BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT and BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION and WILDLIFE AND BOTANY REPORTS and NON-NATIVE SPECIES RISK ASSESSMENT for THE GRASS VALLEY FUELS REDUCTION PROJECT Mountaintop Ranger District San Bernardino National Forest

Prepared by: /s/ Scott Eliason July 7, 2018 Scott Eliason, District Botanist Date

Prepared by: /s/ Robin Eliason July 7, 2018 Robin Eliason, District Wildlife Biologist Date

SUMMARY This report addresses the potential effects of the proposed project on Federally-Listed Threatened and Endangered species, Forest Service Sensitive species, San Bernardino National Forest Watch List species, other species of special concern, and general vegetation and wildlife that are known or likely to occur in the Grass Valley Fuels Reduction project.

The proposed action for the Grass Valley Fire Restoration Project includes:  Conduct fuels reduction and vegetation management activities on approximately 1,043 acres, including reforestation and planting of non-conifer species;  Treat non-native plants by manual methods only;  Repair damaged infrastructure including trails and roads;  Remove danger trees of all sizes in the entire project area. The proposed activities would occur entirely on US Forest Service lands.

Table 1 displays the known and potential occurrences of special status species in the project area and summarizes the “Determinations of Effects” for each.

Federally-Listed Threatened/Endangered Species and Critical Habitat The Grass Valley fuels project area contains no known occurrences of Threatened/ Endangered (T/E) wildlife species. There are historic records for California red-legged frogs and mountain yellow-legged frogs downstream of the project area; additionally, arroyo toads are known from several miles downstream in Grass Valley Creek. Riparian Conservation Areas, Best Management Practices, and Limited Operating Periods during the breeding season are expected to limit the potential effects. The determinations of effects for all of these T/E animals are “no effect.” There is no designated Critical Habitat for T/E animals.

No federally-listed plants are known or likely to occur in the project area. There is no designated Critical Habitat for T/E plants.

Since no effects to T/E animals or plants are expected from the proposed projects, no Section 7 Endangered Species Act consultation for T/E animals, plants, and Critical Habitat is required.

Forest Service Sensitive Species Several Sensitive wildlife species are known or expected in the project area. The determinations of effects for all of the Sensitive wildlife species with potential to occur in the project area are “may affect individuals but not likely to lead in a trend toward federal listing.” The Design Features are critical for limiting effects to California spotted owls and not contributing toward a trend in federal listing.

There are two Forest Service Sensitive plant species are known from within or adjacent to the project area. The determinations of effects for all of the Sensitive plant species with potential to occur in the project area are “may affect individuals but not likely to lead in a trend toward federal listing”. The Design Features will help reduce the potential for and extent of effects to Sensitive plant species.

Page 2

SBNF Watch List Species No threat to the viability of any of the SBNF Watch List animals or plants, or other potentially vulnerable species, is expected from the proposed project.

Consistency with Forest Plan and Other Applicable Management Direction The proposed project would be consistent with the goals, strategies, standards, and species-specific direction in the Forest Plan. Additionally, the project would be consistent with all other applicable laws, regulations, and direction, including the National Forest Management Act, the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, the Endangered Species Act, the National Migratory Bird Treaty Act.

Summary of Determinations Table 1 provides a summary of species known to occur in or adjacent to the project or those with a high probability of occurrence. Other sections of this document display all of the species considered in this evaluation.

Table 1. Summary of Effects Determinations for TESW Species In/Near the Grass Valley Fuels Reduction Project Area Name Determinations Threatened and Endangered Animals Mohave tui chub (E) No Effect Arroyo toad (E) No Effect California red-legged frog (E) No Effect mountain yellow-legged frog (E) No Effect California condor (E) No Effect southwestern willow flycatcher (E) No Effect least Bell’s vireo (T) No Effect Forest Service Sensitive Animals Large/yellow-blotched ensatina May Affect Individuals, Not Likely to Lead Towards a Trend in Federal Listing; No Threat to Viability Southern rubber boa May Affect Individuals, Not Likely to Lead Towards a Trend in Federal Listing; No Threat to Viability Three-lined boa May Affect Individuals, Not Likely to Lead Towards a Trend in Federal Listing; No Threat to Viability San Bernardino ringneck snake May Affect Individuals, Not Likely to Lead Towards a Trend in Federal Listing; No Threat to Viability San Bernardino mountain kingsnake May Affect Individuals, Not Likely to Lead Towards a Trend in Federal Listing; No Threat to Viability Two-striped garter snake May Affect Individuals, Not Likely to Lead Towards a Trend in Federal Listing; No Threat to Viability Bald eagle May Affect Individuals, Not Likely to Lead Towards a Trend in Federal Listing; No Threat to Viability Northern goshawk May Affect Individuals, Not Likely to Lead Towards a Trend in Federal Listing; No Threat to Viability California spotted owl May Affect Individuals, Not Likely to Lead Towards a Trend in Federal Listing; No Threat to Viability Willow flycatcher (migrants) No Effect Townsend’s big-eared bat May Affect Individuals, Not Likely to Lead Towards a Trend in Federal Listing; No Threat to Viability

Page 3

Table 1. Summary of Effects Determinations for TESW Species In/Near the Grass Valley Fuels Reduction Project Area Name Determinations Fringed myotis May Affect Individuals, Not Likely to Lead Towards a Trend in Federal Listing; No Threat to Viability Pallid bat May Affect Individuals, Not Likely to Lead Towards a Trend in Federal Listing; No Threat to Viability San Bernardino flying squirrel May Affect Individuals, Not Likely to Lead Towards a Trend in Federal Listing; No Threat to Viability Forest Service Sensitive Plants Calochortus palmeri var. palmeri May Affect Individuals, Not Likely to Lead Towards a Trend in Federal Listing; No Threat to Viability Castilleja lasiorhyncha May Affect Individuals, Not Likely to Lead Towards a Trend in Federal Listing; No Threat to Viability SBNF Watch List and Other Special Status Animals Springsnails No Threat to Viability simple hydroporus diving beetle No Threat to Viability Dorhn’s elegant eucnemid beetle No Threat to Viability bicolored rainbeetle No Threat to Viability San Bernardino Mountains silk moth No Threat to Viability August checkerspot butterfly No Threat to Viability Andrew's marble butterfly No Threat to Viability Monterey ensatina salamander No Threat to Viability arboreal salamander No Threat to Viability garden slender salamander No Threat to Viability coast patch-nosed snake No Threat to Viability mountain garter snake No Threat to Viability southwestern speckled rattlesnake No Threat to Viability western least bittern No Threat to Viability white-tailed kite No Threat to Viability sharp-shinned hawk (breeding) No Threat to Viability Cooper's hawk (breeding)* No Threat to Viability golden eagle No Threat to Viability merlin No Threat to Viability American peregrine falcon* No Threat to Viability flammulated owl No Threat to Viability western screech owl No Threat to Viability northern pygmy owl No Threat to Viability long-eared owl No Threat to Viability northern saw-whet owl No Threat to Viability common nighthawk No Threat to Viability Mexican whip-poor-will No Threat to Viability calliope hummingbird No Threat to Viability Lewis' woodpecker No Threat to Viability Williamson's sapsucker No Threat to Viability Nuttall's woodpecker No Threat to Viability white-headed woodpecker No Threat to Viability gray flycatcher No Threat to Viability purple martin No Threat to Viability tree swallow No Threat to Viability American dipper No Threat to Viability Swainson's thrush No Threat to Viability hermit thrush (breeding) No Threat to Viability

Page 4

Table 1. Summary of Effects Determinations for TESW Species In/Near the Grass Valley Fuels Reduction Project Area Name Determinations loggerhead shrike No Threat to Viability plumbeous vireo No Threat to Viability Cassin’s vireo No Threat to Viability warbling vireo No Threat to Viability Virginia’s warbler (breeding) No Threat to Viability yellow warbler No Threat to Viability MacGillivray's warbler No Threat to Viability common yellowthroat No Threat to Viability Wilson's warbler No Threat to Viability summer tanager No Threat to Viability southern California rufous-crowned No Threat to Viability sparrow black-chinned sparrow No Threat to Viability Bell's sparrow No Threat to Viability Lincoln's sparrow No Threat to Viability Lawrence's goldfinch No Threat to Viability western small-footed myotis No Threat to Viability long-eared myotis No Threat to Viability little brown myotis No Threat to Viability long-legged myotis No Threat to Viability Yuma myotis No Threat to Viability western bonneted bat No Threat to Viability lodgepole chipmunk No Threat to Viability golden-mantled ground squirrel No Threat to Viability ringtail No Threat to Viability American badger No Threat to Viability western spotted skunk No Threat to Viability mountain lion No Threat to Viability SBNF Watch List Plants Boykinia rotundifolia No Threat to Viability Calochortus plummerae No Threat to Viability Lilium humboldtii var. ocellatum No Threat to Viability Packera ionophylla No Threat to Viability Phacelia mohavensis No Threat to Viability

Page 5

Table of Contents PART I: INTRODUCTION ...... 11 I-1.0 – METHODS ...... 11 I-2.0 – APPLICABLE MANAGEMENT DIRECTION ...... 14 I-3.0 – DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES ...... 16 Alternative 1 – No Action ...... 16 Alternative 2 –Proposed Action ...... 16 Fuels Reduction and Vegetation Management Activities ...... 16 Prescribed Fire/Broadcast Burning ...... 25 Brush Piles ...... 25 Reforestation and Planting of Native Species ...... 25 Non Native Plants Treatments ...... 25 Repair of Damaged Infrastructure ...... 26 Danger Tree Removal...... 27 Project Design Features ...... 27 Non-Native Plants ...... 27 Prescribed Fire ...... 28 Broadcast Burning ...... 29 Slash Treatments ...... 31 Operations ...... 33 Road/Trail Management ...... 34 Reforestation ...... 35 Watershed (Soils, Water, and Riparian) ...... 35 Root Disease Transmission ...... 41 Wildlife and Plants ...... 41 Botanical Resources ...... 49 Post-project Rehabilitation ...... 50 Scenery and Recreational ...... 50 Air Quality ...... 51 Heritage ...... 52 Monitoring ...... 53 Air Quality ...... 53 Watershed (Soil, Water, and Riparian) ...... 53 Post-project Rehabilitation ...... 53 Botanical and Wildlife Resources ...... 54 Heritage ...... 54 PART II: EXISTING CONDITIONS AND GENERAL EFFECTS ...... 55 II-1.0 – INTRODUCTION...... 55 II-2.0 – EXISTING ENVIRONMENT – GENERAL ...... 55 II-2.1 – Existing Environment - Vegetation Descriptions ...... 55 II-2.2 – Watershed ...... 57 II-2.3 – Existing Environment – Wildlife ...... 57 II-3.0 – EFFECTS OF PROPOSED ACTION – GENERAL ...... 58 II-3.1 – Levels of Effect Analyses ...... 58 II-3.2 – Effects of Proposed Action ...... 60 II-3.3 – Effects of Proposed Action –Effects Common to Some Biotic Resources ...... 60 II-3.4 – Effects of No Action ...... 75 PART III: BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT OF EFFECTS TO THREATENED, ENDANGERED, PROPOSED, AND CANDIDATE SPECIES ...... 77 III-1.0 – INTRODUCTION AND MANAGEMENT DIRECTION ...... 77

Page 6

III-3.0 - BASELINE CONDITIONS AND POTENTIAL EFFECTS FOR T/E SPECIES ...... 80 III-3.1 - Baseline Conditions and Potential Effects for T/E Plant Species – Proposed Action ...... 80 III-3.2 - Baseline Conditions and Potential Effects for T/E Plant Species – No Action ...... 81 III-3.3 - Baseline Conditions and Potential Effects for T/E Wildlife – Proposed Action ..... 81 III-3.4 - Baseline Conditions and Potential Effects for T/E Wildlife - No Action ...... 101 III-4.0 – SUMMARY FOR THREATENED/ENDANGERED SPECIES ...... 101 PART IV: BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION OF EFFECTS TO FOREST SERVICE SENSITIVE SPECIES ...... 102 IV-1.0 – INTRODUCTION AND MANAGEMENT DIRECTION ...... 102 IV-1.1 – Sensitive Plants – Baseline Conditions and Potential Effects of Proposed Action 103 IV-1.2 – Sensitive Plants – Potential Effects of No Action ...... 108 IV-1.3 – Sensitive Animals – Baseline Conditions and Potential Effects -Proposed Action ...... 108 IV-1.4 – Sensitive Animals – Effects of No Action ...... 184 IV-2.0 – SUMMARY OF DETERMINATION OF EFFECTS FOR SENSITIVE SPECIES 184 PART V: WILDLIFE AND BOTANY REPORTS ...... 185 V-1.0 – INTRODUCTION AND MANAGEMENT DIRECTION ...... 185 V-2.0 SBNF WATCHLIST SPECIES AND OTHER SPECIES OF CONCERN ...... 185 V-2.1 – Viability of SBNF Watch List Plants – Proposed Action ...... 185 V-2.3 – SBNF Watch List – No Action...... 189 V-2.4 – Viability of SBNF Watch List Animals – Proposed Action ...... 189 V-2.5 – SBNF Watch List Animals – Effects of No Action ...... 237 V-2.6– Viability of Other Animal Species of Concern – Potential Effects ...... 237 V-2.7 – Other Animal Species of Concern – Effects of No Action ...... 244 V-3.0 –FINDINGS ...... 244 PART VI: NON-NATIVE SPECIES RISK ASSESSMENT ...... 246 VI-1.0 – INTRODUCTION ...... 246 VI-2.0 - NON-NATIVE PLANT ASSESSMENT ...... 246 VI-2.1 – Occurrences of Non-Native Plants in the Analysis Area ...... 246 VI-2.2 – Risk of Introducing and Establishing New Occurrences into Analysis Area ...... 246 VI-2.3 - Risk Assessment of Spread of Existing Populations of Non-Native Plants ...... 250 VI-2.4– Measures to Prevent, Control, and Eliminate Non-Native Plant Risks ...... 250 VI-2.5– Risk Determination for Non-Native Plants ...... 250 VI-3.0 - NON-NATIVE ANIMAL AND PATHOGENS ASSESSMENT ...... 250 VI-3.1 – Occurrences of Non-Native Animals and Pathogens in the Analysis Area ...... 250 VI-3.2 – Risk of Introducing and Establishing New Occurrences into Analysis Area ...... 253 Biologists doing pre-work surveys and monitoring during implementation would observe new non-native species and help develop adaptive management approaches, as needed. The Design Features include this measure...... 253 VI-3.3 - Risk Assessment of Spread of Existing Populations of Non-Native Animals ...... 253 VI-3.5– Risk Determination for Non-Native Animals ...... 254 VI-4.0 – SUMMARY OF RISK FROM NON-NATIVE SPECIES ...... 254 LITERATURE CITED ...... 255

Appendix A: Floral and Faunal Compendia Appendix B: Applicable Management Direction Appendix C: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Species List Letter Appendix D: Spotted Owl Occupancy Records Appendix D: Spotted Owl – Forest Plan Consistency

Page 7

Tables Table 1. Summary of Effects Determinations for TESW Species In/Near the Grass Valley Fuels Reduction Project Area ...... 3 Table 2. Survey Records in/near the Project Area ...... 13 Table 3. Treatment Levels ...... 16 Table 4. Treatment Method by Treatment Levels across the Project Area (Acres) ...... 17 Table 5. Desired Condition Matrix ...... 22 Table 6. Known Non-Native Plants in the Project Area ...... 26 Table 7. Buffer Zones ...... 43 Table 8. Down Log Retention Guidelines For Grass Valley Fuels Project...... 45 Table 9. Regional Dominance Types Across the Project Area ...... 56 Table 10. Canopy Cover By Treatment Level At The Time Of Inventory ...... 56 Table 11. Existing National Forest System Roads To Be Used For Fuel Treatment ...... 68 Table 12. Threatened, Endangered, Proposed, And Candidate Plant Species on the SBNF (updated 11/6/14) ...... 82 Table 13. Threatened, Endangered, Proposed, And Candidate Wildlife Species for Grass Valley Fuels Reduction Project Area ...... 83 Table 14. Summary of Determination of Effects for T/E Species for Grass Valley Fuels Project ...... 101 Table 15. Region 5 Sensitive Plant Species on the San Bernardino National Forest (updated 11/6/14) ...... 104 Table 16. Forest Service Region 5 Sensitive Wildlife Species on the SBNF (Updated 11/6/14/14) ...... 109 Table 17. Treatment Levels in Bald Eagle Night Roost Habitat ...... 127 Table 18. Pre- and Post- Treatment Stand Characteristics1 in Bald Eagle Night Roost . 127 Table 19. Pre- and Post- Treatment Snags in Bald Eagle Night Roost ...... 128 Table 20. Summary of California Spotted Owl Territory Occupancy/Reproduction for Territories In and Near the Project Area ...... 146 Table 21. Acres of California Spotted Owl Habitat in Treatment Levels in the Project Area ...... 148 Table 22. California Spotted Owl Habitat by Treatment Type ...... 149 Table 23. Pre- and Post- Treatment Stand Characteristics in Spotted Owl Nest Stand . 153 Table 24. Pre- and Post- Treatment Stand Characteristics in Spotted Owl Protected Activity Centers (PACs) ...... 153 Table 25. Pre- and Post- Treatment Stand Characteristics in Spotted Owl Home Range Cores (HRCs) 1 2 ...... 154 Table 26. Pre- and Post-Treatment Snags/Acre in All Spotted Owl Habitat Types1 ...... 155 Table 27. Summary of Determinations of Effects for Sensitive Species in the Grass Valley Project ...... 184 Table 28. San Bernardino National Forest Watch Plant Species ...... 187 Table 29. San Bernardino National Forest Watch List Animal Species – Likelihood Of Occurrence In Grass Valley Project Area ...... 190 Table 30. Noxious and Invasive Plant Species Known from the SBNF ...... 247 Table 31. Non-Native Animals Known from the SBNF (From SBNF Forest Plan EIS 2006) ...... 251

Page 8

Figures Figure 1. Treatment Levels ...... 18 Figure 2. Riparian Conservation Areas ...... 67 Figure 3. Bald Eagle Habitat in the Grass Valley Fuels Reduction Project Area ...... 126 Figure 4. California Spotted Owl Occupancy ...... 137 Figure 5. California Spotted Owl Habitat ...... 145

Page 9

Acronyms and Abbreviations Used BA Biological Assessment for species and habitats designated under the Endangered Species Act BE Biological Evaluation for Forest Service Sensitive species BMP Best management practices BNSF Burlington North-Santa Fe railroad BO Biological Opinion rendered by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Caltrans California Department of Transportation CDFA California Department of Food and Agriculture CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife CEQ Council on Environmental Quality CFR Code of Federal Regulations CNDDB California natural diversity database CNPS California native plant society DAU Deer assessment unit DBH Diameter at breast height E Endangered species (listed under the Endangered Species Act) EIS Environmental impact statement FSH Forest service handbook FSM Forest service manual GIS Geographic information system GPS Global positioning system HRC Home Range Core for California spotted owl LMP San Bernardino National Forest Land management plan (2006) (also called Forest Plan) LOP Limited operating period NFS National Forest System NRCS Natural resource conservation service NRIS Natural resource inventory system NS Nest Stand for California spotted owl P Proposed – species proposed for listing under the Endangered Species Act PAC Protected activity center for California spotted owl RCA Riparian conservation area S Forest Service Sensitive species SBCM San Bernardino County Museum SBNF San Bernardino National Forest SSC California Department of Fish and Wildlife Species of Special Concern SCE Southern California Edison T Threatened species (listed under the Endangered Species Act) USFS U.S. Forest Service USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service USGS U.S. Geological Survey W Watch List species

Page 10

PART I: INTRODUCTION

This document contains analysis of effects to plants and animals from the proposed Grass Valley Fuels Reduction project. It has six chapters:  Part I is an introduction with the project description, methods, and management direction.  Part II describes the existing environment in the project area and addresses general potential effects to species and habitats in the project area. Subsequent sections of this document may refer to the general effects discussion in Part II.  Part III is a Biological Assessment (BA) of effects to federally-listed Threatened (T), Endangered (E), Proposed (P), and Candidate (C) plant and animal species and Critical Habitat.  Part IV is a Biological Evaluation (BE) of effects to species that are on the Regional Forester’s Sensitive (S) species list.  Part V contains the Botany and Wildlife Reports that address viability of SBNF Watch List species, other rare species, and other species of special interest.  Part VI is a Non-Native Species Risk Assessment.

These reports are required for all Forest Service funded, executed, authorized, or permitted programs and activities.

I-1.0 – METHODS Species Considered and Species Accounts: Each chapter of this multiple purpose report contains the current list of special status species considered during the surveys and in the analysis of potential effects. Only those species with known occurrences or considered to have a high likelihood of occurrence in the project areas are discussed in depth in these analyses. Scientific nomenclature and common names for species referred to in this report follow those used in the Forest Plan (USFS 2006). In some cases, where nomenclature has been officially changed, newer names are used but the changes will be explained.

Species Accounts for the current SBNF Threatened, Endangered, Proposed, Candidate, Sensitive and Watch (TEPCSW) lists are contained in the SBNF Forest Plan (USFS 2005b). These species accounts include information on status of populations and habitat, natural history, risks, conservation considerations, and viability analyses. These species accounts are incorporated by reference into this analysis and are not repeated in full. Newer data or information relevant for the species accounts will be included in discussions and identified as new information since the Forest Plan.

All of the rare species that were considered and those that were evaluated in detail are included in Tables 12, 13, 15, 16, 28, and 29. Excluded species were dropped from further analysis by meeting one or more of the following conditions: 1) the species does not occur nor is expected to occur in the analysis area during the time activities would occur; 2) required habitat type (e.g., general vegetation types, host plants, nesting

Page 11 substrate, etc.) is not present in the analysis area or the required habitat type would not affected by project activities; 3) the analysis area is outside the geographical or elevational range of the species; 4) the nearest occurrences of the species are not connected and the species is not likely to be able to move into the federal analysis area; or, 5) the species is so rare and in such low densities that occurrence is very unlikely.

Pre-Field Reviews: Pre-field reviews were conducted to determine which species are known from the area or have suitable habitat present and could potentially occur. Biological resources data relevant to the project area were obtained through literature review, existing reports, and field investigations. Sources reviewed include California Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB), California Native Plant Society Rare Plant Inventory, Consortium of California Herbaria, SBNF NRIS occurrence databases, E-Bird, Rare Bird Alerts, results from previous species-specific surveys in the area, field guides and other project-related analyses.

In addition, data from past project-related surveys and analyses done near the project area were also considered in this analysis.

Botanical Surveys and Survey Limitations: Field surveys for botanical resources were conducted in portions of the project area in June and July 2014 by Forest Service botanists Scott Eliason, Mary Crawford, and Adrienne Simmons. Field surveys focused on a number of primary objectives: 1) recording of dominant vegetation communities, 2) floristic plant surveys, 3) focused rare plant surveys, and 4) focused weed surveys. Observations of all plant species were documented (Appendix A). During the surveys, all previously-recorded rare plant occurrences within the project area that had not been documented for over 5 years were revisited and recorded to current information standards (GPS and NRIS-standard occurrence fields).

Botanical surveys were performed at times of year when most plant species would be detectable. All focal species that could occur in the project area had moderate to high detectability during surveys. The likelihood of failing to detect these species in areas surveyed is considered low, though the likelihood that some occurrences of these species were missed is moderate to high depending on the species.

Wildlife Surveys and Survey Limitations: Sensitive biological resources present, or potentially present were identified through review of existing data, including CNDDB, SBNF habitat mapping, SBNF and San Bernardino County Museum (SBCM) occurrence records, NRIS occurrence records, and other past survey data. There have been a number of surveys conducted in the Grass Valley, Tunnel Two Ridge, and Miller Canyon area (Table 2). Observations reported from all of these survey records have been incorporated in this analysis.

Page 12

Table 2. Survey Records in/near the Project Area Project Dates Names of Surveyors Miller Canyon Fuels Reduction Project June/July 2004 Betsy Hammon Feb, May, June 2006 Ray Aguayo, Jeff Goldberg Enduro Event 2001 Sherri Sullivan, Robin Butler Eliason, Carla Wakeman Habitat assessment and surveys for 2003, 2004, 2005 San Bernardino County Museum southwestern willow flycatcher and rare amphibians - East Fork of the West Fork Mojave River Threatened/Endangered - East Fork of April 2000 and June USGS (Brown and Fisher 2001) the West Fork Mojave River 2001 San Bernardino flying squirrel studies - 2014 and 2015 University of Arizona Grass Valley fire area Bald Eagle Radio-Telemetry Study 1991-1994 SBNF and Silverwood Lake biologists General Surveys June - July 2016 Drew Farr, Cesar Garcia, Lauren Richardson, Tori Zimmerman, Robin Eliason

The survey data include detections of animals (e.g., sight, calls, tracks, scat, or other sign). In addition to species actually observed, expected wildlife usage of the area was determined according to known habitat preferences of wildlife species, on-site habitat suitability/conditions, and knowledge of their relative distributions in the area.

The focus of the faunal species surveys was to identify habitat suitability for special- status wildlife within the project area in order to predict those species with a higher probability of occurrence in the project area. Because a species was not detected does not mean that the species does not occur in the project area. Surveys or wildlife species have the inherent limitation that absence is difficult or impossible to determine. This is especially true for wildlife species with secretive behaviors, are in very low numbers, or are otherwise difficult to detect.

In conjunction with the USFWS, the Forest Service used computer models to identify likely habitat for T/E species in 1999–2000. The modeled habitat in the project area is considered suitable for unless site-specific evaluations determine that it is not suitable for the target species. SBCM and SBNF biologists assessed some of the modeled habitat in the project area in terms of suitability for these two species. Drought conditions were taken into consideration during these habitat assessments.

Supporting Documentation Other members of the Interdisciplinary Team for the Grass Valley Fuels Reduction project conducted similar analyses of effects and prepared reports. Those reports include Transportation/Operations (Yurczyk 2018), Vegetation/Silviculture (Waterston 2018), Air Quality (Williams 2018), and Watershed (Wells 2018). The discussions in those reports are incorporated by reference and were used in the biology evaluation to understand the potential effects of those resources as they relate to biological issues.

Page 13

I-2.0 – APPLICABLE MANAGEMENT DIRECTION Applicable requirements and direction may be found in the SBNF Forest Plan, Endangered Species Act, National Forest Management Act, Forest Service Manual, Migratory Bird Treaty Act, Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, and Department of Agriculture 9500-4 Regulations.

Project-applicable direction is summarized below. Species-specific discussions may also describe relevant management direction. Appendix B contains additional details of jurisdictions, legal requirements, and management direction that are applicable to this project.

Forest Plan Land Use Zones and/or Special Area Designations Forest Plan Land Use Zones in the project area are Developed Area Interface (DAI), Backcountry, Backcountry Non-Motorized, and Backcountry Motorized Use Restricted. There are no special land use designations (e.g., Research Natural Area, Special Interest Area, Wild and Scenic River). The SBNF is divided, by the Forest Plan, into a series of geographic units called “Places.” Each Place has a theme, setting, desired condition, and program emphasis identified in the Forest Plan. The entire Grass Valley project is in the “Arrowhead Place,” which consists of Lake Arrowhead and surrounding communities. The Grass Valley is only a very small amount of the Arrowhead place. The following desired condition and program emphasis descriptions are pertinent for this project as it applies to the Arrowhead Place (USDA 2005b, Forest Plan Part 1, pp. 45-48):

“Desired Condition: The Arrowhead Place is maintained as a natural appearing landscape that functions as a recreation retreat setting with seasonal influences. The built environment is that of a mountain village with the dominant material of wood and stone accents. Chaparral and forested areas are managed to provide fire protection for adjacent communities, recreation areas and wildlife habitat. Habitat conditions for threatened, endangered, proposed and sensitive species are improving over time; invasive nonnative species are reduced. Accurate National Forest boundaries are established and maintained. Heritage resources are identified, protected, and interpreted through establishment of tribal partnerships. A wide variety of recreation uses will be promoted, where appropriate and environmentally sustainable.

Program Emphasis: Community protection from wildland fire is of the highest priority, and will be emphasized through public education, fire prevention, and fuels management. Forest health projects will be implemented to remove dead trees and reduce stand density that will result in a more natural pattern of low intensity fires and return intervals. In addition, these projects will focus on returning forest ecosystems to a more healthy condition. Reforestation projects will maintain tree diversity. Reforestation projects will maintain tree diversity. Conservation education, with a focus on the demonstration and interpretation of healthy forests, will be emphasized to enhance the experience of visitors and promote stewardship. Building joint community based partnerships will be emphasized for resource protection and restoration.

Page 14

Heritage properties are identified, preserved and interpreted for their scientific values, tribal interests and public enjoyment. Enhancement of wildlife habitat and recovery of threatened, endangered and sensitive species will be emphasized in all management activities. Maintaining the unique biological diversity and regional habitat linkages and removal of invasive nonnative species will be emphasized.

Accurate National Forest boundaries will be reestablished and maintained. The National Forest will continue to work closely with developers, planners and local officials to reduce resource impacts and conflicts on National Forest lands from nearby development.

A wide variety of dispersed recreation opportunities are maintained over time. The OHV route system is improved and unauthorized use is directed to system roads and trails. Watershed management will be emphasized, as will restoration of areas burned in catastrophic wildland fires.”

Forest Plan Direction The Forest Plan includes forest goals and desired conditions for resources, strategic management direction, and guidance for designing actions and activities (Design Features) during project planning. Applicable Forest Plan direction has been incorporated into the project design.

The Forest Plan includes several goals applicable to this project: Goal 1.2 – Restore forest health where alteration of natural fire regimes has put human and natural resource values at risk (USDA 2005b, Forest Plan, Part 1, pg. 21). Goal 6.2 – Provide ecological conditions to sustain viable populations of native and desired nonnative species (USDA 2005b, Forest Plan, Part 1, pg. 46).

The desired condition is that habitats for federally-listed species are conserved, and listed species are recovered or are moving toward recovery. Habitats for Sensitive species and other species of concern are to be managed to prevent downward trends in populations or habitat quality and to prevent listing. (Forest Plan, Part 1, pg. 46).

The Forest Plan includes several standards applicable to rare plants and animals and this project:  S11: When occupied or suitable habitat for a threatened, endangered, proposed, candidate or sensitive (TEPCS) species is present on an ongoing or proposed project site, consider species guidance documents (see Appendix H) to develop project-specific or activity-specific design criteria. This guidance is intended to provide a range of possible conservation measures that may be selectively applied during site-specific planning to avoid, minimize or mitigate negative long-term effects on threatened, endangered, proposed, candidate or sensitive species and habitat. Involve appropriate resource specialists in the identification of relevant design criteria. Include review of species guidance documents in fire suppression or other emergency actions when and to the extent practicable. (Forest Plan, Part 3, pg. 6)

Page 15

 S12: When implementing new projects in areas that provide for threatened, endangered, proposed, and candidate species, use design criteria and conservation practices (see Appendix H) so that discretionary uses and facilities promote the conservation and recovery of these species and their habitats. Accept short-term impacts where long-term effects would provide a net benefit for the species and its habitat where needed to achieve multiple-use objectives. Species-specific Forest Plan direction is presented in the species discussions. (Forest Plan, Part 3, pg. 6)

I-3.0 – DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES Alternative 1 – No Action Under the no action alternative there would be no project related cutting or mastication of trees and shrubs, prescribed burning, or equipment use. Dead and dying trees would continue to increase surface and standing dead fuel loading over time. This could result in an increase in fire suppression complexity, may present severe control problems, and conditions may be unsafe for firefighters.

Alternative 2 –Proposed Action Under the proposed action, the Forest Service proposes to:  Conduct fuels reduction and vegetation management activities on approximately 1,043 acres, including reforestation and planting with site-appropriate species;  Treat non-native plants by manual methods only;  Repair damaged infrastructure including trails and roads;  Remove danger trees of all sizes in the entire project area. Details of each action are more fully described below.

Fuels Reduction and Vegetation Management Activities Within the project area, there would be four different treatment levels that encompass approximately 1,043 total treatment acres (Table 3). The project area also includes 227 acres of “no treatment” areas. Figure 1 displays the location of each of the treatment levels.

Table 3. Treatment Levels Treatment Level Intent Acres* 1 Shaded fuelbreak 193 1a Shaded fuelbreak in spotted owl or bald eagle habitat 172 3 Fuels reduction 298 4 Fuels reduction in spotted owl and bald eagle habitat 350 4a Fuels reduction in spotted owl nest stand 30 Total (all treatment levels) 1,043 *Acres figures approximate

These treatment levels have been designated across the project area based on guidance set forth under the current management direction and from input from project resource specialists, members of the public during the public scoping process. The objectives of treatment are to provide for community protection, firefighter safety, and restoration of

Page 16 the burned landscape. Reforestation of native conifer species is proposed within all of the treatment levels. A variety of treatment methods (Table 4) would be used in all the treatment levels to accomplish the fuels reduction and vegetation management objectives. These treatment methods would vary by site conditions and may include mastication, tractor, cable- skyline, as well as tractor (ground based).

Table 4. Treatment Method by Treatment Levels across the Project Area (Acres) Treatment Method 1 1a 3 4 4a Total Cable / Skyline 16 33 47 130 28 254 Hand (Manual Labor) 18 40 21 75 0 154 Helicopter 6 2 9 54 0 71 Mastication 132 42 182 54 0 410 Tractor 21 55 39 37 2 154 Total 193 172 298 350 30 1,043

Treatment Level 1 Treatment Level 1 would be the most intensive treatment proposed and would generally be located along Forest Service system roads, and along ownership boundaries, adjacent to private land and homes. The primary objective of this treatment would be to reduce live vegetation and fuels to a level that would most effectively prevent fire spread potential during a wildland fire event. Treatment Level 1 would result in an open forest structure with no standing dead trees, down logs, or other fuels on the ground.

Combinations of treatment methods would be used to achieve objectives; methods would vary based on current vegetation types and fuel loading. In tree-dominated areas, the desired condition is an open structure average no more than 40 percent canopy closure with an overstory featuring large diameter trees with 20-foot spacing between individual crows (or groups of trees) and an understory of grasses, forbs and small shrubs. The canopy base height is 8 feet or greater or up to one third of the tree height, whichever is less. In shrub-dominated areas, the desired condition is scattered trees emerging from a discontinuous patches of shrubs. Shrubs would be removed from beneath the drip lines and an average of 10 percent or less shrub cover would remain.

Treatment Level 1 would generally be used in two locations: 1) a 100 foot buffer on USFS-managed lands adjacent to private lands, and; 2) a 200 to 600 foot wide buffer (100 to 300 feet on each side) of USFS roads 2N33, 2N34 and 2N37.

Treatment Level 1 would be implemented on approximately 193 acres.

Treatment Level 1a This treatment is similar to Treatment Level 1, but slightly less intensive. Treatment Level 1a would be conducted along USFS managed road corridors where there is habitat for California spotted owls, bald eagles, or San Bernardino flying squirrels.

Page 17

Figure 1. Treatment Levels

Page 18

For all vegetation types the objective is to provide for protection along evacuation routes without fragmenting, substantially degrading, or eliminating spotted owl, bald eagle habitat or San Bernardino flying squirrels. In Treatment Level 1a areas, the existing canopy closure made up of overstory and midstory trees would be retained while focusing on treating understory ladder fuels and crown fuels. The canopy base height is eight feet or greater or up to one third of the tree height, whichever is less. The first 50 feet from the road would be intensively treated; the remainder of the width of the fuelbreak would be less intensively treated.

Specifically, the following guidelines would be used in Treatment Level 1a area:  Shrub cover would average of 10 percent or less cover within the first 50 feet of either side of road or ridge. For the remainder of the width: some shrubs will be cleared from inside the driplines of trees; shrub cover averages 30-50 percent or less.  In Spotted Owl nest stands and Protected Activity Centers: o All live trees equal to or greater than nine-inch diameter at breast height (DBH) will be retained and the treatment will be designed so as to retain the existing canopy closure levels (made up by mid- and over-story trees). o Nest trees will be identified and protected from damage and disturbance during treatment implementation. o A minimum of four logs per acre (minimum 12 inches in diameter and 80 linear feet) will be retained.  In Spotted Owl Home Range Cores and Suitable Habitat: o Same as nest stands and Protected Activity Centers, except that all live trees equal to or greater than 16-inch DBH would be retained.

Treatment Level 1a would be implemented on is approximately 172 acres.

Treatment Level 3 Treatment Level 3 is proposed for areas that within the Wildland-Urban Interface Defense Zone but are outside of all identified spotted owl and bald eagle habitats. The objective is to reduce the potential for stand replacing fires by reducing crown bulk density, and surface and canopy fuels. The focus of this treatment level is to break up the continuity of the canopy fuels where it exists, and to change fire behavior under 90th percentile fire weather conditions so that flame length and rates of spread are reduced. For areas that are overly dense, this would involve reducing the density of trees through thinning from below, and removal of dead and dying trees, and pruning of residual trees.

For all vegetation types, the desired condition is an open structure averaging 40 to 50 percent canopy closure, an overstory featuring large diameter trees with 10 to 20 foot spacing between individual tree crowns (or groups of trees), and an understory of grasses, forbs, and small shrubs. Shrub cover would be discontinuous and patchy with most shrubs in a mosaic pattern outside of tress drip lines. The canopy base height is 8 feet or greater or up to one third of the tree height, whichever is less.

Page 19

Sufficient down wood and snags would be retained (where they exist) to meet Forest Plan standards. Prescribed broadcast burning may also be used. A combination of methods would be used to achieve the desired condition.

Treatment Level 3 would be implemented on approximately 298 acres.

Treatment Level 4 Treatment Level 4 was specifically designed for habitat diversity with an emphasis on several species known from the project area (spotted owls, bald eagles, and San Bernardino flying squirrels) while treating fuels in order to improve community protection and habitat resiliency during fires.

The treatment objective is to reduce the potential for crown fire to be sustained in these areas, while maintaining habitat suitability. The desired condition is a stand with moderate to dense structure with a canopy closure of 70 to 100 percent where it exists pre-treatment. In areas where this does not exist, the existing canopy closure would not be reduced below the existing cover. The existing overstory and midstory trees would be retained while focusing on treating understory and ladder fuels.

The desired stand composition is a mix of pines, white fir, bigcone Douglas fir, black oak and large live oaks. The canopy base height is 8 feet or greater or up to one third of the tree height, whichever is less. The desired condition of the understory and shrub layers is to have discontinuity in the fuels and fuel ladders while retaining shrub cover and forage for prey species such as woodrats. Additionally, the desired condition is to maintain habitat components and features important to flying squirrels, bald eagles, and spotted owls. Most retained shrubs would be in a mosaic pattern outside of the tree drip lines.

All of the Level 4 treatments are designed to reduce stand density and competition while maintaining critical habitat components with specific habitat emphasis for spotted owls. Level 4 treatments would follow these guidelines:

 A minimum of 40 of the largest snags per five acres would be retained for habitat and coarse woody debris.  A minimum of nine large down logs with a minimum size of 12 inches in diameter and totaling approximately 180 linear feet would be retained per acre.  Some shrubs will be cleared from inside the drip lines of trees. Average shrub cover would be 30 to 50 percent outside the drip lines.  All existing woodrat nests and middens will be flagged for avoidance.  Nest trees will be identified and protected from damage and disturbance during treatment implementation.  Retention of some low branches in Protected Activity Centers, nest stands, and Home Range Cores for perch sites is important during ladder fuel treatments and will be considered where it does not compromise the integrity of fuels reduction efforts.  The treatment objective is to reduce the potential for crown fire to be sustained in these stands, while maintaining habitat suitability.  The desired condition is a stand with moderate to dense structure with a canopy cover of 70 -100 percent. The existing overstory and midstory trees would be retained while focusing on treating understory and ladder fuels.

Page 20

 The desired stand composition is a mix of pines, white fir, bigcone Douglas fir, black oak, and large live oaks.  Canopy base height averages 10 to 15 feet.  Understory and shrub layers would have discontinuity in the fuels and fuel ladders while shrub cover and forage would be retained for flying squirrels and spotted owl prey species (e.g., woodrats). Most retained shrubs would be in a mosaic pattern outside of tree drip lines. The design features describe specific measures intended to attain these condition and stand objectives.  All live trees equal to or greater than 9-inch DBH will be retained and the treatment will be designed so as to retain the existing canopy closure levels (made up by mid- and over-story trees).

Treatment Level 4 would be implemented in approximately 350 acres.

Treatment Level 4a Treatment Level 4a is a slight modification of Treatment Level 4. In general, treatments are avoided in known spotted owl Nest Stands. However, for this project, there is a need to treat in one Nest Stand (SB050) because of the location on the landscape and proximity to private land developments. This Nest Stand was substantially altered during the 2007 Grass Valley Fire and has not been occupied since.

The treatment objectives and desired stand composition would be the same as described under Treatment Level 4. The treatment objectives and desired stand composition would be the same as described under Treatment Level 4. The difference between the two treatment levels is in the snag and downed wood retention levels and that broadcast burning is also planned in the Level 4a area. Level 4a treatments would be the same as those described above for Level 4 with these differences:

 All snags over nine-inch DBH would be retained, except where they pose a hazard to life and property.  All existing logs over 12 inches in diameter would be retained.  All live trees would be retained.  Trees and tree-like shrubs would be limbed two feet from the ground.  Ladder fuels would be removed within the drip line of green trees and around retention snags.  A masticator would be used to break up the continuity of the brush layer focusing on areas under trees.  Prescribed fire may be used to treat brush layers. The design features contain pre-burn and burn plan measures to protect trees and important habitat features from collateral damage during burn operations.  Treatment Level 4a would be implemented in approximately 30 acres.

Treatment Level 4a would be implemented in approximately 30 acres.

Table 5 displays treatment level conditions and desired post-treatment conditions.

Page 21

Table 5. Desired Condition Matrix Treatment Fire Width / Location Vegetation Hard Down Desired Desired Stand Structure and Cover 2 level Behavior Type Snag Wood Shrub Objective 1 Retention Retention Canopy closure 1 Reduce Establish shaded Conifer / None None No shrubs For Conifer/Hardwood Forest: The desired flame fuelbreaks along Hardwood (except under the condition is an open structure averaging no lengths to 4 corridors in the Forest and rotting dripline of more than 40% canopy closure with an feet or less project area, Montane and soft trees. An overstory featuring large diameter trees with under 90th including: Chaparral logs) average of 20-foot spacing between individual crowns percentile 100 feet buffer 10% or less (or groups of trees) and an understory of weather adjacent to private shrub cover grasses, forbs and small shrubs. The canopy conditions land, on USFS overall base height is 8 feet or greater or up to one managed lands third of the tree height, whichever is less. 300 feet on each side of USFS roads For Montane Chaparral: The desired condition 2N33, 2N34, 2N37, is scattered trees emerging from discontinuous where other patches of chaparral. The canopy base height resource is 8 feet or greater or up to one third of the constraints do not tree height, whichever is less. occur 1a Reduce Shaded fuelbreaks Conifer / A A An average of The existing canopy closure made up of flame along road Hardwood minimum minimum 10% or less overstory and midstory trees would be lengths to 4 corridors in spotted Forest & of 2 of the of 4 logs cover within retained while focusing on treating understory feet or less owl and bald eagle Montane largest per acre the first 50 feet ladder and surface fuels. under 90th habitat of variable Chaparral hard snags would be from a road or The canopy base height is 8 feet or greater or percentile width of 100 to 300 per acre retained private land. up to one third of the tree height, whichever is weather feet along roads (outside of (minimum For the less. The first 50’ from the road would be conditions falling 12” in remainder of more intensively treated; the remainder of the distance diameter the width, width of the fuelbreak would be less from and 80 some shrubs intensively treated. roads) linear will be cleared feet) from within the driplines of trees; shrub cover averages 30 to 50% or less 3 Limited In areas outside of Conifer / A A No shrubs An open structure averaging 40 to 50% passive all identified Hardwood minimum minimum inside the drip canopy closure, an overstory featuring large crown fire Spotted Owl and Forest & of 15 of of 9 lines of trees; diameter trees with 10 to 20 foot spacing

Page 22

Table 5. Desired Condition Matrix Treatment Fire Width / Location Vegetation Hard Down Desired Desired Stand Structure and Cover 2 level Behavior Type Snag Wood Shrub Objective 1 Retention Retention Canopy closure and no Bald Eagle Montane the largest downed shrub cover between individual tree crowns (or groups of active Habitats, but within Chaparral hard snags logs per overall trees), and an understory of grasses, forbs, and crown fire WUI Defense Zone per 5 acre averages 40% small shrubs. Shrub cover would be under 90th acres would be or less discontinuous and patchy with most shrubs in percentile retained a mosaic pattern outside of tree drip lines. The weather (minimum canopy base height is 8 feet or greater or up to conditions 12 inches one third of the tree height, whichever is less. diameter or the largest available, and 180 linear feet) 4 Limited In habitat for Conifer / A A Some shrubs Stands with a moderate to dense structure passive spotted owls, bald Hardwood minimum minimum will be cleared with a high canopy closure. Facilitate post-fire crown fire eagles, and San Forest of 40 of of 9 from inside the recovery of habitat conditions for special and no Bernardino flying the largest downed drip lines of status species. The existing canopy cover active squirrels hard snags logs per trees. Average would not be reduced. The existing overstory crown fire per 5 acre shrub cover and midstory trees would be retained while under 90th acres would be would be 30- focusing on treating understory and ladder percentile would be retained 50% outside fuels. The desired stand composition is a mix weather retained (minimum the drip lines. of pines, white fir, big cone Douglas fir, black conditions of 12 oak, and large live oaks. The canopy base inches height is 8 feet or greater or up to one third of diameter the tree height, whichever is less, with some or the low branches 5-20’ off the ground for perch largest sites. available, and 180 linear feet) 4a Limited In spotted owl nest Conifer / All snags All Same as TL 4. Same as TL 4. passive stand SB050 Hardwood over 9 existing crown fire Forest inches logs over and no diameter 12 inches active breast diameter

Page 23

Table 5. Desired Condition Matrix Treatment Fire Width / Location Vegetation Hard Down Desired Desired Stand Structure and Cover 2 level Behavior Type Snag Wood Shrub Objective 1 Retention Retention Canopy closure crown fire height would be under 90th would be retained. percentile retained. weather conditions Hazard trees would be removed. 1 The 90th percentile weather from the most representative weather station is used to model fire behavior during late summer and fall afternoons. Under 90th percentile weather conditions, 10% of the days, or about 15 days will be hotter, drier, and windier. 2 The Regional Hazard Tree Guidelines (USDA 2012) would be followed in all treatment levels.

Page 24

Prescribed Fire/Broadcast Burning Some of the treatment levels described above would also receive prescribed fire/broadcast burning when all other fuels reduction work is complete. The purpose would be to reduce surface fuel loading in both existing and activity generated fuels, as well as restore process level function to the ecosystem. Prescribed fire would be applied under conditions that are specified by site- specific burn plans. Multiple entries of prescribed fire may be required to accomplish the desired reduction in surface fuel loading to reach the desired condition. Once that desired condition has been met, prescribed fire may then be used as a management tool at intervals that would more closely mimic the pre-European settlement fire regime.

Brush Piles To provide habitat for rare reptiles and amphibians and for prey species of spotted owls, scattered brush piles would be established to a minimum of two piles per acre in Treatment Level 3 and 4 treatment areas. Where it can be done without compromising the objectives of the shaded fuelbreak, a minimum of two piles per acre would be established in Treatment Level 1 and 1a areas.

Reforestation and Planting of Native Species Reforestation treatments are proposed as part of the vegetation management activities associated with the Grass Valley project. Reforestation would be conducted using locally-collected seed for native conifer species. Seedlings would be grown in a nursery and then planted in the project area. The conifer trees would be genetically suited to the project area with the seeds being from the same seed zone and elevational gradients. The objective of reforestation is to create new stands of conifers in areas that were previously-forested, but were affected by the Grass Valley fire of 2007. The fire caused a significant change to site conditions and vital habitat features were lost; the goal of planting is to re-establish a forested ecosystem. Locally appropriate native conifer species would be planted.

Other native plant species may be planted or seeded within the project area as necessary to restore ecological conditions that have been altered as a result of the wildland fire. Examples of this could include spreading native grass seeds or planting shrubs or other perennials to help with soil stability and species diversity.

Non Native Plants Treatments Within the project area, there are numerous documented occurrences of non-native plants (Table 6). A non-native plant is a plant that is not part of the natural ecosystem at a site but has been introduced intentionally or accidentally. Non-native plants can be highly competitive for site resources and may displace native plant communities. This, in turn, can affect animals that depend on those vegetation communities.

At the date of last inventory, approximately 54 acres of non-native plants were documented and recorded. Many of these plants are a result of human activity (including fire suppression efforts), past grazing practices, off-road driving, and the dumping of landscape vegetation clippings and lawn debris. Many non-native plants thrive in disturbed habitats such as burned areas or areas disturbed by off-road vehicles.

Page 25

Manual treatments (hand pulling, use of hand tools, etc.) would be conducted to reduce the incidence and occurrence of these non-native species.

Table 6. Known Non-Native Plants in the Project Area Lifeform Common Name Scientific Name Forb / Herbaceous Black mustard Brassica nigra Forb / Herbaceous Bull thistle Cirsium vulgare Forb / Herbaceous Common mullein Verbascum thapsus Forb / Herbaceous Feverfew Tanacetum parthenium Shrub Orange eye butterfly bush Buddleja davidii Shrub Scotch broom Cytisus scoparius Shrub Spanish broom Spartium junceum Forb / Herbaceous Sweetclover Melilotus albus Forb / Herbaceous Sweetclover Melilotus officinalis Forb / Herbaceous Tall tumblemustard Sisymbrium altissimum

The treatment of non-native plants would include those areas identified already and would also include new occurrences that are found in the future. Since the area is heavily-used by humans, the likelihood of new occurrences is very high. This analysis is intended to include any new infestations that are located in the future. Treatment methods would remain the same and all applicable design features would be applied.

Repair of Damaged Infrastructure Within the project area, there is damaged infrastructure, such as trails, roads, low water crossings, and some road drainage features, that has resulted from changed hydrologic cycle and human uses. The hydrologic cycle changes are associated with the loss of vegetation and ground cover (litter) after the 2007 fire resulting in higher rates of overland water flow (surface runoff) and erosion as there is less canopy and litter to slow or capture precipitation and soil infiltration rates are quickly exceeded.

Human use patterns have changed as a result of the fire because the vegetation that used to naturally discourage travel off the developed road system burned in some places. As a result, pedestrian, bike, off-highway vehicle, and equestrian access increased in areas that used to have less of these types of travel.

The repair of damages include (but are not limited to) repair and replacement of culverts, improvement of the drainage system associated with roads, road resurfacing, including cut and fill, as well as blocking of unauthorized use routes and rehabilitation of these areas. Blocking of unauthorized routs may include use of boulders, fencing, or otherwise making a barrier to vehicles. In general, the repair of damaged infrastructure is meant to be applied to areas that are being degraded from their currently approved use (either by natural events like runoff or by human uses).

The proposed action would apply approved corrective measures across the project area, while following all Best Management Practices, as well as project design features and the recommendations and professional judgement of resource specialists. At the time of this analysis, the areas that need improvement have been identified and are included in the project record; Page 26

however, prior or during implementation, more new problem sites may be identified. The objective for repair of damaged infrastructure is to fix what is known now and continue to repair and correct what comes up in the future, due to natural or human caused issues. This is a broad proposal that is generally related to normal hydrologic function as well as managing unauthorized uses and is intended to be applied across the entire project area.

Danger Tree Removal Throughout the entire analysis area, danger (synonymous with “hazard”) trees of all sizes would be removed. This includes areas that are within the treatment levels, as well as the entire analysis area. Designation of danger trees would follow Region 5 Report RO#-12-01 “Hazard Tree Guidelines for Forest Service Facilities and Roads in the Pacific Southwest Region.” These guidelines provide a means to identify trees that pose a hazard because they are likely to fail and pose a threat to human life and property. The proposed action would be consistent with direction for hazard tree identification across Region 5.

Danger trees would be identified based on the key factor that there be a target for the tree if it were to become unstable and fail. This means that the danger trees are located in striking distance and proximity to a developed area, road, trail, or area where human use is authorized and prevalent. A primary objective of implementation of the hazard tree guidelines is to use a systematic approach to identify and remove trees that have defects or damage that may cause injury to people or damage to property. The objective of removing hazard trees is to reduce risk. Removal of hazard trees is well incorporated into all Forest Service policies; this document will assess the environmental effects of removal of these trees within the Grass Valley project area.

Project Design Features Non-Native Plants Invasive Plants 1. All mechanized equipment to be used off system roads will be cleaned prior to entering the project area. If equipment is operated within areas known to be infested with non-native invasive plants (e.g., yellow star thistle and Spanish broom), equipment will also be cleaned prior to moving to units without these species or demobilizing from the project area. Project- related contracts will include provisions that require equipment cleaning before and during project implementation. 2. Mulches will be from on-site sources (e.g., chipped wood, etc.). If on-site mulch sources are not available, use of off-site source material will be reviewed by a Forest Service botanist to ensure measures are taken to avoid non-native plant introduction and spread. 3. Sources of any plant material (straw, wattles, etc.) from off-site sources needed during project implementation (e.g., erosion control, rehabilitation of temporary routes/landings, or route maintenance) will be reviewed by a Forest Service botanist to ensure measures are taken to avoid non-native plant introduction and spread. 4. A handout will be prepared for the project administrator to identify target weed species and to educate contractors, adjacent landowners, etc.

Spanish Broom 1. Seedlings and young plants will be hand-pulled where possible. Larger plants will be removed using a pry-bar-type tool (weed wrench) where feasible and effective.

Page 27

2. Pulling, cutting, and chipping in the area infested with Spanish broom will not occur when the plants contain seed, or cut biomass will remain in place and burned, or chipping would direct chips back into infested areas only. 3. Transport of removed invasive plants with seeds or vegetation propagules will occur in enclosed disposal containers or in an enclosed vehicle. Invasive plants to be disposed of off- site will be taken to a facility (i.e., landfill) that contains the disposed items. If burning of removed invasive plants occurs, burn pile sites will be monitored the following year to assess potential needs for revegetation or additional invasive plant removal treatments. 4. After working in areas infested with Spanish broom, all equipment (including hand equipment such as chainsaws) and all vehicles taken off road will be cleaned before moving to areas that are not currently infested with Spanish. 5. For any new Spanish broom infestations located near special status plant and wildlife species, a botanist or wildlife biologist will evaluate and prescribe appropriate protection measures. 6. Areas with bare soil created by the treatment of invasive plants will be evaluated for restoration to prevent further infestations by the same or new invasive plant(s) as noted in the restoration plan. Whenever possible, non-target vegetation will be protected at treatment sites in order to minimize the creation of exposed ground and the potential for re-colonization of invasive plants. A Forest Service botanist will be consulted prior to any restoration implementation.

Prescribed Fire 1. All prescribed burning (broadcast burning and pile burning) will follow the guidelines set forth in a prescribed burn plan developed specifically for this project. Prescribed burning will only be initiated when relative humidity, temperature and soil moisture conditions are optimal for meeting treatment unit fuel objectives. The prescribed burn plan will address parameters for weather, air quality, contingency resources, potential escapes, and personnel and public safety. 2. Burn plans will be developed where prescribed fire (broadcast burning and pile burning) is planned to treat understory fuels and slash. 3. Burn plans will include objectives to avoid or minimize creating water-repellent soil conditions to the extent practicable considering fuel load, fuel and soil moisture levels, fire residence times, and burn intensity. 4. Burns will be planned to use natural or in-place barriers that reduce or limit fire spread, such as roads, canals, utility rights-of-way, barren or low fuel hazard areas, streams, lakes, or wetland features, where practicable, to minimize the need for fireline construction. 5. Prescribed fire treatments will be conducted by appropriately planning pile size, fuel piece size limits, spacing, and burn prescriptions for slash disposal in a manner that encourages efficient burning to minimize effects on soil, water quality, and riparian resources while achieving treatment objectives. 6. Prescribed fire will be avoided when conditions will cause the fire to burn too hot and damage soils conditions. 7. Low-intensity prescribed fire will be used on steep slopes or highly erodible soils when prescribed fire is the only practicable means to achieve project objectives in these areas. 8. Burn Plans will include the following: Page 28

a. Identification of the type, width, and location of firebreaks or firelines. b. Firelines will be located and constructed in a manner that minimizes erosion and runoff from directly entering waterbodies by considering site slope and soil conditions, and using and maintaining suitable water and erosion control measures. c. Firelines in areas that pose a risk to water quality (riparian conservation areas and wetlands) will be rehabilitated or otherwise stabilized. 9. Prescribed fire will only be used in riparian conservation areas when suitable to achieve long- term desired conditions and management objectives. Firelines in riparian conservation areas will use the following guidelines: a. Avoid building firelines in or around riparian conservation areas unless needed to protect life, property, or wetlands. b. Construct any essential firelines in riparian conservation areas in a manner that minimizes the amount of area and soil disturbed. c. Keep high-intensity fire out of riparian conservation areas unless suitable measures are used to avoid or minimize adverse effects to water quality. d. Avoid or minimize complete removal of the organic layer when burning in riparian conservation areas or wetlands to maintain soil productivity, infiltration capacity, and nutrient retention. e. Areas burned within riparian conservation areas must be left in a condition such that waste, including ash, soils, or debris will not discharge to a waterbody. 10. The completed burn areas will be evaluated to identify sites that may need stabilization treatments or monitoring to minimize soil and site productivity loss and deterioration of water quality both on and off the site. a. Use suitable measures to limit human and vehicle access to site as needed to allow for recovery of vegetation. 11. Fuel for ignition devices will be stored in areas outside of riparian conservation areas. 12. Staging areas for fire equipment and crews will be kept to the smallest extent possible and outside riparian conservation areas. Staging areas will be restored and stabilized after use.

Broadcast Burning 1. Measures will be taken to reduce injury or mortality to large predominant trees during prescribed fire operations. Potential methods may include but are not limited to: a. Multiple low severity burns to reduce fuels accumulations over time. b. Burning in conditions of a moist duff layer (subject to limited operating periods), ensuring consumption of the upper layer of litter, while protecting the roots in the lower duff areas. c. Ignition techniques, such as short head runs, designed to limit residence time at the base of large trees. d. Pulling duff away from bole damage such as lighting scars and pitch seams that may cause fire to burn longer or move up into the crown. e. Tree well burning to pre-burn the area immediately surrounding the tree during moist conditions prior to stand under burning. f. Reducing large down fuels near the base of the tree to limit the heat and residence time for the tree bole and fine roots.

Page 29

g. Mixing duff and litter to encourage fine roots to grow down into the soil prior to underburning or to bring moisture to the surface to discourage fire from reaching the boles. 2. There will be no direct ignition in pre-identified avoidance or special treatment areas. Fire suppression techniques will be use to prevent fire from entering avoidance areas. The following measures apply to avoidance or special treatment areas: a. Prior to burning, avoidance or special treatment areas (e.g., rare plant and animal occurrences, spotted owl habitat, suitable southwestern willow flycatcher habitat, bald eagle night roosts, woodrat nests/middens, high quality rubber boa habitat, logs with active dens, riparian conservation areas, invasive weed occurrences, large diameter logs partially incorporated into the soil, etc.) will be identified on maps in the burn plan, delineated on the ground as needed, and project personnel will be trained on the concerns. b. The burn plan will, in coordination with the appropriate biologist or botanist, identify techniques (e.g., clearance of duff and fuels, trimming ladder fuels, wet-line, hand crew on site, etc.) to avoid or minimize adverse effects of implementation. Measures will be taken to protect important habitat features through firelines, active suppression, brush and slash treatments, etc. c. Buffers may be used around avoidance and special treatment areas. d. The burn plan will identify the areas where fire suppression tactics will be applied to immediately suppress fires that enter avoidance areas and the areas where low intensity broadcast creeping burns would not conflict with the protection objectives. 3. To protect habitat for spotted owls, bald eagles, and San Bernardino flying squirrels, broadcast burning will generally be avoided in Treatment Level 4. The following exceptions may be considered for Treatment Level 4 areas after an evaluation of effects by the District Biologist: a. Mapped spotted owl Home Range Cores and suitable habitat for territories that have not been occupied for four or more years. b. Portions of Treatment Level 4 areas that no longer support suitable habitat for spotted owls, bald eagles, and San Bernardino flying squirrels due to loss of forested stands during the 2007 Grass Valley Fire if the broadcast burning would not negatively affect forested stand recovery. c. Exceptions to the exclusion in spotted owl habitat may be considered if it is determined by a wildlife biologist that the effects would be negligible or overall beneficial for habitat conditions and prey species. d. Exceptions to the exclusion in bald eagle habitat may be considered if it is determined by a wildlife biologist that the effects to roost stand structure and microclimate conditions would be negligible or overall beneficial for habitat conditions. 4. Broadcast burn treatment is planned in a portion of the SB050 Nest Stand (identified as Level 4a treatment area) due to strategic community protection location and a lack of currently suitable nesting habitat after the Grass Valley fire. Where broadcast burning is used in Treatment Level 4 or 4a areas, the following measures will be followed: a. Measures (e.g., ladder fuel treatments within driplines, trimming ladder fuels, wet- line, hand crew on site, etc.) will be implemented prior to burning avoid adverse

Page 30

effects to spotted owl habitat features and conditions (live conifers, snags, woodrat nests, existing logs, and other features important to spotted owls and their prey). b. To minimize the loss of nesting, roosting, foraging, resting, denning and prey base habitat components (including mycorrhizal fungi), underburning will occur during conditions that do not result in more than 10 percent full consumption of down logs in the 20 inch diameter and larger size class. Conditions that limit consumption of 24- inch diameter and larger logs to 5 percent or less are preferable. This measure is also intended to minimize the potential for loss of understory layering, large snags and trees, and large down wood in nesting/roosting, resting/denning, and higher quality spotted owl and flying squirrel habitat. c. A mosaic of ground cover and woody debris will be retained for rodents and other wildlife. d. When burning in spring, smoke will be managed so that light to moderate dispersed smoke may be present within an area or drainage, but dissipates or lifts within 24 hours. Ignition will be discontinued if heavy, concentrated smoke begins to inundate the area. 5. To the greatest extent possible, broadcast burning will occur outside the primary breeding season (April 1 to August 15). Additional limited operating periods may apply (see spotted owl and bald eagle design features).

Slash Treatments 1. Burn piles and brush piles that are planned for retention will be created from materials cut during thinning and pruning. Piles will be average eight feet in diameter and six feet in height. Burn piles will be located away from trees and shrub patches to minimize crown and bole scorch. 2. Brush piles that are planned for retention to provide wildlife habitat will be flagged for avoidance. 3. Burn piles will not be stacked against or within 30 feet of living trees or snags, or within 50 feet of existing downed logs and rock outcrops. Brush piles that are planned for retention should not be piled within 30 feet of living trees. Where it is not feasible to avoid creating piles near these features, a biologist will coordinate with the project administrator to determine if additional protection measures are needed to reduce potential impacts. 4. Landing piles will be free from excessive soil debris to facilitate burning or chipping. 5. Hand and machine piles will be located to protect live trees and may be covered to facilitate burning. 6. Outside of riparian conservation areas, where mastication or chipping occurs, debris will not exceed 4 inches over 50 percent of the area, or 2 inches over 75 percent of the area. In soils that do not have rapid or very rapid permeability, apply only 2 inches of debris. Specific units will be identified prior to implementation. “Apply soil protective cover on disturbed areas where natural revegetation is inadequate to prevent accelerated erosion before the next growing season.” 7. Slash, chipped, and masticated material must not be discharged to waterbodies, or be deposited in locations where such material may discharge to a waterbody.

Page 31

a. Within riparian conservation areas, a minimum protective ground cover1 of 70 percent shall be maintained where natural conditions allow throughout the year. b. Litter and slash should be two inches deep, and made up of material four inches or less in diameter to qualify as protective ground cover in mixed conifer forests. 8. Where lop and scatter occurs, slash and material will not exceed 18 inches height off ground. 9. Pile burning will be conducted by appropriately planning pile size, fuel piece size limits, spacing, and burn prescriptions for slash disposal in a manner that encourages efficient burning to minimize effects on soil, water quality, and riparian resources while achieving treatment objectives. The following measures will be used: a. Avoid piling and burning for slash removal in riparian conservation areas to the extent practicable. Burn piles will not be placed within 25 feet of a stream channel. b. Pile and burn only the slash that is necessary to be disposed of to achieve treatment objectives. c. Locate slash piles in area where the potential for soil effects is lessened (meadows, rock outcrops, etc.) and that do not interfere with natural drainage patterns. d. Avoid burning large stumps and sections of logs in slash piles to reduce the amount of time that the pile burns. Piles should contain less than 40 percent, by volume, of large-diameter wood (greater than 25 cm). e. Avoid pile burning when conditions will cause the fire to burn too hot and damage soils conditions. f. Piles should not cover more than 30 percent of a treatment acre and no more than 10 percent of a treatment acre within riparian conservation areas. g. Piles must be limited in size to no more than 10 feet in diameter. h. Place piles in a non-linear pattern in each unit where possible. i. Maximize the distance between piles to the extent feasible, maintaining approximately 20 feet average spacing between piles. 10. Burn piles will not be created in the following avoidance areas: Sensitive plant occurrences; within riparian conservation areas; or, on and close to rock outcrops and existing downed logs. Exceptions may occur if a biologist determines that impacts to the target species would be acceptable or surveys allow a determination of absence. Additional protection measures may be needed to reduce potential effects. 11. Burn Plans would include locations of areas with limited operating periods. Exceptions to limited operating periods may occur if a biologist determines that impacts to the target species would be acceptable or surveys allow a determination of absence. Additional protection measures may be needed to reduce potential effects. Pile burning would follow the following limited operating periods: a. Bald Eagle: No burning in night roost or nest stand during the season of occupancy (consult with District Biologist). b. California Spotted Owl: No burning in mapped spotted owl habitat during the breeding season (February 1 through August 15). c. Arroyo Toad: No burning within suitable arroyo toad upland habitat that is within 1- mile of a known breeding occurrences between July 1 and February 28; no burning

1 Protective ground cover consists of any combination of living plants, litter, slash and duff. Page 32

within ½-mile of a known breeding occurrences or section of streams considered occupied or suitable for arroyo toads between March 1 and September 30. 12. Chipping and spreading chips should be used rather than piling and burning in order to return organic material to the soil, provide ground cover, and wildlife habitat. 13. When possible, piles of brush will be burned as soon as possible after piling in order to minimize colonization by wildlife. 14. Prior to burning, piles will be probed and disturbed with hand tools to try to encourage wildlife to leave. Crews and probes should be on one side of the pile in order to not block the escape route. Piles will be set on fire on one side, allowing an escape route for animals. 15. Fuels will be gently raked away from downed logs and retention green and dead trees, prior to ignition of piles to help protect them during burning activities. 16. Burning of piles will generally be done in the fall, winter, or early spring. 17. Where mechanical slash piling is used, conduct in such a manner to leave topsoil in place and to avoid displacing soil into piles.

Operations 1. Ground-based yarding systems used to remove or treat materials would be restricted to slopes of less than 35 percent, and on short steep pitches up to 50 percent. 2. Post-treatment target for coarse woody debris to maintain soil productivity is five to twenty tons per acre. 3. Treatments are limited as follows: (a) skid trail spacing will be limited to at least 100 feet for old and new trails, except where corridors converge towards landing; (b) a minimum spacing of 150 feet will be maintained between skyline corridors where skyline yarding is used, except where corridors converge towards landings; (c) heavy equipment travel will be limited to two passes or less where off designated skid trails; (d) the placement of skid trails will be avoided within 100 feet of scenery and recreation sites where practical, but in some situations recreation sites with disturbed areas may be used as landings or skid trails. 4. Whole-tree yarding, with limbs and tops attached would be utilized where ground cover requirements have been met or can be met by chipping. 5. Skyline harvest units would require a skyline yarder with carriage capable of maintaining a fixed position on the skyline while lateral yarding. 6. All harvest units proposed for skyline yarding would require leading end suspension of logs in skyline corridors during inhaul to minimize disturbance or soil displacement. 7. Skyline removal units would be yarded to parallel landings located along existing or temporary roads at each skyline corridor or set, spaced about 150 feet apart, except where terrain dictates fans sets such as on ridge points. 8. Nylon straps or similar protective devices would be required for rigging tail trees and intermediate support trees to prevent tree damage. 9. To ensure safety of the public, areas where there is ongoing use of heavy machinery or tree felling will be temporarily closed during treatment. 10. Fuel removal operations may be prohibited in or near open heavy use recreation areas during high use periods (e.g., holiday weekends, events, etc.) to minimize conflict with recreation use and traffic. 11. High traffic areas would be signed to indicate presence of truck traffic. Page 33

12. Fuel treatment operations near power lines will require notification to the appropriate officials. Yarding logs over energized power lines (i.e., helicopter yarding) should be avoided. 13. Information would be made available to the general public and adjacent landowners by Forest Service of a contact phone number or web site for information on timing of treatment activities in specific areas where closures are planned.

Road/Trail Management 1. Where possible, temporary roads will be constructed with an out-sloping design. 2. If temporary roads are needed in riparian conservation areas, coordination with a Forest Service hydrologist and wildlife biologist will be done to ensure that effects are avoided or mitigated to be within acceptable levels and that the road is obliterated and riparian conservation areas are fully restored after completion of the project. 3. System trails used during implementation would be rehabilitated and stabilized. 4. Road maintenance or reconditioning would be required on haul routes according to a project- specific road maintenance plan developed before project implementation. 5. Roads will be sufficiently storm proofed to allow for wet season travel on native surface roads without delivering substantial amounts of sediment to nearby stream channels. Storm proofing of roads may, depending on site-specific need, include: a. Constructing culverts on all perennial and intermittent stream crossings for roads used in the project area. Constructing culverts to meet a 100-year storm event or removing them prior to the winter season. b. Installing culverts or similar drainage devices on all temporary stream crossings. Where crossings occur where culverts are not constructed, or where isolated wet areas occur, gravel would be placed consisting of three inch-plus competent angular rock to a depth of four to six inches. c. Removing all fill and culvert or drainage materials from the temporary crossing once fuel reduction activities are completed in the unit. d. Maintaining culverts and road drainage ditches so that they function appropriately. e. Gravelling road approaches on perennial stream channel crossings for 100 feet on either side of stream channels. 6. No new permanent roads will be constructed. 7. No watercourse crossings or road surfaces will be widened. 8. On completion of seasonal operations, drainage features on roads and trails used in project implementation must be fully functional and meet Forest Service standards. The following guidelines will be followed: a. Road surfaces will be shaped to drain as designed. b. Drainage control structures will be constructed or reconstructed as needed. c. Within the project area, the contractor will ensure that ditches and culverts are inspected and maintained to be clean and functioning. d. Berms will be removed unless specifically designed for erosion control purposes. 9. Drainage structures and road surfaces in the project area will be inspected by the Forest Service after major storm events and the contractor will perform any necessary maintenance. The following guidelines will apply:

Page 34

a. Road failures actively producing and transporting sediment will be repaired and temporarily stabilized as soon as practicable and safe to do so. b. If inspections reveal that road damage (unacceptable surface displacement, rutting, etc.) is occurring, use of that road will be restricted until the problem can be remedied.

Reforestation 1. Appropriate specialists would be involved during planning for reforestation to ensure protection of special treatment areas (e.g., riparian habitat, heritage resources, rare species, etc.) and desired future stand conditions.

Watershed (Soils, Water, and Riparian) Riparian Conservation Areas 1. Riparian conservation areas will be buffered. These buffers for ephemeral and intermittent streams are 30 meters on each side of the stream, measured from the bank full edge of the stream. This includes all streams, waterbodies, and other hydrological or topographic depressions without a defined channel within the project area with the exception of Grass Valley Creek, which will have a 100 meter buffer. 2. Activities within riparian conservation areas will be done in such a manner as to limit damage riparian plants and habitat (e.g., willows, etc.). Exceptions may be approved by the Forest Service for trimming riparian vegetation that encroaches roads and trails and for hazard tree treatment. 3. Prior to implementation in a unit, riparian conservation areas boundaries will be identified on the ground with flagging in accordance with current flagging color guidelines for the San Bernardino National Forest. 4. Damage to existing (live) riparian vegetation, especially plants that are stabilizing the bank of the waterbody, will be avoided or minimized. 5. There will be no fuels treatment within the stream inner gorge (as defined in the San Bernardino National Forest Land Management Plan), except where needed to remove hazard trees. 6. No tractor, vehicle, or equipment operations will occur within riparian conservation areas, except for: a. Use and maintenance of existing roads and crossings; b. Up to one crossing of a dry Class III watercourse2 per one-quarter mile of stream; c. Use of equipment with ground pressures less than 13 psi at distances greater than 25 feet from a waterbody, when soils are operable; d. When snow depth is sufficient to not result in visible disturbance of soils; or e. When hard frozen conditions exist.

2 No aquatic life present, waterbody showing evidence of being capable of sediment transport to Class I and II waters under normal high water flow conditions after completion of timber operations. Page 35

Landings3 1. Landings will be located to limit the potential for pollutant deliver to waterbodies, following these guidelines: a. Locate landings outside riparian conservation areas and as far from waterbodies as reasonably practicable based on travel routes and environmental considerations. b. Avoid locating landings near any type of likely flow or sediment transport conduit during storms, such as ephemeral channels and swales, where practicable. c. Locate landings to minimize the number of required skid roads. d. Avoid locating landings on steep slopes or highly erodible soils. e. Avoid placing landings where skidding across drainage bottoms is required. f. Reuse existing landings where their location is compatible with management objectives and water quality protection. g. As needed during construction and use of landings, install and maintain suitable temporary erosion control and stabilization measures when the land will be reused within the same year. 2. There will be no construction of landings requiring earthwork (i.e., grading or excavation) on slopes greater than 20 percent within 200 feet of a watercourse and where there is potential for sediment delivery to a waterbody due to soil disturbances. 3. Suitable measures will be used as needed to restore and stabilize landings after use. These measures will include: a. Removal of all logging machinery refuse, e.g., tires, chains, chokers, cable, and miscellaneous parts, etc. and contaminated soil to a proper disposal site. b. Reshaping the surface to promote dispersed drainage. c. Installation of suitable drainage features. d. Mitigation of soil compaction to improve infiltration and revegetation conditions.

Ground-Based Skidding4 and Yarding Operations 1. Skid trails and skidding operations will be designed and located to avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects to soil, water quality, and riparian resources to the extent practicable. a. Self-propelled ground-skidding equipment will not be allowed within riparian conservation areas (exceptions will require input by a biologist as described in LMP Standard S47 and Appendix E). Only designated temporary roads, classified roads, channel crossings, and their approaches will be allowed within riparian conservation areas. b. Skidding logs in or adjacent to a stream channel or other waterbody will be avoided. Exceptions will be evaluated by appropriate Forest Service specialists (e.g., hydrologist, botanist, wildlife biologist) and require prior Forest Service approval. Skidding logs across streams will only be allowed at designated Forest Service approved locations. Forest Service approved measures will be used at skid trail crossings to avoid or minimize damage to the stream channel and streambanks. c. Skid trails will be located to avoid concentrating runoff and provide breaks in grade. Avoid long runs on steep slopes.

3 An area where forest products are concentrated prior to additional processing or removal from site. 4 Any constructed trail or established path used by tractors or other vehicles for skidding logs. Page 36

d. Existing roads and skid trail networks will be used instead of creating temporary roads or new skid trails (unless a conflicting resource concern or Forest management activity exists). e. Skidding and yarding operations will be conducted when soil conditions are such that soil compaction, displacement, and erosion would be minimized. Skidding and yarding operations will be suspended when soil moisture levels could result in unacceptable soil damage. f. Trees will be directionally felled away from streambanks, shorelines, and other waterbody features unless infeasible due to tree characteristic and safety (leaning, avoidance of other trees, etc.). If felled into a stream channel, it will remain unless there is the potential to cause damming or downstream damage. If removed, a full- suspension yarding system is required. Exceptions will be evaluated by appropriate Forest Service specialists (e.g., hydrologist, botanist, wildlife biologist) and require prior Forest Service approval. g. Trees will be directionally felled to facilitate efficient removal along predetermined yarding patterns with the least number of passes and least amount of disturbed areas (e.g., felling-to-the-lead, etc.). h. Logs will be winched or skidded upslope, away from waterbodies. i. Low ground pressure equipment will be used when practicable, particularly on equipment traveling over large portions of units with sensitive soils or site conditions. 2. Construction of new skid trails on slopes greater than 40 percent will not be allowed, except for over-snow operations. 3. Suitable measures will be used to stabilize and restore skid trails after use. These will include: a. Reshaping the surface to promote dispersed drainage. b. Installation of suitable drainage features. c. Mitigation of soil compaction to improve infiltration and revegetation conditions. d. Applying a soil protective cover on disturbed areas where natural revegetation is inadequate to prevent accelerated erosion before the next growing season.

Cable and Aerial Yarding Operations 5. Cable corridors will be located to efficiently yard materials with the least soil damage, using the following measures: a. Suitable measures will be used to minimize soil disturbance when yarding over breaks in slope. b. Logs will be fully-suspended when yarding over riparian conservation areas and streams. Exceptions will be evaluated by appropriate Forest Service specialists (e.g., hydrologist, botanist, wildlife biologist) and require prior Forest Service approval. c. Yarding operations will be postponed when soil moisture levels are high if the specific type of yarding system results in unacceptable soil disturbance and erosion with cable corridors.

Page 37

Erosion Prevention and Control 1. The contract will contain clauses to ensure implementation and enforcement of erosion control on the project. 2. Prior to implementation, the Forest Service will work with the contractor to identify (and adjust as needed) and approve locations of landings, skid trails, and slash piles in suitable sites to avoid, minimize, or mitigate potential for erosion and sediment delivery to nearby waterbodies. 3. Equipment will be operated when soil compaction, displacement, erosion, and sediment runoff would be minimized. Equipment operations will follow these guidelines: a. Avoid ground equipment operations on unstable, wet, or easily compacted soils and on steep slopes unless operation can be conducted without causing excessive rutting, soil puddling, or runoff of sediments directly into waterbodies. b. Vehicles, tractors, and other equipment use off roads, under moist or wet conditions must not create ruts exceeding two inches in depth and 25 feet in length. No ruts exceeding three inches in depth will be allowed. 4. Installation of suitable stormwater and erosion control measures will be required in order to stabilize disturbed areas (e.g., cable corridors, skid trails, landings, parking and staging areas, etc.) within incomplete units before seasonal shutdown of operations or when severe storm or cumulative precipitation events that could result in sediment mobilization to waterbodies are expected. 5. All completed areas disturbed by activities must be stabilized at the conclusion of operations or before the winter period (whichever is sooner). For winter operations, areas must be stabilized prior to sunset if the National Weather Service forecast is a “chance” (30 percent or more) of rain within the next 24 hours. 6. The Forest Service will routinely inspect disturbed areas to verify that erosion and stormwater controls are implemented and functioning as designed and are suitably maintained. 7. No tractor, vehicle, or equipment operations will occur on slopes greater than 50 percent except for hand work and aerial or cable operations. 8. No tractor, vehicle, or equipment operations will occur on soils with high or extreme erosion hazard rating, known slides, or unstable areas, except over-snow operations.

Stream Crossings 1. No construction of new watercourse crossings except for the construction of oversnow watercourse crossings. 2. The use of up to one crossing of a dry Class III watercourse per ¼ mile of stream length that does not disturb the bed or banks of the stream channel. Prior to use, operable soil conditions must exist and the crossing shall be passable by standard production 4-wheel drive vehicles without any grading or excavation of the stream bed or banks or crossing approaches. 3. Use suitable surface drainage and roadway stabilization measures to disconnect the road from the waterbody to avoid or minimize water and sediment from being channeled into surface waters and to dissipate concentrated flows.

Page 38

4. Use suitable measures to stabilize or harden the streambed and approaches, including the entire bankfull width and sufficient freeboard, where necessary to support the design vehicle traffic.

Snow Removal and Storage 1. Use existing standard contract language (C5.316# or similar) for snow removal during winter logging operations to avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects to soil, water quality, and riparian resources. 2. Move snow in a manner that will avoid or minimize disturbance of or damage to road surfaces and drainage structures. 3. Mark drainage structures to avoid damage during plowing. 4. Provide frequent drainage through snow berms to avoid concentration of snowmelt runoff on fillslopes and other erosive areas, to dissipate melt water, and to avoid or minimize sediment delivery to waterbodies. 5. Store or dispose of snow adjacent to or on pervious surfaces in upland areas away from waterbodies to the extent practicable. 6. Discontinue road use and snow removal when use would likely damage the roadway surface or road drainage features. 7. Replace lost road surface materials with similar quality material and repair structures damaged in snow removal operations as soon as practicable.

Parking and Staging Areas 1. Limit the size and extent of temporary parking or staging areas. a. Take advantage of existing openings, sites away from waterbodies, and areas that are apt to be more easily restored to the extent practicable. b. Use temporary stormwater and erosion control measures as needed. Rehabilitate temporary parking or staging areas as soon as practicable following use.

Equipment Refueling and Servicing 1. Allow equipment temporary refueling and servicing only at approved locations, located well away from riparian conservation areas and waterbodies. 2. Use suitable measures around vehicle service, storage and refueling areas, chemical storage and use areas, and waste dumps to fully contain spills and avoid or minimize soil contamination and seepage to groundwater. 3. Aboveground storage capacity of more than 660 gallons in a single tank, or an aggregate aboveground storage capacity of more than 1,320 gallons of any form of oil or petroleum product will require a Spill Prevention, Control and Countermeasure Plan on file. 4. Remove service residues, used oil, and other hazardous or undesirable materials from NFS land and properly dispose them as needed during and after completion of the project. 5. All spills must be immediately contained and spilled materials or contaminated soils or both must be properly disposed in a manner consistent with controlling regulations. 6. All equipment used must be monitored for leaks, and removed from service if necessary to protect water quality.

Page 39

7. An emergency spill kit adequate to contain spills that could result from onsite equipment must be at the project site at all times of equipment use.

Wet Weather and Winter5 Operations 1. The Normal Operating Period is from April 1 through November 15. All off-road ground- based mechanical operations shall occur within the Normal Operating Period unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Government. Skyline, helicopter and hand work are allowed outside this period unless conditions exist that would exceed soil moisture and compaction guidelines resulting in ongoing damage to National Forest System lands and roads that could impact hydrologic function and water quality. 2. Operations during wet (saturated soil) conditions that exhibit any of the conditions as defined and listed below will be prohibited until such time that dry soil moisture conditions are met and the Government approves resumption of operations. During all other times, erosion control measures will be used where appropriate to prevent sediment delivery to nearby watercourses. a. “Saturated soil conditions” means site conditions are sufficiently wet that timber operations displace soils in yarding or mechanical site preparation areas or displace road and landing surface materials in amounts sufficient to cause a turbidity increase in drainage facilities that discharge into a watercourse (perennial, intermittent, or ephemeral channels). b. In yarding and site preparation areas, this condition may be evident by: a) reduced equipment traction as indicated by spinning or churning of wheels or tracks in excess of normal performance, b) inadequate traction without blading wet soil, c) soil displacement in amounts that cause visible increases in turbidity of the downstream waters in a receiving watercourse, or d) creation of ruts greater than would be normal following a light rainfall (e.g., vehicles, tractors, and other equipment use off roads, under moist or wet conditions must not create ruts exceeding two inches in depth and 25 feet in length. No ruts exceeding three inches in depth are allowed). c. On logging roads and landing surfaces, this condition may be evident by a) reduced equipment traction as indicated by spinning or churning of wheels or tracks in excess of normal performance, b) inadequate traction without blading wet soil, c) soil displacement in amounts that cause visible increases in turbidity of the downstream waters in a receiving watercourse, d) pumping of road surface materials by traffic, or e) creation of ruts greater than would be created by traffic following normal road watering, which transports surface material to a drainage facility that discharges directly into a watercourse. 3. Operations shall be permitted in hard-frozen soil conditions where operated vehicles, tractors, and equipment can travel without sinking into soil, road, or landing surfaces to a depth of more than two inches for a distance of more than 25 feet. Temperatures shall also remain low enough to preclude thawing of the soil surface.

5 The period which begins November 15 and ends April 1 per California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Lahontan Region. Page 40

4. For over-the-snow operations, a minimum of six inches of compact snow or ice shall be maintained on undisturbed ground, and three inches of compacted snow or ice shall be maintained on existing disturbed surfaces. 5. During operations outside of the normal operating season, paved surfaced roads, including paved turnouts, may be plowed of snow, if the action will not cause damage to the road surface and associated drainage structures. Native and aggregate surfaced roads may also be plowed, as long as three inches of snow remains on the road surface. Soil shall not be intermixed with the side-cast snow during plowing. Plowed snow shall not be placed into riparian conservation areas. 6. Before over-the-snow operations begin, existing culvert locations, overside drains, lead-out ditches, and nearby watercourses, and riparian conservation areas shall be clearly marked such that markings shall be visible in deep snowpack. During and after operations, all culverts, drains and ditches shall be maintained open and functional. 7. When roads are plowed, snow berms shall be breached to allow drainage during snowmelt. Outlets shall be spaced so as not to concentrate road surface flows. 8. If there is a 30 percent chance of precipitation according to the National Weather Service the day before use of heavy machinery in the project area, all skid trails in use will be water barred.

Root Disease Transmission 1. As outlined in Forest Plan standard S5, all freshly cut live or recently dead conifer stumps will be treated with a registered fungicide to prevent the establishment of annosus (Heterobasidion annosum) root disease. Application of fungicide in the project area will be accomplished in the following manner: a. Applications of fungicide will follow all State and Federal rules and regulations as they apply. b. Application will occur according to the manufacturer’s label directions and in accordance with applicable state laws. c. Fungicide will be applied to all conifer stumps greater than 2.0-inch DBH within 1 hour of creation. d. Fungicide will not be applied when it is raining. e. Where rare plants or designated critical habitat for plants are known to occur within 15 feet of cut stumps, measures will be taken to ensure that no fungicide comes in contact with threatened, endangered and sensitive plants or surrounding soil.

Wildlife and Plants General - Wildlife and Plants 1. Areas requiring special treatment (e.g., avoidance, bio-monitoring, limited operating periods, etc.) will be delineated on maps and on the ground. Project administrator will coordinate with appropriate specialists to identify avoidance areas or special treatment areas on the ground. 2. Effects to threatened endangered, and sensitive plant and animal species will be avoided. Occurrences and suitable habitat features will be flagged for avoidance. Buffers may be used to prevent indirect effects such as soil movement into the occurrences. A qualified specialist

Page 41

will work with the layout staff and project administrator to avoid effects (e.g., placement of skid trails, landings, burn piles, equipment storage, etc.). 3. Project administrators, inspectors, and crews will be provided training and information on rare animals and plants within project areas and provided direction for what to do if those species are encountered (including notification of a district biologist or botanist). 4. Prior to implementation, the project administrator will work with a qualified specialist to identify alternate route and landing locations where they conflict with resource concerns (e.g., rare plants, spotted owl nest stands, etc.). 5. Logs slash piles, and chip piles will not be stacked against living trees, existing downed logs, and rock outcrops.

General - Wildlife 1. Nighttime work (and use of artificial lighting) will be avoided unless the Forest Service line officer determines it to be necessary to complete project implementation. Nighttime work must be approved in writing by the appropriate San Bernardino National Forest official before it begins. Nighttime is defined as the period between sunset and sunrise. If pre-dawn operations are necessary, coordination with a biologist will be done to ensure minimization of effects. 2. Where the Forest Service determines that an exception to the nighttime restriction is necessary, nighttime work and use of artificial lighting will not occur in or within sight (where the artificial lighting or noise would be detectible within) of riparian zones, arroyo toad habitat, mountain yellow-legged frog habitat, California red-legged frog habitat, and nest sites of southwestern willow flycatchers, bald eagle night roosts, and within ¼-mile of spotted owl nests during the appropriate season(s) of occupancy. Appropriate buffers must be developed to ensure that those areas are not affected by night lighting. 3. Use of water sources from National Forest System lands for dust abatement or other project operations would be evaluated on a site-specific basis. No water would be removed from known or suitable threatened and endangered riparian habitat: 1) during primary breeding season for arroyo toad; 2) year-round within suitable or known occupied habitat for mountain yellow-legged frog and California red-legged frogs. 4. If water use from National Forest sources (streams, springs, etc.) is approved by the Forest Service, it would be such that flows/water levels would not be substantially altered. 5. A biologist will flag important wildlife habitat features with signs of wildlife use (e.g., active nest/dens, woodrat middens, rock outcrops, wildlife habitat features, acorn granary trees, logs, burrows, active and inactive raptor nests, etc.) that are within the area to be affected during the felling and removal of hazard trees. To the greatest extent possible, disturbance to those wildlife habitat features will be avoided during implementation. 6. A biologist will work with the contract administrator/inspector to develop appropriate site- specific measures to reduce the loss or injury of individual animals (e.g., delaying felling until after fledging, directional felling, equipment use buffers, trapping and moving the animals, scaring them out of the site, avoid placing burn piles nearby, etc.). Where there is an imminent threat to human life and property, complete avoidance of effects many not be possible. The Line Officer will determine the course of action in those cases.

