Revised January 19, 2018 Updated June 19, 2018

Home , Cerithioidea, Interstate 80 in Nevada, Northern goshawk

BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION / BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT

FOR

TERRESTRIAL AND AQUATIC WILDLIFE

YUBA PROJECT

YUBA RIVER RANGER DISTRICT TAHOE NATIONAL FOREST

REVISED

JANUARY 19, 2018

UPDATED JUNE 19, 2018

PREPARED BY: MARILYN TIERNEY DISTRICT WILDLIFE BIOLOGIST

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...... 3 II. INTRODUCTION...... 4 III. CONSULTATION TO DATE ...... 4 IV. CURRENT MANAGEMENT DIRECTION ...... 5 V. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT AND ALTERNATIVES ...... 6 VI. EXISTING ENVIRONMENT, EFFECTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES, AND DETERMINATION ...... 41 SPECIES-SPECIFIC ANALYSIS AND DETERMINATION ...... 54 TERRESTRIAL SPECIES ...... 55 WESTERN BUMBLE BEE ...... 55 BALD EAGLE ...... 58 CALIFORNIA SPOTTED OWL ...... 62 GREAT GRAY OWL ...... 80 NORTHERN GOSHAWK ...... 84 WILLOW FLYCATCHER...... 89 GREATER SANDHILL CRANE ...... 94 FOREST CARNIVORES – GENERAL DISCUSSION ...... 96 PACIFIC MARTEN ...... 96 WOLVERINE ...... 104 PALLID BAT ...... 115 TOWNSEND’S BIG-EARED BAT ...... 119 FRINGED MYOTIS ...... 124 AQUATIC SPECIES ...... 128 CALIFORNIA RED-LEGGED FROG ...... 128 LAHONTAN CUTTHROAT TROUT ...... 134 WESTERN POND TURTLE ...... 138 FOOTHILL YELLOW-LEGGED FROG ...... 143 GREAT BASIN RAMS-HORN SNAIL ...... 147 LAHONTAN LAKE TUI CHUB ...... 148 HARDHEAD ...... 150 CALIFORNIA FLOATER...... 152 BLACK JUGA ...... 153 VII. MANAGEMENT REQUIREMENTS...... 155 VIII. LITERATURE CITED AND REFERENCES ...... 156 OFFICIAL SPECIES LIST ...... 209 ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT SPECIES LIST ...... 210 CRITICAL HABITATS THAT LIE WITHIN YOUR PROJECT AREA ...... 212

I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

PROJECT NAME: Yuba Project

The Yuba Project area is located in Sierra County approximately five miles northeast of Sierra City, CA. The Yuba Project proposes vegetation management on 6,965 acres to reduce fuels, move forest condition towards its historic range of canopy and structure, and reduce encroachment of conifers into meadows and aspens. These activities are proposed to occur within a 14,545-acre project area. See the proposed action for a more detailed description of the project area.

Table 1. Executive summary of species considered for analysis in the Biological Evaluation/Biological Assessment for the Yuba Project and the effects determination. OCCURS OR HAS SPECIES SUITABLE HABITAT SPECIES EFFECTS DETERMINATION2 STATUS1 WITHIN THE PROJECT AREA Western bumblebee S Habitat May affect, no trend toward listing Bald eagle S Habitat No effect California spotted owl S Occurs May affect, no trend toward listing Great gray owl S Habitat No effect Northern goshawk S Occurs May affect, no trend toward listing Willow flycatcher S Habitat No effect Greater sandhill crane S No No effect Pacific marten S Occurs May affect, no trend toward listing North American P Habitat No effect wolverine Pallid bat S Habitat May affect, no trend toward listing Townsend’s big-eared S Habitat May affect, no trend toward listing bat Fringed myotis S Habitat May affect, no trend toward listing AQUATIC SPECIES California red-legged T No No Effect frog Lahontan cutthroat trout T No No Effect Western pond turtle S No No Effect Foothill yellow-legged S No No Effect frog Great Basin rams-horn S No No Effect snail Lahontan Lake tui chub S No No Effect Hardhead S No No Effect California floater S No No Effect Black juga S No No Effect *Sierra Nevada yellow- E Occurs May Affect, Likely to Adversely Affect legged frog * Species is addressed in a separate Biological Assessment for consultation with the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1Key: E = USFWS Endangered, T = USFWS Threatened, PE = USFWS Proposed Endangered (pending final rule), PT = USFWS Proposed Threatened (pending final rule), C = USFWS Candidate (warranted but precluded), S = USFS R5 Sensitive.

II. INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this Biological Evaluation/Biological Assesment is to document analysis of the potential effects of the Yuba Project on Forest Service Sensitive Species, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife’s designated threatened, endangerd, candidate, and proposed aquatic and terrestrial wildlife species and their habitats:

The above list includes United States Department of Interior Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) threatened, endangered, candidate, and proposed species maintained at 50 CFR 17.11 (Last updated February 13, 2017), and United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Forest Service Region 5 Forester's Sensitive Species, listed for the Tahoe National Forest (Updated as of September 9, 2013). This evaluation does not address the following USFWS threatened or endangered species: Coccyzus americanus (yellow-billed cuckoo (T)), Branchinecta lynchi (Vernal Pool fairy shrimp (T)), Lepidurus Packardt (Vernal Pool tadpole shrimp (E)), Chasmistes cujus (cui-ui (E)), Hypomesus transpacificus (delta smelt (T)), or Oncorhynchus mykiss (steelhead (T)) because the Tahoe National Forest is outside of the range or does not contain habitat for these species. Oncorhynchus mykiss (Central Valley steelhead, Sacramento River) do not occur in the Tahoe National Forest due to dams. If a project in the Tahoe National Forest could potentially have effects to any of these species they would be analyzed in detail.

This biological evaluation was prepared in accordance with Forest Service Manual (FSM) direction 2672.42 and meets legal requirements set forth under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, and implementing regulations [19 U.S.C. 1536 (c), 50 CFR 402.12 (f) and 402.14 (c)].

Literature cited and references throughout this biological evaluation can be found at the end of the document, first by general resource documents then by individual species or species group.

III. CONSULTATION TO DATE

The Fish and Wildlife Service is contacted every 90 days to obtain a current list of threatened, endangered, proposed and candidate species that may be present in the Tahoe National Forest. The most recent list was reported February 13, 2017 and is attached as Appendix A. This project is within the range of the Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog, and activities are proposed with Critical Habitat for this species. As such, formal consultation with the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service for this species is completed in a separate Biological Assessment. Therefore, this species will not be addressed in detail in this document.

Forest plans for national forests lying within the Sierra Nevada were amended under the Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment (USDA Forest Service 2001 and 2004). The Regional Forester consulted with the California and Nevada Operations Office of Fish and Wildlife Service for that amendment. The Biological Opinion is dated January 11, 2001. The determination in the biological opinion is that the selected action is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of species listed pursuant to the Act (bald eagle (subsequently delisted), California red-legged frog, and Lahontan cutthroat trout). No terms or conditions were provided. Conservation recommendations are discussed in the corresponding species portions of this Biological 4

Evaluation/Biological Assessment if they are applicable to the Tahoe National Forest species and management activities.

IV. CURRENT MANAGEMENT DIRECTION

Current management direction on desired future conditions for Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive species in the Tahoe National Forest can be found in the following documents, filed at the District Office:

• Forest Service Manual and Handbooks (FSM/FSH 2670) • National Forest Management Act (NFMA) • Endangered Species Act (ESA) • National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) • Tahoe National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (1990), as amended by the 1999 Record of Decision for the Herger-Feinstein Quincy Library Group Forest Recovery Act Final Environmental Impact Statement (HFQLG) [as revised by the 2003 Record of Decision for the Herger-Feinstein Quincy Library Group Forest Recovery Act Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement], and the 2004 Record of Decision for the Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement. • Species specific Recovery Plans which establish population goals for recovery of those species • Species management plans • Species management guides or conservation strategies • Regional Forester policy and management direction

The Tahoe National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP; 1990) was amended in 2001 by the Record of Decision for the Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment (SNFPA 2001; USDA Forest Service 2001), which was then replaced in its entirety by the 2004 Record of Decision for the Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SNFPA 2004; USDA Forest Service 2004). Detailed information including specific standards and guidelines for species management can be found in the SNFPA 2004. General Forest Service direction for Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive species is summarized below:

FSM 2670.31 THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES

1) Place top priority on conservation and recovery of endangered, threatened, and proposed species and their habitats through relevant National Forest System, State and Private Forestry, and Research activities and programs. 2) Establish through the Forest planning process objectives for habitat management and/or recovery of populations, in cooperation with States, the USFWS, and other Federal agencies.

3) Through the biological evaluation process, review actions and programs authorized, funded, or carried out by the Forest Service to determine their potential for effect on threatened and endangered species and species proposed for listing. 4) Avoid all adverse impacts on threatened and endangered species and their habitat except when it is possible to compensate adverse effect totally through alternatives identified in a biological opinion rendered by the USFWS, or when the USFWS biological opinion recognizes an incidental taking. Avoid adverse impacts on species proposed for listing during the conference period and while their Federal status is being determined. 5) Initiate consultation or conference with the USFWS when the Forest Service determines that proposed activities may have an adverse effect on threatened, endangered, or proposed species or when Forest Service projects are for the specific benefit of a threatened or endangered species 6) Identify and prescribe measures to prevent adverse modification or destruction of critical habitat and other habitats essential for the conservation of endangered, threatened, and proposed species. Protect individual organisms or populations from harm or harassment as appropriate.

FSM 2670.32 SENSITIVE SPECIES

1) Assist States in achieving their goals for conservation of endemic species. 2) As part of the National Environmental Policy Act process, review programs and activities, through a biological evaluation, to determine their potential effect on sensitive species. 3) Avoid or minimize impacts to species whose viability has been identified as a concern. 4) If impacts cannot be avoided, analyze the significance of potential adverse effects on the population or its habitat within the area of concern and on the species as a whole. 5) Establish management objectives in cooperation with the States when a project on National Forest System lands may have a significant effect on sensitive species population numbers or distribution. Establish objectives for Federal candidate species, in cooperation with the USFWS and the States.

V. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT AND ALTERNATIVES

Proposed Action-- Alternative A

The proposed action is designed to modify landscape-scale fire behavior by implementing management direction for strategically placed area treatments described in 2004 SNFPA ROD Standard and Guidelines 1 through 5 (pp. 49-50). As such, treatment areas were located by evaluating topography, ownership patterns, potential fire behavior, existing vegetative and wildlife habitat conditions, historic recreational use and the location of the wildland urban interface (WUI). Areas were prioritized for treatment based on their stand characteristics, expected effectiveness of treatments, economic considerations, proximity to other treatment areas and their fit into the overall landscape strategy. For this reason, not all areas within the project area are proposed for treatment. The goal is to initiate treatments in specific locations where the effects of the activities would reduce potential wildfire intensity, provide defensible space to existing structures, reduce accumulations of dead and down fuels and small diameter

decadent live fuels, improve overall forest health and resiliency and improve ecosystem structure and function across a broader landscape.

The proposed action includes the following activities:

1. Mechanical thinning, 2. Planting native conifers in a portion of the gaps 3. Aspen restoration (conifer removal both by hand and/or mechanical equipment), 4. Precommercial thinning, 5. Manual, mechanical and smothering treatments of non-native invasive plants, 6. Removal of hazard trees along Highway 49, Gold Lake Highway and maintenance level 2-3 roads within the project area and removal of vegetation that could grow into or fall onto distribution lines, 7. Borate compound application to freshly cut stumps, 8. Mechanical thinning with handcutting, handpiling, and pile burning, 9. Handcutting, handpiling, and pile burning, 10. Underburning, 11. Helitorch prescribed fire for wildlife habitat (shrubfield) enhancement, 12. Decommissioning approximately 3.23 miles of unauthorized and/or unneeded roads, 13. Recondition/reconstruct approximately 3 miles of roads, 14. Approximately 38.8 miles of road maintenance, 15. Replace/restore a non-functioning waterhole with a functioning one, 16. Meadow habitat enhancement (conifer removal both by hand and/or mechanical equipment), 17. Installation of nest boxes and creation of wildlife cover piles. 18. Construct a new connector trail (approximately .75 miles) between the Haskell Peak Trail and the Chapman Creek Trail, 19. Offering public Christmas tree cutting areas along designated roads.

The following describes the actions that are being proposed in more detail:

Mechanical thinning: Mechanical thinning would be accomplished using skyline and ground- based logging systems to harvest selected conifers. When implementing thinning, attention would be given to retaining the more drought tolerant pine species, such as sugar pine and western white pine, ponderosa and Jeffrey pine, along with Douglas-fir and incense-cedar over white fir to increase species diversity and make stands more resilient to disturbance. Healthy western white pine and sugar pine would be retained whenever possible to preserve genetic diversity, especially white pine blister rust (Cronartium ribicola) resistant individuals. Conifers that are encroaching on hardwoods, such as aspen, would be removed to reduce competition for limited resources and provide ample growing space for crown expansion, and also create conditions favorable for regeneration. Various sized openings would be created to promote structural diversity, enhance shrubfields, and restore aspen stands. Dense pockets of trees with high canopy cover around potential wildlife structures, such as fork-topped trees and trees with cavities, would be retained. Clumps and gaps would incorporate variability in tree distribution to improve within stand structural diversity. At the landscape scale, the objective would be to create more open stands on ridgetops and upper to mid south-facing slopes, and maintain higher canopy cover on north-facing and lower slopes.

Plantation thinning: Plantations would be thinned primarily to create a more diverse species composition and stand structure containing clumps and small openings (generally less than one acre in size), improve overall tree health, increase resistance to insects and disease, and increase resiliency to changing climatic conditions. Hardwoods such as aspen and cottonwood would be retained and released from conifer competition. Diverse stand structures valuable to wildlife, such as retention patches and large snags, would be protected from harvest operations whenever possible. Additionally, thinning would reduce hazardous fuels and increase crown base height.

Thinning prescriptions would strive to meet multiple resource objectives including economic feasibility. All thinning treatments (outside of aspen restoration treatments) would be consistent with the SNFPA ROD standards and guidelines for mechanical thinning treatments (pp. 50-51).

General fuels reduction: Handcutting, handpiling, and pile burning are proposed adjacent to the San Francisco State University Camp, Haskell Creek Home sites, Clark Station and along the Highway 49 corridor that is within the project area. These treatments include the mitigation and disposal of hazard trees. The existing accumulation of fuels within and surrounding these areas provides conditions for increased risk of ignition, and does not provide an environment of defensible space for existing structures. The area currently is not conducive to firefighter and public safety because of the structure, arrangement and loading of fuels. Hazard trees would be mitigated under R5 hazard tree guidelines.

Fuels treatments have been planned to compliment strategic control points in the event of a wildfire. Fuels treatments follow Agee’s four basic principles of effective fuels reduction: reduction of surface fuels, increase in crown base heights, decrease in crown density, and retention of large fire-resistant trees (Agee and Skinner, 2005).

Aspen Restoration: Aspen restoration treatments would strive to create healthy stands with a muti-age structure to provide replacement trees and ensure sustainability on the landscape for the next 40 to 50 years. To ensure for maximum sun exposure to aspen roots and to allow sufficient area for regeneration from seed, the maximum treatment area would be identified as a distance surrounding the aspen stand (or where living aspen trees or sprouts are present) equal to 1 to 2 tree heights, depending on aspect, topographic features, and other site specific conditions. Both smaller diameter conifers (less than 10 inches dbh) and conifers greater than or equal to 10 inches dbh would be removed around individual aspen and cottonwoods and aspen stands in proposed units. Smaller diameter material will be piled and burned. Conifers selected for removal would reduce competition with these hardwoods. Legacy trees would be retained on a site-specific basis. Where it does not compromise safety, existing snags greater than or equal to 20 inches dbh and 15 feet in height would be retained. A proportion of conifer trees may be girdled to create snags; or topped, and either shaped, or platforms added to create nesting structures for great gray owls.

Meadow Restoration – All meadows proposed for treatment are experiencing encroachment by conifers, specifically lodgepole pine. Proposed treatments would include the removal of conifers by mechanical methods, hand cutting, girdling, and/or the use of prescribed fire to kill the conifers. All conifers less than 30 inches dbh would be targeted for removal within the meadow

and along the meadow edge. Additional conifers would be removed within a distance equal to one tree height along the meadow edge to reduce future conifer seed fall into the meadow. A proportion of conifer trees may be girdled to create snags; or topped, and either shaped, or platforms added to create nesting structures for great gray owls.

Create Wildlife Cover Piles: Create wildlife cover piles by utilizing slash within thinning units and by cutting trees less than 10” diameter. This will occur within meadow and aspen enhancement units, and approximately 10% of the acres proposed for mechanical thinning.

Install Nest Boxes: Install nest boxes of specifications that could provide nesting for spotted owls and other cavity nesters within proposed units where inadequate nesting structures may be a limiting factor.

Underburning to Reduce Surface Fuels: Underburning is proposed for the project as a means of restoring fire back into a fire dependent ecosystem, to improve forest health, and to reduce accumulations of dead and down fuels and small diameter decadent live fuels. It is also being proposed as a tool to restore meadows and enhance forage for wildlife (See Table 5).

Helitorch prescribed burning in shrubfields: Prescribed fire implemented by helitorch would be used to rejuvenate shrubfields to provide more high quality forge for wildlife.

Borate compound application: Freshly cut stumps greater than 14 inches diameter would be treated with a registered borate compound to minimize the creation of new root disease infection centers. Within developed campgrounds and administrative sites, all cut stumps would receive application.

Machine Piling and Pile Burning for Site Prep: Machine piling would be done in a portion of the gaps. Piles would be burned by Forest Service personnel during periods of wet weather.

Planting of Native Conifer Seedlings: Within a portion of gaps created through harvest, native conifer seedlings would be planted. Seedling release from vegetative competition would be accomplished by hand grubbing or hand cutting of competing plants. Hardwoods would be retained, and no conifer seedlings would be planted within 100 feet of hardwood (aspen) crowns.

Control of nonnative invasive plants: Nonnative invasive plant infestations found within the project area will be treated with the control objectives of eradication or containment. Nonnative invasive plant treatment will be prioritized for infestations occurring within 100 feet of system roads, in proposed treatment units, and within or adjacent to areas with other ground disturbing activities before and after treatment occurs. Nonnative invasive plant treatments will include hand pulling, hand cutting, digging, pulling with tools such as a weed wrench, weed-whacking, and/or solarization (covering with plastic or other smothering materials). Sites that nonnative invasive plants are removed from will be assessed for restoration need and potential and if active restoration is deemed appropriate seeding and/or planting of native plants may occur.

Trail Construction: Build a connector trail approximately .75 miles long, to connect the Haskell Peak Trail with the Chapman Creek Trail.

Christmas Tree Cutting: Allow Christmas trees ( less than 10 inches dbh) to be harvested within 200 feet along both sides of Roads 09, 09-04, 09-05, 09-06, 09-10, 09-13, 09-13-2 on public lands with a valid permit. Cutting season to be November 1 through December 24.

Road Maintenance: Approximately 38.8 miles of National Forest System roads would be maintained to provide access to treatment areas, provide for public and contractor safety, and improve watershed conditions through erosion control and road surface protection. This work includes: grading, clearing, ditch cleaning and repair, and hazard tree removal within unit boundaries.

Road Reconditioning/Reconstruction: Project activities would require approximately 2.9 miles of road repair. Types of repairs include: roadside brushing, reconditioning drainage structures such as dips, water bars, and roadside ditches, culvert cleaning, surface grading, hazard tree felling, and potential spot rocking. Additional miles of road reconstruction may be identified during project implementation. This work may also include removal of vegetation (including merchantable timber) on the road fill slope and regrading of the road prism to achieve an outsloped road configuration.

Road Decommissioning: Approximately 3.23 miles of unauthorized roads and .7 miles of system roads are being proposed for decommissioning. Road decommissioning permanently removes the road from the National Forest Transportation System.

Table V-1. Yuba Project Road System Proposals Road Length Length Proposed Proposed Proposed Remarks No. Associated Operational Objective Access with Yuba Maintenance Maintenance Travel Activities Level (ML) Level (ML) Management Develop an off-channel water No change to No change to No change to 09 14.319 12.9 hole at approximately mile post existing existing existing 1.0 Open to all A large land slide has Mile Post 0.00 Mile Post 0.00 vehicles compromised a large culvert at - 2.50 - 2.50 Mile Post 0.00 mile post 2.8. This proposal will Maintenance Maintenance – 2.50 stabilized the culvert and Level 2 Level 2 09-13 4.0 4.0 4/1 – 12/31 minimize the sediment Mile Post 2.50 Mile Post 2.50 Eliminate Use production should a complete - 4.0 - 4.0 Mile Post 2.50 failure occur. Closure at mile Maintenance Maintenance – 4.01 post 2.5 is necessary for public Level 1 Level 1 Year round and employee safety. 0.4 No change to No change to No change to Proposed reconditioning for 09-09 0.4 existing existing existing project 0.3 No change to No change to No change to Proposed reconditioning for 09-14 0.3 existing existing existing project 09-15- Proposed decommission and 0.3 0.3 Decommission Decommission Eliminate 01-02 remove from system Mile Post 0.00 Mile Post 0.00 Open to all Mile Post 1.00 to 1.50 has to 1.00 to 1.00 vehicles already been decommissioned Maintenance Maintenance Mile Post 0.00 and removed from the system 09-19 1.7 1.7 Level 2 Level 2 – 1.00 in a previous project. Mile Post 1.00 Mile Post 1.00 4/1 – 12/31 Yuba project proposes to to 1.70 to 1.70 Eliminate use decommission 10

Decommission Decommission Mile Post 1.00 and remove from the forest – 1.70 road system mile post 1.50 to 1.70 No change to No change to No change to Propose reconditioning for 28-03 0.9 0.4 existing existing existing project 721- No change to No change to No change to Propose reconditioning for 2.8 1.8 01 existing existing existing project Mile Post 0.00 Mile Post 0.00 Closed to to 0.17 to 0.17 public use Install gate at entrance of road Maintenance Maintenance Mile Post 0.00 to restrict public access. Issue 823- Level 2 Level 2 0.60 0.60 – 0.17 permit for access to mining 01-01 Mile Post 0.17 Mile Post 0.17 Eliminate use claim operator and private to 0.60 to 0.60 Mile Post 0.17 property owner. Maintenance Maintenance – 0.60 Level 1 Level 1

Table V-2. Yuba Project Unauthorized Route Proposal Route Length Proposed Comments Identifier (Miles) Access Travel Management Decommission Route. Keep 370 feet of road from Sierra County 721 road to powerlines for powerline access. Include T5-10 0.25 Eliminate this segment into a special use permit for PG&E. Require PG&E to install and maintain gate. T14 0.87 Eliminate Decommission Route T23 0.79 Eliminate Decommission Route T24 0.54 Eliminate Decommission Route T29 0.15 Eliminate Decommission Route T33 0.15 Eliminate Decommission Route T38 0.11 Eliminate Decommission Route T42 0.27 Eliminate Decommission Route T66 0.10 Eliminate Decommission Route Total 3.23 Mi. Decommission

Hazard Tree Removal: Per Forest Service Regional hazard tree guidelines (USDA Forest Service, 2012), hazardous trees would be identified and removed along Maintenance Level 2 through 3 National Forest Transportation System roads, Gold Lake Highway, and Highway 49 within the project area as needed.

Removal of hazard trees and vegetation along distribution lines –Vegetation capable of growing into the power lines within 15 feet (30 feet total width) of the power pole line would be removed. Hazard trees tall enough to strike the power lines located from 15 to 150 feet (up to 300 feet total width) on either side of the electric pole line would be targeted for removal.

Implementation of the project’s proposed activities (as described above) is dependent upon obtaining sufficient funding and/or human resources from a variety of sources. Sources can include volunteer groups, grants, appropriated funds and funds generated from the sale of wood products. Fluctuating market conditions and the demand for wood products can also influence the amount of available funding.

Vegetation Management Treatment Summary

Tables V-3 and V-4 list the treatment summary for the actions proposed under the Yuba Project.

Table V-3. Yuba Project Proposed Thinning and Vegetation Management Treatments—Alternative A

Unit Estimated Proposed Logging Primary Primary Purposes for Designation Unit Treatment System SNFPA Land Treatment Acres Allocation 1 32 Mechanical Thin Tractor Old Forest Fuels Reduction, Forest Health, Wildlife Habitat Improvement, Watershed Protection 2 28 Mechanical Thin Tractor Old Forest Fuels Reduction, Forest Health, Wildlife Habitat Improvement, Watershed Protection 3 16 Mechanical Thin Tractor Old Forest Fuels Reduction, Forest Health, Wildlife Habitat Improvement, Watershed Protection 4 61 Mechanical Thin and Tractor Old Forest Fuels Reduction, Forest Aspen Work Health, Wildlife Habitat Improvement, Watershed Protection 5 2 Precommercial Thin Hand work Old Forest Fuels Reduction, Forest Health, Watershed Protection 6 9 Mechanical Thin Tractor Old Forest Fuels Reduction, Forest Health, Wildlife Habitat Improvement, Watershed Protection 7 47 Mechanical Thin Cable Threat Fuels Reduction, Forest Zone/HRCA Health, Wildlife Habitat Improvement, Watershed Protection 10 78 Mechanical Thin Tractor HRCA Fuels Reduction, Forest Health, Wildlife Habitat Improvement, Watershed Protection 11 65 Mechanical Thin Tractor HRCA Fuels Reduction, Forest Health, Wildlife Habitat Improvement, Watershed Protection 12 18 Mechanical Thin Tractor Old Forest Fuels Reduction, Forest Health, Wildlife Habitat Improvement, Watershed Protection 13 14 Mechanical Thin Tractor HRCA Fuels Reduction, Forest Health, Wildlife Habitat Improvement, Watershed Protection 14 222 Hand Cut/ Hand Hand Work Recommended Watershed Improvement, Pile/ Pile Burn Wild and Scenic Fuels Reduction, Forest River Health, Wildlife Habitat Improvement 16 14 Mechanical Thin Tractor Old Forest Fuels Reduction, Forest Health, Wildlife Habitat Improvement, Watershed Protection

17 91 Mechanical Thin and Tractor Old Forest Fuels Reduction, Forest Aspen Work Health, Wildlife Habitat Improvement, Watershed Protection 20 1 Meadow Work – Hand work Recommended Fuels Reduction, Forest Hand Cut Wild and Scenic Health, Wildlife Habitat River Improvement 21 12 Mechanical Thin Tractor Threat Zone Fuels Reduction, Forest Health, Wildlife Habitat Improvement, Watershed Protection 22 21 Mechanical Thin Cable HRCA Fuels Reduction, Forest Health, Wildlife Habitat Improvement, Watershed Protection 23 39 Aspen Work – Tractor Old Forest Fuels Reduction, Forest Mechanical and Health, Wildlife Habitat Hand Cut Improvement, Watershed Protection 24 12 Precommercial Hand Work Old Forest Fuels Reduction, Forest Thinning Health, Watershed Protection 26 121 Mechanical Thin and Tractor Old Forest Fuels Reduction, Forest Aspen Work Health, Wildlife Habitat Improvement, Watershed Protection 27 44 Mechanical Thin Tractor HRCA Fuels Reduction, Forest Health, Wildlife Habitat Improvement, Watershed Protection 28 55 Mechanical Thin HRCA Fuels Reduction, Forest Health, Wildlife Habitat Improvement, Watershed Protection 30 17 Mechanical Thin and Tractor HRCA Fuels Reduction, Forest Aspen Work Health, Wildlife Habitat Improvement, Watershed Protection 31 17 Mechanical Thin Tractor HRCA Fuels Reduction, Forest Health, Wildlife Habitat Improvement, Watershed Protection 32 3 Precommercial Thin Hand Work Old Forest Fuels Reduction, Forest Health, Watershed Protection 33 148 Mechanical Thin Tractor HRCA/Old Fuels Reduction, Forest Forest Health, Wildlife Habitat Improvement, Watershed Protection 34 44 Mechanical Thin Threat Fuels Reduction, Forest Zone/HRCA Health, Wildlife Habitat Improvement, Watershed Protection 35 1 Precommercial Thin Hand Work Old Forest Fuels Reduction, Forest Health, Watershed Protection 36 1 Precommercial Thin Hand Work Old Forest Watershed Improvement, Fuels Reduction, Forest Health

40 13 Mechanical Thin Cable HRCA Fuels Reduction, Forest Health, Wildlife Habitat Improvement, Watershed Protection 41 31 Mechanical Thin Tractor HRCA Fuels Reduction, Forest Health, Wildlife Habitat Improvement, Watershed Protection 42 15 Mechanical Thin Tractor Old Forest Fuels Reduction, Forest Health, Wildlife Habitat Improvement, Watershed Protection 43 18 Mechanical Thin Tractor Recommended Fuels Reduction, Forest Wild and Scenic Health, Wildlife Habitat River Improvement, Watershed Protection 44 48 Mechanical Thin Tractor Threat Zone Fuels Reduction, Forest Health, Wildlife Habitat Improvement, Watershed Protection 45 57 Mechanical Thin and Tractor Threat Zone Fuels Reduction, Forest Aspen Work Health, Wildlife Habitat Improvement, Watershed Protection 51 8 Meadow Work – Hand Work Recommended Watershed Improvement, Hand Cut Wild and Scenic Fuels Reduction, Forest River Health, Wildlife Habitat Improvement 54 39 Precommercial Thin Hand Work Old Forest Fuels Reduction, Forest Health, Watershed Protection 55 9 Precommercial Thin Hand Work Old Forest Fuels Reduction, Forest Health, Watershed Protection 56 3 Mechanical Thin Tractor Old Forest Fuels Reduction, Forest Health, Wildlife Habitat Improvement, Watershed Protection 57 18 Mechanical Thin Tractor Old Forest Fuels Reduction, Forest Health, Wildlife Habitat Improvement, Watershed Protection 58 30 Mechanical Thin Tractor Recommended Fuels Reduction, Forest Wild and Scenic Health, Wildlife Habitat River Improvement, Watershed Protection 59 12 Mechanical Thin and Tractor Recommended Watershed Improvement, Aspen Work; Hand Wild and Scenic Fuels Reduction, Forest Cut/ Hand Pile/ Pile River Health, Wildlife Habitat Burn Improvement 60 4 Aspen Work – Hand Hand Work Old Forest Wildlife Habitat Cut/ Hand Pile/ Pile Improvement and Forest Burn Health 70 20 Aspen Work – Tractor Old Forest Watershed Improvement, Mechanical and Fuels Reduction, Forest Hand Cut/ Hand Health, Wildlife Habitat Pile/ Pile Burn Improvement

71 20 Aspen Work – Tractor Old Forest Watershed Improvement, Mechanical and Fuels Reduction, Forest Hand Cut/ Hand Health, Wildlife Habitat Pile/ Pile Burn Improvement 72 33 Aspen Work – Tractor Old Forest Watershed Improvement, Mechanical and Fuels Reduction, Forest Hand Cut/ Hand Health, Wildlife Habitat Pile/ Pile Burn Improvement 73 16 Aspen Work – Hand Hand Work Threat Zone Watershed Improvement, Cut/ Hand Pile/ Pile Fuels Reduction, Forest Burn Health, Wildlife Habitat Improvement 74 50 Aspen Work – Tractor HRCA Watershed Improvement, Mechanical and Fuels Reduction, Forest Hand Cut/ Hand Health, Wildlife Habitat Pile/ Pile Burn Improvement 75 33 Aspen Work – Tractor Threat Zone Watershed Improvement, Mechanical and Fuels Reduction, Forest Hand Cut/ Hand Health, Wildlife Habitat Pile/ Pile Burn Improvement 76 60 Aspen Work – Tractor Recommended Watershed Improvement, Mechanical and ; Wild and Scenic Fuels Reduction, Forest Hand Cut/ Hand River Health, Wildlife Habitat Pile/ Pile Burn Improvement 77 12 Aspen Work – Tractor Recommended Watershed Improvement, Mechanical and ; Wild and Scenic Fuels Reduction, Forest Hand Cut/ Hand River Health, Wildlife Habitat Pile/ Pile Burn Improvement 78 12 Aspen Work – Tractor Recommended Watershed Improvement, Mechanical and; Wild and Scenic Fuels Reduction, Forest Hand Cut/ Hand River Health, Wildlife Habitat Pile/ Pile Burn Improvement 79 21 Aspen Work – Tractor Recommended Watershed Improvement, Mechanical and; Wild and Scenic Fuels Reduction, Forest Hand Cut/ Hand River Health, Wildlife Habitat Pile/ Pile Burn Improvement 82 9 Aspen Work – Tractor Recommended Watershed Improvement, Mechanical and; Wild and Scenic Fuels Reduction, Forest Hand Cut/ Hand River Health, Wildlife Habitat Pile/ Pile Burn Improvement 83 21 Aspen Work – Tractor Recommended Watershed Improvement, Mechanical and; Wild and Scenic Fuels Reduction, Forest Hand Cut/ Hand River Health, Wildlife Habitat Pile/ Pile Burn Improvement 85 22 Aspen Work – Tractor Threat Zone Watershed Improvement, Mechanical and Fuels Reduction, Forest Hand Cut/ Hand Health, Wildlife Habitat Pile/ Pile Burn Improvement 100 31 Aspen Work – Hand Hand Work Old Forest Watershed Improvement, Cut/ Hand Pile/ Pile Fuels Reduction, Forest Burn Health, Wildlife Habitat Improvement

101 47 Meadow Restoration Hand Work Old Forest Watershed Improvement, Fuels Reduction, Forest Health, Wildlife Habitat Improvement 102 72 Meadow Restoration Hand Work Old Forest Watershed Improvement, Fuels Reduction, Forest Health, Wildlife Habitat Improvement 103 12 Meadow Restoration Hand Work Threat Zone Watershed Improvement, Fuels Reduction, Forest Health, Wildlife Habitat Improvement 104 37 Meadow Restoration Hand Work Old Forest Watershed Improvement, Fuels Reduction, Forest Health, Wildlife Habitat Improvement 105 12 Meadow Restoration Hand Work Old Forest Watershed Improvement, Fuels Reduction, Forest Health, Wildlife Habitat Improvement 106 123 Meadow Restoration Hand Work Old Forest Watershed Improvement, Fuels Reduction, Forest Health, Wildlife Habitat Improvement 107 15 Meadow Restoration Hand Work Old Forest Watershed Improvement, Fuels Reduction, Forest Health, Wildlife Habitat Improvement - 323 Powerline/vegetation Mechanical Various Public Safety removal or Hand Work - 1 Water Hole N/A Threat Zone Development - 89 Invasive Plant Hand Work Various Invasive Plant Control Treatments **Totals: 2,629 Note: Other land allocations may exist in each unit, but are comparatively small in area.

Table V-4. Yuba Project Proposed Prescribe Burn Treatments—Alternative A

Unit Estimated Proposed Treatment Primary SNFPA Primary Purposes for Designation Unit Acres Land Allocations Treatment A 1,209 Underburn Old Forest, HRCA, Fuels Reduction, Forest Health, Threat Zone Watershed Protection, Wildlife Habitat Improvement B 394 Underburn Old Forest, Threat Fuels Reduction, Forest Health, Zone Watershed Protection, Wildlife Habitat Improvement B 1 36 Rx Helitorch Burn Old Forest Invasive plant control C 434 Underburn Old Forest Fuels Reduction, Forest Health, Watershed Protection, Wildlife Habitat Improvement

D 1,136 Underburn Wild and Scenic Fuels Reduction, Forest Health, River, PAC, HRCA, Watershed Protection, Wildlife Defense Zone, Threat Habitat Improvement Zone E 127 Handcut, Handpile, Wild and Scenic Fuels Reduction, Forest Health, and Pile Burn River, PAC Watershed Protection, Wildlife Habitat Improvement F 84 Underburn Old Forest, Threat Watershed Improvement, Fuels Zone Reduction, Forest Health, Wildlife Habitat Improvement G 427 Rx Helitorch Burn Wild and Scenic Fuels Reduction, Forest Health, River, Defense Zone Watershed Protection, Wildlife Habitat Improvement G-M 107 Rx Helitorch Burn Wild and Scenic Fuels Reduction, Forest Health, River, PAC, Defense Watershed Protection, Wildlife Zone, Threat Zone Habitat Improvement H 101 Rx Helitorch Burn Threat Zone Fuels Reduction, Forest Health, Watershed Protection, Wildlife Habitat Improvement I 176 Rx Helitorch Burn Threat Zone, Old Fuels Reduction, Forest Health, Forest, HRCA Watershed Protection, Wildlife Habitat Improvement J 115 Handcut, Handpile, Wild and Scenic Fuels Reduction, Forest Health, and Pile Burn River, HRCA in Watershed Protection, Wildlife Defense Zone Habitat Improvement **Totals: 4,346 Note: More than one land allocation was listed above because units cover large areas that often consist of several large land allocations. Other land allocations may exist but are comparatively small in area.

Table V-5 summarizes the unit treatments by type of activity and total acres for each treatment.

Table V-5. Yuba Project Treatment Summary—Alternative A.

Total Treatment Acres Treatment Aspen Restoration – Hand Cut/Hand Pile/ Pile Burn 35 Aspen Restoration – Mechanical and Hand Cut/Hand Pile/ 369 Pile Burn Mechanical or Hand Cut/Handpile/Pile Burn 574 Meadow Restoration (Hydrology) 345 Mechanical Thin 1,194 Mechanical Thin and Hand Cut/Hand Pile 12 Precommercial Thin (PCT) 68 Rx Helitorch Burn in Shrubfields 846 Powerline Hazard Tree/Veg Removal 323 Underburn/Prescription Burn 3,258 Invasive Plant Treatments 89 Water Hole Development 1 **Totals 7114

**Note: Some of the units displayed have more than one type of treatment proposed on the unit acreage shown (i.e., Thinning / Mastication). The total treated area for all activities under this proposed action is approximately 5,660 aggregate acres.

NOTE: Roadside Hazard tree acres are not included

All proposed activities would adhere to the Standards and Guidelines contained within the Tahoe National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (1990) as amended by the Record of Decision for the Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment (2004). The proposed action would not preclude options for the long-term maintenance or enhancement of old forest structural elements, non-native plant treatment and future complementary fuels reduction activities not proposed under the Yuba Project. No mechanical disturbance is proposed within any California spotted owl or northern goshawk Protected Activity Centers (PACs). Hand thinning of small trees (up to 9 inches dbh) as well as underburning is proposed in a portion of some PACs. This is further discussed in the species sections that follow.

Alternative B - (No Action)

This alternative does not implement any of actions proposed. No underburning or fuels reduction treatments would be accomplished. No mechanical thinning would be completed. Aspen Restoration and meadow habitat enhancement would not be accomplished. No new trail would be built, nor roads decommissioned. Forest vegetation would continue in its current condition and trend. Fuels would only be modified through wildfires.

Under this alternative, routine land stewardship, including fire suppression, road maintenance, or other administrative activities that address threats to life and property, would continue.

Alternative C –California Spotted Owl Interim Guidelines Alternative

Alternative C complies with the regional requirement that an alternative be developed that meets the “Draft Interim Guidelines for the Management of California Spotted Owl Habitat on National Forest Lands,” dated 29 May, 2015. The recommended conservation measures summarized in that document are intended to provide options to reduce risk to the California spotted owl in the short-term relative to the degree of risk associated with current standards and guidelines. The recommended conservation measures pertain to each of four scales relevant to spotted owl habitat management: protected activity center (PAC), territory, home range, and landscape. There is no single approach that can eliminate risk to the spotted owl population given the complex nature of the current situation: declining population trends, severe drought, fire suppressed forests, and high risks of high intensity wildfire. These recommendations are intended to provide a balance of conserving existing high quality habitat, enhancing habitat conditions through management, and reducing the risk of habitat loss through high intensity fire. These conservation measures are not expected to be appropriate or ideal for every situation – their greatest value is in prompting managers to consider these additional protections, and possibly others, in the process of planning and implementation. Alternative C was developed to

analyze for the differences in implementing these interim guidelines for the spotted owl compared with the proposed action as reflected in Alternative A in the Yuba Project.

The following changes in the actions proposed from Alternative A to Alternative C are:

Mechanical thinning: In Alternative A, three units units, 16, 21, and 30, have prescriptions that would reduce canopy cover below 50 percent within one owl territory (SI062) where there is an insufficient number of acres surrounding this owl at the scale of a circular Home Range. In Alternative C canopy cover in these units would be reduced to a minimum of 50 percent post- harvest in order to meet the Interim Guidelines to maintain owl habitat characteristics for the short-term. Because the existing canopy cover within Unit 21 is already below 50% canopy, this unit would not be thinned in Alternative C.

Table V-6 shows those units where prescriptions changed within units between Alternative A and Alternative C

Table V-6. Units where prescriptions change between Alternative A and Alternative C, showing the estimated post-treatment conifer canopy cover and the acres treated. Unit No. Existing Alternative A Alternative C Alternative A Alternative C Canopy (Acres) (Acres) Canopy cover Canopy cover Cover 16 52 14 14 43 50 21 46 12 0 45 No trtmt 30 58 17 17 40 50

Plantation thinning: Same as the Proposed Action.

General fuels reduction: Same as the Proposed Action.

Aspen Restoration:

Some portions of aspen stands that are proposed for restoration in Alternative C have overstory conifer canopy that exceeds 50%, and the overstory conifer canopy is considered to provide suitable California spotted owl habitat. The heavy conifer canopy cover subjects aspens to a very high risk of loss, because aspen trees require sunlight for survival and regeneration to perpetuate the aspens. The conifer over story would need to be removed below 50% in order to restore the aspens. Reducing conifer canopy closure within units 74, 75, 76 and 78 would reduce canopy below 50% where two owls—SI062 and SI116--have an insufficient number of acres of suitable habitat at the scale of either their Territory or Home Range, which is detailed in Table V-7. Therefore, 96 acres of aspen restoration is dropped in Alternative C in order to retain owl habitat for the short term, as addressed in the “Interim Guidelines for the Management of California Spotted Owl Habitat on National Forest Lands.”

Table V-7 lists the Units where aspen restoration changes in Alternative C, identifying the scale at which the unit lies in proximity to an owl, and the acre differences between aspen restoration

in Alternatives A and C. Smaller understory trees (less than 10” diameter) and brush would still be removed to reduce fuels along the Hwy 49 corridor within Units 76 and 78. The understory treatment would not affect overstory canopy, and consequently it would retain owl habitat. By reducing ladder fuels along the Hwy 49 corridor, the understory treatment would reduce the probability of fire burning into the overstory trees, and protect a main ingress and egress road for the communities of Sierra City and Downieville.

Table V-7. Aspen restoration proposals in the Yuba Project, showing units and acres that are dropped in Alternative C, and whether the unit occurs within a spotted owl territory or home range by owl identification number. Unit Owl Territory Owl Home Range Alt A Alt C (acres) Alt C No. (1,000 acres (4,400 acres (acres) Canopy treated (acres surrounding surrounding owl) canopy dropped from owl) treated overstory treatment 74 NA SI062 50 37 13 75 NA SI062 33 22 11 76 SI113 SI062 60 0 60 SI113 78 NA SI113 12 0 12 Total 155 59 96

Meadow Restoration: Same as the Proposed Action.

Create Wildlife Cover Piles: Same as the Proposed Action.

Install Nest Boxes: Same as the Proposed Action.

Underburning to Reduce Surface Fuels: Same as the Proposed Action.

Helitorch prescribed burning in shrub fields: Same as the Proposed Action.

Borate compound application: Same as the Proposed Action.

Machine Piling and Pile Burning for Site Prep: Same as the Proposed Action.

Planting of Native Conifer Seedlings: Same as the Proposed Action.

Control of non-native invasive plants: Same as the Proposed Action.

Trail Construction: Same as the Proposed Action.

Christmas Tree Cutting: Same as the Proposed Action.

Road Maintenance: Same as the Proposed Action. 21

Road Reconditioning/Reconstruction: Same as the Proposed Action.

Road Decommissioning: Same as the Proposed Action.

Hazard Tree Removal: Same as the Proposed Action.

Removal of hazard trees and vegetation along distribution lines: Same as the Proposed Action.

Table V-8. Alt. C - Yuba Project Proposed Thinning and Vegetation Management Treatments by Unit:

Unit Estimated Proposed Logging Primary Primary Purposes Designation Unit Acres Treatment System SNFPA Land for Treatment Allocation 1 32 Mechanical Thin Tractor Old Forest Fuels Reduction, Forest Health, Wildlife Habitat Improvement, Watershed Protection 2 28 Mechanical Thin Tractor Old Forest Fuels Reduction, Forest Health, Wildlife Habitat Improvement, Watershed Protection 3 16 Mechanical Thin Tractor Old Forest Fuels Reduction, Forest Health, Wildlife Habitat Improvement, Watershed Protection 4 61 Mechanical Thin Tractor Old Forest Fuels Reduction, Forest Health, Wildlife Habitat Improvement, Watershed Protection 5 2 Precommercial Thin Hand work Old Forest Fuels Reduction, Forest Health, Watershed Protection 6 9 Mechanical Thin Tractor Old Forest Fuels Reduction, Forest Health, Wildlife Habitat Improvement, Watershed Protection 7 47 Mechanical Thin Tractor Threat Fuels Reduction, Zone/HRCA Forest Health, Wildlife Habitat Improvement, Watershed Protection 10 78 Mechanical Thin Tractor HRCA Fuels Reduction, Forest Health, Wildlife Habitat Improvement, Watershed Protection

11 65 Mechanical Thin Tractor HRCA/Old Fuels Reduction, Forest Forest Health, Wildlife Habitat Improvement, Watershed Protection 12 18 Mechanical Thin Tractor Old Forest Fuels Reduction, Forest Health, Wildlife Habitat Improvement, Watershed Protection 13 14 Mechanical Thin Tractor HRCA Fuels Reduction, Forest Health, Wildlife Habitat Improvement, Watershed Protection 14 222 Hand Cut/ Hand Hand Work Recommended Watershed Pile/ Pile Burn Wild and Scenic Improvement, Fuels River Reduction, Forest Health, Wildlife Habitat Improvement 16 14 Mechanical Thin Tractor Old Forest Fuels Reduction, (prescription Forest Health, changes to maintain Wildlife Habitat 51% Post Harvest Improvement, Watershed Protection Canopy Cover) 17 91 Mechanical Thin Tractor Old Forest Fuels Reduction, Forest Health, Wildlife Habitat Improvement, Watershed Protection 20 1 Meadow Work – Hand work Recommended Fuels Reduction, Hand Cut Wild and Scenic Forest Health, River Wildlife Habitat Improvement 21 0 Mechanical Thin Tractor Threat Zone Fuels Reduction, (Alt C 12 (Unit Dropped) Forest Health, Wildlife Habitat ac. Improvement, dropped) Watershed Protection 22 21 Mechanical Thin Cable HRCA Fuels Reduction, (prescription change Forest Health, to maintain 50% Wildlife Habitat canopy cover) Improvement, Watershed Protection

23 39 Aspen Work – Tractor Old Forest Fuels Reduction, Mechanical and Forest Health, Hand Cut Wildlife Habitat Improvement, Watershed Protection 24 12 Precommercial Hand Work Old Forest Fuels Reduction, Thinning Forest Health, Watershed Protection 26 121 Mechanical Thin Tractor Old Forest Fuels Reduction, Forest Health, Wildlife Habitat Improvement, Watershed Protection 27 44 Mechanical Thin Tractor HRCA Fuels Reduction, Forest Health, 23

Wildlife Habitat Improvement, Watershed Protection 28 55 Mechanical Thin Tractor HRCA Fuels Reduction, Forest Health, Wildlife Habitat Improvement, Watershed Protection 30 17 Mechanical Thin Tractor HRCA Fuels Reduction, (prescription change Forest Health, to maintain 50% Wildlife Habitat canopy cover) Improvement, Watershed Protection

31 17 Mechanical Thin Tractor HRCA Fuels Reduction, (prescription change Forest Health, to maintain 50% Wildlife Habitat canopy cover) Improvement, Watershed Protection

32 3 Precommercial Thin Hand Work Old Forest Fuels Reduction, Forest Health, Watershed Protection 33 148 Mechanical Thin Tractor HRCA/Old Fuels Reduction, Forest Forest Health, Wildlife Habitat Improvement, Watershed Protection 34 44 Mechanical Thin Tractor Threat Fuels Reduction, Zone/HRCA Forest Health, Wildlife Habitat Improvement, Watershed Protection 35 1 Precommercial Thin Hand Work Old Forest Fuels Reduction, Forest Health, Watershed Protection 36 1 Precommercial Thin Hand Work Old Forest Watershed Improvement, Fuels Reduction, Forest Health 40 13 Mechanical Thin Cable HRCA Fuels Reduction, Forest Health, Wildlife Habitat Improvement, Watershed Protection 41 31 Mechanical Thin Tractor HRCA Fuels Reduction, Forest Health, Wildlife Habitat Improvement, Watershed Protection 42 15 Mechanical Thin Tractor Old Forest Fuels Reduction, Forest Health, Wildlife Habitat Improvement, Watershed Protection 43 18 Mechanical Thin Tractor Recommended Fuels Reduction, Wild and Scenic Forest Health, River Wildlife Habitat Improvement, Watershed Protection

44 48 Mechanical Thin Tractor Threat Zone Fuels Reduction, Forest Health, Wildlife Habitat Improvement, Watershed Protection 45 57 Mechanical Thin Tractor Threat Zone Fuels Reduction, Forest Health, Wildlife Habitat Improvement, Watershed Protection 51 8 Meadow Work – Hand Work Recommended Watershed Hand Cut Wild and Scenic Improvement, Fuels River Reduction, Forest Health, Wildlife Habitat Improvement 54 39 Precommercial Thin Hand Work Old Forest Fuels Reduction, Forest Health, Watershed Protection 55 9 Precommercial Thin Hand Work Old Forest Fuels Reduction, Forest Health, Watershed Protection 56 3 Mechanical Thin Tractor Old Forest Fuels Reduction, Forest Health, Wildlife Habitat Improvement, Watershed Protection 57 18 Mechanical Thin Tractor Old Forest Fuels Reduction, Forest Health, Wildlife Habitat Improvement, Watershed Protection 58 30 Mechanical Thin Tractor Recommended Fuels Reduction, Wild and Scenic Forest Health, River Wildlife Habitat Improvement, Watershed Protection 59 12 Mechanical Thin Tractor Recommended Watershed and Aspen Work; Wild and Scenic Improvement, Fuels Hand Cut/ Hand River Reduction, Forest Pile/ Pile Burn Health, Wildlife Habitat Improvement 60 4 Aspen Work – Hand Hand Work Old Forest Wildlife Habitat Cut, hand pile, pile Improvement and burn Forest Health 70 20 Aspen Work – Tractor Old Forest Watershed Mechanical and Improvement, Fuels Hand Cut, hand pile, Reduction, Forest pile burn Health, Wildlife Habitat Improvement 71 20 Aspen Work – Tractor Old Forest Watershed Mechanical and Improvement, Fuels Hand Cut, hand pile, Reduction, Forest pile burn Health, Wildlife Habitat Improvement 72 33 Aspen Work – Tractor Old Forest Watershed Mechanical and Improvement, Fuels Hand Cut, hand pile, Reduction, Forest pile burn Health, Wildlife Habitat Improvement

73 16 Aspen Work – Hand Work Threat Zone Watershed Mechanical and and Tractor Improvement, Fuels Hand Cut, hand pile, Reduction, Forest pile burn Health, Wildlife Habitat Improvement

74 37 Aspen Rest. Tractor HRCA Watershed (Alt C. 13 ac. Mechanical and Improvement, Fuels Reduction, Forest aspen Hand Cut, hand pile, pile burn Health, Wildlife dropped) Habitat Improvement (13 ac. aspen dropped) 75 22 Aspen Restoration – Tractor Threat Zone Watershed (Alt C. 11 ac. Mechanical and Improvement, Fuels Reduction, Forest aspen Hand Cut, hand pile, pile burn Health, Wildlife dropped) Habitat Improvement (Note: 11 ac. aspen dropped) 76 60 Hand Cut/ Hand Hand Work Recommended Watershed Pile/ Pile Burn Wild and Scenic Improvement, Fuels Note: Alt C, Aspen River Reduction, Forest dropped Health, Wildlife Habitat Improvement 77 12 Aspen Work –Hand Hand Work Recommended Watershed Cut/ Hand Pile/ Pile Wild and Scenic Improvement, Fuels Burn River Reduction, Forest Health, Wildlife Habitat Improvement 78 12 Hand Cut/ Hand Hand Work Recommended Watershed Pile/ Pile Burn Wild and Scenic Improvement, Fuels Note: Alt C Aspen River Reduction, Forest dropped Health, Wildlife Habitat Improvement 79 21 Aspen Work – Tractor Recommended Watershed Mechanical and; Wild and Scenic Improvement, Fuels Hand Cut/ Hand River Reduction, Forest Pile/ Pile Burn Health, Wildlife Habitat Improvement 82 9 Aspen Work – Tractor Recommended Watershed Mechanical and; Wild and Scenic Improvement, Fuels Hand Cut/ Hand River Reduction, Forest Pile/ Pile Burn Health, Wildlife Habitat Improvement 83 21 Aspen Work –Hand Tractor Recommended Watershed Cut/ Hand Pile/ Pile Wild and Scenic Improvement, Fuels Burn River Reduction, Forest Health, Wildlife Habitat Improvement 85 22 Aspen Work – Tractor Threat Zone Watershed Mechanical and Improvement, Fuels Hand Cut Reduction, Forest Health, Wildlife Habitat Improvement 100 31 Aspen Work – Hand Hand Work Old Forest Watershed Cut Improvement, Fuels Reduction, Forest Health, Wildlife Habitat Improvement

101 47 Meadow Restoration Mechanical Old Forest Watershed or Hand Improvement, Fuels Work Reduction, Forest Health, Wildlife Habitat Improvement 102 72 Meadow Restoration Mechanical Old Forest Watershed or Hand Improvement, Fuels Work Reduction, Forest Health, Wildlife Habitat Improvement 103 12 Meadow Restoration Mechanical Threat Zone Watershed or Hand Improvement, Fuels Work Reduction, Forest Health, Wildlife Habitat Improvement 104 37 Meadow Restoration Mechanical Old Forest Watershed or Hand Improvement, Fuels Work Reduction, Forest Health, Wildlife Habitat Improvement 105 12 Meadow Restoration Mechanical Old Forest Watershed or Hand Improvement, Fuels Work Reduction, Forest Health, Wildlife Habitat Improvement 106 123 Meadow Restoration Mechanical Old Forest Watershed or Hand Improvement, Fuels Work Reduction, Forest Health, Wildlife Habitat Improvement 107 15 Meadow Restoration Mechanical Old Forest Watershed or Hand Improvement, Fuels Work Reduction, Forest Health, Wildlife Habitat Improvement 323 Powerline/Veg Mechanical Various Removal or Hand Work - 1 Water Hole N/A Threat Zone Development - 89 Invasive Plant Hand Work Various Invasive Plant Control Treatments **Totals: 2,593

Table V-9 summarizes the different treatments showing the total acres treated.

Table V-9. Alternative C—Yuba Project Summary of Treatments Total Treatment Acres Treatment Aspen Work – Hand Cut/Hand Pile 35 Aspen Work – Mechanical and Hand Cut/Hand Pile/Pile 273 Burn Hand Cut/Handpile/Pile Burn 574 Meadow Restoration (Hydrology) 345 Mechanical Thin 1,182 Mechanical Thin and Hand Cut/Hand Pile 12 27

Precommercial Thin (PCT) 68 Rx Helitorch Burn in Shrubfields 846 Powerline Hazard Tree/Veg Removal 323 Underburn 3,258 Invasive Plant Treatments 89 Water Hole Development 1 **Totals 7,006 NOTE: = Roadside Hazard tree acres not included

Management Requirements Common to All Action Alternatives

In response to both internal and public comments on the proposal, management requirements were developed to reduce or prevent some of the potential impacts the various proposed actions may cause. The following management requirements would be applied to Alternative A or C.

Table V-10. Yuba Project Management Requirements

Area of Concern Management Requirement Designed to Responsible Reduce or Prevent Undesirable Effect Persons

Cultural Cultural resources are managed in accordance with Heritage Program Resources provisions of the Regional Programmatic Agreement Manager, District Management of Regarding Compliance with Section 106 of the Archaeologist, Sites. National Historic Preservation Act (R5PA 2013). Layout/Contract Specialist, Sale Protect cultural resources with posted and/or flagged Administrator, site boundaries. Designate sites on the ground prior Service Contract to work. COR

Tracked equipment operating off of existing Forest System Roads is generally not permitted within site boundaries. However, mechanized removal of brush or woody material may be permitted within specifically designated areas within site boundaries under prescribed measures to prevent or minimize effects with written approval of the Heritage Program Manager. Vegetative or other protective padding may be used in conjunction with HPM authorization of certain equipment types within site boundaries.

Cultural resource sites shall not be used as staging areas or for parking vehicles and equipment.

Any project actions planned within site boundaries must be documented and approved by the Heritage Program Manager or delegated Heritage Program Staff (District Archaeologist).

Cultural Hand cutting of vegetation is permissible within site District Resources Hand boundaries. Hand piles may be established and Archaeologist; Fuels Cutting and Hand burned within site boundaries only in specific areas Officer Piling within sites. designated by the District Archaeologist.

Cultural All trees above 10” DBH will be directionally felled to District Resources Felling avoid cultural features and artifacts and either limbed Archaeologist, and Removal of up with the limbs hand piled, and the boles either left Layout/Contract Trees above 10” on site or fully suspended during removal from the Specialist, Sale DBH within Sites. site. Felled trees may be removed using only the Administrator following techniques: hand bucking including the use of chainsaws and hand carrying, rubber tired loaders, crane self-loaders or helicopters. These operations require written approval by the District Archaeologist and an archaeologist must be on-site for these operations. Cultural Non-Native Invasive Plant Treatments involving plant District Resources Non- removal within sites requires written approval of the Archaeologist, Native Invasive District Archeologist. District Botanist Plant Treatments

Area of Concern Management Requirement Designed to Responsible Reduce or Prevent Undesirable Effect Persons

Cultural Cultural resource sites shall be protected from District Resources adverse effects from controlled burning. The District Archaeologist; Fuels Controlled Burning Archeologist will determine which sites can be Officer, Burn Boss within sites. burned over. Fire control lines shall be constructed outside of site boundaries.

Cultural Existing breaches may be used to cross linear District Resources features. New breaches may be designated by the Archaeologist, Management of District Archaeologist in accordance with the R5PA Layout/Contract Linear Features 2013. Trees should be directionally felled parallel to Specialist, Sale or away from linear features. Isolated trees inside of Administrator, linear features may be felled on a case-by-case basis Service Contract with on-the-ground approval of the District COR Archaeologist.

Cultural Routine maintenance and resurfacing of Forest District Resources Routine System Roads, limited to the existing road prism, Archaeologist, Maintenance of may be conducted within site boundaries. Cultural District Roads System Roads resources adjacent to, or surrounding roads will be Manager within Sites. flagged for avoidance prior to road work.

Cultural Generally reconditioning, reconstruction or District Resources Ground obliteration of system or non-system roads should Archaeologist, Disturbing road not be conducted within site boundaries. Placing District Roads work within sites. barriers at the site boundary where the road crosses Manager into the site is permitted. Cultural resources adjacent to road work will be flagged for avoidance prior to project implementation. Any ground disturbing road work within sites will require written approval of the District Archaeologist.

Cultural Trails shall be routed to avoid cultural resource sites. District Resources Trail Adjacent cultural resource sites will be flagged for Archaeologist, Construction avoidance during trail construction. District Trails Specialist Cultural All arborglyphs should be marked with protective District Resources Aspen flagging. Competing conifers can be felled and Archaeologist, Restoration removed following the protocols specified in Hand District Biologist, Cutting and Hand Piling within sites and Felling and Implementation Removal of Trees above 10” DBH within Sites above. crew leader These operations require written approval by the District Archaeologist and an archaeologist must be on-site for these operations.

Area of Concern Management Requirement Designed to Responsible Reduce or Prevent Undesirable Effect Persons

Botany - Avoidance Special status botanical occurrences (T&E, FSS, Botanist, Fuels TNF Watch list) will be flagged and avoided for all Officer, Layout/ ground disturbing activities with a buffer of 100 feet Contract Specialist, (Units 07, 14, 20, 23, 34, 58, 82, 102, 103, 104, 106, Sale Administrator, D). Trees will be felled away from known Service Contract occurrences. All TES botanical species occurrences COR will be flagged prior to implementation and indicated on project maps. Botany – Roads, Proposed road construction, reconstruction, landings Botanist, Fuels Landings, Staging and staging areas in potential habitat for TES Officer, Layout/ Areas - botanical species will be designed and marked on Contract Specialist, the ground only after the areas have been surveyed Sale Administrator, by a qualified botanist in the proper season. Service Contract COR, Engineering Representative Botany – Additional Surveys will be completed for Lewisia kelloggii prior Botanist, Fuels Surveys to project implementation and all newly discovered Officer, Layout/ populations will be flagged and avoided. Contract Specialist, Sale Administrator, Service Contract COR Botany – Peat No ground disturbance will occur in peat-dominated Botanist, Fuels Dominated Soils soils, unless critical to restoring hydrologic function Officer, Layout/ (Unit 101-107). Contract Specialist, Sale Administrator, Service Contract COR Botany - Burning Burn piles will not be placed in known special status Botanist, Fuels botanical occurrences. Fireline will be placed at least Officer, Layout/ 100ft from known occurrences. Under burn is Contract Specialist, allowed in occurrences when special status species Sale Administrator, are dormant, except for Lewisia kelloggii. No Service Contract ground-based prescribed burn activities will occur in COR Lewisia kelloggii occurrences (A, C, D, G). No ground based prescribed burn activities will occur in Unit B 1.

Area of Concern Management Requirement Designed to Responsible Reduce or Prevent Undesirable Effect Persons

Invasive Plants - All equipment and vehicles (Forest Service and Botanist, Fuels Equipment contracted) used for project implementation must be Officer, Layout/ Cleaning free of invasive plant material before moving into the Contract Specialist, project area. Equipment will be considered clean Sale Administrator, when visual inspection does not reveal soil, seeds, Service Contract plant material or other such debris. Cleaning shall COR occur at a vehicle washing station or steam-cleaning facility before the equipment and vehicles enter the project area. Equipment used during emergency work or used exclusively on paved surfaces is exempt from the cleaning requirement. When working in known invasive plant infestations, equipment shall be cleaned before moving to other National Forest Service system lands. Avoidance areas will be identified on project maps. Invasive Plants – All gravel, fill, top soil or other materials are required Botanist, Fuels Use of Certified to be weed-free. When possible, use onsite sand, Officer, Layout/ Weed-Free gravel, rock, top soil or organic matter when possible, Contract Specialist, Materials unless infested with invasive species; do not use Sale Administrator, material (or soil) from areas contaminated by Service Contract invasive species. Obtain materials from sources that COR have been certified as weed-free. Invasive Plants – Avoid disturbance and do not locate landings or Botanist, Fuels Landings and stage equipment in known invasive plant infestations. Officer, Layout/ staging area Contract Specialist, Placement Sale Administrator, Service Contract COR Invasive Plants – Invasive plant infestations will be avoided during Botanist, Fuels Avoidance Areas equipment traffic and soil-disturbing project activities. Officer, Layout/ Avoidance areas will be flagged prior to Contract Specialist, implementation and identified on project maps. Sale Administrator, Service Contract COR Invasive Plants – As needed, revegetate landings/staging Botanist, Fuels Revegetation of areas/parking areas/other openings created during Officer, Layout/ Disturbed Areas project implementation. Seed and plant mixes must Contract Specialist, be approved the District Botanist or their designated Sale Administrator, appointee who has knowledge of local flora. Invasive Service Contract species and persistent non-native species will not be COR intentionally used in revegetation. Native plant and seed material should be collected from as close to the project area as possible, from within the same watershed, and at a similar elevation whenever possible.

Area of Concern Management Requirement Designed to Responsible Reduce or Prevent Undesirable Effect Persons

Invasive Plants – No project activities will be conducted within 100 feet Botanist, Fuels Cheat Grass of cheat grass infestation along Forest Road 9-5 until Officer, Layout/ Avoidance treatment has been conducted. Contract Specialist, Sale Administrator, Service Contract COR Forest Vegetation During harvest operations in mechanical thinning Silviculturist, Wildlife units: Where available, retain 5 percent or more of Biologist, Sale Prep the total treatment area in lower layers composed of Officer, and Sale trees 6 to 24 inches dbh (SNFPA S&G 7). Administrator. Forest Vegetation Apply a registered borate compound to cut conifer Silviculturist, Sale stumps > 14 inches diameter in order to reduce the Prep Officer, Sale chance of new infection centers being created Administrator, through harvest activity. Within recreation or Aquatic Biologist, administrative sites, all stumps > 3 inches should be Botanist. treated at the time the conifer is cut. Insure that direct application to stumps is made within 500 feet of perennial or intermittent streams, meadows, special aquatic features. Forest Vegetation As site specific conditions warrant, line (at the Silviculturist, Wildlife dripline), rake duff and bark sluff away from the base, Biologist, and Fuels or implement other protective measures to reduce Specialist the risk of mortality to large > 29” dbh conifers prior to prescribed burning. Likewise, remove heavy fuel accumulation away from the boles of the trees. Limit the number of trees treated to 10 trees per acre using the following species priority: Western white pine, sugar pine, Jeffrey pine, red fir, Douglas-fir, ponderosa pine, white fir, incense-cedar, and lodgepole pine. Forest Vegetation During implementation of mechanical thinning and Silviculturist, fuels reduction treatments, protect from damage by Fuels Specialist, avoidance, raking duff, lining, or other measures Sale Prep listed above identified rust resistant sugar pine Officer, Sale (RRSP) or other trees that have been identified as Administrator. “superior.” These trees provide a good genetic basis for seed collection. Forest Vegetation Avoid piling within the dripline of large trees, snags, Silviculturist, and large downed logs according to the silvicultural Wildlife Biologist, prescription for the unit. Select piles to retain, and Fuels generally averaging one pile per acre, or as Specialist otherwise designated in the silvicultural prescription. Forest Vegetation For all treatments, avoid damaging and do not cut or Silviculturist, remove aspen or cottonwood. Stage fall conifers to Sale minimize damage to aspen, if necessary. Harvest Administrator, activities within aspen stands will be coordinated with Sale Prep a riparian specialist to meet project objectives. Officer, Fuels Specialist, Riparian Specialist. 33

Area of Concern Management Requirement Designed to Responsible Reduce or Prevent Undesirable Effect Persons

Forest Vegetation Within aspen stands, avoid prescribed burning where Silviculturist, heavy fuels are present. Fuels Specialist, Wildlife Biologist Forest Vegetation Do not pile or burn piles within aspen stands, unless Silviculturist, otherwise coordinated with the wildlife biologist. Fuels Specialist, Wildlife Biologist Forest Vegetation Where necessary, install temporary fencing to protect Silviculturist, aspen regeneration from browsing animals. Wildlife Biologist, Range Specialist Forest Vegetation Utilize whole tree yarding to minimize slash within Sale Administrator, aspen stands when using ground based equipment. Vegetation Management Officer, Silviculturist Forest Vegetation All hand and mechanical treatments will be Silviculturist, Sale implemented in accordance with a site specific Prep Officer, Wildlife silvicultural prescription. Silvicultural prescriptions will Biologist, Fuels address the retention and recruitment of large snags, Specialist. downed logs, coarse woody debris, and non-native invasive weeds. Forest Vegetation Gaps will average ½ acre in size. Gaps less than 1 Silviculturist, acre will not be planted. Gaps will not be placed Culturist, Sale Prep within RCAs. A portion of the gaps and landings may Officer, Sale be planted with native species that naturally occur Administrator within the project area. Forest Vegetation Distribution line and roadside hazard trees will be Silviculturist, Sale removed in accordance with Forest Health Protection Prep Officer, Sale (Report # RO-12-01) Hazard Tree Guidelines for Administrator Forest Service Facilities and Roads in the Pacific Southwest Region. Roadside hazard trees would be removed from along Highway 49, Gold Lake Highway, and along maintenance level 2 and 3 National Forest system roads within the project area, as determined necessary. Forest Vegetation Slash from treated plantation pine boles 4” or more in Silviculturist, Sale diameter will not exceed 3 feet in length to prevent Prep Officer, Sale Ips infestation. Likewise, slash will not be piled Administrator, against residual plantation trees. When possible, Culturist, Fuels defer slash producing activities until after July 15th. Specialist. Forest Vegetation Before underburning in plantations, the Fuels Fuels Specialist, Specialist will coordinate with the Silviculturist and/or Silviculturist, Culturist Culturist to implement burning techniques or protection measures (as specified in the burn plan) to minimize mortality of plantation trees. Wildlife – California To protect the California spotted owl, Limit the District Biologist, spotted owl Operating Period (LOP) so that activities do not Layout/Contract occur from March 1 through August 15 (unless Specialist, Sale surveys determine that this is not necessary) in Administrator, Fuels the following units: 10, 17, 16, E, D, PG&E power Specialist, Service line within Sections 4, 9 Contract COR

Area of Concern Management Requirement Designed to Responsible Reduce or Prevent Undesirable Effect Persons

Wildlife— Prior to underburning in Unit D, either construct Fuels Specialist, California spotted hand line, or hand treat within 500’ of the nest Wildlife Biologist owl— tree or activity center through tree pruning and Underburning cutting small trees (less than 6” dbh), as needed within PAC to protect important elements of owl habitat. Wildlife – To protect the northern goshawk, Limit the Operating District biologist, Northern goshawk Period so that activities do not occur from February Layout/Contract 15 through September 15 (unless surveys determine Specialist, Sale that this is not necessary) in the following units: 43, Administrator, western half of 102, PG&E powerline with Section 5. Fuels Specialist, and Service Contract COR Wildlife—aquatic Limit the Operating Period so that activities do District Biologist, resources, Willow not occur from February 15 through August 15 flycatcher and (unless surveys determine that this is not Great gray owl necessary) within the following meadows: Bear LOP for Meadow Trap, Church, Freeman. Prior to implementing treatments projects in these meadows, coordinate the need to implement the L.O.P. and the specific area covered by the L.O.P. within the meadow where the L.O.P. will apply. Wildlife—raptors To protect raptor nesting, limit the operating District Biologist, season so that activities do not occur March 1 Layout/Contract through August 15 within Units 40 and 41. Specialist, Sale (Note: nest tree is located outside units, and Administrator, within 0.25 miles.) Fuels Specialist, and Service Contract COR Wildlife- Sierra For units where activities will occur within either District Biologist, Nevada yellow- Critical Habitat, or habitat for the Sierra Nevada Layout/Contract legged frog yellow-legged frog, environmental awareness training Specialist, Sale will be conducted for contract representatives, Administrator, contract officers, project managers, and field Prep/layout Forester, personnel prior to the onset of project work. Training Fuels Specialist, will include a briefing on the following: (a) How to Marking Crew recognize California red-legged frogs, (b) The Foreman, Project specific measures that are being implemented to Leader conserve the species, (c) The penalties for non- compliance, (d) If a California red-legged frog is encountered in the work area, work activities in that area shall cease until the species has moved from the area on its own volition. If any injured or killed California red-legged frogs are found, work activities will immediately cease in the area and the District Biologist will be notified as soon as possible (and no longer than 24 hours) to take appropriate action.

