BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT/EVALUATION, NON-NATIVE SPECIES RISK ASSESSMENT, WILDLIFE AND BOTANY REPORTS, and MANAGEMENT INDICATOR SPECIES EVALUATIONS for the MILLER CANYON OHV STAGING AREA Mountaintop Ranger District San Bernardino National Forest

Prepared by: /s/ Deveree Kopp July 26, 2013 Deveree Kopp, Botanist Date

Prepared by: /s/ Robin Eliason July 26, 2013 Robin Eliason, Wildlife Biologist Date

SUMMARY This report addresses the potential effects of the proposed project on Threatened, Endangered, Sensitive, Watchlist, Management Indicator Species, and general vegetation and wildlife that are known or likely to occur at the Miller Canyon OHV staging area project. The purpose and need for the project is to reduce effects to riparian habitat, riparian-dependent species, and archaeological sites while providing a designated staging area for OHVs to access the associated green sticker trail system.

The San Bernardino National Forest (SBNF) proposes to designate an official staging area on Forest Road 2N37 in Miller Canyon. This document assesses the potential effects associated with the proposed action, three alternatives, and the “no action” alternative.

Because the proposed staging area alternatives would not be larger than the existing staging area, no change in use of the connected OHV trails (approximately 20 miles) would result from any of the proposed staging area sites. As such, this document will only analyze the potential effects of the staging areas themselves, not the OHV trail network connected to the staging area.

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 Species and Critical Habitat The Miller Canyon project area contains suitable habitat for five Threatened/Endangered (T/E) animals: southwestern willow flycatcher, least Bell’s vireo, arroyo toad, California red-legged frog, and mountain yellow-legged frog. None of these species are currently known from Miller Canyon but there have not been enough recent protocol-level surveys to determine that they do not occur. No proposed or designated Critical Habitat for any animals occurs within the project area or with the range of potential effects. Table 1 summarizes the “determinations of effects”.

No federally-listed T/E plant species are known or expected to occur in the project area. No designated Critical Habitat is present in the project area. The determination of effects for T/E plant species and their designated Critical Habitat is “no effect”.

Depending on which alternative is selected, Section 7 Endangered Species Act compliance for southwestern willow flycatcher, arroyo toad, and least Bell’s vireo would be achieved through Section 7 consultation.

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” (Table 1).

No Forest Service Sensitive plant species are known from within or adjacent to the staging area sites. There are two Sensitive plants species in the Miller Canyon area but they are not present at the staging area sites. The determinations of effects for all of the Sensitive plant species is “No Effect” (Table 1).

Page 2

SBNF Watchlist Species No threat to the viability of any of the SBNF Watchlist animals or plants, or other potentially vulnerable species, is expected from the proposed project (Table 1).

Summary of Determinations Table 1 provides a summary of species known to occur in or adjacent to the project area or those with a high probability of occurrence. Other sections of this document display all of the species considered in this evaluation. In addition, the following Management Indicator Species were evaluated for this project: mule deer, mountain lion, California spotted owl, and song sparrow.

Table 1. Summary Of Effects Determinations For TESW Species In And Near the Project Area Common Name Occurrence Information1 Determinations 2 Threatened and Endangered Animals Mohave tui chub Considered extirpated from E. Fk. W. Fk. Mojave NE River Arroyo toad Considered extirpated from E. Fk. W. Fk. Mojave May Affect – all River alternatives California red-legged frog Considered extirpated from E. Fk. W. Fk. Mojave NE River Mountain yellow-legged frog Considered extirpated from E. Fk. W. Fk. Mojave NE River southwestern willow flycatcher (E) Potential for nesting – Houston Creek and E. Fk. W. May Affect – Fk. Mojave River, unnamed tributary Proposed Action and No Action; NE-Alts 1, 2, 3 least Bell’s vireo Potential for nesting – Houston Creek and E. Fk. W. May Affect – Fk. Mojave River, unnamed tributary Proposed Action and No Action; NE-Alts 1, 2, 3 Forest Service Sensitive Animals large-blotched ensatina L MAI; NTV yellow-blotched ensatina L MAI; NTV southern rubber boa P MAI; NTV northern three-lined boa L MAI; NTV San Bernardino ringneck snake Y MAI; NTV San Bernardino mountain kingsnake L MAI; NTV Two-striped garter snake Y MAI; NTV Bald eagle Y MAI; NTV Western yellow-billed cuckoo P in Mojave River MAI; NTV California spotted owl Y MAI; NTV Willow flycatcher (migrant) Y MAI; NTV Fringed myotis P MAI; NTV pallid bat P MAI; NTV San Bernardino flying squirrel Y MAI; NTV Forest Service Sensitive Plants Calochortus palmeri var. palmeri P – from nearby; may occur at sites NE; NTV Castilleja lasiorhyncha P – not at project site but nearby NE; NTV SBNF Watchlist Animals and Other Species of Local Interest Springsnails P NTV Westfork shoulderband P NTV

Page 3

Table 1. Summary Of Effects Determinations For TESW Species In And Near the Project Area Common Name Occurrence Information1 Determinations 2 simple hydroporus diving beetle P NTV Dorhn’s elegant eucnemid beetle P NTV Bicolored rain beetle L NTV August checkerspot butterfly L NTV Andrew's marble butterfly L NTV Monterey ensatina salamander Y NTV coast horned lizard Y NTV mountain garter snake Y NTV southwestern speckled rattlesnake P NTV Western least bittern P NTV Osprey P NTV White-tailed kite P NTV Northern harrier P NTV sharp-shinned hawk (breeding) L NTV Cooper's hawk (breeding) Y NTV golden eagle L-foraging; N-nesting NTV Merlin L NTV prairie falcon P NTV American peregrine falcon N for nesting; P for foraging MAI; NTV Flammulated owl L NTV western screech owl Y NTV northern pygmy owl Y NTV long-eared owl L NTV northern saw-whet owl L NTV common nighthawk L NTV whip-poor-will P NTV Black swift P NTV calliope hummingbird Y NTV Lewis’ woodpecker Y NTV Williamson’s sapsucker P NTV Red-breasted sapsucker Y NTV Nuttall's woodpecker Y NTV White-headed woodpecker Y NTV Olive-sided flycatcher Y NTV tree swallow Y NTV Swainson's thrush P NTV hermit thrush (breeding) P NTV Bendire's thrasher P NTV LeConte's thrasher P NTV loggerhead shrike P NTV Cassin’s vireo P NTV plumbeous vireo L NTV warbling vireo Y NTV Virginia’s warbler (breeding) P NTV yellow warbler Y NTV MacGillivray's warbler L NTV common yellowthroat L NTV Wilson's warbler Y NTV yellow-breasted chat P NTV hepatic tanager P NTV

Page 4

Table 1. Summary Of Effects Determinations For TESW Species In And Near the Project Area Common Name Occurrence Information1 Determinations 2 summer tanager P NTV black-chinned sparrow L NTV Lincoln's sparrow P NTV tri-colored blackbird P NTV Lawrence's goldfinch Y NTV spotted bat P NTV western small-footed myotis P NTV long-eared myotis P NTV little brown myotis P NTV long-legged myotis P NTV Yuma myotis P NTV western bonneted bat P NTV hoary bat Y NTV golden-mantled ground squirrel P NTV Western red bat P NTV Porcupine P NTV Ringtail P NTV American badger P NTV western spotted skunk P NTV mountain lion Y NTV SBNF Watchlist Plants And Other Rare/Vulnerable Plants Boykenia rotundifolia Y – known from unnamed tributary and upstream in NTV Houston Creek Lilium humboldtii var. ocellatum Yes – in Houston Creek, W. Fk of E. Fk. Mojave NTV River, unnamed tributary to Mojave River Packera ionophylla Known from nearby but not in the project area NTV Phacelia mohavensis Known from nearby but not in the project area NTV 1Occurrence Codes: Y = Species is known to occur. P = Occurrence of the species is possible; suitable habitat exists and it is within the distribution of the species. H=Historic record. 2Determination Codes: Threatened/Endangered Species: NE=No Effect; NLAA = not likely to adversely affect; MA=May Affect Sensitive Species: MAI = may affect individuals but not likely to lead to a trend to Federal listing for Sensitive species. NE=No effect Watchlist Species: Determinations are not made for Watch species – this is simply documentation of an occurrence. All: NTV=No threat to viability VT=Viability threat

Page 5

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page # PART I – INTRODUCTION 9 I-1.0 – Methods 9 I-2.0 – Current Management Direction 11 I-3.0 – Description Of The Proposed Action And Alternatives And Design Features 13 PART II - WILDLIFE AND BOTANY REPORT FOR GENERAL WILDLIFE AND 25 VEGETATION AND WATCHLIST SPECIES II -1.0 – Introduction 25 II -2.0 – Existing Environment – General 25 II -3.0 – Effects Of Proposed Action – General 29 II -4.0 – Existing Environment And Potential Effects – SBNF Watchlist Species 40 II-5.0 –Findings 74 PART III - BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION FOR SENSITIVE SPECIES 76 III-1.0 – Introduction 76 III-2.0 – Summary of Determination Of Effects for Sensitive Species 113 PART IV - BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT FOR FEDERALLY-LISTED SPECIES 114 IV-1.0 – Introduction 114 IV-2.0 - Consultations And Conferences To Date 114 IV-3.0 - Baseline Conditions And Potential Effects For T/E Species 115 IV-4.0 – Summary of Determination Of Effects For T/E Species 134 PART V - MANAGEMENT INDICATOR SPECIES REPORT 136 V-1.0 – Introduction 136 V-2.0 - MIS Selected For Project Analysis 136 V-3.0 - MIS Environmental Baseline And Effects Analysis 136 V-4.0 – Arroyo Toad 138 V-5.0 – Song Sparrow 139 V-6.0 – California Spotted Owl 141 V-7.0 – Mule Deer 142 V-8.0 – Mountain Lion 145 V-9.0 – California Black Oak 148 PART VI – NON-NATIVE SPECIES RISK ASSESSMENT 150 VI-1.0 – Introduction 150 VI-2.0 – Non-Native Plant Assessment 150 VI-3.0 – Non-Native Animal And Pathogens Assessment 155 VI-4.0 – Summary Of Risk From Non-Native Species 158 LITERATURE CITED 159 APPENDICES Appendix A - Floral And Faunal Compendium Appendix B - Management Direction Appendix C- Management Indicator Species Accounts

Page 6

Table Title Page # Table 1. Summary Of Effects Determinations For TESW Species In And Near the Project Area 3 Table 2. San Bernardino National Forest Watch Plant Species and Other Rare Plants in/near the 41 Project Area Table 3. San Bernardino National Forest Watch List Animals 45 Table 4. Breeding Status of SBNF Watchlist Birds 65 Table 5. Sensitive Plant Species In and Near the Project Area 77 Table 6. Forest Service Sensitive Wildlife Species 83 Table 7. Summary of Determinations of Effects for Sensitive Species in the Project Area 113 Table 8. Threatened, Endangered, Proposed, and Candidate Plant Species in the Project Area 117 Table 9. Threatened, Endangered, Proposed, And Candidate Wildlife Species for Project Area 118 Table 10. Summary of Determination of Effects for T/E Species for the Miller OHV Project 134 Table 11. Management Indicator Species Selection and Monitoring Information 137 Table 12. Mule Deer Population Trend For DAUs Covering The SBNF 143 Table 13. Mule Deer 2004 Population Estimates 143 Table 14. Noxious and Invasive Plant Species Known from the SBNF 151 Table 15. Non-Native Animals Known from the SBNF (From SBNF LMP EIS 2006) 156

Figure Title Page # Figure 1. Miller Canyon OHV Staging Area Sites Being Analyzed – On Topographic Map 15 Figure 2. Miller Canyon OHV Staging Area Sites Being Analyzed – On Aerial Photograph 16 Figure 3. Riparian Conservation Areas in Miller Canyon 36 Figure 4. Deer Population Trend for Hunt Zone D-14 144

Page 7

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 BLM Bureau of Land Management 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) LOP Limited operating period MIS Management indicator species 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 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 Watchlist species

Page 8

PART I: INTRODUCTION

This document contains analysis of potential effects to plants and animals from the proposed Miller Canyon staging area project. It has six parts: Part I is an introduction with the project description, methods, and management direction. Part II is a Botany and Wildlife Report that describes the existing environment in the project area and documents the occurrences of species that are on the San Bernardino National Forest (SBNF) Watchlist (W) of plants and animals. This part 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 Evaluation (BE) of potential effects to species that are on the Regional Forester’s Sensitive (S) species list. Part IV is a Biological Assessment (BA) of potential effects to federally-listed Threatened (T), Endangered (E), Proposed (P), and Candidate (C) plant and animal species and Critical Habitat. Part V addresses wildlife species that are designated as Management Indicator Species (MIS) in the San Bernardino National Forest Land Management Plan (LMP) (Forest Service 2006). 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 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 this analysis. Scientific nomenclature and common names for species referred to in this report follow those used in the LMP.

Species Accounts for the current SBNF Threatened, Endangered, Proposed, Candidate, Sensitive and Watch (TEPCSW) lists are contained in the SBNF LMP. 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. For species that were added to the Regional Forester’s Sensitive species list in 2013, updated species accounts are contained in the Project Record.

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. Data regarding biological resources on the project areas were obtained through literature review, existing reports, and field investigations. Sources reviewed include California Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB 2013), California Native Plant Society (CNPS 2013), California Consortium of Herbaria (2013), SBNF and NRIS occurrence database, results from previous species-specific surveys in the area, field guides and other project-related analyses. Bird observations from E-

Page 9

Bird and Rare Bird Alerts have also been incorporated.

In addition, survey data and analyses from past projects in the area were also considered in this analysis.

Botanical Surveys and Survey Limitations: Field surveys for botanical resources were conducted during 2012 and 2013 by Forest Service botanist Deveree Kopp. Surveys covered all of the proposed staging area sites. Additionally, the area was surveyed for the Miller Canyon Fuels Reduction project in 2004 and 2006. Forest Service (Teams Enterprise) botanists Kathy Sale, Medea Hannah, Brooke DeVault, Christine West, Miriam Jukes, and Sara Levy conducted surveys in 2004. Final field surveys were conducted during the 2006 field season by SBNF staff botanists Chris Wagner, Chelsea Vollmer, Kerry Myers, Katie VinZant and John Taylor. R.T. Hawke, a consultant, surveyed the area in June and July 2001 as part of a proposed Enduro event.

Field studies were conducted and 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 recorded (Appendix A).

While these surveys were intended to be floristic in nature, a more focused search was conducted for the Forest Service focal plant species that are known to occur near the project area or are found in habitats found in the project area.

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 high detectability during surveys, based on nearby reference populations. The likelihood of failing to detect these species in areas surveyed is considered low.

Wildlife Surveys and Survey Limitations: Sensitive biological resources present, or potentially present were identified through a literature review using CNDDB and SBNF project and GIS records. The proposed staging area sites were surveyed by Forest Service biologists Robin Eliason in June 2012. Previous surveys of the area were conducted by Forest Service biologists for the Miller Canyon Fuels reduction project (TEAMS Enterprise biologist Betsy Hammon June/July 2004; Forest Service biologists Raymond Aguayo and Jeff Goldberg February, May, and June 2006) and the Enduro event project (Carla Wakeman, Robin Butler Eliason, Sherri Sullivan – 2001). Surveys in parts of the project area were also conducted by the San Bernardino County Museum during 2003, 2004, and 2005 for southwestern willow flycatcher, rare amphibians, and to determine habitat suitability. USGS surveyed the E. Fork of the W. Fork of the Mojave River for T/E frogs and toads between April 2000 and June 2001 (Brown and Fisher 2001). Some additional surveys and small mammal trapping was conducted by Forest Service biologist Todd Elliott in July and August 2011. Observations of all animal species were recorded (Appendix A).

Wildlife species detected during field surveys by sight, calls, tracks, scat, or other sign were recorded. In addition to species actually observed, expected wildlife usage of the area was

Page 10 determined according to known habitat preferences of wildlife species 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 a nocturnal pattern of activity or otherwise difficult to detect.

In conjunction with the USFWS, the SBNF modeled 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. Modeled habitat in the project area was assessed for suitability. Drought conditions were taken into consideration during these surveys.

I-2.0 – CURRENT MANAGEMENT DIRECTION Applicable requirements and direction may be found in the SBNF LMP, Endangered Species Act, National Forest Management Act, Department of Agriculture 9500-4 Regulations, Forest Service Manual, and the Southern California Conservation Strategy. Appendix B contains details of jurisdictions, legal requirements, and management direction that are applicable to this project.

LMP Land Use Zones and/or Special Area Designations The Miller Canyon project area lies within the Silverwood Place. Objectives for the Silverwood Place is emphasize scenic integrity, community protection, healthy forests, and resource protection.

No special area designations from the LMP (e.g., Research Natural Areas, eligible Wild and Scenic Rivers, or Inventoried Roadless Areas) occur in the project area. The LMP Land Use Zone for the project area is Backcountry and Backcountry Non-Motorized. The recreational opportunity spectrum in the project area is Semi-Primitive Non-Motorized and Semi-Primitive Motorized.

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

The LMP includes several goals applicable to this project: Goal 5.1 - Improve Watershed Conditions Through Cooperative Management. The desired condition is that national forest watersheds are healthy, dynamic and resilient, and are capable of responding to natural and human caused disturbances while maintaining the integrity of their biological and physical processes.

Page 11

Watersheds, streams, groundwater recharge areas, springs, wetlands and aquifers are managed to assure the sustainability of high quantity and quality water. Where new or re- authorized water extraction or diversion is allowed, those facilities should be located to avoid long-term adverse impacts to national forest water and riparian resources. The Forest Service has acquired and maintains water rights where necessary to support resource management and healthy forest conditions. Forest management activities are planned and implemented in a manner that minimizes the risk to forest ecosystems from hazardous materials.

Additional desired conditions are that geologic resources are managed to protect, preserve and interpret unique resources and values, and to improve management of activities that affect watershed condition and ecosystem health. Geologic hazards are identified, analyzed and managed to reduce risks and impacts where there is a threat to human life, natural resources, or financial investment.

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 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.

Goal 3.1 – Provide for Public Use and Natural Resource Protection of the Forest Plan. Desired conditions were established for the road and trail system, including OHV use. The transportation system of roads and trails should be safe, affordable, and environmentally sound; responds to public needs; and is efficient to manage. The system should provide public access for recreation, special uses and fire protection activities, and support forest-management objectives. The system should be well maintained commensurate with levels of use and available funding.

Compliance with Management Direction and Regulations The Proposed Action complies with the Endangered Species Act, National Forest Management Act, Migratory Bird Treaty Act, Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, and SBNF LMP. It also complies with direction/guidance from applicable Biological Opinions, the Southern California Spotted Owl Conservation Strategy, and Migratory Bird Treaty Act. See the tables in Appendix B for more details, including the LMP standards applicable for Fish, Wildlife, and plants and how each standard was met for this project.

Page 12

I-3.0 – DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION, ALTERNATIVES, AND DESIGN FEATURES In addition to the Proposed Action, there are three alternatives plus the “no action” alternative. Figures 1 and 2 display the approximate location and site boundaries of the existing unofficial staging area and the alternative sites. Detailed site development would occur after a decision is made on which alternative is to be selected. Site design would include the objectives described in the alternatives and in the Design Features.

Proposed Action The SBNF’s Mountaintop Ranger District proposes to modify the existing user-created unofficial OHV staging area in Miller Canyon. The existing staging area is located on the north side of National Forest System (NFS) road 2N37 in the floodplain of the East Fork of the West Fork of the Mojave River (hereafter referred to as “Mojave River”). The proposed action has been designed to reduce the existing impacts to resources (e.g., water quality in the Mojave River, riparian habitat, archaeological sites, and native vegetation). The objective is to reduce the current disturbance footprint in order to create a sustainable staging area and ensure long-term access to the Miller Canyon area OHV routes.

The unofficial staging area has been providing access to a well-defined system of over 20 miles roads and trails that are designated for OHV (green sticker) use. Up to 50 vehicles (combination of vehicles with trailers as well as pickup trucks with OHVs in the beds) have been observed at the existing unofficial staging area. Currently, the average weekend use is approximately 40 people at one time with the average ride being about four hours. Because it is illegal for non- street legal vehicles to drive to the site, the use of the connected OHV route system for non-street legal vehicles is constrained by the staging area capacity.

Under the proposed action, this site would be designed to accommodate approximately 10 haul vehicles, with pull through parking. Roughly 20 pickups could be accommodated. No nose-in parking would be created. It would be designated as a developed “Day Use Area” with a vault toilet, trash receptacles, picnic tables, and a loading ramp. No overnight camping is permitted at developed Day Use Areas on the SBNF; as such, camping would no longer be allowed at this site.

The parking area would consist of a level surface with pull-through parking for vehicles with trailers, separated by islands of vegetation and barriers. Two access points would provide ingress and egress to the staging area and gates would be installed to close the site if needed. The vegetated buffer between the staging area and NFS roads 2N37 would remain. The parking area would be built up and leveled so as to dissipate, rather than concentrate, runoff. Drainage and erosion control structures would ensure protection of water quality in the adjacent riparian areas (the Mojave River and adjacent unnamed tributary).

Barriers (boulders and fencing) would be installed to define the staging area, to protect restored sites, and to discourage unauthorized off-road use. Disturbed areas and unauthorized trails within and adjacent to the designated staging area would be restored utilizing native vegetation. Restoration would include de-compaction of the soils, planting of native vegetation, and treatment of non-native invasive species. The area would be monitored for restoration effectiveness and prevention of use would be enforced through regular patrols.

Page 13

Figure 1. Miller Canyon OHV Staging Area Sites Being Analyzed – On Topographic Map

Page 14

Figure 2. Miller Canyon OHV Staging Area Sites Being Analyzed – On Aerial Photograph

Page 15

Alternative 1 (Upland East Alternative) The Upland East Alternative is located less than ½-mile east of the existing unofficial staging area on the south side of Forest Road 2N37. This site would be designed to accommodate up to 50 haul vehicles, including pull-through and nose-in parking, separated by islands of vegetation. The staging area capacity would not increase over the existing unofficial staging area (see Proposed Action discussion); thus, no increases in the use of the connected OHV system is planned or expected.

The site would be designated as a developed Day Use Area with a vault toilet, trash receptacles, picnic tables, and a loading ramp. Shade structures for picnic and parking sites would be installed when funding is obtained. Given the topography of site, the parking may be tiered with 2 to 3 levels of parking. Site design and placement, and drainage and erosion control structures would ensure protection of water quality in the adjacent riparian areas (the Mojave River and Houston Creek). No overnight camping is permitted at developed Day Use Areas on the SBNF.

The existing unofficial staging area to the west would be closed and barricaded to prevent further use and resource damage. Restoration would include de-compaction of the soils, planting of native vegetation, and treatment of non-native invasive species. The area would be monitored for restoration effectiveness and prevention of use would be enforced through regular patrols.

Alternative 2 (Upland West Alternative) This Upland West Alternative is located roughly 100 feet east of the existing unofficial staging area, and on the south side of Forest Road 2N37. This site would be designed to accommodate approximately 30 haul vehicles, including a mix of pull through and nose in parking, separated by islands of vegetation and large trees. The staging area capacity would be smaller than the existing unofficial staging area (see Proposed Action discussion); thus, no increases in the use of the connected OHV system is planned or expected.

The site would be designated as a Developed Day Use Area with a vault toilet, trash receptacles, picnic tables, and a loading ramp. Natural shade would be provided by the existing overstory vegetation. The site would be designed to minimize the need to remove any trees. Site design and placement, and drainage and erosion control structures would ensure protection of water quality in the adjacent riparian areas (the Mojave River and unnamed tributary). No overnight camping would be allowed.

The existing unofficial staging area to the west would be closed and barricaded to prevent further use and resource damage. Restoration would include de-compaction of the soils, planting of native vegetation, and treatment of non-native invasive species. The area would be monitored for restoration effectiveness and prevention of use would be enforced through regular patrols.

Alternative 3 (Full Restoration) Under Alternative 3, the existing user-created unofficial staging area would be closed and restored as described in the Proposed Action. No staging area would exist in Miller Canyon and there would be no legal trailering site that allows non-street legal vehicles to access the Miller Canyon/Pilot Rock OHV route system.

Page 16

Alternative 4 (No Action) Under the No Action Alternative, the existing user-created unofficial staging area would be left in place with a porta-potty (as long as funding allows) and a single picnic table. The site would not be improved with a vault toilet, picnic tables, loading ramps, and designated parking. The existing damage to natural resources would not be restored and may increase in size and scale over time.

I-3.1 Avoidance/Minimization and Environmental Protection Measures Design features and mitigation measures are measures that are incorporated into the project’s action alternatives in order to protect a resource, reduce or avoid effects to a resource, or mitigate effects to the resource. The following Design Features would be included in the Proposed Action, Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 during site design and implementation.

Site Design G-1. Staging area will be laid out to most efficiently accommodate vehicles and associated facilities. The size of the staging area will be balanced to accommodate parking/staging for motorized recreation while mitigating resource concerns. Other considerations include pull-through parking for vehicles with trailers, space for unloading trailers and stock trucks, and safety of vehicles while unattended. Guidelines in Forest Service Handbook will be followed (FSH 2309.18.2).

G-2. Signs designed and installed at the staging area will include maps depicting the green sticker and street legal only routes. They will also include locations of other OHV staging areas in the vicinity (Pinnacles, Baldy Mesa, Summit, Cedar Springs Dam on State lands, etc.) so that users arriving when all parking sites are full can see alternate recreation opportunities.

Soil, Water, and Riparian/Aquatic Habitat Protection H-1 The five-step project screening process will be used to identify Riparian Conservation Areas (RCAs) (S-47, LMP Part 3, p. 11).

H-2 During construction/maintenance, refueling of equipment and storage of fuel and other hazardous materials will not occur within RCAs (perennial and seasonal streams, seeps, springs, and meadows). No storage of fuel quantities greater than 100 gallons will be allowed in designated RCAs. Storage of any quantity of fuel greater than 100 gallons will require a California Engineer Spill Plan. Wildlife and Plants General - Wildlife and Plants WP-1 Areas requiring special treatment during construction and maintenance (e.g., avoidance, monitoring, limited operating periods, etc.) will be delineated on maps in the project file, identified on the ground, and project personnel will be trained on the requirements. WP-2 Site designs will avoid development in and near known occurrences of Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive plants and animals and/or habitat features. A biologist

Page 17

and botanist will work with the project manager to ensure avoidance of those areas during construction and maintenance activities. WP-3 Construction and maintenance personnel will be provided training/identification 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). WP-4 Construction or restoration materials will not be stacked against living trees/shrubs, existing downed logs, and rock outcrops.

General - Wildlife WG-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 SBNF 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. WG-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 should be developed to ensure that those areas are not affected by night lighting. WG-3 Use of water sources from National Forest System (NFS) lands for dust abatement or other project operations will not be authorized. WG-4 To the greatest extent possible, destruction of active animal dens, shelters, burrows, and nests (including woodrat nests/middens) will be avoided during site design and implementation. Appropriate buffers, as determined by a biologist, will be used to limit disturbance. Where destruction is unavoidable, a biologist will work with the project administrator to develop measures to reduce the loss/injury of individual animals (e.g., trapping and moving the animals, scaring them out of the site, etc.). It is recognized it will not be feasible to ensure complete protection of all of these sites, especially in dense shrub habitats.

General - Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive Species TE-1 During construction, maintenance, and restoration activities, Limited Operating Periods (LOPs) will be used to create buffer zones during the seasons of occupancy in order to reduce or avoid noise disturbance effects during the critical periods. Table TE-1 displays the seasons of concern and the buffer zones that would guide the development of LOPs. See individual species Design Features below for specifics for this project. In cases where multiple LOPs are necessary due to the presences of more than one species, the Forest Service biologist in coordination with USFWS and CDFW as appropriate, may modify buffer zones and LOP period based on site-specific and activity-specific conditions.

Page 18

TE-1 - Primary Seasons of Concern by Species Species Primary Period of Concern/Occupancy* Noise Buffer zone Arroyo Toad Breeding=March 1 – July 31 (in the water) N/A Upland occupancy = Can be year-round, but primarily July 1 to February 28 Bald Eagle Nesting = January 1 – June 30; ¼ mile from nest site, Wintering = December 1 – March 31 foraging habitat, or night roost Southwestern Nesting = May 1 – August 31 500 feet from nest site Willow Flycatcher Least Bell’s Vireo Occupancy/ Breeding= March 15 – Sept 15 500 feet from nest site Spotted Owl Breeding Season = February 1 – August 15 ¼ mile of activity center *Dates may vary slightly with elevation and seasonal conditions

Nesting Birds NB-1 To comply with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, if initial site clearing is planned between March 1 and August 31, the site will be surveyed for nesting birds no more than one month prior. If nesting birds are found, the project administrator will work with the biologist to minimize effects and ensure consistency with the Act. NB-2 Active and inactive raptor nest areas will be protected through the use of buffers and LOPs as needed (S-18, LMP Part 3, p. 7). Nest trees will be flagged for avoidance during implementation.

General – Trees with High Wildlife Value and for Stand Diversity WT-1 Where trees must be cut for creating a staging area, a biologist will help guide the selection of retention trees in order to preserve as many high value wildlife trees as feasible. WT-2 Live and dead oaks sycamores and cottonwoods, that are 12+” DBH, will be retained, unless they must be removed because they pose falling hazards. The staging area would be designed to avoid any effects to all bigcone Douglas fir trees. Exceptions to either condition will be coordinated between the project leader and the district biologist.

Slash Piles for Burning or Chipping P-1 Piles of slash will not be created in the following avoidance areas: Sensitive plant occurrences or within RCAs. Exceptions may occur if a biologist/botanist determines that effects to the target species would be acceptable. P-2 Where possible, creating slash piles on and within 300 feet of rock outcrops and existing logs in rare snake habitat will be avoided. Where it is not feasible to avoid creating piles near these features in high quality rare snake habitat, a biologist will coordinate with the project administrator to determine if additional protection measures are needed to reduce potential effects.

Page 19

Arroyo Toad AT-1. Construction and restoration activities will be scheduled during the arroyo toad breeding season (between March 1 and July 31) when toads are less likely to be present in the upland areas. Exceptions may be made for work with a biological monitor present.

Bald Eagle BE-1 Nesting: Any eagles present in the project area immediately before and during construction 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. BE-2 Wintering: Due to the low use levels of the project area by bald eagles and the availability of excellent foraging habitat nearby (at Lake Silverwood), the winter LOP is not prescribed for the construction/restoration activities associated with the Miller Canyon OHV proposed action and alternatives.

Southwestern Willow Flycatcher and Least Bell’s Vireo WF-1 Stand composition and structure of suitable willow flycatcher and least Bell’s vireo habitat will not be altered. WF-2 No construction and maintenance activities will be conducted within 500 feet of suitable willow flycatcher or least Bell’s vireo habitat during the nesting season (see table above). This limited operating period (LOP) will be applied unless surveys (following a minimum of USFWS protocols) find that the stream is unoccupied. Exceptions may occur where a biologist determines that the activity type and noise attenuation (e.g., personnel with hand tools, no mechanized equipment, etc.) will not result in increases of noise/disturbance above the baseline in the suitable habitat and/or if a biological monitor is present. Activities within 500 feet of suitable habitat may occur outside the nesting season if there are no effects to riparian vegetation or aquatic systems.

Botanical Resources B-1 If previously unknown occurrences of Sensitive plant species are located prior to staging area construction and/or rehabilitation, the site will be designed to avoid effects to the greatest extent possible. These areas may be buffered to prevent indirect effects such as soil movement into the occurrences. A qualified botanist will work with the appropriate staff to avoid known occurrences (e.g., placement of barriers, soil storage, etc.). B-2 If previously unknown occurrences of Sensitive plant species are located prior to ground disturbing activities and these sites are needed to allow for operability or safety, individual plants of a Sensitive plant occurrence may be affected; but only where the individuals affected represent a small fraction of the occurrence. Where occurrences of Sensitive plants cannot be avoided, the District or Forest botanist will work with appropriate staff to minimize effects (e.g., hand treatments, special protection measures, etc.). B-3 If previously unknown occurrences of Watchlist plant species are located prior to ground disturbing activities and these sites are needed to allow for operability or

Page 20

safety, individual plants of a Watch list species may be affected. Where this cannot be avoided, the botanist will work with appropriate staff to minimize effects.

Non-Native Plants IP-1 To reduce the likelihood of introduction or spread of non-native invasive plants, all construction and maintenance equipment will be cleaned prior to entering the project area. If the equipment is operated within areas known to be infested with noxious weeds (e.g., Spanish broom), equipment should also be cleaned prior to moving to areas without these species and/or demobilizing from the project area. If equipment is demobilized and used on a project elsewhere, cleaning is also required prior to returning. Per FSM 2903.6, provisions requiring equipment cleaning will be included in all project related contracts. IP-2 If needed, mulches and other erosion control materials will be from on-site sources (e.g., chipped wood, etc.) if they are available. All plant material from off-site sources (straw, mulch, wattles, etc.) used for erosion control, rehabilitation of temporary routes/landings, and/or route maintenance must be certified weed-free. (S- 6, LMP Part 3, p. 5) IP-3 An interpretive message about reducing the risk of weed introduction will be designed for display at the OHV staging area. It will include guidelines for the public (e.g., thoroughly washing OHVs before coming to the staging area).

Restoration For alternatives that include a site closure/restoration component, the following measures would apply: R-1. Decompaction (e.g., ripping, chunking, subsoiling) would be used where necessary. Chipped material or other mulches may be incorporated into the soil during subsoiling or used to reduce the potential for erosion and non-native plant establishment. Existing non-native plants would be removed, to the extent possible, before ground disturbance and during the restoration effort. R-2. Barriers (e.g., boulders, fencing, etc.) would be used to block of vehicle access to restoration sites. R-3. Seeding and/or planting of native species representative of the site would be done where needed. Plantings would be weeded, watered, and maintained as necessary. R-4. Closed and restored sites would be patrolled periodically and maintained to ensure that barriers are intact. Photo points would be used to help with assessing restoration success and need for supplemental actions.

Monitoring M-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 will also be conducted as needed.

Page 21

M-2 The project area will be monitored at least quarterly (4 times/year) under the Habitat Management Program (HMP) under the San Bernardino National Forest’s California State Parks Off-Highway Motor Vehicle Recreation Division Ground Operations grant. Funds for this monitoring have been secured for Fiscal Year 2014. Problems identified during HMP monitoring will trigger immediate action (e.g., barrier repair, disguise of unauthorized routes, revegetation, etc.).

M-3 Weed monitoring will be conducted as part of the HMP monitoring (M-2). When located, weeds will be mapped using GPS and removed immediately if possible. In some cases where immediate removal is not possible or effective, a plan will be developed for future treatment.

Hydrology HYD-1 Appropriate Best Management Practices (BMPs) would be applied to all design, construction, and reconstruction, including appropriate erosion control measures (Forest Service Handbook R5 2509.22 Chapter 10). The following BMPs will be used during the construction and operation of the facility. o BMP 1.16 – Erosion Control on bare disturbed ground: the area must have proper drainage to prevent rilling and rutting; surface drainage must be dispersed into the surrounding vegetation o BMP 1.20 – Erosion control Structure Maintenance: . pipe rail prevent users from establishing trails on side slopes which would exascerbate rilling and gullying . overside drains must include energy dissipation at the outlet and must be maintained to prevent >30% of the flume from being plugged with sediment or debris o BMP 2.2 – General Guidelines for the Location and Design of Roads . Design surfaces to dissipate intercepted water in a uniform manner to prevent the discharge of sediment to surface waters . Design to reduce the hydrologic connectivity . Minimize bare ground coverage . Separate exposed bare ground from surface waters . Design properly spaced drainage features to provide maximum filter distance and limit hydrologic connectivity o BMP 2.3 – Road Construction and Reconstruction . Maintain erosion-control measures . Locate and designate waste area before operations begin : provide adequare surface drainage and erosion protection at disposal sites . Do not permit sidecasting . Schedule operations when rain, runoff, wet soils, snowmelt are less likely; keep erosion control measures sufficiently effective during ground disturbance to allow rapid closure . Scatter construction-generated slash on disturbed areas to help control erosion . Install erosion control measures on incomplete surfaces prior to precipitation events or the start of the winter period such as temporary side drains, energy dissipaters, or sediment basins o BMP 2.4 – Road Maintenance and Operations

Page 22

. Periodically inspect area to assess condition; inspect drainage structures and runoff patterns after major storm events and snowmelt, and perform necessary maintenance . Maintain surface to dissipate intercepted water . Clean ditches and drainage structure inlets . To the extent possible, ensure drainage features are fully capable of preventing pollutant discharges to surface waters o BMP 2.10 – Parking and Staging Areas . Design and locate staging areas of appropriate size and configuration to accommodate expected vehicles and prevent damage to adjacent water, aquatic, and riparian resources; designate specific locations for fueling so that water-quality impacts are minimized . Calculate the expected runoff generated using the appropriate design storm . Provide signage to designate parking, staging, and refueling areas . Use permeable pavements where possible, and integrate vegetative islands to trap and filter runoff . Infiltrate as much of the runoff as possible . Conduct maintenance activities commensurate with staging area surface and drainage requirements as well as precipitation timing, intensity, and duration . Rehabilitate temporary areas immediately following use . Effectively prevent access to the area once site restoration activities have been completed o BMP 2.13 – Erosion Control Plan . A BMP checklist will be prepared for the reconstruction and rehabilitation of the area; the checklist will be prepared to include topics such as wet weather operations, construction erosion control, road management, and other features in the final design. Measures are based on site-specific surveys in conjunction with the construction contractor, the Forest Engineer, and the OHV program manager. The BMP checklists are for “daily diary” inclusion. Forest Service recommends that Erosion Control be made a “pay item” in the construction contract. . A storm preparedness plan will be prepared for implementation of additional practices when the National Weather Service predicts a 50% or greater chance of precipitation . Maps will include locations of drainage/storm water structures, equipment access, storage, and service areas; and a maintenance, inspection, and repair plan o BMP 4.4 – Control of Sanitation Facilities . The facility will be planned, located, designed, constructed, operated, inspected, and maintained to minimize the possibility of water contamination. o BMP 4.7.5 – Monitoring OHV areas . A systematic monitoring schedule of the Miller OHV staging area will be used to detect sediment and erosion problems; problem areas will be photographed and fixed, or monitored longer term if the fix requires time o BMP 4.7.6 – OHV Maintenance and Operations

Page 23

. Schedule maintenance to maximize the time period when soils are at optimal moisture levels for soil compaction . Identify the need for additional drainage structures, spot rocking, or hardening to protect and maintain water, aquatic, and riparian resources . After major storm events [the modeled 5-year storm is 2.64 inches in 6 hours], to the extent staffing allows, inspect drainage structures and runoff patterns and repair, as needed . Do not sidecast material; incorporate material back into the surface . Keep drainage outlets open . Restrict OHV use when the potential for sediment delivery is high or during periods when such use would likely damage the tread or drainage features o BMP 4.7.7 – OHV Wet-weather operations . Develop a wet-weather management plan . Close area for the months when soil moisture is expected to be high, and extend the closure period as needed, based on precipitation or soil trafficability o BMP 4.7.8 – Restoration of OHV damaged areas . Identify the source of the problem, effectively close the area, reshape the land surface to its original contour, disperse concentrated runoff, prepare the seedbed, planting with prescribed species mix, stabilize the surface, signing, enforcement and monitoring o BMP 4.7.9 – Concentrated OHV-use area management . Integrate vegetative islands to trap and filter runoff . Infiltrate as much of the runoff as possible in area where the risk of groundwater contamination is low . Provide permanent sanitation facilities . Report hazardous spills and initiate appropriate clean-up action in accordance with laws, rules, and regulations

All applicable Forest Service National Core BMPs will be incorporated into the Erosion Control Plan prior to implementation of the project.

