Joey Healthy Forest and Fuels Reduction Project Biological Evaluation For Terrestrial and Aquatic Animals Threatened, Endangered and Proposed Species Species of concern, candidates for listing under the ESA and Forest Service Sensitive Species Pacific Southwest Region Kern River Ranger District, Sequoia National Forest Tulare County, California February 21, 2014

Prepared by: /s/ Steven W. Anderson . Steven W. Anderson, Resource Officer Kern River Ranger District

Prepared by: a|Çt [xÅÑ{|ÄÄ . Nina Hemphill, Forest Fish Biologist Sequoia National Forest

Page left blank intentionally

Summary This biological evaluation (BE) documents analysis of effects of the Joey Healthy Forest and Fuels Reduction Project on aquatic and terrestrial animals (fish, birds, mammals, reptiles, insects and amphibians) species identified as sensitive by the Regional Forester, Pacific Southwest Region Forest Service and species listed for protection, including candidates and species proposed for listing, under the federal Endangered Species Act of 1973. The project is located on the West Kern Plateau in Tulare County California. Analysis of effects is tiered to the Sequoia National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (USDA-FS 1988) as amended by the Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment (USDA-FS 2004). A determination of no effect was made for all federally protected species that were found to be in the area or have the potential to be affected by this project. There is no designated Critical Habitat within or affected by the project. A biological assessment will not be prepared and consultation with the US Fish and Wildlife Service is not required. Considering the context and intensity of the impacts of this project (40 CFR 1508.27) on wildlife and aquatic organisms, no significant impacts were identified either as a direct result of this project or cumulatively with other past, present or reasonably foreseeable projects. Species addressed and determinations of effect are summarized in the following table: Species Reviewed for Inclusion in the Joey Biological Evaluation Species Determination Kern Plateau Slender salamander SC All Alternatives: would not be likely to result in a trend toward Federal listing or loss of viability. Batrachoseps robustus Mountain yellow -legged frog; All Alternatives: would not be likely to result in a trend toward Federal listing or loss of viability. Southern Sierra DPS FS, FC Rana muscosa California spotted owl FS All Alternatives: would not be likely to result in a trend toward Federal listing or loss of viability. Strix occidentalis occidentalis Northern goshawk FS All Alternatives: would not be likely to result in a trend toward Federal listing or loss of viability. Accipiter gentilis Pacific Fisher FS, FC All Alternatives: would not be likely to result in a trend toward Federal listing or loss of viability. Martes pennanti pacifica Townsend's. big eared bat FS, FC, SC All Alternatives: would not be likely to result in a trend toward Federal listing o r loss of viability. Corynorhinus townsendii townsendii Pallid bat FS,SC All Alternatives: would not be likely to result in a trend toward Federal listing or loss of viability. Antrozous pallidus American badger SC All Alternatives: would not be likely to result in a trend toward Federal listing or loss of viability. Taxidea taxus Western red bat FS,SC All Alternatives: would not be likely to result in a trend toward Federal listing or loss of viability. Lasiurus blossevillii Listing Status Key: federal/state SC CA Species of Special Concern SP State Fully Protected FS USFS Sensitive Species FT Federal Threatened SE State Endangered FC Federal Candidate FE Federal Endangered ST State Threatened

SUMMARY ...... 2 INTRODUCTION ...... 6 BACKGROUND ...... 6 CONSULTATION TO DATE ...... 7 CURRENT MANAGEMENT DIRECTION ...... 7 PROJECT SPECIFIC DESIRED CONDITION ...... 7 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT ...... 7 EXISTING CONDITION / ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE ...... 10 GENERAL EFFECTS DISCUSSION ...... 14 CUMULATIVE EFFECTS DISCUSSION ...... 15 SPECIES ACCOUNTS ...... 17 FEDERALLY PROTECTED (L ISTED ) SPECIES ...... 17 FOREST SERVICE SENSITIVE SPECIES (INCLUDING SPECIAL INTEREST SPECIES ) ...... 17 SUMMARY OF DETERMINATIONS ...... 49 LITERATURE CITED ...... 49 APPENDIX A – ANIMAL SPECIES AT RISK ...... 57 APPENDIX B – SPOTTED OWL HRCA AND PAC, SURVEY SUMMARY ...... 59 APPENDIX C – CURRENT MANAGEMENT DIRECTION ...... 60 REGULATORY SETTING ...... 60 LAND ALLOCATIONS AND DESIRED CONDITIONS ...... 60 MANAGEMENT STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES ...... 62

Joey Healthy Forest and Fuel Reduction Project Wildlife and Aquatics Biological Evaluation

Introduction Background This biological evaluation (BE) documents analysis of effects of the Joey Healthy Forest and Fuels Reduction Project on aquatic and terrestrial animal (fish, birds, mammals, reptiles and amphibians) species identified as sensitive by the Pacific Southwest Region (R5) of the Forest Service and species listed for protection or proposed for protection under the Endangered Species Act (Threatened, Endangered and Proposed (TEP)) in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) (19 U.S.C. 1536 c), standards established in Forest Service Manual direction (FSM 2672.42) and other relevant federal and state laws or regulations. Analysis of effects is tiered to the Sequoia National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (USDA-FS 1988) as amended by the Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment (USDA-FS 2004). The project is located on the West Kern Plateau, Kern River Ranger District, and Sequoia National Forest in Tulare County, California. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service candidates for listing under the Endangered Species Act are included with Forest Service Sensitive species in this document. Table 1 indicates Threatened, Endangered, Proposed and Candidates for federal listing and Sensitive (TEPS) species that have the potential to be directly or indirectly affected by this project. These species are addressed in detail within this document. No TEP species or critical habitats were identified as having the potential to be affected by this project. A biological assessment will not be prepared since consultation with the USFWS is not required. A full list of TEPS species that may be affected by actions within the Sequoia National Forest is attached in Appendix A with a brief notation regarding rationale for inclusion or exclusion for detailed analysis in this document. The Sensitive Species list for the Pacific Southwest Region was updated effective August 16, 2013. The American badger is addressed as a species of concern based on public comment. No project specific issue or concern was raised regarding this species. Table 1: Species Reviewed for Inclusion in the Joey Healthy Forest Biological Evaluation

Common Name (status) Habitat/Range Project Scientific name Analysis? Great gray owl FS,SE Large meadows & openings 2,500’ -9,000’. Dense forest and large snags for nesting. Habitat Strix nebulosa addressed California spotted owl FS,SC Dense forest (>40 percent canopy closure), preference is shown for stands with ≥2 layers, but open Yes Strix occidentalis occidentalis enough to allow for observation and flying space to attack prey. Substantial amounts of dead woody debris are desirable. Northern goshawk FS, SC Dense mixed conifer forest to open eastside pine. Yes Accipiter gentilis Sierra marten FS,SC Dense forest (>30 percent canopy cover), high number of large snags and down logs, close proximity Habitat Martes sierrae (americana) to dense riparian corridors for movement, and an interspersion of small (<1 acre) openings with good addressed ground cover for foraging. Potential occupied elevation 4,000’-13,000’. fisher FC,SC Dense forest (>40 percent canopy cover), high number of large snags and down logs, close proximity Yes Martes pennanti to dense riparian corridors for movement, and an interspersion of small (<1 acre) openings with good ground cover for foraging. Potential occupied elevation 3,500’-8,000’. California wolverine FS,SC Remote habitats, sensitive to human presence. 4,000’ to 13,000’ mixed habitats. Habitat Gulo gulo addressed Pallid bat FS,SC Open habitats, rocky crevices, tree cavities, mines, caves, or buildings for maternity roosts. Deep Analyzed with Antrozous pallidus crevices are important for day roosts. bat group Townsend's. big eared bat FS,SC Nocturnal, roosts in caves, uses wide variety of habitats although usually in mesic areas for foraging. Analyzed with Corynorhinus townsendii townsendii bat group Western red bat FS,SC Associated with riparian habitat, roosts in trees and forages over open woodlands and grasslands. Analyzed with Lasiurus blossevillii Requires water and open areas for foraging. bat group American badger SC Grassland and open areas up through alpine zone. Forages in meadows & riparian zones above Habitat Taxidea taxus 7,000’. 1992 report sw of project. addressed Sierra Nevada red fox FS,SC Appears to prefer red fir and lodgepole forests in sub alpine and alpine zone. Forages in meadows & Habitat (Vulpes vulpes necáto r) riparian zones, mostly above 7,000’. No confirmed historical records in area. addressed Mtn.yellow -legged frog FS,SC,FC Aquatic habitats. Present in wilderness and historic occurrence over most of the Forest. 4,500 -12,000’ Yes Rana muscosa Kern Plateau slender salamander SC Down logs and moist areas, ≈7,000 -8,000’. Limited to Kern Plateau Yes Batrachoceps robustus Kern River Rainbow FS,SC Cold Water tributaries and main stem Kern River. Out of historic range of species due to 1000 ft. No Oncorhynchus mykiss gilberti waterfall below Project. Planted fish exist within Salmon Creek. Status Key: FS=Forest Service Sensitive, FC =FWS Candidate, SE =State Endangered, ST =State Threatened , SC=State Concern 6 Joey Healthy Forest and Fuel Reduction Project Wildlife and Aquatics Biological Evaluation

This report addresses existing conditions as well as direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental effects related to TEPS wildlife and aquatic organisms that would result from implementation of the project alternatives. The level of detail and area of consideration addressed varies by species based on risk or concern, habitats affected and life requisites as well as the scale, context and intensity of potential effects. Additional documentation, including reports from other resource areas, can be found in the project planning record, located at the Kern River Ranger District Office, Kernville, California. Consultation to Date The forest-wide list of proposed, endangered, and threatened species (species list), which may occur in or be affected by projects in the area of the Sequoia National Forest, was updated from the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), Sacramento Field Office web site , accessed November 4, 2013. The USFWS was consulted for the Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment in 2001 and Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for the Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment in 2004 regarding the programmatic management direction s that amended the Sequoia National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP) which guides this project. The last vegetation management projects in this area were the Kangaroo CASPO Thinning Project which was approved in 1999 and the Sherman Pass Fire Restoration Project, which included salvage and tree planting in 2004 -2005 after the McNally Fire. Neither project identified impacts on listed species. There are no listed animal species (TEP) or designated critical habitat identified as likely to be affected by the project directly or indirectly. Consultation with the USFWS is not required or planned. Current Management Direction Project Specific Desired Condition The overall goals of the project are to return ecological processes such as fire to the landscape (Safford et al. 2012); improve forest health, respond to predicted changes in climate, and reduce the threat of uncontrolled wildland fire in the Wildland Urban Intermix. Actions needed to restore of heterogeneity, resilience and sustainability to the forest landscape includes reduction of stem densities of smaller, fire-intolerant trees and increased use of wildland fire (prescribed fire and managed wildfire) (Safford et al. 2012). Reducing tree mortality from insects, fire, uncontrolled wildfire, drought and other potential severe disturbances (e.g., increases in fire frequency and burned area) is part of the restoration of resilience and sustainability. Changes observed in Sierra Nevada vegetation over the last 80 years include loss of yellow pine-dominated forest and increase in the area of forest dominated by shade-tolerant conifers (Safford et al. 2012). Regeneration of aspens, shade intolerant species and a diversity of age classes on the landscape are expected to improve fire resilience and increase heterogeneity. Under this scenario, stands within the Joey Project should move the landscape toward a more pine and black oak dominated system. Inter-tree competition would be reduced to promote growth and reduce vulnerability to disease, drought and insects within stands. Ecological niche habitats would be supported and maintained throughout the landscape. Deciduous tree species (California black oak, Brewer’s oak, and aspen) would be favored and cultured, by reducing conifer competition when appropriate. Habitat for sensitive wildlife species would be encouraged by designating specific niche habitats that would be protected, encouraged and developed. The reduction of tree canopy would allow more sunlight to reach the forest floor, leading to greater understory development and diversity while retaining canopy cover that is within the range of preferred habitats used by sensitive species such as goshawk, spotted owl and fisher. Description of the Proposed Project The following summarizes treatments and project design criteria. For a full description see the environmental assessment. Alternative 1 - No Action Under the No Action alternative no change from the current management direction or level of management intensity would take place. No fuels treatment, tree thinning/removal, ecological or aspen restoration would be implemented to meet the purpose and need. Wildfires would still occur and may be used for resource objectives under current authorities. Alternative 2 - Proposed Action

7 Joey Healthy Forest and Fuel Reduction Project Wildlife and Aquatics Biological Evaluation

This alternative would treat surface fuels, and thin small to intermediate sized trees (less than 30”) to restore old forest stands and ecosystem structure, composition, and function over time. Treatments would also modify wildfire behavior, create defensible space, and provide a safe and effective area for suppressing fire. Proposed treatments are summarized in the following table. See the EA for a more detailed description of the project. Table 2: Alternative 2 Treatment Summary Treatment Unit Acres Treatment Method Proposed Numbers/Location Horse Meadow First 200 ft. of WUI 34 Hand thinning of surface and ladder fuels (shrubs and small trees) less than 11” dbh . Community defense zone surrounding Prune limbs on residual trees up to 4-6’. Treat accumulations of ground and activity Treatment the Horse Meadow fuels by chipping, lop and scatter, piling & burning, underburning, or providing for (Defense Zone) Community. personal use firewood. Mechanical Thinning 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 691 Ground -based mechanical harvesting of trees up to 30" dbh, whole tree yarding, lop (Defense & Threat 11, 12 and scatter, pile and burn, underburn, or jackpot burn within treatment units, landings, Zone) and disposal sites. Mechanical Thinning 100 -foot -wide treatment 24 Ground -based mechanical and/or hand treatment of trees up to 30" dbh with possible (Roadside) buffer along sections of commercial harvest, whole tree yarding, lop and scatter, pile and burn, underburn, or specified roads jackpot burn. Roa dside Hand 100 -foot -wide treatment 109 Hand thinning of trees and shrubs up to 11" dbh for 100 ft. along roadsides. Chip, lop Treatment buffer along sections of and scatter, pile & burn, underburn, or make accumulations of fuels available to the specified roads public for personal use firewood. Aspen Restoration 13, 14, 15 (and portions of 22 Thin or girdle conifers 1 -24" dbh , pile and burn, jackpot burn tops and limbs, fall and units 5 & 12. Aspen in leave in place as down woody debris, make available for personal use firewood, girdle Units 5 & 12 cover < 3 and leave in place for wildlife habitat, prescribe burn to stimulate aspen acres) growth/regeneration. Conifers up to 30” dbh in mechanical thinning Units 5 & 12 may be harvested using ground based equipment. Prescribed Fire Throughout the Joey 5,273 In addition to the fire treatments in the stands noted above, prescribed fire would be Project Analysis Area utilized to achieve ecological restoration objectives and re-introduce fire into the environment. Prescribed fire would not be used on private property. TOTAL 6153 Note: Total does not include 80 acres of private land that will not be treated.

Alternative 3 – Non-commercial thinning only In Alternative 3 the treatment units and acres proposed for treatment are the same as those proposed in Alternative 2. Under this alternative, only hand treatment methods will be employed to thin and/or remove trees and vegetation less than 8 inches in diameter. The treatment of accumulations of activity and ground fuels would be with prescribed fire. Table 3: Alternative 3 Treatment Summary Treatment Proposed Unit Numbers /Location Acres Treatment Method Horse Meadow First 200 ft. of WUI defense 34 Hand thinning trees and shrubs up to 8 " dbh . Prune residual trees up to 4 -6' Community Treatment zone surrounding the Horse high. Chip, lop and scatter, pile & burn, or underburn accumulations of fuels. (Defense Zone) Meadow Community Hand Thinning 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 691 Hand thin and/or remove surface and ladder fuels less than 8 inches dbh . Chip, Defense & Threat Zone 12 lop and scatter, pile and burn, underburn, or make accumulations of fuels available to the public for personal use firewood. Underburn to achieve additional ecological restoration objectives. Roadside Hand 100 -foot -wide treatment buffer 133 Hand thinning trees and shrubs up to 8" dbh for 100 ft. along roadsides. Chip, Treatment along sections of specified lop and scatter, pile & burn, underburn, or make accumulations of fuels roads available to the public for personal use firewood. Aspen Restoration 13, 14, 15 , portions of 5 & 12 22 Hand thin or girdle conifers 1 -24" dbh , pile and burn, jackpot burn tops and limbs, fall and leave in place as down woody debris, make available for personal use firewood, girdle and leave in place for wildlife habitat, prescribe burn to stimulate aspen growth/regeneration. (Units 5 and 12will be treated as mechanical units with thinning up to 30 inch dbh trees). Prescribed Fire Throughout the Joey Project 5,273 In addition to the fire treatments in the stands noted above, prescribed fire Area would be utilized to achieve ecological restoration objectives and re-introduce fire into the environment. Prescribed fire would not be used on private property. TOTAL 6153 Note: Total does not include 80 acres of private land that will not be treated.

8 Joey Healthy Forest and Fuel Reduction Project Wildlife and Aquatics Biological Evaluation

Design Criteria for Alternatives 2 and 3 In response to public comments and internal review by resource specialists, the following specific design features were incorporated into both action alternatives. These design features were proposed to reduce or eliminate potential negative effects on resources in the project area. They would be implemented as part of the selected alternative. Note : Some design features apply to more than one resource; to avoid repetition, these design features are listed once. Some features, related to timber harvest, only apply to Alternative 2. This list has been edited to remove criteria that do not directly affect wildlife. For a full list see the Project environmental assessment. Project Design Features (partial list, see EA for full list) Hazard Trees: Hazard trees are defined in the Sequoia National Forest Hazard Tree Identification Guidelines (USDA FS 2004d). A tree is considered a hazard if all or a portion of the tree has a high potential to fall or roll onto a roadway or facility and cause personal injury or property damage. Hazard trees will be felled and may be used for timber, personal use firewood, or left in place. Hydrology : Best Management Practices (BMPs) will be employed to protect the beneficial uses and address watershed management concerns within the affected watersheds. BMPs are measures designed to protect watershed resources and water quality. The BMPs are too numerous to list here, but a list and description of the BMPs that apply to this project are available in the Hydrology Report (Kwan 2013). Implementation and effectiveness monitoring would ensure that water quality objectives are being met. Roads: BMPs will be used to avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects to soil, water quality, and in-stream resources that may result from road management activities. A full listing of all BMPs can be found in the Transportation Analysis (Rios 2013). • Existing roads and landings will be used wherever possible. No new permanent system roads will be constructed for this project. • Roads would be maintained and graded as necessary to allow log truck and equipment access using minimum disturbance methods and minimum clearing widths. Road maintenance would include brushing, out-sloping roads, and clearing culverts and ditches as needed (Alternative 2). • All skid trail construction, decommissioning of non-system roads, and road re-conditioning would be conducted during appropriate periods of weather and soil moisture to protect water quality and avoid adverse effects. • Existing non-system roads in the project area may be used for harvest access only. These non-system roads are considered temporary and, if used for hauling, would be rehabilitated following harvest activities. Existing system roads would also be used for harvest access and hauling (Alternative 2). Silviculture: • Maintain a minimum of three snags per acre over 15 inches in diameter, when available. • Treat conifer stumps over 14 inches in diameter with a registered Borate compound. In developed recreation areas, treat all cut tree stumps. • Flag aspen clones to avoid damage from prescribed burning. • In aspen restoration units, prior to prescribed fire, remove conifers and excess fuels if necessary to prevent negative effects during burning on soils or aspen clones. • Locate slash piles to minimize damage to standing green trees during burning. • Locate slash piles in open, sunny locations to enhance drying and reduce the buildup of detrimental insect populations. Soils: Design features and BMPs will be applied project-wide to minimize effects on soil resources. Additional information on BMPs can be found in the Hydrology Report (Kwan 2013). • Implement all standards and guidelines associated with Riparian Conservation Objectives in the 2004 SNFPA. • Maintain a minimum of 50 percent effective ground cover on all treatment sites. • Retain three logs per acre over 20 inches in diameter and at least 20 feet long. Small decks of three to five or more logs in the 12 to 20 inch diameter range may be substituted where such material is available. • Mechanized equipment would be generally restricted to slopes less than 35%. • Operation during periods of high soil moisture, such as early spring or late fall, would be restricted to minimize erosion and sedimentation. Operations could be authorized pending field verification of ground conditions.

9 Joey Healthy Forest and Fuel Reduction Project Wildlife and Aquatics Biological Evaluation

Existing Condition/ Environmental baseline Environmental Setting The Joey analysis area encompasses approximately 6,233 acres of scenic forest, meadow, streams, trails, private residences, the KV Camp Forest Service administrative site, one developed campground, and several dispersed campgrounds. Vegetation types found within the analysis area include wet meadow, red fir, lodgepole pine, aspen, Jeffrey pine, and mixed conifer forest. The treatment area includes 6,153 acres, excluding the Horse Meadow Community (80 acres of private land),, and includes 691 acres of previously logged conifer stands, as well as 1.1 miles of mechanical roadside fuels reduction, 5.27 miles of roadside fuel reduction employing hand treatment methods, 22 acres of aspen restoration stands, 113 acres of fuels reduction work adjacent to the Horse Meadow Community, and 5,273 acres of additional NFS lands. Land allocations found in the analysis area include Wildland Urban Intermix (WUI) urban, defense, and threat zones, old forest emphasis, California spotted owl protected activity centers (PACs) and home range core areas (HRCAs), northern goshawk protected activity centers (PACs), southern Sierra fisher conservation area, and riparian conservation areas. The Joey project lies a few miles east of the Dome Land Wilderness and Twisselmann Botanical Area. No treatments will occur in or adjacent to these designated areas. Fire and its periodic occurrence in the Sierra have shaped the succession paths of nearly all terrestrial ecosystems within the Sierra Nevada bioregion. Forests in the Sierra Nevada have been dramatically altered by Euro-American land use practices. Forest lands were logged, grazed, and burned beginning in the mid to late 19th century (Vankat and Major 1978; McKelvey and Johnston 1992; Millar 2006). These activities were then followed by a century or more of fire exclusion and a policy of suppressing fire was implemented on lands in the newly established National Forest System. These influences have been less dramatic on the Kern Plateau than western slopes of the Sierra Nevada that were more accessible to the Central Valley.

Table 4: Existing Vegetation (CWHR) for the Salmon Creek Watershed (HUC 6) by Size, Density and Seral Stage.

Density Class (% Canopy Closure ) (acres) % of Cover Type Seral Stage Total Total Size Class (DBH) S (10-24%) P (25-39%) M (40-59%) D (60-100%) (% of Acres conifer) Barren None 419 3% Annual Grass 350 2% Density class not applicable Wet Meadow Early 528 4% Shrub 2550 15% Hardwoods (MHW) Various 2 19 28 83 132 1% Mixed Conifer Forest (pines (PPN, JPN, EPN, LPN, SCN), fir (WFR, RFR), and mixed conifer (SMC, MHC)) (subtotal) 11755 75% 1: < 1" 0 0 2: 1" -6" Early 43 11 7 61 0

3: 6" -11" 348 645 215 32 1240 10 4: 11" -24" Mid 540 2809 1989 210 5548 45 5: > 24" Late Open CC 84 754 838 7 5: > 24" Late Closed CC 3375 693 4068 5 Total acres 1017 4238 5614 1018 15734 100

Logging History There was no logging on the Kern Plateau until the late 1950s and early 1960s. Roads beyond Road’s End on the Kern River prior to that time were limited to a few very rough and mostly impassable mining access routes. Up until 1978 logging on the Kern Plateau was limited to high risk sanitation, which is an individual tree selection method based on removing trees that are dying or likely to die within 10 years. In the late 1970s, some even-age forest management (clear-cuts and seed tree harvest) was used in blocks of up to 40 acres. Harvest units were limited to 10 acres with retention of wildlife legacy habitat (islands of large trees, snags and down logs within the units) and protection of advanced reproduction for cover and age class diversity) in 1988. In 1992, harvest was limited to light thinning of small to intermediate size trees with retention of a minimum of 40 percent canopy cover. Overall, even age harvest resulted in 140 acres of plantations within the Salmon Creek Watershed.

10 Joey Healthy Forest and Fuel Reduction Project Wildlife and Aquatics Biological Evaluation

Fire History A portion of the Joey Project analysis area burned with stand-replacing fire effects in the 2002 McNally Fire and was salvage logged. The majority of the Joey Project analysis area has had no fire in recorded history. There is some evidence that portions of the area burned, with substantial stand-replacing effects, within the last 150 years as evidenced by patches of even aged trees, 80 to 100 years old, where there is no history of timber harvest.

Over the last 40 years the Kern River Ranger District on the Sequoia National Forest has experienced several large-scale, stand replacing wildland fires. These fires include the Flat (1975 – 18,729 acres), Bonita (1977 – 7,425 acres), Fay (1987 – 12,147 acres), Stormy (1990 – 22,182 acres), Jacks (1997 – 5,744 acres), Manter (2000 – 79,182 acres), McNally (2002 – 150,700 acres), Piute (2008 – 35,000) and Gold Ledge (2007 – 4,196 acres). The McNally fire resulted in approximately 400 acres of additional plantations within the watershed. Historical Role of Fire The following analysis is excerpted from Long et al. (2013): There are numerous studies demonstrating the integral role that fire played in shaping historical (i.e., pre-Euro- American settlement) forest structure and composition in the Sierra Nevada. These studies, which are largely from mixed-conifer, ponderosa pine, and Jeffrey pine forest types, demonstrate frequent occurrence of generally low- to moderate-severity fire over at least the last several centuries. The general consensus from these studies is that frequent fire maintained relatively open, patchy stands composed of primarily large, fire-resistant trees. Although this was likely the case for many areas within these forest types, to surmise that those stand conditions were ubiquitous throughout the Sierra Nevada would be a gross oversimplification. Recent studies of historical fire occurrence have gone beyond solely reporting fire frequency by reconstructing historical forest structure and characterizing spatial patterns resulting from more natural fire – forest interactions in the Sierra Nevada (e.g., Nagel and Taylor 2005, Beaty and Taylor 2008). These studies indicate a high degree of spatial complexity driven by heterogeneity in vegetation/fuels and topography and influenced by variability in climate, which mediates the timing, effects, and extents of fires over time. Studies have reported fire return intervals in mixed conifer forests in the Sierras as 11.5 years (the range is 1 to 25 years for south-facing slopes) (Beaty and Taylor 2001) and 4.7 years (the range is 4 to 28 years) (Stephens and Collins 2004). From these studies it can be inferred that low to moderate severity fires, whether human or lightning caused, were a common occurrence in the analysis area into the early 20th century. Stephens (2001) observed a mean fire return interval of 9 years for a Jeffery pine dominant site east of Yosemite National Park. In addition, Taylor (2004) found an average fire return interval of 11.4 years in Jeffery pine white fir stands southeast of Lake Tahoe. There are fewer historical reconstruction studies in forests on the eastern side of the Sierran crest than there are for mixed-conifer forests on the west slope. Based on the few studies in eastside pine, it appears that fire frequency and inferred fire effects were generally similar between eastside pine and westside mixed-conifer forests (Taylor 2004, Moody et al. 2006, Gill and Taylor 2009, North et al. 2009b, Vaillant and Stephens 2009). There are, however, context-specific distinctions that suggest some differences exist in fire regimes between eastside pine and westside mixed-conifer: 1) In contrast to the larger expanses of contiguous forests on the westside, eastside forests are sometimes isolated in canyons or on benches in discrete stands (North et al. 2009b); this isolation results in longer fire return intervals for some eastside stands and greater variability in fire frequency and fire effects. 2) Several sampled stands in the eastside pine type maintained frequent fire regimes as late as the early- to mid-1900s (North et al. 2009b), whereas frequent fire in many westside mixed-conifer forests ceased around the 1880s. The structural changes associated with cessation of fire could be different as a result of these different cessation dates. The contemporary forest conditions in the Jeffrey pine-mixed-conifer dominated area of the Sierra San Pedro Mártir (Baja California) serve as a relevant reference site for eastside pine forests (Stephens and Fulé 2005). This area has experienced very little timber harvesting, and fire suppression only dates back to the 1970s (Stephens et al. 2003). This forest has an open, all-aged structure, with its most salient characteristic being high spatial variability (Stephens and Gill 2005, Stephens et al. 2008). This variability not only pertains to spatial arrangement and sizes of trees, but also to coarse woody debris and tree regeneration patches (Stephens and Fry 2005, Stephens et al. 2007). Differential fire effects over the landscape, including stand-replacing patches, contribute to coarse-grained heterogeneity across landscapes. This has been demonstrated for historical fire regimes (Beaty and Taylor 2008)

11 Joey Healthy Forest and Fuel Reduction Project Wildlife and Aquatics Biological Evaluation

and for areas with more intact, contemporary fire regimes (Collins and Stephens 2010). These studies suggest that stand-replacing fire was a component of Sierra Nevada mixed-conifer forests, but at relatively low proportions across the landscape (~5 – 15 percent), consisting mostly of many small patches (<4 ha) with few large patches (~ 60 ha). Based on these studies, it appears that landscapes with active fire regimes included relatively dense, even-aged stands and shrub patches, as well as the often referenced open, park-like, multi-aged stands. Actual proportions in each vegetation type/structure are largely unknown due to the limitations of historical reconstruction studies, although several studies have made estimates based on reconstructed tree ages and density (Taylor and Skinner 1998, Beaty and Taylor 2001, Taylor 2004, Beaty and Taylor 2008, Scholl and Taylor 2010, Taylor 2010). Additional reference material provided by respondents to this and similar projects have noted information from Bekker and Taylor (2010) who addressed similar fire regimes in dry forest in southern Oregon’s Cascades. Bekker and Taylor (2010) indicate fire return interval of 13-25 years in white fir. Fires in the late 1800s burned 13-85% of the plots. Suppression since 1905 has resulted in a dense understory of shade-tolerant, fire-intolerant species. Fire suppression has promoted homogenization of forest structure, shifts in species composition that may lead to large severe fires in the future. This information is not substantially different than the material addressed above, although, as noted in the full discussion in Long et al. (2013), the fire patterns in the Cascades are different enough to warrant a separate discussion from the Sierra Nevada. Similar material was provided as references on fire trends and effects in the Klamath Province (Miller et al. 2012, Odion et al. 2010, Odion et al. 2004, Shatford et al. 2007). However, the Klamath Province receives up to 200 inches of annual precipitation, compared to 20 to 40 inches of annual precipitation in the Joey Project area, so the fire regime and growing conditions for the two forests are not directly comparable. Several authors have addressed the trends in fire size and intensity across the western U.S., as well as the concept of frequent, low-intensity fire and fire effects in the Sierra Nevada (Dillon et al. 2011, Hanson and Odion 2006, Hanson and Odion 2008, Hanson and Odion 2013, Miller et al. 2012). These concepts are addressed above in greater detail. For the purposes of this analysis, it is not assumed that trends in fire severity are increasing or that all fire effects are bad. It is noted that large-scale stand-replacing fire effects have documented adverse effects on water quality, potential flooding, loss of habitat, and loss of homes. These effects are considered at the appropriate scale in this document and other documents supporting the EA. As noted, the intent is not to eliminate fire effects, but to reduce such effects that they can be safely managed. That goal does not appear to be inconsistent with the above-referenced literature provided by respondents to this and other similar projects. Climate Change Variability in historical fire occurrence is linked to both short- and long-term fluctuations in regional and synoptic climate (Swetnam 1993, Swetnam and Baisan 2003, Stephens and Collins 2004, Taylor and Beaty 2005, Taylor et al. 2008, Beaty and Taylor 2009, Gill and Taylor 2009, Trouet et al. 2009, Trouet et al. 2010, Taylor and Scholl 2012). • Short-term climatic variation (e.g., annual to decadal scale): Although climatic fluctuations do not appear to have moderated fire effects, climate (particularly variation in precipitation) has been shown to drive fire extent (e.g., widespread fire years coincided with regional drought years, and were sometimes preceded by regionally wet years). • Long-term climatic variation (decades to century scale): Fire frequency, or chance of having fires, appears to be associated with variation in air temperature (Swetnam 1993, Swetnam and Baisan 2003), with higher temperature associated with more frequent fires and longer fire seasons (Westerling et al. 2006). Precipitation appears to be associated with fire extent (Swetnam 1993, Swetnam and Baisan 2003). Thus, moist years produce vegetation that is available to burn in the inevitable dryer years that occur during otherwise moist periods. • The rain shadow effect on the eastside of the Sierra Nevada and the tendency for greater stand isolation, primarily in the southern portion, appears to somewhat de-couple fire in eastside pine forests from synoptic climatic conditions (North et al. 2009b). Though there are many important lessons to learn from the past, we may not be able to rely completely on past forest conditions to provide us with blueprints for current and future management (Millar et al. 2007). In particular, the nature and scale of past variability in climate and forest conditions, coupled with our inability to precisely reconstruct those conditions, introduce a number of conceptual and practical problems (Millar and Woolfenden 1999). Detailed reconstructions of historical forest conditions, often dendroecologically based, are very useful but represent a relatively narrow window of time and tend to coincide with tree recruitment in the period referred to as the Little Ice Age, which was much cooler than present (Stephens et al. 2010).

