultural lands (USFWS 1995). If wetlands remain undisturbed and unpolluted, however, least bitterns seem tolerant of human presence and may persist in highly urbanized areas (Gibbs et al. 1992). Preservation, protection, and improvement of wetland habitats for least bitterns, particularly, low elevation, large (>10ha), shallow wetlands with dense growth of robust, emergent vegetation is the most urgent conservation need (Gibbs et al. 1992).

Non-habitat risk factors within the control of the Forest Service include recreation, grazing, or other activities in wetlands that could directly disturb nesting bitterns. Nests could be dislodged thus

FEIS Volume 4, Appendix R-61 - Assessment of Species Vulnerability and Prioritization Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment

resulting in a loss of reproduction and/or direct mortality, or adults could be killed by contact with boats.

Non-habitat risk factors not within the control of the Forest Service are permitted activities within the NWRs on the Modoc Plateau/Klamath Basin. Limited hunting is the only allowed activity on the Clear Lake NWR, with the NWR being closed to the general public (USFWS 2000). Hunting and other recreational activities may directly affect least bitterns through disturbing nest contents, flushing them from nests or foraging platforms, or striking them with boats. Flushed birds would also at higher risk of predation.

Unnaturally high densities of predators such as raccoons may also negatively impact the least bittern (Evers 1992 in NatureServe 2000). Other known predators of the least bittern include raptors, crows, mink, snakes, snapping turtles, and bullfrogs (NatureServe 2000). Marsh wrens have also been seen puncturing least bittern eggs (Bent 1926 in CWHR 2000).

Because of nocturnal migrations at low altitudes, bitterns are injured or killed due to collisions with obstacles such as TV towers (CWHR 2000). Because they fly low to the ground, collisions with vehicles, barbed wire fences, and transmission lines can also be a mortality factor (NatureServe 2000). Collisions with airboats also kill nesting and wintering least bitterns (NatureServe 2000).

Other potential threats to the least bittern that are beyond the control of the Forest Service include: random environmental and demographic events, parasites and disease that may regulate population size and health, and historical uses and cumulative effects.

Conservation Measures Most national forest lands do not provide potential or historical habitat for the least bittern, with the exception of the Modoc National Forest in the vicinity of Clear Lake NWR. This larger area encompasses a complex of National Wildlife Refuges including the Lower Klamath, Tule Lake, and Clear Lake Refuges in California. These areas most likely adequately protect most of the high quality breeding habitat for the least bittern.

In all areas, wetlands also need to be protected from chemical contamination, siltation, eutrophication, and other forms of pollution (Gibbs et al. 1992). Riparian vegetation retention can act as a buffer to the wetland ecosystem against silt and other contaminants.

Off national forest lands and on the Modoc National Forest, management opportunities exist in the creation of artificial wetlands that are managed for least bittern habitat. Least bitterns readily use wetlands created by artificial impoundments (Gibbs and Melvin 1990 in NatureServe 2000) and seem adaptable to a wide range of wetland habitats, e.g. brackish, coastal marshes, artificial impoundments, and natural freshwater, palustrine, lacustrine, and riverine emergent wetlands (NatureServe 2000).

Because this species is considered to be locally endemic to the Modoc National Forest, no specific management standards and guidelines, mitigations, or viability treatment is proposed for this planning process. It is recommended that the Modoc National Forest develop management guidelines that address the least bittern and its potential habitat on the forest. Guidelines should focus on the long- term conservation of this species on national forest lands.

FEIS Volume 4, Appendix R-62 - Assessment of Species Vulnerability and Prioritization Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment

References Aniskowicz, B.T. 1981. Behavior of a male Least Bittern Ixobrychus exilis after loss of mate. Wilson Bull. 93:395-397.

Bent, A.C. 1926. Life histories of North American marsh birds. U.S. Natl. Mus. Bull. No. 135.

Blake, E.R. 1977. Manual of neotropical birds, Vol. 1. Sphensicidae (Penguins) to Laridae (Gulls and allies). Univ. Chicago Press, Chicago.

California Wildlife Habitat Relationships System (CWHR). 2000. Database Version 7.0. California Interagency Wildlife Task Group. California Department of Fish and Game. Accessed 9/27/2000.

Evers, D.C. 1992. A Guide to Michigans’s endangered wildlife. Univ. Michigan Press, Ann Arbor. Viii+ 103pp.

Frederick, P.C., N.Dwyer, S. Fitsgerald, and R.E. Bennetts. 1990. Relative abundance and habitat preferences of Least Bitterns (Ixobrychus exilis) in the Everglades. Florida Field Nat. 18: 1-20.

Gibbs, J.P. and S.M. Melvin. 1990. An assessment of wading birds and other wetlands avifauna and their habitat in Maine. Final Report, Maine Department Inland Fish, Wildl., Bangor, ME.

Gibbs, J.P., F.A. Reid, and S.M. Melvin. 1992. Least Bittern. In The Birds of North America, No.17 (A. Poole, P. Stettenheim, and F. Gill, Eds.). Philadelphia: The Academy of Natural Sciences; Washington, DC: The American Ornithologist’s Union.

Hancock, J. and J. Kushlan. 1984. The herons handbook. Croom Helm, Ltd., Kent, England.

Kent, T. 1951. The Least Bitterns of Swan Lake, Iowa. Bird Life 21: 59-61.

Kirk, A. 1995. First Confirmed Breeding of the Least Bittern in Inyo County, California. West. Birds; 26(3): 165-166.

NatureServe: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. 2000. Version 1.0. Arlington (VA): Association for Biodiversity Information. Available: http://www.natureserve.org/. (Accessed: October 3, 2000).

Palmer, R.S. 1962. Handbook of North American birds, Volume 1. Yale Univ. Press, New Haven, CT.

Robbins, C.S., D. Bystrak, and P.H. Geissler. 1986. The breeding bird survey: its first fifteen years, 1965-1979. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Res. Publ. 157.

Root, T. 1988. Atlas of wintering North American birds. An analysis of Christmas bird count data. Univ. Chicago Press. 336pp.

Rosenberg, K.V., R.D. Ohmart, W.C. Hunter, and B.W. Anderson. 1991. Birds of the lower Colorado River valley. Univ. Arizona Press, Tucson.

FEIS Volume 4, Appendix R-63 - Assessment of Species Vulnerability and Prioritization Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment

Ryser, F.A., Jr. 1985. Birds of the Great Basin. Univ. Nevada Press, Reno.

Studinski, G. October 2000. District Wildlife Biologist, Devil’s Garden and Double Head Districts, Modoc National Forest. Personal Communication.

Tate, J., Jr. 1986. The Blue List for 1986. Am. Birds 40: 227-236.

United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1995. Wildlife of the Klamath Basin National Wildlife Refuges, California/Oregon. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Unpaginated. Available: http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/othrdata/chekbird/r1/klamath.htm (Version 22MAY99). (Accessed October 23, 2000).

United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2000. Klamath Basin Refuges. Clear Lake National Wildlife Refuge, California. Klamath Basin National Wildlife Refuges. Available: http://www.klamathnwr.org/clearlake.html. (Accessed October 23 and 24, 2000).

Weller, M.W. 1961. Breeding biology of the least bittern. Wilson Bulletin. 73: 11-35.

Long-billed curlew (Numenius americanus) Life History The long-billed curlew (Numenius americanus) is a migratory bird species that breeds in open valleys and flatlands of the western United States. They nest on the ground usually in a flat area with short grass, and are generally a solitary nester, but may be found in loose colonies in favorable habitat. They generally nest in prairie-like habitats including open grasslands, prairies, and meadows, often near scattered shrubs and usually near water or wet meadows, but also in dry situations (Zeiner et al. 1990, Csuti et al. 1997, NatureServe 2000). In California, nesting habitat includes wet meadows, upland shortgrass prairies, and elevated interior grasslands, usually adjacent to lakes or marshes (Grinnell and Miller 1944, Zeiner et al. 1990). According to Zeiner et al. (1990), it is an uncommon to fairly common breeder from April to September in wet meadow habitat in northeastern California in Modoc, Siskiyou, and Lassen counties, with one nesting record for Owens Valley, Inyo County. Non-breeding birds may also be found during the summer on portions of the California coast and in the Central Valley. In California, long-billed curlews can be found wintering along the California coast, and in the Central and Imperial valleys. Preferred winter habitats include large coastal estuaries, upland herbaceous areas, and croplands (Zeiner et al. 1990). Wintering range for this species in California does not occur within the planning area.

Status The long-billed curlew is listed as a California Special Concern species by California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG), but is not listed by the Forest Service as sensitive. It also is listed as a Migratory Nongame Bird of Management Concern by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and is listed on the Partners in Flight WatchList. The global rank in the California Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB) is G5 (demonstrably secure: commonly found throughout its historic range). The CNDDB state rank is S2, or endangered (about 6-20 element occurrences, or 1,000-3,000 individuals, or less than 2, 000 - 10,000 acres of occupied habitat) (CDFG 2000).

FEIS Volume 4, Appendix R-64 - Assessment of Species Vulnerability and Prioritization Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment

According to Zeiner et al. (1990), the breeding range of this species has retracted considerably in the last 80 years, but western populations have not decreased as much as those in the eastern U.S. Population declines in the western U.S. are local, and not widespread (USFWS 1987 in NatureServe 2000).

This species was formerly more abundant, but hunting, agricultural practices (primarily cultivation of suitable habitat), and livestock grazing (particularly during the nesting season) have caused curlews to decline in abundance in the West, and to disappear altogether in the East (Finch 1992, NatureServe 2000). Of these threats, only livestock grazing is applicable to Forest Service management activities within the planning area.

North American Breeding Bird Survey trend results for the period 1966 through 1999 show a 79.4% annual increase in curlew populations in California, a 1.7% annual increase in the western BBS region, and a 1.5% annual decrease in the United States. Trends for the period 1980 through 1999 are 13.2%, 0.2%, and –1.7% for California, the western BBS region, and the U.S., respectively (Sauer et al. 2000). These numbers may not precisely reflect the actual trend in long-billed curlew for these areas due to deficiencies in BBS data, such as small sample sizes, low relative abundances on survey routes, imprecise trends, and missing data (Sauer et al. 2000). However, they appear to indicate an increasing trend in California, with generally stable populations in the western BBS region, and a slightly declining trend in the United States. Current and historical distribution Grinnell and Miller (1944) described the historical breeding range in the northeastern plateau region of California as “west through Modoc region from Nevada line as far (formerly) as Butte Valley, Siskiyou County; south from Oregon line as far as Honey Lake Valley, Lassen County”. This area includes the current breeding range as described above from Zeiner et al. (1990). Although this species is found nesting within the Sierra Nevada Bioregion, no records were found of historic or current nesting on Forest Service lands, and the California Natural Diversity Database (CDFG 1997) has no occurrences documented. Biologists from National Forests that have lands overlapping the summer range of this species, as described in the California Wildlife Habitat Relationships (CWHR) system (CDFG 1999), were contacted to verify this lack of nesting activity on NFS lands in the planning area. From the CWHR system summer range distribution map, the Modoc National Forest geopraphically appears to be the most likely Forest for potential nesting curlews, but the Modoc N.F. has no nesting records for this species and probably no suitable habitat. There are nesting curlews on adjacent private lands, at the Modoc National Wildlife Refuge, and in the short, sparsely vegetated flats at the south end of Goose Lake (George Studinski, Modoc N.F., pers. comm. 2000). Other planning area Forests that are near or appear to have small areas within the curlew summer range, as described in the CWHR system, include the Lassen, Plumas, and possibly portions of the Tahoe and Humboldt-Toiyabe. However, no records of nesting curlews are known from these Forests (pers. comm. with: Tom Rickman, Lassen N.F., Eagle Lake R.D.; Boyd Turner, Lassen N.F., Hat Creek R.D.; Don Kudrna, Tahoe N.F., Sierraville R.D.; Genny Wilson, Tahoe N.F., Truckee R.D.; Gary Rotta, Plumas N.F.; Pat Shanley, Humboldt-Toiyabe N.F., Carson District). According to David Shuford (Shuford, pers. comm.. 2000), curlew nesting sites are known from the Owens Lake area, south of Topaz Lake, Sierra Valley, Honey Lake Wildlife Area, and Goose Lake, although nesting activity in terms of both annual use and pair numbers varies widely at these sites from very few and sporadic at Owens Lake to fairly abundant and annually at Goose Lake. None of these sites are on FS lands. They have been rarely seen, apparently as vagrants or during migration, in the Lake Tahoe Basin (Orr and Moffit 1971), and east of the Sierran escarpment near Yosemite National Park below 7,000 feet (Gaines 1988).

FEIS Volume 4, Appendix R-65 - Assessment of Species Vulnerability and Prioritization Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment

Risk factors and Conservation Measures As there are no documented occurrences of long-billed curlew nesting on NFS lands within the planning area, this species is considered peripheral to the Sierra Nevada Forest Plan amendment planning process. Therefore, no specific management standards and guidelines, mitigations, or viability treatment are proposed for this planning process. In the future, if this species is found nesting on NFS lands within the planning area, protective management standards and guidelines can be applied on a site-specific basis. Livestock grazing (timing, location, and intensity) in the vicinity of nesting habitat would be the most likely risk factor on Forest Service lands. Other potential risk factors could include recreation impacts, chemicals, and prescribed burning. These risk factors could be managed through application of timing and location guidelines.

References California Dept. of Fish and Game. 1997. RareFind 2 Natural Diversity Data Base, Version 2.1.0.

California Dept. of Fish and Game. 1999. CWHR version 7.0 computer program. Sacramento, CA.

California Dept. of Fish and Game. 2000. Wildlife and Habitat Data Analysis Branch website. www.dfg.ca.gov/whdab.

Csuti, B., A.J. Kimerling, T.A. O’Neil, M.M. Shaughnessy, E.P. Gaines, and M.M.P. Huso. 1997. Atlas of Oregon Wildlife: Distribution, Habitat, and Natural History. Oregon State Univ. Press, Corvallis, Oregon, 492 pp.

Finch, D.M. 1992. Threatened, Endangered, and Vulnerable Species of Terrestrial Vertebrates in the Rocky Mountain Region. USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-215. Rocky Mountain Forest and Reange Experiment station, Fort Collins, CO. 38 pp.

Gaines, D. 1988. Birds of Yosemite and the east slope. Artemisia Press, Lee Vining, California, 352 pp.

Grinnell, J., and A.H. Miller. 1944. The distribution of the birds of California. Pacific Coast Avifauna No. 27. 608 pp.

Kudrna, D. October 2000. District Wildlife Biologist, Sierraville, Tahoe National Forest. Personal Communication

NatureServe: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. 2000. Version 1.0. Arlington (VA): Association for Biodiversity Information. Available: http://www.natureserve.org/.

Orr, R.T., and J. Moffitt. 1971. Birds of the Lake Tahoe Region. California Academy of Sciences, San Francisco, 150 pp.

Rickman, T. October 2000. District Wildlife Biologist, Eagle Lake, Lassen National Forest. Personal Communication.

Rotta, G. October 2000. Forest Wildlife Biologist, Plumas National Forest. Personal Communication.

FEIS Volume 4, Appendix R-66 - Assessment of Species Vulnerability and Prioritization Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment

Sauer, J.R., J.E. Hines, I. Thomas, J. Fallon, and G. Gough. 2000. The North American Breeding Bird Survey , Results and Analysis 1966-1999. Version 98.1, USGS Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, Laurel, MD.

Shanley, P. October 2000. District Wildlife Biologist, Carson, Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest. Personal Communication.

Shuford, D. October 2000. Point Reyes Bird Observatory, Stinson Beach, CA. Personal Communication.

Studinski, G. October 2000. District Wildlife Biologist, Modoc National Forest. Personal Communication.

Turner, B. October 2000. District Wildlife Biologist, Hat Creek, Lassen National Forest. Personal Communication.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), Office of Migratory Bird Management. 1987. Migratory nongame birds of management concern in the United States: the 1987 list.

Wilson, G. October 2000. District Wildlife Biologist, Truckee, Tahoe National Forest. Personal Communication.

Zeiner, D.C., W.F. Laudenslayer, Jr., K.E. Mayer, and M. White. 1990. California’s Wildlife: Volume II Birds. California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, California. 731 pp.

Sage Grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) Life History The sage grouse is North America’s largest grouse species (Schroeder et al 1999). In California, the sage grouse is a permanent resident, but some seasonal movements of unknown distances may occur (Zeiner et al 1990). Weather and habitat influence both distance and timing of migratory movements. Various studies cited by Schroeder and others (1999) indicate that desiccation of forbs on nesting ranges may result in movements from nesting to summer ranges, with movements to summer ranges covering up to 119 km. Harsh weather during winter on nesting and/or summer areas and differences in seasonal habitat selection may result in fall movements away from nesting and summer areas, or spring movements away from areas used strictly during winter (Schroeder et al 1999). Types of movements vary. Populations may be non-migratory, while other populations may have, 1) distinct winter, breeding and summer areas, 2) distinct summer areas and integrated winter and breeding areas, or, 3) distinct winter areas and integrated breeding and summer areas (Connelly et al 2000).

Because of the differences in seasonal use patterns, three types of sage grouse populations can be defined: 1) non-migratory, 2) 1-stage migratory, where grouse move between two distinct seasonal ranges, and, 3) 2-stage migratory, where grouse move between three distinct seasonal ranges (Connelly et al 2000). Despite these annual movements, sage grouse show high fidelity to seasonal ranges, and females return to the same area to nest each year (Connelly et al 2000).

Sage grouse breed from mid-February to late August, and the peak strutting period is from March- April (Zeiner et al 1990). Nesting and brood rearing occurs from May-July (Zeiner et al 1990). Sage

FEIS Volume 4, Appendix R-67 - Assessment of Species Vulnerability and Prioritization Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment

grouse are polygamous. Males gather and display on traditional leks at which all the breeding takes place; a few dominant males do most of the breeding (Schroeder et al 1999). Schroeder et al (1999) cite studies which indicate breeding is relatively synchronous, with greater than 50% of all matings occurring within 5-10 days. Sage grouse generally have low reproductive raes and high annual survival compared to most gallinaceous species (Connelly et al 2000).

Predation is may be a major source of mortality of young age classes and adults on leks, nests and during winter (Schroeder et al 1999). Predators include golden eagles, buteos, accipiters, coyotes, red foxes and bobcats (Schroeder et al 1999). Nest predators include ground squirrels, badgers, common ravens, American crows, black-billed magpies and weasels (Schroeder et al 1999).

Habitat Relationships Sage grouse are closely associated with sagebrush ecosystems. Leks are placed on sites surrounded by potential nest habitat, and are often situated on broad ridgetops, grassy swales, disturbed sites such as burns, and dry lake beds (Schroeder et al 1999). Leks typically have less herbaceous and shrub cover than the surrounding habitat (Schroeder et al 1999). Schroeder et al (1999) cite studies that indicate nest sites are usually from 3.4-7.8 km away from leks, but the distance may be >20 km (Connelly et al 2000). Nest success is lower in areas where shrub cover is reduced by spraying and burning, and appears to be inversely correlated with density of common ravens (Schroeder et al 1999).

Nests are placed in relatively thick vegetative cover, usually dominated by big sagebrush; both horizontal and vertical concealment of the nest is important (Schroeder et al 1999). Nests usually placed under sagebrush with an average height of 36-79 cm, and in areas with an average of 15-38% sagebrush cover (Schroeder et al 1999). Sagebrush cover is greater around successful nests than around unsuccessful nests (Connelly et al 2000).

Grass height and cover is also an important component of nesting habitat (Connelly et al 2000). Studies cited by Connelly et al (2000) indicate that grass >18 cm in height occurring in stands of sagebrush 40-80 cm tall resulted in lower nest predation rates than in stands with lower grass heights. Residual grass cover of 3-30% also is a significant feature (Schroeder et al 1999). Brood habitat is typically characterized by high plant species richness and an abundance of forbs and insects (Schroeder et al 1999, Connelly et al 2000).

Winter habitat is similar to summer, except sagebrush cover is greater (Schroeder et al 1999). Studies cited by Connelly et al (2000) indicate that grouse utilize winter habitats characterized by sagebrush canopy cover of >15-20%.