Page 24

PART II: WILDLIFE AND BOTANY REPORTS

II-1.0 – INTRODUCTION Part II addresses effects and concerns regarding vegetation, general botanical and wildlife species, Watchlist species, and effects that are common to those species as well as special status species that are discussed in depth in Parts III, IV, and V 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 types and degree of potential effects from the proposed project.

II-2.0 – EXISTING ENVIRONMENT – GENERAL There are three possible staging areas proposed in Miller Canyon on National Forest System lands in San Bernardino County. The lands are managed by the Mountaintop Ranger District. The project is located east of Silverwood Lake State Recreation Area in the western San Bernardino Mountains.

Communities found nearby include Hesperia and Victorville to the north and the city of Lake Arrowhead to the east. The proposed staging area sites are located on Forest Road 2N37.

Elevations in the project area range from approximately 3,600 to 5,667 feet. Topography is highly variable and the steep sections are distributed throughout the project area but mostly with and around the drainages. In most years, snow occurs above 5,000 feet. Annual precipitation varies considerably from year to year. The area is subject to high intensity storms. Flooding and increased erosion can result from rain on snow events or high intensity thundershowers.

See the following discussion for detailed descriptions of the vegetation communities found in the project area. Tree density, species composition and age structure have changed in the San Bernardino Mountains with decades of fire suppression. These changes include increasing stand densities, a transformation from an older age structure to young growth, and a compositional shift from ponderosa pine and Jeffrey pine to white fir and incense cedar.

The change in forest structure and increased tree mortality has resulted in a vegetation condition susceptible to extreme wildfire behavior. Numerous large wildfires, dating back to the early 1900s, have occurred in/near the project area. Most recently, the 2003 Old Fire burned 800-900 acres in the Miller Canyon project area.

The area around the existing unofficial staging area is highly degraded and affected. Much of the existing unofficial site is bare dirt due to off-road driving and parking. A porta-potty and a picnic table are present at the site. The area between the existing site and the stream is frequently used by the public as a bathroom (as evidenced by toilet paper, etc.) in spite of the existence of the porta-potty. Human and dog feces deposits are obvious. Additionally, there is a lot of litter, including spoiled diapers. There are user-created trails from the staging site to stream where people fish, explore, and play in the water.

Page 25

II-2.1 – Existing Environment - Vegetation Descriptions The following vegetation series were identified within the project area.

II-2.2.1 Desert Transition Chaparral The project area contains desert transition chaparral, a continuous canopy of mixed shrubs. The common shrub species in this vegetation community are chamise (Adenostema fasiculatum), big- berry manzanita (Arctostaphylos glauca), deer brush (Ceanothus integerrimus), chaparral ceanothus (Ceanothus leucodermis), birchleaf mountain mahogany (Cercocarpus betuloides), yerba santa (Eriodictyon trichocalyx), California buckwheat (Eriogonum fasiculatum), interior live oak (Quercus wislizinii), coffeeberry (Rhamnus californica), basketbush (Rhus trilobata), and honeysuckle (Lonicera sp.).

The forb and grass layer is typically very sparse, but includes wild oats (Avena sp.), black mustard (Brassica nigra), ripgut brome (Bromus diandrus), cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum), sun cups (Camissonia sp.), diamond fairyfan (Clarkia rhomboidea), popcorn flower (Cryptantha and Plagiobothrys sp.), storksbill (Erodium sp.), gilia (Gilia sp.), linanthus (Linanthus sp.), trefoil (Lotus sp.), and phacelia (Phacelia sp.).

II-2.2.2 Montane Chaparral The project area contains montane chaparral, a continuous or intermittent canopy of mixed shrubs interspersed with emergent tree species. Montane chaparral also often intergrades with Lower montane mixed chaparral and species vary widely, depending on slope aspect.

The common species in this vegetation community are chamise (Adenostema fasiculatum), cupleaf ceanothus (Cenaothus greggii) , California false-indigo (Amorpha californica), rock-cress (Arabis sp.), Eastwood manzanita (Arctostaphylos glandulosa), big-berry manzanita (Arctostaphylos glauca), greenleaf manzanita (Arctostaphylos patula), big sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata), California brickellbush (Brickellia californica), deer brush (Ceanothus integerrimus), chaparral ceanothus (Ceanothus leucodermis), birchleaf mountain mahogany (Cercocarpus betuloides), clarkia (Clarkia sp.), yerba santa (Eriodictyon trichocalyx), California buckwheat (Eriogonum fasiculatum), hollyleaf cherry (Prunus illicifolia), interior live oak (Quercus wislizinii), and coffeeberry (Rhamnus californica).

Emergent shrubs and trees, incense cedar (Calocedrus decurrens), Ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa), bigcone Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga macrocarpa), canyon live oak (Quercus chrysolepis) and black oak (Quercus kelloggii) are also typical of this community.

The forb and grass layer is typically very sparse, but in openings within the shrub canopy it is dominated by ripgut brome (Bromus diandrus), cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum), clarkia (Clarkia sp.), popcorn flower (Cryptantha sp.), , sapphire wooly-star (Eriastrum sappirinum), golden yarrow (Eriophyllum confertiflorum), storksbill (Erodium sp.), bedstraw (Galium sp.), gilia (Gilia sp.), California aster (Lessingia filaginifolia), linanthus (Linanthus sp.), phacelia (Phacelia sp.), pine bluegrass (Poa secunda), chaparral nightshade (Solanum xantii), California goldenrod (Solidago californica), and fescue (Vulpia sp.).

Page 26

II-2.2.3 Mixed Hardwood/Conifer Forest The project area contains mixed hardwood/conifer forest. The canopy is intermittent with the dominant tree species being black oak (Quercus kelloggii), interior live oak (Quercus wislizinii), canyon live oak (Quercus chrysolepis), and ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa). Small individuals of bigcone Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga macrocarpa), and incense cedar are present within one of the sites or are present adjacent to sites.

The understory can be sparse or abundant, depending on the extent of canopy cover. Some of the common shrubs and herbaceous plants that compose the understory are deer brush (Ceanothus integerrimus), whitebark Ceanothus (Ceanothus leucodermis), Eastwood’s manzanita (Arctostaphylos glandulosa), coffeeberry (Rhamnus californica), basketbush (Rhus trilobata), and honeysuckle (Lonicera sp.), mountain dandelion (Agoseris retorsa), rock-cress (Arabis sp.), manzanita (Arctostaphylos sp.) aster (Aster sp.), ripgut brome (Bromus diandrus), cheat grass (Bromus tectorum), clarkia (Clarkia sp.), miners lettuce (Claytonia perfoliata), popcorn flower (Cryptantha sp.), and California fuchsia (Epilobium canum). A small amount of poison oak (Toxicodendron diversilobum) is also present.

Other common shrubs and herbaceous plants that are often present in the understory are golden yarrow (Eriophyllum confertiflorum), bedstraw (Galium sp.), happy plant (Gayophytum diffusum), gilia (Gilia sp.), California aster (Lessingia filaginifolia), linanthus (Linanthus sp.), lotus (Hosakia crassifolius), beardtongue (Penstemon sp.) and California goldenrod (Solidago californica).

II-2.2.4 Alder/Sycamore/Big-Leaf Maple Riparian Forest The riparian corridor contains sycamore, (Platanus racemosa), Fremont cottonwood (Populus fremontii) and willows (Salix sp.).

Herbaceous species dominating the understory include wild rose (Rosa sp.), mugwort (Artemisia douglasiana), tarregon (Artemisia dracunculus), worm wood (Artemisia ludoviciana), wintercress (Barbarea orthoceras), St. Johnswort (Hypericum sp.), durango root (Datisca glomerata), deergrass (Muhlenbergia rigens), wiregrass (Juncus sp.) and common monkey-flower (Mimulus guttattus). Sweetclover (Melilotus sp.), teasel (Dipsacus sp.) and soapwort (Saponaria officinalis) are also present.

II-2.2.5 Mixed Willow Scrub The riparian area contains willow scrub which is dominated by willows (Salix sp.), sycamore (Platanus racemosa), and Fremont cottonwood (Populus fremontii). Elderberry (Sambucus sp.) and ash (Fraxinus sp.) are also present.

The shrub and herbaceous layer includes wild rose (Rosa sp.), mugwort (Artemisia douglasiana), rush (Juncus sp.), deergrass (Muhlenbergia rigens) and California buckwheat (Eriogonum fasciculatum). Filaree (Erodium sp.), feverfew (Tanacetum parthenium), and Himalayan blackberry (Rubus armeniacus [formerly R. discolor)]) are also present.

Page 27

II-2.2 – Existing Environment – Wildlife Appendix A includes a list of all animal species that have been recorded from the project area.

2.2.1 Fish There are several streams in the vicinity of the staging area sites: East Fork of the West Fork Mojave River (hereafter referred to as Mojave River), Houston Creek, and two unnamed tributaries to the E. Fork of the W. Fork Mojave River. Houston Creek also drains to the Mojave River.

Rainbow trout were observed during 2006 surveys in the Mojave River and are likely to occur in Houston Creek and the lower portion of the unnamed tributaries. These streams can provide resident fish habitat and contribute to the production of fish within the Mojave River System. USGS surveys in the Cleghorn Creek/western edge of Silverwood Lake (less than a mile away from the project area) in 2002 and 2003 found the following non-native aquatic species: prickly sculpin (Cottus asper), mosquito fish (Gambusia affinis), and steelhead trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss). All of these non-native fish are likely to occur in the streams near the proposed staging area sites.

2.2.2 Amphibians Amphibians generally require a source of standing or flowing water to complete their life cycle. However, some terrestrial amphibian 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 conditions of high humidity or when the weather is cool and/or wet. Forest and riparian habitats including perennial flowing water are present adjacent to the proposed staging area sites. These areas provide potential habitat for amphibian species that require permanent water as well as species adapted to drier conditions.

The riparian areas adjacent to the proposed staging area sites support suitable habitat for a number of amphibians, including Monterey ensatina (Ensatina eschscholtzii), pacific slender salamander (Batrachoseps pacificus major), western toad (Bufo boreas), California treefrog (Hyla cadaverina), and Pacific treefrog (Hyla regilla). The San Bernardino County Museum also observed bullfrogs (Rana catesbeiana) during the 2004 field season. California treefrogs and pacific treefrogs were observed during field surveys of 2005 and 2006.

2.2.3 Reptiles 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 will have a higher diversity than those areas that have been highly modified or disturbed. Reptiles known or expected to occur within the project area include side-blotched lizard (Uta stansburiana), western fence lizard (Sceloporus occidentalis), southern sagebrush lizard (Sceloporus graciosus vandenburgianus), San Diego coast horned lizard (Phrynosoma coronatum blainvillii), western skink (Eumeces skiltonianus), southern alligator lizard (Elgaria multicarinata), gopher snake (Pituophis melanoleucus), San Bernardino ringneck snake (Diadophis punctatus modestus), San Bernardino mountain kingsnake (Lampropeltis zonata parvirubra), terrestrial mountain garter snake (Thamnophis elegans elegans), two-striped garter snake (Thamnophis hammondii), northern three- Page 28

lined boa (Lichanura orcutti), terrestrial mountain garter snake (Thamnophis elegans elegans), and southern pacific rattlesnake (Crotalus viridis helleri).

2.2.4 Birds The native forest, meadow, and riparian communities within and adjacent to the project area provide habitat for many bird species. Birds known or expected in the area include mallard (Anas platyrhynchos), red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis), American kestrel (Falco sparverius), common barn owl (Otus kennicottii), mourning dove (Zenaida macroura), acorn woodpecker (Melanerpes formicivorus), California quail (Callipepla californica), Stellar’s jay (Cyanocitta stelleri), mountain chickadee (Poecile gambeli), American robin (Turdus migratorius), dark-eyed junco (Junco hyemalis), spotted towhee (Pipilo erythrophthalmus), western wood pewee (Contopus sordidulus), northern flicker (Colaptes auratus), dark-eyed junco (Junco hyemalis), western bluebird (Sialia mexicana), brown creeper (Certhia americana), Cassin’s finch (Carpodacus cassinii), western tanager (Piranga ludoviciana), white-headed woodpecker (Picoides albolarvatus), house wren (Troglodytes aedon), oak titmouse (Baeolophus inornatus), black-headed grosbeak (Pheucticus melanocephalus), white-breasted nuthatch (Sitta carolinensis).

2.2.5 Mammals Identification of mammals is often determined by physical evidence rather than direct visual identification. This is because 1) many of the mammal species that potentially occur on site are nocturnal and are not often active during surveys; and, 2) trapping to determine presence is labor- intensive and generally cannot prove presence. The project area contains suitable habitat for many mammal species including use for foraging, nesting/burrowing, and wildlife movement.

Mammal species occurring or expected to occur in the project area include small mammals such as western gray squirrel (Sciurus griseus), lodgepole chipmunk (Tamias speciosus), golden-mantled ground squirrel (Callospermophilus lateralis), Beechey ground squirrel (Spermophilus beecheyi), Botta’s pocket gopher (Thomomys bottae), deer mouse (Peromyscus maniculatus), dusky-footed woodrats (Neotoma fuscipes), raccoons (Procyon lotor), and long-tailed weasel (Mustela frenata). Larger mammals would include the black bear (Ursus americanus), mountain lion (Felis concolor), mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus), and coyote (Canis latrans).

II-3.0 – POTENTIAL EFFECTS – COMMON TO MANY SPECIES II-3.1 – Levels of Effect Analyses The analysis of potential effects includes direct and indirect effects associated with implementation of the Proposed Action. In later sections of this document, cumulative effects will also be analyzed for Sensitive, T/E, and MIS plants and animals; those discussions will address the potential for the project-specific effects to combine with other effects from past, present, or future actions/activities in a cumulative way. The factors considered in each of level of analysis are explained below.

The Federal Action Area for the purpose of NEPA and Endangered Species Act Section 7 requirements includes the entire project area and the immediate downstream reaches of creeks that pass through treatment areas.

Page 29

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 degradation via canopy cover, etc.).

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, etc.).

II-3.1.3 Cumulative Effects Cumulative effects analyses consider the effects of past, present, and future actions that may combine with the predicted effects of the Proposed Action. Cumulative effects 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 species is much smaller (project area), but analysis for some species where local effects can be extended to the regional scale through animal movement and population dynamics are done over a larger area.

II-3.1.3.1 Cumulative Effects – Past Activities/Actions: The CEQ issued an interpretive memorandum on June 24, 2005, regarding analysis of past actions, which states, “agencies can conduct an adequate cumulative effects analysis by focusing on the current aggregate effects of past actions without delving into the historical details of individual past actions.” The cumulative effects analysis is also consistent with Forest Service National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Regulations (36 CFR 220.4(f)). The LMP and supporting EIS contain discussions of various past influences on the SBNF. For this analysis, the effects of past activities are included in the species-by-species discussion of existing conditions/ baseline.

II-3.1.3.2 Cumulative Effects –Ongoing Activities/Actions: Ongoing activities and their effects to species/habitats are also 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.). For this analysis, the effects of ongoing activities are included in the species-by- species discussion of existing conditions/ baseline.

Ongoing projects and activities that could contribute to the cumulative effects of the Miller Canyon OHV staging area are limited. Forest Service projects/activities include ongoing use and maintenance of Forest System roads and trails in the general Miller Canyon/Silverwood Lake area and general use of NFS lands.

II-3.1.3.3 Cumulative Effects – Foreseeable Future Activities/Actions: Foreseeable future projects and activities that could contribute to the cumulative effects of the Miller Canyon OHV staging area are limited. Forest Service projects/activities include future use and maintenance of Forest System roads and trails in the general Miller Canyon/Silverwood Lake area and general use of NFS lands. Page 30

There are several fuels reduction projects in the planning phase in the San Bernardino Mountains: North Big Bear Fuels Reduction, Baldwin Fuels Reduction, and Santa Ana Fuels Reduction projects. It is expected that these projects may be implemented in 2014-2015 but it depends on funding. Vegetation management activities are focused on fuels reduction and forest health projects.

Other ongoing analyses include Mitsubishi’s proposed development of a new limestone mine quarry south of the existing quarry; and, an expansion of Omya’s limestone mining operation. Both of these proposals would result in permanent or very long-term (40-120+ years) losses of vegetated pinyon/juniper and desert transition habitats.

Other foreseeable future projects and activities are occurring on non-federal lands. These include continued residential and commercial developments in the Hesperia, Victorville, and Lake Arrowhead communities). Developments result in more people living in close vicinity, resulting in more user pressure on NFS lands, including in the Miller Canyon/Pilot Rock area.

II-3.2 – Potential Effects – Common Effects to Plants and Wildlife The following discussion describes generalized potential direct and indirect effects that may be common to many of the plants, animals, or habitats in the project 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 project area.

NOTE: Because the proposed staging area alternatives would not be larger than the existing staging area, no change in use of the connected OHV trails (approximately 20 miles) would result from any of the proposed staging area sites. As such, this document will only analyze the potential effects of the staging areas themselves, not the OHV trail network connected to the staging area.

II-3.2.1 – Hydrologic and Soil Considerations This discussion summarizes findings of the Hydrology Report for this project; see that report for more detailed discussions. The proposed staging areas would all be designed such that the expected effects to adjacent streams would be reduced over the current conditions. By use of BMPs, sediment basins, and other erosion control structures, water drainage would be more controlled, resulting in less erosion and sediment delivery to adjacent streams for all except the No Action alternative. The No Action alternative would result in the existing conditions continuing; as such, there would be no erosion control measures implemented at the existing site and any erosion and sediment delivery that is occurring would continue.

The upland alternatives are outside the 100-year flood area while the Proposed and No Action site is not. As such, the potential for pollution (e.g., from flooding of the vault toilet or porta- potty) and other effects during a flood event would be higher for the Proposed/No Action site than under either of the upland alternatives.

Page 31

Alternative 3 would restore the site would have the least amount of effects to soil and water conditions.

II-3.2.2 – General Effects to Habitat In order of amount of vegetated area that may be designated as a developed staging area, highest to lowest: Alternative 1 (Upland East) or Alternative 2 (Upland West), No Action, Proposed Action, and Alternative 3 (Restoration). Because the final site design would be completed after the site selection, exact acreages are not available. The intent is to preserve some trees and shrubs within the staging area, regardless of which alternative is selected.

Under the Proposed Action, the parking area would be reduced in size and some of the existing unofficial staging area would be restored and revegetated for a net increase in native vegetation habitat after the site has re-vegetated (which would take 5-10 years). The staging area is expected to be less than approximately 1 acre, with vegetated islands within the footprint. Approximately 1 acre of the existing disturbed area would be re-vegetated.

Under the Upland East Alternative, the site would be converted from montane chaparral habitat to cleared parking area. This area was treated by mastication during the Miller Canyon Fuels Reduction project. In order to break up the fuel continuity and reduce the likelihood of extreme fire behavior, a masticator was used in the shrub cover to create small patches of shrubs surrounded by bare openings. As such, the native vegetation cover has already been disturbed to some degree. Due to topography and vegetation, the area of disturbance may be slightly more than the existing staging area in order to accommodate the same number of vehicles. The staging area delineated on the map is approximately 5.5 acres; however, not all of these acres would be cleared. The larger polygon is to allow for flexibility in site design to accommodate topography. It is likely some vegetated islands be retained within the footprint.

Under the Upland West Alternative, the site would be converted from mixed hardwood/conifer forest and montane chaparral to cleared parking area. This area was treated as a shaded fuelbreak during the Miller Canyon Fuels Reduction project. In order to break up the fuel continuity and reduce the likelihood of extreme fire behavior, shrubs and ladder fuels were removed. As such, the native vegetation cover has already been disturbed to some degree. Due to topography and vegetation, the area of disturbance may be slightly more than the existing staging area in order to accommodate the same number of vehicles. The staging area delineated on the map is approximately 3 acres; however, not all of that acreage would be cleared. The larger polygon is to allow for flexibility in site design to accommodate topography. It is likely that some vegetated islands of oaks and pines within be retained within the footprint.

Under Alternative 3, there would be no staging area and the existing site would be restored and blocked with a net gain of vegetated habitat.

Under the No Action alternative, there would be no changes to the existing site, including no protection of adjacent vegetation, etc. The existing site is approximately 2 acres with vegetated areas within the footprint.

Page 32

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.

II-3.2.3– Potential Direct and Indirect Effects to Plants Under the Proposed Action and the Upland East or West Alternatives, plants would be lost during the clearing of the site. Plants in and near the staging area may be affected by erosion, deposition, dust, and changes in microclimate due to removal of vegetation. Erosion and deposition lead 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 undermining or burial. Design Features for plant protection, soils, and hydrology would minimize these indirect effects to plants and vegetation. For the Proposed Action, Upland-East, and Upland-West sites, erosion off of the staging area would controlled by site design features like sediment basins (see Hydrology Report) so no effects to plants adjacent to either staging area site would be expected.

Deposition of dust near the staging area, especially fugitive pm10 dust, would affect plants by blocking stomata and stigmatic surfaces, and reducing photosynthesis (Padgett et al. 2007). Dust in the 10-micron size range can get stuck in leaf stomata, the pores that allow plants to exchange gases (i.e., breath). This reduction in respiration interferes with the plants ability to make carbohydrates from sunlight (photosynthesis), leading to reduced growth and vigor and increased mortality. Dust accumulated on leaf surfaces also can effectively shade sunlight from leaves, also reducing photosynthesis. Dust accumulations on flower stigmas (the female part of flowers that receive pollen) can interfere will pollination and development of fertile seeds.

Microclimate changes due to removal of adjacent vegetation would include local increases in temperature, incident sunlight, and surface wind speeds. All of these can increase drought stress for plants, reduce growth rates and reproductive success, and increase mortality associated with drought.

Duration of effects is proportional to severity. The effects of habitat removal are considered to be permanent. Associated effects to microclimate on adjacent habitats are considered long-term. Effects of dust are considered to be permanent depending on extent and severity.

Under the Proposed Action and Alternative 3 (Full Restoration), the effects to plants would be reduced from current conditions as the existing site would be reduced in size (Proposed Action) or closed and restored (Alternative 3). Under the No Action alternative, the existing conditions would continue and the lack of barriers and site delineation would likely lead to the site expanding over time and more plants being affected. There would also be effects to plants under either of the Upland alternatives during the initial site clearing. The long-term effects to plants in the areas adjacent to the upland sites would be expected to be low because the site would have barriers and be managed so it would not expand in size.

II-3.2.4 – Spread or Establishment of Non-Native Invasive Species See the Non-Native Assessment Report (Part VI of this document) for a discussion of the risk of non-native plant and animal establishment and spread in the project area. Page 33

II-3.2.5 – Potential Effects to Habitat Connectivity and Fragmentation Because of the small size of the proposed staging area sites, no substantial changes to habitat connectivity would be expected as a result of the staging area development.

However, there may be some indirect effects. The Mojave River riparian corridor serves as a movement corridor and linear habitat feature. The Proposed Action and the No Action alternative would retain a staging area in and adjacent to the riparian vegetation and floodplain. By having a developed or unofficial staging area in such close proximity to a stream with flowing water, it is likely that some people using the staging area and facilities would enter the riparian zone for water play and exploration. This can affect habitat connectivity by damaging riparian vegetation over time. Trampling and establishment of a network of foot trails can kill plants and affect regeneration. Additionally, foot trails can alter natural drainage patterns, resulting in more erosion and further effects to vegetation, ultimately affecting the riparian habitat corridor.

The Upland-East site is adjacent to perennial Houston Creek, an important tributary to the Mojave River. However, because of the terrain, it is unlikely that users at the staging area would explore Houston Creek.

II-3.2.6 – Potential Effects to Aquatic, Riparian, and Drainage Habitats This discussion is based on the analysis and predicted effects included in the Soils/Hydrology Report for this project. Riparian Conservation Areas (RCAs) 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 perennial streams, and lakes/reservoirs or within approximately 98 feet (30 meters) of the edge of seasonally flowing/intermittent streams (FSH 2509.22).

All of the sites are either entirely or partially in an RCA (Figure 3): the Proposed Action and No Action sites are within the Mojave River RCA; Upland-West is located mostly out of the Mojave River RCA; and, Upland-East is located mostly out of the RCAs of Houston Creek and Mojave River. Alternative 3 would have only restoration activities in the Mojave River RCA.

Under the Proposed Action and the upland alternatives, the staging area would be designed in such a way as to control overland flow of water such effects to adjacent drainages and streams would be reduced over current conditions. This would be achieved by sediment basins, grading, etc. Alternative 3 would have the current site be revegetated and restored, reducing effects from current conditions. The No Action Alternative would not have any erosion control measures and would have the potential to result in sediment delivery and oil-based contaminants to the Mojave River.

Flood events could affect water quality in adjacent streams. Flooding of a staging area could carry soils contaminated with fluids associated with vehicles (e.g., gasoline, hydraulic fluids, oil, antifreeze, etc.) or other pollution (e.g., sewage from the vault toilet or porta-potty). The Proposed and No Action site would keep a staging area in the RCA and within the 100-year flood Page 34

Figure 3. Riparian Conservation Areas in Miller Canyon

Page 35

area. The Upland alternatives are almost all outside the RCA and are outside the 100-year flood area (see Hydrology Report). It is likely that a flood event would be required to carry contaminated soil to the adjacent drainages. The site designs for the Proposed Action and Alternatives 1, 2 and 3 would be expected to reduce this potential risk from normal conditions. There would continue to be some risk associated with the No Action Alternative.

Aside from the development of the staging area itself, the presence of people and dogs also have the potential to affect water quality, aquatic and riparian habitats. The Proposed Action and the No Action would result in continued use of the staging site within the Mojave River RCA and within close proximity of the perennial stream. As such, people will use the site for picnicking, bathrooms, OHV maintenance, OHV loading and off-loading, or relaxing before and after riding their OHVs. It is likely that other visitors would park at the staging area to access the Mojave River for fishing, exploring, birding, water play, etc. Under the No Action, a vault toilet would not be installed but the porta-potty would be kept at the site as long as funding allows. It is likely that the existing practice of people using/seeking screened areas to go to the bathroom would continue, possibly resulting in water quality issues associated with human and dog feces.

People exploring or congregating in the Mojave River may affect water quality through litter and pollution (e.g., dirty diapers, human and dog feces, etc.). Human activities and user-created trails may also result in increased erosion and turbidity due to degradation of the streambed and banks. The existing staging area has a number of user-created trails accessing the stream. Development of a more inviting staging area (e.g., bathrooms and picnic tables) may encourage visitors to linger at the site longer and for more visitors to stop there for non-OHV related activities.

Because of the topography of the Upland-East site and difficult access, it is unlikely that development of a staging area at that site would result in similar effects to Houston Creek. And since Alternatives 1 and 2 would be on the other side of 2N37 from the Mojave River, effects to the Mojave River riparian and aquatic habitat conditions would be less likely than under the Proposed and No Action alternatives.

Alternative 3 would result in the blocking and closure of the existing staging area, greatly reducing ongoing effects and risks to the aquatic and riparian conditions in the Mojave River.

II-3.2.7 – Disturbance/Displacement/Abandonment – Wildlife Disturbance effects to 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 Page 36

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).

Disturbance/displacement effects may be experienced on two levels for this project: temporary disturbance and displacement is likely to occur during construction/implementation activities for the Proposed Action, Alternatives 1, 2, and 3. In addition, the use of the staging areas under all but Alternative 3 would be expected to have high levels of disturbance over the long-term.

Disturbance Effects During Construction/Restoration Activities: During construction and restoration activities, there would be some short-term negative effects on some species. Use of heavy equipment and small machinery, and the 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. Limited Operating Periods would be incorporated for some rare species and would reduce the potential for construction and restoration related disturbance during key periods for some species.

Depending on the timing of site clearance/construction and restoration activities for all but the No Action Alternative, there may be some effects on breeding animals during those activities. Disturbances prior to nesting/breeding season may result in abandonment of breeding/nesting sites and disruption of courtship behaviors resulting in failure to reproduce or moving to adjacent areas and competing with other individuals for resources. Disturbance after breeding has started may result in losses of the season’s reproduction if the animals abandon existing nests, eggs, or offspring. For the alternatives that have restoration and closure of part or all of the site and a reduction in long-term disturbance levels, the animals may re-colonize the site after the disturbance has ceased.

Disturbance Effects of Long-Term Use of Staging Area: Over the long-term, the concentration of uses at the staging areas for all but Alternative 3 would likely result in complete abandonment and avoidance of the area by some species. Alternatives 1 and 2 would help reduce the disturbance in the important Mojave River riparian area by moving the concentrated use farther away. By having the concentrated use on the opposite site of 2N37, there would be less incidental exploration and use of the riparian zone.

Page 37

Due to the proximity to State Highway 138, a busy Forest Road (2N37), and the correctional center, there is already a relatively high level of disturbance in the general area. The proposed project would increase the amount of activity occurring in the area for the long-term. The greatest area of concern is increased disturbance in the adjacent high-quality riparian habitat found in the Mojave River. This habitat is very limited on the SBNF (and in Southern California), often with very high levels of disturbance. Many species depend on riparian zones for essential breeding, sheltering and foraging behaviors.

It is likely that the Proposed Action and the No Action Alternative would result in continued displacement and disturbance of native wildlife from the vicinity of the staging area and into the Mojave River corridor. The Upland alternatives should result in decreased disturbance levels in the riparian area by removing the concentrated use from the riparian area. Alternative 3 would completely remove all official staging from that area.

Some effects to breeding behavior of animals (including common, Watchlist, and Sensitive species) would be expected for all alternatives over time. After completion of restoration under Alternative 3, the likelihood of effects to breeding animals would diminish over time and the amount of habitat available for breeding would increase.

II-3.2.8 – Death and Injury of Individuals – Wildlife Some losses of individual animals may occur as a result of 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. Death or injury of individual animals may be experienced on two levels for this project: during construction/implementation activities for the Proposed Action, Alternatives 1, 2, and 3. In addition, the use of the staging areas under all but Alternative 3 could result in death or injury of animals.

Risk of Death/Injury During Construction/Restoration: Some loss of animals may occur during the construction/restoration phases of the all but the No Action alternative when heavy and small equipment may be used for site clearance, grading, and installation of erosion control structures, etc. Slow-moving animals and those that freeze when frightened are at the greatest risk of being killed or injured by construction-related vehicles/equipment. Equipment use may result in losses of fossorial species if burrows or rotting logs are crushed or moved. The risk of death or injury is considered very low during restoration activities because they would likely be done by small crews with hand tools.

Animals nesting or denning in trees and shrubs may be injured or killed during felling and vegetation removal. Nests on the ground or in rock outcrops are also susceptible to destruction by grading activities. 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.

Animals may also be killed or injured during removal of slash piles (e.g., burning, chipping, etc.). Ideally, piles would be burned as soon as possible after piling to limit the potential for

Page 38

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

Risk of Death/Injury From Long-Term Use of the Staging Area: After development of a staging area, it is unlikely that birds would use the area within and adjacent to the site for breeding due to the low quality habitat and high levels of disturbance. As such, the risk to birds from use of a staging area is low. Large terrestrial species are also considered to have a low risk due to the ability to escape.

Small terrestrial and slow-moving species are at the greatest risk from death or injury due to vehicle collisions and collecting/poaching by visitors. This includes snakes and other reptiles, fossorial species whose burrows collapse due to trampling or vehicles, invertebrates, and amphibians. All but Alternative 3 have some risk associated with the long-term use. The Proposed Action and No Action would have a higher risk of effects to riparian and aquatic species due to the proximity to the Mojave River.

II-3.2.9 – 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 (i.e., borax; trade name sporax or Cellu-Treat) to prevent the establishment and spread of annosus root disease. It would be applied only to fresh cut stumps, following Design Features. Sporax is applied as a powder while Cellu-Treat (a soluble borate powder) 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).

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 Page 39

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 2006b).

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 – Effects of No Action Under the No Action alternative, the baseline condition would persist. The use of the existing unofficial staging area would continue as is without facility development (e.g., vault toilet, parking barriers, erosion control structures, etc.). The site would likely continue to grow in size because the parking area would not be delineated on the ground. As a result, it is likely that there would be further impacts to vegetation, wildlife habitat, and water quality. Without the installation of a vault toilet, the area around the staging area would continue to have a concentrated use by the public and their dogs as a bathroom site with continued fecal contamination and litter. Under the No Action alternative, no restoration of damaged habitat would occur.

II-4.0 – EXISTING ENVIRONMENT AND POTENTIAL EFFECTS – SBNF WATCHLIST SPECIES SBNF Watchlist species are those that the local biologists and botanists have expressed concern about 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 the species, it is not yet known whether listing as Sensitive is warranted (the effort to gather such information is one of the purposes of the Watchlist).

The purpose of the Watchlist Report is to document occurrences of these species in the project area as well as to document the types and degree of potential effects from the proposed project. Species accounts for most of the Watchlist species are contained in the LMP (species accounts for some recent additions to the list have not been developed yet); references are included in those accounts and generally are not repeated here.

II-4.1 –SBNF Watchlist Plants and Other Rare Plants There are two SBNF Watchlist plant species known or likely to occur within the reach of indirect effects of the Proposed Action. All species listed in Table 2 were considered in this analysis and . Page 40

Table 2. San Bernardino National Forest Watch Plant Species and Other Rare Plants in/near the Project Area Species Name Common Name Occurrence Information* Occurs In/Near Project Mountaintop Front San Area* Country Jacinto Allium parishii Parish’s onion Y P N Androsace elongata subsp. acuta California androsace P P Y N Arabis dispar pinyon rock-cress Y N Astragalus leucolobus Bear Valley woollypod Y Y Y N Berberis fremontii Fremont barberry N Boechera lincolnensis Lincoln rockcress N Boykenia rotundifolia round-leaved boykenia Y Y Y Y – near staging sites, known from unnamed tributary and upstream in Houston Creek Castilleja montigena Heckard’s paintbrush Y Y N Chaenactis parishii Parish’s chaenactis Y N Corydylanthyus eremicus subsp. eremicus desert bird’s beak Y N Cymopterus multinervatus purple-nerve cymopterus P N Erigeron breweri var. jacinteus San Jacinto Mts. daisy P N Eriogonum microthecum var. corymbosoides San Bernardino Mountains buckwheat Y N Eriogonum umbellatum var. minus alpine sulpher-flowered buckwheat Y N Eriophyllum lanatum var. obovatum southern Sierra woolly sunflower Y Y N Galium angustifolium subsp. gabrielense San Antonio Canyon bedstraw P N Galium jepsonii Jepson’s bedstraw P N Galium johnstonii Johnston’s bedstraw Y Y Y N Hulsea vestita subsp. callicarpha beautiful hulsea Y N Hulsea vestita subsp. parryi Parry’s sunflower Y Y N Juglans californica southern California black walnut Y Y N Juncus duranii Duran’s rush Y N Layia ziegleri Ziegler’s aster Y N Lepidium virginicum var. robinsonii Robinson’s peppergrass P P N Linanthus maculatus Little San Bernardino Mountains gilia P P N Lilium humboldtii var. ocellatum ocellated Humboldt lily Y Y P Yes – near staging sites in Houston Creek, W. Fk of E. Fk. Mojave

Table 2. San Bernardino National Forest Watch Plant Species and Other Rare Plants in/near the Project Area Species Name Common Name Occurrence Information* Occurs In/Near Project Mountaintop Front San Area* Country Jacinto River, unnamed trib to Mojave River Monardella cinerea Gray monardella Y P N Muhlenbergia californica California muhly grass Y N Muilla coronata Crowned muilla P N Packera ionophylla Tehachapi ragwort Y Y Known from nearby but not in the project area Perideridida parishii subsp. parishii Parish’s yampah Y N Phacelia mohavensis Mojave phacelia Y P Known from nearby but not in the project area Piperia leptopetala Narrow-petaled rein orchid Y Y N Podistera nevadensis Sierra podistera Y N Poliomintha incana (not W) frosted mint N Rupertia rigida Parish’s California tea Y P P N Swertia neglecta pine-green gentian Y N Syntrichopappus lemmonii Lemmon’s syntrichopappus Y P Y N Viola aurea golden violet P P N *Occurrence Information: Y = Species is known to occur. P = Occurrence of the species is possible; suitable habitat exists, and the species is known from nearby locations. U = Occurrence of the species is unlikely based on habitat present. H = Part of the historical range but the species has likely been extirpated. N = Outside known distribution/range of the species.

Page 42

those that are known or likely to occur in the project area are indicated. See the LMP for complete species accounts with citations.

Direct and indirect effects to Watchlist plants from the Proposed Action are described below. The discussions in Part II-3.2 also applies to Watchlist plants known to occur as well as any that were undetected during surveys.

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. No effects would be expected from the development or restoration of the sites under any alternative because this species does not occur in those sites. Visitors using the Proposed Action or the No Action site could affect these plants through trampling and habitat degradation associated with trail development and erosion as they explore and use the Mojave River area. Individual plants could also be affected through flower-collecting. This flower is often picked because it is very showy and attractive.

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. Occurrences in the SBNF 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.

There are six occurrences of Phacelia mohavensis known in the Miller Canyon area. All of the Phacelia mohavensis occurrences documented in the Miller Canyon/Pilot Rock area are sunny openings within the surrounding vegetation, and this species is generally associated with open to partially-open canopy structure. None are known from the within any of the staging area sites. There is a low potential that they could occur at one of the sites undetected.

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.

No effects would be expected from the development or restoration of the sites under any alternative because this species does not occur in those sites. Effects to this species from the long-term use of a staging area at any of the proposed sites are considered very unlikely due to the lack of suitable conditions in close proximity to the proposed sites. Visitors using the Proposed Action or the No Action site could affect these plants through trampling and habitat degradation associated with trail development and erosion as they explore and use the Mojave River area.

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. On the Angeles National Forest, this species inhabits dry, rocky slopes within yellow pine forest. On the SBNF, Packera ionophylla occasionally grows on carbonate substrates in addition to granitics; for example, on Sugarloaf Ridge. In this habitat, Packera ionophylla has been found in association with Physaria kingii ssp. bernardina, Eriogonum microthecum var. corymbosoides, and Abronia nana ssp. covillei.

Three small occurrences of Packera ionophylla have been documented in the Miller Canyon area. This species is often associated with unconsolidated and more or less unstable soils. This species is not currently known from any of the proposed staging area sites. It is considered unlikely that it occurs at any of the sites undetected.

II-4.2 – SBNF Watchlist Plants – No Action Under the No Action alternative, the baseline condition for Watchlist plants would persist. The existing unofficial staging area would continue as is, without facility development (e.g., vault toilet, parking barriers, erosion control structures, etc.). The site would likely continue to grow in size because the parking area would not be delineated on the ground. As a result, it is likely that there would be further impacts to vegetation, including any Watchlist plants that occur in the vicinity of the site. Under the No Action alternative, no restoration of damaged habitat would occur.

II-4.3 – SBNF Watchlist Animals and Other Species of Concern There are a number of Watchlist animals known or expected to occur in the project area. Table 3 contains the current Watchlist animals for the SBNF and occurrence probability in the project area for each species. The potential effects to Watchlist species that are known to occur and those that have a high probability of occurring in the project area are discussed in detail. In addition to Watchlist animals, several other species of concern for the area are addressed in this section.

See the existing environment described in Part II-2.2 and the effects analyses applicable to common and special status species in Part II-3.2. The following species and site-specific evaluations tier to Part II-3.2.

