Appendix C - MIS Species Account - S. Province (07/17/11)

MANAGEMENT INDICATOR SPECIES ACCOUNT for ARROYO TOAD IN THE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA PROVINCE

SUMMARY In the Land Management Plan for the southern California National Forests (Southern California Province), the arroyo toad was selected as a Management Indicator Species for low-elevation riparian and aquatic ecosystems.

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. Short-term fluctuations in arroyo toad populations may not indicate the effects of management actions, because toad populations are strongly influenced by weather patterns.

However, long-term trends in arroyo toad abundance and habitat are expected to reflect whether management activities and strategies have been successful in improving habitat conditions for the toads and other aquatic and riparian-dependent species that are susceptible to high levels of human disturbance. Monitoring will also indicate the effectiveness in achieving recovery objectives for this listed species.

The four southern California National Forests may support approximately 36% of the total range-wide population. Of the 22 drainages that support arroyo toads in California, portions of 12 of these are located on National Forests in the S. Province.

Threats to arroyo toads include riparian habitat loss/degradation, water diversions and extractions, impacts from roads and trails, developed and dispersed recreation, non-native plants and animals, unauthorized OHV, grazing, mining and prospecting, and recreational collecting of toads, tadpoles and eggs.

Monitoring efforts on the four southern California National Forests have not typically been designed to obtain the level of information needed to determine trend. Based on this, it is not possible to make a definitive statement regarding trends in abundance and habitat conditions for the S. Province. However, monitoring efforts have been able to confirm that all sites previously documented as occupied continue to remain occupied.

Page 1 – Arroyo Toad Appendix C - MIS Species Account - S. Province (07/17/11)

I. INTRODUCTION Arroyo toads once ranged from San Luis Obispo County, California, south to northwestern Baja California (Gergus et al. 1997 for southernmost record; Mahrdt et al. 2003, Mahrdt and Lovich 2004 for occurrences in Baja California Norte). Arroyo toads are now believed to be extirpated in San Luis Obispo County.

Populations persist in headwater areas of Figure 1. The range and streams in Santa Barbara, Ventura, Los distribution of arroyo toads Angeles, Riverside, and San Diego (NatureServ website). counties; recent sightings of scattered individuals have been reported from Orange, San Bernardino, and southern Imperial counties (USFWS 1994) (Figure 1).

Sweet and Sullivan (2005) estimated that the arroyo toad (Bufo californicus) is currently present in 65% of its historic range and present in lower abundances than described historically. Arroyo toads are protected on Federal lands, and may be increasing from their lowest abundance documented in the early 1990s (Sweet and Sullivan 2005).

Their densities still appear to be low, with about 12 adults/ha along second- to fourth-order streams in montane and foothill areas (Sweet 1993) where it is rare to find >5 calling males/100 m of suitable habitat (Sweet 1992, 1993; Ramirez 2000). Sweet and Ramirez surveyed portions of the Los Padres National Forest (LPNF) and Angeles National Forest (ANF). In relatively protected lowland areas, arroyo toads appear to be higher with 10 calling males/100m (D.C. Holland 2001, cited in Sweet and Sullivan, 2005).

II. SYSTEMATICS The arroyo toad is one of three members of the southwestern toad complex (Bufo microscaphus) in the family Bufonidae. When listed in 1994, the arroyo toad was considered a subspecies of southwestern toad (B. m. californicus). The arroyo toad is now considered a separate species (B. californicus) based on genetic studies (Gergus 1998 as referenced in U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2001).

III. MANAGEMENT DIRECTION The arroyo toad was listed as endangered December 16th, 1994 (59 FR 64859). Critical Habitat was originally designated on February 7, 2001 (66 FR 9414); the final revised Critical Habitat was designated on April 13, 2005 (70 FR 19562). Since then, the Critical Habitat has been

Page 2 – Arroyo Toad Appendix C - MIS Species Account - S. Province (07/17/11)

revised again with current Final Critical Habitat being designated in February 9, 2011 (76 FR 7645). A Recovery Plan for arroyo toad was issued in 1999.

Since the arroyo toad is federally-listed as endangered, much of the management direction comes from LMP, project-specific, and programmatic consultations (and associated Biological Opinions) with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). Each S. Province Forest is at slightly different places in the Formal Consultation process with USFWS for the impacts of ongoing activities to riparian species, including arroyo toad, since the LMP revision in 2005. The ANF and LPNF are currently preparing their Biological Assessments (BA) and have not yet initiated consultation. The SBNF and CNF have completed their BAs and initiated consultation but not yet received a BO.

In addition to Endangered Species Act compliance and direction, the LMP provides management direction for endangered species, including arroyo toad, and the management and protection of riparian habitat. Under the LMP, conservation of riparian habitat is a high priority for all Forests within the S. Province. The LMP set a goal to “improve riparian conditions” (USDA Forest Service 2005).

According to the LMP, 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 LMP states that 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 LMP describes 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 LMP management objectives for arroyo toad are that there are properly-functioning streams and stable or increasing populations.

Page 3 – Arroyo Toad Appendix C - MIS Species Account - S. Province (07/17/11)

IV. SELECTION AS A MANAGEMENT INDICATOR SPECIES The arroyo toad was selected as an MIS for low-elevation riparian and aquatic ecosystems. 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. Short-term fluctuations in arroyo toad populations may not indicate the effects of management actions, because toad populations are strongly influenced by weather patterns. However, long-term trends in arroyo toad abundance and habitat are expected to reflect whether management activities and strategies have been successful in improving habitat conditions for the toads and other aquatic and riparian-dependent species that are susceptible to high levels of human disturbance.

Monitoring will also indicate the effectiveness in achieving recovery objectives for this listed species. Habitat improvement projects for arroyo toad and the aquatic and riparian habitats they occupy have included riparian habitat restoration, control of non-native species, prescribed burning to protect riparian areas and reduce the effects of wildfire, relocation of roads and recreation facilities, and Burned Area Emergency Rehabilitation and restoration after wildfires.

Trends in abundance, distribution, and/or habitat conditions are to be used as measurements for evaluation. The prescribed monitoring method is population abundance and/or habitat condition in selected locations (LMP FEIS, Vol. 1. p. 177, Table 433).

V. ECOLOGY V-1. Ecology - Habitat Requirements 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 (2,400 meters). 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, low gradient slow-moving stream and riparian habitats that are naturally disturbed on a regular basis, primarily by flooding (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2000).

The arroyo toad is a breeding habitat specialist (Sweet 1992; Sweet and Sullivan 2005). They require shallow pools located in open sand and gravel channels, along low gradient (typically less than 6 percent) reaches of medium-to-large-sized streams (Sweet 1992). On the SBNF, some of the breeding sites (e.g., Little Horsethief) are relatively small streams (K. Meyer, pers. obs.). These streams can have either intermittent or perennial streamflow, and typically experience periodic flooding that scours vegetation and replenishes fine sediments.

The USFWS 2011 revised Critical Habitat for the arroyo toad describes elements identified as being necessary for sustaining the essential life-history functions of the species. These Primary Constituent Elements (PCE) are as follows (Federal Register 2011):

(1) Rivers or streams with hydrologic regimes that supply water to provide space, food, and cover needed to sustain eggs, tadpoles, metamorphosing juveniles, and adult breeding toads.

Page 4 – Arroyo Toad Appendix C - MIS Species Account - S. Province (07/17/11)

Breeding pools must persist a minimum of 2 months for the completion of larval development. However, due to the dynamic nature of southern California riparian systems and flood regimes, the location of suitable breeding pools may vary from year to year. Specifically, the conditions necessary to allow for successful reproduction of arroyo toads are: • Breeding pools that are less than 6 in (15 cm) deep; • Areas of flowing water with current velocities less than 1.3 ft per second (40 cm per second); and • Surface water that lasts for a minimum of 2 months during the breeding season (a sufficient wet period in the spring months to allow arroyo toad larvae to hatch, mature, and metamorphose).

(2) Riparian and adjacent upland habitats, particularly low-gradient (typically less than 6 percent) stream segments and alluvial streamside terraces with sandy or fine gravel substrates that support the formation of shallow pools and sparsely vegetated sand and gravel bars for breeding and rearing of tadpoles and juveniles; and adjacent valley bottomlands that include areas of loose soil where toads can burrow underground, to provide foraging and living areas for juvenile and adult arroyo toads.

(3) A natural flooding regime, or one sufficiently corresponding to natural, that: (A) Is characterized by intermittent or near-perennial flow that contributes to the persistence of shallow pools into at least mid-summer; (B) Maintains areas of open, sparsely vegetated, sandy stream channels and terraces by periodically scouring riparian vegetation; and (C) Also modifies stream channels and terraces and redistributes sand and sediment, such that breeding pools and terrace habitats with scattered vegetation are maintained.

(4) Stream channels and adjacent upland habitats that allow for movement to breeding pools, foraging areas, overwintering sites, upstream and downstream dispersal, and connectivity to areas that contain suitable habitat. In summary, the need for space for individual and population growth and normal behavior is met by PCEs 1 and 4; the need for food, water, and physiological requirements is met by PCE 1; cover and shelter requirements are met by PCE 2; areas for breeding, reproduction, and rearing of offspring are met by PCEs 1, 2, and 3; and habitats representative of the historical, geographical, and ecological distributions of a species are met by PCE 4.

The California Wildlife Habitat Relationships (CWHR) model describes the relative value of various habitat types for arroyo toads (CDFG 2006). However, the CWHR habitat relationship has not been updated recently, and thus, data from Forest Service files are being used for this report. Habitat for the arroyo toad was modeled in the southern Province using GIS and the following attributes: Elevation (0-4300 feet North of Santa Clara River and 0-5000 feet South of Santa Clara River) Stream Gradient: 0-2% Lateral buffers: Buffer out to a gain of 80 feet contour above streambed elevation. Stream Order: Second order or greater.

Page 5 – Arroyo Toad Appendix C - MIS Species Account - S. Province (07/17/11)

The habitat model was expected to overestimate the amount of suitable habitat, so surveys were necessary to assess actual suitability in the modeled habitat areas. Once suitability determinations of modeled habitat (as funding for surveys is available) are made, suitable habitat is mapped. Ground-truthing the modeled habitat has been an ongoing effort and, since riparian and wash habitats are dynamic, it is likely that the suitable habitat mapping will need future review and adjustments. The four southern California National Forests have not completed the suitability determinations for all of their modeled habitat. The CNF has completed approximately 25 miles of stream habitat surveys to determine suitability. In general, suitability determinations have been conducted opportunistically and have been focused in project areas.

Under the 2006 LMP consultation with USFWS, ‘modeled’ habitat sites that have not been surveyed for suitability are all assumed to be “suitable”. These areas must be avoided during project implementation or surveyed to determine whether or not they are actually suitable for arroyo toads.

V-3. Ecology – Food Habits Arroyo toad tadpoles eat microscopic algae, bacteria, and protozoans from spaces among pebbles, gravel, and sand or abraded from stones (Sweet 1992). Juveniles and adults feed on insects, but specialize on ants. Generally, the adults specialize on nocturnal, trail-forming tree ants. When foraging, arroyo toads are often found around the driplines of oak trees (Sweet 1992). These areas often lack vegetation, yet have sufficient levels of prey. When active at night, toads often can be observed near ant trails feeding on ants, beetles, and other prey. Larvae feed by inserting their heads into the substrate and ingesting loose organic material such as detritus, interstitial algae, bacteria, and diatoms.

V-4. Ecology - Reproductive Habits Breeding typically occurs from late January or February to early July, although it can be extended in some years depending on weather conditions. Breeding in mountainous or desert 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 (14° C), adult males advertise with a soft, high whistled trill. Sweet and Sullivan state that breeding commences with temperatures above 11-13° C. Receptive females seek out calling males based on the size of the male and the sound of his call.

Calling males are distributed along margins of streams in shallow margins, (<6” depth) with slow-moving water. They do not tend to call in backwater pools of stagnant water. 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 strings are deposited and larvae develop in shallow pools with minimal current, little or no emergent vegetation, and sand or pea gravel substrate. Embryos usually hatch in 4–6 days; the larval period lasts approximately 65–85 days.

After metamorphosis (typically between June and August), the juveniles remain on the bordering gravel bars until the pool no longer persists. They are chiefly diurnal foragers until the juveniles reach about 20-25 mm. At that point, they switch to nocturnal foraging and stay in burrows during the day. The juveniles remain active later than the adults. Sexual maturity is reached in

Page 6 – Arroyo Toad Appendix C - MIS Species Account - S. Province (07/17/11)

1-2 years. Little information has been published about movements or other behavior in the non- breeding season (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2000).

In habitats with small breeding populations of arroyo toad, increased densities of California toads (Bufo boreas halophilus) can interfere with calling activities of male arroyo toads (Sweet 1992, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2000).

V-5. Ecology - Dispersal Dispersal activity is usually associated with rainfall and moderate temperatures above 45° F (7° C). Dispersal has been observed to be dependent on sex and age. Females tend to stay within a given area, whereas juveniles tend to move generally upstream. Young males tend to move in response to the presence of a dominant male in each breeding pool, while females may remain to breed with these dominant individuals (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2000).

Subadult and adult arroyo toads may range widely into the surrounding uplands: commonly up to 0.3 mile (0.5 kilometer), and a few individuals along the coastal plain have dispersed as much as 1.2 miles (2.0 kilometers) from the stream. Dispersal distances on typical national forest locations are estimated to be only a few hundred meters based on the steeper topography. Ramirez (2002) had only two occurrences where toads exceeded a lateral movement of over 0.1 mile (0.2 kilometer) with most individuals using habitat within 50 meters of the active channel.

The distance from breeding sites at which arroyo toads are found depends on the topography and the extent of suitable habitat. Natal dispersal movements may be over 2 miles (3 kilometers). The uplands are often coastal sage scrub, chaparral, grassland, or oak woodland. Substantial areas of fine sand, into which adult toads burrow, must be present, but can be interspersed with gravel or cobble deposits (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2000).

V-6. Ecology - Daily/Seasonal Activity 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 [7° C]). Adults excavate shallow burrows for shelter during the day when the surface is damp or for longer intervals in the dry season (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2000).

V-7. Ecology - Predator-Prey Relations All life stages of arroyo toad are susceptible to predation. Egg strands, which are laid in shallow water close to shore, are extremely sensitive to disturbance and fragmentation from animals foraging or wading in the water. There are several predators of arroyo toad larvae; these include giant water bug (Abedus indentatus), two-striped and common garter snakes (Thamnophis hammondii and T. sirtalis), green sunfish, and bullfrog (Rana catesbeiana). Predators of juveniles and adults include wading and shorebirds, snakes, western pond turtle (Clemmys marmorata), raccoon (Procyon lotor), opossums (Didelphis virginiana), and common raven (Corvus corax) (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2000).

Page 7 – Arroyo Toad Appendix C - MIS Species Account - S. Province (07/17/11)

VI. THREATS, HABITAT CONDITIONS, AND HABITAT TRENDS Arroyo toad populations persist in headwater areas of streams in Santa Barbara, Ventura, Los Angeles, Riverside, and San Diego counties; recent sightings of scattered individuals have been reported from Orange, San Bernardino, and southern Imperial counties (USFWS 1994).

The majority of the extant populations in Santa Barbara and Ventura counties are on the LPNF where five viable populations are known. Sespe Creek in Ventura County has the largest known population. Other populations occur in the Sisquoc, Santa Ynez, and upper and lower Piru drainages (USFWS 1994).

In San Diego County, arroyo toads occur along the Santa Margarita, Guejito, Sweetwater, Vallecito, San Luis Rey, Santa Ysabel, Witch, Cottonwood, Temescal, Agua Caliente, Santa Maria, Lusardi, Pine Valley, Noble, Kitchen, Long Potrero, Upper San Diego, San Vicente, and Morena drainages. The populations in the Temescal, Agua Caliente, Pine Valley, and Cottonwood drainages may be considered viable (USFWS 1994).

In Riverside County, arroyo toads were historically known from Whitewater Canyon (Patten and Myers 1992). They have not been observed there for a number of years. Elsewhere in Riverside County, they are known in very small populations in five creeks (Temecula, Arroyo Seco, San Mateo, Tenaja creeks) (USFWS 1994) and in Bautista Canyon (Chris Brown, USGS pers. comm.).

In San Bernardino Country, arroyo toads are extant in Grass Valley Creek, Horsethief and Little Horsethief Creeks, Cajon Wash, Cucamonga Creek, and several locations along Deep Creek (USFS SBNF Records). There may also be a few toads in Cucamonga Canyon (discovered and last observed in 1999).

In Los Angeles County, arroyo toads are currently known from the following locations on the Angeles National Forest: Little Rock Canyon, Upper Big Tujunga Canyon, Alder Creek, Lynx Gulch and Castaic Creek (USFS ANF Records). Outside the Angeles National Forest, arroyo toads are known to occur in Piru Creek and Castaic Creek (CNDDB 1996). There are records from the 1990s of arroyo toads on the Angeles National Forest from the Lower Arroyo Seco drainage and Mill Creek at the Monte Cristo Campground. Subsequent surveys have failed to located toads at these locations and they are believed to be extirpated.

Arroyo toads are also still extant in northwestern Baja California’s coastal plains, inland foothills, peninsular range of Sierra San Pedro Matir, and south to Arroyo Simon (Gergus et al. 1997, Mahrdt et al. 2002).

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. These threats and management concerns are described below.

Page 8 – Arroyo Toad Appendix C - MIS Species Account - S. Province (07/17/11)

VI-1. Riparian Habitat Conditions In southern California, compared to pre-settlement times, riparian habitats have declined in quality and quantity at low elevations (where they were formerly the most extensive). Estimates indicate that channelization and diversion of streams in the past century reduced the extent of riparian habitats in southern California by more than 90%. More recently, strong regulatory policies on "no net loss" of wetlands and floodplains helped slow this decline. The extent of riparian habitats on NFS lands is considered to be relatively stable (LMP EIS Vol. 1, p. 207).

No other vegetation type in the southern California National Forests has been so drastically altered by human activities as riparian zones. Ecological processes have been altered by the development of water storage and diversion structures, invasion of undesirable non-native species, urbanization, and, to a lesser extent, livestock grazing, recreation, and mining.

Low-elevation streams face greater threats than high-elevation streams because riparian areas and their water flows are more likely to be diverted or altered, more likely to be urbanized, and more likely to be invaded by non-native plant and animal species (LMP EIS Vol. 1, p. 98).

In-stream water storage and diversions have dramatically reduced the extent of riparian habitats in the S. Province. In fact, approximately 95 - 97% of low-elevation floodplain riparian habitat in southern California has been eliminated, and most major streams now contain dams or diversions. In addition, many smaller streams and springs have been dammed or diverted for water supplies and local flood control. Subsurface waters have been heavily tapped for domestic water, lowering water tables and base flows of many springs and streams (LMP EIS Vol. 1, p. 99).

Dams remove riparian habitat directly by inundation, but cause greater habitat degradation by altering downstream hydrologic regimes and sediment budgets. Typically, dams reduce the magnitude and frequency of flood events, thereby increasing base flows, greatly reducing downstream transport of sediment, and altering water temperatures (LMP EIS Vol. 1, p. 99).

The reduction in the magnitude and frequency of flood flows removes key disturbance processes in floodplain and riparian habitats. Many riparian trees (such as white alders, willows, and cottonwood) are short-lived and regenerate on floodplains and stream banks following flooding and sediment deposition. Thus, even though major floods remove vegetation by scouring and altering channel morphology, they also deposit sediments necessary for plant regeneration and fish spawning (LMP EIS Vol. 1, p. 99).

The interruption of the sediment supply by dams results in the water having greater erosive force, which in turn causes downstream channel incision. Channel incision lowers the water table and increases the vertical distance from the stream to the floodplain. Stream reaches below dams often lack sand and fine gravel and are marked by a series of deep scour pools floored with boulders and mud (Stephenson and Calcarone 1999). Temporary instream levees and sand bars suitable for plant establishment and growth do not form. As a result, many stream and river reaches lack gravels suitable for anadromous fish spawning. As stream incision progresses, stream banks supporting riparian vegetation are undercut and may disappear altogether (LMP EIS Vol. 1, p. 99).

Page 9 – Arroyo Toad Appendix C - MIS Species Account - S. Province (07/17/11)

The timing and duration of water releases from reservoirs greatly affects downstream riparian habitats. For example, large, sudden releases (particularly in the summer months) can scour away a whole year's reproductive effort by species such as arroyo toads, California red-legged frogs (Rana aurora), pond turtles (Actinemys marmorata), and California newts (Taricha torosa). Potential spawning beds are compromised when sand and gravel bars are removed. Cooler in-stream water temperatures not only favor introduced species such as brown trout but also have detrimental effects on native warm-water fish. Conversely, low-level, year-round flow regimes facilitate the spread of exotics such as bullfrogs, sunfish, bass, bluegill, catfish and Asian clams into downstream areas that historically were summer-dry (LMP EIS Vol. 1, p. 99).

Many arroyo toad populations occur immediately below major dams. The manner in which water is released from upstream reservoirs can greatly influence arroyo toad reproductive success (Madden-Smith et al. 2004). Coordination between various government agencies has resulted in releases from Pyramid Dam that more closely mimic natural flows in lower Piru Creek (Sweet 1992). The modified releases have benefited arroyo toads in that drainage (Stephenson and Calcarone 1999). Stream releases which mimic the natural hydrologic flow of Upper Piru Creek are now being considered in the FERC re-licensing process.

Drawdown of surface water from wells is also a concern (Stephenson and Calcarone 1999). When possible, National Forest personnel participate in multi-jurisdictional planning processes to coordinate stream flows and ground water extraction.

In general, the health, vigor, and structural condition of the riparian vegetation are considered good in the S. Province, except where affected by large-acreage wildland fires. Livestock grazing in riparian areas within the National Forests has been substantially reduced since the 1990s, resulting in some improvements in vegetation condition (LMP EIS Vol. 1, p. 207).

Foothill riparian areas are cool, pleasant places near large and growing urban populations, so increases in recreation pressure on those sites are inevitable. Associated riparian habitat degradation has tended to be localized in a few popular, easily accessible areas but may expand with growing human populations and more encroachment on NFS lands.

Conservation of riparian habitat is a high priority for all National Forests within the Southern Province. The new Forest Plans set a goal to “improve riparian conditions”.

VI-2. Non-Native Animals and Plants Behind stream-flow alterations, the biggest factor threatening the health of riparian ecosystems may be the spread of invasive non-native plant and animal species. Reservoirs and other artificial aquatic habitats have facilitated the introduction of a wide variety of non-native aquatic species into stream systems. Collectively, introduced species have caused serious declines in the capability of riverine habitats to support native species (LMP EIS Vol. 1, p. 99).

Predatory non-native species are a significant threat to arroyo toads. Bullfrogs are known to eat juvenile and adult arroyo toads (Sweet 1993). The bullfrogs may target calling adult males, leading to a skewed sex ratio and possible extirpation (Sweet and Sullivan 2005). A number of

Page 10 – Arroyo Toad Appendix C - MIS Species Account - S. Province (07/17/11)

warm water fishes (e.g., green sunfish, bluegill, largemouth bass, and black bullheads) and crayfish have been shown to feed on arroyo toad larvae and can cause high larval mortality in breeding pools (Sweet 1992). These species occur in many of the streams occupied by arroyo toads.

In areas near human development, Argentine ants have spread into riparian areas and are reducing the native ant fauna. Native ants are a major food source for arroyo toads; consequently, the species may be negatively affected by the continued spread of Argentine ants (Stephenson and Calcarone 1999) as are horned lizards that also prey on native ants (Suarez et al. 2001). However, Argentine ant parts have been observed in arroyo toad scat in San Diego County (Ted Case pers. comm. with J. Uyehara 2001).

Invasive non-native plants are also a problem in some areas. Species such as tamarisk and arundo colonize newly created flood terraces and can form dense masses of vegetation. These dense stands have higher rates of evapo-transpiration than do native vegetation, thereby decreasing the amount of available surface water. Tamarisk and arundo also stabilize stream terraces, deepening flood channels and resulting in unsuitable habitat for arroyo toads (Stephenson and Calcarone 1999). Dense patches of non-native grasses may also limit burrowing habitat on flood terraces during some years (K. Meyer pers. obs.) (Figure 2).

There are Forest Service projects that are working on removing invasive non-native plant and animal species where opportunities exist (Anderson, pers. comm.).

Figure 2. Non-native grasses thrive on the sandy terraces along Deep Creek on the SBNF. These grasses may limit arroyo toad burrowing habitat in some years. This photo was taken in 2003 after an extensive drought where the stream banks were not flushed for several years.

Page 11 – Arroyo Toad Appendix C - MIS Species Account - S. Province (07/17/11)

VI-3. Disease At the time the arroyo toad was listed, disease was not considered to be a threat. However, worldwide declines in amphibians over the last 20 years have been linked to disease, and in particular to chytridiomycosis, an infectious amphibian disease caused by a fungus (Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis). Chytrid fungus is a water-borne fungus that can be spread through direct contact between aquatic animals or by spores that can move short distances through the water. The fungus only attacks the parts of an amphibian’s skin that have keratin (thickened skin), such as the mouthparts of tadpoles and the toes of adults. The fungus can decimate amphibian populations, causing fungal dermatitis which usually results in death in 1 to 2 weeks. Once a pond has become infected with chytrid fungus, the fungus stays in the water for an undetermined amount of time. Nichols (2003) confirmed that chytrid fungus can infect and kill arroyo toads.

USGS surveys on the ANF have confirmed the presence of chytrid fungus in all monitored populations of Sierra Madre yellow-legged frog (Backlin, pers.comm). Arroyo toad populations on the ANF have not been tested for the presence of chytrid.

VI-4. Dispersed and Developed Recreation Concentrated recreation use in some arroyo toad sites (particularly on the ANF and some streams on the SBNF) has caused loss of vegetation, bank trampling, littering, water pollution and water diversions as a result of recreational dam building (LMP EIS Vol. 1, p. 100).

Campgrounds, roads, and trails near arroyo toad breeding pools have resulted in toads and their egg masses being inadvertently crushed by vehicle and foot traffic and disturbed by water play.

There are a number of National Forest campgrounds located near arroyo toad breeding habitat; seven on the LPNF, four on the ANF, and four on the CNF. At some of these campgrounds, seasonal closures, permanent closures, and/or restrictions on vehicle access have occurred to reduce impacts to arroyo toads (e.g., Beaver, Lion, and Mono Campgrounds on the LPNF and Joshua Tree Campground on the ANF). Developed day use sites near arroyo toad breeding habitat include Strawberry Peak Trailhead (Upper Big Tujunga Creek) on the ANF.

Road crossings in toad habitat are also being evaluated, and several on the LPNF and CNF have been relocated or rebuilt to reduce impacts to breeding pools (Stephenson and Calcarone 1999). A couple of trails bisecting arroyo toad breeding habitat on the SBNF are annually hardened to discourage breeding in crossing locations and help avoid impacts to toads.

Sandy terraces used by toads are often favorite sites for picnicking, sunning, volleyball, camping, etc. (Figure 3). Dispersed recreation use can have substantial impacts on both arroyo toads and their habitat. People participating in dispersed recreation are sometimes accompanied by their pet dogs, adding even further to the potential impacts. Populations are affected as individual toads, tadpoles, and eggs are killed or injured or removed by people playing with them or collecting them as pets. Adults and toadlets can be crushed by people walking and loitering on sandy terraces where daytime burrowing occurs. Toadlets are especially vulnerable to crushing

Page 12 – Arroyo Toad Appendix C - MIS Species Account - S. Province (07/17/11)

since they do not burrow deeply and their small size and cryptic markings allow them to be crushed by visitors unaware of their presence. Waterplay can easily crush or dislodge egg strands or result in dispersal of tadpoles from their rearing habitat. Recreational dams can modify water flows resulting in the loss of shallow egg laying habitat or leading to drying of pools occupied by tadpoles. Breeding sites and burrowing sites are likewise degraded by people and dogs playing in the water or on the sandy terraces that support burrowed toads.

The Warm/Hot Springs and Mojave Forks spillway areas of Deep Creek on the SBNF experience very high levels of recreational use that negatively affects individual toads (of all life stages) and constantly degrades the habitat quality. Associated litter and transport of non-native species into those areas also pose threats to habitat quality. While there are restrictions on overnight camping and nighttime use of the sites, their remoteness makes adequate patrols and enforcement difficult. Similar impacts to arroyo toads and their habitat are occurring at a number of other occupied sites in the S. Province (e.g., Cajon Wash – SBNF; Little Rock Creek, Upper Big Tujunga Creek – ANF).

Figure 3. Dispersed recreation impacts at sandy terraces at arroyo toad location (Deep Creek Hot Spring 2007 – SBNF).

VI-5. Illegal Off-Road Vehicle Use OHV activity in arroyo toad habitat is a problem in some areas, particularly on desert-side streams (e.g., Little Rock Creek, on the ANF, Mojave River, Cajon Creek, and Deep Creek on the SBNF, and upper Piru Creek on the LPNF). On NFS lands, most of the OHV-related habitat damage is the result of unauthorized travel off designated routes into areas legally closed to such use.

Actions of irresponsible OHV users represent a challenging law enforcement problem (Stephenson and Calcarone 1999). The SBNF has spent hundreds of thousands of dollars installing and monitoring permanent barriers to restrict unauthorized OHV access into arroyo toad habitat and enforcement is still a challenge.

Page 13 – Arroyo Toad Appendix C - MIS Species Account - S. Province (07/17/11)

VI-6. Livestock Grazing Livestock grazing in arroyo toad habitat can cause trampling of toads and their egg strings. It also can result in degradation of sand bars and terrace habitats that are important to the arroyo toad. Since the 1990s, grazing has been eliminated or scaled back in some riparian habitat on NFS lands in the S. Province. However, many grazing areas are intermingled with private lands where riparian grazing still occurs. In some areas occupied by arroyo toads, maintenance of fence lines to prevent cattle movement onto public portions of the riparian corridor is an ongoing management problem (Stephenson and Calcarone 1999).

VI-7. Mining and Prospecting Suction-dredge mining and streamside prospecting have the potential to cause impacts to individual toads of all life stages, affect changes in water quality, and result in degradation of breeding and upland habitats.

Suction dredging and streamside prospecting have occurred on Piru Creek on the LPNF, Cajon Wash and Little Horsethief Creek on the SBNF (Loe pers. comm.), and Pine Valley Creek on the CNF. Prospecting activities, including the digging of pits in the streambed and banks (high banking) has occurred on Little Horsethief Creek on the SBNF.

VI-8. Water Quality Siltation from any source (e.g., road/trail crossings, intense grazing, mining, illegal OHVs, waterplay, post-fire erosion, etc.) can eliminate or greatly damage amphibian populations that breed in streams. Egg masses and larval stages can become buried by sediment. Water turbidity as a result of any kind of disturbance (e.g., dogs and people playing in water, vehicle crossings, etc.) can affect the health of tadpoles and toads.

As with all types of amphibians, arroyo toads are extremely vulnerable to toxins and chemicals if they are exposed. Exposure to toxins and chemicals can occur from dispersed recreation use (e.g., suntan lotion, trash, barbeque lighter fluid, etc.), vehicles being present in or near the water (e.g., oil and gas leaks/spills), illegal drug manufacturing (e.g., methamphetamine cookers, marijuana plantation supplies such as rodenticides and herbicides), etc.

VI-9. Development and Urbanization Land and road development within watersheds also alter natural hydrologic regimes and can cause channel incision. Development decreases the infiltration capacity of watersheds and increases channelized runoff. Roads channel water into ditches, often increasing or altering the amount of water reaching streams. Such alterations increase peak storm runoff and the transport of pollutants and sediments from cleared lands.

Approximately half of the remaining populations of arroyo toads appear to be relatively secure (Clayton 2006). However, pressure from development and streambed modification still exist. National Forests offer protection but populations are still subject to impacts resulting from recreation and small populations are particularly at risk to environmental factors such as drought, increased wildlife frequency, etc.

Sweet and Sullivan (2005) state that arroyo toad populations on Federal lands are increasing since the arroyo toad was listed as an endangered species in 1994, although the arroyo toad still

Page 14 – Arroyo Toad Appendix C - MIS Species Account - S. Province (07/17/11)

has lower densities than historical accounts and lower densities than an ecologically similar species in Arizona, Bufo microscaphus.

VI-10. Habitat Conditions and Trend on the Angeles National Forest Occupied and Suitable Habitat on the ANF: Figure 4 displays the current data on arroyo toad distribution on the ANF. On the ANF, arroyo toad populations occur along Castaic Creek; along Big Tujunga Creek, including associated lower reaches of Alder Creek and Lynx Gulch; and on the desert side of the San Gabriel Mountains along Little Rock Creek.

There are 29,464 acres of arroyo toad modeled habitat on the Angeles National Forest. This modeled habitat represents approximately 4% of the total acreage for the Forest. Field surveys have not been conducted to confirm the suitability of this modeled habitat for the arroyo toad. It is anticipated that not all modeled habitat is suitable habitat for the arroyo toad. Based on this, the current estimate of arroyo toad modeled habitat is not considered an accurate representation of the actual amount of suitable habitat.

Figure 4. Arroyo toad on ANF: Forest Service data points, critical habitat, suitable habitat, and occupied habitat.

Designated Critical Habitat on the ANF: According to the Revised Final Critical Habitat Designation (February 2011), there are 2009 acres of arroyo toad critical habitat on the ANF. There are three Critical Habitat Units that overlap ANF lands: Little Rock Creek Basin (Unit 21) 612 acres, Upper Los Angeles River Basin (Unit 7) 1,113 acres, Upper Santa Clara River Basin (Unit 6, Subunit 6a, 6c) 443 acres.

Page 15 – Arroyo Toad Appendix C - MIS Species Account - S. Province (07/17/11)

Habitat Conditions on the ANF: Little Rock Creek Basin (Unit 21) is the only desert-side arroyo toad population on the ANF. There is a closure in place that restricts human use in areas upstream of the Little Rock Reservoir and provides protection for most of the occupied habitat associated with this occurrence. Surveys in 2010 confirmed the presence of arroyo toads outside of the closure and in proximity of the reservoir. Primary uses impacting habitat conditions for this occurrence are related to recreation. Anglers utilize the habitat around the reservoir and stream with use concentrated closest to the water’s edge. There is evidence of human foot trails and recreation use along Little Rock Creek. There is no evidence of illegal vehicle use impacting arroyo toad habitat in the restricted area. Variable water flows highly influence habitat conditions and availability of breeding habitat.

The Upper Santa Clara River Basin (Subunit 6a) includes the Castaic population of arroyo toads. Most of this occurrence is located just outside the ANF boundary. This area is closed to the public and there is no evidence of unauthorized use impacting arroyo toad habitat in this area. Variable water flows highly influence habitat conditions and availability of breeding habitat. In 2006, high water flows removed nearly all streamside vegetation.

The Upper Los Angeles River Basin (Unit 7) includes the only occurrence of arroyo toads on the ANF accessible by vehicle, bike and pedestrian traffic. This area is open to the public and to recreation use. The habitat in Upper Big Tujunga, Alder Creek and Lynx Gulch shows evidence of recreation impacts. Habitat has been impacted by pedestrian and bike traffic, concentrated use of sandy beach areas, day use/camping, recreational dam building and other waterplay activities. Sandy beach areas adjacent to breeding habitat have been heavily trampled and impacted by garbage. Recreational dams have altered water flows and modified egg-laying and tadpole rearing habitat. FS and County roads are present within this occurrence and are open to the public.

Arroyo toads have been documented traversing these roads and one dead toad was found crushed on the Lynx Gulch Road. Recent efforts have eliminated a majority of the shoulder parking along the Upper Big Tujunga Canyon Road within the occupied area. These parking restrictions have measurably reduced recreation use in the area and resulted in fewer impacts to breeding and burrowing habitat. Yellow sweet clover is pervasive along streamside areas and has reduced the availability of open sandy areas. The 2009 Station Fire burned more than 90% of the occupied habitat within this unit. Only Alder Creek remained unburned. Burn severity was moderate for much of this area and resulted in almost 100% plant mortality. Post-fire Surveys in 2010 confirmed occupancy and an increase in the availability of breeding and burrowing habitat.

VI-9. Habitat Conditions and Trend on the Cleveland National Forest Occupied and Suitable Habitat on the CNF: Arroyo toads occur in most of the major stream systems on the CNF (Figure 5). Between 2000 and 2002, the CNF conducted a PIT-tag study of the arroyo toad population in upper Pine Valley Creek (Holland pers comm), and between 2001 and 2003 CNF conducted a 3-year radio-telemetry study of the population at San Juan Creek (Ramirez 2004). These studies showed that the toads tend to remain in close proximity to the stream, usually within 100 meters or less of the active stream channel. No "new" populations of arroyo toads have been detected.

Page 16 – Arroyo Toad Appendix C - MIS Species Account - S. Province (07/17/11)

Approximately 25 miles of modeled habitat has been surveyed with no arroyo toad populations located. There are many watersheds with suitable habitat for arroyo toads on the CNF.

Figure 5. Occupied, suitable, and Critical Habitat for arroyo toads on the CNF.

Designated Critical Habitat on the CNF: According to the Revised Final Critical Habitat Designation (February 2011), there are 1337 acres of arroyo toad critical habitat on the CNF. There are three Critical Habitat Units that overlap CNF lands: Lower Santa Ana River Basin (Unit 8) 54 acres, San Juan Creek Basin (Unit 10a) 547 acres, San Mateo Creek Basin (Unit 11) 844 acres.

Habitat Conditions on the CNF: The CNF has installed crossings in some areas to help prevent direct and indirect impacts to the arroyo toad including at Morena Road, Orosco Ridge Road, and Pine Creek (USFS 2005b). In 2004, 2 miles of unauthorized roads that were affecting arroyo toad habitat in Noble Creek were permanently closed (USFS 2005b).

The CNF has formally excluded grazing from some arroyo toad habitat within current allotments including 12,112 acres centered on riparian areas (USFS 2000b). The Lower San Juan Picnic Area, which occurred within the San Juan Creek arroyo toad population, has been permanently closed. The CNF acquired 232 acres of arroyo toad habitat at Hook Ranch on Cottonwood Creek (Tom White, pers. comm. 2005).

Page 17 – Arroyo Toad Appendix C - MIS Species Account - S. Province (07/17/11)

VI-10. Habitat Conditions and Trend on the Los Padres National Forest Occupied and Suitable Habitat on the LPNF: In 2003, the USFWS-Ventura office, Sam Sweet (Professor at UC-Santa Barbara), and Forest Service biologists agreed on habitat designations of arroyo toad occupied and suitable habitat on LPNF (Figure 6).

Figure 6. Arroyo Toad Habitat on the LPNF. Occupied = yellow. Suitable habitat = green. Red =areas that arroyo toads were determined to be absent. Gray areas = modeled habitat that is not likely to have arroyo toads. Black = areas not surveyed (as of 2003).

Designated Critical Habitat on the LPNF: According to the Revised Final Critical Habitat Designation (February 2011), there are 7314 acres of arroyo toad critical habitat on the LPNF. There are five Critical Habitat Units that overlap LPNF lands: Sisquoc River (Unit 2) 1700 acres, Upper Santa Ynez River Basin (Unit 3) 2214 acres, Sespe Creek (Unit 4) 1011 acres, Piru Creek (Unit 5, Subunit 5a and 5b) 1277 acres (5a) and 828 acres (5b), Upper Santa Clara River Basin (Unit 6, Subunit 6a) 284 acres (6a).

Habitat Conditions on the LPNF: On the LPNF, campground use and road travel has decreased in occupied arroyo toad habitat (in contrast to management activities that occurred prior to 2000). Campgrounds in occupied habitat have either been decommissioned (Lion, Beaver, plus two other campgrounds) or have seasonal closures (Hardluck Campground) with a corresponding decrease in road use.

On the LPNF, the preferred stream gradient and substrate for arroyo toad breeding habitat occurs in areas near developed campgrounds (Uyehara et al. 2004). The flat sandy terraces and areas of slower water flows are as attractive to recreation planners and the recreating public as they are to breeding toads. As a result, LPNF campgrounds located near streams are likely to overlap occupied arroyo toad habitat.

Page 18 – Arroyo Toad Appendix C - MIS Species Account - S. Province (07/17/11)

One analysis of land-use impacts showed that bank trample was larger in occupied threatened and endangered amphibian habitat, although trampling occurred in localized sites and was low overall (Uyehara et al. 2004). It is possible that trampling resulting from dispersed recreation activities may occur sufficiently late in the year to avoid substantial overlap with the breeding season of arroyo toads.

In recent years, the LPNF experienced several large scale fires that burned through occupied habitat in the Sespe, Piru, Sisquoc and Santa Ynez Watersheds. Post-fire conditions included large amounts of sediment deposition. For the duration of these changed conditions, the amount and quality of arroyo toad habitat increased. The population of arroyo toads in the Upper Santa Ynez River are threatened by non-native species, recreation, and affects from the operation of an upstream dam and several water diversions that have lead to sediment trapping, an altered hydrological regime, and changes in water temperature.

Piru Creek in Subunit 5b is downstream of a large dam and the habitat there experienced degradation over the years from perennial water releases, rapid changes in flow volume, excessive flows during the breeding season, and an increased presence of nonnative predators. In 2005, the California Department of Water Resources (CDWR) began discharging water from Pyramid Dam into Piru Creek according to a water release schedule that generally simulated the natural hydrology of Piru Creek. In the following breeding season, Sandburg (2006) reported a dramatic improvement in arroyo toad breeding success, from 12 egg clutches observed in 2004 to approximately 165 egg clutches in 2005. The simulated natural flow regime improved breeding success of arroyo toads and continues to reduce non-native predators and improve arroyo toad habitat. If the current simulated natural flow regime is maintained, it appears that Pyramid Dam may no longer be a threat to the arroyo toad population and existing habitat in Piru Creek (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2011).

VI-11. Habitat Conditions and Trend on the San Bernardino National Forest Occupied Habitat: The SBNF has identified approximately 1,500 acres of arroyo toad occupied habitat on the SBNF. The following map displays what the SBNF considers to be occupied habitat for the arroyo toad in the San Bernardino Mountains including upland (purple) and breeding habitat (pink).

Page 19 – Arroyo Toad Appendix C - MIS Species Account - S. Province (07/17/11)

On the western side of the SBNF including the eastern San Gabriel and Western San Bernardino Mountains, the SBNF boundary is mid-slope leaving most of the potential toad habitat on land outside of Forest Service ownership.

In the eastern San Gabriel Mountains, arroyo toads have been detected in Cucamonga Canyon and Cajon Wash. One arroyo toad was found in 1999 on NFS land in Cucamonga Canyon although the majority of habitat that might be suitable for toads is below the SBNF boundary. Arroyo toads also occur between the San Gabriel and San Bernardino Mountains in Cajon Wash.

Arroyo toads occupy several desert-facing drainages on the north face of the San Bernardino Mountains. On NFS lands, these sites include lower- middle Deep Creek, Kinley Creek, West Fork of the Mojave River, and Little Horsethief Creek. Immediately off-Forest, toads occupy Grass Valley Creek (surveys have been conducted and no toads have been found on Forest Service land to date), West Fork Mojave, Silverwood Lake (Cleghorn branch), Horsethief Creek, and the eastern end of Little Horsethief Creek.

No populations are currently known on the south-facing slope of the San Bernardino Mountains (although there is a historic occurrence in the Whitewater River on the east side of the mountain range outside the SBNF boundary).

Along the western base of the San Jacinto Mountains, arroyo toads occur in Bautista Creek and have occurred along the San Jacinto River (USFS 2000a) (see following map: pink=breeding

Page 20 – Arroyo Toad Appendix C - MIS Species Account - S. Province (07/17/11)

habitat; purple=upland habitat). In the San Jacinto Mountains, toads are only currently known to occupy Bautista Creek. Records suggest they were in the South Fork of the San Jacinto River historically, but the SBNF has relatively little land in that drainage.

Designated Critical Habitat: Designated Critical Habitat (February 2011) has 3,399 acres on the SBNF. There are three Critical Habitat Units that overlap SBNF lands: San Jacinto River Basin Unit (Unit 9) 545 acres, Upper Mojave River Basin (Unit 22) 2143 acres, and the Upper Santa Ana River/Cajon Wash Unit (Unit 20) 711 acres (Table 1) and the following maps.

Page 21 – Arroyo Toad Appendix C - MIS Species Account - S. Province (07/17/11)

Table 1. Arroyo Toad Critical Habitat Acreages for the SBNF Ranger District Acreage on SBNF San Jacinto Ranger District – Unit 9 1158 Front Country Ranger District – Units 20 and 22 1725 Mountaintop Ranger District – Unit 22 1753

Page 22 – Arroyo Toad Appendix C - MIS Species Account - S. Province (07/17/11)

Habitat Conditions on the SBNF: In some ways, riparian habitat conditions on much of the SBNF have improved over the last century. Elimination of most grazing operations on NFS lands has allowed riparian habitat to recover throughout the San Bernardino Mountains. Currently, grazing is restricted to three active allotments in the San Jacinto Mountains and part of one allotment on the eastern edge of the San Bernardino Mountains. Even within those allotments, tighter control over cattle numbers and over allotment management have reduced riparian habitat and aquatic system impacts.

Likewise, timber harvesting operations on the SBNF have drastically changed over the past century. The closure of the last mill in southern California in the 1980s reduced the economic feasibility of large-scale timber harvesting locally. As such, the extent of timber harvesting has been cut dramatically. In addition, in current vegetation management efforts, technological advances and the need to protect rare habitats and species have resulted in lower impacts to riparian systems than occurred in the past. Combined, both of these things, greatly-reduced cattle grazing, and more carefully planned vegetation treatment projects, have allowed riparian systems to recover from the conditions they were in 50-100 years ago.

Areas below the SBNF boundary continue to be aggressively developed which may put increased pressure on land owners to modify habitat for flood control in toad habitat below the forest boundary where many toads occur. It is unknown if loss or modification of these habitats will result in the loss of metapopulations that enable toads to persist in limited toad habitat on NFS land long-term. Increasing growth around the SBNF, particularly in desert areas will certainly bring increased recreation pressure to the SBNF. The SBNF must to take an active role to manage recreation to protect toad habitat now with an increasing need into the future.

Riparian habitat within the Eastern San Gabriel, San Bernardino and San Jacinto Mountains on NFS and non-NFS lands has been affected by water diversions and extractions over the years, reducing the amount and quality of this habitat type. As such, impacts to arroyo toad populations likely have occurred due to reduction in habitat quality and quantity. Demands on water, and thus riparian habitat both on and off the SBNF, are likely continue to increase.

The greatest current threats to arroyo toad habitat and arroyo toads on the SBNF are dispersed recreation activities, illegal OHV use, and prospecting.

Site-Specific Habitat Conditions of Occupied Sites on the SBNF: Drought, repeated wildfires, and floods occurred in arroyo toad habitat on the SBNF. Toads on the SBNF have been subjected to severe sustained drought (4-5 years in length including the driest year on record). Some known occupied habitat goes for several years with no surface water for breeding during the breeding season.

Several large wildfires have occurred in arroyo toad habitat in the SBNF and below the SBNF boundary since the mid-1990s. The Deep Creek occurrences have had several fires occur in the watershed that may have affected toads and their habitat. These include: Devil Fire (1994), Willow Fire (1999), Old Fire (2003), and Slide Fire (2007).

Page 23 – Arroyo Toad Appendix C - MIS Species Account - S. Province (07/17/11)

In 2001, the Louisiana and Bluecut fires burned together and burned habitat at Little Horsethief Creek and in Cajon Wash. The Grand Prix and Old Fires burned over 150,000 acres in the fall of 2003. These fires occurred in toad habitat in Deep Creek, Little Horsethief, and Cajon Wash. Fires also occurred in arroyo toad habitat off-Forest on the north-facing slope of the San Bernardino Mountains and toads in Cucamonga Canyon in the San Gabriel Mountains (if that population is extant).

Smaller fires in the Bautista Canyon area have also occurred (Hixon Fire 2002). Dry fuels around that canyon make it at risk for a large-scale fire that could impact toads at that site if it occurs.

Immediately following the wildfires in 2003, the SBNF experienced the most severe storm events in recorded history. The winters of 2003- 2004 and 2004-2005 caused heavy debris flows in creeks in burned watersheds. Beaver dams in lower Deep Creek behind Mojave Forks Reservoir were blown out from the flooding. Dams are slowly returning but flooding should improve the habitat for toads in the short term by clearing out and replenishing sandy benches and sandbars, as well as reducing the bullfrog populations that thrive in beaver dam ponds. The inordinate amount of precipitation in the winter of 2003/2004 and 2004/2005 should help recharge the streams that have had severely low flows. This should benefit toads.

Fortunately, sites that were known to have toad populations immediately before the 2003 wildfire and post-fire flooding events were subsequently visited and all sites still have toads (but see Cajon Creek discussion below). Similar storm events happened in winter 2010 and areas that burned in 2007 experienced inordinate amounts of rain, sedimentation, and erosion. Post-fire sedimentation may improve some habitat conditions (sand bars and sandy terraces) for arroyo toads. However, timing of these events is critical to whether the effects are positive or negative. For example, if the sedimentation occurs during breeding seasons, eggs, tadpoles and food supplies could be buried. Flood events may scour important habitat components or wash away eggs, tadpoles, and food supplies. .

It is unknown to what degree the cumulative effects of severe droughts, large fires, and harsh floods affected breeding success and demographic (population size and structure) of toad populations.

In addition to the fires and floods, some arroyo toad habitat sites on the SBNF have had considerable emergency repair work done to roads, railroads, and utilities. Drainages that have been impacted the most are Cajon Wash and Bautista Canyon.

Site-By-Site Habitat Summaries Bautista Creek- Habitat Status There are several factors at this site that affect arroyo toads and their habitat. The most significant impact to arroyo toad habitat in Bautista Creek is the existence and maintenance of Bautista Road (California Forest Highway 224). Bautista Road parallels the creek in the canyon and bisects upland habitat from the aquatic breeding habitat. There are no current plans to widen or improve this travel route. An unknown number of toads are undoubtedly killed while crossing on this road each year. The Hixon OHV Trail (2E43) Creek Crossing is hardened with gravel

Page 24 – Arroyo Toad Appendix C - MIS Species Account - S. Province (07/17/11)

each year to discourage arroyo toads from breeding at the crossing. In some years, breeding occurs next to crossing. Bautista Road also provides easy access to the occupied habitat. Dispersed recreation activities (e.g., paint-balling, camping, waterplay, and picnicking) also occur intermittently in the habitat. Tamarisk is known from this site. Bullfrogs and predatory fish are not known to occur at this site.

Cajon Creek – Habitat Status Part of Cajon Creek burned in 2002 during the Louisiana/Blue Cut Fires and burned again in the 2003 Grand Prix/Old fires. Riparian vegetation is recovering but fire frequency in Cajon pass is expected to stay high because of transportation and utility corridors (including Interstate 15). The Cajon Pass is a utility corridor and continues to be heavily impacted by service roads and maintenance (including herbicide application) activities. Utilities in Cajon Pass include large kV power lines, four railroad tracks, Route 66, Interstate 15, natural gas pipeline, and fiber obtics transmission. Railway tracks and I-15 are likely barriers to upland movement to arroyo toads and Route 66 may function as a barrier on the east side. The presence of the railroads and I-15 pose a significant threat as a source of hazardous spills. No data on movement of arroyo toads exist in this location.

Tamarisk, arundo, and pampass grass occur in Cajon Wash. The Forest Service works in cooperation with the Resource Conservation District to abate non-natives in Cajon Wash regularly. These non-native weeds appear to be under control with maintenance. Unauthorized OHV use is a problem throughout this site. The Forest Service barrier systems have not been entirely successful at controlling those impacts due to the checkerboard on private lands that allow alternate access into the wash. Patrolling and maintenance of barriers is becoming increasingly difficult due to lack of funding and personnel. Cajon Wash also experiences pockets of heavy recreation from hikers and day-visitors. The Pacific Crest Trail also crosses Cajon Wash near the confluence with Crowder Canyon.

Suction dredging and sluicing are popular activities in Cajon Creek, causing direct and indirect impacts to toads and resulting in impacts to habitat quality. The California Department of Fish and Game, in the February 2011 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for suction dredging, proposes to seasonally limit suction dredging activities in Cajon Wash from September 1 to January 31 which will reduce some of the impacts.

Bullfrogs and predatory fish are not known to occur at this site at this time.

Cucamonga Canyon – Habitat Status Because we consider the Forest Service portion of Cucamonga Creek to have a low likelihood of occupancy at this time, as such, no habitat conditions are discussed here. See the “population status” discussion for this site for more details.

Deep Creek – Habitat Status Multiple locations along Deep Creek are considered occupied. These sites include Devil’s Hole, Warm Springs, Hot Springs, and the Mojave/Deep Creek Confluence behind the Mojave Forks Reservoir. Arroyo toads may occur throughout Deep Creek between the known occupied sites

Page 25 – Arroyo Toad Appendix C - MIS Species Account - S. Province (07/17/11)

and breed where they can find suitable habitat in between. Habitat in Deep Creek is variable because of the dynamic nature of the stream.

Beavers were introduced into Deep Creek many years ago. Beavers build dams that create deep pools. Pools become too deep for arroyo toad breeding and also encourage willow growth making some areas behind the dam less suitable for arroyo toads. Floods of 2003/2004 and 2004/2005 flushed out some of the dams and have improved arroyo toad habitat in the short term. It is expected that at least some of the beavers survived the floods and will continue to modify the stream channel.

Bullfrogs, predatory non-native fish (e.g., rainbow trout, bluegill, bass, goldfish, and carp) crayfish, and non-native turtles occur at many of the sites in Deep Creek, also reducing habitat quality for arroyo toads. Tamarisk and Spanish broom are known from several sites along Deep Creek, including arroyo toad habitat, and can negatively affect habitat quality.

