Biological Assessment- Lucas Creek Project

BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT

For the

LUCAS Creek PROJECT

KERN RIVER RANGER DISTRICT SEQUOIA NATIONAL FOREST

Kern County, California

PREPARED By:--J; �ATE: February 5, 2018 Nina Hemphi Forest Fish Biologist/Aquatic Ecologist and Watershed Manager

This Biological Assessment analyzes the potential impacts associated with implementation of the Lucas Creek Project on federal endangered and threatened species as identified under the Endangered Species Act. The environmental analysis evaluates the preferred alternative. The Lucas Creek Project includes removal of dead and dying trees on 250 acres on Breckenridge Mountain. The project area is located in sections 23, 24, 25, & 26, township 28 south, range 31 east, Mount Diablo Base Meridian on the Kern River Ranger District of the Sequoia National Forest. The project surrounds the Breckenridge subdivision on Breckenridge Mountain approximately 25 miles southwest of the town of Lake Isabella in Kern County California. The intent of the Lucas Creek Project is to remove hazard trees along roads and properties adjoining the Breckenridge Subdivision. The project would also reduce fuels build-up to protect the community and the Lucas Creek upper and middle watershed from high-intensity fire. This will improve forest resilience and watershed health. This document is prepared in compliance with the requirements of FSM 2672.4 and 36 CFR 219.19. Biological Assessment- Lucas Creek Project

I. INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this Biological Assessment (BA) is to review the potential effects of Lucas Creek Project on species classified as federally endangered and threatened under the Endangered Species Act (ESA, 1973). Federally listed species are managed under the authority of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and the National Forest Management Act (NFMA; PL 94- 588). The ESA requires federal agencies to ensure that no actions are likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any federally listed species. The ESA requires that a BA be written and that the analysis conducted determine whether formal consultation or conference is required with the United States Department of Interior (USDI) Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). This BA is prepared in compliance with the legal requirements set forth under Section 7 of the ESA as amended (19 U.S.C 1536 (c)) and follows the standards established in Forest Service Manual direction (FSM 2672.42), and also provides for compliance with Code of Federal Regulations 50CFR402.12.

The US Fish and Wildlife Service IPAC site was used to obtain an official species list of federally threatened, endangered, proposed, and candidate species with potential to occur within the vicinity of the Lucas Creek Project area (Consultation Code:, 08ESMF00-2017-SLI-3117, September I, 2017). This list fulfills the requirement to provide a current species list, pursuant to Section 7.c. of the ESA. The list was updated December 19, 2017; Event Code: 08ESMF00- 20I8-E-02019.

The species with potential to occur in or near the Lucas Creek Project Area are listed in Table I. Nine Threatened, Endangered, and/or Candidate species were identified by USFWS as occurring in or near the area. These included the San Joaquin Kit Fox, Tipton Kangaroo, California Condor, Southwestern Willow Flycatcher, Mountain Yellow-legged Frog Northern Distinct Population Segment, California Red-legged Frog, the Delta smelt, the Kern Primrose Sphinx Moth, and the Bakersfield Cactus. No Critical Habitats are within or near the project area.

Table I. Federally Threatened, Endangered, and Proposed Species potentially in Lucas Creek p ro1 .ec tV'1cm1ty .. Common Name Listing Habitat Requirements Potential for Occurrence Analyzed in (Scientific Name) Status near Project Detail in BA? Tipton kangaroo rat FE Alkali sinks and valley None. Outside elevation No, ou tside known (Dipodomys floor habitat. range of species range. nitratoides) San Joaquin kit fox FE Valley floor annual None. Outside elevation No, outside known (Vulpes macrotis grassland, generally range of species range. mutica) below 1,000 feet. SW willow flycatcher FE Vegetation alongside South Fork Kern Wildlife Yes (Empidonax troi/ii rivers, streams, or Area contains critical extimus) other wetlands habitat; occurs up to 8,000 (riparian habitat). feet. Within range for this Neotropical migrant. California condor FE Mountain and foothill Yes, possibility of foraging Yes (Gymnogyps or overflight, no current californianus) roosting or nesting nearby

2 Biological Assessment- Lucas Creek Project

rangeland and forest habitats; nests on cliffs and in very large trees California red -legged FT Low gradient streams None. Outside elevation No, outside known frog (Rana aurora and ponds with range of species range. draytonii) emergent Vegetation. Mountain yellow- FE Permanent and Yes, Lucas Creek and the Yes legged frog (Rana intermittent streams meadows within project - muscosa) and meadows above boundaries contain 4500 feet. suitable habitat for MYLF Delta smelt FT Limited to San Joaquin/ None. No outlet from the No, outside known (Hypomesus Sacramento Delta. Kern River to the Delta range. transpacificus) Kern Primrose Sphinx FT Limited to Walker None. Outside elevation No, outside known Moth (Euproserpinus Basin, Carrizo Plain and range of species range. euterpe) Cuyama Valley Bakersfield Cactus FE Saltbush scrub, at None. Outside elevation No, outside known (Opuntia treleasei) elevations from 460 to range of species range. 1,800 feet. Kern Canyon slender UR Ephemeral, Yes, Lucas Creek tributaries Yes salamander intermittent, and and their riparian areas (Batrachoseps perennial streams and contain habitat. simatus) their riparian areas. FE Federally Endangered; FT Federally Threatened, UR Under Review

II CONSULTATION TO DATE

Southwestern Willow Flycatcher

The Southwestern Willow Flycatcher was listed as endangered in February, 1995 (Federal Register Vol. 60, No. 38 0698/ February 27, 1995). Basin and Mohave Recovery Unit show the South Fork Kern River (Critical Habitat #7 Federal Register Vol. 62, No. 140 July 22, 1997). In 2013, the Kern Management Unit extended Critical Habitat from Lake Isabella to Canebrake Creek (Federal Register Vol. 78, No. 2 January 3, 2013). Since the listing of the South West Willow Flycatcher, the Forest has conducted both formal and informal consultations with the USFWS on a variety of projects. The last formal consultation was conducted in February 20 I 3 for the Giant Sequoia National Monument EIS (08ESMF00- 20 l 2-F-0429- I).

California Condor

The California condor (Gymnogyps cal(fornianus) was listed as endangered on March I I, 1967 (32 Federal Register (FR) 400 I), with critical habitats designated on September 24, 1976 (41 FR 187) within Tulare, Kern, Los Angeles, Ventura, Santa Barbara, and San Luis Obispo Counties. Designated critical habitats closest to the project vicinity include the Kern County Rangelands (Critical Habitat #8 USFWS I 996) and the Tejon Ranch (Critical Habitat #7). Both are

3 Biological Assessment- Lucas Creek Project

considered important foraging zones located northwest and southwest of the Lucas Creek Project area. Neither of these designated critical habitats overlap with any portion of the Lucas Creek Project area.

Since the listing of the California condor, the Forest has conducted both formal and informal consultations with the USFWS on a variety of projects. The last formal consultation was conducted in February 2013 for the Giant Sequoia National Monument EIS (08ESMF00-2012-F- 0429-1 ).

Mountain Yellow-legged Frog

Mountain yellow-legged frog (Rana muscosa, Northern Distinct Population Segment NDPS) was listed as an endangered species (Federal Register: Vol. 79 No. 82 24255 April 29, 2014). Critical habitat was designated for this species (Federal Register: Vol. 81 No. I 66, 59046 August 26, 2016). None of the areas identified for critical habitat designation occur within the Lucas Creek Project area. A programmatic Biological Assessment (BA) was completed by the Pacific Southwest Regional Office of the Forest Service for the three Sierra Amphibians proposed for federal listing. The Programmatic BA and the US Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Opinion were signed in 2014. The Regional BA and the USFWS Biological Opinion (FF08ESMF00- 2014-F-0557) are incorporated by reference for this analysis.

Relictual Slender Salamander

The Relictual (Batrachoseps re/ictus) Slender Salamanders (Batrachoseps simatus) is Under Review as a result of a 90 Substantial Finding on a Petition to List this species (Federal Register: Vol. 80 No. 126, 37568 July I, 2015). US Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) initiated a review of the status of this and other species to determine if the petitioned actions are warranted.

III. CURRENT ANAGEMENT DIRECTION

Direction regarding threatened, endangered, or proposed species is provided in the Forest Service Manual (FSM 2672.1 & 2672), the National Forest Management Act (NFMA), the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR 219.19), the Sequoia National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP) (USDA 1988), the 1990 Mediated Settlement Agreement (MSA), the 2004 Final Supplemental Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment (SNFPA, USDA 2004), the Endangered Species Act, species specific recovery plans, and Regional Forester policy and management direction.

The 2004 SNFPA standards and guidelines applicable to the listed species under consideration in this Biological Assessment support the retention of structural attributes of suitable habitat important for the California Condor, Southwestern Willow Flycatcher, Mountain Yellow-legged Frog, and the Relictual Slender Salamander.

4 Biological Assessment- Lucas Creek Project

Management direction for the California condor, Southwestern Willow Flycatcher, and their habitat is to follow the most current U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Recovery Plans (Condor USFWS 1996; Southwestern willow flycatcher USFWS 2002).

Management direction for the mountain yellow-legged frog is provided under USDA Forest Service endangered and threatened species policies (FSM 2670 and CFR 50 part 402). The Biological Opinion for the Three Sierra Amphibians (USFWS 2014) and the Conservation Assessment for the mountain yellow-legged frog (Brown et al. 2014 b) provide detailed management direction on risk factors, and strategies for conservation of the s_pecies.

The Aquatic Management Strategy stated in SNFPA (pages 32-33 of the SNFPA ROD (USDA 2004) provides guidance for management of the biological and physical integrity of the watershed; and includes measures to maintain: water quality, species viability, special habitats, connectivity, sediment regimes and maintenance of stream banks to reduce erosion and enhance habitat diversity. This Aquatic Strategy provides protections for both Mountain Yellow-legged Frogs and slender salamander habitat.