Page 44

Table 3. San Bernardino National Forest Watch List Animals Common Latin Name MT* MTRD Occurrences Habitat** In/Near Name Project? Springsnails Pyruglopsis sp. Y aq – seeps and springs P Westfork Helminthoglypta Y Type locality: West Fork Mojave River before the creation of ? Y Shoulderband taylori Silverwood Lake. May be extirpated. Endemic Snail1 simple Hydroporus Y CNDDB: Wilbur’s pond (15+ adults collected in 1983 - 200 mile aq P hydroporus simplex range extension) diving beetle desert monkey Psychomastax Y CNDDB: within 1 mile Cactus Flat, within 1 mile of Cushenbury d, wo (pj) N grasshopper deserticola Cyn (1919; 1937) greenest tiger Cicindela P Santa Ana basin on S. Side of San Bernardino Mtns. r, w U beetle tranquebarica viridissima- Dorhn’s Palaeoxenus Y Crestline mc P elegant dorhni eucnemid beetle bicolored Pleocoma Y endemic to Crestline, BlueJay, Lk Arrowhead mc, wo (oaks) L rainbeetle bicolor San Coloradia velda Y Coxey Meadow, Coxey Meadow, Horse Springs, Crab Flats, wo (pj), mc U Bernardino Cactus Flats, and Barton Flats Mountains silk moth August Euphydryas Y Running Springs, Moonridge, Cedar Pines Park, Wild Horse mc L – Observed checkerspot editha augustina Creek, Fawnskin, Sugarloaf Peak, Onyx Peak in 2005 @ butterfly Tunnel 2 Andrew's Euchloe hyantis Y Baldwin Lake, Belleville Meadow, Big Bear Lake; CNDDB: m, r; Host plants are in L marble andrewsi Cedar Pines Park (1928); Crestline in meadow (1937); Running mustard family butterfly Springs (1947); Lake Arrowhead (1947); Big Bear Lake @ dam (Thelypodium stenopetalum; (1909); N side of Sugarloaf Mtn @8000' (1970) Arabis holboelii var. pinetorum; Streptanthus bernardinus) California Diplectrona N Aq (rapid portions of small, U diplectronan californica cool streams) caddisfly Page 45

Table 3. San Bernardino National Forest Watch List Animals Common Latin Name MT* MTRD Occurrences Habitat** In/Near Name Project? partially Gasterosteus Y Holcomb Creek; Lake Arrowhead; Big Bear Lake (introduced) aq U armored aculeatus threespine microcephalus stickleback Monterey Ensatina Y Bluejay; Running Springs; Lake Arrowhead wo (oaks), mc, r Y (USGS ensatina eschscholtzii 2000-2001) salamander eschscholtzii arboreal Aneides lugubris N wo (oaks), c, r; foothills U salamander garden slender Batrachoseps N r, wo, g, meadow, c U salamander major western Spea hamondii N w, r N spadefoot toad Red spotted Anaxyrus Y Viscera Spring d, r (streams, pools, cattle N toad punctatus tanks, springs), rk common Sauromalus Y Desert slopes of San Bernardinos d, wo (pj) N chuckwalla obesus Zebra-tail Callisaurus Y NRIS: Unnamed trib to Deep Ck, north of Hot Springs d, sandy washes N lizard draconiodes rhodostictus Mojave black- Crotaphytus Y Desert slopes; NRIS: Blackhawk Mnt, Burnt Flat d N collared lizard bicinctores granite night Xantusia N rk U lizard henshawi Desert night Xantusia vigilis Y Cactus Flat (SBCM); Desert slopes; NRIS: Partin Mine area, d N lizard Viscera Spring coast horned Phrynosoma Y Cactus Flats, Coxey; SBCM records: Santa Ana River @ w, d, wo Y – USGS lizard coronatum Rattlesnake; Arrastre Ck@2N02; CNDDB: within 1 mile of (2000-2001) blainvillii Staircase Cyn near Santa Ana River, Sugarloaf Meadow area, Deek Ck, Fisherman's Camp, Rock Camp, Mojave Forks Spillway, Silverwood Lake Coronado Plestiodon Y Big Bear c, wo, r, mc – sea level to N skink skiltonianus 1675 meters interparietalis coast patch- Salvadora L NRIS: Coxey Meadow - record for western patch-nose snake (no c, d, w, rk, coastal sage, U nosed snake hexalepis subspecies) alluvial fan scrub Page 46

Table 3. San Bernardino National Forest Watch List Animals Common Latin Name MT* MTRD Occurrences Habitat** In/Near Name Project? virgultea mountain Thamnophis Y Big Bear area, Lake Arrowhead, Bluff Lake, Skyforest, Santa Ana m, r Y-SBCM garter snake elegans elegans River, Fish Ck; SBCM Records: Deep Crk @ Dry Ck; Houston obs. 2005 Ck; NRIS: Bluff Lake red diamond Crotalus ruber Y NRIS: Viscera Apring c, wo, d, rk N rattlesnake ruber southwestern Crotalus Y Cushenbury Springs. NRIS: Blackhawk Mtn c, wo, d, rk P speckled mitchellii rattlesnake pyrrhus western least Ixobrychus L No nesting known aq P bittern exilis hesperis turkey vulture Cathartes aura Y a, g, c, wo, d, rk N (breeding) osprey Pandion Y Big Bear Lake – possible nesting; NRIS: Big Bear Lake aq, r P haliaetus white-tailed Elanus leucurus Y Fall/winter-Santa Ana River; Big Bear Lake; Baldwin Lake r, wo P kite (nesting not known). NRIS: Coxey Mdw, Deer Ck @ 1N09, northern Circus cyaneus Y Wintering Big Bear area g, m P harrier sharp-shinned Accipiter Y Big Bear area nesting presumed; SBCM Records: Green Cyn, r, mc L hawk striatus Van Dusen Cyn, Deer Ck, Rattlesnake Ck. NRIS: Greenlead (breeding) Mine; Garrett&Dunn: Lake Arrowhead (1922); Big Bear Lake (1904) Cooper's hawk Accipiter Y Nests: Cushenbury Springs; north slope canyons; Presumed nest: r, mc Y – Miller (breeding) cooperii Fawnskin; SBCM records - presumed nesting: Arrastre Ck; Santa Cyn (SBCM) Ana River; Deep Ck; Dry Ck (Deep Ck); Deer Ck; Green Cyn; Houston Ck; Kidd Ck; Miller Cyn; Metcalf Meadwo; Van Dusen Ck. CNDDB: Crystal Ck nest 1988 zone-tailed Buteo Y Accidental – Big Bear Lake mc, wo (pj) U hawk albonotatus ferruginous Buteo regalis Y Northslope migrant g, d N hawk Swainson’s Buteo swainsoni Y Northslope migrant; nesting in Lucerne area g, w N hawk 1 golden eagle Aquila Y Nesting: Arctic/Marble Cyn, Blackhawk Mtn; Pinnacles; Deep g, d, wo (pj, oak) N – nesting; chrysaetos Ck; SBCM records (foraging): Holcomb Ck @ Little Bear L -foraging Page 47

Table 3. San Bernardino National Forest Watch List Animals Common Latin Name MT* MTRD Occurrences Habitat** In/Near Name Project? Springs; Mojave Forks dam merlin Falco Y Mojave River g, mc L columbarius prairie falcon Falco Y Northslope; CNDDB: nests north of FS boundary in Lucerne area. g, d P mexicanus NRIS: Dry Cyn, Crystal Ck; Hwy 18/138 American Falco Y Foraging- Big Bear Lake cliffs for nests; aq for N for nesting; peregrine peregrinus hunting P for foraging falcon anatus Wilson’s snipe Gallinago n/a m, aq N (Lake Hemet delicata population only) flammulated Otus flammeolus Y Fawnskin area, nesting east end of Big Bear Valley mc L owl western Otus kennicottii Y NRIS: Wright Mine, Houston Ck; Bailey Peak, Between Bailey r, mc, wo Y – 2005 screech owl Pk and Silverwood (SBNF) northern Glaucidium Y nesting at east end of Big Bear Valley; SBCM Records: Cienaga r, mc, wo Y – 2005 pygmy owl gnoma Seca; Cold Ck, College Camp, Green Cyn, Kilpecker Ck; Sand (SBNF) Ck; Santa Ana River @ 1N45; NRIS: 2N45 @ 5000 (S of Silverwood), Fish Ck Meadow burrowing owl Athene P d N cunicularia hypogaeae long-eared owl Asio otus Y r, mc L northern saw- Aegolius Y NRIS: Fish Ck Meadow, Polique Cyn Rd, upper Coxey Ck wo, mc, pine L whet owl acadicus common Chordeiles Y SBCM records: Fish Creek, South Fork Santa Ana River, Baldwin a, pine, mc L nighthawk minor Lake, Bluff Lake, Big Bear Lake, and Sugarloaf; Holcomb Ck; 2N02 Mexican whip- Caprimulgus Y RBA Sightings: Santa Ana River, Green Cyn (Mexican whip- wo, mc P poor-will arizonae poor-will 2012, 2013), Heartbar black swift Cypseloides Y NRIS: Deep Cyn (north slope) a, r (waterfalls) P niger calliope Stellula calliope Y Big Bear area; SBCM records: Van Dusen Ck; Jacoby Cyn; r Y – 2003 Page 48

Table 3. San Bernardino National Forest Watch List Animals Common Latin Name MT* MTRD Occurrences Habitat** In/Near Name Project? hummingbird Fawnskin; Snow Valley; S. Side BB Lake; Arrastre Ck@2N02; (SBCM) Santa Ana River; Green Cyn; Willow Ck; Houston Ck Lewis' Melanerpes Y Lake Silverwood (Rare bird alerts) wo (oak), r Y woodpecker lewis Williamson's Sphyrapicus Y Big Bear area; Bluff Lake; SBCM Records: Arrastre Ck (Missed mc P sapsucker thyroideus Spring), Boulder Bay Trib, Green Cyn, Kidd Ck, Knickerbocker Ck, Little Bear Spring, Metcalf Ck/Mdw, Miller Cyn, North Ck, Red Ant Cyn. Several known nests along Keller Peak road (2012,2013) Red-breasted Sphyrapicus Y Big Bear area; Barton Flats; SA River; SBCM Records: Arrastre rw Y (SBCM) sapsucker 1 ruber Ck; Missed Spring, Boulder Bay trib, Fawnskin, Cienaga Seca, Clark Ranch, College Camp, Crab Ck, Deep Ck-N. Fk, Dry/Deep Ck, Deer Ck, Green Cyn, Green Valley Lk Ck/Mdw, Grout Bay, Hanna Flat, Hooks Ck, Jacoby Cyn, Kidd ck, Knickerbocker Ck, Little Bear Spring, Metcalf Ck/Mdw, Miller Cyn, North Ck, Red Ant Cyn, Sand Ck, Santa Ana River (1N45, Metoche, Wasewagon, Rattlesnake, Barton), Seeley Ck, South Fork, Snow Valley area, Van Dusen Cyn, Woodland Trail, Barton Ck, Heartbar, Rattlesnake Ck. NRIS: Santa Ana River @ Seven Oaks, Fish Ck Meadow, Big Bear Ranger Stn, 3N14 near Rattlesnake Spring Nuttall's Picoides Y Big Bear area; Barton Flats; SA River; SBCM Records: Arrastre r, c, wo, mc Y – 2003, woodpecker nuttallii Ck; Missed Spring, Cienaga Seca, Clark Ranch, Cold Ck; College 2004, 2005 Camp, Deep Ck; Dry Ck (Deep Ck), Deer Ck, Green Cyn, Grout (SBCM) Bay, Houston Ck, Jacoby Cyn, Kilpecker Ck, Little Bear Springs, Miller Cyn, North Ck, Sand Ck, Santa Ana River (1N45, Barton), Seeley Ck, South Fork, Van Dusen Cyn, Willow Ck, Barton Ck, white-headed Picoides Y Big Bear area; Barton Flats; SA River; SBCM Records: Arrastre mc Y – 2004 woodpecker albolarvatus Ck, Missed Spring, Aspen Glen, Boulder Bay Trib, Fawnskin, (SBCM) Cienaga Seca, Cold Ck, College Camp, Crab Ck, N Fk Deep Ck, Dry/Deep Ck, Dry Ck, Green Valley Ck/Mdw, Grout Bay, Hanna Flat, Jacoby Cyn, Kidd Ck, Knickerbocker Ck, Little Bear Spring, Metcalf Ck/Mdw, North Ck, Red Ant Cyn, Sand Ck, Santa Ana River (1N45, Metoche, Wasewagon, Rattlesnake), Seeley Ck, Shake Ck, South Fork, Rim Nordic Trib, Van Dusen Cyn, Barton Ck, Rattlesnake Ck. NRIS: Barton Flats, Fish Ck Meadow, N. Fk

Page 49

Table 3. San Bernardino National Forest Watch List Animals Common Latin Name MT* MTRD Occurrences Habitat** In/Near Name Project? Mission Ck

Olive-sided Contopus Y SBCM Records: Arrastre Ck; Missed Spring, Cienaga Seca, Clark rw Y (SBCM) flycatcher 1 cooperi Ranch, College Camp, Crab Ck, N.Fk Deep Ck, Deer Ck, Green Cyn, Hanna Flat, Houston Ck, Jacoby Cyn; Kidd Ck, Little Bear Springs, Metcalf Ck/Mdw, Miller Cyn, North Ck, Red Ant Cyn, Sand Ck, Santa Ana River (1N45, Rattlesnake), South Fork, Van Dusen, Willow Ck, Seven Oaks; NRIS: 3N16/3N17, Greenlead Mine, Arrastre Ck/2N02, N. Fk Mission Ck, S. Fk Mission Ck gray flycatcher Empidonax Y North slope; Baldwin Lake; Arrastre Ck;SBCM records: N. Fk wo (pj), c U wrightii Deep Ck @ Snow Valley; Santa Ana River @ Rattlesnake; S. Fk Santa Ana River loggerhead Lanius Y Round Valley – possible nesting c, wo, r, d, mc P shrike ludovicianus plumbeous Vireo plumbeus Y Arrastre Ck; SBCM Records: Arrastre Ck@2N04, Jacoby Cyn, wo (pj), mc P vireo Little Bear Springs

Cassin’s vireo Vireo cassinii Y SBCM Records (pre-split of plumbeous and cassinii): Arrastre Ck mc, wo (oak), r L (2N02), Missed Spring, Cienaga Seca, Green Cyn, Jacoby Cyn, Little Bear Springs warbling vireo Vireo gilvus Y SBCM Records: Arrastre Ck, Cienaga Seca, Clark Ranch, Cold r, wo, mc Y – 2004 Ck, N. Fk, Deep Ck, Dry/Deep Ck, Deer Ck, Green Cyn, Grout (SBCM) Bay, Jacoby Cyn, Kidd Ck, Little Bear Springs, Metcalf Mdw, North Ck, Red Ant Cyn, Santa Ana River (1N45, Metoche, Wasewagon, Rattlesnake, Barton), Seeley Ck, South Fork, Van Dusen Cyn, Willow Ck, Sand Ck pinyon jay Gymnorhinus Y Northeast SB Mtns breeding wo (pj), mc U cyanocephalus

Page 50

Table 3. San Bernardino National Forest Watch List Animals Common Latin Name MT* MTRD Occurrences Habitat** In/Near Name Project? California Eremophila Y Erwin Lake, Lake Williams, Baldwin Lake g, d U horned lark alpestris actia (breeding) purple martin Progne subis Y NRIS: Keller Peak a, r, mc, wo P tree swallow Tachycineta Y SBCM Records: Green Cyn, Seeley Ck a, r, wo, mc Y – 2004 bicolor (SBCM) American Cinclus Y Deep Ck @ T6; SBCM records: Santa Ana River; upper Bear Ck; streams Y-2004 dipper mexicanus Houston Ck, Miller Canyon; Sany Canyon; Shake Ck; S.Fk Santa (SBCM) Ana; Dry Ck; Barton Ck @ Santa Ana Swainson's Catharus Y SBCM Records: Jacoby Cyn, Van Dusen Cyn r, mc P thrush ustulatus hermit thrush Catharus Y SBCM records: Cienaga Seca; Green Cyn; Little Bear Springs; pine, mc P (breeding) guttatus Metcalf Mdw; College Camp; Mojave River; NRIS: 2N10 w. of Bear Mtn Bendire's Toxostoma Y Lucerne, Apple Valleys; Pipe’s Cyn c, wo, r, d P thrasher bendirei LeConte's Toxostoma Y Northslope d P thrasher lecontei American pipit Anthus Y Baldwin/Big Bear Lake alpine, talus & sand slopes U (breeding) rubescens Virginia’s Vermivora Y S. Fk Santa Ana River (6900’) Arrastre Ck (6000’) -nesting; wo (pj), c P warbler virginiae SBCM Records: Jacoby Cyn, Kinckerbocker Ck, North Ck (breeding) yellow warbler Dendroica Y SBCM Records: Arrastre Ck (2N04, 2N04), Clark Ranch, College mc, wo, r Y-2003, 2005 petechia Camp, Deep/Dry Ck, Deer Ck, Green Cyn, Houston Ck, Jacoby (SBCM) brewsteri Cyn, Little Bear Springs, Metcalf Ck/Mdw, Sand Ck, Santa Ana River (1N45, Barton), Shake Ck, Deep Ck, Seven Oaks

MacGillivray's Oporornis Y Bluff Lake, Metcalf Mdw; Barton Flats; SBCM Records: Arrastre r. m L warbler tolmiei Ck; Missed Spring; Cienaga Seca; Clark Ranch; Cold Ck; College Camp; N. Fk Deep Ck; Deer Ck @ 1N09; Green Cyn; Jacoby Cyn; Kidd Ck; Knickerbocker Ck; Little Bear Springs; Metcalf Ck/Mdw; North Ck; Sand Ck; Santa Ana River @1N45 and Rattlesnake; South Fork Santa Ana; Van Duesen; Green Valley Ck/Mdw; Heartbar; Seven Oaks; Barton Ck; NRIS: Holcomb Ck @ Greenlead Ck Page 51

Table 3. San Bernardino National Forest Watch List Animals Common Latin Name MT* MTRD Occurrences Habitat** In/Near Name Project? common Geothlypis Y SBCM records: Cushenbury Springs (nest); Mojave Forks (Deep r L yellowthroat trichas Ck); Holcomb Ck; Santa Ana River; Arrastre Ck Wilson's Wilsonia pusilla Y SBCM Records: Arrastre Ck (2N02, 2N04, Missed Spring), r Y-2005 warbler Boulder Bay Trib, Fawnskin, Cienaga Seca, Clark Ranch, Cold (SBNF) Ck, College Camp, Deep Ck, N. Fk Deep Ck, Deep/Dry Ck, Dry Ck, Green Cyn, Green Valley Ck/Mdw, Grout Bay, Hanna Flat, Heartbar, Jacoby Cyn, Kidd Ck, Knicerbocker Ck, Holcomb Ck, Metcalf Ck/Mdw, North Ck, Santa Ana River (1N45, Metcohe), South Fork, Rim Nordic Ski Area Trib, Van Dusen Cyn, Willow Ck, Van Dusen Cyn yellow- Icteria virens P CNDDB: Cushenbury Springs (nest) r P breasted chat southern Aimophila Y Desert side SB Mtns; SBCM Records: Cienaga Seca, Deer Ck, c P California ruficeps North Ck rufous- canescens crowned sparrow Bell's sage Amphispiza belli Y SBCM Records: Metcalf Meadow, Deer Ck c P sparrow belli grasshopper Ammodramus Y r P sparrow 1 savannarum Lincoln's Melospiza Y Nesting – near Big Bear Lake, Green Valley, S. Fork Santa Ana r, mc, wo P sparrow lincolnii River; Bluff Lake, Metcalf Meadow; SBCM records: Cienaga Seca; Heartbar; College Camp; Green Cyn; Little Bear Springs; Metcalf Mdw; Santa Ana River @ 1N45; Sand Ck hepatic tanager Piranga flava Y Nesting-Arrastre Creek, Round Valley wo P summer Piranga rubra Y Cushenbury Springs (nesting); SBCM Records: Metcalf Mdw, r P tanager Deep Ck; CNDDB: Old Woman Springs off-forest, Black-chinned Spizella Y SBCM records: Jacoby Cyn; Cushenbury Cyn: Little Bear c, wo, d L sparrow atrogularis Springs; Grout Bay; Van Dusen Cyn; Arrastre Ck @ 2N02; Heartbar; Sand Crk; Clark Ranch; Deep Ck @ spillway; NRIS: Horsethief Cyn N of Silverwood, Blackhawk Mntn Yellow-headed Xanthocephalus Y Baldwin Lake; Cushenbury Springs. NRIS: Baldwin Lake, m U blackbird 1 xanthocephalus Rathbun Ck Meadow (S. side Big Bear Lake) tri-colored Agelaius Y Cushenbury Springs r, m P Page 52

Table 3. San Bernardino National Forest Watch List Animals Common Latin Name MT* MTRD Occurrences Habitat** In/Near Name Project? blackbird tricolor Lawrence's Carduelis Y SBCM records: Arrastre Ck; Boulder Bay trib; Clark Ranch; Crab r, c Y-2005 goldfinch lawrencei Ck; Deep Ck; N. Fk Deep Ck; Dry Ck (Deep Ck); Deer Ck @ (SBNF); 1N09; Green Cyn; Green Valley Ck; Houston Ck; Jacoby Cyn; 2003, 2004, Kidd Ck; Kilpecker Ck; Knickerbocker Ck; Little Bear Springs; 2005 (SBCM) Metcalf Mdw; Metcalf Ck; Miller Cyn; Red Ant Cyn; Santa Ana River (several sites); Seeley Ck; S. Fk Santa Ana; Van Dusen Cyn; Willow Ck; Sand Cyn; Heartbar; NRIS: Coxey Meadow, Viscera Springs western small- Myotis Y SBCM Records: 2N93 between Hwy 38 and Wildhorse Mdw, Big wo, r, mc; roosts in cliffs, P footed myotis ciliolabrum Bear landfill, Cactus Flats, Crab Flats, Arrastre Ck, Holcomb Ck, talus, rocks, mines, burrows, Holcomb Valley, Jacoby Cyn, Jenks Lake, Miller Cyn, Van cavities, under bark, bridges, Dusen Cyn. CNDDB: Heartbreak Ridge (1998); Arraste Ck @ buildings 2N02 (1998), Rose Mine (1998) long-eared Myotis evotis Y Arrastre Ck, Holcomb Valley, Jacoby Cyn, Wright Mine, North c, wo, mc; roosts in P myotis Slope; SBCM Records: 2N93, Crab Flats; Holcomb Ck; Holcomb buildings, tree cavities, under Valley; Jacoby Cyn; Seven Oaks; Van Dusen Cyn; CNDDB: Old bark, bridges, caves, mines, Timer Cyn (1998); Holcomb Valley n of 3N07 (1998), cliffs Rattlesnake Cyn vicinity (1998); Wright Mine (1998) little brown Myotis lucifugus Y Cactus Flats, Cushenbury Springs; SBCM Records: Arrastre Ck; c, m, g, wo; roosts in P myotis Cactus Flats; Jenks Lake; Metcalf Mdw; Seven Oaks buildings, trees, under rocks/wood, caves, mines long-legged Myotis volans Y Jacoby Cyn, Cushenbury Springs, Cactus Flats, Big Bear Lake @ wo, mc, c; roosts in rock P myotis dam, Deep Ck; SBCM Records: Arrastre Ck; Cactus Flats; Carb crevices, buildings, under Flats; Holcomb Valley; Jacoby Cyn; Seven Oaks; Van Dusen bark, snags, mines, caves. Cyn; CNDDB: Heartbar Ridge (1998), Arrastre Ck @ 2N02 (1998), Rose Mine (1998), Wright Mine (1998) Yuma myotis Myotis Y Cushenbury Springs; SBCM Records: Holcomb Ck, Miller Cyn, d, wo; roosts in buildings, P yumanensis Crab Flats, Sevn Oaks; CNDDB: Holcomb Valley Campground mines, caves, crevices, under (1998) bridges spotted bat Euderma Y SBCM Records: Cactus Flats d, rk; preferred roost is P maculatum cliffs/rock crevices, caves, buildings. pocketed free- Nyctinomops L Cushenbury Springs wo (pj), d; roost in cliffs/rock U tailed bat femerosaccus crevices Page 53

Table 3. San Bernardino National Forest Watch List Animals Common Latin Name MT* MTRD Occurrences Habitat** In/Near Name Project? western Eumops perotis Y Cushenbury Springs; SBCM Records: Cactus Flats, Holcomb Ck, mc, wo, c, g, d, u; roosts in P bonneted bat californicus Jenks Lake cliff faces, tall buildings, trees, tunnels California leaf- Macrotus Y Arrastre Ck d, wo (pj); roost in mines, U nosed bat californicus buildings, rocks. Western Lasiurus U r, d, wash, palm oasis; roosts U yellow bat 1 xanthinus in tree foliage Hoary bat 1 Lasiurus Y SBCM records: Holcomb Ck; Miller Cyn; Van Dusen Cyn d, wo, mc; roosts in tree Y (SBCM) cinereus foliage Silver-haired Lasiurus Y BCM Records: Green Valley Lake, Van Dusen Cyn mc (old growth); roosts U bat 1 noctivagans under bark and large snags western red bat Lasiurus Y mc, r; roosts in tree foliage P blossevillii San Diego Lepus N c, wo N black-tailed californicus jackrabbit bennettii lodgepole Tamias Y Big Bear area; Fawnskin; SBCM Records: Missed Spring; Aspen mc N chipmunk speciosus Glen Picnic; Bounder Bay Trib; Fawnskin; Cienaga Seca; N. Fk speciosus Deep Ck; Hanna Flat; Dry Ck (Deep Ck); Kidd Ck; Knickerbocker Ck; Metcalf Ck/Mdw; North Ck; Red Ant Cyn; S. Fork Santa Ana R; Van Dusen Cyn; CNDDB: All of Big Bear Basin; Santa Ana River @ Cienaga Seca; Lightning Spring/3N16, Green Valley Lake, Fawnskin, Barton Flats, Bluff Lake, east of Crab Ck, Snow Valley area, North of Lake Arrowhead, golden- Spermophilus Y Fawnskin, Snow Valley, Holcomb Valley, Metcalf Ck; Sugarloaf mc, rk U mantled lateralis Mtn; S. Fk Santa Ana River; SBCM records: N. Fk Deep Ck ground squirrel bernardinus (Snow Valley); S. Side BB Lake; Santa Ana River; Arrastre Ck; Van Dusen Ck; NRIS: Holcomb Valley, S. Side of Big Bear Lake San Diego Chaetodipus Y Victorville, Silver Ck, Arrastre Cyn, Cushenbury Springs; SBCM d, c U pocket mouse fallax fallax Records: Cactus Flats/Lone Valley, Heaps Peak, Pallid San Perognathus N CNDDB record for Cactus Flat (1937) probably mis-identified. d, c N Diego pocket fallax pallidus mouse 1 Los Angeles Perognathus N Note: SBCM report listed this species as being caught in Cactus c N pocket mouse longimembris Flats but it was erroneous. brevinasus Page 54

Table 3. San Bernardino National Forest Watch List Animals Common Latin Name MT* MTRD Occurrences Habitat** In/Near Name Project? southern Onychomys Y Cushenbury Springs d, c U grasshopper torridus ramona mouse San Diego Neotoma lepida Y SBCM records: Cactus Flat/Lone Valley; Jenks Lake d, c, rk U desert woodrat intermedia porcupine Erethizon Y Big Bear Lake (Snow Summit); Balky Horse? mc, wo U dorsatum ringtail Bassariscus Y Northslope, Snow Valley area, Cushenbury Springs mc, wo, rk, r P astutus American Taxidea taxus Y Big Bear, Fawnskin; Redonda Ridge, Burnt Flats, Coxey Ck; wo, mc, c, d, g P badger CNDDB: Lake Arrowhead, Horsethief Cyn, western Spilogale Y Van Dusen, Delamar, Bluff Mesa. NRIS: Crab Flat, 1W17 north mc, wo, r, c P spotted skunk gracilis of Holcomb Ck Crossing, 3N16 north of Holcomb Ck Crossing. mountain lion Felis concolor Y Districtwide mc, wo, c, d Y Nelson's Ovis canadensis Y Northslope San Bernardino Mtns c, d, rk, wo (pj), mc N bighorn sheep nelsoni 1 Not currently on the SBNF Watch list but have been identified as species of concern by California, USFWS, Western Bat Working Group, or SBNF biologists. *Occurrence Information: **Habitat Types/Habitat Components N = Outside known distribution/range of the species. a = aerial; usually seen in flight, often over several U = Occurrence of the species is unlikely based on habitat present. habitat types P = Occurrence of the species is possible; suitable habitat exists. r = riparian (streamside thickets and woodlands) L = Occurrence of the species is likely; suitable habitat exists and the species is known for nearby locations. g = grasslands, fields, and agricultural areas Y = Species is known to occur. m = marshes, meadows; both freshwater areas and H = Part of the historical range but the species has been extirpated. moist meadows B = Species is known or likely to nest in the area. c = chaparral and coastal sage scrub M = The species uses the area during migration as a stopover. 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 55

Table 3. San Bernardino National Forest Watch List Animals Common Latin Name MT* MTRD Occurrences Habitat** In/Near Name Project? Data Sources: California Natural Diversity Database – accessed January 2013; Survey data from San Bernardino County Museum for the SBNF; General SBNF records; project- specific surveys; Garrett and Dunn 1981.

Page 56

II-4.3.1 –Invertebrate SBNF Watchlist Species There are several Watchlist invertebrate species that may occur in the project area due to the presence of suitable habitat and proximity to known occurrences.

II-4.3.1.1 - Springsnails (Pyruglopsis sp.) Springsnails are a SBNF Watchlist species. Springsnails are a diverse group of freshwater gastropods. Many of the species in this genus are at risk of extinction. There is a very high rate of endemism with many of the ~120 species occurring in isolated springs and seeps (Hurt 2004).

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. Suitable habitat for springsnails (Pyruglopsis sp.) likely exists in the riparian areas (Mojave River, Houston Creek, and two unnamed tributaries).

If this species is present in the Miller Canyon area, it could be affected by the Proposed Action and the No Action as visitors using the site explore outside the parking area. Visitors and dogs could crush individuals by walking through the vegetation and habitat may be degraded by trampling and erosion associated with user-created trails. These species could be affected as a result of habitat degradation associated with trail development, erosion, and pollution as visitors/users explore and use the area in the Mojave River RCA. The potential for effects under either of the Upland alternatives is considered very low. See additional discussions in Sections II-3.2.6, II-3.2.7, II-3.2.8 about the potential effects to aquatic, riparian, and drainage habitats, potential disturbance effects, and the potential risk of death or injury of individual animals.

II-4.3.1.2 - Westfork Shoulderband Snail (Helminthoglypta taylori) The Westfork shoulderband is a not currently on the SBNF Watchlist 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 in the East Fork of the West Fork of the Mojave River in Miller Canyon.

If this species is present in the Miller Canyon area, it could be affected by the Proposed Action and the No Action as visitors using the site explore outside the parking area. Visitors and dogs Page 57

could crush shoulderbands by walking through the vegetation, individual snails may be collected by visitors, and habitat may be degraded by trampling and erosion associated with user-created trails. This species could be affected as a result of habitat degradation associated with trail development, erosion, and pollution as visitors/users explore and use the area in the Mojave River RCA. Since this is a terrestrial species, it could also move into the parking area and be at risk of being run over or collected. The potential for effects under either of the Upland alternatives is considered very low. See additional discussions in Sections II-3.2.6, II-3.2.7, II- 3.2.8 about the potential effects to aquatic, riparian, and drainage habitats, potential disturbance effects, and the potential risk of death or injury of individual animals.

II-4.3.1.3 Simple Hydroporus Diving Beetle (Hydroporus simplex) The simple hydroporus diving beetle is a SBNF Watchlist 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.

If this species is present in the Miller Canyon area, it could be affected by the Proposed Action and the No Action as visitors using the site explore outside the parking area. Visitors and dogs could crush individuals by walking through the stream and habitat may be degraded by trampling and erosion associated with user-created trails. This species could be affected as a result of habitat degradation associated with trail development, erosion, and pollution as visitors/users explore and use the area in the Mojave River RCA. The potential for effects under either of the Upland alternatives is considered very low. See additional discussions in Sections II-3.2.6, II- 3.2.7, II-3.2.8 about the potential effects to aquatic, riparian, and drainage habitats, potential disturbance effects, and the potential risk of death or injury of individual animals.

II-4.3.1.4 Dorn’s Elegant Eucnemid Beetle (Palaeoxenus dorhni) 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 (Source: USFS 2006 Forest Plan). Page 58

This species is likely to occur in and adjacent to the proposed staging areas. If present in or adjacent to the staging area sites, there may be a loss of individuals during site clearing or restoration activities. Additionally, if occupied habitat is affected by human use of the staging area (e.g., trampling as visitors explore adjacent areas), there may be some habitat degradation and loss of individuals. See additional discussions in Sections II-3.2.6, II-3.2.7, II-3.2.8 about the potential effects to aquatic, riparian, and drainage habitats, potential disturbance effects, and the potential risk of death or injury of individual animals.

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 and adjacent to the proposed staging areas. If present in or adjacent to the staging area sites, there may be a loss of individuals during site clearing or restoration activities. Additionally, if occupied habitat is affected by human use of the staging area (e.g., trampling as visitors explore adjacent areas), there may be some habitat degradation and loss of individuals. See additional discussions in Sections II-3.2.6, II-3.2.7, II-3.2.8 about the potential effects to aquatic, riparian, and drainage habitats, potential disturbance effects, and the potential risk of death or injury of individual animals.

II-4.3.1.6 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. Over 70 percent of the recorded occurrences for the August checkerspot are on the SBNF. There has been some controversy regarding the number of subspecies of checkerspot butterfly.

Page 59

The August checkerspot occurs in yellow pine forests. Its known host plant is Collinsia childii, although it was reported that a Castilleja species might also serve as a host plant. Larvae of August checkerspot butterfly feed on Collinsia childii. Adults feed on nectar, though there is no specific information on nectar sources.

Most of the information available on southern California checkerspot butterflies is specific to the Quino checkerspot; however, much of it may be applicable to August checkerspot as well. The species has one brood per year. The flight period is from late May to early July. Male adults are frequently found "hill-topping," a mating strategy where males go to high points (which they defend against other butterflies) and await the arrival of virgin females. Many males, however, do not use this strategy, but remain in the wet meadows, valley bottoms, and gullies, where they seek mates. Eggs are laid in masses, generally of more than 100 eggs, on the host plant.

Eggs hatch 7–10 days after oviposition. Larvae feed gregariously during their first, second, and, possibly, third instars. During the third or fourth instar, the larvae undergo diapause. After diapause, larvae feed singly. Post diapause larvae are commonly found on Castilleja species along the Santa Ana River near Barton Flats. These post diapause larvae apparently do not seek or use open ground, as has been found with their lower elevation conspecifics. The pupal stage lasts approximately 10 days, after which the adult emerges. (Source: USFS 2006 Forest Plan).

August checkerspot is likely to occur in and adjacent to the proposed staging areas. If host plants are present in or adjacent to the staging area sites, there may be a loss of individuals during site clearing or restoration activities. Additionally, if host plants are affected by human use of the staging area (e.g., trampling as visitors explore adjacent areas), there may be some habitat degradation and loss of individuals over the long-term use of the site. See additional discussions in Sections II-3.2.6, II-3.2.7, II-3.2.8 about the potential effects to aquatic, riparian, and drainage habitats, potential disturbance effects, and the potential risk of death or injury of individual animals.

II-4.2.1.7 Andrew’s Marble Butterfly (Euchloe hyanitis andrewsi) Andrew's marble butterfly is a subspecies of the widely distributed California marble butterfly. It is a SBNF Watchlist 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. 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 Page 60

seedpods of the mountain tansy mustard (Descurainia richardsonii). (Source: USFS 2006 Forest Plan)

While Streptanthus bernardinus is not known occur in the project area, other members of the mustard family do. Andrew’s marbled butterfly is likely to occur in and adjacent to the proposed staging areas. If host plants are present in or adjacent to the staging area sites, there may be a loss of individuals during site clearing or restoration activities. Additionally, if host plants are affected by human use of the staging area (e.g., trampling as visitors explore adjacent areas), there may be some habitat degradation and loss of individuals over the long-term use of the site. See additional discussions in Sections II-3.2.6, II-3.2.7, II-3.2.8 about the potential effects to aquatic, riparian, and drainage habitats, potential disturbance effects, and the potential risk of death or injury of individual animals.

II-4.3.2 – SBNF Watchlist Amphibians Only one Watchlist amphibian has the potential to occur in the vicinity of the Miller Canyon OHV staging area sites: Monterey ensatina.

II-4.3.2.1 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 Watchlist species.

Ensatina is a geographically and genetically variable taxon that has traditionally been treated as a single species with seven recognized subspecies, including both blotched and un-blotched color forms. Three subspecies of Ensatina eschscholtzii occur in the mountains of southern California, and their evolutionary relationships and taxonomic status have received considerable scientific attention. 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. Page 61

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 the Bluejay, Running Springs, and the Lake Arrowhead area. They have been detected in Miller Canyon by the USGS (Brown and Fisher 2001). Because suitable habitat occurs and they are known from the general vicinity, this species may occur at any of the sites, especially where downed wood and rocks are present.

Under all alternatives except Alternative 3, the cleared staging area would represent a loss or degradation of habitat for these species. Alternative 3 would result in restoration of habitat that may become suitable for these species.

If present in or adjacent to the staging area sites, there may be a loss of individuals during site clearing, grading, or restoration activities. Mortality or injuries of ensatinas could occur as logs and rocks are moved during site grading. Death or injury of ensatinas is unlikely during restoration activities since most of those would be done by hand or small machinery and animals should be able to be avoided.

The risk of ensatinas being run over by vehicles using the staging area is considered relatively low because they are nocturnal and the majority of the staging area use is during the daytime. This species is also at risk of being collected or poached as pets or collectors. Visitors exploring areas adjacent to the staging area site (e.g., picnicking, water play, fishing, etc.) might encounter these species and collect them.

The Proposed Action and No Action sites may pose a greater risk to this species and its habitat than the two upland alternatives due to proximity of riparian habitat (higher quality habitat for ensatina). See additional discussions in Sections II-3.2.6, II-3.2.7, II-3.2.8 about the potential effects to aquatic, riparian, and drainage habitats, potential disturbance effects, and the potential risk of death or injury of individual animals.

II-4.3.3 – SBNF Watchlist Reptiles There is one Watchlist reptiles that is known to occur in the project area: coast horned lizard.

II-4.3.3.1 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 summer 2013. It is a CDFW Species of Special Concern. While currently not on the SBNF Watchlist, there are concerns about population trends in southern California for this species.

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 Page 62

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 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.

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: USFS 2006 Forest Plan)

Coast horned lizards are known from the Silverwood Lake area (Brown and Fisher 2001) and are likely to occur in the Miller Canyon area.

If present in or adjacent to the staging area sites, there may be a loss of individuals during site clearing or restoration activities. Because most of the restoration activities would likely be done by hand, the risk to individual coast horned lizards from those activities would be low. Over the long-term use of any of the staging area sites, this species is especially susceptible to being run over by vehicles in the staging area because of their tendency to freeze when frightened and their cryptic coloration.

Visitors parking at the staging sites for recreational activities (e.g., picnicking, water play, fishing, etc.) may encounter coast horned lizards while exploring adjacent areas and collect them. One of the causes of decline is collection by visiting public who want to keep them as pets. See additional discussions in Sections II-3.2.6, II-3.2.7, II-3.2.8 about the potential effects to aquatic, riparian, and drainage habitats, potential disturbance effects, and the potential risk of death or injury of individual animals.

II-4.3.3.2 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 Watchlist 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

Page 63

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. More recent records include a single record of occurrence from 1971 near Skyforest in the Forest Service database (USDA Forest Service file information), and recent observations of this species from the vicinity of Arrastre Creek above 6,000 feet.

Cunningham (1955) found mountain garter snakes in the San Bernardino Mountains to enter streams only occasionally and to 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.