The Devil Fire (1994), Willow Fire (1999), Old Fire (2003), and Slide Fire (2007) all occurred in the Deep Creek watershed. All of these fires may be contributing to cumulative impacts to the watershed, including arroyo toad habitat. Sedimentation may still be occurring from this fire, especially during high flow events. Whether or not this negatively affected arroyo toads is not known. In general, periodic storm events should increase sandy deposits and improve pool structure (filling in deep pools) to improve overall conditions for arroyo toad.

Deep Creek @ Devil’s Hole – Habitat Status There is a designated OHV trail crossing of Deep Creek at Devil’s Hole that is hardened with gravel each spring to prevent pools from forming and discourage arroyo toads breeding at the crossing. Hardening the crossing also increases its visibility so that OHV users stay on the trail. Dispersed recreation, trout fishing, and water play all occur at Devil’s Hole and may result in some impacts to habitat and toads.

Deep Creek @ Warm Springs – Habitat Status Unauthorized OHV use continues to be a major management challenge in the Warm Springs area. Due to difficult access, enforcement is intermittent and difficult and ongoing impacts to arroyo toad habitat occur. The Pacific Crest Trail runs near Warm Springs. As such, the site is occasionally accessed by hikers and backpackers for unauthorized overnight camping and is used by visitors who soak in the spring. Access is not easy for non-PCT users and it is not as popular to PCT users as the Hot Springs but impacts to toads may occur.

Deep Creek @ Hot Springs – Habitat Conditions Recreational use of the Hot Springs area probably has the most potential to impact to arroyo toads at this site. The PCT runs along Deep Creek and there are numerous user-created trails leading to the Hot Springs. The Hot Springs is also accessed through private land (Bowen Ranch) and it is used by hundreds of users on busy weekends. This area is designated as Day Use Only but unauthorized overnight use of the area is common. Due to difficult access, enforcement is intermittent and difficult and ongoing impacts to arroyo toad habitat occur.

Page 26 – Arroyo Toad Appendix C - MIS Species Account - S. Province (07/17/11)

User-created pool enhancements attract many visitors. Forest Service biologists have found dead arroyo toads in user-created “tubs” at the Hot Springs. Cause of death could be due to an inability to climb out, too high water temperatures, or inhospitable sulfate levels. People tend to select sandy benches along the creek for recreating and camping. These limited sandy patches are where toads would burrow into the sand. Illegal campfires near the Hot Springs are also a problem.

Forest Service surveys recently reported finding numerous immature toads over .25 miles from the creek on the trail into the Hot Springs. If toads are using this area for foraging, they could be impacted by hikers using the trail at the same time. Unauthorized OHV use is an ongoing problem on the trail into the Hot Springs.

Deep Creek @ Mojave/Deep Creek Confluence at the Mojave Forks Reservoir – Habitat Status Some time ago, the area behind the dam was extensively used by unauthorized OHVs. Since then, many protective measures have been instituted to protect Forest Service land, primarily related to preventing unauthorized OHV use. These protective measures were established in conjunction with the Army Corps of Engineers and San Bernardino County. Protective measures included cable fencing and boulder barriers adjacent to roads. There are many user-created (unclassified) OHV routes in area leading to the dam. Routine monitoring shows that the area has very little unauthorized OHV use on Forest Service land behind the dam now. However, land below the dam (non-Forest) is heavily impacted by OHVs again.

The Pacific Crest Trail runs behind the Mojave Reservoir, and the trail is not clearly marked. As such, there are numerous user created trails to the creek at this location. Hikers must find their way across the creek and crossing is usually done in areas with shallow water. These shallow areas are likely used by arroyo toads for breeding. Maintaining a clearly defined trail can minimize impacts to arroyo toads at this location. This area is a designated Day Use Area only but does have overnight use, probably mostly by PCT users. This area is also readily accessible to people who engage in water play during hot months. Most water play occurs below Forest Service land below the dam but there is some water play in toad habitat on Forest land.

The Mojave Reservoir holds water for several days to two weeks during high rainfall years. Toads apparently survive these high waters held behind the dam by aestivating above the high water mark. This observation was made after toads were found the breeding season after heavy rainfall backed up water behind the dam.

Deep Creek @ Summit Valley/Spillway – Habitat Status Almost all breeding habitat at this site is off of NFS lands. At the Mojave River portion of this site below the Mojave Spillway, the land is managed, at least in part, by the Army Corp of Engineers. This northwestern site is comprised of a wide floodplain with sandy benches and semi-desert chaparral mixed with juniper woodland habitat.

Although past efforts were made by the Corps to install barriers to prevent vehicle access to this site, the barriers are currently in a state of disrepair and have been for at least 5 years. Vehicle traffic causes extensive habitat damage in this location. Because of the flat topography, access is easy and vehicles drive across the entire area on a regular basis. This activity results in

Page 27 – Arroyo Toad Appendix C - MIS Species Account - S. Province (07/17/11)

compaction of sandy soil, destroying vegetation and discouraging vegetative recovery. Several patches of riparian vegetation persist near the deepest pools along the river. Vehicles regularly drive through shallow breeding pools.

Water play at this location is extensive but concentrated to summer months.

Kinley Creek – Habitat Status Kinley Creek is a tributary to Deep Creek. Suitable habitat is present but limited and patchy. Arroyo toad tadpoles were discovered in 2003. Because of the steepness and ruggedness of the terrain, there are few management issues at this site. Dispersed recreation activities may occur occasionally if hikers decide to venture off of the nearby Bradford trail, a non-system trail that leads to the Deep Creek Warm Springs. Non-native plants may pose a threat to habitat quality. Upland areas around Kinley Creek have an abundance of cheatgrass and Spanish broom is found in parts of Deep Creek.

Little Horsethief Canyon – Habitat Status Little Horsethief Creek is only partly in Forest Service ownership. The area east of the SBNF boundary is also occupied by arroyo toads. The Forest Service portion of Little Horsethief Creek appears to have the largest population of arroyo toads on the Forest at this time.

Significant efforts have been made to exclude unauthorized OHV use at Little Horsethief Creek. One mile of new fencing was installed in 2005 after Old Fire burned vegetative screens along Forest Road 3N22, an OHV route to Cleghorn Ridge. Patrols are regular and compliance is generally good. Recently, patrols have reported an increase in theft of fencing materials, likely stolen for recycling redemption value. Persistence of this problem may require installation of a more permanent barrier system in the near future.

Many new houses are being built in Summit Valley, just north of Little Horsethief arroyo toad population on Forest lands. To date, one house has been constructed on private land on the ridge that separates Highway 138 from Little Horsethief. More houses have been built on the north side of the ridge that separates Highway 138 from Little Horsethief. These areas will need to be monitored to ensure no new trails are constructed into Forest Service land, particularly if more homes are built on this ridgeline. There is a need to continue to close this area to OHV traffic and work towards development of a Forest Order to enforce it. Furthermore, we will need to establish working relationships with new residents and pay attention to new well developments to assess the impacts to surface water in Little Horsethief.

This area was actively mined before arroyo toads were discovered in the mid 1990s. Upon discovery of arroyo toads, mining was halted until the SBNF could review an operating plan and adequately assess the impacts to arroyo toads. No such application has yet been received. The SBNF requested a mining withdrawal from the Bureau of Land Management.

Part of this area burned in 2002 during the Louisiana/Blue Cut fires and the entire area burned again in the 2003 Old Fire. The vegetation has returned quickly in the stream channel and vegetative density appears to increase every season. However, the channel is becoming more

Page 28 – Arroyo Toad Appendix C - MIS Species Account - S. Province (07/17/11)

incised than in previous years. Photo documentation of these changes coupled with toad monitoring should continue when funding exists.

Bullfrogs are known to occur at this site. Thus far, they have only been observed in lowest reach of Little Horsethief Creek on Forest Service land where habitat is marsh like near Elliot Ranch. However, with the recent dry up of creek, bullfrogs may have traveled farther upstream to find refuge in remaining isolated pools. In 2010, Elliott Ranch landowner reported to Forest Service biologists that ravens were preying on diurnal juvenile arroyo toads. The landowner observed ravens perching on the creek banks and swooping down into the creek to catch the small toads. It is unknown at this time what impact predation from ravens is having on the population in Little Horsethief.

The Forest Service continues to work with the Elliot Ranch owners who own a private parcel east of the Forest Service portion of Little Horsethief Creek to minimize and avoid impacts to toads on Forest Service land (restrict night-time road use, carefully planned road maintenance, keeping pond empty to minimize bullfrog breeding, etc.).

Little Horsethief Creek dried up in July 2006 with the exceptions of some small isolated pools under heavy cover. It is unclear if this has happened in the past or not. More water was present in lower reaches in recent drought years (K. Meyer pers. obs.). Young arroyo toad tadpoles were present on 5/25/2006 so some of them may have had time to metamorph into toadlets if they were located in a pool.

VII. POPULATION STATUS AND TREND IN THE SOUTHERN PROVINCE Based on the viability analysis for the 2006 LMP, arroyo toads are considered to have substantial threats to persistence or distribution from Forest Service activities. Population information for arroyo toads tends to be concentrated in survey reports to Federal agencies and Forest Service survey observations. While some historic arroyo toad occurrences have been extirpated, many of the remaining populations are managed by public agencies with protective measures in place.

An abstract by Clayton Creed (USFWS 2006) summarizes the current population status for arroyo toads:

The arroyo toad was listed as endangered under the Federal Endangered Species Act in 1994 because research showed it had been extirpated from approximately 75% of previously occupied habitat. Although a number of drainages containing arroyo toads had been identified at that time, only eight were thought to contain viable populations. Since it was listed, a few previously undetected arroyo toad populations have been located and a number of threats to the species have been addressed. However, other populations appear to have been extirpated or turned out to be misidentified toads of another species. About one half of the approximately 30 currently known arroyo toad populations appear relatively secure in the near term. Many areas occupied by the arroyo toad are protected to a large degree; however, there are also areas vulnerable to expanding human pressures where some level of habitat degradation continues to occur.

Page 29 – Arroyo Toad Appendix C - MIS Species Account - S. Province (07/17/11)

The four National Forests in the S. Province may support approximately 36% of the total range- wide population. Of the 22 drainages that support arroyo toads in California, portions of 12 of these are located on National Forest System lands.

According to the USFWS Five Year Review (2009), the status of the three Recovery Units is as follows:

The Northern Recovery Unit encompasses arroyo toad populations and habitat in Monterey, San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, and Ventura Counties, and on the coastal slopes of Los Angeles County. All arroyo toad locations currently receiving protection and management in this recovery unit are on Federal lands. Threats are low-to-moderate in intensity and management efforts have been successful in reducing some impacts.

The Southern Recovery Unit encompasses arroyo toad populations and habitat in the coastal drainages of Orange, San Bernardino, Riverside, and San Diego Counties. Arroyo toads in this recovery unit occur on Federal, State, County, City, water district, and private land. Threats are moderate to high, and will continue to increase as the demand for suitable development sites continues.

The Desert Recovery Unit includes arroyo toad populations and habitat on streams and rivers that drain the northern and eastern slopes of the San Gabriel, San Bernardino, and Peninsular mountain ranges in Los Angeles, San Bernardino, Riverside, San Diego, and Imperial Counties. These streams flow into closed desert valleys and basins, including the Antelope Valley, Mojave Basin, and the Salton Sea Basin. Threats are moderate in intensity, and result primarily from recreational activities, with some threat of development.

In conclusion, the USFWS Five Year Review (2009) recommended a downlisting of the arroyo toad based on the determination that there are at least 20 self sustaining metapopulations or populations at the following locations:

Northern Recovery Unit – 7 populations or metapopulations Fort Hunter Liggett Army Reserve Training Center: 1 population – San Antonio River. Los Padres National Forest: 4 populations – Sisquoc River; Upper Santa Ynez River Basin, including Indian and Mono Creeks; Sespe Creek; and upper and lower Piru Creek. Angeles National Forest: 2 populations – Castaic Creek; Los Angeles River Basin, including Upper Big Tujunga, Mill, and Alder Creeks.

Southern Recovery Unit – 10 populations or metapopulations Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton: 2 metapopulations – San Mateo and San Onofre Creeks; Santa Margarita River. Cleveland National Forest: 8 populations – San Juan Creek Basin; San Mateo Creek Basin; Upper Santa Margarita River Basin; San Luis Rey River Basin; San Dieguito River Basin, San Diego River Basin; Sweetwater River Basin; Tijuana River-Cottonwood Creek Basin.

Page 30 – Arroyo Toad Appendix C - MIS Species Account - S. Province (07/17/11)

Desert Recovery Unit – 3 populations or metapopulations Angeles National Forest: 1 population – Little Rock Creek. San Bernardino National Forest: 1 metapopulation – Mojave River Basin, including West Fork of the Mojave River, Little Horsethief Canyon, and Deep Creek. Bureau of Land Management: 1 population – Pinto Wash Basin, in the Jacumba (In-Ko- Pah Mountains) Wilderness Study Area.

VII-1. Current Population Status on Angeles National Forest On the ANF, arroyo toad populations occur along Castaic Creek, Big Tujunga Creek (including associated lower reaches of Mill and Alder Creeks), and on the desert side in Little Rock Creek.

At this time, there are no accurate estimates for the ANF populations. During 1999-2001, telemetry studies were conducted on the population along Little Rock Creek. However, the telemetry study focused on movement of toads within the watershed and did do attempt to estimate the population size. In 2005, the Department of Water Resources and the Forest Service relocated approximately 300 juvenile and larger toads from non-Forest lands within the Castaic Creek population. This population which is off-Forest is potentially a good ‘source’ population for future relocations (DWR land, 2005 Report by Frank Hovore).

ANF biologists conduct annual monitoring of the three ANF arroyo toad populations. The intent of this monitoring is to determine if the toads are reproductively active, identify the occupied stream stretch and document changes in habitat condition. The monitoring is not intended to be a complete inventory of all toads. The results of this monitoring may not accurately represent trends in populations since the timing of surveys is variable, survey effort is not consistent, surveyed stream stretch is variable and the observers change from year to year.

Castaic Creek – Population Status Surveys indicate the majority of arroyo toads at this site occur off NFS Lands. However, within the ANF, arroyo toads occur in Castaic Creek and the associated Fish Canyon tributary. Reproductive activity at this site is strongly influenced by the highly variable stream flows. This stream stretch is subject to flashy flows during storm events and frequently dries up completely during the summer months. In 2006, a series of high precipitation events resulted in high flows that removed most of the adjacent stream vegetation. Precipitation is the single most important factor influencing toad reproductive success since other factors such as recreation use, water diversions and invasive fauna species are largely absent. Illegal activities such as marijuana cultivation have been documented in Fish Canyon and may impact water flows in this tributary. Additionally, invasive species such as tamarisk are prevalent and may influence surface water availability or suitability of sandy terraces.

Annual surveys of the Castaic Creek population have been conducted since at least 1996. Evidence of toads or toad activity has been consistently documented. This population appears to be secure.

Little Rock Creek – Population Status This population occurs upstream of the Little Rock Reservoir. This stream stretch typically retains surface water flows during the summer months. However, during years with normal to

Page 31 – Arroyo Toad Appendix C - MIS Species Account - S. Province (07/17/11)

above average precipitation, high water flows can limit the amount of suitable egg laying habitat. The majority of occupied habitat occurs within an area closed to the public. This closure is in place specifically to provide protection for the arroyo toads and is in effect year-round. It is difficult to obtain 100% compliance with the closure and there is some evidence of recreation use (waterplay, angling, loitering along the streambank).

Surveys of this population have been conducted since at least 1995. Evidence of toads or toad activity has been consistently documented. This population appears to be secure.

Upper Big Tujunga Creek – Population Status Upper Big Tujunga Creek is the only population on the Forest that occurs in an area open to the public. There is no closure in place to prohibit public access to areas of occupied habitat. In an effort to reduce the amount of public use in occupied habitat, shoulder parking along the road has been eliminated. This has visibly reduced the amount of recreation occurring in and next to the stream. Impacts to this population are primarily associated with recreation use and include bank trampling, waterplay, dam building and garbage. Other factors potentially impacting this population include open roads, a hiking trail and a developed trailhead with parking area that is located immediately adjacent to the creek. Toads have been observed at night on the Upper Big Tujunga Road and a dead arroyo toad was found crushed on the Lynx Gulch Road. Toads have been observed on the Barley Flats hiking trail. No invasive faunal species such as crayfish or bullfrogs have been documented in this area. However, yellow sweet clover is pervasive and in some areas has completely occupied sandy terraces adjacent to the stream.

Annual surveys of the Upper Big Tujunga Creek population have been conducted since at least 1996. Evidence of toads or toad activity has been consistently documented. This population appears to be secure.

VII-2. Current Population Status on Cleveland National Forest There are many small arroyo toad occurrences on the CNF and surrounding lands. Most populations occur near the CNF boundary with the bulk of prime breeding habitat often lying just off NFS land (USFS 2000a). One population predominantly on CNF land occurs along Pine Valley Creek and several of its tributaries (USFS 2000a). The Forest Service has identified about 8,000 acres of arroyo toad occupied habitat on the CNF (USFS 2005a).

Occupied sites with the bulk of prime breeding habitat occurring on adjacent non-NFS lands include: Cottonwood Creek (including lower reaches of Kitchen and Morena creeks), Potrero Creek, Sweetwater River, upper San Diego River, and Santa Ysabel Creek and associated lower reaches of Temescal Creek (Pamo Valley). Other occupied drainages include: the upper forks of the San Luis Rey River (above Lake Henshaw) including Agua Caliente Creek, Temecula Creek (including the lower reaches of Arroyo Seco Creek), San Mateo Creek, and San Juan Creek.

Silverado Creek – Population Status Arroyo toads occur on non-NFS lands along a road that is used and maintained by the CNF. Arroyo toads breed here during wet years. Arroyo toads are also on NFS lands, at the first and second creek crossing on Maple Springs Road. The CNF has been doing closure for protection of the toad during the reproductive season (approximately April 15-30 to September 30). This

Page 32 – Arroyo Toad Appendix C - MIS Species Account - S. Province (07/17/11)

protocol has been followed each year where sufficient rainfall occurs. If the stream is dry on either side of the crossing (3-4’), the road is not seasonally closed.

San Juan Creek – Population Status Arroyo toads occur on NFS lands from the area just south of Upper San Juan Campground to the CNF boundary.

Lion Canyon – Population Status Arroyo toads occur in small numbers in this drainage (a tributary to San Juan Creek)

San Mateo/Los Alamos Creek– Population Status Arroyo toads occur in small numbers throughout this drainage.

Lower Santa Ysabel Creek– Population Status In 2005, arroyo toads bred in Lower Santa Ysabel Creek in the spring after a wet winter of 2004- 2005. However, the survival of the tadpoles to adults is unknown. This population is small and seems to increase when the conditions are favorable.

San Diego River– Population Status Most of the arroyo toad habitat in this drainage falls within Helix Water District land. As such, the CNF has little data about the status of this population.

W. Fork of the San Luis Rey (Barker Valley area) – Population Status This is another very small population that seems to increase and flourish in high rain years, but in drought years drops off and arroyo toads are not always detectable. Tadpoles were found in the pools in the spring 2005. In drought years, this portion of the drainage often dries out in the summer months.

San Luis Rey River (Indian Flats area) – Population Status This is a larger population that breeds every year. However, the pools with tadpoles often dry up and the survival rates appear to be low when this occurs. Many young were produced in the spring 2005. However, many of these pools with tadpoles in them were located in the campground (one of the first locations the pools dry up). From year to year, there appears a moderate level of success in reproduction in this stream.

Arroyo Seco Creek/Dripping Springs Campground– Population Status This is a large population that breeds every year. They seem to have more success than other populations on the CNF. The portions of the creek that run through the campground often dry up early in the season, but the upper shaded reaches of the stream retains water later into the season and is the optimal habitat. In the spring of 2005, there were large numbers of tadpoles throughout the stream, and it appeared that they had a high survival rate as the stream flowed all through the summer season that year. Their success in drought years has been marginal, but appears to be better than in other locations.

Noble Canyon Trail – Population Status Arroyo toads have been observed along the trail.

Page 33 – Arroyo Toad Appendix C - MIS Species Account - S. Province (07/17/11)

Pine Valley – Population Status Arroyo toads occur on NFS and private lands here. Lower Pine Creek is in a wilderness.

Kitchen Creek – Population Status Arroyo toads occur in small numbers in the Yellow Rose to Cibbets Flat part of this drainage.

La Posta Creek – Population Status Arroyo toads occur in small numbers throughout this drainage.

Morena Creek – Population Status Arroyo toads occur in small numbers throughout this drainage

Corral Creek – Population Status Arroyo toads occur along Corral Creek, downstream of Corral Canyon Road

Cottonwood Creek/Boulder Oaks Campground area – Population Status Arroyo toads occur in small numbers throughout this drainage. Arroyo toads have never been documented breeding near this campground. Stream habitat adjacent to the campground is not suitable for arroyo toad.

Sweetwater River – Population Status Arroyo toads occur in large numbers in Cuyamaca State Park and on private lands. None are known to occur on NFS portion (which is very rocky and steep).

VII-3. Current Population Status on Los Padres National Forest Forest Service biologists have noted that the breeding habitat on the LPNF shifts between years, due to the action of the dynamic flows. Further evaluations of breeding activity (i.e., deposition of egg strings) showed shifts between years supporting the idea that arroyo toads are habitat specialists and shift their activities with changes in site conditions. In general, the populations observed in the early 21st century are similar to the surveys conducted by Sweet (1989-1991).

Starting in the 1990s, changes in riparian management were instituted and populations monitored. Population estimates were calculated from visual surveys or clutch observations of eggs and tadpoles. The Sisquoc River population remained a small breeding population of four- six adults when surveyed between 1999 and 2002. The estimated populations of arroyo toads between 2002 and 2005 were comparable to estimates from a decade earlier for the Upper Santa Ynez (100+ adults) and Upper Sespe (50+ adults), although the breeding pool distribution had changed in the intervening years. Lower Piru Creek has wide fluctuations in breeding success, necessitating several years of surveys in order to obtain reliable population estimates. Upper Piru Creek appears to have comparable number of adults, although the breeding distribution has increased. The arroyo toad populations across the forest appear to have stabilized (Uyehara et al. 2006).

Based on the surveys for Mono Creek area, it became evident that not all arroyo toad females breed every year. In the Mono Creek area, breeding was more dependent on the amount of

Page 34 – Arroyo Toad Appendix C - MIS Species Account - S. Province (07/17/11)

annual precipitation; this could be correlated with availability of breeding pools or possibly condition of females differed or an adaptative mechanism for ensuring water availability for offspring growth periods. The availability of breeding pools was apparently partially dependent on precipitation that occurred in the watershed (Figure 7).

Arroyo Toad Breeding

60

50

40

30

(minimum) 20

Number of Clutches Number of Clutches 10

0 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 Annual Rainfall (cm)

Figure 7. Arroyo toad breeding in one segment of Mono Creek was associated with annual precipitation. The symbols represent the number of clutches during the water-years of 1988/1989 through 1993/1994.

This association only occurs when the amount of suitable pools for breeding remains relatively similar. In subsequent years wherein the stream did not have the same number of pools, the breeding effort declined on the same segment (LPNF field surveys; Sweet, pers. comm. on the number of breeding pools). Further evaluations of breeding activity (i.e., deposition of egg strings) showed shifts between years supporting the idea that arroyo toads are habitat specialists and shift their activities with changes in site conditions.

The arroyo toads in the upper Santa Ynez drainage are similar between the early 1990s and with more recent years (1999-2004). Adult estimates for the upper Santa Ynez in the early 1990s was about 100 arroyo toads (Figure 8) and the highest number of clutches for all surveyed areas in upper Santa Ynez was 75. Recent night surveys detected a total of 65 adults in 1999, 28 adults in 2000, and 58 adults in 2001. These numbers more likely reflect the survey effort and changes in survey timing and conditions, rather than real population changes.

Page 35 – Arroyo Toad Appendix C - MIS Species Account - S. Province (07/17/11)

Upper Santa Ynez R

100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 Minimum Clutches Clutches Minimum 10 0

1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Year

Figure 8. Each color of the bars represents different sections of the streams: yellow for main-stem of the Santa Ynez River, Maroon for Indian Creek, and purple for Mono Creek. Note that egg string deposition shifted between years. Survey results for 1996-1998 were not found. For 1999-2002, only a subset of the watershed was surveyed for clutches. In 2005, high water and access precluded most surveys.

The best year for arroyo toad breeding and survey effort in recent years was 2003 where the total number of clutches indicated a minimum of 65 clutches or females (Figure 8). If the same assumptions that Sweet used are used here (even sex-ratios of adults, one clutch/breeding season for females), the population is estimated to be about 130 adults, (comparable with the early 1990s).

Estimating population sizes for Sespe River has been problematic. In the early 1990s, Sweet observed nearly 100 clutches between Beaver Campground and Sycamore Creek (a tributary downstream of Lion Campground and Oak Flat). The habitat between Lion Campground and Oak Flat Campground did not have high arroyo toad densities. The better habitat was observed between Beaver Campground and Lion Campground. In recent years, survey efforts have not been comparable for the stretch between Beaver Campground and Lion Campground, except for 2002 when few arroyo toad clutches were observed and the habitat was mainly too dry to support arroyo toad pools.

An extensive survey of the Sespe River between Lion Campground and Oak Flats during the wetter breeding season of 1999 found evidence of 40 groups of tadpoles which compares

Page 36 – Arroyo Toad Appendix C - MIS Species Account - S. Province (07/17/11)

favorably to the 26+ clutches reported for that same area in 1992 (due to flooding and high flows, only clutches from May were observed in that area that year). In 2002 and 2003, many young-of-year had metamorphosed and were observed by Forest Service personnel in the area around Lion Campground downstream to Oak Flats/Sycamore Creek. In an August 2003, 23 groups of recently metamorphosed toads were observed during a survye. Forest Service biologists consider this part of the Sespe River as an area with good reproductive efforts and good population numbers. Figure 9 summarizes the reproductive data for these Sespe River segments.

Sespe River

120

100

80

60

40

20

Number of Clutches 0

1991 1993 1995 2000 2002 2004 Figure 9. Arroyo toad minimum number of clutches on two segments of the Sespe River. Purple area = an upstream segment that was not suitable breeding habitat for many of the years.

The segment of Lower Piru Creek between two dams has a variable number of clutches. Sweet counted about 20 clutches in 1991 and 80 clutches in 1992 on lower Piru Creek between Piru Lake and just upstream of Ruby Canyon confluence with Piru Creek (past Ellis Apiary).

In 2001, surveys were conducted regularly in the lower portion between Lake Piru to Agua Blanca Creek and 7 groups of tadpoles were observed. On July 9th - 10th 2001, about 12 more groups of young-of-year were observed between Frenchman’s Flat and Agua Blanca Creek, for a total estimate of 19 clutches. This was comparable to 1991 but far fewer than 1992. In 2002,

Page 37 – Arroyo Toad Appendix C - MIS Species Account - S. Province (07/17/11)

Sandburg conducted many repeat surveys starting in May and found a severe lack of arroyo toad breeding. She attributed this lack of toads to the regime of maintaining high water flows that year. Perennial water regimes allow for invasive wildlife and plants to establish in high densities, negatively affecting the sandy terraces and shallow pools preferred by arroyo toads for breeding. In 2004, there were scouring floods that re-established clean gravel bars for arroyo toad breeding. A total of 61 clutches were observerd in the middle of the breeding season.

Upper Piru Creek appears to have a comparable population sizes as 1990 and 1991. Arroyo toads have apparently expanded upstream when compared to early 1990 surveys (to Castaic Mine area, 3.2 km from Bear Gulch Cr confluence). However, the number of breeding pools may have remained similar because breeding has not occurred in recent years near Buck Creek. While Sweet reported clutch numbers around 35 and an estimated population of twice that at 1977-1980, recent night surveys (1999-2000) and clutch numbers are comparable. Figure 10 summarizes arroyo toad populations in Upper and Lower Piru Creek.

Arroyo toad clutches

Lower Piru Upper Piru

120

100

80

60

40

20

0

1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 1991 Years

Figure 10. Arroyo toad populations in Upper and Lower Piru Creeks between 1991 and 2004

Page 38 – Arroyo Toad Appendix C - MIS Species Account - S. Province (07/17/11)

Table 2 summarizes the survey data for arroyo toads on the LPNF. In summary, arroyo toad populations on the LPNF are comparable to early 1990 surveys in upper Santa Ynez and upper

For Piru and part of Sespe, some data exist (Lion Campground downstream to Oak Flats). Good data do not exist for populations or habitat suitability on part of Sespe Creek, (from Beaver Campground to Lion Campground) and on Lower Piru Creek. Arroyo toad populations on Sisquoc have likely declined on NFS lands. No increases in toad populations have been detected, even with changed management procedures.

It is not clear from the population estimates whether the management changes have been effective in increasing populations of arroyo toads, although there remains the possibility that management shifts prevented an apparent decline under recent drought conditions.

VII-4. Current Population Status on San Bernardino National Forest When funding permits and for site-specific projects, the SBNF continues to conduct surveys for arroyo toads in suitable habitat. It is possible but unlikely that new populations of arroyo toads will be discovered as many areas likely to have suitable habitat have already been visited. However, protocol surveys have not been conducted in all suitable habitats.

The known populations of arroyo toads on the SBNF are generally small, possibly because of the limited extent of low gradient habitat on the SBNF. Although routine monitoring has been a priority for the SBNF, population estimates and trends are not available for toad populations on the SBNF. Surveys have focused on inventory and determining continued toad occupancy (presence) as well as monitoring and correcting impacts to habitat rather than tracking trends though time.

Now that locations of toad occupancy are relatively well documented, the SBNF will need to determine how best to monitor sites with toads. It is likely however, that for most sites, there are enough toads to evaluate trends in population size over time. Survey data suggest that Little Horsethief Canyon is likely the most densely occupied site with arroyo toads on the SBNF whereas Deep Creek has suitable patches throughout its length and has the largest number of individually occupied locations on one creek. Population estimates may be possible for these populations although some occupied sites along Deep Creek are remote which makes routine monitoring costly.

Page 39 – Arroyo Toad Appendix C - MIS Species Account - S. Province (07/17/11)

Table 2. Los Padres National Forest Arroyo Toad Summary Drainage 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Sisquoc R check check 1 (1)

Santa Ynez (0 River/Agua Caliente 6 7(4) surveys) b 1 1(5) 0(4) 2 4 Mono Creek&Indian Not Not Creek TOTALS 39 47 76 65 entered entered

Sespe Creek TOTALS 58 96+ 40 Beaver Cmgd to Lion (Italics=just beaver cmgd vicinity) 45 70 6(2) 3(2)**** 4(2) Lion Cmgd & D/S pools (Italics=just lion cmgd) 13 26+ 40 4(2) 3(2) 7(6)**** 3(2)

Lower Piru Creek 20 79(9)### 0(1) 13(8)^ 0(2) 14+ 71+

Upper Piru Creek TOTALS 37 34#### 12 (2) 26 38

Summary of number of clutches by arroyo toads based on observed numbers of clutches or estimated from tadpole groupings. Surveys which partially overlapped in spatial extent during Mar-May are indicated parenthetically. Numbers in Bold signify comparable survey routes. Data for 1991-1993 based on Appendix Table 1, Sweet report; Data for 1994 based on Maloney report; Data for 1999-2004 based on field survey notes, unpub. data. #1992 floods in Feb and May, no ##10 Surveys from 14 Mar-27 ###9 surveys between 12 mar and 24 ####5 surveys between 7 Mar-18 Jun surveys fd eggs before floods in May Jun Jun on Sespe *2003-Indian Creek=Two long surveys conducted on May 1 and May 8; tads were clumped in separate groups on May 1, with 2 eggs and 26 tad groups; May 8 tads that were counted were <15 mm so probably laid in the interim between May 1 & May 8. May 23 there was another egg string. **2001-Used locations of egg and tadpole groups as proxy for clutches, e.g., 14 tadpole groups counted in late July, only surveyed u/s of road crossing ***The surveys were conducted on different days for different stretches of Piru Creek, except for a second survey which revealed an egg string ****Mar-May 2002 biweekly surveys ^1 survey for 870 m on Piru Cr and 1 survey for 300 m on Agua Blanca Cr Mar 26 (FS, unpub data); 1 survey for 1200m on Apr 25 (FS, unpub data); , 6 surveys in May 2002 (Nancy Sandburg, Summary 2002 report for UWCD Piru Ck) ^^^Longest survey route, to Ogilvy Ranch, for 1999-2004 surveys; Clutches were assumed to be previously counted if tadpole numbers <10 or if location was within 100-m of previous survey location, survey dates were Apr 1, Apr 7-8, May 8-9, May 12, May 15, May 23. Surveys in Jun were not used to calculate clutches.

Page 40 – Arroyo Toad Appendix C - MIS Species Account - S. Province (07/17/11)

On the SBNF, the following general observations can be derived from the current data: Toads are not detected at every site each year (Table SBNF 1 and Table SBNF 2); SBNF Table 2 displays how often toads were detected on surveys at occupied sites. Data show that detection varies by site. Breeding does not appear to occur at each site each year; Timing of toad activity and breeding effort appears to vary depending on site-specific weather (probably temperature and precipitation) and stream flow each year; and Toads on the SBNF may breed later and/or longer than coastal populations (see Figure 11). All of these observations are preliminary. Existing data is difficult to evaluate as survey frequency, stream reaches surveyed, and effort exerted to find toads at sites varied across years and between sites.

Figure 11 displays the age class of arroyo toads detected on surveys by month on the SBNF and nearby areas. Data were not collected in such a way that allowed breaking category down further. Tables 3 and 4 display a summary of survey efforts and results for SBNF arroyo toad sites.

Page 41 – Arroyo Toad Appendix C - MIS Species Account - S. Province (07/17/11)

Age Class Detection by Month on the San Bernardino National Forest, 1991-2006

25

20

Adults 15 Immatures Tadpoles 10 Eggstrings

5

Number of Surveys that Detected Age ClassAge Detected Surveys of that Number 0 April May June July August September Month

Figure 11. Age class of arroyo toads detected on surveys by month on the SBNF and nearby areas. The number of detections is the number of surveys that age class was detected on rather than number of individuals of each age class. Age class “Immature” includes metamorphs, juveniles, and subadult toads. Data were not collected in such a way that allowed breaking category down further. Data includes observations of toads on the SBNF as well as data on file from the following sites: Grass Valley Creek (below the SBNF boundary), Mojave River, Mojave River West Fork (at Arrowhead Lake Road), Horsethief Canyon, and Little Horsethief Canyon (Eastern)

Bautista Creek- Population Status Arroyo toads occur from the CalFire Bautista Canyon Camp downstream to the Forest Service boundary. Toads may also extend onto private property, however the likelihood is low due to the type conversion of this area to orange groves. Tables 3 and 4 summarize survey efforts and results at this site.

Page 42 – Arroyo Toad Appendix C - MIS Species Account - S. Province (07/17/11)

Table 3. Numbers Of Arroyo Toad Surveys Conducted On The SBNF At Each Occupied Sites. Number of Surveys Conducted by Year Site 1991 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Total Bautista 5 4 4 6 8 5 32 Canyon Cajon 2 4 4 3 4 3 6 6 1 5 33 Wash Cucamonga Canyon, 6 3 1 7 17 Mainstem Deep Creek, 1 2 1 7 2 4 3 20 Devil's Hole Deep Creek, Hot 5 3 2 1 3 2 2 18 Spring Deep Creek, Mojave/Dee 3 4 3 3 1 3 1 2 20 p Creek Confluence Deep Creek, 2 1 1 1 1 6 Warm Spring Kinley 3 1 3 1 8 Creek Little 1 2 4 1 3 5 3 6 2 2 1 1 2 30 Horsethief Grand 1 8 2 2 5 28 2 20 13 24 21 26 13 17 2 184 Total Shaded blocks denote years that toads were detected in at least one survey. Where surveys were conducted and no toads were detected are not shaded. Years where no surveys were conducted are blank. Note that surveys were conducted by multiple observers using various survey techniques. Some surveys were conducted at night, others were during the day.

Page 43 – Arroyo Toad Appendix C - MIS Species Account - S. Province

Table 4. Arroyo Toad Detections On The SBNF between 1991-2006 Detected? Number of Toads Detections At Occupied Site No Yes Surveys Sites (% of Surveys) Bautista Canyon 14 18 32 56% Cajon Wash 17 3 20 15% Cucamonga Canyon, 8 2 10 20% Mainstem Deep Creek@Devil's Hole 17 2 19 11% Deep Creek@Hot Spring 5 11 16 69% Deep Creek@Mojave/ Deep 10 10 20 50% Creek Confluence Deep Creek@Warm Spring 1 5 6 83% Kinley Creek 6 1 7 14% Little Horsethief 2 25 27 93% Grand Total 80 77 157 49% Note: Survey effort was not standardized each year but the best data available were used.

Cajon Creek/Wash - Population Status Arroyo toads were first discovered in Cajon Creek by USGS surveyors in 2000. Numerous surveys had occurred before they were finally detected. After initial discovery, subsequent survey efforts failed to detect arroyo toads until Tom Dodson and Associates (TDA) biologists reported finding them in 2006 and 2007 while conducting surveys for the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Third Track Proposal (Keenbrook to Cajon Summit). We think this observation may be off-Forest, although not all data have been received from the consultants. Biologists from the San Bernardino County Museum also located one toad in 2007 during an owl survey. Tables 3 and 4 summarize survey efforts and results at this site.

Visually, there appears to be a large amount of suitable habitat for arroyo toads in Cajon Creek although individuals are extremely difficult to detect. This may mean they are present in low numbers or survey efforts have not been adequate. The extensive amount of habitat and its dynamic nature combined with variation in timing of breeding in this area may make locating toads very difficult. Observations of toad breeding areas seem to vary with habitat use and annual fluctuations in precipitation and stream morphology.

All habitat south of Highway 138 West to the southern SBNF boundary is considered suitable for arroyo toads.

Cucamonga Canyon – Population Status In 1999, Melinda Benton (SBNF biologist) observed an arroyo toad on Forest Road 1N35 quite a distance from Cajon Creek. This was the same year that arroyo toads were discovered off-Forest in the alluvial fan below the Forest boundary in Cucamonga Creek. Arroyo toads have not been detected in Cucamonga Creek since these observations in 1999. We assume that the arroyo toad found by M. Benton had made an upland movement that was extensive in nature because habitat near where the toad was found was not suitable for breeding.

Page 44 – Arroyo Toad Appendix C - MIS Species Account - S. Province

USGS conducted one daytime and one nighttime survey at this site and failed to detect arroyo toads (Hitchcock et al. 2005). In 2007, Tom Dodson and Associates conducted protocol-level surveys for arroyo toads in portions of the lower reaches of Cucamonga Canyon for a Cucamonga Canyon Water Company District project. No arroyo toads were detected on these surveys. There may still be arroyo toads below the Forest boundary but we consider Cucamonga Creek to have a low likelihood of occupancy at this time. Tables 3 and 4 summarize survey efforts and results at this site.

Deep Creek @ Lower Deep Creek - Population Status Multiple locations along lower Deep Creek are considered occupied – see subsequent discussions for site-specific information. In high-water years, egg strings have been observed in Sept at high-elevation sites, (4-5000’), in this watershed. Toads are not detected each year at all monitored sites (Tables 3 and 4). Likewise, breeding is observed in some years and not others at the sane sites.

Deep Creek @ Devil’s Hole – Population Status Arroyo toads have not been detected at Devil’s Hole since 1995 (although protocol-level surveys have not been done since 2005). Habitat conditions may have changed from when toads were found here. Very few sandy patches and slow moving pools are found in this area. The area is dynamic and toads may have moved with changes in habitat. Tables 3 and 4 summarize survey efforts and results at this site.

Deep Creek @ Warm Springs – Population Status Systematic surveys of this site have not been conducted consistently, making an assessment of the population status difficult. Tables 3 and 4 summarize survey efforts and results at this site.

Deep Creek @ Hot Springs – Population Status Systematic surveys of this site have not been conducted consistently, making an assessment of the population status difficult. Tables 3 and 4 summarize survey efforts and results at this site.

Deep Creek @ Mojave/Deep Creek Confluence at the Mojave Forks Reservoir – Population Status This site consistently has breeding habitat for arroyo toads. Systematic surveys of this site have not been conducted consistently, making an assessment of the population status difficult. Tables 3 and 4 summarize survey efforts and results at this site.

Deep Creek @ Summit Valley/Spillway (Mountaintop Ranger District and Non-NFS land) We have no specific information about the arroyo toad occurrences in this vicinity. The habitat appears extensive and the site likely supports many arroyo toads.

Kinley Creek – Population Status This occurrence is considered questionable due to a lack of consensus on the identification of tadpoles. Kinley Creek was surveyed for riparian-dependant species suitability in June of 2003 and April of 2004. During the 2003 surveys, arroyo toad tadpoles were observed and photographed by SBNF biologists. On June 5, 2003, Edward L. Ervin (biologist with USGS-San Diego) confirmed the identification of arroyo toad tadpoles by photographic review.

Page 45 – Arroyo Toad Appendix C - MIS Species Account - S. Province

Subsequent surveys in 2003, 2004, and 2005 failed to detect arroyo toads in any age class. Therefore, breeding does not appear to occur every year at this site. More survey work is needed at this location. Tables 3 and 4 summarize survey efforts and results at this site. More recently, Chris Brown (USGS) examined the photographs and believes that the tadpoles were not arroyo toads. Until additional surveys are completed, the SBNF is considering this an arroyo toad occurrence.

Little Horsethief Canyon This site has the densest arroyo toad population on SBNF (as shown by USGS surveys and USFS surveys by Melinda Benton and Kathie Meyer). Little Horsethief Creek dried up in July 2006 and in May 2007 with the exceptions of some very isolated pools under heavy cover. It is unclear if periodic drying has happened in the past. More water was present in lower reaches in other drought periods than in 2006-2007 (K. Meyer pers. observ.). No nocturnal surveys were conducted in 2007. SBNF biologists visited the site and confirmed breeding had occurred (arroyo toad tadpoles were present) in 2007 but a second visit that year found that most of the creek had dried up by late May 2007. It is not known whether tadpoles had enough time to meta- morph during 2007. In May 2008, SBNF biologists conducted a monitoring survey and detected 28 adult arroyo toads in the lower reaches of FS land in this creek (K. Meyer, pers. observ.). In SBNF biologists visited the site in May 2009 and detected arroyo toads in the lower reaches of FS land in this creek (K. Boss, pers. observ.). In May 2010, SBNF biologists conducted a monitoring survey and detected 12 adult arroyo toads in the lower reaches of FS land in this creek (K. Boss pers. oberv.).

Tables 3 and 4 summarize survey efforts and results at this site. USGS is currently finishing up a study using skeletochronology to look at age class distribution of arroyo toads. Little Horsethief is the only site on the SBNF that offered a large enough population of toads for an adequate sample size.

Grass Valley Creek (Adjacent to Mountaintop Ranger District) This site is on private land downstream of NFS land. Although Tom Dodson and Associates’ surveys in Grass Valley Creek and an un-named tributary extended approximately two miles onto NFS lands, no arroyo toads were located on NFS lands (TDA report). USGS also conducted several times between 2001 and 2005 on NFS lands in Grass Valley Creek and also failed to detect arroyo toads on NFS lands. This is probably because the stream becomes too steep as it crosses the SBNF boundary. There may be some limited suitable habitat on NFS lands but most is probably off-NFS lands.

The most recent survey effort in Grass Valley Creek was by Tom Dodson & Associates biologists who surveyed Grass Valley Creek between Pilot Rock and the Highway 173 crossing in 2006. During night-time surveys, they identified adult arroyo toad by their distinct calls. No arroyo toad tadpoles were located during the daytime survey efforts. They observed amphibian egg masses and strings but did not confirm species.

Page 46 – Arroyo Toad Appendix C - MIS Species Account - S. Province

IX. CONCLUSIONS In the Land Management Plan for the southern California National Forests (Southern California Province), the arroyo toad was selected as an MIS for low-elevation riparian and aquatic ecosystems.

Arroyo toads and their habitat have been impacted by water diversions, water extractions, flood control structures, developments, roads, recreation and grazing. However, since the 1990s, protective measures have improved occupied arroyo toad habitat on NFS Lands. Management actions to protect arroyo toads and their habitat have included elimination/reduction of grazing near/in occupied habitat, decommissioning and seasonal closures of recreation facilities and roads in/near occupied habitat, installation of habitat protection barriers, elimination of parking opportunities near occupied habitat, etc...

In spite of FS efforts to protect arroyo toads and their habitat, other factors such as long periods of severe drought have likely resulted in negative impacts. Continued human population growth in southern California has likely resulted in increasing recreational impacts and pressures in occupied and suitable habitat. Additional impacts to habitat have continued as a result of water diversions, water extractions, and flood control structures, both under Forest Service permit and on adjacent non-NFS lands.

Across the S. Province, monitoring has consistently focused on determining presence/absence, status of reproductive activity, distribution and changed habitat conditions. Monitoring efforts have not typically been designed to obtain the level of information needed to determine trend. Based on this, it is not possible to make a definitive statement regarding trends in abundance and habitat conditions for the S. Province.

X. FIVE-YEAR RECOMMENDATIONS The following recommendations have been developed based on the results of five years of monitoring since the completion of the Forest Plan in 2005 and observed impacts to arroyo toads, arroyo toad habitat and riparian and aquatic habitat conditions.

1. Conduct systematic protocol-level surveys of arroyo toad surveys periodically (ideally every 2 or 3 years) across the S. Province. All known and historic sites should be surveyed concurrently in order to assess the Province-wide population status. Without consistent, systematic, and concurrent surveys, detecting changes in population status and trends will be impossible. Some Forests (e.g., SBNF) have not had systematic surveys done for several years and have no plans to do any in 2011 and 2012 given current budget constraints.

2. Evaluate aquatic/riparian habitat conditions and then implement the measures necessary for improvement and restoration. These measures could include but are not limited to the following: relocate developed recreation sites away from riparian habitat; seasonally restrict use of recreation sites; remove or reduce grazing in riparian habitat either year- round or seasonally (during breeding season for birds and amphibians); engineer road and trail crossings to reduce impacts to riparian/aquatic conditions; use barriers/screens/signs

Page 47 – Arroyo Toad Appendix C - MIS Species Account - S. Province

to reduce the likelihood of unauthorized off-road vehicle travel; implement seasonal closures of roads/trails in riparian habitat; etc…

Priority should be placed on sites with known occurrences or suitable habitat for arroyo toad and other TES riparian-obligate species (e.g., mountain yellow-legged frog, California red-legged frog, southwestern willow flycatcher, least Bell’s vireo, San Bernardino kangaroo rat, Santa Ana River woolystar, slender-horned spineflower, thread- leaved brodiaea, California taraxacum, Nevin’s barberry, San Bernardino bluegrass, bird’s foot checkerbloom, slender-petalled mustard, Santa Ana sucker, southern steelhead, unarmored three-spine stickleback, Mojave tui chub, etc.).

3. In TES occupied and suitable habitat, evaluate water diversions and extractions under Special Use Permits. Develop measures to reduce or eliminate associated impacts on riparian habitat and associated species. Identify and eliminate unauthorized water diversions and extractions.

4. To avoid or reduce impacts associated with recreation and illegal use in aquatic/riparian habitats, increase education and enforcement efforts.

Literature Cited Clayton, Creed. 2006. The Endangered Arroyo Toad: How is It Doing? Declining Amphibian Conference, Abstracts. Arcadia, CA.

Gergus, E.W.A., B.K. Sullivan and K.B. Malmos. 1997. Call variation in the Bufo microscaphus complex: implications for species boundaries and the evolution of mate recognition. Ethology 103:979-989.

Holland, Dan C., Norman R. Sisk, Robert H. Goodman, Jr. 2001. Linear transect censusing of the arroyo toad (Bufo californicus) from 1996-2000 on MCB Camp Pendleton, San Diego County, California. Contract Report for AC/S Environmental Security, MCB Camp Pendleton.

Madden-Smith, M.C., A. J. Atkinson, R. N. Fisher, W. R. Danskin and G. O. Mendez. 2004. Assessing the Risk of Loveland Dam Operations to the Arroyo Toad (Bufo californicus) in the Sweetwater River Channel, San Diego County, California. 58 pp.

Mahrdt, CR, RE Lovich, SJ Zimmitti, and GD Danemann. 2003. Geographic distribution: Bufo californicus (California arroyo toad). www.natureserve.org/infonatura

Patten and Myers. 1992, Herpetol. Rev. 23:122

Ramirez, R.S., Jr. 2000. Arroyo toad (Bufo californicus) radio telemetry study, Little Rock Creek, Los Angeles County, CA. USDA Forest Service, Arcadia, CA.

Stephenson, J.R.; Calcarone, G.M. 1999. Southern California mountains and foothills assessment: Habitat and species conservation issues. General Technical Report PSW-

Page 48 – Arroyo Toad Appendix C - MIS Species Account - S. Province

GTR-172. Albany, CA: Pacific Southwest Research Station, Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture.

Suarez, A., Fisher, R.N., Case, T.J., 2001. Bottom-Up Effects on Persistence in a Fragmented Landscape: Argentine Ants and Coastal Horned Lizards. Society for Conservation Biology. Hilo, Hawaii. July 29-August 1, 2001.

Sweet, Samuel S. 1992. Initial report on the ecology and status of the arroyo toad (Bufo microscaphus californicus) on the Lo sPadres National Forest of southern California, with management recommendations. USDA Forest Service, Contract report, Goleta, California.

Sweet, Samuel S. 1993. Second report on the biology and status of the arroyo toad (Bufo microscaphus californicus) on the Los Padres National Forest of southern California. USDA Forest Service. Contract report. Goleta, California.

Sweet, Samuel S. & Brian K. Sullivan. 2005. Bufo californicus Camp, 1915 ARROYO TOAD. In Amphibian Declines The Conservation Status of United States Species. Ed. Michael Lannoo. Univ of Ca Press, Ltd. London, Eng. pp. 396-400.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1994. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants: determination for endangered status for the arroyo southwestern toad. Fed Register 59(241): 64859-64866.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2000. Biological opinion on the effects of ongoing national forest activities that may affect listed riparian species on the CNF, the Los Padres National Forest, the San Bernardino National Forest and Angeles National Forest in southern California (1-6-99-F-21).

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2009. Arroyo Toad (Bufo californicus (=microscaphus)) 5-Year Review: Summary and Evaluation. Ventura Fish and Wildlife Office. Ventura, California.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2011. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Revised Critical Habitat for the Arroyo Toad. Final Rule. 50 CFR Part 17, [Docket No. FWS–R8– ES–2009–0069; MO 92210–0–0009–B4]. Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 27 / Wednesday, February 9, 2011 / Rules and Regulations.

USDA Forest Service. 2005. Species Accounts-Arroyo toad. In Reading Room, Land Management Plan Final Environmental Impact Statement.

USDA Forest Service. Final Environmental Impact Statement, Land Management Plans. General Technical Report, R5-MB-074-A.

Uyehara, J.C. Ryan Bourque, David Freed, Maeton Freel, Valerie Hubbartt, Katherine Malengo, Thomas Murphey, L. Rizo Patron. 2004. Did users on the Los Padres National Forest

Page 49 – Arroyo Toad Appendix C - MIS Species Account - S. Province

impact arroyo toad and red-legged frog breeding in 2002? Poster, Western Section of the Wildlife Society. Rohnert Park, CA.

Uyehara, J.C., Valerie K Hubbartt, Samuel S Sweet. 2006. Monitoring Arroyo Toad Populations within the Los Padres National Forest, California. 2006 Annual Conference of the Western Section of the Wildlife Society. Sacramento, CA.

Internet sources: www.natureserve.org/explorer/servlet/NatureServe?searchName=Bufo+californicus. Nature Serve website with species accounts.

Personal Communications Anderson, S., Southern California National Forest Province Biologist. Case, Ted. Chair, Ecology Department, University of California, San Diego. Chris Brown, USGS Biologist. Loe, Steve, San Bernardino National Forest Biologist

Page 50 – Arroyo Toad Appendix C - MIS Species Account - S. Province

MANAGEMENT INDICATOR SPECIES ACCOUNT for SONG SPARROW IN THE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA PROVINCE

SUMMARY In the Land Management Plan for the southern California National Forests (Southern California Province), the song sparrow was chosen as a Management Indicator Species (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. Trends in abundance and/or habitat conditions are to be used as ©Terry Sohl measurements for evaluation. The prescribed monitoring method is to be Riparian Bird Counts (RBC) and/or habitat conditions.

Song sparrows are well-represented on all four Forests in the S. Province. Riparian Bird Counts were conducted at 206 sites on the four Forests annually between 1988 and 1996 and again in 2003. Other data (e.g., Breeding Bird Surveys and Christmas Bird Counts) were evaluated to determine if they could be used for monitoring song sparrow populations in the S. Province or fill in the data gaps for the RBC. Because of inconsistencies in survey efforts in those other methods, it is not possible to evaluate population status or trends. The RBCs are the most accurate method for evaluation.

Negative trends in song sparrow abundance were detected on all four Forests by the RBCs. All were statistically significant except the Cleveland National Forest. No monitoring has been conducted at the RBC sites since 2003 so it is not possible to determine current population status or trends.

The cause of the song sparrow population declines is uncertain, but several factors may be contributing. Song sparrows need an abundance of herbaceous vegetation and are easily affected by activities that impact vegetation conditions. Dispersed recreation use concentrated in these areas continues to increase and continues to result in habitat degradation/destruction and disturbance to riparian dependent species. Domestic and commercial water extractions and diversions contribute to degraded riparian habitat conditions, resulting in shrinking of riparian zones and lower quality habitat.

Climate change may also be affecting song sparrows and riparian habitat. An extreme drought event between 1999 and 2003 may have been partially responsible for the apparent population decline. Large wildfires have also resulted in the temporary loss of riparian habitat and may have affected population size and habitat occupancy.