Diet includes leaves, buds, flowers, fruits, stems and insects; leaves dominate the diet (Schroeder et al 1999). The winter diet is almost entirely made up of sagebrush leaves, including leaves from big sagebrush, low, black, silver and fringed sagebrush (Connelly et al 2000). Insects are important for juveniles, especially during the first 3 weeks of life, after which forbs increase in importance (Schroeder et al 1999). Forbs and sagebrush dominate the spring diets of adults (Schroeder et al 1999).

Status Although management and research efforts on behalf of sage grouse date back to the 1930s, breeding populations of sage grouse have declined by at least 17-47% throughout much of its range (Connelly

FEIS Volume 4, Appendix R-68 - Assessment of Species Vulnerability and Prioritization Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment et al 2000). Two populations are currently petitioned for listing under the Endangered Species Act, one in Colorado and one in Washington (Frank Hall pers. comm. 2000). Based on lek counts, the adult spring population of sage grouse in California is estimated to be at least 2,773 adults (California Department of Fish and Game 2000).

Sage grouse are a harvest species and a Species of Special Concern within California (Zeiner et al 1990). Sage grouse in California are hunted on a limited permit basis in Mono, Inyo and Lassen counties. The five-year annual harvest is approximately 497 grouse that are killed during the season (California Department of Fish and Game 2000). A draft environmental document prepared for the harvest of resident game birds, including sage grouse, concludes that the adult spring sage grouse population can sustain the total annual mortality, including the hunting mortality, and that no significant adverse impact to the state’s population is expected from the hunting season (California Department of Fish and Game 2000).

Historical and current distribution Originally occurring in at least 16 states, the sage grouse has been extirpated from Arizona, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Kansas, and Nebraska (Schroeder et al 1999). In the west, the distribution and population densities of sage grouse have been greatly reduced due to loss of habitat to cultivation, burning and overgrazing (Schroeder et al 1999).

The range of sage grouse in California is from Oregon border, along the east side of the Cascade Range and the Sierra Nevada to northern Inyo County. They can be found primarily in Alpine, Inyo, Lassen, Modoc, Mono, Shasta and Siskiyou counties (Department of Fish and Game 2000). Lassen and Mono counties have the most stable populations (Zeiner et al 1990).

In Region 5, only two Forests, the Inyo and the Modoc, have historic leks. The Modoc NF contains approximately 34 historic lek sites, though it is unknown how many of these were ever active at any one time, and it is also unknown how many are still viable (Studinski personal communication 2000). The Inyo NF contains two historic lek sites that have not been active in recent years (Terry Russi pers. comm. 2000). However, active leks are located adjacent to the Inyo NF boundaries, and leks are expected on Inyo NF lands in the White Mountains (Terry Russi pers. comm. 2000).

Risk Factors Population declines are largely attributed to widespread loss, fragmentation and degradation of sagebrush habitats and associated riparian areas. As discussed by Schroeder et al (1999), the effects of human activities on sage grouse have included:

1. Market hunting, overharvesting and poaching once reduced or limited populations. 2. Pesticides and herbicide applications, which can reduce insect and forb availability, both of which can have significant impacts on nesting females as well as on chicks during the breeding season. 3. Habitat alteration, including the loss of millions of hectares of sagebrush dominated habitats to cultivation and sagebrush removal treatements. 4. Reduced suitability of the remaining sagebrush dominated habitats due to urbanization and intensive grazing. 5. Changes in fire frequency. 6. Disturbances at nest and lek sites.

FEIS Volume 4, Appendix R-69 - Assessment of Species Vulnerability and Prioritization Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment

Habitat risk factors in control of the FS include those activities with potential to cause further loss, fragmentation or degradation of sagebrush habitats. Potential affects to sage grouse and their habitats should be considered during the planning stages for:

1. Management activities or treatments that result in loss of sagebrush cover, such as herbicide or mechanical treatments, and prescribed fire. 2. Mining or energy (such as oil and gas) development. 3. Grazing 4. Establishment of new roads or powerline corridors

Habitat risk factors not in control of the FS include urbanization and other development on private lands, and the creation of reservoirs, fences, powerlines, etc., which may alter, degrade or fragment habitat.

Non-habitat risk factors in control of the FS include correcting the current lack of knowledge regarding the status of this species on FS administered lands. Funding a breeding season survey effort in potential habitat, especially in areas of historic lek sites, , would be an important first step.

Non-habitat risk factors in control of the FS also include disturbance to known leks during the breeding season. Information gaps of the status of this species on NF administered lands, such as the status of historic leks, and the possibility of undocumented leks in the White Mountains, could be addressed through survey efforts.

Non-habitat risk factors not in control of the FS include disturbance to known leks on private lands or on lands administered by other agencies, and potential affects of the current hunting regime. Indications are that populations can withstand the current levels of hunting mortality (Schroeder et al 1999, California Department of Fish and Game 2000), however, Schroeder et al (1999) did provide several reasons for exercising caution in regard to hunting.

Conservation Measures The Modoc NF Land and Resource Management Plan lists sage grouse as a management indicator species, and provides management goals, objectives and requirements for this species. Since 1991 when this plan was signed, management guidelines for sage grouse populations and habitats have been published.

The most recent set of guidelines for sage grouse management is that provided by Connelly et al (2000). The Western States Sage Columbian Sharp-Tailed Grouse Technical Committee requested these guidelines due to continued concern about sage grouse and their habitats, and because a significant amount of new information had become available since a previous set of guidelines were published in 1977. Connelly et al (2000) summarize the current knowledge of sage grouse ecology and provide guidelines for managing sage grouse populations and habitats.

Only two Forests within Region 5, the Modoc and Inyo, contain historic sage grouse leks. Sagebrush dominated habitats do not appear to be directly addressed within the standards and guidelines of the Framework DEIS. Therefore, it is unlikely that one or more of the DEIS alternatives would provide environmental conditions to ensure a high likelihood of maintaining a well distributed population of sage grouse on NF system lands. Treatment of this species should be dismissed in the FEIS and responsibility be passed on to the Modoc and Inyo NFs. With the availability of the recent, very

FEIS Volume 4, Appendix R-70 - Assessment of Species Vulnerability and Prioritization Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment thorough literature review and management guidelines established by Connelly et al (2000), generation of different or additional guidelines by the FEIS is not necessary. Until such time as data specific to California populations are obtained, the Connelly et al (2000) guidelines are recommended (Blankenship pers. comm. 2000), and should be applied to occupied habitats. Surveys should be conducted in areas of historic lek locations to determine if they are still occupied by strutting males.

References Blankenship, Sam. October 2000. Wildlife Biologist, California Department of Fish and Game. Personal communication.

California Department of Fish and Game. 2000. Draft Environmental Document, Resident Game Bird Hunting. Sacramento, CA.

Connelly, J.W., M.A. Schroeder, A.R. Sands, and C.E. Braun. 2000. Guidelines for management of sage grouse populations and habitats. Publisher unknown.

Hall, Frank. October 2000. Unit Biologist, Lassen County, California Department of Fish and Game. Personal communication.

Russi, Terry. October 2000. Wildlife Biologist, Bureau of Land Management. Personal communication.

Schroeder, M.A., J.R. Young, and C.W. Braun. Sage grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus). In, The Birds of North America, No. 425. (A. Poole and F. Gill, eds.) The Birds of North America, Inc., Philadelphia, PA.

Studinski, George. October 2000. Wildlife Biologist, Devils Garden Ranger District, Modoc National Forest. Personal communication.

Zeiner, D.C., W.F. Laudenslayer, K.E. Mayer, and M. White (editors). 1990. California’s wildlife, volume 2. California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, CA.

Tricolored Blackbird (Agelaius tricolor) Species Background The tricolored blackbird is a colony nester, often forming breeding colonies of thousands of birds at one site. Breeding colonies may exhibit annual site fidelity if the necessary habitat resources persist. In the winter they may form flocks with other blackbird species (Beedy and Hamilton 1999). Historically, tricolored blackbirds were killed to control damage to rice and grain crops in the Central Valley (Beedy and Hamilton 1999).

Life History The tricolored blackbird is a non-migratory species over most of its range. There are some nesting populations in northeastern California that leave in the fall to migrate south. Breeding birds have been documented traveling as far as 6.4 km (4 miles) from nesting areas to feed. Breeding season usually lasts from mid-April into late July (Beedy and Hamilton 1999). Active breeding in late Fall

FEIS Volume 4, Appendix R-71 - Assessment of Species Vulnerability and Prioritization Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment

(October and November) has also been documented (Orians 1960). A colony varies in size from a minimum of about 50 nests (Grinnell and Miller 1944) to over 20,000 (DeHaven et. al. 1975).

Status The tricolored Blackbird is listed by California Department of Fish and Game as a Species of Special Concern and by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service as a Species of Concern (Beedy and Hamilton 1999, Robinson 1999). Although it is not reflected in survey-wide long-term BBS trend data, this species is declining in California (Robinson 1999, Beedy and Hamilton 1999, DeHaven et al. 1975).

The status of the tricolored blackbird in California is of concern because of the documented decline in populations. Because the tricolored Blackbird nests in such large colonies, it is vulnerable to nesting failures affecting thousand of individuals (Beedy and Hamilton 1999). Beedy and Hamilton (1999) report state survey results of a 37% decline of the California population between 1994 and 1997.

Habitat Relationships Breeding habitat requires nearby water, suitable nesting substrate, and open-range foraging habitat of natural grassland, woodland, or agricultural cropland (Beedy and Hamilton 1999). Historically tricolored colonies bred almost exclusively in freshwater marshes dominated by cattails or bulrushes (Neff 1937). However, in more recent years breeding habitat has shifted to diverse upland and agricultural areas (DeHaven et al. 1975). In 1994 over half of all observed tricolored blackbird nests were associated with dairies where nesting substrate, water and foraging habitat are all found on a single dairy operation (Hamilton et.al 1995, Beedy and Hamilton 1999). Other recent findings include some small breeding colonies in California utilizing private and public lakes, reservoirs, and parks that are surrounded by shopping center, subdivisions and other urban development (Beedy and Hamilton 1999).

Some of the largest colonies of tricolored blackbirds utilize silage and grain fields for nesting habitat (Cook 1996). Other nesting substrates in California include giant cane (Arundo donax); safflower (Carthamus tinctorius), stinging neetle (Urtica dioica), tamarisk (Tamarix spp.), and other riparian and agricultural field related species (Beedy and Hamilton 1999). On the Sequoia National Forest’s South Fork Wildlife Area, Tricolored blackbirds are known to utilize stinging neetle stands for nesting and have also been found nesting entirely in willow (Salix spp.) habitats (S.Laymon pers comm.). They have been documented utilizing Himalayan blackberry (Rubus discolor) patches as nesting habitat at the California Department of Fish and Game’s Canebrake Ecological Preserve on the South Fork of the Kern River (D.LaBertreaux pers comm.). Many other colonies in California have also been reported nesting in Himalayan blackberry brambles (Beedy and Hamilton 1999).

Tricolored blackbird diet during the breeding season includes primarily insect matter, (Beedy and Hamilton 1999), with a shift to high-energy seed crops and grains (livestock foods) occurring immediately before and after nesting.

During the non-breeding season tricolored blackbirds will form large roosts, sometimes in association with other species, such as red-winged blackbirds and Brewer’s blackbirds (Beedy and Hamilton 1999). Roosting areas of preference include cattail and bulrush marshes that are located near suitable foraging areas, such as pasturelands and croplands. During the winter months, tricolored blackbirds will also frequent bird feeders (D.LaBertreaux pers.comm.), grocery store parking lots (B.Barnes pers. comm.), and grain lots.

FEIS Volume 4, Appendix R-72 - Assessment of Species Vulnerability and Prioritization Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment

Historical and current distribution More than 99% of the tricolored blackbird population occurs in California, where its range is restricted to the Central Valley and surrounding foothills, the coastal and inland localities of southern California. In 1994, 94% of all breeding adult tricolored blackbirds in a California statewide survey occurred in the Central Valley (Hamilton 1998). Outside of California the tricolored Blackbird is found at scattered sites in Oregon, western Nevada, central Washington, and western coastal Baja California (Beedy and Hamilton 1999).

In California, the tricolored Blackbird breeds locally west of the Cascade Range, Sierra Nevada, and southeastern deserts from Humboldt and Shasta Counties south to southern California. In central California breeding occurs east into the foothills of the Sierra Nevada and is also known to breed in the marshes of Klamath Basin in Siskiyou and Modoc Counties and Honey Lake Basin in Lassen County in NE California. Historically, most of the California populations have been located in Sacramento and San Joaquin Valleys, but habitat loss has reduced breeding considerably in this area in recent years (Beedy and Hamilton 1997, Beedy and Hamilton 1999). On the west slope of the Sierras, tricolored blackbirds are generally not known to nest above 1000’ elevation (T.Beedy pers. comm.).

The tricolored blackbird remains in most of its breeding range during the entire year, however, they will concentrate in and around the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta and coastal areas (Beedy and Hamilton 1999, Beedy and Hamilton 1997, DeHaven et. al. 1975). On the South Fork of the Kern, tricolored blackbirds populations mostly remain in the Kern River Valley year-round, although some do leave the area for the winter months (S.Laymon pers.comm., D.LaBertreaux pers. comm., M.Whitfield pers.comm.). It is not known where the birds that leave the Kern River Valley spend the winter.

Tricolored blackbirds also inhabit the low foothills on both the east and western slopes of the Sierra (Beedy and Hamilton 1999). A few small breeding colonies have been found in marshy areas, where they remain all year. Flocks of several hundred birds have been recorded in fields west of Folsom Lake in Placer County (Beedy and Granholm 1985). This location is approximately 15 miles west of the Eldorado National Forest (D.Lipton pers. comm.) and is on private property. There is a historical nesting area on private property near the lower Tuloumne River below La Grange, which is approximately 25 miles west of the Stanislaus National Forest. There was a flock reported at Ash Mountain within Sequoia National Park in the early spring (Beedy and Granholm 1985). Tricolored blackbirds have been recorded breeding in some years at Honey Lake in Lassen County (Ziener et. al. 1990), which is approximately three miles east of the Plumas National Forest.

The only known breeding colonies that occur on National Forest land in the Sierra Nevada bioregion are in Kern County on the Sequoia National Forest (T.Beedy pers.comm.) There are at least 4 colonies that breed along the South Fork of the Kern River, including at least one colony within the Forest Service’s South Fork Wildlife Area. This habitat is located at approximately 2,000 feet elevation. At least one major (>500 pairs) colony occurs within the South Fork Wildlife Area every year (S.Laymon pers. comm.). Other known colonies nearby the SFWA are on private property, the Canebrake Ecological Preserve and the Kern River Preserve (D.LaBertreaux pers. comm., M.Whitfield pers.comm., R.Tollefson pers.comm.).

Other higher elevation colonies that have been documented in California include one near Tehachapi, Kern County at 1,158 m or 3800 feet (Collier 1968), which is approximately 20 air miles south of the

FEIS Volume 4, Appendix R-73 - Assessment of Species Vulnerability and Prioritization Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment

Sequoia National Forest southern boundary. Another high elevation colony recorded is at 1,219 m (4000) near Susanville, Lassen Co. (DeHaven et al. 1975). This location is approximately five miles from the eastern boundary of the Lassen National Forest. A group of about 10 tricolored blackbirds have been recorded each year since 1998 on the Tahoe National Forest along the Little Truckee River at approximately 6000’ elevation (G.Wilson pers.comm.). These birds have been seen in the area during the months of June and July and are assumed to be nesting, although this has not been confirmed. Tricolored blackbirds have also been detected near the shore of Lake Tahoe in Western Nevada (S. Romsos pers.comm.). These birds have been seen in the area during the months of June and July and are assumed to be nesting, although this has not been confirmed.

Risk Factors The principle factor that places this species at risk is the current and continuing loss of nesting and foraging habitat throughout the breeding range of this species in the Central Valley and southern California. Tricolored Blackbird breeding habitat is negatively affected by crop-harvesting activities and they suffer habitat losses to land conversions from rangeland to vineyards, orchards, and urban development (Beedy and Hamilton 1999).

Habitat risk factors within the control of the Forest Service include effects that could occur from livestock grazing and prescribed burning programs. The Sequoia National Forest manages the South Fork Wildlife Area, which is the only area on NFS land in the Sierra Nevada bioregion where this species is known to breed. Populations of breeding tricolored blackbirds near Eldorado and Plumas National Forest lands in the foothills of the Sierra Nevada are not at risk from activities occurring on these NF lands (D.Lipton pers.comm., G.Rotta pers.comm., G.Wilson pers.comm.).

Currently the South Fork Wildlife Area is fenced and is not utilized for grazing. However, there is a livestock grazing allotment adjacent to the SFWA that is utilized primarily for winter grazing, although a limited amount of spring/summer grazing also occurs. The area that is grazed within this allotment does not contain potential tricolored blackbird nesting habitat, however, it is potential foraging habitat. Grazing could impact the quality of the foraging habitat (S.Laymon pers.comm.). Prescribed burning programs have not been implemented within the South Fork Wildlife Area, although they could be in the future. Burning areas of suitable tricolored blackbird nesting habitat, such as berry thickets and cattail marshes, can have negative effects for the species (S.Laymon pers.comm.).

Habitat risk factors that are not within the control of the Forest Service include the operation of Isabella Reservoir. The South Fork Wildlife Area can be flooded on high water years by rising reservoir levels in late spring and early summer months. Because the tricolored blackbirds start nesting in April, their nest sites are prone to flooding when the water levels are raised (S.Laymon pers.comm.). The colony that nests in the South Fork Wildlife Area makes up a high percentage of the total breeding birds along the South Fork of the Kern, making this effect a potentially significant one to the local breeding population (S.Laymon pers. comm.).

Other habitat risk factors that are not within the control of the Forest Service include livestock grazing on private property on the South Fork of the Kern. Winter grazing can knock down cattail and tules, which may provide suitable nesting habitat for tricolored blackbirds (S.Laymon pers.comm.). Although tricolored blackbirds nest in the bottomlands of the South Fork Valley, they forage primarily in the nearby upland habitats. Grazing in these areas has the potential to reduce insect populations, which the tricolored blackbirds are dependent upon (S.Laymon pers.comm.). The Forest

FEIS Volume 4, Appendix R-74 - Assessment of Species Vulnerability and Prioritization Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment

Service does not administer the upland grazing allotments adjacent to the nesting areas. Some of these areas are privately owned and the Bureau of Land Management administers others.

Non-habitat risk factors that are within the control of the Forest Service include recreational use within breeding area on the South Fork Wildlife Area of the Sequoia National Forest. Recreation use in the area is currently low impact, with personal watercraft only allowed to utilize the area at <5 mph. Recently access roads that led into the South Fork Wildlife Area were closed, and only foot travel is allowed for overland access into the area. There could be indirect effects from recreation in the Lake Tahoe Basin area that impact the tricolored blackbirds in that area. However, it is not known if the birds in this area are nesting or if they have been detected during migration from northern California to potential wintering grounds in the Central Valley.

Other non-habitat risk factors that are not within the control of the Forest Service include the potential for airborne drift of pesticides and herbicides. This risk factor is not considered to be high in the South Fork Valley area; however, it is possible that airborne drift of toxic chemicals from pesticides and/or herbicides could occur near tricolored blackbird nesting areas. There was egg-hatching failure at a Kern County colony where eggs had been sprayed with mosquito abatement oil (Beedy and Hamilton 1999).

Another non-habitat risk factor that is not within the control of the Forest Service is the effect of predation on tricolored blackbird nesting colonies. Predation is a documented major cause of tricolored blackbird nest failures (Beeding and Hayworth 1992, accounting for up to 100% mortality in an entire colony in the Central Valley (Hamilton 1998). Aquatic sites utilized by tricolored Blackbirds as breeding habitat are subject to increased predation if they become dry during the breeding season (Neff 1937). Some of the predators of this species include gray fox, opossum, Common Raven, American crow, Swainson’s Hawk, Cooper’s Hawk, Black-crowned Night Heron, and Burrowing Owls (Beedy and Hamilton 1999). Nest parasitism for this species is not considered to be a major threat, although there has been some documentation of parasitism occurring (Beedy and Hamilton 1999, T.Beedy pers. comm.).