Page 42

7. Contractors will be trained to examine cavities in felled trees for signs of occupancy. Orphaned and injured animals will be transported to a Forest Service biologist or licensed wildlife rehabilitator. Dead animals will be identified and assessed. Photographs and data will be provided to the Forest Service point-of-contact biologist. 8. Disturbance of rock outcrops and existing downed logs will be avoided (e.g., equipment avoidance areas; avoid logs when felling trees or skidding trees; avoid piling slash on logs). A biologist may need to be present to monitor for rare species during disturbance of the habitat and or flag avoidance areas. 9. During hazard tree felling and removal, green trees and snags with wildlife sign (e.g., cavities, woodpecker storage holes, split tops, nests, cat faces, etc.) should be protected from collateral damage to the greatest extent possible without compromising faller safety (e.g., by directional felling, etc.). 10. If fences or other barriers are disturbed during implementation, they will be repaired to prevent and discourage unauthorized vehicle activity during and after the project treatment. 11. Suitable habitat for southern rubber boa will be maintained throughout the project area. A minimum of nine logs per acre of all age and decay classes with minimum size being 12 inches in diameter and 20 feet long. While 12 inches is the minimum diameter, at least half of the logs left should be in the 20 to 36-inch or larger diameter range. Exceptions will be allowed where leaving logs would compromise fuelbreak objective integrity in Treatment Level 1 and 1a areas. 12. Where downed woody debris is lacking due to the fire, slash will be used to create small scattered brush piles for wildlife habitat (e.g., rare snake and amphibians, small mammals for spotted owl prey, etc.). Exceptions will be allowed where leaving brush piles would compromise fuelbreak objective integrity.

General – Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive Species 1. All suitable threatened, endangered and sensitive species habitat is considered occupied unless surveys have been performed satisfying the detection and determination protocol and a negative determination is made. 2. Suitable habitat for listed species will not be treated unless: 1) protocol-level surveys indicate absence; or 2) the treatment would have determination of not likely to adversely affect assuming that the species is present. 3. Long-term changes or impacts to habitat structure within occupied and suitable threatened and endangered habitat would be avoided. If unavoidable, project administrator would work with district biologist/botanist to avoid adverse effects for threatened and endangered species. 4. Buffer zones displayed in Table 7 will be used during the seasons of occupancy to avoid noise disturbance impacts during the critical periods:

Table 7. Buffer Zones Species Primary Period Of Concern/Occupancy Noise Buffer Zone Arroyo toad Breeding = March 1 through July 31 (in the Not applicable water) Upland occupancy = Cam be year round, but primarily July. 1 through February 28 Page 43

Table 7. Buffer Zones Species Primary Period Of Concern/Occupancy Noise Buffer Zone Mountain Egg laying = March 1 through May 31 Not applicable yellow-legged frog Bald eagle Nesting = January 1 through June 30. Wintering ¼ mile from nest = December 1 through March 31 site, foraging habitat or night roost Southwestern Nesting = May 1 through August 31 500 feet from willow nest site flycatcher California Breeding season = February 1 through August Within ¼ of spotted owl 15 activity center General – Trees with High Wildlife Value and for Stand Diversity 1. Live and dead oak species, that are 14 inches or greater in DBH, will be retained, unless they must be removed because they pose falling hazards. Exceptions may occur where this would threaten the integrity of the fuelbreaks or for safety reasons. Exceptions would be coordinated between the project leader and the district biologist.

Snags, Logs, and Brush Piles 1. A minimum of 10 to 15 hard snags per five acres (minimum of 16 inches DBH and 40 feet tall or next largest available) will be retained. A wildlife biologist will help guide selection of snags to be retained. 2. No snags will be felled or removed in riparian conservation areas. Exceptions will be allowed only where a snag is identified as a threat to life, property, or sustainability. Exceptions may also occur in Treatment Level 1 and 1a areas if the presence of snags threatens the integrity of the fuelbreak objectives and removal can be done following the other design feature requirements. 3. No existing logs would be removed from riparian conservation areas. Exceptions will be allowed in Levels 1 and 1a if fuel-loading levels and continuity threaten the integrity of the fuelbreak. Where exceptions are made, downed woody debris will be retained at 5 tons per acre or less within the first 100 feet from roads and private property boundaries in Treatment Level 1 areas in riparian conservation areas. Downed woody debris will be retained at levels between 5 to 20 tons per acre in Level 1a areas in riparian conservation areas. Fuel removal in Level 1 and 1a areas with overlapping riparian conservation areas will be coordinated with an earth scientist to maximize watershed function after fuels reduction activities. Removal of logs would follow the other design feature requirements. 4. A minimum of nine downed logs per acre (minimum 12 inches diameter and 120 total linear feet) will be retained (Forest Plan standards for suitable southern rubber boa habitat). Exceptions will be made in Level 1 and 1a treatments to meet the fuelbreak objectives. Table 8 displays the downed log retention guidelines for the different treatment levels in this project. Page 44

Table 8. Down Log Retention Guidelines For Grass Valley Fuels Project. Treatment Level Downed Log Retention 1 and 1a 0 to 100 feet from roads, property boundaries, etc.– Zero (no) logs per acre; 100+ feet from roads, property boundaries, etc. – 6 logs per acre (Forest Plan standard S14) 3 9 logs per acre (LMP standard S14 for southern rubber boa habitat) 4 9 logs per acre (LMP standard S14 for southern rubber boa habitat)

5. The project administrator will coordinate with the biologist to minimize disturbance of existing downed logs that are suitable for rare species. If disturbance is unavoidable, a biologist may need to be present to monitor for Sensitive species during disturbance of the habitat. 6. Scattered brush piles will be created to a minimum of two piles per acre in Treatment Level 3 and 4 areas; establishing scattered brush piles at a minimum of two piles per acre in Treatment Level 1 and 1a areas will be considered where it can be done without compromising the objectives of the shaded fuelbreak. This is especially important in rubber boa and spotted owl habitat.

Helicopter use 1. Helicopter flight paths and altitudes for accessing the project area will be coordinated with the biologist to avoid low-level flights over the Sensitive wildlife areas (e.g., spotted owl nest stands, bald eagle perch sites, riparian habitat, etc.). Low-level flights are considered anything under 345 feet (105 meters) above the treetops (spotted owls, bald eagles) or riparian vegetation (willow flycatcher habitat). 2. For spotted owls: Low-level flights over nest stands will be avoided year-round. Low-level daytime flights over protected activity centers will be avoided during nesting season if the territory is occupied. Low-level daytime flights over home range cores may be permitted during occupancy. Where avoidance is not possible, the project manager will coordinate with the biologist prior to implementation. 3. For bald eagles: No helicopter use within ¼-mile of bald eagle nests or day use areas during limited operating periods. The buffer zone may be larger or smaller (depending on topography, helicopter size, etc.) if a biologist determines that one-quarter mile does not provide an adequate sound buffer. 4. Southwestern willow flycatcher and least Bell’s vireo: No low-level helicopter use within ¼- mile of willow flycatcher habitat during limited operating periods. The buffer zone may be larger or smaller (depending on topography, helicopter size, etc.) if a biologist determines that ¼-mile does not provide an adequate sound buffer.

Page 45

California Spotted Owl - General 1. A limited operating period will be maintained prohibiting ground disturbing activities, loud and continuous noise above ambient levels, and smoke-generating activities within approximately ¼ mile of each nest site during the breeding season (February 1 through August 15) unless surveys confirm that California spotted owls are not nesting (LMP S-20). Where nest sites are not known (e.g., only centroids have been identified; or current nest tree information is lacking), the ¼ mile buffer will be used around the Nest Stand rather than the nest tree point. The Forest Service (1993, 1994) protocol will be used to determine whether owls are nesting. Limited operating periods generally does not apply to existing road and trail use and maintenance, use of existing developed recreation sites, or existing special uses, such as recreation residence tracts, unless the proposed activity substantially alters noise/disturbance levels over the baseline. A case-by-case evaluation will be used. 2. If new spotted owl territories are located before or during project implementation, the Forest Service biologist will evaluate the need to map protected activity centers, home range cores, Nest Stand, and Suitable habitat. The Forest Service biologist will work with the Line Officer and Project Manager to make changes to the project in newly mapped habitat areas to be consistent with the design features. 3. See Helicopter Use Guidelines above. 4. If removal of hazard trees is necessary within spotted owl nest stands, habitat disturbance will be avoided or minimized to the greatest extent possible within 200 feet of nest trees. Trees will be directionally felled away from the 200-foot perimeter around the nest tree. Known nest trees will not be cut unless they are considered imminent threats to life and property and are cut in coordination with district wildlife biologist. Felling will occur outside of the breeding season (February 1 through August 15 or until after fledging) unless the Line Officer determines that there is an imminent threat to human life and property. 5. Where possible for active territories, all project implementation in nest stands, protected activity centers, and home range cores will be accomplished in one 12-month period. This includes logging, thinning, pile burning, site preparation, and reforestation. Activities will be planned to minimize the need for future maintenance entries. Preferably, treatments in protected activity centers and nest stands should be planned to be accomplished in a single entry. 6. Timing project implementation will be considered so that there are portions of each territory that are not being treated at any given time so that owls have areas to nest, roost, and forage free of disturbance. The trade-off would be if phased implementation would extend the number of breeding seasons that it would take to complete treatments in owl habitat. The Forest Service biologist will provide recommendations to the Line Officer and project manager on a case-by-case basis. 7. Construction and use of temporary routes (including existing unclassified routes) will be avoided in owl habitat to the greatest extent possible. If avoidance is not possible, the project manager will coordinate with the biologist to find the best possible route that provides for protection and project needs. 8. Unless no alternative sites are feasible, landings will not be created in nest stands, protected activity centers, and home range cores. If avoidance is not possible, the project manager will

Page 46

coordinate with the biologist to find the best possible location for landings that provides for protection and project needs. 9. The creation of cleared corridors for skyline logging will be avoided or minimized to the greatest extent feasible in nest stands and protected activity centers. Where practical, helicopter logging or other logging systems will be used instead. 10. Where the Forest Service determines that treatments are unavoidable in owl habitat (especially nest stands and protected activity centers), the project administrator and wildlife biologist will work closely during the marking and implementation of the treatments through the nest stands and protected activity centers to ensure protection of the known nest trees, any other trees that are suitable for nesting, and desired stand objectives. Once identified, year- round buffers, based on the falling distance of surrounding trees, around all known nest trees (current and historic) will be used to protect those trees from damage during vegetation treatment. Vegetation Treatment Designs in Spotted Owl Habitat 1. To the greatest extent possible, changes in stand structure and composition will be completely avoided in “active” spotted owl territories. “Active” territories are defined as a territory that has been occupied at some point within the previous four years. 2. Woodrat nests/middens in all mapped CASPO habitat: All woodrat nests will be identified and flagged by a wildlife biologist prior to implementation. In Treatment Level 4, all existing woodrat nests/middens will be flagged for avoidance. Disturbance to existing woodrat nests (e.g., avoid placing burn piles within 50 feet of existing woodrat nests; avoid felling trees on woodrat nests; avoid use of ground-based equipment near the nests, etc.) will be avoided. In Treatment Levels 1 and 2, woodrat nests will be protected from disturbance and retained unless doing so would threaten the effectiveness of the fuelbreak. Those that the Forest Service determines can be retained without reducing the integrity of the fuels treatment will be retained and protected from disturbance. If the Forest Service determines that woodrat nests must be removed, a biologist will be present to direct the effort in order to try to allow individual woodrats to escape the work site. To mitigate for where woodrat nests must be removed, piles will be created as close as possible while not reducing the effectiveness of the fuels treatment (see Design Feature SL-4). 3. Level 1 and 1a Treatments in Nest Stands and protected activity centers: All live trees equal to or greater than nine-inch DBH will be retained and the treatment will be designed so as to retain the existing canopy closure levels (made up by mid- and over-story trees). Nest trees will be identified and protected from damage and disturbance during treatment implementation. In general, no snags or downed logs will be retained in Treatment Level 1 areas (exceptions may be made if retention of non-hazard snags will not threaten the integrity of the fuelbreak). Within Treatment Level 1a areas, outside of falling distance from roads, a minimum of the largest, soundest 20 snags/five acres and a minimum of four logs per acre (minimum 12-inch in diameter and 120 linear feet) will be retained. 4. Level 1 and 1a Treatments in Home Range Cores and Mapped Suitable Habitat: All of the preceding measure will be followed with the exception that all live trees equal to or greater than16-inch DBH will be retained. 5. Nest Stands: Nest stands (with the exception of SB050 as described below) will not be treated with the exception of trees that are falling hazards to life/property. Page 47

6. Nest Stand SB050 in Level 4a Treatment: All live trees equal to or greater than nine inch DBH will be retained and the treatment will be designed so as to retain the existing canopy closure levels (made up by mid- and over-story trees). Nest trees will be identified and protected from damage and disturbance during treatment implementation. All snags over 9- inch DBH will be retained (unless they are a hazard to life/property). All existing logs over 12-inch DBH will be retained. Where there are fewer than nine logs per acre, felled hazard trees will be left for log habitat. Trees and snags will be limbed no higher than two feet off the ground. 7. Level 4 Treatments in Protected Activity Centers: All live trees equal to or greater than nine inch DBH will be retained and the treatment will be designed so as to retain the existing canopy closure levels (made up by mid- and over-story trees). Nest trees will be identified and protected from damage and disturbance during treatment implementation. A minimum of the largest, soundest 40 snags per five acres and a minimum of nine logs per acre (minimum 12 inches in diameter and 120 linear feet) will be retained. 8. Level 4 Treatments in Home Range Cores and Mapped Suitable Habitat: All live trees equal to or greater than 16-inch DBH will be retained and the treatment will be designed so as to retain canopy closure (made up by mid- and over-story trees) of a minimum of 60 percent where it exists. Where 60 percent canopy closure does not exist, the current canopy closure will be retained. Nest trees will be identified and protected from damage and disturbance during treatment implementation. A minimum of the largest, soundest 40 snags per five acres and a minimum of nine logs per acre (minimum 12 inches in diameter and 120 linear feet) will be retained. 9. In All Mapped Spotted Owl Habitat: Spotted owls (especially juveniles) often use perch sites 5 to 20 feet off of the ground in the midstory. Low branches will be retained as much as possible where it can be balanced with ladder fuel removal objectives in Treatment Level 4 areas; this measure will be considered where possible in Treatment Level 1 and 2 areas.

Bald Eagle – Guidelines 1. Nesting: Any eagles present in the project area immediately before and during project activities will be monitored for courtship and nesting activities. If courtship or nesting activities are observed, work around the nest site will be suspended until the Forest Service Line Officer determines appropriate actions. Actions would potentially include a limited operating period (for nest stand and frequently-used foraging areas), work exclusion buffers around nest trees, protection of perch trees, etc. 2. Treatment Guidelines: Treatments will be avoided in mapped bald eagle habitat unless treatments are designed to improve habitat protection. Where it is not feasible to avoid treatments due to community protection measures or not desirable for habitat protection, follow these guidelines: a. Buffers: No treatments will be conducted within ¼ mile (400 m) around mapped day perches, foraging areas, and night roosts during the season when eagles are present. If nest sites are identified prior to or during implementation, a ¼ mile buffer would be used around the nest. The Forest Service may increase this buffer where there is direct visibility from high use bald eagle areas (especially if nesting occurs) to the human

Page 48

activity site. For the Bluff project, the day use area buffer will be ¼ mile from the shoreline of Bluff Lake. b. Limited Operating Periods: The limited operating period for wintering bald eagles is December 1 – April 1. A limited operating period for nesting bald eagles would depend on the chronology of nesting. c. Treatments in Night Roost and Nest Groves: Canopy closure of the overstory will be retained at existing levels. Treatments will focus on removal of understory ladder fuels. Individual known or suitable roost trees will be retained and protected from damage. All live trees 16 inches DBH or larger will be retained in the night roosts and nest groves. d. Treatments in Daytime Perch Areas: All known and suitable perch trees will be retained. Exceptions would be made where dead perch trees pose a threat to life or property or threaten the integrity of a fuelbreak. If removal of daytime perches would leave an area devoid of daytime perch sites, the loss of each perch tree will be mitigated by creating windows in green trees or installing artificial perches on a 2:1 basis. e. Helicopter: See previous section on helicopter use. 3. If the Forest Service Line Officer determines that trees must be removed in bald eagle habitat, a wildlife biologist will help determine which trees will be removed, how the stand will be treated, and how to ensure protection of the known nest, perch, and roost trees and important eagle habitat conditions.

San Bernardino Flying Squirrels 1. In all forest vegetation types, retention trees (including dead and live trees) will be left in groups of a minimum of three trees per group with a minimum of three groups per acre. Groups will be spread out randomly across the project area. A wildlife biologist will help guide the implementation of this action. 2. In Treatment Level 4 and 4a areas, logs will be left or placed between the clumps to provide “runways” and cover for flying squirrels to move between trees. Logs will be a minimum of 12 inches in diameter and 20 feet long. This measure will be implemented in Treatment Level 1 and 1a areas where it does not conflict with the fuels management. A wildlife biologist will help guide the implementation of this action.

Mountain Yellow-legged Frogs, Arroyo Toads, and California Red-Legged Frogs 1. If stream crossings are approved for equipment, a biologist will conduct surveys prior to the onset of work to evaluate potential occurrences. During implementation, a biologist will periodically visit those stream crossings to validate absence of the species. If the species is found, all work will stop until measures can be taken to avoid effects or consultation with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is conducted.

Botanical Resources 1. Effects to Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive botanical species and designated Critical Habitat will be avoided. These areas may be buffered to prevent indirect impacts such as soil movement into the occurrences. A qualified botanist will work with the appropriate staff to

Page 49

avoid known occurrences (e.g., placement of skid trails, landings, burn piles, equipment storage, etc.). 2. In limited instances in coordination with the Forest or District botanists, and where essential to allow for operability or safety, individual plants of a Sensitive plant occurrence may be impacted; but only where the individuals impacted represent a small fraction of the occurrence. Where occurrences of Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive plants cannot be avoided, the District or Forest botanist will work with appropriate staff to minimize impacts (e.g., hand treatments, special prescriptions, etc.). 3. Watchlist plant species will be monitored during and after treatment to the extent possible. Watchlist species and other species of interest may be flagged and avoided where they co- occur with Sensitive species, riparian conservation areas, or where objectives and operability are not compromised.

Post-project Rehabilitation 1. All temporary routes (including Maintenance Level 1, closed, and decommissioned routes), landings, and skid trails will be rehabilitated and blocked after project completion. Temporary roads used during implementation will be returned to pre-project condition or natural conditions (as observed adjacent to the route) and blocked to prevent motorized access as soon as possible after implementation. 2. Rehabilitation of landings, temporary roads, skid trails, unauthorized routes, and other disturbed areas will include: returning the ground to characteristic landscape form, implementing de-compaction measures and erosion control measures as needed, and covering bare soil with slash, chips, pine needles, stockpiled duff, or cut brush. Where possible, wood and slash from the site chipped and spread to mulch those disturbed areas. Disturbed areas will be restored using locally-collected plant materials and seeds (S-6, LMP Part 3, p. 5). Container stock or native plants may also be planted. Seed mixes and stock plants must be approved by a Forest Service botanist prior to application. 3. A combination of natural barriers (rocks, logs, etc.), screening, fencing, etc. will be used to prevent and discourage unauthorized vehicle activity during and after the project treatment. All existing fences and other barriers will be repaired after completion of project area units in order to prevent unauthorized off-road driving.

Scenery and Recreational 1. Straight lines and geometric shapes will be minimized in order to blend units to create free form vegetation patterns that mimic natural patterns. 2. A landscape architect or recreational forester will be consulted before layout and marking near recreation site boundaries. 3. If any recreation permits are issued for the project area during the implementation process of this project, users will be informed of possible hazards that may be encountered in the project area through proper signage or other forms.

Immediate Foreground Design And Layout (Specific Features) 1. The following design features are specific to the project areas that fall within the immediate foreground of the scenery site viewshed (i.e., concern level 1 roads, private property Page 50

boundaries, designated State and Federal Scenic roads, and scenic turnouts or pull offs) and recreation sites (i.e., campsites, trails, picnic areas etc.). The immediate foreground is from the scenery site and recreation boundary up to 300 feet of the seen area into the project areas. The following design features will apply to the first 150 feet unless otherwise stated in the design feature per forest Landscape Architect. a. No boundary paint will be used parallel to system roads and recreation site boundaries. Only cut tree marking will be used within recreation site boundaries. b. Cut stumps within three inches to the ground on the uphill side or within 12 inches of the downhill side of the stump; whichever allows the stump to be shorter. c. Topographic features (rock outcrops, hills, vegetation, etc.) will be utilized to conceal burned piles if piles are within 150 feet from private boundaries or major travel corridors. d. Where practical, landings will be located on existing roads, landings, or areas that can easily be rehabbed. In some situations, recreation sites with disturbed areas may be used as landings or skid trails. In these situations, the site will be reclaimed to the previous or a better representation of the characteristic landscape. e. Any visible burn piles will be restacked and burned down to ashes not allowing more than four and a half inches of charcoal to exist. f. Temporary closures of recreation sites to public use may be used to minimize public exposure to operational safety hazards. Closures may include roads, trails, dispersed camp sites, other recreation sites, or larger geographic areas depending on operational hazards. g. Logs, boulders, and untreated slash will be used as barriers by placing them parallel to or around the perimeter of recreation and scenery sites to discourage illegal off- highway vehicle use when possible. h. Untreated slash will be removed from recreation sites. i. Tree prune heights would not exceed 8 feet or one-third the tree height, whichever is less. j. Shrub islands of various shapes and sizes will be left in a random distribution to provide a natural appearance, while meeting the project objectives. k. Shrubs that could allow greater off-highway vehicle access in their absence will not be removed.

Air Quality 1. Safety signing, lights and other devices will be used along traffic routes that may be impacted by smoke as stated in the smoke management section of the prescribed fire burn plan. In addition, the South Coast Air Quality Management District requires a separate smoke management plan be submitted to the district in order to receive a burning permit or approval to burn. 2. Dust caused by project-associated vehicle traffic will be monitored and controlled by use of dust palliatives (e.g., lignin sulfonate or magnesium chloride) or water, depending on direction by the Forest. Fugitive dust management will be required to comply with South Coast Air Quality Management District Rule 403.

Page 51

Heritage 1. All heritage resources that are within or adjacent to treatment areas or roads will be flagged and avoided during implementation 2. If an undertaking affects a historic property in an unanticipated manner, the Forest will notify and consult with Region 5, the State Historic Preservation Officer, and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, and follow the procedures of the Discoveries and Inadvertent Effects stipulation (stipulation 7.10) in the Programmatic Agreement among the U.S.D.A. Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region (Region 5), California State Historic Preservation Officer, Nevada State Historic Preservation Officer, and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation regarding the Processes for Compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act for Management of Historic Properties by the National Forests of the Pacific Southwest Region. 3. If an unanticipated discovery of an at risk historic property is made during project implementation and the site has been impacted by project activities, the Forest will use the process defined in the Discoveries and Inadvertent Effects stipulation (stipulation 7.10) in the Programmatic Agreement among the U.S.D.A. Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region (Region 5), California State Historic Preservation Officer, Nevada State Historic Preservation Officer, and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation regarding the Processes for Compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act for Management of Historic Properties by the National Forests of the Pacific Southwest Region to notify and consult with Region 5, the State Historic Preservation Officer, and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. 4. If an unanticipated discovery of an at risk historic property is made during project implementation and the site has not been impacted by the time of discovery, project activities will be halted immediately in the vicinity of the site, and the heritage program manager, in consultation with fuels, vegetation management, or fire specialists as necessary, will design and implement standard protection measures to eliminate or minimize impacts, prior to authorizing resumption of project activities. 5. At-risk historic properties (sites, structures, features, or objects) containing combustible cultural materials (wood, paper, plastics, glass, clothing, basketry, etc.) and rock art will be excluded from prescribed fire. 6. At-risk historic properties that cannot be excluded from prescribed fire will be protected from adverse effects through application of Standard Resource Protection Measures (Appendix H, 5.2) in the Programmatic Agreement among the U.S.D.A. Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region (Region 5), California State Historic Preservation Officer, Nevada State Historic Preservation Officer, and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation regarding the Processes for Compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act for Management of Historic Properties by the National Forests of the Pacific Southwest Region. 7. Heritage sites within fuel breaks or that contain heavy concentrations of brush, chaparral, or dense stands of trees would be cleared by hand and downed materials hand carried off-site. No pile burns will be conducted within a resource boundary. Following review and consultation with the heritage resource manager, prescribed fire treatment areas will be considered exempt undertakings for all other heritage resource types unless specified.

Page 52

8. Low-intensity prescribed fire can proceed in areas previously affected by moderate- and high-intensity wildfire.

Monitoring Air Quality 1. Visual smoke observations will be monitored on site and at receptor areas during burn implementation to insure that smoke dispersion remains within identified parameters as stated in the smoke management section of the prescribed fire burn plan. In addition, the South Coast Air Quality Management District requires a separate smoke management plan be submitted to the District in order to receive a burning permit or approval to burn.

Watershed (Soil, Water, and Riparian) 1. Timber Waiver – California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Lahontan Region: California Water Code section 13260(a) requires that any person discharging waste (e.g., soils, rock, ash, slash, and herbicide residuals) that could affect the quality of waters of the state shall file a report of waste discharge. The Timber Waiver is an alternative regulatory mechanism that avoids the necessity for filing a report of waste discharge, while still providing for water quality protection. The Timber Waiver is conditional and includes eligibility criteria; conditions; and notification, monitoring, and reporting requirements.

The Timber Waiver applies to vegetation management projects that range from homeowner defensible space operations to local Fire Protection Districts' community protection plans, to large Wildland Urban Interface projects proposed by the California Department of Parks and Recreation, the Bureau of Land Management, and the U.S. Forest Service. Commercial timber harvest conducted by small landowners, industrial timber companies, and the U.S. Forest Service are also covered under the Timber Waiver categories.

The Timber Waiver structures the enrollment conditions and implementation and monitoring requirements based on levels of increasing potential risk to water quality. The primary impacts to water quality from timber harvesting are sedimentation from disturbed land and solar and thermal heating of surface waters after vegetation is removed.

Post-project Rehabilitation 1. Fire prevention technicians and other field staff will monitor the area and if or when problem areas arise, remedial and preventative actions would be taken as appropriate. Coordination with adjacent landowners, public education, and signing will be used as appropriate. 2. Restored unauthorized routes and temporary roads will be monitored for adequate revegetation response for compliance with the National Forest Management Act.

Page 53

Botanical and Wildlife Resources 1. Botanical or biological monitoring will be conducted, as needed, during implementation to ensure that protection measures and objectives are met. Post-implementation monitoring of special treatment areas, as needed, will also be conducted. 2. The project area will be monitored periodically for three years after the treatment is completed for non-native invasive plants, subject to available staff and funding. If weeds are found, a plan for eradication or control will be developed for that species at that time. 3. Monitoring efforts will include monitoring of the entire project area for the creation of unauthorized routes in the project area. Post-project monitoring will include closure of new unauthorized routes discovered through restoration, barricading, and disguising, or a combination. Those sites will continue to be monitored for effectiveness of restoration treatment. Coordination with adjacent landowners, public education, and signing will be used as appropriate. 4. Prior to broadcast burning, monitoring plots will be established in units with rare plants, non- native invasive plants, and important wildlife habitat features (woodrat nests, etc.) to assess effects of the broadcast burning and effectiveness of protection measures if funding is available. 5. An ongoing monitoring effort on San Bernardino flying squirrels will be continued during and post-treatment to inform the effectiveness of habitat protection measures and to assess the effects of treatments if funding is available.

Heritage 1. Monitoring will be implemented under conditions specified by the Heritage Program Manager within non-intensive inventory areas that may contain at risk historic properties and in treatment areas where deferred inventory was approved. The Heritage Program Manager will determine the scope and schedule for any associated monitoring. 2. The Forest will provide the funding and staff time necessary to perform all post-project activity identification, historic property treatment and protection, monitoring, effects assessment, and documentation recommended by the Heritage Program Manager as a condition of project approval, or when identified during post-activity assessments. All such work will be completed within one year of final project activities. If the recommended work is not completed within the period of time the Forest will notify and consult with Region 5, the State Historic Preservation Officer, and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation on appropriate actions needed to complete the work within an agreed upon time period, or failing to do so will comply with 36 CFR 800.

Page 54

PART II: EXISTING CONDITIONS AND GENERAL EFFECTS

II-1.0 – INTRODUCTION This chapter, Part II, describes the existing environment in the project area and addresses effects that are common to many plant and animal species as well as special status species that are discussed in depth in Parts III, IV, V, and VI of this document. The purpose of Part II is to describe, in general, species and habitats in the project area as well as to document the general types and degree of potential effects from the proposed project. The effects described in this section may be applicable to more than one species and discussions in Parts III, IV, V, and VI will tier or reference them.

II-2.0 – EXISTING ENVIRONMENT – GENERAL The project area is located west of Lake Arrowhead, California, in San Bernardino County, and is managed by the Mountaintop Ranger District. All of the proposed treatments are located on National Forest System (NFS) lands. The project area’s elevations is between 4,500 and 5,700 feet above mean sea level.

The area lies just northwest of Blue Jay, CA where there is extensive community development and high population density in residential homes. Blue Jay has approximately 2,400 residents and is located in San Bernardino County which has over 2 million residents with a continually growing population. Despite low residential population statistics, the community has millions of annual visitors and is in close proximity to high population centers.

The project area is in the Wildland-Urban Interface (WUI). WUI is a term defined by the Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003 (HFRA) and is commonly used to describe the zone where structures and other human development meet and intermingle with undeveloped wildland and vegetation fuels.

The transportation system within the project area consists of one hiking trail and several unpaved Forest System roads. A small section of County-maintained Grass Valley Road passes through the project. There are no other developed National Forest facilities in the project area.

II-2.1 – Existing Environment - Vegetation Descriptions Portions of the Vegetation and Silviculture Resource Report for Grass Valley project (Waterston 2018) (hereafter referred to as GVL Vegetation Report) are repeated or summarized below to characterize the vegetation conditions in the project area. See the report for more detailed discussions.

The Grass Valley fire of 2007 significantly changed the vegetation condition and structural stages of the landscape in the project area. The existing conditions is a result of this major disturbance event. The project area is a mixed of cover types, with primary representation of hardwood and shrubs (Table 9).

Page 55

Table 9. Regional Dominance Types Across the Project Area Lifeform Alliance Acres Percentage of Project Area Mixed Coulter Pine (PC) 251 20% Hardwood Forest / Woodland Black Oak (QK) 250 20% Mixed Mixed Conifer – Pine (MP) 249 20% Conifer Forest / Woodland Mixed Conifer – Pine (MP) 111 9% Shrub and Subshrubs Lower Montane Mixed Chaparral (CQ) 102 8% Conifer Forest / Woodland Coulter Pine (PC) 99 8% Hardwood Forest / Woodland Canyon Live Oak (QC) 47 4% Mixed Bigcone Douglas - Fir (DM) 42 3% Conifer Forest / Woodland Ponderosa Pine (PP) 37 3% Shrub Great Basin – Mixed Chaparral Transition 34 3% (BX) Mixed Ponderosa Pine (PP) 14 1% Conifer Forest / Woodland Bigcone Douglas - Fir (DM) 9 1% Mixed Douglas-Fir - Pine (DP) 8 1% Shrub and Subshrubs Scrub Oak (CS) 6 0% Shrub and Subshrubs Upper Montane Mixed Chaparral (CX) 5 0% Urban Urban (UB) 5 0% Total 1,270 100%

A majority of the project area is conifer forest, non-native vegetation, and hardwood forest (87%); the remaining 12% of the project area is shrubs and a small portion (<1%, or 5 acres) is classified as urban. Urban areas are roads, developed sites, or other barren areas that have a lack of vegetation, and show evidence of human disturbance.

Canopy cover over time is used as a measure of density for this analysis. Canopy cover values are highly variable across the treatment levels, ranging from 33 – 54% (Table 10). The canopy cover measurement is also an average, calculated in the same way that trees per acre was calculated.

Table 10. Canopy Cover By Treatment Level At The Time Of Inventory Treatment Level Existing Canopy Cover (2016) 1 39% 1a 50% 3 54% 4 34% 4a 33%

The structure of the vegetation communities in the project area has been altered due to the Grass Valley fire. The mortality in tree species associated with the fire, and the sprouting of brush after the fire has changed both vertical and horizontal heterogeneity.

Generally speaking, both vertical and horizontal heterogeneity are reduced as a consequence of the Grass Valley Fire. Lethal amounts of heat killed some trees and there were some shifts in the vegetation community structure, including more brush and fewer individual trees.

Page 56

Under the proposed action, the number of trees per acre would decrease to achieve fuels and vegetation objectives. Canopy cover is modeled to change only slightly. Since fuels reduction is the focus of the project area, the number of trees contributing to canopy cover would generally not be removed. The existing condition for canopy cover ranges from 33% to 54%; across all treatment levels it is reduced less than 3%, with the largest decreases modeled to be in areas where the existing canopy cover is the highest (Treatment Levels 3 and 1a). Vegetation communities over time are anticipated to remain in same major classifications. There is no anticipated change to regional dominance types. There is anticipated to be a change to structure and composition. Anticipated changes are an increase to the distribution of tree classes, with more age and size classes represented over the long term time frame.

II-2.2 – Watershed Affected HUC 6 watersheds in the project area include Grass Valley Creek-West Fork Mohave River Watershed and Silverwood Lake-West Fork Mohave River Watershed. The area is characterized by warm, dry summers and cool, moist winters. The dominating factor of climate in California is the semi-permanent high pressure in the north Pacific. In the summer, this high pressure moves northward pushing storm tracks well to the north and keeping the state dry. In the winter, this high pressure moves south permitting storms from the Pacific to track across the state (GVL Hydrology Report – Wells 2018).

There are two streams in the project area: West Fork Mojave River and Grass Valley Creek. Within the project area, there is relatively little perennial surface flows. Flows consist mainly of snowmelt and storm runoff.

II-2.3 – Existing Environment – Wildlife Appendix A includes a list of all animal species that have been recorded from the Grass Valley project area.

II-2.3.1 – Fish Occurrences Currently, the only streams near the project area that support fish are the East Fork of the West Fork Mojave River and in Grass Valley Creek where are non-native wild rainbow trout occur. The upper reaches of the East Fork of the West Fork Mojave River extend into the project area but that portion of the creek only flows intermittently; trout are not expected to extend into the project area. Grass Valley Creek supports rainbow trout downstream of the project area. During high precipitation cycles where flows are adequate, trout extend into the project area.

II-2.3.2 – Amphibian Occurrences Amphibians require a source of standing or flowing water to complete their life cycle. Some terrestrial species can survive in drier areas by remaining in moist environments found beneath leaf litter and fallen logs, or by burrowing into the soil. These xeric-adapted species conserve moisture by emerging only under high humidity conditions or when the weather is cool and/or wet. Mesic forest and riparian habitats in the Grass Valley project area provide potential habitat for amphibian species that require permanent or intermittent water as well as species adapted to drier conditions. Appendix A contains a list of all species recorded in or near the project area.

The E. Fork W. Fork Mojave River has historic records for mountain yellow-legged frogs, California red-legged frogs, and arroyo toads; all considered extirpated. All three species also Page 57

historically occurred in Grass Valley Creek; only arroyo toads are currently extant, occurring about 2.5 miles downstream of the project boundary.

II-2.3.3 – Reptile Occurrences The diversity of reptile species is related to the diversity of plant communities found on the site. Typically, plant communities that have an abundant amount of leaf litter, rocks, and rotting logs have a higher diversity than those areas that have been highly modified or disturbed. Appendix A contains a list of all species recorded in or near the project area.

Rare reptiles known from or expected in the project area include San Bernardino ringneck snake (Diadophis punctatus modestus), two-striped garter snake (Thamnophis hammondii), terrestrial mountain garter snake (Thamnophis elegans elegans), and southern rubber boa (Charina bottae umbratica).

II-2.3.4 – Bird Occurrences The project area includes a diversity of vegetation types and habitats (including mixed conifer forest, big-cone Douglas fir stringers, mixed chaparral, live and black oak, and aquatic/riparian communities) that provide habitat for many bird species. Birds use the project area for breeding, wintering, and migration stop-overs. Appendix A contains a list of all bird species, including non- native, recorded in or near the project area. Rare birds known from the project area include the California spotted owl (Strix occidentalis occidentalis) and bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus).

II-2.3.5 – Mammal Occurrences The project area contains foraging, breeding, cover, and movement corridor habitat for many mammal species. Appendix A contains a list of all species recorded in or near the project area. Rare mammals known from the project area include the San Bernardino flying squirrel (Glaucomys sabrinus californicus).

II-3.0 – EFFECTS OF PROPOSED ACTION – GENERAL II-3.1 – Levels of Effect Analyses The project area includes the footprint of ground that would be directly affected as a result of the project activities.

The analysis area, as evaluated under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), is the maximum expected reach of direct and indirect effects of the action (i.e., the decision to approve the proposed project), and includes the project area, any connected areas that may experience environmental effects of the project.

The federal action area, as defined by the Endangered Species Act and associated regulations, applies only to the discussions of listed species and designated Critical Habitat under the federal Endangered Species Act.

For the Grass Valley project, the project area is defined as the area displayed in Error! Reference source not found. For this project, the analysis area is the same as the federal action area. For this project, the analysis area and federal action area include the project area (as described

Page 58

above) plus the adjacent areas subject to increased noise during implementation and the downstream reaches of drainages within the reaches of effects.

The analysis of potential effects includes direct, indirect, and cumulative associated with the proposed project. The expected likelihood, extent, severity, and duration of effects are addressed in the analyses. The factors considered in each of level of analysis are explained below.

II-3.1.1 Direct Effects Direct effects are considered actions or activities that are immediate in space and/or time (e.g., physical damage to plants; death or injury of animals, destruction of eggs, disturbance that disrupts breeding behavior, habitat removal).

II-3.1.2 Indirect Effects Indirect effects are actions or activities that could result in effects to the species but are removed from the project activities in space and/or time (e.g., downstream sedimentation, changes to hydrological patterns, effects to pollinators, invasive species introductions).

II-3.1.3 Cumulative Effects This document addresses two definitions of Cumulative Effects/Impacts:  Under the NEPA, “cumulative impacts” are those effects caused by past, present, and future federal, state, and private activities within or onto special status species and their habitats. This definition applies to the general cumulative impacts discussions (Part II), cumulative impacts for Sensitive species (Part IV) and NEPA cumulative impacts for Threatened/Endangered species (Part III).  Under the ESA, “cumulative effects” only consider future non-federal activities that are reasonably certain to occur. Future federal activities or activities permitted by federal agencies are not included under ESA “cumulative effects” because any proposed future federal activities or federally permitted activities must undergo future Section 7 consultation with the USFWS. This definition applies to the cumulative effects analysis for federally-listed Threatened/Endangered species (Part III).

Cumulative effects/impacts consider the effects of other actions that may combine with the predicted effects of the Proposed Action. Cumulative effects/impacts result when the effects of an action are added to or interact with other effects in a particular place and within a particular time. The analysis area for cumulative effects analysis depends on the distribution of the species. The cumulative effects analysis area for some narrowly-distributed species can be small, but analysis for some species where local effects can be extended to a broader scale through animal movement and population dynamics are done over a corresponding larger area.

II-3.1.3.1 Cumulative Effects – Past and Ongoing Activities/Actions: Past and ongoing activities and their effects to species/habitats are described in the “Baseline Condition” discussions for each species. Ongoing activities are recurring activities that have occurred over time and will continue to occur (e.g., road maintenance, trail maintenance, recreational use of the SBNF, hazard tree removal along SCE powerlines and State/County highways, SCE periodic replacement of deteriorated poles, etc.). In terms of how the species and habitats included in this project, the effects of past and ongoing activities are included in the species-by-species Page 59

discussion of existing conditions/ baseline. The Forest Plan and supporting EIS contain discussions of various past influences on the SBNF.

II-3.1.3.2 Cumulative Effects – Current Activities/Actions: For the purposes of this analysis, current activities/actions are those that are one-time projects that are in the implementation phase. There are several SBNF fuels reduction projects currently that are being implemented or will be in 2016 in the San Bernardino Mountains in mixed conifer, pinyon/juniper, and transition vegetation types: South Big Bear and Baldwin fuels reduction projects. Both of these projects have similar Design Features to this project in terms protection of wildlife and plant habitat and species occurrences.

Non-Forest Service activities that are currently being implemented and may contribute to the cumulative effects of this project include the development and forestry projects on private lands

II-3.1.3.3 Cumulative Effects – Foreseeable Future Activities/Actions: There are two other fuels reduction project currently in the planning phase – North Big Bear and Santa Ana Watershed – that fall into the foreseeable future category. Vegetation management activities are focused on fuels reduction and forest health projects. Activities would be similar to what is proposed here (e.g., thinning of understory and overstory, removal of dead or dying trees, and emphasis on retention of the largest trees).

Non-Forest Service actions that are in the foreseeable future include development and forestry projects on private lands.

II-3.2 – Effects of Proposed Action See the other specialist reports in the Grass Valley project record for potential effects to fire behavior, fuels conditions, forest stand conditions, hydrology, etc. Discussions from those documents are incorporated by reference and the analysis from them may be referenced in wildlife and botany discussions in this document.

II-3.3 – Effects of Proposed Action –Effects Common to Some Biotic Resources The following discussion describes generalized direct and indirect effects that may be common to many of the plants, animals, or habitats in the analysis area. These discussions may also apply to TESW species discussed in later sections of this document. Parts of these discussions will be referenced later in the specific-species discussions for those species that are known to occur or have the potential to occur in the analysis area.

II-3.3.1 – General Effects to Vegetation Communities Under the Proposed Action, a variety of direct and indirect effects to plants and general vegetation would occur. In summary, ground-disturbing activities would interrupt and retard vegetation processes, including germination, re-sprouting, and establishment. Ground-disturbing activities would directly affect individual plants and their habitats, leading to death and injury of individual plants. Effects to soils and hydrology would indirectly affect individual plants and general vegetation through changes in available water, soil productivity, and erosion and sedimentation processes. For a few species, ground disturbance associated stimulation of

Page 60

germination may lead to competitive exclusion of other species. Shifts in dominance and reduced species diversity in the understory may occur as a result.

Ongoing effects caused by unauthorized motorized and nonmotorized vehicle travel off roads would be exacerbated by reduction of vegetative and physical barriers. Increased prevalence of cheatgrass and other non-native invasive plants would further retard native plant reestablishment and introduce the risk of increasingly frequent fire within treated areas. These potential adverse effects would be avoided, minimized, or mitigated through the implementation of Design Features included in the Proposed Action.

Where used, prescribed fire in understory vegetation would be expected to have short-term adverse effects on plants through death and injury to individuals. Ground disturbance caused by building containment lines, resulting in death and injury to plants and subsequent vulnerability to erosion and weed invasion, would have more adverse effects than the fire itself. Recovery in these systems following low to moderate severity fire is generally robust and vegetation vigor and native plant species diversity is expected to be high beginning the first growing season post- fire.

II-3.3.2 – Potential Direct Effects to Plants Potential effects to individual plants would include crushing, uprooting, and burying of plants through use of heavy equipment and skidding of logs. Plants would also be directly affected through underburning and where mastication or other vegetation thinning techniques and green- tree removal are applied. Such effects would be prevalent and unavoidable under the Proposed Action, but would be minimized with regard to rare plants and within Riparian Conservation Areas through implementation of Design Features.

Prescribed fire operations would result in death or injury to plants through heating and combustion. Building of associated containment lines would result in trampling and uprooting of plants.

Proposed mastication treatments would affect vegetation through death and injury of plants. Mastication with the cutting blades above the soil (rather than below the soil surface) would have less severe direct effects and shorter recovery times, as uprooting and damage to root crowns would be minimal.

II-3.3.3 – Potential Indirect Effects to Plants Effects to soils and hydrology (as described in the GVL Hydrology/Soils Report) would indirectly affect plants and general vegetation. Reduced soil productivity resulting from ground- based treatments would retard natural vegetation processes. Interruption of soil processes, including nutrient cycling also affects germination, growth, and overall vigor of plants. A reduction of organic carbon (e.g., down woody material from fine to large) can result in strong short-term increases in available inorganic nitrogen and phosphorus – which in turn provides conditions conducive to the establishment and spread of weeds.

Page 61

Erosion leads to loss of topsoil, including nutrients, native seedbanks, and beneficial microflora and microfauna. Erosion and deposition can also lead to loss of whole plants through uprooting, undermining, or burial of plants.

Sedimentation can result in burial of root crowns (leading to plant disease and in some cases death), burial of whole plants, and burial of seed banks, rhizomes, and bulbs to the extent that penetration to the soil surface is reduced or precluded. Erosion and soil compaction can slow natural revegetation of disturbed areas because seeds do not have the opportunity to germinate. Changes in soil temperature by canopy removal or opening can affect germination and seedling survival. Losses of soil productivity may also affect germination, survival, and vegetation health to some degree. Design Features for soils and hydrology would minimize but not avoid these indirect effects to plants and vegetation.

The Proposed Action would increase the likelihood for motorized vehicles to leave roads and travel off roads within treatment areas. This is due to reduction of natural barriers (vegetative and physical). This unauthorized activity would be expected to further affect plants and general vegetation through crushing, burial, and/or uprooting. Vehicle tracks also exacerbate soils and hydrological effects such as compaction and erosion, and subsequent loss of soil. Design Features to block likely points of departure from roads and to restore temporary roads upon completion of treatments would help minimize these effects.

The ground disturbance associated with the Proposed Action would also be expected to increase the prevalence of cheatgrass, which can form a flashy and continuous fuelbed, and thereby increase the likelihood of ignition and frequency of wildfire. Too-frequent fire can ultimately lead to type conversion.

Design Features to spread chips and other organic material in disturbed areas may offset this increase in cheatgrass but to an unknown extent that depends on a complex interaction of canopy closure, pre-existing cheatgrass seedbanks, temperatures, rainfall, soil types, and patterns and types of ground disturbance. The mosaic layout of treatment areas, treatment levels, and logging systems would produce a discontinuity of ground disturbance and cheatgrass prevalence, offsetting the influence of cheatgrass on fire behavior.

For prescribed burn and underburn treatments, containment lines would be scraped to bare mineral soil, increasing the potential for channelization of water flow and erosion. These linear soil disturbances increase the risk of weed invasion and, like roads and trails, can become a corridor for weed invasions into wildland systems.

All of these direct and indirect effects are proportional to treatment level and logging system. Level 1 is the most intensive and would have the greatest severity of direct and indirect effects. Level 3 would be intermediate and Level 4 the lowest. In these levels, different logging systems have a range of effects. Ground-based (tractor) logging systems entail the most ground disturbance simply due to the inherent heavy equipment use throughout the unit. Skyline (cable) systems would have an intermediate severity of ground disturbance due to partial or full suspension of logs and limited to no heavy equipment through parts of these units. Helicopter

Page 62

systems and hand work would have the least severe effects due to very limited ground-based equipment use.

Duration of effects are proportional to severity (i.e., more severe effects take longer to heal, several decades or more). The longest duration classes of effects are 1) hydrological effects where topsoil is lost; and, 2) effects associated with an increased prevalence of cheatgrass and other weeds.

II-3.3.4 – Spread or Establishment of Non-Native Species See the Weed Risk Assessment Report (Part VI of this document) for a discussion of the risk of non-native plant establishment and spread in the project area.

Also of some concern is the potential for increased disturbance to attract and support non-native species such as brown-headed cowbird, European starling, and house sparrow while displacing native birds. Brown-headed cowbirds and European starlings are present in the project area (Appendix A), including in riparian areas.

All of these species tend to be found in areas with agriculture and residential developments. Cowbirds, in particular, can dramatically affect reproduction of native birds, ultimately replacing native species in areas with huge invasions. Cowbird invasions can be a critical factor for federally-listed birds such as southwestern willow flycatchers and least Bell’s vireo. Cowbird occurrences in the San Bernardino Mountains are sporadic and patchy. While they are mostly located in urbanized areas or areas with cattle grazing and horse stables, they are also found in riparian areas. The disturbances associated with the Proposed Action may result in increased cowbird numbers and distribution.

II-3.3.5 – Changes in Microclimates – Plants and Wildlife Removal of trees and shrubs during the project would result in a reduction in canopy closure and an opening up of the forest in some portions of the project area. This would result in more sunlight reaching the forest floor, increases in soil temperatures, and reduction in soil moistures. These types of changes in the forest floor microclimate affect germination rates of native plant seeds and survivability of forest floor plants (favoring sun-tolerant species over shade-tolerant species).

In turn, this may result in changes in habitat suitability for small terrestrial mammals, reptiles, and amphibians that often rely on specialized microclimate characteristics. The forest floor microclimate is naturally dynamic, changing as features change, with species moving to adjust. However, if those changes occur on a larger landscape level, microclimate habitat losses may result in some short-term displacement of species to areas that are more suitable. As forest floor vegetation reestablishes, those species would be expected to move back into the area.

Changes in microclimates and micro-habitats in conifer forest habitat would be greatest in the more intensive treatment areas (Levels 1 and 3) that would have a more open mid- and overstory as well as have more shrub removal.

Page 63

The proposed action calls for underburning to be used for fuels reduction maintenance in the future after the initial thinning and fuels treatments. The Design Features call for no or limited underburning in spotted owl nest stands and Protected Activity Centers and also in Home Range Cores and mapped Suitable Habitat if the territory recently occupied (see Broadcast Burn Design Features #3 and 4). This is to prevent disturbance and habitat alterations that could affect occupancy.

Underburning generally results in clearing of the understory shrubs and small trees with occasional larger trees burning. Underburning changes the forest floor conditions in terms of cover and forage availability. Areas that receive underburning treatments would also have greater changes to micro-climates and micro-habitats. Soil moisture levels can change as a result of opening of the canopy and loss of shrub layers. This can affect germination and plant regrowth, sometimes favoring non-native grasses like cheat grass.

Thinning opens up the canopy and can change the temperatures, humidity, and soil moisture levels in the stands as more shade is lost. For species like spotted owls that favor old growth or forest interiors, changes in temperature can be problematic. Thinner stands result in hotter temperatures during the summer. Opening the stands also affects the “umbrella effect” of closed canopy, providing protection from snow and rain. Animals in thinned forests are more likely to get wet during storms. Temperature levels in thinned forests change, becoming colder at night because heat escapes from them more easily.

II-3.3.6 – Potential Effects to Wildlife Habitat In as much as vegetation is a critical component of wildlife habitat in terms of foraging sites, food supplies, cover/shelter, and breeding sites, losses of or disturbance to native vegetation can affect habitat availability and quality for wildlife species. The Proposed Action would result in effects to plants and vegetation as described above in Parts II-3.3.1, II-3.3.2, and II-3.3.3. Measures to minimize the extent and severity of soil disturbance are expected to reduce these effects. Impacts to the forested vegetation resources would be beneficial in the long-term, as project implementation would result in more healthy and resilient forest conditions. (GVL Vegetation Report, Table 6 and pg. 30).

The Proposed Action would result in changes in horizontal and vertical structural components of the mixed conifer habitats as trees and brush are removed. The extent of the changes in the overstory and understory would vary by site – in areas where a high percentage of the vegetation has died, the changes would be more apparent than in areas with lower mortality levels. The changes in stand structure would affect different species in different ways. Some opportunistic and primary successional species would benefit in areas where the stand structure changes while other species, particularly older seral stage species, are likely to suffer. A reduction in the understory vegetation would affect cover availability as well as the availability of berries and seeds for food.

Thinning and burning activities would result in changes in vegetation structure and affect habitats by changing canopy closure, which affects stand microclimate, and the ability of understory vegetation to recover. Opening up of the forested and shrub habitats would increase Page 64

sunlight to the ground, increasing soil temperatures and decreasing soil moisture. Effects would vary by species.

In patches where a high percentage of trees have died, the removal of those trees would open up the stands, favoring sun-loving plant species and discouraging shade-loving species. The wildlife species using those areas may likewise change, reflecting the new vegetation patches. The habitat patchiness and fluctuations in species occurrences and population levels are similar to those that occur naturally over time. The mechanical removal of dead trees would speed up the process that would have occurred if those trees had fallen over time.

Thinning of green trees and understory brush would change the conifer forest floor to some extent, from a forest with relatively thick undergrowth and understory layers, to one that is more open. In the thinning units, less forest floor cover (vegetation, logs, duff, downed limbs, etc.) would be present, making it less favorable for small animals needing the cover to evade predators. Some brush piles, downed logs, and shrubs would be retained, providing a certain level of cover after treatment.

Pile burning has a low risk of affecting wildlife or plant habitat as the Design Features call for avoiding creating piles in RCAs or near TES species occurrences. The Design Features have measures to help protect animals that have taken up residence in piles before burning.

Some of the treatment levels would also receive an underburning treatment when all other fuels reduction work is complete. The purpose of underburning is to reduce surface fuel loading, in both existing and activity generated fuels. Underburning would reduce fuels, as well as restore process level function to the ecosystem. Underburning would be applied under conditions that are specified by the project specific burn plan. Underburning would reduce the existing level of shrub and understory cover. While underburning is intended to remove shrubs and small trees, medium and large trees may sometimes be killed during the burning operations. Line construction (either hand-line or wet line) around important trees and areas would help reduce the risk of undesirable effects. The Design Features call for special actions when underburning would occur in or near areas of concern.

Changes in vegetative structure and composition, wildlife habitat quality and habitat availability would be greatest in the more intensive treatment areas (Levels 1 and 3) and underburn areas that would result in a more open mid- and overstory as well as have more shrub removal. This would result in some reduction of available hiding cover, sheltering, breeding, and foraging habitats. Some species (e.g., predators that take advantage of openings and edges) would benefit from these changes.

II-3.3.7 – Potential Effects to Aquatic and Riparian Species and Habitats Riparian Conservation Areas (RCAs) (Figure 2) would be managed according to established guidelines and would allow only limited activities (see Design Features). RCAs are areas defined in the SBNF Forest Plan to provide for management of riparian resources. They are areas that consist of geographically distinct resource values and characteristics, which are composed of the aquatic and riparian resources, floodplains, and wetlands. They include, but are not limited to, meadows, all areas within a horizontal distance of 328 feet (100 meters) from the edge of Page 65

perennial streams, and lakes/reservoirs or within approximately 98 feet (30 meters) of the edge of seasonally flowing/intermittent streams (FSH 2509.22). Those management guidelines would help limit effects to the aquatic and riparian ecosystems.

Riparian and aquatic systems are important to a number of plants and animals that rely on the riparian habitat conditions for breeding, foraging, shelter, water, movement corridors, etc. Effects to riparian and aquatic habitats are based on the analysis and predicted effects included in the GVL Soils/Hydrology Report (Wells 2018) and in the Transportation-Operations Report (Yurczyk 2018) for this project. Those reports are incorporated by reference.

Generalized effects to the hydrology are expected due to equipment use, soil disturbance, and burning operations during fuels reduction operations. These include an increase in erosion and sedimentation. Channeling may occur along compacted soils. An increase in nitrate leaching could also result in increased eutrophication and increased toxicity to surface waters.

Work in and around riparian areas, including ephemeral, intermittent, and perennial streams may also result in effects to aquatic animals. The riparian canopy provides a source of large woody debris for input into streams. This is important in maintaining habitat complexity for resident aquatic species in the form of pool habitat, breeding habitat, and escape cover. The trees in riparian areas provide stream bank stabilization via root masses.

The removal of riparian vegetation, including trees, can affect aquatic habitat and populations by increasing sediment inputs into streams, changing stream temperature, changing the input of large woody debris, and altering the delivery of water to streams. Harvest activities within RCAs that result in reduction of forest canopy can reduce shade and affect stream temperature, cover, primary production, and habitat (Belt et al. 1992).

Road construction and use often poses the greatest potential risk to riparian resources and fish habitat capabilities. Poorly or unmaintained dirt roads are known to produce fine sediment in streams. Sediment entering stream channels can affect channel shape and form, stream substrates, the structure of aquatic habitats, and the structure and abundance of aquatic populations (Chamberlin et al. 1991). Roads in riparian areas can result in an introduction of fine sediment, increased landslide potential due to road location and design, and re-routing of sediment-laden water. Road construction also has the potential to affect upstream fish passage through improper placement or sizing of culverts. Gucinski et al. 2001 described three primary effects or roads on hydrologic processes: (1) they intercept rainfall directly on the road surface and road cutbanks and affect subsurface water moving down the hillslope; (2) they concentrate flow, either on the surface or in an adjacent ditch or channel; and (3) they divert or reroute water from paths it otherwise would take were the road not present.

No system road management or travel management changes are proposed on this project. There are approximately 5.4 miles of existing Forest Service system roads in the project area (Table 11).

Page 66

Figure 2. Riparian Conservation Areas

Page 67

There would be 1.7 miles of temporary roads constructed in the project area, including 1.2 miles of new temporary road construction and 0.5 miles of temporary road reconstruction on existing non-system routes that are currently not drivable. An additional 1.1 miles of existing non-system road would be reshaped and used for fuel removal operations. All temporary roads, including existing unauthorized roads used for fuel removal, would be blocked, disguised and allowed to naturally revegetate over time (Post-Project Rehabilitation Design Feature #1).

Table 11. Existing National Forest System Roads To Be Used For Fuel Treatment Road # Road Name Miles Maintenance Level Surface Jurisdiction 2N33 Pilot Rock 1.22 2 Native FS 2N34 Tunnel Two 2.43 2 Native FS 2N34A Tunnel Two Spur 0.73 2 Native FS 2N37 Miller Canyon 0.97 2 Native FS Total 5.35

Under the proposed project, road maintenance activities would be needed to retain or restore the road to approved management objectives. Maintenance activities would include hazard tree removal, cross drain construction and surface drain installation, culvert inlet armoring, culvert installation and replacement, drop inlet installation, catch basin cleaning and reshaping, culvert and over-the-side drain cleaning, road side brushing, ditch cleaning, spot surfacing and surface grading. The intention of these activities is to maintain existing road features and to be consistent with best management practice standards.

Direct effects to water quality can result from sediment being delivered by roads and trails at stream crossings. The project Hydrology/Soils Report identifies erosion and drainage issues at the crossings of 2N33 and 2N34 at Grass Valley Creek and an unnamed tributary and the crossing of 2N37 at the East Fork of the West Fork Mojave River. With implementation of the BMPs, no measurable short-term increases in sedimentation into the creeks would be expected (Wells 2018, pers. comm.).

The application of the project Design Features and applicable BMPs and Forest Plan Standards would help limit direct and indirect effects to aquatic and riparian species in/downstream from the project area. Under the proposed action, sediment delivery and soil erosion models predict post-treatment improvement within the two affected watersheds; this is primarily due to the road maintenance and drainage structure improvements and prevention or lessening of a damaging wildfire that is part of the Proposed Action.

The use of RCAs, Design Features, and BMPs along all riparian areas would maintain habitat for riparian-dependent species. While riparian stand structure would not be expected to be affected, project activities in the adjacent uplands could cause temporary disturbance to animals in the riparian zones. Buffer zones for riparian areas and Limited Operating Periods would be expected to help reduce the amount of disturbance. Overall, long-term adverse effects to riparian- dependent species would not be expected.

Page 68

II-3.3.8 – Temporary Noise Disturbance/Displacement/Abandonment – Wildlife During project activities, there would be some short-term negative effects on some forest- associated species. Use of heavy equipment, small machinery, helicopters, and presence of crews would result in higher noise levels and may locally displace animals that are foraging, denning, or breeding in the area. These effects vary by species, but Limited Operating Periods have been incorporated for some species and would reduce the potential for disturbance during key periods; non-target species would also benefit from the LOPs. Because of the LOPs and the fact that not all of the treatments would be implemented concurrently, there would portions of the project area without disturbance at any given time.

Disturbance effects on wildlife species have been well-documented for a number of species including deer, small mammals, reptiles, and nesting and perching birds. Most species exhibit a "flight" response to disturbance resulting in temporary, or if disturbance is constant, permanent displacement. Flight responses and/or disturbances can negatively affect animal health by requiring increased energy expenditures.

Animals respond to disturbances through behavioral and/or physiological responses. Disturbance responses are classed in three ways: attraction (curiosity, food-seeking), tolerance, and aversion. Stress requires energy expenditure. In some cases, it may require more energy than an animal can take in, so they must use body energy reserves. Continuous stress may eventually cause illness or death. Stress combined with other factors such as severe winter conditions or constant disturbance may cause individuals to die or fail to reproduce. In such cases, populations would decline. When disturbance occurs over a large region for many years, the population may be unable to continue to reproduce and survive in the area (Knight and Gutzwiller 1995).

The distance of displacement depends on several factors: quality of vegetative and topographic cover (line-of-sight from disturbance points); amount and type of disturbance; timing of disturbance (e.g. noise during the day may not affect a nocturnal species, and animals may be more or less tolerant of disturbance during breeding season); and tolerance for disturbance (e.g. hunted populations are generally more likely to flee from disturbance than nonhunted/protected populations) (Knight and Gutzwiller 1995).

Potential disturbance effects include: alteration of habitat use (avoidance or abandonment of an area – either temporarily or permanently), interruption of reproductive activities (courtship, mating, prenatal care, nesting, etc.), and increased predation (especially of abandoned nests) (Knight and Gutzwiller 1995).

Since some of the project area is already heavily-disturbed (along the urban interface, etc.), these effects have likely already occurred or are occurring in some portions of the project area. The proposed project would increase the amount of activity occurring in certain parts of the project area on a short-term basis. Those activities may further displace animals from the area on a temporary basis.

Increased abandonment of nests would be likely in and adjacent to the project areas (depending on season of operations). Some of the abandonment is likely to be short-term during the duration Page 69

of activity. However, short-term abandonment during breeding or nesting may result in loss of a year’s reproductive efforts.

II-3.3.9 – Death and Injury of Individuals – Wildlife Some losses of individual animals are likely due to the various activities associated with the proposed project. The potential for death or injury of animals depends on time of year, activity patterns of the individual species, and the activity taking place on the ground. Some loss of animals may occur due to yarding, felling, pile burning, underburning, and equipment usage. Animals nesting or denning in trees and shrubs may be injured or killed during felling and vegetation removal. Equipment use off roads may result in losses of fossorial species if burrows or rotting logs are crushed or moved.

Animals may also be killed or injured during removal of slash piles (e.g., burning, chipping, etc.) and underburning. Ideally, piles would be burned as soon as possible after piling to limit the potential for colonization by animals. However, due to logistics of suitable burn windows, it is likely that piles would be left on the ground for months before being burned. The Design Features call for piles to be probed prior to burning and to be lit from one side to allow animals a chance to escape.

There is a greater potential for injury or death of individual animals, especially small and slow- moving terrestrial species, during underburning and meadow burning operations. Many of the species found in those habitats are fossorial or cursorial and would be able to escape or avoid the flames and heat. However, young animals may not be mobile enough to escape in time. The Design Features call for avoidance of the breeding season in order to reduce the risk to breeding species or young animals. The Design Features call for avoiding logs, rocky outcrops, and woodrat nests/middens during burning operations. However, it is unlikely that complete avoidance would be feasible.

Mastication operations also pose a risk to individual animals as the equipment moves across the landscape masticating vegetation. Because mastication would occur at any time of year and in dense shrub lands, the risk includes loss of nests, eggs, and chicks of ground and shrub nesting birds. Woodrats may also be killed or injured if woodrat nests/middens are not visible under dense shrub layers. Losses and injury to slow-moving terrestrial species, such as snakes, would also be very likely. While the Design Features call for avoidance of nests where they are identified, some losses of animals is likely due to the density of the shrub layers and difficulty in maneuvering through them to find wildlife dens, breeding sites, and nests.

An additional risk for some rare reptiles is the risk of being killed or collected by project personnel. The Design Features include a measure requiring educating crew members to reduce the risk of this occurring.

The Design Features have measures to reduce the likelihood of losses of or injuries to animals but complete avoidance is impossible.

Page 70

II-3.3.10 – General Effects to Breeding Animals Disturbances prior to nesting/breeding season may result in abandonment of areas and disruption of courtship behaviors resulting in failure to reproduce or moving to adjacent areas and competing with other individuals for resources. Disturbance after nesting/breeding has started may result in losses of the season’s reproduction if the animals abandon existing nests, eggs, or offspring. It is likely that, if suitable habitat remains after treatment for the individual species, they would re-colonize the site after the disturbance has ceased.

Nests in trees and bushes may be destroyed during vegetation removal activities (e.g., tree felling, shrub removal, mastication, limbing, etc.). Additionally, nests on the ground are also susceptible to destruction by ground-based equipment. For birds, adults are likely to escape injury or death since they would fly at the beginning of the disturbance. However, eggs and nestlings would not be able to escape and would either be killed or injured.

Newly-faded trees typically do not support cavity-nesting species because the wood has not become soft enough for cavity excavation. Recently-faded trees are also less likely to have cup- nesting birds because of the lack of dense leaf cover as pine needles fade and drop. Removal of older snags and shrubs in the understory may affect species associated with these features, depending on the season of operations.

Dropping trees prior to spring nesting season would reduce the effects to breeding birds and other species. Dropping of the trees as soon as possible after they die would help prevent creation of cavities and establishment of nests. However, due to project logistics, implementation would be expected to occur during breeding season and felling of trees immediately after fading is not always possible.

Spotted owl and willow flycatcher LOP buffers would result in the exclusion of work during the breeding season in some of the project area. Where surveys before and during implementation find active bird nests, the Design Features provide for delaying work in the immediate area until after fledging.

Underburning treatments would occur when soil moistures are high and temperatures are relatively cold. The Design Features call for avoidance of burning during the breeding season to the extent possible (Broadcast Burning Design Feature #5). Because of the typical burning window (usually late fall/early winter), effects to breeding animals should be relatively low.

Mastication operations also pose a risk to individual animals as the equipment moves across the landscape masticating vegetation. Because mastication would occur at any time of year and in dense shrub lands, the risk includes loss of nests, eggs, and chicks of ground and shrub nesting birds. Woodrats may also be killed or injured if woodrat nests/middens are not visible under dense shrub layers. Losses and injury to slow-moving terrestrial species such as snakes would be very likely. While the Design Features call for avoidance of nests where they are identified, some losses of animals is likely due to the density of the shrub layers and difficulty in maneuvering through them to find wildlife dens, breeding sites, and nests.

Page 71

Some effects to breeding behavior of animals, including common, Watch List, and Sensitive species, are expected. The project Design Features call for retention of trees with signs of wildlife and for protection of raptor nest sites. The Design Features would help keep the levels of effects low but cannot ensure complete avoidance of effects.

II-3.3.11 – Potential Effects to Snag-Dependent Species – Wildlife A number of animals, including some Forest Service Sensitive and SBNF Watch List species, use snags for denning, foraging, and breeding sites (including raccoons, bats, San Bernardino flying squirrels, swallows, woodpeckers, chickadees, nuthatches, brown creepers, owls, etc.).

The proposed project would result in removal of snags, thus reducing the availability of habitat for snag-dependent species in some of the project area. Snags may also be lost during underburning operations. Snags would be left to meet direction in the Forest Plan guidelines (Appendix B) in Levels 3 (15 snags/5 acres) and 4 areas (40 snags/5 acres). Part of the shaded fuelbreaks (Level 1 – 100’ along some roads) are designed to not have any snags (to reduce threats from falling as well as provide a safer area for firefighting operations). The shaded fuelbreaks are narrow (300’ wide) and along roads. Because of that configuration, there would still be snags available throughout the project area and adjacent to Treatment Level 1 areas. Level 1a is a modification of the Level 1 shaded fuelbreak treatment where it overlaps with spotted owl habitat; the intent is to remove all snags within the first 100’ from private property or roads and retain 2 snags/acre in the outer portion of the fuelbreak (unless they are falling hazards).

Because of the abundance of snags across the forest, the continuing death of trees (due to drought, stress, insects) and implementation of Forest Plan snag retention guidelines, snag habitats would continue to be provided across the project area. Snags that are smaller than 12” DBH generally do not provide high quality habitat for nest/den sites, although they do provide foraging sites for many species. The snag retention guidelines and abundant numbers of dead trees in adjacent areas are expected to continue to provide adequate habitat for those species that forage on dead and dying trees. Likewise, the Design Features are expected to continue to provide for availability of suitable sites for species that rely on snags for nesting/denning.

Some individual animals may be injured or killed during the felling of dead/dying trees. Dropping dead/dying trees as soon as possible after they die (or as it becomes apparent that they will die) reduces the likelihood of cavities having formed and inhabitation by wildlife species, thus reducing the likelihood of injuries and losses. However, due to project logistics, immediate felling of trees is generally not possible.

For those snags dropped outside of the breeding season (generally February 15th to August 15th), effects to breeding cavity-nesting species would be lower. Nesting birds will seek alternate nest sites if those snags are not available to them. However, because it is highly unlikely that the project can be implemented outside of nesting season, some losses of or injuries to snag- dependent species are expected, especially of eggs and birds that are not capable of flying.

Cavity-dwelling bats and flying squirrels or those bat species that roost under peeling bark also have the potential to be affected by felling of snags. As trees are being cut, the disturbance is Page 72

likely to cause these mammals to abandon the tree before it falls; thus, most individuals would be able to avoid injury or death. None of the bats species in this part of the San Bernardino Mountains are known to use snags for maternity colony sites, so losses of reproductive colonies are not expected.

Because of the high levels of mortality during recent drought periods, there is potential that some snag-dependent species may have recently increased in numbers. These increases would be due to the abundance of highly suitable habitat in the form of snags throughout the general forested area. Increases in bark beetles and other insect populations may also help increase numbers of insectivores (e.g., woodpeckers, nuthatches, brown creepers, etc.) in the general forested area. This type of population fluctuation is a typical “boom or bust” cycle. Removal of insect-infected trees and other plant species that produce food items for wildlife (either directly as seed, or indirectly as food for insects) may be negatively affected by the removal of vegetative cover due to timber operations. Therefore, it is difficult to predict precisely what the responses of different species would be and we expect variation even on a much-localized level.

Project Treatment guidelines (Proposed Action description and Table 5) and the Design Features include measures to protect snag-dependent species, including protecting trees with cavities where possible, retention of large snags, and broadcast burn guidelines. Therefore, effects to snag-dependent species and snag habitat availability are expected to be limited to displacement and some small losses of individuals.

II-3.3.12 – Potential Effects to Log-Dependent, Fossorial, and Small Terrestrial Animals Some Sensitive and Watch List terrestrial species, such as salamanders, lizards, snakes, burrowing rodents, and badgers may be affected by the removal of downed logs and by equipment use off of existing roads.

The proposed project would result in removal of logs, thus reducing the availability of habitat for log-dependent species in some of the project area. Level 1 (100’ either side of certain roads) zone would have no logs. The zone that would be devoid of logs are narrow (~200’ wide) with a road in the middle. Logs in other treatment levels may also be lost during underburning operations. Because the entire project area is considered suitable habitat for southern rubber boa, the rubber boa log retention standard (9 logs/acre) would apply to all of the Level 1a, Level 3, and 4 areas. The retention of snags would provide for future recruitment for down logs.

Because of the abundance of logs across the forest, the narrowness of the Level 1 and Level 1a zones, the continuing death of trees (due to drought, stress, insects) and implementation of Forest Plan log retention guidelines in other treatment levels, log habitats would continue to be provided across the project area. The log retention guidelines and abundant numbers of dead trees in adjacent areas are expected to continue to provide adequate habitat for those species that forage and shelter in and near logs.

Project activities would likely result in increased levels of soil compaction due to the use of heavy equipment off of roads. Compaction of soils may result in some losses of fossorial species if compaction occurs when they are in their burrows. It may also prevent burrowing in

Page 73

compacted areas for some period. The Design Features includes restoration of skid trails, staging/parking areas, temporary roads and landings at project completion.

Logs decks that are left for extended periods may risk animals seeking shelter in/under the logs. Those animals would be at risk of injury or death when the logs are moved. Because of the high levels of disturbance associated with log decks, the likelihood of animals using those sites is fairly low. The Design Features include a measure to train crews about protecting animals (including snakes) that may be encountered during implementation.

The Design Features also call for protection of important logs during operations, including broadcast burning. These measures should help reduce the potential for losses of individuals and protect important logs. As such, effects to log-dependent, fossorial, and small terrestrial species are expected to be limited to displacement and some losses of individuals.

II-3.3.13 – Potential Effects to Other Habitat Features Rock outcrops and boulder areas occur within the project area; these areas can provide important habitat for small mammals, reptiles, and amphibians. On an infrequent basis, boulders and rocks may be moved by equipment to provide for operability. In those rare cases, habitat associated with boulders may be affected. In the long-term, however, that habitat would be re-established in the new location of the boulder.

Because these features are generally avoided by equipment and tree falling and there are Design Features incorporated into Proposed Action that would protect these features, effects to boulders and rock outcrop habitats are expected to be limited.

II-3.3.14 – Potential Effects from Root Disease Treatments – Wildlife Stumps of all freshly cut live or recently dead conifers would be treated with a registered fungicide or wood preservative to prevent the establishment and spread of annosus root disease. It would be applied only to fresh cut stumps, following Design Features. Typically, the fungicide applied as a powder or a spray is applied using a hand-sprayer.

Elemental boron is the active ingredient in both products, generally as soluble borate ions. At label application rates, either product would have less boron than would be toxic. Both products can have short-term germination inhibition effects with direct exposure to seeds. The primary environmental concern for either product would be as a result of a spill or overspray, especially near water or in wet conditions or directly onto rare plants or their seedbank.

The ecological risk for borax was evaluated in detail in USDA-Forest Service report in 2006 (USFS 2006b) and that report is incorporated by reference. There are two possible exposure opportunities for animals: ingestion of borax that has been applied to stumps, or eating vegetation that has been exposed to the borax. Secondary exposure to borax is unlikely because borax does not move readily in areas adjacent to treatment sites (Dost et al. 1996). Borates are not known to bioaccumulate in fish (USFS 2006b). According to the MSDS for borax, borates do not bioaccumulate or biomagnify through the food chain (http://www.hillbrothers.com/msds/pdf/n/ borax-decahydrate.pdf).

Page 74

In fish and aquatic invertebrates, acute exposure to borax and boric acid appears to have a relatively low order of toxicity. In terrestrial mammals, chronic borax exposure may result in decreased male fertility. In birds, acute exposure to borax is practically non-toxic. Although limited data are available in birds, it appears that longer-term dietary exposure to boron compounds results in adverse reproductive effects. Very little information is available on the effects of boron compounds on nontarget terrestrial invertebrates. Based on its effective use as an insecticide for termites, ants, and house flies, it is likely that borax may have adverse effects on other insects. However, data on the effects of boric acid and boric acid salts on nontarget insects are not available in the literature (USFS 2006b).

Small mammals are known to ingest borax after application to stumps on the SBNF (R. Eliason, pers. obs.). Experimental studies have found that deer and cattle are not attracted to borax. Their study did find deer licking freshly-cut stumps, including those treated with borax. There were no obvious signs of toxicity to the deer that ate borax (USFS 2006).

While there is potential for illness or death of animals and some seed germination inhibition in plants that are exposed to large amounts of borates, if applied according to the application guidelines the risk is considered low due to the low toxicity of borax, low rates of use, and low probable risk of exposure.

II-3.3.15 – Post-implementation Habitat Effects and Disturbance – Wildlife Removal of vegetative barriers and mortality pockets may invite illegal off-highway motorized vehicle use from roads and adjacent private property. Removal of natural barriers may result in currently inaccessible terrain becoming easily accessible to motorized vehicles, mountain bikes, and horses. Increased use, especially by motorized vehicles and mountain bikes, may result in further effects including increased erosion problems, increased levels of sediment deposition in drainages and riparian areas, increased noise disturbance to animals, losses of forest floor vegetation, and soil compaction.

The Proposed Action includes Design Features to help control those potential effects as part of the post-implementation actions. These measures should help keep post-project disturbance and habitat effects to low levels.

II-3.4 – Effects of No Action See the other specialist reports for the Grass Valley project for the effects to hydrology/soils, forest stand conditions, fire behavior, etc. if the project is not implemented.

II–3.4.1 – General Vegetation and Special Status Plant Species – No Action Under the No Action, the baseline condition would persist. Left untreated, the vegetation in the project area would experience lower levels of disturbance. Direct effects including crushing, burying, and uprooting of plants, and disruptions to reproduction, germination and other post-fire successional processes would not occur as part of this project. Indirect effects to plants and vegetation via effects to soils and hydrology (as described in the specialist reports for these resources) would also not occur as part of this project.

Page 75

If left untreated, the project area may be at a higher risk of larger fires with more intense fire behavior. Depending on weather and wind conditions, moderate to high-severity fires would be expected to remove much of the overstory canopy and understory cover. Patch sizes of unburned areas and low severity burn but would be dependent on conditions at the time of the fire.

High severity re-burn of these areas could lead to reduced post-fire resilience of natural vegetation. Stand-replacing fire in conifer forest would result in very long term changes in habitat structure and composition, especially of structural dominant species. Special status plant species known to occur in the project area would be expected to have good resilience post-fire, even at high soil and vegetation burn severities. However, a future wildfire with a higher resistance to control could result in increased effects from intensive suppression efforts (e.g., dozer lines) from which rare plants generally have lower resilience.

II–3.4.2 – Common Wildlife and Special-Status Wildlife Species – No Action If the area were left untreated, the wildlife and plant species in the project area would experience lower levels of disturbance, both to individuals and to habitats important for foraging, movement, shelter, migration, wintering, and breeding than they would under the Proposed Action.

If left untreated, the project area may be at a higher risk of larger fires with more intense fire behavior. Depending on weather and wind conditions, moderate to high-severity fires would be expected to remove much of the overstory canopy and understory cover. Patch sizes of unburned areas and low severity burn but would be dependent on conditions at the time of the fire.

The extent and degree of effects vary within a landscape in any given fire. Generally, mosaic patterns occur with some habitat retention amid areas that burned at high severities. Even after fire, some species, including early successional stage species like mule deer, benefit from habitat changes that result from fires. However, a future wildfire with higher resistance to control could result in increased effects from intensive suppression efforts (e.g., dozer lines) from which rare wildlife species generally have lower resilience.

Page 76

PART III: BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT OF EFFECTS TO THREATENED, ENDANGERED, PROPOSED, AND CANDIDATE SPECIES

III-1.0 – INTRODUCTION AND MANAGEMENT DIRECTION This Biological Assessment (BA) part of this document addresses proposed and listed Threatened, and Endangered (T/E) species and their proposed and designated Critical Habitat. Under agreement with USFWS, the Forest Service only addresses Candidate species in programmatic consultations. Because this is a project-level analysis, Candidate species are not addressed in the Biological Assessment. There are no Candidate species, proposed species, or proposed Critical Habitat that may be affected by this proposed action.

The primary purpose of this BA is to analyze the effects on the species present in the action area. As noted in the USFWS Consultation Handbook (USFWS and National Marine Fisheries Service 1998: xvi), “no effect” determinations are appropriate where the proposed action will not affect a listed species or designated Critical Habitat. Where species are not present in the action area and no effects are reasonably certain to occur on the species, “no effect” is the appropriate determination.

The Consultation Handbook clarifies that a “may affect, not likely to adversely affect” determination is appropriate where effects on listed species are “expected to be discountable, insignificant, or completely beneficial” (USFWS and National Marine Fisheries Service 1998: xv–xvi). The Consultation Handbook further explains that “insignificant effects relate to the size of the impact and should never reach the scale where take occurs” (USFWS and National Marine Fisheries Service 1998:3–12). Conversely, where an effect is not discountable, insignificant, or completely beneficial or anticipated take is likely to occur as a result of the proposed action, the appropriate determination is “may affect, likely to adversely affect” (USFWS and National Marine Fisheries Service 1998: xv–xv).

The standard for determining whether or not an effect should be considered in the effects analysis is whether such effect is “reasonably certain to occur” (see 50 CFR 402.02, “Interagency Cooperation;” Final Rule, 51 Federal Register 19926, 19930–19934 [June 3, 1986]). Only those effects that are reasonably certain to occur are relevant to the effects analysis. That an effect is possible does not meet this standard; it must be shown that such effect is reasonably certain to occur to warrant consideration under ESA Section 7. The effects analysis must address the direct, indirect, interrelated, interdependent, and cumulative effects of an action.

Federal Action Area: The federal action area, as defined by the Endangered Species Act and associated regulations, encompasses the maximum potential reach of direct and indirect effects of the project. The federal action area applies to listed species and designated Critical Habitat under the federal Endangered Species Act. For this proposed project, the analysis area (a NEPA definition) is the same as the federal action area.

For the proposed project, the federal action/analysis area is the project area plus streams with suitable habitat that extend downstream from the project area.

Page 77

Forest Service Manual Direction for Threatened, Endangered, Candidate, and Proposed Species Departmental regulation 9500-004 directs Department agencies to: 1. Conduct activities and programs “to assist in the identification and recovery of threatened and endangered plant and animal species.” 2. Avoid actions “which may cause a species to become threatened or endangered.” 3. Consult “as necessary with the Departments of the Interior and/or Commerce on activities that may affect threatened and endangered species.” 4. Not “approve, fund or take any action that is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of threatened and endangered species or destroy any habitat necessary for their conservation unless exemption is granted pursuant to subsection 7(h) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended.”

Federal Endangered Species Act Direction The Endangered Species Act contains protection for all species federally-listed as endangered or threatened:  Federal agencies shall seek to conserve endangered species and threatened species and shall, in consultation with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, utilize their authorities in furthering the purposes of the Endangered Species Act by carrying out programs for the conservation of endangered and threatened species.  Regulations for species that are proposed for listing as endangered or threatened are included in the Endangered Species Act  Federal agencies shall confer with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on any agency action that is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any species proposed to be listed.

The Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, makes it unlawful for a person to “take” a listed animal without a permit. Take is defined as “to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect or attempt to engage in any such conduct.” Through regulations, the term “harm” is defined as “an act which actually kills or injures wildlife. Such an act may include significant habitat modification or degradation where it actually kills or injures wildlife by significantly impairing essential behavioral patterns, including breeding, feeding, or sheltering.”

Pursuant to Section 7 of the Federal Endangered Species Act (ESA), any federal agency undertaking a federal action that may affect a species listed or proposed as threatened or endangered under the ESA must consult with USFWS. In addition, any federal agency undertaking a federal action that may result in adverse modification of Critical Habitat for a federally-listed species must consult with USFWS.

Forest Plan: The Forest Plan contains the following applicable strategies for threatened, endangered, proposed, and candidate species management (Forest Plan Part 2, pp. 124-125)  Manage habitat to move listed species toward recovery and de-listing. Prevent listing of proposed and sensitive species.  Implement priority conservation strategies (San Bernardino NF Conservation Strategy, table 531).

Page 78

 Use vegetation management practices to reduce the intensity of fires to reduce habitat loss due to catastrophic fires.  Work with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) to develop recovery plans for federally listed species. Implement Forest Service actions as recommended in recovery plans for federally listed species.

III-2.0 – APPLICABLE CONSULTATIONS AND CONFERENCES TO DATE The Endangered Species Act (ESA) requires that federal agencies evaluate effects to federally- listed species and Critical Habitat in consultation with USFWS when proposing federal actions.

This project was discussed in person with John Taylor, Jenness McBride, Brian Croft, and other USFWS staff at quarterly USFWS/Forest Service coordination meetings between 2005 and 2018. The purpose and need for the project, Threatened and Endangered species analyzed, Design Features, and rationale for effects determinations were discussed.

A species list from the Information for Planning and Conservation (IPaC) for this project was generated on September 10, 2015 (Consultation Code: 08ECAR00-2015-SLI-0716; Event Code: 08ECAR00-2015-E-01426). Updated species lists were generated on February 3, 2017 (Consultation Code: 08ECAR00-2015-SLI-0716; Event Code: 8ECAR00-2017-E-00755) and February 22, 2018 (Consultation Code: 08ECAR00-2015-SLI-0716; Event Code: 08ECAR00- 2018-E-01289). The species included in the letter (Appendix C) were considered in this Biological Assessment. No conservation measures were automatically generated by IPaC.

Several programmatic and project-specific consultations have set the stage for this consultation, as described below.

Programmatic Consultation on Forest Plan in 2005 In 2005, the SBNF and the three other Southern Province National Forests initiated consultation on the updated Forest Plans (Biological Assessment for the Revised Land Management Plans, dated March 18, 2005). A BO was issued Sept. 15, 2005 (1-6-05-F733.9 – Biological and Conference Opinions on the Revised Land and Resource Management Plans for the Four Southern California National Forests, California) (USFWS 2005).

That consultation did not cover site-specific ongoing effects from National Forest management activities and did not provide for incidental take. On June 9, 2006, USFWS adopted the Conference Opinions on the 2005 Forest Plan for Critical Habitat for southwestern willow flycatcher.

Riparian Obligate Species – Ongoing Activities In July 2008, the SBNF initiated consultation on the ongoing effects from National Forest management activities to eight riparian-dependent species; slender-horned spine flower, arroyo toad, mountain yellow-legged frog, unarmored threespine stickleback, southwestern willow flycatcher, least’s Bell’s vireo, San Bernardino kangaroo rat, and Santa Ana sucker. A BO was issued on December 6, 2012 (FWS-SB/WRlV-08B0680-09F0227).

Page 79

III-3.0 - BASELINE CONDITIONS AND POTENTIAL EFFECTS FOR T/E SPECIES Part I of this document contains descriptions of the methods/evaluation process, the Proposed Action, and habitat in the project area. Part II includes general effects discussions that may also be applicable to T/E species. The following discussions tier to those presented in Parts I and II.

Detailed species accounts for all of the T/E species are contained in the Forest Plan (USFS 2005b); they are incorporated by reference here and are summarized here generally without citations in the following discussions. See the Forest Plan for full species accounts including the citations (USFS 2005b). Where new information is available, the baseline and life history information is updated.

The following discussions focus on T/E species known to occur in the federal action area, those that have a high likelihood of occurrence based on proximity to the federal action area or those that have modeled or suitable habitat present in or adjacent to the federal action area. This is based on records from California Consortium of Herbaria, CNDDB, SBCM, SBNF, observations during surveys of the federal action area, and/or presence of modeled habitat mapped in or near the federal action area.

See Part II-3.1 for an explanation of direct, indirect, and cumulative effects. That section also contains discussions about present and foreseeable future projects that are considered in the Cumulative effects discussions for each species. The cumulative effects discussions below include two definitions:  Under the NEPA, “cumulative impacts” are those effects caused by past, present, and future federal, state, and private activities within or onto special status species and their habitats.  Under the ESA, “cumulative effects” only consider future non-federal activities that are reasonably certain to occur. Future federal activities or activities permitted by federal agencies are not included under ESA “cumulative effects” because any proposed future federal activities or federally permitted activities must undergo future Section 7 consultation with the USFWS.

The expected likelihood, extent, severity, and duration of effects are addressed in the analysis. See Part II-3.1.3 for a discussion of past and ongoing activities, current actions, and foreseeable future activities. Those discussions also apply to the following discussions. In this evaluation, past, present, and ongoing activities are addressed in the “baseline” discussions”.

III-3.1 - Baseline Conditions and Potential Effects for T/E Plant Species – Proposed Action Table 12 lists the current T/E plants and Critical Habitat known from the SBNF; they are all considered in this evaluation. The federal action area was surveyed at times when detectability was high (as confirmed at reference localities). Thorough floristic surveys were completed for the federal action area. No T/E plants or designated Critical Habitat occur in the project area; none are expected. No effects are expected to T/E plants or designated Critical Habitat.

Page 80

III-3.2 - Baseline Conditions and Potential Effects for T/E Plant Species – No Action Under the No Action alternative, no changes in effects to T/E Plant Species or Critical Habitat are expected to occur relative to the baseline condition. The discussion in Part II-3.4 is applicable for all T/E plant species that occur in the project area.

III-3.3 - Baseline Conditions and Potential Effects for T/E Wildlife – Proposed Action Table 13 lists the current T/E animals known from the SBNF; they are all considered in this evaluation. Detailed species accounts, with citations, are contained in the Forest Plan (USFS 2005b); they are incorporated by reference. Seven federally-listed species (Mohave tui chub, least Bell’s vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, mountain yellow-legged frog, California red- legged frog, arroyo toad, and California condor) have records from or have the potential to occur within the federal action/analysis area.

III-3.3.1 – Mohave Tui Chub (Siphateles bicolor mohavensis) The Mohave tui chub is federally- and state-listed as Endangered. No Critical Habitat has been designated. A Recovery Plan was finalized in 1984. Mohave tui chub historically occurred in the Mojave River from the confluence of the east and west forks at the base of the San Bernardino Mountains downstream to Soda Dry Lake. The only genetically pure population of Mohave tui chub now occurs in ponds isolated from the river in the San Bernardino Mountains, mainly at Soda Springs (three ponds) and Lark Seep Lagoon (China Lake Naval Weapons Center), Desert Studies Center Pond at Hinkley and Camp Cady Wildlife Area near Newberry Springs.

