Revision of the Inyo National Forest Land Management Plan
Biological Evaluation for Region 5 Sensitive Species Wildlife, Fish and Invertebrate Species
Prepared by
/s/ Eduardo Olmedo Eduardo Olmedo Wildlife Biologist/Environmental Planner
November 7, 2017 In accordance with Federal civil rights law and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) civil rights regulations and policies, the USDA, its Agencies, offices, and employees, and institutions participating in or administering USDA programs are prohibited from discriminating based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity (including gender expression), sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, political beliefs, or reprisal or retaliation for prior civil rights activity, in any program or activity conducted or funded by USDA (not all bases apply to all programs). Remedies and complaint filing deadlines vary by program or incident.
Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication for program information (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, American Sign Language, etc.) should contact the responsible Agency or USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TTY) or contact USDA through the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339. Additionally, program information may be made available in languages other than English.
To file a program discrimination complaint, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, AD-3027, found online at http://www.ascr.usda.gov/complaint_filing_cust.html and at any USDA office or write a letter addressed to USDA and provide in the letter all of the information requested in the form. To request a copy of the complaint form, call (866) 632-9992. Submit your completed form or letter to USDA by: (1) mail: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, D.C. 20250-9410; (2) fax: (202) 690-7442; or (3) email: [email protected].
USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer and lender. Draft Biological Evaluation, Wildlife and Fish Forest Plan Revision Inyo National Forest
Table of Contents 1. Introduction ...... 4 2. Current Management Direction ...... 5 2.1 Forest Service Direction ...... 5 2.2 INF Forest Plan Direction ...... 6 3. Proposed Action ...... 6 4. Affected Environment ...... 7 5. Effects of the Revised Forest Plan ...... 8 5.1 Analysis Approach ...... 8 5.2 Assumptions ...... 8 5.3 Effects to Sensitive Species that are not listed as Species of Conservation Concern ...... 8 Sierra Nevada Red Fox (Vulpes vulpes necator) ...... 9 Townsend’s Big-eared Bat (Corynorhinus townsendii townsendii) ...... 10 Fringed Myotis (Myotis thysanodes) ...... 10 Pacific Fisher (Martes pennanti) ...... 11 Northern Goshawk (Accipiter gentilis) ...... 12 Pallid Bat (Antrozous pallidus) ...... 13 Pygmy Rabbit (Brachylagus idahoensis) ...... 14 Wolverine (Gulo gulo) ...... 15 Panamint Alligator Lizard (Elgaria panamintina) ...... 16 5.4 Summary of Effects ...... 17 5.5 Effects to Sensitive Species that are listed as Species of Conservation Concern ...... 19 Willow Flycatcher (Empidonax traillii) ...... 20 Bi-State Greater Sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) ...... 20 Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) ...... 21 California Spotted Owl (Strix occidentalis occidentalis) ...... 22 Great Gray Owl (Strix nebulosa) ...... 23 Sierra Marten (Martes caurina sierrae) ...... 24 Inyo Mountain Slender Salamander (Batrachoseps campi) ...... 25 Black Toad (Anaxyrus exsul) ...... 26 California Golden Trout (Oncoryhnchus mykiss aguabonita) ...... 26 Apache Silverspot Butterfly (Speyeria nokomis apacheana) ...... 27 Mono Lake checkerspot - Euphydryas editha monoensis ...... 27 San Emigdio blue - Plebulina emigdionis ...... 27 Western Pearlshell (Margaritifera falcata) ...... 28 Owens Valley Springsnail (Pyrgulopsis owensensis) ...... 28 Wong’s Springsnail (Pyrgulopsis wongi) ...... 29 5.6 Summary of Effects ...... 29 6. Cumulative Effects ...... 30 7. Determinations ...... 31 Sensitive Species Not Known to Occur in Plan Area ...... 31 Sensitive Species Not Included as a Species of Conservation Concern ...... 31 Sensitive Species Included as a Species of Conservation Concern ...... 31 8. Literature Cited ...... 31 9. Contributors ...... 41
1 Draft Biological Evaluation, Wildlife and Fish Forest Plan Revision Inyo National Forest
Tables
Table 1. List of wildlife, fish and invertebrate sensitive species on the Inyo National Forest. The list is based on the September 9, 2013 version of the USDA Forest Service PSW Region Sensitive Animal Species by Forest...... 4 Table 2. Acres of both sage-grouse priority habitat and population management unit (PMU) on the Inyo National Forest ...... 21
2 Draft Biological Evaluation, Wildlife and Fish Forest Plan Revision Inyo National Forest
3 Draft Biological Evaluation, Wildlife and Fish Forest Plan Revision Inyo National Forest
1. Introduction This Biological Evaluation (BE) addresses the potential effects of the revised land management plan for the Inyo National Forest on animal species listed as sensitive by the Regional Forester of the Pacific Southwest Region of the U.S. Forest Service. Sensitive species include species, which are not designated as federally threatened or endangered, but for which range-wide rarity is of concern. The sensitive animal species list for Region 5 of the Forest Service was last updated on September 9, 2013. The effects of the revised Forest Plan on Inyo National Forest sensitive species are evaluated below. The purpose of the Biological Evaluation is the following: • To ensure that the revised Inyo National Forest Plan does not contribute to loss of viability of any sensitive animal species; • To provide a process and standard to ensure sensitive animal species receive full consideration during the decision making process. Forest Service Manual 2672.41 specifies that a biological evaluation be prepared to determine if a project may affect any USDA Forest Service (FS) sensitive species. The purpose of this biological evaluation is to review the Forest Plan for the Inyo National Forest in sufficient detail to determine to what extent the proposed action (Alternative B – modified) may affect any sensitive wildlife, fish and invertebrate species of record for the project area. Table 1 lists the sensitive species on the Inyo National Forest. Column 4 indicates whether the species is being proposed as a Species of Conservation Concern (SCC) or not in the final FEIS for the Inyo National Forest (USDA FS 2017a), or whether it is federally listed as threatened, endangered, or proposed.
Table 1. List of wildlife, fish and invertebrate sensitive species on the Inyo National Forest. The list is based on the September 9, 2013 version of the USDA Forest Service PSW Region Sensitive Animal Species by Forest. Type Scientific Name Common Name Final Proposed Species Analyzed n SCC/ Federally this report? Listed? Birds Accipiter gentilis Northern goshawk No Yes Birds Centrocercus Bi-state population of Yes Yes urophasianus greater Sage-grouse Birds Coccyzus americanus Western yellow-billed No No occidentalis cuckoo Birds Empidonax traillii Willow flycatcher Yes Yes Birds Haliaeetus Bald Eagle Yes Yes leucocephalus Birds Strix nebulosa Great gray owl Yes Yes Birds Strix occidentalis California spotted Yes Yes occidentalis owl Mammals Antrozous pallidus Pallid bat No Yes Mammals Corynorhinus Townsend's western No Yes townsendii townsendii big-eared bat Mammals Myotis thysanodes Fringed myotis No Yes Mammals Brachylagus idahoensis Pygmy rabbit No Yes
4 Draft Biological Evaluation, Wildlife and Fish Forest Plan Revision Inyo National Forest
Type Scientific Name Common Name Final Proposed Species Analyzed n SCC/ Federally this report? Listed? Mammals Gulo gulo Wolverine No Yes Mammals Martes caurina sierra Sierra Marten Yes Yes Mammals Pekania pennant Fisher No Yes Mammals Vulpes vulpes necator Sierra Nevada Red No /ESA Candidate Yes Fox species Amphibians Anaxyrus canorus Yosemite toad No/Listed as No endangered (see Biological Assessment) Amphibians Anaxyrus exsul Black toad Yes Yes Amphibians Batrachoseps campi Inyo Mountain Yes Yes salamander Amphibians Rana muscosa Mountain yellow- No/Listed as Threatened No legged frog (see Biological Assessment) Amphibians Rana sierra Sierra Nevada yellow- No/ Listed as No legged frog Threatened (see Biological Assessment) Reptiles Elgaria panamintina Panamint alligator No Yes lizard Fish Oncorhynchus mykiss California golden Yes Yes aguabonita trout Invertebrates Euphydryas editha Mono Lake Yes Yes monoensis checkerspot butterfly Invertebrates Plebulina emigdionis San Emigdio blue Yes Yes butterfly Invertebrates Speyeria nokomis Apache fritillary Yes Yes apacheana butterfly Invertebrates Pyrgulopsis owensensis Owen's Valley Yes Yes springsnail Invertebrates Pyrgulopsis wongi Wong's springsnail Yes Yes
Some sensitive species on the Regional Forester list not analyzed in this biological evaluation was due to the species or its habitat not occurring on the Inyo National Forest, or were analyzed in the biological assessment for listed and/or proposed species (Table 1).
2. Current Management Direction 2.1 Forest Service Direction Sensitive species are designated by the Regional Forester. United States Department of Agriculture Regulation 9500-4 directs the Forest Service to: • Manage "habitats for all existing native and desired nonnative plants, fish, and wildlife species in order to maintain at least viable populations of such species."
5 Draft Biological Evaluation, Wildlife and Fish Forest Plan Revision Inyo National Forest
• Conduct activities and programs "to assist in the identification and recovery of threatened and endangered plant and animal species." • Avoid actions "which may cause a species to become threatened or endangered."…in FSM 2670.12, and… • Develop and implement management practices to ensure that species do not become threatened or endangered because of Forest Service actions. • Maintain viable populations of all native and desired nonnative wildlife, fish, and plant species in habitats distributed throughout their geographic range on National Forest System lands. • Develop and implement management objectives for populations and/or habitat of sensitive species…in FSM 2670.22. 2.2 INF Forest Plan Direction The forest is currently managed under the 1988 Inyo National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan), plus amendments, including the 2001 and 2004 Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendments. The forest plan includes management prescriptions, standards and guidelines, and other plan components that apply to all activities on the Inyo National Forest.
3. Proposed Action The proposed action is the implementation of the revised Forest Plan based upon the Selected Alternative (Alternative B Modified) described in the Final Forest Plan and analyzed in the Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Inyo National Forest available at: Inyo National Forest Final Plan and FEIS The planning area includes all federal lands managed or administered by the Inyo National Forest (approximately two million acres) in Fresno, Inyo, Madera, Mono and Tulare Counties, California, and Esmerelda and Mineral Counties, Nevada. Each national forest managed by the Forest Service is required to have a land management plan (forest plan) that is consistent with the National Forest Management Act (NFMA) of 1976. The NFMA calls for plans to be revised every 10 to 15 years, to incorporate new information, to account for changed national policy and direction, and to address new issues and opportunities. The Inyo National Forest began efforts to revise its Forest Plan in 2012 as part of a set of “early adopters” of the newly approved 2012 planning regulations (36 CFR 219, 2012). The revision will address changed conditions; provide consistent management direction (as appropriate) across the three early-adopter southern Sierra forests; incorporate changes in law, regulation, and policy; and incorporate new scientific information. The general objectives of the forest plan revision are to develop a fully integrated plan that guides management of the land and resources of the plan area, and to display short- and long-term management intent for the plan area to the public, Federal, State, Tribal, and local governments (Forest Service Manual 1920.2). A full description of the proposed action and all alternatives can be found in the final forest plan and final environmental impact statement.
6 Draft Biological Evaluation, Wildlife and Fish Forest Plan Revision Inyo National Forest
Alternatives B-modified incorporated relevant key findings and recommendations from Interim Recommendations for California spotted owl. Elements from the Southern Sierra Fisher Conservation Strategy were not included in this alternative because fishers do not occur on the forest. In addition, this alternative include the following direction: • Forest-wide ecosystem and specific vegetation direction; • Forest-wide direction for managing wildlife species; and • Species specific direction identified for several species of conservation concern. The National Forest Management Act requires the Forest Service to “provide for diversity of plant and animal communities based on the suitability and capability of the specific land area in order to meet overall multiple-use objectives.” As such, the 2012 Planning Rule requires the Forest Service to maintain or restore ecological sustainability, integrity and diversity as the primary approach to species conservation. In addition, the rule requires plan components to provide the ecological conditions to maintain a viable population of species of conservation concern. A viable population is defined as one “that continues to persist over the long term with sufficient distribution to be resilient and adaptable to stressors and likely future environments.” Species of conservation concern are those species that are known to occur within the plan area and for which there is a substantial concern about the species’ capability to persist over the long term in the plan area. As required by the Planning Rule and agency directives, the Regional Forester has identified a list species of conservation concern for each national forest. Alternative B-modified identifies vegetation desired conditions designed to provide overall ecological integrity, including habitat for all associated species, and specifically to ensure they provide the ecological conditions necessary to maintain viable populations of species of conservation concern within the plan area. A guideline was developed to protect trees from removal that are used for nesting, denning, or roosting by at-risk species (SPEC-FW-GDL 01). This extends to some adjacent trees that provide necessary shade or other important habitat conditions. In addition, a desired condition was developed to consider at-risk species early in the environmental planning process (SPEC-FW-DC 03). For some species of conservation concern, species-specific plan components have been developed or carried forward from the existing plans. These are discussed for each species below.
4. Affected Environment The diverse landscape of the Inyo National Forest provides a rich array of ecosystems and habitat types that support thousands of wildlife, fish and plant species. These diverse landscapes include the convergence of the eastern Sierra Nevada, Great Basin, and Mojave Desert with elevations extending from approximately 4,000 feet to 14,494 feet above mean sea level. They include a variety of topography, geology and soils, and are influenced by a wide range of precipitation and temperature regimes. The Inyo National Forest contains all or portions of 125 watersheds ranging in size from 10,000 to 40,000 acres (FEIS, Chapter 3, Water Quality, Water Quantity and Watershed Condition section). All of these watersheds drain into the San Joaquin Valley, Kern River Valley, Owens Valley, or terminal Great Basin lakes (Mono Lake, Owens Lake Playa). There is an estimated 1,640 miles of permanent streams on the Inyo National Forest.