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: USFS 2006 Forest Plan)

Mountain garter snakes are known from Houston Creek and are likely to occur at any of the staging area sites. If present in or adjacent to the staging area sites, there may be a loss of individuals during site clearing or restoration activities. There is potential for mortality of young and adults during initial ground clearing and construction as well as during the life of the staging area. Death or injury of denned or hibernating individuals may occur as a result of dens and rock crevices being compacted during clearing or restoration of the sites. Because most of the restoration activities would likely be done by hand, the risk to individual garter snakes from those activities would be low.

Over the long-term use of any of the staging area sites, this slow-moving species is especially susceptible to being run over by vehicles in the staging area.

Visitors parking at the staging sites for recreational activities (e.g., picnicking, water play, fishing, etc.) may encounter garter snakes while exploring adjacent areas and collect them. One of the causes of decline is collection by visiting public who want to keep them as pets. See additional discussions in Sections II-3.2.6, II-3.2.7, II-3.2.8 about the potential effects to aquatic, riparian, and drainage habitats, potential disturbance effects, and the potential risk of death or injury of individual animals. Page 64

II-4.3.4 – SBNF Watchlist Birds Table 4 lists the SBNF Watchlist bird species that were observed in the project area or have high likelihood of occurrence based on habitat (Forest Service records and survey observations, SBNF “All Species” GIS layer; SBCM records, CNDDB).

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. Those full species accounts are incorporated by reference.

Table 4. Breeding Status of SBNF Watchlist Birds Common Name Latin Name In/Near Project? Regular Breeder1 western least bittern Ixobrychus exilis hesperis P N osprey Pandion haliaetus P N white-tailed kite Elanus leucurus P N northern harrier Circus cyaneus P N sharp-shinned hawk (breeding) Accipiter striatus L (Y-Lake Arrowhead) Y Cooper's hawk (breeding) Accipiter cooperii Y – Houston Ck, Miller Cyn Y (SBCM) merlin Falco columbarius L (Y - Mojave River) N golden eagle Aquila chyrsaetos N for nesting; L for foraging Y prairie falcon Falco mexicanus P Y Peregrine falcon Falco peregrines anatus P foraging; N nesting Y flammulated owl Otus flammeolus L Y western screech owl Otus kennicottii Y – 2005 (SBNF) Y northern pygmy owl Glaucidium gnoma Y – 2005 (SBNF) Y long-eared owl Asio otus L Y northern saw-whet owl Aegolius acadicus L Y common nighthawk Chordeiles minor L Y Mexican whip-poor-will Caprimulgus arizonae P Y black swift Cypseloides niger P Y calliope hummingbird Stellula calliope Y – 2003 Houston Ck (SBCM) Y Lewis' woodpecker Melanerpes lewis Y (Silverwood) N Williamson's sapsucker Sphyrapicus thyroideus P Y Red-breasted sapsucker 1 Sphyrapicus ruber Y – Miller Cyn (SBCM) Y Nuttall's woodpecker Picoides nuttallii Y – 2003, 2004, 2005 Miller Cyn Y (SBCM) white-headed woodpecker Picoides albolarvatus Y – 2004 Seeley Ck (SBCM) Y Olive-sided flycatcher 1 Contopus cooperi Y – Miller Cyn (SBCM) Y loggerhead shrike Lanius ludovicianus P Y plumbeous vireo Vireo plumbeus P Y Cassin’s vireo Vireo cassinii L Y warbling vireo Vireo gilvus Y – Seeley Ck 2004 (SBCM) Y purple martin Progne subis P (Keller Peak) Y tree swallow Tachycineta bicolor Y – Seeley Ck 2004 (SBCM) Y American dipper Cinclus mexicanus Y-Houston Ck, Miller Cyn 2004 Y (SBCM) Swainson's thrush Catharus ustulatus P N hermit thrush (breeding) Catharus guttatus P Y Page 65

Table 4. Breeding Status of SBNF Watchlist Birds Common Name Latin Name In/Near Project? Regular Breeder1 Bendire's thrasher Toxostoma bendirei P N LeConte's thrasher Toxostoma lecontei P N Virginia’s warbler (breeding) Vermivora virginiae P N yellow warbler Dendroica petechia brewsteri Y-Houston Ck 2003, 2005 Y (SBCM) MacGillivray's warbler Oporornis tolmiei L Y common yellowthroat Geothlypis trichas L (Mojave Forks Deep Ck) Y Wilson's warbler Wilsonia pusilla Y-2005 (SBNF) Y yellow-breasted chat Icteria virens P Y southern California rufous- Aimophila ruficeps canescens P Y crowned sparrow Bell's sage sparrow Amphispiza belli belli P Y grasshopper sparrow 1 Ammodramus savannarum P N Lincoln's sparrow Melospiza lincolnii P Y hepatic tanager Piranga flava P Y summer tanager Piranga rubra P Y Black-chinned sparrow Spizella atrogularis L (Deep Ck @ spillway) Y Yellow-headed blackbird 1 Xanthocephalus xanthocephalus U Y tri-colored blackbird Agelaius tricolor P N Lawrence's goldfinch Carduelis lawrencei Y-2005 Miller Cyn (SBNF); 2003, Y 2004, 2005 Miller Cyn (SBCM) 1 Breeding records for San Bernardino Mountains from the San Bernardino County Museum (Field Checklist – Sept 1995) were used to evaluate breeding potential.

There are three types of potential effects to birds using the project area: a) Loss/degradation of areas suitable for breeding/nesting, foraging, sheltering, and migration stopovers. See Sections II-3.2.5 - II-3.2.9 for discussions of potential effects. b) Disturbance to birds in and near the project area as a result of the activities and near the staging area site. This would include the noise of the vehicles as they stage, depart and arrive as well as other activities (e.g. picnicking, fishing, hiking, water play, exploring, etc.) in adjacent areas (see Section II-3.2.7). c) Death and injury of birds in and near the project area (see Section II-3.2.8).

II-4.3.5 – SBNF Watchlist Mammals A number of SBNF Watchlist mammals are known from or near the project 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.

II-4.3.5.1 Bats There are known occurrences of several Watchlist bat species in or near the project area. The project area has potential to support these species as well as some other species for which suitable habitat exists.

Western Small-Footed Myotis (Myotis ciliolabrum): The western small-footed myotis is a SBNF Watchlist 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, Page 66

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 (Source: BCI website).

Western small-footed myotis bats may forage in the project area; roosting habitat is not present at any of the staging area sites.

Long-Eared Myotis (Myotis evotis): Long-eared myotis is a SBNF Watchlist 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 (Source: BCI website).

Long-eared myotis bats may forage or roost in the project area.

Little Brown Myotis (Myotis lucifugus): The little brown myotis is a SBNF Watchlist species. The San Bernardino Mountains population has been identified as a Western Bat Working Group Medium Priority species. In the Western US, 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 (Source: BCI website).

Little brown myotis bats may forage and roost in the project area.

Long-Legged Myotis (Myotis volans): Long-legged myotis is a SBNF Watchlist 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 (Source: BCI website).

Page 67

Long-legged myotis bats may forage and roost in the project area.

Spotted Bat (Euderma maculatum): The spotted bat is a SBNF Watchlist species, a CDFW Species of Special Concern, a BLM Sensitive species, and a Western Bat Working Group High Priority species. Spotted bats are found in a variety of habitats ranging from below sea level desert, sagebrush, montane forests and up to high-elevation coniferous forests. This includes foraging habitat in forest openings, pinyon juniper woodlands, large riverine/riparian habitats, and riparian habitat associated with small to mid-sized streams in narrow canyons, wetlands, meadows, and old agricultural fields. They are known from elevations between 3,500–4,000 feet in the Sierra Nevada, but one or more individuals have been heard at several sites up to 8,500 feet.

The spotted bat is rare, but could be anywhere suitable cliff habitat is found. They are closely associated with rock cliffs, where they roost in crevices. The abundance and distribution of suitable cliff habitats may limit the distribution of this species. Mines and caves may also be used during winter. Roost sites are often located in the vicinity of open water. Spotted bats hibernate but occasionally become active during the winter. They subsist almost entirely on moths, foraging over meadows, along forest edges, and in open woodlands. They usually forage above the canopy or above the ground. They may move as far as 6 miles between day roost and feeding areas. Spotted bats are typically solitary, roosting and foraging alone. Females give birth to one young/year between June and July.

Spotted bats may forage in the project area; no roosting habitat is present at any of the staging area sites.

Yuma Myotis (Myotis yumanensis): Yuma myotis is a SBNF Watchlist species, a Western Bat Working Group Low-Medium Priority species. Occasionally roosting in mines or caves, Yuma myotis are most often found in 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 (Source: BCI website).

Yuma myotis bats may forage and roost in the project area.

Western Bonneted Bat (Eumops perotis californicus): Yuma myotis is a SBNF Watchlist 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).

Western bonneted bats may forage in the project area; no suitable roosting habitat is present at any of the staging area sites.

Pocketed Free-Tailed Bat (Nyctinomops femerosaccus): The pocketed free-tailed bat is a SBNF Watchlist species, a CDFW Species of Special Concern, and a Western Bat Working Group Page 68

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 at any of the staging area sites.

Hoary Bat (Lasiurus cinereus): This solitary species winters along the coast and in southern California, breeding inland and north of the winter range. Hoary bats have been recorded from sea level to 13,200 ft. There is evidence that sexes are separate during the warm months, females being more abundant in the northeastern U.S., males in the west. Both sexes occur on the winter range. During migration in southern California, males are found in foothills, deserts and mountains; females in lowlands and coastal valleys.

The hoary bat feeds primarily on moths. Foraging flight of the hoary bat is fast and straight. This species generally roosts 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 roost at higher sites in trees. Females bear young while roosting in trees. Females may leave the young in the roosting site while foraging. Hoary bats require water for drinking. They prefer open habitats or habitat mosaics with access to trees for cover and open areas or edges for feeding. (Source: http://www.dfg.ca.gov/biogeodata/cwhr/cawildlife. aspx)

Hoary bats are known from the project area and likely use it for roosting, breeding, and foraging.

Western Red Bat (Lasiurus blossevillii): The western red bat is associated with large deciduous trees in riparian habitat for roosting. 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, fields and urban areas.

Roost sites are generally hidden from view from all directions except below; they lack obstruction beneath, allowing the bat to drop downward for flight; they lack lower perches that would allow visibility by predators; they generally 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.

Western red bats are year-round residents in some areas of California. It is not known exactly where western red bats hibernate, though they may burrow into leaf litter or dense grass like their eastern counterparts. Hibernation may also occur in tree foliage or tree hollows.

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

Page 69

few feet above the ground. Some western red bats mainly feed on moths by aerially hawking along edges, over meadows and along riparian courses.

Western red bats are likely to occur in the project area and likely use it for roosting, breeding, and foraging.

Potential Effects for Bat Species: In general, declines of bat populations can often be attributed to roost site disturbance, loss of foraging habitat, and loss of roost sites. Disturbance at roost sites can lead to short and long term abandonment. 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. Disturbance that arouses a bat during their winter hibernation causes loss of accumulated fat reserves and possible starvation.

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. 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 and lead to sickness or death of bats.

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. All of the above species use trees or rock outcrops and cliffs for roosting, hibernating, and breeding.

There would be some loss of foraging and roosting habitat during the construction of a new staging site (Proposed Action, Upland-East, and Upland-West) that require trees or shrubs are removed. Over the existence of a staging area for all but Alternative 3, any removal of hazard trees that pose a threat to the staging area would also remove some potential roosting sites for some of the bat species.

Mortality of bats occupying in hollow trees could occur if roosting bats do not flush prior to tree felling. It is expected that most bats would fly away prior to tree felling; this, however, may not be the case if tree felling occurs prior to babies being able to fly. Daytime flying caused by disturbance could cause an increased rate of predation. Disturbance to hibernating individuals is has a higher risk of death due to the expenditure of energy reserves. Effects to bats using rock outcrop formations for roosting, breeding, or hibernating would be less likely that type of roosting/breeding habitat is not present at any of the staging area sites.

See additional discussions in Sections II-3.2.6, II-3.2.7, II-3.2.8 about the potential effects to aquatic, riparian, and drainage habitats, potential disturbance effects, and the potential risk of death or injury of individual animals.

II-4.3.5.2 Ringtail (Bassariscus astutus) The Forest Service has identified this species as a local viability concern (Stephenson and Calcarone 1999) and is a SBNF Watchlist species. Ringtails are generally known to occupy brushy and wooded areas along watercourses in foothill and lower montane canyons. The Page 70

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: USFS 2006 Forest Plan)

Ringtails are expected to occur throughout the project area. There is low potential for mortality of young if ground clearing occurred during summer months due to inability to escape den sites. Death or injury of adults is unlikely except during hibernation when they may be killed or injured in their dens. Any currently suitable or occupied habitat that would become a staging area would become unsuitable for denning. The activities associated with the construction, restoration, or use of any of the staging area sites could disturb ringtails in the adjacent areas. This may cause temporary displacement, behavioral changes, or displacement. See additional discussions in Sections II-3.2.6, II-3.2.7, II-3.2.8 about the potential effects to aquatic, riparian, and drainage habitats, potential disturbance effects, and the potential risk of death or injury of individual animals.

II-4.3.5.3 American Badger (Taxidea taxus) The American badger is a CDFW Species of Special Concern and is a SBNF Watchlist 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

Page 71

kangaroo rats. They also eat reptiles, insects, birds and their eggs, and carrion. They are nocturnal and diurnal. (Source: USFS 2006 Forest Plan)

American badgers are expected to occur throughout the project area. The potential effects would be similar to those described above for ringtail.

II-4.3.5.4 Western Spotted Skunk (Spilogale gracilis) The western spotted skunk is a SBNF Watchlist 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 may occur at any of the staging area sites. The potential effects would be similar to those described above for ringtail.

II-4.3.5.5 Mountain Lion (Felis concolor californica) The mountain lion is a SBNF Watchlist species, a MIS for the Forest Service’s southern province, and a CDFW Specially Protected Mammal. See the MIS section (Part V) of this document for additional mountain lion discussion.

The mountain lion was once regarded as the most wide-ranging terrestrial mammal in the western hemisphere; its current distribution is much reduced. There are 14 recognized subspecies, with three occurring in California.

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

Page 72

lions exploit whatever food source is available, including bighorn sheep, skunk, porcupine, rabbit, raccoon, badger, squirrels, mice, wild pig, and domestic animals

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 from season to season and year to year, and is probably dependent on prey density and available stalking cover. (Source: USFS 2006 Forest Plan)

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. (Villipique, pers. comm. 2013).

Mountain lions are likely to occur at any of the staging area sites. Some small loss of potential foraging habitat would occur with the development of a new staging area site. However, none of the proposed alternatives would be expected to result in fragmentation of habitat, barriers to movement, of changes in prey base for mountain lions. See additional discussions in Sections II- 3.2.6, II-3.2.7, II-3.2.8 about the potential effects to aquatic, riparian, and drainage habitats, potential disturbance effects, and the potential risk of death or injury of individual animals.

II-4.3.5.6 Summary of Potential Effects to Watchlist Animals: a) Proposed Action – Under the Proposed Action, the area of wildlife habitat lost to the developed facility (parking, bathroom, picnic area, etc.) would be the least of the developed staging area sites. There would be some potential for disturbance to Watchlist animals associated with construction and restoration activities. There would be a long- term disturbance to Watchlist animals and their habitats in and adjacent to the site due to uses associated with the site. The Proposed Action would continue to have a staging area within the Riparian Conservation Area (RCA) for the East Fork of the West Fork of the Mojave River. Effects to riparian and aquatic habitat and Watchlist animals associated with those habitats would likely continue as a result of visitors using the staging area as a jumping-off point for recreational activities. There is some potential for death or injury of individual Watchlist animals during the construction/restoration activities and the long- term use of the site. The potential is considered to be relatively low.

b) Upland East – The effects to Watchlist animals from the Upland East alternative would be similar to those for the Proposed Action. The two differences would be that Upland East would likely have a larger overall footprint than the Proposed Action and the cleared area Page 73

may be larger in order to accommodate a similar number of vehicles (due to the terrain). As a result, the loss or degradation of high quality habitat for Watchlist animals may be slightly higher (3-4 acres vs. 1 acre for the Proposed Action). The second difference is that the Upland East alternative would move the uses farther from the Mojave River riparian area, likely reducing risks to riparian-associated Watchlist animals and habitat.

c) Upland West – The effects to Watchlist animals from the Upland West alternative would be similar to those for the Upland East alternative.

d) No Staging Area – Under this alternative, the existing staging area would be restored and no staging area would be developed. Over time, the site would revegetate creating more habitat suitable for Watchlist animals. The impacts to the adjacent riparian and aquatic habitat in the East Fork of the West Fork of the Mojave River would be expected to lessen.

e) No Action - Under the No Action alternative, the baseline condition for Watchlist animals would persist. The use of the existing unofficial staging area would continue as is without facility development (e.g., vault toilet, parking barriers, erosion control structures, etc.). The site would likely continue to grow in size because the parking area would not be delineated on the ground. As a result, it is likely that there may be further impacts to habitat at and near the site, including any Watchlist animals that occur in the vicinity of the site. Under the No Action alternative, no restoration of damaged habitat would occur.

Under the No Action alternative, the existing site would continue to be used without measures to limit ongoing effects to wildlife habitat, including important riparian habitat in the Mojave River. Under this alternative, the current disturbance levels and habitat loss would continue unabated and may increase over time. While there would be no vault toilet installed, the porta-potty would remain as long as funding allows. Even with a porta-potty on site, the area around the unofficial staging area has evidence of heavy use as a public bathroom; it is likely that it would continue and possibly increase over time if a vault toilet is not installed. As such, the pollution and water quality issues associated with concentrated human use of the surroundings for defecation and urination would continue.

II-5.0 –FINDINGS SBNF Watchlist Animals and Other Animal Species of Concern: Implementation of any of the alternatives except for Alternative 3 (Full Restoration) would result in a long-term loss of a small amount of habitat suitable for many of the Watchlist animals discussed above. Under any of the alternatives that establish a staging area or allow continued use of the existing unofficial site, there would be a small acreage (<5) of habitat utilized for a staging area. This represents a small amount of available habitat in the area. The conditions at the Proposed Action site and Upland- East are already somewhat degraded due to previous or ongoing activities. Because of the proximity to a relatively busy forest road, all of the sites already have some disturbance and are not considered pristine habitat for most species. Page 74

The Proposed Action and No Action sites would likely have higher potential for effects to Watchlist animals and their habitats than either of the Upland alternatives due to proximity to the Mojave River.

The proposed project is not expected to result in a loss of viability for the wildlife species discussed in Part II of this document.

SBNF Watchlist Plant Species: Implementation of the Proposed Action is not expected to result in any affects to Watchlist plants since no Watchlist plants are known from any of the sites. The proposed project would not result in a loss of population viability for the plant species discussed in Part II of this document.

Migratory Birds: Implementation of any of the alternatives may unintentionally affect individual migratory birds during construction or restoration activities. Migratory birds may also be affected by disturbance from use of the staging area over the long-term. 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.

Page 75

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

III-1.0 – INTRODUCTION Part I of this document contains descriptions of the methods/evaluation process, Proposed Action, and habitat for this project. Part II addresses general wildlife and plant species, Watchlist species, and effects that are common to those species as well as special status species that are discussed in depth in Parts III, IV, and V.

This part, Part III, covers discussions of potential direct, indirect, and cumulative effects to species on the Region 5 Forest Service Sensitive species list (updated in July 2013). Part I-3.0 and I-3.1 contain the description of alternatives and the Design Features that apply to Sensitive species and their habitats. Detailed species accounts for all of the Sensitive species discussed below are contained in the LMP; relevant species account information is summarized in the following discussions. References are included in the full LMP species accounts and generally are not repeated here.

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.

III-1.1 – Sensitive Plants 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 5 contains a list of the Forest Service Sensitive species that were considered in this analysis and those that are known to occur in or near the project area. Two sensitive plant taxa are known from the Miller Canyon area however they are not known nor were they observed at any of the staging area sites. Sensitive plant species known from the area are individually addressed below and listed in Table 5.

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 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 unscrupulous collectors, trampling, flooding, erosion, invasive species, dispersed and developed recreation, road maintenance, and

Page 76

Table 5. Sensitive Plant Species In and Near the Project Area Species Name Common Name Occurrence Information Mountaintop Front Country San Jacinto Occurs In/ Near District District District Project Area Abronia nana var. covillei Coville’s dwarf abronia Y Abronia villosa var. aurita chaparral sand verbena Y Acanthoscyphus parishii var. cienegensis Cienega Seca puncturebract Y P Allium marvinii Yucaipa onion P Antennaria marginata white-margined everlasting Y Y Arabis breweri var. pecuniaria San Bernardino rock-cress Y Arabis johnstonii Johnston's rock cress Y Arctostaphylos glandulosa subsp. gabrielensis San Gabriel Manzanita Y Arctostaphylos parryana subsp. tumescens interior manzanita Y Arenaria lanuginosa subsp. saxosa rock sandwort Y Y Astragalus bernardinus Astragalus bicristatus crested milk vetch Y P Y Astragalus lentiginosus var. antonius San Antonio milk vetch Y Astragalus lentiginosus var. sierrae Bear Valley milk vetch Y P Astragalus pachypus var. jaegeri Jeager's milkvetch Y Astragalus tidestromii Atriplex parishii Parish’s brittlescale P P Boechera parishii Parish's rock cress Y Boechera shockleyi Shockley's rock-cress Y Botrychium crenulatum scalloped moonwort Y Y P Calochortus palmeri var. munzii Munz's mariposa lily Y Calochortus palmeri var. palmeri Palmer's mariposa lily Y P P – known from Miller Cyn area, not present at any staging area sites Calochortus striatus alkali mariposa lily P Calyptridium pygmaeum pygmy pussypaws Y Canbya candida pygmy poppy Y Y Castilleja lasiorhyncha San Bernardino Mountains owl's clover Y P Y P – known from Miller Cyn area, not present at any staging area

Page 77

Table 5. Sensitive Plant Species In and Near the Project Area Species Name Common Name Occurrence Information Mountaintop Front Country San Jacinto Occurs In/ Near District District District Project Area site Castilleja plagiotoma Mojave paintbrush Y P Caulanthus simulans Payson's jewelflower P Y Chorizanthe parryi var. parryi Parry's spineflower P P Chorizanthe xanti var. leucotheca white-bracted spineflower Y Cladium californicum California saw grass Y Claytonia lanceolata var. piersonii Pierson’s spring beauty Y Deinandra mohavensis Mojave tarplant P P Y Delphinium hesperium subsp. cuyamacae Cuyamaca larkspur Y Dieteria canescens var. ziegleri Ziegler's aster Y Draba corrugata var. saxosa rock draba Y Drymocallis cuneifolia subsp. cuneifolia wedgeleaf woodbeauty Y Dudleya abramsii subsp. affinis San Bernardino Mts. dudleya Y Ericameria parryi var. imula Parry’s rabbitbrush Y Eriogonum evanidum vanishing wild buckwheat Y Eriogonum kennedyi var. alpigenum southern alpine buckwheat Y Eriogonum microthecum var. johnstonii Johnston’s buckwheat Y Y Eriogonum microthecum var. lacus-ursi Bear Lake buckwheat P Galium angustifolium subsp. jacinticium San Jacinto Mts bedstraw Y Galium californicum subsp. primum California bedstraw Y Gentiana fremontii moss gentian Y Gilia leptantha subsp. leptantha San Bernardino gilia Y Y Heuchera abramsii Abrams’ alumroot P Heuchera elegans urn-flowered alumroot Y Heuchera hirsutissima shaggy-haired alum root Y Heuchera parishii Parish's alumroot Y Y Y Horkelia cuneata subsp. puberula mesa horkelia P Horkelia wilderae Barton Flats horkelia Y Y Hulsea vestita subsp. gabrielensis San Gabriel Mountains sunflower P Hulsea vestita subsp. pygmaea pygmy hulsea Y Y Imperata brevifolia California satintail P Ivesia argyrocoma var. argyrocoma Silver-haired ivesia Y Ivesia callida Tahquitz ivesia Y Page 78

Table 5. Sensitive Plant Species In and Near the Project Area Species Name Common Name Occurrence Information Mountaintop Front Country San Jacinto Occurs In/ Near District District District Project Area Lepechinia fragrans fragrant pitcher sage Y Leptosiphon floribundus subsp. hallii Santa Rosa Mts linanthus Y Lewisia brachycalyx short-sepaled Y Lilium parryi Lemon lily Y Y Y Limnanthes gracilis var. parishii Parish’s meadowfoam Y Linanthus concinnus San Gabriel linanthus Y Linanthus jaegeri San Jacinto prickly phlox Y Linanthus killipii Baldwin Lake linanthus Y Malaxis monophyllos var. brachypoda Adder’s mouth Y Y Marina orcuttii var. orcuttii California marina Y Matelea parvifolia spearleaf Y Meesia uliginosa Broad-nerved hump moss P P Mimulus exiguus San Bernardino Mountain monkeyflower Y Mimulus purpureus purple monkeyflower Y Monardella australis subsp. jokersti Jokerst’s monardella Y Monardella macrantha subsp. hallii Hall's monardella Y Y Monardella nana subsp. leptosiphon San Felipe monardella Y Monardella viridis subsp. saxicola rock monardella Y Navarretia peninsularis Baja navarretia Y P Opuntia basilaris var. brachyclada Short-joint beavertail P Y Oreonana vestita woolly mountain parsley P Y Orobanche valida subsp. valida Rock Creek broom-rape Y Oxytropis oreophila var. oreophila rock loving point vetch Y Packera bernardina San Bernardino butterweed Y Parnassia cirrata var. cirrata Fringed grass-of-Parnassus Y Penstemon californicus California penstemon Y Phlox dolichantha Bear Valley phlox Y Plagiobothrys collinus var. ursinus Cooper’s popcorn flower Y Potentilla rimicola cliff cinquefoil Y Pyrrocoma uniflora subsp. gossypina Bear Valley pyrrocoma Y Saltugilia latimeri Latimer's woodland gilia Y P P Schoenus nigracans black sedge Y Scutellaria bolanderi subsp. austromontanum southern mountain skullcap P Y Page 79

Table 5. Sensitive Plant Species In and Near the Project Area Species Name Common Name Occurrence Information Mountaintop Front Country San Jacinto Occurs In/ Near District District District Project Area Sedum niveum Davidson's stonecrop Y Y Y Sidalcea hickmanii subsp. parishii Parish’s checkerbloom Y P Sidalcea malviflora subsp. dolosa Dwarf checkerbloom Y Sidalcea neomexicana Salt Spring checkerbloom P P P Sidotheca caryophylloides chickweed starry puncturebract Y P Y Sidotheca emarginata white-margined puncturebract Y Sisyrinchium longipes Timberland blue-eyed grass Y Streptanthus campestris southern jewelflower Y P Y Symphyotrichum defoliatum San Bernardino aster Y Y Y Thelypteris puberula var. sonorensis Sonoran maiden fern Y P Thysanocarpus rigidus rigid fringepod P P P *Occurrence Information: Y = Species is known to occur. P = Occurrence of the species is possible; suitable habitat exists, and the species is known from nearby locations. H = Part of the historical range but the species has likely been extirpated. U = Occurrence of the species is unlikely based on habitat present. N = Outside known distribution/range of the species.

Page 80

off-highway vehicles. The few records known from Bear Valley appear to be stable, and occurrences at Coldbrook and Southwest Shore are protected by fences.

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. Suitable habitat for this species exists adjacent to all of the proposed staging area sites, including in/near the riparian areas (Mojave River, Houston Creek, unnamed tributary) and it is known from sites within 5 miles of the proposed staging areas. No occurrences were observed at any of the staging area sites during the 2006, 2012, or 2013 surveys.

Potential Effects to Calochortus palmeri var. palmeri: No effects to this species are expected.

Cumulative Effects to Calochortus palmeri var. palmeri: Since the project would not affect this species, there would be no cumulative effects.

Determination of Effects – Calochortus palmeri var. palmeri: It is my determination that implementation of the Proposed Action, as described, will have no effect on Calochortus palmeri var. palmeri. 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 a single occurrence at Cuyamaca Rancho State Park in San Diego County and a single historic record from 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 81

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: Suitable habitat for this species exists at some and adjacent to all of the proposed staging area sites, including in/near the riparian areas (Mojave River, Houston Creek, unnamed tributary) and it is known to occur within five miles of the staging area sites. No occurrences were observed at any of the staging area sites during the 2006, 2012, or 2013 surveys.

Potential Effects to Castilleja lasiorhyncha: No effects to Castilleja lasiorhyncha are expected.

Cumulative Effects to Castilleja lasiorhyncha: Since no effects are expected, there would be no cumulative effects for this species.

Determination of Effects – Castilleja lasiorhyncha: It is my determination that implementation of the Proposed Action, as described, will have no effect on Castilleja lasiorhyncha. The project is not expected to interfere with maintaining viable well-distributed populations of Castilleja lasiorhyncha.

III-1.2 – Sensitive Animals A number of Sensitive wildlife species are known or have the potential to occur in the project area. Table 6 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.

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.

III-1.2.1 – Large-Blotched Ensatina (Ensatina klauberi) Large -blotched ensatina is Forest Service Sensitive species and CDFW Species of Special Concern. Large-blotched ensatina salamanders found in the San Bernardino Mountains have color patterns similar to yellow-blotched salamander (Ensatina eschscholtzii croceater). 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 from the vicinity of the staging sites, suggesting that the area is suitable for large-blotched ensatina.

Life History and Baseline Information: Large-blotched ensatinas occur in woodlands dominated by oak (Quercus sp.) and in open forests dominated by yellow pines (Pinus sp.), white fir (Abies concolor), and incense cedar (Calocedrus decurrens). They extend onto slopes supporting California scrub habitats. Colonies of ensatina salamanders seem best developed in marginal belts between dense and sparse vegetation (e.g., edge habitat). Page 82

Table 6. Forest Service Sensitive Wildlife Species Common Name Latin Name MT? MT sites Habitat In/Near Project? San Emigdio blue Plebulina emigdionis P Mojave River-Victorville r, dry riverbeds; Host=Atriplex is host N (host plant absent) butterfly area plant San Gabriel blue Plebejus saepiolus H maybe in high meadows m; Host=Trifolium wormskioldii is host N (host plant absent) butterfly aureoles plant Arrowhead Blue Glaucopshyce piasus Y Mojave Forks, Coxey c, m; host= Lupinus excubitus N (host plant absent)) Butterfly (sagittigera) Meadow Ehrlich’s Euphydryas editha Y Coxey Meadow, Ord d, c, pebble plain; host=Castilleja N (host plant absent) checkerspot ehrlichi Mountains plagiotoma butterfly Dammer’s Blue (Euphilotes enoptes Y N. Baldwin; Arrastre Crk Baldwin=pebble plain; Host= Eriogonum N Butterfly near dammersi ssp.) 2N02 crossing kennedyi var. austromontanum and E. (Arrastre Creek near wrightii . Arrastre=wo (py/ju), r; host= Dammersi ssp + Eriogonum davidsonii Baldwin Lake near Dammersi ssp vernal blue Euphilotes baueri Y Within 1 mile of Coxey Pebble plain; host= Eriogonum kennedyi N butterfly (Coxey (battoides) vernalis Meadow; Little pine flat var. kennedyi Meadow) Pratt’s blue Euphilotes enoptes N Eriogonum davidsonii is host plant N butterfly cryptorufes San Gabriel Incisalia mossii N rk, on Sedum spathulifolium N Mountains elfin hidakupa Santa Ana Rhinichthys osculus N aq N speckled dace ssp. arroyo chub Gila orcutti Y Deep Ck (hybridized with aq N Mohave tui chub); CNDDB: Holcomb Ck @ 3N16 (1996) large-blotched Ensatina klauberi Y N.Slope Canyons (Crystal r, mc L ensatina Ck, Arctic, Marble); Big Bear Lake dam; Keller Peak; CNDDB: Arctic Cyn (2005), Marble Cyn (2005) San Gabriel Batrachoseps N talus, mc, r N Mountain slender gabrieli salamander Page 83

Table 6. Forest Service Sensitive Wildlife Species Common Name Latin Name MT? MT sites Habitat In/Near Project? southwestern Emys marmorata H/P Deep Creek? W. Fk aq, r U pond turtle pallida Mojave River (below Silverwood) California legless Anniella pulchra P East slope? Morongo c, d, alluvial fan U lizard Valley record Belding’s orange- Aspidoscelis N w, rk, c, wo (oaks) N throated whiptail hyperythrus beldingi southern rubber Charina umbratica Y Twin Peaks east around mc, c, r P boa Big Bear Lake to Barton Flats; NRIS: Green Cyn northern three- Lichanura orcutti Y Kinley Creek; Deep Ck; c, g, rk, r L lined boa NRIS: Mojave Spillway, San Bernardino Diadophis punctatus Y Fawnskin; upper Santa c, g, rk, r Y ringneck snake modestus Ana River @ Lost Crk; Silverwood Lake; Miller Cyn; W. Fk Mojave River; CNDDB: Grass Valley Ck (2005), Crestline. NRIS: Mount Sorenson, Hwy 330 @ Long Point San Diego Diadophis punctatus N c, g, rk N ringneck snake similis San Bernardino Lampropeltis zonata Y SBCM records: Seeley mc, c, pj, r L (known from Seeley Creek) mountain parvirubra Ck; Santa Ana River @ kingsnake 1N45; CNDDB: Furnace Cyn. NRIS: 3N14 near Rattlesnake Spring, Little Pine Flat, Kinley Ck, Hencks Meadow (Skyforest), Mount Sorenson, Heap's Peak, Hook's Creek, W of Strawberry Peak San Diego Lampropeltis zonata N mc, r N mountain pulchra kingsnake Two-striped Thamnophis Y Kinley Creek; Deep Ck; r, aq Y Page 84

Table 6. Forest Service Sensitive Wildlife Species Common Name Latin Name MT? MT sites Habitat In/Near Project? garter snake hammondii Big Bear Lake; Holcomb Ck; W. Fork Mojave River; Miller/Houndstooth Cyn; SBCM Records: Deep/Dry Ck, Little Bear Springs, Santa Ana River (1N45); CNDDB: Holcomb Ck, Kinley Ck, Grass Valley Ck. NRIS: Coxey Pond, Santa Ana River, Upper City Ck - south fork northern goshawk Accipiter gentilis Y Green Valley; Big Bear mc U Lake; Lightning Gulch; NRIS: Broom Flat bald eagle Haliaeetus Y Big Bear Lake - nesting; aq,r,m Y leucocephalus Wintering - Big Bear Lake, Silverwood, Jenks, Baldwin, Erwin, Arrowhead, Gregory, Grass Valley Lakes; Deep Ck, Santa Ana River Western yellow- Coccyzus americanus P Deep Ck?; CNDDB: r P billed cuckoo occidentalis Mojave Narrows in Victorville-Mojave River 1978 California spotted Strix occidentalis Y Districtwide mc Y owl occidentalis Willow Empidonax traillii Y SBCM Records: Arrastre r Y flycatcher Ck @ 2N02, Arrastre Ck (migrant) (Missed Spring), Barton Ck, Cienaga SecaDeep Ck, Deer Ck, Green Cyn, Grout Bay, Heartbar, Jacovy Cyn, Holcomb Ck, Metcalf Ck, Miller Cyn, North Ck, Rattlesnake Ck, Page 85

Table 6. Forest Service Sensitive Wildlife Species Common Name Latin Name MT? MT sites Habitat In/Near Project? Sand Ck, Santa Ana River (1N45), Seven Oaks, South Fork, Van Dusen Cyn Coastal cactus Campylorhynchus N d, c N wren bruneicapillus sandiegense gray vireo Vireo vicinior Y Cactus Flats/Lone wo (pj),ch N Valley/Round Valley/Rose Mine (nesting); CNDDB: Hesperia (off-forest) Townsend’s big- Corynorhinus Y CNDDB: Rattlesnake mc, r, aq, wo, c, mines U eared bat townsendii Cyn; Rose Mine; Round Valley; Old Timer Canyon; Wright Mine. NRIS: Rose Mine, Rattlesnake Cyn fringed myotis Myotis thysanodes Y Arrastre Ck, North Slope, R, wo, m, g, mc P (Foraging) Cactus Flats, Big Bear Lake; SBCM records: Crab Flats, Holcomb Ck; Holcomb Valley; Metcalf Mdw; Seven Oaks; Jacoby Cyn; Cactus Flat; Wildhorse Meadow; Santa Ana River; CNDDB: Rose Mine; Holcomb Valley @ 3N07; Wilderness near Arrastre Ck; pallid bat Antrozous pallidus L c, wo, mc, d, rk P (foraging) San Bernardino Glaucomys sabrinus Y Upper Miller Canyon west mc, r Y flying squirrel californicus to Big Bear, s. to Barton Flats; CNDDB: Sawpit Cyn. San Bernardino Perognathus alticolus H Within 1 mile of mc, wo; braken fern understory N Page 86

Table 6. Forest Service Sensitive Wildlife Species Common Name Latin Name MT? MT sites Habitat In/Near Project? white-eared alticolus Strawberry Pk; Little Bear pocket mouse Valley. Possibly base of Sugarloaf Mtn. San Gabriel Ovis canadensis N wo, rk, d N Mountains nelsoni bighorn sheep *Occurrence Information: **Habitat Types/Habitat Components N = Outside known distribution/range of the species. a = aerial; usually seen in flight, often over several habitat types U = Occurrence of the species is unlikely based on habitat present. r = riparian (streamside thickets and woodlands) P = Occurrence of the species is possible; suitable habitat exists. g = grasslands, fields, and agricultural areas L = Occurrence of the species is likely; suitable habitat exists and the m = marshes, meadows; both freshwater areas and moist meadows species is known for nearby locations. c = chaparral and coastal sage scrub Y = Species is known to occur. wo = woodlands; pinyon-juniper, oaks H = Part of the historical range but the species has been extirpated. mc = mixed conifer forests; Jeffrey pine, ponderosa pine, bigcone Douglas fir, coulter pine, sugar pine, B = Species is known or likely to nest in the area. white fir overstory M = The species uses the area during migration as a stopover. 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 Data Sources: California Natural Diversity Database – accessed January 2013; Survey data from San Bernardino County Museum for the SBNF; General SBNF records; project- specific surveys; Garrett and Dunn 1981.

Page 87

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 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. Ensatina remain underground throughout dry weather. Except in areas where severe winter weather occurs, ensatinas emerge with the first rains of autumn and are active on the ground through spring.

Ensatina 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 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 Project Area – Large-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 from the vicinity of the staging sites.

Potential Project-Related Effects to Large-Blotched Ensatina: Under all alternatives except Alternative 3, the cleared staging area would represent a loss or degradation of habitat for thisspecies.

If present in or adjacent to the staging area sites, there may be a loss of individuals during site clearing, grading, or restoration activities for all but the No Action alternative. Mortality or injuries of ensatinas could occur as logs and rocks are moved during site grading. Death or injury of ensatinas is unlikely during restoration activities since most of those would be done by hand or small machinery and animals should be able to be avoided.

For all but Alternative 3, the risk of ensatinas being run over by vehicles using the staging area is considered relatively low because they are nocturnal and the majority of the staging area use is Page 88

during the daytime. This species is also at risk of being collected or poached as pets or collectors. Visitors exploring areas adjacent to the staging area site (e.g., picnicking, water play, fishing, etc.) might encounter these species and collect them.

The Proposed Action and No Action sites may pose a greater risk to this species and its habitat than the two upland alternatives due to proximity of riparian habitat (higher quality habitat for ensatina). See additional discussions in Sections II-3.2.6, II-3.2.7, II-3.2.8 about the potential effects to aquatic, riparian, and drainage habitats, potential disturbance effects, and the potential risk of death or injury of individual animals.