Endangered Species Act (ESA)

The Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973 ( 16 USC 1531 et seq.) requires that any action authorized by a federal agency not be likely to jeopardize the continued existence of T &E species, or result in the destruction or adverse modification of habitat of such species that is determined to be critical. Section 7 of the ESA, as amended, requires that the responsible federal agency consult with the USFWS and the National Marine Fisheries Service concerning T&E species under their jurisdiction.

The conservation measures in the Biological Opinion (BO) issued to the Forest Service for the programmatic Biological Assessment For Actions That Affect The Sierra Nevada Yellow-Legged Frog, N. DPS Mountain Yellow-Legged Frog, and Yosemite Toad on National Forest Lands in The Sierra Nevada (USDA 2014) were used to derive Conservation Measures developed for this project. Once this Biological Assessment is finalized, the site specific Conservation Measures will be mandatory and will minimize effects on mountain yellow-legged frogs or its suitable habitats.

For Federally listed species under the ESA, direct effects in this document are effects which, if negative, would lead to the "taking" of an individual of those species analyzed in this document and as defined in Section 9 and/or Section IO of the Endangered Species Act of 1974, as amended (Act). Section 9 of the Act prohibits the "take" (i.e. to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, wound, kill, etc.) of listed species of fish wildlife, and plants without special exemption. "Harm" is further defined to include significant habitat modification or degradation that results in death or injury to listed species by significantly impairing behavioral patterns such as breeding, feeding, or shelter. Indirect effects are those that are caused by the proposed action later in time, but still are reasonably certain to occur (50 CFR 402.02).

5 Biological Assessment- Lucas Creek Project

Cumulative effects in this instance is defined as the effects of future state or private activities not involving federal activities that are reasonably certain to occur within the project area for an action subject to consultation.

IV DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT

Description of the Proposed Action

The Lucas Creek project will treat approximately 210 acres of gradual slopes around the Breckenridge subdivision and Breckenridge Meadow and approximately 40 acres of ground nearing and exceeding 35% slope steepness for a total of 250 acres. Figure I shows the location of the project area and the basic areas of the different activities. There is roughly 150 acres of area that is proposed for ground based harvesting methods, such as feller-buncher, which will be yarded to landings with skidders, most likely a rubber tired skidder. Roughly, 100 acres is proposed for hand felling; this is a combination of hand felling within streamside management zones (SMZs), slopes exceeding 35% steepness, and areas with accessibility constraints. Table 2 has the breakdown of acres into Treatment types. Where operationally feasible, hand felled material will be endlined to skidders for removal. However, end lining or dragging trees or logs out within 100 feet of streams, springs, or meadows is not consistent with this Biological Assessment. Table 3 has the breakdown of the total and treatment acres in Riparian Conservation Areas (RCA); in Mountain Yellow-legged Frog (MYLF) suitable habitat, and in Streamside management zones (SMZ).

Ta bl e 2. B rea kd ownofA cres an dTreatment T·ype Treatment Type Acres Mechanical Thinning 152.4 Hand Felling (SMZ's, Steep Ground >35%, 97.0 Operationally Restricted Areas) Total 249.4

A 200 foot buffer of hand-thinning only has been placed around private property in the southern portion of the project area where slopes exceed 35%. In this area, logs will be endlined out to skidders where possible; where this is not operationally feasible, trees will be dropped and left, and bucked in a manner to stabilize them on the slope, and the tree tops and limbs will be lopped and scattered or piled for burning dependent on the fuel loading and uniformity. Logs that have been recently felled as part of the drought related hazard tree mitigation work on the forest may be yarded to a landing and sold as part of the sale or decked for future removal or disposal. Tree tops and limbs will be piled for burning in the fall to winter months.

All dead trees around the Breckenridge subdivision are planned for removal. Tree exceeding 29.9 inches in diameter that do not meet the definition of a hazard tree will be left. Dead trees greater than 24 inches in diameter will be evaluated for current or potential wildlife habitat and may be left in the stand to meet a minimum of 4 snags per acre guideline, as prescribed in the Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment. Within the mechanical treatment areas; trees will be felled by mechanical harvesters and skidded to landings with ground based equipment. Trees

6 Biological Assessment- Lucas Creek Project

that are too big to be safely felled with mechanized equipment will be felled by hand fallers. No mechanical harvesters or mechanized treatments will be used in the I 00 foot zone around streams, meadows springs and temporary draws as this will not be consistent with this BA.

Slash from broken tops and limbs generated during the falling operation may be lopped and scattered, hand piled and burned, or removed to a landing and tractor piled and burned. Method of slash removal will be determined based on the existing fuel loading, the amount generated, and how slash treatment will affect riparian habitat, fuel loading, and botanical and zoological _____sg ecies of concern. Slash left in the stand will be treated by_ _Q iie burning_i_j ackpot burning, or broadcast burning where needed. It may not be necessary to burn in all of the treatment units. Care will be taken to burn in the fall and to limit the burn piles to 150 feet from perennial streams or meadows; and 75 feet from intermittent and ephemeral streams. Piles of wood make good habitat for many riparian dependent species.

Table 3. Breakdown of acres of treatments within special aquatic habitat. Displayed are acres of activities for the alternative, within Mountain Yellow-legged Frog habitat (MYLF) and riparian conservation areas (RCA). All values are in acres and exclude private property. RCA= RCA acres outside of MYLF breeding habitat within a maximum distance of 300 feet. Hand Thinning and felling refers to the area being proposed for no mechanization. Fire Activities may overlap other treatments. Backing fire acres are acres adjacent to meadow or any stream type to be b urne dd urm. g f a 11 or wmter.. Treatment Type Acres in Acres in Acres in SMZ MYLF Habitat RCA

Ground Disturbing Activity Mechanical Thinning 0 10.9 0 Landings 0 I 0 Hand Felling (SMZ's, Steep 1.5 7.6 1.5 Ground >35%, Operationally Restricted Areas) Crossing (new culvert) 0 0 0 Crossing (culvert removed) 0 0 0 Fire Activity Pile Burning only 0 20 0 Pile Burning and understory 0 0 20 burn Backing Fire IO 0 IO Total Acres in proj ect area 18.3 40.4 20.1

7 Biological Assessment- Lucas Creek Project

Figure I: Lucas Creek Project vicinity land detail located on Kern River Ranger District, Sequoia National Forest.

l$4000 •\.,·..--• .. ·· .. ... •··· ·;_23 24 ...... ,,• ...... ·.. ... / ..

... N A ·.... : ·...... ··. ;,1, ••··\ • ...... ·-··.. .. . 608 ......

··" f 26 25 .. 8pr, 11 g _: S[)rt11g : . Munzer F Meadow ··. f ..... '

Lura, Trralmcat T~pn Sum of llNcrlpllon Aue, 1r..iu r.1111:i!' lD14 .,• • • \kd1:1nicu\ 1h11 nmp . 48.0 :.. ·· ...... ,. __ . . •• \ft.-aJu\t . / l.11eu l nil, 110 11 'ilu,uhrr 23' ·-· u ··. .. :•.. -I 54 l n1 f 74 7 {~ •. ;m s ••• : h :~~ ·a ~ •. .. 7 11 8 ~ \--1Lucas--P- ro_ject_ Al_ea-,! Tot.11 249.4 , ....J, - 0 125 025 05 075 ...... 025 o, 15 ' -

8 Biological Assessment- Lucas Creek Project

Consen ation Measures for Proposed Action

The following conservation measures are part of the action alternative. These measures are intended to reduce, minimize, or eliminate effects on listed species. These features are intended to assure project compliance with Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act.

Definitions

Definitions of terms used in the USFWS Biological Opinion (USFWS 2014) are provided in this section for clarification purposes: a. MYLF suitable habitat occurs above 4,500 feet in elevation. Suitable habitat includes permanent water bodies or those hydrologically connected with permanent water such as wet meadows, lakes, streams, rivers, tarns, perennial creeks, permanent plunge pools within intermittent creeks, and pools, such as a body of impounded water contained above a natural dam. In late spring and summer, the frogs are tied to permanent water and may use the I 00 feet on either side of water to forage. c. Riparian Conservation Areas (RCAs): Specifically defined buffers in which management activities are designed to meet specific goals and objectives for streams, special aquatic features, and other hydrological depressions. The width of the buffer varies as follows and may also be adjusted site-specifically to reflect the local topographic and hydrological conditions (S&Gs 91- 122 from the SNFPA ROD and apply to all RCAs):

I. Perennial Streams: 300 feet on each side of the stream, as measured from the bank full edge. 2. Seasonally Flowing Streams (Intermittent and Ephemeral): 150 feet on each side of the stream, as measured from the bank full edge. 3. Stream Adjacent Slopes Greater Than 70 Percent Gradient: top of the inner gorge or slope. 4. Lakes, Wet Meadows, Bogs, Fens, Wetlands, Vernal Pools, and Springs: 300 feet from the edge of the feature or riparian vegetation, whichever is greater.

d. Streamside Management Zones: SMZs are nested within RCAs and include specific areas directly adjacent to streams and meadows managed to standards specifically defined in Appendix D, of the Sequoia National Forest Mediated Settlement Agreement ( 1990). This designation typically results in conservation measures. e. Conservation Measures The conservation measures described in this BA and the Biological Opinion will be implemented by the Forest Service or contractors for the Lucas Creek project area to minimize and compensate for the adverse effects of the project on endangered, threatened or Candidate species.

