Sierra Nevada Framework FEIS

table of contents Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment – Part 4.3

4.3. Endangered, Threatened, and Proposed Species4.3. Species 4.3.1 Mammals4.3.1 Mammals 4.3.1.1. SIERRA NEVADA BIGHORN SHEEP (Ovis canadensis californiana) Life History Breeding takes place in the fall, generally in November (Cowan and Geist 1971). Single births are the norm for North American wild sheep, but twinning is known to occur (Wehausen 1980) Gestation is about 6 months (Cowan and Geist 1971).

Lambing occurs between late April and early July, with most lambs born in May or June (Wehausen 1980, Wehausen 1996). Ewes with newborn lambs live solitarily for a short period before joining nursery groups that average about six sheep. Ewes and lambs frequently occupy steep terrain that provides a diversity of slopes and exposures for excape cover. Lambs are precocious, and within a day or so, climb almost as well as the ewes. Lambs are able to eat vegetation within 2 weeks of their birth and are weaned between 1 and 7 months of age. By their second spring, they are independent of their mothers. Female lambs stay with ewes indefinitely and may attain sexual maturity during the second year of life. Male lambs, depending upon physical condition, may also attain sexual maturity during the second year of life (Cowan and Geist 1971). Average lifespan is 9 to 11 years in both sexes, though some rams are known to have lived to 12 or 14 years old (Cowan and Geist 1971, Wehausen 1980).

Habitat relationships Current and historical habitat of the Sierra Nevada bighorn sheep is almost entirely on public land managed by the Forest Service (FS), Bureau of Land Management (BLM), and National Park Service (NPS). The Sieran Nevada mountain range is located along the eastern boundary of California. Peaks vary in elevation from 6,000 to 8,000 feet in the north to over 14,000 feet in the south adjacent to the Owens Valley, and then drop rapidly in elevation at the southern extreme end of the range (Wehausen 1980).

Sierra Nevada bighorn sheep inhabitat the alpine and subalpine zones during the summer, using open slopes where the land is rough, rocky, sparsely vegetated and characterized by steep slopes and canyons (Wehausen 1980, Sierra Nevada Advisory Group 1997). Most of these sheep live between 10,000 and 14,000 feet in elevation in summer months (John Wehausen pers comm. 1999). In winter, they occupy high, windswept ridges, or migrate to the lower elevation sagebrush-steppe habitat as low as 4,800 feet to escape deep winter snows and find more nutritiouis forage. Bighorn sheep exhibit a preference for south-facing slopes in the winter (Wehausen 1980). Lambing areas are on safe precipitous rocky slopes. They prefer open terrain where they are better able to see predators. For these reasons, forests and thick brush usually are avoided.

Bighorn sheep are primarily diurnal, and their daily activity show some predictable patterns that consist of feeding and resting periods (Jones 1950). Bighorn sheep are primarily grazers; however, they may browse woody vegetation when it is growing and very nutritious. They are opportunistic feeders selecting the most nutritiouis diet from what is available. Plants consumed include varying mixtures of grasses, browse (shoots, twigs, and leaves of trees and shrubs), and herbaceous plants, depending on season and locations (Wehausen 1980). In a study of the Mount Baxter and Mount Williamson subpopulations, Wehausen (1980) found that grass, mainly Stipa speciosa (perennial needlegrass) is the primary diet item in winter. As spring green-up progresses, the bighorn sheep

FEIS Volume 3, Chapter 3, part 4.3 – page 1 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment – Part 4.3

shift from grass to a more varied browse diet, which includes Ephedra viridis (Mormon tea), Eriogonum fasciculatum (California buckwheat), and Purshia species (bitterbrush).

Sierra Nevada bighorn sheep are gregarious, with group size and composition varying with gender and from season to season. Spatial segregation of males and females occurs outside the mating season, with males more than 2 years old living apart from females and younger males for most of the year (Jones 1950, Geist 1971, Wehausen 1980). Ewes generally remain in the same band into which they were born (Cowan and Geist 1971). During the winter, Sierra Nevada bighorn sheep concentrate in those areas suitable for wintering, preferrably Great Basin habitat (sagebrush-steppe) at the very base of the eastern escarpment. Subpopulation size can number more than 100 sheep, including rams (this was observed at a time when the population size was larger than it is currently) (J.Wehausen, pers. comm. 1999).

Diet. Bighorn sheep graze and browse on various plant species, but prefer green, succulent grasses and forbs (Zeiner and others 1990b). This species forages in open habitats, such as rocky barrens, meadows, and low, sparse brushlands (Zeiner and others 1990b).

Status The Mountain sheep (Ovis canadensis) is fairly uncommon in California and, until 1979, the California bighorn sheep (O. c. californiana), one of three subspecies found in California, only occurred in two herds totaling 195 animals in the southern Sierra Nevada (Mt. Baxter and Mt. Williamson) (Ziener and others 1990b, CDFG 1991). The Sierra Nevada distinct population segment was emergency listed as Federally Endangered effective April 20, 1999. A proposed rule to list the Sierra Nevada bighorn sheep as endangered was published concurrently with the emergency rule (FR/Vol. 64, No. 75, 19300-19308). The Final Rule was published in the Federal Register January 3, 2000 listing the California Bighorn Sheep as Endangered.

It has been reintroduced into Inyo County of the Inyo National Forest (NF), and into the South Warner Wilderness in Modoc County of Modoc National Forest. In spite of the reintroduction of almost 300 animals, only 80-150 remain on Inyo NF. The Inyo herd has declined steadily since the harsh winter of 1994. This is primarily due to increased stress in the herd and as a result, increased predation by mountain lions. The Modoc NF herd of 50 animals was lost in 1988 to pneumonia. The bighorn sheep is found in a variety of habitats associated with rocky, steep slopes and canyons (Zeiner and others 1990b). The California bighorn sheep currently occurs on only one national forest affected by the Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment Project, the Inyo National Forest (Timossi 1990, Forest Wildlife Biologists Pers. comm.).

Based on an older analysis of the taxonomy of the bighorn sheep using morphometrics and genetics the Sierra Nevada population was not found to be a distinct population (Ramey 1993, Ramey 1995, Wehausen and Ramey 1993, Wehausen and Ramey, in review). However, this and other research (Ramey 1993) was reconsidered and found to support the taxonomic distinction of the Sierra Nevada bighorn sheep relative to sheep of other nearby regions. The result was that the Sierra Nevada bighorn sheep was recognized as a distinct vertebrate population segment for purposes of listing. (61 FR 4722).

Historical and Current Distribution The historical range of the Sierra Nevada bighorn sheep includes the eastern slope of the Sierra Nevada, and, for at least one subpopulation, a portion of the westerns slope, from Sonora Pass in

FEIS Volume 3, Chapter 3, part 4.3 – page 2 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment – Part 4.3

Mono County south to Walker Pass in Kern County, a total distance of about 215 miles (Jones 1950, Wehauser 1979, Wehauser 1980). By the turn of the century, about 10 out of 20 sub-populations survived. The number dropped to five subpopulations at mid-century, and down to two subpopulations in the 1970s, near Mount Baxter and Mount Williamson, in Inyo County (Wehauser 1979). Currently, five subpopulations of Sierra Nevada bighorn sheep occur, respectively at Lee Vining Canyon, Wheeler Crest, Mount Baxter, Mouint Williamson, and Mount Langley in Mono and Inyo Counties.

The other major factor affecting the Sierra Nevada bighorn sheep is the juxtaposition of domestic sheep grazing allotments to bighorn sheep winter range and the resulting potential for disease transfer from chance encounters. Transfer of viruses, parasites, and bacteria from domestic sheep to bighorn sheep have devastated most of the free ranging bighorn herds within the State of California.

Viruses, parasites, and bacteria can join together to weaken or kill bighorn sheep. Bacteria, primarily Pasteurella spp., have led to massive all-age die-offs of bighorn sheep in every state in the western United States (Martin and others 1996). Of the numerous pathogens affecting bighorn sheep, Pasteurella haemolytica by far the most important respiratory pathogen leading to pneumonia and death (Foreyt 1993). Pasteurella multicida can also be important in the pneumonia complex.

In wild situations, domestic sheep and bighorn sheep associations almost always result in death of the bighorns but does not affect the domestics. The finding of a shared P. haemolytica by DNA fingerprinting between domestic sheep and bighorn sheep in a Nevada study indicates this bacteria was transmitted between the two species under field conditions (Hunter 1995). DNA fingerprint test during the winter of 1995 to 1996 in Hells Canyon during a huge bighorn die-off revealed that P.multocida was transmitted from a feral goat to two bighorn sheep (Rudolph and others 1998). This transmission resulted in the death of in excess of 260 bighorn sheep in an eight-week period.

When bighorn sheep experience a pneumonia episode, all-age mortality normally occurs. Lambs that are born from surviving ewes generally experience low survival rates for approximately 3 to 5 years after the initial pneumonia outbreak (Foryt 1990, Coggins and Matthews 1992, Ward and others 1992, Foreyt 1995, Hunter 1995). Published results indicate that lambs born in bighorn sheep herds that have experienced a pneumonia episode usually die before reaching three months of age. It is likely that ewes that survive pneumonia remain carriers of the pathogenic P. haemolytica for several years, and transfer the bacteria to their lambs through nasal secretions. Lambs are protected by passive colostrum immunity early in life, but when this immunity wanes at six to eight weeks of age, they are infected. This lamb mortality usually continues for 3 to 5 years, delaying population recovery time for many years.

Two domestic sheep allotments (Bloody Canyon and Alger Lakes) on the Inyo National Forest have been determined to be high risk areas for the transmission between domestic sheep and bighorn sheep due to the proximity and the lack of physical barriers to mitigate risks (FWS 2000). On or about April 2000, the Inyo National Forest cancelled the grazing permits for both the Bloody Canyon and Alger Lakes Allotments. Two additional domestic sheep grazing allotment permits have been modified (reference Inyo National Forest consultation letters dated May 31, 2000 file code 2670/2230 and May 23, 2000 file code 2670.2230) by the Inyo National Forest (Rock Creek Allotment and June Lake) to mitigate potential domestic sheep and bighorn sheep interactions.

FEIS Volume 3, Chapter 3, part 4.3 – page 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment – Part 4.3

Risk Factors Risk factors related to the Sierra Nevada bighorn sheep are those that contribute to the immediate loss of individuals (to include contact with domestic sheep) and loss of specific habitat features or localized reductions or gain in habitat quality. Increases in mountain lion population associated with increases in dense shrub understories have lead to increase in mortality in sheep.

Assumptions and Limitations This assessment assumes that Sierra Nevada bighorn sheep inhabitat the alpine and subalpine zones during the summer, using open slopes where the land is rough, rocky, sparsely vegetated and characterized by steep slopes and canyons (Wehausen 1980, Sierra Nevada Advisory Group 1997). Most of these sheep live between 10,000 and 14,000 feet in elevation in summer months (John Wehausen pers comm. 1999). In winter, they occupy high, windswept ridges, or migrate to the lower elevation sagebrush-steppe habitat as low as 4,800 feet to escape deep winter snows and find more nutritiouis forage.

Changes in conifer understory densities will reduce predation related mortality. Reduction in domestic livestock/bighorn sheep interaction will reduce disease related mortality in Sierra Nevada bighorn sheep.

The livestock grazing allotments immediately adjacent to know Sierra Nevada bighorn sheep winter range will continue to be deferred or will be eliminated altogether.

Effects of the Alternatives Managed natural fire, planned ignition resulting in light underburns, thinning and, or, combinations of these tools can lead to the improvement of both habitat or habitat components. These actions can reduce the accumulation of fuels, to include ladder fuels (shrubs and dense stands of small trees) standing dead and down woody material. Managed natural fire and planned ignition can also remove old decadent vegetation and stimulate vigorous, more nutritious bighorn sheep forage. Generally, treated stands tend to be younger denser stands, have a high amount of ladder fuels, have limited use by bighorn sheep, provide excellent hiding cover for mountain lions, have a higher rate of interspecific and, or, intraspecific mortality, and are prone to loss by stand replacing fires. Treating stands in this condition will benefit Sierra Nevada bighorn sheep in the long term by; 1) reducing the threat of catastrophic wildfire, 2) providing a more open stand condition thus, minimizing mountain lion hiding cover, and 3) stimulating vigorous, more nutrition forage.

Table 4.3.1.1a compares the alternatives, over the planning horizon, in terms of how they would manage the various activities or provide standards and guidelines that would maintain or enhance Sierra Nevada bighorn habitat or reduce risk factors such as mortality.

FEIS Volume 3, Chapter 3, part 4.3 – page 4 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment – Part 4.3

Table 4.3.1.1a. Comparison of management activities that could affect habitats for the Sierra Nevada bighorn sheep by alternative. Alternative Grazing Fire/Fuels ** 1 Current LRMP 86,225 acres treated 2 No Change within Sheep Habitat 34,929 acres treated 3 No Change within Sheep Habitat 141,479 acres treated 4 No Change within Sheep Habitat 159,545 acres treated 5 No Change within Sheep Habitat 60,527 acres treated 6 No Change within Sheep Habitat 150,592 acres treated 7 No Change within Sheep Habitat 145,260 acres treated 8 No Change within Sheep Habitat 98,614 acres treated Mod 8 No Change within Sheep Habitat 112,860 acres treated

*ST = Stubble height **Modeled treatment acres include brush (fire and mechanical), underburn, ecoburn, DFPZ, and thin for multi-products for the Inyo National Forest.

Environmental Outcomes Table 4.3.1.1b represents the assessment ratings for the Sierra Nevada bighorn sheep.

Table 4.3.1.1b. Average assessment ratings for the Sierra Nevada bighorn sheep.

Alternative Current 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Mod 8 Outcome D D D C D D C D C D

Outcome A. Suitable environments are broadly distributed and of high abundance across the range of the species. Outcome B. Suitable environments are either broadly distributed or of high abundance across the range of the species; however, there are temporary gaps where suitable environments are absent or only present in low abundance. Disjunct areas of suitable environments are typically large enough and close enough to permit dispersal and interaction among subpopulations across the species’ range. Outcome C. Suitable environments are frequently distributed as patches or they exist at low abundance, or both. Gaps, where suitable environments are either absent or present in low abundance, are large enough that some subpopulations are isolated, limiting opportunity for species interactions. In most of the species range, subpopulations have the opportunity to interact as a metapopulation; however, some subpopulations are so disjunct or of such low density that they are essentially isolated from other populations. Outcome D. Suitable environments are highly isolated or they exist at very low abundance, or both. While some subpopulations associated with these environments may be self-sustaining, there is limited or no opportunity for population interaction. There has likely been a reduction in overall species range from historical conditions, except for some rare, local endemics that may have persisted in this condition since the historical period. Outcome E. Suitable environments are highly isolated and exist at very low abundance. Populations have little or no interaction, resulting in strong potential for local or regional extirpation, and low likelihood of recolonization.

Cumulative Effects Population Outcomes Historic Conditions. The historical range of the Sierra Nevada bighorn sheep includes the eastern slope of the Sierra Nevada, and, for at least one subpopulation, a portion of the westerns slope, from Sonora Pass in Mono County south to Walker Pass in Kern County, a total distance of about 215 miles (Jones 1950, Wehauser 1979, Wehauser 1980).

Current Condition. Currently, five subpopulations of Sierra Nevada bighorn sheep occur, respectively at, Lee Vining Canyon, Wheeler Crest, Mount Baxter, Mount Williamson, and Mount Langley, in Mono and Inyo Counties.

Table 4.3.1.1c represents the estimated population outcomes through the planning horizon for the Sierra Nevada bighorn sheep.

FEIS Volume 3, Chapter 3, part 4.3 – page 5 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment – Part 4.3

Table 4.3.1.1c. The estimated population outcomes through the planning horizon for the Sierra Nevada bighorn sheep.

Alternative Current 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Mod 8 Outcome C C B C C B C C C B

FEIS Volume 3, Chapter 3, part 4.3 – page 6 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment – Part 4.3

4.3.2 Birds 4.3.2.1. BALD EAGLE (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) Life History Breeding generally occurs February to July (Zeiner and others 1990b), but breeding can be initiated as early as January via courtship, pair bonding, and territory establishment (USFS 1992a). The breeding season normally ends approximately August 31, as the fledglings are no longer attached to the immediate nest site (Zeiner and others 1990b). This time frame may vary with local conditions (Zeiner and others 1990b). One to three eggs are laid in a stick platform nest 50 to 200 feet above the ground and usually below the tree crown (Zeiner and others 1990b). Incubation may begin in late February to mid-March, with the nestling period extending to as late as the end of June. From June thru August, the fledglings remain restricted to the nest until they are able to move around within their environment. Bald eagles are susceptible to disturbance by human activity during the breeding season, especially during egg-laying and incubation, and such disturbances can lead to nest desertion or disruption of breeding attempts (USFWS 1986).

Habitat relationships Nesting territories are normally associated with lakes, reservoirs, rivers, or large streams and are usually within two miles from water bodies that support an adequate food supply (Lehman 1979, USFWS 1986). Some of the State's breeding birds winter near their nesting territories. Most nesting territories in California occur from 1,000 to 6,000 feet elevation, but nesting can occur from near sea level to over 7,000 feet (Jurek 1988).

In the Pacific Northwest, bald eagle nests are usually located in uneven-aged (multi-storied) stands with large, old trees (Anthony and others 1982). Most nests in California are located in ponderosa pine and mixed-conifer stands (Jurek 1988). Other site characteristics, such as relative tree height, tree diameter, species, position on the surrounding topography, distance from water, and distance from disturbance, also appear to influence nest site selection (Grubb 1976, Lehman and others 1980, Anthony and Isaacs 1981). Bald eagles often construct up to five nests within a territory and alternate between them from year to year (USFWS 1986). Nests are often reused and eagles will add new material to a nest each year (DeGraaf and others 1991).

Trees selected for nesting are characteristically one of the largest in the stand or at least co-dominant with the over story, and usually have stout upper branches and large openings in the canopy that permit nest access (USFWS 1986). Nest trees usually provide an unobstructed view of the associated water body and are often prominently located on the topography (USFWS 1986). A survey of nest trees used in California found that about 71 percent were ponderosa pine, 16 percent were sugar pine (Pinus lambertiana), and 5 percent were incense-cedar (Librocedrus decurrens), with the remaining 8 percent distributed among five other coniferous species (Lehman 1979).

Seventy percent of the nest trees surveyed were classified as highly or very highly susceptible to beetle infestation, probably a function of eagle's using mature and over mature trees (Lehman 1979). Ninety-three percent of the nest trees were 21 to 60 inches in diameter (mean diameter was 43.1 inches) and 92 percent were greater than 76 feet tall (mean height was 111.9 feet) (Lehman 1979). Seventy-three percent of the nest sites were within one-half mile of a body of water, 87 percent within one mile, and none were over two miles from water (Lehman 1979). Other trees, such as snags, trees with exposed lateral limbs, or trees with dead tops, are often also 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

FEIS Volume 3, Chapter 3, part 4.3 – page 7 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment – Part 4.3 from which territories can be guarded and defended. Nearby trees may also screen the nest from human disturbances or provide protection from wind damage (Jurek 1988).

Diet. Bald eagles are generalized and opportunistic, scavengers and predators (Detrich 1981, Jurek 1988). The most common prey items for bald eagle on the West Coast are fish, waterfowl, jackrabbits, and various types of carrion, such as fish, mammals, and water birds (USFWS 1986, Zeiner and others 1990a). Bald eagles feed gregariously on abundant prey, such as spawning fish, or individually (Zeiner and others 1990a). Diurnal perches are used during foraging; these usually have a good view of the surrounding area and are often the highest perch sites available (Stalmaster 1976, USFWS 1986). In general, foraging habitat consists of large bodies of water or free-flowing rivers with abundant fish and adjacent snags and other perches (Zeiner and others 1990a).

Winter Habitat: Wintering habitat is associated with open bodies of water, primarily in the Klamath Basin (Detrich 1981, Detrich 1982). Smaller concentrations of wintering birds are found at most of the larger lakes and man-made reservoirs in the mountainous interior of the north half of the state and at scattered reservoirs in central and southwestern California (Detrich 1981, Detrich 1982). Wintering habitat in the Sierra Nevada has primarily remained in stable condition over the past ten years (Forest Wildlife Biologist, pers. comm.)

Two habitat characteristics appear to play a significant role in habitat selection during the winter: diurnal feeding perches, as described above, and communal night roost areas. Communal roosts are usually near a rich food resource (USFWS 1986), although Keister and Anthony (1983) found that bald eagles used forest stands with older trees as far as 9.6 miles from the food source in the Klamath Basin. The areas used as communal roosts in the Klamath Basin were the forest stands with old (mean age of roost trees was 236 years), open-structured trees that were close to the feeding areas (Keister and Anthony 1983). In stands where ponderosa pine was dominant, the pine was used almost exclusively for roosting (Keister and Anthony 1983). In forest stands that are uneven-aged in the Pacific Northwest, communal roosts have at least a remnant of large, old trees (Anthony and others 1982).

Most communal winter roosts used by bald eagles offer considerably more protection from the weather than diurnal habitat (USFWS 1986). Human activity near wintering eagles can adversely affect eagle distribution and behavior (Stalmaster and Newman 1978).