This species occurred historically in the Mojave River prior to the creation of Silverwood Lake. It is considered extirpated from the East Fork of the West Fork of the Mojave River. It is not known if it ever occurred in Grass Valley Creek. The habitat in both creeks is currently considered to be low quality due to the presence of predatory non-native fish and bullfrogs.

The one known population of chub on NFS lands is on lower Deep Creek on the SBNF, northeast of the project area. There is no habitat connectivity between that site and the project area. This population has hybridized extensively with introduced arroyo chub (Gila orcutti). The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, having determined that this population consists entirely of arroyo chub/Mohave tui chub hybrids, does not consider it to be a listed entity (USFS 2006 Forest Plan).

This species is not considered extant in or near the project area.

Mohave Tui Chub – Determination of Effects: It is my determination that the proposed project would have no effect on the Mohave tui chub.

Page 81

Table 12. Threatened, Endangered, Proposed, And Candidate Plant Species on the SBNF (updated 11/6/14) Species Name Common Name Critical Habitat Type Occurs on Detected Species Addressed In This Habitat On MTRD? In/Near Document? SBNF Project Area? Endangered Species Acanthoscyphus parishii var. Cushenbury puncturebract Yes Carbonate soils Yes No No. Outside the distribution. goodmaniana Arenaria paludicola marsh sandwort Freshwater marsh No No No. Outside the distribution. Astragalus albens Cushenbury milk vetch Yes Carbonate soils Yes No No. Outside the distribution. Astragalus brauntonii Braunton’s milk-vetch Limestone soils in No No No. Outside the distribution. chaparral Astragalus lentiginosus var. Coachella Valley milk vetch Sandy sonoran No No No. Outside the distribution. coachellae desert scrub Astragalus tricarinatus triple-ribbed milk-vetch Sandy/gravel, No No No. Outside the distribution. desert margin Berberis nevinii Nevin's barberry Clay soils/vernally No No No. Outside the distribution. wet areas Docecahema leptoceras slender-horned spineflower Alluvial scrub No No No. Outside the distribution. Eriastrum densifolium ssp. Santa Ana River woollystar Alluvial scrub No No No. Outside the distribution. sanctorum Eriogonum ovalifolium var. vineum Cushenbury buckwheat Yes Carbonate soils Yes No No. Outside the distribution. Nasturtium gambelii Gambel’s water cress Freshwater marsh No No No. Outside the distribution. Poa atropurpurea San Bernardino bluegrass Yes Meadows Yes No No. Outside the distribution. Physaria kingii ssp. bernardina San Bernardino Mtns. bladderpod Yes Carbonate soils Yes No No. Outside the distribution. Sidalcea pedata bird's foot checkerbloom Meadows Yes No No. Outside the distribution. Taraxacum californicum California taraxacum Yes Meadows Yes No No. Outside the distribution. Thelypodium stenopetalum slender-petaled mustard Meadows Yes No No. Outside the distribution. Threatened Species Brodiaea filifolia thread-leaved brodiaea Clay soils/vernally No No No. Outside the distribution. wet areas Castilleja cinerea ash-gray Indian paintbrush Yes Pebble plains; Yes No No. Outside the distribution. openings in conifer forest Eremogone ursina Bear Valley sandwort Yes Pebble plain Yes No No. Outside the distribution. Erigeron parishii Parish's daisy Yes Carbonate soils Yes No No. Outside the distribution. Eriogonum kennedyi var. southern mountain buckwheat Yes Pebble plain Yes No No. Outside the distribution. austromontanum

Page 82

Table 13. Threatened, Endangered, Proposed, And Candidate Wildlife Species for Grass Valley Fuels Reduction Project Area Common Name Latin Name Critical Habitat Habitat Type* Occurs on Species Known in/near Species Addressed in this Document? on SBNF? MTRD Project Area?

Endangered Species Quino checkerspot butterfly Euphydryas editha quino Yes c N No No. Project is outside the range of the species. Mohave tui chub Siphateles bicolor mohavensis aq H Historic downstream Yes. Suitable habitat is present downstream of project area. unarmored threespine Gasterosteus aculeatus aq N No No. Project is outside the range of the species. stickleback williamsoni mountain yellow-legged frog Rana muscosa Yes r, aq H Historic downstream Yes. Suitable habitat is present downstream of project area. arroyo toad Bufo californicus Yes d,aq,r Y Historic downstream Yes. Suitable habitat is present downstream of project area. California brown pelican Pelecanus occidentalis aq U No No. Project is outside the range of the species. californicus California condor Gymnogyps californianus mc,g,c,a,rk,wo H No Yes. Suitable foraging habitat is present. southwestern willow Empidonax traillii extimus Yes r,m Y No Yes. Suitable habitat is present downstream of flycatcher project area. least Bell's vireo Vireo bellii pusillus r,m N No Yes. Suitable habitat is present downstream of project area. San Bernardino kangaroo rat Dipodomys merriami parvus Yes w N No No. Project is outside the range of the species. Stephens’ kangaroo rat Dipodomys stephensi g, sage scrub N No No. Project is outside the range of the species. Peninsular bighorn sheep Ovis canadensis cremnobates Yes wo, rk, d N No No. Project is outside the range of the species. Threatened Species Santa Ana sucker Catostomus santannae aq N No No. Project is outside the range of the species. California red-legged frog Rana aurora draytonii r,aq H Historic downstream Yes. Suitable habitat is present. desert tortoise Gopherus agassizii d Y No No. No suitable habitat. coastal California Polioptila californica californica Yes c N No No. No suitable habitat. gnatcatcher Western yellow-billed Coccyzus americanus occidentalis r U No No. No suitable habitat. cuckoo **HABITAT TYPES/HABITAT COMPONENTS mc = mixed conifer forests; Jeffrey pine, ponderosa pine, bigcone Douglas fir, coulter pine, sugar pine, a = aerial; usually seen in flight, often over several habitat types white fir overstory r = riparian (streamside thickets and woodlands) d = desert; Joshua tree woodlands, creosote bush scrub, blackbrush scrub g = grasslands, fields, and agricultural areas aq = aquatic; lakes, reservoirs, ponds, vernal pools/puddles m = marshes, meadows; both freshwater areas and moist meadows u = urbanized areas c = chaparral and coastal sage scrub w = washes and alluvial fans wo = woodlands; pinyon-juniper, oaks rk = cliffs and rocky outcrops s = snags and cavities

Page 83

III-3.3.2 – Mountain Yellow-legged Frog (Rana muscosa) The mountain yellow-legged frog has been recognized as a distinctive species since the work of Zweifel in 1955 (Jennings and Hayes 1994). Prior to that time, the mountain yellow-legged frog was considered a subspecies of foothill yellow-legged frog, and the Sierran and southern California populations were considered distinct subspecies (Rana boylii sierrae and Rana boylii muscosa) (Zweifel 1955). Separated by a distance of about 140 miles (225 kilometers), mountain yellow-legged frogs in the Sierra Nevada and southern California are now considered to be two geographically distinct populations (USFWS 2002a) and two distinctly different species (Vredenburg 2007).

The southern California population of mountain yellow-legged frogs was federally-listed as endangered on July 2, 2002. It is listed as a Species of Special Concern by the State of California.

Management Direction: In addition to the Endangered Species Act direction described previously and the Forest Plan direction described in Part I-2.0, there are several management guidance documents for mountain yellow-legged frogs.

 Forest Plan Species Guidance Summary (Forest Plan EIS, Part 3, Appendix H, pg. 71): When planning projects or managing ongoing activities in areas that contain habitat for species of concern (including threatened, endangered, proposed, candidate, and sensitive species and other species identified by biologists as being in danger of population decline or habitat loss) use the information found in various types of species guidance documents to develop project-specific design criteria. Species guidance documents include (as of December 2004): Species conservation strategies, prepared by or for USDA Forest Service: Mountain yellow-legged frog.  Mountain Yellow-Legged Frog Conservation Assessment and Strategy for the Angeles and San Bernardino National Forests: The Conservation Strategy includes a number of site-specific actions (Forest Service 2002, Table 3, pg. 25) for this species but none of them are applicable to the project area.  Riparian Obligate Species – Ongoing Activities Biological Opinion: The Biological Opinion contains a number of Design Criteria that are applicable to known occurrences of this species. While the BO only applies to known occurrences of mountain yellow-legged frogs, some of the Design Criteria (USFWS 2012, Appendix Tables 3 and 4) are incorporated in the Grass Valley Design Features around suitable habitat.

Life History and Baseline Information: In Southern California, mountain yellow-legged frogs live within and adjacent to streams that traverse chaparral, ponderosa pine, montane hardwood conifer, and montane riparian habitats. Mountain yellow-legged frogs are diurnal and highly aquatic. Mountain yellow-legged frogs are seldom found more than two or three jumps from water (Stebbins 1985). They occupy rocky shaded streams with cool waters originating from springs and snowmelt.

Mountain yellow-legged frogs are generally absent from very small creeks, most likely because these have insufficient depth for adequate refuge and over-wintering. The species occurs along a Page 84

variety of shorelines but appears to prefer open stream and lake margins that gently slope to a depth of 2–3 inches (Jennings and Hayes 1994). Such shorelines are probably necessary for oviposition and thermoregulation of larvae and post-metamorphs, and may provide refuge from predation if fish occur in adjacent deeper water (Jennings and Hayes 1994).

This species is never found far from water with adults preying on a variety of invertebrates and terrestrial insects. Home ranges are thought to be less than 10 meters in length. Predators include garter snakes, birds and introduced trout.

These frogs breed and lay eggs from March to May in Southern California, depending on local conditions. Clusters of up to 500 eggs (typically 200-300) are laid in shallow places on rocks or gravel. Tadpoles and adults hibernate in deep pools where water depth limits the length of time that the pool freezes completely. They are able to survive some anoxic conditions during freezing.

This species can be difficult to detect especially during low-population cycles. The presence of suitable habitat and the lack of trout, combined with historical records of mountain yellow- legged frogs in the area, suggest that it is possible this species could very well be present in the project area but has gone undetected. Only several years of negative protocol surveys would allow us to be confident of their extirpation from the project area.

Only eight populations of mountain yellow-legged frogs are confirmed to exist throughout its historic range in Southern California. In the San Bernardino Mountains, mountain yellow-legged frogs are currently known to occur in the East Fork of City Creek. This species was also observed in the East Fork of Barton Creek in 1993 and in Mill Creek in 1997 but has not been relocated in subsequent surveys. It is possible that mountain yellow-legged frogs still exist at least in small numbers or in portions of those creeks. Surveys have been completed in at least portions of each of these creeks at least once. Where mountain yellow-legged frogs occur in larger numbers, detection probabilities are high if surveys are conducted by qualified individuals in the right season (Backlin et al. 2004).

The entire City Creek Watershed is historical habitat for the mountain yellow-legged frog. They were re-discovered in 1998 and have remained extant in very low numbers. Frogs from this population were removed and are in a captive breeding program.

The introduction of trout and bullfrogs has also contributed to the decline of mountain yellow- legged frogs. Many biologists now believe that mountain yellow-legged frogs are unlikely to exist in stream reaches that have trout or bullfrogs.

The causes of the decline of mountain yellow-legged frog are not known, but have been hypothesized to include: 1) Past habitat destruction related to activities such as logging, mining, and habitat conversions for water development, irrigated agriculture, and commercial development; and 2) nonnative predators and competitors such as introduced trout and bullfrogs.

However, in the case of the southern populations of mountain yellow-legged frog, habitat destruction related to activities such as logging and commercial development does not appear to Page 85

have been a significant factor in their precipitous decline because these activities were not prominent in mountain yellow-legged frog habitat in southern California. There does, however, appear to be a negative interaction between trout and mountain yellow-legged frog (Backlin et al. 2004).

Other environmental factors that may adversely affect mountain yellow-legged frog include pesticides, certain pathogens, ultraviolet-B (beyond the visible spectrum) radiation, or a combination of these factors (67 Federal Register 44382). Nitrate pulses into the system during summer rainstorms may also affect first-year tadpole survivorship (Backlin et al. 2004) and prevented populations from persisting over time. Flooding in the late 1960s may have also caused a widespread decline of mountain yellow-legged frog in Southern California. Other factors, including those listed above may have cumulatively prevented the recovery of the frog.

Extant populations of mountain yellow-legged frog are increasingly isolated from each other. The few remaining populations of mountain yellow-legged frog are small and have limited distribution making them extremely vulnerable to stochastic events.

Occurrence Information for Mountain Yellow-Legged Frog: The closest records to the project area are from the Hooks Creek drainage (1941), East Fork Mojave River (1947), West Fork Mojave River-Horsethief Canyon (1947), 3.25 miles east of Cedar Springs (1940), East Fork of West Fork Mojave River (1942), and bridge opposite of Summit Valley (1940) (USGS 2003). None of these are currently known to be occupied.

There are two streams in and downstream of the project area that have suitable habitat conditions for mountain yellow-legged frog: Grass Valley Creek and the East Fork of the West Fork. Biological surveys of the two streams include: Grass Valley Creek (Dodson 2007; USGS 2005); East Fork of the West Fork Mojave River (USGS 2002; SBNF biologists – 2005-2006 Miller Canyon Fuels project surveys; SBCM 2003, 2004, 2005 surveys).

While Grass Valley Creek and the East Fork of the West Fork Mojave River have suitable habitat for this species, the presence of trout makes it very unlikely that they still occur there undetected. The USGS conducted protocol-level surveys in the East Fork of the West Fork Mojave River in 2001-2002 and determined that this species was no longer extant in the creek.

All of the currently-known occupied sites are quite a distance from the Miller Canyon project area. Because of the survey efforts at historic locations including those in the project area and the disconnection between extant occurrences in southern California, mountain yellow-legged frogs are considered extirpated from this part of its former distribution.

It is considered extremely unlikely that remnant populations of mountain yellow-legged frogs exist in or immediately downstream of the project area.

Potential Effects to Mountain Yellow-Legged Frog: No effects to mountain yellow-legged frogs are expected since this species is considered extirpated from the analysis area. Even if mountain yellow-legged frogs occur in the project area undetected, the wildlife and RCA Design Features and BMPs would protect this species and suitable habitat from most potential effects. Page 86

Mountain Yellow-Legged Frog – Cumulative Effects: Because the proposed project is not expected to affect mountain yellow-legged frogs, no cumulative effects would occur.

Take for Mountain Yellow-Legged Frog: Because this species is considered extirpated from the federal action area, no take is anticipated.

Summary for Mountain Yellow-Legged Frog: Mountain yellow-legged frogs are considered extirpated from in the federal action area. However, suitable habitat exists for this species. Even if mountain yellow-legged frogs occur in the project area undetected, the proposed Design Features and BMPs would help reduce effects to habitat conditions and lower the likelihood of effects to individual frogs.

Mountain Yellow-Legged Frog – Determination of Effects: Based on the assumption that this species no longer occurs in the federal action area for this project, it is my determination that implementation of the proposed project would have no effect on mountain yellow-legged frogs.

Consistency with Management Direction: The proposed project would be consistent with applicable management direction (Endangered Species Act, Forest Plan, and Mountain Yellow- Legged Frog Conservation Strategy) as described above.

III-3.3.3 - California Red-Legged Frog (Rana aurora draytonii) California red-legged frog was federally-listed as Threatened May 23, 1996 (61 Federal Register 25813). Critical Habitat has been designated (March 17, 2012) and a Recovery Plan was issued May 28, 2002. This species is listed as a Species of Special Concern by the State of California.

Life History and Baseline Information – California Red-Legged Frog: The California red-legged frog has been found at elevations that range from sea level to about 5,000 feet. Breeding sites of California red-legged frog are always in aquatic habitats. The importance of riparian vegetation for this species is not well understood.

They use a variety of habitat types, including aquatic, riparian, and upland habitats. In many cases, California red-legged frogs may complete their entire life cycle in a particular area without using other components (e.g., a pond is suitable for each life stage and use of upland habitat or a riparian corridor is not necessary). Larvae, juveniles, and adult frogs have been collected from streams, creeks, ponds, marshes, sag ponds, deep pools and backwaters within streams and creeks, dune ponds, lagoons, and estuaries. Breeding adults are often associated with dense, shrubby riparian or emergent vegetation and areas with deep (> 27 inches) still or slow-moving water. (Source: Forest Plan 2006)

Red-legged frogs occurred historically in several locations on the SBNF, but there are no recent occurrences. They have not been detected in the Miller Canyon area since the completion of the Cedar Springs Dam in 1971 when Silverwood Lake was formed (Brown and Fisher 2001). There are historic records from the following locations: two miles north of Cedar Springs, Cedar Spring, Mojave River Public Camp, Lake Arrowhead, one mile west of Deep Creek Public Page 87

Camp, Arrowhead Springs, Mojave/Deep Creek junction, Live Oak Canyon, Whitewater, 2 miles east of Mentone, West Fork Mojave River, San Bernardino, East Fork of West Fork Mojave, Cajon Pass, Grout Creek. Biologists revisited historic locations during the early 1990s and no red-legged frogs were detected (pers. comm. S. Loe).

There are currently only three known populations south and east of Ventura County: at the Santa Rosa Plateau on the southeastern flank of the Santa Ana Mountains; in the Castaic Ranges in Los Angeles County; and on Amargosa and San Francisquito Creeks in Los Angeles County.

Occurrence in the Project Area – California Red-Legged Frog: There are no extant populations of California red-legged frogs known in the San Bernardino Mountains. Because of the survey efforts at historic locations including those in the project area and the disconnection between extant occurrences in southern California, red-legged frogs are considered extirpated from this part of its former distribution and the entire SBNF. While Grass Valley Creek and the East Fork of the West Fork Mojave River have suitable habitat for this species, the presence of trout makes it very unlikely that they still occur there undetected.

Potential Effects to California Red-Legged Frog: Because this species is considered extirpated from this part of its former distribution, no impacts are expected.

California Red-Legged Frog – Cumulative Effects: Because this project is not expected to affect California red-legged frogs, there are no cumulative effects.

Take for California Red-Legged Frog: No take of this species is expected.

California Red-Legged Frog – Determination of Effects: Based on the assumption that this species has been extirpated from Grass Valley Creek and the East Fork of the West Fork of the Mojave River, it is my determination that the proposed project would have no effect on California red-legged frogs.

III-3.3.4 – Arroyo Toad (Anaxyrus californicus) The arroyo toad was federally-listed as Endangered in 1994 (59 Federal Register 64859). Final Critical Habitat was designated on February 9, 2011 (76 FR 7245 7467). The arroyo toad recovery plan was issued in 1999. It is listed as a Species of Special Concern by the State of California.

Management Direction: In addition to the Endangered Species Act direction described previously and the Forest Plan direction described in Part I-2.0, there are several management guidance documents for arroyo toads.  Forest Plan Species Guidance Summary (Forest Plan EIS, Part 3, Appendix H, pg. 71): When planning projects or managing ongoing activities in areas that contain habitat for species of concern (including threatened, endangered, proposed, candidate, and sensitive species and other species identified by biologists as being in danger of population decline or habitat loss) use the information found in various types of species guidance documents to develop project-specific design criteria. Species guidance documents include (as of December 2004): Recovery Plans prepared by the USFWS. Page 88

 Five Step Project Screening Process for Riparian Conservation Areas (Forest Plan EIS, Part 3, Appendix E, pp. 66): The Five-Step Project Screening Process for Riparian Conservation Areas includes this direction: Step 2: Use the environmental GIS layer and species accounts to determine additional protective RCA widths specific to individual species or suites of species (e.g., arroyo toad has a topographical contour distance from water, etc.).  Riparian Obligate Species – Ongoing Activities Biological Opinion: The Biological Opinion contains a number of Design Criteria that are applicable to known occurrences of this species. While the BO only applies to known occurrences of arroyo toads, some of the Design Criteria (USFWS 2012, Appendix Tables 3 and 4) are incorporated in the Grass Valley Design Features around suitable habitat.

Life History and Baseline Information – Arroyo Toad: The arroyo toad is endemic to the coastal plains, mountains, and desert slopes of central and southern California and northwestern Baja California from near sea level to about 8,000 feet. Within these areas, arroyo toads are found in both perennial and intermittent rivers and streams with shallow, sandy to gravelly pools adjacent to sand or fine gravel terraces. Arroyo toads have evolved in a system that is inherently dynamic, with marked seasonal and annual fluctuations in rainfall and flooding. Breeding habitat requirements are highly specialized. Specifically, arroyo toads require shallow slow- moving stream and riparian habitats that are naturally disturbed on a regular basis, primarily by flooding.

The breeding period occurs from late January or February to early July, although it can be extended in some years depending on weather conditions. Breeding in mountainous habitats may commence later (May–June) and last longer (to August) than in the coastal portion of the range. When water temperatures reach 57 ° F, adult males advertise with a soft, high whistled trill. Receptive females seek out calling males based on the size of the male and the sound of his call.

Although males may breed with several females in a season, females release their entire clutch of eggs in a single breeding effort and probably do not produce a second clutch during the season. Eggs are deposited and larvae develop in shallow pools with minimal current, little or no emergent vegetation, and sand or pea gravel substrate. Embryos usually hatch in 4–6 days; the larval period lasts approximately 65–85 days.

After metamorphosis from June to August, the juveniles remain on the bordering gravel bars until the pool no longer persists. Sexual maturity is reached in 1-2 years. Little is known about movements or other behavior in the non-breeding season.

Juvenile arroyo toads spend more time exposed on terraces during the daytime than do adults, and are thus vulnerable to diurnal predators. Once juveniles are of sufficient size to dig burrows and bury themselves in sand, they become nocturnal. All age classes of post-metamorphic individuals tend to be active on rainy nights with moderate temperatures (above 45 ° F). Adults excavate shallow burrows for shelter during the day when the surface is damp or for longer intervals in the dry season.

Page 89

Larvae feed by inserting their heads into the substrate and ingesting loose organic material such as detritus, interstitial algae, bacteria, and diatoms. Juveniles and adults forage for insects, especially ants and small beetles, on sandy stream terraces or around the drip line of oak trees.

The species has been extirpated from approximately 75 percent of its former range in the United States. The current distribution of arroyo toad in the United States is from the San Antonio River in Monterey County south to the Tijuana River and Cottonwood Creek Basin along the Mexican border. Although the arroyo toad occurs mostly along coastal drainages, it has also been recorded at several locations on the desert slopes of the Transverse Ranges.

On the SBNF, arroyo toad populations exist on tributaries of the Mojave River including lower Deep Creek, Kinley Creek, the West Fork of the Mojave River, and Little Horsethief Creek. Populations also occur on lower portions of the City Creek, Whitewater River, Cucamonga Creek, and Cajon Wash. (Source: Forest Plan 2006)

On NFS lands, arroyo toad populations are localized and face a variety of threats including loss/degradation of riparian habitats, predatory non-native species, invasive non-native plants, non-native species outcompeting natural prey species, OHV impacts, dispersed and developed recreation impacts, water extractions and diversions, mining, and livestock grazing.

Occurrence in the Project Area – Arroyo Toad: Arroyo toads are not currently known from the project area. Arroyo toads were historically located in the area that was inundated when Silverwood Lake was formed, including in the East Fork of the West Fork Mojave River. In 2002, USGS biologists conducted extensive protocol-level surveys and concluded that arroyo toads had been extirpated from the East Fork of West Fork Mojave River after the inundation of Silverwood Lake (Brown and Fisher 2001). Arroyo toads are known from the West Fork of the Mojave River, about a couple of miles away. There is habitat connectivity through Silverwood Lake so it is possible that arroyo toads occur in the East Fork of the West Fork Mojave River and Houston Creek. While the East Fork of the West Fork Mojave River has suitable habitat for this species, the presence of trout may reduce the likelihood that they occur there.

Arroyo toads are also known from Grass Valley Creek about 2.5 miles downstream from the project area.

None of the habitat in the project area is considered suitable for this species for upland or breeding habitat. Grass Valley Creek becomes suitable for breeding about 3 miles downstream of the project boundary. East Fork of West Fork Mojave River becomes suitable for breeding about 1/4 miles downstream of the project boundary.

Potential Effects to Arroyo Toad: No effects to habitat quality or to individual toads are expected to occur in the project area because this species is not expected to occur within the project boundary. The likelihood of habitat effects in downstream suitable habitat was also considered. The GVL Hydrology Report (Wells 2018) contains an analysis of downstream effects. Because of the Best Management Practices and Design Features to protect RCAs, no changes to water quality would be expected in the suitable habitat (~2.5 miles downstream in Grass Valley Creek

Page 90

and ~1/4 mile downstream in East Fork of West Fork Mojave River) (Wells, pers. comm.). As such, no effects to arroyo toads would be anticipated from this project.

Arroyo Toad – Cumulative Effects: Because this project is not expected to affect arroyo toads, there are no cumulative effects.

Take for Arroyo Toad: No take of this species is expected.

Arroyo Toad – Determination of Effects: Based on the assumption that this species has been extirpated from the East Fork of the West Fork of the Mojave River and that there would be no changes in water quality for the Grass Valley Creek occurrence, it is my determination that the proposed project would have no effect on arroyo toads.

Consistency with Management Direction: The proposed project would be consistent with applicable management direction (Endangered Species Act and the Forest Plan) as described above.

III-3.3.5 – Southwestern Willow Flycatcher (Empidonax traillii extimus) The southwestern willow flycatcher is federally- and state-listed as endangered and has a federal Recovery Plan (USFWS 2002b). Critical Habitat was designated for this species in 2005 (USFWS 2005a) but none is present in or near the project area.

Management Direction: In addition to the Endangered Species Act direction described previously and the Forest Plan direction described in Part I-2.0, there are several management guidance documents that include direction for southwestern willow flycatchers.  Forest Plan Species Guidance Summary (Forest Plan EIS, Part 3, Appendix H, pg. 71): When planning projects or managing ongoing activities in areas that contain habitat for species of concern (including threatened, endangered, proposed, candidate, and sensitive species and other species identified by biologists as being in danger of population decline or habitat loss) use the information found in various types of species guidance documents to develop project-specific design criteria. Species guidance documents include (as of December 2004): Recovery Plans prepared by the USFWS.  Riparian Obligate Species – Ongoing Activities Biological Opinion: The Biological Opinion contains a number of Design Criteria that are applicable to known occurrences of this species. While the BO only applies to known occurrences of southwestern willow flycatchers, some of the Design Criteria (USFWS 2012, Appendix Tables 3 and 4) are incorporated in the Grass Valley Design Features around suitable habitat.

Life History and Baseline Information: The southwestern willow flycatcher is a riparian bird known to nest in riparian woodlands and dense willow thickets within meadows and streams. It feeds primarily on insects and occasionally on seeds and berries. An important habitat component is the dense growth of the lower branches within willow thickets or a dense shrub understory.

Riparian communities provide both nesting and foraging habitat for the southwestern willow flycatcher. Southwestern willow flycatcher nests are in thickets of trees and shrubs Page 91

approximately 13 to 23 feet tall with a high percentage of canopy cover and dense foliage up to 13 feet above ground. The nest site plant community is typically even-aged, structurally homogeneous, dense, and near surface water or saturated soil (Brown 1988, Sedgwick and Knopf 1992, Sogge et al. 1993). Other characteristics such as dominant plant species, size and shape of habitat patch, canopy structure, and vegetation height vary widely among sites. Along the upper San Luis Rey River, in San Diego County, approximately 90% of southwestern willow flycatcher nests were in coast live oak.

Southwestern willow flycatchers were once considered widely-distributed and common in California, occurring wherever suitable habitat existed in the Los Angeles Basin, San Bernardino, Riverside, and San Diego Counties, and the lower Colorado River. California once may have supported the majority of nesting. Currently in California, southwestern willow flycatchers exist only in small disjunct groups and have been extirpated from the lower Colorado River (Hunter et al. 1987, Unitt 1987, Rosenberg et al. 1991).

The protocol for southwestern willow flycatcher nesting surveys call for five visits between May 15 and July 17 as a minimum to determine occupancy. The USFWS protocol calls for the final survey period to end July 17; however SBCM biologists feel that does not go late enough in the season to catch all of the nesting willow flycatchers at the elevations found on the SBNF. They recommend a total of 10 visits, rather than 5, with the last visits occurring during the last two weeks of July (G. Braden pers. comm.). The SBNF has been following their survey protocols, especially at higher elevation sites, because the USFWS protocol often fails to detect some breeding pairs.

Most returning flycatchers show site fidelity to breeding territories; however, a significant number move within and among sites (Finch and Stoleson 2000, p. 62). Therefore, if a site is surveyed in one year and determined to be unoccupied, that does not mean it will not be occupied in successive years.

Extensive loss of low elevation riparian habitat across its range and brood parasitism by the brown-headed cowbird were identified as the primary cause of this species’ decline. Habitat for southwestern willow flycatchers is being affected by development and encroachment throughout southern California.

Throughout southern California, another ongoing effect to this species is from encroachment into the riparian zones by recreationists using the area for off-road vehicle use, enjoying nature, cooling off in the water, mountain biking, dog walking, etc. This type of encroachment can be expected to disturb nesting birds, possibly causing displacement, nest abandonment, lowered breeding success, degraded habitat, and individual mortality. It is also likely that desert- influence springs and riparian zones that once supported southwestern willow flycatcher habitat has been degraded or lost through water diversions and development.

About 25 nesting territories have been identified in the San Bernardino Mountains. Due to varying survey efforts (due to budget constraints), it is not known what percentage nest consistently. Several new pairs were found on the SBNF from 1999 to 2001. Severe drought conditions occurred in 2001 and 2002. Between 2003 and 2006, virtually no breeding took place Page 92

at territories that had been fairly reliable breeding sites. The cause of the apparent abandonment is speculative – it could be a reflection of the local drought conditions; it could indicate some loss of individuals in the wintering areas; or it could be result of something completely different. Breeding since 2006 has been intermittent at the known sites.

This paragraph from the SBCM 2008 report summarizes the current understanding of southwestern willow flycatcher population status in the San Bernardino Mountains (SBCM 2008): There is an emerging pattern at the larger scale of overall southwestern willow flycatcher occurrences in the San Bernardino Mountains. Since southwestern willow flycatcher surveys by SBCM began in 1999, the percentage of surveyed sites that had territories gradually increased from 39% in 1999, to 68% in 2000, and to an overall high of 76% in 2001. The following three years saw a steady reduction in the percentage of surveyed sites with territories until in 2004 there were no surveyed sites with territories. The most recent three years have yielded a small but steady increase in the percentage of surveyed sites with territories from 3% in 2005, to 6% in 2006, and 36% in 2007. The reason(s) for these apparent trends are not clear, but there does appear to be a cyclic nature to the occurrence of southwestern willow flycatcher in the San Bernardino Mountains. Ultimate factors driving the cyclic occupancy pattern are unknown at this time, but surveys in subsequent years may help to resolve this question.

The primary cause for the decline of the southwestern willow flycatcher is widespread fragmentation and extensive loss of both structural components and habitat resulting from hydrological changes in low elevation cottonwood-willow riparian habitat across the species' range (Unitt 1987). Other factors contributing to habitat losses include urban development, road development and maintenance, livestock grazing, high intensity and frequent wildfire, and human recreational activities (SBNF records, Marshall and Stoleson 2000). Additional threats include brood parasitism by brown-headed cowbirds, replacement of native riparian vegetation by invasive nonnative species, pesticide contamination, predation, water management, and probable loss of winter habitat due to tropical deforestation.

In the San Bernardino Mountains, southwestern willow flycatchers and habitat at known nest sites and in suitable habitat are likely being affected by ongoing activities such as recreation use, water diversions and extractions, and road use.

Occurrences in the Project Area –Southwestern Willow Flycatcher: In 2000, the SBNF and USFWS developed a computer model of suitable habitat for T/E species. Parts of Grass Valley Creek in and downstream of the project area are modeled for southwestern willow flycatcher. The East Fork of the West Fork of the Mojave River is modeled for this species downstream of the project area.

Suitability assessments of the two riparian areas were conducted. The East Fork of the West Fork of the Mojave River is not suitable for this species in the project area; downstream of the project boundary, the habitat suitability is patchy varying from unsuitable to moderately suitable. Page 93

Grass Valley Creek in the project area does not contain any suitable habitat for this species. There are some small patches of suitable habitat about 1/3 mile downstream of the project boundary; most of the suitable habitat in Grass Valley Creek (downstream of the project boundary) burned during the 2016 Pilot Fire.

Protocol-level surveys for southwest willow flycatcher were conducted in 2006 by the San Bernardino County Museum in parts of the East Fork of the West Fork of the Mojave River in the Miller Canyon drainage. No nesting southwestern willow flycatchers were detected that year.

Potential Effects to Southwestern Willow Flycatcher: Nesting of southwestern willow flycatchers has not been documented in or adjacent to the project area. Because there is no suitable nesting habitat in the project area, no effects to southwestern willow flycatcher habitat would be expected. There is a small patch of suitable habitat in Grass Valley Creek about ½ mile downstream of the project boundary. This would be outside of the reach of expected effects and would be far enough away that there would be no disturbance to willow flycatchers should they be present.

The RCAs, Design Features, and BMPs are expected to help minimize potential effects to water quality and quantity in southwestern willow flycatcher suitable habitat downstream of the project area. Many of the prey species for this insectivorous bird are associated with aquatic habitat (e.g., mosquitoes, midges, etc.). With incorporation of the BMPs and RCAs, potential effects to prey habitat quality and prey availability are expected to be minimal.

Southwestern Willow Flycatcher – Cumulative Effects: Because the proposed project is not expected to have effects to the southwestern willow flycatcher and its habitat, this project would not add to the reasonably foreseeable effects to this species in the San Bernardino Mountains.

Take for Southwestern Willow Flycatchers: With the Design Features included in the proposed action, “take” of southwestern willow flycatchers would not be expected.

Southwestern Willow Flycatcher – Determination of Effects: It is my determination that implementation of the proposed project would have no effect on southwest willow flycatchers and their habitat.

Consistency with Management Direction: The proposed project would be consistent with applicable management direction (Endangered Species Act and the Forest Plan) as described above.

III-3.3.6 – Least Bell’s Vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus) The least Bell’s vireo is federally- and state-listed as endangered. Critical Habitat has been designated but none is present in or near the federal action area. This species has a draft Recovery Plan that has not been finalized.

Least Bell’s vireo is only known from four sites in the San Bernardino Mountains. One of those sites is Cushenbury Springs just north of the SBNF boundary. The other sites are on the coastal Page 94

side of the mountains near San Bernardino. Most of the suitable habitat for this species has not been systematically surveyed using protocol methodology.

Management Direction: In addition to the Endangered Species Act direction described previously and the Forest Plan direction described in Part I-2.0, there are several management guidance documents that include direction for least Bell’s vireo.  Forest Plan Species Guidance Summary (Forest Plan EIS, Part 3, Appendix H, pg. 71): When planning projects or managing ongoing activities in areas that contain habitat for species of concern (including threatened, endangered, proposed, candidate, and sensitive species and other species identified by biologists as being in danger of population decline or habitat loss) use the information found in various types of species guidance documents to develop project-specific design criteria. Species guidance documents include (as of December 2004): Recovery Plans prepared by the USFWS.  Riparian Obligate Species – Ongoing Activities Biological Opinion: The Biological Opinion contains a number of Design Criteria that are applicable to known occurrences of this species. While the BO only applies to known occurrences of least Bell’s vireo, some of the Design Criteria (USFWS 2012, Appendix Tables 3 and 4) are incorporated in the Grass Valley Design Features around suitable habitat.

Life History and Baseline Information for Least Bell’s Vireo: During the breeding season, least Bell's vireo is an obligate low-elevation riparian species. It inhabits dense, low-elevation, willow-dominated riparian habitats with lush understory vegetation in the immediate vicinity of watercourses.

The most important structural habitat characteristic for least Bell's vireos is a dense shrub understory approximately 2 to 10 feet above ground. According to the USFWS, the habitat elements essential for conservation of the taxon can be described as riparian woodland vegetation that generally contains both canopy and shrub layers and includes some associated upland habitats. Examples of suitable breeding habitat are broad cottonwood-willow woodlands with a dense shrubby understory and mule fat scrub. Most areas that support least Bell's vireo populations are in early stages of succession where most woody vegetation is 5 to 10 years old.

Least Bell's vireos nest primarily in willows but also use a variety of shrubs, trees, and vines. Nests are generally located in the fork of a forb, shrub, or tree within 3 feet of the ground. These areas generally have an open midstory with an overstory consisting of willows (Salix spp.), cottonwoods (Populus spp.), sycamores (Platanus spp.) or oaks (Quercus spp.). Significant overstory species include mature arroyo willow (S. lasiolepis) and black willows (S. goodingii).

Occasional cottonwoods and western sycamore (P. racemosa) occur in some least Bell's vireo habitats. Coast live oak (Q. agrifolia) may also comprise some of the overstory. Canopy cover is generally greater than 50 percent with occasional small openings. The understory frequently contains dense subshrub or shrub thickets. These thickets are often dominated by sandbar willow (S. hindsiana), mule fat (Baccharis salicifolia), young individuals of other willow species such as arroyo or black willows, and one or more herbaceous species.

Page 95

Although extensive riparian areas with heavy undergrowth provide important habitat for least Bell's vireos, large areas are not required for successful breeding. The birds' center of activity is typically in understory vegetation, and their nest sites and song perches are seldom higher than 6 feet above ground. Least Bell's vireos forage in riparian and adjacent upland habitats.

The least Bell's vireo is a Neotropical migrant, wintering in Baja California, Mexico. The species is known to be a nocturnal migrant. Least Bell’s vireos generally leave their breeding areas by early October. Spring migrants begin arriving at their breeding grounds by early to mid- March.

Least Bell's vireos primarily eat insects and spiders/ they often forage on willows, usually within riparian habitat. Foraging occurs in all vegetation strata up to 65.6 feet above ground. (Source: Forest Plan Species Account. USFS 2005b)

Status and Threats: In the last several decades, least Bell's vireo has undergone a precipitous decrease in numbers. This decline has been attributed primarily to extensive loss and degradation of breeding habitat, as well as brood parasitism by brown-headed cowbirds.

By the time least Bell's vireo was federally listed in 1986, the statewide population was estimated at 300 pairs. In 1996, the population had increased to 1,346 pairs; in 2000, the population had increased to 2,000 pairs. The tremendous growth that most populations have experienced is attributed to an intensive cowbird removal program that was initiated in some southern counties upon the listing of the species.

As cowbird parasitism declined, least Bell's vireo productivity increased resulting in the increase of bird numbers and expansion or recolonization of areas used by the least Bell's vireo. As populations continue to grow and disperse northward, they could reestablish in the central and northern portions of their historical breeding range. No evidence exists that least Bell's vireos are capable of sustaining their current rate of growth without continuing widespread cowbird trapping. Without land use changes to minimize brown-headed cowbirds, if human intervention (trapping/control) is removed it is likely that least Bell's vireo populations will return to the low numbers documented when the species was listed.

Habitat degradation and nest parasitism by brown-headed cowbirds were identified as the biggest threats to least Bell's vireo populations on NFS lands in southern California. On private lands, urban or agricultural development and subsequent loss of habitat are the major threats; these are not considered threats on NFS lands.

Habitat degradation can occur when the structure or composition of riparian vegetation is altered. Unlike other subspecies of Bell's vireo, this subspecies does not frequent upland sites; therefore, it is especially vulnerable to degradation or destruction of riparian habitats.

Dense shrub cover within 3 to 6.5 feet of the ground is important for least Bell's vireos, and this cover and vegetation composition can be significantly reduced by roads, overgrazing, off- highway vehicle activity, concentrated recreation use, channel clearing, diversions, and large discharges of water from upstream reservoirs. Additional threats to riparian habitats come from Page 96

fire and invasive nonnative species. Activities that result in habitat fragmentation can cause a loss of habitat and create a greater edge that is favored by the brown-headed cowbird and certain nest predators. Disturbances (maintenance, presence, noise) by humans or machines associated with these activities may lead to courtship disruption or nest abandonment. (Source: Forest Plan Species Account. USFS 2005b)

Occurrence in the Federal Action Area – Least Bell’s Vireo: In 2000, the SBNF and USFWS developed a computer model of suitable habitat for T/E species. Portions of Grass Valley Creek and the East Fork of the West Fork of the Mojave River almost a mile downstream of the project area are modeled for least Bell’s vireo.

Protocol-level surveys for least Bell’s vireo have not been conducted in these project area; however, San Bernardino County Museum biologists conducted protocol-level surveys for southwestern willow flycatchers in the East Fork of the West Fork of the Mojave River in 2006 and would have detected least Bell’s vireos had they been present. They have not been detected during non-protocol surveys in/near the project area.

See the discussion under southwestern willow flycatcher for habitat suitability: since the habitat needs are similar, that discussion applies to least Bell’s vireo.

Potential Effects to Least Bell’s Vireo: No effects to least Bell’s vireos or its habitat would be expected for the same reasons described under the previous discussion for southwestern willow flycatcher.

Least Bell’s Vireo – Cumulative Effects: Since there would be no effects to least Bell’s vireo from the project, there would be no cumulative effects.

Take for Least Bell’s Vireo: No “take” would be expected. See the discussion for southwestern willow flycatcher.

Least Bell’s Vireo – Determination of Effects: It is my determination that implementation of the proposed project would have no effects to least Bell’s vireo and its habitat.

Consistency with Management Direction: The proposed project would be consistent with applicable management direction (Endangered Species Act and the Forest Plan) as described above.

III-3.3.7 – California Condor (Gymnogyps californianus) The California condor is both a federally- and state-listed as Endangered. Critical Habitat was designated in 1976 but none is present in the federal action area. A Recovery Plan exists for this species.

Management Direction: In addition to the Endangered Species Act direction described previously and the Forest Plan direction described in Part I-2.0, there are several management guidance documents that include direction for California condors.

Page 97

 Forest Plan Species Guidance Summary (Forest Plan EIS, Part 3, Appendix H, pg. 71): When planning projects or managing ongoing activities in areas that contain habitat for species of concern (including threatened, endangered, proposed, candidate, and sensitive species and other species identified by biologists as being in danger of population decline or habitat loss) use the information found in various types of species guidance documents to develop project-specific design criteria. Species guidance documents include (as of December 2004): Recovery Plans prepared by the USFWS.  Forest Plan Standards: S28 - Avoid or minimize disturbance to breeding and roosting California condors by prohibiting or restricting management activities and human uses within 1.5 miles of active California condor nest sites and within 0.5 miles of active roosts. Refer to California condor species account (or subsequent species guidance document; see Appendix H) for additional guidance (Forest Plan EIS, Part 3, pg. 8).

Life History and Baseline Information for California Condor: When European settlers arrived on the Pacific coast of North America in the early 1800s, California condors occurred from British Columbia to Baja California, and also occasionally ranged into the American southwest. Historically, California condors occurred in the Coast Ranges of California from Santa Clara and San Mateo Counties south to Ventura County, and east to the western slope of the Sierra Nevada and Tehachapi Mountains. This species occurred primarily from sea level to 9,000 feet and nested at 2,000-6,500 feet. Almost all of the historic nest sites used by California condors are located on the Los Padres, Angeles, and Sequoia National Forests.

California condor nesting sites are typically located in chaparral, conifer forest, or oak woodland communities. Historically, condors nested on bare ground in caves and crevices, behind rock slabs, or on large ledges or potholes on high sandstone cliffs in isolated, extremely steep, rugged areas. Cavities in giant sequoia (Sequoiadendron giganteum) have also been used. The nest site is often surrounded by dense brush.

The appearance of many nest sites suggests that they have been long-used, perhaps for centuries, whereas other apparently suitable sites in undisturbed areas show no signs of condor use. Characteristics of condor nests include:  large enough entrances for the adults to fit through;  a ceiling height of at least 14.8 inches at the egg position;  fairly level floors with some loose surface substrate;  un-constricted nest site for incubating adults; and  a nearby landing point.

Condors often return to traditional sites for perching and resting. Traditional roost sites include cliffs and large trees and snags (roost trees are often conifer snags 40-70 feet tall, often near feeding and nesting areas. Condors may remain at the roost site until midmorning, and generally return in mid- to late afternoon.

Most foraging occurs in open terrain of foothills, grasslands, potreros with chaparral areas, or oak savannah habitats. Historically, foraging also occurred on beaches and large rivers along the Pacific coast. Water is required for drinking and bathing.

Page 98

California condors typically breed every other year, but can breed annually if they are not caring for dependent young. California condors usually lay a single egg between late January and early April. The egg is incubated by both parents and hatches after approximately 56 days. Both parents share responsibilities for feeding the nestling. Feeding usually occurs daily for the first 2 months, then gradually diminishes in frequency. Juvenile condors leave the nest at 2-3 months of age, but remain in the vicinity of the nest and under their parents' care for up to a year. California condors are non-migratory. California condors are capable of extended flights (more than 100 miles in a day).

California condors are opportunistic scavengers, feeding exclusively on the carcasses of dead animals. Typical foraging behavior includes long-distance reconnaissance flights, lengthy circling flights over a carcass, and hours of waiting at a roost or on the ground near a carcass. California condors locate food by visual rather than olfactory cues, and require fairly open areas for feeding, allowing ease in approaching and leaving a carcass. California condors typically feed only 1-3 days per week.

Seasonal foraging behavior shifts may be the result of climatic cycles or changes in food availability. California condors maintain wide-ranging foraging patterns (i.e., at least 2.8 to 11.6 square miles) throughout the year, an important strategy for a species that may be subjected to unpredictable food supplies.

Historically, condors probably fed on mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus), elk (Cervus elaphus), pronghorn antelope (Antilocarpa americana), and various marine mammals. More recently, domestic livestock made up the majority of their diet. (Source: Forest Plan Species Account. USFS 2005b)

Population Status and Threats: The California condor has been one of the most highly endangered bird species in the world throughout its modern history. As the result of an aggressive management program, the total population continues to increase from the low point in 1982, when only 21-22 individuals were thought to survive. The 9/30/12 California condor status report by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service showed a total population of 410 individuals, including 180 in captivity and 230 in the wild.

A high number of condors are still being lost to poisoning from lead ingested from carcasses, and this factor may preclude rapid recovery of the species in some areas. The ingestion of trash items, including glass fragments, china, plastic, and metal bottle tops, and non-digestible natural items such as small rocks, sticks, grass, wool, and fur, is a serious problem for condor chicks in California nests. (http://globalraptors.org/grin/SpeciesResults.asp?specID=8258)

Factors that led to California condor's century-long decline included illegal collection of adults and their eggs; secondary poisoning by substances used to eradicate livestock predators; poisoning from ingestion of lead fragments of bullets embedded in animal carcasses; other forms of poisoning (DDT, cyanide, strychnine, compound 1080, antifreeze from car radiators); shooting; and collisions with structures such as transmission lines. In addition, the roads, cities, housing tracts, and weekend mountain retreats of modern civilization have replaced much of the Page 99

open country condors need to find food. Their slow rate of reproduction and maturation undoubtedly make the California condor population as a whole more vulnerable to these threats.

Viability of this species is a definite concern due to the extremely small population and vulnerability to many factors. Greatest among these are shooting, lead contamination, collision with overhead transmission lines and towers, trash, and general human disturbance. (Source: Forest Plan Species Account. USFS 2005b). The risk to condors from man-made factors will continue and may increase in the foreseeable future as human populations in southern California grow.

Occurrence in the Federal Action Area – California Condor: California condors have been observed at several locations in the San Bernardino Mountains since 2002, including Paivika Ridge, approximately 5 miles from the project area. USFWS records of radio-tagged condors suggest that as southern California’s condor population continues to grow, the areas they cover is expanding (G. Hund, pers. comm. 2013). Condors appear to be traveling long distances from the main population sites on the coast on a more frequent basis.

Currently, condors are not thought to regularly forage over the San Bernardino Mountains and no nesting is known. The closest nest is approximately 120 miles away and the closest historic nest record was approximately 75 miles away (J. Brandt, pers. comm. 2014). Foraging likely occurs in the San Bernardino Mountains on a very infrequent basis and may increase in frequency as the population expands and if closer nest sites are established.

Potential Effects to California Condor: No suitable nesting structures that condors prefer are known to occur in the Project Area; thus, no effects to nesting condors would be expected from this project. Condors may occasionally forage in the project area, and the frequency of visiting condors may increase over the next decade if the condor population continues to expand east from the Pacific coast. If the occasional condor were to forage in the project area, human activities would likely cause them to temporarily move away from the area of activity. The proposed project would not affect availability or quality of foraging habitat.

The potential for disturbance, death or injury is considered extremely unlikely during the project because of the rarity of occurrence in the San Bernardino Mountains. As such, no effects are expected.

Cumulative Effects for California Condor: Because this project is not expected to affect California condors, it would not contribute to the existing cumulative effects for this species.

Take for California Condor: No “take of California condor would be expected from this project.

California Condor – Determination of Effects: Because California condors are such infrequent visitors to the San Bernardino Mountains and the habitat in the project area is a small piece of a large area of marginal foraging habitat, it is my determination that implementation of the proposed action would have no effect on California condors.

Page 100

Consistency with Management Direction: The proposed project would be consistent with applicable management direction (Endangered Species Act and the Forest Plan) as described above.

III-3.4 - Baseline Conditions and Potential Effects for T/E Wildlife - No Action If No Action is taken, the conditions for federally-listed animals in the federal action area would remain the same. See Part II-3.4 for a discussion of the potential effects from the No Action alternative.

III-4.0 – SUMMARY FOR THREATENED/ENDANGERED SPECIES Table 14 summarizes the determinations of effects for Threatened and Endangered species for the proposed project. No suitable or modeled habitat occurs in the federal action area for any other federally-listed species. No designated Critical Habitat for any T/E species is present in the federal action area. As such, no other T/E species are expected in the project area.

Through the incorporation of Design Features, the proposed Grass Valley project would ensure compliance with all applicable management direction for T/E species.

Table 14. Summary of Determination of Effects for T/E Species for Grass Valley Fuels Project Species Federal Status Determination of Effects Critical Habitat Determination Mohave Tui Chub Endangered No Effect Not Applicable Arroyo Toad Endangered No Effect Not Applicable California Red-Legged Frog Endangered No Effect Not Applicable Mountain Yellow-Legged Frog Endangered No Effect Not Applicable Southwestern Willow Flycatcher Endangered No Effect Not Applicable Least Bell’s Vireo Threatened No Effect Not Applicable California Condor Endangered No Effect Not Applicable

Consultation Requirements: Endangered Species Act Section 7 consultation with U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service is not required for this project.

Page 101

PART IV: BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION OF EFFECTS TO FOREST SERVICE SENSITIVE SPECIES

IV-1.0 – INTRODUCTION AND MANAGEMENT DIRECTION Part I of this document contains descriptions of the methods/evaluation process, Proposed Action, and habitat for this project. Part II addresses effects that are common to many plants and animals. This discussion tiers to those two sections of the document.

This part, Part IV, covers discussions of potential direct, indirect, and cumulative effects to species on the Region 5 Forest Service Sensitive species list. Detailed species accounts for all of the Sensitive species discussed below are contained in the Forest Plan with full citations; those species accounts are incorporated by reference (USFS 2005b). Species accounts are summarized in the following discussions and new information about the species is included.

See Part II-3.1 for an explanation of Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects. That section also contains discussions about present and foreseeable future projects that are considered in the Cumulative Effects discussions for each species.

Applicable Direction for Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species In addition to the direction included in Part I-2.0, there is specific direction for Sensitive species.

The Forest Service Manual 2670 (Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive Plants and Animals): The Regional Forester identifies sensitive species, requires that management decisions do not result in a trend towards federal listing and loss of viability, and requires that a Biological Evaluation be prepared for all Forest Service activities to address potential impacts to sensitive species.

Forest Plan: The Forest Plan contains strategies for Sensitive species management (Forest Plan Part 2, pp. 124-125)  Implement priority conservation strategies (San Bernardino NF Conservation Strategy, table 531).  Use vegetation management practices to reduce the intensity of fires to reduce habitat loss due to catastrophic fires.  Establish and maintain a working relationship with county and city governments to ensure coordination on development projects adjacent to the National Forest as well as implementation of multi-species habitat conservation plans.  Coordinate with California Department of Fish and Game (CDF&G) regarding fish stocking and nonnative fisheries management to implement measures to resolve conflicts with threatened, Endangered, Proposed, Candidate, and Sensitive species and habitats.  Restore degraded habitats with cooperators.  Recommend mineral withdrawal when needed to provide species protection over the long-term.

Page 102

Forest Plan Standard S11: When occupied or suitable habitat for a threatened, endangered, proposed, candidate or sensitive (TEPCS) species is present on an ongoing or proposed project site, consider species guidance documents (see Appendix H) to develop project-specific or activity-specific design criteria. This guidance is intended to provide a range of possible conservation measures that may be selectively applied during site-specific planning to avoid, minimize or mitigate negative long-term effects on threatened, endangered, proposed, candidate or sensitive species and habitat. Involve appropriate resource specialists in the identification of relevant design criteria. Include review of species guidance documents in fire suppression or other emergency actions when and to the extent practicable (Forest Plan, Part 3, pg. 10).

Project Design Features: A number of Design Features are incorporated into the Proposed Action in order to protect or reduce the potential effects to Sensitive plants and animals. Additional species-specific Design Features are described under the applicable species discussions.

IV-1.1 – Sensitive Plants – Baseline Conditions and Potential Effects of Proposed Action See the existing environment described in Part II-2.0 and the effects analyses common to general vegetation and special status plant species in Part II-3.0.

Table 15 contains a list of the Forest Service Sensitive plants known to occur on the SBNF and the occurrence probability of Sensitive plants in the analysis area and within the reach of potential effects of the project. It is possible that other Sensitive plant occurrences are present but undetected/unmapped in the project area. Sensitive plant species known from the area are individually addressed below.

Per Design Features, Sensitive plant occurrences would be flagged and would be avoided during project implementation. Burn piles would not be created in Sensitive plant occurrences. Some underburning may occur in Sensitive plant habitat, and short-term effects are possible.

III-1.1.1 – Calochortus palmeri var. palmeri (Palmer’s mariposa lily) Life History and Baseline Conditions: This taxon occurs across the Transverse Ranges from Mt Pinos and the western Transverse Ranges to the San Gabriel and San Bernardino Mountains, and also the Tehachapi and Southern Sierra of Kern County, and the coast ranges of Santa Barbara and San Luis Obispo Counties. The distribution of the taxon tends to be on the upper desert- facing slopes of these ranges. The majority of records are from the San Bernardino Mountains, and most of those are from the Mojave River and Deep Creek Watersheds.

Historically habitat for this species in the San Bernardino Mountains may have been lost to inundation following the construction of the Big Bear Dam, and subsequently to residential and commercial development in western Bear Valley. However, the species was probably always scarce in Bear Valley. Current threats to this species and its habitat include bulb poaching by collectors, trampling, flooding, erosion, invasive species, dispersed and developed recreation, road maintenance, and off-highway vehicles.

Page 103

Table 15. Region 5 Sensitive Plant Species on the San Bernardino National Forest (updated 11/6/14) Occurs on Occurs In/ Near Addressed in this Document? Latin Name Common Name MTRD? Project Area? Abronia nana var. covillei Coville’s dwarf abronia Yes No No. No records nearby; not likely to occur. Abronia villosa var. aurita chaparral sand verbena No No No. Outside known distribution. Acanthoscyphus parishii var. cienegensis Cienega Seca puncturebract Yes No No. No records nearby; not likely to occur. Allium marvinii Yucaipa onion No No No. Outside known distribution. Antennaria marginata white-margined everlasting Yes No No. No records nearby; not likely to occur. Arctostaphylos glandulosa subsp. gabrielensis San Gabriel Manzanita No No No. Outside known distribution. Arctostaphylos parryana subsp. tumescens interior manzanita Yes No No. No records nearby; not likely to occur. Arenaria lanuginosa subsp. saxosa rock sandwort Yes No No. No records nearby; not likely to occur. Astragalus bernardinus San Bernardino milk-vetch Yes No No. No records nearby; not likely to occur. Astragalus bicristatus crested milk-vetch Yes No No. No records nearby; not likely to occur. Astragalus lentiginosus var. antonius San Antonio milk-vetch No No No. Outside known distribution. Astragalus lentiginosus var. sierrae Bear Valley milk-vetch Yes No No. No records nearby; not likely to occur. Astragalus pachypus var. jaegeri Jaeger's milk-vetch No No No. Outside known distribution. Astragalus tidestromii Tidestrom’s milk-vetch Yes No No. No records nearby; not likely to occur. Atriplex parishii Parish’s brittlescale Possible No No. No records nearby; not likely to occur. Boechera johnstonii Johnston’s rockcress No No No. Outside known distribution. Boechera parishii Parish's rockcress Yes No No. No records nearby; not likely to occur. Boechera peirsonii San Bernardino rockcress No No No. Outside known distribution. Boechera shockleyi Shockley's rockcress Yes No No. No records nearby; not likely to occur. Botrychium crenulatum scalloped moonwort Yes No No. No records nearby; not likely to occur. Calochortus palmeri var. munzii Munz's mariposa lily No No No. Outside known distribution. Calochortus palmeri var. palmeri Palmer's mariposa lily Yes Yes Yes Calochortus striatus alkali mariposa lily Possible No No. No records nearby; not likely to occur. Calyptridium pygmaeum pygmy pussypaws Yes No No. No records nearby; not likely to occur. Canbya candida pygmy poppy Yes No No. No records nearby; not likely to occur. Castilleja lasiorhyncha San Bernardino Mountains owl's clover Yes Yes Yes Castilleja plagiotoma Mojave paintbrush Yes No No. No records nearby; not likely to occur. Caulanthus simulans Payson's jewelflower No No No. Outside known distribution. Chorizanthe parryi var. parryi Parry's spineflower No No No. Outside known distribution. Chorizanthe xanti var. leucotheca white-bracted spineflower No No No. Outside known distribution. Cladium californicum California saw grass Yes No No. No records nearby; not likely to occur. Claytonia lanceolata var. piersonii Pierson’s spring beauty Yes No No. No records nearby; not likely to occur. Deinandra mohavensis Mojave tarplant Historic No No. No records nearby; not likely to occur. Delphinium hesperium subsp. cuyamacae Cuyamaca larkspur No No No. Outside known distribution. Dieteria canescens var. ziegleri Ziegler's aster No No No. Outside known distribution. Draba saxosa rock draba No No No. Outside known distribution. Drymocallis cuneifolia var. cuneifolia wedgeleaf woodbeauty Yes No No. No records nearby; not likely to occur. Dudleya abramsii subsp. affinis San Bernardino Mts. dudleya Yes No No. No records nearby; not likely to occur. Ericameria parryi var. imula Parry’s rabbitbrush Yes No No. No records nearby; not likely to occur. Page 104

Table 15. Region 5 Sensitive Plant Species on the San Bernardino National Forest (updated 11/6/14) Occurs on Occurs In/ Near Addressed in this Document? Latin Name Common Name MTRD? Project Area? Eriogonum evanidum vanishing wild buckwheat Yes No No. No records nearby; not likely to occur. Eriogonum kennedyi var. alpigenum southern alpine buckwheat No No No. Outside known distribution. Eriogonum microthecum var. johnstonii Johnston’s buckwheat Yes No No. No records nearby; not likely to occur. Eriogonum microthecum var. lacus-ursi Bear Lake buckwheat Possible No No. No records nearby; not likely to occur. Galium angustifolium subsp. jacinticium San Jacinto Mtns bedstraw No No No. Outside known distribution. Galium californicum subsp. primum California bedstraw No No No. Outside known distribution. Gentiana fremontii moss gentian No No No. Outside known distribution. Gilia leptantha subsp. leptantha San Bernardino gilia Yes No No. No records nearby; not likely to occur. Heuchera abramsii Abrams’ alumroot No No No. Outside known distribution. Heuchera caespitosa urn-flowered alumroot No No No. Outside known distribution. Heuchera hirsutissima shaggy-haired alum root No No No. Outside known distribution. Heuchera parishii Parish's alumroot Yes No No. No records nearby; not likely to occur. Horkelia cuneata subsp. puberula mesa horkelia No No No. Outside known distribution. Horkelia wilderae Barton Flats horkelia Yes No No. No records nearby; not likely to occur. Hulsea vestita subsp. gabrielensis San Gabriel Mountains sunflower No No No. Outside known distribution. Hulsea vestita subsp. pygmaea pygmy hulsea Yes No No. No records nearby; not likely to occur. Imperata brevifolia California satintail No No No. Outside known distribution. Ivesia argyrocoma var. argyrocoma Silver-haired ivesia Yes No No. No records nearby; not likely to occur. Ivesia callida Tahquitz ivesia No No No. Outside known distribution. Lepechinia fragrans fragrant pitcher sage No No No. Outside known distribution. Leptosiphon floribundus subsp. hallii Santa Rosa Mtns leptosiphon No No No. Outside known distribution. Lewisia brachycalyx short-sepaled Yes No No. No records nearby; not likely to occur. Lilium parryi Lemon lily Yes No No. No records nearby; not likely to occur. Limnanthes alba var. parishii Parish’s meadowfoam No No No. Outside known distribution. Linanthus concinnus San Gabriel linanthus No No No. Outside known distribution. Linanthus jaegeri San Jacinto prickly phlox No No No. Outside known distribution. Linanthus killipii Baldwin Lake linanthus Yes No No. No records nearby; not likely to occur. Malaxis monophyllos var. brachypoda Adder’s mouth No No No. Outside known distribution. Marina orcuttii var. orcuttii California marina No No No. Outside known distribution. Matelea parvifolia spearleaf No No No. Outside known distribution. Meesia uliginosa Broad-nerved hump moss No No No. Outside known distribution. Mimulus exiguus San Bernardino Mountain monkeyflower Yes No No. No records nearby; not likely to occur. Mimulus purpureus purple monkeyflower Yes No No. No records nearby; not likely to occur. Monardella australis subsp. jokersti Jokerst’s monardella No No No. Outside known distribution. Monardella macrantha subsp. hallii Hall's monardella No No No. Outside known distribution. Monardella nana subsp. leptosiphon San Felipe monardella No No No. Outside known distribution. Monardella saxicola rock monardella No No No. Outside known distribution. Navarretia peninsularis Baja navarretia Yes No No. No records nearby; not likely to occur. Opuntia basilaris var. brachyclada Short-joint beavertail Possible No No. No records nearby; not likely to occur. Page 105

Table 15. Region 5 Sensitive Plant Species on the San Bernardino National Forest (updated 11/6/14) Occurs on Occurs In/ Near Addressed in this Document? Latin Name Common Name MTRD? Project Area? Oreonana vestita woolly mountain parsley Possible No No. No records nearby; not likely to occur. Orobanche valida subsp. valida Rock Creek broom-rape No No No. Outside known distribution. Oxytropis oreophila var. oreophila rock loving point vetch No No No. Outside known distribution. Packera bernardina San Bernardino butterweed Yes No No. No records nearby; not likely to occur. Parnassia cirrata var. cirrata Fringed grass-of-Parnassus No No No. Outside known distribution. Penstemon californicus California penstemon No No No. Outside known distribution. Phlox dolichantha Bear Valley phlox Yes No No. No records nearby; not likely to occur. Plagiobothrys collinus var. ursinus Cooper’s popcorn flower Yes No No. No records nearby; not likely to occur. Potentilla rimicola cliff cinquefoil No No No. Outside known distribution. Pyrrocoma uniflora subsp. gossypina Bear Valley pyrrocoma Yes No No. No records nearby; not likely to occur. Saltugilia latimeri Latimer's woodland gilia Yes No No. No records nearby; not likely to occur. Schoenus nigricans black sedge No No No. Outside known distribution. Scutellaria bolanderi subsp. austromontanum southern mountain skullcap Possible No No. No records nearby; not likely to occur. Sedum niveum Davidson's stonecrop Yes No No. No records nearby; not likely to occur. Sidalcea hickmanii subsp. parishii Parish’s checkerbloom Yes No No. No records nearby; not likely to occur. Sidalcea malviflora subsp. dolosa Dwarf checkerbloom Yes No No. No records nearby; not likely to occur. Sidalcea neomexicana Salt Spring checkerbloom Possible No No. No records nearby; not likely to occur. Sidotheca caryophylloides chickweed starry puncturebract Yes No No. No records nearby; not likely to occur. Sidotheca emarginata white-margined puncturebract No No No. Outside known distribution. Sisyrinchium longipes Timberland blue-eyed grass Yes No No. No records nearby; not likely to occur. Streptanthus campestris southern jewelflower Yes No No. No records nearby; not likely to occur. Symphyotrichum defoliatum San Bernardino aster Yes No No. No records nearby; not likely to occur. Thelypteris puberula var. sonorensis Sonoran maiden fern No No No. Outside known distribution. Thysanocarpus rigidus rigid fringepod Possible No No. No records nearby; not likely to occur.

Page 106

This species, like most associates of vernal-wet habitats, are very sensitive to ground disturbance (especially when soils are wet) and any hydrological changes. Following the Willow (1999), Old (2003), and Slide (2007) fires, this taxon was documented to have high post-fire resilience (Fraga 2008), as is typical for genus Calochortus.

Occurrence Information for Calochortus palmeri var. palmeri: The taxon is tightly associated with vernally wet habitats including seeps, springs, streamsides, and moist ephemeral and intermittent streambeds. Within the project area, this species occurs in and adjacent to vernally- moist swales in the headwaters of Grass Valley Creek.

Potential Effects to Calochortus palmeri var. palmeri: Where this species is known to occur, effects would be avoided through application of Design Features. Effects from mechanical treatments to any undetected occurrences in the project area would be avoided through application of Design Features, and any effects from underburning would not be adverse to populations. If this species occurs undetected within the project area, effects would be avoided or minimized through application of Design Features for RCAs and BMPs.

Cumulative Effects to Calochortus palmeri var. palmeri: There are several SBNF fuels projects planned that have potential effects to this species. These projects (South Big Bear, North Big Bear, Santa Ana, and Bluff Mesa) include the same design features to avoid and minimize effects to Sensitive species as are proposed for this project.

Determination of Effects – Calochortus palmeri var. palmeri: It is my determination that implementation of the Proposed Action may affect individual Calochortus palmeri var. palmeri plants but would not lead towards a trend in federal listing. The project is not expected to interfere with maintaining viable well-distributed populations of Calochortus palmeri var. palmeri.

III-1.1.2 – Castilleja lasiorhyncha (San Bernardino Mountains Owl’s-Clover) Life History and Baseline Conditions: This species is nearly endemic to the San Bernardino Mountains; however, it is also known from historic records from Strawberry Valley in the San Jacinto Mountains. The taxon is tightly associated with vernally wet habitats including seeps, springs, streamsides, and moist ephemeral and intermittent streambeds. In the San Bernardino Mountains, it occurs from Miller Canyon and north of Lake Arrowhead (Mojave River and Deep Creek Watershed) to Holcomb Valley, Gray’s Peak area, and Fawnskin Valley (near YMCA Camp Whittle), Bear Valley, and Bluff Lake.

Castilleja lasiorhyncha is an annual dicotyledonous herb in the broomrape family (Orobanchaceae). Castilleja lasiorhyncha is hemi-parasitic, although its host is unknown. Flowering occurs from June to July. This species, like most associates of vernal-wet habitats, is very sensitive to ground disturbance (especially when soils are wet) and any hydrological changes.

Historically, habitat for this species was lost to residential and commercial development in western Bear Valley, Snow Valley, Deer Lick, Arrowbear, Running Springs, Lake Arrowhead, and Crestline. Current threats to this species and its habitat include trampling, flooding, erosion, Page 107

invasive species, dispersed and developed recreation, road maintenance, and off-highway vehicles (Fraga 2008).

Following the Willow (1999), Old (2003), Butler 2 and Slide (2007) fires, this taxon was documented to have high post-fire resilience (Fraga 2008).

Occurrence Information for Castilleja lasiorhyncha: The taxon is tightly associated with vernally wet habitats including seeps, springs, streamsides, and moist ephemeral and intermittent streambeds. Within the project area, this species occurs in and adjacent to vernally-moist swales in the headwaters of Grass Valley Creek.

Potential Effects to Castilleja lasiorhyncha: Where this species is known to occur, effects would be avoided through application of Design Features. Effects from mechanical treatments to any undetected occurrences in the project area would be avoided through application of Design Features, and any effects from underburning would not be adverse to populations. If this species occurs undetected within the project area, effects would be avoided or minimized through application of Design Features for RCAs and BMPs.

Cumulative Effects to Castilleja lasiorhyncha: There are several SBNF fuels projects planned that have potential effects to this species. These projects, South Big Bear, North Big Bear, Santa Ana, and Bluff Mesa, include the same design features to avoid and minimize effects to Sensitive species as are proposed for this project.

Determination of Effects – Castilleja lasiorhyncha: It is my determination that implementation of the Proposed Action may affect individual Castilleja lasiorhyncha plants but would not lead towards a trend in federal listing. The project is not expected to interfere with maintaining viable well-distributed populations of Castilleja lasiorhyncha.

III-1.1.3 – Summary of Potential Effects to Sensitive Plants from Proposed Action Only two Sensitive plant species are known to occur in the project area; the likelihood of other Sensitive plants occurring is considered low due to survey efforts. Design Features call for flagging and avoiding Sensitive plant occurrences. As such, the level of effects expected are very low. The Grass Valley project would be consistent with all applicable management direction.

IV-1.2 – Sensitive Plants – Potential Effects of No Action Under the No Action Alternative, no effects to Sensitive plant species are expected to occur relative to the baseline condition. The discussion in Part II-3.4 is applicable for all Sensitive plant species that occur in the project area.

IV-1.3 – Sensitive Animals – Baseline Conditions and Potential Effects -Proposed Action A number of Sensitive wildlife species are known or expected to occur in the project area. Table 16 contains the current Sensitive animals for the SBNF and the potential for each to occur in the project area. The potential direct and indirect effects to these species that are known to occur or having a high probability of occurring in the project area are discussed in detail.

Page 108

Table 16. Forest Service Region 5 Sensitive Wildlife Species on the SBNF (Updated 11/6/14/14) Common Name Latin Name Habitat Type* Occurs on Occurs In/Near Addressed in this MTRD? Project Area? Document? San Emigdio blue butterfly Plebulina emigdionis Mojave River-Victorville; Possible No No. Host plant absent. Atriplex is host plant San Gabriel Mountains blue butterfly Plebejus saepiolus aureoles Trifolium wormskioldii is Historic – maybe No No. Host plant absent. (golden blue butterfly) host plant in high meadows Arrowhead Blue Butterfly Glaucopshyce piasus (sagittigera) c (lupine host plant) Yes No No. Host plant absent. Ehrlich’s checkerspot butterfly Euphydryas editha ehrlichi d, c, pebble plain Yes No No. Host plant absent. Dammer’s Blue Butterfly (Euphilotes enoptes near dammersi Pebble plain Yes No No. Host plant absent. ssp.) (Arrastre Creek near Dammersi ssp + Baldwin Lake near Dammersi ssp vernal blue butterfly (Coxey Meadow) Euphilotes baueri (battoides) vernalis Pebble plain Yes No No. Host plant absent. Pratt’s blue butterfly Euphilotes enoptes cryptorufes Eriogonum davidsonii is No No No. Outside known host plant distribution. San Gabriel Mountains elfin Incisalia mossii hidakupa rk, on Sedum No No No. Outside known spathulifolium distribution. Santa Ana speckled dace Rhinichthys osculus ssp. aq No No No. Outside known distribution. arroyo chub Gila orcutti aq Yes - Deep Ck No No. Outside known (hybridized with distribution. Mohave tui chub); CNDDB: Holcomb Ck @ 3N16 (1996) large-blotched ensatina Ensatina klauberi r, mc Yes Possible Yes yellow-blotched ensatina Ensatina eschscholtzii croceater r, mc Yes Possible Yes San Gabriel Mountain slender salamander Batrachoseps gabrieli talus, mc, r No No No. Outside known distribution. Western pond turtle Emys marmorata aq, r Historic/Possible No No. Outside known distribution. Southern California legless lizard Anniella stebbinsi (split from A. c, d Possible Unlikely No. Outside known pulchra) distribution. Orange-throated whiptail Aspidoscelis hyperythrus w, rk, c, wo (oaks) No No No. Outside known distribution. southern rubber boa Charina umbratica mc, c, r Yes Possible Yes three-lined boa Lichanura orcutti c, g, rk, r Yes Possible Yes San Bernardino ringneck snake Diadophis punctatus modestus c, g, rk, r Yes Yes Yes San Diego ringneck snake Diadophis punctatus similis c, g, rk No No No. Outside known distribution.

Page 109

Table 16. Forest Service Region 5 Sensitive Wildlife Species on the SBNF (Updated 11/6/14/14) Common Name Latin Name Habitat Type* Occurs on Occurs In/Near Addressed in this MTRD? Project Area? Document? San Bernardino mountain kingsnake Lampropeltis zonata parvirubra mc, c, pj, r Yes Possible Yes San Diego mountain kingsnake Lampropeltis zonata pulchra mc, r No No No. Outside known distribution. Two-striped garter snake Thamnophis hammondii r, aq Yes Yes Yes red diamond rattlesnake Crotalus ruber ruber c, wo, d, rk Yes No No. Outside known distribution. northern goshawk Accipiter gentilis mc Yes Unlikely No. No records; Habitat is marginal. bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus aq,r,m Yes Yes Yes California spotted owl Strix occidentalis occidentalis mc Yes Yes Yes Willow flycatcher (migrant) Empidonax traillii r Yes Yes Yes San Diego cactus wren Campylorhynchus bruneicapillus d, c No No No. Outside known sandiegense distribution. gray vireo Vireo vicinior wo (pj),ch Yes No No. No suitable habitat. Townsend’s big-eared bat Corynorhinus townsendii mc, r, aq, wo, c, mines Yes Unlikely Yes. No roost sites; potential for foraging. fringed myotis Myotis thysanodes R, wo, m, g, mc Yes Possible Yes (foraging) pallid bat Antrozous pallidus c, wo, mc, d, rk Yes Possible Yes (foraging) San Bernardino flying squirrel Glaucomys sabrinus californicus mc, r Yes Yes Yes San Bernardino white-eared pocket mouse Perognathus alticolus alticolus mc, wo Historic No No. No suitable soils type. San Gabriel Mountains bighorn sheep Ovis canadensis nelsoni wo, rk, d No No No. Outside known distribution. *HABITAT TYPES/HABITAT COMPONENTS mc = mixed conifer forests; jeffrey pine, ponderosa pine, bigcone douglas fir, coulter pine, sugar pine, white fir a = aerial; usually seen in flight, often over several habitat types overstory r = riparian (streamside thickets and woodlands) d = desert; Joshua tree woodlands, creosote bush scrub, blackbrush scrub g = grasslands, fields, and agricultural areas aq = aquatic; lakes, reservoirs, ponds, vernal pools/puddles m = marshes, meadows; both freshwater areas and moist meadows u = urbanized areas c = chaparral and coastal sage scrub w = washes and alluvial fans wo = woodlands; pinyon-juniper, oaks rk = cliffs and rocky outcrops s = snags and cavities

Page 110

See the existing environment described in Part II-2.0 and the effects analyses common to wildlife species/habitats in Part II-3.0. The following species and site-specific evaluations tier to those discussions.

IV-1.3.1 – Large-Blotched Ensatina (Ensatina klauberi) and Yellow-Blotched Ensatina (Ensatina eschscholtzii croceater) Large and yellow-blotched ensatina are Forest Service Sensitive species and CDFW Species of Special Concern. The yellow-blotched ensatina is also a BLM Sensitive species. Large-blotched ensatina salamanders found in the San Bernardino Mountains have color patterns similar to yellow-blotched salamander but appear to be genetically closer to E. klauberi. In the San Bernardino Mountains, the yellow-blotched ensatina intergrades with the large-blotched ensatina (Stebbins 2003).

There is a “hybrid swarm” for Ensatina in the San Bernardino Mountains where Monterey, yellow-blotched, and large-blotched ensatina hybridize. Recent treatments (Stebbins and McGinnis 2012) list E. klauberi as a species broken out from E. eschscholtzii (as previously treated). The genetics for these three species is yet to be resolved (Stebbins and McGinnis 2012). For the purposes of this analysis, both yellow-blotched and large-blotched are considered to be present in the San Bernardino Mountains. Further research in the future may result in a better understanding of the taxonomy.

Downed logs, leaf litter, and woody debris appear to be important habitat elements. Populations of ensatina in drier regions of southern California primarily occur on north-facing slopes of deep canyons and in other microhabitats that provide cool, moist conditions. Ensatina salamanders are frequently found near streams where soils are relatively moist, or in shaded, moist habitats where there is good canopy cover.

This species is nocturnal and difficult to see near the surface, so it could be more widespread than current data suggest.

Juveniles and adults are most active when the ground is wet and temperatures are moderate. Ensatinas remain underground throughout dry weather. Except in areas where severe winter weather occurs, ensatina salamanders emerge with the first rains of autumn and are active on the ground through spring. Ensatina salamanders are commonly found in areas with considerable leaf litter. In one study, the average distance moved was 66 feet for mature males and 33 feet for mature females. The home ranges of females were 20-75 feet in greatest dimension; the home ranges of males were 33-135 feet.

Habitat for this species has been dwindling in the San Bernardino Mountains due to development and degradation of riparian habitat. Past vegetation management projects on federal and non- federal lands have likely resulted in disturbance to this species, in short-term and, potentially, in long-term alterations of habitat where stands have been altered enough to change micro-climate conditions.

Other effects to ensatina and its habitats include being killed on the highways, roads, and trails, and being collected by Forest visitors. Another threat to these species includes losses in habitat Page 111

quality due to firewood collecting (cutting of snags and logs) that may remove downed log cover. Other threats to these species, past and current, include fragmentation of habitat for residential development and vegetation management treatments that remove the continuity of log habitat across the landscape.

Occurrence in the Analysis Area - Large/Yellow-Blotched Ensatina: Large-blotched ensatinas are not currently known from the project area but could occur there. Suitable habitat is present and the site is within the known distribution for the species. The Monterey ensatina, closely- related, is known the Miller Canyon area, suggesting that habitat is suitable for large/yellow- blotched ensatinas.

Potential Project-Related Effects to Large/Yellow-Blotched Ensatina: Mortality or injuries may occur if ensatinas are present as they are slow-moving and unable to escape mechanized equipment or if equipment use crushes occupied sites during the time of year that ensatinas are underground. Timing of implementation may also affect reproductive success. Because ensatinas have small home ranges (greatest known distance 134 feet), there is potential for populations to become temporarily isolated across the project area. Isolated ensatinas from areas of no treatment may be able to repopulate treated areas as fossorial animals create new burrows, and duff layers and leaf litter becomes reestablished post-implementation.

Level 1 and 3 treatment areas would have higher levels of effects to habitat quality for this species because of the removal of duff, litter, and down woody components. Level 4 and No Treatment areas would retain the highest habitat quality conditions (higher levels of down woody components). In all areas, the RCA guidelines would protect riparian vegetation and soil conditions, riparian habitat conditions, and water quality and limit equipment use near streams where ensatina may have higher likelihood of occurring.

Mortality/injury to individuals and degradation of habitat may occur due to operation of equipment, skidding and yarding of logs, and construction of landings, skid trails, and temporary roads. Individuals may be lost if occupied habitat (logs, duff, and burrows) is affected by equipment operations. Individuals may also be injured or killed when brush piles are burned or underburning is conducted. Microhabitat suitability may be reduced in quality and quantity by treatment. Broadcast burning would reduce available cover (duff, leaf litter, and downed woody components) for ensatinas.

Design Features to help reduce the risk to individual ensatinas and the effects to habitat conditions/availability include retention of downed logs, retention of some slash piles, and avoiding rock outcrops, springs, and seeps. Where slash piles are burned, there are additional Design Features to reduce risk to species that may be using them. In addition, there are soil mitigation measures and BMPs that address retention of ground cover and placement of slash piles. Restrictions on activities and treatments in RCAs would provide additional protection for individuals and for habitat.

Cumulative Effects for Large-Blotched Ensatina: See Part II-3.1.3 for a discussion of current and foreseeable future activities. Most of the Forest Service and non-Forest Service fuels reduction activities that are in progress or planned in the foreseeable future have potential to Page 112

affect ensatinas. The fuels reduction projects have measures to limit effects to riparian habitats and other areas suitable for ensatina. While the fuels reduction projects have the potential to affect individual ensatinas, the habitat effects are temporary.

While fuels reduction projects on NFS lands attempt to retain important amphibian habitat components and include measures to avoid direct effects, the same is probably not true for activities on non-federal land. Similar vegetation/fuels projects on private lands do not generally carry the same levels of habitat protection as those on the SBNF and have likely resulted in disturbance to these species, in short-term and, potentially, in long-term alterations of habitat. The level of effects and habitat alteration/losses from hazard tree and downed log removal is unknown and likely varies by land ownership.

These reasonably foreseeable cumulative effects, together with the potential effects of the proposed action, affect a small fraction of the range and habitat of large-blotched ensatina.

Determination of Effects - Large-Blotched Ensatina: It is my determination that implementation of the proposed project may affect individuals and habitat, but is not likely to result in a trend toward Federal listing for large/yellow-blotched ensatina. The project is not expected to interfere with maintaining viable well-distributed populations of large-blotched ensatina.

IV-1.3.2– Sensitive Reptiles The potential effects for Sensitive reptiles are similar and, thus, are discussed together after the life history, baseline, and occurrence information for the Sensitive reptiles.

IV-1.3.2.1 Northern Three-Lined Boa (Lichanura orcutti) The taxonomy for rosy boas in California has recently changed with two species being currently identified: the northern three-lined boa (Lichanura orcutti) and the rosy boa (Lichanura trivirgata). Formerly, Lichanura trivirgata was divided into two subspecies, L.t. gracia (desert rosy boa) and L.t. roseofusca (coastal rosy boa) (http://www.californiaherps.com/snakes/). The northern three-lined boa is a Forest Service Sensitive species and a BLM Sensitive species.

Life History and Baseline Information: This snake is a heavy-bodied snake with smooth shiny scales and a blunt, but tapered tail. The head is only a little wider than the neck. This species occurs in southern California from San Diego County north into the Mojave Desert and east into the Sonoran Desert of California, but is absent from the Imperial Valley and in part of extreme southern San Diego county (where boas are a different species - Lichanura trivirgata) (Source: Calherps website).

Three-lined boas inhabit arid scrublands, semi-arid shrublands, rocky shrublands, rocky deserts, canyons, and other rocky areas. It appears to be common in riparian areas, but does not require permanent water. The taxon's elevational range is from sea level to 6,790 feet. These boas are primarily active at dawn, dusk, and at night, rarely in daylight, but may be active in the morning, especially in cool weather. In the hottest and coldest months of the year, remains inactive in burrows or under surface debris. They are good climbers. Boas eat rodents, small birds, lizards, small snakes, and amphibians and they kill prey by constriction. These boas are live-bearing with young born October-November. (Source: Forest Plan Species Account. USFS 2005b) Page 113

Its continued survival may be threatened in part by a recent increase in poaching, precipitated by its popularity in the pet trade and evidenced by the amount of websites shown by an Internet search. Three-lined boas are moderately-sized, docile snakes that are relatively easy to care for in captivity. Additional factors that may be leading to the decline of this subspecies in southern California include habitat loss, roads, increased fire frequency, and urban light pollution. (Source: Forest Plan Species Account. USFS 2005b)

Occurrence in the Analysis Area: There is suitable habitat for this species throughout the project area and it is likely to occur.

IV-1.3.2.2 Southern Rubber Boa (Charina bottae umbratica) The southern rubber boa is a Forest Service Sensitive species and listed as Threatened by the California Endangered Species Act. The SBNF has a habitat management guide for southern rubber boa on the SBNF (USFS 1985). In July 2012, the Center for Biological Diversity petitioned the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to list this species under the federal Endangered Species Act (http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/campaigns/amphibian_conservation/pdfs /Mega_herp_petition_7-9-2012.pdf). USFWS has yet to determine whether listing is warranted. In October 2014, the Center for Biological Diversity filed a notice of intent to sue the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for failing to make a finding within three months of the petition.

Management Direction: The Forest Plan contains some specific direction for southern rubber boas.  Forest Plan Species Guidance Summary (Forest Plan EIS, Part 3, Appendix H, pg. 71): When planning projects or managing ongoing activities in areas that contain habitat for species of concern (including threatened, endangered, proposed, candidate, and sensitive species and other species identified by biologists as being in danger of population decline or habitat loss) use the information found in various types of species guidance documents to develop project-specific design criteria. Species guidance documents include (as of December 2004): Habitat Management Guides, prepared by or for USDA Forest Service: southern rubber boa (USFS 1985).

Life History and Baseline Information: Southern rubber boas are secretive snakes that occur in a variety of montane forest habitats including chaparral, woodlands, mixed-conifer forest, and riparian areas. They are typically found from sea level to approximately 9,000 feet in elevation. They tend to be associated with vegetatively-productive sites, usually with deep, well-developed soils. Favored cover includes rotting logs, rocky outcrops, and other surface debris. Primary prey includes small mammals, lizards, and amphibians. Southern rubber boas are generally inactive between June 1 and September 30 and November 15 to February 28.

The southern rubber boa is known to occur in the San Jacinto Mountains and the San Bernardino Mountains. Most of the records for southern rubber boa in the San Bernardino Mountains are within the mixed conifer belt between Lake Arrowhead, Big Bear, and Barton Flats. This snake is threatened by development and increased recreational use of forested areas where it occurs. The SBNF Habitat Management Guide for rubber boas (USFS 1985) contains management direction and species information. This species is rare in the San Bernardino Mountains and Page 114

population trends for this species are unknown.

Rubber boas are vulnerable to habitat loss from development on private land, water diversion or extraction, and land use activities that destroy soil or surface cover. The majority of known rubber boa locations are on private lands. The lush, mesic forests that are prime habitat for this species tend to be highly interspersed with private lands (e.g., around Lake Arrowhead and Idyllwild). Crestline to the Snow Valley Ski Area has long been considered the best southern rubber boa habitat in the San Bernardino Mountains. Currently, 44 percent of this area is private land subject to development.

Of all the known and potential habitat in the San Bernardino Mountains, roughly 81 percent is on public lands managed by the Forest Service. Stewart considered the most pervasive habitat impacts on National Forest System lands to be personal use fuelwood harvesting and off- highway vehicle use. He estimated that 46 percent of the known and potential southern rubber boa habitat received high to moderate impacts from fuelwood harvesting and approximately 35 percent received high to moderate impacts from OHV use. Other habitat impacts cited were fern picking, commercial timber harvesting, fire management, skiing, and land exchanges.

Stewart estimated that most of the suitable southern rubber boa habitat on private lands would be lost in the next 20-40 years, and in a worst case scenario, most of the habitat that is heavily impacted by OHVs and fuelwood harvest could also be lost. In his opinion, if this happened, the resulting loss of 50-60 percent of the suitable habitat would endanger the San Bernardino Mountains southern rubber boa population. (Source: Forest Plan Species Account. USFS 2005b)

Occurrence in the Analysis Area: The California Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB 2013) and Forest Service records indicate one occurrence of a southern rubber boa approximately 1 ½ miles from the project area near Blue Jay. Most of the area within the project boundaries is suitable habitat for this species. The SBNF Rubber Boa Management Plan (1985) map shows the project area as outside of what was considered the known distribution for rubber boas. However, the habitat appears to be similar to that in the known distribution area and, based on habitat suitability and proximity to known occurrences, southern rubber boas may occur in the project area.

IV-1.3.3.3 San Bernardino Ringneck Snake (Diadophis punctatus modestus) The San Bernardino ringneck snake is a Forest Service Sensitive species and a Federal Species of Concern (formerly USFWS Candidate species).

Life History and Baseline Information: Ringneck snakes are rarely seen on the surface, but are usually found under rocks, logs, or leaf litter. Ringneck snakes can be found in a variety of open, relatively rocky habitats, including mixed montane chaparral and annual grasslands. They are most often located in somewhat moist microhabitats near intermittent streams. Ringneck snakes are not strongly associated with riparian habitats, but the apparent importance of tree frogs and slender salamanders in their diet suggests they may seek out and require moist microclimates.

Page 115

Woodpiles, flat rocks, rotting logs, and small holes in the ground are all used for cover. These snakes avoid open or barren areas. Ringneck snakes appear to move seasonally between summer habitats and hibernacula. They may aggregate at dens for winter hibernation. These snakes may exhibit site tenacity, establishing long-term home ranges. In one study, snakes could still be located within 32 feet of their initial capture point even after a number of years, indicating strong site tenacity. A clutch of three eggs is laid from April to July, hatching from August to October.

Populations are believed to be declining as a result of loss of suitable habitat primarily from development on private land. (Source: Forest Plan Species Account. USFS 2005b)

Occurrence in the Analysis Area: San Bernardino ringneck snakes are known to occur in the Miller Canyon area and are likely to occur in the project area. The entire project area is considered suitable for this species.