Conservation Measures The only breeding population of this species that occurs on NFS lands within the planning area is in the South Fork Wildlife Area of the Greenhorn Ranger District, Sequoia National Forest. This area is not directly affected by the management actions being analyzed under the Sierra Nevada Framework Project. The South Fork Wildlife Area transferred to the Sequoia National Forest in 1990 as part of a land transfer between the US Forest Service and the Army Corps of Engineers. The area is designated as a State Wildlife Area and is currently being managed for the conservation of wildlife. The continued conservation of tricolored blackbird populations should be considered by the Sequoia National Forest in the future management of the South Fork Wildlife Area.

On the Tahoe National Forest where a small population of tricolored blackbirds have been recorded for the past three years, and on the Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit where tricolored blackbirds have been detected in western Nevada, the standards and guidelines that are designed for willow flycatcher population conservation in the SNFP EIS should be sufficient for the protection of habitat this population utilizes along the Little Truckee River and near the shore of Lake Tahoe (G.Wilson and M.Hurt pers.comm. 2000).

FEIS Volume 4, Appendix R-75 - Assessment of Species Vulnerability and Prioritization Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment

The US Fish and Wildlife Service and the California Department of Fish and Game are currently implementing conservation measures for this species in California. The focus of these efforts is in the Central Valley where the majority of the tricolored blackbird populations occur. Management objectives include maintaining a viable self-sustaining population throughout the current geographic range, avoiding losses of colonies and their associated habitats, increasing breeding populations on suitable public and private lands managed for this species, and enhancing public support for the protection of habitat and active colonies (Beedy and Hamilton 1999). Already positive results have been documented where lands containing large colonies have been purchased and protected, and where private landowners have implemented measures (e.g., delaying crop harvest to protect active nesting colonies) to help conserve the species (Beedy and Hamilton 1999).

References Beedy, E.C. and W.J. Hamilton III. 1999. Tricolored Blackbird (Agelaius tricolor). In the Birds of North America, No. 423 (A. Poole and F. Gill, eds.). The Birds of North America, Inc., Philadelphia, PA.

Beedy, E.C. and W.J. Hamilton III. 1997. Tricolored Blackbird status update and management guidelines. September. (Jones and Stokes Associates, Inc. 97-099.) Sacramento, CA. Prepared for U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, OR and Calif. Dept. of Fish and Game, Sacramento, CA.

Beedy, E.C. and A. Hayworth. 1992. Tricolored Blackbird nesting failures in the Central Valley of California: general trends or isolated phenomena? Pp. 33-46 In Endangered and sensitive species of the San Joaquin Valley, California (D.F. Williams, S.Bryne, and T.A. Rado, eds.). Calif. Energy Comm., Sacramento, CA.

Beedy, E.C. and S.L. Granholm. 1985. Discovering Sierra Birds. Yosemite Natural History Association and Sequoia Natural History Association. 229 pp.

Beedy, E.C. October 2000. Wildlife Researcher. Jones and Stokes Associates, Inc. Personal Communication.

Collier, G. 1968. Annual cycle and behavioral relationships in the red-winged and tricolored blackbirds of southern California. Ph.D. Thesis, Univ. of California, Los Angeles. 374 pp.

Cook, L. 1996. Nesting adaptations of Tricolored Blackbirds (Agelaius tricolor). Master’s thesis, Univ. of California, Davis.

DeHaven, R.W., F.T. Crase, and P.P. Woronecki. 1975. Breeding status of the tricolored blackbird. 1969-1972. California Department of Fish and Game 61:166-180.

Flores, Mary. October 2000. Wildlife Biologist – Modoc National Forest. Personal Communication.

Grinnell, J. and A. H. Miller. 1944. The distribution of the birds of California. Pac. Coast. Avifauna. No. 27. 608 pp.

Hamilton, W.J., III. 1998. Tricolored Blackbird itinerant breeding in California. Condor 100: 218- 226.

FEIS Volume 4, Appendix R-76 - Assessment of Species Vulnerability and Prioritization Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment

Hurt, Mollie. October 2000. Forest Wildlife Biologist; Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit. Personal Communication.

LaBertreaux, Denise. October 2000. Wildlife Biologist; Eremico Company. Personal Communication.

Laymon, Steve. October 2000. Wildlife Researcher; Personal Communication.

Lipton, Dawn. October 2000. Forest Wildlife Biologist; Eldorado National Forest. Personal Communication.

Neff, J.A. 1937. Nesting distribution of the Tri-colored Red-wing. Condor 39: 61-81.

Orians, G.H. 1960. Autumnal breeding in the Tricolored Blackbird. Auk. 77:379-398.

Romsos, J. Shane. October 2000. Wildlife Biologist; Tahoe Regional Planning Agency. Personal Communication.

Rotta, Gary. October 2000. Forest Wildlife Biologist; Stanislaus National Forest. Personal Communication (former Wildlife Biologist on the Plumas National Forest).

Tollefson, Reed. October 2000. Preserve Manager; Kern River Preserve – Audubon California. Personal Communication.

Whitfield, Mary. October 2000. Wildlife Researcher; Southern Sierra Research Center.Personal Communication.

Wilson, Genny. October 2000. Wildlife Biologist – Tahoe National Forest. Personal Communication.

Zeiner, D.C., W.F. Laudenslayer, Jr., K.E. Mayer, and M. White. 1990. California’s Wildlife: Volume II Birds. California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, California. 731 pp.

American White Pelican (Pelecanus erythrorhynchos) Life history The American white pelican breeds colonially on low, preferably bare, islands of remote dikes of large shallow fresh or brackish water lakes or inland rivers that are free from mammalian predators (Terres 1991; Ehrlich et al. 1988; Zeiner et al. 1990; Baicich and Harrison 1997). More rarely it will nest on floating islands of marsh plants (Terres 1991). It also breeds in coastal areas of Texas (Baicich and Harrison 1997). Only one of the young produced will fledge, and they do not reach reproductive age until 2-3 years of age (USDA Forest Service 1998a).

In California, courtship and egg laying begins in March or April (CWHR 1999). Clutch size ranges from 1 to 6 eggs, but is usually 2 (CWHR 1999). Incubation lasts about 36 days (Harrison 1978). Young are fed by both parents. The young leave the nest at 3-4 weeks and are about 2 months when they take their first flight, usually around September (CWHR).

FEIS Volume 4, Appendix R-77 - Assessment of Species Vulnerability and Prioritization Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment

During the breeding season they may nest at one lake and forage at another lake. They are known to fly 150 to 184 miles one way from the nest to feeding grounds (National Geographic Society 1987; Zeiner et al. 1990; Lingle and Sloan 1980 in CWHR). The American white pelican forages at night during the breeding season (Evans and Knopf 1993). It does not dive for prey, instead it floats or swims on surface dipping bill to catch prey; mostly small fish that are less than one half the bill length in size (Evans and Knopf 1993). In shallow water they feed individually or cooperatively, driving fish closer to shore. Food consists mostly of fish, but they will prey on amphibians and crustaceans (Zeiner et al. 1990). In North Dakota over half the diet of one colony consisted of larval tiger salamanders (Lingle and Sloan 1980 in CWHR).

Populations that breed west of the Rocky Mountains migrate southward to California and the west coast of Mexico (Behle 1958, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1984 in Evans and Knopf 1993). They migrate almost entirely inland; in the west, American white pelicans winter in central California and along the Pacific coast to Guatamala and along shores of the Gulf of Mexico (Terres 1991). In California courtship and breeding begin in March or April (Zeiner et al. 1990). Habitat relationships The white pelican is very habitat specific (USDA 1998a). Between August and December they are common on salt ponds of the San Francisco Bay, and locally common to uncommon on large lakes and estuaries of the Central Valley, and on the coastal slope from Sonoma County south. They are spring and fall migrants at the Salton Sea and Colorado River. During the fall and winter they rarely occur at the Salton Sea, Morro Bay, and San Diego Bay. Elsewhere they occur sporadically during any month in the spring and fall, especially in southern California (Zeiner et al. 1990).

Beaches, sandbars or old driftwood at the edge of water are used to rest during the day and roost at night, but they do not use trees for roosting (CWHR).

Nests are usually on a small island or remote dikes at large fresh or saltwater lakes (CWHR). Nest areas are free of human disturbance, are on flat ground or gentle slopes, have loose soil, and lack vegetation or other obstructions that might impede flight (CWHR). Since they will fly great distances to forage, the presence of food is not a requirement at the nesting location. The distance between nests ranges from 10 to 42 inches. In the Klamath Lake area the nests were on floating tule islands (Bent 1922). Floating mats of bulrush and tops of submerged partially submerged hay bales have been used for nesting (Thompson et al. 1979 in Evans and Knopf 1993).

Foraging sites are shallow marshes, rivers, and lake edges that have small fish (Evans and Knopf 1993). American white pelicans have low nest sight fidelity; it is common for sub-colonies to shift nesting locations from year to year; adults rarely use the same nest site in successive years (Evans and Knopf 1993), Young may return to the natal colony to breed (Evans and Knopf 1993).

This species commonly shares nesting islands with double-crested cormorants, and sometimes nests near Canada geese, great blue herons, common terns, and Caspian Terns (Evans and Knopf 1993).

Status The American white pelican population is lower than that of pre-settlement times (Terres 1991). In 1964 the total number of nests counted in the U.S. was 17,872; the total for 1980-1981 was 22,299 (Evans and Knopf 1993). In 1979 it was estimated that about 15 colonies were left worldwide with a total of 34,000 birds (Terres 1991). In 1977, about 15 nesting sites were known to occur in the U.S. (Harrison 1979). Declines in population are due to eggshell thinning from DDT in the environment

FEIS Volume 4, Appendix R-78 - Assessment of Species Vulnerability and Prioritization Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment

(Ehrlich et al. 1992). Colonies in the western U.S. declined from 23 to less than 10, but now are generally stable (Ehrlich et al. 1992). Through the early 1970's the entire North American population was threatened, but now appears to have recovered and stabilized, but is still vulnerable to habitat degradation and disturbance (Evans and Knopf 1993). It was listed by the National Audubon Society as a species of Special Concern in 1986 (Ehrlich et al. 1992). Ehrlich et al (1992) reported less than 10 colonies remaining in the western U.S.

Major population declines in California are due to drainage of lakes where pelicans formerly nested (Terres 1991). Several major colonies have been eliminated from California due to degradation of breeding habitat (Zeiner et al. 1990). A combination of human disturbance and changing water levels contributed to population declines until the early 1970's (Evans and Knopf 1993).

Breeding Bird Survey data gathered on 139 BBS routes from 1966 to 1991 show a population increase of 5.3 percent per year (Evans and Knopf 1993).

The California Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB) shows a state ranking of S1 which means that there are fewer than 6 occurrences in the CNDDB or less than 1,000 individuals (Natural Diversity Data Base 1977). There is only one occurrence in the August 1997 CNDDB, reporting 1,700-6,000 breeding birds in the Klamath Basin area. Zeiner et al. (1990) report that the only nesting colonies in California occur in the Klamath Basin. The population trend is reported as unknown in the August 1997 Natural Diversity Data Base

Historical and Current Distribution The American white pelican breeds in scattered colonies from central Canada south to northeastern California, Colorado, Minnesota and the gulf coast of Texas. It formerly bred in southeastern California at the Salton Sea. In 1908 about 2,000 white pelicans nested at Echo Island at the Salton Sea (Bent 1922). American white pelicans winter mostly from central California and Gulf of Mexico south to Nicaragua (Ehrlich et al. 1992). In 1983 about 8,000 pairs bred at Chase Lake National Wildlife Refuge, North Dakota, and this was reported to be the largest nesting colony in the United States (Terres 1991). Anaho Island in Pyramid Lake Nevada supports the largest U.S. breeding colony (Ehrlich et al. 1992).

The California Wildlife Habitat Relationships (CWHR) range map shows the summer range is within Modoc, Siskiyou, Lassen, Shasta, Plumas, Placer, Eldorado, Butte, Sutter, Yuba, Glenn, Colusa, Yolo, Solano, Napa, Marin, San Mateo, San Francisco, Santa Cruz, Santa Clara, Alameda, Contra Costa, San Joaquin, Stanislaus, Merced, Madera, Fresno, Monterey, San Luis Obispo, Kings, Kern, San Bernardino, Riverside, San Diego, and Imperial Counties (Zeiner et al. 1990). Bred at Salton Sea, and Buena Vista, Tulare, Eagle, and Tule Lakes in California, and at Pyramid Lake in Nevada (Bent 1922). The CWHR range map shows that they winter in Kings, Riverside, San Diego, Imperial, and San Bernardino Counties. Winter range once included Ventura County (Bent 1922). Large numbers move to the San Francisco Bay from July to December (CWHR). Seen in Fresno County December 9 (Bent 1922). In February of 1999 forty-eight were seen at the Milburn Unit in Fresno County (Brock 1999).

During the spring they migrate through southern California during April or May; Fresno County April 6 and Los Angeles County from April 27 to May 25 (Bent 1922). Seven were seen in September 1997 at Hensley Lake in Madera County (Brock 1997). During the fall they linger in southern California through November (Bent 1922).

FEIS Volume 4, Appendix R-79 - Assessment of Species Vulnerability and Prioritization Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment

In California, nesting is reported to occur on the Klamath Basin National Wildlife Refuges (NWR), mostly on the Clear Lake NWR (Natural Diversity Data Base 1977). The large lakes of the Klamath Basin are not the only nesting areas in California; in the past they nested at Honey Lake, and in large numbers in the Central Valley and at the Salton Sea (Zeiner et al. 1990).

The range was contracted up to the early 1970's, but they have recolonized some sites that were previously used and have moved into some new sites (Evans and Knopf 1993). In the Sierra Nevada they occur from Lasse County to Lake Tahoe and other lakes; birds nesting in Nevada occasionally appear on large Sierran waters (Storer and Usinger 1963; Natural Diversity Data Base 1997). Within the Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project Area the white pelican is concentrated within 11-100 locations within the northern province of the Sierra Nevada (USDA Forest Service 1998a). National Forests within the counties that the white pelican occurs in includes the Klamath, Modoc, Shasta-Trinity, Lassen, Plumas, Eldorado, Sierra, Los Padres, Angeles and San Bernardino. Several Forest Service wildlife biologists were contacted to determine if white pelican habitat occurs on National Forest land. On the Klamath National Forest they are found foraging at Juanita Lake on the Gooseneck Ranger District, and at the wetlands created at Meese Lake in Butte Valley (Woodbridge pers comm. 1998). No nesting habitat is known to occur on the Klamath National Forest, but Meese Lake might be suitable over time if the water level is maintained. The white pelican forages extensively on the 34,00 acres of wetland habitat within the Modoc National Forest (Yamagiwa and Studiniski pers comm. 1998). The areas they frequent there include Fairchild Swamp, Devils Garden Plateau, and some parts of the Warners. Only one or two areas on the Modoc National Forest are possible, but not highly likely nesting habitat (Studinski pers comm. 1998). During the sping and summer they forage at Lake Davis, Frenchman Lake, Antelope Lake, and Round Valley Reservoir on the Plumas National Forest (USDA Forest Service 1998b; Pers comm. Rotta 1998). On the Plumas National Forest, Lake Davis is the only site containing potentially suitable nesting habitat. Other habitat may be present on the Lassen, Shasta-Trinity, Eldorado, Sierra, Angeles, San Bernardino, Toiyabe, and Los Padres National Forests; however, biologists from these forests were not contacted. In the Kern River Valley near the Sequoia National Forest they are rare in the spring and fall, and uncommon during the summer and winter (Barnes 2000). Additionally, Dave Shuford of the Point Reyes Bird Observatory may have knowledge of nesting colony locations (Studinski pers comm. 1998).

Risk Factors Habitat risk factors within control of the Forest Service include mining operations that lead to water pollution. The colony at Anaho Island, Pyramid Lake in Nevada, must fly 60 miles one way to forage due to scarcity of prey resulting from contamination with arsenic, selenium, mercury, and boron.

Recently, Lake Davis and Frenchman Lake within Plumas County were treated with rotenone to remove Northern Pike. Large numbers of white pelicans have been reported to forage at both of these lakes that are approximately 40 air miles of nesting grounds at Pyramid Lake.

Flooding or excessive water releases from bodies of water containing nesting islands or foraging areas can have a negative impact (Evans and Knopf 1993).

Non-habitat risk factors within the control of the Forest Service include threats caused by increased demand for water-based recreation (Harrison 1979). Though they are tolerant of humans if not approached too closely at foraging sites, they are do not tolerate human disturbance at breeding

FEIS Volume 4, Appendix R-80 - Assessment of Species Vulnerability and Prioritization Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment colonies (Evans and Knopf 1993). Motorized watercraft and low flying aircraft can disturb colonies (Evans and Knopf 1993).

Non habitat risk factors not within the control of the Forest Service include human persecution, especially by fishermen with the belief that pelicans eat game fish; shooting is the largest single known cause of mortality (Terres 1991).

Nesting birds are easily disturbed, and human disturbance is a major cause of mortality (Zeiner et al. 1990; Ehrlich et al. 1992; Evans and Knopf 1993). When young are temporarily abandoned as a result of human disturbance they become vulnerable to predation by avian predators, especially gulls (Evans and Knopf 1993). Human disturbance on nesting grounds can lead to abandonment of nests or overheating of young (Zeiner et al. 1990). Early in the nesting season they will more readily desert nests in response to human disturbance (Evans and Knopf 1993).

At nest sites predation by California gulls occurs especially in areas of human disturbance. Other predators include the red fox (Vulpes vulpes), coyote (Canis latrans), white-headed gulls (Larus argentatus, L. californicus, L. delawarensis), raven (Corvus corax), Great Horned Owls (Bubo virginianus), and Bald Eagles (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) (Evans and Knopf 1993). Bad weather and colony interactions are other contributors to mortality (Zeiner et al. 1990). During drought years nesting island may become accessible to mammalian predators such as coyotes. Pollution of water from pesticides is a threat (Zeiner et al. 1990) as well as mortality caused by hail, lightning, and hitting wires (Evans and Knopf 1993).

References Barnes, B. 2000. Checklist of Birds, Kern River Valley, California. Kern River Preserve. February 26.

Baicich, P. J. and C. J. O. Harrison. 1997. A Guide to the Nests, Eggs, and Nestlings of North American Birds, Second Edition. Academic Press.

Behle, W. H. 1958. The bird life of the Great Salt Lake. Univ. Utah Press, Salt Lake City, UT.

Bent, A. C. 1922. Life Histories of North American Petrals and Pelicans and Their Allies. Dover Publications, Inc.

Brock, B. 1997. The Yellowbill, Newsletter of Fresno Audubon Society. Vol. 35, No. 2. October.

Brock, B. 1999. The Yellowbill, Newsletter of Fresno Audubon Society. Vol. 36, No. 8. April.

Ehrlich, P. R., D. S. Dobkin, and D. Wheye. 1992. Birs in Jeopardy, The Imperiled and Extinct Birds of the United States and Canada Including Hawaii and Puerto Rico. Stanford University Press. Stanford, California.

Ehrlich, P. R., D. S. Dobkin and D. Wheye. 1988. The Birder's Handbook. A field guide to the natural history of North American Birds. Simon & Schuster Inc. New York.

Evans, R. M. and F. L. Knopf. 1993. The Birds of North America, No. 57. American White Pelican.

FEIS Volume 4, Appendix R-81 - Assessment of Species Vulnerability and Prioritization Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment

Harrison, H. H. 1975. Peterson Field Guide, Birds' Nests. Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston.

Lingle, G. R. and N. F. Sloan. 1980. Food habits of white pelicans during 1976 and 1977 at Chase Lake National Wildlife Refuge, North Dakota. Wilson Bull. 92:123-125.

National Geographic Society. 1987. Field Guide to the Birds of North America. Second Edition.

Natural Diversity Data Base. 1997. Natural Heritage Division, California Department of Fish and Game. August.

Storer, T. I. And R. L. Usinger. 1963. Sierra Nevada Natural History. University of California Press. Berkeley and Los Angeles, California.

Terres, J. K. 1991. The Audubon Society Encyclopedia of North American Birds. Wings Books, New York.