Status The bald eagle was listed by the USFWS as a Federal endangered species in 1978, primarily due to population declines related to habitat loss, combined with environmental contamination of prey species by past use of organochlorine pesticides, such as DDT and dieldrin (USFWS 1986, USFWS 1995). Other current threats to the species in the Sierra Nevada include disturbance to nest sites by recreation activities, fluctuating fish populations and number of roosting trees as a result of reservoir level fluctuation, risk of wildfire, and fragmentation of habitat (Forest Wildlife Biologists, pers. comm.).

Critical habitat is not currently mapped or proposed for the bald eagle in the Sierra Nevada (USFWS 1986). A Recovery Plan was released in 1986 for the recovery and maintenance of bald eagle populations in the 7 state Pacific recovery region (Idaho, Nevada, California, Oregon, Washington, Montana, and Wyoming) (USFWS 1986). This Recovery Plan has been adopted by the Forest Service within the range of the bald eagle.

FEIS Volume 3, Chapter 3, part 4.3 – page 8 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment – Part 4.3

In the 17 years since it was listed throughout the lower 48 States, the bald eagle has clearly increased in number and expanded in range (USFWS 1995). The improvement is a direct result of the banning of DDT, and other persistent organochlorines, habitat protection, and from other recovery efforts (USFWS 1995). On August 11, 1995, the USFWS issued a Final Rule to reclassify the bald eagle from endangered to threatened in all of the lower 48 states. In the Pacific recovery region, which all of the Sierra Nevada national forests are a part of, reclassification goals as set forth in the Recovery Plan have been met (USFWS 1995). The bald eagle was proposed for delisting by the USFWS on July 4th, 1999 (FR Vol.64. No. 128. 36454).

Figure 4.3.2.1a. Bald Eagle Breeding Population Trend in California, 1977 to 1999.

Bald Eagle Breeding Population Trend in California. 1977 - 1999

160 140 120 100 80 # breeding territories 60 40

Occupied Territories 20 0

1977 1979 1981 1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 Year

Table 4.3.2.1a. Bald eagle breeding population data for California, 1990 to 1999. Year Known Territories Territories Number of Young Average Number Territories Surveyed Occupied Produced of Young Fledged per Territory* 1990 107 102 94 95 1.1 1991 111 105 90 82 1.0 1992 120 110 99 82 1.1 1993 127 116 102 103 1.1 1994 142 129 116 120 1.1 1995 146 129 105 89 0.9 1996 160 144 124 128 1.1 1997 171 160 142 140 1.1 1998 180 168 148 125 0.9 1999 188 180 151 138 1.0

* Calculated only for those occupied territories at which the outcome of breeding success was known.

In addition to a constant upward trend in population, productivity data for the past ten years, figure 4.3.2.1a shows that the recovery plan target fledgling rate has been met and relatively constant over this period.

FEIS Volume 3, Chapter 3, part 4.3 – page 9 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment – Part 4.3

Historical and Current Distribution The bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) is found throughout most of North America and breeds or winters throughout California, except in the desert areas (Zeiner and others 1990a, DeGraaf and others 1991). In California, most breeding occurs in Butte, Lake, Lassen, Modoc, Plumas, Shasta, Siskiyou, and Trinity Counties (Zeiner and others 1990a). California's breeding population of bald eagles is resident year-long in most areas, where the climate is relatively mild (Jurek 1988).

Between mid-October and December, migratory individuals from areas north and northeast of the State arrive in California (Jurek 1988). The wintering populations remain in the State through March or early April (Jurek 1988). The Bald Eagle occurs on all the Sierra Nevada national forests (Timossi 1990). Based upon annual wintering and breeding bird survey data, it is estimated that between 100 and 300 bald eagles winter on these forests, and at least 151 to 180 pairs remain year-round to breed. Populations are considered to have remained stable or increased over the past ten years (R. Jurek 2000). Table 4.3.2.1b exhibits the distribution and number of known territories by national forest within the project area.

Table 4.3.2.1b. Bald Eagle territories and distribution by national forest. National Forests MNF LNF PNF ENF TNF LTB STNF SINF SENF INF HTNF # Territories 21 22 15 1 4 2 1 2 0 0 1

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

Effects of the Alternatives

Table 4.3.2.1c compares the alternatives, over the planning horizon, in terms of how they would manage the various activities or provide standards and guidelines that would maintain or enhance bald eagle habitat or reduce risk factors such as mortality.

Table 4.3.2.1c. Comparison of management activities that could affect habitats for the bald eagle by alternative over the 50 year planning horizon. Alternative Projected Change in LOP* Fire/Fuels Acres Treated Ave. Large Trees yearly ac. 1 +45.9% Dec 1 thru Aug. 15 86,225 ac 2 +45.7% Dec 1 thru Aug. 15 34,929 ac 3 +49.4% Dec 1 thru Aug. 15 141,479 ac 4 +47.1% Dec 1 thru Aug. 15 159,545 ac 5 +46.9% Dec 1 thru Aug. 15 60,527 ac. 6 +49.1% Dec 1 thru Aug. 15 150,592 ac 7 +46.7% Dec 1 thru Aug. 15 145,260 ac. 8 +47.2% Dec 1 thru Aug. 15 98,614 ac. Mod 8 +46.6% Dec 1 thru Aug. 15 112,860 ac

FEIS Volume 3, Chapter 3, part 4.3 – page 10 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment – Part 4.3

Environmental Outcomes Historic. The bald eagle was found throughout most of North America and bred or wintered throughout California, except in the desert areas (Zeiner and others 1990a, DeGraaf and others 1991).

Current. The Bald Eagle occurs on all the Sierra Nevada national forests (Timossi 1990). Based upon annual wintering and breeding bird survey data, it is estimated that between 100 and 300 bald eagles winter on these forests, and at least 151 to 180 pairs remain year-round to breed. Bald eagles have continued to recolonize areas throughout the Sierra Nevada. Historically they inhabited major river systems, they now inhabit both river systems and man-made water impoundments.

Table 4.3.2.1d represents the assessment ratings for the bald eagle.

Table 4.3.2.1d. Average assessment ratings for the bald eagle.

Alternative Current 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Mod 8 Outcome B B B B B B B B B B

Cumulative Effects

Population Outcomes Historic Condition. The bald eagle is found throughout most of North America and breeds or winters throughout California, except in the desert areas (Zeiner and others 1990a, DeGraaf and others 1991). Populations through much of the bald eagles' range crashed for a variety of reasons through the 1940s, 1950, and 1960s.

Current Condition. Increases in the breeding population throughout the species historic range, except in the Great Lakes Region, have been recognized (Jurek 2000 pers comm). It has reached the identified recovery goals identified in the Pacific States Bald Eagle Recovery Plan (1986). Because of increases in range wide populations, the species was proposed for delisting by the Fish and Wildlife Service in 1999 (FR Vol.64. No. 128. 36454).

FEIS Volume 3, Chapter 3, part 4.3 – page 11 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment – Part 4.3

Table 4.3.2.1e represents the estimated population outcomes through the planning horizon for the bald eagle.

Table 4.3.2.1e. Estimated population outcomes through the planning horizon for the bald eagle.

Alternative Current 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Mod 8 Outcome C C C C C C C C C C

FEIS Volume 3, Chapter 3, part 4.3 – page 12 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment – Part 4.3

4.3.2.2. CALIFORNIA CONDOR (Gymnogyps californianus) Life History Historically, condors laid one egg on the bare ground in caves, crevices, behind rock slabs, or on large ledges or potholes on high sandstone cliffs in isolated, extremely steep, rugged areas (Zeiner and others 1990a, DeGraaf and others 1991). The nest site is often surrounded by dense brush (Zeiner and others 1990a). An evaluation of 72 California condor nest sites found that: 1) entrances were large enough for the adults to fit through; 2) they had a ceiling height of at least 14.8 inches at the egg position; 3) floors were fairly level with some loose surface substrate, 4) the nest space was unconstricted for incubating adults; and 5) there was a short distance accessibility to a landing point from the nest (Snyder and Hamber 1985). Many other parameters were assessed but not found significant. The factors influencing the choice of nest sites by condors is poorly understood. The appearance of many nest sites suggests that they have been in long use, perhaps for centuries, whereas other apparently suitable sites in undisturbed areas show no signs of condor use.

Two documented occurrences in the 1980s where at nests in giant sequoias (Sequoiadendron giganteum) near or within the Sequoia National Forest. Nesting habitat on the this national forest is limited as there are few conifer trees large enough to support an adequately sized nest cavity.

Courtship and nest site selection by breeding California condors occur from December through the spring months. Reproductively mature, paired California condors normally lay a single egg between late January and early April. The egg is incubated by both parents and hatches after approximately 56 days. Both parents share responsibilities for feeding and nestling. Feeding usually occurs daily for the first two months, then gradually diminishes in frequency. At two to three months of age condor chicks leave the actual nest cavity, but remain in the vicinity of the nest where they are fed by their parents. The chick takes its first flight at about six to seven months of age, but may not become fully independ of its parents until the following year. Parent birds occasionally continue to feed a fledgling evern after it has begun to make longer flights to foraging grounds.

Because of the long period of parental care, it was formerly assumed that California condor pairs normally nested successfully every year (Koford 1953). However, this pattern seems to vary, possibly depending mostly on the time of year that the nestling fledges. If nestlings fledge relatively early (in late summer of early fall), its parents may nest again in the following year, but late fledging probably inhibits nesting in the following year (Snyder and Hamber 1985).

Habitat relationships Condors often return to traditional sites for perching and resting. A typical roost site is characterized by rock cliffs or cavities in live trees or snags of large, old Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) and ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa) in undisturbed areas (Zeiner and others 1990a). Roost trees are often conifer snags 40 to 70 feet tall (DeGraaf and others 1991). A site is of particular value when located in conjunction with foraging and breeding areas (USFWS 1984a).

Informal consultation with USFWS (Robert Mesta, 4/10/90) revealed that portions of the Sequoia National Forest have high value as roosting and perching areas, and which are being utilized now and willing continue to be used as the wild population continues to grow. Potential roosting habitat highlighted by USFWS was characterized by its position on the upper two-thirds of the slope, ability to receive thermal updrafts, and the availability of large coniferous trees, snags, or cliffs.

FEIS Volume 3, Chapter 3, part 4.3 – page 13 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment – Part 4.3

Diet and Foraging Habitat The condor is a strict scavenger and prey includes cattle, sheep, deer, and ground squirrel carrion (Zeiner and others 1990a). This species searches for food while soaring or gliding and often forages over areas at least 2.8 to 11.6 square miles (Zeiner and others 1990a). Food must be located in open areas, such as grasslands, to allow adequate space for condors to land and take-off (Zeiner and others 1990a). Foraging usually occurs in open grassland and oak-savannah habitats, primarily in the foothills surrounding the southern San Joaquin Valley (USFWS 1984a). Water is required for drinking and bathing (Zeiner and others 1990a).

The San Joaquin Valley foraging region is located in eastern Kern, Tulare, and Ventura Counties. An important foraging area in Kern County was the foothill rangelands around Glennville. There, California condors roosted primarily on National Forest System land in the Greenhorn Mountains and foraged daily in the Cedar Creek and upper Pozo Creek drainages as far west as Blue Mountain and the Old Granite Station crossroads south of Woody, California. In Tulare County, California condors foraged extensively through the oak savannah and grassland hill country north from the Kern County border and east of the national forest boundary, including the Tule River Indian Reservation (USFWS 1984). As in northern Kern County, important sites were to the east on higher slopes in Sequoia National Forest and on higher peaks within the foraging zone, including Blue Ridge. California condors recently foraged as far north as Lake Kaweah, with White River, Deer Creek, Lake Success, and Yokohl Valley areas being of special importance (USFWS 1984).

Status The California condor was listed by the USFWS as a Federal endangered species in 1967. Specific causes contributing to the decline of the condor over the last several decades have included incidental shootings, lead poisoning, egg collecting, collisions with power lines or other obstacles, and various forms of poisoning (DDT, cyanide, strychnine, compound 1080, antifreeze from car radiators) (USFWS 1984a). A Recovery Plan was developed for the condor in 1984 (USFWS 1984a). Both Critical and Essential habitats have been designated for the California condor and both occur on the Sequoia National Forest (USFWS 1984a).

In 1987, all known wild condors were taken into captivity to facilitate breeding. In 1992, the first 2 re-introductions occurred on the Los Padres National Forest in southern California. A total of 33 condors have been released into the wild; 4 have died from electrocution after landing on large powering towers and 1 has died from ingesting antifreeze (Freel pers. comm.). Some condors have been relocated back to zoos due to behavior problems. As of July 1, 2000, the total California condor population is 171 birds of varying ages. There are 116 in the captive population, 7 classified as recaptures or rereleases pending and, 48 in the wild (including 17 in Arizona, 14 in central California and 17 in southern California) (http://www.lazoo.org/cstats.htm).

The last condor nest site known in the wild was on Sequoia National Forest. Since the capture of the last known wild condors, reintroduced adults and young frequent the valley, foothills and NFS lands. The Sequoia National Forest consults with USFWS on each project in condor habitat (Anderson pers. comm). In addition, the forest has identified approximately 1,000 acres in the Starvation Grove Condor Nest Management Plan and Condor Management Areas encompassing essential habitat identified in the Recovery Plan (Anderson pers. comm). The nest grove is excluded from timber management and condor roost areas have snag retention requirements (Anderson pers. comm).

FEIS Volume 3, Chapter 3, part 4.3 – page 14 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment – Part 4.3

As the recovery program proceeds, the Sequoia National Forest will be responsive to re-defined management needs of the condor. Condors are frequenting the rangelands to the west of the Sequoia National Forest and roost at night on the forest (Greg Houston, Condor Recovery Unit, pers. comm)

Historical and Current Distribution Historically, the California condor (Gymnogyps californianus) occurred in the coastal ranges of California from Santa Clara and San Mateo Counties south to Ventura County and east to the western slope of the Sierra Nevada and Tehachapi Mountains (DeGraaf and others 1991). It occurred primarily from sea level to 9,000 feet elevation and nested from 2,000 to 6,500 feet (Zeiner and others 1990a). The historic distribution of the California condor in the Sierra Nevada included the Sequoia National Forest. In 1984, the last documented pair of condors reproducing in the wild occurred on the Hot Springs Ranger District of Sequoia National Forest. Habitat around the nest was given a special management designation at that time. Historic foraging areas in close proximity to Sequoia National Forest include the oak-savannah and grassland hill country. This belt extends from the Kern County border north to Blue Ridge in Tulare County (USFWS 1984a).

Although the condors in the wild have currently made only short exploratory flights from their release site on the Los Padres National Forest, it is possible that the newly released condors will continue to make longer and longer forays as they become familiar with their new environment. In the long term, there is the possibility for rediscovery of the historic sites on the Sequoia National Forest. The California condor potentially occurs on only one Sierra Nevada forest, the Sequoia National Forest (Timossi 1990). Much of the potential habitat is within the newly created Giant Sequoia National Monument.

Risk Factors Potential risk factor for the California condor from resource management activities includes modification or loss of habitat or habitat components (primarily large trees) and behavioral disturbance to nesting condors from vegetation treatment, facilities maintenance (to include roads), recreation, or other associated activities within occupied habitat, which could prevent or inhibit nesting or lead to nest failure.

Effects of the Alternatives

Table 4.3.2.2a compares the alternatives, over the planning horizon, in terms of how they would manage the various activities or provide standards and guidelines that would maintain or enhance California condor habitat or reduce risk factors such as mortality.

FEIS Volume 3, Chapter 3, part 4.3 – page 15 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment – Part 4.3

Table 4.3.2.2a. Comparison of management activities that could affect habitats for the California condor by alternative over the 50 year planning horizon. Alternative Projected Change in LOP* Projected Change in Fire/Fuels Acres Large Trees General Recreation Treated Ave. yearly >50”dbh ac. January through 1 +45.9% No change 86,225 ac. September January through 2 +46.7% No change 34,929 ac September January through 3 +49.4% No change 141,479 ac September January through 4 +47.1% No change 159,545 ac September January through 5 +46.9% No change 60,527 ac. September January through 6 +49.1% No change 150,592 ac September January through 7 +46.7% No change 145,260 ac. September January through 8 +47.2% No change 98,614 ac. September January through Mod 8 +46.6% No change 112,860 ac September

The increase in large tree densities should provide for future opportunities for nesting and, or, roosting habitat. Fire and fuel treatments should help in the long-term protection and maintenance of large trees, more specifically Giant Sequoia groves. Projected increase in recreational use could offset increases in habitat potential unless this species is closely monitored to determine nesting or general habitat use on National Forest System lands.

Environmental Outcomes Historic. Historically, the California condor (Gymnogyps californianus) occurred in the coastal ranges of California from Santa Clara and San Mateo Counties south to Ventura County and east to the western slope of the Sierra Nevada and Tehachapi Mountains (DeGraaf and others 1991). It occurred primarily from sea level to 9,000 feet elevation and nested from 2,000 to 6,500 feet (Zeiner and others 1990a).

Current. The current distribution of the California condor in the Sierra Nevada is the southwestern portion the Sequoia National Forest. Much of this area is within the Giant Sequoia National Monument.

Table 4.3.2.2b represents the assessment ratings for the California condor.

FEIS Volume 3, Chapter 3, part 4.3 – page 16 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment – Part 4.3

Table 4.3.2.2b. Average assessment ratings for the California condor.

Alternative Current 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Mod 8 Outcome E E E E E E E E E E

Cumulative Effects Population Outcomes Historic Conditions. By the time of the arrival of European man in western North America, California condors occurred only in a narrow Pacific coastal strip from British Columbia, Canada to Baja California Norte, Mexico (Koford 1953 in USFWS 1984a, Wilbur 1978 in USFWS 1984a). California condors were observed until the mid-1800s in the northern portion of the Pacific Coast region (Columbia River Gorge) and until the early 1930s in the southern extreme (northern Baja California). Prior to 1987, California condors used a wishbone-shaped area encompassing six counties just north of Los Angeles, California.

Current Condition. The current distribution of the California condor in the Sierra Nevada is the southwestern portion the Sequoia National Forest.

Table 4.3.2.2c represents the estimated population outcomes through the planning horizon for the California Condor.

Table 4.3.2.2c. Estimated population outcomes through the planning horizon for the California Condor.

Alternative Current 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Mod 8 Outcome E E E E E E E E E E Outcome A. Suitable environments are broadly distributed and of high abundance across the range of the species. Outcome B. Suitable environments are either broadly distributed or of high abundance across the range of the species; however, there are temporary gaps where suitable environments are absent or only present in low abundance. Disjunct areas of suitable environments are typically large enough and close enough to permit dispersal and interaction among subpopulations across the species’ range. Outcome C. Suitable environments are frequently distributed as patches or they exist at low abundance, or both. Gaps, where suitable environments are either absent or present in low abundance, are large enough that some subpopulations are isolated, limiting opportunity for species interactions. In most of the species range, subpopulations have the opportunity to interact as a metapopulation; however, some subpopulations are so disjunct or of such low density that they are essentially isolated from other populations. Outcome D. Suitable environments are highly isolated or they exist at very low abundance, or both. While some subpopulations associated with these environments may be self-sustaining, there is limited or no opportunity for population interaction. There has likely been a reduction in overall species range from historical conditions, except for some rare, local endemics that may have persisted in this condition since the historical period. Outcome E. Suitable environments are highly isolated and exist at very low abundance. Populations have little or no interaction, resulting in strong potential for local or regional extirpation, and low likelihood of recolonization.

FEIS Volume 3, Chapter 3, part 4.3 – page 17 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment – Part 4.3

4.3.2.3. SOUTHWESTERN WILLOW FLYCATCHER (Empidonax traillii extimus) Life History The southwestern willow flycatcher is a neotropical migrant that nests in riparian forests, generally over or near water. Surveys for the southwestern willow flycatcher have been conducted in the Kern River Valley since 1989 by Mary Whitfield and associate researchers from the Kern River Research Center. Within the project area, the majority of the nesting records for this species have been found within the SFWA and the adjacent (to the east) Kern River Preserve, which is owned and managed by the Nature Conservancy. Since 1989, the total number of southwestern willow flycatchers documented for the South Fork of the Kern population has ranged between 27-44 pairs. Of this number, between 5-10 pairs have been recorded breeding on Forest Service lands (SFWA) each year (Whitfield; Pers. Comm.).

The species typically arrives in the South Fork of the Kern River Valley in May of each year. The breeding season for the flycatcher runs between May and late August, until the birds leave their summer grounds for southern destinations in early September.

The Kern River Valley population of the southwestern willow flycatcher nests and forages in the riparian forest habitat along the South Fork of the Kern River, where dense growths of willows and cottonwoods are the dominant species. The southwestern willow flycatcher nests in thickets of trees and shrubs approximately 4-7 meters (m) (13-23 feet) tall, with a high percentage of canopy cover and dense foliage from 0-3 m (13 feet) above ground. On the South Fork of the Kern, the willow flycatcher has been documented nesting as high as 16m in trees up to 20-24m high (Whitfield and Enos 1998). The nest site plant community is typically even-aged, structurally homeogeneous, and dense (Brown 1988, Whitfield 1990, Sedgewick and Knopf 1992). Nesting sites are usually near or over standing water (Sogge et al. 1992). Water is not necessarily present at the latter stages of the breeding cycle, but it is always available during early stages of breeding and pair formation. At some nest sites surface water may be present early in the breeding season, but only damp soil may be present by late June or early July (Federal Register 7/23/95).