IV-1.3.2.4 San Bernardino Mountain Kingsnake (Lampropeltis zonata parvirubra) The San Bernardino mountain kingsnake is a Forest Service Sensitive Species and a CDFW Species of Special Concern.

Life History and Baseline Information: The most favored habitats are yellow pine communities, but mountain kingsnakes are found in chaparral, woodland, and riparian habitats as well. The San Bernardino mountain kingsnake is typically found in sunlit canyons with rocky outcrops. Partially-shaded rock outcrops and large downed logs for refugia and basking sites appear to be important microhabitat elements. California mountain kingsnakes consume lizards, snakes, nestling birds, bird eggs, and small mammals.

Mountain kingsnakes exhibit diurnal and crepuscular activity patterns from mid-March through mid-October and nocturnal activity patterns during warmer months. Activity is more restricted at higher elevations.

The biggest threat to San Bernardino mountain kingsnakes is poaching by collectors and the destruction of microhabitat caused by poachers (e.g., dismantling rock outcrops and shredding down logs). A significant illegal commercial trade in this attractive snake continues to fuel a demand for poaching. San Bernardino mountain kingsnake would benefit from control of poaching and protection of known localities on National Forest System lands in southern California. (Source: Forest Plan Species Account. USFS 2005b)

Occurrence in the Analysis Area: This species is known from within a mile of the project area. Due to the similarity in habitat between that site and the project area, the likelihood San Bernardino mountain kingsnakes occur in the project area is considered very high.

IV-1.3.2.5 Two-Striped Garter Snake (Thamnophis hammondii) The two-striped garter snake is a Forest Service Sensitive Species and a CDFW Species of Special Concern.

Life History and Baseline Information– Two-Striped Garter Snake: Two-striped garter snakes inhabit perennial and intermittent streams and ponds in chaparral, oak woodland, and forest Page 116

habitats. The species is primarily associated with aquatic habitats that are bordered by riparian vegetation and provide open areas nearby for basking. Two-striped garter snakes also occupy adjacent grassland and coastal sage scrub in upland areas during the winter. Adult snakes feed primarily on tadpoles, toads, frogs, fish, fish eggs, and earthworms. These snakes are highly aquatic. They are found up to 8000' in elevation. Two-striped garter snakes give birth to live young.

Quantity and quality of habitat for two-striped garter snake is declining through much of its range. Over the last century, two-striped garter snake has disappeared from more than 40 percent of its historic range in California. Most of this decline has occurred since 1945. Factors leading to the decline of this species include habitat conversion and degradation resulting from urbanization, construction of reservoirs, and cement-lining of stream channels in southern California. Other threats include habitat modification resulting from livestock grazing, predation by introduced fishes and bullfrogs, and depletion of prey base. (Source: Forest Plan Species Account. USFS 2005b)

Occurrence in the Analysis Area – Two-Striped Garter Snake: Two-striped garter snakes are known from Miller Canyon and are likely to occur in and adjacent to the riparian habitat.

IV-1.3.2.6 Potential Effects Common to All Sensitive Reptiles (Southern Rubber Boa, Northern Three-Lined Boa, San Bernardino Mountain Kingsnake, San Bernardino Ringneck Snake, Two- Striped Garter Snake):

Death/Injury Risk: All of these species burrow in soft dirt and under litter or move into rock crevices or under decaying logs. Ground-based logging systems (ground-lead and ground- tractor) would have the highest levels of ground and soil disturbance and pose the greatest risk of death or injury of Sensitive snakes and the greatest levels of disturbance to existing snake habitat. Ground-based logging systems move logs to landings using skid trails. These systems would result in soil disturbance. Skyline systems suspend the logs but the log end would be trailed on the ground and could result in soil disturbance. While the effects on these species is not known, it is reasonable to assume that ground disturbance with heavy equipment would be detrimental to these slow-moving terrestrial species.

Several of these species spend most of their lives below the duff/litter layers. This makes them very difficult to detect, and thus, difficult to avoid.

Most snakes, when disturbed, quickly leave the area and seek cover. This behavior could cause mortality if the cover (logs, brush, and woody slash) is being treated by equipment. Two-striped garter snakes may be at lower risk of death or injury than the other species because of their association with riparian areas where there would be lower levels of activity due to RCAs, BMPs, and Design Features. Due to connectivity of riparian areas throughout the project area, it is expected that there would only be short-term displacement of individuals of two-striped garter snakes.

Individuals of all of these species in hibernacula outside of RCAs and individuals moving between hibernacula and riparian areas could also be affected during operations throughout the Page 117

winter. For species with strong site tenacity (San Bernardino ringneck snake) or very small home ranges (southern rubber boa), recolonization of sites may delayed if project activities result in losses of individuals.

Rocky outcrops are typically avoided by equipment during project implementation; however, skidders, feller-bunchers and other types of heavy equipment would navigate around rock outcrops disturbing the duff/leaf litter that provides cover for these species as they move between habitat components. Project activities may result in injury or loss of individuals during equipment operation and skidding of trees.

Where slash piles are burned, Design Features would help reduce risk to species that may be using them, including rare snakes. Underburning operations may result in some loss of individuals using duff or logs for cover. The Design Features include measures to protect some large decayed logs during burning operations. Animals that are burrowed in the soil or denning in rocks may not be affected by a low intensity underburn.

Project activities may result in injury or loss of individual Sensitive snakes during equipment operation and skidding of trees. Risk to individuals would be lower for project work that is implemented during fall or winter months when herpetofauna would be hibernating and would not be active in the project area.

The proposed project contains Design Features to protect higher quality habitat components (downed logs, rocky outcrops, etc.). These measures along with all of the RCA Design Features would minimize disturbance to reduce the risk to individual animals.

Habitat Effects: Project Design Features include retention of downed logs, retention of some slash piles, and avoiding rock outcrops, springs, and seeps with equipment. Because almost all of the project area is considered occupied or suitable for southern rubber boas, the downed log retention guidelines in Level 3 and 4 areas would follow the higher levels as described in the Forest Plan and contained in the Design Features (minimum of 9 logs/acre). Level 1 areas (100’ either side of some roads) would be devoid of logs; Level 1a areas (200’ zone against Level 1 zone) would have a minimum of 4 logs/acre.

Removal of understory bushes and shrubs in all treatment levels would change the availability and continuity of available cover and prey habitat for all of these species. The level of these effects would be highest in Level 1 and 1a areas where there would be the greatest potential for changes to microclimates and cover habitat. Level 3 areas would also have more intensive treatments in terms of shrub removal. Level 4 areas would have the lowest level of ground disturbance and changes to the forest floor vegetation. Underburning/broadcast burning would also result in loss of vegetative and woody cover material.

The project would result in the shaded fuelbreak areas becoming lower in habitat quality due to loss of cover. The proposed project contains Design Features and BMPS to protect soil and address retention of ground cover and placement of slash piles. These measures along with RCAs would minimize disturbance to down logs would help minimize disturbance to the higher quality snake habitat. Page 118

Cumulative Effects for Southern Rubber Boa, San Bernardino Mountain Kingsnake, San Bernardino Ringneck Snake, Aquatic Two-Striped Garter Snake, and Large-Blotched Salamander: See Part II-3.1.3 for a discussion of current and foreseeable future activities. Most of the Forest Service and non-Forest Service fuels reduction activities that are in progress or in the foreseeable future have potential to affect the same Sensitive snakes and amphibians that may occur in project area. All of these species are associated with downed logs, rock piles/outcrops, riparian/mesic areas, and heavy duff layers. Current and potential future vegetation management activities on NFS lands do and would include RCAs and Design Features to protect these species and their habitats.

The proposed project would result in a reduced habitat quality in terms of downed woody material in the Level 1 and 1a areas. Shaded fuelbreaks in other projects being implemented currently or that may be approved in the future would have the same reduction in habitat quality. Large areas lacking downed woody habitat may effectively fragment habitat by making movements more unlikely and risky. Level 3 and 4 areas in southern rubber boa habitat retain the higher levels of downed woody material, as would occur in this project per the rubber boa Design Features.

While projects on NFS lands attempt to retain important reptile/amphibian habitat components and include measures to avoid direct effects, the same is probably not true for activities on non- federal land. Similar vegetation/fuels projects on private lands do not generally carry the same levels of rare snake habitat protection as those on the SBNF and have likely resulted in disturbance to these species, in short-term and, potentially, in long-term alterations of habitat. Since the rubber boa is a state-listed species, some of the agencies doing work on non-federal lands have incorportated monitors and avoidance measures for this species. The level of effects and habitat alteration/losses from hazard tree and downed log removal is unknown and likely varies by land ownership.

These reasonably forseeable cumulative effects, together with the potential effects of the proposed action, affect a small fraction of the range and habitat of these species.

Summary of Effects for Rare Reptiles: The potential effects to Sensitive snakes should be lessened by wildlife Design Features, RCA Design Features, and BMPs but some death or injury to individual snakes may occur and some areas would have lowered habitat quality because of less ground and woody debris cover.

Determination of Effects – Southern Rubber Boa, Northern Three-Lined Boa, San Bernardino Ringneck Snake, San Bernardino Mountain Kingsnake, and Two-Striped Garter Snake: It is my determination that implementation of the Proposed Action may affect individuals and habitat, but is not likely to result in a trend toward Federal listing for southern rubber boa, northern three- lined boa, San Bernardino ringneck snake, San Bernardino mountain kingsnake, and two-striped garter snake. The project is not expected to interfere with maintaining viable well-distributed populations of these Sensitive species.

Page 119

IV-1.3.3 – Sensitive Birds IV-1.3.3.1 Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) During the Forest Plan revision, bald eagles were federally-listed as Threatened; however, they have subsequently been de-listed and now considered a Forest Service Sensitive species. It also remains protected under the California Endangered Species Act (as a state-listed Endangered species) and under the federal Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act.

Management Direction: In addition to the Sensitive species direction described previously and the Forest Plan direction described in Part I-2.0, there are several management guidance documents that include direction for bald eagles.  Forest Plan Species Guidance Summary (Forest Plan EIS, Part 3, Appendix H, pg. 71): When planning projects or managing ongoing activities in areas that contain habitat for species of concern (including threatened, endangered, proposed, candidate, and sensitive species and other species identified by biologists as being in danger of population decline or habitat loss) use the information found in various types of species guidance documents to develop project-specific design criteria. Species guidance documents include (as of December 2004): Recovery Plans prepared by the USFWS.

 Forest Plan Standard S27: Use seasonal closures as specified by site-specific analysis to protect occupied bald eagle wintering, breeding, or nesting habitat (FEIS, Part 3, pg. 22).

 Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act: The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (16 USC 668-668c), enacted in 1940, and amended several times since then, prohibits anyone, without a permit issued by the Secretary of the Interior, from “taking” bald eagles, including their parts, nests, or eggs. The Act provides criminal and civil penalties for persons who “take, possess, sell, purchase, barter, offer to sell, purchase or barter, transport, export or import, at any time or any manner, any bald eagle ... [or any golden eagle], alive or dead, or any part, nest, or egg thereof.” The Act defines “take” as “pursue, shoot, shoot at, poison, wound, kill, capture, trap, collect, molest or disturb.”

“Disturb” is defined as “to agitate or bother a bald or golden eagle to a degree that causes, or is likely to cause, based on the best scientific information available, 1) injury to an eagle, 2) a decrease in its productivity, by substantially interfering with normal breeding, feeding, or sheltering behavior, or 3) nest abandonment, by substantially interfering with normal breeding, feeding, or sheltering behavior."

In addition to immediate effects, this definition also covers effects that result from human-induced alterations initiated around a previously used nest site during a time when eagles are not present, if, upon the eagle’s return, such alterations agitate or bother an eagle to a degree that injures an eagle or substantially interferes with normal breeding, feeding, or sheltering habits and causes, or is likely to cause, a loss of productivity or nest abandonment.

After the de-listing of bald eagles, USFWS finalized permit regulations to authorize limited take of bald eagles in 2009 (FR74, 175) under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act. Page 120

 National Bald Eagle Management Guidelines: The most recent guideline document is the National Bald Eagle Management Guidelines (USFWS 2007). The Guidelines include general recommendations for land management practices that will benefit bald eagles. The USFWS strongly encourages adherence to these guidelines to ensure that bald and golden eagle populations will continue to be sustained. Some of the applicable guidelines include (see the Guidelines document for more details): o To avoid disturbing nesting bald eagles, we recommend (1) keeping a distance between the activity and the nest (distance buffers), (2) maintaining preferably forested (or natural) areas between the activity and around nest trees (landscape buffers), and (3) avoiding certain activities during the breeding season. The buffer areas serve to minimize visual and auditory effects associated with human activities near nest sites. Ideally, buffers would be large enough to protect existing nest trees and provide for alternative or replacement nest trees. o Avoid clear cutting or removal of overstory trees within 330 feet of the nest at any time. o Avoid timber harvesting operations, including road construction and chain saw and yarding operations, during the breeding season within 660 feet of the nest. The distance may be decreased to 330 feet around alternate nests within a particular territory, including nests that were attended during the current breeding season but not used to raise young, after eggs laid in another nest within the territory have hatched. o Selective thinning and other silviculture management practices designed to conserve or enhance habitat, including prescribed burning close to the nest tree, should be undertaken outside the breeding season. Precautions such as raking leaves and woody debris from around the nest tree should be taken to prevent crown fire or fire climbing the nest tree. If it is determined that a burn during the breeding season would be beneficial, then, to ensure that no take or disturbance will occur, these activities should be conducted only when neither adult eagles nor young are present at the nest tree (i.e., at the beginning of, or end of, the breeding season, either before the particular nest is active or after the young have fledged from that nest). Appropriate Federal and state biologists should be consulted before any prescribed burning is conducted during the breeding season. o Avoid construction of log transfer facilities and in-water log storage areas within 330 feet of the nest. o Except for authorized biologists trained in survey techniques, avoid operating aircraft within 1,000 feet of the nest during the breeding season, except where eagles have demonstrated tolerance for such activity.

Life History and Baseline Information: Historically, bald eagles bred in a variety of habitats in California, including offshore islands; coastal cliffs and pinnacles; and along coastal rivers, interior valley streams and wetlands, and mountain lakes and rivers (Detrich 1985). Bald eagle nest sites are always associated with bodies of water, usually lakes and rivers that support abundant fish, waterfowl, or other waterbird prey. In California, approximately 70% of the breeding eagle population is associated with water bodies larger than 494 acres (Detrich 1985).

Page 121

Nest trees include a variety of hardwoods as well as conifers. Most eagle nesting territories are now found in montane habitat in ponderosa pine and mixed conifer forests (Detrich 1985, Jurek 1988, Lehman 1979). Nest trees are usually found within 5,197 feet of water and are typically in mature and old-growth conifer stands (USFWS 1986). Nests are usually constructed in trees that provide an unobstructed view of a water body and that are typically the dominant or codominant tree in the surrounding stand (Lehman 1979). Anthony et al. (1982) and Lehman et al. (1980) reported that the mean DBH of nest trees in California and Oregon was 41-46 inches.

In southern California, nesting most often occurs in large trees near water, but occasionally nests are on cliffs or the ground. Eagles usually require areas free from disturbance during nesting (USFWS 2007). Snags and dead-topped live trees are important for perch and roost sites. Bald eagles typically forage in waters less than 1,641 feet from perching habitat (Buehler 2000).

In southern California, bald eagles use a variety of habitat types for wintering activities, which include foraging, perching, and roosting. While most birds tend to use mixed conifer forest adjacent to lakes, some use chaparral types and oak/sycamore groves. Proximity to available food appears to be the primary factor determining habitat suitability during the winter; bald eagles seem to adapt to habitat variation where food is abundant (USFWS 2007).

Bald eagles winter along rivers, lakes, or reservoirs that support abundant fish or waterbird prey and that have large trees or snags for perch or roost sites. Bald eagles often roost communally during the winter, typically in mature trees or snags that are isolated from human disturbance.

While day perches are generally snags or dead-topped trees, night roost groves generally have live trees and a more closed canopy. Night roosts are often in sites that are sheltered from the weather by landforms and in areas of coniferous stands that provide insulation from the weather (USFWS 1986).

A relatively large population of bald eagles overwinters in the San Bernardino Mountains, using lakes and rivers for foraging on fish and waterfowl. They are generally present in the San Bernardino Mountains between November and April with numbers sometimes reaching the highest in January and February.

Wintering bald eagles in the San Bernardino Mountains appear to be fairly tolerant of human activity during the day. It is common to see bald eagles perching in very tall trees in residential areas around Big Bear Lake and Lake Arrowhead. It appears that proximity to prey in the lake is the primary factor in determining day use areas. Known night roosts around Big Bear, Baldwin, and Silverwood lakes are generally within a mile of water on steep north- or northwest-facing slopes with green trees. These night roost groves are often used communally and in successive years. Night roost sites often possess different habitat components than daytime use areas, including day perch sites.

Bald eagles can generally be found on Big Bear Lake, Baldwin Lake, Lake Arrowhead, Silverwood Lake, Lake Gregory, Grass Valley Lake, Green Valley Lake, and Erwin Lake.

Page 122

Suspected occasional winter and summer foraging habitat also includes Deep Creek, Coxey Pond, Holcomb Creek, Santa Ana River, Jenks Lake, and a pond in Angelus Oaks.

Bald eagles occur in a variety of habitats. Key habitat components are large bodies of water or rivers with abundant fish, and large trees or snags with heavy limbs or broken tops. Bald eagles feed on fish, carrion, and occasional small mammals. While wintering in the San Bernardino Mountains, eagles primarily forage on waterfowl, secondarily on fish. Bald eagles have also been observed feeding on dead calves on Los Flores Ranch north of Lake Silverwood.

Until the mid-2000s, the San Bernardino Mountain lakes were used mostly by wintering bald eagles. However, bald eagles are now regularly observed in the San Bernardino Mountains throughout the year. This is due to the establishment of breeding territories and the successful production of juveniles, resulting in resident bald eagles.

Baseline Conditions for Bald Eagles: In the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s it was typical to have 15-25 bald eagles wintering in the Big Bear/Baldwin Lake area. Radio-telemetry efforts in the early 1990s found that wintering eagles went back and forth between the mountain lakes (Big Bear/Baldwin, Silverwood, Arrowhead, Gregory, and Grass Valley) on a regular basis.

Since 2004, the wintering population numbers have dropped to around 6-8 eagles in the Big Bear area for the winter high counts. Lake Arrowhead typically has 2-3; Silverwood Lake 1-2; and occasional visits of 1-2 eagles at Lake Gregory and Grass Valley Lake.

The lower numbers in the Big Bear area could be a factor of local weather conditions (i.e., when Big Bear Lake freezes over early in the season, eagles may bypass this area during migration), or regional weather conditions (i.e., in mild winters, they may not migrate down this far), less need to concentrate during winter months due to more habitat availability (i.e., reports of eagles wintering in other parts of southern California may have increased [or it may be an artifact of improved sighting dissemination through the internet]), or other unidentified factors.

On the other hand, changes in the wintering habitat quality and quantity in the Big Bear/Baldwin Lake area over the same period may be responsible for the decline in local overwintering eagle numbers.

Past effects to the San Bernardino Mountains wintering population of bald eagles include development around the mountain lakes (Big Bear Lake, Lake Arrowhead, Silverwood Lake State Park, Mojave River, Little Green Valley Lake, Lake Gregory, and Grass Valley Lake). Development around mountain lakes has resulted in a degradation of habitat quality through several factors: loss of perch trees considered hazards to private/public sites; increased levels of disturbance to foraging areas with increased shoreline usage; disturbance at night roosts; and potential effects in unidentified night roosts.

Within the last decade, suitable perch areas on private lands around foraging sites around the mountain lakes have been substantially altered as more houses have been built on vacant lots and larger houses have replaced smaller ones. This has resulted in losses of perch trees Page 123

and higher levels of disturbance. Additionally, much of the shoreline foraging habitat (sheltered, relatively shallow areas supporting waterfowl) has also been developed and/or altered. Most of these changes have occurred without mitigation for losses of bald eagle habitat.

Fires also affected some of the regular perch sites around Lake Silverwood. Past timber harvesting may have affected availability of day use and night roost habitat in the mountain range.

Hazard trees have recently been removed along the shoreline, highways, and around Forest Service recreational residence tracts on the north and south sides of Big Bear Lake. Hazard tree removal on federal and non-federal lands have resulted in decreased availability of perch sites for day use.

Occurrences in the Analysis Area: Two unsuccessful nesting attempts (where eggs were laid but did not hatch) were made in the early 1990s near Silverwood Lake. One nest was in the Miller Canyon arm on Silverwood Lake and the other was near Tunnel Two Ridge and is just outside the Project Area. Since then, no nesting attempts where eggs were laid have been recorded in that area.

No nesting attempts were documented in the San Bernardino Mountains until 2008 when a pair built a nest near Big Bear Lake. That territory did not successfully rear a chick until 2012; this was the first record of bald eagles successfully reproducing in the San Bernardino Mountains. This territory has been occupied ever since. In 2013, another nest was built near Lake Arrowhead on NFS lands. Although incubation was suspected, no chicks were ever observed that year. In 2014, a single chick fledged from the nest site. This territory has been occupied ever since.

Bald eagles forage at Silverwood Lake and Lake Arrowhead, and likely occasionally forage on the E. Fork of the W. Fork of Mojave River and Grass Valley Creek. There is also a large night roost area identified in the project area in upper Miller Canyon (Figure 3). The night roost was identified during a radio-tracking effort in the early 1990s and overlaps the old nest site.

It is likely that bald eagles wintering in the San Bernardino Mountains or the residents from Lake Arrowhead and Big Bear use the project area on occasion for night roosting.

Potential Disturbance Effects: The Design Features include restrictions of activities in the areas within ¼-mile of bald habitat during the period when the most eagles are present and they also have a restriction on nighttime work. Limited Operating Periods (LOPs) would minimize the likelihood of disturbance to nesting, perching, and foraging eagles. The Design Features provide for an LOP around day use areas and night roost areas during the winter months.

If a nest site were established prior to or during implementation, a ¼ mile LOP and buffer area would be established during the breeding period. The duration of the nesting LOP around the nest site would be depend on the activities of the eagle pair and their timing of courtship and nesting actions. The breeding LOP would most likely start in early January and extend through Page 124

April at a minimum. If egg-laying has not occurred at that point, the LOP would be lifted. If egg-laying is confirmed, the LOP would extend until eaglets have fledged.

Where helicopters are to be used, the Design Features call for flight paths and an overflight buffer would be coordinated with a biologist to reduce potential for effects to bald eagles in their habitat.

There are several Forest System roads and planned temporary roads in mapped bald eagle habitat; these routes would be used during project implementation. Use of existing Forest Service routes would not be subject to the LOP. The road use may be increased above the existing baseline conditions. During the daytime, eagles generally are found closer to the lakeshores. However, bald eagles are known to use night roosts during the day during stormy conditions, early morning, and late afternoon. Eagles perched near those roads might experience some level of disturbance from logging equipment if project activities are occurring under those conditions. The disturbance may cause temporary displacement but is unlikely to cause complete abandonment of the area.

The Proposed Action contains a provision that if bald eagles are observed during implementation, the project administrator would work with the district wildlife biologist to minimize effects. Likewise, if new bald eagle nests or night roosts were identified prior to or during implementation, the treatment in that area would be re-evaluated and adjusted to ensure protection of important habitat components and avoid disturbance.

The Design Features are expected to prevent disturbance to bald eagles that would result in flushing of individuals, disruption of foraging behavior, or abandonment of perch or night roost areas.

Potential Effects to Bald Eagle Habitat: The treatment guidelines in the proposed action and in Table 5 have prescriptions designed to retain stand structure (where it still exists post-fire) and conditions important for bald eagles. Additionally, Design Features were developed to address maintenance of important bald eagle habitat components in the project area. The Design Features followed the National Bald Eagle Management Guidelines (USFWS 2007). The mapped habitat for spotted owls on steep slopes was considered suitable for night roost for bald eagles before the 2007 fire. Currently, some of those areas that burned in low intensity or did not burn are still considered suitable but some of the mapped night roost currently lacks the preferred stand structure and conditions. a) Potential Effects to Nest Habitat: No nests are currently known from the project area. The previous nest was just outside the project area within the mapped night roost. It is likely that, if nesting were to occur, it would occur within some of the existing mapped habitat for spotted owls or bald eagles. That said, much quality of the mapped habitat was degraded during the 2007 Grass Valley Fire. If a nest is established prior to or during implementation, the Design Features include measures to protect the nest stand habitat.

Page 125

Figure 3. Bald Eagle Habitat in the Grass Valley Fuels Reduction Project Area Page 126

Treatments in bald eagle habitat would retain live and dead trees over 16” DBH to preserve suitable nest habitat. Where the mapped night roost overlaps with spotted owl nest stand/PAC (the majority of the night roost overlaps the PAC), trees over 9” DBH would retained. As such, habitat that is currently suitable for nesting would not be expected to become unsuitable. b) Potential Effects to Night Roost Habitat: There are approximately 299 acres of night roost habitat in the project area (Figure 3 and Table 17). The Level 1a treatments are roadside treatments along 2N37, 2N34, and 2N34A.

For the treatment areas within mapped bald eagle night roosts in the Grass Valley project area, the mapped CWHR habitat types are 120 acres of Sierran mixed conifer, 100 acres of montane hardwood, and 78 acres of mixed chaparral. The bald eagle night roosts were mapped in the early 1990s prior to a significant drought-related die-off and the 2007 Grass Valley fire. Habitat conditions in the mapped night roosts had changed to some extent due to those factors. The stand exams in the bald eagle night roosts showed a lack of large trees over 24” DBH in all three treatment levels that overlap the night roost.

Table 17. Treatment Levels in Bald Eagle Night Roost Habitat Treatment Level Night Roost (Acres) No Treatment 168 1a 74 4 57 Grand Total 299

Stand exam plot data are summarized in Table 18 (for live trees) and Table 19 (for snags) for bald eagle night roosts in the Grass Valley project area. Stand exam records are contained in the Project Record. The following discussion is based on forest condition analysis provided by the project silviculturist (Waterston, pers. comm.).

Table 18. Pre- and Post- Treatment Stand Characteristics1 in Bald Eagle Night Roost Treatment Level DBH Trees/Acre Average Tree Pre-Treatment Post-Treatment Canopy Cover2 Treatment Level 1a – Total 54 15 Pre = 27% 76 acres ≤8" 39 2 Post = 25% 8-24" 15 143 ≥24" 0 0 Treatment Level 4 – Total 54 17 Pre = 27% 57 acres ≤8" 39 2 Post = 27% 8-24" 15 15 ≥24" 0 0 1Living trees only. Snags are not included. 2The change to trees per acre is similar in both treatment levels due to the thinning prescription being very similar in terms of the focus of tree removal in both treatment levels 1a and 4a. 3Because of the treatment prescription for bald eagle habitat, the trees to be removed would be under 16” DBH (or under 9” DBH where the habitat overlaps with spotted owl PAC. Page 127

Table 19. Pre- and Post- Treatment Snags in Bald Eagle Night Roost Treatment Area Hard Snags per Acre (SPA) Size Class Pre-Treatment Proposed Action Post-Treatment Condition (see Table 4) Treatment Level 1a SPA ≥ 12” 62 Level 1a - 0 across Level 1a areas (76 acres) SPA ≥ 16” 20

SPA ≥ 24” Treatment Level 4 20 (57 acres) SPA ≥ 30” 18 Level 4 - A minimum of 8 snags/acre of the largest hard SPA ≥ 36” 0 snags in Level 4 areas. SPA ≥ 36” 0 Total 120

Canopy Closure and Stand Structure: No live trees under 16” DBH or (9” DBH where bald eagle habitat overlaps with spotted owl PAC) would be removed. As a result, only smaller trees that do not contribute to the canopy closure would be removed. There would be no change (Level 4) or only slight changes (Level 1a) in green trees/acre as a result of the proposed treatment (Table 18). As a result, the pre and post treatment conditions in both treatment levels would be unchanged or very similar in terms of average canopy cover since the treatments would focus on removal of ladder fuels and small diameter trees (Table 18). The Design Features include additional measures to protect living trees, including in bald eagle habitat, during implementation.

Note: The model was set up to thin from below, based on the guidance in the treatment matrix (Table 5). Because relatively few large trees remain after the Grass Valley fire, the model predicts that trees in medium or large size classes would not be removed to accomplish fuels reduction activities (Waterston 2018, pers. comm.). Stand level prescriptions would follow a 16” diameter limit in Levels 1a, 4, and 4a where it is only designed as bald eagle night roost. However, much of the bald eagle night roost overlaps with spotted owl PAC and spotted owl Nest Stand where the upper diameter limit for any thinning activities associated with fuels reduction activities would be smaller (9”). The spotted owl discussions in the following section display the pre- and post-treatment conditions that would apply for the parts of the night roost that overlap with spotted owl PAC and Nest Stand.

Snags: The Proposed Action incorporates specific Design Features to retain up to 8 of the largest snags/acre (40 snags/5 acres) in Level 4 treatments. Therefore, only snags in stands with higher snag densities or those necessary for operation safety would be cut. Based on the stand exam data, Level 4 treatment areas in bald eagle night roosts and daytime perch areas currently have an average of 20 snags/acre greater than 16” DBH, with large snags (24+ inches) accounting for 8 snags/acre (Table 18). The majority of snags that would be removed would be less than 16” DBH (exceptions made for safety). Because all trees 24+” would be retained (unless they are hazards), the density of large snags would remain the same or increase over time.

Per the project silviculturist analysis (Waterston 2018, pers. comm.), thinning activities would not reduce snag numbers unless the snags would need to be cut to assure worker safety during project activities or public safety. The number of snags/acre is dynamic as new trees die and as Page 128

existing snags fall. In the Grass Valley Fire area, the number of snags per acre will decline over time as the trees that were killed during the 2007 fire decay and fall to the forest floor. This will increase the downed woody debris. Typically in forested ecosystems, there is an increase in the number of snags per acre over time primarily in trees less than or equal to 16”. As seeds germinate and become seedlings, they frequently die before growing into sapling and pole sized trees; still more die when the move into the small sawtimber size class. This is a natural consequence of plant competition, and may not specifically be related to any management activities. Snag levels over time may change depending on the Forest Service’s ability to fund maintenance work in the project area.

Underburning: The Design Features call for avoidance of underburning ignitions in bald eagle night roost habitat. While collateral effects to bald eagle habitat conditions due to prescribed fire would be avoided to the greatest extent possible, it is possible that fire could enter a night roost area from nearby underburning resulting in changes to the understory and, potentially some loss of overstory trees.

Microclimate: All treatment areas in bald eagle night roosts would have mechanical treatments involving thinning of small diameter trees, removal of shrubs, and removal of ladder fuels. In Level 4 areas, post-treatment shrub cover would be between 30 and 50% (Table 5 and Proposed Action description). Most of the shrub removal would be around trees and under their driplines (to reduce ladder fuels). This level of change in the shrub and understory layer is not expected to result in significant changes to microclimate conditions important for bald eagle night roosts in Level 4 areas. There may be some changes to micro-climate conditions in Level 1 areas along roads where the habitat quality is already altered due to the roads.

Summary of Potential Direct and Indirect Effects to Bald Eagles and Eagle Habitat: Much of the mapped night roost habitat (which contains areas used for daytime perching during storms as well as a historic nest site) was affected by the conifer mortality in the early 2000s and the 2007 Grass Valley fire and currently lacks the denser canopy that is usually typical of night roosts habitat. The proposed treatments would not be expected to further affect the habitat quality or amount of habitat available. The likelihood of disturbance effects is low (due to LOPs) but may still exist on an occasional basis. Design Features included in the Proposed Action would limit effects to important habitat components and reduce the likelihood of disturbance effects. Additional Design Features may be developed/implemented if bald eagles attempt to nest in or adjacent to the project area.

Cumulative Effects for Bald Eagles: The analysis area for cumulative effects is the San Bernardino Mountains. See Part II-3.1.3 for a discussion of current and foreseeable future activities.

All of the fuels reduction projects on the Mountaintop District that are currently being implemented (South Big Bear and Baldwin) or are in the planning phase (North Big Bear and Santa Ana) have known or potential bald eagle wintering habitat. Those projects contain the same or similar Design Features as the proposed project (LOPs to limit disturbance, prescriptions in known habitat that would protect important stand characteristics). The same Design Features and special treatments in those areas would help ensure minimal changes to the habitat quality Page 129

and minimal potential for disturbance. Nonetheless, fuel-reduction and hazard tree projects that are being implemented across the SBNF and are adjacent to day use perch sites, night roosts, and nest sites have resulted in removal of perch trees in suitable bald eagle habitat.

Development of private land around the mountain lakes can be expected to continue to affect bald eagle habitat by degrading nesting, roosting, and foraging habitat. Because of the density of development, dead trees are generally felled to protect life and property, resulting in fewer suitable perch trees for bald eagles.

Development in the mountain communities and increasing populations in southern California will increase also levels of human disturbance to bald eagles during their winter stays. Additionally, it may discourage future nesting attempts and/or interfere with nesting success. Increased urbanization typically results in increased uses of public lands for recreation (fishing, skiing, hiking, cycling, off highway vehicle touring, etc.), resulting in increased potential for disturbance in daytime perch areas and night roosts.

The proposed project has the potential to result in changes to a night-roost area and short-term disturbances to bald eagles in the San Bernardino Mountains. These reasonably foreseeable effects, together with the effects of the Proposed Action, affect a small fraction of the range and habitat of bald eagles.

Determination of Effects – Bald Eagle: It is my determination that implementation of the proposed project may affect individuals and habitat, but is not likely to result in a trend toward Federal listing for bald eagle. The project is not expected to interfere with maintaining viable well-distributed populations of bald eagles.

Management Direction: Through the project design, treatment prescriptions, the Design Features discussed above, the proposed action would be consistent with applicable management direction.

IV-1.3.3.2 – California Spotted Owl (Strix occidentalis occidentalis) The California spotted owl is a Forest Service Sensitive species. The California spotted owl was petitioned for listing under the Endangered Species Act in 2000. In February 2003, USFWS determined that listing was not warranted at that time. In May 2004, the California spotted owl was again petitioned for listing. In June 2005, the USFWS released a finding that indicated that there was substantial scientific evidence or information showing that listing may be warranted and they initiated a status review. In May 2006, the USFWS announced a 12-month finding on the petition that found that the petitioned action was not warranted at that time. On December 24, 2104, the California spotted owl was again petitioned for listing under the Endangered Species Act. A ruling has yet to be issued.

It is a CDFW Species of Special Concern, a USFWS Bird of Conservation Concern, a BLM Sensitive species, and an American Bird Conservancy Watch List species. California spotted owl was designated as a Management Indicator Species (MIS) under the 2006 Forest Plan. However, in 2016, the SBNF transitioned the Forest Plan monitoring program to the newer 2012 planning rule requirements. As a result, the SBNF discontinued the use of MIS (MIS was Page 130

replaced by Focal Species; the spotted owl is not a Focal Species) (See Appendix B).

Much of what is known about California spotted owls in southern California is based on a demography study conducted in the San Bernardino Mountains between 1987 and 1998 and subsequent monitoring between 2003 and 2011. The following life history information is summarized from the California spotted owl species account prepared by the Forest Service in 2011 (USFS 2011). The species account is incorporated by reference. See the species account for full literature citations (they are not repeated below).

Life History Information: The spotted owl (Strix occidentalis) occurs as a resident breeder in western North America from British Columbia south through Washington, Oregon, California, Utah, Colorado, Arizona, New Mexico, and southwest Texas to central Mexico. The California spotted owl (S. o. occidentalis) occurs on the western side of the Sierra Nevada (and very locally on the eastern slope) from the vicinity of Burney, Shasta County south through the southern Cascade Range and Sierra Nevada to Kern County; in the southern part of the Coast Ranges from Monterey County to Santa Barbara County; and in the Transverse and Peninsular Ranges of southern California south to Baja California.

In southern California, California spotted owls occur predominately on NFS lands in all of the major mountain ranges (although some ranges support very few pairs). They are found at elevations from below 1,000 feet along the Monterey coast to approximately 8,500 feet in the San Bernardino Mountains. Spotted owls in southern California are clustered in disjunct mountain and foothill areas where suitable habitat exists. Large areas of unsuitable habitat surround these clusters.

Individuals occur in four general but distinct forest types: riparian/hardwood forest, live oak/bigcone Douglas-fir forest, mixed conifer forest, and redwood/California laurel forest. With the exception of redwood forest, which is limited in distribution to the Los Padres National Forest, these forest types generally occur on all four southern California National Forests.

The California spotted owl is strongly associated with forest stands that have a complex multi- layered structure, large-diameter trees, and high canopy closure. Some high-elevation territories (above 6,500 feet) consist primarily of or solely of conifers, and some low-elevation territories (below 3,000 feet) are found in pure hardwood stands. Reproductive success and survivorship rates for individual members of the population may differ depending on which habitat type they occupy. While there is variation in habitats spotted owls occupy, owl habitats are consistently characterized by greater structural complexity compared to adjacent forest habitat.

This is a territorial species with large acreage requirements. Nesting and roosting habitat for California spotted owls is characterized by high canopy cover and high total live hardwood (e.g., canyon live oak [Quercus chrysolepsis]), softwood, and snag basal areas. For nesting, woodlands adjacent to cliffs, steep-sided wooded canyons, and shaded ravines are favored. California spotted owls nest in tree cavities or abandoned nests of other animals in areas of dense old-growth forest with more than 75% canopy closure. Nest trees are very large for the area, averaging 37 inches DBH and more than 88 feet tall. The minimum mean age of nest trees in the San Bernardino Mountains was 230 years. Page 131

In the San Bernardino Mountains, the mean nest site cover and roost site cover were 76.9% and 83.6%, respectively. Nest sites at the highest elevations were in white fir forests in the San Bernardino Mountains, and no nests have been found in subalpine forests anywhere in California. Nest and roost sites in the San Bernardino Mountains tended to be on steep slopes (means of 51% and 55%, respectively). Roost sites used by California spotted owls reported in various studies were similar in composition to those used for nesting, although less is known about roosting habitat than nesting habitat. Barrows (1980) found all of the roosting owls in his study at low elevations on north-facing slopes, in dense-canopied stands.

Attributes of foraging habitats used by California spotted owls have been estimated in two studies in the Sierra Nevada Mountains. The majority of spotted owl foraging locations were on sites with medium to large trees greater than 24 inches DBH with canopy closure of 60 to 100% with owls selecting "foraging sites with more and larger snags." Spotted owls foraged in areas of large trees (20 to 35 inches DBH) significantly more than expected by a random distribution.

Spotted owls in Sierran conifer forests tended to forage in stands of intermediate to older ages. Percent canopy cover, softwood basal area, total live tree basal area and the amount of large, downed woody debris were generally greater at foraging sites than at random locations. California spotted owls forage in a wider variety of forest types than where they roost and nest, including more open forests with canopy cover as low as 40%. As noted above, foraging habitat contains an estimated 7 to 17 ft2/acre snag basal area.

California spotted owls are generally solitary except for interactions with their mates. The nest site is usually a natural tree cavity, broken treetop, or abandoned nest of another large bird species, unlined or composed of material already present. Stick nests predominate in southern California. Nests are typically 30 to 180 feet above ground.

In the San Bernardino Mountains, the breeding season begins as early as mid-March (depending on elevation) and extends through July. Copulating and egg-laying typically occurs in mid to late March. As is true of most owls, there is a strict division of duties: males provide food to the female and young, and females incubate eggs and brood the young. Clutch size ranges from one to three eggs (four-egg clutches are extremely rare), and incubation lasts for approximately 28 to 30 days. The owlets leave the nest at 34 to 36 days and are able to fly about a week later. The fledglings may continue to be fed by the parents for up to 3 months; in the San Bernardino Mountains, fledglings are typically with the parents into August.

Studies conducted between 1986 and 1994 in the central Sierra Nevada and San Bernardino Mountains showed that 62% (n=10-86) of pairs attempted to nest, and 50% (n=10-110) of all pairs checked fledged young. The mean number of young produced per pair was estimated to be 0.80 (n=10-110).

In the San Bernardino Mountains, spotted owl productivity (mean number of young fledged per successful nest) was significantly higher in lower montane bigcone Douglas-fir/canyon live oak forests than it was in high elevation montane conifer forests. These lower elevation habitats are believed to be productive because of high woodrat densities in the surrounding chaparral. They Page 132

also tend to be below the snowline of most late winter/spring storms, which potentially reduces the effect of such weather events during the breeding season. Large, late-season storms have been shown to have a major effect on northern spotted owl reproductive success in northwestern California and appear to have a similar effect on California spotted owls in the Sierra Nevada.

Estimates of juvenile survival rates are relatively low (0.296), while those of adults are high (0.747), with no differences detected between sexes. Young become independent by late summer and disperse from natal areas in September-October. Of 423 juvenile California spotted owls banded in the SBNF demography study, none returned to breed on their natal sites. They apparently disperse in all directions through their first winter, and may remain in an area several weeks before establishing a territory. A young bird may also stay in another territory (i.e., become a "floater") until an individual of the resident pair (of the same gender as the floater) dies, allowing the floater to assume the new territory.

California spotted owls show strong fidelity to breeding sites and winter home range. A pair may use the same breeding territory for five to ten years, but may not breed every year. In the San Bernardino Mountains, mean dispersal distances were 6.2 miles for males and 7.3 miles for females.

In southern California, it is believed that some movement between adjacent mountain ranges must occur occasionally, but believed such events are rare and that the extensive environmental changes (e.g., urbanization, habitat conversion for agriculture, water diversion, wind-driven electrical power generation, etc.) that have occurred in southern California during the past century may have reduced the rate of intermountain dispersal. Riparian areas that once existed at lower elevations and were potential dispersal corridors for spotted owls have been degraded by water extraction or lost to channelization during the last century.

In an analysis of thinning fire adapted forests, Lee and Irwin (2005) address the questions of short-term versus long-term risks, intensity of treatments, and cumulative effects. They modeled the effects of thinning treatments by assessing canopy cover and effects on owl occupancy and owl reproduction. Their analysis determined that habitat needs for owl reproduction can be incorporated by developing a fire and fuels management strategy that lessens the chances for uncharacteristic stand-replacing wildfire.

See the California spotted owl species account for additional information regarding life history, habitat conditions, and population trends on the SBNF and in the National Forest southern province (USFS 2011).

In 2004, the Forest Service finalized the “Conservation Strategy for California Spotted Owls in the National Forests on Southern California” that provides guidelines for management of spotted owls and their habitat. The strategy was incorporated into the Forest Plan and incorporated by reference in this analysis. Much of what is known about California spotted owls in southern California is based on a demography study conducted in the San Bernardino Mountains between 1987 and 1998 and subsequent monitoring between 2003 and present.

Page 133

In 2009, the SBNF completed an effort to map California spotted owl habitat on the SBNF using digital ortho-photo quarter-quadrangles (DOQQ) from 2002 as a “baseline” for spotted owl habitat. Previous mapping efforts of the territories were sporadic and were done by hand using aerial photos and USGS topographic maps. The newer mapping is much more accurate. The 2002 DOQQs were used for the recent mapping effort because they are the earliest digital photos available of the SBNF. The DOQQs were made at the beginning of a major drought cycle that resulted in substantial die-offs of conifer vegetation across the SBNF and prior to several large fires on the SBNF (e.g., Old/Grand Prix in 2003, Heart/Millard/ Sawtooth complex in 2006; Butler2, Slide, and Grass Valley fires in 2007, etc.). It is recognized that this habitat mapping does not represent a historical baseline. However, it is the best tool currently available for assessing major changes to habitat conditions coinciding with the renewed Forest-wide spotted owl monitoring effort that began in 2003.

Baseline Conditions for California Spotted Owl See the “Risks and Management Concerns for the S. California Province” section of the spotted owl species account (USFS 2011) for in-depth discussions of the past factors that have led to the existing baseline condition for this species as well as the factors that still pose a threat. That species account also discusses the current understanding of population status and trends for the SBNF and for the four southern California National Forests.

A recent report (Gutierrez et al. 2017) presents the “current state of knowledge” for California spotted owl, including a chapter dedicated to the southern California population. That report states that threats have increased in magnitude and new ones have arisen since the early 1990s. The threats to California spotted owls are summarized:

The most significant primary threats are (1) continued effects of forest management on both public and private land; (2) increasing trends in large-scale, stand-replacing fire; (3) invasion of barred owls; (4) potential climate change direct effects on owl populations or climate-driven vegetation type conversions and increased fire activity; and (5) increasing human population growth and development. Two additional issues that can potentially become significant threats are (1) illegal rodenticide use and (2) West Nile virus. These threats can potentially, functioning singly or in concert, contribute to development of gaps in the distribution of owls, which can have negative demographic consequences for owls. For example, climate change, fire, and forest management activities may interact to limit the amounts and distribution of habitat available to owls, which can be further affected by increases in the barred owl population. This overall threat assessment coupled with documented ongoing declines in owl populations clearly indicates the need for careful management, monitoring, and research to address key uncertainties for these threats (Gutierrez et al. 2017, pg. 221).

The same report summarizes the current status for southern California spotted owls as:

The status of the spotted owl in southern California is, if not dire, significantly more deteriorated than when it was evaluated as part of [first technical assessment of California Spotted Owl in 1992]. The large number of threats, concomitant with no apparent remedies to them, suggest that every effort be made to maintain the integrity of existing Page 134

suitable forests. Minnich (1980) indicates that the canyon live oak/bigcone Douglas-fir forests may have declined in the past century as a result of fire. Canyon live oak/bigcone Douglas-fir forests are often surrounded by highly flammable chaparral and scrub cover types and therefore could be a priority for fire treatments. However, the tenuous nature of the metapopulation makes active management to reduce fire risk arguably a more risky activity than in other regions. Regardless, maintaining all habitat elements known to be used by owls, especially large trees (both conifers and hardwoods), diverse forest structure, snags, and high canopy cover in mature forests, appears to be a key factor in conserving owls. (Gutierrez et al. 2017, pg. 257-258).

The number of active territories in the San Bernardino Mountains appears to have declined steadily since 1990. In the San Bernardino Mountains between 1990 and 1998, 134 territories were active during at least one of those years. Only 53 (39%) of those territories were still active at least one year during the 2008, 2009, and 2010 breeding seasons (inconsistent monitoring efforts since do not allow more recent comparisons). When considered spatially (Figure 4), there are relatively large areas of forested habitat in the San Bernardino Mountains (e.g., north of Lake Arrowhead, on the south slope of Big Bear Lake, south of Silverwood Lake, the north slope of the San Bernardino Mountains, areas adjoining the pass between the San Bernardino and San Gabriel Mountains) that were occupied by owls in the 1990s but were longer occupied during the sample period. Unoccupied areas may represent isolation of pairs and fragmentation of habitat.

Carey et al. (1990) and Carey and Peeler (1995) found an association between an increase in spotted owl home range size and declining amounts of old growth habitat and lower prey density. They also found that spotted owls generally concentrated their foraging in old forests, but selectively used particular young forests when dusky-footed woodrats were present. This suggests that manipulation of young forest to provide habitat for prey and foraging by owls may be a tool to use in conservation efforts. Clark (2007) also suggested that home ranges may also increase or shift in response to changes in habitat availability.

Zabel et al. (1995) found that home range size was correlated to prey base quality with smaller home ranges being associated with areas of higher prey abundance and better quality prey species. They concluded that prey species are a better predictor of home-range size than proportion of older forest within spotted owl home ranges in late-successional forests. They also found there were differences in habitat use based on prey species: where spotted owls foraged for woodrats, they preferred habitat edges; where they foraged for flying squirrels, no pattern was apparent.

In high quality habitat, owls may move and adjust their home ranges in response to disturbances. When high quality habitat is limited and disturbances occur, a deterioration of habitat may result in a loss of fitness of owls (Gutierrez et al. 2008). Losses of fitness may ultimately result in losses of individuals and territories becoming unoccupied.

Carey and Peeler (1995) found that when the home ranges of owls become large due to a paucity of high quality foraging habitat and low prey densities, spacing of social units based on long- distance contact calls broke down. They found that, on a landscape scale, dispersion of pairs became more even when resources were more abundant and evenly distributed. Page 135

When studying northern spotted owls in Washington and Oregon, Carey et al. (1992) found that social structure in heavily fragmented landscapes appeared to be abnormal, as evidenced by the proportion of adult-subadult pairs, adult nomadism, and overlap of home ranges among pairs.

In the current situation in the San Bernardino Mountains, there is concern that the increase in distances between occupied territories and fragmentation of high quality habitat (e.g., due to fire, natural patchiness of habitat, changes in habitat structure due to drought/insects, etc.) may further exacerbate the risk to this population. The distance to nearest-neighbor across the landscape in the San Bernardino Mountains has changed dramatically since the 1990s (Figure 4). For a species that relies on vocalization for intrapair communication and territory advertisement (Ganey 1990), increasing nearest-neighbor distances could become problematic, especially where separated by large areas of unsuitable habitat.

Baseline Conditions - Human Influences and Forest Management Practices: All of the recently- and presently-implemented fuels reduction projects on the SBNF have used similar Design Features in order to try to protect important spotted owl habitat characteristics and limit disturbance during implementation. However, vegetation/fuels management projects on private lands do not generally carry the same levels of spotted owl habitat protection as those on the SBNF and have likely resulted in disturbance to spotted owls, in the short-term and, potentially, in long-term alterations of habitat. Because the California spotted owl is not protected under the state or federal Endangered Species Acts, Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), Caltrans, Southern California Edison (SCE), and the California Department of Forestry (CDF) do not necessarily afford it the same level of protection that the Forest Service does (as a Forest Service Sensitive species). As such, those agencies do not necessarily avoid disturbance during nesting season or protect the habitat when working on non-NFS lands. When working on private lands with National Forest funding sources, NRCS does use the SBNF Design Features (e.g., LOPs, etc.) to limit effects to California spotted owl.

There are some uncertainties about the trade-offs of conducting treatments in spotted owl habitat to reduce the potential for loss to wildfire and the effects of the treatment on owl occupancy and habitat quality. There are also some uncertainties about how different treatments or combinations of treatments affect the risk of stand-replacing wildfire and affect spotted owls. This uncertainty and conflict has been addressed by several researchers.

In their study, Prather et al. (2008) found that management treatments that emphasize ecosystem restoration might improve the suitability of large areas of forested habitat and that the majority of forest could be managed in ways that would reduce fire hazard without eliminating owl habitat.

Page 136

Figure 4. California Spotted Owl Occupancy …

Note: “Currently Active” refers to 2008-2011 (the last year extensive forest-wide surveys were conducted)

Page 137

In a review of fuels reduction treatments in the Sierra Nevadas, Lee and Irwin’s (2005) data suggested that those treatments did not affect owl reproduction but suggested that more studies and carefully designed manipulative experiments are desirable to fully understand the risks. Jenness et al. (2004) recommended proactive fuels management treatments in areas not currently occupied by owls as a means of reducing fire risk in areas occupied by owls. They suggested that within areas occupied by spotted owls, judicious treatments might be appropriate after case- by-case evaluations of potential benefits and risks within those areas. Other researchers suggest that post-fire logging practices can have a greater effect on spotted owl occupancy than fire alone (Hanson et al. 2018; Lee et al. 2013).

Guitierrez et al. (2008) studied changes in home range sizes in response to timber stand treatments. They noted that owls with forest stand treatments in their home ranges tended to move farther from treatments than did the control owls. However, they concluded that more studies are needed to assess fully the potential effects of treatments to spotted owl home range size and suggested that negative effects may not be apparent immediately after treatment, especially for a species like spotted owls that are long-lived and possess high fidelity to nest sites.

Guitierrez et al. (2017) stated identified forest management as a primary factor for spotted owl habitat and populations on federal and private forested lands and describe some concerns. Dominant management activities on National Forests have been mechanical thinning and fire suppression, and there is growing recognition that standard prescriptions for thinning to reduce fuels promotes stand homogeneity, as does fire suppression. In addition, even- aged forest management on private lands has likely reduced the amount of older, large- diameter tree, closedcanopy forest habitat. Further, widespread declines in large trees, a key owl nesting and roosting habitat element, have been reported from across the Sierra Nevada. Emerging strategies that protect existing, and increase future recruitment of, large trees integrated with prescriptions that create tree clumps and canopy gaps hold promise for providing favorable habitat conditions for owls while reducing the risk of habitat loss to fire or climate change-driven drought and insect tree mortality (pp. 219- 220).

The same report noted that “spotted owls may respond favorably to forest management designed to produce fine-scale heterogenity that benefits prey, such as woodrats, Neotoma sp. and Peromyscus sp. However, there is significant uncertainty about the amounts of edge and fine- scale heterogenity that might be beneficial to owls” (pp. 195-196).

In the San Bernardino Mountains, some spotted owl habitat, including nest stands and PACs, has been treated on private lands over the past several years, possibly to a degree that makes it unsuitable. In particular, fuels and fire salvage treatments have occurred in some territories (e.g., Lake Arrowhead Boy Scout camp east of Lake Arrowhead, some territoires south of Silverwood Lake, a territory near Angelus Oaks). We do not have data or an assessment of those treatments and their effects to those owls and their habitat.

Additionally, SCE and Caltrans have conducted hazard tree removal and fuels reduction efforts on federal and non-federal lands to protect state highway and powerline corridors. These efforts Page 138

increased substantially in 2003 and have continued due to mortality of trees. NRCS and Caltrans partnered to remove hazard trees along the state highways. Due to the need to protect powerlines and roads from falling trees, they have not had the flexibility of retaining these high value trees. Thus, some effects to owl habitat have occurred by removal of snags and logs in those corridors.

The level of effects and habitat alteration/losses from hazard tree removal is unknown and likely varies by land ownership and treatment type. When removing hazard trees on the SBNF, NRCS, Caltrans, and SCE comply with the LOPs and other guidelines provided by the SBNF to protect owl habitat and nest stands in particular. However, even with the guidelines, some effects occur on NFS lands. One known nest tree (Willow Creek territory) was cut by NRCS in 2006. The tree was dropped after the territory was determined to be vacant so no direct effects to owls occurred. While the territory had been vacant for at least three years at that point, removal of a nest tree for a species that has a high fidelity to nest sites is undesirable. However, dead nest trees naturally fall over time and owls do find other nest sites. It is unlikely that by itself removal of one of the two nest trees known for that territory would result in abandonment of the territory or decrease the habitat value within the territory.

Habitat for California spotted owls has likely been affected by fire suppression efforts over the past hundred years. With the absence of natural low severity wildfire, stands have become denser and woody ground cover has increased, providing better habitat for flying squirrels, but decreased habitat for woodrats, both spotted owl prey species. As understory shrubs and herbaceous plants decline due to increasing canopy closure and reduced light at forest floor, woodrat cover and forage habitat availability may decline.

LaHaye et al. (1997) noted the importance of oak/big cone Douglas fir habitats in the San Bernardino Mountains. Stephenson and Calcarone (1999) noted that with increasing urbanization and increased human disturbance at the lower elevations, oak/big cone Douglas-fir habitat is threatened.

Other effects to California spotted owl habitat may include changes in habitat quality due to firewood collecting that may lower snag availability for nest sites and log cover for the prey base. While Forest Plan snag and log retention standards are intended to help protect those habitat components, some areas (areas close to residential areas, forest roads, and developed recreation sites) are often deficit in terms of snag/log habitats. With the current levels of tree mortality all across the SBNF, retention and recruitment of snags/logs is not expected to be a problem, except in areas directly adjacent to residential and recreation developments where snags that pose falling hazards are removed and close to roads where dead trees and logs are collected for firewood.

Many owl territories, especially nest stands, are associtated with drainages and riparian habitats. These drainages appear to be important for supporting high quality nesting, roosting, and foraging habitat as well as being assumed to provide movement corridors for foraging. Riparian drainages also provide a cooler, moister microhabitat believed to be important in the hot summer months (Barrows 1981). Riparian and meadow habitat in the San Bernardino Mountains on federal and non-federal lands has been affected by development and water diversions and extractions over the years, reducing the amount and quality of this habitat type. As such, effects Page 139

to spotted owl populations likely have occurred due to a reduction in habitat quality and quantity due to dewatering, especially during drought periods. Demands for water, and thus effects to riparian and meadow habitats, will likely continue to increase with growing human populations.

In 2010, the SBNF conducted a review of all developments in the San Bernardino Mountains approved by the County within the last 20 years in spotted owl habitat to assess effects due to urban and exurban development. The review found that no developments of medium or large- scale had occurred in spotted owl habitat. Data on individual lot developments were not available.

The effects of human disturbance to spotted owls has also been addressed by several studies evaluating reproductive success, behavioral responses, and corticosterone hormone levels to indicate stress and disturbance effects. The standard 0.25-mile Limited Operating Period buffer around nests during the nesting period appears to be effective for mitigating project-related disturbances (Gutierrez et al. 2017, pg. 218).

Baseline Conditions – Wildfire: Wildfire has been considered the primary risk factor to the California spotted owl, due to the buildup of fuels and changes in stand structure, which have increased the risk of high severity fires (USFS 2004; Stephenson and Calcarone 1999). Between 1990 and 2010, 77 out of 151 (51%) territories known in the San Bernardino Mountains had at least one fire occur in mapped habitat (PAC, HRC, or NS). Of those 151 territories, 64 (42%) had over 50 acres of mapped habitat within a fire and 44 (69%) of those are considered “inactive” (have not been occupied by a pair in 3+ years). In addition, 59 territories (39%) have had some fire in mapped Nest Stands and 37 (63%) of those are considered “inactive”.

It seems reasonable to hypothesize that light to moderate severity fires, similar to those likely to have occurred prior modern-day fire suppression practices, would not typically result in losses of individual owls, or significant changes in the prey base or forest stand structure. However, large- scale moderate to high severity fires like those occurring in the past decade are likely affecting spotted owls on all three counts.

Fires can affect spotted owls in several ways: 1) death of owls during a fire; 2) changes in prey availability, species composition, and distribution; and, 3) changes to the forest stand structure and understory. The following discussion addresses all three of these potential effects.

Fires and survival: Bond et al. (2002) evaluated the effects of wildfire on short-term spotted owl survival, site fidelity, mate fidelity, and reproductive success. They hypothesized that fires may have little short-term effects on survival, site fidelity, mate fidelity, and reproductive success. However, they did note that more studies are needed to assess long-term effects.

During moderate and high severity fires when fire behavior is extreme, it is likely that individual owls are killed due to smoke, winds, flames, gases, and confusion. For several days during the 2003, 2006, 2007, and 2015 fires on the SBNF there was extreme fire behavior with very high winds, erratic fire behavior, and dense smoke. It is likely that a number of individual spotted owls perished in the Old/Grand Prix, Heart/Millard/Sawtooth complex, Butler II, Grass Valley, Slide, and Lake fires. In the case of the San Bernardino Mountains where nearest-neighbor Page 140

distances have increased and suitable habitat is becoming more and more isolated, and numbers of owls in the mountain range has dwindled, losses of individual owls may be significant.

Fires and Prey: Roberts and van Wagtendonk (2006) studied post-fire prey availability and habitat utilization in Yosemite National Park in 2004-2005. They found that prey abundance and diversity were similar between burned and unburned forest with the exception that flying squirrels were absent from burned areas.

Block et al. (2005) studied prey ecology of Mexican spotted owls in pine-oak forests where the owl’s diet is comprised of 94% mammals by biomass, consisting primarily of mice, woodrats, and voles. All of their prey populations showed seasonal variations in relative abundance. They found woodrats and brush mice using steeper areas with more rocks and shrub cover than found in other areas. Contrastingly, deer mice were found in forests with relatively open understories.

Bagne and Finch (2009) monitored small mammal populations before and after dense tree stands were thinned in New Mexico. They found that the thinning treatments did not result in a change in relative abundance of chipmunks or woodrats or in the total small mammal biomass. They concluded that the lack of negative effects on small mammals indicated that ecosystem function remained intact after large-scale thinning with minimal soil disturbance. They noted that precipitation likely influenced the timing of small mammal population responses to thinning. Block et al. (2005) recommended that management practices promote and sustain shrub and herbaceous vegetation by thinning small diameter trees and using prescribed fire.

Fires and Habitat: While it seems intuitive that high severity fires would result in habitat becoming unsuitable for California spotted owls because of the loss of upper and mid-story canopy closure, several studies suggest that may not be the case (at least for several years after a fire) (Bond et al. 2009, Lee et al. 2013).

A radio-tracking study of seven California spotted owls in the Sierras found that, at least in the short-term after a fire, burned areas retain suitability for foraging and roosting (Bond et al. 2009). The study was conducted during the breeding season four years after the fire. They found that, for roosting, the owls selected low-severity burned forest and avoided moderate and high-severity burned areas; and, unburned forest was used in proportion to availability. They also found that the studied spotted owls foraged in high-severity burned forest more than all other burn categories. Four years post-fire, those high-severity burned areas had greater basal area of snags and higher shrub and herbaceous cover, parameters thought to be associated with increased abundance and accessibility of prey.

Their results suggest that, due to similar habitat requirements for roosting and nesting, that owls would similarly avoid moderate and high severity burns for nesting/roosting but may use low- severity burned areas in selecting new nest sites.

Other studies of post-fire habitat utilization (Jenness et al. 2004; S. Loe pers. comm. with J. Taiz; Clark 2007) had similar conclusions that spotted owls are able to use burned areas for foraging for some period after fires. Based on their studies of post-fire habitat utilization, Bond et al.

Page 141

(2009) recommended that burned forests within 1.5 km of nests or roosts not be logged until long-term effects of fire on spotted owls and their prey are understood.

Roberts and van Wagtendonk (2006) found that for spotted owls nesting in burned areas in Yosemite National Park, the 203ha core area around the nests encompassed a heterogeneous mix of variable burn severity with about 42% burned in low and moderate severity levels. They suggest that fire management plans should maximize the areas burned at low severity while maintaining a landscape with a heterogeneous matrix of burn severities to provide valuable foraging and nesting habitat.

During a small post-fire radio-telemetry effort on the SBNF, the radioed owls were found to forage in all categories of burn severity.

Jenness et al. (2004) studied post-fire habitat use by Mexican spotted owls and found that the negative relationship observed between recent fire occurrence and owl occupancy was statistically weak. They suspected that relatively low-intensity ground fires, including prescribed burning, would have little or no short-term effects on presence or reproduction but noted that data on long-term effects are lacking.

Clark (2007) suggested that home ranges may increase or shift in response to suitable habitat being lost to wildfire. In the San Bernardino Mountains where large blocks of spotted owl habitat have burned since 2003, it may not be possible for home ranges to shift or increase due fragmentation of or lack of suitable habitat.

Several questions remain unanswered relative to post-fire habitat suitability and spotted owls. The studies that have been conducted have all occurred relatively soon after fires. For some period after a fire in high-severity burns, dead trees remain standing providing vertical structure for spotted owls. Once those trees have fallen and the vertical structure is lacking, will those areas still be used for foraging by spotted owls? Follow-up studies farther out from the actual fire are needed in order to determine how time affects habitat utilization relative to burn severity. Nonetheless, the assumption that burned areas, even high severity, are unsuitable for spotted owls is clearly not supported for some period of time post-fire.

With the current understanding of habitat needs of spotted owls, it follows that within a short time after high severity burned areas, those areas would not be suitable for nesting/roosting due to lack of canopy closure in the midstory and overstory. Moderate and low burn severity areas may retain enough canopy closure to support nesting and roosting. Obviously, whether or not a burned area can continue to provide suitable habitat for nesting and roosting would depend on how much habitat burned at varying severities and in what configuration on the landscape.

High severity fire in nesting/roosting habitat probably render areas unsuitable for nesting and roosting almost immediately post-fire; those areas may remain suitable for foraging at least as long as there is vertical structure in the stand. We suspect that foraging habitat may not currently be a limiting factor in the San Bernardino Mountains, but are concerned that nesting/roosting habitat may be limited. Changes to the quality and quantity of that habitat due to a number of large fires with large acreages of high and moderate severity over the past two decades has likely Page 142

been responsible, in part, for the abandonment of 60%+ of the territories in the San Bernardino Mountains. Approximately 63% of territories that have had some of the Nest Stands burned since 1990 are no longer occupied by pairs. While there are certainly other variables that may be a factor in the abandonment of those territories, the SBNF data suggest that fires are a likely major contributing factor.

Fire Effects – Summary: Gutierrez et al. (2017) summarized research on the effects of fires: Wildland fires (prescribed fire and wildfire) that burn primarily at low to moderate severity (including unburned patches) likely maintain spotted owl occupancy while increasing resilience of the forest landscape in the long term. Although high-severity (i.e., stand-replacing) fires may also benefit spotted owls in smaller patches and proportions more consistent with the natural range of variation, large high-severity-burn patches may significantly curtail habitat use and occupancy and long-term persistence of suitable nesting and roosting habitat. There is insufficient information available to allow a determination of the potential threshold responses of spotted owls to high-severity fire (pp. 64-65).

Baseline Conditions – Summary: In summary, the low numbers of owls fledging each year combined with typical low survival rates during the first year may indicate that recruitment of nesting owls in the San Bernardino Mountains is in jeopardy. More and more territories appear to be “blinking out” in the San Bernardino Mountains. In 2010, out of the 149 territories monitored, only 15 pairs bred successfully in the San Bernardino Mountains (out of 29 nesting pairs). With the low numbers of reproducing pairs of owls, low recruitment of nesting owls into the population, the increasing distances between occupied territories, and continued effects to habitat quality and quantity from fire and climate change, the long-term viability of this population of California spotted owls is at risk.

Varying levels of monitoring have continued on the SBNF over the past decade. Almost all territories were monitored between 2003 and 2011. Since then, the number of territories monitored each year has varied. In 2017, 79 territories were monitored and 36 were occupied (46%). Comparing that to occupancy rates between 2003 and 2011, 2017 was a relatively high occupancy year. However, compared to 59% occupancy during the last year of the demography study (1998), it was a decline. And the occupancy in 1998 was a significant decline from 1994 (70%) and 1990 (86%) (Tanner 2017).

In light of the continued concerns over declining population trends on the SBNF, carefully planned and executed fuels reduction treatments may be an important management tool to try to reduce fire severity in spotted owl habitat (particularly in Nest Stands and PACs). Based on our understanding of how much the population of breeding pairs has dwindled on the SBNF since the early 1990s, the spotted owls may not be able to afford to lose any more suitable nesting habitat in the mountains of the SBNF.

Occurrences in the Analysis Area Territories in the Project Area: There are four spotted owl nest stands mapped within the project area: SB070 (E. Fork W. Fork Mojave River), SB069 (Grass Valley Creek), SB050 (Tunnel Ridge), and SB086 (Twin Peaks). An additional five nesting sites (SB051-Miller Canyon, Page 143

SB085-Houston Creek, SB071-Rock Camp, SB147-Willow Creek, and SB088-Daley Canyon) are known from within 1.5 miles of the project boundary, making nine territories that overlap at least a portion of the project area. A territory is considered to be habitat within 1.5 miles of a nest or centroid (assumed nest site) and is meant to represent the typical breeding home range for this species.

Within each territory, the highest quality habitat was mapped (based on guidelines in the Conservation Strategy). Within each 1.5-mile radius territory circle, Protected Activity Centers (PACs) are mapped based on 300 acres of the highest quality habitat around the nest, and Home Range Cores (HRCs) include the next best 300 acres. The best 60+ acres around the nest tree(s) are mapped as Nest Stand (NS); the NS is a subset of the PAC. Figure 5 displays mapped habitat for California spotted owls in the Grass Valley project area.

In addition to mapped territories and habitat (NS, PAC, and HRC) associated with those known territories, there is some habitat that has been mapped by the SBNF as suitable habitat. These areas are not part of any known territory (in spite of years of surveys during the demography study period). Mixed conifer stands with 50% or more canopy closure was mapped as suitable habitat. In the project area, there are approximately 16 acres of mapped suitable habitat that are not part of a known territory. This suitable habitat is thought to be very important as dispersal and movement habitat. It occurs between several known territories.

Systematic surveys of this area of suitable habitat were conducted in the early 1990s as part of the demography study. Since then, the suitable habitat has been effectively surveyed when monitoring has occurred in the nearby territories. No new territories have been discovered in the suitable habitat in the project area but spotted owls are known to use those areas for foraging, roosting, and dispersal.

Occupancy and Reproduction for Territories in the Project Area: Spotted owl territories on the SBNF have been periodically monitored following the Forest Service Region 5 protocol for spotted owls (USFS 1993). Systematic monitoring forest-wide has not been done since the end of the 2011 breeding season. In 2017, a subset of known territories (79), including all within the project area, was surveyed to protocol (Tanner 2017). Complete records for survey efforts, occupancy, and reproduction results for each territory that overlap the project area are maintained at the District Office (USFS 2012-2016; Tanner 2005-2011, 2017).

There are nine territories (a territory is considered to be a circle within 1.5 miles of a nest tree) that overlap the project area. Of those nine territories, four have mapped habitat (Nest Stands [NS], PACs, and, HRC) within the project area boundaries.

Table 20 summarizes the occupancy and reproduction for each of the nests in and near the GVL project area. Two of the territories were occupied in 2017. None of the territories with mapped habitat in the project area were known to be occupied in 2015 or 2016. No surveys were conducted in 2012 through 2014. Two of the four territories were occupied in 2011.

Page 144

Page 145 Figure 5. California Spotted Owl Habitat

Table 20. Summary of California Spotted Owl Territory Occupancy/Reproduction for Territories In and Near the Project Area Territory Name Territory Years Monitored & Occupied # of Product- Total # of Fledglings/ Activity Habitat Habitat # Monitored By By Years ivity1 Fledglings Successful Occupied Last in Proposed Pair Single Young Nesting Between Known Project for Fledged Attempt2 2015-2017 Occupied Treating Nest Stand Habitat Is Located Within the Project Area Tunnel Ridge SB050 22 8 2 2 25% 4 2.0 No3 1998 Yes Yes Grass Valley Creek SB069 23 5 0 1 20% 2 2.0 No3 1993 Yes Yes E. Fork W. Fork Mojave SB070 23 20 1 7 35% 12 1.7 Yes3 2017 Yes Yes River Twin Peaks SB086 22 12 4 1 8% 2 2.0 Yes3 2017 Yes Yes Nest Stand Habitat is Outside of the Project Area but is Within 1.5 Mile of the Project Boundary Miller Canyon* SB051 19 2 0 2 100% 3 1.5 No4 1989 No No Rock Camp SB071 21 9 3 3 33% 3 1.0 No5 2005 No No Houston Creek SB085 21 11 1 2 18% 4 2.0 No5 2011 No No Daley Canyon SB088 21 8 1 2 25% 3 1.5 Yes5 2011 No No Willow Creek SB147 17 6 0 4 67% 9 2.25 No6 1998 No No 1 Years Young Fledged/Years Occupied by Pair 2 Total Fledglings/Years Young Fledged 3 Miller Canyon - Monitored 2011, 2015, and 2016. No surveys were conducted 2012 through 2014. 4 Rock Camp - Monitored 2010, 2011, and 2016. No surveys were conducted 2012 through 2015 or 2017. 5 Houston Creek and Daley Canyon - Monitored 2010, 2011, 2015, and 2016. No surveys were conducted 2012, 2013, 2014, or 2017. 6 Willow Creek - Not monitored since 2011. See Appendix D for complete records.

Page 146

Potential Effects of the Proposed Action - California Spotted Owl The Proposed Action includes a number of Design Features that were developed in order to minimize effects to spotted owls and their habitat. The following analysis of effects is based on the assumption that the Design Features would be implemented. See Part I-3.0 for a description of the treatment levels and the Design Features that would help reduce direct and indirect effects to spotted owls and their habitat.

This part of the evaluation is divided into several discussions: 1) summary of proposed treatments in spotted owl habitat; 2) general non-habitat effects that are common to all territories; 3) habitat effects in individual territories; and, 4) a summary of habitat effects in all spotted owl habitat in the project area. Note: Nest Stands are a subset of PACs; PAC acres include Nest Stand acreages.

Summary of Proposed Treatments in Spotted Owl Habitat: The numbers in the following discussion were generated using a GIS analysis of potential effects with the shape files of spotted owl habitat and proposed treatments. The next sections describe the types and scale of potential effects.

Four territories have mapped habitat in the project area. In addition, there is mapped “Suitable” habitat. Suitable habitat are areas that are not known to be part of an owl territory but that support habitat qualities that make it suitable for foraging and/or nesting.

There are three types of treatments proposed in spotted owl habitat: Level 1a, Level 4, and Level 4a. The proposed action description (Part I-3.1), the treatment prescriptions/objectives (Table 5), and Design Features in the Proposed Action contain a number of guidelines for treatments in spotted owl habitat.

Table 21 and Table 22 display summaries of the treatments proposed in spotted owl habitat in the Grass Valley project.

Direct and Indirect Effects Common to All Spotted Owl Territories – Proposed Action Mortality: Direct effects do not seem very likely for adults since they would probably move from the site prior to tree felling; direct losses would be more likely for unfledged or recently fledged juveniles. However, nest trees would be buffered with a ¼ mile Limited Operating Period (LOP); as a result, there would be no activities within ¼ mile of nest trees during the period when juveniles would be most vulnerable. Additionally, Nest Stands would not be treated (with the exception of Nest Stand SB050 which no longer has stand structure suitable for nesting since the Grass Valley Fire). Thus, the potential for death or injury of within known nesting territories should be extremely low.

There is a risk of mortality of or injury of pre-fledging California spotted owls if they are in an unidentified nesting territory when tree felling occurs. However, protocol-level surveys will be conducted in the project area; because of this and the small size of the project area, it is considered very unlikely that a nesting territory would go undetected. The Design Features include a measure to conduct monitoring prior to and during implementation to ensure the locations of all active nest trees are known and that the LOP buffer is correctly located. Page 147

Table 21. Acres of California Spotted Owl Habitat in Treatment Levels in the Project Area Territory & Acres by Treatment Level 1 Habitat Type Acres Outside TOTAL Inside Grand 1 1a 3 4 4a Total Treated No Treatment2 the Project Area The Project Area Total1 SB050 – Tunnel Ridge HRC 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 52 2 54 PAC 0 41 0 142 29 212 26 72 239 311 Nest Stand 0 6 0 0 29 35 23 0 58 58 Totals 0 41 0 144 29 214 26 124 241 365 SB069 – Grass Valley Creek HRC 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 112 0 112 PAC 0 20 0 33 0 53 6 242 59 301 Nest Stand 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 50 6 56 Totals 0 20 0 33 0 53 6 354 59 413 SB070 – E. Fork W. Fork Mojave River HRC 0 17 0 34 0 51 0 14 51 65 PAC 0 19 0 50 0 69 147 87 216 303 Nest Stand 0 1 0 0 0 1 60 1 61 62 Totals 0 36 0 84 0 120 147 101 267 368 SB086 – Twin Peaks HRC 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 84 2 86 PAC 0 7 0 48 0 55 35 214 90 304 Nest Stand 0 0 0 0 0 0 21 39 21 60 Totals 0 7 0 50 0 57 35 298 92 390 Suitable Habitat 0 0 0 19 0 19 0 ~ 19 19 Grand Total 1 0 104 0 330 29 463 214 877 678 1555 1Nest Stands are a subset of PACs and are not added in the totals. 2Acres are only those within the Project Area; mapped habitat for a territory outside the Project Area is not included.

Page 148

Table 22. California Spotted Owl Habitat by Treatment Type Treatment Level Acres in Percentage of Total for Habitat Summary Project Area Type in Project Area Nest Stand Note: Nest Stand is a subset of PAC No Treatment 110 74.8% and not included in the totals 1 0 0% 1a 8 5.4% Grand Total 3 0 0% Spotted Owl Habitat In The Project 4 0 0% Area=676 acres 4a 29 19.8% Total-Nest Stand 147 HRC Totals by Habitat Type No Treatment 0 0% Total Treated NS = 37 acres Total Treated HRC = 55 acres 1 0 0% Total Treated PAC = 388 acres 1a 17 31% Total Treated Suitable = 19 acres 3 0 0%

4 38 69%

4a 0 0% Total Treated All Habitat Types Total-HRC 55 Total Treated = 462 acres PAC No Treatment 214 35.5% 1 0 0% Totals By Treatment Levels 1a 87 14.5% 214 acres (32%) = No Treatment 3 0 0% 0 acres (0%) = Level 1 4 272 45.2% 104 acres (15%) = Level 1a 4a 29 4.8% 0 acres (0%) = Level 3 Total-PAC 602 329 acres (49%) = Level 4 Suitable Habitat 29 acres (4%) = Level 4a No Treatment 0 0% 1 0 0% 1a 0 0% 3 0 0% 4 19 100% 4a 0 0% Total-Suitable 19

Per the Design Features, landings would be located outside of spotted owl habitat (to the greatest extent feasible). NSs and PACs would be the priority for avoidance. An effort would also be made to place landings outside the LOP buffer areas. Landings inside LOP buffers would not be used during the LOP. Because of the concentration of activities at landings, higher levels of disturbance could occur if owls are roosting nearby. Daytime activities could flush roosting owls. Death or injury of individuals as a result would be unlikely.

With the Design Features in place, the risk of death/injury of California spotted owls is considered very unlikely.

Disturbance: Potential negative effects to the California spotted owl from this project include noise disturbance from chainsaws, heavy equipment, and helicopters. Noise may cause disruption of courtship and nesting behavior or abandonment of nest sites if conducted during the nesting season. The LOP would help to limit the likelihood of disturbance to individuals during

Page 149

the nesting season (February 1st through August 15th), including those establishing territories and nests, breeding adults, nestlings, and fledglings. The LOP is based on a ¼-mile buffer around known nest trees (or may be around the NS where the nest tree locations are not known).

Road maintenance and opening of temporary routes (and closed Forest Service roads) would be needed for yarding equipment access and log hauling. No temporary roads are planned in spotted owl NS, PAC, or HRC. There is one temporary road planned within some mapped suitable habitat. Several of the Forest Service system roads in the project area are in spotted owl habitat, including NS, PAC, and HRC. There could be some potential for disturbance of daytime roosting owls where suitable habitat exists along roads that would be used for project activities. Both temporary roads and existing closed roads that would be used for project activities would be rehabilitated afterwards, so there would not be long-term increased potential for disturbance effects associated with public use of those routes.

Quick and sudden noises can cause owls to flush during the day or night. A limitation on night operations would prevent project operations from disturbing any spotted owls that are using the project area for foraging or roosting. If individual owls are using the project area for daytime roosting, project activities could also result in flushing if the activities are very close to the roost or if the noises are very loud. If helicopters were used for implementing any portion of the project, the flight paths, flight elevations, and landing areas would be coordinated with a biologist to reduce the likelihood of disturbance to known spotted owl territories in or near the project area.

Disturbance Duration Effects: The level of disturbance depends on the duration of activities in the habitat if spotted owls are in or near the project area during implementation. Because some areas have several activities planned (e.g., tree removal, understory thinning, pile burning, chipping, etc.), some sites may have activities spread out over a period of 2-3 years before all of the operations would be completed. Repeated entries is more likely to cause changes in habitat utilization than a single shorter-term disturbance. Currently, two of the territories have not been occupied for 20-25 years; the other two are recently active. For active territories, the intent is to complete project activities in as short a period as feasible.

Prey Availability: In southern California, woodrats are the primary prey species taken by California spotted owls. Other small mammals (including mice and voles), birds, and invertebrates make up the rest of the diet (Gutiérrez et al. 1995). In the San Bernardino Mountains study between 1987 and 1991, dusky-footed woodrats and Jerusalem crickets were the most frequently consumed taxa (42.2% and 20.7% respectively). Dusky-footed woodrats dominated spotted owl diets by biomass (74%). Pocket gophers and peromyscid mice comprised 10.4% and 4% respectively. Flying squirrels only contributed 3% of the biomass. Spotted owls consumed primarily mammals by frequency (66.4%) and biomass (95.3%). Successful nesters consumed a greater percent biomass of woodrats than non-nesters (Smith et al. 1999). Gutiérrez et al. (1995) recommended that future management of forested habitat promote high woodrat density. Woodrat populations tend to decrease in areas during drought or when food crops such as acorns decrease (Verner et al. 1992).

Page 150

Selective cutting of trees that results in an opening of the canopy that promotes growth of shrubby understory probably results in enhanced woodrat habitat several years after the treatment, as do other logging techniques that promote successional stages with a complex mix of over- and understory trees and shrubs (Hooven 1959, cited in Williams et al. 1992). Williams et al. (1992) noted that the short-term effect, however, would be to reduce the habitat suitability for woodrats.

Bagne and Finch (2009) found positive or neutral effects of thinning on the small mammal species examined in ponderosa pine habitats in New Mexico. Positive effects lasted two years or less out of four post-thinning years that the monitoring was done. Deer mice responded positively to thinning in upland and riparian habitats. They found no change related to thinning in relative abundance of chipmunks and woodrats or in total small mammal biomass. They concluded “this and other studies indicate that forest thinning with minimal ground disturbance is compatible with sustainable small mammal populations. Abiotic factors such as precipitation or habitat type may influence timing and presence of response of small mammals to restoration treatments”.

Woodrats are found at higher densities in unburned forests with a good shrub understory. Woodrats do not survive fire well, especially high intensity burns, and they may be slow to re- colonize burned areas (Wirtz et al. 1988, cited in Williams et al. 1992, Bond et al. 2009). Underburning in spotted owl habitat could affect cover and forage for woodrats. Some prescribed burning is proposed for the project. The Design Features have measures to help protect existing woodrat middens and to retain a mosaic of cover habitat for rodents.

Converse et al. (2006) found that total biomass of small mammals generally increased following thinning and wildfire in ponderosa pine forests. They suggested that reducing fuel loads and opening canopies in denser stands is important for increasing or maintaining small mammal populations. They found that the presence of slash after treatments appeared to be important for deer mice. Converse et al. (2006b) found that Mexican woodrat densities were positively related to amount of shrub cover and weakly positively related to amount of woody debris. They suggested that woodrat populations might benefit from treatments that encourage shrub densities in the long-term by reducing canopy cover in very dense stands. They also suggest that retention of slash may help increase small mammal densities, including woodrats. Lee and Tietje (2005) found that prescribed fire in oak woodlands is unlikely to alter dusky-footed woodrat populations significantly if patches of well-structured habitat are maintained.

Studies in northwest California found that dusky-footed woodrat densities were highest in sapling/brush/poletimber stands, followed by seedling/shrub and large old growth stands (Sakai and Noon 1993). This is most likely due to the lack of understory vegetation for food. They were found to be associated with hardwood shrub cover. They also found that woodrats moved between the shrub-lands into adjacent old-growth forest habitat occupied by spotted owls, but did not permanently emigrate into the forested stands. Their radio-tracking study also found that woodrats crossed distinct ecotonal boundaries, including between shrub-lands, forest habitat, and openings in forest or shrub habitat.

Page 151

The proposed project treatment activities would result in disturbance to the forest floor and shrub layers, which in turn may affect habitat of the primary prey species of California spotted owls, the dusky-footed woodrat.

In Level 1 areas (shaded fuelbreaks), woodrat habitat would be affected during the removal of ground and ladder fuels and vegetation. These are narrow linear treatment areas bordering Forest Service roads or property boundaries. Level 1 areas (approximately 193 acres) would completely lack logs and have very little shrub cover. Level 1a areas (shaded fuelbreaks in spotted owl habitat) (172 acres) would have some minimal log levels and low shrub cover. The Design Features provide for retention of existing woodrat nests/middens in these zones if they can be left without threatening the integrity of the fuelbreak. Sakai and Noon’s findings (1993) that woodrats crossed openings suggest that these fuelbreaks may not represent movement barriers to woodrats.

Level 4 (350 acres) and 4a (30 acres) areas are less intensive treatments that would retain canopy closure, high levels of snags and logs, and greater brush cover. Effects to habitat for spotted owl prey species, including woodrats, deer mice, and flying squirrels should be relatively low in Level 4 areas. Level 3 areas (298 acres) are currently not considered suitable for spotted owls but those areas are suitable for woodrats and other prey that would move into suitable habitat areas. Additionally, some of the Level 3 areas may be open enough after treatment that they would be used for occasional foraging.

In Level 4 and 4a areas, most of the shrub removal would occur within the dripline of trees (to reduce ladder fuels) and 30-50% of shrubs outside the dripline would be retained in a mosaic pattern to break up fuel continuity. Thus, forage and cover opportunities for prey species would remain throughout the Level 4 and 4a areas.

Underburning is expected to result in rejuvenation of shrub and annual plan vegetation several seasons after the fire. The post-burn area would likely have a mosaic of shrubs and small trees in the understory interspersed with burned areas lacking understory cover. Logs and woody debris on the forest floor would also be gone in some areas and retained in others. It is likely that small mammal populations would decrease immediately after the underburning when plants providing cover and food were lacking. But they should rebound within a few years post-burning. The Design Features include measures protect woodrats and woodrat nests to the extent possible during underburning.

Design Features also include creating brush piles for wildlife, including spotted owl prey species. Design Features that would protect existing woodrat nests and retain downed logs and brush piles would help reduce those potential effects. Nonetheless, some individuals may be killed and habitat of woodrats and other prey species would likely be degraded in the short-term. Over the longer-term, opening of some stands is expected to increase some rodent populations after the treatment.

Treatments in the proposed project are designed in a mosaic pattern. As a result there would be some amount of “edge” between the different treatment levels. Level 3 treatments would open up the understory in the conifer habitat. This opening of the floor is expected to reduce cover for Page 152

small mammals in the short-term. Zabel et al. (1995) found there were differences in habitat use based on prey species: where spotted owls foraged for woodrats, they preferred habitat edges; where they foraged for flying squirrels, no pattern was apparent. The habitat edges that would be created in the project area may provide some foraging opportunities for spotted owls foraging on woodrats.

In summary, due to the post-treatment mosaics of habitat and “edges”, retention of refugia habitat (untreated areas-227 acres), treatment guidelines for spotted owl habitat (Level 1a, 4, and 4 – total of 552 acres), and Design Features that call for protection of woodrat habitat and creation of piles, prey availability and prey distribution in spotted owl habitat is not expected to be negatively affected in the project area, and specifically within the spotted owl habitat.

Potential Effects to Spotted Owl Habitat – Proposed Action The project area contains mapped Nest Stand, PAC, HRC, and Suitable habitat. Table 21 and Table 22 summarize the amount and type of spotted owl habitat proposed for each treatment level in the Grass Valley analysis area. There are approximately 676 acres of mapped habitat for California spotted owls in the Grass Valley project area (Table 22).

Stand exam plot data for are summarized in Table 23, Table 24, Table 25 for live trees in spotted owl habitat in the Grass Valley project area. See the project Silviculture (Waterston 2018) for details about the stand exams and modeling. The stand “Trees per Acre” numbers in the following tables are based on stand exams conducted in 2016. Some of those numbers may be slightly different at this point (e.g., due to trees falling or new seedlings) but they are representative of the pre and post treatment conditions. The following discussion is based on forest condition analysis provided by the project silviculturist (Waterston, pers. comm.).

Table 23. Pre- and Post- Treatment Stand Characteristics in Spotted Owl Nest Stand Treatment Level1 Trees Per Acre (TPA) 2 Average Tree TPA Category Pre-Treatment Post-Treatment Canopy Cover Treatment Level 1a Total TPA 83 1243 Pre = 43% (8 acres) TPA ≤8" DBH 43 893 Post = 44% TPA 8-24" DBH 38 344 Treatment Level 4a (29 acres) TPA ≥24" DBH 2 2

1 No treatments proposed in Nest Stand in Levels 1, 3, and 4. 2 Living trees only. Snags are not included. 3 Increase in trees per acre in trees less than 8” is due to sprouting of oak species. 4 No trees greater than 9” would be cut in treatment level 4a. Projected decreases in trees 8-24” would occur in trees 8” to 9” DBH. The model predicts this to be approximately 10 trees per acre.

Table 24. Pre- and Post- Treatment Stand Characteristics in Spotted Owl Protected Activity Centers (PACs) Treatment Level 1 Trees Per Acre (TPA) 2 Average Tree TPA Category Pre-Treatment Post-Treatment Canopy Cover Treatment Level 1a Total TPA 161 160 Pre = 49% (87 acres) TPA ≤8" DBH 122 1323 Post = 49% TPA 8-24" DBH 36 264

Page 153

Table 24. Pre- and Post- Treatment Stand Characteristics in Spotted Owl Protected Activity Centers (PACs) Treatment Level 1 Trees Per Acre (TPA) 2 Average Tree TPA Category Pre-Treatment Post-Treatment Canopy Cover Treatment Level 4 and 4a TPA ≥24" DBH 3 3 (301 acres) 1 No treatments proposed in PACs in Levels 1 and 3. 2 Living trees only. Snags are not included. Modeling output are averages per acre is for all plots taken in all PAC areas, by treatment level. In other words, the treatment prescription is modeled over all plots and the values per plot are averaged per acre. 3 Increase in trees per acre in trees less than 8” is due to sprouting of oak species. 4 The difference in trees pre and post treatment would be in the 8” DBH size category since the Design Features would retain all trees ≥9” DBH for PACs in Level 1a, 4, and 4a.