Thompson, S. P., C. D. Littlefiled, and R. A. Ryder. 1979. Historical review and status of colonial nesting birds on Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, Oregon. Proc. Colon. Waterbird Group, 1979, 3: 156-164.

USDA Forest Service. 1998a. Sierran All Species Information Database. Region 5.

USDA Forest Service. 1998b. Plumas National Forest Wildlife Database.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1984. Guidelines for the Management of the American White Pelican, western population. U.S. Fish Wildl. Serv., Portland, OR.

Greater Roadrunner (Geococcyx californianus) The following has been abstracted from Janice M. Hughes. 1996. Greater Roadrunner (Geococcyx californianus). The Birds of North America, No. 244. 22 pp.

Life History Pair formation begins in February or early March in western Texas, probably later in the northern populations, and continues for about 7 days. This is followed by a copulatory period of 4-6 days, during which the nest site is selected (Whitson 1971). Construction of nests requires 3-6 days before the first egg is laid, but continues throughout incubation and early nestling phases (Whitson 1975). The first brood of the season is usually late March through May, but peak-nesting season may vary latitudinally. Egg laying begins in early April in southern New Mexico, later in northern counties (Ligon 1961), early April to mid-July in Kansas (Johnsgard 1979), the peak may be as late as July in Arkansas (James and Neal 1986). Egg date for California vary from March 4th thru July 16th; Arizona from April 5th thru June 24th, and Texas from March 18th thru July 5th. Peak nesting season is poorly

FEIS Volume 4, Appendix R-82 - Assessment of Species Vulnerability and Prioritization Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment known in northern and eastern portion of the U.S. range, and in Mexico where nesting data comprises only a few scattered records.

Breeding may occur continuously to September (Folse 1974) with first egg of the second clutch laid as early as May shortly after the first brood has fledged (Woods 1960) or breeding season may be bimodal, with second clutch beginning late July to August following summer rains (Ohmart 1973). Clutch replacement due to nest predation is common. Intervals of 9 to 36 days have been reported between loss of clutch and laying of first egg in replacement next.

Both sexes make frequent trips into prospective nesting tree or shrub. Nests are usually located in isolated thickets of small tress and bushes, rather than extensive tracts of woody vegetation. Nests are situated close to open or short grass areas (Folse 1974), which is required for courtship display and foraging. There is generally a high diversity of plant species and size of vegetation surrounding the nest site. The nest is frequently located adjacent to dry streambed or livestock path that serves as conveyance route to and from nest during construction and care of young. The nest is most often placed in a tree crotch or resting on a horizontal bough. It is usually located near the center of the bush, and often well concealed. The female does almost all the nest construction.

Clutch size varies from 3-6 eggs, occasionally 2 eggs. Sets of 12-13 eggs have been reported. Eggs laying usually occur every second day, but the interval may be highly variable. Intervals of 1-4 days (Meinzer 1993), 1-9 days (Folse 1974), and several days (Bryant 1916) have been reported. Incubation is continuous after the first egg is laid. Both parents incubate. Eggs and young nestlings are covered almost continuously except for short period. The young are atricial, but strong and active upon hatching. Both parents bring food to the nest, the male provides slightly more.

Adults give a series of soft coos to call young to fledge from the nest. Young leave the nest when they are 14-25 days old. Fledglings perch in nesting tree for about 1 day. Once they leave the nesting tree, they remain undercover in it vicinity for several days. Adults chase and attack immature birds to drive them from their natal territory, but do not inflict physical damage to young (Whitson 1971). Both sexes probably breed their first year. Both the life span and survivorship are difficult to determine in the wild populations because few banded Greater Roadrunners have been recovered.

Mated pairs maintain multi-purpose territories within which they forage, court, and rear young. Strongly defended by both sexes, but the male is more prominent in territorial defense. Well- established pairs stay on their territory year-round.

Diet: The Greater roadrunner is omnivorous and opportunistic. It feeds on insects, spiders, scorpions, centipedes, millipedes, lizards, small snakes, birds, eggs, rodents, carrion, and plant material. Animal food makes up about 90% of the diet with fruit and seeds taken seasonally (Bryant 1916). Food selection is seasonally biased. Insects more easily captured than reptiles and are likely preferred when abundant during the summer months (Parmley 1982). Lizards, snakes, mice, and other vertebrates are taken predominantly during the breeding season when it is beneficial to feed on highly nutritious food to growing young. In winter, when cold weather inhibits insect, arachnid, and reptile activity, it feeds chiefly on small birds, fruits, and seed (Zimmerman 1970). However, they may seek out insects congregating in winter refuges (Geluso 1970).

FEIS Volume 4, Appendix R-83 - Assessment of Species Vulnerability and Prioritization Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment

Habitat Relationships The Greater Roadrunner is resident year-around in typically semiarid and arid open country with scattered scrub (low to 50% cover). Habitat is most frequently associated with brush layer 2-3 high (Folse 1974). Life zone of major occurrence is lower Sonoran, but common in upper Sonoran, rare in lower reaches of Transitional Zone. Habitat varies from an elevationally from about -60 to 2,300 m (Small 1994), but observed rarely on southern slopes to 3,000 m. (Sutton 1940). In Texas and Oklahoma, the Greater Roadrunner occupies mesquite (Prosopis spp.) scrub, juniper, (Junipers sop.) savannahs, and chaparral. Also, it utilizes lowland and mesa riparian woodlands (Hamilton 1962) and canyons. It is found in pinion-juniper woodlands and cholla (Opuntis spp.) grasslands of Colorado foothills and mesa (Andrews and Righter 1992). In Utah and Nevada, associated with blackbrush (Coleogyne ramossissima) and creosote (Larrea tridentate) scrub, tamarix (Tamarix spp) thickets in bottomlands (Behle 1943), valley, and riparian areas (Alcorn 1988). Throughout their range, they’re found occasionally on open farmland and in less densely populated suburban developments. Greater roadrunner avoid urban areas, heavier deciduous and coniferous woodland (Lehman 1994), continuous prairie, and bare desert surfaces (Grinnell and Miller 1944). Near the edge of the range, they occupy less typical habitats. In southwestern Missouri, western Arkansas, and eastern Oklahoma, they are found predominantly in semiarid cedar glade-type vegetation characterized by red juniper (Juniperus virginiana) and tall prairie plants on rocky terrain strewn with boulders (Brown 1963); also, clearings associated with farms and dry scrubby woods (James and Neal 1986). In Louisiana, they occur in shortleaf loblolly pine (Pinus taeda) and hardwood uplands (Goertz and Mowbray 1971). The distribution in northern California is restricted to level areas of open ground and tracts of brush and trees (Kinsey 1953), and valley floors with extensive expanses of grassland and chaparral.

Historic and Current Distribution The Greater roadrunner is considered a year-round resident throughout its range. The species ranged from the foothills of Sacramento Valley in northern California, Owens Valley in eastern California, and widespread in southern California (McCaskie et al 1988, Small 1994), southern Nevada primarily south of the Great Basin (Ryser 1985), extreme southwestern Utah (Frost 1976, Behle et al. 1985), west, central, and northeastern New Mexico (Hubbard 1978), southeastern Colorado (eastern Fremont and southwestern El Paso counties to southwestern Baca Co.; Andrews and Righter 1992), extreme southern Kansas (Thompson and Ely 2989) southwestern Missouri south to southern Baja California, Pacific slope of Mexico to northern Sinalo, interior south to northern Michoacan and Hilalgo, and Atlantic slope to Tamaulipas (Howell and Webb 1995), east to east central Arkansas (James and Neal 1986), northern and western Louisiana (Calcasieu Parish, East Carrol Parish; Lowery 1974), and Gulf Coast of Texas (Oberholser 1974). Occasional records to north of the above describe range. Rare to uncommon through northern and eastern portions of it range, except coastal Texas and Mexico; common to frequent in Mojave Desert, Sonoran Desert, Chihuahuan Desert, and Tamaulipan thorn regions of U.S. Southwest and Mexico.

The Greater roadrunners range has extended north and eastward throughout the twentieth century. The expansion of the Greater Roadrunners range into eastern Kansas and Oklahoma in the 1930’ (Colvin 1935) coincided with northward extensions into northern California (Kimsey 1953) and eastward expansion into western Louisiana (Lowery 1974). The first record in Kansas was in 1936; since then the range has expanded north and east across the Ozarks to Mississippi River basin (James and Neal 1986). Observed in cedar glade-type vegetation in southwestern Missouri in 1956; previous years it was sighted in similar vegetation 150 km west in northeaster Oklahoma, and 25 km south in northwestern Arkansas (Brown 1963). By 1976, they were reported in 36 counties in southern

FEIS Volume 4, Appendix R-84 - Assessment of Species Vulnerability and Prioritization Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment

Missouri, with populations extended north to Missouri River. The range also expanding northward in Utah; Frost (1975) cites observations about 160 km north of the previous recorded range by Behle and Perry (1975). Land clearance and overgrazing followed by reinvasion of shrubby species may be factors in some range expansion (Allen 1950). Ultimately, northward expansion may be limited by duration of winter snow cover. Local range expansion and contraction may occur regularly on the northern limits of their distribution; range in Missouri contracted following 2 successive severe winters in the late 1970s (Norris and Elder 1982).

The species has been extirpated from the Central Valley in northern California (McCaskie 1988), San Francisco Bay Area, and coastal Marin County (Shuford 1992), Santa Barbara co. (Lehman 1994), San Diego Co. (Unitt 1984), and likely other southern California counties (Garrett and Dunn 1981) where residential and agricultural development has been extensive.

Status According to Breeding Bird surveys (BBS; Price et al. 1995) and Christmas Bird counts (Root 1988), areas of greatest density are southeastern California, southern Arizona (Sonoran Desert), and Texas west of the Pecos River (Chihuahuan Desert) and south of Edwards plateau, 3.1 individuals/km2 (1972) and 2.5 individuals/km2 (1973) in south Texas (Folse 1974). Densities in peak abundance areas may be somewhat higher than those reported by Folse. Bryant (1916) reported about 4 individuals/km2 in southern Californina. Abundance peaks coincide with regions that receive at least 140 days of sunshine annually and have extremely low humidity (Root 1988).

Overall, breeding populations are declining slightly in the U.S. (annual rate of 0.6%; BBS 1980- 1994). Previous reporting period (1966-1979) indicated non-significant increases of 5.2%. Populations in Arizona, California, Louisiana, and Texas are generally stable; southern Texas brushlands show highly significant increase, 10.4% annually, from 1980-1994. There was an observed population decline of 4.2%/yr. in Oklahoma, with the rate of decline slowing during the past 15 years. Significant increases that were seen in New Mexico (23.3% annually) during the 1960s and 1970s have slowed considerably. Only significant statewide increase found in Arkansas (1981-1991), based on a small sample size; may not be representative of the trend. No information is available on population trends in Mexico.

Local populations may fluctuate considerably from year to year, influenced by relative success of previous breeding season (Folse and Arnold 1978). Populations in Missouri and Arkansas declined following successive severe winters characterized by periods of prolonged snow cover that prevented Greater roadrunners from obtaining sufficient food (Norris and Elder 1983, James and Neal 1986).

Risk Factors There are a number of risk factors limiting the distribution and abundance of the Greater Roadrunner, none of which are associated with actions assessed in the FEIS. These risk factors include; 1) shooting and trapping, 2) pesticides and other contaminants, 3) ingestion of plastics, lead, etc., 4) collisions with vehicular traffic, and 5) habitat degradation, primarily urbanization.

FEIS Volume 4, Appendix R-85 - Assessment of Species Vulnerability and Prioritization Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment

Red-naped Sapsucker (Sphyrapicus nuchalis) Life History The Red-naped sapsucker (Sphyrapicus nuchalis) is a migratory species occurring in the inland west, inhabiting montane coniferous forests mixed with deciduous groves, particularly aspen, cottonwood, paper birch, and willow. It breeds from early May into August, with peak activity in June. Nests and roosts are in tree cavities excavated in snags or live trees with dead wood. Sapsucker nests are strongly associated with the presence of shelf fungus (Fomes igniarius var. populinus), which advances heart rot in aspen. They are considered a keystone species because their excavated cavities and sap wells are used by other birds, mammals, and insects (NatureServe 2000). The species is omnivorous, with the diet including tree sap, ants, beetles, wasps, caterpillars, spiders, small amounts of fruits (especially dogwood, creepers, and blackberries), and cambium (Zeiner et al. 1990).

This species was formerly considered a subspecies of the yellow-bellied sapsucker (S. varius) of central and eastern North America, and now is considered to constitute a superspecies with the yellow-bellied sapsucker and the red-breasted sapsucker (S. ruber) (AOU 1998 in NatureServe 2000).

Habitat Relationships Throughout this species’ range, it breeds primarily in coniferous forest that includes aspen and other hardwoods. Numerous studies for this species in western states have reported a strong association with aspen and other riparian habitat types, such as willow and cottonwood (summarized in NatureServe 2000).

In California, habitat associations appear similar. Breeding habitat for this species includes aspen, mixed conifer, and montane riparian habitats, especially areas with aspen, willow, and cottonwood. It excavates nest cavities in ponderosa pine, Jeffrey pine, lodgepole pine, white and red fir, cottonwood, alder, willow, and other trees, but apparently prefers to nest in aspen and montane riparian habitats (Zeiner et al. 1990). Winter habitat includes riparian desert and other riparian habitats. The distribution of aspen and other hardwoods appears important for this woodpecker (USDA Forest Service 1994). In both the SNEP Report (Graber 1996) and the Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment DEIS (USDA Forest Service 2000), this species was considered to be dependent on, or to require, riparian habitat, presumably due to the presence of aspen, willow, and cottonwoods.

Status This species was listed in the moderate vulnerability category in the DEIS, Appendix R (USDA Forest Service 2000). However, this rating appears to be influenced strongly by the fact that this species’ range is mostly peripheral to the planning area. It was ranked in the second most limited population size category, yet regarding range change in the Sierra Nevada planning area, the area occupied was suspected to be stable or to have increased. Regarding the Sierra Nevada population trend criterion, this species was recorded as “trend unknown but population size suspected to be decreasing.” In the SNEP Report (Graber 1996), the species was categorized as “not known to be at risk.”

The red-naped sapsucker is not listed in any special status category in the California Natural Diversity DataBase (CNDDB) Special Animals list (CDFG 2000). The global rank in the CNDDB is G5 (demonstrably secure: commonly found throughout its historic range). The CNDDB state rank is S3, or restricted range, rare (about 21-100 viable occurrences, or 3,000-10,000 individuals, or 10,000- 50,000 acres of occupied habitat) (NatureServe 2000).

FEIS Volume 4, Appendix R-86 - Assessment of Species Vulnerability and Prioritization Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment

In the most recent Breeding Bird Survey (BBS) trend estimates (for 1966-1999) (Sauer et al. 2000), the species is not individually tracked, but is combined with the formerly taxonomically-associated red-breasted and yellow-bellied sapsuckers. This makes BBS trend estimates for the red-naped sapsucker in California questionable, as the red-breasted sapsucker would likely account for these trends because its breeding range covers much more of the state, including essentially all of the planning area. The distribution ranges of these 3 species in North America are somewhat distinct, although they overlap at their edges where hybridization can occur. The red-naped sapsucker is primarily in the inland west, and the red-breasted sapsucker occurs in the Pacific states (CA, OR, and WA). Trend estimates were estimated for red-naped sapsucker with BBS data from 1966 to 1996 (Sauer et al. 1997). From this data, population estimates across the range of the species appeared to be stable or increasing, with areas of local declines, perhaps related to the loss of cottonwood and aspen nesting habitats. However, it was noted that BBS trend estimates may be confounded by the recent changes in sapsucker taxonomy. Also, due to the localized and patchy nature of red-naped sapsucker habitat and the broad-scale design of BBS sampling, sample sizes are minimal for analysis for most states and physiographic regions (NatureServe 2000). No trend or population data for this species specific to California could be found. Current and Historic Distribution The Red-naped sapsucker is found in montane coniferous forests north to southeastern British Columbia and southwestern Alberta, west to the east slope of the Cascades and a few points on the east slope of the Sierra Nevada, south to central Arizona and the Mogollon Mountains of southern New Mexico and east to the Black Hills of South Dakota (Devillers 1970 in USDA Forest Service 1994).

In California, the species’ range is very limited, but it is a common summer resident in the Warner Mountains of the Modoc Plateau, and also occurs in the White Mountains to the south. It frequents mixed conifer, aspen, and montane riparian habitats, especially areas with aspen, willow, and cottonwood. On the planning area Forests, they apparently only are found as breeders within the Modoc and Inyo National Forests (USDA Forest Service 1994). It winters south, particularly along the lower Colorado River, in the Mojave and Colorado deserts, and into the coastal regions south of about 35 degrees latitude. The updated California Wildlife Habitat Relationships (CWHR) map also indicates a small wintering area near Honey Lake. On the winter range, red-naped sapsuckers frequent desert riparian, orchard-vineyard, and urban habitats, and other riparian areas (Devillers 1970 in Zeiner et al. 1990, CDFG 1999). The winter range in southern California includes primarily Bureau of Land Management and National Park Service lands, and it appears to include the White Mountains on the Inyo National Forest (USDA Forest Service 1994, CDFG 1999). The winter range also extends into much of Mexico (NatureServe 2000).

The California Natural Diversity Database (as of August 1999 update; CDFG 1997) does not contain any occurrences for red-naped sapsucker.

No information was found to indicate that the species’ range of distribution or abundance in California has been reduced from historical conditions. However, the apparent preference or dependence on aspen and mature riparian woodlands is a cause for concern, as these habitats have been impacted by land management activities throughout this species’ range (NatureServe 2000).

Risk Factors The principle habitat concern or risk factor for this species is the loss or degradation of aspen and mature riparian woodlands, for which this species shows a high dependence for nesting and foraging.

FEIS Volume 4, Appendix R-87 - Assessment of Species Vulnerability and Prioritization Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment

Loss of aspen stands and decline of aspen regeneration have occurred throughout the mountain west due to fire suppression, conifer encroachment, livestock grazing, cutting, and development. The Forest Service has control of these risk factors on Forest Service lands. However, these risk factors also can occur on non-Forest Service lands. Livestock grazing also is a risk factor for other red-naped sapsucker habitat elements, such as willow and cottonwood. Loss or modification of these riparian habitats due to livestock grazing is a risk factor relevant to both Forest Service and non-Forest Service lands

Loss of snags for nesting, through management activities such as salvage or hazard tree reduction, is a risk factor applicable to all land ownerships.

With the possible exception of large clearcuts, timber harvest does not appear to be a significant risk factor, provided that snags and hardwoods are retained. Tobalske (1992 in USDA Forest Service 1994) found abundance and reproductive success of red-naped sapsuckers comparable in stand conditions ranging from clearcut to unlogged forest, but he cautioned that most of the cutting units were small (less than 40 acres) and that breeders from these areas often foraged in unlogged stands. Conservation Measures Management for this species should include the maintenance, enhancement, and restoration of riparian habitats, hardwood habitats, and snag availability (USDA Forest Service 1994). Where this species occurs in the planning area, important riparian and hardwood habitats include aspen, cottonwood, and willow. Aspen and other trees with shelf fungus should be retained to provide optimal conditions for nest cavities (NatureServe 2000).

Because of the limited occurrence of the red-naped sapsucker on National Forest lands (Modoc and Inyo National Forests) within the planning area, this species is considered to be locally endemic or rare in the planning area. Consequently, no specific management standards and guidelines, mitigations, or viability treatment are proposed for this species for this planning process. For known breeding locations on the Modoc and Inyo National Forests, or if sites are found on other Forests, protective management standards and guidelines can be applied on a site-specific basis by that Forest unit. It is recommended that the Modoc and Inyo National Forests develop management guidelines that address the red-naped sapsucker and its potential habitat on those units. Additionally, because the aquatic, riparian, and meadow (ARM) ecosystem (where willow, aspen, and cottonwood typically occur) was one of the problem areas assessed in the DEIS, standards and guidelines for the maintenance and restoration of ARM ecosystems likely would be sufficient under all alternatives to maintain these habitats where this species occurs. Where aspen may occur outside of riparian areas or mixed with conifers, management activities should occur to maintain and enhance this important red- naped sapsucker habitat element. This may include modification of livestock grazing, fencing, thinning of encroaching conifers, and practices to maintain and regenerate aspen in declining stands.