Conservation Measures

a. All observations of threatened, endangered or candidate species during any phase of project work will be reported to the District or Forest Wildlife Biologist and to the

9 Biological Assessment- Lucas Creek Project

Service. The District or Forest Biologist will maintain records of, and notify the Service of any listed species observations within the action area.

b. Monitoring for Southwestern Willow Flycatcher will be done in early August in the areas with willows and perennial water to ensure no occasional or migratory birds are in area. If the birds are detected, then all activities within 200 feet of a perennial stream or meadow or where bird was found will halt. The duration of the LOP will be determined in consultation with the Service and the Forest Biologist.

c. Monitoring of the condor satellite tracking website for condor activity will be conducted prior to initiation of project activities.

d. If condor activity suggests use of a roost site in the project area, a limiting operating period restricting activities within 1/2 mile radius of the roost site will be implemented. The duration of the LOP will be determined in consultation with the Service, Condor Recovery Team, and the Forest Biologist.

e. All off-road equipment would be cleaned (pressure washed) and inspected prior to entry into the project area to prevent introduction of noxious weed seeds or oil or hydraulic fluids to site.

All equipment will be free of mud and dirt prior to entering the specific stands to prevent the spread of Chytrid fungus.

Imported road surface material, soil, rock, mulch or other foreign material used in any part of the project shall originate from a weed-free source.

f. All heavy equipment, vehicles, and construction activities will be confined to existing access roads, dry road shoulders, and disturbed or designated work areas. Work areas will be limited to what is absolutely necessary for treatment application. No turning of equipment will occur off road bed within I 00 feet of an intermittent or perennial stream, spring, seep, or meadow to minimize soil disturbance in watershed.

g. Locate new or reconstructed access and haul roads for the project outside of SMZs, wetlands, meadows, seeps, springs, and sensitive soil areas.

h. Use old existing skid trails to the extent possible to reduce new soil and vegetation disturbance. Skid trails would be located to minimize soil disturbance. Area disturbed would be limited to no more than 15 percent of the harvest area.

1. Disturbed areas on skid trails would be reclaimed, including re-contoured, or drainage restored where needed, ripped, or scarified where soils would be compacted, and seeded after operations are complete. Skid trails would be closed to off-road motorized travel with earth barriers, large trees, cull logs or rocks after operations are complete.

10 Biological Assessment- Lucas Creek Project

J. Landings will be located where the least amount of skid roads will be required, and side cast can be stabilized without entering drainages or affecting other sensitive areas. Landings will be positioned such that the skid road approach will be as nearly level as possible to promote safety, and protect the soil from erosion. The number of skid trails entering a landing will be kept to a minimum. New or reconstructed landings would be shaped to disperse runoff. Landing slash would be disposed and compacted soil ripped or scarified. Erosion prevention measures such as cross ditches, re-contouring, rock armoring, straw bales, or slash would be used as necessary to direct water to suitable drainage areas and capture s~diment. All straw would be certified weed free.

k. Equipment, when not in use, will be stored in upland areas outside of the boundaries of waterways/wet meadows.

I. During project activities, all trash that may attract predators will be properly contained in covered garbage receptacles and removed from the site daily. Following treatment, all debris will be removed from project sites.

m. No mechanized vegetation activities (including machine felling, end lining, dragging limbed or unlimbed trees, thinning, and mastication) will occur within I 00 feet of any perennial stream or meadow; or within 75 feet of an intermittent or ephemeral stream. Preserve seepages, riparian splash zones, caves, talus, and other moist, rocky sites. Where hazard trees are present within these special habitats, hand felling will occur, tree will remain on ground, unless they are felled directly on a road, or can be cut into smaller sizes prior to removal to minimize ground disturbance.

n. No fuels activities (including pile and burn, or direct lighting) will occur within 100 feet of any perennial, intermittent, or ephemeral stream. Generated slash from hand thinning piled within I 00 feet of all streams (including ephemeral) will not be lighted. No direct lighting of riparian vegetation or large logs within 300 feet from streams or meadows. In all other areas piles will be lined, and burned. Under burning from 300 to 150 feet on either side of streams or meadows in the fall and early winter may back burn into the I 00 foot MYLF or salamander habitat. No backing fire will occur in late winter or spring within I 00 feet of any of permanent streams, intermittent stream channels with permanent pools to protect adult MYLF dispersal, breeding, egg masses, and tadpoles in stream /meadow habitats. All burning operations will occur under prescribed conditions

o. Burn pile areas, outside suitable Mountain Yellow-legged Frog (MYLF) habitat and the SMZ, will be placed as far from old stumps and snags as practicable. Slash/ brush piles shall be ignited using a pattern that allows dispersing animals to escape the fire.

p. A void removing or burning downed logs and bark, especially large diameter pieces; downed wood in various stages of decay provides shelter and egg-laying sites.

q. Low ground pressure equipment, helicopters, over the snow logging, or other non-ground disturbing actions will be implemented when needed to achieve Riparian Conservation Objectives (RCOs) in order to minimize impacts to riparian conservation areas when

11 Biological Assessment- Lucas Creek Project

operating off of existing roads. The measures include minimizing construction of skid trails or roads for access into riparian conservation areas for fuels treatments or hazard tree removal.

r. For all mechanical thinning treatments, no live trees 30 inches dbh or larger will be removed.

s. Thinning activity utilizing tractor methods will be avoided where the predicted, post­ logging erosion hazard cannot be reduced to either "low" or "moderate". The careful control of skidding patterns will serve to avoid onsite and downstream channel instability, build-up of destructive runoff flows, and erosion in sensitive watershed areas such as meadows and Streamside Management Zones.

t. Follow all BMPs for soil moisture to minimize the possibility of encountering frogs or salamanders moving between areas during the snow and wet seasons.

u. Erosion, sediment, and material stockpile BMPs will be implemented according to the erosion control plan between work areas and adjacent waterways. Prior to acceptance of erosion control work, the sale administrator, contractor or crew boss will coordinate with the Service-approved biologist or Hydrologist to insure all erosion control standards, including BMP's have been implemented and are effective.

Soil disturbance from project activities within 150 feet of ephemeral, intermittent, or perennial streams that are greater than 6" deep will be rehabilitated by planting to minimize sediment transport into stream channels.

v. Plastic mono-filament netting (erosion control matting) or similar material will not be used at the project site. Acceptable substitutes include coconut coir matting or tackified hydroseeding compounds.

w. No herbicides will be applied within 150 feet of perennial, intermittent, or ephemeral streams or meadows as part of the project action. Any potential herbicide application will be cleared by the forest pesticides coordinator.

x. Use only water for dust abatement within 165 feet of streams and hydrologically connected tributaries or meadows. If water diversion is necessary for any project related activities, no de-watering of suitable stream habitats will occur during implementation, even if temporarily.

y. If necessary, only low velocity water pumps will be used for diversion around project area to downstream location, intakes will be completely screened with wire mesh no larger than 0.2-inch to prevent frogs from entering the pump. Any sensitive species discovered during dewatering should be relocated to a safe place upstream or downstream in similar habitat. Any listed species encountered should be reported to the Service within one working day.

12 Biological Assessment- Lucas Creek Project

V. EXISTING ENVIRONMENT

Species and habitat account information were taken from a variety of sources which included localized surveys of the project area, reviews of both State and Forest databases, prior BA/BEs completed in the project vicinity, stand exam data collected in the field, applicable scientific research, and scientific literature as summarized from the SNFPA EIS and ROD (USDA 200 I), and SNFPA FSEIS and ROD USDA 2004 hereby incor orated by reference. Mountain yellow-legged frog species and habitat accounts were summarized from field monitoring in June 2017, the Regional Programmatic Biological Assessment (USDA 2014) and the Biological Opinion issued by the USFWS (2014) for the three Sierra Amphibians.

Southwestern Willow Flycatcher

The southwestern willow flycatcher (Empidonax trailii extimus) is one of four subspecies of Empidonax trailii in the family of tyrant flycatchers (Tyrannidae). The three other willow flycatcher subspecies occupy different breeding ranges in the U.S. adjacent to the southwestern subspecies, with E. t. adastus to the north, E. t. trailii to the east, and E. t. brewsteri to the northwest along the northern Pacific coast. Southwestern willow flycatchers are Neotropical migrants that breed in patches of riparian habitat throughout the American southwest. Critical Habitat on the South Fork Kern is approximately 35 miles away from the Lucas Project area.

One of the primary reasons for the decline of this species is the loss and degradation of dense, native riparian habitats. Water impoundment (dams), at Lake Isabella has been responsible for the development and maintenance of a mature riparian forest. Other impacts to riparian habitat are caused by stream bank stabilization, riparian vegetation control, livestock grazing, off-road vehicle use, increased fires, and urban development. The replacement of native riparian plants, such as cottonwood and willow, by nonnative tamarisk has changed the character of nesting habitat for the flycatcher, although flycatchers do successfully nest in tamarisk. Additionally, brown-headed cowbirds (Molothrus ater) can pose a significant threat to some local southwestern willow flycatcher populations through brood parasitism. Cowbirds have increased in range and abundance in response to increased irrigated agriculture and livestock grazing.

Southwestern willow flycatchers require moist microclimatic and vegetative conditions, and breed only in dense riparian vegetation near surface water or saturated soil. While wet conditions are uniformly required, the structure and species of vegetation in which they nest vary by region and availability. The birds frequently build nests in nonnative tamarisk (Tamarix spp.), as well as in native willow (Salix spp.), typically in vegetation stands of 4-7 min height. Patches of riparian habitat are commonly used by willow flycatchers during migration, but may be smaller in size, with shorter, sparser vegetation structure than those used for nesting. Males arrive on breeding grounds in late April to early May to establish territories, approximately 1-2 weeks before the females arrive. They are often still present in September (NPS 2018).