12 Joey Healthy Forest and Fuel Reduction Project Wildlife and Aquatics Biological Evaluation

Therefore, manipulation of current forests to resemble historical forest conditions may not be the best approach when considering future warmer climates (Safford et al. 2012a). Rather, restoring the processes (mainly fire) that shaped forests for millennia may be a prudent approach for hedging against uncertainties around maintaining fire-adapted forests (Fulé 2008). This is not to suggest that any incorporation of fire into these forests would be appropriate. A more suitable goal, albeit a more difficult one, would be to restore the forest stand and landscape conditions that would allow fires to function in what is generally believed to be a more natural way. Past harvesting practices and livestock grazing, coupled with over a century of fire suppression, have shifted forest structure and composition within the ponderosa pine, Jeffrey pine, and mixed-conifer types of the Sierra Nevada. This shift is generally characterized by increased tree densities, smaller average tree diameters, increased proportions of shade-tolerant tree species, and elevated surface fuel loads relative to historical or pre-European settlement forest conditions (Sugihara, van Wagtendonk and Fites-Kaufman 2006). In addition to the stand-level changes within these forest types, fire exclusion and past management practices have led to considerable homogenization across landscapes (Sugihara, van Wagtendonk and Fites- Kaufman 2006). This homogenization is a product of several interacting processes: 1) widespread timber harvesting, primarily involving removal of larger trees left during earlier railroad and/or mining-related logging, 2) infilling of trees into gaps that were historically created and/or maintained by variable severity fire, and 3) forest expansion into shrub patches and meadows that were formerly maintained by fire. In addition to a loss of beta-diversity, these stand- and landscape-level changes have increased vulnerability of many contemporary forests to uncharacteristically high disturbance intensities and extents, particularly from fire and drought-induced insects/disease outbreaks (Guarin and Taylor 2005, Fettig 2012). Following such disturbances, these forests and the species that depend on them have limited capacity to return to pre-disturbance states. This issue may be exacerbated if climate changes according to predictions in the next several decades, as large, high- intensity fires may become catalysts for abrupt changes in vegetation and associated species (i.e., type conversion). Another potential effect from climate change is a shift in species distribution; both plant and animal, by elevation, in response to both temperature and climatic water balance (Crimmins et al. 2011, Safford 2012). These shifts are expected to put additional stress on forest resources. In part, the Joey Project treatments are expected to increase resistance to abrupt changes and increase the resilience of the forest in its ability to recover after such disturbances. Fire Trends The following analysis is excerpted from Long et al. (2013), Chp. 4.1, B. Collins and C. Skinner: Recent research has indicated increased proportion of high-severity fire in yellow pine and mixed-conifer forests the Sierra Nevada from 1984-2010 (Miller et al. 2009, Miller and Safford 2012). In addition, these studies demonstrate that fire sizes and annual area burned have also risen during the same period. The authors point out that these increases co-occur with rising regional temperatures and increased long-term precipitation. Westerling et al. (2006) also demonstrate increased area burned over a similar time period, which they attribute to regional increases in temperature and earlier spring snow melts. Despite these documented increases over the last few decades, California and the western U.S. as a whole are in what Marlon et al. (2012) describe as a large “fire deficit.” This is based on reconstructed fire occurrence over the last 1500 years using sedimentary charcoal records. Marlon et al. (2012) argue that the current divergence between climate (mainly temperature) and burning rates is unprecedented throughout their historical record. In other words, with temperatures warming as they have been over the last several decades, we would expect to see much higher fire activity, based on historical fire-climate associations. This divergence is due to fire suppression policies, which, as the authors point out, may not remain effective over the long-term if warming trends continue. It is likely, given increasing temperature and the precipitation patterns since the onset of fire suppression, that fire activity would have increased over the twentieth century rather than decreased had fire suppression not been implemented (Stine 1996, Skinner and Taylor 2006), further exacerbating the current fire deficit. Notable increases in fire activity are predicted for California, and they are driven largely by projected increases in temperature and decreases in snow pack and, to a lesser extent, increased fuel production from CO 2 “fertilization” (Flannigan et al. 2000, Lenihan et al. 2003, Lenihan et al. 2008, Westerling et al. 2011). It remains unclear how these increases in fire activity would be manifested in Sierra Nevada forests (Safford et al. 2012a). Increased area burned does not necessarily result in increased proportions of high-severity fire (Miller et al. 2012a). However, one of the potential ramifications of decreased snowpack forcing longer fire seasons is that the probability of fire occurring on a given spot increases, potentially resulting in shorter intervals between successive fires. This

13 Joey Healthy Forest and Fuel Reduction Project Wildlife and Aquatics Biological Evaluation

may not be a problem if fire severity is generally low to moderate, with lesser proportions of high severity occurring in small patches. However, if high-severity proportions and patch sizes are elevated (Miller and Safford 2012), decreased time between successive fires could lead to type conversion or local loss of a particular plant association (Safford et al. 2012a). Further, even if proportions are not elevated but remain similar, this would translate into greater area burned at high severity as total burned area increases. Several authors have addressed the trends in fire size and intensity across the western U.S., as well as the concept of frequent, low-intensity fire and fire effects in the Sierra Nevada (Dillon et al. 2011, Hanson and Odion 2006, Hanson and Odion 2008, Hanson and Odion 2013, Miller et al. 2012). These concepts are addressed above in greater detail. For the purposes of this analysis, it is not assumed that trends in fire severity are increasing or that all fire effects are bad. It is noted that large-scale stand-replacing fire effects have documented adverse effects on water quality, potential flooding, loss of habitat, and loss of homes. These effects are considered at the appropriate scale in this document and other documents supporting the EA. As noted, the intent is not to eliminate fire effects, but to reduce such effects that they can be safely managed. That goal does not appear to be inconsistent with the above-referenced literature provided by respondents to this and other similar projects. Another aspect or measure of potential fire effects is the fire return interval departure (FRID). This is an expression of the number of expected fire cycles missed. FRID is often expressed as condition class and is intended to be an indicator of accumulated fuel which indicates a tendency to burn hotter or with more severe effects compared to areas that have not missed cycles. Fire effects are a complex interaction with a number of factors and it is not assumed that FRID or condition class is the only indicator of potential problems or need for treatment. Most severe fire effects occur during periods of severe or extended drought when fire conditions are extreme or controlled by topography (Dillon et al. 2011) Both the Manter and McNally Fires had large patches of high severity fire, which were associated with land form and severity of climatic conditions. There is evidence that areas that have recently burned (FRID is 0) may re-burn with high severity effects, particularly if the previous burn had high severity effects which resulted in a type conversion (Collins et al. 2009, Donato et al. 2009, Miller et al. 2012a, Miller et al. 2012b, van Wagtendonk et al. 2012). This was observed where the McNally Fire (2002) burned into the Flat (1975) and Bonita Fires (1977). The results were generally high severity fire effects where the previous fires converted forest to shrub, with a high volume of fire killed trees and down woody material. General Effects Discussion The general effects discussion is intended to give an overall picture of effects on vegetation and habitat structure. This is later summarized by species to reduce redundancy of repeating full effects for each species. Since mature forest is the primary habitat affected the majority of discussion is focused in this area. These effects on these habitats are also addressed in the Management Indicator Species Report (Anderson 2013). Methodology and Assumptions Field data from stand exam plots collected in 2011 was entered into the Forest Vegetation Simulation program (FVS) (see vegetation and silviculture report (Stewart 2013) for full description). The plots were stratified by common stand or vegetation conditions to provide an assessment of average conditions and attributes such as basal area, down logs, tree density, snags, sizes of trees and effects of thinning and fire by strata. In addition to the FVS analysis of average conditions by strata, the most recent (2012) California Wildlife Habitat Relationships (CWHR) vegetation layer in geographical information systems (GIS) was overlaid on the project area. CWHR classifies vegetation based on attributes used by wildlife (http://www.dfg.ca.gov/biogeodata/cwhr/). Habitat for mature, dense canopy forest species focuses on effects to moderate and high quality habitats for these species. These habitats include Sierra mixed conifer, pine types except lodgepole, white fir, mixed hardwood/ conifer and montane hardwood vegetation types with size classes 4 (12 to 24 inches dbh) or 5 (24 inches dbh or larger) and density classes M (moderate, 40 to 59 percent crown cover) and D (dense, 60 percent and greater crown cover). These habitat types were analyzed at the affected 7th order watersheds as suitable habitat available in: natural stands affected by mechanical thinning, spotted owl PACs, HRCAs, goshawk PACs and within .7 and 1.2 miles of spotted owl territory centers adjacent to the project. For the purposes of this analysis, plantations (greater than 10, but less than 30 years old) were assumed to be of foraging value but generally lacking in the complexity and structural diversity for reproductive habitats used by species that prefer dense, mature forest even though they may meet the criteria for size class 4 and density classes M and D. Isolated islands of larger trees exist within some of the plantations, but they are generally not of a scale that would suggest use as reproductive habitats. In general, plantations within the Joey analysis area, excluding the more recent McNally Fire plantations, are mature enough for use by fisher or spotted owl for foraging and would not be considered unsuitable habitat. 14 Joey Healthy Forest and Fuel Reduction Project Wildlife and Aquatics Biological Evaluation

The effects of hand thinning small trees less than 12 inches were assumed to have minor effects on canopy cover reduction within mature forest units. This treatment is primarily intended in specified units of alternatives 2 and 3 and more generally along control lines as a preparation step to safely control prescribed or managed wildfire rather than a treatment applied across the entire project area. For the purpose of this analysis, the primary impact of thinning is in the units where commercial timber harvest is used as a means of achieving desired results on approximately 691 acres within natural stands. Under commercial thinning, no stand or strata will have canopy reduced below 40 percent (density class M). The areas with light underburning are assumed to retain near existing crown cover since this is within the control of management, although the FVS outputs for modeled prescribed fire may further reduce canopy cover. Prescribed fire in the unthinned stands will likely have greater mixed lethal effects but will be relatively small in unit size, spread out in time and space, such that the effects on canopy cover may show small gaps but would not eliminate large contiguous blocks (100 acres or more) of suitable habitat. CWHR uses the quadratic mean diameter (QMD) of all trees at breast height to derive stand size class. Thus a stand that has been thinned of smaller trees may show an initial increase in QMD (larger trees retained) in the FVS outputs and then drop in size class later as seedlings follow thinning and burning (larger trees averaged in with hundreds of new trees with less than 1 inch diameter). The thinned stands may actually have accelerated growth of larger trees and an overall, larger QMD when considering only trees greater than 11 inches dbh. Mature Forest Thinning and underburning would be focused in this habitat type. Therefore the majority of discussion in this document addresses the potential effects on species that use mature forest habitat. Shrub It is assumed that some of the shrub habitat will be removed during thinning and underburning. This is a minor portion of the montane shrub habitat within and around the project. Islands of brush will be left to provide a mosaic of available habitats. The shrub component is likely to return relatively quickly. So there would be no significant change in shrub cover over time. Oaks No removal of oaks is planned; however, some incidental removal of oaks for operability and safety is possible. Oaks are generally shade intolerant and drought and fire tolerant species. Thinning will preferentially favor retention, recruitment and growth of oaks. Under the existing condition and no action, loss of oaks is expected to continue as conifers overtop and compete with the shade intolerant oaks. Large-scale, stand-replacing fire effects in the adjacent McNally Fire have resulted in small scale conversion from mixed hardwood conifer forest to hardwood where mature forest was converted to early seral oaks from crown sprouting. Oaks in the project are very limited. Riparian/Wetlands No riparian or wetlands would be affected by the project. There may be some limited indirect effects as a result of reduction of sediment coming from the road system. Cumulative Effects Discussion This section is intended to set the background for later species specific determinations for cumulative effects. The spatial and temporal bounds for cumulative effects and thresholds of effect are set individually for each species or group of species with similar habitat requirements. Generally unless thresholds for species are exceeded within the project area, the bounds will be within the project area. Cumulative effects analysis for the purposes of this project is bounded by the 7th order watersheds affected by the project plus analysis of a 1.5 mile radius for spotted owls that may be affected. For the purposes of taking a harder look at fisher effects, a supplemental biological evaluation specifically for fisher has been developed that expands the analysis of cumulative effects for that species to the southern Sierran extent of the species range. Each species is addressed at the smallest scale where effects diminish to insignificant.. Project level activities and effects analyzed for this project are within the intensity and extent anticipated in the Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment (2001 and 2004). That analysis is incorporated by reference. The Conservation Biology Institute report: ‘ Baseline Evaluation of Fisher Habitat and Population Status & Effects of Fires and Fuels Management on Fishers In the Southern Sierra Nevada ” takes a comprehensive look at modeled effects of projected

15 Joey Healthy Forest and Fuel Reduction Project Wildlife and Aquatics Biological Evaluation fuels reduction projects, including preliminary estimates of the Joey Project, and wildfire effects across the southern Sierra extent of fisher. The results of this analysis are summarized and incorporated by reference in the analysis of effects on mature forest species. The Management Indicator Species Report for this project analyzes specific habitats and representative species for cumulative effects at both the project and the bioregion scales. That analysis is also incorporated by reference. The scope, scale and intensity of the proposed projects are within the extent of projects anticipated by the USFWS in their review, biological opinion and technical assistance provided for the 2001 Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment, Supplemental EIS for the SNFPA and the 2006 determination that listing of the California spotted owl was not warranted (USDI-FWS 2006). These analyses are also summarized below and incorporated by reference. Past, Present and Reasonably Foreseeable Activities Considered in Cumulative Effects at the Watershed Scale The following table summarizes activities analyzed for cumulative impacts associated with this project.

Table 5: Past, Present and Reasonably Foreseeable Activities Activity Description Date(s) Location Scope Climate Natural and/or Past, current, Throughout project Expected warmer conditions decrease moisture retention and reduce snow pack. Change human-induced reasonably area and beyond Fire effects are expected to become more severe. This is exacerbated by fire climate shift foreseeable suppression and accumulation of surface fuels (see analysis by Safford 2012). Air Quality Air pollution Past, current, Throughout project Air pollution from industrial and vehicle sources contribute to greenhouse gasses and from dust and reasonably area and beyond PM-10 emissions. Smoke and other carbon emissions from managed fire are limited burning carbon foreseeable to compensate for human based causes. Potential for adverse cumulative effects based fuels are controlled by the APCD limitation on daily smoke emissions. This constraint severely constrains ability to use fire as a tool for thinning since the available windows for burning limit burning to a few hundred to a few thousand acres per year compared to the natural regime which may have burned 20,000 to 40,000 acres per year within the SQF. Wildfires Historic Fires 1910 -201 3 Throughout project Past wildfires have severely reduced the amount of mature closed canopy forest in Reasonably area and beyond adjacent watersheds and across the Forest in general. Wildfires also contribute Foreseeable greatly to air pollution problems due to the timing and volume of material released. Cumulative watershed effects are also severely affected by wildfire due to timing and scale of runoff and sediment delivered. Wildfire has resulted in the loss of approximately 400 acres of mature forest converted to shrub and herbaceous vegetation types. Approximately 200 acres were salvage logged. Wildfires with low to moderate mixed lethal effects are believed to be the historical norm and generally burned greater area but with lower intensity and smaller patch size. Current trend appears to be toward accelerated deforestation. Reforestati Planted Reasonably Throughout project Reforestation attempts to ameliorate the long -term cumulative effects of large -scale, on seedlings Foreseeable area and beyond stand-replacing wildfire and past timber harvest through reestablishing forest conditions at a faster rate and sequestering carbon. Road Mining, Logging, 1950s -1993 Throughout project There has been no new system road construction and none plan ned within the Constructi Ranching, & area and beyond project area for 10 years or longer. The lack of funding to properly maintain the on Recreation existing road system contributes sediment to the stream course. Timber 16 Timber sales 1956 - 2005 Within the HUC6 The majority of timber harvest on the Kern Plateau was high risk sanitation and Harvest watershed salvage of blowdown or drought and insect related mortality. Regeneration harvest has resulted in approximately 140 acres of logging created openings within the forest. Most of the logging created openings are less than 10 acres in size but they range up to 40 acres.Current growth exceeds proposed thinning Fire Suppression of Past, Current Throughout project Fire suppression results in the accumulation of surface and ladder fuels to Suppressio wildfires Reasonably area and beyond unnaturally high levels that increase the risk of stand replacing fire effects and the n Foreseeable scale of fire effects. This can and has resulted in conversion of large landscapes and watersheds from forest to early seral stage vegetation. Patches can be very large in size and time resulting in fragmentation of the forest. Firewood Salvage of Past, Current Along the existing Activity reduces accumulation of down woody debris within a limited area, generally Gathering individual dead Reasonably road system during adjacent to or within 100’ of roads or other access points. trees by Foreseeable the spring, members of the summer, and fall public for personal use.

16 Joey Healthy Forest and Fuel Reduction Project Wildlife and Aquatics Biological Evaluation

Activity Description Date(s) Location Scope Hazard Felling of hazard Past, Current, Throughout project Roadside areas, recreation sites, trailheads, administrative sites, to provide safe tree trees and Reasonably area access for public and forest workers. Numbers of snags and area affected are reduction removal. Foreseeable limited. Timber Thinning and Past, Current, Throughout project The result is an increase in tree size and greater vigor for the remaining trees. Stand pruning in Reasonably area and beyond. Generally this activity will not have immediate results in size class or canopy closure, Improveme plantations. Foreseeable but over time increases size class and multiple layered canopies compared to no nt action. There have been approximately 100 acres treated in the late 1980s and early1990s by this method within the watershed. Grazing. Foraging Past, Current, Throughout project Seasonal use permitted in one grazing allotment . This may have some effects of livestock. Reasonably area and beyond. reducing herbaceous vegetation and some increased erosion. Current grazing Foreseeable effects are within permitted thresholds and are monitored on an annual basis. Species Accounts Species accounts are summarized with specific intent to focus on location or habitat preferences that may be affected by the proposed action. Greater detail is available on biology, range-wide distribution and cumulative effects for these species In the Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment (USDA-FS 2001) (SNFPA 2001) (the 2001 FEIS is used in this context for reference rather than direction, direction is provided by the Record of Decision for the 2004 SNFPA Supplemental EIS). Federally Protected (Listed) Species No federally listed threatened, endangered or species proposed for listing or critical habitat for such species will be affected by this project. Forest Service Sensitive Species (including special interest species) American Badger (Taxidea taxus) The species account, distribution, status and habitat relationships are excerpted from the CDFW California Wildlife Habitat Relationships Program accessed on line at http://www.dfg.ca.gov/biogeodata/cwhr/cawildlife.aspx . This species is not federally protected nor is it Forest Service sensitive. It is a tier three species of concern for the state of California. The species is addressed here in response to public comment although no specific issue or concern was identified Distribution : American Badgers occur from northern Alberta southward to central Mexico. They range from the Pacific Coast eastward through Ohio. They are absent from the humid coastal forests and from other regions with dense forests. In California, Badgers ranged throughout the state except for the humid coastal forests of northwestern California in Del Norte Co. and the northwestern portion of Humboldt Co. (Long 1973; unpubl. data). There was one observation of a badger in the RAREFIND database for the Horse meadow area in 1990. There have been no further reports and no survey since. This species has no special status and does not appear to be threatened by the proposed project. Population Status : Badger populations have declined drastically in California within the last century (Grinnell et al., 1937; Longhurst, 1940). Grinnell et al. (1937) noted that Badgers were reduced in numbers over almost all of their range in California by 1937. At that time they were still numerous in the Central Valley, but now they survive only in low numbers in peripheral parts of the valley and adjacent lowlands to the west in eastern Monterey, San Benito and San Luis Obispo counties. In the coastal areas from Mendocino County south they have been drastically reduced in numbers. They have been extirpated from many areas in southern California. Long and Killingby (1983) regarded the status of Badgers in California as poor. Deliberate killing probably has been a major factor in the decline of Badger populations. Most people regard Badgers as detrimental to their interests and attempt to kill them. Cultivation is adverse to Badgers, as they do not survive on cultivated land. No current data exist on the status of Badger populations in California, but they have obviously declined or disappeared in large sections of the state, particularly areas west of the Cascade Sierra Nevada mountain axis and in coastal basins of southern California. Badgers were common in mountainous areas only in large, treeless meadows and expanses near timberline. Longhurst (1940) noted that they had nearly disappeared from Napa County by 1940. Habitat : In California, Badgers occupy a diversity of habitats. The principal requirements seem to be sufficient food, friable soils, and relatively open, uncultivated ground. Grasslands, savannas, and mountain meadows near timberline are preferred. Badgers prey primarily on burrowing rodents. They are predatory specialists, although they will eat a variety of other animals. Effects : Since the species generally prefers open areas that would be unlikely to be affected by thinning or burning, it is unlikely that the proposed project would have a significant effect on this species.

17 Joey Healthy Forest and Fuel Reduction Project Wildlife and Aquatics Biological Evaluation

Mature, Dense-canopied Forest Group The fisher, spotted owl and goshawk occupy similar habitats. Since effects on that habitat would be similar, analysis of effects on these species and their habitats are grouped for purposes of consistency and reduction of repetitive analysis. There is a species account for each species but the effects section is combined. Marten, Sierra Nevada red fox and wolverine use similar habitats and would have similar effects. These species are not addressed in detail because systematic surveys in the area since 2002 and irregular surveys since 1991, have not detected the presence of these species although the project is within the historic range of the species. California spotted owl (Strix occidentalis occidentalis) Status and Distribution : The California spotted owl occurs only in California on the western slope of the Sierra Nevada and very locally on the eastern slope (Figure 1). Its range extends from the vicinity of Burney, Shasta County, south through the southern Cascade Range and Sierra Nevada to Kern County; in the southern part of the Coast Ranges from Monterey County to Santa Barbara County; and in the Transverse and Peninsular Ranges of southern California south to Baja California (Guitierrez, LaHaye and Zimmerman 1998, Verner, McKelvey, et al. 1992, USDI-FWS 2003). Isolated populations also occur in the Santa Cruz Mountains and Santa Lucia Mountains (Gould Jr. 1974, USDI-FWS 2003). The SNFPA (USDA Forest Service, 2001 and 2004) described trends in habitat and population for the California spotted owl. This information was updated and new information summarized in the 2006, 12 month finding on the California spotted owl by the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) (USDI-FWS 2006) and in the 2010 Sierra Nevada forest Management Indicator Species Monitoring Report (USDA-FS 2010). The USFWS has conducted several status reviews of the California spotted owl in response to listing petitions (published 12 month findings: (USDI-FWS 2003, USDI-FWS 2006). The latest finding dated May 15, 2006, incorporated the results from the most recent meta-analysis on population dynamics of the California spotted owl (Franklin, Guttierrez, et al. 2003), the best- published and unpublished; scientific and commercial information; as well as information submitted to them during the public comment periods. Based on this review, the USFWS found that the listing of the California spotted owl was not warranted at that time. The USFWS concluded that “impacts from fires, fuels treatments, timber harvest, and other activities are not at a scale, magnitude, or intensity that warrants listing, and that the overall magnitude of threats to the California spotted owl does not rise to the level that requires the protections of the Act” (USDI-FWS 2006). Demographic monitoring from four study areas from 1990-2011 provides the sole source of empirical data on the status of and trends in California spotted owl populations in the Sierra Nevada. Three of the demographics studies are conducted on National Forest Service lands (Lassen (LAS), Eldorado (ELD) and Sierra (SIE) national forests), and the fourth study is located on National Park Service lands (Sequoia-Kings Canyon National Park (SKC). Two meta-analysis workshops have been conducted to analyze California spotted owl demographics and population trends across the four studies (Franklin et al. 2004, Blakesley et al. 2010). Blakesley et al. (2010) analyzed demographic data for the period 1990-2005 and estimated that the mean finite rate of population change (lambda) for each study area was 0.973 for the LAS (95 percent CI = 0.946-1.001), 1.007 for the ELD (95 percent CI = 0.952-1.066), 0.992 for the SIE (95 percent CI = 0.966-1.018), and 1.006 for the SKC (95 percent CI = 0.946-1.001). Ongoing research of recent population trends indicates increasing evidence for population declines on the three studies on National Forest Service lands and a stable/increasing population on the National Park Service study area, and it is providing new approaches for evaluating spotted owl population trends and interpreting the probability of population declines (Conner et al., 2013; Tempel and Gutiérrez, 2013). The factors driving these population trends are not known. (Keane 2013: IN: Long et al 2013). In responding to whether fuels treatments on federal lands might be responsible for the declines, Gutierrez stated that he “did not know because there were other factors that might be involved such as clear cutting on private land. By logical extension, this would apply to home development as well” (http://snamp.cnr.berkeley.edu/discussion/post/416 ). In response to recommendations in the meta-analyses (Franklin et al. 2004, Blakesley et al. 2010), the Forest Service has initiated work on developing comprehensive, accurate vegetation maps of the demographic study areas. These vegetation maps may be used to evaluate the influence of landscape habitat characteristics on California spotted owls and assist in the indirect identification of possible causal factors. University and Pacific Southwest Research Station scientists plan a new meta-analysis in 2013 which will include an evaluation of landscape habitat characteristics using data from the demography studies through 2010 and the new vegetation maps. The most recent estimate of population size for California spotted owls in the Sierra Nevada reported 1,865 owl sites, with 1399 sites on USDA Forest Service lands, 129 owl sites on USDI National Park lands, 314 sites on private lands, 14 sites on USDI Bureau of Land Management lands, eight on State of California lands, and one on Native American lands (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2006) (Keane 2013: IN: Long et al 2013).

18 Joey Healthy Forest and Fuel Reduction Project Wildlife and Aquatics Biological Evaluation

From 1970 -1991 the total pairs estimated for Sequoia National Forest based on the California Department of Fish and Game database was 127 (Verner et al. 1992). This number increased to 133 sites based on additional surveys as presented in SNFPA (USDA Forest Service, 2001). Currently, the Sequoia National Forest maintains 126 owl sites where at least a territorial single owl or pair has been detected. Some additional adjustment is expected to remove territories established after fires in anticipation of potential occupancy, but where no occupancy has been established. The differences between the 2001 data and the current assessment are a result of several wildfires, most notably the McNally and Manter fires of 2002 and 2000 respectively, which eliminated several owl territories. The southern Kern Plateau represents somewhat of an anomaly for old forest species. The area supports consistent detections of spotted owls, fisher and goshawk at low densities despite habitat that is generally considered marginal to unsuitable due to low tree density and poor habitat conditions compared to the conventional view of suitable habitat for these species. Verner et al (1993) described the Kern Plateau as sink habitat for spotted owls. There has been relatively little timber harvest on the Kern Plateau and existing habitat is primarily a result of a high incidence of rock outcrops, poor soils, low precipitation, and the drying influence of the adjacent Mojave Desert. These limiting influences are compounded by the number and scale of stand-replacing fires in the southern Kern Plateau region. The Joey Project area supports two known California spotted owl territories and minor overlap with two additional territories at the periphery of the project. Surveys in the mid-1980s failed to detect spotted owls within the area and the area was generally thought to be too sparse and fragmented by rock outcrop to support spotted owls. A pair (TU180), which includes a female previously banded within the area burned by the McNally Fire, was found in lower Salmon Creek several years after the McNally Fire. Another pair was found in the Deadwood Creek Drainage (TU252) as a result of surveys conducted for the Joey Project in 2010 and 2011. Both territories have established home range core areas, including protected activity centers, which will not be affected by this project other than the potential for low intensity prescribed fire. Habitat Relationships The California spotted owl selects habitat for nesting, roosting, or foraging that have structural components of old forests. Occupied stands tend to have a greater representation of large old trees (trees with cavities, broken tops, etc.); higher live tree basal area; a multi-layered condition; higher canopy cover; and an availability of large, live trees, snags and downed logs (CDFG 2008, Verner et al. 1992, USFWS 2006). The species appears to be intolerant of high temperatures (California Wildlife Habitat Relationships (CWHR) (CDFG 2008), most roost locations occur in areas where dense multi-layered canopies exist. The selection of mature, multi-layered stands is also evident for breeding and nest selection (Ibid). Occupied spotted owl sites in California have occurred most frequently in mixed conifer forests (80 percent). Limited occupancy however is also noted in red fir forests (10 percent), ponderosa pine/hardwood forests (7 percent), or other forest types such as east-side pine, and foothill riparian/hardwood (collectively 3 percent) (Verner et al. 1992, USFWS 2003). Six major studies (Verner et al. 1992, chapter 5) described habitat relations of the owl in four general areas spanning the length of the Sierra Nevada. Radio-tracking studies of California spotted owls in the Lassen NF and Sierra NF have provided some insights into habitat selection in conifer forests. Through this analysis stands with greater than 40 percent canopy cover were considered suitable, where stands with less than 39 percent canopy cover were not (Verner et al. 1992 p.10; USFWS 2006). Other studies suggested that spotted owls appear to preferentially select for forests with greater than 50 percent canopy cover but use habitat with 40- 50 percent cover in proportion to availability (neither preferred nor avoided) (Hunsaker, Boroski and Steger 2002). Nest sites are generally in habitat with 70 percent or greater total canopy cover (defined as all canopy above 7 feet), although higher elevation nest sites in red fir types have been documented in stands with as little as 30- 40 percent canopy cover (Verner et al. 1992, pg. 60). Verner et al. (1992) found that owl foraging habitats include suitable nesting and roosting sites as well as more open stands, regularly down to 40-50 percent canopy cover, that are generally similar in structure and composition to nesting and roosting habitat. Typical conditions in occupied conifer forest include: • A mixture of tree sizes, usually with some trees exceeding 24” dbh, resulting in tree canopies at a wide range of heights but not necessarily in distinct layers. • Signs of decadence – snags, over mature trees, downed woody debris, large logs are especially characteristic. • The presence of hardwoods probably tends to enhance foraging habitat in conifer forests. • Ample open flying space within and beneath the canopy Estimates of California spotted owl home range size are extremely variable. Available data indicate that home ranges are smallest in habitats at relatively low elevations that are dominated by hardwoods (800 acres), intermediate in size in conifer forests in the central Sierra Nevada (2,500 acres in the Sierra and Sequoia NFs, 4,000 acres in the Eldorado, Stanislaus, 19 Joey Healthy Forest and Fuel Reduction Project Wildlife and Aquatics Biological Evaluation