An open-cup nest is usually placed in a vertical fork of a willow or other riparian deciduous shrub at about 3.7 to 8.3 ft. above the ground and built around supporting twigs (Flett and Sanders 1987, Valentine et al., Harris 1991). The nearest population of southwestern willow flycatchers to the allotments being assessed has been documented as utilizing the stinging nettle understory of the willow thickets as primary nest habitat (Whitfield; Pers. Comm). Where this habitat component does not occur within the allotments, the probability of nesting is suspected to be low to none (Whitfield, Pers. Comm).

Brood parasitism by the brown-headed cowbird (Molothrus ater) has been documented as greatly affecting the nesting success of the willow flycatcher. Cowbird parasitism results in reduction or elimination of reproduction. Brood parasitism of the willow flycatcher by brown-headed cowbirds is well documented (Rowley 1930, King 1954, Holcomb 1972, Garret and Dunn 1981, Harris et al., Brown 1988 and 1991, Sedgewick and Knopf 1988, Whitfield 1990, Harris 1991). The introduction of modern human settlements, livestock grazing, and other agricultural developments, resulted in habitat fragmentation, which facilitates cowbird parasitism. Simultaneously, livestock grazing, and other agricultural developments served as vectors for cowbirds, providing feeding areas in or near host species' nesting habitats (Hanna 1928, Mayfield 1977).

FEIS Volume 3, Chapter 3, part 4.3 – page 18 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment – Part 4.3

On Forest Service lands the only suitable breeding habitat that occurs is within the South Fork Wildlife Area. However, there are areas where potential suitable habitat exists, including areas west of Patterson Lane, the Tillie Creek area, the North Fork of the Kern area, and the Hanning Flat area. There are no records of willow flycatchers nesting in any of these areas. They are considered to be potentially suitable in terms of breeding habitat (Whitfield and Laymon, pers. comm). In 1992, a pair of willow flycatchers was documented displaying nesting behavior in the areas west of Patterson Lane. Also in 1992, a singing male was recorded.

Habitat Relationships Valley grassland is the dominant vegetation type found most commonly within the area of concern (NFS lands around Lake Isabella). Plants frequently found in this community include wild oats (Avena fatua), Bermuda grass (Cynodon dactylon), rabbits-foot grass (Polypogon monspeliensis), mustard (Brassica sp.), clover (Trifolium sp.), and brome (Bromus sp.). Cocklebur (Xanthium sp.) is also a common species found is this area. There are scattered thickets of willows that occur throughout suitable habitat. The understory vegetation that occurs within these willow patches is typically not dense.

The Lake Isabella allotment is on the southeast side of Lake Isabella, adjacent to the South Fork Wildlife Area (SFWA), a 1,200 acre fenced riparian forest. The allotment is approximately 2,650 acres in size, depending upon the lake level. During drought years, when water storage at the lake is low, most of the area is available for grazing. When the lake is at capacity, the entire allotment is flooded. However, during the time of the year when most of the grazing occurs, the lake is drawn down to accommodate storage for the spring run-off. The exception is during the period between June 1-June 30 when water storage is generally at its peak.

During the seven-year drought ending in 1994 the lake level was generally below 2,560' elevation year long. The lower lake level allowed some willow/riparian habitat to become established at the lower levels of the allotment within the estuary area of the South Fork Kern River and below the South Fork Wildilfe Area at 2,585'. In a normal year, the water line is above the willow habitat during the late spring, summer period. The past five years (1995-2000) of above average water storage has eliminated most willows and understory. Based upon the current Sierra snow pack levels, the predicted lake level for 2000 is 330,000 acre/feet or approximately 2,585'. This translates to 80- 85% of the Lake Isabella allotment being flooded.

During periods of low water, the area is exposed and is colonized by non-native annual grasses and forbs. The repeated cycle of inundations and exposure of the lake bottom precludes formation of any significant perennial plant cover except for Bermuda grass. Prominent annual species found on the exposed reservoir lands include red-stem filaree (Erodium cicutarium), red brome grass (Bromus rubens), and curly dock (Rumex crispus). Height and density of understory vegetation varies considerable from year to year depending on season variation in moisture, temperature and amount of inundation from rising reservoir levels.

There are indications that extended periods of inundation adversely affects suitable and potentially suitable habitat when Lake levels are above 240,000 acre feet. This is particularly true for habitat west of Patterson Lane, in the South Fork arm of Lake Isabella (Lake Isabella allotment). The past years of drought have allowed potentially suitable habitat to become established, but recent inundation by rising Lake levels has removed this habitat. Because the length of time of inundation of these willows varies, it is not pratical to consider their habitat value as stable. However, on a low

FEIS Volume 3, Chapter 3, part 4.3 – page 19 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment – Part 4.3 water year the willows on both allotments could potentially support one or more pair of willow flycatchers.

The primary areas of suitable habitat with nesting pairs of flycatchers are located on land managed by the Kern River Preserve and within the South Fork Wildlife Area, managed by the Forest Service. California Department of Fish and Game manages the Canebrake Ecological Area, which is also on the South Fork of the Kern. There is a restoration project currently being conducted in this area which will provide future SW willow flycatcher habitat.

Diet and Foraging Habitat: The willow flycatcher will use scattered trees for singing and foraging perches and females will use the foliage of trees as gleaning substrate during the nesting period (KRCD 1985, Harris et al. 1987, Sanders and Flett 1989). On the South Fork of the Kern, willow flycatchers have been documented as occasionally utilizing shrub trees as nest sites (M. Whitfield, Pers. Comm.).

Flycatchers forage by either aerially gleaning insects from trees, shrubs and herbaceous vegetation or by hawking larger flying insects by waiting on exposed perches and capturing insects in flight (Etinger and King 1980, Sanders and Flett 1989). Hymenopterans and dipterans make up a majority of the diet; berries and seeds are occasionally consumed (Bent 1938).

Willow flycatchers forage by either aerially gleaning insects from trees, shrubs, and herbaceous vegetation or hawking larger insects by waiting on exposed forage perches and capturing insects in flight (Ettinger and King 1980, Sanders and Flett 1989). Hymenopterans and Dipterans make up a majority of the diet; berries and seeds are occasionally consumed (Bent 1942). Hawking appears to be more common than gleaning in mountain meadows and the opposite appears to be the case in lowland riparian areas (Sanders and Flett 1989, Harris Pers. Comm.).

Salley distances were usually less than 3.3 feet, but occasionally were as far as 33 feet, from exposed perches (Sanders and Flett 1989). Non-shrub trees do not appear to be a required habitat component, but this species will use scattered trees for singing and foraging perches and females will use the foliage of trees as gleaning substrate during the nestling period (KRCD 1985, Harris et al. 1987, Sanders and Flett 1989).

Many of the insects upon which WIFLs feed have aquatic larvae stages. Perturbations in their populations can have severe impacts to WIFL. The following discussion of factors that affect biotic integrity and aquatic macro invertebrates in stream systems is based upon Karr et al. (1986). There are five major classes of factors that affect aquatic biota.

• Energy Sources: Type, amount and size of organic material from the riparian zone and its seasonal pattern of availability. • Water Quality: Temperature, turbidity, dissolved oxygen, nutrients, pH, chemical composition, and toxins present. • Habitat Quality: Substrate type, water depth, velocity, habitat diversity and breeding/rearing/hiding places. • Flow Regime: Water volume and temporal distribution of floods and low flows. • Biotic Interactions: Competition, predation, disease, and parasitism.

FEIS Volume 3, Chapter 3, part 4.3 – page 20 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment – Part 4.3

Changing the physical or biological processes associated with these factors may have a major impact on the aquatic fauna. Human activities alter the temporal and spatial landscape pattern of watersheds (topography, soils, vegetation, land uses, etc.) and thus can affect the stream biota (Ibid). This results in shifts of community composition and abundance of the various species upon which WIFLs depend for food.

Historical and Current Distribution The breeding range of the southwestern willow flycatcher includes southern California, southern Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico, and western Texas (Hubbard 1987, Unitt 1987, Browning 1993). The species may also breed in southwestern Colorado, but nesting records are lacking. Records of breeding in Mexico are few and confined to extreme northern Baja California and Sonora (Unitt 1987, Howell and Webb 1995). Willow flycatchers winter in Mexico, Central America, and northern South America (Phillips 1948, Ridgely 1981, AOU 1983, Stiles and Skutch 1989, Ridgely and Tudor 1994, Howell and Webb 1995).

All three resident subspecies of the willow flycatcher (E. t. extimus, E. t. brewsteri, and E. t. adastus) were once considered widely distributed and common within California wherever suitable habitat existed (e.g., Grinnell and Miller 1944). The historic range of E. t. extimus in California appar-ently included all lowland riparian areas of the southern third of the state. Nest and egg collections indicate the bird was a common breeder along the lower Colorado River near Yuma in 1902 (T. Huels, University of Arizona, in litt.). Willett (1933) considered the bird to be a common breeder in coastal southern California. Most recently, Unitt (1987) concluded that the southwestern willow flycatcher was once fairly common in the Los Angeles basin, the San Bernardino/ Riverside area, and San Diego County.

Status The southwestern willow flycatcher is a recognized subspecies of the willow flycatcher (Empidonax traillii). Although previously considered conspecific with the alder flycatcher (Empidonax alnorum), the willow flycatcher is distinguishable from that species by morphology (Aldrich 1951), song type, habitat use, structure and placement of nests (Aldrich 1953), eggs (Walkinshaw 1966), ecological separation (Barlow and MacGillivray 1983), and genetic distinctness (Seutin and Simon 1988).

In turn, the southwestern willow flycatcher is one of five subspecies of the willow flycatcher currently recognized (Hubbard 1987, Unitt 1987, Browning 1993). The willow flycatcher subspecies are distinguished primarily by differences in color and morphology. Although the subspecific differences in color have been termed “minor” (Unitt 1987), P.E. Lehman (recognized expert field biologist, pers. comm.) has indicated that the southwestern willow flycatcher in California is distinguishable in the field from other forms of willow flycatchers that might be present (in migration) within the breeding range of the former. Unitt (1987) and Browning (1993) concluded that the southwestern willow flycatcher is paler than other willow flycatcher subspecies. Preliminary data also suggest that the song dialect of the southwestern willow flycatcher is distinguishable from other willow flycatchers.

The southwestern willow flycatcher was proposed for listing on July 23, 1993, and was officially listed as endangered by USFWS on February 27, 1995 in the Federal Register (Vol. 60, No. 38). Critical habitat was proposed at the time of the listing, but was not designated at that time. On July 22, 19997, the final rule was issued regarding the designation of “critical habitat” for the

FEIS Volume 3, Chapter 3, part 4.3 – page 21 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment – Part 4.3 southwestern willow flycatcher in the Lake Isabella and South Fork of the Kern River areas (Fed. Reg. Vol. 62, No. 140).

Consultation between the Sequoia NF and FWS Sacramento Field Office have been continuous since the species listing. On September 14, 1993, the Forest Service requested conferencing for the 1993- 94 grazing season for the Lake Isabella allotment. A determination of "no effect" was made for the 1993 grazing season with informal concurrence from the USFWS. Request for conference was made by the Forest Service on April 28, 1994, in order to extend the originally allowed grazing dates and livestock numbers. The USFWS concurred with this determination by letter on May 5, 1994.

A request for consultation for 1994-95 grazing season was made by the Forest Service on September 6, 1994 and was approved by USFWS on September 15, 1994. On October 25, 1995, USFWS biologist Ina Pisani, visited the Lake Isabella allotment. Grazing on this allotment during the winter months (mid-Sept through April) was discussed and USFWS verbally concurred with a "no effect" determination for winter grazing on the allotment. However, Ms. Pisani recommended the Forest Service request consultation for any grazing proposals during the summer months (May 1-September 15.)

On July 22, 1997, critical habitat was designated for the southwestern willow flycatcher in the South Fork Valley and certain areas around Lake Isabella. A Final Biological Assessment was submitted to USFWS on September 12, 1997 proposing winter season grazing (9/16-2/28) on the Lake Isabella and Hanning Flat allotments. Consultation was again requested for the 1999 grazing season and a subsequent letter of concurrence issue by the USFWS (1-1-99-I-1364). In addition, recreational management on Lake Isabella was consulted on in 1997. This Biological Assessment was met with concurrence from the USFWS (1-1-97-I-1498). The recreation management Biological Assessment was amended in March 1999 and the Sequoia National Forest requested concurrence regarding the amendment.

Table 4.3.2.3a illustrates the 1999 breeding status for the Southwestern willow flycatcher within California and the project area.

FEIS Volume 3, Chapter 3, part 4.3 – page 22 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment – Part 4.3

Table 4.3.2.3a. Southwestern willow flycatcher status and distribution in California, 1999. Location/County Confirmed Confirmed Fledged Observer/ Territories Pairs Young Contact Kern River/Kern1 24 23 26 M. Whitfield Owens Valley/Inyo1 12 M. Whitfield Santa Ynez River/Santa Barbara 10 M. Holmgren Santa Clara River/Ventura 1 1 J. Greaves Upper Piru Creek/Ventura 1 Z. Labinger Day Canyon/San Berdo 1 1 San Berdo County Museum Mojave Forks/San Berdo 1 1 San Berdo County Museum Waterman Creek/San Berdo 1 San Berdo County Museum San Timoteo Creek/San Berdo 1 San Berdo County Museum Mountain Home Village/SanBerdo 3 3 San Berdo County Museum Jenks Meadow/San Berdo 1 1 San Berdo County Museum Sand Creek/San Berdo 1 1 San Berdo County Museum Rattlesnake Creek/San Berdo 1 1 San Berdo County Museum Cienaga Seca/San Berdo 1 San Berdo County Museum Little Bear Springs/San Berdo 1 1 San Berdo County Museum Headgate Rock/San Berdo* 1 1 San Berdo County Museum Mojave River/San Berdo 6 5 M. Crook Santa Ana River/San Berdo (lowlands) 2 2 M. Crook Prado Basin/San Berdo-Riverside 5 3 5 J. Pike/L. Hays Big Hole Slough/Riverside* 1 1 San Berdo County Museum Black Star Canyon/Orange 1 William Haas Laguna Lakes/Orange 1 Richard Erickson Santa Margarita River/San Diego 18 17 34 Jane Griffith Pilgrim Creek/San Diego 1 P. Beck Upper San Luis Rey River/San Diego 46 41 50 William Haas Lower San Luis Rey/San Diego 2 2 P. Beck San Dieguito/San Diego 2 2 P. Beck Sweetwater River/San Diego 1 1 P. Famalaro San Felipe Creek/San Diego 4 4 R. Fox Gila Confluence North/Imperial* 1 1 San Berdo County Museum TOTALS 152 113 115

1 Areas within the Sierra Nevada Framework Project area. * 58 additional pairs detected along lower Colorado River in Nevada or Arizona in 1999 per Robert McKernan, San Bernardino County Museum, in litt., April 12, 2000.

Risk Factors Historically, willow flycatchers nested wherever mesic willow thickets occurred in California (Grinnell and Miller 1944). In the last four decades, however, they have been eliminated from most lower elevation habitats in the state. The principal cause of decline is believed to be the alteration and destruction of riparian habitats (Gaines 1977, Remson 1978, Garrett and Dunn 1981, Serena 1982, Stafford and Valentine 1985, Taylor and Littlefield 1986, Flett and Sanders 1987, Valentine et al. 1988). Related and additional factors which may have contibuted to the decline are: nest parasitism by brown-headed cowbird, grazing, disturbances, loss of riparian habitat due to reservoir and hydroelectric development, historical prescribed fires in riparian habitats, and disturbances on wintering grounds (Serena 1982).

FEIS Volume 3, Chapter 3, part 4.3 – page 23 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment – Part 4.3

Effects of Alternatives Table 4.3.2.3b compares the alternatives, over the planning horizon, in terms of how they would manage the various activities or provide standards and guidelines that would maintain or enhance Southwestern Willow flycatcher habitat or reduce risk factors such as mortality.

Table 4.3.2.3b. Comparison of management activities that could affect habitats for the Southwestern Willow flycatcher by alternative over the 50 year planning horizon. Alternative Recreational Disturbance Annual Water Level LOP* Livestock Grazing** within SFWA* Fluct. Lake Isabella 9/15-4/30, varies during No Motorize Vehicles or Reg. By Army Corp of May 15 1 summer yearly, cowbird camping, 5mph water craft limit Engineers thru July 15 control, yearly monitoring 9/15-4/30, varies during No Motorize Vehicles or Reg. By Army Corp of May 15 2 summer yearly, wbird camping, 5mph water craft limit Engineers thru July 15 control, yearly monitoring 9/15-4/30, varies during No Motorize Vehicles or Reg. By Army Corp May 15 3 summer yearly, cowbird camping, 5mph water craft limit of Engineers thru July 15 control, yearly monitoring 9/15-4/30, varies during No Motorize Vehicles or Reg. By Army Corp May 15 4 summer yearly, cowbird camping, 5mph water craft limit of Engineers thru July 15 control, yearly monitoring 9/15-4/30, varies during No Motorize Vehicles or Reg. By Army Corp May 15 5 summer yearly, cowbird camping, 5mph water craft limit of Engineers thru July 15 control, yearly monitoring 9/15-4/30, varies during No Motorize Vehicles or Reg. By Army Corp of May 15 6 summer yearly, cowbird camping, 5mph water craft limit Engineers thru July 15 control, yearly monitoring 9/15-4/30, varies during No Motorize Vehicles or Reg. By Army Corp of May 15 7 summer yearly, cowbird camping, 5mph water craft limit Engineers thru July 15 control, yearly monitoring 9/15-4/30, varies during No Motorize Vehicles or Reg. By Army Corp of May 15 8 summer yearly, cowbird camping, 5mph water craft limit Engineers thru July 15 control, yearly monitoring 9/15-4/30, varies during No Motorize Vehicles or Reg. By Army Corp of May 15 Modified 8 summer yearly, cowbird camping, 5mph water craft limit Engineers thru July 15 control, yearly monitoring

*Limitations agreed to via prior ESA Section 7 consultation within the South Fork Wildlife Area (SWFA). **Annual consultation for summer grazing pending lake levels

Environmental Outcomes Historic - The historic range of E. t. extimus in California apparently included all lowland riparian areas of the southern third of the state. Nest and egg collections indicate the bird was a common breeder along the lower Colorado River near Yuma in 1902 (T. Huels, University of Arizona, in litt.). Willett (1933) considered the bird to be a common breeder in coastal southern California. Most recently, Unitt (1987) concluded that the southwestern willow flycatcher was once fairly common in the Los Angeles basin, the San Bernardino/ Riverside area, and San Diego County. Within the planning area it is assumed that the historic range included lowland areas on the Inyo and Sequoia National Forest.

Current – The current range is within the planning area is located along the South Fork of the Kern River at its confluence of Lake Isabella. Present management of this subspecies within the planning area is to provide for an increasing population on Forest Service lands incorporation with adjacent landowners. Nothing proposed in any of the alternatives will influence management for this species.

FEIS Volume 3, Chapter 3, part 4.3 – page 24 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment – Part 4.3

Table 4.3.2.3c represents the assessment ratings for the Southwestern Willow flycatcher.

Table 4.3.2.3c. Average assessment ratings for the Southwestern Willow flycatcher.

Alternative Current 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Mod 8 Outcome D D D D D D D D D D

Cumulative Effects

Population Outcomes

Historic Conditions - The breeding range of the southwestern willow flycatcher includes southern California, southern Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico, and western Texas (Hubbard 1987, Unitt 1987, Browning 1993). The species may also breed in southwestern Colorado, but nesting records are lacking. Records of breeding in Mexico are few and confined to extreme northern Baja California and Sonora (Unitt 1987, Howell and Webb 1995). Willow flycatchers winter in Mexico, Central America, and northern South America (Phillips 1948, Ridgely 1981, AOU 1983, Stiles and Skutch 1989, Ridgely and Tudor 1994, Howell and Webb 1995).

Current Condition – The southwestern willow flycatcher occupies much of it’s historic range. Historically, willow flycatchers nested wherever mesic willow thickets occurred in California (Grinnell and Miller 1944). In the last four decades, however, they have been eliminated from most lower elevation habitats in the state. The principal cause of decline is believed to be the alteration and destruction of riparian habitats (Gaines 1977, Remson 1978, Garrett and Dunn 1981, Serena 1982, Stafford and Valentine 1985, Taylor and Littlefield 1986, Flett and Sanders 1987, Valentine et al. 1988). The alteration of habitat has been due to urbanization, grazing, and other factors influence the riparian system. As a Federally listed species, actions effecting the southwestern willow flycatcher and it’s habitat on Federal, and other, lands are reviewed by the FWS and modified as necessary to minimize the actions affects to the species.

Table 4.3.2.3d represents the estimated population outcomes through the planning horizon for the Southwestern Willow flycatcher

FEIS Volume 3, Chapter 3, part 4.3 – page 25 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment – Part 4.3

Table 4.3.2.3d. Estimated population outcomes through the planning horizon for the Southwestern Willow flycatcher.