7 Draft Biological Evaluation, Wildlife and Fish Forest Plan Revision Inyo National Forest
The forest contains a variety of habitats ranging from low to mid- elevation desert shrub, sagebrush, and pinyon-juniper to forested habitats of mid-to higher elevation Jeffrey pine, lodgepole pine, and red fir, to sub-alpine and alpine habitats of whitepark pine, bristlecone pine, and foxtail pine. Riparian habitats consisting of aspen and willow also occur along perennial streams, with some aspen stands occurring in drier, upland sites. This diversity in habitats provides for the sensitive species analyzed in this biological evaluation.
5. Effects of the Revised Forest Plan 5.1 Analysis Approach
The effects analysis was completed by examining occurrence and habitat information for each sensitive species listed in Table 1, and identifying the potential effects of the revised forest plan and plan components to ecosystem types (habitat) in which species occur and on the species. For all sensitive species, threats to species or habitats and habitat conditions were identified as indicators because are measures to maintain viable populations. While many sensitive species are carried forward as species of conservation concern, forest plan direction is written broadly enough to provide protection or benefits for sensitive species not included as SCCs.
Land management plans do not have direct effects because they do not authorize or mandate any site-specific projects or activities (including ground-disturbing actions). However, there may be implications, or longer term environmental consequences, to sensitive species under this programmatic framework. As a result, all effects discussed in this section are considered indirect effects.
Though some discussion and analysis is conducted here for sensitive species proposed as species of conservation concern, additional analysis can be found in Rationales for Animal Considered for Species of Conservation Concern (USDA Forest Service 2017b; incorporated by reference). 5.2 Assumptions • Law, policy and regulations will be followed when planning or implementing site-specific projects and activities. • Plan components will be followed when planning or implementing site-specific projects and activities. • The planning timeframe for the effects analysis is 10 to 15 years. • Monitoring identified in the plan monitoring program and any broader-scale monitoring will occur and the land management plan will be amended, as needed during the life of the plan. • Funding will be available to implement restoration measures proposed. 5.3 Effects to Sensitive Species that are not listed as Species of Conservation Concern
8 Draft Biological Evaluation, Wildlife and Fish Forest Plan Revision Inyo National Forest
Sierra Nevada Red Fox (Vulpes vulpes necator) This species is questionable in regards to their occurrence on the Inyo National Forest. However, for the purpose of determing the effects of this species from Forest Plan Revision, we infer the presence of this species due to suitable habitat occurring on the forest. The red fox is widely distributed in North America, from the arctic coast of Alaska and northwest Canada, east to the Atlantic Ocean and then south to the US Gulf Coast (NatureServe 2011). Sierra Nevada red foxes were historically found in the high elevations of the Sierra Nevada mountain range and from Mount Shasta and Lassen Peak westward to the Trinity Mountains. There are historical museum collection records from Siskiyou, Tulare, Mariposa, Mono, Lassen, and Nevada counties (Museum of Vertebrate Zoology 2007). The only population known to exist in recent times is found in Lassen National Park and the surrounding Lassen National Forest (Perrine 2005, Perrine et al. 2007). The last reliable sighting in the Sequoia National Park occurred in 1993 (Graber 2007, personal communication with G. Bolen, North States Resources). A red fox was photographed in the winter of 1990 to 1991 at the Tioga Pass Resort (9,646 feet) on the Inyo National Forest. Little is known about the habitat requirements of this subspecies. Apparently, they inhabit various habitats in alpine and subalpine zones; their preferred habitat is apparently red fir, lodgepole pine forests and alpine fell-fields (CDFG 2005, CDFG 2012). California Department of Fish and Game uses location and elevation to distinguish the Sierra Nevada red fox from other red foxes, as there are no visible characteristics to reliably distinguish between the two (Lewis et al. 1993, Perrine 2007). Red foxes found above 3,500 feet in the Cascade or Sierra Nevada Mountains are considered a Sierra Nevada red fox (Lewis et al. 1993, Perrine 2007) No population estimates for the Sierra Nevada red fox were found. A study of mesocarnivores in the Sierra Nevada and the southernmost parts of the Cascade range failed to detect the Sierra Nevada red fox in any of the 344 sample units (six track plates and one baited camera station), leading Zielinski to conclude that if the Sierra Nevada red fox was not extirpated from this region then it must occur in very low densities (Zielinski et al. 2005). The only verified sightings of Sierra Nevada red fox in recent times have come from Lassen National Park (Perrine 2005) and near the Stanislaus NF and Humboldt-Toiyabe NF boundary (CNDDB 2011) where surveys were conducted in the spring of 2011. Nine individuals were identified from the Lassen Park population through direct capture and genetic analysis of feces (Perrine et al. 2007). These samples were collected from 1998 to 2002 and are thought to represent a considerable portion of a small isolated population (Perrine et al. 2007). Historically, Sierra Nevada red foxes were never a common species, and occurred at low densities even in prime habitat (CDFG 1991). Red foxes have been observed on the forest, but there is no conculsive evidence that these are Sierra Nevada red fox. CDFW has conducted genetic testing at camera, bait-stations, but have not identified Sierra Nevada red fox where red fox observations have occurred. Information on den structures is lacking for Sierra Nevada red foxes. They likely use rock and ground dens in talus and boulder fields, using whatever structures are available (Perrine 2005). They apparently do not use earthen dens like other red foxes (Perrine 2005). Threats to this species that may occur on the forest include: • Hybridization with non-native foxes
9 Draft Biological Evaluation, Wildlife and Fish Forest Plan Revision Inyo National Forest
• Predation and competition with coyotes • Climate change (access to predators, wildfires)
Townsend’s Big-eared Bat (Corynorhinus townsendii townsendii) Townsend’s big-eared bat is considered a Mammal Species of Special Concern by California Department of Fish and Game and a Sensitive Species by Region Five of the U.S. Forest Service and by the Bureau of Land Management. The Western Bat Working Group granted it High Priority for its known range (www.wbwg.org/matrices/species-matrix/). This species is covered as an evaluation species under the Lower Colorado River Multi-Species Conservation Program administered by the Bureau of Reclamation (LCR MSCP 2004). In California, Townsend’s big-eared bat is found throughout much of the state, except for the Central Valley and very high elevations. The largest populations are concentrated in areas offering caves (commonly limestone or basaltic lava) or mines as roosting habitat. The species is found from sea level along the coast to 6,000 feet in the Sierra Nevada (Dalquest 1947, Pearson et al. 1952, Pierson and Rainey 1996). In the White Mountains, summer records for males extend up to 7,900 feet, and hibernating groups have been found in mines as high as 10,460 feet (Szewczak et al. 1998). Maternity colonies are more frequently found below 6,560 feet (Pierson and Fellers 1998, Szewczak et al. 1998). Maternity colonies have been identified adjacent to the forest on lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management. Surveys conducted by Pierson and Rainey (1996) show marked population declines for both subspecies in California. This species has been petitioned for listing as threatened or endangered status in the state. Over the past 40 years, there has been a 52 percent loss in the number of maternity colonies, a 45 percent decline in the number of available roosts, a 54 percent decline in the total number of animals, and a 33 percent decrease in the average size of remaining colonies for the species as a whole statewide. The status of particular populations is correlated with amount of disturbance to or loss of suitable roosting sites. The populations that have shown the most marked declines are along the coast, in the Mother Lode country of the western Sierra Nevada foothills, and along the Colorado River. Threats to this species on the forest may include: • Human disturbance • Potential pathogenic fungus (white-nose syndrome fungus)
Fringed Myotis (Myotis thysanodes) In California, the species is found the length of the state, from the coast (including Santa Cruz Island) to greater than 5,900 feet in the Sierra Nevada. Records exist for the high desert and east of the Sierra Nevada (e.g., lactating females were captured in 1997 by P. Brown near Coleville on the eastern slope of the Sierra Nevada). However, the majority of known localities are on the west side of the Sierra Nevada. Museum records suggest that while fringed-tailed myotis is widely distributed in California, it is everywhere rare. Fringed-tailed myotis occurs in xeric woodland (oak and pinyon-juniper most common (Cockrum and Ordway 1959, Hoffmeister and Goodpaster 1954, Jones 1965, O’Farrell and
10 Draft Biological Evaluation, Wildlife and Fish Forest Plan Revision Inyo National Forest
Studier 1980, Roest 1951), hot desert-scrub, grassland, sage-grassland steppe, spruce-fir, mesic old growth forest, coniferous and mixed deciduous/coniferous forests (including multi-aged sub- alpine, Douglas fir, redwood, and giant sequoia) (O’Farrell and Studier 1980, Pierson and Heady 1996, Pierson et al. 2006, Weller and Zabel 2001). In a study in the Mogollon Mountains of New Mexico and Arizona, Jones (1965) found M. thysanodes occurred almost exclusively in evergreen forest (greater than 6,600 feet elevation), and was the fourth most common species in this habitat. Barbour and Davis (1969) found it to be one of the more common species in oak forest at 4,900 feet to 5,900 feet elevation in the Chiricahua Mountains. In a long- term study in western New Mexico (Jones and Suttkus 1972), fringed-tailed myotis was found predominantly at the highest elevation sampled (8,500 feet), and was the ninth most common bat species in this habitat. In mist-netting surveys it is often found on secondary streams. Although nowhere common, the species occurs in netting records from sea level to at least 6,500 feet in the Sierra Nevada, California. It occurs primarily from sea level to approximately 3,900 feet to 6,900 feet (O’Farrell and Studier 1980) with an isolated record from 9,500 feet in New Mexico (Barbour and Davis 1969). Fringed-tailed myotis is a colonial roosting species. Colonies can be up to 2,000 individuals (Barbour and Davis 1969, O’Farrell and Studier 1975), but in California in recent years smaller colonies of 25 to 50 are more typical. Within buildings, this species tends to roost in the open in tightly packed clusters, mostly utilizing the sides of ceiling joists (O’Farrell and Studier 1980). Any of these types of structures are used as both day and night roosts (Barbour and Davis 1969). This species often forages along secondary streams, in fairly cluttered habitat. It also has been captured over meadows (Pierson et al. 2001). Clough Cave in Sequoia National Park is the only cave found in California housing a maternal colony, for which there are multiple records. Outside of California maternity colonies have been found in caves (e.g. Baker 1962, Easterla 1966, Judd 1967). The majority of maternal roost sites documented in California have been found in buildings (e.g., Orr 1956), including the type locality at Old Fort Tejon (Miller 1897). Mines are also used as roost sites (Cahalane 1939, Cockrum and Musgrove 1964, Barbour and Davis 1969). Fringe-tailed bats have not been identified on the Inyo National Forest based on NRIS data from all known aurial bat survey data (NRIS, 2016). The forest does offer suitable habitat within the pinyon-juniper woodlands, xeric desert shrub, and small oak woodlands that occur on the forest. Threats to this species that may occur on the forest include: • Loss or modification of habitat (including snags, bridges, buildings, etc.) • Closure or renewed activity at abandoned mines and caves • Human disturbance • Pesticides and potential pathogenic fungus spread from east coast.
Pacific Fisher (Martes pennanti) The State of California designated fisher as a protected furbearer in 1946 and as a Species of Concern since at least 1986, (California Department of Fish and Wildlife). In March 2009, the
11 Draft Biological Evaluation, Wildlife and Fish Forest Plan Revision Inyo National Forest
California Fish and Game Commission recommended that the fisher be assessed for listing as threatened or endangered under the California State Endangered Species Act. This recommendation initiated a 12-month status review by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife culminating in a determination by the Commission on June 23, 2010, that the listing was not warranted (CDFG, 2010). In 2013, the California Fish and Game Commission set aside its prior decision and made fisher a candidate species pending a new status review. In the Sierra Nevada, fisher habitat occurs in mid-elevation forests (Grinnell et al. 1937, Zielinski et al. 1997) largely on National Forest System lands. The Sierra Nevada status and trend monitoring project (USDA-FS 2006a) has detected fishers as low as 3,110 feet and as high as 9,000 feet in the southern Sierra Nevada, which are considered to be extremes of the elevation range. Mapped female home ranges from the Tule River area were between 3,600 and 7,500 feet in elevation. Males appear to have a much wider range in elevation, 4,000 to 9,300 feet, but also appear to be much less selective in use of habitat in general (Zielinski et al. 2004). It is expected that this elevation range will vary by latitude and corresponds generally to the lower end of the mixed conifer hardwood cover type at the lower end and the red fir cover type at the upper elevation. Pacific fisher have not been identified on the forest, which could be attributed to the limited suitable habitat found in the eastern Sierra. Suitable habitat is located in the red fir forest where canopy cover is high and offers more of the old-growth characteristics fisher utilize. As with California spotted owls, fisher habitat is found within the Reds Meadow/Middle Fork San Joaquin Valley area just west of Mammoth Lakes, California and in the western portion of the Kern Plateau in the southern portion of the forest. The majority of this habitat is found within wilderness. Threats to Pacific fisher are limited on the forest, due to the remoteness of suitable habitat, the limited amount of suitable habitat, and the lack of occurrences of this species. Threats that could occur on the forest include: • Large-scale stand replacement wildfires • Climate change
Northern Goshawk (Accipiter gentilis) Northern goshawks occupy boreal and temperate forests throughout the Holarctic zone (Squires and Reynolds 1997). The northern goshawk is a year-round resident throughout many higher elevation areas of California. Within California, this species occurs in the northern Coast Ranges, the Klamath and Siskiyou Mountains, across the Cascades, Modoc Plateau, and Warner Mountains, and south through the Sierra Nevada (Shuford and Gardali 2008, Zeiner et al. 1990). Goshawks may also inhabit suitable habitats in the Transverse Ranges and other mountainous areas in southern California (Zeiner et al. 1990). The northern goshawk is associated with the use of older-age conifer, mixed, and deciduous forests. Forest stands with high suitability contain an availability of large live trees for nesting, a closed canopy for protection and thermal cover, and open space in the understory for maneuverability and flight (Hargis et al. 1994, Squires and Kennedy 2006). Northern goshawks forage within a wider range of forest types and conditions. Large snags and downed logs are considered important components within foraging habitat because such features benefit various prey species (Reynolds et al. 1992).