References American Ornithologists’ Union (AOU). 1998. Check-list of North American birds. Seventh edition. American Ornithologists’ Union, Washington, D.C. 829 pp.

California Dept. of Fish and Game. 1997. RareFind 2 Natural Diversity Data Base, Version 2.1.0.

California Dept. of Fish and Game. 1999. CWHR version 7.0 computer program. Sacramento, CA.

FEIS Volume 4, Appendix R-88 - Assessment of Species Vulnerability and Prioritization Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment

California Dept. of Fish and Game. 2000. Wildlife and Habitat Data Analysis Branch website. Available: www.dfg.ca.gov/whdab.

Devillers, P. 1970. Identification and distribution in California of the Sphyrapicus varius group of sapsuckers. Calif. Birds 1:47-76.

Graber, D. 1996. Status of terrestrial vertebrates. In Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project: Final Report to Congress, Vol. II: Assessments and Scientific Basis for Management Options. Wildland Resources Center Report No. 37. Univ. of California, Davis.

Sauer, J.R., J.E. Hines, G. Gough, I. Thomas, and B.G. Peterjohn. 1997. The North American Breeding Bird Survey Results and Analysis. Version 96.4, Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, Laurel, MD. Sauer, J.R., J.E. Hines, I. Thomas, J. Fallon, and G. Gough. 2000. The North American Breeding Bird Survey , Results and Analysis 1966-1999. Version 98.1, USGS Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, Laurel, MD.

Tobalske, B.W. 1992. Evaluating habitat suitability using relative abundance and fledging success of red-naped sapsuckers. Condor 94:550-553.

USDA Forest Service. 1994. Neotropical Migratory Bird Reference Book, Volume 1. Pacific Southwest Region. Fisheries, Wildlife, and Rare Plants Staff. Red-naped sapsucker (Sphyrapicus nuchalis), pp.245-249.

USDA Forest Service. 2000. Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment Draft Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 3, Appendix R. Pacific Southwest Region.

Zeiner, D.C., W.F. Laudenslayer, Jr., K.E. Mayer, and M. White. 1990. California’s Wildlife: Volume II Birds. California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, California. 731 pp.

White-faced Ibis (Plegadis chihi) Life History The white-faced ibis (Plegadis chihi) is a locally common, colonial-nesting species that nests in large marshes in the western United States, especially in the Great Basin. It also breeds along the Texas and Louisiana coasts, and appears to be expanding its range since the 1970’s. Within the breeding range, colonies are locally distributed and breeders often move nomadically in response to drought and rains. The species nests primarily in large freshwater wetlands and marshes, especially cattail (Typha spp.) and bulrush or tule (Scirpus spp.) marshes. It prefers to forage in fresh emergent wetland, shallow lacustrine waters, muddy ground of wet meadows and irrigated, or flooded, pastures and agricultural fields, and estuarine wetlands (Zeiner et al. 1990, Ryder and Manry 1994). In California, this species winters mainly in the San Joaquin Valley and Imperial Valley (including the Salton Sea area), but also a few local areas along the south coast, and is recorded widely as a transient

FEIS Volume 4, Appendix R-89 - Assessment of Species Vulnerability and Prioritization Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment

(Zeiner et al. 1990). Therefore, the described wintering range for this species in California does not occur within the planning area.

Habitat Relationships This species usually nests in emergent vegetation or low trees and shrubs over shallow water, and sometimes on ground on small islands. In California, ibis prefer to nest in dense marsh vegetation, particularly bulrush or cattails, near foraging areas in shallow water or muddy fields. The nest is typically constructed of dead tules or cattails, and is built in tall marsh plants, sometimes on mounds of vegetation (Zeiner et al. 1990). A colony in the San Joaquin Valley nested in flooded Baltic rush (Juncus balticus) and summer tamarisk (Tamarix pentandra) (Ryder and Manry 1994).

Status The white-faced ibis is listed as a Federal Special Concern species under the Endangered Species Act, and a California Special Concern species by California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG), but is not listed by the Forest Service as sensitive. It also is listed as a Migratory Nongame Bird of Management Concern by the U.S. Fish and wildlife Service. The global rank in the California Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB) is G5 (demonstrably secure: commonly found throughout its historic range). The CNDDB state rank is S1, or extremely endangered (less than 6 viable occurrences, or less than 1,000 individuals, or less than 2, 000 acres of occupied habitat) (CDFG 2000). Recent increasing trends in the state may not agree with this state ranking (see discussion below in ‘Current and Historic Distribution’ section.

In California, Grinnel and Miller (1944) indicated that the species was rapidly decreasing, and, according to Remsen (1978) (in Zeiner et al. 1990), the species had stopped breeding regularly.

However, North American Breeding Bird Survey trend results for the period 1966 through 1999 show a 16.5% annual increase in ibis populations in California, a 44% annual increase in the western BBS region, and a 30.8% annual increase in the United States. Trends for the period 1980 through 1999 are 12.5%, 47.8%, and 32.4% for California, the western BBS region, and the United States, respectively (Sauer et al. 2000). These numbers may not precisely reflect the actual trend in ibis for these areas due to deficiencies in BBS data, such as small sample sizes, low relative abundances on survey routes, imprecise trends, and missing data (Sauer et al. 2000). However, they appear to indicate a rather significant increasing trend.

Current and Historic Distribution According to Zeiner et al. (1990), in a review of available literature on the white-faced ibis, the white- faced ibis is an uncommon summer resident in sections of southern California, a rare visitor in the Central Valley, rare on the northeastern plateau during April to September, and is more widespread during migration. Zeiner et al. (1990) also stated that this species has declined in California and stopped breeding regularly, probably from destruction of extensive marshes required for nesting. Nesting sites were noted for the Salton Sea, Buena Vista Lagoon in San Diego County, Honey Lake, the Klamath Basin, and a few isolated areas in the Central Valley. Seven occurrences for white-faced ibis are recorded in the California Natural Diversity Database (CDFG 1997) from sites in the Sacramento and San Joaquin Valleys, Lower Klamath National Wildlife Refuge (NWR), and 2 sites on private ownership in Modoc County. Of the above-mentioned areas, the northeastern plateau region (that would include the Modoc National Forest), the Lower Klamath NWR, Honey Lake, and the private land Modoc County sites are located within the Sierra Nevada Bioregion. However, of

FEIS Volume 4, Appendix R-90 - Assessment of Species Vulnerability and Prioritization Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment these sites, only the northeastern plateau region may include FS lands (Modoc National Forest). Ryder and Manry (1994) also noted a breeding location in California at Lower Klamath NWR in the Klamath Basin. Grinnell and Miller (1944) described the historical California breeding range for this species as primarily “in San Joaquin Valley, with smaller numbers summering in southern coast district and in lake region of northeastern corner of State”, and they noted that “probably in early days bred numerously at lakes in northeastern California”.

On FS lands within the planning area, only one ibis nesting location could be documented. In 1997, a colony of about 25 pairs was documented nesting at Fairchild Swamp on the Modoc National Forest. There is potential nesting habitat in other wetland complexes on the Modoc National Forest, and large groups of ibis have been seen moving among them during the summer (George Studinski, pers. comm. 2000). As elsewhere in the range of the ibis, this species is increasing in number in this part of California and the adjacent Klamath Basin. There were no nesting populations of white-faced ibis until 12 pairs nested at Lower Klamath NWR in the mid-1980’s, and peaked at about 4,000 pairs in the mid-1990’s (Dave Mauser, pers. comm. 2000). Several hundred ibis have been observed the past two summers at Modoc NWR, although nesting was not documented (Patty Walcott, pers. comm. 2000). Biologists on the Lassen National Forest and Plumas National Forest were also contacted regarding ibis nesting sites. Neither Forest had nesting sites, but nesting colonies were noted at Honey Lake State Wildlife Area, and on private land in the Sierra Valley (Tom Rickman, Boyd Turner, Don Kudrna, Gary Rotta, pers. comm. 2000). Ibis have been seen foraging in wetlands on the Eagle Lake Ranger District of the Lassen National Forest. In addition to breeding colonies at Sierra Valley, Honey Lake State Wildlife Area, Lower Klamath NWR, and the Modoc N.F., David Shuford (Shuford, pers. Comm.. 2000) also added a nesting colony on private land at Leavitt Lake east of Susanville. Also, they have been rarely seen, apparently as transients or during migration, in the Lake Tahoe Basin (Orr and Moffit 1971), and east of the Sierran escarpment near Yosemite National Park below 7,000 feet (Gaines 1988).

During the 1960’s, 1970’s, and prior, nesting populations and numbers of colonies decreased precipitously because of pesticide contamination and loss of habitat to drought and drainage. However, the breeding range and populations of white-faced ibis have expanded in the last 25 years, including California, owing in part to improved nesting habitat management in federal and state refuges, increased planting of alfalfa used by feeding ibises, the banning of DDT and other pesticides in the 1970’s, and improved breeding success at major nesting centers (Ryder and Manry 1994). In the western U.S., breeding populations can fluctuate markedly in size from year to year, in response to changing habitat conditions. Breeding adults appear to be nomadic, relocating when drought or floods render traditional sites temporarily unusable. Within major breeding areas, colony sites change from year to year depending on local water conditions, as some sites dry up in drought years or are flooded in wet years (Ryder and Manry 1994).

Risk Factors Because there is only one documented occurrence of white-faced ibis nesting on National Forest lands within the planning area (but at least 4 others within the Sierra Nevada Bioregion), this species is considered to be locally endemic or rare in the planning area on National Forest lands. Consequently, no specific management standards and guidelines, mitigations, or viability treatment are proposed for this planning process. However, potential risk factors to this species could include cattle grazing and trampling in breeding sites, burning of emergent vegetation for waterfowl habitat enhancement, draining of wetland habitat or water diversion from wetlands, and human disturbance in active nest colonies. Of these threats, livestock grazing and, possibly, burning

FEIS Volume 4, Appendix R-91 - Assessment of Species Vulnerability and Prioritization Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment of emergent vegetation and human disturbance (through recreation activities) are potential activities that could occur within the planning area.

Conservation Measures For nesting colonies and future nesting sites that may be established on the Modoc and Lassen National Forests, protective management standards and guidelines can be applied on a site-specific basis by that Forest unit. Livestock grazing (timing, location, and intensity) in the vicinity of nesting habitat would be the most likely risk factor on Forest Service lands. Although, grazing and other potential risk factors mentioned above could be managed or prevented through restrictions or application of activity timing and location guidelines. Therefore, the Modoc and Lassen National Forests should consider the continued conservation of this species when they revise their Land Management Plans. Standards and guides applicable to this species should be designed and implemented now if they are not already in place.

References California Dept. of Fish and Game. 1997. RareFind 2 Natural Diversity DataBase, Version 2.1.0.

California Dept. of Fish and Game. 2000. Wildlife and Habitat Data Analysis Branch website. www.dfg.ca.gov/whdab.

Gaines, D. 1988. Birds of Yosemite and the east slope. Artemisia Press, Lee Vining, California, 352 pp.

Grinnell, J., and A.H. Miller. 1944. The distribution of the birds of California. Pacific Coast Avifauna No. 27. 608 pp.

Kudrna, D. October 2000. District Wildlife Biologist, Sierraville, Tahoe National Forest. Personal Communication

Mauser, D. October 2000. Wildlife Biologist, Klamath Basin NWR Complex, personal communication.

Orr, R.T., and J. Moffitt. 1971. Birds of the Lake Tahoe Region. California Academy of Sciences, San Francisco, 150 pp.

Remsen, J.V., Jr. 1978. Bird species of special concern in California. CA Dept. of Fish and Game, Sacramento. Wildl. Manage. Admin. Rep. No. 78-1. 54 pp.

Rickman, T. October 2000. District Wildlife Biologist, Eagle Lake, Lassen National Forest. Personal Communication.

Rotta, G. October 2000. Forest Wildlife Biologist, Plumas National Forest. Personal Communication.

Ryder, R.A., and D.E. Manry. 1994. White-faced Ibis (Plegadis chihi). In The Birds of North America, No. 130 (A. Poole and F. Gill, Eds.). Philadelphia: The Academy of Natural Sciences; Washington, D.C.: The American Ornithologists’ Union.

FEIS Volume 4, Appendix R-92 - Assessment of Species Vulnerability and Prioritization Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment

Shanley, P. October 2000. District Wildlife Biologist, Carson, Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest. Personal Communication.

Shuford, D. October 2000. Point Reyes Bird Observatory, Stinson Beach, CA. Personal Communication.

Studinski, G. October 2000. District Wildlife Biologist, Modoc National Forest. Personal Communication.

Turner, B. October 2000. District Wildlife Biologist, Hat Creek, Lassen National Forest. Personal Communication.

Walcott, P. October 2000. Wildlife Biologist, Modoc NWR. Personal Communication.

Wilson, G. October 2000. District Wildlife Biologist, Truckee, Tahoe National Forest. Personal Communication.

Zeiner, D.C., W.F. Laudenslayer, Jr., K.E. Mayer, and M. White. 1990. California’s Wildlife: Volume II Birds. California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, California. 731 pp.

,, )LVK 0HWKRGV

Similar to the terrestrial vertebrates, the goal of this assessment was to generate an approach for assessing the vulnerability status of native fish species in the Sierra Nevada. We used the boundaries of the entire SNEP study area to define the Sierra Nevada Bioregion and used Moyle et al. (1996) and regional experts (Table R.2) to generate a complete list of native fish species and unique subspecies that occur within the Bioregion. This resulted in a total of 61 species or subspecies.

Four population variables were used to assess the vulnerability status of each taxa: population size, number of populations, population trend, and change in distribution (Table R.1). The data for each variable were obtained via questionnaire to a single, recognized taxa expert with expertise specific to the Sierra Nevada (Table R.2). Categories within each variable were scored from 0-10 with higher scores associated with categories of greater conservation vulnerability (Table R.2)(Millsap et al. 1990). We summed the scores for the four variables to calculate a distribution-trend-abundance (DTA) score that was used to generate a linear ranking of the vulnerability status for each of the 61 fish taxa. As with the terrestrial vertebrates, we further explored inter-relationships among the variables using cluster analysis and classification decision tree-based models in an exploratory multivariate analytical framework (Dawkins et al. 1994) to identify vulnerability status groups (VG) based on the linear ranking method. In this case, we used procedure FASTCLUS (SAS 1997) to group species into three clusters based on the scores for each of the variables. Procedure FASTCLUS is a useful procedure for clustering large data sets into an apriori defined number of clusters (SAS

FEIS Volume 4, Appendix R-93 - Assessment of Species Vulnerability and Prioritization Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment

1997). We then used classification decision tree-based models in S-PLUS (Venables and Ripley 1994) to assess the characterization of the three clusters based on the three population variables to aid in the final decision-making step of determining the vulnerability group membership for each species. Three models were explored using various combinations of the variables. The first model contained all four population variables. The second and third models contained three variables, excluding either population size (model 2) or number of populations (model 3) from the analysis. Model 2 was selected as the preferred because it appeared to provide the most conservative results from a fish conservation perspective based on the observation that it resulted in the greatest number of species in the High and Moderate Vulnerability Groups. All further analyses were done using Model 2 which included the variables: number of populations, population trend, and change in distribution.

5HVXOWV

The DTA score for the 61 taxa ranged from 1-40 (Table R.5). Five species had DTA scores greater than 30. Three species (bull trout, High Rock Spring tui chub, Sacramento splittail) had the maximum score of 40, with the trout and tui chub thought to be extinct in the Bioregion. Fourteen species had DTA scores between 21-30, 21 species had DTA score ranging from 11-20, and 16 species had DTA score less than 10 (Table R.5). The cluster analysis generated clusters with seemingly biologically meaningful groups of species associated with differing degrees of conservation concern. Nineteen species were grouped in the High VG (Table R.5). Species in the High VG were generally characterized by >50% range contractions, known or suspected declining populations, and small to intermediate numbers of populations. Eighteen species were clustered in the Moderate VG. These species were generally characterized by stable distributions or slightly declining range contractions, small numbers of populations, and either suspected stable, increasing or decreasing population trends. Finally, 24 species were grouped in the Low VG and were generally characterized by stable distributions or slightly declining range changes, larger numbers of populations, and either suspected stable, increasing or decreasing population trends.

The decision tree-based model generated a tree with four distinct branches showing a very similar pattern to the cluster analysis. We did not prune the tree because all four branches contributed considerably to explaining the variation. The first major branching created two groups and was the result of differences in the “change in distribution” variable. This variable explained 52% of the total variation in the data. Species with geographic ranges that were believed to have declined by 50% or more made up one group (20 species) and species with unknown or less than 50% change made up the second group (41 species). The > 50% in distribution group included all the previously classified high vulnerability species with the addition of one previously classified as a moderate vulnerability species (the Pit River Tui chub). This group (branch) was further split based on the “population trend” variable. Fourteen species that had known decreasing populations or former declines but currently stable were grouped together. The six remaining species had unknown, but suspected decreasing, stable, or increasing populations. The second major group (41 species) was further split based on the “number of populations” variable. Seventeen species were placed in a group that were believed to have <10 populations and all of these had been previously classified as moderate vulnerability. Twenty-four species were placed in a group that was believed to have more than 10 populations in the Sierra Nevada and all of these had previously been classifed as low vulnerability. Taken together then, the high vulnerability species have declined from 50% or more of their geographic ranges with varying population trends. The moderate vulnerability species have had unknown or less than 50% change in their range size but have only a few (< 10) populations. The low vulnerability species have experienced unknown or less than 50% change in their range size but

FEIS Volume 4, Appendix R-94 - Assessment of Species Vulnerability and Prioritization Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment have higher numbers of populations (> 10) in the Sierra Nevada. Overall, this decision tree explained a high proportion of the variation in these three variable, with a residual mean deviance of only 0.095 and only one misclassification. With the exception of the Pit River Tui chub, which should be elevated to high vulnerability status, the vulnerability rankings we derived from the cluster analysis, and further explored with decision tree models, appear to represent biologically meaningful groupings.

As described in detail in the introduction this appendix, a final screening process was applied to the results of the vulnerability assessment to identify those species judged to be at greatest risk and subject to further analysis. As indicated in Table R.4, all fish species treated to further analysis received the full analysis and the species accounts are located in Chapter 3 of the FEIS.