Alternative Current 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Mod 8 Outcome D D D D D D D D D D

FEIS Volume 3, Chapter 3, part 4.3 – page 26 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment – Part 4.3

4.3.3. Amphibians 4.3.3.1. CALIFORNIA RED-LEGGED FROG (Rana aurora draytonii) The California red-legged frog received a full individual analysis in the FEIS that included evaluating its ecological needs, especially focusing on habitat associations, and identifying threats to survival. The FEIS alternatives and Standards and Guidelines were then reviewed to determine how they would accommodate the species’ needs and reduce threats to survival. For each of the key management activities identified for each species, there follows a short narrative summary of the differences among FEIS alternatives 2 through 8, and modified 8. An overall qualitative summary of the risks of all alternatives to species viability is also provided. For details of this analysis and a qualitative evaluation of the Standards and Guidelines, see Table 4.3.3.1a.

Affected Environment Species Background The California red-legged frog (Rana aurora draytonii) historically occurred in lowland streams and wetlands from northern Baja California to the northern Sacramento Valley of California (near the City of Redding). In the Sierra Nevada, it occurred from eastern Butte County to Central Kern County (Table 4.2.4b). This species has disappeared from 99% of its geographic range in the Sierra Nevada (Jennings 1996). Because of these declines and others throughout its range in California, the California red-legged frog was Federally listed as threatened in 1996 (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1996). Only three populations are currently (1990s) documented in the bioregion; one in Butte County near the Plumas National Forest boundary, one in Yuba County, on the Plumas National Forest, and one in Eldorado County, on Bureau of Land Management lands, near the Eldorado National Forest boundary. The population in Butte County appears to be in good condition (Barry 1999), the one in Yuba County is recently discovered and of unknown status, and the one in Eldorado County is probably in marginal condition. A land exchange is in process that will result in the Butte County population being included on Plumas National Forest lands.

The Sierra Nevada is one of eight proposed recovery areas for the California red-legged frog, though recovery potential has been designated as low there. Within the Sierra Nevada recovery area, 12 core areas have been identified for management and protection. Portions of eleven of these areas occur on four national forests (Eldorado, Lassen, Plumas, and Stanislaus), (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2000a). Nine of the Sierra Nevada core areas contain proposed critical habitat, arrayed in five units. Parts of four of these five units occur on the national forests listed above, the fifth unit is primarily on Bureau of Land Management land (U.S. fish and Wildlife Service 2000b).

Risk Factors In the biphasic life cycle (aquatic eggs and tadpoles; semi-aquatic adults) of this species, tadpoles are primarily herbivores, grazing on algae in the aquatic environment, and adults are dietary generalists, feeding on invertebrates, other frogs (especially treefrogs), and occasionally small mammals (Jennings and Hayes 1994, Hayes and Tennant 1986). Cover requirements also differ by life history stage. Eggs are attached to emergent vegetation in relatively deep (>0.7m) ponds, wetlands, or slow- moving portions of streams. Adults utilize these aquatic habitats as well as adjacent riparian environments for reproduction, cover, foraging, and aestivation (dry season inactivity). Preferred riparian habitats consist of dense, shrubby vegetation (Hayes and Jennings 1988, Jennings and Hayes 1994). Frogs can move significant distances from aquatic habitats; one study on the central California coast documented an adult 30m (98 feet) from water (Rathbun et. al. 1993). Aestivationcan occur in both aquatic and terrestrial habitats, including mammal burrows, downed

FEIS Volume 3, Chapter 3, part 4.3 – page 27 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment – Part 4.3 wood, agricultural debris (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1996). Habitat loss and alteration have been cited as the primary factors leading to the decline of the California red-legged frog. The following are main impacts to habitat: (1) agricultural and urban development which have caused the loss of wetland habitats, (2) dams and water diversions have both inundated areas of habitat and degraded downstream habitats through changes in local hydrologic regimes, (3) mining and road/trail construction impact habitat through increases in fine sediments which can affect egg survival, (4) livestock grazing directly affects riparian vegetation (used by adult frogs for cover) emergent vegetation (cover for eggs and larvae), causes nutrient loading, and also affects channel morphology and hydrology, and (5) timber harvest, which can result in loss of riparian vegetation and increased erosion and siltation of aquatic habitats (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1996).

Apart from habitat alteration, there are a number of factors that have directly impacted the California red-legged frog. These include: (1) over-exploitation as a food source for humans (late 19th and early 20th century), (2) exotic predators (bullfrogs, crayfish, bass, mosquitofish) (Jennings and Hayes 1994, Lawler et. al. 1999), (3) climatic shifts resulting in droughts and floods that exacerbate poor conditions for local populations that are already stressed by other factors (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1996), and (4) chemical toxins (e.g. pesticides and herbicides), especially from agriculture, which may have both lethal and sub-lethal effects (Berrill et. al. 1993, Berrill et. al. 1997, LeBlanc and Bain 1997, Davidson et al. In Press). While research on environmental toxin affects on this species has not yet been conducted, closely related species in other regions have show sensitivity to numerous pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers. Because these chemicals are thought to disrupt endocrine systems in amphibians at low concentrations, application of pesticides and herbicides are considered to be a risk factor for this species.

For California red-legged frogs, the key management activities which the Forest Service can influence are: dams and diversions (through the FERC re-licensing process), mining, livestock grazing, road and trail construction, recreation, vegetation management (timber harvest and mechanical fuel treatment), and locally and applied chemical toxins (e.g. pesticides and herbicides). In addition, this FEIS proposes substantial prescribed burning at lower elevations. Fire can directly affect amphibians (mortality) as well as alter their habitat. The costs and benefits of burning are not well understood for the California red-legged frog, so an evaluation of the potential effects of these activities is provided. While exotic predators are a concern for California red-legged frogs, the predators identified thus far (bullfrogs, crayfish, mosquitofish, sunfish) are not commonly planted or directly moved by activities on national forest lands.

Conservation Measures This species was federally listed as threatened in 1996. A draft Recovery Plan identifies 12 core areas in the Sierra Nevada Recovery Unit. Eleven of these occur on Forest Service lands (Lassen, Plumas, Eldorado, and Stanislaus National Forests). In these areas, species protection and recovery would be a priority. In addition, nine of these core areas contain proposed critical habitat. Because this species is Federally listed, the Forest Service must consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service prior to doing activities with suitable habitat for the species.

In this FEIS, there is direction (Alternative 8 modified) to implement recovery plans for listed species as funds allow. Critical Aquatic Refuges (CAR’s) are established for known populations of California red-legged frogs on Forest Service lands and this decision allows for the addition of new CAR’s as more information is gained (FEIS Appendix I).

FEIS Volume 3, Chapter 3, part 4.3 – page 28 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment – Part 4.3

Environmental Consequences Effects of Alternatives For the California red-legged frog the following evaluation of standards and guidelines among FEIS alternatives for each risk factor considers both current known sites and potential recovery areas, which are currently unoccupied.

Chemical Toxins (Locally Applied Pesticides and Herbicides). All Alternatives contain direction to avoid pesticide/herbicide application within 500 feet of known California red-legged frog sites as well as at other TES species sites. While this approach addresses local applications, it does not address possible drift or downstream movements of these chemicals. It thus provides some improvement over existing direction, but probably doesn’t go far enough to eliminate this risk to amphibian populations. Alternatives 8 and modified 8 also include prohibition of livestock pesticides in riparian areas which would likely lower risk to amphibians. Alternative 5 provides additional direction to avoid use in any riparian areas, Aquatic Diversity Areas, Critical Aquatic Refuges, and if used in “green zones” make them ground-based and vegetation-specific. This alternative is thus lowest risk for all aquatic/riparian amphibian species.

Dams and Diversions. All alternatives provide the same baseline standard and guideline that states that the FERC re-licensing process should be used to provide water flows to protect and restore aquatic and riparian resources and move toward Aquatic Management Strategy (AMS) goals. Alternative modified 8 also includes direction to evaluate the natural hydrograph during re-licensing and to ensure that exempt hydroelectric projects maintain instream flows for aquatic species. Alternative 5 also adds a caveat that comparisons to undammed stream systems be used in evaluating re-licensing projects and that National policies on protecting free-flowing rivers be implemented making it somewhat stronger than the rest of the alternatives.

Livestock Grazing. Many of the standards and guidelines incorporate grazing utilization limits for grasses or shrubs. While these may help maintain certain structural features required by amphibians, there are direct impacts to frogs, eggs, and larvae (e.g. trampling, degradation of aquatic microhabitats) that are at least of equal concern. Research is also needed to determine how variation in percent utilization benefits or impacts amphibians. In all Alternatives it is possible that varying degrees of livestock exclusions from willow flycatcher habitats may benefit California red-legged frogs, where these species ranges overlap. Alternatives 4 and 5 also contain limitations on livestock grazing in riparian areas and wet meadows that would benefit California red-legged frogs. Alternatives 3, 6, 7, 8, and modified 8 include recommendations for moving livestock handling/gathering facilities outside of riparian/meadow areas and providing off-channel watering devices that would reduce, though not eliminate affects on local amphibians. Alternative modified 8 also contains standards for limiting streambank and lake shore disturbance by all activities (not just livestock grazing) to 20% Sierra Nevada wide and 10% in areas with listed fish species.

Mining. Mining standards and guidelines in all alternatives provide some improvement over existing conditions and have special emphasis on reducing impacts to riparian areas. Alternatives 2,5, 6, 8, and modified 8 propose consideration of mineral withdrawals from Critical Aquatic Refuges that will provide added protection for aquatic habitats that harbor amphibians. Alternative 5 provides additional protection for amphibians and other riparian/aquatic species by allowing approval of mining “plans of operations” in Aquatic Diversity Areas and Critical Aquatic Refuges only if AMS

FEIS Volume 3, Chapter 3, part 4.3 – page 29 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment – Part 4.3 goals are met. Alternative modified 8 also prioritizes reclamation of mined areas in Riparian Conservation Areas and Critical Aquatic Refuges.

Prescribed Fire. All Alternatives allow fire to “back in” to riparian areas though the extent of habitat that can be burned varies among different standards and guidelines. Alternative 2 prohibits fire within 500 feet of California red-legged frog sites. Alternatives 3, 4, 6, and 7 allow varying amounts of suitable habitat for this species to be burned each year, Alternative 7 allows the lowest (5%) amount, Alternative 6 allows a moderate level (15%) and Alternatives 3 and 4 allow the highest (25%) suitable habitat that can be burned prescriptively each year. Alternatives 4, 8 and modified 8 provide direction for conducting site-specific analysis in CAR’s and TES habitats that considers both the timing and extent of burns of prior to management. Given that the costs and benefits of burning are not clearly understood for amphibians, the lowest risk alternatives for California red-legged frogs are Alternative 8 and modified 8 which propose site-specific evaluation of timing and extent prior to burning.

Recreation. All Alternatives contain direction to assess the use and impacts of developed and dispersed recreation sites, trails, OHV trails, and access roads and consider rehabilitation, relocation, or other measures if AMS goals are not advanced or water quality and aquatic habitat objectives (i.e. Riparian Conservation Objectives) cannot be met. This approach will be helpful in protecting important aquatic habitats for all amphibian species. Alternatives 3 and modified 8 also contain direction that prohibits development new off-road vehicle sites in riparian areas unless no other option exists. This would benefit all amphibian species by protecting important aquatic habitats from direct impacts (noise, trampling, etc.).

Roads. All Alternatives contain improvements regarding evaluation of existing roads and improvements of stream crossings that will benefit aquatic amphibians. Language in the Record of Decision (tracking with Alternative modified 8) provides broad direction to improve conditions of existing roads, close roads at times of the year when use is low, and decommission them if they are causing unacceptable environmental effects. Alternative 8 also emphasizes road de-commissioning in Critical Aquatic Refuges, which would benefit aquatic species occurring in those areas. Alternative 3, 6, 8, and modified 8 also contains language regarding reduction of roads in riparian areas and Alternative 5 adds standards for removal of roads in areas where they are high risk to aquatic ecosystems. Implementation of these strategies would help reduce fine sediments in streams and maintain watershed functions, thus improving conditions for California red-legged frogs.

Vegetation Management and Mechanical Fuel Treatment. All alternatives contain some limitations on vegetation management and mechanical fuel treatment in riparian areas. Alternative 4 provides the least direction. The definitions of riparian areas or zones differ among Alternatives with 2, 3, 4, and 5 using variable widths based on SNEP approach and Alternatives 6, 7, 8, and modified 8 using stream-type flexible widths (e.g. 300 feet along perennial streams and large lakes/ponds, 150 ft along each side of seasonally-flowing streams). Variable width (SNEP type) zones typically provide relatively wide overall buffers, though different alternatives allow different activities within the “green and grey zones” of these areas. Alternatives 2 and 5 prohibit timber harvest or mechanical fuel treatment in “green zones” (typically 150 feet wide), while Alternatives 3 and 4 appear to allow these activities. Alternatives 6, 7, and 8 prohibit timber harvest in riparian areas (stream-type flexible). Salvage logging is prohibited in riparian areas in Alternatives 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7,and 8. Additional direction in Alternatives 2, 4, 5, 6 ,7, 8, and modified 8 limits or mitigates for heavy equipment operation near occupied amphibian sites. Alternative modified 8 allows thinning and other

FEIS Volume 3, Chapter 3, part 4.3 – page 30 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment – Part 4.3 vegetation management (including salvage logging) activities only if it is in line with Riparian Conservation Objectives. In addition, landscape analyses and associated peer reviews will serve to provide feedback to managers in Alternative modified 8. Overall, Alternatives 2, 5, 6 ,7, 8, and depending on appropriate implementation, modified 8, would all reduce impacts to riparian/aquatic habitats and amphibian species to about the same degree. Alternatives 3 and 4 appear to be the highest risk.

Overall Evaluation of Alternatives. For California red-legged frogs, Alternatives 2, 5, and modified 8 appear to be the lowest risk and provide the best management approaches for this species’ persistence and recovery. All the other Alternatives appear to compromise this species’ ecological requirements in some way. However, information/research gaps exist, especially in the realm of grass/shrub utilization standards for livestock grazing and their effects on amphibians.

Environmental Outcome Based on current information and recent surveys, there are only three extant populations of California red-legged frogs in the Sierra Nevada. All of these occur on either Forest Service or Bureau of Land Management lands. All of the FEIS alternatives contain an Aquatic Management Strategy that should result in improved aquatic and riparian conditions in the future. In addition, the Forest Service’s agreement to follow Recovery Plans for Federally listed species may offer opportunities to improve habitat conditions and expand California red-legged frog populations. However, without substantial intervention (e.g. population re-introductions) the nature of the existing status of the species is such that the likely result for this species under all alternatives is Outcome E (see Section 4.1.3).

Cumulative Effects In addition to the Forest Service risk factors discussed above, the following non-Forest Service risk factors have contributed and may still be contributing to the decline of the California red-legged frog: exploitation as food source, exotic predators, climatic shifts, airborne drift of agricultural chemicals, and urban development (Table 4.3.3.1a). Data limitations preclude a quantitative cumulative effects analysis for this species. Given the number of risk factors under Forest Service influence, this agency can play a significant role in reduction of many of threats to the species. However, off-Forest effects (e.g. airborne drift of agricultural chemicals) may be strongly determining the long-term population trends of this species (Davidson et al. In Press).

FEIS Volume 3, Chapter 3, part 4.3 – page 31 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment – Part 4.3

Table 4.3.3.1a. A summary of primary risk factors and key conservation measures/management (standard and guideline # in parantheses) actions across FEIS alternatives for low to mid-elevation species, the California red-legged frog (Rana aurora draytonii) and foothill yellow- legged frog (Rana boylii), focusing on the aquatic habitat of these species.

ALTERNATIVES CRITERIA CURRENT 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Mod 8 CWHR-Based Habitat N/A - aquatic habitat is key for these species and model does not provide reliable estimates and Change in Utility Values Habitat Distribution Description California red-legged frog: Lower elevation (< 5000 ft / < 1500 m) ponds, lakes, and other wetlands in western foothills. Foothill yellow-legged frog: Lower elevation (< 6000 ft. / < 1830 m), low to moderate gradient, cobble-bottomed streams and rivers in the western foothills. Quantitative Data not available Qualitative 1 Widely Widely Widely Widely Widely Widely Widely Widely Widely Widely distributed, with distributed, with distributed, with distributed, with distributed, with distributed, with distributed, with distributed, with distributed, with distributed, with gaps gaps gaps gaps gaps gaps gaps gaps gaps gaps Protection of Sites/Popn’s Federal Status California red-legged frog: Federally listed as threatened (1996). Draft Recovery Plan identifies 12 core areas in the Sierra Nevada Recovery Unit. Eleven of these occur on Forest Service lands (Lassen, Plumas, Eldorado, and Stanislaus National Forests). In these areas, species protection and recovery would be a priority. In addition, nine of these core areas contain proposed critical habitat. There is also a standard and guideline that states that “recovery plans” for Federally listed species will be implemented as funds allow (RCA03).

Foothill yellow-legged frog: Forest Service Sensitive Species in California, so must be evaluated in Forest level Biological Evaluations. Other Protections none none Amphibian Amphibian none Amphibian Other Emphasis none Other Emphasis CAR’s are Reserve System Reserve System Reserve Areas (IBA’s, Areas (IBA’s, established for (AM12). (AM13). System. CAR’s, EW’s, CAR’s, EW’s, the most at risk (AM13). etc) may provide etc) may provide populations and Other Emphasis Other Emphasis protection if protection if can be revised Areas (Important Areas (IBA’s, Other Emphasis species occurs species occurs as needed post- Bird Areas CAR’s, EW’s, Areas (IBA’s, there. there. EIS (see FEIS [IBA’s], Critical etc) may provide CAR’s, EW’s, Appendix I). Aquatic Refuges protection if etc) may provide [CAR’s], species occurs protection if Conservation Emphasis there. species occurs assessments Watersheds there. conducted within [EW’s]), may 1 year of provide completion of protection if Record of species occurs Decision (ROD) there. for Notice of Intent (NOI) amphibians should contribute to landscape analysis and adaptive management and eventually reduce risk.

FEIS Volume 3, Chapter 3, part 4.3 – page 32 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment – Part 4.3

ALTERNATIVES CRITERIA CURRENT 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Mod 8 FS Risk Factors Chemical Toxins Existing Standards do Avoiding Avoiding Avoiding Avoiding Avoiding Avoiding Avoiding Avoiding conditions are not improve application of application of application of application of application of application of application of application of known to habitat or protect pesticides/ pesticides/ pesticides/ pesticides/ pesticides/ pesticides/ pesticides/ pesticides/ negatively affect species, so high herbicides within herbicides within herbicides within herbicides within herbicides within herbicides within herbicides within herbicides within species. risk. 500 ft. of focal 500 ft. of focal 500 ft. of focal 500 ft. of focal 500 ft. of focal 500 ft. of focal 500 ft. of focal 500 ft. of TES amphibian amphibian amphibian amphibian amphibian amphibian amphibian species will populations will populations will populations will populations will populations will populations will populations will reduce risk reduce risk reduce risk reduce risk reduce risk reduce risk reduce risk reduce risk (RCA12, (AR24). (AR24). (AR24). (AR24). (AR24). (AR24). (AR24). RCA12a).

Avoiding use of Prohibition of Prohibition of pesticides/ use of livestock use of livestock herbicides in pesticides in pesticides in Riparian Areas, riparian areas riparian areas ADA’s, CAR’s, should reduce should reduce should reduce risk (AM21). risk (RIP-AM21). risk (ACS20, ACS21, ACS31). Dams and Diversions Existing Standards do AMS goals to AMS goals to AMS goals to set AMS goals to AMS goals to AMS goals to AMS goals to During FERC re- conditions are not improve set 4(e) set 4(e) 4(e) conditions set 4(e) set 4(e) set 4(e) set 4(e) licensing, known to habitat or protect conditions conditions during FERC conditions conditions conditions conditions evaluation of negatively affect species, so high during FERC during FERC license renewal during FERC during FERC during FERC during FERC natural species. risk. license renewal license renewal should reduce license renewal license renewal license renewal license renewal hydrograph and should reduce should reduce risk (AR05A). should reduce should reduce should reduce should reduce determination of risk (AR05A). risk (AR05A). risk (AR05A). risk (AR05A). risk (AR05A). risk (AR05A). appropriate in stream flow and Study of habitat conditions in conditions for undammed species should waterways reduce risk during re- (RCA24). licensing may reduce risk to Ensuring that species exempt hydro (AR05B). facilities maintain Increasing “Wild appropriate and Scenic” instream flows designations for species may reduce should reduce future risks risk (RCA25). (AR05C).

FEIS Volume 3, Chapter 3, part 4.3 – page 33 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment – Part 4.3

ALTERNATIVES CRITERIA CURRENT 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Mod 8 Livestock Grazing Existing Standards do Livestock 100 ft. buffer Livestock Livestock Movement of Movement of Movement of Location of new conditions are not improve exclusions from around WIFL allowed in from exclusions from livestock livestock livestock livestock known to habitat or protect WIFL habitat habitat reduces riparian areas, riparian areas, handling handling handling handling negatively affect species, so high reduces risk if if risk if if site is and wet and wet facilities outside facilities outside facilities outside facilities outside species. risk. site is also used also used by meadows only if meadows of riparian/ of riparian/ of riparian/ of riparian/ by frogs. frogs (B48). AMS goals are reduces risk meadow areas meadow areas meadow areas meadow areas met should (ACS22, ACS23, and providing and providing and providing and evaluation No livestock reduce risk ACS24, ACS25, off-channel off-channel off-channel of existing grazing in WIFL Movement of (ACS22). G07). watering devices watering devices watering devices facilities should habitat within 5 livestock should reduce should reduce should reduce reduce risk miles of historic handling Livestock risk (AM23). risk (AM23). risk (AM23). (RCA42). and current facilities outside grazing WIFL sites of riparian/ disallowed within No livestock No livestock No livestock Limitation of would reduce meadow areas 100 ft. of grazing within grazing within grazing within streambank and risk if if site is and providing suitable WIFL 100 ft. of 100 ft. of 100ft. of lake shore also used by off-channel habitat should suitable WIFL suitable WIFL occupied WIFL disturbance from frogs (B33). watering devices reduce risk habitat should habitat should or suitable livestock grazing should reduce (B35). reduce risk if if reduce risk if if habitat within 5 and other risk (WM12, site is also used site is also used miles of activities to 20% WM13). by frogs (B35). by frogs (B35). occupied habitat everywhere and sites would 10% along reduce risk if site reaches with is also used by listed fish should frogs (B335B). reduce risk (RCA18).