12 Draft Biological Evaluation, Wildlife and Fish Forest Plan Revision Inyo National Forest
Goshawks occur throughout the Inyo National Forest, in Jeffery pine, red fir, and aspen stands. Protected activity centers have been designated around known nesting locations following the 2004 Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment direction. For more information on the status and threats of goshawk see USDA FS 2017 (Rationale for Animal Species Considered for Species of Conservation Concern). Threats on the forest may include: • Habitat loss and degradation • Large-scale stand replacement wildfires • Habitat fragmentation from fires and forestry practices • Human disturbance
Pallid Bat (Antrozous pallidus) Pallid bat is considered a Mammal Species of Special Concern by California Department of Fish and Game, and a Sensitive Species by both Region Five of the U.S. Forest Service, and Bureau of Land Management. The Western Bat Working Group designated it as a High Priority for conservation measures for most of its range in California. Pallid bat is distributed throughout much of the west, from southern British Columbia to central Mexico, and as far east as western portions of Kansas, Oklahoma, and Texas, with an isolated subspecies in Cuba (Hermanson and O'Shea 1983; Simmons 2005). Pallid bat is primarily a low to mid-elevation species, with an elevation record of 8,000 feet in the mountains of New Mexico (Black 1974). In California it is found from sea level up to approximately 7,400 feet (Baker et al. 2008, Pierson et al. 2001, 2009), although it is most commonly found below 5,900 feet (Barbour and Davis 1969, Orr 1954, Pierson et al. 2001 & 2009), and there is a record from below sea level in Death Valley (Orr 1954). It is found along the coast, in the coast ranges, the Central Valley, up to mid-elevation in the Sierra Nevada and Cascade ranges, and in the more xeric and desert habitats east of the Sierra Nevada and in southern California. Pallid bat occurs in a number of habitats ranging from rocky arid deserts to grasslands into mid- elevation mixed deciduous/coniferous forests. In California, they are most commonly found in low elevation desert washes, western sycamore (Plantanus racemosa) open riparian habitat, coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) and valley oak (Q. lobata) savannah, mid-elevation black oak (Quercus kelloggii) and mixed deciduous/coniferous forest (black oak, incense cedar (Libocedrus decurrens) and ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa) habitat (Barbour and Davis 1969, Central Coast Bat Research Group 2003, Johnston et al. 2006, Orr 1954, Pierson et al. 2001, Pierson et al. 2002, Rainey and Pierson 1996). Compared to some other California bat species, pallid bats are relatively intolerant of disturbance (O'Shea and Vaughan 1977, Lewis 1996, Johnston et al. 2004) and may abandon a roost when disturbed. Anthropogenic day roosts are usually in more protected sites compared to night roosts (Tatarian 1999); however, males and non-reproductive females of various age classes using well- established day or night roosts over several years can become habituated to human activity in and around their roost, and may day-roost on building exterior walls covered with open shed- roofs where they are exposed to humans moving beneath and visible to them (Tatarian 1999).
13 Draft Biological Evaluation, Wildlife and Fish Forest Plan Revision Inyo National Forest
Lewis (1996) noted that distances between day and nighttime roosts were usually less than 200 meters, but ranged from 40 to 1,850 meters, and during a radio-tracking study in 1997 to 1999 (Tatarian), a small, bridge night roost was located 4,986 meters from the large building day roost. This is one of the species most likely to be found night-roosting under bridges (Barbour and Davis 1969, Johnston et al. 2004, Pierson et al. 1996, 2001), but it can also be found in shallow caves, cliff overhangs, and other man-made structures (Hermanson and O'Shea 1983, Lewis 1994). Lewis (1994) also noted that bridges utilized by pallid bats as night roosts were wooden, or concrete girder. Pallid bats show a higher fidelity towards night roosts than day roosts (Lewis 1994). Night roosts are typically located within 1 to 2 kilometers of the day roost. Grossinger (2007) suggested that the restoration of the valley oak and valley oak savanna habitats, along with stewardship of adjacent grassland and riparian habitats, could have significant benefits for the Pacific pallid bat by providing reliable roosts and foraging areas. There are few studies on bat detections on the Inyo National Forest. Szewczak et al. (1998) observed pallid bats in scrub habitat, less 6,000 feet elevation, scattered throughout the Inyo Mountains and at lower Cottonwood Creek in the White Mountains. The single maternity roost they observed was at Deep Springs College, outside the plan area. Likewise, NRIS Wildlife database has occurrences in two areas on the east side. Buchalski et al. (2013) observed many bat species, including pallid bats, foraging in mixed severity burned areas following the 2002 McNally Fire, which burned on the Sequoia and Inyo National Forests in the Sierra Nevada. In the Biodiversity Information Serving Our Nation (BISON) database, pallid bat is found from many records in the Owens Valley, including museum records, but mostly outside of the plan area. Threats to this species that may occur on the forest include: • Habitat loss due to fires and forestry practices • Potential pathogenic fungus (white-nose syndrome fungus)
Pygmy Rabbit (Brachylagus idahoensis) Pygmy rabbit are the only species in Brachylagus and are restricted to the Great Basin of the western United States. They are known to exist in isolated populations of northeastern California, southern Idaho, southwestern Montana, northern Nevada, eastern Oregon, western Utah, western Wyoming, and southeastern Washington. The southeastern boundary extends into southwestern Utah. Central Nevada and eastern California provide the southern and western boundaries (USDI 2005). The historic range of the pygmy rabbit encompassed 100 million acres or more of sagebrush habitat in the Great Basin and Intermountain West. Currently populations exist in portions of 7 to 8 million acres (petition for federal listing, USDI 2005), of their historic 100 million. The elevational range of pygmy rabbits’ current distribution is narrow. In Nevada they are found from 4,500 to about 7,000 feet and in California a much narrower range of, 5,000 to 5,300 feet (Tesky 1994). Literature indicates that pygmy rabbits were never evenly distributed across their range (USDI 2005). In California pygmy rabbit has been noted within the Bodie area of Mono County, and in Modoc and Lassen Counties (190 miles to the northwest) (Jones 1957). Pygmy rabbit has also been documented in the Crowley Lake area of Inyo County (Jones 1957). The California Natural
14 Draft Biological Evaluation, Wildlife and Fish Forest Plan Revision Inyo National Forest
Diversity Database (CNDDB) lists occurrences of pygmy rabbit on the Inyo National Forest between highway 167 and Mono Lake. Occurrences are also noted within a mile of the Inyo NF on both sides of highway 395 in Pumice Valley southwest of Mono Lake. No documented sightings are known to occur on any other Forest within the Region (CNDDB 2012, NRIS 2012). The 2005 petition for federal listing (USDI 2005) was denied in 2010, but noted a wide range of pygmy rabbit population densities across their range: The winter diet of pygmy rabbits is comprised of up to 99 percent sagebrush (Duszynski 2005, Wilde 1978, Green and Flinders 1980). In the Mono Lake area, the rabbits are found in soils that have a higher sand content than populations found in Nevada. They are often found in "loamier" inclusions in stabilized sand dunes. Also, the rabbits in the Bodie area live at very high elevations of at least 8,400 feet. These loamy soils support relatively low sagebrush of about 2 to 3 feet tall (Beauvais et al. 2012). Threats to pygmy rabbit on the forest include: • Loss and degradation of habitat • Invasive species • Potential impacts from wild horses and wildfire management
Wolverine (Gulo gulo) In the contiguous United States, wolverines are found in, Montana, Wyoming, Idaho, Oregon, Washington, and, recently, California (Moriarty et al. 2009, USFWS 2011) and Colorado (USFWS 2010). On the west coast, wolverine population centers probably existed in two centers – the Northern Cascades and the Sierra Nevada Mountains (USFWS 2010). In Region 5, the wolverine distribution is much reduced from the past. Historical Forest Service and state records indicate it was found from the southern Sierra Nevada north to the Warner Mountains and west to the Klamath and Coast Mountains. Observations or specimens from outside the Sierra Nevada population center were probably transients or dispersing males. Verifiable records were practically absent since the early twentieth century (Moriarty et al. 2009) until a male wolverine was photographed at baited camera stations on the Tahoe NF and adjacent Sierra Pacific Industries land in 2008 through 2010 (Moriarty et al. 2009, USFWS 2010, USFS NRIS records database 2012). These records are north of Interstate 80 in Nevada and Sierra counties, west and south of Sierraville California. The USFWS considers the Sierra Nevada Mountains to be part of the wolverine’s current range, but a population has not been reestablished (the single male identified in 2008 does not make a population) (USFWS 2010). There is one known wolverine in Region 5. The two source population centers (the North Cascades and western Rocky Mountains) are the nearest to the area, and the Idaho population is the closest. However, the Idaho population is still at least 400 miles away, which makes for a long dispersal distance. Hair and scat samples were acquired and it was genetically determined that this animal most likely from the western Rocky Mountains, and perhaps more accurately, central Idaho (Moriarty et al. 2009).
15 Draft Biological Evaluation, Wildlife and Fish Forest Plan Revision Inyo National Forest
Researchers have generally agreed that wolverine habitat is probably best defined in terms of adequate year-round food supplies in large, sparsely inhabited wilderness areas, rather than in terms of particular types of topography or plant associations (USFWS 2010). Although wolverine occurrences have been documented on the forest (CNDDB), these have never been verified. Wolverine habitat on the forest would be found in the subalpine and alpine areas of designated wilderness. Threats to wolverine on the forest may include: • Climate change • Large-scale stand replacement wildfires • Human disturbance
Panamint Alligator Lizard (Elgaria panamintina) The Panamint alligator lizard is endemic to the desert mountains of Inyo and Mono Counties, California. Its current range is limited to canyons and creeks with a permanent source of water (Jennings and Hayes 1994). The known area of occupancy is very small represented by 23 known localities, and is presumably less than five square kilometers total (Hammerson 2007, Jennings and Hayes 1994). Additionally, all but two known populations are on private lands (Jennings and Hayes 1994). Its elevational range is from 2,500 to 7,500 feet (Mahrdt and Beaman 2009). Within Region 5 this species only occurs on the Inyo National Forest. This species has been documented in several locations on this forest in the White and Inyo Mountains from the Nevada and California border south to Conglomerate Mesa. Although the species has been known since 1958, less than 30 individuals have been collected and deposited in museums, and less than 15 sight records have been submitted (Hammerson 2007). This is likely a direct result of the secretive nature of the species as well as the difficulty of surveying in the dense vegetation and talus slopes where this species has been observed (Stebbins 1958). The total population of this species is unknown, but is probably at least 1,000 individuals assuming each of the 23 documented locations have subpopulations of at least 50 animals. Presumably the population is stable, however abundance has likely declined in areas where habitat has been degraded and further study is needed (Hammerson 2007). Like other alligator lizards, the Panamint alligator lizard is associated with mesic microhabitats in the vicinity of riparian areas and springs (Stebbins 1958). In low elevation sites dominated by creosote scrub, these animals are only found in the vicinity of water (Papenfuss 1985). These riparian areas are often extremely limited in size being only a few meters wide and 0.75 to 3.1 kilometers in length and are primarily confined to canyon bottoms (Stebbins 1958; Jennings and Hayes 1994). Higher elevation animals can be found further from water in boulder and talus slopes, amongst desert scrub and in pinon-juniper woodland (Mahrdt and Beaman 2009, Papenfus 1985, Stebbins 2003). Panamint alligator lizards have been documented in the White and Inyo Mountains on the forest. These occurrences are typically near water sources and with adjacent scree or talus slopes. Recent studies have shown the population may be more prevalent than orginially documented. For more information on these studies and threats see USDA FS 2017.