FEIS Volume 4, Appendix R-95 - Assessment of Species Vulnerability and Prioritization Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment

Table R.5. List of Native Fish Taxa by Vulnerability Group and Descending Distribution- Abundance-Trend Score (DTA) ID Common Name Vulnerability DTA Population Number of Population Range Group Score Size Populations Trend Change High Vulnerability Group FN21 Bull trout H 40 1 1 1 1 FN28 High Rock Spring tui chub H 40 1 1 1 1 FN38 Sacramento splittail H 40 1 1 1 1 FN06 Central Valley spring run chinook salmon H 31 3 2 1 1 FN07 Central Valley winter run chinook salmon H 31 3 2 1 1 FN11 Central Valley winter steelhead H 28 3 3 1 1 FN42 Owens speckled dace H 28 3 2 2 1 FN14 Little Kern golden trout H 25 4 2 1 2 FN19 Lahontan cutthroat trout H 25 3 2 3 1 FN25 Owens tui chub H 25 3 2 3 1 FN54 Threespine stickleback H 25 3 2 2 2 FN15 Volcano Creek golden trout H 24 5 2 1 2 FN02 Pacific lamprey H 22 3 3 2 2 FN53 Owens pupfish H 22 4 2 3 1 FN35 San Joaquin roach H 21 5 3 1 2 FN32 Sacramento hitch H 19 4 3 2 2 FN13 Kern River rainbow trout H 18 5 2 3 2 FN34 Pit roach H 18 5 3 2 2 FN47 Owens sucker H 15 5 3 3 2 Medium Vulnerability Group FN01 Kern brook lamprey M 22 3 2 2 3 FN09 Central Valley late fall run chinook M 22 3 2 2 3 salmon FN26 Cowhead Lake tui chub M 22 3 2 2 3 FN51 Modoc sucker M 22 1 2 3 5 FN45 Goose Lake sucker M 19 3 2 2 5 FN48 Klamath largescale sucker M 19 3 2 2 5 FN03 Goose Lake lamprey M 16 4 1 3 5 FN18 McCloud River redband trout M 16 3 2 3 4 FN12 Eagle lake rainbow trout M 15 5 2 3 3 FN16 Warner Valley redband trout M 15 3 2 3 6 FN36 Red Hills roach M 15 2 2 4 6 FN20 Paiute cutthroat trout M 13 3 2 4 5 FN29 Pit River tui chub M 12 5 3 4 2 FN30 blue chub M 9 5 2 4 4 FN49 Lost River sucker M 9 5 2 4 5 FN52 shortnose sucker M 9 5 2 4 5 FN22 Goose Lake tui chub M 8 5 2 4 6 FN27 Eagle Lake tui chub M 8 5 2 4 6

FEIS Volume 4, Appendix R-96 - Assessment of Species Vulnerability and Prioritization Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment

ID Common Name Vulnerability DTA Population Number of Population Range Group Score Size Populations Trend Change Low Vulnerability Group FN05 mountain whitefish L 13 4 3 2 4 FN50 mountain sucker L 13 4 3 2 5 FN08 Central Valley fall run chinook salmon L 12 5 3 2 4 FN59 bigeye marbled sculpin L 12 5 3 2 4 FN60 rough sculpin L 12 5 3 2 4 FN23 Lahontan Lake tui chub L 11 5 3 2 6 FN24 Lahontan Creek tui chub L 11 5 3 2 6 FN55 Sacramento tule perch L 10 4 3 3 4 FN37 Sacramento blackfish L 9 5 3 3 4 FN17 Goose Lake redband trout L 8 5 3 3 6 FN39 Hardhead L 8 5 4 2 5 FN61 Pit sculpin L 8 5 4 2 4 FN33 Sacramento roach L 5 5 4 3 4 FN41 Lahontan speckled dace L 5 5 4 3 4 FN43 Sacramento speckled dace L 5 5 4 3 4 FN57 riffle sculpin L 5 5 4 3 4 FN58 Paiute sculpin L 5 5 4 3 4 FN04 Pit-Klamath brook lamprey L 2 5 4 4 4 FN40 Sacramento pikeminnow L 2 5 4 4 4 FN10 resident rainbow trout L 1 5 4 4 6 FN31 Lahontan redside L 1 5 4 4 6 FN44 Sacramento sucker L 1 5 4 4 6 FN46 Tahoe sucker L 1 5 4 4 6 FN56 prickly sculpin L 1 5 4 4 6

,,, 3ODQWV

0HWKRGV Vulnerability ratings. There are approximately 3,000 vascular plant species in the Sierra Nevada (Hickman, 1993; Shevock, 1996). Currently, there is not adequate data on the population and distribution of most of these species to produce a parallel analysis of the entire vascular flora as was conducted for the terrestrial vertebrate species. Instead, for this analysis, an important subset of the flora was selected for evaluation. These were the species that are already federally designated as threatened and endangered, have been proposed for federal listing, or have been designated Forest Service sensitive (see chapter three of the DEIS for a description of the data used to develop the sensitive species list.) As a result, the intent and interpretation of the plant analysis departs from that conducted for vertebrate animals. This analysis was used to develop a profile of plant species of highest viability concern that was meaningful at the scale of the Sierra Nevada.

Of 156 TEPS plant species in or near the Sierra Nevada national forests, 135 were selected as “focal” species for the vulnerability analysis. The rationale for excluding 21 species from analysis in this FEIS is shown in Table R.6. Status and habitat information for the 135 focal species is shown in Tables R.7 and R.8.

FEIS Volume 4, Appendix R-97 - Assessment of Species Vulnerability and Prioritization Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment

Table R.6. TES Plant Species with no Habitat or Threats Related to the five Problem Areas. NAME & FAMILY COUNTY FOREST FED/ CNPS LIFE FORM Habitat and RATIONALE FOR LOW LEVEL OF ANALYIS DISTRIB. STATE 1 Arabis pinzlae MNO, NV INY SC 1B Per herb Alpine fell-fields, Subalpine forest, mostly east of Hwy 195, one popul. in SN above PINZL'S ROCK CRESS 9,333 feet in rocky subalpine area. THREATS: WILD HORSES, HIKERS AT Brassicaceae BOUNDARY PEAK, NONE RELATED TO PROBLEM AREAS. 2 Arabis tiehmii MNO, NV INY, TOI SC 1B Per herb Alpine boulder & rock field (granitic). MOSTLY WITHIN WILDERNESS, THREATS TIEHM'S ROCK CRESS ARE HWY MTNCE AT TIOGA PASS ON HWY 123, AND POSSIBLY HIKERS. Brassicaceae 1 Astragalus ertterae KRN SEQ SC 1B Per herb Pinyon-Juniper woodland (sandy, granitic). NO THREATS, IN KIAVAH WALKER PASS MILK- WILDERNESS - SCODIE MTNS. VETCH Fabaceae 4 Astagalus monoensis FRE, INY, INY SC 1B Per herb Alpine boulder & rock field, Upper montane coniferous forest/ gravelly. ABOVE var. ravenii MNO 13,333 FT. IN ROCKS. ONLY POTENTIAL THREAT IS TRAILS/HIKERS RAVEN'S MILK-VETCH Fabaceae 5 Canbya candida KRN, SEQ, None 1B Ann herb MOJAVE DESERT IN CREOSOTE BUSH SCRUB AND JOSHUA TREE PYGMY POPPY LAX, SBD SBND, WOODLAND. THREATS UNRELATED TO PROBLEM AREAS (OHV, URBAN Papaveraceae ANF DEVELOPMENT IN S. CALIF.) 6 Caulostramina jaegeri INY INY SC 1B Per herb Pinyon-Juniper woodland, subalpine coniferous forest. OCCURS ONLY ON JAEGER'S LIMESTONE CLIFFS OF THE INYO MOUNTAINS. ONLY THREAT IS MINING OF CAULOSTRAMINA THE CARBONATE ROCK. Brassicaceae 7 Cryptantha roosiorum INY INY SC/R 1B Per herb Subalpine coniferous forest (carbonate). IN WILDERNESS AT THE CREST OF THE BRISTLECONE INYO MTNS., NO THREATS IDENTIFIED. CRYPTANTHA Boraginaceae 8 Draba asterophora var. ALP, ELD, ELD, none 1B Per herb Alpine boulder & rock field, Subalpine coniferous forest ABOVE 9,333 FEET. asterophora MNO, INY, LTB THREATS UNRELATED TO 5 PROBLEM AREAS (SKI AREA DEVEL., HIKERS, TAHOE DRABA TUO, NV HORSEBACK RIDERS, UTILITY LINE CONSTRUCTION) Brassicaceae 9 Draba asterophora var. ELD ELD, SC 1B Per herb Subalpine coniferous forest (rocky). THE ONLY 2 OCCURRENCES ARE IN THE macrocarpa LTB DESOLATION WILDERNESS ABOVE 9,333 FEET ON TALUS SLOPES, CUP LAKE DRABA POTENTIAL THREATS (SKI AREA DEVEL.) CURRENT THREATS HIKERS. Brassicaceae 13 Draba sharsmithii FRE, INY, INY, SIE none 1B Per herb Alpine boulder & rock field. ENDEMIC TO SIERRAN CREST IN WILDERNESS OR MT. WHITNEY DRABA TUL NATL. PARKS, ONLY POTENTIAL THREAT IS TRAILS/HIKERS. Brassicaceae 11 Dudleya cymosa ssp. TUL SEQ SC 1B Per herb Chaparrral, Cismontane woodland, carbonate costafolia NO THREATS, INACCESSIBLE CLIFFS PIERPOINT SPRINGS DUDLEYA Crassulaceae 12 Ericameria gilmanii INY, KRN INY none 1B Shrub Subalpine coniferous forest, Upper montane coniferous forest/ carbonate or granitic. GILMAN'S ONLY KNOWN THREAT IS TRAILS/HIKERS, ONLY SN OCCURRENCE IS GOLENBUSH OWENS PEAK, MOSTLY IN INYO AND PANAMINT MTNS. Asteraceae

FEIS Volume 4, Appendix R-98 - Assessment of Species Vulnerability and Prioritization Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment

NAME & FAMILY COUNTY FOREST FED/ CNPS LIFE FORM Habitat and RATIONALE FOR LOW LEVEL OF ANALYIS DISTRIB. STATE 11 Erigeron uncialis var. INY, SBD, INY, S-T none 2 Per herb Great Basin Scrub, Subalpine coniferous forest/carbonates. THREATS ARE MINING, uncialis NV POSSIBLY OHV USE. LIMESTONE DAISY Asteraceae 14 Eriogonum nudum var. FRE SIE none 1B Per herb Cismontane woodland (carbonate). HABITAT STEEP AND INACCESSIBLE ONLY regivirum POTENTIAL THREAT IS UNRELATED TO PROBLEM AREAS (TRAIL IN KINGS KINGS RIVER RIVER SPECIAL MGMT. AREA ADJACENT TO HABITAT) BUCKWHEAT Polygonaceae 15 Eriogonum wrightii var. TUL INY none 1B Per herb Alpine boulder & rock field, Subalpine coniferous forest (gravelly or rocky). ONLY 2 olanchense OCCURRENCES IN REMOTE, INACCESSIBLE WILDERNESS LOCATIONS, NO OLANCHA PEAK THREATS KNOWN BUCKWHEAT Polygonaceae 16 Erythonium pusaterii TUL SEQ none 1B Per herb Subalpine coniferous forest (granitic or metamorphic). NO THREATS, HABITAT HOCKET LAKES bulb INACCESSIBLE, STEEP AND ROCKY. FAWN LILY Liliaceae 17 Heterotheca FRE SEQ, SIE none 1B Per herb LOCALLY ABUNDANT IN STEEP RUGGED TERRAIN IN MONARCH monarchensis WILDERNESS. NO THREATS MONARCH GOLDENASTER 18 Lewisia congdonii FRE, MPA SEQ, -/R 1B Per herb Chaparrral, Cismontane woodland, Lower montane coniferous forest, Upper montane CONGDON'S LEWISIA SIE, STA coniferous forest/ granitic, mesic. HABITAT LARGELY INACCESSIBLE, THREATS Portulacaceae FEW AND BEING ADDRESSED. 19 Polemonium MNO, SIS, INY, S-T none 1B Per herb Alpine boulder and rock field, subalpine coniferous foerst/serpentinite, granitic, or chartaceum TRI, NV volcanic. HIGH ELEVATION ONLY, ABOVE 11,333 FEET. POTENTIAL THREATS MASON'S SKY PILOT ARE MINING, POSSIBLY GRAZING. Polemoniaceae 23 Monardella beneolens INY, KRN, INY none 1B Per herb Alpine boulder & rock field, Subalpine coniferous forest, Upper montane coniferous SWEET-SMELING TUL rhizomatous forest/ granitic CREST OF SIERRA NEVADA IN REMOTE LOCATIONS OF MONARDELLA WILDERNESS. ONLY POTENTIAL THREAT IS TRAILS/HIKERS. Lamiaceae 21 Streptanthus fenestratus FRE SEQ, SIE none 1B Ann herb Lower montane coniferous forest, Upper montane coniferous forest IN TEHIPITE VALLEY WILDERNESS OR NATIONAL PARKS, ONLY THREATS ARE TRAILS/HIKERS JEWEL-FLOWER Brassicaceae

FEIS Volume 4, Appendix R-99 - Assessment of Species Vulnerability and Prioritization Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment

Table R.7. Status and National Forest Distribution for the 135 Focal TES Plant Species.

1 2 1 4 Species Name Common Name Fed Cal Fs Sn National Forest Distribution

Abronia alpina Bdg. Ramshaw Meadows abronia C Y Y INY Abronia nana S.Watson ssp. covillei (Heimerl) Munz Coville's dwarf abronia N N INY, S-B Allium jepsonii (Traub.) Denison & McNeal Jepson's onion SC N Y PLU, STA Allium tribracteatum Torr. three-bracted onion SC N Y STA Allium yosemitense Eastw. Yosemite onion R N Y SIE, STA Arabis bodiensis Rollins Bodie Hills rock cress SC N N INY, TOI Arabis constancei Roll. Constance's rock cress Y Y LAS, PLU Arabis rigidissima Roll. var. demota Roll. Carson Range rock cress SC N N LTB, TAH Arctostaphylos nissenana Merriam Nissenan manzanita SC N Y ELD Astragalus anxius Meinke & Kaye troubled milk-vetch N Y MOD Astragalus lentiformis Gray lens-pod milk-vetch SC Y Y PLU Astragalus lentiginosus Hook. var. kernensis (Jeps.) Barneby Kern Plateau milk-vetch Y N INY, SEQ, TOI Astragalus monoensis Barneby var. monoensis Mono milk-vetch SC R N Y INY Astragalus pulsiferae Gray var. pulsiferae Pulsifer's milk-vetch N N PLU Astragalus pulsiferae Gray var. suksdorfii Suksdorf's milk-vetch SC N N LAS, MOD, PLU Astragalus shevockii Barneby Shevock's milk-vetch Y Y SEQ Astragalus webberi Gray Webber's milk-vetch SC N Y PLU, TAH Botrychium ascendens W. H. Wagner upswept moonwort SC N N ELD, LAS, LTB, TAH Botrychium crenulatum W. H. Wagner scalloped moonwort SC N N LAS, S-B, S-T, INY, SEQ, SIE, ANG, TAH Botrychium lineare W. H. Wagner slender moonwort N N SIE, INY Botrychium montanum W. H. Wagner western goblin N N LAS, TAH Brodiaea insignis (Jeps.) Niehaus Kaweah brodiaea SC E N Y SEQ Bruchia bolanderi Lesq. Bolander's candle moss N N SEQ, SIE, STA Calochortus clavatus Wats. var. avius Jeps. Pleasant Valley mariposa lily SC N Y ELD, TAH Calochortus longebarbatus Wats. var. longebarbatus long-haired star-tulip SC N N LAS, MOD, S-T Calochortus palmeri Wats. var. palmeri Palmer's mariposa lily SC N N ANG, L-P, S-B, SEQ Calochortus striatus Parish alkali mariposa lily SC N N ANG, S-B, SEQ Calochortus westonii Eastw. Shirley Meadows star-tulip SC N N SEQ Calycadenia oppositifolia (Greene) Greene Butte County calycadenia N Y PLU Calyptridium pulchellum (Eastw.) Hoov. Mariposa pussypaws T N Y SIE Calystegia atriplicifolia Hallier ssp. buttensis Brummitt Butte County morning-glory SC N Y LAS, PLU Camissonia sierrae Raven ssp. alticola Raven Mono Hot Springs evening- SC Y Y SIE primrose Campanula wilkinsiana Greene Wilkin's harebell SC Y N KLA, LAS, S-T Carex tiogana Taylor & Mastrogiuseppe Tioga Pass sedge Y Y INY, TOI Carpenteria californica Torr. tree-anemone T N Y SIE Clarkia australis E. Small Small's southern clarkia N Y STA Clarkia biloba (Dur.) Nels. & Macbr. ssp. brandegeae (Jeps.) Harlan & Brandegee's fairyfan N N PLU, TAH Lewis Clarkia biloba (Durand) Nels. & Macbr. ssp. australis Lewis & Lewis Mariposa clarkia N Y SIE, STA Clarkia gracilis (Piper) Nels. & Macbr. ssp. albicaulis (Jeps.) Lewis & white-stemmed clarkia N Y LAS, PLU Lewis Clarkia lingulata Lewis & Lewis Merced clarkia C E Y Y SIE, STA Clarkia mosquinii E. Small Mosquin's clarkia SC N Y PLU

FEIS Volume 4, Appendix R-100 - Assessment of Species Vulnerability and Prioritization Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment

1 2 1 4 Species Name Common Name Fed Cal Fs Sn National Forest Distribution

Clarkia springvillensis Vasek Springville clarkia T E N Y SEQ Clarkia stellata Mosq. Lake Almanor fairyfan N Y LAS, PLU, TAH Collomia rawsoniana Greene Rawsons's flaming trumpet SC Y Y SIE Cypripedium fasciculatum Wats. clustered lady's-slipper SC N N KLA, LAS, MEN, PLU, S-R, S-T, TAH Cypripedium montanum Lindl. mountain lady's-slipper N N KLA, LAS, MEN, MOD, PLU, S-T, SIE, S-R, STA, TAH Dedeckera eurekensis Reveal & Howell July gold SC R N N INY Delphinium inopinum (Jepson) Lewis & Epl. unexpected larkspur N N L-P, SEQ, SIE Dicentra nevadensis Eastw. Tulare County bleeding heart N Y SEQ, SIE Draba monoensis Roll. & Price White Mtns. draba Y N INY Epilobium howellii P. Hoch subalpine fireweed Y Y ELD, INY, LTB, SIE, STA, TAH Erigeron aequifolius Hall Hall's daisy N N INY, SEQ, SIE Erigeron miser Gray starved daisy N Y TAH Erigeron multiceps Greene Kern River daisy SC N Y INY, SEQ Eriogonum breedlovei (J.T. Howell) Reveal var. breedlovei Breedlove's buckwheat SC Y Y SEQ Eriogonum prattenianum Durand var. avium Reveal & Shevock Kettle Dome buckwheat N Y SEQ, SIE Eriogonum prociduum Reveal prostrate buckwheat SC N N MOD Eriogonum tripodum Greene tripod buckwheat N N ELD, MEN Eriogonum twisselmannii (J.T. Howell) Rev. Twisselmann's buckwheat SC R Y Y SEQ Eriogonum umbellatum Torr. var. glaberrimum (Gand.) Reveal green buckwheat N N MOD Eriogonum umbellatum Torr. var. torreyanum (Gray) Jones Donner Pass buckwheat SC N Y ELD, LTB, TAH Eriophyllum congdonii Brandegee Congdon's woolly sunflower R N Y SIE, STA Eriophyllum nubigenum Greene Yosemite woolly sunflower SC N Y STA Erythronium tuolumnense Applegate Tuolumne fawn lily SC N Y STA Erythronium pluriflorum Shevock, Bartel & Allen Shuteye Peak fawn lily Y Y SIE Erythronium taylori Shevock & Allen Pilot Ridge Fawn Lily Y Y STA Fritillaria eastwoodiae Macfarlane Butte County fritillary SC N N LAS, PLU, TAH, S-T Fritillaria striata Eastw. striped adobe-lily T N N SEQ Galium glabrescens (Ehrend.) Demp. & Ehrend. ssp. modocense Demp Modoc bedstraw Y Y MOD & Ehrend. Galium serpenticum Demp. ssp. warnerense Demp. & Ehrend. Warner Mtns. bedstraw N N MOD Heterotheca shevockii (Semple) Semple Shevock's hairy golden-aster Y Y SEQ Horkelia hispidula Rydb. White Mtns. horkelia Y Y INY Horkelia parryi Greene Parry's horkelia SC N Y ELD, STA Horkelia tularensis (J.T. Howell) Munz Kern Plateau horkelia SC Y Y SEQ Hulsea brevifolia A. Gray short-leaved hulsea N Y INY, SEQ, SIE, STA Hydrothyria venosa J. L. Russell veined water lichen N N SEQ, SIE, STA Iliamna bakeri (Jeps.) Wiggins Baker's globe mallow N N KLA, LAS, MOD, S-T Ivesia aperta Howell var. canina Ertter Dog Valley ivesia SC Y Y PLU, TAH, TOI Ivesia aperta J.T. Howell var. aperta Sierra Valley ivesia SC N N PLU, TAH, TOI Ivesia paniculata Nelson & Nelson Ash Creek ivesia SC N Y MOD Ivesia sericoleuca (Rydb.) Rydb. Plumas ivesia SC N Y PLU, TAH, TOI Ivesia webberi Gray Webber's ivesia SC N N PLU, TAH, TOI Juncus leiospermus F.J. Herm. var. leiospermus Red Bluff dwarf rush N N LAS Lewisia cantelovii J.T. Howell Cantelow's lewisia N N ELD, LAS, PLU, S-T, TAH Lewisia disepala Rydb. Yosemite lewisia N Y SEQ, SIE