Elimination of livestock grazing in known sites (n=82) and late- season grazing in new WIFL sites may reduce risk if amphibians occur in these areas (WIFL1, WIFL2).

FEIS Volume 3, Chapter 3, part 4.3 – page 34 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment – Part 4.3

ALTERNATIVES CRITERIA CURRENT 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Mod 8 Mining Existing Standards do Numerous Numerous Numerous Numerous Numerous Numerous Numerous Numerous conditions are not improve standards standards standards standards standards standards standards standards known to habitat or protect should improve should improve should improve should improve should improve should improve should improve should improve negatively affect species, so high aquatic /riparian aquatic /riparian aquatic /riparian aquatic /riparian aquatic /riparian aquatic /riparian aquatic /riparian aquatic /riparian species. risk. conditions and conditions and conditions and conditions and conditions and conditions and conditions and conditions and reduce risk. reduce risk. reduce risk. reduce risk. reduce risk. reduce risk. reduce risk. reduce risk (especially RIP- Mineral Mineral Mineral Mineral M04 and RIP- withdrawals from withdrawals from withdrawals from withdrawals from M08). CAR’s will CAR’s will CAR’s will CAR’s will reduce risk if reduce risk if reduce risk if reduce risk if Prioritization of species occurs species occurs species occurs species occurs reclamation in there (M15). there (M15). there (M15). there (M15). Riparian Conservation Approval of plan Areas (RCA’s) of operations and CAR’s only if AMS should reduce goals are met risk (RCA45). will reduce risk (M17). Evaluation of mineral withdrawals from CAR’s will reduce risk if species occurs there (CAR- M15).

FEIS Volume 3, Chapter 3, part 4.3 – page 35 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment – Part 4.3

ALTERNATIVES CRITERIA CURRENT 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Mod 8 Prescribed Fire Existing Standards do Rx fire is Rx fire is Rx fire is allowed Rx fire is Rx fire is Rx fire is Rx fire is In CAR’s and for conditions have not address allowed to back allowed to back to back into allowed to back allowed to back allowed to back allowed to back TES species, unknown affects current into riparian into riparian riparian areas into riparian into riparian into riparian into riparian site-specific on the species. uncertainties. areas should areas should should pose areas should areas should areas should areas should evaluation of pose minor risk pose minor risk minor risk to pose minor risk pose minor risk pose minor risk pose minor risk role, timing, and to species to species species to species to species to species to species extent of Rx fire, (AR12A). (AR12A). (AR12A). (AR12A). (AR12A). (AR12A). (AR12A). avoiding lighting of fires in Rx fire allowed Rx fire allowed Rx fire allowed Rx fire allowed Rx fire allowed riparian areas, on 25% of only are site- on 15% of on 5% of only are site- and mitigation suitable habitat specific analysis suitable habitat suitable habitat specific analysis for ground of species of appropriate of species of species of appropriate disturbance annually timing and annually has annually timing and should reduce increases risk extent should unknown risk unknown risk extent should risk (RCA27). (AM23K) reduce risk (AM23M) (AM23L) reduce risk (AM23I) (AM23I) Rx fire treatments Rx fire allowed designed to on 25% of minimize suitable habitat impacts to RCA of species vegetation annually should reduce increases risk risk (RCA30). (AM23K) Recreation Existing Standards do Relocation or Relocation or Relocation or Relocation or Relocation or Relocation or Relocation or Assessment and conditions are not improve rehabilitation of rehabilitation of rehabilitation of rehabilitation of rehabilitation of rehabilitation of rehabilitation of redesign of known to habitat or protect dispersed dispersed dispersed dispersed dispersed dispersed dispersed access roads, negatively affect species, so high recreation sites recreation sites recreation sites if recreation sites recreation sites recreation sites recreation sites trails, OHV species. risk. if not in line with if not in line with not in line with if not in line with if not in line with if not in line with if not in line with trails/staging AMS goals AMS goals AMS goals AMS goals AMS goals AMS goals AMS goals areas, should reduce should reduce should reduce should reduce should reduce should reduce should reduce developed and risk (R01D). risk (R01D). risk (R01D). risk (R01D). risk (R01D). risk (R01D). risk (R01D). dispersed recreation sites, Reduction of etc. to meet ORV use in habitat and Riparian Areas water quality should reduce objectives risk (R09C). should reduce risk (RCA37).

Location of new OHV sites outside of RCA’s and CAR’s should reduce risk (RCA38).

FEIS Volume 3, Chapter 3, part 4.3 – page 36 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment – Part 4.3

ALTERNATIVES CRITERIA CURRENT 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Mod 8 Road / trail Existing Standards do Several Several Several Several Several Several Several Language in the construction conditions are not improve standards to standards to standards to standards to standards to standards to standards to ROD and & maintenance known to habitat or protect improve road improve road improve road improve road improve road improve road improve road several negatively affect species, so high conditions, conditions, conditions, conditions, conditions, conditions, conditions, standards to species. risk. especially at especially at especially at especially at especially at especially at especially at improve road stream stream stream crossings stream stream stream stream conditions, with crossings crossings reduce risk. crossings crossings crossings crossings focus on stream reduce risk. reduce risk. reduce risk. reduce risk. reduce risk. reduce risk. crossings should reduce risk Reduction of Removal of De- De- (especially roads in riparian roads in areas commissioning commissioning RCA9, RCA14, areas should where there is of roads along of roads along RCA33, reduce risk high impact to streams is a streams is a RCA37). (WM11). aquatic priority (RD07B). priority (RD07B). ecosystems Requiring should reduce screens for risk (RD04, water pumping RD05A, RD06, should reduce RD07A, RD08 risk (RCA29). RD08A).

FEIS Volume 3, Chapter 3, part 4.3 – page 37 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment – Part 4.3

ALTERNATIVES CRITERIA CURRENT 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Mod 8 Vegetation Existing Standards do Prohibition of Prohibition of Limitation on Prohibition of Prohibition of Prohibition of Prohibition of Several management conditions are not improve timber harvest salvage in heavy timber harvest timber harvest timber harvest timber harvest standards & mechanical known to habitat or protect (including riparian areas equipment near (including (including (including (including provide fuel treatment negatively affect species, so high salvage, should reduce amphibian sites salvage, salvage, salvage, salvage, guidance for species. risk. mechanical fuel risk (AR08A, should reduce mechanical fuel mechanical fuel mechanical fuel mechanical fuel establishment of treatment) in WM09, WM10). risk (AM23G, treatment) in treatment) in treatment) in treatment) in RCA’s and riparian areas AM23H, riparian areas riparian areas riparian areas riparian areas CAR’s, limit (“green zones” – AR21B). (“green zones” - (“stream-type (“stream-type (“stream-type activities in 150 ft) should 150 ft.) should flexible” - 300- flexible” -300- flexible” – 300- these areas to reduce risk Prohibition of reduce risk 100 ft) unless 100 ft) unless 150 ft) should those that are in (AR08, AR21A). salvage in (ACS10, ACS29, watershed watershed reduce risk line with riparian areas AR15 AR15A). analysis and/or analysis and/or (AR08C, Riparian Limitation on should reduce peer review peer review AR15B, AR21). Conservation heavy risk (AR08). Limitation on should reduce should reduce Objectives equipment near heavy risk (AR08A, risk AR08A, Limitation on (RCO’s), and amphibian sites equipment near AR21C) AR21C). heavy require should reduce amphibian sites equipment near landscape risk (AM23E). should reduce Limitation on Limitation on amphibian sites analysis and risk (AM23F). heavy heavy should reduce peer review prior equipment near equipment near risk (AM23G). to activities. If amphibian sites amphibian sites implemented should reduce should reduce appropriately risk. (AM23G, risk AM23G, these standards AM23H). AM23H). may reduce risk (RCA000, RCA10, RCA31, RCA32, RCA33).

Mitigation to avoid impact of sensitive amphibians during ground disturbing activities should reduce risk (RCA28).

Non-FS Risk Factors California red-legged frog Exploitation as Food Historically, California red-legged frogs were over-harvested for food. This risk factor has been substantially reduced both by the rarity of the species and by its recent listing as Source Federally Threatened. Exotic Predators Bullfrogs and mosquitofish predation on frogs has been suggested to be a factor in the decline of this species historically and today. Climatic Shifts Drought and flood conditions can negatively affect populations of this species especially in if they are already stressed by other factors. Airborne Drift Ag. Recent range-wide spatial analysis indicates a potential link between agricultural chemical drift and declines in this species. Chemicals

FEIS Volume 3, Chapter 3, part 4.3 – page 38 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment – Part 4.3

ALTERNATIVES CRITERIA CURRENT 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Mod 8 Urban Development Wetland habitat loss through urban, suburban, and rural subdivisions are a continuing threat to this species. Foothill yellow-legged frog Climate change (flood Large natural floods and a seasonal flooding (resulting from climatic shifts) may be playing a role in declines in some areas. Low rainfall can impact populations by changing the and drought) perennial natural of streams that are required for egg deposition and larval rearing. Non-FS Benefits National Parks Sequoia-Kings Canyon may contain populations of the foothill yellow-legged frog and Yosemite National Park may contain populations of both species. These parks may provide protected areas for reestablishment in the future.

1 Habitat distribution – Qualitative: Refers to the distribution of potential habitat for this species. The California red-legged frog is currently known to occur at only two sites in the Sierra Nevada foothills. However it occurred at over 60 locations historically and in at least 30 different drainages as recently as the early 1960’s. The foothill yellow-legged frog was once widely distributed in the Sierra Nevada foothills. Currently it has experienced serious declines in the southern and central Sierra Nevada.

FEIS Volume 3, Chapter 3, part 4.3 – page 39 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment – Part 4.3

4.3.4. Fish

The following sections present the affected environment for the eight Federally threatened and endangered fish species that occur in Sierra Nevada national forests. The final section presents environmental consequences for these eight species.

I. Affected Environment

Little Kern Golden Trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss whitei) Life History Little Kern Golden Trout (GT-LK) spawn just after snowmelt in late May or early June (Smith 1977). Females contain between 41 and 65 eggs per year and developed new eggs soon after spawning for the next season (Smith 1977). The eggs hatch after about 26 days in water temperatures between 12 degrees Centigrade and 16 degrees Centigrade (Smith 1977). Spawning gravel size for GT-LK was found to be between 5 and 10 mm in a depth between 5 and 15 cm (Smith 1977). Smith (1977) also observed that GT-LK remain within 50 meters of their hatching sites throughout their lifecycle. Konno (1986) found that GT-LK might have home ranges between 100 to 300 meters. GT-LK were only found to move outside of 300 m if the habitat were degraded (Konno 1986).

Habitat relationships This species is found within the CWHR habitat types lacustrine and riverine. Elevation ranges from 1,460 to 3,780 meters. Important habitat components for the GT-LK, first detailed in a 1993 Biological Assessment, were considered as pools, instream cover, substrate embeddeness, stream shade, isolation from exotics, and clean, clear cold water (USDA 1993). Many of the locations of GT-LK occur just below the headwater sections on the streams. Headwaters are extremely critical to the overall stream condition and structure, particularly with respect to sediment loading and water temperature. GT-LK were found to occupy a number of preferred microhabitat features as well, such as lateral scour pool with undercut banks (Eddinger 2000). This type of habitat is found in lower numbers in the basin but provide the greatest amount of selection by GT-LK (Eddinger 2000).

Diet: Golden trout in general feed on virtually every invertebrate that lives in or falls into the mountain streams or lakes in which they live (Moyle 1976). In streams, the primary prey is larval and adult aquatic insects and a few terrestrial forms (Moyle 1976). In lakes, the main prey is caddis fly larvae, chironomid midge larvae, and planktonic crustaceans, such as seed shrimp (Ostracoda) (Moyle 1976).

Status Little Kern golden trout, and its critical habitat, were listed by the US Fish & Wildlife Service as a Federally-threatened on April 13, 1978 (Federal Register 43:15427). The critical habitat consists of the entire Little Kern River watershed from one mile below the mouth of Trout Meadows Creek. The critical habitat is entirely within the Sequoia National Park and the Sequoia National Forest & Monument, Tulare County, California.

There have been ongoing, active management of the species and its critical habitat for more than twenty years. These management activities included habitat improvement projects, extensive

FEIS Volume 3, Chapter 3, part 4.3 – page 40 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment – Part 4.3 monitoring of the range program, and the reestablishment of genetically pure GT-LK populations (with yearly inventories) by the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG), Sequoia National Forest & Monument (USDA), the Fish & Wildlife Service (USDI), and Sequoia National Park (CDFG 1999; USDA 1993; USDA 1998; USDA 1999; USDI 1994; USDI 1995). There has been some research conducted on the GT-LK documenting reproduction, behavior, and movement patterns (Konno 1986; Smith 1977). Extensive genetic research has been conducted on the golden trout complex of fish (Little Kern golden trout, California golden trout - Oncorhynchus mykiss aguabonita - of the South Fork Kern River, and the Kern River rainbow trout - Oncorhynchus mykiss gilberti – of the mainstem of the Kern River) to identify pure and hybridized subpopulations as well as develop relationships between the three subspecies (Gold 1975; Gold and Gall 1975a,b, c; Gall et al. 1976; Bagley et al. 1999).

Historical and Current Distribution The Little Kern golden trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss whitei) is endemic to the Little Kern River basin, Tulare County, California. Little Kern golden trout (GT-LK) are considered one of three subspecies of golden trout native to the Kern River drainage. GT-LK were originally widespread throughout the Little Kern River basin (Christenson 1984). The majority of the Little Kern golden trout population is now within the Golden Trout Wilderness (GTW). However, portions of some creeks with GT-LK fall outside the boundary of the GTW. Approximately 190 kilometers (km) of stream are suitable habitat for the species (USFS 1993). Only 64 km are within the species native range (USDA 1993). There is one genetically pure (not hybridized) population of GT-LK in the Kern River basin, east of the Little Kern River (Christenson 1994). The other five genetically pure populations are all within the Little Kern drainage (Christenson 1994). Only the Sequoia National Forest & Monument is affected by the proposed project for this species.

Risk Factors “Threats of habitat modification and the effects of exotic trout on populations on this species” were the major factors in the decline and eventual listing of the GT-LK (Federal Register 1978; Christenson 1984).

Piaute Cutthroat Trout (Oncorhynchus clarki seleniris) Life History Spawning occurs from April to July, with eggs being deposited in one-fourth to one-half inch gravels within riffles, pocket water (pools created by boulders), or pool crests (USFS 1993). Good egg survival requires that spawning beds be relatively silt-free and well oxygenated (USFS 1993). Proper hatching and fry survival generally requires water temperatures of 37o to 64.4oF. (USFS 1993). Within-stream cover appears to be important for fry and juvenile survival (USFS 1993). Although this species can survive in lakes, successful spawning requires access to flowing waters with clean gravel substrates (USFWS 1985a).

Habitat relationships Suitable habitat includes low gradient meadow streams with: average water depth is least one-half feet; deeper pools with at least 20 percent submerged cover; and no more than 15 percent stream bank and channel instability (USFS 1993). Stream shading of at least 75 percent is necessary to keep water

FEIS Volume 3, Chapter 3, part 4.3 – page 41 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment – Part 4.3 cool in the summer and reduce winter icing (Ibid). Like other western stream-dwelling salmonids, all life stages of the Paiute cutthroat trout require cool, well-oxygenated waters (USFWS 1985a).

Diet: Paiute cutthroat trout are opportunistic feeders, preying on aquatic and terrestrial invertebrates that occur in the drift (USFWS 1985a). Terrestrial prey items may make up a significant portion of the diet of trout in small headwater streams and meadows during the summer months (USFS 1993).

Status The Paiute cutthroat trout was listed by the USFWS as Federally-threatened on July 16, 1975 (Federal Register 40:29864), with no Critical habitat designated (USFWS 1985a). However, essential habitat has been identified: several tributaries within the Silver King drainage; one mile of Stairway Creek; and 2.5 miles of North Fork Cottonwood Creek (Ibid). The main threats to the survival of this subspecies are: (1) hybridization and competition with introduced salmonids, (2) siltation and channelization of stream habitat, (3) destruction of riparian vegetation and within stream cover, and (4) excessive angling harvest (USFWS unpublished information sheet). Stairway Creek lies within the 77 Corral Cattle Allotment (unuse) in the Ansel Adams Wilderness Area. Sharktooth Creek (inaccessible to cattle) lies with the Casidey Cattle Allotment also in the Ansel Adams Wilderness Area. The Silver King Creek population lies in the Silver King and Bull Canyon Allotments. The North Fork Cottonwood Creek population lies in the Cottonwood Cattle Allotment. This allotment has been under non-use for the past 4 years and is anticipated to continue under non-use for approximately 10 years into the future. Section 7 consultations (reference 1-1-94-F-40, 1-1-95-F-42) regading the Paiute Cutthroat trout have established conservative measures applicable to the allotments identified above.

Information compiled from the Inyo and Sierra Fisheries Biologists suggest a stable trend in this species population over the past ten year period on these two forests. Based on survey data, it is estimated that 1,200 individuals occur on National Forest land (Forest Fisheries Biologists, pers. comm.). Habitat trends appear to be stable, with increases in availability in certain areas of habitat improvement (Ibid).

Historical and Current Distribution Cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarki) are found throughout western North America (Moyle 1976). The native range of the Paiute cutthroat trout (O. c. seleniris) was extremely limited - approximately 9.5 miles of stream habitat in Silver King Creek, Alpine County, on the Toiyabe NF (USFWS 1985a). California Department of Fish and Game has introduced the subspecies into creeks outside the historic range and basin, and populations have been established in a total of about five miles of habitat on the Sierra and Inyo NFs. Within the Sierra NF, they were transplanted in Sharktooth Lake and Stairway Creek. The fish have abandoned Sharktooth and now are only found within Sharktooth Creek. The Stairway Creek population is considered self-sustaining. Habitat on the Sierra NF is within Designated Wilderness. Paiute cutthroat trout occurs on the following Forests affected by the proposed project: the Sierra, Toiyabe (Carson Ranger District) and Inyo.

Risk Factors Risk to the Paiuted Cuthroat trout include the immediate loss of individual fish and loss of specific habitat features such as undercut banks use for cover, increases in sedimentation leading to changes in spawning bed capacity, and the loss of riparian vegetation necessary to maintain adequate temperature regime. The primary cause of the above results from historic and present grazing practices.

FEIS Volume 3, Chapter 3, part 4.3 – page 42 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment – Part 4.3

Lahonton Cutthroat Trout (Oncorhynchus clarki henshawi) Life History Lahontan cutthroat trout are obligatory stream spawners and spawn from April to July, with eggs being deposited in one-fourth to one-half inch gravels within riffles, pocket water, or pool crests (USFS 1993). Apparently, spawning Lahontans prefer gravels one-fourth to two inches in diameter and water velocities one to two feet per second (Gerstung 1986). Good egg survival requires that spawning beds be relatively silt-free and well oxygenated (USFS 1993). Water temperatures of less than 57oF. are required from April through July for successful reproduction (Bailey and Scoppettone 1979 in Gerstung 1986). Optimum temperatures include averages of 55oF., with maximums less than 72 degrees (USFS 1993).

Habitat Relations Within California, native Lahontan habitat primarily consists of eastern Sierra high mountain meadow streams (over 6,000 feet elevation) (USFS 1993). Optimal habitat for Lahontan cutthroat trout is characterized by: Clear cold water and relatively stable summer water temperatures, with an average maximum summer temperature of less than 43o to 72oF. and variations of no more than 37oF.; one-to-one pool-to-riffle ratios and a relatively silt-free, rocky substrate in the riffle-run area; well-vegetated, stable stream banks; approximately 25 percent of the stream area providing cover; and relatively stable water flow regimes, with daily fluctuations less than 50 percent of the average annual daily flow (Hickman and Raleigh 1982).

Cover is an important habitat component (Ibid). Lahontans occupy areas with overhanging banks, vegetation, or woody debris, and within stream cover (e.g., brush, aquatic vegetation, and rocks) is very important for juvenile survival (USFS 1993).

Diet. Lahontan cutthroat trout are opportunistic feeders, preying on aquatic and terrestrial invertebrates that occur in the drift (USFWS 1992). Terrestrial prey items may make up a significant portion of the diet of trout in small headwater streams and meadows during the summer months (USFS 1993). In lakes, smaller trout feed primarily on surface insects and zooplankton and larger trout feed on other fish (USFWS 1992, USFS 1993). Other prey items include bottom-dwelling insect larvae, crustaceans, and snails (Ibid).