In order to use song sparrows as an indicator of riparian conditions, it is imperative that the monitoring surveys be conducted periodically (ideally every 2 or 3 years). It is important that monitoring be expanded to include mid- and higher-elevation riparian zones in order to determine if there is an actual decline in song sparrow populations or whether there is a shift in the population toward higher elevations. Without these surveys, there is no accurate method to meet the monitoring requirements. Recommendations are included at the end of this document.

Page 1 – Song Sparrow Appendix C - MIS Species Account - S. Province

I. INTRODUCTION In the Land Management Plan (LMP) (2006) for the southern California National Forests (Southern California Province), the song sparrow was selected as a Management Indicator Species (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 song sparrow (Melospiza melodia) is identified by California Partners in Flight as a riparian focal species, and is considered one of the best indicators of riparian health in the western U.S., since over 90% of song sparrow nests are found in riparian vegetation (Big Sur Ornithological Lab 2000).

The song sparrow is widely scattered across all of North America and is a widespread breeder throughout California, except for much of the higher mountains and the deserts (Small 1994, Sauer et al. 1999). In southern California, the song sparrow is a common permanent resident in riparian thickets and wet brush; resident locally in lower mountain areas (Garrett and Dunn 1981). It is seen only rarely in desert areas outside of its breeding range (Sauer et al. 2005, Unitt 2004).

In fall, the breeding resident song sparrows of southern California move to lowlands. They are uncommon fall transients and winter visitors to eastern and southeastern deserts.

II. SYSTEMATICS The number of recognized subspecies of song sparrows has fluctuated with 24 currently recognized (Cornell http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/704/articles/systematics). There are twelve subspecies that breed in CA (13 historically, one which is now extinct) and eight that are endemic to the state (Shuford 1993, Grinnell and Miller 1944, Roberson and Tenney 1993). Four additional subspecies winter in California (Grinnell and Miller 1944).

There are three subspecies that may be found on National Forest System (NFS) lands in the S. Province:

Page 2 – Song Sparrow Appendix C - MIS Species Account - S. Province

M. melodia cooperi - The San Diego song is found on all four National Forests and is the most common subspecies expected to occur. Patten (2001 in Arcese et al. 2002) considers this subspecies to be part of the Heerman's Song Sparrow subspecies complex. M. melodia saltonis - The desert song sparrow may occur on the CNF. Patten (2001 in Arcese et al. 2002) considers this subspecies to be part of the M. m. fallax subspecies complex and not diagnosably different. M. melodia gouldi - The Marin song sparrow occurs on the northern portion of the LPNF. Formerly known as the Santa Cruz song sparrow (M. m. santaecrucis), it is now Marin song sparrow in portions of its range (Nolan 1968e, Patten 2001 in Arcese et al. 2002).

III. MANAGEMENT DIRECTION The National Forests in southern California (Los Padres [LPNF], Angeles [ANF], San Bernardino [SBNF], and Cleveland [CNF]) have LMPs that are united by a common vision, design criteria, and Final EIS (USFS 2006). The LMPs for the four Forests are programmatic documents that leave all specific design decisions and analyses to project-level plans (USFS 2006). Part Three (Design Criteria) of the LMP also refers to auxiliary documents and agreements, such as conservation strategies, that provide additional guidance for management actions. Direction in the LMP to provide special management for riparian conservation areas (LMP, Part 3, Appendix E) benefits song sparrows by protecting riparian habitat.

The desired condition identified in the LMP for song sparrows is that wildlife habitat conditions sustain healthy populations of native and desired non-native fish and game species. Wildlife habitat functions are also to be 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).

According to the LMP, the desired condition is that flow regimes in streams are sufficient to allow threatened, endangered, proposed, candidate, and/or sensitive aquatic and riparian- dependent species to persist and complete all phases of their life cycles (LMP, Part 1, p. 45). The desired 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 LMP objectives for song sparrow are stable or increasing populations and healthy riparian habitat.

IV. SELECTION AS A MANAGEMENT INDICATOR SPECIES The song sparrow was selected as a Management Indicator Species (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.

Trends in abundance and/or habitat conditions are the measurements for evaluation. The monitoring method is riparian bird counts and/or habitat conditions (LMP FEIS, Vol. 1. p. 177, Table 433). Abundance trends for song sparrow and habitat condition assessments are expected to help indicate whether National Forest management practices are maintaining healthy riparian ecosystems in the face of the increasing recreation demand.

Page 3 – Song Sparrow Appendix C - MIS Species Account - S. Province

V. ECOLOGY The desert song sparrow (M. melodia saltonis) occurs in the Salton Basin and lower Colorado River valley. It is found in riparian plant associations and marshes.

San Deigo song sparrows (M. melodia cooperi) are found from valleys of coast ranges from southern Monterey County southward, and Pacific slopes of southern California south to Mexican boundary, eastward across desert divides into Mojave River drainage and streams on east side of San Jacinto Mountains and mountains of San Diego county (CalPIF). This subspecies is found in riparian areas and marshes (primarily fresh water). It is considered common in riparian woodland and riparian scrub (Unitt 1999). In Orange County, San Deigo song sparrows are a common permanent resident of marshes, riparian scrub and mesic chaparral from the coast to foothills. They also breed in riparian habitat in mountains, where they are locally a fairly common breeder (but are rare in winter) up to 3000 feet (Hamilton and Willick 1996).

Small (1994) states that M. melodia cooperi breeding elevations are generally from 200’ below sea level to about 5000’; Garrett and Dunn 1981) noted that small numbers breed up to about 8,200’ in the mountains of southern California. Data from the Big Bear Lake area of the SBNF indicate breeding at 7600’. Between 1992 and 1996, Point Reyes Bird Observatory personnel and Barbara Carlson (UC-Riverside) conducted a study of meadow-nesting species to assess, in part, effectiveness of different sampling methods. Song sparrows were detected at two sampling sites during the study during the nesting season, Bluff Lake Meadow (7600’ elevation) and Metcalf Meadow (7400’ elevation) south of Big Bear Lake. In a separate survey effort, song sparrows were detected in Crystal Creek (~5000’), a desert-facing riparian drainage on the northern slope of the San Bernardino Mountains (S. Myers 1988). The presence of nesting song sparrows at higher elevations and on desert-facing slopes should be noted in considering nesting distributions for song sparrows.

The Marin song sparrow (M. melodia gouldi) is a resident in central coast districts from interior and southern coastal Mendocino County and Lake County, south to northern shores of San Francisco Bay but exclusive of salt-marsh areas; from coast inland to western Solano and Yolo Counties, west and south to Marin County. It also occurs coastally south of Marin County to the Santa Cruz Mountains area.

V-1. Habitat Requirements In California, song sparrows occupy a characteristic niche consisting of shrubs on moist ground along streams, sloughs, marsh, or coastline, and all races occupy a wide range of habitats (e.g., stream-side vegetation to salt marsh), as available. Over 90% of song sparrow nests are found in riparian vegetation (Big Sur Ornithological Lab 2000). Its distribution is defined by the presence of water through the breeding season, becoming scarce where undergrowth is reduced along ephemeral streams (Roberson and Tenney 1993).

Song sparrows are typically found in riparian areas with a dense understory. Freshwater marshes are also used by three of the subspecies in California (in the Salton Basin, lower Colorado River Valley, southern San Joaquin Valley, and the southern Sacramento Valley).

Page 4 – Song Sparrow Appendix C - MIS Species Account - S. Province

In California, song sparrows primarily breed in riparian habitat or coastal and inland wetlands, or coastal scrub along the fog belt where the lack of standing or running water is compensated by moisture from fog (Burridge 1995, Roberson and Tenney 1993). Marshall (1948) concluded that song sparrows main requirements are a source of water (which in the case of coastal or dune scrub may mean constant moisture from fog, dew, or seepage), moderately dense vegetation, plenty of light, and exposed ground or leaf litter for foraging.

Song sparrow habitat needs include early successional willow and non-willow riparian habitats, with dense understory, particularly including California blackberry (CPIF website 2000). The importance of small red alder trees for song sparrows (significant positive correlation between nest success and number of trees within 11.3m of the nest) within the Golden Gate NRA suggests the importance of early successional, non-willow riparian habitat for this species (Gardali et al. 1998). In eastern Oregon, song sparrow abundance increased with willow abundance along a stream (Sanders and Edge 1998). Marshall (1948) says that in riparian habitat, song sparrows are absent where understory is removed by grazing or other factors, and that they are absent in riparian habitat that is over-topped by tall trees such as redwoods.

In the Lassen area, grasses and sedges were commonly used nesting substrates (38%), followed by willow saplings (31%), spirea (13%), alder (6%) and corn lily (4%) (King and King 2000). In the Eastern Sierra, song sparrows were observed nesting in willow, wild rose, and big sagebrush (Heath and Ballard 1999a). In riparian habitat of the Point Reyes National Seashore, nesting substrates were also primarily California blackberry (42%), followed by hedge nettle (15%), stinging nettle (12%), sedge (11%), coyote bush (8%), salmonberry (4%), and grass (3%) (Small and Geupel 1998). In riparian habitat in Marin County during 1997 and 1998, along Redwood and Lagunitas Creeks, nest substrates were primarily in California blackberry (69%), followed by Himalayan blackberry (8%), grass (8%), Cape ivy (3%), and stinging nettle (3%) (Gardali et al. 1998). In riparian habitat at the San Luis National Wildlife Refuge, the selected nesting substrates were diverse; grasses (19%), poison hemlock (13%), blackberry (13%), and mugwort, dock, gum plant, sunflower, wiregrass, and oxtongue, all at 7% (Ballard and Geupel 1998).

Song sparrows are also known to adapt to urban areas and may occupy hedges, landscaping, and nurseries where there is a dependable source of water. Song sparrow abundance is negatively correlated with the use of riparian understory habitat for grazing and recreation (Marshall 1948) and positively correlated with the abundance of herbaceous vegetation (Ballard and Geupel 1998). Song sparrows are also known to adapt to agricultural and landscaped areas. In San Diego County, they have been documented nesting in gardens, nurseries, and weedy areas, and may occupy territories as small as 0.05 acres (Unitt 2004). The song sparrows that occur in urban or suburban areas are not likely to be detected along Breeding Bird Survey routes, and their colonization of these new habitats may partially compensate for declines in other areas.

V-2. Home Range/Territory Size for Southern California No data are available for home range/territory size in southern California. In riparian habitat along in the eastern Sierra in 1999, the number of territories per creek kilometer was determined along 1.65 creek kilometers of Independence Creek (1.2 territories per creek and 4.55 creek kilometers of Birch Creek (0.2 territories per creek km) (Heath and Ballard 1999). In riparian habitat along Lagunitas Creek in Marin County, the number of song sparrow territories per

Page 5 – Song Sparrow Appendix C - MIS Species Account - S. Province hectare ranged from 5 to 6.7 during the 1998 field season. In riparian habitat along Redwood Creek Marin County in 1998, territories ranged from 4.4 to 8.1 per hectare (Gardali et al. 1998).

V-3. Diet and Foraging Song sparrows feed on seeds, fruits, and insects. Beal 1910 in Shuford 1996 characterized the year-round diet is 21% invertebrate matter and 79% i vegetable matter. They found that animal prey varies during the year (3% in September and 71+% in May). Important invertebrate items included beetles, caterpillars, bees, ants, wasps, true bugs, flies; chief plant food: weed seed.

Song sparrows forage primarily on the ground, picking food from the ground or litter or at bases of bushes. They also glean food from foliage. Song sparrows are noted for scratching the ground with their feet to expose invertebrates hidden under surface litter (Roberson and Tenney 1993). They also search the mud or shallow water along streams (Shuford 1993).

V-4. Reproductive Habits Song sparrows nest on or near the ground, in dense undergrowth. They build an open cup nest with three to four eggs (rarely two to six) (Erlich et al. 1988). Song sparrows typically have two or three broods per year but may have as many as four (Ehrlich et al. 1988). The female broods the eggs and both parents feed nestlings and fledglings. The incubation period is 12-14 days (Erlich et al. 1988) and the nestling period is 9-12 days. In southern California, nesting may begin as early as mid-February and will continue through July (Unitt 2004). At the San Joaquin Valley San Luis NWR, the earliest date of clutch completion was April 4 and the latest was June 27; and the mean was May 17 (Ballard and Geupel 1998).

The nests are mostly located low to the ground, infrequently to 28 feet (Bent 1968). Nice (1964) found that most first nests of the season are located on the ground, almost the only places in her study area in Ohio where there is sufficient cover to conceal the nest that time of year.

Song sparrows can be highly territorial even in fall (Nice 1964) and thru winter (Roberson and Tenney 1993). Breeding song sparrows reach peak densities in riparian areas, on islands, and bordering tidal marshes on the Pacific Coast, where individuals often defend territories year- round (Arcese et al. 2002). Breeding density is typically around four pairs/hectare (Arcese et al. 2002). However, studies of marked territorial pairs gave densities of 9–90 pairs/ha in San Francisco Bay, CA, tidal marsh and bordering scrub (Johnston 1956a, 1956b).

Courting males chase females, fluttering wings, often sailing and singing; they fly among perches with neck outstretched, head and tail held high, and wings vibrating (Erhlich et al. 1988). The mating system is monogamous; but polygamy is known to occur (Erhlich et al. 1988, Nice 1964).

V-5. Dispersal In an Ohio study, of 26 males that were banded in the nest and survived to adulthood, 22 took up territories between 100 and 1400 m from their birthplaces, with a median distance of 280 m. Of 14 females that survived to adulthood, 2 disappeared, and 12 settled between 45 and 1300 m from their birthplaces, with a median distance 270 m (Nice 1964).

Page 6 – Song Sparrow Appendix C - MIS Species Account - S. Province

V-6. Daily/Seasonal Activity Some subspecies winter in southern California; some are year-round residents in many regions. Most or all song sparrows depart from mountain areas in southern California in winter (Garrett and Dunn 1981). In mountain riparian habitat up to 3000 feet in Orange County, they are locally fairly common breeders but are rare in winter (Willick 1996).

V-7. Predator-Prey Relations Potential predators at Cosumnes include feral/domestic cats, raccoons, skunks, Virginia opossums, rodents such as Norway rats, western scrub jays and, American crows (DiGaudio and Geupel 1998). Of the depredated nests in riparian habitat in Golden Gate NRA in 1998 (n=19), 36% of nests had damage to the nest structure (likely preyed upon by larger mammals), and 64% were depredated without damage (likely preyed upon by avian predators such as jays, by snakes, or by small mammals) (Gardali et al. 1998). Predators of wetland nests with dummy eggs on an island in British Columbia included mice, shrews, and marsh wrens, as well as unidentified large mammals and other birds; other potential avian nest predators there were marsh wrens, Northwestern crows, and Bewick’s wrens (Rogers et al. 1997).

VI. THREATS, HABITAT CONDITIONS, AND HABITAT TRENDS Song sparrows are at risk due to changes in or loss of riparian habitat due to development, water extraction or other activities, brood-parasitism by brown-headed cowbirds, and predation by native wildlife as well as introduced cats, dogs, and rodents.

The amount of riparian habitat in California has been greatly reduced by development. Flood control channels, dams, and agricultural and residential development have destroyed thousands of acres of habitat. For the portion of California west of the Sierra Nevada, Transverse, and Peninsular Ranges, approximately 89% of riparian habitat has been lost (Noss and Peters 1989). As the human population continues to grow and the demand for water and recreation opportunities increases, the pressures on riparian habitat will continue to increase.

There are concerns with very low productivity in some regions in the state, particularly some areas in the Central Valley. Brood parasitism rates are high in some regions of the state. Habitat degradation may be responsible for all of the above, particularly the destruction of riparian understory. The species is not overly sensitive to human-induced disturbance (CalPIF website).

VI-1. Riparian Habitat Conditions and Trend Riparian habitat is one of California’s most endangered habitats, with less than five percent of riparian woodlands present at the time of statehood remaining (http://www.werc.usgs.gov/ sandiego/flycat.html). In Southern California, only 3 to 5% of the pre-settlement riparian forest remains, the rest having been converted primarily to farming or urban uses (http://www. fscr.org/html/1996-02.html).

In California, riparian habitats have declined in quality and quantity at low elevations, where they historically were most extensive. Estimates indicate that channelization and diversion of streams in the past century have reduced the extent of riparian habitats in southern California by more than 90%. More recently, strong regulatory policies on "no net loss" of wetlands and

Page 7 – Song Sparrow Appendix C - MIS Species Account - S. Province floodplains have helped to check this decline. The extent of riparian habitats on National Forest System lands is considered to be relatively stable (LMP EIS Vol. 1, p. 207).

The health, vigor and structural condition of the riparian vegetation are generally good across the S. Province National Forests, except where affected by large-acreage wildland fires. Foothill riparian areas are cool, pleasant places near large and growing urban populations, so increases in recreation pressure are inevitable. Riparian habitat degradation currently tends to be localized in a few popular, easily accessible areas. Livestock grazing in riparian areas within the National Forests has been substantially reduced during the past 15 years, resulting in some improvements in vegetation condition (LMP EIS Vol. 1, p. 207).

No other vegetation type in the southern California National Forests has been so drastically altered by human activities as riparian zones. Ecological processes have been altered by the development of water storage and diversion structures, invasion of undesirable nonnative species, urbanization, and, to a lesser extent, livestock grazing, recreation, and mining. Low- elevation streams face greater threats than high-elevation streams because riparian areas and their water flows are more likely to be diverted or altered, more likely to be urbanized, and more likely to be invaded by non-native plant and animal species (LMP EIS Vol. 1, p. 98).

A prolonged drought in southern California between 1999 and 2003 resulted in a significant loss of trees and shrubs in all habitats. Water levels in streams were severely impacted. Another riparian obligate bird, the southwestern willow flycatcher, experienced a severe population decline on the SBNF during this period (going from a high of 37 occupied territories in 2001 to a low of no occupied territories in 2004). This same drought period may have similarly affected song sparrow populations, especially at more inland sites. Tree mortality and drought effects were not as pronounced in coastal areas.

The National Forests include the headwaters for most of the major river systems in Southern California. As part of the LMP revision process, each of the 88 watersheds on the Southern California National Forests was analyzed and assigned a watershed condition rating. The rating was based on indicators for hydrology, soils, and geology and professional judgment indicators such as connectivity, water quality and quantity, riparian vegetation, and channel stability. Watersheds received the following ratings: 48% in good condition, 38% in moderate condition, and 13% in poor condition. The watersheds rated in poor condition usually contained only a small amount of National Forest System land, and conditions resulting in poor ratings were roads and development on private lands within the watershed (Forest Service 2006).

Dams and Diversions: In-stream water storage and diversions have dramatically reduced the extent of riparian habitats in this region. In fact, approximately 95 - 97% of low-elevation floodplain riparian habitat in southern California has been eliminated, and most major streams now contain dams or diversions. In addition, many smaller streams and springs have been dammed or diverted for water supplies and local flood control. Subsurface waters have been heavily tapped for domestic water, lowering water tables and base flows of many springs and streams (LMP EIS Vol. 1, p. 99).

Page 8 – Song Sparrow Appendix C - MIS Species Account - S. Province

Dams remove riparian habitat directly by inundation, but cause greater habitat degradation by altering downstream hydrologic regimes and sediment budgets. Typically, dams reduce the magnitude and frequency of flood events, thereby increasing base flows, greatly reducing downstream transport of sediment, and altering water temperatures (LMP EIS Vol. 1, p. 99).

The reduction in the magnitude and frequency of flood flows removes key disturbance processes in floodplain and riparian habitats. Many riparian trees (such as white alders, willows, and cottonwood) are short-lived and regenerate on floodplains and streambanks following flooding and sediment deposition. Thus, even though major floods remove vegetation by scouring and altering channel morphology, they also deposit sediments necessary for plant regeneration and fish spawning (LMP EIS Vol. 1, p. 99).

The interruption of the sediment supply by dams results in the water having greater erosive force, which in turn causes downstream channel incision. Channel incision lowers the water table and increases the vertical distance from the stream to the floodplain. Stream reaches below dams often lack sand and fine gravel and are marked by a series of deep scour pools floored with boulders and mud (Stephenson and Calcarone 1999). Temporary in-stream levees and sand bars suitable for plant establishment and growth do not form. As a result, many stream and river reaches lack gravels suitable for anadromous fish spawning. As stream incision progresses, stream banks supporting riparian vegetation are undercut and may disappear altogether (LMP EIS Vol. 1, p. 99).

The timing and duration of water releases from reservoirs greatly affects downstream riparian habitats. For example, large, sudden releases (particularly in the summer months) can scour away a whole year's reproductive effort by species such as arroyo toads (Bufo microscaphus californicus), California red-legged frogs (Rana aurora), pond turtles (Actinemys marmorata), and California newts (Taricha torosa). Potential spawning beds are compromised when sand and gravel bars are removed. Cooler in-stream water temperatures not only favor introduced species such as brown trout but also have detrimental effects on native warm-water fish. Conversely, low-level, year-round flow regimes facilitate the spread of exotics such as bullfrogs, sunfish, bass, bluegill, catfish and Asian clams into downstream areas that historically were summer-dry (LMP EIS Vol. 1, p. 99).

ANF – Habitat Conditions: Many of the significant riparian areas on the ANF are altered due to reservoirs, including Big Tujunga, Piru, Bouquet, Littlerock, Castaic, San Gabriel and Pacoima. Heavy recreational use and non-native invasive weeds continue to be significant issues adversely impacting riparian habitat. On the positive side, grazing is not allowed on the Angeles, preventing additional impacts.

CNF– Habitat Conditions: Conservation of riparian areas has been a top priority for the CNF since at least the 1980s and the CNF has implemented measures to enhance and protect these areas, including reducing or excluding livestock grazing, re-routing roads and trails away from streams, and replanting streamside areas with willows. Because of the emphasis on protecting and enhancing riparian habitat on the CNF, in general riparian habitat is in stable or improving condition.

Page 9 – Song Sparrow Appendix C - MIS Species Account - S. Province

LPNF – Habitat Conditions: The LPNF is the exception to the generally high level of modification of riparian systems in southern California. Hydrologic regimes of most streams on the coastal side of the northern Santa Lucia Mountains remain unimpeded. Streams and rivers in these unaltered conditions include the Big Sur and Little Sur Rivers, San Carpoforo Creek, Willow Creek, Big Creek and others. In these aquatic habitats, there are few nonnative species, and many still support populations of southern steelhead, California red-legged frogs, foothill yellow-legged frogs (Rana boylii), tiger salamanders (Ambystoma californiense), and California giant salamanders (Dicamptodon ensatus) (LMP EIS Vol. 1, p. 99).

SBNF – Habitat Conditions: In some ways, riparian habitat conditions on much of the SBNF have improved over the last century. Elimination of most grazing operations on NFS lands has allowed riparain habitat to recover throughout the San Bernardino, San Jacinto, and eastern San Gabriel Mountains. Currently, grazing on the SBNF is restricted to three active allotments in the San Jacinto Mountains and part of one allotment on the eastern edge of the San Bernardino Mountains. Even within those allotments, tighter control over cattle numbers and allotment management has reduced riparian habitat and aquatic system impacts.

Likewise, timber harvesting operations on the SBNF have drastically changed over the past century. The closure of the last mill in southern California in the 1980s reduced the economic feasibility of large-scale timber harvesting locally. As such, the extent of timber harvesting has been cut dramatically. And, in current vegetation management efforts, technological advances and the need to protect rare habitats and species have resulted in lower impacts to riparian systems than occurred in the past. Both of these things, much reduced cattle grazing and more carefully planned vegetation treatment projects, have allowed riparain systems to recover from the conditions they were in 50-100 years ago.

However, riparian habitat within the San Bernardino, San Jacinto, and eastern San Gabriel 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, impacts to song sparrow populations likely have occurred due to reduction in habitat quality and quantity. Proposed and planned developments in and adjacent to the SBNF will certainly result in increased recreational uses in riparian areas in the SBNF. Demands on water, and thus riparian habitat both on and off the SBNF, are likely continue to increase.

Roads and trails in the SBNF, including those that are designated system roads and user-created, continue to have high levels of impacts in riparian habitat due to erosion, sediment, loss of riparian vegetation to vehicle disturbance, stream bottom impacts due to vehicle use, etc. Additionally disturbance levels in riparain areas are high due to the desirability of recreating in or near riparian areas. All of these activities affect water quality as well as vegetation.

VI-2. Threats from Recreation Concentrated recreation use in some stream reaches on NFS lands has caused de-vegetation, bank trampling, littering, and pollution. Because foothill riparian areas are cool, pleasant places to escape the summer heat, recreation pressure is inevitable, especially near urban areas (LMP EIS Vol. 1, p. 100). Concentrated recreation use in some riparian areas has caused de-vegetation,

Page 10 – Song Sparrow Appendix C - MIS Species Account - S. Province bank trampling, littering, and pollution (LMP EIS Vol. 1, p. 100), all of which can degrade song sparrow habitat quality.

VI-3. Threats from Development and Urbanization Land and road development within watersheds also alter natural hydrologic regimes and can cause channel incision. Development decreases the infiltration capacity of watersheds and increases channelized runoff. Roads channel water into ditches, often increasing or altering the amount of water reaching streams. Such alterations increase peak storm runoff and the transport of pollutants and sediments from cleared lands.

Additional impacts to riparian systems on S. Province National Forests include livestock grazing and suction dredging and sand/gravel mining (LMP EIS Vol. 1, p. 100).

VI-4. Threats from Livestock Grazing Livestock grazing in riparian habitat can result in degradation or complete loss of riparian vegetation necessary for song sparrow breeding, foraging, and cover. Since the 1990s, grazing has been eliminated or scaled back in some riparian habitat on NFS lands in the S. Province. However, many grazing areas are intermingled with private lands where riparian grazing still occurs. In some riparian, maintenance of fence lines to prevent cattle movement onto public portions of the riparian corridor is an ongoing management problem (Stephenson and Calcarone 1999).

VI-5. Threats from Mining and Prospecting Suction-dredge mining and streamside prospecting have the potential to cause impacts to riparian vegetation important for song sparrow breeding, foraging and cover. Suction dredging and streamside prospecting occur in many riparian areas on NFS lands. In addition to actual ground- disturbance impacts, these activities can result in disturbance (presence of people and their dogs) of song sparrows. Depending on timing, disturbance may result in loss of eggs, nestlings, and/or abandonment of nesting sites.

VI-6. Threats from Non-Native Species Next to stream-flow alterations, the biggest factor threatening the health of riparian ecosystems is the spread of invasive nonnative plant and animal species. Reservoirs and other artificial aquatic habitats have facilitated the introduction of a wide variety of nonnative aquatic species into stream systems. Collectively, introduced species have caused serious declines in the capability of riverine habitats to support native species (LMP EIS Vol. 1, p. 99).

Invasive non-native plants are also a problem in some areas. Species such as tamarisk and arundo colonize newly created flood terraces and can form dense masses of vegetation. These dense stands have higher rates of evapo-transpiration than do native vegetation, thereby decreasing the amount of available surface water. Tamarisk and arundo also stabilize stream terraces, deepening flood channels and changing the riparian dynamics (Stephenson and Calcarone 1999). Increasing amounts of invasive annual grasses in riparian habitat may increase the likelihood of wildfire. In turn, post-fire conditions often favors invasive plants over native species further degrading riparain habitat conditions for species like song sparrows.

Page 11 – Song Sparrow Appendix C - MIS Species Account - S. Province

The song sparrow is a favorite cowbird host throughout most of its range (Nice 1964). Results from a study which correlated habitat structure variables with brood parasitism led authors to suggest that grazing, because of the manner in which it alters plant composition and reduces herbaceous cover, likely increases parasitism rates directly (Larison et al. 1998).

In riparian habitat in the South Fork Kern River Valley, parasitism levels were high during a 2- year study. In 1993, 63% of nests were parasitized, and in 1994, 46% were parasitized. They found no consistent differences of parasitism levels between mature and restored forest, but the study could not adequately assess for such differences due to cowbird removal efforts, cowbird densities, and ratio of cowbird to host species.

Habitat structure variables were examined and some relationships were found. Probability of parasitism increased as foliage cover at heights between 2 and 3 m increased, within 5 m of the nest. The presence of such foliage cover may provide cowbirds perches above the nest site, and thus increase their ability to find nests to host their eggs. Also, the rate of parasitism decreased as cover at less than a meter in height increased above the nest within 11.3 m of the nest. As this pattern was not found within 5 m of the nest, this suggests that such dense cover may reduce parasitism rates by preventing cowbirds from observing host activity in the vicinity (but not necessarily directly around) the nest, as well as directly concealing the nest itself. They suggest that dense vegetation may make finding the nest more difficult (Larison et al. 1998).

VII. POPULATION STATUS AND TREND IN THE SOUTHERN PROVINCE Methodology: The Forest Plan prescribed method for monitoring song sparrow is Riparian Bird Counts (RBC). Since the RBCs have not been conducted since 2003, other data (e.g., Breeding Bird Surveys [BBS] and Christmas Bird Counts) were evaluated to determine if they could be used for monitoring song sparrow populations in the s. Province or fill in the data gaps for the RBC. Because of inconsistencies in survey efforts in those other methods, it is difficult to evaluate population status or trends. BBS and Christmas Bird Count coverage on the s. Province National Forests is spotty, especially since 2000. The RBCs are the most accurate method for evaluation.

Riparian Bird Counts: The four southern Province National Forests have conducted periodic monitoring of riparian birds since 1988 by using “point count” methodology. These riparian bird count (RBC) surveys were conducted annually between 1988 and 1997 and in 2003 at 206 sites in the southern Province. This monitoring effort used randomly-generated stations of the “best” riparian areas under 4000’ in elevation; however, site selection was based on ease of access. Appendix A contains maps with the locations of the RBC surveys.

Song sparrows are well-represented on all four southern California National Forests; they were recorded at 197 out of 206 stations during the 1988-1997 and 2003 riparian bird count (RBC) surveys. In any one year, song sparrows were detected at 46% of the survey stations (Table 1). This species is one of a few that were numerous enough to estimate trends with good confidence.

Page 12 – Song Sparrow Appendix C - MIS Species Account - S. Province

Table 1. Riparian Bird Point Count Summary for NFS Lands - Song Sparrows % of Stations with Song Sparrows by Observer* % Stations with Song Observer 1 Observer 2 Observer 3 Sparrows Overall 48.77 44.32 45.73 46.27 *3 observers/station, includes 1988-1997 & 2003 data

For all four Forests, there was a declining trend over the period between 1988 and 2003, with all but the CNF being statistically significant (Table 2 and Figures 1-4). Overall, the local Southern Province Riparian Bird Count study found that conifer and ground-nesting species declined more than species nesting in other substrata, and that resident species declined more than migrants (Uyehara et al. 2005).

Table 2. Decrease in Song Sparrow Population Between 1988 and 2003 by Forest Forest Estimate P Value Significant? Trend ANF -0.03544452 0.00019705 Yes negative CNF -0.01645196 0.18310968 No negative LPNF -0.03673756 0.00059694 Yes negative SBNF -0.06070805 0.00000022 Yes negative Source: Sylvia Mori (Forest Service Pacific Southwest Research Station)and Jamie Uyehara (formerly of LPNF)

Page 13 – Song Sparrow Appendix C - MIS Species Account - S. Province

Page 14 – Song Sparrow Appendix C - MIS Species Account - S. Province

Page 15 – Song Sparrow Appendix C - MIS Species Account - S. Province

Breeding Bird Surveys: There are 23 BBS routes that are entirely or partially on NFS lands in the S. Province (5-ANF; 3-CNF; 8-LPNF; 6 SBNF). One of those routes, Woodland on the SBNF, lacks any data on the BBS data (http://www.mbr-pwrc.usgs.gov/bbs/).

The BBS data for the 22 routes were combined to evaluate whether the data could be used to determine song sparrow trends in the S. Province. In the 43 years between 1968 and 2010, the number of BBS routes surveyed each year was inconsistent (ranging from 1 -17 routes), with only 20 years having more than 50% of the BBS routes covered. None of the years since 1997 had more than 50% of the routes covered.

The following maps display trends over time for individual BBS routes in the S. Province and on the individual forests. Because of the inconsistencies in survey effort and small sample sizes for some routes, especially since 2000, the displayed trends should be viewed cautiously. The RBC data represent more accurate trends, at least at those low elevation sites. The BBS routes do cover some higher elevation areas, including riparian zones, that are not covered in the RBCs.

Page 16 – Song Sparrow Appendix C - MIS Species Account - S. Province

Page 17 – Song Sparrow Appendix C - MIS Species Account - S. Province

VIII. CONCLUSION In the LMP for the southern California National Forests, the song sparrow was chosen 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. Trends in abundance and/or habitat conditions are to be used as measurements for evaluation. Song sparrow abundance trends and habitat condition assessments are expected to help indicate whether National Forest management is maintaining healthy riparian ecosystems.

The prescribed monitoring method is to be Riparian Bird Counts (RBC) and/or habitat conditions. Song sparrows are well-represented on all Forests in the S. Province. Riparian Bird Counts were conducted at 206 sites on the four Forests annually between 1988 and 1996 and again in 2003. No RBCs have been conducted since 2003.

During the RBC surveys, negative trends in song sparrow abundance were detected on all four Forests, with all trends being statistically significant except the CNF. There is some variation between the different Forests in terms of the degree of the downward trend.

The decline in the number of song sparrows breeding in the southern Province suggests that there has been a declining trend in the riparian habitat conditions for which song sparrow is an MIS. However, it is believed that riparian conditions on the National Forests have generally improved since the 1990s due to changes in management practices.

The cause of the song sparrow population declines is uncertain. It is reasonable to speculate that numerous factors could contribute. While removing/reducing grazing from many riparian areas on NFS lands has reduced impacts to the habitat, there are still many pressures on riparian zones, especially low-elevation riparian areas close to urban areas. Dispersed recreation use concentrated in these areas continues to increase and result in habitat degradation/destruction and disturbance to riparian-dependent species. Studies have found that grazing and recreation both result in reduced song sparrow abundance.

Domestic and commercial water extractions/diversions likewise continue to degrade riparian habitat, resulting in shrinking of riparian zones and lower quality habitat. The effects of water extractions/diversions on riparian habitat are probably most severe during drought cycles.

Climate change may also be affecting riparian-dependent species, including song sparrows, and riparian habitat. Severe droughts during the late 1990s and early 2000s and exceptionally large wildfires since the mid-1990s have also lead to temporary or long-term degradation or loss of riparian habitat and may have affected population size and habitat occupancy. An extreme 200- 300 year drought event between 1999 and 2003 may have been partially responsible for the apparent population decline. Large wildfires in the past ten years have also resulted in the temporary loss of riparian habitat and may have affected population size and habitat occupancy. The extent and duration of fire and drought-related population declines is not possible to evaluate due to lack of monitoring since 2003.

Page 18 – Song Sparrow Appendix C - MIS Species Account - S. Province

It should be noted that no monitoring has been conducted in the RBC sites since 2003 so it is not possible to determine current population status or trends. Other data (e.g., Breeding Bird Surveys [BBS] and Christmas Bird Counts [CBC]) were evaluated to determine if they could be used for monitoring song sparrow populations in the S. Province or fill in the data gaps for the RBC. Because of inconsistencies in survey efforts in those other methods, it is not possible to evaluate population status or trends. Of the three, the RBCs have the best data set for evaluation of trends in the S. Province. However, there were problems with the RBCs when they were conducted. Observer skills varied to a great extent and there were access problems to some sites, both of which prevented consistent sampling between visits and between years.

In order to use song sparrows as an indicator of riparian conditions, survey methodology and an updated study design would need to be developed to address issues noted in the previous RBCs. It is imperative that surveys be conducted periodically (ideally every other year or no farther apart than every three years). It is important that monitoring be expanded to include mid- and higher-elevation riparian zones in order to determine if there is an actual decline in song sparrow populations or whether there is a shift in the population toward higher elevations. Without these surveys, meeting the Forest Plan monitoring requirements is not possible.

X. FIVE-YEAR RECOMMENDATIONS The following recommendations have been developed based on the results of five years of monitoring since the completion of the Forest Plan in 2005 and the downward trend in song sparrows indicating a decline in riparian habitat condition.

5. Surveys must be conducted periodically (ideally every 2 or 3 years). Since the RBCs have not been conducted since 2003, a priority should be placed on conducting surveys in 2012. Without the surveys, meeting the Forest Plan MIS monitoring requirements is not possible.

6. The monitoring study design should be re-evaluated in order to address problems with consistency and access that were experienced during the previous RBCs. It is important that monitoring be expanded to include mid- and higher-elevation riparian zones in order to determine if there is an actual decline in song sparrow populations or whether there is a shift in the population toward higher elevations. The prescribed monitoring method is RBCs and/or habitat conditions. It may be desirable to consider a habitat conditions methodology in addition to bird point count methods.

7. The S. Province National Forests should evaluate the need for and continue to implement actions that would improve and restore riparian habitat conditions. These could include: re-location of developed recreation sites away from riparian habitat; removal or reduction of grazing in riparian habitat (per Forest Plan direction); engineering road and trail crossings to reduce impacts to riparian/aquatic conditions and reduce the likelihood of unauthorized off-road vehicle travel; seasonal closures of roads/trails in riparian habitat; removal of non-native species, etc.

Page 19 – Song Sparrow Appendix C - MIS Species Account - S. Province

Priority should be placed on sites with known occurrences of or suitable habitat for TES riparian-obligate species (e.g., arroyo toad, mountain yellow-legged frog, California red- legged frog, southwestern willow flycatcher, least Bell’s vireo, San Bernardino kangaroo rat, Santa Ana River woolystar, slender-horned spineflower, thread-leaved brodiaea, California taraxacum, Nevin’s barberry, San Bernardino bluegrass, bird’s foot checkerbloom, slender-petalled mustard, Santa Ana sucker, southern steelhead, unarmored three-spine stickleback, Mojave tui chub, etc.).

8. The S. Province National Forests should place a priority on evaluating water diversions and extractions under Special Use Permits (with the highest priority on those sites with TES species/habitat) and developing measures to reduce or eliminate associated impacts on riparian habitat. At the same time, unauthorized diversions and extractions should be evaluated and eliminated or controlled under Special Use Permits.

9. The S. Province National Forest should increase education and enforcement efforts to help controlling recreation and illegal impacts in riparian habitats.

REFERENCES Arcese, P., M. K. Sogge, A. B. Marr, and M. A. Patten. 2002. Song Sparrow (Melospiza melodia). In The Birds of North America, No. 704 (A. Poole and F. Gill, eds.). The Birds of North America, Inc., Philadelphia, PA.

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.

Bent, A.C. Life histories of North American cardinals, grosbeaks, buntings, towhees, finches, sparrows, and allies (part two). U.S. National Museum Bulletin No. 237.

Big Sur Ornithology Lab. 2000. Breeding Bird Inventory Report. Los Padres National Forest (Monterey Ranger District). Chris Tenney, site coordinator.

Burridge, B., Editor. 1995. Sonoma County Breeding Bird Atlas. Madrone Audubon Society.

California Department of Fish and Game. 2006. California Interagency Wildlife Task Group. CWHR version 8.1 personal computer program. Sacramento, CA. http://www.dfg.ca.gov/whdab/html/cwhr.html

Ehrlich, P. R., D. S. Dobkin, and D. Wheye. 1988. The birder’s handbook: a field guide to the natural history of North American birds. Simon & Shuster Inc., New York, NY.

Gardali, T., S.E. Scoggin, and G.R. Geupel. 1998. Songbird use of Redwood and Lagunitas Creeks: management and restoration recommendations. PRBO report to the Golden Gate National Recreation Area.

Page 20 – Song Sparrow Appendix C - MIS Species Account - S. Province

Garrett, K. and J. Dunn. 1981. Birds of southern California: status and distribution. Artisan Press, Los Angeles, California.

Hamilton, R.A. and D.R. Willick. 1996. The birds of Orange County, California: status and distribution. Sage and Sea Audubon Society.

Heath, S.K. and G. Ballard. 1999a. Songbird monitoring of riparian communities in the eastern Sierra Nevada and western Great Basin region: results of the 1998 field season. PRBO report.

Heath, S.K. and G. Ballard. 1999b. Eastern Sierra riparian songbird conservation: preliminary results from the 1999 field season. PRBO progress report.

Johnston., R.F. 1956a. Population structure in salt marsh Song Sparrows. Pt. I: environment and annual cycle. Condor 58: 24–44.

Johnston, R.F. 1956b. Population structure in salt marsh Song Sparrows. Pt. II: density, age structure and maintenance. Condor 58: 254–272.

King, A.M. and J.R. King. 2000. Songbird monitoring in Almanor Ranger District (Lassen National Forest) and Lassen Volcanic National Park: 1997-1999. PRBO report to the USFS and NPS.

Larison, B, S.A. Laymon, P.L. Williams, T.B. Smith. 1998. Song Sparrows vs. cowbird brood parasites: impacts of forest structure and nest-site selection. The Condor 100: 93-101.

Marshall, J.T. 1948. Ecological races of song sparrows in the San Francisco Bay region. Part 1. Habitat and abundance. Condor 50:193-215.

Nice, M.M. 1964. Studies in the life history of the Song Sparrow. Dover Publications, Inc., NY.

Nolan, V., Jr. 1968f. San Diego Song Sparrow, pp. 1555-1556 in Life histories of North American thrushes, kinglets and their allies (A.C. Bent, Ed.), part 3. U.S. National Museum Bulletin No. 196.

Noss, R. F., and R. L. Peters. 1995. Endangered ecosystems: a status report on America's vanishing habitat and wildlife. Defenders of Wildlife, Washington, D.C.

Roberson, D. and Chris Tenney 1993. Atlas of the Breeding Birds of Monterey County, California. Monterey Peninsula Audubon Society Monterey, CA

Sanders, T.A. and W.D. Edge. 1998. Breeding bird community composition in relation to riparian vegetation structure in the western United States. J. Wild. Management 62(2):461-473.

Page 21 – Song Sparrow Appendix C - MIS Species Account - S. Province

Sauer, J.R., et al. 2003. The North American Breeding Bird Survey results and analysis: 1966- 2002. USGS Patuxent Wildlife Research Center website, Laurel, MD.

Sauer, J. R., J. E. Hines, J. E. Fallon, K. L. Pardieck, D. J. Ziolkowski, Jr., and W. A. Link. 2011. The North American Breeding Bird Survey, Results and Analysis 1966 - 2009. Version 3.23.2011 USGS Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, Laurel, MD

Shuford, W.D. 1993. The Marin County breeding bird atlas: a distribution and natural history of coastal California birds. California Avifauna Series 1, Bushtit Books, Bolinas, California. pp. 314-316.

Small, A. 1994. California birds: Their status and distribution. Ibis Publishing Co. Vista, CA. 342 pp.

Small, S.L. and G.R. Geupel. 1998. Songbird monitoring in the Point Reyes National Seashore: results of the 1997 field season. PRBO report to the National Park Service.

Unitt, P. 2004. San Diego County Bird Atlas. Proceedings of the San Diego Society of Natural History. No. 39. San Diego Natural History Museum. 645 p.

Uyehara, J.C., S. Mori, K. Purcell. 2005. Bird population declines in the four southern California forests. Presentation at Riparian Systems Symposium of the American Ornithological Union conference in Santa Barbara, CA, Aug 2005

USDA Forest Service. 1998. Trends in riparian bird abundance across four National Forests in southern California, 1988-1996. Unpublished report by John Stephenson.

USDA Forest Service. 2006. Land Management Plan. Part 1, Southern California Forests Vision. R5-MB-075.

US Army Corps of Engineers. 1991. Lower Snake River Fish and Wildlife Compensation Plan Wildlife Habitat Compensation Evaluation for the Lower Snake River Project . http://www.nww.usace.army.mil/html/offices/pl/er/studies/lsrpublic/reports/compeval/met hods.htm

Internet sources: http://www.werc.usgs.gov/sandiego/flycat.html. Population Structure and Demography of the Least Bell's Vireo and Southwestern Willow Flycatcher by Barbara Kus. http://www.fscr.org/html/1996-02.html. Rita DePuydt. California Native Plant Society http://www.dfg.ca.gov/whdab/html/B505.html California Wildlife Habitat Relationships System, Song sparrow

Page 22 – Song Sparrow Appendix C - MIS Species Account - S. Province http://www.prbo.org/calpif/htmldocs/species/riparian/sospacct.html California Partners in Flight, Bird Conservation Plan: Song sparrow. http://www.ventanaws.org/lab.htmBig Sur Ornithological Lab of theVentana Wilderness Society, P.O. Box 894 Carmel Valley, CA. http://audubon2.org/birds/cbc/hr/table.html Audubon Christmas Bird Count data. http://www.mbr-pwrc.usgs.gov/bbs/. Breeding Bird Survey data

Page 23 – Song Sparrow Appendix C - MIS Species Account - S. Province

Appendix A: Riparian Bird Count Survey Maps

Angeles National Forest – Riparian Bird Count Sites

Cleveland National Forest

Riparian Bird Count Sites

Page 24 – Song Sparrow Appendix C - MIS Species Account - S. Province

Los Padres National Forest – Riparian Bird Count Sites

Page 25 – Song Sparrow

Appendix C - MIS Species Account - S. Province

MANAGEMENT INDICATOR SPECIES ACCOUNT for CALIFORNIA SPOTTED OWL IN THE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA PROVINCE SUMMARY In the Forest Land Management Plan (Forest Plan) for the southern California National Forests (Southern California Province), the California spotted owl was chosen as the Management Indicator Species for mature, large diameter, high canopy closure conditions of montane conifer forest. The prescribed monitoring method is the Forest Service Pacific Southwest Region’s monitoring protocol. The measures to evaluate trends in Photo: R. Eliason montane conifer habitat type are occupied territories and/or habitat condition.

The California Spotted owl is one of twelve Photo: R. Eliason species that were selected in the 2006 Forest Plan update to help assess the effects of alternatives and facilitate monitoring effects of implementation of the selected Forest Plan alternative. They are also used to monitor progress toward achieving desired conditions for biological resources. Adaptive management is the foundation for planning and development. Monitoring and evaluation are critical to adaptive management (USFS 2006).

Monitoring of spotted owl occupancy and habitat conditions have varied by Forest and over time. Long-term monitoring is labor- and funding-intensive but it is critical for detecting population and habitat trends and for indicating that changes in management may be needed.

It is clear that the number of occupied California spotted owl territories and the number of individual owls have declined dramatically across the southern Province over the past two decades. As evidenced by the San Bernardino Mountains data, there has been a dramatic decline in spotted owl numbers throughout southern California since the late 1980s/early 1990s. The number of “active” territories has declined substantially and the nearest-neighbor distance between territories has increased. In some isolated mountain ranges (e.g., San Jacinto Mountains, Palomar Mountain, Santa Ana Mountains, Laguna Mountains), the number of owls is so low that viability, even in the short-term, is threatened.

During the same period when the spotted owl population declined, there has been a substantial loss or degradation of suitable habitat throughout the southern Province. Large-scale wildfires, severe droughts, large-scale vegetation mortality, intensive fuels reduction treatments, urban development, invasive plants, and other factors have combined to significantly change the amount and quality of habitat for California spotted owl. Fragmentation and loss of habitat have resulted in more territories becoming isolated and reduced the size of important spotted owl habitat patches.

Page 1- California Spotted Owl Updated May 2011 Appendix C - MIS Species Account - S. Province

Even prior to the start of the apparent decline in the late 1990s, California spotted owl experts were already extremely concerned about the future of the California spotted owl in southern California. Because of this expert concern and National Forest Management Act and National Forest planning regulation requirements, direction was issued to the southern California Forests to protect all territories. There was general agreement that the loss of one pair of owls was a threat to population viability. The continued significant decline in territory occupancy is of great concern to experts today.

Combined, these factors likely pose short-term and long-term threats to population viability for this species. Additionally, the decline in the number of occupied territories across the southern Province suggests that there has been a declining trend in the habitat conditions for which California spotted owl serves as a MIS (mature, large diameter, high canopy closure conditions in montane conifer forests). Habitat conditions in the other vegetation communities used by the owls in southern California have suffered degradation from the same factors.

Due to viability concerns and the desire to maintain montane conifer habitat sustainability and resilience, systematic province-wide monitoring is especially crucial. None of the S. Province Forests have funding to conduct monitoring in 2012 or beyond.

Recommendations from the 5-year review of population and habitat monitoring (as called for in the Forest Plan) are included at the end of this document.

Page 2- California Spotted Owl Updated May 2011 Appendix C - MIS Species Account - S. Province

Table of Contents Topic Page # I. INTRODUCTION 4 II. SYSTEMATICS 5 III. MANAGEMENT DIRECTION 5 IV. SELECTION AS A MANAGEMENT INDICATOR SPECIES 8 V. ECOLOGY 8 V-1. Habitat Requirements 8 V-2. Home Range/Territory Size 12 V-3. Diet and Foraging 13 V-4. Reproductive Habits 15 V-5. Dispersal 14 V-6. Daily/Seasonal Activity 16 V-7. Predator-Prey Relations 16 VI. THREATS, HABITAT CONDITION, AND HABITAT TRENDS 17 VI-1. Climate Change 17 VI-2. Insects, Disease, and Drought Impacts on Vegetation 20 VI-3. Wildfire 25 VI-4. Prey Base Conditions 30 VI-5. Riparian Habitat Conflicts 32 VI-6. Timber and Fuelwood Programs 32 VI-7. Fuel Reduction and Hazard Tree Removal Treatments 33 VI-8. Reforestation 36 VI-9. Air Pollution 37 VI-10. Mining 37 VI-11. Recreation 37 VI-12. Special Uses 38 VI-13. Urbanization and Development 38 VI-14. Non-Native Species 40 VII. TERRITORY DELINEATION AND MAPPING 40 VIII. POPULATION STATUS AND TREND IN THE SOUTHERN PROVINCE 41 VIII-1. Angeles National Forest - Current Population Status and Trend 43 VIII-2. Cleveland National Forest - Current Population Status and Trend 45 VIII-3. Los Padres National Forest - Current Population Status and Trend 46 VIII-4. San Bernardino National Forest – Current Population Status and 46 Trend IX. CONCLUSIONS 53 X. RECOMMENDATIONS 54 REFERENCES USED 57

Page 3- California Spotted Owl Updated May 2011 Appendix C - MIS Species Account - S. Province

I. INTRODUCTION In the Land Management Plan (Forest Plan) (2006) for the southern California National Forests (Southern California Province), the California spotted owl (CASPO) was chosen as the Management Indicator Species (MIS) for montane conifer forest. The prescribed monitoring method is the Forest Service Pacific Southwest Region’s monitoring protocol. The measures to evaluate trends in montane conifer habitat type are occupied territories and/or habitat condition.

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 (Gutiérrez et al. 1995, König et al. 1999). The California spotted owl, S. o. occidentalis, occurs on the western slope of the Sierra Nevada and Cascade ranges (and very locally on the eastern slope), from the vicinity of Burney, Photo:Shasta R. Eliason County south to Kern County; in the Coast Ranges from Monterey County to Santa Barbara County; and in the Transverse and Peninsular Ranges in southern California and Baja California, Mexico (Verner et al. 1992a, Gutiérrez et al. 1995).

California spotted owls occur predominately on National Forest System (NFS) lands (Beck and Gould 1992) in all the major mountain ranges in southern California, although some ranges support very few pairs. They are found in mature, high canopy forests and woodlands at elevations from below 1,000 feet (305 meters) along the Monterey coast to approximately 8,500 feet (2,590 meters) in the San Bernardino Mountains (Stephenson 1991). This is a territorial species with large acreage requirements; spotted owls in southern California are clustered in disjunct mountain and foothill areas where suitable habitat exists (LaHaye et al. 1994). Large areas of unsuitable habitat typically surround these clusters (Noon and McKelvey 1992).

Habitat for the spotted owl in southern California has been severely impacted in recent years due to urbanization, wildfire, drought and accompanying insects and disease, intensive fuels treatment to protect communities and developed areas, invasive species, and other factors. Population information is scattered and incomplete except for the San Bernardino National Forest (SBNF) where there was the benefit of a long-term demography study. Owl territory occupancy and productivity have significantly declined on the SBNF and indications are that similar trends are likely occurring on the other Forests in the southern California Province. There is a growing concern over long-term viability and ecosystem health in light of current habitat and population trends.

The California spotted owl is a Forest Service Sensitive species as well as a Management Indicator Species (MIS) for the Southern Province National Forests. 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.

Page 4- California Spotted Owl Updated May 2011 Appendix C - MIS Species Account - S. Province

II. SYSTEMATICS Xántus de Vesey first described the spotted owl in 1860 from a specimen Figure 1. Spotted Owl Distribution. at Fort Tejon, California (American Ornithologists' Union 1957). There Source: http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/ are currently three recognized species/179/articles/distribution subspecies of spotted owl: the California spotted owl (S. o. occidentalis) that occurs in the Sierra Nevada, central Coast Ranges, and mountains of southern California and Baja California; the northern spotted owl (S. o. caurina) occurring from southern British Columbia to northern California; and the Mexican spotted owl (S. o. lucida) that is found in the mountains and canyons of the southwestern United States south to central Mexico (American Ornithologists' Union 1957, Clements 2000) (Figure 1).

The spotted owl is known to hybridize with the barred owl (Strix varia) (Hamer et al. 1994), and hybrids are known to breed with barred owls. California spotted owl hybrids have been identified in the Sierra Nevada.

III. MANAGEMENT DIRECTION The National Forests in southern California (Los Padres [LPNF], Angeles [ANF], San Bernardino [SBNF], and Cleveland [CNF]) have Forest Plans that are united by a common vision, common design criteria, and a common Final EIS (USFS 2006). The Forest Plans for the four Forests are programmatic documents that leave all specific design decisions and analyses to project-level plans (USFS 2006). Part Three (Design Criteria) of the Forest Plan contains standards for management and also refers to auxiliary documents and agreements, such as conservation strategies, that provide additional guidance for management actions.