Area of Concern Management Requirement Designed to Responsible Reduce or Prevent Undesirable Effect Persons

Wildlife - Bats Report all mine openings to a wildlife biologist District Biologist, that are identified during project layout. Layout/Contract Coordinate any marking of trees and all activities Specialist, Sale within 500 feet of mine openings. (No units have Administrator, been identified at this time). Prep/layout Forester, Fuels Specialist, Marking Crew Foreman. Wildlife - TES If new Threatened, Endangered, or Forest District Biologist, Service Sensitive (TES) species are listed or Layout/Contract discovered or nesting TES are found within 0.25 Specialist, Sale mile of activities, a limited operating period may Administrator, be implemented as recommended by a qualified Service Contract biologist, and approved by the line officer. COR

Wildlife – Landing Locate landings to avoid removing large trees, large Resource locations, snags, and large downed logs. Sale Preparation and specialists, Construction, and Administration staff will coordinate with other Layout/Contract use. resource specialists (botany, aquatics, wildlife, Specialist, Sale archaeology) in the placement of new landings that administrator, are outside of existing units as proposed/presented Service Contract within this Environmental Analysis. COR Aquatics—Aquatic All pile burning must be outside of the inner riparian Fuels Specialist, resources buffer unless otherwise coordinated with an aquatic Aquatic Biologist biologist. Aquatics-- To protect aquatic resources, coordinate all drafting Sale Administrator, sites with an aquatic biologist prior to use. Water Contract COR drafting must be done with a hose placed in a bucket in a deep pool. The bucket must be covered by <1 inch mesh, and the mouth of the hose must be covered by ¼ inch mesh. Draft from the deepest part of the pool. Use a low velocity water pump and do not pump ponds to low levels beyond which they cannot recover quickly (within one hour). (BMP 2.5) Wildlife –Down Where available, retain coarse woody debris as Fuels Specialist, Sale woody debris and identified in the silvicultural prescription for the Unit. Prep, Wildlife treatment units Recruit cull logs or hazard snags (fall and leave) to Biologist, Fuels meet these conditions. Specialist, Sale Administrator Wildlife—Snags Design treatments to retain six of the largest snags District Silviculturist, per acre. (Standard and Guideline No. 11). Fuels Specialist, Sale Administrator

Area of Concern Management Requirement Designed to Responsible Reduce or Prevent Undesirable Effect Persons

Wildlife—Meadow Coordinate all trees marked for removal or girdling Wildllife Biologist, Habitats within meadows and meadow edges with the wildlife District Silviculturist, biologist. Focus on lodgepole pine tree removal District Hydrologist within the meadow, and thinning within the meadow edge to retain wildlife habitat within the meadow edge. Retain legacy trees and those showing signs of wildlife use (i.e. nests, cavities), and valuable wildlife characteristics (whorled or broken tops, evidence of fungal decay or heart rot). All trees greater than 20” dbh shall be reviewed by a wildlife biologist prior to removal. Wildlife –Coarse Where available, retain coarse woody debris as Fuels Specialist, Sale woody debris identified in the silvicultural prescription for the Unit. Prep, Wildlife Recruit and retain cull logs and fall and leave Biologist, Sale hazardous snags up to the levels prescribed. Administrator Emphasize the largest sizes first to meet these conditions. Retain as much existing coarse woody debris as possible during underburn operations. Aquatics Special protection measures to be implemented within Riparian Conservation Areas (RCAs) and Riparian Buffers will be identified during unit layout and designated on sale area, contract, or project implementation maps. As appropriate, these areas will be marked using flagging or otherwise identified on the ground prior to implementation. Watershed, Soils, Establish Riparian Conservation Areas (RCAs) for all Planning and Prep and Aquatic streamcourses, as specified below. Ensure Riparian Forester, Contract Resources Conservation Objectives (RCOs) are met within Administrator, RCAs by adhering to the Riparian Conservation Area Hydrologist, Soil (RCA) Guidelines established in BMP 1.8. These Scientist, and Aquatic guidelines specify the types of activities that can be Biologist conducted within RCAs and mitigation measures to minimize impacts to streamcourses and riparian ecosystems. RCA widths are as follows: Stream Type Width of the Riparian Conservation Area Perennial 300 feet each side, measured Streams from bank-full edge Seasonal 150 feet each side, measured Flowing from bank-full edge Streams Streams In Top of inner gorge Inner Gorge Meadows, 300 feet from edge of feature or lakes, and riparian vegetation, whichever is

springs greater

Area of Concern Management Requirement Designed to Responsible Reduce or Prevent Undesirable Effect Persons

Watershed, Soils, Outside of Aspen and Meadow Restoration Units: Planning and Prep and Aquatic Establish a 100-foot “riparian buffer” zone along each Forester, Contract Resources side of perennial streams and special aquatic Administrator, features, 50-foot “riparian buffer” along each side of Hydrologist, Soil intermittent streams and establish a 30-foot “riparian Scientist, and Aquatic buffer” zone along each side of ephemeral streams. Biologist These zones provide for shade and coarse large woody debris (CWD) to the stream channel and adjacent land.

Within Aspen and Meadow Restoration Units: Riparian Buffers will be flagged on the ground in coordination with an aquatic biologist, hydrologist, and soil scientist to: (1) Maintain adequate shade to the creek to minimize adverse effects to water temperatures required for local species; (2) Minimize effects to riparian vegetation, (3) Maintain streambank stability and minimize risk of sediment entry into aquatic systems, (4) Minimize impacts to habitat for aquatic- and riparian-dependent species (S&G 92), Limited disturbance to 20 percent or less of streambanks to reduce impacts to cover in aquatic habitats (S&G 103). Wildlife—Sierra Expand the inner riparian buffer along intermittent Sale Prep Forester, Nevada yellow- drainages to 85’ for mechanical disturbances in the Sale Administrator, legged frog following units—Unit 85-- unless an aquatic biologist COR, Aquatic determines that (1) suitable habitat is not present, or Biologist. (2) the habitat meets the definition of “verified unoccupied” according to the Biological Assessment. Watershed, Soils, Unless otherwise agreed to by an aquatic biologist Sale Administrator, & Aquatic and hydrologist, *no vegetation treatment or ground- Sale Prep Forester, Resources – disturbing activities will occur within Riparian Buffers. COR, Soil Scientist, RCA Guidelines Directionally fell trees away from the riparian buffer. Hydrologist, Fuels and Riparian Specialist, Aquatic Buffers Biologist. Watershed, Soils, To recruit downed logs and minimize disturbance Hydrologist, Aquatic and Aquatic within riparian areas, fall and leave safety hazard Biologist, and Resources trees within the perennial and intermittent “riparian Contract buffer,” unless otherwise agreed to by a hydrologist Administrator and aquatic biologist. Watershed, Soils, Limit ground based equipment to slopes less than 20 Planning and Prep and Aquatic percent within all RCAs. Ground-based equipment Forester, Hydrologist, Resources may enter the RCA to retrieve tree bundles but is and Soil Scientist limited to 1-2 passes over the same piece of ground (and must be documented on harvest cards). Hydrologist or soil scientist will field review tractor unit boundaries.

Area of Concern Management Requirement Designed to Responsible Reduce or Prevent Undesirable Effect Persons

Watershed, Soils Minimize the spread of fire into riparian vegetation Hydrologist, Aquatic and Aquatic during prescribed fire activities. No direct ignition will Biologist, District Resources occur within the perennial and intermittent “riparian Fuels Specialist, buffer” and special aquatic features, unless otherwise District Fire agreed to by a hydrologist, soil scientist, and aquatic Management Officer, biologist. Fire may back into the perennial and and Soil Scientist intermittent “riparian buffer”. Direct ignition may occur within the 30-foot ephemeral “riparian buffer”. Watershed and Fuels and other toxic materials will be stored outside Planning Forester, Aquatic of RCAs (Standard and Guide No. 99). Sale Administrator, Resources COR, or Project Manager Watershed, Soils, No new landings or roads will be located within Planning Forester, and Aquatic RCAs. Consult with hydrologist or aquatic biologist Prep Forester, Sale Resources before using an existing skid trail, landing, or road Administrator, located within an RCA. Hydrologist, and Utilize existing landings and skid trails where Aquatic Biologist possible. Locate skid trails at least 75 feet apart except where they converge near a landing. Trees would be directionally felled in tractor units to minimize the number of skid trails and associated ground disturbance. Use end-lining to designated skid trails. Watershed, Soils, Locate landings outside of aspen and meadows, Planning Forester, and Aquatic unless otherwise coordinated with an aquatic Prep Forester, Sale Resources biologist and hydrologist. Administrator, Hydrologist, and Aquatic Biologist Watershed, Soils, Implement site-specific Best Management Practices Hydrologist, and Aquatic (BMPs). The State and Regional Boards entered Layout/contract Resources into an agreement with the U.S. Forest Service which Specialist, and Fuels requires the agency to control non-point source Implementation discharges by implementing control actions certified Team by the State Board as Best Management Practices (BMPs). BMPs are designed to reduce the potential for adverse cumulative watershed effects, protect water quality including reducing sediment, turbidity, and maintain water temperature. Watershed, Soils, Limit the slopes on which tractor prescription activity Planning and Prep & Aquatic takes place. To control erosion and soil disturbance, Forester, Hydrologist, Resources – Slope limit downhill tractor activity to less than 35% slopes Soil Scientist, District limitations for and uphill to less than 25% unless the leading end is Fuels Specialist. ground-based suspended. Tractor piling should be limited to 30% equipment. slopes and below. (BMP 1-9) Watershed, Soils, If burn piles contain greater than 25 percent material Sale Administrator, & Wildlife – Pile greater than 9 inch diameter, burn when soils are Soil Scientist, Burning moist or wetter. Hydrologist, District Fuels Specialist, Wildlife Biologist.

Area of Concern Management Requirement Designed to Responsible Reduce or Prevent Undesirable Effect Persons

Watershed, Soils – Maintain at least 70 percent effective soil cover Sale Administrator, Mechanical Piling during machine piling and maintain as much duff as Soil Scientist, possible. Hydrologist, District Fuels Specialist, Wildlife Biologist. Watershed, Soils, Allow mechanical operations only when soil moisture Sale administrator, & Aquatic conditions are such that compaction, gullying, and/or COR, Soil Scientist, Resources – Soil rutting will be minimal. Equipment may operate on Hydrologist, Fuels moisture designated skid trails when soils are dry to a Specialist. minimum of 4 inches. Low-ground-pressure equipment may operate off of designated skid trails when soils are dry to a depth of 4 inches. High- ground-pressure equipment may operate off of designated skid trails when soils are dry to a minimum depth of 8 inches. Off of designated skid trails, limit all equipment passes over the same piece of ground to reduce the potential for adverse soil compaction. Outside normal operating season (NOS) or during wet periods within the NOS, utilize the TNF Wet Weather Operations Guidelines. Watershed, Soils, At a minimum, till/sub-soil landings, portions of skid Planning Forester, & Aquatic trails within 200 feet of landings, temporary roads, Prep Forester, SA, Resources – Tilling and unauthorized routes with equipment such as a Soil Scientist, roads, landings and winged sub-soiler or other tilling device to a Hydrologist, skid trails maximum depth of 24 inches so that the soil is lifted Silviculturist. vertically and fractured laterally to alleviate detrimental compaction (where it occurs) following completion of all management activities. Tillage/sub- soiling will be completed 8 feet from the bole of larger trees so as not to impact root systems. Watershed, Soils, On ground based harvest units, maintain at least 50 Soil Scientist, & Aquatic percent soil cover. As needed, add soil cover to Culturist, Resources – Soil compacted surfaces to limit accelerated erosion. Silviculturist, SA and cover Fuels Specialist. Watershed, Soils, Decommission identified roads by effectively closing Hydrologist, and Aquatic to all vehicle traffic. Treat compacted soils by tilling. Layout/contract Resources Control erosion by adding drainage. Remove Specialist, and Fuels culverts, install waterbars, outslope surface and Implementation remove berms. Leave vegetated areas undisturbed Team where possible. Allow to revegetate naturally.

Area of Concern Management Requirement Designed to Responsible Reduce or Prevent Undesirable Effect Persons

Visual Quality Maintain visual quality along the Highway 49 corridor Sale Administrator, by: where possible, provide screening for landing marking crew, Fuels locations; keep landings as small as possible and as Officer, far away from highway as possible; dispose of landing material, including cull logs, as soon as practicable (preferably within 1 year); cut stumps within 50 feet of roadway to 8 inches or less, with slope away from roadway; mark cut trees on back side of tree, away from public view; emphasize varied spacing during mark to mimic a more natural appearance; hand pile un-utilized logging slash within 50 feet of roads within partial retention VQO (Visual Quality Objectives), and 150 feet within full retention VQO. Minimize scorching of remaining vegetation.

Best Management Practices

BMP’s applicable to this project are listed in Appendix B. More information on these practices are included in the Region 5 Soil and Water Conservation Handbook FSH 2509.22.

VI. EXISTING ENVIRONMENT, EFFECTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES, AND DETERMINATION

GENERAL ENVIRONMENT

The 14,545 acre project area encompasses National Forest system lands, located east and northeast of the community of Sierra City, north and northeast of Bassetts, and west of Yuba Pass (T20N, R12E Sections 1,2,3,10,11,12; T21N R12E Sections 13,14,15,22 thru 28,34,35,36; T20N R13E Sections 2 thru 6,8,9,10; and T21N R13E Sections 19,20,21,27 thru 35), all within Sierra County. The project area includes the Haskell Peak and Howard Creek Grazing Allotments.

Current Condition

Forested areas range from Sierra mixed conifer at lower elevations, consisting of white fir (Abies concolor), sugar pine (Pinus lambertiana), Douglas-fir (Psuedotsuga menziesii), Jeffrey pine (Pinus jeffreyi) and incense-cedar (Calocedrus decurrens), to red fir (Abies magnifica), western white pine (Pinus monticola) and lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta var. murrayana) types at higher elevations. Black cottonwood (Populus trichocarpa), quaking aspen (Populus tremuloides), alder (Alnus sp.) and Scouler’s willow (Saliz scouleriana) are also found throughout the project 41

area. Most forested areas are densely stocked, have experienced elevated levels of tree mortality associated with insects and pathogens, and contain high numbers of standing and down dead trees (FHP Report NE12-01).

The majority of aspen stands in this area have been inventoried and ranked for their risk of long- term survival. This inventory indicates that over 75 percent of aspen stands are at risk of being lost because of shading from conifer over-stories and poor regeneration. In the last several years, aspens have been affected by Marssonina Leaf Blight or black leaf spot, a fungal disease that causes defoliation in the aspen crown. Mortality is usually rare except when the outbreak occurs over consecutive years or when combined with other stresses (FHP 2011). With prolonged drought, aspen mortality is expected to increase in the already stressed aspen stands.

Shrub patches within the project area are considered over-mature and decadent and much of the palatable browse is out of reach to browsing animals, and is less nutritious than forage produced by younger shrubs with more vigorous growth.

In September of 2011, an insect and disease evaluation (FHP Report NE12-01) was conducted in the Lakes Basin by Forest Health Protection specialists. Some of the key findings were:

• Several native forest insects and diseases were found throughout the project area contributing to tree mortality including bark beetles and dwarf mistletoes. • Overstocking is putting many stands at risk to high levels of bark beetle caused tree mortality during periods of drought. • Mixed conifer stands and Jeffrey pine stands have become denser with a higher proportion of white fir in the absence of fire. • Many stands have experienced high levels of white fir mortality during recent drought periods. • Dwarf mistletoe infection levels are very high in some stands reducing tree vigor and predisposing trees to bark and wood boring beetle attacks. • Dense, mature lodgepole pine stands are currently at risk to very high levels of mountain pine beetle caused mortality. • Hardwood (aspen and cottonwood) abundance and health are being negatively impacted by conifer encroachment. • High fuels loads, consisting of an abundance of dead-down trees and a dense understory of live trees; put many stands at risk to stand replacing wildfire.

Thinning and prescribed fire are recommended by Forest Health Protection entomologists and pathologists to reduce stocking levels, decrease the number of diseased trees, improve conditions for hardwoods and modify forest composition to favor more drought tolerant species. Additionally, work within these watersheds ties in directly with work done in other adjacent watersheds.

In the last 25 years, the Yuba project area has experienced one large mixed severity wildfire, the Bassetts Fire, which burned approximately 2,600 acres in 2006. There have been numerous small lightning fires. Following the Bassetts Fire, 250 acres of fire-killed trees were salvage logged and conifers were planted in areas of high mortality including plantations that had been 42

severely damaged or destroyed. Previous to this, historic fire records show two fires occurring in 1949 (Manzanita Grade and Jonkowski) and one fire (name unknown) in 1919 all within the same general footprint as the Bassetts Fire. Additionally, 892 acres have been treated with a combination of hand cutting/pile burning and underburning within the project area in the past ten years, surrounding the summer home tracts. These types of treatments were utilized to improve wildlife habitat, reduce fuel loading after timber harvests, and to increase the Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) Defense buffer around housing tracks.

GENERAL DISCUSSION OF EFFECTS

To address species presence and to evaluate the effects to wildlife habitat in this report, this analysis may include areas that extend beyond the displayed project analysis area boundary. The discussions below for each individual species may include areas outside of the analysis area into adjacent watersheds to cover the larger scale needs of some species. For example, to analyze for the potential to directly disturb nesting raptors due to management activities, these boundaries include a minimum of 0.25 miles beyond any units proposed for vegetation management or disturbing activities. To analyze the effects of management activities to habitat within a species home range, the analysis typically includes an individual’s core home range (up to 1.5 miles for the California spotted owl). To analyze for the effects to wildlife habitat such as altering connectivity or movement opportunities for wide-ranging forest carnivores such as the marten, these boundaries extend into adjacent watersheds at least several miles. The Forest Carnivore Network identified by the Tahoe National Forest considers forest-wide connectivity of habitat into adjacent forests, and the potential for areas to develop habitat in the future. This Network was also developed utilizing a landscape analysis that considered not only the quantity of suitable habitat, but also the spatial context of habitat, where larger concentrations of high- quality habitat were incorporated into the network rather than isolated patches in highly fragmented landscapes. The Network is comprised of patches of suitable habitat and connectors between habitat patches.

No Action Alternative (Alternative B)

The project area consists of 15,250, of which (74%) are National Forest System land, and another (26%) are private. Vegetation types using the California Wildlife Habitat Relationship system is displayed in Table VI-1 below. The project area is dominated by mid to late-seral forests that total 80% of the project area. Mid to late-seral closed canopy forests that provide suitable habitat for marten, spotted owls and goshawks cover 43% of the project area. Ten percent is represented by shrubs and another Ten prcent is early seral forests. Montane chaparral species include: Garrya fremontii (Fremont’s silktassel), Ceanothus cordulatus (Whitethorn), and Arctostaphylos patula (Green leaf manzanita).

Successful fire suppression in the last century has left most unmanaged stands with unnaturally high levels of under story vegetation and ladder fuels, overly dense forests, decadent shrubs, and high quantities of duff and small woody debris. Most of the forested portions of the Yuba Project area are outside of their natural range for fire-return intervals. In 2006, the 2600-acre Bassett’s Fire removed a small proportion of forested habitat—approximately 127 acres of CWHR 5D, 5M, and 270 acres of CWHR 4D and 4M. More than 50% of the Bassett’s fire 43

burned shrubs, which have since grown back. The District conducted prescribed burning throughout approximately 350 acres of shrubs in 1990 through 1995. Outside of these areas, the remaining portion of the Yuba Project area have little to no recorded history of fire, and are approaching, or have exceeded, their natural fire return interval.

Table VI-1. California Wildlife Habitat Relationship (CWHR) types within the Yuba Project area (15,250 acres), showing the total acres and % of the project area comprised by the vegetation type. CWHR type Acres Percent of project area. Late seral closed canopy (LPN, RFR, 3,326 22% SMC, WFR size 5, 6; Canopy M, D) Late seral open canopy (LPN, RFR, SMC, 3,236 21% WFR size 5, 6; Canopy S, P) Mid-seral closed canopy (LPN, RFR, 3,251 21% SMC, WFR size 4; Canopy M, D) Mid-seral open canopy (LPN, RFR, SMC, 2,316 15% WFR size 4; Canopy S, P) Early Seral (LPN, RFR, SMC; size 1, 2, 3; 1,576 10% Canopy S, P, M) Shrub (MCP) 1,504 10% Riparian and Lacustrine (MRI, LAC) 21 0.1% Wet Meadow (WTM) 20 0.1% Total 15,250

There is an overabundance of conifer growth throughout the project area. This ingrowth has created ladder fuels, and unnaturally high densities of trees that are competing for resources. In wetter sites, lodgepole pine, has encroached into meadows and aspen stands throughout the Project Area. As these trees grow, they take up more and more water, which progressively dries out meadows and converts wet meadow habitat to dry. Utilizing a standardized risk analysis for aspen stands, most aspen stands in the Yuba Project Area are ranked at a high risk of loss that is caused by an overabundance of overstory canopy cover. Heat from the sun is required to stimulate hormones that cause regeneration of aspens from adventitious roots. However, the shade from conifers has caused poor regeneration in aspens, where only scattered remnant aspen trees remain within small openings.

Under the No Action Alternative (Alternative B), conifers would continue to grow and compete for finite resources. These overly crowded trees will become increasingly more vulnerable to epidemic levels of insect infestation and high levels of tree mortality during periods of prolonged drought. High levels of tree mortality will exacerbate the existing accumulation of unnaturally high levels of fuels throughout the project area, making it even more vulnerable to burning at high intensity.

Without active management, the chances of a stand-replacing fire occurring in the watershed would continue to increase. A large stand-replacing fire would cause a shift towards proportionally greater quantities of early-successional shrub habitats occurring across large portions of the Project Area. Early successional associated species would benefit from stand- 44

replacing fires such as deer, mountain quail and fox sparrow, which are Management Indicator Species. It could create more open, basking sites for reptiles and amphibians, including the Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog. However, this would adversely affect several sensitive species that use closed-canopy, mid- to late-seral forests, such as the California spotted owl, northern goshawk, and Pacific marten because of their requirement for occupying relatively large forest patches (3,000 acres or larger).

In the absence of any fire or active management, aspens and cottonwood that presently occupy less than 0.02% of vegetation in the project area will continue to decline from conifer encroachment, ultimately restricting them to a few single trees in the next 30 years. Meadows will also continue to suffer from drying as encroaching conifers grow and take up more water.

Effects Common to Each of the Action Alternatives (A, and C)

Direct Effects: Direct effects to wildlife occur from disturbing, injuring or killing individuals. Noise from operating motorized equipment during project implementation, or smoke from prescribed burning, has the potential to directly affect wildlife by displacing individual animals from the vicinity of units. The proposed projects cover a total of 5,660 acres (37%) out of 15,250 acres within the Project Area, that include a variety of types of activities--commercial logging, thinning plantations, aspen and meadow restoration, and fuels reduction by removing small trees and shrubs, and prescribed burning described in detail in the Proposed Action above (Section V). Individual projects are typically implemented over a five to ten-year period, which spreads out disturbances both spatially and temporally throughout the Project Area. Therefore, implementing projects over a 5-year time period would reduce the actual area disturbed within the Project Area in any given year to an estimated 7% of the area. These effects are small and temporary, lasting several months during the year when they are implemented. To reduce the potential for disrupting breeding and reproduction of sensitive raptors in the project area, limited operating periods are included in the project’s management requirements (Table 5, Section V. above) to protect the sensitive birds (California spotted owl, northern goshawk, willow flycatcher) where nests may be located in proximity to project-related noise disturbances.

Indirect Effects:

Indirect effects to wildlife may occur from altering the quantity or quality of habitat or that occur later in time.

Silvicultural prescriptions for thinning within existing closed-canopy stands are designed to meet several objectives: (1) promote tree growth by reducing competition between trees, (2) improve species diversity, by selecting out shade-tolerant white fir and creating openings for trees that need sun to regenerate such as pine, (3) promoting growth in the largest trees in the stand and reducing ladder fuels by retaining all trees greater than 30 inches diameter and generally thinning from below, (4) retain legacy trees within aspens, or all trees greater than 30 inches diameter where it does not compromise aspen restoration goals, (5) retaining trees with good characteristics for supporting wildlife, such as trees with multiple tops and cavities, and (6) thinning irregularly to meet the previous objectives and to increase within-stand heterogeneity in structure and species composition.

Thinning overly dense stands reduces their susceptibility to eidemic levels of insect attack, and it creates space for the remaining trees to grow larger crowns and branches. This retains healthy trees that provide thermal cover for wildlife, and perching and resting structures for many birds and mammals. Because different tree species produce abundant seed crops in different years, increasing tree species diversity within stands provides a more constant seed source from year to year, that then provides a more stabile food supply for small rodent prey that supports numerous predatory birds and mammals, including sensitive species such as the California spotted owl, northern goshawk, and American marten.

No thinning would space trees so far apart so that arboreal (tree-dwelling) mammals would no longer use them. In a study in the Tahoe National Forest, Garrison et al. (2005) conclude that group select harvests where trees are harvested from small areas (less than 1 ha) should maintain populations of gray and Douglas squirrels. Snags and downed logs are important components of wildlife habitat by providing nesting habitat for spotted owls, resting and denning habitat for forest carnivores, shelter for prey species, and subnivean access points used by marten for foraging. Timber harvest would retain all existing logs, and any non-merchantable cull would be left for wildlife, which would result in a small increase in downed logs.

The fuels reduction proposals would reduce understory vegetation through a variety of methods-- hand cutting, piling the material by hand or tractor, and burning piles; and using prescribed fire in both shrubs and forested stands. Proposals to hand cut, pile and burn smaller diameter trees and shrubs, and prescribed burn, would not change the vegetation type as defined using California Wildlife Habitat Relationships (CWHR) vegetation definitions. Hand treatments would not remove downed wood, but use of prescribed fire would reduce smaller pieces of downed wood and a proportion of larger logs. Small mammals use downed wood as travel corridors, cover, and as foraging places for arthropods and fungi. They also use herbs and shrubs for hiding cover and food. These structural components of forests may also be important for moderating microclimate, especially at the forest floor. Thinning and underburning alter the quantity and spatial distribution of down wood and ground vegetation, which may change small mammal populations. Fire and thinning can decrease the abundance of forest truffles, thereby reducing a major food source for many small mammals (Meyet et al. 2005). Both action alternatives (A and C) include proposals to construct wildlife cover piles within treated units. This helps to mitigate the reduced cover (hiding and thermal) that would occur within units.

Studies have shown that small mammals (woodrats, deer mice) quickly repopulate burned areas, provided there are nearby unburned refugia to provide source populations. Burning may reduce small mammal populations in the first year or two, but populations are expected to readily recover thereafter. Therefore, effects to small mammal populations are limited in scope, both spatially and temporally. Implementing projects using a variety of techniques (masticating, prescribed fire, hand cutting, thinning) varies the types of effects spatially throughout the watershed, and implementing some of the restoration projects that are not associated with a commercial timber sale distributes these effects temporally, because not all projects in the watershed are fully funded in any given year.

Within ponderosa pine and white fir forests, Maguire et al. (2008) studied small mammal responses to silvicultural manipulation of forest structural diversity and subsequent underburning. Treatments differed from high structural diversity (many large old trees, abundant snags, multiple canopy layers with dense clumps of smaller trees and many canopy gaps) to low structural diversity (single canopy layer of well-spaced overstory trees ranging in dbh from 30 to 50 cm with very few canopy gaps). They found that: (1) The most important habitat descriptors for determining small mammal presence included shrub cover, down wood cover, and overstory basal area, (2) No treatment effects were detected when all species were lumped together or for the three most frequent species analyzed separately (Tamias amoenus, Peromyscus maniculatus, and Spermophilus lateralis), (3) T. amoenus was captured more often in burned units, and (4) T. amoenus was captured more frequently in units of low structural diversity and S. lateralis in units of high structural diversity. This means that while some species may become less abundant, others increase, resulting in overall prey species remaining relatively consistent.

Additionally, although fuels treatments would reduce the shrub component immediately post treatment, shrubs would begin resprouting immediately following, and recover within the first five years. Newly sprouting shrubs provide high quality browse for deer. Openings created from burning encourage native herbaceous plants to to thrive and supports a wider diversity of plants that wildlife utilizes. Prescribed burning in shrubs would likely encourage the occurrence of whitethorn (Ceanothus cordulatus) over green-leaf manzanita (Arctostaphylos patula), because Ceanothus, which is more nutritious and palatable to deer, is a fire obligate seeder and grows more quickly following fire compared to manzanita.

Large snags and downed logs provide nesting, resting, and sheltering structures for spotted owls, forest carnivores, and their prey, and they represent an important component of habitat for wildlife. Downed logs provide nutrient cycling, maintain soil moisture and provide microclimates for fungi; and fungi are an important food source for small rodents which are the primary prey for many wildlife species.

Both Action Alternatives would underburn within mid- to late-seral forests. Prescribed burning is only proposed where existing conditions indicate a high probability of successfully retaining post-treatment stand conditions that are desirable for older forests. Burning prescriptions are developed to minimize the loss of large trees, large downed logs, and large standing snags where practical and where firefighter safety is not compromised. Some existing snags and down logs would be consumed by the fire, and some trees would likely die from additional stresses from burning. Dead trees would be recruited as snags in the future, and subsequently down logs.

Stephens and Moghaddas (2005) found that use of prescribed fire increased the density of snags greater than 15 cm DBH, and did not significantly alter coarse woody debris in decay classes 1 and 2. In the same study by Stephens and Moghaddas (2005), fire reduced coarse woody debris in decay classes 3 and 4. The use of prescribed fire will increase the resilience of these stands to catastrophic loss in a wild fire, and it re-introduces fire back into the system as a dynamic process as it both consumes and recruits downed wood.

There are known occurrences of several non-native, invasive plants that are presently restricted to small, isolated occurrences. Non-native plants invade and displace native vegetation. Cheat

grass (Bromus tectorum) alters fire regimes and the less palatable scotch broom (Cytisus scoparia) displaces more nutritious native shrubs that are used by wildlife. Scotch broom also increates ladder fuels in forests, and its volatile secondary compounds are highly flammable. Proposals to contain and control non-native, invasive plants would benefit wildlife habitat by reducing the degree to which noxious weeds would displace native vegetation, and help to maintain the integrity and function of these ecosystems and their ability to provide food and shelter for wildlife.

Aspens and their associated riparian habitats are the most species-rich avian habitats in the Sierra Nevada, making them disproportionately more important to birds and other wildlife. The exclusion of fire has allowed conifers to encroach into meadows and overtake aspens where they occur. As such, encroaching conifers dry meadows and shade out aspens. Utilizing standardized risk assessments, most aspen stands within the Yuba Project area are at a high risk of loss due to the shading of overstory conifers. Some stands have been relegated to very small aggregations of aspen trees covering less than 1 acre, and they have almost completely died out. Proposals to restore meadows and aspen stands by removing both overstory conifers, girdling trees to create snags, and removing small diameter conifers (less than 10” dbh) will reduce competition for sunlight and nutrients, and promote the regeneration of aspens. Conifers transpire more water than aspen and have sparse understory growth with relatively few species (Bartos and Campbell 1998). Removing conifers within meadow edges and around aspens would increase water availability and create conditions that better support wet meadow and riparian vegetation.

Because large trees are a unique feature in the landscape, legacy conifers (those showing old growth attributes) would be retained in aspen stands. Legacy tree identification will be guided by Van Pelt (2007), Ferrell (1983) and Dunning (1928). Silvicultural prescriptions will be developed for each aspen stand to identify the size of large trees to be retained and species priority, that also meets a minimum of retaining up to two trees per acre of the largest trees present, equal to or greater than 30 inches dbh. This will insure that the largest trees present would be retained within treatment areas, while still sufficiently opening up the canopy to restore the aspens.

Existing road densities range from 1.1 to 5.9 miles of road per square mile within this Project Area. Both Alternatives A and C include proposals to decommission approximately 3.23 miles of road that are spread out across the analysis area, which would not reduce overall road densities within the watershed, but it would reduce road densities within the immediate area of where they occur. These road proposals would reduce erosion and sediment delivery into streams and restore disturbed sites by removing soil compaction so they can revegetate over time.

Hazard tree removal and vegetation removal is proposed along 323 acres of powerline easement. Only trees that present a hazard to the powerlines would be removed. Understory vegetation would be cleared around powerpoles and within the easement, to reduce fuels and the risk to the powerlines during a wild fire. There are no spotted owl or goshawk nests or activity centers that have been found to occur within the powerline easement. Where nests, activity centers, or territories indicate that disturbances may occur during the breeding season, a Limited Operating Period will be implemented for routine vegetation management, including hazard tree removal,

provided the tree does not present an imminent risk to the power line.

Meadow restoration activities to remove conifers that are encroaching into the meadow would occur within a portion of 318 acres of meadow (Units 101 through 107) in both action alternatives (A and C). This action would focus on removing primarily lodgepole pine, and girdling a portion of them to create snags, focusing along the dry meadow edges and a proportion of scattered trees throughout the meadow. Actual treatments would only occur within an estimated 10% of the 345 acres of total meadows proposed for treatment, which represents approximately 34 acres of actual treatment spread out over these acres, and it would not change any existing CWHR type. Some trees would be girdled to create snags, which would benefit wildlife. Legacy trees, large trees that are greater than 30 inches dbh, and trees showing evidence of wildlife use or providing desirable wildlife characteristics would be retained.

Precommercial Thinning is proposed in 67 acres of plantations in both Alternatives A and C (Table VI-2). Thinning plantations would reduce inter-tree competition for resources and stimulate tree growth. This will accelerate the timing in which these stands would mature into mid-successional forests, and eventually late-successional. All of these plantations are included within the “Old Forest” land allocation in the Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment. Thinning these stands better meets the objectives of creating a more continuous late-seral forest structure within the Old Forest land allocation to support populations of late-successional species (i.e. spotted owl, marten). Thinning would also avoid unnaturally high levels of tree mortality in these stands in the future. Although natural levels of tree mortality benefit wildlife which uses snags and down logs for nesting, sheltering, and foraging, small snags are not as beneficial as larger snags, which are used by a wider array of species. Additionally, unnaturally high levels of dead, small trees increases the risk of a stand-replacing fire that would convert them back to early successional habitats.

Table VI-2. Yuba Project Precommercial Thinning Units

Unit Estimated Proposed Logging Primary Designation Unit Treatment System SNFPA Land Acres Allocation 5 2 Precommercial Thin Hand work Old Forest 24 12 Precommercial Thin Hand Work Old Forest 32 3 Precommercial Thin Hand Work Old Forest 35 1 Precommercial Thin Hand Work Old Forest 36 1 Precommercial Thin Hand Work Old Forest 54 39 Precommercial Thin Hand Work Old Forest Precommercial Thin Hand Work Old Forest 55 9 **Totals: 67 Note: Other land allocations may exist in each unit, but are comparatively small in area.

Effects that Vary between the Action Alternatives (Alternatives A and C) 49

Table VI-3 shows the existing canopy cover (Alternative B, the No Action Alternative) for each of the proposed units and the estimated canopy cover following thinning in Alternatives A and C. In both action alternatives (A and C) 449 acres of CWHR 4D is changed to CWHR 4M. Within Unit 16 (14 acres), thinning the canopy down to 43% in Alternative A, removes enough smaller diameter trees to raise the CWHR type to 5M. Whereas, retaining canopy cover above 50% in Unit 16 under Alternative C does not change the CWHR class, because fewer smaller diameter trees are removed. Alternative A would thin Unit 21 (12 acres), reducing canopy closure from an estimated 46% cover to 45% cover. Because canopy cover is already below 50%, this unit is dropped from thinning in Alternative C to ensure consistency with the Spotted Owl Interim Recommendations. This difference represents a small number of acres, and the difference in stand structure and canopy cover between these two alternatives are not likely to be biologically meaningful to wildlife.

Table VI-3. Mechanical thinning of conifer units in the Yuba Project showing the pre- treatment canopy cover and the California Wildlife Habitat Relationship type (CWHR) type and how it would change under each of the action Alternatives A and C post-treatment. Unit Unit Canopy Cover CWHR Type No. (Ac.) (%)

Existing Post Treatment Existing Post Treatment

Alt. B Alt. A Alt. C Alt. B Alt. A Alt. C No Action No Action 1 32 64 53 53 4D 4M 4M 2 28 43 41 41 4M 4M 4M 3 16 56 43 43 4M 4M 4M 4 61 64 52 52 4D 4M 4M 6 9 66 54 54 4D 4M 4M 7 47 68 61 61 4D 4D 4D 10 78 65 52 52 4D 4M 4M 11 65 67 52 52 4D 4M 4M 12 18 53 49 49 4M 4M 4M 13 14 69 67 67 4D 4D 4D 16 14 52 43 51 4M 5M 4M 17 91 53 50 50 4M 4M 4M 21 12 46 45 Dropped-- 46 4M 5M Dropped—4M 22 21 68 53 53 4D 4M 4M 26 121 58 56 56 4M 4M 4M 27 44 66 54 54 4D 4M 4M 28 55 69 62 62 4D 4D 4D 30 17 64 56 56 4M 4M 4M 31 17 71 66 66 4D 4D 4D 33a 113 52 43 43 4M 4M 4M 33b 35 62 51 51 4D 4M 4M 34 44 60 50 50 4D 4M 4M 40 13 68 58 58 4D 4M 4M 41 31 63 60 60 4D 4D 4D 42 15 66 61 61 4D 4D 4D 43 18 59 43 43 4M 4M 4M 44 48 70 69 69 5D 5D 5D 45 57 56 52 52 4M 4M 4M 56 3 49 42 42 4M 4M 4M 57 18 59 56 56 4M 4M 4M 58 30 64 50 50 4D 4M 4M TOT 1,236 Range = Range = Range = 449ac. of 449 ac. of AL 43-71% 41-69% 41-69% 4D to 4M; 4D to 4M 12 acres 14 ac. of dropped; 4M to 5M

In addition, the silvicultural prescription is changed in Alternative C within Unit 16 (14 acres), in order to maintain a minimum canopy closure above 50% to be consistent with the spotted owl Interim Recommendation’s conservation measures for designated habitat. Because the existing canopy cover within Unit 21 is already below 50% canopy, this unit is dropped as a proposal in Alternative C. Effects to individual owls from this prescription change are discussed in detail in Section VII of this Biological Evaluation.

Table VI-4 shows those units where prescriptions change within units between Alternative A and Alternative C to address the spotted owl Interim Recommendations.

Table VI-4. Units where prescriptions change between Alternative A and Alternative C, showing the estimated post-treatment conifer canopy cover and the acres treated. Unit No. Existing Alternative A Alternative C Alternative A Alternative C Canopy (Acres) (Acres) Canopy cover Canopy cover Cover 16 52 14 14 43 50 21 46 12 0 45 No trtmt

Therefore, Alternative C thins 12 fewer acres (1% of the acres proposed in Alternative A) and retains up to 10% more canopy within 14 acres (1%) of the acres that would otherwise be thinned in Alternative A. This equates to a very small difference in effects between the two alternatives to wildlife in general. Thinning Unit 21 in Alternative A would remove enough smaller diameter conifers to raise the average diameter tree in the stand, thus changing the CWHR size class from 4M to 5M. While dropping the unit in Alternative C retains the existing canopy cover in 12 acres, it does not address the overabundance of smaller sized trees that are present, nor reduce competition among trees for limited resources.

Canopy cover and the average diameter of trees within a stand does not fully describe late- successional forests structure. Late successional forests are characterized by a complex forest structure. The proposed actions are proposed within stands that either lack a complex structure, or where thinning can improve tree growth, reduce understory fuel ladders, and break up continuous canopies to create openings that increase species diversity and the age structure within stands.

Additionally, the thinning prescriptions in these stands are intended to meet multiple objectives of improving late-successional forest structure. The Forest Vegetation Simulator (FVS) was used to project the canopy cover at 10-year intervals up to 50 years under the alternatives. With no action, canopy within these stands declines steadily in the absence of thinning. The thinning prescriptions applied in Alternative B result in a steady increase in canopy cover over the next 30 years, before it begins to drop off again due to tree mortality. This also represents better tree diameter increases. Therefore, Alternative A better moves these stands towards developing late successional characteristics than Alternative C. Increasing tree species diversity, promoting understory vegetation, creating small openings, and maintaining and promoting a range of size and age classes will move these stands towards improving late-successional forest structure, with few tradeoffs over the short term from reducing canopy cover.

Effects to individual spotted owls are discussed in detail in the species section (Section VII) below.

Aspen Restoration:

Some portions of aspen stands that are proposed for restoration in Alternative C have overstory conifer canopy that exceeds 50%. As such, these stands provide suitable California spotted owl habitat. Aspen trees require sunlight to grow and heating of the forest floor to stimulate regeneration of new trees from their roots. Consequently, restoration requires that conifer canopy cover be reduced to very sparse levels. Reducing conifer canopy closure within units 74, 75, 76 and 78 would reduce canopy below 50% within the range of three owls—and SI113, SI045 and SI062—who have an insufficient number of acres of suitable habitat at the scale of either their Territory or Home Range. Table VI-5 lists the Units where aspen restoration changes in Alternative C, identifying the scale at which the unit lies in proximity to an owl, and the acre changes between Alternatives A and C. Smaller understory trees (less than 10” diameter) and brush would still be removed to reduce fuels along the Hwy 49 corridor within Units 76, and 78 in Alternative C, because this would not affect overstory canopy. In Alternative C, 96 acres of aspen restoration is dropped to retain owl habitat for the short term, as addressed in the “Interim Guidelines for the Management of California Spotted Owl Habitat on National Forest Lands.”

Table VI-5. Aspen restoration proposals in the Yuba Project that are dropped in Alternative C, showing the acres changed, and whether the unit occurs within spotted owl territory or home range by owl identification number. Unit Owl Territory Owl Home Range Alt A Alt C (acres) Alt C No. (1,000 acres (4,400 acres (acres) Canopy treated (acres surrounding surrounding owl) canopy dropped from owl) treated overstory treatment 74 NA SI062 50 37 13 75 NA SI062 33 22 11 76 SI113 SI113 60 0 60 SI045 SI045 SI062 78 SI045 SI113 12 0 12 Total 155 59 96

The two action alternatives differ in the number of acres that would be treated to restore aspens. Alternative A would restore 155 acres of aspens, while alternative C would restore 59 acres. Since these stands are ranked at a high risk of loss, under Alternative C, it is likely that the 96 acres of aspens would be permanently lost, as overstory conifers continue to grow and shade them out completely.

SPECIES-SPECIFIC ANALYSIS AND DETERMINATION This section discusses each species in three parts, A) Existing Environment, B) Effects of the Proposed Action and Alternatives including Project Design Standards, and C) Conclusion and Determination.

Section A describes the existing environment including species life history, status, and relevant information. Further detail can be found in the Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment Final Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision (SNFPA 2001; USDA Forest Service 2001) and Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment Record of Decision and Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision (SNFPA 2004; USDA Forest Service 2004).

Section B addresses the effects of the proposed project to the various species including project design standards and required mitigation measures. Effects are described as direct, indirect or cumulative. Direct effects as described in this evaluation refer to mortality or disturbance that results in flushing, displacement or harassment of the animal. Indirect effects refer to modification of habitat and/or effects to prey species. Cumulative effects represent “The impact on the environment which results from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (Federal or non-Federal) or person undertakes such other actions” (National Environmental Policy Act 1986).

If the cumulative effects involve a federally listed species, the definition of cumulative effects is limited to “those effects of future state or private activities, not involving Federal activities, that are reasonably certain to occur within the action area of the Federal action subject to consultation” (Endangered Species Act, 1973 as amended).

Regulations at 50 CFR 402.02 in regards to federally listed species are as follows:

Effects of the action refers to the direct and indirect effects of an action on the species or critical habitat, together with the effects of other activities that are interrelated or interdependent with that action, that will be added to the environmental baseline. The environmental baseline includes the past and present impacts of all Federal, State, or private actions and other human activities in the action area, the anticipated impacts of all proposed Federal projects in the action area that have already undergone formal or early section 7 consultation, and the impact of State or private actions which are contemporaneous with the consultation in process. Indirect effects are those that are caused by the proposed action and are later in time, but still are reasonably certain to occur. Interrelated actions are those that are part of a larger action and depend on the larger action for their justification. Interdependent actions are those that have no independent utility apart from the action under consideration.

For NEPA, “Connected action” as defined in CEQ Section 1508.25(a):

Actions are connected if they: (1) automatically trigger other actions which may require environmental impact statements; (2) cannot or will not proceed unless other actions are taken

previously or simultaneously, or; (3) are interdependent parts of a larger action and depend on the larger action for their justification.

Section C provides a summary of supporting conclusions and the statement of determination for each species based upon relevant information provided in Sections A & B.

Terrestrial Species

WESTERN BUMBLE BEE Status: USFS R5 Sensitive

A. Western Bumble Bee: Existing Environment The western bumble bee (Bombus occidentalis) is experiencing severe declines in distribution and abundance due to a variety of factors including diseases and loss of genetic diversity (Tommasi et al. 2004, Cameron et al. 2011, Koch et al. 2012). Historically, the species was broadly distributed across western North America along the Pacific Coast and westward from Alaska to the Colorado Rocky Mountains (Thorp and Shepard 2005, Koch et al. 2012) and was one of the most broadly distributed bumble bee species in North America (Cameron et al. 2011). The current range includes California and adjacent states. Six bumble bee occurrences are documented on the Tahoe National Forest prior to 2000 (www.xerces.org).

Bumble bees introduced from Europe for commercial pollination apparently carried a microsporidian parasite, Nosema bombi, which have spread to native bumble bee populations. Highest incidences of declining B. occidentalis populations are associated with highest infection rates with the Nosema parasite, and the incidence of Nosema infestation is significantly higher in the vicinity of greenhouses that use imported bumble bees for pollination of commercial crops (Cameron et al. 2011).

Although the general distribution trend is steeply downward, especially in the west coast states, some isolated populations in Oregon and the Rocky Mountains appear stable (Rao et al. 2011, Koch et al. 2012). The overall status of populations in the west is largely dependent on geographic region: populations west of the Cascade and Sierra Nevada mountains are experiencing steeply declining numbers, while those to the east of this dividing line are more secure with relatively unchanged population sizes. The reasons for these differences are not known.

Bumble bees are threatened by many kinds of habitat alterations that may fragment or reduce the availability of flowers that produce the nectar and pollen they require, and decrease the number of abandoned rodent burrows that provide nest and hibernation sites for queens. Major threats that alter landscapes and habitat required by bumble bees include agricultural and urban development. Exposure to organophosphate, carbamate, pyrethroid and particularly neonicotinoid insecticides has recently been identified as a major contributor to the decline of many pollinating bees, including honey bees and bumble bees (Henry et al. 2012, Hopwood et al. 2012). In the absence of fire, native conifers encroach upon meadows, which also decrease foraging and nesting habitat available for bumble bees. 55

According to studies done in England (Goulson et al. 2008), grazing during the autumn and winter months may provide excellent bumble bee habitat and prevent the accumulation of coarse grasses. Heavy grazing and high forage utilization can negatively impact bumble bees since flowering plants providing necessary nectar and pollen may become unavailable, particularly during the spring and summer when queens, workers and males are all present and active.

Western bumble bee queens overwinter in the ground in abandoned rodent (i.e. mouse, chipmunk or vole) nests at depths from 6-18 inches and typically emerge about mid-March. The queen then lays fertilized eggs and nurtures a new generation. She first creates a thimble-sized and shaped wax honey pot, which she provisions with nectar-moistened pollen for 8-10 individual first- generation workers when they hatch. The larvae will receive all of the proteins, fats, vitamins and minerals necessary for growth and normal development from pollen. Eventually all the larvae will spin a silk cocoon and pupate in the honey pot. The workers that emerge will begin foraging and provisioning new honey pots as they are created to accommodate additional recruits to the colony. Individuals emerging from fertilized eggs will become workers that reach peak abundance during July and August. Foraging individuals are largely absent by the end of September. Those that emerge from unfertilized eggs become males, which do not forage and only serve the function of reproducing with newly emerged queens. During the season, a range of 50 to hundreds of individuals may be produced depending on the quantity and quality of flowers available. When the colony no longer produces workers, the old queen will eventually die and newly emerged queens will mate with males and then disperse to found new colonies. During this extended flight that may last for up to two weeks she may make several stops to examine the ground for a suitable burrow. Mikkola (1984) reported that bumble bees may forage up to a distance of 80 kilometers (50 miles) in Finland (Heinrich 1979). Where nesting habitat is scarce, bumble bee species having queens that emerge early (mid-March) in the season like B. vosnesenskii which co-occurs with the later emerging B. occidentalis, may be able to monopolize available nest sites and reduce the chances of success for bumble bee species emerging later.

Western bumble bees have a short proboscis or tongue length relative to other co-occurring bumble bee species, which restricts nectar gathering to flowers with short corolla lengths and limits the variety of flower species it is able to exploit. Western bumble bees have been observed taking nectar from a variety of flowering plants, including Aster spp., Brassica spp., Centaurea spp., Cimicifuga arizonica, Corydalis caseana, Chrysothamnus spp., Cirsium spp., Cosmos spp., Dahlia spp., Delphinium nuttallianum, Erica carnea, Erythronium grandiflorum, Foeniculum spp., Gaultheria shallon, Geranium spp., Gladiolus spp., Grindelia spp., Haplopappus spp., Hedysarum alpinum, Hypochoeris spp., Ipomopsis aggregata, Lathyrus spp., Linaria vulgaris, Lotus spp., Lupinus monticola, Mentha spp., Medicago spp., Melilotus spp., Mertensia ciliata, Monardella spp., Nama spp., Origanum spp., Orthocarpus spp., Pedicularis capitata, P. kanei, and P. langsdorfii, P. groenlandica, Penstemon procerus, Phacelia spp., Prunus spp., Raphanus spp., Rhododendron spp., Salix spp., Salvia spp., Solidago spp., Symphoricarpos spp., Tanacetum spp., Taraxacum spp., Trifolium dasyphyllum, Trichostema spp., Trifolium spp. and Zea spp. (Evans et al. 2008).

Unlike all other bees, bumble bees are large enough to be capable of thermoregulation, which allow them to maintain their foraging activities for longer periods of the day, but also to occupy

regions with more extreme latitudes and temperatures compared to other bees (Heinrich 1979). Bumble bees may continue to forage when temperatures are below freezing even in inclement weather (Heinrich 1979).

The Yuba Project Area is the spatial area used for evaluating effects on this species, which would encompass all habitats within which this species could occur. The Project Area contains approximately 3,121 acres of early seral habitats, shrubs and meadows within which flowering plants are more prevalent. Closed canopy forested stands generally have few openings that support herbaceous species and flowering shrubs. No systematic surveys have occurred for this species in the Yuba River Ranger District. Documented sightings of this species are not known to occur within the project area, but because habitat is present, this analysis will assume this species is present.

B. Western bumble bee: Effects of the Proposed Action and Alternatives including Project Design Standards

Direct and Indirect Effects

Any of the vegetation management proposals (eg. mechanical or hand thinning of trees, prescribed burning, and removing invasive plants) has the potential to directly disturb individual bees and temporarily displace them from the immediate vicinity of activities. Because this bee is solitary, and does not occur in colonies, these effects are spatially limited in time and place and limited to affecting only individuals if they are present when projects are implemented.

Activities such as fuels reduction activities of removing understory vegetation by cutting and piling and burning the piles along with underburning may indirectly reduce the quantity of flowering plants within treatment units. Because suitable flowering plants do not cover the entire area of treatment units, rather they are more likely scattered and cover less than 10% of any given unit, this effect is limited to only a very small proportion of each treatment unit. Because all treatments will reduce overstory tree and shrub cover and create openings in currently dense stands, habitat for this species is more likely to improve within one year following treatments. Aspen enhancement will open canopies to the forest floor and increase herbaceous vegetation which will better support flowering species. Understory vegetation recovery is expected to begin within the first year following treatment. Alternative A would enhance aspens in 404 acres, while Alternative C would enhance 96 fewer acres. The difference in thinning treatments is inconsequential to this species habitat. Management Requirements that retain and recruit snags and dead wood will improve structural elements of sheltering habitat over the longer term, and restoring these stands to a more open condition that better represents the historic range of conditions for vegetation in the project area will also better represent the distribution of habitat that historically occurred for this species.

Cumulative Effects

The project area is the spatial area within which cumulative effects are analyzed. The spatial time is projected over the next five years. Habitat alteration for this species within the Yuba Project area is primarily limited to vegetation management activities. There is little private land within the project area, and there are no timber harvest plans that are currently planned on private lands, that would change habitat types. The District has no other vegetation management 57

projects planned within this project area outside of the Yuba Project. This project may add cumulative effects to this species, but these effects are limited spatially and over time. The aspen and meadow restoration treatments, and forest thinning that results in small openings would improve foraging habitat for bees, by opening up overstory tree cover and encouraging flowering plants and aspens to flourish.

C. Western bumble bee Conclusion and Determination

It is my determination that implementation of either action alternative, Alternative A or C, may affect individuals, but is not likely to result in a trend toward Federal listing or loss of viability for the western bumble bee within the planning area of the Tahoe National Forest. In the absence of a range wide viability assessment, this viability determination is based on local knowledge of the western bumble bee as discussed previously in this evaluation, and professional judgment.

BALD EAGLE Status: USFS R5 Sensitive

A. Bald Eagle: Existing Environment Pertinent regulatory history and status:

• 2007: Bald eagle delisted from the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife (USFWS 2007d; 72 FR 37346). At the time of delisting, the bald eagle was placed on the USFS R5 Sensitive Species List. In anticipation of delisting the bald eagle, the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service issued National Bald Eagle Management Guidelines (USFWS 2007a), a regulatory definition of “disturb” under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (USFWS 2007b; 72 FR 31132), and proposed new permit regulations to authorize take under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (USFWS 2007c; 72 FR 31141). • Bald eagles continue to be protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (Eagle Act). Bald eagle nesting and wintering habitat occurs throughout the Pacific Southwest Region, which includes both the Sierra Nevada and Klamath Provinces. The Tahoe National Forest LRMP (Forest Plan) outlines management of bald eagle nesting and wintering habitats for target populations as specified in the species recovery plan. A Tahoe National Forest Bald Eagle Management Plan (April 2, 2004) was submitted to the USFWS. The SNFPA provided no new standards and guidelines for bald eagle management. Conservation recommendations from the Biological Opinion for the SNFPA (FWS 2001) are included as management recommendations within the Tahoe National Forest Bald Eagle Management Plan. The USFWS published National Bald Eagle Management Guidelines in May 2007.

Nesting territories are normally associated with lakes, reservoirs, rivers or large streams (Lehman 1979). Bald eagle nests are usually located in uneven-aged (multi-storied) stands with old growth components (Anthony et al. 1982). Most nests in California are located in predominantly coniferous stands. Factors such as relative tree height, diameter, species, and position on the 58

surrounding topography, distance from water, and distance from disturbance also appear to influence nest site selection (Grubb 1976, Lehman et al. 1980, Anthony and Isaacs 1989).

Trees selected for nesting are characteristically one of the largest in the stand or at least codominant with the overstory. Nest trees usually provide an unobstructed view of the associated water body and are often prominently located on the topography. Live, mature trees with deformed tops are occasionally selected for nesting. Of nest trees identified in California, about 71 percent were ponderosa pine, 16 percent were sugar pine, and 5 percent were incense cedar. The remaining 8 percent were distributed among five other coniferous species. Eagle nests may be located in snags, but most nests are probably constructed when trees were alive (Anthony and Isaacs 1989). Nest tree characteristics in California have been defined by Lehman (1980) as being 41 to 46 inches in diameter at breast height and in excess of 100 feet tall.

In California, 73 percent of the nest sites were within 0.5 mile of a body of water, and 89 percent within 1 mile. No nests were known to be over 2 miles from water. Of 21 nests in Oregon, Anthony and Isaacs (1989) found 85% were within one mile of water. Bald eagles often construct several nests within a territory and alternate between them from year to year. Up to five alternative nests may be constructed within a single territory (U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1986).

Snags, trees with exposed lateral limbs, or trees with dead tops are often present in nesting territories and are used for perching or as points of access to and from the nest. Such trees also provide vantage points from which territories can be guarded and defended. Andrew and Mosher (1982) found that successful nests were in denser forest stands farther from human disturbance than were unsuccessful ones. They identify the most important characteristics of bald eagle nesting habitat in the Chesapeake Bay as being close to water and having open mature vegetation structure that allows for easy flight.

Breeding is initiated as early as January 1 via courtship, pair bonding, and territory establishment, and normally ends approximately August 31, as the fledglings are no longer attached to the immediate nest site. This time frame may vary with local conditions and knowledge. Incubation may begin in late February to mid-March, with the nestling period extending to as late as the end of June. From June through August, the fledglings remain restricted to the nest until they are able to move around within their environment.

Anthony and Isaacs (1985) found negative relationships between eagle productivity and human activities, particularly logging activities. Effective breeding area management should avoid a flight response that is typically induced by disturbance at 200 to 300 m (Grubb et al. 1992). In their study of breeding bald eagle responses to human activities, Grubb et al. (1992) recommend a no activity primary zone of 500 to 600 m (1640 to 1968 feet) from nest sites, followed by a secondary zone of 1000 to 1200 m (3280 to 3936 feet).

Wintering habitat is associated with open bodies of water, primarily in the Klamath Basin (Dietrich 1981, 1982). Smaller concentrations of wintering birds are found at most of the larger lakes, at man-made reservoirs in the mountainous interior of the north half of the state, and at

scattered reservoirs in central and southwestern California. Some of the state's breeding eagles winter near their nesting territories.

In southwestern National Forests, Grubb and Kennedy (1982) found that although live ponderosa pine trees were the most prevalent perch trees available to eagles, they preferred to use snags instead of living trees. Use of a perch tree relates to the habitat that surrounds it. Perches were oriented to provide all of the following, but not necessarily all at the same time: (1) a good view of the adjacent water and surrounding area; (2) maximum exposure to the sun, especially during morning hours on cold days; (3) maximum benefit of topography and diurnal wind currents for flight. They found eagles selecting for perches that provide good visibility, and this is influenced by three interrelated characteristics: openness, height of the substrate, and the height of the surrounding vegetation. As foliar density of the surrounding vegetation increased, or the height of the vegetation or hill increased, so did the need for higher perches. Usually eagles chose the largest trees with suitable branches.

Habitat requirements for communal night roosting are different from those for diurnal perching. Communal roosts are invariably near a rich food resource. In forest stands that are uneven-aged, communal roosts have at least a remnant of old-growth forest components (Anthony et al. 1982). Most communal winter roosts used by bald eagles throughout the Pacific recovery areas offer considerably more protection from the weather than diurnal habitat. Of three night roosts studied in southwestern National Forests, all were in ponderosa pine stands several hundred yards to several miles from the daytime water resource (Grubb and Kennedy 1982). Most roost trees were living and well foliated, but with large "windows" in the canopy. In five communal roosts in the Klamath Basin, Keister and Anthony (1983) found that bald eagles used old-growth forest stands as far as 9.6 miles from the food source. Defoliated trees such as snags, spike-topped conifers, and large deciduous trees were especially preferred.

The most common food sources for bald eagle in the Pacific region are fish, waterfowl, jackrabbits, and various types of carrion (USFWS 1986). In the winter, major prey may include: waterfowl, ungulate carrion, and small mammalian prey (Grubb and Kennedy 1982, Grubb 1995b). The kinds of prey selected changes depending on its availability.

Many studies show that eagles avoid or are adversely affected by human disturbance (Stalmaster and Newman 1978, Andrew and Mosher 1982, Fraser 1985, Fraser et al. 1985, Knight and Skagen 1987, Buehler et al. 1991, Grubb and King 1991, Grubb et al. 1992, Chandler et al. 1995, Grubb et al. 1995, Mathisen et al. 1997). Disturbance is most critical during: nest building, courtship, egg laying and incubation (Dietrich 1990). Grubb et al. (1992) found that eagles are disturbed by most activities that occur within 1500 feet; and they take flight when activities occur within 600 feet. Mathisen et al. (1997) recommend that managers avoid any activities within 500 to 600 meters (1640 to 1968 feet) from a nest. They also recommend that any activities occurring within a secondary zone of 1000 to 1200 meters (3280 to 3936 feet) minimize the duration of the disturbance and avoid causing a flight response.

Eagles are disturbed differently depending on the kind of disturbance, the noise that it creates, the length of time that it lasts, and its location. Eagles are more disturbed as noise levels increase, the source of the disturbance gets closer, and by unusual disturbances not normally occurring in a

particular area. Grubb and King (1991) and Grubb et al. (1992) found that pedestrian activities were the most disturbing group of human activities, followed by boats and vehicles. Among aircraft, helicopters elicited the highest disturbance response from eagles, frequently causing them to fly. They recommend permitting only short duration flights within 1100 m (3600 ft) of a nest (Grubb and King 1991), and they found that a greater frequency of disturbances appeared to have a greater effect on breeding eagles (Grubb et al. 1992). Position is also important, with activities located above an eagle being more disturbing than below.

Within the Tahoe National Forest, twelve breeding territories have been identified within the forest boundary. Seven nest territories are on National Forest System land (2 at Stampede Reservoir, 1 at Boca Reservoir, Bullards Bar Reservoir, Independence Lake, Prosser Reservoir and Deer Creek). Four nesting territories on private land occur within the forest boundary; one each at Fordyce Reservoir, Webber Lake, Spaulding Reservoir, and south of Milton Reservoir, and there is one nesting territory on State land at Donner Lake. Meadow Lake had fledglings in 2002 but no nest was located.

The Tahoe National Forest lies within Zone 28 (Sierra-Nevada Mountains) of the Pacific Bald Eagle Recovery Area (USFWS 1986, p.138). Recovery goals identify a target of six territories on the forest, three territories at Bullards Bar Reservoir, and one territory each for Stampede, Boca, and Jackson Meadows. Considering the previously mentioned twelve territories within the Tahoe National Forest (assuming the Milton Reservoir territory substitutes for Jackson because of its close proximity), recovery goals for the numbers of territories have been met.

Potential risk factors to the bald eagle from resource management activities include modification or loss of habitat or habitat components (primarily large trees) and behavioral disturbance to nesting eagles from vegetation treatment, facilities maintenance, recreation, or other associated activities within occupied habitat, which could prevent or inhibit nesting or lead to nest failure (USDA Forest Service 2001).

The Yuba Project Area, surrounded by a buffer of one mile is the spatial area used to analyze the project effects. This area would encompass any eagle nesting territories or winter foraging sites within which project activities might affect individuals during important times. There are no lakes or reservoirs within the Yuba Project Area that would support nesting. The headwaters of the North Yuba River provides limited foraging opportunities for bald eagles, because it is narrow with dense tree cover for most of its length. A small meadow opens up at the extreme southwest portion of the Yuba Project area adjacent to a small pond on private property where bald eagles occasionally forage. No wintering bald eagle communal roosts are present. Project activites would not disturb bald eagles within any nesting territories, communal roosts, or winter foraging sites.

B. Bald Eagle: Effects of the Proposed Action and Alternatives including Project Design Standards There are no nesting, communal roosts, or frequently used winter foraging sites present within the analysis area. Therefore this project will not affect this species or its habitat, and no further analysis is needed. 61

C. Bald Eagle: Conclusion and Determination

It is my determination that implementation of either of the action alternatives, Alternative A or C, will not affect the bald eagle.

CALIFORNIA SPOTTED OWL Status: USFS R5 Sensitive

A. California Spotted Owl: Existing Environment The California spotted owl is on the USFS R5 Sensitive Species List for the Tahoe National Forest and is a Management Indicator Species on all National Forests in the Sierra Nevada Bioregion. There are three subspecies of spotted owls: the California spotted owl, the northern spotted owl, and the Mexican spotted owl. Both the northern and Mexican subspecies are listed as Threatened by the USFWS. The three subspecies occupy fairly geographically distinct areas, with the California spotted owl occurring in the southern Cascades south throughout the Sierra Nevada mountains, the mountainous regions of southern California, and the central coast ranges at least as far north as Monterey County (Gutiérrez and Barrowclough 2005). The elevation of known nest sites range from about 1,000 feet to 7,700 feet, with about 86 percent occurring between 3,000 and 7,000 feet. The California spotted owl was petitioned for listing as Threatened or Endangered, but following its status review the USFWS found it did not warranted listing, most recently on May 24, 2006 (USFWS 2003; 68 FR 7580, USFWS 2006; 71 FR 29886). In December 2014 another petition for listing under the ESA was filed with USFWS.

The Forest Plan, as amended in 2004, includes conservation strategies to maintain environmental conditions and habitat for old forest associated species in the Sierra Nevada, particularly the California spotted owl. The strategy seeks to maintain canopy cover, large trees, and other components such as logs and snags that are known to be important to California spotted owls, while addressing the need to reduce the threat of stand-replacing wildfires to owl habitat (USDA Forest Service 2004). Although spotted owls are known to use burned forest after fires, burned forest habitat is short-lived, and is typically replaced by unsuitable shrubs or small trees within a decade, and can take over a century to return to mature forest conditions.

In February 2003, the Tahoe National Forest refined designated management areas—Protected Activity Centers (PAC) and Home Range Core Areas (HRCA)-- and delineated new ones according to direction in the SNFPA (USDA Forest Service 2001). This work is updated at least once a year to add new, or revise boundaries of existing PACs and HRCAs. There are approximately 201,577 acres included within approximately 196 PAC/HRCAs in the Tahoe National Forest. Surveys for the California spotted owl have been conducted in the Tahoe National Forest since the late 1970s; some territories are monitored yearly as part of a regional demography study. Surveys conducted in the Tahoe National Forest follow the Pacific Southwest Region Protocol for Surveying for Spotted Owls in Proposed Management Activity Areas and Habitat Conservation Areas (USDA Forest Service, March 12, 1991, revised February 1993).

Spotted owl home range sizes are extremely variable across their range, and are suspected to be linked to availability of prey (Verner et al. 1992b, Zabel et al. 1992, Zabel et al. 1995, Bingham and Noon 1997). Bingham and Noon (1997) found that home range sizes of California spotted owls on the Lassen National Forest (n = 4) averaged 6-8 times larger than estimates for northern spotted owls (n = 20) and noted that this is believed to reflect differences in habitat composition and prey availability rather than subspecific differences. California spotted owl home range size is smallest in habitats at relatively low elevations that are dominated by hardwoods, intermediate in size in mixed-conifer forests, and largest in true fir forests (Zabel et al. 1992). At the time of the CASPO report in 1992, in the Sierra conifer forests a rough estimate of mean home range for California spotted owl pairs based on available information was 4,200 acres (Zabel et al. 1992).

California spotted owl habitat can be assessed at multiple scales. On the Eldorado study area, Chatfield (2005) modeled habitat with circular plots centered on owl nest and/or roost locations of approximately 100, 300, and 1,170 acres, representing the nest stand, PAC, and territory scales, respectively. Seamans (2005) analyzed owls on the Eldorado study area and defined a territory as a circle with radius half the mean nearest neighbor distance of occupied territories, resulting in a circle encompassing 988 acres. Seamans (2005) found that this territory size (988 acres) encompassed >90% of all known roosts. Berigan et al (2012) found that the 300-acre PAC of the best, most mature habitat around activity centers appeared to account for much of the areas used by owls during the nesting season.