Status The Lahontan cutthroat trout was listed as endangered in 1970 and reclassified in 1975 as threatened; critical habitat has not been designated (USFWS 1992). The Recovery Plan for the Lahontan Cutthroat Trout (FWS 1995) established the goals and objective for recovery of the species. Reasons for the decline in numbers of this species include: (1) competition and hybridization with introduced exotic fish species; (2) habitat changes associated with grazing, logging, stream channelization, and water diversions; and (3) commercial and sport over fishing (USFS 1993).

Lahontan cutthroat trout evolved in the absence of other trout species and, consequently, do not compete effectively with other trout (Gerstung 1986). In addition, genetic purity is lost from hybridization with rainbow trout. Presently, barriers separate Lahontan populations from other trout species to ensure their continued viability.

According to information compiled from Forest Fisheries Biologists based on annual population surveys, this species appears to be experiencing a stable to increasing population trend (4,000-6,000

FEIS Volume 3, Chapter 3, part 4.3 – page 43 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment – Part 4.3 individuals) in the past ten year period. Based on annual habitat and water quality monitoring carried out by the Forest Fisheries Biologists, it is estimated that the habitat trend for this same period is also predicted to be fairly stable, with increasing productivity in areas of habitat improvement projects (Forest Fisheries Biologists, pers. comm.). In addition, communications with Caltrout (Brett Matzke pers comm) support the information regarding stable to increasing populations of this species.

Four of the Sierra Nevada national forests entered into Section 7 consultation with the FWS on July 11, 1994 (reference 1-1-94-F-40) regarding the impacts of grazing on Lahonton Cutthroat trout. The four forest included the Inyo (Antelope, Turner and Cottonwood Grazing Allotments), Stanislaus (Clark Fork, Pacific Valley and Highland Lakes Grazing Allotments), Tahoe (English and Sierra Crest Grazing Allotments) and Toiyabe National Forests (Bull Canyon Allotment, Mill Canyon S&G Allotment, Frying Pan-Murphy Creek C&H Allotment and Slinkard C&H Grazing Allotment). Subsequent Section 7 consultation occurred the following year (reference 1-1-95-F-42) for the Inyo (Antelope Grazing Allotment, Turner Grazing Allotment and Cottonwood Grazing Allotment), Sierra (Dinkey Grazing Allotment and Mugler Allotment), Stanislaus (Clark Fork Allotment, Pacific Valley Allotment and Highland Lakes Allotment) and Tahoe (English Grazing Allotment and Sierra Crest Allotment) National Forests. The Lahonton Cutthroat is found in the following alloments; Turner Grazing Allotment, Mugler Allotment, Dinkey Creek Allotment, Pacific Valley Allotment, Clark Fork Allotment, Highland Lakes Allotment, English Grazing Allotment and, Sierra Crest Allotment. In addition, it appears that populations still exist in the following allotments on the Humboldt- Toiyabe National Forest: Bull Canyon Allotment, Mill Canyon S&G Grazing Allotment,Frying Pan- Murphy C&H Allotment and Slinkard C&H Allotment.

Historical and Current Distribution Cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarki) are found throughout western North America (Moyle 1976). Historically, the lahontan cutthroat trout (O. c. henshawi) was endemic to the physiographic Lahontan basin of northern Nevada, eastern California, and southern Oregon (USFWS 1992). In California, the subspecies historically occurred in the streams and lakes of the Lahontan system, on the east side of the Sierra Nevada (Moyle 1976). The current distribution is a fraction of the historic distribution, and genetically pure, self-sustaining populations are known to occur on Forest Service lands in only 10 miles of California drainages on the Tahoe NF and Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit (USFS 1993). In addition, several populations have been established outside the native range on the Inyo, Stanislaus, and Sierra NFs (USFS 1993).

Potential habitat has been identified in Hell Hole Creek, which is administered by the Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit (Ibid). Various streams within the Truckee River, Carson River, and Walker River sub-basins have been identified as candidate reintroduction sites for Lahontans in the California Department of Fish and Game's Lahontan Cutthroat Trout Management Plan (Gerstung 1986). Therefore, the Lahontan cutthroat trout occurs on the following National Forests: Tahoe, Lake Tahoe Basin Managed Unit, Stanislaus, Sierra, and Inyo.

Risk Factors Risk to the Lahontan cuthroat trout include the immediate loss of individual fish and loss of specific habitat features such as undercut banks use for cover, increases in sedimentation leading to changes in spawning bed capacity, and the loss of riparian vegetation necessary to maintain adequate temperature regime. The primary cause of the above results from historic and present grazing practices.

FEIS Volume 3, Chapter 3, part 4.3 – page 44 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment – Part 4.3

Modoc Sucker (Catostomus microps) Life History Little is know about the reproductive behavior of Modoc suckers. Spawning appears to occur between early April and early June, and is probably controlled by water temperature and photo period (Studinski 1993). These suckers appear to prefer to spawn at the tail end of pools where water flows are generally less than two cubic feet per second (Ibid). Coarse sand to small gravel substrates are needed; the preferred substrate appears to be a mixture of sand, fine gravel, and large gravel (less than one inch in diameter) (Ibid).

Habitat relationships Suitable habitat consists of large, shallow, muddy-bottomed pools that are partially shaded by vegetation and contain cool (less than 77 degrees F.), moderately clear water (Moyle 1974). The temperature of water in two Modoc sucker streams indicated that a maximum water temperature of less than 70 degrees F., with daily temperature variations of less than 10 degrees, provides suitable conditions, and that maximum temperatures of 60 to 65 degrees F. seem to be optimum (Studinski 1993).

Most of the creeks in which Modoc suckers occur become intermittent by mid summer, severely limiting the available habitat. Pools, especially during drought years, may be the most critical factor limiting Modoc sucker populations (Ibid). The Modoc sucker utilizes toe-logs and tips of juniper revetments and coarse woody debris in streams for cover (USFS unpublished data). They also will use rocky substrate and algae for cover if no other cover is available in the pool.

Modoc National Forest observations of summer habitat conditions in three locations during 1989-1990 indicated that shade and water temperature appear to be positively associated with Modoc sucker abundance.

Important habitat parameters for the Modoc sucker appear to be: elevation, habitat type (pools), water temperature, substrate, and shade (Moyle and Marciochi 1975, Boccone and Mills 1979, USFS unpublished data). These habitat parameters are based on the results of earlier habitat studies and recent Modoc NF observations in Modoc sucker streams.

Activities that may adversely modify critical habitat are: overgrazing by cattle that leads to erosion and stream incision; channelization, impoundment, and water diversions; introduction of exotic species that compete with or prey on Modoc suckers; and degradation of streams by silt or other contaminants (USFWS 1984a

Diet: Modoc suckers primarily feed on bottom-dwelling (benthic) organisms, detritus, and algae (Moyle 1976, USFWS 1984b). The benthic organisms are composed of aquatic insect larvae and crustaceans that are present in or on the muddy substrates or among algae clumps (Moyle 1976). Filamentous algae is a fairly important food item (Studinski 1993).

Status The Modoc sucker was listed as an endangered species on July 11, 1985 (USFWS 1985b). Five streams were designated as Critical Habitat for these fish. Additional fish occur in two other creeks,

FEIS Volume 3, Chapter 3, part 4.3 – page 45 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment – Part 4.3 but purity of genetic strains has not been verified. In the interim, the Modoc NF is managing habitat for these two streams as if the fish were Modoc suckers.

The Modoc sucker has been extirpated from a significant portion of its naturally limited range due to hybridization with the Sacramento sucker (Catostomus occidentalis) (USFWS 1984b) and habitat loss from overgrazing, siltation, channelization, and other agricultural activities (USFWS 1985b). Habitat degradation has also eliminated some natural within-stream barriers that prevented Sacramento suckers from invading Modoc sucker habitat (USFWS 1984b). Additional factors include predation by introduced brown trout (Salmo trutta) (Ibid) and the current drought, which has increased the number of creeks which are intermittent during the summer.

Past reports estimated the population of the Modoc sucker to be less than 5,000 individual fish (Moyle 1974) and 2,605 (Ford 1977), with the reproductive (effective) population being 200 and 104, respectively, based on length-frequency analyses (Ford 1977, USFS unpublished data). Moyle and Ford, however, did not census the entire reaches where Modoc suckers are known to exist.

A more recent estimate of the effective population is 3,000 individual fish, which was determined from 1994 surveys conducted by the National Biological Survey (Yamigiwa Pers. Comm.). Based upon past survey records, it is estimated that the population trend for this species is increasing over the past ten year period (Ibid). Based on the observations of biologists, habitat availability, as a result of improved cattle allotment management, has increased over the past ten year period (Ibid).

Historical and Current Distribution The Modoc sucker (Catostomus microps) occurs in two sub-drainages of the Pit River system within the Modoc National Forest in northeastern California. The streams in which this species occurs are characterized by low summer flows and large, shallow pools with cover, soft sediments, and clear water (USFWS 1984b). In many cases, large sections of the streams have only subsurface flows in the summer and the suckers are confined to relatively small permanent pools (Studinski 1993). These streams are within the Devil's Garden and Big Valley Ranger Districts of the Modoc National Forest. The Modoc sucker occurs on only one Forest affected by the proposed project: Modoc.

Risk Factors Actions which may influence designated critical habitat include: 1) overgrazing by livestock, which would eliminate riparian vegetation and lead to streambank erosion and subsequent siltation of the stream and lake environment; 2) introduction of exotic fish into streams and lakes of Warner Valley, which might compete with or prey on Warner suckers; 3) construction of additional diversion dams, that do not have adequate fish passage facilities, on streams inhabited by Warner suckers; 4) channelization or diversion of streams inhabited by Warner suckers; 5) application of herbicides of insecticides along stream coarses or lakes inhabited by Warner suckers, which could be toxic to the species or its prey; 6) pollution of stream or lake habitat by silt or other pollutants; 7) removal of natural vegetation within or along streams.

The primary threat to sucker populations in the tributaries of the Pit River, Clear Lake, and Warner Basin drainages is habitat alteration. For the Modoc sucker, the limited distribution of the species (approximately 25 miles) makes protection and restoration of its remaining habitat of primary concern. For the populations of shortnose and Lost River sucker in Clear Lake, a single stream system and its tributaries serve as the sole migratory corridor and spawning habitat, increasing the importance of protection and restoration of Forest riparian and instream habitats. The introduction of

FEIS Volume 3, Chapter 3, part 4.3 – page 46 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment – Part 4.3 exotic fish species and the modification of stream flows into lakes of the Warner Valley by diversion structures have modified the Warner sucker’s habitat. Water pollution and siltation of gravel beds needed by the fish for spawning are also affecting the lake and stream habitats. Although standards and guidelines have been established for several land allocations in both alternatives, the primary direct, indirect, and cumulative effects for this complex of species will come from the application of standards and guidelines for riparian areas and meadows.

Warner Sucker (Catostomus warnerensis) Life History Spawning usually occurs in April and May in streams, although variations in water temperatures and stream flows may result in either earlier or later spawning. Temperatures and flow cues appear to trigger spawning, with most spawning taking place at 14o to 20o C when stream flows are relatively high. Suckers spawn in sand or gravel in slow pools (White et. al. 1990, 1991; Kennedy and North 1992).

In years when access to stream spawning areas is limited by low flow or by physical in-stream blockages (such as beaver dams), suckers may attempt to spawn on gravel beds along the lake shorelines. In 1990, a drought year with no stream access, suckers were observed digging nests in 40+ cm of water on the east shore of Hart Lake at a time when access to Honey Creek was blocked by extremely low flows (White et. al. 1990). However, no larval or juvenile suckers were collected in the lake in 1990 or 1991, which suggests that lake spawning does not result in recruitment to the population.

Larvae are found in shallow backwater pools or on stream margins where there is no current, often among or near macrophytes. You-of-the-year are often found over deep, still water from mid-water to the surface, but also move into faster flowing areas near the head of pools (Coombs et. al. 1979).

Larvae venture near higher flows during the daytime to feed on planktonic organisms but avoid the mid-channel water current at night. This aversion to downstream drift may indicate that spawning habitat is also used as rearing grounds during the first few months of life (Kennedy and North 1992). None of the studies conducted thus far have succeeded in capturing suckers younger than 2 years old in the lakes, and it has been suggested that they do not migrate down from the streams for 2 to 3 years (Coombs et. al. 1979). The absence of young suckers in the lakes, even in years following spawning in the lakes, could be due to predation by introduced game fishes (White et. al. 1991).

Juvenile suckers (1 to 2 years of age) area usually found at the bottom of deep pools or in other habitats that are relatively cool and permanent such as near springs. As the adults, juvenile prefer areas of the streams protected from the main flow (Coombs et. al. 1979). Larvel and juvenile mortality over a 2-month period during the summer has been estimated at 98 percent and 89 percent, respectively, although accurate larval fish counts were hampered by dense macrophyte cover (Tait and Mulkey 1993).

The Warner sucker is a large, long-lived, omnivorous species that has populations of stream resident and lake resident forms. There are at least two populations of stream resident suckers (Honey Creek and Twentymile Creek drainages), and there was one population of lake resident suckers distributed throughout the Warner Lakes before these lakes dried up in 1992.

FEIS Volume 3, Chapter 3, part 4.3 – page 47 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment – Part 4.3

Warner sucker from Crump Lake were aged up to 17 years old and had a maximum fork length of 456 mm (White et. al. 1991). Lake resident suckers are generally much larger than stream residents, but growth rates for adults are not known for either form. Sexual maturity occurs at an age of 3 to 4 years (Coombs et. al. 1979), although in 1993 captive fish at Summer Lake Wildlife Management Area (SLWMA), Oregon, successfully spawned at the age of two years.

Coombs et. al. (!979) measured larval growth and found a growth rate of approximately 10 mm per month during the summer (i.e. when the larvae were 1-4 months of age). Sucker larvae at SLWMA grew an average of 85 mm in three months during the summer of 1991, but this was in as artificial environment and may not reflect natural growth patterns.

Habitat relationships White et. al. (1991) found in qualitative surveys that, in general, adult suckers used stretches of stream where the gradient was sufficiently low to allow the formation of long pools. These pools tended to have; undercut banks; large beds of aquatic macrophytes (usually greater than 70 percent of substrate covered); root wads or boulders; a surface to bottom temperature differential of at least 2o C (at low flows); a maximum depth greater than 1.5 meters; and overhanging vegetation. About 45 percent of these pools were beaver ponds, although there were many beaver ponds in which suckers were not observed. Suckers were also found in smaller or shallower pools without some of the above-mentioned features. However, they were only found in such places when a larger pool was within approximately ¼ mile upstream or downstream of the site.

Submersed and floating vascular macrophytes are often a major component of sucker inhabited pools, providing cover and harboring plantonic crustaceans which make up most of the young-of-the-year sucker diet. Rock substrates such as large gravel and boulders are important in providing surfaces for epilithic organisms upon which adults stream resident suckers feed, and finer gravels or sand are used for spawning. Siltation of sucker stream habitat increases the soft streambed necessary for macrophyte growth, but embeds the rock substrates utilized by adult suckers for foraging and spawning. Embeddedness, or the degree to which hard substrates are covered with silt, has been negatively correlated with total sucker density (Tait and Mulkey 1993).

Habitat use by lake resident suckers appears to be similar to that of stream resident suckers in that adult suckers area generally found in the deepest available water where food and cover are plentiful. Not surprisingly, this describes much of the habitat available at Hart, Crump, and Pelican Lakes, as well as the ephemeral lakes north of Hart Lake. Most of these lakes are shallow and of uniform depth, and all have mud bottoms that provide the suckers with abundant food in the form of invertebrates, algae, and organic matter.

Diet and Foraging Habitat: The feeding habits of the Warner sucker depend to a large degree on habitat and life history stage, with adult suckers becoming less specialized than juveniles and young- of-the-year. Larvae have terminal mouths and short digestive tracts, enabling them to feed selectively in mid-water or on the surface. Invertebrates, particularly planktonic crustaceans, make up most of their diet. As the suckers grow, they develop sub-terminal mouths and longer digestive tracts, and gradually become less specialized benthic feeders on diatoms, filamentous algae, and detritus. The stream resident adult suckers obtain their food by nocturnal foraging over a wide variety of substrates such as boulders, gravel, and silt (Tait and Mulkey 1993). Presumably, lake resident adult suckers have a similar diet foraged from the dominant muddy substrates.

FEIS Volume 3, Chapter 3, part 4.3 – page 48 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment – Part 4.3

Status The Warner sucker was listed as a threatened species by the USDI Fish and Wildlife Service in 1985 (50 FR 39117) due to observed declines in range and numbers of Warner suckers, reduced survival because of predation by exotic fishes in lake habitats, and habitat fragmentation and migration corridor blockage due to stream diversion structures and practices (White et al. 1990). Signs of stream channel and watershed degradation area common in the Warner Valley, and include fences hanging in mid-air because the backs have collapsed beneath them, head-high and higher cutbanks, damaged riparian zones, bare banks, and large sagebrush flats where there were once wet meadows (White et al. 1991).

Concurrently, critical habitat was designated and includes the following streams in Lake County, Oregon and 50 feet on either side of the stream banks; 18 stream miles of Twentymile Creek; 2 stream miles of the spillway canal north of Hart Lake; 3 stream miles of Snyder Creek, and 16 stream miles of Honey Creek. The 50-foot riparian zone on each side of the streams is included to protect the integrity of the stream ecosystem. Maintenance of the riparian zone is essential to the conservation of the Warner sucker.

The Modoc National Forest has been involved in Section 7 consultation with the Fish and Wildlife Service for the past 4 years regarding the grazing activities on the Mount Bidwell Allotment located on the Warner Mountain Ranger District (reference: 1-1-96-F-57, 1-10-96-F-35, 1-7-96-I-413, 1-7- 97-F-201, 8330.2753(98), and 1-7-98-F-275 (2230)).

A population estimate of Warner suckers in streams was conducted in 1993 on the Honey Creek and Twentymile Creek drainages (Tait and Mulkey 1993). Approximately 20 percent of available stream habitat in the Honey Creek drainage was sampled. The population within the area sampled was estimated at 77 adults, 172 juveniles, and 4,616 young-of-the-year. Approximately 60 percent of the available stream in the Twentymile Creek drainage was also sampled. The population estimates within this area sampled was 2,563 adults, 2,794 juveniles, and 4,435 young-of-the-year.

As of 1996, the Hart lake Warner sucker population was estimated at 493 spawning individuals (with 96% confidence intervals of 439-563)(Allen et al. 1996). Although this is the only quantified population estimate of Warner suckers ever made for Hart Lake, it is likely well below the abundances found in Hart Lake prior to the drought.

Historical and Current Distribution The Warner sucker is endemic to the Warner Basin, located in south-central Oregon, extreme northeast California, and extreme north-west Nevada. It is part of a relict fauna that was isolated in the Pleitocene during the past pluvial period roughly 15,000 to 17,000 year ago when Lake Warner was formed (Hubbs and Miller 1948, Snyder et al. 1964). The probable historic range of the Warner sucker includes the main Warner Lakes (Pelican, Crump, and Hart), and other accessible standing or flowing water in the Warner Valley, as well as the low to moderate gradient reaches of the tributaries which drain into the Valley. The tributaries include Deep Creek, up to the falls west of Adel, the Honey Creek drainage, Twentymile Creek drainage and in Twelvemile Creek, a tributary to Twentymile Creek.

Early collection records document the occurrence of the Warner sucker from Deep Creek up to the falls about 5 km west of Adel, the sloughs south of Deep Creek, and from Honey Creek. Andreason

FEIS Volume 3, Chapter 3, part 4.3 – page 49 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment – Part 4.3

(1975) reported that long-time residents of the Valley described large runs of suckers in the Honey Creek drainage, even far up into the canyon area.

Between 1977 and 1991, eight studies examined the current range and distribution of the Warner sucker throughout the Warner Valley (Kobetich 1977, Swenson 1978, Coombs et. al. 1979, Coombs and Bond 1980, Hayes 1980, White et. al. 1990, Williams et. al. 1990, White et. al. 1991). These surveys have shown that when adequate water is present, Warner suckers may inhabit all the lakes, sloughs, and potholes in the Warner Valley. The documented range of the sucker extended as far north into the ephemeral lakes as Flagstaff Lake during high water in the early 1980s. During the past 8-year drought period water levels shrank back to the south. The sucker population of Hart Lake was intensively sampled to salvage individuals before the lake dropped to an extremely low level in November of 1991. The suckers apparently make use of habitat wherever it is available, and will presumably move out into the potholes and ephemeral lakes in the northern valley in successive years of high flow.

Stream resident populations are found in Honey Creek, Snyder Creek, Twentymile Creek and Twelvemile Creek. Intermittent streams in the drainages may support small migratory populations in high water years as well. No stream resident suckers have been found in Deep Creek since 1983 (Smith et. al. 1984), although a lake resident female apparently trying to migrate to stream spawning habitats was captured and released in 1990 (White et. al. 1990). The known upstream limit of the Warner sucker in Twelvemile Creek is the Nevada reach. However, their distribution appears to be discontinuous and centered around low gradient areas that form deep pools with protective cover. In the lower Twentymile Slough area on the east side of the Warner Valley, White et. al. (1990) collected adult and young suckers throughout the slough and Greaser Reservoir. This area dried up in 1991, but because of its marshy character, may be important sucker habitat during high flows. Larval and young-of-year suckers captured immediately below Greaser Dam suggest either a slough resident population, or lake resident suckers migrating up the Twentymile Slough channel from Crump Lake to spawn (White et. al. 1990).