16 Draft Biological Evaluation, Wildlife and Fish Forest Plan Revision Inyo National Forest
Threats to this species on the forest are impacts to microhabitat due to various human activites: • Mining, illegal water diversion, unauthorized grazing, unauthorized off highway vehicle use, invasive species, roads, and climate change 5.4 Summary of Effects Though the above species have not been proposed as Species of Conservation of Concern, revised forest plan direction provides for the continuance of the ecological and habitat conditions needed for these species as well as plan direction to address threats. Overall, the revised plan has a greater potential for short-term negative effects to sensitive species, compared to the current forest plan, due to the increased pace and scale of restoration activities. However, the revised plan also has more potential for long-term beneficial effects due to restoration of resilience to ecosystems and habitats. Restoration and increased resiliency of vegetation and ecosystems to climate change and other stressors such as fire are addressed throughout the plan in desired conditions for ecosystems (TERR-FW-DC 01-03); objectives for terrestrial ecosystems (TERR- FW-OBJ 01-03); desired conditions that include returning fire to the landscape where it would meet resource objectives (MA-CWPZ-DC 01-02; MA-GWPZ-DC 01-02; MA-WRZ-DC 01-03; and MA-WMZ-DC 01-02); and in the desired conditions listed below for each species. The following plan components address the sensitive species that are not listed as SCC and provide for either suitable habitat or addressing threats to the species. For all species the forestwide terrestrial ecosystem and vegetation direction would apply, this includes desired conditions (TERR-FW-DC 01-12); objectives (TERR-FW-OBJ 01-03); goal (TERR-FW-GOAL 01); standards (TERR-FW-STD 01); and guidelines (TERR-FW-GDL 01-02) and potential management approaches. Sierra Nevada red fox - Habitat direction that applies to this species includes TERR-MONT-DC 01-03; TERR-ALPN-DC 01-05; TERR-DMC-DC 01-06; TERR-RFIR-DC 01-07; and TERR- LDGP-DC 01-10). These components address the desired conditions for several of the ecosystem and vegetation types that are suitable for Sierra Nevada red fox. Each of these is specific to where these vegetation types occur on the forest, but as whole they provide for cover, species heterogeneity, and natural fire regimes which would provide for suitable habitat characteristics for red fox. These components also address habitat resiliency to climate change. Townsend’s big-eared bat, Fringed myotis, and pallid bat – Habitat direction for these species is included in the sagebrush (TERR-SAGE-DC 01-05), pinyon-juniper (TERR-PINY-DC 01-05), xeric shrub and blackbrush (TERR-XER-DC 01-04), and special habitats, such as caves (TERR- SH-DC 01-03). These components allow for characteristics that provide suitable habitat, including roosting and maternity, for bats. The plan also include specific language in a potential management approach to protect known bay hibernacula or maternity colonies that may be adversely affected by recreational, management, or other activities by installing bat gates or restricing access to caves and mines (Final Plan, Chapter 2, Animal and Plant Species section). This component specificially addresses the threats to these species from impacts in these sensitive habitats. Pacific fisher – Although suitable habitat for this species is rare on the forest, plan components would still provide for the habitat characteristics, such as old growth forests, that fisher utilize. Desired conditions for the Sierra Nevada montane zone (TERR-MONT-DC 01-03), old forest habitats (TERR-OLD-DC 01-07), dry mixed conifer (TERR-DMC-DC 01-06), and red fir (TERR-RFIR-DC) provide for the needed canopy cover, prey habitat, and denning habitat
17 Draft Biological Evaluation, Wildlife and Fish Forest Plan Revision Inyo National Forest
needed by fisher. These components address species heterogeneity, habitat resiliency to climate change, and natural fire regimes which address threats to fisher. Northern goshawk – Plan direction for goshawk habitat is similar to that of Sierra Nevada red fox, located in the Sierra Nevada montane zone, dry mixed conifer, Jeffrey pine, red fir, lodgepole (TERR-LDGP-DC 01-10), and aspen (TERR-ASPN-DC 01-03). These components address canopy cover, species heterogeneity, natural fire regimes, and resilience to climate change that are needed to provide for suitable goshawk habitat. Species direction can also be found that address not purposefully removing known nesting trees of raptor species, which would include goshawks (SPEC-FW-GDL 01). Pygmy rabbit – Pygmy rabbit habitat is very similar to sage-grouse habitat and is therefore covered under the sagebrush direction (TERR-SAGE-DC 01-05). Some of the desired conditions for sage-grouse habitat would also apply to pygmy rabbits and address threats, such as desired conditions that address overstory trees (SPEC-SG-DC 05) and nonnative annual grasses, such as cheatgrass (SPEC-SG-DC06). Threats such as wildfire are also addressed in the sage-grouse components (SPEC-SG-DC 07). Wolverine – Wolverine habitat occurs within the subalpine and alpine areas of the forest which are addressed in the subalpine and alpine plan components (TERR-ALPN-DC 01-05). Suitable habitat could also be found in the dry mixed conifer (TERR-DMC-DC 01-06) and red fir (TERR-RFIR-DC 01-07) sections of the plan. These components address threats such as climate change by providing for resiliency of these vegetation types. Panamint alligator lizard – This species is found in small microhabitats consisting of riparian areas around springs and talus slopes. Plan components for these vegetation types can be found in the Special Habitats (TERR-SH-DC 01-03) and Riparian Conservation Area (MA-RCA-DC 01-11) and spings and seeps (RCA-SPR-DC 01-03) sections of the plan. This direction provides for the very specific microhabitats this species occurs in, providing for the continuance of suitable Panamint alligator lizard habitat. Threats from water diversions (MA-RCA-STD 06 and 10), livestock grazing (MA-RCA-STD 12 and 17; MA-RCA-GDL 03), roads (MA-RCA-STD 10 and 18; MA-RCA-GDL 02) and invasive species (INV-FW-DC 01-02; INV-FW-STD 01-03; and INF-FW-GDL 01-05) are also addressed in the plan. For all the above species, plan components were also included for animal and plant species which would provide direction, not just for species federally listed or species of conservation concern, but for all species occurring on the forest (SPEC-FW-DC 01, 02; SPEC-FW-GDL 01). The revised plan direction differs from the current plan, in that it provides desired conditions for vegetation types that were not included in the 2001 and 2004 Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment. These desired conditions were also developed using best available scientific information in determining the charatersitics of these vegetation types specific to the eastern Sierra. The current plan did not include direction for the management of invasive species, or addressing the use of wildland fire for resource benefits. These changes in the revised plan would still allow for the continuance of suitable habitats for sensitive species, not list as species of conservation concern. The plan also includes a monitoring program that provides for an adapative management approach. As the plan is being implemented, specific plan components will be monitored to see if the forest is achieving the desired conditions in the plan. From this information corrections, or changes to plan components may occur. This also includes changes to the Species of
18 Draft Biological Evaluation, Wildlife and Fish Forest Plan Revision Inyo National Forest
Conservation Concern list. Although the development of the SCC list is separate from the monitoring program, it is still an adaptive process that allows for new information to be incorporated regarding species persistence and threats within the plan area and therefore the potential addition, or removal, of species on the list. If habitat conditions, or threats change for these sensitive species that are not on the SCC list, then through this adaptive process, they could be considered and potentially included as a SCC. The intent of the plan components included in the revised plan is to continue to provide suitable habitat for these species and therefore not have to list them as SCC. 5.5 Effects to Sensitive Species that are listed as Species of Conservation Concern Forest plans are developed to guide the maintenance or restoration of structure, function, composition, and connectivity of ecosystems to provide ecological conditions that will maintain a diversity of plant and animal communities and support the persistence of most native species in the plan area. This analysis focuses on evaluating the consequences of the plan alternatives on at- risk species. Forest Service at-risk species include two categories: (1) federally designated species and habitat (species listed as threatened or endangered, species that are proposed or candidates for federal listing, and species with designated critical habitat on the national forests, and (2) Forest Service- designated species of conservation concern. In contrast to categories described above that are derived under the Endangered Species Act, species of conservation concern is a new category developed and used by the Forest Service under the 2012 Planning Rule to describe animal and plant species that are known to occur in the plan area and for which the Regional Forester has determined that the best available scientific information indicates substantial concern about the species' capability to persist over the long-term in the plan area.1 The species of conservation concern list guides forest planning; however, the designation of these species is not a forest plan decision. Just as there is a process for U.S Fish and Wildlife Service to change the federal listing status of a species; the Regional Forester has authority to change species of conservation concern lists to reflect new information.2 The Forest Service “sensitive species” concept is not carried forward as part of the 2012 Planning Rule and is therefore not used in these plans. The basis for the analysis requires a determination of whether plan components such as desired conditions, objectives, standards, and guidelines provide direction to provide the ecological conditions necessary to contribute to the recovery of federally recognized species and maintain the persistence of species of conservation concern within the plan area. Plan components were developed in an iterative way, which included identifying desired conditions and potential threats to species, and identifying whether proposed plan components are sufficient to address species and their habitat needs (Forest Service Handbook 1909.12 12.52.c-d). It is also recognized that due to circumstances that are neither within the authority of the Forest Service nor consistent within the inherent capability of the land, the plan area may be unable to provide the ecological conditions necessary to maintain a viable population of a particular species of conservation concern. When this occurs, the environmental impact statement documents this and where possible, focuses on other efforts that are within the capability and authority of the Forest Service.
1 36 CFR 219.9 2 See Forest Service Handbook 1909.12 chapter 20, section 21.22b
19 Draft Biological Evaluation, Wildlife and Fish Forest Plan Revision Inyo National Forest
The following section provides a brief species account and summary analysis for current Regional Forester Sensitive Species that are also determined to be species of conservation concern for the Inyo National Forest plan revision. For more information on the species, suitable habitat, and threats see the Inyo National Forest FEIS, Chapter 3 (USDA FS 2017a) and USDA FS 2017b.
Willow Flycatcher (Empidonax traillii) This neotropical migrant species breeds within the contiguous United States, except the southeast, and the southern margins of Canada (Green et al. 2003) and winters from Mexico to northern South America (USDA 2001). Three subspecies occur in California: E. t. extimus (southern California), E. t. brewsteri (north of Fresno County from the Pacific coast to the western slopes of the Sierra Nevada crest), and E. t. adastus (on the eastern slopes of the Sierra Nevada and Cascade ranges) (summarized in USDA 2000 and Greene et al. 2003). The latter subspecies, E. t. adastus, occurs and breeds from May through September (Ibid.) and winters from the Mexican state of Colima to northwestern Venezuela (Unitt 1999 in USDA 2001). All three subspecies of willow flycatcher are known to occur on the Inyo National Forest, including the federally endangered southwestern willow flycatcher, E. t. extimus. The Institute for Bird Populations (IBP) synthesized data on willow flycatcher detection sites from numerous entities (e.g. federal, state, private) and found that the Inyo National Forest has a total of 32 active flycatcher sites (2,238 acres), constituting 7 percent of all currently used flycatcher habitat in the Sierra Nevada (N= 285 sites, 33,367 acres total). The authors of that study note that post and pre-breeding willow flycatchers in meadow habitat are regularly detected at MAPS stations and during point counts in Yosemite National Park and the Stanislaus, Sierra and Inyo National Forests. Suitable habitat for this species in the Sierra Nevada is defined by site elevation, shrub coverage, foliar density, wetness and meadow size (summarized in Greene et al. 2003). Known willow flycatcher sites range in elevation from 1,200 to 9,500 feet, though most (88 percent, 119 of 135) are located between 4,000 and 8,000 feet (Stefani et al. 2001). Willow flycatchers are closely associated with meadows that have high water tables in the late spring and early summer, and abundant shrubby, deciduous vegetation (especially Salix spp.). Shrubs in these preferred habitats are typically 6.5 to 13 feet in height, with the lower half comprised of dense woody stems. Live foliage density within the shrub layer is moderate to high and uniform from the ground to the shrub canopy (summarized in USDA 2001). Sites are “significantly more likely to support multiple willow flycatchers, and result in successful breeding efforts, as riparian shrub cover in meadows and willow flycatcher territories increases” (Bombay 1999 as cited in USDA 2001).
Bi-State Greater Sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) The Bi-State greater sage-grouse (refered to as sage-grouse) population occurs throughout the eastern California and western Nevada border region. The BLM Bishop Field Office and Carson Field Office, Inyo National Forest and Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest are the primary land managers of occupied sage-grouse habitat. Population Management Units (PMUs) are areas delineated around sub-populations of sage-grouse. Part or all of the following PMUs are contained within the Inyo National Forest: Bodie, South Mono and White Mountains. The population of sage-grouse within the Bi-State area is considered stable and rising in some portions of the area. Due to increased survey efforts over the last two years, sage-grouse have been observed in several new locations (specifically breeding grounds), including some locations
20 Draft Biological Evaluation, Wildlife and Fish Forest Plan Revision Inyo National Forest
not near the core populations in the Bodie and Long Valley areas. These new occurrences are helping determine the extent of sage-grouse use within the Bi-State area. No new breeding grounds were observed on the Forest, but survey helicopter flights in the White Mountains did result in the ability to increase the area surveyed and resulted in more sage-grouse being observed than in previous years. The forest is currently working with California Department of Fish and Wildlife and Nevada Department of Wildlife in a sage-grouse collaring effort it the White Mountains that has the potential to lead to more information on breeding locations. The Local Area Working Group designated a Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) which includes representatives from the land management agencies, state agencies (California Department of Fish and Wildlife and Nevada Department of Wildlife) and US Geological Survey. The Technical Advisory Committee developed a priority habitat map for the Bi-State area, identifying the suitable habitat (sagebrush) sage-grouse have the potential to use as well as areas surrounding leks that should be managed to reduce disturbances to breeding habitat (TAC 2012). The Forest manages approximately 213,670 acres (20 percent) of a total of 1,075,730 acres of priority habitat. The following table outlines the number of acres within each of the PMUs located on the Forest.
Table 2. Acres of both sage-grouse priority habitat and population management unit (PMU) on the Inyo National Forest Population Total Acres in Acres of Total Acres on Acres of Priority Management Unit PMU Priority Habitat Inyo NF Habitat Bodie 349,620 197,850 63,425 9,740 South Mono 440,460 179,510 327,860 106,400 White Mountains 1,753,875 132,080 450,960 94,620 Total 2,543,955 509,440 842,245 210,760
Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) The bald eagle was listed as endangered by USFWS on March 11, 1967 (32 FR 4001) and downlisted to threatened on July 12, 1995 (60 FR 35999). The bald eagle was federally de-listed on August 8, 2007 (Federal Register Vol. 72, No. 130, pp. 37346-37372). The bald eagle is also protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940 (16 USC 668-668d). This species occurs and winters throughout California, except in desert areas. Migratory individuals from north and northeast of the State arrive between mid-October and December and remain until March or early April. Bald eagles have long been known to occur on the Inyo National Forest during winter months, with three nests observed on the forest since 2004 in the Upper Owens River and June Lake areas. Another potential nest site may be present in the Hilton Lakes area where juvenile and adult bald eagles have been observed. There is limited information on the bald eagle population numbers on the Inyo National Forest. Although nesting bald eagles have been observed and winter bald eagle surveys document wintering habitat use on the forest (California Department of Fish and Wildlife 2013), there is little information on actual population trends or density. Bald eagles roosts communally in winter in dense, sheltered, remote conifer stands (Zeiner et al. 1990a). Roost trees are perches where one or more bald eagles rest at night and may occur long
21 Draft Biological Evaluation, Wildlife and Fish Forest Plan Revision Inyo National Forest
distances from open water bodies. Roost trees are similar in structure compared to perch trees; “dominant trees that have open and robust branches, are sometimes defoliated (i.e., snags), are protected from prevailing winds, and are typically far from human development” (Anthony et al. 1982 in Murphy and Knopp 2000).