The Forest Plan directs the Forests to protect all California spotted owl territories. Direction in the Forest Plan to provide special management for riparian conservation areas (Forest Plan, Part 3, Appendix E) benefits owls by protecting riparian habitat, which is home to many owls within the forest and chaparral matrix.

Page 5- California Spotted Owl Updated May 2011 Appendix C - MIS Species Account - S. Province

Currently no land is identified as suitable for timber sale production; therefore, timber harvest may only occur to meet forest health, wildlife, fuels, fire, watershed, or other objectives. In the mixed conifer-yellow pine, closed-cone conifer, big-cone Douglas-fir and canyon live oak, and coast redwood habitat types that are used by spotted owls, the maximum size-openings allowed for silvicultural systems and fuels treatments are 0.1 to 1.2 ha (0.25 to 3 acres). Even-aged management is not allowed, except in closed-cone forests when justified. Uneven-aged group selection, uneven-aged single-tree selection, mechanical thinning, and prescribed-fire thinning are all acceptable in mixed-conifer-yellow-pine forests, while both mechanical and prescribed- fire thinning are acceptable in closed-cone forests. All the vegetation-management practices listed (except even-aged management) are permissible, when justified, in the above habitat types.

The Forest Plans provide specific direction to consider “species guidance documents'' when occupied or suitable habitat of threatened, endangered, candidate, or sensitive species is present on project sites. Direction specifies that short-term adverse impacts to species, including threatened, endangered, and proposed species will be accepted if such impacts will be compensated by accrual of long-term habitat benefits to such species. This Forest Plan provides retention standards of a minimum of six downed logs/acre1 and 10 to 15 hard snags per 2 ha (5 acres) where available.

Specific direction for the spotted owl is provided to protect all spotted owl territories identified in the Statewide CDFG database (numbered owl territories) and new territories that meet state criteria by maintaining or enhancing habitat conditions over the long term to the greatest extent practicable, while protecting life and property. Other protective standards for the spotted owl include limited operating periods within 0.4 km (0.25 mi) of occupied territory-centers and nest sites during the breeding period (with exceptions for existing uses). The Forest Plan allows the loss of spotted owl habitat to development (e.g., new campgrounds, buildings) that is needed for compelling reasons, but provides for mitigation measures of up to two-to-one replacement for spotted owl habitat that is lost. Preferred areas for mitigation are within the areas of the Forest where the impacts occurred.

The “Conservation Strategy for the California Spotted Owl (Strix occidentalis occidentalis) on the National Forests of Southern California” (USDA Forest Service 2004) (hereafter referred to as “CASPO Strategy”) contains detailed management direction for spotted owl habitat. When the CASPO Strategy was written, the current Regional direction was to “protect all territories” or “protect all pairs”. That direction did not allow the flexibility for treatments in owl habitat for community fire protection. In response to the urgent need to treat excessive fuel loading as a result of severe drought-related mortality, the CASPO Strategy was written to provide some flexibility. It was intended to provide guidance for the emergency situation that had occurred. The 2006 Forest Plan incorporated by reference the CASPO Strategy and guidance contained within.

The CASPO Strategy directs that in areas without good surveys, all suitable habitat of moderate habitat value and above should be protected from degradation or loss. In areas that have been surveyed thoroughly (e.g., San Bernardino Mountains), the Forests can protect known

1 SBNF Place Specific Standards, LMP Part 2, page 100 provides for retention of 9 down logs/acre in suitable southern rubber boa habitat which often overlaps with CASPO habitat.

Page 6- California Spotted Owl Updated May 2011 Appendix C - MIS Species Account - S. Province territories. In areas that have not been thoroughly surveyed, such as more remote portions of the Los Padres National Forest (LPNF), suitable habitat should be protected even if occupancy has not been documented. In the absence of good data, all suitable habitat is considered occupied and important. Inventories should be conducted before implementing any management action that will remove or alter habitat structure.

Spotted owl habitat management as described in the Conservation Strategy is focused on delineation and protection of spotted owl management areas of up to 600 acres, each comprised of a Home Range Core (HRC) containing a Protected Activity Center (PAC) and Nest Stand (NS) within a 1.5 mile radius of the known nesting site(s) or centroid (assumed territory center). The highest quality 300 acres containing or adjacent to the nest/territory center is considered the PAC. The HRC is delineated by adding to the PAC the next 300 acres of most highly ranked habitat within the 1.5 mile radius. The entire 1.5-mile radius circle is termed the Home Range and encompasses approximately 4,400 acres.

The NS is the highest quality 30 to 60 acres of contiguous forested habitat around the nest tree(s). If the territory includes more than one known nest tree, the nest stand should encompass all of the known nest trees. For many territories, the territory, PAC, and nest stand may be linear, rather than a rounded polygon, especially where the territory follows drainages or riparian areas.

Activities and treatments within nest stands should be avoided. Activities and treatments within PACs should also be avoided to the extent possible until research and monitoring provide a better understanding of the impacts of and needs for vegetation treatment within PACs. Exceptions for community defense are to be considered where no other options are available. Vegetation treatments in PACs and home range cores are to be designed with the primary goal of improving spotted owl habitat, and are to retain existing overstory and midstory canopy cover when possible; fuels treatments are to leave all live trees greater than 61 cm (24 in) DBH; and fuels treatments in PACs are to be limited to no more than 5% of the PAC acreage in a given mountain range per year and 25% of the mountain range PAC acreage per decade.

Where fuels and vegetation management are taking place, spotted owl occupancy and productivity are to be monitored during planning, implementation, and for at least 2 years after treatment in order to assess effects to owls (USFS 2004).

The CASPO Strategy was intended to be a dynamic document that would be updated as the Forests gain new information and understanding of the species. Since the CASPO Strategy was written and as biologists have tried to apply the guidance in the CASPO Strategy, Forest Service biologists have recognized the need to revise the CASPO Strategy. A revision of the CASPO Strategy is planned to clarify important management needs. Completion of the CASPO Strategy update is expected by the end of 2011. The intent of the update is to: 1. Clarify direction; 2. Recognize the importance of midstory trees greater than 16 inches in diameter, 3. Recognize the importance of large white fir (in particular, for nest trees); 4. Make it easier to interpret the guidelines for planning and implementing vegetation management projects;

Page 7- California Spotted Owl Updated May 2011 Appendix C - MIS Species Account - S. Province

5. Describe the need to protect and manage suitable habitat in the 1.5-mile home range for each territory as well as between known territory centers; 6. Standardize Design Criteria for fuels reduction/vegetation management projects; and, 7. Provide clearer direction for coordination of other uses and activities such as recreation and road construction/maintenance.

IV. SELECTION AS A MANAGEMENT INDICATOR SPECIES The California spotted owl was chosen as the MIS for 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 habitats for spotted owls are managed to prevent downward trends in populations or habitat capability, and to prevent federal listing (Forest Plan, Part 1, p. 45).

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 (Forest Plan, Part 1 p.45).

The objective for the 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, CDFG protocol (Forest Plan FEIS, Vol. 1. p. 177, Table 433).

V. ECOLOGY V-1. Ecology - Habitat Requirements The spotted owl is primarily a forest dwelling owl that is found in forests and deep canyons throughout the western United States (Gutierrez et al. 1995). In southern 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 (Verner et al. 1992a). With the exception of redwood forest, which has a limited distribution in the northwestern portion of the LPNF, these forest types generally occur on all four southern California National Forests (USDA Forest Service 1994). LaHaye et al. (1997) noted the importance of oak/big cone Douglas-fir habitats in the San Bernardino Mountains.

The 1994 Final Report of S. CA Spotted Owl Biologist Team outlined the habitat types for nest locations on the four southern California forests. Table 1 summarizes that assessment.

Table 1. Summary of Spotted Owl Nest Locations By Habitat Type Forest Live Oak/Big-cone Riparian/ Mixed Redwood Total Douglas Fir Hardwood Conifer ANF 48 0 11 0 59 CNF 26 4 6 0 36 LPNF 0 110 6 2-10 118-126+ SBNF 73 2 72 0 147 TOTALS 147 116 95 2-10 360-368

Page 8- California Spotted Owl Updated May 2011 Appendix C - MIS Species Account - S. Province

Source: 1994 Final Report of S. CA Spotted Owl Biologist Team

The California spotted owl is strongly associated with forests that have a complex multi-layered structure, large-diameter trees, and high canopy closure (Bias and Gutiérrez 1992, Gutiérrez et al. 1992, LaHaye et al. 1997). 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 [1981 meters]) consist primarily of conifers, and some low-elevation territories (below 3,000 feet [915 meters]) are found in pure hardwood stands. Reproductive success and survivorship rates for individual members of the population may differ depending on which habitat type they occupy (Pulliam et al. 1992). California spotted owl habitats are consistently characterized by greater structural complexity compared to available forest habitat (LaHaye et al. 1997).

Empirical evidence from the San Bernardino Mountains indicates that spotted owl productivity is significantly higher in lower montane bigcone Douglas-fir/canyon live oak forests than it is in high-elevation montane conifer forests (LaHaye et al. 1997). These lower-elevation habitats are believed to be productive because of high woodrat densities in the surrounding chaparral. They also tend to be below the snowline of most late winter/spring storms, which potentially reduces the adverse impact of such weather events during the breeding season. Large, late-season storms have been shown to have a major effect on northern spotted owl reproductive success in northwestern California (Franklin et al. 2000) and have a similar effect on California spotted owls in the Sierra Nevada (North et al. 2000). Similar events in the San Bernardino Mountains appear to have similar effects on reproductive success.

The apparent high quality of low-elevation habitats dominated by live oak and bigcone Douglas- fir may explain the continued persistence of small spotted owl populations in each southern California mountain range. Maintaining these restricted habitats, which are often narrow stringers of dense, mature forest on north-facing slopes and in deep canyons, should be a high management priority. Such habitats are vulnerable to loss in stand-replacing fires that move in from the surrounding chaparral (Stephenson and Calcarone 1999). LaHaye et al. (1997) found that 39% of the owls in the San Bernardino Mountains nest in high elevation mixed conifer, 41% in oak/bigcone Douglas-fir, and 20% in mixed hardwood/conifer habitat.

They predict that with increasing urbanization, increased human disturbance in the lower elevation oak/bigcone fir habitat will negatively affect what appears to be the most productive segment of the San Bernardino Mountains spotted owl population. Due to the large number of human caused fires in the urban interface, lower elevations of the Forests are experiencing type conversion of chaparral and bigcone Douglas-fir stands. Large areas are converting to primarily annual grasses surrounding narrow riparian strips. This adversely affects woodrat populations because they need shrubs and woody cover.

Laymon (1988, cited in Gutiérrez et al. 1992) and Steger and Eberlein (pers. comm., cited in Gutiérrez et al. 1992) measured winter foraging sites and foraging stand attributes in Sierran foothill riparian/hardwood forests. Point estimates suggest about the same range of values for percent canopy cover as observed in conifer forests at higher elevations. Basal areas of green trees and snags were considerably less, and shrub density was much higher, in the hardwood type

Page 9- California Spotted Owl Updated May 2011 Appendix C - MIS Species Account - S. Province than the conifer forest (Gutiérrez et al. 1992). Based on Laymon’s work and considerable on-site experience with these habitats, Gutiérrez et al. (1992) reported that riparian hardwood forests dominated by oaks tended to have less canopy layering than most sites in the Sierran mixed- conifer and ponderosa pine/hardwood types. They found that multiple layers were present in the mixed hardwood forests of southern California, where spotted owls occur in narrow riparian corridors in steep-sided canyons as in the LPNF.

Based on review of numerous studies, Verner et al. (1992a) made the following estimates of stand attributes that appear to satisfy the habitat needs of California spotted owls in the Sierra Nevada: Percent canopy cover of 70 to 95% for nesting and roosting, 50 to 90% for foraging. Total live tree basal area of 185 to 300 ft2/acre for nesting and roosting, with 180 to 220 ft2/acre for foraging. Total snag basal area of 20 to 30 ft2/acre for nesting and roosting and 7 to 17 ft2/acre for foraging. Downed woody debris of 10 to 15 tons/acre for nesting and roosting and the same for foraging.

Gutiérrez et al. (1992) believe that relatively small snags have little value for spotted owl habitat. They consider snags at least 15 inches in diameter at breast height (DBH) and 20 feet tall to be near the smaller end of suitability for California spotted owls. They recommend 10 to 15 tons/acre of the largest logs available be retained, and that it is inadvisable to retain logs smaller than 11 inches in diameter to attain this level. They note that this range is at the low end of the values observed in owl habitats (Gutiérrez et al. 1992).

Nesting and Roosting Habitat: Nesting and roosting habitat for California spotted owls is characterized by high canopy cover and high total live hardwood, softwood, and snag basal areas (LaHaye et al. 1997, North et al. 2000). For nesting, woodlands adjacent to cliffs, steep-sided wooded canyons, and shaded ravines are favored (Garrett and Dunn 1981, Grinnell and Miller 1944). California spotted owls nest in tree cavities or abandoned nests of other animals in areas of dense old-growth forest with more than 75% canopy closure (Bias and Gutiérrez 1992). Nest trees are very large for the area, averaging 37 inches (0.94 meter) DBH and more than 88 feet (27 meters) tall (Gutiérrez et al. 1992). Steger and Eberline (pers. comm., cited in Gutiérrez et al. 1992) found nest trees in foothill riparian/ hardwood forests averaged 55 feet tall and 30 inches DBH. The minimum mean age of nest trees in the San Bernardino Mountains was 230 years (Gutiérrez et al. 1992).

LaHaye et al. (1992a) found that mean nest site cover and roost site cover were 76.9% and 83.6%, respectively, for the San Bernardino Mountains. Nest sites at the highest elevations are in white fir forests in the San Bernardino Mountains, and no nests have been found in subalpine forests anywhere in California (Gutiérrez et al. 1992). Nest and roost sites in the San Bernardino Mountains tended to be on steep slopes (means of 51% and 55%, respectively) (LaHaye et al. 1992a). Roost sites used by California spotted owls reported in the various studies were similar in composition to those used for nesting, although less is known about roosting habitat than nesting habitat (Gutiérrez et al. 1992). Barrows (1980) found all of his roosting owls at low

Page 10- California Spotted Owl Updated May 2011 Appendix C - MIS Species Account - S. Province elevations on north-facing slopes, in habitats where dense-canopied stands would most often be found.

Although spotted owls on the SBNF are known to occupy several different habitat types, a relatively consistent stand structure was found throughout the SBNF in work conducted by LaHaye (reported in Stephenson 1989). Data collected around nest stands in the San Bernardino Mountains showed the following structural elements to be characteristic: Canopy closure of at least 60% and commonly greater than 70%. A mature overstory with average DBH exceeding 24 inches. A densely stocked stand with basal areas averaging in excess of 190 ft2, with none less than 160 ft2. Much of the basal area in the overstory and mid-story, with stands having an average of 10 trees exceeding 26 inches DBH and 29 trees of 16 to 26 inches DBH per acre. Multi-layered stands, often having hardwood understories. Decadent stands containing large diameter snags, trees with broken tops, diseased trees in which cavities frequently form, and large diameter fallen trees.

These characteristics are most commonly associated with old-aged stands. Stephenson (1989) concluded from this information that management of spotted owl habitat would require deviating from silvicultural prescriptions designed to optimize stand health and vigor; nest stands in owl habitat would need to remain overstocked and decadent in nature.

Nest Tree Characteristics: In a study of nest-site selection in the San Bernardino Mountains, LaHaye et al. (1997) found 34% of nest trees were white fir, with the second most frequently used tree being live oak (16%). The next most frequently used tree species were Jeffrey/ponderosa pine and big cone Douglas-fir (13.4% each). It is clear that large white fir trees are an important habitat component for spotted owls in the San Bernardino Mountains. Black oaks are commonly used for nest trees on the CNF (Winter pers. comm.).

Foraging Habitat: Attributes of foraging habitats used by California spotted owls have been estimated in only two studies, both conducted in the Sierra Nevada. Laymon (1988, cited in Gutiérrez et al. 1992) concluded that the majority of spotted owl foraging locations were on sites with medium to large trees greater than 24 inches DBH with canopy closure of 60 - 100%. He also reported that owls in his study selected “foraging sites with more and larger snags.” Call (1990, cited in Gutiérrez et al. 1992) found that spotted owls foraged in areas of large timber (20 to 35 inches DBH) significantly more than expected by a random distribution.

The combined results from Laymon’s and Call's studies suggest that spotted owls in Sierran conifer forests tended to forage in stands of intermediate to older ages (Gutiérrez et al. 1992). Percent canopy cover, softwood basal area, total live tree basal area and the amount of large, downed woody debris were generally greater at foraging sites than at random locations. California spotted owls forage in a wider variety of forest types than where they roost and nest, including more open forests with canopy cover as low as 40% (Verner et al. 1992a).

Dispersal Habitat: Dispersal habitat includes all the habitats described above as well as a variety of other forested and non-forested habitats (LaHaye 2005). Dispersal may be necessary

Page 11- California Spotted Owl Updated May 2011 Appendix C - MIS Species Account - S. Province to maintain populations of spotted owls within the region and it is potentially critical to the continued existence of several of the smallest populations (LaHaye et al. 1994, 2001). However, no intermountain movements were recorded between 1987 and 1998. It is not known if movements between the mountain ranges have always been low or if this is a recent phenomenon reflecting reduced opportunities for successful dispersal caused by modifications to intermountain vegetation by humans. Numerous riparian areas that once existed at lower elevations and were potential dispersal corridors have been degraded by water extraction or lost to channelization during the last century (LaHaye 2005). In addition, numerous small coast live oak stands have been eliminated or modified by urbanization and are no longer useable by spotted owls. Some of these live oak stands were known to occasionally support nesting pairs. Too frequent fire in foothill and valley habitats has type converted much of the chaparral surrounding riparian and live oak woodlands to nonnative annual grasslands. This has also had an impact on dispersal habitats, and potentially, their ability to support spotted owls.

V-2. Ecology - Home Range/Territory Size The California spotted owl is a territorial species with large acreage requirements (Gutiérrez et al. 1992, Zimmerman et al. 2001). Spotted owls aggressively respond to imitated vocalizations throughout the breeding season; however, territorial disputes between neighbors are rare (Gutiérrez et al. 1995). The sizes of home ranges vary widely depending on habitat type, with territories becoming larger at higher elevation, conifer-dominated sites (Zabel et al. 1992). Home range sizes tend to be larger during the non-breeding season (Zabel et al. 1992). Annual home range size estimates in the Sierra Nevada are 1.27 to 9.7 mi2 (3.3 to 25.2 km2) (n=15 pairs) and 1.0 to 29.2 mi2 (2.8 to 75.7 km2) (n=37 individuals); these estimates were based on radio- telemetry and use of 100 percent minimum convex polygon home-range estimates (Gutiérrez et al. 1995).

Based on a study of two owl pairs in mixed conifer forest habitat, Zimmerman et al. (2001) estimated that pairs of owls in the San Bernardino Mountains had home ranges of 800 to 2016 acres (325 to 816 ha) during the breeding season. Zabel et al. (1992) estimated home range size to be 4,200 acres (1,700 ha) during the breeding period in the Sierran mixed conifer forest and 98 to 243 acres (40 to 98 ha) for riparian/hardwood forest in southern California. This was the smallest use area reported and was based not on telemetry, but known sizes of small stringers of dense riparian/hardwood forest in the CNF, ANF, and LPNF.

The large differences in home range sizes reported in the literature may be related to differences in the density of primary prey in different localities (Verner et al. 1992a). California spotted owls with the smallest observed home ranges prey primarily on woodrats, but those with the largest home ranges specialize on flying squirrels. Woodrat densities tend to be much greater than flying squirrel densities, and woodrats weigh nearly twice as much as flying squirrels (Verner et al. 1992a).

Activity centers are areas within which owls find suitable nesting sites and several suitable roosts, and in which they do a substantial amount of their foraging (Gutiérrez et al. 1992). The mean size of nest stands in the Sierra Nevada was 99.9 acres (40.4 ha). The mean size of nest stands and adjoining stands having greater owl use than its availability was 306.7 acres (124.1

Page 12- California Spotted Owl Updated May 2011 Appendix C - MIS Species Account - S. Province ha). These adjoining stands may make important contributions to nest stands because the owls have direct access to them (Gutiérrez et al. 1992).

In radio-tracking studies on the Sierra National Forest (G. N. Steger pers. observation., cited in Gutiérrez et al. 1995), the area that included half of the locations of owls during the breeding period (an indicator of the area used for foraging around an activity center) averaged 317, 296, and 310 acres (128, 120, and 125 ha) from 1987 to 1989.

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

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

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

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

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

V-3. Ecology - Diet and Foraging When foraging, spotted owls generally select a perch and wait for prey, starting as early as one hour before sunset. Several foraging sites within the range will be used in a single night. When prey is detected by either sight or sound, the spotted owl pounces on it, capturing it with its talons. The prey is killed immediately on the ground or is carried to a nearby perch before severing the cervical vertebrae with the bill (Gutiérrez et al. 1995).

In terms of biomass consumed, the most important prey items of the California spotted owl, range wide, are dusky-footed woodrat (Neotoma fuscipes) and northern flying squirrel

Page 13- California Spotted Owl Updated May 2011 Appendix C - MIS Species Account - S. Province

(Glaucomys sabrinas) (Williams et al. 1992). In southern California, woodrats are the primary prey species taken. Other small mammals (including mice and voles), birds, and invertebrates make up the rest of the diet (Gutiérrez et al. 1995). In the San Bernardino Mountains between 1987 and 1991, dusky-footed woodrats and Jerusalem crickets were the most frequently consumed taxa (42.2% and 20.7% respectively). Dusky-footed woodrats dominated spotted owl diets by biomass (74%). Pocket gophers and peromyscid mice comprised 10.4% and 4% respectively. Flying squirrels only contributed 3% of the biomass.

Spotted owls consumed primarily mammals by frequency (66.4%) and biomass (95.3%). Successful nesters consumed a greater percent biomass of woodrats than non-nesters (Smith et al. 1999). Gutiérrez et al. (1995) recommended that future management of forested habitat promote high woodrat density.

Evergreen or live oaks and other thick leaved shrubs are important habitat components throughout the dusky footed-woodrat range. Woodrats are most numerous where shrub cover is dense. Overhead branches and downed logs often provide woodrats with a means of traveling above ground; this appears to be an important structural component of the habitat for some populations (Williams et al. 1992).

Woodrats, pocket gophers, and peromyscid mice are common prey in the range of the Mexican spotted owl (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 1995), just as they are for the California spotted owl in southern California (Smith et al. 1999). The Mexican Spotted Owl Recovery Plan notes that uneven-aged management would likely be used over large areas of the southwest, and it creates groups or clumps of trees (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 1995). Mosaics of habitat provide diverse plant communities and other conditions that collectively support a rich diversity of fauna. Habitat mosaics resulting from prescriptions such as single tree or group selection cuts may in some way mimic natural disturbance patterns and create canopy gaps.

The Mexican Spotted Owl Recovery Plan notes that research is needed to determine cause-effect relationships of tree removal on spotted owl prey populations and the mosaic patterns that best conserve spotted owl populations. In the range of the Mexican spotted owl, maintaining diversity of habitats and prey species is considered important due to fluctuations in prey density from year to year and within different habitat types (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 1995, Chapter 5). Shrub cover and log volume were strongly correlated with brush mouse and Mexican woodrat abundance. Gamble oak density is also greater within habitats of the woodrat and brush mouse than occurs randomly in the forest (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 1995).

Fires, shrub removal, logging and other human and natural disturbances generally reduce the suitability of woodrat habitat (Williams et al. 1992). However, in forests where woodrats dominate the diet of spotted owls in the Sierra Nevada, small-scale logging might benefit spotted owls by enhancing woodrat populations if done in areas adjacent to forest stands where owls are known to forage, although this needs further study. In such cases, woodrats that occasionally wander from their shrubby home ranges into the adjoining forest could become available as prey for spotted owls (Williams et al. 1992).

Page 14- California Spotted Owl Updated May 2011 Appendix C - MIS Species Account - S. Province

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

Sakai et al. (1997) found that woodrats are not averse to crossing sharp ecotonal boundaries from shrubfields into adjacent old forest, into canopy openings in these forests, or into natural openings within dense shrubfields. A substantial number of their radio-tagged woodrats were killed by predators, with carcasses most often (5 of 9 depredated woodrats) found in adjacent old forest. These observations suggest that during these between-habitat forays, woodrats may be more vulnerable to avian and mammal predators. Therefore, to some degree, the existence of brushy shrubfields adjacent to older forest may increase the availability of woodrats to predators, such as spotted owls, that exploit prey from a variety of habitats but spend the majority of their time hunting in late seral stage forests.

Woodrats do not survive fire well, especially very hot burns, and they are slow to re-colonize burned areas (Wirtz et al. 1988, cited in Williams et al. 1992, Bond et al. 2009). Williams et al. (1992) conclude that aggressive fuels management programs in chaparral can benefit woodrat populations, especially where home ranges of owls in riparian and hardwood forests are closely surrounded by thick stands of chaparral. The same would probably be true for bigcone Douglas- fir stands surrounded by chaparral. Burning under controlled conditions would result in cooler fires with more live and dead vegetation retained as opposed to high intensity wildfire. Generally, prescribed burns in chaparral are designed to remove 40%-80% of the live canopy and create a mosaic.

V-4. Ecology - Reproductive Habits California spotted owls are generally solitary except for interactions with their mates (Gutiérrez et al. 1995). 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 (Gutiérrez et al. 1995). Nests are built between 30 and 180 feet (9 to 55 meters) 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 (Forsman et al. 1984). Clutch size ranges from one to three eggs (four-egg clutches are extremely rare), and incubation lasts for approximately 28 to 30 days (Forsman et al. 1984). 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 (Baicich and Harrison 1997, Zeiner et al. 1990).

Studies conducted between 1986 and 1994 in the central Sierra Nevada and San Bernardino Mountains showed that 62 percent (n=10-86) of pairs attempted to nest, and 50 percent (n=10- 110) of all pairs checked fledged young. The mean number of young produced per pair was estimated to be 0.80 (n=10-110) (Gutiérrez et al. 1995). In the San Bernardino Mountains, productivity (mean number of young fledged per successful nest) was significantly higher in

Page 15- California Spotted Owl Updated May 2011 Appendix C - MIS Species Account - S. Province oak/bigcone Douglas-fir forest than in mixed conifer or conifer/hardwood forest (LaHaye et al. 1997).

V-5. Ecology - Dispersal Survival rates of juveniles are relatively low (0.296), while those of adults are high (0.747), with no differences detected between sexes (LaHaye et al. 1994, Noon et al. 1992). Young become independent by late summer and disperse from natal areas in September-October. Of 423 juvenile California spotted owls banded, none had returned to breed on their natal sites (LaHaye et al. 2001). They apparently disperse in all directions through their first winter, and may remain in an area several weeks before establishing a territory. A young bird may also choose to stay in another territory (i.e., become a "floater") until the same-sex partner of the resident pair dies, allowing the floater to move into the established territory (Gutiérrez et al. 1995).

Spotted owls show strong fidelity to breeding sites and winter home range (Gutiérrez et al. 1995). A pair may use the same breeding territory for 5 to 10 years, but may not breed every year (Zeiner et al. 1990). LaHaye et al. (2001) found mean dispersal distances of 6.2 miles (10.1 km) for males and 7.3 miles (11.7 km) for females in the San Bernardino Mountains. They assumed some movement between adjacent mountain ranges must occur occasionally, but believe such events are rare and that the rate of intermountain dispersal may have been reduced due to the extensive environmental changes (e.g., urbanization, habitat conversion for agriculture, water diversion, wind driven electrical power generation etc.) that have occurred in southern California during the past century.

Riparian areas that once existed at lower elevations and were potential dispersal corridors for spotted owls have been degraded by water extraction or lost to channelization during the last century (LaHaye and Gutiérrez in press). In addition, many small coast live oak stands have been eliminated or modified by urbanization and are no longer usable by spotted owls. Some of these live oak stands were known to occasionally support nesting pairs and may have served as stepping stones for dispersal among the region’s mountain ranges (LaHaye and Gutiérrez in press).

V-6. Ecology - Daily/Seasonal Activity Spotted owls are mainly nocturnal, sleeping during the day and foraging at night. They tend to be most active two hours after sunset and before sunrise (Gutiérrez et al. 1995). Spotted owls behaviorally thermo-regulate through choice of roost locations, tending to roost higher in the forest canopy during winter and lower in summer. They will move short distances during daylight hours to change roosting location in response to changes in temperature or exposure to direct sunlight. California and Mexican spotted owls are less likely than northern spotted owl to vocalize at sunset, early evening, predawn, and dawn (Gutiérrez et al. 1995). California spotted owls are non-migratory in southern California (Gutiérrez et al. 1995).

V-7. Ecology - Predator-Prey Relations Predators of California spotted owl include northern goshawk (Accipiter gentilis) and great horned owl (Bubo virginianus), and potentially include red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis) and Cooper's hawk (Accipiter cooperii) (Gutiérrez et al. 1995). These species have been identified as predators of fledged young, dispersing juveniles and, rarely, adults. Common ravens (Corvus

Page 16- California Spotted Owl Updated May 2011 Appendix C - MIS Species Account - S. Province corax) have been observed preying on spotted owl eggs. Spotted owls react aggressively toward potential predators and are known to call in response to great horned owl calls (Gutiérrez et al. 1995). The degree to which great horned owls prey on spotted owls is unknown. For the duration of the SBNF demography study and subsequent study (over 20 years), the project leaders never recall observing a spotted owl – great horned owl interaction (Tanner, pers. comm.. with R.Eliason 2010) in spite of thousands of site visits involving calling in spotted owls.

California spotted owls are mobbed by many species of diurnal birds, such as Allen's hummingbird (Selasphorus sasin), Anna's hummingbird (Calypte anna), pileated woodpecker (Dryocopus pileatus), acorn woodpecker (Melanerpes formicivorus), American robin (Turdus migratorius), Steller's jay (Cyanositta stelleri), and solitary vireo (Vireo solitarius) (Gutiérrez et al. 1995).

VI. THREATS, HABITAT CONDITION, AND HABITAT TRENDS The naturally-fragmented distribution of owls in southern California, loss and degradation of dispersal habitat, and severe drought are key factors affecting the long-term viability of spotted owls in the region (LaHaye 2005). Air pollution may also be an adverse impact.

We are not aware of any definitive data that quantify impacts and trends in habitat types utilized by spotted owls in southern California. However, it is certainly obvious that large-scale and substantial changes have recently occurred throughout the southern California distribution as a result of a historic drought event and related die-off of forested habitat, wildfires, and vegetation treatments to reduce fuels and timber salvage in fire-damaged areas. Type conversion from too frequent fire in the lower elevation and urban interface areas continues at an alarming rate and this is affecting territories embedded in the chaparral. In some cases, chaparral and associated woodrat habitat has been totally converted to non-native annual grassland from frequent fire.

California spotted owls face a wide range of potential threats in southern California. These include unnatural fuel build-up resulting from fire suppression, and consequent wildfire; fuels management activities such as thinning, mortality removal, and prescribed fire; woodcutting for fuelwood and sawlogs, hazard tree removal, and postfire salvage; invasive plants; type conversion from unnaturally-frequent human-caused wildfire in the urban interface; water diversion and groundwater extraction; tree mortality due to forest pests and diseases; drought; air pollution; habitat fragmentation due to private land development and ownership patterns; mining activities; and human disturbance and habitat loss related to special uses, roads, and recreation.

These threats, and how they have affected or may affect spotted owl habitat, and are discussed in more detail below. Where data are available for trends, they are also presented.

VI-1. Climate Change Climate change represents a serious long-term threat to California spotted owls through habitat loss and degradation as well as potential effects on prey populations. The southern California populations of California spotted owls are essentially insular populations divided by large areas of unsuitable habitat. Increased wildfire size and behavior and vegetation burn severity has already resulted in losses of most or all suitable habitat in some territories that were occupied and productive 1-2 decades ago. This has happened in both the lower elevation territories and higher

Page 17- California Spotted Owl Updated May 2011 Appendix C - MIS Species Account - S. Province elevation territories where there has been increased wildfire. Large fires in montane conifer have increased considerably in recent years as predicted by the Southern California Mountains and Foothills Assessment (Stephenson and Calcarone 1999).

Temperatures in the southern California mountain ranges have increased over time as has the severity and frequency of periodic droughts. As climate changes continue, vegetation zones are predicted by many to move up in elevation, reducing the amount of available suitable habitat as well as eliminating linkages between suitable habitat.

Bonfils et al. (2008b) assessed the causes of warming trends observed in the western U.S. between 1950 and 1999 by modeling anthropogenic warming as a result of greenhouse gases, ozone, etc. They ruled out natural variability as the major cause of changes, finding that the anthropogenic model was robustly identified in the temperature changes. They “confidently” attributed the changes observed in the mountainous regions to human activities.

Bonfils et al. (2008a) analyzed temperature trends in California since 1915 and their findings suggest that the warming of Californian winters over the twentieth century is associated with human-induced changes in large-scale atmospheric circulation. They found significant positive trends in mean and maximum daily temperatures in late winter/early spring, as well as increases in minimum daily temperatures from January to September. These trends are inconsistent with model-based estimates of natural internal climate variability.

Luers et al. (2006) predict that, if global heat-trapping emissions proceed at a medium to high rate, temperatures in California are expected to rise 4.7 to 10.5°F by the end of the century, with widespread consequences including substantial loss of snowpack, increased risk of large wildfires, and reductions in the quality and quantity of certain agricultural products. They suggest that resources and natural landscapes are already under increasing stress due to California’s rapidly growing population, which is expected to grow from 35 million today to 55 million by 2050.

In their summary of climate change, Luers et al. (2006) predicted little change in total annual precipitation in California. One of three climate models that they used predicts slightly wetter winters while another predicts slightly drier winters with a 10-20% decrease in total annual precipitation. However, they suggest that even modest changes would have a significant impact because California ecosystems are conditioned to historical precipitation levels and water resources are nearly fully utilized.

Luers et al. (2006) also predict that continued climate change will result in changes in the state’s biodiversity as the ranges and abundance of pests, pathogens, and non-native invasive plants shift. Considered cumulatively with California’s growing population, the impacts on local landscapes can be expected to affect the natural ecosystems and biodiversity. Global warming is expected to intensify this threat by increasing the risk of wildfire and altering the distribution and character of natural vegetation (Luers et. al. 2006).

Alpine and subalpine ecosystems are among the most threatened in the state; plants suited to these regions have limited opportunity to migrate “up slope” and are expected to decline by as

Page 18- California Spotted Owl Updated May 2011 Appendix C - MIS Species Account - S. Province much as 60 to 80 percent by the end of the century as a result of increasing temperatures (Luers et al. 2006).

PRBO (Point Reyes Bird Observatory) Conservation Science (2011) summarized current literature and climate models and evaluated climate change effects on wildlife in California. For southern California, they predict that: Temperatures will increase, both annually and in the number of extreme temperature events including 7 day hot spells. Precipitation is predicted to be almost the same or decrease up to 37%. Snow accumulation is predicted to decrease by up to 90%. The area of chaparral/coastal sage scrub was projected to decrease 38-44% by 2070 and the area of grassland is projected to increase by 345-390%. The predominate effects of climate change on wildlife populations will likely result from changes in vegetation communities. High temperature events will become more common and species with very narrow temperature tolerance levels may experience thermal stress resulting in direct mortality and diminished reproduction. (Spotted owls are especially susceptible to heat stress). Snow-fed rivers and streams will have less water, which may reduce riparian habitat and affect species associated with riparian areas. The effects of fires in the region are likely to impact species directly through increased mortality and indirectly by modifying vegetation structure and composition.

Walther (2010) suggest that there is a need to focus on the impacts of climate change on individual species in ecological networks while also evaluating the connections between them and to acknowledge that biotic interactions and feedback processes lead to highly complex, nonlinear and sometimes abrupt responses. Most studies have concentrated on the effects of climate change on individuals and species (e.g.,phenology, physiology, changes in distribution, and shifts in range) (Walther 2010).

Another factor that has not been well-addressed by research is the effect of climate change on prey availability. Moritz et al. (2008) evaluated changes in small mammal populations by repeating sampling conducted in the early 1900s in Yosemite National Park. They found substantial upward changes in elevational limits for 50% of the 28 small mammal species monitored. The shift upward averaged ~1640 feet and was consistent with a ~5.4o F increase in minimum temperatures. They observed an expansion of ranges in low-elevation species and a contraction of ranges in high-elevation species. They concluded that “recent trends do not bode well for several mid- to high-elevation species”. It is reasonable to assume that similar shifts are occurring in the small mammal populations, including dusky-footed woodrats, in the southern California mountain ranges. To what degree this affects prey availability for California spotted owls has not been studied.

For spotted owl habitat, climate change effects will most likely be felt first at the lower elevation patches/stringers of bigcone Douglas fir that are in chaparral mosaics. Many of those sites have already been affected by invasive annual grasses, fire, and drought. Increasing temperatures and reduced precipitation pose a serious threat to the vegetation communities and prey species upon which California spotted owls depend.

Page 19- California Spotted Owl Updated May 2011 Appendix C - MIS Species Account - S. Province

The southern California populations of California spotted owls may be particularly at risk of impacts from climate change due to several factors: 1) most of the southern California populations are high elevation clusters separated by large areas of unsuitable habitat; 2) as forested patches and stringers in vegetation mosaics shrink or disappear, fragmentation will increase even more; 3) habitat availability will be compressed upward; and 4) over time, suitable habitat may shrink and become so isolated that connectivity is seriously affected.

Of particular concern is the long-term viability of California spotted owls where very small populations currently exist in isolated mountain ranges. With fewer than twenty territories identified in the San Jacinto Mountains and only 2-3 pairs successfully reproducing annually, recruitment of individuals may not keep up with mortality over time. Similar conditions are found in the San Gabriel and Santa Diego Mountains where small numbers of spotted owls are known. Kelly and Goulden (2008) found that there was an average shift in dominant vegetation of about 65 meters between 1977 and 2007 in the Santa Rosa Mountains. They did not find a correlation between air pollution or fire frequency and attributed the shift to changes in regional climate. They concluded that their results imply that surprisingly rapid shifts in the distribution of plants can be expected with climate change, at least in areas where dispersal is not a major constraint, and that global climate change may already be affecting the distribution of vegetation.

The effects of climate change, for all of the reasons discussed above, may be contributing to the downward trends in spotted owl numbers and habitat availability. If current trends continue, complete losses of these isolated populations may occur in the next decade. Viability of the California spotted owl population in southern California may be at serious risk.

More in-depth discussion of inter-related effects, drought and wildfire, follow.

VI-2. Insects, Disease, and Drought Impacts on Vegetation A historic drought between 1999 and 2003 and associated disease and insect problems caused some major die-offs of mixed conifer forests and big-cone Douglas-fir/live oak forest and woodlands on all four of the S. Province National Forests.

Minnich (2007) states that “this drought and tree mortality episode may quite possibly become one of the great transformations in California vegetation since the beginning of European settlement, rivaled only by the invasion of European annuals into California coastal plains and valleys. It is difficult to evaluate the significance of the 2002–2003 [tree mortality] event without the “hindsight” of past and future climate and vegetation states”. His studies found that the number of mature trees that died in the San Diego County, San Bernardino, and San Jacinto mountain ranges since 2002 is greater than combined mortality of the last century.

The recent, historically unprecedented drought dramatically increased tree and chaparral mortality on the four southern California National Forests. Drought-weakened trees became increasingly vulnerable to attack by insects. The drought began in 1999. By 2001, tree mortality was apparent in the San Bernardino Mountains, in the eastern portion of the San Gabriel Mountains (ANF and SBNF) in the San Jacinto Mountains (SBNF), and in the Palomar and Laguna Mountains (CNF). Although equally severe droughts likely occurred prior to European

Page 20- California Spotted Owl Updated May 2011 Appendix C - MIS Species Account - S. Province settlement, this drought is thought to be unprecedented historically in its effects. The 2001-2002 rainfall year was the driest on record (Barley, pers. comm.). Southern California National Forests are artificially dense (attributed to fire suppression) and in many places are highly impacted by air pollution, leading to greater mortality than would likely have occurred under pre-settlement stand conditions (USDA Forest Service 2006, FEIS p.87).

Table 2 shows the acres of woody plant mortality mapped 2001 to 2004. These figures included shrub mortality in addition to forest trees. Precipitation was significantly above average over the winter of 2004 to 2005, and new tree mortality associated with drought and pests was expected to be low (USDA Forest Service 2005, FEIS p.87).

Table 2. Acres of Woody Plant Mortality On The Four Southern California National Forests National Forest 2001 2002 2003 2004 Angeles 394 965 11,570 62,600 Cleveland 401 7,465 82,319 134,675 Los Padres No data 19,214 5,522 13,710 San Bernardino 5,793 66,401 521,752 147,204 Data from USDA Forest Service, R5, Forest Health Protection aerial surveys

The numbers in Table 2 include mortality above 1% (background) that was mapped each year. Each year’s maps represent new mortality but not necessarily on new acres; thus the same area may have been mapped each year if mortality continued (USDA Forest Service 2005, FEIS p.87).

The effects of drought have been most severe in the San Bernardino Mountains and Peninsular Ranges. In some areas of the San Bernardino Mountains, tree mortality exceeded 80%. Trees died because they could not obtain enough soil moisture to sustain minimal metabolic processes to enable them to resist insects. Bark beetles (Dendroctonus spp. and Ips spp.) quickly invade and kill drought-stressed trees. In addition to the extensive tree mortality, large areas of chaparral also suffered extensive top-kill and some shrub death.

The die-off in the eastern San Gabriel portion of the ANF, in the SBNF (SBNF Vegetative Ecology and Fuel Reduction Strategy Review July 2004), and in the CNF was severe and unprecedented in recorded history. At the same time, sudden oak death syndrome has affected areas of the LPNF where many of the owl territories are in oak trees. Recent fire activity has also affected a number of territories, including some in big-cone Douglas-fir. See discussion under “Risks and Management Concerns” above for further discussion of impacts to spotted owl habitat.

In 2003, an analysis of tree mortality was conducted for FIA plots that were mapped within mortality polygons in the south province (non-mortality sites were not measured). This analysis found that within sampled mortality polygons, there was a substantial differential die-off by diameter class with the largest diameter trees having been hit the hardest (Table 3 and Figure 2). Trees ≥16” are an important mid-story component of spotted owl habitat. The trees even larger than that become increasingly important with increasing diameter as components in nesting

Page 21- California Spotted Owl Updated May 2011 Appendix C - MIS Species Account - S. Province habitat and as nest trees. The data suggest that the trees and habitat of highest value to spotted owls were substantially affected during the recent drought cycle.

Table 3. Number Of Trees (Millions) On Forest Land By Diameter Class Of Trees At Least 5" DBH Before Diam. Class Alive Died Percentage 16.31 5"- 6.9" 14.76 1.55 9.48% 9.70 7"- 8.9" 9.09 0.61 6.29% 5.10 9"-10.9" 4.59 0.51 9.96% 3.33 11"-12.9" 3.10 0.23 6.88% 2.87 13"-14.9" 2.55 0.32 10.98% 1.95 15"-16.9" 1.74 0.21 10.85% 1.53 17"-18.9" 1.28 0.25 16.57% 1.08 19"-20.9" 0.96 0.12 11.28% 2.64 21"-28.9" 2.20 0.44 16.66% 1.69 29"+ 1.30 0.39 23.33% All species by diameter class. Live trees - DE, AC,RF ≥5" in diameter. Dead trees - recently died ≥5" diameter

Number of Conifer Trees by Diameter Class Figure 2. (millions of conifer trees at least 5" in diameter)

9.00

8.00

7.00

6.00 Died 5.00 Alive

4.00

millionsof trees conifer 3.00

2.00

1.00

0.00 5"- 6.9" 7"- 8.9" 9"-10.9" 11"-12.9" 13"-14.9" 15"-16.9" 17"-18.9" 19"-20.9" 21"-28.9" 29"+ Diameter Class

Page 22- California Spotted Owl Updated May 2011 Appendix C - MIS Species Account - S. Province

On the CNF, some of the territories on the Descanso District appear to have been abandoned due to drought and drought-induced tree mortality (Winter pers. comm.).

Insects and disease have always been a mortality factor in the forests and woodlands of southern California. Long-term stand densification and recent extreme drought have greatly increased tree mortality related to forest pests, particularly in the eastern San Gabriel, San Bernardino, San Jacinto, and San Diego Mountains. This could cause a substantial reduction in the extent of suitable spotted owl habitat and lead to a permanent reduction of spotted owl numbers regionally (LaHaye 2004). The drought could also be seriously affecting the prey base, and this could account for reduced owl productivity (LaHaye pers. comm.). In 2002-2003, the SBNF experienced the worst drought period in over 250 years based on rainfall records and observed affect on vegetation and streamflows (Loe, pers. comm.).

Huge acreages of live oak died, and in many areas greater than 60 percent tree mortality occurred in the conifer zone (Robert Sommers, pers. comm.). This drought had a great effect on vegetation health, making it more susceptible to insects and disease. The drought and bark beetles resulted in unprecedented numbers of conifers dying in the San Gabriel, San Bernardino, San Jacinto and San Diego Mountain Ranges.

The gold-spotted oak borer, Agrilus coxalis, is a threat to oaks in California and it has potential to severely alter California spotted owl habitat. Oaks are a very important component of owl habitat in many areas. The following description of the goldspotted oak borer is provided by Tom Coleman (Southern California Province entomologist):

The wood borer was first detected in San Diego County by the California Department of Food and Agriculture in 2004, but was not initially linked to the continuing oak mortality until 2008. The beetle is native to southeastern Arizona, southern Mexico, and Guatemala and was never associated with tree injury or mortality prior to 2008. It is hypothesized that the wood borer was introduced from its native region via firewood.

The gold-spotted oak borer aggressively attacks and kills coast live oak, Quercus agrifolia, California black oak, Q. kellogii, and canyon live oak, Q. chrysolepsis, after several years of injury. The goldspotted oak borer prefers mature/sawtimber-sized trees (>10” DBH), but has been found injuring and killing pole-sized trees (5-10” DBH). Larvae feed under the bark at the interface of the xylem and phloem, essentially girdling the tree. Tree morality is estimated at >20,000 stems during 2002- 2009 across all land ownerships. The infestation is currently isolated to San Diego Co., but the infestation and tree mortality is expanding in all directions. It is still too early to predict the potential impact to spotted owl. Moving firewood from one area to another is the biggest threat to expanding the distribution of the beetle.

Sudden oak death, caused by the fungus, Phytophthora ramorum, also has the potential to alter California spotted owl habitat by reducing the population of oak trees. The following description of sudden oak death was provided by Paul Zambino (Southern California Province Pathologist):

Page 23- California Spotted Owl Updated May 2011 Appendix C - MIS Species Account - S. Province

Sudden oak death is only significant in oaks where they co-occur with the foliage hosts most productive of infective structures, instead of across the oaks’ entire geographic ranges. Thus, relatively few areas of coast live oak in southern California not already affected are likely to become highly impacted. At present, dead oaks and tanoaks occur on the LPNF in watersheds in Monterey County where there are patches of tanoaks. Considering climatic influences, most models (Kelly, Shaari, Guo, and Liu 2006) suggest relatively low danger of sudden oak death impacts in most other areas of southern California, with some risk in areas of the LPNF and ANF.

Long-term effects of sudden oak death on canopy architecture that would favor or disfavor owl use will depend on the combination of immediate effects on canopy trees, plus canopy recruitment. The potential for mortality in southern California in areas where sudden oak death becomes established will likely be at or lower than that found in the most heavily impacted more northern stands, where oaks have had long- term exposure to the disease under ideal infection conditions and presence of foliage hosts. In Marin, Napa, and Sonoma County stands studied, roughly 70% of infected Quercus agrifolia trees have survived six years of infection (Swiecki and Bernhardt 2008).

Research has shown great variability in susceptibility of coast live oaks within stands, which appears due to variation in natural resistance, and further, such resistance appears to be geographically widespread (Dodd et al. 2005). Usefulness of such resistance in buffering oak woodlands from mortality that would impact owls is unknown. Despite survival of many large trees in these more northern locations, regeneration under canopy at these sites is severely reduced, as tender young plants are easily infected by abundant infective structures in the moist under-canopy. Resistance in southern California coast live oak remains to be tested. Resistance is present in tanoak in central California (Anacker et al. 2008), but possibly of much lower magnitude and effectiveness than is known in coast live oak. In mixed stands of tanoak and coast live oak, removal of tanoak may reduce the supply of infective structures and improve chances that mature and seedling coast live oak can survive in the future to maintain or regenerate stand architecture.

Nurseries present a potential means for the disease to spread from urban to risk areas in wildland settings further south of the current extent of sudden oak death in Monterey County (http://www.suddenoakdeath.org/html/chronology.html). In April 2004, nursery stock infected with Phytophthora ramorum was found in Monrovia, near Los Angeles. Infections were detected in two nurseries in Los Angeles County in February 2008 (one in a production nursery, and one in a production/retail nursery). Danger of establishing new outbreaks in southern California will be greatest for nursery stock planted on private lands near native foliage hosts at a wildland/urban interface. Plants most likely to be infected as nursery stock include rhododendrons, azaleas, pieris, blueberries and others in the heath family (Ericaceae), kalmias, tea (Camellia spp.), and magnolias (http://www.suddenoakdeath.org/html/host_plant _lists.html). One example of a Wildland Urban Interface where P. ramorum could become established is where tanoak occurs on the Santa Barbara Ranger District of

Page 24- California Spotted Owl Updated May 2011 Appendix C - MIS Species Account - S. Province

the LPNF (Lithocarpus distribution map at http://esp.cr.usgs.gov/data/atlas/little/); accidental introduction into this or other such areas may have potential for spread in tanoak and mortality to oak.

Impacts on oaks, tanoak, and spotted owl of a jump in sudden oak death distribution further into southern California would depend on how much potential for further spread would be limited by distributions of foliage hosts.

A final consideration for this disease is the impact on progression from standing live to standing snag to downed material. Sudden oak death has potential to reduce living and dead canopy in oak woodlands that provide habitat for California spotted owls. Yet there is great variability in changes in canopy density, with some stands even increasing in canopy cover after infection (Swiecki and Bernhardt 2008). This may be due in some cases to mixture with other hardwood and conifer species.

In central California, a high proportion of tanoaks weakened or killed by sudden oak death fall (and, thus, also change the character of the undercanopy) within several years, from the rapid action of secondary beetles and fungi (Swiecki and Bernhardt 2008). Due to great variability in potential for sudden oak death establishment and spread, and differences in the ways that different stands may respond to infestation with sudden oak death, seriousness and eventual extent of the threat posed by Sudden Oak Death to spotted owl habitat in southern California cannot be predicted reliably at this time.

If long-term droughts continue across the southwestern U.S. along with its associated infestations of insects and disease, the amount of suitable spotted owl habitat will continue to decline across the region. In addition, as fuel loads increase, the risk of stand-replacing fire grows as well.

VI-3. Wildfire Wildfire is considered to be a primary risk factor to California spotted owl habitat and population persistence. Hundreds of thousands of acres of forested land in southern California, including California spotted owl habitat, were burned during fire storms since the late 1990s.

Minnich (2007) suggests that the maintenance of mixed-conifer forest may be compromised by increasing fire intervals, stand densification, and increasingly extensive stand-replacement burns. Due to a disruption of natural fire cycles, many of the forests occupied by spotted owls have become overstocked with trees and are now primed for catastrophic fire, including those of southern California (Arno and Allison-Bunnel 2002, Minnich et al. 1995). Owl sites are threatened by the buildup of fuels and vegetative composition and structure changes that have occurred as a result of fire suppression.

The natural role of fire in southern California mixed conifer forests is believed to be similar to that of the Sierra Nevada, with slightly longer historic mean fire intervals explained by a lower incidence of lightning and smaller contiguous areas of forest vegetation (Weatherspoon et al. 1992). The pre-settlement fire regime was typified by frequent low to moderate severity fires that burned over long periods under a variety of fuel and weather conditions (Minnich 1988).

Page 25- California Spotted Owl Updated May 2011 Appendix C - MIS Species Account - S. Province

McBride and Laven (1976) estimated the fire return interval in mixed conifer forests to be 10 to 30 years in the San Bernardino Mountains prior to European settlement. Everett (2003) estimated the fire return interval to be 33 years in a mixed conifer forest in the San Jacinto Mountains and 50 years in a drier Jeffrey pine forest in the San Bernardino Mountains prior to effective fire suppression (around 1900).

Fire suppression has reduced the number of large fires in southern California mixed conifer forests over the last 100 years although this pattern appears to be changing with several large fires in forested areas of the province starting in 2003. An estimated 66% of the montane conifer habitat had not burned in the last 90 years at the time of the writing of the Southern California Mountains and Foothills Assessment (Stephenson and Calcarone 1999). As a result, shade tolerant and fire sensitive tree species, especially white fir, increased dramatically in abundance, especially in the small to medium size classes (Weatherspoon et al. 1992).

Recent (1999-present) fires in montane conifer habitat have burned a larger acreage than in the previous decades, an indication that the lack of natural fires is beginning to have a large effect on the forests. It appears as though these areas with unnatural fire history are becoming more and more vulnerable to large wildfires. Considerable fuels management work in the southern California mountains around communities and escape routes has been conducted since 2003 to reduce the unnatural threat to human life and property as well as natural resources.

In the early 1930s, mixed ponderosa pine stands in the San Bernardino Mountains contained an average of 60 trees per acre (144 trees per ha) larger than 4 inches (12 cm) DBH; those same stands contained 100 trees per acre (250 per ha) in 1992 (Minnich et al. 1995). Most of the increased density was due to small ponderosa pines and especially white fir and incense cedar (Minnich et al. 1995). In addition, fuels on the forest floor, including coarse woody debris, have accumulated far beyond their pre-European levels with 100 years of fire suppression.