Cumulative Effects for Large-Blotched Ensatina: See Part II-3.1 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 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 Action, as described, may affect individuals, but is not likely to result in a trend toward Federal listing for large-blotched ensatina. The project is not expected to interfere with maintaining viable well-distributed populations of large-blotched ensatina.

III-1.2.2 – Sensitive Reptiles The potential effects for Sensitive reptiles are similar and, thus, are discussed together after the life history, baseline, and occurrence information for all five of the Sensitive reptiles.

III-1.2.2.1 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 Page 89

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 snakes are a different species - Lichanura trivirgata) (Source: Calherps website).

It inhabits arid scrublands, semi-arid shrub lands, rocky shrub lands, rocky deserts, canyons, and other rocky areas. It appears to be common in riparian areas, but does not require permanent water. 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: USFS 2006 Forest Plan)

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. Rosy 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: USFS 2006 Forest Plan)

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

III-1.2.2.2 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. Additionally, in August 2010 a petition to list this species as threatened/ endangered was submitted to USFWS. USFWS has yet to determine if proposing it for listing is warranted. The SBNF has a habitat management guide for southern rubber boa on the SBNF (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 sometimes inactive between June 1 and September 30 and November 15 to February 28. Southern rubber boas have been recorded to disperse a maximum of 300 feet from hibernacula.

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 the population trends for this species are unknown.

Page 90

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). The area between Crestline and 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, most 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: USFS 2006 Forest Plan)

Occurrence Information: 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 we believe that southern rubber boas may occur in the project area based on habitat suitability and proximity to known occurrences.

III-1.2.2.3 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.

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 Page 91

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: USFS 2006 Forest Plan)

Occurrence in the Project Area: San Bernardino ringneck snakes are known to occur in the Miller Canyon area and are likely to occur in or adjacent to the proposed staging area sites. Observations by Chris Brown (pers. comm. with M. Stamer) at the West Fork of the Mojave River indicate that the species will use desert side habitats if conditions are suitable.

III-1.2.2.4 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 kingsnake 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. The San Bernardino mountain kingsnake would benefit from control of poaching and protection of known localities on NFS lands in southern California. (Source: USFS 2006 Forest Plan)

Occurrence in the Project 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.

III-1.2.2.4 Two-Striped Garter Snake (Thamnophis hammondii): The two-striped garter snake is a Forest Service Sensitive Species and a CDFW Species of Special Concern.

Page 92

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 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.

The 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: USFS 2006 Forest Plan)

Occurrence in the Project 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.

III-1.2.2.5 Potential Effects Common to All Sensitive Reptiles (Southern Rubber Boa, Northern Three-Lined Boa, San Bernardino Mountain Kingsnake, San Bernardino Ringneck Snake, and Two-Striped Garter Snake): Under all alternatives except Alternative 3, the cleared staging area would represent a loss or degradation of habitat for these species.

If present in or adjacent to the staging area sites, there may be a loss of individuals during site clearing, grading, or restoration activities for all but Alternative 3. Mortality or injuries of ensatinas could occur as logs and rocks are moved during site grading. Death or injury of snakes is unlikely during restoration activities since most of those would be done by hand or small machinery and animals should be able to be avoided.

Over the long-term, there is a risk of slow-moving snakes being run over by vehicles using a staging area in all alternatives but Alternative 3. This species is also at risk of being collected or poached as pets or collectors. Additionally, visitors to the staging area may intentionally kill any snake species they see, including these rare species.

See additional discussions in Sections II-3.2.6, II-3.2.7, II-3.2.8 about the potential effects to aquatic, riparian, and drainage habitats, potential disturbance effects, and the potential risk of death or injury of individual animals.

Cumulative Effects for Southern Rubber Boa, Northern Three-Lined Boa, San Bernardino Mountain Kingsnake, San Bernardino Ringneck Snake, Two-Striped Garter Snake: See Parts 3.2.14 and 3.2.15 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 reptiles that may occur in project area. The Page 93

fuels reduction projects have measures to limit effects to any of reptiles. While the fuels reduction projects have the potential to affect individual reptiles, the habitat effects are temporary.

While fuels reduction projects on NFS lands attempt to retain important reptile 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 reptile 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.

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

III-1.2.3 – Sensitive Birds III-1.2.3.1 – Bald Eagle (Halieaeetus 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 remains protected under the California Endangered Species Act as a state-listed Endangered species. It is also protected by the federal Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act.

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).

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. Page 94

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 (USFS 2000).

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.

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.

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 late November and early April with numbers sometimes reaching 25-30 during the months of January and February.

While the number of bald eagles in the San Bernardino Mountains is the highest during winter months, several pairs have taken up year-round residence since 2007. While 15-20 years ago, it was uncommon to see a bald eagle in the San Bernardino Mountains in any season other than winter, it is now fairly common to see a bald eagle on any of the mountain lakes suggesting that we may be seeing a shift from simply being a wintering site to supporting nesting pairs.

Wintering bald eagles can often be found on Big Bear Lake, Baldwin Lake, Lake Arrowhead, Silverwood Lake, Lake Gregory, Grass Valley Lake, Green Valley Lake, and Erwin Lake. Suspected occasional winter foraging habitat also includes Deep Creek, Coxey Pond, Holcomb Creek, Jenks Lake, and a pond in Angelus Oaks.

Page 95

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.

In the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s it was typical to have 15-25 bald eagles wintering in the Big Bear/Baldwin Lake area. However, since 2004, the wintering population numbers have dropped to around 6-8 eagles for the winter high counts. This 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.

Most of the growth in the Big Bear basin is associated with single homes. Two areas, Eagle Point Estates and Castle Glen, were approved in the 1990s and have been developing according to their approvals. Both areas contained perch and night roost sites. The developments have reduced the habitat quality and are now rarely used by eagles for perching (probably the same is true for night roosting although no tracking is occurring). The habitat in those areas is now unsuitable for nesting even though the proximity to the lake should make those areas high quality.

Within the last decade, suitable perch areas on private lands around foraging sites around the mountain lakes have been substantially altered. 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.

Past timber harvesting and wildfires may have affected availability of day use and night roost habitat in the mountain range.

Page 96

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.

Occurrence Information for Bald Eagles: Two unsuccessful nesting attempts (where eggs were laid but did not hatch) were made in the early 1990s near Silverwood Lake, both in Miller Canyon; since then, no nesting attempts where eggs were laid have been recorded in that area.

The SBNF uses a broad model of day use habitat as all areas within ¼ mile of lakes and streams capable of supporting fish or ducks. In Miller Canyon area, the model is a ¼-mile buffer around Silverwood Lake and upper Houston Creek. The Mojave River is also considered suitable habitat for foraging and perching. Several night roosts have been identified, including two that are about 0.4 miles away from the Upland-East staging area site.

Potential Effects: The development of any of the proposed staging area sites would not be expected to affect habitat quality for nesting, night roosting, or daytime perching/foraging. The highest quality foraging habitat is around Lake Silverwood but it is likely that bald eagles occasionally use the Mojave River for foraging.

There is some potential that use of the sites along the Mojave River (Proposed Action and No Action) could discourage bald eagles from perching in trees and foraging for fish in the Mojave River. Human activity in close proximity to foraging sites is likely to cause them to seek other foraging and perch sites.

The known night roosts are far enough away (over ¼ mile away) that no disturbance to night roosting eagles would be expected. Since most of the use of the staging area would be during the daytime, the likelihood of disturbance is further reduced.

The likelihood of nesting in close vicinity of the proposed staging area sites is considered very low due to lack of high quality nest trees. The Design Features include a measure that would provide for development of future protection measures if nesting were to occur in close proximity to a staging area site.

Cumulative Effects for Bald Eagles: The analysis area for cumulative effects is the San Bernardino Mountains. See Part II-3.1 for a discussion of current and foreseeable future activities.

Several of the fuels reduction projects on the Mountaintop District that are currently being implemented or are expected to be implemented soon have known or potential bald eagle nesting, foraging, night roost, and wintering habitat. Those projects contain Design Features (LOPs to limit disturbance, prescriptions in known habitat that would protect important stand characteristics, etc.) that are intended to avoid effects to habitat and to individual eagles.

Page 97

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 proposals in the Big Bear area and increasing populations in southern California have the potential to eliminate or degrade daytime perch habitat. If approved, the developments 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 Miller Canyon OHV project is not expected to result in changes to bald eagle habitat quality or quantity. The likelihood of disturbance to bald eagles is considered low but may occur occasionally. These reasonably foreseeable effects, together with the effects of the proposed project, 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 Action, as described, may affect individuals, 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.

III-1.2.3.3 – Western Yellow-Billed Cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus occidentalis): The western yellow-billed cuckoo has been listed as Endangered by the state of California since 1987. It is a Federal Candidate species and a USFS Regional Forester’s Sensitive species. The yellow-billed cuckoo has been observed in the breeding season at various locations along the central and southern California coast.

Life History and Baseline Information: In the western United States, yellow-billed cuckoos breed in broad, well-developed, low-elevation riparian woodlands dominated by cottonwood (Populus spp.) and willow (Salix spp.). However, studies in the Lower Colorado River Valley and throughout the species' range have shown that smaller willow-cottonwood stands (< 99 acres) have low rates of occupancy, whereas large sites (> 198 acres) have the highest occupancy rates. Breeding season for yellow-billed cuckoo generally begins with pair formation starting in mid-June and extends to mid-August. Eggs are laid June–August. Females lay 1–5 eggs and both parents incubate them for 9–11 days. Yellow-billed cuckoos migrate annually to winter in South America; they migrate primarily at night.

During the breeding season, yellow-billed cuckoos prey upon caterpillars and grasshoppers. In southern California, katydids become an increasingly important part of the diet as the summer advances. Small frogs and fruit such as blackberries (Rubus ssp.), wild grapes (Vitis ssp.), and elderberries (Sambucus ssp.) may also be important food sources. Yellow-billed cuckoos are facultative brood parasites and will lay eggs in nests of conspecifics and occasionally in nests of other species, such as black-billed cuckoo, American robin, gray catbird, and wood thrush.

Page 98

Yellow-billed cuckoo populations throughout North America have declined, but the western populations have suffered the most drastic declines. In California, much of the species' original habitat is gone, and yellow-billed cuckoo is believed to have been extirpated from southern California. (Source: USFS 2006 Forest Plan)

Occurrence in the Project Area: This species was historically known from the Mojave River in Victorville. Similar habitat occurs in Deep Creek. The habitat in the East Fork of the West Fork Mojave River is moderately suitable for this species. There is some potential that the habitat could support them. However, because they are not currently known from anywhere in southern California, the likelihood is considered extremely remote.

Potential Effects for Yellow-Billed Cuckoo: Even if this species were to occur in the Mojave River in Miller Canyon, there would be no effects to suitable habitat from any of the staging area sites. See Part II-3.2.7 for a discussion of the potential effects as a result of disturbance.

Cumulative Effects for Yellow-Billed Cuckoo: Since no effects are expected from this project, there are no cumulative effects.

Determination of Effects–Yellow-Billed Cuckoo: It is my determination that the proposed project would not affect the yellow-billed cuckoo. This determination is based on current distribution records.

III-1.2.3.4 – California Spotted Owl (Strix occidentalis occidentalis): The California spotted owl is a Forest Service Sensitive species as well as a SBNF Management Indicator Species (MIS). 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.

It is a CDFW Species of Special Concern, a USFWS Bird of Conservation Concern, a BLM Sensitive species, and an American Bird Conservancy Watchlist species.

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.

Life History and Baseline 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

Page 99

Ranges from Monterey County to Santa Barbara County; and in the Transverse and Peninsular Ranges of southern California south to Baja California. (USFS 2006 Forest Plan)

The spotted owl is a forest dwelling owl that is found throughout most forests and deep canyons of the western United States. In southern California, California spotted owls occur within four general but distinct forest types: riparian/hardwood forest, live oak/bigcone Douglas-fir forest, mixed conifer forest, and redwood/California laurel forest. (USFS 2006 Forest Plan)

The California spotted owl is strongly associated with forests that have a complex multi-layered structure, large-diameter trees, and high canopy. Nest stands often have a well-developed hardwood understory (e.g., canyon live oak [Quercus chrysolepsis]) and a conifer overstory. However, some high-elevation territories (above 6,500 feet) consist primarily of solely of conifers, and some low-elevation territories (below 3,000 feet) are found in pure hardwood stands. California spotted owl habitats are consistently characterized by greater structural complexity compared to available forest habitat. This is a territorial species with large acreage requirements. (USFS 2006 Forest Plan)

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. The breeding season begins in early April and extends through early June. 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. California spotted owls show strong fidelity to breeding sites and winter home range. (USFS 2006 Forest Plan)

A pair may use the same breeding territory for five to ten years, but may not breed every year. In the San Bernardino Mountains study, dusky-footed woodrats and Jerusalem crickets were the most important prey items. (USFS 2006 Forest Plan)

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. 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. 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.

Page 100

Threats to this population of California spotted owls include losses and degradation of habitat (natural and human-caused) and human disturbance. Franklin et al. (2003) identified four main risk factors for California spotted owl populations revolve: habitat abundance and distribution, habitat quality, influence of climate, and wildfire.

The number of active territories in the San Bernardino Mountains has 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. When considered spatially, there are relatively large areas of forested habitat in the San Bernardino Mountains that were occupied by owls in the 1990s but are no longer occupied (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). Currently, much of the landscape that is not occupied by owl pairs overlaps areas that have burned or that have high levels of conifer mortality during the drought in the early 2000s. These unoccupied areas may represent isolation of pairs and fragmentation of habitat.

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, 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. 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.

Occurrence in the Project Area: There are six spotted owl territories that overlap one or more of the staging area sites. 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. The territories that overlap the project sites are: SB051, SB067, SB068, SB085, SB140, and SB158. The closest known nest site is about ½ mile away from any of the proposed staging area sites. The Upland-West site overlaps some mapped Home Range Core (HRC) habitat. Although not mapped as suitable for spotted owls, the Mojave River corridor is suitable for foraging.

Potential Effects of the Proposed Action - California Spotted Owl a) Habitat Effects: The development of the Upland-West site would result in a small loss of suitable foraging habitat. Because there would be some trees left in the parking area, the area would still have some canopy cover and be usable for spotted owl foraging. Development of the Proposed Action site would not likely need any removal of trees so no effects to habitat would be expected. While the Upland-East site does not have the typical canopy closure preferred by Page 101

foraging spotted owls, they may occasionally forage in the openings of the shrub cover. None of the sites support high quality nesting or roosting habitat. The No Action alternative would not affect any suitable foraging habitat through tree clearing. b) Disturbance Effects: Because the majority of the use of the staging area sites would be daytime, the potential for disturbance of foraging owls is considered very low under all alternatives. It is unlikely that roosting or nesting spotted owls would be disturbed due to the distance to high quality nesting/roosting habitat. The likelihood if death or injury to California spotted owls as a result of construction/restoration activities or activities associated with use of the site is considered extremely remote.

Cumulative Effects for California Spotted Owls: See Part II-3.1 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 or implemented in the San Bernardino Mountains in spotted owl habitat. Those projects have Design Features intended to protect spotted owl habitat and improve the stand resiliency to wildfires.

This proposed project is not expected to add to the reasonably foreseeable effects to this species in the San Bernardino Mountains.

Determination of Effects – California Spotted Owl: It is my determination that implementation of any of the alternatives would not lead toward a trend in federal listing for California spotted owl. The project is not expected to interfere with maintaining viable well-distributed populations of California spotted owls.

III-1.2.3.4 –Willow Flycatcher (Empidonax traillii): There are five subspecies of the willow flycatcher currently recognized with three of these subspecies occurring in California.

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 (Craig and Williams 1998). The southwestern willow flycatcher subspecies is a federally-listed species and addressed later in this document.

Page 102

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: USFS 2006 Forest Plan)

Occurrence in the Project Area – Migrant Willow Flycatcher: Willow flycatchers (undetermined subspecies) are known to occur in the Mojave River in Miller Canyon during migration. There is also suitable habitat in Houston Creek. The habitats used are during migration is less specific than during breeding. During migration, they have been known to use narrow, linear riparian strips, shrubs and trees in parks and gardens, and agricultural areas (Craig and Williams 1998).

Potential Effects to Migrant Willow Flycatcher: No effects to suitable willow flycatcher habitat would be expected during the construction or restoration activities for any of the alternatives. Visitors parking in the Proposed Action and No Action sites and using adjacent riparian habitat may result in degradation of suitable habitat through trampling of vegetation, erosion, and development of user-created trails. Alternative 3 would help restore riparian habitat on-site and help reduce user-associated effects in the Mojave River habitat. Neither of the Upland alternatives would affect suitable willow flycatcher habitat.

For the Proposed Action and Alternative 3, construction and restoration activities may result in disturbance in suitable habitat. Over the long-term, use of the Proposed Action and No Action sites may result in some noise disturbance in the suitable habitat as vehicles are being loaded, unloaded, etc. Additionally, visitors parking in the staging areas and using adjacent riparian habitat for fishing, water play, birding, etc. may result in disturbance to migrant willow flycatchers. This may result in temporary displacement or abandonment. See Section 3.2.7 for a discussion of noise/disturbance effects. No disturbance effects to willow flycatchers would be expected from either of the Upland alternatives.

Cumulative Effects for Migrant Willow Flycatcher: See the cumulative effects discussion in Part II-3.2. Riparian habitat, on and off-NFS lands, has been dramatically affected in California Page 103

due to development, water extractions/diversions/impoundment, drought, grazing, and recreational use. Those pressures on riparian habitat are likely to continue and the the effects may be magnified over time due to climate change. The Proposed Action and No Action alternatives may add to the reasonably foreseeable effects to this species in the San Bernardino Mountains. The Upland alternatives and Alternative 3 would have no cumulative effects for this species.

Determination of Effects – Migrant Willow Flycatcher: It is my determination that implementation of the Proposed Action, Alternative 3, or No Action alternatives may affect individuals, but would not be likely to result in a trend toward Federal listing of migrant willow flycatchers. Alternatives 1 and 2 would not affect this species. Alternative 3 may have short- term disturbance effects but long-term beneficial effects. None of the alternatives would be expected to interfere with maintaining viable well-distributed populations of migrant willow flycatchers.

III-1.2.4 Sensitive Mammals III-1.2.4.1 Fringed Myotis (Myotis thysanodes): The fringed myotis is a SBNF Watchlist species, a BLM Sensitive species, a Western Bat Working Group High Priority species (indicating that it is imperiled or at high risk of imperilment). It has been proposed for addition to the Regional Forester’s Sensitive species list and will likely have that status before the Record of Decision is signed for this project. Thus, for the purpose of this analysis, it is being treated as a Sensitive species.

Life History and Baseline Information - Fringed Myotis: 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 8 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.

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 Page 104

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 suggests 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: USFS 2006 Forest Plan)

Occurrence in the Project Area – Fringed Myotis: Suitable foraging and roosting habitat occurs in at the proposed staging area sites.

Potential Effects to Fringed Myotis: Habitat Effects: Suitable foraging habitat exists for fringed myotis. This species may forage in any of the vegetation types present in Miller Canyon. It will use trees, rock outcrops, cliffs, and mine shafts for roosting, hibernating, and breeding. None of the staging area sites have any suitable rock or mine roost sties. The Upland-West, Proposed Action, and No Action sites may result in some small losses of trees suitable for roosting during site clearance or from removal of hazard trees. The No Action alternative is not expected to result in any changes to tree habitat.

There would be some loss of foraging and roosting habitat during the construction of a new staging site (Proposed Action, Upland-East, and Upland-West) that require trees or shrubs are removed. Over the existence of a staging area, any removal of hazard trees that pose a threat to the staging area would also remove some potential roosting sites for some of the bat species. Page 105

Mortality or Injury: Mortality of bats living in trees may occur if present when trees are felled during site construction (Upland-West) or as trees die and have to be cut to remove potential hazards in staging areas (Proposed Action). It is expected that most bats would fly away prior to tree felling; this, however, may not be the case if tree felling occurs prior to babies being able to fly. Daytime flying caused by disturbance could cause an increased rate of predation.

Disturbance to hibernating individuals is has a higher risk of death due to the expenditure of energy reserves. The risks of death/injury to bats using rock outcrop formations for roosting, breeding, or hibernating would be less likely that type of roosting/breeding habitat is not present at any of the staging area sites.

Disturbance: Noise associated with activities at the staging area (all but Alternative 3) in the evening or night may interfere with important vocalizations that are used for communicating between colony members and territorial disputes. This might interfere with courtship, breeding, and foraging success. All of the staging area sites would likely continue to support nighttime foraging activities.

See additional discussions in Sections II-3.2.6, II-3.2.7, II-3.2.8 about the potential effects to aquatic, riparian, and drainage habitats, potential disturbance effects, and the potential risk of death or injury of individual animals.

Cumulative Effects for Fringed Myotis: The analysis area for cumulative effects is the San Bernardino Mountains. See Part 3.2 for a discussion of ongoing and foreseeable future projects and cumulative effects. 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. The continued development of the North Slope for mining can be expected to affect roosting habitat for this bat species. Those pressures on riparian and foraging habitat are likely to continue and the effects may be magnified over time due to climate change.

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 implementation of any of the alternatives may affect individuals, but would not be likely to result in a trend toward Federal listing of the fringed bat. None of the alternatives would be expected to interfere with maintaining viable well-distributed populations of this species.

III-1.2.4.2 Pallid Bat (Antrozous pallidus): 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).

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, Page 106

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 mantis, and moths. Pallid bat may hover or glide momentarily while foraging. (Source: USFS 2006 Forest Plan)

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 (USFS 2006 Forest Plan Species Account). The threats to pallid bats are similar to those discussed above for Townsend’s big- eared bats.

Occurrence in the Project Area - Pallid Bat: Suitable foraging, roosting, and breeding habitats occur in Miller Canyon.

Potential Effects for Pallid Bat: The potential effects are similar to those described above for fringed bats.

Cumulative Effects for Pallid Bat: The potential cumulative effects are similar to those described above for fringed bats.

Determination of Effects –Pallid Bat: It is my determination that implementation of the any of the alternatives may affect individuals but is not likely to result in a trend toward Federal listing of the pallid bat. None of the alternatives would be expected to interfere with maintaining viable well-distributed populations of this species.

III-1.2.4.3 – San Bernardino Flying Squirrel (Glaucomys sabrinus californicus): The San Bernardino flying squirrel is a Forest Service Sensitive species. Additionally, in August 2010 a petition to list this species as threatened/ endangered was submitted to USFWS. USFWS has yet to determine if proposing it for listing is warranted.

Life History and Baseline Information: The San Bernardino Mountains support a disjunct, isolated subspecies of northern flying squirrels. The San Bernardino flying squirrel subspecies is Page 107

separated from the closest populations of other subspecies in the Sierras by at least 150 miles. Little is known about the San Bernardino subspecies – the San Bernardino Mountains’ 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 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, northern 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.

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.

Other subspecies of northern flying squirrels are nocturnal with occasional activity periods during the day. During late summer, they exhibit a biphasic nocturnal pattern. They leave the Page 108

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 San Bernardino flying squirrel study 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 in the late 1990s, the Mountaintop Ranger District conducted trapping efforts to learn more about this subspecies. Successful trapping sites were characterized as mature to over-mature mixed conifer forest with relatively high numbers of snags and downed logs. The habitat was relatively open and lacked a dense undergrowth component but the canopy

Page 109

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. (Source: USFS 2006 Forest Plan)

Climate change has been also identified as a threat to the 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 110

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 Information for San Bernardino Flying Squirrels: San Bernardino flying squirrels are known to occur in the Miller Canyon area (based on Forest Service records and analysis of California spotted owl pellets. They are likely to occur at the sites of all alternatives except for the Upland-East site.

Potential Effects to San Bernardino Flying Squirrels: In the development of a new staging area site at Upland-West and the Proposed Action, there may be some disturbance to foraging habitat during ground clearance and grading (if necessary). Truffle biomass is strongly associated with the presence of a well-developed soil organic layer and the volume of decaying logs. Piling and burning of slash could also affect these components and reduce truffle habitat. However, arboreal lichen biomass and other forage species should be largely retained as a minimal number of trees would be felled. As trees die in or near the site and have to be felled because they pose a hazard, there would continue to be some small effects to habitat availability for den trees.

Page 111

There is a low potential that individual flying squirrels may be 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 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. It is possible that some individuals would be killed, orphaned, or injured during tree-felling operations. However, most individuals of this highly mobile species would likely escape. The No Action alternative is not expected to result in changes to tree habitat.

Cumulative Effects for San Bernardino Flying Squirrels: The analysis area for cumulative effects is the San Bernardino Mountains. See Parts II-3.1.3.2 and II-3.1.3.3 for a discussion of current and foreseeable future activities. All of the fuels reduction projects on the Mountaintop District that are currently being planned or implemented have known or potential flying squirrel habitat. Those projects contain Design Features would protect important stand characteristics. Nonetheless, current fuel-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, the same types of projects are being implemented by SCE, Caltrans, and NRCS. 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 Miller Canyon staging area sites would be expected to remain suitable for flying squirrels; the Upland-West site might have slightly lower habitat quality but it would still be suitable for flying squirrels because trees would be retained within the site.

These reasonably forseeable effects, together with the effects of the project, affect a small fraction of the range and habitat of San Bernardino flying squirrels.

Determination of Effects – San Bernardino Flying Squirrel: It is my determination that implementation of any of the alternatives may affect individuals flying squirrels but is not likely to result in a trend toward Federal listing of San Bernardino flying squirrel. None of the alternatives would be expected to interfere with maintaining viable well-distributed populations of San Bernardino flying squirrels.

Page 112

III-2.0 – SUMMARY OF DETERMINATION OF EFFECTS FOR SENSITIVE SPECIES

Table 7. Summary of Determinations of Effects for Sensitive Species in the Project Area Species Determination of Effects 1 Viability Statement Plants Calochortus palmeri var. palmeri NE No threat to viability from this project Castilleja lasiorhyncha NE No threat to viability from this project Wildlife large-blotched ensatina MAI No threat to viability from this project yellow-blotched ensatina MAI No threat to viability from this project southern rubber boa MAI No threat to viability from this project Northern three-lined boa MAI No threat to viability from this project San Bernardino ringneck snake MAI No threat to viability from this project San Bernardino mountain kingsnake MAI No threat to viability from this project Two-striped garter snake MAI No threat to viability from this project Bald eagle MAI No threat to viability from this project Western yellow-billed cuckoo MAI No threat to viability from this project California spotted owl MAI No threat to viability from this project Willow flycatcher (migrant) MAI No threat to viability from this project Fringed myotis MAI No threat to viability from this project pallid bat MAI No threat to viability from this project San Bernardino flying squirrel MAI No threat to viability from this project 1 NE=No Effect; MAI= May Affect Individuals, But Not Likely to Lead Toward a Trend in Federal Listing; MLTFL=May Lead Toward a Trend in Federal Listing

Page 113

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

IV-1.0 - INTRODUCTION This Biological Assessment (BA) part of this document addresses proposed and listed Threatened, 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.

The primary purpose of this BA is to determine the character of the effects, if any, 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 for the site.

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, 1993–19934 [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.

IV-2.0 - 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. USFWS concurred with the twice-annual list of species and Critical Habitats sent by the SBNF. Those species and Critical Habitats are considered in this evaluation.

Several programmatic and project-specific consultations have set the stage for this consultation.

Page 114

Programmatic Consultation on LMP in 2000/2001 (2001 LMP Consultation) In 2000, the SBNF and the other National Forests in the Southern Province prepared a Programmatic BA for the existing LMPs at the time (USFS 2000). USFWS issued a Biological Opinion (1-6-00-F- 773.2) in 2001 (USFWS 2001a). The 2001 LMP BO incorporated by reference the 1999 Riparian Consultation and kept in place the terms and conditions and the take statements from the 1999 Riparian Consultation.

Hazardous Fuels Management Programmatic Consultation 2004/2005 (2005 Fuels Consultation) In 2004, the SBNF initiated consultation on the Forest’s fuels reduction and vegetation management programs (USFS 2004). A USFWS letter dated August 29, 2005 (FWS-SB/WRIV- 3468.2) included concurrence of the “not likely to adversely affect” determinations (by using the Proposed Action’s Design Features) for several species.

The formal consultation for this programmatic BA was withdrawn due to a change in strategies; no BO was written for the species with “may adversely affect” determinations and no “incidental take” statement was issued to the SBNF.

Programmatic Consultation on LMP in 2005 (2005 LMP Consultation) In 2005, the SBNF and other the three Southern Province National Forests initiated consultation on the updated LMP (Biological Assessment for the Revised Land Management Plans, dated March 18, 2005) (USFS 2005a). 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 2005a).

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

Riparian Obligate Ongoing Effects Consultation in 2008 In July 2008, the SBNF initiated consultation on the ongoing effects from Forest management activities to seven riparian-dependent species (USFS 2008). A BO was issued December 16, 2012 (USFWS 2012; FWS-SB/WRlV-08B0680-09F0227 - Biological and Conference Opinions for Various Ongoing Activities on the San Bernardino National Forest with Effects to Eight Riparian Species, San Bernardino National Forest, California).

IV-3.0 - BASELINE CONDITIONS AND POTENTIAL EFFECTS FOR THREATENED AND ENDANGERED 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.

Detailed species accounts for all of the T/E species are contained in the LMP; they are summarized here without citations. See the LMP for full species accounts including the citations. Page 115

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

See Parts II-3.1 through II-3.3 for a discussion of past and ongoing activities, current actions, and foreseeable future activities. Those discussions also apply to the following discussions.

IV-3.1 - Threatened and Endangered Plants All T/E plant species and Critical Habitat in Table 8 were considered in this evaluation. No T/E plant species were detected in the project areas during the 2006, 2012 or 2013 surveys. No T/E plants are known nor expected in the Miller Canyon area. No suitable habitat exists. No designated or proposed Critical Habitat occurs in the Miller Canyon area.

IV-3.2 – Threatened and Endangered Wildlife Table 9 lists the current T/E animals known from the SBNF; they are all considered in this evaluation. Detailed species accounts for all of the T/E species are contained in the LMP.

No federally-listed species are currently known from the project area. Five T/E animals have the potential to occur in the Miller Canyon area, specifically in/along the East Fork of the West Fork of the Mojave River. These include Mohave tui chub, arroyo toad, California red-legged frog, mountain yellow-legged frog, southwestern willow flycatcher, and least Bell’s vireo. The Mohave tui chub, arroyo toad, California red-legged frog, and mountain yellow-legged frog all occurred historically in the drainage before the creation of Silverwood Lake. No designated or proposed Critical Habitat is present in the project area.

There is suitable habitat for one Candidate species, the yellow-billed cuckoo. 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. The yellow-billed cuckoo is addressed a Forest Service Sensitive species and is in the Biological Evaluation (Part III of this document). Page 116

Table 8. Threatened, Endangered, Proposed, and Candidate Plant Species in the Project Area Species Name Common Name Occurrence Information* Critical Habitat Type Occurs In/Near Mountain- Front San Habitat On Project Area top Country Jacinto SBNF Endangered Species Acanthoscyphus parishii var. goodmaniana Cushenbury puncturebract Y Designated Carbonate soils N Arenaria paludicola marsh sandwort N None Freshwater marsh N Astragalus albens Cushenbury milk vetch Y Designated Carbonate soils N Astragalus brauntonii Braunton’s milk-vetch N P Designated; not Limestone soils in chaparral N on SBNF Astragalus lentiginosus var. coachellae Coachella Valley milk vetch N P Designated; not Sandy Sonoran desert scrub N on SBNF Astragalus tricarinatus triple-ribbed milk-vetch N P P None Sandy/gravel, desert margin N Berberis nevinii Nevin's barberry N P P Proposed; none Clay soils/vernally wet areas N on SBNF Dodecahema leptoceras slender-horned spineflower N Y Y None Alluvial scrub N Eriastrum densifoloium subsp. sanctorum Santa Ana River woollystar N P None Alluvial scrub N Eriogonum ovalifolium var. vineum Cushenbury buckwheat Y Designated Carbonate soils N Nasturtium gambelii Gambel’s water cress N None Freshwater marsh N Poa atropurpurea San Bernardino bluegrass Y P P Designated Meadows N Physaria kingii subsp. bernardina San Bernardino Mtns. bladderpod Y Designated Carbonate soils N Sidalcea pedata bird's foot checkerbloom Y P None Meadows N Taraxacum californicum California taraxacum Y Y Designated Meadows N Thelypodium stenopetalum slender-petaled mustard Y None Meadows N Threatened Species Arenaria ursina Bear Valley sandwort Y Designated Pebble plain N Brodiaea filifolia thread-leaved brodiaea N P P Designated; not Clay soils/vernally wet areas N on SBNF Castilleja cinerea ash-gray Indian paintbrush Y Y Designated Pebble plains; openings in N conifer forest Erigeron parishii Parish's daisy Y Designated Carbonate soils N Eriogonum kennedyi var. austromontanum southern mountain buckwheat Y Designated Pebble plain N *Occurrence Information: Y = Species is known to occur. P = Occurrence of the species is possible; suitable habitat exists, and/or the species is known from nearby locations. H = Part of the historical range but the species has been extirpated. U = Occurrence of the species is unlikely based on habitat present. N = Outside known distribution/range of the species. CH=Designated Critical Habitat

Page 117

Table 9. Threatened, Endangered, Proposed, And Candidate Wildlife Species for Project Area COMMON NAME LATIN NAME OCCURRENCE INFORMATION* HABITAT CRITICAL OCCURRENCE Mountain- Front San Jacinto TYPE** HABITAT IN PROJECT AREA? top Country ON SBNF ENDANGERED SPECIES Quino checkerspot butterfly Euphydryas editha quino N N Y c Designated N – outside knowndistribution Mohave tui chub Siphateles bicolor mohavensis H N N aq P - Historic unarmored threespine stickleback Gasterosteus aculeatus williamsoni Y H N aq N – no suitable habitat arroyo toad Anaxyrus californicus Y Y Y d,aq,r Designated P - Historic mountain yellow-legged frog Rana muscosa Y Y Y r, aq Designated P - Historic California condor Gymnogyps californianus Y Y H mc,g,c,a,rk, N – no suitable nesting habitat wo southwestern willow flycatcher Empidonax trailii extimus Y Y Y r,m Designated P in Mojave River and Houston Creek least Bell's vireo Vireo bellii pusillus N Y P r,m P in Mojave River and Houston Creek San Bernardino kangaroo rat Dipodomys merriami parvus N Y Y w Designated N – outside known distribution Stephens’ kangaroo rat Dipodomys stephensi N N L g N – outside known distribution peninsular bighorn sheep Ovis Canadensis nelsoni N N Y wo, rk, d Designated N – outside known distribution THREATENED SPECIES Santa Ana sucker Catostomus santannae N H N aq Designated N – outside known distribution California red-legged frog Rana draytonii H H N r,aq P - Historic desert tortoise Gopherus agassizii Y P Y d N – no suitable habitat coastal California gnatcatcher Polioptila californica californica N P P c N – outside known distribution FEDERAL CANDIDATE SPECIES western yellow-billed cuckoo Coccyzus americanus P P P r N/A P in Mojave River *Occurrence Information: **HABITAT TYPES/HABITAT COMPONENTS d = desert; Joshua tree woodlands, creosote bush Y = Species is known to occur. a = aerial; usually seen in flight, often over several habitat types scrub, blackbrush scrub P = Occurrence of the species is possible; suitable habitat exists, and/or the r = riparian (streamside thickets and woodlands) aq = aquatic; lakes, reservoirs, ponds, vernal species is known from nearby locations. g = grasslands, fields, and agricultural areas pools/puddles B = Species is known or likely to nest in the area. M = The species uses the area during migration as a stopover. m = marshes, meadows; both freshwater areas and moist meadows u = urbanized areas H = Part of the historical range but the species has been extirpated. c = chaparral and coastal sage scrub w = washes and alluvial fans U = Occurrence of the species is unlikely based on habitat present. wo = woodlands; pinyon-juniper, oaks rk = cliffs and rocky outcrops N = Outside known distribution/range of the species. mc = mixed conifer forests; Jeffrey pine, ponderosa pine, bigcone s = snags and cavities Douglas fir, coulter pine, sugar pine, white fir overstory

Page 118

IV-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.

The one remaining population on NFS lands is on lower Deep Creek on the SBNF, northeast of the Miller Canyon project area. There is no habitat connectivity between that site and the Miller Canyon 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).

Life History and Baseline Information: Tui chub (Siphateles bicolor) are found in lakes, isolated springs, sloughs, sluggish rivers, and backwaters of swift streams. The main components of their habitat are quiet water with established aquatic vegetation and substrates containing sand or other fine materials. Mohave tui chub survive temperatures of 35.6 º F–96.8 º F, but prefer temperatures of 59 º F–86 º F. They can also tolerate high alkalinity (pH to 11) and low levels of dissolved oxygen.

Mohave tui chub spawn late April–early July, although populations in springs and warm lakes may spawn February–late August. Each female is highly fecund (as many as 50,000 eggs), and most likely spawns multiple times per season. Spawning mostly occurs when water temperatures are 55.4 º F–62.6 º F; however, they are capable of spawning when water temperatures are as high as 78.8 º F. They spawn in water less than 5 feet deep with beds of aquatic vegetation or algae-covered rocks. Large aggregations of fish swirl, with several males to a single female. Eggs are fertilized and then adhere to aquatic vegetation or the substrate. Larvae hatch in 3–6 days and are mostly planktonic.

In deeper lakes, tui chub move into deep water during the day and return to the surface or shallow water at night. Tui chub are opportunistic omnivores, feeding mostly on detritus, unidentified organic matter, and plant fragments. Mohave tui chub feed on insect larvae and detritus. Larvae feed on planktonic crustaceans and rotifers.

Occurrence Information for Mohave Tui Chub: 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. The habitat is currently considered to be low quality due to the presence of predatory non-native fish and bullfrogs.

Potential Effects to Mohave Tui Chub: Although there is suitable habitat for Mohave tui chub in the Miller Canyon area, (Houston Creek and the East Fork of the West Fork Mojave River, this

Page 119

species is considered extirpated from this part of its former distribution and no impacts are expected.

Mohave Tui Chub – Cumulative Effects: There are no cumulative effects.

Take for Mohave Tui Chub: No take is expected.

Mohave Tui Chub – 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, it is my determination that implementation of any of the proposed alternatives would not affect the Mohave tui chub.

IV-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 have been considered to be two geographically distinct populations (67 Federal Register 44382) 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.

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 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

Page 120

that the pool freezes completely. They are able to survive some anoxic conditions during freezing.

Only eight populations of mountain yellow-legged frogs are confirmed to exist throughout its historic range in Southern California. Surveys between 1998 and 2002 failed to locate any extant mountain yellow-legged frogs in the Upper Santa Ana watershed, except for the City Creek occurrence.

Considering records of occurrences since 1990, three sites on the San Bernardino Mountains are currently considered occupied by mountain yellow-legged frogs: City Creek, East Fork of Barton Creek, and Mill Creek. While it is considered unlikely that they still occur in the East Fork of Barton Creek and Mill Creek due to failure to locate them in recent 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).

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. The East Fork of Barton Creek is within a SBNF recreation residence tract (part-time cabins that are under permit from the SBNF). Diversions from the creek to supply water to the cabins may have affected habitat in the past. For the most part, these diversions have been discontinued (or will be soon). This area has a higher level of human use than the general forest due to proximity to those cabins, organization camps, the Barton Flats Visitor Center, and the highway. All of those factors may influence the status of that population. This area has also been treated under a fuels reduction and hazard tree project. RCAs and BMPs were used to protect the creek and should have limited any potential for effects to frogs and their habitat.