Table 25. Pre- and Post- Treatment Stand Characteristics in Spotted Owl Home Range Cores (HRCs) 1 2 Treatment Levels 3 Trees Per Acre (TPA) 4 Average Tree TPA Category Pre-Treatment Post-Treatment Canopy Cover Treatment Level 1a Total TPA 1,317 918 Pre = 50% (17 acres) Post = 49% TPA ≤8" DBH 887 1,282 Treatment Level 4 TPA 8-24" DBH 28 225 (38 acres) TPA ≥24" DBH 8 106 1 Modeling output are averages per acre is for all plots taken in all spotted owl habitat areas, by treatment level. In other words, the treatment prescription is modeled over all plots and the values per plot are averaged per acre. Outputs are identical because the thinning prescription as applied in the Spotted Owl Habitat in these areas was similar, and the trees modeled to be cut from the stand were the same, as were the fire effects. Treatment levels 1a and 4 are intended to treat fuels while causing minimal to no effects to owl habitat qualities. 2 The stand exam data used for this analysis only included 4 plots. One of those plots (plot #14) has 4900 trees less than 4” DBH, skewing some of the analysis. See Silvicultural Report for more discussion. 3 No treatments proposed in HRCs in Levels 1, 3, and 4a 4 Living trees only. Snags are not included. 5 The difference in trees pre and post treatment would be in the 8”- 16” DBH size category since the Design Features would retain all trees ≥16” DBH in HRCs. 6 There are more trees per acre greater than 24” DBH post treatment as there was in-growth. Under the model, trees close to 24” DBH in 2016 grew to a larger size class.

Stand Composition and Stand Structure: The following analysis was provided by the GVL silviculturist based on stand-exams and computer Forest Vegetation Simulator (FVS) modeling (Waterston, pers. comm.). See the Grass Valley Silviculture Report and associated records for complete discussions of the modeling, stand-exams, and modeling limitations.

The 2007 Grass Valley Fire severity fire substantial amounts of conifer and hardwood forest cover. As a result of the fire, the project area currently has a large number of small diameter live trees and an abundance of snags. During stand exam data collection, relatively few large trees (over 24” DBH) were inventoried in the project area. The total number inventoried account for less than 10% of all the trees inventoried (29 records out of a total of 308). In a historic setting, absent fire suppression and stand replacing wildland fire, the number of large diameter trees would likely be higher. Field observations on similar sites near the project area but outside the Grass Valley fire area found a larger proportion of large trees than in the project area. Page 154

The computer modeling indicated that the proposed treatments and continued understory maintenance would result in an increase in average tree size over time. The average diameter in all stands would increase immediately post-treatment, and as natural regeneration occurs, the average diameter would decrease.

A primary objective of treatments under the Grass Valley project is to restore components of the landscape that were affected in the Grass Valley Fire, as well as improve protection in a future fire event. The computer modeling shows that these objectives would be achieved with minimal cutting of live trees. Primary vegetation treatments will be in shrub-dominated areas, which is difficult to model since the model is a tree-based growth and yield model.

An evaluation of stand exam plots in Level 4 and 4a treatment areas indicates that after treatment, there would be a reduction in the number of trees less than 8”, and that very few trees in the 8-24” size class range would be removed. Within PACs/NSs, the Design Features call for retention of all live trees over ≥9” DBH and ≥16” in HRCs and mapped Suitable habitat. As a result, all trees removed would be in the under 9” in PAC/NSs and under 16” in HRCs and mapped Suitable habitat. Table 23, Table 24, and Table 25 display the expected pre and post treatment change per size class for each type of spotted owl habitat.

Species composition would not change substantially as a result of activities related to initial vegetation management activities. However, over the long-term as a result of natural regeneration, more pine trees would be expected to be recruited, creating species composition and structure that more closely resembles historic pre-suppression norms. Generally speaking in forested areas, treatments would focus on ladder and surface fuels, allowing for the use of prescribed fire as the preferred for long-term vegetation maintenance technique.

Spotted owls often use perch sites 5 – 20’ above the ground in the midstory for foraging. Juvenile spotted owls that are unable to fly well often use low branches to climb from the forest floor back up into the canopy. Retention of low branches in PACs and NSs for perch sites is important during ladder fuel treatments. The Proposed Action includes a Design Feature to retain some perch sites in owl habitat.

Snags: Table 26 displays the current snags/acre (based on stand exam inventories) as well as the modeled snags/acre after treatment. The current snag levels in the project area are directly associated with the Grass Valley fire, and subsequent mortality.

Table 26. Pre- and Post-Treatment Snags/Acre in All Spotted Owl Habitat Types1 Diameter Pre-Treatment Post-Treatment Expected Conditions (See Table 5) 2 Level 1a Treatment 18.0-23.9” DBH 14 2/acre across Level 1a areas 24.0-29.9” DBH 8

30-35.9” DBH 0 ≥36” DBH 0 Totals 22

Page 155

Table 26. Pre- and Post-Treatment Snags/Acre in All Spotted Owl Habitat Types1 Diameter Pre-Treatment Post-Treatment Expected Conditions (See Table 5) 2 Level 4 Treatment 18.0-23.9” DBH 10 A minimum of 40 snags/5 acres of the largest hard snags in Level 4 24.0-29.9” DBH 8 areas.

30-35.9” DBH 0 ≥36” DBH 0 Totals 18 Level 4a Treatment (This Area has Broadcast Burning Included) 18.0-23.9” DBH 20 A minimum of 40 snags/5 acres of the largest hard snags in Level 4a 24.0-29.9” DBH 8 areas. Some additional snags may be created during burning operations; 30-35.9” DBH 0 however Design Features are intended to provide some protection for ≥36” DBH 0 living green trees and snags. Totals 28 1 These are modeled results. Snags values per acre may differ, and would be reduced or increased depending on the desired condition. Snag values are greatly increased in this landscape due to the effects of wildland fire. Snag values that appear in model results are due to the inventory of the current conditions, which shows many snags per acre. Residual snag values post treatment would be commensurate with the stated desired conditions. Model outputs show that there are currently ample snags present on the landscape and treatments have the potential to recruit more large snags. 2 Overtime snags/acre would decrease in number due to natural decay and falling.

The Proposed Action incorporates Design Features for snag retention based on treatment levels. Therefore, only snags in stands with higher snag densities than the desired condition for that treatment level (or those necessary for operation safety) would be cut.

In Treatment Level 1a areas, there are currently 14 snags per acre in the 18 to 23.9” DBH class, 8 snags per acre in the 24’ to 29.9” DBH class, and no snags over 30” DBH (Table 26). Level 1a areas would be treated so that there would be an average 2 snags/acre retained after treatment.

Level 4 areas currently have an average of 10 snags per acre in the 18-23.9” DBH class and 8 snags per acre greater than 24” DBH (Table 26). Level 4 areas would be treated so that there would be an average of 40 snags/5 acres (8 snags/acre) retained after treatment.

The Level 4a area currently has an average of 20 snags per acre in the 18-23.9” DBH class and 8 snags per acre greater than 24” DBH (Table 26). The Level 4a area would be treated so that there would be an average of 40 snags/5 acres (8 snags/acre) retained after treatment. The number of snags/acre after treatment in the 4a area would be expected to increase in all size classes as a result of the prescribed burning that is planned for long-term maintenance of ladder fuels. However, the actual number of snags created during broadcast burning may be reduced by pre-burn treatment (e.g., creating handlines (duff raking) around large diameter trees, treatment of ladder fuels, etc.). The pre-burn preparation in the 4a area would be expected to keep the collateral loss of trees 16+” DBH relatively low.

With the retention of the planned number of large diameter snags, snag habitat for spotted owls (and their prey) would be retained in the project area. Effects to snag habitat quality and quantity Page 156

should be minimal. The Design Features will help ensure retention of the highest quality snags within the project area.

Canopy Cover: Within the entire project area, canopy cover is highly variable, with values ranging from 0 to 100%. See Table 23, Table 24, and Table 25 for a display of canopy conditions within spotted owl habitat types. The canopy cover ranged from 43% in Nest Stands, 49% in PACs, to 50% in HRCs. There are areas with low tree cover and other areas with high vertical and horizontal heterogeneity and multiple canopy layers. The effects of the Grass Valley fire account for the highly variable conditions across the landscape.

Per treatment guidelines and Design Features, all treatment levels in spotted owl habitat would retain the existing canopy cover during mechanical and hand treatment activities. The only proposed activity in spotted owl habitat that would potentially change canopy cover is prescribed fire in the Level 4a area. The Design Features and treatment objectives (Table 5) include measures to protect larger diameter trees (e.g., creating handlines around large diameter trees, treating ladder fuels, etc.) that contribute to the mid and overstory canopy cover.

In summary, these variations in canopy cover in the project area include differences due to site conditions as well as the effects of the Grass Valley fire’s mosaic burn pattern. The computer modeling predicts no changes in post treatment canopy cover in Levels 1a and 4. There would potentially be a reduction of approximately 1% in Level 4a areas as a result of prescribed fire collateral losses of canopy trees. However, the Design Features contain measures to protect large diameter trees that contribute to the canopy in spotted owl habitat; this would help keep the collateral loss of large diameter trees relatively low.

Shrub and Understory Conditions: All treatment levels would focus on removal of small diameter trees as necessary to meet treatment level objectives as stated in the treatment matrix (Table 5). All treatment levels also include shrub treatments to address ladder fuels and to break up fuel continuity. Currently, parts of the project area have dense and abundant shrub cover while other areas have mosaics. In the eastern part of the project area, there are areas of shrub cover that do not pose significant risk to wildland fire behavior (because it is in a sub-shrub form and generally not highly flammable). As such, shrub and understory treatments would vary across the project area.

Where shrub cover treatment is necessary to meet project objectives, the treatment would be patchy and discontinuous, generally around tree boles and under the driplines of trees. The objective is to reduce the potential of crown fire initiation to protect adjacent communities. In Treatment Level 4a where prescribed fire is proposed, the post-burn area would likely have a mosaic of shrubs and small trees in the understory interspersed with burned areas lacking understory cover. The shrub cover component post-treatment would be expected to be between 30 and 50%. This level of change in the shrub and understory layer would not expected to result in significant changes to microclimate conditions important for spotted owls from the current post-fire conditions. The effects of shrub treatments on the prey base were discussed previously.

Underburning: As mentioned previously, prescribed fire would not be used in Nest Stands and PACs. The exception to the exclusion of underburning in Nest Stands would be in the SB050 Page 157

Nest Stand (Level 4a) where the overstory and midstory were substantially removed during the Grass Valley Fire. Underburning to treat ladder fuels and shrub layers is proposed in this area due to the importance on the landscape for changing fire behavior in and out of the community upslope of the treatment area.

While the Design Features have measures to protect collateral effects to important habitat conditions (stand composition and canopy cover) and habitat components (large diameter live and dead trees, woodrat nests, logs, etc.), prescribed fire would likely result in some effects to those habitat features. Effects from underburning to stand composition, snags, canopy cover, and shrub cover are discussed above.

Where prescribed fire is used, it would result in changes to the amount of logs and woody debris on the forest floor. Some trees, especially smaller diameter trees but also larger trees that contributed to the midstory and overstory may be killed by the fire or injured enough that they die shortly after prescribed fire treatments. The Design Features call for pre-burn treatment (e.g., clearing duff and shrubs from the base of large trees, snags, and logs; putting out fire; putting fireline around woodrat nests, etc.) in spotted owl habitat. This would help reduce the undesirable effects to habitat but would probably not provide for complete avoidance of those effects. The effects of the broadcast burning component of the treatments on the prey base were discussed previously.

Habitat Effects by Treatment Level: There are approximately 644 acres of mapped habitat for California spotted owls in the Grass Valley project area (Table 22). a) Untreated Areas: There are nine territories (a territory is considered to be a circle within 1.5 miles of a nest tree) that overlap the project area. Of those nine territories, four have mapped habitat (Nest Stands [NS], PACs, and, HRC) within the project area and treatment of some type is planned for all of them.

Approximately 1091 acres (70% of the spotted owl habitat for those four territories) of the PAC and HRC habitat for those four territories is either outside the project area or would not be treated (Table 21). By habitat type, 74.8% of Nest Stands, 35.4% of PACs, and 0% of HRCs would not be treated in the project area (Table 22).

These untreated areas would provide roosting, nesting, foraging, and movement areas where the habitat has not been altered. Some of those territories were affected during wildfires that occurred after the mapping was done. In some of the mapped habitat where fires or drought- related conifer mortality occurred and overstory canopy was lost or substantially degraded, suitability for nesting/roosting was affected. Untreated areas in suitable habitat would also provide refuge areas free of disturbance when implementation activities occur in spotted owl habitat. b) Level 1: No NS, PAC, HRC, or mapped Suitable habitat is proposed for Level 1 treatment. c) Level 1a: Level 1a treatment areas are shaded fuelbreaks in mapped spotted owl habitat and are located in strategic locations to support evacuations and fire-fighting operations. Level 1a Page 158

treatments would cover approximately 104 acres (15%) of the habitat for all of the spotted owl habitat in the project area (Table 21 and Table 22). There are approximately 8 acres of NS in Level 1a treatment areas (5% of the NS habitat inside the project boundary). There are approximately 87 acres of PAC proposed for Level 1a treatments (14.5% of PAC inside the project boundary). There are 17 acres of HRC proposed for Level 1a treatments (31% of the HRC habitat inside the project boundary).

Level 1a treatments would result in some opening of the stands, reduction in under and mid-story vegetation that contribute to ladder fuels, and removal of logs and snags. There are several Design Features that would help protect owl habitat suitability in Level 1a areas, including retention of larger diameter trees. This shaded fuelbreak type of treatment would result in some changes to important habitat composition and structure by opening the canopy, changing the stand structure, microclimate, shading, moisture levels, and may reduce habitat components (like cover and forage) that may affect prey species.

Level 1a treatments are narrow and linear by design, occurring along roads and property boundaries. Level 1a areas would have minimal logs and ground cover, making those areas lower quality habitat for woodrats and other spotted owl prey species. Level 1a would have 2 snags/acre where snags do not pose a falling hazard to the roads. The openness may also affect microclimates in adjacent spotted owl habitat. The removal of low branches may reduce forage perch site availability.

The Level 1a treatments are roadside and along property lines – both areas already receiving relatively high levels of human disturbance that results a lower habitat quality for spotted owls.

Overall, with the treatment guidelines and Design Features, Treatment Level 1a areas would be expected to retain habitat availability and quality for spotted owls. It may improve foraging opportunities with the SB050 territory by creating openings in areas with very dense and tall shrubs. Because of the narrow linear nature of these treatments, fragmentation of suitable habitat in a way that would adversely affect owls is not expected. See the Proposed Action descriptions (Part I-3.0), Table 5, and the Design Features for details about the Level 1a guidelines. d) Level 3: No NS, PAC, HRC, or mapped Suitable habitat is proposed for Level 3 treatment. e) Level 4: There are 0 acres of Nest Stand in Level 4 treatment areas. There are approximately 272 acres of PAC proposed for Level 4 treatments (45% of PAC inside the project boundary; 22% of the total PAC acres for the 4 territories). There are 38 acres of HRC proposed for Level 4 treatments (69% of the HRC habitat inside the project boundary; 12% of the total HRC acres for the 4 territories). Approximately 19 acres of Suitable habitat is proposed for Level 4 treatments (100% of the mapped Suitable habitat inside the project). Table 21 and Table 22 break down the proposed Level 4 treatments by spotted owl habitat type. See the Proposed Action descriptions (Part I-3.0), Table 5, and the Design Features for details about the Level 4 guidelines.

Level 4 treatments have a number of Design Features that are designed to retain critical spotted owl habitat components and stand structure characteristics, including high canopy closure, multi- Page 159

storied stands, high levels of snags and downed woody material, and large trees. Level 4 is the most conservative prescription designed to retain suitability for nesting/roosting habitat. Because the Level 4 treatments in spotted owl habitat are designed to retain habitat quality in terms of multi-storied stands, tree species diversity (including hardwoods), canopy closure, snags, and downed woody material, this project would be expected to retain current site conditions in terms of suitability for nesting/roosting or foraging. Additionally, a large portion of the PAC and HRC (80%) habitat for the four territories would not be treated. e) Level 4a: There are 29 acres of NS and PAC in Level 4a treatment areas (20% of NS and 5% of PAC inside the project boundary; 12% of the total NS acres and 2% of total PAC acres for the 4 territories). None of the HRC or mapped Suitable Habitat in the project is proposed for Level 4a treatments. The Level 4a treatment was designed specifically for treatment of the SB050 Nest Stand. Most of this territory was within the 2007 Grass Valley Fire. Now ten years after the fire, that area has a lot of 5-6’ tall brush. The best habitat left in that nest stand is outside the treatment area in Grass Valley Creek.

See the Proposed Action descriptions (Part I-3.0), Table 5, and the Design Features for details about the Level 4a guidelines. Those measures would help protect important spotted owl habitat components.

Currently, some of this area is so thick with large and contiguous shrub patches that foraging by spotted owls is unlikely. Under the Level 4a treatment, the existing canopy cover made up of overstory and midstory trees would not be changed; only live trees under 9” DBH would be removed. Broadcast burning may be used to treat the brush fields in that area. This treatment may improve foraging opportunities for spotted owls by opening up the dense shrubby areas.

Habitat Availability: Because the project would not be expected to change habitat suitability for spotted owls, no changes to the amount of habitat available for nesting/roosting or foraging would be expected.

Habitat Effects by Territory There are four spotted owl nest stands mapped within the project area: SB070 (E. Fork W. Fork Mojave River), SB069 (Grass Valley Creek), SB050 (Tunnel Ridge), and SB086 (Twin Peaks).  SB050: About 75% of the mapped habitat for this territory was within the 2007 Grass Valley Fire, including the entire Nest Stand and 80% of the PAC. Now ten years after the fire, most of the best remaining nesting habitat is outside of treatment areas. This territory would be the heaviest treated under the project with 214 (59% of the territory) of the mapped habitat acres within the project area being treated under Level 1a, 4, and 4a. Approximately 41% of the territory occurs in no treatment areas or outside the project area. Treatment of dense brush within the mapped owl habitat may improve foraging opportunities by creating some openings. This territory has not been known to be occupied since 1998 (note: there are some gaps in the survey years). Protocol surveys would be conducted throughout the project and the territory would be assumed to be occupied until enough visits have been made to be sure it is vacant. All applicable spotted owl Design Features would be used to ensure retention of important habitat features and conditions.  SB069: This territory has not been known to be occupied since 1993 (note: there are some gaps in the survey years). Portions of this territory were affected during the 2016 Page 160

Pilot Fire where most of the mapped habitat was low and moderate burn severity areas. Only 53 acres (13% of the territory) of this territory would be treated under the proposed project. No Nest Stand would be treated.  SB070: This territory is fairly consistently occupied and was occupied in 2017. Under the proposed project, approximately 33% of the mapped habitat for the territory would be treated under Level 1a (10%) and Level 4 (23%). None of the Nest Stand would be treated and only 23% of the PAC would be treated.  SB086: This territory is fairly consistently occupied and was occupied in 2017. Under the proposed project, approximately 15% of the mapped habitat for the territory would be treated under Level 1a (2%) and Level 4 (13%). None of the Nest Stand would be treated and only 18% of the PAC would be treated.  Summary of Territory Habitat Effects: As a result of the treatment guidelines (Table 5) and Design Features, the project would not be expected to reduce habitat quality or quantity. As such, the functionality of each of these territories would not be expected to be reduced over existing conditions.

Summary of Potential Effects to Spotted Owls The occupancy of spotted owl territories in the region between Lake Silverwood and the area north of Lake Arrowhead has been very low since the early 2000s. While no studies have been done to identify a cause of the low occupancy rates, habitat quality changes may have been a contributing factor. The drought resulted in a large-scale die-off of the conifer component in that area; this may contributed to the low occupancy rate. Fires in 2003 (Old/Grand Prix), 2007 (Grass Valley), and 2016 (Pilot) further affected habitat suitability for spotted owls in and around the project area. Prey availability may also have been affected by habitat quality changes. The low number of active territories in Miller Canyon/Lake Arrowhead area affects potential recruitment and reoccupancy prospects for the project area.

Spotted owl habitat in the project area was affected during the 2007 Grass Valley Fire, resulting in changes to canopy cover and stand conditions in some of the territories. The habitat mapping was done prior to the fires and has not been redrawn or deemed unsuitable because spotted owls are known to continue to use some burned areas for a period after fire.

None of the territories with mapped habitat in the project area were known to be occupied in 2015 or 2016. Two of the four territories were occupied in 2011 and two were occupied again in 2017. No surveys were conducted in 2012 through 2014. Both SB070 and SB086 area are fairly consistently occupied by a pair (both were vacant 2015-2016 but reoccupied in 2017).

The recent report on the current state of knowledge for California spotted owls (Gutierrez et al. 2017; pg. 64) is very relevant for summarizing research and prevailing thoughts about spotted owls:

 Fuel and forest restoration treatments, including the use of fire, could attempt to balance the short-term impacts of these treatments on habitat quality with the long-term benefits to the ecosystem.  All of the research strongly indicates that large, old trees are important aspects of spotted owl habitat, providing complex vertical structure and canopy layering as well as

Page 161

potential nesting cavities. Although the presence of large trees alone is insufficient for the persistence of spotted owls, restoration treatments that prioritize the retention of large and old trees, even in marginal habitat, can form the foundation for future high- quality habitat where the site potential is adequate.  Conservation efforts would be enhanced by prioritizing areas on the landscape that may enable the protection of spotted owl habitat from stand-replacing fire. This could include the strategic identification of areas targeted for (1) fuel treatments to reduce wildfire risk to occupied forest landscapes and (2) protection objectives during incident management to minimize the impacts of wildfire and fire management operations to critical habitat. To begin this landscape prioritization, there is a need for accurate, landscape-level vegetation maps and a better understanding of the importance of vegetation types (and their patch sizes) to spotted owl occupancy, reproduction, and long-term population persistence and viability. Using accurate vegetation maps to identify important habitat needs to be coupled with our understanding of fire behavior across the landscape. It may be important to incorporate in our forest restoration planning how topography will affect fire behavior and how fire and topography will interact with the vegetation to influence the fire effects in an area. There are tools available (e.g., ArcFuels; http://www.arcfuels.org/) that could act as a place to start for managers to assess wildfire risk and aid in fuels management planning.  Forest restoration treatments may increase the abundance of spotted owl prey by promoting late-seral forest conditions, vegetation heterogeneity, and shrub and oak patches. In addition, managing fires for a mosaic of burn severities (dominated by low- and moderate-severity patches), including contiguous patches of unburned refugia, promotes suitable habitat for diverse small-mammal assemblages including northern flying squirrels, deer mice, and woodrats.  Wildland fires (prescribed fire and wildfire) that burn primarily at low to moderate severity (including unburned patches) likely maintain spotted owl occupancy while increasing resilience of the forest landscape in the long term.

The project treatments are intended to retain important habitat characteristics as described above and throughout this discussion. Retention of important habitat components and characteristics may allow spotted owls from nearby territories may forage or roost in the project area and that they may eventually occupy the vacant territories in and near the project area.

Because treatments in spotted owl habitat are designed to retain habitat quality in terms of multi- storied stands, tree species diversity (including hardwoods), canopy closure, retention of large trees in the mid and overstories, high numbers of snags, and downed woody material and understory for prey, this project would be expected to retain the existing habitat suitability for spotted owls. Because current habitat suitability conditions would be retained and there would not be changes in the configuration on the landscape, fragmentation of the spotted owl habitat across the landscape is not expected.

Design Features also provide measures that would help reduce the level of disturbance to spotted owls if they were found to be using the project area. Careful implementation planning, implementation coordination, protocol surveys to determine occupancy, and a conservative

Page 162

marking/layout approach in the most important owl habitat areas would help ensure that the effects would be as low as feasible while implementing treatments.

Based on the treatment level objectives and Design Features, this project is not expected result in net losses of suitable habitat (by changing suitable habitat to completely unsuitable). Over time, it may result in some improvements to prey availability and foraging opportunities along edges and in currently-dense shrub habitat treatments. Additionally, the amount and types of treatments planned within individual territories would not be expected to reduce the functionality of the territories in the project area.

Longer-term monitoring would be needed to evaluate the effectiveness of treatments at reducing fire severity, the effects of treatments on prey populations (particularly woodrats), and the effects of treatments on maintaining suitability and occupancy of territories. See the Monitoring section of the Proposed Action description (Part I-3.0) for monitoring recommendations.

Cumulative Effects for California Spotted Owls See Part II-3.1.3 for a discussion of current and foreseeable future activities. The cumulative effects analysis area for this species is the San Bernardino mountain range. There are 181 known territories on the SBNF; of those, 149 are in the San Bernardino Mountains (plus 10 in the San Gabriel Mountains and 22 in the San Jacinto Mountains).

There are several fuels reduction projects currently being planned (North Big Bear Fuels Reduction and Santa Ana Fuels Reduction) or implemented (South Big Bear Fuels Reduction and Baldwin Lake Fuels Reduction) in the San Bernardino Mountains in spotted owl habitat. All of these projects have similar Design Features to the Grass Valley project in terms of spotted owl habitat protection. Where shaded fuelbreaks overlap spotted owl habitat, there are some changes to habitat quality (as described above). The treatments similar to Level 4 for this project should ensure protection of habitat components and characteristics and not affect habitat availability on a territory-by-territory or large-scale basis. All of the fuels reduction projects will have the same spotted owl Design Features as this project. Thus, the level of protection of key habitat components and habitat availability, and the effort to minimize disturbance, will be similar.

In the foreseeable future, removal of dead trees that pose a threat to life and property will continue along Forest Service roads, boundaries, and at developed sites (e.g., special use permitted sites, administrative sites, recreation sites, etc.).

Development of private land around the mountain lakes can be expected to continue to affect spotted owl habitat by degrading nesting, roosting, and foraging habitat. Development in the mountain communities and increasing populations in southern California will increase also levels of human disturbance to California spotted owls from public using National Forest lands. Additionally, it may discourage future nesting attempts and/or interfere with nesting success. Increased urbanization typically results in increased uses of public lands for recreation (fishing, skiing, hiking, cycling, off highway vehicle touring, etc.), resulting in increased potential for disturbance in spotted owl habitat.

Page 163

These reasonably foreseeable effects, together with the effects of the Proposed Action, affect a small fraction of the range and habitat of California spotted owls.

Determination of Effects – California Spotted Owl: It is my determination that implementation of the proposed project with the Design Features incorporated would not lead toward a trend in federal listing for California spotted owl.

The Design Features and recommendations are critical to the avoidance of significant effects to this species and preventing a trend toward federal listing as threatened or endangered. Because of the dramatic decline of the SBNF population (as described in the Species Account in USFS 2011), the viability of the southern California population appears to be at risk. However, this particular project as planned is not expected to result in any changes to territory viability.

Management Direction: In addition to the Sensitive species direction described previously and the Forest Plan direction described in Part I-2.0, there are several management guidance documents that include direction for California spotted owls. An explanation of how the Grass Valley project would be consistent with each direction point follows each item in italics.  Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines (Forest Plan EIS, Part 3, Pg. 7): S19: Protect all spotted owl territories identified in the Statewide California Department of Fish and Game database (numbered owl sites) and new sites that meet the state criteria by maintaining or enhancing habitat conditions over the long-term to the greatest extent practicable while protecting life and property. GVL: All SBNF spotted owl sites are numbered and in the CDFW database. Protection measures are included in project Design Features and were included during the development of treatment level objectives (see Table 5 and the Proposed Action description and Design Features in Part 1-3.0).

Use management guidelines in the species conservation strategy (or subsequent species guidance document; see Appendix H [references the CASPO Strategy for S. California Province]) to further evaluate protection needs for projects, uses and activities. GVL: See below for Forest Plan Appendix H compliance.

S20: Maintain a limited operating period (LOP) prohibiting activities within approximately .25 miles of a California spotted owl nest site, or activity center where nest site is unknown, during the breeding season (February 1 through August 15), unless surveys confirm that the owls are not nesting. Follow the USDA Forest Service (1993, 1994 or subsequent) protocol to determine whether owls are nesting. The LOP does not apply to existing road and trail use and maintenance, use of existing developed recreation sites, or existing special-uses, such as recreation residence tracts. When evaluating the need to implement a limited operating period, site- and project-specific factors need to be considered (use species management strategy or subsequent guidance; see Appendix H). GVL: Design Feature #4 under General-Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Species

S21: California spotted owl habitat that is lost to development for a compelling reason should be mitigated up to a two-to-one basis considering quality of habitat lost, number of territories affected, reproductive history of pair(s) displaced, location, and related factors. Development includes ski area creation or expansion, new roads or trails, special- Page 164

use sites and corridors, new recreation or administrative facilities, land exchanges, etc. Mitigation land should be sought first within the mountain range where the impacts occur; if this is not possible, mitigation land should be acquired within the San Gabriel or San Bernardino Mountains. GVL: Not applicable.

Species Guidance Summary (Forest Plan EIS, Part 3, Appendix H, pg. 71): When planning projects or managing ongoing activities in areas that contain habitat for species of concern (including threatened, endangered, proposed, candidate, and sensitive species and other species identified by biologists as being in danger of population decline or habitat loss) use the information found in various types of species guidance documents to develop project-specific design criteria. Species guidance documents include (as of December 2004): Species conservation strategies, prepared by or for USDA Forest Service: California spotted owl.

California Spotted Owl Conservation Strategy for Southern California: The current direction for managing California spotted owls on the SBNF is contained in the Conservation Strategy for California Spotted Owls (US Forest Service 2004), as incorporated by reference in the SBNF Forest Plan (US Forest Service 2006).

The Conservation Strategy included the following management direction. An explanation of how this project would be consistent with the direction follows each item in italics.  Identification and mapping protection of California spotted owl habitat. GVL: Done on a Forestwide level.  Maintain a limited operating period (LOP) prohibiting activities within approximately ¼ mile of the nest site, or activity center where nest site is unknown, during the breeding season (February 1 through August 15), unless surveys confirm that California spotted owls are not nesting. Follow the USDA Forest Service (1993, 1994) protocol to determine whether owls are nesting. The LOP does not apply to existing road and trail use and maintenance, use of existing developed recreation sites, or existing special uses, such as recreation residence tracts. GVL: Design Feature #4 under General-Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Species

 Limit fuels treatments within PACs to no more than 5 percent of the PAC acreage in a given mountain range per year and 25 percent of the mountain range PAC acreage per decade. Monitor spotted owl occupancy and productivity where vegetation and fuels management are taking place to see if protection measures are working and to help assess whether spotted owls are affected adversely or beneficially by changes in stand structure. Consider monitoring untreated sites as well to determine general population trends for comparison. Monitor as soon as projects are planned and continue for a minimum of two years after treatment. GVL: For the last decade (2008 through 2017), the SBNF has treated a total of 10.6% of the PAC habitat in the San Bernardino Mountains. During the same time period, no more than 5% of the PAC habitat has been treated in any given year. Consistency with the 5% guideline would be met by managing the timing of the contract and in-house work during implementation. Appendix E contains the Page 165

analysis of compliance with this guideline.  Adhere to regional direction for annosus root disease prevention when conducting fuels treatment projects. GVL: Included in Design Features – Root Disease Transmission #1.  Vegetation treatments in PACs and HRCs should be designed with the primary goal of improving spotted owl habitat. GVL: Design Features #1- 9 under Vegetation Treatment Designs in Spotted Owl Habitat; Table 5, the Proposed Action description in Part 1-3.0.  Summary of Specific Guidelines for Treatments (Table 2 from CASPO Strategy, pp. 23-24) within 1500’ from private land/developed areas. A-1. Within PACs, strive to limit the width of the defense zone/fuelbreak to 300 ft unless absolutely necessary to provide an adequate defensible space. If necessary, compensate for using the narrow width by treating more heavily outside the PAC. GVL: All Level 1a treatments that overlap PAC are 300’ or less. Level 1a has a portion of shaded fuelbreak that is more than 300’ wide where Forest Road 2N34 has a hairpin switchback. The shaded fuelbreak is buffered 300’ on each side of that road. Because of the switchback, the shaded fuelbreak configuration is wider. The PAC was mapped prior to the 2007 Grass Valley fire; much of it is no longer suitable for nesting/foraging. The Level 1a objectives (Table 5) and Design Features (Design Features #3 under Vegetation Treatment Designs in Spotted Owl Habitat) would ensure protection of important habitat components (e.g., canopy closure and logs) in the fuelbreak strip. A-2. In PACs and HRCs, treat forest stands to meet fuels management objectives to protect life and property. Remove grass, shrubs, small trees and ladder fuels to distances specified by standards for defense zones, while reducing forest canopies to no less than 40 percent live crown cover if available. GVL: The existing canopy cover would be retained where the project overlaps with spotted owl PACs, HRCs, and mapped Suitable Habitat (Level 1a, Level 4, and Level 4a)(Table 5). A-3. Within ¼ mile of nest or activity center, conduct fuels treatments outside of the nesting season unless the territory is unoccupied. GVL: Design Feature #4 under General-Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Species A-4. Where PACs and HRCs intersect a defense zone or fuelbreak, mitigate by remapping the PAC to add an equal acreage of suitable nesting and roosting habitat (if available) outside of the defense zone/fuelbreak. GVL: No additional suitable habitat is available to be mapped as PAC. The intention of Treatment Level 1a is to retain habitat suitability for spotted owls (see discussions above under habitat effects for spotted owls). A-5. Within PACs and HRCs, retain the largest trees within the treatment area, including all live trees greater than 24 inches DBH unless they are at unnaturally high densities. Exceptions allowed for operability. GVL: Within PACs and Nest Stands, all live trees ≥9” would be retained. Within HRCs and mapped Suitable Habitat, all live trees ≥16”would be retained. (Table 5, Treatment Level descriptions in the Proposed Action, and Design Features #3, 4, 6, 7, and 8 under Vegetation Treatment Page 166

Designs in Spotted Owl Habitat). A-6. Try to avoid treatments within the Nest Stand. Exceptions would include sites where fuels within the Nest Stand pose an unmitigatable threat to the defense zone or fuelbreak. In those cases, the treatment for the Nest Stand would be developed in a coordinated effort between a silviculturist, biologist, and fuels specialist. GVL: There are four nest stands that overlap the project area. No treatments would occur in SB086 and SB069. Approximately 2 acres of SB070 Nest Stand would be treated lightly as part of a roadside Level 1a treatment; existing canopy would be retained while ladder fuels would be treated. As such, the Level 1a treatment in SB070 would not be expected to affect habitat suitability. SB050 would have approximately 6 acres of Nest Stand in the Level 1a roadside fuelbreak treatment in the 2N34 hairpin switchback and 29 acres in a Level 4a treatment. This area is a critical strategic location due to proximity to homes (~600’ away). Again, the Level 1a and Level 4a objectives and Design Features would ensure retention of important habitat conditions and not substantially alter the habitat suitability (Proposed Action description for Level 1a and 4a, Table 5, and Design Features #3, 5, and 6 under Vegetation Treatment Designs in Spotted Owl Habitat). A-7. Where treatments in Nest Stands cannot be avoided, 1) avoid habitat disturbance within 200 ft of the nest tree; but 2) conduct limited ladder fuel treatment within the 200 ft zone around nest trees if the biologist and fuels specialist determine that it would be beneficial, including hand line construction, tree pruning, and cutting small trees; 3) if necessary, treat more heavily outside the nest stand to compensate for protecting the nest tree; and 4) tree felling outside the 200 ft zone should be done directionally away from the nest tree and the 200 ft zone. GVL: Design Features #3, 5, and 6 under Vegetation Treatment Designs in Spotted Owl Habitat. A-8. Within the 0 to 300 ft treatment zone, no standing dead trees or downed logs will be left unless they can be left without threatening the fuels reduction objectives. Between 300 ft and the limit of the defense zone (maximum of 1500 ft), strive to retain at least 5–10 snags per 5 acres and 6 logs per acre. GVL: A minimum of 4 logs/acre would be left in Level 1a areas (the ~300’ buffer on roads and private land shaded fuelbreak) with most of those farther than 50’ from the road or private land. In Level 1a areas, a minimum of 2 snags/acre would be retained (as long as they are not falling hazards to the road/private land) (Table 5 for Level 1a and Design Features #3 under Vegetation Treatment Designs in Spotted Owl Habitat). A-9. Retain all woodrat nests in PACs and HCRs in the zone between 300 ft and the limit of the defense zone/fuelbreak. Retain woodrat nests within the 0-300 ft zone where they do not threaten the integrity of the fuelbreak or defense zone. GVL: Design Feature #1 under Vegetation Treatment Designs in Spotted Owl Habitat and Treatment Level descriptions in the Page 167

Proposed Action call for retaining woodrat nests except where they threatened the integrity of the fuelbreak.  Summary of Specific Guidelines for Treatments (Table 2 from CASPO Strategy, pp. 23-24) 300’ to 1.5 miles from private land/developed areas. B-1. Within PACs, retain existing overstory and midstory canopy cover except where reduction is needed to bring fire to the ground in support of defense zone. GVL: Existing overstory and midstory canopy cover would be retained in spotted owl habitat (Level 1a, Level 4, Level 4a) (Table 5, Design Features #3, 6, 7, and 8 under Vegetation Treatment Designs in Spotted Owl Habitat, and Treatment Level descriptions in the Proposed Action). B-2. Within HRCs meet fuel loading goals while retaining a minimum of 50 percent canopy cover except where 1) reduction is needed to bring fire to the ground in support of the defense zone or central zone of fuelbreak; or 2) the canopy has been drastically altered by concentrations of dead trees, and removal of dead trees would reduce the canopy closure below 50 percent. GVL: Existing overstory and midstory canopy cover would be retained in spotted owl habitat (Level 1a, Level 4, Level 4a) (Table 5, Design Features #3, 6, 7, and 8 under Vegetation Treatment Designs in Spotted Owl Habitat, and Treatment Level descriptions in the Proposed Action; also see Table 23, Table 24, Table 25 and associated discussions). B-3. Retain the largest trees within PACs and HRCs, including all live trees greater than 24 inches DBH unless they are at unnaturally high densities. Exceptions allowed for operability. GVL: Same as A-5 B-4. Avoid treatments within the Nest Stand. GVL: Same as A-6. B-5. Within PACs and HRCs, retain at least 9 down logs per acre of the largest logs available. GVL: In PACs and HRCs, 9 logs/acre would be retained in Level 4 and all logs would be retained in Level 4a. Level 1a areas would be shaded fuelbreaks along roads/private land and would have minimum of 4 logs/acre retained to provide some prey habitat while also reducing fuels in important areas (fire-fighting, evacuation, etc.). B-6. Within PACs and HRCs, retain 4 to 8 of the largest snags available per acre, or at least 20 ft2 basal area per acre of snags greater than 15 inches DBH and 20 feet tall. GVL: Level 4 would retain a minimum of 40 snags/5 acres and Level 4a would retain all snags over 9” DBH. Level 1a areas would be shaded fuelbreaks along roads/private land and would have 2 snags/acre if the integrity of the fuelbreak would not be threatened (Table 5, Design Features #3, 4, 7, and 8 under Vegetation Treatment Designs in Spotted Owl Habitat, and Level 1a, 4, and 4a descriptions in the Proposed Action). B-7. When conducting mechanical fuels treatments, retain woodrat nests in PACs and HCRs. GVL: Same as A-9.

Summary for Management Direction: Through the project design, treatment prescriptions, the Design Features incorporated into the project, the proposed action would be consistent with the current management direction. Page 168

IV-1.3.10 – Willow Flycatcher (Migrant) (Empidonax traillii) Migrant willow flycatchers (Empidonax traillii) are a Forest Service Sensitive species. This includes three different subspecies (E. t. brewsteri, E. t. adastus, and E. t. extimus) that may occur in the San Bernardino Mountains during migration. E. t. extimus (southwestern willow flycatcher) is federally-listed as endangered.

E. t. brewsteri (little willow flycatcher) breeds in California from Tulare County north, along the western side of the Sierra Nevada and Cascades, extending to the coast in northern California. The little willow flycatcher is a Forest Service Sensitive species (Craig and Williams 1998).

E. t. adastus breeds in California east of the Sierra/Cascade axis, from the Oregon border into Modoc County and possibly into northern Inyo County. There is a lack of information for this subspecies in California (Craig and Williams 1998). These two subspecies are CDFW Endangered species and USFWS Bird of Conservation Concern.

E. t. extimus (southwestern willow flycatcher) is federally-listed as Endangered. It breeds in California from the Mexican border north to Independence in the Owens Valley, the South Fork Kern River, and the Santa Ynez River in Santa Barbara County. The southwestern willow flycatcher subspecies is a federally-listed species and addressed in Part III of this document.

Management Direction: See the Sensitive species direction described previously and the Forest Plan direction described in Part I-2.0.

Life History and Baseline Information: The willow flycatcher is a riparian-obligate species. This species occurs primarily in densely vegetated riparian habitats, preferring streamside associations of cottonwood (Populus spp.), willow (Salix spp.), alder (Alnus spp.), and other riparian vegetation. Willow flycatchers also occur in woodland edges, meadows, and brushy fields.

Willow flycatchers are insectivores that forage on aerial insects by sallying out from exposed perches and capturing them on the wing; they also glean insects from riparian vegetation. All subspecies of willow flycatcher are Neotropical migrants that winter in Mexico, Central America, and South America.

Habitat for migrant willow flycatchers is being affected by development and encroachment throughout southern California. Throughout southern California, another ongoing effect to this species is from encroachment into the riparian zones by recreationists using the area for off-road vehicle use, enjoying nature, cooling off in the water, mountain biking, dog walking, etc. This type of encroachment can be expected to disturb migrant birds, possibly causing displacement, degraded habitat, and individual mortality. It is also likely that desert-influence springs and riparian zones that once supported important stop-over habitat for migrant willow flycatcher habitat has been degraded or lost through water diversions and development. (Source: Forest Plan Species Account. USFS 2005b)

Page 169

Occurrence in the Analysis Area – Migrant Willow Flycatcher: Migrant willow flycatchers have been recorded from E. Fork W. Fork Mojave River. However, no suitable habitat for this species is present in the project area. See the discussion for southwestern willow flycatchers (Part III-3.3.5 southwestern willow flycatcher habitat is the same as migrant willow flycatchers.

Potential Effects to Willow Flycatcher (Migrant): No effects to migrant willow flycatchers or its habitat would be expected. See the discussion for southwestern willow flycatchers (Part III-3.3.5

Cumulative Effects for Migrant Willow Flycatcher: Since no effects to migrant willow flycatchers or its habitat would be expected, the project would not contribute to the cumulative effects for this species. See the discussion for southwestern willow flycatchers (Part III-3.3.5

Determination of Effects – Migrant Willow Flycatcher: It is my determination that implementation of the proposed project would not affect migrant willow flycatchers. The project would not be expected to interfere with maintaining viable well-distributed populations of migrant willow flycatchers.

IV-1.3.6 Fringed Myotis (Myotis thysanodes) Fringed myotis is a Forest Service Sensitive species, a BLM Sensitive species, a Western Bat Working Group “high priority” species (indicating that it is imperiled or at high risk of imperilment).

Management Direction: See the Sensitive species direction described previously and the Forest Plan direction described in Part I-2.0.

Life History and Baseline Information - Fringed Myotis: The fringed myotis occupies a wide variety of habitats from low desert scrub to high-elevation coniferous forests. In California, the species occurs in mixed deciduous/coniferous forests, redwood and giant sequoia groves, and Joshua tree woodlands. Roost sites are essential for metabolic economy, for juvenile growth and as night roosts to consume prey. The fringed myotis roosts in crevices in a variety of situations such as caves, buildings, mineshafts, cliff faces, trees, and bridges for maternity and night roosts. Hibernation has only been documented in buildings and mines.

In the Laguna Mountains of San Diego County, a radio-telemetry study provided a means to locate hidden roosting bats. Five roosting fringed myotis were discovered along the eastern escarpment in separate rock crevices on inaccessible cliff faces. One post-lactating female roosted in a south-facing cliff face in chaparral and was located 7.9 miles away from the capture site.

Mating occurs during autumn, but ovulation, fertilization, and implantation take place from April to May. Females give birth to one young per year in May, June, or early July. Maternity colonies are typically small (fewer than 40 females), but may contain up to several hundred individuals. Due to thermoregulatory requirements, maternity colonies may shift locations within a roost. Page 170

Fringed myotis are year-round residents of California, where they hibernate but are also capable of periodic winter activity. Excluding periods of hibernation, individual bats emerge from the roost to forage approximately 1-2 hours after sunset. There may be some level of activity throughout the night. Fringed myotis feeds on a variety of insect prey, including small beetles and moths. The species may forage in and among vegetation along forest edges and over the forest canopy.

Very few records exist in California and the limited data available suggest serious population declines. Not only have historic maternity colonies disappeared, but those remaining appear to contain significantly fewer animals. In general, declines of bat populations can often be attributed to roost site disturbance, loss of foraging habitat and loss of roost sites. Many bats are shy and highly vulnerable to disturbances at roost sites. Disturbance at roost sites can lead to short and long term abandonment. Roost sites are lost as abandoned mines collapse or are destroyed to provide for human safety.

Generally, bats have high site fidelity to winter and maternity roosts. Low reproductive potential, high longevity and high roost fidelity make populations highly sensitive to roost threats. Local extirpation may possibly occur as a result of roost disturbance. Disturbance that arouses a bat during their winter hibernation will cause loss of accumulated fat reserves and possible starvation. Loss of roost sites reduces the distribution and often the number of bats to fewer sites. This makes remaining populations even more susceptible to potential impacts and greater loss of individuals or populations at the local or regional level.

Bats often utilize a variety of habitats for foraging but tend to prefer those that are more open or are along edges. These conditions allow for more flight mobility and a broader prey base. Foraging habitat has been lost to urbanization and agriculture. This is particularly pronounced in riparian areas, valleys, oak woodland foothills, and coastal basins where there are concentrated areas of homes, businesses and agriculture. Livestock grazing may also eliminate forage and cover for insects. As a result, insect productivity may be reduced. Pesticide use may pose a threat to bats. Bats that primarily consume insects may be exposed to home and agricultural pesticides. Pesticides and other chemicals may accumulate within predators and lead to sickness or death. Fringed myotis are very sensitive to human disturbance at roost sites. (Source: Forest Plan Species Account. USFS 2005b)

Occurrence in the Analysis Area – Fringed Myotis: There are no records for fringed myotis in or near the project area. However, surveys have been limited. This species roosts in crevices in caves, buildings, mines, cliffs, and bridges. Hibernation is only known from buildings and mines. Fringed myotis may occasionally use trees in the project area for diurnal roosts; hibernation and maternity activities are unlikely to the lack of preferred habitat. This species may occasionally forage in the project area.

Potential Effects to Fringed Myotis Foraging Habitat: Suitable foraging habitat exists for fringed myotis. In general, bats forage on insects in or above riparian areas, open areas, and on vegetation directly by gleaning. Because of established RCAs and no treatment areas throughout the project, changes to availability of Page 171

suitable foraging habitat would not be expected.

Roost, Hibernation, and Maternity Sites: This species is known to use trees for diurnal roosts. There would be some changes to habitat availability as a result of removal of dead trees. Level 1 treatment areas would be devoid of snags after treatment. Level 1a areas would have a minimum number of snags/acre. Level 3 and 4 snags would retain large snags. Because the Design Features call for retention of large diameter snags (except in narrow Level 1 areas), roost sites would still be available for this species. Large-diameter trees with visible cavities would be protected. Hibernating and maternity activities are not expected to occur in the project area.

Death and Injury: Mortality of bats roosting in tree snags/cavities could occur if they do not fly prior to felling of the tree. Since trees are not a preferred roost site for this species, the likelihood of death/injury is considered very low.

Summary of Effects: There would be effects to roost habitat availability and quality as a result of the removal of dead and live trees. Effects to foraging habitat quality and availability would not be expected. Some disturbance of roosting fringed bats is considered unlikely due to lack of preferred roost sites; disturbance of foraging bats would not occur because of the prohibition of night-time operations. Most of the Grass Valley project area is expected to remain suitable for foraging due to Design Features and because the layout of the shaded fuelbreaks is not expected to result in habitat fragmentation. The Design Features would help reduce the level of effects to habitat and to individual bats.

Cumulative Effects for Fringed Myotis: The analysis area for cumulative effects is the San Bernardino Mountains. See Part II-3.1.3 for a discussion of current and foreseeable future activities. Riparian habitat, on and off-NFS lands, has been dramatically affected in California due to development, water extractions/diversions/ impoundment, drought, grazing, and recreational use.

Fuels reduction projects on the Mountaintop District that have been approved and are being implemented include South Big Bear and Baldwin. The North Big Bear and Santa Ana fuels reduction projects are still in the planning process but could be approved and implemented if funding is available. All of these projects have treatment prescriptions and Design Features similar to this proposed project. The effects of those projects are expected to be similar to those described for this project.

In addition to the SBNF, SCE, and Caltrans are conducting various stand treatment activities (e.g., hazard tree felling, thinning, fuels reduction, etc.). While treatments on NFS lands provide for retention of snags for outside of fuelbreaks, the same may not be true for non-NFS lands. All of these current and future projects have some potential to result in losses of individuals and some degradation of habitat quality where large snags are removed to provide for safety.

There are several limestone mining projects on the North Slope that have been proposed (Omya’s Butterfield-Sentinel and White Knob quarries, Mitsubishi’s South quarry) or approved but not currently implemented projects (Mitsubishi’s West quarry) would result in losses of habitat for this species in their project areas. These mining activities may result in disturbance to Page 172

this species over the life of the operations. All of these projects include mitigation through relinquishment of claims; this would result in protection of suitable foraging and roost habitat for fringed myotis from future mining on those parcels.

This proposed project may add to the reasonably foreseeable effects to this species in the San Bernardino Mountains.

Determination of Effects – Fringed Myotis: It is my determination that the proposed project may affect individuals, but is not likely to result in a trend toward federal listing of the fringed myotis. The project is not expected to interfere with maintaining viable well-distributed populations of this species.

The project would be consistent with applicable management direction for Sensitive species.

IV-1.3.7 Townsend’s Big-Eared Bat (Corynorhinus townsendii) Townsend’s big-eared bat is a Forest Service Sensitive species, a CDFW Candidate species, a BLM Sensitive species, and a Western Bat Working Group “high priority” species (indicating that it is imperiled or at high risk of imperilment). In June 2013, CDFW passed a motion to designate this species as a Candidate for Threatened/Endangered species status but a formal Notice of Finding has yet to be posted (https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx? DocumentID=109406&inline dated July 2016). It was formerly a CDFW Species of Special Concern.

Management Direction: See the Sensitive species direction described previously and the Forest Plan direction described in Part I-2.0.

Life History and Baseline Information: The distribution of this species is strongly correlated with the availability of suitable caves and cave analogs (mines, rock shelters, tunnels, building) for roosting. Population centers occur in areas dominated by exposed, cavity forming rock and/or historic mining areas. Abandoned mine adits and shafts are particularly important as roost sites in areas where there are not suitable caves. A high degree of site fidelity has been noted for this species.

Townsend's big-eared bat can be found in a variety of habitats throughout California, from the moist coastal redwoods to the mid-elevation mixed conifers to the dry deserts, but are most commonly associated with desert scrub, mixed conifer, pinyon-juniper, and pine forest. Within these communities, these bats are most commonly associated with limestone caves, mine adits/shafts, lava tubes, buildings and tunnels. During hibernation, Townsend's big-eared bats typically prefer habitats with relatively cold (but above freezing) temperatures in quiet, undisturbed places. These areas are often in the more interior, thermally stable portions of caves and mine adits/shafts. During spring and summer, females establish maternity colonies in the warm parts of caves, mine adits/shafts, and buildings.

Female Townsend's big-eared bats form maternity colonies in early spring, usually returning to the same site every year. They give birth to a single offspring in late spring or early summer. Townsend's big-eared bat is a year-round resident in California and does not migrate. Page 173

Townsend's big-eared bats emerge from the roost approximately 45 minutes after sunset and are thought to have two peak activity periods during the night. Townsend's big-eared bat feeds primarily on small moths, but also takes other insects including flies, lacewings, dung beetles, and sawflies. This bat flies slowly and is highly maneuverable, foraging both above and within forest canopies.

Drastic population declines have occurred in Townsend's big-eared bat in California throughout the last 40–60 years. These declines include a 52% loss in the number of maternity colonies, a 44% decline in the number of roosts, a 55% decline in the number of bats, and a 32% decline in the average size of remaining colonies. The status of particular populations is correlated with amount of disturbance to or loss of suitable roosting sites. In general, declines of bat populations can often be attributed to roost site disturbance, loss of foraging habitat and loss of roost sites. Many bats are shy and highly vulnerable to disturbances at roost sites. Disturbance at roost sites can lead to short and long term abandonment. Roost sites are lost as abandoned mine adits/shafts collapse or are destroyed to provide for human safety.

Generally, bats have high site fidelity to winter and maternity roosts. Low reproductive potential, high longevity and high roost fidelity make populations highly sensitive to roost threats. Local extirpation may possibly occur as a result of roost disturbance. Disturbance that arouses a bat during their winter hibernation will cause loss of accumulated fat reserves and possible starvation.

Loss of roost sites reduces the distribution and often the number of bats to fewer sites. This makes remaining populations even more susceptible to potential impacts and greater loss of individuals or populations at the local or regional level. The availability of roost sites provided by tree and shrub bark or foliage has been reduced by timber harvest and urbanization. Dam construction and water impoundments for water storage and flood control have resulted in losses of roosting habitat in rocky canyons.

Bats often utilize a variety of habitats for foraging but tend to prefer those that are more open or are along edges. These conditions allow for more flight mobility and a broader prey base. Foraging habitat has been lost to urbanization and agriculture. This is particularly pronounced in riparian areas, valleys, oak woodland foothills, and coastal basins where there are concentrated areas of homes, businesses and agriculture. Livestock grazing may also eliminate forage and cover for insects. As a result, insect productivity may be reduced. Pesticide use may pose a threat to bats. Bats that primarily consume insects may be exposed to home and agricultural pesticides. Pesticides and other chemicals may accumulate within predators and lead to sickness or death. Activities on NFS lands that could have effects on bats include rock climbing, livestock grazing, vegetation treatments and water extraction that would lead to the loss of a water source or riparian habitat. (Source: Forest Plan Species Account. USFS 2005b)

Occurrence in the Analysis Area - Townsend’s Big-Eared Bat: Townsend’s big-eared bats are not currently known from the project area. Their favored roost sites, cave-anologs like mine adits/shafts, are not known to be present in the project area. The closest adits on the SBNF’s database of mine adits/shafts does not show any within 10 miles of the project area. Townsend’s big-eared bats are known to sometimes roost in large hollow trees. Townsend’s big-eared bats Page 174

are relatively sedentary species, making short movements to hibernation sites. In one study of tagged bats, the longest movement was 20 miles (Source: https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/ FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=2347&inline=1).

Due to the lack of good roost or hibernation sites, it is unlikely that Townsend’s big-eared bats regularly use the project area. They may infrequently use the analysis area for foraging and may occasionally roost in trees.

Potential Effects to Townsend’s Big-Eared Bat Foraging Habitat: Suitable foraging habitat exists for Townsend’s big-eared bat. Because of established RCAs and no treatment areas throughout the project, bat foraging habitat should remain intact.

Roost and Maternity Sites: This species prefers caves and cave analogs (mine adits/shafts) for roost, maternity, and hibernating sites. Caves and mine shafts are not known within the project area so this type of habitat would not be affected. Townsend’s big-eared bats occasionally use tree cavities for diurnal roost sites. There would be some changes to tree roost site availability as a result of removal of dead trees. Level 1 treatment areas would be devoid of snags after treatment. Level 1a areas would have a minimal number of snags/acre. Level 3 and 4 snags would retain large snags. Because the Design Features call for retention of large diameter snags (except in narrow Level 1 areas), roost sites would still be available for this species. Large- diameter trees with visible cavities would be protected.

Death and Injury: Mortality of bats roosting in tree snags/cavities could occur if they do not fly prior to felling of the tree. Since trees are not a preferred roost site for this species, the likelihood of death/injury is considered very low.

Summary of Effects: There would some changes to tree roost habitat availability and quality as a result of the removal of dead and live trees. However, the Design Features and treatment prescriptions (Table 5) would ensure that there would still be a lot of large snags within the project area. Effects to roost and foraging habitat quality and availability would not be expected. Some disturbance of diurnally-roosting bats may occur if they are present; disturbance of foraging bats would not occur because of the prohibition of night-time operations. All of the Grass Valley project area is expected to remain suitable for foraging for due to Design Features.

Cumulative Effects for Townsend’s Big-Eared Bat: The potential cumulative effects are similar to those described above for fringed myotis.

Determination of Effects – Townsend’s Big-Eared Bat: It is my determination that the proposed action may affect individuals, but is not likely to result in a trend toward federal listing of the Townsend’s big-eared bat. The project is not expected to interfere with maintaining viable well- distributed populations of this species.

The project would be consistent with applicable management direction for Sensitive species.

Page 175

IV-1.3.8 Pallid Bat (Antrozous pallidus) The pallid bat is a Forest Service Sensitive species, a CDFW Species of Special Concern, a BLM Sensitive species, and a Western Bat Working Group “high priority” species (indicating that it is imperiled or at high risk of imperilment).

Management Direction: See the Sensitive species direction described previously and the Forest Plan direction described in Part I-2.0.

Life History and Baseline Information: Pallid bats are found in a variety of habitats, including rocky canyons, open farmland, scattered desert scrub, grassland, shrubland, woodland, and mixed conifer forest. Pallid bats appear to be more prevalent within edges, open stands, particularly hardwoods, and open areas without trees. Pallid bats roost in rock crevices, mines, caves, tree hollows, and a variety of anthropogenic structures. Pallid bats frequently use buildings, bridges and culverts in California.

Pallid bats mate late October-February, but fertilization is delayed until April–June. Maternity colonies form in early April and may contain from 12 to 100 individuals. Maternity colonies form in rock crevices, buildings and in other man-made structures such as mine tunnels. In the southwestern United States, young are born May–June.

In the western United States, this species is thought to overwinter in the general vicinity of its summer range. The pallid bat is a year-round resident in California. Time of emergence from roost sites varies seasonally but typically occurs 30–60 minutes after sunset. Foraging is concentrated in two periods: 90-190 minutes after sunset and shortly before dawn.

Pallid bats primarily glean prey from the ground or surfaces of vegetation, but have also been observed to take prey in flight. Prey items include large insects such as scorpions, crickets, praying mantids, and moths. Pallid bat may hover or glide momentarily while foraging.

Declines were observed in the 1970s in Los Angeles, Orange, and San Diego Counties. At that time, only one of 12 roost sites documented in the 1940s were still occupied. These declines were attributed to 1) destruction of buildings, 2) eradication of bats roosting in public buildings in response to public health concerns, and 3) urban expansion (Forest Plan Species Account. USFS 2005b). The threats to pallid bats are similar to those discussed above for Townsend’s big-eared bats.

Occurrence in the Analysis Area - Pallid Bat: Pallid bats have not been detected in the project area. However, due to the presence of suitable habitat and falling within the known distribution, pallid bats may forage and roost in the project area.

Potential Effects for Pallid Bat: Pallid bats are known to use trees (live trees, cavities, and under loose bark) for night roosts, day roosts, and maternity roosts but not for hibernation sites (http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/00027/paba.pdf). The potential effects are similar to those described above for fringed myotis. In addition to the effects described above, there would the additional risk of death/injury of individual bats in tree roosts during the felling of trees. Since pallid bats are known to have maternity roosts in trees, young-of-the-year incapable of flying Page 176

may be killed or injured if present during tree felling. Adults may be able to escape prior to felling.

Cumulative Effects for Pallid Bat: The potential cumulative effects are similar to those described above for fringed myotis.

Determination of Effects –Pallid Bat: It is my determination that the proposed project may affect individuals, but are not likely to result in a trend toward Federal listing of the pallid bat. The project is not expected to interfere with maintaining viable well-distributed populations of this species.

The project would be consistent with applicable management direction for Sensitive species.

IV-1.3.12 – San Bernardino Flying Squirrel (Glaucomys sabrinus californicus) The San Bernardino flying squirrel is a Forest Service Sensitive species. In August 2010 a petition to list this species as threatened/endangered was submitted to USFWS. In April 2016, USFWS determined that listing was not warranted.

In June 2017, a study evaluated the genetics of northern flying squirrels (Glaucomys sabrinus) and southern flying squirrels (Glaucomys volans). They found that the Oregon and California northern flying squirrels were genetically different from the “continental” northern flying squirrel lineage and they apparently do not hybridize. As such, a species split was recommended with the nomenclature for Oregon and California population (including the San Bernardino flying squirrel) changing to Humboldt’s flying squirrel (Glaucomys oregonensis). The study also found that subspecific taxa, including the San Bernardino flying squirrel, warranted recognition, but deferred making the new name combinations to future publications (Arbogast et al. 2017). Until the new split and nomenclature have been officially accepted, the name San Bernardino flying squirrel will continue to be used.

Management Direction: See the Sensitive species direction described previously and the Forest Plan direction described in Part I-2.0.

The Proposed Action has specific Design Features applicable for flying squirrels (in addition to guidelines for snag and log retention): 172. In all forest vegetation types, retention trees (including dead and live trees) will be left in groups of a minimum of 3 trees per group with a minimum of 3 groups/acre. Groups will be spread out randomly across the project area. A wildlife biologist will help guide the implementation of this action. 173. In Level 4 and 4a areas, logs will be left or placed between the clumps to provide “runways” and cover for flying squirrels to move between trees. Logs will be a minimum of 12” diameter and 20’ long. This measure will be implemented in Level 1 and 1a areas where it does not conflict with the fuels management. A wildlife biologist will help guide the implementation of this action.

Life History and Baseline Information: The San Bernardino Mountains support a disjunct, isolated population of northern flying squirrels. The San Bernardino flying squirrel is separated Page 177

from the closest populations of other northern flying squirrels in the Sierras by at least 150 miles. Little is known about this subspecies of flying squirrel - distribution has been established through owl pellet analysis but status of the population is unknown.

San Bernardino flying squirrels are known to occur in Jeffrey pine/white fir mixed conifer forests (Pinus jeffreyi/Abies concolor) with some oak components. Importance of the oak component and the ideal percent species composition of conifers are unknown. Northern flying squirrels typically rely on seeds, nuts, truffles, lichens, fungi, eggs, baby birds, and fruits of conifers, oaks, other trees and shrubs. They forage in trees and on the forest floor. Flying squirrels are generally associated with old growth or mature, dense conifer forests. Important habitat elements include cavities in mature trees, large snags, and logs. Often they are found near riparian areas and probably require free water.

Population densities of northern flying squirrels in Oregon were significantly correlated with availability of suitable cavities in trees and snags with diameters greater than 20 inches. Most nests and shelters are located in cavities in trees or snags. Occasionally stick nests are built. Cavities may be more important during winter months, whereas non-cavity nests are utilized more frequently during spring and summer. Presence of witches’ brooms may also be important for outside den sites. They usually breed in March and young are weaned at approximately 80 days. Two litters per year may be common in southern California. Flying squirrels are active year-round and are nocturnal.

The breeding season of the northern flying squirrel is generally considered to be late March through May. During 1990-1992 SBNF trapping efforts in the Big Bear area, enlarged testes and mammaries indicated that reproductive activities were occurring late May through the middle of July. No reproductive indicators were observed in animals trapped in late July and August. In the 1998 trapping efforts, flying squirrels caught in the last week of June and the 1st week of July were undoubtedly young of the year based on their weights. These results suggest that babies may be born in April/May. On 9/6/2016, two flying squirrels were orphaned when a hazard tree was felled on private property in Big Bear; the flying squirrels were estimated to be less than a week old suggesting that the breeding season actually extends much later in the summer than previously-thought.

Little information about daily and seasonal activity patterns is available for the San Bernardino flying squirrel. During the 1990-1991 SBNF study, extensive trapping was conducted in the San Bernardino Mountains. Most of the captures were made during the months of June and July, with lower trapping success in April and May. No flying squirrels were caught after August 22 even though trapping continued until mid-November. These data may indicate increased activity levels or changes in foraging patterns during June and July but further study is needed to draw conclusions that are more definitive.

Northern flying squirrels are active throughout the year and there are no indications that they enter torpor during cold periods. They have been observed active at temperatures down to – 24ºC. Northern flying squirrels are known to aggregate nest in winter to lessen heat loss during cold weather.

Page 178

Northern flying squirrels are nocturnal with occasional activity periods during the day. During late summer, they exhibit a biphasic nocturnal pattern. They leave the nest shortly after sundown and return after 2 hours, then leave again a few hours before sunrise for an average of 76 minutes. Radio-telemetry studies investigating activity patterns and movements of northern flying squirrels in North Carolina noted two peak times in foraging activities per night. They were generally most active 1-3 hours past sunset and again 7-10 hours beyond sunset, with a marked decrease in activity between the two periods. Ferron (1983) noted a similar biphasic activity pattern in northern flying squirrels in Quebec, with the second period of activity occurring 3-5 hours before dawn. The period of low activity each night generally coincided with the lowest temperatures.

Northern flying squirrels may be particularly sensitive to fragmentation of their habitat. In a study in northern California, the frequency of occurrence of northern flying squirrels was found to be positively correlated with size of the stand; there was only one occurrence in a stand less than 49 acres. Stands less than 49 acres were concluded to be nonviable as they lacked a full complement of vertebrate species. Approximately 75% of the stands over 247 acres had northern flying squirrels. There was also a significant negative correlation between frequency of occurrence of northern flying squirrels and percentage of insularity (percentage of stand perimeter surround by clear-cut edge). Frequency of occurrence was approximately equal in stands with up to 75% insularity. A sharp decline occurred in stands with over 75% insularity. Thus, it appeared that the degree of isolation of forested patches and the size of those patches dictated usability by northern flying squirrels.

The ability of northern flying squirrels to traverse open areas has not been extensively studied. One study conducted radio-tracking studies of northern flying squirrel movements and found a maximum gliding distance of about 155 feet with a mean glide distance of 65 feet. The flying squirrels readily glided over 30-foot-wide roads.

During the Forest Service’s flying squirrel study around Big Bear in 1991, typical glide lengths were approximately 60-feet, varying with height of take-off, slope gradient, and canopy density. Squirrels were observed dropping under the highest canopy level, and gliding in extended paths down slope from the points of release. The longest glide observed was approximately 300 feet down a 35% well-treed slope.

Mowrey and Zasada (1982) also concluded that 65 feet wide openings between forested areas, with occasional openings 100-120 feet wide, do not impede movement for northern flying squirrels. In larger areas, scattered trees appear to aid movement. Waters found northern flying squirrel use in a "shelterwood cut" thinned to approximately 14 trees/acre (55-ft spacing between 100-ft tall trees). Some flying squirrels roosted in shelterwood-logged stands but foraged in surrounding uncut forest areas. Corridors connecting habitat blocks ("leave strips" between cut areas) should be a minimum of 98-feet wide when openings are present on both sides of the corridor.

Between 1990 and 1992 and again in the late 1990s, the Mountaintop Ranger District conducted trapping efforts to learn more about the local flying squirrels. Successful trapping sites were characterized as mature to over-mature mixed conifer forest with relatively high numbers of Page 179

snags and downed logs. The habitat was relatively open and lacked a dense undergrowth component but the canopy was relatively closed. The dominant species on site were Jeffery pine and white fir, with a black oak component.

The successful trap sites also had a heavier duff level than surrounding areas. All of these sites were either north-facing or northeast-facing slopes with relatively little exposure. The slopes were generally cooler and moister than surrounding areas with different aspects. All of the sites also had either ephemeral streams/springs or intermittent streams with some riparian vegetation in close proximity.

Habitat for this species was probably affected through logging in the San Bernardino and San Jacinto Mountains between the late 1800s up to the late 1980s. Selective harvest would have included large trees that could provide flying squirrel denning and foraging habitat. The earlier treatments, however, generally did not treat understory species and generally had light ground disturbance. With the absence of wildfire, stands have become denser and ground cover has increased, providing better foraging habitat.

Little is known about the capability of flying squirrels to disperse through areas of unsuitable habitat. San Bernardino flying squirrels have evolved with a naturally fragmented habitat pattern in the San Bernardino Mountains, but it is unclear what effect, if any, wildland fires, increasing development on private lands and habitat modifications on public lands (e.g., ski area developments) are having on the taxon's distribution. Habitat fragmentation may be occurring in some areas where resulting openings are wider than 200 feet. Large openings may reduce the ability of flying squirrels to utilize adjacent suitable habitats.

Past and ongoing effects to San Bernardino flying squirrels and their habitat include fragmentation of habitat for residential developments, ski resorts, vegetation management treatments, and hazard tree removal that remove the continuity of habitat or have changed stand conditions across the landscape. Domestic cats are thought to be an additional threat to flying squirrels, resulting in frequent losses of individuals. All of these potential threats are ongoing in the San Bernardino Mountains.

Climate change has been also identified as a threat to the Humboldt’s (San Bernardino) flying squirrel. This excerpt from the petition to list the species (Wolf 2010) summarizes the concern: The San Bernardino flying squirrel’s highly restricted and isolated range, small population size, habitat and diet specificity, and sensitivity to habitat fragmentation make it especially vulnerable to threats that reduce habitat quality and quantity. Current, ongoing threats that jeopardize the San Bernardino flying squirrel by modifying and destroying habitat include anthropogenic climate change, forest management practices, air pollution, and urban development.

Anthropogenic climate change poses a significant threat to the long-term survival of the San Bernardino flying squirrel. Climate change has already resulted in substantially warmer and drier conditions in the San Bernardino and San Jacinto Mountains. Temperatures and heat wave activity have increased, drought severity and duration have risen, more precipitation is falling as rain instead of snow, the timing of runoff and snowmelt-driven streamflow has Page 180

advanced, and streamflow has increased in winter months and decreased in summer months leading to higher summer water stress.

The San Bernardino flying squirrel is particularly vulnerable to climate change. It occurs at the southern limit of the species’ range where climate change impacts are expected to be more pronounced. However, as a high-elevation species restricted to one to two isolated mountain ranges, it has limited options for movement in response to climate change. As climatic zones shift upward in elevation, its habitat will be compressed upward and it risks running out of suitable habitat. Two of the most significant threats to the San Bernardino flying squirrel from climate change are the upward shift of its high-elevation forest habitat which has already been documented in the Santa Rosa Mountains adjacent to the San Jacinto range, and the decline of its mycorrhizal food sources as conditions become warmer and drier.

Roberts and Van Wagtendonk (2006) studied northern flying squirrels in old-growth forests in the Sierras and found that they were captured only unburned plots. The preference for unburned habitat is likely associated with cover, canopy closure, denning sites, and food availability. Meyer et al. (2008) found that burning can affect truffles, an important food source for flying squirrels, through heat stress, elimination of organic layers in the soil, and losses of tree hosts. They compared unburned with burned areas and found that while truffle frequency was greater in unburned sites, truffle biomass was similar between burned and unburned areas. Truffle species composition was different between burned and unburned sites. They recommended that when planning prescribed burns, intervals should be greater than eight years.

Because of changes in habitat conditions, the distribution of San Bernardino flying squirrels in the San Bernardino Mountains has likely been affected by several large-scale wildfires and drought/insect related conifer die-offs over the past decade.

Occurrence in the Analysis Area - San Bernardino Flying Squirrel: San Bernardino flying squirrels are known to occur in several locations in the project area (based on Forest Service records and analysis of California spotted owl pellets and a recent University of Arizona study). It is likely that they occur throughout the project area in mixed conifer and oak forested habitat.

The entire Grass Valley project where forested habitats occur is considered suitable for this species.

Potential Effects to San Bernardino Flying Squirrels Habitat Effects: After implementation, Level 1 treatment zones would lack snags and logs and have an open canopy. Level 1 would have reduced habitat quality for flying squirrels in terms of cavity availability. Level 1a areas would have some snags and downed logs and the current canopy cover would be retained; habitat quality in Level 1a areas would not be expected to change much. Those treatment areas are narrow linear swaths along roads and may be surrounded by higher quality habitat. As such, and with the retention of some important habitat components in the Level 1 and 1a areas, it is not expected that these treatments would result in fragmentation of suitable habitat.

Page 181

Treatment Level 3 areas currently support open conifer and younger forest stands with a mosaic of shrub understory or they are montane chaparral areas. Those areas are considered to be unsuitable or lower quality habitat for flying squirrels (due to a more open canopy and smaller trees on average). It is likely that flying squirrels use those areas to move in between the higher quality habitat or for foraging (especially where acorn crops are present). Level 3 treatments would retain the snags and logs habitat component that is important to flying squirrels. The emphasis on retention of larger trees, including black oak and minimal levels of snags and down logs should still provide foraging, denning, and movement opportunities for flying squirrels.

Level 4 and 4a treatments are designed to retain the habitat characteristics that are important to flying squirrels (e.g., high canopy closure, high levels of snags and logs, etc.). Habitat features that strongly influence flying squirrel abundance include sufficient trees to enable efficient locomotion, nest and den site substrates (cavity-bearing trees and snags), and truffle and arboreal lichen biomass (Verner et al. 1992).

Since Level 4 and 4a treatments would protect canopy closure, large tall trees, and adequate numbers of snags and logs, the overall structural suitability is not expected to be substantially lowered in quality. While there would be some reduction in the numbers of snags and logs in Level 4 and 4a areas, the Design Features for logs and snags and the treatment snag and log retention guidelines (Table 5) should result in those areas remaining habitat for flying squirrels. The project area also includes some relatively large blocks of “no treatment” areas where no changes would occur.

Additionally, the flying squirrel Design Features contain some measures on grouping and spacing of retention trees and leaving logs strategically as runways.

Underburning is proposed in some treatment levels for maintenance after the fuels treatment. Underburning has the potential to affect flying squirrel habitat quality by changing the canopy, distance between trees, and forest floor biomass (that promotes the growth of mycorrhizal fungi and other forage species). The Design Features call for no underburning in spotted owl PACs and only allowing underburning in HRC and mapped Suitable habitat if the territory is inactive. Since flying squirrel and spotted owl habitat are similar, this will help protect important habitat components for flying squirrels.

In all treatment levels, there would be some disturbance to foraging habitat where equipment is used off existing roads. Truffle biomass is strongly associated with the presence of a well- developed soil organic layer and the volume of decaying logs. Piling/burning and underburning would affect these components and reduce truffle habitat. However, arboreal lichen biomass and other forage species should be largely retained, as the larger trees would be retained.

Page 182

Death/Injury: In all treatment levels, there is a potential for individual flying squirrels being killed or injured if they are present in trees to be dropped. Pre-felling disturbance would likely result in adult flying squirrels abandoning the tree; however, baby flying squirrels may not be able to escape. The Mountaintop District knows of several occurrences where young flying squirrels in cavities survive the felling of trees but were left orphaned due to abandonment by the parents. The later in the summer the implementation, the fewer potential losses of individuals are expected from this project since babies would be more able to escape. However, as described above, breeding is known to extend into September.

Summary of Effects: The Grass Valley project area is expected to remain suitable for flying squirrels due to Design Features and treatment prescriptions. The project would not be expected to result in habitat fragmentation. It is possible that some individuals would be killed, orphaned, or injured during tree-felling operations.

Cumulative Effects for San Bernardino Flying Squirrels: The analysis area for cumulative effects is the San Bernardino Mountains. See Part II-3.1.3 for a discussion of current and foreseeable future activities. Both of the fuels reduction projects on the Mountaintop District that are currently being implemented (South Big Bear and Baldwin) have known or potential flying squirrel habitat. Those projects contain the same Design Features as the Grass Valley fuels project (prescriptions in known habitat that would protect important stand characteristics).

The SBNF fuels reduction projects in the planning phase (North Big Bear and Santa Ana) have suitable flying squirrel habitat. The same Design Features and special treatments in those projects would help ensure minimal changes to the habitat quality and minimal potential for disturbance. Nonetheless, fuels reduction and hazard tree projects that are being implemented across the SBNF are creating zones (shaded fuelbreaks, etc.) with no or low levels of snags and downed woody material that are important to flying squirrels. In addition to the SBNF, stand treatments (e.g., hazard tree removal, thinning, fuels reduction, etc.) are being implemented by SCE and Caltrans and private landowners. While treatments on NFS lands provide for retention of snags and downed logs outside of fuelbreaks, the same may not be true for non-NFS lands. All of these current and future projects have some potential to result in losses of individuals and some degradation of habitat quality where large snags are removed to provide for safety.

The proposed project would contribute to the reasonably forseeable cumulative effects.

Determination of Effects – San Bernardino Flying Squirrel: It is my determination that implementation of the proposed project, as described, may affect individuals, but is not likely to result in a trend toward Federal listing of San Bernardino flying squirrel. The project is not expected to interfere with maintaining viable well-distributed populations of San Bernardino flying squirrels.

The project would be consistent with applicable management direction for Sensitive species.

Page 183

IV-1.3.13 – Summary of Potential Effects to Sensitive Animals from Proposed Action Several Sensitive animal species are known to occur in the project area and several others have suitable habitat and the potential to occur. The Design Features include a number of measures to reduce or avoid effects to Sensitive species and their important habitat components.

The Grass Valley project would be consistent with all applicable management direction, including Sensitive species direction, the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, and applicable measures in the rubber boa habitat management guide and California spotted owl conservation strategy.

IV-1.4 – Sensitive Animals – Effects of No Action See the Part II-3.4 for a discussion of the potential effects if no treatments are implemented. Under No Action Alternative, there would be no immediate change in Grass Valley habitat conditions until a disturbance, such as wildfire, drought, or insects, affected the habitat.

IV-2.0 – SUMMARY OF DETERMINATION OF EFFECTS FOR SENSITIVE SPECIES

Table 27. Summary of Determinations of Effects for Sensitive Species in the Grass Valley Project Species Determination of Viability Statement Effects Calochortus palmeri var. palmeri MAI No Threat to Viability Castilleja lasiorhyncha MAI No Threat to Viability Large/yellow-blotched ensatina MAI No Threat to Viability Southern rubber boa MAI No Threat to Viability Three-lined boa MAI No Threat to Viability San Bernardino ringneck snake MAI No Threat to Viability San Bernardino mountain kingsnake MAI No Threat to Viability Two-striped garter snake MAI No Threat to Viability Bald eagle MAI No Threat to Viability Northern goshawk MAI No Threat to Viability California spotted owl MAI No Threat to Viability (from this project) (see discussion about overall viability concerns) Willow flycatcher (migrants) No Effect No Threat to Viability Townsend’s big-eared bat MAI No Threat to Viability Fringed myotis MAI No Threat to Viability Pallid bat MAI No Threat to Viability Humboldt flying squirrel MAI No Threat to Viability MAI= May Affect Individuals, But Not Likely to Lead Toward a Trend in Federal Listing; NE=No Effect; MLTFL=May Lead Toward a Trend in Federal Listing

Summary: The proposed project would be consistent with all applicable management direction for the Sensitive species discussed above.

Page 184

PART V: WILDLIFE AND BOTANY REPORTS

V-1.0 – INTRODUCTION AND MANAGEMENT DIRECTION Part I of this document contains descriptions of the methods/evaluation process, Proposed Action, and habitat for this project. Part II addresses effects that are common many species addressed in this document. This section tiers to those previous discussions.

This part, Part V, provides documentation about other species that have been identified as having viability concerns by the Forest Service or other entities (CDFW, USFWS, CNPS, Western Bat Working Group, Xerces Society, etc.).

Management Direction The National Forest Management Act of 1976 and its implementing regulations (CFR 219) state that: fish and wildlife habitat shall be managed to maintain viable populations of existing native and desired non-native vertebrate species in the planning area (Sec 219.19)”.

The Forest Plan contains strategies for achieving the desired conditions and goals. Strategy WL- 2 for management of species of concern provides guidance to “maintain and improve habitat for fish, wildlife, and plants, including those with the following designations: game species, harvest species, and Watch List species” (USFS 2006 Forest Plan, Part 2, pg. 129).

Some of the additional relevant direction for some of the species includes the Forest Plan, National Forest Management Act, the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, and several other direction. See Appendix B for more information.

V-2.0 SBNF WATCHLIST SPECIES AND OTHER SPECIES OF CONCERN SBNF Watch List species are those that the local biologists and botanists have expressed concern about viability either because of apparent downward trends, apparent changes in habitat availability, vulnerability of associated habitats, or very narrow or localized distributions. Because of limited knowledge and/or understanding of some species, it may not yet be known whether listing as Sensitive is warranted (the effort to gather such information is one of the purposes of the Watch List).

Species accounts for Watch List species are contained in the Forest Plan and are incorporated by reference (USFS 2005b). The species accounts are summarized below and the citations are generally not repeated. See the complete species accounts for more details and literature citations. New information regarding Watch List species is discussed, as appropriate.

V-2.1 – Viability of SBNF Watch List Plants – Proposed Action There are four SBNF Watch List plant species known or likely to occur within the reach of direct and indirect effects of the Proposed Action. For species not known to occur in the project area, the likelihood of occurrence is based on available habitat and proximity to known occurrences. All species listed in Table 28 were considered in this analysis and those that are known or likely

Page 185

to occur in the project area are indicated in bold. It is possible that Watch List and other limited/vulnerable plant occurrences are present but undetected/unmapped in the project area.

Page 186

Table 28. San Bernardino National Forest Watch Plant Species Latin Name Common Name Occurs on Occurs In/Near Addressed in this MTRD? Project? Document? Allium parishii Parish’s onion Possible No No Androsace elongata subsp. acuta California androsace Possible No No Astragalus leucolobus Bear Valley woollypod Yes No No Boechera dispar pinyon rock-cress Yes No No Boykinia rotundifolia round-leaved boykenia Yes Possible Yes Calochortus plummerae Plummer’s mariposa lily Yes Yes Yes Castilleja montigena Heckard’s paintbrush Yes No No Chaenactis parishii Parish’s chaenactis No No No Chorizanthe polygonoides var. longispina long-spined spineflower No No No Corydylanthyus eremicus ssp. eremicus desert bird’s beak Possible No No Erigeron breweri var. jacinteus San Jacinto Mts. daisy No No No Eriogonum microthecum var. corymbosoides San Bernardino Mountains buckwheat Yes No No Eriogonum umbellatum var. minus alpine sulpher-flowered buckwheat Yes No No Eriophyllum lanatum var. obovatum southern Sierra woolly sunflower Yes No No Frasera neglecta pine green gentian Yes No No Galium angustifolium subsp. gabrielense San Antonio Canyon bedstraw No No No Galium jepsonii Jepson’s bedstraw No No No Galium johnstonii Johnston’s bedstraw Yes No No Hulsea vestita subsp. callicarpha beautiful hulsea No No No Hulsea vestita subsp. parryi Parry’s sunflower Yes No No Juglans californica Southern California black walnut No No No Juncus duranii Duran’s rush Yes No No Layia ziegleri (syn. Layia platyglossa) Ziegler’s tidy tips No No No Lepidium virginicum var. robinsonii (syn, L. v. subsp. menziesii) Robinson’s pepperweed No No No Linanthus maculatus Little San Bernardino Mountains gilia Possible No No Lilium humboldtii var. ocellatum ocellated Humboldt lily Yes Yes Yes Meesia triquetra three-ranked humpmoss Possible No No Monardella australis subsp. cinerea gray monardella No No No Muhlenbergia californica California muhly grass No No No Muilla coronata crowned muilla Possible No No Packera ionophylla Tehachapi ragwort Yes Yes Yes Perideridia parishii subsp. parishii Parish’s yampah Yes No No Phacelia exilis Transverse Range phacelia Yes No No Phacelia mohavensis Mojave phacelia Yes Yes Yes Piperia leptopetala narrow-petaled rein orchid Yes No No Podistera nevadensis Sierra podostera Yes No No Rupertia rigida Parish’s rupertia Yes No No Syntrichopappus lemmonii Lemmon’s syntrichopappus Yes No No Streptanthus bernardinus Laguna mountains jewell-flower No No No Viola pinetorum subsp. grisea Grey-leaved violet Historic No No Viola purpurea subsp. aurea golden violet Possible No No

Direct and indirect effects to Watch List plants from the Proposed Action are described below. The earlier discussions in Part II-3.0 also applies to Watch List plants known to occur as well as any that were undetected during surveys.

V-2.1.1 Boykinia rotundifolia (Round-leaved boykinia): Boykinia rotundifolia occupies streambanks and wet places in canyons in chaparral, lower montane coniferous forest, and upper montane coniferous forest below 2000 meters. There are several occurrences of Boykinia rotundifolia along Houston Creek between the Forest boundary at Crestline and the confluence with East Fork of the West Fork Mojave River, in close correspondence with the Lilium humboldtii occurrences described above.

This species is tightly associated with Riparian Conservation Areas and effects are expected to be avoided or minimized through application of RCA design features.

V-2.1.2 Calochortus plummerae (Plummer’s Mariposa Lily): This species occupies sage scrub and chaparral habitats mostly below 2000 meters. It grows from bulbs typically 6-12” below the soil surface, and does not emerge and flower every year. It is recorded from one location in the project area, but based on suitable habitat, is likely to occur unreported elsewhere in the project area.

The treatments proposed are not likely to adversely affect this species. Calochortus in general and this species in particular do very well under post fire conditions, and mastication is not likely kill individual plants as long as the blades are kept above the soil surface.

V-2.1.3 Lilium humboldtii ssp. ocellatum (Ocellated Humboldt lily): Lilium humboldtii ssp. ocellatum is the southern California subspecies of the Humboldt lily. Lilium humboldtii ssp. ocellatum occurs in openings in coastal scrub, chaparral, riparian woodland, and lower montane coniferous forest. The species generally grows on sandy or gravelly soils in drainages and canyon bottoms. Lilium humboldtii ssp. ocellatum is rare. During surveys in the Miller Canyon area, fairly extensive occurrences of Lilium humboldtii ssp. ocellatum were documented and mapped. All of these are associated with canyons and drainages and most are within or adjacent to riparian vegetation. Occurrences include Houston Creek, East Fork of the West Fork Mojave River (i.e., Miller Canyon) and the unnamed tributaries.

All of the Lilium humboldtii ssp. ocellatum occurrences within the project area fall within Riparian Conservation Areas. Adverse effects are expected to be avoided or minimized through application of RCA Design Features.

V-2.1.4 Packera ionophylla (Tehachapi ragwort): Packera ionophylla occurs in lower and upper coniferous forests at elevations of 4,875–8,775 feet on dry, rocky, granitic soils and within crevices. Several small occurrences of Packera ionophylla have been documented in the project area. This species is often associated with unconsolidated and more or less unstable soils.

Individuals are likely to be adversely affected by the proposed treatments. However, the soil seed bank for this species may benefit from short term ground disturbance and opening of vegetation structure, and warrants monitoring following treatments to the extent feasible.

V-2.1.5 Phacelia mohavensis (Mojave phacelia): Phacelia mohavensis grows on moist sandy or gravelly primarily granite-derived soils in pinyon-juniper woodlands, seasonal or ephemeral streambeds, and meadows at elevations of 4,600–8,200 feet (1,400–2,500 meters). It also is found in montane conifer forests on the moist shaded side of granite outcrops, or from moist cracks in granite outcrops. Occurrences in the project area are known from swales and ephemeral drainages with the following other rare species: Lilium humboldtii ssp. ocellatum, Packera bernardina, Castilleja lasiorhyncha, and Calochortus palmeri var. palmeri.

Adverse effects to this species from proposed treatments are expected mostly to be avoided through application of Design Features for avoidance of effects to associated Forest Service Sensitive species (and their vernal wetland habitat), and design features for RCAs.

V-2.3 – SBNF Watch List – No Action Under the No Action Alternative, no effects to Watch List Plants are expected to occur relative to the baseline condition. The discussion in Part II-3.4 is applicable for all Watch List plant species that occur in the project area.

V-2.4 – Viability of SBNF Watch List Animals – Proposed Action There are a number of Watch List animals known or expected to occur in the analysis area. Table 29 contains the current Watch List animals for the SBNF and occurrence probability in the project area for each species. Only the Watch List species that are known to occur and those that have a high probability of occurring in the project area are discussed.

In addition to Watch List animals, several other species of concern for the area are addressed in this section.