The increased prevalence of white fir in the understory has created hazardous fuel ladders linking surface fuels to the upper canopy layers (Weatherspoon et al. 1992). Stephenson and Calcarone predicted in 1999 that 30% of mixed conifer and pine stands in the mountains of southern California were at risk of stand densification, and consequent increased crown fire threat, due to fire suppression.

A GIS query in association with the Land Management Planning effort indicated that 55 owl territories in the South Province were affected by fire in 2003 (T. White, pers. comm.). The level of impacts could not be determined by that query. The large fires in 2003 were, in part, related to the extreme drought between 1999 and 2003.

Fire Summary for the ANF: The 2009 fires on the ANF affected as many as 20-25 territories and caused considerable impact to several territories in some of the Forests best owl habitat as reported by Tanner (2009a). In the 2002 and 2003 fires, an estimated nine territories were seriously affected by wildfires in the San Gabriel Mountains.

Page 26- California Spotted Owl Updated May 2011 Appendix C - MIS Species Account - S. Province

On the ANF, since 2000, an estimated 35 to 40 territories (out of 59 to 64) have been affected by wildfire. The 2009 Station Fire potentially affected 20 to 25 territories. This fire caused considerable impact to several territories in some of the Forests best and most critical owl habitat on the West Fork of the San Gabriel River as reported by Tanner (2008a, 2009a). The severity of the effects on all of the territories has not been determined. This area represents critical habitat for the owl’s long-term survival in the San Gabriel Mountains (Tanner 2009a). The mountain ranges of the ANF provide a critical habitat linkage between owl populations in the Sierras and those in the southern mountain ranges (Beck and Gould 1992). The Mount Wilson/West Fork area provides essential habitat for sustaining spotted owl populations throughout the region (Tanner 2009a).

Fire Summary for the CNF: Habitat on and near the CNF has been seriously affected by wildfire. In 2003, five territories in the San Diego Ranges on Cuyamaca State Park were substantially affected and potentially completely destroyed (Winter pers. comm.). In 2007, the Poomacha and Witch Fires on the CNF affected some 12 territories out of the 30 on the CNF. The severity of the impact to all of these territories has not been determined.

There were significant impacts to the Agua Tibia Wilderness nest stands from the Poomacha Fire in 2007 (Tanner 2009b). The Poomacha Fire burned through some of the best and most productive habitat on CNF. Tanner observed some significant damage from under-burning. This under-burning was of moderate to high intensity and eliminated much of the lower to middle story vegetation. In conjunction with the overstory created by large conifers, this vegetation provided the structural complexity that is a critical component of spotted owl habitat. Regardless, Tanner is hopeful that these habitat components can regenerate and that the area can again support nesting pairs within ten years.

Fire Summary for the LPNF: On the LPNF, the Indian and Basin fires burned over 100 square miles in 2008 and affected numerous territories (Ventana Wildlife Society 2009). The full extent of the impacts to spotted owls and their habitat is not known at this time. In a study conducted to determine the effects of Sudden Oak Death and wildfire on California spotted owls, Ventana Wildlife Society found that approximately 45% of the 2006 Monterey County spotted owl survey points had burned in the 2008 Indian and Basin Complex fires.

Fires Summary for the SBNF: Between 1999 and 2009, 44% (80 out of 181) of the territories on the SBNF were affected by wildfire. Four territories were affected in the Willow Fire of 1999; 30 territories had some fire impacts, with 14 of those seriously compromised in the Old/Grand Prix Fire (2003); and 13 territories were affected in the Millard/Sawtooth Fire (2006). The Slide Fire (2007) affected nest stands or PACs in 14 territories. The Slide Fire had one territory that was also affected by the Old/Grand Prix fire. The Grass Valley Fire (2007) affected nest stands, PACs or HRCs in 4 territories. The Butler 2 Fire (2007) and associated suppression firelines also affected 9 territories.

In 2009 the Sheep Fire affected 2 territories in the Eastern San Gabriel Mountains. Thus, approximately 47% of the territories (75) for the San Gabriel and San Bernardino Mountains portion (161 territories) of the population on the SBNF have some degree of fire impacts to spotted owl habitat over the past 10 years.

Page 27- California Spotted Owl Updated May 2011 Appendix C - MIS Species Account - S. Province

In the San Jacinto Mountains of the SBNF, five of 22 (23%) of the territories have been affected by wildfire. Whether or not these impacts are serious enough to affect occupancy and reproductive success is yet to be seen as the long-term effects might take longer to manifest.

Between 1990 and 2010, 77 out of 151 (51%) territories known in the San Bernardino Mountains had at least one fire occur in mapped habitat (PAC, HRC, or NS). Of those 151 territories, 64 (42%) had over 50 acres of mapped habitat within a fire and 44 (69%) of those are considered “inactive” (have not been occupied by a pair in 3+ years). In addition, 59 territories (39%) have had some fire in mapped Nest Stands and 37 (63%) of those are considered “inactive”. The degree and scale of fire effects varies by territory and depends on burn severity.

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

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

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

During moderate and high severity fires when fire behavior is extreme, it is likely that individual owls are killed due to smoke, winds, flames, gases, and confusion. For several days during the 2003, 2006, and 2007 fires on the SBNF there was extreme fire behavior with very high winds, erratic fire behavior, and dense smoke. It is likely that a number of individual spotted owls perished in the Old/Grand Prix, Heart/Millard/Sawtooth complex, Butler II, Grass Valley, and Slide fires. In the case of the San Bernardino Mountains where nearest-neighbor distances have increased and suitable habitat is becoming more and more isolated, and numbers of owls in the mountain range has dwindled, losses of individual owls may be significant.

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

Block et al. (2005) studied prey ecology of Mexican spotted owls in pine-oak forests where the owl’s diet is comprised of 94% mammals by biomass, consisting primarily of mice, woodrats, and voles. All of their prey populations showed seasonal variations in relative abundance. They

Page 28- California Spotted Owl Updated May 2011 Appendix C - MIS Species Account - S. Province found woodrats and brush mice using steeper areas with more rocks and shrub cover than found in other areas. Contrastingly, deer mice were found in forests with relatively open understories.

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

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

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

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

Other studies of post-fire habitat utilization (Jenness et al. 2004; S.Loe pers. comm. with J. Taiz; Clark 2007) had similar conclusions that spotted owls are able to use burned areas for foraging for some period after fires. Based on their studies of post-fire habitat utilization, Bond et al. (2009) recommended that burned forests within 1.5 km of nests or roosts not be logged until long-term effects of fire on spotted owls and their prey are understood.

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

Since August 2009, the SBNF has been conducting similar radio-tracking efforts to assess habitat utilization, especially in relation to vegetation burn severity. We hope to collect data for through

Page 29- California Spotted Owl Updated May 2011 Appendix C - MIS Species Account - S. Province breeding season 2011. While our data have not been analyzed, like others, we have found that the radioed owls are foraging in all categories of burn severity.

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

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

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

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

Fires – Summary: If current trends in fire size, severity, and behavior continue, the California spotted owl will continue to disappear from its historic range and will become increasingly isolated within small pockets of high quality habitat. This will likely leave the region’s subpopulations, such as the San Jacinto Mountains and Santa Ana Mountains, vulnerable to localized and regional extirpation (Tanner 2009a, b, c).

High severity fire in nesting/roosting habitat probably render areas unsuitable for nesting and roosting almost immediately post-fire; those areas may remain suitable for foraging at least as long as there is vertical structure in the stand.

While foraging habitat may not be a limiting factor in the southern California Mountains, nesting and roosting habitat may be limited. Changes to the quality and quantity of that habitat due to a number of large fires with high and moderate severity over the past two decades has likely been responsible, in part, for the abandonment of 60%+ of the territories in the San Bernardino Mountains. Approximately 63% of territories that have had some of the Nest Stands burned since 1990 are no longer occupied by pairs. While there are certainly other variables that may be

Page 30- California Spotted Owl Updated May 2011 Appendix C - MIS Species Account - S. Province a factor in the abandonment of those territories, the SBNF data suggest that fires are a likely major contributing factor.

VI-4. Prey Base Conditions In southern California, studies have indicated that dusky-footed woodrats and Jerusalem crickets are the most important prey species in terms of biomass and frequency of consumption. Pocket gophers, peromyscid mice, voles, flying squirrels, birds, and invertebrates make up the rest of the diet (Gutiérrez et al. 1995). Successful nesters consumed a greater percent biomass of woodrats than non-nesters (Smith et al. 1999).

While research and data are lacking on current population status for these prey species, there are a number of factors that may affect prey populations. Fires, vegetation management practices, invasive plants, and ground disturbance all affect habitat for prey species, likely influencing prey population densities and abundance in areas of southern California’s spotted owl habitats.

Drought cycles affect plant and seed/nut production that could, in turn, affect population density and abundance of woodrats, flying squirrels, and deer mice as a result of the availability of food and shelter.

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

Gray squirrels are an example of a small mammal species that has experienced a substantial decline in recent years that may be an indication of declines in other species. Starting in about 2006, residents in the communities of Blue Jay, Crestline, and Lake Arrowhead began reporting that the gray squirrels were disappearing from their neighborhoods. By summer 2010, the same phenomenon was observed in Fawnskin and the north shore of Big Bear Lake. The County’s Vector Control unit and CDFG biologists confirmed that West Nile Virus had been found in gray squirrels in the San Bernardino Mountains and could be one of the factors responsible for the localized demise of gray squirrel populations.

Several extremely large snowstorms in January 2010 resulted in 4-6’ of snow cover that remained on the ground for many weeks, likely making cached food supplies impossible to reach. These and other factors combined are probably the cause of some areas of the mountains becoming devoid of gray squirrels. With species that exhibit “boom and bust” population cycles, it is likely that the populations will recover quickly. The 1999-2003 two-hundred year plus drought event could have also had a substantial effect on prey species abundance due to reduction of cover and food availability. This drought event could still affecting species today.

Similar localized or range-wide declines may have occurred in woodrat and other spotted owl prey species populations throughout southern California. But, due to lack of research and monitoring, declines would not have been detected. The potential for woodrats and other small

Page 31- California Spotted Owl Updated May 2011 Appendix C - MIS Species Account - S. Province mammals to contract West Nile Virus seems plausible. Many spotted owl territories are associated with riparian areas or north-facing slopes with higher humidity and mosquitoes are often abundant in mornings and evenings in those sites. The observed declines in California spotted owls may be correlated to prey base conditions. While speculative, it is possible that weather conditions and diseases, such as West Nile Virus, may have resulted in localized declines or temporary extirpations of small mammal populations that are the main source of food for California spotted owls.

VI-5. Riparian Habitat Conflicts Many owl territories, especially nest stands, are associtated with drainages and riparian habitats. These drainages appear to be important for supporting high quality nesting, roosting, and foraging habitat as well as being assumed to provide movement corridors for foraging. Riparian drainages also provide a cooler, moister microhabitat believed to be important in the hot summer months (Barrows 1981). Riparian and meadow habitat has been affected by development and water diversions and extractions over the years, reducing the amount and quality of this habitat type. As such, impacts to spotted owl populations likely have occurred due to a reduction in habitat quality and quantity due to dewatering, especially during drought periods. Demands for water, and thus impacts to riparian and meadow habitats, will likely continue to increase with growing human populations.

Water diversions have significantly altered numerous drainages in southern California, reducing the extent and vigor of riparian forests upon which spotted owls depend (Verner et al. 1992b). Some major riparian areas have been totally dewatered by past diversions for power generation or irrigation. Many of these diversions now divert water for downstream domestic purposes. This dewatering and channelization of many riparian areas has affected dispersal habitat for owls to move between the mountain ranges (LaHaye 2005).

The National Forests still get applications for new diversions and wells, and they work with the state and local governments to control new diversions and wells that would adversely affect downstream riparian habitat on NFS lands. The Forest Plan (2006) provides strong direction to protect surface water, groundwater, and riparian habitat from water extraction and other potentially damaging projects.

VI-6. Timber and Fuelwood Programs Commercial harvest of timber has been modest in southern California since about 1980. However, vegetation treatments have increased substantially with the recent tree mortality in the San Bernardino and San Jacinto Mountains and the San Diego Ranges, primarily for fuels reduction and hazard tree removal in the wake of drought, insect and disease outbreaks, and wildfires.

Sanitation salvage (focusing on the removal of large old trees) was still being practiced on the SBNF as late as the 1980s. This long-term practice has resulted in easily-accessible areas having fewer large trees and snags, which are important to spotted owls, than naturally occurred.

The majority of the large trees removed from the southern California National Forests are dead trees taken out for fuel reduction or as hazard trees. Most fuel treatments are targeted on the

Page 32- California Spotted Owl Updated May 2011 Appendix C - MIS Species Account - S. Province smaller diameter live trees that are unnaturally dense around communities. Some logging still occurs on private land under a State Timber Harvest Plan. This activity has increased significantly with the recent drought and pest-related mortality. In general, these logging operations have consisted primarily of thinning, but have included a number of large trees to make treatment economical.

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

An ongoing problem exists with woodcutters illegally removing trees, including some in spotted owl habitat.

VI-7. Fuel Reduction and Hazard Tree Removal Treatments The Healthy Forest Management Act of 2003 directed the Secretary of Agriculture to reduce wildfire risk to communities. In some cases, this may result in habitat modification to the extent that treated areas may no longer support spotted owls. A simple habitat model, developed as part of the Southern California Forest Plan Revision Process and based on definitions of high value California spotted owl habitat described below, predicted that 48 of a total 345 spotted owl PACs on the National Forests would be affected by intensive fuels treatments in Community Defense Zones. The model predicted that up to 2,253 acres of PACs might be intensively treated. Most of the potentially affected PACs were on the SBNF, near mountain communities in the San Bernardino and San Jacinto Mountains. The modeling exercise should be considered with caution since most of the National Forests had not completed accurate mapping of PACs for known or suspected territories.

At this time, it is unknown how much thinning forests and woodlands and removing dead trees and down woody material has reduced wildfire potential and at the same time reduced habitat suitability for owls. There is a concern that prescribed fires used to reduce fuels could impact owl habitat if fires escape control. There is also a concern that failure to reduce unnatural fuel buildup could result in the loss of considerable amounts of owl habitat to severe wildfire.

The potential for loss of large patches of occupied habitat in a single, catastrophic fire event is often cited as the primary threat to California spotted owls. There are some uncertainties about the trade-offs of conducting treatments in spotted owl habitat to reduce the potential for loss to wildfire and the effects of the treatment on owl occupancy and habitat quality. There are also some uncertainties about how different treatments or combinations of treatments affect the risk of stand-replacing wildfire and affect spotted owls. This uncertainty and conflict has been addressed by several researchers.

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

Page 33- California Spotted Owl Updated May 2011 Appendix C - MIS Species Account - S. Province

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

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

Bond et al. (2002) evaluated the effects of wildfire on short-term spotted owl survival, site fidelity, mate fidelity, and reproductive success. Based on their results, they concluded that prescribed burning could be an effective tool in restoring habitat to natural conditions with minimal short-term impact on resident owls. However, no studies have been conducted that specifically address the effects of fuels treatment on California spotted owl occupancy, survival, and reproduction in southern California.

The second issue regards the uncertainty about how different treatments or combinations of treatments would affect fire risk and severity in PACs or in areas surrounding PACs. This uncertainty stems from differences in the ability of mechanical thinning and prescribed fire to reduce surface fuel loads and the subsequent risk of stand-replacing wildfire. Given this uncertainty, it is difficult to evaluate the potential benefits and consequences of different proposed treatments or lack of treatment (USDA Forest Service 2001).

Weatherspoon et al. (1992) recommend prescribed burning as the most appropriate fuel reduction method in owl roosting and nesting habitat. They advised that burning should be conducted strategically to disrupt fuel continuity around known nest and roost sites within PACs. Outside of PACs, they recommend a combination of understory thinning and mechanical treatment of fuels prior to burning if needed to insure that fire intensities remain within an acceptable range.

In many cases, spotted owls occur in canyons and north-facing slopes in the mixed conifer zone, areas that would support severe wildfires under a narrower range of conditions than would drier south-facing slopes (Weatherspoon et al. 1992). Therefore, it may not be as important to treat PACs in these areas right away, but instead to wait until research and monitoring of spotted owls in the Sierra Nevada and owls affected by wildfire and essential treatment of PACs in Wildland Urban Interface Defense Zones is done for this planning period (LaHaye, pers. comm.; Stephenson, pers. comm.).

Weatherspoon et al. (1992) do not recommend prescribed burning within live oak/bigcone Douglas-fir stands that are home to spotted owls. They note that this vegetation will probably

Page 34- California Spotted Owl Updated May 2011 Appendix C - MIS Species Account - S. Province not support stand-destroying crown fire except under extreme burning conditions, during which the results of prescribed fire or other surface fuel reduction will make little difference in fire behavior. A better strategy to protect live oak/bigcone Douglas-fir stands may be to concentrate prescribed burning in chaparral near these stands. Some of this work has been completed on the SBNF and other southern California National Forests.

Treatments should focus first on south-facing slopes and ridges surrounding or adjoining nesting and roosting areas; spring burning is recommended to reduce consumption of duff and large woody fuels while still treating litter and small woody debris (Weatherspoon et al. 1992). Highest priority should be given to older chaparral with high dead-to-live fuel ratios, which would support more intense wildfires and thus be more likely to carry a crown fire into adjacent trees.

Similarly, high priority should be given to chaparral near live oak/bigcone Douglas-fir stands that have more continuous surface fuels and those stands on gentle to moderate slopes (as opposed to very steep, broken slopes and canyons). Movement of fire into these stands should be minimal if prescribed burns are planned for moderate burning conditions and in such a way that slope and wind direction favor movement of the fire away from live oak/bigcone Douglas-fir stands. Prescribed burning of older chaparral should improve owl foraging habitat because of increased production of woodrats (more succulent and nutritious foliage in the new growth) and improved access to the woodrats for owls (Weatherspoon et al. 1992).

Accumulations of dead and downed woody fuels are generally low in southern California riparian/hardwood stands (Weatherspoon et al. 1992), making this type of spotted owl habitat less prone to catastrophic fire. Fire behavior depends on understory composition, which can be variable. Areas with a grass understory burn rapidly with low to moderate intensities. Effects are generally benign. Stands with a shrub understory show great variability in fire behavior and effects, depending on species composition and abundance of shrubs. Management of spotted owl habitat in riparian/hardwood stands should focus on maintaining closed canopy conditions. In some stands, prescribed burning or other fuels treatment may be needed to prevent overstory mortality from wildfire. Fire also may be necessary in some situations to regenerate overstory trees, such as oaks.

Following the 2002-2003 drought and large vegetation die-off, plans were developed, with many being implemented, to greatly accelerate fuels reduction treatments in southern California as part of the National Fire Plan and The Healthy Forest Restoration Act of 2003. The focus of this work has been primarily on protection of communities, with some work designed to protect critical natural resources such as water supplies and Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive species habitat. This work has been planned and implemented both in chaparral and in forests and woodlands.

To address the uncertainties of the overall effects of fuels reduction treatments in spotted owl habitat, the fuel management guidelines in the S. California Conservation Strategy recommend a conservative approach. These guidelines limit treatments in PACs to no more than 5% of the PAC acreage in the mountain range per year and 25% of the mountain range PAC acreage per decade.

Page 35- California Spotted Owl Updated May 2011 Appendix C - MIS Species Account - S. Province

Because the California spotted owl is not protected under the state or federal Endangered Species Acts, Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), Caltrans, Southern California Edison (SCE), and the California Department of Forestry (CDF) do not afford it the same level of protection that the Forest Service does (as a Forest Service Sensitive species). As such, those agencies are less likely to avoid disturbance during nesting season or protect the habitat when working on non-NFS lands. When working on private lands with National Forest funding sources, NRCS does use the SBNF Design Features (e.g., LOPs, etc.) to limit impacts to California spotted owl.

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

Additionally, SCE and Caltrans have conducted hazard tree removal and fuels reduction efforts on federal and non-federal lands to protect state highway and powerline corridors. These efforts increased substantially in 2003 and have continued due to mortality of trees. NRCS and Caltrans have partnered to remove hazard trees along the state highways. Due to the need to protect powerlines and roads from falling trees, they have not had the flexibility of retaining these high value trees. Thus, some impacts to owl habitat have occurred by removal of snags and logs in those corridors.

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

VI-8. Reforestation Following the large fires since 2003, the Forests have been involved in habitat restoration efforts in the forested habitat types. Although these large fires cannot be totally restored, the Forests are actively working to reforest as much accessible, good site quality habitat as possible. The SBNF has significantly increased planting acreage since 2003 and the planting includes both trees and shrubs appropriate for the site. In 2009 and 2010, over 3,000 acres were planted each year. The ANF is making plans to do a substantial amount of reforestation in the huge Station Fire.

Page 36- California Spotted Owl Updated May 2011 Appendix C - MIS Species Account - S. Province

In the long-term, reforestation will be very important to the spotted owl and other forest dwelling species. Following wildfire or insect and disease caused mortality, invasive species can make it very difficult if not impossible for natural regeneration to take place. Planting and short-term invasive control can provide the opportunity for trees and other native species to get established. Spotted owl habitat restoration should be a priority for planting efforts in the Province.

VI-9. Air Pollution The impacts of air pollution on spotted owls are not known, but birds are more directly susceptible to pollution than other taxa, which may be a problem for owls in southern California (LaHaye, pers.comm.). Ozone could affect owls directly through potential damage to lung tissue (Rombout et al. 1991). Air pollution may also affect owls indirectly via effects on their prey and on habitat.

Pamela Padgett (pers. comm.) research plant physiologist from the Forest Service Riverside Fire Lab provided the following summary regarding air pollution in the Province and potential effect on spotted owl habitat. Padgett noted that air pollution is a problem throughout the Province and is not getting better in large part due to the numbers of people and the numbers of automobiles in use in southern California.

The primary air pollution problems for owls are ozone and nitrogen deposition. Both of these effect forest health and automobiles appear to be the major contributor. Ozone has a direct effect on the trees and makes them more susceptible to drought and insects. Drought and insects have been problems in recent years and have been noted as a significant problem for spotted owls (Tanner 2009a). Air pollution therefore has played a significant part in the huge amount of recent tree mortality. Nitrogen deposition has a number of effects on the ecosystem. Water quality is greatly affected by nitrogen deposition in the Province. Nitrogen deposition favors invasive plants, such as cheatgrass, which are problematic by increasing the likelihood and spread of wildfire. Invasive annual grasses also reduce the ability of native plants to regenerate from seed. Lichens, which are good indicators of effects of nitrogen deposition, appear to be declining.

Some improvement in air quality and visibility between the 1970s and 1980s can be attributed to the use of catalytic converters, but since then, the increase in the number of automobiles has overwhelmed the improvements made in emission control.

VI-10. Mining Several California spotted owl territories are located in the carbonate mining areas on the north side of the San Bernardino Mountains. The biggest threat to owls from mining is the impact to streams and riparian areas in steep canyons from water extractions for mining and side-casting of excess rock off of mining access roads. Improved administration and cooperation from large mining companies has resulted in much better protection of these areas.

VI-11. Recreation Human activity within spotted owl habitat can lead to direct habitat loss, noise, and disturbance. Recreation residence cabins and other developed recreation sites represent a loss of natural

Page 37- California Spotted Owl Updated May 2011 Appendix C - MIS Species Account - S. Province habitat. These areas are also continuing sources of noise and human and pet disturbance when they occur near owl nest stands or roosts. Use of recreation residences, organization camps, and developed camping and picnicking sites tends to be concentrated in the summer months, which overlaps the nesting season for spotted owls. Ski area development has eliminated owl habitat in the past, and expansion of existing areas would further reduce it, as ski areas in the San Bernardino and San Gabriel Mountains are all located on north-facing slopes preferred by spotted owls. Hazard tree removal must be done at all of these developed sites from a human safety standpoint, and this can affect habitat quality for the owls. Efforts have been made to reduce the impact of water withdrawals at recreation residences and organization camps and many cabins are required to haul in water instead of diverting from streams.

Dispersed recreation within spotted owl habitat can cause noise and disturbance to nesting owls. Shooting may result in direct mortality as well. Use and maintenance of roads, off-highway vehicle (OHV) trails, and hiking and biking trails may disturb owls, especially during the nesting season. Mexican spotted owls flushed from their daytime roosts when approached by hikers within 29 feet (12 m) for juveniles or 79 feet (24 m) for adults (Swarthout and Steidl 2001). They recommended a buffer of at least 29 feet (12 m) around nesting and roosting. Some trails have been rerouted on the NFS lands to protect nest sites.

Female Mexican spotted owls were observed to change their behavior in response to frequent presence of hikers near their nests (Swarthout and Steidl 2003), decreasing the amount of time spent by owls handling prey and doing maintenance activities in and near the nest. California spotted owls may respond similarly to disturbance, suggesting that the presence of large numbers of hikers or other recreationists could reduce nesting success of owl pairs.

VI-12. Special Uses Special uses under permit to National Forests that require vegetation modification (such as communication sites or utility and transportation corridors) also contribute to loss of owl habitat. Water removal under special use permit can lead to drying of streams and riparian vegetation, an important habitat component.

The greatest special use activity with the potential to affect owl habitat has been the removal of snags and other hazardous trees adjacent to or over powerlines, roads, and recreation sites. With the substantial mortality in the Forests from drought and insects, power and highway maintenance agencies have been actively removing large numbers of hazard trees. In these situations, this habitat component must be removed to protect life and property. Similar hazard tree removal projects have been carried out in recreation residence and organizational camps, and ski areas.

VI-13. Urbanization and Development Stephenson and Calcarone (1999) noted that increasing urbanization at the lower elevations threatens oak/big cone Douglas-fir habitat, important nesting and foraging habitat for spotted owls.

A substantial amount of private forested habitat has been developed in the mountains of southern California. Urbanization has consumed some forest in most southern California mountain ranges

Page 38- California Spotted Owl Updated May 2011 Appendix C - MIS Species Account - S. Province and is likely to continue in the future. San Bernardino Mountain surveys have documented that residential development may preclude spotted owl occupancy, even when closed canopy forest remains on developed sites (LaHaye 2005). The National Forests have an active land acquisition program in place and high quality habitat has been a priority for acquisition. The greatest problems with land development are on the SBNF due to the large amount of private in-holdings.

The SBNF, CNF, and ANF are largely surrounded by large metropolitan areas and these areas encroach on spotted owl habitat as they expand into the foothills. When economic times improve, private forested habitat in southern California which is in high demand could be rapidly developed. Developed areas seem to be generally avoided by nesting spotted owls, as evidenced by the location of nests and activity centers (LaHaye, 2005). Continuing development of private lands will result in further fragmentation of owl habitat (Verner et al. 1992b). Development and associated road network increases the likelihood of fire starts which can result in the direct loss of habitat and long-term type conversion to unsuitable habitat.

SBNF Private Land Development: With a large amount of private in-holdings within the San Bernardino Mountains, urbanization has had a substantial effect on the forested habitat. The results of spotted owl surveys conducted between 1987 and 1998 in the San Bernardino Mountains indicated that a large area of potentially-suitable spotted owl habitat, enough to support 10-15 pairs, existed between Running Springs and Crestline (LaHaye et al. 1999). However, only four pairs have been found in this area, and owls were found only in undeveloped sites.

In the San Bernardino Mountains, there has not been much new development approved in the last decade. Large development proposals have been actively opposed by many of the existing residents and environmental groups, with lawsuits pending on several development proposals. This coupled with the current economic downturn have slowed development effects on spotted owl habitat.

Since private land development has great potential to affect spotted owl habitat in the SBNF, an effort was made to quantify effects of private land development within and adjacent to the SBNF. San Bernardino County Planning was contacted in hopes of getting quantified historical data and GIS mapping of recently approved and implemented development that could be affecting owls. This effort was not very productive because the County has not integrated development planning and approval into their GIS system. County Planner Judy Tatman provided some information on development projects that were readily retrievable for recently approved projects and those accepted for analysis and future approval. They only have data back to 2006.

In addition, the SBNF contacted Peter Jorris Executive Director of the San Bernardino Mountains Land Trust, a conservation group that works to protect natural lands within the San Bernardino Mountains and natural areas in or near the National Forests in the Province. Since there is no GIS coverage and tracking to individual owl territories, the results of this analysis were not quantifiable.

Some projects being considered and planned in spotted owl habitat (in addition to residential development) include a proposed recreational zip line near Angelus Oaks, churches and church

Page 39- California Spotted Owl Updated May 2011 Appendix C - MIS Species Account - S. Province camps near Rimforest and Running Springs, and a proposed log processing complex for 13 timber operators near Lake Arrowhead. South of Silverwood Lake in high quality owl habitat there are old approved developments with hundreds of lots that, for the most part, have never been developed. Northwest of Lake Arrowhead in owl habitat, a development with approximately 92 units has been approved.

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

The CDFG, SBNF, San Bernardino Mountains Land Trust, and other conservation groups have been actively working to acquire and protect high quality wildlife habitat that is in private ownership with development potential before development is approved and the prices go up. Numerous parcels have been protected from development in this process and there is strong public support for land acquisition by these groups

VI-14. Non-Native Species Invasive plants are becoming an increasing problem in the Province for spotted owls and their habitat. One of the biggest problems is nonnative cheatgrass and other nonnative brome grasses. These plants are able to grow quickly in the spring and use up the available moisture in the root zone making it unavailable for native seedlings. In addition to this impact on regeneration, these nonnative grasses also make the habitat much more likely to burn on an unnaturally frequent fire cycle. Some forested areas that have been burned in recent years have reburned just several years later in subsequent fires. This is not natural and can result in type conversion of forest, woodlands, and shrub types to annual grasslands. This not only adversely affects spotted owls, but their prey species. These nonnative grasses have an impact on tree planting success as well.

There are some other invasive plant species that could become a problem for owls if not controlled. They tend to be concentrated at the present time on the edges of communities, in recreation residence tracts, along roads, and in downstream riparian areas. Some of the species that have potential to adversely affect spotted owls include such things as tree of heaven, tamarisk, and ivy.

VII. TERRITORY DELINEATION AND MAPPING The CASPO Strategy identified the direction and criteria for mapping and managing spotted owl habitat. In general, the Forests were to delineate and focus protection on spotted owl management areas of up to 600 acres, each comprised of a Home Range Core (HRC) containing a Protected Activity Center (PAC) and Nest Stand (NS). Guidance was given for how to conduct the mapping using what is known about the habitat in southern California and a ranking of suitable habitat.

The direction spelled out in the Conservation Strategy is to identify a PAC by selecting the first 300 acres of most highly ranked habitat containing, or adjacent to, the nest or territory center (as delineated in the CDFG owl territory database or determined on the ground via surveys) within a

Page 40- California Spotted Owl Updated May 2011 Appendix C - MIS Species Account - S. Province

1.5 mile radius of the known nesting site or territory center. A HRC is identified by adding to the PAC the next 300 acres of most highly ranked habitat within the same radius. Existing territory maps should be used as a starting point where available. The entire 1.5-mile radius circle is termed the Home Range and encompasses approximately 4,400 acres.

The nest stand is the best 30 to 60 acres of contiguous forested habitat around the nest tree. If the territory includes more than one nest tree, the nest stand should encompass all of the known nest trees. For many territories, the nest stand may be linear, rather than a rounded polygon, especially where the territory follows drainages or riparian areas.

The four southern Province National Forests are all in different stages of completing their spotted owl territory and habitat mapping. With the demography study in the San Bernardino Mountains, the SBNF had a head start in mapping their territories. The other Forests are mapping as funding and personnel availability allows. The CNF has recently remapped their territories. The ANF is currently remapping their territories. The LPNF has not made any progress on territory mapping due to personnel shortages and overwhelming workload.

VIII. POPULATION STATUS AND TREND California spotted owls in southern California are believed to function as a metapopulation, with separate subpopulations connected by infrequent but persistent interchange of individual owls (LaHaye et al. 1994, Noon and McKelvey 1992).

The following discussion on numbers of spotted owls in southern California is taken directly from the 12 month finding on the petition to list the California spotted owl (USDI 2006):

There are no reliable total population estimates for the California spotted owl. The number of California spotted owl territories has been used as an index to illustrate the range of the species and jurisdictions in which it occurs. This number is actually a cumulative total of all territories known to be historically or currently occupied by at least one spotted owl. This total increases over time as spotted owls move to new territories and as researchers survey new areas, even though many territories with sufficient suitable habitat may not be occupied in years following their initial discovery and some territories may no longer have sufficient suitable habitat to support spotted owls due to drought, fires, or other factors. Thus, the number of territories should not be viewed as a population estimate for the taxon.

Estimates for total number of spotted owl territories in southern California include 440 (Service 2002), 547 (Verner et al. 1994a), 578 (Beck and Gould 1992), and 582 (LaHaye 2005). In southern California, spotted owls occupy ``islands'' of high- elevation forests separated by lowlands of chaparral, desert scrub, and, increasingly, human development (Noon and McKelvey 1992, LaHaye et al. 1994). The islands comprise 15-20 populations with 3-270 individuals per population. Islands are separated from each other by 10-72 kilometers (km) (6 to 45 miles (mi)) (Verner et al. 1992a, Gutiérrez 1994, LaHaye et al. 1994). These populations appear to be isolated from one another; no inter-mountain movements were documented for any of the 478 juvenile California spotted owls banded in the San Bernardino Mountains

Page 41- California Spotted Owl Updated May 2011 Appendix C - MIS Species Account - S. Province

(LaHaye et al. 2001).

The USFWS estimated a total of 440 territories for southern California (USFWS 2002). There were two territories identified on BLM land, eight on State park lands, six on Native American lands, and 95 on private lands. In addition, there was one known territory in Mexico (USFWS 2002). These 441 territories in southern California and Mexico reported by the USFWS comprised 19 % of the total estimated 2,306 California spotted owl territories (USFWS 2006).

The largest subpopulation in southern California is the 200-plus territories in the adjacent San Bernardino and San Gabriel Mountains. Although Cajon Pass separates these two mountain ranges, there is not a major habitat discontinuity, and only six miles separate the easternmost San Gabriel territory from the westernmost San Bernardino Mountains territory. However, surveys from 2005 through 2009 at six historical territories on the SBNF in the eastern San Gabriel Mountains have yet to confirm occupancy (Tanner 2009a).

Noon and McKelvey (1992) stress the importance of this large subpopulation as a source of immigrants to sustain the surrounding smaller, isolated subpopulations. However, the modeling results of LaHaye et al. (1994) found the southern California spotted owl meta-population's stability to be insensitive to rates of dispersal between mountain ranges, suggesting that the subpopulations could be considered effectively isolated.

Two populations in southern California, including the largest population in the area (San Bernardino Mountains), showed significant declining trends based on estimates of demographic parameters (LaHaye et al. 1992b, 1994; Gutiérrez et al. 1995).

A report on California spotted owl population dynamics (Franklin et al. 2003) concluded that the population trend for the entire range of the California spotted owl is inconclusive. However, they concluded that concern may still be warranted for the San Bernardino Mountains population based on results of the analysis.

LaHaye et al. (1994) predicted a high risk of the southern California meta-population going extinct in the next 30 to 40 years. If the observed decline was due to drought, and thus temporary, the model used indicated a substantial decline but low probability of total population extinction. The effect of precipitation on primary productivity and thus prey densities could be an important determinant of spotted owl population numbers. Surveys conducted on the SNBF between 2003 and 2010 have shown a continuing decline in number of occupied territories.

Surveys conducted by LaHaye (2004) in the spring and summer of 2003 found owl occupancy rates in the San Bernardino and San Jacinto Mountains to be relatively low. Occupancy rate of surveyed territories in the San Bernardino Mountains (n=63) was about 50%, and it was only 20% in the San Jacinto Mountains (n=13). Occupancy of such a low number of sites in the San Jacinto Mountains raises the potential for extirpation of spotted owls from the mountain range. This would require recolonization from adjacent mountain ranges to re-establish the population. However, movement of spotted owls between mountain ranges in southern California appears to be low (LaHaye et al. 2001).

Page 42- California Spotted Owl Updated May 2011 Appendix C - MIS Species Account - S. Province

Because the San Bernardino-San Gabriel Mountains owl population is the largest in southern California and a potential source of dispersal animals to other mountain ranges, any decline in owl population could have repercussions in the rest of the S. Province.

Population status and trend data are lacking for much of southern California. Of the four Forests, the SBNF has the most complete monitoring data due to the demography study on the SBNF between 1987 and 1998 and the large amount of fuels treatment projects and associated monitoring of territories between 2003 and present. It may be safe to extrapolate the population status and trend data gathered from the SBNF to the other S. Province Forests. Similar impacts to spotted owl habitat (e.g., fire, vegetation mortality, fuels treatments, fire salvage operations, drought, etc.) have occurred throughout the South Province, to varying extents, and it follows that populations are likely similarly affected as a result. The LPNF may be the exception to this since the habitat types and influences in the coastal areas are different from those in the transverse and interior ranges of the ANF, SBNF, and CNF. However, sudden oak death syndrome and large fires have affected spotted owl habitat in the northern part of the LPNF.

We have no reason to believe that the apparent downward trends in occupancy, reproduction, and nesting seen on the SBNF are not occurring on the ANF and CNF. Rather, because of similar changes in habitat, it may be safer to assume that similar downward trends are occurring. Habitat and population status and trends on the LPNF may not follow those seen on the other National Forests in the Southern Province, although they are having problems with sudden oak death syndrome and large fires in spotted owl habitat on their northern district.

VIII-1. Angeles National Forest - Current Population Status and Trend The 1994 Final Report of the S. CA Spotted Owl Biologist Team listed a total of 59 territories on the ANF. The Fish and Wildlife Service assumed 64 territories in 2006 (USFWS 2006). From the CDFG data (where these estimates largely came from), some of these are actual breeding territories and some are simply historic response locations. The ANF is currently mapping their habitat and territories and should soon have a more accurate estimate of territory numbers and location.

Monitoring on the ANF has been sporadic over the past two decades. Since 2003, some limited surveys have been done in suitable habitat where territories have not been previously identified. In 2003, the ANF surveyed the Rincon/Redbox Road with OHV funding to determine the presence of owls potentially affected by OHVs (ANF 2003). Presence/absence surveys were conducted over a 10-mile area with 15 call points. Over the survey season, 9 of the 15 call points had spotted owl responses. Four territories were previously documented by CDFG, but the survey indicated that there may be 7-8 territories in the area (Ann Berkley pers.comm.).

In 2005 surveys were conducted by BioResource Consultants in support of the Edison Mount Wilson Upgrade Project on the Chilao and Video Circuits (Thelander et al. 2005). Seven survey/call sites out of 20 were found to be occupied. Some of these sites were historical locations and some were areas with only suitable habitat and no history of occupancy. Of those seven occupied sites, all were occupied by single males except one territory with a pair that produced two fledglings.

Page 43- California Spotted Owl Updated May 2011 Appendix C - MIS Species Account - S. Province

In 2006, surveys were conducted at 22 historical spotted owl response locations on ANF in the San Gabriel Mountains (13) and Liebre and Sawmill Mountains Area (9) (Tanner 2006) across all 3 districts of the ANF. Surveys were performed to determine both presence-absence and reproductive status of spotted owls following USFS protocols (Forest Service 1993). Spotted owls were detected at 4 of the 22 sites (18%) during presence/absence surveys. One pair was located in the San Gabriel Mountains and a pair and 2 single males were in the Liebre and Sawmill Mountains Area. During reproductive surveys, only the pair in the Liebre and Sawmill Mountains Area was found to be nesting and they fledged 1 juvenile.

Ten surveys were conducted at historical spotted owl locations on ANF near Wrightwood, CA. Spotted owls were detected at 3 of the 10 sites (30%) during presence/absence surveys. One pair was detected and during subsequent reproductive surveys, the pair was found to have successfully fledged 2 juveniles. Single males were located at 2 sites but it was not possible to confirm occupancy or reproductive status at either of these sites during reproductive surveys (Tanner 2007a).

A total of 30 locations totaling approximately 13,000 acres were surveyed across the ANF in 2008. All survey sites were within the San Gabriel Mountains in the following fuels project areas: Wrightwood with 13 sites totaling roughly 6400 acres; Mount Baldy with three sites totaling almost 600 acres; Mount Wilson with nine sites totaling 2600 acres; and Barley Flats with five sites totaling approximately 3200 acres. The survey areas were centered around response locations, roost sites, or in areas containing previously mapped and suitable habitat for spotted owls.

No spotted owls were detected during presence/absence surveys, with the exception of Mount Wilson. Spotted owls were detected at 5 of the 9 sites (56%) in the Mount Wilson Fuels Project Area, and occupancy at 4 of the 5 sites was verified for a confirmed occupancy of (44%) along the West Fork San Gabriel River. Pairs were identified at two of the sites, neither of which attempted nesting and single males were identified at two sites. A third adult spotted owl was identified along with a pair at one of these sites.

Surveys were conducted in 2009 in the 4700-acre Mount Wilson Fuels Project (in the San Gabriel Mountains near Mount Wilson and in the upper reaches of the West Fork San Gabriel River). Several drainages to the east were also surveyed where biologists had located spotted owls in 2008.

Within the project area, ANF biologists had identified seven sites or polygons that contained previously mapped suitable habitat for spotted owls. The additional drainages surveyed comprised an additional two habitat polygons for a total of nine sites. Spotted owls were detected at five of the nine sites (56%) in the project area. During subsequent reproductive surveys, they were able to verify occupancy by spotted owls at four of the five sites within and immediately adjacent to the Mount Wilson Fuels Project Area. Pairs were identified at three of the sites and a single male was identified at one site. Two of the three pairs identified attempted nesting during 2009 and both of those pairs fledged one juvenile (Tanner 2009a).

Page 44- California Spotted Owl Updated May 2011 Appendix C - MIS Species Account - S. Province

Based on the assessment of the habitat and survey results across ANF, Tanner believes that the Mount Wilson area contains the best and most critical spotted owl habitat in the ANF for the owl’s long-term survival in the San Gabriel Mountains. In addition, because the mountain ranges of ANF provide critical habitat linkage between owl populations in the Sierras and those in the southern mountain ranges (Beck and Gould 1992), this area provides essential habitat for sustaining spotted owl populations throughout the region.

Since surveys have been sporadic over the years and funding has only allowed for surveys in a small portion of the habitat in any year, there are insufficient data available to indicate population trends for spotted owls on the ANF. However, recent fires such as the Station Fire that burned most of the habitat in the Mount Wilson area may be contributing to loss/degradation of habitat and fragmentation of suitable habitat, and this could be adversely affecting the population (Tanner 2009a).

VIII-2. Cleveland National Forest - Current Population Status and Trend The 1994 Final Report of S. California Spotted Owl Biologist Team had a total of 36 territories on the CNF. USFWS estimated 18 territories on the CNF (USFWS 2006) but that number underestimates the number of territories that the CNF has identified (Winter, pers. comm.). The CNF has periodically monitored 56 territories in San Diego and Orange County since the late 1980s. Thirty of those territories are on CNF lands and 26 are on State Parks, County Parks, Indian Reservations, or private lands (Winter pers. comm.). Monitoring of territories has been done intensively in some years, while in other years there has been little or no monitoring.

A combined total of 30 territories (20 on the CNF, and 10 on non-CNF lands) were monitored in 2005 and/or 2006. Of these, only eight were occupied for an occupancy rate of 27%. This occupancy rate is much lower than those detected in previous survey efforts (1987-1995), when occupancy rates were typically 55-60% (Winter pers. comm.).

Eleven territories were monitored in 2006. Three sites were located in the Trabuco District’s Santa Ana Mountains and eight were in the Palomar Mountain area. In addition, a pair responded from a possible new site in Upper Arroyo Seco Creek in the Palomar Mountain area. Of the four occupied sites found in the Palomar area, three were occupied by pairs and one was occupied by a single female. A single male was found on the one occupied site in the Santa Ana Mountains. A total of five juveniles were fledged by the two pairs that nested during 2006. Both nesting pairs were located within the Agua Tibia Wilderness Area (ATWA).

Survey sites on the CNF in 2007 through 2010 were within the Palomar and Laguna Mountain Ranges in the Palomar and Descanso Ranger Districts. The sites being surveyed were centered on response locations, roost sites, or nest sites. A total of eleven spotted owl sites were surveyed. Spotted owls were detected at only three sites during presence/absence surveys. The only pair located was found in the Laguna Mountains on the Descanso District. This pair nested and successfully fledged one juvenile. This was the only known occupied territory in the Laguna Mountains. The two other occupied territories, which were located in the Palomar Mountains, were occupied by single owls (a male and a female). Both of these sites were located in the Agua Tibia Wilderness (Tanner 2009b, CNF files).

Page 45- California Spotted Owl Updated May 2011 Appendix C - MIS Species Account - S. Province

While conducting similar surveys on the SBNF in 2009, Tanner found an occupancy rate of 33% (n = 165); occupancy rates have ranged from 32-48% in SBNF since 2003 (Tanner 2009). The 2009 results were comparable for the CNF and SBNF. Drought, subsequent tree mortality, wildfire and development have dramatically altered the forest landscape in this region and fire remains an immediate threat to spotted owls.

There are insufficient data to determine quantitative population trends for spotted owls on the CNF. However, Kirsten Winter (pers. comm.) advises that there is no question in her mind that there has been a very substantial population decline since the early 1990s on the CNF.

VIII-3. Los Padres National Forest - Current Population Status and Trend The 1994 Final Report of S. California Spotted Owl Biologist Team had a total of 118-126+ territories on the LPNF. The USFWS estimated 109 territories (USFWS 2006) based on CDFG and FS records. The LPNF has not yet mapped territories, so this number may become clearer as territories are mapped. Monitoring efforts were concentrated in the late 1980s and early 1990s. Since 2001, there have been some monitoring efforts in the Refugio Canyon area by two volunteers (J. Uyehara, pers. comm.). They found one pair of spotted owls.

In Monterey County, wildfire and tree mortality, particularly Sudden Oak Death, are among the leading threats to woodland habitat. In 2006 and 2009, Ventana Wildlife Society (2009) conducted nocturnal spotted owl surveys at 250 points within and adjacent to northern part of the LPNF to monitor changes in spotted owl occupancy associated with Sudden Oak Death and the 2008 Basin and Indian wildfires.

They identified a minimum of 99 spotted owls in 2009, which is fewer than the 112 identified in 2006. They also calculated a lower spotted owl detection rate in 2009 (0.30 owls per point) than in 2006 (0.42 owls per point). Although sampling differences between years complicate the interpretation of results, the consistent pattern of fewer owls and lower detection rates is strong evidence that there were fewer spotted owls in their survey area in 2009. The decline in detection rates was particularly substantial for points associated with the recent wildfire, indicating that the fire displaced some of the spotted owls found in 2006. They did not observe a meaningful difference in detection rates between years at points associated with Sudden Oak Death. Likely, the three-year interval between surveys was not enough to identify true effects of Sudden Oak Death on spotted owls.

There are no Forest-wide data available to indicate population trends for spotted owls on the LPNF.

VIII-4. San Bernardino National Forest – Current Population Status and Trend USFWS estimated that there were 138 territories on the SBNF (USFWS 2006) based on CDFG and FS records. However, the SBNF has documented 181 territories. Of those, 152 territories have nest trees or territory centers that have been mapped on the SBNF. The others have mapped NS, PAC, HRC on the SBNF or are adjacent to SBNF lands. Table 4 breaks down the land ownership and mountain ranges for the 181 territories that the SBNF has documented. The numbers for the SBNF differ from the CDFG BIOS database where early response locations were given CDFG identifier numbers but they were later determined not to be territories. While

Page 46- California Spotted Owl Updated May 2011 Appendix C - MIS Species Account - S. Province the vast majority of the SBNF territories were located during the 1987-1998 demography study, several have been located since 2000.

Table 4. Summary of Spotted Owl Territories that Overlap the SBNF Mountain Nest Tree on Nest Tree on Non-SBNF Nest Tree on Totals Range SBNF Land Land and Has Habitat on Non-SBNF SBNF Land Land and All Habitat is on non-SBNF Land San 126 (4 of which 22 (1 on BLM outside 1 (on BLM 149 Bernardino have nest tree Forest Boundary; 18 on outside Forest records on private private land in Forest Boundary) land too) Boundary; 3 on private land outside Forest Boundary) San 9 (including 1 on 1 on private land in Forest 0 10 Gabriel SBNF land Boundary administered by ANF) San Jacinto 17 (1 of which has 4 (all on private land in 1 (on private 22 a nest tree record Forest Boundary) land in Forest on private land Boundary) too) Totals 152 27 2 181

Between the years 1987 and 1998, a demography study was conducted that located and monitored territories throughout the San Bernardino Mountains. This study effort included monitoring occupancy, reproduction, and fledging of 166 territories at the maximum effort. The robustness of the data collected during the 12-year study is very high due to the intensity of data collection. In 1999 and 2000, a reduced monitoring effort was conducted for 46 and 8 territories, respectively (all in the San Bernardino Mountains). In 2001 and 2002, the only monitoring that was conducted was in fire-affected areas and for a few very specific projects. Some of that effort did not have surveys completed to protocol.

Since 2003, the SBNF has conducted a monitoring effort in response to the vegetation mortality and fuels reduction program as required by the Forest Plan, CASPO Strategy, and various NEPA decisions. Occupancy and reproduction monitoring was re-started in 2003 and has continued annually since then with an increase in the number of territories monitored each year (Table 5).

Although intensity of monitoring efforts have changed between the demography study (when all birds were banded and a higher level of understanding about behavior and movement was possible) and the current vegetation mortality monitoring and fuels treatment efforts, there are three indices that are comparable since 1989. (Note: The data from 1987 and 1988 were not used in the following analyses because a high number of territories were still being located

Page 47- California Spotted Owl Updated May 2011 Appendix C - MIS Species Account - S. Province during those years). In looking at population trends, we did not consider the data from 2001 and 2002 due to the small sample size for those years. Data from 1999 and 2000 were also not considered in this trend analysis because the survey effort during those years was focused on known occupied territories, biasing the data. Table 5 displays the summary of results for spotted owl monitoring on the SBNF (yellow highlighted columns are the three indices used for the discussion below).

There appears to be a general downward trend in occupancy (for territories surveyed) over the sampling period (Figure 3). Between 1989 and 1998, occupancy rates by pairs were between 50 – 65%. Since 2003, they have ranged between 29 - 44%. The average occupancy rate over the entire sampling period is 48%; below average rates have occurred in every year since 1998. Since 2004, occupancy rates have hovered at 30%.

Page 48- California Spotted Owl Updated May 2011 Appendix C - MIS Species Account - S. Province

Table 5. California Spotted Owl Occupancy and Reproductive Data for the San Bernardino National Forest Year # of # of Occupancy # of Total # # owls/# # of # of Fledging Young/ # of Average Terr. Vacancy - terrs terr - % of terr of adult protocol vacant terr success (# Pair young Annual w/o % of surveyed w/ surveyed w/ owls surveys terrs that terrs with fledged Precipitation Pairs surveyed to pairs terrs with singles detected (%) (no fledged fledging/# territories protocol pairs owls young terrs without present) surveyed) pairs 1987 44 31 0.70 3 65 1.5 2 17 0.39 0.77 24 27.49 13 0.30 1988 97 67 0.69 9 143 1.5 3 18 0.19 0.33 22 24.18 30 0.31 1989 145 94 0.65 11 197 1.4 12 45 0.31 0.74 70 17.32 51 0.35 1990 149 98 0.66 10 206 1.4 20 31 0.21 0.52 51 22.2 51 0.34 1991 155 101 0.65 15 215 1.4 34 32 0.21 0.50 50 38.47 54 0.35 1992 158 86 0.54 19 191 1.2 50 37 0.23 0.71 61 44.03 72 0.46 1993 164 89 0.54 18 196 1.2 55 38 0.23 0.64 57 73.81 75 0.46 1994 166 95 0.57 15 205 1.2 51 47 0.28 0.83 79 31.78 71 0.43 1995 144 82 0.57 3 167 1.2 36 24 0.17 0.49 40 49 62 0.43 1996 148 87 0.59 3 177 1.2 42 37 0.25 0.68 59 41.04 61 0.41 1997 154 81 0.53 6 168 1.1 43 34 0.22 0.62 50 27 73 0.47 1998 148 74 0.50 8 156 1.1 61 20 0.14 0.35 26 50.4 74 0.50 2003 77 34 0.44 7 77 1.0 36 6 0.08 0.24 8 32.44 43 0.56 2004 91 30 0.33 10 70 0.8 51 13 0.14 0.57 17 39.5 61 0.67 2005 113 33 0.29 12 78 0.7 68 11 0.10 0.52 17 54.74 80 0.71 2006 137 42 0.31 7 91 0.7 88 25 0.18 1.00 42 37.96 95 0.69 2007 157 51 0.32 2 104 0.7 104 29 0.18 1.12 57 16.11 106 0.68 2008 164 48 0.29 5 101 0.6 111 12 0.07 0.40 19 37.87 116 0.71 2009 170 50 0.29 9 109 0.6 111 22 0.13 0.68 34 120 0.71 2010 179 56 0.31 4 116 0.6 120 20 0.11 0.55 31 123 0.69 Totals 2760 1329 0.48 176 2832 1.0 1098 518 0.19 0.61 814 1431 0.52 For 89- 2619 1231 0.47 164 2624 1093 438 0.17 0.62 768 1388 0.53 present

Page 49- California Spotted Owl Updated May 2011 Appendix C - MIS Species Account - S. Province

Figure 3. California Spotted Owl Occupancy on the SBNF

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20% Occupancy Pairs By 10%

0% (Percentage of(Percentage Territories) Surveyed

Year

Fledging success (for territories surveyed), shows a declining trend that is similar to the occupancy decline (Figure 4). Fledging success between 1989 and 1998 was between 14 – 31% while it ranges between 7 – 18% between 2003 and 2009. The average fledging success has been 19% for the sampling period. It has been below average for all years sampled since 1998.