FEIS Volume 4, Appendix R-101 - Assessment of Species Vulnerability and Prioritization Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment

1 2 1 4 Species Name Common Name Fed Cal Fs Sn National Forest Distribution

Lewisia longipetala (Piper) Clay long-petaled lewisia N Y ELD, LTB, TAH Lewisia serrata Heckard & Stebbins saw-toothed lewisia SC N N ELD, TAH Limnanthes floccosa Howell ssp. bellingeriana (M. Peck) Arroyo Bellinger's meadowfoam SC N N LAS Lomatium stebbinsii Schlesman & Const. Stebbins's lomatium SC N Y ELD, STA Lupinus citrinus Kell. var. citrinus orange lupine SC N Y SIE Lupinus dalesiae Eastw. Quincy lupine N Y LAS, PLU, TAH Lupinus padre-crowleyi Smith Father Crowley's lupine SC R Y Y INY Meesia triquetra Ångstr. moss - no common name N N ELD, SEQ, SIE, STA, TAH Meesia uliginosa Hedw. moss - no common name N N SEQ, SIE, STA, TAH Mimulus evanescens R. Meinke ephemeral monkeyflower N N LAS, MOD Mimulus filicaulis Wats. slender-stemmed monkeyflower SC N Y SIE, STA Mimulus gracilipes Robinson slender-stalked monkeyflower N Y SEQ, SIE, STA Mimulus pulchellus (E. Greene) A.L. Grant pansy monkeyflower N Y SIE, STA Mimulus shevockii Heckard & Bacig. Kelso Creek monkeyflower N Y SEQ Monardella follettii (Jepson) Jokerst Follett's monardella N Y PLU, TAH Monardella linoides A. Gray ssp. oblonga (E. Greene) Abrams flax-like monardella Y N L-P, SEQ Monardella stebbinsii Hardham & Bartel Stebbins's monardella Y Y PLU Navarretia peninsularis E. Greene Baja navarretia N N ANG, CLE, L-P, S-B, SEQ Navarretia prolifera Greene ssp. lutea (Brand) Mason yellow bur navarretia N Y ELD Navarretia setiloba Cov. Piute Mtns. navarretia N N SEQ Nemacladus twisselmannii J.T. Howell Twisselmann's nemacladus SC R Y Y SEQ Orcuttia tenuis Hitch. slender Orcutt grass T E N N LAS Oreonana purpurascens Shevock & Const. purple mountain-parsley N Y SEQ Oreostemma elatum (Greene) Nesom Plumas aster N N LAS, PLU Orthotrichum spjutii Norris & Vitt moss - no common name Y N INY, SEQ, STA, TOI Penstemon papillatus J.T. Howell Inyo beardtongue N N INY Penstemon personatus Keck closed-throated beardtongue SC N Y LAS, PLU, TAH Phacelia inundata J. Howell playa phacelia N N LAS, MOD Phacelia monoensis Halse Mono County phacelia SC N N INY Phacelia novenmillensis Munz Nine Mile Canyon phacelia SC N N INY, SEQ Phacelia stebbinsii Constance & Heckard Stebbins's phacelia SC N Y ELD, TAH Pogogyne floribunda Jokerst profuse-flowered pogogyne Y Y LAS, MOD Polyctenium williamsiae Rollins William's combleaf C N N INY, TOI Polygonum polygaloides Meissner ssp. esotericum (Wheeler) Hickman Modoc County knotweed N N MOD Pyrrocoma lucida (Keck) Kartesz & Gandhi sticky pyrrocoma N Y PLU, TAH Raillardiopsis muirii (Gray) Rydb. Muir's raillardella N N L-P, SEQ, SIE Rorippa columbiae (Robinson) Howell Columbia yellow cress SC N N KLA, LAS, MOD, S-T Rorippa subumbellata Roll. Tahoe yellow cress SC E N Y ELD, LTB, TOI Rupertia hallii (Rydb.) J. Grimes Hall's rupertia N Y LAS, PLU Scheuchzeria palustris L. ssp. americana (Fern.) Hulten American scheuchzeria N N LAS, PLU, TAH Sedum albomarginatum Clausen Feather River stonecrop N Y LAS, PLU Senecio eurycephalus Gray var. lewisrosei (J.T. Howell) T.M. Barkley cut-leaved ragwort N Y LAS, PLU Senecio layneae Greene Layne's ragwort T R N Y ELD, PLU Silene occidentalis S. Wats. ssp. longistipitata C. Hitchc. & Maguire western campion SC N Y LAS, PLU Streptanthus cordatus Nutt. var. piutensis J.T. Howell Piute Mtns. jewel-flower SC N N SEQ

FEIS Volume 4, Appendix R-102 - Assessment of Species Vulnerability and Prioritization Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment

1 2 1 4 Species Name Common Name Fed Cal Fs Sn National Forest Distribution

Streptanthus oliganthus Roll. Masonic Mtn. jewel-flower SC N N INY, TOI Trifolium bolanderi Gray Bolander's clover SC N Y SIE Tuctoria greenei (Vasey) J. Reeder Greene's tuctoria E R N N LAS Vaccinium coccineum Piper Siskiyou Mtns. huckleberry N N PLU, TAH Viola pinetorum E. Greene ssp. grisea (Jepson) R.J. Little grey-leaved violet N N INY, S-B, SEQ, SIE

Fed 1 = Federal Status as shown in letter dated 11/xx/99 from US Fish and Wildlife Service. Cal 2 = California Department of Fish and Game, June 1999 Special Plants List Fs 1 = Endemic to Forest Service lands Sn 4 = Endemic to Sierra Nevada E = Endangered, T = Threatened, R = rare, SC = Species of Concern

FEIS Volume 4, Appendix R-103 - Assessment of Species Vulnerability and Prioritization Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment

Table R.8. Life History, Vulnerability Ratings, and Guild Assignments for 135 Focal TES Plant Species. Annual/ SPECIES NAME Perennial LIFE FORM VULNERABILITY Abronia alpina Bdg. Perennial Herb low Abronia nana S.Watson ssp. covillei (Heimerl) Munz Perennial Herb moderate Allium jepsonii (Traub.) Denison & McNeal Perennial Herb moderate Allium tribracteatum Torr. Perennial Herb moderate Allium yosemitense Eastw. Perennial Herb low Arabis bodiensis Rollins Perennial Herb moderate Arabis constancei Roll. Perennial Herb moderate Arabis rigidissima Roll. var. demota Roll. Perennial Herb low Arctostaphylos nissenana Merriam Perennial Shrub low Astragalus anxius Meinke & Kaye Perennial Herb low Astragalus lentiformis Gray Perennial Herb moderate Astragalus lentiginosus Hook. var. kernensis (Jeps.) Barneby Perennial Herb moderate Astragalus monoensis Barneby var. monoensis Perennial Herb low Astragalus pulsiferae Gray var. pulsiferae Perennial Herb moderate Astragalus pulsiferae Gray var. suksdorfii Perennial Herb moderate Astragalus shevockii Barneby Perennial Herb moderate Astragalus webberi Gray Perennial Herb high Botrychium ascendens W. H. Wagner Perennial Herb high Botrychium crenulatum W. H. Wagner Perennial Herb high Botrychium lineare W. H. Wagner Perennial Fern high Botrychium montanum W. H. Wagner Perennial Herb high Brodiaea insignis (Jeps.) Niehaus Perennial Herb moderate Bruchia bolanderi Lesq. N/A Moss moderate Calochortus clavatus Wats. var. avius Jeps. Perennial Herb low Calochortus longebarbatus Wats. var. longebarbatus Perennial Herb moderate Calochortus palmeri Wats. var. palmeri Perennial Herb moderate Calochortus striatus Parish Perennial Herb moderate Calochortus westonii Eastw. Perennial Herb low Calycadenia oppositifolia (Greene) Greene Annual Herb moderate Calyptridium pulchellum (Eastw.) Hoov. Annual Herb high Calystegia atriplicifolia Hallier ssp. buttensis Brummitt Perennial Herb moderate Camissonia sierrae Raven ssp. alticola Raven Annual Herb low Campanula wilkinsiana Greene Perennial Herb moderate Carex tiogana Taylor & Mastrogiuseppe Perennial Herb low Carpenteria californica Torr. Perennial Shrub low Clarkia australis E. Small Annual Herb low Clarkia biloba (Dur.) Nels. & Macbr. ssp. brandegeae (Jeps.) Harlan & Lewis Annual Herb low Clarkia biloba (Durand) Nels. & Macbr. ssp. australis Lewis & Lewis Annual Herb low Clarkia gracilis (Piper) Nels. & Macbr. ssp. albicaulis (Jeps.) Lewis & Lewis Annual Herb low Clarkia lingulata Lewis & Lewis Annual Herb low Clarkia mosquinii E. Small Annual Herb high Clarkia springvillensis Vasek Annual Herb moderate Clarkia stellata Mosq. Annual Herb low Collomia rawsoniana Greene Perennial Herb low Cypripedium fasciculatum Wats. Perennial Herb high Cypripedium montanum Lindl. Perennial Herb high Dedeckera eurekensis Reveal & Howell Perennial Shrub moderate Delphinium inopinum (Jepson) Lewis & Epl. Perennial Herb moderate Dicentra nevadensis Eastw. Perennial Herb moderate Draba monoensis Roll. & Price Perennial Herb moderate Epilobium howellii P. Hoch Perennial Herb high Erigeron aequifolius Hall Perennial Herb low Erigeron miser Gray Perennial Herb low Erigeron multiceps Greene Perennial Herb moderate Eriogonum breedlovei (J.T. Howell) Reveal var. breedlovei Perennial Herb low Eriogonum prattenianum Durand var. avium Reveal & Shevock Perennial Herb low Eriogonum prociduum Reveal Perennial Herb low Eriogonum tripodum Greene Perennial Shrub moderate

FEIS Volume 4, Appendix R-104 - Assessment of Species Vulnerability and Prioritization Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment

Annual/ SPECIES NAME Perennial LIFE FORM VULNERABILITY Eriogonum twisselmannii (J.T. Howell) Rev. Perennial Herb low Eriogonum umbellatum Torr. var. glaberrimum (Gand.) Reveal Perennial Herb moderate Eriogonum umbellatum Torr. var. torreyanum (Gray) Jones Perennial Herb high Eriophyllum congdonii Brandegee Annual Herb low Eriophyllum nubigenum Greene Annual Herb moderate Erythronium tuolumnense Applegate Perennial Herb moderate Erythronium pluriflorum Shevock, Bartel & Allen Perennial Herb low Erythronium taylori Shevock & Allen Perennial Herb low Fritillaria eastwoodiae Macfarlane Perennial Herb high Fritillaria striata Eastw. Perennial Herb moderate Galium glabrescens (Ehrend.) Demp. & Ehrend. ssp. modocense Demp & Ehrend. Perennial Herb low Galium serpenticum Demp. ssp. warnerense Demp. & Ehrend. Perennial Herb moderate Heterotheca shevockii (Semple) Semple Perennial Herb low Horkelia hispidula Rydb. Perennial Herb moderate Horkelia parryi Greene Perennial Herb low Horkelia tularensis (J.T. Howell) Munz Perennial Herb low Hulsea brevifolia A. Gray Perennial Herb moderate Hydrothyria venosa J. L. Russell N/A Lichen high Iliamna bakeri (Jeps.) Wiggins Perennial Herb moderate Ivesia aperta Howell var. canina Ertter Perennial Herb moderate Ivesia aperta J.T. Howell var. aperta Perennial Herb high Ivesia paniculata Nelson & Nelson Perennial Herb low Ivesia sericoleuca (Rydb.) Rydb. Perennial Herb high Ivesia webberi Gray Perennial Herb high Juncus leiospermus F.J. Herm. var. leiospermus Annual Herb moderate Lewisia cantelovii J.T. Howell Perennial Herb low Lewisia disepala Rydb. Perennial Herb moderate Lewisia longipetala (Piper) Clay Perennial Herb low Lewisia serrata Heckard & Stebbins Perennial Herb high Limnanthes floccosa Howell ssp. bellingeriana (M. Peck) Arroyo Annual Herb moderate Lomatium stebbinsii Schlesman & Const. Perennial Herb moderate Lupinus citrinus Kell. var. citrinus Annual Herb moderate Lupinus dalesiae Eastw. Perennial Herb low Lupinus padre-crowleyi Smith Perennial Herb high Meesia triquetra Ångstr. N/A Moss high Meesia uliginosa Hedw. N/A Moss high Mimulus evanescens R. Meinke Annual Herb moderate Mimulus filicaulis Wats. Annual Herb moderate Mimulus gracilipes Robinson Annual Herb moderate Mimulus pulchellus (E. Greene) A.L. Grant Annual Herb moderate Mimulus shevockii Heckard & Bacig. Annual Herb moderate Monardella follettii (Jepson) Jokerst Perennial Shrub moderate Monardella linoides A. Gray ssp. oblonga (E. Greene) Abrams Perennial Herb low Monardella stebbinsii Hardham & Bartel Perennial Herb high Navarretia peninsularis E. Greene Annual Herb moderate Navarretia prolifera Greene ssp. lutea (Brand) Mason Annual Herb low Navarretia setiloba Cov. Annual Herb moderate Nemacladus twisselmannii J.T. Howell Annual Herb moderate Orcuttia tenuis Hitch. Annual Herb moderate Oreonana purpurascens Shevock & Const. Perennial Herb low Oreostemma elatum (Greene) Nesom Perennial Herb moderate Orthotrichum spjutii Norris & Vitt N/A Moss moderate Penstemon papillatus J.T. Howell Perennial Herb moderate Penstemon personatus Keck Perennial Herb moderate Phacelia inundata J. Howell Annual Herb moderate Phacelia monoensis Halse Annual Herb moderate Phacelia novenmillensis Munz Annual Herb moderate Phacelia stebbinsii Constance & Heckard Annual Herb moderate Pogogyne floribunda Jokerst Annual Herb moderate Polyctenium williamsiae Rollins Perennial Herb high

FEIS Volume 4, Appendix R-105 - Assessment of Species Vulnerability and Prioritization Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment

Annual/ SPECIES NAME Perennial LIFE FORM VULNERABILITY Polygonum polygaloides Meissner ssp. esotericum (Wheeler) Hickman Annual Herb moderate Pyrrocoma lucida (Keck) Kartesz & Gandhi Perennial Herb high Raillardiopsis muirii (Gray) Rydb. Perennial Herb low Rorippa columbiae (Robinson) Howell Perennial Herb high Rorippa subumbellata Roll. Perennial Herb high Rupertia hallii (Rydb.) J. Grimes Perennial Herb moderate Scheuchzeria palustris L. ssp. americana (Fern.) Hulten Perennial Herb low Sedum albomarginatum Clausen Perennial Herb moderate Senecio eurycephalus Gray var. lewisrosei (J.T. Howell) T.M. Barkley Perennial Herb low Senecio layneae Greene Perennial Herb moderate Silene occidentalis S. Wats. ssp. longistipitata C. Hitchc. & Maguire Perennial Herb high Streptanthus cordatus Nutt. var. piutensis J.T. Howell Perennial Herb moderate Streptanthus oliganthus Roll. Perennial Herb moderate Trifolium bolanderi Gray Perennial Herb low Tuctoria greenei (Vasey) J. Reeder Annual Herb moderate Vaccinium coccineum Piper Perennial Shrub low Viola pinetorum E. Greene ssp. grisea (Jepson) R.J. Little Perennial Herb low

FEIS Volume 4, Appendix R-106 - Assessment of Species Vulnerability and Prioritization Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment

Table R.9 Threats for 135 Focal TES Species.

SPECIES NAME Threats 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 T Abronia alpina 1 1 1 1 4 Abronia nana ssp. covillei 1 1 1 1 4 Allium jepsonii 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 8 Allium tribracteatum 1 1 1 3 Allium yosemitense 1 1 1 3 Arabis bodiensis 1 1 Arabis constancei 1 1 1 1 1 1 6 Arabis rigidissima var. demota 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7 Arctostaphylos nissenana 1 1 1 1 1 1 6 Astragalus anxius 1 1 1 1 4 Astragalus lentiformis 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 8 Astragalus lentiginosus var. kernensis 1 1 1 1 1 5 Astragalus monoensis var. monoensis 1 1 1 1 1 5 Astragalus pulsiferae var. pulsiferae 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7 Astragalus pulsiferae var. suksdorfii 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 8 Astragalus shevockii x 0 Astragalus webberi 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 21 Botrychium ascendens 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 19 Botrychium crenulatum 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 19 Botrychium lineare 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 19 Botrychium montanum 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 19 Brodiaea insignis 1 1 1 3 Bruchia bolanderi 1 1 1 3 Calochortus clavatus var. avius 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 10 Calochortus longebarbatus var. longebarbatus 1 1 1 1 1 1 5 Calochortus palmeri var. palmeri 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7 Calochortus striatus 1 1 1 1 1 1 5 Calochortus westonii 1 1 1 1 4 Calycadenia oppositifolia 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7 Calyptridium pulchellum 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 8 Calystegia atriplicifolia ssp. butensis 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7 Camissonia sierrae ssp. alticola 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 9 Campanula wilkinsiana 1 1 1 1 1 4 Carex tiogana x 1 0 Carpenteria californica 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 13 Clarkia australis 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7 Clarkia biloba ssp. brandegeae 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 12 Clarkia biloba ssp. australis 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 8 Clarkia gracilis ssp. albicaulis 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7 Clarkia lingulata 1 1 1 1 1 5 Clarkia mosquinii 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 17 Clarkia springvillensis 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 8

FEIS Volume 4, Appendix R-107 - Assessment of Species Vulnerability and Prioritization Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment

SPECIES NAME Threats 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 T Clarkia stellata 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 9 Collomia rawsoniana 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 14 Cypripedium fasciculatum 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 18 Cypripedium montanum 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 19 Dedeckera eurekensis 1 1 2 Delphinium inopinum 1 1 1 1 1 5 Dicentra nevadensis 1 1 1 1 4 Draba monoensis 1 1 1 3 Epilobium howellii 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 12 Erigeron aequifolius 1 1 Erigeron miser 1 1 1 1 4 Erigeron multiceps 1 1 1 1 1 4 Eriogonum breedlovei var. breedlovei 1 1 2 Eriogonum prattenianum var. avium 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7 Eriogonum prociduum 1 1 1 1 1 5 Eriogonum tripodum 1 1 1 1 1 5 Eriogonum twisselmannii 1 1 1 3 Eriogonum umbellatum var. glaberrimum 1 1 1 1 4 Eriogonum umbellatum var. torreyanum 1 1 1 1 4 Eriophyllum congdonii 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7 Eriophyllum nubigenum 1 1 2 Erythronium tuolumnense 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 12 Erythronium pluriflorum 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 9 Erythronium taylori 1 1 Fritillaria eastwoodiae 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 16 Fritillaria striata 1 1 2 Galium glabrescens ssp. modocense 1 1 1 1 4 Galium serpenticum ssp. warnerense 1 1 2 Heterotheca shevockii 1 1 2 Horkelia hispidula 1 1 1 3 Horkelia parryi 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 8 Horkelia tularensis 1 1 1 1 1 5 Hulsea brevifolia 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 8 Hydrothyria venosa 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 8 Iliamna bakeri 1 1 1 1 4 Ivesia aperta var. canina 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 20 Ivesia aperta var. aperta 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 20 Ivesia paniculata 1 1 1 1 4 Ivesia sericoleuca 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 20 Ivesia webberi 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 20 Juncus leiospermus var. leiospermus 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7 Lewisia cantelovii 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 9 Lewisia disepala 1 1 1 1 1 1 6 Lewisia longipetala 1 1 1 1 4

FEIS Volume 4, Appendix R-108 - Assessment of Species Vulnerability and Prioritization Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment

SPECIES NAME Threats 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 T Lewisia serrata 1 1 1 1 4 Limnanthes ssp. bellingeriana 1 1 1 1 1 1 5 Lomatium stebbinsii 1 1 1 3 Lupinus citrinus var. citrinus 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 Lupinus dalesiae 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 8 Lupinus padre-crowleyi 1 1 1 1 1 1 5 Meesia triquetra 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 8 Meesia uliginosa 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 8 Mimulus evanescens 1 1 1 2 Mimulus filicaulis 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 9 Mimulus gracilipes 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 9 Mimulus pulchellus 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 8 Mimulus shevockii 1 1 1 1 1 5 Monardella follettii 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7 Monardella linoides ssp. oblonga 1 1 1 3 Monardella stebbinsii 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 12 Navarretia peninsularis 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 6 Navarretia prolifera ssp. lutea 1 1 1 1 1 5 Navarretia setiloba 1 1 1 3 Nemacladus twisselmannii x 0 Orcuttia tenuis 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 9 Oreonana purpurascens 1 1 1 1 4 Oreostemma elatum 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 9 Orthotrichum spjutii 1 1 1 3 Penstemon papillatus 1 1 1 1 4 Penstemon personatus 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 9 Phacelia inundata 1 1 1 3 Phacelia monoensis 1 1 1 3 Phacelia novenmillensis 1 1 1 1 1 5 Phacelia stebbinsii 1 1 1 1 1 1 6 Pogogyne floribunda 1 1 1 1 1 1 6 Polyctenium williamsiae 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7 Polygonum polygaloides ssp. esotericum 1 1 1 3 Pyrrocoma lucida 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 19 Raillardiopsis muirii 1 1 1 1 4 Rorippa columbiae 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 12 Rorippa subumbellata 1 1 1 1 4 Rupertia hallii 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7 Scheuchzeria palustris ssp. americana 1 1 1 1 1 1 6 Sedum albomarginatum 1 1 1 1 1 5 Senecio eurycephalus var. lewisrosei 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7 Senecio layneae 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 14 Silene occidentalis ssp. longistipitata 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 10 Streptanthus cordatus var. piutensis 1 1

FEIS Volume 4, Appendix R-109 - Assessment of Species Vulnerability and Prioritization Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment

SPECIES NAME Threats 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 T Streptanthus oliganthus 1 1 1 3 Trifolium bolanderi 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 9 Tuctoria greenei 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 8 Vaccinium coccineum 1 1 1 1 1 5 Viola pinetorum ssp. grisea 1 1 1 1 4 0 42 83 48 88 60 71 19 31 34 24 21 30 75 65 34 21 10 50 30 61 24 18 40

1 THREATS: NOXIOUS WEEDS 1 MECHANICAL TREATMENTS 2 REFORESTATION 3 ROADS 4 GRAZING 5 STOCK TRAMPLING 6 CATASTROPHIC FIRE 7 LACK OF FIRE 8 FIRE FIGHTING/SUPPRESSION ACTIVITIES 9 FUELS REDUCTION ACTIVITIES 10 RX BURN - ANY 11 RX BURN - SPRING 12 OHV 13 TRAILS/HIKERS 14 CAMPING 15 PLANT COLLECTORS 16 ROCK COLLECTORS 17 MINING 18 HYDRO/GAS/TRANSMISSION LINES 19 DEVELOPMENT (URBAN/SKI AREA/FACILITIES) 20 FLOOD 21 EROSION 22 HYDROLOGIC ALTERATION 23

FEIS Volume 4, Appendix R-110 - Assessment of Species Vulnerability and Prioritization Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment

For the species-based analysis, initial vulnerability or concern rankings within the 135 TES plant species (as there are no proposed species in the group of 135 focal species, they will hereafter be referred to as “TES” rather than “TEPS”) were devcloped. Generally, most information on the status of plants of limited distribution resides with local level experts and remains unpublished. An iterative process of evaluation and validation with the forest botanists to obtain values for the variables was used in the analysis. Two qualitative variables were used- population trend and threats. Values for these variables were based on professional opinion of the forest botanists. These variables were combined and vulnerability groupings developed using the two statistical procedures discussed above, clustering and classification tree analysis. SAS FASTCLUS (SAS, 1997) and the S-Plus classification tree routine (S-Plus, 1999) wree used. Two separate runs were conducted, creating three and four clusters of species. Population trend information was classified into four categories and assigned values based on ranking for concern: declining (10), unknown (7), stable (1), and increasing (0). The second highest population concern ranking was given to “unknown” status. In order to assure long-term viability, species with declining trends must be addressed first. Where trends are uncertain, a conservative approach is warranted. Threats were defined as the list of Forest Service or non- Forest Service activities that currently or potentially have negative effects on focal species populations or habitats. A total of 22 threats (1-22) were identified for the preliminary analysis. (Table R.9). Threats were summed for each species and categorized: 14-18 threats (10), 13-11 threats (7), 6-9 threats (1), 2-5 threats (1), 0-1 threats (0) (the maximum number of threats tallied for any species was 18 out 22). The cluster analysis procedure was used to provide support to the “common sense” idea that species with high population concern scores and high threat scores are most vulnerable, species with lower population concern scores and number of threats are somewhat less vulnerable, etc. Identifying groupings of higher vulnerability species allows managers to set priorities for developing conservation strategies across the Sierra Nevada bioregion.

5HVXOWV In both the 3-cluster and 4-cluster analyses, the Pseudo F-statistics showed the ratios of the between-cluster variability to the within-cluster variability to be statistically significantly different for both sets (F=102.81 for 3-cluster and F=89.26 for 4-cluster with P-values < 0.0001). The classification tree analysis showed that the population score reduced the deviance (a measure of variability) 11.9% and 57.7%, and the threat score reduced the deviance 57.12% and 45.1% respectively. Neither the 3-cluster nor the 4-cluster procedures misclassified any species. Thus, both clustering procedures provided good groupings. However, in reviewing the groupings created by the 3-cluster and 4-cluster runs, the 3-cluster run provided groups that were more biologically meaningful, with the species with highest population concern scores and threat scores grouped together, the species with more moderate values together, etc. The species identified as the most vulnerable in this intial analysis: Cypripedium fasciculatum, C. montanum, Ivesia aperta ssp. aperta, I. sericoleuca, Erythronium tuolumnense. Botrychium ascendens, B. crenulatum, B. lineare, B. montanum, Clarkia biloba spp. brandegeae, Epilobium howellii, Ivesia webberi, Lupinus citrinus ssp. citrinus, and Pyrrocoma lucida. These species had both high population concern scores and high threat scores. The two Cypripedium species and the four Botrychium species are all recent additions to the sensitive species list and are among the most broadly distributed of the focal species, occurring on six to seven Sierran forests. Botrychium lineare has recently been petitioned for Federal listing. The likely “more moderate” or “intermediate” grouping, was much larger and contained species with a broader range of population concern and threat values. Species within this cluster with identified population declines were added to the initial list of high vulnerability species. This group included Abronia nana ssp covilllei, Astragalus webberi, Brodiaea insignis, Calochortus palmeri ssp. palmeri, Calochortus striatus, Calyptridium pulchellum, Campanula wilkinsiana, Dedeckera eurekensis, Eriogonum umbellatum var. torreyanum, Fritillaria eastwoodiae, Fritillaria striata, Hydrothyria venosa, Lupinus padre-crowleyi, Meesia triquetra, Meesia uliginosa, Monardella stebbinsii, Orcuttia tenuis, Rorippa columbiae, Tuctoria greenii, and Vaccinium coccineum.

FEIS Volume 4, Appendix R-111 - Assessment of Species Vulnerability and Prioritization Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment

On October 18, 2000, a group of botanical experts, comprised of National Forest botanists from the Sierra Nevada, botanists representing the Bureau of Land Management and the US Fish and Wildlife Service, as well as an authority on Sierra Nevada bryophytes were invited to provide information on the ecology and status of the rare plants. The botanists were asked to validate the preliminary vulnerability rankings. In some cases, new information on species was provided, leading to a change in the existing rankings. Information included new observations on perceived trend, condition of Sierra Nevada species occurrences vs. condition throughout the range of the species, effectiveness of current mitigations, and changes in taxonomic status. Overall, the list of high vulnerability species dropped from 33 to 28. Species added to the high vulnerability rank included Clarkia mosquinii, Ivesia aperta ssp. aperta, Lewisia serrata, Lupinus padre-crowleyi, Polyctenium willamisae, Rorippa subumbellata, Silene occidentialis ssp. longistipitata. Those believed to be more appropriately ranked as moderate or low vulnerability were Abronia nana ssp. covillei, Brodiaea insignis, Calochortus palmeri ssp. palmeri, Calochortus striatus, Campanula wilkinsiana, Clarkia biloba ssp brandegeae, Dedeckera eurekensis, Erythronium tuolumnense, Fritillaria striata, Lupinus citrinus ssp. citrinus, Orcuttia tenuis, Tuctoria greenii, Vaccinium coccineum. Based on this discussion, an additional threat (hydrologic alteration) was identified and added to the list of threats to rare plant species summarized in Table R9.

In addition to the population analysis, the rare plants were also grouped by their habitat characteristics. Coarse grained habitat was described by the use of Munz types (Table R10). More fine-grained habitat was described by ecological guild. The guild descriptions and the use of these habitat characteristics is described in Chapter 3.

FEIS Volume 4, Appendix R-112 - Assessment of Species Vulnerability and Prioritization Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment

Table R.10. Definitions of vegetation types used in Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive plant analysis. 1. Munz Community Types Munz (1968) identified twenty-nine plant communities within eleven vegetation types (Munz, 1968, pp. 10-19). The individual communities were arrived at by recognizing that each was distinguishable from the others by having a number of species more or less restricted to it, including at least a few dominants or characteristic indicator species. Also described are the general geographic distributions, elevational ranges, substrates and climatic characteristics.

(Munz, P.A., and D. Keck. 1968. A California Flora and Supplement. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press)

Freshwater Marsh Indicator species: Scirpus olneyi, S. validus, S. acutus. S. californicus, Typha latifolia, T. domingensis (T. angustifolia), Heleocharis palustris, Carex senta, C. obnupta.

Marshes of interior valleys such as near Tulare Lake, river-bottom lagoons, and near coast back of immediate salty areas, from sea level to about 500 feet.

Climatic conditions variable, but growing season long and physical conditions relatively constant.

Sagebrush Scrub Indicator species: Artemisia tridentata, A. arbuscula ssp. nova, A. cana, Coleogyne ramosissima, Chrysothamnus nauseosus sspp. speciosus and mohavensis, C. viscidiflorus, Atriplex confertifolia, A. canescens, Tetradymia spinosa, Purshia tridentata, P. glandulosa.

Deep pervious soil along the east base of the Sierra Nevada from Modoc County south to the San Bernardino Mountains, mostly at elevations of 4,000 to 7,500 feet; occasional in Siskiyou and San Diego counties. Average precipitation 8 to 15 inches mostly as winter snow; growing season 1.5 to 6 months, with 70 to 130 frost-free days; mean summer maximum temperatures 81°-95°, mean winter minima 8°-27°F. Low silvery-gray shrubs 2 to 7 feet tall, interspersed with greener plants.

Closed-cone Pine Forest Indicator species: Pinus muricata, P. contorta, P. radiata, P. remorata, Cupressus macrocarpa, C. pygmaea, C. Goveniana.

Interrupted forest from Mendocino plains southward near the immediate coast to Santa Barbara County from near sea level to 1,200 feet. Northward it is on the seaward side of the redwoods in barren soils.

Average rainfall 20 to 60 inches, much fog; growing season 9 to 12 months, with 270 to 360 frost-free days; climate cool with temperatures comparable with those in the Redwood Forest. Trees 30 to nearly 300 feet tall, in a relatively dense forest.

Yellow Pine Forest Indicator species: Pinus ponderosa, P. lambertiana, Libocedrus decurrens, Abies concolor, Pseudotsuga menziesii, Quercus kelloggii, Ribes nevadense, R. roezlii, Rubus parviflorus, Chamaebatia foliolosa, Arctostaphylos patula, A. viscida ssp. mariposa, Ceanothus integerrimus.

North Coast Ranges, 3,000 to 6,000 feet; northern California, 1,200 to 5,500 feet; Sierra Nevada, 2,000 to 6,500 or 7,000 feet; southern California, 5,000 to 8,000 feet. Average precipitation 25 to 80 inches, partly as snow; growing season 4 to 7 months, with 90 to 210 frost- free days; mean summer maximum temperatures 83°-91°, mean winter minima 22°-14° F. Trees 75 to 200 feet tall, in extensive continuous forests.

Red Fir Forest Indicator species: Abies magnifica, Pinus contorta ssp. murrayana, P. monticola, P. jeffreyi, Castanopsis sempervirens, Ceanothus cordulatus, Ipomopsis aggregata, Populus tremuloides.

Above 6,000 feet in North Coast Ranges; northern California, 5,500 to 7,500 feet; Sierra Nevada, 6,000 to 9,000 feet; southern California, 8,000 to about 9,500 feet. Average precipitation 15 to 65 inches, with heavy winter snow; growing season 1 to 4.5 months, with 40 to 70 frost-free days; mean summer maximum temperatures 73°-85°, mean winter minima 16°-26° F. Trees to 100 feet tall or more, in dense forests.

Lodgepole Forest Indicator species: Pinus contorta ssp. murrayana, Tsuga mertensiana, Artemisia rothrockii, Potentilla breweri, Castilleja culbertsonii, Pediculariaaa attolens, Haplopappus apargioides, Senecis lugens.

Northernmost California to central Sierra Nevada, where it grows from about 8,300 to 9,500 feet. Average precipitation about 30 to 60 inches, mostly as snow; growing season 9 to 14 weeks, with frost-free days as many as 40; mean summer maximum temperatures 67°-75°, mean winter 10°-18° F.

Trees to 50 or 60 feet tall, in rather open forest with extensive scattered through it.

Subalpine Forest Indicator species: Pinus albicaulis, P. balfouriana, P. flexilis, P. contorta ssp. murrayana, Tsuga mertensia, Salix petrophila, Eriogonum incanum, Ribes cereum, R. montigenum, Aquilegia pubescens, Sedum obtusatum, Potentilla fruticosa, Cassiope Mertensiana, Phyllodoce Brweri, Penstemon heterodoxus.

FEIS Volume 4, Appendix R-113 - Assessment of Species Vulnerability and Prioritization Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment

The most boreal forest in California; in northern California from about 8,000 to 9,500 feet; Sierra Nevada, 9,500 to 11,000 feet; poorly represented in southern California and above 9,500 feet. Average precipitation about 30 to 50 inches, dropping as low as 5 inches on the east side of the crest, mostly as snow, with heavy snow cover in winter; growing season 7 to 9 weeks, and killing frost possible in every month. Mean summer maximum temperatures probably not over 65°F., winter minima unknown. Trees from elfin wood (Krummholz) to 40 feet tall or more, usually rather scattered.

Foothill Woodland Indicator species: Pinus sabiniana, P. coulteri in upper parts, Quercus douglasii, Q. chrysolepis, Q. agrifolia, Q. wislizenii, Q. lobata, Umbellularia californica, Aesculus californica, Rhamnus californica ssp. tomentella, Ceanothus cuneatus, Cercis occidentalis, Ribes quercetorum, Eriodictyon californicum.

Foothills and valley borders, 400 to 3,000 feet, fingering upward on warm slopes to 5,000 feet; inner Coast Ranges, Trinity County to Santa Barbara County; western foothills of the Sierra Nevada, reaching southern limit in northwestern Los Angeles County. Average rainfall 15 to 40 inches, little or no fog; growing season 6 to 10 months, with 175 to 310 frost-free days; hot dry summers, with mean maximum temperatures 75°-96°, and mean winter minima 29°-42° F. Trees 15 to 70 feet tall, in dense or open woodland, with scattered brush and grassland between the trees. This composite community contains both the oak parklands of the valley floors and the digger pine woodland of the surrounding slopes.

Northern Juniper Woodland Indicator species: Juniperus occidentalis, Pinus jeffreyi, P. monophylla, Artemisia tridentata, Penstemon speciosus

Great Basin Plateau to the base of the Sierra Nevada from Modoc Coounty to southern Mono County, 4,200 to 5,600 feet in the north, 6,000 to 7,000 feet in the south. Average precipitation 10 to 30 inches, largely as snow; growing season 2 to 5 months, with 70 to 140 frost- free days; mean summer maximum temperatures 82°-89°, mean winter minima 13°-23°F. Open forest of trees 10 to 60 feet tall, on brush- covered slopes and flats.

Pinyon-Juniper Woodland Indicator species: Pinus monophylla, Juniperus caliiornica or J. osteosperma (J. utahensis), Quercus turbinella, Purshia glandulosa, Cowania stansburiana, Fallugia paradoxa, Cercocarpus ledifolius, Yucca schidigera, Y. baccata.

East base of Sierra Nevada, White-Inyo ranges southward through higher mountains of Mojave Desert, mostly at elevations of 5,000 to 8,000 feet, and between Yellow Pine Forest and Joshua Tree Woodland or Sagebrush Scrub. Average precipitation 12 to 20 inches, with some summer showers; growing season 5 to 8 months, with 150 to 250 frost-free days; mean summer maximum temperatures about 88°- 95°, mean winter minima about 20°-30°F. Trees 10 to 30 feet tall, in open stands with shrubs between.

2. CNPS Community Types

The classification system used in the California Native Plant Society Inventory (Skinner and Pavlick, 1994) was also used to attribute species. This system (originally taken from Holland (1986-unpublished) in some places overlaps the Munz types, in others it provides a finer- grained description of plant communities.

(Skinner, M.W., and B.M. Pavlik. 1994. Inventory of rare and endangered vascular plants of California. 5th ed. Special Publication 1. Sacramento: California Native Plant Society)

Chprl (Chaparral) Impenetrably dense, evergreen, leathery-leaved shrubs that are active in winter, dormant in summer, and adapted to frequent fires either through resprouting or seed carry-over. There is a characteristic florula of fire-following annuals or short-lived perennials. Mature stands may exceed 1-4m in height. It occurs on diverse substrates, many of which support distinctive suites of edaphic indicators. Chaparral may be successional to conifer forests or oak woodlands, as tree seedlings can be found beneath the shrub canopies.

VFGrs (Valley and foothill grassland) Introduced annual Mediterranean grasses and native herbs. On most sites the native bunch grass species, such as needle grass, have been largely or entirely supplanted by introductions. Stands rich in natives usually found on unusual substrates, such as serpentinite or somewhat alkaline soils.

VnPls (Vernal pools) Seasonal amphibious environments dominated by annual herbs and grasses adapted to germination and early growth under water. Spring desiccation triggers flowering and fruit set, resulting in colorful concentric bands around the drying pools.

Medws (Meadows and seeps) More or less dense grasses, sedges, and herbs that thrive, at least seasonally, under moist or saturated conditions. They occur from sea level to treeline and on many different grasslands, forests, or shrublands.

BgFns (Bogs and fens) Wetlands, typically occupying sites sub-irrigated by cold, frequently acidic, water. Plant growth dense and low growing, dominated by perennial herbs or low shrubs. Saturated soils frequently allow substantial accumulations of “peat.” From the Klamath Ranges to North Coast Ranges, along the North Coast and in the northern Sierra Nevada.

MshSw (Marshes and swamps) Emergent, suffrutescent herbs adapted to seasonally or permanently saturated soils. These include salt, brackish, alkali, and fresh water marshes, as well as swamps, with their woody dominants and hydrophytic herbs. Found throughout California.

FEIS Volume 4, Appendix R-114 - Assessment of Species Vulnerability and Prioritization Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment

RpFrs (Riparian forest) Broadleaved, winter deciduous trees, forming closed canopies, associated with low- to mid-elevation perennial and intermittent streams. Most stands even-aged, reflecting their flood-mediated, episodic reproduction. These habitats can be found in every county and climate in California.

RpWld (Riparian woodland) Broadleaved, winter deciduous trees with open canopies associated with low- to mid-elevation streams. Most stands even-aged, reflecting their flood-controlled, episodic reproduction. This type tends to occupy more intermittent streams, often with cobbled or bouldery bedloads.

RpScr (Riparian scrub) Streamside thickets dominated by one or more willows, as well as by other fast-growing shrubs and vines. Most plants recolonize following flood disturbance.

FEIS Volume 4, Appendix R-115 - Assessment of Species Vulnerability and Prioritization Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment

FEIS Volume 4, Appendix R-116 - Assessment of Species Vulnerability and Prioritization