Patches of riparian habitat are commonly used by willow flycatchers during migration, but may be smaller in size, with shorter, sparser vegetation structure than those used for nesting. The

13 Biological Assessment- Lucas Creek Project

Kern River contains willows and patches of riparian areas all the way to Bakersfield. This corridor supplies a good connection for these birds as they migrate southward form their Critical Habitat on the South Fork Kern River (See Figure 2).

Figure 2. Location of Critical Habitat for Southwestern Willow Flycatcher near Lucas Creek Project. Map was derived from Data Basin.

Critical Habitat for Southwestern Willow Flycatcher

..,,, 1.l " K"''" ,

- Southwestern Willow Flycatcher Critical H.ebitat * Lucas Project Area

.. 1111 111 t: "

I. a ; l-•J·" , 0 ' .. ,, Baker sfield ;

A" ~I

California Condor

Condors can soar to heights of 15,000 feet and may travel up to I 50 miles a day in search of their next meal. After rising thousands of feet overhead on air currents, California condors will glide long distances, sometimes at more than 55 miles per hour. From the air, they search for dead animals, like deer or cattle. They feed only on carrion (dead animals that they find). Condor nest sites are in cliff caves in the mountains. Some condors have nested in large cavities in the trunks of giant sequoia redwood trees. https :/ /www.wildlife.ca. gov /conservation/birds/cal i forn ia-condor

The forest has identified one historic nest site and a series of historic roost areas that were used by condors. These include sites on the Breckenridge Mountains south of the Kern River, along the west slope of the Greenhorn Mountains (Basket Pass, Lion Ridge, Starvation Grove), and

14 Biological Assessment- Lucas Creek Project

further to the north at Blue Ridge. Critical habitat within 13 air miles of the Lucas Creek Project Area is "#8 Kern County Rangelands" located off the Forest (Figure 3).

Monitored California condors have been found to habitually return to traditional historic use sites for perching and resting. This has also been observed with captive reared condors who have selected the same sites used previously by adults once part of the wild population. Based on historic and contemporary condor travel patterns and observed use at historic roost sites on the Forest, the highest quality habitat for the condor is represented by the upper 2/3s of forested slo es on the west side of the Greenhorn Mountains. The _p rinci al foraging zones near the Sequoia National Forest include west slope grassland and oak-savannah habitats at lower elevations within the foothill region directly adjacent to the southern San Joaquin Valley. The bulk of critical habitat designated for the condor encompasses primarily private held range lands in Kern and Tulare Counties located west of the Forest. California condors are opportunistic scavengers, feeding mainly on carcasses of large dead animals such as livestock (cows, sheep, and horses) and mule deer. 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.

Figure 3. California Condor Critical Habitat near Lucas Creek Project. Map was derived from Data Basin.

;;t Critical Habitat for the California Condor

~ Critical habitat * Lucas Creek Project '

Bakl!rsfi~ld ') r.-c~no 0

( ,'IIU >t 4: ,~., - .,, . ...

A1\.i11

15 Biological Assessment- Lucas Creek Project

Mountain Yellow-legged Frog

The mountain yellow-legged frog (Rana muscosa) is endemic to the southern Sierra Nevada. The mountain yellow-legged frog was once extremely abundant in aquatic ecosystems of the Sierra Nevada (Grinnell and Storer 1924, Storer 1925). Since about 1970, mountain yellow­ legged frog numbers and populations have undergone a precipitous decline throughout the Sierra Nevada (Knapp and Matthews 2000, Vredenburg et al. 2007). Currently there are only three documented existing populations found on the Forest all located in the Golden Trout Wilderness. Introduction of non-native fishes (Ryan et al. 2014), climate change (Lacan et al 2008), and pathogens are the primary threats to the species and its habitat

The Lucas Creek Project area is well above 4500 feet above mean sea level and falls within the elevation and spatial range for mountain yellow-legged frog historic and suitable habitat (see Figure 4). The Lucas Creek Project is located primarily in the Lucas Creek watershed, a tributary of the mainstem Kern River. This area contains historic habitat for Mountain Yellow­ legged Frogs. Lucas Creek is a perennial stream channels and is connected hydrologically to Breckenridge Meadow (see Figure 4, from Stone 2017).

Within the project and aquatic analysis area, all perennial and intermittent stream channels, meadows and meadow edges, seeps, springs and damp headwater areas and riparian conservation areas surrounding these habitats provide potential habitat for the Mountain Yellow-legged Frogs. While the area surrounding these habitats is typically, dry owing to the long Mediterranean summers; during the wettest times of year connectivity increases among these habitats. Most amphibians depend on both aquatic and terrestrial habitats to complete their lifecycle. Beyond the stream channel, the riparian and upland habitats provide important habitat for species that use these areas to forage and to connect to other habitats for breeding (Gibbons 2003; Clinton et al. 2010). Recent recognition that stream-breeding amphibians can disperse hundreds of meters into uplands implies that connectivity among neighboring habitats and drainages is important.

The mountain yellow-legged frog is highly aquatic when tadpoles, or sub-adults and suitable habitat includes permanent water bodies or those hydrologically connected with permanent water such as wet meadows, lakes, streams, rivers, tarns, perennial creeks, permanent plunge pools within intermittent creeks, and pools (Brown et al. 2014 b). Breeding occurs between March and June once high water in streams subsides. Suitable breeding habitat for MYLF is considered to be low gradient (up to 4%) perennial streams and lakes. Stream habitats can also be associated with meadow habitat or in steeper streams if deep pools without fish are present. Perennial streams in this category generally have the potential for deep pools and undercut banks which provide the habitat requirements of this frog. Breeding occurs shortly after snowmelt. The category of habitat present in the Lucas Creek Project area is suitable but "utilization unknown" because we do not have surveys completed according to protocol across the project area. Nevertheless, this is within historic range of the species.

Relictual Slender Salamander

Jockusch et al 2012 assigned Batrachoseps re/ictus to only those salamanders south of the Kern River and on Breckenridge Mountain. B. re/ictus from north of the Kern River were re-named B.

16 Biological Assessment- Lucas Creek Project

altasierrae, the Greenhorn Mountains Slender Salamander. Historically, salamanders now known as B. re/ictus occurred only in a small range from the south side of the Kern River in the Lower Kern River Canyon, to a few locations on Breckenridge Mountain. But the lower Kern River Canyon populations have apparently been extirpated, making the species now a Breckenridge Mountain endemic, currently known from only two locations separated by 3.1 miles (See Figure 5). This makes the known range for this species the smallest of any slender salamander species (CALHERPS accessed 1/5/2018). http://www.ca1iforn iaherps.comh,alamanders/pages/b.re1ictus.html accessed 1/5/2108.

This species is associated with seepages and springs in rocky areas with scanty tree cover consisting mostly of oaks with scattered pines and buckeyes and sycamores in creek bottoms. Rarely found far from surface water. At higher altitudes, this species occurs mainly in heavily forested areas in mixed pine-fir-incense cedar forest, sometimes with substantial numbers of deciduous oaks. In lower Kern Canyon, the tree cover is sparse and consists mainly of deciduous and live oaks with scattered pines and buckeyes and a few sycamores in the bottoms of the creeks (Jockusch et al. 1998). This species is often found under logs and rocks at the edge of springs and seepages, and is sometimes in the film of water, although on other occasions it can be found at some distance from water (see Figure 6). These decaying logs help temperature regulation (Feder 1983).

Habitat loss and degradation are the main threats to this species. Alteration of microhabitats within surface and subsurface refuges are of highest concern. The main threats are activities related to timber harvest, which reduces canopy closure, disturbs substrates, and can alter microhabitat refuges, microclimates, and hydrologic patterns. Also of concern are road construction and culverts, mining and excavation, recreation, floods and debris flows, disease, climate change, forest fires, chemical applications, and rural development (Olson and Crisafulli 2014).

17 Biological Assessment- Lucas Creek Project

Figure 4. Lucas Creek, Perennial stream is / r hydrologically connected to the meadow that I runs through the center of the project area.

\ \ -....___ .. l () / ..: ... , ..... ,_/

ic...3 -·----.... ,.. _,. ,~ ... ..

0-=-c=-.--==-- 01:50!5 05 115 I -·

18 Biological Assessment- Lucas Creek Project ~------l Relictual slender salamander •

ECKENRIOGE MOUNTAIN Ra na mucosa Figure 5. Di tribution of CNDDB locations Ensatina eschscholtzii croceator for salamanders and '--"" frogs on Breckenridge Mountain CNDDB Ensatina eschscholtzii croceator accessed December 7, 2017 V /

BREC ENRIOGE UOUHTA/N -- 136112 ) 0~ I- I Wlu tni:Ztto:,.t~ ' '"' ci...... _,.,.J.ll-4'J ••.,. :..C.a ~ nma.t.. C11Utna .,_ nlN!l.a., c-. CZICO O.cember6 .017 -..sos. AO Nit ~Ote61tt iON A4111S1efH.. QtevJIM t,,,w,p.

19 Biological Assessment- Lucas Creek Project

VI. EFFECTS OF THE PROJECT ALTERNATIVE

This section analyzes the potential effects (environmental consequences) of implementing the Lucas Creek Project on the Southwestern Willow Flycatcher, California Condor, Mountain Yellow-legged Frog, Relictual Slender Salamander and their habitats.

Southwestern Willow Flycatcher

A review of CNDB, the Forest and district files, and the Critical Habitat near the site were conducted to ass the likelihood of birds being near the proposed action site during the period of activity in mid to late summer. Although the bird is a migratory species, it is not likely that migrants might pass up and over Breckenridge Mountain area in early May or late fall. The Kern River has pockets of riparian vegetation and ponds connecting the Critical Habitat at Lake Isabella to the Valley floor and the Coast Range. Additional minimization is supplied by Conservation Measure b, surveying for this species within the willows and riparian vegetation in and near the Lucas Project area especially after nesting season is over and birds start their southward migration (mid to late August) will minimize the potential effects of the project on this species. Based on surveys in early August, any project activities underway at this time will continue if no birds are detected. If the birds are detected, then all activities within 200 feet of a perennial stream or meadow or location of the bird will halt until the bird has moved out of the area. The minimization of any direct or indirect effects on Southwestern Willow Flycatcher is anticipated with the Conservation Measure. Therefore, with the Conservation measure in place, my determination of the direct and indirect effects of this project on this species is that of "No Effect".

California Condor

Data used in the effects assessment included Sequoia National Forest Geographic Information System (GIS) base layers of historic condor roost areas as identified in the Forest Plan, historical condor observation data from 1982 through 1987 (Ventura USFWS Office GIS, August 2003), satellite telemetry data by season for AC8 and AC9 through October of 2002 (Ventura USFWS Office GIS, August 2003), and current Global Positioning System (GPS) condor location data as provided by USFWS for 2014. Proximity to Condor critical and essential habitats were also reviewed (USDI 1984, USDA 1996).

Although historic roosting sites were present in the area, no roosting behavior has been seen in this area recently. Critical Habitat is a short flight away from the Lucas Creek Site. However, based on bird behavior in the last IO years, we do not anticipate presence of the birds within the project area. We anticipate no effect on currently occupied nesting or roosting locations or birds visiting these areas. Minimization is supplied by Conservation Measure c and d, verifying the locations of birds relative to the Lucas Creek Project before mechanized activities start will minimize the potential effects of the project on this species. If birds are detected roosting or foraging in the area, any mechanized project activities underway at this time will continue only after consultation with USFWS to determine best way to proceed. The Conservation Measures should minimize the potential direct or indirect effects of the project on California Condor.

20 Biological Assessment- Lucas Creek Project

Therefore, as long as the Conservation measures are followed, my determination of the direct and indirect effects of this project on California Condor is that of "No Effect".

Mountain Yellow-legged Frogs

A review of CNDB, the Forest and district files and the information supplied on historic habitat were used to evaluate the likelihood of either frogs or their suitable habitat being in the project area. Streamside and meadow edge forest habitats are extremely complex ecosystems that help provjde optimUIIL.fooclandllabitaLfoLstream..communities and_function as a.filter b...yJ emo.ring sediment and other suspended solids from surface runoff and shallow groundwater. Riparian areas influence temporal and physical properties of sediment influx into the stream channel (Hicks et al. 1991 ). This project proposes using mechanical means to remove trees from I I acres of Riparian Conservation Area and to use end-lining to pull logs across the ground in 7.6 acres (See Table 3). Many of these trees are dead and do not provide shade, nor were they deciduous riparian associates. Co11servatio11 Measures J, g, lz, i, j, k, m, q, r, s, t, and u are meant to reduce the risk of erosion and subsequent sedimentation of streams during project activities. For the landing (6) in the Riparian Conservation Area, Co11servatio11 Measurej is particularly important to minimize the effects on water quality and Mountain Yellow-legged Frog habitat. The Streamside Management Zone (SMZ) with no mechanical treatment further protects the stream from sedimentation. Co11servatio11 Measures e, I, wand x reduce the risk of introducing chytrid fungus, weeds, chemicals, or trash into the habitat further protecting stream water quality.

Riparian habitats provide shading for streams to optimize light and temperature for aquatic plants and animals. They function as a source of dissolved carbon compounds and organic detritus critical to the processes within the stream itself. Well-shaded upland small streams have as much as 75% of the organic food base supplied from the forest canopy where the base of the aquatic food chain is formed. Goals from the Sierra Nevada Plan Amendment 2004 include maintain and restore the species composition and structural diversity of plant and animal communities in riparian areas, wetlands, and meadows to provide desired habitats and ecological functions. While many of the upland pine species are dead or dying from drought, vegetation along perennial, intermittent, and ephemeral streams appeared healthy in 2016. Disturbance to this vegetation will be minimized by the protection of the I 00 feet (SMZ) around streams and meadows. Only hazard trees will be felled in this area. No end lining or dragging logs out of this area is permitted. Therefore, the native riparian vegetation and its functions should be protected. The felling of hazard trees in the SMZ is within Mountain Yellow-legged Frog (MYLF) Suitable Habitat. Co11servation Measures m, 11, o, q, s, t, u, v, w, x, a11d y are meant to protect MYLF habitat and individuals directly.

While riparian areas can provide coarse woody material to streams, removal of large trees from the area will reduce the source of large wood (Fetherston et al. 1995) for insects, resting areas, deeper stream pools and other components of habitat for amphibians. regulate stream temperature (Beschta 1997), define channel structure and function by contributing woody debris and aiding in bank stability, and mediate allochthonous (from outside the stream) and autochthonous (from algae in the stream) energy pathways by affecting the amount of incident sunlight and controlling the amount and timing of organic matter entering and leaving the stream (Naiman and Decamps 1990, Perkins and Hunter 2006). Live trees over 30 inches dph or larger

2 1 Biological Assessment- Lucas Creek Project will be left on site (Conservation Measure q) will provide future shade, snags, or large wood. This project as described above will meet a minimum of 4 snags per acre guidelines as prescribed in the Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment.

Prescribed fire and burning piles are part of the project as proposed. The timing of fire is important for amphibians. Prescribed fires in late fall or when nighttime temperatures are cold in the fall and early winter are ideal times for partially burning habitat for this species. No direct lighting of the 100 feet around streams and meadows is for the protection of the species and its habitat. Burning piles within the 100 feet out from streams or meadows would likely burn amphibians hidden under the piles. However back burning into the habitat when temperatures are cool will reduce fuels and make the habitat more resilient to future fires within the natural fire return interval. In the late fall and early winter it is unlikely that any amphibians will be moving around out in the open. Amphibians do use large logs, thus removing or burning downed logs and bark, especially large diameter pieces is destructive. Conservation measures n, o, and p minimize the effects of fire on the species and its habitat and in the project area.

The protection of the streams from sedimentation derived from the project through the protection of the Riparian Conservation Areas, the additional protections from soil disturbance in the 100 feet around streams and meadows, the Conservation Measures to further protect habitat, the small size of the overall project area, the small number of acres of MYLF suitable habitat ( 1.5) that may require hand felling of hazard trees; all contribute to a minimization of the effects of this project on Mountain Yellow legged frog and their habitat. If none of the meadows (Breckenridge and Munzer) are crossed with a new or reconstructed road, no detrimental or beneficial effects on Mountain Yellow-legged frogs would be anticipated.

Both indirect and direct effects on habitat would be minimized if these Conservation Measures are used during the project implementation. Therefore, as long as the Conservation measures are implemented and no disturbance of meadows or streams occurs, my determination of the direct and indirect effects of this project on Mountain Yellow-legged Frogs is that of "No Effect".

Relictual Slender Salamander

This species is a very rare species which is sensitive to road building and obstruction of springs, seeps, and flows into moist areas (http://www.californiaherps.com/salamanders/pages/b.relictus.html). A population of Relictual Slender Salamander was destroyed when a logging road was routed through a seep which destroyed the habitat in 1983. Currently known from only two locations separated by 3.1 miles (5 km) making the range extremely limited and vulnerable. Relictual slender salamander habitat is closely associated with seeps moist areas and large wood, especially decaying wood (http://www.californiaherps.com/salamanders/pages/b.relictus.html). Reusing or reconstructing temporary roads which go through seeps or using non- forest service roads through seeps or meadow soils will negatively influence the habitat for this species and potentially destroy individuals of the species. Areas which contain springs, seeps, ephemeral and intermittent streams are prime habitat for this species.

This project proposes using mechanical means to remove trees from 11 acres of Riparian Conservation Area and to use end-lining to pull logs across the ground in 7.6 acres (See Table 3).

22 Biological Assessment- Lucas Creek Project

Conservation Measure g is very important for prevention of disturbance to Relictual Slender Salamander habitat. Conservation Measures f, g, h, i, j, k, m, q, r, s, t, and u are meant to reduce the risk of soil disturbance and repair damage once done. The Streamside Management Zone (SMZ) including those for intermittent and ephemeral streams has no mechanical treatment which further protects the ground from disturbance. Conservation Measures e, l, w and x reduce the risk of introducing chytrid fungus, weeds, chemicals, or trash into the habitat further protecting this species habitat.

While many of the upland pine species are dead or dying from drought, vegetation along perennial, intermittent, and ephemeral streams appeared healthy in 2016. Disturbance to this vegetation will be minimized by the protection of the I 00 feet (SMZ) around intermittent and perennial streams (75 feet on either side of ephemeral streams) and meadows. Mitigating the detrimental effects of canopy removal, higher surface temperature, and loss of soil-litter moisture in terrestrial habitats (Semlitsch et al. 2009) adjacent to ephemeral and intermittent streams is critical to maintaining viable amphibian populations. Only hazard trees (a safety threat) will be felled in these areas. No end lining or dragging logs out of this area is permitted. Therefore, the native riparian vegetation and its functions should be protected. Removing or burning downed logs and bark, especially large diameter pieces can have a negative effect on habitat for this slender salamander; downed wood in various stages of decay provides shelter and egg-laying sites. Therefore, Conservation Measure o and p are essential for conservation of salamander habitat. The felling of hazard trees in the SMZ is within Mountain Yellow-legged Frog Suitable Habitat and will provide habitat for salamanders if logs are left in place. Conservation Measures m, n, q, s, t, v, w, x, and y are meant to protect salamander habitat and individuals directly.

While riparian areas can provide coarse woody material to streams, removal of large trees from the area will reduce the source of large wood (Fetherston et al. 1995) for insects, resting areas, contributing large woody debris. Slender salamanders were strongly associated with abundance of large woody debris (Homyack and Kroll 2014). Gaps in the canopy influence energy pathways by affecting the amount of incident sunlight (Perkins and Hunter 2006). Live trees over 30 inches dph or larger left on site (Conservation Measure q) will provide future shade, snags, or large wood which is good quality habitat for this species. This project as described above will meet a minimum of 4 snags per acre guidelines as prescribed in the Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment. If downed trees are left in streamside management areas, they will eventually provide good quality habitat for slender salamanders. Balancing fuel reduction with salamander habitat could be achieved by removing all trees that can be removed from the riparian conservation areas without damaging soils (no end lining and limited entry into RCA).

Microhabitat alterations can cause increased microhabitat temperatures, decreased moisture conditions, and altered hydrological patterns (Olson and. Crisafulli 2014). Since microhabitat alterations can occur with reconstruction of a temporary road through a seep or direct ground disturbances to streamside areas, seeps, and moist rocky areas, it is important to eliminate this source of damage within the streamside management zones (SMZ); and minimize in the Riparian conservation areas. The lack of mechanization or direct lighting in the SMZ (Conservation Measure m, n, o, and p) will reduce erosion, retain shading to reduce alteration of temperatures; and reduce peak flow variability (Olson and Crisafulli 2014).

23 Biological Assessment- Lucas Creek Project

Prescribed fire and burning piles are part of the project as proposed. The timing of fire is critically important for amphibians. Prescribed fires in late fall or when nighttime temperatures are cold in the fall and early winter are ideal times for partially burning habitat for this species. No direct lighting of the I 00 feet around all stream types and meadows is for the protection of the species and its habitat. Burning piles or large wood within the I 00 feet from streams or meadows would likely burn amphibians hidden under the piles. However back burning into the habitat when temperatures are cool will reduce fuels and make the habitat more resilient to future fires within the natural fire return interval. A mosaic of low intensity fire can reduce fuels in the riparian areas without consuming much of the large wood. Fire may be the mechanism to provide habitat variability and to open the canopy in small patches, benefitting amphibians by providing openings to warm the species (Kleindl et al. 2015). In the late fall and early winter it is unlikely that any amphibians will be moving around out in the open. Amphibians do use large logs for shelter, thus removing or burning downed logs and bark, especially large diameter pieces cold kill individuals. Conservation measures n, o, and p minimize the effects of fire on the species and its habitat in the project area. While aquatic or semiaquatic species populations in intact ecosystems tend to be resilient to habitat changes caused by wildfire over the long term (Hossack and Honeycutt 2017), these slender salamanders have such a restricted range that working to minimize the risk of moderate and especially severe wildfire is important.

The protection of the streams from sedimentation derived from the project through the protection of the Riparian Conservation Areas, the additional protections from soil disturbance in the I 00 feet around streams and meadows (Olson et al. 20 I4 ), the Conservation Measures to further protect habitat, the small number of acres ( 1.5) that may require hand felling of hazard trees; all contribute to a minimization of the effects of this project on Relictual Slender Salamanders and their habitat.

Both indirect and direct effects on habitat would be minimized if these Conservation Measures are used during the project implementation. Therefore, as long as the Conservation measures are implemented and no disturbance of meadows or any class of streams occurs, my determination of the direct and indirect effects of this project on Relictual Salamander is that of "No Effect".

VII. CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ANALYSIS

For the purposes of ESA consultation, cumulative effects is limited to those effects contributed by future State or private actions, not involving Federal actions, that are reasonably certain to occur within the action area of the Federal action subject to consultation (50 CFR 402.02). Under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) forests are required to evaluate actions on Federal lands and those known on private lands within the cumulative effects area of consideration. Information has been provided to meet both ESA and NEPA requirements. The CE analysis area for each species varies and was based on its anticipated home range extent and other factors

Southwestern Willow Flycatcher Southwestern Willow Flycatchers are Neotropical migrants. The area for consideration for cumulative effects includes the project area (21 0acres), and the action area of Munzer and

24 Biological Assessment- Lucas Creek Project

Brekinridge Meadows, and Lucas Creek down to the Kern River. Mesic riparian habitats that willow flycatchers require in the West are rare and have been severely impacted over the last century (Appendix E ,USFWS 2002). This project area is not within Critical Habitat, nor based on the lack for a continuous patches of riparian habitat would it appear that the project area is a migration pathway for this species. Actions taken by private landowners within the project area (220 acres) have had an influence on meadow hydrology in this area. Unauthorized roads that have crossed meadows have degraded parts of the meadows. Legacy land use has resulted in the loss of soils from Breckenridge Meadow. As part of this project, the access routes and unauthorized routes will be examined for compliance with golicy_; and may be gated for emergency use only and closed to normal access. None of these areas contain wet meadows with standing water in the early summer or large willow stands required by this species. Lucas Creek is a perennial stream which flows in to the Kern River below the Critical Habitat for this species on the South Fork Kern. The mouth of this creek may be an important component of the migration corridor for Southwestern Willow Flycatchers. The action area is within an Inventoried Roadless Area below the project area. While Off Road Vehicle trails may occur in these areas, we do not anticipate any private or State actions in this area other than the cooperative firefighting that may occur during wildland fires. Therefore, due to the small size of this project area and the protections in the action area, future cumulative effects from private or state actions are not expected to have an effect on habitat or individuals of this species.

Due to small size of the project area, limited public access into the action area, and the unlikely use of this mountain top area by Southwestern Willow Flycatcher during migration, cumulative effects from state and private activities should not affect the species.

Climate Change In Califonia, migratory birds depend on timing their movements with environmental cues and are thought to be extremely vulnerable to climate change (Gardali et al 2012). Southwestern Willow flycatcher were considered to be very sensitive to changing climatic conditions because they are long distance neotropical migrants and depend on wetlands (Gardali et al 2012). Climate vulnerability was calculated based on distance travelled, habitat specialization, species interactions, dispersal ability, and physiological tolerances. Species physiological responses to extreme heat or dryness can inform population persistence and range shifts (Urban et al. 2016). This species is vulnerable to changes in habitat suitability due to its reliance on wetlands (Gardali et al 2012); and the vulnerability of wetlands to climate change (Viers et al. 2013 ). Climate vulnerability analyses indicate that South America has a very high risk of species extinction associated with climate change (Urban 2015). Extinction risks from climate change are expected to accelerate for every degree rise in global temperatures. Due to its dependence on wetlands, this species is very vulnerable to changes in habitat from anthropogenic causes and increases in temperature (Urban 2015).

California Condor The condor's ability to traverse much of the Forest in a day, the CE boundary for the assessment of cumulative effects was defined to encompass a total of 129,680 acres. This includes 122,360 acres on National Forest System lands, and 7,320 acres on private property (inholdings). Collectively these areas encompass the Glennville/Woody essential condor habitat that overlaps with Sequoia National Forest, and the majority of documented roost locations, and the historic

25 Biological Assessment- Lucas Creek Project nest site located at Starvation Grove within the Western Divide Ranger District. Stressors include lead shot in carcasses, human disturbance and loss

Hunting is permitted across the forest and is governed by State permits. The most prominent mortality factor for California Condors was lead poisoning resulting from ingestion of bullet fragments in carcasses (Meretsky et al. 2000). Effective July I, 2008, the California Fish and Game Commission modified the methods of take to prohibit the use of projectiles containing lead when hunting big game and nongame species in an area designated as the California condor range. Therefore, hunting on the forest should not be contributing to the mortality of individuals of this species.

The closest location for historic Condor nesting was in the Starvation Grove of Giant Sequoias. This grove is also the furthest south. Fire in the giant sequoia-mixed conifer forest restores function to the ecosystem. Fire in this forest (I) prepares a seedbed; (2) cycles nutrients; (3) sets back succession in certain relatively small areas; (4) provides conditions which favor wildlife; (5) provides a mosaic of age classes and vegetation types; (6) reduces numbers of trees susceptible to attack by insects and disease; and (7) reduces fire hazards. Fire Suppression led to thickets of fir or conifers which provide fuel which could support a crown fire fatal to even mature sequoias. However, the recent Meadow, Slate, and Hidden Fires burned up to and within the Sequoia Groves. Management of these wildfires by the forest resulted in reduction of fuels, and a restoration of a natural fire return interval. Even the Rough Fire had only a small percentage of high severity burn areas (https://inciweb.nwcg.gov/incident/map/4625/1/50819/ ). The majority of the area has a low burn severity. Almost all Giant Sequoia Trees are still present across the forest since it is a fire adapted species; the groves are expected to continue into the future.

Due to small size of the project area, limited public access into the area below, and the lack of recent use of this mountain top area by California Condor during daily movements, roosting or nesting, cumulative effects from state and private activities should not affect the species.

Climate Change California Condors were not judged to be vulnerable to climate change using the criteria of Gardali et al 2012. Climate change has been suggested as a contributing agent to an increase in intensity and severity of wildfires. Wildfires occur in a randomly distribution across the landscape. Approximately 75 acres of the 3,833-acre Basket Pass condor roost area was burned as a result of the Shirley Fire. However, this fire altered less than 2% of habitats within the mapped Basket Pass roost area and therefore presented little measurable impact altering its potential future use. While the current assessment is that California Condors are not influenced by climate change, an uncertain future may change this assessment.

Mountain Yellow-legged Frogs

The area used for cumulative effects analysis is the area of Breckenridge Mountain ( 18 acres), and Lucas Creek. Stressors in the analysis area for mountain yellow-legged frogs include changing hydrograph (Brown et al 2014a, USFWS 2014). These stressors are broad and cover the action area.

26 Biological Assessment- Lucas Creek Project

The area for consideration for cumulative effects includes the project area (2 I 0acres) and an action area down Lucas Creek down to the Kern River. This project area is not within Critical Habitat. Actions taken by private landowners within the project area (220 acres) have had an influence on meadow hydrology in this area. Unauthorized roads that have crossed meadows have degraded parts of the meadows. Legacy land use has resulted in the loss of soils from Breckenridge Meadow. As part of this project, the access routes and unauthorized routes should be examined for compliance with policy; and may be gated for emergency use only and closed to normal access. However, routing even emergency egress would be damaging to the meadow soils and can alter hydrology. Lucas Creek is a perennial stream which flows in to the Kern River and could provide connectivity for this species. However, the action area is within an Inventoried Roadless Area below the project area. While Off Road Vehicle trails may occur in these areas, we do not anticipate any private or State actions in this area other than the cooperative firefighting that may occur during wildland fires.

While past and legacy actions may have damaged Mountain Yellow Legged Frog Habitat, future private or non-federal actions are highly unlikely to further damage habitat in this project area. Protections (Inventoried Roadless Area) in the action area minimize any future non - federal actions, except during wildfire which is done in close coordination with the Forest Service. Future cumulative effects from private or state actions are not expected to have an effect on habitat or individuals of this species.

Climate Change:

Climate change has been suggested as a contributing agent in the decline of amphibians (Walther 2002). California anticipates warmer temperatures, accompanied by altered patterns of precipitation and runoff related to climate change (Brown et al. 20 I 4b ). The Luca Creek Project is within an elevation zone characterized as having warm/hot summers (varies by elevation) and cold winters. As climatic temperatures increase, more precipitation is projected to fall as rain versus snow resulting in more rain on snow events, earlier snowmelt, and smaller spring snowpack. Spring runoff is occurring earlier in the year and fraction of runoff occurring in the spring is decreasing. Amphibian and reptile populations respond to changes and variability in air or water temperature associated with climate change (Lind 2008, Olson and Saenz 20 I 3). The MYLF also has a short active season, must overwinter in aquatic habitats for about nine months each year, and requires perennial water for reproduction (Bradford I 983, Matthews and Pope I 999, Lacan et al. 2008). Reduced snow pack and increased evapotranspiration may result in desiccation of some breeding ponds which in turn may reduce breeding success (Lacan et al. 2008). Rising temperatures and early snowmelt may influence behavior, timing of reproduction and other phonological events, the duration of tadpole development, and resulting effects on survivorship of this species (Blaustein et al. 2010, Walls et al. 20 I 3 ). The cumulative impacts of climate change including warming temperatures and changing hydrology may have an adverse cumulative effect on mountain yellow-legged frogs and their habitat. Relictual Slender Salamander

The area for consideration for cumulative effects includes the project area (21 0acres), and Lucas Creek and its tributaries down to the Kern River. Actions taken by private landowners within the project area (220 acres) have had an influence on meadow and some small tributaries habitat in

27 Biological Assessment- Lucas Creek Project the past. Unauthorized roads that cross meadows and seeps degrade amphibian habitat (Beebee 2013, Andrews et al. 2008). Legacy land use has resulted in the loss of soils from Breckenridge Meadow. As part of this project, the access routes and unauthorized routes should be examined for compliance with policy; and may be gated for emergency use only, closed to normal access, or closed permanently. However, past routing already destroyed seep habitat for these salamanders (http://www.californiaherps.com/salamanders/pages/b.relictus.html ). Passage of wheeled vehicles through a meadow would be damaging to the meadow soils and can alter hydrology. Lucas Creek is a perennial stream which flows in to the Kern River and could provide connectivity for this species. However, the action area is within an Inventoried Roadless Area below the project area. While Off Road Vehicle trails may occur in these areas, we do not anticipate any private or State actions in this area other than the cooperative firefighting that may occur during wildland fires.

While past and legacy actions may have damaged Relictual Salamander Habitat, future private or non-federal actions are unlikely to further damage habitat in this project area as long as the user created routes are closed and enforcement of USFS policies are used to prevent further damage by private land owners .. Protections (Inventoried Roadless Area) in the action area minimize any future non - federal actions, except during wildfire which is done in close coordination with the Forest Service. Future cumulative effects from private or state actions are not expected to have an effect on habitat or individuals of this species.

Climate Change

Climate change is expected to be the biggest future challenge to the persistence of amphibian species (Shoo et al. 2011,Walther 2002). California anticipates warmer temperatures, accompanied by altered patterns of precipitation and runoff related to climate change (Brown et al. 2014b ). The Lucas Creek Project is within an elevation zone characterized as having warm/hot summers (varies by elevation) and cold winters. As climatic temperatures increase, more precipitation is projected to fall as rain versus snow resulting in more rain on snow events, earlier snowmelt, and smaller spring snowpack. Spring runoff is occurring earlier in the year and fraction of runoff occurring in the spring is decreasing. Amphibian and reptile populations respond to changes and variability in air or water temperature associated with climate change (Lind 2008, Olson and Saenz 2013). Amphibians are extremely sensitive to temperature and moisture conditions, Summer flow regimes at seeps and small streams are important for this species. Altered climate could have severe consequences for habitat spatial distribution, and habitat fragmentation. Like other similar salamander species, Relictual Salamanders have low mobility and di spersal capabilities; this suggests that local populations could be isolated or lost if temperature and moisture conditions change beyond the animal 's tolerance limits.

VIII. DETERMINATION

Southwestern Willow Flycatcher

Existing nesting locations are within Critical Habitat on the South Fork Kern River. This Neotropical migrant uses riparian areas to move along migration corridors outside of the project area. Therefore, it is my determination that implementation of Lucas Creek Project will have

28 Biological Assessment- Lucas Creek Project

No Effect on the Southwestern Willow Flycatcher. It is also my determination that the Lucas Creek Project will have No Effect on designated Critical Habitat for the Southwestern Willow Flycatcher.

California Condor

Existing historic roost locations most consistently used do not occur within the project area and would not be altered. Therefore, it is my determination that implementation of Lucas Creek ErojecLwill have No Effect.on the California Condor or its Roosting HabitaLltis also_my determination that the Lucas Creek Project will have No Effect on designated Critical Habitat for the California Condor. The project area is removed from any designated critical habitat.

Mountain Yellow-Legged Frog

My determination is that the Lucas Creek Project will have No Effect on Mountain Yellow­ legged Frog and its suitable habitat. This finding is based on the assumption that the Conservation Measures and Best Management practices will be implemented. It is also my determination that the Lucas Creek Project will have No Effect on Critical Habitat for the Mountain Yellow-legged Frog.

Relictual Slender Salamander

The Lucas Creek Project should not have a negative effect on the remaining salamander populations in the area. This finding is based on the assumption that the Conservation Measures and Best Management practices will be implemented.

IX. REFERENCES

Andrews, K.M., J.W. Gibbons, and D.M. Jochimsen. 2008. Ecological effects of roads on amphibians and reptiles: A literature review. Pages 121-143 in Mitchell, J.C., Brown, R.E.J., B. Bartholomew (editors). Urban Herpetology. Society for the Study of Amphibians and Reptiles.

Beebee, T.J.C. 2013. Effects of Road Mortality and Mitigation Measures on Amphibian Populations. Conservation Biology 27:657- 668.

Beschta, R. L. ( 1997).Riparian shade and stream temperature: an alternative perspective. Rangelands, 25-28.

Blaustein, A.R., Walls, S.C., Bancroft, B.A., Lawler, J.J., Searle, C.L. and S.S. Gervasi. 2010. Direct and indirect effects of climate change on amphibian populations. Diversity 2:281-313.

Bradford, D.F. 1983. Winterkill, oxygen relations, and energy metabolism of a submerged dormant amphibian, Rana muscosa. Ecology 64: 1171-1183.

29 Biological Assessment- Lucas Creek Project

Brown, C., Wilkinson, L., and K. Kiehl. 20 I 4a. Comparing the Status of two Sympatric Amphibians in the Sierra Nevada, California: Insights on Ecological Risk and Monitoring Common Species. Journal of Herpetology 48:74-83. 2014.

Brown,C.,M.P. Hayes, G.A. Green, and D.C. Macfarlane. 2014b. Mountain Yellow-Legged Frog Conservation Assessment for the Sierra Nevada Mountains of California, USA. R5-TP-038. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region, Vallejo, CA. USA I 28pp.

Feder, M.E., 1983. Integrating the ecology and physiology of plethodontid salamanders. Herpetologica, pp.291-310.

Fetherston, K. L., Naiman, R. J., & Bilby, R. E. ( 1995). Large woody debris, physical process, and riparian forest development in montane river networks of the Pacific Northwest. Geomorphology, I 3(1 ), I 33-144.

Gardali, T., Seavy, N.E., DiGaudio, R.T. and Comrack, L.A., 2012. A climate change vulnerability assessment of California's at-risk birds. PLoS One, 7(3), p.e29507.

Gibbons, J. W. (2003). Terrestrial habitat: a vital component for herpetofauna of isolated wetlands. Wetlands, 23(3), 630-635.

Grinnnell, J. and T.I. Storer 1924. Animal Life in the Yosemite. An Account of the Mammals, Birds, Reptiles, And Amphibians in a Cross-Section of the Sierra Nevada © 1924, University of California Press Museum of Vertebrate Zoology https://www.nps.gov/parkhistory/online books/ grpo/conten ts .htm

Hicks, B. J., Hall, J. D., Bisson, P. A., & Sedell, J. R. (1991 ). Responses of salmonids to habitat changes. In W.R. Meehan (Ed.), Influences of Forest and Rangeland Management on Salmonid Habitat: American Fisheries Society Special Publication 19 (pp 483-518). Bethesda, Maryland: American Fisheries Society.Publisher: American Fisheries Society

Hossack, B.R. and Honeycutt, R.K., 2017. Declines revisited: Long-term recovery and spatial population dynamics of tailed frog larvae after wildfire. Biological conservation, 212, pp.274- 278.

Homyack, J.A. and Kroll, A.J., 2014. Slow lives in the fast landscape: conservation and management of Plethodontid salamanders in production forests of the United States. Forests, 5( 11 ), pp.2750-2772.

Jockusch, E. L., D. B. Wake, and K. P. Yanev. 1998.New species of slender salamanders, Batrachoseps (Amphibia: Plethodontidae), from the Sierra Nevada of California." Contributions in Science, Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County, #472.

Jockusch, Elizabeth L., Inigo Martinez-Solano, Robert W. Hansen, & David B. Wake. 2012. Morphological and molecular diversification of slender salamanders (Caudata: Plethodontidae:

30 Biological Assessment- Lucas Creek Project

Batrachoseps) in the southern Sierra Nevada of California with descriptions of two new species. Zootaxa 3 I 90: 1-30 (20 I 2)

Kleindl, W. J., M. C. Rains, L.A. Marshall, and F. R. Hauer, "Fire and flood expand the floodplain shifting habitat mosaic concept," Freshwater Science 34, no. 4 (December 20 I 5): 1366-1382.

Lacan, I., K. Matthews, and K. Feldman. 2008. Interaction of an introduced predator with future effects of climate change in the recruitment dynamics of the imperiled Sierra Nevada yellow­ legged frog (Rana sierrae). Herpetological Conservation andl3iology 3:211 - 223.

Lind, A. J. 2008. Amphibians and Reptiles and Climate Change. (May 20, 2008). U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Climate Change Resource Center. http://www.fs.fed.us/ccrc/topics/wildlife/reptiles-amphibians.shtml

Mahaney, P.A. 1994. The effects of freshwater petroleum contamination on amphibian hatching and metamorphosis. Environmental Toxicology I 3:259-265.

Matthews, K.R. and K.L. Pope. 1999. A telemetric study of the movement patterns and habitat use of Rana muscosa, the mountain yellow-legged frog, in a high-elevation basin in Kings Canyon National Park, California. Journal of Herpetology 33:6 I 5-623.

Meretsky, V.J., Snyder, N.F., Beissinger, S.R., Clendenen, D.A. and Wiley, J.W., 2000. Demography of the California Condor: implications for reestablishment. Conservation Biology, 14(4), pp.957-967.

Naiman RJ, and H. Decamps I 997. The ecology of interfaces-riparian zones. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 28: 621-658.

NPS 2018. (NPS accessed January 5, 2018) .. https://www.nps.gov/articles/southwestern­ willow-flycatcher.htm )

Olson, D.H.; and Saenz, D. 2013. Climate Change and Amphibians. (March, 2013). U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Climate Change Resource Center. www .fs. usda. gov /ccrc/topics/wildl ife/amphibians/

Olson, D.H., Aanensen, D.M., Ronnenberg, K.L., Powell, C.I., Walker, S.F., Bielby, J., Garner, T.W., Weaver, G. and Fisher, M.C., 2013. Mapping the global emergence of Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis, the amphibian chytrid fungus. PloS one, 8(2), p.e56802.

Olson, D.H. and C.M. Crisafulli. 2014. Conservation Assessment for the Van Dyke's Salamander (Plethodon vandykei) Version 1.0 August 21, 2014. https://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/lwrn/aern/docs/olson/2015 olson crisafulli ca ha plethodon vandyk e1 201408.pdf

31 Biological Assessment- Lucas Creek Project

Olson, D.H., Leirness, J.B., Cunningham, P.G. and Steel, E.A., 2014. Riparian buffers and forest thinning: Effects on headwater vertebrates I 0years after thinning. Forest ecology and management, 321, pp.81-93.

Perkins, D. W., & Hunter, Jr, M. L. (2006). Use of amphibians to define riparian zones of headwater streams. Canadian Journal of Forest Research, 36(9), 2124-2130.

Ryan, M.E., Palen, W.J., Adams, M.J. and Rochefort, R.M., 2014. Amphibians in the climate vise: loss and restoration of resilience of montane wetland ecosystems in the western US. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 12(4), pp.232-240.

Semlitsch, R.D., Todd, B.D., Blomquist, S.M., Calhoun, A.J., Gibbons, J.W., Gibbs, J.P., Graeter, G.J., Harper, E.B., Hocking, D.J., Hunter Jr, M.L. and Patrick, D.A., 2009. Effects of timber harvest on amphibian populations: understanding mechanisms from forest experiments. BioScience, 59( 10), pp.853-862.

Stone, KA. 2017. Soils and Watershed Specialist Report, Lucas Creek Project, Sequoia National Forest.

Storer, T. I. 1925. A synopsis of the Amphibia of California. University of California Publications in Zoology 27: 1-342, 18 pl.

United States Department Agriculture (USDA), Forest Service. 1988. Sequoia National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan. Porterville, Calif.

USDA, Forest Service. January 200 I. Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment Final Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision. Pacific Southwest Region, San Francisco, California.

USDA, Forest Service. January 2004. Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision. Pacific Southwest Region, San Francisco, California.

USDA, Forest Service. 2013: Aquatic Species Biological Assessment and Biological Evaluation for the Bald Mountain Project (Ecological Restoration and Fuels Reduction). High Sierra Ranger District, Sierra National Forest, Fresno County, California.

USDA, Forest Service.2014. Biological Assessment For Actions That Affect The Sierra Nevada Yellow-Legged Frog, N. DPS Mountain Yellow-Legged Frog, and Yosemite Toad on National Forest Lands in The Sierra Nevada. Pacific Southwest Region, Vallejo, California.

USFWS 1998. Recovery Plan for Upland Species of the San Joaquin Valley, California. Daniel F. Williams', Ellen A. Cypher', Patrick A. Kelly', Karen J. Miller2, Nancy Norvell, Scott F. Phillips', Cheryl D. Johnson', and Gary W. Colliver' Region 1,U. S Fish and Wildlife Service Portland, Oregon

32 Biological Assessment- Lucas Creek Project

USFWS, Fish and Wildlife Service. 1996. California Condor Recovery Plan, Third Revision. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, Oregon.

USFWS,. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2002. Southwestern Willow Flycatcher Recovery Plan. Albuquerque, New Mexico. i-ix + 210 pp., Appendices A-O.

USFWS, Fish and Wildlife Service. 2003. Historical Observation Data I 982 through I 987. Ventura Fish and Wildlife Service Office, GIS. August 2003.

USFWS, Fish and Wildlife Service. 2003. Satellite Telemetry Data by Season Through October, 2002. Ventura Fish and Wildlife Service Office, GIS. August 2003.

USFWS 2007. September 2007. Kern primrose sphinx moth (Euproserpinus euterpe) 5-Year Review:Summary and Evaluation U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Field Office Sacramento, California.

USFWS 201 l. Bakersfield cactus (Opuntia treleasei = Opuntia basilaris var. treleasei) 5-Year Review: Summary and Evaluation U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office Sacramento, California. September 2011

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2012. Species Profile. Southwestern willow flycatcher (f:mpidonax trailii extimus). Environmental Conservation Online System. Available at http://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/ speciesProfile.action?spcode=B094 (accessed 20 December 2017).

USFWS, Fish and Wildlife Service. Pacific Southwest Region. 2013. California Condor 5-Year Review: Summary and Evaluation. June 2013.

USFWS, Fish and Wildlife Service. 2014 Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; Endangered status for the Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog and the northern district population segment of the mountain yellow-legged frog, and threatened status for the Yosemite toad. Federal Register 79:24256-245310.

USFWS, Fish and Wildlife Service. 2014. Programmatic Biological Opinion on Nine Forest Programs on Nine National Forests in the Sierra Nevada of California for the Endangered Sierra Nevada Yellow-legged Frog, Endangered Northern Distinct Population Segment of the Mountain Yellow-legged Frog, and Threatened Yosemite Toad.

Urban, M.C., Bocedi, G., Hendry, A.P., Mihoub, J.B., Pe'er, G., Singer, A., Bridle, J.R., Crozier, L.G., De Meester, L., Godsoe, W. and Gonzalez, A., 2016. Improving the forecast for biodiversity under climate change. Science, 353(6304), p8466.

Urban, M.C., 2015. Accelerating extinction risk from climate change. Science, 348(6234 ), pp.571-573.

33 Biological Assessment- Lucas Creek Project

Viers, JH, SE Purdy, RA Peek, A Fryjoff-Hung, NR Santos, JVE Katz, JD Emmons, DY Dolan, and SM Yarnell. 2013.Montane Meadows in the Sierra Nevada: Changing Hydroclimatic Conditions and Concepts for Vulnerability Assessment. Center for Watershed Sciences Technical Report (CWS-20 I 3-0 I), University of California, Davis. 63pp.

Vredenburg, Y.T., R. Bingham, R. Knapp, J.A.T. Morgan, C. Moritz, and D. Wake. 2007. Concordant molecular and phenotypic data delineate new taxonomy and conservation priorities for the endangered mountain yellow-legged frog. Journal of Zoology 271 :361 - 374.

Walls, S.C., W.J. Barichivich, and M.E. Brown. 2013. Drought, Deluge and Declines: The Impact of Precipitation Extremes on Amphibians in a Changing Climate. Biology 2:399-418.

Walther, G.-R., E. Post, P. Convey, A. Menzel, C. Parmesan, T. J. Beebee, J.-M. Fromentin, Ove Hoegh-Guldberg, and F. Bairlein. (2002). Ecological responses to recent climate change. Nature, 416(6879), 389-395

34