Figure 4. California Spotted Owl Fledging on the San Bernardino National Forest 35%

30%

25%

20%

15%

10%

5%

Fledged Young Successfully Young Fledged 0% Percentage of Territories that Surveyed Territories of Percentage Year

Page 50- California Spotted Owl Updated May 2011 Appendix C - MIS Species Account - S. Province

Figure 5 displays the average number of fledglings produced per pair during years that territories were surveyed, as a measure of productivity. During the sampling period, productivity ranged from a high of 1.12 young/pair (2007) to a low of 0.24 young/pair (2003). The average number of fledglings/pair over the sampling period is 0.63 fledglings/pair.

Figure 5 also displays precipitation rates for comparison to productivity. The precipitation data were obtained from the Municipal Water District’s data for the dam at Big Bear Lake (http://www.bbmwd.org/). While the numbers do not represent the amounts of precipitation received throughout the San Bernardino and San Jacinto Mountains, it is probably reasonable to use the precipitation pattern as a relative measure – that is, when Big Bear received higher amounts of precipitation, other parts of the mountain range and San Jacinto Mountains likely also received precipitation in proportion to Big Bear.

Figure 5. Precipitation and California Spotted Owl Productivity on the San Bernardino National Forest

80 1.20

70 1.00 60 0.80 50

40 0.60

30 Young/Pair 0.40 20 0.20

10 Average Annual Precipitation (inches) Precipitation Annual Average 0 0.00

Year

Precipitaton Young/Pair

When compared with precipitation, there appears to be some delayed correlation of increased productivity following several of the higher precipitation years. It also appears that following an unusually low rainfall year there is a decline in productivity.

Whether these apparent declines are representative of a long-term declining population or part of a population fluctuating in the short-term in response to environmental changes is impossible to know without further and more extensive monitoring. However, the numbers indicate a reason

Page 51- California Spotted Owl Updated May 2011 Appendix C - MIS Species Account - S. Province for concern. In 2003, only 8 juveniles were known to have been produced from only 6 territories known to successfully nest. In 2004, only 13 territories successfully nested producing 17 young. In 2005, only 11 territories nested successfully, producing 17 young. In 2006, there was an increase in nesting with 25 territories successfully nesting, producing a total of 42 young. The increase continued in 2007 with a total of 29 successful nesting territories and 57 young (including 8 territories that produced triplets, a record in all of the years of monitoring). However, these increases were followed in 2008 was a poor year with a total of 12 successful nesting territories and 19 young. Productivity in 2009 was slightly better with a total of 22 successful nesting territories and 34 young. In 2010, there were 20 territories that successfully produced fledglings with a total of 31 young fledged.

If these trends continue, the long-term viability of this population of California spotted owls is a real concern. The low numbers of owls fledging each year combined with typical low survival rates during the first year (reference demography study rates) means that recruitment of nesting owls is in jeopardy. Increasing vacancy rates indicate that more and more territories may be “blinking out”.

The number of active territories in the San Bernardino Mountains has declined steadily since 1990. In the San Bernardino Mountains demography study 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) (Figure 6). These areas may represent isolation of pairs and fragmentation of habitat.

The low numbers of owls fledging annually in the San Jacinto Mountains suggests an even more immediate concern that that small population (of 22 known territories, four were occupied in 2010 producing seven fledglings; seven were occupied in 2009 producing seven fledglings; in 2008, six territories were occupied and produced only one fledgling; in 2007, five territories were occupied and only produced one fledgling) may not be viable for long. Because this population is isolated and does not likely receive recruitment individuals from other populations, these very low numbers of individual birds makes it a very vulnerable population.

Likewise, the San Gabriel Mountains population of spotted owls is probably in dire straits. The spotted owls on the San Gabriel portion of the SBNF are the least understood of the three populations on the SBNF. Spotted owls were detected in several locations in the late 1980s and early 1990s. No systematic monitoring of territories was done until 2003. Since 2003, no nests or owl pairs have been located during the monitoring efforts.

Fires, drought, and development in the mountain communities have severely reduced the amount of available habitat for spotted owls. This loss of habitat may lead to a permanent reduction in the number of spotted owls across the region. In addition, this may lead to the species increasing

Page 52- California Spotted Owl Updated May 2011 Appendix C - MIS Species Account - S. Province isolation within small pockets of high quality habitat. This will likely leave the population vulnerable to localized and regional extinction and may threaten the viability of smaller more isolated subpopulations such as the San Jacinto Mountains (Tanner 2009c).

As the human population in southern California continues to expand, the need for additional space and resources is likely to increase pressure on the remaining habitat supporting the spotted owl. Continued habitat degradation, in conjunction with the unknown cause(s) of the species’ regional decline, leads to an uncertain future for the spotted owl in southern California, particularly for the small, isolated populations (LaHaye 2005).

Figure 6.

Page 53- California Spotted Owl Updated May 2011 Appendix C - MIS Species Account - S. Province

IX. CONCLUSIONS The future for the California spotted owl in the S. Province is uncertain. In the Land Management Plan for the southern California National Forests, the California spotted owl was chosen as the Management Indicator Species for mature, large diameter, high canopy closure conditions of montane conifer forest. The number of occupied territories and/or habitat conditions are the measures to be used in the evaluations. Spotted owl populations trends along with black oak and white fir population trends are to help evaluate the success of Forest Plan implementation for montane conifer and provide feedback to allow for adaptive management, which was considered the foundation for planning and management in plan development.

Monitoring of spotted owl occupancy and habitat conditions have varied by Forest and over time. Current population status and long-term trend data are lacking for much of southern California. The most consistent monitoring has occurred on the SBNF in the San Bernardino Mountains. Because similar habitat changes (e.g., fire, vegetation mortality, fuels treatments, fire salvage operations, drought, etc.) have occurred across the S. Province, it is reasonable to extrapolate the population status and trend data gathered from the SBNF to the other S. Province Forests.

While monitoring efforts have fluctuated in the S. Province, it is clear that the southern California population of California spotted owls has declined over the past two decades in terms of total number of individual adult owls and in the number of occupied territories. The number of successfully-reproducing pairs has continued to decline, resulting in fewer fledglings being recruited into the population each year.

As evidenced by the San Bernardino Mountains data and pointed to by the limited data from other Forests, there has been a dramatic decline in spotted owl numbers throughout southern California since the late 1980s/early 1990s. The number of “active” territories has declined substantially and the nearest-neighbor distance between territories has increased. In some isolated mountain ranges (e.g., San Jacinto Mountains, Palomar Mountain, Santa Ana Mountains, Laguna Mountains), the number of owls is slow low that viability, even in the short-term, is threatened.

During the same period when the owl populations have declined, there has been a substantial loss or degradation of suitable habitat throughout the southern Province. Large-scale wildfires, severe droughts, large-scale vegetation mortality, intensive fuels treatment around communities and developed areas, urban development, invasive plant species, and other factors have combined to significantly change the amount and quality of habitat for California spotted owl. Fragmentation and loss of habitat have resulted in more territories becoming isolated and reduced the size of habitat patches, which are important for the owls.

Several factors have affected and are likely still affecting territory occupancy and habitat conditions: 1) lingering effects of severe droughts; 2) increase in size and severity of wildfires; 3) the need for intensive fuels treatment around communities and developments, 4) habitat loss/degradation through development; 5) increasing disturbance levels as recreational use of southern California’s forests increases as human populations grow; 6) climate change effects resulting in the compressing and isolation of suitable habitat patches; 7) invasive species, and, 8)

Page 54- California Spotted Owl Updated May 2011 Appendix C - MIS Species Account - S. Province potentially declining populations prey species due to climate change, invasive plants, fires, diseases, etc. The degree to which each of these factors plays into the loss of occupied territories and degradation/loss of habitat condition varies by territory.

Combined, these factors likely pose short-term and long-term threats to viability for this species. The number of spotted owl pairs reproducing annually is so low that long-term viability is in question. Given the low rates of nesting success that seems to be typical in the S. Province and the increasing isolation between occupied territories, there may not be enough individual birds to sustain viability.

As fewer territories are occupied by pairs and as conifer forest areas have been affected by the factors listed above, the population of California spotted owls in southern California has become increasingly fragmented and isolated, and often surrounded by unsuitable habitat. Dispersal, immigration, and emigration may become increasingly onerous for this species.

The decline in the number of occupied territories across the southern Province suggests that there has been a declining trend in the habitat conditions for which California spotted owl is an MIS (mature, large diameter, high canopy closure conditions in montane conifer forests), and potentially other habitat types used by spotted owls (e.g., bigcone Douglas fir, and live oak [on the LPNF]).

In order to use California spotted owls as a MIS, it is imperative that systematic long-term monitoring be conducted across the S. Province. Monitoring has been sporadic on most of the National Forests, and completely lacking in some areas. The SBNF has had the benefit of baseline data establishment during the 1990s during a demography study and additional monitoring since 2003. Of all of the Forests in the S. Province, these are the most robust data and they present a compelling decline in population numbers and in distribution. Without some additional source of funding, the SBNF’s monitoring effort is expected to end at the end of the 2011 breeding season. At this point, all four forests are facing an inability to conduct any spotted owl monitoring in 2012 and beyond.

In order to truly understand what is happening to this isolated distinct population segment of California spotted owls and the relationship to Forest Plan implementation and adaptive management, it is critical to conduct regular and consistent protocol-level monitoring across all National Forest lands in the S. Province. The next few years may be crucial to this species and monitoring at this juncture is critical.

X. RECOMMENDATIONS The following recommendations have been developed based on the results of five years of monitoring since the completion of the Forest Plan in 2005 and the dramatic downward trend of spotted owls indicating a decline in habitat conditions. There is a potential for the southern California population of California spotted owls to be petitioned for federal listing in the near future. These recommendations would help the National Forests to be in a better position if the species is proposed for listing and may help the USFWS in evaluating a need for listing. Implementing these recommendations to the greatest extent possible is important to demonstrating a commitment to Forest Plan implementation and adaptive management.

Page 55- California Spotted Owl Updated May 2011 Appendix C - MIS Species Account - S. Province

With each Biological Evaluation that a Forest Service biologist prepares, the biologist must come to a “determination of effects” that states whether an identified project will or will not “result in a trend towards federal listing” for the Sensitive species in the project analysis area. Because viability of the distinct population segment of California spotted owls in the S. Province is uncertain, it has become increasingly difficult to reach determinations of “no trend toward federal listing”. Monitoring to determine population status and research to understand the causes of the downward decline are critical pieces of understanding whether this population is currently viable or should be federally-listed. Without implementation of the following recommendations, implementing Forest Plan goals, objectives, and desired condition for California spotted owls and forested habitat will be difficult or impossible.

1. Systematic protocol-level surveys of all known territories in the S. Province should be conducted in 2012 and beyond to determine current occupancy and reproduction numbers in the entire distribution of the southern California distinct population segment of California spotted owls. Based on the apparent dramatic decline, this should be given the highest priority and should not be delayed.

2. At the same time in 2012 and beyond, all suitable habitat in the S. Province should be surveyed following inventory protocol survey guidelines. Again this should be given the highest priority and should not be delayed. It is important to conduct this effort concurrently with Recommendation #1 in order to understand the current population status of the southern California distinct population segment of California spotted owls.

3. In order to provide for consistent management and protection of spotted owls and their habitats, the S. Province Forests should complete an update to the California Spotted Owl Strategy (2004) by the end of 2011. The update has been started but completion and adoption by the Forest Supervisors needs to be a priority. This document will include things that have been learned in Forest Plan implementation and provide management guidelines that can be consistently applied to Forest Service management activities across the S. Province. Management direction should include avoiding disturbance and habitat alteration in territories that are currently occupied until we have a better understanding of what is happening to the population. These “active” territories are likely especially critical to viability of this species in the S. Province. Caution should also be taken in vacant unoccupied territories. The Strategy should also consider lower elevation non- conifer habitats.

4. The S. Province National Forests should take the lead in forming an interagency California Spotted Owl Working Group in S. California. This group should include biologists from regulatory agencies and academia as well as agencies that manage projects and habitat in spotted owl habitat (e.g., CDFG, USFWS, NRCS, SCE, Caltrans, CalFire, Counties, etc.). Goals and objectives of the working group should include development of conservation measures, recommendations of research methods to further assess the status and threats, inter-jurisdictional land management strategies for spotted owl protection, compilation of existing data relevant spotted owl status and threats, etc.

Page 56- California Spotted Owl Updated May 2011 Appendix C - MIS Species Account - S. Province

5. The Forest Service should work with Research to develop and implement studies to better understand what is happening to this population of California spotted owls, including banding and radio-telemetry efforts. This should include focused radio-telemetry studies to better understand habitat utilization in southern California’s unique habitat types used by California spotted owls (e.g., bigcone Douglas fir, canyon live oak, riparian stringers surrounded by chaparral). In addition, radio-telemetry efforts in the San Bernardino Mountains to evaluate post-fire habitat utilization should be continued to understand habitat utilization in different burn severity levels over time (e.g., five years post fire, ten years post fire, etc.).

6. The Forest Service should work with Rocky Gutiérrez in a project to collect current vegetation condition data in California spotted owl nest stands and compare to the vegetation data collected by Gutierrez during the 1990s demography studies in the San Bernardino and San Jacinto Mountains. Given the baseline data that were collected when the population numbers were relatively high, this is an outstanding opportunity for a 20- year comparison study that may illuminate underlying causes of the dramatic population decline. Re-doing those vegetation plots would be relatively inexpensive and could yield significant data. This effort might provide evidence of whether climate change has affected spotted owl habitat since the 1990s. Likewise, current nest stand vegetation data should be collected at any other locations in the S. Province where vegetation data in nest stands were collected previously.

These data would be especially useful in the ongoing analysis started by Dr. Mark Borchert (retired S. Province ecologist) evaluating the differences between territories that have become “inactive” over time compared with those that are still currently active. Understanding why spotted owls are still inhabiting the “active” territories is critical to future management decisions and viability assessments.

7. The Forest Service should work with Research or academia to develop and implement focused studies to help determine what other factors could be responsible for the dramatic population decline (e.g., disease in spotted owls; disease in prey species; prey species [flying squirrels and woodrats, etc.] fluctuations; climate change; etc.).

8. By June 2012, each Forest should complete mapping California spotted owl habitat (Nest Stand, PAC, HRC, and Suitable) in a consistent Province-wide effort.

9. An effort should be made to inform and educate employees and the public about California spotted owls in the Province and why their management is important to the health of forested ecosystems. Gaining public support for California spotted owl, their habitat, and their management will help in implementing needed management actions to meet the intent of the Forest Plans.

Page 57- California Spotted Owl Updated May 2011 Appendix C - MIS Species Account - S. Province

REFERENCES USED Much of this document is excerpted from the 2004 CASPO Strategy and 2006 Forest Plans. Substantial information on population status was taken from the 2006 Notice of 12 Month Petition Finding (USFWS 2006). References cited in this document are largely contained in those three documents in addition to the references listed below.

Anacker, Brian L., Nathan E. Rank, Daniel Hüberli, Matteo Garbelotto, Sarah Gordon, Tami Harnik, Richard Whitkus, and Ross Meentemeyer1. 2008. Susceptibility to Phytophthora ramorum in a key infectious host: landscape variation in host genotype, host phenotype, and environmental factors. New Phytologist 177: 756–766

Angeles National Forest. 2003. Rincon/Redbox Road, 2003 spotted owl surveys. ANF files.

Barley, Glenn. 2006. California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, San Bernardino Unit. Powerpoint presentation to Arrowhead Communities Fire Safe Council.

Bond, M.L., Lee, D.L., Siegel, R.B., and Ward, J.P. 2009. Habitat use and Selection by California spotted owls in a postfire landscape. The Journal of Wildlife Management 37 (7):1116-1124.

Bond, M.L., Lee, D.E., Bradley, C.M., and C .T. Hanson. 2009. Influence of pre-fire tree mortality on fire severity in conifer forests of San Bernardino Mountains, California. The Open Forest Science Journal, 2009, 2, 41-47.

Bonfils, C., P. B. Duffy, B. D. Santer, T. M. L. Wigley, D. B. Lobell, T. J. Phillips, and C. Doutriaux. 2008a. Identification of external influences on temperatures in California. Climatic Change 87 (Suppl 1):S43-S55.

Bonfils, C., B. D. Santer, D. W. Pierce, H. G. Hidalgo, G. Bala, T. Das, T. P. Barnett, D. Cayan, C. Doutriaux, A. W. Wood, A. Mirin, and T. Nozawa. 2008b. Detection and attribution of temperature changes in the mountainous western United States. Journal of Climate 21:6404-6424.

Davidson, J.M., Rizzo, D.M., Garbelotto, M., Tjosvold, S., and Slaughter, G.W. 2002. Phytophthora ramorum and Sudden Oak Death in California: II. Pathogen transmission and survival. In: Standiford, R;. McCreary, D. editors.. 5th Symposium on California Oak Woodlands. USDA Forest Service, Gen. Tech. PSW-GTR-184; 741-749.

Dodd RS, Hüberli D, Douhovnikoff V, Harnik TY, Afzal-Rafii Z,and Garbelotto M. 2005. Is variation in susceptibility to Phytophthora ramorum correlated with population genetic structure in coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia). New Phytologist 165: 203–214.

Gutiérrez, R. J., J. Verner, K. S. McKelvey, B. R. Noon, G. N. Steger, D. R. Call, W. S. La Haye, B. B. Bingham, and J. S. Senser. 1992. Habitat relations of the California spotted owl. In: J. Verner, K. S. McKelvey, B. R. Noon, R. J. Gutierrez, G. I. Gould, and T. W.

Page 58- California Spotted Owl Updated May 2011 Appendix C - MIS Species Account - S. Province

Beck (technical coordinators), The California spotted owl: a technical assessment of its current status. General Technical Report PSW-GTR-133. Albany, CA: Pacific Southwest Research Station, USDA Forest Service; 79-98.

Gutiérrez, R. J., A. B. Franklin, and W. S. LaHaye. 1995. Spotted owl (Strix occidentalis). In: A. Poole and F. Gill (eds.), The birds of North America, No. 179. Philadelphia, PA: the Academy of Natural Sciences and Washington, DC: The American Ornithologists' Union.

Harper, J.M., R.B. Standiford, and J.W. LeBlanc. Unkn. Date. The Dusky-Footed Woodrat: Resident of California Oak Woodland. University of California, Berkeley. Oak Woodland Management Website. http://ucanr.org/sites/oak_range/Oak_Articles_On_Line/Oak_Woodland_Wildlife/ The_Dusky-Footed_Woodrat__Resident_of_California_Oak_Woodland/#

Jorris, Peter. Executive Director, San Bernardino Mountains Land Trust. Information provided to Steve Loe in December, 2009.

Kelly, M., Guo, Q., Liu, D. and Shaari, D. 2007. Modeling the risk for a new invasive forest disease in the United States: an evaluation of five environmental niche models. Computers, Environment, and Urban Systems. 31(6): 689-710.

Kelly, A. E., and M. L. Goulden. 2008. Rapid shifts in plant distribution with recent climate change. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 105:11823-11826.

La Haye, William S. 1987-1998. San Bernardino Mountains California Spotted Owl Demography Study. SBNF Files.

LaHaye, William S.; Gutiérrez, R.J.; Akcakaya, H. Resit. 1994. Spotted owl metapopulation dynamics in southern California. Journal of Animal Ecology 63:775-785.

La Haye, William S. 2003. Results of spotted owl surveys in the San Bernardino National Forest during the spring and summer 2003. SBNF files.

La Haye, William S. 2004. Results of spotted owl surveys in the San Bernardino National Forest during the spring and summer 2003. SBNF files.

LaHaye, W. S. and R. J. Gutiérrez 2005. The spotted owl in southern California: ecology and special concerns for maintaining a forest-dwelling species in a human-dominated desert landscape. USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-195. 2005.

Lee, D.C. and L.L. Irwin. 2005. Assessing risks to spotted owls from forest thinning in fire adapted forests of the western United States. Forest Ecology and Management 211 (2005) 191-209.

Page 59- California Spotted Owl Updated May 2011 Appendix C - MIS Species Account - S. Province

Luers, A.L., D.R. Cayan, G. Franco, M. Hanernann, and B. Croes. 2006. Our Changing Climate: Assessing the Risks to California. A Summary Report from the Climate Change Center. CEC-500-2006-077. 16 pp. http://meteora.ucsd.edu/cap/pdffiles/CA_climate_Scenarios.pdf

Minnich, R.A. 2007. Southern California Conifer Forests. Chapter 18 in Terrestrial Vegetation of California, 3rd edition (M.G. Barbour, T. Keeler-Wolf, and A.S. Schoenherr, eds.). University of California Press. Pages 502-538. http://earthscience.ucr.edu/docs/chapter%2018.pdf

PRBO Conservation Science. 2011. Projected effects of climate change in California: ecoregional summaries emphasizing consequences for wildlife. Version 1.0 http://data.prbo.org/apps/bssc/climatechange

Prather, J.W., Noss, R.F., and T.D. Sisk. 2008. Real versus perceived conflicts between restoration of ponderosa pine forests and conservation of the Mexican spotted owl. Forest Policy and Economics 10 (2008):140-150.

Rombout, P. G. A., J. A. M. A. Dormans, L. Van Bree, and M. Marra. 1991. Structural and biochemical effects in lungs of Japanese quail following a 1-week exposure to ozone. Environmental Research 54:39-51.

Sakai, Howard F. and B.R. Noon. 1997. Between-habitat movement of dusky-footed woodrats and vulnerability to predation. J. Wildl. Manage. 61(2): 1997

Smith, R.B., Peery, M.Z., Gutierrez, R.J. and W.S. LaHaye. 1999. The relationship between spotted owl diet and reproductive success in the San Bernardino Mountains, California. Wilson Bulletin 111(1):22-29.

Stephenson, John R.; Calcarone, Gena M. 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, U.S. Department of Agriculture; 402 p.

Swiecki, T. J.and Bernhardt, E. A. 2008. Phytophthora ramorum canker (sudden oak death) in coast live oak and tanoak, 2000-2006: factors affecting disease risk, disease progression, and failure potential. 2006-2007 Contract Year Annual Report. Prepared for Pacific Southwest Research Station, Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Berkeley, CA. 38 p.

Tanner, Richard and Carl Thelander. 2005. Results of the California Spotted Owl Surveying and Monitoring Project in the San Bernardino National Forest During Spring and Summer 2005. SBNF files.

Page 60- California Spotted Owl Updated May 2011 Appendix C - MIS Species Account - S. Province

Tanner, Richard and Carl Thelander. 2006. Results of the California Spotted Owl Surveying and Monitoring Project in the Angeles National Forest During Spring and Summer 2006. ANF Files.

Tanner, Richard and Carl Thelander. 2006. . Results of the California Spotted Owl Surveying and Monitoring Project in the Cleveland National Forest During Spring and Summer 2006. CNF files.

Tanner, Richard and Carl Thelander. 2006. Results of the California Spotted Owl Surveying and Monitoring Project in the San Bernardino National Forest During Spring and Summer 2006. SBNF files.

Tanner, Richard. 2007a. Results of the California Spotted Owl Surveying and Monitoring Projects in the Angeles National Forest During Spring and Summer 2007. ANF files.

Tanner, Richard. 2007b. Results of the California Spotted Owl Surveying and Monitoring Project in the San Bernardino National Forest During Spring and Summer 2007. SBNF files.

Tanner, Richard. 2008a. Results of the California Spotted Owl Surveying and Monitoring Projects in the Angeles National Forest During Spring and Summer 2008. ANF files.

Tanner, Richard. 2008b. Results of the California Spotted Owl Surveying and Monitoring Project in the San Bernardino National Forest During Spring and Summer 2008. SBNF files.

Tanner, Richard. 2009a. Results of the California Spotted Owl Surveying and Monitoring Projects in the Angeles National Forest During Spring and Summer 2009. ANF files.

Tanner, Richard 2009b. Results of the California Spotted Owl Surveying and Monitoring Project in the Cleveland National Forest During Spring and Summer 2009. CNF files.

Tanner, Richard 2009c. Results of the California Spotted Owl Surveying and Monitoring Project in the San Bernardino National Forest During Spring and Summer 2009. SBNF files.

Tatman, Judy. Principal Planner, Advance Planning Division, San Bernardino County, Land Use Services Department. Information provided to Steve Loe in January, 2010.

Thelander, C.G., Tanner, R.G., and Werner, S.M. 2005. Surveys for California spotted owls in support of the Mt. Wilson upgrade project, Chilao and Video circuits, Angeles National Forest. ANF files.

U.S. Forest Service. June 2004. Conservation Strategy for the California Spotted Owl (Strix occidentalis occidentalis) on the National Forests of Southern California. 34 pp. ANF, CNF and SBNF files.

Page 61- California Spotted Owl Updated May 2011 Appendix C - MIS Species Account - S. Province

U.S. Forest Service. 2006. Angeles, Cleveland, Los Padres and San Bernardino, National Forest Land Management Plans.

U.S. Forest Service. 2006. Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Four Southern California Forest Plan Revisions.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2006. Notice of 12 month petition finding. [Federal Register: May 24, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 100)].

Ventana Wildlife Society. 2009. California spotted owl surveys following a wildfire in the northern Los Padres National Forest.

Williams, Daniel F; Verner, Jared; Sakai, Howard F.; Waters, Jeffrey R. 1992. General biology of major prey species of the California spotted owl. In: In: Verner, J, K. S. McKelvey, B. R. Noon, R. J. Gutiérrez, G. I. Gould, and T. W. Beck (technical coordinators), The California spotted owl: a technical assessment of its current status. General Technical Report PSW-GTR-133. Albany, CA: Pacific Southwest Research Station, USDA Forest Service; 207-221.

Wirtz, William O., II; Hoekman, David; Muhm, John R.; Souza, Sherri L. 1988. Postfire rodent succession following prescribed fire in southern California chaparral. In: Szaro, Robert C.; Severson, Keith E.; Patton, David R. (technical coordinators), Management of amphibians, reptiles, and small mammals in North America. General Technical Report RM-166. Fort Collins, CO: Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. Cited in Williams et al. 1992.

Preparers (The MIS account incorporated information from the 2004 CASPO Strategy originally prepared by Steve Loe and Jan Beyers) Robin Eliason, Wildlife Biologist, Mountaintop RD, SBNF Steve Loe, Consulting Biologist; Retired Forest Biologist SBNF

Contributors/Reviewers Kirsten Winter, Forest Biologist, CNF Kevin Cooper, Forest Biologist, LPNF Nathan Sill, Wildlife Biologist, ANF Pete Johnston, Wildlife Biologist, ANF Leslie Welch, Wildlife Biologist, ANF Ann Berkley, Wildlife Biologist, ANF Anne Poopatanapong, Wildlife Biologist, San Jacinto RD, SBNF Kathie Meyer, Wildlife Biologist, Front Country RD, SBNF Kim Boss, Wildlife Biologist, Front Country RD, SBNF Marc Stamer, Wildlife Biologist, Mountaintop RD, SBNF Mark Borchert, Southern California Province Ecologist David Austin, Forest Biologist, SBNF

Page 62- California Spotted Owl Updated May 2011 Appendix C - MIS Species Account - S. Province

MANAGEMENT INDICATOR SPECIES ACCOUNT for MOUNTAIN LION IN THE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA PROVINCE

SUMMARY

The mountain lion was selected as a MIS to detect the effects of forest activities and uses on landscape-level habitat fragmentation and habitat linkages. The mountain lion is the largest carnivore in S. Province and requires large core habitat areas, abundant prey, and habitat connectivity between sub-populations.

The mountain lion was chosen as an indicator species in the plan revision process because of these threats and the Gerald and Buff Corsi © California Academy of Sciences importance of National Forests in providing for the long-term viability of this species in southern California.

It is clear that the number of depredation permits issued both state-wide and in southern Province has increased over time with the cessation of sport hunting and human population growth. Whether this increasing trend represents an actual increase in mountain lion numbers or if it is a result of more human-lion interactions due to urbanization is difficult to determine.

While numbers of mountain lions in the southern California Province may have increased since the 1970s as a result of elimination of the State’s hunting season, there is still a concern for the viability of this species in portions of the Province due to several factors. These factors include: 1) habitat fragmentation, 2) impacts on dispersal corridors and habitat linkages, 3) increasing disturbance levels as recreational use of southern California’s forests increases as human populations grow, 4) habitat loss/degradation through urbanization, unnatural fire frequency, and invasive plants, and 4) climate change impacts (droughts, etc.) on prey populations.

Page 1- Mountain Lion Appendix C - MIS Species Account - S. Province

I. INTRODUCTION Mountain lions are widely-distributed throughout the western hemisphere (Chapman and Feldhamer 1982, Currier 1983, Maehr 1992, Tesky 1995).

Currently, substantial mountain lion populations occur only in the western United States and Canada, and they have been greatly reduced from historical distributions. An isolated population is found is south Florida (Tesky 1995). Since the 1990s, there have been a number of confirmed sightings of mountain lions in New England States (Barrile 2004).

Figure 1 displays the historical range in North America in lighter yellow and the current range in brown (http://mountainlion.mediatools.org/).

This species account was developed largely by using the information from the following sources: the mountain lion, landscape linkage discussions, and species account in the Land Management Plans

(LMP) and Final Environmental Impact Figure 1. Mountain Lion Distribution in N. America Statement (EIS) for the four southern California National Forests (USFS 2006), information developed for the South Coast Missing Linkages Project (Penrod et al. 2001), and the Missing Linkages website http://www.scwildlands.org/index.aspx).

It is clear that the biggest threat to the mountain lion in southern California is the isolation and fragmentation of large blocks of suitable habitat by freeways, highways and urban and agricultural development.

II. SYSTEMATICS The taxonomy of mountain lion has had a complicated history (Feldhamer et al. 2003). At one time, as many as thirty-two subspecies were described. The mountain lion has been alternatively placed in the genera Felis and Puma, with the currently-accepted scientific name being Puma concolor.

There are at least eighteen South American native terms, twenty-five native North American, and forty English names for mountain lions. The species most common names are: mountain lion, cougar, panther, puma, painter, concolor, cat of one color, cat of many names, tyger, ghost walker, klandagi, leopardo, cuguacuarana, catamount, koe-ishto, ko-icto, and el leon (http://www.mountainlion. org/facts_biology.asp).

Page 2- Mountain Lion Appendix C - MIS Species Account - S. Province

There are thirty subspecies recognized worldwide with thirteen occurring in North America north of Mexico (Tesky 1995). Hall (1981) lists fourteen subspecies in N. America with three occurring in California (P.c.californica, P.c.browni, and P.c.kaibabensis). The only subspecies found in southern California Province is P. c. californica. It occurs in southern Oregon, California, and Nevada (Hall 1981). P.c.kaibabensis only overlaps the northeast corner of California and P.c.browni only overlaps the southeast corner of California.

Figure 2 displays the distribution of mountain lion in California (http://www.dfg.ca.gov/keepmew Figure 2. Distribution of Mountain Lion in California ild/lion.html).

III. MANAGEMENT DIRECTION The National Forests in southern California (Los Padres [LPNF], Angeles [ANF], San Bernardino [SBNF], and Cleveland [CNF]) have LMPs that are united by a common vision, common design criteria, and a common Final EIS (USFS 2006). The LMPs for the four Forests are programmatic documents that leave all specific design decisions and analyses to project-level plans (USFS 2006). Part Three (Design Criteria) of the LMP contains standards for management and also refers to auxiliary documents and agreements, such as conservation strategies, that provide additional guidance for management actions. The LMP objective for this MIS is maintaining functional landscape linkages and populations well-distributed on the National Forests.

Maintaining landscape connectivity and conserving linkages is the primary goal of the Missing Linkages Project. The Forest Service has been an active partner since the inception of the interagency South Coast Missing Linkages Project.

All of the fifteen highest priority linkages (Figure 3) identified by the Missing Linkages Project as critical for conservation in southern California are important links to the southern Province National Forests.

Page 3- Mountain Lion Appendix C - MIS Species Account - S. Province

Figure 3. Priority Linkages (source: Missing Linkages Project)

IV. SELECTION AS A MANAGEMENT INDICATOR SPECIES The mountain lion was selected as a MIS to detect the effects of forest activities and uses on landscape-level habitat fragmentation and habitat linkages. The mountain lion is the largest carnivore in the Southern Province and requires large core habitat areas, abundant prey, and habitat connectivity between sub-populations.

The mountain lion was chosen as an indicator species in the plan revision process because of landscape level threats to core habitats, prey and connectivity between subpopulations, and the importance of National Forests in providing for the long-term viability of this species in southern California.

Beier (1983) suggested that the mountain lion could be used as an indicator species for ecosystem viability. Because mountain lions exist at low densities and require large areas, the species is a good candidate for predicting the minimum area needed to preserve a functioning ecosystem (Beier 1993).

The mountain lion was identified as a focal species in all of the critical linkages identified in the Missing Linkages project. Area-sensitive species (such as the mountain lion) are appropriate focal species (Noss 1991, Noss et al. 1994) because their naturally low densities render them

Page 4- Mountain Lion Appendix C - MIS Species Account - S. Province highly sensitive to habitat fragmentation, and the loss of large carnivores can have adverse ripple effects through the entire ecosystem (Soulé and Terborgh 1999).

The prescribed monitoring method is to use data from California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) and U. S. Geological Survey (USGS) and the prescribed measure is trend in distribution, movement, and/or habitat conditions. An interagency, inter-forest monitoring program of mountain lion populations and use patterns, habitat, and landscape linkages is to be used to estimate the effects of forest management on mountain lion abundance and patterns of use and serve as an indicator of the connectivity of biological communities at the landscape level.

V. ECOLOGY V-1. Ecology - Habitat Requirements Mountain lions are habitat generalists, inhabiting a variety of habitat types throughout California, from deserts to humid Coast Ranges (Dixon 1982). In California, mountain lions are widespread, uncommon permanent residents, ranging from sea level to alpine meadows. They are found in nearly all habitats, except xeric regions of the Mojave and Colorado deserts that do not support mule deer populations. They have been excluded from croplands in the Central Valley (Ingles 1965). Mountain lions are most abundant in riparian areas, and brushy stages of most habitats (CDFG CWHR).

Mountain lions 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 (Dixon 1982).

Mountain lions use brushy stages of a variety of habitat types with good cover (Spowart and Samson 1986, Ahlborn 1988). Preferred travel routes are along canyon bottoms, stream courses and gentle terrain, but all habitats with cover are used (Beier and Barrett 1993, Dickson et al. 2004, Dickson and Beier 2007). In southern California, agricultural areas, and human-altered landscapes are avoided (Dickson et al. 2004). Analysis of diurnal locations in Dickson and Beier 2002 did show that grassland was less preferred than riparian, scrub and chaparral vegetation types, but a more recent publication about nocturnal locations (which is more reflective of actual habitat use for hunting) showed pumas using grassland. Recent analysis of camera trap data from across southern California (Ordenana et al. 2010) also showed less frequent detection of pumas in developed areas but grassland was the third highest vegetation type for detection of mountain lions after scrub and woodland habitats. Dirt roads do not impede movement, but highways, residential roads, and two-lane paved roads impede movement (Beier and Barrett 1993, Beier 1995, Dickson et al. 2004). In southern California, most cubs are reared in thick brush (Beier et al.1995). Spotwart and Samson (1986) and Beier and Barrett (1993) indicate that mountain lions prefer vegetated ridgetops and stream courses as travel corridors and hunting routes but Dickson and Beier (2006) suggest that mountain lions avoid ridgetops as travel corridors.

V-2. Ecology - Home Range/Territory Size for Southern California Home range size varies by sex, age, and the distribution of prey. A recent study in the Sierra Nevada documented annual home range sizes between 250 and 817 km2 (61,776 - 201,885 acre) (Pierce et al. 1999). Home ranges in southern California averaged 93 km2 (22,981 acres) for

Page 5- Mountain Lion Appendix C - MIS Species Account - S. Province twelve adult females and 363 km2 (89,699 ac) for two adult male cougars (Dickson and Beier (2006). Male home ranges appear to reflect the density and distribution of females (Maehr 1992). Males occupy distinct areas and are tolerant of transients of both sexes, while the home range of females may overlap completely (CDFG 1990, Beier and Barrett 1993).

V-3. Ecology - Food Habits In North America, mountain lions feed primarily on large ungulates. They are known to also eat small mammals, grass, and carrion. The main prey seems to be a function of abundance. Diet composition may shift seasonally as a reflection of availability (Tesky 1995).

Dixon (1925) determined the diet of mountain lions in California to be almost 80 percent mule deer. Because they are opportunistic feeders, mountain lions exploit whatever food source is available, including bighorn sheep, skunk, porcupine, rabbit, raccoon, badger, squirrels, mice, wild pig, and domestic animals (Currier 1983). On southern California forests, mountain lions are a known predator of bighorn sheep. Recent studies of mountain lions in Orange County have revealed mountain lions preying on small mammals like rodents and lagomorphs in altered habitats like golf courses (Boydston, pers. Comm) and a high degree of predation on coyotes, raccoons, opossums and striped skunks in near urban habitats (Beier et al. 2010).

V-4. Ecology - Reproductive Habits Adult mountain lions are solitary and are found together primarily during mating. Females will not tolerate the presence of an adult male when she has young kittens because males are likely to kill the young. Adult males do not associate with other males and solitary females do not associate with other solitary females (Dixon 1982).

Mountain lions reach sexual maturity at approximately 2.5 years of age, after which time they are capable of breeding throughout the year (Dixon 1982). They generally produce one litter every other year but can breed in consecutive years under optimal conditions. Gestation lasts 82–98 days, and litter size ranges from one to six (Dixon 1982). A peak in births occurs during the summer. In California, females commonly produce three kittens per litter (Torres et al. 1996).

Females may be in estrus at any time of the year, but in California, most births probably occur in spring (CDFG CWHR). In California, weaning occurs in about 8 weeks (Bruce 1922), and young become independent during second year.

Reproduction is limited to the resident male, who breeds one to several resident females whose home range overlap his. Transient males usually do not breed until a home range is established. Wild mountain lions probably do not often live longer than 8-12 years (Young and Goldman, 1946).

V-5. Ecology - Dispersal Little information on dispersal of mountain lions is available. As mountain lion densities increase in a given area or as habitat is removed, individuals likely disperse in search of new home ranges. Siblings sometimes disperse as a group and may remain together for three months or longer (McCarthy and Williams 1995).

Page 6- Mountain Lion Appendix C - MIS Species Account - S. Province

Mountain lions are capable of making long-distance movements, and can have multiple strategies of migration that allow them to take advantage of changing densities of prey (Pierce et al. 1999). Beier et al. (1995) found mountain lions moved 6 km (3.7 mi) per night and dispersed up to 65 km (40 mi). Dispersal plays a crucial role in cougar population dynamics because recruitment into a local population occurs mainly by immigration of juveniles from adjacent populations, while the population’s own offspring emigrate to other areas (Beier 1995, Sweanor et al. 2000).

Juvenile dispersal distances for females average 32 km (20 miles), with a range of 9-140 km, (6- 87 miles), while males average 85 km (53 miles), with a range of 23-274 km (14-170 miles) with one male dispersing 274 km (170 miles) (Anderson et al. 1992, Sweanor et al. 2000). The somewhat shorter dispersal distances reported in southern California (Beier 1995) reflect the fragmented nature of Beier’s study area in the Santa Ana Mountains. Dispersing lions may cross large expanses of non-suitable habitat, though they prefer not to do so (Logan and Sweanor 2001). To allow for dispersal of juveniles and the immigration of transients, mountain lion management should be on a regional basis (Sweanor et al. 2000).

V-6. Ecology – Daily/Seasonal Activity Mountain lions are active year-long. Mountain lions are solitary, secretive, and elusive (Torres et al. 1996). They are primarily nocturnal and commonly forage at dawn and dusk. Seasonal movements are generally a response to prey movements (CDFG CWHR). Mountain lions are closely associated with mule deer populations in California and follow deer along migration routes (Dixon 1982).

V-7. Ecology – Predator-Prey Relationships Mountain lions do not have any natural predators but compete for food with black bears, wolverines, coyotes, and bobcats where they coexist (Currier 1983). There is also a high degree of intraspecific competition among lions, which is sometimes a cause of mortality, particularly for young, male lions (Beier et al. 2010). Mountain lions are heavily dependent on deer and do not occur in areas where deer are absent (Dixon 1982). Around communities, mountain lions occasionally opportunistically consume livestock and other domestic animals, including dogs and cats. Studies in the near-urban areas of southern California have found deer to still be the most important food source for most lions although there is a higher proportion of smaller species documented as prey for mountain lions such as raccoons, opossums, skunks and coyotes.

The Forest Service and CDFG have suggested that mountain lions may have had an adverse effect on bighorn sheep populations in the San Gabriel Mountains and along the north slope of the San Bernardino Mountains. In the last 10 years, there has been an increase in the number of fires and acres burned in sheep habitat on the San Bernardino and Angeles NF. Bighorn populations appear to be responding favorably (Bleich 2008) and deer populations often increase two to ten years after a burn which may benefit lion populations.

Page 7- Mountain Lion Appendix C - MIS Species Account - S. Province

VI. THREATS AND MANAGEMENT CONCERNS The LMP identified the primary threats as habitat fragmentation, road density, and low prey densities. Other threats to mountain lions include: taking of lions with depredation permits, taking as a result of dangerous human encounters, reductions in the prey base (primarily deer and bighorn sheep), vehicle-associated mortality, habitat fragmentation and loss, and loss of dispersal areas connecting suitable habitat. There is evidence that one of greatest sourced of mortality in S. CA mt. lion populations in developed areas is vehicle collisions (Beier et al. 2010). Anticoagulant rodenticide poisoning is a major concern as well, potentially leading to mortality caused by internal hemorrhaging or other sub-lethal effects (Beier et al., 2010, Riley et al. 2007)Invasive plants and unnaturally frequent fires in the lower elevations and urban interface areas combined with continuing development are seriously impacting suitable habitat.

VI-1 Threats - Fire While the impact of urban and agricultural development may be easily displayed, the effect of fire on the landscape is not as easily understood. Fire plays an important role in determining the suitability of habitat for mountain lions, but the effects on that habitat can be mixed. Fires often reduce canopy closure, which is important to mountain lions, favoring early-succession plant species and increasing plant vigor of those species. Large-scale intense wildland fires do have the potential to remove hiding cover and temporarily displace the prey base, resulting in a temporary displacement of mountain lions for a period of time. Within a year after fires in southern California, there is often improved accessibility for large animals like deer and an abundant growth of the shrub species favored by deer. Often after fire, mule deer populations will increase locally, ultimately benefitting mountain lion populations. It has been documented that deer populations, the preferred prey for most of the pumas in southern California, have a positive response to fires in the second and third growing seasons after fire as a result of fresh forage growth (Ashcraft 1978, Klinger et al. 1989). In California chaparral, mountain lions were attracted to the edges of recent burns where deer tended to congregate (Quinn 1990).

There is evidence from UC Davis research efforts that mountain lions can escape the flames and will return to the burned area after the fire front has passed. In the case of 2 female lions, one in the Cedar fire and one in the Santiago fire, they returned to the burn too early and sustained burns to the pads of their feet, eventually leading to death as their movement and hunting ability was inhibited. Although it appears that there is some risk in quickly returning to burned areas, this has been documented with tracking data and remote camera systems (Boyce, unpublished data).

Over longer periods of time, mountain lion populations as a whole do not appear to avoid or prefer burned areas. A recent study has determined that in a comparison of puma resource use between burned and unburned habitats or habitats burned at different severities, there was no apparent selection for or against burned areas (Jennings et al., in prep). As might be expected, however, some individuals did appear to show preference for or avoidance of burned areas. When individuals were examined with respect to time since fire, there was a slight degree of avoidance of areas burned within the previous year, but strong preference among some individuals using areas burned 3-6 years previously (Jennings et al. in prep). Preliminary analyses also suggest that in the first years following fire, riparian areas may be more important

Page 8- Mountain Lion Appendix C - MIS Species Account - S. Province than usual as mountain lion travel routes as understory regrowth is rapid and overstory canopies are often quick to recover from the crown-resprouting of coast live oak.

Wildfire at unnaturally frequent return interval in some areas (e.g. San Bernardino Front Country, I-5 Corridor etc..) is causing type conversion from forest and shrubland habitat to grassland. If this occurs across a landscape scale in southern California, non-native annual grassland will replace shrublands, making these areas less suitable for hunting grounds and daytime resting areas.

VI-2. Threats – Human Disturbance Areas in National Forests with high road densities increase the risk of vehicle-related mortality and result in lower deer numbers due to human disturbance. The popularity of deer hunting on and around National Forest System (NFS) lands also results in high levels of disturbance to deer, and in turn mountain lions. High levels of recreation in riparian areas affect deer productivity and thus mountain lions. Increasing development in the mountain communities and on the edge of the National Forests is having a substantial effect on deer and mountain lion productivity. In open spaces and other habitat fragments in southern California, some pumas have been observed to alter their activity patterns to avoid areas of human activity both temporally and spatially (Sweanor et al. 2008). They have also been shown to have a significant negative association with presence of roads and prominence of utilities (power lines, etc.) as well as use by equestrians, bikers and the presence of litter (Markovchick-Nicholls et al. 2008).

Mountain lions may also show sensitivity to some forest and fuels management practices as they were found to avoid areas of human activity and recent logging projects on the Kaibab plateau (Van Dyke et al. 1986). Mountain lions that have contact with areas of human development are also having an increased risk of mortality resulting from contact with anticoagulant rodenticides and from diseases where domestic cats are a reservoir such as calicivirus.

VI-3. Threats - Habitat Fragmentation and Connectivity Loss Because NFS lands are not subject to the same habitat conversions experienced on private lands, suitable habitat for the mountain lion is at less risk. However, the habitat conversions occurring on adjacent private lands may affect the ability of individuals from NFS lands to disperse though and use these lower elevation areas. The loss of connectivity between the mountain ranges and open space preserves is a major long-term threat.

Freeways and highways are a serious problem for mountain lions in southern California. They create barriers to movement and are a significant source of mortality.

Mountain lions have already lost a number of dispersal corridors in southern California, making them susceptible to extirpation from existing protected areas (Beier1993). Habitat fragmentation caused by urbanization and the extensive road network has had detrimental effects on mountain lions by restricting movement, escalating mortality, and increasing contact with humans (http://scwildlands.org/missinglinks/reports/download_sangab_sanbernardino.htm).

Page 9- Mountain Lion Appendix C - MIS Species Account - S. Province

The linkage at Coal Canyon from the Santa Ana Mountains to the Chino Hills State Park has been identified as important to maintaining lions in the Santa Ana Mountains and Chino Hills. Landscape linkages from the Santa Monica Mountains to the San Gabriel Mountains to the San Bernardino Mountains to the San Jacinto/Santa Rosa Mountains to Palomar Mountain to the San Diego Ranges and Santa Ana Mountains are very important for long-term viability of the mountain lion in southern California. Providing linkages to the Central Coast, Sierras and Baja are also important http://www.scwildlands.org/index.aspx. Type conversion of shrubland and forest to non-native annual grasses increases habitat fragmentation and adversely affects the ability of lions to move between suitable habitat patches.

VI-4. Threats – Public Opinion Management of mountain lions in California has become a controversial and politicized issue (Stephenson and Calcarone 1999). Much of the controversy centers on whether regulated mountain lion hunts should be allowed. Mountain lion hunting has not been allowed in California since 1972 (Torres et al. 1996). In 1990, a state ballot initiative (Proposition 117) was passed into law, establishing the California Wildlife Protection Act of 1990 and designating the mountain lion as a "specially protected mammal." This designation generally prohibits the "taking" (hunting or killing), injury, possession, or sale of mountain lions in California. However, provisions of the Act allow for the issuance of depredation permits when a mountain lion: 1) is perceived as an imminent threat to public health or safety; 2) damages livestock or other property; or 3) is attacking people.

Between 1910 and 1985, there were no verified mountain lion attacks on humans in California. There has recently been an increase in depredation incidents and in the number of mountain lion attacks on humans (Torres et al.1996). Since 1986, there have been eleven verified attacks on humans in California, with two fatal attacks on adult women in 1994 alone (Torres et al. 1996). The most recent attacks occurred in January 2004, when one mountain bicyclist was killed and another seriously injured in an Orange County wilderness preserve. Human/lion conflicts often result in the taking of offending lions. Most depredation permits are issued for taking lions that have attacked pets or hobby animals (Torres et l. 1996) and also livestock. As southern California continues to develop at a rapid pace, particularly in exurban development adjacent to National Forest lands, increasing human conflicts is likely (Loe pers. comm.).

Although the negative publicity associated with these attacks may create the perception that mountain lion numbers are increasing, this may not be true. There is scientific concern about the long-term viability of some mountain lion populations (e.g., in the Santa Ana Mountains) that are being isolated by urban development (Beier 1993). Recent attacks may be due to increased human intrusion into mountain lion habitat. Mountain lions have already lost a number of dispersal corridors in southern California, making them susceptible to extirpation from existing protected areas (Beier1993).

Page 10- Mountain Lion Appendix C - MIS Species Account - S. Province

VII. HABITAT STATUS AND POPULATION TRENDS VII-1. Statewide Habitat Status and Population Trends Mountain lion population health largely depends on the abundance of prey. Mule deer make up most of the mountain lion's diet. Mountain lion density is always low, because they have very large home ranges and limited social interactions (Beier 1996).

CDFG estimates the mountain lion population statewide to be about 6,000 conservatively (Santa Barbara News-Press 10/27/05). They estimated the population to be 5,100 adults during the 1970s and 1980s (USFS LMP 2005). Prior to the use of radio telemetry in the 1970s, estimates of mountain lion population were only speculative, and little was known about mountain lion ecology (Torres et al. 1996). CDFG conducted field studies on mountain lions during the 1970s and 1980s, and estimated the population of mountain lions in California to be 5,100 adults.

In 1990, the mountain lion population in California was estimated to be between 2,500-5,000 individuals (CDFG). That same year, Proposition 117 was passed which prohibits hunting and granted mountain lion the status of a California Specially Protected species, though depredation permits are still issued (Torres 2000).

During the same years that mountain lions were bountied in California, the state’s human population increased from about 1.5 million to 15.8 million people. Between 1970 to 2000 (during which time mountain lions were essentially protected in California), the human population more than doubled to 33.9 million. The trend was similar in San Diego County - the County’s population increased from 1.4 to over 2.8 million people between 1970 and 2000. Based on the county’s size (4,200 mile2 or 10,900 km2), human density in the county now averages 670 people/mile2 (this is 1735 people/km2). Consequently, at the same time mountain lion populations were rebounding and reclaiming former habitats, more and more people were moving into and recreating in those habitats (Sweanor et al. 2004).

Based on records of depredation (Figure 4), attacks on people, and predation on prey populations, the mountain lion population appears to have peaked in 1996 and has been somewhat stable since.

There have been an increased number of mountain lion sightings in areas where they were not previously documented. This could be attributed to a number of factors including loss of habitat, shifting prey base toward pets, dispersing young, increases in off-road recreation, and an expanding urban interface which increases the likelihood of human/mountain lion encounters and may increase deer numbers in areas that were previously arid and now grow relatively lush vegetation.

Page 11- Mountain Lion Appendix C - MIS Species Account - S. Province

Loss of suitable habitat and urban development are likely factors forcing mountain lions into marginal areas around rural and urban residential centers. Another explanation is that the mountain lion population is expanding and already effectively occupying areas of suitable habitat. As a result, young mountain lions must disperse in search of new territories (Torres et al. 1996). This may explain why mountain lion sightings are increasing in areas such as Inyo, Lassen, Modoc, and Mono Counties where the human population has not greatly increased and there has been little change in the landscape for more than 50 years (Torres et al. 1996).

Without an ongoing statewide mountain lion study, it is impossible to know what is happening on a statewide basis with populations. However, there are indications that mountain lion activity, such as depredation, attacks on people, and predation on prey populations, peaked in 1996, then decreased somewhat, and have remained stable for the past several years.

The number of depredation permits are an indicator of lion populations, but are also influenced by a lot of factors. Increasing human development into natural areas results in more encounters.

VII-2. Southern California Habitat Status and Population Trends While mountain lions may be thriving in some areas of northern California, they are considered imperiled in some of southern California's highly fragmented wildlands (Stephenson and Calcarone 1999). This is primarily a problem from the San Gabriel Mountains to the Mexico border. Regional population counts in southern California have not been conducted except in the

Page 12- Mountain Lion Appendix C - MIS Species Account - S. Province

Santa Ana Mountain Range where Beier (1993) estimated about 1.05-1.2 adults per 100 km2 (24,711 acre).

Beier (1993) conducted a radio-tracking study of mountain lions in the Santa Ana Mountains and Chino Hills. He found that the cougar population in this area consists of only about 20 adults and is in danger of dying out if movement corridors are not sustained to allow immigration from Palomar Mountain. The last potential corridor for immigration is the "Pechanga Corridor," which is primarily private land located between the Santa Ana Mountains and the Palomar Mountains. This habitat is presently degraded and probably prevents regular mountain lion passage (Beier 1993).

Using a simulation model, Beier (1993) estimated that lions were at a low extinction risk in areas at least 2,200 sq. km. in size (about 544,000 acres). The risk of extinction increases in smaller areas in the absence of immigration. For example, Beier (1993) estimated that the mountain lion population of about 20 adults in the Santa Ana Mountains in an area of 2,070 sq. km. was demographically unstable and that a movement corridor connection to Palomar Mountain Range to the east will be important for sustaining this population.