Eagle nests are characteristically large, ranging from a minimum of 3 feet in width and depth to 16 feet deep and 10 feet across; size and shape are determined partly by the supporting branches (Evans 1982). On the Inyo National Forest, these ecological conditions can be found in the mixed conifer and Jeffrey pine and forest assessment types, of which there are approximately 45,671 acres (2 percent of the forest) and 135,086 acres (7 percent), respectively. The amount of potential nesting habitat on the forest for bald eagles is somewhat limited, however, because there are relatively few forested areas near large bodies of water that offer a suitable prey base. After mapping potential nesting habitat on the forest, the Jeffery pine and mixed conifer types provide approximately 48 percent of potential nesting habitat for bald eagles.
California Spotted Owl (Strix occidentalis occidentalis) The range of the California spotted owl is divided into two major physiographic provinces, the Sierra Nevada Province and the Southern California Province, with Tehachapi Pass as the dividing line (Verner et al. 1992). The Sierra Nevada Province is comprised of the southern Cascade and Sierra Nevada ranges, while the Southern California Province is comprised of all the mountain ranges of Southern California and the Central Coast ranges at least as far north as Monterey County (Ibid.). The range of the California spotted owl was revised in 2005 based on mitochondrial deoxyribonucleic acid (mtDNA) haplotypes as follows: west slope (locally on east slope) of Sierra Nevada in California from Shasta (Pit River) and Lassen Counties south to Kern County, and mountains of central, coastal, southern, and transverse ranges of California from Monterey (south side of Carmel Valley) and Kern Counties south through San Diego County to Cuyamaca Mountains in California, and Sierra San Pedro Martir in Baja California Norte, Mexico (Gutierrez and Barrowclough 2005). In the Sierra Nevada Province, spotted owls occur in conifer, mixed conifer and hardwood, and hardwood forests (Verner et al. 1992). More specifically, spotted owls use the following five vegetation types in the Sierra Nevada: foothill riparian hardwood, ponderosa pine hardwood, mixed-conifer forest, red fir forest, and east side pine forest (USDA 2001). Mixed-conifer forest is used most frequently by this species in the Sierra Nevada: approximately 80 percent of known sites are found in mixed-conifer forest, 10 percent in red fir forest, seven percent in ponderosa pine/hardwood forest, and the remaining three percent in foothill riparian/hardwood forest and eastside pine (Ibid.). On the Inyo National Forest, these ecological conditions can be found in the mixed conifer and upper montane forest ecological zone which consists of red fir, Jeffrey pine, and lodgepole pine. The Inyo National Forest has 383,336 acres of Subalpine conifer forest (19-20 percent of the Forest), 118,039 acres of Red fir (6 percent) and 45,671 of Mixed conifer (2 percent) as potentially available habitat for the owl. The mixed conifer assessment type is most prevalent on the Kern Plateau and includes various combinations of white fir, red fir, and/or one or more pine species, typically with a very sparse understory. The majority of the mixed conifer assessment type (which does not necessarily include all mixed conifer stands) in the core timber management area was included in the Owens
22 Draft Biological Evaluation, Wildlife and Fish Forest Plan Revision Inyo National Forest
River Headwaters Wilderness, designated in 2009. With the exception of Monache Meadow on the Kern Plateau, approximately ¾ of the mixed conifer assessment type is within wilderness. The majority of the red fir type is located on the Kern Plateau and Reds Meadow Valley areas where a large proportion (80 percent) of the Red fir forest type across the southern Sierras is within designated wilderness. There are currently no records in ebird, CNDDB, or BISON for California spotted owl (CSO) on the Inyo National Forest. However, forest level surveys have detected owls on the west side bordering the Sequoia NF, in wilderness and at the farthest south end of Inyo National Forest. In the past, this area of the Inyo National Forest was managed by the Sequoia NF, hence it was considered that there were no spotted owls on the Inyo National Forest. According to the CDFW spotted owl database there are 19 data points for CSO on the Inyo National Forest with 6 positive detections all occurring in the area just northwest of Monache Mountain from 1988-1991. A pair was observed in the area on 2 occasions during that same time frame. At the north end of the Inyo National Forest, there are also two positive detections in the Boundary Creek and Red Meadows area from 1981-1982. Overall, there are less than 5 known nests on the Inyo National Forest.
Great Gray Owl (Strix nebulosa) In the U.S. its range includes Alaska, Washington, northern Idaho, western Montana south through the Cascade and Sierra Nevada ranges to east-central California, west-central Nevada, and northwest Wyoming (USDA 2004). Populations throughout the range are known to be irruptive. The population in the Sierra Nevada is the southernmost in the world and is disjunct from the remainder of the range. Although no yet officially recognized, a new subspecies has been proposed in the Sierra Nevada based on data that demonstrates genetic distance from other geographic populations; the proposed subspecies is known as Strix nebulosa yosemitensis (Hull et al. 2014). Great gray owls outside the Sierra Nevada and in California are most likely Strix nebulosa nebulosa. Wu and others (2016) recently estimated a population of about 160 breeding adults in California. While trends are unknown, declines in the Sierra Nevada are suspected based on threats including habitat loss or degradation, and the potential for inbreeding given such a small population size (Hull et al. 2010). Great gray owls nest in conifer dominated habitats including montane hardwood conifer at lower elevations to Sierran mixed-conifer, white fir, red fir, and lodgepole pine at higher elevations. Breeding sites are frequently closely associated with meadows (Winter 1986, Greene 1995, Sears 2006), but some have been located up to 750 m (2,460 ft) from the nearest meadow. They prefer dense canopy cover (> 80 percent) (Greene 1995) and high densities of large snags (Sears 2006, Wu et al. 2015). Great gray owls generally winter at lower elevations and use a variety of habitats including grassland, meadow, riparian areas, hardwood conifer and conifer forested habitats. They forage almost exclusively on gophers and voles, but take other prey in lesser quantities such as deer mice, moles, shrews, beetles, squirrels, chipmunks, and alligator lizards (Winter 1986). On the Inyo National Forest, these ecological conditions can be found in the mixed conifer and upper montane forest ecological zone which consists of red fir forest, Jeffrey pine forest, and lodgepole pine, intermixed with meadows that form a patchy mosaic across the landscape. The
23 Draft Biological Evaluation, Wildlife and Fish Forest Plan Revision Inyo National Forest
Inyo National Forest has over 25,000 acres of meadows, 383,336 acres of Subalpine conifer forest (19-20 percent of the Forest), 118,039 acres of Red fir (6 percent), 45,671 of Mixed conifer (2 percent) as potentially available habitat for the owl. On the Inyo National Forest, the majority of the red fir type is located on the Kern Plateau and Reds Meadow Valley areas (USDA 2013). It is worth noting that a large proportion (80 percent) of the Red fir forest type across the southern Sierras is within designated wilderness. Forest ecosystems, including Jeffrey pine and mixed conifer forests, and meadows of the Inyo National Forest are experiencing increasing tree densities and canopy cover that likely exceed the natural range of variability (NRV). According to recent insect mortality surveys for the Inyo National Forest, over 331,000 acres of the Forest have experienced some level of tree mortality caused by native forest pests over the past 14 years (Forest Health Monitoring 2002-2016). Insect mortality is typically coincident with drought stressed trees, and high levels of conifer mortality have been recorded in association with extreme or protracted droughts in the Sierra Nevada range. Likewise, montane meadows and aspen stands have experienced increased conifer density and cover over the past several decades. Changes to meadow composition structure and function post settlement include: longer fire return intervals, increased grazing, and diminished frequency of small annual flooding events due to water diversions. There are no records in the NRIS database for Great grey owl on the Inyo National Forest, however there have been incidental sightings. In 2015, and injured bird was retrieved by hikers just north of Lake Mary in Mono County (e-bird data, accessed May 17 2017). It is important to note, that these areas represent the southeastern most edge of the species year-round range (Zeiner et al. 1990) and only a small portion of the Inyo National Forest is likely to provide suitable habitat for the owl which may be a factor in their limited distribution. Adult owls were last documented in Inyo and Mono counties by Winter (1986) approximately 30 years ago. A review of Sierra-Nevada Avian monitoring Information Network data, a collaborative project between the Forest Service and Point Blue Bird Observatory yielded no recent observation information for Great gray owls. Anticipated trends for red fir forest, Jeffrey and lodge pole pine and mixed conifer are similar; trending towards higher fuel loading, and changes in forest structure and composition associated with fire suppression coupled with a changing climate (USDA 2013a). In addition, projected increases (2006-2050) in mountain pine beetle activity for high-elevation white pine forest will have substantial cascading impacts on subalpine forest ecosystems, leading to outbreaks that can cause significant changes in forest structure, function, and composition.
Sierra Marten (Martes caurina sierrae) The Sierra marten (Martes caurina) was previously classified as American marten (Martes americana) but recent genetic and morphological evidence have led to a re-classification as Pacific marten (Martes caurina) and of the subspecies sierrae called the Sierra marten (Dawson and Cook 2012). In California, marten occur in the southern Cascades and northern Sierra Nevada south to Tulare County. Historically, martens were understood to be well distributed throughout the Cascades and northern Sierra Nevada but recent surveys suggest that the populations are now fragmented, distribution is reduced, and suitable habitat has also been reduced and isolated in parts of the
24 Draft Biological Evaluation, Wildlife and Fish Forest Plan Revision Inyo National Forest
range (Zielinski et al. 2005, Kirk and Zielinski 2009, Spencer and Rustigian-Romsos 2012). In a study of marten in northeastern California, north of the Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit, Kirk and Zielinksi (2009) reported that marten populations are associated with areas that contain the largest amount of reproductive habitat consisting of mature, old forest. The highest density of detections was located in the largest protected area in the study region. Moriarty et al. (2011) reported approximately 60 percent fewer detections of marten at Sagehen Experimental Forest on the Tahoe National Forest than reported in the 1980s. These results, although on a smaller spatial scale, are similar to those reported by Kirk and Zielinksi (2009). Although the cause of the decreased detections is unclear, Moriarty et al. (2011) hypothesized that this was associated with loss and fragmentation of habitat; during the period of decline 39 percent of forested areas at Sagehen Experimental Forest experienced some form of timber harvest (11 percent clear-cut or shelterwood and 28 percent salvage). Habitat and occupancy models developed by Spencer and Rustigian-Romsos indicate that habitat connectivity for marten is fragmented north of the Plumas National Forest where martens appear to be restricted to isolated or semi-isolated high elevation areas (consistent with Kirk and Zielinksi (2009) whereas south of the Plumas, habitat connectivity does not appear to be greatly limiting for martens although the authors suggest that Interstate 80 may be a significant barrier to movement. An emerging issue across marten populations in California is a highly skewed sex ratio, near 2 males to one female (Slauson pers. comm. 2013). Reproductive habitat appears to be much more limited throughout the range. Therefore, there is a greater need for maintaining existing reproductive habitat and restoring it where it has been lost (Slauson pers. comm. 2013). In the Sierra Nevada, this species is known to inhabit high elevation (4,500 to 10,500 feet) late- successional, mature red fir and lodgepole pine forests with large, decadent live trees and snags, and complex physical structure near the ground comprised of an abundance of large dead and downed wood (Buskirk and Powell 1994 in Buskirk and Ruggiero 1994, Zielinski 2013). In the Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit, marten are also associated with mixed conifer stands. Martens can inhabit younger forests if important elements of the mature forest are still present, especially structures for resting and denning (Purcell et al. 2012). Riparian areas, especially near mature forest, are important for foraging. The abundant large trees and dead-wood structures associated with marten presence provide prey resources, resting structures, and escape cover. Rest structures typically include snags, logs, and stumps; trees and snags used for resting are often the largest available (greater than 35 inches in diameter) (Purcell et al. 2012). Rest structures vary with season such that above-ground cavities are used in summer and subnivean logs, snags, and stumps are used during the winter. Den structures typically include arboreal cavities in live trees, snags (Gilbert et al. 1997, Bull and Heater 2000) and logs, rock crevices and red squirrel middens. Resting and denning structures may be the most limiting resource for marten on the landscape since this species uses multiple structures within their ranges (Purcell et al. 2012).
Martens have been observed on the Inyo National Forest near Mammoth Lakes on the Mammoth and Mono lake Ranger Districts, however, almost exclusively west of Highway 395 (USDA FS 2017b).
Inyo Mountain Slender Salamander (Batrachoseps campi) The Inyo Mountain slender salamander is a California endemic species. Its limited range is restricted to 16 localities within the Inyo Mountains between Waucoba Mountain and New York Butte (Jennings and Hayes 1994). These sites are within canyons on both the eastern and western
25 Draft Biological Evaluation, Wildlife and Fish Forest Plan Revision Inyo National Forest
slopes east of Lone Pine in Inyo County (Morey 2000). These sites comprise a total occupied habitat of less than twenty hectares; however there are likely a few additional populations yet to be found (Hansen and Wake 2005). The elevational range of this species is from 550 meters at Hunter Canyon to 2,620 meters at Upper Lead Canyon (Jennings and Hayes 1994). All known populations occur on federal lands on either U.S. Bureau of Land Management lands or National Forest System lands (Hammerson 2004). Within Forest Service Region 5 all populations are on the Inyo National Forest. The abundance of this species is unknown. However, as each known population has both a small range and is isolated from other populations the overall population size is likely small (Hammerson 2004). As a result of habitat degradation by both human and natural causes several populations have decreased significantly in number since the species was first described in the 1970’s (Hansen and Wake 2005). Further study is needed to determine abundance and population status on National Forest System lands. Perennial springs and seeps and associated riparian plant communities seem to be a requirement for this species. Inyo Mountain slender salamanders seem to prefer areas where solid-rock cliffs, outcrops or talus are in contact with surface flow. Inyo Mountains slender salamanders have been found under rocks resting on wet substrate, woody debris, within clumps of moist ferns in waterfall spray zones, and in fissures or crevices within adjacent granitic or limestone outcrops.