California spotted owls utilize Sierra mixed conifer, ponderosa pine, red fir and montane hardwood forest types with high structural diversity, and dominated by medium (12-24”) and large (>24”) trees and with moderate to high levels of canopy cover (generally >40%) (Bias and Gutiérrez 1992, Call et al. 1992, Gutiérrez et al.1992, Verner et al. 1992b, Zabel et al. 1992, Moen and Gutiérrez 1997, Blakesley 2003, Blakesley et al. 2005, Chatfield 2005, Lee and Irwin 2005, Seamans 2005). Optimal habitat conditions likely include differing compositions and densities of forest stands (Bias and Gutiérrez 1992, LaHaye et al. 1997, Irwin et al. 2007). Chatfield (2005) found the probability of spotted owl occupancy was associated with increasing amounts of mid-seral forest having high (>70%) canopy cover and late-seral forest having at least 30% canopy cover. Tempel et al (2014) similarly found a strong correlation of site occupancy with mid and late seral mixed-conifer forests with high canopy cover (>70%). Hunsaker et al. (2002) found that nesting territories (approximate 1000-acre circle around an activity center) in the southern Sierra Nevada had a median proportion of 60 percent of the territory with ≥50% canopy cover (i.e. one-half of the nesting territories in the study area had less than 60% of the territory with ≥50% canopy cover, and one-half of the nesting territories in the study area had more than 60% of the territory with ≥50% canopy cover). Lee and Irwin (2005) further analyzed the data presented in Hunsaker et al. (2002) and found a possible minimum threshold for nesting to occur in a territory (approximate 1000-acre circle around an activity center) to be 44% or more of the territory with ≥40% canopy cover, and that there was no significant benefit to reproduction with increasing levels of canopy cover above the threshold; “the pattern suggested a possible minimum requirement rather than a trend, with no increasing benefit to reproduction of additional amounts of intermediate [40-70%] and dense [>70%] CC [canopy cover].”

Nesting habitat is primarily dominated by medium (12-24” dbh) to large (>24”) trees and multi- storied stands with dense canopy closure (generally >70%) (Verner et al. 1992b, Moen and Gutiérrez 1997, North et al. 2000, Blakesley 2003, Blakesley et al. 2005). Nests can be found in side cavities of live and dead firs and pines, in the top of broken-topped trees and snags, in platform nests which naturally exist in branching structures or which were built by another species, or in mistletoe brooms (Gutiérrez et al. 1992, Blakesley et al. 2005). Blakesley et al. (2005) found the mean diameter of nest trees on the Lassen study area was 46” dbh, with over 90% of nests in >30” dbh trees. Large remnant trees (>30”), even if they occur at low density (<0.5/acre), appear important to serve as nest trees (Blakesley 2003, Blakesley et al. 2005). Large trees typically provide tall, dense, canopies with open understories, suitable nesting cavities, and structural complexity, which benefits prey species for foraging and nesting. Bond et al. (2004) found the number of large trees (>30”) and higher canopy cover to be the most important habitat variables in defining nesting habitat.

Foraging habitat includes mid- to late-seral forest with at least 40-50% canopy closure (Verner et al. 1992b). Irwin et al. (2007) found optimal foraging habitat consisted of moderately-dense forest with basal area from 152 to 240 ft2/acre in Douglas-fir, white fir, and red fir, and greater basal area of large (>8” dbh) hardwoods. Daytime roosts are typically in denser forests with greater basal area and overstory canopy cover than for nocturnal roosts (Irwin et al. 2007).

Spotted owl populations exhibit high adult survival (>80%) but highly variable reproduction and recruitment (Blakesley et al. 2001, Seamans 2005, Blakesley et al. 2006a). The spotted owl population growth rate appears to be most dependent on adult survival (Lande 1988, Noon and Biles 1990, Blakesley et al. 2001, Seamans 2005, Blakesley et al. 2006a). While adult survival is the most important variable to the population growth rate, annual variability in the population growth rate is influenced by reproductive output and juvenile survival (Seamans 2005). There is a high level of annual variation in the proportion of pairs that nest, and a high level of annual variation in nesting success (Noon and Biles 1990, Verner et al. 1992, North et al. 2000, Blakesley et al. 2001, USDA Forest Service 2009). Blakesley et al. (2005) found that nest success was higher when large remnant trees (>30”) were present in the nest stand, and higher in nest stands dominated by medium sized trees (12-24”) than in stands dominated by large trees (>24”). Temple et al. (2016) found that edge habitat within the territory is negatively associated with occupancy.

Nesting attempts and nesting success appear to be connected to abiotic environmental factors, especially the weather (North et al. 2000, Lee and Irwin 2005, Seamans 2005, USDA Forest Service 2009). In the southern Sierra Nevada, North et al. (2000) noted that within any given year in the southern Sierra Nevada reproductive success was largely synchronous among all owl pairs, negatively correlated with nesting period precipitation in oak woodlands and conifer forest, and positively correlated with April’s minimum temperature in conifer forests. Reproductive output was also correlated with high levels of foliage volumes over the nest, suggesting this provides protection from precipitation (North et al. 2000). Seamans (2005) modeled demographic parameters of 15 years of data on the Eldorado study area, and found that the top model suggested that reproductive output was negatively correlated with cold and wet conditions during incubation. LaHaye et al. (2004) found that fecundity was lower during wet spring seasons, and increased with increasing precipitation during the previous year. Prey availability,

also subject to the effects of weather, can have major effects on general owl biology such as reproductive rates, timing and location of nesting, whether nesting occurs, density of nesting pairs, and dispersal or major movements of whole populations (Verner et al. 1992b).

California spotted owls have strong site fidelity and establish a strong pair bond (Blakesley et al. 2006b). They do not stay together, however, during the non-nesting season (Verner et al. 1992b). They exhibit individual variation in migratory behavior; in the non-nesting season any particular owl may migrate to lower elevations, stay in the same general area used during the nesting season, or move back and forth between areas (Verner et al. 1992b). Spotted owls use similar habitats in the nesting and non-nesting seasons (Irwin et al. 2007). Approximately 7% of adult California spotted owls change territories during the non-breeding season; these movement generally consists of younger owls, single owls, paired owls that lost their mates, owls at lower quality sites, and owls that failed to reproduce in the prior year (Blakesley et al. 2006b).

The northern flying squirrel (Glaucomys sabrinus) and dusky-footed woodrat (Neotoma fuscipes) comprise the two primary prey species of the California spotted owl, with the flying squirrel the predominate prey in the higher elevation conifer forest and the woodrat the predominate prey in the lower elevation forests and woodlands (Williams et al. 1992, Munton et al. 2002, USDA Forest Service 2009). Pocket gophers (Thomomys spp.) were the second largest component (in biomass) of owl diets on Sierra National Forest in both the higher conifer-dominated elevations and the lower woodland elevations (Munton et al. 2002). Other prey items are other small mammals (especially Peromyscus spp.), birds, lizards, and insects (Munton et al. 2002, USDA Forest Service 2009).

Northern flying squirrels in the Sierra Nevada are associated with black oak and mixed-conifer forests, and are typically found above 3,000 feet elevation (Williams et al. 1992). In the southern Sierra Nevada (Meyer et al. 2005) and in Yosemite National Park (Meyer et al. 2007a), flying squirrels have been found to use multiple nests per month; snags are preferentially selected for nesting but live trees are also used, and they tend to be the largest available. Red fir is the preferred species for flying squirrel nesting; in the absence of red fir there is no tree species preference except perhaps selection against incense cedar (Meyer et al. 2005a, Meyer et al. 2007a). Canopy cover has not been found to be an important habitat variable for flying squirrels (Meyer et al. 2005a, Meyer et al. 2007a). Occupancy and nesting has been found to be correlated with proximity to perennial creeks where more xeric conditions exist in the southern Sierra Nevada (Meyer et al. 2005a), but this relationship was not found in the wetter conditions of Yosemite National Park (Meyer et al. 2007a). Large diameter downed woody material and forest litter plays a role in production of truffles which are primary summer food sources for the northern flying squirrel and white-footed mouse, another important prey species of the spotted owl (Verner et al. 1992b). A higher amount of litter depth, and residual litter depth following prescribed burning, was important to flying squirrel presence, possibly due to a greater abundance of truffles (Meyer et al. 2007b). The winter diet of the flying squirrel is composed primarily of arboreal lichens (Verner et al. 1992b).

Dusky-footed woodrats are associated with oak woodlands, mixed-conifer, and pine-cedar forests containing a hardwood component, and occur generally below approximately 5,000 feet elevation in the Sierra Nevada (Williams et al. 1992, Coppeto et al. 2006). Their daily activities

center around houses they construct out of vegetative material generally on the ground, but sometimes in trees (Williams et al. 1992, Innes et al. 2008). Tree houses are generally in cavities of California black oak and snags, but are also found on limbs especially those of understory white fir (Innes et al. 2008). They eat foliage and acorns, and their diet may be locally specialized to only a few of the available plant species and can be dominated by incense cedar in mixed-conifer forest (McEachern et al. 2006). Dusky-footed woodrat abundance has been found to be positively associated with shrub density (Lee and Tietje 2005).

Risk factors for the California spotted owl include loss of habitat, habitat fragmentation, reduction in habitat quality, climate change, the effects of wildfire, disturbance at breeding sites, the invasive barred owl, disease, and blood parasites (USDA Forest Service 2001a, Vol. 3, pp. 69-112, Ishak et al. 2008, USDA Forest Service 2009).

The invasive and larger barred owl poses a threat to the California spotted owl due to competition for food and nesting resources, possible displacement, hybridization with the spotted owl, and potentially increased spread of disease and blood parasites (Ishak et al. 2008, USDA Forest Service 2009). Beginning around the late 1800s, the barred owl expanded its range from the forests east of the Great Plains to forests in the western United States, arriving in northern California around the late 1970s from Oregon, and in the Sierra Nevada in the 1990s where they have continued to increase in abundance, though at a slower rate than their expansion in Washington and Oregon (Livezey 2009, USDA Forest Service 2009). The barred owl is more of a habitat generalist than the spotted owl, occupying a greater variety of habitats and having a wider range of prey than the spotted owl (Livezey 2007, Livezey et al. 2008). There is one known barred owl territory on the Yuba River Ranger District on the Tahoe National Forest which has existed since 1991, a second territory discovered around 2010, and several sparred owl detections. Surveys in 2016 detected a barred owl on the American River District of the Tahoe National Forest.

Disturbance to California spotted owls is another potential risk factor. Wasser et al. (1997) measured significantly higher levels of stress hormones in male northern spotted owls whose home range centers were within 0.41 km (0.25 mi.) of major logging roads or recent (10 years to present) timber activity. Hayward et al. (2011) found that northern spotted owls that nested near noisy roads fledged fewer young then those exposed to less noise, indicating that noise exposure may effect reproductive success. Forest Service recommendations for reducing direct effects to spotted owls have generally included minimizing disturbances within 0.25 miles of known roosts or nests during the breeding season (March 1 through August 15).

In 2006 the USFWS (USFWS 2006; 71 FR 29886) finding that the California spotted owl did not warrant listing fully evaluated the meta-analysis (Blakesley et al. 2006) and found there are “… more positive indications of population trends for spotted owls of the Sierra than did the older analysis…”(page 29893), and determined that “The best-available data indicate that California spotted owl populations are stationary throughout the Sierra …In fact, there was no strong evidence for decreasing linear trends in the finite rate of population growth (lambda) on any of the four Sierra Nevada study areas …” (page 29907). The USFWS was again petitioned to list the California spotted owl in 2015 and issued a 90-day finding on September 17, 2015 that found the petition contained information to warrant a more in-depth review of the species’ conservation

status. The most recent analysis found that California spotted owls are declining (Temple et al. 2014).

The Tahoe National Forest includes one of the nine geographic areas of concern identified in the CASPO report (Beck and Gould 1992). This area of concern approximately incorporates the middle third of the forest, and was identified because the checkerboard pattern of public and private lands increases the uncertainty that owl habitat would be maintained across ownerships (Beck and Gould 1992). When combined with the natural habitat fragmentation of the higher elevation territories by rock outcrops and the resulting relatively low spotted owl density, landscape-scale habitat fragmentation could occur from east to west. This increases the risk to owl populations if the owl’s status in the Sierra Nevada deteriorates (Beck and Gould 1992).

Region 5 of the Forest Service released interim recommendations for managing California spotted owls on National Forest lands in August 2015 as part of a lawsuit settlement. The interim guidelines require the development of an alternative to timber projects that provides additional habitat protection and analysis amongst 4 management zones around Activity Centers. These recommendations are interim because a team is developing a Conservation Assessment of the current state of the science of California spotted owls to update the Assessment published in 1992 (Verner et al) and a Conservation Strategy recommending long-term management direction.

A recent analysis of the nearby Eldorado study area population concluded that California spotted owl occupancy declined 31% and the population declined 50% between 1990 and 2012 (Tempel 2014). An analysis of the effects of forest management on California spotted owls using data from the same study concluded that reductions in canopy cover in dense stands (>70% canopy cover) from either logging or wildfire may be contributing to the study population decline (Tempel et al. 2014). Tempel et al. (2014) noted that fuels treatments can have a negative effect on habitat quality in the short term, but the benefit of reducing long-term wildfire risk must be considered and additional research is needed to determine the trade-offs. That study noted that the actual effect of medium-intensity timber harvests on reproduction was only weakly supported. In a study on the effects of fuels reduction and wildfire on spotted owl fitness and habitat suitability, Tempel et al. (2015) similarly concluded “that fuels-reduction treatments, as currently implemented by the U.S. Forest Service in the Sierra Nevada, have the potential to provide long-term (30-year) benefits to spotted owls in the event of fire under extreme weather conditions, but can have long-term negative effects on owls if fire does not occur”.

Lee and Irwin (2005) examined the potential long-term effects to California spotted owl occupancy and reproduction by landscape-level reductions in canopy cover through various combinations of mechanical forest thinning and wildland fire through six decades. They modeled various long-term scenarios of no treatment, light thinning with prescribed fire, heavy mechanical thinning, mixed-lethal fire (6 foot flame lengths), and lethal fire within spotted owl territories. The light and heavy thinning prescriptions were modeled to leave the larger trees regardless of species. Three categories of spotted owl territories were examined over a projected six decade time period, representing territories with a higher proportion of sparse canopy cover (non-reproductive territories), territories with an intermediate mix of canopy cover classes, and territories with a larger proportion of dense canopy cover. Lee and Irwin (2005) state:

“The general trend for all scenarios except immediate lethal fire was towards higher proportions of intermediate canopy cover (40-69%) and lower proportions of sparse canopy cover (0-39%). The mechanical thinning and mechanical thinning plus DFPZ construction scenarios resulted in less of the dense canopy class (70-100%), but equal or more amounts of intermediate canopy levels than the let-grow scenario through time. Mixed-lethal fire produced a pronounced effect in the decade that the simulated fire occurred (the second decade), which was still discernible 4 decades later. None of the simulated trajectories moved beyond the range of observed variation in the original data, suggesting that expected effects on owl reproduction would be essentially immeasurable. Our simulation results lend credence to the hypothesis that modest fuels treatments are compatible with territory-level canopy cover needs for spotted owl reproduction in the Sierra Nevada.”

Lee and Irwin (2005) note that their analysis of fire effects was simplified when compared to the complex fire behavior characteristics of most landscapes, and that all potentially complex habitat elements important to spotted owls were not analyzed. They specify that the entire complex of factors affecting owls should be considered when designing and implementing thinning projects in order to minimize risk to spotted owls.

A recent meta-analysis (Tempel et al. 2016) which included a study population on the west side of the Tahoe National Forest, found that treatment within a territory with 50% high canopy closure (>70%) and 50% mid canopy closure (40-69%) that convert some high canopy cover to mid canopy cover are expected to have a small effect on occupancy rates.

Bond et al. (2008) found that a mosaic of burn severities in a wildfire, like that which occurred in the McNally Fire on Sequoia National Forest in 2002, through previously established California spotted owl territories has been found to maintain spotted owls in the area for at least four years post-fire. The McNally Fire of 2002 burned with variable severity creating a mosaic across the landscape. Of the conifer forest within the fire perimeter, 31% remained unburned, 29% burned at low severity, 27% burned at moderate severity, and 13% burned at high severity (Bond et al. 2008). In their study, low severity burned areas were preferentially selected for roost sites, and high severity burned areas were preferentially selected for foraging over unburned sites (Bond et al. 2008). Preferential use of the burned areas for foraging in this mosaic may be due to the increased shrub and forb understory, and accompanying increased prey availability as a result (Lee and Tietje 2005, Innes et al. 2007, Bond et al. 2008). In a recent study of the 2014 King Fire, Jones et al. (2016a) found that nine spotted owls fitted with radio transmitters diffinitively avoided areas that had burned at high severity. Jones et al. (2016a) found no preferential use of unburned forests versus forests that burned at low severity. A recent analysis (Stephens et al. 2016) found that if wildfire trends continue the majority of California spotted owl nesting habitat may be considerably altered by fire within the next 75 years.

The Project Area for a distance 1.5 miles beyond proposed units was surveyed following Region 5 protocol in 2010 and 2011, and repeated in 2015 to 2016. Prior surveys have been conducted under previous projects that, when combined, previously cover the Yuba Project Area from 1990 through 2008 (Arctic, Hay 1990; Church, 1992; Kelvin, 1995-1996; Carvin Creek, 2005/2006; and Bassett’s Fire, 2007). Six potentially affected owl territories have activity centers that lie 68

within 1.5 miles of proposed projects. In accordance with the Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment (USDA Forest Service 2001), owl management areas have been delineated for all territorial owls, consisting of 300 acres for a Protected Activity Center (PAC) and a total of 1000 acres for a Home Range Core Area (HRCA) that includes the PAC. Table VI-6 identifies the owl occupancy status from the most recent surveys. No barred owls are known to be present within or near the Yuba Project Area. The closest identified barred owl is in the Lavezzola Creek drainage approximately 17 miles west.

Table VI-6. Summary of most recent occupancy status for spotted owl territories potentially affected by the Yuba Project. Owl Site SIE113 (Green Acres) Pair 2007; Unoccupied 2015/2016 SIE116 (Haskell) Occupied 2015-2016 SIE 038 (Chapman) Occupied 2015/2016 SIE039 (Lunch Crk) Pair 2015/2016 SIE 045 (Deadman) Occupied 2015/2016 SIE 062 (Howard) Pair 2010; Unoccupied 2015/2016

For this project, special management areas that include 300-acre nest cores (PACs) and 1000- acre home range cores (HRCs) were refined and redelineated for the following reasons: (1) more recent survey information provided better locations for nests and/or activity centers and refinement would better meet the direction for protecting activity centers, (2) additional site- specific analysis provided information to better refine these management areas. No PACs were re-delineated for the purpose of accommodating vegetation treatments associated with this project. No mechanical treatments are proposed within any PAC.

B. California Spotted Owl: Effects of the Proposed Action and Alternatives including Project Design Standards

Project design standards that are included in the Yuba Project Management Requirements and that would reduce effects to this species are as follows:

1. Limit the Operating Period so that activities do not occur from March 1 through August 15 (unless surveys determine that this is not necessary) in the following units: 10, 17, 16, E, D, PG&E power line within Sections 4, 9.

2. Prior to underburning in unit D, either construct hand line, or hand treat within 500’ of the nest tree or activity center through tree pruning and cutting small trees (less than 6” dbh), as needed to protect important elements of owl habitat.

3. Locate landings to avoid removing large trees, large snags, and large downed logs.

4. To recruit downed logs and minimize disturbance within riparian areas, fall and leave safety hazard trees within the 50’ or 100’ “riparian buffer,” unless otherwise agreed to by a hydrologist and aquatic biologist.

5. Where available, retain coarse woody debris as identified in the silivicultural prescription for the Unit. Recruit cull logs or hazard snags (fall and leave) to meet these conditions.

6. Design treatments to retain six of the largest snags per acre. (Standard and Guideline No. 11).

7. Within meadow and aspen restoration units retain legacy trees and those showing signs of wildlife use… and valuable wildlife characteristics (whorled or broken tops, evidence of fungal decay or heart rot).

8. To recruit downed logs and minimize disturbance within riparian areas, fall and leave safety hazard trees within the perennial and intermittent “riparian buffer,” unless otherwise agreed to by a hydrologist and aquatic biologist.

An area encompassing 4700 acres (1.5-mile radius) approximates the range of a spotted owl in the Tahoe National Forest (USDA Forest Service 2004). Therefore, the analysis for potential effects includes an area 1.5 miles from project proposals. This area would adequately analyze for effects to individual owls that might range within the project area, and account for potential direct, indirect, or cumulative effects to these individuals.

To address the “Interim recommendations for managing California spotted owls on National Forest lands” in (USFS Region 5 August 2015), Alternative C was developed, to adjust some of the treatments proposed in Alternative A. The interim recommendations address the maintenance of spotted owl habitat at several spatial scales surrounding owls—the 300-acre PAC, within a territory (1000-acre circular area), and within a home range (4,400-acre circular area). At the scale of the PAC, neither of the action alternatives (Alternative A or C) propose any mechanical treatments within PACs. Only underburning and hand cutting, piling and burning piles is proposed within PACs to reduce understory fuels. At the scale of the 1000-acre Territory, there are also no proposals to thin any stands that would reduce any existing canopies that are above 70% to below 70%. Therefore, there is no difference between Alternatives A or C at the scale of the territory in reducing any canopy cover below 70%. All existing high canopy covers would be retained within owl territories at this scale.

At the scale of the Territory (1000 acres) and the Home Range (4,500 acres), not all owls contain 700 acres or 1,000 to 1,200 acres of habitat (respectively) with canopy cover that exceeds 50% (Tables VI-7 and VI-8).

Table VI-7 shows the territory scale (1,000-acre circle), which owl territories have 700 acres of habitat with canopy > 50%, and if proposals would reduce canopy below 50%. Where proposals in Alternative A would reduce canopy below 50%, they are changed in Alternative C to retain canopy above 50% (units are either dropped or prescription changes).

Table VI-7. Spotted owl territories in the Yuba Project, showing whether there is 700 acres of habitat with canopy > 50% contained within a 1,000 acre circular area, showing the acre shortfall or excess. Where Alternative A proposals would reduce canopy below 50%, they are changed in Alternative C as indicated (units are either dropped, or prescription is changed to retain canopy > 50%).

Owl Site Habitat Acres Are Alternative Alternative (acres) deficient deficient A proposal C proposal (NFS land) acres to reduce changed to available canopy maintain in home below 50% canopy range? SIE113 (Green Acres) 590 -110 No Yes: Aspen Yes; Unit Units 76 76 dropped (8 ac) SIE116 (Haskell) 920 +220 NA No No SIE 037/062 560 -140 No Yes; Aspen Yes; Unit (Howard) Unit 74 (5 74 dropped ac) SIE 038 (Chapman) 655 -45 Yes No No SIE 039 (Lunch 640 -60 Yes No No Creek) SIE 045 (Deadman) 589 -111 Yes No No

At the home range scale (4,500-acre circle), Table VI-8 shows which owl territories have 1000 to 1200 acres of habitat with canopy > 50%, and if proposals would reduce canopy below 50%. Where proposals in Alternative A would reduce canopy below 50%, they are changed in Alternative C to retain canopy above 50% (units are either dropped or prescriptions change).

Table VI-8. Spotted owl home ranges in the Yuba Project, showing whether there is 1000 to 1200 acres of habitat with canopy > 50% contained within a 4,500-acre circular home range, showing the acres in excess or deficient. Where Alternative A proposals would reduce canopy below 50%, they are changed in Alternative C as indicated (units are either dropped, or prescription is changed to retain canopy > 50%). Owl Site Habitat Acres Alternative A Alternative C proposal (acres) deficient proposal to reduce changed to maintain (NFS land) canopy below 50% canopy SIE113 598 -402 Aspen Units 76 & Yes; (Green Acres) 78 (15 acres) Units 76, 78 dropped SIE116 1,489 No: +320 Unit 21 (4 ac); No; sufficient habitat (Haskell) Aspen Units 75, 78, 79 (16 ac); SIE 037/062 463 - 537 Thinning Units 16, Yes; 50% canopy (Howard) 21, 22, 30, 31 (47 retained in Units 16, 22, ac) Aspen Units 74 30, 31; Unit 21 dropped; (13 ac), 75 (11 ac), Aspen restoration and 76 dropped in Units 74 (13 ac), 75 (11 ac), 76 SIE 038 2,015 No: +515 Okay; Aspen Units No; sufficient habitat (Chapman) 78 (7 ac); 79 (6 ac)

SIE039 2,041 No; + 541 Okay; Aspen Units No, sufficient habitat (Lunch Crk) 79 (6 ac); 82 (3 ac); 83 (15 ac); 85 (16 ac) SIE 045 1,000 0 Thinning Unit 21 Yes; Units 21 & 78 (Deadman) (7 ac); dropped Aspen Unit 78 (7 ac);

Unit 21 (12 acres) is proposed for thinning in Alternative A where post-treatment canopy closure would be reduced to 45% canopy. In Alternative C, canopy closure would need to be maintained at > 50% canopy. Since the existing canopy is estimated at 46%, Unit 21 would not be thinned in Alternative C. Additionally, aspen restoration would not occur within portions or all the following units that lie within owl territories or home ranges that lack sufficient habitat as identified above: 74, 75, 76, and 78.

DIRECT

Noise from falling trees, operating chainsaws, running heavy equipment during logging, and smoke that occurs during prescribed burning can directly affect individual owls if they are in close proximity to these activities. Activities within 0.25 miles of nests or roosts during the breeding season (March 1 through August 15) are generally considered to be the most impacting, because they can cause reproductive failure or increase mortality in young. Any of these disturbances may temporarily displace individual owls from the vicinity of their occurrence during project implementation.

Decreased reproductive success from noise disturbance is not likely to occur when surveys are conducted to protocol, and limited operating periods are implemented in units that are within 0.25 miles of known nests and roosts. For this project, surveys were conducted that follow Region 5 protocol. All action alternatives incorporate Limited Operating Periods into the Management Requirements so that noise-generating activities do not occur during the breeding season within 0.25 miles of known activity centers. These Management Requirements make it unlikely that project activities would disturb spotted owls within their nest sites. Because owls are nocturnal, and more likely to be roosting within their nest territories during the breeding season during the day, most project activities will not disturb them at all while breeding. Direct effects from this project are limited to the possibility of temporarily displacing individuals from the immediate vicinity of projects during project implementation. Projects are typically implemented over a five to ten year time frame, which equates to approximately 250 to 500 acres implemented in any given year throughout the 14,500-acre project area (3%). This represents a minimal amount of potential for noise disturbances occurring to owls in the project area on an annual basis for the life of the project.

INDIRECT

General effects to habitat for old-forest-associated species, which includes the California spotted owl, are described previously in Section V of this Biological Evaluation. Definitions of suitable owl habitat, especially in distinguishing between suitable nesting and foraging habitat, the optimal distribution of habitat at different scales and the methodologies used by researchers vary, and information on forest vegetation differs with the source. For example, Chatfield (2005) defines canopy cover ranges between 30%-69% as moderate and >69% as dense. Vegetation classifications used for mapping do not use the same canopy ranges, and consequently, vegetation mapping does not provide a precise crosswalk to compare different studies, or to measure project effects. California Wildlife Habitat Relationship (CWHR) tree canopy cover classes range from 40-59% for moderate, and >60% for dense, while USDA Forest Service Region 5 forest vegetation maps of tree canopy cover uses ranges from 40-69% (moderate) and >70% (dense). For this analysis, vegetation mapping used CWHR types as presented in the Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment Record of Decision (USDA Forest Service 2001), which uses ranges for dense canopies as > 60% to 100% canopy, and moderate as > 40% to 60%. Forest GIS layers were used to analyze vegetation types throughout the project area, while stand exam data are used to refine the information for individual units.

For this analysis, CWHR 5M, 5D and 6 stands are considered to provide suitable nesting habitat for spotted owls, as defined in the Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment (USDA Forest Service 2004), and CWHR 4M, 4D, 5M, 5D, and 6 are considered to provide suitable foraging habitat. This project area contains approximately 9,813 acres (64% of the Project Area) of suitable spotted owl habitat.

Under the No Action Alternative, forests are expected to have high levels of tree mortality during periods of sustained drought, including some very large trees. Although natural levels of tree mortality is a beneficial process for wildlife by recruiting snags that provide shelter for nesting animals and prey species, unnaturally dense forests are vulnerable to epidemic levels of tree mortality from insect attack that can lead to landscape scale reductions in canopy cover that would be detrimental to spotted owls. High levels of dead trees, especially many smaller diameter trees, accumulate fuels that burn more intensely during a wildfire. Conifers would continue to shade out aspens and replace them, and the existing quantity and quality of aspens would continue to decline, reducing tree species diversity and wildlife habitat heterogeneity.

Alternative A would thin 1,236 acres of mid- to late-successional, closed-canopy stands out of 15,250 acres in the analysis area, which represents 8% of suitable owl habitat in the project area. Canopy cover would be reduced within 43 acres of CWHR 5D (Unit 44), where the current estimated canopy cover would be reduced from 70% to 69%. This would not result in any change in the CWHR type, and would not degrade nesting habitat quality in any appreciable way. The prescription for the stand would increase diversity within the stand, while only negligibly reducing overstory canopy. Alternative A would also thin another 1193 acres of suitable foraging habitat. All thinning treatments would retain canopies above 40%, which would retain suitable foraging habitat for owls. Alternative C would thin 12 fewer acres, because thinning in Unit 21 is dropped.

Under either action alternative (A or C), timber harvesting within suitable foraging or nesting habitat has the potential to reduce habitat quality in several ways. Thinning owl habitat reduces

overall canopy closure in these stands. Reducing canopy closure can adversely affect spotted owls by reducing the quantity or quality of suitable nesting or foraging habitat, increasing predation on young by other raptors, and changing microclimate conditions. Microclimate can be important in maintaining soil moisture and in moderating temperature extremes within stands. Maintaining soil moisture and microclimate is important in sustaining mycorrhizal fungi, an important food for rodent prey. None of the proposed thinnings are extensive enough to cause tree-dwelling squirrel populations to decline, and enhancing hardwoods and conifer tree species diversity should increase the variety of seeds available for small mammals, insuring for a more constant supply of food for owl prey populations.

The effects to owls from the loss of canopy cover are not well defined. Chatfield (2005) found that nesting and roosting habitat was most strongly correlated with the amount of late-seral forest having at least 30% canopy cover and mid-seral forest having high canopy cover (>70%) at the patch scale, which was a 40-ha (99-acre) circular plot (0.22 mile radius). This project would not reduce any habitat within 0.25 miles of any owl roosts. Chatfield (2005) also found that nest habitat selection was most strongly influenced by the amount of forested core habitat (>100 m from an edge) which consisted of late-seral mixed-conifer forests having at least 30% canopy cover and mid-seral mixed-conifer forests having high canopy cover (>70%) at the PAC scale. This project does not propose any mechanical treatments within any PAC, and it would not reduce overstory canopy cover. This will retain important core nesting habitat around owls. Table VI-9 shows the acres proposed in Alternatives A and C by treatment type that lie within Protected Activity Centers, showing the acres treated within each of the project-affected owl territories. There are no proposals within three of the six PACs, and only negligible treatments in two more. This project would hand cut small trees and shrubs in 105 acres concentrated around the Clark Station summer home tract and underburn PAC SI039. There are no mechanical treatments proposed in any PAC. Underburning is proposed within one PAC as detailed in Table VI-9, and additional hand cutting shrubs and understory trees less than 10’ dbh is proposed within portions of three PACs. To insure for the retention of diversity within these units, all hand treatments will follow silvicultural prescriptions that identify retention patch size and frequency and certain species to be retained (i.e. maple). Burn plans are developed for all underburning that identify goals such as—acceptable levels of tree mortality, large woody debris retention, avoiding the loss of snags. Proposals within PACs are intended to reduce the unnatural accumulation of fuels from understory vegetation that has occurred due to the exclusion of fire. Hand thinning is proposed as an initial treatment where underburning is not practical to implement, followed by underburning, in order to reintroduce fire back into the system.

Table VI-9. Proposed treatments in Alternatives A and C in the Yuba Project that overlap with spotted owl Protected Activity Centers (PAC), showing the acres by treatment type. Owl No. Thin Hand Underburn Hazard Tree Total* PAC PAC PAC (ac.) cut, (acres) removal treated (acres) canopy canopy hand along reduced reduced pile, powerline (acres) (%) burn SIE113 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Green Acres SIE116 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 Haskell SIE 038 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Chapman SIE039 0 105 290 0.35 290 0 0 Lunch Crk SIE 045 0 5 0 0 5 0 0 Deadman SIE 062 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Howard *Treatment acres are not additive, because treatment types overlap.

Designated management areas for the California spotted owl under the Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment consist of 300-acre Protected Activity Centers (PAC), and 1,000-acre Home Range Core Areas (HRCA) that include the PAC and 700 additional acres of the best habitat surrounding the PAC. As previously discussed, the Yuba Project does not propose any mechanical treatments within any PAC, and all existing canopy cover would be retained. The Yuba project proposes thinning within a proportion of Home Range Core Areas as shown below.

Units that overlap with spotted owl Home Range Core Areas designated under the Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment (USDA 2001), showing the existing canopy cover (Alternative B) and post treatment canopy cover under each of the action alternatives (Alternatives A and C) in the Yuba Project. Unit Acres of unit *Canopy cover within HRCA Existing Post Treatment Alt B Alt A Alt C 7 40 68 61 61 11 45 67 52 52 10 78 65 52 52 13 14 69 67 67 22 21 68 53 53 27 44 66 54 54 28 55 69 62 62 30 17 64 56 56 31 17 71 66 66 33b 35 62 51 51 34 44 60 50 50 75

40 13 78 58 58 41 21 63 60 60 Total 444

Designated Home Range Core Areas for the six potentially affected owls in the Yuba Project area total 6,095 acres. The Yuba project proposes thinning within 444 acres (7%) of designated HRCA. Thinning treatments in Alternative A would retain canopy cover above 50% within all units that overlap HRCAs.

To retain suitable owl foraging habitat, USFS management guidelines retain all pre-existing canopies above 40 to 50%, and no treatments would reduce canopies so much that habitat would be removed. Canopies below 40% were not considered to provide suitable foraging habitat in the analysis for this project. Research on the effects of forest thinnings on spotted owl habitat vary with their techniques and the degree of thinning. Because the canopy cover reductions researched by Chatfield (2005) ranged down as low as 30%, assumptions cannot be made that thinning canopies down to 40 or 50% would negatively influence owls the same way as those that would reduce canopy cover as low as 30%. Edges between mature forests and other habitats may strongly influence owl use and survival (Ward et al. 1998, Franklin et al. 2000). In northwestern California, foraging owls selected for late seral edge sites where dusky-footed woodrats were more abundant (Ward et al. 1998).

Lee and Irwin (2005) used sixty-year simulations to examine the potential effects of landscape- level reductions in canopy cover on owl occupancy and reproduction, and they show that modest fuels treatments in the Sierra Nevada would not be expected to reduce canopy cover sufficiently to have measurable effects on owl reproduction. They 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 uncharacteristic wildfire.

Several recent studies have correlated the occurrence of tall trees (or large diameter trees) as a habitat element important to owls (North et al. 2017, Jones et al. 2017). Jones et al (2017) attributes an extinction debt, as a better explanation for the decline seen in spotted owls in national forests compared to the national parks, that is more likely due to the loss of large trees from the landscape in national forests, due to legacy logging practices prior to 1993.

North et al. (2017) found that Tall Trees > 48m was the most distinct canopy attribute for a 1000 meter distance (0.7 acre) area surrounding the owl nests. Their niche overlap analysis showed that canopy structure consisting of tall trees was the most important canopy feature, rather than total canopy cover. They also found that nest sites (defined as 10 acres surrounding nests) and PACs (300-acre circular area centered around nests) were dominated by the tall tree and co-dominant structure classes with high canopy cover >55%. Territories and landscapes had a much more even distribution of structure classes, suggesting greater heterogeneity of forest conditions at these larger scales. The Yuba project is not proposing any mechanical treatments in nest sites or PACs, and would retain all canopy covers and large trees at this scale. The Yuba project proposals are limited to only removing understory fuels within a small proportion of PACs through underburning and hand cut piling and burning, and would retain all important habitat characteristics within these core areas.

North et al. (2017) further show that trees > 32 m and especially > 48 m were almost always associated with high canopy cover in large part because the large canopy area of these trees created high canopy cover. Locations with high canopy cover but without tall trees were not associated with owl nest sites or PACs in North et al. (2017). They go on to discuss that other studies (Berigan et al., 2012; Tempel and Gutierrez, 2013; Tempel et al., 2014; Tempel et al., 2015; Tempel et al., 2016) that found associations with the percentage of moderately high (>50%) and high (>70%) levels of canopy cover with owl occupancy and reproduction, did not account for tree height. Therefore, the relationship of total canopy cover to spotted owl use in those earlier studies is confounded by the relationship of high canopy cover to tree height. They also recommend that forest management include thinning treatments to retain large trees, encourage development of large trees, and to maintain forest health.

Therefore, because the Yuba Project proposals maintain habitat within all PACs, and would maintaining suitable foraging habitat outside of the PACs in Alternative A, there would be a sufficient quantity and quality of nesting and foraging habitat following treatment, and that this would meet the life history needs for spotted owls within the project area.

Alternative C—California spotted owl Interim Recommendations Alternative

At the scale of the territory (1000-acre circular area) two owls (SIE 113 and SIE 062) have a shortfall of habitat as described in the Interim Recommendations, where aspen restoration proposals in Units 74 and 76 would remove 13 acres of conifer canopy to below 50% in Alternative A (Table VI-7). At the scale of the home range (4,500-acre circular area), three owls (SIE 113, SIE 062, and SIE 045) have habitat shortfalls, where 39 acres of aspen restoration in Units 74, 75, 76, and 78, and 81 acres of thinning in Units 16, 21, 22, 30, and 32, would reduce canopy below 50% in Alternative A (Table VI-8). In 2006, the Bassett’s Fire removed suitable owl habitat within the home range of two of the three affected owl territories--SIE 113 and SIE 062. Although owls were present within these territories the year following the Bassett’s Fire, the most recent surveys failed to establish continued territorial occupancy. Because the two owl territories are not occupied, the proposed thinning and aspen restoration in Alternative A presents a low risk to spotted owls within the project area. Alternative C would result in the continuing decline of aspens in the units that are dropped, and this will likely result in the loss of aspens at these sites.

Aspen restoration under Alternative A might reduce owl habitat quality for the short term by removing overstory conifers. However, restoring these stands to a healthy aspen-dominated stand would increase plant and animal species diversity. Increasing bird and mammal species diversity provides a wider selection of prey species and foraging opportunities for owls. Aspens in the project area are closely associated with streams. As such, their spatial configuration occurs as aggregations that are linearly distributed along drainages, where the exclusion of fire has allowed adjacent conifer stands to encroach into them. All aspen units are outside of core owl nesting areas, and conifer removal within them would not fragment important nesting habitats. Additionally, because the affected territories are currently unoccupied, aspen restoration at this time presents a lowered risk to owls in the project area. Although aspen restoration may result in a short term reduction of owl habitat immediately following treatment by removing conifer canopy cover, once the aspens return, there are longer term benefits that

would occurr 10-15 years later as aspen canopy returns along with the associated increased species diversity. The retention of legacy conifers, or two of the largest conifers greater than 30” diameter within aspen stands would retain potential perching structures for foraging owls within the aspens.

Table VI-10 lists the units proposed for thinning, showing the pre and post-tratment canopy by alternative,where thinnings might reduce habitat below a desirable level of suitable habitat as described by the Interim Recommendations (Table VI-7. As previously discussed, owls at SIE062 were not found to continue occupying this territory. Alternative A would thin Unit 21 (12 acres), reducing canopy closure from an estimated 46% cover to 45% cover within the home range of owls at SIE 045. Because canopy cover is already below 50%, this unit is dropped from thinning in Alternative C to meet the owl interim guidelines. This difference represents a small number of acres, and the difference in stand structure and canopy cover between these two alternatives are so small that they are not likely to be biologically meaningful to spotted owls. Silvicultural prescriptions for thinning are written to develop a multi-layered structure, increase tree species diversity, reduce competition around larger retention trees, and to retain a proportion of characteristic wildlife trees that would provide good nesting and denning structures (i.e. cavities, broken tops). Prescriptions for all units include the retention of structural components that are important to owls--large trees, large snags, and large downed logs.

Table VI-10. Units proposed for thinning in Alternative A, where canopy cover would be reduced below 50% in Alternative A, but retained in Alternative C, showing the pre- and post- treatment canopy by alternative. Unit Acres Existing Post Treatment Canopy Owl Affected Canopy Alternative Alternative C A 16 14 52 43 50 SIE062 21 12 46 45 46—dropped from SIE062 and thinning SIE045 30 17 64 44 56 SIE062

Both Alternatives A and C would underburn 1,181 acres (12%) and hand cut, pile and burn, with followup underburning in 151 acres (2%) of suitable habitat within the project area. These actions would not reduce the overstory canopy cover. These treatments will reduce understory structure in stands by removing smaller diameter trees (<10” dbh) and shrubs, and they will reduce ground cover and accelerate drying of the forest floor. Maintaining soil moisture provides favorable conditions for fruiting hypogeous fungi, an important food of flying squirrels, which are a primary prey for spotted owls. Consequently, fuels reduction activities may reduce the quantity of prey that is present over the short term, but they may also make some prey more available to predation, by reducing hiding cover. There are overall longer term benefits derived to late-successional habitat by reducing understory fuels, and consequently the intensity and size of stand-replacing fires where fuels treatments are strategically placed to slow the intensity and rate of fire spread.

Underburning can have variable effects to owl habitat depending on site condition, vegetation, and fire history. Burning prescriptions are developed to identify local conditions and desired outcomes at a stand scale, such as the maintenance of large down logs and standing snags where practical and where firefighter safety is not compromised. Some snags and down logs will be consumed by the fire, and these will be replaced by trees that die from the additional stress of a fire. Prescribed burning would increase the fire resilience of these stands to catastrophic loss in a wild fire, and it re-introduces fire back into the system as a dynamic process with varying cycles of nutrient transport, tree mortality, and snag and log recruitment.

The Management Requirements include retaining non-hazardous snags and recruiting of larger cull logs during timber harvest, with desirable ranges for snags and dead wood specified in the silvicultural prescription for all units. Prescribed burning would be conducted where existing conditions indicate a high probability of successfully retaining post-treatment stand conditions that are desirable in older forests. Burn plans identify local conditions and desired outcomes at a stand scale, and they include the desire to minimize the loss of large trees, large downed logs, and large standing snags where practical and where firefighter safety is not compromised.

Stephens and Moghaddas (2005) found that use of prescribed fire increased the density of snags greater than 15 cm DBH and did not significantly alter coarse woody debris in decay classes 1 and 2. In the same study, fire reduced coarse woody debris in decay classes 3 and 4. The use of prescribed fire will increase the fire resilience of these stands to catastrophic loss in a wild fire, and it re-introduces fire back into the system as a dynamic process. Therefore, underburning is considered to be a valuable tool in restoring older forest conditions.

CUMULATIVE

The spatial area considered for analyzing cumulative effects includes the project area and a 1.5 mile buffer surrounding all units. There are no active mining plans of operations that occur within owl habitat, or that would remove or degrade owl habitat. Recreational activities are mostly limited to hiking, fishing, and camping. There is no private land development outside of three summer home tracts that are located next to Hwy 49 on the southern edge of the Project, and two organized camps, which restricts most human disturbances centered along the Hwy 49 corridor. Currently, there are no residential development plans in place on private land, and no active timber harvest plans that would remove or reduce habitat quality within the project analysis area. There has been no timber harvest on National Forest System lands in the past 10 years that has removed any spotted owl habitat.

The Yuba Project is representative of the pace and scale of vegetation management activities that have occurred throughout the Yuba River Ranger District in the past 10 to 20 years. Typically, he Yuba River Ranger District analyzes one major vegetation management project in any given year. To date, there are approximately 198 owl territories identified in the Tahoe National Forest, with 126 of these occurring in the Yuba River Ranger District (64%) This project will affect six territories, which represents 5 percent of the territories in the district, and 3 percent of the territories in the Tahoe National Forest. Proposed treatments typically have a measurable effect to one to three owls per year in this District. Assuming that treatments continue into the

future at a similar rate, it would take about 50 years before all owl territories might be affected; with effects limited to only a portion of habitat that may be degraded for a short term (10 to 20 years). Consequently, it would take more than 100 years before the majority of habitat might receive some treatment. It is more likely that stand-replacing fires will have a greater negative effect to late successional habitat, and spotted owls, over the same time period that will cause long term habitat losses that will not be replaced for more than 100 or 200 years.

Alternatives A, and C will add cumulative effects to the California spotted owl. The degree of these effects is small for the following reasons: (1) Implementing limited operating periods will protect owls during the nesting season; (2) Mechanical treatments will not occur within 300-acre nest cores (PAC); (3) Sufficient habitat will be retained within core areas surrounding all occupied territories, (4) Important habitat structural features are maintained within units (large trees, large down logs, large snags); (4) Project effects are limited to only a proportion of owl habitat that is available, and they are short term, lasting about 10-20 years; (5) The overall quantity and quality of habitat within the analysis area will be maintained in the short term, and (6) The proposed treatments would improve habitat quality in the longer term by increasing resilience in treated areas and developing late successional habitat characteristics sooner. Therefore, it is unlikely that effects from this project would result in a loss of viability to the California spotted owl.

C. California Spotted Owl: Conclusion and Determination

Both Alternatives A and C are consistent with the Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment, which is a conservation strategy for old forest and associated species that is designed to provide environmental conditions that are likely to maintain viable populatins of the California spotted owl, well distributed across Sierra Nevada national forests. It is my determination that implementation of either action alternative, Alternative A or C, may affect individuals, but is not likely to result in a trend toward Federal listing or loss of viability for the California spotted owl within the planning area of the Tahoe National Forest. In the absence of a range wide viability assessment, this viability determination is based on local knowledge of the California spotted owl as discussed previously in this evaluation, and professional judgment.

GREAT GRAY OWL Status: USFS R5 Sensitive

A. Great Gray Owl: Existing Environment The distribution of the great gray owl is circumboreal, with the Sierra Nevada encompassing the most southern extent of the species (Beck and Winter 2000). The core range of the great gray owl in California is centered on the greater Yosemite National Park area with an estimated population in California totaling fewer then 300 individuals (Winter 1986, Greene 1995, Beck and Winter 2000, Sears 2006, Wu et al. 2015). The Yosemite population has been identified as a genetically distict population and taxon, Strix nebulosa yosemitensis (Hull et al. 2015). There are records of great gray owls as far south as Tulare County, and to the north from the Modoc,

Lassen, Plumas, Tahoe, and Eldorado National Forests, and from Del Norte, Humboldt, Shasta, and Siskiyou Counties (Beck and Winter 2000).

Until recently great gray owls were thought to require two particular habitat components; a meadow system with a sufficient prey base, and adjoining forest with adequate cover and nesting structures (Winter 1980, Winter 1986, Greene 1995, van Riper and van Wagtendonk 2006). Meadows appear to be important foraging habitat for great gray owls, where approximately 93% of their prey is taken (Winter 1981). Data from the greater Yosemite area suggests that to support persistent occupancy and reproduction, meadows need to be at least 25 acres, but meadows as small as 10 acres may support infrequent breeding (Winter 1986, Beck and Winter 2000). Using radio telemetry, van Riper and van Wagtendonk (2006) found that over 60% of all great gray owl locations were within 100 meters (328 feet) of a meadow; 80% of locations were within 200 meters (656 feet) of a meadow. Recently nesting great gray owls in the western Sierra Nevada have been found to be associated with openings other than meadows in lower elevations where oak woodlands transition to coniferous forests (Polasik et al. 2016). Polasik et al. (2016) documented owls nesting in large diameter trees with the landscape dominated by smaller trees, interspersed with annual grasslands. Recent research has also found that great gray owls have nested at lower elevations, and farther distances from meadows and opening then previously considered suitable (Wu et al. 2015). Wu et al. (2015) found that 21% of the nest they monitored were below 1,000m and 31% of the nests were >750m from a meadow. Great gray owls have also been documented in northeastern Oregon foraging in open forest, clear-cuts, and burned areas where these areas support a high cover (eg. mean 88% in forest with canopy cover 11-59%) grass-forb habitat (Bull and Henjum 1990). In comparing number of large snags (>24” dbh), smaller snags (<24” dbh), and canopy cover, Greene (1995) found that high canopy cover was the only variable significantly higher in occupied habitat, possibly due to its effect on microclimate.

In the Sierra Nevada, great gray owl breeding activity is generally found in mixed coniferous forest from 2,500 to 8,000 feet elevation where such forests occur in combination with meadows or other vegetated openings (Greene 1995, Beck and Winter 2000), but have recently nested as low as 2,300 feet (Hull et al. 2014). In their study in Yosemite National Park, van Riper and van Wagtendonk (2006) found that home ranges were located adjacent to meadows in red fir and Sierra mixed conifer most frequently, and home range boundaries followed meadow and drainage topography. They found that most females nested where red fir was the most common habitat type, and some nested in habitat dominated by lodgepole pine (van Riper and van Wagtendonk 2006). Habitat types used by breeding females included Sierra mixed conifer, montane riparian, and montane chaparral types (van Riper and van Wagtendonk 2006). Nesting usually occurs within 840 feet (averaging 500 feet) of the forest edge and adjacent open foraging habitat (Beck and Winter 2000). Greene (1995) found that nest sites had greater canopy closure (mean 84%) and were more likely located on northern aspects than expected by chance.

As with most owls, great gray owls do not build their nests (Bull and Henjum 1990, Greene 1995). In contrast to northeastern Oregon and elsewhere where platforms such as old hawk nests and mistletoe infected limbs are the predominant nest substrate (Bull and Henjum 1990), most nests in the Sierra Nevada have generally been found at the top of large broken top fir snags; fir snags tend to break at right angles and form a suitable nest substrate (Winter 1986, Greene

1995). Greene (1995) found that the next most preferred species for nesting was black oak, found at the lower elevations. Greene (1995) found that nest trees in Stanislaus National Forest averaged 32 inches dbh and 32 feet tall, while those in Yosemite National Park averaged 44 inches dbh and 45 feet tall. In northeastern Oregon, Bull and Henjum (1990) found that great gray owls readily used artificial open platforms, preferentially 49 feet high but also 30 feet high if none higher were available, and preferentially in closed forested stands versus those adjacent to clear-cuts.

In the Yosemite area, males begin establishing nesting territories in March to early April (Beck 1985). After 30 to 36 days of incubation, eggs hatch from mid-May to mid-June. Young begin to fledge in early June to early July, but will remain around the nest through August. However, great gray owls will breed earlier at higher elevations (approximately 2 weeks earlier for every 1,000 foot increase in elevation).

In Yosemite National Park, van Riper and van Wagtendonk (2006) found breeding season home ranges (95% adaptive kernel) averaged 152 acres for females and 49 acres for males. Breeding adults were found to utilize specific activity centers within the home range, with radio telemetry locations densely packed in localized areas; the activity centers averaged 43 acres (based on the 75% adaptive kernel home range). Activity centers were based around nests or roost sites but also included nearby foraging areas, and were frequently associated with outer meadow boundaries (van Riper and van Wagtendonk 2006). While much larger than breeding season home ranges, non-breeding season home ranges were also centered on wet meadows (van Riper and van Wagtendonk 2006). During the non-breeding season, home ranges averaged 6,072 acres for females and 5,221 acres for males (van Riper and van Wagtendonk 2006).

Great gray owls hunt by perching at the edges of meadows or grasslands and listening for prey in grass runways or underground burrows, then flying low over the ground and dropping on the prey (Brunton 1971, Nero 1969, Winter 1981). During the majority of the breeding season, males do a majority of the hunting, often by day, and provide food to the nest (Greene 1995). Larger trees possibly have more open limb development, allowing stooping and less view obstruction. Winter (1982) also observed owls using fence posts as hunting perches. Greene (1995) found that hunting perches were generally located in drier microsites. The lack of perches at the edges and/or within meadows may render a meadow unsuitable for great gray owls.

Prey of great gray owls is primarily pocket gophers and voles (Winter 1986, Reid 1989, Bull et al. 1989). If prey numbers are low in any given year, great gray owls may occupy a site but may not nest, possibly due to the lack of ability to feed young (Bull and Henjum 1990). Greene (1995) found that occupied and reproductive great gray owl habitat corresponded more closely to greater vole than greater gopher abundance; his results suggested that gophers are generally more abundant than voles, but they are probably less available to great gray owls due to the fact they are typically underground. Pocket gophers tend to inhabit areas of deep unsaturated soils allowing for easier burrowing and tunneling (Jones and Baxter 2004), while voles tend to inhabit wet meadows with thick grass, forbs, and sedge cover (Sera and Early 2003). As increased soil moisture improves habitat for voles, it becomes less suitable as gopher habitat; in combination with typically drier conditions observed at hunting perch sites, Greene (1995) suggested that

variability in soil moisture and related vegetation conditions, to support the two primary prey taxa, may provide optimal great gray owl foraging habitat in the Sierra Nevada.

In the Tahoe National Forest, there have been few recorded great gray owl sightings, and nesting has only recently been confirmed in one location on or near private land. Possible sighting and/or detection locations include Kyburz Flat (2009 single individual, nesting not confirmed), near Independence Lake (2012 a pair was detected but nesting not confirmed) Perazzo Meadows (May 2004 nesting not confirmed), along Pliocene Ridge Road (annual breeding season sightings since 2003 with confirmed nesting in the area in 2009), three miles north of Nevada City (an adult located in January 1996 and January 1997), Donner Ranch Ski Area (pair observed in November 1994), near Spencer Lakes at the northern border of the Tahoe National Forest (detection in July 1990), south of Lincoln Creek Campground (an individual in July 1987), and near Sattley (pair in January 1985).

The spatial area used to analyze effects to great gray owls includes the Yuba Project Area boundary buffered by 0.5 miles. This would analyze potential effects of disturbing individuals during the breeding season at potential nest sites. The project area includes several large meadows that could provide nesting habitat for this species. Meadows or meadow complexes of sufficient size that are also surrounded by closed canopy stands with mid- to large sized conifers include: Church, Freeman, Howard, and Bear Trap. Meadow and aspen restoration is proposed that would remove conifers from within these meadows and the meadow edge. Intensive stand searches have been conducted in these meadows and within the meadow edge to look for evidence of great gray owl presence, and none has been found. Suitable snags are present at each of these meadows. Although groomed snowmobile trails provide irregular winter access to these meadows, because of the varying elevations to access the area, spring snowmelt is too patchy to provide sufficiently reliable access to complete broadcast surveys that meet a six visit, two year protocol. Informal broadcast surveys have been conducted within these meadows during the summer, and will continue into the summer of 2017. Biologists have conducted visual encounter surveys at least three times between 2007 through 2016 to determine the presence of the Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog. This survey technique would also reveal evidence of raptor pellets and white wash within and around these meadows and drainages. For more than 15 years, biologists from San Francisco State University conducted bird mist-netting stations at Yuba Pass and Freeman Meadow, and conducted point counts in 1990 through 1995. This species has not been detected in the Project Area to date, and it is not considered to be present.

Therefore this project will not affect this species or its habitat, and no further analysis is needed.

B. Great Gray Owl: Effects of the Proposed Action and Alternatives including Project Design Standards Because this species is not present in the project area, there are no direct, indirect, or cumulative effects that would occur to this species.

C. Great Gray Owl: Conclusion and Determination

It is my determination that implementation of Alternative A or C will not affect the great gray owl.

NORTHERN GOSHAWK Status: USFS R5 Sensitive

A. Northern Goshawk: Existing Environment The northern goshawk (Accipiter gentilis) is listed on the USFS R5 Sensitive Species List for the Tahoe National Forest. In 1997 the northern goshawk was petitioned for listing as threatened or endangered west of the 100th meridian, but upon status review the USFWS found it did not warrant listing (USFWS 1998; 63 FR 35183).

As prescribed by the Forest Plan, surveys are conducted 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 (USDA Forest Service 2000).

Standards and guidelines for northern goshawk management are defined in the Forest Plan, as amended. Current guidelines include delineation of protected activity centers (PACs) 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 (USDA Forest Service 2004).

Northern goshawk 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. 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 and there are no opportunities for re- mapping the PAC nearby. 84

In 1999, prior to PAC-delineation guidelines set forth in the 2001 and 2004 SNFPA, 64 Goshawk Management Areas had been identified in Tahoe National Forest based on known nest sites, territorial adults, and habitat suitability. In June 2003, the Tahoe National Forest reviewed existing Goshawk Management Area boundaries to ensure that they met the intent of the SNFPA 2001 direction for goshawk PACs. By June 2003 PAC delineation had been completed in Tahoe National Forest in accordance with SNFPA direction. At that time there were 71 northern goshawk PACs encompassing approximately 15,500 acres. Since then, additional PACs have been delineated based on new information, and as of 2014 there are 137 goshawk PACs in the Tahoe National Forest encompassing 29,427 acres.

The Northern Goshawk Scientific Committee was established in 1990 to develop a credible management strategy to conserve the goshawk in the southwestern United States. Reynolds et al. (1992) recommendations included that goshawk nesting home ranges should exist as an interspersed mosaic of various structural stages in certain proportions, and that on every acre within home ranges there should remain a few large trees in clumps that live out their lives and eventually become snags, then logs that decompose. Their recommendations focused on three components of a goshawk’s nesting home range, amounting to about 6,000 acres: nest area (approximately 30 acres), post fledging-family area (PFA; approximately 420 acres), and foraging area (approximately 5,400 acres; Reynolds et al. 1992). The nest area may include more than one nest, is typically located on a northerly aspect in a drainage or canyon, and is often near a stream (Reynolds et al. 1992). Nest areas contain one or more stands of large, old trees with a dense canopy cover (Reynolds et al. 1992).

Forest types associated with goshawk nest areas vary geographically (USFWS 1998, Kennedy 2003). In the Sierra Nevada goshawks breed from the mixed conifer forests at low elevations up to and including high elevation lodge pole pine forests and eastside ponderosa pine habitats. Goshawks winter from the lodgepole pine forest down slope to blue oak savannah (Verner and Boss 1980). In the Tahoe National Forest, goshawks are year-round residents. Nests are found in all of the vegetation types listed above, as well as in aspen stands (Tahoe 1999). Andersen et al. (2005), in review of existing research on goshawks including their nesting habitat and typical high canopy closure preferences, noted that high canopy closure in relation to the range of available canopy closure may be more important for goshawk nesting than absolute canopy closure, at least above some minimum threshold.

Studies suggest that goshawks select more mature forest for nesting, with higher canopy cover and larger trees as compared to surrounding forest (e.g. Hayward and Escano 1989, Squires and Rugiero 1996, Daw and DeStefano 2001). Hypotheses for why goshawks select forest with larger trees and higher canopy cover include: 1) increased protection from predators, 2) increased food availability, 3) reduced exposure to cold temperatures and precipitation during the energetically stressful pre-egg laying period, 4) reduced exposure to high temperatures during the nestling period, 5) reduced competition with raptor species that nest in more open habitats, or 6) increased mobility because of reduced understory vegetation in mature stands (Andersen et al. 2005). Mature coniferous, mixed, and deciduous forest habitats provide large trees for nesting, a closed canopy for protection and thermal cover, and open spaces allowing maneuverability below the canopy (Fowler 1988). Analysis of vegetative data collected at 39 nest sites in the

Tahoe National Forest and the Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit indicates that goshawk nest stands in the Tahoe National Forest have a mean canopy closure of 70 percent, 32 large trees per acre (24-49 inch dbh), large amounts of dead and down logs, and slopes less than 15 percent. Research conducted on the Klamath National Forest indicated that when nest occupancy was monitored over subsequent years, re-occupancy of the nest stand was nearly 100 percent for nest clusters that were maintained at a minimum of 200 acres (Woodbridge and Dietrich 1994).

Recommendations in the Southwest Region suggest managing 5,400 acres of foraging habitat per territory (Reynolds et al. 1992). Conclusions from studies in the Sierra Nevada support similar habitat requirements (Hargis et al 1994, Keane and Morrison 1994). Important components of foraging habitat include snags (min. 3/ac. >18" dbh) and logs (min. 5/ac. >12" dbh and > 8' long) for prey base populations (USDA 1991). Management requirements for the California spotted owl are thought to provide adequate quantities of snags and down logs to support goshawk prey species in foraging habitat (Tahoe 1999). Beier and Drennan (1997) found that goshawks selected foraging sites that had higher canopy closure, greater tree density, and greater density of trees greater than 16 inches in diameter. They recommend managing stands for canopy closure values above the prescribed minimum 40%. Primary prey species include small mammals and small to medium sized birds (Verner and Boss 1980, Fowler 1988).

Goshawk nesting activities are initiated in February. Nest construction, egg laying and incubation occur through May and early June. Young birds hatch in June and begin fledging in late June and early July, and are independent by mid-September.

Potential risk factors to goshawks include effects of vegetation management and wildfire on the amount, distribution, and quality of habitat (USDA Forest Service Pacific Southwest Region 2001a). Human disturbance is also a risk factor. In the Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit, Morrison et al. (2011) found that human activity was twice as high within infrequently as compared to frequently occupied goshawk territories, and there was a greater extent of all types of roads and trails within the infrequently occupied territories. While it is not statistically significant, Grubb et al. (1998) noted no discernible change in behavior to logging truck noise as they passed at 500 meters from two active goshawk nests. A more recent study looked at disturbance from logging trucks driving by at 78, 143, and 167 meters, which resulted in no flushing of nesting goshawks.

Moser and Garton (2009) experimentally tested the effects of clearcutting within goshawk nesting areas on reoccupancy and nesting success for two years following treatments, and found no effects on goshawk reoccupancy, nesting success, or number of fledglings between harvested and unharvested nesting areas. Their model suggested, however, that goshawk breeding area reoccupancy was a function of the amount of potential nesting habitat available in the 17-ha area surrounding the nest, with goshawks reoccupying breeding areas if they contained >39% potential nesting habitat following harvest; and that goshawks were more likely to attempt nesting after disturbance if >39% of the 170-ha (420 acres) area around their nest was left in potential nesting habitat (Moser and Garton 2009). A circular area representing 420 acres would be represented by a radius of approximately 0.4 miles. The analysis for potential effects to this species includes the Yuba Project Area combined with a buffer extending one mile from proposed units. This analysis area would cover potential project

effects to individuals that might range within the project area, and it would consider potential direct effects to nesting goshawks. Suitable goshawk habitat within and surrounding proposed units were surveyed following Region 5 protocol during 2009 and 2010 and again in 2015 and 2016. There are eight potentially affected goshawk territories that occur within one mile of proposed projects.

B. Northern Goshawk: Effects of the Proposed Action and Alternatives including Project Design Standards

The following project design standards are included in the proposed action to protect the northern goshawk:

1. To protect the northern goshawk, Limit the Operating Period so that activities do not occur from February 15 through September 15 (unless surveys determine that this is not necessary) in the following units: 43, western half of 102, PG&E powerline within Section 5, T20N, R13E); Unit D within 0.6 miles of nest, Unit G-M (western ½); Unit E (eastern 1/2).

2. Where available, retain coarse woody debris as identified in the silvicultural prescription for the Unit. Recruit cull logs or hazard snags (fall and leave) to meet these conditions.

3. Design treatments to retain six of the largest snags per acre. (Standard and Guideline No. 11).

Direct and Indirect:

Noise created by operating machinery, chainsaws, and the felling of trees can disturb and displace goshawks. Disturbances have the greatest impact if they occur in proximity to nests during the breeding season. Distances up to 0.25 miles from nests are considered to potentially disrupt goshawk nesting. Goshawk surveys have been conducted within and surrounding all proposed units. Limited operating periods are included in this project’s management requirements to insure that goshawks would not be disturbed within all identified nesting locations. Therefore, direct effects are limited to potentially disturbing goshawks that might be foraging in the area, but it would not disturb them at nests during the breeding season.

No goshawk Protected Activity Centers are proposed for any mechanical treatment. One PAC located along Lunch Creek is proposed for underburning. A limited operating period is implemented in the vicinity of the nest to protect goshawks during the nesting season. Suitable goshawk foraging habitat is considered to include California Wildlife Habitat Relationships vegetation types 4M, 4D, 5M, 5D and 6. CWHR types 5D are more likely to support nesting, because they contain >60% canopy cover and larger trees that are preferentially used for nesting. Alternative A would thin 1,236 acres of mid- to late-successional, closed- canopy stands out of 9,813 acres in the analysis area, which represents 12% of suitable habitat in the project area. Canopy cover would be reduced within 43 acres of CWHR 5D (Unit 44), where the current estimated canopy cover would be reduced from 70% to 69%. This would not result in any change in the CWHR type, and would not degrade nesting habitat quality in any appreciable way. The prescription for the stand would increase diversity within the stand, while only negligibly reducing overstory canopy. Alternative A would also thin another 1193 acres of 87

suitable foraging habitat. All thinning treatments would retain canopies above 40%, which would retain suitable foraging habitat for goshawks. Alternative C would thin 12 fewer acres, because thinning in Unit 21 is dropped.

Moser and Garton (2009) experimentally tested the effects of clearcutting within goshawk nesting areas on reoccupancy and nesting success for two years following treatments, and found no effects on goshawk reoccupancy, nesting success, or number of fledglings between harvested and unharvested nesting areas. Their model suggested, however, that goshawk breeding area reoccupancy was a function of the amount of potential nesting habitat available in the 17-ha area surrounding the nest, with goshawks reoccupying breeding areas if they contained >39% potential nesting habitat following harvest; and that goshawks were more likely to attempt nesting after disturbance if >39% of the 170-ha (420 acres) area around their nest was left in potential nesting habitat (Moser and Garton 2009). A circular area representing 420 acres would be represented by a radius of approximately 0.4 miles. All eight territories contain more than 60% of the 0.4 mi. circular area with suitable habitat.

Three of the eight goshawk territories have treatments proposed within 0.4 miles of their nest, as follows:

Chapman Camp: 18 acres of thinning; 5 ac. aspen restoration Deer Creek/N. Yuba: 3 ac. aspen restoration; 7 acres of understory fuels reduction Lunch Creek: 300 acres of underburning

Aspen restoration treatments would remove overstory conifers within three of these territories, which could result in a short term degradation of habitat. The acreages are small within any single territory, ranging from 3 to 5 acres. There is sufficient suitable habitat remaining within the 0.4 mile circular area, where the reduction in canopy for aspen restoration would not risk occupancy at these sites. This is a short term effect, and as aspens recover in the treated areas, canopy would return. Restoring aspens is considered a long term beneficial effect, because higher species diversity is associated with aspen stands than conifer stands, which would improve prey for goshawks.

Thinning would occur within 18 acres of conifer-dominated stands in proximity to one goshawk territory. Post treatment canopy cover would be retained above 40% in this unit, which would retain goshawk habitat suitability. This goshawk already has more than 40% of the area within its core area comprised of suitable habitat. All goshawk territories where any treatment is proposed within suitable habitat will retain sufficient habitat within their core areas to expect that the proposals would not change goshawk breeding area reoccupancy. Overall habitat suitability and function would be retained in the project area.

Cumulative effects

The spatial area considered for analyzing cumulative effects includes the project area and a one mile buffer surrounding all units. The temporal period is the present time, projecting ten years into the future. Cumulative effects to goshawks within this project area primarily occur from the loss of habitat caused by logging. Little active mining is occurring at the present time that

involve very little ground disturbing activities. There are no residential development plans in place on private land, and no active timber harvest plans. The Bassett’s Fire in 2006 was a stand-replacing fire that burned through a goshawk nest stand in the Howard Creek drainage, removing approximately 50% of the nest stand. Since then, a goshawk territory had been established just north of the pre-fire territory.

This project will add cumulative effects to goshawks, but the degree of these effects is small, for the following reasons: (1) This project would not result in direct disturbances to goshawks within 0.25 miles of nests, (2) Sufficient habitat will be retained within core areas surrounding nests, and the proposed actions would not affect any breeding territories or breeding area reoccupancy, (3) Additional effects are limited to a short term reduction in a small amount of habitat quality within four territories. Overall, habitat quality and quantity would be retained.

C. Northern Goshawk: Conclusion and Determination

It is my determination that implementation of Alternative A or C may affect individuals, but is not likely to result in a trend toward Federal listing or loss of viability for the northern goshawk within the planning area of the Tahoe National Forest. In the absence of a range wide viability assessment, this viability determination is based on local knowledge of the northern goshawk as discussed previously in this evaluation, and professional judgment.

WILLOW FLYCATCHER Status: USFS R5 Sensitive

A. Willow Flycatcher: Existing Environment The willow flycatcher (Empidonax trailii) is listed on the USFS R5 Sensitive Species List for the Tahoe National Forest. There are three subspecies of willow flycatcher in different portions of California; they have been distinguished from each other based on distribution and color. In the Sierra Nevada, E. t. adastus and E. t. brewsteri generally occupy the eastern and western slopes, respectively; both of these subspecies likely occur in the Tahoe National Forest (Green et al. 2003). The southwestern willow flycatcher, E. t. extimus, occupies southern California as well as other southwestern States and was listed as endangered by the USFWS in 1995 (USFWS 1995; 60 FR 10694).

In accordance with the SNFPA Record of Decision (USDA Forest Service 2001), a Conservation Assessment of the Willow Flycatcher in the Sierra Nevada was completed (Green et al. 2003). The Conservation Assessment summarized all known and relevant information pertinent to management of the willow flycatcher in the Sierra Nevada at the time of its completion. Willow flycatcher monitoring and demographic analysis has been conducted in the central and northern Sierra Nevada since 1997 with results documenting the continued population decline (Loffland et al. 2014).

The willow flycatcher was once a common summer resident throughout California where suitable habitat existed; areas where it was most common included the Central Valley and central 89

California in general, and the southern coastal region (Grinnell and Miller 1944, Harris et al. 1987). Observed declines in breeding populations have been a growing concern for over four decades and it is now limited to scattered meadows of the Sierra Nevada and along the Kern, Santa Margarita, and San Luis Rey Rivers (Harris et al. 1987). Loss of the willow flycatcher, especially in the Central Valley, has been largely attributed to alteration and loss of riparian habitat by various land management practices along with cowbird parasitism (Harris et al. 1987). Based on data from 14 years of the demography study, populations across the Sierra Nevada have declined 19% yearly in the Lake Tahoe and West Carson River areas to the south, and 6% yearly in the Little Truckee River area (Mathewson et al. 2012). The highest recorded number of territories on National Forest System land in the Sierra Nevada bioregion is located in the Perazzo Meadows area in the Tahoe National Forest. Systematic surveys and research on willow flycatchers have occurred throughout the Perazzo Meadow area since the early 1980s (eg. Serena 1982, Flett and Sanders 1987, Harris et al. 1987, Sanders and Flett 1989, Bombay et al. 2003, Mathewson et al. 2009).

The willow flycatcher is a small passerine Neotropical migrant that breeds during summer in riparian deciduous shrub habitat generally dominated by willows in the United States and Canada, and winters in tropical and subtropical areas from southern Mexico to northern South America (as summarized in Green et al. 2003). Willow flycatchers in the northern Sierra Nevada typically begin arriving on their breeding grounds around the 1st of June, and egg laying for first nest attempts sometimes begins as early as the second week in June, but more often in late June/early July (summarized in Green et al. 2003). Up to three nesting attempts may occur as a result of nest failure, with egg-laying through the 1st week of August, and all willow flycatchers appear to be gone from their breeding territories by mid-September (summarized in Green et al. 2003).

Breeding habitat typically includes moist meadows with perennial streams and smaller spring fed or boggy areas with willow or alders; dense thickets are generally avoided in favor of more patchy willow sites providing considerable edge (summarized in Green et al. 2003). Bombay et al. (2003) found that riparian shrub cover was the primary predictor of habitat selection at the meadow, territory, and nest site scales, and that increased shrub cover also predicted both abundance and territory success. Willow flycatcher nesting success is strongly associated with standing or flowing water or heavily saturated soils (summarized in Green et al. 2003). Meadow size seems to be an important factor for willow flycatcher use. Willow flycatchers in the Sierra Nevada use meadows ranging from 1 to 719 acres (Serena 1982, Harris et al. 1987, Harris et al. 1988, Bombay 1999, Green et al. 2003); but the majority of occupied meadows are larger then 50 acres (Loffland et al. 2014). Willow flycatchers have also been found in riparian habitats of various types and sizes ranging from small lakes or ponds surrounded by willows with a fringe of meadow or grassland, to willow lined streams, grasslands, or boggy areas.

Male willow flycatchers are territorial during the breeding season. Studies in the Tahoe National Forest have found that territory sizes average 0.84 acres (Sanders and Flett 1989). Females may forage outside or at the fringe of the territories defended by males. In addition, after the young fledge the family groups use areas outside of the territories for feeding and cover (M. Flett, pers. comm.). The breeding season begins in late May to early June (Garratt and Dunn 1981) with adults and fledglings generally staying in the breeding areas through August.

Nests are open cupped, usually 3.7 to 8.3 feet above the ground and mostly near the edge of deciduous, riparian shrub clumps (Sanders and Flett 1989, Valentine et al. 1988, Harris 1991). Willow is the most common nest substrate used for breeding in the Sierra Nevada. In the Tahoe National Forest, Sanders and Flett (1989) reported that all 20 nests found at two meadows in 1986 and 1987 were located in willows. More recent studies (between 1997 and 2001) in the north-central Sierra Nevada located 250 nests at 15 meadows, of which only 3 nests were in shrubs other than willow: two in alder, and one in dogwood (Morrison et al. 2000, Bombay et al. 2001). Recently, McCreedy and Heath (2004) located willow flycatchers in the rewatered Rush Creek at Mono Lake, where all nine nests found were in wild rose, even though apparently suitable willows were available. The latter is more likely atypical as a result of extreme management activities rather than being typical under “natural” conditions.

Willow flycatchers forage by either aerially gleaning insects from trees, shrubs, and herbaceous vegetation, or they hawk larger insects by waiting on exposed forage perches and capturing them in flight (Ettinger and King 1980, Sanders and Flett 1989). Sanders and Flett (1989) found that in Perazzo Meadows, willow flycatchers usually flew less than 3.3 feet from a perch when hawking insects, but occasionally flew as far as 33 feet. The selection of nest sites near water appears to be related to increased densities of aerial insects. Willow flycatchers feed upon a wide variety of insect and other arthropod prey (Green et al. 2003). They seem to prefer hymenopterids (bees, wasps, and sawflies), dipterids (deer flies and bee flies), moths and butterflies, and small flying beetles. In the Sierra Nevada, hymenopterids and deer flies are particularly important to their diet (as summarized in Green et al. 2003). Many studies have found a correlation between insect abundance and hydrologic conditions and riparian vegetation condition (as summarized in Green et al. 2003). Some studies have documented that insect abundance has been linked to bird abundance (as summarized in Green et al. 2003).

Potential predators of willow flycatcher nests include a variety of mammalian and avian species (Cain et al. 2003), the occurrence of which varies according to environmental characteristics in different portions of meadows (Cain et al. 2006). In the north-central Sierra Nevada, Cain et al. (2003) reported that nest predation was the primary cause of all willow flycatcher nest failures (76%; 22 of 29 nest failures) during their study from 1999-2000; 41% of nests were successful (fledged at least one young; 20 of 49 nests), 45% were depredated (22 of 49 nests), 8% were abandoned (4 of 49 nests), 4% failed due to weather (2 of 49 nests), and 2% were parasitized (1 of 49 nests). Cain et al. (2003) also documented predator species via trip-wired cameras on simulated willow flycatcher nests (zebra finch eggs placed in vacant yellow warbler nests similar to willow flycatcher nests), finding that the photographed predators in order of decreasing prevalence were various chipmunk species (6 nests), Douglas squirrels (4 nests), short-tailed weasels (3 nests), and a deer mouse (1 nest). Douglas squirrel and chipmunk activity decreased substantially as mean meadow wetness increased, and Douglas squirrel activity was negatively correlated with meadow size (Cain et al. 2003). Cain et al. (2003) found the activity indices of the following potential predators or brood parasites negatively associated with willow flycatcher nest success: Douglas squirrels, short-tailed weasels, Clark’s nutcrackers, Cooper’s hawks, and brown-headed cowbirds. Cain et al. (2006) found Douglas squirrels and chipmunks associated with characteristics common along edges of meadows, short-tailed weasels associated with willows (presumably for protective cover), and mice and long-tailed weasels in a variety of

environmental conditions and possibly throughout the meadows. The models they tested suggested that short-tailed weasels may be important predators of the willow flycatcher (Cain et al. 2006).

While brown-headed cowbird parasitism may have been a major contributor to the decline of lowland populations of willow flycatcher, there is less evidence for this in the higher elevations of the Sierra Nevada (Sanders and Flett 1989). In sites monitored in the demography study in the central and northern Sierra Nevada from 1997-2008, mean annual cowbird parasitism rates ranged from 6.8% to 18.4%, depending on the study region and the method of estimating parasitism rates (Mathewson et al. 2009). In the central study area which includes sites in the Tahoe National Forest, the maximum mean annual parasitism rate is calculated at 11% (Mathewson et al. 2009).

Loffland et al. (2014) associated occupied sites with a northward latitude habitat contraction. The demography study reported that for the area studied on the Tahoe National Forest an annual population increase of 6% is needed to stabablize the population and recommended restoring degraded meadows as a tool needed to aid in population recovery (Loffland et al. 2014).

The analysis for potential effects to this species includes the Yuba Project Area. This analysis area would cover potential project effects to individuals that might range within the project area that could be affected by project activities and it would consider potential effects to nests. Suitable willow flycatcher habitat occurs within meadows and drainages at Church and Freeman Meadows. These meadows have been surveyed following Region 5 protocol at least every five years since 2000. No nesting willow flycatchers have been found. In addition, biologists associated with San Francisco State University have conducted extensive mist netting for more than 15 years at Yuba Pass and Freeman Meadow weekly throughout the spring and summer. Willow flycatchers were only infrequently captured, and no nesting territories were ever identified in either of those meadows. A small nesting population of this species occurs in a meadow adjacent to Salmon Creek approximately one mile west of the western boundary for the Yuba Project. This site has also been surveyed every five years since 2000. It is assumed that willow flycatcher use of meadows in the Yuba Project Area is incidental and not associated with breeding territories at the present time. However, due to the close proximity of an occupied meadow, and because new territories may be established in the future, effects to this species will be further analyzed in more detail.

B. Willow Flycatcher: Effects of the Proposed Action and Alternatives including Project Design Standards

Management Requirements included in the Yuba Project to reduce potential effects to this species are:

1. Limit the Operating Period so that activities do not occur from February 15 through August 15 (unless surveys determine that this is not necessary) within the following meadows: Bear Trap, Church, Freeman. Prior to implementing projects in these meadows, coordinate the need to implement the L.O.P. and the area within the meadow where the L.O.P. will apply.

2. Establish Riparian Conservation Areas (RCA) for all stream courses. Ensure Riparian Conservation Objectives (RCOs) are met within RCAs by adhering to the Project Riparian 92

Conservation Area (RCA) Guidelines. Follow “RCA Guidelines” for activities within RCAs. The RCA widths are as follows:

Stream Type Width of Riparian Conservation Area Perennial Streams 300 feet each side, measured from bank full edge

Seasonal Flowing Streams 150 feet each side, measured from bank full edge

Streams In Inner Gorge Top of inner gorge Special Aquatic Features: Meadows 300 feet from edge of feature or riparian vegetation, Springs & Seeps, Ponds/Lakes whichever is greater

Outside of Aspen and Meadow Restoration Units: Establish a 100-foot “riparian buffer” zone along each side of perennial streams and special aquatic features, 50-foot “riparian buffer” along each side of intermittent streams and establish a 30-foot “riparian buffer” zone along each side of ephemeral streams. These zones provide for shade and coarse large woody debris (CWD) to the stream channel and adjacent land.

Within Aspen and Meadow Restoration Units: Riparian Buffers will be flagged on the ground in coordination with an aquatic biologist, hydrologist, and soil scientist to: (5) Maintain adequate shade to the creek to minimize adverse effects to water temperatures required for local species; (6) Minimize effects to riparian vegetation, (7) Maintain streambank stability and minimize risk of sediment entry into aquatic systems, (8) Minimize impacts to habitat for aquatic- and riparian-dependent species (S&G 92), Limited disturbance to 20 percent or less of streambanks to reduce impacts to cover in aquatic habitats (S&G 103).

3. Unless otherwise agreed to by an aquatic biologist and hydrologist, *no vegetation treatment or ground-disturbing activities will occur within Riparian Buffers

4. To minimize the spread of fire into riparian vegetation during prescribed fire activities, no direct ignition will occur within the 100-foot perennial and 50-foot intermittent “riparian buffer” and special aquatic features, unless otherwise agreed by a hydrologist, soil scientist, and aquatic biologist. Fire may back into the 100-foot perennial and 50-foot intermittent “riparian buffer”. Direct ignition may occur within the 30-foot ephemeral “riparian buffer”.

5. To recruit downed logs and minimize disturbance within riparian areas, fall and leave safety hazard trees within the 50’ or 100’ “riparian buffer,” unless otherwise agreed to by a hydrologist and aquatic biologist.

6. No new construction of landings in RCAs. Consult with hydrologist and aquatic biologist before using an existing landing located in a RCA. Locate landings outside of aspen and meadow units, unless otherwise coordinated with an aquatic biologist and hydrologist.

7. Unless otherwise coordinated with an aquatic biologist and hydrologist, directionally fell trees away from the riparian buffer.

Direct and Indirect Effects

Meadow restoration activities that involve the use of chainsaws or the felling of trees generally within 300 feet of riparian vegetation could disturb nests, causing nest abandonment or failure. A limited operating season is included in the Management Requirements for this project to insure that nests would not be disturbed during implementation.

There are numerous Management Requirements listed above that are intended to minimize effects to riparian resources, maintain water quality, maintain streambank stability, and protect riparian vegetation. By implementing these, indirect effects to habitat are not likely to occur. This species nests in willows and alders that interface with relatively larger (>15 acres) wet meadows, often adjacent to areas with standing water. The Riparian Conservation Area (RCA) Standards that are established for this project minimize disturbances to streambanks, wet meadows, and their adjacent riparian vegetation. Activities that remove conifers that are encroaching into meadows or shading out aspens would raise water tables, and would improve habitat for this species.

Cumulative Effects

Because there are no direct or indirect adverse effects to this species, there are no adverse cumulative effects that would be added from this project.

C. Willow Flycatcher: Conclusion and Determination

It is my determination that implementation of Alternative A or C will not affect the willow flycatcher.

GREATER SANDHILL CRANE Status: USFS R5 Sensitive

A. Greater Sandhill Crane: Existing Environment The greater sandhill crane is a California State Threatened species and is listed as Sensitive on the Region 5 Forester’s Sensitive Species List (USDA Forest Service 1998). The Tahoe National Forest LRMP, as amended, does not provide specific management guidelines for this species. However, standards and guidelines designed to meet Riparian Conservation Objectives apply to the crane and its habitat (listed under the California red-legged frog).

Greater sandhill cranes of the west coast are not hunted, and are protected by the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 (USDA 1994). The California Central Valley population of sandhill cranes is the most western of five distinct populations. A total of 276 cranes were recorded within the state during a breeding pair survey in 1988 (California Department of Fish and Game 1997). In California, greater sandhill cranes winter primarily throughout the Sacramento, San Joaquin, and Imperial Valleys (Grinnell and Miller 1944). Current known breeding populations are located within Lassen, Modoc, Plumas, Shasta, Sierra, and Siskiyou Counties (James 1977, Littlefield 1982, California Department of Fish and Game 1994). In the 94

Tahoe National Forest, a breeding population of approximately 11 pair occur within Carman Valley and Kyburz Flats on the Sierraville Ranger District (Youngblood 1998, personal communication).

California pairs of sandhill cranes generally nest in wet meadow, shallow lacustrine, and fresh emergent wetland habitat, with nests constructed of large mounds of water plants over shallow water (Zeiner et al. 1990, California Department of Fish and Game 1994). Studies in California during 1988 showed water depths averaging 2.3 inches (California Department of Fish and Game 1994). Open meadow habitats are also used (Littlefield 1989). On dry sites, nests are scooped- out depressions lined with grasses (Zeiner et al. 1990). Nesting territory size depends on the quality of available habitat. Little is known about territory size for breeding adults in California.

Cranes do not breed until their fourth year, but then usually mate for life (Johnsgard 1975). Nesting activities begin with courtship in April. Peak breeding occurs in May through July, with nesting usually completed by late August. The average clutch size is two, ranging from one to three. Incubation takes approximately 30 days. Shortly after the second egg hatches, adults lead the young from the nest site and begin feeding them. Each adult generally feeds one chick. Chicks are aggressive toward each other, and, shortly after hatching one becomes dominant. Often this dominance leads one chick to be pushed away from the adults. This may cause the chick to starve or be consumed by a predator (Zeiner et al. 1990, California Department of Fish and Game 1994). Young fledge at about 70 days, but remain with their parents for up to one year (Harrison 1978).

Within nesting territories, water and foraging areas are the primary habitat elements necessary for reproductive success. Young cranes (colts) depend mostly on invertebrates during their first five or six weeks and sometimes starve to death when invertebrates decrease with water levels (Pacific Flyway Council 1997). In dry years colts are moved upland, where they feed primarily on grasshoppers and other insects (California Department of Fish and Game 1994). Adults feed on grasses, forbes, cereal crops, roots, tubers. Animal matter such as insects, mice, crayfish and frogs, is taken opportunistically, but should not be considered a major component of their diet.

Recruitment of young is suppressed by predation at most breeding areas within their range (California Department of Fish and Game 1994). Predation from coyotes, common raven and raccoons are a major factor in low nesting success, especially in years of low precipitation (Littlefield 1989, California Department of Fish and Game 1994, Pacific Flyway Council 1997). Preliminary studies indicate that up to 45% of egg losses and up to 76% of young crane mortality may be attributed to predation (Ivey 1995). Surveys conducted by R. Schlorff on greater sandhill cranes in California between 1979 and 1986 averaged a 5.6% recruitment rate, although a recruitment rate of 12% is necessary for population stability (Miller et al. 1972).

Spring and summer livestock grazing may cause a loss of nests and young due to nest desertion and trampling of young (Littlefield 1989). This can be extremely detrimental to breeding cranes, especially if water is limited (California Department of Fish and Game 1994). Lowering of ground water tables often results in stream down cutting with subsequent drying and degradation of wetland habitats (California Department of Fish and Game 1994).

Sandhill cranes are known to fly over the District as they travel from the central valley to breeding sites on the east side of the Sierra. The Yuba River Ranger District does not contain suitable nesting habitat for sandhill cranes. Therefore, this project will not affect this species or its habitat, and no further analysis is needed.

B. Greater Sandhill Crane: Effects of the Proposed Action and Alternatives including Project Design Standards

Implementing either action alternative will not result in any direct, indirect, or cumulative effects to this species.

C. Greater Sandhill Crane: Conclusion and Determination

It is my determination that implementation of Alternative A or C will not affect the greater sandhill crane.

FOREST CARNIVORES – GENERAL DISCUSSION The marten and wolverine are carnivores found in the Sierra Nevada of California and are collectively known as "forest carnivores." They are listed as Sensitive on the Region 5 Forester’s Sensitive Species List. At the present time, forest carnivore survey protocols can only determine presence. If no individuals are detected, the absence of individuals cannot be concluded with any level of confidence. Until recently, most sighting information on forest carnivores in the Sierra Nevada has been incidental and usually unverified.

The Tahoe National Forest completed a forest wide habitat management plan for these species in 1992, the Recommendations for Managing Late Seral Stage Forest and Riparian Habitats on the Tahoe National Forest (Chapel et al. 1992). This was the basis for inclusion of an old forest/riparian corridor system for each project analyzed prior to October 1, 1998. On May 1, 1998, the Regional Forester requested that each forest complete a mesocarnivore network. The Tahoe National Forest completed that network on September 29, 1998, incorporating new information that focused the network on the needs of marten and fisher instead of the more wide- ranging old-forest/riparian concept. Maps and information on how the network was developed are on file at the Supervisor’s Office. This information, in conjunction with the land allocations identified in the Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment (USDA Forest Service 2001), is used during site-specific project analysis to identify potential movement corridors between habitat patches and when developing desired conditions.

PACIFIC MARTEN Status: USFS R5 Sensitive

A. Pacific Marten: Existing Environment This species was previously classified as American marten (Martes americana) but recent genetic and morphological evidence have led to a re-classification as Pacific marten (Martes caurina) and of the subspecies sierrae (Aubry et al. 2012).

The marten historically occurred in forests throughout North America, experienced reductions in portions of its range due to intensive trapping and reduction in habitat quality, and has since been reestablished in portions of the historic range with natural expansions and with the aid of translocations (summarized in Kucera et al. 1995). In California, marten were trapped for fur until prohibited in 1946 in the extreme northwestern portion of the state, and throughout the State in 1953 (summarized in Kucera et al. 1995). The Humboldt marten subspecies was thought to be possibly extinct from the coastal range at one time (refer to Kucera et al. 1995, and Zielinski and Golightly 1996 as cited in Zielinski et al. 2001), but marten are now known to exist in a small area in California’s north coast range (Zielinski et al. 2001, Slauson 2003, Slauson et al. 2007). Marten appear to be well distributed within their geographic ranges, including in the Sierra Nevada (Zielinski et al. 2001); however, Zielinski et al. (2005) reported a gap in the current distribution centered on Plumas County which was not historically present.

The largest potential threat to marten and their habitat resulting from forest management is the effect of forest thinning since clear-cutting is virtually non-existent on public lands. Harvesting on private land may still have significant effects to marten habitat availability. The effects of forest fragmentation has been reported in numerous cases in the literature, mainly describing the sensitivity of martens to the effects of forest fragmentation (Bissonette et al. 1997, Chapin et al. 1998, Hargis et al. 1999, Potvin et al. 2000 in Zielinski 2013), but in these cases, the fragmentation is typically due to regeneration or clear-cut harvests. A recent study (2010-2013) on the Lassen National Forest concluded that marten avoid openings and select for home ranges with fewer patches with simple forest structures (Moriarty 2014). Fuller and Harrison (2005) evaluated the effects of partial harvests on martens in Maine. They found martens used the partial harvest stands primarily during the summer, where 52-59 percent of the basal area was removed in partial harvests. Marten home ranges were larger when they used partial harvest stands, indicating poorer habitat quality in these areas. Partial harvested areas were avoided during the winter, presumably because they provided less overhead cover and protection from predators. How this study relates to predicting the effects of thinning in marten habitat in the Sierra Nevada is unclear, but it may suggest that martens would likely be associated with the more dense residual areas in thinned units and may also increase their home ranges, which may lead to decreased population density. The negative effects of thinning likely result from reducing overhead cover. Thinning from below, which retains overstory cover, probably has the least impact on marten habitat, provided they retain sufficient ground cover. Downed woody debris provides important foraging habitat for martens. Andruskiw et al. (2008) found that physical complexity on or near the forest floor, which is typically provided by coarse woody debris, is directly related to predation success for martens; when this complexity is reduced by timber harvest (a combination of clear-cut and selection harvests with subsequent site preparation in their study area), predation success declines. Marten home ranges in uncut forests had 30 percent more coarse woody debris (> 10 cm diameter) from all decay classes combined than in cut forests (Andruskiw et al. 2008).

In the northern Sierra Nevada marten generally occur at elevations of 3,400 feet to 10,400 feet, averaging 6,600 feet. Kucera et al. (1995) describe the distribution of the marten in California from eastern Siskiyou and northwestern Shasta Counties through the western slope of the Sierra Nevada to northern Kern County, and on the eastern slope of the Sierra Nevada as far south as central-western Inyo County. In the southern Cascades and northern Sierra Nevada, Kirk (2007) noted that 85% of contemporary marten detections in his analysis occurred above 6,000 feet elevation (despite a reduced survey effort at these higher elevations), 15% of detections were between 3,000 and 6,000 feet, and no detections of marten occurred below 3,000 feet elevation. They most often occur at somewhat higher elevations than the fisher (Freel 1991, Zielinski et al. 2005, Zielinski 2013). In contrast to the fisher, the marten distribution in California corresponds closely to the regions of the heaviest snowfall in the southern Cascades and the Sierra Nevada (Krohn et al. 1997). This may be due to lower mobility of the fisher in soft snow, as the foot- loading (ratio of body mass to total foot area) of the fisher is >2 times higher than the marten (Krohn et al. 2005). Where their ranges overlap, there may be negative competitive interactions between the fisher and marten (Krohn et al. 1995, Krohn et al. 1997). Fuller and Harrison (2005) note that fishers are a principal arboreal predator of martens in Maine.

Preferred forest types in the Sierra Nevada include mature mesic forests of red fir, red fir/white fir mix, lodgepole pine, subalpine conifer, and Sierran mixed conifer (Freel 1991). CWHR types 4M, 4D, 5M, 5D, and 6 are moderate to highly important for the marten (USDA Forest Service 2001). Analysis of effects to marten weighs heavily on the preferred habitat types, but consideration is given for the utilization of other marginal habitat types. Forest stands dominated by Jeffrey pine do not appear to support marten in the Tahoe National Forest (Martin 1987), as evidenced by the lack of marten detections in pure eastside pine (some of which were adjacent to mixed conifer stands which did contain marten detections) during systematic surveys conducted on the eastside of the Tahoe National Forest (data on file at Sierraville Ranger District).

Preferred habitat is generally characterized by dense canopy, multi-storied, multi-species late seral coniferous forests with a high number of large (> 24 inch dbh) snags and downed logs (Freel 1991). Late- and old-structure forests (with larger diameter trees and snags, denser canopy and more canopy layers, and plentiful course woody material) are thought to provide ample rest and den sites, protection from avian and mammalian predators, and foraging sites (Bull et al. 2005). Data from some studies shows that use of habitat by marten does not necessarily rely on high levels of canopy cover, but likely involves a complex interaction of habitat variables, at both small and large scales, which provide for their life history requirements and minimizes the risk of predation (refer to Soutiere 1979, Drew 1995, Chapin et al. 1997, and Slauson 2003). Koehler and Hornocker (1977) suggested that while open meadows and burns may be avoided by marten in winter when they are under a heavy snowpack, these areas may be used in the summer, or in low snow years, if they provide adequate cover and food.

Marten have been found to be generally associated with moist conifer-dominated forest conditions (eg. Spencer et al. 1983, Martin 1987, Buskirk et al. 1989, Wilbert et al. 2000, Mowat 2006, Baldwin and Bender 2008). Studies in the Sierra Nevada indicate martens have a strong preference for forest-meadow edges, and riparian forest corridors used as travel ways appear to be important for foraging (Spencer et al. 1983, Martin 1987). Spencer et al. (1983) found that in the lower Sagehen Creek basin on the eastside of the Tahoe National Forest below approximately

6,700 feet elevation, marten strongly preferred riparian lodgepole pine habitat and selected against brush, mixed conifer, and Jeffrey pine habitats; riparian areas were used more for activity than resting, and mixed conifers were used more for resting than activity. In the upper Sagehen basin above approximately 6,700 feet elevation, marten were found to strongly prefer red fir habitat associations for both resting and activity (Spencer et al. 1983). Spencer et al. (1983) found that marten preferred forest stands with 40-60% canopy cover at both resting and foraging sites and avoided stands with less than 30% canopy cover.

Coarse woody debris is an important component of marten habitat, especially in winter, by providing structure that intercepts snowfall and creates subnivean tunnels, interstitial spaces, and access holes (Andruskiw et al. 2008). Marten rest sites in winter are most often in subnivean sites, most often associated with course woody debris, especially during periods of colder temperatures and recent precipitation, but can also be found in association with rocks (Buskirk et al. 1989, Bull and Heater 2000, Wilbert et al. 2000). Rest sites next to course woody debris in the subnivean space offer thermal insulation in colder temperatures (Buskirk et al. 1989). Zielinski et al. (1983) suggested that marten activity varied to allow them to take advantage of subnivean dens utilized by their prey. Sherburne and Bissonette (1993) found marten more likely to utilize subnivean access points in areas that contained more abundant prey. They also found that when coarse woody debris covered a greater percent of the ground, marten use also increased (Sherburne and Bissonette 1993). Older growth forests with accumulated coarse woody debris provide the forest floor structure necessary to enable marten to forage effectively during the winter (Sherburne and Bissonette 1993). In Ontario, Andruskiw et al. (2008) found that despite having lower levels of course woody debris, the availability of subnivean access points was not less in regenerating forest compared to uncut forest due to access points created by low-reaching branches of young conifer trees; however, only the subnivean access points created by course woody debris contained small mammals and were used by marten.

Marten home ranges are large by mammalian standards, particularly for their size (Buskirk and Ruggiero 1994, Buskirk and Zielinski 1997). Martens exhibit a high level of variation in home range size throughout their range, and generally exhibit a low level of same-sex overlap (Bull and Heater 2001). From numerous studies across the range of the marten, Powell (1994) calculated the mean home range size for males to be 2,000 acres and for females 570 acres (as cited in Powell et al. 2003). Marten home range sizes in the Sierra Nevada have been reported to vary from approximately 420 to 1,800 acres for males, and 170 to 1,400 acres for females (summarized data from Simon 1980, Spencer 1981, Martin 1987, and Zielinski et al. 1997 as reported in Buskirk and Zielinski 1997). Variation in home range size may be a function of prey abundance or habitat quality (Ruggiero and Buskirk 1994). In northeastern Oregon, Bull and Heater (2001) found that home range size was not correlated to the amount of unharvested forest in their study. In Maine, Chapin et al. (1998) found that regenerating forest (stands harvested in approximately the past 15 to 20 years) composed a median of 22% (range 9-40%) of male home ranges and 20% (range 7-31%) of female home ranges; the largest residual forest patch (contiguous areas composing adjacent stands of mid- to late-successional forest) in the home range composed a median of 75% (range 30-90%) of male home ranges and 80% (range 51%- 93%) of female home ranges.

Drew (1995) suggested that some fine-scale selection factor not linked to foraging strategy, such as minimizing the risk of predation by avoidance of open areas, appears to influence habitat selection, and recommended maintenance of landscape connectivity to prevent isolation of forest patches. Kirk (2007) found the best association for marten occurrence at the largest scale he modeled (30.9 mi2), with amount of habitat, number of habitat patches, and land ownership category emerging as important variables, suggesting selection based upon broad scale landscape conditions. The size of openings that martens will cross in the Sierra Nevada or Cascades is currently under study (Zielinski 2013). However, in the Rocky Mountains, the average width of clear cuts (openings) crossed by martens was 460 feet; this distance is significantly less than the average width of clear cut openings that martens encountered but did not cross (average = 1,050 feet) (Heinemeyer 2002). Moreover, martens were more likely to cross larger openings (max distance = 600 feet.) that had some structures in them (i.e., isolated trees, snags, logs) than smaller openings (average distance = 160 feet) that had no structures (Heinemeyer 2002). Cushman et al. (2011) reported that snow-tracked martens in Wyoming strongly avoided openings and did not venture more than 55 feet from a forest edge.

In the Sagehen Creek basin in Tahoe National Forest, Moriarty et al. (2011) found that marten detections decreased from an average detection rate of 65% in the early 1980s (Spencer 1981, Zielinski 1981, Martin 1987) to 4% in her study conducted from 2007-2008, based on similar but not identical methodology. Analysis of prior research in this area showed that the distribution of marten detections changed spatially from a semi-uniform distribution in the upper and lower basin in 1980s to detections that were clustered in the southwest corner of the upper basin by the early 1990s (Moriarty et al. 2011). The reasons for the apparent decrease in marten abundance were not clear, but may have included reduction of habitat quality, increase in habitat fragmentation, loss of important microhabitat features such as snags and down woody material, or other factors (Moriarty et al. 2011). From 1984-1990 more than 30% of the forested habitat in the Sagehen basin was impacted by various logging treatments (Moriarty et al. 2011). Moriarty et al. (2011) suggested that rather than amount of habitat (which did not change significantly), it is likely that the size of patch core areas, distance between patches, spatial configuration of patches, and microhabitat features within patches may be more important for marten persistence.

In Yosemite National Park, Hargis and McCullough (1984) found that marten will cross meadows less than or equal to 50 meters wide in winter with no cover, and use scattered trees for cover across meadows greater than 50 meters wide to a maximum of 135 meters. Marten traveled in all major habitat types, without any detectable habitat preferences, but did not pause in openings (only in forests, ecotones, and on frozen streams); locations where they paused were associated with closer distance to the nearest tree, percentage of overhead cover, and height (< 3 meters) of overhead cover (Hargis and McCullough 1984). Larger open areas which lack ground cover may pose a predation risk for the marten (Drew 1995). Drew (1995) found that habitat dominated by defoliated stems (due to tree mortality from bug infestations in his study) may provide sufficient cover.

Prey species abundance is a critical component of the habitat and there is some dietary overlap with the fisher, particularly in the southern Sierra Nevada where they occur sympatrically (Zielinski and Duncan 2004). Both species prey heavily upon squirrels, but marten diet has been found to be diverse, including a variety of mammals, birds, reptiles, fish, insects, seeds, and

100

fruits (Koehler and Hornocker 1977, Soutiere 1979, Hargis and McCullough 1984, Zielinski and Duncan 2004). Marten prey items vary seasonally and appears to depend on availability. Simon (1980) found insects dominating the diet in summer and fall, while Douglas squirrels (Tamiasciurus douglasii) provided the bulk of winter and spring nourishment. At Sagehen Creek, CA, within the Truckee Ranger District, Zielinski (1983) found microtine rodents the most frequent year-round prey. Douglas squirrels, snowshoe hare, northern flying squirrel, and deer mouse were taken almost exclusively during the winter; and squirrels and chipmunks formed the largest component of the diet from late spring through fall.

Numerous and heavily traveled roads are thought to be undesirable in order to avoid habitat disruption and/or animal mortality. Roads may decrease prey and food availability for marten as well as fisher (Allen 1987; Robitaille and Aubry 2000) due to prey population decreases resulting from road kills and/or behavioral barriers to movement. Other studies have shown that occasional one and two lane forest roads should not limit marten movements (Chapin et al. 1997; Mowat 2006; Kirk 2007). In two study sites in California (Lake Tahoe Basin Management unit and Sierra National Forest), Zielinski et al. 2008 found that off-highway vehicle and over-the- snow vehicle use (at least up to 1 vehicle per 2-hour time period) had no effect on marten occurrence, circadian activity, or sex ratio. In west-central Alberta, Webb and Boyce (2009) found that no traplines with consistent marten harvests through time had >36% of the trapline developed; in their study roads and oil and gas wells were the primary form of development.

Marten sightings within the Tahoe National Forest generally follow a band encompassing the higher elevations on either side of the Pacific Crest. Winter surveys for forest carnivores have confirmed marten presence within the Tahoe National Forest, generally spanning the Pacific Crest. Camera monitoring conducted by the Plumas and Tahoe National Forests confirmed that marten are present within the Yuba Project Area, with detections spread throughout. Although it is likely that marten dens are present in the project area, exact locations are not known.

The spatial area used to analyze for effects from this project includes the Yuba Project Area and a buffer of approximately 0.25 miles. To address connectivity of marten habitat and the potential for habitat fragmentation, the Tahoe’s Forest Carnivore Network is also included, which provides for connectivity of large blocks of habitat across the Tahoe National Forest and north into the Plumas National Forest.

The Yuba Project area contains approximately 9,813 acres of suitable marten habitat, which could support approximately two to three breeding unit of individuals (two males to one female).

B. Pacific Marten: Effects of the Proposed Action and Alternatives including Project Design Standards

Project design standards that are included in the Yuba Project Management Requirements and that would reduce effects to this species are as follows:

9. Coordinate all trees marked for removal or girdling within meadows and meadow edges with the wildlife biologist. Focus on lodgepole pine tree removal within the meadow, and thinning within the meadow edge to retain wildlife habitat within the meadow edge. Retain legacy trees and those showing signs of wildlife use (i.e. nests, cavities), and valuable wildlife characteristics 101

(whorled or broken tops, evidence of fungal decay or heart rot). All trees greater than 20” dbh shall be reviewed by a wildlife biologist prior to removal.

10. To minimize the spread of fire into riparian vegetation during prescribed fire activities, no direct ignition will occur within the 100-foot perennial and 50-foot intermittent “riparian buffer” and special aquatic features, unless otherwise agreed by a hydrologist, soil scientist, and aquatic biologist. Fire may back into the 100-foot perennial and 50-foot intermittent “riparian buffer”. Direct ignition may occur within the 30-foot ephemeral “riparian buffer”.

11. To recruit downed logs and minimize disturbance within riparian areas, fall and leave safety hazard trees within the 50’ or 100’ “riparian buffer,” unless otherwise agreed to by a hydrologist and aquatic biologist.

12. No new construction of landings in RCAs. Consult with hydrologist and aquatic biologist before using an existing landing located in a RCA. Locate landings outside of aspen and meadow units, unless otherwise coordinated with an aquatic biologist and hydrologist.

13. Unless otherwise coordinated with an aquatic biologist and hydrologist, directionally fell trees away from the riparian buffer.

14. Retain as much existing coarse woody debris as possible during underburn operations. Recruit and retain cull logs. Emphasize the largest sizes to meet levels identified in the Desired Condition identified for the Unit and as specified in the silvicultural prescription.

15. Fall and leave hazardous snags to recruit dead wood up to the levels identified in the desired condition for the Unit.

Direct and Indirect Effects

Individual animals could be temporarily displaced from the vicinity of units during project implementation by operating machine-powered equipment, or from smoke from prescribed burning. Assuming disturbances occur for 0.25 miles beyond the location of activities. Not all projects are implemented at the same time, and individual units are spread out throughout the project area of approximately 15,000 acres. Commercial thinning units are most likely to be implemented first, followed by hand cut piling, then prescribed burning, with all activities occurring within the next 5 to ten years. This would reduce the total area affected by disturbance in any one year, and it disperses the intensity of effects to individual animals.

The analysis area contains approximately 9,813 acres of suitable marten habitat. Suitable marten habitat is most likely to occur within mid- to late-successional closed-canopy stands (California Wildlife Habitat Relationships vegetation types 4M, 4D, 5M, 5D and 6). Alternative A would thin 1,236 acres of habitat out of 9,813 acres in the analysis area, which represents 12% of suitable habitat in the project area. Canopy cover would be reduced within 43 acres of CWHR 5D (Unit 44), where the current estimated canopy cover would be reduced from 70% to 69%. This would not result in any change in the CWHR type, and would not degrade denning habitat quality in any appreciable way. The prescription for the stand would increase diversity within the stand, while only negligibly reducing overstory canopy. Alternative A would also thin 102

another 1193 acres of suitable foraging habitat. All thinning treatments would retain canopies above 40%, which would retain suitable habitat. Alternative C would thin 12 fewer acres, because thinning in Unit 21 is dropped.

In each of alternative A and C where thinning is proposed, the estimated canopy cover reductions are all retained above 40% and they are proposed to improve the diversity within stands that would move them towards late-seral conditions.

In addition, Alternatives A and C would remove conifers to restore aspens and provides for the retention of legacy conifers within these stands, while still proposing to reduce canopy cover around aspen trees. Reducing canopy cover from conifers is a short term effect, because the aspens would eventually become the dominant tree canopy. Aspen restoration might reduce habitat quality for the short term by removing overstory conifers. However, restoring these stands to a healthy aspen-dominated stand would increase plant and animal species diversity. Increasing mammal species diversity provides a wider selection of prey species and foraging opportunities for marten. The alternatives vary in the acres of aspens that would be restored. Alternative C would restore 93 fewer acres than Alternative A.

Snags and downed logs, especially those in larger size classes, and hollowed logs are important components of habitat by providing denning and sheltering habitat for forest carnivores and their prey. Timber harvest would retain all existing logs. Both Alternatives A and C would underburn 1,181 acres (12%) and hand cut, pile and burn, with followup underburning in 151 acres (2%) of suitable habitat within the project area. These actions would not reduce the overstory canopy cover, but they will reduce understory structure in stands by removing smaller diameter trees (<10” dbh) and shrubs. Consequently, fuels reduction activities may reduce the quantity of prey that is present over the short term, but they may also make some prey more available to predation, by reducing hiding cover. There are overall longer term benefits derived to late- successional habitat by reducing understory fuels, and consequently the intensity and size of stand-replacing fires where fuels treatments are strategically placed to slow the intensity and rate of fire spread.

Burning prescriptions are developed to identify local conditions and desired outcomes at a stand scale, such as the maintenance of large down logs and standing snags where practical and where firefighter safety is not compromised. Some snags and down logs will be consumed by the fire, and these will be replaced by trees that die from the additional stress of a fire. Prescribed burning would increase the fire resilience of these stands to catastrophic loss in a wild fire, and it re-introduces fire back into the system as a dynamic process with varying cycles of nutrient transport, tree mortality, and snag and log recruitment.

103

CUMULATIVE

The spatial area considered for analyzing cumulative effects includes the project area and a buffer of 1.5 miles surrounding it. To consider habitat connectivity, the Tahoe’s Forest Carnivore Network was used to include potential movement corridors and habitat blocks that may be present adjacent to this project area. There are no active mining plans of operations that occur within habitat, or that would remove or degrade habitat. Recreational activities are mostly limited to hiking, fishing, and camping. There is no private land development outside of three summer home tracts that are located next to Hwy 49 on the southern edge of the Project, and two organized camps, which restricts most human disturbances centered along the Hwy 49 corridor. Currently, there are no residential development plans in place on private land, and no active timber harvest plans that would remove or reduce habitat quality within the project analysis area. There has been no timber harvest on National Forest System lands in the past 10 years that has removed any spotted owl habitat.

Alternatives A, and C will add cumulative effects to marten. The degree of these effects is small for the following reasons: (1) The overall quantity and quality of habitat within the analysis area would be retained, (2) The proposed treatments would improve habitat quality over the long term by developing late successional habitat characteristics sooner, (3) Important habitat structural features are maintained within units (large trees, large down logs, large snags); (4) Project effects are limited to occurring within only a proportion of habitat (12%) that is available, and they are short term, lasting about 10-20 years.

C. Pacific Marten: Conclusion and Determination

It is my determination that implementation of Alternative A or C may affect individuals, but is not likely to result in a trend toward Federal listing or loss of viability for the American marten within the planning area of the Tahoe National Forest. In the absence of a range wide viability assessment, this viability determination is based on local knowledge of the American marten as discussed previously in this evaluation, and professional judgment.

WOLVERINE Status: USFS R5 Sensitive

104

A. Wolverine: Existing Environment The wolverine is currently proposed for listing as threatened by the US Fish and Wildlife Service, and a new status review has been initiated (2016) to determine if the northern distinct population segment warrants listing. The wolverine is also considered a California State Threatened species, and is listed on the USFS Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species list. The wolverine was petitioned for listing as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act in 2008 but upon status review in 2008 the USFWS determined it was not warranted listing (USFWS 2008; 73 FR 12929). On February 4, 2013, the USFWS proposed to protect the N. American wolverine as a threatened species, and also proposed a special ruling that would limit protections of the ESA only to those necessary to address the threats to the species. Human activities in wolverine habitat such as snowmobiling, backcountry skiing, and land management activities like timber harvest and infrastructure development, would not be prohibited or regulated.

Wolverines are distributed across the circumpolar northern hemisphere (Banci 1994; USFWS 2011) and their range extends south along connected mountain ranges (Pasitschniak-Arts and Larivière 1995). Historically in North America, they were found from Alaska to eastern Canada (Banci 1994; Pasitschniak-Arts and Larivière 1995) and south across the Canada-US border provinces and states, and extended south along the Rocky Mountains to Arizona and New Mexico and along the west coast mountains and Sierra Nevada Mountains (Banci 1994; Pasitschniak-Arts and Larivière 1995). The southern extent of the wolverine’s range is discontinuous and is found in mountainous terrain. In the contiguous US, wolverines are found in, Montana, Wyoming, Idaho, Oregon, Washington, and, recently, California (Moriarity et al. 2009; USFWS 2011) and Colorado (USFWS 2010).

Since the last historic specimen was collected in California in 1922 (Fry 1923, and Grinnell et al. 1937 as cited in Aubry et al. 2007), there have been periodic anecdotal sightings (lacking conclusive physical evidence) of the wolverine in California including many in the Tahoe National Forest, though these anecdotal sightings should be interpreted with caution (refer to McKelvey et al. 2008). Verifiable records were practically absent since the early twentieth century (Moriarity et al. 2009) until a male wolverine was photographed at baited camera stations on the Tahoe NF and adjacent Sierra Pacific Industries land in 2008 through 2015 (Moriarity et al. 2009; USFWS 2010; USFS NRIS records database 2015, CDFW 2014). These records are north of Interstate 80 in Nevada and Sierra counties, west and south of Sierraville, California. The USFWS considers the Sierra Nevada Mountains to be part of the wolverine’s current range, but a population has not been reestablished (the single male identified in 2008 does not make a population) (USFWS 2010). After a status review in 2010 the USFWS concluded that although there is one verified wolverine in the Sierra Nevada and there may be others dispersing into the area, there is no evidence that California currently has a wolverine population.

The historic geographical range of the wolverine in California was originally described from the vicinity of Mount Shasta to Monache Meadows in Tulare County (Grinnell 1913 as cited in Shempf and White 1977), which was later refined to Lake Tahoe through Tulare County in the central and southern Sierra Nevada (Grinnell 1933 and Grinnell et al. 1937, as cited in Shempf and White 1977). Fry (1923) noted that the wolverine was found in the high Sierra between 105

6,500 and 13,000 feet, that it was becoming very rare with individuals few and scattered where still found, and were most abundant in the vicinity of Mt. Whitney and Sequoia National Park. Grinnell et al. (1937) noted that "the wolverine in California is found chiefly in the Boreal life zone...at the time of heavy snowstorms in midwinter, wolverines have been found as low as 5,000 feet on the westslope of the Sierra Nevada...But ordinarily the wolverine is not known to come below 8,000 feet, even in the severest storms of winter." Grinnell et al. (1937) estimated that there were no more than 15 pairs of wolverines left in California in the early 1930s. Based on reported sightings from various sources, Schempf and White (1977) described the wolverine distribution in California as a broad arc from Del Norte and Trinity counties (Yocum 1973) east through Siskiyou and Shasta Counties (Wildlife Management Institute 1974 as cited in Schempf and White 1977), and south through the Sierra Nevada to Tulare County (Jones 1950 and 1955). Kovach (1981) expanded this range to include the White Mountains in Mono County. Shempf and White (1977) described the elevational range in the North Coast mountains from 1,600 to 4,800 ft, in the northern Sierra Nevada from 4,300 to 7,300 ft, and in the southern Sierra Nevada from 6,400 to 10,800 ft. However, Aubry et al. (2007) scrutinized the historical records, and suggest that historically the wolverine population in the Pacific states was disjunct, with a large gap in distribution from the populations in the north Cascades and the Rocky Mountains to the historic California wolverine population, which only occurred in the central and southern Sierra Nevada. This conclusion is reinforced by genetic analysis conducted by Schwartz et al. (2007). Schwartz et al. (2007) compared DNA from seven historical specimens of wolverines from California with those from other locations throughout their holarctic distribution; their results indicate that wolverines from California likely genetically diverged over 2,000 years (and possibly much longer) ago from any other population, and are genetically more similar to Eurasian wolverines than to other North American populations.

Wolverines in the southern part of the Pacific Northwest Coast and Mountains ecoprovince are becoming isolated from the northern portion of the ecoprovince by heavy development in British Columbia. However, occasional reports within the Thomson-Okanogan Highlands ecoprovince of British Columbia and Washington suggest that this may be a dispersal corridor. It is also possible that wolverines have become isolated within the Sierra Nevada ecoprovince of California because of human activities. (Banci 1994).

There are probably 250 to 300 wolverines in the contiguous US and these are distributed among five subpopulations: Northern Cascades (WA), Idaho, the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem, northern Montana, and the Crazy and Belt population (west-central MT) (USFWS 2011). Furthermore, the distance between these subpopulations is far enough such that dispersal, and therefore genetic exchange, is infrequent (USFWS 2011). The USFWS (2011) indicates at least 400 breeding pairs would be necessary to sustain genetic variability over the long term in the contiguous US, absent immigration. Genetic structure in the southern and eastern extremes of the distribution of wolverines is relatively high, possibly reflecting the fragmented nature of these populations at the periphery of their historical range (Kyle 2002).

There is one known wolverine in California. The two source population centers (the North Cascades and western Rocky Mountains) are the nearest to the area, and the Idaho population is the closest. However, the Idaho population is still at least 400 miles away, which makes for a long dispersal distance. Hair and scat samples were acquired and it was genetically determined

106

that this animal most likely came from the western Rocky Mountains, and perhaps more accurately, central Idaho (Moriarity et al. 2009).

In the contiguous US, wolverine populations appear to have increased during the last 50 years, as indicated by recolonization of areas from which they were previously extirpated (Aubry et al. 2007). Recently, dispersing males have been documented in California (Moriarty et al. 2009) and Colorado (Inman et al. 2010). These are the first verifiable wolverine records in these states since 1924 and 1919, respectively (Aubry et al. 2007), and are likely associated with current population expansions such as the recent observed recolonization of the northern Cascade Range in Washington (K. Aubry, unpublished data).

Males reach sexual maturity at two and a half years; females may breed at age one (Banci 1994). Mating occurs during the summer (May through August), followed by delayed implantation (Pasitschniak-Arts and Larivière 1995). Because implantation can occur from November to as late as March, kits can be born as early as January or as late as April (Banci 1994), but are usually born in February or March (Pasitschniak-Arts and Larivière 1995). One to four kits make up the typical litter (Banci 194; Pasitschniak-Arts and Larivière 1995). Kits develop rapidly, are weaned in seven to ten weeks, and are full grown in about seven months (Banci 194; Pasitschniak-Arts and Larivière 1995).

Dispersal by young is different for each sex. Females typically stay near where they were born, whereas males will not. The longest recorded dispersal distance by a male was 378 kilometers (about 230 miles) from Alaska to Yukon (Banci 1994). If the wolverine from California was a dispersing male from Idaho, it traveled about 400 miles, and upwards of 600 miles if from other subpopulation centers.

Broadly, wolverines are restricted to boreal forests, tundra, and western mountains. The vegetation zones occupied by wolverines include the Arctic Tundra, Subarctic-Alpine Tundra, Boreal Forest, Northeast Mixed Forest, Redwood Forest, and Coniferous Forest (Banci 1994). Researchers have generally agreed that wolverine "habitat is probably best defined in terms of adequate year-round food supplies in large, sparsely inhabited wilderness areas, rather than in terms of particular types of topography or plant associations" (Kelsall 1981).

Wolverines naturally occur at low densities, and require cold areas that maintain deep, persistent snow cover into the warm season for successful denning, (USFWS 2011). Within the contiguous United States wolverine habitat is restricted to high-elevation areas in the West. Their current distribution includes functioning populations in the North Cascades Mountains and the northern Rocky Mountains, as well as populations that have not yet reestablished in the southern Rocky Mountains and the Sierra Nevada (Ibid).

Consistent with field observations indicating that all wolverine reproductive dens are located in areas that retain snow in the spring (Magoun and Copeland 1998), Aubry et al. (2007) concluded that the distribution of persistent spring snow cover was congruent with the wolverine’s historical distribution in the contiguous United States. This relationship was further supported by the findings of Schwartz et al. (2007) that showed historical wolverine populations in the

107

southern Sierra Nevada of California, which occupied a geographically isolated area of persistent spring snow cover, were genetically isolated from northern populations.

Recently one researcher compiled (Inman 2012) most of the extant spatial data on wolverine denning and habitat use to test the hypotheses that wolverines require snow cover for reproductive dens (Magoun 1998), and that their geographic range is limited to areas with persistent spring snow cover (Aubry et al. 2007). Although Aubry et al. (2007) analysis covered only North America and used relatively coarse EASEGrid Weekly Snow Cover and Sea Ice Extent data (Inman 2012), these relationships with finer scale snow data (0.5-km pixels) obtained throughout the Northern Hemisphere and were confirmed from the Moderate-Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) instrument on the Terra satellite (Ibid). Specifically, the data was compiled and evaluated the locations of 562 reproductive dens in North America and Scandinavia in relation to spring snow (Ibid). All dens were located in snow and 97.9% were in areas identified as being persistently snow covered through the end of the wolverine’s reproductive denning period (15 May; Aubry et al. 2007) based on MODIS imagery. Additionally, it was that areas characterized by persistent spring snow cover contained 89% of all telemetry locations from throughout the year in nine study areas at the southern extent of current wolverine range (Inman 2012). Excluding areas where wolverines were known to have been extirpated recently, persistent spring snow cover provided a good fit to current understandings of the wolverine’s circumboreal range (Ibid). Moreover, it was found that the genetic structure of wolverine populations in the Rocky Mountains was consistent with dispersal within areas identified as being snow covered in spring, and strong avoidance of other areas. Thus, the areas with spring snow cover that supported reproduction (Ibid) could also be used to predict year-round habitat use, dispersal pathways, and both historical (Aubry et al. 2007) and current ranges ((Inman 2012). Security cover for kits may also be enhanced during winter; snow tunnels or snow caves are characteristic natal and maternal dens for wolverine in many areas (Banci 1994).

Information on the use of natal dens in which the kits are born by wolverines in North America is biased to tundra regions where dens are easily located and observed. These natal dens typically consist of snow tunnels up to 60 meters in length (Banci 1994). Bedding does not appear necessary, inasmuch as kits were found in shallow pits dug on the ground (Ibid). Snow tunnels in northwest Alaska were also used by lone wolverines (Ibid), suggesting that they dig tunnels or use existing tunnels as resting sites as well. Natal dens above treeline appear to require snow 1-3 meters deep (Banci 1994) that persists into spring. In Finland, one researcher believed that dens that wolverine had dug themselves were preferred, because caves were rarely used, although available (Ibid). Little is known of the distribution of den sites in the landscape. The proximity of rocky areas, such as talus slopes or boulder fields, for use as dens or rendezvous sites was important for wolverines in Norway (Ibid), in the Soviet Union (Ibid), and in Idaho (unpublished data in Copeland 1993). Natal dens may be located near abundant food, such as cached carcasses or live prey (Rausch and Pearson 1972; Banci 1994).

Limited information is available on dens in forested habitat. In northern Lapland, most of the dens in forests were associated with spruce (Picea sp.) trees; five consisted of holes dug under fallen spruces, two were in standing spruces, and one natal den was in-side a decayed, hollow spruce and it was reported that dens in Kamchatka were usually constructed in the "hollows"

108

(cavities) of large trees (Banci 1994). Rarely, kits have been found relatively unprotected, on branches and on the bare ground. If females are disturbed they will move their kits, often to what appear to be unsuitable den sites (Ibid). It has been hypothesized that one of the factors affecting the selection of a natal den site was the ease with which it could be adapted to a den. It was reported dens in abandoned beaver lodges (Banci 1994), old bear dens, creek beds, under fallen logs, under the roots of upturned trees, or among boulders and rock ledges. In Siberia, dens were found in caves, under boulders and tree roots, and in accumulations of woody debris consisting of broken or rotted logs and dry twigs (Ibid). Natal dens in Montana were most commonly associated with snow-covered tree roots, log jams, or rocks and boulders (Ibid).

What is understood about home range size and habitat use is generally from remote, undeveloped northern regions and generally is not known for the Sierra Nevada. Schempf and White (1977) extrapolated from locations of anecdotal reports of wolverines in the northern Sierra Nevada that they use mixed conifer habitat (8 of 16 reports), lodgepole (4 of 16 reports), and fir (3 of 16 reports). White and Barrett (1979) believed that wolverines in California are highly dependent upon mature conifer forests for survival in winter, and generally move downslope in winter into heavier timber where food is available. In their preliminary search for study animals previous to capture for their demographic analysis, Squires et al. (2007) considered all forested areas (excluding ponderosa pine forest) and areas above tree line as potential wolverine habitat.

Wolverines can travel long distances in their daily hunting, 30-40 km being "normal" (Banci 1994). Adult males generally cover greater distances than do adult females (Ibid) and may make longer and more direct movements (Ibid). During late winter, lactating females with young move less than solitary adult females (Ibid). In May and June, hunting mothers periodically return to their young that have been left at rendezvous sites (Ibid). In northwest Alaska, females returned to rendezvous sites at least daily (Ibid). Kits were moved to new rendezvous sites every 1-9 days and more frequently as they grew older (Magoun 1985). By June, kits were moved every 1-2 days (Ibid). When her kits were 4-11 weeks old, a female in central Idaho used 18-20 den sites, moving her kits a total of about 26 km (unpublished data in Copeland 1993).

In northwest Montana, wolverines of both sexes made frequent long movements out of their home ranges that lasted from a few to 30 days, and they always returned to the same area (Hornocker and Hash 1981). These long-distance movements appear to be temporary and not attempts to expand the home range. Whether these movements are exploratory or whether wolverine are returning to previously known feeding locations is unknown (Banci 1994). Except for females providing for kits or males seeking mates, movements of wolverine are generally motivated by food. Wolverines restrict their movements to feed on carrion or other high quality and abundant food sources (Gardner 1985; Banci 1988).

Home ranges of adult wolverine in North America range from less than 100 square kilometers (km2) to over 900 km2. The variation in home range sizes among studies partly may be related to differences in the abundance and distribution of food. (Banci 1994). Young females typically establish residency next to or within the natal home range (Banci 1994). Although some immature females disperse, males are more likely to do so. Male wolverines may disperse either as young-of-the-year or as subadults (Banci 1994; Banci 1988). Dispersal can include extensive exploratory movements (Banci 1994, Banci 1988).

109

Winter home ranges typically overlap with those used in the snow-free season but also include different habitats, even if there are no significant differences in the size of seasonal home ranges (Banci 1994, Banci 1998). Differences between seasonal home ranges can be attributed to changes in prey distribution and availability. Wolverines of both sexes appear to maintain their home ranges within the same area between years (Banci 1994; Banci 1988). There may be slight changes in the yearly boundaries of home ranges with the addition of juvenile females adjacent to the natal area, with mortality, and with immigration. For example, when a resident dies, a neighbor may assume part of the vacant home range (Banci 1994; Banci 1988).

In central Idaho, Copeland et al. (2007) examined habitat associations by aerial and ground radio-tracking, finding that elevation was the strongest and most consistent explanatory variable across all of their logistic regression models. Excluding mountaintops, wolverines favored higher elevations; 83% of all wolverine use points occurred in a relatively narrow elevation band from approximately 7,200 to 8,500 feet elevation, and there was only a minor but statistically significant seasonal shift downward in elevation (mean of 325 feet) during winter except for adult females which did not exhibit a significant downward shift (Copeland et al. 2007). In the central Idaho study area, alpine scree habitats associated with talus and open mountaintops above timberline generally occurred above approximately 8,850 feet elevation; modeling indicated that these habitats were used but not beyond availability in summer, and were avoided in winter (Copeland et al. 2007). In northwestern Montana, Hornocker and Hash (1981) also found a seasonal trend in elevational use; with mean elevation in winter (4500 feet) lower than those in spring (5500 feet), summer (6300 feet), and fall (6200 feet). In central Idaho, Copeland et al. (2007) found that northerly aspects were generally preferred in both seasons (except for adult males in the summer), possibly related to the increased prevalence of the shrub-grass vegetation type (which the wolverines strongly avoided) on southerly aspects. In contrast, in northwestern Montana Hornocker and Hash (1981) found that while all aspects were used, the easterly and southerly aspects received the majority of consistent use. In the northwestern Montana study area, Hornocker and Hash (1981) found that various types of topography were used; slopes were used 36%, basins 22%, wide river bottoms 14%, and ridge tops 8%. In central Idaho, Copeland et al. (2007) found in their models that steep slopes were a strong variable for wolverine presence in summer, most notably in adults, but noted that this may have been reflective of the preference for the higher elevations in which the steeper slopes occur with more frequency.

Hornocker and Hash (1981) found that large areas of medium or scattered mature timber accounted for 70% of all relocations, and areas of dense young timber were used least. Hornocker and Hash (1981) noted that wolverines were found in wet timber, dry timber, and alpine areas during 23%, 31%, and 16% of their relocations, respectively, and were rarely found in burned or wet meadow areas. Hornocker and Hash (1981) found that wolverines appeared reluctant to cross openings of any size such as recent clear-cuts or burns; they state: “Tracking revealed that wolverines meandered through timber types, hunting and investigating, but made straight-line movements across large openings.” They note that edge and ecotonal areas are used (Hornocker and Hash 1981). Averaged across seasons, wolverines were located in alpine fir, alpine fir-spruce, and alpine fir-lodgepole pine cover types 56% of the time, and also in Douglas fir-lodgepole pine (22%) and Douglas fir-larch (17%) (Hornocker and Hash 1981). Copeland et al. (2007) found that use of vegetation communities varied by season but the variation was

110

relatively minor, rock-barren habitats which generally occurred at the highest elevations were generally used at proportions less than their availability except by adult males during summer, and grass-shrub habitat was avoided (Copeland et al. 2007). Modeling of habitat use by Copeland et al. (2007) suggested that in summer, adult females and subadults were associated with whitebark pine, and adult males were associated with rock-barren habitat; in winter, adult females were associated with douglas fir-lodgepole, subadults were associated with douglas fir, and adult males were associated with lodgepole pine. Non-use of Douglas fir-ponderosa pine was consistently indicated in their models, primarily during summer, but it was not strongly significant (Copeland et al. 2007). They noted that lodgepole pine tended to dominate the lower fringes of the subalpine zone and that adult males tended to travel more widely than females, and as such were more likely found in lower, conifer-dominated habitats simply by chance; montane conifer forest accounted for 70% of adult male locations. Copeland et al. (2007) stated: “We think is reasonable to assume that the wolverine’s association with particular vegetation types had less to do with the vegetative species than with some other ecological component provided by or associated with a particular habitat. We speculate, as have others, that seasonal variation in habitat use is a response to varying food availability.”

Rivers, lakes, mountain ranges, or other topographical features do not seem to block movements of wolverines (Banci 1994, Banci 1988). Considering the wolverine's avoidance of human developments, extensive human settlement and major access routes may function as barriers to dispersal (Banci 1994)

Predation may influence wolverine habitat use, depending on the predator complement in the environment, including humans. In south-central Alaska, wolverine use of rock outcrops was greater than the availability of those areas during summer (Banci 1994), perhaps because rock outcrops were being used as escape cover from aircraft. However, wolverines may have also been hunting marmots and collared pikas (Ochotona collaris) (Ibid). In Squaw Valley California a wolverine was observed in a marmot (Marmota flaviventris) colony in July 1953 (Ruth 1954). Scat suspected from that animal also contained indigenous squirrel remains (Ibid).

Wolverines may climb trees to escape wolves (Banci 1994), although if the trees are not high enough, such attempts may be unsuccessful (Burkholder 1962). Wolverines are found in a variety of habitats and do not appear to shun open areas where wolves are present. Wolverines occur locally with cougars, especially in British Columbia and the northwestern United States. Trees would not be an effective defense because cougars are adept at climbing. Aside from anecdotal reports, only one report on the use of resting sites by wolverines in forested habitats is published (Banci 1994). Overhead cover may be important for resting sites as well as natal and maternal dens. Resting sites in Montana were often in snow in timber types that afforded cover (Banci 1994).

All studies have shown the paramount importance of large mammal carrion, and the availability of large mammals underlies the distribution, survival, and reproductive success of wolverines. Over most of their range, ungulates provide this carrion, although in coastal areas, marine mammals may be used. Wolverines are too large to survive on only small prey. (Banci 1994).

111

Bone and hide may be important foods. They may be available for several months after an ungulate dies (Banci 1994). Small mammals are primary prey only when carrion of larger mammals is unavailable (Banci 1988).

Porcupines (Erethizon dorsatum) occur in wolverine diets in Alaska, the Yukon, and Montana. Although they represent a large meal, porcupines appear to be limited to those wolverines that have learned to kill them (Banci 1988). The frequency of red squirrels (Tamiasciuris hudsonicus) in wolverine diets in northern forested habitats (Gardner 1985; Banci 1988) is a reflection of their wide distribution and availability throughout winter. Arctic ground squirrels (Spermophilus parryi) composed 26% of all sciurids in the winter diet of Yukon wolverines (Banci 1988) and the majority of the diet in northwest Alaska, where snowshoe hares were absent (Magoun 1985). Wolverines cache hibernating sciurids such as ground squirrels and hoary marmots (Marmota caligata) in the snow-free months for later use and excavate them from winter burrows (Gardner 1985; Magoun 1985). Birds occur in the diet according to their availability. Wolverines prey on ptarmigan (Lagopus spp.) in winter in the Yukon (Banci 1988), Alaska, and the Northwest Territories (Banci 1994), Prey that occurs sporadically in diets, such as American marten, weasel (Mustela spp.), mink (M. vison), lynx, and beaver (Castor canadensis), likely are mostly scavenged. Vegetation is consumed incidentally although ungulate rumens and may contain nutrients that wolverines cannot obtain from other foods (Banci 1988).

Although wolverines are mostly scavengers, they can prey on ungulates under some conditions. Because of their low foot loads (pressure applied to substrate) of 22 g/cm2 (Banci 1994), wolverines can prey on larger mammals in deep snow and when ungulates are vulnerable. Caching of food by wolverines has been described by most studies except that in Montana. The frequency of caching by wolverines may be affected in various ways by the presence of other carnivores (Ibid).

The shrinking range of wolverines coincided with that of wolves in the late 1800's and the early 1900's. In some areas, predator control was coupled with the decimation of large mammal populations, such as the northern caribou herds (Banci 1994), reducing food available to wolverines. Wolverines were vulnerable to historical trapping; however, they are also described as being extremely sensitive to the presence of people (Banci 1994).

Starvation likely is an important mortality factor for young and very old wolverines. Suspected deaths from starvation include two young-of-the-year females in southwest Yukon (Banci 1988) and a young female and an old male in Montana (Banci 1994). These animals relied heavily on baits just before their deaths, suggesting that very young and old age classes may be unsuccessful foragers, even if food is abundant (Banci 1994; Banci 1988). Documenting the fates of young males is difficult be-cause of their extensive movements and it is not possible to predict whether sexes differ in their susceptibility to starvation (Banci 1994).

Climate changes are predicted to reduce wolverine habitat and range by 23 percent over the next 30 years, and 63 percent over the next 75 years, rendering remaining habitat significantly smaller and more fragmented. This increased fragmentation and isolation of subpopulations is expected to limit the regular dispersal of wolverines that is necessary to maintain genetic exchange and metapopulation dynamics. Other secondary threats to the wolverine that could work in concert

112

with climate change include harvest, disturbance, infrastructure, transportation corridors, and small effective population sizes. The primary threat of habitat and range loss due to climate change would affect wolverine habitat and, therefore, the magnitude of threats to the wolverine is high (USFWS 2011). If these scenarios are valid, then conservation efforts should focus on maintaining wolverine populations in the largest remaining areas of contiguous habitat and, to the extent possible, facilitating connectivity among habitat patches (McKelvey et al 2011). However climate change has not yet had a detectable effect on the wolverine to this point in time; the threat is nonimminent (USFWS 2011).

In 1977-78, a study conducted by the California Department of Fish and Game did not detect any wolverines in the north Sierras (Hummel 1978). During the winter of 1991-92, the California Deptartment of Fish and Game, University of California Berkeley, and five National Forests conducted a cooperative wolverine study using baited infra-red camera systems at 57 camera stations. Forests involved were the Inyo, Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit, Shasta-Trinity, Stanislaus, and Tahoe National Forest. No wolverines were detected. During this study, fifteen of the camera units were placed within the Tahoe National Forest for various lengths of time. In 1993 and 1994, the Tahoe National Forest conducted additional studies using five camera units that were monitored by volunteers. No wolverines were detected. During the winters of 1998 through 2004, 136 baited camera survey stations were conducted primarily on the Sierraville Ranger District to USFS Region 5 protocol (Zielinski and Kucera 1995). Wolverines were not detected during these survey efforts.

Anecdotal sightings of wolverines have been reported in the Tahoe National Forest. Ruth (1954) reported a wolverine in Squaw Valley during an Audobon Camp field trip which was observed by about 25 people. Schempf and White (1977) reported three recorded sightings in the Webber Lake area on Sierraville Ranger District, and on Truckee Ranger District near Martis Creek, though these may have been marmots. On Sierraville Ranger District, a wolverine sighting of unknown reliability is recorded near Jackson Meadows Reservoir in 1971, other incidental reports of unknown reliability have come from the public near Webber Lake Falls. More recent incidental sightings that could potentially be wolverine include a 1991 sighting reported in Euer Valley on Truckee Ranger District. A 1992 sighting in the Harding Point area, northeast of Sierraville, was confirmed by track identification. Sightings on the Yuba River Ranger District include one in 1989 in the Haskell Peak area, one in 1990 in the Upper Sardine Lake area, one in 1993 along the Gold Lake Road and Salmon Lake Road area, one in 1998 near Bassett's Station, and one at Sawmill Lake (near Bowman Lake) in 2008. Close to the Tahoe National Forest boundary with Plumas National Forest, sightings have been reported in the Gold Lakes Basin; one around 2006 and one in July 2009. On the Foresthill Ranger District, a wolverine was sighted in the Robinson Flat area in 1980 by a wildlife biologist, in 1992 a wildlife biologist observed a wolverine in the Granite Chief Wilderness Area, and around 2003 a wildlife biologist observed a wolverine near Foresthill. In 2008, following the confirmed detection of the male wolverine in the Tahoe National Forest (discussed in Moriarty et al. 2009), numerous sightings were called in to Tahoe National Forest personnel which vary in date as far back as 1965. These reports include one from Prosser Dam on Truckee Ranger District in August 1965, a report of a dead wolverine found along the Gold Lake Highway in 1972, one from Sawmill Lake in August 1997, one from Bowman Lake Road near Henness Pass in 2000, one in the Webber Lake Falls

113

area in summer 2004, one at Sierra Ski Park in January 2008, and one with unknown year from The Cedars area.

There are no confirmed detections of wolverines within the Yuba Project area, and no evidence that wolverine populations persist in the Sierra Nevada. Proposals in this project occur between 5,500 and 7,400 feet in elevation, which is below sub-alpine and alpine habitats, and below those within which wolverines were shown to prefer in central Idaho (7,874 feet) (Copeland et al. 2007). They are also well below the 10,000 feet identified by Grinnel et al. (1937). Persistent, deep snow cover throughout April and May are associated with wolverine denning habitat (Copeland et al. 2007). Deep persistent snow is generally absent from the Yuba Project area, and only approximately 2,500 acres in the project area may retain snow in most years. This patch is not spatially connected to other large patches of habitat. Out of a wolverine home range of 100- 200 mi.2, this would represent only 2-4% of disconnected habitat within a home range. Consequently, wolverines are not expected to be present within the project area.

B. Wolverine: Effects of the Proposed Action and Alternatives including Project Design Standards DIRECT Because wolverines are more typically found in higher elevations, are believed to have been extirpated from the Sierra Nevada (Zielinski et al 2005, Aubrey et al 2007), and verified detections are limited to a single male that likely came from Idaho (Schwartz et al. 2007), this project is not expected to directly affect individuals. A population of wolverines is not considered to be present in the Sierra Nevada. Wolverines may move downslope during the winter, but return upslope with the onset of snowmelt, and would not be present when projects are implemented. Therefore, direct effects to individuals would not occur.

INDIRECT

An analysis was conducted of wolverine denning habitat quality. Persistent, deep, snow cover throughout April and May appears to be associated with wolverine denning (Copeland et al. 2007). A map obtained from Copeland (2010) ranks potential denning habitat quality based on the number of years between 2000 through 2006 that retained snow cover between April 24 through May 15, mapped approximately to the nearest 40-acre scale (1/16 section) (Tahoe National Forest Supervisor’s Office files). For purposes of this analysis, using the 7-year baseline of Copeland (2010), wolverine denning is most likely to occur within areas where snow is retained in most years (6-7 years out of 7). The Yuba Project area does not contain any areas where deep persistent snow is present.

Precommercial thinning of plantations (units 5, 24, 32, 35, 36, and 54), thinning (unit 12, 57), and meadow restoration (units 56, 57, 107), aspen (unit 23) are proposed where snow persists through May 15 in five out of seven years. Recommendations for maintaining habitat for wolverine include maintaining habitat for prey species, especially ungulate prey. Proposals to restore aspens, reduce conifer encroachment into meadows, and thin plantations and overly dense stands all improve habitat for wolverines and their prey. Meadow and aspen restoration includes 114

creating snags within meadow edges, which would increase downed wood, and improve habitat. Additionally, silvicultural prescriptions will enhance the maintenance and development of multi- species within stands, insuring for a variety of seed food for small mammal prey. Because all species do not necessarily produce abundant seeds in any given year, increasing the diversity of seed-producing trees and shrubs insures for a reliable food source for prey animals.

Closing and decommissioning roads under this project would limit human access. This will improve habitat by reducing the potential for direct disturbances caused by people. None of the proposed actions will result in any seral stage change, which will not appreciably change habitat for this species or its prey animals. Maintaining closed canopy conditions has not been shown to be important for wolverine use.

CUMULATIVE

Because there are no direct or indirect effects to wolverines, there are no cumulative effects.

C. Wolverine: Conclusion and Determination

It is my determination that this project will not affect wolverines.

PALLID BAT Status: USFS R5 Sensitive

A. Pallid Bat: Existing Environment The pallid bat occurs in western North America, from southern British Columbia to central Mexico and east to central Texas (NatureServe 2011). Within its range, it is associated with a variety of low elevation arid communities and at higher elevation conifer communities; its abundance is greatest in dry conditions (Rambaldini 2005). Throughout California, the pallid bat is usually found in low to middle elevation habitats below 6000 feet (Barbour and Davis 1969; Philpott 1997), however, the species has been found up to 10,000 feet in the Sierra Nevada Mountains. The range in California is statewide and it is predicted to occur on every National Forest in the Region (CWHR 2008). Occurrence records from the state (CNDDB 2011) indicate presence within the boundaries of the following National Forests: Cleveland NF, Eldorado NF, Inyo NF, Klamath NF, Lassen NF, Los Padres NF, Modoc NF, Plumas NF, San Bernardino NF, Sequoia NF, Sierra NF, Stanislaus NF, and the Tahoe NF. Forest Service records (NRIS 2011) indicate this species has been observed within the following National Forest boundaries: Angeles NF, Inyo NF, Los Padres NF, Mendocino NF, Modoc NF, Plumas NF, Shasta-Trinity NF, and the Tahoe NF. Populations have declined in California within desert areas, in areas of urban expansion, and where oak woodlands have been lost (Brown 1996). There is a decreasing trend in abundance in southern California (Miner and Stokes 2005); trends elsewhere in the state have not been assessed. Miner and Stokes (2005) indicate urban expansion into suitable habitat as a source of continued population decline, especially in lower elevation habitat.

115

Pallid bats mate between October and February, have one to two pups per year, usually from late April to July, which are weaned in August, with seasonal variation (Rambaldini 2005; Hermanson and O’Shea 1983). Maternity colonies disperse after weaning (Rambaldini 2005). Pallid bats are a gregarious species, often roosting in colonies of 20 to several hundred individuals. Pregnant females gather in summer maternity colonies of up to several hundred females, but generally fewer than 100 (Brown 1996). Males are typically absent from maternal colonies, or living in clusters of males separated from females in caves, mines, or buildings (Barbour and Davis 1969). Mating occurs in October after summer colonies have disbanded (Barbour and Davis 1969). Breeding probably occurs sporadically throughout the winter, at least until the later part of February. As with several other species of bats, live sperm can be retained in the uterus of the female through the winter and fertilize ova as they are released. Gestation period is estimated at 53-71 days (Barbour and Davis 1969). Parturition occurs between May and July with typically two young born (Barbour and Davis 1969; Burt and Grossenheider 1980; Zeiner et al. 1990). Young are weaned in mid to late August with maternity bands disbanding between August and October (Barbour and Davis 1969; Burt and Grossenheider 1980). Pallid bats are opportunistic generalists that glean a variety of arthropod prey from surfaces, but also capture insects on the wing (Rambaldini 2005). They forage primarily in uncluttered, open habitats (Rambaldini 2005; Ferguson and Azerrad 2004). Pallid bats prey on flightless and mostly ground roving invertebrates, as well as those that perch exposed on vegetation (O’Shea and Vaughn 1977; Hermanson and O’Shea 1983). Common prey species are Jerusalem crickets, longhorn beetles, and scorpions, but it will also forage at low heights of 0.5 - 2.5 meters (1.6-8.2 feet) above the ground on large moths and grasshoppers (Barbour and Davis 1969; O’Shea and Vaughn 1977; Burt and Grossenheider 1980; Philpott 1997; Zeiner et al. 1990). The pallid bat is strongly associated with arid regions (Hermanson and O’Shea 1983). Low elevation habitat includes rocky, arid deserts and canyons, shrub-steppe grasslands, and karst formations (Rambaldini 2005). It is also found in high elevation conifer forests (ibid.). Miner and Stokes (2005) suggest that riparian, chaparral, oak savannah, and cultivated areas are preferred habitat types, and Baker et al. (2008) further suggest open pine forest within higher elevations. In forested habitats in the Sierra Nevada Mountains, Baker et al. (2008) found pallid bats in areas with greater availability of Sierran mixed conifer and white fir than open meadows, grasslands, barren areas, and montane chaparral. They caution, however that they were unable to discern actual habitat use at a finer scale. Johnston and Gworek (2006) found pallid bat activity in the Sierra Nevada Mountains greatest where there was open mixed conifer forest near short grassland habitat. Roosts located were primarily in incense cedar trees (ibid.). Day roosts may vary but are commonly found in rock crevices, tree hollows, mines, caves and a variety of man-made structures (Ellison et al. 2003). Tree roosting has been documented in large conifer snags, inside basal hollows of redwoods and giant sequoias, and bole cavities in oaks (ibid.). Cavities in broken branches of black oak are very important and there is a strong association with black oak for roosting. Roosting sites are usually selected near the entrance to the roost in twilight rather than in total darkness. The site must protect bats from high temperatures, as this species is intolerant of roosts in excess of 104 degrees Fahrenheit (Philpott 1997). Night roosts are usually more open sites and may include open buildings, porches, mines, caves, and under bridges (Barbour and Davis 1969; Philpott 1997; Pierson 1996).

116

Winter roosts are cool (25-50˚ Fahrenheit) with a stable temperature range, and are located in protected structures, including caves, mines, and buildings (Rambaldini 2005). Pallid bats do not travel far from their summer range to their winter roost location (ibid). The largest emerging threat to all cave-roosting species is white-nose syndrome. There is a grave concern that it could spread to the western states and California. As of April 2016, White-nose Syndrome.org records detections as far west as Oklahoma, with one reported case in Washington state (https://www.whitenosesyndrome.org/resources/map). This disease has rapidly spread throughout the eastern US and Canada since its discovery in 2006. Habitat threats include loss of foraging habitat due to urban expansion in low elevation habitat (Philpott 1997; Ferguson and Azerrad 2004; Rambaldini 2005; Miner and Stokes 2005; Pallid Bat Recovery Team 2008) and loss of riparian habitat in arid areas. Conversions of dry grasslands and sagebrush habitat to orchards and other dense vegetative cover reduces foraging habitat (Chapman et al. 1994; Ferguson and Azerrad 2004; Pallid Bat Recovery Team 2008). Pesticide use in these agricultural areas may adversely impact invertebrate populations, thus affecting the pallid bat prey base (Ferguson and Azerrad 2004; Miner and Stokes 2005; Pallid Bat Recovery Team 2008). Intense grazing may likewise adversely impact foraging areas and prey diversity (Ferguson and Azerrad 2004; Ferguson and Azerrad 2004; Pallid Bat Recovery Team 2008), however properly managed grazing may not adversely impact foraging habitat. The loss of large diameter snags and live trees for roosts due to fire can affect primarily day and night roosts (Miner and Stokes 2005). While this species typically roosts in rock outcrops, it often uses alternate day roosts, which large trees may provide. Retention of existing large trees and long term production of replacement large trees would provide potential habitat into the future. Mine closures may eliminate roosting sites and hibernacula for pallid bats, even though this species primarily roosts in rock outcrops (Rambaldini 2005; Ferguson and Azerrad 2004; Miner and Stokes 2005; Pallid Bat Recovery Team 2008). Likewise bridge reconstruction may eliminate roost sites if done in a way that does not provide a design suitable to pallid bats (Ferguson and Azerrad 2004). Pallid bats are also susceptible to disturbance in roosting sites and subsequent displacement (Rambaldini 2005), particularly hibernating individuals. Other human density-related threats include feral cats (Hermanson and O’Shea 1983; Ferguson and Azerrad 2004). In 1999, Dr. Joe Szewczak, bat researcher from the White Mountain Research Station, initiated a program in the Carman Valley Watershed Restoration area at Knutson Meadow to monitor changes in bat diversity in relation to restoration activities. Pallid bats were detected in Carman Valley on the Sierraville Ranger District of the Tahoe National Forest through these monitoring efforts.

There are no confirmed pallid bat sightings within the District, and no systematic surveys for this species have been conducted in the Yuba project area. Some foraging habitat may be present in open areas and meadows. No roosting habitat such as mine openings, or caves, have been identified within any of the units proposed for vegetation management. Haskell Peak may provide some rock crevasses that could provide roosting habitat, but no activities are proposed in close proximity to this peak. This species may roost in large snags that contain cavities that are present within the project area. 117

B. Pallid Bat: Effects of the Proposed Action and Alternatives including Project Design Standards The Yuba project area is the spatial area used to analyze effects to this species, buffered by one mile, which would adequately address potential disturbances to roosts or changes to foraging habitat for individuals that may range into the project area. The following Management Requirements are incorporated into this project to reduce effects to this species:

1. Report all mine openings to a wildlife biologist that are identified during project layout. Coordinate any marking of trees and all activities within 500 feet of mine openings. (No units have been identified at this time).

2. Design treatments to retain six of the largest snags per acre (Standard and Guideline No. 11.)

3. Avoid piling within the drip line of large trees, snags, and large downed logs according to the silvicultural prescription for the Unit.

Direct and Indirect

Proposals to remove snags as hazards have the potential to disturb individual bats, if they are roosting within cavities or loose bark that is present in some snags. However, most snags that are removed under the hazard tree guidelines are those that retain commercial value and that are recently dead. Those with significant levels of heart rot, or bark sloughing off are usually avoided, because they lack commercial value and are dangerous to fell. There is little additional roosting habitat present within units. Some large snags are vulnerable to being burned during prescribed fire. Burn prescriptions are developed to avoid the loss of large snags. The Management Requirements are incorporated into the project as listed above reduce the degree to which snags will be lost during project implementation. This project would not create disturbances to, or reduce or alter other kinds of roosting habitat in the way of older buildings or rock crevasses.

This bat forages within open environments for grasshoppers, Jerusalem crickets, and other arthropods. Proposals to remove commercial sized trees occur within closed-canopy environments, where this species would not be expected to be regularly present. Meadow enhancement projects that remove conifers that are encroaching into meadows due to fire suppression will increase open spaces, and consequently foraging habitat. Prescribed burning and thinning out brush and smaller diameter trees occurs within open habitats, which may reduce some prey species, while increasing others. Reducing the shrubby component of these areas should provide more foraging opportunities for bats.

Cumulative

Cumulative effects to this species occurs primarily from human disruption of colonies at roosts located in caves and mines. This project may add some negative effects to this species by 118

changing foraging opportunities, but the opening up of habitats in general by reducing the shrubby component is likely to result in an overall benefit. No colonies are known to occur within the Project Area, and no colonial roosting habitat has been identified. Because this project is not likely to disturb, disrupt, or negatively effect entire colonies of this species, the cumulative effects from this project are considered to be minimal.

C. Pallid Bat: Conclusion and Determination

It is my determination that implementation of either of the action alternatives, Alternative A or C, may affect individuals, but is not likely to result in a trend toward Federal listing or loss of viability for the pallid bat within the planning area of the Tahoe National Forest. In the absence of a range wide viability assessment, this viability determination is based on local knowledge of the pallid bat as discussed previously in this evaluation, and professional judgment.

TOWNSEND’S BIG-EARED BAT Status: USFS R5 Sensitive

A. Townsend’s Big-Eared Bat: Existing Environment The Townsend's big-eared bat occurs throughout western North America, from southern British Columbia to central Mexico and east into the Great Plains, with isolated populations occurring in the south and southeastern United States (Pierson and Rainey 1998; Sherwin 1998; NatureServe 2011). In California, the range is nearly state-wide except the highest peaks of the Sierra Nevada Mountains, including each National Forest within Region 5 (CWHR 2008). Records in the California state database also indicate a statewide distribution, and occurrence on most R5 Forests except the Angeles NF, Eldorado NF, Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit, Los Padres NF, and Six Rivers NF (CNDDB 2011). Forest Service NRIS records (accessed November 2011) since the 1990s are more scant, and indicate a presence on the Cleveland NF, Eldorado NF, Inyo NF, Mendocino NF, Modoc NF, Plumas NF, Shasta-Trinity NF and Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit. Townsend’s big-eared bats have been captured during survey efforts on the Six Rivers NF (Siedman and Zabel 2001). Historically, the Townsend’s big-eared bat was found throughout California as a scarce, but widespread species (Barbour and Davis 1969). It ranges from sea level to 3,300 meters (10,827 feet) in elevation in a wide range of vegetation types (Sherwin 1998; Barbour and Davis 1969; Philpott 1997; CWHR 2008). Its distribution is strongly correlated to geomorphic features such as natural and man-made caves, buildings, and bridges (Pierson et al. 1999; Ellison et al. 2003a and 2003b; Sherwin et al. 2003; Gruver and Keinath 2006). Caves and mine adits typically are used as hibernacula by both sexes (Piaggio 2005). These, along with old buildings, bridges, and large trees may be used as roost sites (Piaggio 2005). It is generally understood that these bats have high roost sight fidelity (Pierson and Rainey 1998; O’Shea and Bogan 2003; Ellison et al. 2003a and 2003b; Piaggio 2005; Gruver and Kenaith 2006), even though use of a specific sight may vary through time (Sherwin et al. 2003).

119

Population trends have been reportedly declining across the state (Pierson and Rainey 1998; Pierson et al. 1999; Miner and Stokes 2005). However, recent research suggests that absence at historic sites, and subsequent reports of population declines, may be a result of insufficient survey effort, especially where multiple potential roosts are available (Ellison et al. 2003a; Sherwin et al. 2003). Furthermore, statistical inferences about this species cannot be made for populations in the western United States (Ellison et al. 2003a). As such, Ellison and others (2003a) suggest caution in interpreting the population declines in California. It is clear that further research and population monitoring is needed to determine trends in the state. With the above caution in mind, Pierson and Rainey (1998) reported on Townsend’s big-eared bat populations in California. They reported substantial changes over the last 40 years in Townsend’s big-eared bat total individuals (54 percent decline), maternity colonies (52 percent decline), available roosts (45 percent decline), and average colony size (33 percent decline). Pierson and others (Pierson and Rainey 1998; Pierson et al. 1999) did report that there was unmistakable evidence that some roosts were deliberately destroyed and bats were killed. The Mother Lode country (central Sierra Nevada Mountains and foothills) and the Colorado River area apparently have the most marked declines (Pierson and Rainey 1998). Mating typically occurs from November to February after bats have entered their hibernaculum for the winter, although some females will be inseminated prior to hibernation (Barbour and Davis 1969; Burt and Grossenheider 1980; Jameson and Peeters 1988; Kunz and Martin 1982; Zeiner et al. 1990). After delayed implantation and a 56-100 day gestation period females give birth to a single pup in May or June (ibid.), sometimes after a move to a nursery colony (Pierson and Rainey 1998). In western North America, almost all spring and summer concentrations of Townsend’s big-eared bats are females that have returned to their natal site to give birth and raise their young (Pierson and Rainey 1998). Young are weaned in six weeks, and can fly two-and-a- half to three weeks after birth (Barbour and Davis 1969; Burt and Grossenheider 1980; Jameson and Peeters 1988; Kunz and Martin 1982; Zeiner et al. 1990). Caves and mine adits are commonly used as maternity sites, as well as for winter hibernacula. Males leave the nursery colony after the first summer and typically roost alone (Pierson and Rainey 1998). Townsend’s big-eared bats hibernate singly or in small clusters, usually several dozen or fewer, from October to April (Zeiner et al. 1990). Winter hibernating colonies are composed of mixed- sexed groups and may range from a single individual to several hundred animals (Piaggio 2005). P. townsendii hibernates throughout its range in caves and mines where temperatures are approximately 50 degrees Farnheit or less, and generally above freezing. Individuals may move during winter in response to temperature change (Barbour and Davis 1969). Townsend’s big- eared bats utilize well-ventilated, cold caves and mine tunnels as hibernacula, in particular locations from which they can hang from the ceiling (Gruver and Keinath, 2006; Pierson and Rainey 1998). In addition to caves and mine tunnels, bridges and old buildings may be utilized as roosts (Barbour and Davis 1969; Pierson and Rainey 1998). Roosting in tree hollows has been reported in coastal California habitats (Fellers and Pierson 2002; Gellman and Zielinski 1996). Townsend’s big-eared bats do not migrate long distances (Barbour and Davis 1969; Humphrey and Kunz 1976; Dobkin et al. 1995; Woodruff and Ferguson 2005). Townsend’s big-eared bats change roosts throughout the season (Fellers and Pierson 2002; Sherwin et al. 2001), which may complicate survey efforts (Sherwin et al. 2003). Even in cool climates, Townsend’s big-eared bats may change roosts in the winter (Woodruff and Ferguson 2005). 120

This species is a moth specialist but feeds on a variety of lepidopterans (i.e., moths, butterflies, skipper butterflies, and moth-butterflies) (Pierson and Rainey 1998). Pierson et al. (1999) summarized other research that includes consumption of other invertebrate orders in small amounts. Small moths, beetles, and a variety of soft-bodied insects also are taken in flight using echolocation, or by gleaning from foliage (Jameson and Peeters 1988; Zeiner et al. 1990). They are known to drink water. This bat forages relatively close to its roosts sites (Gruver and Kenaith 2006). Flight is slow and maneuverable, with the species capable of hovering (Zeiner et al. 1990; Gruver and Kenaith 2006) and perhaps gleaning insects off foliage (Gruver and Kenaith 2006). Foraging usually begins well after dark (Kunz and Marten 1982). This bat will forage above and within the canopy (Pierson et al. 1999), often along forest edges and riparian areas (Piaggio 2005), and seems to be well adapted to a moderately cluttered canopy (Gruver and Kenaith 2006). As stated, foraging habitat includes a wide variety of vegetation types. Suitable foraging habitat in California includes agricultural types, dense forests, desert scrub, moist coastal forests, oak woodlands, and mixed conifer-deciduous forests (Pierson and Rainey 1998), in particular along habitat edges (Fellers and Pierson 2002). Habitat connectivity between roosting and foraging sites may be important for this species, especially because individuals tend to avoid open spaces (Gruver and Kenaith 2006). This bat is associated with a wide range of vegetative types, including forests, desert scrub, pinyon-juniper woodlands, and agricultural development (Gruver and Keinath 2006; Kunz and Martin 1982; Piaggio 2005; CWHR 2008). Roost structure is believed to be more important than the local vegetation (Gruver and Keinath, 2006; Pierson and Rainey 1998) and the presence of suitable caves or cave-like structures defines the distribution of this species more so than does suitable foraging habitat (Barbour and Davis 1969; Pierson and Rainey 1998; Piaggio 2005; Gruver and Keinath, 2006). In California, this bat is known to use lava tubes, man-made structures (buildings, bridges, and mines, for example), some limestone caves (Kunz and Martin 1982), and large trees (Piaggio 2005). Wildlife habitat associations in California (CWHR 2008) are broad. These bats are often associated with forest edges, open forests, shrub and scrub habitats, grasslands, and riparian areas (CWHR 2008; or drier habitats where there is free water (Geluso 1978). Free water is an important habitat feature for this bat as it has a relatively poor urine-concentrating ability; it can meet some of its water needs metabolically (Geluso 1978). The most critical habitat feature for this species is cave and cave-like roosting structures and hibernacula. With the increase in mining in the 1800s, potential roosting sites increased with the development of mines. Actual use of these mines for roost purposes likely did not occur until many of the mines shut down or were abandoned. This species is found in mines more than any other species (Barbour and Davis 1969; Sherwin et al. 2003). Likewise, buildings and bridges are also used by Townsend’s big-eared bats, especially on the west coast and in forested areas (Barbour and Davis 1969). Human disturbance in caves and mines can result in the bats moving their roosting location within the cavern or abandoning the site altogether (Barbour and Davis 1969; Pierson et al. 1999; Gruver and Keinath 2006). The largest emerging threat to all cave-roosting species is white-nose syndrome. There is a grave concern that it could spread to the western states and California. As of April 2016, White-nose 121

Syndrome.org records detections as far west as Oklahoma, with one reported case in Washington state (https://www.whitenosesyndrome.org/resources/map). This disease has rapidly spread throughout the eastern US and Canada since its discovery in 2006. A significant threat to Townsend’s big-eared bats is disturbance or destruction of roost sites, in particular hibernacula and nursery sites (Pierson et al. 1999; Piaggio 2005; Woodruff and Ferguson 2005; Bradley et al. 2006). Roost structure is believed to be more important than the local vegetation (Gruver and Keinath, 2006; Pierson and Rainey 1998) and the presence of suitable caves or cave-like structures defines the distribution of this species more so than does suitable foraging habitat (Barbour and Davis 1969; Pierson and Rainey 1998; Piaggio 2005; Gruver and Keinath, 2006). Visitation during critical periods can adversely affect bats in those sites, often leading to reduced populations (Pierson et al. 1999). In such an event, rousing from torpor uses valuable fat reserves which are needed to sustain physiological processes throughout the hibernation period. A single visit may result in abandonment of the roost (Barbour and Davis 1969; Zeiner et al. 1990). Low fecundity (one pup/year) and high first year mortality means disturbance at a hibernacula or nursery roost can be potentially detrimental, although by limiting disturbance, populations can recover in part because survival rate in subsequent years is higher (Pierson et al. 1999).

Mine closures, often with the intent to protect human safety, can eliminate access to roosts and hibernacula (Miner and Stokes 2005). Reactivation of mines may eliminate cave roosts and hibernacula, or cause disturbance such that bats will abandon a site (Pierson et al. 1999). Because this species uses alternate roost sites over time (during a single season as well as over many years), potential roosts must be surveyed at least eight times in order to determine vacancy (Sherwin et al. 2005). Reopening of closed or inactive mine tunnels for mineral extraction would likely disturb all roosting bats, resulting in abandonment of those sites. If many tunnels in relatively close proximity are reopened, there could be serious adverse impacts to bat roost sites, and subsequently to bat populations at the local scale because this species, among others, has a high affinity to roost sites. Present day mining operations are likely to be surface or open-pit efforts that would affect foraging habitat (vegetation) as well as the tunnels that have become roosting habitat (Bogan 2000). Contaminants may come from various sources and may directly or indirectly affect bats, although little research has been done (O’Shea et al. 2000). Waste material impoundments can be a threat to this species because it must drink water, and water sources are especially important in dry habitats; bats have been killed when trapped in oily water associated with drilling operations (O’Shea et al. 2000). Radiation may be a source of toxicity for bats roosting deep in mines, as well (ibid.). Pesticide spraying may locally deplete food resources which may be particularly challenging for nursing females that need to forage further and further from nursery roosts as pups grow (Woodruff and Ferguson 2005). The effects of timber management and prescribed fire on bat habitat are not well understood (Woodruff and Ferguson 2005). Humes et al. (1999) found bats to be more active in old-growth and thinned forest stands than in dense, unthinned stands, suggesting that the increased structural diversity benefitted bats, including Townsend’s big-eared bats.

122

In the Tahoe National Forest, the only documented maternal colony of Townsend's big-eared bat occurs in the town of Sierra City, approximately five miles east of the Yuba Project area. Townsend’s big-eared bats were also observed on the Tahoe National Forest in Carmen Valley by Dr. Joe Szewczak (White Mountain Research Station) between 1999 and 2001. Townsend’s bats are more strongly associated with oak hardwood stands, which are prevalent in the vicinity of Sierra City. There are no oaks in the Yuba project area. Although preferred foraging habitat is not present, due to its close proximity to Sierra City, Townsend’s bats could be present in the Yuba project area.

B. Townsend’s Big-Eared Bat: Effects of the Proposed Action and Alternatives including Project Design Standards The Yuba project area is the spatial area used to analyze effects to this species, buffered by one mile, which would adequately address potential disturbances to roosts or changes to foraging habitat for individuals that may range into the project area. The following Management Requirements are incorporated into this project to reduce effects to this species:

4. Report all mine openings to a wildlife biologist that are identified during project layout. Coordinate any marking of trees and all activities within 500 feet of mine openings. (No units have been identified at this time).

5. Design treatments to retain six of the largest snags per acre (Standard and Guideline No. 11.)

6. Avoid piling within the drip line of large trees, snags, and large downed logs according to the silvicultural prescription for the Unit.

Direct and Indirect

smaller diameter trees occurs within open habitats, which may reduce some prey species, while increasing others. Reducing the shrubby component of these areas should provide more foraging opportunities for bats. Because of the lack of preferred habitat for this species, proposed actions associated with the Yuba Project will likely have little effect to Townsend’s big-eared bats.

Cumulative

Cumulative effects to this species occurs primarily from human disruption of colonies at roosts located in caves and mines. This project may add some negative effects to this species by changing foraging opportunities, but the opening up of habitats in general by reducing the shrubby component is likely to result in an overall benefit. No colonies are known to occur within the Project Area, and no colonial roosting habitat has been identified within any of the proposed treatment units. Because this project is not likely to disturb, disrupt, or negatively effect entire colonies of this species, the cumulative effects added to this species from this project are considered to be minimal.

C. Townsend’s big-eared bat: Conclusion and Determination

FRINGED MYOTIS

A. Fringed Myotis: Existing Environment The fringed myotis is found in western North America from south-central British Columbia to central Mexico and to the western Great Plains (Natureserve 2012). In California, it is distributed statewide except the Central Valley and the Colorado and Mojave Deserts (CWHR 2008).

In California, the species is found the throughout the state, from the coast (including Santa Cruz Island) to greater than 5,900 feet in elevation in the Sierra Nevada. Records exist for the high desert and east of the Sierra Nevada (e.g., lactating females were captured in 1997 by P. Brown near Coleville on the eastern slope of the Sierra Nevada). However, the majority of known localities are on the west side of the Sierra Nevada (Angerer and Pierson draft). Museum records suggest that while the fringed myotis is widely distributed in California, it is rare everywhere.

According to Forest Service records, the fringed myotis is found on the Angeles NF, Eldorado, NF, Los Padres NF, Mendocino, NF, Modoc NF, Plumas, NF, Shasta-Trinity, NF, the Sierra NF, Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit, and the Tahoe NF. State records (CWHR 2008) add the Cleveland NF, Inyo NF, Klamath NF, Lake Tahoe Basin, Lassen NF, San Bernardino NF, Sequoia NF, Six Rivers NF, and Humboldt-Toiyabe NF.

124

The fringed myotis roosts in crevices found in rocks, cliffs, buildings, underground mines, bridges, and in large, decadent trees (Weller 2005). The majority of maternal roost sites documented in California have been found in buildings (Angerer and Pierson draft). Mines are also used as roost sites (Cahalane 1939, Cockrum and Musgrove 1964, Barbour and Davis 1969). Like many cave roosting species, fringed myotis colonies are susceptible to disturbance in hibernacula and maternal colonies (CWHR 2008; O’Farrell and Studier 1973, 1980).

Maternity roosts have been found in sites that are generally cooler and wetter than is typical for most other Vespertilionids (Angerer and Pierson draft). Recent radio-tracking studies in the forested regions of northern California have shown that this species forms nursery colonies in predominantly early to mid- decay stage, large diameter snags from 23” to 66” dbh (Weller and Zabel 2001).

The fringed myotis occurs in dry woodlands (oak and pinyon-juniper most common (Cockrum and Ordway 1959, Jones 1965, O’Farrell and Studier 1980, Roest 1951), hot desert-scrub, grassland, sage-grassland steppe, spruce-fir, mesic old growth forest, coniferous and mixed deciduous/coniferous forests, including multi-aged sub-alpine, Douglas fir, redwood, and giant sequoia (O’Farrell and Studier 1980, Pierson and Heady 1996, Pierson et al. 2006, Weller and Zabel 2001). To generalize, this species is found in open habitats that have nearby dry forests and an open water source (Keinath 2004).

There seems to be increased likelihood of occurrence of this species as snags greater than 11.8 inches in diameter increases and percent canopy cover decreases (Keinath 2004). Large snags and low canopy cover, typical of mature forest habitat types, offer warm roost sites (Keinath 2004). Decay classes were two to four (Keinath 2004) in ponderosa pine, Douglas-fir, and sugar pine. Water sources may include artificial sources, such as stock tanks and ponds, in addition to natural sources (Keinath 2004).

Home range size varies with insect abundance, increasing as the number of available insects decreases. Keinath (2004) reports study averages of about 100 acres. Little is known about predation, but it is not suspected to significantly affect fringed myotis populations (Keinath 2004).

Fringed myotis appears to be highly dependent on tree roosts within forest and woodland habitats and potentially requires denser vegetation for foraging. In some forested settings, fringed myotis appears to rely heavily on tree cavities and crevices as roost sites (Weller 2005), and may be threatened by certain timber harvest practices. For example, Chung-MacCoubrey (1996) in Arizona found that this species prefers large diameter (18-26 inch dbh) conifer snags. Most of the tree roosts were located within the tallest or second tallest snags in the stand, were surrounded by reduced canopy closure, and were under bark (ibid.). Tree roosting behavior is consistent with an observed association between fringed myotis and heavily forested environments in the northern part of its range (M. Brigham pers. comm., E. Pierson and W. Rainey pers. obs.).

This species shows high roost site fidelity (O’Farrell and Studier 1980), especially when roost structures are durable or in low availability (Brigham 1991, Kunz 1982, Lewis 1995). Weller

125

and Zabel (2001) noted frequent roost switching in tree roosts, but high fidelity to a given area. Roost switching has also been reported for caves (Baker 1962) and buildings (O’Farrell and Studier 1973, Studier and O’Farrell 1972). Fringed myotis are highly sensitive to roost site disturbance (O’Farrell and Studier 1973, 1980).

This species often forages along secondary streams, in fairly cluttered habitat. It also has been captured over meadows (Pierson et al. 2001). Fringed myotis is known to fly during colder temperatures (Hirshfeld and O’Farrell 1976) and precipitation does not appear to affect emergence (O’Farrell and Studier 1975). Post-lactating females have been known to commute up to 13 kilometer (8 miles) with a 930 meter (3,100 feet) elevation gain between a roost and foraging area (Miner and Brown 1996). Keinath (2004) found that travel distances from roosting to foraging areas may be up to five miles.

The removal of snags and hardwoods during timber harvesting and the loss of hardwoods through conifer and brush competition (from a lack of fire management) has caused reductions for both roosting structures and foraging habitat. These practices are likely to be more severe on privately owned lands. An increased demand for firewood can also lead to a decrease in available snags as roosts. Habitat alteration threatens this species because it is dependent on older forest types. Keinath (2004) summarized this in the Rocky Mountain Region conservation assessment for the fringed myotis, indicating that this species depends on abundant large diameter snags and trees with thick loose bark.

The largest emerging threat to all cave-roosting species is white-nose syndrome. There is a grave concern that it could spread to the western states and California. As of April 2016, White-nose Syndrome.org records detections as far west as Oklahoma, with one reported case in Washington state (https://www.whitenosesyndrome.org/resources/map). This disease has rapidly spread throughout the eastern US and Canada since its discovery in 2006.

Fringed myotis are known to occur on the Tahoe National Forest and have been detected in Carman Valley (Szewczak 2004), Antelope Valley (California Fish and Wildlife CNDDB) and 3 miles southwest of Downieville, California (Forest Service NRIS Database). The nearest of these detections to the analysis area are the occurrences southwest of Downieville. Surveys have not been conducted within the analysis area.

B. Fringed Myotis Bat: Effects of the Proposed Action and Alternatives including Project Design Standards The Yuba project area is the spatial area used to analyze effects to this species, buffered by one mile, which would adequately address potential disturbances to roosts or changes to foraging habitat for individuals that may range into the project area. The following Management Requirements are incorporated into this project to reduce effects to this species:

7. Report all mine openings to a wildlife biologist that are identified during project layout. Coordinate any marking of trees and all activities within 500 feet of mine openings. (No units have been identified at this time).

126

8. Design treatments to retain six of the largest snags per acre (Standard and Guideline No. 11.)

9. Avoid piling within the drip line of large trees, snags, and large downed logs according to the silvicultural prescription for the Unit.

Direct and Indirect

This bat gleans insects, especially moths, from the leaves of oak hardwoods. The Yuba Project area does not contain any oak hardwoods, and provides little foraging habitat for this bat. Proposals to remove commercial sized trees occur within closed-canopy environments, where this species would not be expected to be regularly present. Meadow enhancement projects that remove conifers that are encroaching into meadows due to fire suppression will increase open spaces, and consequently foraging habitat. Prescribed burning and thinning out brush and smaller diameter trees occurs within open habitats, which may reduce some prey species, while increasing others. Reducing the shrubby component of these areas should provide more foraging opportunities for bats. Because of the lack of preferred habitat for this species, proposed actions associated with the Yuba Project will likely have little effect to Townsend’s big-eared bats.

Cumulative

Cumulative effects to this species occurs primarily from human disruption of colonies at roosts located in caves and mines. This project may add some negative effects to this species by changing foraging opportunities, but the opening up of habitats in general by reducing the shrubby component is likely to result in an overall benefit. No colonies are known to occur within the Project Area, and no colonial roosting habitat has been identified. Because this project is not likely to disturb, disrupt, or negatively effect entire colonies of this species, the cumulative effects added to this species from this project are considered to be minimal.

C. Fringed Myotis Bat: Conclusion and Determination

viability for the Townsend’s big-eared bat within the planning area of the Tahoe National Forest. In the absence of a range wide viability assessment, this viability determination is based on local knowledge of the Townsend’s big-eared bat as discussed previously in this evaluation, and professional judgment".

Aquatic Species

CALIFORNIA RED-LEGGED FROG Status: USFWS Threatened

A. California Red-Legged Frog: Existing Environment/Environmental Baseline On June 24, 1996, the California red-legged frog, was listed as federally threatened (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 1996). The Final California Red-legged Frog Recovery Plan was released on September 12, 2002 (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2002; 67 FR 57830). On March 17, 2010, the USFWS finalized designation of critical habitat that includes three locations in or adjacent to the Tahoe National Forest (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2010; 75 FR 12816). Locations include PLA-1, Michigan Bluff; NEV-1, Sailor Flat; and YUB-1, Oregon Creek (Figure 1). The recovery objective is to reduce threats and improve the population status of the California red-legged frog sufficiently to warrant de-listing. The strategy for recovery includes protecting existing populations by reducing threats, restoring and creating habitat that will be protected and managed in perpetuity, surveying and monitoring populations, conducting research on the biology of the species and threats to the species, and re-establishing populations of the species within the historic range.

The Recovery Plan for the California Red-legged Frog (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2002) indicates that current and historic distribution of the species is west of the Sierra-Cascade crest. Two recovery units in the Sierra Nevada foothills overlap with the Tahoe National Forest (TNF) as follows (75FR12816, US Fish and Wildlife Service, 2010):

NEV-1, Sailor Flat: 8,285 acres: 3,171 ac. federal (1,577 TNF); 12 ac. State; 5,102 ac. Private PLA-1, Michigan Bluff: 814 Federal (814 TNF); 430 ac. Private.

A third Recovery Unit, YUB-1, overlaps with the Plumas National Forest, just west of the Tahoe National Forest, with Bullards Bar Reservoir forming its eastern boundary.

The California red-legged frog is a highly aquatic species typically found in cold water ponds and stream pools with depths exceeding 0.7 meters and with overhanging vegetation such as willows, as well as emergent and submergent vegetation (Hayes & Jennings 1988). It is generally found at elevations below 4,000 feet, but has been found above this (Martin 1992). Barry and Fellers (2013) report the elevational range of most of the historical localities as 200-900m (656 to 2953 feet); and that three apparently extirpated populations at 1500 to 1536 m elevation in Yosemite may have originated from deliberate translocations. Additionally, they report that “historically, R. draytonii in the Sierra Nevada probably bred in stream pools, which tend to be small with limited forage and thus may have constrained the historical size and number of Sierra Nevada R. draytonii populations.” Barry and Fellers (2013) report that twelve historical Sierra 128

Nevada and Cascades locality records were narrow permanent or near-permanent creeks, typically within a few hundred meters of the headwaters, as are three recent R. draytonii occurrences, and that this suggests that this species uses stream habitat in the Sierra Nevada in the same manner as do Coast Range populations. They found that the current range of 330 to 1,020 m elevation (1,083 to 3,346 feet) differs little from the historical range (Barry and Fellers 2013).

This frog is generally found in or near water but does disperse away from water after rain storms (Martin 1992). This species of frog breeds along aquatic vegetation in deep, slow water (<2% gradient) environments during the months of November through March in most of their current range (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 1996). Breeding in the Sierra Nevada would occur later due to freezing temperatures between November and February. Breeding would likely occur between March and May at higher elevations (Freel 1997, personal communication). Permanent or nearly permanent pools are required for tadpole development, and emergent and overhanging vegetation is used as refugia by adult frogs. Ponds with cattails or other emergent vegetation provide good cover (Martin 1992). The amount of time to metamorphosis is highly dependent on temperature (Calef 1973). Tadpole development takes 11 to 20 weeks (Storer 1925, Calef 1973). Water quality is also very important. Adult frogs normally become sexually mature in two (males) to three (females) years and can live as long as ten years or more.

The California red-legged frog requires permanent aquatic habitats for breeding, feeding and shelter. As adults, they may also utilize moist, sheltered, terrestrial habitats near streams. In the proposed ruling to list this species, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service cites Rathbun et al. (1993) in reporting that this frog estivates in small mammal burrows and moist leaf litter up to 85 feet from water in dense riparian vegetation. This behavior occurs where the aquatic habitat is intermittent in nature. During wet periods, especially in the winter and early spring months, California red-legged frogs disperse away from breeding habitat to seek suitable foraging habitat. This dispersal behavior can result in California red-legged frogs ending up in isolated aquatic habitats as far as one mile from their natal pond.

In a California red-legged frog telemetry study at Hughes Pond, in the Sierra Nevada, Tatarian and Tatarian tracked the movement and dispersal patterns of the California red-legged frog between 2004 and 2007 at an ephemeral pond (Hughes Pond, Butte County) in a conifer- hardwood ecosystem in the Sierra Nevada. This work found high site fidelity to the pond and seep area. In years when the pond dried, all radio-tagged frogs moved downstream and downslope to a seep area. In years the pond was perennial, no frogs moved away from the pond. Frogs initiated movements when the pond was dry and after the first 0.5 cm. of rain in the fall. Individuals typically moved aquatically 105 linear meters (345 ft.) from the source pond, while one male moved aquatically 208 meters (682 ft.).

Ideal breeding habitat of California red-legged frogs is characterized by dense, shrubby riparian vegetation associated with deep (> 2 feet), still or slow-moving water (Jennings 1988, Hayes and Jennings 1988). The shrubby riparian vegetation that structurally seems to be most suitable for California red-legged frogs is that provided by willow, cattails and bulrushes (Jennings 1988). However, California red-legged frogs have been found in less than ideal habitats and a combination of these factors is more important than an individual habitat component (Hayes and

129

Jennings 1988). Small to medium perennial streams can also provide breeding habitat if the streams are not subjected to scouring flows during egg development. Streams in this category generally have the potential for deep pools and riparian vegetation to provide the habitat requirements for this frog. Permanent or nearly permanent pools that hold water into the summer are required for tadpole development. Emergent and overhanging vegetation is used as a brace for egg deposition and as cover by adult frogs.

While California red-legged frogs are generally found in or near water, during periods of wet weather, starting with the first rains of fall, individual frogs may make overland excursions through upland habitats (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2002, pg.12). Various studies of California red-legged frog movement suggest that frog movement often occurs up to 1 mile, and one study showed frogs moving up to 2 miles without apparent regard to topography, vegetation type, or riparian corridors (USDI 2002, pgs 12-13). The Tahoe National Forest considers potential suitable breeding habitat on National Forest lands within 1 mile of a project unit to be a potential source of frogs into the project unit area.

Dispersal habitat generally includes moist, shaded areas with vegetation that provides cover. However, individuals may move through areas that could be considered to be unsuitable for frogs. Normally, frogs travel along riparian corridors and can be found adjacent to streams, meadows or marsh areas. Adults feed primarily on aquatic and terrestrial invertebrates, but large adults will eat small rodents such as deer mice. This species is highly restricted in the Sierra Nevada, and has been eliminated from 75% of its historic range (Jennings 1992). Habitat loss and alteration, the introduction of bullfrogs and other aquatic predators, and historic timber harvest have been implicated in the population decline (Jennings 1988, Moyle 1973).

In amending the Forest Plans of Forests in the Sierra Nevada, the Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment (USDA Forest Service 2001, 2003), established Critical Aquatic Refuges. Critical Aquatic Refuges are small subwatersheds that contain either: • Known locations of threatened, endangered or sensitive species, • Highly vulnerable populations of native plant or animal species, or • Localized populations of rare native aquatic- or riparian-dependent plant or animal species.

The Tahoe National Forest has currently has two Critical Aquatic Refuges--Upper Independence Creek and the Sierra Buttes. Both of these were established for other aquatic species, and they occur outside of the range of the California red-legged frog.

Designated Critical Habitat Primary Constituent Elements: 1. Aquatic breeding habitat which consists of standing bodies of fresh water including natural and manmade (e.g. stock) ponds, slow-moving streams or pools within streams, and other ephemeral or permanent water bodies that typically become inundated during winter rains and hold water for a minimum of 20 weeks in all but the driest years. 2. Aquatic non-breeding habitat which consists of freshwater pond and stream habitats as described for breeding habitat except they may not hold water long enough for the species to complete its aquatic life cycle, but these water bodies still provide shelter,

130

foraging, predator avoidance and aquatic dispersal of juvenile and adult frogs. Examples include but are not limited to intermittent creeks, seeps, quiet water refugia within streams during high water flows, and springs of sufficient flow to withstand short term dry periods. 3. Upland areas adjacent to or surrounding breeding and non-breeding aquatic and riparian habitat up to a distance of 1.0 mile. Including various vegetational types such as grassland, woodland, forest, wetland or riparian areas that provide shelter, forage and predator avoidance. 4. Dispersal Habitat which includes upland or riparian areas within and between occupied or previously occupied sites that are located within 1.0 mile of each other. These sites support movement between sites and include various natural habitats.

Potential risk factors to the California red-legged frog from resource management activities include modification or loss of habitat or habitat components, primarily aquatic and adjacent riparian environments used for reproduction, cover, foraging, and aestivation. Egg survival can be impacted by mining and road/trail construction through increases in fine sediments. Livestock grazing directly affects riparian vegetation, emergent vegetation, causes nutrient loading, and also affects channel morphology and hydrology. Timber harvest can result in loss of riparian vegetation and increased erosion and siltation of aquatic habitats (USDA Forest Service 2001). The fungal pathogen Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis (Bd) is reported in California red-legged frogs and bullfrogs (Padgett-Flohr and Hopkins 2010, P. Tatarian and G. Tatarian 2010, Fellers 2011), and in foothill yellow-legged frogs (Rachowicz et al. 2006, P. Tatarian and G. Tatarian 2010). Crayfish (McMahon et al. 2012) can act as an intermediate host (McMahon et al. 2012), as well as bullfrogs (Rana catesbeiana) and treefrogs (Pseudacris regilla) (Padgett-Flohr and Hopkins 2009). Tatarian and Tatarian (2010) demonstrated relatively high levels of Bd infection in Rana draytonii in the Sierra Nevada foothills, from four sampled populations--62% at Big Gun Diggings (Placer 1 Critical Habitat Unit), 100% at Sailor Flat (Nevada 1 Critical Habitat Unit), 50% at Spivey Pond (Eldorado 1 Critical Habitat Unit), and 29 to 71% at Hughes Pond (Butte 1 Critical Habitat Unit) (USDI 2010).

Although R. draytonii are susceptible to Bd infection, they remain asymptomatic, and there may be a strong selection for Bd resistance (Padgett-Flohr, 2008). Padgett-Flohr and Hopkins (2010) found that Bd occurrence within a landscape was spatially related, where ponds within approximately 1000-1500 m of Bd hotspots were more likely to test positive. They did not find any influence on the Bd status of a pond from local land use, such as the presence or absence of grazing or recreational activity (fishing, hiking, and trail riding) and developed lands, indicating that livestock and recreational activity are not transporting Bd between ponds (Padgett-Flohr and Hopkins, 2010).

Conservation Recommendations (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2001) that may be applicable to Tahoe National Forest management activities include: 1. Assist the USFWS in implementing recovery actions identified within the Draft Recovery Plan for the red-legged frog, including: a. Working with the USFWS and other interested parties in developing a reestablishment program for red-legged frogs on National Forest Land.

131

b. Developing a nonnative predator (e.g., bullfrogs and warm water fish spp.) eradication program.

2. Any individuals handling red-legged frogs should be prior-approved by the USFWS. All trapping protocol utilized should be prior-approved by the USFWS;

3. Prior to activities within Core Areas identified in the California Red-legged Frog Recovery Plan, a Landscape Analysis should be completed and submitted for approval by the Service. The Landscape Analysis should include, but not be limited to: a. Discussions of the management and maintenance in perpetuity of the habitats for red-legged frogs. b. Discussions of runoff control and maintenance of hydrology of the aquatic habitat. c. Provisions for the design and implementation of a bullfrog eradication program for all aquatic areas. d. Provisions for management and maintenance of upland habitat within the Core Areas. e. Provisions for a written report to the USFWS, and CDFG on the functioning of the Core Areas five years after the completion of the Landscape Analysis. The report should recommend maintenance practices, repairs, etc., (subject to review and approval by the USFWS and CDFG) necessary to ensure the continued functioning of Core Areas as red-legged frog habitat.

4. At least 80 percent of natural streambank stability should be maintained at the end of the authorized grazing season in areas that are occupied by red-legged frogs or red-legged frog habitat within CARs. This means that no more than 20 percent of the natural streambank stability could be altered by activities such as, but not limited to: livestock trampling, chiseling and sloughing, OHV use, stream crossings, and recreational use.

5. Encourage or require the use of appropriate California native species in revegetation and habitat enhancement efforts associated with projects authorized by the Forest Service.

Within the Tahoe National Forest, suitable California red-legged frog breeding habitat is considered to include west slope aquatic habitats within the species’ elevational range, especially ponds, lakes, and pools where water persists through July in years with average precipitation. Breeding adults are often associated with deep (greater than 0.7 meter) still or slow moving water (Hayes and Jennings 1988). Higher quality sites contain: water depth greater than 0.7 meters for breeding that lasts through the end of July, still or slow moving water, water temperatures between 9 to 21 degrees Celsius (48 to 70 degrees Fahrenheit) for egg laying and larval development (Nussbaum et al. 1983 in US Fish and Wildlife Service 2002), and emergent aquatic vegetation or woody debris for egg deposition braces. Because of these associations, steeper (>4 percent), boulder-driven streams that receive peak runoff flows from snowmelt during May or June, are less likely to support this species, as are smaller exposed ponds and pools where temperatures exceed 22 degrees Celsius. Although the presence of non-native predators (bullfrogs, sunfish, etc.) may reduce habitat quality, it does not necessarily preclude the presence of California red-legged frogs.

132

Since 1994, Tahoe National Forest biologists have regularly noted amphibians found in aquatic habitats and annually conduct stream surveys for aquatic species across portions of the forests. Suitable habitat such as marshes, ponds and low gradient streams occur on a number of sites within the historical range of this species in the Forest. Within suitable habitat, most of these surveys have followed the USFWS California red-legged frog survey protocol (1997, 2005). From 1996 through 1998 herpetologists from the California Academy of Sciences conducted extensive field surveys throughout the Forest, documenting all reptiles and amphibians (Vindum et al. 1997, Vindum and Koo 1998, Vindum and Koo 1999). In 1997, Dr. Gary Fellers, USGS, and Kathleen Freel surveyed 79 sites between May 20 and September 22, selected with the goal of visiting all suitable sites on the Forest which could reasonably support red-legged frogs. Dr. Fellers concluded “In general, there did not appear to be much habitat which was suitable for this frog on Forest Service lands” (Fellers, 1997). Those surveys followed the survey protocol of Fellers and Freel (1995). To date, no red-legged frogs have been found to occur in the Forest.

In 2007, Fellers and Kleeman (2007) demonstrated that nocturnal surveys are the most efficacious method to determine the presence of adult and subadult California red-legged frogs, and they supported the more recent USFWS protocol (USFWS 2005) that requires both diurnal and nocturnal surveys to evaluate the presence of California red-legged frogs. Therefore, surveys that do not follow the most recent USFWS protocol are considered inadequate in determining that red-legged frogs would likely be absent from a site.

Two specimens at the Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, University of California at Berkeley, are very near, or within, the Tahoe National Forest. One of the historic locations is northeast of the town of Dutch Flat (T15N R10E, elevation 3200 feet). California red-legged frogs were collected at this site in 1916 and 1939. It is unknown if the location of this sighting was on private or public land. This site is approximately 3.3 miles from the nearest treatment unit proposed in this Project. The other historic sighting is near Michigan Bluff at Byrds Valley (T14N R11E, elevation 3200 feet). This record is from 1964 (J. Dixon). This site is on private land. A survey (1997) of this site by USGS NBS biologist noted that there is very little water available and that there was no suitable breeding habitat for frogs at this location.

Prior to the flooding of New Bullards Bar Reservoir several wetlands existed that could have supported California red-legged frogs. The finding (Sept. 15, 2000) of frogs in Little Oregon Creek (a tributary to New Bullards Bar Reservoir) on the Plumas National Forest could represent a remnant population from the wetlands that are now gone. This population is approximately 1 mile from New Bullards Bar Reservoir, and it is 13 miles from this Project boundary. Also to the north of Tahoe National Forest there is a California red-legged frog population at a pond on a private parcel in the French Creek drainage within Butte County (Barry 1999). This population is more than 10 miles from the Tahoe National Forest.

One mile south of the Tahoe National Forest, there is one known occurrence of this species on the Eldorado National Forest. On June 18, 2001, one female was detected in a pond on Ralston Ridge on the power line transmission corridor. The pond was dry several weeks later and dispersal of this individual remains unknown. In 2003 a population of California red-legged

133

frogs was found on private land in a permanent pond on an ephemeral tributary to the South Yuba River. This site is near the Rock Creek watershed at approximately 3,000 feet in elevation.

In 2006, a red-legged frog site was discovered in the vicinity of Michigan Bluff on private land, near the town of Foresthill. Approximately 50 adults were observed in July 2006 inhabiting historic mine tailing ponds, at approximately 3,335 feet elevation. This occurrence is located just east of a historic occurrence reported from prior to 1951. In 2015 over 200 adult California red- legged frogs were observed at these ponds inside the Big Gun Conservation Bank (M. Young, personal communication, 2015). This population is considered to be the largest known Sierran population to date.

The Yuba Project occurs above 5,500 feel in elevation which is above the elevational range for this species.

B. California Red-Legged Frog: Effects of the Proposed Action and Alternatives including Project Design Standards The Yuba Project occurs above the upper elevational range for this species. Therefore, this project will not affect this species or its habitat and no further analysis is needed.

C. California Red-Legged Frog: Conclusion and Determination

It is my determination that this project will have no effect on the California red-legged frog or its designated critical habitat.

LAHONTAN CUTTHROAT TROUT Status: USFWS Threatened

A. Lahontan Cutthroat Trout: Existing Environment The Lahontan cutthroat trout (LCT; Oncorhynchus clarkii henshawi) was listed by the USFWS as an endangered species in 1970 (USFWS 1970; 35 FR 13520). The listing was reclassified to threatened status in 1975 to facilitate recovery and management efforts and authorize regulated angling (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 1975; 40 FR 29864). Currently, no Critical Habitat has been designated for the Lahontan cutthroat trout (USFWS 1995).

The USFWS is in the process of revising the 1995 Recovery Plan for Lahontan Cutthroat Trout. As part of recovery efforts, a technical team has assembled to develop restoration and recovery actions for the Truckee River basin. A primary purpose of the team is to identify and prioritize actions for the improvement of ecosystem function to facilitate the restoration/recovery of LCT. The USFWS believes that the establishment of lacustrine populations in Pyramid Lake, and in Lake Tahoe is necessary for the recovery of LCT in the Western Geographic Management Unit (GMU).

134

The Truckee River Basin Recovery Implementation Team (TRRIT) has been assembled to develop restoration and recovery actions for the Truckee River Basin. The TRRIT has established recovery objectives for various reaches of the Truckee River and its tributaries. Important recovery areas that the TRRIT has initially identified as having immediate potential include: Independence Creek, upstream of Independence Lake; Pole Creek; Hunter Creek; Donner Creek; Perazzo Creek; Prosser Creek; and the Truckee River from its confluence with Donner Creek to the State line; Upper Truckee River; Truckee River from Tahoe Dam to Donner Creek; and, Independence Creek downstream from Independence Lake to the Little Truckee River. The TRRIT has identified Macklin and East Fork Creeks and an unnamed tributary to the East Fork Creek in the Yuba River system as necessary for recovery of LCT because they contain remnants of indigenous Truckee River Basin strains.

In addition the TRRIT has drafted a Short-term Action Plan for LCT in the Truckee river Basin (USFWS 2003). This short-term (5 year) action plan includes a description of the elements needed for recovery, goals and objectives, timeline and priorities, actions needed and stakeholder participation plan.

Lahontan cutthroat trout is an inland subspecies (one of 14 recognized subspecies of cutthroat trout in the western United States) of cutthroat trout endemic to the Lahontan Basin of northern Nevada, eastern California, and southern Oregon. In northern California and western Nevada, LCT trout were thought to occupy approximately 656 miles of the Truckee River watershed, 400 miles of the Carson River watershed, and 570 miles of the Walker River watershed (USFWS 2009). Lahontan cutthroat trout historically occurred in Tahoe, Cascade, Fallen Leaf, Upper Twin, Lower Twin, Pyramid, Winnemucca, Summit, Donner, Walker, and Independence Lakes (Moyle 1976, Gerstung 1988). At the turn of the century, Lake Tahoe and Pyramid Lake supported commercial and sport fisheries for LCT. Self-sustaining populations of LCT trout are now extirpated from these lakes with the exception of Independence and Summit lakes (Behnke 1992). The Pyramid Lake LCT fishery is sustained by hatchery stocking (Somer 1998). Lahontan cutthroat trout has been extirpated from most of the western portion of its range in the Truckee, Carson, and Walker river basins, and from much of its historic range in the Humboldt basin (Gerstung 1988, Coffin 1988, USFWS 2009). Existing self-sustaining stream habitat in the Truckee, Carson and Walker river basins totals approximately 57 miles in headwater streams of northern California (USFWS 2009). Many of the stream populations occupy isolated segments of larger river systems with no opportunity for natural recolonization. Due to the fragmented, isolated nature of lake and stream populations, LCT may be at a high risk for extinction (USFWS 1995, Somer 1998, USFWS 2009, Moyle et al. 2011).

The severe decline in range and numbers of LCT attributed to a number of factors including hybridization and competition with introduced trout species; alteration of stream channels and morphology; loss of spawning habitat due to pollution and sediment inputs from logging, mining, grazing and urbanization; migration blockage due to dams; reduction of lake levels and concentrated chemical components in natural lakes; loss of habitat due to channelization; de- watering due to irrigation and urban demands; and overfishing (Gerstung 1986 & 1988, Coffin 1988, USFWS 1995, USFWS 2009).

135

The life history of LCT resembles that of other subspecies of interior cutthroat trout. Lacustrine LCT matures at 3-5 years of age (Gerstung 1988). In stream environments, males frequently mature at age 2, and females mature at age 3 (Coffin 1981). Lahontan cutthroat trout are obligatory stream spawners, with spawning occurring during spring months (generally April- July) depending on streams flow and water temperatures. Spawning LCT prefer gravel sizes ranging from 6 to 50 mm in diameter and water velocities ranging from 4-6 cm/s (Gerstung 1988). Spawning gravels must be clean and well oxygenated. Fecundity of 600 to 8,000 eggs per female has been reported for lacustrine populations (Calhoun 1942, Lea 1968, Cowan 1983, Sigler et al. 1983). However, fluvial females from small Nevada streams only had 100 to 300 eggs per fish (Cowan 1983). Fecundity and egg size are positively correlated with length, weight, and age (Sigler et al. 1983). Water temperatures of less than 13o C and intragravel dissolved oxygen levels in excess of 5 mg/l are required during the April through mid-August egg incubation period (USFWS 1995). Lahontan cutthroat trout eggs generally hatch in 4 to 6 weeks, depending on water temperature, and fry emerge 13 days later (Calhoun 1942, Lea 1968, Rankel 1976). Fry require habitats that include riffles, glides, and small pools. Fry prefer water depths of 6-43 centimeters and water velocities of less than 9 cm/s. Fry movement is density-dependent and correlated with fall and winter freshets (Johnson et al. 1983). Some fluvial adapted fish remain for 1 or 2 years in nursery streams before emigrating in the spring (Rankel 1976, Johnson et al. 1983, Coffin 1983). Growth rate is variable with faster growth occurring in larger, warmer waters and particularly where forage fish are utilized (Sigler et al. 1983). Growth rates for stream dwelling LCT are fairly slow (USFWS 1995). ). Lahontan cutthroat trout may live 5–9 years in lake environments (Lea 1968, p. 26; Rankel 1976, p. 29; Rissler et al. 2006, p. 22) while stream dwelling LCT’s are generally less than 6 years of age (Ray et al. 2007, pp. 39–60). Lahontan cutthroat trout may live 5–9 years in lake environments (Lea 1968, p. 26; Rankel 1976, p. 29; Rissler et al. 2006, p. 22) while stream dwellings LCT are generally less than 6 years of age (Ray et al. 2007, pp. 39–60).

Optimal habitat is characterized by 1:1 pool-riffle ratios; well vegetated, stable streambanks; over 25% cover; and relatively silt free rocky substrates (Hickman & Raleigh 1982). Lahontan cutthroat trout inhabit areas with overhanging banks, vegetation, or woody debris. In-stream cover (brush, aquatic vegetation, and rocks) is particularly important for juveniles (Sigler & Sigler 1987; Gerstung 1988). Lahontan cutthroat trout are unique since they can tolerate much higher alkalinities than other trout species (Koch et al. 1979). Adults can tolerate temperatures exceeding 27o C for short periods of time and seem to survive daily temperature fluctuations of 14-20o C (Coffin 1983; French & Curran 1991). Lahontan cutthroat trout do best in waters with average maximum water temperatures of less than 22o C and average water temperatures of 13o C. Stomach analysis of fluvial LCT showed that they are opportunistic feeders whose diets consist of organisms (typically insects) most commonly found in drift (Moyle 1976). In lakes, small Lahontan cutthroat trout feed largely on insects and zooplankton (Calhoun 1942, McAfee 1966, Lea 1968) and large LCT (>500 mm) feed on fish (Sigler et al. 1983).

Lahontan cutthroat trout evolved in the absence of other trout species and do not compete well for food and habitat. In stream environments within the western portion of the Lahontan drainage, LCT have seldom been able to co-exist with non-native trout for longer than a decade. Lahontan cutthroat trout, particularly those within the western portion of the Lahontan Basin,

136

also hybridize with nonnative rainbow trout (Behnke 1979). The USFWS states that nonnative fish, particularly nonnative salmonids, are the primary threat to LCT (USFWS 2009).

Potential risk factors to the LCT include the immediate loss of individual fish and loss of specific habitat features such as undercut banks used for cover, increases in sedimentation leading to changes in spawning bed capacity, and the loss of riparian vegetation necessary to maintain adequate temperature regime (SNFPA 2001).

Conservation recommendations (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2001) that may be applicable to Tahoe National Forest management activities include:

1. Assist the USFWS in implementing recovery actions identified within Recovery Plan for the LCT, including:

● Working with the USFWS and other agencies in developing Recovery and Implementation Plans for the Truckee River System. ● Work with the USFWS, the CDFW to develop and implement a non-native, predator control program within occupied habitats for these species. ● Educate the public on the adverse impacts of non-native predators on listed species.

2. Maintain at least 90 percent of natural streambank stability at the end of the authorized grazing season in areas that are occupied by LCT or LCT habitat within Critical Aquatic Refuges (CARs). This means that no more than 10 percent of the natural streambank stability could be altered by activities such as, but not limited to: livestock trampling, chiseling and sloughing, OHV use, stream crossings, and recreational use.

3. At least 80 percent of natural streambank stability should be maintained at the end of the authorized grazing season in areas that are unoccupied by LCT but are potential habitat, within historic range. This should apply to all streams in the action area within the Truckee watershed. This means that no more than 20 percent of the natural streambank stability in these watersheds could be altered by factors such as, but not limited to: livestock trampling, chiseling and sloughing, OHV use, stream crossings, and recreational use.

4. Where unoccupied LCT streams are identified by the Service as egg incubation sites, reintroduction sites, or are identified as necessary to recover LCT, the FS should implement measures described in Measures 2 or 3 above, during the following grazing or use season for these identified unoccupied streams.

5. To aid recovery of threatened and endangered species and improve habitat conditions to allow expansion of existing populations, the FS should develop long-term allotment management plans (AMPs) for allotments necessary for the recovery of LCT. Basic features of the AMPs should include: 1) Appropriate combinations of pasture rest, grazing intensity, rotation and timing of livestock use; 2) exclosure fencing or riparian pasture management to allow continual and timely improvements in the condition of uplands and riparian vegetation and achievement of desired future condition; 3) establish monitoring

137

programs to document changes in riparian and upland vegetation and stream habitat condition; and 4) use of alternate watering systems.

6. Dissolved oxygen, temperature, pH, specific conductance, nitrates, ammonia, total phosphorous, and total and/or fecal coliform bacteria should be regularly monitored in LCT streams to ensure adequate protection of water quality. At a minimum, sampling should occur: 1) prior to the seasonal introduction of livestock to the allotment, and 2) near the point in time when livestock are removed from the allotment. If monitoring demonstrates that constituent concentrations exceed standards for designated beneficial uses, a water quality management plan should be developed and implemented. If livestock contribute to constituent concentrations that exceed the standards, livestock should be removed from the stream and associated riparian area if compliance with water quality standards is not achieved within 2 years of implementation of the water quality management plan.

7. Designate all areas currently occupied by LCT as CARs.

Within Tahoe National Forest, recovery populations of LCT occur in one lake and five streams. Tahoe National Forest has designated the lake (Independence Lake) and the stream flowing into it (Upper Independence Creek) as a CAR. Management decisions and actions in a CAR should reflect the unique and important nature of the aquatic and riparian resources in these areas. Periodically CDFW surveys streams by electroshocker to determine LCT population trends. All populations in Tahoe National Forest have been stable and vary in numbers at carrying capacity for the habitat in the streams, However, the populations are small and may not be large enough to support genetic diversity in the long term, and may be at risk for genetic drift and bottlenecks (Somer, CDFW, personal communication, 2014).

This species does not occur within drainages in the Yuba Project area.

B. Lahontan Cutthroat Trout: Effects of the Proposed Action and Alternatives including Project Design Standards Lahontan cutthroat trout do not occur within any drainages within the Yuba Project area. Therefore this project will not affect this species or its habitat, and no further analysis is needed.

C. Lahontan Cutthroat Trout: Conclusion and Determination It is my determination that this project will have no effect on the Lahontan cutthroat trout or its designated critical habitat.

WESTERN POND TURTLE Status: USFS R5 Sensitive

138

A. Western Pond Turtle: Existing Environment The western pond turtle (Emys marmorata) is found on the west coast of North America. Historically it was found from as far north as British Columbia, Canada to as far south as Baja California mostly west of the Cascade-Sierra crest (Lovich and Meyer 2002). Fossil fragments have been found east of the current range indicating that the species was once more widespread (Buskirk 2002). Disjunct populations have been documented in the Truckee, Humboldt and Carson Rivers in Nevada, Puget Sound in Washington, and the Columbia Gorge on the border of Oregon and Washington. It is currently unclear if these are relictual or introduced populations (Lovich and Meyer 2002). Modern distribution is limited to parts of Washington, Oregon, California and northern Baja California (Buskirk 2002). Western pond turtles are the only native aquatic turtle in California and southern Oregon, in the northern part of its range it coexists with only the western painted turtle (Chrysemys picta bellii) (Germano and Rathbun 2008). On Region 5 lands this turtle can be found on all National Forests, except the Inyo and Lake Tahoe Basin.

The Society for the Study of Amphibians and Reptiles no longer recognizes subspecies for the western pond turtle. Presumably this is based on recent genetic work that indicates that the recognized subspecies were not geographically or genetically correct, and the currently recognized species likely represents as many as four cryptic species. However, the study that identified the four distinct clades of pond turtle did not elevate any to species status as the authors wanted to wait until further molecular work was undertaken. The two former subspecies were the northwestern pond turtle (Emys marmorata marmorata) and the southwestern pond turtle (Emys marmorata pallida) with a subspecies split along the transverse mountain range in southern California (Spinks and Shaffer 2005).

Abundance has been well studied in this species. In some stream habitats densities can exceed 1,000 turtles per hectare. In Oregon, small ponds can hold over 500 turtles per hectare. These densities represent extremes with typical densities ranging from 23 to 214 turtles per hectare throughout most of the range (Lovich and Meyer 2002). Capture rates at one site in southern California were ca. 2 to 2.6 turtles per trap night (Germano 2010). These density estimates are likely accurate for populations on National Forest System lands where habitat is suitable.

The western pond turtle inhabits a Mediterranean climate defined by mild, wet winters and long hot, dry summers. In the northern portion of its range winters are colder with more rainfall than in southern areas (Germano and Rathbun 2008). Aquatic habitats include lakes, natural ponds, rivers, oxbows, permanent streams, ephemeral streams, marshes, freshwater and brackish estuaries and vernal pools. Additionally, these turtles will utilize man-made waterways including drainage ditches, canals, reservoirs, mill ponds, ornamental ponds, stock ponds, abandoned gravel pits, and sewage treatment plants (Buskirk 2002). Turtles captured at waste-water treatment plants grew quickly, had successful recruitment and produced large clutches (Germano 2010). Turtles favor areas with offshore basking sites including floating logs, snags, protruding rocks, emergent vegetation and overhanging tree boughs, but also will utilize steep and/or vegetated shores. Hatchlings additionally require shallow, eutrophic, warm areas which are typically at the margins of natural waterways (Buskirk 2002). Terrestrial habitats are less well understood. In southern California animals spend only one to two months in terrestrial habitats while animals in the northern portions of the range can be terrestrial for up to eight months 139

(Lovich and Meyer 2002). Animals have been documented to overwinter under litter or buried in soil in areas with dense understories consisting of vegetation such as blackberry, poison oak and stinging nettle which reduces the likelihood of predation (Davis 1998).

Western pond turtles are generalist omnivores and have been documented to eat a wide variety of prey. Prey items include larval insects, midges, beetles, filamentous green algae, tule and cattail roots, water lily pods, and alder catkins (Germano 2010). Filamentous algae is considered to be an important food source for females after egg laying (Buskirk 2002). Additionally, animals will opportunistically feed on other items such as floating duck carcasses, ducklings (pers. obs.) and dog food in backyards while on walkabouts (Buskirk 2002).

Turtles move upland at different times across the range of this species. Animals can move upland as early as September, but typically move following the first winter storm in November or December. Not all animals move upland, some move to nearby ponds for the winter (Davis 1998). Animals have been observed moving underneath ice in ponds and potentially congregate in shallow areas (Buskirk 2002). Upland animals remain somewhat active throughout the winter and can be observed basking on warm winter days (Davis 1998). Upland movements for both overwintering and reproduction typically occur in the afternoon and evenings. Walkabouts to scout for nest sites can be completed within one day or they can last up to four days (Crump 2001). Home ranges differ between males and females with male home ranges averaging 0.976 hectares and females averaging 0.248 hectares. Although western pond turtles are likely not territorial, disputes over basking sites are commonly observed (Buskirk 2002).

Local climatic and water level variations can alter the timing of nesting in this species (Crump 2001). The nesting season is from late April through mid-July at low elevation, and June through August at higher elevations (Scott et al. 2008). Although some females can reproduce with a carapace length as small as 111 mm, 120 mm is the minimum reproductive size in most areas with most gravid females being 140 mm or larger (Scott et al. 2008). Animals of this size are often at least seven years old in southern areas and eight to twelve years old in northern areas. Western pond turtles have an average life expectancy of approximately forty years if they survive to adulthood (Buskirk 2002).

Some western pond turtles have shown nest site fidelity. Four of five detected nesting areas in one study area had instances of nest side fidelity. It is likely that nest site fidelity is common, and sites are changed only after a negative encounter during either a walkabout or while forming a nest at a particular site (Crump 2001). Most females nest within 50 meters of water; however some females nest upwards of 400 meters away from water (Lovich and Meyer 2002). It is believed that in coastal populations nesting occurs far from water in order to protect overwintering hatchlings from being injured during winter floods (Lovich and Meyer 2002). Mean clutch size ranges from 4.5 +/- 0.25 on the Santa Rosa Plateau to 7.3 +/- 1.18 in southern Oregon. More research is needed to determine if clutch size varies with latitude (Germano and Rathbun 2008). Average annual egg production for 39 animals in southern California was 7.2 +/- 3.9 eggs. This number did not vary statistically among females of differing carapace length or among different streams and in many cases represented two clutches per female. Clutch size varies significantly among drainages; however it does not differ significantly across years or within individual drainages. When double clutching occurs, the first clutch typically contains

140

more eggs than the second clutch (Scott et al. 2008). Several head-starting programs claim that temperature dependent sex determination is utilized by western pond turtles, but they have not published evidence proving this (Buskirk 2002).

Hatchlings in the Mojave River population overwinter in the nest and emerge as early as March of the following year (Lovich and Meyer 2002). However, most hatchlings in southern California emerge in late fall of the year they were laid. Northern animals typically emerge the following spring. Delayed emergence can be caused by soil structure where sandy soil results in earlier emergence (Crump 2001). Microhabitat use, behavior and diet differ between juvenile and adult western pond turtles (Lovich and Meyer 2002). Little is known about the specific requirements of hatchling turtles as they are cryptic and are rarely represented in population assessments of many species including those with known stable populations (Germano and Rathbun 2008). Growth and maturation in western pond turtles is heavily influenced by ambient air and water temperatures and basking behaviors which include aerial basking, and cryptic behaviors such as burying in warm sand or lying in warm algal mats (Germano and Rathbun 2008). Sites with cold water require turtles to bask more causing average body size to be smaller compared to sites with warmer water. Areas which have higher invertebrate densities typically classified as having organic mud bottom substrates yield larger turtles (Lubcke and Wilson 2007).

Western pond turtles have significantly declined in number with many populations representing less than 10% of the historical population. In California alone there has been a loss of 80-85% of western pond turtles since the 1850’s. The Puget Sound population in Washington, which encompassed the type location for this species, as well as British Columbia populations has been considered extirpated since at least the 1970s. 98% of the population is gone in Oregon’s Willamette Valley, 95-99.9% of the population in the San Joaquin Valley is gone and most of the Nevada populations have disappeared. In southern California there are only 12 known viable populations (>25 adult animals) between Los Angeles County and the Mexican border (Buskirk 2002).

The major threat to this species is habitat loss or degradation. Most of the historical habitat for this species has been permanently lost as a result of development for human occupancy. Riparian and wetland habitats are cleared for agriculture use, destroyed by cattle, channelized and stripped of vegetation, or invaded by the saltcedar shrub which destroys water quality, alters stream structure and dries streams. Ground water pumping lowers water tables and further stresses riparian plant communities. Gold and gravel mining can both directly destroy habitat as well as introduce toxins through toxic spills and illegal dumping of chemicals (Buskirk 2002; Lovich and Meyer 2002).

Additional human-caused threats further jeopardize population viability. Cattle grazing can destroy riparian habitat, trample and kill turtles and nests, and cattle waste can pollute waterways. Western pond turtles, especially gravid females, are easily killed on roadways by direct impact with vehicles. Historically animals were also collected for the pet trade with hundreds of animals from a single site being exported to Europe in the 1960’s. Although collection and sale of western pond turtles have been banned for many years, animals are still listed for sale in the eastern United States. Animals were collected for food in great numbers from the mid-19th century to the 1930s when animals first started to become scarce. Modern

141

watercourse recreation also impacts these turtles. Recreation which interferes with basking or causes direct injury or mortality include high-speed boating, water skiing, jet skiing and fishing where animals may be directly caught or killed because they are viewed as competition (Buskirk 2002).

Disease poses a notable threat to western pond turtles, as has been seen in Washington. A die- off in 1990 was attributed to a syndrome similar to an upper-respiratory disease. Several years later, as part of a head-starting program, several animals were found dead with no apparent cause of death (Vander Haegen et al. 2009). Animals from a wastewater treatment pond in California were found to be less healthy in both the short and long term compared to animals in a natural habitat despite being larger in size. Although larger, these animals had more chronic stress in the form of more interactions with humans and invasive species, increased water pollution and greater exposure to water-borne diseases (Polo-Cavia et al. 2010). Dehydration also poses a threat to turtles under a year old which likely makes these animals more susceptible to disease (Vander Haegen et al. 2009).

In addition to threats that affect entire populations, many populations are failing as a result of extremely high juvenile mortality. While adults may have annual survival rates of 95-97%, nests, juveniles and sub-adults have extremely high mortality rates (Vander Haegen et al 2009). Nest destruction by raccoons can approach or reach 100% of nests at many Oregon nest sites (Buskirk 2002). Nests are also destroyed when exposed to too much moisture or are crushed by cattle or machines. There are many predators of hatchling turtles, including two very successful non-native predators- large-mouth bass and bullfrogs. Subadult mortality can be as high as 85- 90% annually for animals under 4 years old, however head-started subadults had mortalities as low as 10% when carapace length was greater than 90mm. Natural predators that have been documented to take sub-adult turtles include: raccoons, coyotes, black bears and western river otters with most predations occurring while the animal was terrestrial (Vander Haegen et al. 2009). Adults face less predation risk. A study documented one predation of an adult turtle by a loon, and only 3 of 196 turtles had evidence of predation attempts such as shell or limb damage (Davis 1998).

Few turtle specific surveys have been conducted in the Tahoe National Forest. Primarily, northwestern pond turtle observations have been made during aquatic surveys or other forest activity surveys. California Academy of Sciences, San Francisco, has conducted herpetological surveys including areas likely to provide habitat for northwestern pond turtles (1997, 1998, 1999). Western pond turtles have been observed at approximately 30 locations within the Tahoe National Forest boundary. Tahoe National Forest’s recorded sightings are from the Yuba River drainage and the American River or its tributaries. Most of the observations have been associated with pond habitats, although several observations were of turtles walking distant from an aquatic habitat (e.g. turtle walking across a road).

Aquatic surveys have been completed for all drainages within the Yuba Project area for approximately 0.5 miles above and below any of the units proposed. Additionally, aquatic surveys have occurred within all low gradient streams (less than 4%) that occur within meadows. The Yuba Project Area occurs above 5,500 feet in elevation, which is above the elevational range for this species.

142

B. Western Pond Turtle: Effects of the Proposed Action and Alternatives including Project Design Standards This project occurs above the elevational range for this species. Therefore, this project will not affect this species, and no further analysis is needed.

C. Western Pond Turtle: Conclusion and Determination

It is my determination that implementation of either action alternative, Alternative A or C, will not affect the western pond turtle.

FOOTHILL YELLOW-LEGGED FROG Status: USFS R5 Sensitive

A. Foothill Yellow-Legged Frog: Existing Environment The foothill yellow-legged frog (Rana boylii) is listed as Sensitive on the Region 5 Forester’s Sensitive Species List (USDA Forest Service 1998) and is considered a Species of Concern by the state of California. Standards and guidelines for Riparian Conservation Areas provide management direction for foothill yellow-legged frog and are described in the SNFPA ROD (January 2004).

Foothill yellow-legged frogs (Rana boylii) have suffered significant population declines across the majority of the known range. Historically this frog was found across most of southwestern Oregon west of the Cascades Mountains crest south through California to Baja California (Fellers 2005; Jennings and Hayes 1994). Specimens collected from the Sierra San Pedro Martir of Baja California in 1961 were lost in transit and represented a population almost 300 miles south of the nearest known population (Loomis 1965). The foothill yellow-legged frog is found in most of northern California west of the Cascade Mountains crest, in the Coast Ranges from the California-Oregon border south to the Transverse Mountains in Los Angeles County and along the western slope of the Sierra Nevada Mountains south to Kern County. Isolated populations have been reported from the San Joaquin Valley and the mountains in Los Angeles County. This frog can be found from near sea level to 1940m (6370 ft) where habitat is suitable (Morey 2000). Within Region 5 this frog is found on, or could occur on, all national forests except for the Cleveland, Inyo, Modoc, and Lake Tahoe Basin National Forests.

Populations of foothill yellow-legged frogs in the Pacific Northwest are considered to be the most stable with approximately 40% of streams occupied, 30% are occupied in the Casade Mountains, 30% in the south Coast Range south of San Francisco and 12% in the Sierra Nevada foothills (Fellers 2005). Populations in and south of the Tehachapi Mountains have probably been extirpated (Santos-Barrera et al. 2004). The last verifiable record from this area is a series of animals which were collected in 1970 however unverifiable observations occurred through the late 1970’s (Jennings and Hayes 1994). Any remaining populations in Mexico are protected by Mexican law under the “Special Protection” category (Santos-Barrera et al. 2004). While there

143

are no recognized subspecies of foothill yellow-legged frogs, recent genetic studies indicate that there is a genetic break along the transverse mountains (Lind et al. 2011). Although there are numerous occupied streams, only 30 of the 213 known populations in California have populations of at least 20 individual adults. These frogs are most numerous in the northern coast range with six populations of at least 100 adults and an additional nine populations of at least 50 adults (Fellers 2005). An assessment by Lind (2005) found that foothill yellow-legged frogs were not present at 51% of their historically occupied sites in the Sierra Nevada.

Foothill yellow-legged frogs are found in partially shaded, rocky, perennial and ephemeral streams, rivers, and wet terrestrial habitats (Hays et al. 2016). They are found in a variety of habitats including: valley-foothill hardwood, valley-foothill hardwood-conifer, valley-foothill riparian, ponderosa pine, mixed conifer, coastal scrub, mixed chaparral and wet meadows and appear to be highly dependent on free water for all life stages (Morey 2000).

Breeding habitat selection ranges from smill tributaries to large rivers (Lind 2005). In large rivers breeding sites are commonly point bars or depositional sites near tributary confluences (Kupferberg 1996). Smaller stream breeding habitat is typically classified as a stream with riffles containing cobble-sized or larger rocks as substrate (Morey 2000). These streams are further defined by having low-water velocities near tributary confluences in shallow reaches and are wider and shallower than non-breeding sites, have emergent rocks and are typically asymmetrical with cobble or small boulder bars (Wheeler and Welsh 2008; Kupferberg 1996). Egg attachment sites are usually cobbles or boulders, but frogs may sometimes utilize bedrock or vegetation. These sites are often on the lee side of rocks or beneath overhangs such that the site has a narrow range of low-water velocity. Coarse sediment enables frogs to choose the best oviposition site to shield egg masses from high-flows. The reproductive strategy of the foothill yellow-legged frog is well suited to rivers with predictable winter flooding and summer droughts (Kupferberg 1996).

As tadpoles stream velocities remain important and high flows can flush tadpoles down stream (Kupferberg et al. 2008). Tadpoles remain in the same general habitat as the breeding site, which has low flows and refugia from high velocity events (Bondi et al. 2013, Kupferberg et al. 2008).

The habitat preferences of non-breeding adult foothill yellow-legged frogs include riparian and aquatic habitats. Selected habitat consists of shallow, low gradient streams with coarse substrate (Morey 2000) Adults may migrate up tributaries consisting of large-sized boulders and bedrock to utilize the cooler air and water temperatures, and to avoid predators and high water flows (Leidy et al. 2009).

Overwintering habitat as summarized in the Foothill Yellow-Legged Frog Conservation Assessment (Hayes 2016):

“Overwintering is the least understood aspect of foothill yellow-legged frog habitat use. Van Wagner (1996) observed postmetamorphic frogs overwintering in velocity-protected areas of the channel (e.g., on the lee side of sedge [Carex spp.] tussocks). He found that adult frogs typically used root wads, woody debris, undercut banks, and large boulders adjacent to

144

pools, whereas juvenile frogs were usually found in hollows at the stream edge created by sedges partially springing back from being pushed over during high flows. Van Wagner’s (1996) observations occurred in a relatively small stream, where enough protection from scour or bedload movement may exist in selected in-channel locations during high discharge. Recent metamorphs have been caught in pitfall traps moving upland away from mainstem channels (Twitty et al. 1967); observed in wet ditches along dirt roads (Kupferberg, 2012), and in caves and tunnels (Devine Tarbell & Associates, Inc. and Stillwater Sciences 2005). In larger streams, frogs may use protected terrestrial sites that avoid the scour risk entirely. For example, in the South Santiam River in Oregon (a 6th- order channel), juveniles occupy seeps above the typical winter high-flow waterline (Rombough 2006b); whether adults overwinter terrestrially at this site is unknown. Adult frogs observed moving upland along the Trinity River during fall rains may be movement into terrestrial sites (M. Hayes, personal observation, 1994; Jennings 1990), or to lateral tributaries for overwintering, where scour risk may be considerably lower (Kupferberg 1996a). Frogs have been observed in terrestrial habitats far from streams in the South Fork Eel and Mattole watersheds of the Coast Ranges in late fall.”

Wheeler and Welsh (2008) found that approximately 68% of adult male foothill yellow-legged frogs in their study were site faithful. These animals had an average breeding home range of 0.58m2 and home range size was directly linked with the frequency of aggressive behavior and calling activity. Males were not actively guarding future oviposition sites, but were guarding a specific, but generalized, patch of habitat within the breeding site (Wheeler and Welsh 2008).

Larval foothill yellow-legged frogs primarily consume algae and will preferentially graze on epiphytic diatoms as this food item allows them to grow more rapidly (Jennings and Hayes 1994). Post-metamorphs are generalists that eat mostly terrestrial insects but also aquatic insects (Hayes et al. 2016). Adult diet is thought to include: flies, moths, hornets, ants, beetles, grasshoppers, water striders and snails with a terrestrial arthropod composition of 87.5% insects and 12.6% arachnids (Fellers 2005).

Breeding can occur as early as March but mainly occurs in May to early June and varies in length with an average duration of 49.5 days between first and last egg depositions (Hayes 2016, Wheeler and Welsh 2008; Kupferberg 1996). Breeding occurs earlier in low-base flow years and begins when stream flow is at or below 0.6m/sec and between 0.04 and 0.17 m/sec at the microhabitat scale (Wheeler and Welsh 2008). Eggs are typically laid in shallow areas ranging from 4 to 43 cm at varying distances from shore. When base-flow is low frogs will oviposit further from shore (Kupferberg 1996; Lind et al. 1996). Prior to egg deposition but while in amplexus, females will scrape potential attachment sites with their hind-feet in order to remove any debris and make egg adhesion stronger. This reduces the likelihood of the clutch being detached by a change in water velocity (Rombough and Hayes 2005). Females lay a single annual clutch of between 300 and 2,000 eggs (Jennings and Hayes 1994; Kupferberg 1996). Reproductive output is typically 18.8 +/- 1.9 clutches per breeding site (Kupferberg 1996). The critical thermal maximum for embryos is approximately 26C, however eggs are typically found from 9 to 21.5C (Jennings and Hayes 1994; Kupferberg 1996). Incubation lasts approximately two weeks (5 – 37 days) depending on water temperature and position within the clutch. Eggs near the attachment point and eggs in the center of the clutch typically hatch later than eggs on

145

the periphery of the clutch (Kupferberg 1996; Fellers 2005). After hatching, tadpoles move away from the egg mass. As with egg development, larval development is temperature dependent with metamorphosis typically occurring 2-4 months after hatching depending on the temperature and quality of diet (Catenazzi and Kupferberg 2013, Kupferberg et al. 2011) with no documented overwintering of larvae. Foothill yellow-legged frogs metamorphose at a size of 1.4-1.7 cm in length. Reproductive maturity is thought to occur the second year after metamorphosis, but can occur as early as six months after metamorphosis. Longevity for this species is unknown (Fellers 2005).

High mortality in this species occurs during the egg and larval life stages. The main causes of mortality in eggs are hydrologic in nature. Eggs are usually killed by either desiccation or scour (Kupferberg 1996; Lind et al. 1996). Tadpole mortality can also occur as a result of irregular stream flows. The main critical velocity for tadpoles is 20cm/s but flows as low as 10cm/s can displace large tadpoles. This results in slower growth and development, greater exposure to predators and possible mortality. The seasonal pulses of high water flows used in many regulated rivers have a significant negative impact on recruitment for this species (Kupferberg et al. 2011). Variability in spring and summer flows was found to cause egg mass and tadpole mortality and decreases in river levels can cause stranding (Kupferberg 1996, Kupferberg et al. 2016, Wheeler et al. 2013).

Loss of genetic diversity due to habitat loss is a major threat to foothill yellow-legged frogs. Populations which are more than 10km apart are prone to genetic drift and barriers such as dams or habitat fragmentation may prevent dispersal between isolated populations (Dever 2007). Due to the isolation it is unlikely that extripated populations will recolonize (Hayes et al. 2016). In one study area, 94% of downstream bar habitat and potential breeding habitat was lost after the installation of a dam. The encroachment of riparian vegetation created stable sandy berms which caused the river to become narrower and deeper and thus unsuitable for use by foothill yellow- legged frogs (Lind et al. 1996).

The five major risk factors as designated in the Foothill yellow-legged frog Conservation Assessment (Hayes et al. 2016) are: water development and diversion, climate change, habitat loss (urbanization and fragmentation), introduced species, and mining.

In the Tahoe National Forest, foothill yellow-legged frog occurances have been recorded as far back as the late 1800’s. Collection records document occurances mainly for the Yuba River, with a few occurances recorded in the American River System (Hayes et al. 2016). Surveys were conducted in cooperation with the USGS Biological Division, Pt. Reyes from 1997 through 2000. In addition, California Academy of Sciences, San Francisco, has conducted herpetological surveys including areas likely to provide habitat for mountain yellow-legged frogs (1997, 1998, and 1999). Foothill yellow-legged frog surveys were conducted at 46 sites in the treatment units and one reference location at the North Fork American River in 2007, by consultants for Placer County Water Agency. Individual frogs of different life stages were found in the mainstem and tributaries of the Middle Fork American River, North Fork American River, and the North Fork Middle Fork American River. Under the hydropower relicensing for the Yuba-Bear, Drum- Spaulding projects, foothill yellow-legged frog surveys were conducted in 2008, 2009, and 2010 within four accessible portions of the Middle Yuba and South Yuba Rivers, beginning at the

146

Wolf Creek confluence at approximately 3,000 feet in elevation and downstream. Foothill yellow-legged frog breeding was confirmed at all survey sites and within tributaries at the four locations. Surveys conducted in 2016 have confirmed presence of Foothill yellow-legged frogs in Shritail Creek on the American River Ranger District. Amphibian occurrence is also documented during fish stream surveys and incidental to various other field activities and surveys.

The Yuba Project area ranges from 5400 to 7200 feet in elevation, which is above the elevational range for foothill yellow-legged frogs. Within the North Yuba River, no sightings of this species occurs above approximately 3,200 feet in elevation, just above the town of Downieville. Sightings occur within tributary streams of the North Yuba, with the highest being 4,000 feet in a man-made pond and trough that flows into an unnamed tributary to Goodyears Creek. Aquatic surveys have been conducted numerous times in the past ten years within streams in the Yuba Project Area that occur within all units and for a distance of approximately 0.6 miles above and below, and no foothill yellow-legged frogs were sighted. Due to the relatively high elevational range for this project and numerous surveys that have been conducted, this species is not considered to range within the Yuba Project area.

B. Foothill Yellow-Legged Frog: Effects of the Proposed Action and Alternatives including Project Design Standards Because this Project is mostly above the elevational range for this species, and extensive aquatic surveys have been conducted and this species has not been found, the Yuba Project will not affect this species

C. Foothill Yellow-Legged Frog: Conclusion and Determination

It is my determination that implementation of either action alternative, Alternative A or C, will not affect the foothill yellow-legged frog.

GREAT BASIN RAMS-HORN SNAIL Status: USFS R5 Sensitive

A. Great Basin Rams-Horn Snail: Existing Environment The Great Basin rams-horn snail is listed as Sensitive on the Region 5 Forester’s Sensitive Species List (USDA Forest Service 1998). The Tahoe National Forest LRMP, as amended, does not provide specific management guidelines for this species. SNFPA standards and guidelines for Riparian Conservation Areas, listed under California red-legged frog, provide for the needs of this species.

The Great Basin ramshorn snail occurs in a highly restrictive distribution but is locally abundant. Historically, the Great Basin ramshorn snail occurred within the lakes and larger, slow streams in and around the northern Great Basin. In California the snail was known to occur in six local drainages in which the species probably survives in four of these drainages.

147

The Great Basin rams-horn snail occurs in larger lakes and slow rivers including larger spring sources and spring-fed creeks. These snails characteristically burrow in soft mud and may be invisible even when abundant (Taylor 1981). The Great Basin ramshorn snail can occur with Pisidium ultramontanum, Lanx klamathensis, or several other endemic molluscs (Frest and Johannes 1993). It also occurs with Juga acutifilosa and Fluminicola seminalis. Habitat requirements include cold highly oxygenated water, muddy substrate, and slow stream flow. Springs are preferred, but the snail will use river margins. Soft sediments are preferred. Threats to snails have been attributed to water diversions and water pollution. Mitigations for fish species, such as adding spawning gravels, may harm this species by smothering soft mud habitats.

Threats to this species include but are not limited to habitat alteration, changes in water flow regime, changes in water quality and loss of hosts for development.

Historically, the Great Basin rams-horn snail has been observed in the Truckee River directly downstream of Lake Tahoe, on the Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit. Currently, this snail has not been sighted or surveyed for in the Tahoe National Forest. Suitable habitat occurs within slow segments of the Truckee and Little Truckee Rivers and their tributaries.

This species range is outside the Yuba River Ranger District.

B. Great Basin Rams-Horn Snail: Effects of the Proposed Action and Alternatives including Project Design Standards The Yuba Project area is outside of the range for this species. Therefore this project will not affect this species or its habitat, and no further analysis is needed.

C. Great Basin Rams-Horn Snail: Conclusion and Determination

It is my determination that implementation of either action alternative, Alternative A or C will not affect the Great Basin rams-horn snail.

LAHONTAN LAKE TUI CHUB Status: USFS R5 Sensitive

A. Lahontan Lake Tui Chub: Existing Environment EAST OF THE SIERRA NEVADA MOUNTAIN CREST ONLY

The Lahontan Lake tui chub is listed as Sensitive on the Region 5 Forester’s Sensitive Species List (USDA Forest Service 1998). The Tahoe National Forest LRMP, as amended, does not provide specific management guidelines for this species. SNFPA standards and guidelines for Riparian Conservation Areas, listed under California red-legged frog, provide for the needs of the Lahontan Lake tui chub.

148

The Lahontan Lake tui chub are a cyprinid subspecies found in Lake Tahoe and Pyramid Lake (Nevada) which are connected to each other by the Truckee River and in nearby Walker Lake (Nevada). Populations of plankton-feeding chub occurring in Stampede, Boca and Prosser reservoirs may also be Lahontan Lake tui chub due to morphological similarities (Marrin and Erman 1982, Moyle et al. 1995).

The Lake Tahoe population is the only confirmed population in the Sierra Nevada, with a probable population in Stampede, Boca and Prosser Reservoirs in the Tahoe National Forest. Little study has occurred on the Lake Tahoe population since Miller (1951). Zooplankton levels have changed over this period. Daphnia, an important prey of adult chubs, have been nearly eliminated (Richards et al. 1975) by the introduced Kokanee salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka) and opossum shrimp (Mysis relicta), both of which feed on zooplankton. Marshland degradation along the lake may be taking away vital spawning and nursery areas.

Based on occurrence within such widely diverse habitats as Lake Tahoe and Pyramid Lake, it is believed this species can tolerate a wide range of physicochemical water conditions. Lahontan Lake tui chub are known as a mid-water feeder. In Lake Tahoe, larger fish (>16 cm TL) occur in deeper water (>50m) during the day, moving into shallower water areas at night (Miller 1951). Young fish generally occur in shallow water. It has also been noted that a seasonal migration occurs within the water column. Deeper water in often utilized during winter months and summer months show use of upper portions (Snyder 1917, Miller 1951). Algal beds in shallow inshore areas seem necessary for spawning, egg hatching, and larval survival.

Lahontan Lake tui chub are schooling fish reaching lengths of 35 to 41 cm FL, which inhabit large, deep lakes (Moyle 1976). Lahontan Lake tui chub feed primarily on zooplankton, especially cladocerans and copepods, but also eat benthic insects when available (Miller 1951, Marrin and Erman 1982). Tui chub are predated upon mostly by large trout, and rarely by birds and snakes (Miller 1951).

In Lake Tahoe, nocturnal spawning occurs during May and June, possibly extending into July (Miller 1951). Tui chub may be serial spawners, reproducing several times during the spawning season (Moyle 1976). Reproductive adults spawn near-shore over beds of aquatic vegetation, to which the eggs adhere (Snyder 1917). Young remain near-shore until winter when body size is 1- 2 cm; then migrate into deeper water. Linear growth of tui chubs occurs about 4 years; then mass is accumulated rapidly. The largest documented length in Lake Tahoe is 13.7 cm SL, but longer chub (21 cm) have been found in Walker Lake, Nevada (Miller 1951).

Threats to the Lahontan Lake tui chub include but are not limited to water quality, specifically alkalinity due to diversions of inflowing water, change in prey base due to introduced species, and reservoir and wetland management.

Surveys for this species have not been conducted in the Tahoe National Forest. Populations of plankton-feeding chub occur in Stampede, Boca and Prosser Reservoirs; these may be Lahontan Lake tui chub due to morphological similarities (Marrin and Erman 1982, Moyle et al. 1995).

149

Potential risk factors include but are not limited to water quality, specifically alkalinity due to diversions of inflowing water, change in prey base due to introduced species, and reservoir and wetland management.

The Yuba River Ranger District is outside the range for this species.

B. Lahontan Lake Tui Chub: Effects of the Proposed Action and Alternatives including Project Design Standards The Yuba Project area is outside the range for this species. Therefore this project will not affect this species or its habitat, and no further analysis is needed.

C. Lahontan Lake Tui Chub: Conclusion and Determination

It is my determination that implementation of either action alternative, Alternative A or C, will not affect the Lahontan Lake tui chub.

HARDHEAD Status: USFS R5 Sensitive

A. Hardhead: Existing Environment The hardhead is listed as Sensitive on the Region 5 Forester’s Sensitive Species List (USDA Forest Service 1998). The Tahoe National Forest LRMP, as amended, does not provide specific management guidelines for this species. SNFPA standards and guidelines for Riparian Conservation Areas, listed under California red-legged frog, provide for the needs of this species.

Historically, hardhead have been regarded as a widespread and locally abundant species (Ayres 1854, Jordan and Evermann 1896, Evermann 1905, Rutter 1908, Murphy 1947, Soule 1951, Reeves 1964). Hardhead are still widespread in the foothill streams, but their specialized habitat requirements, combined with widespread alteration of downstream habitats have resulted in isolation and localization of populations. These conditions increase the chance for localized extinctions. Hence, hardhead are less abundant than they once were, especially in the southern half of their range.

Hardhead are widely distributed in low to mid-elevation streams in the main Sacramento-San Joaquin drainage as well as the Russian River drainage. Hardhead are typically found in undisturbed areas of larger middle- and low-elevation streams (up to 4,390 feet) (Moyle and Nichols 1973, Moyle 1976). Their range extends from the Kern River, Kern County, in the south to the Pitt River, Modoc County, in the north. Populations are scattered in the tributary streams of the San Joaquin drainage, but have not been found in the valley reaches of the San Joaquin River (Moyle and Nichols 1973, Saiki 1984, Brown and Moyle 1987). In the Sacramento River drainage, hardhead are present in most of the larger tributary streams as well as the Sacramento

150

River. They are widely distributed in the Pitt River drainage (Cooper 1983, Moyle and Daniels 1982), including the main Pitt River and its series of Hydroelectric reservoirs.

Hardhead were first described by Baird and Girard (Girard 1854) as Gila conocephala. Ayres (1854) redescribed it as Mylopharodon robustus. G. conocephala was later classified as M. conocephalus and considered to be closely related to M. robustus. Electrophoresis studies by Avise and Ayala (1976) indicate the hardhead to be closely related to the Sacramento squawfish, but different enough to be considered a separate species.

Most streams occupied by hardhead have summer temperatures in excess of 20°C, selecting an optimal range between 24-28°C (Knight 1985). Hardhead are relatively intolerant of low oxygen levels, especially at higher temperatures, a factor which may limit their distribution to well oxygenated streams and the surface water of reservoirs (Cech et al. 1990). They prefer clear, deep (> 1m) pools with sand-gravel-boulder substrates and slow water velocities (<25cm sec¹) (Moyle and Nichols 1973, Knight 1985, Moyle and Baltz 1985). In streams, adult hardhead tend to remain in the lower half of the water column, rarely moving into the upper levels (Knight 1985), while juveniles concentrate in shallow water close to the stream edges (Moyle and Baltz 1985). Hardhead are always found in association with Sacramento squawfish and usually with Sacramento suckers. They tend to be absent from streams introduced with exotics, especially centrarchids (Moyle and Nichols 1973, Moyle and Daniels 1982), or streams that have been severely altered by human activity (Baltz and Moyle 1993).

Primarily bottom feeders, hardheads forage for benthic invertebrates and aquatic plant material in quiet water. They will occasionally feed on plankton and surface insects. Smaller fish (<20 cm SL) feed primarily on mayfly larvae, caddisfly larvae, and small snails, whereas larger fish feed mainly on aquatic plants (especially filamentous algae), as well as crayfish and other large invertebrates (Reeves 1964). The ontogenetic changes in teeth structure seem to coincide with dietary changes. Reeves (1964) found no remains of fish in the stomachs of large hardhead.

Hardhead mature after their second year and most likely spawn in the spring (Reeves 1964), judging by the by the upstream migrations of adults into smaller tributary streams during this time of year (Wales 1946, Murphy 1947, Bell and Kimsey 1955, Rowley 1955). Estimates based on juvenile recruitment suggest that hardhead spawn by May-June in Central Valley streams and that the spawning season may extend into August in the foothill streams of the Sacramento-San Joaquin drainage (Wang 1986).

Hardhead reach 7-8 cm by their first year, but growth slows in subsequent years. In the American River, hardhead reach 30 cm SL in 4 years, whereas in Pitt and Feather Rivers, it takes six years to reach that length (Moyle et al. 1983, PG&E 1985).

Potential risk factors include but are not limited to widespread alteration of down stream habitats, population isolation that increases possibility of local extinction, habitat loss from hydroelectric power developments, and predation by exotic species.

151

Within the Yuba River Ranger District, hardhead are only known to occur within the lower elevations of main rivers—the North. Middle, and South Yuba. The Yuba Project Area includes the headwaters of the North Yuba River, and does not provide habitat for this species

B. Hardhead: Effects of the Proposed Action and Alternatives including Project Design Standards Due to the lack of suitable habitat for hardhead, this project will not affect this species, and no further analysis is needed.

C. Hardhead: Conclusion and Determination

It is my determination that implementation of Alternatives A and C will not affect the hardhead.

CALIFORNIA FLOATER Status: USFS R5 Sensitive

A. California Floater: Existing Environment The California floater (Anodonta californiensis) is listed as a Sensitive Species in Region 5 and designated as a “species of special concern” by the State of California. Standards and guidelines in the Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment for Riparian Conservation Areas, listed under California red-legged frog, provides for the needs of the California floater. The California floater is a freshwater mussel found in lakes and slow rivers (Taylor 1981).

The type locality of this species is the “Rio Colorado’, a former distirbutary of the river, New River, Imperial County, CA (Taylor 1981). Historically this species was distributed on the lower Willamette and lower Columbia rivers in Oregon and Washington. It occurred in larger slow streams of northern California south to northern San Joaquin Valley. It’s former range in California includes Siskiyou, Shasta, Lassen, Modoc and Tehama Cos. (Frest and Johannes 1995).

It’s current distribution indicates this species has probably been eliminated from much of its former range (Taylor 1981). It is apparently extinct in the Upper Sacramento River and appears to be extinct in Utah with a limited distribution in Arizona. The current known distribution in California are the Lassen, Modoc, and Shasta-Trinity National Forests. This species still survives in Fall and Pit Rivers, Shasta Co. Anodonta californiensis has been reported to occur adjacent to the Tahoe National Forest, but no occurrences have been documented on National Forest system lands within the boundary of the Tahoe National Forest. Donner Lake is reported as the locality of an unconfirmed historic sighting in a mollusk database created by Dr. Jayne Brim-Box and Jeff Kershner. The species has been reported to occur at the following sites in Nevada: 1)Truckee River, 2) Humboldt River, Humboldt Basin, Elko, Co in 1979, 3) Thousand Springs Valley northeast of Wells, Elko Co., Lake Bonneville Basin in 1989 (Nevada Natural Heritage Database).

152

Anodonta californiensis occurs in lakes and slow rivers (Taylor 1981), generally, on soft substrates (mud-sand), in fairly large streams and lakes, in relatively slow currents (Frest and Johannes 1995). Howard and Cuffey (2003) found that A. californiensis was almost exclusively found in pools with no riffles and very few in runs in the south Fork of the Eel River in Oregon.

The Yuba River Ranger District does not occur within the range for this species.

B. California Floater: Effects of the Proposed Action and Alternatives including Project Design Standards The Yuba Project Area does not occur within the range for this species. Therefore, this project will not affect this species and no further analysis is needed.

C. California Floater: Conclusion and Determination

It is my determination that implementation of Alternatives A and C will not affect the California floater.

BLACK JUGA Status: USFS R5 Sensitive

A. Black Juga: Existing Environment NatureServe (http://www.natureserve.org/explorer/, updated January, 2000) reports the conservation status of Juga nigrina (Lea 1856) as G3, vulnerable. Taylor (1981) listed one synonym, Melania californica (Clessin 1882) for Juga nigrina. He described the species as commonly occurring in tributaries of the Sacramento River and interior drainages of northeastern California, locally in the upper Klamath River, the uppermost Eel River drainage, the Napa River and coastal streams of Mendocino County (Big and Noyo rivers) and south into the Russian River drainage of Sonoma County with the southern-most population in Salmon Creek of Sonoma County apparently extirpated. Historically, black juga Juga nigrina was described as occurring in headwater streams and river tributaries from northwestern California to southwestern Oregon (Henderson 1929, Burch 1989). However, the genetic sequence attributed to J. nigrina from the Umpqua basin in Oregon by Holznagel and Lydeard (2000), was found by Campbell et al. (2010) to be more closely related to specimens of J. silicula from the Willamette River. The family Pleuroceridae, to which this species belongs, is currently the most diverse in North America with about 1,000 nominal and 200 valid species (Strong et al. 2008). Two closely related species, Juga acutifilosa and J. occata, are Pacific Southwest Region Sensitive Species.

Recent analyses (Campbell et al. 2010) based on anatomy and genetics established that this species, as recognized in museum collections and literature, is composite. According to Frest & Johannes (1995), Juga nigrina occurs in the upper Sacramento, McCloud and Pit River systems. They reported collecting this species from 31 of 231 sites surveyed in the upper Sacramento and Pit River systems and concluded that the species had been extirpated from a “fair number” of historic sites in tributaries to the upper Sacramento River.

153

Therefore, black juga, as presently understood taxonomically, is restricted to the upper Sacramento system in California. The type-locality populations in Clear Creek, Shasta County, tributary to the Sacramento River, have been decimated by gold mining activities (Frest and Johannes 1995), but the species still persists in Clear Creek above the town of French Gulch, the epicenter for the mining operations (Johannes 2010). The species only occurs in California.

Frest & Johannes (1995) report that the species has been extirpated from most of its type locality of Clear Creek, tributary to the upper Sacramento River, due to gold mining. The authors further concluded that this species has been extirpated from several sites based on the apparent absence of this species at many historic sites in the upper Sacramento River system (Frest & Johannes 1995, See Table 10 for a list of museum records.)

Threats to spring and stream habitats occupied by Juga nigrina include:

• Excessive sedimentation from a variety of activities such as mining, logging, road and railroad grade construction, and grazing may smother substrates and stress or kill individuals, and impair egg-laying or survivorship of eggs or young. • Livestock trampling and grazing of small streams, springs and spring runs resulting in reduced dissolved oxygen levels, or elevated fine sediments and water temperature. • Water diversions resulting in reduced spring or stream flow, elevated water temperatures, fine sediment accumulations, lower dissolved oxygen and thus less suitable habitat. • Dam construction, which inundates cold springs, slows current velocities, lowers the availability of oxygen and allows fine sediments to accumulate. • Excessive sedimentation from a variety of activities such as logging, mining, road and railroad grade construction, and grazing may smother substrates and stress or kill individuals, and impair egg-laying or survivorship of eggs or young.

There are no historic occurrences of this species within the Yuba River or its tributaries.

B. Black Juga: Effects of the Proposed Action and Alternatives including Project Design Standards

Direct and Indirect

This species is not known within the Tahoe National Forest, and no historic sightings occur for the Yuba River Ranger District. Activities from this project would not occur within aquatic habitats, and would not directly affect individuals. The Project Management Requirements minimize activities that would occur adjacent to streams and protect riparian vegetation. No ground-disturbing activities would occur within the riparian buffers. Best Management Practices have been developed for this project to minimize sedimentation into streams and insure that water quality is retained. No water diversions or changes to water flows would occur from this project. Therefore there are no direct effects to individuals or indirect effects that would occur to habitat.

154

Cumulative

Because there are no direct or indirect effects to this species, there are no cumulative effects.

C. Black Juga: Conclusion and Determination

It is my determination that implementation of Alternatives A or C will not affect the Black Juga snail.

VII. MANAGEMENT REQUIREMENTS

The Project Management Requirements appear in their entirety listed in Section V above, Table V-10.

155

VIII. LITERATURE CITED AND REFERENCES

Literature Cited (USDA Forest Service, 2004) and References are first listed by General Resource Documents, followed by species-specific or familial group Literature Cited and References.

General Resource Documents

Bartos, D.L. and R.B. Campbell, Jr. 1998. Water depletion and other ecosystem values forfeited when conifer forests displace aspen communities. Rangeland Management and Water Resources: 427- 434. In: Donald F. Potts (Editor), Proceedings of AWRA Specialty conference, Rangeland Management and Water Resources. American Water Resources Association, Herndon, Virginia, TPS-98-1, 474 pp.

Endangered Species Act. 1973 as amended. 50 CFR Chapter IV part 402. 12pp.

Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918. P.L. 65-186, Ch. 128, 40 Stat. 755; 16 U.S.C. 703-712. July 3.

National Environmental Policy Act. 1986. 40 CFR Parts 1500-1508. 45pp.

Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project, Final Report to Congress. 1996. Volumes 1-111 and addendum.

Tahoe National Forest Land and Resources Management Plan. 1990.

Tahoe National Forest maps for Endangered, Threatened and Sensitive species sightings and their habitats.

USDA Forest Service. 1984. Land Management Planning Direction. Pacific Southwest Region. San Francisco.

USDA Forest Service. 1992. Biological Evaluation for Drought-Related Timber Salvage on National Forests of the Sierra Nevada Province, Pacific Southwest Region (R5). 94pp.

USDA Forest Service. 1998. Sensitive Species List 1998. Pacific Southwest Region. San Francisco.

USDA Forest Service. 1998. Sierra Nevada Science Review--report of the Science Review Team charged to synthesize new information of range wide urgency to the national forests of the Sierra Nevada. Pacific Southwest Research Station. July 25, 1998. 115pp.

USDA Forest Service. 1998. Region 5 letter, July 31. Use of information in the Sierra Nevada Science Review in planning and decision making.

156

USDA Forest Service. 2000. Washington Office letter, March 13. Direction on Forest Service timber sale environmental analysis requirements.

USDA Forest Service. 2001. Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment: Final Environmental Impact Statement, vols 1-6, including appendices, and Record of Decision. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region, Vallejo, California.

USDA Forest Service. 2003. Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment: Management Review and Recommendations. R5-MB-012. March 2003. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region, Vallejo, California.

USDA Forest Service. 2004. Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment: Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement, vols 1-2 and Record of Decision. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region, Vallejo, California.

U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). Letter to Tahoe National Forest with species list. Available at: Tahoe National Forest Supervisor's Office, Nevada City, CA.

U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2001. (Letter from Wayne S. White to Bradley Powell and Jack Blackwell, January 11; Biological Opinion on Formal Endangered Species Consultation and Conference on the Biological Assessment for the Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment Final Environmental Impact Statement.) Copy located at: Tahoe National Forest, Supervisor’s Office, Nevada City, CA.

Western Bumble Bee

Alaux, C., J. Brunet, C. Dussaubat, F. Mondet, S. Tchamitchan, M. Cousin, J. Brillard, A. Baldy, L.P. Belzunces and Y. Le Conte. 2010. Interactions between Nosema microspores and a neonicotinoid weaken honeybees (Apis mellifera). Environmental Microbiology 12: 774–78.

Cameron, S.A., J.D. Lozier, J.P. Strange, J.B. Koch, N. Cordes, L.F. Solter and T.L. Griswold. 2011. Patterns of widespread decline in North American bumble bees. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 108:662-667. See http://www.pnas.org/content/108/2/662.full.pdf+html .

Carvell, C., W.R. Meek, R.F. Pywell, D. Goulson, M. Nowakowski. 2007. Comparing the efficacy of agri-environment schemes to enhance bumble bee abundance and diversity on arable field margins. Journal of Applied Ecology, 44:29-40.

Dupont, Y.L, C. Damgaard, V. Simonsen. 2011. Quantitative Historical Change in Bumblebee (Bombus spp.) Assemblages of Red Clover Fields. PuPLoS One Volumbe 6: Issue 9. Available at http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0025172

Evans, E., R. Thorp, S. Jepsen and S.H. Black. 2008. Status Review of Three Formerly Common

157

Species of Bumble Bee in the Subgenus Bombus: Bombus affinis (the rusty patched bumble bee), B. terricola (the yellowbanded bumble bee), and B. occidentalis (the western bumble bee). The Xerces society, Portland, OR. Available at http://www.xerces.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/xerces_2008_bombus_status_review.pdf

Goulson, D., G.C. Lye and B. Darvill. 2008. Decline and Conservation of Bumble Bees. Annual Review of Entomology 53:191–208

Hatfield, R. 2012. Records of western and Franklin’s bumble bees in the western United States. Database records provided by the Xerces Society, Portland, OR on 2/29/12.

Heinrich, B. 1979. Bumblebee Economics. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA. 245 pp.

Henry,M., M. Beguin, F. Requier, O. Rollin, J. Odoux, P. Aupinel, J. Aptel, S. Tchamitchian and A. Decourtye. 2012. A Common Pesticide Decreases Foraging Success and Survival in Honey Bees. SciencExpress available at http://www.sciencemag.org/content/early/2012/03/28/science.1215039.full.pdf

Hopwood, J., M. Vaughan, M. Shepherd, D. Biddinger, E. Mader, S. Hoffman Black and C. Mazzacano. 2012. Are Neonicotinoids Killing Bees? A Review of Research into the Effects of Neonicotinoid Insecticides on Bees, with Recommendations for Action. Xerces Society, Portland, OR. Available at http://www.xerces.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Are- Neonicotinoids-Killing-Bees_Xerces-Society1.pdf .

Koch, J., J. Strange and P. Williams. 2012. Bumble Bees of the Western United States. U.S. Forest Service and the Pollinator Partnership, Washington, D.C. 144 pp.

Kreyer, D., A. Oed, K. Walther-Hellwig and R. Frankl. 2004. Are forests potential landscape barriers for foraging bumblebees? Landscape scale experiments with Bombus terrestris agg. and Bombus pascuorum (Hymenoptera, Apidae). Biological Conservation 116 :111–118.

Mader, E., M. Shepherd, M. Vaughan, S. Black and G. LeBuhn. 2011. Attracting Native Pollinators: Protecting North America's Bees and Butterflies. The Xerces Society Guide to Conserving North American Bees and Butterflies and Their Habitat. Storey Publishing, North Adams, MA. 371 pp.

McFrederick QS, Le Buhn G. 2006. Are urban parks refuges for bumble bees? Biol. Conserv. 129:372–382.

Mikkola, K. 1984. Migration of wasp and bumblebee queens across the Gulf of Finland (Hymenoptera: Vespidae and Apidae). Notulae Entomologicae 64: 125-128.

Osborne, J.L., A.P. Martin, N.L. Carreck, J.L. Swain, M.E. Knight, D. Goulson, R.J. Hale and R.A. Sanderson. 2008. Bumblebee flight distances in relation to the forage landscape. Journal of Animal Ecology 77:406–415.

158

Rao,S., W.P. Stephen, C. Kimoto and S.J. DeBano. 2011. The Status of the ‘Red-Listed’ Bombus occidentalis (Hymenoptera: Apiformes) in Northeastern Oregon. Northwest Science 85: 64-67.

Saab, V. A. and H. D. W. Powell. 2005. Fire and avian ecology in North America: Process influencing pattern. Studies in Avian Biology 30:1-13.

Schweitzer, D.F., N.A. Capuano, B.E. Young, and S.R. Colla. 2012. Conservation and management of North American bumble bees. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia, and USDA Forest Service, Washington, D.C.

Thorp, R. W., and M. D. Shepherd. 2005. Profile: Subgenus Bombus. In Shepherd, M. D., D. M. Vaughan, and S. H. Black (Eds). Red List of Pollinator Insects of North America. The Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation, Portland, OR.

Tommasi, D., A. Miro, H. A. Higo and M. L. Winston. 2004. Bee diversity and abundance in an urban setting. The Canadian Entomologist 136: 851–869.

Williams, P.H. and J.L. Osborne. 2009. Bumblebee vulnerability and conservation world-wide. Apidologie 40:367–387.

Bald Eagle

Alt, K. L. 1980. Ecology of the nesting bald eagle and osprey in the Grand Teton-Yellowstone National Parks Complex. M.S. Thesis, Montana State Univ., Bozeman. 95 pp.

Andrew J. M. and J. A. Mosher. 1982. Bald eagle nest site selection and nesting habitat in Maryland. Journal of Wildlife Management 46:383-390.

Anthony, R. G. and F. B. Isaacs. 1989. Characteristics of bald eagle nest sites in Oregon. Journal of Wildlife Management 53:148-159.

Anthony, R. G., R. L. Knight, G. T. Allen, B. R. McClelland and J. I. Hodges. 1982. Habitat use by nesting and roosting bald eagles in the Pacific Northwest. Trans. A. Am. Wildl. Natural Res Conf. 47:332-342.

Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act. 1940. P.L. 76-567, Ch. 278, 54 Stat. 250, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 668 (note), 668, 668a-d). June 8.

Buehler, D. A., T. J. Mersmann, J. D. Fraser, J. K. D. Seegar. 1991. Effects of human activity on bald eagle distribution on the northern Chesapeake Bay. Journal of Wildlife Management 55:282-290.

159

Craig, D. 1991. A habitat management program for the bald eagle on the Tahoe National Forest—draft; unpublished report. Available at the Tahoe National Forest Supervisor’s Office, Coyote Street, Nevada City, CA. 10p.

Dietrich, P. J. 1981. Historic range of breeding bald eagles in California. Unpublished manuscript. Redding, CA. 17 pp.

Detrich, P. J. 1982. Results of California winter bald eagle survey--1982. U. S. Dept. Int. Fish Wildl. Serv., Sacramento, CA. 16 pp.

Detrich, P. 1990. The California bald eagle management plan—draft; unpublished report. Available at the Tahoe National Forest Supervisor’s Office, Coyote Street, Nevada City, CA. 71p.

Fraser, J. D. 1985. The impact of human activities on bald eagle populations—a review. Pages 68-84 in J.M. Gerrard and T.M. Ingram, eds. The bald eagle in Canada. Headingley, Manitoba: White Horse Plains Pub.

Fraser, J. D., L. D. Frenzel, J. E. Mathisen. 1985. The impact of human activities on breeding bald eagles in north-central Minnesota. Journal of Wildlife Management 59:585-592.

Grubb, T. G. 1976. A survey and analysis of bald eagle nesting in Western Washington. M.S. Thesis, Univ. Washington, Seattle. 87 pp.

Grubb, T. G. 1995a. Constructing bald eagle nests with natural materials. USDA Forest Service research note RM-RN-535, 8p. Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Fort Collins, CO.

Grubb, T. G. 1995b. Food habits of bald eagles breeding in the Arizona Desert. Wilson Bulleton 107:258-274.

Grubb, T. G., W. W. Bowerman, J. P. Giesy and G. A. Dawson. 1992. Responses of breeding bald eagles, Haliaeetus leucocephalus, to human activities in northcentral Michigan. Canadian Field-Naturalist 106(4):443-453.

Grubb, T. G. and C. E. Kennedy. 1982. Bald eagle winter habitat on southwestern Nationl Forests. USDA Forest Service Research paper RM-237, 13p. Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Fort Collins, CO.

Grubb, T. G. and R. M. King. 1991. Assessing human disturbance of breeding bald eagles with classification tree models. Journal of Wildlife Management 55:500-511.

Jurek, R. M. 1988. Five-year status report—bald eagle. State of California, The Resources Agency, Department of Fish and Game; unpublished report. 15p.

160

Keister, G. P. and R. G. Anthony. 1983. Characteristics of bald eagle communal roosts in the Klamath Basin, Oregon and California. Journal of Wildlife Management 47:1072-1079.

Knight, R. L. and S. K. Skagen. 1987. Effects of recreational disturbance on birds of prey: a review. Southwest Raptor Management Symposium and Workshop.

Lehman, R. N. 1979. A survey of selected habitat features of 95 bald eagle nest in California. Calif. Dept. Fish and Game. Wildl. Manage. Branch Admin. Rep. 79-1, Sacramento. 23 pp.

Lehman, R. N., D. E. Craigie, P. L. Colins and R. S. Griffen. 1980. An analysis of habitat requirements and site selection criteria for nesting bald eagle in California. Report by Wilderness Research Institute, Arcata, CA. for U.S. Forest Service, Region 5, San Francisco, CA. 106 pp.

Manci, K. M. D. N. Gladwin, R. Villella, and M. G. Cavendish. 1988. Effects of aircraft noise and sonic booms on domestic animals and wildlife: a literature synthesis. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Ecology Research Center, Fort Collins, CO. 88p.

Montopoli, G. J. and D. A. Anderson. 1991. A logistic model for the cumulative effects of human intervention on bald eagle habitat. J. Wildl. Manage. 55:290-293.

Stalmaster, M. V. 1976. Winter ecology and effects of human activity on bald eagles in the Nooksack River Valley, Washington. M.S. Thesis. West. Washington State Coll. Bellingham, WA. 100 pp.

Stalmaster, M. V. and J. R. Newman. 1978. Behavioral responses of wintering bald eagles to human activity. J. Wildl. manage. 52:506-513.

USDA Forest Service. 1977. Bald eagle habitat management guidelines, unpublished report, U. S. Forest Service, California Region. 60p.

U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1967. Endangered Species. Federal Register 32(48):4001.

U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1978. Determination of Certain Bald Eagle Populations as Endangered or Threatened. Federal Register 43(31):6230-6233.

U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1986. Pacific Bald Eagle Recovery Plan. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, Oregon. 160 pp.

U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1995. Final Rule to Reclassify the Bald Eagle From Endangered to Threatened in All of the Lower 48 States. Federal Register 60(133):36000- 36010.

U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2007a. National Bald Eagle Management Guidelines. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 23pp.

161

U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2007b. Protection of Eagles; Definition of “Disturb”. Federal Register 72(107):31132-31140.

U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2007c. Authorizations Under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act for Take of Eagles (proposed rule). Federal Register 72(107):31141- 31155.

U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2007d. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Removing the Bald Eagle in the Lower 48 States From the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife. Federal Register 72(130):37346-37372.

U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2007e. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Draft Post-Delisting Monitoring Plan for the Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) and Proposed Information Collection. Federal Register 72(130):37373-37374.

U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2008. Authorizations Under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act for Take of Eagles. Federal Register 73(98):29075-29084.

U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2009a. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Status Review of the Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) in the Sonoran Desert Area of Central Arizona and Northwestern Mexico. Federal Register 74(10):2465-2467.

U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2009b. Eagle Permits; Take Necessary To Protect Interests in Particular Localities (final rule). Federal Register 74(175):46836-46879.

Watson, J. W., M. G. Garrett, and R. G. Anthony. 1991. Foraging ecology of bald eagles in the Columbia River estuary. Journal of Wildlife Management 55(3):492-499.

California Spotted Owl

Bart, J. 1995. Amount of suitable habitat and viability of northern spotted owls. Conservation Biology 9:945-946.

Beck, T. W., and G. I. Gould, Jr. 1992. Background and the current management situation for the California spotted owl. Pp 37-53 in J. Verner, K. S. McKelvey, B. R. Noon, R. J. Gutiérrez, G. I. Gould, Jr., and T. W. Beck (technical coordinators); The California spotted owl: a technical assessment of its current status. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-133. U. S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station, Albany, California.

Bias, M. A. 1989. Habitat use by California spotted owls in the central Sierra Nevada. Humboldt State University, Arcata. Master's thesis. 55pp.

162

Bias, M. A., and R. J. Gutiérrez. 1992. Habitat associations of California spotted owls in the central Sierra Nevada. Journal of Wildlife Management 56(3):584-595.

Bingham, B. B., and B. R. Noon. 1997. Mitigation of habitat “take”: application to habitat to conservation planning. Conservation Biology 11(1):127-139.

Blakesley, J. A. and B. R. Noon. 1999. Demographic parameters of the California spotted owl on the Lassen National Forest; preliminary results (1990-1998). Summary Report, February 1999. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station, Arcata, CA. 44pp.

Blakesley, J. A., B. R. Noon, and D. W. H. Shaw. 2001. Demography of the California spotted owl in northeastern California. The Condor 103:667-677.

Blakesley, J. A. 2003. Ecology of the California spotted owl: Breeding dispersal and associations with forest stand characteristics in northeastern California. Dissertation, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado.

Blakesley, J. A., B. R. Noon, and D. R. Anderson. 2005. Site occupancy, apparent survival, and reproduction of California spotted owls in relation to forest stand characteristics. Journal of Wildlife Management 69(4):1554-1564.

Blakesley, J. A., M. E. Seamans, M. M. Conner, A. B. Franklin, G. C. White, R. J. Gutiérrez, J. E. Hines, J. D. Nichols, T. E. Munton, D. W. H. Shaw, J. J. Keane, G. N. Steger, B. R. Noon, T. L. McDonald, and S. Britting. 2006a. Demography of the California spotted owl in the Sierra Nevada: Report to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on the January 2006 Meta- Analysis.

Blakesley, J. A., D. R. Anderson, and B. R. Noon. 2006b. Breeding dispersal in the California spotted owl. Condor 108:71-81.

Bond, M. L., M. E. Seasmans, and R. J. Gutiérrez. 2004. Modeling nesting habitat selection of California spotted owls (Strix occidentalis occidentalis) in the central Sierra Nevada using standard forest inventory metrics. Forest Science 50(6):773-780.

Bond, M. L., D. E. Lee, R. B. Siegel, and J. P. Ward, Jr. 2008. Habitat use and selection by California spotted owls in a postfire landscape. Journal of Wildlife Management 73(3): 1116-1124.

Call, D. R. 1990. Home range and habitat use by California spotted owls in the central Sierra Nevada. Master’s Thesis. Humboldt State University, Arcata CA. 83 pp.

Call, D. R., R. J. Gutiérrez, and J. Verner. 1992. Foraging habitat and home-range characteristics of California spotted owls in the Sierra Nevada. Condor 94:880-888.

163

Chatfield, A. H. 2005. Habitat Selection by a California Spotted Owl Population: A Landscape Scale Analysis Using Resource Selection Functions. Master’s Thesis, Department of Fisheries, Wildlife, and Conservation Biology, University of Minnesota.

Coppeto, S. A., D. A. Kelt, D. H. Van Vuren, J. A. Wilson, and S. Bigelow. 2006. Habitat associations of small mammals at two spatial scales in the northern Sierra Nevada. Journal of Mammalogy 87(2):402-413.

Damiani, C., D. C. Lee, and S. L. Jacobson. 2007. Effects of noise disturbance on northern spotted owl reproductive success. Unpublished Report: Northwest Forest Plan Administrative Study Final Report; available from: USDA Forest Service Pacific Southwest Research Station, Arcata, CA. 16pp.

Ganey, J.L.; H.Y. Wan, S.A. Cushman and C.D. Vojta. Conflicting perspectives on spotted owls, wildfire, and forest restoration. Fire Ecology 13: Issue 3, 20pp. doi: 10.4996/fireecology.130318020.

Gutiérrez, R. J., J. Verner, K. S. McKelvey, B. R. Noon, G. N. Steger, D. R. Call, W. S. LaHaye, B. B. Bingham, and J. S. Senser. 1992. Habitat Relations of the California Spotted Owl. Pages 79-98 in J. Verner, K. S. McKelvey, B. R. Noon, R. J. Gutiérrez, G. I. Gould, Jr., and T. W. Beck (technical coordinators); The California spotted owl: a technical assessment of its current status. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-133. U. S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station, Albany, California.

Gutiérrez, R. J., M. E. Seamans and M. Z. Peery. 1999. Population ecology of the California spotted owl in the central Sierra Nevada: annual results 1998. Annual progress Report March 1999. Region 5, USDA Forest Service. 20pp.

Gutiérrez, R. J., and G. F. Barrowclough. 2005. Redefining the distributional boundaries of the northern and California spotted owls: implications for conservation. The Condor 107:182- 187.

Hayward, L. S., A. Bowles, J. C. Ha, and S. K. Wasser. 2011. Impacts of acute and long-term vehicle exposure on physiology and reproductive success of the northern spotted owl. Ecosphere 2(6):art65. doi:10.1890/ES10-00199.1

Hunsaker, C. T., B. B. Boroski, and G. N. Steger. 2002. Relations between canopy cover and the occurrence and productivity of California spotted owls in J. M. Scott, P. J. Hegland, and M. L. Morrison (Eds.); Predicting Species Occurrences: Issues of Accuracy and Scale. Island Press, Washington, DC, pp. 687-700.

Innes, R. J., D. H. Van Vuren, D. A. Kelt, M. L. Johnson, J. A. Wilson, and P. A. Stine. 2007. Habitat associations of dusky-footed woodrats (Neotoma fuscipes) in mixed-conifer forest of the northern Sierra Nevada. Journal of Mammology 88(6):1523-1531.

164

Innes, R. J., D. H. Van Vuren, and D. A. Kelt. 2008. Characteristics and use of tree houses by dusky-footed woodrats in the northern Sierra Nevada. Northwestern Naturalist 89:109-112.

Irwin, L. L., L. A. Clark, D. C. Rock, and S. L. Rock. 2007. Modeling Foraging Habitat of California Spotted Owls. Journal of Wildlife Management 71(4):1183-1191.

Ishak, H. D., J. P. Dumbacher, N. L. Anderson, J. J. Keane, G. Valkiūnas, S. M. Haig, L. A. Tell, and R. N. M. Sehgal. 2008. Blood parasites in owls with conservation implications for the spotted owl (Strix occidentalis). PLoS ONE 3(5): e2304. Doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0002304.

Jones, G. M., R. J. Guti´ errez, D. J. Tempel, S. A. Whitmore, W. J.,Berigan, and M. Z. Peery (2016a). Megafires: An emerging threat to old-forest species. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 14:300–306.

Jones, G.M.; J.J. Keane, R.J. Gutierrez, and M.Z. Peery. 2017. Declining old-forest species as a legacy of large trees lost. Diversity and Distributions: 1-11. Doi: 10.1111/ddi.12682. Wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/ddi.12682.

LaHaye, W. S., R. J. Gutiérrez, and D. R. Call. 1997. Nest-site selection and reproductive success of California spotted owls. Wilson Bulletin 109(1):42-51.

LaHaye, W. S., G. S. Zimmerman, and R. J. Gutiérrez. 2004. Temporal variation in the vital rates of an insular population of spotted owls (Strix occidentalis occidentalis): Contrasting effects of weather. The Auk 121(4):1056-1069.

Lande, R. 1988. Demographic models of the northern spotted owl. Oecologia 75: 601-.607.

Laymon, S. A. 1988. The ecology of the spotted owl in the central Sierra Nevada, California. University of California, Berkeley. PhD Dissertation. 285pp.

Lee, D. C., and L. L. Irwin. 2005. Assessing risks to spotted owls from forest thinning in fire- adapted forests of the western United States. Forest Ecology and Management 211:191-209.

Lee, D. E., and W. D. Tietje. 2005. Dusky-footed woodrat demography and prescribed fire in a California oak woodland. Journal of Wildlife Management 69(2):1211-1220.

Livezey, K. B. 2007. Barred owl habitat and prey: a review and synthesis of the literature. Journal of Raptor Research 41(3):177-201.

Livezey, K. B., M. F. Elderkin, P. A. Cott, J. Hobbs, and J. P. Hudson. 2008. Barred owls eating worms and slugs: the advantage in not being picky eaters. Northwestern Naturalist 89:185- 190.

165

Livezey, K. B. 2009. Range expansion of barred owls, part I: chronology and distribution. American Midland Naturalist 161:49-56.

McEachern, M. B., C. A. Eagles-Smith, C. M. Efferson, and D. H. Van Vuren. 2006. Evidence for local specialization in a generalist mammalian herbivore, Neotoma fuscipes. Oikos 113:440-448.

Meyer, M. D., D. A. Kelt, and M. P. North. 2005a. Nest trees of northern flying squirrels in the Sierra Nevada. Journal of Mammology 86(2):275-280.

Meyer, M. D., M. P. North, and D. A. Kelt. 2005b. Short-term effects of fire and forest thinning on truffle abundance and consumption by Neotamias speciosus in the Sierra Nevada of California. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 35:1061-1070.

Meyer, M. D., and M. P. North. 2005. Truffle abundance in riparian and upland mixed-conifer forest of California’s southern Sierra Nevada. Canadian Journal of Botany 83:1015-1020.

Meyer, M. D., M. P. North, and D. A. Kelt. 2007a. Nest trees of northern flying squirrels in Yosemite National Park, California. The Southwestern Naturalist 52(1): 157-161.

Meyer, M. D., D. A. Kelt, and M. P. North. 2007b. Microhabitat associations of northern flying squirrels in burned and thinned forest stands of the Sierra Nevada. American Midland Naturalist 157:202-211.

Moen, C. A. and R. J. Gutiérrez. 1997. California spotted owl habitat selection in the central Sierra Nevada. Journal of Wildlife Management 61(4):1281-1287.

Munton, T. E., K. D. Johnson, G. N. Steger, and G. P. Eberlein. 2002. Diets of California spotted owls in the Sierra National Forest. Pp 99-105 in J. Verner (technical editor); Proceedings of a Symposium on the Kings River Sustainable Forest Ecosystem Project: Progress and Current Status. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-183. U. S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station, Albany, California.

Neal, D. L., J. Verner, G. N. Steger and G. Eberlein. 1989. A study of spotted owl home-range and composition in the Sierra National Forest. 1988 Progress Report. Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station. Fresno, California.

Noon, B. R., and C.M. Biles. 1990. Mathematical demography of spotted owls in the Pacific Northwest. Journal of Wildlife Management 54(1): 18-27.

North, M.P.; J.T. Kane, V.R. Kane, G.P. Asner, W.Berigan, D.J. Churchill, S. Conway, J.J. Gutierrez, S. Jeronimo, J. Keane, A. Koltunov, T. Mark, M. Moskal, T. Munton, Z. Peery, C. Ramirez, R. Sollmann, A. M. White, S. Whitmore. 2017. Cover of tall trees best predicts California spotted owl habitat. Forest Ecology and Management 405: 166-178.

166

North, M., G. Steger, R. Denton, G. Eberlein, T. Munton, and K. Johnson. 2000. Association of weather and nest-site structure with reproductive success in California spotted owls. Journal of Wildlife Management 64(3):797-807.

Oli, M. K., and F. S. Dobson. 2001. Population cycles in small mammals: the α-hypothesis. Journal of Mammalogy 82(2):573-581.

Raphael, M. G. and M. White. 1984. Use of snags by cavity-nesting birds in the Sierra Nevada. Wildlife Society Monograph No. 86. 66pp.

Seamans, M. E. 2005. Population biology of the California spotted owl in the central Sierra Nevada. Dissertation, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, Minnesota.

Steger, G. N., T. E. Munton, G. P. Eberlein and K. D. Johnson. 1998. A study of spotted owl demographics in the Sierra National Forest and Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station, Fresno, CA. Annual Progress Report, November 1998. 5pp.

Steger, G. N., T. E. Munton, G. P. Eberlein and K. D. Johnson. 1999. A study of spotted owl demographics in the Sierra National Forest and Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station, Fresno, CA. Annual Progress Report, December 1999. 16pp.

Stephens, S. L., J. D. Miller, B. M. Collins, M. P. North, J. J. Keane, and S. L. Roberts. 2016. Wildfire impacts on California spotted owl nesting habitat in the Sierra Nevada. Ecosphere 7(11):e01478. 10.1002/ecs2.1478

Tempel, D.J., J.J. Keane, R.J. Gutierrez, J.D. Wolfe, G. M. Jones, A. Koltunov, C.M. Ramirez, W.J. Berigan, C.V. Gallagher, T.E. Munton, P.A. Shaklee, S.A. Whitmore, and M.Z. Peery. 2016. Meta-analysis of California Spotted Owl (strix occidentalis occidentalis) territory occupancy in the Sierra Nevada: Habitat associations and their implecations for forest management. The Condor 118: 747-765.

Tempel, D.J., R.J. Gutierrez, J.J. Battles, D.L. Fry, Y. Su, Q. Guo, M.J. Reetz, S.A. Whitmore, G.M. Jones, B.M. Collins, S.L. Stephens, M. Kelly, W.J. Berigan, and M.Z. Peery. 2015. Evaluating short and long term impacts of fuels treatments and simulated wildfire on an old- forest species. Ecosphere 6(12): 1-18.

Tempel, D.J. 2014. California spotted owl dynamics in the central Sierra Nevada: An assessment using multiple types of data. Dissertation, University of Minnesota.

Tempel, D.J., R.J. Gutierrez, S.A Whitmore, M.J. Reetz, R.E. Stoelting, W.J. Berigan, M.E. Seamans, and M.Z. Peery. 2014. Effects of forest management on California spotted owls: implications for reducing wildfire risk in fire-prone forests. Ecological Applications 24(8): 2089-2106.

167

Thomas, J. W., E. E. Forsman, J. B. Lint, E. C. Meslow, B. R. Noon, and J. Verner. 1990. A Conservation Strategy for the Northern Spotted Owl. Washington, DC, U.S. Government Printing Office, 427 pp.

USDA Forest Service. 1993. California Spotted Owl Sierran Province Interim Guidelines Environmental Assessment. 87pp.

USDA Forest Service. 1991. Protocol for surveying for spotted owls in proposed management activity areas and habitat conservation areas. 19 pp.

USDA Forest Service. 2009. California spotted owl module: 2008 annual report (on the Plumas- Lassen study). Keane, J.J. (Principal Investigator), C.V. Gallagher, R.A. Gerrard, G. Jehle, and P.A. Shaklee. USDA Forest Service Pacific Southwest Research Station, Davis, California. 36 pp.

U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2000. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants: 90-day Finding on a Petition To List the California Spotted owl as Threatened or Endangered. Federal Register 65(198):60605-60607

U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2003. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants: 12-Month Finding for a Petition to List the California Spotted Owl (Strix occidentalis occidentalis). Federal Register 68(31):7580-7608.

U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2005. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants: 90-day Finding on a Petition To List the California Spotted owl as Threatened or Endangered. Federal Register 70(118):35607-35613.

U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2006. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants: 12-Month Finding for a Petition to List the California Spotted Owl (Strix occidentalis occidentalis). Federal Register 71(100):29886-29906.

Verner, J. 1999. Review of “A preliminary report on the status of the California spotted owl in the Sierra Nevada.” Unpublished report. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station, Fresno, CA. July 7, 1999. 9pp.

Verner, J., K. S. McKelvey, B. R. Noon, R. J. Gutiérrez, G. I. Gould, Jr., and T. W. Beck. 1992a. Assessment of the current status of the California spotted owl, with recommendations for management. Pp 3-26 in J. Verner, K. S. McKelvey, B. R. Noon, R. J. Gutiérrez, G. I. Gould, Jr., and T. W. Beck (technical coordinators); The California spotted owl: a technical assessment of its current status. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-133. U. S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station, Albany, California.

168

Verner, J., K. S., R. J. Gutiérrez, and G. I. Gould, Jr. 1992b. The California spotted owl: General biology and ecological relations. Pp 55-77 in J. Verner, K. S. McKelvey, B. R. Noon, R. J. Gutiérrez, G. I. Gould, Jr., and T. W. Beck (technical coordinators); The California spotted owl: a technical assessment of its current status. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-133. U. S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station, Albany, California.

Wasser, S. K., K. Bevis, G. King and E. Hanson. 1997. Noninvasive physiological measures of disturbance in the northern spotted owl. Conservation Biology 4:1019-1022.

Weathers, W. W., P. J. Hodum, and J. A. Blakesley. 2001. Thermal ecology and ecological energetics of California spotted owls. The Condor 103:678-690.

Williams, D. F., J. Verner, H. F. Sakai, and J. R. Waters. 1992. General biology of major prey species of the California spotted owl. Pp 207-221 in J. Verner, K. S. McKelvey, B. R. Noon, R. J. Gutiérrez, G. I. Gould, Jr., and T. W. Beck (technical coordinators); The California spotted owl: a technical assessment of its current status. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-133. U. S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station, Albany, California.