In the San Bernardino Mountains, mountain yellow-legged frogs were determined to be extant in the East Fork of City Creek in 1998. Upon its discovery and subsequent monitoring, East Fork City Creek was found to be one of the largest remaining populations of mountain yellow-legged frogs in Southern California. A flood event following a large wildfire in 2003 significantly reduced the mountain yellow-legged frog population in this stream. Surveys conducted in 2004 and through most of 2005 failed to detect any mountain yellow-legged frogs. In September 2005, eleven metamorphs and one adult male were found in the East Fork City Creek at and above the Schenk Creek confluence. In 2006, surveys continued and four adults were discovered. Fewer frogs were found in subsequent surveys and results from surveys in 2009 suggest that only a few individuals have survived since the Bridge and Old Fires in 2003 and subsequent flood/scour events dramatically changed the watershed conditions (K. Meyer, pers. comm.).

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.

Page 121

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; 2) nonnative predators and competitors such as introduced trout and bullfrogs; and 3) pathogens/diseases (in particular, chytrid fungus, Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis).

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 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.

Portions of City Creek and East Fork Barton Creek were designated as Critical Habitat in 2006.

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.

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. While Houston 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 Mountain Yellow-Legged Frog: Although there is suitable habitat for mountain yellow-legged frogs in the Miller Canyon area (Houston Creek and the East Fork of the West Fork Mojave River), this species is considered extirpated from this part of its former distribution and no impacts are expected.

Page 122

Mountain Yellow-Legged Frog – Cumulative Effects: Since the project would not affect this species, there would be no cumulative effects.

Take for Mountain Yellow-Legged Frog: No take is expected.

Mountain Yellow-Legged Frog – 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, it is my determination that implementation of any of the proposed alternatives would not affect mountain yellow-legged frogs.

IV-3.3.2 - 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 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: 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 Page 123

extant occurrences in southern California, red-legged frogs are considered extirpated from this part of its former distribution. While Houston 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: Although there is suitable habitat for red- legged frogs in the Miller Canyon area (Houston Creek and the East Fork of the West Fork Mojave River), this species is considered extirpated from this part of its former distribution and 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 the East Fork of the West Fork of the Mojave River, it is my determination that implementation of any of the proposed alternatives would not affect California red-legged frogs.

IV-3.3.3 – 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.

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

Page 124

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.

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 arroyo toad historically occurred from the upper Salinas River system in Monterey County to the vicinity of San Quintin, Baja California; it was found in at least 22 river basins in southern California. 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. The MIS account for this species includes more detailed discussions and is incorporated by reference (Appendix C).

Occurrence in the Project Area – Arroyo Toad: Arroyo toads are not currently known from the Miller Canyon project area. There are no known occurrences of arroyo toads along the East Fork of the West Fork Mojave River. In 2002, USGS biologists 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). The area has not been surveyed for this species since then. 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 Houston Creek and the East Fork of the West Fork Mojave River have suitable habitat for this species, the presence of Page 125

trout may reduce the likelihood that they occur there.

Potential Effects to Arroyo Toad: While it is considered unlikely that this species currently occurs in this portion of the Mojave River and its tributaries, there is suitable breeding habitat for arroyo toads in the Mojave River and Houston Creek and suitable upland habitat at the proposed staging area sites. The designation, construction, and maintenance of a staging area site at any of the three sites would not directly affect suitable breeding habitat. BMPs and other Design Features would be used to limit the potential of sediment reaching aquatic habitats during construction/restoration activities and over time. For all alternatives but the No Action, the development of a staging area with erosion control features is expected to improve hydrological effects over the current levels (see Hydrology Report).

Current incidental use of the Mojave River riparian zone is affecting water quality and habitat conditions. Thus, there may be some effects to breeding arroyo toads associated with the Proposed Action and No Action alternatives if arroyo toads are present. These effects would include habitat degradation, including trampling and changes in water quality (turbidity associated with wading, pollution, etc.). Additionally, individuals of all life stages (e.g., eggs, tadpoles, and adults) could be killed or injured by visitors fishing, exploring, or playing in the water. They would also be susceptible to being collected by visitors. The potential for effects to breeding arroyo toads would be reduced under Alternatives 1 and 2 because the distance between the riparian area and the parking area would be greater and people may be less likely to explore the suitable habitat. Under Alternative 3, the existing site would be restored and the potential for effects to breeding habitat and individual breeding toads would be lower.

All of the alternatives have potential to affect upland habitat and toads using the upland habitat. The clearing and hardening of a staging area site would represent a loss of suitable upland burrowing habitat for arroyo toads. The two upland alternatives would result in the most suitable habitat being lost. Alternative 3 would result in restoration of suitable upland habitat for arroyo toads.

If construction, restoration, and maintenance activities occur during the non-breeding season when toads are most likely to be burrowed in farther away from the aquatic zone, individual toads could be injured or killed. Since the Design Features include a measure that calls for these activities to occur during the breeding season, the risk is lower.

Over time, there is a risk of individual toads being killed, injured, or collected by vehicles and people using the staging areas when toads are in upland areas. This species is primarily nocturnal and most of the use of the staging area is generally during the daytime; this may reduce the risk somewhat but not entirely.

Arroyo Toad – Cumulative Effects: See Part II-3.2.11 for a discussion of current and foreseeable future activities. There are no Forest Service fuels reduction projects being planned or implemented that include known occurrences or suitable habitat for arroyo toads.

In the foreseeable future, it is reasonable to expect that pressures on riparian areas for recreation use will continue or increase with growing southern California populations. Residential and commercial developments in the adjacent desert and foothill communities can reasonably be Page 126

expected to continue to grow and expand in the foreseeable future. Associated population growth will continue to put pressure on nearby NFS lands for recreation opportunities. Much of the current recreation use on the SBNF is focused in riparian and aquatic areas and that focus is likely to continue and increase. As a result, more effects to arroyo toad habitat can be expected.

Additionally, the demand for water is likely to further affect riparian areas through extractions and diversions. As a result of water use, surface and subsurface water may be reduced or eliminated and vegetation conditions may change. The effects of climate change will likely result in dramatic changes to vegetation patterns and water availability over the San Bernardino Mountains landscape.

The effects of the all of the alternatives have the potential to add to the cumulative effects to arroyo toad.

Take for Arroyo Toad: While it is considered unlikely that this species currently occurs in the project area, it may recolonize over time. If it does occur undetected or re-colonizes in the future, there is a potential for take from the development and use of a staging area in the Miller Canyon area.

Arroyo Toad – Determination of Effects: Based on the assumption that suitable habitat is occupied or may become occupied in the future, it is my determination that implementation of the Proposed Action, No Action, or Alternatives 1 or 2 may affect arroyo toads. Alternative 3 may affect arroyo toads during the restoration actions but would be a long-term benefit.

IV-3.3.4 – Southwestern Willow Flycatcher (Empidonax traillii extimus) The southwestern willow flycatcher is federally- and state-listed as endangered and has a federal Recovery Plan (USFWS 2002). Critical Habitat has been designated but none is present in the project area (USFWS 2005b).

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 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. 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 Page 127

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.

Southwestern willow flycatcher is a Neotropical migrant. Spring migration occurs late in the year, usually lasting from mid-May through early June. Fall migration usually begins by early August.

Southwestern willow flycatchers usually arrive in California to nest by mid-May and construct their nests in horizontal forks or branches above the ground or water in trees or shrubs, usually with dense vegetation providing a canopy over the nest. The breeding cycle of the southwestern willow flycatcher, from laying of the first egg to fledging, is approximately 28 to 30 days.

Most returning flycatchers show site fidelity to breeding territories; however, a significant number move within and among sites. 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. (Source: USFS 2006 Forest Plan)

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. Other factors contributing to habitat losses include urban development, road development and maintenance, livestock grazing, high intensity and frequent wildfire, and human recreational activities. 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.

Maintaining viability of this subspecies is complicated by the current size and structure of the remaining southwestern willow flycatcher populations. The total population size of the southwestern willow flycatcher is small. Moreover, the subspecies is patchily distributed over its range, with several sites supporting small populations and few sites having larger populations. The small size and dispersion of these populations leave them susceptible to local extirpation as a result of environmental stochasticity (e.g., severe weather events or natural disturbance) or demographic stochasticity (e.g., random shifts in birth or death rates).

The present distribution of southwestern willow flycatchers across its range presents complex management challenges. Most breeding sites are relatively isolated from other breeding sites. Such isolation potentially reduces the rate of dispersal among populations, and recolonization of small or isolated habitat patches following a local extirpation or population decline is less likely than recolonization of large habitat areas. Also, studies of island biogeography suggest that small, isolated populations can suffer from genetically induced problems that may jeopardize the long-term survival of a species. It is unknown whether southwestern willow flycatcher is vulnerable to genetic effects; however, the population biology and habitat distribution of this subspecies suggests that it may be at risk.

Page 128

Brood parasitism of southwestern willow flycatcher nests by brown-headed cowbirds has substantially reduced southwestern willow flycatcher productivity in many locations.

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 in lower Metcalf Creek, Mill Creek near Thurman Flat picnic area, Jacoby Canyon, Van Dusen Creek, Terrace Springs, Holcomb Creek, Santa Ana River, and Deep Creek. 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 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.

Page 129

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. Other factors contributing to habitat losses include urban development, road development and maintenance, livestock grazing, high intensity and frequent wildfire, and human recreational activities. 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 southern California, high intensity recreation, off-highway vehicle activity, and roads may pose a threat to southwestern willow flycatcher population populations. Campgrounds and other recreational facilities tend to be concentrated near water and in riparian areas where southwestern willow flycatchers could breed. Recreation activities concentrated near riparian habitats, along with development and maintenance of access routes (e.g., roads and trails) to these areas could disturb southwestern willow flycatchers during the breeding season or remove or degrade breeding habitat. (Source: USFS 2006 Forest Plan)

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 (Little Bear Springs, Holcomb Creek, Deep Creek, Santa Ana River, and Thurman Flats), water diversions and extractions (Van Dusen Creek), and road use (Jacoby Canyon, Holcomb Creek, Santa Ana River).

Occurrence in the Project Area – Southwestern Willow Flycatcher: In 2000, the SBNF and USFWS developed a computer model of suitable habitat for T/E species. The East Fork of the West Fork of the Mojave River, Houston Creek, and the unnamed tributary to the Mojave River are all modeled for this species. Those riparian areas all support suitable habitat. Protocol-level surveys have not been conducted in those areas. Since suitable nesting habitat is present and surveys have not been conducted, presence of breeding willow flycatchers is assumed.

Potential Effects to Southwestern Willow Flycatcher Potential Disturbance Effects: The construction of either Upland-West or Upland-East would not be expected to result in disturbance to breeding southwestern willow flycatchers due to the distance to the suitable habitat.

Construction/restoration activities associated with the Proposed Action and Alternative 3 sites could affect breeding southwestern willow flycatchers if conducted during the breeding season. However, the Design Features include a measure that would require that all construction and /or restoration activities at the site be conducted outside the breeding season (May 1st through August 31st). As such, no disturbance effects would be expected from construction/restoration activities.

The long-term use of the sites close to suitable habitat in the E. Fork of the W. Fork of the Mojave River (Proposed Action and the No Action) during the breeding season may disturb southwestern willow flycatchers. The two sites are directly adjacent to suitable nesting habitat.

Page 130

Noise and activities at the staging area (e.g., vehicle noise, etc.) could cause willow flycatchers to be displaced or abandon the site.

Additionally, by having a designated parking area with a bathroom and picnic table, visitors to the Proposed Action and No Action sites would be more likely to use the parking lot and explore the adjacent Mojave River area for fishing, birding, picnicking, water play, etc. All of these human activities have the potential to flush breeding and foraging southwestern willow flycatchers, dislodge nests, etc. Dogs off-leash can also disturb and harm willow flycatchers, particularly nests, eggs, or chicks. The potential for disturbance effects to southwestern willow flycatchers is much lower for the two Upland alternatives and Alternative 3. See Section II-3.2.7 for detailed discussions of disturbance effects.

Potential Habitat Effects: No changes to riparian vegetation suitable for nesting are proposed for the construction or restoration of any of the staging area sites. Over the long-term for the Proposed Action and No Action sites, disturbance to vegetation may continue from visitors as they access the E. Fork of the W. Fork of the Mojave River for fishing, birding, picnicking, water play, etc. By having a designated parking area with a bathroom and picnic table, visitors to that site would be more likely to affect habitat than at either of the two Upland alternative sites. Visitors exploring the Mojave River area could create trails that contribute to erosion and trampling of important riparian vegetation used for breeding, forage, and cover.

Southwestern Willow Flycatcher – Cumulative Effects: See Part II-3.2.11 for a discussion of current and foreseeable future activities. See “baseline information” discussion above for this species for additional discussion of current and foreseeable future activites threatening this species. There are several Forest Service fuels reduction projects being planned or implemented that include known occurrences or suitable habitat for southwestern willow flycatchers as well as suitable habitat. All of the projects on NFS lands include Design Features, RCAs, and BMPs to limit effects to habitat and to avoid disturbance to nesting southwestern willow flycatchers.

In the foreseeable future, it is reasonable to expect that pressures on riparian areas for recreation use will continue or increase with growing southern California populations (see Cumulative Effects discussion for arroyo toads). Additionally, the demand for water is likely to further affect riparian areas through extractions and diversions. As a result of water use, surface and subsurface water may be reduced or eliminated and vegetation conditions may change. The effects of climate change will likely result in dramatic changes to vegetation patterns and water availability on the San Bernardino Mountains landscape.

The effects of the Proposed Action and the No Action have the potential to add to the cumulative effects to southwestern willow flycatcher. The Upland-West and Upland-East alternatives would not be expected to add to the cumulative effects for this species.

Take for Southwestern Willow Flycatcher: 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.”

Page 131

There is the potential for “take” of southwestern willow flycatchers due disturbance associated with the Proposed Action and the No Action. No take would be expected as a result of either of the Upland alternatives or from Alternative 3.

Southwestern Willow Flycatcher – Determination of Effects: Based on the assumption that suitable habitat is occupied and that the Proposed Action or No Action alternatives may affect habitat quality and result in disturbance to breeding southwestern willow flycatchers, it is my determination that implementation of the Proposed Action or No Action as described may affect southwest willow flycatchers. It is my determination that Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 would not affect southwestern willow flycatchers.

IV-3.3.5 – 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 project area. This species has a draft Recovery Plan that has not been finalized (USFWS 1998b).

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.

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

Page 132

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. Most least Bell’s vireos 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.

No other passerine in California has declined as dramatically as least Bell's vireo. 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 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

Page 133

with these activities may lead to courtship disruption or nest abandonment. (Source: USFS 2006 Forest Plan)

Occurrence in the Project Area – Least Bell’s Vireo: Least Bell’s vireo is only recently 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 side of the mountains near San Bernardino. Most of the suitable habitat for this species has not been systematically surveyed using protocol methodology.

In 2000, the SBNF and USFWS developed a computer model of suitable habitat for T/E species. The East Fork of the West Fork of the Mojave River, Houston Creek, and the unnamed tributary to the Mojave River are all modeled for this species. Those riparian areas all support suitable habitat. Protocol-level surveys have not been conducted in those areas. They have not been detected during non-protocol surveys in the area. Since suitable nesting habitat is present and surveys have not been conducted, presence of breeding least Bell’s vireo is assumed.

Potential Effects to Least Bell’s Vireo: The potential effects for least Bell’s vireo are the same as those discussed above for southwestern willow flycatcher.

Least Bell’s Vireo – Cumulative Effects: See Part II-3.2.11 for a discussion of current and foreseeable future activities. See “baseline information” discussion above for this species for additional discussion of current and foreseeable future activites threatening this species. The cumulative effects for least Bell’s vireo are the same as those discussed above for southwestern willow flycatcher.

Take for Least Bell’s Vireo: The likelihood of take for least Bell’s vireo are the same as those discussed above for southwestern willow flycatcher.

Least Bell’s Vireo – Determination of Effects: Based on the assumption that suitable habitat is occupied and that the Proposed Action or No Action alternatives may affect habitat quality and result in disturbance to breeding least Bell’s vireos, it is my determination that implementation of the Proposed Action or No Action may affect least Bell’s vireos. It is my determination that Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 would not affect least Bell’s vireos.

IV-4.0 – SUMMARY OF DETERMINATION OF EFFECTS FOR T/E SPECIES Table 10. Summary of Determination of Effects for T/E Species for the Miller OHV Project Species Federal Determination of Effects - Determination of Take Expected Status Species Effects – Critical Habitat Mohave Tui Chub Endangered NE – all alternatives n/s N – all alternatives Arroyo Toad Endangered MA – all alternatives n/a Y – all alternatives California Red-Legged Frog Threatened NE – all alternatives n/a N – all alternatives Mountain Yellow-Legged Endangered NE – all alternatives n/a N – all alternatives Frog Southwestern Willow Endangered MA – Proposed Action and n/a Y – Proposed Action Flycatcher No Action; NE – and No Action;

Page 134

Table 10. Summary of Determination of Effects for T/E Species for the Miller OHV Project Species Federal Determination of Effects - Determination of Take Expected Status Species Effects – Critical Habitat Alternatives 1, 2, 3 N-Alternatives 1, 2, 3 Least Bell’s Vireo Endangered MA – Proposed Action and n/a Y – Proposed Action No Action; NE – and No Action; Alternatives 1, 2, 3 N-Alternatives 1, 2, 3

Consultation Requirements: Formal consultation would be required for arroyo toad and southwestern willow flycatcher.

Page 135

PART V: PROJECT-LEVEL ASSESSMENT OF MANAGEMENT INDICATOR SPECIES

V-1.0 - INTRODUCTION Management indicator species (MIS) are selected because their population changes are believed to indicate the effects of management activities (36 CFR [Code of Federal Regulations] 219.19(a) (1), 1982) and to serve as a focus for monitoring (36 CFR 219(a) (6), 1982). The regulation (1982 Planning Rule) required the selection of vertebrate and/or invertebrate species as MIS but did not preclude the selection of other life forms. Vascular plants were included as SBNF MIS because these species are often wide-ranging and responsive to landscape-level stressors.

The purpose of this assessment is to evaluate the potential effects of the proposed project on the MIS populations identified in the LMP. The rationale for MIS species selection is presented in Appendix B of the LMP EIS. MIS species accounts (Appendix D) incorporated by reference into this document are based on the most current information on life history, habitat relationships, past and present suitable habitat, and population information. The MIS species accounts contain information about habitat status and trend, and population status and trend. They also discuss the methodology used for assessing status and trends (e.g., breeding bird surveys, Forest Inventory Assessment data, etc.).

To be biologically meaningful, this information may be discussed at a variety of spatial scales, including the range of the species, State (i.e., California), Province (e.g., Southern), and Forest. The purpose of the MIS analysis is to identify species/habitat relationships (identified in the Forest Plan) and evaluate the potential effects to the MIS habitat. The MIS evaluation does not address effects to the species, but instead focuses on how the project’s effects on the MIS habitat may contribute to population trends at the different scales.

V-2.0 - MIS SELECTED FOR PROJECT ANALYSIS There are five MIS animals and four MIS trees present on the SBNF (Table 11). A review was conducted to determine whether the project area was in known or potential habitat for each MIS. Table 11 displays a brief rationale of which species will be evaluated.

V-3.0 - MIS ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE AND EFFECTS ANALYSIS Life history and general habitat requirements for MIS are presented in the Reading Room accompanying the LMP (USFS 2006). This section documents known information about MIS occurrence in or near the project area, population trends over time, the amount of potentially available and affected suitable habitat, and discusses the potential effects of implementing the proposed project.

Page 136

Table 11. Management Indicator Species Selection and Monitoring Information Species Habitat Type Issue Objectives Monitoring Method Measure Analyzed? Mule Deer All Vegetation Diversity and Age Stable or increasing Herd composition in Trend in abundance Yes – habitat Class Mosaics; Roads and well-distributed cooperation with and/or habitat and species are Recreation Effects populations CDFW; habitat condition present condition Mountain All Habitat Linkages/Habitat Functional Studies in cooperation Trend in distribution, Yes – habitat Lion Fragmentation landscape linkages; with CDFW and USGS movement, and/or and species are species well- habitat conditions present distributed Arroyo Low-elevation Ground Disturbance including Properly functioning Population abundance Trend in abundance, Yes species Toad Riparian and trampling and compaction; spread streams; stable or and/or habitat distribution, and/or may occur Aquatic of invasive nonnative species; increasing conditions habitat condition mortality from collision; altered populations stream flow regimes Song Aquatic and Ground Disturbance including Stable or increasing Riparian bird species Trend in abundance Yes – species Sparrow Riparian trampling and compaction; spread populations; healthy point counts and/or and/or habitat and habitat are of invasive nonnative species; riparian habitat habitat condition condition present mortality from collision; altered stream flow regimes California Mixed Conifer Altered fire regimes (fire severity Maintain/increase FS Region 5, CDFW Occupied territories Yes – habitat is spotted owl Forests and/or fire return interval) numbers and protocol and/or habitat present and distribution condition species is known from the area Coulter Chaparral/Conifer Drought/beetle-related mortality Maintain Coulter FIA data; aerial photo- Trend in age/size class No – habitat Pine Ecotone and lack of fire pine habitat monitoring distribution type is not present Bigcone Chaparral/Conifer Altered fire regimes (fire severity Maintain bigcone FIA data; photo- Trend in extent of No – several Douglas-fir Ecotone and/or fire return interval) Douglas-fir stands monitoring vegetation type individual trees are present but habitat type is not present California Mixed Conifer Altered fire regimes (fire severity Maintain or increase FIA data Trend in abundance, Yes – habitat black oak Forests and/or fire return interval) numbers size class distribution type is present White fir Mixed Conifer Altered fire regimes (fire severity Pre-settlement FIA data Trend in size class No – habitat Forests and/or fire return interval) age/size class distribution type is not distribution present

Page 137

Baseline information for each of the MIS is contained in the LMP EIS (page 123 and Table 433 on p. 177) and in the more detailed MIS species accounts (Appendix D) and is only summarized here. These other documents are incorporated by reference and the information in them is the basis for the following discussions and analyses.

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 discussion of the effects of the No Action alternative in Part II-3.5 is applicable for any species that occur in the project area.

V-4.0 – ARROYO TOAD The arroyo toad was selected as an MIS for low-elevation riparian and aquatic ecosystems. The desired condition for federally-listed species, such as arroyo toad, is that their habitats are conserved and that the species are conserved or moving toward recovery. Additionally, that 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 persists and complete all phases of their life cycles (LMP, Part 1, p. 45). The desired condition for riparian condition is that watercourses are functioning properly and support healthy populations of native and desired non-native riparian-dependent species (LMP, Part 1, p. 41).

The desired condition for arroyo toad is that habitat functions sustain healthy populations of native and desired non-native fish and game species and that wildlife habitat functions are maintained or improved, including primary feeding areas, winter ranges, breeding areas, birthing areas, rearing areas, migration corridors, and landscape linkages (LMP, Part 1 p.45).

The desired condition for watersheds is that they are healthy, dynamic and resilient, and are capable of responding to natural and human-caused disturbances while maintaining the integrity of their biological and physical processes (LMP, Part 1, p. 40). Long-term trends in population abundance, stream occupancy, and habitat condition are expected to reflect the effectiveness of management actions in protecting low-elevation riparian and aquatic habitat from disturbance and habitat degradation.

The objectives for arroyo toad are that there are properly-functioning streams and stable or increasing populations. Trends in abundance, distribution, and/or habitat conditions are to be used as measurements for evaluation. The monitoring method is population abundance and/or habitat condition in selected locations (LMP FEIS, Vol. 1. p. 177, Table 433). See the MIS account for this species for more detailed information regarding life history, habitat conditions, and population trends on the SBNF and in the National Forest southern province.

V-4.1 –Baseline Conditions for Arroyo Toad See Section IV-3.3.3 for a discussion of baseline conditions.

V-4.2 – Potential Effects to Arroyo Toad Habitat See Section IV-3.3.3 for a discussion of potential effects to arroyo toad habitat.

Page 138

V-4.3 – Potential Cumulative Effects to Arroyo Toad Habitat See Section IV-3.3.3 for a discussion of potential cumulative effects to arroyo toads.

V-4.4 – Summary – Arroyo Toad Arroyo toads are not currently known from the project area but occurred in the East Fork of the West Fork Mojave River prior to the inundation of Silverwood Lake. They are known from 2.5 miles away and there is suitable habitat connecting that occurrence to this area; thus, it is possible that arroyo toads may occur undetected in the project area. However, Silverwood Lake and the E. Fork W. Fork Mojave River have predatory non-native species like rainbow trout that make it less likely that they could occur. The likelihood is considered relatively low that this species occurs in the area.

A relatively small amount of upland habitat would be lost under all alternatives except for Alternative 3 which would result in restoration of suitable habitat. Under the Proposed and No Action alternatives, there may be effects to breeding activities from incidental visitor activities. The upland alternatives may result in a reduction of effects to breeding habitat by moving the staging area farther from the suitable habitat. Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 would be beneficial relative to the desired condition for low-elevation riparian and aquatic ecosystems on the SBNF and in the National Forest Southern Province. The Proposed Action and No Action would be negative relative to the desired condition for low-elevation riparian and aquatic ecosystems on the SBNF and in the National Forest Southern Province.

V-5.0 – SONG SPARROW The song sparrow was selected as a MIS for riparian areas because its abundance is expected to be responsive to management actions and to indicate trends in the status of the riparian biological community, particularly birds. The desired condition for song sparrows is that wildlife habitat conditions sustain healthy populations of native and desired non-native fish and game species. And, that wildlife habitat functions are maintained or improved, including primary feeding areas, winter ranges, breeding areas, birthing areas, rearing areas, migration corridors, and landscape linkages (LMP, Part 1 p.45).

The desired condition is that 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 (LMP, Part 1, p. 45). The desired condition for riparian condition is that watercourses are functioning properly and support healthy populations of native and desired non-native riparian-dependent species (LMP, Part 1, p. 41).

The objectives for song sparrow are that there are stable or increasing populations and healthy riparian habitat. Trends in abundance and/or habitat conditions are to be used as measurements for evaluation. The monitoring method is to be riparian bird counts and/or habitat conditions (LMP FEIS, Vol. 1. p. 177, Table 433).

Song sparrow abundance is positively correlated with the abundance of riparian herbaceous vegetation and negatively correlated with the use of riparian under-stories for grazing and recreation (Ballard and Geupel 1998). This species was well-represented in riparian bird count

Page 139

surveys on the four southern Forests from 1988 to 1996. Negative trends were determined for the song sparrow during this monitoring.

See the MIS species account for this species (Appendix D) for more detailed information regarding life history, habitat conditions, and population trends on the SBNF and in the National Forest southern province.

Riparian habitat within the San Bernardino Mountains on federal and non-federal lands has been affected by water diversions and extractions over the years, reducing the amount and quality of this habitat type. As such, effects to song sparrow populations likely have occurred due to reduction in habitat quality and quantity. Demands on water, and thus riparian habitat, are likely continue to increase.

V-5.1 –Baseline Conditions for Song Sparrow Song sparrows are known from the E. Fork W. Fork Mojave River and Houston Creek; the unnamed tributary may support this species as suitable habitat occurs in the drainage. During surveys conducted for southwestern willow flycatcher and other species in Miller Canyon during 2003, 2004, and 2005, song sparrows were observed 60% of the time during 10 different visits (SBCM 2006). During the same period, song sparrows were detected 30% of the time during 10 visits to Houston and Dart Creek (SBCM 2006). In 2003, they were detected 38% of the time during 8 visits to Seeley Creek (SBCM 2004).

There are no Breeding Bird Survey routes in or close to the project area; thus, those data cannot be used to assess population trends at the project site level. Audubon Christmas bird counts (http://audubon2.org/birds/cbc/hr/table.html) for areas close to the project area (Mojave River Valley and San Bernardino Valley) suggest that populations of song sparrows may be increasing locally:

Song Sparrow - Christmas Bird Counts (San Bernardino Valley and Mojave River Valley)

3.5

3

2.5

2

1.5 Number per Count Hour Count per Number

1

0.5

0 Count Year year 59 69 79 89 100

Page 140

The riparian areas adjacent to the proposed staging area sites support habitat that is suitable for song sparrows.

V-5.2 – Potential Effects to Song Sparrow Habitat – Proposed Action, Alternatives 1, 2, 3 The purpose of using song sparrows as an MIS is to assess effects to riparian health. The Proposed Action and No Action alternatives may result in a continuation of effects to the riparian area of the Mojave River by having a staging and parking area in the riparian zone. Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 would remove the uses from the riparian zone.

V-5.3 – Potential Cumulative Effects to Song Sparrow Habitat See Part II-3.2 for discussions of current and foreseeable future activities. All of the fuels reduction projects on the Mountaintop District currently being implemented or may be within the foreseeable future support suitable song sparrow habitat. Those projects contain the riparian and meadow protection Design Features to help protect riparian habitats. Similar vegetation management projects on private lands, however, do not generally carry the same levels of riparian protection as those on the SBNF and likely result in disturbance to song sparrows, in short-term and, potentially, in long-term alterations of habitat.

Planned housing developments in the San Bernardino Mountains will result in increased recreational uses in the project area, particularly in some of the more accessible riparian zones. Over the long-term, climate change has a potential to dramatically affect the distribution, amount, and quality of riparian habitat throughout southern California.

Because of the potential for effects to availbility and quality of riparian habitat, the Proposed Action and No Action alternatives may add to the reasonably foreseeable effects to this riparain habitat in the San Bernardino Mountains. The other alternatives are not expected to have any effects in the riparian area so there would be no cumulative effects.

V-5.4 – Summary – Song Sparrow The song sparrow was selected as a MIS for riparian habitat condition on the SBNF. The Proposed Action and No Action alternatives may affect riparian habitat availability and quality. The Proposed Action and No Action alternatives may be negative relative to the desired condition for riparian habitat in the National Forest Southern Province and on the SBNF. Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 may be positive relative to the desired condition for riparian habitat in the National Forest Southern Province.

V-6.0 – CALIFORNIA SPOTTED OWL The California spotted owl is a Forest Service Sensitive species as well as a MIS. The following evaluation serves as the MIS. The California spotted owl was chosen as the MIS for mature, large diameter, high canopy closure conditions of montane conifer forest. Monitoring the California spotted owl and its habitat will indicate the effectiveness of management activities in achieving maintenance and restoration of montane conifer forest habitat. The desired condition for California spotted owls is that its habitats are managed to prevent downward trends in populations or habitat capability, and to prevent federal listing (LMP, Part 1, p. 45).

Page 141

Additionally, the desired condition is that wildlife habitat conditions sustain healthy populations and that wildlife habitat functions are maintained or improved, including primary feeding areas, winter ranges, breeding areas, birthing areas, rearing areas, migration corridors, and landscape linkages (LMP, Part 1 p. 45).

The objective for spotted owl is to maintain/increase numbers and distribution. The number of occupied territories and/or habitat condition is to be used as measurements for evaluation. The monitoring method is to follow Forest Service Region 5, CDFW protocol (LMP FEIS, Vol. 1. p. 177, Table 433).

See the MIS species account (Appendix D), LMP species account, and the discussion in Part III-1.3.3.4 for more detailed information regarding life history, habitat conditions, and population trends on the SBNF and in the National Forest southern province.

V-6.1 – Baseline Conditions and Potential Project Effects for California Spotted Owl See the MIS species account for spotted owls (Appendix D) for the current understanding of population status and trends throughout the southern Province (Angeles, Los Padres, Cleveland, and San Bernardino National Forests). The “Risks and Management Concerns for the S. California Province” section of that document discusses in depth the past factors that have led to the existing baseline condition for this species as well as the factors that still pose a threat. See the MIS species account, LMP species account, and the discussion in Part III-1.3.7 for baseline conditions in the project area.

The only alternative that would incrementally alter suitable habitat for California spotted owls is Alternative 2 (Upland-West). Some trees would be removed in the live oak habitat at that site. Spotted owls are not known to nest in live oak on the SBNF. Higher quality mixed conifer habitat that is preferred by this species is found not too far away. The sites for all of the alternatives may be used for foraging but probably not nesting. As such, this project is expected to be neutral relative to spotted owls in terms of habitat availability and protection of important habitat components.

V-6.2 – Summary for California Spotted Owls California spotted owl is a MIS for montane conifer habitat health. The proposed project is not expected to result in changes to the existing habitat conditions for California spotted owl. This project would be neutral relative to the desired condition for montane conifer forest on the SBNF and in the National Forest Southern Province.

V-7.0 – MULE DEER The mule deer was selected as an MIS for forest health related to vegetation management, roads and associated recreation management. The desired condition for mule deer is that habitat functions are maintained or improved, including primary feeding areas, winter ranges, breeding areas, birthing areas, rearing areas, migration corridors, and landscape linkages (LMP, Part 1 p.45). The objective for mule deer is that there are stable or increasing well-distributed populations. Trends in abundance and/or habitat condition are to be used for measuring

Page 142

populations. Populations are to be monitored by herd composition counts in cooperation with CDFW or by habitat condition (LMP EIS, Vol. 1. p. 177, Table 433).

See the MIS species account for this species (Appendix D) for more detailed information regarding life history, habitat conditions, and population trends on the SBNF and in the National Forest southern province. References and literature citations are found in the MIS species accounts and are not generally repeated in the following discussions.

V-7.1 –Baseline Conditions for Mule Deer Mule deer populations across California and in southern California have declined from high levels in the early 1960s because of many factors. A sustained low survival rate of fawns is suspected as a major factor in the deer population decline. Factors thought to be contributing to the low survival rate of fawns include changes in the amount and distribution of vegetation and age classes, private land development adjacent to and within the National Forests, recreational use in key areas, lack of frequent small fires, and an increase in mountain lion predation. Severe drought cycles, which affect vegetation and water sources over several years, may also contribute to declines.

The four southern California National Forests support most of the mule deer in the southern part of the state. These populations provide important hunting and wildlife viewing opportunities. The National Forests do not conduct their own individual population surveys but rather cooperate with the California Department of Fish and Game in their survey efforts.

The SBNF contains 3 distinct deer herds, all within Deer Assessment Unit (DAU)-7. Overall, the DAU-7 deer population is considered to be decreasing by the CDFW (Table 12). The DAU- 7 population appears to be exhibiting a declining trend from 20,000 in 1996 to 10,000 in 2004. During that period, the population varied between approximately 22,000 in 2001 and approximately 7,500 in 2003 (USFS 2006).

Table 12. Mule Deer Population Trend For DAUs Covering The SBNF1 DAU Name Hunting Zones Forests Population Trend DAU 7 South Coast D-11, D-14, D-15, D-16, and San Bernardino, Declining D19 Cleveland, Angeles 1 CDFW 2003

Mule deer in the project area are part of the San Bernardino Deer Herd. The project area is located in Deer Zone D-14 (http://www.dfg.ca.gov/hunting/deer/deerhunt.html). Table 13 displays CDFW’s deer population estimates for the San Bernardino Mountains.

Table 13. Mule Deer 2004 Population Estimates1 Hunt Zone DAU National Forest Estimated 2004 Pre-Hunting Season Population1 D-11 DAU 7 Angeles, San Bernardino 3,440 D-14 DAU 7 San Bernardino 1,610 D-19 DAU 7 San Bernardino 950 1 USFS 2005c Page 143

The deer population in Zone D-14 is considered stable to slightly declining, yet considerably below levels seen in the late 1960s - 1970s. As with most deer herds in California and other western states, the long-term population trend has been on a steady decline since the 1960s and 1970s. These long-term declines have been due to land management practices that have precluded fire, resulting in changes toward more mature and less diverse habitats, and reduced quality and quantity of deer habitats. Short-term fluctuations in deer populations are usually attributed to weather events that affect forage production.

The subspecies of deer inhabiting Zone D-14 is the California mule deer. Deer in Zone D-14 are considered resident deer. That is, their movement is up and down the slopes, they do not make long seasonal migrations. The deer in this area generally move to higher elevations in late spring and remain there until the first heavy fall storms force them down below the snow line.

The vegetation is highly varied throughout Zone D-14 ranging from chaparral, high desert scrub and pine forests to sub-alpine meadows. Generally speaking, deer populations in this area respond favorably to vegetation disturbances that enhance brush species (wildfire and timber harvesting). Riparian areas, recently burned areas, or clear cuts that have re-sprouted with brush provide good habitat for deer. Areas where oaks are producing acorns may also attract deer. Typically, lower densities of deer are observed in the more densely forested areas or in older, denser, shrub lands. The project area contains suitable habitat for mule deer. There is a relatively high abundance of year-round water and good cover in much of the project area. The hunt records since 1998 for D14 are used to evaluate the population trend in the area (Figure 4) (Data source: CDFW Website http://www.dfg.ca.gov/wildlife/hunting/deer/deerhunt.html 2010).

Figure 4. Deer Population Trend for Hunt Zone D-14

350 300 250 200 150 100 50 Estimated Estimated Deer KillNumber 0

Year

The number of deer taken during the hunting season, used to represent population status, appears to be relatively stable over time. However, if the low numbers in 2002 (due to extreme drought) are discounted, it appears that the populations in the hunt zone have some fluctuations but are relatively stable.

Page 144

Since these records are for the entire hunt zone, it is difficult to assess the situation in the project area itself. It is likely that the deer populations in the project area are experiencing the same general trend seen by CDFW in the D-14 Zone due to roads and development. Temporary increases in populations may have occurred after the 2003 fires in response to early-successional vegetation.

V-7.2 – Potential Effects to Mule Deer Habitat The purpose of using mule deer as an MIS is to assess forest health related to vegetation management, roads and associated recreation management. The Proposed Action would result in the existing footprint of the staging area being reduced from the current size. Alternatives 1 and 2 (the Upland alternatives) would result in the development of mule deer habitat into a staging area that would be mostly unsuitable for mule deer. The intent is to accommodate approximately the same number of vehicles at the current site so the footprint should be similar (2–3 acres). Alternative 3 would result in no OHV staging area and would increase the amount of habitat available for mule deer after the site has been restored. The No Action alternative would continue with the existing site so there would be no changes to the availability of habitat for mule deer.

There is not expected to be any mule deer habitat fragmentation or movement barriers as a result of any of the alternatives.

V-7.3 – Cumulative Effects to Mule Deer Habitat See Part II-3.2 for a discussion of current and foreseeable future activities. All of the alternatives except for Alternative 3 would result in some small amount of mule deer habitat being dedicated to a staging area. This would add incrementally to the foreseeable future cumulative effects to mule deer habitat in the San Bernardino Mountains.

V-7.5 – Summary – Mule Deer Mule deer is a MIS for healthy diverse habitat conditions on the SBNF. All of the alternatives except for Alternative 3 would result in some small amount of mule deer habitat being dedicated to a staging area. Because of the small size of the proposed project, proximity to an existing busy Forest System road, State Route 138, and the Pilot Rock Conservation Camp, the project is likely to be neutral relative to the desired condition for healthy diverse habitat conditions on the SBNF and in the National Forest Southern Province. Alternative 3 may be positive relative to the desired condition for healthy diverse habitat conditions on the SBNF and in the National Forest Southern Province.

V-8.0 – MOUNTAIN LION The mountain lion was selected as an MIS to detect the effects of National Forest activities and uses on landscape-level habitat fragmentation and habitat linkages. The desired condition for mountain lion is that habitat function conditions sustain healthy and that wildlife habitat functions are maintained or improved, including primary feeding areas, winter ranges, breeding areas, birthing areas, rearing areas, migration corridors, and landscape linkages (LMP, Part 1 p.45).

Page 145

The objectives for mountain lion are that there are functional landscape linkages and that the species is well-distributed. Trends in distribution, movement, and/or habitat conditions are to be used as measurements for evaluation. The monitoring method is studies in cooperation with CDFG, USGS and other agencies (LMP EIS, Vol. 1. p. 177, Table 433). Fire and fuel management are the main tools intended to implement the objective for providing prey availability. The greatest concern for the long-term health of mountain lion populations on the National Forests of southern California is loss of landscape connectivity between mountain ranges and large blocks of open space on private land.

See the MIS species account for this species (Appendix D) for more detailed information regarding life history, habitat conditions, and population trends on the SBNF and in the National Forest southern province.

V-8.1 –Baseline Conditions for Mountain Lion The mountain lion is the largest carnivore in southern California and requires large core habitat areas, abundant prey, and habitat connectivity between sub-populations. Recent state population estimates range from 2,500 to 6,000 individuals, with an increasing population trend. Mountain lions inhabit forest and shrub-land habitats throughout California where deer, their primary prey, are found.

Mountain lion population counts are very difficult and expensive, and do not exist in the project area or the SBNF. The CDFG estimates the mountain lion population statewide to be about 6,000 conservatively. They estimated the population to be 5,100 adults during the 1970s and 1980s. Based on records of depredation, attacks on people, and predation on prey populations, it is suspected that the population peaked in 1996, and has been somewhat stable for the past several years (www.dfg.ca.gov/news/issues/lion/lion_faq.html).

Between 2000 and 2008, there were eleven depredation permits issued for Mountain Lions within San Bernardino County; of those, only one mountain lion was taken (http://www.dfg.ca.gov/ news/issues/lion). Human encounters with mountain lions have increased, leading to the belief that mountain lion populations have increased in the past several decades. Currently, there is no information that would lead to a cause for concern for mountain lion populations on the SBNF in the San Garbriel, San Bernardino, or San Jacinto Mountains.

It is unknown how the above numbers relate to mountain lion numbers and trends on SBNF. In general, where mule deer populations are healthy, so are mountain lion populations. The SBNF has some large areas of un-fragmented habitat ideal for supporting mountain lion populations. The project area has relatively high levels of development (housing, dogs, and roads). However, it also has large areas with more rugged terrain with lower levels of disturbance and development. It is likely that the project area supports a healthy mountain lion population.

Influences to prey, such as hunting or diseases that affect mule deer population numbers, probably have the greatest influences on mountain lion numbers (see mule deer analysis above). Increasing urbanization and agricultural pressure outside the SBNF boundary may reduce deer

Page 146

populations on the surrounding lands off-SBNF. As a result, mountain lions may attack more pets and livestock or otherwise threaten local communities, leading to more depredation killings.

An area of concern has been the continued decline in permeability of the critical landscape linkages from the San Bernardino Mountains to the other adjacent mountain ranges that support mountain lions.

The San Bernardino-San Gabriel Connection (http://www.scwildlands.org/reports.htm) has been severely affected by I-15 freeway, Highway 138, and three railroad tracks. Traffic on all of these continues to increase and improvements such as road widening and adding additional tracks are being planned. Through the Missing Linkage Project and interagency cooperation, studies and mitigation plans are being developed for all of these projects. The SBNF is working with CalTrans on bridges and underpasses as improvements are made to the highways. The SBNF is working with BNSF Railroad to improve underpasses and acquire land critical to lion and other large mammal movement.

Recent cooperative CDFW and SBNF studies on San Gabriel bighorn sheep and mountain lions have documented movement of a collared mountain lion across Cajon Pass. This indicates that the landscape linkage is still functioning for lions at this time. All of the agencies involved in the Pass are cooperating to ensure that this will continue.

The San Bernardino-San Jacinto Connection in San Gorgonio Pass has had less cooperative emphasis from the involved agencies (Forest Service, CalTrans, and Union Pacific Railroad, Morongo Tribe, City of Banning, and Riverside County). The freeway and railroad are some distance from the Forest boundary. The SBNF has met with the Morongo Indian Tribe to discuss the importance of the Pass for wildlife movement as well as feral cattle problems in some riparian areas. The SBNF worked with Riverside County in the preparation of the County Multi- Species Habitat Conservation Plans for Western Riverside County and Coachella Valley. Both of these plans recognized the importance of the Pass as a critical wildlife linkage.

The other important landscape linkage of importance to the mountain lion in the San Bernardino Mountains is the San Bernardino-Little San Bernardino Connection. This connection is quite some distance to the East of the SBNF and primarily involves CalTrans, the Bureau of Land Management, and Joshua Tree National Park.

V-8.2 – Potential Effects to Mountain Lion Habitat The greatest concern for the long-term health of mountain lion populations on the National Forests of southern California is loss of landscape connectivity between mountain ranges and large blocks of open space on private land (Dickson et al. 2005). This project would not affect landscape connectivity between mountain ranges. Mountain lion habitat quality is linked to the quality and quantity of habitat available for its primary prey species, mule deer. See the above for a discussion of the expected effects to mule deer habitat.

V-8.3 – Cumulative Effects to Mountain Lion Habitat See Part II-3.2 for a discussion of current and foreseeable future activities.

Page 147

Several non-Forest Service projects have the potential to affect mountain lion populations in the San Bernardino Mountains. The widening of Highway 138 both east and west of Interstate 15 will reduce the permeability of Cajon Pass for mountain lions. The addition of a new BNSF rail line will also affect this critical landscape linkage. There is potential for a high speed train project through the pass as well as additional widening of I-15. Even though the SBNF is working with the involved agencies to maintain corridors and linkages and valuable underpasses through the pass, the cumulative effect is a reduction in permeability for wildlife.

Planned housing developments in the San Bernardino Mountains will result in increased recreational uses in the project area, particularly in some of the more accessible riparian zones that are likely used as movement corridors by mountain lions. Hunting and poaching pressures in the area may also increase as human populations adjacent to the project area increase with development, affecting both deer and mountain lion populations. Additionally, associated increases in vehicle traffic will result in more injuries and deaths of deer and mountain lions and reduce the quality of movement corridors that are bisected by busier roadways.

The effects of this project are not expected to add to the cumulative effects for this species.

V-8.4 – Summary - Mountain Lion The mountain lion is a MIS for fragmentation of habitat on the SBNF. None of the alternatives are expected to contribute to mountain lion habitat fragmentation on the SBNF or in the Southern Province.

V-9.0 – CALIFORNIA BLACK OAK V-9.1 –Baseline Conditions for California Black Oak California Black Oak is one of the MIS in Region 5’s southern California province that will be used to monitor the health of the montane mixed conifer forest habitat type over time. The desired condition for black oak woodlands is to retain existing oak woodlands (LMP Part 1, p. 25). The objective for black oak is to maintain or increase numbers. Trends in abundance and size/class distribution are to be used as measurements for evaluation. The monitoring method is to use FIA data (LMP FEIS, Vol. 1. p. 177, Table 433).

See the MIS account for this species for more detailed information regarding life history, habitat conditions, and population trends on the SBNF and in the National Forest southern province.

Black oak habitat is found in Miller Canyon and vicinity. Some of it was affected in the 2003 Old Fire. Within the black oak habitat that burned, many of the black oaks have stump-sprouted. Impacts of the fire on this vegetation type were very limited and it is expected to recover fully. In areas of Miller Canyon unaffected by fire, black oak had experienced minimal or limited mortality due to the drought and associated insects and diseases. In parts of Miller Canyon, black oaks experienced leaf shed in response to drought and leaf-rollers but the trees did not die. Overall, California black oak habitat in the project area is considered stable and healthy.

Page 148

V-9.2 – Potential Effects to California Black Oak Of all of the Miller Canyon OHV alternatives, only Upland-West would necessitate the felling of black oak trees.

V-9.3 – Cumulative Effects to California Black Oak Because black oak habitat has been considered to be an important habitat component for many wildlife species, retention of black oaks has generally been a goal in fuels reduction projects that are being implemented or planned in the San Bernardino Moutains on NFS lands. As such, SBNF actions in the recent past and foreseeable future have and will generally continue to avoid large-scale and long-term impacts to this habitat type.

The same cannot necessarily be said for private lands. Timber harvesting and salvage activities on private lands within and adjacent to the project boundaries have affected some unknown acreage of black oak habitat. SCE and Caltrans have conducted hazard tree removal efforts on federal and non-federal lands since 2003; due to the need to protect powerlines and roads from falling trees, they have not had the flexibility of retaining black oak trees. Thus, some impacts to this species have occurred.

Additionally, fuels reduction and timber harvest projects on private lands have also resulted in impacts to this species. The level of impacts is unknown.

Because black oak is highly desired as firewood, legal and illegal firewood cutters have differentially sought out this species. During periods when accessible dead trees were hard to find, impacts to live and dead black oak were likely high. Under the current conditions where dead trees are readily accessible, the level of illegal cutting of live black oaks is generally very low.

V-9.4 – Summary – California Black Oak Because of the small acreage of California black oak habitat that would be affected by the Upland-West alternative, this project will be neutral relative to the desired condition for black oak on the SBNF and in the National Forest Southern Province. The other alternatives would not be expected to result in changes to California black oak habitat.

Page 149

PART VI: NON-NATIVE SPECIES RISK ASSESSMENT

VI-1.0 – INTRODUCTION See Part I of for a description of the Proposed Action and Appendix C for 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 3.0.

VI-2.0 - NON-NATIVE PLANT ASSESSMENT Table 14 displays noxious and other invasive plants addressed in the EIS for SBNF LMP (2006, Table 463) and those species known to occur in or near the analysis areas for this project, or along access routes into the project area. All of these species were considered in this analysis.

VI-2.1 – Occurrences of Non-Native Plants in the Project 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 high likelihood of detecting all target species (including weeds). Table 14 lists weed species recorded during the surveys.

VI-2.2 – Risk of Introducing and Establishing New Occurrences Into Project Area The Design Features calling for washing of construction equipment prior to arrival at the site would limit the risk associated with site development. Areas of ground disturbance caused by ground-based heavy equipment operations are especially vulnerable to establishment and rapid spread of weeds. As such, after construction is complete, the risk of transporting new weed infestations into the project area is considered high because OHVs and transport vehicles used by the public would not be washing vehicles prior to arrival. There is a Design Feature calling for interpretive signing posted at the staging area that describes the risk of non-native species and asks users to voluntarily wash vehicles prior to arrival. This may help reduce the risk of user- associated introductions.

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 at the sites (see Table 14) as a result of soil disturbance associated with any of the alternatives. Soil disturbance associated with development of any of the new sites may lead to an increased prevalence of ripgut brome and other weeds at the site, as well as a risk of new introductions and spread along the OHV trail system and spreading away from roads.

Page 150

Table 14. Noxious and Invasive Plant Species Known from the SBNF SPECIES NAME COMMON NAME HABITATS CALIPC* CFDA * IN/NEAR 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 In Miller Cyn Bromus tectorum cheatgrass sagebrush, pinyon juniper woodlands, etc. A-1 Y Centaurea solstitialis yellow star thistle grasslands A-1 C In Rockcamp area 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 Y in the proposed action and no action alternatives, also in Miller Cyn Saponaria officinalis bouncing bet meadows, riparian A-2 Y in the proposed action, no action and alt 3. Tamarix chinensis, T. gallica, T. tamarisk, salt cedar desert washes, riparian, seeps and springs. A-1 C# parvifolia, T. 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 melitensis tocolote widespread B C# Y-present in Miller Canyon, not observed at any of the staging area alternatives Cirsium vulgare bull thistle riparian, marshes, meadows B C# 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 Page 151

Table 14. Noxious and Invasive Plant Species Known from the SBNF SPECIES NAME COMMON NAME HABITATS CALIPC* CFDA * IN/NEAR PROJECT Ricinus communis castor bean coastal and interior, widespreaad B Robinia psudoacacia black locust riparian, canyons B In Miller Cyn Schinus molle Peruvian pepper tree riparian, canyons B Spartium junceum Spanish broom roadsides, canyons, widespread B C# In Miller Cyn Verbascum thapsus woolly mullein widespread B Y- present Proposed Action, no action and Alternative 2 staging area sites 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 widespread quarters Cnicus benidictus blessed thistle Convolvulus arvensis field bindweed disturbed areas Cynodon dactylon Bermuda grass Descurainia sophia tansy mustard Mojave desert scrub, desert transition 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 Y- present at proposed action, no action and alt.3 Elytrigia elongata tall wheatgrass Elytrigia intermedia Intermediate wheatgrass Meadows, forest floor Elytrigia sp. Y Erodium botrys Storksbill widespread Erodium cicutarium Storksbill widespread Y- present at all sites Euphorbia lathyris gopher plant interior sage scrub Hirshfeldia incana shortpod mustard Y- present at all sites Hordium murinum Barley Hypochaeris glabra Smooth cat’s ear Lactuca serriola Prickly lettuce Y – present in proposed action and no action alts. Lathyrus latifolius Sweetpea many habitat types Malva neglecta common mallow disturbed roadsides Lepidium perfoliatum clasping pepperweed open vegetation, clay-rich soils Lunaria annua dollar plant riparian, forest, woodland In Miller Cyn Malva parviflora Cheeseweed Medicago polymorpha California bur-clover many habitat types Medicago sativa Alfalfa roadside, trailside Melilotus albus white sweet-clover many habitat types Page 152

Table 14. Noxious and Invasive Plant Species Known from the SBNF SPECIES NAME COMMON NAME HABITATS CALIPC* CFDA * IN/NEAR PROJECT Melilotus officinalis yellow sweet-clover many habitat types Melilotus sp. Y- at proposed action and no action sites Mentha spicata var. spicata Spearmint streamside Nerium oleander Oleander persists/naturalizes in riparian Nicotiana glauca tree tobacco coastal scrub 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 Poa bulbosa bulbous bluegrass conifer forest and grassy mountain areas Y- present at alternative 1 site 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 Y- present at alternative 1 site 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- present at proposed action and no action sites Sonchus oleraceus sow thistle Tribulus terrestris puncture vine dry disturbed areas Taraxacum officinale Dandelion Tragopogon dubius goat’s beard Vulpia myuros rat-tail fescue Y- present at alternative 2 site 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 – high density at all sites Lolium spp. Ryegrass Meadows, wetlands. Persists when seeded post-fire Schismus barbatus Mediterranean grass coastal and desert shrublands Other weeds observed on site Chrysanthemum parthenium feverfew Y- proposed action and no action alts. Erodium cicutarium Y- all staging area sites Page 153

Table 14. Noxious and Invasive Plant Species Known from the SBNF SPECIES NAME COMMON NAME HABITATS CALIPC* CFDA * IN/NEAR PROJECT Rorripa nasturtium-aquaticum Y –proposed action and no action alts. Salsola sp. Y- Alt 1. Verbascum thapsus Y- all staging area sites *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 154

VI-2.4– Measures to Prevent, Control, and Eliminate Non-Native Plant Risks The Proposed Action includes Design Features intended to reduce the potential for establishment and/or spread of invasive weeds during implementation of this project. Application of the Design Features may help 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 and monitoring measures 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 15 displays a list of non-native animals and pathogens addressed in the EIS for SBNF LMP (2006, Table 464) and those known to occur in or near the analysis areas for this project, or along access routes into the project area. All of these species were considered in this analysis.

VI-3.1 – Occurrences of Non-Native Animals and Pathogens in the Project 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 15 lists non-native animals recorded in the surveyed areas. Surveys were likely not sufficient to detect all non-native animals or pathogens present in the project area. Therefore, there is an unknown risk associated with unknown/undetected non-native animals/pathogens.

VI-3.2 – Risk Of Introducing and Establishing New Occurrences Into Project Area The risk of introducing and establishing new occurrences in the project area is considered low. The types of activities proposed are unlikely to attract new non-native species that are considered threats at the time of this analysis.

VI-3.3 - Risk Assessment of Spread of Existing Populations of Non-Native Animals The risk of spreading existing occurrences in the project area is considered low. The types of activities proposed are unlikely to attract new non-native species that are considered threats at the time of this analysis.

VI-3.4– Risk Determination for Non-Native Animals The risk of introduction, establishment, or spread of non-native animals is considered low due to the proposed activities. There are no pathogens currently known that would be transported by the proposed activities.

Page 155

Table 15. Non-Native Animals Known from the SBNF (From SBNF LMP EIS 2006) Scientific Name Common Name Threat Native Species Affected or Other Effects On Occurrence in Level* SBNF** Project 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 Lousiana crayfish 2 Native fish/amphibians Y P in riparian 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 Y in riparian Chelydra serpentina Snapping turtle 4 Native fish/amphibians Y N Chrysemys picta, C. Red-eared slider, painted turtle 4 Native fish/amphibians Y P in riparian 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 P Ictalurus punctatus Channel catfish 3 Native fish/amphibians Y P 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 P Mammals Rattus rattus, R. Black rat, Norway rat 3 Woodrats, mice Y P norvehicus Page 156

Table 15. Non-Native Animals Known from the SBNF (From SBNF LMP EIS 2006) Scientific Name Common Name Threat Native Species Affected or Other Effects On Occurrence in Level* SBNF** Project Area Sus scrofa European boar, feral pig 2 Disrupts habitat, eats many species Y Y-in the past; no current records Vulpes fulva Red fox 1 Small ground dwelling native species Y L Castor Canadensis Beaver 1 Native vegetation Y L Felis domesticus Feral cat 2 Native birds, reptiles Y L Canis familiaris Feral dog 1 Bighorn sheep, deer Y L 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 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 N Meleagris gallopavo Wild turkey 2 Native vegetation, native birds Y Y-in the past; no current records Passer domesticus House sparrow 2 Native birds Y Y Columba livia Rock pigeon 2 Native birds Y Y * 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 157

VI-4.0 – SUMMARY OF RISK FROM NON-NATIVE SPECIES The risk from currently known non-native plants is considered high. The Design Features contain measures for monitoring and adaptive management to help reduce those risks to a moderate level. The risk from non-native animals and pathogens is considered low.

Page 158

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.

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.

Ballard, G, and G.R. Geupel. 1998. Songbird monitoring on the San Luis National Wildlife Refuge 1995-1997. Report to the US Fish and Wildlife Service. PRBO.

Baldwin, B. G., D.H. Goldman, D.J. Keil, R. Patterson, T.J. Rosatti, and D.H. Wilken, editors. 2012. The Jepson manual: vascular plants of California, second edition. University of California Press, Berkeley.

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.

Brown, Philip R. A Field Guide to Snakes of California. Gulf Publishing Co., 1997.

Buehler, D.A. 2000. Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus). In: Poole, A.; Gill, F., eds. The birds of North America. No. 506. Philadelphia, PA: The Academy of Natural Sciences and Washington, DC: The American Ornithologists' Union.

CalPIF. 2002. The Coniferous Forest Bird Conservation Plan; a Strategy for Protecting and Managing Coniferous Forest Habitats and Associated Birds in California. Version 1.0. USDA Forest Service, Klamath Bird Observatory and Point Reyes Bird Observatory.

CalPIF. 2004. The Riparian Bird Conservation Plan: a strategy for reversing the decline of riparian associated birds in California. Version 2.0.

California Native Plant Society (CNPS). 2013. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants (online edition, V8-02) California Native Plant Society, Sacramento, CA. Assessed Thursday, July 04, 2013.

California Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB). California Dept. of Fish and Game, Natural Heritage Program. Accessed database January 2013.

CDFW (California Department of Fish and Wildlife). 2003. Deer Hunting Draft Environmental Document, February 3, 2003. State of California, The Resources Agency, Department of Fish and Game. 269 pp + appendices.

Page 159

CDFW. 2010. General Deer Hunting Information for Zone D-14. http://www.dfg.ca.gov/hunting/deer/zoneinfo/d14zoneinfo2005.pdf

Consortium of California Herbaria. 2013. Data provided by the participants of the Consortium of California Herbaria (ucjeps.berkeley.edu/consortium/). Accessed July 04, 2013.

Craig, D. and P. L. Williams. 1998. Willow Flycatcher (Empidonax traillii). In The Riparian Bird Conservation Plan: a strategy for reversing the decline of riparian-associated birds in California. California Partners in Flight. http://www.prbo.org/calpif/htmldocs/riparian_v- 2.html

Cunningham, J.D. 1955. Notes on the ecology of Thamnophis e. elegans (Baird and Girard). Herpetologica 11: 152.

Detrich, P.J. 1985. The status and distribution of bald eagle in California. Chico: California State University. M.S. Thesis

Dickson, B.G., Jenness, J.S., Beier, P. 2005. Influence of vegetation, topography, and roads on cougar movement in southern California. J. Wildlife Mgmt 69: 264-276.

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.

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.

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.

Garrett, K.; Dunn, J. 1981. Birds of southern California: Status and distribution. Los Angeles, CA: Los Angeles Audubon Society.

Hurt, Carla R. 2004. Genetic divergence, population structure and historical demography of rare springsnails (Pyrgulopsis) in the lower Colorado River basin. Molecular Ecology 13, 1173-1187.

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.

Page 160

Knight, R.L. and K.J. Gutzwiller, eds. 1995. Wildlife and recreationists: coexistence through management and research. Island Press. Washington, DC. 373 pp.

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.

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.

Roberts, S. L. and J. van Wagtendonk. 2006. ftp://fire.cfs.nrcan.gc.ca/pub/fire/Alexander/ 2006_San_Diego_Conf/ 6Cont%20Papers%20Thursday/wildlife/roberts.pdf

SBCM (San Bernardino County Museum). 2004 - 2009. Annual reports for suitability surveys and GIS layers for Mountaintop Ranger District. Unpublished.

Stebbins, R.C. 1985. A field guide to western amphibians and reptiles. 2d ed. New York, NY: Houghton Mifflin Company.

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.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1986. Recovery plan for the Pacific bald eagle. Portland, OR.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service. 1998. Consultation Handbook – Procedures for Conducting Consultation and Conference Activities Under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. Dated March 1998. 315 pp.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1998b. Draft Recovery Plan for the Least Bell’s Vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, Oregon. 139 pp.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2001a. Biological and conference opinion on the Continued Implementation of Land and Resource Management Plans for four Southern California National Forests, as Modified by New Interim Management Direction and Conservation Measures. Carlsbad, CA. 366 pp. (1-6-00-F-773.2). Dated February 27, 2001.

Page 161

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2002. 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. 2005a. 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. 2005b. Designation of Critical Habitat for Southwestern Willow Flycatcher, Final Rule. Federal Register 70(201): 60885-60934

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)

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, California. Dated December 16, 2012.

U.S. Forest Service. 1985. Habitat Management Guide for Southern Rubber Boa on the San Bernardino National Forest.

U.S. Forest Service. 2008. Biological Assessment For Ongoing Activities That Affect Seven Aquatic And Riparian Wildlife Species On The San Bernardino National Forest. Dated June 30, 2008. Submitted to USFWS July 1, 2008. 260 pp.

U.S. Forest Service. 2000. Southern California Conservation Strategy Province Consultation package. Programmatic Consultation for the Existing Forest Plans for the Four Southern CA Forests.

U. S. Forest Service. 2004. Programmatic Biological Assessment for Hazardous Fuels Management Projects on the San Bernardino National Forest, dated 12/22/04. San Bernardino National Forest.

U. S. Forest Service. 2005a. Biological Assessment for the Revised Land Management Plans, dated March 18, 2005.

U.S. Forest Service. 2006. San Bernardino National Forest Land Management Plan, Environmental Impact Statement, Record of Decision, and Project Record. Pacific Southwest Region. Forest Planning Record: Species Accounts. www.fs.fed.us/r5/scfpr.

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. Geological Survey. 2002. Survey Results for the San Bernardino National Forest. Prepared for the San Bernardino National Forest.

Page 162

U.S. Geological Survey. 2003. Survey Results for the San Bernardino National Forest. Prepared for the San Bernardino National Forest.

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.

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.

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 Bats: BCI (Bat Conservation International) Website: http://www.batcon.org/i(BCI website).ndex.php/ all-about-bats/species-profiles.html

Rosy/Northern Three-Lined Boa: http://www.californiaherps.com/snakes/

Mountain Lion: www.dfg.ca.gov/news/issues/lion/lion_faq.html

Personal Communications Borchert, Mark (PhD). 2010. Former Forest Service Southern Province Ecologist. Personal communication with Robin Eliason.

Braden, Gerald. 2013. Former zoological curator at San Bernardino County Museum. Personal communication with Robin Eliason.

Loe, Steve. 2006. Former Forest Biologist – San Bernardino National Forest. Personal communication with Marc Stamer.

Meyer, Kathie. 2010. Former District Biologist – Front Country Ranger District, SBNF. Personal communication with Robin Eliason.

Villipique, Jeff. 2013. California Department of Fish and Wildlife biologist. Personal communication with Robin Eliason.

Page 163

Appendix A: Floral and Faunal Compendium – Miller Canyon OHV Staging Area

Floral taxonomy used in this report follows the Jepson Manual (Hickman 1993) and Jepson Manual: Vascular plants of California, second edition (2012). Sensitive species follow CNPS. 2013. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants (online edition, v8-02). Additional common plant names are taken from Munz (1974), Beauchamp (1986), and Roberts (1998).

Plants Known from the OHV Staging Area Sites or from the Miller Canyon Fuels Reduction Project Area Non-native plants are indicated by * Latin Name Location Data Source Abies Concolor Miller Canyon Fuels Reduction Project Area SBNF 2004, 2006 Acer macrophyllum Miller Canyon Fuels Reduction Project Area SBNF 2004, 2006 Achillea millefolium Miller Canyon Fuels Reduction Project Area SBNF 2004, 2006 Actaea rubra Miller Canyon Fuels Reduction Project Area SBNF 2004, 2006 Miller Canyon Fuels Reduction Project Area, Staging Adenostoma fasciculatum Areas SBNF 2004, 2006, 2012, 2013 Agastache urticifolia Miller Canyon Fuels Reduction Project Area SBNF 2004, 2006 Miller Canyon Fuels Reduction Project Area, Staging Agoseris retrorsa Areas SBNF 2004, 2006, 2013 Allium sp. Miller Canyon Fuels Reduction Project Area SBNF 2004, 2006 Allophyllum giliodes Miller Canyon Fuels Reduction Project Area SBNF 2004, 2006 Alnus rhombidifolia Miller Canyon Fuels Reduction Project Area SBNF 2004, 2006 Amelanchier utahensis Miller Canyon Fuels Reduction Project Area SBNF 2004, 2006 Amorpha californica Miller Canyon Fuels Reduction Project Area SBNF 2004, 2006 Angelica tomentosa Staging Areas SBNF 2013 Antennaria sp. Miller Canyon Fuels Reduction Project Area SBNF 2004, 2006 Anthaceros (hornwort) Miller Canyon Fuels Reduction Project Area SBNF 2004, 2006 Anthriscus caucalis Miller Canyon Fuels Reduction Project Area SBNF 2004, 2006 Apocynum androsaemifolium Miller Canyon Fuels Reduction Project Area SBNF 2004, 2006 Arabis glabra Miller Canyon Fuels Reduction Project Area SBNF 2004, 2006 Miller Canyon Fuels Reduction Project Area, Staging Arabis pulchra Areas SBNF 2004, 2006, 2013 Arabis sp. Miller Canyon Fuels Reduction Project Area SBNF 2004, 2006 Arctostaphylos glandulosa Staging Areas SBNF 2012, 2013 Miller Canyon Fuels Reduction Project Area, Staging Arctostaphylos sp. Areas SBNF 2004, 2006, 2012 Artemisia californica Miller Canyon Fuels Reduction Project Area SBNF 2004, 2006 Miller Canyon Fuels Reduction Project Area, Staging Artemisia douglasiana Areas SBNF 2004, 2006, 2012, 2013 Miller Canyon Fuels Reduction Project Area, Staging Artemisia dracunculas Areas SBNF 2004, 2006, 2012, 2013 Miller Canyon Fuels Reduction Project Area, Staging Artemisia ludoviciana Areas SBNF 2004, 2006, 2012, 2013 Artemisia tridentata Miller Canyon Fuels Reduction Project Area SBNF 2004, 2006 Asclepias californica Miller Canyon Fuels Reduction Project Area, Staging SBNF 2004, 2006, 2013 Appendix A-Page 1

Appendix A: Floral and Faunal Compendium – Miller Canyon OHV Staging Area

Plants Known from the OHV Staging Area Sites or from the Miller Canyon Fuels Reduction Project Area Non-native plants are indicated by * Latin Name Location Data Source Areas Asterella californica (Liverwort) Miller Canyon Fuels Reduction Project Area SBNF 2004, 2006 Avena sp. Miller Canyon Fuels Reduction Project Area SBNF 2004, 2006 Baccharis sp. Miller Canyon Fuels Reduction Project Area SBNF 2004, 2006 Barbarea orthoceras Miller Canyon Fuels Reduction Project Area SBNF 2004, 2006 Miller Canyon Fuels Reduction Project Area, Staging Bloomeria crocea Areas SBNF 2004, 2006, 2012, 2013 Boykinia rotundifolia Miller Canyon Fuels Reduction Project Area SBNF 2004, 2006 Brassica sp.* Miller Canyon Fuels Reduction Project Area SBNF 2004, 2006 Miller Canyon Fuels Reduction Project Area, Staging Brickellia sp. Areas SBNF 2004, 2006, 2012, 2013 Brodiaea terrestris ssp. kernensis Miller Canyon Fuels Reduction Project Area SBNF 2004, 2006 Miller Canyon Fuels Reduction Project Area, Staging Bromus diandrus* Areas SBNF 2004, 2006, 2012, 2013 Bromus hordeaceus* Miller Canyon Fuels Reduction Project Area SBNF 2004, 2006 Bromus matritensis* Miller Canyon Fuels Reduction Project Area SBNF 2004, 2006 Miller Canyon Fuels Reduction Project Area, Staging Bromus tectorum* Areas SBNF 2004, 2006, 2012, 2013 Bryum sp. (moss) Miller Canyon Fuels Reduction Project Area SBNF 2004, 2006 Calocedrus decurrens Miller Canyon Fuels Reduction Project Area SBNF 2004, 2006 Calyptridium sp. Miller Canyon Fuels Reduction Project Area SBNF 2004, 2006 Calystegia occidentalis ssp. fulcrata Miller Canyon Fuels Reduction Project Area SBNF 2004, 2006 Camisonnia sp. Miller Canyon Fuels Reduction Project Area SBNF 2004, 2006 Cardamine breweri Miller Canyon Fuels Reduction Project Area SBNF 2004, 2006 Cardamine californica? Miller Canyon Fuels Reduction Project Area SBNF 2004, 2006 Carex sp. Miller Canyon Fuels Reduction Project Area SBNF 2004, 2006 Castilleja affinis Miller Canyon Fuels Reduction Project Area SBNF 2004, 2006 Castilleja exserta ssp. exserta Miller Canyon Fuels Reduction Project Area SBNF 2004, 2006 Castilleja lasiorhyncha Miller Canyon Fuels Reduction Project Area SBNF 2004, 2006 Centaurea melitensis* Miller Canyon Fuels Reduction Project Area SBNF 2004, 2006 Centaurea solstitialis * Miller Canyon Fuels Reduction Project Area SBNF 2004, 2006 Ceanothus leucodermis Staging Areas SBNF 2012, 2013 Ceanothus cordulatus Miller Canyon Fuels Reduction Project Area SBNF 2004, 2006 Ceanothus greggii Staging Areas SBNF 2012, 2013 Miller Canyon Fuels Reduction Project Area, Staging Ceanothus integerrimus Areas SBNF 2004, 2006, 2012, 2013

Appendix A-Page 2

Appendix A: Floral and Faunal Compendium – Miller Canyon OHV Staging Area

Plants Known from the OHV Staging Area Sites or from the Miller Canyon Fuels Reduction Project Area Non-native plants are indicated by * Latin Name Location Data Source Ceanothus cuneatus var. cuneatus Miller Canyon Fuels Reduction Project Area SBNF 2004, 2006 Miller Canyon Fuels Reduction Project Area, Staging Cercocarpus betuloides Areas SBNF 2004, 2006, 2012, 2013 Chaenactis santolinoides Miller Canyon Fuels Reduction Project Area SBNF 2004, 2006 Chrysanthemum parthenium* Staging Areas SBNF 2013 Miller Canyon Fuels Reduction Project Area, Staging Chrysothamnus nauseosus Areas SBNF 2004, 2006, 2012, 2013 Miller Canyon Fuels Reduction Project Area, Staging Cirsium occidentale Areas SBNF 2004, 2006, 2013 Clarkia heterandra Miller Canyon Fuels Reduction Project Area SBNF 2004, 2006 Clarkia purpurea ssp. quadrivulnera Miller Canyon Fuels Reduction Project Area SBNF 2004, 2006 Clarkia rhomboidea Miller Canyon Fuels Reduction Project Area SBNF 2004, 2006 Clarkia sp. Staging Areas SBNF 2013 Claytonia perfoliata ssp. Miller Canyon Fuels Reduction Project Area, Staging perfoliata Areas SBNF 2004, 2006, 2012, 2013 Collinsia childii Miller Canyon Fuels Reduction Project Area SBNF 2004, 2006 Collinsia chinensis Miller Canyon Fuels Reduction Project Area SBNF 2004, 2006 Collinsia parryi Miller Canyon Fuels Reduction Project Area SBNF 2004, 2006 Collomia grandiflora Miller Canyon Fuels Reduction Project Area SBNF 2004, 2006 Convulvulus sp. Miller Canyon Fuels Reduction Project Area SBNF 2004, 2006 Cordylanthus rigidus Miller Canyon Fuels Reduction Project Area SBNF 2004, 2006 Cordylanthus sp. Staging Areas SBNF 2012 Cornus nuttallii Miller Canyon Fuels Reduction Project Area SBNF 2004, 2006 Miller Canyon Fuels Reduction Project Area, Staging Cryptantha sp. Areas SBNF 2004, 2006, 2013 Datisca glomerata Staging Areas SBNF 2012, 2013 Delphinium parryi Miller Canyon Fuels Reduction Project Area SBNF 2004, 2006 Dendromecon rigida Miller Canyon Fuels Reduction Project Area SBNF 2004, 2006 Dendrowsia Abiatina (moss) Miller Canyon Fuels Reduction Project Area SBNF 2004, 2006 Descurainia sp. Miller Canyon Fuels Reduction Project Area SBNF 2004, 2006 Dicentra sp. Miller Canyon Fuels Reduction Project Area SBNF 2004, 2006 Dichelostemma capitatum Miller Canyon Fuels Reduction Project Area SBNF 2004, 2006 Diplacus aurantiacus ssp. Aurantiacus Miller Canyon Fuels Reduction Project Area SBNF 2004, 2006 Diplacus lompocensis Miller Canyon Fuels Reduction Project Area SBNF 2004, 2006 Dipsacus sativus* Staging Areas SBNF 2012 Dryopteris arguta Miller Canyon Fuels Reduction Project Area SBNF 2004, 2006

Appendix A-Page 3

Appendix A: Floral and Faunal Compendium – Miller Canyon OHV Staging Area

Plants Known from the OHV Staging Area Sites or from the Miller Canyon Fuels Reduction Project Area Non-native plants are indicated by * Latin Name Location Data Source Dudleya cymosa ssp. pumila Miller Canyon Fuels Reduction Project Area SBNF 2004, 2006 Dudleya saxosa Miller Canyon Fuels Reduction Project Area SBNF 2004, 2006 Elymus glaucus Staging Areas SBNF 2012, 2013 Elytrigia sp.* Staging Areas SBNF 2012, 2013 Epilobum canum Staging Areas SBNF 2012, 2013 Equisetum arvense Miller Canyon Fuels Reduction Project Area SBNF 2004, 2006 Miller Canyon Fuels Reduction Project Area, Staging Eriastrum sp. Areas SBNF 2004, 2006, 2013 Ericameria linearifolia Miller Canyon Fuels Reduction Project Area SBNF 2004, 2006 Erigeron foliosus Staging Areas SBNF 2013 Eriodictyon trichocalyx var. Miller Canyon Fuels Reduction Project Area, Staging trichocalyx Areas SBNF 2004, 2006, 2012, 2013 Miller Canyon Fuels Reduction Project Area, Staging Eriogonum fasciculatum Areas SBNF 2004, 2006, 2012, 2013 Eriogonum parishii Miller Canyon Fuels Reduction Project Area SBNF 2004, 2006 Eriogonum saxatile Miller Canyon Fuels Reduction Project Area SBNF 2004, 2006 Miller Canyon Fuels Reduction Project Area, Staging Eriophyllum confertiflorum Areas SBNF 2004, 2006, 2012, 2013 Eriophyllum confertiflorum var. confertiflorum Miller Canyon Fuels Reduction Project Area SBNF 2004, 2006 Miller Canyon Fuels Reduction Project Area, Staging Erodium cicutarium* Areas SBNF 2004, 2006, 2012, 2013 Erysimum capitatum ssp. capitatum Miller Canyon Fuels Reduction Project Area SBNF 2004, 2006 Eschsoltzia californica Miller Canyon Fuels Reduction Project Area SBNF 2004, 2006 Euphorbia sp. Miller Canyon Fuels Reduction Project Area SBNF 2004, 2006 Eurynchium sp. (moss) Miller Canyon Fuels Reduction Project Area SBNF 2004, 2006 Fissidens sp. (moss) Miller Canyon Fuels Reduction Project Area SBNF 2004, 2006 Fossumbronia (liverwort) Miller Canyon Fuels Reduction Project Area SBNF 2004, 2006 Fragaria vesca Miller Canyon Fuels Reduction Project Area SBNF 2004, 2006 Fraxinus sp. Staging Areas SBNF 2013 Fremontodendron californicum Miller Canyon Fuels Reduction Project Area SBNF 2004, 2006 Funaria hygrometrica (moss) Miller Canyon Fuels Reduction Project Area SBNF 2004, 2006 Galium angustifolium Miller Canyon Fuels Reduction Project Area SBNF 2004, 2006 Galium aparine Miller Canyon Fuels Reduction Project Area SBNF 2004, 2006 Miller Canyon Fuels Reduction Project Area, Staging Galium sp. Areas SBNF 2004, 2006, 2012, 2013 Galium porrigens var. porrigens Staging Areas SBNF 2012, 2013

Appendix A-Page 4

Appendix A: Floral and Faunal Compendium – Miller Canyon OHV Staging Area

Plants Known from the OHV Staging Area Sites or from the Miller Canyon Fuels Reduction Project Area Non-native plants are indicated by * Latin Name Location Data Source Garrya veatchii Miller Canyon Fuels Reduction Project Area SBNF 2004, 2006 Miller Canyon Fuels Reduction Project Area, Staging Gayophytum diffusum Areas SBNF 2004, 2006, 2013 Geraea sp. Staging Areas SBNF 2012 Gilia capitata ssp. abrotanifolia Miller Canyon Fuels Reduction Project Area SBNF 2004, 2006 Gilia modocensis Miller Canyon Fuels Reduction Project Area SBNF 2004, 2006 Gilia modocensis Miller Canyon Fuels Reduction Project Area SBNF 2004, 2006 Miller Canyon Fuels Reduction Project Area, Staging Gnaphalium sp. Areas SBNF 2004, 2006, 2012, 2013 Grimmia sp. (moss) Miller Canyon Fuels Reduction Project Area SBNF 2004, 2006 Hirschfeldia incana Staging Areas SBNF 2012, 2013 Hedwigia stellata (moss) Miller Canyon Fuels Reduction Project Area SBNF 2004, 2006 Horkelia rhydbergi Miller Canyon Fuels Reduction Project Area SBNF 2004, 2006 Hulsea heterochroma Miller Canyon Fuels Reduction Project Area SBNF 2004, 2006 Hypericum formosum var. Miller Canyon Fuels Reduction Project Area, Staging scouleri Areas SBNF 2004, 2006, 2013 Miller Canyon Fuels Reduction Project Area, Staging Hypericum sp. Areas SBNF 2004, 2006, 2013 Iris hartwegii ssp. australis Miller Canyon Fuels Reduction Project Area SBNF 2004, 2006 Iris sp. Miller Canyon Fuels Reduction Project Area SBNF 2004, 2006 Juncus mexicanus Miller Canyon Fuels Reduction Project Area SBNF 2004, 2006 Miller Canyon Fuels Reduction Project Area, Staging Juncus sp. Areas SBNF 2004, 2006, 2012, 2013 Keckiella ternata ssp. Miller Canyon Fuels Reduction Project Area, Staging ternata Areas SBNF 2004, 2006, 2012, 2013 Miller Canyon Fuels Reduction Project Area, Staging Lactuca serriola* Areas SBNF 2004, 2006, 2012, 2013 Lathyrus sp. Miller Canyon Fuels Reduction Project Area SBNF 2004, 2006 Lathyrus sp. Miller Canyon Fuels Reduction Project Area SBNF 2004, 2006 Lathyrus vestitus Miller Canyon Fuels Reduction Project Area SBNF 2004, 2006 Lepidium densiflorum Miller Canyon Fuels Reduction Project Area SBNF 2004, 2006 Lepidium sp. Miller Canyon Fuels Reduction Project Area SBNF 2004, 2006 Leptodactylon pungens Miller Canyon Fuels Reduction Project Area SBNF 2004, 2006 Miller Canyon Fuels Reduction Project Area, Staging Lessingia filaginifolia Areas SBNF 2004, 2006, 2012, 2013 Lessingia sp. Staging Areas SBNF 2012, 2013 Lilium humboldtii ssp. ocellatum Miller Canyon Fuels Reduction Project Area SBNF 2004, 2006 Miller Canyon Fuels Reduction Project Area, Staging Linanthus breviculus Areas SBNF 2004, 2006, 2013 Appendix A-Page 5