Populations of mountain lions in southern California are becoming fragmented at an increasing rate due to freeways and urbanization (Beier 1993). Based on the review of studies and contacts with mountain lion experts, it appears that long-term viability of mountain lions in southern California could be at stake because of existing and planned development and freeway construction on and off NFS land (Beier 1993, Beier and Barrett 1993). Maintenance and restoration of corridors between large areas of wildlands is essential to conserving cougars in southern California (Dickson et al.2005).

Genetic variability in mountain lion populations is already a concern as evidenced by low gene flow detected into the Peninsular Range-Santa Ana region (Ernest et al. 2003). Only a medium degree of gene flow was detected between the Western Sierra Nevada – South and the Peninsular Range – northeast to southwest, and between the Peninsular Range – Santa Ana and Peninsular Range – northeast to southwest. It is possible that the southern California mountain lion population is acting as a metapopulation, but if not, there may be population-level problems associated with a lack of genetic variability before low population numbers are apparent (Ernest et al. 2003).

The greatest concern for the long-term health of mountain lion populations on the S. Province National Forests is loss of landscape connectivity between mountain ranges and large blocks of open space on private land (Dickson et al. 2005). Viable populations of mountain lions could be maintained if the National Forests and other land management agencies in southern California work together to provide healthy mule deer herds; corridors/linkages for lion movement between sub-populations; and sufficient large, backcountry type areas where human density, roading, and mountain lion mortality are held to a minimum.

Figure 5 displays the number of mountain lion depredation permits issued by CDFG in southern California counties and the number of mountain lions actually killed under those depredation

Page 13- Mountain Lion Appendix C - MIS Species Account - S. Province permits. Appendix A includes the data from which the graphs were made and the counties that were used. Figure 5. Mountain Lion Depredation Permit Data for Southern California 50

45

40

35

30

25 Permits issued 20 Mountain lions killed 15

10

5

0

1988 1972 1974 1976 1978 1980 1982 1984 1986 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 Year

The number of depredation permits is also an indicator of lion populations in southern California, but are also influenced by a lot of factors. Increasing human development into natural areas results in more encounters and development in southern California is taking place at unprecedented levels.

Trends in human encounters also provide an indication of mountain lion populations. CDFG logs hundreds of “Wildlife Incident Reports” annually related to mountain lion sightings. On average, fewer than three percent of these reports result in a mountain lion being identified as an imminent threat to public safety and killed under the CDFG’s Wildlife Public Safety Guidelines. The vast majority of these reports (79%) are resolved by providing information about the natural history and behavior of mountain lions. Another 18% of cases are legitimate threats posed by mountain lions that can be resolved by modifying human behavior (percentages are based on analysis of five years’ worth of data). Appendix A displays a breakdown of the mountain lions killed for public safety reasons in southern California counties.

Mountain lion research is currently being conducted by the National Park Service in the Santa Monica Mountains and adjacent mountain ranges to determine movements and landscape connectivity. The Forest Service and CDFG are conducting a study in the San Gabriel

Page 14- Mountain Lion Appendix C - MIS Species Account - S. Province

Mountains to look into the bighorn sheep decline and relation to mountain lion predation. Scientists from the U.S. Geological Survey are planning to radio-collar additional mountain lions in the San Gabriel Mountains in support of these projects.

Personnel from the University of California-Davis and the California State Parks are investigating mountain lion, mule deer, and peninsular bighorn sheep interactions and movements in eastern San Diego County, Orange County, the Santa Rosa Plateau and the Santa Ana mountains. New research by this groups is being undertaken in the MSCP preserves in central San Diego County to identify corridors and issues related to connectivity for lions in the area (http://www. wildlifehealthcenter.org/).

The U.S. Geological Survey is collaborating with the CDFG to work on the rest of coastal southern California, including the Western Riverside Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan area, the Santa Ana Mountains, Chino and Whittier Hills, and the San Jacinto-Palomar Mountains area. These research projects should yield data that will help identify trends in mountain lion populations on and near NFS lands (http://www.fs.fed.us/ r5/scfpr/).

VII-3. Angeles National Forest - Population Status and Trend No specific data on population status and trend are known for the ANF.

VII-4. Cleveland National Forest - Population Status and Trend Over 65 mountain lions have been trapped and tracked between 2001 and 2010 by the UC Davis Wildlife Health Center on the Cleveland National Forest and other protected lands adjacent, including Casper’s Wilderness Preserve, the Santa Rosa Plateau, Anza Borrego Desert State Park and Cuyamaca Rancho State Park. This study has helped elucidate some of the threats to mountain lions in the area both on and adjacent to Forest lands.

The Cleveland National Forest encompasses a substantial portion of the north-south linkage that will be important to retaining connected mountain lion populations and key dispersal routes in southern California. The South Coast Missing Linkages Project identified five different linkages that would allow for connectivity between core habitats on the Cleveland and other protected areas, including across the US – Mexico border.

1. Palomar to San Jacinto/Santa Rosa Connection 2. Santa Ana Mountains to Palomar Mountain Connection 3. Peninsular Range to Santa Ana Connection 4. Northern Baja to Otay Mountain to Laguna Mountains Connection 5. Laguna Mountains to Campo Connection

The protected wilderness areas on the Cleveland, which include Pine Creek, Hauser Canyon, Agua Tibia and San Mateo, are dominated by habitats that are especially critical to mountain lions. All four of these areas protect what are likely primary movement corridors through major drainages and canyon bottoms. These canyon bottoms and drainages that are preferred movement paths for mountain lions (Dickson et al. 2006) are at risk of habitat alteration or increased flammability from the spread of noxious weeds like arundo and tamarisk, although a recent project on the Trabuco Ranger District has targeted these species for removal. Beyond these

Page 15- Mountain Lion Appendix C - MIS Species Account - S. Province protected areas, exurban development both on the edge of the Forest and in and around inholdings within the Forest boundary are fundamental threats to the mountain lion population. Many of the depredation kills that occurred near Forest lands took place after a mountain lion preyed on a hobby animal or pet in rural neighborhoods or ranchettes abutting Forest lands (Boyce, unpublished data).

Much of the Cleveland National Forest was burned in 2003 (Cedar and Paradise fires) and in 2007 (Santiago, Witch, Poomacha, and Harris fires), however there is clear evidence that some mountain lions, as well as their prey, returned rather quickly to burned areas (W. Boyce and W. Vickers, pers.comm.). Rapid recovery was observed in riparian areas and drainages, as understory vegetation responded quickly and coast live oak resprouted from the crowns. Deer and mountain lion activity seemed to be more concentrated in these areas after the fire (M. Jennings, pers. obs.). Deer populations in burned areas from both 2003 and 2007 were seen to be resilient in the first few growing seasons after fire and it is likely that mountain lion populations followed in that trend. Eight years after the 2003 fires, deer populations still appear to have a robust population. There is some threat to lion populations by type conversion from shrublands to non-native annual grasslands with decreased fire return intervals, however there may also be some risk to populations by fuels reduction treatments on the Forest that may alter vegetation recovery times and composition.

In addition to development in and around the Forest, roadways through the Cleveland are also a cause of habitat fragmentation. The secondary roads that lead through many portions of the Forest such as Sunrise Highway, Highway 78, and the Ortega Highway, are often where the highest degree of mortality is observed and in the near future, there are plans in the County to widen two major roadways near Forest lands, Highway 67 and Highway 94, which may lead to further roadkill mortalities. Approximately half of the observed mortalities in the UC Davis study were a result of vehicle collisions (Boyce, unpublished data). Many natural underpasses that exist on the Forest are likely used by mountain lions, and reduction of vehicle mortalities may require additional study to identify locations where mitigation may be necessary.

There are a number of locations on the Forest where otherwise suitable habitat may be avoided by mountain lions in response to recreational use or permitting of utility corridors across Forest lands. Negative associations with recreational activity, especially biking, equestrians and hikers may limit mountain lion use of Forest lands, at least temporally. Existing utility corridors may also be areas permanently avoided by mountain lions and future energy projects with similar construction or habitat disturbing activities could result in additional losses of suitable habitat for mountain lions on the Cleveland National Forest.

VII-5. Los Padres National Forest - Population Status and Trend The LPNF has vast tracts of un-fragmented wilderness habitat ideal for supporting mountain lion populations. During a drought cycle in the mid-1970s, the LPNF was documented to have one of the highest densities of mountain lions reported within the state (USFS LMP 2005). Mountain lion populations on the LPNF are more likely influenced by the availability of local deer numbers than by the loss of habitat or fragmentation within the forest boundary (Freel pers. comm. in Species Accounts, 2005).

Page 16- Mountain Lion Appendix C - MIS Species Account - S. Province

Since 2000, eight mountain lions have been killed per depredation permits in Kern County; one in Ventura County. Human encounters with mountain lions have increased, leading to the belief that mountain lion populations have increased in the past several decades (Torres et al. 1996). Currently there is no information that would lead to a cause for concern for mountain lion populations on the LPNF.

Future development of large tracts of private land adjacent to the LPNF and the associated freeways and highways will increase fragmentation of habitat. Maintaining landscape linkages to the Sierra Nevada and National Forests to the South are important in the long-term.

Large predator movements north and south along the narrow the coast range within the Los Padres National Forest result in high collision mortality along Hwy 101 as it summits Cuesta Ridge near San Luis Obispo. Caltrans is in the process of creating a wildlife underpass to lessen this impact. As of 2011 there are no plans for more roads within or across the Los Padres. Urban areas surrounding the Forest are growing rapidly especially along the Hwy 101 corridor next to the coast, and in addition to new homes, may square miles of vinyards have been established in the surrounding grasslands from Buellton north to Salinas. Deer-proof fences have greatly fragmented this important mountain lion prey base habitat, and it is likely that both deer and mountain lion populations have decreased in the areas surrounding the Los Padres. Within the Los Padres National Forest boundaries, nearly one million acres burned in wildfires between 2006 and 2010.

The short term result of these fires was a sudden reduction in deer and mountain lion habitat across a very large contiguous area within a short time period, and movement to an already compromised habitat off-Forest. Even though the existing deer and mountain lion populations within the Los Padres were not optimal due to generally dense brushy habitat, the effect of the fires was to push both deer and mountain lions into areas off-Forest that were already stressed by development. By 2011, the fires that burned in 2006 (e.g. the 160,000 acre DayFire), 2007(e.g. the 240,000 acre Zaca Fire) and 2008 (e.g. the 300,000 Basin/Indians/Chalk Fire) are beginning to supply excellent deer habitat that will eventually support a healthy deer population on the Los Padres, but continual development in the surrounding areas will render deer and mountain lion populations within the Forest less robust to changes and loss of habitat from wildfire.

VII-6. San Bernardino National Forest –Population Status and Trend The depredation permit data do not provide any specific insight into the current mountain lion population status or trends for the SBNF’s San Gabriel, San Jacinto, or San Bernardino Mountains.

It is likely that the reduction of deer herds over time has resulted in fewer mountain lions in the SBNF. Deer herds have declined from historic times due to development in the summer range into large communities (Big Bear, Arrowhead, Running Springs, Idyllwild, etc.), high levels of recreation in fawning habitat (meadows and riparian areas), drying of streams, meadows and riparian areas from diversion and pumping for human use, type conversion of some lower chaparral areas to annual grassland from too frequent wildfire and the increase of invasive

Page 17- Mountain Lion Appendix C - MIS Species Account - S. Province species, human development in the winter ranges, and high road densities in some prime deer habitat where unauthorized vehicle use has been severe.

Another area of concern for mountain lions on the SBNF has been the continued decline in permeability of the critical landscape linkages that support movement of mountain lions. The connections and landscape linkages discussed below are important to mountain lion survival and natural ecosystem function on the SBNF. The reports for the various linkages can be found in the linkage reports at (http://www.scwildlands.org/index.aspx).

Recent and ongoing fuels management emphasis on the SBNF should be a benefit to the mountain lion through the creation of more edge and early successional habitat for deer. Fire, which is an important ecological process in southern California forests and shrub stands, had been excluded in many areas through fire suppression for many years. Some areas that ecologically burn on a 20-40 year cycle have not burned for close to 100 years. The recent large burns on the SBNF should benefit deer and mountain lion for some years to come.

Unauthorized vehicle use has been a concern on the SBNF for many years. Where this use is most prevalent, deer herds are seriously affected. The SBNF has made progress in closing some roads in sensitive riparian areas and controlling unauthorized vehicle use off of roads in some prime deer habitat. There are still areas on the SBNF where unauthorized use is occurring and close monitoring is needed to take action if new routes start to develop. The biggest problem areas are sites with flatter more open terrain such as Garner Valley and the desert side of San Bernardino Mountains.

The San Bernardino Mountain – San Gabriel Mountain Connection: This linkage has been severely impacted by the I-15 freeway, State 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 maintaining and constructing new 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 CDFG and Forest Service 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 Mountain-San Jacinto Mountain Connection: This linkage in San Gorgonio Pass has not as much 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 SBNF 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 San

Page 18- Mountain Lion Appendix C - MIS Species Account - S. Province

Gorgonio Pass as a critical wildlife linkage. Recently the Forest has been working with Riverside County and others to insure viability of the Stubbe Canyon linkage near Whitewater.

San Bernardino Mountains-Little San Bernardino Mountains Connection: This is another important landscape linkage of importance to the mountain lions in the San Bernardino Mountains. 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. When workshops on this linkage take place, the SBNF participates and provides input into the Connection Report. The continued growth of the desert communities between the mountains and the upgrading of State Highway 62 present problems to the continued functioning of this linkage. There has been discussion of creating one or more land bridges across Highway 62 to facilitate large mammal movement in this area.

San Bernardino Mountains to Granite Mountains Connection: This linkage is of lesser importance to lions in the SBNF because it is primarily desert habitat with presumably less lion use and movement. It is currently not threatened, but as the desert communities continue to grow and traffic on State Route 18 increases, there will be a need to provide for movement.

San Jacinto Mountain to San Diego Ranges Connection: This linkage is not threatened at this time. As the adjacent private lands between the San Jacinto and Santa Rosa Mountains develop, this connection may become a greater concern in the future.

IX. CONCLUSIONS In the LMP for the southern California National Forests, the mountain lion was chosen as an MIS detect the effects of forest activities and uses on landscape-level habitat fragmentation and habitat linkages. The concerns for mountain lions include small and possibly declining prey populations (mule deer and bighorn sheep) and habitat fragmentation, especially as there is more encroachment on inter-mountain range linkages.

The prescribed monitoring method is studies in cooperation with CDFG and USGS. The number of depredation permits issued and number of successful depredation kills are the most current data available to consider population trends.

LITERATURE CITED/REFERENCES Ahlborn, G. 1988-1990. Mountain lion, Felis concolor. In: Volume III: Mammals. California wildlife habitat relationships system, edited by D.C. Zeiner, W.F. Laudenslayer Jr., K.E. Mayer, and M. White. Sacramento: California Department of Fish and Game, California Interagency Wildlife Task Group.

Anderson, A.E., D.C. Bowden, and D.M. Kattner. 1992. The puma on the Uncompahgra Plateau, Colorado. Colo. Div. Wildl. Tech. Publ. 40, Denver. 116pp.

Barrile, Paul. Are mountain lions living in Vermont? Senior Capstone and GIS Project. Colby- Sawyer College. http://www.colby-sawyer.edu/assets/pdf/barrile.pdf

Page 19- Mountain Lion Appendix C - MIS Species Account - S. Province

Beier, P. 1993. Determining minimum habitat areas and habitat corridors for Cougars. Conservation Biology 7:94-108

Beier, P. 1995. Dispersal of juvenile cougars in fragmented habitats. Journal of Wildlife Management 5:228-237.

Beier, P. 1996. Metapopulation models, tenacious tracking, and cougar conservation. pp. 293- 322. In: McCulloch, D.R., editor. Metapopulations and wildlife conservation. Island Press, Covelo, CA.

Beier, P. and R. Barrett. 1993. The cougar in the Santa Ana Mountain Range, California. Final Report for the Orange County Cooperative Mountain Lion Study.

Beier, P., S.P.D. Riley, R.M. Sauvajot. 2010. Mountain lions (Puma concolor) in S.D. Gehrt, S.P.D. Riley, B.L. Cypher, eds. Urban Carnivores: Ecology, conflict, and conservation.

California Department of Fish and Game. 1990. California’s Wildlife, Volume III: Mammals. eds.D. C. Zeiner, W.F. Laudenslayer, Jr., K.E. Mayer, and M. White. 1990. California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, California.

California Department of Fish and Game. 2002 and updates online. California Wildlife Habitat Relationships System (CWHR). http://www.dfg.ca.gov/biogeodata/ cwhr/cawildlife.aspx

Chapman, J.A., and G.A. Feldhamer (eds.) 1982. Wild mammals of North America. The John Hopkins University Press. Baltimore, Maryland.

Clemenza, S.M., E.S. Rubin, C.K. Johnson, R.A. Botta and W.M. Boyce. 2009. Puma predation on radiocollared and uncollared bighorn sheep. BMC Research Notes 2:230.

Currier, M.P. 1983. Felis concolor. Mammalian Species 200: 1-7. Published by the American Society of Mammalogists.

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.

Dickson, B.G. and P. Beier. 2006. Quantifying the influence of topographic position on cougar (Puma concolor) movement in southern California, USA. Journal of Zoology 271(3): 270-277.

Dickson, B.G., J.S. Jenness, P. Beier. 2005. Influence of vegetation, topography, and roads on cougar movement in southern California. Journal of Wildlife Management, 69(1): 264- 276.

Dixon, J. 1925. Food predilections of predatory and furbearing mammals. Journal of Mammalogy 6: 34-46.

Page 20- Mountain Lion Appendix C - MIS Species Account - S. Province

Dixon, K.R. 1982. Wild mammals of North America: Biology, management, and economics. Chapman, J.A.; Feldhamer, G.A., eds. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press.

Ernest H.B., E.S. Rubin, W.M. Boyce. 2002. Fecal DNA analysis and risk assessment of mountain lion predation of bighorn sheep. J Wild Mgt 66:75-85 Ernest, H.B., W.M. Boyce, V.C. Bleich, B. May, S.J. Stiver, S.G. Torres. 2003. Genetic structure of mountain lion (Puma concolor) populations in California. Conservation Genetics 4: 353 – 366.

Hall, E.R. 1981. The mammals of North America. 2nd ed. Toronto, Canada: John Wiley & Sons.

Jennings, M.K., R.L. Lewison and W.M. Boyce. In Prep. Effects of fire on mountain lions in southern California.

Klinger, R.C., M.J. Kutilek, and H.S. Shellhammer. 1989. Population responses of black-tailed deer to prescribed burning. The Journal of Wildlife Management 53(4): 863-871.

Logan K.A. and L.L. Sweanor. 2001. Desert Puma: Evolutionary ecology and conservation of an enduring carnivore Island Press, Washington, DC.

Maehr, D.S. 1992. Florida panther: Felis concolor coryi. Pp. 176-189 In: S.R. Humphrey, (ed.). Rare and endangered biota of Florida. Mammals: Volume 1. Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission. Naples, Florida

Markovchick-Nicholls, L., H.M. Regan, D.H. Deutschman, A. Widyanata, B. Martin, L. Noreke, and T.A. Hunt. 2008. Relationships between human disturbance and wildlife land use in urban habitat fragments. Conservation Biology 22(1): 99-109.

Noss, R.F. and A.Y. Cooperrider. 1994. Saving nature’s legacy: protecting and restoring biodiversity. Island Press, Washington, D.C.

Noss, R. F., and B. Csuti. 1994. Habitat fragmentation. In G.K. Meffe and C.R. Carroll, eds. An Introduction to Conservation Biology. Sinauer, Sunderland, MA.

Noss, R. F. 1992. The Wildlands Project: Land conservation strategy. Wild Earth (Special Issue) 1:10-25.

Noss, R. F. 1991. Landscape linkages and biodiversity. W. E. Hudson. Washington, D.C. pp. 27- 39.

Ordeñana, M.A., K.R. Crooks, E.E. Boydston, R.N. Fisher, L.M. Lyren, S. Siudyla, C.D. Haas, S. Harris, S.A. Hathaway, G.M. Turschak, A.K. Miles and D.H. Van Vuren. 2010. Effects of urbanization on carnivore species distribution and richness. Journal of Mammalogy 91(6) 1322-1331.

Page 21- Mountain Lion Appendix C - MIS Species Account - S. Province

Penrod, K., R. Hunter, and M. Merrifield. 2001. Missing Linkages: Restoring Connectivity to the California Landscape, Conference Proceedings. Co-sponsored by California Wilderness Coalition, The Nature Conservancy, US Geological Survey, Center for Reproduction of Endangered Species, and California State Parks.

Pierce, B.M., V.C. Bleich, J.D. Wehausen, and R.T Bowyer. 1999. Migratory patterns of mountain lions: implication for social regulation and conservation. Journal of Mammalogy, Vol. 80, pp. 986-992.

Quinn, R.D. 1990. Habitat preferences and distribution of mammals in California chaparral. PSW-202. Berkeley, CA: USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station.

Soulé, ME, and J Terborgh, editors. 1999. Continental conservation: scientific foundations of regional reserve networks. Island Press. Washington D.C.. Washington, D.C

Spowart, R.A. and F.B. Samson 1986. Carnivores. Pp. 475-496 In: A.Y. Cooperrider, R.J. Boyd, and H.R. Stuart (eds). Inventory and monitoring of wildlife habitat. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Service Center. Denver, Colorado

Staub, N.L., C.W. Brown, and D.B. Wake. 1995. Patterns of growth and

Stephenson, J.R.; Calcarone, G.M. 1999. Southern California mountains and foothills assessment: Habitat and species conservation issues. General Technical Report PSW- GTR-172. Albany, CA: Pacific Southwest Research Station, Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture.

Sweanor, L.L., K.A. Logan, and M.G. Hornocker. 2000. Cougar dispersal patterns, metapopulation dynamics, and conservation. Conservation Biology, Vol. 14, pp. 798-808.

Sweanor, L.L., K.A. Logan, J.W. Bauer, B. Millsap, and W.M. Boyce. 2008. Puma and human spatial and temporal use of a popular California state park. Journal of Wildlife Management 72(5): 1076 – 1084.

Tesky, J.L. 1995. Felis concolor. In: In: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory (2002, April). Fire Effects Information System, [Online]. Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/.

Torres, S.G.; Mansfield, T.M.; Foley, J.E.; Lupo, T.; Brinkhaus, A. 1996. Mountain lion and human activity in California: Testing speculations. Wildlife Society Bulletin 24: 451-460.

Torres, Steve. 2000. Counting Cougars in California. Outdoor California, May-June

Van Dyke, F.G., R.H. Brocke, H.G. Shaw, B.B. Ackerman, T.P. Hemker, and F.G. Lindzey. 1986. Reactions of mountain lions to logging and human activity. Journal of Wildlife Management 50(1): 95-102.

Page 22- Mountain Lion Appendix C - MIS Species Account - S. Province

PERSONAL COMMUNICATIONS

Boydston, Erin, Research Ecologist, USGS BRD Western Ecological Research Center, Thousand Oaks, CA. Personal communication.

Freel, Maeton, Forest Biologist, Los Padres National Forest, Goleta, CA. [Comment submitted to the USDA Forest Service Southern Province Forest Plan Revision species information peer review web site]. 1 July 2002.

Loe, Steve, Forest Biologist, San Bernardino National Forest, San Bernardino, CA. Personal communication.

Loe, Steve, Forest Biologist, San Bernardino National Forest, San Bernardino, CA. [Comment submitted to the USDA Forest Service Southern Province Forest Plan Revision species information peer review web site]. 30 June 2002.

INTERNET SOURCES California Department of Fish and Game. 2002. California Wildlife Habitat Relationships System (CWHR). www.dfg.ca.gov/whdab/cwhr.

California Department of Fish and Game. Keep Me Wild. http://www.dfg.ca.gov/keepmewild/lion.html

California Department of Fish and Game Newsroom (Mountain Lion) www.dfg.ca.gov/news/issues/lion/lion_faq.html

South Coast Wildlands. http://www.scwildlands.org/index.aspx

South Coast Missing Linkages Project. http://www.scwildlands.org/projects/scml.aspx 1) Sierra Madre to Sierra Nevada Connection 2) San Gabriel Mountains to Castaic Range Connection 3) Sierra Madre-Castaic Connection 4) San Gabriel-San Bernardino Connection 5) San Bernardino Mountains to Granite Mountains Connection 6) San Bernardino Mountains to Little San Bernardino Mountains Connection 7) San Bernardino Mountains to San Jacinto Mountains Connection 8) Santa Ana Mountains to Palomar Mountains Connection 9) Peninsular Range to Anza Borrego Connection 10) Jacumba Mtns to Sierra De Juarez Connection 11) Laguna Mountains to Campo Valley Connection 13) Northern Baja to Otay Mountain to Laguna Mountains USDA Forest Service. 2006. Southern California Forest Plans, EIS, and Species Accounts. http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/scfpr/projects/lmp/index.htm

Page 23- Mountain Lion Appendix C - MIS Species Account - S. Province

Sweanor, L.L., K.A. Logan, J.W. Bauer and W.M. Boyce 2004. Southern California Puma Project. Final report for Interagency Agreement No. C0043050 (Southern California Ecosystem Health Project) between California State Parks and the UC Davis Wildlife Health Center. January 2004. http://www.wildlifehealthcenter.org/

USDA Forest Service. 2006. Southern California Land Management Plans, EIS and Species Accounts. http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/scfpr/projects/lmp/index.htm

Page 24- Mountain Lion Appendix C - MIS Species Account - S. Province

Table 1. Mountain Lion Depredation Permits Issued in S. California Counties

County

1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999

Kern 0 0 2 0 0 1 1 5 2 0 3 1 3 2 1 4 4 17 4 13 12 9 8 7 9 3 4 3 Los Angeles 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 1 2 5 3 2 2 Monterey 0 0 2 0 5 7 10 10 8 7 7 3 5 10 4 3 2 3 13 3 3 5 8 11 10 9 2 12 Orange 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 Riverside 0 0 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 4 3 1 0 1 4 3 4 1 3 6 3 1 San Bernardino 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 1 0 2

San Diego 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 5 1 1 2 8 4 1 1 3 0 4 7 6 4 11 3 3 San Luis Obispo 2 4 5 3 3 3 8 6 1 5 5 7 4 3 3 12 1 3 3 3 7 1 6 6 7 5 4 5 Santa Barbara 0 0 2 2 3 1 3 3 1 6 1 2 0 4 3 3 11 1 11 4 1 1 0 1 6 7 2 1 Ventura 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 2 0 0 2 2 2 3 1 0 8 2 1 1 0 Total 3 4 13 6 13 13 23 24 13 20 20 18 16 20 18 34 27 29 34 31 32 28 34 45 46 46 21 29 Source: http://www.dfg.ca.gov/news/issues/lion/dep-permits-issued.html

Table 1 (continued). Mountain Lion Depredation Permits Issued in S. California Counties

County

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Total

Kern 2 3 4 2 1 5 4 3 0 3 145 Los Angeles 2 2 1 1 1 0 0 2 1 0 32 Monterey 3 2 8 5 7 5 3 8 3 5 211 Orange 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 14 Riverside 0 4 6 1 9 0 4 0 0 65 San Bernardino 1 1 2 0 1 0 2 4 0 1 19

San Diego 8 7 4 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 90 San Luis Obispo 8 3 5 7 15 9 8 4 4 2 190 Santa Barbara 2 0 2 0 1 3 2 8 2 2 102 Ventura 0 0 0 1 2 3 4 3 0 1 41 TOTALS 27 23 33 19 38 25 27 33 10 14 909

Page 25- Mountain Lion Appendix C - MIS Species Account - S. Province

Table 2. Mountain Lions Killed Under Depredation Permits in S. California Counties

Coun 3

1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 199 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 ty 1972

Kern 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 4 0 0 2 1 2 0 1 1 2 7 2 5 3 5 5 4 6 0 3 2 Los Angel es 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 2 Mont erey 0 0 1 0 0 2 3 6 4 3 0 2 1 3 2 0 0 2 7 2 2 4 1 6 1 3 2 2 Oran ge 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 River side 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 1 1 San Berna rdino 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 San Diego 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 3 1 0 2 0 0 3 3 2 7 3 3 San Luis Obisp o 0 2 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 3 3 1 2 2 2 5 1 3 0 0 3 0 1 4 4 3 3 5 Santa Barb ara 0 0 0 0 3 0 2 2 1 3 0 0 0 2 1 1 8 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 2 2 0 Ventu ra 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 TOT 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ALS 0 2 2 1 3 3 6 3 5 9 5 4 5 7 8 0 5 5 1 0 9 2 3 8 6 6 5 5

Table 2 (continued). Mountain Lions Killed Under Depredation Permits in S. California

Counties

County Total

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Kern 2 2 2 2 0 3 2 2 0 3 74 Los Angeles 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 Monterey 3 1 3 2 1 4 1 4 1 0 79 Orange 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 6 Riverside 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 San Bernardino 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 San Diego 7 2 4 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 44 San Luis Obispo 5 1 2 1 9 1 2 5 3 2 82 Santa Barbara 0 0 1 0 0 3 1 4 1 0 41 Ventura 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 3 0 0 10 TOTALS 20 9 13 7 11 12 7 19 5 5 356

Page 26- Mountain Lion Appendix C - MIS Species Account - S. Province

MANAGEMENT INDICATOR SPECIES ACCOUNT for MULE DEER IN THE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA PROVINCE

SUMMARY Mule and black-tailed deer (collectively referred to as ‘mule deer,’ (Odocoileus hemionus) are one of the most widely recognized and socially important animals in western North America. As a harvestable species, revenue from viewing and hunting deer is considered a multi-billion dollar industry. The social and economic effects of changes in mule deer populations are critical to all agencies that manage this species and its habitat (CDFG 2004). Photo: Ed Wieringa

Mule deer was selected as a Management Indicator Species (MIS) to serve as an indicator of forest health related to vegetation management, roads and associated recreation management. Mule deer abundance will be used to monitor the effects of Forest Service management practices, and as an indicator of the agency’s effectiveness in working with state agencies and other interested groups. The goal for mule deer is that there are stable or increasing well-distributed populations across the National Forest.

The largest challenge facing mule deer habitat management in the southern Province is the loss quality habitat due to human encroachment and activities (development, road building, and mechanized recreation) as well as very large wildfires and resulting type conversion to invasive species.. Habitat loss has displaced deer populations from otherwise suitable habitats. Decreases in browse quality as a result of extended drought conditions and senescence is ubiquitous across southern California. Disturbance in the form of mosaic prescribed fire is a key element to maintain high quality deer habitat, especially in montane chaparral ecosystems. Changes in vegetation structure (hazardous fuels treatments) have modified spatial availability of habitat. Decreases in canopy cover in key areas have decreased hiding and thermal cover. While increases in canopy cover in other areas has decreased foraging habitat. Increasing demands on water resources have resulted in a lack of available water sources for deer. Invasions of undesired non-native plant and animal species have reduced quality of habitat. Cheat grass, tamarisk, and golden spotted oak borers etc. have all changed the quality of key habitats.

Mule deer populations continue to be considered to be stable to slightly declining in most zones. Populations continue to be significantly low compared to population numbers in the 1960s and 1970s. As populations continue to expand around the southern California National Forests, pressures on mule deer will continue to rise. Healthy and sustainable deer populations can only be achieved through maintaining habitat conditions. Land managers and wildlife agencies alike must work together to design habitat enhancement projects and actively management other multiple uses to benefit mule deer.

Page 1- Mule Deer Appendix C - MIS Species Account - S. Province

I. INTRODUCTION Mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus) are considered one of the most widely recognizable, and one of the most socially and economically important species in the western United States. Revenues generated from the sport hunting and recreational viewing of mule deer is a multi-billion dollar industry. Hunters, conservationists and outdoor enthusiastics all contribute and benefit from healthy, viable deer population and habitat management.

Mule deer occupy most of western North America from the Pacific Coast eastward to the 100th meridian. The species occurs from southeastern Alaska, south through Canada and most of the western U.S. and Great Plains, to Baja California and southern end of the Mexican Plateau (NatureServe 2005) (Figure 1).

Figure 1. Mule Deer Distribution and State Conservation Status (Natureserve 2005)

Within California, mule deer is widely distributed except in the Mojave desert and is a common to abundant, yearlong resident or elevational migrant (Figure 2). Dark areas represent where deer are present. Areas not shaded represent where deer are rare or absent (CDFG 1998).

Within California, National Forest System lands own approximately 20% of deer habitat. As directed by CFR 36, Part 219.19, National Forest must identify Management Indicator Species (MIS) as part of their land management plans. National Forests are required to: (1) establish objectives for the maintenance and improvement of the habitat for MIS, (2) evaluate habitat and population trends of MIS, and (3) monitor the trends of MIS species to determine the

Page 2- Mule Deer Appendix C - MIS Species Account - S. Province

relationships to habitat changes. In the 2006 Land Management Plan (LMP) for the southern California National Forests, mule deer was chosen as an MIS as a proxy of forest health related to vegetation management, roads and recreation management.

This species account was developed largely by using the information from the following sources: species account in the Land Management Plans (LMP) and Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the four southern California National Forests (USFS 2006), and the California Department of Fish and Game’s (CDFG) website on mule deer (http://www.dfg.ca.gov/wildlif e/hunting/deer/index.html).

Figure 2. Approximate distribution of deer range in California

II. SYSTEMATICS Cowan (1956) and Hall (1981) recognized 11 subspecies of mule deer in North America. Six of the eleven subspecies of mule deer are recognized in California: Rocky Mountain mule deer Odocoileus hemionus hemionus Inyo mule deer Odocoileus hemionus inyoensis California mule deer Odocoileus hemionus californicus Burro deer Odocoileus hemionus eremicus Southern mule deer Odocoileus hemionus fuliginatus Columbian black-tailed deer Odocoileus hemionus columbianus

Page 3- Mule Deer Appendix C - MIS Species Account - S. Province

Two subspecies are known to occur in the Central Coast (south) and South Coast Deer Assessment Units (DAU). California mule deer (O. h. californicus) occurs in the northern portion of the Central Coast (south) DAU, and southern mule deer (O. h. fuliginatus) occurs in the southern portion of the Central Coast (south) DAU and throughout the South Coast DAU (Figure 4). O. h. fuliginatus differs from O. h. californicus in the following distinguishing features: the summer pelage is darker cinnamon, rather than cinnamon-buff; the dorsal area appears darker with many black-tipped hairs; and the dark spots on the sides of the lower lip are restricted and do not meet on mid-ventral lines (Cowan 1933).

The coastal areas of the Los Padres National Forest also contain the Columbian black-tailed subspecies (O. h. columbianus) which often interbreed with the California subspecies (O. h. californicus) and these animals are typically very small in size compared to the normal California mule deer and have rump marking more typical of black tails (Freel pers. comm.).

III. MANAGEMENT DIRECTION The National Forests in southern California (Angeles [ANF], Cleveland [CNF], Los Padres [LPNF], and San Bernardino [SBNF]) have LMPs that are united by a common vision, common design criteria, and a common Final EIS (USFS 2006). The LMPs for the four forests are programmatic documents that leave all specific design decisions and analyses to project-level plans (USFS 2006). Part Three (Design Criteria) of the LMP also refers to auxiliary documents and agreements, such as conservation strategies, that provide additional guidance for management actions. The LMP objective for this MIS is to have stable or increasing well- distributed populations. Trends in abundance and/or habitat condition are to be used for measuring populations. Populations are to be monitored by herd composition counts in cooperation with California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) or by habitat condition (LMP FEIS, Vol. 1. p. 177, Table 433).

IV. SELECTION AS A MANAGEMENT INDICATOR SPECIES Mule deer was selected in the 2006 Land Management Plan (LMP) as a Management Indicator Species (MIS) for all four southern Province National Forests: Angeles (ANF) Cleveland (CNF), Los Padres (LPNF), and San Bernardino (SBNF).

In the Southern Province, mule deer was selected as an MIS to answer the question, “Are shrub, woodland, and forest habitats being managed adequately to provide the quality and quantity of habitat for species dependant on or strongly associated with large blocks of healthy, diverse wildland with low to moderate human disturbance?” They serve as an indicator of forest health related to vegetation management, roads and associated recreation management. Mule deer abundance will be used to monitor the effects of Forest Service management practices, and as an indicator of the agency’s effectiveness in working with state agencies and other interested groups.

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). A long-term increase in the size

Page 4- Mule Deer Appendix C - MIS Species Account - S. Province

of herds will be used as an indicator of the effectiveness of LMP objectives and standards in moving wildlife habitat toward desired conditions (USFS 2006).

Although trends in mule deer populations are difficult to detect, the Forest Service believes they can be determined through cooperation with the CDFG. Surveys by the CDFG are used to determine population estimates by deer hunting zones. Observed changes in mule deer abundance may not be due entirely to the effects of Forest Service management. However, the Forest Service recognizes that mule deer population trends on the National Forests are in large part dependent on Forest Service management of recreation, roads, and vegetation (USFS 2006).

The CDFG divided California into 11 separate geographic areas that constitute distinct Deer Assessment Units (DAUs) (CDFG 1998). To facilitate hunting programs, these DAUs were further divided into Hunting Zones. Figures 3 and 4 display California DAUs and Hunting Zones as designated by CDFG.

Figures 3 and 4. Primary Hunt Zones in California (left). Hunt Zones are Grouped 11

Geographic Areas (Or Deer Assessment Units) based primarily on environmental similarities (CDFG 1998, 2003, 2005). http://www.dfg.ca.gov/wildlife/hunting/deer/zonemapsinfo.html

V. ECOLOGY V-1. Ecology - Habitat Requirements Mule deer habitat includes coniferous forest, foothill woodland, shrubland, grassland, agricultural fields, and suburban environments. Suitable habitat is composed of four distinctly different elements: fawning, foraging, cover, and winter range. Fawning areas are composed of

Page 5- Mule Deer Appendix C - MIS Species Account - S. Province

low shrubs or small trees suitable for protection of the doe as she gives birth, and adequate for sheltering the fawn. Fawning areas must be interspersed with forage, hiding cover, and thermal cover for the doe. Cover (hiding and thermal) is typically close to the ground and is dense enough to camouflage the outline of the deer, without being so thick as to obscure the approach of potential predators. Thermal cover is similar and generally thought to be denser than hiding cover, with the additional property of sheltering deer from the elements. Winter range tends to be lower elevation habitats that meet the requirements for forage, hiding, and thermal cover described above. Some populations of mule deer migrate seasonally between higher elevation summer range and low elevation winter range.

Habitats used by mule deer differ geographically throughout California. In the low-elevation mountain ranges that lack extensive conifer forests, mule deer primarily occupy meadows, oak woodlands, and low-elevation pine forests (Bowyer 1984, 1986). They occur in lower densities in open scrub and young chaparral, but tend to avoid dense brushfields. In chaparral habitats, mule deer thrive on early successional vegetation that is prevalent for 1–10 years after a fire (Bowyer 1981). Meadows are particularly important fawning habitat. Deer grass (Muhlenbergia ridgens) is used extensively by fawns for cover, and adult deer typically bed down in oak and pine stands (Bowyer 1984, 1986). In high-elevation mountain ranges, deer occur in meadows, conifer forests, montane shrub, and mixed conifer/oaks forests and woodlands.

Most chaparral is periodically burned in large, high-intensity wildfires that reduce the amount of cover below desirable levels. These fires result in large amounts of early successional forage for a few years after the fire. When the vegetation matures, the forage quality declines until the area burns again often in another large, high-intensity fire. The cycle then repeats itself.

Mule deer habitat quality in forest vegetation types has continued to decline because of lack of fire in most areas. Lack of fire has resulted in stand densification in some areas, which has resulted in a decline of shrub and herbaceous species that deer use as food. Stand densification has also favored white fir and incense cedar at the expense of black oak, which is an extremely valuable mast crop (acorn) producer (CDFG 2002). This has serious long-term consequences for deer and other mast-dependent species.

Mule deer prefer a mosaic of vegetation with interspersions of dense shrub or trees among herbaceous and riparian areas. Edge habitat and vegetation ecotones are important components for optimal deer habitat. Dense shrub and trees provide hiding cover from disturbance and predation. Shrub and tree canopies are also utilized for thermal cover during the winter and temperature regulation during summer months.

Mule deer prefer to browse new growth of shrubs, which provides a more easily digestible nutrient source, in addition to forbs and some grasses. Acorns (mast) are an important part of the fall diet. Fawning occurs in fairly dense shrub thickets with the additional requirement of close proximity to surface water. Ranges of fawn and doe groups are small, varying from 0.4 to 1.9 miles depending upon water availability and topography. Deer will migrate downslope in winter to areas with less than 18 inches of snow.

Page 6- Mule Deer Appendix C - MIS Species Account - S. Province

The availability of free water during summer is a critical habitat requirement for mule deer in arid regions. Areas without sources of summer water are usually devoid of fawns (Bowyer 1986).

A continuing mule deer habitat management goal is to conduct mosaic burning that keeps a continual supply of high-quality forage in close proximity to cover in mule deer home ranges. Human disturbance near communities reduces the benefits that mule deer might otherwise gain from community protection thinning and prescribed burn projects.

Figure 5 shows generalized deer population trends as they relate to periods of increasing habitat quality due to disturbances (e.g., fire and logging) and decreasing habitat quality due to declining disturbance (fewer fires and more regulated logging). Opening of forests as a result of post World War II logging activities likely contributed to the final peak in deer numbers in the 1960s, but also signaled the start of the decline as those forests began to “close” again (CDFG 1998).

Figure 5. Deer trend numbers in relation to habitat quality. “Abundant” refers to deer populations of 700,000-1,000,000; “Common” refers to deer populations between 400,000- 700,000; and “Scarce” refers to populations lower than 400,000 animals.

V-2. Ecology - Home Range/Territory Size for Southern California Mule deer in the Central Coast (south) DAU and the South Coast DAU are generally resident deer that do exhibit some upslope/downslope movement with seasonal changes in weather and food resources (CDFG 1998, Nicholson et al. 1997, Vaughn 1954). Mule deer inhabiting the high-elevation mountain ranges of the South Coast DAU commonly undertake elevational migrations between summer and winter ranges (CDFG 1998).

Page 7- Mule Deer Appendix C - MIS Species Account - S. Province

Elevational migration of up to 15 miles have been noted in the San Bernardino Mountains (Loe pers. comm.). Migratory mule deer move upslope in the summer into well-watered habitats on north-facing slopes dominated by pine forest. These habitats also contain openings, meadows, and riparian habitats that the deer utilize. Non-migratory mule deer spend the summer on lower slopes, primarily in oak woodlands and the limited pine forests that occur in these lower- elevation areas. In winter, mule deer congregate on lower south-facing slopes where they heavily use oak woodlands, as well as chaparral and sagebrush habitats (Nicholson et al. 1997). In the San Bernardino Mountains, some deer spend their entire life at low to moderate elevations while some segment of the herd summers in the higher elevations and move down moderate or low elevations in the winter. The migratory portion of the herd moves through the resident home ranges on the way to wintering areas.

Migratory mule deer establish distinct summer and winter home ranges and use approximately the same home ranges in consecutive years. Nonmigratory mule deer maintain yearlong home ranges. The size of mule deer home ranges is highly variable and probably dependent on a number of factors including sex, age, body mass, season, race, and habitat quality. In general, home range size can vary among deer using the same general habitat; males use larger areas than females. Home range size increases as distance between food, cover, and water sources increase (Anderson and Wallmo 1984).

V-3. Ecology - Food Habits Mule deer are herbivores and require adequate supplies of highly digestible, succulent forage (Robinette et al. 1973). Although mule deer have traditionally been identified as browsers (consuming predominantly woody forage), studies of their diet and stomach structure have induced researchers to reclassify them as intermediate feeders (consuming equal proportions of woody and herbaceous forage) (Anderson and Wallmo 1984). The type of plants eaten by mule deer is highly variable. Kufield and others (1973) reported that a total of 788 species of plants were eaten by Rocky Mountain mule deer (O. h. hemionus). Of these species, 202 were shrubs and trees, 484 were forbs, and 84 were grasses, sedges, or rushes.

V-4. Ecology - Reproductive Habits Mule deer are neither highly gregarious nor solitary (Anderson and Wallmo 1984). During much of the year they are widely dispersed, occurring individually or in small groups. Female groups include individuals related by maternal descent, and bucks occur in groups of unrelated males sharing common or overlapping home ranges (Anderson and Wallmo 1984, Geist 1981). Little evidence exists for the presence of social bonds. A high degree of association is evident only between a doe and her fawns (Anderson and Wallmo 1984). Previous behavioral and habitat studies of mule deer have not documented territorial behavior between or among conspecifics (Anderson and Wallmo 1984).

Mule deer usually reach sexual maturity at 1.5 years (Mackie et al. 1982), and most females breed during their second year (Anderson and Wallmo 1984). Breeding records from 23 separate studies indicate that mule deer typically breed from mid-September to early March. Rutting season occurs in autumn, with a peak in breeding from late November through mid-December.

Page 8- Mule Deer Appendix C - MIS Species Account - S. Province

Young are born from late spring to early autumn, varying geographically, with a peak birth period generally from mid-June to early July. The most common litter size for mule deer is two. However, females in their first and second breeding year will often produce only one young (Anderson and Wallmo 1984).

The maximum longevity reported for mule deer in the wild was 19 years for a male and 20 years for a female (Anderson and Wallmo 1984). Records from tagged mule deer in Montana showed that females seldom live longer than 10–12 years, and males seldom live more than 8 years (Mackie et al. 1978).

V-5. Ecology – Predator-Prey Relationships Common predators of mule deer include mountain lions, coyotes, bobcats, golden eagles, domestic dogs, and black bears (Anderson and Wallmo 1984). As carrion, they also provide nutrition for a number of species like badgers and wolverines. When a mule deer detects a predator nearby, it attempts to escape by placing obstacles such as boulders, trees, bushes, and steep slopes between itself and the predator (Geist 1981). Deer comprise the principle food source for mountain lions. In the 1980s and 1990s, California had large increases in mountain lion populations. Pressure on deer populations as a result of mountain lion predation may act to suppress deer numbers. Direct pressure on populations also comes from regulated and illegal hunting by humans.

VI. THREATS, HABITAT CONDITION, AND HABITAT TRENDS The Southern Province National Forests support most of the deer in the southern part of the state. Mule deer occur throughout the ANF, CNF, LPNF, and SBNF in Central Coast (south) and South Coast DAUs. The Central Coast (south) DAU comprises approximately 15,600 square miles (40,400 square kilometers) from the San Francisco Bay and Delta south through Ventura County and east to Interstate 5. The South Coast DAU comprises approximately 7,800 square miles (20,200 square kilometers) from Los Angeles County south to the Mexico border and east to the desert.

In some ways, riparian habitat conditions on NFS lands in the southern Province have improved over the last century. Reduction or elimination of some grazing operations on NFS lands has allowed riparian habitat to recover in many locations. On the SBNF, grazing is currently restricted to three active allotments in the San Jacinto and Santa Rosa Mountains and part of one allotment on the eastern edge of the San Bernardino Mountains. Even within those allotments, tighter control over cattle numbers and improved allotment management has reduced riparian habitat and aquatic system impacts. There are over 90 active allotments and special use pastures on the Los Padres National Forest, reflecting the abundance of grassland and oak/savanna habitats that support moderate levels of domestic grazing concurrent with healthy deer populations. These grazing areas are managed for multiple use and since the early 1900’s have seen a drastic reduction in domestic grazing which has improved deer habitat. There are 13 active allotments on the CNF. There has been no signficant reduction in grazing levels on this forest in the past 10 years.

Page 9- Mule Deer Appendix C - MIS Species Account - S. Province

Likewise, timber harvesting operations throughout the southern Province have drastically changed over the past century. The closure of the last mill in southern California in the 1980s reduced the economic feasibility of large-scale timber harvesting locally. As such, the extent of timber harvesting has been reduced dramatically. And, in current vegetation management efforts, technological advances and the need to protect rare habitats/species and watersheds have resulted in lower impacts to riparian systems than have occurred in the past. Both of these things (more controlled or reduced cattle grazing and more carefully planned vegetation treatment projects) have allowed riparain systems to recover from the conditions they were in 50-100 years ago.

At the same time, however, riparian habitat within the southern Province 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, impacts to deer populations likely have occurred due to reduction in habitat quality and quantity. Proposed and planned developments in and adjacent to the NFS lands will certainly result in increased recreational uses in riparian areas on the Forests. Demands on water, and thus riparian habitat both on and off the Forests, are likely continue to increase. While the Forest Plan contains strong objectives and guidelines for protection of this habitat type, enforcement and maintenance of protective measures is difficult.

The Mule Deer Working Group for California identified five contributing factors to the major impacts to mule deer habitat in California’s woodland chaparral habitat (Sommer et al. 2007): long-term fire suppression, human encroachment, wild and domestic herbivores, water availability and hydrological changes, and non-native invasive species. The following discussions are organized by those categories.

VI-1 Long-Term Fire Suppression One major factor threatening montane habitat is fire suppression. Wildfire is the factor most affecting deer habitat on the National Forests in the Southern Province. Fires set back succession and deer habitat is improved for some time as a result. The exception to this is repeated fires at a frequency that results in type conversion to non-native annual grasses. In the 1980s and 90s, there was a substantial amount of prescribed burning conducted in chaparral for deer on the Southern Province Forests. With funding declines, most of the prescribed burning is now being done for fuels management to protect communities. There are some benefits to deer from this work, but it is not done in as high priority areas for deer as it was previously.

Deer habitat in the southern Province is improving in some cases due to increased acreage of wildfire in recent years and improved management of conflicting uses in critical areas such as riparian habitats and meadows.

Fire suppression is having an impact on deer habitat on NFS lands. Natural fires are not allowed to burn due to threats to the communities. The greatest effect on deer habitat from fire exclusion has been in the higher elevation forests and woodlands. In many areas, forest stands are becoming more dense, shrubs and herbs are being shaded out, and mast producing trees and shrubs and being replaced by shade-tolerant conifers. Some fuels management work is being done in these areas and the treatments mimic fire effects in many ways. There should be improved habitat conditions for deer as a result of this treatment, but it will be limited due to the

Page 10- Mule Deer Appendix C - MIS Species Account - S. Province

fact that the treatment is primarily done adjacent to communities where human disturbance is high.

Low elevation chaparral and coastal sage scrub is burning too frequently and in many cases converting the shrublands to non-native grasslands. This trend will in the long-term result in the loss of habitat due to the lack of cover and forage. Annual grasses are important to deer when they are green, but the value declines quickly as they cure, when compared to perennial bunchgrasses, which stay greener longer throughout the year. Losing the shrub component due to type conversion removes a food source for much of the year. Type conversion also results in a loss of hiding and thermal cover for deer. Large areas adjacent to communities and highways, railroads, and freeways are being converted due to the number of man-caused fires.

Suppression of fires has increased along with urbanization. In chaparral habitats, mule deer thrive on early successional vegetation during the first 10 years after a fire (Bowyer 1981). Lack of fire has resulted in stand densification and scenescence of mid to high elevation chaparral habitats, which results in decline of shrub and herbaceous species that deer use as food. Summer forage is considered lacking on public lands because of decadent shrub dominated stands (http://www.dfg.ca.gov/hunting/deer/ docs/SW_MD_Habitat_Guidelines.pdf).

The following discussion of fire effects on mule deer was excerpted from the Forest Service Fire Effects Information System database (http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/animals/ mammal/odhe/all.html). See that website for the complete discussion with citations.

The effects of fire on mule deer habitat are widely varied and well-documented in the literature. In general, fires that create mosaics of forage and cover are beneficial. Deer seem to prefer foraging in burned compared to unburned areas, although preference may vary seasonally. This preference may indicate an increase in plant nutrients which usually occurs following fire. Hobbs and Spowart warned about making conclusions regarding the benefits of fire based on forage studies alone. Their study of fire on nutrition in Colorado revealed increases in the quality of deer diets due to changes in forage selection--not increases in nutrients of previously selected forage.

In areas where chaparral adjoins oak woodlands, prescribed burns can create access through the chaparral to the understory forage of the oak woodlands. Biswell recommended burning chaparral every 30 years to create a mosaic of young stands. Late summer or early fall burning promotes the highest seed crop for most species in these plant communities. Wallmo and others listed several recommendations for burning chaparral communities to improve mule deer habitat.

Fire can control pinyon-juniper woodlands by maintaining them in a subclimax state. Small burns are more beneficial than large burns to mule deer because they tend to use burned areas close to cover.

The Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies Mule Deer Working Group (http://www.createstrat.com/muledeerinthewest/regions.html) identify fire as a limiting factor in California’s woodland chaparral habitat. Frequent fires are necessary for the rejuvenation of

Page 11- Mule Deer Appendix C - MIS Species Account - S. Province

chaparral habitat and improve browse conditions for mule deer. Chaparral that has not burned, as a result of urbanization and fire suppression activities, has older, less nutriutious plants for mule deer.

VI-2. Human Encroachment Southern California is developing at an unprecedented rate although the last few years have slowed due to hard economic times in region and the country. Highest levels of development are taking place from the ANF south to the Mexican border. Development is greatest in the valley and foothill habitats except in the San Bernardino and San Jacinto Mountains where large private land inholdings in the mountains are also developing rapidly. Deer herds on the National Forests adjoining these developing areas are declining. This loss of habitat to development is reflected in the deer population declines.

In Southern California, habitat for deer is threatened by private development and urbanization adjacent to and within the National Forests. Urban development within and adjacent to the National Forests continues to adversely affect mule deer numbers, which are generally low adjacent to communities due to the amount of human and dog use. Feral dogs and domesticated dogs that are allowed to run loose chase mule deer and kill fawns.

Human activity can impact habitat suitability in three ways: displacing wildlife through habitat occupation (e.g., construction of buildings), reducing habitat suitability by altering physical characteristics of that habitat (e.g., habitat damage resulting from off highway vehicle use), or displacing wildlife through disturbance (e.g., noise, activity) (Sommer et al. 2007).