Plumas and Tahoe NFs), and largest in the true fir forests in the northern Sierra Nevada (9,000 acres in Lassen National Park) (Verner et al. 1992 In: USDA-FS 2001). As part of the California spotted owl conservation strategy, the SNFPA guidelines (USDA 2001 and 2004) directs establishment of a Protected Activity Center (PAC) around each territorial single or pair detected on National Forest System lands since 1986, with additional area established around the PAC to form a Home Range Core Area (HRCA). For the Sequoia and Sierra National Forests, the HRCA encompasses 600 acres including the PAC (USDA-FS 2004). HRCAs for more northern Forests are larger based on the larger territory sizes used. Berigan et al. (2012) investigated the efficacy of the PAC concept. Their findings indicate that the average core area used by spotted owls was 335 acres which accounted for 95 percent of nest and roost sites. The spatial overlap between owl core areas of use and PACs was high indicating that the PAC concept has validity for spotted owl management. The HRCA is designed to include the best available spotted owl habitat encompassing the owl PAC where the most concentrated owl foraging activity is likely to occur. The HRCA amounts to an estimated 20 percent of the area described by the sum of the average breeding pair home range plus one standard error. Verner et al. (1992) found that 50 percent of foraging activity was within 317 acres surrounding the nest site (comparable use was found within 788 acres surrounding the nest site for northern forests). Bingham and Noon (Bingham and Noon 1997) as cited in USDA-FS 2001 found the “overused” portion of an owl’s breeding home range (core area) to be 20 to 21 percent of the owl’s home range. Berigan et al. (2012) tested the efficacy of PAC designation as a management tool. Their findings indicated the average size of 95% owl core use areas (334.7 acres), as defined by locations of nests and roosts found over long periods of time, was similar to the average PAC size (287.5 acres) and the spatial overlap between owl core use areas and PACs was high. The average proportions of each core area that overlapped a PAC were 0.84, 0.70, and 0.61 for the 50, 90, and 95% usage distributions, respectively. PACs encompassed areas used by owls over very long periods of time and, hence, can be considered core habitat areas for roosting and nesting territorial pairs. Studies suggest that spotted owl reproduction may be influenced by the percentage of closed-canopied stands that occur around the activity core. Lee and Irwin (assessing risks to spotted owls from forest thinning in fire-adapted forests of the western United States 2005) used data from Hunsaker et al (2002) to evaluate thresholds for risk assessment of short-term fuels reduction efforts versus long–term risk of loss of habitat to fire. Lee and Irwin (2005) grouped the 40–49 percent canopy class with the 50 percent canopy class in assessing habitat conditions. They identified two reasons for this regrouping. First, the correlation with the adjusted mean reproductive value is stronger when the 40 percent canopy closure breakpoint is used. This suggests that the 40–50 percent canopy class may help explain differences in observed reproduction. Second, the 40 percent canopy class threshold is useful when discussing fire risks and fuels treatments. In the Sierra Nevada, 40 percent canopy cover has been identified as a general rule-of-thumb for an upper bound on post-treated stands to minimize the probability of sustained crown fire, although ‘‘adjustments in stand density based on local conditions certainly are appropriate’’ (C. S.-l. Weatherspoon 1996). Lee and Irwin (2005) found that spotted owl reproduction was slightly increased when a greater percentage of the home range was occupied by stands with higher canopy closures. They used the 430 ha (1,062 acre) area used by Hunsaker et al (2002) immediately surrounding the territory center and found a minimum threshold for reproductive owls was met when 44 percent or greater of the area contained stands with greater than 40 percent canopy cover. However, once this minimum was met, the relative amount of forests with intermediate (40-70 percent) and dense (greater than 70 percent) canopy cover had little measurable effect on reproduction of spotted owls. These findings were conditional on having a suitable nest tree in the stand. This finding is consistent with the Bart (1995) conclusion that 30–50% of northern spotted owl territories should be in suitable owl habitat to ensure replacement. Seamans and Gutierrez (2007) found the breeding dispersal probability for paired female spotted owls increased rapidly and colonization probability decreased in owl territories with less than 150 hectares (370 acres) of mature forest habitat when 20 ha. (50 acres) or more of such habitat was altered. Where 150 ha. (370 acres) of mature forest habitat existed, the dispersal probability was very low even when greater than 20 ha. of habitat was altered. Seamans (2005) and Seamans and Gutierrez (2007) described mature forest habitat as having 70 percent canopy cover or greater. They did not evaluate or address contribution of habitat with 40 to 69 percent cover and noted that effects of availability of such habitat were unknown for their study. These studies were conducted on and adjacent to the Eldorado national Forest in central California. There are a number of significant differences between the Eldorado (ELD) study area and the Kern Plateau where the Joey Project occurs. The ELD study area is a much more mesic site with two to three times the annual precipitation and better soil, higher site quality than the Joey project. This results in a much higher density of trees and a greater contrast between thinned or clear- cut areas and mature untreated forest. Despite the higher density and better site quality, the ELD study area requires a 20 Joey Healthy Forest and Fuel Reduction Project Wildlife and Aquatics Biological Evaluation territory and core area for spotted owls that is twice as large as the area required to support spotted owls on the Sierra National Forest where site conditions are closer to the Joey Project area. The ELD study area also includes large tracts (checker board ownership) of private industrial timber ground where clear-cutting is a common practice. This is a significant difference and the study noted above does not appear to differentiate between alterations by clear-cut on private land versus alteration by light to moderate thinning of smaller trees as is proposed in the Joey Project. The Seamans and Gutierrez (2007) study suggests a threshold similar to the one evaluated by Lee and Irwin (2005). The Lee and Irwin (2005) threshold was based on studies from the Sierra National Forest, where conditions are closer to those found within the Joey Project, and is used for the purpose of this analysis. Franklin et al. (2000) (Northwestern California) described a complex interaction of habitat quality and distribution that partially explains spatial variation in reproductive success. The best-fitting model included positive relations with the amount of edge between owl habitat and non-owl habitat. Higher reproductive success was noted in sites with intermediate numbers of owl habitat patches intermixed with non-habitat areas. Blakesley (2003) found that 78% of the core area they studied (814 ha. (2011 acres) based on northern California owls with larger home ranges.) and 83% of the nest area (203 ha. (500 acres)) in reproductively successful spotted owl territories was composed of trees > 30 cm (24 inches dbh) with >40 percent canopy cover (Lassen study area in northeastern California). Blakesley (ibid) found that reproductive outputs were lower with increases in nest area dominated by small trees and un- forested area although the correlation was weak and no thresholds were identified. The composition of the nest area was a much better predictor of site occupancy than core area but relationships to apparent survival and reproductive output were similar for both spatial scales. Differences in primary prey species between the Franklin et al. (2000) and Blakesley (2003) study sites may affect habitat relations and results (Blakesley 2003). The Franklin study which showed increased success due to edge effects and inclusion of unforested areas was in an area where wood rats are the dominant prey. Blakesley’s study was in an area where flying squirrels are the dominant prey (Blakesley, Noon and Anderson, Site occupancy, apparent survival, and reproduction of California spotted owls in relation to forest stand characteristics. 2005). The Joey Project is in an area where there is a significant woodrat prey base. Large diameter snags (trees greater than 15” dbh, and a minimum of 20’ tall (the average roost/nest tree is greater than 40 inches dbh) and woody debris provide important habitat for nest and roost structures. These structures are also utilized by many prey species. Snag levels in nesting and roosting stands were found to range between 20 and 30 square feet basal area, and between 7-17 square feet basal area in foraging stands (Verner et al. 1992). Estimates of the mass of downed wood in owl nesting, roosting, and foraging sites ranged from 10.5 to 24.7 tons per acre, with a mean of 17.4 tons per acre. The snag and down woody debris levels reported for nesting and roosting areas represent specialized habitats within a small (0.1 acre in some studies) area surrounding the nest or roost area and were substantially higher than the average for the landscapes surrounding the sites. Public comment regarding this project asserts that these high levels of snags and down logs are needed throughout the project area to support spotted owls. These figures support the need to manage for a mosaic of diverse conditions that include areas with high levels of snags and down woody debris, but do not appear to indicate that such conditions are uniformly high across the landscapes occupied by spotted owls. Spotted owl preferentially select microsites with high levels of snags and down woody debris for roost and nest sites, but it is clear that these microsites are not typical of the landscape conditions which spotted owls occupy. Based on the lack of fire over the last 80-90 years it is thought snag and down log values probably exceed what was present during the pre-European settlement period and are substantially higher than in similar unmanaged (no logging or fire suppression) forests of the Sierra San Pedro de Martir of northern Baja Mexico (Minnich et al., 2000, Stephens 2004) or old growth conditions in minimally managed areas (Potter et al., 1992). Recent studies (Bond et al. 2002, 2009, 2013; Lee et al. 2012; Roberts 2008) indicate that spotted owls may benefit from low intensity fire. Bond et al. 2002 found that short-term impacts of wildfire on spotted owl survival, reproductive success, and mate/site fidelity were minimal in areas burned by low to moderate severity fires in northern California, Arizona and New Mexico. Another study (Gaines et al. 1997) found that while the short-term impacts may be minimal, suitable habitat around spotted owl nest sites continued to decline up to two years post-fire as additional tree mortality occurred. Following wildfire in the eastern Washington Cascades, spotted owls utilized areas of low intensity burns (Bevis et al. 1997). In addition, low intensity prescribed fire had little impact on the ability of Mexican spotted owls ( Strix occidentalis lucida ) to reproduce

21 Joey Healthy Forest and Fuel Reduction Project Wildlife and Aquatics Biological Evaluation

(Sheppard and Farnsworth 1995) and occupancy and productivity of the subspecies in burned landscapes was found to be slightly less than in unburned landscapes (Jenness et al. 2005). Based on the above investigations on fire effects on spotted owls, there has been expression of thought, that wildland fire is beneficial to spotted owls and efforts to modify severe fire behavior through fuels reduction projects is unnecessary. However, the majority of the above studies only tracked spotted owls after fires had occurred and only for a short duration. As such they do not address changes in density, survivorship, recolonization, or long-term sustainability of spotted owl territories before and after large-scale, stand replacing wildfires. It appears that low intensity fire, including some mixed lethal fire effects on forest vegetation, may be beneficial to mature forest species. However, the following discussion and anecdotal comparison of spotted owl density within the McNally fire, before, immediately after the fire and five or more years post fire indicates that large-scale, stand-replacing effects are likely to be detrimental to long-term sustainability of spotted owls. The following is a summary from Clark (2007) of the potential impacts of stand-replacing fire in dry forests on Northern spotted owls where fuels have accumulated due to active fire suppression: Some of the structural complexity in forest stands occupied by spotted owls in southwestern Oregon may have developed due to the absence of wildfire due to active fire suppression during the latter part of the 20th century (Agee 1993). As a result of active fire suppression, increased fuel loads may have created a large scale risk of stand replacing fires (Agee and Edmonds 1992) and potentially reduced the sustainability of spotted owl habitat in dry forest ecosystems (Agee 1993, Taylor and Skinner 1997, Spies et al. 2006). “The greatest impact of wildfire on spotted owls will likely be the destruction or alteration of habitat. Numerous studies have documented that spotted owl survival and occupancy were positively associated with increased amounts of late-successional forest (Franklin et al. 2000, Olson et al. 2004, Blakesley et al. 2005, Dugger et al. 2005). Therefore, large-scale wildfires that destroy habitat may negatively impact spotted owl survival and occupancy. If wildfire removes a sufficient amount of suitable habitat, owl territories will likely be abandoned (Bart and Forsman 1992, Bart 1995), and these areas likely will not support owls until mature and older forests are restored. Clark (2007) found that spotted owl occupancy declined rapidly following stand replacing fires in southern Oregon compared to similar unburned landscapes in the area. Occupancy at all 3 fires investigated declined from 2003 – 2006. Initial occupancy was positively influenced by the amount of roosting and foraging habitat with low severity burn within the core and negatively influenced by the amount of hard edge within the core. Extinction rates increased in a curvilinear manner as the amount of unsuitable habitat within the core increased and as the amount of edge increased. Colonization rates were positively influenced by the amount of nesting, roosting and foraging habitat that received a low severity burn within the core. No significant differences in productivity of spotted owl pairs in burned landscapes and unburned landscapes were found (Clark 2007). Annual survival rates of spotted owls that resided within the fire or had recently emigrated out of the fire were lower than owls that resided outside the fire. Annual home ranges of spotted owls in this study were on average 248.46 ha. larger than home ranges observed in the same area prior to wildfire. However, home ranges of spotted owls that resided inside the fire were not significantly different than owls that resided outside the fire. Larger home ranges are an indicator of lower suitability of the habitat to sustain the animal. Further study by Clark et al. (2013) expanded the above analysis of northern spotted owl in burned forests of Oregon to include additional fires. Their conclusion that “site occupancy of spotted owl nesting territories declined in the short-term following wildfire, habitat modification and loss due to past timber harvest, high severity fire, and salvage logging jointly contributed to declines in site occupancy” appears to be consistent with the earlier findings of Clark (2007). Great Gray Owl ( Strix nebulosa ) Account information for this species is summarized and updated from the 2001 Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment, Draft and Final Environmental Impact Statements as well as updated information from the 2004 Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for the Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment. The background material in these parent documents is incorporated by reference. Status and Distribution The great gray owl is a Forest Service sensitive species in both Region 4 and Region 5. It is known or suspected to occur on the Eldorado, Inyo, Lassen, Modoc, Plumas, Sequoia, Sierra, Stanislaus, Tahoe, and Humboldt- Toiyabe National Forests, and on the Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit. It was classified as an endangered species by the State of California in October 1980. Throughout the species range, density differs greatly from area to area. These differences are probably influenced by food supply and/or nest site availability. The highest nesting density in Oregon was 0.29 pairs/square mile (mi 2)

22 Joey Healthy Forest and Fuel Reduction Project Wildlife and Aquatics Biological Evaluation and 0.66 pairs/mi 2 in Manitoba (Bull and Henjum 1990), 0.73 pairs/mi 2 in Minnesota (Duncan 1987), and 0.25 pairs/mi 2 in California (Winter 1986). The great gray owl is a holarctic species. It remains evenly distributed across its range but has variability in local distribution. Godfrey (1986) gives it range as south of the tree line in northern Yukon, northwest and central Mackenzie River basin (Lockhart River and Great Slave Lake), north Saskatchewan, Manitoba, north Ontario south through southern Yukon and interior British Columbia, north and central Alberta, Manitoba, and central Ontario. 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. The southern populations in the western U.S. are considered relatively stable, breeding every year and remaining in the same general area throughout the year, although, as previously stated, breeding in Yosemite National Park is somewhat sporadic (Winter 1999). The northern populations and those at the southern edge of the range in eastern Canada are considered less stable. The Sierra Nevada populations are the most southerly populations of this species in the world. No data is available to compare this species’ historical range to its current range. There are no reports of great grey owls in the project area. However, there have been unconfirmed reports of great gray owls on the eastern Kern Plateau at various times since 1986. It is presumed that they may be in the vicinity of the project. But this would be a small and isolated extension of the population. The nearest confirmed reproduction is on the Hume Lake District and the nearest reported but unconfirmed location is 20-30 miles to the east. Habitat Relationships The elevation range of great gray owl habitat in California varies from north to south, with higher elevation ranges in the southern Sierra than in the northern Sierra. The seasonal timing of nesting is different in each of these elevation zones. This species typically forages in meadows and other open, early-stage habitats supporting small mammals. It nests and roosts in nearby dense (greater than 40% canopy closure) coniferous forest at elevations between 2,500 and 8,000 feet. Nest sites in Yosemite National Park and on the Stanislaus National Forest are in large trees (greater than 30” dbh) in stands that have canopy cover greater than 70% (Greene 1995). Forest age does not seem to matter, provided suitable nest sites are available. Nest sites have been documented in conifer and black oak snags with broken tops, abandoned hawk nests, and artificial nest structures. In California, nests are generally located within 840 feet of the forest edge, averaging 500 feet (Winter 2000, Beck and Winter 2000). The CWHR classes which correspond to suitable breeding and roosting habitat are 4M, 4D, 5M, 5D, and 6, as defined in Appendix B (page B-3) in the SNFPA ROD. Perennial grasses and sedges provide the dominant forage area cover in meadows (Hayward 1994, USDA Forest Service 2001b). Nests that are persistently occupied in the Yosemite area are generally associated with meadows greater than 25 acres in size (Winter 1986) but smaller meadows (as small as 10 acres) have supported infrequent nesting (USDA Forest Service 2000). Only a portion (13-20%) of great gray owl territories appears to support breeding in a given year (Winter 1999). This species has high fidelity to nest sites, which are often reused for several years (Bull et al. 1988, Franklin 1988, Duncan 1992). Foraging habitat in the Sierra Nevada is generally open meadows and grasslands in forested areas, and trees along the forest edge are used for hunting perches. Openings caused by fires or timber harvest serves as foraging habitat when the vegetation is in early successional stages (Hayward 1994, Greene 1995). Greene (1995) found that sites occupied by great gray owls had greater plant cover, vegetation height, and soil moisture than sites not occupied by owls. Canopy closure was the only variable of three variables measured (canopy closure, number of snags greater than 24” dbh, and number of snags less than 24” dbh) that was significantly larger in occupied sites than in unoccupied sites. In some winters, when its prey is scarce, individuals from northern populations wander south to the northern U.S. and southern Canada, often in considerable numbers. These winter migrations are not believed to extend to the Sierra Nevada. In the Sierra Nevada, the winter range is generally the same as the breeding habitat, except individuals in Yosemite National Park are known to move to lower elevations with thinner snow cover (Winter 2000). Habitat conditions are thought to be similar to those of summer habitat. Northern Goshawk (Accipiter gentilis) Status and Distribution The northern goshawk is holarctic in distribution. In North America it occurs primarily in boreal forests, but it also occurs far to the south in montane forests of the western United States and Mexico. The goshawk is partly migratory in the northern portion of its range, where in winters of food shortage it migrates southward. In high elevations and montane areas, some goshawks descend into lower elevations with woodlands, riparian areas, and scrublands during the winter (Kennedy, et al. 1994). The status of northern goshawk populations in the western United States is poorly understood (Squires and Reynolds 1997). Data are difficult to interpret due to inherent biases in methodologies and irruptive migrations. Although northern goshawks remain widely distributed throughout their historic range, current sampling techniques are inadequate to determine population

23 Joey Healthy Forest and Fuel Reduction Project Wildlife and Aquatics Biological Evaluation status or trends of this species. One index of trend is the Christmas bird counts adjusted for observer days. This index indicates a slight positive trend for goshawks. Currently, there are 20 protected activity centers established for northern goshawk pairs documented on Sequoia National Forest. Surveys and incidental observation confirm that the species is well distributed across the Forest. There is one recorded goshawk territory within the Joey analysis area and two additional territories within the 6 th order watershed. All three have established PACs that will not be affected by this project. Surveys in 2011 did not detect goshawks at the territory within the Joey project. Previous survey located a single detection in 2001 and a pair in 1999 and 1998. Habitat Relationships Northern goshawks occur in a variety of coniferous forest communities in the western United States, primarily in ponderosa pine ( Pinus ponderosa ), Jeffrey pine ( P. jeffereyi ), mixed conifer, white fir ( Abies concolor ), and lodgepole pine ( P. contorta ). Large snags and downed logs are believed to be important components of northern goshawk foraging habitat because such features increase the abundance of major prey species (Squires and Reynolds, 1997). When foraging, northern goshawks utilize a wider range of forest types and conditions, but most populations still exhibit a preference for high canopy closure and a high density of larger trees. In Nevada, however, northern goshawks forage in open sagebrush habitats or perch in aspen stands to hunt ground squirrels in adjacent sagebrush (Squires and Reynolds, 1997). Nest stands are typically composed of large trees that have high canopy closure, are near the bottom of moderate hill slopes, and have a sparse understory. Studies of nesting habitat show that goshawks nest in older-aged forests with variable tree species (Shuster 1980, Saunders 1982, Moore and Henny 1983, Hall 1984). Coniferous trees used for nesting in the western portion of northern goshawk's range include ponderosa pine, Douglas-fir ( Pseudotsuga menziesii ), white fir, and lodgepole pine (Squires and Reynolds, 1997). Nests are typically constructed in the largest tree in the stand (Hargis, McCarthy and Perloff 1994, Reynolds, Graham, et al. 1992, Squires and Ruggerio 1996). Goshawks typically nest in stands with canopy cover between 60 percent and 80 percent (Crocker-Bedford and Chaney 1988). Studies of habitat characteristics at goshawk nest sites have reported average canopy closure measurements from 75 percent in northern California to 88 percent in northwestern California (Saunders 1982, Hall 1984). Stand structure ranges from dense multi-layered stands in Oregon to open park-like understories in Colorado and California (Shuster 1980, Saunders 1982, Hall 1984). Average nest tree size is just as variable, with mean tree diameters ranging from 8-20 inches in Colorado (Shuster 1980), 20 inches in Oregon (Moore and Henny 1983), and 36 inches in northwestern California (Hall 1984). Goshawks appear to prefer north to east aspects for nest sites (Moore and Henny 1983, Hall 1984), as tree stands within these aspects are typically denser and more suitable. Slope also appears important, as nests are usually placed on flat to moderately slope (1-40 percent grade) where trees are larger and grow at a higher density (Shuster 1980, Reynolds et al. 1992). Hennessy (1978) observed that there was a tendency for goshawks to build nests near or on trails, edges, dirt roads, or other clearings such that clear flight lanes were provided to and from the nest. The importance of the proximity of the nest area to water is not known. Moore and Henny (1983) found that the distance of water from nests averaged approximately 650 feet. Hall (1984) found an average distance of 500 feet. Shuster (1980) found that nests were rarely further than 900 feet from water. Hennessy (1978) found an average of 1,300 feet in Utah. Crocker- Bedford and Chaney (1988) suggested that a permanent water source is not required, but there may be a preference for this condition. Northern goshawks prey on a variety of animals, including but not limited to tree squirrels, hares, grouse, corvids, woodpeckers, and large passerines (Squires and Reynolds 1997). Prey may be cached on a branch or wedged between branches (Zachel 1985), primarily when nestlings are small and need frequent feedings (Squires and Reynolds, 1997). Goshawks are short-duration sit-and-wait predators, and often switch perches while searching for food. Reynolds and Meslow (1984) found that the goshawk is a height zone generalist, taking prey from the ground-shrub and shrub-canopy layers. Bloom et al. (1986) stress the importance of meadows, streams, and aspen stands, which may be important for prey species on which the goshawk feeds. However, Bartelt (1977) observed that goshawks forage in a variety of habitats, probably along edge as well as in deep forests. Moore (1980) also noted use of edge. The presence of prey plucking sites within the nesting territory is also a habitat characteristic related to foraging. Prey plucking sites usually consist of stumps, fallen logs, snags, or arched trees (Bartelt 1977, McCarthy et al. 1989). In Oregon and California studies, goshawks were found to forage primarily on birds and mammals (Reynolds 1992, Bloom et al. 1986). Since goshawks generally have a greater tolerance for openings and appear to require less dense mature forest habitat compared to spotted owls. It is assumed that if spotted owl needs are met, adequate goshawk habitat will be retained.

24 Joey Healthy Forest and Fuel Reduction Project Wildlife and Aquatics Biological Evaluation

Pacific fisher (Martes pennanti) Status and Distribution The fisher (Martes pennanti) is a large member of the weasel family associated with dense, structurally complex, low- to mid- elevation forests (Powell and Zielinski 1994, Zielinski et al. 2004a, 2004b, Davis et al. 2007). Fisher remain well distributed across the northeastern U.S. and in Canada north and west to Alaska.in reintroduced and natural populations. Populations in the western U.S. are small, isolated, and threatened by habitat modification and fragmentation (Powell and Zielinski 1994, Zielinski et al. 2005). In 2004, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) completed a 12-month status review of the fisher (Martes pennanti) and determined that the West Coast Distinct Population Segment (DPS) warranted protection under the Endangered Species Act of 1976 et seq. but listing was precluded by higher priority actions (Federal Register Vol. 69 No. 68, April 8, 2004) (USDI-FWS 2004). In the Sierra Nevada, fishers occupy a small area south from Yosemite National Park through the Greenhorn Mountains in southern Tulare County (Zielinski et al. 2000, 2005). This region is also experiencing increasing risks of large, stand-replacing wildfires due to previous forest management actions (e.g., fire suppression, logging), climate change, and increased human- caused ignition rates (Agee and Skinner 2005, Van Wagtendonk and Fites-Kaufman 2006, Westerling et al. 2006, Syphard et al. 2007). Survey data indicate that fishers currently occur in two widely separated regions of the state: the northwest, including the northern Coast Range and Klamath Province, and the southern Sierra Nevada (Zielinski et al. 1995, Aubry and Lewis 2003). This shows a gap in their distribution of approximately 250 miles in the northern Sierra and southern Cascades, which has previously been attributed to the historical effects of trapping and timber harvest (Zielinski et al. 1995, 2005). Contrary to the conclusions of Grinnell et al. (1937: 215)—and an earlier report suggesting fishers were trapped in the gap region in the early 1900s (Grinnell et al. 1930)—new genetic analysis suggests that the two populations in California were separated prior to European influence in the region (Knaus et al. 2011; Tucker et al., 2013). The genetic work does not estimate the size of the purported historical gap in distribution; it may have been similar to the apparent gap identified in Grinnell et al. (1937:216) or even smaller (M. Schwartz, pers. comm.). If the gap predates European influence and was as large then as it is today, the current range of fishers in California would be about 90 percent of the pre-European historical range. If the gap was as small as a few fisher home-ranges wide, then the current range may be no more than 20 percent of the historical range. In 2009, a small population of fishers was reintroduced to Butte and Tehama Counties (Facka and Powell 2010) within the presumed gap in the distribution. There has been successful reproduction each year (A. Facka, pers. comm.), but it is too soon to calculate the contribution these animals will make to fisher populations in California. The distribution of the fisher population in the southern Sierra Nevada has been monitored since 2002. There has been no change in the proportion of stations with a fisher detection (i.e., occupancy); the population appears stable (Zielinski et al. 2013). Based on habitat and population modeling, the size of the southern Sierra Nevada population has been estimated to be between125 and 250 adults (Spencer et al. 2011). Habitat Relationships The following was excerpted from Zielinski 2013: IN Long et al. 2013: In western North America, fishers are associated with late-successional conifer or mixed-conifer-hardwood forests characterized by an abundance of dead and downed wood, dense canopy, and large trees (Buskirk and Powell 1994, Zielinski et al. 2004a, Purcell et al. 2009, Lofroth et al. 2010, Raley et al. 2012). Fishers occur in a variety of low and mid-elevation forests (primarily the ponderosa pine and mixed-conifer types) where canopy is moderate to dense, but the vegetation types comprising the home range can be heterogeneous (Lofroth et al. 2010, Thompson et al. 2011). In the Sierra Nevada, fishers occur primarily in mixed-conifer and ponderosa pine forests from 3,500-7,000 ft., elevations that do not typically receive deep and persistent snow, which is thought to restrict their movements (Krohn et al. 1995, 1997). Powell and Zielinski (1994) hypothesized that forest structure was more important than tree species for fisher habitat. Complex structure, including a diversity of tree sizes, snags, downed trees and limbs, and understory vegetation, provides den and rest sites and hiding cover for fishers, as well as habitat for their prey. Both inactive (resting and denning) and active (foraging) fishers are typically associated with complex forest structure (Lofroth et al. 2010, Zhao et al. 2012). Fishers forage in a manner that suggests that they use habitat at four scales: the resting site, the stand, the home range, and the landscape. Resting and denning (i.e., parturition and neonatal care) typically occur in trees, snags, and logs that are in the largest diameter classes (Lofroth et al. 2010, Raley et al. 2012, Aubry et al. 2012) and are either deformed or in some form of decay (Weir et al. 2012). For example, the average diameters at breast height 25 Joey Healthy Forest and Fuel Reduction Project Wildlife and Aquatics Biological Evaluation

(dbh) of conifer and hardwood rest trees in one study in the Sierra Nevada were 43 and 26 in, respectively (Zielinski et al. 2004a, Zielinski et al. 2006). In an innovative new study using LIDAR to characterize the vegetation structure surrounding den trees, Zhao et al. (2012) found that tree height and slope were important variables in classifying the area immediately surrounding denning trees. At scales larger than 65 ft., forest structure and complexity became more important. The variables identified using LIDAR were consistent with those identified from previous studies describing fisher resting structures. The strong association of fishers with dense forest stands that contain a diversity of tree sizes complicates the ability of managers to achieve what seem like mutually exclusive goals: the reduction of stand densities and fuels, and the maintenance of fisher habitat. The basal area of small-diameter trees is an important predictor of fisher resting sites (Zielinski et al. 2004a). The smaller trees may provide the requisite canopy cover needed by fishers, as long as a suitably large resting structure (tree or snag) is also available (Purcell et al. 2009). Some researchers have speculated that the dense forest conditions that appear attractive to fishers today may be an artifact of past logging practices and fire suppression. These factors may have changed forest conditions from stands dominated by large trees and snags to dense stands with size class distributions that included more small-diameter trees (Scholl and Taylor 2010, Collins et al. 2011). Topography affects the distribution of dense forests and the effect of fire severity (North et al. 2009), as well as the distribution of fisher resting sites. Underwood et al. (2010) found that fisher activity locations were disproportionately found in lower topographic positions (i.e., canyons), as well as in southerly and northerly mid-slope positions. As generalized predators, fishers prey on a variety of small and medium-sized mammals and birds, and they also feed on carrion (Powell 1993, Martin 1994). In California, reptiles and insects are also notable components of the diet (Zielinski et al. 1999, Golightly et al. 2006). Home range size appears to be a function of the abundance of food, in that fishers whose diet includes a significant component of relatively large (>400 g) food items (e.g., woodrat [Neotoma sp.] and western gray squirrel [Sciurus griseus]) have significantly smaller home ranges (Slauson and Zielinski, unpubl. data). Predation is probably the predominant cause of death, and fishers are regularly killed by cougars (Puma concolor), coyotes (Canis latrans) and bobcats (Lynx rufus) (Lofroth et al. 2010). Fishers are also affected by viral and parasitic diseases, such as canine distemper, parvovirus, and toxoplasmosis, and they are victims of poison distributed to control rodents (Brown et al. 2006, Gabriel et al. 2012a, 2012b). Fisher home range sizes in the Tule River Canyon, Sequoia National Forest averaged 1,304 acres for females and 7,409 acres for males using the 100% minimum convex polygon method Zielinski et al. (2004b). Zielinski et al. (2004b) speculated that the relatively small home range sizes of fisher in the southern Sierra Study Site located on Sequoia National Forest reflect higher habitat quality due to greater abundance of black oak that provides cavities and prey food resources. Male home ranges generally overlap several female home ranges. Sierra Nevada Adaptive Management Project (SNAMP) data collected (accessed 12/1/2009 at : http://snamp.cnr.berkeley.edu/documents/Fisher/ ) from the northern Sierra National Forest have found that the core use area of denning female fishers ranges from about 600 to 800 acres (the core is an intensively used sub set of the home range). However, home ranges in the Sierra study were significantly larger than the observations in the Tule River Canyon within the Sequoia National Forest. Using data available at the time, Zielinski et al. (2004b) examined the vegetation composition of fisher home ranges in the southern Sierra Nevada as described in the following paragraph. These figures are descriptions of information regarding home range composition selected relative to what is available. Fishers may occupy areas that differ somewhat from values presented here. The GIS data used in Zielinski et al. (2004b) lacked the spatial resolution to map small inclusions of shrub habitat within the greater mixed-conifer matrix. R. Truex (pers. com.) believes that this fine grain heterogeneity is important from the perspective of prey diversity. Habitats used on the Kern Plateau are considered an anomaly due to the more open habitat. Fisher also appear to use higher elevation habitats on the Kern Plateau. SNFPA monitoring of fisher and personal observation indicate that fisher use and are consistently detected above 9,000 feet in red fir habitat on the Kern Plateau, whereas observations in west slope sierra mixed conifer habitat is generally below 8,000’ and red fir is used less frequently. Spencer et al. (2008) noted the Kern Plateau habitat, where the Joey Project is located, as an anomaly for fisher: Most of the home-range-scale models we tested failed to predict as much suitable habitat on the Kern Plateau as would be suggested by the annual fisher detections in that area. … The Kern Plateau is ecologically distinct from other portions of the study area, with less precipitation, gentler and less incised terrain, and perhaps different vegetation composition and structure (Miles and Goudey 1998). It is unclear whether these unique environmental conditions confound geographically broader habitat models (see also Davis et al., 2007). In addition, the 2002

26 Joey Healthy Forest and Fuel Reduction Project Wildlife and Aquatics Biological Evaluation

McNally fire burned 60,985 ha (150,696 ac) on the Kern Plateau. It is unclear how this mixed-severity fire may have affected fisher occupancy patterns (R. Truex, personal communications). Risk Factors and Management Concerns for Mature Forest Group Climate Change

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC 2001) projects a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO 2) from industrial sources by as early as 2050. Climate responses to increased CO 2 are expected to vary regionally and topographically, but a universal trend towards warming is expected due to trapping of heat by greenhouse gases. California is thought to be highly vulnerable to the effects of climate change due to coastal and latitudinal orientation, extreme elevation gradients, and the variety of ecosystems present (Snyder et al. 2002). Because California’s ecosystems are already stressed by human growth and agricultural demands, added stress from climate change could substantially alter the current biotic landscape.