Risk Factors Risk Factors which may influence habitat include: 1) overgrazing by livestock, which would eliminate riparian vegetation and lead to streambank erosion and subsequent siltation of the stream and lake environment; 2) introduction of exotic fish into streams and lakes of Warner Valley, which might compete with or prey on Warner suckers; 3) construction of additional diversion dams, that do not have adequate fish passage facilities, on streams inhabited by Warner suckers; 4) channelization or diversion of streams inhabited by Warner suckers; 5) application of herbicides of insecticides along stream courses or lakes inhabited by Warner suckers, which could be toxic to the species or its prey; 6) pollution of stream or lake habitat by silt or other pollutants; 7) removal of natural vegetation within or along streams.

FEIS Volume 3, Chapter 3, part 4.3 – page 50 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment – Part 4.3 needed by the fish for spawning are also affecting the lake and stream habitats. Although standards and guidelines have been established for several land allocations in both alternatives, the primary direct, indirect, and cumulative effects for this complex of species will come from the application of standards and guidelines for riparian areas and meadows.

Shortnose Sucker (Chasmistes brevirostris) and Lost River Sucker (Deltistes luxatus) Life History The Lost River and shortnose suckers are long-lived species that generally live in lakes, except during the breeding season, when they migrate to tributary rivers, streams, or springs to spawn (USFWS 1993c). On the Modoc NF, spawning runs normally occur in March-April, when these fish move from Clear Lake into Willow Creek. In 1991 and 1992, with the drought, access into Willow Creek was blocked; distribution may currently be limited by the availability of water, not by habitat preference. The leaping ability of these species is limited and fish ladders are probably not helpful in eliminating barriers to passage (USFWS 1988b).

Gravel substrates appear to be preferred (USFWS 1993c). Larval suckers usually migrate back to lake sites shortly after they leave the spawning gravels, primarily moving at night and resting in shallow shoreline areas of the river during the day (Ibid). They appear to select areas where water is less than 19.7 inches deep, the bottom is sand, mud, or concrete, and there is emergent vegetation (Ibid). Adults usually spend relatively little time in tributary springs after spawning (Ibid).

Habitat relationships The habitat requirements of the shortnose and Lost River suckers are not well known. Apparently, the Lost River sucker is primarily a lake species and spends most of its time in fairly deep water (Moyle 1976). The shortnose sucker is thought to have a life history similar to the cui-ui (Chasmistes cujus) of Pyramid Lake, Nevada: it is thought to spend most of the year in the open waters of large lakes (Ibid).

Cool water, high amounts of dissolved oxygen, and cool freshwater refuges appear to be important habitat components for both species (Buettner and Scoppettone 1991). When conditions become stressful in lakes, such as in the summer when there can be heavy algal blooms and fluctuations in dissolved oxygen, pH, and suspended and dissolved materials, areas where streams or springs flow into lakes may be important refugia (USFWS 1993c).

Diet: Although the feeding habits of these two species have not been studied, their mouth morphology and gill rakers suggest that the Lost River sucker feeds on hard-shelled bottom invertebrates or on large plankton and the shortnose sucker strains plankton, primarily zooplankton, from the water (Moyle 1976).

Status The shortnose and Lost River suckers were listed as endangered species on July 18, 1988 (USFWS 1988b). No Critical Habitat has been designated. A recovery plan has been written for both species (USFWS 1993c). Population decreases of these suckers seem to be primarily related to decreasing spawning habitat from damming, draining, and dredging of historical spawning areas (Ibid). Other

FEIS Volume 3, Chapter 3, part 4.3 – page 51 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment – Part 4.3 predominant threats to these suckers are continued loss of habitat, water diversions, competition and predation by introduced species, hybridization with other sucker species, insularization of remaining habitats, and drought (USFWS 1988b, CDFG 1991). Decreases in water quality resulting from timber harvest, dredging activities, removal of riparian vegetation, and livestock grazing may also cause problems for these species (USFWS 1988b).

All of the streams containing these fish on the Modoc National Forest have become intermittent during the drought of the late 1980s and early 1990s. The varied causes for the declines in these two species are not clearly understood (USFWS 1988b). What is clear is that there has been a drastic reduction in the spawning success of these long-lived species; for example, populations of both species in Oregon and in Copco Reservoir have not spawned for about 18 years (Ibid).

Based upon recent surveys conducted by the National Biological Survey, there are 23,000 Lost River suckers and 73,000 shortnose suckers on the Modoc NF (Yamigiwa Pers. Comm.). According to past survey records there appears to be an increasing trend in the population numbers in the past ten year period (Ibid). Habitat availability trends for this same time period seem to be experiencing an increasing trend (Ibid).

Historical and Current Distribution Lost River sucker (Deltistes luxatus) and shortnose sucker (Chasmistes brevirostris) occur within creeks and Clear Lake on the Modoc National Forest. A study completed in 1991 found Lost River suckers in Clear Lake and its tributaries and shortnose suckers in Clear Lake and its tributaries and in Malone and Copco reservoirs (Buettner and Scoppettone 1991). Lost River suckers are native to the rivers of the Lost River system in Oregon and California (Moyle 1976). Recently, they have been collected from Copco Reservoir (Klamath River) and Clear Lake Reservoir (Lost River) (Ibid).

Although native mainly to the Upper Klamath Lake and Lake of the Woods in Oregon, shortnose suckers have recently been collected from Copco Reservoir, below Upper Klamath Lake (Siskiyou County) and Boles Creek (Modoc County); the latter fish were apparently on a spawning run from Clear Lake Reservoir on the Lost River (Ibid). The recent distribution of these fish has been described by Buettner and Scoppetone (1991). Basically, the fish are in residual pools and in some small reservoirs on private land within the Modoc NF. The Lost River and shortnose suckers occur on only one Forest affected by the proposed project, the Modoc.

Risk Factors Factors that could affect these species are activities that affect water quality by increasing the amount of sediment input into streams or lakes or block movement between streams and lakes. Clear Lake appears to be very important to the continued viability of both species. These species are found in the following CWHR habitat types: lacustrine and riverine.

FEIS Volume 3, Chapter 3, part 4.3 – page 52 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment – Part 4.3

Central Valley Chinook, ESUs (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) Spring run, Winter run

Life History The great majority of chinook salmon appear to spawn in the mainstem of the Sacramento River (R. Painter, pers. comm), which they enter from October through February (Vogel and Marine 1991). In the past, these migrating fish were a mixture of age classes ranging from two to five years old. The fall-run is different from the other runs of fish entering freshwater, time and locations of spawning, incubation times, incubation temperatures, and timing of juvenile migration. While migrating and holding in the river, chinook do not feed, relying instead on stored body fat reserves for maintenance. Spawning occurs in January, February, and March, although it may extend into April in some years. Eggs are laid in large depressions (redds) hollowed out in the gravel beds. The embryos hatch following a 3 to 4 month incubation period and the alevins (sac-fry) remain in the gravel for another 2 to 3 weeks. Once their yolk sac is absorbed, the fry emerge and begin feeding on aquatic insects. All fry have emerged by early June. The juvenile hold in the river for nearly a year before moving out to sea the following December through March. Once in the ocean, salmon are largely piscivorous and grow rapidly.

Habitat relationships The specific habitat requirements of Central Valley chinook have not been determined, but they are presumably similar to other chinook salmon runs and fall within the range of physical and chemical characteristics of the Sacramento River above Red Bluff.

For other runs, adult numbers holding in an area seem to depend on the volume and depth of pools, amount of cover (especially “bubble curtains” created by inflowing water), and proximity to patches of gravel suitable for spawning (G. Sato, unpubl. data). Sustained water temperature above 27 degrees Centigrade are lethal to adults (Cramer and Hammack 1952). The pools in which adults hold are at least 3.3 to 9.9 feet deep, with bedrock bottoms and moderate velocities (G. Sato, unpubl. data; Marcotte 1984). In Deer Creek preferred mean water velocities measured during 1988 were 60-80 cm sec-1 for adults (Sato and Moyle 1988) The pools usually have a large bubble curtain at the head, underwater rocky ledges, and shade cover throughout the day (Ekman 1987). The salmon will also seek cover in smaller “pocket” water behind large rocks in fast water.

Habitat preference curves determined by the USFWS for adult chinook in the Trinity River indicate that pool use declines when depths become less than 7.9 feet and that optimal water velocity ranges between 15-37 cm sec-1 (Marcotte 1984). Spawning occurs in gravel beds with gravel of a size that fish can excavate. Optimum substrate for embryos has been reported as a mixture of gravel, rubble (mean diameter 0.39 to 1.6 inches) and less than 25 percent fines (less than 0.26 inches diameter) (Platts and others 1979, Reiser and Bjornn 1979). Juvenile in Deer Creek were found to prefer runs or riffles with gravel substrates, depths of 7.8 to 46.8 inches, and mean water-column velocities of 20- 40 cm sec-1 (Sato and Moyle 1989).

During downstream migrations in the Sacramento River and Delta, smolts presumably stay close to the banks during the day (near cover) and them move out into open water at night, to migrate. Historically, they may have moved into flooded marshy areas in the Sacramento Delta to feed but there is little evidence of such activity today.

FEIS Volume 3, Chapter 3, part 4.3 – page 53 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment – Part 4.3

Unlike most tributary streams of the Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers which now have major water storage facilities that inundate or block hundreds of miles of historical anadromous spawning habitat, upstream habitat in Mill, Deer, and Antelope Creeks is still available for utilization by anadromous fish. In all three drainages, instream habitat conditions for anadromous fish are in good condition overall but are underutilized because of low escapement levels. Battle Creek and Butte Creek are also considered important for anadromous fish and have a high potential for restoration.

Status The historic abundance of winter and spring run chinook are not known because they were recognized as a distinct chinook types only after the Red Bluff Diversion Dam was constructed in 1966. In order to get past the dam, salmon migrating up the Sacramento River had to ascend a fish ladder in which they could be counted with some accuracy for the first time. The four chinook salmon runs present in the river (fall, late-fall, winter, spring) were revealed as peaks in the counts, although salmon passed over the dam during every mongth of the year. Next to winter-run chinook (now listed as an endangered species by the state and threatened by the federal government), late-fall run chinook are the least numerous run in the Sacramento River and, like the winter-run and spring-run chinook, their numbers have declined since counting began in 1967. In the first 10 years of counting (1967-1976) the run averaged about 22,000 fish (FWS Red Bluff Field Office). There have been no counts of 20,000 fish or more since 1975, although 16,000 fish were counted in 1987. The run in 1991 was 7,089 fish (USFWS 1992). Counts from 1992 through 1998 were not available because the gates at Red Bluff Diversion Dam were opened to allow free passage for winter-run chinook adults and smolts.

Historical and Current Distribution The Sacramento run chinook are found mainly in the Sacremento River, and most spawning and rearing of juveniles take place in the reach between Red Bluff and Redding (Keswick Dam). According to Vogel and Marine (1991), however, up to approximately 15 to 30 percent of the total can spawn downstream of Red Bluff when “water qualtiy is good”. R. Painter (pers. comm.) indicated that apparent late-fall run chinook have been observed spawning in Battle Creek, Cottonwood Creek, Mill Creek, Yuba River and Feather River, but these are at best a small fraction of the total populations. The Battle Creek spawners are presumably derived from an artificially maintained run into the Battle Creek Fish Hatchery. The historic distribution of the spring and winter run chinook are not known, but they probably spawned in the upper Sacramento River and major tributaries in reaches now blocked by Shasta Dam.

Risk Factors The principal causes of decline in spring and winter run chinook seem to be (1) passage problems over dams, (2) loss of habitat, (3) introgression with other runs, and (4) other factors such as disease and pollutants.

Dams and Diversions. When Shasta and Keswick Dams were built in the 1940s, they presumably denied access of chinook to upstream spawning areas where run-off and spring water originating from Mt. Shasta and other areas kept water temperatures cool enough for successful spawning, egg incubation and over-summer survival of juvenile salmon. The effects of Red Bluff Diversion Dam (RBDD) were more subtle and not recognized until fairly recently (Williams and Willaims 1991). This dam apparently delayed passage to upstream spawning areas and also concentrated predators,

FEIS Volume 3, Chapter 3, part 4.3 – page 54 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment – Part 4.3

increasing mortality on out-migrating smolts (USBOR reports). Kope and Botsford (1990) documented that the overall decline of Sacramento River salmon was closely tied to the construction of RBDD.

Habitat modification. Large dams on the Sacramento River and its tributaries have not only denied salmon access to historic spawning grounds, but they have reduced or eliminated recruitment of spawning gravels into the river beds below the dams and altered temperature regimes. Loss of spawning gravels in the Sacramento River below Keswick Dam is regarded as a serious problem, and large quantities of gravel are now trucked to the river and dumped in, mainly to provide spawning sites for winter-run chinook. However, it is likely they also use these gravel deposits (R. Painter, pers. comm.). Overly warm temperatures can be a problem in this reach, mainly during drought years when flows are reduced to save water in Shasta Reservoir. Also, the reduced reservoir volume during drought years and the inability to tap colder levels of the reservoir have meant that water released below the dam is often warmer than desirable. Efforts being made to provide cooler summer flows for winter-run chinook should also benefit fall and late-fall run chinook.

Overexploitation. In general, chinook salmon are harvested in both ocean and in-river fisheries. Although the fisheries are capturing mainly hatchery fish, they are presumably also taking wild fish at least in proportionate abundance relative to hatchery fish. Given the small size of the remaining runs of wild fish, the take of even a few wild fish may have a significant effect on their populations. It is likely that as many as one-half of the wild fish are taken in the fisheries.

Commercial fisheris also may be affecting the chinook populations indirectly through the continual removal of larger and older individuals. This results in spawning runs made up mainly of three-year- old fish, which are smaller and therefore produce fewer eggs per female. The removal of older fish also eliminates much of the natural “cushion” the populations have against natural disasters such as severe drought, which may wipe out a run in one year. Under natural conditions, the four- and five- year-old fish still in the ocean help to keep the runs balanced and can make up for the fish lost during an occassional catastrophe. Under present conditions, a loss of a run in one year will result in very low runs threes years later, and the loss of runs two or three years in a row can eliminate a population.

Out-migrant mortality. Smolt mortality is probably a factor affecting chinook abundance in the Sacramento-San Joaquin drainage. Small numbers of out-migrants are presumably entrained at every irrigation diversion along the Sacramento River that is operating during the migration period. At the same time, extensive bank alteration, especially rip-rapping, reduces the amount of cover available to protect the out-migrants from striped bass and other predators. When SWP and CVP pumping rates are high and outflows relatively low, spring chinook smolts are probably entrained in large numbers, consumed by predators in Clifton Court Forebay and other off-channal areas, or are otherwise diverted from their downstream migration.

Introgression with other chinook salmon runs. The spawning season of late-fall run chinook overlaps somewhat with that of winter-run chinook in April. Behavioral or physiological barrier to interbreeding at these times are unlikely, and the extent to which it occurs is not known. Prior to the construction of Shasta Dam, there probably was spatial as well as seasonal segregation among the various runs. However, since they are now forced to spawn in one reach of the Sacramento River, introgression is likely. Introgression of mainstem populations of spring-run chinook with fall-run chinook apparently has resulted in the loss of the distinctiveness of these runs in the Sacramento River, as indicated by the earlier shift in fall-run arrival in the upper river and a protracted fall

FEIS Volume 3, Chapter 3, part 4.3 – page 55 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment – Part 4.3 spawning period (Vogel and Marine 1991). The blurring of run distinctivenss may also be happening with the late-fall chinook.

Pollution. A potential problem is the likelihood of a major spill of water laden with toxic chemicals from the Iron Mountain mine site, if the Spring Creek retention reservoir spills or bursts. These waters could wipe out either migrating adults or, more likely, juveniles holding in the river.

Central Valley Steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss irideus)

The following information was extract from Federal Register Vol. 61 No. 155.

Life History

Steelhead exhibit one of the most complex suite of life history traits of any salmonid species. Steelhead may exhibit anadromy (meaning that they migrate as juveniles from fresh water to the ocean, and then return to spawn in fresh water) or freshwater residency (meaning that they reside their entire life in fresh water). Resident forms are usually referred to as “rainbow” or “redband” trout, while anadromous life forms are termed “steelhead”. Few detailed studies have been conducted regarding the relationship between resident and anadromous O. mykiss and as a result, the relationship between these two life forms is poorly understood. Recently however, the scientific name for the biological species that includes both steelhead and rainbow trout was changed from Salmo gairdneri to O. mykiss. This change reflects the premise that all trouts from western North America share a common lineage with Pacific salmon.

Steelhead typically migrates to marine waters after spending 2 years in fresh water. They then reside in marine waters for typically 2 or 3 years prior to returning to their natal stream to spawn as 4- or 5- year-olds. Unlike Pacific salmon, steelheads are iteroparous, meaning that they are capable of spawning more than once before the die. However, it is rare for steelhead to spawn more than twice before dying; most that do so are females. Steelhead adults typically spawn between December and June (Bell, 1990). Depending on water temperature steelhead eggs may incubate in “redds” (nesting gravels) for 1.5 to 4 months before hatching as “alevins” (a larval life stage dependent on food stored in a yolk sac). Following yolk sac absorption, alevins emerge from the gravel as young juveniles or “fry” and begin actively feeding. Juveniles rear in fresh water from 1 to 4 years, and then migrate to the ocean as “smolts.”

Biologically, steelhead can be divided into two reproductive ecotypes, based on their state of sexual maturity at the time of river entry and the duration of their spawning migration. These two ecotypes are termed “stream maturing” and “ocean maturing.” Streaming maturing steelheads enter fresh water in a sexually immature condition and require several months to mature and spawn. Ocean maturing steelheads enter fresh water with well-developed gonads and spawn shortly after river entry. These to reproductive ecotypes are more commonly referred to by the season of freshwater entry (e.g. summer and winter steelhead).

Two major genetic groups or “subspecies” of steelhead occur on the west coast of the United States: a coastal group and an inland group, separated in the Fraser and Columbia River Basins by the Cascade crest approximately (Huzyk and Tsuyuki, 1974; Allendorf, 1975; Utter and Allendorf, 1977; Okazaki,

FEIS Volume 3, Chapter 3, part 4.3 – page 56 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment – Part 4.3

1984; Parkinson, 1984; Schreck et al., 1986; Reisenbichler et al. 1992). Behnke (1992) proposed to classify the coastal subspecies as O. m. irideus and the inland subspecies as O. m. gairdneri. These genetic groupings apply to both anadromous and nonanadromous forms of O. mykiss. Both coastal and inland steelheads occur in Washington and Oregon. California is thought to have only coastal steelhead while Idaho has only inland steelhead.

Habitat Relationships

Steelheads are similar to some Pacific salmon in their ecological requirements. They are born in fresh water, emigrate to the ocean where most of their growth occurs, and return to fresh water to spawn. Unlike Pacific salmon, steelheads do not necessarily die after spawning. Repeat spawning rates are generally low, however, and vary considerably among populations.

In California, peak spawning occurs from December through April in small streams and tributaries with cool, well-oxygenated water. The length of time it takes for eggs to hatch depends mostly on water temperature. Steelhead eggs hatch in about 30 days at 51degrees F (Leitritz and Lewis, 1980). Fry usually emerge from the gravel four to six weeks after hatching, but factors such as redd depth, gravel size, siltation, and temperature can speed or retard this time. The newly emerged fry move to the shallow, protected areas associated with the stream margin (Royal 1972, Barnhart 1986) and begin to establish energetically profitable feeding stations (Fausch 1984) which they defend. Juveniles mainly inhabit riffles (Barnhart 1984) but they can utilize a variety of microhabitat type (runs, riffles, and pools). Relatively high concentrations occur in association with structural complexity, such as that provided by large woody debris.

The preferred depth for steelhead spawning is approximately 14 inches and ranges from 6 to 24 inches (Bovee 1978). Fry prefer water approximately 8 inches in depth and utilize water 2 to 14 inches deep, while parr prefer a water depth of 1- inches but utilize water 10 to 20 inches deep.

In natural channels, water depth usually does not hinder adult migration because adult steelheads normally migrate during high flows. Depth can become a significant barrier or impedance in stream that have been altered for flood control purposes, especially those that do not have a low flow channel. It has been reported that seven inches is the minimum depth required for successful migration of adult steelhead although the distance fish must ravel through shallow water areas is also a critical factor. Excessive water velocity and obstacles, which impede the swimming and jumping ability, are more significant in hindering or blocking migration (Barnhart 1986).

Water velocities of 10 to 13 ft/s begin to hinder the swimming ability of adult steelhead and may retard migration (Reiser and Bjornn 1979). Steelheads spawn in areas with water velocities ranging from 1 to 3.6 ft/s but prefer velocities of about 2 ft/s (Bovee 1986). The ability to spawn in higher velocities is a function of size: large steelhead can establish redds and spawn in faster currents than smaller steelhead (Barnhart 1986).