Sommer et al. (2007) summarized human encroachment impacts on deer: In California and Arizona, vast amounts of deer habitat are vanishing due to urban sprawl, residential development and agriculture (Wallmo 1978). Oak woodland habitats of California are especially vulnerable, because they are often privately owned and located in areas desirable for development. During the 1970s and 1980s the growth of large cities such as San Jose and San Diego and the many associated suburbs expanded to eliminate about 7,400 acres of oaks per year (Pavlik et al. 1991). Urban growth into neighboring open space continues to degrade California’s oak woodlands (Hagen 1997) and cause losses to deer habitat while creating a severe wildfire hazard (Kucera and Mayer 1999). This type of development is the greatest impact of human disturbance on wildlife populations.

Nicholson (1995) found that deer largely avoided areas regularly occupied by humans (e.g., campgrounds, summer cabins, and target shooting facilities), to the extent that they did not utilize habitats that would otherwise be of high quality (e.g., riparian habitats and meadows). He concluded that mule deer primarily avoid negative features of the environment and consequently often avoid potentially valuable resources at the same time. The tendency of mule deer to avoid areas of frequent human use is a significant management issue (Stephenson and Calcarone 1999).

Of particular significance are meadow and riparian habitats that are preferred fawning areas and that are extremely limited in the Southern Province National Forests. Such habitats are also desirable locations for recreationists and, as the number of recreationists increase, it becomes

Page 12- Mule Deer Appendix C - MIS Species Account - S. Province

more difficult to find areas that are not subject to frequent human use. Schaefer (1999) reported that mule deer reproductive rates in 1994 and 1995 in the San Jacinto Mountains were representative of a nutritionally stressed population. This could be because the mule deer are selecting remote areas that do not contain high-quality foraging habitat (Stephenson and Calcarone 1999). Highest quality habitat in valleys, meadows and riparian areas are also preferred by humans.

The creation and/or maintenance of roads/trails significantly negatively affects mule deer habitat. Roads and trails affect deer in two ways: 1) use of the roads/trails result in disturbance; and 2) roads/trails are nonusable habitat. Much research has been dedicated to the understanding the effects of roads/trails on wildlife (Gaines et al. 2003, Jensen 1999, Wisdom et al. 2004). An estimated 538,000 deer are killed annually as a result of traffic collisions (Romin and Bissonette 1996). As human development, highways and roads encroach on the landscape, traditional deer home ranges and migratory routes will continue to be bisected by roadways. Increased road density results in increased disturbance both on and off the roads.

In addition to the designated Forest System roads and trails, all of the southern Province National Forests have many miles of unauthorized user-created roads and trails. Combined, the road and trail densities in some places are exceedingly high. For example, in May Valley (San Jacinto Ranger District-SBNF), there is over 46 miles of unauthorized trails in less than a ½ section of land. Some of the Mountaintop Ranger District has had road densities of 20+ miles of road per 640 acres. Road densities this high generally eliminate most deer use.

All of the southern Province National Forests have recently completed a Transportation System Analysis that included reviewing existing unclassified routes and determining which should be incorporated into the Forest’s transportation system, and which ones should be eliminated and rehabilitated. This process hasalso resulted in decommissioning of some system routes determined to be unnecessary, redundant, or in conflict with other management objectives. Some of the Forests have begun closing, and restoring unclassified routes and decommissioning system routes identified in the Transportation System Analysis. The SBNF accomplished more than 175 miles of route closures through blocking/barricading/ripping in 2010 and currently has planting/rehabilitaton projects planned for summer/fall 2011. These efforts to reduce road and trail densities and restore the habitat will improve conditions for deer by reducing disturbance and restoring cover and browse habitats.

The LPNF has an existing transportation system and is currently in the process of closing and rehabilitating unauthorized routes.

Some locations on the National Forests have had vehicle access reduced by road closure and seasonal campground closures, benefitting mule deer. Road and motorized trail densities have continued to increase, primarily because of unauthorized vehicle use in some areas.

VI-3. Wild and Domestic Herbivores Bowyer and Bleich (1984) compared mule deer abundance in two areas of similar meadow habitat in San Diego County: one was grazed, and one was not. The study found mule deer to be significantly more abundant in the ungrazed meadows, with mean densities of 2 deer per 240

Page 13- Mule Deer Appendix C - MIS Species Account - S. Province

acres (100 hectares) in the cattle-grazed meadows and 22 deer per 240 acres (100 hectares) in the ungrazed meadows. Bowyer and Bleich (1984) attributed the reduced densities of deer in cattle- grazed areas to changes in habitat condition. Important forage plants for deer were either absent or reduced on the grazed range; grazed areas also lacked dense stands of deer grass, which are known to provide valuable cover for does with fawns. It should be noted that when this study was conducted in 1979, the intensity of grazing at the study site was much higher than it is currently. It would be useful to repeat this study to compare ungrazed conditions with the more moderate grazing regime that is in place today (Stephenson and Calcarone 1999). Stocking rates on the National Forests have declined and riparian habitat conditions have improved with improved livestock management on many allotments.

VI-4. Water Availability and Hydrological Changes The availability of water has a significant influence on the quantity and quality of mule deer habitat. This is particularly important in southern Province National Forest where the reliability of perennial water sources has been a problem due to long-term drought conditions. Although mule deer may not be completely dependent on free water every day, deer do shift activity use areas based in part upon availability of water (males utilize areas a greater distance from water than females) and reproductive condition (lactating females and does with fawns stay closer to water).

Human activities and increased development has caused a lowering of water tables in many areas. Additionally, the popularity of recreational use of water sources (e.g., lakes, rivers etc.) by people has displaced deer and has made suitable habitat otherwise unavailable. The development and maintenance of artificial water sources in chaparral habitats can offset increased human use and therefore continue to provide habitat for deer (Sommer et al 2007).

VI-5. Non-Native Invasive Species Mule deer habitat throughout most of the western US has been altered by land management practices to improve livestock production, increase recreational use, increase road access, and treat vegetation for many years. . As a result of these and other practices, non-native species have been introduced. In some cases, the planting of non-natives has been done to improve foraging habitat.. In other cases, non-native species introductions have been accidental and unintentional. The expansion of roads as a result of recreational use has also contributed to the spread of non-natives by introducing species along trails, trail heads and roadways. Invasion of non-natives has changed species composition, richness and diversity of the landscape. This is particularly noticeable in southern California National forests where the invasion of non-natives has resulted in the type conversion of habitat and altered fire regimes.

The spread of non-native annual grasses and the consequent reduction of perennial bunch grasses has altered the quantity and quality of mule deer habitat. Native perennials provide higher quality forage for deer much longer into the growing season than annual grasses that are neither nutritional nor palatable when dry. Although some non-native species such as Filaree (Erodium spp.), lotus (Lotus spp.), and clover are considered good forage for deer, the type conversion of shrub stands annual grasslands from frequent human caused wildfire, has caused a loss of cover and forage and increased future type conversion on the National Forests. These

Page 14- Mule Deer Appendix C - MIS Species Account - S. Province

large repeated grass fires which result in type conversion are far more destructive than mosaic burning patterns desired and implemented in chaparral.

The invasion of non-native pathogens such as Phytophthora ramorum has caused significant Sudden Oak Death (SOD) syndrome on the Los Padres NF. Golden Spotted Oak Borer (Agrilus auroguttatus) has significantly affected the Cleveland NF and may soon be on the San Bernardino NF. Salt cedar (Tamarisk ramosissima) and giant reed (Arrundo donax) has reduced the quantity and quality of riparian habitat used by deer. Invasive plant removal projects on all Forests are currently underway.

However, some non-native have beneficial effects to deer habitat by providing additional forage sources. Filaree (Erodium spp.), lotus (Lotus spp.), and clover are all non-natives that are readily consumed by mule deer.

VII. SOUTHERN PROVINCE POPULATION STATUS AND TREND Population information for mule deer has been obtained at the following scales: range-wide, California, Province, and Forest (CDFG 1998, NatureServe 2005). The Global and National conservation status of mule deer is “Secure” (“demonstrably widespread, abundant, and secure”) (NatureServe 2005).

The mule deer is status is “Secure (S5)” (“demonstrably widespread, abundant, and secure”) in California (NatureServe 2005). Deer populations have decreased from record highs in the 1950s and 1960s in several areas of the eastern half of the state, with the greatest declines evident in northeastern California and the north and central Sierra Nevada (CDFG 1998). However, unusually high populations cannot be sustained over the long term because such populations would eliminate the habitat they depend upon, literally eating themselves out of house and home. Deer populations in southern California and other areas of the state that are developing rapidly are decreasing where habitat is lost. Population fluctuations are natural and occur as a result of hard winters and other environmental catastrophes (such as drought or floods), changes in predation rates (especially by mountain lions), loss of habitat, and disease.

CDFG assesses mule deer population status and trend by Hunt Zones within DAUs as part of their Environmental Documentation for their statewide hunting program (CDFG 2003). Deer Assessment units (DAUs), may include multiple Hunt Zones, grouped by similarities (Figure 3; CDFG 1998, CDFG 2003).

The mule deer is one of the most important big game species throughout the state of California. In southern California, the annual fall deer hunt attracts thousands of people to the mountains and foothills (Stephenson and Calcarone 1999). CDFG’s management of this harvest is aimed at providing a sustained yield and maintaining deer populations in balance with the local food supply, thus preventing damage to native habitats, agricultural crops, and orchards. CDFG reviews hunting bag limits and season dates annually in order to make harvest adjustments based on data gathered regarding harvest, surveys, and recruitment estimates.

Page 15- Mule Deer Appendix C - MIS Species Account - S. Province

In the South Coast DAU, nearly all hunting is conducted on public lands, primarily on National Forest System lands. Hunter use for the counties of Los Angeles, Orange, San Diego, Santa Barbara and Ventura is nearly all within the ANF, CNF, SBNF, and LPNF (Larry Sitton, CDFG 2002). The Central Coast (south) DAU (Kern, San Luis Obispo and Monterey Counties) includes portions of the LPNF and Sequoia National Forest. In San Bernardino and Riverside Counties, (Loe pers. comm.) CDFG estimates 60 percent of deer hunter use in San Bernardino and Riverside Counties would occur on National Forest. Table 1 summarizes the Hunt Zones and Deer Assessment Units (DUA) by National Forest in the Southern Province.

Table 1. Hunt Zones and Deer Assessment Units (DUA) by National Forests in the Southern Province. DAU Number DAU Name Hunt Zones within DAU National Forest DAU 1 South Central Coast South A Zone, D13 Los Padres DAU 7 S. Coast D11, D14, D15, D16, D19 Angeles, Cleveland, San Bernardino

Annual variation in deer population estimates may vary due to annual changes in environmental conditions, and varies geographically (CDFG 2003).

The National Forests do not conduct forest-specific population surveys, but rather cooperate as needed with the CDFG in their survey efforts to manage hunted species. Observed changes in mule deer abundance are not due entirely to the effects of Forest Service activities and uses. This lack of a precise cause and effect relationship is due to the complex interrelationships among many factors such as deer herd size, hunting pressure, human developments and roads, and vegetation management practices on private and public wildlands. In addition, local information regarding mule deer populations has been collected for various forests. Table 2 shows the general population trend by DUA for the National Forests in southern California as estimated by the CDFG.

Table 2. Mule Deer Population Trend For DAUs Covering The Angeles, Cleveland, Los Padres, and San Bernardino National Forests. 1 DAU No. Name Hunting Zones Forests Population Trend1 DAU 1 Central Coast (South) A (South) and Los Padres stable to D-13 slightly declining DAU 7 South Coast D-11, D-14, D- San Bernardino, stable to 15, D-16, and Cleveland, slightly D19 Angeles declining 1 CDFG 2003.

Table 3 and Figure 4 illustrate the mule deer kill record for southern California by Hunt Zone. Deer kill is an indicator of population numbers when viewed over the long-term, and is used by the CDFG in developing their population estimates (Stowers pers. comm.). It appears that there is a downward trend in deer populations in the Southern province.

Page 16- Mule Deer Appendix C - MIS Species Account - S. Province

Table 3. Estimated Deer Kill Records for Southern Province Hunt Zones Zone 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 A 11341 12459 11503 10223 9169 10305 8987 7221 8431 8056 6751 D-11 268 361 298 71 233 210 339 355 233 299 181 D-13 343 435 330 327 215 275 285 218 303 338 349 D-14 167 312 224 85 133 244 213 233 184 236 171 D-15 67 72 37 18 22 13 24 68 18 19 43 D-16 267 332 217 154 154 205 228 287 270 433 464 D-19 77 111 103 26 58 94 111 120 76 125 145 Total 12530 14082 12712 10904 9984 11346 10187 8502 9515 9506 8104 Data Source: http://www.dfg.ca.gov/wildlife/hunting/deer/deerhunt.html

Figure 4. Estimated Deer Kill for Southern Province Hunt Zone Data Source: http://dfg.ca.gov/wildlife/deer/deerhunt 16000

14000

12000

10000

8000

6000 Total Estimated TotalEstimated Deer Kill

4000

2000

0 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Year

Table 4 displays the estimated pre-hunt population by hunt zone for 2004. CDFG uses estimated deer kill numbers during hunting season to characterize population trends in each hunt zone (Table 5). For the most part, deer populations throughout the Southern Province are lower than they once were. CDFG attributes 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 (http://www.dfg.ca.gov/wildlife/hunting/deer/zoneinfo.html).

Page 17- Mule Deer Appendix C - MIS Species Account - S. Province

Table 4. Deer Assessment Units On Southern Province National Forests And 2004 Pre-Hunt Population Estimates By Zone.1 Hunt Zone DAU National Forest Estimated 2004 pre-hunting season population1 A (south) DAU 1 Los Padres 199,6702 D-11 DAU 7 Angeles, San 4,180 Bernardino D-13 DAU 1 Los Padres 3,740 D-14 DAU 7 San Bernardino 2,840 D-15 DAU 7 Cleveland 1,600 D-16 DAU 7 Cleveland 2,475 D-19 DAU 7 San Bernardino 1680 1 California Department of Fish and Game, 2006 2Population estimate includes Hunt Zone A north and south

Table 5. CDFG Population Trend Assessments for Hunt Zones in Southern Province Hunt Trend Zone A Considered stable to slightly declining yet considerably below levels in late 1960s and 1970s D-11 Considered stable to slightly declining yet considerably below levels in late 1960s and 1970s D-13 Considered stable to slightly declining yet considerably below levels in late 1960s and 1970s D-14 Considered stable to slightly declining yet considerably below levels in late 1960s and 1970s D-15 Considered stable to slightly declining yet considerably below levels in late 1960s and 1970s D-16 Considered stable D-19 Considered stable http://www.dfg.ca.gov/wildlife/hunting/deer/zoneinfo.html

Figures 5 through 11 show the estimated deer kill records for each hunt zone for in the Southern Province for a recent 10-year period (1999-2009). Several of the populations appear to be relatively stable during this period, while others show declines.

Angeles National Forest - Current Population Status and Trend: The ANF supports one herd within DAU 7. The Los Angeles herd is within Hunt Zone D-11 and includes portions of both the SBNF and ANF. Population estimates were made for the Los Angeles deer herd in 2004 by the CDFG (Table 4). The deer population in D-11 appears to be decreasing (Figure 6).

Cleveland National Forest - Current Population Status and Trend: The CNF supports three distinct deer herds, all within DAU 7. Population estimates were made for the Santa Ana Mountain, San Diego, and San Jacinto/Santa Rosa Mountain deer herds in 2004 by the CDFG (Table 8). The Santa Ana Mountain herd is within Hunt Zone D-15 and the San Diego and San Jacinto/Santa Rosa Mountain herds are within Hunt Zone D-16. The deer populations appear to be increasing in both D-15 and D-16 (Figures 9 and 10).

Page 18- Mule Deer Appendix C - MIS Species Account - S. Province

Figure 5. Deer Population Trend in Hunt Zone Figure 6. Deer Population Trend for Hunt Zone

A D-11

12000 400 350 10000 300 8000 250 6000 200 150 4000 100 2000 50

Estimated Estimated Number Deerof Killed 0 0 Estimated Estimated Deer KillNumbers

Year Year

Figure 7. Deer Population Trend for Hunt Figure 8. Deer Population Trend for Hunt Zone

Zone D-13 D-14

500 350 450 300 400 250 350 300 200 250 150 200 100 150 100 50

50 0 Estimated Estimated Deer KillNumber 0 Estimated Deer KillNumber

Year Year

Page 19- Mule Deer Appendix C - MIS Species Account - S. Province

Figure 9. Population Trend for Hunt Zone D-15 Figure 10. Population Trend for Hunt Zone D-16

80 500 70 450 400 60 350 50 300 40 250 30 200 150 20 100

10 50 Estimated Estimated Deer Kill Number Estimated Estimated Deer Kill Number 0 0

Year Year

Figure 11. Population Trend for Hunt Zone D-19

160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 Estimated Estimated Deer KillNumber 0 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Year

Page 20- Mule Deer Appendix C - MIS Species Account - S. Province

Los Padres National Forest - Current Population Status and Trend: The LPNF supports several distinct deer herds all within DAU 1 (DAU 9 in literature prior to 1999), which extends from San Francisco through Ventura County west of Interstate 5 (approximately 15,600 square miles). The LPNF accounts for about 18% of the land in DAU 1. Deer in this area are resident, moving up or down in elevation, depending upon seasonal changes in weather and forage availability, with the vast preponderance of deer habitat on privately owned lands.

Hunt Zone D-13 contains the Mount Pinos and Santa Barbara/Ventura deer herds. Santa Barbara/Ventura Deer Herd extends throughout the Santa Ynez, San Rafael and Sierra Mountains of Santa Barbara County, and the westernmost extensions of the Tehachapi, San Gabriel, and Santa Monica Mountains in Ventura County (Mulligan and Davis 1985). Hunt Zone A (south) contain the following deer herds: Adelaida, Avenal, Clear Lake, Mendocino, Monticellow, Mount Diablo, Mount Hamilton, Pacheco-Merced, Pacheco-Stanislaus, Pozo, San Benito, Santa Cruz, Santa Lucia, Santa Rosa, and Shandon deer herds. Population monitoring was conducted on these herds in 2003 by CDFG. The estimated deer population in DAU 1 has varied from about 70,000-120,000 in the past several years, but appeared stable to increasing over the seven year period 1990-96, in contrast to most of the state, which showed decreasing or stable population trends (http://www.dfg.ca.gov/ hunting/deer.html).

The deer population in Zone D-13 appears to be increasing by the CDFG (Figure 7). Mule deer in Zone D13 reached their highest number in the 1950s, then declined for several decades. More recent population estimates show about 6,250 deer in Zone D13 in 1991, declines to 4,250 in 1992-1993, a significant rise to 8,000 deer in 1996, and then fluctuations between 5,750 and 7,000 from 1997-2003 (R. Barboza, DFG, pers. comm.).

Deer populations peaked in 1959-1960, as a result of previous light hunting (World War II), increased availability of agricultural crops, fire closures on National Forest lands, and higher than normal high rainfall from 1952-1958 which significantly improved browse quality and availability (Mulligan and Davis 1985, Blong 1953). At that time, deer numbers exceeded the carrying capacity of the land, and population numbers dropped thereafter, presumably in response to habitat degradation and increased mortality factors (Mulligan and Davis 1985, www.dfg.ca.gov/hunting/deer/d_grph1.html). By 1985, Mulligan and Davis reported an estimated average of 4.5 to 7.5 deer per square mile.

The deer population on the LPNF was lowest around 1990 as a result of 6 years of drought (Reading Room 2005). These herds have not fully recovered due to a variety of factors including predation by mountain lions, coyotes, illegal poaching, and disease. There was little evidence of deer in the early 2000s; even in areas with adequate water supplies and ample browse from recent burns (U.S. Forest Service ocular surveys in cooperation with Santa Barbara County Fish and Game commission 2002).

Aerial herd composition counts by CDFG located only 30-50 deer each in Ventura and Santa Barbara counties on the LPNF (reported to the Santa Barbara County Fish and Game Commission in 2002). It is unknown if the increased rainfall of the 2004-5 and 2005-6 winters have helped deer population recovery.

Page 21 – Mule Deer Appendix C - MIS Species Account - S. Province

As of 2011 there are no plans for more roads within or across the Los Padres. Urban areas surrounding the Forest are growing rapidly especially along the Hwy 101 corridor next to the coast, and in addition to new homes, may square miles of vinyards have been established in the surrounding grasslands from Buellton north to Salinas. Deer-proof fences have greatly fragmented this grass and oak/savanna habitat, and it is likely that deer populations have decreased in the areas surrounding the Los Padres National Forest. Within the Los Padres National Forest boundaries, nearly one million acres burned in wildfires between 2006 and 2010. The short term result of these fires was a sudden reduction in deer habitat across a very large contiguous area within a short time period, and deer movement to an already compromised habitat off-Forest. Even though the existing deer populations within the Los Padres were not optimal due to generally dense brushy habitat, the effect of the fires was to push deer into areas off-Forest that were already stressed by development. By 2011, the fires that burned in 2006 (e.g. the 160,000 acre DayFire), 2007(e.g. the 240,000 acre Zaca Fire) and 2008 (e.g. the 300,000 Basin/Indians/Chalk Fire) are beginning to supply excellent deer habitat that will eventually support a healthy deer population on the Los Padres, but continual development in the surrounding areas will render deer populations within the Forest less robust to changes and loss of habitat from wildfire. Based on deer kill records, the DAU 7 deer population appears to be slightly increasing (Figure 7).

San Bernardino National Forest – Current Population Status and Trend: The SBNF supports three distinct deer herds, all within DAU 7. Population estimates were made for the San Jacinto/Santa Rosa Mountains, the San Bernardino Mountain, and the Los Angeles Mountain deer herds in 2004 by the CDFG (Table 8). The San Jacinto/Santa Rosa Mountains herd is the only herd that moves between Hunt Zone D-19 (on the SBNF) and D-16 of the CNF. The San Bernardino herd is within in Hunt Zone D-14 and the Los Angeles herd is within Hunt Zone D- 11. Overall, the deer populations in these hunt zones appear to be stable to slightly increasing (Figures 6, 8, 10, and 11).

The deer herd in the eastern San Gabriel Mountains appears to be increasing slightly as evidenced by increased sightings on bighorn sheep flights and increased road kills. Much of habitat for this portion of the herd has burned since 2003. There should be increased productivity and a population increase during the next 10 years or so. Development is not impacting the herd on the SBNF to any great extent because the range is so rough and deer habitat is primarily public land.

The deer population in the San Bernardino Mountains appears to have been declining in recent years. The severe drought in the early 2000s has undoubtedly affected this herd. Many streams and springs that had always been thought to be perennial dried up during this period. Forage quantity and quality was severely affected. Recent fires in the last decade have improved forage conditions, so that if normal rainfall occurs, deer productivity should increase for some time. A substantial amount of fuels reduction work has taken place in the mountain range and this should benefit deer. The benefits are not as great as would be expected if the work was taking place further away from communities.

Unauthorized vehicle use has had an effect on deer populations in the San Bernardino Mountains. The effects have been greatest on the desert side of the mountain range where there

Page 22 – Mule Deer Appendix C - MIS Species Account - S. Province

are large areas of more gently terrain and habitat open enough to drive off road. Areas with high road densities (authorized and unauthorized) in the 1980s had only10% of the deer densities that unroaded similar habitat had (S. Loe pers. comm.). The SBNF has made a concerted effort to reduced unauthorized vehicle use and manage the OHV program to a higher level. Cooperative efforts with the OHV community have improved conditions for deer and other wildlife species.

Deer in the San Jacinto Mountains were classified into five main concentrated summer ranges. These key areas were Mountain Center, Thomas Mountain, Desert Divide, Tahquitz and Round Valley, and Santa Rosa Mountain. In 1964, the winter range of deer herds in the San Jacinto Mountains was 428,000 acres while the summer range was 397,000 acres. Of these, the Forest Service owned 148,930 acres or 18% of the total range. Private and reservation lands within the SBNF boundary occupied 44,250 acres or 5.6% of the deer range (USFS 1964).

Except for the Tahquitz Valley herd, the deer on the San Jacinto Mountain belong to resident herds. The Tahquitz Valley herd migrates to a winter range in Murray and Andreas Canyons due to snow at higher elevations during the winter. The Tahquitz Valley herd population was at a high in 1934 as result of reduced grazing competition in Tahquitz and Round Valley. Between 1937 and 1941, the herd experienced a large die-off. CDFG reports indicated that by 1947, the herd had rebounded to a point where over utilization of the available forage was happening. The Tahquitz Valley herd then peaked in population in 1952 and remained constant until 1961-1962, when there was a major die-off due to dry winters. Herd composition counts by CDFG indicated that 90% of the 1961 fawn crop died. Deer kill data indicated that the herd was at record lows in 1963 and 1964. Fluctuations in populations continue as a result of changing carrying capacity and habitat quality.

The Thomas Mountain herd was included in a fire closure since WWII and was not opened to hunting until 1960 when it was removed from the closure. Fire breaks and browse-ways were constructed to decrease the risk from fire and to increase the forage available to deer. (USFS 1964). Hazardous fuels reduction projects on and around Thomas Mountain may provide additional forage as new grasses grow. A reduction in livestock grazing numbers in this area also benefit deer as there is less resource competition for forage.

In the Santa Rosa Mountains, the deer range occupied 515 square miles. Of those, the Forest Service manages 37 square miles. The key summer concentration range occurred in the Deep Canyon Management Area in the narrow oak belt that separates the chaparral from the pine forest. While the Santa Rosa herd suffered from the 1961 die-off, there was still unsatisfactory range available and hunting was low due to the fire closures of WWII (USFS 1965).

Increased subdivision in Garner Valley has impacted this deer herd as well as the severe drought of the early 2000s. There is a growing problem with new routes forming in gentle terrain that is open enough to traverse. A reduction of livestock grazing numbers in this area has benefitted deer as there is less resource competition for forage. Recent hazardous fuels projects (prescribed burns and mastication) has reduced opened up previously dense areas for deer and has proved beneficial as additional sightings of deer have been noted. Table 6 shows the estimated deer population for zone D-19 for the past 15 years.

Page 23 – Mule Deer Appendix C - MIS Species Account - S. Province

Table 6. Estimates Of Deer Population By Hunt Zones Year 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 D-19 1,000 1,700 1,400 1,600 1,500 1,300 1,150 1,800 D-19 3-year average* 1367 1567 1500 1467 1317 1417 1433 1197 Year 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 D-19 1,350 440 950 1,680 1,840 2,080 1,220 1,963 D-19 3-year average* 913 1023 1490 1867 1713 1754 1061 *CDFG estimates uses a 3-year moving average to minimize for the annual variation. Data source=Jeff Villepique, CDFG biologist

X. CONCLUSIONS In the southern Province, deer populations have been stable to slightly declining throughout all hunt zones over the past 10 years. Populations continue to be significantly below stable populations of the 1960s and 1970s. The causes of this continued trend is likely a result of lack of quality habitat in the southern Province National Forest. Extended drought conditions, increase human encroachment and competition for resources (food and water) and a lack of disturbance (prescribed fire) has all resulted in a reduction of the quantity and quality of mule deer habitat. Extremely large wildfires have resulted in the loss of hiding cover in a huge amount of habitat. These large fires with a quick return interval have resulted in a large amount of quality habitat converted to nonnative invasive plants. The loss of hiding cover and food resources to invasive plants is a major problem in the lower elevation urban interface areas. Invasive species are affecting oak woodlands and this could be very significant to deer as well as other wildlife.

Many management activities can be used to increase mule deer habitat and thus increase mule deer populations. These actions will help achieve the goal of increasing mule deer populations and their distribution across the southern Province National Forests. The recent evaluations by each forest of their Travel Management Systems and future efforts to close and restore unclassified routes is critical to the management of vehicle-associated disturbance of deer and the associated habitat degradation. Reducing road/trail densities on NFS lands will help improve conditions for deer in many ways. Increasing the use of small scale prescribed fires in montane habitats and forest management practices designed to reduce invasive non-native species will also provide an increase in forage and thermal/hiding cover. Providing and maintaining artificial water sources to offset drought conditions and increasing human demands for natural water sources (streams and rivers) will also increase the availability of quality mule deer habitat. Intensive management of recreational use and preventing the increase of non-natives from recreation use will also increase the quality of mule deer habitat. Adequate budget to intensively manage recreation use is a major problem.

Page 24 – Mule Deer Appendix C - MIS Species Account - S. Province

XI. FIVE-YEAR RECOMMENDATIONS The following recommendations have been developed based on the results of five years of monitoring since the completion of the Forest Plan in 2005 and the stable to slightly downward trend in mule deer populations indicating a decline in forest health related to vegetation management, roads and associated recreation management.

10. The southern Province National Forests should continue to work cooperatively with California Department of Fish and Game and other interagency groups to assess mule deer habitat and population numbers. Cooperation and/or participation in CDFG helicopter surveys will help provide useful information regarding population status.

11. The southern Province National Forests should work with interagency groups and non- profits to address habitat linkage and fragmentation of southern California lands. Emphasis should be placed on land acquisitions of parcels that would enhance and promote linkages between suitable habitat patches on the Ranger Districts and between southern California National Forests and other natural areas. Continue to participate with other agencies and non-profits to maintain important landscape linkages and movement corridors for mule deer and their predators (lions, bears, coyotes). Avoid the creation of barriers between summer and winter ranges where migratory herds exist such as the San Gabriel, San Bernardino, and San Jacinto mountain ranges on the SBNF.

12. Implement the decisions from Travel Management Planning Process. Emphasis and funding should be placed on removing and restoring unauthorized roads and trails in otherwise high quality habitat. Rehabilitate these areas with native plant species that enhance mule deer forage. Manage existing authorized roads and trails with an emphasis on reducing disturbance to mule deer behavior and use of these areas.

13. Work cooperatively with groups such as California Deer Association and Mule Deer Foundation to provide and regularly maintain water sources throughout southern province National Forests. Emphasis should be placed on water sources in key mule deer habitats such as fawning areas where natural waters have been reduced due to human settlement and encroachment.

14. Evaluate the need for and continue to implement actions that would improve and restore riparian/meadow habitat (including meadows and springs) conditions. These could include: re-location of developed recreation sites away from riparian habitat; removal or reduction of grazing in riparian habitat; engineering road and trail crossings to reduce impacts to riparian conditions and reduce the likelihood of unauthorized off-road vehicle travel; seasonal closures of roads/trails in riparian habitat etc.

15. The southern Province National Forests should place a priority on identifying and planning for the removal of non-native invasive species. Support for removal of tamarisk, arundo, yellow star-thistle, tree of heaven etc. from key mule deer habitats should be emphasized. Educate the staff and the general public regarding the effects of the transportation and introduction of invasive species into the National Forest.

Page 25 – Mule Deer Appendix C - MIS Species Account - S. Province

16. Continue to place priority and support for the implementation of mosaic-style prescribed burning and fuels reduction projects in mule deer habitat, especially in higher elevation montane chaparral.. Work cooperatively with California Deer Association and Mule Deer Foundation to design and fund prescribed burning projects to promote growth of native bunch grasses and forbs and the creation of healthy shrub stands. Encourage the retention/creation of high quality browse species such a wedgeleaf ceanothus (Ceanothus cuneatus) over less desireable species such as Chamise (Adenostoma fasciculatum) and to promote those species that constitute a large portion of the diet on each forest, respectively. Retain oaks and provide for regeneration of oaks wherever possible.

LITERATURE CITED/REFERENCES

Anderson, A.E., and O.C. Wallmo. 1984. Odocoileus hemionus. Mammalian Species 219: 1- 9. Published by the American Society of Mammalogists.

Bowyer, R.T. 1981. Management guidelines for improving southern mule deer habitat on the Laguna-Morena demonstration area. USDA Forest Service, 40-9AD6-9-622.

Bowyer, R.T. 1984. Sexual segregation in southern mule deer. Journal of Mammalogy 65: 410- 417.

Bowyer, R.T. 1986. Habitat selection by southern mule deer. California Fish and Game 72: 153- 169.

Bowyer, R.T. and V.C. Bleich. 1984. Effects of cattle grazing on selected habitats of southern mule deer. California Fish and Game 70: 240-247.

Bunnell, F.L.; Harestad, A.S. 1983. Dispersal and dispersion of black-tailed deer: Models and observations. Journal of Mammalogy 64: 201-209.

CDFG (California Department of Fish and Game). 1998. An Assessment of Mule and Black- tailed Deer Habitats and Populations in California. Report to the Fish and Game Commission. February 1998. 57pp. http://www.dfg.ca.gov/hunting/deer/habitatassessment.htm

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

CDFG (California Department of Fish and Game). 2004. Deer Hunting Draft Enviornmental Document, February 6, 2004. State of California, The Resources Agency, Department of Fish and Game. 294pp + appendices.

Page 26 – Mule Deer Appendix C - MIS Species Account - S. Province

CDFG (California Department of Fish and Game). 2006. Data Supplement to the California Fish and Game Commission Regarding: Recommended 2006 Deer Tag Allocations (Updated 2005 Deer Harvest and Population Estimates). May 4, 2006.

Cowan, I.M. 1933. The mule deer of southern California and northern lower California as a recognizable race. Journal of Mammalogy 14: 326-327.

Cowan, I.M. 1956. Life and times of the coast black-tailed deer. In: Tylor, W.P., ed. The deer of North America. Washington, DC: Wildlife Management Institute.

CWHR 2005. California Department of Fish and Game. California Interagency Wildlife Task Group. 2005. California Wildlife Habitat Relationships version 8.1 personal computer program. Sacramento, California.

Dasmann, R.F. and W.P. Dasmann. 1963. Mule deer in relation to a climatic gradient. Journal of Wildlife Management 27: 196-202.

Gaines, W. L., P. H. Singleton, and R. C. Ross. 2003. Assessing the Cumulative Effects of Linear Recreation Routes on Wildlife Habitats on the Okanogan and Wenatchee National Forests, United States. Department of Agriculture Forest Service. Pacific Northwest Research Station. General Technical Report. PNW-GTR-586.

Geist, V. 1981. Behavior: Adaptive strategies in mule deer. In: Wallmo, O.C., ed. Mule and black-tailed deer of North America. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press.

Hall, E.R. 1981. The mammals of North America. 2d ed. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Kufield, R.C., O.C.Wallmo,and C. Feddema. 1973. Foods of the Rocky Mountain mule deer. USDA Forest Service. Resident Paper RM-111.

Longhurst, W.M., A.S. Leopold, and R.F. Dasmann. 1952. A survey of California deer herds: Their ranges and management problems. California Department of Fish and Game Bulletin No. 6.

Mackie, R.J., K.L. Hamlin, and D. F. Pac. 1982. Mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus). In: Chapman, J.A.; Feldhamer, G.A., eds. Wild mammals of North America: Biology, management, and economics. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press.

Mackie, R.J., D.F. Pac, and H.E. Jorgensen. 1978. Population ecology and habitat relationships of mule deer in the Bridger Mountains, Montana. In Montana Deer Studies. Progress Report. Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Project, W-120-R-9. Helena, MT: Montana Department of Fish and Game.

Miller, F.L. 1970. Distribution patterns of black-tailed deer (Odocoileus hemionus columbianus) in relation to environment. Journal of Mammalogy 51: 248-260.

Page 27 – Mule Deer Appendix C - MIS Species Account - S. Province

NatureServe. 2006. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Version 4.7. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available http://www.natureserve.org/explorer.

Nicholson, M.C. 1995. Habitat selection by mule deer: Effects of migration and population density. Fairbanks: University of Alaska. Ph.D. dissertation.

Nicholson, M.C., R.T. Bowyer, and J.G. Kie. 1997. Habitat selection and survival of mule deer: Tradeoffs associated with migration. Journal of Mammalogy 78: 483-504.

Robinette, W.L. 1966. Mule deer home range and dispersal in Utah. Journal of Wildlife Management 30: 335-349.

Robinette, W.L., C.H. Baer, R.E. Pillmore, and C.E. Knittle. 1973. Effects of nutritional change on captive mule deer. Journal of Wildlife Management 37: 312-326.

Romin, L.A., and J.A. Bissonette. 1996. Deer-vehicle collisions: nationwide status of state monitoring activities and mitigation efforts. Wildlife Society Bulletin 24.

Schaefer, R.J. 1999. Biological characteristics of mule deer in California's San Jacinto mountains. California Fish and Game 85: 1-10.

Sommer, M. L., R. L. Barboza, R. A. Botta, E. B. Kleinfelter, M. E. Schauss and J. R. Thompson. 2007. Habitat Guidelines for Mule Deer: California Woodland Chaparral Ecoregion. Mule Deer Working Group, Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies.

SNFPA (Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment). 2001. Final Environmental Impact Statement. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region, January 2001.

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, U.S. Department of Agriculture.

USFS (United States Forest Service). 2006. FEIS: Land Management Plan for the Angeles, Cleveland, Los Padres, and San Bernardino National Forests. R5-MB-074-B. September 2005.

USFS (United States Forest Service). 1964. Habitat Management Plan. San Jacinto Deer Herd Unit. San Bernardino National Forest.

USFS (United States Forest Service). 1965. Habitat Management Plan. Santa Rosa Deer Herd Unit. San Bernardino National Forest.

Page 28 – Mule Deer Appendix C - MIS Species Account - S. Province

Vaughan, T.A. 1954. Mammals of the San Gabriel mountains of California. University of Kansas Museum of Natural History Publication 7: 513-582.

Wallmo, O.C. 1981. Mule and black-tailed deer distribution and habitats. In: Wallmo, O.C., ed. Mule and black-tailed deer of North America. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press.

Wisdom, M. J., A. A. Ager, H. K. Preisler, N. J. Cimon, and B. K. Johnson. 2004. Effects of Off- road recreation on Mule Deer and Elk. Transactions of the Sixty- ninth North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference. March 16 to 20, 2004. Wildlife Management Institute. Washington, DC.

Zeiner, D.C. W.F. Laudenslayer Jr., K.E. Meyer, and M. White. Eds. 1990. California's wildlife. Volumne III: Mammals. California statewide wildlife habitat relationships system. Sacramento, CA: California Department of Fish and Game.

PERSONAL COMMUNCATIONS Davis, Jim and Larry Sitton, Biologists, California Department of Fish and Game. [Phone conversation with Steve Anderson during 2002].

Freel, Maeton, Forest Biologist, Los Padres National Forest, Goleta, CA. Comment submitted to the USDA Forest Service Southern Province Forest Plan Revision species information peer review web site. [Phone conversation with Steve Anderson during 2002]. 1 July 2002.

Lidberg, Jim, California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, CA.

Loe, Steve, Forest Biologist, San Bernardino National Forest, San Bernardino, CA. Comment submitted to the USDA Forest Service Southern Province Forest Plan Revision species information peer review web site. [Phone conversation with Steve Anderson during 2002]. 30 June 2002.

Stowers, Craig. Deer Biologist, Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, California. Phone conversation on Aug. 8, 2006 with Steve Loe, Forest Biologist, San Bernardino, CA.

Villepique, J. Associate Wildlife Biologist, Department of Fish and Game, Big Bear. California. Email conversation with Anne Poopatanapong, District Biologist, San Bernardino National Forest, CA.

INTERNET SOURCES CDFG California Department of Fish and Game: Report to the Fish and Game Commission: An Assessment of Mule and Black-tailed Deer Habitats and Populations in California. http://www.dfg.ca.gov/hunting/deer/rept.html

CDFG California Department of Fish and Game, Deer Management Program Zone Map http://www.dfg.ca.gov/hunting/deer/cazonemap.htm

Page 29 – Mule Deer Appendix C - MIS Species Account - S. Province

CDFG (California Department of Fish and Game). deer management program – deer harvest data. http://www.dfg.ca.gov/hunting/deer/deerhunt.html

CDFG (California Department of Fish and Game). 1998. An Assessment of Mule and Black- tailed Deer Habitats and Populations in California. Report to the Fish and Game Commission. February 1998. 57pp. http://www.dfg.ca.gov/hunting/deer/habitatassessment.htm

Jensen, D. 1999. "Oh Deer!" Mule Deer and Highways Mortality Patterns and Mitigative Techniques. Road- RIPorter. May/June 1999. Volune # 4 No.3. http://www.wildlandscpr.org/biblio-notes/oh-deer-mule-deer-and-highways-mortality- patterns-and-mitigative-techniques

NatureServe. 2006. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Version 4.7. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available http://www.natureserve.org/explorer .

Page 30 – Mule Deer Appendix C - MIS Species Account - S. Province

MANAGEMENT INDICATOR SPECIES ACCOUNT FOR BLACK OAK IN THE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA PROVINCE

Overview of Species California black oak (Quercus kelloggii, Fagaceae) is a Management Indicator Species (MIS) for desired condition of montane conifer forests in the Southern California Province. Monitoring requirements for MIS are displayed in Table 433 on page 178 of the FEIS, Volume 1 for the Forest Land & Resource Management Plan.

California black oak (Quercus kelloggii.) exceeds all other California oaks in distributional extent and altitudinal range. Ironically, however, this deciduous tree has had little sustained commercial use even though its wood closely resembles that of its heavily used eastern counterpart, the northern red oak (Quercus rubra).

Figure 1. From left to right, tree leaf and acorn of black oak.

Native Range In California, black oak is found in the northern Coast Ranges from the Oregon state line to Marin County and then intermittently in the Santa Cruz and Santa Lucia Mountains. It is more common in the San Bernardino, San Jacinto, and Agua Tibia Mountains and extends to just south of Mt. Laguna into Baja California (Keen 1958).

Figure 2. The native range of black oak.

Page 1 - Black Oak

Appendix C - MIS Species Account - S. Province

Figure 3. Bioregional distribution of black oak in California.

Vegetation associated with black oak in the southern California Province California black oak is a component of 6 SAF Types. It is the prime constituent of California Black Oak (Type 246) and is a major component of both the Douglas-Fir-Tanoak-Pacific Madrone (Type 234) and Pacific Ponderosa Pine-Douglas-Fir (Type 244) Types. It is also an important member of Sierra Nevada Mixed Conifer (Type 243) and Pacific Ponderosa Pine (Type 245) Types but is only a minor component in Canyon Live Oak (Type 249).

Ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa var. ponderosa) is most common tree associate of black oak within its range. The two species intermingle over vast areas, except that black oak extends to lower elevation sites too poor to support pine as well as to other areas of California where pines does not grow. In California, ponderosa pine sites generally are suitable for black oak, and black oak sites are almost always suitable for ponderosa pine. In general, however, black oak rarely grows through a stand of ponderosa pine but can grow through brush (Edwards 1957). In the San Bernardino Mountains it is a common associate with Jeffrey pine (Pinus jeffreyi). Black oak also is a member of upper elevation mixed evergreen forests in the Big Sur region of Los Padres National Forest. Tanoak (Lithocarpus densiflorus), canyon live oak (Quercus chrysolepis) and Pacific madrone (Arbutus menziesii) are the most common hardwood associates of black oak. Associated tree species at lower elevations include: interior live oak (Q. wislizenii), coast live oak (Q. agrifolia), Engelmann oak (Q. engelmannii), and blue oak (Q. douglasii) and at higher elevations Pacific dogwood (Cornus nuttallii), bigleaf maple (Acer macrophyllum), and California bay (Umbellularia californica).

In the southern California National Forests black oak covers approximately 10,404 acres (Figure 4) and is most abundant on the San Bernardino National Forest where it ranges from 3700 to 7800 feet in elevation. In some locations it forms pure stands that originated from early logging or high intensity fires (Minnich 1976). Black oak grows individually or in groves, some of which can be quite extensive. Oak forests are often a single age-class, the result of sprouting after high-intensity fires.

Page 2 - Black Oak

Appendix C - MIS Species Account - S. Province

Below elevations of 7500 feet it co-occurs with Jeffrey pine, ponderosa pine, sugar pine and white fir in more mesic forests (Minnich 1976).

8,000 7,000 7,493 6,000 5,000 Acres 4,000 3,000 2,000 1,000 1,621 1,096 194 0 San Bernardino Cleveland Angeles Los Padres National Forest

Figure 4. Acres of black oak on the four Forests.

SELECTED LIFE HISTORY CHARACTERISTICS Cone Initiation, Seed Crops and Seed Dispersal California black oak flowers from mid-March to mid-May depending on elevation, physiography and local climatic conditions. In general, trees near the coast and at lower elevations bloom earliest, often several months before those at the higher elevations.

Acorns mature in the second year. Early in the second summer, the immature acorn resembles a small globe about 0.2 in. (6 mm) in diameter. At this stage, the acorn is completely encapsulated by the cup. At maturity the light-brown, thin-scaled cup encloses from 50-75% of the acorn. Acorns form singly, or in clusters of two to six, and vary widely in their dimensions ranging from 0.7-1.7 in (1.9-4.4 cm) long and 0.4-1.5 in (0.9-3.8 cm) in diameter.

In natural stands, black oak bears acorns around 30 years of age. It produces some acorns sporadically between ages 30 and 75 but seldom large quantities before 80 to 100 years. A few trees bear acorns every year while others of similar d.b.h. and crown diameter rarely produce them. Good seed producers may continue abundant acorn production at least to 200 years.

The size and periodicity of acorn crops appears quite variable. Roy (1962) reported that abundant seed crops for entire stands were produced at 2- to 3-year intervals. At 2,500 ft (760 m) elevation in Yuba County, CA, medium to large seed crops were produced in 4 of 20 years. At 2,800 ft (850 m) elevation in south-central Shasta County, medium to bumper crops were borne on large black oaks in 4 of 8 years. At a lower elevation in Shasta County (560 ft), black oaks yielded sound acorns in 6 of 7 years. Of these, two each were rated as bumper, medium, and light crops.

Insects destroy many acorns, especially in the early developmental stages. Immature acorns are attacked by both lepidopterous and coleopterous pests. The filbertworm (Melissopus latiferreanus) and

Page 3 - Black Oak

Appendix C - MIS Species Account - S. Province

the filbert weevil (Curculio uniformis) can be particularly destructive, sometimesinfesting up to 95% percent of the acorns and destroying most of a crop (Keen 1958).

Fully developed acorns begin to fall in mid-August at the lower elevations and in mid-September at higher elevations. Early acorns usually are hollow or insect-infested. Some are still green or greenish yellow. Sound acorns drop from late September to early November but cease falling by mid- November at lower elevations. At higher elevations almost all acorns have fallen by early December.

Because acorns are large and heavy, most fall directly beneath the tree crowns. Few bounce or roll far on steep slopes covered by duff, leaves, and litter. Animals play a major role in dissemination of acorns because they both bury and transport them away from the parent tree (Borchert and Tyler 2010). The western gray squirrel (Sciurus griseus) and western scrub jays (Aphelocoma californica), and probably California ground squirrels (Spemophilus beecheyi) are important dispersers.

Black oak acorns are eaten by at least 14 species of song and game birds, many mammalian species especially rodents, mule deer and black bears (Martin et al. 1961). In the San Bernardino Mountains, black bears utilize black oaks in the spring, summer, and fall (Novick et al.1982) and for many mammals acorns are the primary autumn food source. For example, fawn survival rates increase and decrease according to the size of the acorn crop.

Fire and Black Oak California black oak is sensitive to cambial damage by fire (Stephens and Finney 2002). Its thin, outer bark chars readily and the cambium suffers heat damage even where bark is thick (over 0.5 inch [1.3 cm]). Crown fires top-kill all trees in a stand regardless of size and mortality is usually complete in small-diameter trees up to pole-sized individuals (McDonald 1978). Complete mortality is common when individuals or clumps of trees are surrounded by, or are adjacent to, highly flammable brush (Stephens and Finney 2002).

Within a few weeks of the fire many surviving trees sprout from the root crown and and occasionally from undamaged portions of the trunk and crown. This response appears to be independent of the amount of precipitation because new shoots depend on water reserves in the root system. Sprouting also is vigorous in saplings and young trees. On the other hand, very old trees may fail to sprout or produce only coppice sprouts (Roberts and Smith 1982, Franklin et al. 2006).

Fire-caused Damage and Mortality The amount of damage sustained depends upon fire intensity. A high percentage of California black oak is completely top-killed by high intensity surface fires, especially when trees are shrubby (McDonald 1978). Moderate-severity fires typically produce localized charring and cambium death, while other parts of the trunk may be undamaged (Tappeiner and McDonald 1980). Moderate-intensity fires can kill approximately half of all young trees in a stand. Low-intensity fire causes some cambium damage to pole-sized trees and those of smaller diameters (Kauffman and Martin 1987). Spring fires during the active growing season cause greater tissue damage than fires in other seasons.

Postfire Seedling Establishment Black oak seedlings establish best in postfire mineral soils with light duff, conditions that often are produced by low- or moderate-intensity fires (Plumb and Gomez 1983). For example, California

Page 4 - Black Oak

Appendix C - MIS Species Account - S. Province

black oak seedling numbers increased following a low-intensity prescribed burn of a Jeffrey pine (Pinus jeffreyi)-California black oak forest in Cuyamaca Rancho State Park, California (Martin 1982). On the Shasta-Trinity National Forest in California, a prescribed burn in March 1978 resulted in a bumper crop of sound black oak acorns, while trees in a nearby unburned area bore only unsound acorns. Apparently, destructive insects in the duff and soil were reduced greatly by the fire.

RISKS AND MANAGEMENT CONCERNS The primary management concern for black oak is the incremental loss of individuals to competition with shade tolerant mixed conifer species such as incense cedar and white fir. Black oak is a gap-phase species and requires occasional openings in the forest canopy to regenerate. Fire creates the open canopy required for optimum seedling and sprout growth (Kauffman and Martin 1987). Thus, the abundance of black oak, especially saplings, is an indicator of progress toward reducing overly dense mixed conifer forest stands and the creation of regeneration opportunities for light-requiring species.

STATUS AND TREND OF BLACK OAK As per LMP direction, the population trends in black oak will be tracked using FIA inventory data collected every 5 years beginning in 1996. Determining trends of this species in the Province and on each Forest will require many years of FIA data. Thus far, only 3 surveys have been completed in the Province, not enough to delineate trends.

Population trends of black oak can be used to measure progress toward achieving montane conifer forests that contain large patches of mature trees interspersed with canopy gaps providing opportunities for regeneration of light-requiring species, including ponderosa pine sugar pine, and Jeffrey pine. Stand improvement work in the montane conifer forest vegetation type has been conducted in recent years involving overstory and understory thinning using both prescribed fire and mechanical treatments.

LITERATURE CITED Borchert, M. and C. Tyelr. 2010. Acorn removal and dispersal of California black oak (Quercus kelloggii) after a stand-replacing fire. In press, Journal of Forest Research.

Franklin, J., Spears-Lebrun, L.A., Deutschman, D.H., and Marsden, K. 2006. Impact of a high- intensity fire on mixed evergreen and mixed conifer forests in the Peninsular Ranges of southern California, USA. Forest Ecology and Management 235: 18-29.

Kauffman, J. B. and R.E. Martin. 1987. Effects of fire and fire suppression on mortality and mode of reproduction of California black oak (Quercus kelloggii Newb.). In: Plumb, Timothy R.; Pillsbury, Norman H., technical coordinators. Proceedings of the symposium on multiple-use management of California's hardwood resources; 1986 November 12-14; San Luis Obispo, CA. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-100. Berkeley, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station: 122-126.

Page 5 - Black Oak

Appendix C - MIS Species Account - S. Province

Keen, F. P. 1958. Cone and seed insects of western forest trees. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Technical Bulletin 1169. Washington, DC. 168 p.

Martin, A. C., H. S. Zim, and A. L. Nelson. 1961. American wildlife and plants. A guide to wildlife food habits. p. 308-310. Dover Publications, New York.

Martin, Bradford D. 1982. Vegetation responses to prescribed burning in Cuyamaca Rancho State Park, California. In: Conrad, C. Eugene; Oechel, Walter C., technical coordinators. Proceedings of the symposium on dynamics and management of Mediterranean-type ecosystems; 1981 June 22-26; San Diego, CA. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-58. Berkeley, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station: 617.

McDonald, Philip M. 1969. Silvical characteristics of California black oak Quercus kelloggii Newb.). USDA Forest Service, Research Paper PSW-53. Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station, Berkeley, CA. 20 p.

McDonald, P.M. 1978. Silviculture-ecology of three native California hardwoods on high sites in north central California. Dissertation (Ph.D.), Oregon State University, Department of Forest Science, Corvallis. 309 p.

Minnich, R.A. 1976. Vegetation of the San Bernardino Mountains. In: Latting, June, ed. Symposium proceedings: plant communities of southern California; 1974 May 4; Fullerton, CA. Special Publication No. 2. Berkeley, CA: California Native Plant Society: 99-124.

Novick, H.J., and G.R. Stewart. 1982. Home range and habitat preferences of black bears in the San Bernardino Mountains of Southern California. California Fish and Game 67:21-35.

Plumb, T.R. and A.P. Gomez, Anthony P. 1983. Five southern California oaks: identification and postfire management. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-71. Berkeley, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station. 56 p.

Roberts, T. A., and C. H. Smith. 1982. Growth and survival of black oak seedlings under different germination, watering, and planting regimes. Tree Planters' Notes 33(4): 10-12.

Roy, D.F. 1962. California hardwoods: management practices and problems. Journal of Forestry 60:184-186.

Stephens, S. and M.A. Finney. 2002. Prescribed fire mortality of Sierra Nevada mixed conifer tree species: effects of crown damage and forest floor combustion. Forest Ecology and Management 162: 261-271.

Tappeiner, J. and P. McDonald. 1980. Preliminary recommendations for managing California black oak in the Sierra Nevada. In: Proceedings, Symposium on the Ecology, Management, and

Page 6 - Black Oak

Appendix C - MIS Species Account - S. Province

Utilization of California Oaks, June 26-28, 1979, Claremont, California. p. 107-111. USDA Forest Service, General Technical Report PSW-44. Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station, Berkeley, CA.

Page 7 - Black Oak