Zabel, C. J., G. N. Steger, K. S. McKelvey, G. P. Eberlein, B. R. Noon, and J. Verner. 1992. Home-range size and habitat-use patterns of California spotted owls in the Sierra Nevada. Pp 149-163 in J. Verner, K. S. McKelvey, B. R. Noon, R. J. Gutiérrez, G. I. Gould, Jr., and T. W. Beck (technical coordinators); The California spotted owl: a technical assessment of its current status. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-133. U. S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station, Albany, California.

Zabel, C. J., K. McKelvey, and J. P. Ward, Jr. 1995. Influence of primary prey on home-range size and habitat-use patterns of northern spotted owls (Strix occidentalis caurina). Canadian Journal of Zoology 73: 433-439.

Great Gray Owl

Beck, T. W. 1985. Interim direction for management of great gray owl. USDA Forest Service, Stanislaus National Forest. Sonora, CA. 24pp.

Brunton, D. F. 1971. Observations of the great gray owl on winter range. Can. Field Nat. 86: 315-322.

Bull, E. L., M. G. Henjum, and R. S. Rohweder. 1989. Diet and optimal foraging of great gray owls. Journal of Wildlife Management 53(1):47-50.

169

Bull, E. L. and M. G. Henjum. 1990. Ecology of the great gray owl. General Technical Report PNW-GTR 265. U. S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, Oregon. 39pp.

Greene, C. 1995. Habitat requirements of great gray owls in the central Sierra Nevada. M.S. Thesis. University of Michigan. 94pp.

Hull, J.M., A. Engilis, JR., J.R. Medley, E.P. Jepsen, J.R. Duncan, H.B. Ernest, and J.J. Keane. 2014. A new subspecies of Great Gray Owl (strix nebulosi) in the Sierra Nevada of California, U.S.A. Journal of Raptor Reasearch 48: 68-77.

Jones, C. A., and C. N. Baxter. 2004. Thomomys bottae. Mammalian Species 742:1-14.

Polasik, J. S., J. X. Wu, K. N. Roberts, and R. B. Siegel. 2016. Great Gray Owls nesting in atypical, low-elevation habitat in the Sierra Nevada, California. Journal of Raptor Research, 50(2): 194-206.

Quady, D. E. 2008. Featured photo: great gray owls nesting in Fresno County, California. Western Birds 39:110-116.

Reid, M. E. 1989. The predator-prey relationships of the great gray owl in Yosemite National Park. Cooperative National Park Research Studies Unit Technical Report No. 35. 86pp.

Rognan, C. B. 2007. Bioacoustic techniques to monitor great gray owls (Strix nebulosa) in the Sierra Nevada. M. A. Thesis, Humboldt State University, CA. 64 pp.

Sears, C. L. 2006. Assessing distribution, habitat suitability, and site occupancy of great gray owls (Strix nebulosa) in Calfornia. M. S. Thesis, University of California, Davis. 81 pp.

Sera, W. E., and C. N. Early. 2003. Microtus montanus. Mammalian Species 716:1-10.

USDA Forest Service. 2000. Survey Protocol for the Great Gray Owl in the Sierra Nevada of California. 32pp.

Van Riper, C., III, and J. van Wagtendonk. 2006. Home range characteristics of great gray owls in Yosemite National Park, California. Journal of Raptor Research 40(2):130-141.

Wilson, J. 1981. Some aspects of the ecology of the great gray owl in the Central Sierra Nevada. USDA Forest Service. 30pp.

Wilson, J. 1985. Great gray owl survey, 1984. California Department of Fish and Game. Project W-65-R-2. Progress Report.

Winter, J. 1981. Some aspects of the ecology of the great gray owl in the Central Sierra Nevada. USDA, Forest Service. Stanislaus National Forest Contract # 43-2276. Final report. Sonora, CA. 30pp.

170

Winter, J. 1982. Further investigations on the ecology of the great gray owl in the central Sierra Nevada. Final Report to the Forest Service under contract #43-2348. Stanislaus National Forest, Sonora CA. 35pp.

Winter, J. 1986. Status, distribution and ecology of the great gray owl (Strix nebulosa) in California. San Francisco, CA: San Francisco State University. 121pp. M.S. thesis.

Wu, J.X., R.B. Siegel, H.L. Loffland, M.W. Tingley, S.L. Stock, K.N. Roberts, J.J. Keane, J.R. Medley, R. Bridgman, and C. Stermer.

Northern Goshawk

Andersen, D. E., S. DeStefano, M. I. Goldstein, K. Titus, C. Crocker-Bedford, J. J. Keane, R. G. Anthony, and R. N. Rosenfield. 2005. Technical review of the status of northern goshawks in the western United States. Journal of Raptor Research 39(3):192-209.

Austin, K. A. 1991. Habitat use of northern goshawk in Southern Cascades. M.S. Thesis. Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon. In prep.

Beier, P. and J. E. Drennan. 1997. Forest structure and prey abundance in foraging areas of northern goshawks. Ecological Applications 7:564-571.

Bloom, P. H., G. R. Stewart and B. J. Walton. 1986. The status of northern goshawk in California, 1981-1983. Adm. Rept. 85-1. State of California, Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, CA.

Daw, S. K., and S. DeStefano. 2001. Forest characteristics of northern goshawk nest stands and post-fledging areas in Oregon. Journal of Wildlife Management 65(1):59-65.

Fowler, C. 1988. Habitat capability model for the northern goshawk. USFS, Tahoe National Forest, Nevada City, CA. 21 pp.

Grubb, T. G., L. L. Pater, and D. K. Delaney. 1998. Logging Truck Noise Near Nesting Northern Goshawks. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. Research Note RMRS-RN-3. 2 pp.

Hargis, C. D., R. D. Perloff, and C. McCarthy. 1991. Home ranges and habitats of northern goshawks in eastern California. Draft Rep. C.D. Hargis, Dept. Fish and Wildl., Utah State Univ. Logan, UT. 17 pp.

Hayward, G. D., and R. E. Escano. 1989. Goshawk nest-site characteristics in western Montana and northern Idaho. The Condor 91:476-479.

171

Kennedy, P. L. 2003. Northern Goshawk (Accipiter gentilis atricapillus): A technical conservation assessment. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region.

Morrison, M. L., R. J. Young, J. S. Romsos, and R. Golightly. 2011. Restoring forest raptors: influence of human disturbance and forest condition on northern goshawks. Restoration Ecology 19(2):273-279.

Moser, B. W., and E. O. Garton. 2009. Short-term effects of timber harvest and weather on northern goshawk reproduction in northern Idaho. The Journal of Raptor Research 43(1):1- 10.

Squires, J. R., and L. F. Ruggiero. 1996. Nest-site preference of northern goshawks in southcentral Wyoming. Journal of Wildlife Management 60(1):170-177.

Reynolds, R. T., R. T. Graham, M. H. Reiser, R. L. Bassett, P. L. Kennedy, D. A. Boyce, Jr., G. Goodwin, R. Smith, and E. L. Fisher. 1992. Management recommendations for the northern goshawk in the southwestern United States. Gen. Tech. Report RM-217. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, 90 pp.

USDA Forest Service. 1999. New information and management considerations for the northern goshawk (Accipter gentilis). Tahoe National Forest, Nevada City, CA. 16 pp.

USDA Forest Service. 2000. Survey Protocol for the Northern Goshawk in the Pacific Southwest Region.

U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1998. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Notice of 12-Month Finding on a Petition To List the Northern Goshawk in the Contiguous United States West of the 100th Meridian. Federal Register 63(124):35183- 35184.

Verner, J. and A.S. Boss, technical coordinators. 1980. California wildlife and their habitats: Western Sierra Nevada. USDA Forest Service, PSW-37., Berkeley, CA. 439 pp.

Willow Flycatcher

Bombay, H. L. 1999. Scale perspectives in habitat selection and reproductive success for willow flycatchers (Empidonax traillii) in the centeral Sierra Nevada, California. Masters thesis, California State University, Sacramento. 223 pp.

Bombay, H. L. 2003. Annual report and preliminary demographic analysis for willow flycatcher monitoring in the Central Sierra Nevada in partial fulfillment of contract 53-91S8-01- NRM09 between Dr. Michael L. Morrison under subcontract to Tetra Tech FW, Inc. and USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region, Vallejo, CA. 50 pp.

172

Bombay, H. L., M. L. Morrison, D. E. Taylor, and J. W. Cain III. 2001. Annual report and preliminary demographic analysis for willow flycatcher monitoring in the Central Sierra Nevada in partial fulfillment of contract RFQ-IBET-17-01-053 between University of California, San Diego - White Mountain Research Station and USDA Forest Service, Tahoe National Forest. 46 pp.

Bombay, H. L., M. L. Morrison, and L. S. Hall. 2003. Scale perspectives in habitat selection and animal performance for willow flycatchers (Empidonax traillii) in the central Sierra Nevada, CA. Studies in Avian biology No. 26:60-72, 2003.

Cain, J. W., III, M. L. Morrison, and H. L. Bombay. 2003. Predator activity and nest success of willow flycatchers and yellow warblers. Journal of Wildlife Management 67(3):600-610.

Cain, J. W., III., K. S. Smallwood, M. L. Morrison, and H. L. Loffland. 2006. Influence of mammal activity on nesting success of passerines. Journal of Wildlife Management 70(2):522-531.

Green, G. A., H. L. Bombay, M. L. Morrison. 2003. Conservation assessment of the willow flycatcher in the Sierra Nevada. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region, Vallejo, CA. 62 pp.

Fowler, C., B. Valentine, S. Sanders and M. Stafford. 1991. Habitat Suitability Index Model: willow flycatcher (Empidonax traillii). Unpublished document, USDA Forest Service, Tahoe National Forest. 15 pp.

Harris, J. H., S. D. Sanders, and M. A. Flett. 1987. Willow flycatcher surveys in the Sierra Nevada. Western Birds 18:27-36.

Harris, J. H., S. D. Sanders, and M. A. Flett. 1988. The status and distribution of the willow flycatcher in the Sierra Nevada: results of the 1986 Survey. California Department of Fish and Game. Wildlife Management Division Administrative Report. 88-1. 32 pp.

Loffland, H L., and R.B. Siegel. 2014. 2014 Willow Flycatcher surveys in east-side meadows on the Tahoe National Forest. The Institute for Bird Populations, Point Reyes Station, CA.

Loffland, H.L., R.B. Siegel, C. Stermer, B.R. Campos, R.D. Burnett, and T. Mark. 2014. Assessing Willow Flycatcher population size and distribution to inform meadow restoration in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascades. The Institute for Bird Populations, Point Reyes Station, CA.

Mathewson, H.A., M.L. Morrison, H.L. Loffland, and P.F. Brussard. 2012. Ecology of willow flycatchers (Empidonax traillii) in the Sierra Nevada, California: effects of meadow characteristics and weather on demographics. Ornithological Monographs 75:1-31.

Mathewson, H. A., H. L. Loffland, M. L. Morrison, L. Vormwald, and C. Cocimano. 2009. 2008 annual report and preliminary demographic analysis for willow flycatcher monitoring in the

173

central Sierra Nevada. Produced under Cost Share Agreement 06-CR-11052007-160 between Texas A&M University and USDA Forest Service, Region 5.

Mayfield, H. 1961. Nesting success calculated from exposure. The Wilson Bulletin 73(3):255- 261.

McCreedy, C., and S. K. Heath. Atypical willow flycatcher nesting sites in a recovering riparian corridor at Mono Lake, California. Western Birds 35:197-209.

Morrison, M. L., H. L. Bombay, J. W. Cain III, and D. E. Taylor. 2000. Annual Report and Preliminary Demographic analysis for Willow Flycatcher monitoring in the Central Sierra Nevada. Unpublished document, USDA Forest Service, Tahoe National Forest. 34 pp.

Powers, L. 1993. Summary of monitoring efforts for a population of willow flycatchers in Perazzo Meadows 1992 and 1993. 4pp.

Sanders, S. D., and M. A. Flett. 1989. Ecology of a Sierra Nevada population of willow flycatchers (Empidonax traillii), 1986-1987. Wildlife Management Division Administrative Report 88-3. 34pp.

Serena, M. 1982. The status and distribution of the willow flycatcher (Empidonax traillii) in selected portions of the Sierra Nevada, 1982. Calif. Dept. of Fish and Game, Wildlife Management Division, Administrative Report No. 82-5. 28 pp.

Steele, J. 1993. Preliminary report of neotropical migratory bird monitoring at San Francisco State University's Sierra Nevada Field Campus for the Summers of 1992 and 1993. 8 pp.

Strohm, K.H., and H.L. Loffland. 2015. 2015 Willow Flycatcher Surveys in the Tahoe National Forest. The Institute for Bird Populations, Point Reyes Station, CA.

USDA Forest Service. 1994. Biological Evaluation for Managing willow flycatcher (Empidonax traillii) Habitat on Plumas National Forest Range Allotments. DRAFT. 26 pp.

USDA Forest Service. 2000. A Willow Flycatcher Survey Protocol for California. 48 pp.

U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1995. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Final Rule Determining Endangered Status for the Southwestern Willow Flycatcher. Federal Register 60(38):10694-10715.

Greater Sandhill Crane

California Department of Fish and Game. 1994. Five-year status review: greater sandhill crane (Grus canadensis tabida). Reported to: California Fish and Game Commission. 12 pp.

174

Grinnell, J. and A. H. Miller. 1994. The distribution of the birds of California. Pacific Coast Avifauna, No. 27. 608 pp.

James, A. H. 1997. Sandhill cranes breeding in Sierra Valley, Ca. West Birds 8:159-160.

Johnsgard, P. A. 1975. North American game birds of upland and shoreline. Univ. Nebraska Press, Lincoln. 183 pp.

Harrison, C. 1978. A field guide to the nests, eggs and nestlings of North American birds. W. Collins Sons and Co., Cleveland OH. 416 pp.

Ivey, G. 1995. Draft paper given at the Sandhill Crane Workshop, August 8-9, 1995. Preliminary unpublished data. Alturas, CA.

Littlefield, C. D. 1982. The status and distribution of greater sandhill cranes in California, 1981. The California Resources Agency, Department of Fish and Game.

Littlefield, C. D. 1989. Status of greater sandhill crane breeding populations in California, 1988. State of Calif. the Resources Agency, Dept. of Fish and Game, Wildlife Management Division, Nongame Bird and Mammal Section. 40 pp.

Miller, R. S., G. S. Hochbaum and D. B. Botkin. 1972. A simulation model for the management of sandhill cranes. Yale University School of Forestry and Environmental Studies Bulletin 80.

Pacific Flyway Council. 1997. Pacific Flyway management plan for the Central Valley population of greater sandhill cranes. Pacific Flyway Study Comm. [c/o Pacific Flyway Representative USFWS], Portland, OR 97232-4181. Unpubl. Rept. 44pp. and appendices.

Schlorff, R. 1998. Wildlife Biologist, Sensitive Species Branch, California Dept. of Fish and Game, Sacramento, CA. pers. comm.

USDA Forest Service. 1994. Management guidelines for the greater sandhill crane on National Forest Systems Lands in California. Pacific Southwest Region, San Francisco, Ca. 40 pp.

Youngblood, Q. 1998. District Biologist, Tahoe National Forest. personal communication.

Zeiner, D. C., W. F. Laudenslayer, Jr., K. E. Mayer and M. White, (Eds.). 1990. California wildlife: Volume II: Birds. State of California, The Resources Agency, Dept. of Fish and Game, Sacramento, CA pp. 184-185.

Pacific Marten and California Wolverine

175

Allen, A. W. 1987. The relationship between habitat and furbearers. Pages 164-179 in M. Novak, J.A. Baker, M.E. Obbard and B. Malloch (editors); Wild furbearer management and conservation in North America. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Canada. 1150 pp.

Andruskiw, M., J. M. Fryxell, I. D. Thompson, and J. A. Baker. 2008. Habitat-mediated variation in predation risk by the American marten. Ecology 89(8):2273-2280.

Aubry, K. B., K. S. McKelvey, and J. P. Copeland. 2007. Distribution and broadscale habitat relations of the wolverine in the contiguous United States. Journal of Wildlife Management 71(7):2147-2158.

Aubry, Keith B., William J. Zielinski, Martin G. Raphael, Gilbert Proulx, and Steven W. Buskirk, eds. 2012. Biology and Conservation of Martens, Sables, and Fishers: A New Synthesis.

Bateman, M. C. 1986. Winter habitat use, food habits and home range size of the marten, Martes americana, in western Newfoundland. Canadian Field Naturalist 100: 58-62.

Bennett, L. A. and F. B. Samson. 1984. Marten ecology and habitat management in the central Rocky Mountains: problem analysis. USDA Forest Service and Colorado Cooperative Wildlife Research Unit, Colorado State University. Fort Collins, Colorado. 60 pp.

Buck, S., C. Mullis and A. Mossman. 1983. Final report: Coral Bottom - Hayfork Bally fisher study. USDA Forest Service. Unpublished report. 133 pp.

Bull, E. L., and T. W. Heater. 2000. Resting and denning sites of American martens in northeastern Oregon. Northwest Science 74(3):179-185.

Bull, E. L., and T. W. Heater. 2001. Home range and dispersal of the American marten in northeastern Oregon. Northwestern Naturalist 82:7-11.

Bull, E. L., T. W. Heater, and J. F. Shepard. 2005. Habitat selection by the American marten in northeastern Oregon. Northwest Science 79(1):37-43.

Buskirk, S. W., S. C. Forrest, M. G. Raphael, and H. J. Harlow. 1989. Winter resting site ecology of marten in the central Rocky Mountains. Journal of Wildlife Management 53(1):191-196.

Buskirk, S. W. and L. F. Ruggiero. 1994. American marten. Pages 7-37 in L. F. Ruggiero, K. B. Aubry, S. W. Buskirk, L. J. Lyon, and W. J. Zielinski (technical editors); The scientific basis for conserving forest carnivores: American marten, fisher, lynx, and wolverine in the western United States. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-254. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Fort Collins, Colorado.

Buskirk, S. W., and W. J. Zielinski. 1997. American marten (Martes americana) ecology and conservation. Pages 17-22 in J.E. Harris and C.V. Ogan (editors). Mesocarnivores of northern California: biology, management, and survey techniques, workshop manual.

176

August 12-15, 1997. Humboldt State University, Arcata, California. The Wildlife Society, California North Coast Chapter, Arcata, California. 127 pp.

Butts, T. W. 1992. Wolverine (Gulo gulo) biology and management: A literature review and annotated bibliography. Unpublished paper for the U.S. Forest Service. Northern Region.

Carroll, C., R. F. Noss, and P. C. Paquet. 2001. Carnivores as focal species for conservation planning in the Rocky Mountain region. Ecological Applications 11(4):961-980.

Chapel, M., A. Carlson, D. Craig, T. Flaherty, C. Marshall, M. Reynolds, D. Pratt, L. Pyshora, S. Tanguay and W. Thompson. 1992. Recommendations for managing late-seral-stage forest and riparian habitats on the Tahoe National Forest. Located at: USDA Forest Service, Tahoe National Forest, Nevada City, California. 31pp.

Chapin, T. G., D. J. Harrison, D. M. Phillips. 1997. Seasonal habitat selection by marten in an untrapped forest preserve. Journal of Wildlife Management 61:707-717.

Chapin, T. G., D. J. Harrison, and D. D. Katnik. 1998. Influence of landscape pattern on habitat use by American marten in an industrial forest. Conservation Biology 12(6):1327-1337.

Clark, W. R. and E. K. Fritzell. 1992. A review of population dynamics of furbearers. In: Wildlife 2001: populations. D. R. McCullough and R. H. Barrett, eds. Elsevier Applied Science, London. 1163 pp.

Copeland, J. P., and T. E. Kucera. 1997. Wolverine (Gulo gulo). Pages 23-33 in J. E. Harris and C. V. Ogan (editors). Mesocarnivores of northern California: biology, management, and survey techniques, workshop manual. August 12-15, 1997. Humboldt State University, Arcata, California. The Wildlife Society, California North Coast Chapter, Arcata, California. 127 pp.

Copeland, J. P., J. M. Peek, C. R. Groves, W. E. Melquist, K. S. McKelvey, G. W. McDaniel, C. D. Long, and C. E. Harris. 2007. Seasonal habitat associations of the wolverine in central Idaho. Journal of Wildlife Management 71(7):2201-2212.

Dalerum, F., J. Loxterman, B. Shults, K. Kunkel, and J.A. Cook. 2007. Sex-specific dispersal patterns of wolverines: insights from microsatellite markers. Journal of Mammalogy 88(3):793-800.

Davis: University of California, Centers for Water and Wildland Resources. 1996. Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project, Final Report to Congress.

De Vos, A. 1951. Recent findings in fisher and marten ecology and management. Transactions North American Wildl. Conf. 16:498-505.

Drew, G. S. 1995. Winter habitat selection by American marten (Martes americana) in Newfoundland: why old growth? Dissertation, Utah State University, Logan, Utah. 100 pp.

177

Dumyahn, J. B., P. A. Zollner, and J. H. Gilbert. 2007. Winter home-range characteristics of American marten (Martes americana) in northern Wisconsin. American Midland Naturalist 158:382-394.

Duncan Furbearer Interagency Workgroup. 1989. Workgroup assembled to review the proposed Duncan Timber Sale, Tahoe National Forest and formulate proposed Management Guidelines. Members present: Slader Buck, Reginald Barrett, Terri Simon-Jackson, Gordon Gould, Ron Schlorff, Jeff Finn, Joelle Buffa, Maeton Freel, Jeff Mattison, Mike Chapel, Mariana Armijo, Julie Lydick and Phil Turner.

Freel, M. 1991. A literature review for management of fisher and marten in California. Unpubl. Document, USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region.

Fry, W. 1923. The wolverine. California Fish and Game 9(4):129-134.

Fuller, A. K., and D. J. Harrison. 2005. Influence of partial timber harvesting on American martens in north-central Maine. Journal of Wildlife Management 69(2):710-722.

Fuller, A. K. 2006. Multi-scalar responses of forest carnivores to habitat and spatial pattern: case studies with Canada lynx and American martens. Dissertation, University of Maine, Orono, Maine.

Golden, H. N., J. D. Henry, E. F. Becker, M. I. Goldstein, J. M. Morton, D. Frost, Sr., and A. J. Poe. 2007. Estimating wolverine Gulo gulo population size using quadrat sampling of tracks in snow. Wildlife Biology 13(Suppl. 2):52-61.

Grinnell, J. 1913. (as cited in Shempf and White 1977) A distributional list of the mammals of California. Calif. Acad. Sci. Proc. Ser. 4, 3:265-390.

Grinnell, J. 1933. (as cited in Shempf and White 1977) Review of the recent mammal fauna of California. Univ. Calif. Publ. Zool. 40(2):71-234.

Grinnell, J., J. S. Dixon, and J.M. Linsdale. 1937. Fur-bearing mammals of California. University of California Press, Berkeley, California.

Hargis, C. D. and J. A. Bissonette. 1995. The effect of forest fragmentation on American marten populations and prey availability. Final report for the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, Wasatch-Cache National Forest, Ashley National Forest, Utah Wilderness Association (Contract No. 91-9166). December 31, 1995. 96pp.

Hargis, C. D. and D. R. McCullough. 1984. Winter diet and habitat selection of marten in Yosemite National Park. Journal of Wildlife Management 48(1):140-146.

Hargis, C. D. and J. A. Bissonette. 1997. The influence of forest fragmentation and prey availability on American marten populations: a landscape level analysis. Pages 437-451 in

178

G. Proulx, H. N. Bryant and P. M. Woodard (editors). Martes: taxonomy, ecology, techniques, and management. Proceedings of the Second International Martes symposium. The Provincial Museum of Alberta. Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. 474 p.

Hargis C. D., J. A. Bissonette, and D. L. Turner. 1999. The influence of forest fragmentation and landscape pattern on American martens. Journal of Applied Ecology 36:157-172.

Hedmark, E., J. Persson, P. Segerström, A. Landa, and H. Ellegren. 2007. Paternity and mating system in wolverines Gulo gulo. Wildlife Biology 13(Suppl. 2):13-30.

Hornocker, M. G. and H. S. Hash. 1981. Ecology of the wolverine in northwestern Montana. Canadian Journal of Zoology 59:1286-1301.

Jones, F. L. 1950. Recent records of the wolverine (Gulo luscus luteus) in California. California Fish and Game 36:320-322.

Jones, F. L. 1955. Records of southern wolverine, Gulo luscus luteus, in California. Journal of Mammalogy 36(4):569.

Kirk, T. A. 2007. Landscape-scale habitat associations of the American marten (Martes americana) in the greater southern Cascades region of California. M.S. Thesis, Humboldt State University, Arcata, California, 103 pp.

Koehler, G. M., W. R. Moore and A. R. Taylor. 1975. Preserving the pine marten: management guidelines for western forests. Western Wildlands 2:31-36.

Kovach, S. D. 1981. Wolverine, Gulo gulo, records for the White Mountains, California. California Fish and Game 67(2):132-133.

Krebs, J., E. C. Lofroth, and I. Parfitt. 2007. Multiscale habitat use by wolverines in British Columbia, Canada. Journal of Wildlife Management 71(7):2180-2192.

Krohn, W. B., Arthur, S. M., Paragi, T. F. 1994. Mortality and vulnerability of a heavily trapped fisher population. Pp 137-148 in S.W. Buskirk, Harestad, A.S., Raphael, M.G., comps., eds. Martens, Sables and Fishers: Biology and Conservation. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, New York.

Krohn, W. B., K. D. Elowe, and R. B. Boone. 1995. Relations among fishers, snow, and martens: development and evaluation of two hypotheses. Forestry Chronicle 71(1):97-105.

Krohn, W. B., W. J. Zielinski, and R. B. Boone. 1997. Relations among fishers, snow, and martens in California: results from small-scale spatial comparisons. Pp. 211-232 in G. Proulx, H. N. Bryant, and P. M. Woodard (editors); Martes: taxonomy, ecology, techniques, and management. Proceedings of the Second International Martes Symposium. Provincial Museum of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.

179

Krohn, W., C. Hoving, D. Harrison, D. Phillips, and H. Frost. 2005. Martes foot-loading and snowfall patterns in eastern North America. Pp. 115-131 in D. J. Harrison, A. K. Fuller, and G. Proulx (editors); Martens and Fishers (Martes) in Human-Altered Environments. Springer-Verlag, New York, New York.

Kucera, T. E., W. J. Zielinski, and R. H. Barrett. 1995. Current distribution of the American marten, Martes americana, in California. California Fish and Game 81(3):96-103.

Lamberson, R. H., R. L. Truex, W. J. Zielinski, D. C. Macfarlane. 2000. Preliminary analysis of fisher population viability in the southern Sierra Nevada. Unpublished document, February 15, 2000. Available at U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Tahoe National Forest Supervisor’s Office, Nevada City, California. 20pp.

Lofroth, E. C., J. A. Krebs, W. L. Harrower, and D. Lewis. 2007. Food habits of wolverine Gulo gulo in montane ecosystems of British Columbia, Canada. Wildlife Biology 13(Suppl. 2):31-37.

Magoun, A. J., and J. P. Copeland. 1998. Characteristics of wolverine reproductive den sites. Journal of Wildlife Management 62(4):1313-1320.

Martin, S. K. 1987. The ecology of the pine marten (Martes americana) at Sagehen Creek, California. PhD Thesis. University of California, Berkeley. 223 pp.

Maser, C., J. M. Trappe and D. C. Ure. 1978. Implications of small mammal mycophagy to the management of western coniferous forests. Trans. North Am. Wildl. and Nat. Resour. Conf. 43:78-88.

May, R., A. Landa, J. van Dijk, J.D.C. Linnell, and R. Andersen. 2006. Impact of infrastructure on habitat selection of wolverines Gulo gulo. Wildlife Biology 12:285-295.

McDonald, D. W. 1983. The ecology of carnivore social behavior. Nature 301:279-384.

McKelvey, K. S., K. B. Aubry, and M. K. Schwartz. 2008. Using anecdotal occurrence data for rare or elusive species: the illusion of reality and a call for evidentiary standards. BioScience 58(6):549-555.

Moriarty, K. M. 2014. Habitat Use and Movement Behavior of Pacific Marten (Martes caurina) in Response to Forest Management Practices in Lassen National Forest, California. Doctoral Dissertation, Oregon State University, Corvallis Oregon.

Moriarty, K.M., W.J. Zielinski, and E.D. Forsman. 2011. Decline in American Marten Occupancy Rates at Sagehen Experimental Forest, California. The Journal of Wildlife Management 75 (8): 1774-1787.

Moriarty, K. M., W. J. Zielinski, A. G. Gonzales, T. E. Dawson, K. M. Boatner, C. A. Wilson, F. V. Schlexer, K. L. Pilgrim, J. P. Copeland, and M. K. Schwartz. 2009. Wolverine

180

confirmation in California after nearly a century: native or long-distance immigrant? Northwest Science 83(2):154-162.

Moriarty, K. M. 2009. American marten distributions over a 28 year period: relationships with landscape change in Sagehen Creek Experimental Forest, California, USA. M.S. Thesis, Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon.

Moritz, C., J. L. Patton, C. J. Conroy, J. L. Parra, G. C. White, and S. R. Beissinger. 2008. Impact of a century of climate change on small-mammal communities in Yosemite National Park, USA. Science 322:261-264.

Mowat, G. 2006. Winter habitat associations of American martens Martes americana in interior wet-belt forests. Wildlife Biology 12(1):51-61.

Mulders, R., J. Boulanger, and D. Paetkau. 2007. Estimation of population size for wolverines Gulo gulo at Daring Lake, Northwest Territories, using DNA based mark-recapture methods. Wildlife Biology 13(Suppl. 2):38-51.

Perrine, J. D., III. 2005. Ecology of red fox (Vulpes vulpes) in the Lassen Peak region of California, USA. Dissertation. University of California, Berkeley.

Perrine, J. D., J. P. Pollinger, B. N. Sacks, R. H. Barrett, and R. K. Wayne. 2007. Genetic evidence for the persistence of the critically endangered Sierra Nevada red fox in California. Conservation Genetics 8:1083-1095.

Persson, J. A. Landa, R. Andersen, and P. Segerström. 2006. Reproductive characteristics of female wolverines (Gulo gulo) in Scandinavia. Journal of Mammalogy 87(1):75-79.

Potvin, F., L. Belanger and K. Lowell. 2000. Marten habitat selection in a clear-cut boreal landscape. Conservation Biology 14:844-857.

Powell, R. A. 1979. Mustelid spacing patterns: variations on a theme by Mustela Zhurnal Tierpsychologie. 50:153-165.

Powell, R. A. 1994. Structure and spacing in Martes populations. Pages 101-121 in S. W. Buskirk, A. S. Harestad, M. G. Raphael, and R. A. Powell (editors); Martens, Sables, and Fishers: Biology and Conservation. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, New York.

Powell, R. A., S. W. Buskirk, and W. J. Zielinski. 2003. Fisher and marten (Martes pennanti and Martes americana). Pp. 635-649 in G. A. Feldhamer, B. C. Thompson, and J. A. Chapman, eds. Wild Mammals of North America: Biology, Management, and Conservation, 2nd Edition. The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, Maryland, and London, England.

Pulliainen, E. 1968. (as cited in White and Barrett 1979). Breeding biology of the wolverine (Gulo gulo L.) in Finland. Annales Zoologici Fennici 5(4):338-344.

181

Robitaille, J.-F., and K. Aubry. 2000. Occurrence and activity of American martens Martes Americana in relation to roads and other routes. Acta Theriologica 45(1):137-143.

Rowland, M. M., M. J. Wisdom, D. H. Johnson, B. C. Wales, J. P. Copeland, and F. B. Edelmann. 2003. Evaluation of landscape models for wolverines in the interior northwest, United States of America. Journal of Mammalogy 84(1):92-105.

Ruggiero, L. F., K. B. Aubry, S. W. Buskirk, L. J. Lyon and W. J. Zielinski, tech. eds. 1994. The Scientific Basis for Conserving Forest Carnivores: American Marten, Fisher, Lynx, and Wolverine in the United States. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-254. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Fort Collins, Colorado. 184 pp.

Ruggiero, L. F., D. E. Pearson, and S. E. Henry. 1998. Characteristics of American marten den sites in Wyoming. Journal of Wildlife Management 62(2):663-673.

Ruggiero, L. F., K. S. McKelvey, K. B. Aubry, J. P. Copeland, D. H. Pletscher, and M. G. Hornocker. 2007. Wolverine conservation and management. Journal of Wildlife Management 71(7):2145-2146.

Ruth, F. S. 1954. Wolverine seen in Squaw Valley, California. Journal of Mammalogy 35(4):594-595.

Sæther, B-E., S. Engen, J. Persson, H. Brøseth, A. Landa, and T. Willebrand. 2005. Management strategies for the wolverine in Scandinavia. Journal of Wildlife Management 69(3):1001- 1014.

Schempf, P. F. and M. White. 1977. Status of six furbearer populations in the mountains of northern California. USDA Forest Service, California Region. 51 pp.

Schwartz, M. K., K. B. Aubry, K. S. McKelvey, K. L. Pilgrim, J. P. Copeland, J. R. Squires, R. M. Inman, S. M. Wisely, and L. F. Ruggiero. 2007. Inferring geographic isolation of wolverines in California using historical DNA. Journal of Wildlife Management 71(7):2170-2179.

Sherburne, S. S. and J. A. Bissonette. 1994. Marten subnivean access point use: response to subnivean prey levels. Journal of Wildlife Management 58:400-405.

Simon, T. L. 1980. An ecological study of the marten in the Tahoe National Forest, California. M.S. Thesis. California State University, Sacramento, California. 140 pp.

Slauson, K. M. 2003. Habitat selection by American martens (Martes Americana) in coastal northwestern California. MS Thesis, Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon.

Slauson, K. M., W. J. Zielinski, and J. P. Hayes. 2007. Habitat selection by American martens in coastal California. Journal of Wildlife Management 71(2):458-468.

182

Spencer, W. D. 1981. Pine marten habitat preferences at Sagehen Creek, California. M.S. Thesis, University of California, Berkeley, California. 121 pp.

Spencer, W. D. and W. J. Zielinski. 1983. Predatory behavior of pine martens. Journal of Mammalogy 64:715-717.

Squires, J. R., J. P. Copeland, T. J. Ulizio, M. K. Schwartz, and L. F. Ruggiero. 2007. Sources and patterns of wolverine mortality in western Montana. Journal of Wildlife Management 71(7):2213-2220.

Soutiere, E. C. 1979. Effects of timber harvesting on marten in Maine. Journal of Wildlife Management 43(4):850-860.

Sumner, L. and J. S. Dixon. 1953. Birds and mammals of the Sierra Nevada. University of California Press, Berkeley, California. 484pp.

USDA Forest Service. Photo Series for Quantifying Natural Forest Residues: Southern Cascades, Northern Sierra Nevada. 1981. 145 pp.

USDA Forest Service. 1993. Ecological Guide to Mixed Conifer Plant Associations. 71 pp.

USDA Forest Service. 1994. Guide to Forested Communities of the Upper Montane in the Central and Southern Sierra Nevada. 164 pp.

Webb, S. M., and M. S. Boyce. 2009. Marten fur harvests and landscape change in west-central Alberta. Journal of Wildlife Management 73(6):894-903.

White, M. and R. H. Barrett. 1979. A review of the wolverine in California with recommendations for management. Final Report, Part A. Prepared for the USDA Forest Service, Region 5: Supplement No. 33, Part A under Master Memorandum of Understanding No. 21-395. Department of Forestry and Resource Management, College of Natural Resources, University of California, Berkley. 71 pp.

Wilbert, C. J., S. W. Buskirk, and K. G. Gerow. 2000. Effects of weather and snow on habitat selection by American martens (Martes americana). Canadian Journal of Zoology 78:1691- 1696.

Wildlife Management Institute. 1974. (as cited in Shempf and White 1977) Wolverine expands range. Wildlife Management Institute, Washington, D.C. Outdoor News Bulletin 28(9):4.

Yocum, C. F. 1973. Wolverine records in the Pacific coastal states and new records for northern California. California Fish and Game 59:207-209.

Zeiner, D. C., W. F. Laudenslayer, Jr., K. E. Mayer and M. White. 1990. California Wildlife: Volume III: Mammals. California Dept. of Fish and Game, Sacramento CA. 407 pp.

183

Zielinski, W. J., W. D. Spencer and R. H. Barrett. 1983. Relationship between food habits and activity patterns of pine martens. Journal of Mammalogy 64:387-396.

Zielinski, W. J., T. E. Kucera, and R. H. Barrett. 1995. Current distribution of fishers, Martes pennanti, in California. California Fish and Game 81, 104-112.

Zielinski, W. J., and R. T. Golightly. 1996. The status of marten in redwoods: is the Humboldt marten extinct? Pp. 115-119 in J. LeBlanc, ed. Conference on Coast Redwood Forest Ecology and Management. Humboldt State University, Arcata, California.

Zielinski, W. J., R. H. Barrett, and R. L. Truex. 1997. Southern Sierra Nevada fishers and marten study: Progress Report IV. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station, Redwood Sciences Laboratory, Arcata, California. 37 pp.

Zielinski, W. J., F. V. Schlexer, R. L. Truex and L. A. Campbell. 1999. A preliminary assessment of live-trapping as a technique to estimate the proportion of reproductive female fishers. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station, Arcata, California. 18 pp.

Zielinski, W. J., K. M. Slauson, C. R. Carroll, C. J. Kent, and D. G. Kudrna. 2001. Status of American martens in coastal forests of the Pacific states. Journal of Mammalogy 82, 478- 490.

Zielinski, W. J., and N. P. Duncan. 2004. Diets of sympatric populations of American martens (Martes americana) and fishers (Martes pennanti) in California. Journal of Mammalogy 85(3):470-477.

Zielinski, W. J., R. L. Truex, F. V. Schlexer, L. A. Campbell, and C. Carroll. 2005. Historical and contemporary distributions of carnivores in forests of the Sierra Nevada, California, USA. Journal of Biogeography 32:1385-1407.

Zielinski, W. J., K. M. Slauson, and A. E. Bowles. 2008. Effects of off-highway vehicle use on the American marten. Journal of Wildlife Management 72(7):1558-1571.

Zielinski, W.J. 2013. The Forest Carnivores: Fisher and Marten. Chapter 7.1 in: Long, J., C. Skinner, M. North, P. Winter, W. Zielinski, C. Hunsaker, B. Collins, J. Keane, F. Lake, J. Wright, E. Moghaddas, A. Jardine, K. Hubbert, K. Pope, A. Bytnerowicz, M. Fenn, M. Busse, S. Charnley, T. Patterson, L. Quinn-Davidson and H. Safford. 2013. Science Synthesis to Support Forest Plan Revision in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascades. Albany, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station. 504 p.

184

Pallid Bat Baker, M., M. Lacki, G. Falxa, P. Droppelman, R. Slack, and S. Slankard. Habitat use of pallid bats in coniferous forests of northern California. Northwest Science 82(4). Pallid Bat Recovery Team. 2008. Recovery Strategy for the Pallid Bat (Antrozous pallidus) in British Columbia. Prepared for the B.C. Ministry of Environment, Victoria B.C. 18 pp. Barbour, R.W. and W.H. Davis. 1969. Bats of America. University Press of Kentucky. 283 pp. Brown, P. 1996. Presentation at the Natural History and Management of Bats in California and Nevada Conference. The Wildlife Society Western Section, Nov. 13-15, 1996. Sacramento, California. Burt, W., and R. Grossenheider. 1980. Mammals, third edition. Peterson Field Guide. Houghton- Mifflin Company. Boston, Massachusetts. CNDDB. California Department of Fish and Game, Biogeographic Data Branch. 2011. California Natural Diversity Database. Sacramento, CA. Data downloaded November 2011. CWHR. California Department of Fish and Game, California Interagency Wildlife Task Group. 2008. CWHR version 8.2 personal computer program. Sacramento, CA. Chapman, K., K. McGuiness, and R. Brigham. 1994. The status of the pallid bat in British Columbia. Wildlife Branch, Ministry of Environment, Land, and Parks. Victoria, BC. 35 pages. Ferguson, H., and J. Azerrad. 2004. Pallid bat In Management Recommendations for Washington’s Priority Species – Volume V: Mammals. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. Olympia, WA. Hermanson, J., and T. O’Shea. 1983. Antrozous pallidus. Mammalian Species. No. 213.Pages 1- 8. Published by the American Society of Mammalogists. https://www.whitenosesyndrome.org/resources/map Johnston, D., and J. Gworek. 2006. [ABS]. Pallid bat (Antrozous pallidus) habitat use in a coniferous forest in northeastern California. Bat Research News 47:4,. Miner, K., and D. Stokes. 2005. Bats in the south coast ecoregion: status, conservation issues, and research needs. In: Planning for Biodiversity: Bringing Research and Management Together. Kus, B., and J. Beyers, technical coordinators. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-195. US Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station. Albany, CA. 274 pages. NatureServe. 2011. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Version 7.1. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available http://www.natureserve.org/explorer. (Accessed: December 22, 2011). Philpott, W. 1997. Summaries of the life histories of California bat species. Sierra National Forest, Pineridge Ranger District. Unpublished doc.

185

Pierson, E.D. 1996. Presentation to the Natural History and Management of Bats in California and Nevada Workshop. November 13-15. Sacramento, CA. Pierson, E., M. Wackenhut, J. Altenbach, P. Bradley, P. Call, D. Genter, C.. Harris, B. Keller, B. Lengus, L. Lewis, B. Luce, K. Navo, J. Perkins, S. Smith, and L. Welch. 1999. Species conservation assessment and strategy for Townsend’s big-eared bat (Corynorhinus townsendii townsendii and Corynorhinus townsendii pallescens). Idaho Conservation Effort, Idaho Department of Fish and Game, Boise, ID. Rambaldini, D. 2005. Species account for the pallid bat (2005 update on the 1998 account by R. Sherwin). Western Bat Working Group. Stephenson, J., and G. Calcarone. 1999. Southern California mountains and foothills assessment: habitat and species conservation issues. Gen. Tech. Rep. GTR-PSW-175. US Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station. Albany, CA. 402 pages. USFS. 2010. Deputy Chief’s letter to Regional Foresters, Station Directors, Area Director, IITF Director, Deputy Chiefs and WO Directors regarding implementation a Forest Service white-nose syndrome interim response strategy. File Code 2600. July 28, 2010. US Forest Service, Washington Office. Washington, D.C. U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service. (USDA FS). 2011. Natural Resource Information System (NRIS) database. Accessed November 2011.

USFWS. 2011. A National Plan for Assisting States, Federal Agencies, and Tribes in Managing White- Nose Syndrome in Bats. US Fish and Wildlife Service, Northeast Region. Hadley, MA. 21 pages. Vaughan, T., and T. O’Shea. 1976 Roosting ecology of the pallid bat, Antrozous pallidus. Journal of Mammalogy 57(1). Zeiner, David C., William F. Laudenslayer, Jr., Kenneth E. Mayer, and Marshall White, eds. 1990. California's Wildlife. Volume III. Mammals. California Statewide Wildlife Habitat Relationship System. Department of Fish and Game, The Resources Agency, Sacramento, California. 407 pages.

Townsend’s Big-eared Bat

Arnett, E., W. Brown, W. Erickson, J. Fiedler, B. Hamilton, T. Henry, A. Jain, G. Johnson, J. Kerns, R. Koford, C. Nicholson, T. O'Connell, M. Piorkowski, and R. Tankersley, Jr. 2008. Patterns of bat fatalities at wind energy facilities in North America. Journal of Wildlife Management, 72(1):61-78. Barbour, R.W. and W.H. Davis. 1969. Bats of America. University Press of Kentucky. 283 pp. Bogan, M. 2000. Western bats and mining. In: K. Vories and D. Throgmorton, eds., Proceedings of bat conservation and mining: a technical interactive forum. U.S.D.I Office of Surface Mining, and Coal Research Center at Southern Illinois University. 374 pages. Bradley, P., M. O’Farrell, J. Williams, and J. Newmark. 2006. Eds. The Revised Nevada Bat Conservation Plan. Nevada Bat Working Group. Reno, Nevada. 216 pages. 186

Burt, W., and R. Grossenheider. 1980. Mammals, third edition. Peterson Field Guide. Houghton- Mifflin Company. Boston, Massachusetts. CNDDB. California Department of Fish and Game, Biogeographic Data Branch. 2011. California Natural Diversity Database. Sacramento, CA. Data downloaded November 2011. California Department of Fish and Game, California Interagency Wildlife Task Group. 2008. CWHR version 8.2 personal computer program. Sacramento, CA. Ellison, L., T. O’Shea, M. Bogan, A. Everette, and D. Schneider. 2003a. Existing data on colonies of bats in the United States: Summary and Analysis of the U.S. Geological Survey’s Bat Population Database. In: O’Shea, T.J. and Bogan, M.A., eds., Monitoring trends in bat populations of the United States and territories: problems and prospects: U.S. Geological Survey, Biological Resources Discipline, Information and Technology Report, USGS/BRD/ITR--2003–0003, 274 p. Ellison, L., M. Wunder, C. Jones, C. Mosch, K. Navo, K. Peckham, J. Burghardt, J. Annear, R. West, J. Siemers, R. Adams, and E. Brekke. 2003b. Colorado bat conservation plan. Colorado Committee of the Western Bat Working Group. Available at: http://www.wbwg.org/conservation/conservationplans.html. Fellers, G. and E. Pierson. 2002. Habitat use and foraging behavior of Townsend’s big-eared bat (Corynorhinus townsendii) in coastal California. Journal of Mammalogy 83(1). Geluso, K. 1978. Urine concentrating ability and renal structure of insectivorous bats. Journal of Mammalogy 59(2). Gruver, J.C. and D.A. Keinath. 2006. Townsend’s Big-eared Bat (Corynorhinus townsendii): a technical conservation assessment. [Online]. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/townsendsbigearedbat.pdf. Jameson, E.W. Jr. and Hans J. Peeters. 1988. California Mammals. University of California Press. Berkeley, California. Kunz, T.H. and R.A. Martin. 1990. Plecotus townsendii. Mammalian Species. No. 175. pp 1-6. Published by the American Society of Mammalogists. Kunz, T., E. Arnett, W. Erickson, A. Hoar, G. Johnson, R. Larkin, M. Strickland, R. Thresher, and M. Tuttle. 2007. Ecological impacts of wind energy development on bats: questions, research needs, and hypotheses. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 5: 315–324. http://dx.doi.org/10.1890/1540-9295(2007)5[315:EIOWED]2.0.CO;2 Miner, K., and D. Stokes. 2005. Bats in the south coast ecoregion: status, conservation issues, and research needs. In: Planning for Biodiversity: Bringing Research and Management Together. Kus, B., and J. Beyers, technical coordinators. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-195. US Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station. Albany, CA. 274 pages. NatureServe. 2011. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Version 7.1. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available http://www.natureserve.org/explorer. (Accessed: December 22, 2011). 187

Philpott, W. 1997. Summaries of the life histories of California bat species. Sierra National Forest, Pineridge Ranger District. Unpublished doc. Piaggio, A. 2005. Species account for the Townsend’s big-eared bat (2005 update on the 1998 account by R. Sherwin). Western Bat Working Group. Pierson, E.D. 1996. Presentation to the Natural History and Management of Bats in California and Nevada Workshop. November 13-15. Sacramento, CA. Pierson, E.D., and W.E. Rainey. 1998. Distribution, status, and management of Townsend’s big- eared bat (Corynorhinus townsendii) in California. California Department of Fish and Game, The Resources Agency, Sacramento, California. Pierson, E.D., W.E. Rainey, and D.M. Koontz. 1991. Experimental mitigation for Townsend's big-eared bat at the McLaughlin Mine in California. From Proceedings V: Issues and technology in the management of impacted wildlife, April 8-10, 1991. Snowmass, Colorado. Thorne Ecological Institute, Boulder, Colorado. Pierson, E.D., and W.E. Rainey. 2007. Bat distribution in the forested region of northwestern California. California Department of Fish and Game, Wildlife Management Division, Nongame Bird and Mammal Section. Sacramento, California. 46 pages. Pierson, E., M. Wackenhut, J. Altenbach, P. Bradley, P. Call, D. Genter, C.. Harris, B. Keller, B. Lengus, L. Lewis, B. Luce, K. Navo, J. Perkins, S. Smith, and L. Welch. 1999. Species conservation assessment and strategy for Townsend’s big-eared bat (Corynorhinus townsendii townsendii and Corynorhinus townsendii pallescens). Idaho Conservation Effort, Idaho Department of Fish and Game, Boise, ID. Sherwin, R., W. Gannon, J. Altenbach, and D. Stricklan. 200. Roost fidelity of Townsend’s big- eared bats in Utah and Nevada . Transactions of the Western Section of the Wildlife Society 36:15-20. Sherwin, R., W. Gannon, and J. Altenbach. 2003. Managing complex systems simply: understanding inherent variation in the use of roosts by Townsend’s big-eared bat. Wildlife Society Bulletin (31(1). Siedman, V.M., and C.J. Zabel. 2001. Bat activity along intermittent streams in northwestern California. Journal of Mammalogy 82(3). Thomas, D., and S. West,. 1989. Sampling methods for bats. In: Ruggiero, Leonard F.; Carey, Andrew B., tech. eds.; Wildlife-habitat relationships: sampling procedures for Pacific Northwest vertebrates Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-243. US Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. Portland, Oregon. 20 pages. U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service. 2010. Deputy Chief’s letter to Regional Foresters, Station Directors, Area Director, IITF Director, Deputy Chiefs and WO Directors regarding implementation a Forest Service white-nose syndrome interim response strategy. File Code 2600. July 28, 2010. US Forest Service, Washington Office. Washington, D.C. U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service. (USDA FS). 2011. Natural Resource Information System (NRIS) database. Accessed November 2011. 188

U.S. Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2011. A National Plan for Assisting States, Federal Agencies, and Tribes in Managing White-Nose Syndrome in Bats. US Fish and Wildlife Service, Northeast Region. Hadley, MA. 21 pages. Zeiner, David C., William F. Laudenslayer, Jr., Kenneth E. Mayer, and Marshall White, eds. 1990. California's Wildlife. Volume III. Mammals. California Statewide Wildlife Habitat Relationship System. Department of Fish and Game, The Resources Agency, Sacramento, California. 407 pages.

Fringed Myotis

Altenbach, J.S., and E.D. Pierson. 1995. The importance of mines to bats: an overview. pp. 7- 18, in B.R. Riddle, ed. Inactive mines as bat habitat: guidelines for research, survey, monitoring and mine management in Nevada, Biological Resources Research Center, University of Nevada, Reno. Angerer, L. M. and E. D. Pierson. Draft. Fringed myotis (Myotis thysanodes) species account. 13pp. Baker, J.K. 1962. Notes on the Myotis of the Carlsbad Caverns. Journal of Mammalogy, 43:427-428. Barbour, R.W. and W.H. Davis. 1969. Bats of America. University of Kentucky Press, Lexington, Ky, 286 pp. Black, H.L. 1974. A north temperate bat community: structure and prey populations. Journal of Mammalogy, 55:138-157. Brigham, R.M. 1991. Flexibility in foraging and roosting behavior by the big brown bat (Eptesicus fuscus). Canadian Journal of Zoology, 69:117-121. Cahalane, V.H. 1939. Mammals of the Chiricahua Mountains, Cochise County, Arizona. Journal of Mammalogy, 20:418-440. Chung-MacCoubrey, A.L. 1996. Bat species composition and roost use in pinyon-juniper woodlands of New Mexico. Pp. 118-123, in R.M.R. Barclay and M.R. Brigham, Editors. Bats and Forests Symposium, October 19-21, 1995, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada, Research Branch, Ministry of Forests, Victoria, British Columbia, Working Paper 23/1996. Clark, D. R. 1981. Death in bats from DDE, DDT or dieldrin: diagnosis via residues in carcass fat. Bulletin of environmental contamination and toxicology, 26(1): 367-374. Clark Jr, D. R., LaVal, R. K., & Swineford, D. M. 1978. Dieldrin-induced mortality in an endangered species, the gray bat (Myotis grisescens). Science, 199(4335): 1357-1359. Clark, D. R., Bunck, C. M., Cromartie, E., & Laval, R. K. 1983. Year and age effects on residues of dieldrin and heptachlor in dead gray bats, Franklin County, Missouri—1976, 1977, and 1978. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 2(4): 387-393.

189

Cockrum, E.L., and B.F. Musgrove. 1964. Additional records of the Mexican big-eared bat, Plecotus phyllotis (Allen), from Arizona. Journal of Mammalogy, 45:472-474. Cockrum, E.L., and E. Ordway. 1959. Bats of the Chiricahua Mountains, Cochise County, Arizona. Amer. Mus. Novitates, 1938:1-35 CWHR. California Department of Fish and Game, California Interagency Wildlife Task Group. 2008. CWHR version 8.2 personal computer program. Sacramento, CA. Easterla, D.A. 1966. Yuma myotis and fringed myotis in southern Utah. Journal of Mammalogy, 47:350-351. Easterla, D.A. 1973. Ecology of the 18 species of Chiroptera at Big Bend National Park, Texas. Northwest Missouri State Univ. Studies, 34:1-165. Hirshfeld, J.R., and M.J. O’Farrell. 1976. Comparisons of differential warming rates and tissue temperatures in some species of desert bats. Comp. Biochem. Physiol., 55A:83-87. Jones, C. 1965. Ecological distribution and activity periods of bats of the Mogollon Mountains area of New Mexico and adjacent Arizona. Tulane Studies Zool., 12:93-100. Keinath, D.A. 2004. Fringed myotis (Myotis thysanodes): a technical conservation assessment. [Online]. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/fringedmyotis.pdf. Kunz, T.H. 1982. Roosting ecology of bats in T.H. Kunz, editor, Ecology of bats. Plenum Press, New York, USA. Pages 1-55. Lewis, S.E. 1995. Roost fidelity of bats: a review. Journal of Mammalogy, 76:481-496. Miner, K. and P. Brown. 1996. A report on the southern California forest bat survey and radio- telemetry study of 1996. Contract Report for USDA Forst Service, San Diego, CA, 13 pp. Miner, K., P. Brown, R. Berry, C. Brown-Buescher, A. Kisner, S. Remington, D. Simons, D. Stokes, J. Stephenson, and L. Underwood. 1996. Habitat use by Myotis evotis and M. thysanodes in a southern California pine-oak woodland. Bat Research News, 37(4):141. NatureServe. 2012. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Version 7.1. NatureServe. Arlington, Virginia. Available http://www.natureserve.org/explorer. (Accessed: October 17, 2012) O’Farrell, M.J., and E.H. Studier. 1973. Reproduction, growth, and development in Myotis thysanodes and M. lucifugus (Chiroptera: Vespertilionidae). Ecology, 54(1):18-30. O’Farrell, M.J., and E.H. Studier. 1975. Population structure and emergence activity patterns in Myotis thysanodes and M. lucifugus (Chiroptera: Vespertilionidae) in northeastern New Mexico. Amer. Midland Nat., 93:368-376. O’Farrell, M.J. and E.H. Studier. 1980. Myotis thysanodes. American Society of Mammalogists, Mammalian Species, 137:1-5.

190

Pierson, E.D., and P.A. Heady. 1996. Bat surveys of Giant Forest Village and vicinity, Sequoia National Park. Report for National Park Service, Denver Service Center, Denver, CO, 27 pp. Pierson, E., M. Wackenhut, J. Altenbach, P. Bradley, P. Call, D. Genter, C.. Harris, B. Keller, B. Lengus, L. Lewis, B. Luce, K. Navo, J. Perkins, S. Smith, and L. Welch. 1999. Species conservation assessment and strategy for Townsend’s big-eared bat (Corynorhinus townsendii townsendii and Corynorhinus townsendii pallescens). Idaho Conservation Effort, Idaho Department of Fish and Game, Boise, ID. Pierson, E.D., W.E. Rainey, and C.J. Corben. 2001. Seasonal patterns of bat distribution along an altitudinal gradient in the Sierra Nevada. Report to California State University at Sacramento Foundation, Yosemite Association, and Yosemite Fund, 70 pp. Pierson, E. D., W. E. Rainey, and L.S. Chow. 2006. Bat use of the giant sequoia groves in Yosemite National Park. Report to Yosemite Fund, San Francisco, CA and Yosemite National Park, El Portal, CA, 154 pp. Rabe, M.J., T.E. Morrell, H. Green, J.C. DeVos, Jr., and C.R. Miller. 1998. Characteristics of ponderosa pine snag roosts used by reproductive bats in northern Arizona. Journal of Wildlife Management, 62:612-621. Rainey, W.E. and E.D. Pierson. 1996. Cantara spill effects on bat populations of the upper Sacramento River, 1991-1995. Report to California Department of Fish and Game, Redding, CA, (Contract # FG2099R1). 98 pp. Roest, A.I. 1951. Mammals of the Oregon Caves area, Josephine County. Journal of Mammalogy, 32:345-351. Studier, E.H., and M.J. O’Farrell. 1972. Biology of Myotis thysanodes and M. lucifugus (Chiroptera: Vespertilionidae) – I. Thermoregulation. Comp. Biochem. Physiol., 41A:567-595. U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service (USDA FS). 2005. Fringed myotis. In: Species Accounts – Animals. Available at: http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/scfpr/projects/lmp/docs/species-animals.pdf. USFS. 2010. Deputy Chief’s letter to Regional Foresters, Station Directors, Area Director, IITF Director, Deputy Chiefs and WO Directors regarding implementation a Forest Service white-nose syndrome interim response strategy. File Code 2600. July 28, 2010. US Forest Service, Washington Office. Washington, D.C. U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service (USDA FS). 2011. Natural Resource Information System (NRIS) database. USFWS. 2011. A National Plan for Assisting States, Federal Agencies, and Tribes in Managing White-Nose Syndrome in Bats. US Fish and Wildlife Service, Northeast Region. Hadley, MA. 21 pages. Weller, T.J., and C.J. Zabel. 2001. Characteristics of fringed Myotis day roosts in northern California. Journal of Wildlife Management, 65:489-497.

191

Weller, T. 2005. Species account for the fringed myotis (update of the 1998 account by P. Bradley and M. Potts). Western Bat Working Group. Wilson, B. W., Hooper, M. J., Littrell, E. E., Detrich, P. J., Hansen, M. E., Weisskopf, C. P., & Seiber, J. N. 1991. Orchard dormant sprays and exposure of red-tailed hawks to organophosphates. Bulletin of environmental contamination and toxicology, 47(5): 717- 724.

California Red-legged Frog

Barry, S. J. 1999. A study of the California Red-legged frog (Rana draytonii) of Butte County, California. PAR Environmental Services, Technical Report No. 3. Sacramento, California.

Barry, S. J. and G. M. Fellers. 2013. History and status of the California red-legged frog (Rana draytonii) in the Sierra Nevada, California, USA. Herpetological Conservation and Biology 8:456-502.

Briggs, C.J., V.T. Vredenburg, R.A. Knapp, and L.J. Rachowicz. 2005. Investigating the population-level effects of chytridiomycosis: an emerging infectious disease of amphibians. Ecology 86:3149–3159.

Calef, G. W. 1973. Natural mortality of tadpoles in a population of Rana aurora. Ecology 54: 741-758. California Academy of Sciences. 1992. Copy of locality records from the data base of California Academy of Sciences.

Fellers, G. M. 1997. 1997 Aquatic Amphibian Surveys—Tahoe National Forest. Biological Resources Division, USGS, Point Reyes National Seashore, Point Reyes, CA. Unpublished Report Available from: Tahoe National Forest, Nevada City, CA.

Fellers, G. M.; R. A. Cole, D. M. Reinitz, and P. M. Kleeman. 2011. Amphibian chytrid fungus (Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis) in coastal and montane California, USA Anurans. Herpetological Conservation and Biology 6:383-394.

Fellers, G. M. and K. L. Freel. 1995. A Standardized Protocol for Surveying Aquatic Amphibians. Technial Report NPS/WRUC/NRTR-95-001. National Biological Service, Cooperative Park Studies Unit, University of California, Davis, CA. 23pp.

Fellers, G.M., D.E Green, and J.E. Longcore. 2001. Oral chytridiomycosis in Mountain Yellow- legged Frogs (Rana muscosa). Copeia 2001:945–953.

Fellers, G. M. and P. M. Kleeman. 2006. Diurnal versus nocturnal surveys for California red- legged frogs. Journal of Wildlife Management 70:1805-1808.

Fellers, G., and P. Kleeman. 2007. California Red-legged Frog (Rana draytonii) movement and habitat use: Implications for conservation. Journal of Herpetology 41:271-281. 192

Freel. K. 1997. Herpetologist with USGS, Point Reyes, CA [personal communication with Tahoe National Forest Fisheries Biologist].

Hayes, M. P. and M. R. Jennings. 1986. Decline of ranid frog species in western North America: are bullfrogs (Rana catesbeiana) responsible? Journal of Herpetology 20(4):490-509.

Hayes, M. P. and M. R. Jennings. 1988. Habitat correlates of distribution of the California red- legged frog (Rana aurora draytonii) and the foothillyellow-legged frog (Rana boylii): implications for management. Proceedings of the Symposium on Management of Amphibians, Reptiles and Small Mammals in North America. Gen. Tech. Rpt. RM-166, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fort Collins, Colorado. pp 144-158.

Jennings, M. K. 1988. Natural history and decline of native ranids in California. Proceedings of the Conference on California Herpetology. Southwestern Herpetologists Society. p. 61-72.

Jennings, M. R. 1997. Research Associate with California Academy of Sciences, San Francisco, CA [personal communication with Tahoe National Forest Biologist].

Jennings, M. R. and M. P. Hayes. 1985. Pre-1900 overharvest of California red-legged frogs (Rana aurora draytonii) : the inducement for bullfrog (Rana catesbeiana) introduction. Herpetologica 41 (1): 94-103.

Jennings, M. R. and M. P. Hayes. 1992. Copy of locality records from the data base of Mark R. Jennings and Marc P. Hayes for use in support of the petition to list Rana aurora draytonii under the endangered Species Act. 30pp.

Jennings, M. R. and M. P. Hayes. 1994. Amphibian and reptile species of special concern in California. California Department of Fish and Game, Final Report. 255 pp.

Licht, L. E. 1971. Breeding habits and embryonic thermal requirements of the frog, Rana aurora aurora and Rana pretiosa pretiosa, in the Pacific Northwest. Ecology 52(1):116-124.

Martin, D. L. 1992. Sierra Nevada Anuran Guide. Canorus Ltd. Ecological Research Team. Canorus Ltd. Press, San Jose, California. 28 pp.

McMahon, T. A.; L. A. Brannelly, M. W. H. Chatfield, P. T. J. Johnson, M. B. Joseph, V. J.

McKenzie, C. L. Richards-Zawacki, M. D. Venesky, and J. R. Rohr. 2013. Chytrid fungus Batrachocytrium dendrobatidis has nonamphibian hosts and releases chemicals that cause pathology in the absence of infection. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 110:210. Available at: www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1200592110.

193

Moyle, P. B. 1973. Effects of introduced bullfrogs, Rana catesbeiana, on the native frogs of the San Joaquin Valley, California. Copeia: 18-22.

Padgett-Flohr, G.E. 2008. Pathogenicity of Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis in two threatened California amphibians: Rana draytonii and Ambystoma californiense. Herpetological Conservation and Biology 3(2):182-191.

Padgett-Flohr, G.E., and R.L. Hopkins, II. 2009. Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis, a novel pathogen approaching endemism in central California. Diseases of Aquatic Organisms 83:1–9.

Padgett-Flohr, G.E., and R.L. Hopkins, II. 2010. Landscape epidemiology of Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis in central California. Ecography 33:688–697.

Rathbun, G. B., M. R. Jennings, T. G. Murphey and N. R. Siepel. 1993. Status and ecology of sensitive aquatic vertebrates in lower San Simeon and Pico Creeks, San Luis Obispo Co., Calif. USFWS National Ecology Research Center., San Simeon, CA. Prepared for California Department of Parks and Recreation. 103 pp.

Storer, T. I. 1925. A synopsis of the Amphibia of California. Univ. Calif. Publ. Zool. 27: 1-342.

Tatarian, P. J. 2008. Movement patterns of California red-legged frogs (Rana draytonii) in an inland California environment. Herpetological Conservation and Biology 3:155-169.

Tatarian. 2008. California red-legged frog telemetry study; Hughes Pond, Plumas National Forest. Annual Report, Option Year 3 to: U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2800 Cottage Way, Sacrament, CA and U.S. Forest Service, Plumas National Forest, 875 Mitchell Avenue, Oroville, CA. Prepared September 28, 2008 by: Trish and Greg Tatarian, Wildlife Research Associates, 1119 Burbank Avenue, Santa Rosa, CA 95407.

Tatarian, P. and G. Tatarian. 2010. Chytrid infection of Rana draytonii in the Sierra Nevada, California, USA. Herpetological Review 41: 325-327.

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 1996. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Determination of Threatened Status for the California Red-Legged Frog. Federal Register 61(101):25813-25833.

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2000. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Proposed Designation of Critical Habitat for the California Red-Legged Frog (Rana aurora draytonii. Federal Register 65(176):54892-54932.

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2002. Recovery Plan for the California Red-legged Frog (Rana aurora draytonii). U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, OR. 173 pp.

194

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2010. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Revised Designation of Critical Habitat for California Red-Legged Frog; Final Rule 75(51):12816- 12959.

Vindum, Tierney, and Koo. 1997. Amphibian and reptile surveys in the Tahoe National Forest: The result of CCSA-05-97-17-024. Unpublished Report Available at: Tahoe National Forest, Nevada City, CA.

Vindum, J. V. and M. S. Koo. 1998. Amphibian and reptile surveys in the Plumas and Tahoe National Forests: The result of CCSA-05-98-17-123. California Academy of Sciences, CA. Unpublished Report Available at: Tahoe National Forest, Nevada City, CA.

Vindum, J. F. and M. S. Koo. 1999. Amphibians and reptiles of the Tahoe National Forest: historical collections and results of 1997-1999 California Academy of Sciences surveys. Unpublished Report Available at: Tahoe National Forest, Nevada City, CA.

Young, M. 2015. Personal Communications. Natural Resource Restoration Ecologist. Westervelt Ecological Services, Western Region. Sacramento, California.

Lahontan Cutthroat Trout

Behnke, R. J. 1979. Monograph of the native trouts of the genus Salmo of western North America. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Lakewood, Colorado. 2155 pp.

Behnke, R. J. 1992. Native trout of western North America. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland. 275 p.

Calhoun, A. J. 1942. The biology of the black-spotted trout (Salmo clarki henshawi) (Gill and Jordan) in two Sierra Nevada lakes. Dissertation. Stanford University, Palo Alto, California. 218 pp.

Coffin, P. D. 1981. Distribution and life history of the Lahontan/Humboldt cutthroat trout, Humboldt River drainage basin. Nevada Department of Wildlife, Reno, Nevada. 69 pp.

Coffin, P. D. 1983. Lahontan cutthroat trout fishery management plan for the Humboldt River Basin. Federal Aid to Fish Restoration Project Report F-20-17, Study 1X, Job No. 1-P-1. Nevada Department of Wildlife, Reno, Nevada. 33 pp.

Coffin, P. D. 1988. Nevada's native salmonid program status, distribution and management. Nevada Department of Wildlife, Reno, Nevada. 400 pp.

Coleman, M. E., and V. K. Johnson. 1988. Summary of trout management at Pyramid Lake, Nevada, with emphasis on Lahontan cutthroat trout, 1954-1987. American Fisheries Society Symposium 4:107-115.

195

Cowan, W. 1983. Annual fisheries management report FY-83' Summit Lake Indian Reservation, Humboldt Country, Nevada. Unpublished report. Summit Lake Paiute Tribe, Winnemucca, Nevada. 37 pp.

French, J., and J. Curran. 1991. DRAFT Lahontan cutthroat trout fishery management plan for the Quinn River drainage basin. Nevada Department of Wildlife, Reno, Nevada. 46 pp.

Gerstung, E. R. 1986. Fishery management plant for Lahontan cutthroat trout (Salmo clarki henshawi) in California and western Nevada water. Inland Fisheries Administrative Report No. 86-, Federal Aid Project F33-R-11, The Resources Agency, California Department of Fish and Game. 54 pp.

Gerstung, E. R. 1988. Status, life history, and management of the Lahontan cutthroat trout. American Fisheries Society Symposium 4:93-106.

Hickman, T., and R. F. Raleigh. 1982. Habitat suitability index models: cutthroat trout. Report number USFWS/OBS-82/10.5. USDI, Fish and Wildlife Service, Western Energy and Land Use Team, Office of Biological Services, Washington, D.C.

Johnson, G., D. Bennett, and T. Bjornn. 1983. Juvenile emigration of Lahontan cutthroat trout in the Truckee River/Pyramid Lake system. Pages 90-175. In: Restoration of a Reproductive Population of Lahontan Cutthroat Trout (Salmo clarki henshawi) to the Truckee River/Pyramid Lake System. Special Report U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Great Basin Complex Office, Reno, Nevada.

Koch, D. L., and J. J. Cooper, E. L. Lider, R. L. Jacobson and R. J. Spencer. 1979. Investigations of Walker Lake, Nevada: Dynamic ecological relationships. Desert Research Center, University of Nevada, Reno. 191 pp.

Lea, T. N. 1968. Ecology of the Lahontan cutthroat trout, Salmo clarki henshawi, in Independence Lake, California. Master's thesis. University of California, Berkeley. 95 pp.

McAfee, W. R. 1966. Lahontan cutthroat trout. Pages 225-231 in A. Calhoun, editor. Inland Fisheries management. California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, California.

Moyle, P. B. 1976. Inland fishes of California. University of California Press, Berkeley, California. 405 pages.

Moyle, P.B., J.V.E. Katz, and R.M. Quiñones. 2011. Rapid decline of California’s native inland fishes: a status assessment. Biological Conservation 144:2414–2423.

Rankel, G. L. 1976. Fishery management program, Summit Lake Indian Reservation, Humboldt County, Nevada. Special Report of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Fishery Services, Reno, Nevada. 35 pp.

Ray, C., M.M. Peacock, and J.B. Dunham. 2007. Demographic and population dynamics of

196

Lahontan cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarki henshawi) stream populations in eastern Nevada. Final Report to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Reno, Nevada. Cooperative Agreement FSW 14–48–0001–95646. 205 pp.

Rissler, P.H., G.G. Scoppettone, and S. Shea. 2006. Life history, ecology, and population viability analysis of the Independence Lake strain Lahontan cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarkii henshawi). Final Report. U.S. Geological Survey, Western Fisheries Research Center, Reno, Nevada. 68 pp.

Rissler, Pete, USGS. Personal communication. April, 2014.

Roberts, B. C., and R. G. White. 1992. Effects of angler wading on survival of trout eggs and pre-emergent fry. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 12:450-459.

Scoppettone, G.G., P. Rissler, S. Shea, and W. Somer. 2012. Effects of brook trout removal from a spawning stream on an adfluvial population of Lahontan cutthroat trout. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 32:586–596.

Sigler, W. F., W. T. Helm, P. A. Kucera, S. Vigg, and G. W. Workman. 1983. Life history of the Lahontan cutthroat trout, Salmo clarki henshawi, in Pyramid Lake, Nevada. Great Basin Naturalist 43:1-29.

Sigler, W. F., and J. W. Sigler. 1987. Fishes of the Great Basin: A Natural History. University of Nevada Press, Reno, Nevada. 425 pp.

Somer, W. 1998. Lahontan Cutthroat Trout, A Threatened Resource. Department of Fish and Game Wild Trout Project winter 1998. Vol. 3, No. 2.

Sumner, F. H. 1940. The decline of the Pyramid Lake fishery. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 69:216-224.

USDA Forest Service. 1990. Tahoe National Forest Land and Resources Management Plan.

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1995. Recovery plan for the Lahontan cutthroat trout. Portland, Oregon. 108 pp.

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2003. Short-term action plan for Lahontan cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarki henshawi) in the Truckee River basin. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Reno, Nevada. August, 2003. i–iv + 71 pp.

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2009. 5-Year Review: Summary and Evaluation. Lahontan cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarkii henshawi). Region 8, Sacramento, California. March 30, 2009. 199 pp.

197

Western Pond Turtle

Buskirk, J. 2002. The western pond turtle, Emys marmorata. Radiata 11(3): 3-30.

Crump, D.E. 2001. Western pond turtle (Clemmys marmorata pallida) nesting behavior and habitat use. Master’s Thesis. Paper 2210. http://scholarworks.sjsu.edu/etd_thesis/2210.

Davis, C.J. 1998. Western pond turtle (Clemmys marmorata). Master’s Thesis. Paper 1694. http://scholarworks.sjsu.edu/etd_thesis/1694.

Germano, D.J. 2010. Ecology of western pond turtles (Actinemys marmorata) at sewage- treatment facilities in the San Joaquin Valley, California. The Southwestern Naturalist, 55(1): 89-97.

Germano, D.J. and Rathbun, G.B. 2008. Growth, population structure, and reproduction of western pond turtles (Actinemys marmorata) on the central coast of California. Chelonian Conservation and Biology 7(2): 188-194.

Lovich, J. and Meyer, K. 2002. The western pond turtle (Clemmys marmorata) in the Mojave River, California, USA: highly adapted survivor or tenuous relict? Journal of Zoology London 256: 537-545.

Lubcke, G.M. and Wilson, D.S. 2007. Variation in shell morphology of the western pond turtle (Actinemys marmorata Baird and Girard) from three aquatic habitats in northern California. Journal of Herpetology 41(1): 107-114.

Polo-Cavia, N., Engstrom, T., Lopez, P., and Martin, J. 2010. Body condition does not predict immunocompetence of western pond turtles in altered versus natural habitats. Animal Conservation 13: 256-264.

Scott, N.J., Rathbun, G.B., Murphy, T.G., and Harker, M.B. 2008. Reproduction of pacific pond turtles (Actinemys marmorata) in coastal streams of central California. Herpetological Conservation and Biology 3(2): 143-148.

Spinks, P.Q. and Shaffer, H.B. 2005. Range-wide molecular analysis of the western pond turtle (Emys marmorata): cryptic variation, isolation by distance, and their conservation implications. Molecular Ecology 14: 2047-2064.

Vander Haegen, W.M., Clark, S.L., Perillo, K.M., Anderson, D.P., and Allen, H.L. 2009. Survival and causes of mortality of head-started western pond turtles on Pierce National Wildlife Refuge, Washington. The Journal of Wildlife Management 73(8): 1402-1406.

Foothill Yellow-legged Frog

198

Bondi, C. A., S.M. Yarnell, and A. J. Lind. 2013. Transferability of habitat suitability criteria for a stream breeding frog (Rana boylii) in the Sierra Nevada, California. Herpetoloty Conservation and Biology 8(1): 88-103.

Catenazzi, A. and S. J. Kupferberg. 2013. The importance of thermal conditions to recruitment success in stream-breeding frog populations distributed across a productivity gradient. Biological Conservation 168: 40-48.

Dever, J.A. 2007. Fine-scale genetic structure in the threatened foothill yellow-legged frog (Rana boylii). Journal of Herpetology 41(1): 168-173.

Fellers, G.M. 2005. Rana boylii Amphibiaweb account. In: Amphibiaweb . Downloaded on 26 June 2012.

Hayes, Marc P.; Wheeler, Clara A.; Lind, Amy J.; Green, Gregory A.; Macfarlane, Diane C., tech. coords. 2016. Foothill yellow-legged frog conservation assessment in California. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-248. Albany, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station. 193 p.

Jennings, M. R. and Hayes, M. P. 1994. Foothill yellow-legged frog Rana boylii Baird 1854. In: Amphibian and Reptile Species of Special Concern in California. California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, California.

Kupferberg, S.J. 1996. Hydrologic and geomorphic factors affecting conservation of a river- breeding frog (Rana boylii). Ecological Applications. 6: 1332–1344.

Kupferberg, S.; Lind, A.; Yarnell, S.; Mount, J. 2008. Pulsed flow effects on the foothill yellow- legged frog (Rana boylii): integration of empirical, experimental and hydrodynamic modeling approaches. Final report. Sacramento, CA: California Energy Commission, Public Interest Energy Research Program. 194 p.

Kupferberg, S.J.; Catenazzi, A.; Power, M.E. 2011. The importance of water temperature and algal assemblage for frog conservation in northern california rivers with hydroelectric projects. CEC-500-2014-033. Sacramento, CA: California Energy Commission, Public Interest Energy Research Program. 96 p.

Leidy, R.A. Gonsolin, E. and Leidy, G.A. 2009. Late-summer aggregation of the foothill yellow- legged frog (Rana boylii) in central California. The Southwestern Naturalist 54(3): 367-368.

Lind, A.J., Spinks, P.Q., Fellers, G.M. and Shaffer, H.B. 2011. Rangewide phylogeography and landscape genetics of the Western U.S. endemic frog Rana boylii (Ranidae): implications for the conservation of frogs and rivers. Conservation Genetics 12: 269-284.

Lind, A.J., and B.H. Sheffer. 2005. Reintroduction of a declining amphibian: Determining an ecologically feasible approach for the foothill yellow-legged frog (Rana boylii) through

199

analysis of decline factors, genetic structure, and habitat associations. Dissertation Abstracts International. Section B: Physical Sciences and Engineering: 66(4) 1853.

Lind, A.J., Welsh Jr., H.H. and Wilson, R.A. 1996. The effects of a dam on breeding habitat and egg survival of the foothill yellow-legged frog (Rana boylii) in northwestern California. Herpetological Review 27(2): 62-67.

Loomis,R.B. 1965. The yellow-legged frog, Rana boylii, from the Sierra San Pedro Martir, Baja California Norte, Mexico. Herpetologica 21(1): 78-80.

Kupferberg, S.J. 1996. Hydrologic and geomorphic factors affecting conservation of a river- breeding frog (Rana boylii). Ecological Applications 6(4): 1332-1344.

Kupferberg, S.J., Catenazzi, A., Lunde, K., Lind, A.J., and Palen, W.J. 2009. Parasitic copepod (Lernaea cyprinacea) outbreaks in foothill yellow-legged frogs (Rana boylii) linked to unusually warm summers and amphibian malformations in northern California. Copeia 2009(3): 529-537.

Kupferberg, S.J., Lind, A.J., Thill, V. and Yarnell, S.M. 2011. Water velocity tolerance in tadpoles of the foothill yellow-legged frog (Rana boylii): swimming performance, growth, and survival. Copeia 2011(1): 141-152.

Morey, S. and Papenfuss, T. 1990. Foothill yellow-legged frog Rana boylii. In: California’s Wildlife. Vol. I. Amphibians and Reptiles. D. C. Zeiner, W. F. Laudenslayer Jr., K. E. Mayer, and M. White. California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, California.

Paoletti, D.J., Olson, D.H. and Blaustein, A.R. 2011. Responses of foothill yellow-legged frog (Rana boylii) larvae to an introduced predator. Copeia 2011(1): 161-168.

Rombough, C.J. and Hayes, M.P. 2005. Novel aspects of oviposition site preparation by foothill yellow-legged frogs (Rana boylii). Northwestern Naturalist 86: 157-160.

Santos-Barrera, G., Hammerson, G. and Fellers, G. 2004. Rana boylii. In: IUCN 2012. IUCN Red List of the Threatened Species. Version 2012.1. . Downloaded on 26 June 2012.

Sparling,D.W. and Fellers, G. 2007. Comparative toxicity of chlorpyrifos, diazinon, malathion and their oxon derivatives to larval Rana boylii. Environmental Pollution 147: 535-539.

Wheeler, C.A. and Welsh Jr., H.H. 2007. Mating strategy and breeding patterns of the foothill yellow-legged frog (Rana boylii). Herpetological Conservation and Biology 3(2): 128-142.

Wheeler, C.A.; Bettaso, J.B.; Ashton, D.T.; Welsh, H.H., Jr. 2013. Effects of water temperature on breeding phenology, growth and timing of metamorphosis of foothill yellow-legged frogs (Rana boylii) on the mainstem and selected tributaries of California’s Trinity River—2004–

200

2009. Report to the Trinity River Restoration Program. Arcata, CA: U.S. Department Agriculture, Pacific Southwest Research Station and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 37 p.

Great Basin Rams-horn Snail

Frest, T. J. and E. J. Johannes. 1993. Mollusk Species of Special Concern Within the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl. Final Report to the Forest Ecosystem Management Working Group, USDA, Forest Service. Deixis Consultants, Seattle WA. 98 pages.

Taylor, D. W. 1981. Freshwater Mollusks of California: A Distributional Checklist. California Department of Fish and Game 67(3):140-163.

Lahontan Lake Tui Chub

Marrin, D. L. and D. C. Erman. 1982. Evidence against competition between trout and nongame fish in Stampede Reservoir, California. No. Amer. J. Fish. Manage. 2:262-269.

Miller, R. G. 1951. The natural history of Lake Tahoe fishes. Unpubl. Dissertation. Stanford University. 160 pp.

Moyle, P. B. 1976. Inland Fishes of California. University of California Press, Berkeley. 405pp.

Moyle, P. B., R. M. Yoshiyama, J. E. Williams, and E. D. Wikramanyake. 1995. Fish species of special concern in California. Dept. Fish and Game, Inland Fisheries Division. Rancho Cordova, CA Final Report for contract No. 2128IF. 272 pp.

Richards, R. C., C. R. Goldman, T. C. Frantz, and R. Wickwire. 1975. Where have all the Daphnia gone? The decline of a major cladoceran in Lake Tahoe, California-Nevada. Verh. Internat. Verein. Limnol. 19:835-842.

Snyder, J. O. 1917. Fishes of the Lahontan system of Nevada and northeastern California. Bull. U.S. Bur. Fish. 35:31-86.

Hardhead

Avise, J. C., and F. J. Ayala. 1976. Genetic differentiation in species versus depauperate phylads: Evidence from the California minnows. Evolution 30: 46-58.

Ayres, W. O. 1854. Remarks on some fish of the cyprinoid family. Daily Placer Times and Transcripts, 30 May 1854:1.

Baltz, D. M. and P. B. Moyle. 1993. Invasion resistance by an assemblage of native California stream fishes. Ecol. Applic. 3:246-255. 201

Bell, R. R. and J. B. Kimsey. 1955. Some considerations of the chemical treatment of the Monticello Reservoir basin, Napa County. Calif. Dept. of Fish and Game, Inland Fish. Admin. Rep. No. 55. 7pp.

Brown, L. R. and P. B. Moyle. 1987. Survey of fishes of mid-elevation streams of the San Joaquin Valley. Unpubl. Rep. Calif. Dept. of Fish and Game. 220pp.

Cech, J. J., S. J. Mitchell, D. T. Castleberry, and M. McEnroe. 1990. Distribution of California stream fishes: influence of environmental temperature and hypoxia. Env. Biol. Fish. 29:95- 105.

Cooper, J. J. 1983. Distributional ecology of native and introduced fishes in the Pit River system, northeastern California, with note on the Modoc sucker. Calif. Fish and Game 69:39-53.

Evermann, B. W. 1905. The golden trout of the southern High Sierras. Bull. U.S. Bur. Fish. 25:1- 51.

Girard, C. 1854. Description of Sebastues ruber, Sebastes ruber var. parvu, Sebastes variabilis, and Centrarchus maculosus. The Pacific 3: 165-209.

Jordan, D. S. and B. W. Evermann. 1896. Fishes of North and Middle America. Bull. U.S. Nat. Mus. 47:1-3705.

Knight, N. J. 1985. Microhabitats and temperature requirements of hardhead (Mylopharadon conocephalus) and Sacramento squawfish (Ptychocheilus grandis), with notes for some other native California stream fishes. Unpubl. Ph.D Dissertation., University of California, Davis. 161pp.

Moyle, P. B. 1976. Inland Fishes of California. University of California Press, Berkeley. 405pp.

Moyle, P. B. and D. M. Baltz. 1985. Microhabitat use by an assemblage of California stream fishes: developing criteria for instream flow recommendations. Trans. Amer. Fish. Soc. 114:695-704.

Moyle, P. B. and R. A. Daniels. 1982. Fishes of the Pit River system, and Surprise Valley region. University of Calif. Publ. Zool. 115:1-82.

Moyle, P. B. and M. Gard. 1993. South Yuba River fisheries survey and habitat assessment. Report to the California State Department of Parks and Recreation. 66pp.

Moyle, P. B. and R. D. Nichols. 1973. Ecology of some native and introduced fishes of the Sierra Nevada foothills, central California. Copeia. 1973: 478-490.

202

Moyle, P. B., B. Vondracek and G. D. Grossman. 1983 Response of fish populations in the North Fork of the Feather River, California to treatment with fish toxicants. N. Amer. J. Fish. Mgmt. 3:48-60.

Murphy, G. I. 1947. Notes on hardhead control in the East Fork of the Russian River, Mendocino County, California. Calif. Dept. Fish and Game. 34:101-110.

Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E). 1985. Bald Eagle and Fish Study. Pit 3,4 and 5 Project. Biosystems Analysis, Inc. and University of California, Davis.

Reeves, J. G. 1964. Age and growth of the hardhead minnow Mylopharodon conocephalus in the American River basin of California, with notes on its ecology. M.S. Thesis. University of California, Berkeley. 90 pp.

Rowley, W. 1955. 1954 creel census, North Fork, Feather River. Calif. Dept. Fish and Game, Inland Fish. Admin. Rep. 55 17pp.

Rutter, C. 1908. The fishes of the Sacramento-San Joaquin basin, with a study of their distribution and variation. U.S. Bur. Fish. Bull. 27:143-48.

Saiki, M. K. 1984. Environmental conditions and fish faunas in low elevation rivers an the irrigated San Joaquin Valley floor, California. Calif. Fish and Game 70:145-157

Soule, M. 1951. Power development of the Kings River drainage, Fresno County, California. Rep. No 3., Junction development of the Kings River and its Middle and South Forks. Calif. Dept. Fish and Game, Inland Fish. Admin. Rep. 51. 17pp.

Wales, J. H. 1946. The hardhead problem in the Sacramento River above Shasta Lake, California. Calif. Dept. Fish and Game, Inland fish. Admin. Rep. 46. 4pp.

Wang, J. C. S. 1986. Fishes of the Sacramento-San Joaquin estuary and adjacent waters, California: A guide to the early life histories. Interagency Ecological Study Program for the Sacramento- San Joaquin Estuary, Tech. Rep. 9.

California Floater

Brim Box, J., S. Chappell, M. McFarland and J. Furnish. 2005. The aquatic mollusk fauna of the Lassen National Forest in northeastern California. Draft report for USDA/Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Logan, Utah.

Chong, J.P., J. Brim Box, J. Howard, D. Wolf, T. Myers, K. Mock. 2008. Three deeply divided lineages of the freshwater mussel genus Anodonta in western North America. Conservation Genetic 9:1303-1309.

203

David, A.. 2008. Abundance, Diversity and Distribution of Freshwater Mussels (Bivalvia: Unionoidea) in the Klamath and Salmon Rivers of Northern California. Report prepared for the Biology and Environmental Studies Departments, Whitman College, Walla Walla, Washington.

Ellis, M. 2003. Effects of High Test Flows on the Malinda Gulch Mussel Bed in Pacific Gas and Electric Company’s Pit 3, 4, and 5 Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. 233). A final report prepared by Spring Rivers Ecological Sciences, Cassel, CA for PGE, San Ramon, CA. 19 pp.

Ellis, M. J. and L. E. Haley. 2005. Reproductive timing of freshwater mussels and the potential impacts of pulsed flows on reproductive success, Spring Rivers Ecological Sciences, Cassel, CA. Paper presented at the Pulsed Flow Conference, July 15, 2005, Davis, CA.

Frest, T. J. and E. J. Johannes. 1995. Freshwater mollusks of the upper Sacramento system, California, with particular reference to the Cantara Spill. 1994 yearly report by Deixis Consultants (Seattle, WA) to California Department of Fish and Game, iii+88 pages and appendices, March 13.

Hovingh, P. 2004. Intermountain freshwater mollusks, USA (Margaritifera, Anodonta, Gonidea, Valvata, Ferrissia): geography, conservation, and fish management implications. Monographs of the Western North American Naturalist 2:109-135.

Howard, J. 2008. Strategic inventory of freshwater mussels in the northern Sierra Nevada Province. Draft Progress Report. Western Mollusk Sciences, San Francisco, CA.

Howard, J. and K. Cuffey, 2003. Freshwater mussels in a California North Coast Range river: occurrence, distribution, and controls. Journal of the North American Benthological Society. 22: 63-77.

Mock, K. E., J. C. Brim-Box, M. P. Miller, M. E. Downing and W. R. Hoeh. 2004. Genetic diversity and divergence among freshwater mussel (Anodonta) populations in the Bonneville Basin of Utah. Molecular Ecology 13:1085-1098.

Taylor, D. W. 1981. Freshwater mollusks of California: A distributional checklist. California Fish and Game 67: 140-163.

Black Juga

Barquín, J. and M. Scarsbrook. 2008. Management and conservation strategies for coldwater springs. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 18: 580–591. Available at http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/aqc.884/pdf.

Burch, J.B. 1989. North American Freshwater Snails. Malacological Publications (J. B. Burch, Hamburg, Michigan), viii+365 pages.

204

Campbell, D., T. Frest, S.A. Clark, E. Johannes and C. Lydeard. 2010 Molecular evidence on the phylogeny of the freshwater gastropod Juga (Gastropoda: Cerithiodea:Pleuroceridae) for the northwestern United States. Manuscript submitted for publication to The Nautilus.

Frest, T. J. and E. J. Johannes. 1995. Freshwater Mollusks of the Upper Sacramento System, California, with Particular Reference to the Cantara Spill. 1994 Yearly report to California Department of Fish & Game. Deixis Consultants, Seattle, Washington. Contract #FG2106R1.

Furnish, J.L.. 1990. Factors affecting the growth, production and distribution of the stream snail Juga silicula (Gould). Oregon State University (Corvallis), unpublished doctoral dissertation. 173 pp.

Furnish, J.L. and R. Monthey. 1999. Management recommendations for Survey and Manage aquatic mollusks, version 2.0, December 1998. USDA Forest Service (Regions 5 and 6) and USDI Bureau of Land Management (Oregon, Washington, California), [124 pages], distributed 3 March 1999. Available at http://www.blm.gov/or/plans/surveyandmanage/MR/AQMollusks/section4.htm

Henderson, J. 1929. The non-marine Mollusca of Oregon and Washington. University of Colorado (Boulder) Studies 17(2): 47-190.

Holznagel, E.E. and C. Lydeard. 2000. A molecular phylogeny of North American Pleuroceridae (Gastropoda:Cerithioidea) based on mitochondrial 16S rDNA sequences. Journal of Molluscan Studies 66:233-257.

Johannes, E. 2010. Personal communication, Deixis Consultants, December, 2010. NatureServe Explorer online: www.natureserve.org/explorer

Sada, D.W.; Williams, J.E.; Silvey, J.C.; Halford, A.; Ramakka, J.; Summers, P.; Lewis, L. 2001. Riparian area management. A guide to managing, restoring, and conserving springs in the western United States. Technical Reference 1737-17. Denver, CO. Available at http://digitalcommons.usu.edu/govdocs/252/ .

Sada, D. W. and K.F. Pohlmann. 2002. Spring Inventory and Monitoring ProtocolsConference Proceedings. Spring-fed Wetlands: Important Scientific and Cultural Resources of the Intermountain Region, 2002. Available at http://www.wetlands.dri.edu/2002/Sada_Pohlmann_Protocol.pdf

Schmitz, D., B. McGlynn and D. Patten. 2007. Development of a spring ecosystem monitoring protocol in Bighorn Canyon National Recreation Area. Final Report Submitted to the Greater Yellowstone Network Inventory and Monitoring Program National Park Service from the Land Resources and Environmental Sciences Department, Montana State University, Bozeman, MT. Available at http://www.cfc.umt.edu/cesu/NEWCESU/Assets/Individual%20Project%20Reports/NPS%2 0Projects/MSU/2004/McGlynn_seeps_rpt.pdf.

205

Strong, E.E. O. Gargominy, W.F. Ponder and P. Bouchet. 2008. Global diversity of gastropods (Gastropoda: Mollusca) in freshwater. Hydrobiologia 595:149-166. Avaialbe at http://inpn.mnhn.fr/gargo/strong%20et%20al_2008.pdf .

Taylor, D. W. 1981. Freshwater mollusks of California: A distributional checklist. California Fish and Game 67: 140-163.

206

APPENDIX A. USFWS Species List

United States Department of the Interior FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office FEDERAL BUILDING, 2800 COTTAGE WAY, ROOM W-2605 SACRAMENTO, CA 95825 PHONE: (916)414-6600 FAX: (916)414-6713

Consultation Code: 08ESMF00-2015-SLI-0871 February 13, 2017 Event Code: 08ESMF00-2017-E-02726 Project Name: Tahoe NF TE species list

Subject: Updated list of threatened and endangered species that may occur in your proposed project location, and/or may be affected by your proposed project

To Whom It May Concern: The enclosed species list identifies threatened, endangered, proposed and candidate species, as well as proposed and final designated critical habitat, under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) that may occur within the boundary of your proposed project and/or may be affected by your proposed project. The species list fulfills the requirements of the Service under section 7(c) of the Endangered Species Act (Act) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). Please follow the link below to see if your proposed project has the potential to affect other species or their habitats under the jurisdiction of the National Marine Fisheries Service: http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/protected_species/species_list/species_lists.html

New information based on updated surveys, changes in the abundance and distribution of species, changed habitat conditions, or other factors could change this list. Please feel free to contact us if you need more current information or assistance regarding the potential impacts to federally proposed, listed, and candidate species and federally designated and proposed critical habitat. Please note that under 50 CFR 402.12(e) of the regulations implementing section 7 of the Act, the accuracy of this species list should be verified after 90 days. This verification can be completed formally or informally as desired. The Service recommends that verification be completed by visiting the ECOS-IPaC website at regular intervals during project planning and implementation for updates to species lists and information. An updated list may be requested through the ECOS-IPaC system by completing the same process used to receive the enclosed list. The purpose of the Act is to provide a means whereby threatened and endangered species and the ecosystems upon which they depend may be conserved. Under sections 7(a)(1) and 7(a)(2) of the Act and its implementing regulations (50 CFR 402 et seq.), Federal agencies are required to utilize their authorities to carry out programs for the conservation of threatened and endangered 207

species and to determine whether projects may affect threatened and endangered species and/or designated critical habitat. A Biological Assessment is required for construction projects (or other undertakings having similar physical impacts) that are major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment as defined in the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4332(2) (c)). For projects other than major construction activities, the Service suggests that a biological evaluation similar to a Biological Assessment be prepared to determine whether the project may affect listed or proposed species and/or designated or proposed critical habitat. Recommended contents of a Biological Assessment are described at 50 CFR 402.12. If a Federal agency determines, based on the Biological Assessment or biological evaluation, that listed species and/or designated critical habitat may be affected by the proposed project, the agency is required to consult with the Service pursuant to 50 CFR 402. In addition, the Service recommends that candidate species, proposed species and proposed critical habitat be addressed within the consultation. More information on the regulations and procedures for section 7 consultation, including the role of permit or license applicants, can be found in the "Endangered Species Consultation Handbook" at: http://www.fws.gov/endangered/esa-library/pdf/TOC- GLOS.PDF Please be aware that bald and golden eagles are protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 668 et seq.), and projects affecting these species may require development of an eagle conservation plan (http://www.fws.gov/windenergy/eagle_guidance.html). Additionally, wind energy projects should follow the wind energy guidelines (http://www.fws.gov/windenergy/) for minimizing impacts to migratory birds and bats. Guidance for minimizing impacts to migratory birds for projects including communications towers (e.g., cellular, digital television, radio, and emergency broadcast) can be found at: http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/CurrentBirdIssues/Hazards/towers/towers.htm; http://www.towerkill.com; and http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/CurrentBirdIssues/Hazards/towers/comtow.html. We appreciate your concern for threatened and endangered species. The Service encourages Federal agencies to include conservation of threatened and endangered species into their project planning to further the purposes of the Act. Please include the Consultation Tracking Number in the header of this letter with any request for consultation or correspondence about your project that you submit to our office. Attachment

208

Official Species List

Provided by: Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office FEDERAL BUILDING 2800 COTTAGE WAY, ROOM W-2605 SACRAMENTO, CA 95825 (916) 414-6600

Expect additional Species list documents from the following office(s): Reno Fish and Wildlife Office 1340 FINANCIAL BOULEVARD, SUITE 234 RENO, NV 89502 (775) 861-6300 http://www.fws.gov/nevada/

Consultation Code: 08ESMF00-2015-SLI-0871 Event Code: 08ESMF00-2017-E-02726

Project Type: VEGETATION MANAGEMENT

Project Name: Tahoe NF TE species list Project Description: Projects within Tahoe NF boundary

Please Note: The FWS office may have modified the Project Name and/or Project Description, so it may be different from what was submitted in your previous request. If the Consultation Code matches, the FWS considers this to be the same project. Contact the office in the 'Provided by' section of your previous Official Species list if you have any questions or concerns. Project Location Map:

209

Project Coordinates: The coordinates are too numerous to display here.

Endangered Species Act Species List

There are a total of 12 threatened or endangered species on your species list. Species on this list should be considered in an effects analysis for your project and could include species that exist in another geographic area. For example, certain fish may appear on the species list because a project could affect downstream species. Critical habitats listed under the Has Critical Habitat column may or may not lie within your project area. See the Critical habitats within your project area section further below for critical habitat that lies within your project. Please contact the designated FWS office if you have questions.

Amphibians Status Has Critical Habitat Condition(s)

210

Threatened Final designated California red-legged frog (Rana draytonii) Population: Wherever found

Endangered Final designated Sierra Nevada Yellow-legged Frog (Rana sierrae) Population: Wherever found

Birds

Threatened Proposed Yellow-Billed Cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus) Population: Western U.S. DPS

Crustaceans

Threatened Final designated Vernal Pool fairy shrimp (Branchinecta lynchi) Population: Wherever found

Endangered Final designated Vernal Pool tadpole shrimp (Lepidurus packardi) Population: Wherever found

Fishes

Endangered cui-ui (Chasmistes cujus) Population: Wherever found

211

Threatened Final designated Delta smelt (Hypomesus transpacificus) Population: Wherever found

Threatened Lahontan cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarkii henshawi) Population: Wherever found

Threatened Final designated steelhead (Oncorhynchus (=salmo) mykiss) Population: Northern California DPS

Flowering Plants

Threatened Layne's butterweed (Senecio layneae) Population: Wherever found

Endangered Pine Hill flannelbush (Fremontodendron californicum ssp. decumbens) Population: Wherever found

Endangered Stebbins' morning-glory (Calystegia stebbinsii) Population: Wherever found

Critical habitats that lie within your project area

The following critical habitats lie fully or partially within your project area.

Amphibians Critical Habitat Type

212

Final designated California red-legged frog (Rana draytonii) Population: Wherever found

Final designated Sierra Nevada Yellow-legged Frog (Rana sierrae) Population: Wherever found

213

APPENDIX B

Yuba Project Water Quality BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES Luke Rutten, Hydrologist Yuba River and American River Ranger Districts, Tahoe National Forest

Forest Management has long been recognized as a source of non-point water quality pollution. Non-point pollution is not, by definition, controllable through conventional water treatment plant methods. Non-point pollution is controlled by containing the pollutant at its source, precluding delivery to surface water. Sections 208 and 319 of the Federal Clean Water Act, as amended, acknowledge land treatment measures as being an effective means of controlling non-point sources of water pollution and emphasizes their development.

Working cooperatively with the California State Water Quality Control Board, the Forest Service developed pollution control measures, referred to as Best Management Practices (BMPs), that are applicable to National Forest System lands. The BMPs were evaluated by State Water Quality Control personnel as they were applied on site during management activities. After assessment of the monitoring data and completion of public workshops and hearings, the Forest Service’s BMPs were certified by the State and approved by EPA as the most effective means to control non-point source pollution.

The land treatment measures incorporated into Forest Service BMPs evolved through research and development measures, and have been monitored and modified over several decades with the expressed purpose of improving the measures and making them more effective. On site evaluations of the control measures by State regulatory agencies found the practices were effective in protecting beneficial uses and were certifiable for Forest Service application as their means to protect water quality. The Clean Water Act provided the initial test of effectiveness of the Forest Service non-point pollution control measures by requiring evaluation of the practices by regulatory agencies (State Board and EPA) and the certification and approval of the practices as the “BEST” measures for control.

BMPs are designed to accommodate site specific conditions. They are tailor-made to account for the complexity and physical and biological variability of the natural environment. In the 1981 Management Agency Agreement between the State Water Resources Control Board and the Forest Service the State agreed that: “The practices and procedures set forth in the Forest Service document constitute sound water quality management and, as such, are the best management practices to be implemented for water quality protection and improvement on NFS lands.” Further the Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board states “Implementation of the BMPs, in conjunction with monitoring and performance review requirements approved by the State and Regional Boards, is the primary method of meeting the Basin Plan’s water quality objectives for the activities to which the BMPs apply.”

214

Implementation and effectiveness of BMPs are evaluated following the R5 BMP Evaluation Program guidelines. Results of this monitoring as well as the results from other projects on the Tahoe National Forest and throughout the Region are used to fine tune BMPs including the CWE analysis.

Water quality should not be adversely impacted if current management direction along with the BMPs listed below are implemented. When these practices have been adhered to in the past they have been effective in maintaining water quality. Similar BMPs have been effective in protecting beneficial uses affected on the Tahoe National Forest. The practices specified herein are expected to be fully effective in maintaining the identified beneficial uses.

BMP’s applicable to this project include those listed below. More information on these practices are included in the Region 5 Soil and Water Conservation Handbook FSH 2509.22.

BMP 1.1 – Resource Management Planning Process The Interdisciplinary (ID) Team included a hydrologist, soil scientist, aquatic biologist, botanist, wildlife biologist, forester, fuels specialist, and transportation planner who identified sensitive resource areas and riparian conservation areas (RCAs). They identified specific mitigation measures for these areas as documented in the following BMPs and in soil ground cover retention needs. They also evaluated soil and watershed responses to the proposed fuels reduction activities including underburning, cut/pile/burn, mastication, and biomass/thin.

BMP 1.2 - Resource Management Unit Design All resource management units are designed to secure favorable conditions of water flow and water quality by conforming to Forest Service standards and guidelines, National Forest Management Act (NFMA) requirements, and on-the-ground limitations. Consistent with equipment capabilities, units are generally bounded by roads and natural features such as ridges, minor stream channels, and riparian conservation areas (RCAs). Mitigations or changes needed to protect the soil resource and stream courses will be incorporated into the resource management unit design.

BMP 1.3 - Determining Surface Erosion Hazard for Resource Management Unit Design The erosion hazard rating (EHR) determination is part of the pre-sale planning process, as input to the environmental document. Only trained and qualified Forest Service employees will establish the EHR for individual harvest units. An EHR was completed for all potential units using the Forest Soils Resource Inventory (SRI). For units with an overall EHR rated “high” (EHR = 13-29), mitigation measures will be applied which prevent the concentration of surface flows, such as designated skid trails or prohibition of ground-based equipment. Units with a “very high” erosion hazard rating (EHR = >30) will be reviewed by a soil scientist.

BMP 1.4 - Using Sale Area Maps and/or Project Maps for Designating Water-Quality Protection Needs To ensure recognition and protection of areas related to water-quality protection, delineate on a sale-area map or a project map any of the following:

215

1. Location of stream courses and riparian zones to be protected, including the width of the protection zone required for each stream 2. Wetlands (meadows, lakes, springs, and so forth) to be protected 3. Boundaries of harvest units 4. Specified roads 5. Roads where log hauling is prohibited, or restricted 6. Structural improvement 7. Area of different skidding and/or yarding method application 8. Sources of rock for road work, riprapping, and borrow materials 9. Water sources that are available for purchasers' use 10. Other features that are required by contract provisions 11. Site preparation/fuel treatment

The interdisciplinary team will identify and delineate these and other features on maps, as part of the environmental documentation process. The Sale Preparation Forester will include them on the sale area map at the time of contract preparation. The sale administrator and the purchaser will review these areas on the ground before commencing harvest.

BMP 1.5 - Limiting the Operating Period of Resource Management Activities The timing of project operations, including operating areas and erosion prevention and control, are controlled by the project implementation plan or by contract provisions requiring an operating plan and schedule. Contact provisions limiting the operating period for mechanical treatment will be added to restrict operations in units which have less than 4 inches of dry soil (BMP 5.6) or because of wet conditions.

BMP 1.8 - Streamside Management Zone Designation Management in Riparian Conservation Areas (RCAs) needs to be consistent with Riparian Conservation Objectives (RCOs) and Aquatic Management Strategy (AMS) goals. The intent of management direction for RCAs is to (1) preserve, enhance, and restore habitat for riparian- and aquatic-dependent species; (2) ensure that water quality is maintained or restored; (3) enhance habitat conservation for species associated with the transition zone between upslope and riparian areas; and (4) provide greater connectivity within the watershed. Projects that propose activities in RCAs need to enhance or maintain the physical and biological characteristics of the RCA.

All associated Standards and Guidelines identified in the Tahoe National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan) associated with this project will be adhered to.

The following are guidelines for establishing RCA widths (measured each side of stream from the apparent high-water mark or the edge of the special aquatic feature) along with equipment restrictions, and prescribed fire requirements:

Riparian Conservation Area Widths

Widths of RCAs vary with the type of water body. The types of water bodies are designated as follows: (1) perennial streams; (2) seasonally flowing streams (includes ephemerals with

216

defined stream channel or evidence of scour); (3) streams in inner gorge; (4) special aquatic features (lakes, meadows, bogs, fens, wetlands, vernal pools, and springs); and (5) other hydrologic or topographic depressions without a defined channel. The Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment ROD defines the widths of the RCAs as follows:

Riparian Conservation Widths Stream Type Width of the Riparian Conservation Area Perennial Streams 300 feet each side, measured from bank full edge Seasonal Flowing Streams 150 feet each side, measured from bank full edge Streams In Inner Gorge Top of inner gorge if beyond 300 feet* Special Aquatic Features: Meadows, Springs, and Seeps 300 feet from edge of feature or riparian vegetation, whichever is greater *Note: If inner gorge is present and extends beyond specified RCA width, the RCA width will extend to the top of the inner gorge. The inner gorge area is defined as slopes adjacent to the stream channel greater than 70% gradient. Other hydrologic or topographic depressions without a defined channel will be protected through standard operating procedures during unit layout through administration of the contract. Riparian Buffers Riparian buffers will be established within all RCAs. The purpose of the riparian buffer is to minimize impacts from management activities to the stream-adjacent zone and riparian habitat. The following are specified widths of the riparian buffer related to stream types:

Perennial Streams and Special Aquatic Features - 100 feet slope distance from the edge of the existing riparian vegetation.

Seasonal Streams (intermittent and ephemeral) - Intermittent streams: 50 feet slope distance from the edge of the existing riparian vegetation or, if no riparian vegetation exists, from the apparent high water mark.

- Ephemeral streams: 30 feet from stream channel.

Equipment Restrictions High-ground-pressure equipment (tractors, skidders, etc.) is limited to slopes less than 20% gradient within the RCA. New skid trails, landings or roads would not be constructed within any RCA without direct consultation with a riparian specialist. High-ground-pressure equipment is restricted to existing skid trails, landings, and roads within RCAs except to retrieve tree bundles. Consult with a riparian specialist on use of existing facilities. Within RCAs having slopes < 20% and outside of the riparian buffer, rubber-tired skidders may

217

enter to retrieve tree bundles but are limited to 1-2 passes over the same piece of ground. Use of skidding equipment within RCAs must be reviewed on-the-ground by a riparian specialist and an aquatic biologist. Skid trails would be located outside of the RCA. Endlining within the RCA, outside of the riparian buffer must be approved prior to the activity by a riparian specialist. Designated skid trails crossing ephemeral stream channels may be approved for access to otherwise inaccessible areas, but only upon consultation with a riparian specialist. Note: to keep skid trails outside RCA during harvest operations, document on harvest cards if entering RCAs with high-ground-pressure equipment to retrieve tree bundles.

Mechanical piling for fuels reduction may occur within RCAs, outside of the designated riparian buffer, when such operations do not result in detrimental soil compaction and meets the slope, soil moisture, and minimum effective soil cover (ESC) requirements. Operations within the riparian buffer may be considered on a site-specific basis after consultation with a riparian specialist.

Low-ground-pressure equipment (feller buncher, excavator, etc.) is limited to slopes less than 20% gradient within the RCA. No equipment is permitted within the riparian buffer except on approved designated skid trails or on existing skid trails, landings, or roads. Consult with a riparian specialist on use of existing facilities. Helicopter operations may occur within the RCA outside of the identified riparian buffer. Helicopter operations within the riparian buffer may be considered on a site-specific basis after consultation with a riparian specialist.

Skyline operations may occur within the RCA when full suspension is achieved throughout the riparian buffer and at least one end suspended within the remainder of the RCA.

Prescribed Fire Requirements

Perennial Streams and Special Aquatic Features – “design prescribed fire treatments to minimize disturbance of ground cover and riparian vegetation in RCAs....identify mitigation measures to minimize the spread of fire into riparian vegetation.” (Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment – Record of Decision, Appendix A-56). The minimum effective soil cover (ESC) requirements are identified in the Tahoe National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan) on page V-37. To minimize the spread of fire into riparian vegetation during prescribed fire activities, no direct ignition will occur within the riparian buffer. Fire may back into the riparian buffer. No pile burning will occur within the riparian buffers. The riparian buffer may vary in width if needed to achieve fuels or resource protection objectives upon field review by resource specialists. Burning prescriptions should be developed to retain ESC, coarse large woody debris (CWD), and standing snags throughout the RCA. Short-term reduction of CWD below soil quality standards, or standards in species management plans, may occur within strategically placed treatment areas (SPLATS) or the wildland urban intermix (WUI) zone.

Seasonal Streams - The minimum effective soil cover (ESC) requirements are identified in the Forest Plan on page V-37. To minimize the spread of fire into riparian vegetation during

218

prescribed fire activities, no direct ignition will occur within a minimum 50-foot slope distance from the edge of the existing riparian vegetation of intermittent streams. Fire may back into these riparian buffers. No pile burning would occur within the respective riparian buffers. Buffers may vary in width if needed to achieve fuels or resource protection objectives upon field review by resource specialists. Burning prescriptions should be developed to retain CWD; however, a reduction of CWD below soil quality standards or standards in species management plans may occur within SPLATS or the urban wildland intermix zone. Within ephemeral stream RCAs, do not ignite within the stream channel. Pile burning may take place within ephemeral RCAs as long as piles are not placed within the stream channel.

BMP 1.9 - Determining Ground-Based Equipment Slope Limitation Outside of RCA boundaries, tractors and other ground-based equipment will be allowed where slopes are generally less than 30 percent. Within RCA boundaries, ground-based equipment may be allowed if conditions in BMP 1.8 under “Equipment Restrictions” are met. This BMP applies to all areas where ground-based equipment operates.

BMP 1.10 - Tractor Skidding Design Skid trails need to be designed to minimize the sediment yield potential of the units. Timber Sale Contract (TSC) provision C6.422 (Tractor Skidding Requirements), or the equivalent, is required on all ground-based equipment units. The volume and velocity of runoff water will be modified to minimize erosion and sedimentation. This may involve designating and flagging skid trails, endlining, and/or falling to the lead. TSC provisions B6.42, B6.422, and C6.424, or the equivalent, will be used to control skidding and yarding, and landing and skid trail locations. No new skid trails or roads will be constructed within RCAs without direct consultation with a riparian specialist. Designated skid trails crossing ephemeral stream channels may be approved for access to otherwise inaccessible areas, but only upon consultation with a riparian specialist. This BMP applies to all units utilizing ground-based equipment.

BMP 1.11 - Suspended Log Yarding in Resource Management Operations To protect soil from excessive disturbance and maintain integrity of the RCA, areas within the designated RCA and on slopes generally over 30 percent outside of RCAs, logs would be suspended either partially (outside of riparian buffer) or completely off the ground (inside riparian buffer). Yarding systems would include either helicopter or skyline yarders. The Timber Sale Administrator shall oversee the project operation using guidelines and standards established in the TSC, such as, TSC provisions C6.427 (Skyline Yarding) and/or C6.429 (Helicopter Yarding). This BMP applies to all skyline and helicopter units.

BMP 1.12 - Log Landing Location Locate new landings or reuse old landings in such a way as to avoid watershed impacts and associated water-quality degradation. Landings will be located according to TSC provision B6.422. They will be located to avoid wetlands, unstable lands, and RCAs. The cleared or excavated size of landings will not exceed that needed for safe and efficient operations. Sites will be selected which involve the least excavation and soil erosion potential. Where possible, landings will be located on or near ridges and where skidding across drainages is

219

minimized. They will be located where sidecast will neither enter drainages nor damage other sensitive areas. Existing landings may be used within RCAs when agreed to by a riparian specialist. The BMP applies to all units.

BMP 1.13 - Erosion Prevention and Control Measures During Resource Management Operations Equipment will not be operated when ground conditions are such that excessive damage will result. The kinds and intensity of control work required of the purchaser will be adjusted to ground and weather conditions, with emphasis on the need to control overland runoff, erosion, and sedimentation. All erosion control work shall be completed within 15 days of completion of skidding operations relating to each landing or within 15 days of the Contract Administrator’s on-the-ground designation of erosion prevention measures. Erosion control work shall be completed as promptly as possible after September 15. TSC provision B6.6 and C6.6, or the equivalents, are required in all contracts.

BMP 1.14 - Special Erosion Prevention Measures on Disturbed Land To provide appropriate erosion and sedimentation protection for disturbed areas, the contractor shall spread slash, mulch, or wood chips (or, by agreement, some other treatment) on tractor roads, skid trails, landings or temporary road fills as provided for in TSC B6.6, C6.6, and C6.602. The Sale Preparation Forester will identify the acreage to be treated in the legend of the sale area map. The sale administrator will designate the specific areas to be treated on the ground.

BMP 1.16 - Log Landing Erosion Control After landings have served the purchaser's purpose, the purchaser will ditch, or slope the landings, and may be required to subsoil to permit the drainage and dispersion of water. Erosion-prevention measures such as waterbars will be constructed to divert water away from landings.

Other provisions may include spreading slash, covering with mulch or wood chips, or applying straw mulch. Prevent road drainage from reaching landings. Unless agreed otherwise, cut and fill banks around landings will be reshaped to stabilize the area.

BMP 1.17 - Erosion Control on Skid Trails Erosion control measures on skid trails and temporary roads will be completed by the contractor immediately after tree removal or prior to seasonal shut down. Cross ditches, water spreading devices, or backblading shall be agreed to by the Sale Administrator. These measures shall comply with Timber Sale Administration Handbook guidelines for spacing cross drains, construction techniques, and cross drain angles and heights. This BMP applies to all mechanically treated units.

BMP 1.18 – Meadow Protection during Timber Havesting The timber sale contract prohibits unauthorized operation of vehicular or skidding equipment in meadows or in protection zones designated on sale area maps and marked on the ground.

220

Vehicular or skidding equipment is not to be used on meadows except when specifically approved by the sale administrator. Where feasible, directional felling will be used to avoid felling trees into meadows. Unless otherwise agreed, trees felled into meadows will be removed by end-lining, slash removed, and resulting disturbance will be repaired where necessary to protect vegetative cover, soil, and water quality.

BMP 1.19 - Streamcourse and Aquatic Protection Guidelines for activities within RCAs are presented in BMP 1.8 which outlines equipment restrictions, vegetation management requirements, and prescribed fire requirements. TSC provisions B6.5, B6.6, C6.427, C6.5, and C6.6, or the equivalent, will be implemented for streamcourse protection. These provisions cover proper location and methods of streamcourse crossings, equipment exclusion zones, endlining, erosion control needs near channels, and removal of material from temporary crossings. This BMP must be consistent with BMPs 1.8 and 5.3.

BMP 1.20 - Erosion-control Structure Maintenance During the period of the timber sale contract, the purchaser will provide maintenance of soil erosion-control structures constructed by the purchaser until they become stabilized, but not for more than one year after their construction. After one year, accomplish needed erosion- control maintenance work using other funding sources under timber sale contract provisions B4.225, B6.6 and B6.66, or the equivalent. The Forest Service may agree to perform such maintenance, if requested by the contractor, subject to agreement on rates. If the contractor fails to do seasonal maintenance work, the Forest Service may assume the responsibility and charge the contractor accordingly.

BMP 1.21 - Acceptance of Resource Management Operations Erosion-Control Measures before Sale Closure TSC provisions B6.6, B6.62, B6.63, B6.64, B6.65, B6.66, and C6.6, or the equivalent, specify erosion prevention and control measures, and maintenance of such measures, for landings, skid trails, fire lines, etc. Planned erosion control work will be inspected prior to project completion to determine whether the work will be approved as adequate, if maintenance work is needed, the practicality of treatments, and the necessity for modifying standards. Erosion control work will be approved as acceptable if there is only minor deviation from standards, provided no major or lasting damage is caused to soil or water. Erosion control work which fails to meet these criteria will not be accepted and will be redone to accepted standards.

BMP 1.22 - Slash Treatment in Sensitive Areas Units which include RCAs for perennial and intermittent streamcourses must meet effective soil cover goals stated in the standard and guidelines of the Forest Plan. Within sensitive areas, slash treatments would include hand pile and burn, lop and scatter, and hand pile and leave to create cover piles for small mammals. Fuels treatment within RCAs, including the use of heavy equipment, must meet effective soil cover goals in RCAs, or unit-wide (if applicable).

BMP 1.24 - Non-recurring “C” Provisions that can be used for Water-quality Protection

221

Contract provisions will be developed as needed to ensure that adequate soil, water, or watershed values are protected as part of the project contract.

BMP 1.25 - Modification of the Timber Sale Contract Contract provisions will be included which allow for contract modification if new circumstances indicate the project will irreversibly damage soil, water, or watershed values. The project modification can be accomplished by agreement with the contractor, or unilaterally by the Forest Service (with suitable compensation to the contractor) using an amended environmental document prepared by an ID Team.

BMP 2.1 - Travel Management Planning and Analysis Use the travel analysis and road management planning processes to develop measures to avoid, minimize, and mitigate adverse impacts to water, aquatic, and riparian resources during road management activities, contribute toward restoration of water quality where needed, and identify the road system which can be effectively maintained. Conduct Travel Analysis to determine the minimum road system needed for safe and efficient travel, administration, utilization, and protection of forest land and water resources. Identify current and future needs and uses of each NFS system and unauthorized road.

Identify and prioritize mitigation measures for existing roads that cause resource or watershed impacts. Mitigation measures may include any of the following: a. Relocating road segments that adversely impact soil or water resources. b. Reconstructing road segments to modify, improve, or restore road drainage. c. Improving roads with deferred maintenance needs to current standards. d. Improving stream crossings to accommodate bedload and debris, and provide for aquatic habitat and passage. e. Hardening road surfaces (that is, running surface or inside ditches) to prevent the generation of fine-grained surface material and/or armor portions of the road prism subject to concentrated runoff. f. Putting roads in storage, while maintaining hydrologic and geomorphic functionality of drainage features (see BMP 2.6 - Road Storage). g. Closing roads seasonally to protect water resources. h. Restoring surface and subsurface hydrologic properties by removing roads from sensitive environments including riparian areas and meadows. May include relocation or decommissioning. i. Permanently closing roads that cause significant adverse impacts to soil or water resources. j. Decommissioning or converting unnecessary roads to other uses, such as trails (see BMP 2.7 - Decommissioning). Assess risk of impact to water quality by decommissioning, placing road in storage, or converting to other use, and various treatments for each option.

BMP 2.3 – Road/Trail Construction and Reconstruction Minimize erosion and sediment delivery from roads and trails during construction or reconstruction, and their related activities. Temporary and long-term erosion-control measures are necessary to reduce erosion and maintain overall slope stability. These

222

erosion-control measures may include vegetative and structural techniques to ensure the area’s long-term stability.

1. Implement the approved erosion control plan that covers all disturbed areas, including borrow areas and stockpiles used during road and trail management activities (see BMP 2.13- Erosion Control Plan). Include the wet weather/winter operations agreement. 2. Maintain erosion-control measures to function effectively throughout the project area during construction and reconstruction, and in accordance with the approved erosion control plan (see BMP 2.13- Erosion Control Plan). 3. Comply with BMP 2.11 - Equipment Refueling and Servicing. 4. Do not permit sidecasting within the RCA. Prevent excavated materials from entering water ways or RCAs. 5. Schedule operations when rain, runoff, wet soils, snowmelt or frost melt are less likely. 6. Limit operation of equipment when ground conditions could result in excessive rutting, soil compaction (except on the road prism or other surface to be compacted), or runoff of sediments directly to streams. 7. Locate and design trails with minimal resource damage including risks to water, aquatic, and riparian resources. All resource-coordinating instructions for the protection and prevention of damage to National Forest lands, resources, and ecological systems including wetlands and floodplains shall apply to the planning, development, and operation of trail facilities.

BMP 2.4 - Road Maintenance and Operations The road system will be inspected prior to the operating season; problem areas will be identified and corrected. The Forest Service and contractor will agree on an annual Road Maintenance Plan. Road maintenance plans are implemented through contract, cooperators, force account, and active timber sale or other authorized activities.

The contracting officer’s representative is responsible for assuring compliance by contractors; engineering representative, TSA, or FSR assures compliance by cooperator, purchaser or permitted operator.

1. Maintain road surfaces to dissipate intercepted water in a uniform manner along the road by outsloping with rolling dips, insloping with drains, or crowning with drains. Where feasible and consistent with protecting public safety, utilize outsloping and rolling the grade (rolling dips) as the primary drainage technique. 2. Adjust surface drainage structures to minimize hydrologic connectivity by: a. Discharging road runoff to areas of high infiltration and high surface roughness. b. Armoring drainage facility outlet as energy dissipater and to prevent gully initiation. c. Increasing the number drainage facilities with RCAs. 3. Clean ditches and drainage structure inlets only as often as needed to keep them functioning. Prevent unnecessary or excessive vegetation disturbance and removal on features such as swales, ditches, shoulders, and cut and fill slopes. 4. Minimize diversion potential by installing diversion prevention dips that can accommodate overtopping runoff. a. Place diversion prevention dips downslope of crossing, rather than directly over the crossing fill, and in a location that minimizes fill loss in the event of overtopping.

223

b. Armor diversion prevention dips when the expected volume of fill loss is significant. 5. Maintain road surface drainage by removing berms, unless specifically designated otherwise. 6. Install and preserve markers to identify and protect drainage structures that can be damaged during maintenance activities (that is, culverts, subdrains, and so forth). 7. When grading roads or cleaning drainage structure inlets and ditches, avoid undercutting the toe of the cut slope. 8. Grade road surfaces in accordance with road management objectives and assigned maintenance level. Grade only as needed to maintain a stable running surface and adequate surface drainage. 9. Accompany grading of hydrologically connected road surfaces and inside ditches with erosion and sediment control installation. 10. Enforce pre-haul maintenance, maintenance during haul, and post haul maintenance (putting the road back in storage) specifications when maintenance level 1 roads are opened for use on commercial resource management projects. Require the commercial operator to leave roads in a satisfactory condition when project is completed. 11. Restrict or prohibit road use during periods when such use would likely damage the roadway surface or road drainage features are identified through Travel Analysis and Travel Management, and implement through enforcement of motor vehicle use map. Changes in road management are supported by appropriate analysis.

BMP 2.5 -Water Source Development and Utilization Water sources will be designed to minimize streamflow fluctuation, maintain water quality and protect fish habitat while providing water for abating dust on roads during road reconstruction activities and log hauling. At no time shall downstream flow be reduced to a level detrimental to aquatic resources, fish passage or other beneficial uses as outlined in Appendix F of the TNF LRMP. Critical to the effectiveness of this practice is the coordination of engineering representatives, hydrologists, fishery biologists, and sale administrators. Locate existing developments, or proposed streams, and evaluate for feasibility of use; determine scope and scale of environmental risks; select techniques for mitigating disturbance to water quality; and compare with the economics of development and use.

Road approaches and drafting pads shall be treated to prevent sediment production and delivery to a watercourse or waterhole. Road approaches shall be armored as necessary from the end of the approach nearest a stream for a minimum of 50 feet, or to the nearest drainage structure (for example, waterbar or rolling dip) or point where road drainage does not drain toward the stream.

Where overflow runoff from water trucks or storage tanks may enter the stream, effective erosion control devices shall be installed (for example, gravel berms or waterbars).

All water-drafting vehicles shall be checked daily and shall be repaired as necessary to prevent leaks of petroleum products from entering RCAs.

BMP 2.6 - Road Storage

224

Ensure that roads placed in storage are maintained to so that drainage facilities and runoff patterns function properly, and damage to adjacent resources is prevented. Stored roads are managed to be returned to service, at various intervals. Only roads that are needed in the future will be considered for storage.

The risk from roads in Intermittent Stored Service condition can be managed by using the appropriate techniques from the following list adapted as needed to local site conditions. Project crew leaders and supervisors are responsible for ensuring that force account projects meet road closure procedures standards. Contracted projects are implemented by the contractor, or operator. Compliance with plans, specifications, and operating plans is ensured by the contracting officer’s representative, engineering representative, or Forest Service representative. Permitted use of stored roads requires restoring the road to its previous stable condition after use by the permittee, as enforced by the permit administrator.

The forest watershed staff will work with the forest engineering staff to identify which culverts pose a threat to water quality and must be removed before a road is placed in storage. Road- stream crossings deemed safe to leave in stored roads will be treated to remove the potential for streamflow diversions in the event of a crossing failure or blockage, and will have rock armor added to downstream crossing fill where needed to prevent erosion. Existing crossings in low-risk situations where the culvert is sized appropriately, is stable, and does not impede aquatic passage remain in place. Prior to storing, ensure that the road, culvert, and all hydrologically connected drainage structures are cleaned, and sediment and erosion controls are intact and functioning.

Depending on the extent of anticipated closure period, the following measures may be need: a. Scarify or de-compact the road surface to promote vegetation growth and/or infiltration of runoff and intercepted flow. b. Consider re-contouring highly unstable portions of road. c. Re-vegetate disturbed areas, particularly at or near stream crossings. Coordinate type and species of vegetation, along with any amendments, with the forest botanist.

Closure method at the entrance to the stored road is commensurate with the terrain, alternate uses, and extent of time road is expected to be stored. Stored roads are not shown on the motor vehicle use map, thereby prohibiting motor vehicle use. Use gates or barriers as appropriate for the site. Sign the closure as necessary to inform the public. Regularly perform condition surveys to monitor and evaluate the effectiveness of the closure measures.

BMP 2.7 – Road/Trail Decommissioning All identified portions of roads and trails to be decommissioned would have the soil decompacted, hydrologic function restored, provide effective soil cover through mulching exposed ground and establishing vegetative cover, and install barriers to ensure compliance. Mulching can include slash, chipped material, or weed-free rice straw to protect the surface of the trail from erosion. Other erosion measures, such as waterbars, may be needed.

225

The objective is to stabilize, restore, and revegetate unneeded roads and trails to a more natural state as necessary to protect and enhance NFS lands, resources, and water quality. The end result is that the decommissioned roads and trails will not represent a significant impact to water quality. To implement road and trail decommissioning the following steps need to take place:

1. Restore stream courses and floodplains where feasible, to natural grade and configuration. 2. Remove drainage structures determined as necessary to protect water quality. 3. Re-contour disturbed fill material, and compact minimally to allow filtration. 4. Re-contour the road surface cut and fill slopes to restore natural hillslope topography where specified. 5. Uncompact areas with stable fill but reduced infiltration and productivity. 6. Haul excess fill to stable disposal areas outside of the RCA. 7. Provide effective soil cover (such as mulch, woody debris, rock, vegetation, blankets) to exposed soil surfaces for both short- and long-term recovery. 8. Block vehicle access to prevent motorized traffic, in conjunction with signing, publication, and enforcement of the forest’s motor vehicle use map.

BMP 2.8 - Stream Crossings Temporary roads may be constructed in RCAs, but only after consultation with a hydrologist and an aquatic biologist. Consult with a riparian specialist on use of existing roads within the RCA.

BMP 2.9 - Snow Removal and Storage 1. Review the forest’s wet weather operations standards. See BMP 2.13. 2. Prepare a winter road maintenance plan for roads and parking facilities subject to snow removal operations. Include an erosion and sediment control component to address the following, particularly when no other alternatives exist: a. Storage areas that could impact water bodies, riparian areas, wetlands, floodplains, and streams. b. Fill slopes subject to erosion. c. Snow storage locations whose runoff could overwhelm drainage features. d. Winter logging operations. g. Administrative access. h. Store snow in pre-approved areas where snowmelt will not cause erosion or deposit snow, road de-icers, or traction enhancing materials directly into surface waters. i. Plan as though snowmelt from snow storage is the equivalent of an intense localized rainfall. j. Mark drainage structures to avoid damage during plowing. 3. Move snow in a manner that will prevent disturbance of road surfaces and drainage structures, while protecting adjacent water; aquatic and riparian resources. 4. Control areas where snow removal equipment can operate to prevent damage to riparian areas, floodplains, and stream channels. 5. Install snow berms where such placement will preclude concentration of snowmelt runoff and will serve to rapidly dissipate melt water. Provide frequent drainage through snow berms to avoid hydrologic connectivity with surface waters, concentration of snowmelt runoff on

226

fillslopes and other erosive areas, to dissipate melt water, and to prevent sediment delivery to waterbodies. 6. Limit use of approved deicing and traction-control materials, but do not compromise in areas where safety is critical (intersections and approaches, steep segments, corners). 7. Conduct frequent inspections at the earliest possible opportunity to ensure road drainage is not adversely affecting soil or water resources. 8. Where feasible, discontinue road use and snow removal when sediment delivery, or threat thereof, is occurring. 9. Replace lost road surface materials with similar quality material and repair structures damaged in snow removal operations as soon as practicable and as funding allows. 10. Develop a snow removal plan for roads with winter-logging operations, or other access, either by force account or contract, to provide written guidelines on how to implement these techniques. 12. Modify snow removal procedures as necessary to meet water-quality concerns.

BMP 2.10 - Parking and Staging Areas Construct, install, and maintain an appropriate level of drainage and runoff treatment for parking and staging areas to protect water, aquatic, and riparian resources. Runoff from these areas can create rills or gullies, and carry sediment, nutrients, and other pollutants to nearby surface waters. The risk from parking and staging areas can be managed by using the appropriate techniques as needed. 1. Design and locate parking and staging areas of appropriate size and configuration to ccommodate expected vehicles and prevent damage to adjacent water; aquatic, and riparian resources. a. Avoid sensitive areas such as riparian areas, wetlands, meadows, bogs, fens, inner gorges, overly steep slopes, and unstable landforms to the extent practicable. b. For staging areas, designate specific locations for fueling so that water-quality impacts are minimized. 2. Infiltrate as much of the runoff as possible using permeable surfaces and infiltration ditches or basins in areas where groundwater contamination risk is low. 3. Limit the size and extent of temporary parking or staging areas. 4. Take advantage of existing openings, sites away from waterbodies, and areas that are apt to be more easily restored. 5. Rehabilitate temporary parking or staging areas immediately following use. 6. Effectively prevent access to the area once site restoration activities have been completed.

BMP 2.11 - Equipment Refueling and Servicing To prevent fuels, lubricants, cleaners, and other harmful materials from discharging into nearby surface waters or infiltrating through soils to contaminate groundwater resources, service and refueling areas shall be located outside of RCAs, unless otherwise agreed by a riparian specialist. In case of a hazmat spill, the material shall be immediately contained and the Forest Service shall be immediately notified.

Sale administrators, contracting officer’s representatives, engineering representatives, inspectors, permit administrators, and force account crew supervisors are responsible for enforcing requirements of equipment fueling and servicing activities. They can manage the risk from

227

fuel and chemical spills during equipment refueling or servicing by using the appropriate techniques adapted as needed to local site conditions. Prepare a certified SPCC Plan for each facility, including mobile and portable facilities that have oil or oil products storage exceeding 1,320 gallons, or a single container exceeding 660 gallons. Install or construct the containment features or countermeasures called for in the SPCC Plan to ensure that spilled oil does not reach groundwater or surface water. Ensure that each SPCC Plan includes a spill contingency plan at each facility that is unable to provide secondary spill containment. Ensure that clean-up of spills and leaking tanks complies with Federal, State and local regulations and requirements.

BMP 2.13 - Erosion Control Plan To control or prevent erosion and sedimentation resulting from ground-disturbing activities, a project specific erosion control plan will be developed prior to project implementation. A Wet Weather/Winter Operations agreement will be implemented to provide guidance with the end result of preventing significant adverse impacts to water quality from wet weather operations.

BMP 5.2 - Slope Limitations for Mechanical Equipment Operation Outside of RCA boundaries, tractors and other ground-based equipment will be allowed where slopes are generally less than 30 percent. Within RCA boundaries, ground-based equipment may be allowed if conditions in BMP 1.8 under “Equipment Restrictions” are met. These restrictions are needed to reduce gully and sheet erosion and associated sediment production within mechanical harvest and fuels reduction areas.

BMP 5.3 - Tractor Operation Limitation in Riparian Conservation Areas Fuels and vegetation management activities using high-ground-pressure equipment are restricted within RCAs. Guidelines for activities within RCAs are presented in BMP 1.8 which outlines equipment restrictions, vegetation management requirements, and prescribed fire requirements. Provisions in the contract would be implemented for RCA protection and for repair of damage due to unauthorized entry. If new streamcourses or special aquatic features are located during the planning process, the riparian specialist would be notified and would inspect locations to determine RCA widths and associated guidelines.

BMP 5.5 - Disposal of Organic Debris Guidelines for activities within RCAs are presented in BMP 1.8 which outlines equipment restrictions, vegetation management requirements, and prescribed fire requirements to prevent gully and surface erosion with associated reduction in sediment production and turbidity during and after fuels treatment. Units which include RCAs for perennial and intermittent streamcourses must meet effective soil cover goals stated in the standard and guidelines of the Forest Plan. Within sensitive areas, slash treatments would include hand pile and burn, lop and scatter, and hand pile and leave to create cover piles for small mammals. Fuels treatment within RCAs, including the use of heavy equipment, must meet effective soil cover goals in RCAs, or unit-wide (if applicable).

BMP 5.6 - Soil Moisture Limitations for Mechanical Equipment Operations

228

Equipment activities will be allowed only when soil moisture conditions are such that compaction, gullying, and/or rutting will be minimal. In general, low-ground-pressure equipment may operate when soils are dry to a depth of 4 inches. High-ground-pressure equipment may operate on designated skid trails when soils are dry to a minimum depth of 4 inches. High-ground-pressure equipment may operate off of designated skid trails when soils are dry to a minimum depth of 8 inches. Winter operations will be allowed as long as a Wet Weather/Winter Operations agreement is agreed to prior to operations. For unclear situations, or in the event of a difference of opinion between the Forest Service Representative and Contractor’s Representative, a hydrologist/soil scientist must be consulted.

BMP 6.1 - Fire and Fuels Management Activities Fuel management activities were developed with the objective of reducing the probability that wildfires will result in catastrophic watershed damage. Catastrophic watershed damage is defined as a watershed condition with a high probability of producing flooding, erosion that will exceed water quality standards established for identified beneficial uses, or loss of riparian vegetation that will increase stream temperatures. Most of these conditions can be avoided by reducing the intensity of wildfires and fires that are prescribed for slash treatment.

BMP 6.2 - Consideration of Water Quality in Formulating Fire Prescriptions Provide for water quality protection while achieving the management objectives through the use of prescribed fire. Prescription elements may include, but are not limited to, such factors as fire weather, slope, aspect, and fuel moisture. These elements influence the fire intensity and thus have a direct effect on meeting the desired ground- cover requirements. Guidelines for prescribed fire activities within RCAs are presented in BMP 1.8. Direct ignition will take place outside designated riparian buffers. Fire may back into the riparian buffers. Both the optimum and allowable limits for the burn to ensure water quality protection will be established prior to preparation of the burn plan. Effects of prescribed fire within the RCA will be assessed and mitigation measures, such as mulching or lop and scatter of existing vegetation, may be prescribed for the specific RCA.

BMP 6.3 - Protection of Water Quality from Prescribed Burning Effects To maintain soil productivity, minimize erosion, and prevent ash, sediment, and nutrients from entering water bodies: (1) construct waterbars in fire lines; (2) reduce fuel loading in drainage channels; (3) maintain the integrity of the RCA within limits of the burn plan; (4) burn within prescription to avoid intense fires, which may promote hydrophobicity, nutrient leaching, and erosion; and/or (5) retain or plan for sufficient ground cover to prevent erosion of the burned site.

BMP 7.1 - Watershed Restoration Objective: To repair degraded watershed conditions, and improve water quality and soil stability.

Watershed restoration measures reflect the state-of-the-art and must be chosen to custom fit the unique hydrological, physical, biological, and climatic characteristics of each watershed.

229

Examples of watershed-restoration measures are check dam installation, streambank and channel stabilization structures, soil scarification, and seeding and planting.

Implementation: This management practice is implemented through the development of a Watershed Improvement Needs (WIN) inventory, identification of projects, preparation and approval of restoration plans and related environmental documentation, and the funding and implementation of the restoration actions.

Planning will be through an interdisciplinary team effort. Multifunctional funding of projects will be pursued where improvement of watershed conditions will benefit multiple resource areas and/or where causal actions of deteriorated conditions can be identified.

The actual work will be done by force account or through contract. Effectiveness of the restoration measures used will be monitored by project proponents. Physical, hydrological, biological, or aquatic indicators of deteriorated conditions will be the focus of the monitoring effort.

BMP 7.4 - Forest and Hazardous Substance Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure Plan To prevent contamination of waters from accidental spills, a SPCC Plan must be prepared if the total oil products on site in above-ground storage exceed 1,320 gallons, or if a single container exceeds a capacity of 660 gallons. Other HazMat (pesticides, raw sewage, road oils) also have specific criteria that determine when a SPCC Plan must be prepared and implemented. Timber sale SPCC Plans must be approved by a licensed professional engineer.

BMP 7.7 - Management by Closure to Use (Seasonal, Temporary, and Permanent) Objective: To exclude activities that could result in damages to either resources or improvements, such as roads and trails, resulting in impaired water quality.

Explanation: A watershed may be in such a sensitive condition that any use during a given portion of the year, usually the rainy season, could result in soil and/or land stability problems and associated adverse effects to water quality. In other cases, water quality may already be impaired, and improvement may not be considered practical without substantially reducing or eliminating further use.

These conditions could have resulted from past land use or natural disasters. Closure to use will be used when the condition of the watershed must be protected to preclude adverse water- quality effects. (See also BMP 1.5 and BMP 2.9.)

BMP 7.8 - Cumulative Off-site Watershed Effects A cumulative watershed effects (CWE) analysis was done as part of the environmental analysis and the results are documented in the Environmental Consequences chapter of this EA.

230