Black Toad (Anaxyrus exsul) The black toad is found over a range of only fifteen hectares and has one of the smallest ranges of any amphibian worldwide (Fellers 2005). Black toads are endemic to the vicinity of Deep Springs Valley, Inyo County, California. The majority of the species occurs on land owned by Deep Springs College (Murphy et al. 2003). The Bureau of Land Management also owns property that supports a population of black toads (Hammerson 2004). These toads are only known from the vicinity of Corral Springs, Buckhorn Springs, Bog Mound Springs and Antelope Springs. Antelope Springs is approximately 5 kilometers north of the other springs and is situated on a hillside near the Inyo National Forest (Wang 2009). It is possible but unlikely that the species is found in similar habitat in areas adjacent to the known populations. This toad is extremely aquatic, and is rarely found out of water. They are restricted to wet areas in the vicinity of permanent springs (Myers 1942). Each of the four sub-populations are isolated by at least 1.5 kilometers of arid desert scrub (Wang 2009). The immediate riparian habitat varies; the valley springs are typically unshaded, but the Antelope Springs site is heavily shaded by Salix spp. and Chrysothamnus spp. This shading alters daily air temperatures where shaded areas are typically 8 degrees Celsius cooler than the open sites (Schuierer 1963). Water temperatures at the spring origin are typically 20 degrees Celsius with a pH level of 7. At several springs hydrogen sulphide is present in the water but this does not appear to impact the toads (Schuierer 1961).
California Golden Trout (Oncoryhnchus mykiss aguabonita) California golden trout are endemic to the South Fork of the Kern River and Golden Trout Creek, both located on an area referred to as the Kern Plateau in the Golden Trout Wilderness on the Inyo National Forest. They currently occupy all historic habitat within Golden Trout Creek, but only occupy about 25 percent of their historic habitat within the South Fork of the Kern River, plus a population in Mulkey Creek that was transplanted above a natural barrier. California golden trout populations suffered declines during the 19th and first half of the 20th century from
26 Draft Biological Evaluation, Wildlife and Fish Forest Plan Revision Inyo National Forest
overfishing and heavy grazing. Knapp (1990) estimated that golden trout streams typically support 8 to 58 fish per 100 m of stream, although a more recent estimates for Mulkey Creek, a tributary to the South Fork Kern River, found densities of 472 fish per 100 meters (Carmona- Catot and Weaver 2006), 350 fish per 100 meters in grazed sections, and 330 fish per 100 meters in an un-grazed area (Weaver and Mehalick, 2008). Fish were estimated in three different stream reaches in Big Whitney Meadow, rested from grazing for 8 years at the time, with estimates of 646, 351 and 216 fish per 100 meters in different stream sections (Weaver and Mehalick 2008). Key ecological conditions necessary for persistence of this species: California golden trout rely on water that is clear and mostly cold, although summer temperatures can fluctuate from 3 to 20 degrees Celsius (Knapp and Dudley 1990), and they can survive maximum temperatures up to 24 degrees Celsius. California golden trout generally prefer pool habitat and congregate near emergent sedges and undercut banks (Matthews 1996). They feed on both terrestrial and aquatic invertebrates, mostly adult and larval insects, taking whatever is most abundant.
Apache Silverspot Butterfly (Speyeria nokomis apacheana) Apache silverspot butterfly Speyeria nokomis apacheana is found and restricted to a few localized sites on the east slope of the Sierra Nevada Mountains in Alpine, Inyo, and Mono Counties. There are records from the Inyo, Stanislaus and Toiyabe National Forests. The Apache silverspot butterfly occurs on the east slope of the Sierra Nevada Mountains and inhabits marshes and wet meadows near springs, seeps and riparian areas (Fleishman et al 2002, Britten et al. 2003). Since these habitats are highly localized, minimal migration occurs between populations. Typical habitats where Apache silverspot adults may be observed from late July to early September (Emmel and Emmel 1973, Davenport et al. 2006) are mountain meadows, forest openings and exposed rocky ridges. All fritillary butterflies produce a single brood each year over the summer months (Shapiro 2011). Males patrol during the day for females, which lay eggs on leaf litter near their violet larval food plants. First-stage or instar caterpillars hibernate without previous feeding until the following spring, when they feed on violet leaves. The larval food plant is the violet, Viola nephrophylla.
Mono Lake checkerspot - Euphydryas editha monoensis Mono Lake Checkerspot occur in scattered colonies on the east side of the Sierras in Great Basin Scrub habitat, from east below Sonora Pass to Big Pine Creek Canyon (SCC rationale report). The range extent is from eastern slope of Sierra Nevada, from Bishop, CA to Schneider Meadow, near Carson City, NV; from pinon-juniper woodland, meadows, mountain slopes. Generally, this species is known to occur in wet meadows and pine forests on the east slope of the Sierra Nevada Mountains in Alpine and Mono Counties. Host plant may be Collinsia parvifloria based on association of adults (NatureServe 2017).
San Emigdio blue - Plebulina emigdionis Known populations are from only about a dozen locations which are isolated from one another. The San Emigdio blue butterfly has been found on the Angeles, Inyo, Los Padres, San Bernardino, and Sequoia National Forests.
27 Draft Biological Evaluation, Wildlife and Fish Forest Plan Revision Inyo National Forest
Populations are generally localized along perennial and intermittent streams. Typical occupied habitats are along dry river beds, intermittent streams and adjacent flats. This butterfly is rare and localized (i.e., only known locations occur in the southern portion of the Inyo National Forest in the desert scrub habitats that include desert saltbush species (Atriplex) and associated scale insects and ants) due in part to its symbiotic relationship with the ant species Formica pilicornis (USDA Forest Service 2017b).
Western Pearlshell (Margaritifera falcata) The western pearlshell is a freshwater mussel belonging to the family Margaritiferidae and is the only species in this genus present in the western United States. NatureServe (http://www.natureserve.org/explorer/, updated 2/19/08) reports the status of western pearlshell is G4G5 and short-term trends are “rapidly declining to declining (decline of 10-50 percent).” Many populations appear to have been severely reduced in size from dense beds to a few isolated individuals in flow refugia at many historical sites (Vannote and Minshall 1982, Strayer et al. 2006, Howard 2008, 2010). Hovingh (2004) concluded that western pearlshell had been extirpated from eastern California, Nevada and Utah based on from field collections and museum records from over 2,900 sites in the Great Basin. According to Taylor (1981), in California, this species historically occurred in the Lower Klamath, Pit, Upper Kern and Sacramento rivers, Clear and Goose lakes, Pajaro-Salinas system (only in streams of the southern Santa Cruz Mts.), Lahontan Basin, Central Valley and north coast streams. In addition to the strategic surveys of historical sites described above, a broad-scale survey of suitable habitat in river main stems, lakes and reservoirs at 244 sites in northern Sierra Nevada national forests were surveyed was undertaken from 2003 to 2007. Howard (2008) surveyed 131 historical and recent sites on the Eldorado, Plumas and Tahoe National Forests and Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit, and 113 sites were surveyed on the Lassen National Forest (Howard 2010). Howard (2008) reported that western pearlshells were found at 21 sites located on the Eldorado (2 sites), Lassen (7 sites), Plumas (6 sites) and Tahoe (6 sites) National Forests. Davis (2008) reported western pearlshell occurring in 13 of 55 river reaches surveyed in the Klamath and Salmon Rivers in northern California. While dense populations still occur in the Upper Truckee River (Entrix 2007), the dense Margaritifera beds in the Lower Truckee River described by Murphy (1942) appear to have been decimated with a decline from an estimated population size of at least 20,000 to no more than 150 individuals (Howard 2008). On the Inyo National Forest, ecological conditions can be found in the South Fork Kern River and similar river systems, especially where the host fish species may occur. Although, the South Fork Kern River provides habitat for the Western pearlshell, there is little information on actual population trends or density.
Owens Valley Springsnail (Pyrgulopsis owensensis) Owens Valley Springsnail is found only on the Inyo National Forest. The species is found along escarpments of the White and Inyo Mountains on the east side of the Owens Valley. This species occurs in small springs and spring runs, typically on watercress (Rorippa), travertine deposits or stones in the foothills of the eastern Sierra Nevada Mountains. This species co-occurs with Wong’s springsnail (P. wongi) at Batchelder Springs.
28 Draft Biological Evaluation, Wildlife and Fish Forest Plan Revision Inyo National Forest
Wong’s Springsnail (Pyrgulopsis wongi) This species is only known from the Inyo National Forest. Wong’s springsnail has a widespread distribution in the Owens Valley along the eastern escarpment of the Sierra Nevada Mountains. They range from Pine Creek south to Little Lake, and along the eastern side of the valley from French Spring to Marble Creek in the Inyo Mountains. It is also found in a few sites in Long, Adobe, and Deep Springs Valleys. It is considered locally abundant by highly restricted distribution. The distribution was originally thought to be limited in the Great Basin of California and Nevada (Hershler 1998). In fact, it occurs in Owens Valley (where most of the populations occur and nine other drainage basins from Rose Valley in central California to Mono Lake and the Carson River Valley in Nevada. Habitat for this species includes seeps and spring-fed streams of small to moderate size. Temperature requirements range from 49.1 to 71.6 degrees Fahrenheit. The snails are typically found commonly in watercress (Rorippa) and /or on small bits of travertine and stone (Hershler 1989). It is only known to occur in flowing water. Spring habitat that has previously been altered by spring-improvements, grazing or other impacts would alter the water quality of the spring and would preclude occurrence of this species. Each population of snail is endemic to the spring it inhabits, and since these snails are obligatory aquatic throughout their entire life, they cannot disperse to other springs, nor can springs where snails have been extirpated be re-colonized. This species co-occurs with Owens Valley springsnail (P. owensensis) at Batchelder Springs.
5.6 Summary of Effects Revised forest plan direction was developed to manage for maintaining the persistence of species identified as Species of Conservation Concern. As displayed in the FEIS analysis (USDA FS 2017a), the revised plan was determined to provide for the persistence of these species (see Chapter 3, Wildlife, Fish and Plants section). As discussed above, the revised plan includes many broad plan components addressing sensitive species habitats aimed at conserving terrestrial ecosystems, resilience of these systems, and ultimately the sensitive species which they support. As mentioned, additional, species-specific plan components were also developed to address threats to species of conservation concern. These are described below. Sage-grouse is a sensitive species that is listed as a SCC. In order for the forest to be consistent with the 2012 Bi-State Sage-Grouse Action Plan, the plan incorporates interim forest direction and direction from the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest Sage-Grouse Forest Plan Amendment (where applicable). Plan direction outlines desired conditions, at the landscape, and site-scale (SPEC-SG-DC 01-09), while also addressing the need to not have overstory trees (such as pinyon or juniper) or invasive annual grasses, such as cheatgrass within sage-grouse habitat (SPEC-SG-DC 05 and 06). The plan includes an objective to improve or restore up to 14,900 acres of sage-grouse habitat within 10 years of the plans approval (SPEC-SG-OBJ 01), this objective helps demonstrate how the forest will move toward meeting desired conditions for sage-grouse. Standards and guidelines were developed to address specific threats within sage- grouse habitat, such as fencelines or other tall structures (SPEC-SG-STD 10 and 11), establishing limiting operating periods (SPEC-SG-STD 06 and 07); and determining what restoration projects would include (SPEC-SG-DC 01-03).
29 Draft Biological Evaluation, Wildlife and Fish Forest Plan Revision Inyo National Forest
Great gray owl plan direction includes a potential management approach which addresses conducting surveys to determine the species occupancy of suitable habitat on the forest. Since little information is known on the species occurrence on the forest, this direction allows for survey efforts to determine occupancy. Plan direction for Sierra marten addresses risks of high-severity wildfire (SPEC-SM-DC 01-03) and maintaining martin habitat during vegetation management activities (SPEC-SM-GDL 01- 02). California spotted owl direction applies to those areas of the forest that offer suitable habitat, which as noted above, is limited on the forest. Desired conditions provide for maintaining these suitable habitats, including cover and providing for nesting habitat (SPEC-CSO-DC 01-05). Project and activity standard and guidelines were developed for vegetation treatments that may occur in these areas, however given the location of suitable habitat within wilderness areas, the use of these plan compoments may be very limited (SPEC-CSO-STD 01-05 and SPEC-CSO- GDL 01-11). The plan also includes a goal for continuing collaborating and cooperating with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife in managing for California golden trout (SPEC-GT-GOAL 01). These species-specific plan components along with the forestwide terrestrial vegetation components, address the habitat needs and threats impacting these sensitive species.
6. Cumulative Effects
Past, present, and future activities have and will continue to affect sensitive species occurrences and their habitats to various degrees. Past management activities such as timber harvest and vegetation management, wildfires, road construction, recreation use, utility development, and grazing have affected vegetation communities and habitat within the plan area. Negative effects to sensitive species from recent and current Forest Service activities have typically been minimized by the inclusion of design criteria or avoidance. Future Forest Service management activities and projects will also include design criteria and project mitigations to protect and/or enhance those sensitive species that are carried forward as SCC, as well as ecosystems and habitats which support wildlife and fish species in general.
Sensitive species are affected by management activities that occur both within the plan area and on adjacent land under private, State, or other Federal ownership. The consequences of these actions are cumulative across boundaries. These cumulative actions could produce positive results, such as increased habitat extent or connectivity, or improved habitat condition as restoration measures are taken. Similarly, there may be negative effects, such as habitat loss or degradation, development, or the spread of non-native invasive plant species.
Many restoration activities and project design features aimed at protecting sensitive species are shared by adjacent landowners, in particular the National Park Service and Bureau of Land Management. For example, the Bishop Field Office of the Bureau of Land Management has direction in their Resource and Management Plan that provides direction for sage-grouse, including limiting disturbances and impacts to habitat. Coordinated and combined efforts in
30 Draft Biological Evaluation, Wildlife and Fish Forest Plan Revision Inyo National Forest
managing sagebrush will likely improve ecological conditions that provide for viability of sensitive species.
The revised forest plan is expected to have cumulative benefits to populations and habitats for sensitive species through ecosystem level direction and improved collaboration in the conservation of wildlife and fish habitats.
7. Determinations Sensitive Species Not Known to Occur in Plan Area For sensitive species without known occurrences in the plan area (yellow-billed cuckoo), it is my determination that the revised Forest Plan WILL NOT IMPACT individuals or cause a loss of viability. Sensitive Species Not Included as a Species of Conservation Concern For sensitive species known to occur within the plan area, and are not listed as a species of conservation concern, it is my determination that the revised forest plan MAY IMPACT INDIVIDUALS, BUT IS NOT LIKELY TO CAUSE A TREND TOWARD FEDERAL LISTING OR A LOSS OF VIABILITY. Plan direction for vegetation and ecosystems provides for the continuation of suitable habitat for sensitive species that are not listed as SCC. Plan direction also emphasizes restoration actions across ecosystems which will provide benefits to sensitive species, even if they are not listed as SCC. Restoration of habitat related to the use of fire and other means in habitats and landscapes will have some benefits to species not carried forward as SCC. The adaptive management process will provide for continued review of the species on these lists, potential additions to the lists, or reviseions in the forest plan, if sufficient information about threats to species persistence becomes evident within the plan area. Sensitive Species Included as a Species of Conservation Concern For sensitive species known to occur within the plan area, and are listed as a species of conservation concern, it is my determination that the revised forest plan MAY IMPACT INDIVIDUALS, BUT IS NOT LIKELY TO CAUSE A TREND TOWARD FEDERAL LISTING OR A LOSS OF VIABILITY. Plan direction that emphasizes restoration actions across ecosystems will provide benefits to sensitive species that are carried forward as SCC. Actions aimed at reducing the threat of non-native invasive species, ensuring that wildlife species are considered during project-level planning, and limiting disturbance during forest management will help to ensure there is no loss of viability or trend toward federal listing for sensitive species.
8. Literature Cited Anthony, R.G. Knight, R.L. Allen, G.T. McClelland, B.R. and J.I. Hodges. 1982. Habitat use by nesting and roosting bald eagles in the Pacific Northwest. Trans. N. American. Wildlife and Nat. Res. Conf. 47:332-342.
31 Draft Biological Evaluation, Wildlife and Fish Forest Plan Revision Inyo National Forest
Baker, J.K. 1962. Notes on the Myotis of the Carlsbad Caverns. Journal of Mammalogy, 43:427-428.
Baker, M.D., M.J. Lacki, and G.A. Falxa. 2008. Habitat use of pallid bats in coniferous forests of northern California. Northwest Science, 82: 269-275.
Barbour, R.W. and W.H. Davis. 1969. Bats of America. University of Kentucky Press, Lexington, KY, 286 pp.
Beauvais, G.P., Sequin, E., Rachlow, J., Dixon, R., Bosworth, B., Kozlowski, A., Carey, C., Bartels, P., Obradovitch, M., Forbes, T. & Hays, D. 2008. Brachylagus idahoensis. In: IUCN 2012. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2012.2.
Bi-State Technical Advisory Committee. 2012. Bi-State Sage-Grouse Preliminary Habitat Map Briefing Document.
Black, H.L. 1974. A north temperate bat community: structure and prey populations. Journal of Mammalogy, 55:138-157.
Britten, H.B., E. Fleishman, G.T. Austin, and D.M. Murphy. 2003. Genetically effective and adult population sizes in the Apache silverspot butterfly, Speyeria nokomis apacheana (Lepidoptera: Nymphalidae). Western North American Naturalist 63(2): 229-235.
Buchalski MR, J.B. Fontaine, P.A. Heady III, J.P. Hayes, W.F. Frick. 2013. Bat response to differing fire severity in mixed-conifer forest California, USA. PLoS ONE 8(3): e57884. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0057884
Bull and Heater 2000.
Buskirk, S.W. and R.A. Powell. 1994. Habitat ecology of fishers and Pacific martens. Pages 283–296 in S.W. Buskirk, A.S. Harestad, M.G. Raphael, and R.A. Powell, editors. Martens, sables and fishers: biology and conservation. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, New York, USA.
Cahalane, V.H. 1939. Mammals of the Chiricahua Mountains, Cochise County, Arizona. Journal of Mammalogy, 20:418-440.
California Department of Fish and Game. 1991. Annual report on the status of California state listed threatened and endangered animals and plants.
California Department of Fish and Game. 2005. The Status of Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Plants and Animals of California 2000-2004.
California Department of Fish and Game. 2007. Sierra Nevada red fox. Available online at https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation/Mammals/Sierra-Nevada-Red-Fox. Accessed 9 January 2012.
California Department of Fish and Game. 2010. A Status Review of Fisher (Martes pennanti) in California. [Final Determination]. Sacramento, CA: California Department of Fish and Game, June 23, 2010. pp. 1-183.
CNDDB. California Department of Fish and Game, Biogeographic Data Branch. 2011. California Natural
Cockrum, E.L., and B.F. Musgrove. 1964. Additional records of the Mexican big-eared bat, Plecotus phyllotis (Allen), from Arizona. Journal of Mammalogy, 45:472-474.
32 Draft Biological Evaluation, Wildlife and Fish Forest Plan Revision Inyo National Forest
Cockrum, E.L., and E. Ordway. 1959. Bats of the Chiricahua Mountains, Cochise County, Arizona. Amer. Mus. Novitates, 1938:1-35
Dalquest, W.W. 1947. Notes on the natural history of the bat Corynorhinus rafinesquii in California. Journal of Mammalogy, 28(1):17-30.
Davenport, K.E., R.E. Stanford and R.L. Langston. 2006. Flight periods of California butterflies for “resident species”, subspecies and most strays to the State. The International Lepidoptera Survey Newsletter 7: 51.
Davis, E. 2008. Freshwater Mussel Abundance, Distribution, and Habitat Preference in two Northern California Rivers within Karuk Ancestral Territory. Undergraduate Thesis, Departments of Biology and Environmental Studies, Whitman College, Walla Walla, WA.
Dawson, N. G. and J. A. Cook. 2012. Behind the genes: Diversification of North American Martens (Martes americana and M. cuarina) pp 23-38 in Biology and Conservation of Martens, Sables, and Fishers: A New Synthesis (Ed. Aubry, K. B., Zielinksi, W. J., Raphael, M. G., Proulx, G., Buskirk, S. W.), Comstock Publishing Associates, Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY.
Duszynski, Donald W. et. al. 2005. A pathogenic new species of Eimeria from the Pygmy Rabbit Brachylagus idahoensis, in Washington and Oregon, with description of the sporulated oocyst and intestinal endogenous stages. University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM.
Easterla, D.A. 1966. Yuma myotis and fringed myotis in southern Utah. Journal of Mammalogy, 47:350- 351.
Emmel, T.C., & J.F. Emmel. 1973. The Butterflies of Southern California. Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County, Science Series #26. p. 31.
Entrix. 2007. Draft Freshwater Mussel Report for Sunset Stables Restoration and Resource Management Plan Project. A report Prepared for the California Department of General Services Real Estate Services Division and California Tahoe Conservancy, Sacramento, CA. 24 pp.
Evans, David L. 1982. Status Report on Twelve Raptors. United States Department of Interior Fish and Wildlife Service. Special Scientific Report - Wildlife Number 238. Washington, D.C.
Fellers, G.M. 2005. Bufo exsul Meyers 1942(a) Amphibiaweb account. In: Amphibiaweb http://www.amphibiaweb.org. Downloaded on 26 June 2012.
Fleishman, E., D.D. Murphy and P. Sjögren-Gulve. 2002. Modeling species richness and habitat suitability to taxa of conservation interest. Chaper 45 in Scott, J.M, P.J. Heglund and M.L. Morrison, eds. Predicting Species Occurrences: Issues of Accuracy and Scale. Island Press, Washington, D.C. 873 pp.
Gilbert et al. 1997,
Graber, David. Chief Scientist Pacific West Region National Park Service. Email conversation with Ginger Bolen (North State Resources). Sierra Nevada red fox. October 11, 2007.
Green, Jeffrey S., and Jerran T. Flinders. 1980. Mammalian Species, No. 125, Brachylagus idahoensis. (Apr. 15, 1980), pp. 1-4.
33 Draft Biological Evaluation, Wildlife and Fish Forest Plan Revision Inyo National Forest
Green, C. 1995. Habitat requirements of great gray owls in the central Sierra Nevada. M.S. Thesis. University of Michigan, MI. 94pp.
Greene, G.A. Bombay, H.L. and M.L. Morrison. 2003. Conservation assessment of the willow flycatcher in the Sierra Nevada. Foster Wheeler Environmental Corporation and the University of California. 67 pp.
Grinnell, J., Dixon, J. S. and Linsdale, J. M. 1937. Fisher. Fur-bearing mammals of California, their natural history, systematic status, and relations to man. Berkeley: University of California Press 1: 211-230.
Grossinger, R. 2007. Historical Ecology Final Report Coyote Creek Watershed Historical Ecology Study. San Francisco Bay Estuary Institute. Oakland, Ca.
Gutierrez R.J. and G.F. Barrowclough. 2005. Redefining the distributional boundaries of the northern and California spotted owls: implications for conservation. Condor Vol. 107:182-187.
Hansen, R.W. and Wake, D.B. 2005. Batrachoseps campi Amphibiaweb account. In: Amphibiaweb http://www.amphibiaweb.org. Downloaded on 31 May 2012.
Hammerson, G. 2004. Anaxyrus exsul. In: IUCN 2012. IUCN Red List of the Threatened Species. Version 2012.1. http://www.iucnredlist.org. Downloaded on 26 June 2012.
Hammerson, G. 2004. Batrachoseps campi. In: IUCN 2011. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2011.2. http://www.iucnredlist.org. Downloaded on 31 May 2012.
Hammerson, G. A. 2007. Charina bottae. In: IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2011.2 http://www.iucnredlist.org. Downloaded on 21 May 2012.
Hargis, C.D. C. McCarthy, and R.D. Perloff. 1994. Home ranges and habitats of northern goshawk in eastern California. Studies in Avian Biology, 16:66-74.
Hermanson, J.W., and T.J. O’Shea. 1983. Antrozous pallidus. American Society of Mammalogists, Mammalian Species, 213:1-8.
Hershler, Robert. 1989. Springsnails (Gastropoda: Hydrobiidae) of Owens and Amargosa River (Exclusive of Ash Meadows) Drainages, Death Valley System, California-Nevada. Proc. Biol. Soc. Wash. 102(1), 1989, pp 176-248.
Hoffmeister, D.F., and W.W. Goodpaster. 1954. The mammals of the Huachuca Mountains, southeastern Arizona. Illinois Biol. Monogr., 24:1-152.
Hovingh, P. 2004. Intermountain freshwater mollusks, USA (Margaritifera, Anodonta, Gonidea, Valvata, Ferrissia): geography, conservation, and fish management implications. Monographs of the Western North American Naturalist 2:109-135.
Howard, J. 2008. Strategic inventory of freshwater mussels in the northern Sierra Nevada Province. Final Report by Western Mollusk Sciences, San Francisco, CA to PSW Regional Office, Vallejo, CA. 65 pp.
Howard, J. 2010. Sensitive freshwater mussel surveys in the Pacific Southwest Region: Assessment of Conservation Status. Final Report by Western Mollusk Sciences, San Francisco, CA to U.S. Forest Service, PSW Regional Office, Vallejo, CA. 60 pp
34 Draft Biological Evaluation, Wildlife and Fish Forest Plan Revision Inyo National Forest
Hull, J. M., J. J. Keane, L. Tell, and H. B. Ernest. 2010. West Nile Virus antibody surveillance in three Sierra Nevada raptors of conservation concern. The Condor 112:168-172.
Jennings, M. R. and Hayes, M. P. 1994. Inyo Mountains Salamander Batrachoseps campi Brode and Wake 1979. In: Amphibian and Reptile Species of Special Concern in California. California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, California.
Jennings, M. R. and Hayes, M. P. 1994. Panamint Alligator Lizard Elgaria panamintina Stebbins 1958. In: Amphibian and Reptile Species of Special Concern in California. California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, California.
Johnston, D.S. and J.R. Gworek. 2006. Pallid bat (Antrozous pallidus) habitat use in a coniferous forest in northeastern California. Bat Research News, 47:114.
Johnston, D.J., G. Tatarian, and E.D. Pierson. 2004. California bat mitigation: techniques, solutions, and effectiveness. Contract Report #2394-01 for California Department of Transportation, Sacramento, CA, 125 pp.
Jones, 1957. Southern Extention of the Range of the Pygmy Rabbit in California. Journal of Mammalogy, Vol. 38, No. 2, May 1957.
Jones, C. 1965. Ecological distribution and activity periods of bats of the Mogollon Mountains area of New Mexico and adjacent Arizona. Tulane Studies Zool., 12:93-100.
Jones, C, and R.D. Suttkus. 1972. Notes on netting bats for eleven years in western New Mexico.
Judd, F.W. 1967. Notes on some mammals from Big Bend National Park. The Southwestern Naturalist, 12(2):192-194.
Kirk, T. A. and W. J. Zielinski. 2009. Developing and testing a landscape habitat suitability model for the American marten (Martes americana) in the Cascades Mountains of California. Landscape Ecology 24 (6): 759-773.
Knapp, R.A. and T.L. Dudley. 1990. Growth and longevity of golden trout, Oncorhynchus aquabonita, in their native streams. California Fish, Game 76:161-173.
Krohn, W. B., Zielinski, W. J. and Boone, R. B. 1997. Relations among fishers, snow, and martens in California: Results from small-scale spatial comparisons. [ed.] G. Proulx, H. N. Bryant and P. M. Woodard. Martes: taxonomy, ecology, techniques, and management. s.l.: Provincial Museum of Alberta. pp. 211-232.
Lewis, J., K. Sallee, and R. Golightly. 1993. Introduced red fox in California. Sacramento: Report prepared for California Department of Fish and Game.