Snyder et al. (2002) modeled climate change for California based on a projected doubling of CO2 and concluded that a warming trend would occur across the state with the greatest temperature changes in the Sierra Nevada (where average annual spring temperatures could increase by as much as 12.7 °F). According to Dettinger (2002), the most prevalent prediction of more recent climate change models is that temperatures will warm by about 9 o F by 2100, while precipitation will remain similar or slightly reduced compared to present levels. Lenihan et al. (2006) analyzed the responses of vegetation distribution to three future climate scenarios in California and similarly predicted dramatic increases in mid-elevation mixed evergreen forests (conifer/oak), primarily as a result of increased temperatures. This same analysis (Lenihan, et al. 2006) predicted decreases in conifer forests (pine/mixed conifer) due to increased fire. In fact, Lenihan et al. (2006) projected that relative to the past century, the annual acreage burned would increase 10 to 50 percent for the period 2050 to 2099. The predicted hot dry summers could lead to a great increase in the frequency of uncharacteristically severe, stand-replacing wildfires. Most notably, should wet, warm winters and springs contribute to increased fuel loading, and if current fire- suppression policies are extended into the future. Fire regimes respond rapidly to changes in climate and are likely to drive the short-term responses in terms of vegetation floristics and structure (Flannigan, Stocks and Wotton 2000) (Dale, et al. 2001). Large fires could accelerate habitat fragmentation, especially in coniferous forests, and result in the loss of spotted owl population viability. Greater incidence of wildfires may reduce the frequency and alter the distribution of important structural features used by fishers (and similar habitats used by spotted owls) such as large trees and high canopy cover (Safford 2006). While these wildfires may result in the temporary creation of snags and coarse woody debris, increased fire frequencies may reduce the availability of these structural features over the long term (Ibid.). Lenihan et al. (2006) predicted that due to increased wildfire and changes in moisture regimes, continental coniferous forests would be replaced by more fire-tolerant mixed evergreen forests with oak components. In summary, future climate change may result in an increase of the forest types where spotted owls are currently detected in the southern Sierra Nevada and northern California at the expense of mixed conifer forests in the Sierra Nevada, which are traditionally thought of as prime spotted owl habitat. It should be noted that forest conversion may require the intermediate step of a stand-replacing fire (with either temporary or permanent habitat loss resulting), and the subsequent maintenance (by fire) of a more open-canopied forest less suitable to spotted owls (basically the conversion to a favorable forest type but an unfavorable forest structure). Further, climate change may affect the ability of spotted owls to expand their current range. There is a possibility that the spotted owl range may shift upward in elevation to track the forest types that best meet their habitat needs. If the existing population’s ability to expand northward is limited by forest fragmentation or other natural barriers, then climate change may eliminate these populations before the barriers limiting expansion are lifted (e.g., before forest succession improves habitat in fragmented areas). Uncharacteristically Severe Wildfire The cessation of burning by indigenous peoples and the implementation of fire suppression policies has negatively affected many forests in the southern Sierra Nevada. Fire suppression policies appear to have resulted in widespread accumulation of forest fuels and have moved forests beyond the natural fire regimes of relatively small, low-intensity fires to larger, more complex high-intensity fires. Subsequently, forests are experiencing changes in plant species composition, reduced productivity and structural heterogeneity, as well as increased susceptibility to insect infestations (Lofroth et al. 2010). The above analysis from the West Coast fisher conservation assessment may be a little simplistic in that historical fires were probably large, but with a mix of low intensity fire and mixed lethal effects on forest canopy as discussed in North et al. (2010) rather than uniformly low intensity.

27 Joey Healthy Forest and Fuel Reduction Project Wildlife and Aquatics Biological Evaluation

Uncharacteristically severe wildfire is defined as fire occurring beyond the historical range of natural variation in terms of scope, intensity and duration. These stand-replacing fires affect large areas of the landscape, decreasing or removing key structural and habitat elements including large trees, overstory and understory canopy, vegetative diversity, snags, and logs. As part of the threat evaluation completed for the West Coast Fisher Conservation Assessment (Lofroth, et al. 2010), uncharacteristically severe wildfire ranked as high threat in the southern Sierra Nevada geographic area. There is some debate as to whether uncharacteristically severe wildfire effects are increasing (Odion and Hanson 2013). However the cumulative effects of deforestation due to wildfire appear to be substantial. Approximately, 528,000 acres of forested land within the National Forests of California were deforested as a result of wildfire between 2000 and 2011 (http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/rsl/projects/postfirecondition/ ), the effects of deforestation due to wildfire appear to be particularly significant for the Kern River Ranger District and southern Sierra. More than half of the Ranger District has burned within the last two decades. Large fires on the Stanislaus National Forest in 1987 (Paper Complex and others, approximately 1,000,000 acres)are thought to be a potential barrier to northward dispersal of fisher. This gap in suitable habitat has been further exacerbated by the Rim fire ( approximately 250,000 acres in 2013). A significant proportion of these fires have included severe effects at relatively large scale or patch size on forested stands within the 2,500 to 8,000 feet. This elevation band appears to be of most value to spotted owls and other dense-canopy, mature forest dependent species. The mature forest, dense canopy group of species occupy steep slopes at mid-elevation primarily from 2,500 feet up to 8,000 feet. This appears to be the zone of greatest change and at the highest risk of stand replacing fire. This threat is addressed by several authors discussed below. There is a common concern that thinning and fuels reduction intended to ameliorate effects of stand-replacing fire may be a threat as well, but many authors indicate that low intensity thinning and fuels reduction projects, such as the Joey Project, may present less of a risk that no action. Verner et al. (1992) predicted increases in ‘‘stand-destroying’’ fires that will accelerate the loss of old-growth attributes, including remnant old trees that are vital to owl nesting success. Weatherspoon et al. (1992) suggested that severe wildfire may represent the greatest threat to current owl habitat in Sierran mixed-conifer forests, and recommended, ‘‘aggressive, environmentally sound fuels management programs to reduce wildfire hazard in and around owl habitat.’’ Buchanan et al. (1992) suggested that active management is required to reduce risk of large-scale habitat loss to wildfires in the eastern Washington Cascades. In a commentary on National Forest Fire Policy, Franklin and Agee (2003) pointed to the Sierra Nevada mixed conifer forests as areas ‘‘likely to experience uncharacteristic stand-replacing fires without active fuels treatments and prescribed burning programs, with the resulting loss of critical watershed and habitat for the California spotted owl and other endangered wildlife.’’ Recent large, intense fires within the range of the spotted owl from northern Washington to New Mexico support the view that forest conditions in some locations are primed for wildland fires that could render owl habitat unsuitable for decades (Irwin and Thomas 2002). The USFWS found the following factors are affecting the California spotted owl: destruction or modification of habitat by wildfire, fuels-reduction activities, timber harvest, tree mortality, and development; however, the possible short-term effects from fuels-reduction activities are thought to be ameliorated by the longer-term reduction in the greater risk of catastrophic wildfire (USDI-FWS 2006). Using a combination of population data, canopy cover measurements, and forest simulation models, Lee and Irwin (2005) concluded that modest fuels treatments in the Sierra Nevada would not be expected to reduce canopy cover sufficiently to have measurable effects on owl reproduction. Sixty-year simulations predict that mechanical thinning or mechanical thinning plus fuel-break construction treatments in combination with either no fire or mixed-lethal fire scenarios will not degrade canopy conditions in productive owl territories, nor impede improvement of non-productive territories. In contrast, lethal fire simulations produced a pronounced and lasting negative effect. Their analysis supports the hypothesis that habitat needs for owl reproduction can be incorporated in developing effective fire and fuels management strategies that lessen the chances of uncharacteristically severe wildfire. Information regarding fire effects on owls is scant. Bond et al. (2002) hypothesized that relatively large wildland fires that burned >80% of 11 owl territories, primarily at low to moderate severity, apparently had little short-term (1 year) effect on individual survival, site fidelity, mate fidelity, and reproductive success of spotted owls. Another study by Bond et al. (2007) followed owls after the 150,700 acre McNally Fire (2002). Twenty-one owl territories were affected by the McNally Fire; nine had significant loss of habitat. Within the area that previously supported nine territories, four territorial owl pairs were located and studied by Bond et al. (2007). Each of the four pairs studied were located in new activity centers found after the fire and were presumed to have relocated from activity centers that had burned with severe effects. One pair relocated outside of the fire perimeter but continued to use areas of low burn intensity for foraging. One pair was found nesting at 9,200 feet in lightly burned red fir habitat (a very small proportion of owl nests have been found in red fir or above 8,000 feet (Verner et al 1992). 28 Joey Healthy Forest and Fuel Reduction Project Wildlife and Aquatics Biological Evaluation

Most severe, stand-replacing fire effects of the McNally Fire were observed below 7,500 feet elevation, which is the area of most significance for spotted owls. The other two owl territories were found in unburned islands or on the periphery of the fire. A banded female from one of these pairs subsequently relocated to a previously unoccupied area of marginal habitat approximately 1 mile to the south of the studied location and the studied owl territory appeared to be vacant (S. Anderson pers. comm.). According to Bond et al., survival and reproduction of the observed owls during the time of the study (less than 1 year) were above or comparable to other studies on the Sierra National Forest. These studies tracked spotted owls that were located post-fire. Neither study looked at density of owl activity centers prior to and post fire, long-term survivorship, occupancy or landscape-scale effects on habitat availability or suitability of the post-fire landscape. These are important and informative studies, but do not appear to address landscape level effects of large-scale, stand replacing fire. Lee et al. (2012) studied 41 burned spotted owl territories in California in comparison with 145 unburned territories. The authors found that local extinction and colonization of owl territories, where an average of 32 percent of the suitable habitat burned at high severity, were not significantly different than unburned sites for up to seven years post fire. A threshold for fire effects was not established nor was occupancy studied in relationship to patch size of stand-replacing fire. Spencer et al. (2008) found that the cumulative effect of modeled fuels treatments (which included preliminary estimates of the Joey Project) affecting approximately 30% of the suitable land base had less effect on fisher than simulated high intensity fire effects. Spencer et al. (2008) identifies extensive brush fields and young coniferous plantations (wildfire area identified in Zielinski, 1997) in the southern portion of the Stanislaus National Forest that may represent a gap in the distribution of predicted highly suitable habitat. Spencer et al. noted that it is unknown to what degree gaps in the modeled fisher habitat represent barriers. This potential adverse effect may have been exacerbated by the 2013 Rim Fire which burned over 250,000 acres, including substantial areas of mature forest in the Stanislaus National Forest and northern edge of Yosemite with large-scale, stand-replacing effects. The large-scale, stand-replacing fire effects of the McNally fire in the lower Rattlesnake drainage also form a large gap in suitable habitat and may limit connection of the Kern Plateau sub population of fisher with the rest of the southern Sequoia sub-population. Hanson (2013) studied fisher use of heterogeneous portions of the McNally wildfire and several wildfires managed for resource benefit. Both male and female fishers were found to use areas well within the fire perimeter where there were mixed lethal fire effects on forest cover. Transects along riparian corridors or other areas where there was mixed cover had detections. Maps in the study indicated that transects that were in upland areas with relatively large, high-severity patches were not tested or appeared to have few or no detections. Transects within managed wildfire areas appear to validate management for mixed lethal effects within fisher habitat, where scale and proportion of the forest in high severity fire effects was controlled. The study only evaluated areas of heterogeneous or mixed lethal fire effects on forest habitat and did not address loss of reproductive habitat at larger scales, or larger patches of substantially homogenous lethal fire effects on fisher habitat or occupancy. For both spotted owls and fisher there appears to be evidence that habitat with mixed lethal fire effects on forest canopy may be beneficial. The threshold for effect and acceptable patch size does not appear to be clear. There are large gaps in suitable habitat from the Stormy, McNally, Manter, Fay and other fires with large-scale, stand-replacing effects where fisher and spotted owl and fisher detection appears to be absent or inconsistent. As such, the intent or risk is not fire itself but the concern is patch size and proportion of the mature, dense canopy habitat that is removed and the ability of the forest to retain some characteristics or elements that support use of mature forest species of the area both in the short-term and long-term recovery at the landscape scale. Vegetation Manipulation to Reduce Risk of Uncharacteristically Severe Wildfire Fisher and dense-canopy, mature forest species such as spotted owl, marten and flying squirrel have many habitat components in common. As such fisher and effects on habitat components of value to fisher are used as a proxy for dense- canopy, mature forest species and the habitat components of value to these species. Truex and Zielinski ( 2005) developed fisher resource selection functions (RSF) and resource selection probability functions (RSPF) as described in Zielinski et al. (2004a) to compare rest sites selected and track plate detections to areas not selected or sampled with no detections. These RSFs were used to estimate the change in fisher habitat suitability pre- to post- treatment in fuels reduction projects at two sites in the Sierra Nevada. The remainder of this section discusses the results of the Truex and Zielinski ( 2005) study. Four primary treatments were applied for effects assessment: control (no treatment); mechanical harvest (usually including mastication following harvest); mechanical harvest followed by prescribed burning; and an area where prescribed burning was

29 Joey Healthy Forest and Fuel Reduction Project Wildlife and Aquatics Biological Evaluation the only treatment. Study areas were the Blodgett Forest Research Station (BFRS) and a satellite site at Sequoia-Kings Canyon National Park (SEKI). This study generally concluded that fire and fire surrogate treatments may have modest but significant short-term effects to the quality and availability of fisher resting habitat, as well as canopy closure. At BFRS, mechanical as well as mechanical plus fire treatments significantly reduced fisher resting habitat and average canopy closure. At the SEKI site, the late season burn treatment had a significant effect on fisher habitat suitability as well as canopy closure. The short-term treatment effects to foraging habitat at both sites were generally not significant. This may be explained by the broad spectrum of foraging habitat parameters, rendering it less likely to be a limiting factor to fisher than resting habitat. Although the mechanical and mechanical/fire treatments had greater effects on simulated fisher resting habitat suitability than prescription fire at BFRS, these effects can be mitigated by the ability of mechanical treatments to avoid individual habitat elements such as the critically important hardwoods and large trees. The use of prescribed fire alone can be mitigated by raking debris away from key fisher structural elements in the habitat. The effect of greatest magnitude was a reduction in canopy closure. All treatments reduced canopy closure. Canopy closure, however, recovers relatively quickly compared to the loss of large dead or live trees. Re-measurements of treatment units in this study in 5 or 10 years will provide information on how quickly the canopy actually recovers. Interpretation of these results needs to be cautious and informed by more data in the next decade. In areas where fisher habitat suitability is already low or marginal, the predicted effects may have a disproportionately large impact to habitat recovery. On the other hand, the short-term negative effects of the treatments may result in beneficial effects on subsequent stand development. Future monitoring will be needed to elucidate the exact nature of this relationship. Another limitation of this study is that it focused upon effects at the individual stand level. As wide-ranging predators, fisher function at larger landscape scales within their habitats. Thus, it is important to analyze the spatial and temporal array of treatments in a landscape context. The more broadly distributed the treatments are over space and time, the lower the likelihood of significant negative effects in a landscape context. It seems likely that such treatments distributed over space and time should have lower impacts than large-scale catastrophic wildfire. This research was carried out in an area not occupied by fisher. As such, the study can infer effects on habitat elements that appear to be used by fisher, but not actual use or avoidance of treated areas. Most data on fisher habitat preference comes from a small sample area around rest and den sites, and these sites generally have higher than average amounts of snags, down woody debris and cover. As such it should not be surprising that treatments intended to reduce surface and ladder fuels will result in a reduction of such structures as did frequent, low-intensity natural fire in the past, but there isn’t conclusive evidence that this affects actual fisher use of the habitat with an adverse or positive effect. One last caveat offered by Truex and Zielinski (2005) in interpreting the study results is to recognize that a reduction in habitat suitability does not necessarily equate to loss of suitability. Population level implications as a result of localized reductions in habitat suitability have yet to be studied. To decrease effects to fisher habitat suitability, the authors recommend planning treatments to maintain elements important to fisher (e.g. large diameter hardwoods). There does not appear to be sufficient research data on fisher use or avoidance of such areas before and after treatments. However, Regional monitoring efforts for fisher and marten in the Southern Sierra Fisher Conservation Area from 2002 to present show fisher use of stands in the Ice Fuels reduction and Timber Sale Project both before and after thinning in 2005 as well as after subsequent underburning. One sample unit (array of 6 track-plate stations encompassing approximately 1.25 km 2) of the Regional fisher monitoring program is located west / northwest of the Shirley Meadows ski area. This sample unit has been consistently occupied, detecting fisher at one or more station during the 7 years sampled as part of the regional monitoring program (R. Truex, pers. com, 2010. This site includes 3 stations within or near (within 100 m) the mapped helicopter unit boundaries. Fishers have been detected at this sample unit during the 3 sampling periods prior to the helicopter unit implementation (2002, 2004, 2005) and 4 sampling periods (2006 - 09) following implementation. One station within the helicopter units has recorded one or more fisher detections during the 4 years surveyed following the implementation of the helicopter units. Fisher have continued to be detected in or near this unit through continued regional monitoring through 2013. Additional monitoring by the District in February 2013 showed fisher use of an Ice Project unit mechanically thinned in December 2012. The Ice unit was not monitored during active thinning, however, radio telemeter monitoring of fisher in the Tule River Canyon from 1994 to 1999 detected fisher use in active timber sale units after logging operations had shut down for the evening. For spotted owls, low intensity fire effects appear to be preferentially selected over unburned areas as foraging habitat (Bond et al. 2009). Areas with a high degree of heterogeneous habitat, including brush patches had higher spotted owl reproduction, 30 Joey Healthy Forest and Fuel Reduction Project Wildlife and Aquatics Biological Evaluation presumably due to an increased woodrat prey base associated with the brush patches (Franklin et al. 2000). Such treatments have been shown to increase diversity and abundance of prey. Early season burns (mid-May or later) timed to follow the fisher denning period seem to have less impact to habitat . However, K. Purcell and C. Thompson (pers. comm.) have noted that by mid-May the kits still have relatively limited mobility; they are still largely dependent on the female until the end of August. Thus, to avoid potential conflict with denning, early season burns (spring burns) should occur prior to mid-March. Planning treatments to occur dispersed over space and time to the extent possible could minimize the potential for adverse effects on individual fishers. Other risk factors The above are the primary risk factors affected by this project other risk factors include disease, predation, human intrusion and genetic isolation. Spotted owls and goshawk are vulnerable to West Nile Disease. Fisher are vulnerable to parvovirus and other diseases of domesticated canines. Of increasing concern are the effects of illegal marijuana cultivation and the associated chemical and occupancy issues. Of particular concern is the small population size of fisher in the southern Sierra. Small populations are more vulnerable to extinction. The above factors can Effects - Mature Forest Sensitive Species California spotted owl, great grey owl. Pacific fisher and Northern goshawk (Sierra marten, Sierra Nevada red fox by inference) Criteria for Effects Analysis 1. protection of nesting/denning habitat in the immediate vicinity of nest sites or territorial centers or well- distributed across the landscape where territorial centers are not known; 2. proportion of the known territories in moderate to dense forest conditions (measured by canopy cover); 3. availability of large trees (> 40” dbh); number and size of large snags (> 15” dbh); 4. large (> 20” diameter at small end) down woody debris; 5. Multiple-layered canopies including hardwoods. Alternative 1 - No Action Direct and Indirect Effects Protection of existing reproductive centers No action would maintain landscape conditions as they are with moderate vulnerability to stand replacing fire over large patches. Actual effect would depend on whether and under what conditions the landscape burns. Under no action there is a higher risk that habitat will burn at high intensity and that the scale of habitat loss would be such that replacement habitat may not be available. Proportion of known territories in moderate to dense forest conditions (measured by canopy cover). There would be no immediate change. Wildfire effects would not be controllable and would most likely have the most severe effects within the limited remaining high density patches. Spotted owl territory TU180 would not meet desired condition (see table 5).

31 Joey Healthy Forest and Fuel Reduction Project Wildlife and Aquatics Biological Evaluation

Table 4: Acreage of Moderate and Highly Suitable Mature Forest habitat

Moderate and highly suitable mature forest habitat (acres) Size classes 4 and 5 (>11 " dbh) Before After Total Owl ID Other Moderate Dense Moderate Dense Area Subtotal Suitable Subtotal Suitable (40-59 %) (60%+) (40-59 %) (60%+) TU252 PAC 170 66 236 77% 170 66 236 77% 70 305 HRCA Total 297 92 389 57% 297 92 389 57% 298 687 0.7 mi. 456 186 642 65% 512 133 642 65% 344 985 1.5 mi. 1614 421 2035 45% 1721 324 2035 45% 2490 4524 TU180 PAC 49 0 49 15% 49 0 49 15% 283 331 HRCA Total 164 0 164 25% 164 0 164 25% 503 667 0.7 mi. 281 12 293 30% 281 12 293 30% 661 985 1.5 mi. 1706 248 1954 43% 1706 248 1954 43% 2570 4524 PAC TU180 is based on an owl that moved out of the McNally Fire area. The area mapped is the best available. No thinning is proposed surrounding theTU180 HRCA. Totals are cumulative (1.5 mile area includes .7 mile radius which includes all or most of the HRCA, which includes PAC). 1.5 mi. radius analysis is based on MSA protocol, .7 mi. radius is based on approximately 1,064 acres as analyzed by Hunsaker et al. (2002) and Lee and Irwin (2005) (see Appendix A, map 1, pg. 57).

Goshawk Protected activity centers would remain untouched. There are no known great grey owl, fisher or marten activity centers (nest/den or rest/roost sites). Multiple-layered canopies including hardwoods There would be no immediate change. The risk of large-scale, stand-replacing fire would remain higher. Risk would incrementally increase over time in the absence of managed fire or other treatments to reduce surface fuels. Existing multiple- layered, dense-canopied stands with oaks would continue to deteriorate. Stand observations indicate that oaks, which are a shade intolerant species make up a higher proportion of the dead and down woody debris than would be expected based on their proportion of live tree numbers (stand exam results, project record). Position of oaks within the canopy shows a high proportion of oaks as suppressed or sub dominant level in the canopy. The end result is a loss of shade intolerant oak and low recruitment of young oak and pine in the denser stands. In the absence of fire or other disturbance, oak and pine will continue to decline. It is not expected that fir will substantially increase, since the poor site does not appear to support fir well. Most firs in the pine dominated stands appear to be stressed or dying. Dead firs or firs with dead tops are evident throughout the stands. Availability of large trees (> 40” dbh) There would be no change in availability of large trees unless influenced by a stochastic event such as high severity fire or drought related mortality. Current conditions support low numbers of large trees over 30 inches. The most trees are of intermediate size class (size class 3-4) and will continue to grow slowly due to overcrowded conditions and competition for limited water and nutrients. Overstocked conditions in poor sites tend to reduce survivorship of larger trees and suppress growth of larger trees. Large down woody debris (> 20” diameter at small end) Current conditions support a high volume of down wood y debris, duff and other surface fuels. Most of the surface fuels are small to intermediate size. Stand exams indicate the average is 37 tons/acre less than 20 inches and 0 tons/acre over 20 inches. The larger size down logs will increase as existing snags fall and contribute to down woody debris but will still be lacking in larger sizes classes. Most research on spotted owls, fisher and goshawk indicate that the nest, roost, den, rest sites have higher than average volumes of down woody debris, snags and other signs of decadence. However, den/rest, nest and roost sites are a small proportion of the landscapes within which these species exist and do not represent average conditions for the landscapes. Nor do these conditions appear to be natural conditions that would exist over large landscapes in dry forests where fire is an active and dynamic part of the forest ecosystem. As such, managing for snag, down woody debris and other forest conditions that exist within den, nest, rest, roost sites for mature forest species at the landscape scale has some trade-offs that may result in lower suitability at the landscape over time.

32 Joey Healthy Forest and Fuel Reduction Project Wildlife and Aquatics Biological Evaluation

Crowded forest stand conditions would continue to result in high mortality and consequent contributions to down woody debris. Logs would tend to be smaller in the absence of thinning to increase growth and recruitment of large trees over time. High levels of small to intermediate size down logs from past insect and drought related mortality would continue to exist. These conditions would contribute to a high residence time, higher intensity of heat output, and high resistance to control in the event that a wildfire does occur. Retention of snags, number and size of large snags (> 15” dbh) Stand exam data collected in 2011 showed a weighted average of 6.6 snags per acre greater than 15 inches dbh in the Sierran mixed conifer and Jeffrey pine habitat types within the project area. The snags were distributed fairly unevenly throughout the project area. The FVS modeling estimates the weighted average of snags per acre greater than 15 inches dbh at 6.5 for the No Action Alternative in 2013. A limitation of the FVS model is that it shows snag loss over time but does not create new snags unless there is a specific event such as a fire manually entered. As such, unless specifically prompted to create snags at intervals, the FVS model does not accurately portray snag levels into the future. Current and projected snag numbers would meet the guidelines for retention of-snags greater than 15 inches dbh in the 2004 Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment ROD (USDA-FS, 2004). Snags would remain at current levels in the short term and likely increase with the next drought cycle. There is no indication that continued increases in snag levels would significantly increase abundance or diversity of wildlife in the project area beyond what already occurs. The high abundance of snags and down woody debris on a landscape level, as found within the project area, can contribute to fire spotting, higher fire intensity, severity, and therefore greater resistance to control. Should a wildfire develop within the project area these factors would be applicable. There are no logical control points for managed fire use and the high resistance to control would likely dictate an indirect suppression effort that would result in a larger burn with greater potential for large-scale stand-replacing effects. Absence of potential areas of reduced fuel as anchor points may preclude managed use of fire for resource benefit. Over the long term, existing large snags will eventually fall. Given the lower growth rates associated with densely stocked stands common throughout the project site, the recruitment pool of large live trees to provide future large and very large (40 inches dbh and greater) snags is likely to diminish. Cumulative effects The cumulative effects of no action appear to result in a trend toward deforestation as a result of wildfire. This trend is expected to increase as a result of projected trends in climate change. No action maintains a low resistance to stand- replacing effects and low resilience or ability to recover important stand characteristics after disturbance. As such, no action has the greatest risk of contributing to a trend toward loss of mature forest habitat. Alternative 2 Direct and Indirect Effects Protection of existing reproductive centers There are two owl territories and one goshawk territory within the project area. Prescribed fire or light underburning could occur within and around both PACs but would be a lower priority for treatment compared to WUI defense. Implementation of alternative 2 would result in better protection of the PAC and habitat across the landscape. Since no treatments other than light underburning would occur within the PACs, the PACs would remain vulnerable to loss due to wildfire as a result of wildfire spotting or other stochastic events. However, the treated areas within the landscape and adjacent to the PACs and HRCAs would have a higher resistance to severe change and higher resilience or ability to return to highly suitable habitat conditions after disturbances such and wildfire compared to no action. As such, at the landscape level, there would be a greater probability of retaining or providing suitable reproductive habitat over time. There are no known great grey owl, fisher or marten activity centers (nest/den or rest/roost sites). Proportion of known territories in moderate to high density (> 40 percent cover), medium to large trees No area would be reduced below 40% canopy closure. As such, the area surrounding owl territory TU252 would exceed the threshold identified by Lee and Irwin (2005) of 44% of a 1,064 acre area around spotted owl territories that supports at least 40% canopy closure. The area around TU180 would be less than desired, but would not be altered within the 1.5 mile radius of consideration by the project. The Goshawk PAC would remain undisturbed and meet the threshold of having a stand of approximately 200 acres with low disturbance, but heterogeneous habitat that may include openings and habitat with low canopy cover as long as suitable dense nest sites exist within the protected area. There are no known great grey owl, fisher or marten activity centers (nest/den or rest/roost sites). Table 5 shows availability of moderate and high density habitat at the Salmon Creek Watershed (HUC6) level and the project units. A total of 523 acres of moderate and high density habitats would be thinned as a result of implementation of alternative

33 Joey Healthy Forest and Fuel Reduction Project Wildlife and Aquatics Biological Evaluation

2. This represents approximately 0.8% of the habitat available at the watershed level. No habitat will be removed from the moderate to high density category which is considered suitable nesting/rooting habitat. Of the nesting/roosting habitat, 121 acres are high density (> 70% canopy cover) and will be reduced to approximately 40 to 50% canopy cover (average 45%). This represents approximately 11% of the available high density habitat available at the watershed level. As noted above, this remains within the threshold established for spotted owl territories based on Lee and Irwin (2005). Based on Zielinski et al. (2004) it is unlikely that there is reproductive fisher occupancy within the project since it doesn’t support the higher level of high density canopy cover that fisher appear to require. This assumption is also supported by long-term monitoring, which has recorded fisher detections in the general area of the project and on the west Kern Plateau, however, the detections have been few and erratic or “unreliable” as would be consistent with foraging or dispersing individuals. Reproductive presence would likely be indicated by a more frequent and reliable detection rate. Areas and patches of high density habitat would remain well distributed across the project area, particularly in more mesic areas such as north facing slopes and along stream courses. Higher density habitats would also remain at higher elevations and in the nearby wilderness and botanical area. Availability of large trees (> 40” dbh) Implementation of the project would protect all existing large trees (> 30” dbh) except for hazard trees that may exist adjacent to roadways. Implementation of the Project will thin the intermediate and small trees, which will result in accelerated growth of the remaining intermediate and larger trees over the long-term. This is intended to result in a forest dominated by large trees that will provide higher canopy cover with greater resistance to change from disturbance events such as wildfire and greater resilience after change (e.g. greater retention of large trees in patches, lower risk of crown fire and a greater mosaic of effects after disturbance compared to more uniform untreated stands). No change in short-term availability of trees greater than 30 inches dbh. Greater potential for accelerated development of the very large trees (greater than 40 inches dbh) that appear to be preferred by spotted owl, fisher and goshawk for denning/nesting/ roosting/resting structures. Retention of snags, number and size of large snags (> 15” dbh) There would be no significant change in snag levels compared to the no action alternative. There is no intent to further reduce snags other than hazard trees. Although much of the area will be burned to reduce fuels, techniques are pile and burn or jackpot burning, which in general are not a significant threat to existing snags. Prescribed burning may create some additional new snags, but in general would not kill significant numbers of trees over 15 inches dbh. Repeated prescribed fire under alternatives 2 and 3, may result in both increased numbers of snags due to fire related mortality and some reduction of snags as a result of consumption by fire. This is mitigated by changing firing patterns and active protection of wildlife elements during the prescribed firing operations. The desired results are measured at the landscape scale. It is recognized that areas closer to the community will have fewer snags and areas that are untreated or treated to a lower standard of fuel reduction away from the private property generally have higher snag levels. The result is that we expect to meet or exceed the identified snag standards over time. Large down woody debris (> 20” diameter at small end) The desired outcome for large down woody debris is no more than 10-15 tons per acre. However, the areas with the HRCAs, riparian zones and other untreated areas will remain at higher levels where this currently exists. The 10-15 tons/acre retention is within the guidelines provided by Verner et al. (1992). The component of large woody debris greater than 20 inches diameter would not be met based on existing condition. There would be some improvement over time as existing dead and dying fir fall and become down logs, but most of the snags lack the size over 20 inches dbh to fully meet this desired condition. Where feasible, cull logs will be left to add to the large woody debris and some trees may be felled to improve aspen restoration and will provide the added benefit of down woody debris. Repeated prescribed fire under alternatives 2 and 3, result in both increased numbers of down logs due to fire related mortality and reduction of down logs as a result of consumption by fire. This is mitigated by changing firing patterns and active protection of wildlife elements during the prescribed firing operations. The result is that we expect to meet or exceed the identified down log standards over time. Cumulative effects The cumulative effects discussion is bounded by the Salmon Creek watershed (6 th order HUC) unless there is rationale to support a conclusion that effects of this project would contribute to a decline or cumulative effect that extends beyond those boundaries. Existing vegetation layers are used to display current conditions through 2002. Existing vegetation layers have been adjusted for the McNally Fire. These conditions reflect the amalgam of the past actions displayed in the following table. Since 2002, the only changes within the watershed and on the Kern Plateau are salvage logging and prescribed fire. Within the Salmon Creek watershed there was approximately 200 acres of salvage logged fire killed forest from the McNally Fire. The vegetation layer already reflected the conversion of the forest to shrub and herbaceous vegetation, salvage logging established plantations, but the plantations have not grown to a size that would reflect a change from shrub and herbaceous vegetation to tree dominated habitat yet. The West Plateau prescribed burn affected approximately 300 acres of mature forest 34 Joey Healthy Forest and Fuel Reduction Project Wildlife and Aquatics Biological Evaluation since 2006. Most of the prescribed burning has been light underburning in the Big Meadow area. The burning has caused torching of groups of trees and resulted in increased snag numbers, but the effects have been small in scale and do not appear to approach the 5 acre minimum size for recording changes in vegetation classification. In the absence of managed fire or thinning, the expected accumulation is approximately 200 cu. ft./ac./yr. of live biomass and 90 Cu. ft./ac./yr of surface fuel (down woody debris and duff). Accumulation of biomass would be focused on smaller trees and would eventually reach a point where total biomass is unsupportable and result in episodic tree mortality and surface fuel accumulation until a wildfire event takes place. Cumulatively the project would affect a small proportion of the mature forest habitat available, but the scale and intensity of change would be small and of short-duration compared to the potential effects of severe wildfire. The effects are within the range of modeled effects of fuels reduction projects addressed cumulatively in comparison with severe wildfire effects at large, bioregional scales by Spencer et al. (2008) for fisher and Lee and Irwin (2005) for spotted owls. The former Hot Springs District had the highest rate of timber harvest of any District on the Sequoia National Forest. Timber harvest on that District has a history of intensive harvest including extensive clear-cutting from the 1940s to 1992. This area of extensive harvest supports the area of highest naïve detection rates for fisher (USDA Forest Service 2009 monitoring reports) and is shown as having a high density of spotted owl detections (Verner et al. 1992). This is not to say that timber harvest does not have a cumulative effect or that clear-cutting is good for mature forest, closed-canopy wildlife. But the cumulative effects of a small thinning program that reduces fire threat, improves forest health and is designed to retain and enhance habitat elements most used by fisher, spotted owls and goshawks would be expected to have less effect than an extensive logging program that includes complete removal of all forest habitat elements or wildfire that removes all suitable habitat over larger areas. If as it would appear, fisher, spotted owls and goshawk are able to use forested habitats that have fine grained patch size and retain forested conditions at the landscape scale, the Joey Project would have a much lower impact than past high intensity timber harvest as evidenced on the Hot springs Ranger district or large scale, Stand replacing fire effects as evidenced in the McNally Fire. As such, this project is expected to have significant cumulative effects on these species compared to the no action alternative. Public comment noted that Christensen et al. (2008) indicated the potential for a deficit of large snags (greater than 40 inches dbh) in publication of forest inventory data from California for 2001 to 2005. The potential deficit of very large snags has been noted, however, all large trees, greater than 30 inches, will be retained. Thinning will increase growth and overall size of trees in the long-term. As such, the project will result in a mosaic of patches of high density forest that will encourage future snags and more open patches that will encourage growth of larger trees. This will provide for long-term sustained production of snags and reduce the potential for loss of mature forest habitat that would limit availability of snags in green forest over-time. In the interim, snag levels remain relatively high at the landscape level and a short-term deficit is not anticipated compared to natural levels of available snags in dry forests with an active fire regime. Alternative 3 - No Commercial Harvest Direct and Indirect Effects Effects of Alternative 3 would be similar to 2 with the exception that thinning of small trees less than 8 inches dbh would not be likely to reduce canopy significantly. The crown fire index would be lower indicating a greater risk of stand replacing fire effects. But the potential for severe fire effects would be less than the no action alternative. Cumulative Effects- Cumulative effects of Alternative 3 would cover a similar area but would have lower overall short-term effect on mature forest species since there would be no removal of intermediate size trees, but the potential for long-term adverse effects on a scale that would cumulatively be significant would be higher than under alternative 2. Determination Alternative 1 The direct, indirect or cumulative impacts of Alternative 1 would not cause or contribute to a trend leading to protection under the Endangered Species Act or loss of viability for the California spotted owl, great grey owl, northern goshawk or west coast distinct population segment of fisher.

35 Joey Healthy Forest and Fuel Reduction Project Wildlife and Aquatics Biological Evaluation

Rationale The trend toward deforestation as a result of large-scale, stand-replacing fire effects could contribute to a trend leading to loss of habitat for these species and eventually contribute to federal protection under the Endangered Species Act. However, in the 2006 USFWS finding, the Service determined that the effects of wildfire had not reached the point of magnitude that would warrant listing of the California spotted owl for federal protection. Wildfire effects were a contributing factor in the determination by the USFWS that listing of the west coast DPS of fisher was warranted. No action may contribute to increased risk of another large-scale, stand replacing fire. Another such fire could result in the elimination of fisher on the Kern Plateau. The effects of future wildfire are speculative and may range from beneficial to stand-replacing loss. As such all that can be noted for cumulative effects is that there is an increasing risk of stand-replacing fire as fuels accumulate and fire continues to be excluded. Alternatives 2 and 3 The direct, indirect or cumulative impacts of Alternatives 2 and 3 would not cause or contribute to a trend leading to protection under the Endangered Species Act or loss of viability for the California spotted owl, west coast distinct population segment of fisher, great grey owl, or northern goshawk.

Rationale There would be some temporary disturbance and effects on suitable habitat for the California spotted owl, great grey owl, fisher and goshawk, but the effects would be small in scale, would not result in elimination of habitat currently suitable for these species and would reduce potential adverse effects of large-scale, stand–replacing wildfire or insect and drought related mortality. Implementation of the proposed action would not eliminate the potential beneficial effects of wild and managed fire, including the potential for mixed lethal fire effects on mature forest habitat where patch size and extent of conversion from late seral to early seral habitat can be controlled at the landscape level. Amphibian Group The Kern Plateau provides an array of habitats for amphibians. Plentiful springs, seeps, fens and meadows make the Kern Plateau appear as a haven for amphibians. On the Kern Plateau, aquatic systems are driven by snow; many amphibians are not active until conditions begin to warm in the spring. The low and intermediate elevations have long, hot, dry summers restricting summer activity to perennial aquatic areas. However, throughout the Sierra Nevada, amphibians have been in decline (Lannoo 2005) due to disease (Bradford et al. 2011), human disturbance (Jennings 1996), and pesticides (see review in Bradford et al. 2011). By the mid-1990s, both frogs and salamanders native to the Sierra Nevada were in need of some type of protection (Jennings 1996). Here we will consider the effects of alternative management of sites proposed in the Environmental Assessment on slender salamanders and the mountain yellow legged frog. Mountain yellow-legged frog (Rana muscosa) Status and Historic and Current Distribution

The Mountain yellow-legged frog, Southern Sierra Distinct Population Segment (DPS) is endemic to southern California; and occurred as an isolated cluster of populations on Breckenridge Mountain, south of the Kern River in Kern County, and in the Sierra Nevada in Tulare, Inyo and Fresno counties, extending north to the middle fork of the Kings River (Vredenburg et al. 2007). The Southern Sierra DPS for the Mountain yellow-legged frog is listed as a Candidate for federal listing; while the southern DPS is listed as endangered (USFWS website accessed April 10, 2013 http://ecos.fws.gov/speciesProfile/profile/speciesProfile.action?spcode=D02H .

Habitat Relationships and Biology

In the Southern Sierra Nevada, the endemic mountain yellow legged frog was associated with streams, lakes and ponds in montane riparian, lodgepole pine, subalpine conifer, and wet meadow habitats. In southern California, populations are restricted to streams in ponderosa pine, montane hardwood-conifer, and montane riparian habitats (Vredenburg et al. 2005). The elevation range on the Kern Plateau is 1,220-12,000 feet (370-3660 meters) for the mountain yellow legged frog, (Vredenburg et al. 2005). This species’ tadpole stage can last from two to four years at higher elevation, so unaltered perennial streams, rivers, permanent pools within intermittent streams, ponds, or lakes are required (www.natureserve.org). This frog seldom is found away from water, but it can cross upland areas to move between summer and winter habitats (Matthews and Pope 1999). Most mountain yellow legged frog wintered in the same lake in consecutive years (Pope and Matthews 2001). Basins with a variety of wet meadows, streams, fishless deep lakes and shallow ponds may contain the best 36 Joey Healthy Forest and Fuel Reduction Project Wildlife and Aquatics Biological Evaluation habitat for this declining species (Pope and Matthews 2001). These frogs used to occur in naturally fishless streams in the southern Sierra Mountains where few ponds or lakes occurred naturally (Vredenburg et al. 2005).

Breeding begins soon after ice-melt or early in spring and can range from April at lower elevations to June and July in higher elevations (see review in Vrendenburg et al. 2005). Eggs are deposited underwater attached to rocks, large gravel, under banks, or to vegetation in streams or lakes (see review in Vrendenburg et al. 2005). Unlike the Yosemite Toad, mountain yellow legged frogs do not move to upland sites to overwinter but instead take refuge in underwater crevices or the mud substrate at the bottom of a lake or stream (Bradford et al.1993; Matthews and Pope, 1999; Pope and Matthews, 2011; Vredenburg et al. 2005). Migrations between lakes that are good for overwintering to those that are better for breeding have been observed (Vredenburg et al., 2005). This migration is typically a few hundred meters or less (66-400m) but migration as far as 1km has been observed (Matthews and Pope, 1999; Pope and Matthews, 2001; Vredenburg et al., 2005). The movement ecology of populations now assigned to mountain yellow legged frogs has not been studied but the Sierra yellow legged frog have been shown to move between lakes within a watershed basin and recolonize lakes where populations were extirpated by trout predation (Vredenburg, 2004). Population Trends A precipitous decline in frogs appears to have occurred over the past 3-4 decades (Bradford 1991; Jennings and Hayes, 1994; Vredenburg et al., 2007, Lannoo 2005, Vredenburg et al. 2010). Across the Sierra Nevada, the declines of some amphibian species resulted from increased distribution of fish (Jennings 1996, Matthews et al. 2001). Local extirpation of Mountain yellow-legged frog populations were thought to be due to introductions of trout (Bradford et al. 1993); frogs may move into an area once fish are removed (Knapp et al. 2007, Vredenburg 2004). Historically, mountain yellow legged frogs were documented in approximately 166 localities in creeks and watersheds in the mountains of southern California (Jennings and Hayes 1994). Currently the species is known from only seven or eight widely scattered locations, most with very small populations of fewer than 20 adults (Vredenburg et al. 2007). The rate of decline is 96.2% (Vredenburg et al. 2007). One population on the Sequoia National Forest along the boundary with Kings Canyon National Park remains extant (Schoville et al., 2011). Historically this frog was found within the project area. The mountain yellow legged frog used to occur on Breckenridge Mountain, in the Greenhorn Mountains and on the Kern Plateau, extending north to Mather Pass (Vredenburg et al. 2007). These frogs are now extirpated in the Breckenridge Mountains and in much of the former range elsewhere in southern California and the southern Sierra Nevada (Vredenburg et al. 2007). Disease, airborne pesticides from agriculture, and recreation may also be influential in declines (Vredenburg et al. 2007, www.Natureserve.org). Adult population size on the Forest is unknown; available information does not indicate how many viable populations remain within the range of the species (www.natureserve.org). Mountain yellow legged frog’s populations are only found in higher elevations and far from the Central Valley, where the initial spread of the amphibian disease chytridiomycosis started moving eastward (see review in Bradford et al. 2011). Risk Factors and Management Concerns for Mountain Yellow Legged Frog As of the writing on this BE (updated September 2013) there are no specific management directions for this species. However, USFWS is currently considering Critical Habitat and Federal listing for the Southern Sierra DPS of mountain yellow- legged frog. Fishless streams, riparian areas and refugia on slopes are important habitat characteristics for this species. This project area is within the historic range for this species and may in the future be a site for possible reintroduction. However it is not within the proposed Critical Habitat. Riparian Conservation Area (RCA) of 300 feet on either side of perennial streams, meadows, seeps, and springs and 150 feet on either side of intermittent streams provide some protection to habitat by limiting impacts from management projects. Evaluation criteria are: 1. Spread of bull frogs (invasive non-native) and other vectors for Chytrid fungus 2. Sustainable protection of streams from degradation; 3. Sustainable riparian habitat 4. Availability of large (> 15” diameter at small end) down woody debris for shelter; 5. Introduction of non-native fish 6. Effects of fire during migration

37 Joey Healthy Forest and Fuel Reduction Project Wildlife and Aquatics Biological Evaluation

Effects

Alternative 1.

Direct and Indirect Effects Spread of bull frogs (invasive non-native) and other vectors for Chytrid fungus Chytrid fungus which is spread by bull frogs and by other means has severely limited the distribution of this species to high elevation areas. Alternative 1 is unlikely to alter the current disease conditions for this species.

Sustainable protection of streams from degradation These frogs require fish free streams with clear running water and back water areas. Functioning meadows are also good habitat unless non-native bullfrogs or fish are present. Sediment inputs to the streams would dependent on the use of the watershed or meadow for grazing or recreation. Wildfire could also increase sediment inputs. As snow melt occurs earlier in the year, flushing flows in spring could effect this species reproduction. Sustainable riparian habitat Range contraction has occurred over the past 20 years and the species is threatened with extinction. As the risk of widespread unmanageable fire increases with predicted climate change; seeps, riparian conservation areas and streamside management zones may burn eliminating the potential beneficial habitat. Lack of fire has resulted in encroachment by conifers into meadows.

Availability of large (> 15” diameter at small end) down woody debris for shelter Snags would remain at current levels in the short term and likely increase with the next drought cycle. There is no indication that continued increases in snag levels would significantly increase abundance or diversity of wildlife in the project area beyond what already occurs. The high abundance of snags and down woody debris on a landscape level as is found within the project area, can contribute to fire spotting, higher fire intensity, severity, and therefore greater resistance to control. Should a wildfire develop within the project area, these factors would be applicable habitat in the project area beyond what already occurs. The high abundance of snags and down woody debris on a landscape level as is found within the project area, can contribute to fire spotting, and higher fire intensity and severity. This coupled with the lack of safe, logical points of control to initiate suppression efforts would likely contribute greater losses in suitable habitat over time. Over the long-term, existing large snags will eventually fall. Given the lower growth rates associated with densely stocked stands common throughout the project site, the recruitment pool of large live tree that will eventually die and replace those that fall is likely to diminish. This alternative is unlikely to affect this resource unless unmanageable wildfire destroys the downed materials.

Introduction of non-native fish Introduced fish present in all the streams in areas they did not naturally occur has contributed to the decline of this species. This alternative is unlikely to affect this factor contributing to decline of this species.

Effects of controlled fire during migration Fire occurring at the time of migration would have an effect if the species is present in the watershed. This alternative will not influence the timing of fires. Since predictions are that fire season will increase with warming, this alternative could increase risk to this species.

Cumulative Effects The cumulative effects discussion is bounded by the Salmon Creek watershed (6th order HUC) unless there is rationale to support a conclusion that effects of this project would contribute to a decline or cumulative effect that extends beyond those boundaries. The cumulative effects of no action appear to result in an increasing trend toward vegetation type conversion as a result of wildfire. Projected warming trends in climate may increase frequency and change seasons of peak fire earlier. Earlier fire may influence habitat for amphibians while they are actively moving around on the surface. Encroachment into meadows might be limited by fire, but meadows and streams can have increased sediment loading and loss of riparian vegetation with severe widespread fire. No action fails to increase the resistance of forested stands to the effects of stand-replacing effects and thus may increase the risks to meadows, streams and riparian habitats. In addition as unmanageable fire moves up into higher elevations it has a greater likelihood of burning in watersheds that could contain mountain yellow legged frogs. Chytrid fungus has spread through invasive and native species who are carriers. These species will not be altered over time with this alternative. However it is likely that a solution to Chytrid fungus will be found, making it important to maintain available good quality habitat at higher elevations.

38 Joey Healthy Forest and Fuel Reduction Project Wildlife and Aquatics Biological Evaluation

Alternative 2

Direct and Indirect

Spread of bull frogs (invasive non-native) and other vectors for Chytrid fungus Chytrid fungus which is spread by bull frogs and by other means has severely limited the distribution of this species to high elevation areas. Alternative 2 is unlikely to alter the current conditions for this species.

Sustainable protection of streams from degradation These frogs require fish free streams with clear running water and back water areas. Functioning meadows are also good habitat for them unless non-native bullfrogs or fish are present. Sediment inputs to the streams would dependent on the use of the watershed or meadow for grazing or recreation. As snow melt occurs earlier in the year, flushing flows in spring could effect this species reproduction. Wildfire could also increase sediment inputs. However the risk of unmanageable wildfire will be reduced by creation of WUI areas, reduction of fuels and under burning associated with this Alternative 2. If roads are not damaged and significant ground disturbance created then sediment to the streams will be controlled. Best Management Practices in upland area will protect the stream habitat. Riparian Conservation Area (RCA) of 300 feet on either side of perennial streams, meadows, seeps, and springs and 150 feet on either side of intermittent streams provide some protection to habitat by limiting impacts from management projects. If the heavy machinery and activities are confined to the hottest and driest time of year and heavy machines stay away from boundaries of meadows, seeps, and other moist areas there is unlikely to be any adverse effects to this species associated with Alternative 2. Sustainable riparian habitat The protection of seeps, riparian conservation areas, meadows, and streamside management zones and limited time for management activities will provide the best protection for this species. Range contraction has occurred over the past 20 years and the species is threatened with extinction. As the risk of widespread unmanageable fire increases with predicted climate change seeps, riparian conservation areas and streamside management zones this may burn eliminating the beneficial effects of this habitat. Management Directives for fuels reductions in riparian areas have not yet been developed. However the risk of unmanageable wildfire will be reduced by creation of WUI areas, reduction of fuels and under burning associated with this Alternative 2.

Availability of large (> 15” diameter at small end) down woody debris for shelter There is a trade-off between the desire to reduce fuels, particularly within the WUI zone and the need to retain surface litter, large down woody debris and other features that provide cover and retain moisture. These features provide microsites and dispersal habitat for frogs. Table 8 shows availability of moderate and high density habitat at the Salmon Creek Watershed (HUC6) level and the project units. A total of 523 acres of moderate and high density habitats would be thinned as a result of implementation of alternative 2. This represents approximately 0.8% of the habitat available at the watershed level. This species is unlikely to be travelling in upland areas in the hottest time of the year (July and August). Hand thinning activities should not disturb this species as long as it is done either in the hottest time of year or when temperatures begin to drop towards night time freezing. With restriction on timing of activities, this alternative is unlikely to affect this species.

Introduction of non-native fish Introduced fish present in all the streams in areas they did not naturally occur has contributed to the decline of this species. This alternative is unlikely to affect this factor contributing to decline of this species. Effects of controlled fire during migration The frogs will go into torpor in streams once temperatures begin to drop in the fall. Burning in the late fall and winter once night time temperatures drop toward freezing should not effect this species .There is a trade-off between the desire to reduce fuels, particularly within the WUI zone and the need to retain surface litter, large down woody debris and other features that provide cover and retain moisture. In some areas, there is a lack of cover and thinning activities will add a limited amount of slash and increase the number of large or at least larger down woody debris. With retention of 10-15 tons/acre of large woody debris, including and specifically targeting retention of large logs (> 20inches dbh small end) where available, the project should optimize upland habitat for frogs should they disperse in spring or fall while meeting fuels requirements and reducing overall potential for less desirable large-scale, stand replacing fire effects. Cumulative effects The cumulative effects discussion is bounded by the Salmon Creek watershed (6th order HUC) unless there is rationale to support a conclusion that effects of this project would contribute to a decline or cumulative effect that extends beyond those

39 Joey Healthy Forest and Fuel Reduction Project Wildlife and Aquatics Biological Evaluation boundaries. Sources of large downed wood have not been grown yet in the established plantations. The West Plateau prescribed burn affected 200-300 acres since 2006. Most of the prescribed burning has been light underburning in the Big Meadow area. The burning has caused torching of groups of trees and resulted in increased snag numbers, but the effects have been small in scale. The cumulative effects of these types of projects as described for Alternative 2 should begin to reduce the risk of unmanageable fires such as the McNally fire, thus allowing for management and preservation of stream and riparian habitats for potential future reintroductions of the Mountain Yellow Legged Frog. With careful management of roads and other sources of sediment, streams should not degrade over time in the area of the project. Alternative 3

Direct and Indirect

Spread of bull frogs (invasive non-native) and other vectors for Chytrid fungus Chytrid fungus which is spread by bull frogs and by other native amphibians means has severely limited the distribution of this species to high elevation areas. Alternative 3 is unlikely to alter the current conditions for this species. Sustainable protection of streams from degradation These frogs require fish free streams with clear running water and back water areas. Salmon Creek contains introduced trout. Functioning meadows are also good habitat for them unless non-native bullfrogs or fish are present. Sediment inputs to the streams would dependent on the use of the watershed or meadow for grazing or recreation. As snow melt occurs earlier in the year, flushing flows in spring could effect this species reproduction. If roads are not damaged and significant ground disturbance created then sediment to the streams will be controlled. Connectivity of habitat under roads at stream crossings may need to be reestablished if the culverts are undersized or damaged. Culverts may need to be replaced to improve connectivity and reduce habitat degradation. Best Management Practices in upland area will protect the stream habitat. Effects of Alternative 3 would be similar to 2 with the exception that thinning of small trees less than 8 inches dbh would not be likely to reduce the canopy significantly. The crown fire index would be lower indicating a greater risk of stand replacing fire effects. But the potential for severe fire effects would be less than the no action alternative. Thus potential for increasing sediment due to unmanageable wildfire exists for this alternative. Sustainable riparian habitat The protection of seeps, riparian conservation areas, meadows, and streamside management zones and limited time for management activities will provide the best protection for this species. Range contraction has occurred over the past 20 years and the species is threatened with extinction. As the risk of widespread unmanageable fire increases with predicted climate change seeps, riparian conservation areas and streamside management zones this may burn eliminating beneficial habitat. Management Directives for fuels reductions in riparian areas have not yet been developed. The risk of unmanageable wildfire will be reduced by reduction of fuels and under burning compared to Alternative 1. Availability of large (> 15” diameter at small end) down woody debris for shelter There is a trade-off between the desire to reduce fuels, particularly within the WUI zone and the need to retain surface litter, large down woody debris and other features that provide cover and retain moisture. These features provide microsites and dispersal habitat for frogs. This species is unlikely to be travelling in upland areas in the hottest time of the year (July and August). Hand thinning activities should not disturb this species as long as it is done either in the hottest time of year or when temperatures begin to drop towards night time freezing. With restriction on timing of activities, this alternative is unlikely to affect this species. Introduction of non-native fish Introduced fish present in all the streams in areas they did not naturally occur has contributed to the decline of this species. This alternative is unlikely to affect this factor contributing to decline of this species. Effects of controlled fire during migration The frogs will go into torpor in streams once temperatures begin to drop in the fall. Burning in the late fall and winter once night time temperatures drop toward freezing should not effect this species .There is a trade-off between the desire to reduce fuels, and the need to retain surface litter, large down woody debris and other features that provide cover and retain moisture. With retention of 10-15 tons/acre of large woody debris when present, including and specifically targeting retention of large logs (> 20inches dbh small end) where available, the project should optimize upland habitat for frogs should they disperse in spring or fall while meeting fuels requirements and reducing overall potential for less desirable large-scale, stand replacing fire.

40 Joey Healthy Forest and Fuel Reduction Project Wildlife and Aquatics Biological Evaluation

Cumulative effects The cumulative effects discussion is bounded by the Salmon Creek watershed (6th order HUC) unless there is rationale to support a conclusion that effects of this project would contribute to a decline or cumulative effect that extends beyond those boundaries. Introduced fish will continue to be an issue into the future. With careful management of roads, culverts and other sources of sediment, streams should not degrade over time in the area of the project. Keeping habitat connectivity through management of culverts and roads will promote preservation of good stream habitat. Sources of large downed wood have not been grown yet in the established plantations. The West Plateau prescribed burn affected 200-300 acres since 2006. Most of the prescribed burning has been light underburning in the Big Meadow area. The burning has caused torching of groups of trees and resulted in increased snag numbers, but the effects have been small in scale. Managing fire allows for preservation of stream and riparian habitats for potential future reintroductions of the Mountain Yellow Legged Frog.. The cumulative effects of these types of projects as described for Alternative 3 should begin to reduce the risk of unmanageable fires but not as well as Alternative 2. Determination Alternative 1 The direct, indirect or cumulative impacts of Alternative 1 could contribute to a trend leading to protection under the Endangered Species Act or loss of viability for the Mountain Yellow Legged Frog.

Rationale The no action alternative foregoes some opportunities for reduction of stand-replacing fire risk and thinning to provide open flight paths. The trend toward deforestation as a result of large-scale, stand-replacing fire effects could contribute to a trend leading to loss of habitat for this species and contribute to the need for additional federal protection under the Endangered Species Act. No action may result in another large-scale, stand replacing fire and another such fire could result in the elimination of riparian and good quality stream in parts of the Kern Plateau. Alternatives 2 and 3 The direct, indirect or cumulative impacts of Alternatives 2 and 3 should not cause or contribute to the need for additional protection under the Endangered Species Act or loss of viability for Mountain Yellow Legged Frog.

Rationale There would be some temporary disturbance and effects on suitable migration habitat for mountain yellow legged frog, but the effects would be small in scale, would not result in elimination of habitat currently suitable for these species and would reduce potential risk of adverse effects of large-scale, stand –replacing effects of wildfire or insect and drought related mortality. Kern Plateau slender salamander (Batrachoceps robustus) Status and Historic and Current Distribution This salamander is endemic to 36 locations in the southern Sierra Nevada including the Kern Plateau from 5,580 - 9,200 ft. (1,700 - 2,800 m). The range extent is less than 40-100 square miles ( Natureserve ). The Kern Plateau slender salamander is vulnerable to habitat degradation through alterations of spring water or habitat. Habitat is easily altered by destructive intrusion (Natureserve) and widespread fire. This species was formerly included in the Forest Service sensitive species group. It was dropped from the list in 2013 but is addressed here as a species of local concern as if Forest Service Sensitive. Habitat Relationships and Biology Kern Plateau salamanders occur in a broad range of ecological settings, from high elevation coniferous forests to semiarid pinyon pine/sagebrush associations. In general, salamanders occurring in mesic pine-fir forests are more broadly distributed on a local scale and are less closely associated with surface moisture (Hansen and Wake 2005). By contrast, populations occupying the southeastern Kern Plateau, eastern slope Sierra Nevada canyons, and Scodie Mountains are restricted to areas of permanent or seasonal surface moisture (Hansen and Wake 2005). During favorable periods of surface moisture and temperature, Kern Plateau salamanders may be found under rocks, under or within downed logs, or among bark rubble (Hansen and Wake 2005). At high elevations, their activity is restricted to between the months of May or June to October, when temperatures are warmer and snow levels have dropped enough to provide conditions for courtship and egg-laying (Hansen and Wake 2005). These salamanders are secretive, and have no aquatic larval stage; and depend on moist microhabitats including springs or seeps in upland areas (Hansen and Wake 2005). Timing of reproductive activities is likely to vary with elevation and seasonal precipitation (Hansen and Wake 2005). For this species multiple year droughts and later heavy rains may restrict activity to February to March (Hansen and Wake 2005). A critical habitat feature for this species at 41 Joey Healthy Forest and Fuel Reduction Project Wildlife and Aquatics Biological Evaluation most localities is surface moisture in the form of springs, seepages, or creek margins as they may lay eggs in these areas (Hansen and Wake 2005). These salamanders are sensitive to road construction, timber harvesting activities, or forest fire suppression efforts (Hansen and Wake 2005). This terrestrial salamander is highly associated with down wood in forests; four habitat characteristics have a significant positive association with slender salamanders: canopy closure, west and east aspects, decayed logs in the 50 to 75 cm (20 to 30 in) diameter class, and snags. While it may be found in all seral stages when down wood is present, the species uses a variety of ground cover objects ranging from sloughed bark to down logs, and occur in younger and older forests. Population Trends Historically, the slender salamanders were found in the Scodie Mountains and up on the Kern Plateau (Hansen and Wake 2005). This species range within the Sierra Nevada is restricted and the salamanders occur in isolated colonies (Jockusch et al. 2012). We do not have data on the number of occurrences of these species or how many populations are on the Forest, or how many have stability and have good viability (www.natureserve.org ). Based on habitat considerations and recent monitoring of extent of occurrence, salamanders appear relatively stable and are predicted to decline at a rate of less than 10% over the next 10 years ( www.natureserve.org ). The small range for these salamanders makes them vulnerable to roads, land clearing, high intensity fire and other human or natural disturbances. Risk Factors and Management Concerns for Kern Plateau Slender Salamander There are no specific management directions for these species. RCA buffers of 300 feet on either side of perennial streams, meadows, seeps, and springs and 150 feet on either side of intermittent streams provide some protection to habitat by limiting effects from management projects. Although the salamanders are not dependent on surface water they are moisture dependent. As such, mesic sites, east and west slopes or riparian areas are the most likely habitat where they may be found. Land-use activities that affect substrate, ground cover including down wood, compact soil, forest condition, or microhabitat and microclimate regimes may impact individuals or populations at occupied sites (Olson et al 2002). In particular, where there is limited large down wood volume and limited down wood recruitment, negative consequences for this terrestrial salamander are likely. However, there is uncertainty about the effect on these salamanders of partial harvest, or regeneration harvest with green tree and down wood retention. Evaluation criteria are:

1. Roads construction and maintenance especially in or near temporary draws areas of springs, seeps or other moist areas; 2. Maintain the integrity of substrates (avoid soil compaction) for subsurface refugia 3. Sustainable riparian habitat; 4. Availability of decayed logs in the 50 to 75 cm (20 to 30 in) diameter class, and snags; 5. Jack pot burning in moist riparian areas, Aspen Groves, meadows, and temporary draws 6. Effects of controlled fire in upland wooded areas

Effects Alternative 1.

Direct and Indirect Effects Roads construction and maintenance especially in or near temporary draws areas of springs, seeps or other moist areas As no change in this area would be proposed Alternative 1 is unlikely to alter the current conditions for this species. Maintain the integrity of substrates (avoid soil compaction) for subsurface refugia These salamanders live underground during the colder and hotter parts of the year. This Alternative 1 should have no direct effects on ground disturbance. However indirect effects could be wildfire that was unmanageable and widespread on the Kern Plateau over heating soils and killing subterranean salamanders in upland areas. Sustainable riparian habitat The species has a small range within the Kern Plateau. As the risk of widespread unmanageable fire increases with predicted climate change, seeps, riparian conservation areas and streamside management zones may burn eliminating the potential beneficial effects of this habitat for this species in xeric areas. Availability of decayed logs in the 50 to 75 cm (20 to 30 in) diameter class, and snags; Snags would remain at current levels in the short term and likely increase with the next drought cycle. There is no indication that continued increases in snag levels would significantly increase abundance or diversity of . This coupled with the lack of safe, logical points of control to initiate suppression efforts would likely contribute greater losses in suitable habitat over time. Over the long term, existing large snags will eventually fall. Given the lower growth rates associated with densely stocked 42 Joey Healthy Forest and Fuel Reduction Project Wildlife and Aquatics Biological Evaluation stands common throughout the project site, the recruitment pool of large live tree that will eventually die and replace those that fall is likely to diminish. This alternative is unlikely to affect this resource unless unmanageable wildfire destroys the downed materials and live trees. Studies in the Pacific Northwest documented greater salamander abundance in old-growth compared to clear-cuts or early seral forest (e.g., Bury and Corn 1988). Jack pot burning in moist riparian areas, Aspen Groves, meadows, and temporary draws Since no such activity will occur the risk to individuals in the population would be low. This alternative is unlikely to affect this resource unless unmanageable wildfire destroys the downed materials Effects of controlled fire in upland wooded areas This alternative will not reduce the risk of fire or the spread of fire, nor reduce the risk of unmanageable wildfire. Since predictions are that fire will increase associated with climate change this alternative will increase risk to this species. Cumulative Effects The cumulative effects of no action appear to result in an increasing trend toward deforestation as a result of wildfire. This trend is expected to increase as a result of projected trends in climate change. No action fails to increase the resistance of forested stands to the effects of stand-replacing effects and their resilience or ability to recover important stand characteristics after disturbance. As such no action will contribute to the existing trend toward loss of mature forest habitat. With no action to reduce fuels, fuels build up and no barriers to stop unmanageable; wildfire could have the indirect effect of burning a substantial portion of the range of this range restricted species. Due to the slow spread of these salamanders from one location to another they would be severely reduced in distribution for a long period of time. Alternative 2

Direct and Indirect

Roads construction and maintenance especially in or near temporary draws areas of springs, seeps or other moist areas These actions can result in loss of interstices used by salamanders as refuges and for their movements, and a drying out of the ground surface if cover is lost through widening of the roads and loss of vegetation. Road construction in suitable habitat directly removes overstory, affects down woody material, and compacts the substrate. The intensity of impacts is more intense and longer lasting than timber harvest. Road construction likely causes direct mortality to individuals and some amount of habitat loss. However due to the scale of impact and the linear nature of the action, the impacts to the species may be significantly less than stand replacement fire (Olson et al. 2002). Maintain the integrity of substrates (avoid soil compaction) for subsurface refugia These salamanders live underground during the colder and hotter parts of the year. Tree-felling and ground based logging systems mechanically disturb the substrate and ground cover which can result in both substrate compaction and loss of the integrity of existing down wood. These actions can result in loss of interstices used by salamanders as refuges and for their movements, and a drying out of the ground surface if cover is lost. However indirect effects of wildfire that was unmanageable and widespread on the Kern Plateau would be greater than the upland use of mechanized equipment in a restricted area. Timing of mechanized equipment use should coincide with the hottest part of the summer when soils are dry and salamanders are not on the surface. Reduce, where possible, the area traversed by large machinery or over which logs are dragged. As long as mechanized machinery does not enter Aspen Groves or other moist habitats, and methods to minimize ground disturbance are employed in upland sites; this resource issue should have no direct impacts on the species or the population in the area. Horse Meadow boundary will be thinned by hand. However the Mechanical Thinning in the WUI Defense & Threat Zone in the Horse Meadow WUI defense and treat zones may include whole tree yarding. Care will be needed to keep the ground disturbance to a minimum to avoid soil compaction and loss of salamanders. Sustainable riparian habitat The protection of seeps, riparian conservation areas, meadows, and streamside management zones and limited time for management activities will provide the best protection for this species. As the risk of widespread unmanageable fire increases with predicted climate change; seeps, riparian conservation areas and streamside management zones this may burn eliminating the beneficial effects of this habitat. Management Directives for fuels reductions in riparian areas have not yet been developed. However the risk of unmanageable wildfire will be reduced by creation of WUI areas, reduction of fuels and under burning associated with this Alternative 2. Hand thinning activities should not disturb this species as long as it is done either in the hottest time of year or when temperatures begin to drop towards night time freezing. With restriction on timing of activities, this resource issue is unlikely to affect this species.

43 Joey Healthy Forest and Fuel Reduction Project Wildlife and Aquatics Biological Evaluation

Availability of decayed logs in the 50 to 75 cm (20 to 30 in) diameter class, and snags; There is a trade-off between the desire to reduce fuels, particularly within the WUI zone and the need to retain surface litter, large down woody debris and other features that provide cover and retain moisture. These features provide microsites and dispersal habitat for salamanders. Table 8 shows availability of moderate and high density habitat at the Salmon Creek Watershed (HUC6) level and the project units. A total of 523 acres of moderate and high density habitats would be thinned as a result of implementation of alternative 2. This represents approximately 0.8% of the habitat available at the watershed level. This species is unlikely to be travelling in upland areas in the hottest time of the year (July and August). Jack pot burning in moist riparian areas, Aspen Groves, meadows, and temporary draws The effects of fire on slender salamanders are poorly understood (Olson et al. 2002). Prescribed fire for fuels reduction treatments may have different effects than natural fire that can differ significantly in intensity. Low intensity fires that retain decayed logs (don’t jackpot burn decayed and rotting logs ) and occur during the seasons when these salamanders are not surface active may not have adverse effects. At higher elevations salamanders will not be active in mesic areas (aspen groves , riparian areas, in and around meadows) during the colder winter months, however as temperatures begin warm during the day in spring they will become more active. Thinning within aspen stands may include the following range of activities to reduce conifer trees: falling trees, piling and burning, jackpot burning of tops and limbs. It would be better for the salamanders which are found in these moist areas that jackpot burning and piling and burning be either minimized in these areas or more spread out to minimize the heating of soils where salamanders may be burrowed underground. Effects of controlled fire in upland wooded areas The effects of fire on slender salamanders are poorly understood (Olson et al. 2002). Prescribed fire for fuels reduction treatments may have different effects than natural fire that can differ significantly in intensity. Low intensity fires that retain large down wood and occur during the seasons when these salamanders are not surface active may not have adverse effects. One recent study surveyed for this species following a midsummer fire (Clark Fire, July 2003), and numerous detections were reported) Olson et al. 2002). There is a trade-off between the desire to reduce fuels, particularly within the WUI zone and the need to retain surface litter, large down woody debris and other features that provide cover and retain moisture. In some areas, there is a lack of cover and thinning activities will add a limited amount of slash and increase the number of large or at least larger down woody debris. In areas where the existing or activity created fuels exceed 15 tons/acre, the balance of potential harm shifts to risk of large, stand-replacing fires that can remove all or most surface litter and limit the potential for recruitment of large woody debris. With retention of 10-15 tons/acre of large woody debris, including and specifically targeting retention of large rotting logs (> 20inches dbh small end) where available, the project should optimize upland habitat for salamanders while meeting fuels requirements and reducing overall potential for less desirable large-scale, stand replacing fire effects. Cumulative effects The cumulative effects discussion is bounded by the Salmon Creek watershed (6th order HUC) unless there is rationale to support a conclusion that effects of this project would contribute to a decline or cumulative effect that extends beyond those boundaries. Most of the prescribed burning has been light underburning in the Big Meadow area. The burning has caused torching of groups of trees and resulted in increased snag numbers, but the effects have been small in scale. The historical fire regime in the area was likely one of high frequency and low intensity fire, which consisted of very frequent underburning of the forest in the summer and fall and few stand replacement events. The effects of a more intense level of fire disturbance due to fire suppression and fuel loading is of concern in that stand replacement fire represents a more catastrophic disturbance to flora and fauna. In particular, relative to salamander habitat, it removes overstory canopy that serves to moderate surface microclimates from extremes (e.g., high temperatures and low moisture) and can reduce decayed down wood (Olson et al. 2002). The cumulative effects of the projects as described for Alternative 2 would reduce the risk of widespread unmanaged fire when compared to Alternative 1. Alternative 3

Direct and Indirect Roads construction and maintenance especially in or near temporary draws areas of springs, seeps or other moist areas These actions can result in loss of interstices used by salamanders as refuges and for their movements, and a drying out of the ground surface if cover is lost through widening of the roads and loss of vegetation. Road construction in suitable habitat directly removes overstory, affects down woody material, and compacts the substrate. The intensity of impacts is more intense and longer lasting than timber harvest. Road construction likely causes direct mortality to individuals and some amount of habitat loss; however due to the scale of impact and the linear nature of the action, the impacts to the species may be significantly less than stand replacement fire (Olson et al. 2002). 44 Joey Healthy Forest and Fuel Reduction Project Wildlife and Aquatics Biological Evaluation

Maintain the integrity of substrates (avoid soil compaction) for subsurface refugia These salamanders live underground during the colder and hotter parts of the year. Tree-felling and ground based logging systems mechanically disturb the substrate and ground cover which can result in both substrate compaction and loss of the integrity of existing down wood. These actions can result in loss of interstices used by salamanders as refuges and for their movements, and a drying out of the ground surface if cover is lost. However indirect effects of wildfire that was unmanageable and widespread on the Kern Plateau would be greater than the upland use of mechanized equipment. Timing of mechanized equipment use should coincide with the hottest part of the summer when soils are dry and salamanders are not on the surface. Reduce, where possible, the area traversed by large machinery or over which logs are dragged. As long as mechanized machinery does not enter Aspen Groves or other moist habitats, and methods to minimize ground disturbance are employed in upland sites; this resource issue should have no direct impacts on the species or the population in the area. Sustainable riparian habitat The protection of seeps, riparian conservation areas, meadows, and streamside management zones and limited time for management activities will provide the best protection for this species. As the risk of widespread unmanageable fire increases with predicted climate change; seeps, riparian conservation areas and streamside management zones this may burn eliminating the beneficial habitat. Management Directives for fuels reductions in riparian areas have not yet been developed. However the risk of unmanageable wildfire will be reduced by creation of WUI areas, reduction of fuels and under burning associated with this Alternative 2. Hand thinning activities should not disturb this species as long as it is done either in the hottest time of year or when temperatures begin to drop towards night time freezing. With restriction on timing of activities, this resource issue is unlikely to affect this species. Availability of decayed logs in the 50 to 75 cm (20 to 30 in) diameter class, and snags; There is a trade-off between the desire to reduce fuels, particularly within the WUI zone and the need to retain surface litter, large down woody debris and other features that provide cover and retain moisture. These features provide microsites and dispersal habitat for salamanders. Table 8 shows availability of moderate and high density habitat at the Salmon Creek Watershed (HUC6) level and the project units. A total of 523 acres of moderate and high density habitats would be thinned as a result of implementation of alternative 2. This represents approximately 0.8% of the habitat available at the watershed level. This species is unlikely to be travelling in upland areas in the hottest time of the year (July and August). Jack pot burning in moist riparian areas, Aspen Groves, meadows, and temporary draws The effects of fire on slender salamanders are poorly understood (Olson et al. 2002). Prescribed fire for fuels reduction treatments may have different effects than natural fire that can differ significantly in intensity. Low intensity fires that retain decayed logs (don’t jackpot burn decayed and rotting logs) and occur during the seasons when these salamanders are not surface active may not have adverse effects. At higher elevations salamanders will not be active in mesic areas (aspen groves, riparian areas, in and around meadows) during the colder winter months, however as temperatures begin warm during the day in spring they will become more active. It would be better for the salamanders which are found in these moist areas that jackpot burning and piling and burning be either minimized in these areas or more spread out to minimize the heating of soils where salamanders may be burrowed underground. Effects of controlled fire in upland wooded areas The effects of fire on slender salamanders are poorly understood (Olson et al. 2002). Prescribed fire for fuels reduction treatments may have different effects than natural fire that can differ significantly in intensity. Low intensity fires that retain large down wood and occur during the seasons when these salamanders are not surface active may not have adverse effects. One recent study surveyed for this species following a midsummer fire (Clark Fire, July 2003), and numerous detections were reported) There is a trade-off between the desire to reduce fuels, particularly within the WUI zone and the need to retain surface litter, large down woody debris and other features that provide cover and retain moisture. In some areas, there is a lack of cover and thinning activities will add a limited amount of slash and increase the number of large or at least larger down woody debris. In areas where the existing or activity created fuels exceed 15 tons/acre, the balance of potential harm shifts to risk of large, stand-replacing fires that can remove all or most surface litter and limit the potential for recruitment of large woody debris. With retention of 10-15 tons/acre of large woody debris, including and specifically targeting retention of large rotting logs (> 20inches dbh small end) where available, the project should optimize upland habitat for salamanders while meeting fuels requirements and reducing overall potential for less desirable large-scale, stand replacing fire effects. Cumulative effects The cumulative effects discussion is bounded by the Salmon Creek watershed (6th order HUC) unless there is rationale to support a conclusion that effects of this project would contribute to a decline or cumulative effect that extends beyond those boundaries. Most of the prescribed burning has been light underburning in the Big Meadow area. The burning has caused torching of groups of trees and resulted in increased snag numbers, but the effects have been small in scale. The historical 45 Joey Healthy Forest and Fuel Reduction Project Wildlife and Aquatics Biological Evaluation fire regime in the area was likely one of high frequency and low intensity fire, which consisted of very frequent underburning of the forest in the summer and fall and few stand replacement events. The effects of a more intense level of fire disturbance due to fire suppression and fuel loading is of concern in that stand replacement fire represents a more catastrophic disturbance to salamanders which cannot move ahead of a fire. In particular, relative to salamander habitat, it removes overstory canopy that serves to moderate surface microclimates from extremes (e.g., high temperatures and low moisture) and can reduce decayed down wood (Olson et al. 2002). The cumulative effects of the projects as described for Alternative 3 would reduce the risk of widespread unmanaged fire when compared to Alternative 1, but not as well as in Alterative 2. Fuel loading in Aspen Clones in units 5 and 12 would be significantly higher and cause a hot fire within the clone thus burning the soils and destroying soil structure and moisture. These moist habitats are preferred habitat for salamanders and severe fire will destroy element of habitat even within the ground. Determination Alternative 1 The direct, indirect or cumulative impacts of Alternative 1 could contribute to a trend leading to protection under the Endangered Species Act or loss of viability for Kern Plateau Slender Salamander.

Rationale The no action alternative foregoes some opportunities for reduction of stand-replacing fire risk and thinning to provide open defensible zones. The trend toward deforestation as a result of large-scale, stand-replacing fire effects could contribute to a trend leading to loss of habitat for this species and contribute to the need for federal protection under the Endangered Species Act. No action may result in another large-scale, stand replacing fire and another such fire could result in the elimination of riparian and moist upland areas in parts of the Kern Plateau. Since there would be no heavy equipment the potential for direct harm would be limited and less than that considered under alternative 2. Alternatives 2 and 3 The direct, indirect or cumulative impacts of Alternatives 2 and 3 should not cause or contribute to the need for protection under the Endangered Species Act or loss of viability for Kern Plateau Slender Salamander. Rationale There would be some temporary disturbance and effects on suitable habitat for Kern Plateau Slender Salamander, but the effects would be small in scale, would not result in elimination of habitat currently suitable for these species and would reduce potential risk of adverse effects of large-scale, stand –replacing effects of wildfire or insect and drought related mortality Bat Group The Townsends’ big–eared bat, western red bat, and pallid bats are addressed as a group since the discussions would be essentially the same. Species Accounts (from California Wildlife Habitat Relationships program (CDFG 2010) Townsend’s big-eared bat (Corynorhinus townsendii) Status and Distribution Townsend's big-eared bat is found throughout California, but the details of its distribution are not well known. This species is found in all but subalpine and alpine habitats, and may be found at any season throughout its range. Once considered common, Townsend's big-eared bat now is considered uncommon in California. It is most abundant in mesic habitats. This species has been found in abandoned mines and using portions of the McNally Fire but not specifically within the project area. Habitat Relationships This species roosts in caves, mines, tunnels, buildings, or other human-made structures. It may use separate sites for night, day, hibernation, or maternity roosts. Hibernation sites are cold, but not below freezing. Maternity roosts are warm. Roosting sites are the most important limiting resource. This species prefers mesic habitats. Gleans from brush or trees or feeds along habitat edges. Peak activity is late in the evening preceded by flights close to the roost. This relatively sedentary species makes short movements to hibernation sites. Males are solitary in spring and summer. Females form maternity colonies. This bat is relatively specialized on moths and is a slow, maneuverable flier. It gleans, and captures prey in the air by echolocation. Roosting sites may be shared with other species. This species is extremely sensitive to disturbance of roosting sites. A single

46 Joey Healthy Forest and Fuel Reduction Project Wildlife and Aquatics Biological Evaluation visit may result in abandonment of the roost. All known nursery colonies in limestone caves in California apparently have been abandoned. Numbers reportedly have declined steeply in California. Pallid bat (Antrozous pallidus) Status and Distribution The pallid bat is a locally common species of low elevations in California. It occurs throughout California except for the high Sierra Nevada from Shasta to Kern counties and the northwestern corner of the state from Del Norte and western Siskiyou cos. to northern Mendocino Co. A wide variety of habitats is occupied, including grasslands, shrublands, woodlands, and forests from sea level up through mixed conifer forests. The species is most common in open, dry habitats with rocky areas for roosting. It is a yearlong resident in most of the range. This species is known from Sequoia National Forest and is presumed present. Habitat Relationships Pallid bats take a wide variety of insects and arachnids, including beetles, grasshoppers, roaches, bugs, moths, spiders, scorpions, solpugids (camel or false spiders), and Jerusalem crickets. The stout skull and dentition of this species allows it to take large, hard-shelled prey. It forages over open ground, usually 0.5-2.5 m (1.6-8 ft.) above ground level. Foraging flight is slow and maneuverable with frequent dips, swoops, and short glides. Many prey are taken on the ground. Foraging in foliage is frequently used, and a few prey are taken aerially. The bat can maneuver well on the ground, but may carry large prey to a perch or night roost for consumption. Ingestion of fruit in one study (Howell 1980) was a result of feeding on frugivorous moths. The bat uses echolocation for obstacle avoidance; and possibly utilizes prey-produced sounds while foraging. Day roosts are in caves, crevices, mines, and occasionally in hollow trees and buildings which protect bats from high temperatures. Bats move deeper into cover if temperatures rise. Night roosts may be in more open sites, such as porches and open buildings. Few hibernation sites are known, but this species probably uses rock crevices. Rocky outcrops, cliffs, and crevices with access to open habitats are preferred for foraging. Briefer foraging periods occur in autumn, and activity is infrequent below 2°C (35°F) as the bat undergoes shallow torpor daily. The species hibernates in winter near the summer day roost (Hermanson and O'Shea 1983). Most pallid bats (95%) roost in groups of 20, or more within a range up to 162. Group size is important for metabolic economy and growth of young. It is known to roost with a number of other bats, principally Myotis spp. and Tadarida brasiliensis . Western red bat (Lasiurus blossevillii) Status and Distribution The red bat is locally common in some areas of California, occurring from Shasta Co. to the Mexican border, west of the Sierra Nevada/Cascade crest and deserts. The winter range includes western lowlands and coastal regions south of San Francisco Bay. There is migration between summer and winter ranges, and migrants may be found outside the normal range. Roosting habitat includes forests and woodlands from sea level up through mixed conifer forests. Feeds over a wide variety of habitats including grasslands, shrublands, open woodlands and forests, and croplands. Not found in desert areas. During warm months, sexes occupy different portions of the range (Williams and Findley 1979). Habitat Relationships Feeds on a variety of insects. The most important prey are moths, crickets, beetles, and cicadas. Foraging flight is slow and erratic. Though capable of rapid, direct flight, it is maneuverable. This species uses echolocation to capture insects in wing and tail membranes. Frequently seen foraging in large concentrations. Foraging may be from high above treetops to nearly ground level. The same foraging route may be followed on many occasions. Roosts primarily in trees, less often in shrubs. Roost sites often are in edge habitats adjacent to streams, fields, or urban areas. Preferred roost sites are protected from above, open below, and located above dark ground-cover. Such sites minimize water loss. Roosts may be from 0.6-13 m (2- 40 ft.) above ground level. Females and young may roost in higher sites than males. Prefers edges or habitat mosaics that have trees for roosting and open areas for foraging. Found foraging or drinking with many other bat species, but usually does not roost with other species. Risk Factors and Management Concerns for the Bat Group

There are no specific management directions for these species. 1. Numbers of large snags. The bats use snags or large trees with loose bark at varying levels for roost sites. Red bats tend to use primarily oaks, while pallid and Townsends’ bats tend to use caves, crevices and abandoned mines 2. Open flight paths and foraging areas. 47 Joey Healthy Forest and Fuel Reduction Project Wildlife and Aquatics Biological Evaluation

Effects Alternative 1 Direct and Indirect There would be no direct effects as a result of no action. Indirect effects of no action would be accumulation of additional surface and ladder fuels which would result in an increasing risk of wildfire with severe and widespread fire effects. Cumulative The cumulative effect of continued fire suppression in terms of accumulated surface fuels may contribute to severe and widespread effects of wildfire. Combined with climate change and trends toward increasing deforestation due to fire, no action would likely contribute to the existing trend toward loss of forested habitat. Alternative 2 Direct and Indirect The primary effect of alternative 2 would be loss of potential roost sites along roads as a result of hazard reduction. Snag levels currently average approximately 4.3 snags greater than 15 inches dbh/acre over the dominant strata (strata 1) acre as a result of density related disease and drought related mortality. This high level of snags would remain in untreated areas within the project and adjacent areas. With existing snag levels there would be adequate roosts to support bat populations. Thinning and underburning would open flight paths and encourage herbaceous growth that could increase prey populations. Additional disturbance could cause short-term abandonment of roost sites within the project during operation. Cumulative The number and extent of similar projects across the Forest and bioregion affect less than 1 percent of the forested habitat available. Within the immediate vicinity of the Joey project the only other project is prescribed burning which has resulted in increased snag levels and may compensate for the snags lost as a result of hazard reduction in the project area. Alternative 3 Direct and Indirect Since all activity would be manual thinning and underburning, the level of disturbance of potential roost sites would be less than under alternative 2. Snags that are a hazard would still be removed and potentially reduce the number of suitable roost trees. Due to the existing high levels of snags and the relatively small proportion of forest areas with hazard reduction, there would not be a significant change in habitat availability. The reductions would occur in the areas next to roads or human activity where bats would tend to be disturbed and/ or tend to avoid. As such the effect is not expected to be substantive. Cumulative See discussion under Alternative 2 Determination Alternative 1 The direct, indirect or cumulative impacts of this alternative would not cause or contribute to a trend leading to protection under the Endangered Species Act or loss of viability for Townsends’ big-eared bat, western red bat or pallid bat.

Rationale The potential for large-scale sand replacing fire appears to be the greatest threat to existing cover and habitat. However, these bat species appear to have responded favorably to the McNally Fire (Frick 2005, Buchalski 2013), so increased risk of a similar event would not likely cause significant declines in these species. Alternative 2 The direct, indirect or cumulative impacts of this alternative would not cause or contribute to a trend leading to protection under the Endangered Species Act or loss of viability for Townsends’ big-eared bat, western red bat or pallid bat.

48 Joey Healthy Forest and Fuel Reduction Project Wildlife and Aquatics Biological Evaluation

Rationale For the most part these species roost in rocky areas, abandoned caves and other locations where disturbance is unlikely. Thinning is likely to enhance foraging areas. The western red bat does use snags for roosts, but is generally a lower elevation species with a preference for oaks and does not favor desert influenced habitats such as the project area. No oaks will be removed unless a hazard.

Alternative 3 The direct, indirect or cumulative impacts of Alternative 3 would not cause or contribute to a trend leading to protection under the Endangered Species Act or loss of viability for Townsends’ big-eared bat, western red bat or pallid bat.

Rationale Effects would be similar to alternative 2.

Summary of Determinations The intent is not to treat all habitats to fire-proof the forest; however, treating a portion of the forest balances the need to be able to control fire effects in patch size and intensity at the landscape level. There appear to be thresholds or tolerances for thinning treatments within which spotted owls and fisher continue to occupy both treated units and the landscape. These tolerances appear to be within the range of what is believed to be necessary to bring fires within the tolerances of management such that fire can be managed as an ecosystem process rather than an uncontrolled force that must be suppressed to avoid the potential for unacceptable damage. These tolerances appear to converge with approximately 30 percent of the landscape in a mosaic of treatments that reduce surface and ladder fuels with canopy cover that may be reduced to an average of 40 percent in some areas. The proposed project does not approach this threshold, but does improve the ability to manage fire and adverse fire effects at the landscape scale It is our determination that implementation of the proposed action or Alternative 3 would not be likely to cause or contribute to a trend leading to the need for protection under the Endangered Species Act or loss of viability for the following species: Kern Plateau slender salamander, mountain yellow-legged frog, California spotted owl, great grey owl, northern goshawk, Pacific fisher, pallid bat, Townsend’s big-eared bat and western red bat.. No federally protected species or critical habitats would be negatively affected by this project if an action alternative is implemented. Literature Cited Agee, J.K; Skinner, C.N. 2005. Basic principles of forest fuel reduction treatments. Forest Ecology and Management. 211: 83 -96. Anderson, S. W. 2013. Ma nagement Indicator Species Report, Joey Healthy Forest and Fuel Reduction project and Kern River Ranger District, Sequoia National Forest. Bart J. Amount of Suitable Habitat and Viability of Northern Spotted Owls [Journal] // Conservation Biology. - Augu st 1995. - 4: Vol. 9. - pp. 943-946. Bartelt P. E. Management of the American Goshawk in the Black Hills national Forest. M.S. thesis. [Report]. - Vermillion, SD: University of South Dakota, 1977. Beaty, R. M., & Taylor, A. H. (2008). Fire history and the structure and dynamics of a mixed conifer forest landscape in the northern Sierra Nevada, Lake Tahoe Basin, California, USA. Forest Ecology and Management, 255(3), 707-719. Beaty, R. M., & Taylor, A. H. 2001. Spatial and Temporal Variation of Fire Reg imes in a Mixed Conifer Forest Landscape, Southern Cascades, California, USA. Journal of Biogeography , 955-966. Beck, A. J., and R. L. Rudd. 1960. Nursery colonies in the pallid bat. J. Mammal. 41:266 -267. Berigan, W. J., Gutierrez, R. J., & Tempel, D. J. (2012). Evaluating the efficacy of protected habitat areas for the California spotted owl using long-term monitoring data. Journal of Forestry, 110(6), 299-303. Bingham B. and Noon B. R. Mitigation of Habitat "Take": Application to Habitat Conservation [Journal] // Conservation Biology. - 1997. - 1: Vol. 11. - pp. 127-139. Black, H. L. 1974. A north temperate bat community: structure and prey populations. Blakesley J. A., Anderson D. R. and Noon B. R. Ecology of the California spotted owl: breeding di spersal and associations with forest stand characteristics in northeastern California. [Report]: Ph. D. Dissertation. - Ft. Collins, CO: Colorado State University, 2003. - p. 60. Blakesley J. A., Noon B. R. and Anderson D. R. Site occupancy, apparent surv ival, and reproduction of California spotted owls in relation to forest stand characteristics. [Article] // Journal of Wildlife Management. - 2005. - Vol. 69. - pp. 1554-1564. 49 Joey Healthy Forest and Fuel Reduction Project Wildlife and Aquatics Biological Evaluation

Bloom P. H., Stewart G. R. and Walton B. J. The status of the Northern Goshawk in California, 1981 -1983 [Report]. - Sacramento, CA: California Department of Fish and Game, 1986. - Adm. Rep 85-1. Bond M. L. [et al.] Short -term effects of wildfires on spotted owl survival, site fidelity, mate fidelity and reproductive success. [Journal] // Wildlife Society Bulletin. - 2002. - Vol. 30. - pp. 1022-1028. Bond M. L., Lee D. E. and Siegel R. B. the use of post fire landscapes by California spotted owls in the Sierra Nevada. [Repo rt]: unpublished. - Point Reyes, CA: the Institute for Bird Populations, 2007. Bond, M. L., D. E. Lee, R. B. Siegel, & J. P. Ward, Jr. 2009a. Habitat use and selection by California Spotted Owls in a post fire landscape. Journal of Wildlife Management 73: 1116-1124. Bond, M.L., D.E. Lee, R.B. Siegel, and M.W . Tingley. 2013. Diet and home -range size of California spotted owls in a burned forest. Western Birds 44: 114-126. Bradford, D. F., Knapp, R. A., Sparling, D. W., Nash, M. S., Stanley, K. A., Tallent ‐Halsell, N. G., ... & Simonich, S. M. (2011). Pesticide distributions and population declines of California, USA, alpine frogs, Rana muscosa and Rana sierrae. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 30(3), 682-691. Bradford, D. F., Tabatabai, F., and Graber, D. M. (1993). Isolation of remaining populations of the native frog, Rana muscosa, by introduced fishes in Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks, California.' Conservation Biology 7: 882-888. Brown, P. E. 1976. Vocal communication in the pallid bat, Antrozous pallidus. Zeit. Tierpsychol. 41:34-54. Brown, P. E. 1980. Distribution of bats of the California Channel Islands. Pages 751 -756 in D. M. Power, ed. The California Islands. Santa Barbara Mus. Nat. History. 787pp. Brubaker, L. 1986. Responses of tree populations to climate change. Plant Ecology, Vol. 67, no. 2: 119 -130. Buchalski, M.R., J. B. Fontaine, PA. Heady III, JP Hayes and WF Frick. 201 3. Bat Responses to differing Fire Severity in Mixed Confer Forest California, USA. PloS one, 8(3) e 57884 Buchanan J., Irwin. L. L. and McCutchen E. L. Within -stand Nest Site selection by spotted owls in the eastern Washington Cascades [Journal] // Journal of Wildlife Management. - 1995. - 2: Vol. 59. - pp. 301-310. Burnett, R.D., M. Preston, and N. Seavy . 2012. Plumas Lassen Study 2011 Annual Report. U.S. Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region, Vallejo, CA. Burnett, R.D., P. Taillie, and N. Seavy. 2010. Plumas Lassen Study 2009 Annual Report. U.S. Forest Service, Pacific Southw est Region, Vallejo, CA. Burnett, R.D., P. Taillie, and N. Seavy. 2011. Plumas Lassen Study 2010 Annual Report. U.S. Forest Service, Pacific Southw est Region, Vallejo, CA. Bury, R. B., & Corn, P. S. (1988). Douglas -fir forests in the Oregon and Washington Cascades : relation of the herpetofauna to stand age and moisture. General technical report RM-Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. CDFG California Natural Diversity Database: California Department of Fi sh and Game, Biogeographic Data Branch, 2009. CDFG CWHR version 8.2 personal computer program. - Sacramento, CA: California Department of Fish and Game, California interagency Wildlife Task Group, 2008. Christensen, Glenn A.; Campbell, Sally J.; Fried, Jeremy S., tech. eds. 2008. California’s forest resources, 2001 -2005: five -year Forest Inventory and Analysis Report. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-763. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 183 p. Cock rum, E. L. 1973. Additional longevity records for American bats. J. Ariz. Acad. Sci. 8:108 -110. Cockrum. E. L. and S. P. Cross. 1964. Time of bat activity over waterholes. J. Mammal. 45:635 -636. Constantine, D. G. 1959. Ecological observations on lasiuri ne bats in the North Bay area of California. J. Mammal. 40:13 -15. Constantine, D. G. 1966. Ecological observations on lasiurine bats in Iowa. J. Mammal. 47:34 -41. Converse S. J., White G. C. and Block W. M. Small mammal response to thinning and wildfire in ponderosa pine dominated forests in the southwestern USA [Journal] // Journal of Wildlife Management. - 2006. Crocker -Bedford D. and Chaney B. Characteristics of goshawk nesting stands [Conference] // Proceedings of the Southwest raptor management symposium and workshop. / ed. Flinski R. L. [et al.]. National Wildlife Federation, 1988. - pp. 210-217. - Sci. Tech Ser. No. 11. Davis, R. 1966. Homing performance and homing ability in bats. Ecol. Monogr. 36:201 -237. Davis, R. 1969a. Growth and developmen t of young pallid bats, Antrozous pallidus. J. Mammal. 50:729 -736. Davis, R. 1969b. Wing loading in pallid bats. J. Mammal. 50:140 -144. 50 Joey Healthy Forest and Fuel Reduction Project Wildlife and Aquatics Biological Evaluation

Davis, W. B. 1960. The mammals of Texas. Texas Game and Fish Comm., Austin. 252pp. Davis, W. H., and W. Z. Lidicker, Jr. 1956. Winter range of the red bat, Lasiurus borealis. J. Mammal. 37:280 -281. Dietz, C. L. 1973. Bat walking behavior. J. Mammal. 54:790 -792. Dunning, D. 1928. A tree classification for the selected forests of the Sierra Nevada. Journal of Agriculture. Vol. 36, no. 9. 755 -770. Easterla, D. A., and J. O. Whitaker, Jr. 1972. Food habits of some bats from Big Bend National Park, Texas. J. Mammal. 53:997 -890. Engler, C. H. 1943. Carnivorous activities of big brown and pallid bats. J. Mammal. 24:196 -197. Farney, J., and E. D. Fleharty, 1969. Aspect ratio, loading, wing spans and membrane area of bats. J. Mammal. 50:362 -367. Fettig, C. J., Klepzig, K. D., Billings, R. F., Munson, A. S., Nebeker, T. E., Negrón, J. F., & Nowak, J. T. (2007). The effectiveness of vegetation management practices for prevention and control of bark beetle infestations in coniferous forests of the western and southern United States. Forest Ecology and Management, 238(1), 24-53. Fettig, C.; Klepiz, K.; Billings, R.; M unson. A.; Newbeker, T.; Negron, J.; Nowak, J. 2007. The effectiveness of vegetation management practices for prevention and control of bark beetle infestations in coniferous forests of the western and southern United States. Forest ecology and management. 230 (1-3): 24-53. Findley, J. S., A. H. Harris, D. E. Wilson, and C. Jones. 1975. Mammals of New Mexico. Univ. New Mexico Press. Albuquerque. 3 60pp. Finlay, J. C., & Vredenburg, V. T. (2007). Introduced trout sever trophic connections in watersheds: con sequences for a declining amphibian. Ecology, 88(9), 2187-2198. Franco -Vizcaino E. [et al.] Water Balance at the Southern limit of the California Mixed Conifer Forest and Implications for Extreme Deficit Watersheds [Journal] // Arid Land research and management. - 2002. - Vol. 16. - pp. 133-147. Franklin A. B. [et al.] Climate, habitat quality, and fitness in northern spotted owl populations in northwestern California. [Journal] // Ecological Monographs. - 2000. - Vol. 70. - pp. 539-590. Franklin A. B. [ et al.] Population Dynamics of the California spotted owl: A meta -analysis [Report] : Final Report to the Forest Service. - Albany, CA : USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station, 2003. Franklin J. F. and Agee J. K. Forging a science based n ational forest fire policy [Journal] // Issues in Science and technology. - 2003. Freeman, P. W. 1981. Correspondence of food habits and morphology in insectivorous bats. J. Mammal. 62:166 -173. Frick, W. F., J. P. Hayes, P. A. Heady III. 2005. Effects of fire on forest bat activity in the Southern Sierra Nevada. Pres entation at the 2005 Joint Annual Meeting of the Oregon Chapter of the Wildlife Society and the Society for Northwestern vertebrate Biology, LaSells Stewart Center, Oregon State University, Corvallis OR, February 22-25, 2005. On file, Kern River Ranger District. see Buchalski 2013 Fule, P. Z. (2008). Does it make sense to restore wildland fire in changing climate? . Restoration Ecolo gy, 16(4), 526 -531. Geluso, K. N. 1978. Urine concentrating ability and renal structure of insectivorous bats. J. Mammal. 59:312 -323. Gould Jr. G. I. The status of the spotted owl in California. [Report]. - Sacramento, CA: California Department of Fish a nd Game, 1974. - p. 36. - Admin Report No. 74. Graham R. T. [et al.] The northern goshawk in Utah: Habitat assessment and management recommendations [Report]. - Ogden, UT : USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, 1999. - p. 48. - GTR-RMRS-22. Grinnell, H. W. 1918. A synopsis of the bats of California. Univ. Calif. Publ Zool. 17:223 -404. Gruell, G. 2001. Fire in Sierra Nevada forests: a photographic interpretation of ecological change since 1849. Missoula , MT: Mountain Press Publishing Co. 238 p. Guarín, A., & Taylor, A. H. (2005). Drought triggered tree mortality in mixed conifer forests in Yosemite National Park, Cali fornia, USA. Forest Ecology and Management, 218(1), 229-244. Guitierrez R. J., LaHaye W. S. and Zimmerman G. Demography of the California spotted owl in the San Bernardino Mountains [Report]. - San Francisco, CA : USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region, 1998. - p. 14. Hall P. Characterization of nesting habitat of goshawk (Accipiter gentilis) in Northeastern Californi a [MS thesis]. - Arcata: California State University at Humboldt, 1984. Hamilton, W. J., Jr. 1943. The mammals of eastern United States. Comstock. Publ. Co., Ithaca, NY. 432pp. Hanson, C.T. 2013. Pacific fisher habitat use of a heterogeneous post -fire and unburned landscape in the southern Sierra Nevada, California, USA. Hanson, C.T., D.C. Odion, D.A. DellaSala, and W.L. Baker. 2009. Overestimation of fire risk in the Northe rn Spotted Owl Recovery Plan. Conservation Biology 23:1314–1319. Hargis C. D., McCarthy C. and Perloff R. D. Home ranges and habitats of northern goshawks in eastern California [Journal] // Studies in Avian biology. - 1994. - Vol. 16. - pp. 66-74.

51 Joey Healthy Forest and Fuel Reduction Project Wildlife and Aquatics Biological Evaluation

Hat t, R. T. 1923. Food habits of the Pacific pallid bat. J. Mammal. 4:260 -261. Hermanson, J. W., and T. J. O'Shea. 1983. Antrozous pallidus. Mammal. Species No. 213. 8pp. Howell, D. J. 1980. Adaptive variation in diets of desert bats has implications for ev olution Huey, L. M. 1936. Desert pallid bats caught in mouse traps. J. Mammal. 17:285 -286. Hunsaker C. T., Boroski B. B. and Steger G. N. Relations between Canopy cover and the Occurrence and productivity of California Spotted Owls [Book Section] // Predicting Species Occurrences. - 2002. Irwin L. and Thomas J. W. Policy conflicts relative to managing fire adapted fo rest on federal lands: the case of the northern spotted owl [Book Section] // Fire in Oregon's Forests: Risks, Effects, and Treatment Actions. / trans. Fitzgerald S. A.. - Salem : Oregon forest Resource Institute, 2002. Jackson, H. H. T. 1961. Mammals of Wisconsin. Univ. Wisconsin Press, Madison. 504pp. Jennings, M.R and M. P. Hayes. 1994. Amphibian and Reptile Species of Special Concern in California. State of California, Cal ifornia Department of Fish and Game, Inland Fisheries Division. Rancho Cordova, California. Jennings. 1996. Status of amphibians. In: Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project: Final report to Congress, vol. II, chapter 31. Dav is: University of California, Centers for Water and Wildland Resources. Kennedy P. L. [et al.] Post -fledging areas in northern goshawk home ranges. [Journal] // Studies in Avian biology. - 1994. - Vol. 16. - pp. 75-82. Kunz, T. H. 1971. Reproduction of some vespertilionid bats in central Iowa. Am. Midland. Nat. 86:477 -486. Kunz, T. H. 1973. Population studies of the ca ve bat (Myotis velifer): reproduction, growth and development. Occas. Pap. Univ. Kans. Mus. Nat. Hist. 15:1-43. Kwan, H. 2013. Hydrology Specialist Report, Joey healthy forest and Fuels reduction project, Kern River Ranger District, Sequ oia National Forest La Val, R. K., and M. L. La Val. 1979. Notes on reproduction, behavior, and abundance of the red bat, Lasiurus borealis. J. M ammal. 60:209-212. Lahaye W. S., Guttierrez R. J. and Akcakaya H. R. Spotted owl metapopulation dynamics in Southern California [Journal] // Journal of Animal Ecology. - 1994. - Vol. 63. - pp. 775-785. Lahaye W. S., Guttierrez R. J. and Dunk J. R. Natal dispersal of the spotted owl in southern California, dispersal profile of an insular population [Journal] // Condor. - 2001. - Vol. 103. - pp. 691-700. Lahaye W. S., Zimmerman G. S. and Guttierrez R. J. Temporal variation in the vital rates of an insular population of spotted owls (Strix occidentalis occidentalis): contrasting effects of weather. [Journal] // Auk. - 2004. - Vol. 121. - pp. 1056-1069. Lannoo, M. J. 2005. Amphibian declines: the conservation status of United States species. Univ of California Press. Lee D. C. and Irwin L. L. assessing risks to spotted owls from forest thinning in fire -adapted forests of the western United States [Journal] // Forest Ecology and Management. - 2005. - 1-2 : Vol. 211. - pp. 191-209. Lee, D.E., M.L. Bond, and R.B. Siegel. 2012. Dynamics of breeding -season site occupancy of the California spotted owl in burned forests. The Condor 114: 792-802. Lehkmuhl J. F., Kistler K. D. and Begley J. S. Bushy -tailed woodrat abundance in dry forests of eastern Washington. [Journal] // Journal of Mammalogy. - 2006. - 2 : Vol. 87. - pp. 371-379. Licht, P., and P. Leitner. 1967. Behavioral responses to high temperatures in three species of California bats. J. Mammal. 48:52 -61. Long, James N.; Shaw, John D. 2005. A density management diagram for even -aged ponderosa pine stands. Western Journal of Applied Forestry 20 (4): 205-215. Long, Jonathan; Ski nner, Carl; North, Malcolm; Winter, Pat; Zielinski, Bill; Hunsaker, Carolyn; Collins, Brandon; Keane, John; Lake, Frank; Wright, Jessica; Moghaddas, Emily; Jardine, Angela; Hubbert, Ken; Pope, Karen; Bytnerowicz, Andrzej; Fenn, Mark; Busse, Matt; Charnley, Susan; Patterson, Trista; Quinn-Davidson, Lenya; Safford, Hugh; chapter authors and Synthesis team members. Bottoms, Rick; Hayes, Jane; team coordination and review. Meyer, Marc; Herbst, David; Matthews, Kathleen; additional contributors. USDA Forest Service Pacific Southwest Research Station. 2013. Science synthesis to promote resilience of social-ecological systems in the Sierra Nevada and southern Cascades. Albany, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station. 504 p. ( http://www.fs.fed.us/psw/publications/reports/psw_sciencesynthesis2013/) Matthews, K.R. and K.L. Pope. 1999. A Telemetric Study of the Movement Patterns and Ha bitat Use of Rana muscosa, the Southern mountain yellow-legged frog, in a High-elevation Basin in Kings Canyon National Park, California. Journal of Herpetology.33: 615-624. Mayer K. E. and Laudenslayer W. F. A Guide to Wildlife Habitats of California (CW HR) [Book]. - Sacramento: California Department of Fish and Game, 1988.

52 Joey Healthy Forest and Fuel Reduction Project Wildlife and Aquatics Biological Evaluation

McClure, H. E. 1942. Summer activities of bats (Genus Lasiurus) in Iowa. J. Mammal. 23:430 -434. McKelvey, K. S., & Johnston, J. D. (1992). Historical perspectives on forests of the Sierra Nevada and the Transverse Ranges of southern California: forest conditions at the turn of the century. J. Verner, KS McKelvey, BR Noon, RJ Gutiérrez, GI Gould, Jr., and TW Beck, technical coordinators. The California Spotted Owl: A Technical Assessment of its Current Status. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station. General Technical Report PSW-GTR-133, 225-246. McMillin, J., Fettig, C. 2009. Bark beetle responses to v egetation management practices. In: Hayes, J.L.; Lundquest, J.E. comps 2009. The Western Bark Beetle Research Group: a unique collaboration for Forest Heath Protection-proceedings of a symposium at the 2007 Society of American Foresters conference. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTW-784. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station: p. 23-28. Meyer, 1938. Yield of even -aged stands of ponderosa pine, Technical bulletin no. 630. Millar, C. I., & Woolfenden, W. B. (19 99). The role of climate change in interpreting historical variability. Ecological Applications, 9(4), 1207 - 1216. Millar, C. I., Stephenson, N. L., & Stephens, S. L. (2007). Climate change and forests of the future: managing in the face of uncertainty. Ecological applications, 17(8), 2145-2151. Millar, C.I. 2006. Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project, Final Report to Congress, Vol. I, Assessment Strategies and Management S trategies, Centers for water and Wildland Resources, Report No. 36, University of California, Davis, California. Cooperative report of PSW Research Station, PSW Region, USDA, for the Sierra Nevada Framework Project, Sacramento, CA. Minnich R. A. [et al.] Californian mixed conifer forests under unmanaged fire regimes in the Sierra San Pedro M artir, Baja California [Journal] // Journal of Biogeography. - 2000. - Vol. 27. - pp. 105-129. Minnich R. A. Fire mosaics in southern California and northern Baja California [Journal] // Science. - 1983. - Vol. 219. - pp. 1287 -1294. Moghaddas, J.J. 2006. A Fuel Treatment Reduces Fire Severity and Increases Suppression Efficiency in a Mixed Conifer Forest. In: Andrews, Patricia L.; Butler, Bret W., comps. 2006. Fuels Management—How to Measure Success: Conference Proceedings. 28-30 March 2006; Portland, OR. Proceedings RMRS-P-41. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. Moore K. and Henny J. Nest site characteristics of three coexisting Accipter hawks in northeastern Oregon [Journal] // Journal of ra ptor research. - 1983. - Vol. 17. - pp. 65-76. Nagel, T.A. and Taylor, A.H. 2005. Fire and persistence of montane chaparral in mixed conifer forest landscapes in the northe rn Sierra Nevada, Lake Tahoe Basin, California, USA. J. Torrey Bot. Soc.132: 442-457. North, M, ed. 2012. Managing Sierra Nevada forests. Gen. Tech. Rep.PSW -GTR -237. Albany, CA: USDA -Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station.184 p. North, M., Hurteau, M., & Innes, J. (2009). Fire suppression and fuels treatment effects on mixed -conifer carbon stocks and emissions. Ecological Applications, 19(6), 1385-1396. North, M., Stine, P., O’Hara, K., Stephens, S. Zielinski, W. 2006. An ecosystem management strategy for Sierran mixed -conifer forests, with addendum. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-220 (Second printing, with addendum). Albany, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station. 49pp. O'Farrell, M. J., and W. G. Bradley. 1970. Activity patterns of bats over a desert spring. J. Mammal. 51:18 -26. O'Farrell, M. J., W. G. Bradley, and G. W. Jones. 1967. Fall and winter bat activity at a desert spring in southern Nevada. So uthwest. Nat. 12:163-171. Oliver, B., Larson, B., 1996. Forest Stand dynamics. New York, NY. John Wiley and Sons, Inc. 499p. Oliver, W. 1995. Is self -thinning in ponderosa pine ruled by Dendroctonus bark beetles? In: L.G. Eskew, comp. Forest health through silviculture: proceedings of the 1995 National Silviculture Workshop, Mescalero, New Mexico, May 8-11, 1995. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM- GTR-267. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station: 213-218. Oliver, W. Edminster, C. 1979. Growth of ponderosa pine thinned to different stocking levels in the western United States. Res. Paper PSW-RP-147. Berkeley, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station: 11p. Oliver, W., Powers, R. 1976. Growth models or ponderosa pine: I. Yield of un -thinned plantations in no rthern California. Res. Paper PSW - RP-133. Berkeley, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station. 21p. Olson, D.H.; Chan, S.S.; Thompson, C.R. 2002. Riparian buffers and thinning designs in west ern Oregon headwaters accomplish multiple resource objectives. In: Johnson, A.C.; Haynes, R.W.; Monserud, R.A. [Eds.]. Congruent Management of Multiple Resources: Proceedings from the Wood Compatibility Workshop; December 5-7, 2001, Skamania Lodge, Stevenson, WA. PNW- GTR-563. USDA Forest Service. Pacific Northwest Research Station. Portland, OR: 81-91.

53 Joey Healthy Forest and Fuel Reduction Project Wildlife and Aquatics Biological Evaluation

Orr, R. T. 1950. Notes on the seasonal occurrence of red bats in San Francisco. J. Mammal. 31:457 -458. Orr, R. T. 1950. Unusual behavior and occurrence of red bats in San Francisco. J. Mammal. 31:456 -457. Orr, R. T. 1954. Natural history of the pallid bat, Antrozous pallidus (Le Conte). Proc. Calif. Acad. Sci. 18:165 -246. O'Shea, T. J., and T. A. Vaughan. 1977. Nocturnal and seasonal activities of the pal lid bat, Antrozous pallidus. J. Mammal. 58:269 -284. Pillsbury, N, 1994. Aspen Inventory, Assessment and Management on the Kern Plateau, Sequoia National Forest, California Polyt echnic State University, San Luis Obispo. Unpublished report on file Kern River Ranger District. Pope, K. L and K.R. Matthews. 2001. Movement Ecology and Seasonal Distribution of Southern mountain yellow -legged frogs, Rana muscosa, in a High-Elevation Sierra Nevada Basin. Copeia, 2001(3), pp. 787–793. Reynolds R. T. [et al.] Manag ement recommendations for the northern goshawk in the southwestern United States [Report]. - Ogden, UT: USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, 1992. - GTR-RMRS-217. Reynolds R. T. and Meslow E. C. Partitioning of food and niche characterist ics of coexisting Accipiter hawks during breeding. [Journal] // Auk. - 1984. - Vol. 101. - pp. 761-779. Rios, M., 2013. A. Transportation Analysis, Joey Healthy Forest and Fuels reduction project. Kern River Ranger District Sequ oia National Forest Rober ts, S.L. 2008. The effects of fire on California spotted owls and their mammalian prey in the central Sierra Nevada, Califo rnia. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of California at Davis. Ross, A. 1961. Notes on food habits of bats. J. Mammal. 42:66 -71. Ross, A. 1967. Ecological aspects of the food habits of insectivorous bats. Proc. West. Found. Vertebr. Zool. 1:205 -264. Safford H. D., Schmidt D. A. and Carlson C. H. Effects of fuels treatments on fire severity in an area of wildland -urban interface, An gora Fire, Lake Tahoe Basin, California [Journal] // Forest Ecology and Management. - 2009. - p. 15. Safford, H.D., J.T. Stevens, K. Merriam, M.D. Meyer, A.M. Latimer. 2012. Fuel treatment effectiveness in California yellow pi ne and mixed conifer forests Forest Ecology and Management 274: 17–28 Saunders L. B. Essential nesting habitat of the goshawk (Accipiter gentilis) on the Shasta -Trinity National Forest, McCloud Ranger District. [Report]: MS Thesis. - Chico, CA : California state University at Chico, 1982. Schoville, S. D., T. S. Tustall, V. T. Vredenburg, A. R. Backlin, E. Gallegos, D.A. Wood, R. N. Fisher. 2011. Conservation ge netics of evolutionary lineages of the endangered southern mountain yellow-legged frog, Rana muscosa (Amphibia: Ranidae), in southern California Biological Conservation 144 :2031–2040 Shaw, J, Long, J. 2010. Consistent definition and application of Reineke’s Stand Density Index in silviculture and stand proj ection. In: Jain, T., Graham, R. Sandquist, J. Integrated management of carbon sequestration and biomass utilization opportunities in a changing climate: Proceedings of the 2009 National Silviculture Workshop; 2009; June 15-18; Boise, ID. Proceedings RMRS P-61. Fort Collins, CO; U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. P. 199-209. Seamans, M.E., and R.J. Gutiérrez. 2007. Habitat selection in a changing environment: the relationship between habitat alte ration and spotted owl territory occupancy and breeding dispersal. The Condor 109: 566-576. Shump, K. A., Jr., and A. U. Shump. 1982. Lasiurus borealis. Mammal. Species No. 183. 6pp. Shuster Northern goshawk nest -site requirements in the Colorado Rockies. [Journal] // western Birds. - 1980. - Vol. 11. - pp. 89 -96. Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project [SNEP]. 1196. Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project: final report to Congress. Davis, CA: Universit y of California, Center for Water and Wildland Resources. Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment [SNFPA]. 2004. Sierra Nevada forest plan amendment: final environmental impact statement. Vallejo, CA: U S Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region. Volumes 1-6. Spencer W. D. [et al.] Baseline evaluation of fisher habitat and population status, and effects of fires and fuels management on fishers in the southern Sierra Nevada [Report]: Unpublished report. - Corvallis: USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region, 2008. - p. 133. Squires J. R. and Reynolds R. T. Northern Goshawk (Accipiter gentilis) [Book Section ] // The Birds of North America / ed. Poole A. and Gill F. - Philadelphia: The Academy of Natural Sciences and the American Ornithologists' Union, 1997. - Vol. 298. Squires J. R. and Ruggerio L. F. Nest site preference of northern goshawks in south -centra l Wyoming. [Journal] // Journal of Wildlife Management. - 1996. - Vol. 60. - pp. 170-177. Stephens S. L. and Gill S. J. Forest structure and mortality in an old -growth Jeffery pine -mixed conifer forest in north -western Mexico [Article] // Forest Ecology and Management. - 2005. - Vol. 205. - pp. 15-28. Stephens, S. L. 2001. Fire History Difference in Adjacent Jeffery Pine and Upper Montane Forests in the Eastern Sierra Nevada . International Journal of Wildland Fire, 161-167. Stephens, S. L., Collins, B. M . (2004). Fire regimes of mixed conifer forests in the north -central Sierra Nevada at multiple spatial scales. 54 Joey Healthy Forest and Fuel Reduction Project Wildlife and Aquatics Biological Evaluation

Northwest Science, 78(1), 12 -23. Stewart, B. 2013. Forest Vegetation and Silviculture Report, joey Healthy Forest and Fuels Reduction project. Kern River Ranger District, Sequoia National Forest. Sugihara, N. G., Van Wagtendonk, J. W., & Fites -Kaufman, J. O. A. N. N. (2006). Fire as an ecological process. Fire in California's ecosystems, 38-74. Swetnam, T. W. (1993). Fire history and climate c hange in giant sequoia groves. Science(Washington), 262(5135), 885 -889. Swetnam, T. W., & Baisan, C. H. (2003). Tree -ring reconstructions of fire and climate history in the Sierra Nevada and southwestern United States. Ecological studies, 158-195. Taylor, A. H. (2004). Identifying Forest Reference Conditions on Early Cut -over Lands, Lake Tahoe Basin, USA. Ecological Applications , 1903-1920. Trune, D. R., and C. N. Slobodchikoff. 1976. Social effects of roosting on the metabolism of the pallid bat (Antrozous pallidus). J. Mammal. 57:656-663. Trune, D. R., and C. N. Slobodchikoff. 1978. Position of immature in pallid bat clusters: a case of reciprocal altruism? J. M ammal. 59:193 - 195. Tucker JM, Schwartz MK, Truex RL, Pilgrim KL, Allendorf FW (2012) Historical and Contemporary DNA Indicate Fisher Decline and Isolation Occurred Prior to the European Settlement of California. PLoS ONE 7(12): e52803. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0052803 USDA -FS 1988. Sequoia National Forest Land and Resource Management P lan [Report]. - Porterville, CA: Sequoia National Forest, 1988. USDA -FS 1990. Mediated Settlement Agreement to the Sequoia National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan [Report]. - Porterville, CA: Sequoia National Forest, 1990. USDA -FS 2001. Record of Decision: Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment FEIS [Report]. - Vallejo, CA: USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region, 2001. USDA -FS 2004. Record of Decision: Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment FSEIS [Report]. - Vallejo, CA: USDA -Forest Se rvice, Pacific Southwest Region, 2004. - R5-MB-046. USDA -FS 2004d. Hazard tree guidelines USDA -FS 2007. Record of Decision: Sierra Nevada Forests Management Indicator Species Amendment [Report]. - Vallejo, CA: USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region, 2007. USDA -FS California Spotted Owl Interim Guidelines Forest Plan Amendment: Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact [Report]. - San Francisco, CA: USDA Forest Service, Pacifica Southwest Region, 1993. USDA -FS Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment carnivore monitoring accomplishment report [Report]. - Vallejo, CA: USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region, 2009. - p. 12. - http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/snfpa/monitoringreport2008/. USDI -FWS 12 month finding on a petition to list the Cal ifornia Spotted owl [Report]. - Washington, D. C. : Federal Register, 2003. USDI -FWS 12 month finding on a petition to list the California Spotted owl [Report]. - Washington D.C. : Federal register, 2006. USDI -FWS 12 month finding on a petition to list t he West Coast Distinct population segment of Fisher [Report]. - Washington, D. C. : Federal Register, 2006. USDI -FWS Species List for the Sequoia National Forest [Online]. - USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, Sacramento field Office, 02 XX, 2013. - http://www.fws.gov/sacramento/es/spp_lists/NFActionPage.cfm. Vankat, J. L., and Major, J. 1978. Vegetation Changes in Sequoia National Park, California. Journal of Biogeography , 377 -402. Vaughan, T. A., and T. J. O'Shea. 1976. Roosting ecology of the pallid bat, Antrozous pallidus. J. Mammal. 57:19 -42. Verner J. [et al.] The California Spotted owl: A technical assessment of its current status [Report] = CASPO Report. - Albany, CA: USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station, 1992. - p. 285. - GTR-PSW-133. Verner J. and Boss A. S. California wildlife and their habitats: western Sierra Nevada [Report] : General Technical Report. - [s.l.] : USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region, 1980. - p. 439. - PSW-37. Verner J., G. Gould, and K. McKelvey . 1993. Letter to the Regional forester regarding the Cottonwood, Golf, and Casaguard timber sales. Kern River Ranger District files Vredenburg, V. T. 2004. Reversing introduced species effects: Experimental removal of introduced fish leads to rapid recov ery of a declining frog. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 101:7646-7650. Vredenburg, V. T. G M. Fellers, C. Davidson. 2005. Rana mucosa in M. Lannoo, editor. Amphibian declines: the conservation sta tus of United States species. University of California Press, Berkeley

55 Joey Healthy Forest and Fuel Reduction Project Wildlife and Aquatics Biological Evaluation

Vredenburg, V. T., R. Bingham, R. Knapp, J. A. T. Morgan, C. Moritz & D. Wake (2007. Journal of Zoology 271: 361 –374) as cited by http://www.californiaherps.com/frogs/pages/r.muscosa.html Weatherspoon C. P., Husari S. J. and van Wagtendonk. J. W. Fire and fuels management in relation to owl habitat in forests of the Sierra Nevada and Southern California. [Book Section] // The California spotted owl: A technical assessment of its current status / ed. Verner J. [et al.]. - Albany: U.S. Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station, 1992. - General Technical Report PSW-133. Weatherspoon C.P., Skinner, C.N., 1996. Landscape -level strategies for forest fuel management. In: Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project: Final Report to Congress, vol. II, Assessments and Scientific Basis for Management Options. University of California, Davis Landscape-level strategies for forest fuel management. University of California, Davis [Report] : In: Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project: Final Report to Congress, vol. II, Assessments and Scientific Basis for Management Options.. - Davis, CA: University of California, Davis, Centers for Water and Wildland Resources, 1996. - pp. 1471–1492. Westerling, A. L., & Swetnam, T. W. (2003). Interannual to decadal drought and wildfire in the western United States. Eos, Tr ansactions American Geophysical Union, 84(49), 545. Whitaker, J. O., Jr., C. Maser, and L. E. Keller. 1977. Food habits of b ats of western Oregon. Northwest Sci. 51:46 -55. Williams, D. F., and J. S. Findley. 1979. Sexual and size dimorphism in vespertilionid bats. Wood, D, Koerber, T, Scharpf, R, Storer, A. 2003. Pests of the Native California Conifers. Berkeley and San Fra ncisco, CA. University of California Press. 233p. Yoda, K; Kira, T; Ogawa. H; Hozumi, K. 1963. Intraspecific competition among higher plants. XI. Self -thinning in overcrowded pure stands under cultivated and natural conditions. Journal of the Institute of Polytechnics, Osaka City University, Series D. 14: 107-129. Zachel C.R. Food habits, hunting activity, and post fledging behavior of northern goshawk (Accipiter gentilis) in interior Al aska [Report]: M.S. Thesis. - Fairbanks, AK: University of Alaska, 1985. Zeiner, D. C., Laudenslayer, W. F., & Mayer, K. E. (1988). California's Wildlife: Amphibians and reptiles (Vol. 1). State of California, the Resources Agency, Department of Fish and Game. Zeiner, D. C., Laudenslayer, W. F., Mayer, K. E., & White, M. (1988). California’s wildlife, volume II, birds; California Statewide Wildlife Habitat Relationships System. Sacramento: Department of Fish and Game . Zeiner, D. C., Laudenslayer, W. F., Mayer, K. E., & White, M. (1990). California’s wildlife, volume III, mammals; California Statewide Wildlife Habitat Relationships System. Sacramento: Department of Fish and Game . Mayer, K. E. &. Laudenslayer, Jr., W. F. (1988). A Guide to Wildlife Habitats of California. State of California, Resources Agency, Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, CA. 166 pp. Zielinski W. J., Kucera T. E. and Barrett R. H. The current distribution of the fisher, Martes pennanti, in Ca lifornia [Article] // California Fish and Game: California Department of Fish and Game, 1995. - pp. 104-112. Zielinski, W.J., J.A. Baldwin, R.L. Truex, J.M. Tucker, and P.A. Flebbe. 2013. Estimating trend in occupancy for the southe rn Sierra fisher (Martes pennanti) population. Journal of Fish and Wildlife Management 4: 1-17. Zielinski, W.J., R.L. Truex, J.R. Dunk, and T. Gaman. 2006. Using forest inventory data to assess fisher resting habitat su itability in California. Ecological Applications 16: 1010-1025.

56 Joey Healthy Forest and Fuel Reduction Project Wildlife and Aquatics Biological Evaluation

Appendix A – Animal Species at Risk

Table 5: Threatened, Endangered or Proposed Species (from project species list, 2/14/013)

Common Name Status Habitat/Range Project Scientific name Analysis? Tipton kangaroo rat FE Alkali sinks and valley floor habitat. SQF outside historical, known and expected range. Found Outside range Dipodomys nitratoides <1,000’ Blunt -nosed leopard lizard FE Open grassland, valley floor. < 1,000’. SQF outside historical and expected range Outside range Gambelia silius Sierra Nevada bighorn sheep FE Rugged mountain areas, in E. Sierra with historic range on W. edge of Kern Drainage Mineral King Outside range Ovis canadensis sierrae . and east, Olancha to Walker Pass. No verified occupancy on SQF since 1940’s. California condor FE,CH Mountain and foothill rangeland and forest habitats; nests on cliffs and in large trees. Designated Outside range Gymnogyps californianus roost areas, critical habitat, nest area and potential nest trees identified. California red -legged frog FT Low gradient streams and ponds with emergent vegetation, < 5,000’. SQF is outside historical and outside range Rana aurora draytoni expected range, but adjacent to historic range near Rio Bravo to Pine Flat California tiger salamander FT Annual grass and grassy understory of valley -foothill hardwoods. Most of the year underground in Outside range Ambystoma califoriense burrows. Breeding rocks and logs near vernal pools, not in streams. Found <1,000’. Delta smelt FT Limited to San Joaquin/Sacramento delta. SQF does not have an outlet to Delta. Outside range Hypomesus transpacificus Giant garter snake FT Valley floor aquatic habitats, < 1,000’. SQF outside historical and expected range Outside range Thamnophis gigas Kern primrose sphinx moth FT Valley foothill, oak woodland and chaparral with evening primrose host plant. Range limited to Outside range Euproserpinus euterpe Walker Basin area and Carrizo Plains, <5,000’. SQF outside historical and expected range Least Bell's vireo FE Riparian forest. Historic to Kern Valley, detections limited to SFWA. Found. < 3,000’ Outside range Vireo bellii pusillus Little Kern golden trout FT,CH Native to cold water streams in Little Kern Drainage, 4,000’ – 9,000’. Critical habitat designated Outside range Oncorhynchus mykiss whitei WDRD Sacramento split -tail FT Limited to San Joaquin/Sacramento delta. Outside range Pogonichthys macrolepidotus San Joaquin kit fox FE Valley floor annual grassland, alkali washes. SQF outside historical and expected range. Found < Outside range Vulpes macrotis mutica 1,000’ SW willow flycatcher FE,CH Riparian forest and meadow with dense willow habitat and standing water. Reproduction and Not affected. Empidonax trailii extimus habitat at Lake Isabella. KRRD. Found < 6,000’. CH designated at Lake Isabella. Valley elderberry longhorn beetle FE Elderberry plants with base > 1” diameter in chaparral and riparian habitats, < 2,900’. Potential exit Outside range Desmocerus californicus dimorphus holes and habitat exist on all districts. Vernal pool fairy shrimp FT,CH Valley floor annual grassland, vernal pools, +/- < 1,000’. SQF outside historical, known and Outside range Branhinecta lynchi expected range

Table 6: Forest Service Sensitive Species (District Specific List)

Common Name Status Habitat/ Elevation Range Project Scientific name Analysis? Northern goshawk FS,SC Dense mixed conifer forest to open eastside pine, 4,000 -8,000’. Found in suitable habitat across Analyzed in Accipiter gentiles forest detail California legless lizard FS Loose, moist soil in chaparral and valley foothill woodland. Generally below 6,000’. Limited Outside range. Anniella pulchra detections presumed present in suitable habitat Pallid bat FS,SC Arid deserts, juniper woodlands, sagebrush shrub -steppe, and grasslands, often with rocky Analyzed with Antrozous pallidus outcrops and water nearby. Less abundant in evergreen and mixed conifer woodlands. Roosts in bat group rock crevices or buildings. Grnhrn Mtns. slender salamander FS,SC Down logs and moist areas in desert. Known range limited to Inyo Mtns outside of SQF. 1,800 - Outside range Batrachoceps altasierrae 8,600’ Breckenridge slender salamander FS,SC Down logs and moist areas, generally in mixed conifer zone. Breckenridge , 560’ -7,600’ Outside range. Batrachoceps relictus Kern Cyn. slender salamander FS,ST Down logs and moist areas, below 3,500’ Limited to Kern Canyon Outside range Batrachoceps simatus Tehachapi slender salamander ST Down logs and moist areas, below 3,500’. Limited to canyon and desert areas Tehachapi to Outside range Batrachoceps stebbensii Caliente, 2,000’-4,600’ Kern Plateau slender salamander FS,SC Down logs and moist areas, ≈7,000 -8,000’. Limited to Kern Plateau Analyzed in Batrachoceps robustus detail Fairview slender salamander FS,SC Down logs and moist areas in the Fairview area. Known only from Upper Kern Cyn. Outside range Batrachoceps bramei Southwestern pond turtle FS, SC Low gradient ponds and streams with basking sites. Can be found up to 1 mile from perennial Outside range Actine mys marmorata water. Most perennial streams below 5,000 feet. W. yellow billed cuckoo FS,FC,SE Dense riparian forest. Limited to SF wildlife Area, Isabella Lake . Outside range Cocczyus americanus occidentalis

57 Joey Healthy Forest and Fuel Reduction Project Wildlife and Aquatics Biological Evaluation

Common Name Status Habitat/ Elevation Range Project Scientific name Analysis? Townsend's. big eared bat FS,SC Nocturnal, roosts in caves, uses wide variety of habitats although usually mesic areas for foraging. Analyzed with Corynorhinus townsendii townsendii Present in most locations bat group Little w illow flycatcher FS,SE Meadow (15acre +) complexes with dense willow and standing water, up to 8,000’. 8 historic sites. Habitat not Empidonax trailii brewsterii No detections 2001-2012. affected Yellow -blotched salamander FS,SC Valley foothill/hardwood habitats and conifer, moist habitats and down logs. Piute , Breckenridge & Outside range Ensatina escholtzii croceator Greenhorn Mtns. to White River 4,000-6,000’? California wolverine FS,SC Remote habitats, sensitive to human presence. 4000’ to 13,000’ mixed habitats. No verified No detections Gulo gulo luteus detections since 1995. Western red bat FS,SC Associated with riparian habitat, roosts in trees and forages over open woodlands and grasslands. Analyzed with Lasiurus blossevillii Requires water and open areas for foraging bat group Sierra marten FS,SC Dense forest (>30% canopy cover), in higher elevation mixed conifer. 4,000 -13,000 ft. Present WD No detections Martes sierrae and HL, No detections Kern Plateau since 1985. No detections south of Kern R. Pacific fisher FS,FC,SC Dense forest (>40% canopy cover) mature mixed conifer forest . Potential occupied elevation Analyzed old Martes pennanti pacifica 3,500-8,000’, 9,000’ Kern Plateau. forest group Hardhead FS,SC Warm water rivers at low elevation . Present Kern River to Road’s end when water is 18 -22 o C. Outside range Mylopharodon conocephalus California golden trout FS,FC,SC Cold water streams. Genetic purity questionable in many streams. SF Kern River and Tributaries Outside range Oncorhynchus mykiss aguabonita above Rockhouse basin and golden Trout Creek. Kern River Rainbow FS,SC Cold Water tributaries and main stem Kern River. Out of historic range of species due to 1000 ft. No Oncorhynchus mykiss gilberti waterfall below Project. Planted fish exist within Salmon Creek. Foothill yellow -legged frog FS,SC Low gradient streams and ponds generally below 6,000’. Historically present in most suitable Outside range Rana boylii habitats. Currently 1 pop. known S. Mtn. yellow -legged frog FS,FC,SC Aquatic habitats. Present in wilderness and historic occurrence over most of the Forest . 4,500 - Analyzed with Rana muscosa 12,000’ aquatics. Great gray owl FS,SE Large meadows & openings 2,500 – 9,000’. Dense forest and large snags for nest area . verified Analyzed old Strix nebulosa sightings WD and HL RDs forest group. California spotted owl FS,SC Dense forest (>40% canopy closure), preference for stands with ≥2 layers, Present in suitable Analyzed old Strix occidentalis occidentalis mixed conifer and low elevation oak habitats across the forest. forest group Sierra Nevada red fox FS,SC Prefer s red fir and lodgepole forests in sub al pine and alpine zone. Forages in meadows & riparian No detections Vulpes vulpes necator zones. Mostly above 7,000’. Only current detections on the Lassen NF. Suitable habitat exists. Sierra night lizard FS Annual grasslands. Not known outside of limited range near Granite Station. Outside range Xantusia vigilis sierrae Status Key: FS=Forest Service Sensitive FC =FWS Candidate SE =State Endangered ST =State Threatened SC=State Concern

58 Joey Healthy Forest and Fuel Reduction Project Wildlife and Aquatics Biological Evaluation

Appendix B – Spotted Owl HRCA and PAC, Survey Summary The spotted owl territories both within and adjacent to the Joey Project were reviewed to ensure they had adequate suitable habitat and followed logical geographic or manmade features that can be found in the field. A new PAC and HRCA were added for a territorial pair of California spotted owls in the Deadwood Drainage. Four additional territories are in the area around the project, but would not be directly or indirectly affected and were not analyzed further. These owl territories include Mosquito Meadow, Poison Meadow, Poison Creek and Manter Meadow. One of the females banded in the McNally Fire has been observed in lower Salmon Creek, west of Horse Meadow. The observation of the owl west of Horse Meadow is uncertain if it is occupying TU180 or a new territory further to the west. If another pair is found in this area, a new territory will be established. No activity is proposed in that area except the potential for light underburning limited by funding and forest priority. Table 7: Spotted Owl Territory Survey Summary PAC Number: TU252 PAC Name: Deadwood Meadow PAC Acres: 312 HRCA Acres: 383 Comments : New activity center based on detection of a day roosting pair in 2012 Location : 2841 Fairview Quad, PAC is located towards Deadwood Meadow Year Survey History: Detections: 2011 surveyed 3 visits No detections 2012 surveyed 3 visits pair detected, no reproduction

Appendix A, Map 1: Joey Spotted owl and Goshawk Territories

59 Joey Healthy Forest and Fuel Reduction Project Wildlife and Aquatics Biological Evaluation

Appendix C – Current Management Direction Regulatory Setting The National Forest Management Act of 1976 (NFMA) requires the development of long-range land and resource management plans. The Sequoia National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP) was approved in 1988. It has been amended several times, including the Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment Record of Decision (SNFPA; ROD) (USDA Forest Service 2004). The LRMP provides guidance for all natural resource management activities. The design of the Joey healthy Forests and Fuels Reduction project is consistent with the LRMP as amended and with the Mediated Settlement Agreement (MSA) to the Sequoia National Forest LRMP (USDA- Forest Service 1990).

Land Allocations and Desired Conditions Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment The following are the current land allocations as amended by the SNFPA (2004) and found within the project area Wildland Urban Intermix: Defense Zones Designation The wildland urban intermix zone (WUI) is an area where human habitation is mixed with areas of flammable wildland vegetation. It extends out from the edge of developed private land into Federal, private, and State jurisdictions. The WUI is comprised of two zones: the defense zone and the threat zone. The WUI defense zone is the buffer in closest proximity to communities, areas with higher densities of residences, commercial buildings, and/or administrative sites with facilities. Defense zones generally extend roughly ¼ mile out from these areas; however, actual defense zone boundaries are determined at the project level following national, regional and forest policy. In particular, the Healthy Forest Restoration Act of 2003 identifies areas to be included in the WUI. Local fire management specialists determine the extent, treatment orientation, and prescriptions for the WUI based on historical fire spread and intensity, historical weather patterns, topography, access. Defense zones should be of sufficient extent that fuel treatments within them will reduce wildland fire spread and intensity sufficiently for suppression forces to succeed in protecting human life and property. Desired Conditions • Stands in defense zones are fairly open and dominated primarily by larger, fire tolerant trees. • Surface and ladder fuel conditions are such that crown fire ignition is highly unlikely. • The openness and discontinuity of crown fuels, both horizontally and vertically, result in very low probability of sustained crown fire. Wildland Urban Intermix Threat Zones Designation The WUI threat zone typically buffers the defense zone; however, a threat zone may be delineated in the absence of a defense zone under certain conditions, including situations where the structure density and location do not provide a reasonable opportunity for direct suppression on public land, but suppression on the private land would be enhanced by fire behavior modification on the adjacent public land. Threat zone boundaries are determined at the project level following national, regional and forest policy. Threat zones generally extend approximately 1¼ miles out from the defense zone boundary; however, actual extents of threat zones are based on fire history, local fuel conditions, weather, topography, existing and proposed fuel treatments, and natural barriers to fire. Fuels treatments in these zones are designed to reduce wildfire spread and intensity. Strategic landscape features, such as roads, changes in fuels types, and topography may be used in delineating the physical boundary of the threat zone. Desired Conditions Under high fire weather conditions, wildland fire behavior in treated areas within the threat zone is characterized as follows: (1) flame lengths at the head of the fire are less than 4 feet; (2) the rate of spread at the head of the fire is reduced to at least 50 percent of pre-treatment levels; (3) hazards to firefighters are reduced by managing snag levels in locations likely to be used for control of prescribed fire and fire suppression consistent with safe practices guidelines; (4) production rates for fire line

60 Joey Healthy Forest and Fuel Reduction Project Wildlife and Aquatics Biological Evaluation construction are doubled from pre-treatment levels; and (5) tree density has been reduced to a level consistent with the site’s ability to sustain forest health during drought conditions. California Spotted Owl Protected Activity Centers (PACs ) Designation California spotted owl protected activity centers (PACs) are delineated surrounding each territorial owl activity center detected on National Forest System lands since 1986. Owl activity centers are designated for all territorial owls based on: (1) the most recent documented nest site, (2) the most recent known roost site when a nest location remains unknown, and (3) a central point based on repeated daytime detections when neither nest or roost locations are known. PACs are delineated to: (1) include known and suspected nest stands and (2) encompass the best available 300 acres of habitat in as compact a unit as possible. The best available habitat is selected for California spotted owl PACs to include: (1) two or more tree canopy layers; (2) trees in the dominant and co-dominant crown classes averaging 24 inches dbh or greater; (3) at least 70 percent tree canopy cover (including hardwoods); and (4) in descending order of priority, CWHR classes 6, 5D, 5M, 4D, and 4M and other stands with at least 50 percent canopy cover (including hardwoods). Aerial photography interpretation and field verification are used as needed to delineate PACs. As additional nest location and habitat data become available, boundaries of PACs are reviewed and adjusted as necessary to better include known and suspected nest stands and encompass the best available 300 acres of habitat. When activities are planned adjacent to non-national forest lands, available databases are checked for the presence of nearby California spotted owl activity centers on non-national forest lands. A 300-acre circular area, centered on the activity center, is delineated. Any part of the circular 300-acre area that lies on national forest lands is designated and managed as a California spotted owl PAC. PACs are maintained regardless of California spotted owl occupancy status. However, after a stand-replacing event, evaluate habitat conditions within a 1.5-mile radius around the activity center to identify opportunities for re-mapping the PAC. If there is insufficient suitable habitat for designating a PAC within the 1.5-mile radius, the PAC may be removed from the network. Desired Conditions Stands in each PAC have: (1) at least two tree canopy layers; (2) dominant and co-dominant trees with average diameters of at least 24 inches dbh; (3) at least 60 to70 percent canopy cover; (4) some very large snags (greater than 45 inches dbh); and (5) snag and down woody material levels that are higher than average. Northern Goshawk Protected Activity Centers ( PACs ) Designation Northern goshawk protected activity centers (PACs) are delineated surrounding all known and newly discovered breeding territories detected on National Forest System lands. Northern goshawk PACs are designated based upon the latest documented nest site and location(s) of alternate nests. If the actual nest site is not located, the PAC is designated based on the location of territorial adult birds or recently fledged juvenile goshawks during the fledgling dependency period. PACs are delineated to: (1) include known and suspected nest stands and (2) encompass the best available 200 acres of forested habitat in the largest contiguous patches possible, based on aerial photography. Where suitable nesting habitat occurs in small patches, PACs are defined as multiple blocks in the largest best available patches within 0.5 miles of one another. Best available forested stands for PACs have the following characteristics: (1) trees in the dominant and co-dominant crown classes average 24 inches dbh or greater; (2) in westside conifer and eastside mixed conifer forest types, stands have at least 70 percent tree canopy cover; and (3) in eastside pine forest types, stands have at least 60 percent tree canopy cover. Non-forest vegetation (such as brush and meadows) should not be counted as part of the 200 acres. As additional nest location and habitat data become available, PAC boundaries are reviewed and adjusted as necessary to better include known and suspected nest stands and to encompass the best available 200 acres of forested habitat. When activities are planned adjacent to non-national forest lands, available databases are checked for the presence of nearby northern goshawk activity centers on non-national forest lands. A 200-acre circular area, centered on the activity center, is delineated. Any part of the circular 200-acre area that lies on national forest lands is designated and managed as a northern goshawk PAC.

61 Joey Healthy Forest and Fuel Reduction Project Wildlife and Aquatics Biological Evaluation

PACs are maintained regardless of northern goshawk occupancy status. PACs may be removed from the network after a stand-replacing event if the habitat has been rendered unsuitable as a northern goshawk PAC and there are no opportunities for re-mapping the PAC in proximity to the affected PAC. Desired Conditions Stands in each PAC have: (1) at least two tree canopy layers; (2) dominant and co-dominant trees with average diameters of at least 24 inches dbh; (3) at least 60 to70 percent canopy cover; (4) some very large snags (greater than 45 inches dbh); and (5) snag and down woody material levels that are higher than average. California Spotted Owl Home Range Core Areas ( HRCAs ) Designation A home range core area is established surrounding each territorial spotted owl activity center detected after 1986. The core area amounts to 20 percent of the area described by the sum of the average breeding pair home range plus one standard error. Home range core area sizes are as follows: 2,400 acres on the Hat Creek and Eagle Lake Ranger Districts of the Lassen National Forest, 1,000 acres on the Modoc, Inyo, Humboldt-Toiyabe, Plumas, Tahoe, Eldorado, Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit and Stanislaus National Forests and on the Almanor Ranger District of Lassen National Forest, and 600 acres on the Sequoia and Sierra National Forests. Aerial photography is used to delineate the core area. Acreage for the entire core area is identified on national forest lands. Core areas encompass the best available California spotted owl habitat in the closest proximity to the owl activity center. The best available contiguous habitat is selected to incorporate, in descending order of priority, CWHR classes 6, 5D, 5M, 4D and 4M and other stands with at least 50 percent tree canopy cover (including hardwoods). The acreage in the 300-acre PAC counts toward the total home range core area. Core areas are delineated within 1.5 miles of the activity center. When activities are planned adjacent to non-national forest lands, circular core areas are delineated around California spotted owl activity centers on non-national forest lands. Using the best available habitat as described above, any part of the circular core area that lies on national forest lands is designated and managed as a California spotted owl home range core area. Desired Conditions HRCAs consist of large habitat blocks that have: (1) at least two tree canopy layers; (2) at least 24 inches dbh in dominant and co-dominant trees; (3) a number of very large (greater than 45 inches dbh) old trees; (4) at least 50 to 70 percent canopy cover; and (5) higher than average levels of snags and down woody material. Old Forest Emphasis Areas Designation Old forest emphasis areas are shown on the Modified Alternative 8 map included in the FEIS. This Decision allows for minor adjustments to correct the boundaries of old forest emphasis areas. Desired Conditions Forest structure and function across old forest emphasis areas generally resemble pre-settlement conditions. High levels of horizontal and vertical diversity exist at the landscape-scale (roughly 10,000 acres). Stands are composed of roughly even-aged vegetation groups, varying in size, species composition, and structure. Individual vegetation groups range from less than 0.5 to more than 5 acres in size. Tree sizes range from seedlings to very large diameter trees. Species composition varies by elevation, site productivity, and related environmental factors. Multi-tiered canopies, particularly in older forests, provide vertical heterogeneity. Dead trees, both standing and fallen, meet habitat needs of old-forest-associated species. Where possible, areas treated to reduce fuel levels also provide for the successful establishment of early seral stage vegetation. Management Standards and Guidelines Forest-wide Standards and Guidelines Standards and guidelines described in this section apply to all land allocations (other than wilderness and wild and scenic river areas) unless stated otherwise. The applicable direction is from the SNFPA (2004), which provides the most current direction.

62 Joey Healthy Forest and Fuel Reduction Project Wildlife and Aquatics Biological Evaluation

Fire and Fuels Management 1. Strategically place area fuels treatments across the landscape to interrupt fire spread and achieve conditions that: (1) reduce the size and severity of wildfire and (2) result in stand densities necessary for healthy forests during drought conditions. Complete a landscape-level design of area treatment patterns prior to project-level analysis. Develop treatment patterns using a collaborative, multi-stakeholder approach. Determine the size, location, and orientation of area fuels treatments at a landscape-scale, using information about fire history, existing vegetation and fuels condition, prevailing wind direction, topography, suppression resources, attack times, and accessibility to design an effective treatment pattern. The spatial pattern of the treatments is designed to reduce rate of fire spread and fire intensity at the head of the fire. Strategic placement of fuels treatments should also consider objectives for locating treatment areas to overlap with areas of condition class 2 and 3, high density stands, and pockets of insect and disease. Avoid PACs to the greatest extent possible when locating area treatments. Incorporate areas that already contribute to wildfire behavior modification, including timber sales, burned areas, bodies of water, and barren ground, into the landscape treatment area pattern. Identify gaps in the landscape pattern where fire could spread at some undesired rate or direction and use treatments (including maintenance treatments and new fuels treatments) to fill identified gaps. 2. Vegetation within treatment areas should be modified to meet desired surface ladder, and crown fuel conditions as well as stand densities necessary for healthy forests during drought conditions. Site specific prescriptions should be designed to reduce fire intensity, rate of fire spread, crown fire potential, mortality in dominant and co-dominant trees, and tree density. Managers should consider such variables as the topographic location of the treatment area, slope steepness, predominant wind direction, and the amount and arrangement of surface, ladder, and crown fuels in developing fuels treatment prescriptions. 4. Design mechanical treatments in brush and shrub patches to remove the material necessary to achieve the following outcomes from wildland fire under 90th percentile fire weather conditions: (1) wildland fires would burn with an average flame length of 4 feet or less and (2) fire line production rates would be doubled. Treatments should be effective for more than 5 to 10 years. 5. Design a sequence of fuel reduction treatments in conifer forest types (including 3x plantation types) to achieve the following standards within the treatment area: • an average of 4-foot flame length under 90th percentile fire weather conditions. • surface and ladder fuels removed as needed to meet design criteria of less than 20 percent mortality in dominant and co-dominant trees under 90th percentile weather and fire behavior conditions. • tree crowns thinned to meet design criteria of less than 20 percent probability of initiation of crown fire under 90th percentile weather conditions. Mechanical Thinning Treatments 6. For all mechanical thinning treatments, design projects to retain all live conifers 30 inches dbh or larger. Exceptions are allowed to meet needs for equipment operability. 7. For mechanical thinning treatments in mature forest habitat (CWHR types 4M, 4D, 5M, 5D, and 6) outside WUI defense zones: • Design projects to retain at least 40 percent of the existing basal area. The retained basal area should generally be comprised of the largest trees. • Where available, design projects to retain 5 percent or more of the total treatment area in lower layers composed of trees 6 to 24 inches dbh within the treatment unit. • Design projects to avoid reducing pre-existing canopy cover by more than 30 percent within the treatment unit. Percent is measured in absolute terms (for example, canopy cover at 80 percent should not be reduced below 50 percent.) • Within treatment units, at a minimum, the intent is to provide for an effective fuels treatment. Where existing vegetative conditions are at or near 40 percent canopy cover, projects are to be designed remove the material necessary to meet fire and fuels objectives. • Within California spotted owl Home Range Core Areas: Where existing vegetative conditions permit, design projects to retain at least 50 percent canopy cover averaged within the treatment unit. Exceptions are allowed in limited situations where additional trees must be removed to adequately reduce ladder fuels, provide sufficient spacing for equipment operations, or minimize re-entry. Where 50 percent canopy retention cannot be met for reasons described 63 Joey Healthy Forest and Fuel Reduction Project Wildlife and Aquatics Biological Evaluation

above, retain at least 40 percent canopy cover averaged within the treatment unit. • Outside of California spotted owl Home Range Core Areas: Where existing vegetative conditions permit, design projects to retain at least 50 percent canopy cover within the treatment unit. Exceptions are allowed where project objectives require additional canopy modifications (such as the need to adequately reduce ladder fuels, provide for safe and efficient equipment operations, minimize re-entry, design cost efficient treatments, and/or significantly reduce stand density.) Where canopy cover must be reduced below 50 percent, retain at least 40 percent canopy cover averaged within the treatment unit. • Within California spotted owl PACs, where treatment is necessary, remove only material needed to meet project fuels objectives. Focus on removal of surface and ladder fuels. Snags and Down Woody Material 10. Determine down woody material retention levels on an individual project basis, based on desired conditions. Emphasize retention of wood in the largest size classes and in decay classes 1, 2, and 3. Consider the effects of follow-up prescribed fire in achieving desired down woody material retention levels. 11. Determine snag retention levels on an individual project basis for vegetation treatments. Design projects to implement and sustain a generally continuous supply of snags and live decadent trees suitable for cavity nesting wildlife across a landscape. Retain some mid- and large diameter live trees that are currently in decline, have substantial wood defect, or that have desirable characteristics (teakettle branches, large diameter broken top, large cavities in the bole) to serve as future replacement snags and to provide nesting structure. When determining snag retention levels and locations, consider land allocation, desired condition, landscape position, potential prescribed burning and fire suppression line locations, and site conditions (such as riparian areas and ridge tops), avoiding uniformity across large areas. General guidelines for large-snag retention are as follows: • westside mixed conifer and ponderosa pine types - four of the largest snags per acre • red fir forest type - six of the largest snags per acre • eastside pine and eastside mixed conifer forest types - three of the largest snags per acre • westside hardwood ecosystems - four of the largest snags (hardwood or conifer) per acre o where standing live hardwood trees lack dead branches - six of the largest snags per acre (where they exist to supplement wildlife needs for dead material). Use snags larger than 15 inches dbh to meet this guideline. Snags should be clumped and distributed irregularly across the treatment units. Consider leaving fewer snags strategically located in treatment areas within the WUI. When some snags are expected to be lost due to hazard removal or the effects of prescribed fire, consider these potential losses during project planning to achieve desired snag retention levels. Tree Species Composition 12. Promote shade intolerant pines (sugar and Ponderosa) and hardwoods. Hardwood Management 18. Where possible, create openings around existing California black oak and canyon live oak to stimulate natural regeneration. 19. Manage hardwood ecosystems for a diversity of hardwood tree size classes within a stand such that seedlings, saplings, and pole-sized trees are sufficiently abundant to replace large trees that die. 20. Retain the mix of mast-producing species where they exist within a stand. 21. When planning prescribed fire or mechanical treatments in hardwood ecosystems: (1) consider the risk of noxious weed spread and (2) minimize impacts to hardwood ecosystem structure and biodiversity. 22. During mechanical vegetation treatments, prescribed fire, and salvage operations, retain all large hardwoods on the westside except where: (1) large trees pose an immediate threat to human life or property or (2) losses of large trees are incurred due to prescribed or wildland fire. Large montane hardwoods are trees with a dbh of 12 inches or greater. Large blue oak woodland hardwoods are trees with a dbh of 8 inches or greater. Allow removal of larger hardwood trees (up to 20 inches dbh) if research supports the need to remove larger trees to maintain and enhance the hardwood stand. 23. Prior to commercial and noncommercial hardwood and fuelwood removal in hardwood ecosystems, pre-mark or pre-cut

64 Joey Healthy Forest and Fuel Reduction Project Wildlife and Aquatics Biological Evaluation

hardwood trees to ensure that stand goals are met. Retain a diverse distribution of stand cover classes. 25. During or prior to landscape analysis, spatially determine distributions of existing and potential natural hardwood ecosystems (Forest Service Handbook (FSH) 2090.11). Assume pre-1850 disturbance levels for potential natural community distribution. Work with province ecologists or other qualified personnel to map and/or model hardwood ecosystems at a landscape scale (approximately 30,000 to 50,000 acres). Include the following steps in the analysis: (1) compare distributions of potential natural hardwood ecosystems with existing hardwood ecosystems; (2) identify locations where existing hardwood ecosystems are outside the natural range of variability for potential natural hardwood ecosystem distribution; and (3) identify hardwood restoration and enhancement projects. 24. Include hardwoods in stand examinations. Encourage hardwoods in plantations. Promote hardwoods after stand- replacing events. Retain buffers around existing hardwood trees by not planting conifers within 20 feet of the edge of hardwood tree crowns. Habitat Connectivity for Old Forest Associated Species 27. Minimize old forest habitat fragmentation. Assess potential impacts of fragmentation on old forest associated species (particularly fisher and marten) in biological evaluations. 28. Assess the potential impact of projects on the connectivity of habitat for old forest associated species. 29. Consider retaining forested linkages (with canopy cover greater than 40 percent) that are interconnected via riparian areas and ridgetop saddles during project-level analysis. California Spotted Owl Surveys 33. Conduct surveys in compliance with the Pacific Southwest Region's survey protocols during the planning process when proposed vegetation treatments are likely to reduce habitat quality in suitable California spotted owl habitat with unknown occupancy. Designate California spotted owl protected activity centers (PACs) where appropriate based on survey results. Northern Goshawk Surveys 34. Conduct surveys in compliance with the Pacific Southwest Region's survey protocols during the planning process when vegetation treatments are likely to reduce habitat quality are proposed in suitable northern goshawk nesting habitat that is not within an existing California spotted owl or northern goshawk PAC. Suitable northern goshawk nesting habitat is defined based on the survey protocol. Standards and Guidelines for California Spotted Owl and Northern Goshawk Protected Activity Centers 71. Within the assessment area or watershed, locate fuels treatments to minimize impacts to PACs. .PACs may be re- mapped during project planning to avoid intersections with treatment areas, provided that the re-mapped PACs contain habitat of equal quality and include known nest sites and important roost sites. Document PAC adjustments in biological evaluations. When treatment areas must intersect PACs and choices can be made about which PACs to enter, use the following criteria to preferentially avoid PACs that have the highest likely contribution to owl productivity. o lowest contribution to productivity: PACs presently unoccupied and historically occupied by territorial singles only. o PACs presently unoccupied and historically occupied by pairs, o PACs presently occupied by territorial singles, o PACs presently occupied by pairs, o highest contribution to productivity: PACs currently or historically reproductive. Historical occupancy is considered occupancy since 1990. Current occupancy is based on surveys consistent with survey protocol (March 1992) in the last 2-3 years prior to project planning. These dates were chosen to encompass the majority of survey efforts and to include breeding pulses in the early 1990s when many sites were found to be productive. When designing treatment unit intersections with PACs, limit treatment acres to those necessary to achieve strategic placement objectives and avoid treatments adjacent to nest stands whenever possible. If nesting or foraging habitat in PACs is mechanically treated, mitigate by adding acreage to the PAC, equivalent to the treated acres, using adjacent acres of comparable quality wherever possible. 72. Mechanical treatments may be conducted to meet fuels objectives in protected activity centers (PACs) located in WUI defense zones. In PACs located in WUI threat zones, mechanical treatments are allowed where prescribed fire is not feasible and where avoiding PACs would significantly compromise the overall effectiveness of the landscape fire and

65 Joey Healthy Forest and Fuel Reduction Project Wildlife and Aquatics Biological Evaluation

fuels strategy. Mechanical treatments should be designed to maintain habitat structure and function of the PAC. 73. While mechanical treatments may be conducted in protected activity centers (PACs) located in WUI defense zones and, in some cases, threat zones, they are prohibited within a 500-foot radius buffer around a spotted owl activity center within the designated PAC. Prescribed burning is allowed within the 500-foot radius buffer. Hand treatments, including handline construction, tree pruning, and cutting of small trees (less than 6 inches dbh), may be conducted prior to burning as needed to protect important elements of owl habitat. Treatments in the remainder of the PAC use the forest-wide standards and guidelines for mechanical thinning. 74. In PACs located outside the WUI, limit stand-altering activities to reducing surface and ladder fuels through prescribed fire treatments. In forested stands with overstory trees 11 inches dbh and greater, design prescribed fire treatments to have an average flame length of 4 feet or less. Hand treatments, including handline construction, tree pruning, and cutting of small trees (less than 6 inches dbh), may be conducted prior to burning as needed to protect important elements of owl habitat. 75. For California spotted owl PACs: Maintain a limited operating period (LOP), prohibiting vegetation treatments within approximately ¼ mile of the activity center during the breeding season (March 1 through August 31), unless surveys confirm that California spotted owls are not nesting. Prior to implementing activities within or adjacent to a California spotted owl PAC and the location of the nest site or activity center is uncertain, conduct surveys to establish or confirm the location of the nest or activity center. 75. For California spotted owl PACs : Maintain a limited operating period (LOP), prohibiting vegetation treatments within approximately ¼ mile of the activity center during the breeding season (March 1 through August 31), unless surveys confirm that California spotted owls are not nesting. Prior to implementing activities within or adjacent to a California spotted owl PAC and the location of the nest site or activity center is uncertain, conduct surveys to establish or confirm the location of the nest or activity center. 76. For northern goshawk PACs : Maintain a limited operating period (LOP), prohibiting vegetation treatments within approximately ¼ mile of the nest site during the breeding season (February 15 through September 15) unless surveys confirm that northern goshawks are not nesting. If the nest stand within a protected activity center (PAC) is unknown, either apply the LOP to a ¼- mile area surrounding the PAC, or survey to determine the nest stand location. 77. The LOP may be waived for vegetation treatments of limited scope and duration, when a biological evaluation determines that such projects are unlikely to result in breeding disturbance considering their intensity, duration, timing and specific location. Where a biological evaluation concludes that a nest site would be shielded from planned activities by topographic features that would minimize disturbance, the LOP buffer distance may be modified. 78. Breeding season limited operating period restrictions may be waived, where necessary, to allow for use of early season prescribed fire in up to 5 percent of California spotted owl PACs per year on a forest. 79. Breeding season limited operating period restrictions may be waived, where necessary, to allow for use of early season prescribed fire in up to 5 percent of northern goshawk PACs per year on a forest. 80. For California spotted owl PACs: Conduct vegetation treatments in no more than 5 percent per year and 10 percent per decade of the acres in California spotted owl PACs in the 11 Sierra Nevada national forests. Monitor the number of PACs treated at a bioregional scale. 81. For northern goshawk PACs: Conduct mechanical treatments in no more than 5 percent per year and 10 percent per decade of the acres in northern goshawk PACs in the 11 Sierra Nevada national forests. 82. Mitigate impacts where there is documented evidence of disturbance to the nest site from existing recreation, off highway vehicle route, trail, and road uses (including road maintenance). Evaluate proposals for new roads, trails, off highway vehicle routes, and recreational and other developments for their potential to disturb nest sites. Species-specific direction and policy are described in Section 5.0 of this document.

66