See the existing environment described in Part II-2.0 and the effects analyses applicable to common and special status species in Part II-3.0 The following species and site-specific evaluations tier to Part II-3.0

Page 189

Table 29. San Bernardino National Forest Watch List Animal Species – Likelihood Of Occurrence In Grass Valley Project Area Common Name* Latin Name Habitat Type1 Occurs on Occurs in/near Project? Addressed in this MTRD? Document? Springsnails Pyruglopsis sp. aq – seeps and Yes Possible Yes springs simple hydroporus diving beetle Hydroporus simplex aq Yes Possible Yes greenest tiger beetle Cicindela tranquebarica viridissima- r, w No Unlikely No; outside distribution Dorhn’s elegant eucnemid beetle Palaeoxenus dorhni mc Yes Possible Yes bicolored rainbeetle Pleocoma bicolor mc, wo (oaks) Yes Likely Yes California diplectronan caddisfly Diplectrona californica aq No Unlikely No; outside distribution Desert monkey grasshopper Psychomastax deserticola d, wo (pj) Yes No No; no suitable habitat San Bernardino Mountains silk moth Coloradia velda wo (pj), mc Yes Possible Yes August checkerspot butterfly Euphydryas editha augustina mc Yes Yes Yes Andrew's marble butterfly Euchloe hyantis andrewsi m, r Yes Possible Yes partially armored threespine stickleback Gasterosteus aculeatus microcephalus aq Yes No No; outside distribution Monterey ensatina salamander Ensatina eschscholtzii eschscholtzii wo (oaks), mc, r Yes Yes (USGS 2000-2001) Yes arboreal salamander Aneides lugubris wo (oaks), c, r Possible Possible Yes garden slendar salamander Batrachoseps major r, wo, g, meadow, c Possible Possible Yes western spadefoot toad Spea hamondii w, r No No No; outside distribution Red spotted toad Anaxyrus punctatus d, aq, r Yes No No; outside distribution common chuckwalla Sauromalus obesus d, wo (pj) Yes No No; no suitable habitat Zebra-tail lizard Callisaurus draconiodes rhodostictus d, sandy washes Yes No No; no suitable habitat Mojave black-collared lizard Crotaphytus bicinctores d Yes No No; no suitable habitat granite night lizard Xantusia henshawi rk No No No; outside distribution Desert night lizard Xantusia vigilis d Yes Unlikely No; no suitable habitat Coronado skink Eumeces skiltonianus interparietalis c, wo, r, mc – sea No No No; outside level to 1675 meters distribution

Page 190

Table 29. San Bernardino National Forest Watch List Animal Species – Likelihood Of Occurrence In Grass Valley Project Area Common Name* Latin Name Habitat Type1 Occurs on Occurs in/near Project? Addressed in this MTRD? Document? coast patch-nosed snake Salvadora hexalepis virgultea c, d, w, rk, coastal Yes Possible Yes sage, alluvial fan scrub mountain garter snake Thamnophis elegans elegans m, r Yes Yes - SBCM obs. 2005 Yes southwestern speckled rattlesnake Crotalus mitchellii pyrrhus c, wo, d, rk Yes Possible Yes western least bittern Ixobrychus exilis hesperis aq Possible (no Unlikely No nesting known) turkey vulture (breeding) Cathartes aura a, g, c, wo, d, rk Yes (no Yes for foraging; no for No; nesting nesting breeding unlikely known) osprey Pandion haliaetus aq, r Yes Unlikely (occurs @ No; unlikely due to Silverwood but project habitat. area is unsuitable) white-tailed kite Elanus leucurus r, wo Yes Possible Yes northern harrier Circus cyaneus g, m Yes Unlikely No; habitat lacking sharp-shinned hawk (breeding)* Accipiter striatus r, mc Yes Possible Yes Cooper's hawk (breeding)* Accipiter cooperii r, mc Yes Yes – Miller Cyn (SBCM) Yes zone-tailed hawk Buteo albonotatus mc, wo (pj) Yes Unlikely No; rare vagrant ferruginous hawk Buteo regalis g, d Yes No No; habitat lacking Swainson’s hawk Buteo swainsoni g, w Yes No No; habitat lacking golden eagle* Aquila chrysaetos g, d, wo (pj, oak) Yes No – nesting; Yes Possible -foraging merlin Falco columbarius g, mc Yes Possible Yes American peregrine falcon* Falco peregrinus anatus rk (nests) Yes N for nesting; Possible for Yes foraging prairie falcon* Falco mexicanus g, d Yes Unlikely No; habitat lacking Wilson’s snipe (Lake Hemet population Gallinago delicata m, aq n/a No No only) flammulated owl* Otus flammeolus mc Yes Likely Yes western screech owl* Otus kennicottii r, mc, wo Yes Yes – 2005 (SBNF) Yes northern pygmy owl* Glaucidium gnoma r, mc, wo Yes Yes – 2005 (SBNF) Yes burrowing owl Athene cunicularia hypogaeae d P No No; lacking suitable habitat long-eared owl* Asio otus r, mc Yes Likely Yes Page 191

Table 29. San Bernardino National Forest Watch List Animal Species – Likelihood Of Occurrence In Grass Valley Project Area Common Name* Latin Name Habitat Type1 Occurs on Occurs in/near Project? Addressed in this MTRD? Document? northern saw-whet owl* Aegolius acadicus wo, mc, pine Yes Likely Yes common nighthawk* Chordeiles minor a, pine, mc Yes Likely Yes Mexican whip-poor-will* Caprimulgus arizonae wo, mc Yes Possible Yes black swift* Cypseloides niger a, r (waterfalls) Yes Unlikely No; lacking suitable habitat calliope hummingbird* Stellula calliope r Yes Yes – 2003 (SBCM) Yes Lewis' woodpecker Melanerpes lewis wo (oak), r Yes Yes Yes Williamson's sapsucker* Sphyrapicus thyroideus mc Yes Possible Yes Nuttall's woodpecker* Picoides nuttallii r, c, wo, mc Yes Yes – 2003, 2004, 2005 Yes (SBCM) white-headed woodpecker* Picoides albolarvatus mc Yes Yes – 2004 (SBCM) Yes gray flycatcher* Empidonax wrightii wo (pj), c Yes Possible Yes California horned lark (breeding)* Eremophila alpestris actia g, d Yes Unlikely No; lacking suitable habitat purple martin* Progne subis a, r, mc, wo Yes Possible Yes tree swallow* Tachycineta bicolor a, r, wo, mc Yes Yes – 2004 (SBCM) Yes American dipper* Cinclus mexicanus streams Yes Yes - 2004 (SBCM) Yes Swainson's thrush Catharus ustulatus r, mc Yes Possible Yes hermit thrush (breeding)* Catharus guttatus pine, mc Yes Possible Yes Bendire's thrasher Toxostoma bendirei c, wo, r, d Yes Unlikely No; lacking suitable habitat

LeConte's thrasher Toxostoma lecontei d Yes Unlikely No; lacking suitable habitat

American pipit (breeding)* Anthus rubescens alpine, talus & sand Yes Unlikely No; lacking slopes suitable habitat loggerhead shrike* Lanius ludovicianus c, wo, r, d, mc Yes Possible Yes plumbeous vireo* Vireo plumbeus wo (pj), mc Yes Possible Yes Cassin’s vireo* Vireo cassinii mc, wo (oak), r Yes Likely Yes warbling vireo* Vireo gilvus r, wo, mc Yes Yes – 2004 (SBCM) Yes Virginia’s warbler (breeding) Vermivora virginiae wo (pj), c Yes Possible Yes yellow warbler* Dendroica petechia brewsteri mc, wo, r Yes Yes - 2003, 2005 (SBCM) Yes MacGillivray's warbler* Oporornis tolmiei r. m Yes Likely Yes

Page 192

Table 29. San Bernardino National Forest Watch List Animal Species – Likelihood Of Occurrence In Grass Valley Project Area Common Name* Latin Name Habitat Type1 Occurs on Occurs in/near Project? Addressed in this MTRD? Document? common yellowthroat* Geothlypis trichas r Yes Likely Yes Wilson's warbler* Wilsonia pusilla r Yes Yes -2005 (SBNF) Yes yellow-breasted chat* Icteria virens r Possible Unlikely No; lacks suitable habitat hepatic tanager* Piranga flava wo Yes Unlikely No; outside distribution summer tanager* Piranga rubra r Yes Possible Yes southern California rufous-crowned Aimophila ruficeps canescens c Yes Possible Yes sparrow* black-chinned sparrow* Spizella atrogularis d, c, wo (pj) Yes Possible Yes Bell's sparrow* Artemisiospiza belli c Yes Possible Yes Lincoln's sparrow* Melospiza lincolnii r, mc, wo Yes Possible Yes tri-colored blackbird Agelaius tricolor r, m Yes Unlikely No; lacks suitable habitat Lawrence's goldfinch* Carduelis lawrencei r, c Yes Yes - 2005 (SBNF); 2003, Yes 2004, 2005 (SBCM) western small-footed myotis Myotis ciliolabrum wo, r, mc Yes Possible Yes long-eared myotis Myotis evotis c, wo, mc Yes Possible Yes little brown myotis Myotis lucifugus c, m, g, wo Yes Possible Yes long-legged myotis Myotis volans wo, mc, c Yes Possible Yes Yuma myotis Myotis yumanensis d, wo Yes Possible Yes California leaf-nosed bat Macrotus californicus d, wo (pj) Yes Unlikely No; lacking suitable habitat spotted bat Euderma maculatum d, rk Yes Unlikely No; lacks suitable habitat pocketed free-tailed bat Nyctinomops femerosaccus wo (pj), d Likely Unlikely No; lacking suitable habitat western bonneted bat Eumops perotis californicus mc, wo, c, g, d, u Yes Possible Yes San Diego black-tailed jackrabbit Lepus californicus bennettii c, wo No No No; outside distribution lodgepole chipmunk Tamias speciosus speciosus mc Yes Possible Yes golden-mantled ground squirrel Spermophilus lateralis bernardinus mc, rk Yes Possible Yes Los Angeles pocket mouse Perognathus longimembris brevinasus c No No No; outside distribution

Page 193

Table 29. San Bernardino National Forest Watch List Animal Species – Likelihood Of Occurrence In Grass Valley Project Area Common Name* Latin Name Habitat Type1 Occurs on Occurs in/near Project? Addressed in this MTRD? Document? San Diego pocket mouse Chaetodipus fallax fallax d, c Yes Unlikely No; lacking suitable habitat southern grasshopper mouse Onychomys torridus ramona d, c Yes Unlikely No; lacking suitable habitat

San Diego desert woodrat Neotoma lepida intermedia d, c, rk Yes Unlikely No; lacking suitable habitat porcupine Erethizon dorsatum mc, wo Yes Unlikely No; outside distribution ringtail Bassariscus astutus mc, wo, rk, r Yes Possible Yes American badger Taxidea taxus wo, mc, c, d, g Yes Possible Yes western spotted skunk Spilogale gracilis mc, wo, r, c Yes Possible Yes mountain lion Felis concolor mc, wo, c, d Yes Yes Yes Nelson's bighorn sheep Ovis canadensis nelsoni c, d, rk, wo (pj), mc Yes No No; lacking suitable habitat * = birds considered regular breeders in the San Bernardino Mountains. Breeding records for San Bernardino Mountains from the San Bernardino County Museum (Field Checklist – Sept 1995) were used to evaluate breeding potential.

1 HABITAT TYPES/HABITAT COMPONENTS a = aerial; usually seen in flight, often over several habitat types r = riparian (streamside thickets and woodlands) g = grasslands, fields, and agricultural areas m = marshes, meadows; both freshwater areas and moist meadows c = chaparral and coastal sage scrub wo = woodlands; pinyon-juniper, oaks mc = mixed conifer forests; jeffrey pine, ponderosa pine, bigcone douglas fir, coulter pine, sugar pine, white fir overstory d = desert; Joshua tree woodlands, creosote bush scrub, blackbrush scrub aq = aquatic; lakes, reservoirs, ponds, vernal pools/puddles u = urbanized areas w = washes and alluvial fans rk = cliffs and rocky outcrops s = snags and cavities

Page 194

No surveys for springsnails have been conducted on the SBNF. There is a high probability that there are endemic springsnails in many of the springs and seeps in the San Bernardino Mountains. No springs or seeps are mapped within the project area; however, suitable habitat for springsnails (Pyruglopsis sp.) may exist in the riparian zones in the project area. See Part II- 3.3.7 for a discussion of the potential effects to riparian zones, including suitable habitat for this species, as a result of the proposed project. If this species is present in the project area, effects would be reduced by the RCAs, Design Features, and BMPs.

II-4.3.1.2 - Westfork Shoulderband Snail (Helminthoglypta taylori) The Westfork shoulderband is a not currently on the SBNF Watch List species but is of local interest. The type locality for it is the West Fork Mojave River at a location that was inundated by the creation of Silverwood Lake. It was collected in 1950-1963 and may have been extirpated. No recent records for this species were located during literature searches for this analysis. It has a G1-S1 conservation ranking (“at very high risk of extinction due to extreme rarity [often 5 or fewer populations], very steep declines, or other factors”) but no federal or state special status.

No life history information for this species was located during literature searches. The following life history information for other types of shoulderband snails is provided under the assumption that the Westfork shoulderband is similar to other shoulderband snails. It is a terrestrial snail that feeds on decaying vegetation and is usually found in moist areas under bushes, woody debris, and vegetative duff. Based on the type locality, it is likely that the habitat for the Westfork shoulderband was riparian and desert transition chaparral.

Due to the proximity to the type locality, habitat connectivity prior to the creation of Silverwood Lake, and presence of similar habitat in Miller Canyon, there is a possibility that this species occurs along the East Fork of the West Fork of the Mojave River and in Grass Valley Creek or in the upland areas.

See Part II-3.3.7 for a discussion of the potential effects to riparian zones, including suitable habitat for this species, as a result of the proposed project. If this species is present in the project area, effects would be reduced by the RCAs, Design Features, and BMPs.

II-4.3.1.3 Simple Hydroporus Diving Beetle (Hydroporus simplex) The simple hydroporus diving beetle is a SBNF Watch List species. Natureserve lists this species as G1-Critically Imperiled. Not very much is known about this species. Occurrences are from shallow water but habitat type is not known. It may be found in creeks, lakes, or ponds. It is probably adapted to use microhabitat in shallow edge areas (Natureserve.org). There is a 1983 record for this species in the Holcomb Valley area in the San Bernardino Mountains (CNDDB). There may be suitable habitat for this species in the riparian areas.

See Part II-3.3.7 for a discussion of the potential effects to riparian zones, including suitable habitat for this species, as a result of the proposed project. If this species is present in the project area, effects would be reduced by the RCAs, Design Features, and BMPs.

Page 195

V-4.3.1.4 Dorhn’s Elegant Eucnemid Beetle (Palaeoxus dorhni) The Dorhn’s elegant eucnemid beetle is a SBNF Watch List species. All known occurrences of this species are found on National Forest System lands. Dorhn's elegant eucnemid beetle is a rare species that has been reported from Mt. Wilson and Cedar Creek Canyon near Crystal Lake in Los Angeles County; Dark Canyon and Idyllwild in Riverside County; and Slover Canyon, Cleghorn Canyon, and Crestline in San Bernardino County.

Dorhn's elegant eucnemid beetle is found on dead pine and incense cedar (Calocedrus decurrens) trees or stumps close to the ground. The habitat appears to be on steep slopes at elevations of 5,085 to 5,750 feet in a mix of ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa), sugar pine (P. lambertiana), and incense cedar. There is little information on the reproductive biology of this species. Females deposit eggs in an unknown location, but most likely in the soil at the base of a dead stump or snag, or in bark. After eclosion (hatching from the egg), the larvae bore into a cedar or pine stump. Both larvae and adults of Dorhn's elegant eucnemid beetle are found under the bark of pines and incense cedars. Larvae feed on rotted wood, and adults are predatory. Removal of pine or cedar snags or stumps and catastrophic wildfire could potentially have adverse effects on habitat for this species. (Source: Forest Plan Species Account. USFS 2005b)

Suitable habitat for this species occurs in the analysis area. Habitat would be affected as dead trees are felled and removed; however, snag retention guidelines would ensure habitat availability for this species. Individual beetles (including adults, larvae, and eggs) may be killed or injured during the fuels reduction project.

II-4.3.1.5 Bicolored Rainbeetle (Pleocoma bicolor) Bicolored rain beetle is endemic to a small region of the San Bernardino Mountains. The known range of this beetle is restricted to an area extending from Rim of the World Drive (Highway 18) near the Crestline cutoff through Crestline, Bluejay, and Arrowhead City to the north shore of Lake Arrowhead at elevations of 4,400–5,184 feet. The bicolored rain beetle occurs in yellow pine forest, mixed pine-black oak-canyon oak forest, and canyon oak stands within its current known range.

Bicolored rain beetle larvae feed on the roots and rootlets of various vegetation types including hardwoods, shrubs, and grasses. Adults do not feed and, in fact, are not capable of feeding. Adults have fused mouthparts and non-functional digestive systems.

The mating season of the bicolored rain beetle begins in early winter and extends into spring. Males begin mating flights in early winter, in association with rainfall, and fly from dusk to dawn in search of pheromone-producing, flightless females. Later in the season, and extending into spring, males will fly at dusk and dawn over melting snow. Males have been observed flying in precipitation events, in air temperatures below freezing. The population of bicolored rain beetle has apparently declined and has likely been extirpated from a significant portion of its historical range. (Source: USFS 2006 Forest Plan).

This species is likely to occur in the project area. Habitat would be affected as dead trees are felled and removed; however, snag retention guidelines would ensure habitat availability for this

Page 196

species. Individual beetles (including adults, larvae, and eggs) may be killed or injured during the fuels reduction project.

V-4.3.1.6 San Bernardino Mountains Silk Moth (Coloradia velda) San Bernardino Mountains silk moth has been identified by the Forest Service as a species with a local viability concern (Stephenson and Calcarone 1999) and is a SBNF Watch List species. The type locality for San Bernardino Mountains silk moth, also known as the velda pinemoth, is at Coxey Meadow at elevations of 5,600 feet on the north side of the San Bernardino Mountains. The species has also been collected at elevations of 5,600–6,400 feet at Horse Springs, Crab Flat, Cactus Flat, and Barton Flats.

San Bernardino Mountains silk moth is most commonly found in stands of pinyon pine (Pinus monophylla), the larval host plant, above elevations of 4,593 feet. It has also been collected in Jeffrey pine (Pinus jeffreyi), although in much smaller numbers. Larvae feed primarily on the leaves of the pinyon pine, although larvae above the first instar have also been collected on, and presumably eat, Jeffrey pine. Adults do not feed.

Adult moths emerge from the pupal case between 9:30 a.m. and 11 a.m. The remainder of the day is spent inflating their wings in preparation for flight that night. Females attract males through the use of pheromones that they emit when it becomes dark. Like many species in the family Saturniidae, females remain in one place while the male homes in on her pheromone signal. The flight period lasts from June to the end of July. (Source: Forest Plan Species Account. USFS 2005b)

This species may occur in the project area where Jeffrey pines occur. Habitat would be affected as host trees are felled and removed; however, snag retention guidelines would ensure habitat availability for this species. Individual silk moths (including adults, larvae, and eggs) may be killed or injured during the fuels reduction project. Because of the amount of vegetation that would remain untreated within the project area, there would still be habitat available for this species during and after implementation.

V-4.3.1.7 August Checkerspot Butterfly (Euphydryas editha augustina) The August checkerspot butterfly is found only in the San Bernardino Mountains. It has been reported from elevations of around 5,000 feet near Running Springs, Moonridge, Cedarpines Park, Wild Horse Creek, and Fawnskin, to elevations of 9,952 feet at Sugarloaf Peak, 9,113 feet at Onyx Peak, and over 10,680 feet on Shields Peak and San Bernardino East Peak.

The August checkerspot occurs in yellow pine forests. Larvae of August checkerspot butterfly feed on Collinsia childii, although it was reported that a Castilleja species might also serve as a host plant. Adults feed on nectar, though there is no specific information on nectar sources. (Source: Forest Plan Species Account. USFS 2005b)

August checkerspot is known from in and near the project area and are likely to occur wherever the host plant occurs. Collinsia childii is found in open oak and mixed conifer woodlands. It may also occur in riparian areas.

Page 197

The host plants may be present in the project area. Soil disturbance may kill individual plants but the seed bank in the soil should result in re-establishment of this species after the activities are over. Individual checkerspot butterflies (including adults, larvae, and eggs) may be killed or injured during the fuels reduction project.

Because of the amount of vegetation that would remain untreated within the project area, there would still be habitat available for this species during and after implementation. The Design Features that minimize soil disturbance and minimize effects in RCAs would help reduce the intensity and likelihood of effects where the host and butterfly occur in riparian areas.

V-4.3.1.8 Andrew’s Marble Butterfly (Ehchloe hyanitis andrewsi) Andrew's marble butterfly is a subspecies of the widely-distributed California marble butterfly. It is a SBNF Watch List species and a State Special Status Animal (S1: Fewer than six occurrences, 1000 individuals, or 2000 acres). It is a federal species of concern (previously USFWS Candidate species). Andrew’s marble butterfly is endemic to the San Bernardino Mountains. It is found at elevations of 5,000 to 7,000 feet near Lake Arrowhead and Big Bear Lake and in other locations across the crest and the North Slope. Records include Baldwin Lake, Sugarloaf Mountain, and Wild Horse Meadow. Forty to eighty percent of known occurrences are estimated to be located on the SBNF.

Andrew's marble butterfly is found primarily in pine and mixed conifer forests. All of the larval host plants for this species are members of the mustard family. The hosts are found in different habitat types: Thelypodium stenopetalum is found in wet meadows; Boechera reflexa (formerly treated as Arabis holboelii var. pinetorum) is found in dry openings in conifer and mixed conifer forests; and Streptanthus bernardinus is found in openings in chaparral and various conifer forest types, often in disturbed areas, as well as in shaded or mesic sites near springs and seeps. Because of this, it appears that this butterfly species focuses on plant type (mustard family) rather than habitat type. Streptanthus bernardinus and Thelypodium stenopetalum are the main larval food plants. Boechera reflexa is used, but probably to a lesser extent. The larvae also eat seedpods of the mountain tansy mustard (Descurainia richardsonii). (Source: Forest Plan Species Account. USFS 2005b)

Some of the host plant genera are known in the project area. Host plants may be killed or affected during fuels reduction operations. Individual butterflies (including adults, larvae, and eggs) may be killed or injured during the fuels reduction project. Because of the amount of vegetation that would remain untreated within the project area, there would still be habitat available for this species during and after implementation. The Design Features that minimize soil disturbance and minimize effects would help reduce the intensity and likelihood of effects.

V-4.3.3 – SBNF Watch List Amphibians Several Watch List amphibians are known from or have the potential to occur in the analysis area.

V-4.3.3.1 Monterey Ensatina (Ensatina eschscholtzii eschscholtzii) Monterey ensatina has been identified by the Forest Service as a species of local viability concern (Stephenson and Calcarone 1999) and is a SBNF Watch List species. Ensatina is a

Page 198

geographically and genetically variable taxon that has traditionally been treated as a single species with seven recognized subspecies, including both blotched and unblotched color forms. Three subspecies of Ensatina occur in the mountains of southern California, and their evolutionary relationships and taxonomic status have received considerable scientific attention.

There is a “hybrid swarm” for Ensatina in the San Bernardino Mountains where Monterey, yellow-blotched, and large-blotched ensatina hybridize. The genetics for these three species is yet to be resolved (Stebbins and McGinnis 2012).

Monterey salamanders are most common in oak woodlands with extensive leaf litter and downed wood; however, they occupy a wide variety of other habitats as well. They have been found at elevations above 6,100 feet.

Colonies of Ensatina salamanders seem best developed in marginal belts between dense and sparse vegetation-that is, in "edge" situations. Downed logs, leaf litter, and woody debris appear to be important habitat elements. Populations of Ensatinas in drier regions of southern California primarily occur on north-facing slopes of deep canyons and in other microhabitats that provide cool, moist conditions. Ensatinas are frequently found near streams where soils are relatively moist, or in shaded, moist habitats where there is good canopy cover.

The species is nocturnal and difficult to see near the surface, so it could be more widespread than current data suggest. Juveniles and adults are most active when the ground is wet and temperatures are moderate. Ensatina remain underground throughout the dry summer in most areas of their range and can tolerate substantial dehydration. During dry weather, they tend to frequent holes in the ground such as rodent burrows, rotted-out root channels, and openings among rocks. Except in areas where severe winter weather occurs, Ensatina emerge with the first rains of autumn and are active on the ground through spring. Surface activity is highest immediately following rains and continues while temperature and moisture conditions are favorable. Ensatina are commonly found in areas with considerable leaf litter. This litter serves as an insulating blanket to help conserve moisture and to buffer temperature fluctuations.

Insects, spiders, crustaceans, and earthworms that occur in and beneath the leaf litter serve as food for these salamanders. Most feeding occurs above ground when the surface is damp and temperatures are not too high. (Source: USFS 2006 Forest Plan)

Monterey ensatinas are known from north of Silverwood Lake (Goodward pers. comm. 2013) and in the Lake Arrowhead/Running Springs areas (USFS records) and the distribution maps for this species includes the San Bernardino Mountains. While no records were found for this species, the project is within the known distribution (http://www.californiaherps.com/salamanders/pages/e.e.eschscholtzii.html#description).

See the large/yellow-blotched ensatinas in the Sensitive species section in Part IV-1.3.1 of this document for a discussion of potential effects.

Page 199

V-4.3.3.2 Arboreal Salamander (Aneides lugubris) Arboreal salamander has been identified by the Forest Service as a species of local viability concern (Stephenson and Calcarone 1999) and is a SBNF Watch List species.

Arboreal salamanders occur in yellow pine and black oak forests in the Sierra Nevada, and in coastal live oak woodlands from northern California to Baja California. Arboreal salamander occurs from sea level to an elevation of about 5,000 feet.

Arboreal salamander reportedly occurs in the foothills and lower elevations of the mountains of southern California, although it is seldom seen.

Arboreal salamanders are typically found in coast live oak and interior live oak woodlands, but can also occur at the edges of moister areas, or near drier areas such as coastal and montane chaparral. In the Sierra Nevada, the species has been found in yellow pine and black oak forests. In southern California it has been also observed in sycamore-dominated riparian and chaparral habitats.

These salamanders occur beneath rocks, boards, logs, and other surface objects when the surface is damp. Leaf litter and downed logs are believed to be important habitat elements for this species. Arboreal salamanders breed during the summer months. Eggs are laid in July and August during the dry season beneath surface objects, in subterranean niches, or in tree cavities. Females, or perhaps both sexes, guard the eggs. Presumably, the adult keeps the eggs moist with body fluids. This attention seems necessary because in captivity, removal of the adult resulted in the appearance of mold or spoilage of the eggs. Eggs hatch in August or September, and young salamanders first appear on the surface sometime after the first fall or winter rains.

Arboreal salamanders are nocturnal and live both on the ground and in trees. This species is active on the ground surface during the rainy season and shortly after it, when soil moisture is high. These salamanders are more tolerant of dry conditions than other salamanders and are frequently found several months after other salamander species have gone underground for the summer. Individuals may also move into tree cavities when conditions become dry (i.e., during the breeding season).

The primary food of arboreal salamanders is invertebrates. Fungi may serve as a reserve food supply. This species may use its large saber-like teeth and stout jaw muscles to scrape and bite off fungus from the walls of tree cavities. Western terrestrial garter snakes (Thamnophis elegans) are thought to be predators of arboreal salamanders. (Source: USFS 2006 Forest Plan)

Although there are no records for arboreal salamanders in the project area, it may occur in areas of suitable habitat. Habitat may be affected as trees are felled and removed. Individual arboreal salamanders (including adults and eggs) may be killed or injured during the fuels reduction project. Because of the amount of vegetation that would remain untreated within the project area, there would still be habitat available for this species during and after implementation. The RCAs would reduce the effects to this species and its habitat where it is most likely to occur. The effects to this species would be similar to those described for the large/yellow-blotched ensatinas (Part IV-1.3.1

Page 200

V-4.3.3.3 Garden Slender Salamander (Batrachoseps major) The garden slender salamander is a SBNF Watch List species. It is endemic to California and Baja California Norte.

Habitat includes coastal sage scrub and oak woodland in the coastal interior, mixed coniferous forest at high elevations, and on north-facing rocky slopes in desert localities. Garden slender salamanders are generally found under rocks, logs, bark, leaf litter, and other surface debris. This salamander also retreats into animal burrows, earthworm tunnels, and crevices in the soil. They feed primarily on small arthropods and other small invertebrates.

Garden slender salamanders do not breathe through lungs. They conduct respiration through their skin and their mouth tissues, which requires them to live in damp environments on land and to move about on the ground only during times of high humidity. They are active on rainy or wet nights when temperatures are moderate. The period of activity is October through May, depending on precipitation.

Breeding probably occurs from November to January, during the rainy season. This species lays eggs in moist places on land. Females lay strings of up to 10-20 eggs under stones or moist debris. Communal nesting is likely. The young develop in the egg and hatch directly into a tiny terrestrial salamander with the same body form as an adult. Hatchlings have been observed in January, and as late as April. (Source: Calherps: http://www.californiaherps.com/salamanders/pages/b.m.major.html)

Although there are no records for garden slender salamanders in the project area, it may occur in areas of suitable habitat. The effects to this species would be similar to those described for the large/yellow-blotched ensatinas (Part IV-1.3.1

V-4.3.4 – SBNF Watch List Reptiles Several Watch List reptiles are known to occur in the analysis area or have the potential due to suitable habitat being present. The effects for Watch List reptiles are similar and discussed together after the life history and occurrence information for each species.

V-4.3.4.1 Coast Patch-Nosed Snake (Salvadora hexalepis virgultea) Coast patch-nosed snakes are a CDFW Species of Special Concern, a Federal Species of Concern (formerly known as USFWS Candidate species), and a SBNF Watch List species. The coast patch-nosed snake prefers coastal sage scrub and chaparral habitats. Habitat selection is closely related to the presence of the species' primary prey, whiptail lizards (Cnemidophorus spp.), and the presence of refuge and overwinter sites provided by ground squirrels or other burrowing mammals. Coast patch-nosed snakes seem to require at least a low shrub structure of minimum density; it is not found in habitats lacking this habitat characteristic. Patch-nosed snakes are found up to 7000 feet in elevation.

Western patch-nosed snakes mate between April and June, and gravid females have been observed in the field May–August. This species typically lays one clutch of four to ten eggs, with an average clutch size of five to six. Incubation of eggs requires approximately 85 days.

Page 201

The hatchlings emerge in late summer. Adult coast patch-nosed snakes have been observed emerging from overwintering sites in March and returning to overwintering sites in October. Western patch-nosed snake is normally active in spring and early summer with the greatest activity occurring May–June. However, this species may be active all year in southern California during mild to warm years.

This snake is diurnal and has been observed throughout the day during the milder months of spring. In summer, this activity pattern becomes bimodal (a primary peak in late morning and a secondary peak in late afternoon), and it is suggested that this behavior corresponds roughly to the emergence interval of whiptail lizards, the major prey item. Coast patch-nosed snakes apparently remain immobile on the surface during the inactive period of the day.

Coast patch-nosed snake seems to be a broad generalist in its diet and an opportunistic feeder. It probably eats anything it can overpower, including small mammals (e.g., kangaroo rats [Dipodomys spp.]), lizards (Cnemidophorus spp., Coleonyx spp.), and the eggs of lizards and snakes. (Sources: http://www.dfg.ca.gov/biogeodata/cwhr; Forest Plan Species Account. USFS 2005b).

Patch-nosed snakes are known from the San Bernardino Mountains. This subspecies may occur in the analysis area where suitable habitat occurs.

V-4.3.4.2 Mountain Garter Snake (Thamnophis elegans elegans) The mountain garter snake has been identified by the Forest Service as a species of local viability concern (Stephenson and Calcarone 1999), and is a SBNF Watch List species. The mountain garter snake occurs across the northern third of California and throughout the Sierra Nevada. An isolated population occurs in the high elevations of the San Bernardino Mountains. The isolated southern California population of mountain garter snake occurs in the San Bernardino Mountains at elevations above 4,900 feet. There is little information on the distribution and abundance of this snake in the San Bernardino Mountains.

There are records from the vicinity of Big Bear Lake and Lake Arrowhead, and the Berkeley Museum of Vertebrate Zoology lists several historic records from the vicinity of the Santa Ana River, Fish Creek, Bear Lake, Bluff Lake, and Seven Oaks. Forest Service records and observations include: Skyforest (1971), Fawnskin, and Arrastre Creek.

Mountain garter snakes in the San Bernardino Mountains enter streams only occasionally and occur more commonly in meadow-type vegetation and in very dry locations several miles from water.

Courtship and mating in T. elegans normally occur soon after spring emergence. Young are born alive, usually in secluded sites such as under the loose bark of rotting logs or in dense vegetation near pond or stream margins. A large female captured near Big Bear Lake on June 20, 1954, contained 11 eggs. A gravid female was captured going down a gopher burrow near Lake Arrowhead on July 30, 1921; this snake gave birth to four young the following October 11.

Page 202

On the basis of documented behavior of red-sided garter snakes (Thamnophis sirtalis parietalis), this species at inland montane locations, might migrate to and from hibernacula where individuals spend the fall, winter, and early spring. T. elegans is an active diurnal snake. Peak activity occurs during the morning and late afternoon in mid-summer. Garter snakes have been observed to emerge from hibernacula and bask in the sun during winter. A varied diet, including beetles, toads, Pacific chorus frog, and sagebrush lizard, has been reported for this species in the San Bernardino Mountains. (Source: Forest Plan Species Account. USFS 2005b)

There is little information on the distribution and abundance of this snake in the San Bernardino Mountains. There are historic records from the vicinity of Big Bear Lake and Lake Arrowhead, and the Berkeley Museum of Vertebrate Zoology lists several historic records from the vicinity of the Santa Ana River, Fish Creek, Bear Lake, Bluff Lake, and Seven Oaks. Mountain garter snakes are known from Houston Creek and are likely throughout the project area.

II-4.3.4.3 Southwestern Speckled Rattlesnake (Crotalus mitchellii pyrrhus) The southwestern speckled rattlesnake is a SBNF Watch List species. The southwestern speckled rattlesnake is a heavy-bodied venomous pit viper. It is found in rocks as well as sandy areas and desert flats. It occurs in sagebrush, creosote, chaparral, cactus, and pinyon-juniper woodlands at elevations between 1000 to 7300 feet. These snakes are primarily nocturnal and crepuscular during hot periods and diurnal during moderate temperatures. They are not active during cold periods. They eat small mammals, lizards, and birds. Speckled rattlesnakes are live- bearing with 2-11 young born from July to August. They are active from mid-spring to mid-fall (Sources: http://www.californiaherps.com; http://www.dfg.ca.gov/biogeodata/cwhr; Brown 1997).

Speckled rattlesnakes may occur in the project area where suitable habitat exists.

V-4.3.4.4 Potential Effects to Watch List Reptiles There is a high likelihood for mortality of young and adults from many of the project’s activities (e.g., skidding, landing creation, mastication, pile burning, broadcast burning, etc.). Death or injury of denned or hibernating individuals may occur as a result of dens and rock crevices being compacted or shifted during ground-based activities. Additionally, these slow-moving reptiles are susceptible to being run over by equipment and vehicles during fuels reduction operations. An additional risk for some rare reptiles is the risk of being killed or collected by project personnel. The Design Features include a measure requiring educating crew members to reduce the risk of this occurring.

While effects to individuals and some suitable habitat in the project area would be reduced by Design Features that reduce the disturbance to logs and rocks, effects to habitat availability and quality would occur, especially in the more intensive treatment areas. See Parts II-3.3.6, II-3.3.8 II-3.3.9, and II-3.3.12 and for discussions further discussions applicable to these species.

V-4.3.5 – SBNF Watch List Birds Table 29 lists the SBNF Watch List bird species that were observed in the analysis area or have high likelihood of occurrence based on habitat (Forest Service records and survey observations,

Page 203

SBNF “All Species” GIS layer; SBCM records, CNDDB) and indicates which species are considered regular breeders in the San Bernardino Mountains.

California Partners In Flight “Bird Conservation Plans” were also used to assess potential for species and effects (CalPIF 2002 and 2004). Species accounts from the Forest Plan (USFS 2006) contain detailed information about life history, habitat needs, status, and threats (USFS 2005b). Those full species accounts are incorporated by reference.

Because of the similarity in the types of expected effects, the potential effects discussion is provided after all of the bird species discussions.

V-4.3.5.1 White-Tailed Kite (Elanus leucurus) The white-tailed kite is a SBNF Watch List species and a CDFW “fully-protected” species. White-tailed kites are common to uncommon, yearlong residents in coastal and valley lowlands; rarely found away from agricultural areas. It inhabits herbaceous and open stages of most habitats mostly in cismontane California. This species has extended range and increased numbers in recent decades.

White-tailed kites prey mostly on voles and other small, diurnal mammals, occasionally on birds, insects, reptiles, and amphibians. They typically forage in undisturbed, open grasslands, meadows, farmlands, and emergent wetlands. White-tailed kites use trees with dense canopies for cover. Nests are made of loosely-piled sticks and twigs and lined with grass, straw, or rootlets. They are placed near top of dense oak, willow, or other tree stand; usually 20-100 feet above ground and located near open foraging areas. White-tailed kites are apparently not migratory; however, they may become nomadic in response to prey abundance.

This species is monogamous, breeding from February to October, peaking from May to August. Only the females incubate, for about 28 days. Young fledge in 35-40 days. During incubation and nestling period, male feeds female, and supplies her with food to feed the young. (Source: http://www.dfg.ca.gov/biogeodata/cwhr/cawildlife.aspx)

White-tailed kites are known to occur in the San Bernardino Mountains. Increased sightings and year-round observations suggest that breeding is probably occurring. It may occur in the project area. This species prefers trees with dense canopy for nesting, usually near open areas suitable for foraging. The project area has some habitat suitable for nesting but does not have the open grasslands/meadows typically used for foraging.

V-4.3.5.2 Sharp-Shinned Hawk (Accipiter striatus) The sharp-shinned hawk is a SBNF Watch List species and a CDFW Watch species. In California, sharp-shinned hawks breed throughout the state, including the mountains of southern California, but the majority probably breed in the northern half of the state.

Sharp-shinned hawks in California typically nest in coniferous forests, often within riparian areas or on north-facing slopes. Nest stands are typically dense patches of small-diameter trees; these patches are cool, moist, and well-shaded with little groundcover. Nest stands often occur near water and are typically in close proximity to open areas. Sharp-shinned hawks are presumed to

Page 204

be serially monogamous. The breeding season is mid-April to mid-July, with a single clutch of four-five eggs. The nest is a large, well-built structure of twigs, typically located in a tree crotch 10–60 feet high.

Sharp-shinned hawks are partial migrants over much of their North American range. Small birds are the main food taken, small mammals and, occasionally, large insects. Sharp-shinned hawks chase and attack perched or flying prey with short bursts of speed. Typically, sharp-shinned hawks remain motionless on perches, from where they can dart out to surprise prey. Sharp- shinned hawks forage in a wide variety of habitats, including forest canopy and subcanopy, shorelines, urban and suburban settings, smaller forest patches, and transitional habitats.

Sharp-shinned hawks occur regularly in winter and as a migrant throughout the mountains of southern California, but nesting has been recorded only in the northern Santa Lucia, San Gabriel, San Bernardino, and San Jacinto Mountains. It is not known if nesting occurs regularly in these mountains, although records of birds sighted during summer in the San Bernardino and San Jacinto Mountains are common enough to suggest that it does. (Source: Forest Plan Species Account. USFS 2005b)

This species is a regular breeder in the San Bernardino Mountains and it may occur in the project area. Suitable habitat for nesting and foraging occurs in the analysis area and vicinity.

V-4.3.5.3 Cooper’s Hawk (Accipiter cooperii) The Cooper’s hawk is a SBNF Watch List species and a CDFW Watch List species. Cooper's hawks breed in a wide variety of habitat types, including deciduous, coniferous, and mixed forests; oak woodlands; deciduous riparian habitats; woodlots; and suburban and urban areas. In southern California, Cooper's hawks typically nest in riparian forests, mountain canyons, and oak woodlands. Populations in southern California are likely to be permanent, non-migratory residents, although individuals may wander widely during winter. Cooper's hawks are strictly diurnal. Breeding begins in April or May, young fledge from mid-May to late June, and dispersal begins in late July to August.

Cooper’s hawks catch small birds, especially young during nesting season, and small mammals; they also take reptiles and amphibians. They hunt in broken woodland and habitat edges, catching prey in air, on ground, and in vegetation. Cooper’s hawks often dashes suddenly from perch in dense cover and pursues prey in air through branches. They sometimes run prey down in dense thickets. They use cover to hide, attack, and approach prey; also soaring and making low, gliding search flights.

Breeding Bird Survey data for the last 20 years (1980 to 2000) suggest that Cooper's hawk populations in California may be declining. Habitat in the lower elevation woodlands on private land is developing rapidly. (Sources: USFS 2005b; http://www.dfg.ca.gov/biogeodata/cwhr/ cawildlife.aspx)

This species is a regular breeder in the San Bernardino Mountains. They are known occur in the project area (SBCM). Suitable habitat for nesting and foraging occurs in the analysis area and vicinity.

Page 205

V-4.3.5.4 Golden Eagle (Aquila chrysaetos) The golden eagle is a SBNF Watch List species, identified by the Forest Service as having a local viability concern, a CDFW Watch List species, and a California state fully-protected species. It is protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (Eagle Act) and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA; Executive Order 13186), and the California Fish and Game Code. Because of the special and multiple status of this species, it is being discussed more in-depth than the other Watch List birds. See Appendix B for details on management direction.

The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 668-668c), enacted in 1940, and amended several times since then, prohibits anyone, without a permit issued by the Secretary of the Interior, from "taking" bald and golden eagles, including their parts, nests, or eggs. Under the Eagle Act, “take” is defined as “pursue, shoot, shoot at, poison, wound, kill, capture, trap, collect, destroy, molest or disturb.” “Disturb” is defined in regulations as “to agitate or bother a bald or golden eagle to a degree that causes, or is likely to cause, based on the best scientific information available: (1) injury to an eagle, (2) a decrease in its productivity, by substantially interfering with normal breeding, feeding, or sheltering behavior, or (3) nest abandonment, by substantially interfering with normal breeding, feeding, or sheltering behavior.” The golden eagle is also a “fully-protected” species in the State of California. Because there are currently no nests known in the immediate vicinity of the project area, take (under the State of California’s definition and under the federal Eagle Act) and disturbance to nesting golden eagles would not be expected.

Life History and Baseline Information: In California, golden eagles are an uncommon permanent resident and migrant throughout most of the state, except the floor of the Central Valley (Ziener et al. 1990). This species ranges from sea level to 11,500 feet (Ziener et al. 1990). It is an uncommon year-round resident in southern California (Pagel, pers. comm. 2013). Historically, golden eagles were considered more abundant in remote parts of southern California than anywhere else in the United States (Ziener et al. 1990).

Golden eagles nest primarily on cliffs in southern California but will also nest in trees (Pagel, pers. comm. 2013). They build their nests on cliff ledges or in trees, typically 10-100 feet above the ground. As a species that is skittish about human intrusion, they often occupy remote mountain ranges and upland areas, often at or above tree line where vegetation is short or sometimes absent. Southern California’s golden eagles generally avoid nesting in heavily- forested mountains and coastal or urban areas. They hunt for rabbits and other small mammals in nearby open habitats, such as grasslands, oak savannas, and open shrublands. Also a scavenger, golden eagles will forage on large dead animals (Ferguson-Lees and Christie 2001, Garrett and Dunn 1981, Pagel, pers. comm. 2013, Kochert et al. 2002).

Wintering habitats in the western United States tend to include perches and native shrub-steppe vegetation types (e.g., comprising Artemisia and similar shrubs). Habitats with these characteristics typically support substantial prey populations of black-tailed jackrabbits (Lepus californicus) (Johnsgard 1990, Kochert and Steenhof 2002, Kochert et al. 2002).

The golden eagle breeding season in southern California begins in early-mid December. Chicks fledge through July (Pagel, pers. comm. 2013). The nest is constructed of branches, twigs, and

Page 206

is added to during the courtship phase of the nesting period. A nest can be quite large and may become more massive with successive use. Alternative nest sites within the breeding territory are occasionally used; a nesting territory is typically consists of one to four nests, but up to 18 different nest sites per territory has been documented (Kochert and Steenhof 2012). Golden eagles are known to have re-occupied nests that have been vacant for 30-40 years (Kochert and Steenhof 2012).

Females typically lay 1-3 eggs and incubate them for 43–45 days. The semi-altricial eaglets are brooded by the female for an additional 30 days. The young fly at about 60-70 days, remaining near the nest site for a few weeks to months (Baicich and Harrison 1997, Zeiner et a. 1990, Pagel, pers. comm. 2013). Typically, the nest is occupied for about 16 weeks total during the breeding season. Territory fidelity in adult golden eagles is high. Juvenile golden eagles disperse from their natal area. After dispersal, they live nomadically until they establish a territory during the fall of their first year (Pagel, pers. comm. 2013).

In California, golden eagles are resident year-round; however, eagles that nest outside the state also visit California during migration and winter, and nomadic subadults and adult “floater” (i.e., unmated or non-territorial) eagles may travel between California and other regions. Eagles may move altitudinally and latitudinally seasonally and/or in response to changing weather conditions; they may also move upslope after the breeding season (Ziener et al. 1990, Katzner et al. 2012, Pagel 2013, pers. comm.).

Golden eagles will occasionally hunt from an exposed perch, flying directly toward prey, or will hunt from soaring or low ground-level flights (Ziener et al. 1990, Kochert et al. 2002). Golden eagles eat primarily lagomorphs and rodents, but they will also take other mammals, reptiles, carrion, and birds (Johnsgard 1990, Dunne et al. 1988). Studies of golden eagle diets indicate that mammals often comprise 82% of the diet, supplemented by birds at 12.6%, with the remainder consisting of reptiles and fish (Ziener et al. 1990).

During the breeding season, golden eagles are highly territorial, and monogamous pairs may occupy a territory repeatedly over their life span. Territorial boundaries are well defined and vigorously defended. Golden eagles tend to nest on the periphery of an adjacent eagle’s territory. Territorial size is dependent on food resources available (Pagel, pers. comm. 2013) and varies in S. California (Katzner et al. 2012). Outside the breeding season, the eagles disperse widely and do not maintain territories.

Threats to golden eagles include powerlines (electrocutions and collisions), contaminants (e.g., lead poisoning from scavenging on carcasses containing spent lead ammunition, secondary poisoning from rodenticides, etc.), intentional shooting/poaching, incidental trapping in furbearer traps, drowning in stock-tanks, vehicle collisions, habitat loss, collisions with other structures including large-scale non-renewable and renewable energy developments, and disturbance to nest sites (Kochert et al. 2002, USFWS 2010, DeLong 2004, Ruddock and Whitfield 2007). Another threat is poaching due to black market demand (Pagel, pers. comm. 2013).

Near National Forest System lands in southern California, golden eagles are affected by private land development and rapid urbanization that encroaches on key foraging areas. There appears

Page 207

to be abundant nesting habitat on public land, but in many places the highest quality foraging areas are on private land. (Source: USFS Forest Plan 2006)

Increased recreational activity, particularly rock climbing and hiking, in the vicinity of cliff nests is also a problem in some areas and can cause golden eagles to abandon nest sites. Mining activities on the North Slope of the San Bernardino Mountains may also be a threat to golden eagles if mining results in disturbance to nesting cliffs. (Source: USFS Forest Plan 2006, USFWS 2010)

Mortality of golden eagles as a result of wind turbine collisions has been high (79 between 1997 and 2012 in 10 states) (Pagel et al. 2013). Large-scale solar panel projects result in losses of large acreages of foraging habitat for golden eagles. Within the foreseeable future, a number of new renewable energy projects are expected to come online in California’s deserts, as suggested by the number of applications for renewable energy projects (http://www.energy.ca.gov/siting/solar/; http://www.blm.gov/ca/st/en /prog/energy/wind.html).

Those combined with existing developments and other threats to golden eagles contribute to the concern for the golden eagle population in the western U.S. Given the current situation for golden eagles, there are concerns about cumulative effects for this species due to multiple threats (Pagel, pers. comm. 2013).

Occurrence in Analysis Area: Golden eagles are known to nest from a number of locations in the San Bernardino Mountains. There are no known nesting records in the project area. The favored cliff habitat for nesting is not present in or near the project area. This species does occasionally nest in trees and there are trees suitable for nest sites in the project area. The project area is likely used by foraging golden eagles on an occasional basis.

Potential Effects: It is very unlikely that the proposed project would affect nesting golden eagles. If an active nest were found within close proximity prior to or during implementation, the Forest Service would develop and implement Design Features to ensure avoidance of “take”. If golden eagles were foraging in the project area during implementation, they would likely be temporarily displaced from the areas close to ongoing activities (e.g., operation of equipment, felling of trees, etc.). No long-term effects to golden eagles or their habitat would be expected.

V-4.3.5.5 – Merlin (Falco columbarius) The merlin is a Forest Service Watch List species and a CDFW Watch species. Merlins are uncommon winter migrants from September to May. They are seldom found in heavily-wooded areas, or open deserts, preferring to frequent coastlines, open grasslands, savannahs, woodlands, lakes, wetlands, edges, and early successional stages. They range from annual grasslands to ponderosa pine and montane hardwood-conifer habitats. Numbers have declined markedly in California in recent decades. Because merlins feed mostly on birds, numbers probably have been reduced by pesticides. The primary prey includes small birds, small mammals, and insects. Dense tree stands close to bodies of water are used for cover. (Source: http://www.dfg.ca.gov/ biogeodata/cwhr/ cawildlife.aspx)

Page 208

This species does not breed in California (breeding is in Alaska and Canada). Merlins have potential to forage in the project area.

V-4.3.5.6 – American Peregrine Falcon (Falco peregrines anatus) The peregrine falcon is a Forest Service Watch List species and a CDFW “fully protected” species. It is a USFWS Bird of Conservation Concern. It has been removed from the Federal and State of California’s Endangered Species lists.

Peregrine falcons nest almost exclusively on protected ledges of high cliffs, primarily in woodland, forest, and coastal habitats. A very small number of nests have been found on small outcrops and in trees, and a number of reintroduced pairs nest on tall buildings. Cliffs that provide ledges, potholes, or small caves (usually with an overhang), and that are relatively inaccessible to mammalian predators, are required components of nesting habitat. Nest sites usually provide a panoramic view of open country, are near water, and are associated with a local abundance of passerine, waterfowl, or shorebird prey.

The breeding season of peregrine falcon generally begins after the winter solstice and can last until August. Courtship typically involves the male provisioning the female with food. Females normally lay two-four eggs; egg-laying in California typically occurs in March-May. Both male and female incubate the eggs for 29–33 days. In California, fledging occurs in May to July when the young are 35–54 days old. Juvenile peregrine falcons begin hunting on their own and become independent 6–15 weeks after fledging.

Peregrine falcons feed almost exclusively on birds; ranging in size from hummingbirds to Aleutian Canada geese. They typically feed on highly mobile, flocking, and colonial nesting birds, such as shorebirds, waterfowl, doves, and pigeons. Peregrine falcons chase and grab their prey, or dive down on them at speeds up to 100–200 miles per hour (i.e., stooping). During the stoop, a peregrine falcon grasps its prey or strikes it with its talons and subsequently retrieves it on the ground. Peregrine falcons hunt during the day or at dusk. During the breeding season, adult peregrine falcons attack and chase other raptors away from the nest, especially golden eagles and other peregrine falcons that move through their territory. Adults hunt over a large area around the nest site; foraging may occur up to 12 miles from the nest.

Bans on the use of DDT in the 1970s and a major reintroduction program led by the Peregrine Fund have resulted in an impressive increase in the distribution and abundance of this species. The population increase has been substantial enough to warrant the taxon's delisting, in August 1999, from the federal endangered status, although this decision is controversial. (Source: (Source: Forest Plan Species Account. USFS 2005b)

Bans on the use of DDT in the 1970s and a major reintroduction program led by the CDFW and Santa Cruz Predatory Bird Research Group (SCPBRG) in California resulted in an impressive increase in the distribution and abundance of this species. The population increase has been substantial enough to warrant the taxon's delisting in August 1999 from federal endangered status. (Source: USFS 2005b, Pagel 2014 pers. comm.)

The widespread use of DDT was a primary cause of the decline in peregrine falcon populations. High levels of these pesticides and their metabolites (i.e., byproducts of organic Page 209

decompositions) were found in the tissues of peregrine falcons, leading to thin eggshells and reproductive failure. Environmental toxins continue to be a threat. Other threats include illegal shooting, illegal falconry activities, and habitat destruction. National Forest System lands in southern California do not support a large amount of high-quality habitat for American peregrine falcon. Protecting cliff-nesting sites from human disturbance has been identified as an important conservation measure for peregrine falcons on NFS lands. (Source: USFS 20065b, Pagel and Jarman 1991)

Peregrine falcons are not currently known to nest in the project area and cliffs suitable for nesting are not present in the project area. They may occasionally forage in the Project Area.

V-4.3.5.7 Prairie Falcon (Falco mexicanus) Prairie falcons are a SBNF Watch List species and a CDFW Watch List species. Prairie falcons inhabit shrub-steppe desert, open desert scrub, grassland, mixed shrub-grasslands, and alpine tundra. Prairie falcon habitat typically consists of dry open terrain, either hilly or level. Nests are located on cliffs, generally in arid open areas. Desert scrub and grasslands are preferred foraging habitats in southern California. This species has declined in the coastal foothills of southern California as development has affected foraging habitat availability.

The breeding season of prairie falcons generally begins after the winter solstice and can last until August. Egg-laying typically occurs in March – May with fledging between May and July. Nests are located on cliff ledges or rock outcrops in open regions. Nests are typically scrapes located 30-40 feet high on a cliff or rock outcrop; they are occasionally found as high as 400 feet. Abandoned nests built by other birds are rarely used by prairie falcons. The female incubates a single clutch; clutches usually contain four-five eggs. Incubation lasts for approximately 29-31 days.

Prairie falcons are described as more of a wanderer than a true migrant. They move seasonally, probably in response to food availability. Most of the species' southward movements occur between late August and late October, with the main return flight taking place in early March to late April.

Primary foods taken by prairie falcons include horned larks (Eremophila alpestris) and other small passerines, lizards, ground squirrels (Spermophilus spp.), and small rodents. Prairie falcons employ two main hunting strategies: one is to flush a prey item and fly along a route meant to conceal the prairie falcon until the last moment; the other is to patrol long distances close to the ground until it may surprise its quarry. Prairie falcons defend a small area around the nest site from conspecific and other intruders. However, prairie falcons forage over large, undefended areas. (Source: USFS 2005b, Pagel 2014 pers. comm.)

The species is legally harvested in 19 states. Falconers legally take an estimated 0.2 percent of the prairie falcon population each year, making it the second most commonly harvested raptor in the United States. Because of prairie falcons' strong association with cliffs as nesting sites, they are especially susceptible to habitat loss adjacent to suitable nest structures. Prairie falcons can be adversely affected by large-scale agricultural development, especially in foraging areas with high densities of ground squirrels. Much of the prime foraging area for prairie falcons has been

Page 210

lost to in southern California and those losses are likely to continue with human population growth. (Source: Forest Plan Species Account. USFS 2005b)

Prairie falcons are not currently known to nest in or near the project area. No cliffs suitable for nesting are present in the project area. Foraging may occur in the project area.

V-4.3.5.8 Flammulated Owl (Otus flammeolus) The flammulated owl has been identified by the Forest Service as a local viability concern (Stephenson and Calcarone 1999) and a SBNF Watch List species. Flammulated owls nest at elevations of 5,500–9,000 feet, primarily in the San Gabriel, San Bernardino, and San Jacinto Mountains.

In southern California, flammulated owls breed in open, mature Jeffrey (Pinus jeffreyi) or ponderosa pine (P. ponderosa) forests intermixed with black oak (Quercus kelloggii). They occur less frequently in stands dominated by white fir (Abies concolor) and probably only where at least some large pines are present. Flammulated owls avoid areas with high humidity and high daytime temperatures; they are typically found in semiarid mid-slope or ridge top forests with scattered thickets of shrubs or saplings and clearings. Areas with edge habitat and grassy openings up to 2 ha (5 acres) in size are beneficial to the owls. In some localities, flammulated owls have been detected in almost pure stands of pinyon pine (P. quadrifolia).

They are secondary cavity nesters; black oaks may be important sources of suitable cavities. Flammulated owls in the southern part of their range commonly use old nest cavities excavated by common flicker (Colaptes auratus) in large snags. The average diameter of nest trees is greater than 20 inches dbh. The breeding season of flammulated owl begins as early as May and lasts into August.

The flammulated owl is a nocturnal species. During the breeding season, nest visitation rates by adults peak just after dusk and before dawn, but are otherwise variable through the night. Flammulated owl is almost entirely insectivorous. They prey on nocturnal insects including owlet moths (Noctuidae), beetles, and crickets and grasshoppers.

The greatest threats to the flammulated owl include the loss of large trees and snags, overly dense stands and the subsequent shift in species composition from pine and oak to fir and shade tolerant species. (Source: Forest Plan Species Account. USFS 2005b)

This species is a regular breeder in the San Bernardino Mountains and it may occur in the project area. Suitable habitat for nesting and foraging occurs in the analysis area and vicinity.

V-4.3.5.9 Western Screech Owl (Otus kennicottii) The western screech owl has been identified by the Forest Service as a local viability concern (Stephenson and Calcarone 1999) and a SBNF Watch List species. Western screech owls are uncommon to common, yearlong resident of open oak, pinyon-juniper, riparian, redwood, and mixed conifer habitats. They are tolerant of humans; found in small towns, suburbs, farms, ranches, and meadows. This species occurs between sea level and 8000 feet. They perch, pounce, and stoop for mice and other small mammals, birds, fish, reptiles, amphibians, and

Page 211

arthropods in meadows and other openings in trees. Small birds are frequently taken in nesting season. Insects are an important food source in summer and fall. They roost and nest in abandoned woodpecker holes or other tree cavities. Western screech owls are nocturnal. They are non-migratory. (Source: Forest Plan Species Account. USFS 2005b)

This species is a regular breeder in the San Bernardino Mountains. Western screech owls are likely to occur in the project area. Suitable foraging, roosting, and nesting habitat is present.

V-4.3.5.10 Northern Pygmy Owl (Glaucidium gnoma) The northern pygmy owl has been identified by the Forest Service as a species of local viability concern (Stephenson and Calcarone 1999) and a SBNF Watch List species. It is an uncommon to fairly common, yearlong resident of most forest habitats in California, especially valley foothill hardwood, mixed conifer, valley foothill riparian, and montane riparian. They are often found in canyons. It is most commonly found along edges near meadows, streams, lakes, and other openings. Northern pygmy owls are found between sea level and 0-12,000 feet.

They roost and nest in abandoned woodpecker holes or other tree cavities. They are non- migratory but may move up and down slope in winter. In contrast to other owl species, northern pygmy owls are at least partly diurnal. The main food items of northern pygmy-owl are insects, small rodents, and reptiles. (Source: Forest Plan Species Account. USFS 2005b)

This species is a regular breeder in the San Bernardino Mountains. Northern pygmy owls are likely to occur; suitable foraging and nesting habitat is present.

V-4.3.5.11 Long-Eared Owl (Asio otus) The long-eared owl is a CDFW Species of Special Concern and a SBNF Watch List species. Long-eared owls breed in mature live oak and riparian woodlands in coastal and foothill areas, but also occur in desert riparian, woodland, and oasis habitats. Long-eared owls may begin egg laying in March, and most young fledge by mid-May. They tend to nest in old corvid and raptor nests and occasionally in dwarf-mistletoe brooms. Long-eared owls are active primarily during the night. Long-eared owls prey primarily on voles and mice, but will also take birds on occasion. They most often hunt at night over open grasslands and meadows.

Substantial declines in the numbers and range of long-eared owls in California have been documented. This species is known to occur in the San Bernardino Mountains. (Source: Forest Plan Species Account. USFS 2005b)

Long-eared owls are a notoriously irruptive species and use a variety of nest substrates, including old raptor nests, rock caves, and outcrops (G. Braden, pers. comm. 2013). This species is a regular breeder in the San Bernardino Mountains. Long-eared owls may occur in the project area. Suitable habitat for foraging and nesting habitat is present.

V-4.3.5.12 Northern Saw-Whet Owl (Aegolius acadicus) The northern saw-whet owl has been identified by the Forest Service as a species of local viability concern (Stephenson and Calcarone 1999) and a SBNF Watch List species. Northern saw-whet owls most commonly breed in dense oaks intermixed with conifers and in pine and fir

Page 212

forests that have an oak understory, although open conifer forests are occupied at higher elevations. Northern saw-whet owls are secondary cavity nesters that primarily utilize cavities excavated by woodpeckers, although they will use natural cavities or artificial nest boxes. Northern saw-whet owls are known to persist year-round on the breeding grounds, although many move south in autumn. Northern saw-whet owls exhibit yearlong nocturnal activity. The diet of northern saw-whet owl consists mainly of small rodents and occasionally small birds, frogs, and insects. Northern saw-whet owls are territorial; they proclaim territories through the exchange of vocalizations. (Source: Forest Plan Species Account. USFS 2005b)

This species is a regular breeder in the San Bernardino Mountains and it may occur in the project area. Suitable habitat for nesting and foraging occurs in the analysis area and vicinity.

V-4.3.5.13 Common Nighthawk (Chordeiles minor) The common nighthawk has been identified by the Forest Service as a species of local viability concern (Stephenson and Calcarone 1999) and a SBNF Watch List species. Common nighthawk is a local species of concern because it is a rare breeder in southern California and there are few known nesting localities on NFS lands. In the San Bernardino Mountains, it is found near Big Bear Lake, Bluff Lake, Sugarloaf and the San Gorgonio Wilderness. It is found between 3,000 and 9,000 feet in elevation.

Common nighthawks forage over a variety of habitats, from open coniferous forest to sagebrush plains, and are frequently seen foraging over open bodies of water. In forested areas of California, common nighthawks are generally associated with white fir (Abies concolor), ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa), and lodgepole pine (P. contorta). Some open, gravelly substrate is required for nesting. Nesting habitat includes woodland clearings, flat gravel rooftops, clearcuts, open forest, rural fields, sagebrush and grassland habitat, beaches and coastal sand dunes, prairies and plains, and rocky outcrops. Common nighthawks typically nest on bare ground, using no gathered material. The breeding season begins late May to early April.

Common nighthawks forage by hawking flying insects. They are opportunistic feeders, taking those insects that are most abundant and most easily captured. Preferred foraging habitats include broad, open fly-ways over wet meadow, emergent wetland, lacustrine, and riverine habitats and shrub-covered valleys and plains. In addition, they often forage at lights, and over most habitats, including forests. More than fifty species of insects have been reported as common nighthawk prey.

Common nighthawks are crepuscular, with dusk flights beginning about 30 minutes before sunset and ending about 70 minutes after sunset. Dawn flights begin about an hour before sunrise and last until about 15 minutes after sunrise. The remaining hours of the day are spent roosting. Common nighthawks migrate great distances; in fact, the species follows one of the longest migration routes traveled by any North American bird. (Sources: USFS 2005b; http://www.dfg.ca.gov/biogeodata/cwhr/cawildlife.aspx)

This species is a regular breeder in the San Bernardino Mountains and it may occur in the project area. Suitable habitat for nesting and foraging occurs in the analysis area and vicinity.

Page 213

V-4.3.5.14 Mexican Whip-Poor-Will (Caprimulgus arizonae) The whip-poor-will is a SBNF Watch List species. The whip-poor-will is a rare and local summer resident in mountains of southern California. It is found in a small area of the San Bernardino Mountains around Big Bear, Heart Bar, and the Santa Ana River. In California, has been found on steep slopes in montane hardwood, montane hardwood-conifer, and mixed conifer habitats, as well as in montane riparian and pinyon-juniper habitats.

Whip-poor-wills feed on flying insects, especially moths caught in short sallies made from the ground, or from a perch in a tree. They nest in a scrape on the ground in the litter of woodlands. They are found in sparse and dense woodlands, often on steep slopes.

Whip-poor-wills are crepuscular and nocturnal in habits. They arrive in California from Mexico and Central America by early May, and apparently mostly gone by mid-August. (Source: http://www.dfg.ca.gov/biogeodata/cwhr/cawildlife.aspx) While there are no definite nesting records for California, nesting is suspected in the Big Bear Area based on Rare Bird Alert records.

This species is a regular breeder in the San Bernardino Mountains and it may occur in the project area. Suitable habitat for nesting and foraging occurs in the analysis area and vicinity.

V-4.3.5.15 Calliope Hummingbird (Stellula calliope) The calliope hummingbird is a SBNF Watch List species and has been identified by the Forest Service as a local viability concern (Stephenson and Calcarone 1999). Calliope hummingbirds occur primarily in montane habitats. Calliope hummingbirds generally breed along meadow borders and in streamside thickets (especially willows) within arid mixed-conifer forests.

Calliope hummingbirds are neotropical migrants. The breeding season of the calliope hummingbird generally begins in April and lasts to August. Males arrive on the breeding grounds before females, typically in late April. Nests are usually built 10-30 feet above ground in forests adjacent to meadows and riparian zones used for foraging.

Foraging occurs in montane chaparral and wet meadow habitats where herbaceous plants are used for nectar. Calliope hummingbird eats floral nectar and small insects. Nectar sources include the typical red tubular flowers as well as a variety of plant species with white, blue, and purple flowers. Calliope hummingbird forages aerially for insects. Heavy recreation use, facilities development, and overgrazing by livestock can degrade montane riparian habitat condition. Surface water diversions, excessive erosion by roads and/or trails, and/or groundwater extraction or other hydrological changes can reduce or eliminate these habitats. (Source: Forest Plan Species Account. USFS 2005b)

This species is a regular breeder in the San Bernardino Mountains and it is known from the project area (SBCM 2003). Suitable habitat for nesting and foraging occurs in the analysis area and vicinity.

V-4.3.5.16 Lewis’ Woodpecker (Melanerpes lewis) The Lewis’ woodpecker is a SBNF Watch List species and a USFWS Bird of Conservation Concern. Page 214

Lewis’ woodpeckers are uncommon, local winter residents occurring in open oak savannahs, and broken deciduous and coniferous habitats. They require open habitats with scattered trees and snags with cavities. Cover is provided by cavities and foliage of trees and shrubs. Lewis’ woodpeckers excavate nest cavities in snag or dead part of live tree, usually 5-80 feet above ground. They usually nests in sycamore, cottonwood, oak, or conifer. They may nest near other pairs. Suitable habitat includes open, deciduous and conifer habitats with brushy understory, and scattered snags and live trees for nesting and perching. Uses logged and burned areas. They prefer oaks and acorns in winter.

They forage primarily on insects in spring and summer. In late summer and fall, fruits and berries are eaten frequently. Winter food consists mostly of cached acorns, other nuts and seeds, and emerging insects. Lewis’ woodpeckers cache acorns and other nuts in crevices and holes for use in nonbreeding season. (Source: http://www.dfg.ca.gov/biogeodata/cwhr/cawildlife.aspx)

This species is a regular breeder in the San Bernardino Mountains and it is known from the Miller Canyon Arm of Silverwood Lake. Suitable habitat for nesting and foraging habitat occurs in the analysis area and vicinity.

V-4.3.5.17 Williamson’s Sapsucker (Sphyrapicus thyroideus) The Williamson's sapsucker is a SBNF Watch List species and was identified as a species of local viability concern (Stephenson and Calcarone 1999). Williamson's sapsuckers breed at high elevations in coniferous forests dominated by white fir (Abies concolor) or lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta) and are more widely distributed in montane conifer forests during the winter. In the mountains of southern California, they are typically found on north-facing slopes.

Williamson's sapsuckers nests in cavities, usually in dead wood, between 5-60 feet above the ground. The same nest tree is often used year after year, with a new cavity usually excavated each year. Aspen trees are actively selected where they are available, but nests are also found in both live and dead conifers. Availability of suitable nesting substrates such as dead trees and snags is a critical component of nesting habitat.

Nest excavation begins in mid-April and last 3-4 weeks. Females lay a clutch of five to six eggs in May; eggs are incubated by both the male and female for approximately 13 days. Young are tended by both parents until leaving the nest site at about 31 days.

Williamson's sapsuckers are omnivorous with a seasonally specialized diet. During spring and summer, conifer sap and phloem is the main food taken; the diet shifts to ants (Hymenoptera) in the winter after the young are hatched. Other insects are occasionally taken, including aphids (Homoptera), beetles (Coleoptera), and flies (Diptera). Williamson's sapsuckers drill horizontal rows of small holes in lodgepole and other conifers, drink sap, and eat the cambium and other soft tissues. They may also eat fruits and berries in winter.

The Williamson's sapsucker is a local species of concern because the breeding population in southern California is small, disjunct, and restricted to high-elevation forests. Breeding habitat for Williamson's sapsucker is probably most threatened by the risk of large, stand-replacing

Page 215

fire. Habitat in each occupied mountain range is very limited in extent and is vulnerable to loss in a single large fire event. (Source: Forest Plan Species Account. USFS 2005b)

This species is a regular breeder in the San Bernardino Mountains and it may occur in the project area. Suitable habitat for nesting and foraging occurs in the analysis area and vicinity.

V-4.3.5.18 Nuttall's Woodpecker (Picoides nuttallii) The Nuttall’s woodpecker is a SBNF Watch List species and a USFWS Bird of Conservation Concern. Nuttall’s woodpeckers are a common, permanent resident of low-elevation riparian deciduous and oak habitats. They forage mostly in oak and riparian deciduous habitats by pecking, probing, drilling for sap, and gleaning from trunks, branches, twigs and foliage. Adult and larval insects, mostly beetles, may make up 80% of the diet. They also eat berries, poison- oak seeds, nuts, other fruits, and sap.

Nuttall’s woodpeckers typically excavate a nesting cavity 2-60 feet above ground. Nests are located mostly in riparian habitat in dead (occasionally live) trunk or limb of willow, sycamore, cottonwood, or alder; rarely in oaks. They breed from late March to early July; peak activity April to early June. They are diurnal and may migrate upslope after breeding. (Source: http://www.dfg.ca.gov/biogeodata/cwhr/cawildlife.aspx)

This species is a regular breeder in the San Bernardino Mountains and it is known from the project vicinity (SBCM 2003, 2004, 2005). Suitable habitat for nesting and foraging occurs in the analysis area and vicinity.

V-4.3.5.19 Southern White-Headed Woodpecker (Picoides albolarvatus gravirostris) The southern white-headed woodpecker is a SBNF Watch List species, a USFWS Bird of Conservation Concern, and has been identified by the Forest Service as a species of local viability concern (Stephenson and Calcarone 1999). The southern California populations of this species are considered to be a distinct, endemic subspecies. Southern white-headed woodpecker is found in the higher mountains of southern California, generally at elevations of 6,000–8,000 feet.

White-headed woodpeckers are found in mixed conifer forests dominated by large-coned pines such as Coulter (Pinus coulteri), sugar (P. sabiana), Jeffrey (P. jeffreyi), and ponderosa (P. ponderosa), ranging only marginally into associations dominated by white fir (Abies concolor) or lodgepole pine (P. murrayana). Generally, white-headed woodpeckers prefer open stands of both managed and unmanaged forests. White-headed woodpeckers in central Oregon showed a preference for larger-diameter trees (average > 24 inches diameter at breast height), with preference increasing with diameter. Requisite habitat components include relatively mature, open stands of large-coned pines, usually with more than one species of pine present in the area; and available snags and stumps for nest sites.

The breeding season for white-headed woodpecker generally begins in late April and lasts to August. Females lay a clutch of three to five eggs in a nest cavity, typically in dead wood in a tree trunk (often a snag) about 3–30 feet above ground. White-headed woodpeckers forage almost exclusively on pine seeds in winter before the cones open. Wood ants (Camponotus spp.)

Page 216

are the main summer diet, supplemented with spiders and other insects gleaned from beneath bark scales. White-headed woodpeckers are quiet foragers, prying and flaking off successive scale layers with angled strokes rather than tapping.

White-headed woodpeckers in southern California have exhibited significant sexual differences in mean foraging height, with males concentrating on the upper third of the tree and females foraging on the trunk and proximal portions of the lower branches.

White-headed woodpeckers are generally sedentary, engaging in only minimal movements within mountain ranges, but exhibiting some elevational movements in winter. Higher concentrations of white-headed woodpeckers occur in fall and late summer in areas with good pine seed crops.

White-headed woodpeckers are closely associated with mature pine trees, which appear to be declining in many areas of southern California's mountains. These declines are a result of historic logging practices, drought-related die-offs, reduced fire frequencies, and expanding development in mountain communities. The current lack of low- to moderate-intensity ground fires in montane conifer forest is continuing to result in a shift from forests dominated by pine and black oak (Quercus kelloggii) to forests dominated by white fir and incense cedar (Calocedrus decurrens), thus reducing the amount of pine-dominated habitat and increasing the risk of catastrophic wildland fire. (Source: Forest Plan Species Account. USFS 2005b)

This species is a regular breeder in the San Bernardino Mountains and it is known from the project vicinity (SBCM 2003 and 2004). Suitable habitat for nesting and foraging occurs in the analysis area and vicinity.

V-4.3.5.20 Gray Flycatcher (Empidonax wrightii) The gray flycatcher has been identified by the Forest Service as a species of local viability concern (Stephenson and Calcarone 1999) and a SBNF Watch List species. In the San Bernardino Mountains, it is found along the northern slope in areas east of Baldwin Lake and Arrastre Creek during the summer. They migrate out of the area for the winter.

In southern California, breeding gray flycatchers are primarily found in a matrix of pinyon pine (Pinus monophylla) and interior scrub oak (Quercus john-tuckeri) woodland with grassland understory, and in chaparral that includes buckbrush (Ceanothus cuneatus), chamise (Adenostoma fasciculatum), mountain mahogany (Cercocarpus ledifolius) and other shrubs. During the winter, gray flycatchers may be found in a variety of xeric habitats throughout southern California and, infrequently, in urban/suburban parks on the coastal plain.

Gray flycatchers take insects in flight or from the ground, foliage, tree bark, and branches. In forested habitats, they are sit-and-wait predators, perching primarily on the lowest branches of large conifers or on top of large shrubs. In open shrub habitats, they often perch on exposed dead branches and twigs of shrubs, sometimes close to ground, and often take prey from the ground.

Page 217

The type conversion of some areas of pinyon and sagebrush may be affecting this species. Because of small population sizes and the relatively few numbers of breeding locations, gray flycatcher is a species of concern locally in southern California. Local increases in cattle that enhance brown-headed cowbird populations may adversely affect nesting success of gray flycatchers. (Source: Forest Plan Species Account. USFS 2005b)

This species is a regular breeder in the San Bernardino Mountains. Suitable habitat for nesting, roosting, and foraging habitat for this species occurs in the analysis area and vicinity.

V-4.3.5.21 Loggerhead Shrike (Lanius ludovicianus) The loggerhead shrike is a CDFW Species of Special Concern and a SBNF Watch List species. The loggerhead shrike prefers open habitats with scattered shrubs, trees, posts, fences, utility lines, or other perches. Highest density occurs in open-canopied valley foothill hardwood, valley foothill hardwood-conifer, valley foothill riparian, pinyon/juniper, juniper, desert riparian, and Joshua tree habitats. This species commonly use posts, fences, and utility lines as perches. Loggerhead shrikes nest in trees and shrubs, and breeding shrikes typically use isolated trees or large shrubs.

The breeding season of loggerhead shrike generally begins in late January or early February and lasts to July. In non-migratory populations, loggerhead shrikes remain paired during the winter. Loggerhead shrike populations in southern California are non-migratory.

Loggerhead shrikes eat small- to medium-sized animals, including arthropods, birds, amphibians, reptiles, and small mammals; they also eat road-kills and carrion. Loggerhead shrikes hunt from perches such as fences, shrubs, and trees, and kill their vertebrate prey by attacking the nape and tearing the cerebral vertebrae. They often impale their prey on barbed wire and other sharp objects. Loggerhead shrikes forage primarily in the morning. Loggerhead shrikes are strongly territorial and aggressive during the breeding season. (Sources: USFS 2005b Forest Plan Species Accounts; http://www.dfg.ca.gov/biogeodata/cwhr/cawildlife.aspx)

This species is a regular breeder in the San Bernardino Mountains. This species may occur in the project area. Suitable habitat for nesting and foraging occurs in the analysis area and vicinity.

V-4.3.5.22 Plumbeous Vireo (Vireo plumbeus) The plumbeous vireo has been identified by the Forest Service as a species of local viability concern (Stephenson and Calcarone 1999) and is a SBNF Watch List species. Formerly lumped as a "Solitary Vireo" with the Cassin’s and blue-headed vireos, plumbeous vireo now considered a separate species. Plumbeous vireos have been recorded in the San Bernardino Mountains during migration and breeding seasons (G. Braden, pers. comm. 2017). Locally, there are records from Arrastre Creek, Jacoby Canyon, and Little Bear Springs near Big Bear. In southern California, plumbeous vireo breeds in arid woodlands of mature pinyon pine (Pinus quadrifolia), white fir (Abies concolor), ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa), and Jeffrey pine (Pinus jeffreyi), often extending into adjacent riparian growth. The plumbeous vireo apparently prefers warmer, drier forest to cool moist forest. The primary elevational range of plumbeous vireo is 3,750–8,200 feet.

Page 218

Nests are generally constructed 6–15 feet high in a pine, pinyon, or juniper tree or tall shrub. Breeding season of plumbeous vireo generally begins in late May or early June and lasts through July. The plumbeous vireo takes arthropods almost exclusively during spring and fall, turning to more fruit and plant material in winter. This species is mainly a foliage- and branch-gleaning species, capturing prey items by fly-catching, hover-gleaning, and probing, mostly the outer twigs and foliage of trees and shrubs.

The plumbeous vireo is considered a partial, medium-distance migrant. Spring migration runs from mid-April to early June, peaking in May. Fall migration runs early August to mid-October, peaking in September. ((Source: Forest Plan Species Account. USFS 2005b)

This species is a regular breeder in the San Bernardino Mountains and it may occur in the project area. Suitable habitat for nesting and foraging occurs in the analysis area and vicinity.

V-4.3.5.23 Cassin’s Vireo (Vireo cassinii) The Cassin’s vireo has been identified by the Forest Service as a species of local viability concern (Stephenson and Calcarone 1999) and is a SBNF Watch List species. Formerly lumped as a "Solitary Vireo" with the plumbeous and blue-headed vireos, Cassin’s vireo now considered a separate species. Cassin’s vireos have been recorded in the San Bernardino Mountains during migration and breeding seasons (G. Braden, pers. comm. 2017). Cassin's vireos breed in dry, warm, forested habitats, especially in montane hardwood-conifer, montane hardwood, ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa), and Jeffrey pine (Pinus jeffreyi) forests. They also occur in riparian and other habitat types.

The Cassin's vireo breeding season begins in mid-May. The nest is a rounded cup built 6–15 feet off the ground. The Cassin's vireo diet comprises approximately 98% animal matter (primarily insects) and 2% plant matter. This species is mainly a foliage- and branch-gleaning species, capturing prey items by flycatching, hover-gleaning, and probing; it forages primarily on the outer twigs and foliage of trees and shrubs. Cassin's vireos take arthropods during spring and fall, and they eat mostly fruit and plant material in winter.

Cassin’s vireos are migratory and only present in southern California during the breeding season. (Source: Forest Plan Species Account. USFS 2005b). This species is a regular breeder in the San Bernardino Mountains and it may occur in the project area. Suitable habitat for nesting and foraging occurs in the analysis area and vicinity.

V-4.3.5.24 Warbling Vireo (Vireo gilvus) The Forest Service identified the warbling vireo as a riparian obligate species of concern (as defined by Partners in Flight) (Stephenson and Calcarone 1999) and is a SBNF Watch List species. Warbling vireos are primarily associated with mixed deciduous woodlands along streams, lakeshores, ponds, and marshes, but also occasionally in uplands away from water or in mixed hardwood or rarely, pure conifer forests. Suitable habitat usually comprises large trees with a semi-open canopy. Warbling vireos do not appear to be area-sensitive; they often occur in habitat edges and small, isolated patches of habitat.

Page 219

The breeding season of the warbling vireo is April to August. Warbling vireos are territorial on the breeding grounds. Warbling vireos migrate annually between its breeding and wintering grounds. Spring migration to the breeding grounds begins in mid-March and lasts until early June; fall migration to the wintering grounds begins in mid-August and lasts until late September. During the breeding season, warbling vireos are active primarily during the day; however, they migrate at night.

Warbling vireos forage primarily on arthropods; they also eat fruit during winter. During the breeding season, most foraging occurs within individuals’ territories. Warbling vireos glean insects off twigs and leaves, most frequently in the canopy. (Source: Forest Plan Species Account. USFS 2005b)

This species is a regular breeder in the San Bernardino Mountains and it is known from the project vicinity (SBCM 2004 and 2005). Suitable habitat for nesting and foraging occurs in the analysis area and vicinity.

V-4.3.5.25 Purple Martin (Progne subis) The purple martin is a SBNF Watch List species and a CDFW Species of Special Concern.

Purple martins occurred, at least historically, in all of the major mountain ranges in southern California; however, many historic localities are no longer occupied. In the San Bernardino Mountains, three breeding sites were documented in 1993 in Plunge Creek, near Keller Peak, and in Cleghorn Canyon.

In western North America, purple martins inhabit relatively open montane forest, woodlands, and riparian areas, and are generally restricted to areas with dead snags containing old woodpecker cavities. Nests are most often in large, old trees near water bodies, but purple martins occasionally nest in birdhouses, under bridges, or in culverts. In southern California, they develop colonial nests in cavities of large trees in oak woodlands, open coniferous forests, and riparian woodlands. Nests are often in residual snags in burned or logged forests.

Martins respond to clusters of very large snags in open areas in prominent and often remote positions in the landscape. Typical nest tree diameter (average > 40" dbh) is one of the largest for any bird. Nest sites are usually (roughly 80–90 percent) located in prominent positions, often on ridges, hilltops, and other commanding sites. In modern times (and almost certainly historically, though probably to a slightly lesser extent), martin habitat is almost exclusively caused by fire—typically "stand-replacing" fire.

The breeding season of purple martin begins in mid-April and lasts through July. Males arrive on the breeding grounds slightly ahead of females. The pair may take up to a week or more investigating potential nest cavities before becoming firmly established at a site. A nest is constructed inside a tree cavity or crack. Both parents incubate for approximately 15–18 days. Young fledge at approximately 27–36 days.

Page 220

Purple martin migrates annually to winter in central South America. Spring migration to the western United States begins in late March, extending to mid-May; fall migration begins in late August, extending to October. Purple martin is active primarily during the day.

Purple martins forage aerially on flying insects throughout the year. They forage higher than other species of swallows, attaining heights up to 500 feet. Martins avoid foraging in the rain or when the temperature is less than 55 ° F. Much of the diet consists of beetles, true bugs, flies, dragonflies and damselflies, leafhoppers, grasshoppers and crickets, butterflies and moths, wasps and bees, and caddisflies. (Source: Forest Plan Species Account. USFS 2005b)

This species is a regular breeder in the San Bernardino Mountains and it may occur in the project area. Suitable habitat for nesting and foraging occurs in the analysis area and vicinity.

V-4.3.5.26 Tree Swallow (Tachycineta bicolor) The tree swallow is a SBNF Watch List species and was identified by the Forest Service as having a local viability concern (Stephenson and Calcarone 1999). Tree swallows are now a local and increasingly uncommon-to-rare summer resident in southern California. In southern California, tree swallows breed in lowland and foothill riparian habitats near slow moving or standing water. Tree swallows require cavities for nesting; therefore, snags with old woodpecker cavities and artificial nest boxes are important habitat components.

Tree swallows migrate annually between their breeding and wintering grounds. They migrate during the fall to the wintering grounds in Mexico, Cuba, and Central America. The breeding season of tree swallow generally begins in May and lasts to July. Males arrive on the breeding grounds and begin defending a nest cavity shortly before females arrive; pair formation occurs soon after females arrive at the breeding grounds. Nest construction typically occurs in late April–early May.

Tree swallows feed aerially, primarily on flying insects. They often forage over open water, grasslands, or behind windbreaks where concentrations of prey accumulate. Tree swallows forage up to 165 feet in the air, but often swoop down to pick up prey off water and vegetation. Their diet is approximately 80% insects (including flies, beetles, ants, damselflies, and grasshoppers) and 20% berries and seeds.

Historically, tree swallows were common breeders throughout southwestern California. However, the southern California breeding population has declined. The decline of the tree swallow breeding population in southern California is attributed to the loss of riparian habitat; selective removal of snags with cavities that serve as nesting sites; and the rapid increase in the European starling population, which has increased competition for these nesting sites. Tree swallows are also susceptible to pollutants such as PCBs and DDE. (Source: Forest Plan Species Account. USFS 2005b)

This species is a regular breeder in the San Bernardino Mountains and it is known from the project vicinity (SBCM 2004). Suitable habitat for nesting and foraging occurs in the analysis area and vicinity.

Page 221

V-4.3.5.27 American Dipper (Cinclus mexicanus) The American dipper is a SBNF Watch List species and was identified by the Forest Service as a species with a local viability concern (Stephenson and Calcarone 1999). Nesting occurrences on the San Bernardino National Forest include the Upper Santa Ana River, Bear Creek, and Mill Creek in the San Bernardino Mountains, and Tahquitz Creek and the North Fork of the San Jacinto River in the San Jacinto Mountains.

American dippers occur along fast-flowing, clear streams in mountain canyons. They often nest near bridges, small waterfalls and small diversion dams, and cliffs or boulders with overhanging ledges. Breeding habitat is generally restricted to streams that do not exceed 50 feet in width or 6.5 feet in depth.

There are three constituents of American dipper habitat: stream, bank, and streamside. Suitable streams typically have channel bottoms comprised of rocks, cobble, or sand; these substrates provide habitat for aquatic invertebrates, which are the primary food item for American dippers. Stream dynamics, such as fluctuations in depth, turbidity, and velocity, affect habitat suitability. Streamside and instream rocks provide important perching sites. Bank structure is also an important habitat component. Cliffs, boulders, rock outcrops and ledges, and crevices are used as nest sites, while structures such as rocks and logs provide cover from predators or refugia during molting.

Streamside vegetation in itself is not considered as important as the previously discussed habitat parameters. American dippers occur along streams that flow through a wide variety of vegetation types, but prefer streams without abundant aquatic vegetation such as pondweed or algae.

Pair formation in American dippers begins in winter with some birds beginning to establish territories as early as February or March. Nest construction begins about 1–2 weeks after territory establishment. In California, egg-laying typically occurs from March through June, beginning approximately 6–15 days after nest construction is completed. Females perform all of the incubation. Both parents feed young at the nest. Young fledge 24–26 days after hatching. Parents feed their young for a period of 4–24 days after the young leave the nest. Nesting pairs in some populations produce two broods per season; however, no data are available on whether this occurs in southern California populations.

American dippers rarely move far from rivers and streams. They will occupy the same stream throughout the year if it is ice-free. During the winter, adults and immature birds from high elevations often move to ice-free habitat at lower elevations. American dippers forage primarily in water on macroinvertebrates, particularly larval caddisflies, mayflies, stoneflies, and Diptera. (Source: Forest Plan Species Account. USFS 2005b)

This species is a regular breeder in the San Bernardino Mountains and it is known from the E. Fork W. Fork Mojave River downstream of the project area (SBCM 2004). Suitable habitat for foraging occurs in the some parts of Grass Valley Creek.

Page 222

V-4.3.5.28 Swainson’s Thrush (Catharus ustulatus oedicus) The Swainson’s thrush has been identified as a Riparian Obligate Species of Concern (as defined by Partners in Flight) (Stephenson and Calcarone 1999) and a SBNF Watch List species. In southern California, breeding Swainson's thrushes are restricted to low-elevation deciduous riparian woodlands, especially with dense thickets of willow (Salix spp.), alder (Alnus spp.), and other hardwoods. The breeding season of Swainson's thrush generally begins in April and can last to August. Swainson's thrushes migrate annually between North America (breeding grounds) and the neotropics (wintering grounds). For populations that breed in southern California, spring migration from the wintering grounds begins in mid-April and lasts to late May; fall migration from the breeding grounds begins in early September and lasts to early October. Males are highly territorial during the breeding season.

The diet of the Swainson's thrush consists of berries, including elderberries (Sambucus spp.), blackberries (Rubus spp.), huckleberries (Vaccinium spp.), wild grape and other fruits; and insects, including beetles, caterpillars, ants, flies, grasshoppers, and true bugs. They glean insects off leaves, probe the leaf litter, hover-glean, and lunge and sally for insects. Swainson's thrushes often perch on low branches of trees and attack their prey in the leaf litter.

Riparian habitat has been affected throughout California by development, recreational use, water diversion, grazing, wildland fire, and unauthorized vehicles. (Source: Forest Plan Species Account. USFS 2005b)

This species is a not a regular breeder in the San Bernardino Mountains. It may occur in the project area. Suitable habitat for foraging occurs in the analysis area and vicinity.

V-4.3.5.29 Hermit Thrush (Catharus guttatus) The hermit thrush is a SBNF Watch List species and was identified by the Forest Service as a species with a local viability concern (Stephenson and Calcarone 1999). Throughout the species' breeding range, hermit thrushes occupy a broad spectrum of forested and edge habitats. In southern California, hermit thrushes breed primarily in forests dominated by white fir (Abies concolor) and other high-elevation conifers, and are usually found on steep, north- facing slopes.

Hermit thrushes nest on the ground, usually in a small depression, or occasionally a few feet up in low conifer branches. Nests are typically constructed on or within 8 feet of the ground in small conifers or shrubs with ground cover. The nest is a compact cup of course grasses, ferns, bark strips, moss, weeds, or plant fibers, and is lined with mud and plant material. Breeding begins in early to mid-May.

The hermit thrush is considered a terrestrial or bush-gleaning omnivore. During the breeding season, hermit thrushes take mostly animal matter, especially insects and other small invertebrates. In migration and on the wintering grounds, the diet is supplemented with a wide range of small fruits. Invertebrate food items are mostly ants, beetles, caterpillars, wasps, bees, bugs, grasshoppers, flies, and spiders; fruit is mostly berries, including holly, wild cherry, mistletoe, blueberry, pokeberry, elderberry, blackberry, dogwood, grape, and poison ivy.

Page 223

The hermit thrush is a local species of concern because its breeding population in southern California is small, disjunct, and primarily restricted to high-elevation conifer forests. Stand- replacing wildland fire in dense montane conifer forests is probably the biggest threat to hermit thrushes. (Source: Forest Plan Species Account. USFS 2005b)

This species is a regular breeder in the San Bernardino Mountains and it may occur in the project area. Suitable habitat for nesting and foraging occurs in the analysis area and vicinity.

V-4.3.5.30 Virginia’s Warbler (Vermivora virginiae) The Virginia’s warbler is a SBNF Watch List species and a CDFW Watch List species. Breeding has been documented in the San Bernardino Mountains on Arrastre Creek (6,900 feet) and the South Fork of the Santa Ana River (6,000 feet). Virginia's warblers typically breed in dense brush on relatively steep mountain slopes where there is intermixed or adjacent taller growth such as pinyon pine (Pinus monophylla), yellow pines, Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii), Gambel oak (Quercus gambelli), or aspen (Populus tremuloides). In southern California, Virginia's warblers occupy understory scrub or open brushfields (e.g., mountain mahogany, manzanita, and serviceberry) within arid coniferous forest.

The breeding season of the Virginia's warbler generally begins in May and lasts to July. Nests are built on the ground on steep slopes in a hollow or under a clump of vegetation. Males are highly territorial during the breeding season. Virginia's warbler territories often border natural boundaries such as coniferous forest edges or canyon walls.

Virginia's warblers forage exclusively on arthropods; they glean or hover-glean prey from leaves and sallies for flying insects. On its wintering grounds, Virginia's warblers often probe into flowers and buds.

Virginia's warblers migrate annually between breeding and wintering grounds. Spring migration to the breeding grounds begins in late March and lasts to late May. Fall migration to the wintering grounds begins in mid-August and lasts to mid-October. (Source: Forest Plan Species Account. USFS 2005b)

This species is not a regular breeder in the San Bernardino Mountains. It is may occur in the project area. Suitable habitat for foraging occurs in the analysis area and vicinity.

V-4.3.5.31 Yellow Warbler (Dendroica petechia brewsteri) The yellow warbler is a CDFW Species of Special Concern and is a SBNF Watch List species. In southern California, yellow warblers breed in riparian woodlands in the lowlands and foothill canyons. They typically occur in riparian forests that contain cottonwoods, sycamores, willows, or alders. The breeding season of yellow warbler generally begins in May and can last to August. Yellow warblers are highly territorial on both the breeding and wintering grounds.

Yellow warblers feed primarily on arthropods, and rarely on wild fruit. Much of the diet consists of bees, wasps, caterpillars, flies, midges, beetles, and true bugs. Yellow warblers actively glean insects from leaves and occasionally sally to capture flying insects. During winter in southern California, some individuals feed on nectar and pollen.

Page 224

Yellow warblers migrate annually between North America (breeding grounds) and the neotropics (wintering grounds). For populations that breed in southern California, spring migration from the wintering grounds occurs late March–late May; fall migration from the breeding grounds begins in August and lasts until mid-October. (Source: Forest Plan Species Account. USFS 2005b)

This species is a regular breeder in the San Bernardino Mountains and it is known near the project area (SBCM 2003 and 2005). Suitable habitat for nesting and foraging occurs in the analysis area and vicinity.

V-4.3.5.32 MacGillivray's Warbler (Oporornis tolmiei) The MacGillivray’s warbler has been identified by the Forest Service as a local viability concern (Stephenson and Calcarone 1999) and is a SBNF Watch List species. In the San Bernardino Mountains, they are known to nest at Bluff Lake and Metcalf Meadows. In the southern portion of its breeding range, including southern California, MacGillivray's warblers occur in willow thickets and other brushy, montane riparian areas in conifer forests at elevations above 6,000 feet. This species requires moderate cover and thick understory vegetation for nesting.

The breeding season of MacGillivray's warbler generally begins in May and lasts to August. MacGillivray's warblers are strongly territorial and aggressive during the breeding season. MacGillivray's warblers eat insects during the breeding season in California; food items include true bugs, leaf hoppers, beetles, bees, wasps, and ants. MacGillivray's warblers glean insects on the ground or from leaves near the ground. MacGillivray's warblers migrate annually between their breeding and wintering grounds. The spring migration to the breeding grounds begins in March and lasts to June, peaking April–May. Fall migration to the wintering grounds generally begins in July and lasts to November, peaking August–October. (Source: Forest Plan Species Account. USFS 2005b)

This species is a regular breeder in the San Bernardino Mountains and it may occur in the project area. Suitable habitat for nesting and foraging occurs in the analysis area and vicinity.

V-4.3.5.33 Common Yellowthroat (Geothlypis trichas) The common yellowthroat has been identified by the Forest Service as a local viability concern (Stephenson and Calcarone 1999), a high priority riparian obligate by California Partners in Flight, and is a SBNF Watch List species. In southern California, common yellowthroats breed in freshwater and brackish marshes with cattails, bulrushes, and other emergent vegetation, as well as in dense brush in riparian woodland and other wetlands. Although typically associated with marshes, streamside thickets, wet meadows and other wetlands, common yellowthroats are also found in drier upland habitats as long as there is abundant and dense undergrowth for foraging and nesting. The common yellowthroat is a diurnal songbird with both resident and migratory populations.

In California, eggs are laid between April 4 and July 10. Males aggressively defend breeding territories against other males, and females may defend against other females. The common yellowthroat diet consists primarily of arthropods. Common yellowthroats forage primarily by

Page 225

gleaning arthropods off leaves and stems from ground level to higher than 20 feet in trees. They also pursue prey by sallying, hovering, and flushing. (Source: Forest Plan Species Account. USFS 2005b)

This species is a regular breeder in the San Bernardino Mountains and it may occur in the project area. Suitable habitat for nesting and foraging occurs in the analysis area and vicinity.

V-4.3.5.34 Wilson's Warbler (Wilsonia pusilla) The Wilson’s warbler is a SBNF Watch List species. In the San Gabriel and San Bernardino Mountains, Wilson’s warblers breed in dense willow thickets in high-elevation meadows and riparian areas. In California, nest construction typically begins in early June in the Sierra Nevada and in early to late April in inner-coastal areas. Males aggressively defend breeding territories. Wilson's warblers are generally active during the day; however, they migrate at night. For populations that breed in southern California, spring migration begins in mid-March and lasts to late May; fall migration begins in mid-August and lasts to mid-October.

Wilson's warblers forage primarily on arthropods, including bees, flies, mayflies, spiders, beetles, and caterpillars; they occasionally eat berries. Wilson's warblers forage mostly in shrubs and trees at heights from ground- to canopy-level. Their foraging behavior consists mostly of leaping vertically to glean insects from the bottoms of leaves; they also sally, hover-glean, and glean while perched on twigs. (Source: Forest Plan Species Account. USFS 2005b)

This species is a regular breeder in the San Bernardino Mountains and it may occur in the project area. Suitable habitat for nesting and foraging occurs in the analysis area and vicinity.

V-4.3.5.35 Summer Tanager (Piranga rubra) The summer tanager is a CDFW Species of Special Concern and is a SBNF Watch List species. Summer tanagers are reported from the base of the San Bernardino Mountains at Mojave Narrows Regional Park and Whitewater Canyon along the Mojave River and Morongo Valley.

In southern California, summer tanagers breed in valley bottom riparian woodland dominated by Fremont cottonwood and willows (Salix spp.) and in mature desert riparian groves, also typically dominated by Fremont cottonwood. At higher elevations, they breed in mesquite (Prosopis) and saltcedar (Tamarix) in rivers and canyons. Summer tanagers are also found in these habitats during migration. The summer tanager is a long-distance migrant: almost all birds leave the breeding grounds in September and October and begin to arrive in the wintering areas in late September. Spring migration begins in mid- to late February and peaks in March; most birds have left the wintering grounds by mid-April, arriving on the breeding grounds in April. Summer tanagers migrate at night.

Summer tanagers begin nesting from late April to early May, two-four weeks after arriving from the wintering grounds. Summer tanagers are primarily insectivorous, specializing on bees and wasps, which are typically taken in flight by sallying from a treetop perch then carried back to the perch and beaten to remove the sting. Other prey items are typically flying insects, including cicadas, beetles, ants and termites, and grasshoppers; spiders and caterpillars are also taken. Later in the breeding season, on migration, and on the wintering grounds, summer

Page 226

tanagers eat small fruit in addition to insects. (Source: Forest Plan Species Account. USFS 2005b)

This species is a regular breeder in the San Bernardino Mountains and it may occur in the project area. Suitable habitat for nesting and foraging occurs in the analysis area and vicinity.

V-4.3.5.36 Southern California Rufous-Crowned Sparrow (Aimophila ruficeps canescens) The southern California rufous-crowned sparrow is a SBNF Watch List species and a CDFW Watch species. There are 17 recognized subspecies of rufous-crowned sparrow; five occur in the western United States and 12 occur in Mexico. Southern California rufous-crowned sparrow is in the Pacific coastal group of subspecies, whose members are distinguished from members of the other subspecies groups by their smaller size and more reddish upper parts.

The southern California rufous-crowned sparrow is a resident of southwestern California on the coastal slopes of the Transverse and Peninsular Ranges from northwestern Los Angeles County south to northwestern Baja California. This taxon is reported to be rare along the lower slopes of the San Bernardino Mountains. It is occasionally found on the desert side of the mountains.

Southern California rufous-crowned sparrows inhabit hillsides with scattered shrubs, patches of grass, and rocky outcrops. They are absent from dense and uniform scrub habitats. The preferred habitat is coastal sage scrub, although they are found in moderate to steep open chaparral as far east as southwestern Imperial County. Unlike other coastal sage specialists, this taxon may be more adaptable to habitat conditions in the foothill scrub-chaparral transition zone.

The breeding season of rufous-crowned sparrow begins in early March and lasts to late September; the long season is due to second and third broods in southern California. Females) incubate for approximately 14 days. Both adults feed the nestlings until they fledge at 8–9 days. Parents continue to provision nestlings for an unknown period of time post- fledging. Rufous-crowned sparrows are active primarily during the day.

The diet of rufous-crowned sparrow varies according to season and location. These sparrows primarily eat seeds of grasses and forbs and plant shoots. During spring and summer, they increase their consumption of insects. (Source: Forest Plan Species Account. USFS 2005b)

This species is a regular breeder in the San Bernardino Mountains and it may occur in the project area. Suitable habitat for nesting and foraging occurs in the analysis area and vicinity.

V-4.3.5.37 Black-Chinned Sparrow (Spizella atrogularis) The black-chinned sparrow is a SBNF Watch List species and a USFWS Bird of Conservation Concern. The black-chinned sparrow is a summer resident in southern California, breeding locally on arid mountain slopes of southern California. It occurs mostly on sloping ground in mixed chaparral, chamise-redshank chaparral, sagebrush, and similar brushy habitats, including those in understory of sparse pinyon-juniper, juniper, and other conifer habitats.

Page 227

Black-chinned sparrows apparently feed on seeds, insects, and fruits associated with shrubs, gleaning on ground beneath shrubs and in shrubs. They find cover in tall sagebrush, chaparral, or other shrubs with similar structure. Their nests are a loosely constructed cup of dry grass and forb stems, lined with finer grasses, plant fibers, hairs, and feathers, usually concealed in dense foliage of a shrub 1-3 feet above ground.

Breeding season is April into early August, with a peak in May and June. They may breed in loose colonies. They usually arrive in California in April and depart in August or September. (Source: http://www.dfg.ca.gov/biogeodata/cwhr/cawildlife.aspx)

This species is a regular breeder in the San Bernardino Mountains and it may occur in the project area. Suitable habitat for nesting and foraging occurs in the analysis area and vicinity.

V-4.3.5.38 Bell’s Sparrow (Artemisiospiza belli) Bell’s sparrow is a SBNF Watch List species, a CDFW Species of Special Concern, and a USFWS Bird of Conservation Concern. In 2013, the American Ornithological Union split sage sparrow into two distinct species: Bell’s sparrow (Artemisiospiza belli) and sagebrush sparrow (A. nevadensis).

Bell's sparrow is restricted to the coastal slopes, including lower montane chaparral habitats. In southern California, Bell's sparrow occurs in coastal sage scrub and chaparral in the interior foothills and in big sagebrush at higher elevations. Its preferred habitat is semi-open chaparral with areas of bare ground. Sage Sparrows require semi-open habitats with evenly spaced shrubs 3-7 feet tall.

Bell's sparrow appears to occur in pairs throughout the year; however, pairs are not always the same individuals within or between years. In southern California, males begin singing on territories during late January and early February. Nest construction has been reported to begin in mid-February in Riverside County. Females incubate for 10–16 days; both parents feed the nestlings until they fledge at 9–10 days. Their breeding season begins in late January to mid- February and extends to the fledging period in late July. Bell's sage sparrow does not migrate.

The diet of Bell's sparrow includes arthropods, including beetles, grasshoppers and crickets, and caterpillars, as well as plant matter, including seeds of grasses (Poaceae), pigweeds (Chenopodiaceae), and mustards (Brassicaceae); fruit; and succulent leaves. Bell's sage sparrows forage primarily on seeds in April, July, and August, and primarily on insects during the peak breeding season in May and June. They forage primarily on the ground, but also glean insects from the lower main stems and leaves of shrubs.

This species is a regular breeder in the San Bernardino Mountains and it may occur in the project area. Suitable habitat for nesting and foraging occurs in the analysis area and vicinity.

V-4.3.5.39 Lincoln's Sparrow (Melospiza lincolnii) The Forest Service identified Lincoln’s sparrow as a local viability concern (Stephenson and Calcarone 1999) and is a SBNF Watch List species. In southern California, Lincoln's sparrows breed in wet montane meadows with typical vegetation components that include corn lily

Page 228

(Veratrum sp.), sedges (Carex spp.), low willows (Salix spp.), thick bushes near marshy ground, and tall grass. Generally, Lincoln's sparrows frequent boggy, moss-dominated habitats where shrub cover is dense. Habitats used in migration are typically riparian sites with abundant shrub cover. Migrating individuals also use marshes, brushy forest edge, urban settings, weedy fields, hedgerows, and blackberry (Rubus spp.) thickets. Winter habitats include freshwater sites, savanna, arid subtropical scrub, weedy pastures, and brushy fields.

Lincoln's sparrow nests are small cups built on the ground under grassy or weedy clumps in shrubby growth and forest edge. The breeding season lasts from late May or mid-June until mid- August. Lincoln's sparrows are territorial, and males define their territories using conspicuous trees and shrubs as singing perches. Lincoln's sparrows are considered a short- to long-distance migrant, with movements in spring commencing from mid-April to early June and peaking in May; fall migration lasts from early September to mid-October, peaking in late September.

Lincoln's sparrows eat seeds, insects, millipedes, and other small invertebrates. During the breeding season they take mostly animal foods, including insect larvae and adults of Diptera, Lepidoptera, Homoptera, Coleoptera, Ephimeroptera, and Araneae. The winter diet consists almost entirely of small seeds. Seeds and invertebrates are gleaned from the ground and from low plants, usually under cover of shrubs or thick vegetation. Lincoln's sparrows occasionally scratch the ground or leaf-litter in search of food, and will rarely hawk insects in mid-air. (Source: Forest Plan Species Account. USFS 2005b)

This species is a regular breeder in the San Bernardino Mountains and it may occur in the riparian areas in the project area. There are no meadows in the project area that would support suitable breeding habitat. Suitable habitat for foraging occurs in the analysis area and vicinity.

V-4.3.5.40 Lawrence's Goldfinch (Carduelis lawrencei) The Forest Service has identified Lawrence’s goldfinch as a riparian species of concern (Stephenson and Calcarone 1999), it is a SBNF Watch List species, and a USFWS Bird of Conservation Concern. Lawrence’s goldfinches breed in a variety of habitats in southern California, including blue oak savanna, chaparral, riparian woodland, desert oases, pinyon- juniper woodland, and mixed coniferous-oak forest. Lawrence's goldfinch generally migrates short distances to its wintering grounds in the southwestern United States and northwestern Mexico.

Components of nesting habitat typically include arid, open woodlands with adjacent chaparral or brushy areas; tall, weedy fields; and a nearby water source. The breeding season for Lawrence's goldfinch begins as early as late May and can last into September, although peak activity occurs from late April until August. Nests are typically constructed on the outer branches of a tree, usually an oak. Both male and female Lawrence's goldfinches defend territories only during the breeding season and mostly against conspecific intruders.

Page 229

Lawrence's goldfinches forage on seeds, with a predilection for those of native plants, primarily of fiddleneck (Amsinckia spp.) during the spring and chamise (Adenostoma fasciculatum), annual grasses, mistletoe (Phoradendron spp.), coffeeberry (Rhamnus californica), and possibly star- thistle (Centaurea spp.) during other seasons. (Source: Forest Plan Species Account. USFS 2005b)

This species is a regular breeder in the San Bernardino Mountains and it may occur in the project area. Suitable habitat for nesting and foraging occurs in the analysis area and vicinity.

V-4.3.5.41 Summary of Potential Effects to Birds There are three types of potential effects to birds using the analysis area: a) Depending on the species, some short-term changes to habitat suitable for breeding/nesting, foraging, sheltering, and migration stopovers. See Part II-3.0 for general habitat effects discussions. b) Disturbance to birds in and near the analysis area as a result of project-related activities (e.g., equipment use, felling of trees, human presence, etc.) (see Part II-3.3.8 c) Death and injury of birds in and near the project area (see Part II-3.3.9

The Design Features include several measures to help limit the potential for disturbance, losses of nesting birds, and effects to important habitat features. LOPs for spotted owls would overlap some of the project area, limiting activities between February 1 and August 15, effectively protecting breeding birds in those areas from disturbance during the key nesting period.

V-4.3.6 – SBNF Watch List Mammals A number of SBNF Watch List mammals are known from or near the analysis area (Forest Service observations and records, SBNF “All Species” GIS layer, SBCM records, CNDDB) (Appendix A) or have a high potential to occur there due to presence of suitable habitat.

V-4.3.6.1 - Bats There are known occurrences of several Watch List bat species in the project area and in similar habitat within a few miles of the analysis area. The analysis area has potential to support these species as well as some other species for which suitable habitat exists. Because of the similarity in potential effects for most of the bat species, the discussion of effects is presented after all of the species account and occurrence information for each species.

V-4.3.6.1.1 Western Small-Footed Myotis (Myotis ciliolabrum) The western small-footed myotis is a SBNF Watch List species, a BLM Sensitive species, and a Western Bat Working Group Medium Priority species. The western small-footed myotis rears its young in cliff-face crevices, erosion cavities, and beneath rocks on the ground. Some females care for their pups alone, while others form small groups. These bats can also be found hibernating in caves or mines, but little else is known about them; they are among America's least-studied animals (BCI website).

This species has been detected in Miller Canyon (SBCM records), and has a high likelihood of occurring in the project area. The project area supports suitable foraging, breeding, and roosting habitat is present for this species.

Page 230

V-4.3.6.1.2 Long-Eared Myotis (Myotis evotis) Long-eared myotis is a SBNF Watch List species, BLM Sensitive species, and a Western Bat Working Group Medium Priority species. Long-eared myotis are found predominantly in coniferous forests, typically only at higher elevations in southern areas (between 7,000 and 8,500 feet). They roost in tree cavities and beneath exfoliating bark in both living trees and dead snags. Pregnant long-eared myotis often roost at ground level in rock crevices, fallen logs, and even in the crevices of sawed-off stumps, but they cannot rear young in such vulnerable locations. Only one other western forest bat has been found regularly roosting at ground level, the western small- footed myotis. Long-eared myotis capture prey in flight, but also glean stationary insects from foliage or the ground (BCI website).

The project area supports suitable foraging, breeding, and roosting habitat for this species.

V-4.3.6.1.3 Little Brown Myotis (Myotis lucifugus) The little brown myotis is a SBNF Watch List species. The San Bernardino Mountains population has been identified as a Western Bat Working Group Medium Priority species. In the Western U.S., the little brown myotis is found mainly in mountainous and riparian areas in a wide variety of forest habitats; from tree-lined xeric-scrub to aspen meadows. This species is especially associated with humans, often forming nursery colonies containing hundreds or thousands of individuals in buildings, attics, and other man-made structures. In addition to day roosts in tree cavities and crevices, little brown myotis seem quite dependent upon roosts which provide safe havens from predators that are close to foraging grounds. Little brown myotis forage over water where their diet consists of aquatic insects, mainly midges, mosquitoes, mayflies, and caddisflies. They also feed over forest trails, cliff faces, meadows, and farmland where they consume a wide variety of insects, from moths and beetles to crane flies (BCI website).

The project area supports suitable foraging, breeding, and roosting habitat for this species.

V-4.3.6.1.4 Long-Legged Myotis (Myotis volans) Long-legged myotis is a SBNF Watch List species and a Western Bat Working Group High Priority species. Long-legged myotis are especially dependent on wooded habitats from pinyon- juniper to coniferous forests, usually at elevations of 4,000 to 9,000 feet. Radio-tracking studies have identified maternity roosts beneath bark and in other cavities. Most nursery colonies live in at least 100 year-old trees that provide crevices or exfoliating bark. Long-legged myotis are typically located in openings or along forest edges where they receive a large amount of daily sun. Though maternity colonies are most often formed in tree cavities or under loose bark, they also are found in rock crevices, cliffs, and buildings. Long-legged myotis forage over ponds, streams, water tanks, and in forest clearings, often on moths (BCI website).

The project area supports suitable foraging, breeding, and roosting habitat for this species.

V-4.3.6.1.5 Yuma Myotis (Myotis yumanensis) Yuma myotis is a SBNF Watch List species, a Western Bat Working Group Low-Medium Priority species. Occasionally roosting in mines or caves, Yuma myotis are most often found in

Page 231

buildings or bridges. Single males also sometimes roost in abandoned cliff swallow nests. Tree cavities are used for most nursery roosts. These bats typically forage over water in forested areas (BCI website).

This species has been detected in Miller Canyon (SBCM records), and has a high likelihood of occurring in the project area. The project area supports suitable foraging, breeding, and roosting habitat is present for this species.

V-4.3.6.1.6 Western Bonneted Bat (Eumops perotis californicus) The western bonneted bat is a SBNF Watch List species, a CDFW Species of Special Concern and a Western Bat Working Group High Priority species. Western bonneted bats roost in cliff- face crevices and feed high above the ground. They are rarely seen and approach the ground only at a few select drinking sites. This bat is severely limited by available drinking water. Its long, narrow wings preclude it from drinking at ponds less than 100 feet long (Source: http://www.batcon.org/index.php/all-about-bats/species-profiles.html).

Preferred roost habitat (cliff faces) is does not occur in the project area but does occur within a few miles. The project area supports suitable foraging habitat for this species.

V-4.3.6.1.7 Pocketed Free-Tailed Bat (Nyctinomops femerosaccus): The pocketed free-tailed bat is a SBNF Watch List species, a CDFW Species of Special Concern, and a Western Bat Working Group Medium Priority species. Pocketed free-tailed bats live in pinyon/juniper woodlands, and desert habitats. They roost in crevices high on cliff faces of rugged canyons and must drop from the roost site to gain flight. Nursery colonies are relatively small (usually fewer than 100 individuals) and located in rock crevices, caverns/mines, and buildings. They forage over ponds, streams, or arid desert habitat, feeding on flying insects (USFS 2006 Forest Plan).

Pocketed free-tailed bats may forage in the project area; no suitable roosting habitat is present.

V-4.3.6.1.8 Potential Effects for Bat Species See Part II-3.4.6, II-3.4.7, II-3.4.8, II-3.4.9, and II-3.4.11 for general discussions of effects that apply to bats.

Foraging Habitat: Suitable foraging habitat exists for all of the above bat species. In general, the above-mentioned bats forage on insects in or above riparian areas, open areas, and on vegetation directly by gleaning. Because of established RCAs and no treatment areas throughout the project, bat foraging habitat should remain intact.

Roost and Maternity Sites: For the species that roost in trees (i.e., little brown myotis, long- legged myotis, long-eared myotis, and Yuma myotis), there would be some changes to habitat availability as a result of removal of dead trees. Level 1 treatment areas would be devoid of snags after treatment and Level 1a areas would have minimal snags. Level 3 and 4 snags would retain large snags. Because the Design Features call for retention of large diameter snags (except in narrow Level 1 areas), roost sites would still be available for these species. Large-diameter trees with visible cavities would be protected.

Page 232

Roost/maternity sites for cliff or rocky outcrop roosting species (i.e., small-footed myotis, spotted bat, western bonneted bat) would not be directly affected by the proposed project. Small- footed myotis are known to rear young under rocks on the ground. This roost habitat could be affected by equipment operations; the micro-climates may also change as a result of canopy thinning.

Death and Injury: Mortality of bats living beneath exfoliating bark or in snags/cavities would occur if animals were not flushed prior to implementation of treatments. The risk would be highest during summer months for young-of-the year that are not yet competent fliers. It is expected that some bats may be flushed during the daytime due to increased noise disturbance: this could cause an increased rate of predation.

Summary for Bat Effects: There would be effects to roost habitat availability and quality as a result of the removal of dead and live trees. Effects to foraging habitat quality and availability would not be expected. Some disturbance of roosting bats would be expected; disturbance of foraging bats would not occur because of the prohibition of night-time operations. Some losses of bats, especially pups, would be expected. The project layout would have a mosaic of treatment levels, resulting in undisturbed habitat for escape, foraging, roosting, and breeding in and adjacent to the project area. Most of the Grass Valley project area is expected to remain suitable for due to Design Features and because the layout of the shaded fuelbreaks is not expected to result in habitat fragmentation. The Design Features would help reduce the level of effects to habitat and to individual bats.

V-4.3.6.2 San Bernardino Golden-Mantled Ground Squirrel (Spermophilus lateralis bernardinus) The golden-mantled ground squirrel is a SBNF Watch List species. The San Bernardino golden- mantled ground squirrel is a locally-endemic subspecies with few CDFW records. Forest Service records for golden-mantled ground squirrel for the San Bernardino Mountains include: Sugarloaf Mountain, Bear Mountain ski area, Snow Summit ski area, San Gorgonio Peak, the south fork of the Santa Ana River, Holcomb Valley, Snow Valley recreation residence tract, Fawnskin, Green Valley Lake (SBNF records, R. Eliason, pers. observ.).

Golden-mantled ground squirrels inhabit a wide variety of montane habitats from the upper edge of the pinyon belt to above timberline. They are most common in open, well-illuminated forests with a mix of tall trees, brush, and open ground supporting herbaceous plants. Golden-mantled ground squirrels have also been found in sagebrush and meadow habitats with abundant rocks for shelter.

Golden-mantled ground squirrels dig their burrows beneath rocks, stumps, and logs; in banks; along washes; at the base of trees; and beneath buildings. They use these burrows for resting, hibernation, shelter, rearing of young, and escape from predators. Hollowed-out logs, stumps, and rock piles also provide shelter and protection while foraging. Golden-mantled ground squirrels breed shortly after they emerge from hibernation, usually in March or April, but sometimes as late as May. (Source: Forest Plan Species Account. USFS 2005b)

Golden-mantled grounds squirrels may occur in the analysis area.

Page 233

Death/Injury: Implementation of this project could cause damage to den sites during tree felling, skidding, or road construction that could cause mortality to young and adults. There is potential for mortality of young during the months of April, May, and June when they may be unable to flee treatment areas. If a den were discovered during pre-work surveys or implementation, the Design Features allow for the den to be flagged for avoidance, further reducing the risk to individuals.

Disturbance Effects: Noise disturbance associated with the implementation of this project could cause adults to abandon young and denning areas resulting in short-term displacement.

Habitat Effects: There would be some changes in snag and log availability compared to current conditions in Level 1 treatment areas. Design Features that provide for retention or protection of logs, snags, and rock piles would help protect some of these important habitat components throughout most of the project area. Since there is an abundance of snags and logs in adjacent untreated forested areas, these changes in habitat availability would be minor on a population scale and on a local level.

V-4.3.6.3 Lodgepole Chipmunk (Tamias speciosus speciosus) The lodgepole chipmunk is a SBNF Watch List species. The lodgepole chipmunk is found at elevations of 4,921–9,843 feet in the Transition, Canadian, and Hudsonian life zones of California. The distribution of the southern California population of lodgepole chipmunk is discontinuous. This taxon historically occurred on the upper slopes of the San Josito, San Jacinto, San Bernardino, San Gabriel, and Piute Mountains of southern California, but has apparently been extirpated from the San Jacinto Mountains.

Records for the SBNF for lodgepole chipmunk include Whitewater Creek (7,500 feet), Mt. San Bernardino, Fawnskin, Sugarloaf, Bear Mountain and Snow Summit Ski Resorts, Camp Angelus, and Dry Lake (9,000 feet) in the San Gorgonio Wilderness Area.

Throughout their range, lodgepole chipmunks are generally found in open-canopy forests with a mix of shrubs and trees. Lodgepole chipmunks typically occur in habitats with approximately 40% vegetation cover, numerous large boulders, and some open ground. They are common in lodgepole pine forests, but also occur in open-canopy stages of other forest habitats including white fir, Jeffrey pine, and mixed conifer. They appear to avoid pure stands of conifers, preferring an understory shrub component. Lodgepole chipmunks are more arboreal than most other species of chipmunks. They use trees for refuge, observation posts, and nests. They also use cavities in logs, snags and stumps, and underground burrows. (Source: USFS 2006 Forest Plan).

This species is known from the areas close to the analysis area and it likely occurs. Habitat on the project site is at the northern end of their distribution in this part of the San Bernardino Mountains and transitions out of suitability to the north on the desert-facing slopes. The effects for lodgepole chipmunks are similar to that described above for golden-mantled ground squirrel.

This species is may occur in the project area. The effects for lodgepole chipmunks are similar to that described above for golden-mantled ground squirrel.

Page 234

V-4.3.6.4 Ringtail (Bassariscus astutus) The Forest Service has identified this species as a local viability concern (Stephenson and Calcarone 1999) and is a SBNF Watch List species. Ringtails are generally known to occupy brushy and wooded areas along watercourses in foothill and lower montane canyons. The species occurs at elevations from sea level to 8,800 feet. Its principal habitat requirements seem to be den sites among boulders or in hollows of trees and sufficient food in the form of rodents and other small animals. Rocky habitats are apparently preferred. In the San Gabriel Mountains, ringtails occur in canyons in the chaparral belt. Ringtails are similar to raccoons in that they are often found within 0.6 mile of a permanent water source. Unlike raccoons, ringtails reportedly avoid urbanized areas. Ringtail densities can be as high as 27-53 per square mile.

Ringtails produce one litter per year. Dens may be in a hollow tree, a rock pile, a crevice in a cliff, or in abandoned burrows or woodrat nests. Mating occurs in late winter and the litter of three or four young is born in May or June. Ringtail young venture from the den at 45-50 days, and both parents raise the young until August or September, when the young disperse. Ringtails are nocturnal and active year-round. Although primarily carnivorous, ringtails appear to be opportunistic feeders, eating insects, fruits, berries, frogs, birds, rodents (white-footed mouse and woodrat) and rabbits. The species forages both on the ground and in trees, usually near but not in water. In summer and fall, the ringtail diet consists primarily of insects, while birds, mammals, and carrion are eaten in the spring and winter. Ringtails ambush their prey and kill by delivering a fatal bite to the neck. (Source: Forest Plan Species Account. USFS 2005b)

Ringtails are likely to occur in the analysis area. The effects for ringtails are similar to that described above for golden-mantled ground squirrel and porcupine.

V-4.3.6.5 American Badger (Taxidea taxus) The American badger is a CDFW Species of Special Concern and is a SBNF Watch List species. Known localities of badgers in the San Bernardino Mountains are largely in desert montane areas, including Coxey Creek, Burnt Flats, Redonda Ridge, Burnt Flats, and the Big Bear Ranger Station. Additional records for the San Bernardino Mountains include observations of road- killed badgers at Mill Creek Ranger Station, and in the towns of San Bernardino and Colton adjacent to the San Bernardino Mountains.

American badgers occur in a wide variety of open, arid habitats, but are most commonly associated with grasslands, savannas, mountain meadows, and open areas of desert scrub; they are not usually found in mature chaparral. The principal habitat requirements for this species appear to be sufficient food (burrowing rodents), friable soils, and relatively open, uncultivated ground. American badgers are primarily found in areas of low to moderate slope. Burrows are used for denning, escape, and predation on burrowing rodents. Badgers may change dens every day, except during breeding. American badgers are carnivorous and are opportunistic predators, feeding on mammal species such as mice, chipmunks, ground squirrels, gophers, rabbits, and kangaroo rats. They also eat reptiles, insects, birds and their eggs, and carrion. They are nocturnal and diurnal. (Source: Forest Plan Species Account. USFS 2005b)

Page 235

American badgers are likely to occur in the analysis area. The effects for badgers are similar to that described above for golden-mantled ground squirrel and porcupine.

V-4.3.6.6 Western Spotted Skunk (Spilogale gracilis) The western spotted skunk is a SBNF Watch List species. The western spotted skunk is believed to be widespread throughout California, but the present distribution and abundance of this species on NFS lands is not well-understood. In 2008-2009, several spotted skunks were caught on motion-sensor cameras in the Big Bear area. One was observed in near Bluff Mesa (SBCM), one near Van Dusen Canyon (SBCM), and another near Delamar Mountain (Borchert pers. comm.).

These Big Bear area records are all considerably higher in elevation than CDFW’s Wildlife Habitat Relationship’s description of occupied habitat (between sea level and 4,500 feet). Historically, this species was known to occur in rocky canyons on the coastal side of the San Gabriel Mountains and probably occurred in desert slope canyons as well. In other portions of its range, western spotted skunk is commonly found near streams, in canyons, on rocky cliffs, in arid valleys, and in a variety of forest and woodland habitats. It has also been reported on ocean beaches and often inhabits old buildings and other artificial structures. The western spotted skunk uses underground burrows, cavities in rocks or trees, and crevices in artificial structures for protection, resting, and rearing of young.

Spotted skunks are likely to occur in the project area. The effects for spotted skunk are similar to that described above for golden-mantled ground squirrel and porcupine.

V-4.3.6.7 Mountain Lion (Felis concolor californica) The mountain lion is a SBNF Watch List species and a CDFW Specially Protected Mammal. The following discussion was prepared with substantial review and input from Jeff Villepique, California Department of Fish and Wildlife biologist with local expertise and knowledge of the San Bernardino Mountains population of mountain lions.

While mountain lions remain one of the most widely distributed terrestrial mammals in the western hemisphere; populations have been reduced in urbanized areas, such as southern California, where concerns have been raised about population viability.

Mountain lions are habitat generalists, inhabiting a variety of habitat types throughout California, from deserts to humid Coast Ranges. They are most abundant in areas that support a large population of deer, their primary prey. Within these habitat types, mountain lions tend to prefer rocky cliffs, ledges, and other areas that provide cover. They are rare at higher elevations in pure stands of conifers and at lower elevations in pure stands of chamise (Adenostoma fasciculatum).

Fire plays an important role in determining the suitability of habitat for mountain lions. Fires, which reduce canopy closure, increase vigor and accessibility, and improve palatability of shrub species preferred by deer, will benefit mountain lion populations. The diet of mountain lions in California is almost 80 percent mule deer. Because they are opportunistic feeders, mountain lions exploit whatever food source is available, including bighorn sheep, skunk, porcupine, rabbit, raccoon, badger, squirrels, mice, wild pig, and domestic animals.

Page 236

Mountain lions reach sexual maturity at approximately 2.5 years of age, after which time they are capable of breeding throughout the year. They generally produce one litter every other year but can breed in consecutive years under optimal conditions. A peak in births occurs during the summer.

Mountain lions are solitary, secretive, and elusive. They are primarily nocturnal and commonly forage at dawn and dusk. Mountain lions are closely associated with mule deer populations in California and follow deer along migration routes. The home range of adult males in California was reported to encompass more than 100 square miles. Female home ranges are generally much smaller, covering 20-60 square miles. The size of an individual's home range can vary by orders of magnitude, from season to season, and year to year, and is strongly dependent on prey density. (Source: Forest Plan Species Account. USFS 2005b)

Mountain lions are keystone predators with the ability to exert population-level influences on primary and alternate prey species under certain conditions. Mountain lion numbers are ultimately governed by the population of mule deer, their primary prey. Studies show that declines in mule deer may lead to prey switching by mountain lions with negative impacts on populations of alternate prey, specifically bighorn sheep, although this may not always be the case (Villepique 2011). In light of the potential for declines in mule deer numbers to lead to perturbations in prey selection by mountain lions with negative impacts on bighorn sheep numbers, maintenance of a healthy mule deer population is critical to both the conservation of mountain lions, and the stability of the predator-prey food web (Villepique, pers. comm. 2013).

Mountain lions are known to occur in the project area. The proposed treatments would not result be expected to result in changes to habitat availability in terms of cover, denning, and foraging sites. The project activities could result in increased disturbance levels for this species, resulting in temporary displacement from areas undergoing treatment. It is likely that they would avoid areas where equipment is being operated. Because mountain lions are such a wide-ranging species, the level of displacement is not expected to be significant. After the project is completed, unauthorized routes (roads and trails not on the National Forest Transportation System) would be closed and restored, resulting in lower road densities. Reduced road densities and thinning of forest stands and creating openings in chaparral may improve habitat for the primary prey species, mule deer. This may improve the prey base for mountain lions.

V-2.5 – SBNF Watch List Animals – Effects of No Action The discussion in Part II-3.4 is applicable for Watch List species that occur in the Grass Valley project.

V-2.6– Viability of Other Animal Species of Concern – Potential Effects There are some other wildlife species known or with potential to occur in the analysis area that carry special status from other agencies but are not on the SBNF Watch List or Regional Forester’s Sensitive list. These species have been identified as having either localized or regional declines or threats.

Page 237

V-2.6.1 San Diego Coast Horned Lizard (Phrynosoma coronatum blainvillii) The coast horned lizard was removed from the Forest Service’s Regional Forester Sensitive species list in early 2013. It is a CDFW Species of Special Concern.

It is endemic to southern California and northern Baja California, México. San Diego horned lizards are found in a wide variety of habitats including coastal sage scrub, chaparral, grassland, coniferous forest, oak woodland, riparian, and the margins of the higher elevation desert where it is restricted to the juniper-desert chaparral. Within each of these habitats, this species prefers areas with loose, fine soils, an abundance of open areas for basking and plenty of native ants and other insects. This species has been reported from elevations ranging from sea level to above 8,000 feet.

Seasonal activity occurs between late March and early October, with hibernation setting in as early as August. P. c. blainvillei emerges from hibernation in March, and becomes surface active in April through July, after which most adults estivate. The adults reappear again briefly in late summer and return to overwintering sites between August and early October depending upon elevation.

The defense that P. c. blainvillei most often uses against approaching predators is to depend on their cryptic appearance and simply lie motionless. Horned lizards of the genus Phrynosoma are primarily ant-eating reptiles whose dietary habits are well known. Up to 90 percent of the diet of P. c. blainvillei consists of native harvester ants (Pogonomyrmex spp.), and this species does not appear to eat nonnative Argentine ants that have replaced native ants in much of southern California. Other slow-moving insects, such as termites, beetles, flies, wasps, grasshoppers and caterpillars are consumed opportunistically when encountered.

The specialized diet and habitat requirements, site fidelity, and cryptic defense behavior make P. c. blainvillei highly vulnerable. Commercial collecting, and habitat loss due to agriculture and urbanization is the main reasons cited for the decline of these taxa. Most surviving populations inhabit upland sites with limited optimal habitat. However, the most insidious threat to P. c. blainvillei is the continued elimination of its food base by exotic ants. Argentine ants colonize around disturbed soils associated with building foundations, roads and landfills, and expand into adjacent areas, eliminating native ant colonies. Under these conditions P. c. blainvillei populations have become increasingly fragmented, and have undergone the added stress of a number of other factors, including fire, grazing, off-road vehicles, domestic cats, and development . This taxon is unable to survive habitats altered by development, agriculture, off- road vehicle use, or flood control structures. (Source: Forest Plan Species Account. USFS 2005b)

Coast horned lizards are known from the project area. Coast horned lizards would have some risk of death or injury due to vehicle traffic and human activities during project implementation. Due to their cryptic coloration and tendency to freeze when threatened, they are especially vulnerable to being run over. See Part V-4.3.4.4 for additional discussion of potential effects.

Page 238

V-2.6.2 Red-Breasted Sapsucker (Sphyrapicus ruber) Red-breasted sapsuckers frequent old-growth, multi-layered, open forest and woodland with snags in breeding season. They forage over riparian areas, forest, and woodland and are found in a variety of open habitats in migration. Red-breasted sapsuckers often nest in tall, old trees near a body of water. They typically nest in old woodpecker cavity, sometimes in human-made structure; in nesting box, under bridge, in culvert. Nests are often located in a tall, old, isolated tree or snag in open forest or woodland. Red-breasted sapsuckers hawk insects on long, gliding flights 100-200 ft above the ground and occasionally forage on the ground for ants and other insects.

This species is migratory, arriving from South America in late March. Numbers during migration and through the summer remain small. They depart by late September. (Source: http://www.dfg.ca.gov/biogeodata/cwhr/cawildlife.aspx)

This species is a regular breeder in the San Bernardino Mountains and it is known from the project area (SBCM records). Suitable habitat for nesting, roosting, and foraging habitat for this species occurs in the analysis area and vicinity. See Part V-4.3.5.41 for a discussion of potential effects.

V-2.6.3 Olive-Sided Flycatcher (Contopus cooperi) The olive-sided flycatcher is a CDFW Species of Special Concern and a USFWS Bird of Conservation Concern. This flycatcher is an uncommon transient and uncommon summer resident (breeding bird) in conifer forest as well as montane riparian habitats with the San Bernardino Mountains.

Olive-sided flycatchers are predominantly a montane and northern coniferous forest species, usually at mid- to high-elevations. Within coniferous forest, it is most often associated with forest openings, forest edges near natural openings (e.g., meadows, bogs, canyons, rivers) or human-made openings (e.g., harvest units), or open to semi-open forest stands. Presence in early successional forest appears to be dependent on the availability of snags or residual live trees for foraging and singing perches. The olive-sided flycatcher can occur along wooded shores of streams, lakes, rivers, beaver ponds, bogs and muskegs, where natural edge habitat occurs and standing dead trees are present.

They prefer forest edges and openings either natural or human-made, and tend to increase in density as canopy cover decreases. Olive-sided flycatchers have been linked to burned areas of mixed conifer and ponderosa pine.

Nests are generally placed high up in the tree (usually coniferous), away from the main trunk, on a horizontal branch. The open cup nest is constructed of twigs, lichens, moss, and pine needles, lined with fine grasses, lichens, and rootlets and held firmly to the branch with spider webs. The species is monogamous. June is the peak of egg-laying with nests being noted as early as mid- May and as late as July. Incubation lasts 14–17 days. Nestlings are cared for by both parents and typically fledge in 15–19 days. Olive-sided flycatchers are sustained nearly entirely on flying insects.

Page 239

Olive-sided flycatchers are neo-tropical migrants. The species is known to be a nocturnal migrant. First migrants arrive in southern California in mid-April and in northern California in early May. Some transients are still moving through the state in June and rarely birds have been known to winter in southern California

This species is a regular breeder in the San Bernardino Mountains and it is known from the project area (SBCM records). Suitable habitat for nesting, roosting, and foraging habitat for this species occurs in the analysis area and vicinity. See Part V-4.3.5.41 for a discussion of potential effects.

V-2.6.5 Western Red Bat (Lasiurus blossevillii) The western red bat was removed from the Forest Service’s Regional Forester Sensitive species list in early 2013. It is a CDFW Species of Special Concern and a Western Bat Working Group high priority species.

The western red bat occurs in western Canada, western United States, western Mexico, and Central and South America. The western red bat is associated with large deciduous trees in riparian habitat. It often occurs in streamside habitats dominated by cottonwood, oaks, sycamore, and walnut. Foraging occurs in association with streams, forest openings, and clearings.

The western red bat is primarily a solitary species that roosts in the foliage of trees and shrubs in habitats bordering forests, rivers, cultivated fields, and urban. This solitary foliage roosting species typically selects roost sites in riparian trees such as cottonwood and sycamore. Roost sites are generally hidden from view from all directions except below; lack obstruction beneath, allowing the bat to drop downward for flight; lack lower perches that would allow visibility by predators; have dark ground cover to minimize solar reflection and have nearby vegetation to reduce wind and dust. This species has also been described as using saguaro cavities and cave- like structures for roosting habitat.

The diet of western red bat consists of a variety of flying insects such as moths, but it also includes flies, bugs, beetles, cicadas, ground-dwelling crickets, and hymenopterans. Foraging generally begins at high altitude in the air, but later moves to between tree canopy level and a few feet above the ground. Red bats mainly feed on moths by aerially hawking along edges, over meadows and along riparian courses.

Little information is available regarding migration patterns for this species. During winter months, western red bats move to milder coastal areas in the Pacific Northwest. In the southwest, western red bats are only present during the summer months, indicating that a seasonal migration does occur. In northern California this species is present through winter in the San Francisco area but is absent during the summer, further suggesting that migration occurs Young are born between mid-May and late June.

In general, declines of bat populations can often be attributed to roost site disturbance, loss of foraging habitat, and loss of roost sites. Many bats are shy and highly vulnerable to disturbances at roost sites. Disturbance at roost sites can lead to short and long term abandonment.

Page 240

Generally, bats have high site fidelity to winter and maternity roosts. Low reproductive potential, high longevity and high roost fidelity make populations highly sensitive to roost threats. (Source: Forest Plan Species Account. USFS 2005b)

Red bats are likely to occur in the analysis area. See Part V-4.3.6.1.8 for a discussion of effects to bats.

V-2.6.7 Silver-Haired Bat (Lasionycteris noctivagans) The silver-haired bat is a Western Bat Working Group Medium priority species and a “Recommended Watch” species for CDFW. Silver-haired bats are common, but erratic in abundance. Summer habitats include coastal and montane coniferous forests, valley foothill woodlands, pinyon-juniper woodlands, and valley foothill and montane riparian habitats. They are primarily forest dwellers, feeding over streams, ponds, and open brushy areas. Summer range is generally below 9000 feet.

This species feeds mainly on moths and other soft-bodied insects. They also eat beetles and hard-shelled insects to some extent. Foraging flight is slow and fluttery with short glides. They feed less than 20 feet above forest streams, ponds, and open brushy areas. Silver-haired bats roost in hollow trees, snags, buildings, rock crevices, caves, and under bark. Females may form nursery colonies or occur as solitary individuals in dense foliage or hollow trees. This species needs drinking water.

Silver-haired bats make long migration flights to hibernation sites. Though the migratory paths of individual bats are unknown, it is likely that some California silver-haired bats winter in Mexico. (Source: http://www.dfg.ca.gov/biogeodata/cwhr/cawildlife.aspx)

Bats, in general, are threatened by disturbance, vandalism, habitat loss, and pesticide use. Silver- haired bats have the potential to occur in the analysis area.

Silver-haired bats may occur in analysis area. See Part V-4.3.6.1.8 for a discussion of effects to bats.

V-2.6.8 Hoary Bat (Lasiurus cinereus) The hoary bat is a Western Bat Working Group Medium priority species and a “Recommended Watch” species for CDFW. This species be found at any location in California, although distribution patchy in southeastern deserts. This common, solitary species winters along the coast and in southern California, breeding inland and north of the winter range. This species migrates between summer and winter ranges, probably over long distances. During migration in southern California, males are found in foothills, deserts and mountains; females in lowlands and coastal valleys. Habitats suitable for bearing young include all woodlands and forests with medium to large-size trees and dense foliage. Hoary bats have been recorded from sea level to 13,200 feet.

The hoary bat feeds primarily on moths, although various flying insects are taken. These bats generally roost in dense foliage of medium to large trees. Preferred sites are hidden from above, with few branches below, and have ground cover of low reflectivity. Females and young tend to

Page 241

roost at higher sites in trees. Females bear young while roosting in trees, preferring sites as described under cover requirements. Females may leave the young in the roosting site while foraging. Hoary bats require water as they have relatively poor urine-concentrating abilities. They prefer open habitats or habitat mosaics, with access to trees for cover and open areas or habitat edges for feeding. (Source: http://www.dfg.ca.gov/biogeodata/cwhr/cawildlife.aspx)

Hoary bats are known from analysis area (SBCM records). See Part V-4.3.6.1.8 for a discussion of effects to bats.

V-2.6.9 Mule Deer (Odocoileus hemionus) The following species account information was taken from the Forest Plan species account (USFS 2005b) and updated by CDFW biologist J. Villepique (pers. comm. 2013). The following discussion was prepared with substantial review and input from Jeff Villepique, California Department of Fish and Wildlife biologist with local expertise and knowledge of the San Bernardino Mountains population of mule deer.

Mule deer populations have declined throughout western North America over the past three decades, prompting concern over the diminished role of this dominant herbivore in most forest and shrub habitats in western North America. Mule deer play a role in shaping bottom-up dynamics in ecosystems, affecting plant communities through browsing, seed dispersal, and nutrient transport, while also regulating top trophic predators, particularly mountain lions, which depend on mule deer populations as the primary source of prey.

The characteristics of habitat used by mule deer differ geographically, including oak woodlands, riparian areas, grassland/meadow margins, open scrub, young chaparral, and pine forests. The availability of water during the summer is a critical habitat requirement; some studies have found that they are within 0.6 miles of a water source in arid areas, with lactating females most dependent on access to water. Mule deer are herbivores and require adequate supplies of highly digestible, succulent forage. Although mule deer have traditionally been identified as browsers (consuming predominantly woody forage), studies of their diet and stomach structure have induced researchers to reclassify them as intermediate feeders (consuming equal proportions of woody and herbaceous forage).

Mule deer usually reach sexual maturity at 1.5 years, and most females breed during their second year. Breeding records from 23 separate studies indicate that mule deer breed from mid- September to early March. A peak in breeding appears to occur from late November through mid-December. Young are born from late spring to early autumn, and the peak birth period is generally from mid-June to early July.

Mule deer may be active day or night but are generally crepuscular. Migratory mule deer establish distinct summer and winter home ranges and use approximately the same home ranges in consecutive years. Non-migratory mule deer maintain yearlong home ranges. Mule deer are neither highly gregarious nor solitary. During much of the year they are widely dispersed, occurring individually or in small groups. Female groups include individuals related by maternal descent, and bucks occur in groups of unrelated males sharing common or overlapping home ranges.

Page 242

A study in the San Bernardino Mountains found that deer largely avoided areas regularly occupied by humans (e.g., campgrounds and summer cabins), to the extent that they did not utilize habitats that would otherwise be of high quality (e.g., riparian habitats and meadows; Nicholson et al. 1997). Nicholson concluded that mule deer avoided areas of high human activity, consequently avoiding potentially valuable resources. The tendency of mule deer to avoid areas of frequent human use is an important management issue. (Source: Forest Plan Species Account. USFS 2005b)

Mule deer are present in the project area. Death and injury of large terrestrial species, like mule deer, is unlikely. During project implementation, mule deer would be expected to abandon areas where fuels reduction operations are active due to the high levels of disturbance. Mule deer are unlikely to habituate to human activity and maintain habitat use or activity patterns (Lendrum et al. 2013 during this type of activity.

Some of the treatments that result in opening up of dense shrub areas may improve the habitat conditions for mule deer. Habitat fragmentation would not be expected as a result of this project. After the project is completed, unauthorized routes (roads and trails not on the National Forest Transportation System) would be closed and restored, resulting in lower road densities.

V-2.6.10 Migratory Birds In late 2008, the Memorandum of Understanding between the USDA Forest Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to Promote the Conservation of Migratory Birds was signed. The intent of the MOU is to strengthen migratory bird conservation through enhanced collaboration and cooperation between the FS and the USFWS as well as other federal, state, tribal, and local governments. Within the National Forests, conservation of migratory birds focuses on providing a diversity of habitat conditions at multiple spatial scales and ensuring that bird conservation is addressed when planning for land management activities.

Likely impacts to habitats and special status migratory bird populations resulting from the proposed project have been assessed in detail within the project Wildlife Biological Assessment, Biological Evaluation, and the Wildlife Report sections of this document. These impacts are summarized in Part V-4.3.5.40 and below: Adult birds would be expected to avoid slow-moving prescribed fire and mechanical treatments. Nests, eggs, and young birds would be more vulnerable to fire and mechanical treatments. Nests and their contents within bushes, in trees, and on the ground may be impacted during burning, masticating, mowing, drum roller crushing, trimming, felling, and vegetation removal activities. However, to the extent feasible, implementation and long-term maintenance would occur outside of the migratory bird breeding season (March 15 to August 15) so, proportional to the degree to which the breeding season may be avoided, impacts to nesting birds and active nest sites are expected to be reduced.

The proposed project would result in changes in horizontal and vertical structural components of the chaparral, riparian, and forested habitat as shrubs and dead trees are removed. There are substantial unmodified habitats surrounding the Project Area that can

Page 243

be used for dispersal. Habitat within the Project Area would experience a reduction of dead standing snags.

Because of the mosaic pattern of the proposed treatments and relative small overall footprint of the project, fragmentation would not be expected to be substantial, nor would it be expected to isolate populations or disrupt movement.

Impacts to bird species that occur as a result of the project, especially from ground-based equipment work and activities that may be conducted during the breeding season, would be expected to include disturbances, mortality/injury, and habitat modification. However, there would be a substantial amount of unmodified habitat in and surrounding the project boundary. The project may impact individual migratory landbirds and their habitat, but would not be expected to adversely impact migratory landbird populations or their associated habitats on a large-scale level.

Implementation of the Proposed Action may result in unintentional impacts to individual migratory birds, as described above and in previous sections (Part V-4.3.5.40). However, the project would be consistent with the Migratory Bird Executive Order (January 11, 2001) because the analysis meets direction defined under the 2008 Memorandum of Understanding between the USDA Forest Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). Specifically, this is because this project incorporated Design Criteria and conservation features as directed in the MOU.

V-2.7 – Other Animal Species of Concern – Effects of No Action The discussion in Part II-3.4 is applicable for other animals of concern that are discussed above.

V-3.0 –FINDINGS SBNF Watch List Animals and Other Animals of Special Concern: Implementation of the Proposed Action may have some short-term effects to Watch List animal species, as described above, and other species of concern. However, the proposed project would not result in a loss of viability for the wildlife species discussed in Part V of this document.

Migratory Birds: Implementation of the Proposed Action may unintentionally affect individuals. However, the project complies with the Migratory Bird Executive Order (January 11, 2001), because the analysis meets direction defined under the 2008 Memorandum of Understanding between the Forest Service and USFWS. Specifically, because this project incorporated Design Features and conservation features as directed in the MOU.

SBNF Watch List Plant Species and Other Plants of Special Concern: Implementation of the Proposed Action would likely effect individual watch-list plants and would likely have some short-term effects to Watch List plant populations, as described above. However, the proposed project would not result in a loss of population viability for the plant species discussed in Part V of this document.

Consistency with Management Direction: The proposed Grass Valley project is consistent with all direction applicable to Watch List and other species of concern. This includes the National

Page 244

Forest Management Act, the Forest Plan, the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and Memorandum of Understanding, and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act.

Page 245

PART VI: NON-NATIVE SPECIES RISK ASSESSMENT

VI-1.0 – INTRODUCTION See Part I of for a description of the Proposed Action and the Design Features. The following evaluation addresses the risk on introduction, establishment, and spread of non-native plants (including California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA) listed noxious weeds and other invasive non-native plant species) and animals and recommends measures to offset these risks.

Forest Service Manual direction for Invasive Species Management is contained in a new manual section, FSM 2900, effective December 5, 2011. This direction sets forth National Forest System policy, responsibilities, and direction for the prevention, detection, control, and restoration of effects from aquatic and terrestrial invasive species (including vertebrates, invertebrates, plants, and pathogens). The direction is included in Appendix B, Section 1.5.

Executive Order 13112 (signed February 3, 1999) requires that a Council of Departments dealing with invasive species be created to prevent the introduction of invasive species and provide for their control and to minimize the economic, ecological, and human health impacts that invasive cause.

VI-2.0 - NON-NATIVE PLANT ASSESSMENT Table 30 displays noxious and other invasive plants addressed in the EIS for SBNF Forest Plan (2006, Table 463) and those species known to occur in or near the analysis areas for this project, or along access routes into the analysis area. All of these species were considered in this analysis.

VI-2.1 – Occurrences of Non-Native Plants in the Analysis Area An inventory for noxious and other invasive plant species was performed concurrently with focused rare plant surveys and floristic inventories for this project, as well as for previous projects. The surveys are described in Part I of this document. The surveys that were performed had a moderate likelihood of detecting all target species (including weeds) due to season of surveys and favorable rainfall conditions. Table 30 lists weed species recorded during the surveys, shown in bold type.

There is a potential that other non-native plants occur but were not detected during surveys in the analysis area.

VI-2.2 – Risk of Introducing and Establishing New Occurrences into Analysis Area The risk of transporting new weed infestations into the analysis area is considered high. Heavy equipment would be used in the analysis area. Areas of ground disturbance caused by ground- based heavy equipment operations are especially vulnerable to establishment and rapid spread of weeds.

Page 246

Table 30. Noxious and Invasive Plant Species Known from the SBNF SPECIES NAME COMMON NAME HABITATS CALIPC CFDA IN LISTING* RATING* PROJECT RED ALERT: Potential To Spread Explosively Centaurea stoebe subsp. micranthos spotted knapweed riparian, grassland, meadows, forest red-alert A Linaria genistifolia subsp. dalmatica Dalmatian toad flax mountain meadows, pebble plains, forest floor red-alert A LIST A-1&2: Most Invasive Ailanthus altissima tree of heaven riparian, grasslands, oak woodlands A-2 C# Arundo donax giant reed riparian A-1 C# Atriplex semibaccata Australian saltbush grasslands, shrublands, alkali wetlands A-2 Brassica tournefortii African mustard washes, alkaline flats, Sonoran desert scrub A-2 Bromus madritensis subsp. rubens red brome shrublands, grasslands, desert scrub A-2 Y Bromus tectorum cheatgrass sagebrush, pinyon juniper woodlands, etc. A-1 Y Centaurea solstitialis yellow star thistle grasslands A-1 C Cortaderia selloana pampas grass grasslands, wetlands, etc. A-1 Delairea odorata German ivy coastal shrublands, riparian A-1 C# Eichhornia crassipes water hyacinth waterways A-2 Elaegnus angustifolius Russian olive interior riparian A-2 Eucalyptus globulus Tasmanian blue gum riparian, grasslands A-1 Ficus carica edible fig riparian woodlands A-1 Foeniculum vulgare wild fennel grasslands, shrublands A-1 Pennisetum setaceum (A) fountain grass roadsides, grasslands, etc A-1 Rubus discolor Himalayan blackberry riparian, marshes, woodlands A-1 Saponaria officinalis bouncing bet meadows, riparian A-2 Tamarix chinensis, T. gallica, T. parvifolia, T. tamarisk, salt cedar desert washes, riparian, seeps and springs. A-1 C# ramosissima LIST B: Lesser Invasives Ageratina adenophora eupatory coastal slopes and canyons, riparian B Bassia hyssopifolia bassia alkaline habitats B Brassica nigra black mustard coastal grasslands, disturbed areas B Centaurea militensis tocolote widespread B C# Y Cirsium vulgare bull thistle riparian, marshes, meadows B C# Y Conium maculatum poison hemlock riparian, oak woodlands B Festuca arundinacea tall fescue coastal scrub, grasslands B Hedera helix (A) English ivy coastal and mountain forests, riparian B Holcus lanatus velvet grass coastal grasslands, wetlands B Olea europaea olive riparian B Phaliris aquatica harding grass coastal, mesic soils B Potamogeton crispus curlyleaf pondweed ponds, lakes, streams B Ricinus communis castor bean coastal and interior, widespreaad B Robinia psudoacacia black locust riparian, canyons B Schinus molle Peruvian pepper tree riparian, canyons B Spartium junceum Spanish broom roadsides, canyons, widespread B C# Y Page 247

Table 30. Noxious and Invasive Plant Species Known from the SBNF SPECIES NAME COMMON NAME HABITATS CALIPC CFDA IN LISTING* RATING* PROJECT Verbascum thapsus woolly mullein widespread B Vinca major periwinkle riparian, oak woodland B Need More Info, and Other Weeds of Note Asphodelus fistulosus asphodel highways Capsella bursa-pastoris shepherd’s purse Carduus pycnocephalus Italian thistle Chenopodium album common lamb’s quarters widespread Cnicus benidictus blessed thistle Convolvulus arvensis field bindweed disturbed areas Cynodon dactylon Bermuda grass Descurainia sophia tansy mustard Mojave desert scrub, desert transition Y Dimorphotheca sinuata cape marigold sage scrub, alluvial fan scrub Dipsacus fullonum Fuller’s teasel roadsides and other disturbed sites Dipsacus sativus wild teasel roadsides and other disturbed sites Elytrigia elongata tall wheatgrass Elytrigia intermedia Intermediate wheatgrass Meadows, forest floor Erodium botrys storksbill widespread Erodium cicutarium storksbill widespread Y Euphorbia lathyris gopher plant interior sage scrub Hirshfeldia incana shortpod mustard Hordium murinum barley Hypochaeris glabra Smooth cat’s ear Lactuca serriola Prickly lettuce Y Lathyrus latifolius sweetpea many habitat types Malva neglecta common mallow disturbed roadsides Malva parviflora cheeseweed Nicotiana glauca tree tobacco coastal scrub Lepidium perfoliatum clasping pepperweed open vegetation, clay-rich soils Lunaria annua dollar plant riparian, forest, woodland Medicago polymorpha California bur-clover many habitat types Medicago sativa alfalfa roadside, trailside Medilotus albus white sweet-clover many habitat types Melilotus officinalis yellow sweet-clover many habitat types Mentha spicata var. spicata spearmint streamside Nerium oleander oleander persists/naturalizes in riparian Oxalis pes-capre (A) Bermuda buttercup disturbed grasslands Pennisetum clandestinum Kikuyu grass disturbed sites, roadsides Picris echioides bristly ox-tongue disturbed sites, near Lake Silverwood Piptatherum miliaceum smilo grass creeks and canyons Plantago lanceolata English plantain Page 248

Table 30. Noxious and Invasive Plant Species Known from the SBNF SPECIES NAME COMMON NAME HABITATS CALIPC CFDA IN LISTING* RATING* PROJECT Poa bulbosa bulbous bluegrass conifer forest and grassy mountain areas Polygonum aviculare subsp. depressum oval-leaved knotweed Prunus cerasifera cherry plum oak woodland, riparian Ranunculus testiculatus bur buttercup Rumex crispus curly dock Salsola tragus Russian thistle many habitats Salsola paulsenii barbwire Russian thistle Mojave desert scrub, disturbed sites Senecio vulgaris groundsel Silene gallica common catchfly Silybum marianum milk thistle pasturelands, disturbed grasslands Sisymbrium altissimum tumble mustard disturbed places, mainly transmontane Y Sonchus oleraceus sow thistle Tribulus terrestris puncture vine dry disturbed areas Taraxacum officinale dandelion Tragopogon dubius goat’s beard Vulpia myuros rat-tail fescue Xanthium spinosum spiny cocklebur riparian and other wetlands Annual Grasses That Pose Significant Threats Avena barbata slender wild oat coastal slopes, coastal sage scrub, disturbed Avena fatua wild oat coastal slopes, coastal sage scrub, disturbed Bromus diandrus ripgut brome many habitat types Y Lolium spp. ryegrass Meadows, wetlands. Persists when seeded post-fire Schismus barbatus Mediterranean grass coastal and desert shrublands *California Exotic Pest Plan Council (CEPPC) List Categories: List A: Most Invasive Wildland Pest Plants; documented as aggressive invaders that displace natives and disrupt natural habitats. Includes two sub-lists; List A-1: Widespread pests that are invasive in more than 3 Jepson regions, and List A-2: Regional pests invasive in 3 or fewer Jepson regions List B: Wildland Pest Plants of Lesser Invasiveness; invasive pest plants that spread less rapidly and cause a lesser degree of habitat disruption; may be widespread or regional. Red Alert: Pest plants with potential to spread explosively; infestation currently small or localized. If found, alert Cal IPC, County Agricultural Commissioner or California Department of Food and Agriculture. Need More Information: Plants for which current information does not adequately describe nature of threat to wildlands, distribution or invasiveness. Further information is requested from knowledgeable observers. Annual Grasses: A preliminary list of annual grasses, abundant and widespread in California, that pose significant threats to wildlands. Information is requested to support further definition of this category in next list edition. *California Dept. of Food and Agriculture Pest Ratings: All weeds on California’s 130 plus noxious weed list have a rating. The overall rating system is NOT based on how bad a weed is-all weeds are considered “bad”- but rather on overall distribution throughout the state. Ratings and formal definitions by the CDFA are: A=rated weeds are normally limited in distribution throughout the state. Eradication, containment, rejection or other holding action at the state-county level. Quarantine interceptions to be rejected or threat at any point in the state. B=rated weeds are more widespread. Eradication, containment, control or other holding action at the discretion of the commissioner. State endorsed holding action and eradication only when found in a nursery. C=rated weeds are generally widespread throughout the state. Action to retard spread outside of nurseries at the discretion of the commissioner. Reject only when found in a cropseed for planting or at the discretion of the commissioner. Q=rated species are treated as temporary “A” weeds. Denoting action outside nurseries at the state-county level pending determination of permanent rating. D=rated weeds are organisms considered to be of little or no economic importance. No action. Anything not rated as “A”, “B”, “C”, or “”Q’ is given a “D” rating.

#= plant added to CDFA noxious weed list 8/2003, pest rating not finalized but “C” rating expected.

Page 249

VI-2.3 - Risk Assessment of Spread of Existing Populations of Non-Native Plants There is a risk of spreading existing occurrences of non-native plants as a result of soil disturbance associated with any of the action alternatives. Soil disturbance associated with mining operations would likely lead to an increased prevalence of cheatgrass and other weeds, as well as a risk of new introductions and spread through the use ground-based equipment adjacent to roads (where most infestations start) and continuing away from roads

VI-2.4– Measures to Prevent, Control, and Eliminate Non-Native Plant Risks The proposed action includes Design Features (see Non-Native Plant and Spanish Broom Design Features) intended to reduce the potential for establishment and/or spread of invasive weeds during implementation of this project. Part of the Proposed Action is to treat and remove Spanish broom and other non-natives from the project area and access roads. This would help reduce the likelihood of spread into new parts of the project area.

Application of the Design Features and incorporation of decommissioning and restoration elements of the Proposed Action would reduce the risk of weed introduction and spread as a result of project implementation. These measures are all fully incorporated into the project description. The overall risk of weed introduction is considered moderate with the incorporation of the above measures.

VI-2.5– Risk Determination for Non-Native Plants With the incorporation of the Design Features (see Non-Native Plant and Spanish Broom Design Features) and monitoring measures (see Monitoring-Botanical and Wildlife Resources #2) into the decision, the risk of invasive plant introduction and spread of weeds would be reduced from a high level of risk to a moderate level of risk. Without the Design Features and monitoring measures, the risk of introduction and spread would remain high.

VI-3.0 - NON-NATIVE ANIMAL AND PATHOGENS ASSESSMENT Table 31 displays a list of non-native animals and pathogens addressed in the EIS for SBNF Forest Plan (2006, Table 464) and those known to occur in or near the analysis areas for this project, or along access routes into the analysis area. All of these species were considered in this analysis.

VI-3.1 – Occurrences of Non-Native Animals and Pathogens in the Analysis Area An inventory for non-native animals was performed concurrently with focused wildlife surveys and inventories for this project, as well as for previous projects. The surveys are described in Part I of this document. The surveys that were performed had a moderate likelihood of detecting all target species (including non-native). Table 31 lists non-native animals recorded in the analysis area.

Surveys were likely not sufficient to detect all non-native animals or pathogens present in the analysis area. Therefore, there is an unknown risk associated with unknown/undetected non- native animals/pathogens.

Page 250

Table 31. Non-Native Animals Known from the SBNF (From SBNF Forest Plan EIS 2006) Scientific Name Common Name Threat Native Species Affected or Other Effects On Occurrence Level* SBNF** in Analysis Area Invertebrates Linepithema humile Argentine ant 2 Native ants & species that eat ants, prey base for Y P coast horned lizard & arroyo toad, plant seeds dispersed by native ants Procambarus clarkii Louisiana crayfish 2 Native fish/amphibians Y N Solenopsis invicta Red imported fire ant 1 Small mammals, birds, humans A N Apis mellifera scutellata Africanized honey-bee 4 Native animals, humans A N Apis melliferaspp. European honey bee 3 Native bees Y P Reptiles/Amphibians Rana catesbeiana Bullfrog 1 Native fish/amphibians Y P Chelydra serpentina Snapping turtle 4 Native fish/amphibians Y N Chrysemys picta, C. Red-eared slider, painted turtle 4 Native fish/amphibians Y P scripta Fish Lepomis spp. Green sunfish, bluegill, 1 Native fish/amphibians, insects Y P pumpkinseed Micropterus spp. Largemouth and smallmouth bass 1 Native fish/amphibians Y P Cyprinella lutrensis Red shiner 1 Native fish/amphibians A P Carrasius auratus Goldfish 2 Native fish/amphibians Y P Cyprinus carpio Carp 2 Native fish/amphibians Y P Pimephales promelas Fathead minnow 2 Native fish/amphibians Y P Ameiurus (Ictalurus)melas Black bullhead catfish 1 Native fish/amphibians, insects Y U Ictalurus punctatus Channel catfish 3 Native fish/amphibians Y U Gambusia afinis Mosquitofish 1 Native fish/amphibians, insects Y Y Oncorhynchus mykiss Rainbow trout (stocked) 1,3 Native fish/amphibians Y Y Salmo trutta German brown trout 1 Native fish/amphibians Y Y Mammals Rattus rattus, R. Black rat, Norway rat 3 Woodrats, mice Y P Page 251

Table 31. Non-Native Animals Known from the SBNF (From SBNF Forest Plan EIS 2006) norvehicus Sus scrofa European boar, feral pig 2 Disrupts habitat, eats many species Y N Vulpes fulva Red fox 1 Small ground dwelling native species Y P Castor Canadensis Beaver 1 Native vegetation Y N Felis domesticus Feral cat 2 Native birds, reptiles Y P Canis familiaris Feral dog 1 Bighorn sheep, deer Y P Equus cabullus Feral horse 2 Bighorn sheep A N Equus asinus Feral burro 2 Deer Y N Bos taurus Feral cattle 1 Riparian habitats, desert tortoise Y N Didelphus virginiana Opossum 3,4 Native vegetation and animals Y P Domestic sheep and goats Bighorn sheep Y N Birds Molothrus ater Brown-headed cowbird 1 Riparian dependent birds Y Y Sternus vulgaris European starling 1 Cavity nesting birds Y Y Bibulus ibis Cattle egret 3 Y P Meleagris gallopavo Wild turkey 2 Native vegetation, native birds Y Y Passer domesticus House sparrow 2 Native birds Y P Columba livia Rock pigeon 2 Native birds Y P * Threat Level ** Occurrence 1- serious, documented threat to sensitive species or ecosystems; A=Known from sites adjacent to SBNF, reasonable to expect to 2-moderate threat to native species or ecosystems; invade Forest ecosystems within next 5 years. 3-benign, low risk; Y=Known occurrences on the SBNF 4-potential threat, but impacts not well documented. P=Potential U=Unlikely Species with multiple threat levels are considered a threat in some areas, but not a problem in other areas.

Page 252

VI-3.2 – Risk of Introducing and Establishing New Occurrences into Analysis Area The risk of introducing and establishing new occurrences of non-native animals in the analysis area is considered low. The types of activities proposed are unlikely to attract new non-native animals that are considered threats at the time of this analysis.

Biologists doing pre-work surveys and monitoring during implementation would observe new non-native species and help develop adaptive management approaches, as needed. The Design Features include this measure.

VI-3.3 - Risk Assessment of Spread of Existing Populations of Non-Native Animals The non-native species known from the project area include European startling and brown- headed cowbirds. Occurrences of feral/domestic dogs and cats, rock doves, and house sparrows are likely. Rainbow and brown trout are an introduced, desirable game species. All of these species have negative effects on native animals by competition for limited resources (e.g., food, nest sites, etc.) and/or acting aggressively toward native species (e.g., displacing, killing, preying upon, etc.).

Brown-headed cowbirds pose the greatest threat to nesting native birds due to nest parasitism (i.e., laying their eggs in the nest of other birds). Brown-headed cowbird parasitism has contributed to the decline of a number of rare species, including federally-endangered least Bell’s vireo and southwestern willow flycatcher. European starlings aggressively out-compete native birds for nesting cavities (http://www.aphis.usda.gov/wildlife_damage/nwrc/publications/ 05pubs/avery053.pdf). House sparrows aggressively defend their nesting territories, often destroying eggs and chicks of native birds and also killing adults defending young (http://www.mdinvasivesp.org/archived_invaders/archived_invaders_2006_03.html; http://www.aphis.usda.gov/wildlife_damage/nwrc/publications/05pubs/avery053.pdf). Large flocks of seed eaters such as rock pigeons, house sparrows, and European starlings may affect native plant populations.

Free-roaming cats, whether feral or domestic, can have significant effects on wildlife. Studies estimate that over one billion birds are killed by cats annually (Dauphine and Cooper 2009). Studies have found a correlation between declining bird diversity and increasing cat abundance (Crooks and Soule 1999). In addition to killing and injuring a huge number of animals, cats also compete with native predators for pretty. Cats can also be vectors for diseases and parasites. Even one cat in the analysis area can have substantial effects on native species, especially nesting birds and rare species. Cats in riparian areas in the project area could threaten federally-listed species including least Bell’s vireo and southwestern willow flycatchers.

Feral dog groups represent a threat to small and larger wildlife species and are known to kill deer and fawns.

Amphibian populations are declining rapidly throughout the world. One factor in amphibian declines is emerging infectious diseases such as chytrid fungus (Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis) (also known as BD). One possible means of spreading a pathogen from site to

Page 253

site is on boots, equipment, vehicles that have been in contact with the water or mud. Chytrid fungus is known to occur in the San Bernardino Mountains and is suspected to have contributed to the decline of mountain yellow-legged and California red-legged frog populations. Project personnel and equipment working or taking breaks in riparian zones could come in contact with water or mud that host the fungus. There is a risk of transporting the fungus into un-infected areas if boots, equipment, and tires are not thoroughly dried and cleaned before moving to new areas where they could come in contact with water or mud. The Design Features have a measure to help reduce the risk of spreading this fungus within the project area.

VI-3.5– Risk Determination for Non-Native Animals The risk of introduction, establishment, or spread of non-native animals or pathogens in the analysis area as a result of the proposed project is considered low.

VI-4.0 – SUMMARY OF RISK FROM NON-NATIVE SPECIES Implementation of the proposed actions would result in localized ground disturbance where non- native plants could be favored. If proper precautions are not taken, such as cleaning equipment, using weed-free seed and mulch, revegetating, monitoring, and treating disturbed areas, those disturbed areas would be highly prone to invasion by non-native species. Allowing invasive species to flourish in disturbed areas would allow those weeds to spread further into the interior of the Forest and other adjacent lands. However, Design Features for invasive plants (see Non-Native Plant and Spanish Broom Design Features) should prevent this from occurring. Burning of piled slash would create small areas of moderate to high severity fire effects. The seedbank can be removed and the soils are generally sterilized from the concentrated and prolonged heat. Burn pile sites are often found to be later infested with weedy species. These, in turn, could contribute to overall negative ecological impacts. The project carries a risk of transporting weed seeds into the area with increased traffic of vehicles and personnel. The weed prevention and erosion control Design Features would considerably reduce the risk of invasive species establishment and spread to a low and manageable level. Additionally, the Design Features include monitoring during and after treatment for non-native species detection and treatment. As part of the Proposed Action, known occurrences of Spanish broom would be treated during the project. This would help mitigate effects from non-native species and reduce the risk of this species spreading as a result of the project. With the Design Features, BMPs, and treatment guidelines, the risk from currently known non- native plants, animals, and pathogens would not be expected to change from the current risk levels in the analysis area.

The project would be consistent with all applicable management direction, including the Forest Plan, Forest Service Manual, and Executive Order 13112.

Page 254

LITERATURE CITED

Anthony, R.G.; Knight, R.L.; Allen, G.T.; McClelland, B.R.; Hodges, J.L. 1982. Habitat use by nesting and roosting bald eagles in the Pacific Northwest. Transactions of the North American Wildlife and Natural Resource Conference 47: 332-342.

Arbogast, B.S., K.I. Schumacher, N.J. Kerhoulas, A.L. Bidlack, J.A. Cook, and G.J. Kenagy. 2017. Genetic data reveal a cryptic species of New World flying squirrel: Glaucomys oregonensis. Journal of Mammalogy, 98(4):1027–1041, 2017

Backlin, A. R., C. J. Hitchcock, R. N. Fisher, M. L. Warburton, P. Trenham, S. A. Hathaway, and C. S. Breheme. 2004. Natural History and Recovery Analysis for Southern California Yellow-Legged Frog (Rana muscosa), 2003. U.S. Geological Survey final report.96 pp.

Bagne, K.E. and D. M. Finch. 2009. Response of Small Mammal Populations to Fuel Treatment and Precipitation in a Ponderosa Pine Forest, New Mexico. Restoration Ecology. Society for Ecological Restoration International. doi: 10.1111/j.1526-100X.2009.00601.

Baicich, P.J.; Harrison, C.J.O. 1997. A guide to the nests, eggs, and nestlings of North American birds. 2d ed. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Barrows, C.W. 1980. Summer roost selection by spotted owls: an adaptation to heat stress. Thesis. Long Beach: California State University; 51 p.

Barrows, C.W. 1981. Roost Selection by Spotted Owls: An Adaptation to Heat Stress. The Condor, Vol. 83, No. 4 (Nov., 1981), PP. 302-309. http://www.jstor.org/stable/1367496

Belt, G.H., J. O'Laughlin, and T. Merrill. 1992. Design of forest riparian buffer strips for the protection of water quality: Analysis of the scientific literature. Policy Analysis Group Rep. 8. Idaho Forest, Wildlife, and Range Exp. Stn., Univ. of Idaho, Moscow, ID.

Biological Resource Specialists. 2001. Surveys for the Mountain Yellow-legged frog on selected streams on the San Bernardino National Forest, 1999. Contract No. 43-9A14-9-7045. Yucaipa, CA. 40 pp. On file Mountaintop Ranger District Office.

Block, W.M., J.L. Ganey, P.E. Scott, and R. King. 2005. Prey ecology of Mexican spotted owls in pine-oak forests of northern Arizona. Journal of Wildlife Management 69(2): 618-629.

Bond, M.L., A.B. Franklin, W.S. LaHaye, May, C.A., and M.E. Seamans. 2002. Short-term effects of wildfires on spotted owl survival, site fidelity, mate fidelity, and reproductive success. Wildlife Society Bulletin 30(4):1022-1028.

Bond, M.L., Lee, D.L., Siegel, R.B., and Ward, J.P. 2009. Habitat use and Selection by California spotted owls in a postfire landscape. The Journal of Wildlife Management 37 (7):1116-1124.

Page 255

Brown, C., Fisher, R.N., 2001. Herpetofaunal Inventory and Monitoring at Silverwood Lake State Recreation Area. U.S. Geological Survey. Prepared for the California Department of Parks and Recreation. 42pp. On file Mountaintop Ranger District Office.

Brown, B.T. 1988. Breeding ecology of a willow flycatcher population in Grand Canyon, AZ. Western Birds 24: 241–257.

Carey, A. B., and K. C. Peeler. 1995. Spotted owls, resource and space use in mosaic landscapes. Journal of Raptor Research 29:223 – 239.

Carey, A.B., S.P. Horton, and B.L. Biswell. 1992. Northern spotted owls: Influence of prey base and landscape character. Ecological Monographs 62(2): 223-250.

Carey, A.B., J.A. Reid, and S.P. Horton. 1990. Spotted owl home range and habitat usein southern Oregon Coast Ranges. Journal of Wildlife Management 54:11-17.

CNNDB. The California Natural Diversity Data Base. California Dept. of Fish and Game, Natural Heritage Program.

CNPS. 2000. List and R-E-D Code changes for sixth edition of the Inventory. Unpublished notes from http/www.cnps.org/rareplants/inventory/6th Edition. California Native Plant Society, Sacramento, CA.

Chamberlin, T.W., R.D. Harr, and F.H. Everest. 1991. Chapter 6. Timber harvesting, silviculture, and watershed processes. Pp. 181-205 in: Meehan, W.R. (Ed.). Influences of Forest and Rangeland Management on Salmonid Fishes and Their Habitat. American Fisheries Society Special Publication 19. 751 p.

Clark, Darren A. 2007. Demography and Habitat Selection of Northern Spotted Owls in Post- Fire Landscapes of Southwestern Oregon. Master’s Thesis. Oregon State University. 202 pp.

Converse, S. J., G. C. White, and W. M. Block. 2006. Small mammal responses to thinning and wildfire in ponderosa pine-dominated forests of the southwestern United States. Journal of Wildlife Management 70:1711-1722.

Converse, S.J. W.M. Block, G.C. White. 2006b. Small mammal population and habitat response to forest thinning and prescribed fire. Forest Ecology and Management 228 (2006) 263-273.

Detrich, P.J. 1985. The status and distribution of bald eagle in California. Chico: California State University. M.S. Thesis

Dost, Frank N., L. Norris, and C. Glassman. 1996. Assessment of human health and environmental risks associated with use of borax for cut stump treatment, draft. USDA Forest Service, Regions 5 and 6. 109 pp.

Page 256

Ferron, J. 1983. Comparative activity patterns of two sympatric sciurid species. Naturaliste Can. (Rev. Ecol. Syst.), 110: 207-212.

Finch, DM and SH Stoleson, eds. 2000. Status, ecology and conservation of the Southwestern Willow Flycatcher. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-60. Ogden, UT. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 131 pp.

Fraga, N. 2008. Conservation assessment of vernal wetland plant species on the Mountain Top [sic] District of the San Bernardino National Forest. Unpublished report prepared by Rancho Santa Ana Botanic Garden for the SBNF, September 30 2008. On file Mountaintop Ranger District Office.

Franklin, A.B.; Anderson, D.R.; Gutiérrez, R.J.; Burnham, K.P. 2000. Climate, habitat quality, and fitness in northern spotted owl populations in northwestern California. Ecological Monographs 70: 539-590.

Franklin, A., Gutierrez, R., Nichols, J., Seamans, M., White, G., Zimmerman, G., Hines, J., Munton, T., LaHaye, W., Blakesley, J., Steger, G., and B. Noon. 2003. Population dynamics of the California spotted owl: a meta-analysis. Final Report to U.S. Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station, P.O. Box 245, Berkeley, CA 94701.

Franklin, A. B., R. J. Gutierrez, J.D. Nichols, M.E. Seamans, G.C. White, G.S. Zimmerman, J.E. Hines, T.E. Munton, W.S. LaHaye, J.A. Blakesley, G.N. Steger, B.R. Noon, D.W.H. Shaw, J.J. Kean, T.L. McDonald, and S. Britting. 2004. Population dynamics of the California spotted owl (Xtrix occidentalis occidentalis): a meta- analysis. Ornithological Monographs No. 54. 54 pp.

Ganey, J. L. 1990. Calling behavior of spotted owls in northern Arizona. The Condor 92:485.490.

Garrett, K.; Dunn, J. 1981. Birds of southern California: Status and distribution. Los Angeles, CA: Los Angeles Audubon Society.

Gucinski, Hermann, M.J. Furniss, R.R. Ziemer, M.H. Brookes. 2001. Forest roads: a synthesis of scientific information. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNWGTR-509. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 103 p.

Gutiérrez, R. J., J. Verner, K. S. McKelvey, B. R. Noon, G. N. Steger, D. R. Call, W. S. La Haye, B. B. Bingham, and J. S. Senser. 1992. Habitat relations of the California spotted owl. In: J. Verner, K. S. McKelvey, B. R. Noon, R. J. Gutierrez, G. I. Gould, and T. W. Beck (technical coordinators), The California spotted owl: a technical assessment of its current status. General Technical Report PSW-GTR-133. Albany, CA: Pacific Southwest Research Station, USDA Forest Service; 79-98.

Page 257

Gutiérrez, R. J. and S. Whitmore. 2008. Acute effects of canopy reduction on California spotted owls: challenges for adaptive management. Final Report Revision: Contract #53-91S8- 5-ECO54. 50 pp.

Gutiérrez, R.J., P.N. Manley, and P.A. Stine. 2017. The California Spotted Owl: Current State of Knowledge. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station, General Technical Report PSW-GTR-254. 295 pp.

Hanson, C., M. Bond, and D. Lee. 2018. Effects of post-fire logging on California spotted owl occupancy. Nature Conservation 24: 93-105.

Holland, DC. 1998. Surveys for the mountain yellow-legged frog (Rana muscosa) on the San Bernardino National Forest, CA. Camp Pendleton Amphibian and Reptile Survey, Fallbrook, CA. 40 pp. On file Mountaintop Ranger District Office.

Hooven, Edward F. 1959. Dusky-footed woodrat in young Douglas-fir. Research Note 41. Corvallis, OR: Oregon Forest Lands Research Center; 24 p. Cited in: Williams, D.F; J. Verner, H.F. Sakai, J.R. Waters. 1992. General biology of major prey species of the California spotted owl. In: In: Verner, J, K. S. McKelvey, B. R. Noon, R. J. Gutiérrez, G. I. Gould, and T. W. Beck (technical coordinators), The California spotted owl: a technical assessment of its current status. General Technical Report PSW-GTR-133. Albany, CA: Pacific Southwest Research Station, USDA Forest Service; 207-221.

Hunter, W. C., R. D. Ohmart, and B. W. Anderson. 1987. Status of Breeding Riparian-Obligate Birds in Southwestern Riverine Systems. Western Birds 18:10-18.

Jenness, J.S., Paul Beier, and Joseph L. Ganey. 2004. Associations between Forest Fire and Mexican Spotted Owls. Forest Science 50(6) 2004. 756-772

Jennings, M.R.; Hayes, M.P. 1994. Amphibian and reptile species of special concern in California. Final report to the California Department of Fish and Game, Inland Fisheries Division, Rancho Cordova, CA, under contract 8023. 255 pp.

Jurek, R.M. 1988. Five-year status report. Bald eagle. Unpublished Report. Sacramento, CA: California Department of Fish and Game, Wildlife Management Division.

Knight, R.L. and K.J. Gutzwiller, eds. 1995. Wildlife and recreationists: coexistence through management and research. Island Press. Washington, DC. 373 pp.

LaHaye, William S. 1987-1998; 2003-2004. San Bernardino Mountains California Spotted Owl Demography Study. SBNF Files. On file Mountaintop Ranger District Office.

LaHaye, W. S., R. J. Gutiérrez, and D. R. Call. 1992b. Demography of an insular population of spotted owls (Strix occidentalis occidentalis). In: D.R. McCullough and R.H. Barrett (eds.), Wildlife 2001: populations. London: Elsevier Applied Science; 903-814.

Page 258

LaHaye, W. S., R. J. Gutierrez, and H. R. Akcakaya. 1994. Spotted owl metapopulation dynamics in southern California. Journal of Animal Ecology 63:775–785

LaHaye, W. S., Gutierrez, R.J.and D.R. Call. 1997. Nest site selection and reproductive success of California spotted owls. Wilson Bulletin 109: 42-51.

Laymon, Stephen A. 1988. The ecology of the spotted owl in the central Sierra Nevada, California. Berkeley: University of California; 285 p. Dissertation. Cited in Gutiérrez et al. 1995.

Lee, D. and L.L. Irwin. 2005. Assessing risks to spotted owls from forest thinning n fire-adapted forests in the western United States. Forest Ecology and Management. 211: 191-209.

Lee, D. and W. D. Tietje. 2005. Dusky-footed woodrat demography and prescribed fire in a California oak woodland. Journal of Wildlife Management 69(2): 1211-1220.

Lee, D., M. Bond, M. Borchert, R. Tanner. 2013. Influence of fire and salvage logging on sie occupancy of spotted owls in the San Bernardino and San Jacinto Mountains of Southern California. Journal of Wildlife Management.

Lehman, R.N. 1979. A survey of selected habitat features of 95 bald eagle nest sites in California. Administrative Report 79-1. Sacramento, CA: California Department of Fish and Game, Wildlife Management Branch.

Lehman, R.N.; Craigie, D.E.; Colins, P.L.; Griffen, R.S. 1980. An analysis of habitat requirements and site selection criteria for nesting bald eagles in California. Prepared for USDA Forest Service, Region 5, San Francisco, CA. Arcata, CA: Wilderness Research Institute.

Marshall, R.M.; Stoleson, S.H. 2000. Threats. Chapter 3 in: Finch, D.M.; Stoleson, S.H., eds. Status, ecology, and conservation of the southwestern willow flycatcher. General Technical Report RMRSGTR-60. Fort Collins, CO: Rocky Mountain Research Station, Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture.

Meyer, M.D. M.P. North, and S.L Roberts. 2008. Truffle abundance in recently prescribed burned and unburned forests in Yosemite National Park: implications for mycophagous mammals. Fire Ecology 4(2): 24-33.

Mowrey, R.A.., Zasada, J.C. 1982. Den-tree use and movements of northern flying squirrels in interior Alaska and implications for forest management. In: Fish and Wildlife relationships in old-growth forests. Proc. Amer. Inst. Fishery Res. Biol.; 351-356 p.

Prather, J.W., Noss, R.F., and T.D. Sisk. 2008. Real versus perceived conflicts between restoration of ponderosa pine forests and conservation of the Mexican spotted owl. Forest Policy and Economics 10 (2008):140-150.

Page 259

Roberts, S. L. and J. van Wagtendonk. 2006. The effects of fire on California spotted owls and their prey in Yosemite National Park. Abstract for a Call for Papers. On file Mountaintop Ranger District Office.

Rosenberg, K. V., R. D. Ohmart, W. C. Hunter, and B. W. Anderson. 1991. Birds of the Lower Colorado River Valley. University of Arizona Press. Tucson, Arizona.

Sakai, H.F. and B.R. Noon. 1993. Dusky-footed woodrat abundance in different-aged forests in northwestern California. Journal of Wildlife Management 57(2): 373-382.

SBCM (San Bernardino County Museum). 2004 - 2009. Annual reports for suitability surveys and GIS layers for Mountaintop Ranger District. Unpublished. On file Mountaintop Ranger District Office.

Sedgwick, J. A. and E L. Knopf. 1992. Describing Willow Flycatcher habitats: scale perspectives and gender differences. Condor 94:720-733.

Smith, R.B., Peery, M.Z., Gutierrez, R.J. and W.S. LaHaye. 1999. The relationship between spotted owl diet and reproductive success in the San Bernardino Mountains, California. Wilson Bulletin 111(1):22-29.

Sogge, M.K., T.J. Tibbits, and S.J. Sferra. 1993. Status of the southwestern willow flycatcher along the Colorado River between Glen Canyon Dam and Lake Mead – 1993. Summary Report. Flagstaff, AZ: National Park Service Cooperative Studies Unit/Northern Arizona University/U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Arizona Game and Fish Department.

Stebbins, R.C. 2003. A field guide to western amphibians and reptiles. 3rd. New York, NY: Houghton Mifflin Company.

Stebbins, R. and S. McGinnis. 2012. Field Guide to Amphibians and reptiles of California, Revised Edition. University of California Press. 538 pp.

Stephenson, J.R. and G.M. Calcarone. 1999. Southern California mountains and foothills assessment: habitat and species conservation issues. General Technical Report GTR- PSW-172. Albany, CA: Pacific Southwest Research Station, Forest Service, USDA.

Tanner, R. 2005-2011, 2017. San Bernardino Mountains California Spotted Owl Survey Records. SBNF Files. On file Mountaintop Ranger District Office.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1986. Recovery plan for the Pacific bald eagle. Portland, OR.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2007. National Bald Eagle Management Guidelines. May 2007. 23 pp. (http://www.fws.gov/midwest/eagle/guidelines/NationalBaldEagleManagement Guidelines.pdf)

Page 260

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2002a. Final Rule - Determination of Endangered Status for the Southern California Distinct Vertebrate Population Segment of the Mountain Yellow- Legged Frog (Rana muscosa). Federal Register/Vol. 67, No. 127/Tuesday, July 2, 2002

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2002b. Final Recovery Plan for Southwestern Willow Flycatcher (Empidonax trailii extimus). Prepared by the Southwestern Willow Flycatcher Recovery Team Technical Subgroup. Region 2, Albuquerque, NM.

U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2005. Biological and Conference Opinions on the Revised Land and Resource Management Plans for the Four Southern California National Forests, California. 1-6-05-F733.9. Dated Sept. 15, 2005

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2005a. Designation of Critical Habitat for Southwestern Willow Flycatcher, Final Rule. Federal Register 70(201): 60885-60934

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2012. Biological and Conference Opinions for Various Ongoing Activities on the San Bernardino National Forest with Effects to Eight Riparian Species, San Bernardino National Forest, CA. FWS-SB/WRIV-08B0680-09F0227. Dated 12/6/2012. 85 pp.

U.S. Forest Service. 1985. Habitat Management Guide for Southern Rubber Boa on the San Bernardino National Forest.

U.S. Forest Service. 1993. Protocol For Surveying For Spotted Owls In Proposed Management Activity Areas And Habitat Conservation Areas. March 12, 1991 (Revised February 1993).

U.S. Forest Service. 1994. Report of the southern California spotted owl biologist team. Unpublished report by Gould, G.; Hayes, L.; LaHaye, W.; Solis, D.; Stephenson, J.; Weeden, P. San Francisco, CA: Pacific Southwest Region, Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture.

U.S. Forest Service. 2002. Mountain Yellow-Legged Frog Conservation Assessment and Strategy – Angeles and San Bernardino Naitonal Forests.

U.S. Forest Service. 2004. Conservation Strategy for the California Spotted Owl (Strix occidentalis occidentalis) on the National Forest of Southern California. 34 pp.

U. S. Forest Service. 2005a. Biological Assessment for the Revised Land Management Plans, dated March 18, 2005.

U.S. Forest Service. 2005b. Forest Planning Record: Species Accounts. Part of the Forest Plan Planning Record. http://fsweb.cleveland.r5.fs.fed.us/sccs/animals/

Page 261

U.S. Forest Service. 2006. San Bernardino National Forest Land Management Plan. Pacific Southwest Region. https://data.ecosystem- management.org/nepaweb/nepa_project_exp.php?project=35130

U.S. Forest Service. 2006b. Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment for Borax (Sporax) Final Report. Forest Health Protection, Arlington, VA. February 24, 2006. 138 pp.

U.S. Forest Service. 2011. Management Indicator Species Account For California Spotted Owl In The Southern California Province. Updated May 2011. Prepared by Robin Eliason and Steve Loe. 61 pp.

U.S. Forest Service. 2012- 2016. California Spotted Owl Survey Records. SBNF Files. On file Mountaintop Ranger District Office.

U.S. Geological Survey. 2002. Survey Results for the San Bernardino National Forest. Prepared for the San Bernardino National Forest. On file Mountaintop Ranger District Office.

U.S. Geological Survey. 2003. Survey Results for the San Bernardino National Forest. Prepared for the San Bernardino National Forest. On file Mountaintop Ranger District Office.

Unitt, P. 1987. Empidonax traillii extimus: An endangered subspecies. Western Birds 18: 137– 162.

Verner, J., K. S. McKelvey, B. R. Noon, R. J. Gutierrez, G. I. Gould, and T. W. Beck (technical coordinators). 2007. The California spotted owl: a technical assessment of its current status. General Technical Report PSW-GTR-133. Albany, CA: Pacific Southwest Research Station, USDA Forest Service.

Vredenburg, V. T. 2007. ''Concordant molecular and phenotypic data delineate new taxonomy and conservation priorities for the endangered mountain yellow-legged frog (Ranidae: Rana muscosa).'' Journal of Zoology, 271, 361-374.

Williams, D.F; J. Verner, H.F. Sakai, J.R. Waters. 1992. General biology of major prey species of the California spotted owl. In: In: Verner, J, K. S. McKelvey, B. R. Noon, R. J. Gutiérrez, G. I. Gould, and T. W. Beck (technical coordinators), The California spotted owl: a technical assessment of its current status. General Technical Report PSW-GTR- 133. Albany, CA: Pacific Southwest Research Station, USDA Forest Service; 207-221.

Wirtz, William O., II; D. Hoekman, J.R. Muhm, S.L. Souza. 1988. Postfire rodent succession following prescribed fire in southern California chaparral. In: Szaro, Robert C.; Severson, Keith E.; Patton, David R. (technical coordinators), Management of amphibians, reptiles, and small mammals in North America. General Technical Report RM-166. Fort Collins, CO: Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. Cited in Williams and others 1992.

Page 262

Wolf, Shaye. 2010. Petition to list the San Bernardino flying squirrel (Glaucomys sabrinus californicus) as threatened or endangered under the United States Endangered Species Act. Center for Biological Diversity. 73 pages.

Zabel, C.J., K. McKelvey, and J.P.Ward. 1995. Influence of primary prey on home-range size and habitat-use patterns of northern spotted owls (Strix occidentalis caurina). Can.J.Zool. 73:433-439.

Zeiner, D.C., W.F. Laudenslayer Jr., K.E. Mayer, M. White, eds. 1990. California's wildlife. Volume II: Birds. Sacramento, CA: California Statewide Wildlife Habitat Relationships System, California Department of Fish and Game. Now online at https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Data/CWHR/Life-History-and-Range

Zweifel, R.G. 1955. Ecology, distribution, and systematics of frogs of the Rana boylei group. University of California Publications in Zoology 54(4): 207-292.

Websites BCI (Bat Conservation International) Website: http://www.batcon.org/i(BCI website).ndex.php/ all-about-bats/species-profiles.html

Personal Communications Borchert, Mark. February 2010. Forest Service Ecologist for the Southern Province of Region 5. San Bernardino National Forest Supervisor’s Office. 909-382-2600. Personal communication with Robin Eliason.

Braden, Gerald. 2008. Former zoological curator at San Bernardino County Museum. Personal communication with Robin Eliason.

Meyer, Kathie P. 2010. Personal communication with Robin Eliason. K. Meyer is Front Country District Biologist on the San Bernardino National Forest.

Taiz, Joshua and Larry Jones. 2006. Personal communication with Steve Loe. 7/19/2006. District Wildlife Biologist Santa Catalina Ranger District, Tucson, Arizona at 520-749- 8700 or 520-403-8277, and Larry Jones Assistant Wildlife Program Manager, Coronado National Forest Supervisor's Office, 300 W. Congress Tucson, AZ 85701 at 520-388-8375

Grass Valley Fuels Reduction Project Supporting Documents used in this Analysis Taylor, Robert G. 2017. Hydrologic & Soils Specialist Report - Grass Valley Fire Restoration Project. San Bernardino National Forest - Mountaintop Ranger District.

Waterston, Beth. 2017. Vegetation and Silviculture Resource Report. 2017. Grass Valley Fire Restoration Project. San Bernardino National Forest - Mountaintop Ranger District.

Williams, Scott. 2017. Air Quality Report. Grass Valley Fire Restoration Project. San Bernardino National Forest - Mountaintop Ranger District.

Page 263

Yurczyk, Francis. 2017. Transportation-Operations Report. Grass Valley Fire Restoration Project. San Bernardino National Forest - Mountaintop Ranger District.

Page 264

Appendix A: Floral and Faunal Compendium

Plants Known From the Grass Valley Project Area Family Genus Species var/ssp Variety/Subspecies Common Name

Pinaceae Pinus coulteri Coulter pine

Fagaceae Quercus kelloggii black oak

Rosaceae Adenostoma fasciculatum chamise

Fabaceae Spartium junceum Spanish broom

Asteraceae Cirsium vulgare bull thistle

Rhamnaceae Ceanothus leucodermis

Rhamnaceae Ceanothus cordatus whitethorn

Grossulariaceae Ribes sp.

Cornaceae Cornus sp. dogwood

Scrophulariaceae Buddleja davidii butterfly bush

Iridaceae Iris sp.

Themidaceae Bloomeria crocea? golden star

Scrophulariaceae Verbascum thapsus wooly mullein

Orchidaceae Pipera elongata

Poaceae Bromus tectorum cheatgrass

Poaceae Bromus diandrus rip-gut brome

Poaceae Polypogon monspeliensis rabbitfoot grass

Poaceae Bromus hordeacous

Poaceae Elymus repens

Poaceae Avena sp.

Poaceae Elymus elymoides squirreltail

Salicaceae Salix sp. willow

Solanaceae Nicotiana attentuata tobacco

Themidaceae Brodiaea elegans elegans harvest brodiaea

Orobanchaceae Castilleja lasioryncha San Bernardino mountains owls clover Polemoniaceae Phacelia mojavensis Lamiaceae Scutellaria bolanderi ssp austromontanum? southern mountains skullcap Liliaceae Calchortus palmeri palmeri

Liliaceae Calchortus plummerae

Onagraceae Oenathera deltoides devil's lantern

Rubiaceae Galium sp. bedstraw

Convolvulaceae Cuscuta sp. dodder

Ericaceae Arctostaphylos glandulosa manzanita

Page 265

Appendix A: Floral and Faunal Compendium

Plants Known From the Grass Valley Project Area Family Genus Species var/ssp Variety/Subspecies Common Name

Rosaceae Cercocarpus betuloides birch-leaf mountain mahogany Papaveraceae Dendromecon rigida tree poppy

Onagraceae Epilobium canum California fuschia

Brassicaceae Sisymbrium altissimum

Asteraceae Chaenactis santalinoides

Rhamnaceae Ceanothus perplexans

Rosaceae Horkelia rydbergii horkelia

Brassicaceae Brassica nigra?

Convolvulaceae Calystegia sp. morning glory

Fabaceae Lupinus sp. lupine

Fabaceae Lotus sp.

Fagaceae Quercus chrysolepis live oak

Rosaceae Rubus parviflorus thimbleberry

Polygonaceae Eriogonum fasciculatum buckwheat

Onagraceae Clarkia sp.

Asteraceae Eriophyllum confertiflorum golden yarrow

Plantaginaceae Penstemon grinnellii beardtongue

Plantaginaceae Keckiella ternata bush penstemon

Boraginaceae Eriodictyon parryi poodledog bush

Asteraceae Cirsium occidentalis? cobweb thistle

Cyperaceae Carex douglasii Douglas' sedge

Cyperaceae Carex multicaulis stick sedge

Carophyllaceae Silene lemmonii

Ditascaceae Ditasca glomerata Durango root

Platanaceae Platanus racemosa western sycamore

Oleaceae Fraxinus velutina velvet ash

Papaveraceae Ehrendorferia chrysantha golden eardrops

Phrymaceae Mimulus cardinalis monkeyflower

Geraniaceae Erodium cicutaria storksbill

Equisetaceae Equisetum sp. horsetail

Urticaceae Urtica dioica stinging nettle

Ranunculaceae Aquilegia sp. columbine

Asteraceae Achillea millefolium yarrow

Polemoniaceae Saltugilia sp.

Umbilicaria phaea

Lecanora sierrae

Chrysothrix

Psora

Page 266

Appendix A: Floral and Faunal Compendium

Plants Known From the Grass Valley Project Area Family Genus Species var/ssp Variety/Subspecies Common Name

Aspicilia

Lepraria neglecta

Physcia

Hypogymnia imshaugii

Letharia vulpina

Orobanchaceae Cordylanthus sp. bird's-beak

Ranunculaceae Clematis sp. clematis

Pteridaceae Pellaea sp. cliff-brake

Rosaceae Amelanchier sp. serviceberry

Rosaceae Prunus sp. cherry

Fabaceae Melilotus albus

Lamiaceae Monardella sp. coyote mint

Rosaceae Fragaria vesca? wild strawberry

Pinaceae Pinus lambertiana sugar pine Dennstaedtiaceae Pteridium aquilinum var pubsecens bracken

Poaceae Muhlenbergia sp. deer grass

Papaveraceae Eschscholzia minutiflora desert poppy

Polemoniaceae Collomia grandiflora grand collomia

Anacardiaceae Toxicodendron diversilobum poison oak

Fabaceae Hosackia crassifolius big deer vetch

Plantaginaceae Antirrhinum multiflorum snapdragon

Typhaceae Typha latifolia broad-leaved cattail Lamiaceae Stachys sp.

Rosaceae Cercocarpus ledifolius curl-leaf mountain mahogany Asclepiadaceae Ascelpias eriocarpa milkweed

Araliaceae Aralia californica elk clover

Asteraceae Tanacetum parthenium feverfew

Juncaceae Juncus ziphoides

Boraginaceae Eriodictyon trichocalyx yerba santa

Page 267

Appendix A: Floral and Faunal Compendium

ANIMALS WITH RECORDS WITHIN 2 MILES of the GRASS VALLEY PROJECT AREA Common Name Scientific Name Status Data Source* Amphibians California Treefrog Pseudacris cadaverina SBCM Birds Acorn Woodpecker Melanerpes formicivorus USFS-NRM American Crow Corvus brachyrhynchos SBCM American Dipper Cinclus mexicanu SBNF Watch SBCM American Kestrel Falco sparverius USFS-NRM American Robin Turdus migratorious SBCM Anna's Hummingbird Calypte anna SBCM Ash-throated Flycatcher Myiarchus cinera SBCM Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus FS Sensitive USFS-NRM Band-tailed Pigeon Columba fasciata SBCM Bewick's Wren Thryomanes bewickii SBCM Black Phoebe Sayornis nigrica SBCM Black-headed Grosbeak Pheucticus melanocephalus SBCM Black-throated Gray Warbler Dendroica nigres SBCM Brewer's Blackbird Euphagus cyanocephalus SBCM Brown Creeper Certhia americana SBCM Brown-headed Cowbird Molothrus ater SBCM Bullock's Oriole Icterus bullockii SBCM Bushtit Psaltriparus minimus SBCM California Quail Callipepla californica SBCM California Spotted Owl Strix occidentalis occidentalis FS Sensitive USFS-NRM California Thrasher Toxostoma redivivum SBCM California Towhee Pipilo crissalis SBCM Calliope Hummingbird Stellula calliope SBNF Watch SBCM Canyon Wren Catherpes mexicanus SBCM, USFS- NRM Cliff Swallow Petrochelidon pyrrhonota SBCM Common Raven Corvus corax SBCM Cooper's Hawk Accipiter cooperii SBNF Watch SBCM, USFS- NRM Dark-eyed Junco Junco hyemalis SBCM, USFS- NRM Downy Woodpecker Picoides pubescens SBCM European Starling Sturnus vulgaris Non-Native SBCM Great Horned Owl Bubo virginianus USFS-NRM Hairy Woodpecker Picoides villosus SBCM, USFS- NRM House Finch Haemorhous mexicanus SBCM Lawrence's Goldfinch Spinus lawrencei SBNF Watch SBCM

Appendix A-Page 1

Appendix A: Floral and Faunal Compendium

ANIMALS WITH RECORDS WITHIN 2 MILES of the GRASS VALLEY PROJECT AREA Common Name Scientific Name Status Data Source* Amphibians Lesser Goldfinch Spinus psaltria SBCM Lewis' Woodpecker Melanerpes lewis SBNF Watch USFS-NRM Mallard Anas platyrhynchos SBCM Mountain Chickadee Poecile gambeli SBCM Mountain Quail Oreortyx pictus SBCM Mourning Dove Zeniada macroura SBCM Northern Flicker Colaptes auratus SBCM Northern Mockingbird Mimus polyglottos SBCM Nuttall's Woodpecker Picoides nuttallii SBCM Oak Titmouse Baeolophus inornatus SBNF Watch SBCM, USFS- NRM Olive-sided Flycatcher Contopus cooperi SBCM Orange-crowned Warbler Vermivora celata SBCM Phainopepla Phainopepla nitens SBCM Pine Siskin Carduelis pinus SBCM, USFS- NRM Purple Finch Carpodacus purpureus SBCM Red-breasted Sapsucker Sphyrapicus ruber SBCM Red-tailed Hawk Buteo jamaicensis SBCM Ruby-crowned Kinglet Regulus calendula SBCM Song Sparrow Melospiza melodia SBCM Spotted Towhee Pipilo maculatus SBCM, USFS- NRM Steller's Jay Cyanocitta stell SBCM, USFS- NRM Turkey Vulture Cathartes aura SBNF Watch SBCM Varied Thrush Ixoreus naevius USFS-NRM Violet-green Swallow Tachycineta thalassina SBCM Warbling Vireo Vireo gilvus SBNF Watch SBCM Western Bluebird Sialia mexicana SBCM Western Screech Owl Megascops kennicottii SBNF Watch USFS-NRM California Scrub-Jay Aphelocoma californica SBCM Western Tanager Piranga ludoviciana SBCM Western Wood-Pewee Contopus sordidulus SBCM Western-type Flycatcher Empidonax ssp. SBCM White-breasted Nuthatch Sitta carolinensis SBCM, USFS- NRM Williamson's Sapsucker Sphyrapicus thyroideus SBNF Watch SBCM Willow Flycatcher Empidonax traillii FS Sensitive SBCM Wilson's Warbler Cardellina pusilla SBCM Wrentit Chamaea fasciata SBCM

Appendix A-Page 2

Appendix A: Floral and Faunal Compendium

ANIMALS WITH RECORDS WITHIN 2 MILES of the GRASS VALLEY PROJECT AREA Common Name Scientific Name Status Data Source* Amphibians Yellow-rumped Warbler Setophaga coronata SBCM Invertebrates California Sister Adelpha bredowii USFS-NRM Mammals American Black Bear Ursus americanus USFS-NRM Bobcat Lynx rufus SBCM, USFS- NRM California Ground Squirrel Spermophilus beecheyi USFS-NRM California Myotis Myotis californicus SBCM, USFS- NRM Coyote Canis latrans SBCM Dusky-footed Woodrat Neotoma fuscipes USFS-NRM Gray Fox Urocyon cinereoargenteus SBCM Hoary Bat Lasiurus cinereus SBCM, USFS- NRM Merriam's Chipmunk Tamias merriami SBCM Mule Deer Odocoileus hemionus USFS-NRM Northern Raccoon Procyon lotor USFS-NRM Raccoon Procyon lotor SBCM Ringtail Bassariscus astutus SBNF Watch USFS-NRM San Bernardino flying squirrel Glaucomys sabrinus californicus FS Sensitive USFS-NRM

Western Gray Squirrel Sciurus griseus SBCM, USFS- NRM Western Pipistrelle Pipistrellus hesperus SBCM, USFS- NRM Western Small-footed Bat Myotis ciliolabrum SBNF Watch SBCM, USFS- NRM White-eared Pocket Mouse Perognathus alticolus alticolus FS Sensitive USFS-NRM Yuma Myotis Myotis yumanensis SBNF Watch SBCM, USFS- NRM Reptiles California Striped Racer Coluber lateralis lateralis SBCM Common Kingsnake Lampropeltis californiae USFS-NRM Sagebrush Lizard Sceloporus graciosus SBNF Watch SBCM San Bernardino Mtn. Kingsnake Lampropeltis zonata parvirubra FS Sensitive USFS-NRM

Southern Rubber Boa Charina umbratica FS Sensitive USFS-NRM Western Fence Lizard Sceloporus occidentalis SBCM * SBCM=San Bernardino County Museum Record USFS-NRM=US Forest Service Database Record

Appendix A-Page 3

Appendix A: Floral and Faunal Compendium

Animal Species Known From Miller Canyon Area Common Name Scientific Name Surveyers and Year of Status Data Invertebrates Pale Swallowtail Papilio eurymedon USFS (2006) Buckeye Precis coenia USFS (2006) Chalcedon Checkerspot Euphydryas chalcedona USFS (2006) chalcedona California Tortoiseshell Nymphalis californica USFS (2006) Lorquin’s Admiral Limenitis lorquini USFS (2006) Red Admiral Vanessa atalanta USFS (2006) Westfork Shoulderband Helminthoglypta taylori CNDDB Note: type locality Snail was W. Fork Mojave River now under Silverwood Lake. Collected in 1950- 1963. Extirpated? Fish Rainbow trout Oncorhynchus mykiss USFS (2006) Mohave tui chub Siphateles bicolor CNDDB Known from W. Fork mohavensis Mojave River before Silverwood Lake was created. Extirpated?

Amphibians Arroyo toad Anaxyrus californicus CNDDB (1967) Federally Endangered California red-legged frog Rana muscosa CNDDB (1939, 1940) Federally Endangered California Treefrog Hyla cadaverina USFS (2006), SBCM (2004); USGS (2000-2001) Pacific Treefrog Hyla (Pseudacris) USFS (2006), USGS (2000- regilla 2001) Western toad Anaxyrus boreas USFS (2011) Monterey salamander Ensatina eschscholtzii USGS (2000-2001) Watch eschscholtzii Bullfrog Rana catesbeiana SBCM (2004) Reptiles Western Fence Lizard Sceloporus occidentalis USFS (2006), SBCM (2006), USGS (2000-2001) Side-blotched Lizard Uta stansburiana USFS (2006), SBCM (2005), USGS (2000-2001) Coast Horned Lizard Phrynosoma coronatum USGS (2000-2001) Southern Sagebrush Lizard Sceloporus graciosus SBCM (2003, 2005) vandenburgianus Western Whiptail Cnemidophorus tigris USGS (2000-2001) Western Skink Eumeces skiltonianus SBCM (2005) Gilbert’s Skink Eumeces USGS (2000-2001) gilberti Coastal Western Whiptail Cnemidophorus tigris USFS (2006) Watch multiscutatus

Appendix A-Page 4

Appendix A: Floral and Faunal Compendium

Animal Species Known From Miller Canyon Area Common Name Scientific Name Surveyers and Year of Status Data Southern Alligator Lizard Elgaria multicarinata USFS (2006), SBCM; USGS (2000-2001) Long-nosed Snake Rhinocheilus lecontei USGS (2000-2001) California Lyresnake Trimorphodon USGS (2000-2001) biscutatus Gopher Snake Pituophis melanoleucus USFS (2006); USGS (2000- 2001) San Bernardino Ringneck Diadophis USGS (2000-2001), SBCM Sensitiive Snake punctatus San Bernardino Mountain Lampropeltus zonata SBCM (2003) in Seeley Sensitive Kingsnake parvirubra Creek Mountain Garter Snake Thamnophis elegans SBCM (2005) Watch elegans Two-striped Garter Snake Thamnophis USFS (2006), USGS (2000- Sensitive hammondii 2001), USFS (2011) Striped Racer Masticophis lateralis USGS (2000-2001) Southern Pacific Rattlesnake Crotalus viridis helleri USFS (2006), USGS (2000- 2001) Birds Great Blue Heron Ardea herodias SBCM (2003) Mallard Anas platyrhynchos USFS (2006), SBCM (2006) Bald Eagle Haliaeetus SBCM (2004) Sensitive leucocephalus Cooper's Hawk Accipiter cooperi USFS (2006), SBCM (2006) Watch Red-tailed Hawk Buteo jamaicensis USFS (2006), SBCM (2004, 2005, 2006) American Kestrel Falco sparverius USFS (2006), SBCM California Quail Callipepla californica USFS (2006), SBCM (2004, 2005, 2006) Mountain Quail Oreortyx pictus USFS (2006), SBCM (2004) Band-tailed Pigeon Columba fasciata USFS (2006), SBCM (2004, 2005) Mourning Dove Zenaida macroura USFS (2006), SBCM (2004, 2005, 2006) Common Barn Owl Tyto alba USFS (2006) Western Screech Owl Otus kennicottii USFS (2006) Watch Northern Pygmy Owl Glaucidium gnoma USFS (2006) Watch California Spotted Owl Strix occidentalis USFS (2006) Sensitive occidentalis Lesser Nighthawk Chordeiles acutipennis USFS (2006) Anna's Hummingbird Calypte anna USFS (2006), SBCM (2004, 2005, 2006) Costa's Hummingbird Calypte costae SBCM (2005) Rufous Hummingbird Selasphorus rufus SBCM (2003) Calliope Hummingbird Stellula calliope SBCM (2003) Watch

Appendix A-Page 5

Appendix A: Floral and Faunal Compendium

Animal Species Known From Miller Canyon Area Common Name Scientific Name Surveyers and Year of Status Data Acorn Woodpecker Melanerpes USFS (2006), SBCM (2004, formicivorus 2005, 2006) Downy Woodpecker Picoides pubescens USFS (2006), SBCM (2004) Hairy Woodpecker Picoides villosus USFS (2006), SBCM (2006) Nuttall's Woodpecker Picoides nuttallii SBCM (2005) Watch White-headed Woodpecker Picoides albolarvatus USFS (2006), SBCM Watch Northern Flicker Colaptes auratus USFS (2006), SBCM (2004, 2005, 2006) Red-breasted Sapsucker Sphyrapicus ruber SBCM (2004) Western Wood-pewee Contopus sordidulus SBCM (2003, 2004, 2005) Olive-sided Flycatcher Contopus borealis USFS (2006), SBCM (2005, CSC 2006) Pacific Slope Flycatcher Empidonax difficilis USFS (2006), SBCM Willow Flycatcher Empidonax traillii SBCM (2004, 2005) Sensitive Black Phoebe Sayornis nigricans USFS (2006), SBCM (2004, 2005, 2006) Ash-throated Flycatcher Myiarchus cinerascens USFS (2006), SBCM (2004, 2005, 2006) Tree Swallow Tachycineta bicolor SBCM (2004) Watch Violet-green Swallow Tachycineta thalassina USFS (2006), SBCM (2004) Steller's Jay Cyanocitta stelleri USFS (2006), SBCM (2004, 2005, 2006) Western Scrub Jay Aphelocoma USFS (2006), SBCM (2004, coerulescens 2005, 2006) Common Raven Corvus corax USFS (2006), SBCM (2004, 2005) American Crow Corvus brachyrhynchos USFS (2006), SBCM Mountain Chickadee Poecile gambeli USFS (2006), SBCM (2004, 2005, 2006) Bushtit Psaltriparus minimus SBCM (2004) Oak Titmouse Baeolophus inornatus USFS (2006), SBCM (2004, 2005, 2006) Pygmy Nuthatch Sitta pygmaea USFS (2006), SBCM White breasted Nuthatch Sitta carolinensis USFS (2006), SBCM (2004, 2005, 2006) Red-breasted Nuthatch Sitta canadensis SBCM (2003) Brown Creeper Certhia americana USFS (2006), SBCM (2004) Bewick's Wren Thryomanes bewickii USFS (2006), SBCM (2004) Canyon Wren Catherpes mexicanus SBCM (2003, 2004) House Wren Troglodytes aedon USFS (2006), SBCM (2004, 2005, 2006) American Dipper Cinclus mexicanus SBCM (2004) Watch Golden-crowned Kinglet Regulus satrapa SBCM (2004) Ruby-crowned Kinglet Regulus calendula SBCM (2004) Western Bluebird Sialia mexicana USFS (2006), SBCM (2004, 2006)

Appendix A-Page 6

Appendix A: Floral and Faunal Compendium

Animal Species Known From Miller Canyon Area Common Name Scientific Name Surveyers and Year of Status Data American Robin Turdus migratorius USFS (2006), SBCM (2005, 2006) Northern Mockingbird Mimus polyglottos SBCM (2004, 2005) California Thrasher Toxostoma redivivum USFS (2006), SBCM (2004) European Starling Sturnus vulgaris USFS (2006), SBCM (2004, Non-Native 2006) Warbling Vireo Vireo gilvus SBCM (2004) Watch Wilson's Warbler Wilsonia pusilla USFS (2006) Watch Yellow Warbler Dendroica petechia SBCM (2003, 2005) Watch Yellow-rumped Warbler Dendroica coronata SBCM (2005) Western Tanager Piranga ludoviciana USFS (2006), SBCM (2004, 2006) Spotted Towhee Pipilo maculatus USFS (2006), SBCM (2004, 2005, 2006) California Towhee Pipilo crissalis USFS (2006), SBCM (2004, 2005, 2006) Green-tailed Towhee Pipilo chlorurus SBCM (2005) Chipping Sparrow Spizella passerina SBCM (2004) Song Sparrow Melospiza melodia SBCM (2003, 2004, 2005) MIS Dark-eyed Junco Junco hyemalis USFS (2006), SBCM (2004, 2005 Black-headed Grosbeak Pheucticus USFS (2006), SBCM (2004, melanocephalus 2005, 2006) Brewer's Blackbird Euphagus SBCM (2003) cyanocephalus Brown-headed Cowbird Molothrus ater USFS (2006), SBCM (2004, 2006) Bullock’s Oriole Icterus bullockii SBCM (2004, 2005) Cassin's Finch Carpodacus cassinii USFS (2006), SBCM House Finch Carpodacus mexicanus USFS (2006), SBCM (2004, 2005, 2006) Purple Finch Carpodacus purpureus SBCM (2003, 2004) Pine Siskin Carduelis pinus SBCM (2005) American Goldfinch Carduelis tristis SBCM (2003, 2005) Lesser Goldfinch Carduelis psaltria USFS (2006), SBCM (2004, 2005, 2006) Lawrence's Goldfinch Carduelis lawrencei USFS (2006), SBCM (2004, Watch 2005, 2006) Mammals Broad footed Mole Scapanus latimanus SBCM (2003) Deer mouse Peromyscus USFS (2011) maniculatus Pocket Mouse Cheatodipus spp. – USGS (2000-2001) – probably (C. fallax or Cleghorn area C. califfornicus)

Appendix A-Page 7

Appendix A: Floral and Faunal Compendium

Animal Species Known From Miller Canyon Area Common Name Scientific Name Surveyers and Year of Status Data Kangaroo Rat Dipodomys spp – USGS (2000-2001) – probably D.agilis Cleghorn area Shrew Sorex ssp. probably S. USGS (2000-2001) ornatus, S. vagrans, or S. monticolus Audubon’s Cottontail Sylvilagus audubonii USFS (2006) Black-tailed Jackrabbit Lepus californicus USFS (2006) White-tailed Antelope Ammospermophilus USFS (2006) Squirrel leucurus California Ground Squirrel Spermophilus beecheyi USFS (2006) Western Gray Squirrel Sciurus griseus USFS (2006), SBCM (2005, 2006) Chipmunk Tamias spp. USFS (2011) Pocket Gopher (burrows) Thomomys bottae USFS (2006), SBCM Dusky-footed Woodrat Neotoma fuscipes USFS (2006) (nests) Gray Fox Urocyon SBCM (2004, 2005) cinereoargenteus Coyote (tracks, scat) Canis latrans USFS (2006), SBCM (2005) Black Bear (tracks) Ursus americanus SBCM (2003) Raccoon (tracks) Procyon lotor USFS (2006), SBCM (2005) Bobcat Felis rufus SBCM (2003, 2004) Mule Deer (tracks, scat) Odocoileus hemionus USFS (2006), SBCM, USFS MIS (2011) Scientific nomenclature and common names for vertebrate species follow those used in the Forest Plan (USFS 2006).

Appendix A-Page 8

APPENDIX B: Management Direction

1.0 APPLICABLE LAWS, REGULATIONS, AND STANDARDS - FEDERAL

1.1 Federal Endangered Species Act Pursuant to Section 7 of the Federal Endangered Species Act (ESA), any federal agency undertaking a federal action that may affect a species listed or proposed as threatened or endangered under the ESA must consult with USFWS. In addition, any federal agency undertaking a federal action that may result in adverse modification of Critical Habitat for a federally-listed species must consult with USFWS.

The Endangered Species Act contains protection for all species federally-listed as endangered or threatened:  Federal agencies shall seek to conserve endangered species and threatened species and shall, in consultation with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, utilize their authorities in furthering the purposes of the Endangered Species Act by carrying out programs for the conservation of endangered and threatened species.  Regulations for species that are proposed for listing as endangered or threatened are included in the Endangered Species Act  Federal agencies shall confer with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on any agency action that is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any species proposed to be listed.

The Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, makes it unlawful for a person to “take” a listed animal without a permit. Take is defined as “to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect or attempt to engage in any such conduct.” Through regulations, the term “harm” is defined as “an act which actually kills or injures wildlife. Such an act may include significant habitat modification or degradation where it actually kills or injures wildlife by significantly impairing essential behavioral patterns, including breeding, feeding, or sheltering.”

1.2 Migratory Bird Treaty Act and Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Acts and Related Strategic Plans and Executive Orders 1.2.1 Migratory Bird Treaty Act The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) of 1918 (50 CFR. Section 10.13) and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940 (16 USC 668-668d) implement treaties between the United States and other nations to protect migratory birds. The MBTA prohibits activities such as hunting, pursuing, capturing, killing, selling and shipping of the birds, any of their parts, eggs, and nests unless expressly authorized in the regulation or by permit.

1.2.2 Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (16 USC 668-668c), enacted in 1940, and amended several times since then, prohibits anyone, without a permit issued by the Secretary of the Interior, from “taking” bald eagles, including their parts, nests, or eggs. The Act provides criminal and civil penalties for persons who “take, possess, sell, purchase, barter, offer to sell, purchase or barter, transport, export or import, at any time or any manner, any bald eagle ... [or any golden eagle], alive or dead, or any part, nest, or egg thereof.” The Act defines “take” as “pursue, shoot, shoot at, poison, wound, kill, capture, trap, collect, molest or disturb.”

Appendix B-Page 1

APPENDIX B: Management Direction

“Disturb” is defined as “to agitate or bother a bald or golden eagle to a degree that causes, or is likely to cause, based on the best scientific information available, 1) injury to an eagle, 2) a decrease in its productivity, by substantially interfering with normal breeding, feeding, or sheltering behavior, or 3) nest abandonment, by substantially interfering with normal breeding, feeding, or sheltering behavior."

In addition to immediate effects, this definition also covers effects that result from human- induced alterations initiated around a previously used nest site during a time when eagles are not present, if, upon the eagle’s return, such alterations agitate or bother an eagle to a degree that injures an eagle or substantially interferes with normal breeding, feeding, or sheltering habits and causes, or is likely to cause, a loss of productivity or nest abandonment.

After the de-listing of bald eagles, USFWS finalized permit regulations to authorize limited take of bald eagles in 2009 (FR74, 175) under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act.

1.2.3 National Bald Eagle Management Guidelines The most recent guideline document is the National Bald Eagle Management Guidelines (USFWS 2007). The Guidelines include general recommendations for land management practices that will benefit bald eagles. The USFWS strongly encourages adherence to these guidelines to ensure that bald and golden eagle populations will continue to be sustained. Some of the applicable guidelines include (see the Guidelines document for more details):  To avoid disturbing nesting bald eagles, we recommend (1) keeping a distance between the activity and the nest (distance buffers), (2) maintaining preferably forested (or natural) areas between the activity and around nest trees (landscape buffers), and (3) avoiding certain activities during the breeding season. The buffer areas serve to minimize visual and auditory effects associated with human activities near nest sites. Ideally, buffers would be large enough to protect existing nest trees and provide for alternative or replacement nest trees.  Avoid clear cutting or removal of overstory trees within 330 feet of the nest at any time.  Avoid timber harvesting operations, including road construction and chain saw and yarding operations, during the breeding season within 660 feet of the nest. The distance may be decreased to 330 feet around alternate nests within a particular territory, including nests that were attended during the current breeding season but not used to raise young, after eggs laid in another nest within the territory have hatched.  Selective thinning and other silviculture management practices designed to conserve or enhance habitat, including prescribed burning close to the nest tree, should be undertaken outside the breeding season. Precautions such as raking leaves and woody debris from around the nest tree should be taken to prevent crown fire or fire climbing the nest tree. If it is determined that a burn during the breeding season would be beneficial, then, to ensure that no take or disturbance will occur, these activities should be conducted only when neither adult eagles nor young are present at the nest tree (i.e., at the beginning of, or end of, the breeding season, either before the particular nest is active or after the young have fledged from that nest). Appropriate Federal and state biologists should be consulted before any prescribed burning is conducted during the breeding season.  Avoid construction of log transfer facilities and in-water log storage areas within 330 feet of the nest.

Appendix B-Page 2

APPENDIX B: Management Direction

 Except for authorized biologists trained in survey techniques, avoid operating aircraft within 1,000 feet of the nest during the breeding season, except where eagles have demonstrated tolerance for such activity.

1.2.4 Related Guidance and Executive Orders In late 2008, a Memorandum of Understanding between the USDA Forest Service and the US Fish and Wildlife Service to Promote the Conservation of Migratory Birds (MOU) was signed. The intent of the MOU is to strengthen migratory bird conservation through enhanced collaboration and cooperation between the Forest Service and the Fish and Wildlife Service as well as other federal, state, tribal and local governments. Within the National Forests, conservation of migratory birds focuses on providing a diversity of habitat conditions at multiple spatial scales and ensuring that bird conservation is addressed when planning for land management activities. The MOU covers implementation of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) of 1918 (50 C.F.R. Section 10.13) and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940 (16 U.S.C. 668-668d).

Under the National Forest Management Act (NFMA), the Forest Service is directed to “provide for diversity of plant and animal communities based on the suitability and capability of the specific land area in order to meet overall multiple-use objectives.” (P.L. 94-588, Sec 6 (g) (3) (B)). The January 2000 USDA Forest Service (FS) Landbird Conservation Strategic Plan, followed by Executive Order 13186 in 2001, in addition to the Partners in Flight (PIF) specific habitat Conservation Plans for birds and the January 2004 PIF North American Landbird Conservation Plan all reference goals and objectives for integrating bird conservation into forest management and planning.

The Migratory Bird Executive Order (Jan, 11, 2001) and the 2008 Memorandum of Understanding between the Forest Service and USFWS provide further direction, as follows:

Within the NEPA process, the Forest Service will evaluate the effects of agency actions on migratory birds, focusing first on species management concern along with their priority habitats and key risk factors. To the extent practicable: a) Evaluate and balance long-term benefits of projects against any short- or long-term adverse effects when analyzing, disclosing, and mitigating the effects of actions. b) Pursue opportunities to restore or enhance the composition, structure, and juxtaposition of migratory bird habitats in the project area. c) Consider approaches, to the extent practicable, for identifying and minimizing take that is incidental to otherwise lawful activities, including such approaches as:  Altering the season of activities to minimize disturbances during the breeding season;  Retaining snags for nesting structures where snags are under-represented;  Retaining the integrity of breeding sites, especially those with long histories of use; and,  Giving due consideration to key wintering areas, migration routes, and stop-overs.

The Riparian BCP (CALPif 2004) includes conservation recommendations to 1) protect and restore riparian areas with intact adjacent uplands; ensure patch size, configuration and connectivity of riparian habitats; and restore and manage riparian forests to promote structural diversity and volume of the understory. The proposed action includes the use of riparian stream

Appendix B-Page 3

APPENDIX B: Management Direction management zones, no-treat buffers and BMPs to ensure the continued health of the riparian habitat. Over the long term, treatments in the uplands should reduce the risk of stand-replacing fire, and loss of riparian vegetation.

The Coniferous Forest BCP (CALPif 2002) identifies problems as 1) loss of old-growth forests; 2) fire suppression, 3) fragmentation, and 4) elimination of snags. Fire suppression has resulted in decreased structural diversity, often producing a dense homogeneous forest with closed canopy and little shrub cover. Birds that use open forests and shrub understories are declining. The proposed action will open up stands and result in increased shrub understory.

1.3 Clean Water Act Pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, the Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) regulates the discharge of dredged and/or fill material into waters of the United States. The term "waters of the United States" is defined at 33 CFR Part 328 and includes (1) all navigable waters (including all waters subject to the ebb and flow of the tide), (2) all interstate waters and wetlands, (3) all impoundments of waters mentioned above, (4) all tributaries to waters mentioned above, (5) the territorial seas, and (6) all wetlands adjacent to waters mentioned above.

Wetlands are defined at 33 CFR 328.3(b) as "those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support...a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions." A recent U.S. Supreme Court decision (“SWANCC”, 2001) has determined that Corps jurisdiction may not necessarily extend to intrastate waters and wetlands where the only federal nexus is potential use by migratory birds. The project area is located within the Santa Ana River watershed, an intrastate waterway tributary to the Pacific Ocean, which is a navigable water subject to Corps jurisdiction because of the existing connection to interstate commerce.

Issuance of a Section 404 Permit to discharge dredged or fill material into jurisdictional waters is considered a federal action and cannot be undertaken by the Corps if the permitted actions could adversely affect federally-listed (or proposed) endangered or threatened species.

1.4 National Forest Management Act The National Forest Management Act of 1976 and its implementing regulations (CFR 219) state that: fish and wildlife habitat shall be managed to maintain viable populations of existing native and desired non-native vertebrate species in the planning area (Sec 219.19)”. Sec 219.19 also calls for the use of management indicator species to indicate the effects of management activities. In addition, the Secretary of Agriculture's policy on fish and wildlife (Department Regulation 9500-4) directs the Forest Service to avoid actions "which may cause a species to become threatened or endangered".

1.5 Forest Service Manual – Invasive Species Management Forest Service Manual direction for Invasive Species Management is contained in a new manual section, FSM 2900, effective December 5, 2011. This direction sets forth National Forest System policy, responsibilities, and direction for the prevention, detection, control, and restoration of effects from aquatic and terrestrial invasive species (including vertebrates, invertebrates, plants, and pathogens). This new chapter replaces FSM 2080 (Noxious Weed Management). Some of the policy direction found in FSM 2900 is excerpted below:

Appendix B-Page 4

APPENDIX B: Management Direction

a. Initiate, coordinate, and sustain actions to prevent, control, and eliminate priority infestations of invasive species in aquatic and terrestrial areas of the National Forest System using an integrated pest management approach, and collaborate with stakeholders to implement cooperative invasive species management activities in accordance with law and policy. b. When applicable, invasive species management actions and standards should be incorporated into resource management plans at the forest level, and in programmatic environmental planning and assessment documents at the regional or national levels. c. Determine the vectors, environmental factors, and pathways that favor the establishment and spread of invasive species in aquatic and terrestrial areas the National Forest System, and design management practices to reduce or mitigate the risk for introduction or spread of invasive species in those areas. d. Determine the risk of introducing, establishing, or spreading invasive species associated with any proposed action, as an integral component of project planning and analysis, and where necessary provide for alternatives or mitigation measures to reduce or eliminate that risk prior to project approval. e. Ensure that all Forest Service management activities are designed to minimize or eliminate the possibility of establishment or spread of invasive species on the National Forest System, or to adjacent areas. Integrate visitor use strategies with invasive species management activities on aquatic and terrestrial areas of the National Forest System. At no time are invasive species to be promoted or used in site restoration or re-vegetation work, watershed rehabilitation projects, planted for bio-fuels production, or other management activities on national forests and grasslands. f. Use contract and permit clauses to require that the activities of contractors and permittees are conducted to prevent and control the introduction, establishment, and spread of aquatic and terrestrial invasive species. For example, where determined to be appropriate, use agreement clauses to require contractors or permittees to meet Forest Service-approved vehicle and equipment cleaning requirements/standards prior to using the vehicle or equipment in the National Forest System. g. Make every effort to prevent the accidental spread of invasive species carried by contaminated vehicles, equipment, personnel, or materials (including plants, wood, plant/wood products, water, soil, rock, sand, gravel, mulch, seeds, grain, hay, straw, or other materials). a) Establish and implement standards and requirements for vehicle and equipment cleaning to prevent the accidental spread of aquatic and terrestrial invasive species on the National Forest System or to adjacent areas. b) Make every effort to ensure that all materials used on the National Forest System are free of invasive species and/or noxious weeds (including free of reproductive/propagative material such as seeds, roots, stems, flowers, leaves, larva, eggs, veligers, and so forth). 8. Where States have legislative authority to certify materials as weed-free (or invasive-free) and have an active State program to make those State-certified materials available to the public, forest officers shall develop rules restricting the possession, use, and transport of

Appendix B-Page 5

APPENDIX B: Management Direction

those materials unless proof exists that they have been State-certified as weed-free (or invasive-free), as provided in 36 CFR 261 and Departmental Regulation 1512-1. 9. Monitor all management activities for potential spread or establishment of invasive species in aquatic and terrestrial areas of the National Forest System. 10. Manage invasive species in aquatic and terrestrial areas of the National Forest System using an integrated pest management approach to achieve the goals and objectives identified in Forest Land and Resource Management plans, and other Forest Service planning documents, and other plans developed in cooperation with external partners for the management of natural or cultural resources. 11. Integrate invasive species management funding broadly across a variety of National Forest System programs, while associating the funding with the specific aquatic or terrestrial invasive species that is being prioritized for management, as well as the purpose and need of the project or program objective. 12. Develop and utilize site-based and species-based risk assessments to prioritize the management of invasive species infestations in aquatic and terrestrial areas of the National Forest System. Where appropriate, use a structured decision-making process and adaptive management or similar strategies to help identify and prioritize invasive species management approaches and actions. 13. Comply with the Forest Service performance accountability system requirements for invasive species management to ensure efficient use of limited resources at all levels of the Agency and to provide information for adapting management actions to meet changing program needs and priorities. When appropriate, utilize a structured decision making process to address invasive species management problems in changing conditions, uncertainty, or when information is limited. 14. Establish and maintain a national record keeping database system for the collection and reporting of information related to invasive species infestations and management activities, including invasive species management performance, associated with the National Forest System. Require all information associated with the National Forest System invasive species management (including inventories, surveys, and treatments) to be collected, recorded, and reported consistent with national program protocols, rules, and standards. 15. Where appropriate, integrate invasive species management activities, such as inventory, survey, treatment, prevention, monitoring, and so forth, into the National Forest System management programs. Use inventory and treatment information to help set priorities and select integrated management actions to address new or expanding invasive species infestations in aquatic and terrestrial areas of the National Forest System. 16. Assist and promote cooperative efforts with internal and external partners, including private, State, tribal, and local entities, research organizations, and international groups to collaboratively address priority invasive species issues affecting the National Forest System. 17. Coordinate as needed with Forest Service Research and Development and State and Private Forestry programs, other agencies included under the National Invasive Species Council, and external partners to identify priority/high-risk invasive species that threaten aquatic and terrestrial areas of the National Forest System. Encourage applied research to develop

Appendix B-Page 6

APPENDIX B: Management Direction

techniques and technology to reduce invasive species impacts to the National Forest System. 18. As appropriate, collaborate and coordinate with adjacent landowners and other stakeholders to improve invasive species management effectiveness across the landscape. Encourage cooperative partnerships to address invasive species threats within a broad geographical area.

1.6 Executive Order 13112 Executive Order 13112 (signed February 3, 1999) requires that a Council of Departments dealing with invasive species be created to prevent the introduction of invasive species and provide for their control and to minimize the economic, ecological, and human health impacts that invasive cause.

1.7 San Bernardino National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan The revised San Bernardino National Forest Land Management Plan (Forest Plan) (Forest Service 2005) contains direction on management of issues and resources within the Forest boundaries. The Forest Plan direction for wildlife, plant, and restoration management is included in both Part 2 and Part 3 of the Forest Plan. The Forest Plan contains program strategies and tactics (Part 2, Appendix B, pp. 121 – 160), “place-specific standards” (Part 2, pages 100-101), and Design Criteria (Part 3).

Appendix M (Part 3) of the Forest Plan includes detailed management direction to prevent the spread and introduction of noxious weeds.

There is also management direction in the Place descriptions. These are located in Part 2 of the SBNF Plan beginning on page 41. There are 15 “places” on the SBNF.

Forest Goals and Desired Conditions The San Bernardino National Forest (SBNF) Land Management Plan (Forest Plan) includes forest goals and desired conditions for resources, strategic management direction, and standard design features that provide guidance for designing actions and activities during Project planning. The Forest Plan (Forest Plan Part 1, pp. 20-46) includes several goals applicable to this Project:  Goal 1.1: Improve the ability of southern California communities to limit loss of life and property and recover from the high intensity wildland fires that are a natural part of this state's ecosystem.  Goal: 1.2 - Restore forest health where alteration of natural fire regimes have put human and natural resource values at risk.  Goal 2.1 - Reverse the trend of increasing loss of natural resource values due to invasive species.  Goal 5.1 - Improve watershed conditions through cooperative management.  Goal 5.2: Improve riparian conditions  Goal 6.2 - Provide ecological conditions to sustain viable populations of native and desired nonnative species. The desired condition is that habitats for federally listed species are conserved, and listed species are recovered or are moving toward recovery. Habitats for sensitive species and other species of concern are managed to prevent

Appendix B-Page 7

APPENDIX B: Management Direction

downward trends in populations or habitat capability, and to prevent federal listing. Flow regimes in streams that provide habitat for threatened, endangered, proposed, candidate, and/or sensitive aquatic and riparian-dependent species are sufficient to allow the species to persist and complete all phases of their life cycles.

Habitat conditions sustain healthy populations of native and desired nonnative fish and game species. Wildlife habitat functions are maintained or improved, including primary feeding areas, winter ranges, breeding areas, birthing areas, rearing areas, migration corridors, and landscape linkages.

Forest Plan Strategies for Threatened, Endangered, Proposed, Candidate, and Sensitive Species Management (Forest Plan Part 2, pp. 124-125)  Manage habitat to move listed species toward recovery and de-listing. Prevent listing of proposed and sensitive species.  Implement priority conservation strategies (San Bernardino NF Conservation Strategy, table 531).  Use vegetation management practices to reduce the intensity of fires to reduce habitat loss due to catastrophic fires.  Work with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) to develop recovery plans for federally listed species. Implement Forest Service actions as recommended in recovery plans for federally listed species.  Establish and maintain a working relationship with county and city governments to ensure coordination on development projects adjacent to the national forest as well as implementation of multi-species habitat conservation plans. • Coordinate with California Department of Fish and Game (CDF&G) regarding fish stocking and nonnative fisheries management to implement measures to resolve conflicts with threatened, endangered, proposed, candidate, and sensitive species and habitats.  Restore degraded habitats with cooperators.  Recommend mineral withdrawal when needed to provide species protection over the long-term.  Emphasize the following practices within carbonate, montane meadow and pebble plain habitat: o Develop and implement a transportation plan that results in the reduction in road density and no new roads or motorized trails within carbonate, montane and pebble plain habitat. o Develop and implement a facilities plan for carbonate, montane meadow, and pebble plain habitat that avoids construction of new recreation and administrative facilities within these habitats. o Amend/modify existing special-use authorizations to include provisions for minimizing impacts to carbonate, montane meadow and pebble plain habitat. Avoid new authorizations for special-uses in these habitats where the requested use would adversely affect habitat. In carbonate habitat, mining special-uses will be permitted consistent with the terms of the Carbonate Habitat Management Strategy.

Appendix B-Page 8

APPENDIX B: Management Direction

o Implement a program of land acquisition and land exchange that will contribute to the carbonate habitat reserve as described in the Carbonate Habitat Management Strategy. o Develop contingency plans that will minimize impacts to carbonate, montane meadow and pebble plain habitat from actions and activities that occur during emergencies. o Develop and implement a monitoring plan that will provide early detection of downward trends in the quality of carbonate, montane meadow and pebble plain habitat.

Forest Plan Strategies for Management Species of Concern (Forest Plan Part 2, pg. 129-130) Maintain and improve habitat for fish, wildlife, and plants, including those with the following designations: game species, harvest species, management indicator species, and watch list species.  Manage State of California Designated Wild Trout Streams (Bear and Deep Creek) to maintain high-quality habitat for wild trout populations.  Coordinate and form partnerships with the CDF&G and other cooperators, such as Partners in Flight to maintain and improve fish, wildlife and plant habitat.  Monitor management indicator species (MIS).  Monitor habitat for ecological health indicators (e.g., tamarisk, aquatic macroinvertebrates, bullfrogs).  Develop and maintain wildlife water sources and other habitat improvement structures.  Protect habitat during fire suppression activities where feasible.  Cooperate with other agencies, partners, and other national forest programs to maintain and improve landscape level habitat conditions and ecological processes over the long- term for landscape linkages, wildlife movement corridors, key deer and bighorn sheep fawning, lambing, and winter ranges, and raptor nesting sites.

1.8 Management Indicator Species The 2006 Forest Plan included monitoring of 12 Management Indicator Species (MIS) under Goal 6.2: Provide ecological conditions to sustain viable populations of native and desired nonnative species. The plan explains that MIS are monitored, “along with other indicators of progress toward achieving desired conditions for biological resources.” The desired conditions do not focus specifically on MIS; instead, they focus on listed and sensitive species habitats and on habitat conditions for all species.

The Forest Service adopted new planning regulations (planning rule) in April 2012, pursuant to the National Forest Management Act. The planning regulations required the responsible official to “modify the plan monitoring program within 4 years of the effective date of this part, or as soon as practicable, to meet the requirements of this section.” 36 CFR 219.12(c). That due date for the modification was May 9, 2016. As such, the Forest Plan monitoring program was transitioned to the newer 2012 planning rule requirements. On May 9th, 2016, the SBNF documented the administrative change to the SBNF monitoring program in a letter (https://www.fs.usda.gov/main/sbnf/landmanagement/planning – LMP Monitoring Transition Administrative Change Letter). Under that administrative change, the SBNF replaced MIS with focal species. Guidance for focal species is contained in the same letter.

Appendix B-Page 9

APPENDIX B: Management Direction

1.9 Departmental Regulation 9500-004 Direction 1. Assure that the values of fish and wildlife are recognized, and that their habitats, both terrestrial and aquatic, including wetlands, are recognized and enhanced where possible as the Department carries out its overall missions. 2. Consider fish and wildlife and their habitats in developing programs for these lands. Alternatives that maintain or enhance fish and wildlife habitat should be promoted. When compatible with objectives for the area, management alternatives that improve habitat will be selected. 3. Balance the competing uses for habitat supporting fish and wildlife through strong, clear policies, relevant programs, and effective actions to sustain and enhance fish and wildlife in desired locations and numbers. 4. Recognize that fish and wildlife have inherent values as components and indicators of healthy ecosystems, and that they often demonstrate how altered environments may affect changes in quality of life for humans.

1.10 Forest Service California Spotted Owl Management Policies Forest Service Pacific Southwest Region policy (USDA Forest Service 1984) is to protect all identified spotted owl territories (the area within a 1.5-mile radius of each nest).

The current direction for managing California spotted owls on the SBNF is contained in the Conservation Strategy for California Spotted Owls (USDA Forest Service 2004), as incorporated by reference in the SBNF Forest Plan (USDA Forest Service 2005). The Conservation Strategy established guidelines for spotted owl habitat protection within territories, calling for establishment of "owl management areas" within a 1.5-mile radius of nest sites for each pair on the Forest. These areas are broken down into a 300-acre "protected activity centers (PACs)" which encompass nesting/roosting habitat, and an additional 300-acre area "home range core (HRC)" which primarily contains foraging habitat.

The Conservation Strategy provides for avoidance of disturbance to nesting owls by using a Limited Operating Period for management activities within 1/4 mile of nests which would be disruptive to spotted owls. The nesting season is normally from February 1st to August 15th. Disruptive activities within 1/4 mile of nest trees will be avoided. When authorized, those activities will be restricted to daylight hours.

The Conservation Strategy also contains specific guidelines for vegetation and fuels management efforts within NSs (30-60 acres around the nest trees), PACs, and HRCs.

2.0 APPLICABLE LAWS, REGULATIONS, AND STANDARDS - CALIFORNIA 2.1 California Fish and Game Code Pursuant to Section 2080 et seq. of the Fish and Game Code, a California ESA (CESA) permit must be obtained to authorize incidental “take” of plants or animals listed under CESA. The California Fish and Game Code also includes the category of fully-protected species, which may not be taken or possessed at any time and no licenses or permits may be issued for their take except for collecting these species for necessary scientific research and relocation of the bird species for the protection of livestock, or through the Natural Community Conservation Plan

Appendix B-Page 10

APPENDIX B: Management Direction process. Revisions to the Fish and Game Code, effective January 1998, may require that the CDFW issue a separate CEQA document for the issuance of an incidental take permit under Section 2081 of CESA (2081permit) unless the project CEQA document addresses all project impacts to listed species and specifies a mitigation monitoring and reporting program that will meet the requirements of a 2081 permit.

Sections 3503, 3503.5 and 3513 of the California Fish and Game Code prohibit take of all active bird nests or eggs, raptors and other migratory non-game birds (as listed under the federal MBTA).

Pursuant to Section 1600 et seq. of the Fish and Game Code, the CDFW may require a Lake or Streambed Alteration Agreement prior to any activity that will substantially divert or obstruct the natural flow or substantially change the bed, channel, or bank of a river, stream or lake, or use material from a streambed. CDFW defines a "stream" (including creeks and rivers) as "a body of water that flows at least periodically or intermittently through a bed or channel having banks and supports fish or other aquatic life. This includes watercourses having surface or subsurface flow that supports or has supported riparian vegetation." CDFW's definition of "lake" includes "natural lakes or man-made reservoirs."

In addition to the bed and banks of a stream, CDFW jurisdiction includes riparian or wetland vegetation associated with a stream. CDFW’s issuance of a Lake or Streambed Alteration Agreement for a project that is subject to CEQA will require CEQA compliance actions by CDFW as a responsible agency. CDFW as a responsible agency under CEQA may consider the lead agency’s Negative Declaration or Environmental Impact Report for the project.

The Native Plant Protection Act (Fish and Game Code Sections 1900-1913) prohibits the taking, possessing, or sale within the State of any plants with a State designation of rare, threatened, or endangered (as defined by the CDFW). An exception in the act allows landowners, under specified circumstances, to take listed plant species, provided that the landowner first notifies the CDFW and give the agency at least 10 days to retrieve the plants before they are plowed under or otherwise destroyed. Project impacts to these species are generally not considered significant unless the species are known to have a high potential to occur within the area of disturbance associated with the ground-disturbing activity.

2.2 California Native Plant Society Rare Plant Inventory The California Native Plant Society (CNPS) is a statewide nonprofit organization that has developed and managed the CNPS Rare Plant Program (Program) since 1968. The purpose of the Program is to develop current, accurate information on the distribution, ecology, and conservation status of California's rare and endangered plants, and to use this information to promote science-based plant conservation in California. The CNPS maintains the Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants in California, which tracks the conservation status of hundreds of plant species. The Program operates under a MOU with the CDFW. The MOU outlines broad cooperation in rare plant assessment and protection, and formalizes cooperative ventures such as data sharing and production of complementary information sources for rare plants. As part of the Program, CNPS has developed the Rare Plant Ranking System, with six Rare Plant Ranks and three Threat Ranks.

Appendix B-Page 11

APPENDIX B: Management Direction

The Rare Plant Ranks include:  California Rare Plant Rank 1A: Plants Presumed Extirpated in California and Either Rare or Extinct Elsewhere. All of the plants constituting California Rare Plant Rank 1A meet the definitions of Sections 2062 and 2067 (California ESA) of the California Department of Fish and Game Code, and are eligible for state listing. Should these taxa be rediscovered, they must be fully considered during preparation of environmental documents relating to CEQA;

 California Rare Plant Rank 1B: Plants Rare, Threatened, or Endangered in California and Elsewhere. Plants with a California Rare Plant Rank of 1B are rare throughout their range with the majority of them endemic to California. Rare Plant Rank 1B plants constitute the majority of taxa in the CNPS Inventory, with more than 1,000 plants assigned to this category of rarity. All of the plants constituting California Rare Plant Rank 1B meet the definitions of Sections 2062 and 2067 (California ESA) of the California Department of Fish and Game Code, and are eligible for state listing. They must be fully considered during preparation of environmental documents relating to CEQA.

 California Rare Plant Rank 2A: Plants Presumed Extirpated in California, But More Common Elsewhere. The plant taxa of California Rare Plant Rank 2A are presumed extirpated because they have not been observed or documented in California for many years. This list includes only those plant taxa that are presumed extirpated in California, but more common elsewhere in their range. All of the plants on List 2A meet the definitions of Sections 2062 and 2067 (California ESA) of the California Department of Fish and Game Code, and are eligible for state listing. Should these taxa be rediscovered, they must be fully considered during preparation of environmental documents relating to CEQA.

 California Rare Plant Rank 2B: Plants Rare, Threatened, or Endangered in California, But More Common Elsewhere. Except for being common beyond the boundaries of California, plants with a California Rare Plant Rank of 2B would have been ranked 1B. From the federal perspective, plants common in other states or countries are not eligible for consideration under the provisions of the ESA. All of the plants constituting California Rare Plant Rank 2B meet the definitions of Sections 2062 and 2067 (California ESA) of the California Department of Fish and Game Code, and are eligible for state listing. They must be fully considered during preparation of environmental documents relating to CEQA.

 California Rare Plant Rank 3: Plants About Which More Information is Needed - A Review List. The plants that comprise California Rare Plant Rank 3 lack the necessary information to assign them to one of the other ranks or to reject them. All of the plants constituting California Rare Plant Rank 3 meet the definitions of Sections 2062 and 2067 (California ESA) of the California Department of Fish and Game Code, and are eligible for state listing. Impacts to these species or their habitat must be analyzed during preparation of environmental documents relating to CEQA, or those considered to be

Appendix B-Page 12

APPENDIX B: Management Direction

functionally equivalent to CEQA, as they meet the definition of Rare or Endangered under CEQA Guidelines §15125 (c) and/or §15380.California Rare Plant Rank 4: Plants of Limited Distribution - A Watch List. The plants in this category are of limited distribution or infrequent throughout a broader area in California. While these plants are not "rare" from a statewide perspective, they are uncommon enough that their status should be monitored regularly. Some of the plants constituting California Rare Plant Rank 4 meet the definitions of Sections 2062 and 2067 (California ESA) of the California Department of Fish and Game Code, but few, if any, are eligible for state listing. Nevertheless, many of them are significant locally, and CNPS strongly recommends that California Rare Plant Rank 4 plants be evaluated for consideration during preparation of environmental documents relating to CEQA.

The CNPS Threat Rank is an extension added onto the California Rare Plant Rank and designates the level of threats by a 1 to 3 ranking with 1 being the most threatened and 3 being the least threatened. A Threat Rank is present for all California Rare Plant Rank 1B, 2B, 4, and the majority of California Rare Plant Rank 3 species. California Rare Plant Rank 4 plants are seldom assigned a Threat Rank of 0.1, as they generally have large enough populations to not have significant threats to their continued existence in California; however, certain conditions exist to make the plant a species of concern and hence be assigned a California Rare Plant Rank. In addition, all California Rare Plant Rank 1A and 2A (presumed extirpated in California), and some California Rare Plant Rank 3 (need more information) plants, which lack threat information, do not have a Threat Rank extension. Threat ranks are as follows: 0.1 Seriously threatened in California (over 80 percent of occurrences threatened / high degree and immediacy of threat). 0.2 Moderately threatened in California (20 to 80 percent occurrences threatened / moderate degree and immediacy of threat). 0.3 Not very threatened in California (less than 20 percent of occurrences threatened / low degree and immediacy of threat or no current threats known).

Appendix B-Page 13

APPENDIX C: U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service – Species Letter

Appendix C-Page 1

APPENDIX C: U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service – Species Letter

Appendix C-Page 2

APPENDIX C: U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service – Species Letter

Appendix C-Page 3

APPENDIX C: U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service – Species Letter

Appendix C-Page 4

APPENDIX C: U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service – Species Letter

Appendix C-Page 5

Appendix D: California Spotted Owl Records – Grass Valley Fuels Reduction Project

CDFG # Territory Name Year Occupied Nesting? Fledged? # Occupancy Protocol by Fledged Surveys done? SB050 Tunnel Ridge 1987 Pair Y Y 2 2 Y SB050 Tunnel Ridge 1988 Pair N N 2 Y SB050 Tunnel Ridge 1989 Pair ? N 2 Y SB050 Tunnel Ridge 1990 Vacant n/a n/a 0 Y SB050 Tunnel Ridge 1991 Pair ? ? 2 Y SB050 Tunnel Ridge 1992 Pair ? N 2 Y SB050 Tunnel Ridge 1993 Vacant n/a n/a 0 Y SB050 Tunnel Ridge 1994 Male ? N 1 Y SB050 Tunnel Ridge 1995 Pair N N 2 Y SB050 Tunnel Ridge 1996 Pair ? ? 2 Y SB050 Tunnel Ridge 1997 Pair Y Y 2 2 Y SB050 Tunnel Ridge 1998 Male ? N 1 Y SB050 Tunnel Ridge 1999 not surveyed N/A N SB050 Tunnel Ridge 2000 not surveyed N/A N SB050 Tunnel Ridge 2001 not surveyed N/A N SB050 Tunnel Ridge 2002 not surveyed N/A N SB050 Tunnel Ridge 2003 Vacant n/a n/a 0 Y SB050 Tunnel Ridge 2004 Vacant n/a n/a 0 Y SB050 Tunnel Ridge 2005 Vacant n/a n/a 0 Y SB050 Tunnel Ridge 2006 Vacant n/a n/a 0 Y SB050 Tunnel Ridge 2007 Vacant n/a n/a 0 Y SB050 Tunnel Ridge 2008 Vacant N/A N/A 0 Y SB050 Tunnel Ridge 2009 Vacant N/A N/A 0 Y SB050 Tunnel Ridge 2010 Vacant N/A N/A 0 Y SB050 Tunnel Ridge 2011 Vacant N/A N/A N/A 0 Y SB050 Tunnel Ridge 2015 vacant N/A N/A N/A 0 Y SB050 Tunnel Ridge 2016 vacant n/a n/a 0 Y SB050 Tunnel Ridge 2017 Vacant n/a n/a 0 Y SB051 Miller Canyon 1988 Pair Y Y 1 2 Y SB051 Miller Canyon 1989 Pair Y Y 2 2 Y SB051 Miller Canyon 1990 Vacant n/a n/a 0 Y SB051 Miller Canyon 1991 Vacant n/a n/a 0 Y SB051 Miller Canyon 1992 Vacant n/a n/a 0 Y SB051 Miller Canyon 1993 Vacant n/a n/a 0 Y SB051 Miller Canyon 1994 Vacant n/a n/a 0 Y SB051 Miller Canyon 1995 Vacant n/a n/a 0 Y SB051 Miller Canyon 1996 Vacant n/a n/a 0 Y SB051 Miller Canyon 1997 Vacant n/a n/a 0 Y SB051 Miller Canyon 1998 Vacant n/a n/a 0 Y SB051 Miller Canyon 1999 not surveyed N/A N SB051 Miller Canyon 2000 not surveyed N/A N SB051 Miller Canyon 2001 not surveyed N/A N SB051 Miller Canyon 2002 not surveyed N/A N SB051 Miller Canyon 2003 not surveyed N/A n SB051 Miller Canyon 2004 Vacant n/a n/a 0 Y SB051 Miller Canyon 2005 Vacant n/a n/a 0 Y

Appendix D-Page 1

Appendix D: California Spotted Owl Records – Grass Valley Fuels Reduction Project

CDFG # Territory Name Year Occupied Nesting? Fledged? # Occupancy Protocol by Fledged Surveys done? SB051 Miller Canyon 2006 Vacant n/a n/a 0 Y SB051 Miller Canyon 2007 Vacant n/a n/a 0 Y SB051 Miller Canyon 2008 Vacant N/A N/A 0 Y SB051 Miller Canyon 2009 Vacant N/A N/A 0 Y SB051 Miller Canyon 2010 Vacant N/A N/A 0 Y SB051 Miller Canyon 2011 Vacant N/A N/A N/A 0 Y SB051 Miller Canyon 2016 vacant* (not n/a* n/a* n/a* 0* n surveyed to protocol) SB051 Miller Canyon 2017 not surveyed N/A n SB069 Grass Valley Creek 1988 Pair ? N 2 Y SB069 Grass Valley Creek 1989 Pair N N 2 Y SB069 Grass Valley Creek 1990 Pair Y Y 2 2 Y SB069 Grass Valley Creek 1991 Pair N N 2 Y SB069 Grass Valley Creek 1992 Vacant n/a n/a 0 Y SB069 Grass Valley Creek 1993 Pair ? N 2 Y SB069 Grass Valley Creek 1994 Vacant n/a n/a 0 Y SB069 Grass Valley Creek 1995 ? ? ? 0 Y SB069 Grass Valley Creek 1996 Vacant n/a n/a 0 Y SB069 Grass Valley Creek 1997 Vacant n/a n/a 0 Y SB069 Grass Valley Creek 1998 Vacant n/a n/a 0 Y SB069 Grass Valley Creek 1999 not surveyed N/A N SB069 Grass Valley Creek 2000 not surveyed N/A N SB069 Grass Valley Creek 2001 not surveyed N/A N SB069 Grass Valley Creek 2002 not surveyed N/A N SB069 Grass Valley Creek 2003 Vacant n/a n/a 0 Y SB069 Grass Valley Creek 2004 Vacant n/a n/a 0 Y SB069 Grass Valley Creek 2005 Vacant n/a n/a 0 Y SB069 Grass Valley Creek 2006 Vacant n/a n/a 0 Y SB069 Grass Valley Creek 2007 Vacant n/a n/a 0 Y SB069 Grass Valley Creek 2008 Vacant N/A N/A 0 Y SB069 Grass Valley Creek 2009 Vacant N/A N/A 0 Y SB069 Grass Valley Creek 2010 Vacant N/A N/A 0 Y SB069 Grass Valley Creek 2011 Vacant N/A N/A N/A 0 Y SB069 Grass Valley Creek 2015 vacant N/A N/A N/A 0 Y SB069 Grass Valley Creek 2016 vacant Unknown Unknown Unknown Y SB069 Grass Valley Creek 2017 vacant N/A N/A N/A 0 Y SB070 E. Fork W. Fork Mojave River 1988 Pair N N 2 Y SB070 E. Fork W. Fork Mojave River 1989 Pair N N 2 Y SB070 E. Fork W. Fork Mojave River 1990 Pair N N 2 Y SB070 E. Fork W. Fork Mojave River 1991 Pair N N 2 Y SB070 E. Fork W. Fork Mojave River 1992 Pair ? N 2 Y SB070 E. Fork W. Fork Mojave River 1993 Pair Y Y 2 2 Y SB070 E. Fork W. Fork Mojave River 1994 Pair Y Y 2 2 Y SB070 E. Fork W. Fork Mojave River 1995 Pair N N 2 Y SB070 E. Fork W. Fork Mojave River 1996 Pair Y Y 2 2 Y SB070 E. Fork W. Fork Mojave River 1997 Pair N N 2 Y

Appendix D-Page 2

Appendix D: California Spotted Owl Records – Grass Valley Fuels Reduction Project

CDFG # Territory Name Year Occupied Nesting? Fledged? # Occupancy Protocol by Fledged Surveys done? SB070 E. Fork W. Fork Mojave River 1998 Pair Y N 2 Y SB070 E. Fork W. Fork Mojave River 1999 not surveyed N/A N SB070 E. Fork W. Fork Mojave River 2000 not surveyed N/A N SB070 E. Fork W. Fork Mojave River 2001 not surveyed N/A N SB070 E. Fork W. Fork Mojave River 2002 not surveyed N/A N SB070 E. Fork W. Fork Mojave River 2003 Male ? N 1 Y SB070 E. Fork W. Fork Mojave River 2004 Pair Y Y 1 2 Y SB070 E. Fork W. Fork Mojave River 2005 Pair ? N 2 Y SB070 E. Fork W. Fork Mojave River 2006 Pair Y Y 1 2 Y SB070 E. Fork W. Fork Mojave River 2007 Pair Y Y 2 2 Y SB070 E. Fork W. Fork Mojave River 2008 Pair Y N 0 2 Y SB070 E. Fork W. Fork Mojave River 2009 Pair Y N 2 Y SB070 E. Fork W. Fork Mojave River 2010 Pair Y N 0 2 Y SB070 East Fk W Fk Mojave River 2011 Pair Y Y 2 4 Y SB070 E. Fork W. Fork Mojave River 2015 vacant N/A N/A N/A 0 Y SB070 E. Fork W. Fork Mojave River 2016 vacant Unknown Unknown Unknown Y SB070 E. Fork W. Fork Mojave River 2017 pair N n/a n/a 2 Y SB071 Rock Camp 1988 ? ? N 0 Y SB071 Rock Camp 1989 Pair N N 2 Y SB071 Rock Camp 1990 Pair N N 2 Y SB071 Rock Camp 1991 Pair Y N 2 Y SB071 Rock Camp 1992 Pair ? N 2 Y SB071 Rock Camp 1993 Pair Y N 2 Y SB071 Rock Camp 1994 Female ? N 1 Y SB071 Rock Camp 1995 Pair Y N 2 Y SB071 Rock Camp 1996 Pair Y Y 2 2 Y SB071 Rock Camp 1997 Pair Y Y 1 2 Y SB071 Rock Camp 1998 Pair N N 2 Y SB071 Rock Camp 1999 not surveyed N/A N SB071 Rock Camp 2000 not surveyed N/A N SB071 Rock Camp 2001 not surveyed N/A N SB071 Rock Camp 2002 not surveyed N/A N SB071 Rock Camp 2003 Vacant n/a n/a 0 Y SB071 Rock Camp 2004 Male ? N 1 Y SB071 Rock Camp 2005 Male ? N 1 Y SB071 Rock Camp 2006 Vacant n/a n/a 0 Y SB071 Rock Camp 2007 Vacant n/a n/a 0 Y SB071 Rock Camp 2008 Vacant N/A N/A 0 Y SB071 Rock Camp 2009 Vacant N/A N/A 0 Y SB071 Rock Camp 2010 Vacant N/A N/A 0 Y SB071 Rock Camp 2011 Vacant N/A N/A N/A 0 Y SB071 Rock Camp 2016 vacant n/a n/a n/a 0 y SB071 Rock Camp 2017 not surveyed N/A N SB085 Houston Creek 1989 Pair ? N 2 Y SB085 Houston Creek 1990 Pair Y Y 3 2 Y SB085 Houston Creek 1991 Pair N N 2 Y

Appendix D-Page 3

Appendix D: California Spotted Owl Records – Grass Valley Fuels Reduction Project

CDFG # Territory Name Year Occupied Nesting? Fledged? # Occupancy Protocol by Fledged Surveys done? SB085 Houston Creek 1992 Pair Y Y 1 2 Y SB085 Houston Creek 1993 Pair Y N 2 Y SB085 Houston Creek 1994 Female ? N 1 Y SB085 Houston Creek 1995 Pair N N 2 Y SB085 Houston Creek 1996 Pair ? ? 2 Y SB085 Houston Creek 1997 Pair N N 2 Y SB085 Houston Creek 1998 Vacant n/a n/a 0 Y SB085 Houston Creek 1999 not surveyed N/A N SB085 Houston Creek 2000 not surveyed N/A N SB085 Houston Creek 2001 not surveyed N/A N SB085 Houston Creek 2002 not surveyed N/A N SB085 Houston Creek 2003 Vacant n/a n/a 0 Y SB085 Houston Creek 2004 Vacant n/a n/a 0 Y SB085 Houston Creek 2005 Vacant N N 0 Y SB085 Houston Creek 2006 Vacant n/a n/a 0 Y SB085 Houston Creek 2007 Pair ? N 2 Y SB085 Houston Creek 2008 Vacant N/A N/A 0 Y SB085 Houston Creek 2009 Vacant N/A N/A 0 Y SB085 Houston Creek 2010 Pair N N 0 2 Y SB085 Houston Creek 2011 Pair N N 0 2 Y SB085 Houston Creek 2015 vacant N/A N/A N/A 0 Y SB085 Houston Creek 2016 vacant N/A N/A N/A 0 Y SB085 Houston Creek 2017 not surveyed N/A N SB086 Twin Peaks 1989 Pair Y Y 2 2 Y SB086 Twin Peaks 1990 Pair N N 2 Y SB086 Twin Peaks 1991 Pair ? N 2 Y SB086 Twin Peaks 1992 Pair ? N 2 Y SB086 Twin Peaks 1993 Pair Y N 2 Y SB086 Twin Peaks 1994 Male ? N 1 Y SB086 Twin Peaks 1995 Vacant n/a n/a 0 Y SB086 Twin Peaks 1996 Pair ? N 2 Y SB086 Twin Peaks 1997 Male ? N 1 Y SB086 Twin Peaks 1998 Pair N N 2 Y SB086 Twin Peaks 1999 not surveyed N/A N SB086 Twin Peaks 2000 not surveyed N/A N SB086 Twin Peaks 2001 not surveyed N/A N SB086 Twin Peaks 2002 not surveyed N/A N SB086 Twin Peaks 2003 Vacant n/a n/a 0 Y SB086 Twin Peaks 2004 Male ? N 1 Y SB086 Twin Peaks 2005 Vacant n/a n/a 0 Y SB086 Twin Peaks 2006 Vacant n/a n/a 0 Y SB086 Twin Peaks 2007 Male ? N 1 Y SB086 Twin Peaks 2008 Pair ? N 0 2 Y SB086 Twin Peaks 2009 Pair N N 2 Y SB086 Twin Peaks 2010 Pair N N 0 2 Y SB086 Twin Peaks 2011 Pair N N 0 2 Y

Appendix D-Page 4

Appendix D: California Spotted Owl Records – Grass Valley Fuels Reduction Project

CDFG # Territory Name Year Occupied Nesting? Fledged? # Occupancy Protocol by Fledged Surveys done? SB086 Twin Peaks 2015 vacant N/A N/A N/A 0 Y SB086 Twin Peaks 2016 vacant n/a n/a 0 Y SB086 Twin Peaks 2017 Pair N n/a n/a 2 Y SB088 Daley Canyon 1989 Pair ? N 2 Y SB088 Daley Canyon 1990 Pair N N 2 Y SB088 Daley Canyon 1991 Pair Y N 2 Y SB088 Daley Canyon 1992 Pair Y N 2 Y SB088 Daley Canyon 1993 Vacant n/a n/a 0 Y SB088 Daley Canyon 1994 Vacant n/a n/a 0 Y SB088 Daley Canyon 1995 Vacant n/a n/a 0 Y SB088 Daley Canyon 1996 ? ? ? 0 Y SB088 Daley Canyon 1997 Vacant n/a n/a 0 Y SB088 Daley Canyon 1998 Vacant n/a n/a 0 Y SB088 Daley Canyon 1999 not surveyed N/A N SB088 Daley Canyon 2000 not surveyed N/A N SB088 Daley Canyon 2001 not surveyed N/A N SB088 Daley Canyon 2002 not surveyed N/A N SB088 Daley Canyon 2003 Male ? N 1 Y SB088 Daley Canyon 2004 Vacant n/a n/a 0 Y SB088 Daley Canyon 2005 Vacant n/a n/a 0 Y SB088 Daley Canyon 2006 Vacant n/a n/a 0 Y SB088 Daley Canyon 2007 Vacant n/a n/a 0 Y SB088 Daley Canyon 2008 Pair ? N 0 2 Y SB088 Daley Canyon 2009 Pair Y Y 2 2 Y SB088 Daley Canyon 2010 Pair Y Y 1 2 Y SB088 Daley Canyon 2011 Pair Y N 0 2 Y SB088 Daley Canyon 2015 vacant N/A N/A N/A 0 Y SB088 Daley Canyon 2016 vacant n/a n/a n/a 0 y SB088 Daley Canyon 2017 not surveyed N/A N SB147 Willow Creek 1993 Pair ? N 2 Y SB147 Willow Creek 1994 Pair Y Y 4 2 Y SB147 Willow Creek 1995 Pair Y Y 1 2 Y SB147 Willow Creek 1996 Pair Y Y 2 2 Y SB147 Willow Creek 1997 Pair Y Y 2 2 Y SB147 Willow Creek 1998 Pair Y ? 2 Y SB147 Willow Creek 1999 Vacant n/a n/a 0 ? SB147 Willow Creek 2000 Vacant n/a n/a 0 ? SB147 Willow Creek 2001 not surveyed N/A N SB147 Willow Creek 2002 not surveyed N/A N SB147 Willow Creek 2003 Vacant n/a n/a 0 Y SB147 Willow Creek 2004 Vacant n/a n/a 0 Y SB147 Willow Creek 2005 Vacant n/a n/a 0 Y SB147 Willow Creek 2006 Vacant n/a n/a 0 Y SB147 Willow Creek 2007 Vacant n/a n/a 0 Y SB147 Willow Creek 2008 Vacant N/A N/A 0 Y SB147 Willow Creek 2009 Vacant N/A N/A 0 Y

Appendix D-Page 5

Appendix D: California Spotted Owl Records – Grass Valley Fuels Reduction Project

CDFG # Territory Name Year Occupied Nesting? Fledged? # Occupancy Protocol by Fledged Surveys done? SB147 Willow Creek 2010 Vacant N/A N/A 0 Y SB147 Willow Creek 2011 Vacant N/A N/A N/A 0 Y SB147 Willow Creek 2017 not surveyed N/A N

Appendix D-Page 6

APPENDIX E: SPOTTED OWL FOREST PLAN CONSISTENCY

California Spotted Owl Analysis – LMP and CASPO Strategy Consistency – Feb. 2018

Background: The Forest Plan incorporated by reference the California Spotted Owl Strategy (2004), which contained this guideline: Limit fuels treatments within Protected Activity Centers (PACs) to no more than 5% of the PAC acreage in any given mountain range per year and 25% of the mountain range PAC acreage per decade. This limitation is designed to prevent widespread application of a treatment that is not effective or does not work as planned (CASPO Strategy 2004, pg. 22).

Data Table 1 displays the mapped PAC acreages in the San Bernardino National Forest’s (SBNF) GIS layer.

Table 1. PAC Acres with the SBNF Boundaries by Mountain Range San Bernardino Mountains 47105 San Gabriel Mountains 3297* San Jacinto Mountains 6772 TOTAL ACRES 57174 * This total does not include PAC acres mapped/managed by the Angeles National Forest

Table 2 displays the fuels treatments conducted in PACs between Fiscal Year 2008 and through Fiscal Year 2017. The project data were obtained from the Forest Service’s official FACTS database (through which all treatment acres are reported each Fiscal Year) and overlaid on the SBNF PAC layers.

Table 2. Fuels Reduction Projects in Spotted Owl PACS in the San Bernardino Mountains – Fiscal Year 2008 through 2017 * Mountain Acres of PAC Treated NEPA Project Name Range FCRD MTRD TOTALS Mountaintop District SBM Arrowhead Hazardous Fuels Reduction Treatment Project 396 396 SBM Barton Flats Fuels Reduction 66 66 SBM Butler Ii - Slide Post-Fire Fuels Reduction Project 6 6 Deep Creek And Green Valley Fuels Reduction And Forest SBM Health Project 472 472 Hazard Tree Removal Along Forest Roads, Trails, And SBM Facilities 146 146 SBM Lake Fire Restoration And Hazardous Tree Removal 36 36 SBM Miller Canyon Fuels Reduction Project 1646 1646 SBM South Big Bear Healthy Forest Environmental Assessment 2119 2119 SBM 3n16/3n08 Roadside Hazard Trees 22 22 TOTAL for MTRD over 10-year period 4909 Front Country District SBM Angelus Oaks Community Defense Project 18 18 SBM Angelus Oaks Community Defense Project 8 8 SBM Angelus Oaks Understory Burn 4 4

Appendix E – Page 1

APPENDIX E: SPOTTED OWL FOREST PLAN CONSISTENCY

Table 2. Fuels Reduction Projects in Spotted Owl PACS in the San Bernardino Mountains – Fiscal Year 2008 through 2017 * Mountain Acres of PAC Treated NEPA Project Name Range FCRD MTRD TOTALS SBM Barton Flats & Forest Falls Hazard Tree 32 32 Barton Flats Fuels Reduction SBM 1 SBM Santa Ana Hazardous Fuels Reduction 1 1 SBM Spanish Broom Control Along Evacuation Routes 1 1 TOTAL for FCRD over 10-year period 64 Grand Total of Treated Acres in SBM in PACs over 10-year period 65 4910 4975 * Data source: Forest Service FACTS database. All fuels projects reported for each Fiscal Year were overlaid with spotted owl PACs.

Table 3. PAC Acreages Treated by Year Year SB Mountains % PAC Treated SBM 2008 2416 5.13% 2009 43 0.09% 2010 259 0.55% 2011 76 0.16% 2012 141 0.30% 2013 141 0.30% 2014 441 0.94% 2015 188 0.40% 2016 432 0.92% 2017 838 1.78% TOTALS 4975 10.56%

Analysis: <25% by Decade San Bernardino Mountains: A total of 4973 acres were treated during the 10-year period of Fiscal year 2008 through 2017. There are 47105 acres of mapped PACs in the San Bernardino Mountains. During the last decade, 10.6% of the PAC habitat in the San Bernardino Mountains has been within a treatment area (Table 3).

Analysis: <5% by Year San Bernardino Mountains: There are 47105 acres of mapped PACs in the San Bernardino Mountains on the SBNF; 5% of the total SBM acres is 2355 acres. During the last decade, between 0 and 5% of the PAC habitat in the San Bernardino Mountains has been in a treatment area during any given year (Table 3).

Summary: Forest Plan Consistency The types of treatments have ranged from thinning, hazard tree removal, fuels treatments, shaded fuelbreaks, and understory burns. The SBNF has complied with the CASPO Strategy guideline that no more than 25% of PACs would be treated during a decade within a mountain range. The SBNF has also complied with the 5% per year guideline for all years for the San Bernardino Mountains.

Appendix E – Page 2