Lewis, S.E. 1996. Low roost-site fidelity in pallid bats: associated factors and effect on group stability. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 39(5):335-344.
Lower Colorado River Multi-Species Conservation Program (LCR MSCP). 2004. Lower Colorado River Multi-Species Conservation Program, Volume II; Habitat Conservation Plan. Final. December 17. (J&S 004500.00) Sacramento, CA.
35 Draft Biological Evaluation, Wildlife and Fish Forest Plan Revision Inyo National Forest
Mahrdt, C.R. and Beaman, K.R. 2009. Panamint alligator lizard, Elgaria panamintina Stebbins, 1958. Pp. 488-491. In: Jones, L.E. and Lovich, R.E. (eds.) Lizards of the American Southwest A Photographic Field Guide. Rio Nuevo Publishers, Tucson, Arizona.
Matthews, K.R. 1996. Habitat selection and movement patterns of California Golden trout in degraded and recovering stream sections in the Golden trout wilderness, California. North American Journal of Fisheries Management, 16:579-590.
Miller, G.S., Jr., 1897. Revision of the North American bats of the family Vespertilionidae, p. 80. North American Fauna 13:1-135.
Morey, S. 2000. Inyo Mountains Salamander Batrachoseps campi. In: California’s Wildlife. Vol. I. Amphibians and Reptiles. D. C. Zeiner, W. F. Laudenslayer Jr., K. E. Mayer, and M. White. California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, California.
Moriarty, K., W. Zielinski, A. Gonzales, T. Dawson, K. Boatner, C. Wilson, F. Schlexer, K. Pilgrim, J. Copeland, and M. Schwartz. 2009. Wolverine confirmation in California after nearly a century: native or long-distance migrant? Northwest Science. 83(2).
Moriarty et al. (2011)
Murphy, D.D. and C.M. Knopp. editors. 2000. Lake Tahoe watershed assessment: Volume I. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-175. Albany, CA: Pacific Southwest Research Station, Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture; 736 pp.
Murphy, J.F., Simandle, E.T. and Becker, D.E. 2003. Population status and conservation of the black toad, Bufo exsul. The Southwestern Naturalist, 48(1): 54-60.
Museum of Vertebrate Zoology. Collections database [web database]. University of California Berkeley 2007 [cited October 4, 2007].
Myers, G.S. 1942. The black toad of Deep Springs Valley, Inyo County, California. Occassional Papers of the Museum of Zoology, University of Michigan 460: 1-13.
NatureServe. 2011. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Version 7.1. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available http://explorer.natureserve.org/ht. (Accessed: December 22, 2011).
O’Farrell, M.J., and E.H. Studier. 1975. Population structure and emergence activity patterns in Myotis thysanodes and M. lucifugus (Chiroptera: Vespertilionidae) in northeastern New Mexico. Amer. Midland Nat., 93:368-376.
O’Farrell, M.J. and E.H. Studier. 1980. Myotis thysanodes. American Society of Mammalogists, Mammalian Species, 137:1-5.
Orr, R.T. 1954. Natural history of the pallid bat, Antrozous pallidus (LeConte). Proceedings of the California Academy of Sciences, 28:165-246.
Orr, R.T. 1956. The distribution of Myotis thysanodes in California. Journal of Mammalogy general notes, 37(4):545-546.
O'Shea, T. J., and T. A. Vaughan. 1977. Nocturnal and seasonal activities of the pallid bat, Antrozous pallidus. Journal of Mammalogy 58: 269-284.
36 Draft Biological Evaluation, Wildlife and Fish Forest Plan Revision Inyo National Forest
Papenfuss, T.J. 1985. Amphibian and reptile diversity along elevational transects in the White-Inyo Range. Pp. 129-136. In: Hall Jr., C.A., and Young, D.J. (eds.) Natural history of the White-Inyo Range, eastern California and western Nevada, and high altitude physiology. White Mountain Research Station Symposium, California.
Pearson, O. P., M. R. Koford, and A.K. Pearson. 1952. Reproduction of the lump-nosed bat
Perrine, J. 2005. Ecology of red fox (Vulpes vulpes) in the Lassen Peak region of California, USA. Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Berkeley, California, USA.
Perrine, J., J. Pollinger, B. Sacks, R. Barrett, and R. Wayne. 2007. Genetic evidence for the persistence of the critically endangered Sierra Nevada red fox in California. Conservation Genetics.
Pierson, E.D. and W.E. Rainey. 1996. The distribution, status and management of Townsend’s big-eared bat (Corynorhinus townsendii) in California. California Department of Fish and Game, Bird and Mammal Conservation Program Report 96-7:1–49
Pierson, E.D. and G.M. Fellers. 1998. Distribution and ecology of the big-eared bat, Corynorhinus townsendii in California. Biological Resources Division, U.S. Geological Survey, Species at Risk Report, 92 pp.
Pierson, E.D., W.E. Rainey, and C.J. Corben. 2001. Seasonal patterns of bat distribution along an altitudinal gradient in the Sierra Nevada. Report to California State University at Sacramento Foundation, Yosemite Association, and Yosemite Fund, 70 pp.
Pierson, E.D., P.W. Collins, W.E. Rainey, P.A. Heady, and C.J. Corben. 2002. Distribution, status and habitat associations of bat species on Vandenberg Air Force Base, Santa Barbara County,
Pierson, E. D., W. E. Rainey, and L.S. Chow. 2006. Bat use of the giant sequoia groves in Yosemite National Park. Report to Yosemite Fund, San Francisco, CA and Yosemite National Park, El Portal, CA, 154 pp.
Pierson, E.D., and A. Chung-MacCoubrey. 2009. A natural resource condition assessment for Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks, Appendix 16 – bats. Natural Resource Report NPS/SEKI/NRR – 2013/665.16.
Purcell, K. L., C. M. Thompson, and W. J. Zielinski. 2012. Fishers and American Martens in PSW-GTR- 237 Managing Sierra Nevada Forests, USDA For. Serv. PSW Res Sta.Raphael and Jones 1997,
Rainey, W.E. and E.D. Pierson. 1996. Cantara spill effects on bat populations of the upper Sacramento River, 1991- 1995. Unpublished Report, California Department of Fish and Game, Redding, California, USA.
Reynolds, R.T. R.T. Graham, M.H. Resier and others. 1992. Management recommendations for the northern goshawk in the Southwestern United States. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-217. Fort Collins, CO. USDA, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Exp. Station.
Roest, A.I. 1951. Mammals of the Oregon Caves area, Josephine County. Journal of Mammalogy, 32:345- 351.
Sears, C.L. 2006. Assessing distribution, habitat suitability, and site occupancy of great gray owls (Strix nebulosa) in California. M.S. Thesis, University of California, Davis. 88pp.
37 Draft Biological Evaluation, Wildlife and Fish Forest Plan Revision Inyo National Forest
Schuierer, F.W. 1961. Remarks upon the natural history of Bufo exsul Myers, the endemic toad of Deep Springs Valley, Inyo County, California. Herpetologica 17(4): 260-266.
Schuierer, F.W. 1963. Notes on two populations of Bufo exsul Myers and a commentary on speciation within the Bufo boreas group. Herpetologica 18(4): 262-267.
Shapiro, A. 2011. Art Shapiro’s Butterfly Site: Monitoring butterfly populations across Central California for more than 35 years. http://butterfly.ucdavis.edu/
Shuford, W. D., and Gardali, T., editors. 2008. California Bird Species of Special Concern: A ranked assessment of species, subspecies, and distinct populations of birds of immediate conservation concern in California. Studies of Western Birds 1. Western Field Ornithologists, Camarillo, California, and California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento.
Simmons, N.B. 2005. Chiroptera. Pp. 312-529, in Mammal Species of the World: a taxonomic and geographic reference. D.E. Wilson and D.M. Reeder, Editors. Volume I. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, 743 pp.
Slauson, K. M. 2013 (March 22). Email exchange with Stephanie Coppeto (wildlife biologist at Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit) regarding comments on the Limited Operating Period for marten.
Spencer, W. and H. Rustigian-Romsos. 2012 (August). Decision-Support Maps and Recommendation for Conserving Rare Carnivores in the interior mountains of California. Conservation Biology Institute, http://consbio.org/products/reports/decision-support-maps-and-recommendations- conserving-rare-carnivores-interior-mountains-california
Stebbins, R.C. 1958. A new alligator lizard from the Panamint Mountains, Inyo County, California. American Museum Noviates 1883: 1-27.
Stefani, R.A. Bombay, H.L. and T.M. Benson. 2001. Willow flycatcher. Pp. 143-195 in USDA Forest Service, Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 3, Chapter 3, Part 4.4. USDA, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region, Vallejo, CA.
Strayer, D. L., J.A. Downing. 2006. Challenges for freshwater invertebrate conservation. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 25:271–287.
Squires, J.R. and P. Kennedy. 2006. Northern goshawk ecology: an assessment of current knowledge and information needs for conservation and management. Studies in Avian Biology 31:8-62
Squires, J.R. and R.T. Reynolds. 1997. Northern goshawk (Accipiter gentilis), the birds of North America online (A. Poole, Ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology; Retrieved from the Birds of North America Online: http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/298
Szewczak, J.M., S.M. Szewczak, M.L. Morrison, and L.S. Hall. 1998. Bats of the White and Inyo mountains of California-Nevada. Great Basin Naturalist, 58(1):66-75.
Tatarian, G. 1999. Use of buildings and tolerance of disturbance by pallid bats Antrozous pallidus. Bat Research News 40:11-12.
Taylor, D.W. 1981. Freshwater mollusks of California: a distributional checklist. California Fish and Game 67:140-163.
38 Draft Biological Evaluation, Wildlife and Fish Forest Plan Revision Inyo National Forest
Tesky, Julie L. 1994. Brachylagus idahoensis. In: Fire Effects Information System, [Online]. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory.
Unitt, P. 1999. A multivariate approach to identification of the willow flycatcher and its subspecies. Unpublished report. Bureau of Reclamation, Phoenix, Arizona. In U.S. Department of Agriculture (2001) Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment, Final Environmental Impact Statement. Chapter 3, Part 4. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region, Vallejo, CA.
USDA 2001. Pacific Southwest Region. Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment, Final Environmental Impact Statement. Vallejo, CA.
USDA 2004. Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment Record of Decision and Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region. Vallejo, CA 492pp + 72 pp (ROD). January 7.
USDA Forest Service (USDA FS). 2012. Natural Resource Information System (NRIS) database. Accessed 2016.
USDA Forest Service. 2017a. Draft Final Environmental Impact Statement for Revision of Inyo National Forest Land Management Plan. R5-MB-304-A. Volumes I and II.
USDA Forest Service. 2017b. Rationale for Animal Species Considered for Species of Conservation Concern. 265pp.
USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 1999. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Proposed Rule to Remove Bald Eagle in the Lower 48 States from the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife. Federal Register: July 6, 1999 (Volume 64, Number 128).
USDI 2005. Federal Register. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 90-Day Finding on a Petition To List the Pygmy Rabbit as Threatened or Endangered. Vol. 70, No. 97/Friday, May 230, 2005.
U.S. Department of Interior Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2011. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 12-Month Finding on a Petition To List the North American Wolverine as Endangered or Threatened. Federal Register. Vol. 75, No. 239, 78030-78061.
Vannote, R.L., and G.W. Minshall. 1982. Fluvial processes and local lithology controlling abundance, structure, and composition of mussel beds. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 79:4103-4107.
Verner, J. McKelvey, K.S. Noon, B.R. Gutierrez, R.J. Gould, I.G. Jr. and T.W. Beck, Technical Coordinators. 1992. The California spotted owl: a technical assessment of its current status. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-133. Albany, CA: Pacific Southwest Research Station, Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture; 285pp.
Wang, I.J. 2009. Fine-scale population structure in a desert amphibian: landscape genetics of the black toad (Bufo exsul). Molecular Ecology 18: 3847-3856.
Weaver and Mehalick, 2008
Weller, T.J., and C.J. Zabel. 2001. Characteristics of fringed Myotis day roosts in northern California. Journal of Wildlife Management, 65:489-497.
39 Draft Biological Evaluation, Wildlife and Fish Forest Plan Revision Inyo National Forest
Wilde, Douglas Brian 1978. A population analysis of the pygmy rabbit (Sylvilagus idahoensis) on the INEL site. Idaho State University, PhD., 1978
Winter, J. 1986. Status, distribution and ecology of the Great Gray Owl (Strix nebulosa) in California. M.S. thesis, San Francisco State University, San Francisco, CA U.S.A.
Zeiner, D.C. W.F. Laudenslayer Jr. K.E. Mayer, and M. White, (eds.). 1990. California’s Wildlife. Volume 2. Birds. California Statewide Wildlife Habitat Relationships System, California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, CA.
Zeiner, David C., William F. Laudenslayer, Jr., Kenneth E. Mayer, and Marshall White, eds. 1990. California's Wildlife. Volume III. Mammals. California Statewide Wildlife Habitat Relationship System. Department of Fish and Game, The Resources Agency, Sacramento, California. 407 pages.
Zielinski, William J. 2004. The Status and Conservation of Mesocarnivores in the Sierra Nevada. USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-193
Zielinski, W.J. R.L. Truex, F.V. Schlexer, L.A. Campbell, and C. Carroll. 2005. Historical and contemporary distributions of carnivores in forests of the Sierra Nevada, California, USA. Journal of Biogeography 32:1385–1407.
40 Draft Biological Evaluation, Wildlife and Fish Forest Plan Revision Inyo National Forest
9. Contributors • Leeann Murphy, Resource Staff Officer, Inyo National Forest • Lisa Sims, Forest Range Program Manager, Inyo National Forest • Kary Schlick, Wildlife Biologist, Inyo National Forest • Donald Yasuda, Wildlife Biologist, Regional Office, Region 5 • Patricia A. Krueger, Threatened and Endangered Species Coordinator, Region 5
41