Appendix A: Floral and Faunal Compendium – Miller Canyon OHV Staging Area

Plants Known from the OHV Staging Area Sites or from the Miller Canyon Fuels Reduction Project Area Non-native plants are indicated by * Latin Name Location Data Source Lithophragma parviflorum Miller Canyon Fuels Reduction Project Area SBNF 2004, 2006 Lithophragma tenellum Miller Canyon Fuels Reduction Project Area SBNF 2004, 2006 Lomatium sp. Miller Canyon Fuels Reduction Project Area SBNF 2004, 2006 Miller Canyon Fuels Reduction Project Area, Staging Lonicera sp. Areas SBNF 2004, 2006, 2012, 2013 Miller Canyon Fuels Reduction Project Area, Staging Lotus crassifolius Areas SBNF 2004, 2006, 2012, 2013 Lotus nevadensis Miller Canyon Fuels Reduction Project Area SBNF 2004, 2006 Miller Canyon Fuels Reduction Project Area, Staging Lotus sp. Areas SBNF 2004, 2006, 2012, 2013 Lunaria annua* Miller Canyon Fuels Reduction Project Area SBNF 2004, 2006 Lupinus andersonii Miller Canyon Fuels Reduction Project Area SBNF 2004, 2006 Lupinus bicolor Miller Canyon Fuels Reduction Project Area SBNF 2004, 2006 Lupinus bicolor Miller Canyon Fuels Reduction Project Area SBNF 2004, 2006 Lupinus concinnus Miller Canyon Fuels Reduction Project Area SBNF 2004, 2006 Miller Canyon Fuels Reduction Project Area, Staging Lupinus latifolius Areas SBNF 2004, 2006, 2012, 2013 Lupinus stiversii Miller Canyon Fuels Reduction Project Area SBNF 2004, 2006 Madia elegans Miller Canyon Fuels Reduction Project Area SBNF 2004, 2006 Madia gracilis Miller Canyon Fuels Reduction Project Area SBNF 2004, 2006 Marah macrocarpa Staging Areas SBNF 2012 Marchantia polymorpha (liverwort) Miller Canyon Fuels Reduction Project Area SBNF 2004, 2006 Melica sp. Staging Areas SBNF, 2012 Melilotus alba* Miller Canyon Fuels Reduction Project Area SBNF 2004, 2006 Melilotus indica* Miller Canyon Fuels Reduction Project Area SBNF 2004, 2006 Melilotus sp.* Staging Areas SBNF, 2012, 2013 Mimulus cardinalis Miller Canyon Fuels Reduction Project Area SBNF 2004, 2006 Mimulus fremontii Miller Canyon Fuels Reduction Project Area SBNF 2004, 2006 Mimulus guttattus Miller Canyon Fuels Reduction Project Area SBNF 2004, 2006 Mimulus pilosus Miller Canyon Fuels Reduction Project Area SBNF 2004, 2006 Miller Canyon Fuels Reduction Project Area, Staging Monardella lanceolata Areas SBNF 2004, 2006, 2013 Montia sp. Staging Areas SBNF 2012, 2013 Miller Canyon Fuels Reduction Project Area, Staging Muhlenbergia rigens Areas SBNF 2004, 2006, 2012, 2013 Nemophila menziesii var. integrifolia Miller Canyon Fuels Reduction Project Area SBNF 2004, 2006 Orobanche fasciculata Miller Canyon Fuels Reduction Project Area SBNF 2004, 2006 Packera ionophylla Miller Canyon Fuels Reduction Project Area SBNF 2004, 2006

Appendix A-Page 6

Appendix A: Floral and Faunal Compendium – Miller Canyon OHV Staging Area

Plants Known from the OHV Staging Area Sites or from the Miller Canyon Fuels Reduction Project Area Non-native plants are indicated by * Latin Name Location Data Source Pellaeae sp. Miller Canyon Fuels Reduction Project Area SBNF 2004, 2006 Penstemon centranthifolius Staging Areas SBNF 2012, 2013 Penstemon labrosus Miller Canyon Fuels Reduction Project Area SBNF 2004, 2006 Miller Canyon Fuels Reduction Project Area, Staging Penstemon spectabilis Areas SBNF 2004, 2006, 2012, 2013 Pentagramma triangularis ssp. triangularis Miller Canyon Fuels Reduction Project Area SBNF 2004, 2006 Phacelia davidsonii Miller Canyon Fuels Reduction Project Area SBNF 2004, 2006 Phacelia hastata var. hastata Miller Canyon Fuels Reduction Project Area SBNF 2004, 2006 Phacelia imbricata Miller Canyon Fuels Reduction Project Area SBNF 2004, 2006 Phacelia mohavensis Miller Canyon Fuels Reduction Project Area SBNF 2004, 2006 Pinus coulteri Miller Canyon Fuels Reduction Project Area SBNF 2004, 2006 Pinus lambertiana Miller Canyon Fuels Reduction Project Area SBNF 2004, 2006 Pinus pondersosa Staging Areas SBNF 2012, 2013 Plagiobothrys sp. Miller Canyon Fuels Reduction Project Area SBNF 2004, 2006 Plantago major Miller Canyon Fuels Reduction Project Area SBNF 2004, 2006 Miller Canyon Fuels Reduction Project Area, Staging Platanus racemosa Areas SBNF 2004, 2006, 2012, 2013 Plectritis ciliosa Miller Canyon Fuels Reduction Project Area SBNF 2004, 2006 Miller Canyon Fuels Reduction Project Area, Staging Poa bulbosa* Areas SBNF 2004, 2006, 2012, 2013 Poa fendleriana ssp. longiligula Miller Canyon Fuels Reduction Project Area SBNF 2004, 2006 Poa secunda Staging Areas SBNF 2012, 2013 Polystichum imbricans Miller Canyon Fuels Reduction Project Area SBNF 2004, 2006 Polystichum imbricans subsp. curtum Staging Areas SBNF 2013 Polystichum sp. Miller Canyon Fuels Reduction Project Area SBNF 2004, 2006 Miller Canyon Fuels Reduction Project Area, Staging Populus fremontii Areas SBNF 2004, 2006, 2012, 2013 Potentilla glandulosa Miller Canyon Fuels Reduction Project Area SBNF 2004, 2006 Prunus persica Miller Canyon Fuels Reduction Project Area SBNF 2004, 2006 Prunus sp. Miller Canyon Fuels Reduction Project Area SBNF 2004, 2006 Prunus illicifolia Staging Areas SBNF 2012, 2013 Miller Canyon Fuels Reduction Project Area, Staging Pseudotsuga macrocarpa Areas SBNF 2004, 2006, 2012, 2013 Pteridium aquilinum Miller Canyon Fuels Reduction Project Area SBNF 2004, 2006 Pyrrola sp. Miller Canyon Fuels Reduction Project Area SBNF 2004, 2006 Quercus berberidifolia Miller Canyon Fuels Reduction Project Area SBNF 2004, 2006

Appendix A-Page 7

Appendix A: Floral and Faunal Compendium – Miller Canyon OHV Staging Area

Plants Known from the OHV Staging Area Sites or from the Miller Canyon Fuels Reduction Project Area Non-native plants are indicated by * Latin Name Location Data Source Miller Canyon Fuels Reduction Project Area, Staging Quercus chrysolepis Areas SBNF 2004, 2006, 2012, 2013 Miller Canyon Fuels Reduction Project Area, Staging Quercus kellogii Areas SBNF 2004, 2006, 2012, 2013 Quercus wislizeni Staging Areas SBNF 2012, 2013 Miller Canyon Fuels Reduction Project Area, Staging Rhamnus californica Areas SBNF 2004, 2006, 2012, 2013 Miller Canyon Fuels Reduction Project Area, Staging Rhus trilobata Areas SBNF 2004, 2006, 2012, 2013 Ribes cereum var. cereum Miller Canyon Fuels Reduction Project Area SBNF 2004, 2006 Ribes nevadense Miller Canyon Fuels Reduction Project Area SBNF 2004, 2006 Robinia speudoacacia* Miller Canyon Fuels Reduction Project Area SBNF 2004, 2006 Rorripa nasturtium- Miller Canyon Fuels Reduction Project Area, Staging aquaticum* Areas SBNF 2004, 2006, 2012, 2013 Miller Canyon Fuels Reduction Project Area, Staging Rosa sp. Areas SBNF 2004, 2006, 2012, 2013 Rubis sp. Miller Canyon Fuels Reduction Project Area SBNF 2004, 2006 Miller Canyon Fuels Reduction Project Area, Staging Rubus discolor* Areas SBNF 2004, 2006, 2012, 2013 Rubus parviflorus Miller Canyon Fuels Reduction Project Area SBNF 2004, 2006 Rubus ursinus Miller Canyon Fuels Reduction Project Area SBNF 2004, 2006 Rumex sp. Miller Canyon Fuels Reduction Project Area SBNF 2004, 2006 Miller Canyon Fuels Reduction Project Area, Staging Salix sp. Areas SBNF 2004, 2006, 2012, 2013 Salsola sp. Staging Areas SBNF 2012, 2013 Miller Canyon Fuels Reduction Project Area, Staging Salvia columbariae Areas SBNF 2004, 2006 Miller Canyon Fuels Reduction Project Area, Staging Sambucus mexicana Areas SBNF 2004, 2006, 2012, 2013 Saponaria officianalis* Staging Areas SBNF 2013 Scrophularia californica Miller Canyon Fuels Reduction Project Area SBNF 2004, 2006 Selaginella bigelovii Miller Canyon Fuels Reduction Project Area SBNF 2004, 2006 Silene lemmonii Miller Canyon Fuels Reduction Project Area SBNF 2004, 2006 Miller Canyon Fuels Reduction Project Area, Staging Solanum xantii Areas SBNF 2004, 2006, 2012, 2013 Miller Canyon Fuels Reduction Project Area, Staging Solidago californica Areas SBNF 2004, 2006, 2012, 2013 Spartium junceum* Miller Canyon Fuels Reduction Project Area SBNF 2004, 2006 Stachys albens Miller Canyon Fuels Reduction Project Area SBNF 2004, 2006 Stellaria media Miller Canyon Fuels Reduction Project Area SBNF 2004, 2006 Stephanomeria sp. Staging Areas SBNF 2013 Miller Canyon Fuels Reduction Project Area, Staging Symphoricarpos mollis Areas SBNF 2004, 2006, 2012, 2013 Appendix A-Page 8

Appendix A: Floral and Faunal Compendium – Miller Canyon OHV Staging Area

Plants Known from the OHV Staging Area Sites or from the Miller Canyon Fuels Reduction Project Area Non-native plants are indicated by * Latin Name Location Data Source Syntrichia sp. (moss) Miller Canyon Fuels Reduction Project Area SBNF 2004, 2006 Targionia hypophylla (Liverwort) Miller Canyon Fuels Reduction Project Area SBNF 2004, 2006 Tauschia parishii Miller Canyon Fuels Reduction Project Area SBNF 2004, 2006 Thalyptericum fendleri Miller Canyon Fuels Reduction Project Area SBNF 2004, 2006 Miller Canyon Fuels Reduction Project Area, Staging Toxicodendron diversilobum Areas SBNF 2004, 2006, 2013 Tragopogon dubius Miller Canyon Fuels Reduction Project Area SBNF 2004, 2006 Trifolium sp. Miller Canyon Fuels Reduction Project Area SBNF 2004, 2006 Trifolium sp. Miller Canyon Fuels Reduction Project Area SBNF 2004, 2006 Miller Canyon Fuels Reduction Project Area, Staging Turricula parrii Areas SBNF 2004, 2006, 2012, 2013 Umbellularia californica Miller Canyon Fuels Reduction Project Area SBNF 2004, 2006 Urtica dioica Miller Canyon Fuels Reduction Project Area SBNF 2004, 2006 Thysanocarpus sp. Staging Areas SBNF 2013 Verbascum thapsus* Staging Areas SBNF 2012, 2013 Veronica anagallis-aquatica Miller Canyon Fuels Reduction Project Area SBNF 2004, 2006 Vicia villosa Miller Canyon Fuels Reduction Project Area SBNF 2004, 2006 Vinca minor Miller Canyon Fuels Reduction Project Area SBNF 2004, 2006 Viola douglasii Miller Canyon Fuels Reduction Project Area SBNF 2004, 2006 Viola purpurea Miller Canyon Fuels Reduction Project Area SBNF 2004, 2006 Miller Canyon Fuels Reduction Project Area, Staging Vulpia myuros* Areas SBNF 2004, 2006, 2012, 2013 Yucca whipplei Miller Canyon Fuels Reduction Project Area SBNF 2004, 2006

Animal Species Known From the Project Area Common Name Scientific Name Surveyers and Year of Data Status 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-

Appendix A-Page 9

Appendix A: Floral and Faunal Compendium – Miller Canyon OHV Staging Area

Animal Species Known From the Project Area Common Name Scientific Name Surveyers and Year of Data Status 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 (2000-2001) regilla 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 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 Creek Sensitive Kingsnake parvirubra Mountain Garter Snake Thamnophis elegans SBCM (2005) Watch elegans Two-striped Garter Snake Thamnophis USFS (2006), USGS (2000-2001), Sensitive hammondii USFS (2011) Striped Racer Masticophis lateralis USGS (2000-2001)

Appendix A-Page 10

Appendix A: Floral and Faunal Compendium – Miller Canyon OHV Staging Area

Animal Species Known From the Project Area Common Name Scientific Name Surveyers and Year of Data Status 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 Acorn Woodpecker Melanerpes USFS (2006), SBCM (2004, 2005, formicivorus 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, 2006) CSC 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) Appendix A-Page 11

Appendix A: Floral and Faunal Compendium – Miller Canyon OHV Staging Area

Animal Species Known From the Project Area Common Name Scientific Name Surveyers and Year of Data Status Western Scrub Jay Aphelocoma USFS (2006), SBCM (2004, 2005, coerulescens 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) 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, 2006) Non-Native 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, 2005, melanocephalus 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) Appendix A-Page 12

Appendix A: Floral and Faunal Compendium – Miller Canyon OHV Staging Area

Animal Species Known From the Project Area Common Name Scientific Name Surveyers and Year of Data Status 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, 2005, Watch 2006) Mammals Broad footed Mole Scapanus latimanus SBCM (2003) Deer mouse Peromyscus USFS (2011) maniculatus Pocket Mouse Cheatodipus spp. – USGS (2000-2001) – Cleghorn area probably (C. fallax or C. califfornicus) Kangaroo Rat Dipodomys spp – USGS (2000-2001) – Cleghorn area probably D.agilis 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 (2011) MIS Scientific nomenclature and common names for vertebrate species follow those used in the LMP (USFS 2006).

Appendix A-Page 13

APPENDIX B – MANAGEMENT DIRECTION

1.0. JURISDICTIONS Other federal agencies, including the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE), California Department of Fish and Game, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) may regulate effects to certain habitats and species associated with the project area.

1.1 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, 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 ACOE jurisdiction may not necessarily extend to intrastate waters and wetlands where the only federal nexus is potential use by migratory birds. The project area includes the Santa Ana River and Mill Creek (a tributary to the Santa Ana River). The Santa Ana River is intrastate waterway tributary to the Pacific Ocean, and thus is a navigable water subject to ACOE 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 unless ACOE consults with USFWS.

1.2 California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) 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 California Environmental Quality Act (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. Federal projects on federal land do not require the Lake or Streambed Alteration Agreement. However, a Lake or Streambed Alteration Agreement may be required of a non-federal participant for projects on federal land carried out or funded by the non-federal participant.

Pursuant to Section 2080 et seq. of the Fish and Game Code, a California Endangered Species Act (CESA) permit must be obtained to authorize incidental “take” of plants or animals listed under CESA. Revisions to the Fish and Game Code, effective January 1998, may require that the Department issue a

Appendix B-Page 1

APPENDIX B – MANAGEMENT DIRECTION separate CEQA document for the issuance of a 2081 permit 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. Please note that federal projects on federal land (such as a Forest Service Project on Forest Service land) do not require the 2081 incidental take permit. However, an incidental take permit may be required of a non-federal participant for projects on federal land carried out or funded by the non-federal participant.

Sections 3503, 3503.5 and 3513 of the California Fish and Game Code prohibit take of all birds and their active nests including raptors and other migratory non-game birds (as listed under the Federal MBTA).

2.0 FEDERAL LAWS 2.1 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.

2.2 Migratory Bird Treaty Act and Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Acts 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 CFR. 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.

Appendix B-Page 2

APPENDIX B – MANAGEMENT DIRECTION

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 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.

2.3 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.

Appendix B-Page 3

APPENDIX B – MANAGEMENT DIRECTION

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.

2.4 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".

3.0 AGENCY DIRECTION 3.1 Forest Service Manual 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:

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 Appendix B-Page 4

APPENDIX B – MANAGEMENT DIRECTION

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 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 decisionmaking 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. Appendix B-Page 5

APPENDIX B – MANAGEMENT DIRECTION

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 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.

4.0 SAN BERNARDINO NATIONAL FOREST POLICIES, DIRECTION, LEGAL OBLIGATIONS

4.1 San Bernardino National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan The revised San Bernardino National Forest Land Management Plan (LMP) (Forest Service 2005) contains direction on management of issues and resources within the Forest boundaries. The LMP direction that applies to wildlife, plant, and restoration management is included in both Part 2 and Part 3 of the LMP. This direction is summarized below.

4.1.1 Plan Standards Required by (36 CFR 219)

Fish and Wildlife Standards When Implementing All Activities 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 (Appendix H of LMP) to develop project-specific or activity-specific Design Features. 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 Features. Include review of species guidance documents in fire suppression or other emergency actions when and to the extent practicable.

S12: When implementing new projects in areas that provide for threatened, endangered, proposed, and candidate species, use Design Features 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.

Appendix B-Page 6

APPENDIX B – MANAGEMENT DIRECTION

S13: Manage Critical Biological land use zones so that activities and discretionary uses are either neutral or beneficial for the species and habitats for which the area was established. Accept short-term adverse impacts to threatened, endangered, and proposed species if such impacts will be compensated by the accrual of long-term benefits to habitat for threatened, endangered, and candidate species.

S14: Where available and within the capability of the site retain a minimum of six downed logs per acre (minimum 12 inches diameter and 120 total linear feet) and 10 to 15 hard snags per five acres (minimum 16 inches diameter at breast height and 40 feet tall, or next largest available). Exception allowed in Wildland/Urban Interface Defense Zones, fuelbreaks, and where they pose a safety hazard.

S15: Within riparian conservation areas retain snags and downed logs unless they are identified as a threat to life, property, or sustainability of the riparian conservation area.

S17: In areas outside of Wildland/Urban Interface Defense Zones and fuelbreaks, retain soft snags and acorn storage trees unless they are a safety hazard, fire threat, or impediment operability.

S18: Protect known active and inactive raptor nest areas. Extent of protection will be based on proposed management activities, human activities existing at the onset of nesting initiation, species, topography, vegetative cover, and other factors. When appropriate, a no-disturbance buffer around active nest sites will be required from nest-site selection to fledging.

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. Use management guidelines in the species conservation strategy (or subsequent species guidance document; see Appendix H) to further evaluate protection needs for projects, uses and activities.

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).

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-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.

Appendix B-Page 7

APPENDIX B – MANAGEMENT DIRECTION

S22: Except where it may adversely affect threatened and endangered species, linear structures such as fences, major highways, utility corridors, bridge upgrades or replacements, and canals will be designed and built to allow for fish and wildlife movement.

S23: When it is necessary to close abandoned mines or buildings for public safety or to protect the environment, do so in a manner that will maintain habitat for bat species of concern, to the extent practicable.

S24: Mitigate impacts of on-going uses and management activities on threatened, endangered, proposed, and candidate species.

S25: Conduct road and trail maintenance activities during the season of year that would have the least impact on threatened, endangered, and proposed wildlife species in occupied habitats, except as provided by site-specific consultation.

S26: Prohibit use by domestic sheep and goats within nine miles of occupied bighorn sheep habitat.

S27: Use seasonal closures as specified by site-specific analysis to protect occupied bald eagle wintering, breeding, or nesting habitat.

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.

S29: Avoid collection of special forest products where it may negatively affect recovery or occupied habitat of threatened, endangered and proposed species, except where it is appropriate in response to requests from Native Americans.

S30: Avoid activities that result in removal, crushing, burying, burning, or mowing of host plants within critical and occupied habitat for threatened, endangered, and proposed butterfly species; unless guided differently by a species-specific consultation.

S31: Design new facilities or expansion of existing facilities to direct public use away from occupied habitat for threatened, endangered, proposed and candidate species.

S32: When surveys for species presence/absence are done for threatened, endangered, and proposed species, use established survey protocols, where such protocols exist.

S33: Manage Special Interest Areas so that activities and discretionary uses are either neutral or beneficial for the resource values for which the area was established. Accept short-term adverse impacts to these resource values if such impacts will be compensated by the accrual of long-term benefit.

Soil, Water, Riparian and Heritage Standards When Implementing All Activities S45: All construction, reconstruction, operation and maintenance of tunnels on National Forest System lands shall use practices that minimize adverse effects on groundwater aquifers and their surface expressions.

Appendix B-Page 8

APPENDIX B – MANAGEMENT DIRECTION

S46: Surface water diversions and groundwater extractions, including wells and spring developments will only be authorized when it is demonstrated by the user, and/or agreed to by the Forest Service, that the water extracted is excess to the current and reasonably foreseeable future needs of forest resources. Consideration of beneficial uses, existing water rights, and the absence of other available water sources will be part of the water extraction application. Approved extractions and diversions will provide for long-term protection and reasonable use of surface water and groundwater resources. Feasibility and sustainability assessments should be appropriately scaled to the magnitude of the extraction or diversion proposed.

S58: Evaluate geologic hazards and develop mitigations where risks to life, property or resources are identified when planning and implementing management activities.

Soil, Water, Riparian and Heritage Standards Applicable Within Riparian Conservation Areas S47: When designing new projects in riparian areas, apply the Five-Step Project Screening Process for Riparian Conservation Areas as described in Appendix E - Five-Step Project Screening Process for Riparian Conservation Areas.

S48: For non-hydroelectric and exempt hydroelectric surface water development proposals (such as flood control reservoirs and municipal water supplies), instream flows favorable to the maintenance and restoration of riparian dependent and aquatic resources and channel conditions will be required.

S49: Require fish passage instream flows associated with dams and impoundments where fish passage will enhance or restore native or selected nonnative fish distribution and not cause adverse effects to other native species.

Recreation S33: Where a threatened, endangered, proposed, candidate, or sensitive species occurs in a recreation site or area, take steps to avoid or minimize negative impacts to the threatned, endangered, proposed, candidate or sensitive species and its habitat. Use the least restrictive action that will effectively mitigate adverse impacts to the species and habitat (refer to Appendix D).

S35: Manage dispersed recreation activities to ensure that environmental sustainability is maintained by utilizing the following measures: Discourage camping with 100 feet of sensitive resources and habitats, including meadows and bodies of water (springs, streams, ponds and lakes), within ¼ mile of developed recreation facilities. Discourage camping within 600 feet of any wildlife water source developments, such as guzzlers, water holes, in accordance with state laws. Motorized and non-motorized vehicle travel is restricted to National Forest System roads and trails and limites areas that are designated for vehicle use.

S50: Mitigate negative long-term impacts from recreation use to soil, watershed, riparian or heritage resources (refer to Appendix D- Adaptive Mitigation for Recreation Uses).

Appendix B-Page 9

APPENDIX B – MANAGEMENT DIRECTION

4.1.2 Forest-Specific Standards for the SBNF (Part 2 of Plan) Place Specific Standards

SBNF S5 - Evaluate potential long-term impacts of new projects and activities on important landscape level habitats that are identified in the places. These include landscape linkages, wildlife movement corridors, key deer and bighorn sheep fawning and lambing areas, and winter ranges, and raptor nesting sites. Minimize or mitigate impacts to maintain their functionality over the long-term (all Places).

SBNF S6 - Provide compatible management on those portions of National Forest System land designated as being part of Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plans (MSHCP) under the National Memorandum of Understanding with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Coachella Valley Plan: San Bernardino Front Country, San Gorgonio, and Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains National Monument Places; Mojave Plan: Big Bear, Cajon, Desert Rim, Mojave Front Country, and Silverwood Places; and Western Riverside County Plan: Anza, Idyllwild, and San Bernardino Front Country Places).

4.1.3 LMP Strategies The project complies with LMP direction through the use of the following strategies that SBNF managers intend to emphasize in the next 3-5 years (2006-2010):

WL 1 - Threatened, Endangered, Proposed, Candidate, and Sensitive Species Management 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 Wildlife (CDFW) 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 meadow, 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.

Appendix B-Page 10

APPENDIX B – MANAGEMENT DIRECTION

o 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. 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.

WL 2 - Management of Species of Concern Maintain and improve habitat for fish, wildlife, and plants, including those with the following designations: game species, harvest species, management indicator species, and Watchlist 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 CDFW 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.

Recreation REC 2- Sustainable Use and Environmental Design Analyze, stabilize and restore areas where visitor use is appreciably affecting recreation experiences, public safety and environmental resources. Manage visitor use within the limits of identified capacities: Implement recreation capacity control measures in high use and/or concentrated area as use levels become a concern. Conduct threatened, endangered, proposed, candidate, and sensitive species occupancy surveys within potential threatened, endangered, proposed, candidate and sensitive species recreation conflict areas. Implement Adaptive Mitigation for Recreation Uses (Appendix D) in existing and new recreation sites and uses whenever a conflict between uses or sensitive resources is detected.

Transportation Management TRANS 1: Off Highway Vehicles Improve off-highway vehicle opportunities and facilities for highway licensed and non-highway licensed vehicles: Manage the National Forest System roads for a spectrum of 4-wheel drive opportunities in the easy, more difficult, and most difficult categories of route difficulty.

Appendix B-Page 11

APPENDIX B – MANAGEMENT DIRECTION

Develop motorized trails that address the needs of off-highway vehicle enthusiasts in conjunction with the designation of low-maintenance standard roads. Submit candidate roads and trails to the state of California, Off-Highway Motor Vehicle Division, for designation as the California Backcountry Discovery Trail as opportunities to provide this experience are identified.

Southern California Noxious Weed Strategy Appendix M (Part 3) of the LMP includes detailed management direction to prevent the spread and introduction of noxious weeds.

4.1.4 Place-Based Program Emphasis 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.

4.2 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 LMP (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.

4.3 Southern California Conservation Strategy As per a lawsuit settlement agreement, the SBNF has completed several Section 7 formal consultations with the USFWS for a number of listed species and the habitats in which they occur. These consultations include one for effects to pebble plain habitats, one for riparian-dependent species, and one for effects to carbonate plant habitats from ongoing activities on the SBNF. The Biological Assessments (USDA Forest Service 1999a, USDA Forest Service 1999b, USDA Forest Service 1999c, USDA Forest Service 2000, USDA Forest Service 2000a, and USDA Forest Service 2000b) contain Proposed Actions including avoidance and minimization measures.

The Biological Opinions (USFWS 1999, USFWS 2001a, USFWS 2001b, USFWS 2001c) contain conservation recommendations and other guidance. In addition, the SBNF completed Section 7 programmatic formal consultation on interim management guidelines for the San Bernardino National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (USDA Forest Service 2000a). The consultation for effects Appendix B-Page 12

APPENDIX B – MANAGEMENT DIRECTION to meadow plant species was included in the Programmatic Consultation. The Programmatic Biological Assessment (USDA Forest Service 2000a) and Biological Opinion (USFWS 2001a) for ongoing activities on the SBNF has applicable management direction that is relevant to this project:

The Forest is required to complete a habitat assessment to determine whether modeled habitat is currently suitable for or occupied by the species. Current modeled habitat is based on physiographic and vegetative features (GIS databases).

For new activities to be authorized or carried out by the Forest Service, modeled habitat will be treated as occupied habitat until surveyed for suitability (based on mutually agreed upon suitability criteria) and, if necessary, for occupancy. All applicable management direction and resource evaluation for the species and activity will be required.

Results of the modeled habitat surveys shall be documented in the Affected Environment and Effects of the Proposed Action section of the BE/BA.

Conservation Recommendation #2, 3 BOs: Protect and restore all remaining pebble plain and carbonate habitat and associated physical features within San Bernardino National Forest. The restoration program on the SBNF should work with USFWS and Rancho Santa Ana botanic Gardens and other experts to develop and refine methods to restore pebble plain habitat on disturbed surfaces. (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2000, USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2000a).

Conservation Recommendation #3 and 4 Draft BOs: Control or remove invasive, exotic plants and animals from the SBNF to the maximum extent possible. In particular, it is strongly recommended that invasive, alien grasses be suppressed and eradicated to the maximum extent possible from areas occupied by listed plants. (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2000, USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2000a).

Conservation Recommendation #4 and 5 Draft BOs: Restrict to the maximum extent possible unauthorized human and vehicular presence and activities in areas that contain pebble plain and carbonate plants via patrols or other means. (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2000, USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2000a).

Conservation Recommendation Draft BOs: Notify USFWS of implementation of any conservation recommendations. (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2000, USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2000a).

Item # 235—Avoid or minimize negative impacts to key and occupied TEP habitats. Use one or more of the following methods: 1) a biologist/botanist monitor on site; 2) a biologist/botanist flags for avoidance; or, 3) conduct pre-project field coordination between the biologist/botanist and project leader which includes species and habitat identification, protective measures, the necessity of adhering to the provisions of the consultation, the penalties of violating the ESA, identifying boundaries of the project, and review procedures where a TEP species is encountered during the work activity. Consider in modeled habitats for all TEP species.

Appendix B-Page 13

APPENDIX B – MANAGEMENT DIRECTION

5.0 CALIFORNIA STATE LAWS 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 California Environmental Quality Act (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. Federal projects on federal land (such as a Forest Service Project on Forest Service land) do not require the Lake or Streambed Alteration Agreement. However, a Lake or Streambed Alteration Agreement may be required of a non-federal participant for projects on federal land carried out or funded by the non-federal participant.

Pursuant to Section 2080 et seq. of the Fish and Game Code, a California Endangered Species Act (CESA) permit must be obtained to authorize incidental “take” of plants or animals listed under CESA. Revisions to the Fish and Game Code, effective January 1998, may require that the Department issue a separate CEQA document for the issuance of a 2081 permit 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. Please note that federal projects on federal land (such as a Forest Service Project on Forest Service land) do not require the 2081 incidental take permit. However, an incidental take permit may be required of a non-federal participant for projects on federal land carried out or funded by the non-federal participant.

Sections 3503, 3503.5 and 3513 of the California Fish and Game Code prohibit take of all birds and their active nests including raptors and other migratory non-game birds (as listed under the Federal MBTA).

6.0 BALD AND GOLDEN EAGLES There are several documents that contain guidelines and legal direction for management of bald and golden eagle populations.

Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act: 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 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’’ means:

Appendix B-Page 14

APPENDIX B – MANAGEMENT DIRECTION

"Disturb means 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.

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. 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. Appendix B-Page 15

APPENDIX B – MANAGEMENT DIRECTION

7.0 COMPLIANCE WITH LMP AND OTHER DIRECTION Standards from the LMP (2006) are displayed in the following table Also included is a summary of how the management direction was included in the project.

LMP Consistency Review for Miller Canyon OHV Staging Area Project Plant, Fish, and Wildlife Standard LMP Consistency for Project Standards When Implementing All Activities S11: When occupied or suitable habitat for a threatened, endangered, proposed, The Design Features include candidate or Sensitive (TEPCS) species is present on an ongoing or proposed project guidance from the California site, consider species guidance documents (see Appendix H) to develop project- spotted owl conservation specific or activity-specific Design Criteria. This guidance is intended to provide a strategy. The Nationwide range of possible conservation measures that may be selectively applied during site- Bald Eagle Management specific planning to avoid, minimize or mitigate negative long-term effects on Guidelines were also threatened, endangered, proposed, candidate or Sensitive species and habitat. incorporated. 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. S12: When implementing new projects in areas that provide for threatened, The Design Features include endangered, proposed, and candidate species, use Design Criteria and conservation conservation measures for practices (see Appendix H) so that discretionary uses and facilities promote the T/E species protection. 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. S13: Manage Critical Biological land use zones so that activities and discretionary Not applicable – no CBZs uses are either neutral or beneficial for the species and habitats for which the area present. was established. Accept short-term adverse impacts to threatened, endangered, and proposed species if such impacts will be compensated by the accrual of long-term benefits to habitat for threatened, endangered, and candidate species. S15: Within riparian conservation areas retain snags and downed logs unless they are This standard is identified as a threat to life, property, or sustainability of the riparian conservation incorporated into the Design area. Features. S17: In areas outside of Wildland/Urban Interface Defense Zones and fuelbreaks, This standard is retain soft snags and acorn storage trees unless they are a safety hazard, fire threat, incorporated into the Design or impediment operability. Features. S18: Protect known active and inactive raptor nest areas. Extent of protection will This standard is be based on proposed management activities, human activities existing at the onset incorporated into the Design of nesting initiation, species, topography, vegetative cover, and other factors. When Features. appropriate, a no-disturbance buffer around active nest sites will be required from nest-site selection to fledging. S19: Protect all spotted owl territories identified in the Statewide California This standard is Department of Fish and Game database (numbered owl sites) and new sites that meet incorporated into the Design the state criteria by maintaining or enhancing habitat conditions over the long-term Features. to the greatest extent practicable while protecting life and property. Use management guidelines in the species conservation strategy (or subsequent species guidance document; see Appendix H) to further evaluate protection needs for projects, uses and activities. S20: Maintain a limited operating period (LOP) prohibiting activities within Not applicable for this approximately .25 miles of a California spotted owl nest site, or activity center project. 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 Appendix B-Page 16

APPENDIX B – MANAGEMENT DIRECTION

LMP Consistency Review for Miller Canyon OHV Staging Area Project Plant, Fish, and Wildlife Standard LMP Consistency for Project 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). S21: California spotted owl habitat that is lost to development for a compelling Not applicable 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-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. S22: Except where it may adversely affect threatened and endangered species, linear Not applicable structures such as fences, major highways, utility corridors, bridge upgrades or replacements, and canals will be designed and built to allow for fish and wildlife movement. S23: When it is necessary to close abandoned mines or buildings for public safety or Not applicable to protect the environment, do so in a manner that will maintain habitat for bat species of concern, to the extent practicable. S24: Mitigate impacts of on-going uses and management activities on threatened, Not applicable endangered, proposed, and candidate species. S25: Conduct road and trail maintenance activities during the season of year that Not applicable would have the least impact on threatened, endangered, and proposed wildlife species in occupied habitats, except as provided by site-specific consultation. S26: Prohibit use by domestic sheep and goats within nine miles of occupied bighorn Not applicable sheep habitat. S27: Use seasonal closures as specified by site-specific analysis to protect occupied This standard is bald eagle wintering, breeding, or nesting habitat. incorporated into the Design Features. S28: Avoid or minimize disturbance to breeding and roosting California condors by Not applicable 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. S29: Avoid collection of special forest products where it may negatively affect Not applicable recovery or occupied habitat of threatened, endangered and proposed species, except where it is appropriate in response to requests from Native Americans. S30: Avoid activities that result in removal, crushing, burying, burning, or mowing Not applicable of host plants within critical and occupied habitat for threatened, endangered, and proposed butterfly species; unless guided differently by a species-specific consultation. S31: Design new facilities or expansion of existing facilities to direct public use The Upland alternatives away from occupied habitat for threatened, endangered, proposed and candidate would move existing uses species. away from the W. Fork of the E. Fork of the Mojave River (suitable for southwestern willow flycatcher and historic for California red-legged frog, mountain yellow-legged frog, and arroyo toad). S32: When surveys for species presence/absence are done for threatened, If surveys are done, they endangered, and proposed species, use established survey protocols, where such would follow protocol Appendix B-Page 17

APPENDIX B – MANAGEMENT DIRECTION

LMP Consistency Review for Miller Canyon OHV Staging Area Project Plant, Fish, and Wildlife Standard LMP Consistency for Project protocols exist. standards. S33: Manage Special Interest Areas so that activities and discretionary uses are Not applicable either neutral or beneficial for the resource values for which the area was established. Accept short-term adverse impacts to these resource values if such impacts will be compensated by the accrual of long-term benefit. Place-Specific Wildlife and Plant Standards SBNF S5 - Evaluate potential long-term impacts of new projects and activities on These items were evaluated important landscape level habitats that are identified in the places. These include in this report. landscape linkages, wildlife movement corridors, key deer and bighorn sheep fawning and lambing areas, and winter ranges, and raptor nesting sites. Minimize or mitigate impacts to maintain their functionality over the long-term (all Places). SBNF S6 - Provide compatible management on those portions of National Forest The project would be System land designated as being part of Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plans compatible with the Mojave (MSHCP) under the National Memorandum of Understanding with the U.S. Fish and MSHCP applicable to the Wildlife Service (Coachella Valley Plan: San Bernardino Front Country, San Silverwood Place Gorgonio, and Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains National Monument Places; Mojave Plan: Big Bear, Cajon, Desert Rim, Mojave Front Country, and Silverwood Places; and Western Riverside County Plan: Anza, Idyllwild, and San Bernardino Front Country Places). S6: Seed to be used on National Forest System lands will be certified to be free of This item is included in the noxious weeds. Where available, only locally collected native seed will be used, or Design Features seeds will be used from species that are noninvasive and nonpersistent. When available, wattles, mulch and livestock feed to be used on National Forest System lands will be certified to be free of noxious weeds.

Compliance with Laws and Regulations and other Guidelines –Miller Canyon OHV Staging Area Project Law or Regulation How Law/Regulation was Incorporated in Miller OHV Project Migratory Bird Treaty Act Design Features provide for avoidance of nests. PIF guidelines were used in developing treatments. Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act and Design Features call for cessation of activities, LOPs, and buffers if National Bald Eagle Management Guidelines courtship/nesting is detected. Includes night work restrictions to protect night roosting eagles. Also includes special treatment prescriptions in night roosts and suitable nesting habitat. Endangered Species Act Effects to T/E species and Critical Habitat will be controlled through project design and Design Features. Consultation with USFWS is being covered through the Section 7 Regulations. USFWS Biological Opinions Terms and Conditions from several BOs are being followed in this project: Programmatic Hazardous Fuels BO 2005 Pebble Plain Plants BO 1999 Meadow Plants BO 2001 Carbonate Plants BO 1999 Riparian Obligate BO 2000 LMP BO 2001 and 2005

Appendix B-Page 18

APPENDIX C – MANAGEMENT INDICATOR SPECIES ACCOUNTS

The “Species Accounts” for the MIS considered in this project are contained in the Project Record.