Adult steelheads have been reported to spawn in substrates from 0.2 to 4.0 inches in diameter (Reiser and Bjornn 1979). Based on the Bovee (1978) classification, steelheads utilize mostly gravel-sized material for spawning but will also use mixtures of sand-gravel and gravel-cobble. Fry and juvenile steelhead prefer approximately the same size of substrate material (cobble/rubble) which is slightly larger than that preferred by adult steelhead for spawning (gravel) (Bovee 1978). The gravel must be

FEIS Volume 3, Chapter 3, part 4.3 – page 57 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment – Part 4.3 highly permeable to keep the incubating eggs well oxygenated and should contain less than 5% sand and silt.

The preferred water temperature for various life stages of steelhead is well documented (Bovee 1978; Reiser and Bjornn 1979; Bell 1986) (Table 4.3.4a). Optimum temperature requirements of steelhead may vary depending on season, life stage, and stock characteristics. Egg mortality begins to occur at 56 degrees F. Steelheads have difficulty extracting oxygen from water at temperatures greater than 70 degrees F. (Hooper 1973). In California, low temperatures are not of as much concern as high temperatures, especially high temperatures that occur during adult migration, egg incubation, and juvenile rearing.

Table 4.3.4a. The preferred water temperature for various life stages of steelhead Life-history Stage Temperature Range (F) Adult migration 46 to 52 Spawning 39 to 52 Incubation and emergence 48 to 52 Fry and juvenile 45 to 60 Smoltification <57

In experimental tests, rainbow trout parr exhibited a significant preference for sites with overhead cover (Fausch 1993). Artificial sites with overhead cover that were adjacent to natural cover and swift velocities also were selected preferentially (Fausch 1993). Steelhead, like other trout, appears to select positions in streams in response to low light levels (Shirvell 1990). For juvenile steelhead, sites will light levels below a certain threshold, velocity refuges, and adjacent high velocity flows provide an optimal combination of safety from predators and aggressive conspecifics, and access to drifting invertebrate food resources.

Historic and Current Distribution

Historically, steelhead was distributed throughout the North Pacific Ocean from the Kamchatka Peninsula in Asia to the northern Baja Peninsula. Presently the species distribution extends from the Kamchatka Peninsula, east and south along the Pacific coast of North America, to at least Malibu Creek in southern California. There are infrequent anecdotal reports of steelhead continuing to occur as far south as the Santa Margarita River in San Diego County (McEwan and Jackson, 1996). Historically, steelhead likely inhabit most coastal streams in Washington, Oregon, and California as well as many inland streams in these states and Idaho. However, during this century, over 23 indigenous, naturally reproducing stocks of steelhead are believed to have been extirpated, and many more are thought to be in decline in numerous coastal and inland streams in Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and California.

The Central Valley Evolutionary Significant Unit (ESU) occupies the Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers and their tributaries. In the San Joaquin Basin, however, the best available information suggests that the current range of steelhead has been limited to the Stanislaus, Tuolumne, and Merced Rivers (tributaries), and the mainstem of the San Joaquin River to its confluence with the Merced River by human alteration of formerly available habitat. The Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers offer the only migration route to the drainages of the Sierra Nevada and southern Cascade mountain ranges for anadromous fish. The distanced from the Pacific Ocean to spawning streams can exceed 300 km, providing potential for reproductive isolation among steelhead. The Central Valley is much

FEIS Volume 3, Chapter 3, part 4.3 – page 58 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment – Part 4.3

drier than the coastal regions to the west, receiving on average only 10-50 cm of rainfall annually. The valley is characterized by alluvial soils, and native vegetation dominated by oak forests and prairie grasses prior to agricultural development. Steelheads within this ESU have the longest freshwater migration of any population of winter steelhead. There is essentially one continuous run of steelhead in the upper Sacramento River. River entry ranges from July through May, with peaks in September and February. Spawning begins in late December and can extend into April.

Steelhead ranged throughout the tributaries and headwaters of the Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers prior to dam construction, water development, and watershed perturbations of the 19th and 20th centuries. Present steelhead distribution in the central valley drainages has been greatly reduced (McEwan and Jackson, 1996), particularly in the San Joaquin basin. While there is little historical documentation regarding steelhead distribution in the San Joaquin River system, it can be assumed (based on known Chinook salmon distributions in this drainage) that steelhead were present in the San Joaquin River and its tributaries from at least the San Joaquin River headwaters northward. With regards to the present distribution of steelhead, there is also only limited information. McEwan and Jackson (1996) reported that a small, remnant run of steelhead persists in the Stanislaus River, that steelhead were observed in the Tuolumne River in 1983, and that a few large rainbow trout that appear to be steelhead enter the Merced River Hatchery.

Status

Several types of physical and biological evidence were considered in evaluating the contribution of steelhead from Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and California to the ecological/genetic diversity of the biological species throughout its range. Factors examined included: (1) The physical environment – geology, soil type, air temperature, precipitations, river flow patterns, water temperature, and vegetation; (2) biogeography – marine, estuarine, and freshwater fish distributions; and (3) life history traits – age at smolting, age at spawning, river entry timing, and spawning timing. An analysis of the physical environment and life history traits provide important insight into the ecological/genetic diversity of the species and can reflect unusual or distinctive adaptations that promote evolutionary processes. Based on the best available scientific and commercial information, including the biological effects of human activities, the National Marine Fisheries Service has identified 15 ESUs that include steelhead populations form Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and California.

Historical abundance estimates are available for some stocks within this ESU, but no overall estimates are available prior to 1961, when Hallock et al. (1961) estimated a total run size of 40,000 steelhead in the Sacramento River, including San Francisco Bay. In the Mid-1960’s, California Department of Fish and Game (1965) estimated steelhead-spawning populations for the rivers in this ESU, totaling almost 27,000 fish. Limited data exist on recent abundance for this ESU. The present total run size for this ESU based on dam counts, hatchery returns, and past spawning surveys is probably less than 10,000 fish. Both natural and hatchery runs have declined since the 1960’s. Counts at Red Bluff Diversion Dam averaged 1,400 fish from 1991 – 1996, compared with runs in excess of 10,000 fish in the late 1960’s. Recent run-size estimates for the hatchery produced American River stock average less than 1,000 fish, compared to 12,000 to 19,000 in the early 1970’s.

Adequate adult escapement information was available to compute a trend for only one stock within this ESU (Sacramento Rive above Red Bluff Diversion Dam). Fish passing over this dam are primarily (70 to 90 percent) of hatchery origin (CDFG, 1995, McEwan and Jackson, 1996). This data series shows a significant decline of 9 percent per year from 1966 to 1992. McEwan and Jackson

FEIS Volume 3, Chapter 3, part 4.3 – page 59 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment – Part 4.3

(1996) cite substantial declines in hatchery returns within the basin as well. The majority of native, natural steelhead production in this ESU occurs in upper Sacramento River tributaries (Antelope, Deer, Mill, and other Creeks) below Red Bluff Diversion Dam, but these populations are nearly extirpated. The American, Feather, and Yuba (and possibly the upper Sacramento and Mokelumne) Rivers also have naturally spawning populations (CDFG, 1995), but these populations have had substantial hatchery influence and their ancestry is not clearly known. The Yuba River had an estimated run size of 2,000 in 1984. Recent run size estimates for the Yuba River are unknown, but the population appears to be stable and supports a sport fishery (McEwan and Jackson, 1996) However, the status of native, natural fish in this stock is unknown. This stock has been influenced by Feather River Hatchery fish, and biologist familiar with the stock report that the Yuba River supports almost no natural production of steelhead (Hallock, 1989). However, CDFG (1995) asserted, “a substantial portion of the returning adults are progeny of naturally spawning adults from the Yuba River.” This stock currently receives no hatchery steelhead plants and is managed as a naturally sustained population (CDFG, 1995; McEwan and Jackson, 1996).

In the San Joaquin River Basin, there is little available historic or recent information on steelhead distribution or abundance. According to McEwan and Jackson (1996), there are reports of a small remnant steelhead run in the Stanislaus River. Also, steelhead were observed in the Tuolumne River in 1983, and large rainbow trout have been observed at Merced River Hatchery recently.

NMFS concludes that Central Valley steelhead ESU is presently in danger of extinction. Steelhead have already been extirpated from most of their historical range in this ESU.

Risk Factors

The major risk factors and habitat concerns in this ESU focus on the widespread degradation, destruction, and blockage of freshwater habitats within the region, and the potential results of continuing habitat destruction and water allocation problems. NMFS is also very concerned about the pervasive opportunity for genetic introgression from hatchery stocks within the ESU because of the widespread production of hatchery steelhead, and the potential ecological interactions between introduced stocks and native stocks.

Conservation Measures

1) Measure could be taken to promote land management practices that protect and restore steelhead habitat. Land management practices affecting steelhead habitat include timber harvest, road building, agriculture, livestock grazing, and urban development.

2) Evaluation of existing harvest regulation could identify any changes necessary to protect steelhead populations.

3) Artificial propagation programs could be required to incorporate practices that minimized impacts upon native populations of steelhead.

4) Efforts could be made to ensure that existing and proposed dam facilities are designed and operated in a manner that will not adversely affect steelhead populations.

FEIS Volume 3, Chapter 3, part 4.3 – page 60 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment – Part 4.3

5) Water diversions could have adequate headgate and staff gauge structures installed to control and monitor water usage accurately.

6) Irrigation diversions affecting downstream migrating steelhead trout could be screened.

Owens tui chub (Gila bicolor snyderi), Cowhead Lake tui chub (G. b. vaccaceps), Owens pupfish (Cyprinodon radiosus), Sacramento splittail (Pogonichthys macrolepidotus)

Historic and Current Distribution These species do not occur on National Forest System lands and so were not analyzed as part of the Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment.

FEIS Volume 3, Chapter 3, part 4.3 – page 61 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment – Part 4.3

II. Environmental Consequences

Fishes of the Sierra Nevada exhibit a high degree of endemism due in part to a dynamic climatic and geological history. Many Sierra Nevada fishes have very restricted distributions, often limited to single drainage basins or in some cases to single streams or springs. Of the 40 fishes that can be characterized as having declined in population size (Table 4.5.2a), 8 have special status as being Federally endangered, threatened, or proposed for listing and occur on Sierra Nevada national forest lands (Table 4.3.4b)

Table 4.3.4b. Fish species federally endangered, threatened, or proposed for listing and occur on Sierra Nevada national forest lands

Common Name Scientific Name Federal Status Little Kern golden trout Oncorhynchus mykiss whitei threatened Paiute cutthroat trout Oncorhynchus clarki seleniris threatened Modoc sucker Catostomus microps endangered Shortnose sucker Chamistes brevirostris endangered Lost River sucker Deltistes luxatus endangered Warner sucker Catostomus warnerensis endangered Central Valley Chinook, ESU Oncorhynchus tshawytscha Winter run endangered Spring run threatened Central Valley steelhead O. mykiss irideus threatened

Effect of Alternatives

Management Areas. Alternatives 2, 5, 6, 8, and Modified 8 identify special management areas, selected in part based on consideration of fish habitats. Critical Aquatic Refuges (CARs) are included in Alternatives 2, 6, 8, and Modified 8, while critical refuges are included in Alternative 5. Alternatives 2, 6, and 8 also delineate emphasis watersheds but Alternative Modified 8 has enlarged CARs on scale with emphasis watersheds. Alternative 5 delineates aquatic diversity areas, which generally overlap with emphasis watersheds, but encompass larger areas. These special areas are potentially significant to the viability of native fishes: 22 of these 40 fishes in the Sierra Nevada group with declining numbers can be found in these special management areas, including all that occur on national forest lands. Management in these areas could directly affect the entire current range of 11 fish species. Three additional declining species occur downstream of special management areas, and thus might benefit from planning and management activities in these areas.

Direction for planning and conducting management activities in special management areas varies between alternatives. Alternatives 2, 5, 6, 8, and Modified 8 state that critical aquatic refuges should be priority area for landscape analysis as well as a high priority for watershed restoration activities. Management activities within CARs should be compatible with the goal of sustaining and enhancing habitat for aquatic and, or riparian dependent species. Alternative 5 further emphasizes landscape analyses by requiring that they be completed before activities requiring documentation in an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement are conducted. Alternative 8

FEIS Volume 3, Chapter 3, part 4.3 – page 62 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment – Part 4.3 emphasizes landscape analyses by requiring them in emphasis watersheds before projects requiring a Decision Notice or a Record of Decision are conducted. Other alternatives emphasize landscape analyses to lesser extents than Alternatives 5 and 8, and require them in situations not specifically targeted to benefit fish.

In Alternative 5, special management areas (critical refuges and aquatic diversity areas) influence planning and management in the form of landscape analyses. Specifically, timber harvest and fuels treatments would be prohibited in these areas unless such activities contributed to the attainment of Aquatic Management Strategy (AMS) goals. Pesticide use would be prohibited in special management areas under Alternative 5. These provisions would benefit fish where watershed disturbance or pollution were significant determinants of abundance. Alternative 5 uses the AMS goals as the basis for several standards and guidelines.

Riparian Areas. Linkages between riparian and instream processes and habitat indicate that differences between alternatives, in terms of their effect on fishes, are influenced by the extent of: (1) designated riparian areas and (2) the activities allowed in these areas. Determining how different approaches to delineating riparian areas might affect fishes is complicated by several factors. The variable width approach (used in Alternatives 2, 4, and 5) includes two classes of riparian areas (green and grey zones), with some standards and guidelines applying only to green zones. Both the variable width approach (Alternatives 2, 4, and 5) and Alternative 3 would use site-specific analyses to delineate riparian zones, but the specific outcomes of these analyses are uncertain. While the stream type, flexible width approach to identifying riparian areas (Alternatives 6, 7, 8, and Modified 8) would probably result in larger riparian areas along perennial streams than the variable width approach, the latter might be more effective in reducing cumulative watershed effects.

The alternatives provide a range of riparian area protection guidance. Alternative 5 is the most restrictive. Alternative 5 prohibits all land disturbing activities in green and grey zones unless they benefit riparian-dependent or aquatic species, or water quality, and the benefits are demonstrated via landscape analysis. Most of the other alternatives prohibit salvage or commercial logging in green zones (Alternative 2) or stream type riparian zones along permanent and intermittent streams (Alternative 8). Timber harvesting may be conducted in riparian areas, following different guidelines, under Alternatives 3, 4, 6, 7, and Modified 8. Alternatives 3 and 5 prohibit road building in riparian zones; Alternative 5 further addresses negative effects of roads on streams by requiring that failed road crossings and culverts be identified and have priority for rehabilitation.

Grazing. Effects common to all alternatives are those that contribute to the immediate loss of individual fish and loss of specific habitat features (for example, undercut banks and spawning beds) or localized reductions in habitat quality (like sedimentation and loss of riparian vegetation). One of the greatest risk factors, within the control of the Forest Service, to Forest Service Sensitive fish species in the western United States has been degradation of the aquatic environment, especially those resulting from long term livestock grazing.

Grazing practices in the western United States have led to severe degradation of some riparian areas and have greatly increased the nutrient and sediment export potential in many areas (Karr and Schlosser 1978, Gregory and others 1991). Behnke and Zarn (1976) identified livestock grazing as the greatest threat to the integrity of stream habitats in the western United States. Numerous publications have documented the detrimental effects of livestock grazing on streams and riparian areas. Effects on fish habitat can include nutrient loading, reduction of shade and cover with resultant increases in water temperature, more intermittent flows, changes in stream channel morphology, and

FEIS Volume 3, Chapter 3, part 4.3 – page 63 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment – Part 4.3 the addition of sediment due to bank degradation and off-site soil erosion. Removal of streambank vegetation through grazing decreases shade and cover, which promotes greater water temperature fluctuations, decreased water storage capacity, and increased erosion potential. Grazing effects are not limited to riparian areas. Grazing of upland vegetation can expose soils to erosive impacts of raindrops, reduce water infiltration, and accelerate runoff. This can erode topsoil and cut rills and gullies, that concentrate runoff, deepen gullies, lower water tables, and increase sediment production (Chaney and others 1993).

When livestock graze directly on streambank vegetation, mass erosion from trampling, hoof slide, and streambank collapse causes streambank soils to move directly into the stream (Platts 1990). Heavy trampling by livestock can compact soils, reducing the infiltration of overbank flows and precipitation. Reduced infiltration and increased runoff may decrease the recharge of the saturated zone and increase peak flow discharge (Platts 1990). Riparian areas in poor condition are unable to buffer the effects of the accelerated runoff. Doubling the speed of streamflow increases its erosive power by four times and its bedload and sediment carrying power by 64 times (Chaney and others 1993). Accelerated runoff can cause unstable stream channels to downcut or erode laterally, accelerating erosion and sediment production (Chaney and others 1993). Lateral erosion results in progressively wider and shallower stream channels that can adversely effect fish populations.

Streambank damage can eliminate habitat associated with banks (Armour 1977), alter stream morphology such as pool/riffle and width/depth ratios (Gunderson 1968, Platts 1979), and cover spawning areas with sediment that reduces survival of fish embryos (Bjornn 1969, Phillips and others 1975). Additionally, undercut banks that normally provide shelter, are often damaged or collapse in grazed areas, thus decreasing the amount of available fish habitat. Increased sedimentation due to bank collapse may decrease pool volume downstream, eliminating other important habitats.

The effects of grazing on woody vegetation are critical because of the importance of woody debris in providing nutrients, structure, pool formation and streambank stability, shading, and favorable microclimates. Grazing can eliminate woody species over time. While mature vegetation approaches senescence, excessive grazing pressures have prevented the establishment of seedlings (Carothers 1977, Glinski 1977). On streams rested from continuous grazing for ten years, Claire and Storch (unpublished) found alders and willows provided 75 percent shade cover over areas that had been devoid of shrub canopy cover before exclosure. Crouch (1978), Duff (1979), and Kauffman (1982) found similar results.

Other direct effects of livestock grazing on aquatic species include wallowing and wading in the stream. Direct wading in streams by livestock can be assumed to induce mortality on eggs and pre- emergent fry at least equal to that demonstrated for human wading (Roberts and White 1992).

In addition, some indirect effects are expected to occur. Trampling affects the hydrology of the watershed. Accelerated runoff temporarily increases streamflows but decreases the amount of water retained in the watershed to sustain base flows. Greater water yields have been demonstrated in grazed compared to ungrazed areas (Liacos 1962, Hanson and others 1970, Lushby 1970). Alderfer and Robinson (1949), Bryant and others (1972), Orr (1960), and Rauzi and Hanson (1966) all found soil compaction increased linearly with increases in grazing intensity. Rauzi and Hanson (1966) found water intake rates on a moderately grazed watershed to be nearly twice that on the heavily grazed watershed. Water intake rates on a lightly grazed watershed were nearly four times that on the heavily grazed watershed and over twice that on the moderately grazed watershed. Heavy grazing

FEIS Volume 3, Chapter 3, part 4.3 – page 64 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment – Part 4.3 compacted the soil and significantly decreased the pore spaces in the top four inches of the soil when compared to light grazing. Twenty-two years of differential grazing resulted in changes in both plant species composition and soil properties (Rauzi and Hanson 1966).

A general reduction in the plant biomass of riparian areas can have multiple consequences. These can be increased water temperature, increased sedimentation, and decreased water storage. Increased sediment loads reduce primary production in streams. Reduced instream plant growth and woody and herbaceous riparian vegetation limits populations of terrestrial and aquatic insects. Alternative Modified 8 would implement grazing standards that limit grazing intensity and control the timing of grazing both for physiological plant needs and streambank protection. Protection would be given to willow flycatcher nesting habitat during the breeding season (June 1 through August 31) by either (1) using permanent or electrical fencing or (2) avoiding occupied habitat during the breeding season. If late season grazing was employed, this could have indirect negative effects on willow species because they are relatively more palatable at this time of year than associated upland vegetation. Cattle could utilize them differentially over other plants.

Environmental Outcomes

The environmental outcomes for fish species are based on the implementation of the AMS and associated Standards and Guidelines for each alternative.

Table 4.3.4c. represents the assessment ratings over the planning horizon for the Federally listed fish species.

Table 4.3.4c. The assessment ratings over the planning horizon for the Federally listed fish species.

Alternatives Species Current 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Mod 8 Chinook (SR) C C C C C C C C C C Chinook (WR) C C C C C C C C C C Steelhead (WR) C C C C C C C C C C LK Golden Trout C C C C C C C C C C Lahontan CT C C C C C C C C C C Paiute CT D D D D D D D D D D Modoc sucker C C C C C C C C C C Shortnose sucker C C C C C C C C C C Lost River sucker C C C C C C C C C C Warner sucker D D D D D D D D D D

FEIS Volume 3, Chapter 3, part 4.3 – page 65 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment – Part 4.3

Cumulative Effects

Population Outcomes

Table 4.3.4d represents the assessment ratings over the planning horizon for the Federally listed fish species.

Table 4.3.4d. The assessment ratings over the planning horizon for the Federally listed fish species.

Alternatives Species Current 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Mod 8 Chinook (SR) D D D D D D D D D D Chinook (WR) D D D D D D D D D D Steelhead (WR) D D D D D D D D D D LK Golden Trout C C C C C C C C C C Lahontan CT C C C C C C C C C C Paiute CT D D D D D D D D D D Modoc sucker D D D D D D D D D D Shortnose sucker D D D D D D D D D D Lost River sucker D D D D D D D D D D Warner sucker E E E E E E E E E E

FEIS Volume 3, Chapter 3, part 4.3 – page 66 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences