Calaveras Ranger District, Stanislaus National...

1

BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT/EVALUATION (BA/BE)

TERRESTRIAL SPECIES

Hemlock Landscape Restoration Project (45690)

Environmental Assessment Calaveras Ranger District, Stanislaus National Forest

Project Location:

Calaveras County, California

T6N, R16E, Sections 1-5 and 8-12

T6N, R16E, Sections 5 and 6

T7N, R16E, Sections 12-14, 23-27, and 26-35

T7N, R17E, Sections 15-22 and 26-35

Mount Diablo Base and Meridian (MDBM)

Prepared by: _ ___ Date:__xxx xx, 2015____________

Melinda S. Benton, Wildlife Biologist, Calaveras RD

This Biological Assessment and Evaluation is in compliance with 36 CFR 219.19 and 241.1. It conforms to Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, 19 U.S.C. 1536.C, 50 CFR 402.12 (f) and 402.14.C.

2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. INTRODUCTION……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….… 3

II. CONSULTATION HISTORY…………………………………………………………………………………………..……… 9

III. CURRENT MANAGEMENT DIRECTION………………………………………………………………………….…….. 9

IV. PROJECT PROPOSED ACTIONS & ALTERNATIVES…………………………………………………………….… 13

V. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT……………………………………………………………………………………..…….….. 16

VI. EFFECTS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECTS & ALTERNATIVES……………………………….…………………. 20

Alternative 1 (Proposed Action) Direct and Indirect Effects

Forest Restoration, Scenic Corridor, and Fuels Reduction………………………………………….. 21

Mature Forest Wildlife Habitat………………………………………………………………………………….. 22

Streams, Riparian Areas, Special Aquatic Features, and Aquatic Organism Passage.…. 23

Dispersed Recreation and Transportation………………………………………………………………….. 24

Cumulative Effects…………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 24

Alternative 2 (No Action) Indirect Effects

Forest Restoration, Scenic Corridor, Fuels Reduction, Mature Forest Wildlife Habitat.. 24

Streams, Riparian Areas, Special Aquatic Features, and Aquatic Organism Passage.… 25



Alternative 3 Direct and Indirect Effects

Forest Restoration, Scenic Corridor, and Fuels Reduction………………………………………….. 25

Mature Forest Wildlife Habitat………………………………………………………………………………….. 25

Streams, Riparian Areas, Special Aquatic Features, and Aquatic Organism Passage.… 26



FOREST CANOPY STRUCTURE

California Spotted Owl Population Stressors……………………………………………………………… 26

Interim Recommendations for the California Spotted Owl………………………………………… 27

Alternative 3: Canopy Retention……………………………………………………………………………….. 28

VII. EFFECTS DETERMINATIONS…………………………………………………………………………………….……….. 30

LITERATURE CITED……………………………………………………………………………………………….………………... 32

APPENDICES

A. Description of Alternatives……………………………………………………………………………………….. 44

B. Species and Habitat Accounts……………………………………………………………………………………. 73

C. USFWS Consultation Letter………………………………………………………………………………………. 111

D. Project Maps……………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 124

3

Federally listed species with potential habitat within the project area:

Species

Status

Elevation Range (ft)

Habitat Type

Project Within Distribution Range (Y/N)

Project Within

Elevation Range (Y/N)

Habitat In or Around

Project

Species

Occurrence (Y/N)

Effect

Determination

Valley elderberry longhorn beetle Desmocerus californicus dimorphus

T <3,000 Elderberry shrubs within areas of

riparian vegetation

N

N

N

N

N

NE

Pacific fisher Pekania pennanti

C 5,000-8,500

Mature mixed conifer and hardwood forest (>70% canopy). Dens in hollow trees and

logs

Y

Y

Y

N

I

MA/NL

California wolverine Gulo gulo luteus

C, S 6,400-10,800

Mature, mixed conifer and woodlands

Y

Y

Y

N

N

NE

Status: T = Threatened, C = Candidate, S = Sensitive Effect: N = No effect, I = indirect effect, D = Direct effect Determination: NE = No effect, MA/NL = May affect individuals, but is not likely to contribute to the need for federal listing or result in loss of viability for the species.

I. Introduction

The purpose of this evaluation is to determine the effects of the implementation of the Hemlock Landscape Restoration Project (hereafter referred to as Hemlock) on the Calaveras Ranger District, Stanislaus National Forest on endangered, threatened, proposed, candidate species, species of concern, and critical habitat, as listed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (revised 09/18/2011). This assessment would also consider potential effects on the sensitive species from the Regional Forester’s sensitive species list (appended 06/30/2013). This evaluation has also been prepared in accordance with Forest Service Manual (FSM 2670) direction and the Endangered Species Act (as amended). A biological assessment/evaluation (BA/BE) is required for all Federal Activities, including those funded or carried out by a federal agency, under section 7(c) of the endangered species act, as amended, 1973. The BA/BE process is designed to ensure that the above activities are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any listed or proposed species or to result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat. It is also designed to avoid actions “which may cause a species to become threatened or endangered”. The Hemlock Landscape Restoration project is located on the Calaveras Ranger District of the Stanislaus National Forest in Calaveras County, California (Figure 1). The project area is northeast of Arnold and southwest of the Bear Valley Recreation area on the north side of the North Fork Stanislaus River. The project area includes portions of Township 6N, Range 16E, Sections 1-5, 8-12, Township 6N, Range 17E, Sections 5 and 6, Township 7N, Range 16E, Sections 12 – 14, 23 – 27, 33 – 36, and Township 7, Range 17E, Sections 15 – 22, 26 – 35 and is contained within the Tamarack and Calaveras Dome USGS 7.5 minute quadrangle maps. Elevations within the 14,075 acre project area range between 5,400 feet and 7,920 feet.

4

The following terrestrial species are considered for analysis in this BA/BE because they are federally listed as threatened, endangered, proposed, candidate species (Table 1) or are Forest Service sensitive species for the Stanislaus National Forest as designated by the Regional Forester (Table 2). Aquatic species and Management Indicator Species (MIS) are covered under separate documents.

Table 1: Endangered, Threatened, Proposed Terrestrial Species and Designated Critical Habitat (CH) in the Project Area.

Species Status Elevation Range(ft) Habitat Type

Project Within

Distribution Range (Y/N)

Project Within


Potential Habitat

In or Around Project

Species Occurrence

(Y/N) Effect Determination

Valley elderberry longhorn

beetle Desmocerus californicus dimorphus

T <3,000

Elderberry shrubs

within areas of riparian vegetation

(CH designated outside the STF in the

Central Valley, CA)

N N N N N NE

Pacific fisher Pekania pennanti

C 5,000-8,500

Mature mixed

conifer and hardwood

forest (>70%)

canopy). Dens in

hollow trees and logs. (CH not

currently designated)

Y Y Y UNK I MA/NL

California wolverine Gulo gulo

luteus

C S

6,400-10,800

Mature mixed

conifer and woodlands.

(CH not currently

designated)

Y Y Y N N NE

Bald eagle Haliaeetus

leucocephalus

DM S

District-wide

Large bodies of open water with large mature trees for nesting.

Y Y N N N NE

5


Project Within


Project Within


Potential Habitat


Species Occurrence


Northern goshawk accipiter gentilis

S 4,000-8,000

Mature forest for nesting w/canopy closure >60%. Foraging habitat includes forest, woodland, shrubland and forested riparian.

Y Y Y Y D/I MA/NL

Great gray owl

Strix nebulosa S

2,500-8,000

Dense conifer forests, adjacent to large meadows and meadow complexes.

Y Y Y N D/I MA/NL

California spotted owl

Strix occidentalis occidentalis

S >7,000

Mixed mature and old-growth coniferous forests dominated by Douglas-fir, but also mature hardwood forest. Uneven and multilayered canopy

Y Y Y Y D/I MA/NL

Willow flycatcher Empidonax

traillii

S 2,000-8,000

Perennial stream or wetland with dense willow (Salix sp.), seep willow (Baccharis sp.), w/ medium sized trees.

Y Y Y N D/I MA/NL

6


Project Within


Project Within


Potential Habitat


Species Occurrence


Fringed myotis (bat)

Myotis thysanodes

S Sea

level to 6,500

Pinyon-juniper, Valley foothill hardwood, and hardwood-conifers; Roosts under bark in medium to large snags surrounded by low canopy cover.

Y Y Y Y D/I MA/NL

Townsend's big-eared bat Corynorhinus

townsendii

S <10,800

Exposed cavity forming rock and/or historic mining areas. Roosts in Douglas fir, lodgepole pine and ponderosa pine.

Y Y Y Y D/I MA/NL

Pallid bat Antrosous

pallidus S <10,000

Roosts in rocky outcrops, associated with grassland, shrubland, woodland and mixed conifer forest.

Y Y Y Y D/I MA/NL

Sierra Nevada red

fox Vulpes vulpes

necator

S >4,000

Red fir and lodgepole pine forests in the sub-alpine and alpine zones

Y Y Y N N NE

7


Project Within


Project Within


Potential Habitat


Species Occurrence


American marten Martes

americana

S 4000-

13,100

Mature coniferous forest w/canopy closure >60%. Den in hollow trees, crevices or ground burrows.

Y Y Y Y D/I MA/NL

Status: T = Threatened, C = Candidate, S = Sensitive, DM = Designated Monitoring Species Occurrence: UNK=Unknown Effect: N = No effect, I = indirect effect, D = Direct effect Determination: NE = No effect, MA/NL = May affect individuals, but is not likely to contribute to the need for federal listing or result in loss of viability for the species.

A list of species considered in detail is provided in the effects section for this project. Species are considered in detail where occupancy has been confirmed or where suitable habitat occurs in close proximity to the project and effects are expected. The Hemlock project action area is either outside the geographic range and/or elevation range or does not provide habitat for several species; therefore, they will not be considered further in this BA/BE (see Tables 1 and 2). The following paragraphs briefly discuss the rationale for not considering these species further. Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle (Desmocerus californicus dimorphus) The valley elderberry longhorn beetle (beetle) is a Federally Threatened species with critical habitat designated to the west of the STF in the Central Valley, CA (Federal Register 1980). The beetle occurs primarily in the lower Sacramento River and upper San Joaquin Valley and their range extends as far north as Redding, south to Kern County, and into the foothills on either side of the Valley. General habitat for the beetle is moist valley oak woodlands and riparian areas, as well as upland river canyons below 3,000 ft. elevation (Barr 1991, USDI 1984). The beetle is an herbivore that specializes on elderberry shrubs (Sambucus Mexicana and S. racemosa). The project area is outside the elevation range of this species; therefore, further detailed analysis is not warranted. California Wolverine (Gulo gulo luteus) The USFWS reviewed the need to list the wolverine under ESA based on a petition submitted in July of 2000. On March 22, 2008, the USFWS released a 12 month finding: they found the wolverine not warranted for listing under ESA (Federal Register 2008). Subsequently, the USFWS reviewed a second petition submitted in 2009 and following a 12 month in-depth review of all information on the North American wolverine, they issued a positive result. The USFWS has concluded that listing the species is warranted but that listing is precluded at this time due to other listing priorities. The species was officially listed as a USFWS “candidate” species (Federal Register, December 14, 2010), and is considered a distinct population segment (DPS), with the current range including portions of

8

Washington, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, Colorado, Utah, Oregon, and California. The wolverine is a Region 5 Regional Forester Sensitive Species and is designated California State Threatened by California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). In North America, wolverines range once included the vast majority of Alaska and Canada, the northern tier of the coterminous United States, and the mountains as far south as the Sierra Nevada in California and the Rocky Mountains in northern New Mexico. The current range in North America has been reduced to Alaska, northern and western Canada, and limited areas of Idaho, Montana, Washington, and Wyoming. Wolverines use a variety of habitats but tend to use slopes for denning that retain snow into the spring and select areas free from human disturbance (USDA 2001). A wolverine was documented and confirmed in 2008 on the Tahoe National Forest. This initial photographic detection was followed by extended surveys resulting in the collection of hair and scat samples for genetic testing. The DNA analysis confirmed the individual is not from the historic California wolverine population, but has a genetic makeup of wolverines found in the western Rocky Mountains (Moriarty et al. 2009). Thus far, this is an isolated individual postulated to have dispersed from the western Rocky Mountains. There are no other confirmed occurrences of wolverine in the Sierra Nevada and the detection site on the Tahoe National Forest is more than 100 miles to the north. For these reasons, further detailed analysis for this species is not warranted. Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) The USFWS removed the bald eagle from the list of threatened and endangered species protected under ESA on August 8, 2007 (USDI 2007). The bald eagle is now a designated monitoring species for the next 20 years, with a review to be conducted every 5 years. They remain protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. The bald eagle is a Region 5 Regional Forester Sensitive Species and remains California State Endangered and fully protected by CDFW. The bald eagle occurs throughout most of North America and breeds and winters throughout California (Zeiner et al. 1990a). An estimated 151-180 breeding pairs occur throughout Sierra Nevada national forests. In a survey of nest sites in Northern California, Lehman (1979) found that 73% of nests were within ½ mile of a body of water, 87% were within 1 mile, and all were within 2 miles. On the STF, there are two documented breeding pairs, one at Beardsley Reservoir and the other on Cherry Lake (15 and 28 miles south of the project area respectively). The nearest potential suitable habitat for breeding bald eagles is the North Fork Mokelumne River, Spicer and Utica Reservoirs, approximately 7 miles southeast from the project area. The project area is over 2 miles from the nearest potential breeding habitat with a ridge in between to buffer noise and disturbance from activities; therefore, project activities would not disturb breeding individuals. For these reasons, further detailed analysis for this species is not warranted. Sierra Nevada Red Fox (Vulpes vulpes necator) The Sierra Nevada red fox (red fox) is a Region 5 Regional Forester Sensitive Species and is designated State Threatened by CDFW. Historically, red foxes occurred throughout the high elevations of the Sierra Nevada from Tulare to Sierra Counties, from Mount Shasta and Lassen Peak westward to the Trinity Mountains of Trinity County (Grinnell et al. 1937). They have been documented from 3,900-11,800 feet, but are most often seen above 6,900 feet in the Lassen Peak area. Camera stations targeted for carnivore species including fisher and marten were employed in Ebbett’s Pass (USDA 2001 and 2002), north of the town of Bear Valley (2010d), and within the Blue Creek, Hermit Spring, Cabbage Patch areas in 2012-2013 (West Calaveras Thin and Hemlock Landscape-Level Restoration Project surveys 2012-2013). No Sierra Nevada red fox detections were made as a result of these survey efforts. On August 11, 2010 a photograph of a Sierra Nevada red fox was taken at a remote camera station near the Sonora Pass, approximately 33 miles southeast of the project area at about 9,900 feet elevation. Subsequent genetic analysis by UC Davis veterinary geneticists confirmed it was a Sierra Nevada red fox from the Sierra Nevada population, distinct from the Lassen Peak

9

population. Since the initial photograph in August, an additional two photographs have been taken of Sierra Nevada red foxes in winter 2010-2011; both within 5 miles of the original detection at about 9,900-10,000 feet elevation. These foxes have remained at higher elevations through the winter and have not been documented below 9,900 feet to date. Habitat use of the Sierra Nevada red fox is poorly understood. Red foxes in the Lassen area use mixed conifer, mixed pine, lodgepole and red fir. They are also found in fell-fields, barren areas, talus, shrub, and mountain meadow habitat. They use dense stands of young red fir, spaces under large boulders, open gaps in manzanita shrubs, and downed logs (Perrine 2005 & 2010). It is thought this species is sensitive to human presence, except in some instances with the Lassen Peak population where individuals have become food conditioned. A logistic regression model was created using presence/absence data from the Lassen Peak region to predict habitat suitability for the Sierra Nevada red fox (Casey Cleve, unpub. data). The model results are displayed as a gradient from 0-1, 0 = not suitable up to 1 = highly suitable. The project area, according to this model, provides no suitable habitat for the Sierra Nevada red fox. Sierra Nevada red fox may potentially utilize the project area during the winter months; however no project activities would be occurring at that time because of the snow levels. Therefore there would be minimal likelihood of disturbance to this species. Because of the recent winter detections above 9,900 feet, approximately 2,000 feet above the highest elevation in the project area, and the model predicting no suitable habitat within the project area, further detailed analysis for this species is not warranted.

II. CONSULTATION TO DATE An official list of Federal Endangered and Threatened Species was obtained from the Sacramento U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Office website (http://www.fws.gov/sacramento/es/spp_lists.htm) on July 08, 2015. The document number is 08ESMF00-2015-SLI-0828 (see Appendix C), covering the project area. The terrestrial species identified on this list (Pacific fisher) is evaluated in this document (Table 1). Aquatic species are discussed in the Aquatics BA/BE (Bawdon 2015).

III. CURRENT MANAGEMENT DIRECTION The Stanislaus National Forest “Forest Plan Direction” presents the current Forest Plan management direction, based on the original Forest Plan as modified through the Forest Plan LRMP FEIS (USDA 1991) as modified through Forest Plan appeals and amendment processes (USDA, 2010c). These documents are hereby incorporated by reference. Land Allocations The Hemlock project area has the following land allocations relevant to terrestrial wildlife species: California spotted owl Protected Activity Centers (PACs); California spotted owl Home Range Core Areas (HRCAs), Northern goshawk PACs, Old Forest Emphasis Area (OFEA), and General Forest. California Spotted Owl and Northern Goshawk Protected Activity Centers (PACs) Desired Condition of both California spotted owl and northern goshawk PACs:

At least two tree canopy layers present Dominant and co-dominant trees average at least 24 inches diameter at breast height (dbh) Area within the PAC has at least 60-70% canopy cover Some very large snags are present (>45”dbh) Levels of snags and downed woody material are higher than average

http://www.fws.gov/sacramento/es/spp_lists.htm

10

California Spotted Owl Home Range Core Areas (HRCAs) Desired Condition of HRCAs consists of large (700 acre) habitat blocks containing:

At least two tree canopy layers Dominant and co-dominant trees present that are at least 24 inches dbh A number of very large, old trees (>45”dbh) At least 50-70% canopy cover Levels of snags and downed woody debris are higher than average

Old Forest Emphasis Areas (OFEAs) Desired Condition in OFEAs:

Promote forest structure and function resembling pre-settlement conditions High levels of horizontal and vertical diversity across the landscape (10,000 acre areas) Stands composed of even-aged vegetation groups of varying sizes, species composition and

structure (individual vegetation groups 0.5 to >5 acres in size) Varied species composition based on elevation, site productivity, and other factors Multi-tiered canopies to provide vertical heterogeneity Dead trees standing and fallen Where treatments occur, consider establishing early seral stage vegetation

General Forest Desired Conditions are the same as listed in OFEAs WUI Defense Zones The desired conditions in WUI defense zones are:

Fairly open stands dominated by larger, fire tolerant trees Surface and ladder fuel conditions such that crown fire ignition is highly unlikely Maintenance of open and discontinuous crown fuels, both horizontally and vertically, with a

low likelihood of sustained crown fire Standards and Guidelines The following Standards and Guidelines are relevant for the management of and beneficial for the terrestrial wildlife species considered in this specialist report. The S&G numbers reference those found in the Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment (SNFPA) Record of Decision (USDA 2004), which mimic the Standards and Guidelines in the Stanislaus National Forest Plan Direction (USDA 2010c). The implementation of site-specific limitations on equipment operation, remediation of project related and legacy soil compaction effects, road maintenance and decommissioning, and Best Management Practices (BMP) specific to the project are intended to meet these Standards and Guidelines and are consistent with the Forest Plan Direction for the Wildlife Management Strategy. Implementation of project activities would additionally move the project area toward the desired condition as described in the Forest Plan Direction by achieving the following applicable Standards and Guidelines (S&G). Mechanical Thinning Treatments S&G #7; Where existing vegetative conditions permit, design projects to retain at least 50 percent canopy cover averaged within the treatment unit. . . Where 50 percent canopy cover cannot be met, retain at least 40 percent canopy cover averaged within the treatment unit.

11

Downed Woody Material Retention S&G #10; Retain 10-15 tons/acre of downed logs greater than 15” at the small end and 10 feet or longer, except where they pose a threat to safety, control efforts or efficacy of other fuel treatments. Retention guidelines can be met utilizing cull logs and hazard trees meeting minimum dimensions. Snag Retention S&G #11; Retain all snags greater than 15”dbh except where they occur in or adjacent to fuel breaks and subdivisions, or where they pose a threat to human safety. Across treatment units retain some mid and large diameter trees (≥ 15” dbh) that are currently in decline, have substantial wood defect, or that have desirable characteristics (teakettle branches, large diameter broken top, large cavities in the bole, mistletoe platforms, witches brooms) to serve as nesting and roosting structures and as future replacement snags. S&G #7, 10, and 11 were achieved in the project design. Hardwood Management S&G #18; Where possible, create openings around existing California black oak and canyon live oak to stimulate natural regeneration. S&G #23; Retain all hardwood species ≥ 12” dbh, retaining smaller diameter hardwood trees wherever feasible to provide a variety of age classes. S&G #18 and 23 were achieved in the project design. Habitat Connectivity for Old Forest Associated Species S&G #27; Minimize old forest habitat fragmentation. Assess potential impacts of fragmentation on old forest associated species (particularly fisher and marten) in biological evaluations. S&G #28; Assess the potential impact of projects on the connectivity of habitat for old forest associated species. S&G #27 and 28 were achieved in the project design by maintaining connectivity between suitable fisher and marten habitat areas and addressing the issue in this analysis. S&G #29; Consider retaining forest linkages (with canopy cover greater than 40 percent) that are interconnected via riparian areas and ridgetop saddles during project-level analysis. S&G #29 was achieved during project design by retaining higher canopy layers in stands that are connected to saddles and ridgetops between watersheds. California Spotted Owl, Northern Goshawk, and Great Gray Owl Surveys S&G #33 and 34; Conduct surveys in compliance with the Pacific Southwest Region’s survey protocols during the planning process when proposed vegetation treatments are likely to reduce habitat quality in suitable California spotted owl or northern goshawk habitat with unknown occupancy. Designate protected activity centers (PACs) where appropriate based on survey results. S&G #33 and 34 was achieved by completing spotted owl and northern goshawk surveys in 2011-2013. This survey effort included nest checks with supplemental surveys to determine nesting status and reproductive success or failure. Of the seven spotted owl PACs that overlap with the project area, three were determined to be occupied and two were breeding during the survey period. The

12

reproduction attempt of both was successful. The third PAC was occupied by a non-breeding older pair. Three goshawk PACs occur within the project area. One PAC was determined to be occupied with a breeding pair that was reproductively successful during the survey period. Treatments within California Spotted Owl and Northern Goshawk Protected Activity Centers S&G #71; Within the assessment area or watershed, locate fuels treatments to minimize impacts to PACs. PACs may be re-mapped during project planning to avoid intersections with treatment areas, provided that the re-mapped PACs contain habitat of equal quality and include known nest sites and important roost sites. Document PAC adjustments in biological evaluations. S&G #71 was achieved through project design. Approximately 1,342 acres of spotted owl PAC and 106 acres of goshawk PAC are proposed for hand treatment of less than 6 inch dbh trees as part of proposed fuels reduction and PAC maintenance. Less than 30% percent of a PAC would be treated during a calendar year. After treatment percent canopy closure is expected to be approximately 50%. Limited Operating Periods for California Spotted Owls and Northern Goshawks S&G #75 and 76; Maintain a limited operating period (LOP), prohibiting vegetation treatments within approximately 0.25 mile of spotted owl or goshawk nest sites or activity centers from March 1 through August 31 and from February 15 through September 15 respectively, unless surveys by a qualified biologist confirm non-nesting status. S&G #75 and 76 were achieved by establishing LOPs in the project design. The project area contains seven spotted owl PACS and three northern goshawk PACS, and twelve adjacent spotted owl PACs and two northern goshawk PACs all within one mile of the project boundary. Protocol level surveys for spotted owl and northern goshawk were conducted in 2011-2013. Of the seven spotted owl PACs that overlap with the project area, three were determined to be occupied and two were breeding during the survey period. The reproduction attempt of both was successful. The third PAC was occupied by a non-breeding older pair. Three goshawk PACs occur within the project area. One PAC was determined to be occupied with a breeding pair that was reproductively successful during the survey period. Limited operating periods would be established within 0.25 mile of known nest trees or activity centers within the project boundary or activity centers that overlap the project area. S&G #78 and 79; LOPs may be waived, where necessary, to allow for use of early season prescribed fire in up to five percent of spotted owl or northern goshawk PACs per year on the forest. S&G #78 and 79 were achieved during project design. Standard and Guidelines for Vegetation Treatments in California Spotted Owl & Northern Goshawk PACs S&G #80 and 81: Conduct vegetation treatments in no more than five percent per year and ten percent per decade of the acres in either spotted owl or goshawk PACs in the 11 Sierra Nevada national forests. S&G #80 and 81 were achieved during project design. Standards and Guidelines for Fisher and Marten Den Sites S&G #85 and 88; Protect fisher and marten den site buffers from disturbance with a limited operating period (LOP) from March 1 through June 30 and May 1 through July 31 respectively for vegetation treatments as long as habitat remains suitable or until another Regionally-approved management strategy is implemented. The LOP may be waived for individual projects of limited scope and duration,

13

when a biological evaluation documents that such projects are unlikely to result in breeding disturbance considering their intensity, duration, timing and specific location. S&G #85 and 88 were achieved by surveys conducted for carnivores near the project area in Ebbetts Pass (2001 and 2002) north of Bear Valley (2010d), and within the Blue Creek, Hermit Spring, Cabbage Patch areas in 2012-2013 (2013). Fishers were not detected during these surveys and fishers are not considered present in the project area. Although there is potential fisher habitat within the project area, this habitat is considered of moderate quality, due to the low amounts of large snags and the fragmentation of habitat. No LOP is established for the protection of fisher den sites. Martens are known to occur within the project area, however, no marten den sites are known to exist. There are approximately 5,265 acres of suitable denning habitat within the project area. With the presence of marten within the project area, LOPs would be established around suitable denning habitat from May 1 through July 31. PAC Additions/Changes California Spotted Owl Direction in the Forest Plan states: “Conduct surveys in compliance with the Pacific Southwest Region’s survey protocols during the planning process when vegetation treatments are likely to reduce habitat quality in suitable California spotted owl habitat with unknown occupancy. Designate California spotted owl PACs where appropriate based on survey results” (USDA 2010 p. 43). During the 2011-2013 field seasons, surveys were conducted for the Hemlock Landscape Restoration project. Three existing PACS within the project boundary were occupied. Three existing PACS outside the project boundary were occupied, CAL0014, CALXXX Bailey 1, and CALXXX Bailey 3. Northern Goshawk Direction in the Forest Plan states: “Conduct surveys in compliance with the Pacific Southwest Region’s survey protocols during the planning process when vegetation treatments are likely to reduce habitat quality are proposed in suitable northern goshawk nesting habitat” and “Northern goshawk PACs are delineated surrounding all known and newly discovered breeding territories” (USDA 2010 pp. 43, 184). During the 2011-2013 field seasons, surveys were conducted for the Hemlock Landscape Restoration project. One existing PAC within the project boundary was confirmed occupied. All of the spotted owl and northern goshawk PACs in the project area were updated to incorporate suitable spotted owl habitat and eliminate overlap of the same acreage. PAC boundary adjustments have been incorporated into the corporate database.

IV. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED PROJECT This project is located on the Calaveras Ranger District within the Stanislaus National Forest in Calaveras County, California. The project area is located in portions of Township 6 North, Range 16 East, Sections 1-5 and 8-12, Township 6 North, Range 17 East, Sections 5 and 6, Township 7 North, Range 16 East, Sections 12-14, 23-27, 33-36, and Township 7 North, Range 17 East, Sections 15-22 and 26-35, Mount Diablo Base Meridian (MDBM). The project area is contained completely within the Tamarack and Calaveras Dome USGS 7.5 minute Quadrangle maps. Elevations in the 14,075 acre project range between 5,400 feet and 7,920 feet. The project area is located in both the Mokelumne and Stanislaus

14

River watersheds, within the Lower North Fork, Middle, and South Fork Mokelumne River watersheds and the North Fork Stanislaus River hydrological unit code (HUC) 5 watershed. Vegetation is dominated by forest stands of mixed conifer, represented by incense cedar, ponderosa pine, sugar pine, red fir and white fir, with areas of hardwoods, and red fir, and smaller areas of brush and exposed volcanic areas at the higher elevations. Purpose and Need The Forest Service completed the Stanislaus National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan) on October 28, 1991. The Stanislaus National Forest “Forest Plan Direction” (USDA 2010)1 presents the current Forest Plan management direction, based on the original Forest Plan, as amended. The Forest Plan Direction includes forest wide standards and guidelines (p. 33-64) and applicable management area direction that apply to this project including: Wildlife (p. 123-127) and General Forest (p. 161-164), Developed Recreation or Administration Site (p. 165-182), Near Natural (p. 119-122), and Scenic Corridor (Retention and Partial Retention)(p. 155-160).

Sierra Nevada Framework Land Allocations as defined in the Forest Plan occurring in the project area include: General Forest (p. 191), Old Forest Emphasis Areas, California Spotted Owl Protected Activity Centers (PAC), Northern Goshawk PAC, California Spotted Owl Home Range Core Areas (HRCA), Wildland Urban Intermix (WUI): Defense and Threat Zones, and Riparian Conservation Areas. The Forest Plan Direction includes desired conditions, management intents, and management objectives for each land allocation (p. 183-196).

Nearly a century of fire exclusion policies and land management practices in the project area have resulted in a trend toward homogeneous and overstocked forest stands. These altered forest conditions have led to an increased susceptibility of forest stands to insect outbreaks, disease infestation, drought related mortality, and a departure in severity, intensity, and frequency for wildfires compared to historic conditions. In some areas of the project area, there is a cumulative buildup of dead and down surface fuels, along with dense understory ladder fuels. In addition, overstory tree density and canopy closure increases the risk of stand replacing, high intensity fires. Areas along ridges and around subdivisions, where shaded fuel-breaks are needed for safe fire suppression, have high densities of brush and ladder fuels and would not alter fire behavior.

In addition to non-resilient forest conditions, other forest uses and values have been affected. For example, areas around archaeological sites are congested with dead trees, dense brush, and thick duff. Because of these conditions, many archaeological sites can no longer be seen in their original context.

Wildlife Protected Activity Centers (PACs) and Home Range Core Areas (HRCAs) have areas of excessive surface and ladder fuels that increase the risk of habitat loss through catastrophic wildfire. Tenuous connectivity between suitable mature forest habitats (late seral, closed canopy) reduces the viability and resiliency of populations of mature forest associated species. Likewise, streams, riparian areas, meadows, seeps, springs and fens (special aquatic features (SAF)), and aspen stands in the project area have been degraded by a number of factors, including conifer encroachment, channel incision, disturbance related to livestock grazing, recreational activities, and motorized vehicle use. Several culverts at road/stream crossings are restricting upstream/downstream movement of aquatic organisms.

Soil conditions in the project area have been impacted by management activities and forest use. In many of the plantations, soil cover and surface organic matter are reduced, leading to high erosion

1 USDA 2010. Stanislaus National Forest, Forest Plan Direction. Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region, Stanislaus National Forest. Sonora, CA. April 2010. 196 p.

15

hazard, gully formation, soil heating, and reduced vegetation productivity. User created OHV trails contribute to erosion and sedimentation. Illegal OHV use is occurring on some roadways because of a disconnected trail system. Likewise, motorized use in many of the popular dispersed camp and recreation sites has led to soil compaction, erosion, and other impacts to sensitive riparian areas, SAF, lava caps, and heritage resource sites.

Numerous roads within the project area are in need of maintenance or reconstruction. Some routes are contributing fine sediment and runoff to stream networks. Official designations of motorized routes are not consistent with long term management objectives for the road system. In addition, along State Highway 4, a designated National Scenic Bypass (Ebbetts Pass), panoramic vistas and views of interesting geological features and large trees are blocked by dense conifers, reducing the visual quality.

Greater detail on resources existing and desired conditions, and the need for change was presented in the Project Scoping document, and is available in the Project Record.

Project Objectives

The purpose of the Hemlock Landscape Restoration Project is to improve the ecological resilience of forested communities across the project landscape. The Hemlock Landscape Restoration Project focuses on reestablishing forest species composition, structure, and pattern on the landscape, as well as ecological processes (e.g. hydrologic function, fire regime) necessary for the long-term sustainability, resilience, and health of terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems. An ecologically sustainable and resilient landscape would have a greater capacity to adapt and thrive in the face of natural disturbances and large scale threats, such as; fire, drought, and insect and disease infestations which may be exacerbated by current and future changes in climate.

As directed by the management goals and strategies, desired conditions, management intents, and management objectives outlined in the Stanislaus National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan and the 2004 Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment (USDA 2004), the objectives for the Hemlock Landscape Restoration Project are as follows:

Increase tree, stand, and landscape resiliency and sustainability by producing different stand structures and densities across the landscape. Enhance the general health of forested stands by reducing susceptibility to insect, diseases, and drought-related mortality by improving and promoting stand and individual tree growth and vigor.

Maintain and enhance the extent and connectivity of aspen stands by reducing encroaching conifers.

Improve and maintain soil productivity, limit gully erosion, and rebuild surface organic layers where necessary.

Enhance and maintain the visual character of the Ebbetts Pass Scenic Corridor.

Reduce future fire intensity and severity to federal land and adjacent private land by reducing surface fuels, increasing the height to canopy, decreasing crown density, and retaining large fire-resistant tree species.

Maintain and enhance important wildlife habitat, mature forest ecosystem values, and connectivity of mature forest stands (e.g., late seral with closed canopies, CWHR size classes of 4-6, and density classes of M and D).

Achieve an environmental context of ethno-botanical diversity similar to indigenous stewardship conditions on and around archaeological sites by managing vegetation and woody debris and reducing the risk of fire damage.

Improve aquatic organism passage at road-stream crossings by replacing or removing culverts that do not provide sufficient passage.

16

Maintain or enhance the hydrologic, geomorphic, and biological characteristics of special aquatic features (springs, seeps, meadows, and fens). Identify and implement restoration actions to maintain, restore or enhance water quality and habitat for riparian and aquatic species.

Remove user-created trails and rehabilitate areas that have suffered resource damage associated with these trails.

Improve resource conditions at dispersed recreation sites by stabilizing areas of erosion, restricting vehicle access to streams and other sensitive areas, and managing foot access to streams.

Improve watershed condition by reducing sediment generated by the road system through improvement of road drainage features.

Maintain the road system in a manner that allows sustainable public and administrative access while limiting adverse resource effects.

Proposed Action

To meet the purpose and need of the project, three alternatives were developed for analysis and include: Alternative 1 (Proposed Action), Alternative 2 (No Action), and Alternative 3. Alternative 1 (Proposed Action) includes treatments consisting of: mechanical forest thinning of 4,346 acres of natural stands, 829 acres of plantations, and 968 acres of fuelbreaks along roads and private property boundaries; hand thinning of 2,302 acres, prescribed fire use on 4,967 acres for pile and understory burning; restoration (e.g., conifer thinning, barriers, headcut/gully restoration) on 238 acres on aspen, meadows, and other special aquatic features; mitigate resource damage at 25 dispersed camp sites; construct or add 2 miles of new trails, staging area, and campground, decommission user created trails; conduct maintenance, reconstruction, closure, and decommissioning on 128 miles of roads. Alternative 3 is very similar to Alternative 1 but contains some changes that were made in response to external scoping comments and internal review. Alternative 3 was created in response to the issue concerning forest canopy structure relative to spotted owls and snow retention research. It addresses these issues while achieving project objectives by proposing the following:

Retention of ≥60 % canopy cover in HRCAs in strategically located areas.

Treatment design that enhances dispersal corridors between forest stands that exhibit higher canopy cover and greater vertical structural diversity for mature forest wildlife species

Reduction of canopy cover in a watershed catchment to 40% outside of HRCAs to facilitate snow retention research objectives resulting in an additional 125 treatment acres.

Description of Alternatives Detailed descriptions of the Hemlock Landscape Restoration Project alternatives, management requirements common to all action Alternatives, and comparison of alternatives table can be found in Appendix A and in the Hemlock Landscape Restoration Project Environmental Assessment (USDA Forest Service 2015, Chapter 2) which is hereby incorporated by reference.

V. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT The 14,075 acre Hemlock Landscape Restoration project planning area is located at elevations between 5,400-7,920 feet within the Lower North Fork, Middle, and South Fork Mokelumne River and the North Fork Stanislaus River 5th level Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) watersheds, south of the North Fork Mokelumne River, west slope of the Sierra Nevada. The project area hosts California spotted owl (Strix occidentalis occidentalis) and northern goshawk (Accipiter gentilis) habitat areas, general forest, and

17

old forest emphasis areas as defined in the Forest Plan. Timber stand types range from mixed conifer, represented by incense cedar, sugar pine, ponderosa pine, lodgepole pine and white fir with areas of hardwoods at the lower elevations and south-facing slopes, to red fir at the higher elevations on north-facing slopes, and ponderosa pine/Jeffrey pine plantations established after harvest or wildfire. Although these timber types predominate, there are spots of open rocky areas of lava and exposed granite, small aspen stands, brush, and meadows. Most of the timber stands have been previously treated within the last 40 years. These treatments have ranged from sanitation/salvage and thinning to clearcuts. Clearcuts have been replanted, primarily with Jeffrey pine, although some plantations have natural regeneration of fir and lodgepole pine. Other tree species found less frequently include California black oak, quaking aspen, black cottonwood, mountain alder, and willow species. Habitat connectivity across the landscape is important to wildlife as it provides a means for dispersal, linkages between suitable habitat patches or core habitat areas, and genetic exchange. Roads or unsuitable habitat can be effective barriers isolating suitable habitat patches for a given species. Roads can also increase animal-vehicle collisions. The total road density (all motorized routes) is 4.26 miles per square mile on National Forest System lands. Another type of barrier can be areas of unsuitable habitat, such as a fuelbreak, that preclude movement of species like marten and fisher between perennial drainages if no understory vegetation is present. The North, Middle and South Forks Mokelumne River, Blue Creek, and Big Meadow Creek and its tributaries provide connectivity for species moving east-west and north-south respectively through this landscape. Connectivity between Blue Creek, its tributaries and the Mokelumne River are present in the form of saddles that link the drainages east-west. Key habitat elements commonly used by wildlife include: downed woody debris and snags in various stages of decay, understory vegetation, large trees with deeply fissured bark and cat faces, closed and open canopies, and defective trees with mistletoe, broken tops, and cavities. These elements can be found within the action area; however, some areas are void of many of these features. Plantations are generally lacking in both vertical, horizontal, and tree species diversity, as well as snags and downed woody debris. Some natural stands are lacking in openings within the canopy that promote regeneration of hardwood and pine as well as understory vegetation. Other natural stands have thickets of small seedling/sapling trees using the finite resources available, limiting the growth of large trees because of competition. The action area has departed from regular fire intervals due to the fire suppression efforts of the past 100+ years, which naturally create many of the habitat elements listed above. There are approximately 9,756 acres of forest restoration treatments, including approximately 817 acres of plantation (approximately 20-50 years old) within the action area that are proposed for treatments with vegetation management. Past management activities, including mining, grazing, timber harvesting, and fire exclusion, over the last 150 years have heavily influenced the project area. These activities have resulted in a shift in species composition in mixed conifer stands from shade intolerant pine dominated stands to shade tolerant, white fir dominated stands. Shade intolerant species such as ponderosa/Jeffrey and sugar pine are desirable on the landscape because of their adaptation to fire and higher drought tolerance, and were historically more prevalent. More recently, the landscape has experienced drought-related mortality during the late 1980s and early 1990s in addition to current extreme drought conditions today. Natural stands within the action area have been harvested in the past with activities that were primarily focused on overstory removal and sanitation or salvage harvest on easily accessible terrain of desirable timber species, namely ponderosa/Jeffrey pine and sugar pine. These management actions

18

have resulted in the reduction of large dominant and codominant overstory trees and the retention of smaller diameter intermediate and suppressed trees. In addition, with fire suppression these stands have become unnaturally dense, unhealthy, and there is a higher percentage presence of shade tolerant species such as incense cedar and white fir than were historically present. Some general goals within these stands include maintenance or promotion of: stand health under drought conditions, shade intolerant pine and hardwoods, while reducing stand density levels according to site potential and topography. Wildlife goals for these natural stands include: maintenance and promotion of heterogeneity using GTR 220 as a guide, increasing the growth of large trees, improving meadow health and hardwood recruitment, enhancing dispersal corridors between forest stands that exhibit higher canopy cover and greater vertical structural diversity, and providing structurally complex stands suitable for old forest associated species such as spotted owls and northern goshawks. Snag densities vary widely across the action area. Data are derived from stand exams conducted in 2014 within proposed treatment units are considered representative of the action area landscape. The total number of snags averaged across the Hemlock project area is 19.1 snags per acre. Large diameter snags greater than 30 inch dbh averaged 1.6 snags per acre; medium-sized snags 12-30 inch dbh averaged 14.1 snags per acre; smaller snags less than 12 inch dbh averaged 3.4 snags per acre. This data indicate the high variability of snags up to 30 inch dbh across the landscape and poor representation of snags above 30 inch dbh. Large downed woody debris (>12” dbh and >10’ in length) was also recorded during 814 common stand exams that were completed across the 9,756 acres of forest restoration treatments proposed for the project area. Data show large downed woody debris averages 5.41 tons/acre. The following table (Table 2) shows the current distribution of habitat types as classified by CWHR Wildlife Habitat Relationships (CDFG 2008) within the action area.

Table 2: Current distribution and CWHR vegetation designations within the action area.

CWHR Designation Size Class & Density Acres*

MRI ALL 5

MHW, MHC ALL 2

JPN, PPN, SMC, WFR, RFR, LPM 2/3 S-D 1,080

JPN, PPN, SMC, WFR, RFR, LPM 4 S-P 1,726

JPN, PPN, SMC, WFR, RFR, LPM 4M 4,259

JPN, PPN, SMC, WFR, RFR, LPM 4D 3,292

JPN, PPN, SMC, WFR, RFR, LPM 5 S-P 74

JPN, PPN, SMC, WFR, RFR, LPM 5M 170

JPN, PPN, SMC, WFR, RFR, LPM 5D 2,278

TOTAL 12,879

CWHR habitat types: MRI=montane riparian, MCH=mixed chaparral, MCP=montane chaparral, MHW=montane hardwood, MHC=montane hardwood conifer, JPN=Jeffrey pine, PPN=ponderosa pine, SMC=sierra mixed conifer, WFR=white fir, RFR=red fir, LPM=lodgepole pine

CWHR Size Classes: 2=saplings, 3=6-12”dbh, 4=12-24”dbh, 5=24-40”dbh CWHR Density Classes (Canopy Closure): S=10-24%, P=25-39%, M=40-59%, D=>60% The remaining 1,196 acres in the planning area are mostly made up of annual/perennial grasslands, meadows, and barren or lava caps

19

California spotted owls (Strix occidentalis occidentalis) and northern goshawks (Accipiter gentilis) were detected during surveys conducted in 2011-2013. This survey effort included nest checks with supplemental surveys to determine nesting status and reproductive success or failure. Of the seven spotted owl PACs (approximately 1,480 acres) that overlap with the project area, three were determined to be occupied and two were breeding during the survey period. The reproduction attempt of both was successful. The third PAC was occupied by a non-breeding older pair. In addition, approximately 4,533 acres of CSO HRCA (portions of ten owl territories) occurs in the project area. Three goshawk PACs (approximately 391 acres) overlap the project area (Table 3 and Table 4). One PAC was determined to be occupied with a breeding pair that was reproductively successful during the survey period.

Table 3: California spotted owl PAC and HRCA acreage in the Hemlock project boundary.

SPOTTED OWL PACs

SPOTTED OWL HRCAs

PAC and HRCA Name PAC Acres Acres in Project

Boundary

HRCA Acres Acres in Project

Boundary

CALXXXX (CP47) 303 113

188 141

CAL0027 301 2

695 573

CALXXXX Bailey 3 303 303

698 698

CALXXXX (Ramsey 1) 300 300

692 692

CALXXXX (Ramsey 2) 303 144

665 636

CAL0017 311 311

699 699

CAL0039 (Long Gulch) 307 307

702 689

CAL0019 306 0 200 63

CAL0036 0 0 395 1

CALXXXX (Bailey 1) 0 0 700 341

Total 2,434 1,480

5,634 4,533

Table 4: Northern goshawk PAC acreage in the Hemlock project boundary.

NORTHERN GOSHAWK PACS

PAC Name Total PAC Acres PAC Acres in Project Boundary

Bailey 1 200 140

Long Gulch 200 200

Ramsey 200 51

Total 1000 313

Baited camera surveys were conducted in the project area with a focus to detect target carnivore species (American marten, Pacific fisher, California wolverine). American martens have been detected at eight wildlife camera stations in the project area (Hemlock Landscape-Level Restoration project surveys (2012-2013) with multiple sightings (two to four) occurring at three stations. No Pacific fishers or California wolverines were detected during these surveys. Intermittent surveys have been conducted in and near the project action area over the past two years for great gray owls (Strix nebulosa) and willow flycatchers (Empidonax traillii). Hay Gulch was surveyed in 2009 and 2015 with no detections for great gray owls. Mattley Meadow, the nearest large meadow complex, is outside the project boundary but within 0.25 miles. It was surveyed in 2014 and 2015 for great gray owls, also with no detections. Willow flycatcher surveys have been conducted in 2002, 2009,

20

and 2014 in these two meadows, with no detections. In 2015, a single detection, possibly a migrant, occurred within both of these meadows because two subsequent surveys did not detect the species. Formalized surveys were not conducted for fringed myotis, Townsend’s big-eared bag, or pallid bat. Suitable habitat occurs for these species in the project area; and therefore, presence was assumed for these species for effects analyses.

California spotted owls requires tall, dense, mature mixed conifer forests. Forest Plan desired conditions for California spotted owls include: (1) at least two tree canopy layers; (2) dominant and co-dominant trees with average diameters of at least 24 inches dbh; (3) at least 60-70% canopy cover; (4) some very large snags (greater than 45 inches dbh); and (5) snag and down woody material levels that are higher than average (USDA, Forest Service 2004). Goshawks typically use mature forest or larger trees for nesting habitat, but nesting habitats are typically within a mosaic of varying forest types and ages that meet its life history requirements. Goshawks have been described as forest generalists but do show a tendency to select nest locations in stands of large trees with relatively high canopy closure.

The pallid bat roosts in rocky outcrops, associated with grassland, shrubland, woodland, and mixed conifer forests. The Townsend’s big-eared bat prefers exposed cavity-forming rock and/or historic mining area habitats, and roost in Douglas fir, lodgepole pine, and ponderosa pine. Fringed myotis require pinyon-juniper, Valley foothill hardwood, and hardwood-conifer habitats, and roost under the bark in medium to large snags surrounded by low canopy cover.

Willow flycatchers require perennial stream or wetland habitats with dense willow and medium-sized trees. Great gray owls prefer dense conifer forests adjacent to large meadows and meadow complexes.

American marten are associated with mature coniferous [lodgepole pine, Douglas fir, spruce (Picea spp.), and mixed hardwood] forests with canopy closure >60%. American marten den in hollow trees, crevices, or ground burrows. Likewise, Pacific fisher den in hollow trees in mature, mixed coniferous and hardwood forests with >80% canopy cover. California wolverine require mature mixed conifer and woodlands at higher elevations. Species and Habitat Accounts Detailed descriptions of the individual species and habitat accounts are found in Appendix B. Refer to the Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment (USDA 2001 and 2004), hereby incorporated by reference, for additional information on species considered in this document.

VI. EFFECTS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT

Intensity – the intensity of effects is defined as follows: Negligible: An action that may cause a change to a resource but the change would be so small that it would not be of any measurable consequence to the resource. Negligible impacts would not cause impairment of a resource. Minor: An action that may cause a change to a resource but the change would be so small and if measurable, it would cause a small and localized consequence. Minor impacts would not cause impairment of a resource. Moderate: An action that would cause some change to a resource and the change would have a definite and measurable consequence, but it is localized. Moderate impacts would not constitute impairment.

21

Major: An action that would cause a definite change to a resource. The change would be readily measurable and would have a substantial consequence to the resource. Major impacts may be significant, and might constitute impairment. Duration – The duration of the impacts is defined as follows: Short term: Impacts that last less than one year. Moderate term: Impacts that last more than one year, but less than 10 years. Long term: Impacts that last 10 years or more.

Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects The project is located in both the Mokelumne and Stanislaus River watersheds, within the Lower North Fork, Middle, and South Fork Mokelumne River and the North Fork Stanislaus River HUC 5 watersheds. The temporal bound of terrestrial wildlife cumulative effect analyses assumes completion within 10 years, which is the longest estimated time of recovery from vegetation management treatments in the Hemlock project area. A 10 year temporal bound was used because that is the length of time that the project impacts would be measurable from a cumulative watershed effect perspective. The spatial boundaries for Hemlock include Mattley Ridge on the north, Hells Kitchen to the east, North Fork Stanislaus River to the south, and the eastern portion of Bailey Ridge to the west. The project area spans six HUC 7 subwatersheds, with most project treatment acres in Upper Blue Creek, Hells Kitchen, Solinsky Crossing-Upper Middle Fork Mokelumne River, and Ganns-Middle North Fork Stanislaus River HUC 7 subwatersheds. A relatively small number of treatment acres fall within the Headwaters Upper South Fork Mokelumne River and East Forest Creek HUC 7 subwatersheds (see Hemlock Landscape Restoration Hydrology Report, Croyle 2015, in project record).

Current on-going projects in the vicinity of Hemlock Landscape Restoration project that may influence forest conditions and contribute to cumulative effects include Bailey and West Calaveras Thin plantation treatments, Ramsey Fire Salvage, livestock grazing, logging on private inholdings adjacent to the project area, fire wood permits, and recreation activities. The following discussions analyze the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects to terrestrial wildlife species by project for the Hemlock Landscape Restoration. As mentioned previously, some projects aren’t expected to result in effects to certain species, thus detailed effects analysis was not conducted for all species identified in Table 1. 40 CFR 1508.08 defines effects: Direct effects are effects which are caused by the action and occur at the same time and place. Indirect effects are effects which are caused by the action and are later in time or farther removed in distance but are still reasonably foreseeable. Cumulative effects are the incremental impact of the [proposed] action when added to other past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (federal or non-federal) or person undertakes such other actions (40 CFR 1508.7). Effects to Terrestrial Wildlife Species Alternative 1 (Proposed Action) Direct and Indirect Effects Forest Restoration, Scenic Corridor, and Fuels Reduction

Direct and indirect effects from the Proposed Action on mature forest sensitive wildlife species (California spotted owl, northern goshawk, American marten, and Pacific fisher), great gray owl,

22

willow flycatcher, fringed myotis, and Pallid and Townsends’s big-eared bats are expected to be minor and short-term. Direct and indirect effects are related to: death, injury, disturbance from mechanical vegetation treatments, road reconstruction and maintenance, and prescribed fire operations that may increase individual movement and displacement; and, habitat alteration, canopy reduction (changes in CWHR classes), and potential increase in understory canopy vegetation that may modify microclimatic conditions, alter prey availability and influence reproductive success.

Ground-based logging, biomass, and mastication, road and watershed treatments, and prescribed burning have the potential to cause death or injury because of the use of heavy equipment, the felling of timber, and the introduction of fire on the landscape. However, the mobility of the species makes it highly improbable that death or injury would occur as a result of project activities. Logging, prescribed burning, and residual fuels treatment have the potential to cause disturbances and change normal behavior patterns because of the use of loud machinery such as graders, backhoe’s, feller bunchers and chain saws, during the period operations would take place intermittently over an approximate 5 year period from 2016 to 2021.

Wildlife species (marten, fisher, spotted owl and goshawk) associated with mature mixed conifer forest stands may benefit in the long term (approximately 10-20 years) from opening and diversifying dense stands of even aged trees in plantations proposed for thinning.

Prescribed fire may result in displacement of individual owls and a temporary avoidance of the area due to smoke and active flames. However, prescribed fire treatment of 13% of spotted owl HRCAs, 2% of spotted owl PACs and 0.5% of northern goshawk PACs should result in a minor impact on the spotted owl and goshawk, but increase forest resiliency by removing pockets of excessive fuels and improve prey diversity and availability. Hand treatments and pile burning would be similar to those discussed for HRCA’s. Alternative 1 would reduce the risk of loss of habitat to California spotted owls, northern goshawks, Pacific fisher, American marten, great gray owls, willow flycatchers, fringed myotis, Pallid bats, and Townsend’s big-eared bats.

Mature Forest Wildlife Habitat

Alteration of mature forest habitats expected to occur includes: reduction in trees <30” dbh; reduction of canopy structures; and the potential reduction and redistribution of snags and downed woody debris within the treatment units, scenic corridors, and fuelbreaks. The reduction of small and moderate size trees could potentially increase shrub cover, which may reduce prey availability. Conversely, increases in herbaceous vegetation within canopy openings should increase prey diversity and availability. The change in microclimatic conditions (increase in ambient temperature from decreased thermal cover) could also decrease reproductive success (nest/den success, and juvenile survival).

Project treatments developed using guidelines discussed by North et al. (2009) would yield a landscape matrix of forest structure and densities averaging 50% canopy cover across the treated units (Table 5) with less cover retention on the ridges (40%) and more retained within RCA units (60%). The heterogeneity associated with clumps and gaps could augment the long-term viability of mature forested habitat; increase the potential of future fire events exhibiting low fire intensity by removing pockets of excessive fuels; improve forest resiliency; reduce susceptibility to insect and diseases; maintain wildlife habitat diversity; and improve prey availability for sensitive wildlife species. Creating a landscape matrix of forest structure and densities should minimize long-term impacts from vegetation treatments on mature forest wildlife (California spotted owl, northern goshawk, American marten, and Pacific fisher).

23

Table 5: Expected canopy cover retention and gap size for each topographic position that are expected to increase forest heterogeneity in Alternative 1 and Alternative 3.

Topographic

Position

Canopy Cover

(%)

Alternative 1

(Acres)

Alternative 3

(Acres)

Gap Size

(Acres)

Ridge 40 793 758 0.25-1.5

Ridge 50 0 51

Mid-slope NE 50 540 419 0.1-0.5

Mid-slope NE 60 0 104

Mid-slope SW 40 0 117

0.25-1.5 Mid-slope SW 50 1873 1,394

Mid-slope SW 60 0 408

Drainage 40 0 36

0-1.5 Drainage 50 302 88

Drainage 60 0 178

RCA 50 0 40 0-1.5

RCA 60 413 373

In suitable mature forest stands (CWHR size classes 4-6, and density classes M and D), a decrease in CWHR size or density class is expected on 2,429 acres. The change in CWHR classes would not yield habitat unsuitable for mature forest wildlife species. Mature forest stands would be improved (increase in size and/or density class) on 4,695 acres, including 314 acres of California spotted owl PAC and 66 acres of northern goshawk PAC proposed prescribed fire treatments. Also proposed within these PACs would be 1,342 acres (spotted owl) and 106 acres (northern goshawk) of hand treatments for the removal of small (<6” dbh) trees. Less than 30% of a PAC would be treated during a calendar year which should make the effects of this action negligible on the California spotted owl and northern goshawk.

Mature forest species may exhibit a short term temporary avoidance of areas being disturbed during project implementation. Displacement or avoidance of the area by individuals should be of short duration and should subside soon after project completion. Individual movements may increase during project implementation due to noise and equipment disturbance. The increase in movement may lead to an increase in mortality from increased energetic expenditures and predation risk. Limited Operating Periods (LOPs) for these species (California spotted owl and northern goshawk) should reduce the risk of species avoidance and mortality risks during the sensitive breeding periods for both of these species, and address American marten and Pacific fisher as well.

Streams, Riparian Areas, Special Aquatic Features, and Aquatic Organism Passage Suitable habitat in the project for great gray owls and willow flycatchers is primarily limited to Hay Gulch meadow, although they are not known to occur in the project area. Project implementation could result in a short term temporary displacement or avoidance of the area by individuals. Increased movements resulting from disturbances could lead to an increase in mortality from increased energetic expenditures and predation risk. Potential great gray owl nest trees would not be removed. Actions proposed in Alternative 1 would benefit great gray owls and willow flycatchers in the long term by restoring meadow systems and hydrologic processes.

24

Fringed myotis, Pallid and Townsend’s big-eared bats are sensitive to disturbance and may abandon roost locations if disturbed by noise (Kunz and Martin 1982). Disturbance during project implementation could result in short-term avoidance by bats. These bat species are known to forage in meadows, meadow fringe, habitat edges, and open areas (Hermanson and O’Shea 1983, Kunz and Martin 1982). Alternative 1 restoration treatments should improve bat foraging conditions in meadow and riparian habitats within the project area. Dispersed Recreation and Transportation Delineating and rehabilitating dispersed campsites, adding motorized and non-motorized routes, enhancing trailheads, reconstructing, maintaining, decommissioning, and blocking roads, improving drainage and reducing hydrologically connected road segments have the potential to cause disturbances because of the use of loud machinery such as graders, backhoe’s dozers, and chain saws, and by changing normal behavior patterns during project implementation that would take place intermittently over an approximate 5 year period from 2016 to 2021. However, the mobility of the species makes it highly improbable that death or injury would occur as a result of project activities for mature forest sensitive wildlife species (California spotted owl, northern goshawk, American marten, and Pacific fisher), great gray owl, willow flycatcher, fringed myotis, and Pallid and Townsends’s big-eared bats.

Cumulative Effects Current on-going, simultaneous implementation or very close projects in the vicinity of Hemlock Landscape Restoration project include Bailey and West Calaveras Thin plantation treatments and logging on private inholdings adjacent to the project area. These projects could reduce the overall canopy cover by a minor amount. The additional effects of these private land sales on Forest Service terrestrial wildlife species is expected to be negligible, as these proposed future projects are relatively small and not directly connected to the project area. Private land sales would use forest BMPs to minimize the impact of implementation and reduce sedimentation to the watersheds. The private sales are also scheduled to be implemented at different times over a period of time (2016 to 2021) which should help reduce the impacts. Livestock allotments (Mattley, Lower Blue, Mokelumne, and Bear Valley grazing allotments) encompass 11,895 acres or approximately 85% of the project area, with 2,196 acres of capable range occurring primarily in meadows and riparian areas. Ongoing grazing has the potential to impact herbaceous vegetation in meadows and newly created openings creating competition for prey species. This affect is expected to be minor and would not add to cumulative effects. Restoration actions in Alternative 1 (Propose Action) would mitigate riparian, special aquatic features, and aspen restoration concerns from future grazing events.

Alternative 2 (No Action) Indirect Effects Forest Restoration, Scenic Corridor, Fuels Reduction, Mature Forest Wildlife Habitat Under Alternative 2 (No Action), landscape restoration projects would not be implemented; therefore, there are no direct effects to terrestrial wildlife species in or near the proposed project. Indirect effects from this alternative include continued degradation of forest processes through increased forest health issues, and increased fire risk. This may result in additional habitat alteration

25

and fragmentation which could reduce suitability of the available habitats in the project area and influence reproductive success for all Forest Service sensitive terrestrial wildlife species. Streams, Riparian Areas, Special Aquatic Features, and Aquatic Organism Passage Indirect effects from not implementing this alternative include continued degradation of riparian, meadow, aspen, and watersheds, resulting in the potential habitat loss for great gray owls and willow flycatchers. Dispersed Recreation and Transportation Indirect effects from not implementing this landscape restoration project alternative include continued disturbance from user-created roads and dispersed campsites, and likely an increase over time from the expansion of unauthorized routes. This may result in additional disturbances and habitat alteration which could reduce suitability of the available habitats and migration corridors in the project area and influence reproductive success for all Forest Sensitive terrestrial wildlife species.

Cumulative Effects The ongoing vegetation management projects, livestock grazing, recreation activity, inadequate road maintenance and the indirect effects discussed above contribute to cumulative effects resulting in decreased forest health and increased fire risk. These factors may lead toward modification of habitats and reduction in Forest Service sensitive terrestrial wildlife species populations. Unmanaged recreation activities may increase noise disturbances and disruption to these species. Alternative 3 Direct and Indirect Effects Forest Restoration, Scenic Corridor, and Fuels Reduction Direct and indirect effects on Forest Service sensitive terrestrial wildlife from actions proposed in Alternative 3 are similar to Alternative 1 (Proposed Action) with the following exceptions. Canopy cover retention is more heterogeneous across topographic positions in Alternative 3 (Table 5). This greater heterogeneity and higher percentages of canopy closure closer to spotted owl PACs would benefit mature forest species by retaining existing dispersal corridors for movement within and through the project area and retaining high-use roosting, denning, and foraging habitat. These habitats are expected to contain higher density of both trees and snags, reducing potential exposure to predation because of greater vertical structural diversity than random sites (see Effects Relative to Issues, below).

Mature Forest Wildlife Habitat

Direct and indirect effects on Forest Service sensitive terrestrial wildlife species are the same as described in Alternative 1 (Proposed Action) with the following exceptions. With the retention of higher canopy covers (50-60%) and greater vertical structural diversity in transition zones within HRCA’s that are strategically located adjacent to California spotted owl PACs, these locations have the potential to become dispersal corridors. This is especially true within the Bailey Ridge area that is almost entirely surrounded on three sides by privately owned lands subject to timber management.

26

Alternative 3 would enhance the ability of spotted owls, goshawks, martens, and fishers to migrate through mature forest corridors and disperse to suitable but unoccupied nesting and denning habitats within and outside the project area.

Streams, Riparian Areas, Special Aquatic Features, and Aquatic Organism Passage

Although there are slight adjustments in the amount of acreage that would be treated, direct and indirect effects on Forest Service sensitive terrestrial wildlife species are the same as described in Alternative 1 (Proposed Action).

Dispersed Recreation and Transportation

Although there are slight adjustments in the amount of acreage that would be treated (i.e. campground improvements, a new OHV trail originating from Skyhigh, and changes to the transportation system), direct and indirect effects on Forest Service sensitive terrestrial wildlife species are the same as described in Alternative 1 (Proposed Action). Cumulative Effects The cumulative effects on terrestrial wildlife species are the same as described in Alternative 1 (Proposed Action). FOREST CANOPY STRUCTURE

Issue: Reductions in canopy cover in spotted owl home range core areas (HCRAs) near protected activity centers (PACs) may alter the species use of these areas. A heterogeneous forest structure, density, and canopy cover across watersheds may provide an insight into actions to enhance water retention.

Evaluation Indicators:

Quantification of habitats of medium and large tree conifer forest (average tree size > 12 inches dbh) with high canopy cover (>60%) in HRCAs and PACs.

Connectivity potential for mature forest wildlife species dispersal.

Alternative 3 was developed to address this relevant issue.

California Spotted Owl Population Stressors

In 2006 the USFWS made the determination that listing the California spotted owl was not warranted because there was inconclusive evidence that populations were in decline. This determination was based on the hypothesis that high severity fire represented the greatest threat to the species and that fuels treatments would greatly reduce this threat. Since USFWS made their determination, the research community has investigated stressors and their affects to spotted owl populations.

Conner et al. (2013) determined that statistical methods used to estimate California spotted owl population trends based on mark-recapture data are inherently susceptible to a Type II error, or false negative. Over the 18-year study period, these statistical methods indicated population declines of 21-22% for the Lassen National Forest population, 11-16% for the Sierra National Forest population, and an increase of 16-27% for the Sequoia-Kings Canyon population.

27

Tempel and Gutierrez (2013) investigated occupancy modeling verses mark-recapture techniques and determined that occupancy results closely matched the mark-recapture results but the occupancy data provided more precise estimates. Their study indicated that occupancy declined by 30% and territory extinction increased over time. Colonization rates were insufficient to maintain occupancy at its initial level. Likewise, Tempel et al. (2014) developed a new statistical method for mark-recapture data that had more precise results and indicated a 50% population decline over the 23 year study. They noted that there was little to no fire during the study periods within any of the demographic study areas.

Dolance et al (2014) compared Vegetation Type Map data (1929-1936) and Forest Inventory and Analysis data (2001-2010) in the central and northern Sierra Nevada which indicated a 41-40% decline in large tree (≥ 24” dbh) component across the study area for most conifer tree species. Seamans and Gutierrez (2007) determined that alteration of ≥ 50 acres of mature conifer forest (≥ 70% canopy cover dominated by medium and large trees) within 0.7 mile of a spotted owl territory center was correlated with nest failure. This was confirmed by Stephens et al. (2014) when their study revealed that within four years of completing defensible fuel profile zones and group selection treatments, the number of occupied California spotted owl territories declined from seven to four. Stephens et al. (2014) also indicated that owl territory sizes increased with the amount of treatment within the territory. Tempel et al. (2014) noted that medium-intensity timber harvests, characteristic of proposed fuel treatments, were negatively correlated to reproduction, and reproduction was sensitive to even modest amounts of treatment. Reductions in canopy cover to < 70% were associated with reductions in survival and territory colonization rates, as well as increases in nest failure rates. Over 90% of the medium intensity harvests they studied converted high-canopy forests into lower-canopy vegetation classes.

Interim Recommendations for the California Spotted Owl

In 2004 a Supplemental EIS was prepared and a Record of Decision signed replacing the 2001 Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment standards and guidelines; the 2001 plan amendment covered all National Forests in the Sierra Nevada range and is also known as the Sierra Nevada Framework. A coalition of conservation organizations led by Sierra Forest Legacy and including the Center for Biological Diversity, Natural Resources Defense Council, Sierra Club and The Wilderness Society filed suit in early 2005 claiming the 2004 Framework failed to adequately protect old growth forests and associated wildlife species and was not consistent with national environmental laws.

On October 9, 2014 a settlement agreement was finalized resolving litigation with the 2004 Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment. This settlement agreement is the outcome of the 9th Circuit mediation program.

One of the elements of the settlement agreement is that the Forest Service agrees to complete a conservation strategy for the California Spotted Owl in collaboration with experts on the California spotted owl, fire ecology, and forest ecology. Pending completion of this strategy, the Forest Service and experts would develop interim recommendations on changes to forest management.

Further, the Forest Service agreed that any Environmental Impact Statement or Environmental Assessment prepared for a site-specific, vegetation management project within the range of the California spotted owl in the Sierra Nevada National Forests (for which public notice of scoping is published after receipt of the recommendations) would analyze an alternative consistent with the interim recommendations.

The interim recommendations for the California spotted owl and forest management was not released prior to public scoping of this Environmental Analysis. However, draft interim recommendations to manage California spotted owls promote higher amounts of dense forest important to the spotted owl for reproduction and persistence. Spotted Owl PACs would not be larger, but HRCAs would be managed differently to include breeding and foraging habitat. Greater amounts of dense (< 60%

28

Canopy Cover) forest would be retained in HRCAs closer to spotted owl PACs. The heterogeneity associated with these habitats can be augmented using GTR 220 approaches (see Chapter 2). Canopy cover can decrease at greater distances from activity centers, and may be managed at an average of 40% canopy cover at the landscape scale.

Alternative 3

The Forest Service developed Alternative 3 to provide greater amounts of dense forest closer to spotted owl PACs in HRCAs, while still addressing site specific fuels concerns (Figure 1). Prescribed fire or vegetation treatments were included to reduce surface and small diameter ladder fuels where needed to address high risk areas. Collin et al. (2011) simulated fire and forest dynamics for a landscape fuel treatment project in the Sierra Nevada and determined that adequate fuels treatments could occur by cutting < 12” dbh trees.

Retention of higher percentages of canopy closure would benefit mature forest species in the Hemlock project area by increasing heterogeneity through the retention of existing dispersal corridors for movement within and through the project area, and high-use nesting, roosting, and foraging habitat that contains adequate density of mature trees and snags. Potential exposure to predation would be reduced because of higher canopy covers and greater vertical structural diversity in these transition zones, in comparison to random sites. This is especially important within the Bailey Ridge area that is almost entirely surrounded on three sides by privately owned lands subject to timber management. Alternative 3 would enhance the ability of California spotted owls to migrate through mature forest corridors and disperse to suitable but unoccupied nesting habitats within and outside the project area.

In addition to addressing forest management for the California spotted owl, Alternative 3 responds to the desire to investigate how different forest vegetation treatments affect snow pack accumulations.

Four sub-watersheds were identified along Mattley Ridge where restoration treatments consistent with GTR-220 treatment guidelines could vary in terms of the canopy cover retention, and thus forest structure. General treatments in these sub-watersheds are as follows:

Cottonwood Gulch: Cottonwood gulch would serve as a control treatment. This sub-watershed is predominately in spotted owl PAC. Alternative 1 proposed action includes hand thinning of excess fuels (< 6” dbh), prescribed fire, and fuel break construction along the ridge, and a considerable amount of No Actions proposed. In Alternative 3, project implementation (hand thinning and fire) can be delayed until the snow pack study is completed. Overall, this sub-watershed would retain <60% canopy cover.

Hay Gulch: Hay Gulch is adjacent to Cottonwood Gulch and is predominately in a spotted owl HRCA. Hay Gulch would receive a light mechanical and hand treatment, with canopy cover averaging 60%.

Middle Gulch: Middle Gulch is adjacent to Hay Gulch and has some spotted owl HRCA in the lower part of the drainage. Middle Gulch would receive mechanical treatments that would result in an average canopy cover of 50%.

Water Gulch: Water Gulch is adjacent to Hay Gulch, and does not have acres associated with spotted owl PACs or HRCAs. This sub-watershed would receive mechanical treatments where the average canopy cover retained would be 40%.

29

Figure 1. Acres of mature forest habitat with canopy cover < 60% in HRCAs and outside HRCAs for each Alternative. Acres are provided in distance intervals from California spotted owl PACs.

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000 5500 6000 6500 7000 7500 8000

Acr

es w

ith ≥

60%

CC

Distance from Owl PACs (ft)

California Spotted Owl HRCA

Alternative 1 (Proposed Action) Alternative 2 (No Action) Alternative 3

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

5000

5500

6000

6500

7000

7500

8000

8500

9000

9500

1000

010

500

1100

011

500

1200

012

500

1300

013

500

Acr

es w

ith ≥

60%

CC

Distance from Owl PACs (ft)

Outside of Owl HRCAs

Alternative 1 (Proposed Action) Alternative 2 (No Action) Alternative 3

30

VII. DETERMINATION OF EFFECTS

Best Available Science: This evaluation was developed in consideration of the best available science and is consistent with the Stanislaus National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan, as amended (April 2010). Biological Assessment: The purpose of this report is to document the determinations of effects to federally listed or proposed species and/or critical habitat under the ESA (Endangered Species Act) that may be impacted by the proposed action. Biological Evaluation: The purpose of this report is to document the effects of the proposed action to sensitive species listed on the Regional Forester’s Sensitive species list for Region 5, Pacific Southwest Region.

A. Threatened, Endangered, Proposed and Candidate Species The project area is not within the geographic or elevation range of the Valley elderberry longhorn beetle, therefore, it is my determination that the Hemlock Landscape Restoration Project will not affect the Valley elderberry longhorn beetle, or its designated critical habitat.

The project area is within the geographic and elevation ranges of the Pacific fisher, and there is high quality suitable habitat within the project area, however, no individuals were found in the project area or documented within five miles of the project area, therefore, it is my determination that the Hemlock Landscape Restoration Project may affect individuals, but is not likely to accelerate the trend toward Federal listing or result in loss of viability for the Pacific fisher.

The project area is within the geographic and elevation ranges of the California wolverine, and there is high quality suitable habitat within the project area, however, no individuals were found in the project area or documented within five miles of the project area, therefore, it is my determination that the Hemlock Landscape Restoration Project will not affect the California wolverine in the planning area.

B. Sensitive Species The project area is within the geographic and elevation ranges of the Sierra Nevada red fox, Great gray owl, and Willow flycatcher, and there is suitable habitat within the project area, but no individuals were found in the project area or documented within five miles of the project boundary. Therefore, it is my determination that the Hemlock Landscape Restoration Project will not affect the Sierra Nevada red fox, and may affect individuals, but is not likely to result in a trend toward federal listing or loss of viability for the Great gray owl and Willow flycatcher in the planning area.

The project area is within the geographic and elevation ranges of the Fringed myotis, Townsend’s big- eared bat and the Pallid bat, and there is suitable foraging and dispersal habitat in the project area. Retention and improvement of high quality breeding and roosting habitat in snags and meadows should keep the effects of the project minor and short term on fringed myotis, Townsend’s big-eared bats, and Pallid bats. Therefore, it is my determination that the Hemlock Landscape Restoration Project may affect individuals, but is not likely to result in a trend toward federal listing or loss of viability for the fringed myotis, Townsend’s big-eared bat or the Pallid bat in the planning area.

31

The project area is within the geographic and elevation ranges of the Bald Eagle, but there is no suitable habitat within the project area. No individuals were found in the project area or documented within two miles of the project boundary. Therefore, it is my determination that the Hemlock Landscape Restoration Project will not affect the Bald Eagle in the planning area. The project area is within the geographic and elevation ranges of the Northern goshawk and the California spotted owl, and there is suitable habitat in the project area. Goshawks and spotted owls are known to occur in the project area, but the retention of large diameter trees and the LOPs in place should keep the effects of the project minor and short term on goshawks and spotted owls. Therefore, it is my determination that the Hemlock Landscape Restoration Project may affect individuals, but is not likely to result in a trend toward federal listing or loss of viability for the northern goshawk or the California spotted owl in the planning area. The project area is within the geographic and elevation ranges of the American marten, there is suitable habitat in the project area, and individual martens are known to exist in the project area. The marten LOP, retention of large trees (>30” dbh) and maintaining connectivity between watersheds and saddles should keep the effects of the project minor and short term on the marten. Therefore, it is my determination that the Hemlock Landscape Restoration Project may affect individuals, but is not likely to result in a trend toward federal listing or loss of viability for the American marten in the planning area.

32

Literature Cited Arthur, S.M., W.B. Krohn and J.R. Gilbert. 1989. Home range characteristics of adult fishers. Journal of Wildlife Management 53:674-679. Aubrey, K.B. and D.B. Houston. 1992. Distribution and status of the fisher (Martes pennanti) in Washington. Northwestern Naturalist 73:69-78. Aubrey, K.B. and C.M. Raley. 1999. Ecological characteristics of fishers in southwestern Oregon. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Olympia, WA. 7 pages. Aubrey, K., K. McKelvey and J. Copeland. 2007. Distribution and Broadscale Habitat Relations of the Wolverine in the Contiguous United States. Journal of Wildlife Management. 71(7):2147-2158. Barr, C.B. 1991. The distribution, habitat and status of the Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle Desmocerus californicus dimorphus. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Sacramento, CA. Beck, T.W. 1985. Habitat suitability index model for the great gray owl. Stanislaus National Forest, Sonora, California, USA. Beedy, E.C., and S.L. Granholm. 1985. Discovering Sierra Birds. Yosemite Natural History Association, and Sequoia Natural History Association, USA. Pg 62. Blakesley, J.A., B.R. Noon and D.W.H. Shaw. 2001. Demography of the California spotted owl in northeastern California. Condor 103:667-677. Blakesley, J.A., B.R. Noon and D.R. Anderson. 2005. Site occupancy, apparent survival and reproduction of spotted owls in relation to forest stand characteristics. Journal of Wildlife Management 69(4):1554-1564. Blakesley, J.A., M.E. Seamans, M.M. Conner, A.B. Franklin, G.C. White, R.J. Gutierrez, J.E. Hines, J.D. Nichols, T.E. Munton, D.W.H. Shaw, J.J. Keane, G.N. Steger and T.L. McDonald. 2010. Population dynamics of spotted owls in the Sierra Nevada, California. Wildlife Monographs 174:1-36. Bloom, P.H., G.R. Stewart and B.J. Walton. 1986. The status of northern goshawks in California, 1981-1983. Admin. Report 85-1. State of California, Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, California. Bowman, J., G.J. Forbes and T.G. Dilworth. 2001. The spatial component of variation in small-mammal abundance measured at three scales. Canadian Journal of Zoology 79:137-144. Bowman, J., J.A.G. Jaeger and L. Fahrig. 2002. Dispersal distance of mammals is proportional to home range size. Ecology 83:2049-2055. Bright-Smith, D.J. and R.W. Mannan. 1994. Habitat use by breeding male northern goshawks in northern Arizona. Studies in Avian Biology 16:58-65. Brown, R.N., M.W. Gabriel, G.M. Wengert, S. Matthews, J.M. Higley and J.E. Foley. 2008. Pathogens associated with fishers (Martes pennanti) and sympatric mesocarnivores in California. Chapter 1 In:

33

Unpublished report for Grant #813335G021 submitted to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Yreka, CA. 13 May 2008. 100 pp. Buck, S. 1983. Habitat utilization by fisher (Martes pennanti) near Big Bar, California. M.S. Thesis. Humbolt State University, Arcata, CA. 85 pp. Buck, S., C. Mullis, A. Mossman, I. Show and C. Coolahan. 1994. Habitat use by fishers in adjoining heavily and lightly harvested forest. Pg 368-376. In Buskirk, S.W., A.S. Harestad, M.G. Raphael and R.A. Powell, eds. Martens, sables and fishers: biology and conservation. Cornell University Press, Ithica, NY. 484pp. Bull, Evelyn L. and James R. Duncan 1993. Great Gray Owl (Strix nebulosa), The Birds of North America Online. http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/041. Accessed January 25, 2011. Bull, E.L. M.G. Henjum and R.S. Rohweder. 1988a. Home range and dispersal of great gray owls in northeastern Oregon. Journal of Raptor Research 22(4):101-106. Bull, E.L., M.G. Henjum and R.S. Rohweder. 1988b. Nesting and foraging habitat of great gray owls. Journal of Raptor Research 22(4):107-115. Bull, E.L., C.G. Parks, and T.R. Torgersen. 1997. Trees and logs important to wildlife in the interior Columbia River basin. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region. Portland, Oregon. Buskirk, S.W. and R.A. Powell. 1994. Habitat ecology of fishers and American martens. Pp 283-296, In Buskirk, S.W., A.S. Harestad, M.G. Raphael and R.A. Powell, eds. Martens, sables and fishers: biology and conservation. Cornell University Press, Ithica, NY. 484 pp. California Department of Fish and Game. Williams, D. 1986. Mammalian species of special concern in California. Department of Biological Sciences, California State University, Stanislaus, Turlock, California. California Department of Fish and Game. 2008b. Evaluation of petition: request of the center for Biological Diversity to list the Pacific fisher (Martes pennanti) as threatened or endangered. 77pp. Campbell, L.A. 2004. Distribution and habitat associations of mammalian carnivores in the central and southern Sierra Nevada. Ph.D. Dissertation. University of California, Davis. Carroll, C.W., W.J. Zielinski and R.F. Noss. 1999. Using presence-absence data to build and test spatial habitat models for the fisher in the Klamath Region, USA. Conservation Biology 13:1344-1359. Carroll, C.W. 2005. A reanalysis of regional fisher suitability including survey data from commercial forests in the redwood region. Unpublished manuscript submitted to USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station, Arcata, CA. 17pp. Dale, V.H., L.A. Joyce, S. McNulty, R.P. Neilson, M.P. Ayers, M.D. Flannigan, P.J. Hanson, L.C. Irland, A.E. Lugo, C.J. Peterson, D. Simberloff, F.J. Swanson, B.J. Stocks and B.M. Wotton. 2001. Climate change and forest disturbances. Bioscience 51:723-734. Dark, S.J. 1997. A landscape-scale analysis of mammalian carnivore distribution and habitat use by fisher. M.S. Thesis, Humboldt State University 67 pp.

http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/506

34

Dark, S.J., R.J. Gutierrez and G.I. Gould Jr. 1998. The barred owl (Strix varia) invasion in California. The Auk 115(1):50-56. Dettinger, M.D. 2005. From climate-change spaghetti to climate-change distributions for 21st Century California. San Francisco Estuary and watershed science, Vol. 3, No. 1. 15 pg. Dooling, R. 2002. Avian hearing and the avoidance of wind turbines. National Renewable Energy Laboratory. NREL/TP-500-30844. 84 pp. Douglas, C.W. and M.A. Strickland. 1987. Fisher. In: Wild furbearer management and conservation in North America. Novack, M., Baker, J.A., Obbard, M.E. and Malloch, B. (eds) Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and the Ontario Trappers association. Drew, R.E., J.G. Hallett, K.B. Aubry, K.W. Cullings, S.M. Koepf and W.J. Zielinski. 2003. Conservation genetics of the fisher (Martes pennanti) based on mitochondrial DNA sequencing. Molecular Ecology 12:51-62. Duane, T.P. 1996. Human settlement, 1850-2040. Pp. 235-360. In: Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project: Final report to Congress, Vol. II. Assessments and scientific basis for management options. Report No. 37. Centers for Water and Wildland Resources, University of California, Davis, CA. Earle, R.D. 1978. The fisher-porcupine relationship in Michigan. M.S. Thesis. Michigan Technical University, Houghton, MI. England, A. Sidney, Marc J. Bechard and C. Stuart Houston. 1997. Swainson's Hawk (Buteo swainsoni),The Birds of North America Online (A. Poole, Ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology; Retrieved from the Birds of North America Online: http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/265. Accessed January 25, 2011. Fahrig, L. 2001. How much habitat is enough? Biological Conservation 100:65-74. Federal Register. 1980. Fish and Wildlife Services, Interior. Listing the Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle as a Threatened Species with Critical Habitat. 45(155):52803-52807. Federal Register. 2004. Endangered and Threatened wildlife and plants; 12 month finding for a petition to list the west coast distinct population segment of the fisher (Martes pennanti); proposed rule. 69(68):18769-18792. Federal Register. 2006. Endangered and Threatened wildlife and plants; 12-month finding for a petition to list the California spotted owl (Strix occidentalis occidentalis) as threatened or endangered. 71(100):29886-29908. Federal Register. 2008. Endangered and Threatened wildlife and plants; 12-month finding for a petition to list the North American Wolverine (Gulo gulo) as endangered or threatened. 73(48):12929-12941. Federal Register. 2010. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; 12-month finding on a petition to list the North American wolverine as endangered or threatened. 75(239):78030-78061.

http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/265

35

Federal Register. 2011. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; review of native species that are candidates for listing as endangered or threatened; annual notice of findings on resubmitted petitions; annual description of progress on listing actions. 76(207):66370-66438. Ferrell, G.T. 1986. Fir Engraver. USDA- Forest Service, Forest Insect and Disease Leaflet 13. P. 6. Fites, J., Campbell, M., Reiner, A., Decker, T., 2007. Fire behavior and effects relating to suppression, fuel treatments, and protected areas. USDA Forest Service, Adaptive Management Services Enterprise Team, Nevada City, CA. 41 pp. Online at: http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/hfqlg/monitoring/resource_reports/ fire_and_smoke/. Flannigan M.D., B.J. Stocks and B.M. Wotton. 2000. Climate Change and Forest Fires. Science of the Total Environment 262:221-229. Freel, M. 1991. A literature review for management of the marten and fisher on National Forests in California. Unpublished document, USDA Forest Service, PSW Region, San Fransisco, California, USA. 22p. Franklin, J.F., Lindenmayer, D., MacMahon, J.M., McKee, A., Magnuson, J., Perry, D.A., Waide, R., Foster, D., 2000. Threads of continuity. Conserv. Biol. Pract. 1, 9–16. Gellman, S. 1994. Results of bat surveys conducted on Stanislaus National Forest. Unpublished report. USDA Forest Service, Stanislaus NF, Sonora, CA. Golightly, R.T., T.F. Penland, W.J. Zielinski and J.M. Higley. 2006. Fisher diet in the Klamath/North Coast Bioregion. Unpublished report. Department of Wildlife, Humboldt State University, Arcata, California, USA. Greene, C. 1995. Habitat requirements of great grey owls in the Sierra Nevada. M.S. Thesis. Univ. of Michigan. 94pp. Grenfell, W.E. and M. Fasenfest. 1979. Winter food habits of fishers, Martes pennanti, in northwestern California. California Fish and Game 65:186-189. Grinnell, J., J.S. Dixon and J.M. Linsdale. 1937. Fur-bearer mammals of California. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA. Vols. 1 and 2. 777pp. Guillot, G., F. Mortier, and A. Estoup et al. 2005. Geneland: a computer package for landscape genetics. Molecular Ecology Notes 5:712-715. Gutierrez, R.J., M.Z. Peery, D.J. Tempel, W.J. Berigan. 2011. Population ecology of the California spotted owl in the central Sierra Nevada: Annual Results 2010. Final Report: Region 5, USDA Forest Service (CR Agreement: 06-CR-11052007-174). Hargis, C.D., C. McCarthy and R.D. perloff. 1994. Home ranges and habitats of northern goshawks in eastern California. Studies in Avian Biology 16:66-74. Hargis, C.D., J.A. Bissonette and D.L. Turner. 1999. The influences of forest fragmentation and landscape pattern on American Martens. Journal of Applied Ecology 36:157-172.

36

Hayward, G.D., and J. Verner, tech. editors. 1994. Flammulated, boreal, and great gray owls in the United States: A technical conservation assessment. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-253. Fort Collins, CO: USDA, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 214 p. Hayward, L. 2008. Preliminary results on the effects of acute off-highway vehicle exposure on the Northern spotted owl Strix occidentalis caurina.. Powerpoint presentation. Heinemeyer, K.S. and J.L. Jones. 1994. Fisher biology and management: a literature review and adaptive management strategy. Missoula, MT: USDA Forest Service Northern Region. 108 pp. Hermanson, J.W. and T.J. O’Shea. 1983. Antrozous pallidus. Mammalian species 213:1-8. Higley, J.M., J.S. Yaeger, A.B. Colegrove, A.J. Pole and D.A. Whitaker. 1998. Hoopa Valley Indian Reservation fisher study, unpublished progress report. USDI Bureau of reclamation, Bureau of Indian Affairs and Hoopa Valley Tribe, Hoopa California, USA. Hoffman, A.A. and M.W. Blows. 1994. Species borders: ecological and evolutionary perspectives. Trends in Ecology and evolution. 9:223-227. Hull, J.M., J.J. Keane, K.W. Savage, S.A. Godwin, J. Shafer, E.P. Jepson, R. Gerhardt, C. Stermer and H.B. Ernest. 2010. Range-wide genetic differentiation among North American great grey owls (Strix nebulosa) reveals a distinct lineage restricted to the Sierra Nevada, California. Molecular Ohylogenetics and evolution 56:212-221. Hutchinson, J.T. and M.J. Lacki. 2000. Selection of day roosts by red bats in mixed mesophytic forests. Journal of Wildlife Management 64(1):87-94. Johnson, D.D.P., D.W. MacDonald and A.J. Dickman. 2000. An analysis and review of models of the sociobiology of the mustelidae. Mammal Rev. 30:171-196. Keane, J.J. and M.L. Morrison. 1994. Northern goshawk ecology: effects of scale and levels of organization. Studies in Avian Biology. 16:3-11. Keane, J.J. 1999. Ecology of the northern goshawk in the Sierra Nevada, California. Dissertation submitted to University of California, Davis, in partial fulfillment for PhD. degree. Keane, John J., C.V. Gallagher, R.A. Gerrard, G. Jehle, P.A. Shaklee. 2010. California spotted owl module: 2010 annual report. Pacific Southwest Research Station, Davis, CA. 40 pp. Kennedy, P.L. 1997. The Northern Goshawk (Accipiter gentilis articapillus): is there evidence of a population decline? Journal of Raptor Research 31:95-106. Kilpatrick, H.J. and P.W. Rego. 1994. Influence of season, sex, and site availability on fisher (Martes pennanti) rest-site selection in the central hardwood forest. Canadian Journal of Zoology 72:1416-1419. Klug, R.R. 1997. Occurrence of Pacific fisher (Martes pennanti pacifica) in the Redwood Zone of northern California and the habitat attributes associated with their detections. M.S. Thesis, Humboldt State University, Arcata, CA, USA.

37

Krebs, C.J., B.L. Keller and R.H. Tamarin. 1969. Microtus population biology: demographic changes in fluctuating populations of M. ochrogaster and M. pennsylvanicus in southern Indiana. Ecology 50:587-607. Krohn, W.B., W.J. Zielinski and R.B. Boone. 1997. Relations among fishers, snow and martens in California: Results from small-scale spatial comparisons. Pp 211-232. In Proulx, G., H.N. Bryant and P.M. Woodard, editors. Martes: taxonomy, ecology, techniques and management. Provincial Museum of Alberta, Canada. Krohne, D.T. and G.A. Hoch. 1999. Demography of Peromyscus Leucopus populations on habitat patches: the role of dispersal. Canadian Journal of Zoology 77:1247-1253. Kuehn, D.W. 1989. Winter foods of fishers during a snowshoe hare decline. Journal of Wildlife Management 53:688-692. Kunz, T.H. and R.A. Martin. 1982. Plecotus townsendii. Mammalian species. The American Society of Mammologists 175:1-6. LaHaye, W.S., R.J. Guttierrez and J.R. Dunk. 2001. Natal dispersal of the spotted owl in southern California: dispersal profile of an insular population. The Condor 103:691-700. Lamberson, R.H., R.L. Truex, W.J. Zielinski and D.C. Macfarlane. 2000. Preliminary analysis of fisher population viability in the southern Sierra Nevada. USDA Forest Service. Pacific Southwest Region. Unpublished manuscript. 20pp. Landry, P.A. and F.J. Lapointe. 1999. The genetic heterogeneity of deer mouse (Peromyscus maniculatus) populations in an insular landscape. Research in Population Ecology 41:263-268. Lehman, R.N. 1979. A survey of selected habitat features of 95 bald eagle nest sites in California. Admin. Report 79-1. California Department of Fish and Game, Wildlife Management Branch, Sacramento, California, USA. Lenihan, J.M., D. Bachelet, R. Drapek and R.P. Neilson. 2006. The response of vegetation distribution, ecosystem productivity, and fire in California to future climate scenarios simulated by the MC1 dynamic vegetation model. California Climate change Center, CEC-500-2005-191-SF: 1-19. Lewis, J.C. and D.W. Stinson. 1998. Washington state status report for the fisher. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, WA. 64pp. MacFarlane, D.C. 1994. National Forest system status information. Pages 176-184, In Riggerio, L.F., K.B. Aubry, S.W. Buskirk, L. Jack Lyon and W.J. Zielinski, eds. The scientific basis for conserving forest carnivores: American marten, fisher, lynx and wolverine in the western United States. Gen. Tech. report RM-254. Fort Collins, CO: US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 184pp. Manion, P.D. 1991. Tree Disease Concepts, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ. Maurer, J.R. 2000. Nesting habitat and prey relations of the northern goshawk in Yosemite National Park, California. MSc. Thesis. University of California, Davis, CA.

38

Mazzoni, A. 2002. Habitat use by fishers (Martes pennanti) in the southern Sierra Nevada, California. M.S. Thesis. California State University, Fresno, CA. Moriarty, K.M., W.J. Zielinski, A.G. Gonzales, T.E. Dawson, K.M. Boatner, C.A. Wilson, F.V. Schlexer, K.L. Pilgrim, J.P. Copeland and M.K. Schwartz. 2009. Wolverine confirmation in California after nearly a century: native or long-distance immigrant? Northwest Science 83:154-162. North State Resources, Inc. 2007. Prather-Medusa Fuel Reduction Project Northern Goshawk Surveys, California Spotted Owl Surveys, Final Report. Stanislaus National Forest, Calaveras Ranger District, Hathaway Pines, CA. 36 pp. North, M., P. Stine, K. O’Hara, W. Zielinski and S. Stephens. 2009. An ecosystem management strategy for Sierran mixed-conifer forests. Gen. Tech. Report PSW-GTR-220. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station. Albany, CA. 49p. O’Shea, T.J. and M.A. Bogan, editors. 2003. Monitoring trends in bat populations of the United States and territories: problems and prospects. U.S. Geological Survey, Biological Resources Discipline, Information and Technology Report, USGS/BRD/ITR-2003-0003, 274pp. Paragi, T.F., S.M. Arthur and W.B. Krohn. 1996. Importance of tree cavities as natal dens for fishers. National Journal of American Foresters 13:79-83. Parks, C.G., E.L. Bull, R.O. Tinnin, J.F. Shepherd and A.K. Blumton. 1999. Wildlife use of dwarf mistletoe brooms in Douglas-fir in northeast Oregon. Western Journal of American Foresters 14: 100-105. Pearson, O. P., M. R. Koford, and A. K. Pearson. 1952. Reproduction of the lump-nosed bat (Corynorhinus rafinesquei) in California. Journal of Mammalogy 33:273–320

Perrine, J. 2005. Ecology of the red fox (Vulpes vulpes) in the Lassen Peak Region of California, USA. Dissertation submitted to University of California, Berkeley, in partial fulfillment for PhD. degree. Perrine, J., L.A. Campbell and G.A. Green. 2010. Sierra Nevada red fox (Vulpes vulpes necator): A conservation assessment. Biological Sciences Department, California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo, CA. Philpott, W. 1997. Summaries of the life history of California bat species. USDA Forest Service, Pineridge Ranger District, Sierra National Forest. Pianka, E.R. 1966. Latitudinal Gradients in Species Diversity: A Review of Concepts. The American Naturalist. Vol. 100, No. 910. 33-46 pg. Powell, R.A. 1993. The fisher: Life history, ecology and behavior. 2nd edition. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Powell, R.A. and W.J. Zielinski. 1994. Fisher. Pages 38-73, In Ruggerio, L.F., K.B. Aubry, S.W. Buskirk, L.J. Lyon and W.J. Zielinski, eds. The scientific basis for conserving forest carnivores: American marten, fisher, lynx and wolverine in the western United States. Gen. Tech. Report RM-254, Fort Collins, CO: USDA, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 184pp.

39

Purcell, R.A., A.K. Mazzoni, S.R. Mori and B.B. Boroski. 2009. Resting structures and resting habitat of fishers in the southern Sierra Nevada, California. Forest Ecology Management 258:2696-2706. Raine, R.M. 1983. Winter habitat use and responses to snow cover of fishers (Martes pennanti) and marten (Martes americana) in southeastern Manitoba. Canadian Journal of Zoology 61: 25-34. Reynolds, R.T., R.T. Graham, M.H. Reiser, R.L. Bassett, P.L. Kennedy, D.A. Boyce Jr., G. Goodwin, R. Smith and E.L. Fisher. 1992. Management recommendations for the northern goshawk in the southwestern United States. Gen. Tech. Report RM-217. Fort Collins, CO. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experimental Station. Reynolds, R.T. and S.M. Joy. 1998. Distribution, territory occupancy, dispersal and demography of northern goshawks on the Kaibab Plateau, Arizona. Final Report for Arizona Game and Fish, Heritage Project No. 194045, USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fort Collins, CO. Reynolds, R.T. and S.M. Joy. 2006. Demography of northern goshawks in northern Arizona, 1991-1996. Pp. 63-74, In M.L. Morrison, eds. The Northern Goshawk: a technical assessment of its status, ecology and management. Studies in Avian Biology No. 31. Cooper Ornithological Society, Camarillo, CA.

Ritchie, M. W., Skinner, C. N., & Hamilton, T. A. (2007). Probability of tree survival after wildfire in an interior pine forest of northern California: Effects of thinning and prescribed fire. Forest Ecology and Management, 247(1-3), 200-208.

Ruggiero, L.F., K.B. Aubry, S.W. Buskirk, L.J. Lyon and W.J. Zielinski, tech. eds. 1994. The scientific basis for conserving forest carnivores: American marten, Fisher, Lynx and Wolverine in the United States. Gen. Tech. report RM-254. Fort Collins, CO: USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 184pp. Safford, H.D. 2006. Potential impacts of climate change to fisher habitat in California: a preliminary assessment. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region. Vallejo, CA. Unpublished manuscript. 29p. Scarlett, A.J., B.P. Marchant, D.S. Spencer, J.A. Marchant. 2001. Acoustic Data for Field Machinery Control. The Society for Engineering in Agriculture, Food, and Biological Systems. Paper Number: 01-1165 presentation. Schumaker, N.H. 1998. A user’s guide to the PATCH model. EPA/600/R-98/135. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Environmental Research Laboratory, Corvallis, Oregon, USA. Seglund, A.E. 1995. The use of resting sites by Pacific fisher. M.S. Thesis. Humboldt State University, Arcata, CA. Self, S.E. and S.J. Kerns. 2001. Pacific fisher use of a managed forest landscape in northern California. SPI Wildlife Research Paper 6. Sierra Pacific Research and Monitoring and Sierra Pacific Industries, Redding, California, USA. 32p. Self, S., E. Murphy and S. Farber. 2008. Preliminary estimate of fisher populations in California and southern Oregon. Unpublished report. Submitted to California Department of Fish and Game. 15p.

40

Shaw, M.W. 1995. Simulation of population expansion and spatial pattern when individual dispersal distributions do not decline with distance. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Series B 259:243-248. Sherburne, S.S. and J.A. Bissonette. 1994. Marten subnivean access point use: response to subnivean prey levels. Journal of Wildlife management 58:400-405. Shuford, W.D. and T. Gardali, editors. 2008. California Bird Species of Special Concern: A ranked assessment of species, subspecies, and distinct population of birds of immediate conservation concerns in California. Studies of Western Birds 1. Western Field Ornithologists, Camarillo, California and California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, CA. Shump, K.A. Jr. and A.U. Shump. 1982. Lasiurus borealis (blossevillii). Mammalian species 183:1-6. Smallwood, K.S. 1998. On the evidence needed for listing the northern goshawk (Accipiter gentilis) under the Endangered Species Act: a reply to Kennedy. Journal of Raptor Research 32:323-329 Spencer, W.D., R.H. Barrett and W.J. Zielinski. 1983. Marten habitat preferences in the northern Sierra Nevada. Journal of Wildlife Management 47(4):1181-1186. Spencer, W.D., H.L. Rustigian, R.M. Scheller, A. Syphard, J. Strittholt and B. Ward. 2008. Baseline evaluation of fisher habitat and population status, and effects of fires and fuels management on fishers in the southern Sierra Nevada. Unpublished report prepared for USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region. June 2008. 133+appendices. Squires, J.R. and R.T. Reynolds. 1997. Northern goshawk (Accipiter gentilis). In: A. Poole and F. Gill, Eds. The Birds of North America Online. http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/298 . Accessed January 25, 2011. Stephens, S.L., and Moghaddas, J.J. 2005. Experimental fuel treatment impacts on forest structure, potential fire behavior, and predicted tree mortality in a California mixed conifer forest. For. Ecol. Manag. 215(1–3): 21–36. doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2005.03.070. Stephens, S. J. Moghaddas, C. Ediminster, C. Fiedler, S. Hasse, M. Harrington, J. Keeley, J. McIver, K.Metlen, C. Skinner, and A. Youngblood. 2008. Fire and fire surrogate treatment effects on vegetation structure, fuels, and potential fire behavior and severity from six western United States coniferous forests. Ecological Applications. [In Press]. Sweitzer, Rick and Reg Barrett. Unpublished Sierra Nevada Adaptive Management Program (SNAMP) Data. U.C. Berkeley SNAMP fisher study. Website http://snamp.cnr.berkeley.edu accessed in June, 2011. Thompson, C., K. Purcell, J. Garner and R. Green. 2011. Kings River Fisher Project Progress report 2007-2010. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station, Fresno, California, USA, 37pp. Timossi, I. 1990. California’s statewide wildlife habitat relationship system. California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, CA. Database. Truex, R.L., W.J. Zielinski, R.T. Golightly, R.H. Barrett and S.M. Wisely. 1998. A meta-analysis of regional variation of fisher morphology, demography and habitat ecology in California. Draft report submitted

http://snamp.cnr.berkeley.edu/

41

to: California Department of Fish and Game, Wildlife Management Division, Nongame bird and mammal section. Sacramento, California, USA. 118pp. Truex, R.L. and W.J. Zielinski. 2005. Short-term effects of fire and fire surrogate treatments on fisher habitat in the Sierra Nevada. Final report to the Joint Fire Science Program, Project JFSP 01C-3-3-02. Unpublished. 25pp. Truex, R.L., W.J. Zielinski, J.S. Bolis and J.M. Tucker. 2009. Fisher population monitoring in the southern Sierra Nevada, 2002-2008. Paper presented at the 5th International Martes Symposium, Seattle, WA. September 8-12, 2009. Tucker, J., R. Truex, J. Bolis, M. Schwartz and F. Allendorf. 2009. Using landscape genetics to assess the genetic structure and population connectivity of fishers in the Sierra Nevada. Student paper presented at the 2009 Annual Conference of the Western Section of the Wildlife Society, Sacramento, CA. January 21-24, 2009. USDA Forest Service. 1991. Stanislaus National Forest land and resource management plan. Forest Service, Region 5, Sonora, California USA. USDA Forest Service. 2001. Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 3. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region. Vallejo, California. 407 pp. USDA Forest Service. 2001-2002. Over-snow vehicle monitoring. USDA Forest Service. Stanislaus National Forest. Calaveras Ranger District. Hathaway Pines, CA. Unpublished report. 8 pp. USDA Forest Service. 2004. Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement, Record of Decision. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region. Vallejo, California. 71 pp. USDA Forest Service. 2005a. Sierra Nevada forest plan accomplishment monitoring report for 2004. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region R5-MR-026. 8pp. USDA Forest Service. 2005b. Stewardship and Fireshed Assessment. Forest Plan Direction. Stanislaus National Forest. Pacific Southwest Region. Sonora, CA. 15 pp. USDA Forest Service. 2006a. Life history and analysis of the Management Indicator Species for the Stanislaus National Forest, Sonora, California, USA. 323pp. USDA Forest Service. 2006b. Sierra Nevada forest plan monitoring accomplishment report for 2005. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region R5-MR-000. 12pp. USDA Forest Service. 2009. 2008 SNFPA carnivore monitoring accomplishment report. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region, Draft report. 12pp. USDA Forest Service. 2012-2013. Hemlock Landscape-Level Restoration Project carnivore monitoring surveys. USDA Forest Service, Stanislaus National Forest, unpublished data. 23pp. USDA Forest Service. 2010c. Stanislaus National Forest, Forest Plan Direction. Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region, Stanislaus National Forest, Sonora, CA.196 pp.

42

USDA Forest Service. 2010b. SSI database, stream survey inventory. Stanislaus National Forest. Sonora, CA. USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 1984. Recovery plan for the Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Endangered Species Program; Portland, Oregon, USA.

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2007. Federal Register 50 CFR Part 17, Volume 72, No. 130.

Van Riper, C. and J. Van Wagtendonk. 2006. Home range characteristics of great grey owls in Yosemite National Park, California. Journal of Raptor Research 40(2):130-141. Verner, J., K.S. McKelvey, B.R. Noon, R.J. Guiterrez, G.I. Gould Jr., and T.W. Beck, tech. coords. 1992. The California spotted owl: a technical assessment of its current status. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR- 133, Pacific Southwest Research Station, USDA, Forest Service. Albany, California USA. 285 pp. Wasser, Samuel K., K. Bevis, G. King, and E. Hanson. 1997. Noninvasive physiological measures of disturbance in the Northern spotted owl. Conservation Biology 11(4):1019-1022. Weins, J.D., R.T. Reynolds and B.R. Noon. 2006. Juvenile movement and natal dispersal of northern goshawks in Arizona. The Condor 108:253-269. Weir, R.D. 2003. Status of the fisher in British Columbia. British Columbia Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management, Conservation Data Center, and the Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection, Biodiversity Branch. Victoria, British Columbia, Canada. Weir, R.D. and F.B. Corbould. 2007. Factors Affecting Diurnal Activity of Fishers in North-central British Columbia. Journal of Mammology, 88(6): 1508-1514 p. Winter, J. 1986. Status, distribution and ecology of the great grey owl (Strix nebulosa) in California. MSc. Thesis. San Francisco State University, California. Wisely, S.M., S.W. Buskirk, G.H. Russell, K.B. Aubrey and W.J. Zielinski. 2004. Genetic diversity and structure of the fisher (Martes pennanti) in a peninsular and peripheral metapopulation. Journal of Mammalogy 85(4):640-648. Yeager, J.S. 2005. Habitat at fisher resting sites in the Klamath province of northern California. M.S. Thesis, Humboldt State University, Arcata, California, USA. 64pp. Young, K.E., K.G. Boykin, C. Caldwell, J. Seeger, M. Coolidge, T. Ellis, C. Aiello, E. Williams, and A. LeClerc. 2008. California spotted owl and northern goshawk surveys on the Stanislaus National Forest. Unpublished report, New Mexico Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, New Mexico State University, Las Cruces, New Mexico. 46pp Zeiner, D.C., W.F. Laudenslayer Jr., K.E. Mayer and M. White. 1990a. California Statewide Wildlife Habitat Relationship System, California’s Wildlife. Volume II; Birds. California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, CA, USA. Zeiner, D.C., W.F. Laudenslayer Jr., K.E. Mayer and M. White. 1990b. California Statewide Wildlife Habitat Relationship System, California’s Wildlife. Volume III; Mammals. California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, CA, USA.

43

Zielinski, W.J., W.D. Spencer and R.H. Barrett. 1983. Relationship between food habits and activity patterns of pine martens. Journal of Mammalogy 64:387-396. Zielinski, W.J. and T.E. Kucera. 1995. American Marten, Fisher, Lynx and Wolverine: Survey Methods for their detection. Gen. Tech. Report PSW-GTR-157, Pacific Southwest Research Station, USDA Forest Service. Albany, California, USA. Zielinski, W.J., T.E. Kucera, and R.H. Barrett. 1995. The current distribution of the fisher, Martes pennanti, in California. California Department of Fish and Game 81:104-112. Zielinski, W.J., R.L. Truex, C.V. Ogan and K. Busse. 1997. Detection surveys for fishers and American martens in California, 1989-1994: Summary and interpretations. Pages 372-392. In Proulx, G., H.N. Bryant and P.M. Woodard, eds. Martes: taxonomy, ecology, techniques and management. Provincial Museum of Alberta, Alberta, Canada. Zielinski, W.J., N.P. Duncan, E.C. Farmer, R.L. Truex, A.P. Clevenger and R.H. Barrett. 1999. Diet of fishers (Martes pennanti) at the southern most extent of their range. Journal of Mammalogy 80:961-971. Zielinski, W.J. 2004. The status and conservation of mesocarnivores in the Sierra Nevada. 185-193. In: Murphy, D.D. and P.A. Stine, editors. Proceedings of the Sierra Nevada science symposium: science for management and conservation. Gen. Tech. Report PSW-GTR-193. Pacific Southwest Research Station, USDA Forest Service. 287pp. Zielinski, W.J. and N.P. Duncan. 2004. Diets of sympatric populations of American martens (Martes Americana) and fishers (Martes pennanti) in California. Journal of Mammalogy 85(3):470-477. Zielinski, W.J., R.L. Truex, G. Schmidt, R. Schlexer, K.N. Schmidt and R.H. Barrett. 2004a. Resting habitat selection by fishers in California. Journal of Wildlife Management 68:475-492. Zielinski, W.J., R.L. Truex, G. Schmidt, R. Schlexer, K.N. Schmidt and R.H. Barrett. 2004b. Home range characteristics of fishers in California. Journal of Mammalogy 85:649-657. Zielinski, W.J., R.L. Truex, J.R. Dunk and T Gaman. 2006. Using forest inventory data to assess fisher resting habitat suitability in California. Ecological Applications 16:1010-1025.

44

Appendix A

Figure 1. Hemlock Landscape Restoration project location.

2. Alternatives This Chapter describes and compares the alternatives considered for the Hemlock project. It presents the alternatives in comparative form, defining the differences between each alternative and providing a clear basis for choice among the options for the Responsible Official. It includes the action alternative or the proposed action (Alternative 1), the no action alternative (Alternative 2), and an additional action alternative (Alternative 3). The no action alternative serves as a baseline for comparison purposes (73 Federal Register 143, July 24, 2008; p. 43084-43099). Some of the information used to compare the alternatives is based on the design of the alternative, and some of the information is based upon the environmental, social and economic effects of implementing each alternative.

2.01 How the Alternatives were Developed The action alternatives represent a wide range of perspectives designed to address the issues identified through scoping and described in the purpose and need (Chapter 1). The planning area includes NFS lands in the Hemlock project area. It does not include any private, state or other federal lands.

Restoration treatments would include hand, mechanical, silviculture, prescribed fire, watershed or other actions employed to promote ecosystem stability by improving landscape resilience and watershed conditions, and by modifying fuel characteristics to lessen fire behavior or burn severity. Vegetation treatments were strategically designed using guidelines discussed in the General Technical Report (GTR) 220 by North et al. (2009) and GTR 237 by North, ed. (2012). These guidelines stress the ecological importance of forest heterogeneity. The authors offer suggestions on how to design treatment areas to meet diverse forest objectives, retain existing large trees, promote recruitment of more large structures and provide for forest sustainability. The proposed

45

treatments would result in a landscape matrix of forest structure and densities that aim to: 1) modify fuel characteristics; 2) improve forest resiliency; 3) reduce susceptibility to insect and diseases; 4) improve watershed condition; 5) improve meadow function and water sequestration; and 6) maintain wildlife and ethno-botanical connectivity and diversity.

GTR-220 proposed that heterogeneity in forest structure be based on landscape topographic characteristics, particularly slope position and aspect. In general, GTR-220 desired outcomes result in stem density and canopy cover highest in drainages and riparian conservation areas (RCA), decreasing over the mid-slope to their lowest values near ridge-tops (North et al. 2009, p 20). Likewise, stem density and canopy cover would be higher on NE aspects compared to SW aspects (p. 21). Ridge-tops would have the lowest stem densities and highest percentages of pine in contrast to riparian areas (drainages). Mid-slope forest density and composition would vary with aspect, as density and fir composition increase on northern aspects and flatter slope angles.

As such, the project area was first delineated into four landscape slope categories using the GIS Landscape Management Unit (LMU) tool as described in Chapter 10 of GTR-237: ridges, drainages, northeast (NE) facing mid-slopes, and southwest (SW) facing mid-slopes. Applying the GTR-220 desired outcome concepts, the ID Team was able to formulate proposed actions that would simultaneously achieve forest restoration and fuels objectives while maintaining wildlife habitat connectivity for California spotted owls and northern goshawks.

In contrast to this approach, younger plantations in the project area do not always meet characteristics of a general forest. Their size, density, and heterogeneity require initial treatments that would transition them towards a forest condition conducive to applying the GTR-220/ GTR-237 concepts.

Fuels treatment areas and types proposed were not directed at excluding future fire events, but rather at improving landscape resilience to future fire events. A driving emphasis with fuel treatment designs was to have fuel levels restored to a level within the natural range of variability for the site and to allow for safe and effective wildfire suppression. Likewise, treatments focused on meadows, aspens, watershed, soil productivity, and recreation activity aim at increasing the resilience of these natural systems, while balancing social and economic forest related benefits.

Action Alternatives Action alternatives include the restoration activities described below. Within each alternative, the acres and distances shown are estimates; in some cases, total acres treated reflect several treatments that overlap on the same piece of ground. 1. Forest Restoration: mechanical thinning, hand thinning, biomass removal, mastication, planting, provisions for soil

productivity (Map Package, Figures 2.01-1 and 2.01-2). 2. Scenic Corridor: mechanical thinning, hand thinning, biomass removal, mastication, piling and burning (Map

Package, Figures 2.01-1 and 2.01-2). 3. Fuels Reduction: mechanical thinning, hand thinning, piling and burning, mastication, roadside fuel-breaks, shaded

fuel-breaks, and prescribed fire (Map Package, Figures 2.01-1, 2.01-2 and 2.01-3). 4. Mature Forest Wildlife Habitat Restoration: mechanical thinning, hand thinning, biomass removal, mastication,

planting, and prescribed fire (included in Map Package, Figures 2.01-1 and 2.01-2). 5. Heritage Resources: hand thinning, conifer removal, road decommissioning or blocking, barrier installation,

interpretive signage installation, and recreation area relocation. 6. Aquatic Organism Passage Restoration: culvert replacement or removal (Map Package, Figure 2.01-4). 7. Streams, Riparian Areas, Special Aquatic Feature and Aspen Restoration: encroaching conifer removal,

monitoring/adaptive management, SAF barrier installation, stream channel restoration, head-cut stabilization, and trough installation (Map Package, Figure 2.01-4).

8. Recreation: motorized and non-motorized trail improvement, maintenance, reconstruction, rerouting and construction; road designation changes, dispersed campsites enhancement or rehabilitation, and trailheads and parking areas development (Map Package, Figures 2.01-5 and 2.01-6).

9. Transportation: roads and motorized trails maintenance, reconstruction, decommissioning, and construction needed to accomplish restoration objectives, and identification of rock quarry sites and water sources to accommodate road needs during implementation as well as for long-term resource needs (Map Package, Figures 2.01-7 and 2.01-8).

46

10. Management Requirements: include requirements related to protecting resources while implementing other actions.

Map Package Identification (ID)2 numbers displayed in this EA correspond to unit numbers displayed on these 8 maps available by request in a separate Map Package:

Figure 2.01-1 Alternative 1: Forest Restoration, Scenic Corridor, and Fuels Reduction Figure 2.01-2 Alternative 3: Forest Restoration, Fuel Reduction, and Wildlife Restoration Figure 2.01-3 Alternatives 1 and 3: Prescribed Fire Figure 2.01-4 Alternatives 1 and 3: Special Aquatic Features and Aquatic Organism Passage

Restoration Figure 2.01-5 Alternative 1: Recreation Actions Figure 2.01-6 Alternative 3: Recreation Actions Figure 2.01-7 Alternative 1: Transportation Actions Figure 2.01-8 Alternative 3: Transportation Actions

2.02 Alternative 1 (Proposed Action) Under Alternative 1, forest restoration actions would include: mechanical thinning of merchantable timber, tree planting, plantation thinning, conifer removal at meadows and aspen stands, and provisions for soil productivity. In general: Forest restoration actions would adhere to the Stanislaus National Forest “Forest Plan Direction” (USDA 2010) while

implementing the landscape strategy presented in the GTR-220 (North et al. 2009).

Only trees less than 30” dbh would be selected for removal, unless they pose a safety hazard and designated as a hazard tree (USDA 2012a), are within road/landing construction limits, or are within or adjacent to aspen stands.

Pre-existing canopy cover would not be reduced by more than 30% within treatment units, and at least 40% of the existing basal area would be retained (USDA 2010, p 36).

The specific actions are as follows:

Merchantable Timber

The Proposed Action would conduct 3,920 acres of mechanical ground based thinning of merchantable timber (10-30” dbh) in forest, riparian, aspen, meadow, and wildlife habitat areas. An additional 28.5 acres would be thinned in four plantations (Appendix B; Figure 2.01-1). Firs and incense cedar would be prioritized for removal and healthy Jeffrey pine (Pinus jeffreyi) and rust-resistant

sugar pine (Pinus lambertiana) would be prioritized as leave trees (seed trees), especially adjacent to SW mid-slope gaps.

Canopy cover (CC) retention would vary by topographic position category (Table 2.02-1).The tops and limbs of trees, trees < 10”, other woody debris, and brush would be masticated (shredded), piled and burned (hand or grapple piles), lopped and scattered, or removed as biomass.

Additional use of non-merchantable material may include firewood, shavings, small log removal, and pulpwood use.

Masticated material would not exceed a depth of 6 inches.

Lopped and scattered pieces would not exceed a depth of 18 inches.

Mechanical thinning would incorporate the creation of gaps created throughout units, with size and density varying by topographic position (Table 2.02-1). Gaps would be located in areas with disease (root rot), adjacent to aspen stands, or adjacent to other natural gaps.

2 ID = the “Identification” number used for tracking in this EA is interchangeable with other similar terms (i.e., “unit”, “unit number”, “treatment unit”, or “EA Number”) used in this document and/or other project record documents for the Hemlock Landscape Restoration project.

47

A higher density of trees would be maintained next to gaps.

Gaps in units that have prescribed fire proposed may have dozer or hand lines created around the gap to exclude fire once tree regeneration is established.

Gaps on ridges would be created where the topology is generally flat.

Gaps within SW mid-slopes would be located where historic levels of pine exist but regeneration is deficient or suppressed.

Gaps in drainages and RCAs would be created only around hardwood vegetation and would not exceed 1.5 acres in size.

Table 2.02-1 Merchantable timber thinning acres, canopy cover retention, gap size and density, and planting acres by topographic position - Alternative 1

Topographic Position Acres Canopy Cover (%) Gap Size (Acres) % Gaps Planting Acres

Ridge 793 40 0.25-1.5 2 16

Mid-slope NE 540 50 0.1-0.5 2-5 27

Mid-slope SW 1873 50 0.25-1.5 5-10 187

Drainage 302 50 0-1.5 0-2 0

RCA 413 60 0-1.5 0-2 0

Planting

Replanting would occur on up to 202 acres in gaps created in mixed conifer forest (Table 2.02-1). Jeffrey pine and rust-resistant sugar pine would be planted at an average spacing of 15 x 15 feet.

No planting would occur in gaps created in red fir dominated stands, drainages, or RCAs. Natural regeneration would be relied upon in these areas.

Site preparation for planting would include one or a combination of the following methods : 1) tractor piling and burning of brush and concentrations of slash, 2) hand thinning, piling and burning small trees, brush, and slash, 3) subsoiling, if the area is heavily compacted or has dense brush, or 4) broadcast burning to reduce fuel concentrations.

Mechanical thinning or hand grubbing of small trees and brush would occur as needed after planting.

Plantation Thinning

Approximately 800 plantation acres would be mechanically thinned (Appendix B; Figure 2.01-1) to achieve 20 x 20 foot spacing.

Mechanical thinning of brush and trees less than 10” dbh could be conducted through mastication and/or hand piling and burning.

Trees 10” to 16” dbh could be removed as biomass or other forest products.

Materials created through mastication would not exceed 6” depth.

Conifer Removal

Conifers encroaching on 109 acres of meadows and 125 acres of meadow/aspen stands would be thinned (Appendix B; Figure 2.01-1). Conifers less than 30” dbh would be removed within 1.5 tree lengths (100 ft. average) of meadows and aspen stands.

Within 50 feet of aspen stands, conifers 30-40” dbh may be thinned where basal areas of conifers exceed 120 ft2/ acre, retaining at least 3 trees >30” dbh per acre.

Root ripping may occur in thinned aspen stands to isolate roots and stimulate sprouting.

Conifers removed would include sawlog and biomass products; non-commercial material would be chipped, piled and burned, or used in restoration treatments (e.g., barriers).

48

Soil Productivity

Approximately 302 acres (occurring primarily in 22 plantations) would be treated by increasing ground cover, retaining brush, or repairing gully erosion (or a combination of these treatments). In some cases, the Forest Restoration treatments would achieve the soil productivity ground cover objectives and no further treatment would be necessary. Ground Cover: Ground cover would be increased to 50% on 256.4 acres within young plantations using a mastication

treatment or with hand treatments to spread slash, forest floor material, or masticated chips on eroded areas (IDs 85, 96, 103,107, 118, 126, 149, 157, 160, 161, 162, 171, 173, 182, 184, 185, 631, and 632).

Brush Retention: On 210 acres, clumps of brush greater than 20 feet away from leave tree drip-lines would be retained during mastication or thinning operations. Treatment would only be needed in portions of units with sparse vegetation (less than 70 % canopy cover), and where it poses limited fire threat to overstory (IDs 96, 112, 113, 118, 127, 157, 160, 171, 173, 180, 182, 184, and 631).

Gully Repair: On 45.6 acres, gullies in need of repair would be treated by stabilizing actively eroding areas, diverting water into established channels, or repairing road drainages (IDs 126, 183, and 631).

2. Scenic Corridor

The Proposed Action would thin 421 acres within 300 feet of either side of Highway 4 through a combination of mechanical ground based thinning, mastication, hand thinning, biomass removal, slash piling and burning (Appendix B; Figure 2.01-1). Trees less than 30” dbh and designated hazard trees (USDA 2012a) would be thinned while retaining 40% canopy

cover. Unthinned pockets would be retained to screen unnatural structures (e.g. power lines, campgrounds, and other

structures) and heritage resource sites. Healthy, wind throw resistant trees and groups of trees would be favored for retention. Trees (less than 10” dbh) and brush may be masticated in some areas. Stumps would be cut to less than 6” in height. Created openings would not be heterogeneous in shape and size; straight lines and right angles would be avoided.

Edges of thinning units would be softened by gradually transitioning the thinning to the surrounding tree density. Created openings would resemble the size and shape of those found in the surrounding natural landscape. Treatments

would be designed to follow natural topographic breaks and changes in vegetation.

3. Fuels Reduction

The proposed action includes fuel reduction treatments that include fuel-breaks, prescribed fire, small diameter thinning and piling and burning (Figures 2.01-1 and 2.01-3): Roadside Fuel-breaks

Roadside fuel-breaks would be created along 7.1 miles of road encompassing roughly 74.1 acres. Brush and small trees less than 10” dbh would be removed or masticated within 25 feet of designated roads. Hazard trees would be felled within 1.5 tree lengths of the road. Some hazard trees would be felled and retained on

site to provide wildlife habitat. Excess fuels may be removed mechanically or through hand thinning, piling, and burning. Shaded Fuel-breaks

Shaded fuel-breaks would be created at the wildland urban interface (WUI) and along prominent ridge tops. Within the WUI, 557 acres of shaded fuel break would be created. Outside of the WUI, 336 acres of shaded fuel break would be created. Trees less than 30” dbh would be thinned to 40% canopy cover by ground based mechanical thinning or hand

thinning, piling, and burning. Trees less than 10” dbh and brush would be treated through mastication, biomass removal, or hand cutting, piling and

burning. Prescribed Fire

Approximately 4,286 acres would be treated with prescribed fire. Prescribed fire would follow mechanical or hand treatments and fireline construction, or may be employed as an

independent treatment (jackpot burning).

49

Prescribed fire would be conducted in compliance with all applicable Calaveras County Air Pollution Control District (APCD), state, and federal regulations.

Piling and Burning

Slash from timber harvest operations and pockets of dead small trees and heavy fuel concentrations would be piled using mechanical (grappling) or hand means and then burned after vegetation activities are completed. All piles would be placed to minimize resource concerns, tree scorch, and mortality to remaining trees in the

surrounding area. Fire lines may be constructed around piles down to bare mineral soil using hand tools or machinery. If machinery is

utilized it would be conducted with minimal ground disturbance. All burning would comply with all applicable Calaveras County Air Pollution Control District (APCD), state, and

federal regulations. Hand or Mechanical Thinning (<10” dbh, Retain 50% CC)

Approximately 93.1 acres of thinning (hand or mechanical) would be conducted. Trees less than 10” dbh would be hand thinned, hand piled and burned, mechanically masticated, or removed as

biomass. 50% canopy cover would be retained in areas thinned mechanically. Hand Thinning

Trees would be hand thinned where mechanical treatment is not feasible (e.g. steep terrain, slope conditions) or desirable due to other resource concerns (e.g. cultural/heritage resources, wildlife) (Appendix B; Figure 2.01-1). Hand thinning of trees less than 10” dbh would occur on 717 acres. Hand thinning of trees less than 6” dbh would occur on 1,497 acres. Hand cut trees would be piled and burned.

4. Mature Forest Wildlife Habitat Restoration

Mechanical thinning, hand thinning, biomass removal, mastication, planting, and prescribed fire as described in the Forest Restoration, Scenic Corridor, and Fuels Reduction sections would occur within PACs and HRCAs. The total extent of these treatments is described in the previous sections, and the extent within wildlife habitats shown in Table 2.02-2. Less than 30% of a PAC would be treated during a calendar year.

Prescribed fire in PACs would occur after hand treatments are conducted, including hand line construction, tree pruning, and cutting of small trees (less than 6” dbh).

Table 2.02-2 Acres of proposed treatments within wildlife habitat - Alternative 1

Treatment CSO HRCA CSO PAC NGO PAC

Forest Restoration

Merchantable Timber Thinning

Drainage – retain 50% CC 203 0 0

Mid-slope NE- retain 50% CC 282 0 0

Mid-slope SW – retain 50% CC 1,170 0 0

RCA – retain 60% CC 203 0 0

Ridge – retain 40% CC 435 0 0

Plantation: Mastication / Biomass 23 0 0

Meadow/Aspen Conifer removal 15 0 0

Scenic Corridor 102 0 0

Fuels Reduction

Roadside Fuel-break 21 0 0

Shaded Fuel-break 28 0 0

Shaded Fuel-break- WUI 26 0 0

Prescribed Fire 1,819 314 66

Hand Treat (<10”) or Mechanical – retain 50% CC 88 0 0

Hand Thinning (<10”) 647 0 0

Hand Thinning (<6”) 136 1342 106

50

5. Heritage Resources

The Proposed Action includes vegetation treatments, recreation management, meadow habitat restoration, and interpretation designed to protect and enhance heritage resources. Encroaching conifers less than 30” dbh may be thinned within selected heritage sites.

Culturally significant oaks and other traditional plants within Native American gathering sites would be cultivated and pruned in accordance with traditional methods.

Trees would be felled in strategic locations to stabilize or protect heritage sites and reduce site erosion.

Felling of selected trees would be directed by a qualified heritage staff. Selected trees would not be removed during project implementation and would be flagged and/or tagged for

avoidance. Educational, interpretive, and regulatory signs may be posted within the vicinity of heritage resources as needed to

promote heritage resource protection.

A subset of approximately 100 cultural sites would be monitored to ensure project objectives are met.

6. Aquatic Organism Passage Restoration

Eight culverts have been identified for aquatic organism passage restoration. Four culverts would be replaced or removed at the stream / road crossing intersection listed in Table 2.02-3 (Figure 2.01-4). Culvert replacement may include temporary dewatering of streams, removal of existing fill material and culverts, replacement of footings and other structures, placement of new culvert, replacement of fill material, and other techniques as needed. An additional four culverts would be removed as a component of road decommissioning. Table 2.02-3 Summary of AOP restoration actions

ID Road Stream Treatment Priority

640 17EV501 Water Gulch Reconstruct Crossing 1

641 07N09 Water Gulch Reconstruct Crossing 2

642 07N09 Pumpkin Hollow Creek Reconstruct Crossing 3

643 16EV434 Long Gulch Reconstruct Crossing 4

644 16EV434 Cottonwood gulch Decommission Road 1

645 16EV434 Hay Gulch Decommission Road 1

646 7N69B Horse Gulch Decommission Road 1

647 7N55A Cottonwood Gulch Decommission Road 1

7. Streams, Riparian Areas, and Special Aquatic Features Restoration

Stressors to streams and SAFs are included in the Special Aquatic Feature Report contained in the project record. The following are proposed restoration actions for streams, riparian areas and special aquatic features (Figure 2.01-4; Table 2.02-4): Table 2.02-4 Alternative 1 proposed actions for special aquatic features

ID Habitat Type

SAF

Acres

Conifer

Removal1

Head-cut/

Channel

Restore

Monitor/

Adaptive Mgt

(Priority)2

Barrier

Placement3

Recreation

Action4 Notes

522a Meadow, Spring 3.96 Yes Yes Mod-High Possible Yes Boulders or other material to restrict OHVs

522b Meadow, Spring 0.48 Yes Mod-High Possible Monitor5

522c Meadow, Aspen 0.64 Yes Very Low Possible Yes Monitor Aspen6; Boulders or other material

to restrict OHVs.

523 Meadow, Aspen 3.86 Yes Very Low Possible Monitor Aspen6

524 Meadow 0.47 Moderate Possible

525 Aspen 2.75 Yes Very Low Possible Monitor Aspen6

527 Meadow 3.60 Yes Yes Very Low Possible Monitor5

529a Meadow 1.39 Yes No

51

ID Habitat Type

SAF

Acres

Conifer

Removal1

Head-cut/

Channel

Restore

Monitor/

Adaptive Mgt

(Priority)2

Barrier

Placement3

Recreation

Action4 Notes

529b Meadow 2.77 Yes No

529c Meadow 3.50 Yes No

529d Meadow 2.35 Yes Yes Very Low Possible Monitor5


530b Meadow 0.88 Yes Yes Low Possible Monitor5

532 Meadow 028 Yes No

533 Meadow, Spring 2.48 Yes Yes Low Possible Monitor5

534 Meadow 0.32 Yes Low Possible Monitor5


535b Meadow 0.59 Yes No

536 Meadow 0.29 No Yes Boulders or other material to restrict OHVs


539 Meadow, Aspen 2.43 Yes Yes Very Low Possible Monitor Aspen6; barrier may focus on

deterring human traffic.

540 Meadow 1.02 Yes Yes Very Low Possible Monitor Aspen6; barrier may focus on

deterring human traffic.



543 Meadow 1.52 Yes No

544 Meadow, Aspen,

Spring 3.23 Yes Yes Mod-High Possible Monitor5

545 Meadow 13.48 Yes Moderate Possible Monitor5

547 Meadow, Aspen 13.72 Yes Yes Very Low Possible Skyhigh Meadow: Monitor Aspen6; barrier

may focus on deterring human traffic.

548 Meadow, Aspen,

Stream 14.79 Yes Yes Very Low Possible

Big Meadow: Monitor Aspen6; barrier may

focus on deterring human traffic.

549a Meadow, Spring 0.74 Yes Moderate Possible Monitor5

549b Meadow 0.51 Yes Yes Moderate Possible Monitor5

549c Meadow 0.12 Yes No




554 Meadow, Spring 0.76 Yes Moderate Possible Monitor5


601 River 1.17 High Yes Yes Sensitive plant considerations in the Middle

Fork Mokelumne

602 Seep 0.87 High Yes Sensitive plants consideration in the

spring/seep area.

603 Spring 0.01 High Possible Monitor5

604 Meadow 0.49 Yes Moderate Possible Monitor5

605 Meadow 0.67 Moderate Possible Monitor5

607 Meadow, Spring 0.06 High Possible Monitor5

610 Meadow, Seep,

Spring 1.73 Moderate Possible Monitor5

611 Meadow, Fen 5.89 Yes High Possible Yes Hay Gulch: Monitor5; Boulders or other

material to restrict OHVs

612 Meadow, Fen 1.50 Yes High Possible Yes Horse Gulch: Monitor5; Boulders or other

material to restrict OHVs

613 Meadow 0.34 High Possible Monitor5; Boulders or other material to

restrict OHVs

614 Seep 0.01 Low Possible Monitor5

615 Seep 0.01 Low Possible Monitor5

52

ID Habitat Type

SAF

Acres

Conifer

Removal1

Head-cut/

Channel

Restore

Monitor/

Adaptive Mgt

(Priority)2

Barrier

Placement3

Recreation

Action4 Notes


617 Meadow, Spring 0.20 Moderate Possible Monitor5

618 Seep, Spring 0.01 High Possible Monitor5

619 Meadow, Spring 0.06 High Possible Monitor5


621 Meadow, Spring 0.68 Moderate Possible Monitor5

622 Meadow, Spring 1.23 Yes Moderate Possible Monitor5

623 Meadow, Seep,

Spring 0.50 Moderate Possible Monitor5

624 Seep, Spring,

Riparian 0.13 Mod-High Possible Monitor5

625 Seep 0.15 Mod-High Possible Monitor5

627 Meadow, Fens 15.30 Mod-High Possible Hay Gulch: Monitor5

664 Meadow, Spring 14.85 Yes High Yes Yes Campsite barrier encompassing meadow

and springs.

1 Acres of conifer removal for each SAF is provided in Appendix B. Acres associated with potential barrier installation may be less. 2 Priorities were provided for the 47 SAFs where monitoring/adaptive management is proposed. Sites indicated as a high priority would receive immediate post-decision monitoring. Barriers or off-site troughs may be installed or removed depending on if monitoring indicates that desired conditions are being met. Where no priority is listed, there is no current need for monitoring/adaptive management strategy. 3Barrier maintenance responsibility will be determined with consultation with the permittee prior to barrier implementation. 4Restoration actions are described in the Recreation section. 5Monitor = Monitor impacts from stressors; potentially exclude stressors to accelerate recovery. 6Monitor Aspen = Barrier would focus on reducing browse (wildlife or livestock) on aspen.

Conifer Removal

Conifers encroaching on 109 acres of meadows and 125 acres of meadow/aspen stands would be thinned as detailed in the Forest Restoration section. A subset of aspen stands that have encroaching conifers thinned would be monitored for aspen regeneration using the

US Forest Service Region 5 protocol (Jones et al. 2005).

Monitoring would begin the year after the stand treatment. Sample plots would be established to set base line data and to track changes in the stand structure. If browse exceeds more than 20% of annual growth on aspen seedlings and advanced regeneration (USDA

2010), then a barrier could be installed. The barrier would be a temporary structure and it would be removed when the vegetation is above browse height (4 ft.).

Head-cut /Channel Restoration

Areas of instability, eroding head-cuts, streambanks, and incised channels would be restored at 16 locations throughout the project area. Techniques employed may include placement of fill material within incised channels, installation of channel grade

stabilization structures, stream bank re-shaping, riparian planting, subsoiling, and other techniques as needed.

Restoration treatments would be accomplished using both hand work as well as mechanized equipment.

Temporary barriers may be used to prevent disturbance until growth of vegetation has adequately stabilized the restored area (five years or longer depending on site recovery as determined by annual monitoring results).

In addition, culvert outlets in Big Meadow at ID 548 would be armored.

Monitoring/Adaptive Management

Monitoring may occur at a subset of the 47 SAFs with evidence of disturbance. SAFs indicated as high priority for monitoring would receive immediate post-decision monitoring.

Monitoring would be conducted every 1 – 5 years depending on current conditions.

53

Monitoring may include a combination of the following indicators: annual utilization, ecological status of meadow vegetation, fen disturbance (% bare peat), proper functioning condition (PFC), meadow hydrologic function, stream bank disturbance, BMP effectiveness evaluation, aspen browse, water quality, stability of hydrologic features (e.g., presence of head-cuts, knick points, incisions), and/or monitoring for threatened and endangered or Forest Service sensitive wildlife/plant species.

If monitoring indicates that desired conditions (Special Aquatic Feature Report) are not being achieved, barriers (as indicated in Table 2.02-4) or troughs would be installed.

Likewise, if monitoring indicates that desired conditions are being met, barriers or troughs would be removed.

The adaptive management strategy, including specific monitoring protocols, quantifiable indicators and adaptive management triggers, would be developed by Rangeland Management Specialist, District Botanist, District Hydrologist, District Archeologist, and other forest staff in consultation with range permittees prior to project implementation.

Barrier Placement

A barrier would be placed at ID 601 until: 1) at least 5,000 veined aquatic lichen individual plants are quantified in a discrete growing season and 2) a positive trend persists for at least 10 years. If a negative trend is documented after two years following barrier removal, then the barriers would be replaced.

A barrier would be placed at ID 602 until: 1) at least 250 Mingan moonwort plants are quantified in a discrete growing season and 2) a positive trend persists for at least 10 years. If a negative trend is documented after two years following barrier removal, then the barriers would be replaced.

At SAF ID 603, 307, 611, 612, 613, 616, 618, 619, and 620 (locations identified as high priority for monitoring), barriers may be placed if post-decision monitoring confirms resource concerns.

Barrier maintenance responsibility for all SAFs that receive barriers would be determined with consultation with the permittee prior to barrier implementation.

Barriers may be removed if monitoring indicates desired conditions are being met.

Barriers may consist of barbed wire, buck and pole, jackstraw material, or boulders, depending on the availability of natural materials, maintenance considerations, and access.

Troughs

Rangeland water developments (troughs) would be installed at four designated locations.

Additional troughs may be installed as a component of Monitoring/Adaptive Management.

The existing trough at ID 554 would be relocated outside of the spring.

Water troughs would be located away from riparian areas, SAFs, sensitive plants, and heritage resources, as coordinated with the Rangeland Management Specialist, District Botanist, District Hydrologist, District Archeologist, and permittee.

Water troughs would be equipped with wildlife escape features.

8. Recreation

All recreation Proposed Actions would be implemented following the standards, guidelines, and direction established in the Forest Service Trails Management Handbook (FSH 2309.18), Soil Conservation Guidelines/Standards for Off-Highway Vehicle Recreation Management, Best Management Practice and Stanislaus Forest Plan Direction (USDA 2010). Alternative 1 includes the following recreation actions (Figure 2.01-5):

Dispersed Recreation

Restoration actions are proposed at 24 dispersed campsites. Delineate Recreation Sites: Rocks, logs, or other materials would be installed on the surface or partially buried at 21

dispersed campsites (IDs 650-656, 658-663, 665-668, and 670-673).

54

Improve: The following improvements would occur at the Horse Gulch dispersed campsite (ID 664):

Amend the Forest Plan to allocate this site to the developed recreation site management area. The full campground footprint would be relocated to the North and would accommodate up to ten

campsites. Rocks, logs, or other materials would be installed to delineate motorized use area. An exterior fence would delineate the campground area (14.9 acres). Additional exclosure may be installed

within the fence line if sensitive resources become impacted by human activities. Fire rings and picnic tables would be installed. A motorized route would be added to the NFTS, with a cattle guard installed at the campsite entrance along

FS road 07N09. A parking area to accommodate 6-8 vehicles with trailers would be constructed. The parking area would be

graded and hardened with gravel, and rocks or other materials would be installed to designate parking areas.

An OHV loading ramp would be constructed. A vault toilet would be installed. Informational signage would be installed with information, rules, regulations, and interpretation.

Rehabilitate: Three dispersed camping sites would be decommissioned (IDs 657, 669, and 677).

Sites would be blocked with boulders or other materials to prevent motorized vehicle access and augmented with techniques such as camouflaging with brush or slash. .

Signs may also be installed to indicate the area is a restoration area. The site at ID 677 may be subsoiled and have mulch or other material added to increase ground cover.

Add Routes to NFTS

Approximately 0.36 miles of motorized access routes would be added to the existing NFTS.). Add authorized access to eight dispersed campsites (IDs 650, 651, 654, 658, 664, 670, 672, and 673).

Decommission Non-system User Created Trails

Approximately 1.1 miles of non-system user created trails would be decommissioned. A 0.68 mile trail connecting 6N18 to 16EV190 would be decommissioned.

A 0.5 mile trail providing access to a dispersed campsite (ID 670) from 7N09 would be decommissioned.

A 0.01 mile trail just southwest of the intersection of 7N69 and 17EV16 would be decommissioned.

Trails would blocked with boulders or other materials and would be stabilized by subsoiling of compacted areas, planting of vegetation, construction of water bars, and other erosion control measures.

OHV Trailhead / Staging Area

The OHV staging area located at the intersection of 6N62and 7N23 (Black Springs Road) would be enhanced (ID 676). A parking area would be constructed to accommodate 10 to 15 vehicles with trailers. The parking area would be

graded and hardened with gravel, and boulders and other materials would be installed to delineate motorized use areas.

An OHV loading ramp would be installed.

Informational signage would be installed with trail information, rules, regulations and interpretation.

New Routes

New roads and trails would be constructed to allow recreational user access to dispersed campsites and manage OHV use. A 0.77 mile OHV trail would be constructed parallel to 07N23 (Black Springs Road) from the intersection of 06N62

to 06N09.

55

A 0.02 mile OHV trail would be constructed connecting a dispersed campsite (ID 652) to the 0.77 mile new trail described above, crossing 07N23.

A 0.07 mile OHV trail connecting 06N62 to a dispersed campsite (ID 650) along 07N23 to the North would be constructed.

A 0.16 mile trail providing access to the Sand Flat dispersed campsite (ID 674) would be reconstructed and added to the National Forest Road System.

Trail Reconstruction

A 1.5 mile segment of trail 16EV190 would be reconstructed by repairing the trail surface, establishing outsloping, and constructing rolling dips and drainage ditches. Two small bridges would be constructed over stream crossings.

A 0.75 mile segment of trail 17EV152 located between 7N11 and 7N72 would be reconstructed by widening the trail to accommodate UTV use.

Hiking Trailhead Parking Areas

A parking area to accommodate 4 - 5 vehicles would be constructed at ID 675. The trailhead parking area would be graded with rock based material and delineated with rocks, logs, or other material.

Informational signage would be installed at the parking area to provide visitors with rules and regulations and signs would be installed along Highway 4 to direct recreational users to the parking area.

New Hiking Trails (Non-motorized)

Approximately 0.57 miles of Trail 17EV21 would be decommissioned and a new 0.5 mile non-motorized trail would be constructed east and parallel to the former trail. This new segment of trail would tie into the existing, undamaged, portion of trail 17EV21.

A 0.20 mile length of non-motorized trail would be constructed to connect Liberty Vista Point to 6N79.

9. Transportation

The Proposed Action includes both physical actions to roads and trails as well as changes in road and trail designations in the NFTS. The Proposed Actions are based on the criteria for identifying the minimum road system and the criteria for designation of system roads and trails in the Travel Management Rule, 36CFR 212.5(b) and 36CFR 212.55.

Physical Actions

The Proposed Action would implement physical actions on the transportation system related to maintenance, reconstruction, realignment, and decommissioning (Appendix A, Glossary of Terms). The lengths (miles) of each physical action proposed are summarized in Table 2.02-5 (Figure 2.01-7). Physical actions by route are detailed in Appendix A of the Transportation Report. Table 2.02-5 Physical actions to the transportation system under Alternative 1

Physical Actions Existing System (miles)

System Road System Trail Unauthorized Total

All Year Gate 1.23

1.23

Close ML1 1.31

1.31

Construct

1.56

1.56

Decommission 3.98 2.41 9.38 15.77

Maintain 57.91 3.84

61.75

Maintain/Close 0.96 0.74 1.70

Maintain/Gate 1.29

1.29

Realign Road 0.67

0.67

Realign Road/Close 0.41

0.41

Realign Road/Gate 0.03

0.03

Reconstruct/Close 1.83 0.04

1.87

56



Reconstruct/Gate 1.32

1.32

Reconstruct 31.68 4.21

35.89

Reopen/Close 2.16 1.10

3.26

Roadside Barrier 0.44

0.44

Watershed Rehab 2.10 0.30

2.40

Watershed Rehab/Close 0.38

0.38

Watershed Rehab/Gate 0.03

0.03

Totals 107.73 14.2 9.38 131.31

Changes in NFTS Travel Management Designations

Several changes in NFTS travel management designations are proposed that would affect; 1) allowable mode of travel, or vehicle type, 2) allowable season of use, and 3) system. The proposed changes by route number and segment ID are displayed in Appendix A in the Transportation Report and are summarized below: The roads that would be maintained or reconstructed and not closed by barrier or gate would be designated open to all

vehicles (highway legal vehicles and green sticker OHVs) or open to highway legal vehicles only, depending on the road standard (Table 2.02-6).

Most maintenance level 3 roads, which are subject to the California Vehicle Code, would be open to highway legal vehicles only (Table 2.02-6).

All routes open to the public would be designated open from 4/15 through 12/15.

Approximately1.07 miles of system road and 2.08 miles of non-system routes would be reassigned as system trail.

Approximately 5.21 miles of system trail and 2.19 miles of non-system routes would be reassigned as system road.

Approximately 3.98 miles of system roads and 2.41 miles of system trail would be decommissioned and removed from the system.

Table 2.02-6 Changes in NFTS Vehicle Class under Alternative 1

Existing

Vehicle Class

Alternative 1 Vehicle Class (miles)

ALL HLO 4WD OHV NONE TOTAL

ALL 53.88 1.04

8.42 63.34

HLO 2.94 5.09 2.63 10.66

4WD 3.11 0.60 3.49 7.20

OHV

2.21

2.21

NONE 3.76 0.02 0.03 1.10 17.54 22.45

Totals 63.69 5.11 1.67 3.31 32.08 105.86

ALL – Open to all vehicles; HLO – Open to highway legal vehicles only; 4WD – Open to 4WD vehicles only; OHV – Open to Off Highway Vehicles; NONE – Not open to any vehicle.

Rock, Water, and Borrow

Potential rock, water, and borrow sources would be used to accommodate roads needs during the implementation of the actions proposed as well as long-term resource needs. Four rock, 17 water, and 4 borrow pit sources are identified in the project area (Figure 2.01-7).

57

These resources would be developed and utilized in accordance with the management requirements specified in Chapter 2.05.

10. Management Requirements

Alternative 1 includes the management requirements described in Chapter 2.05.

2.03 Alternative 2 (No Action) Under Alternative 2 (No Action), no actions would occur. Current management plans would continue to guide management of the project area.

2.04 Alternative 3 Alternative 3 responds to the Forest Canopy Structure issue relative to spotted owls and snow retention research (Chapter 1.06 and Chapter 3.17). It addresses the issue while achieving project objectives by proposing the following: Retention of ≥60 % canopy cover in HRCAs in strategically located areas.

Treatment design that enhances dispersal corridors between forest stands that exhibit higher canopy cover and greater vertical structural diversity for mature forest wildlife species

Reduction of canopy cover in a watershed catchment to 40% outside of HRCAs to facilitate snow retention research objectives.

1. Forest Restoration

Vegetation thinning under Alternative 3 would be conducted as detailed in Alternative 1 with the following modifications: Alternative 3 would include 3,965 acres of ground based thinning of merchantable timber (10 to 30” dbh) in forests,

riparian areas, aspen stands, and meadows. Canopy cover retention would vary by topographic position as shown in Table 2.04-1 (Figure 2.01-2).

Approximately 817 plantation acres would be mechanically thinned.

Conifers encroaching on 109 acres of meadows and 140 acres of meadow/aspen stands would be thinned.

Table 2.04-1 Merchantable timber thinning acres, canopy cover retention, gap size and density, and planting acres by topographic position - Alternative 3

Topographic Position Canopy Cover (%) Acres Gap Size (Acres) % Gaps Planting Acres

Ridge 40 758 0.25-1.5 2 15

Ridge 50 51 0.25-1.5 2 1

Mid-slope NE 50 419 0.1-0.5 2-5 21

Mid-slope NE 60 104 0.1-0.5 2-5 5

Mid-slope SW 40 117 0.25-1.5 5-20 17

Mid-slope SW 50 1,394 0.25-1.5 5-10 138

Mid-slope SW 60 408 0.25-1.5 5-10 41

Drainage 40 36 0-1.5 0-20 0

Drainage 50 88 0-1.5 0-2 0

Drainage 60 178 0-1.5 0-2 0

RCA 50 40 0-1.5 0-20 0

RCA 60 373 0-1.5 0-2 0

2. Scenic Corridor

Alternative 3 includes the same treatments in the Scenic Corridor as described in Alternative 1.

58

3. Fuels Reduction

Fuels Treatments under Alternative 3 would be as described in Alternative 1 with the following adjustments (Figure 2.01-2 and 2.01-3): Roadside fuel-breaks would total 72.6 acres. Shaded fuel-breaks within the WUI would total 582 acres. Approximately 4769 acres would be treated with prescribed fire. Hand or Mechanical Thinning (<10” dbh, Retain 50% CC) would be conducted on 72 acres. Hand or Mechanical Thinning (<10” dbh, Retain 60% CC) would be conducted on 21 acres. Hand thinning (<10”) would be conducted on 741 acres.

4. Mature Forest Wildlife Habitat Restoration

Under Alternative 3, vegetation treatments as described in the Forest Restoration, Scenic Corridor, and Fuels Reduction sections would occur within wildlife habitats as shown in Table 2.04-2. Table 2.04-2 Acres of proposed treatments that would occur within wildlife habitat- Alternative 3

Treatment CSO

HRCA CSO PAC NGO PAC

Forest Restoration

Merchantable Timber Thinning



Mid-slope NE – retain 50% CC 188 0 0

Mid slope NE – retain 60% CC 94 0 0

Mid-slope SW – retain 50% CC 836 0 0

Mid-slope SW – retain 60% CC 334 0 0

RCA – retain 60% CC 203 0 0



Plantation: Mastication / Biomass 23 0 0

Meadow/Aspen Conifer removal 18 0 0

Scenic Corridor 102 0 0

Fuels Reduction

Roadside Fuel-break 21 0 0

Shaded Fuel-break 28 0 0

Shaded Fuel-break - WUI 27 0 0

Prescribed Fire 1,922 314 66

Hand Treat (<10in) or Mechanical – retain 50% CC 68 00 0

Hand Treat (<10in) or Mechanical – retain 60% CC 20 0 0

Hand Thinning (<10in) 648 0 0

Hand Thinning (<6in) 136 1342 106

5. Heritage Resources

Alternative 3 includes the same heritage resource treatments as described in Alternative 1.

6. Aquatic Organism Passage (AOP) Restoration

Alternative 3 includes the same aquatic organism passage treatments as described in Alternative 1.

7. Streams, Riparian Areas, and Special Aquatic Features Restoration

Alternative 3 includes the same streams, riparian areas, and special aquatic features restoration treatments as described in Alternative 1 with the following exception:

59

Conifers encroaching on 109 acres of meadows and 125 acres of meadow/aspen stands would be thinned.

8. Recreation

Alternative 3 includes the same recreation treatments as described in Alternative 1 with the following exceptions (Figure 2.01-6): Approximately 0.75 miles of motorized access routes would be added to the existing NFTS). The non-motorized trail between Liberty Vista Point and 6N79 would not be constructed. The dispersed campsite at Sand Flat would be improved (ID 674).

A parking area to accommodate 8-10 vehicles would be constructed parallel to 7N02. Rocks, logs, or other materials would be installed to delineate the parking area. The existing toilets would be decommissioned. A new vault toilet would be placed near the parking area outside of the meadow. A 0.16 mile user created trail into the campsite would be decommissioned.

A 0.26 mile OHV trail (< 50”) would be constructed from Skyhigh subdivision to 07N11.

A constructed stream crossing (bridge, culvert, or other) would be used over the unnamed tributary.

9. Transportation

Physical Actions

Physical actions proposed under Alternative 3 are similar to Alternative 1 with minor modifications. The lengths (miles) of each physical action proposed are summarized in Table 2.04-3 (Figure 2.01-8; Transportation Report Appendix A).

Table 2.04-3 Physical actions to the transportation system under Alternative 3



All Year Gate 1.23

1.23

Close ML1 1.31

1.31

Construct

1.62

1.62

Decommission 4.02 2.41 9.29 15.72

Maintain 57.91 3.09

61.00

Maintain/Close 0.96 0.74 1.70

Maintain/Gate 1.29 0.75 2.04

Realign Road 0.67

0.67

Realign Road/Close 0.41

0.41

Realign Road/Gate 0.03

0.03

Reconstruct/Close 1.83 0.04

1.87

Reconstruct/Gate 1.32 0.23

1.55

Reconstruct 32.49 3.82

36.31

Reopen/Close 1.35 1.10

2.45

Roadside Barrier 0.44

0.44

Watershed Rehab 2.10 0.30

2.40

Watershed Rehab/Close 0.38

0.38

Watershed Rehab/Gate 0.03

0.03

Totals 107.77 14.10 9.29 131.16

60

Changes in NFTS Travel Management Designations

Alternative 3 contains the same changes to the NFTS Travel Management Designations with the following modifications (Transportation Report Appendix A). Approximately 1.07 of system road and 2.23 miles of non-system routes would be reassigned as system trail. Changes to NFTS Vehicle Class would be as displayed in Table 2.04-4. Approximately 5.21 miles of system trail and 2.19 miles of non-system routes would be reassigned as system road. Approximately 4.02 miles of system road and 2.41 miles of system trail would be decommissioned and removed from

the system. Table 2.04-4 Changes in NFTS Vehicle Class under Alternative 3

Existing

VehicleClass

Alternative 3 Vehicle Class (miles)

ALL HLO 4WD OHV NONE TOTAL

ALL 53.88 1.04 8.42 63.34

HLO 2.99 5.66

2.01 10.66

4WD 2.12 0.60

4.47 7.19

OHV

2.21

2.21

NONE 3.61 0.02 0.03 1.61 17.13 22.4

Totals 62.60 5.68 1.67 3.82 32.03 105.8

ALL – Open to all vehicles; WOS – Open to ATVs only when 12 inches or more of snow is present; HLO – Open to highway legal vehicles only; 4WD – Open to 4WD vehicles only; OHV – Open to Off Highway Vehicles; NONE – Not open to any vehicle.

10. Management Requirements

Alternative 3 includes the management requirements described in Chapter 2.05.

2.05 Management Requirements Common to All Action Alternatives Based on review of the actions proposed, resource specialists identified the following management requirements that would be implemented under the action Alternatives (1 and 3) (Table 2.05-1, Table 2.05-2 and Table 2.05-3). Management Requirements are designed to implement the Forest Plan and to minimize or avoid potential adverse impacts. Management Requirements are mandatory components of the action alternatives and would be implemented as part of the proposed activities. Most Management Requirements were utilized in other past project activities and, through monitoring, have shown to be very effective in protecting or enhancing resources. Aquatics

The construction of roads and trails will be minimized within the RCA. Prescribed fire treatments will be designed to minimize disturbance to ground cover and riparian vegetation in RCA,

therefore, hand piles will be kept 50 feet from water. No prescribed fire will be ignited within riparian vegetation. Low velocity water pumps and screening devices for pumps will be utilized during drafting to prevent mortality of

eggs, tadpoles and adults. Fuels and other toxic chemicals will be stored outside of RCA, to limit exposure of amphibians to toxic material. Disturbance will be limited to 20 percent or less of streambanks to reduce the impacts to cover in aquatic habitats.

61

Temporary dry crossings on drainages with defined channels will be constructed and removed when the channels are dry and will be installed such that water flow and fish passage will not be obstructed. Wet stream crossings improvement/re-construction should be constructed in the fall, when the channel is not flowing or at low flow. A water diversion plan may be developed for these crossings.

Relevant project implementation BMPs provided in the Mountain yellow-legged frog, and Yosemite toad Programmatic BO (December 19, 2014) are incorporated into Table 2.05-1 below. A crosswalk of where each programmatic conservation measure is addressed in the Hemlock project is provided in the Aquatics BA/BE.

Heritage Resources

All heritage resource sites would be avoided or treated according to Programmatic Agreements with the California State Historic Preservation Office, Tribal Historic Preservation Offices, and Cooperative Agreements between the USDA Forest Service and federally and/or state recognized tribes.

Restoration actions within selected heritage resource sites would be monitored by Forest or District Archeologist. Soil erosion control devices (fiber matting, weed free straw, geotextiles, silt fencing, erosion control logs, woody

debris, etc.) may be used within and/or around archaeological site boundaries to protect heritage resources. If new heritage resources are discovered during implementation, all work in the vicinity would cease until a Forest or

District Archeologist examines and assesses the resource. Appropriate measures would be undertaken to protect the new resource as activities resume.

No barriers would be installed within 25 feet of the boundaries of heritage resource area without specific approval and an archaeological monitor for installation.

Heavy equipment, tilling compacted soil, and constructing drainage structures (e.g. mastication, root ripping, water bars, rolling dips) are prohibited within heritage resource sites.

Slash piling would not be located within the boundaries of known heritage resources unless Forest or District Archeologist approves the location and the work is monitored by heritage resource staff. Understory vegetation and adjacent felled trees may be piled outside of heritage site boundaries for burning.

Burn piles would be placed greater than 25 feet from known historic isolates and sites (e.g. arborglyphs, historic inscriptions or cabin sites).

Dendroglyphs/arborglyphs (culturally inscribed trees) will not be felled and will be avoided during prescribed fire. Trees would be felled away from heritage sites unless authorized by the District or Forest Archaeologist. Pre-burn site preparation may include removing duff and/or filling bedrock milling feature cups with sterile soil to

protect them from rapid heat fluctuations, or the use of temporary protection materials. Any heritage resources that may be negatively impacted by the proposed actions would be flagged for hand treatment

or avoidance. If flagged for hand treatment, monitoring by Forest or District Archeologist would be required on-site for implementation.

No ground disturbance or dragging of material would occur within the known boundaries of archaeological features, heritage sites, or historic properties unless authorized by District or Forest Archeologist.

Noxious Weeds

Standard contract provisions for equipment cleaning will be applied to timber and construction activities, including washing of vehicle prior to arrival at the work site and following completion of work in an area. For all other activities, all equipment that leaves roads or works with soil must be free of soil, mud (wet or dried), seeds, vegetative matter or other debris that could contain seeds. Dust or very light dirt that would not contain weed seed is not a concern.

Slash may be used in lieu of straw for protection of areas susceptible to erosion. If straw is the only option then it must be certified weed free straw.

During the reroute of Road 6N58Y ensure that all equipment is thoroughly washed to remove Klamath weed propagules after use. Continue hand pulling efforts after reroute is complete to reduce the negative impact of Klamath weed on native species.

Range

Avoid damage to rangeland infrastructure (fences, water developments, and cattleguards) during project implementation. Any serviceable infrastructure that is damaged during implementation would be repaired to Forest Service standards.

Post-harvest road maintenance would include maintenance of existing cattleguards to Forest Service standards.

62

When no longer needed, livestock exclosures would be completely removed to reduce the potential for livestock injury and hampered livestock movement.

Project related livestock barriers must be maintained to Forest Service standards such that livestock cannot become trapped inside the excluded area. All fences would have gates installed.

Consider seeding to provide for site stabilization in areas adjacent to meadows where project-related disturbance occurs. Use only native, sterile or non-persistent weed-free seed.

Conifer planting would not occur in meadows or adjacent to meadows where there is natural potential for meadow plant communities.

Coordinate with range staff during project implementation to ensure proper communication with range permittees on active livestock grazing allotments in the project area. Treatment timing would be coordinated to minimize conflicts with grazing operations.

Recreation

Treatment timing would be coordinated to minimize conflicts with recreation use. Temporary road and/or skid trail crossings across designated forest trails would be kept to a minimum. Any crossings

would be perpendicular to designated forest trails. Minimize overlaying skid trails/haul roads on non-motorized system trails. If trails are used as skid trails/haul roads, trail cleanup/rehabilitation (including returning the trails to pretreatment

standard) would be included in the contract. Character trees and trees that define the trail corridor (as identified by timber or recreation staff) should be retained

where ever feasible. Warning signs would be placed on all trail access points and along the trail where activities are occurring. When activities are occurring along open trails, slash would be treated within 100’ of the corridor within specified

timeframes (check with recreation specialist).

Sensitive Plants

No mechanical operations (e.g. mastication, fuel-break construction/maintenance, driving, temporary roads, skid trails), prescribed burning, or piling and burning would occur on lava caps.

Surveys to detect the presence of Forest Service sensitive plants would occur prior to any water source development. Surveys would be conducted between April and August. If sensitive plant populations are present, activities would be adapted to minimize mortality or disturbance, or, if possible, transplanting would be conducted.

Project adherence to the Forest Plan direction for RCAs would be followed for special aquatic features.

Soils

On slopes less than 25%, maintain well-distributed organic soil cover of 50% after thinning treatment, prescribed fire, or site preparation in gaps. Maintain 60% cover on steeper slopes, and 70% in RCAs. Soil cover consists of basal live plant cover, litter, fine woody debris, and downed logs.

Retain a minimum of 5 downed logs per acre for soil cover and nutrient cycling as long as this requirement does not exceed fuel management objectives. Desired logs are greater than 20 inch diameter and >10ft long in a variety of decomposition classes.

Monitor ground-based operations occurring between November 1 and June 1 (test for soil moisture and trafficability) to prevent soil compaction. Ground-based equipment would operate on relatively dry soils of high soil strength, or bearing capacity.

Subsoil all temporary roads, landings, and main skid trails except where high rock content, slope, moisture content, depth to restricting layer, or erosion hazard would limit subsoiling feasibility. Coordinate with the soil scientist during project implementation to determine final subsoiling needs.

Subsoiling Provision- Include winged ripper tool design specifications and maximum subsoiling acres in the contract or operating plan. Subsoiling depth requirements: Landings and temp roads, 24 inches; main skid trails, 18 inches. Maximum furrow depth, 8 inches. Common furrows deeper than eight inches on subsoiled terrain would be backbladed to reduce rill and gully erosion potential.

When excessive soil displacement occurs, the Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR) or soil scientist may require replacing or recontouring soil.

63

Limit skidding with rubber-tired or fixed track equipment to slopes less than 35%; dozer piling would be limited to less than 25%; and low ground pressure tracked equipment (i.e. masticator/feller-buncher) would be limited to less than 45% slope.

When the depth of masticated fuels exceeds 4 inches across greater than 25% of the burn area, ensure adequate soil moisture is present (greater than 15% by volume soil water) in the upper 6 inches of the soil profile when burning.

Dozer piling would be performed with a machine equipped with a brush rake on slopes less than 25%. The blade should be kept about 6 inches above ground level to prevent soil, litter, and duff material from being piled. Piles should be relatively free of soil (less than 10% soil material), or operator may be required to rebuild piles and re-spread soil.

Machine piling locations within gaps may need to be reviewed by the soil scientist or sale administrator, if thin soils (less than 25 inches deep) are present.

In all aspen meadows and special aquatic features with planned mechanical thinning operations, the boundary of the exclusion zone would be reviewed by the soil scientist or hydrologist and mapped with a global positioning system (GPS).

Tree removal from or around aspen meadows and SAFs would be done with low ground pressure tracked equipment (less than 13 psi) to adequately protect soil and water resources (i.e. equipment that is light on the land, rubber-tired equipment, equipment that operates on a bed of slash, or other innovative technologies that reduce impacts to soils). Operations should occur on dry soil, or by end-lining of trees <100 ft. out of the meadow. Other mechanical removal methods should be approved by soil scientist or hydrologist.

Transportation

Preserve sufficient road width for the critical vehicle when installing gates or cattle guards.

Visual Quality

Topsoil would be side cast during temporary road construction to be used for future decommissioning and recontouring.

Intersect temporary roads and skid trails at a right angle, and where feasible, curve after the junction to minimize the length of route seen from the primary travel route.

Within scenic corridor treatment areas and areas with a VQO of Retention:

Log landings and skid trails would be minimized. Slash would be abated near landing by scattering, chipping, or other techniques. Slash and other debris would be removed, burned, masticated, or lopped to a height of 12 inches or less. Cut trees (as opposed to leave trees) would be marked and species designation would be utilized where appropriate to

minimize the amount of marking. Wildlife A limited operating period would be applied to vegetation and fuels treatments, and road reconstruction activities

within 0.25 miles of a known spotted owl activity center (or PAC boundary if activity center is unknown) from March 1 through August 15. LOPs may be lifted if surveys conducted to protocol confirm non-presence or non-breeding.

A limited operating period would be applied to vegetation and fuels treatments, and road reconstruction activities within 0.25 miles of a known goshawk activity center (or PAC boundary if activity center is unknown), from February 15-September 15. LOPs may be lifted if surveys conducted to protocol confirm non-presence or non-breeding.

A District Wildlife Biologist would be notified if any Federally Threatened, Endangered, Candidate species or any Region 5 Forest Service Sensitive species are discovered during project implementation

Large diameter cull logs located at landings would be returned to units where coarse woody debris in decay classes 1 and 2 are deficient, as determined by the Forest Service.

Watershed Mechanized equipment within RCAs would follow guidelines displayed in Table 2.05-1 (adapted from Frazier 2006) Operations would follow additional management requirements derived from Regional and National Best Management

Practices (BMPs) (USDA 2011, USDA 2012) and Riparian Conservation Objectives (RCOs) (USDA 2004) as displayed in Table 2.05-2.

64

BMPs applicable to this project are listed in Table 2.05-2 with site-specific requirements and comments. Project planners and administrators (e.g., layout, Sale Administrator, Contracting Officer Representative) are responsible for consulting with a hydrologist and/or soil scientist prior to or during project implementation for interpretation, clarification, or adjustment of watershed management requirements.

Table 2.05-1 Operating requirements for mechanized equipment operations in RCAs

Stream Type1 Zone Width

(feet)

Equipment

Requirements Element Operating Requirements

Perennial/

Intermittent

Streams and SAFs1

Exclusion 0 - 15 Mechanical Harvesting/

Shredding2: Prohibited

0 - 50 Skidding3: Prohibited

Transition 15 - 100 Mechanical Harvesting/

Shredding: Allowed

Soil Strength Operate only when 90% of total tracked area is rutted

less than 4 inches deep

Soil Cover Operate only when continuous ground cover is retained

in 90% of the total tracked area.

Streamcourse

Debris

Remove activity-created woody debris to above the

high water line of stream channels

Vegetation Retain obligate riparian shrubs and trees (e.g. willows,

alder, aspen)

Streambanks Do not damage streambanks with equipment.

50 - 100 Skidding: Allowed Soil Cover Retain a minimum of 50% evenly distributed ground

cover in the area traveled by tires or tracks

Skid Trails Use existing skid trails except where unacceptable

impact would result. Do not construct new primary skid

trails within 100 feet of the stream

Stream Crossings The number of crossings should not exceed an average

of 2 per mile.

Outer (Perennial/SAFs) 100 - 300 Mechanical Harvesting/

Shredding/ Skidding: Allowed

Skid Trails Allow skid trail density and intensity to gradually

increase with distance from the Transition Zone

Outer (Intermittent) 100 - 150 Mechanical Harvesting/

Shredding/ Skidding: Allowed

Skid Trails Allow skid trail density and intensity to gradually

increase with distance from the Transition Zone

Ephemeral Exclusion 0 - 15 Mechanical Harvesting/

Shredding: Prohibited

0 - 25 Skidding: Prohibited

Transition 15 - 50 Mechanical Harvesting/

Shredding: Allowed

25 - 50 Skidding: Allowed Soil Cover Retain a minimum of 50% evenly distributed ground

cover in the area traveled by tires or tracks

Stream Crossings The number of crossings should not exceed an average

of 3 per mile

1 Perennial streams flow year long. Intermittent streams flow during the wet season but dry by summer or fall. Ephemeral streams flow only during or shortly after rainfall or snowmelt. Special aquatic features (SAFs) include lakes, meadows, bogs, fens, wetlands, vernal pools and springs. 2 Low ground pressure track-laying machines such as feller bunchers and masticators. 3 Rubber-tired skidders and track-laying tractors.

Table 2.05-2 Additional watershed management requirements incorporating BMPs and Forest Plan S&Gs

Management Requirements BMPs/Forest Plan1/Locations

Erosion Control Plan

- Prepare a project area Erosion Control Plan (USDA 2011) approved by the District Ranger prior to the commencement of any ground-disturbing project activities. Prepare a BMP checklist before implementation.

Regional BMPs

2-13 Erosion Control Plans (roads and other activities)

1-13 Erosion Prevention and Control Measures During Operations

1-21 Acceptance of Timber Sale Erosion Control Measures before Sale Closure

National Core BMPs

Veg-2 Erosion Prevention and Control

65


Forest Plan S&Gs

194 (RCO 4)

Locations: all areas where ground-disturbing activities

occur.

Operations in Riparian Conservation Areas

- Delineate riparian buffers along streams and around special aquatic features within project treatment units as described above in Table 2.05-1.

- Fell trees harvested within RCAs directionally away from stream channels and SAFs unless otherwise recommended by a hydrologist or biologist. Fall hazards trees that cannot be removed either parallel to the contour of the slope or into the channel, as recommended by a hydrologist or biologist.

- Maintain or provide ground cover (e.g., maintain post-fire conifer needle cast; provide logging slash, straw, wood chips, felled or masticated small burned trees) within 100 feet of perennial and intermittent streams and SAFs to the maximum extent practicable to minimize erosion and sedimentation. A minimum of 50% well distributed ground cover is desired.

- Minimize turning mechanical harvesters/shredders in the RCA Transition Zone to limit disturbance.

Regional BMPs

1-4 Using Sale Area Maps and/or Project Maps for Designating Water Quality Protection Needs

1-8 Streamside Zone Designation 1-10 Tractor Skidding Design 1-18 Meadow Protection During Timber Harvesting 1-19 Streamcourse and Aquatic Protection 5-3 Tractor Operation Limitations in Wetlands and

Meadows 5-5 Disposal of Organic Debris 7-3 Protection of Wetlands National Core BMPs

Aq Eco-2 Operations in Aquatic Ecosystems Plan-3 Aquatic Management Zone Planning Veg-1 Vegetation Management Planning Veg-2 Erosion Prevention and Control Veg-3 Aquatic Management Zones Veg-4 Ground-Based Skidding and Yarding

Operations Forest Plan S&Gs

193 (RCO 2)

194 (RCO 3)

194 (RCO 4)

195 (RCO 5)

Locations: All units containing RCAs and SAFs

Road Construction and Reconstruction

- Maintain erosion-control measures to function effectively throughout the project area during road construction and reconstruction, and in accordance with the approved erosion control plan.

- Stabilize disturbed areas with certified weed free mulch, erosion fabric, vegetation, rock, large organic materials, engineered structures, or other measures according to specification and the erosion control plan.

- Set the minimum construction limits needed for the project and confine disturbance to that area.

- Adjust surface drainage structures to minimize hydrologic connectivity by: discharging road runoff to areas of high infiltration and high surface roughness; armoring drainage outlets to prevent gully initiation; and increasing the number drainage facilities within RCAs.

- Minimize diversion potential by installing diversion prevention dips that can accommodate overtopping runoff. Place diversion prevention dips downslope of crossing, rather than directly over the crossing fill, and in a location that minimizes fill loss in the event of overtopping. Armor diversion prevention dips when the expected volume of fill loss is significant.

- Locate and designate waste areas before operations begin. Deposit and stabilize excess and unsuitable materials only in designated sites. Do not place such materials on slopes with a high risk of mass failure, in areas subject to overland flow (e.g., convergent areas subject to saturation overland flow), or within the RCA. Provide adequate surface drainage and erosion protection at disposal sites.

- Do not permit side casting in RCAs. Prevent excavated materials from entering water or RCAs. - Schedule operations during dry periods when rain, runoff, wet soils, snowmelt or frost melt are

less likely. Limit operation of equipment when ground conditions could result in excessive rutting, soil compaction (except on the road prism or other surface to be compacted), or runoff of sediments directly to streams.

- Stabilize project area during normal operating season when the National Weather Service predicts a 50% or greater chance of a 2 inch or greater in a 24 hour period storm event.

- Keep erosion-control measures sufficiently effective during ground disturbance to allow rapid closure when weather conditions deteriorate.

- Complete all necessary stabilization prior to precipitation that could result in surface runoff. - Scatter construction-generated slash on disturbed areas. Ensure ground contact between

slash and disturbed slopes. Windrow slashes at the base of fills to reduce sedimentation. Ensure windrows are placed along contours with ground contact between slash and disturbed slope.

- Monitor contractor’s plans and operations to assure contractor does not open up more ground than can be substantially completed before expected winter shutdowns, unless erosion-control measures are implemented.

- Install erosion-control measures on incomplete roads prior to precipitation or the start of winter (November 16 through March 31) and in accordance with the Erosion Control Plan. Remove ineffective temporary culverts, culvert plugs, diversion dams, or elevated stream crossings leaving a channel at least as wide as before construction and as close to the original grade as

Regional BMPs

2-2 General Guidelines for the Location and Design of Roads

2-3 Road Construction and Reconstruction 2-8 Stream Crossings 2-13 Erosion Control Plans (roads and other

activities) National Core BMPs

Road-3 Road Construction and Reconstruction Forest Plan S&Gs

62

193 (RCO 2)

194 (RCO 4)

Locations: all new road construction and reconstruction.

66


possible. Install temporary culverts, side drains, cross drains, diversion ditches, energy dissipaters, dips, sediment basins, berms, dikes, debris racks, pipe risers, or other facilities needed to control erosion. Remove debris, obstructions, and spoil material from channels, floodplains, and riparian areas. Do not leave project areas for the winter with remedial measures incomplete. Provide protective cover for exposed soil surfaces.

- Avoid road construction in meadows. Road Maintenance and Operations

- Clean ditches and drainage structure inlets only as often as needed to keep them functioning. Prevent unnecessary or excessive vegetation disturbance and removal on features such as swales, ditches, shoulders, and cut and fill slopes.

- Maintain road surface drainage by removing berms, unless specifically designated otherwise. - Accompany grading of hydrologically connected road surfaces and inside ditches with erosion

and sediment control installation. - Divert springs across roads to prevent them from pooling and diverting on or along the road. A

layer of coarse rock with geotextile fabric or other treatments may be necessary. - Ensure that after road maintenance activities (i.e., grading/earthwork activities) the final road

surface drainage system will remove water from the road surface with the purpose to minimize concentrated runoff to an area. Ensure that existing metal/drain gutters are in working condition and /or install them as needed.

- Conduct road watering for road maintenance, dust abatement, and road surface protection using approved existing water sources locations. (Water Sources Development and Use below)

Regional BMPs

2-4 Road Maintenance and Operations 2-13 Erosion Control Plans (roads and other


Road-4 Road Operations and Maintenance Veg-2 Erosion Prevention and Control Forest Plan S&Gs

193 (RCO 2)

194 (RCO 4)

Locations: all roads with maintenance or project use.

Stream Crossings

Design of New or Reconstructed Crossings

- Design permanent stream crossings (new road construction and replacement culverts) to pass the 100-year flood flow plus associated sediment and debris; armor to withstand design flows and provide desired passage of fish and other aquatic organisms.

- Locate and design crossings to minimize disturbance to the water body. Use structures appropriate to the site conditions and traffic. Favor armored fords for streams where vehicle traffic is seasonal or temporary, and where the ford design maintains the channel pattern, profile and dimension.

- Install stream crossings according to project specifications and drawings. Design should sustain bankfull dimensions of width, depth and slope, and maintain streambed and bank resiliency.

- Construct diversion prevention dips to accommodate overtopping of runoff if diversion potential exists. Locate diversion prevention dips downslope of the crossing rather than directly over crossing fill; armor diversion prevention dips based on soil characteristics and risk. Install cross drains (e.g., rolling dips; waterbars) to hydrologically disconnect the road above the crossing and to dissipate concentrated flows.

Construction, Reconstruction and Maintenance Operations

- Keep excavated materials out of channels, floodplains, wetlands and lakes. Install silt fences or other sediment- and debris-retention barriers between the water body and construction material stockpiles and wastes. Dispose unsuitable material in approved waste areas outside of the RCA.

- Inspect and clean equipment; remove external oil, grease, dirt and mud and repair leaks prior to unloading at site. Inspect equipment daily and correct identified problems before entering streams or areas that drain directly to water bodies. Remove all dirt and plant parts to ensure that noxious weeds and aquatic invasive species are not brought to the site.

- Remove all project debris from the stream in a manner that will cause the least disturbance. - Minimize stream bank and riparian area excavation during construction. Stabilize adjacent

disturbed areas using mulch, retaining structures, and or mechanical stabilization materials. - Ensure imported fill materials meet specifications, and are free of toxins and invasive species. - Divert or dewater stream flow for all live streams or standing water bodies during crossing

installation and invasive maintenance.

Regional BMPs

2-8 Stream Crossings 2-13 Erosion Control Plans (roads and other


AqEco-2 Operations in Aquatic Ecosystems Road-7 Stream Crossings Veg-2 Erosion Prevention and Control Forest Plan S&Gs

62

193 (RCO 2)

194 (RCO 4)

Locations: all stream crossings on constructed,

reconstructed and maintained roads.

Road Closure/ ML 1 Roads

- Remove road stream crossings and other culverts identified at high risk of failure and posing a threat to water quality before a road is closed.

- Block closed roads to prevent vehicle access. - Road-stream crossings deemed safe to leave in place would be treated to remove the potential

for streamflow diversions in the event of a crossing failure or blockage, and, where needed, would have rock armor added to downstream crossing fill to prevent erosion.

- Ensure that the road, culvert, and all hydrologically connected drainage structures are cleaned, and sediment and erosion controls are intact and functioning prior to closure.

- Ensure road is effectively drained (e.g. waterbars, dips, outsloping) and treated to return the road prism to near natural hydrologic function.

- Treat and stabilize road surfaces through subsoiling, scattering slash, and/or revegetation as needed. Reshape and stabilize side slopes as needed.

- Where vehicles have previously breached barriers or OHV traffic volume is high, treat the first part of the decommissioned route with greater intensity of traffic elimination techniques such as camouflaging with slash, re-contouring and highly durable barriers.

Regional BMPs

2-6 Road Storage 2-7 Road Decommissioning 2-13 Erosion Control Plans (roads and other


Road-6 Road Storage and Decommissioning Veg-2 Erosion Prevention and Control Forest Plan S&Gs

57

193 (RCO 2)

Locations: all roads post-project closed or ML1 status.

Road Decommissioning

- Ensure road is effectively drained (e.g. waterbars, dips, outsloping) and treated to return the Regional BMPs

2-7 Road Decommissioning

67


road prism to near natural hydrologic function. - Block road to prevent vehicle access. - Remove crossing structures and restore stream channels and natural hillslope drainage. - Treat and stabilize road surfaces through tilling, ripping, scattering slash, and/or revegetation.

Reshape and stabilize side slopes as needed. - Where vehicles have previously breached barriers or OHV traffic volume is high, treat the first

part of the decommissioned route with greater intensity of traffic elimination techniques such as camouflaging with slash, re-contouring and highly durable barriers.

2-13 Erosion Control Plans (roads and other activities)

National Core BMPs

Road-6 Road Storage and Decommissioning Veg-2 Erosion Prevention and Control Forest Plan S&Gs

57

193 (RCO 2)

Locations: all roads being decommissioned

Log Landings

- Landings will be constructed (for new landings) or improved (for existing landings) to provide for proper drainage.

- Re-use log landings to the extent feasible. Existing landings within RCAs may be used when sedimentation effects can be mitigated by erosion prevention measures.

- Rehabilitating skid trails, landings, and project use areas deemed necessary by a FS Watershed Specialist.

- Do not construct new landings within 100 feet of perennial or intermittent streams and SAFs and 50 feet of ephemeral streams.

- See the Soils Report for subsoiling requirements.

Regional BMPs

1-12 Log Landing Location 1-15 1-16 Log Landing Erosion National Core BMPs

Veg-6 Landings Veg-2 Erosion Prevention and Control Forest Plan S&Gs

194 (RCO 4)

Locations: all landings.

Skid Trails

- Design and locate skid trails to best fit the terrain, volume, velocity, concentrations and direction of runoff water in a manner that would minimize erosion and sedimentation.

- Locate new primary skid trails at least 100 feet from perennial and intermittent streams and SAFs and new secondary skid trails at least 50 feet from perennial and intermittent streams and SAFs. Locate all skid trails at least 25 feet from ephemeral streams. Primary skid trails typically have 20 or more passes and result in detrimental compaction or displacement of soils. Secondary skid trails have fewer passes and result in minor compaction or displacement.

- Use existing skid trails wherever possible except where unacceptable resource damage may result. Existing skid trails <100 feet from streams may be used if they are rehabilitated following use to improve infiltration from their current state.

- Skid trails within 100 feet of steams would be given priority for subsoiling. - See Soils Report for additional requirements on rehabilitating skid trails

Regional BMPs

1-10 Tractor Skidding Design 1-17 Erosion Control on Skid Trails National Core BMPs

Veg-2 Erosion Prevention and Control Veg-4 Ground-Based Skidding and Yarding

Operations Forest Plan S&Gs

194 (RCO 4)

Locations: all ground-based yarding system units.

Water Sources

- For water drafting on fish-bearing streams: do not exceed 350 gallons per minute (0.78 cfs) for streamflow greater than or equal to 4.0 cubic feet per second (cfs); do not exceed 20% of surface flows below 4.0 cfs; and, cease drafting when bypass surface flow drops below 1.5 cfs.

- For water drafting on non-fish-bearing streams: do not exceed 350 gallons per minute (0.78 cfs) for streamflow greater than or equal to 2.0 cfs; do not exceed 50% of surface flow; and, cease drafting when bypass surface flow drops below 10 gallons per minute (0.02 cfs). Water sources designed for permanent installation, such as piped diversions to off-site storage, are preferred over temporary, short-term-use developments. Locate water drafting sites to avoid adverse effects to in-stream flows and depletion of pool habitat.

- Do not allow water drafting from streams by more than one truck at a time. - Do not construct basins at culvert inlets for the purpose of developing a waterhole, as these

can exacerbate plugging of the culvert. - Gradually remove temporary dams when operations are complete so that released

impoundments do not discharge sediment into the streamflow. - When diverting water from streams, maintain bypass flows that ensure continuous surface flow

in downstream reaches, and keep habitat in downstream reaches in good condition. - Locate approaches as close to perpendicular as possible to prevent stream bank excavation. - Treat road approaches and drafting pads to prevent sediment production and delivery to a

watercourse or waterhole. Armor road approaches as necessary from the end of the approach nearest a stream for a minimum of 50 feet, or to the nearest drainage structure (e.g., waterbar or rolling dip) or point where road drainage does not drain toward the stream.

- Armor areas subject to high floods to prevent erosion and sediment delivery to water courses. - Install effective erosion control devices (e.g., gravel berms or waterbars) where overflow runoff

from water trucks or storage tanks may enter the stream. - Check all water-drafting vehicles daily and repair as necessary to prevent leaks of petroleum

products from entering RCAs. Water-drafting vehicles would contain petroleum-absorbent pads, which are placed under vehicles before drafting. Water-drafting vehicles would contain petroleum spill kits. Dispose of absorbent pads according to the Hazardous Response Plan.

Regional BMPs

2-5 Water Source Development and Utilization 2-13 Erosion Control Plans (roads and other


WatUses-3 Administrative Water Developments

AqEco-2 Operations in Aquatic Ecosystems Forest Plan S&Gs

193 (RCO 2)

194 (RCO 4)

Locations: all water drafting sites.

Rock Borrow Pits/Quarries

- Limit the area of disturbance to the minimum necessary for efficient operations. - Rehabilitate and stabilize sites after operations are complete to minimize risk of off-site

movement. - Where appropriate, install temporary barriers between the extraction area and surface waters

to prevent sedimentation. - Obliterate or decommission temporary access roads unless other treatment is required. - Maintain system roads to quarries or borrow pits.

Regional BMPs

2-12 Aggregate Borrow Areas 2-13 Erosion Control Plans (roads and other


Min-5 Mineral Materials Resource Sites Locations: all borrow pits.

68


Slope and Soil Moisture Limitations

- See Soils Report for specific slope limitations for operation of ground-based equipment. - See Soils Report for wet weather operating restrictions.

Regional BMPs

5-2 Slope Limitations for Mechanical Equipment Operation

5-6 Soil Moisture Limitations for Mechanical Equipment Operations

National Core BMPs

Veg-2 Erosion Prevention and Control Veg-4 Ground-Based Skidding and Yarding

Operations Locations: all ground-based equipment units.

Servicing, Refueling, and Cleaning Equipment and Parking/Staging Areas

- Allow temporary refueling and servicing only at approved sites located outside of RCAs. - Rehabilitate temporary staging, parking, and refueling/servicing areas immediately following

use. - A Spill Prevention and Containment and Counter Measures (SPCC) plan is required where

total oil products on site in above-ground storage tanks exceed 1320 gallons or where a single container exceeds 660 gallons. Review and ensure spill plans are up-to-date.

- Report spills and initiate appropriate clean-up action in accordance with applicable State and Federal laws, rules and regulations. The Forest hazardous materials coordinator’s name and phone number would be available to Forest Service personnel who administer or manage activities utilizing petroleum-powered equipment.

- Remove contaminated soil and other material from NFS lands and dispose of this material in a manner according to controlling regulations.

- Install temporary wash sites only in areas where the water and residue can be adequately collected and either filtered on site or conveyed to an appropriate wastewater treatment facility.

Regional BMPs

2-10 Parking and Staging Areas 2-11 Equipment Refueling and Servicing National Core BMPs

Road-9 Parking and Staging Areas Road-10 Equipment Refueling and Servicing Fac-7 Vehicle and Equipment Wash Water Forest Plan S&Gs

193 (RCO 1)

Locations: designated temporary refueling, servicing and

cleaning sites and parking/staging areas.

Prescribed Fire

- Avoid damage to obligate riparian vegetation (e.g. willows, alders, cottonwoods). - Retain a minimum of 75% ground cover within 100 feet of perennial streams and 50 feet of

intermittent streams. Ground cover is defined as a minimum of one inch of organic litter, slash, duff, or loose rock fragments, as well as living vegetation less than five feet tall.

- Avoid direct ignition within RCAs, including ephemeral channels; fire may back into the riparian area as long as ground cover is maintained.

- Avoid constructing fire lines within RCAs unless there is no alternative. New dozer lines would not be constructed within 100 feet of perennial and intermittent streams and 50 feet of ephemeral streams. Constructed fire lines would be restored upon completion of prescribed burning and/or prior to each winter. Restoration would consist of water barring hand and dozer lines, re-contouring of benched trails, and subsoiling of detrimentally compacted dozer lines.

Regional BMPs

6-2 Consideration of Water Quality in Formulating Fire Prescriptions

6-3 Protection of Water Quality from Prescribed Burning Effects

National Core BMPs

Fire-1 Wildland Fire Management Planning Fire-2 Use of Prescribed Fire Forest Plan S&Gs

194 (RCO 4)

Locations: All RCAs within units with prescribed fire

Burn Piles

- Place burn piles a minimum of 50 feet away from perennial and intermittent streams and SAFs and 25 feet from ephemeral streams. Locate piles outside areas that may receive runoff from roads. Avoid disturbance to obligate riparian vegetation.

- Minimize effects on soil, water quality, and riparian resources by appropriately planning pile size, fuel piece size limits, spacing, and burn prescriptions in compliance with state or local laws and regulations if no practical alternatives for slash disposal in the RCA are available.

Regional BMPs

6-2 Consideration of Water Quality in Formulating Fire Prescriptions

6-3 Protection of Water Quality from Prescribed Burning Effects

National Core BMPs

Fire-1 Wildland Fire Management Planning Fire-2 Use of Prescribed Fire Forest Plan S&Gs

194 (RCO 4)

Locations: all pile burning areas

Water Quality Monitoring

- Conduct implementation and effectiveness monitoring using the Best Management Practices Evaluation Program (BMPEP) (USDA 2002) and the National Core Monitoring Protocols (FS-990b) (USDA 2012).

Regional BMPs

7-6 Water Quality Monitoring Locations: Monitoring locations would be detailed in a

project monitoring plan.

Cumulative Watershed Effects (CWE) Analysis

- CWE analysis would be conducted for the project. Regional BMPs

7-8 Cumulative Off-Site Watershed Effects Locations: All activities within the project watersheds

would be analyzed

69


Watershed Restoration

- A site-specific monitoring plan would be prepared prior to implementation of watershed restoration projects in order to assess effectiveness of restoration efforts. Physical, hydrologic, biological or aquatic indicators of deteriorated conditions would be the focus of the monitoring effort. For all projects, photo-point monitoring would be required at a minimum.

- All applicable BMPs would be implemented during watershed restoration activities. - All applicable regulatory permits would be acquired before implementation.

Regional BMPs

7-1 Watershed Restoration 2-3 Road Construction and Reconstruction 2-4 Road Maintenance and Operations 2-5 Water Source Development and Utilization 2-6 Road Storage 2-7 Road Decommissioning 2-8 Stream Crossings 2-11 Equipment Refueling and Servicing 2-12 Aggregate Borrow Areas 2-13 Erosion Control Plans (roads and other


AqEco-1 Aquatic Ecosystem Improvement and Restoration Planning

AqEco-2 Operations in Aquatic Ecosystems AqEco-3 Ponds and Wetlands AqEco-4 Stream Channels and Shorelines Road-6 Road Storage and Decommissioning Road-7 Stream Crossings Veg-2 Erosion Prevention and Control Forest Plan S&Gs

193 (RCO 1) 193 (RCO 2) 194 (RCO 3) 194 (RCO 4) 195 (RCO 5) 195 (RCO 6) Locations: All watershed restoration sites (e.g.

meadow/channel restoration, decommissioning or roads

Recreation

- Design and implementation of newly constructed or reconstructed OHV trails would incorporate applicable practices outlined in BMP 4.7.1, 4.7.2, 4.7.3, 4.7.4, and Rec-4.

- OHV trails would be operated and maintained in accordance with BMP 4.7.5, 4.7.6, 4.7.7, and Rec-5.

- Restoration of user created trails and dispersed sites would incorporate applicable practices outlined in BMP 4.7.8 and Rec-3.

- New parking/staging areas would incorporate applicable practices outlined in BMP 2-10, 4.7.9, and Rec-2.

- Campsite improvements at DC-30 would be designed and implemented in accordance with applicable practices in BMP 4-4 and Rec-2.

- An Erosion Control Plan approved by the District Ranger would be prepared prior to the commencement of any ground-disturbing project activities.

- Prepare a BMP checklist before implementation.

Regional BMPs

2-10 Parking and Staging Areas 2-13 Erosion Control Plans 4-4 Control of Sanitation Facilities 4-7.1 – 9 OHV Facilities and Use National Core BMPs

Rec-1 Recreation Planning Rec-2 Developed Recreation Sites Rec-3 Dispersed Use Recreation Rec-4 Motorized and Non-motorized Trails Forest Plan S&Gs

193 (RCO 2) 194 (RCO 4) 195 (RCO 6) Locations: Dispersed campsites; new parking/staging

areas; trails receiving maintenance or reconstruction; user

created trails being decommissioned; trails added to

transportation system; new trail construction

1 Forest Plan S&Gs indicate page number from Forest Plan Direction (USDA 2010).

2.07 Comparison of Alternatives This section compares the alternatives by providing summary tables showing the key differences between action alternatives. Table 2.07-1 compares the alternatives with a summary of proposed activities. Table 2.07-1 Comparison of Alternatives: Proposed Activities

Treatment Prescriptions Unit Alt. 1 Alt. 3

Forest Restoration

Ridge

Mechanically thin to an average of 40% canopy cover: Gaps 0.25 - 1.5 acre in size on 2% of area Acre 793 758

Mechanically thin to an average of 50% canopy cover: Gaps 0.25 - 1.5 acre in size on 2% of area Acre 0 51

Mid-slope NE

Mechanically thin to an average of 50% canopy cover: Gaps 0.1 - 0.5 acres in size on 2-5% of area Acre 540 419

70


Mechanically thin to an average of 60% canopy cover: Gaps 0.1 - 0.5 acres in size on 2-5% of area. Acre 0 104

Mid-slope SW


Mechanically thin to an average of 50% canopy cover: Gaps 0.25 - 1.5 acres in size on 5-10% of area. Acre 1,873 1,394


Drainage

Mechanically thin to an average of 40% canopy cover: Gaps 0. - 1.5 acres in size on 0-2% of area. Acre 0 36



RCA

Mechanically thin to a minimum of 50% canopy cover: Gaps 0. - 1.5 acres in size on 0-2% of area. Acre 0 40

Mechanically thin to a minimum of 60% canopy cover: Gaps 0. - 1.5 acres in size on 0-2% of area. Acre 413 373

Scenic Corridor

Thin trees less than 30” dbh to 40% canopy cover: Masticate small trees and brush.

Create heterogeneous openings and treatments with feathered edges. Acre 421 421

Plantation

Sawlogs

Mechanically thin merchantable timber (<30” dbh) from plantations Acre 29 29

Non-commercial

Mechanically thin trees less than 16” dbh through mastication, biomass removal, and/or hand piling and

burning Acre 800 817

Meadows and Aspen

Remove conifers less than 30” dbh in meadows and aspen stands.

Thin conifers 30” to 40” dbh to 120 ft2/acre basal area around aspen. Acre 234 249

No Vegetation Treatments No vegetation treatments are proposed Acre 5,440 5,316

Soil Productivity

Ground Cover

Increase ground cover above 50% Acre 256 256

Brush Retention

Retain all clumps of brush >20 feet away from leave trees where vegetation is sparse and poses limited fire

threat to overstory Acre 210 210

Gully Repair

Stabilize actively eroding areas, divert water into established channels, or repair road drainages Acre 47 47

Fuels Reduction

Roadside Fuel-Breaks

Remove or masticate brush and trees < 10” dbh. Acre 74 73

Shaded Fuel-Breaks - WUI

Thin trees less than 30” dbh to 40% canopy cover

Masticate small trees and brush.

Located in Wildland Urban Interface Acre 557 582

Shaded Fuel-Breaks

Thin trees less than 30” dbh to 40% canopy cover

Masticate small trees and brush.

Located on prominent ridge tops. Acre 336 336

Prescribed Fire

Burn with jackpot burning or following mechanical or hand treatments Acre 4,286 4,769

Hand Treat (<10”) or Mechanical Retain

Hand or mechanically thin trees less than 10” dbh while retaining 50% canopy cover Acre 93 72

Hand or mechanically thin trees less than 10” dbh while retaining 60% canopy cover Acre 0 21

Hand Thinning

Hand thin trees less than 10” dbh, pile and burn Acre 717 741

Hand thin trees less than 6” dbh, pile and burn Acre 1,497 1,497

71


Streams, Riparian Area, SAF, and Aspen Restoration

Head-cut /Channel Restoration

Restore areas of instability, eroding head-cuts, streambanks, and incised channels Sites 16 16

Monitoring / Adaptive Management

Monitor SAF for indicators of long-term degradation; if monitoring indicates that desired conditions are not

being achieved, implement barriers, troughs, or watershed improvements Sites 47 47

Barriers

Install barriers at Streams, riparian areas, SAF, and aspen stands if post-decision monitoring confirms resource

concerns Sites 3 3

Water Developments

Install troughs away from SAFs, riparian areas, and heritage sites Sites 4 4

Recreation

Dispersed Recreation Campsites

Delineate campsites Sites 21 21

Rehabilitate campsites Sites 3 3

Improve campsites Sites 1 2

Restore Trails

Block / Restore (Decommission) Non-system User Created Trails Miles 1.1 1.3

Decommission a portion of 17EV21 (fire damaged) Miles 0.57 0.57

Reconstruct trail Miles 2.25 2.25

Add Routes

Add route to National Forest Trail System Miles 0.36 0.75

Trailhead / Parking Areas

Construct OHV trailhead / staging area Sites 1 1

Construct hiking trailhead / parking area Sites 1 1

New Trails

Construct new OHV trail Miles 1.02 0.86

Construct new non-motorized trail Miles 0.7 0.5

Resource Protection

Install Bridge Sites 2 2

Install Fence line (acres; also included in SAF Barriers above) Acres 14 14

Transportation

Physical Actions

System Trails

Construct Trail Miles 1.56 1.62

Decommission Miles 2.41 2.41

Maintain Miles 3.84 3.09

Maintain / Close / Gate Miles 0.74 1.49

Reconstruct Miles 4.21 3.82

Reconstruct / Close / Gate Miles 0.04 0.27

Reopen / Close Miles 1.1 1.1

Watershed Rehab Miles 0.3 0.3

System Roads

All Year Gate Miles 1.23 1.23

Close ML1 Miles 1.31 1.31


Maintain Miles 57.91 57.91

Maintain / Close / Gate Miles 2.25 2.25

Realign Road Miles 0.67 0.67

Realign Road / Close / Gate Miles 0.44 0.44

Reconstruct Miles 31.68 32.49

Reconstruct / Close / Gate Miles 3.15 3.15

Reopen/Close Miles 2.16 1.35

72


Roadside Barrier Miles 0.44 0.44

Watershed Rehab Miles 2.1 2.1

Watershed Rehab / Close / Gate Miles 0.41 0.41

Unauthorized Routes


Changes to NFTS

Changes to Road and Trail System Miles 16.94 17.13

Table 2.07-2 provides a summary of the effects of implementing each alternative by indicators related to the relevant issue (Chapter 1.06). Table 2.07.2 Comparison of Alternatives: Relevant Issues

Issue/Indicator Alternative 1

(Proposed Action)

Alternative 2

(No Action) Alternative 3

Canopy retention in

mechanically thinned

CSO HRCAs

40% - 489 Acres

50% - 1743 Acres

60% - 203 Acres

No mechanical thinning would occur in

CSO HRCAs

40% - 479 Acres

50% - 1164 Acres

60% - 793 Acres

Canopy diversity

appropriate for snow

retention study

Mechanical thinning treatments would

not be designed to evaluate snow

water retention based on variable

treatment types (in terms of CC)

among watersheds.

No mechanical thinning treatments

would occur. Existing condition could

not be used to demonstrate how

management actions influence snow

water retention

A paired set of watersheds would be

thinned leaving 40% to 60% canopy cover,

and would be suitable to evaluate how

management actions may influence snow

water retention.

Appendix B

Northern Goshawk (Accipiter gentilis) Species Account Status/Distribution The northern goshawk is a Region 5 Regional Forester Sensitive species and is designated a Species of Special Concern by CDFW. Northern goshawks occur throughout North America and into Mexico. They occur throughout the Sierra Nevada year round and breed from about 2,400 feet to the crest as well as on the east side of the Sierra. On the west slope, they use a wide range of habitat types and are considered year round residents (USDA 2001). Population Trend Population trend of goshawks in California is poorly known. Distributional changes and loss of breeding territories from timber harvest and wildfire across their range suggest the population size has been reduced (Shuford and Gardali 2008). Ongoing concern that populations and reproduction may be declining in California due to changes in the amount and distribution of habitat has been documented (USDA 2001). Bloom et al. (1986) estimated a statewide population of approximately 1,300 breeding territory records on public and private lands. Recent synthesis of existing breeding territory records documented approximately 1,000 known territories statewide between 1970 and 2001 (J. Keane 1999 and B. Woodbridge 1994). As of 2010, there are 81 documented goshawk territories on the STF, which includes an increase of 28 additional territories identified on the forest since the publication of the 2001 SNFPA. Survey Effort Goshawk surveys were conducted in suitable habitat and according to Forest Plan direction within and near the project action area in 2011-2013 as part of the Hemlock Landscape-Level Restoration Project. Broadcast acoustical surveys were conducted by Forest Service personnel using the Forest Service approved protocol “Survey Methodology for Northern Goshawks in the Pacific Southwest Region”. Approximately 11,505 acres (82%) in the Hemlock project area were identified as potentially suitable goshawk habitat and surveyed according to protocol in 2011-2013. No new occupied territories were identified in the project area through this survey effort. Occurrence The project action area is within the current distribution of northern goshawks across the Sierra Nevada Bioregion. Three goshawk territories were designated within the project area through previous survey efforts, with one other goshawk territory within approximately 1 mile of the project boundary in the area of potential effect. Survey efforts conducted in 2011-2013 detected goshawks within the project area, and in only one of the existing territories outside the project boundary. Habitat Account General General habitat requirements for northern goshawks include forested environments with high canopy cover that feature vegetation types such as Montane Hardwood, Montane Hardwood Conifer, Ponderosa and Jeffrey Pine, Sierran Mixed Conifer, Lodgepole Pine and Red Fir (CDFG 2008). Nonbreeding period home ranges average about 20,300 acres for males and about 13,800 acres for females. Breeding period home ranges average about 6,700 acres for males and about 5,000 acres for females (USDA 2001). There is approximately 11,505 acres (82%) of suitable habitat within the project area (CDFW 2008). This

suitable habitat was arranged in a contiguous manner across the project area. There are no barriers precluding movement (dispersal, seasonal, etc.) of this species both within and in close proximity to the project area. Breeding Goshawks typically nest in areas with a high density of large trees, high canopy cover, high basal area, and gentle to moderate slopes (Reynolds et al. 1992, USDA 2001). Breeding typically occurs in late winter to spring and is dependent on elevation and weather conditions. Nest sites are the focal point of goshawk breeding territories and are described by Keane (1999) and Maurer (2000):

High canopy cover (mean = 65% and 70%) Greater number of large, live trees between 24-39”dbh (22/acre) than random plots Greater number of large, live trees > 24”dbh (about33-38/acre) than random plots Open understory with low average shrub/sapling cover (9.9%, se=2.0) Low average numbers of small trees in the understory (<121 trees/acre and < 226 trees/acre

between 2-12”dbh) Goshawks construct stick nests in live conifer, hardwood trees or snags. These nests are typically built in the lower portion of the canopy in a fork or crook of a tree, and occasionally next to the bole (3-10 ft) on a large branch. Nest trees are reported to be among the largest trees in a stand (USDA 2001). Goshawks typically build more than one nest, placing alternates in adjacent trees or up to a half mile away (Reynolds et al. 1992). Annual variation in reproduction can be influenced by prey abundance and late-winter/early spring temperature (Keane 1999). Foraging Northern goshawks hunt on the wing, from elevated perches, and on the ground. They feed on a variety of birds and mammals such as Steller’s jays, flickers, Douglas squirrels, and chipmunks (Keane 1999). The presence of structural elements such as snags and large downed woody debris provide important habitat for many prey species utilized by goshawks (Reynolds et al. 1992). Foraging habitat preferences of goshawks are poorly understood, although limited information from studies in conifer forests indicates they prefer to forage in mature forests with greater canopy closure and greater density of large trees (> 40”dbh) relative to random plots (Bright-Smith and Mannan 1994, Hargis et al. 1994). Reynolds et al. (1992) suggest that goshawks prefer relatively open shrub and lower canopy layers within forested stands, which may facilitate prey detection and capture. Dispersal/Migration Both natal and breeding dispersal are not well understood in northern goshawks due, in part, to the complexity of variables associated with dispersal, including the long distances that this species can disperse. Maximum natal dispersal distances in goshawks on the Kern Plateau were reported to range from 1.7 – 49 miles. One banded individual from this study was recovered 275 miles beyond the study area, indicating that dispersal distances are highly variable. Local recruits with short dispersal distances have been reported to establish breeding territories within 3-5 territories from their natal area (Weins et al. 2006). Adult’s exhibit site fidelity once breeding territories have been established (Reynolds and Joy 2006). Breeding dispersal does occur and has been reported at distances of about 6 miles for females and about 4 miles for males in California (Woodbridge and Detrich 1994) and about 3 miles for females and about 2 miles for males in Arizona (Reynolds and Joy 1998). This species is not considered migratory, though limited altitudinal movements likely occur during winter months (USDA 2001).

Risk Factors Bloom et al. (1986), Keane and Morrison (1994), Kennedy (1997), Squires and Reynolds (1997), Smallwood (1998), and USDA (2001) summarize risk factors potentially influencing the abundance and distribution of northern goshawks:

1) Loss of Breeding Habitat - The major threat to goshawks are the effects of vegetation management (timber harvest, fuels treatments, etc.) and wildfire on the amount, distribution and quality of nesting habitat. Forest research estimates that old forest conditions have declined from 50%- 90% compared to historical conditions. In the Sierra Nevada selective timber harvest practices have rapidly reduced large, old, and decadent trees. Fire suppression has led to understory vegetative densities that have surpassed historic levels. These trends suggest there has been a reduction in the amount and distribution of the mature and older forests with large trees and open understory used by nesting goshawks.

2) Breeding Site Disturbance - Breeding site disturbance from vegetation treatments, human recreation, and falconry harvest can negatively affect individuals and potentially local populations.

3) Chemical pollutants - Investigation of the potential risk of pollutants on this species, such as rodenticides and pesticides, is needed.

4) Climate - Weather and prey dynamics are primary factors affecting northern goshawk reproduction, and potential survival. Climatic changes resulting in wetter winters and springs can affect northern goshawk demography.

California Spotted Owl (Strix occidentalis occidentalis) Species Account Status/Distribution The California spotted owl (spotted owl) is a Region 5 Regional Forester Sensitive species and is designated a Species of Special Concern by CDFG. The USFWS reviewed the need to list the California spotted owl under ESA based on a petition submitted on September 1, 2004. On May 24, 2006, the USFWS announced their finding on this petition: they found that most owl populations are stable or increasing in the Sierra Nevada and listing the species was not warranted (Federal Register 2006). The spotted owl is also a Sierra Nevada Management Indicator Species (MIS), as described in the Hemlock Landscape Restoration MIS report available in the project record. The California spotted owl occurs from the southern Cascades, throughout the Sierra Nevada in California and into Nevada, mountainous regions of southern California and the central Coast Ranges up to Monterey County. They breed from 1,000 to 7,700 feet elevation. On the west slope of the Sierra Nevada, they use a wide range of habitat types and are considered year round residents (USDA 2001). Population Trend At the request of USFWS, Blakesley and others (2010) conducted a meta-analysis on the spotted owl for a status review for the potential listing of this subspecies under the ESA using data from the southern Cascades and Sierra Nevada, California. Modeling indicated that lambda was either stationary or increasing after an initial decrease. Because this modeling effort likely did not detect modest declines, if they occurred, over the 15 year period of the study and because changes in habitat over time have not yet been quantified at the project scale, there is still concern regarding the effects of management on owl population dynamics.

The Forest Service Report from the Lassen Demographic Study by Scherer and others (2010e) suggests the population trend, estimated mean lambda 0.979 (SE=0.0097), between 1990-2010 is similar to that found by Blakesley and others (2010) (PSW California Spotted Owl Module: 2010 Annual Report pg. 4). The Forest Service Report from the Sierra National Forest and Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks dated February 13, 2012 presents the following new findings: “The estimated mean lambda for the Sierra National Forest (SIE) study area from 1992 to 2010 was 0.989 (SE = 0.009; 95% CI from 0.971 to 1.007). The estimated realized population change from 1992 to 2010 for SIE was below 1.0 (Δt = 0.85), but the 95% CI included 1.0, indicating no strong evidence of population decline. However, the last four estimates of Δt were among the lowest of the study period. The estimated mean lambda for Sequoia Kings Canyon National Parks (SKC) from 1993-2010 was 1.010 (SE = 0.014, 95% CI from 0.982 to 1.038), and the estimated realized population change (Δt) from 1993 to 2010 was also above 1.0 (Δt = 1.24), although the 95% CI extended below 1.0 (Munton et al. 2012). The annual report, dated March 21, 2011, “Population Ecology of the California Spotted Owl in the Central Sierra Nevada: Annual Results 2010” presents the following new findings: The results suggest that “The average lambda over the study period from 1992-2009 was not significantly different than one, the value for a stable population (λt =0.989, SE=0.016) with the 95% confidence interval including one. The finite rate of change that we estimated using mark-recapture data from the Eldorado Density Study Area indicated that the population size has been stable since the beginning of the study, although we have observed a gradual decline in the realized population change over the last 10 years. This suggests that continued monitoring will be needed to assess whether a long-term population decline is underway (Gutierrez et al. 2011). CDFW has reported that greater than 1,700 owl sites have been identified in the Sierra Nevada (Shuford and Gardali 2008). As of 2010, there are 219 documented spotted owl territories on the STF, an increase of 24 additional territories which have been identified on the forest since the publication of the 2001 SNFPA. Survey Effort/Occurrence Spotted owl surveys were conducted in suitable habitat and according to Forest Plan direction within and near the project action area in 2011-2013 as part of the Hemlock Landscape-Level Restoration Project. Broadcast acoustical surveys were conducted by Forest Service personnel using the Forest Service approved protocol “Protocol for Surveying for Spotted Owls in Proposed Management Activity Areas and Habitat Conservation Areas” as revised in 1993. Approximately 10,628 acres within the project area and within 0.25 mile of the project boundary were identified as suitable for spotted owls or known to be occupied (existing PAC) by spotted owls and were surveyed according to protocol. This effort included nest checks with supplemental surveys to determine nesting status and reproductive success or failure. No new occupied territories were identified in the project area through this survey effort. Survey Effort/Occurrence The project action area is within the area of current distribution of spotted owls across the Sierra Nevada Bioregion. There are seven spotted owl territories within the action area and three additional territories within 1 mile of the action area. LOPs will be placed around all documented spotted owl activity centers from Mar 1-Aug 31 of any given year during project implementation. Habitat Account General

General habitat requirements for spotted owls include forested environments with high canopy cover that feature vegetation types such as Montane Hardwood, Montane Hardwood Conifer, Ponderosa Pine, Douglas Fir, Sierran Mixed Conifer, and White Fir (CDFG 2008). Approximately 50 percent of known owl sites are found in mixed conifer forest (USDA 2001). They prefer forested stands with complex vertical and horizontal vegetative structure. Home range size for this species is highly variable and ranges from 2,500 acres on the Sierra National Forest, 4,700 acres on the Tahoe and Eldorado National Forests, and 9,000 acres on the Lassen National Forest (USDA 2001). There are approximately 10,628 acres within the project area and within 0.25 mile of the project boundary. The suitable habitat is arranged in a contiguous manner across the project area. There are no barriers precluding movement (dispersal, seasonal, etc.) of this species both within and in close proximity to the project area. Breeding Spotted owls prefer stands with significantly greater: canopy cover, total live tree basal area of hardwoods and conifers, and snag basal area for nesting and roosting (USDA 2001). Breeding typically occurs in late winter to spring and is dependent on elevation and weather conditions. The FEIS for the SNFPA (USDA 2001) cites six studies that summarize spotted owl nesting and roosting habitat preferences:

70-95 percent total canopy cover at about 30 ft Two or more canopy layers Dominant and co-dominant trees in the canopy averaging at least 24” dbh Total live basal area = 185-350 sq ft/acre Total snag basal area = 30-55 sq ft/acre Higher than average levels of snags (at least 15” dbh and 20 ft tall) Downed woody debris averaging 10-15 tons/acre, comprised of the largest logs

Spotted owls use several different nest types; natural cavities in standing trees (live or dead), broken top trees and snags, platform nests created by other species, on debris accumulations, and dwarf mistletoe brooms (USDA 2001). Blakesley and others (2005) report nest tree sizes range from 14-86” dbh, with 90% of these greater than 30” dbh. Foraging Spotted owls consistently use forested stands with greater: canopy cover, total live basal tree area, basal area of hardwoods and conifers, snag basal area, and dead and downed wood, when compared to random locations (USDA 2001). Stands preferred by foraging owls consist of:

At least 50-90 percent canopy cover at about 30 ft At least two canopy layers Dominant and co-dominant trees averaging at least 11” dbh Total live tree basal area = 180-220 sq ft/acre Total basal area of snags = 15-30 Higher than average levels of snags (at least 15” and 20 ft tall) Downed woody debris averaging 10-15 tons/acre, comprised of the largest logs

Spotted owls typically hunt from elevated perches and will also hunt on the wing. Males will deliver food to nesting females, and both sexes may cache excess prey for later consumption. The primary prey species at lower elevations are woodrats, and at higher elevations flying squirrels. They also prey upon gophers, bats, arthropods, and a variety of other rodents (CDFG 2008, Verner et al. 1992). Dispersal/Migration Dispersal distances for spotted owls are not well studied. Northern spotted owl juveniles are expected to disperse at least eight miles (USDA 2001). A study of natal dispersal in an insular population in southern

California documented male dispersal distances ranged from 1.4-22.6 miles and female dispersal distances ranged from 0.25-22 miles (Lahaye et al. 2001). Breeding dispersal probability was found higher in younger owls, single owls, paired owls that lost their mates, owls at lower quality sites, and owls that failed to reproduce in the year preceding dispersal. Dispersal distances were similar in both males and females and ranged from 0.62-20.5 miles (Blakesley et al. 2001). Spotted owls are not migratory but may move down slope to lower elevations during winter months. Risk Factors USDA (2001 and 2004) summarized risk factors potentially influencing California spotted owl distribution and abundance:

1) Habitat Loss - Much of the current concern regarding California spotted owl population trends is the effect of vegetation management on the distribution, abundance and quality of habitat. Logging since the turn of the century has resulted in a reduction in the amount and distribution of mature and older forests and specific habitat elements such as large trees, snags, and downed logs, used for nesting and foraging by California spotted owls. Although there is an even distribution of California spotted owl territories across the Sierra Nevada, approximately 50% of these territories have potentially lower owl productivity than expected. Another threat to habitat loss is high-severity wildfire that results from fire suppression and past fire management policy such that approximately 39 percent of documented owl sites on National Forest System Lands occur in areas designated as “high fire hazard risk”.

2) Habitat Fragmentation - This is of particular concern on the STF because there are large inclusions of non-federal lands that pose uncertainty associated with maintaining a well-distributed spotted owl population.

3) Climate Change - Climatic changes resulting in wetter winters and springs can affect spotted owl reproductive output. Nest site habitat quality and condition are crucial because of the need for protection from weather events such as El Nino and global warming which, if they continue to increase in frequency, will change breeding conditions for the owls.

4) Breeding Habitat Disturbance - Disturbance from recreation activities may interfere with owl fitness and nesting success.

5) Barred Owl - Expansion of barred owls from the east westward through Canada and south into California has resulted in the introduction of a generalist species into the range of the spotted owl, a specialist species. The barred owl is considered a competitor for nesting habitat with the spotted owl and can also hybridize with the spotted owl (Dark et al. 1998). There is anecdotal evidence that barred owls have recently been detected on the Stanislaus in 2012 on the Groveland Ranger District adjacent to Yosemite National Park, and on the Calaveras Ranger District near Frog Lake. Barred owls are known to occur on the Eldorado National Forest to the north, and the Sequoia National Forest to the south.

6) Disease - The effect of West Nile virus on owl populations is uncertain at this time because the disease was only recently detected in Tuolumne County (summer 2004). Given the mortality rates in similar avian species that have contracted West Nile Virus, a high mortality rate could be expected in infected spotted owls.

Great Gray Owl (Strix nebulosa) Species Account Status/Distribution

The great gray owl is a Region Five Forest Service Sensitive species and is designated State Endangered by CDFG. The great gray owl occurs from Alaska to northern and south-central Ontario, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, central Seskachewan, northern Minnesota, and California (USDA 2006a). In California, they occur in the Sierra Nevada from the vicinity of Quincy and Plumas County, south to Yosemite National Park (CDFG 2008). They breed from 2,500-7,500 feet and use pine and fir forested habitat adjacent to meadows and meadow complexes (Winter 1986). Hull and others (2010), through genetic testing, have revealed the Sierra Nevada population is a distinct lineage with respect to the larger species range in North America and have suggested a new subspecies designation be considered (Strix nebulosa yosemitensis). Population Trend The population status and trend of great gray owls in the Sierra Nevada is not currently known. Population estimates within California have been postulated somewhere between 100-300 individuals. As of 2010, there are 19 documented great gray owl territories on the STF. Survey Effort Intermittent surveys have been conducted in and near the project action area over the past several years. These surveys include those conducted by Pacific Southwest Research Station (PSW) scientists as well as STF Forest Service personnel. Forest Service personnel use the survey protocol provided by Beck and Winter (2000), while PSW has altered this protocol to test its’ efficacy. Hay Gulch was surveyed in 2009 and 2015 with no detections. Mattley Meadow, outside the project boundary but within 0.25 miles was surveyed in 2014 and 2015, also with no detections. Occurrence The project action area is within the current distribution of great gray owls across the Sierra Nevada Bioregion. There are no known occupied territories within the action area; therefore, no LOPs for great gray owls would apply during project implementation. The closest documented great gray owl territories are Wilson Meadow Upper and Hess Mill, over 35 miles southwest of the project action area. Habitat Account General General habitat requirements for great gray owls include forested environments with high canopy cover and large trees that feature vegetation types such as Sierran Mixed Conifer, White Fir, Wet meadows, and Lodgepole Pine (CDFG 2008). They typically nest in dense canopied forested stands adjacent to meadows or meadow complexes. Availability of nesting structures and prey may limit the use of otherwise suitable habitat. Green (1995) found that occupied great gray owl sites had greater plant cover, vegetative height, and soil moisture. Canopy closure was the only variable of three variables measured (canopy closure, number of snags >24” dbh, and number of snags <24” dbh) that was significantly larger in occupied sites versus unoccupied (Ibid). Home ranges have recently been estimated for Yosemite National Park. Breeding female home range size has been estimated at 152 acres while winter home ranges average 6,072 acres. Male breeding home ranges are estimated at 49 acres and winter home ranges average 5,221 acres (Van Riper III and Van Wagtendok 2006). There are approximately 8.4 acres of moderately suitable seasonal breeding habitat within the project action area and 124.4 acres in a meadow complex within 0.25 mile (Mattley Meadow). This habitat is arranged in a discontiguous manner between these two complexes and within the project area. Although there are no barriers precluding movement (dispersal, seasonal, etc.) of this species both within and in close proximity to the project area, the discontiguous nature of the habitat, the minimal acreage of suitable habitat, and the lack of large meadow complexes within 10 miles may reduce the potential for occupancy. Suitable breeding habitat is defined as suitable forested stands (4D, 5M, 5D, 6) within 600 feet of an associated

meadow or meadow complex. Survey data from occupied territories on the STF have documented great gray owls successfully nesting in stands classified by CWHR as 4D, thus this size and density class was included as highly suitable breeding habitat. There are approximately 124.4 acres of medium to highly suitable year round habitat within the cumulative effects analysis area (Ibid). These acres were calculated using the criteria described for the project action area. Breeding Great gray owls prefer dense forested stands in close proximity to meadows or meadow complexes for breeding. Breeding occurs from late winter to spring, and is dependent on elevation and weather conditions. Beck (1985), Bull and Duncan (1993), CDFG (2008), and Greene (1995) describe suitable breeding habitat as follows:

High canopy cover (> 60%) Large dominant and co-dominant trees (> 24” dbh) Broken topped conifers, cavities in black oaks or abandoned raptor nests Meadow/s in close proximity to nest site (usually within 600 feet)

Greene (1995) found significant differences in the height and dbh of nest structures used versus unused on the STF and Yosemite National Park (N=25). Average dbh for used structures was 49” dbh in used structures versus 39” in unused structures and average height was 43’ in used structures versus 33’ in unused structures. Owls also appeared to select sites based on reduced sun exposure. Eighteen out of 25 nest sites were located on north facing slopes and also had greater canopy cover than random samples. Foraging Beck (1985), Bull and Duncan (1993), CDFG (2008), and Greene (1995) also describe suitable foraging habitat as follows:

Open meadows and grasslands in forested areas Open woodlands and coniferous stands with herbaceous or shrub component Dense herbaceous cover, vegetative height and adequate soil moisture to provide suitable

conditions for prey Trees, snags, and fence posts present to serve as hunting perches

The diet of great gray owls may vary locally, but consists of small mammals, primarily rodents. Current literature indicates that great gray owls in the western United State overwhelmingly select two prey taxa: voles (Microtus spp.) and pocket gophers (Thomomys spp.) (Bull and Duncan 1993). Voles prefer meadows with dense herbaceous vegetative cover (CDFG 2008). While it has been suggested by Beck (1985) that herbaceous heights ranging from 5-15” is suitable for voles, Greene (1995) found 12” to be preferred. Gophers are typically subterranean but also appear to have herbaceous cover preferences (Ibid). Compaction of meadow soils may reduce suitability of areas for gophers. Dispersal/Migration Not much is known on dispersal patterns in great gray owls. Bull et al (1988a) reported that maximum dispersal distance for juvenile owls to be 4.6 and 19.9 miles from their natal sites. They aren’t considered migratory, though adults make short elevation movements during winter, presumably to areas with lower snow depths (Hayward and Verner 1994). In Oregon, adults exhibit nest site fidelity, 78% returning to within 0.6 miles of the previous year’s nest site (Bull et al. 1988b). Risk Factors USDA (2006a) summarized risk factors potentially influencing great gray owl abundance and distribution:

1) Habitat loss and degradation - Green tree and salvage timber harvest can eliminate potential

nest trees. 2) Range Management - Grazing can remove cover necessary for prey species and degrade

meadows, thereby lowering water tables and reducing productivity of grasses and forbs that are food sources for prey.

3) Collision with automobiles – Great gray owls are particularly susceptible to collisions with vehicles. For example, in 2008 two great gray owls died from collisions with automobiles on the Stanislaus National Forest.

4) Disease – The effect of West Nile virus on owl populations is uncertain; however, given mortality rates in other avian species that have contracted this disease, a high mortality rate could be expected in infected great gray owls.

5) Disturbance at nest and roost sites - There is little information on disturbance and great gray owls; however, it is logical to assume they would respond like other owls. Spotted owls are known to have increased stress levels to disturbance such as chainsaw use and proximity to logging roads, which may affect reproduction (Hayward unpubl. data 2008 and Wasser et al. 1997).

Willow Flycatcher (Empidonax traillii) Species/Habitat Account Status/Distribution/Population Trend The willow flycatcher is a nearctic-neotropical migrant species that breeds across North America and winter from Mexico to northern South America (USDA 2001). Currently half of the breeding population in California occurs in the Sierra Nevada. They breed in shrubby willow and/or alder vegetation in meadow and riparian communities usually between 2,000 and 8,000 feet in elevation. More than 95% of meadows with breeding willow flycatchers in the Sierra Nevada are greater than 10 acres in size (Green et al. 2003). Willow flycatcher populations have declined in the Sierra Nevada, possibly due to habitat degradation from livestock grazing, recreation, roads, and development. In some cases livestock grazing may reduce meadow wetness which may increase conifer encroachment and predation from upland habitat predators (Green et al. 2003). Survey Effort/Occurrence Surveys conducted for willow flycatcher in 2002 and 2009 in and near the project action area using Regional survey protocol (USDA 2003) resulted in no detections on the District. Intermittent surveys have been conducted Hay Gulch (18.5 acres) and Mattley Meadow (60.8 acres within 0.25 miles of the project boundary), the largest moderately suitable meadow habitat within and adjacent to the project area, over the past two years. A single occurrence of willow flycatchers was detected in both Hay Gulch and Mattley Meadow in mid-June 2015. Two subsequent surveys in late June and early July 2015 did not detect willow flycatchers. Fringed Myotis (Myotis thysanodes) Species Account Status/Distribution The Fringed myotis is a Region 5 Regional Forester Sensitive species that is found in western North America from south-central British Columbia to central Mexico and to the western Great Plains

(Natureserve 2012). In California, it is distributed statewide except the Central Valley and the Colorado and Mojave Deserts (CWHR 2008). The species is found the throughout the state, from the coast (including Santa Cruz Island) to greater than 5,900 feet in elevation in the Sierra Nevada. Records exist for the high desert and east of the Sierra Nevada (e.g., lactating females were captured in 1997 by P. Brown near Coleville on the eastern slope of the Sierra Nevada). However, the majority of known localities are on the west side of the Sierra Nevada (Angerer and Pierson draft). Museum records suggest that while M. thysanodes is widely distributed in California, it is everywhere rare. Although this species occurs in netting and night roost surveys in a number of localities, it is always one of the rarest taxa (Pierson et al. 1996). This species is found in open habitats that have nearby dry forests and an open water source (Keinath 2004) and is found from sea level to 6,500 feet in elevation in pinyon-juniper, valley foothill hardwood and hardwood-conifers. The fringed myotis roosts in crevices found in rocks, cliffs, buildings, underground mines, bridges, and in large, decadent trees (Weller 2005). The majority of maternal roost sites documented in California have been found in buildings (Angerer and Pierson draft). Mines are also used as roost sites (Cahalane 1939, Cockrum and Musgrove 1964, Barbour and Davis 1969). Population Trend The limited data available suggest serious population declines (Angerer and Pierson draft). This species appears to be extremely sensitive to disturbance at roost sites and to human handling. While some species of Myotis, like Myotis yumanensis, seem tolerant of human incursions into their roosting space, M. thysanodes is not. Furthermore, a comparison of historic and current records indicates limited recolonization at sites from which it has been extirpated (Angerer and Pierson draft). Survey Effort/Occurrence Bat surveys have been conducted on the forest and fringed myotis have been documented below Spicer Dam on the North Fork Stanislaus, Beaver Creek, and Big Rattlesnake Creek, approximately 6, 10, and 3 aerial miles respectively from the project action area (Benton pers. obs. 2012-2013). Presence in the mixed conifer forest vegetation in the project area is assumed. Habitat Account General M. thysanodes occurs in xeric woodland (oak and pinyon-juniper most common (Cockrum and Ordway 1959, Jones 1965, O’Farrell and Studier 1980, Roest 1951), hot desert-scrub, grassland, sage-grassland steppe, spruce-fir, mesic old growth forest, coniferous and mixed deciduous/coniferous forests, including multi-aged sub-alpine, Douglas fir, redwood, and giant sequoia (O’Farrell and Studier 1980, Pierson and Heady 1996, Pierson et al. 2006, Weller and Zabel 2001). A paucity of records makes it difficult to assess habitat preferences for fringed myotis in California (Angerer and Pierson draft). It has been found in mixed deciduous/coniferous forest and in both redwood and giant sequoia habitat (Pierson and Rainey unpubl. data). There seems to be increased likelihood of occurrence of this species as snags greater than 11.8 inches in diameter increases and percent canopy cover decreases (Keinath 2004). Large snags and low canopy cover, typical of mature forest habitat types, offer warm roost sites (Keinath 2004). Decay classes were two to four (Keinath 2004) in ponderosa pine, Douglas-fir, and sugar pine. Water sources may include artificial sources, such as stock tanks and ponds, in addition to natural sources (Keinath 2004).

Fringed myotis day and night roost under bark and in tree hollows, and in northern California they day roost in snags only (Keinath 2004; Weller and Zabel 2001). Medium to large diameter snags are important day and night roosting sites (Weller and Zabel 2001). Studies conducted in California, Oregon, and Arizona, have documented that M. thysanodes roosts in tree hollows, particularly in large conifer snags. Most of the tree roosts were located within the tallest or second tallest snags in the stand, were surrounded by reduced canopy closure, and were under bark (Chung-MacCoubrey 1996, Rabe et al. 1998, Weller and Zabel 2001, Pierson et al. 2006). M. thysanodes is also known to use a variety of roost sites, including rock crevices (Cryan 1997), caves (Baker 1962, Easterla 1966, 1973), mines (Cahalane 1939, Cockrum and Musgrove 1964), buildings (Barbour and Davis 1969, O’Farrell and Studier 1980), and bridges. It is also one of the species thought to be most reliant on abandoned mines (Altenbach and Pierson 1995). Breeding

Breeding occurs in the fall with delayed implantation occurring in the spring. Females form maternity colonies in the early spring/summer in warm parts of caves, mines and buildings (summarized in Angerer and Pierson draft). They exhibit a high degree of maternity roost site fidelity. Males roost singly or in small, same sex groups and can be found in close proximity to maternity colonies (Angerer and Pierson draft). Foraging This species often forages along secondary streams, in fairly cluttered habitat. It has also been captured over meadows (Pierson et al. 2001). The fringed myotis consumes primarily beetles supplemented by moths and fly larvae (Keinath 2004) captured in the air and on foliage (CWHR 2008). Dispersal/Migration M. thysanodes is thought to migrate short distances to lower elevations or more southern areas (O’Farrell and Studier 1980). Scattered winter records suggest, however, that the species does not complete long distance migrations, and like many species in the more temperate parts of California, may be intermittently active throughout the winter (O’Farrell and Studier 1980). The species has been found hibernating in buildings and mine tunnels along the coast in the San Francisco Bay area and in the coast range north of San Francisco (Angerer and Pierson draft). Risk Factors Angerer and Pierson (draft) summarize risk factors potentially influencing the abundance and distribution of fringed myotis:

1) White-nosed syndrome spreading westward from known infection areas in the eastern United States since its discovery in 2006.

2) Human disturbance, demolition or restoration of historic buildings, renewed mining, hazard abatement, pesticide application in agricultural practices, rangeland management, and vandalism of caves, mines, bridges, and other man made features that provide roosting habitat to this species.

3) Reduction in roosting habitat availability due to urban expansion, timber harvest, loss of hardwood through conifer and brush competition, firewood gathering, and lack of fire management.

Pallid Bat (Antrouzus pallidus) Species Account Status/Distribution The pallid bat is a Region 5 Regional Forester Sensitive species and is designated as a Species of Special Concern by CDFW. They occur in arid regions of western North America from British Columbia to Mexico and east to Wyoming (Hermanson and O’Shea 1983). They are usually found in low to mid elevation habitats below 6,000 feet; however, they have been documented up to 10,000 feet in the Sierra Nevada (USDA 2001). Considered yearlong residents, they inhabit vegetation types such as Blue Oak Woodland, Mixed Chaparral, and coniferous forests (CDFG 2008, STF survey records). Population Trend The status of the species is not well researched, but North American pallid bat populations have declined over the past 50 years (O’Shea and Bogan 2003), and data from California suggest population declines associated with desert and oak woodland habitat loss due to urban expansion (USDA 2001).

Survey Effort/Occurrence Bat surveys have been conducted on the forest and Pallid bats have been documented at Cottonwood Creek near Thompson Meadow, and at the North Fork Tuolumne Bridge crossing near 3N01, approximately 27 aerial miles south of the project area (Gellman 1994, Mi-Wok District survey records). Presence throughout the project area is assumed.

Habitat Account General Pallid bats are common in open, dry habitats including grasslands, shrublands, woodlands, and coniferous forests. They typically roost in bridges, buildings, caves, and rock crevices, but can also be found in mines, cliffs and trees. This species is gregarious and can often be found roosting in groups. They forage in open canopied woodlands, riparian areas, and grassland/meadow habitat. Potentially suitable habitat (foraging, breeding, and roosting) is present in or immediately adjacent to the project area. There are no barriers precluding movement (dispersal, seasonal, etc.) of this species both within and in close proximity to the project area.

Breeding Breeding occurs in the fall with delayed implantation occurring in the spring. Females form maternity colonies in April that may contain up to 100 individuals (Zeiner et al. 1990b). Males sometimes roost in or near to maternity colonies. Horizontally-oriented rock crevices are preferred diurnal roost sites in the summer, which coincides with maternity colony selection and use (Hermanson and O’Shea 1983).

Foraging Pallid bats are maneuverable on the ground and commonly forage between one and five feet above the ground for prey such as Jerusalem crickets, longhorn beetles, scorpions, and occasionally large moths and grasshoppers (USDA 2001, Zeiner et al. 1990b). They use roads, meadows, oak woodlands and other open areas to hunt.

Dispersal/Migration Dispersal patterns in pallid bats aren’t known. Pallid bats are not known to migrate long distances. They are relatively inactive and either hibernate or enter extended periods of torpor during the winter. They can be found either singly or in small groups (Hermanson and O’Shea 1983).

Risk Factors USDA (2001) summarizes risk factors potentially influencing the abundance and distribution of pallid bats:

1) Loss of crevice and tree roosting habitat due to severe wildfire and timber harvest. 2) Human disturbance at roost sites can cause roost abandonment. 3) Loss of open foraging habitat from fire suppression. 4) Although largely unknown, insecticides may reduce prey base.

Townsend’s Big-Eared Bat (Corynorhinus townsendii) Species Account Status/Distribution The Townsend’s big-eared bat (Townsend’s) is a Region Five Forest Service Sensitive species and is designated as a Species of Special Concern by CDFG. They occur in low desert to mid-elevation montane habitats throughout the west and are distributed from the southern portion of British Columbia south along the Pacific Coast to central Mexico and east into the Great Plains, with isolated populations occurring in the south and southeastern United States (Kunz and Martin 1982). They can be found from sea level to 10,000 feet elevation and are considered yearlong residents. Their distribution in California is strongly correlated with limestone caves, old mines, and abandoned buildings (Ibid, USDA 2001). In the Sierra Nevada, they are associated with vegetation types such as Blue Oak Woodland, Sierran Mixed Conifer, and Montane Riparian (CDFG 2008). Population Trend Population trends are not known for Townsend’s bats, but they are thought to have declined in the past several decades (CDFG 1986). In the Mother Lode, colony size of Townsend’s bats has decreased from a mean of 200 individuals to less than 50 (USDA 2001). Approximately 52% of historical maternity roosts (located prior to 1980) are no longer occupied because the sites have been destroyed or rendered unusable (Ibid and O’Shea and Bogen 2003).

Survey Effort/Occurrence Bat surveys have been conducted on the forest and Townsend’s bats have been documented at Eagle Creek Camp pond, approximately 30 miles from the project action area (Gellman 1994). Presence throughout the action area is assumed.

Habitat Account General Townsend’s bats are uncommon and can be found in close association with limestone caves and abandoned mines. They readily forage in meadow habitat, often associated with willows (Linda Angerer, pers. comm.). They can also be found in other habitats including oak woodlands, grasslands, and riparian corridors. They typically roost in buildings, caves and mines, but can occasionally be found roosting in trees (Kunz and Martin 1982). Although not considered gregarious, they can be found roosting singly or together with big-eared bats and other species. Suitable habitat (foraging, breeding, and roosting) is present throughout the action area. There are no barriers precluding movement (dispersal, seasonal, etc.) of this species both within and in close proximity to the project area.

Breeding

Breeding occurs in the fall with delayed implantation occurring in the spring. Females form maternity colonies in the early spring/summer in warm parts of caves, mines and buildings (summarized in Kunz and Martin 1982). They exhibit a high degree of maternity roost site fidelity. Males roost singly or in small, same sex groups and can be found in close proximity to maternity colonies (personal observation). Foraging Townsend’s take primarily lepidopteron (moth) prey and are known as moth specialists (Kunz and Martin 1982 and Zeiner et al. 1990b). They forage along forested edges and vegetated stream corridors (Ibid). Dispersal/Migration Dispersal patterns in Townsend’s are not well known. They are considered a sedentary species and don’t make long distance migrations (Ibid). Pearson et al. (1952) documented an individual male that travelled 20 miles. Movements between maternity colony and hibernacula have been documented from 1.9 – 24.6 miles. Risk Factors Philpott (1997), USDA (2001), and Zeiner et al. (1990b) summarize risk factors potentially influencing the abundance and distribution of Townsend’s big-eared bats:

1) Human disturbance, demolition, renewed mining, hazard abatement and vandalism of caves, mines and other man made features that provide roosting habitat to this species.

2) Reduction in roosting habitat availability due to timber harvest. American Marten (Martes americana) Species Account Status/Distribution The American marten is a Region 5 Regional Forester Sensitive species and is also a Sierra Nevada Management Indicator Species (MIS), as described in the Hemlock Landscape Restoration MIS report available in the project record. In North America, marten range from the southern Rockies in New Mexico north to the tree line in Canada and Alaska, and from the southern Sierra Nevada eastward toward Newfoundland. In the western U.S., they are limited to mountain ranges within a narrow band of coniferous forest habitats (Ruggiero et al. 1994). They are rare compared to other forest carnivore species (USDA 2001). Their core elevation range is 5,500 – 10,000 feet, are most often documented above 7,200 feet; however, they have been documented as low as 3,400 feet. Population Trend Population estimates and/or trends are not available for marten in California. Although classified as a furbearer, there has been no open trapping season for this species since 1954 (USDA 2001). Declines in marten population size in the early twentieth century have been attributed to habitat modifications, trapping and predator control. Based on surveys conducted from 1989-1995, the American marten appears to occupy much of its historic range in California (Zielinski et al. 1995). Survey Effort/Occurrence Carnivore cameras stations were employed within suitable habitat in the Hemlock Landscape-Level Restoration Project 2011-2013, Ebbetts Pass and north of Bear Valley near the project area in 2001, 2002,

2010, 2012 and 2013 following the protocol designed by Zielinski and Kucera (1995). Marten detections were made as a result of these survey efforts. This species were documented within the project area at 14 of the camera stations. The project is within the current distribution of marten across the Sierra Nevada Bioregion. Their presence within the project action area is assumed where suitable habitat exists. Because there are no documented den sites within the project area, LOPs for this species are not required for this project. Habitat Account General Marten are considered one of the most habitat-specific mammals in North America. Habitat quality is likened to the structural diversity consistent with late seral, mesic coniferous forests, interspersed with riparian areas and meadows. Preferred forest vegetation types include red fir, red fir/white fir mix, lodgepole pine, and Sierra mixed conifer (Freel 1991). Marten home ranges are very large relative to their body size. Mean home ranges in the Central Sierra Nevada are 960 acres for males and 801 acres for females (USDA 2001). There are approximately 11,505 acres (82%) of suitable habitat within the project action area (CDFG 2008). The suitable habitat is arranged in a contiguous manner across the project area. There are no barriers precluding movement (dispersal, seasonal, etc.) of this species both within and in close proximity to the project area. Breeding Marten natal dens are typically found in cavities in large trees, snags, stumps, logs, burrows, caves, rocks, or crevices in rocky areas (USDA 1991). Dens are lined with vegetation and are found in structurally complex, late succession forests (Buskirk and Powell 1994). Breeding occurs from late June to early August, followed by embryonic dispause, and birth in March-April (Buskirk and Powell 1994). Freel (1991) and Spencer et al. (1983) characterized suitable habitat for denning/resting marten as follows:

Canopy cover ≥ 70% Largest live conifers are ≥ 24”dbh and occur at a density of at least 9/acre Live tree basal area ranges from 163-326 sq ft/acre Largest snags average 5/acre and are ≥ 24”dbh Coarse woody debris is present at 5-10 tons/acre in decay classes 1-2

Foraging Marten diet varies geographically and seasonally with local prey availability. In the Central Sierra, marten diets are comprised primarily of voles, while in the southern Sierra it is rodents (squirrels and voles), insects, hypogenous fungi and secondarily (less than 20% of diet) reptiles and birds (Zielinski et al. 1983 and Zielinski and Duncan 2004). Zielinski and others (1983) noted Douglas squirrels, snowshoe hare, northern flying squirrels and deer mice were the prey species used almost exclusively during the winter, while ground squirrels formed the largest component of the diet from late spring through fall. Coarse woody debris is an important component of marten habitat, especially in winter, when it provides structure that intercepts snowfall and creates subnivean (below snow) tunnels, interstitial spaces, and access holes. Zielinski and others (1983) suggested that marten activity varied to take advantage of subnivean dens utilized by their prey. Sherburne and Bissonette (1994) found that when coarse woody debris covered a greater percent of the ground, marten use also increased. Older growth forests

appeared to provide accumulated coarse woody debris necessary to enable marten to forage effectively during the winter. Freel (1991) and Spencer et al. (1983) characterized suitable habitat for travel/foraging marten as follows:

Canopy cover ≥ 40% Largest live conifers are ≥ 24”dbh and occur at a density of at least 6/acre Largest snags average 2.5/acre and are ≥ 24”dbh Coarse woody debris is present at 5-10 tons/acre in decay classes 1-3

Dispersal/Migration Reports of long-distance movements, likely representing dispersal, are largely anecdotal. Movement patterns in marten, dispersal and migration, have not been studied much for this species because of the difficulty and high cost of studying long-distance movements in small bodied mammals (Buskirk and Powell 1994, and Ruggiero et al. 1994). Martens exhibit seasonal variation in habitat selection within stable home ranges, with little evidence to suggest shifts in home range boundaries. Risk Factors Hargis et al. (1999) and USDA (2001) summarize several risk factors potentially influencing marten abundance and distribution:

1) Habitat fragmentation – Fragmentation can limit occupancy and dispersal of marten across the landscape. Marten were negatively associated with low levels of habitat fragmentation. When the average nearest neighbor distance between non-forested patches was < 100m., it created more edge and less interior forested habitat preferred by marten.

2) Meadow Habitat Degradation – Grazing can reduce the amount of shrub and herbaceous cover available and can increase soil compaction for prey species such as voles.

3) Fire suppression – Fire suppression has contributed to degraded conditions in meadows and riparian habitats by allowing encroachment of trees which reduces the availability of understory vegetation required by prey.

4) Lack of, or removal of coarse woody debris - Removal of coarse woody debris (piles of several smaller logs, or single large logs) can also reduce access and abundance of prey during the important winter months, and may also reduce resting site availability for marten.

Pacific Fisher (Martes pennanti) Species Account Status/Distribution In 2004, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) completed a 12-month status review of the fisher (Martes pennanti) and determined that the West Coast Distinct Population Segment (DPS) warranted protection under the Endangered Species Act of 1976 et seq. but was precluded from listing by higher priority actions (Federal Register Vol. 69 No. 68, April 8, 2004), making this fisher DPS a Candidate for listing. The West Coast Fisher DPS (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2004) includes all potential fisher habitat in Washington, Oregon and California from the east side of the Cascade Mountains and Sierra Nevada to the Pacific coast.

The state of California has listed fishers as Species of Concern since at least 1986 (http://www.dfg.ca.gov/wildlife/species/publications/mammal_ssc.html#a64). In March 2009, the California Fish and Game Commission recommended that the fisher be assessed for listing as threatened or endangered under the California State Endangered Species Act. This recommendation initiated a 12-month status review by CDFG culminating in a state listing determination. On March 3, 2010, the Department recommended that designation of the Pacific fisher in California as threatened/endangered is not warranted. On March 26, 2010, the Commission published notice of its intent to begin final consideration of the petition and invited additional scientific and related public input until May 28, 2010. On June 23, 2010, the Commission determined the designation of the Pacific fisher as threatened or endangered is not warranted (http://www.fgc.ca.gov/regulations/new/2009/pfntcreconsider.pdf). All California State threatened, endangered and special concern species are considered in the development of the Forest Service list of Sensitive Species. The fisher has been included on this Forest Service Sensitive Species list since 1984 (Macfarlane 1994). Forest Service wildlife biologists continue to analyze the species in Biological Evaluations as Sensitive, and have the additional option of requesting technical assistance from the USFWS due to Candidate for ESA listing status. The rounded Global conservation status of Pacific fisher West Coast DPS is “T2 – Imperiled” [“at high risk of extinction due to very restricted range, very few populations (often 20 or fewer), steep declines, or other factors”] (NatureServe 2005). The California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) rank is “S2 – Imperiled” [because of rarity due to very restricted range, very few populations (often 20 or fewer), steep declines, or other factors making it very vulnerable to extirpation from the state”] (NatureServe 2005). Grinnell et al. (1937) described the distribution of fishers in California as a continuous arc from the northern Coast Range eastward to the southern Cascades, and then south through the western slope of the Sierra Nevada, but did not attempt to estimate population numbers. The fisher historically occurred in the Lassen, Plumas, Tahoe, Lake Tahoe Basin, Eldorado, Stanislaus, Sierra, and Sequoia National Forests, but was not known to occur in the Modoc, Inyo or Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forests. As of 1995, Zielinski et al. determined that fishers remain extant in just two areas comprising less than half of the historic distribution: northwestern California and the southern Sierra Nevada from Yosemite National Park southward, separated by a distance of approximately 250 miles. Fisher populations are presently at low numbers or absent throughout most of their historic range in Montana, Idaho, Washington, Oregon, and California (Heinemeyer and Jones 1994). In recent decades, a scarcity of sightings in Washington, Oregon, and the northern Sierra Nevada may indicate fisher extirpation from much of this area (Aubry and Raley 1999, Carroll et al. 1999, Zielinski et al. 1995). The Sierra Nevada and northwestern California/Southwest Oregon populations appear to be the only naturally-occurring, known breeding populations of fishers in the Pacific region from southern British Columbia to California (Zielinski et al. 1997). Because fishers occur at lower elevations than martens, they are more likely to be directly affected by human activities. Fishers are long-lived, have low reproductive rates, large home ranges (for carnivores of their size) and exist in low densities throughout their range (Powell 1993). This implies that fishers are highly prone to localized extirpation, colonizing ability is somewhat limited, and that populations are slow to recover from deleterious impacts. Isolated populations are therefore unlikely to persist. Status and trend monitoring for fisher and American marten was initiated in 2002; the monitoring objective is to be able to detect a 20 percent decline in population abundance and habitat (USDA Forest Service 2006). This monitoring includes intensive sampling to detect population trends on the Sierra and Sequoia national forests, where the fisher currently occurs, and is supplemented by less intensive

sampling in suitable habitat in the central and northern Sierra Nevada specifically designed to detect population expansion. From 2002 – 2008, 439 sites were surveyed throughout the Sierra Nevada on 1,286 sampling occasions, with the bulk of the sampling effort occurring within the Southern Sierra fisher population monitoring study area (USDA Forest Service 2009). From 2002 thru 2006, 916 primary sample units were completed, consisting of greater than 4,500 individual survey stations for over 45,000 survey nights (USDA Forest Service 2006b). In the seven southern Sierra Nevada monitoring seasons to date (2002 – 2008), fishers were detected at a total of 112 of 251 sample units, or 44.6 percent of sites (USDA Forest Service 2009). Preliminary proportions of number of sample sites with fisher detections divided by the number of sites surveyed are presented in Table 8 and Table 9. Using future data, the proportions will be adjusted based upon fisher detectability, potentially resulting in higher annual estimates than those reported here; annual estimates will be used to monitor trend (USDA Forest Service 2006b). Table 8. Naïve (observed) occupancy rates, or the proportion of primary sample units detecting fisher across the entire fisher monitoring area (USDA Forest Service 2009, Truex et al. 2009).

Table 9. Naïve (observed) occupancy rates, or the proportion of primary sample units detecting fisher by area in the Sequoia and Sierra National Forests (USDA Forest Service 2009). Geographic areas are defined as Sequoia NF West Slope (including Hume Lake Ranger District), Sequoia Kern Plateau (the Kern Plateau portion of Sequoia National Forest), Sierra (Sierra National Forest), and Stanislaus (Stanislaus National Forest).

Year Fisher Detection Proportion

2002 0.252

2003 0.281

2004 0.207

2005 0.291

2006 0.276

2007 0.262

2008 0.241

2009 0.259 Year Sequoia NF West Slope Sequoia Kern Plateau Sierra Stanislaus*

2002 0.353 0.167 0.217 0.000

2003 0.483 0.133 0.200 0.000

2004 0.390 0.214 0.113 0.000

2005 0.514 0.294 0.155 0.000

2006 0.508 0.185 0.170 0.000

2007 0.540 0.222 0.142 0.000

2008 0.392 0.143 0.181 0.000

* It should be noted that fisher monitoring sites on the Stanislaus are relatively few in number (approximately 10) and limited to the Groveland

Ranger District south of Highway 120.

+ Sampling effort during 2009 was reduced on the Kern Plateau due to safety and operational considerations. Sampling was limited to the

northern portion of the plateau and the observed occupancy is likely higher than it would otherwise have been if sampling had occurred

throughout the area as in previous years (Truex, pers. comm.).

Zielinski (2004a) noted that a comparison of current vs. historic distribution is an essential step to assess the status of any wildlife population. Fishers appear to be absent from a 240 mile long expanse of their historic range in the northern and central Sierra Nevada (Zielinski et al. 1995). This gap is likely a result of negatively synergistic interactions resulting from historic patterns of logging, trapping, and porcupine (Erethizon dorsatum) poisoning (Zielinski 2004a); deeper snow levels in the northern Sierra Nevada (Krohn et al. 1997); higher densities of roads and human developments in the northern Sierra Nevada (Duane 1996); and the current distributions of other generalist carnivores (Campbell 2004). The current disjunct distribution pattern may also be partially attributed to movement and dispersal constraints imposed by the elongated and peninsular distribution of montane forests in the Pacific states (Wisely et al. 2004). Given the apparent reluctance of fishers to cross open areas (Earle 1978), and the more limited mobility of terrestrial mammals relative to birds, it is more difficult for fishers to locate and occupy distant, but suitable, habitat. Preliminary results indicate that fishers are well-distributed in portions of the Sequoia and Sierra NFs; annual occupancy rates are consistently higher on the Sequoia (33.3% to 41.1%) than the Sierra (14.5% to 22.7%) (USDA Forest Service 2005). Comparisons to southern Sierra Nevada survey data from the 1990’s suggest that the areal extent of occurrence for fisher may have expanded during the past 10 years (USDA Forest Service 2005). Additionally, although results may change a bit as modeling progresses by employing data subsequent to the 2002-2008 period, seven years of monitoring results (Table 2) suggest that there has been no conspicuous difference in occupancy rates among years, and no seasonal effects on detection probabilities within the June to October sampling periods (Truex et al. 2009). Some variability in detection rates occurs among the years for the three geographic areas (Table 3). Fishers are detected most often on the west slope of Sequoia National Forest (USDA Forest Service 2009). On-Going Studies, Population Trend, Population Genetics, Occurrence, and Habitat Carrying Capacity Estimates for Southern Sierra Nevada The well-studied Kings River Project (KRP) area is centrally located within the southern Sierra on the Sierra National Forest. Fishers have been studied and monitored within the KRP area since the mid-1990’s (Mazzoni 2002; Zielinski et al. 1997, 2005; Rick Truex, USFS, pers. comm. 2006). More recently, Kathryn Purcell and Craig Thompson from the USFS Pacific Southwest Research Station (PSW) have initiated a research project on fishers in and around the KRP area. Utilizing a combination of radio collared individuals, fisher scat detecting dogs and remote cameras, they have captured and collared a total of 49 fishers (20 males and 29 females), have adequate data (≥ 25 locations) to delineate home ranges for 29 individuals (8 males and 21 females), and located a total of 52 structures used as dens by reproductive female fishers (n = 14), including 19 natal dens, 33 maternal dens, and 1 unknown den (found late in the denning season) as of August 2009.

The Sierra Nevada Adaptive Management Project (http://snamp.cnr.berkeley.edu/) is also conducting an intensive investigation into fisher use of habitat and response to management disturbance, largely within the Sierra National Forest.

2009+ 0.514 0.462 0.118 0.000

An additional PSW research project, utilizing GPS collars to document the immediate response of fishers to fuel treatment actions in occupied fisher habitat is being conducted. To date, three sites; the Sequoia National Forest, Southern California Edison (near Shaver Lake) and the Klamath National Forest in southern Oregon have collared fisher and six more sites will be added to this effort in the future. Pre-treatment data is currently being collected for those sites with collared fisher and the first treatment is scheduled for the spring of 2011 (Craig Thompson pers. comm.).

A number of southern Sierra Nevada population estimates and simulations have been conducted, with results converging as presented in the following table.

Table 10. Estimates of the southern Sierra Nevada fisher population occurring across the Sequoia and Sierra National Forests, Mountain Home State Park, tribal lands, Yosemite and Sequoia/King’s Canyon National Parks.

Study or Researcher

Estimate of So. Sierra ADULT

Population

Number of Reproductive Adult Females (Ne)

Lamberson et al. (2000) 100 - 500 Not Estimated

Spencer et al. (2008) = CBI 160 - 360 50 - 120

Spencer et al. (2008) based on Jordan (2007).

276 - 359 55 - 83

From Spencer et al. (2008) based on Truex (2007) from Southern Sierra Nevada Monitoring (sampling theory extrapolation)

160 - 250 Not Estimated

Self et al. (2008) 548 - 598 Not Estimated

The Self et al. (2008) population estimate is believed to be higher than the others presented largely due to two factors: the inclusion of juvenile individuals in the estimate (which have high mortality rates and may not survive to become reproductively contributing members of the population), and the habitat basis used for calculating populations that assumed 100 percent occupancy of suitable habitat.

The Conservation Biology Institute (CBI) conducted an assessment of the status of fisher habitat and populations in the southern Sierra Nevada as of 2008. The report evaluated fisher habitat at the landscape, home range and the finer microhabitat scales. Results were provided as maps and digital GIS layers. The CBI report (Spencer et al. 2008) analyzed occupancy data as well as modeled habitat suitability to conclude that the fisher population in the southern Sierra Nevada (ignoring juveniles) is between 160 and 360 total individuals (and probably fewer than 300). Spencer et al. (2008) used the PATCH population model (Schumaker 1998) to determine that the southern Sierra Nevada supports a population of between 50-120 adult female fishers (i.e. Ne, or the number of females effectively contributing to reproduction).

Other authors (Lamberson et al. 2000) have also developed population estimates for the fisher population in the Southern Sierras, including the KRP area. Most recently, Purcell (pers. comm.) estimated the population for the Kings River Project area alone on the southern Sierra National Forest based on Mark Jordan’s (2007) population density estimates. Purcell estimated that 28 to 36 adult fishers occur in the KRP area, and the ongoing PSW research has collected home range and habitat use data on 29 fishers in and around the KRP area.

Spencer et al. (2008) estimated habitat carrying capacity for fishers on the combined suitable areas of the Stanislaus, Sierra, and Sequoia national forests as mapped by the Landis II model to be between 230 and

392 adults, of which 73 to147 individuals are reproductive females (Ne). This is 23 to 27 more effective females than estimated to be present in the population at this time. Most potential habitat on the Sierra and Sequoia National Forests is occupied; this is in stark contrast to the Stanislaus National Forest where no habitat is occupied (Spencer et al. 2008). CBI (Spencer et al. 2008) modeled probability of occurrence of fisher at elevations between 3,500 to 8,000 feet based on current and historic occupancy records at the home range and micro-site scales. This should be considered to be the core of fisher range, despite occasional detections above or below these elevations. Data utilized in this suitability analysis were restricted to locations where fishers were detected in more than one year to provide a more accurate estimate of occupancy, and avoid overemphasis on what might be transient individuals. This was a coarse scale analysis and site specific data gathered at the project level should be used for project analysis of existing condition and effects. The CBI Phase II report: Baseline Evaluation of Fisher Habitat, Fires and Vegetation Dynamics in the Southern Sierra Nevada (Spencer et al. 2008) linked and fine-tuned the Phase I habitat and population models with a vegetation dynamics model, LANDIS-II, simulating predicted changes in forest vegetation in response to wildfires, management actions, climate change, and ecological succession. Results of this modeling exercise are discussed in the Effects Section of this document. They generally concluded that the threat of uncharacteristically severe wildfire outweighs the threat of short term declines in habitat suitability, with specific caveats disclosed in the report. The maintenance of the southern Sierra Nevada fisher population may be critical to conserving fisher populations in the western United States (Zielinski 2004a) because it appears to support unique genetic and behavioral adaptations to extreme environmental conditions for this species. Several studies have revealed genetic patterns that appear to arise from the disjunct nature of fisher population distributions in the Pacific States, and point to reduced genetic diversity in the southern Sierra Nevada population (Drew et al. 2003, Wisely et al. 2004). Wisely et al. (2004) analyzed fisher genetic samples available at that time to investigate the role of landscape features in fisher phylogeography in the narrow strip of suitable forested habitat in the southern Sierra Nevada. The study concluded that fisher expansion southward into the west coast mountain chains occurred less than 5,000 years ago, leading to reduced genetic diversity and increased population structure at the southern periphery of its range. This suggested that dispersal was limited, and aggressive conservation strategies are needed to reconnect extant populations. Consistent with this genetic analysis, the Kings River was postulated to constitute a major barrier to gene flow, and perhaps permeable to just one migrant every 50 generations (Wisely et al. 2004). The principles of conservation biology dictate that for a population to maintain genetic diversity there should be at least one migrant every 20 generations. Thus, these results were cause for significant concern. More recently, about 163 additional fisher DNA samples have been analyzed as part of an on-going Master’s thesis. In a progress report on this work, Tucker et al. (2009) discovered much higher levels of population connectivity in the southern Sierra Nevada. A cluster analysis using the program GENELAND (Guillot et al. 2005) signaled the presence of three intermixing population groupings: one in the far northwest portion of the Sierra National Forest, another encompassing the rest of Sierra National Forest through Sequoia/Kings Canyon National Park, and a southern third on the Sequoia National Forest (Tucker et al. 2009). Preliminary data indicate that at least one individual per generation moves from the northwest Sierra to the central population group, and up to 3.5 individuals per generation are interchanged between the central and southern genetic group, allaying concerns regarding presence of significant barriers to movement (Tucker et al. 2009). Thus, Kings River does not appear to constitute a barrier to fisher movement, as previously proposed in Wisely et al. (2004). It should be emphasized that Tucker’s work is ongoing and it is almost certain that the results and interpretations will change a bit in

the continuing process. Nonetheless, the bottom line will remain that Wisely et al. (2004) were hampered by a very limited dataset. Survey Effort/Occurrence There are approximately 10,628 acres (75%) of suitable habitat within the project action area (CDFG 2008). The suitable habitat is arranged in a contiguous manner across the project area. There are no barriers precluding movement (dispersal, seasonal, etc.) of this species both within and in close proximity to the project area. Fishers are not known to occur within the project area. The last known occurrences near the project area were within Ebbetts Pass in the 1960s. Habitat Account General In the Sierra Nevada, fisher habitat occurs in mid-elevation forests (Grinnell et at. 1937, Zielinski et al. 1997) largely on National Forest System lands, below the elevations of national parks and wilderness areas. In the southern Sierra Nevada, fishers occur sympatrically with martens (Martes americana) at elevations of 5,000 to 8,500 feet in mixed conifer forests (Zielinski et al. 1995). The Sierra Nevada status and trend monitoring project (USDA Forest Service 2006b) has detected fishers as low as 3,110 feet and as high as 9,000 feet in the southern Sierra Nevada, which are considered to be extremes of the elevation range.

Table 11. CWHR2.1 high and moderate capability habitat for Pacific fisher (CWHR 2008 as modified by Davis et al. 2007 [CWHR2] and applied to southern Sierra Nevada forest types [CWHR2.1]).

CWHR2.1 Habitats

CWHR2.1 High and Moderate Capability Size,

Canopy Cover, and Substrate Classes

JEFFREY PINE 4P, 4M, 4D, 5M, 5D

MONTANE HARDWOOD-CONIFER 4P, 4M, 4D, 5S, 5P, 5M, 5D, 6

PONDEROSA PINE 4P, 4M, 4D, 5P, 5M, 5D

SIERRAN MIXED CONIFER 4P, 4M, 4D, 5S, 5P, 5M, 5D, 6

WHITE FIR 4P, 4M, 4D, 5S, 5P, 5M, 5D, 6

The following California Wildlife Habitat Relationships (CWHR) types were thought to be important to fishers: generally structure classes 4M, 4D, 5M, 5D and 6 (stands with trees 11” diameter at breast height or greater and greater than 40% cover) in ponderosa pine, montane hardwood-conifer, Klamath mixed-conifer, Douglas-fir, mixed conifer, montane riparian, aspen, redwood, red fir, Jeffrey pine, lodgepole pine, subalpine conifer, and eastside pine (Timossi 1990). CWHR assigns habitat values according to expert panel ratings. CWHR2 is a derivative of the CWHR fisher habitat relationship model constructed by Davis et al. (2007). They used best available science to revise the statewide model and eliminate some forest types that appeared to contribute little to fisher habitat: aspen, eastside pine, lodgepole pine, montane riparian, red fir, and subalpine conifer. We have further refined CWHR2 to reflect only those

forest types present in the southern Sierra Nevada: Jeffrey pine, montane hardwood-conifer, Ponderosa pine, Sierran mixed-conifer and white fir, terming it CWHR2.1. Fishers (Martes pennanti) are among the most habitat-specific animals in North America, and changes in quality, quantity and distribution of available habitat can affect fisher distribution in California (Buskirk and Powell 1994). The southern Sierra Nevada mountain range provides habitat for the southernmost population of fishers in the world. Despite what appears to be historical isolation from populations to the north, the small southern Sierra fisher population has persisted for many decades (Spencer et al. 2008). Systematic monitoring since the 1990’s has provided some evidence of recent population expansion (Truex, pers. comm.). Reproduction, Recruitment, and Survival Fishers have relatively low reproductive rates, with birth occurring in late March to early April. Conservation of reproductive sites (generally > 41”dbh, range 16”-58”dbh, live or dead white fir or black oak in >90%, canopy closure - see description of Sequoia National Forest den sites selected in Table 14a) is essential to prevent degradation of habitats used by females during the reproductive period.

Caution must be exercised in interpreting measurements of canopy cover. Measurements from spherical densiometers used in most pre-2002 studies differ significantly (are much higher) than measures used in project level analysis by the Forest Service, which are generally based on aerial photo interpretation or satellite imagery. Based on moosehorn readings taken at the 14 dens found on KRP in 2008, the average canopy cover was 73% (range 56-93%), which converts to 66% (range 52-76) based on FIA non-overlapping points (Thompson and Purcell, pers. comm.). Therefore the 90% canopy closure figure in the previous paragraph may be easily misapplied.

Selection of natal (birthing) and maternal (kit raising) dens is highly specific. Reproductive, thermal, and escape cover must exist in the proper juxtaposition within specific habitats in order to provide a secure environment for birth and rearing of fisher kits. All known natal and maternal dens in the western United States have been in large diameter logs, snags, or cavities of large diameter live conifers or oaks (Powell and Zielinski 1994, Zielinski et al. 1995, Truex et al. 1998). Natal dens in the Southern Sierra Nevada have not occurred in downed woody material of any diameter (Thompson pers. comm., Sweitzer pers. comm.) The current KRP fisher study reported a 70% rate of reproduction for adult females (7 of 10) in 2007, 91 percent (10 of 11 adult females) in 2008, and 66 percent in 2009 (12 of 18 females), with an average litter size of 1.5 kits (n = 18; Thompson, pers. comm.). Nineteen natal and 33 maternal den trees have been located to date. Forty-four percent of dens (n = 52) were found in California black oak, all but one living. Conifer species used included white fir (9 live trees and 6 snags), incense cedar (5 live and 4 snags), ponderosa pine (2 live and 1 snag), and sugar pine (2 live trees). This ongoing study as well as the concurrent Sierra Nevada Adaptive Management Project (SNAMP) is anticipated to provide the only information ever recorded for fisher population recruitment in California.

The SNAMP project has reported results from two field seasons (2007-2008) = Year 1, and 2008-2009 = Year 2) (derived from http://snamp.cnr.berkeley.edu/documents/284/ as accessed December 1, 2009). Reproduction was similar across both sampling periods at 80 percent and 81 percent for Year 1 & Year 2, respectively. Fecundity was estimated at 1.45 (± SD 0.52) kits per female for 11 adult females in 2009. Survival in the SNAMP project area of the northern Sierra National Forest was lowest during spring in both years; the overall survival rate was 60 percent in Year 1 and 67 percent in Year 2. The upper limit of life expectancy for fishers in the wild was generally thought to be about 10 years (Powell 1993) until a 12-year-old individual was wild-trapped in British Columbia (Weir 2003). On the KRP

http://snamp.cnr.berkeley.edu/documents/284/

fisher study, 8 females previously marked by M. Jordan for his thesis were captured (Purcell, pers. comm.). One died at a minimum of 11 years (exact age pending) and had reproduced in her final year. A second is still alive at a minimum of 10 years and reproduced in both 2006 and 2008. The others currently range from 6 to 8 years old and most are currently reproducing. We have used 10 years to be generally representative of a fisher generation in this analysis. Diseases and Parasites All wild populations are infected to some extent by diseases and parasites. The potential negative impact of disease increases as populations become small and isolated (Brown et al. 2008). Blood samples show evidence of past exposure but the animal is not necessarily infected and cannot transmit the virus; scat samples show active infections where the disease can be transmitted (Purcell, pers. comm.). Viruses and bacteria associated with fishers or related mustelids are summarized in Brown et al. (2008) and include: canine distemper, parvoviruses, influenza, corona viruses, and canine adenovirus (the cause of canine infectious hepatitis), West Nile virus, Brucella spp. (the cause of brucellosis), Yersinia pestis (the cause of the plague), and Leptospira interogans (the cause of leptospirosis). Thompson (pers. comm.) found that 8 of 19 fishers captured in the KRP area showed evidence of past exposure to parvovirus, 3 of 19 showed evidence of past exposure to canine adenovirus, and one animal was actively infected with parvovirus (M. Gabriel, unpublished data). The SNAMP study documented four disease mortalities in the first 2 years of the study: 3 from canine distemper and 1 resulting from Toxoplasma gondii, the causative agent for toxoplasmosis (from http://snamp.cnr.berkeley.edu/documents/284/ as accessed December 1, 2009). Domestic dogs may act as infectious agents to transmit some of the above pathogens. The parvovirus strain found in southern Sierra fishers is identical to that typically carried by domestic dogs (M. Gabriel, unpublished data). Some infectious agents are shed in the saliva, nasal discharge, or feces of infected animals, and persist in the environment, creating a contamination risk for equipment used for the trapping and handling of fishers leading to infection of subsequent captures (Brown et al. 2008). Negatively synergistic effects may occur when fishers are infected by one or more pathogens, lowering general fitness, increasing risk of predation, or decreasing reproductive capability. Mortality In 1998, Truex et al. reported that mortality rates of adult female fishers in the southern Sierra population appeared to be high. To date, the KRP Fisher Project on the Sierra National Forest has detected heavily male-biased mortality, attributed to their more exploratory behavior (Thompson, pers. comm.). Since Feb 2007, 5 of 32 females have died, all from predation; in contrast, 11 of 24 males have died from a variety of causes (Thompson, pers. comm.). Thru 2009, SNAMP has captured and collared 50 individual fishers, and documented causes of mortality for 22 fishers. The major causes of mortality include predation, roadkill, and disease distributed as follows: 10 from predation (2 bobcat, 2 mountain lion, 5 pending, 1 unknown), 5 roadkills, 1 each from rodenticide, drowning, and starvation. The SNAMP project documented one fisher mortality due to canine distemper and another due to Toxoplasma gondii, the causative agent for toxoplasmosis (from http://snamp.cnr.berkeley.edu/documents/284/ as accessed December 1, 2009). On the Hoopa Reservation in northwest California, fisher predation mortality is high, and primarily due to bobcats (Felis rufus), although coyotes (Canis latrans) and mountain lions (Felis concolor) also take fishers (Higley, pers. comm.). One might speculate that habitat alterations favoring bobcats, mountain lions or coyotes could increase fisher mortalities (Macfarlane, pers. comm.). Bobcats find optimal habitat in brushy stages of low and mid-elevation conifer, oak, riparian, and pinyon-juniper forests, and all stages of chaparral (http://www.dfg.ca.gov/biogeodata/cwhr/cawildlife.aspx). Coyotes frequent open brush, scrub, shrub, and herbaceous habitats, and are also found in younger stands of deciduous and conifer



forest and woodland with low to intermediate canopy, and shrub and grass understory (http://www.dfg.ca.gov/biogeodata/cwhr/cawildlife.aspx). Mountain lions are most abundant in riparian areas, and brushy stages of most habitats (http://www.dfg.ca.gov/biogeodata/cwhr/cawildlife.aspx). In the KRP study area, Thompson (pers. comm.) reported two mortalities due to suspected mountain lion predation, one confirmed from bobcat predation, one confirmed coyote predation, one entombment, one vehicle collision, one drowning (on the SNAMP project) and three unknown predation incidents. Fishers are innately curious and tend to explore small openings. Multiple deaths have been documented from fisher entering cisterns, pipes, tubes, open water tanks and other dead ends from which they cannot escape. These structures have been associated with recreation residences/summer homes, forest in-holdings and at a timber operator’s staging area. Foraging Food habit studies by Grenfell and Fasenfest (1979) in northwestern California and Zielinski et al. (1999) in the southern Sierra Nevada show a wide diversity of prey. Common prey in both studies were squirrels (California ground squirrel [Spermophilus beecheyi], western gray squirrel [Sciurus griseus], and Douglas squirrel [Tamiasciurus douglasii]), mice (deer mouse [Peromyscus spp.], harvest mouse [Reithrodontomys megalotis], voles [Microtus spp.]), deer (Odocoileus hemionus) carrion, beetles, social wasps, and false truffles [Rhizopogan spp.]). Southern Sierra fishers also fed on alligator lizards (Elgaria spp.) and berries (Ribes spp., Arctostaphylos spp.) (Zielinski et al. 1999), indicating that this most southern of fisher populations was exploiting a variety of food as well as relatively small prey species. Golightly et al. (2006) found that reptiles were seasonally important in their northern California study area. Some prey species (e.g., Peromyscus, Scapanus, Thomomys) frequent early-seral stages of coniferous forests, while chaparral provides optimal habitat for some reptiles, lagomorphs, deer mice, and deer as well as shrub species that produce fruits consumed by fishers (Zielinski et al. 1999).

California fishers respond to changing prey densities (Kuehn 1989) by shifting their seasonal diets. Increased use of mice and carrion in the winter, and berries in the fall probably compensate for the unavailability of hibernating squirrels and reptiles (Zielinski et al. 1999), and reflects a generally opportunistic strategy. Further, the diversity of prey in the diet of southern Sierra fishers may also reflect the diversity of habitats (and niches) in this region. Many of the prey species found in the diet of fishers occur primarily in large tree and dense canopy coniferous forests and oak woodland habitats, while others prefer chaparral and deciduous riparian areas (Zielinski et al. 1999). Oak, especially, may be important as sources of mast that may stimulate higher prey densities (Powell and Zielinski 1994). In general, as compared to more northern fisher ranges, the drier southern Sierra Nevada provides a diversity of habitats and prey species, following a recognized pattern of increased species richness with decreased latitude (Pianka 1966). This pattern may also manifest in the diverse diet of the southern Sierra population of fisher, especially with the emergence of reptiles, insects, false truffles, and berries as important food items. Zielinski et al. (1999) note that prey habitat provides limited inferences about the habitat of fishers because fishers spend much of their time in non-foraging habitat like resting sites. Zielinski and Duncan (2004) compared the diets of fishers and martens (Martes americana) where they co-occur in the southern Sierra Nevada. Both species are at the southernmost extremes of their geographic range in this area. Populations occurring at the margin of their range usually exist in environmental conditions differing from those in the heart of the range, including prey availability and foraging conditions (Hoffman and Blows 1994). Zielinski and Duncan (2004) confirm this to be the case, and document diverse and similar diets for both species in this area. They offer two explanations for this phenomenon: the relative absence of larger prey species like leporids plus an alternative theory they prefer, that fishers conduct opportunistic exploitation of the high variety of foods available for consumption.

http://www.dfg.ca.gov/biogeodata/cwhr/cawildlife.aspx

http://www.dfg.ca.gov/biogeodata/cwhr/cawildlife.aspx

Territoriality and Home Range Fishers were thought to exhibit intrasexual territoriality, where individuals defend a home range against members of the same sex, but there is considerable overlap between sexes (Johnson et al. 2000). These territories are maintained year-round except during the breeding season when males trespass on each other’s territories while they search for receptive females (Powell 1993). However, intriguingly, initial results indicate high intrasexual territory overlap in the Kings River area (Mazzoni 2002, Purcell, pers. comm.). This constitutes a departure from traditional thinking on fisher intrasexual home ranges. Table 13. Average fisher home range sizes in the Southern Sierra Nevada of California.

Southern Sierra Nevada

National Forest

MEAN MALE Home Range

(acres)

MEAN FEMALE Home Range (acres)

Source

Sequoia Sequoia

Sequoia NF Mean

Sierra Sierra

9,855a

7,409d

8,632

15,385 5,421

1,644a

1,304d

1,474

3,534 2,945

Zielinski et al. (1997) Zielinski et al. (2004b)

Arithmetic Mean

Thompson et al. (2009)b Mazzoni (2002)c

Sierra NF Mean 10,403 3,240 Arithmetic Mean a Mean of two home range estimating techniques: 95% minimum convex polygon, and adaptive kernel. b Fixed kernel estimates based on 8 male and 17 female territories. Male territories include breeding season movements and may therefore overestimate actual territory size. c 95% Minimum convex polygon estimate d 100% MCP

The Table 13 home range acreages are limited by the differences in home range size calculation techniques, which vary from very restrictive (likely underestimate of size) to very liberal (probable overestimate of size). SNAMP data (from http://snamp.cnr.berkeley.edu/documents/Fisher/ as accessed December 1, 2009) from the northern Sierra National Forest have found that the core use area of denning female fishers ranges from about 600 to 800 acres, validating the 700 acre den buffer established by the Forest Service (USDA 2001, 2004). Movements – Daily, Breeding, Dispersal Fishers may be active day or night, but peaks occur at sunrise and sunset (Powell 1993). Assuming two activity periods per day, Powell (1993) estimated fishers may move up to 3.1 miles/day. In southern Oregon, breeding movements by males began one to two months prior to the breeding season of late February to the end of April (Douglas and Strickland 1987) and terminated at their non-breeding home range by the end of April (Aubry and Raley 2006). Dispersal has profound implications to mammalian population structure, affecting the ability to colonize vacant habitat (Bowman et al. 2001), dispersion (Shaw 1995), spacing patterns (Krebs et al. 1969), allelic frequencies (Landry and Lapointe 1999), demographics (Krohne and Hoch 1999), and extinction thresholds (Fahrig 2001). Bowman et al. (2002) demonstrated that dispersal distance of mammals after translocation was more closely related to the size of their home range than body size. In 2003, Weir summarized information about fisher dispersal movements and concluded that they were capable of long distance movements, and that neither major rivers nor other topographic features appear to pose impenetrable barriers. Recent anecdotal evidence shows that rivers may serve as filters, however (Purcell, pers. comm.). Other considerations such as availability of suitable habitat and prey, avoidance of mortality factors like predators, and the presence of conspecifics (which seems to serve as an

http://snamp.cnr.berkeley.edu/documents/Fisher/

attractant), may interact to influence dispersal (Weir 2003). In southern Oregon, juvenile female fishers dispersed from 0 to 10.6 miles, with a mean of 3.7 miles, while males in the same area ranged from 4.4 to 34.2 miles, with a mean of 18.0 miles (Aubry and Raley 2006). Habitat Relationships General Fishers use large areas of primarily coniferous forests with fairly dense canopies and large trees, snags, and down logs. A vegetated understory and large woody debris appear important for their prey species. It is assumed that fishers will use patches of quality habitat that are interconnected by other forest types, whereas they will not likely use patches of habitat that are separated by large open areas lacking canopy cover (Buskirk and Powell 1994). Buck et al. (1994) described 1970’s research in managed Douglas-fir and white fir forests in northwestern California. They detected a selection pattern favoring residual stands of mature forest in areas heavily harvested for timber.

Riparian corridors (Heinemeyer and Jones 1994) and forested saddles between major drainages (Buck 1983) may provide important dispersal habitat or landscape linkages for the species. Riparian areas are important to fishers because they provide concentrations of large rest site elements, such as broken top trees, snags, and coarse woody debris (Seglund 1995), perhaps because they persisted in the mesic riparian microtopography through historic fires.

Habitat suitable for resting and denning sites is thought to be most limiting to the population; therefore, these habitats should be given more weight than foraging habitats when planning or assessing habitat management (Powell and Zielinski 1994, Zielinski et al. 2004a). Fishers generally use at least one rest site per day, and rarely reuse rest site structures (Kilpatrick and Rego 1994, Seglund 1995, Zielinski et al. 2004a). Zielinski et al. (2004a) argue that retaining and recruiting large trees, snags, and logs, encouraging dense canopies and structural diversity, and retaining and recruiting large hardwoods are important for producing high quality fisher habitat and resting/denning sites.

Average fisher home range sizes in California are displayed under Territoriality and home range section beginning on page 43 of this document. Zielinski et al. (2004b) speculated that the relatively small home range sizes of fisher in the southern Sierra reflect higher habitat quality due to greater abundance of black oak that provides cavities and prey food resources. West Coast Fisher Distinct Population Segment (DPS) Habitats Examining a number of habitat association studies from British Columbia southward to California (Weir and Corbould 2007, Klug 1997, Carroll 2005, Yaeger 2005, Self and Kerns 2001, Truex et al. 1998, Seglund 1995, Dark 1997, Buck et al. 1994, Zielinski et al. 2004, Zielinski et al. 2006) a number of unifying themes emerge, as elucidated by the interagency, international West Coast Fisher Biology Team (pers. comm. 2009) and presented below.

1) Fishers are not confined to landscapes with extensive areas of old forests. The original perceived relationship seems to originate from the fact that structural elements (large live and dead trees and logs) selected by fishers for resting and denning occur more commonly in old forests than in heavily managed landscapes. Younger forested landscapes that contain these decadent, large structural elements are successfully used by fishers.

2) Fishers use structural elements characteristic of old forests, but do not appear to require “complex” forest ecosystems per se. They use a wide range of forested communities, some of which are structurally complex, and others of which are relatively simple. Most important to

fisher selection appears to be functioning ecological processes and adequate site productivity to provide protective cover, prey base, down wood, and trees with cavities and platforms for resting and denning opportunities. Silvicultural practices that remove many large trees and snags, eliminate coarse woody debris, and exclude low market value species of hardwoods and conifers simplify landscapes and reduce ecological value to fishers.

3) Hardwood trees to provide mast for prey and cavities for fisher resting and denning are important in the southern Sierra Nevada. Areas with substantive mast production result in small fisher home ranges, indicative of higher quality habitat and population densities.

4) Fishers require cavities in 25 to 65 inch dbh trees of a variety of live or dead tree species to raise young in the southern Sierra Nevada. Hardwoods used for denning were generally smaller than 37” dbh (Truex, pers. comm.). Live conifers had dead tops or dead portions in the bole, oaks accounted for the smaller dbh’s used, and black oak provided the most suitable den cavities for fisher reproduction (Thompson and Purcell, pers. comm.). Large conifers contribute substantially to the pool of available den trees. There may be ecological compensation factors in play: where conifers are limited (due to site potential, past management, etc.), hardwoods may be of critical importance, and where hardwoods are rare for the same reasons, conifers with cavities are likely critical (Truex, pers. comm.). Cavities appear to be most critical and larger, older trees of any given species are more likely to have formed such cavities

5) Functioning ecological processes are important for creating reproductive dens. Tree cavities are created when heart-rot decay fungi infect a tree that may be otherwise distressed by physiological stress, injuries to bole or branches that provide infection points of entry, and tree age (Manion 1991). Cavities are created when the heart-rot decay becomes so advanced that the interior core of heartwood begins to collapse (Bull et al. 1997). Pileated woodpeckers (Dryocopus pileatus) are thought to excavate cavities suitably sized for female fisher access. Physical damage such as broken branches and fire scars also create cavities.

6) Microclimate and security influence use of structures for resting. Thermoregulation, minimization of predation risk and the need for secure habitat for consuming prey are likely influences in fisher selection of resting sites. Platforms for resting in live trees are created by growth of large masses of dwarf mistletoe and rust brooms, tree age and therefore susceptibility to infection, and bird and rodent nests. Ecological processes that create these forms must be present. Rest structure reuse is very low throughout the West Coast DPS (typically less than 5 percent, compared to 14 percent in the southern Sierra Nevada), so many alternate rest trees must be present within the home range of any given fisher. The observed use of snags as rest structures increases as one moves from north (Canada) to south (California).

Southern Sierra Nevada Fisher Habitats General. Habitat is largely restricted to a narrow north-south band on mostly western slopes of mid-elevation forests in the southern Sierra Nevada Mountains (Spencer et al. 2008). It is associated with mesic topographic positions (northern slopes) in areas of lower precipitation (less persistent snow cover), and is concentrated in or near large old stands of mixed conifer, sequoia, and Ponderosa pine, especially areas with black oak (Spencer et al. 2008). An analysis of Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA) plot data from suitable habitats demonstrated that highly suitable resting microhabitats in the form of clusters of very large trees surrounded by dense canopy are relatively rare (Spencer et al. 2008).

Mazzoni (2002) studied habitat use by fishers in the Kings’ River Experimental Watershed (southern Sierra Nevada). Ninety percent of fisher rest sites were in large live trees (mean dbh = 37in) and large snags (mean dbh = 40in). Large logs as well as stumps and rock crevices were also used for resting. Selection for resting in white fir, ponderosa pine and black oak was evident, and selection against incense cedar and sugar pine was documented. Compared to random sites, areas of 2.47 acres surrounding rest sites had greater levels of canopy, coarse woody debris, basal area, crown volume and canopy layering. Rest sites were closer to water than random sites, and Mazzoni (2002) suggests this may be an artifact of riparian buffers that retain large structural elements of the habitat and dense canopy. The importance of ecological processes such as decay and disease, especially mistletoe brooms, are highlighted for creating fisher rest structures. This has also been documented in other portions of the fisher’s range (Paragi et al. 1996, Parks et al. 1999).

Zielinski et al. (2004a) found that female rest sites, when compared to random sites, included denser canopies, larger trees, steeper slopes, and greater presence of large conifer snags.

Den Site Selection It is important to review data most localized to the analysis area because that best reflects availability and use of habitat elements in the specific geographic vicinity being analyzed. Where such data are lacking, expanding the data universe to include the nearest information is an accepted scientific practice. Due to ecological differences, separation of data for conifer and hardwood den trees is recommended (Truex, pers. comm.).

Table 14a. Natal and maternal DENS with surrounding habitat for female fishers on the Sequoia National Forest in the Southern Sierra region of California from 1992-1996. Natal dens refer to the site where parturition is assumed to have occurred, while maternal dens refer to sites where an adult female was observed resting with one or more kit(s). Derived from Truex et al. (1998).

Individual Den Type Tree Spp Tree

Condition Inches dbh

Basal area (ft2/ac)

*Canopy Closure %

1 Natal ABCO snag 58.3 140 94

1 Natal UNKN snag 44.1 280 96

2 Natal ABCO live 32.3 280 96

3 Natal QUKE live 39.0 260 93

3 Natal QUKE live 29.9 500 97

3 Maternal QUKE live 15.7 101 89

3 Maternal ABCO live 57.5 121 93

4 Maternal QUKE live 20.5 262 96

STUDY AREA COMBINED MEAN n/a n/a 94

CONIFER MEAN 49.4 180 94

HARDWOOD MEAN 26.3 351 94

LIVE TREE MEAN 32.5 254 94

SNAG MEAN 51.2 210 95 *Canopy cover was measured using a spherical densiometer held at waist height and therefore included tall shrubs and small trees. These understory layers provide ‘over-fisher’ cover below the overstory canopy that is typically measured in USFS aerial photo interpretation methodology. Thus, these canopy cover figures are considerably higher than remotely-sensed overstory canopy cover data. It is the remotely-sensed data that are used for project analyses.

Den site structural elements must exist in the proper juxtaposition within specific habitats in order to provide a secure environment for birth and rearing of fisher kits. Natal dens, where kits are born, are most commonly in tree cavities at heights of greater than 20 feet (Lewis and Stinson 1998). Maternal

dens, where kits are raised, may be in cavities closer to the ground so active kits can avoid injury in the event of a fall from the den (Lewis and Stinson 1998).

Table 14b. Natal and maternal DEN means for female fishers in KRP area of Sierra National Forest through 2009. Natal dens refer to the site where parturition is assumed to have occurred, while maternal dens refer to sites where an adult female was observed resting with one or more kit(s). (Purcell and Thompson, pers. comm.)

Den type Substrate Mean DBH (in) N

Natal Live conifer 44.3 9

Live hardwood 35.8 8

Snag conifer 31.7 1

Snag hardwood 28.0 1

Maternal Live conifer 39.6 7

Live hardwood 30.0 14

Snag conifer 39.6 12

Snag hardwood -- 0

Den tree data collected in KRP area on the Sierra National Forest in 2008 and 2009 (Purcell, pers. comm.) included use of black oak, white fir, incense cedar, ponderosa pine, and sugar pine. Oaks selected as den sites averaged 31.9 inches dbh (range 20-53 inches dbh) and conifers averaged 40.7 inches dbh (range 26-64 inches dbh). Twenty-three of 52 dens (44%) were in black oaks, which do not typically leaf out until mid–late May, thus providing little canopy cover during actual use periods. Selection of these sites may be driven by their location and associated access to warming morning sun (Purcell and Thompson, pers. comm.). All confirmed births through the 2008 field season occurred between 30 March and 11 April, and natal dens were occupied for 2 to 8 weeks.

In 2007 and 2008, den sites in the KRP area occurred in Sierran mixed conifer, montane hardwood-conifer and ponderosa pine forest types (Purcell, pers. comm.). Black oak was strongly selected as the den tree (Thompson pers. comm.). On the KRP study area, natal dens (n=7) averaged 46 feet high with a range of 6 to 110 feet (Purcell, pers. comm.). Maternal dens (n=7) on the KRP averaged 21.6 feet high, with a range of 9 to 41 feet (Purcell, pers. comm.). Generally, natal dens were found to be larger than maternal dens, only 1 hardwood snag was used, and conifer snags appear to be used more as maternal dens (Purcell and Thompson, pers. comm.). As of 2009, average canopy cover was 74.3% (SD = 12.4, range 47.5 – 99.0, n = 51). Moosehorn readings at 2, 5, 10, and 15 m, in 4 directions were averaged to measure canopy cover (Purcell and Thompson, pers. comm.).

Table 14c. 2009 Natal and maternal fisher dens in the SNAMP Fisher Study Area, covering most of Bass Lake Ranger District, where the Sugar Pine Project occurs. R.Sweitzer (unpublished data).

Individual Den Type Tree Species Tree Condition Dbh (inches)

1 Natal PILA live 43.3

1 Maternal PILA live 47.2

4 Natal CADE live 35.4

4 Maternal CADE live 43.3

4 Maternal ABCO live 47.2


Individual Den Type Tree Species Tree Condition Dbh (inches)

6 Natal CADE live no data

6 Maternal fir snag 27.6

7 Natal QUKE live 39.4


7 Maternal QUKE live 35.4

11 Natal ABCO snag no data


12 Maternal CADE snag 39.4



13 Maternal CADE* snag 29.5 - 39.4







18 Natal QUKE snag 41.3



18 Maternal QUKE snag 29.5

23 Natal QUKE snag 29.5




25 Natal ABCO live 39.4




25 Maternal CADE 4m high burned

stump 21.7

25 Maternal PILA snag 47.2

2009 SNAMP STUDY AREA COMBINED MEAN (RANGE) 38.1 (21.7-51.2)

CONIFER MEAN (RANGE) 39.6 (21.7-51.2)

HARDWOOD MEAN (RANGE) 33.0 (25.6-41.3)

CONIFER LIVE TREE MEAN 40.8

HARDWOOD LIVE TREE MEAN 32.7

CONIFER SNAG MEAN 34.1

HARDWOOD SNAG MEAN 33.4

CONIFER NATAL DEN MEAN 40.2

HARDWOOD NATAL DEN MEAN 36.7

CONIFER MATERNAL DEN MEAN 39.4

HARDWOOD MATERNAL DEN MEAN 30.7

* SNAMP Data sheet describes the species as "likely cedar"

As of 1998 (Truex et al.), natal dens in the Southern Sierra were located in white fir or black oak. Subsequently, most natal and maternal dens were in large conifers (white fir, sugar pine or Ponderosa

pine in southern Sierra) or oaks (California black oak in southern Sierra), generally in live form (Truex et al. 1998, Mazzoni 2002, Zielinski et al. 2004a). All natal dens were established during the last week of March or the first week in April and were occupied for 4 to 7 weeks. The canopy closure surrounding these den trees ranged from 89 to 97 percent, measured by spherical densiometer (implying a bias on the high side for remotely sensed canopy coverage, as typically measured by the Forest Service). The mean dbh of dens in ABCO (white fir) was 49.4 inches, compared to only 26.3 inches in black oak. It is important to note the smaller dbh of oaks used as den trees, inferring that they achieve the requisite structural characteristics at smaller sizes than conifers. Rest Site Selection General Large diameter black oaks and canyon live oaks compose almost half of the rest sites used by fishers in the southern Sierra Nevada (Zielinski et al. 2004a). From 2007 to 2008, rest sites of all trees in the KRP area have averaged 35.8 inches dbh, ranging from 9.4 to 73.5 inches (n = 152; Thompson, pers. comm.).

Table 15. Diameter at breast height (dbh) in inches of REST trees used by fishers on the Sequoia NF 1992 -1996. Derived from Truex et al. (1998).

Tree Type Number of Samples (n)

Mean (inches)

Standard Deviation (in)

Range (inches)

Median (inches)

Conifer 176 44.0 19.6 11-171 42

Hardwood 141 25.6 8.5 12-57 25

Combined 317 34.8

Table 16. Mean values for fisher rest trees and snags in the Sierra National Forest, 1999-2001 (derived from Table 1 in Purcell et al. 2009).

Tree Type & Fisher Gender

Dbh (inches) Height (feet)

n Mean SD n Mean SD

All Live 57 37.5 11.5 49 120.3 39.4

Females 47 38.5 11.9 39 122.2 39.3

Males 10 32.8 8.0 10 113.0 40.9

Conifers Only 49 37.2 12.2 342 130.5 32.6

Females 40 38.4 12.7 33 134.0 29.9

Males 9 32.0 8.2 9 117.5 40.6

Snags 12 46.0 18.6 11 55.6 47.3

Females 6 38.9 12.6 6 49.1 39.7

Males 6 53.0 22.0 5 63.4 59.1

Most resting structures used in the KRP area were in live trees (76 percent), 15 percent were in snags, 3 were in logs and 2 each were in stumps and rock crevices (Purcell et al. 2009). Mean canopy cover as measured by moosehorn at rest sites was 73.7 percent, compared to random site canopy cover of 55.3 percent (Purcell et al. 2009).

Table 17. Live resting tree species used by fishers compared to the number of available large trees (> 30 inches) in 2.47 acre plots surrounding them on the Sierra National Forest 1999-2001 (derived from Table 2 in Purcell et al. 2009).

Resting trees were predominantly Ponderosa pine and white fir. In the immediate vicinity of the selected resting structure, ponderosa pine was used more than expected, while incense cedar was used less than expected (Purcell et al. 2009).

Estimated Number of Rest and Den Trees Required for Fishers in Each Home Range A review of available literature and anecdotal information was used to develop an estimate of forest structure used by a given fisher during their lifetime. Obviously, these numbers are somewhat speculative, but this provides what we consider to be a minimum number of resting structures that need to be available to fishers post-project. Given that fishers generally use at least one rest site per day, and have been reported to reuse only about 14 percent (range of 3 - 27 percent) of rest site structures (Seglund 1995, Self and Kerns 2001, Mazzoni 2002, Zielinski et al. 2004a, Yeager 2005, Aubry and Raley 2006), this equates to a minimum of 314 rest trees needed per an average southern Sierra Nevada female home range (2,357 acres) annually. The large range of 3 – 27 percent appears to be an artifact of divergent assumptions made in data analysis, with the larger numbers being reflective of number of incidents of reuse (counting multiple uses of a given tree as separate instances of reuse even by the same individual), while the lower numbers are the number of individual trees actually used more than once. In the future, we hope to reanalyze the data to a common definition of “reuse”. For project analysis purposes, the most useful number reflects the number of individual trees reused.

Reproductive females also utilize up to five den sites per year for a cumulative total of 319 potentially suitable trees needed per home range (or 0.14 trees per acre). The mean life span for fishers is approximately 10 years, equating to a minimum of 1.4 suitable rest/den trees needed per acre for each female home range over an average life span. Males would also require an estimated 314 rest sites, and with a mean home range of 9,518 acres this equates to 0.3 trees per acre over an average lifetime. Thus for an area to provide sufficient male and female rest and den site trees, more than 1.7 trees per acre are required. Because we don’t know what factors influence a fisher to decide to rest in one location versus another, there is a need to provide sufficient alternate rest and den tree choices to compensate for our lack of knowledge. Therefore we choose to buffer the 1.7 trees per acre by a factor of ten (selected to ensure availability of many more rest structures than are actually used) to maintain up to 17 potential resting/denning trees per acre, where they exist. This number should be re-aggregated to a total number of rest trees available in the home range of a female fisher. The spatial distribution of these structural elements is not uniform; suitable trees may occur individually or in widely scattered discrete clumps or patches. New data are being collected in several areas of the Sierra National Forest beginning in 2007, which will inform and improve this estimate in the future. Home Range Composition Using data available at the time, Zielinski et al. (2004b) examined the vegetation composition of fisher home ranges in the southern Sierra Nevada as presented in the following paragraph. Since these figures are merely descriptions of information regarding home range composition selected relative to what is

Species All Females Males Available

Incense cedar 4 3 1 222

White fir 20 19 1 236

Sugar pine 8 7 1 144

Ponderosa pine 23 17 6 193

California black oak 9 8 1 78

available, it should be noted that fishers may occupy areas that differ somewhat from values presented here. Additionally, the GIS data used in Zielinski et al. (2004b) lacked the spatial resolution to map small inclusions of shrub habitat within the greater mixed-conifer matrix. Truex (pers. comm.) believes that this fine grain heterogeneity is important from the perspective of prey diversity.

CWHR size class 4 stands (11-24” dbh), dense canopy closure (greater than 60 percent), and Sierran Mixed Conifer forest types constituted the greatest proportion of home ranges. Most home ranges supported at least 15 percent Sierran Mixed Conifer, less than 5 percent area in CWHR size class 5 (greater than 24” dbh), or less than 53 percent dense canopy closure stands. The montane hardwood-conifer type averaged 12 percent of home range areas. CWHR size class 2 (1-6” dbh) stands comprised generally less than 3 percent of home ranges, and less than 10 percent of home ranges supported open canopies (25 to 39 percent).

Table 18. Female fisher CWHR type home range composition on the Sequoia National Forest (n = 8), derived from Zielinski et al. (2004b) based on 100% minimum convex polygons.

CWHR System Type Mean Home

Range Percentage Standard Deviation

Forest Type

Sierran Mixed Conifer 39 29

Ponderosa Pine 40 27

Montane Hardwood 14 15

Montane Hardwood-Conifer 6 4

Mixed Chaparral 0.2 0.4

TOTAL OF HOME RANGE 1 99 ---------

Size Class

4: small tree 11” – 24” dbh 61 21

3: pole tree 6” – 11” dbh 22 28

5: med/large tree > 24” dbh 13 13

2: sapling tree 1” – 6” dbh 2 2

TOTAL OF HOME RANGE 2 98 ---------

Canopy Closure

Dense 60 – 100 % 72 9

Moderate 40 – 59 % 20 7

Open 25 – 39 % 5 3

TOTAL OF HOME RANGE 3 97 --------- 1 The remaining home range area (1.37 percent) consisted of small percentages of montane chaparral, urban and

red fir. 2 The remaining home range size classes (2.14 percent) consisted of Class 1 (< 1” dbh, 0.34 percent) or were not

determined. 3 The remaining home range canopy closures were Sparse (10 – 24 %) or undetermined.

Sierran Mixed Conifer, Ponderosa Pine, and Montane Hardwood forest types comprised an average of 85 percent of the 12 (8 female and 4 male) fisher home ranges, with size-class 4 stands (11-24 in dbh) and canopy closure Class D (60-100 percent closure) comprising 61 percent and 66 percent, respectively, of the home ranges (Zielinski et al. 2004b). Sequoia National Forest home ranges for both sexes had more than 15 percent Sierran Mixed Conifer, greater than 5 percent size class 5 (>24 in dbh) and more than 52 percent dense canopy closure (class D) stands.

On the Sierra National Forest, Mazzoni (2002) found home range composition by canopy closure class for males and females combined (n = 11), to be dense = 14 percent of the home range, moderate = 39

percent, open = 25 percent, and sparse (canopy closure less than 25 percent) = 21 percent of the home range area. These results differ substantially from those reported from the Sequoia National Forest in Table 11 above.

An Ecosystem Management Strategy for Sierran Mixed Conifer Forests North et al. (2009) describe an ecosystem management strategy for Sierran mixed conifer forests designed to address wildfire concerns as well as the persistence of rare species such as fishers. The following discussion draws from that paper.

Strategic fuels reduction activities can be designed to restore the ecology of the southern Sierra Nevada forests that have been actively managed for over a century. Topographic variables (i.e., slope shape, aspect, and slope position) can be used as a template to vary treatments in order to produce heterogeneous stand structures and densities across the landscape. Localized cool or moist areas, where fire would have historically burned less frequently or at lower severity, support higher tree density and canopy cover, which provides pockets of legacy structure and habitat for fishers. In contrast, upper, southern aspect slopes have low densities of large fire-resistant trees. For thinning to achieve fuels reduction, marking rules could be based on crown strata or age cohorts and species, rather than uniform diameter limits. This system emphasizes the ecological role of fire, changing climate conditions, sensitive wildlife habitat, and the importance of forest structural heterogeneity.

Spatial heterogeneity is a key feature in ecological resiliency (Stephens et al. 2008). North et al. (2009) noted that a clumped tree distribution may slow the spread of crown fire, and that this spacing pattern may result from frequent fire in mixed-conifer forests. Cool, frequent fires reduce canopy cover to increase habitat and microclimate heterogeneity at site, stand and landscape levels, all of which benefit fishers by providing a diversity of prey habitats, and generate discrete clumps of large trees with dense canopy cover required for resting and denning. Risk Factors/Threats Threats to the West Coast Distinct Population Segment The USFWS (USDI 2004) identified major threats to fishers in the West Coast Distinct Population Segment, discussed relative to specified factors for listing under Section 4 of the Endangered Species Act. Only those threats deemed by USFWS in 2004 to be “important” to the entire West Coast DPS are summarized in this section. The reader is referred to the Federal Register for the complete USFWS 2004 discussion.

Factor A. The Present or threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment of the Species’ Habitats or Range. The extent of past and present timber harvest can fragment fisher habitat, reduce it in size, or change the forest structure to unsuitable for fishers. Both fuels reduction activities and effects of wildfire could result in loss and/or fragmentation of habitat. Development, recreation and roads also pose a threat of habitat loss/fragmentation as well as direct mortality. Factor B. Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific or educational purposes. Historical trapping resulted in a severe population decline. Current mortalities or injuries from incidental trapping even where fisher trapping has been eliminated could be frequent and widespread enough to prevent population recovery or re-occupation of suitable habitat. Factor C. Disease or Predation. There is potential for disease outbreaks to occur in these small, isolated fisher populations with devastating effects. Mortality from predation by mountain lion, bobcat, coyote or large raptors could pose a significant threat to fishers.

Factor D. The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms. Some protections are available, but highly variable from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, and limited. Current regulations fail to provide sufficient certainty that conservation efforts will be implemented or that they will be effective in reducing threats to fishers.

Threats to Fishers in the Southern Sierra Nevada

1) Fishers and Climate Change The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC 2001) projects a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) from industrial sources by as early as 2050. Climate responses to increased CO2 are expected to vary regionally and topographically, but a universal trend towards warming is expected due to trapping of heat by greenhouse gases. California is thought to be highly vulnerable to the effects climate change due to coastal and latitudinal orientation, extreme elevation gradients, and the variety of ecosystems present (Snyder et al. 2002). Because California’s ecosystems are already stressed by human growth and agricultural demands, added stress from climate change could substantially alter the current biotic landscape.

Snyder et al. (2002) modeled climate change for California based on a projected doubling of CO2 and concluded that a warming trend would occur across the state with the greatest temperature changes in the Sierra Nevada (where average annual spring temperatures could increase by as much as 12.7 °F). According to Dettinger (2005), the most prevalent prediction of more recent climate change models is that temperatures will warm by about 9 oF by 2100, while precipitation will remain similar or slightly reduced compared to present levels. Lenihan et al. (2006) analyzed the responses of vegetation distribution to three future climate scenarios in California and similarly predicted dramatic increases in mid-elevation mixed evergreen forests (conifer/oak), primarily as a result of increased temperatures. This same analysis (Lenihan et al. 2006) predicted decreases in conifer forests (pine/mixed conifer) due to increased fire. In fact, Lenihan et al. (2006) projected that relative to the past century, the annual acreage burned would increase 10 to 50 percent for the period 2050 to 2099. These predicted climate changes may benefit fishers and their habitat in one of three ways:

a) decreased snow levels would open up greater areas of potential habitat, given the animal’s tendency to avoid deep snow (Raine 1983, Arthur et al. 1989, Aubry and Houston 1992)

b) increased rainfall during the growing season may result in increased vegetative productivity leading to more food for fishers and their prey and more resting sites

c) an upslope expansion of mixed evergreen forest habitats including more oaks that fisher inhabit in the southern Sierra Nevada and in the Klamath region of northern California could also benefit fishers (Self and Kearns 1992 [2001], Klug 1997, Higley et al. 1998, Zielinski et al. 2004, Yeager 2005)

Conversely, the predicted hot dry summers could lead to a great increase in the frequency of uncharacteristically severe stand-replacing wildfires, most notably should wet and warm winters and springs contribute to increased fuel loading, and if current fire-suppression policies are extended into the future. Fire regimes respond rapidly to changes in climate and are likely to drive the short-term responses in terms of vegetation floristics and structure (Flannigan et al. 2000, Dale et al. 2001). Large fires could accelerate habitat fragmentation, especially in coniferous forests, and result in the loss of fisher population viability. Greater

incidence of wildfires may reduce the frequency and alter the distribution of important structural features used by fishers such as large trees and high canopy cover (Safford 2006). While these wildfires may result in the temporary creation of snags and coarse woody debris, increased fire frequencies may reduce the availability of these structural features over the long term (Safford 2006).

Lenihan et al. (2006) predicted that due to increased wildfire and changes in moisture regimes, continental coniferous forests would be replaced by more fire-tolerant mixed evergreen forests with oak components. In summary, future climate change may result in an increase of the forest types where fisher are currently detected in the southern Sierra Nevada and northern California at the expense of mixed conifer forests in the Sierra Nevada traditionally thought as prime fisher habitat. It should be noted that forest conversion may require the intermediate step of a stand-replacing fire (with either temporary or permanent habitat loss resulting), and the subsequent maintenance (by fire) of a more open-canopied forest less suitable to fishers (basically the conversion to a favorable forest type but an unfavorable forest structure).

Further, climate change may affect the ability of fishers to expand their current range. The extant fisher population in the southern Sierra Nevada exists at the animal’s southernmost range, where increased temperatures are predicted to have the greatest impact. There is a possibility that fisher range may shift upward in elevation to track the forest types that best meet their habitat needs. If the existing population’s ability to expand northward is limited by forest fragmentation or other natural barriers, then climate change may eliminate these populations before the barriers limiting expansion are lifted (e.g., before forest succession improves habitat in fragmented areas, or the episodic freezing or drought conditions occur allowing fishers to cross river barriers).

Therefore, the only supportable conclusion is that it is unclear whether modeled climate change would benefit or adversely affect fishers over the long term. The ultimate fate of the species and its habitat may depend on the interactions of other factors influencing fisher conservation. It does seem likely, however, that the future will challenge the ability of fishers to adapt to a changing Sierra Nevada climate and ecology.

2) Uncharacteristically Severe Wildfire

Uncharacteristically severe wildfire is defined as fire occurring beyond the historical range of natural variation in terms of scope, intensity and duration. These stand-replacing fires affect large areas of the landscape, decreasing or removing key fisher structural and habitat elements including large trees, overstory and understory canopy, vegetative diversity, snags, and logs. Landscape permeability for fisher movements at all scales may decrease as a result. As part of the threat evaluation completed for the West Coast Fisher Conservation Assessment (in prep.), uncharacteristically severe wildfire ranked as high threat in the southern Sierra Nevada geographic area.

Fragmented landscapes created by uncharacteristically severe wildfires will eliminate fisher habitat linkages, either permanently via vegetative type conversion or temporarily until recovery occurs. Landscape permeability to fishers is decreased. This results in detrimental impacts to fisher daily movements and energy balance, creates barriers to dispersal movements, affects the establishment of home ranges, and prolongs or prevents breeding season movements. These impacts may decrease fisher survival. Overall population fitness is affected by individual survival and mortality. Direct mortality as a result of fire may occur in

extreme cases depending upon season (e.g. kit loss in reproductive season, loss of adults in fast-moving canopy firestorms).

Following wildfire, prey species abundance and community composition will shift. An initial increase in abundance of disturbance-adapted prey species may occur at the expense of species diversity with a gradual reversal of this trend as succession occurs. Although prey abundance may increase, prey availability will not necessarily follow due to fisher reluctance to enter open areas. Extensive burned areas can create dispersal barriers for prey. The West Coast Fisher Biology Team speculated that the abundance of prey available following fire may support pre-fire population levels of fishers that have been compressed into adjusted home ranges. This prey abundance may not persist over time, however, and result in displacement or loss of fishers on the margins of remaining habitat (Macfarlane, pers. comm.). Displaced individuals could create conspecific competition if packed into the remaining habitat, which could, in turn, increase disease transmission.

Fishers exhibit strong selection for rest and den sites based upon forest structure and canopy cover. Changes in the frequency, abundance, and distribution of these habitat elements may create conditions inimical to successful reproduction, as well as survival of the young to recruitment into the population. Lack of well-distributed escape cover will result in increased predation.

It is unknown whether or to what extent fishers exhibit site fidelity. Habitat changes due to uncharacteristically severe wildfire could temporarily disrupt fisher social organization in a manner difficult to conceptualize (Macfarlane, pers. comm.). Resident animals may continue to occupy the burned area, but might not be replaced via recruitment of young into the population or via emigration of other adults upon their death. These socially-mediated population impacts may be exhibited as a lag effect. That is, they may require an average fisher lifetime (10 or more years) under a statistically rigorous monitoring program for at least that period of time to become evident.

3) Vegetation Manipulation to Reduce Risk of Uncharacteristically Severe Wildfire

Truex and Zielinski (2005) developed fisher resource selection functions (RSF) and resource selection probability functions (RSPF) as described in Zielinski et al. (2004a) to compare rest sites selected and track plate detections to areas not selected or sampled with no detections. These RSFs were used to estimate the change in fisher habitat suitability pre- to post-treatment in fuels reduction projects at two sites in the Sierra Nevada. The remainder of this section discusses the results of the Truex and Zielinski (2005) study.

Four primary treatments were applied for effects assessment: control (no treatment); mechanical harvest (usually including mastication following harvest); mechanical harvest followed by prescribed burning; and area prescribed burning as the only treatment. Study areas were the Blodgett Forest Research Station (BFRS) and a satellite site at Sequoia-Kings Canyon National Park (SEKI).

This study generally concluded that fire and fire surrogate treatments have modest but significant short-term effects to the quality and availability of fisher resting habitat, as well as canopy closure. At BFRS, mechanical as well as mechanical plus fire treatments significantly reduced fisher resting habitat and average canopy closure. At the SEKI site, the late season burn treatment had a significant effect on fisher habitat suitability as well as canopy closure. The short-term treatment effects to foraging habitat at both sites were generally not

significant. This may be explained by the broad spectrum of foraging habitat parameters, rendering it less likely to be a limiting factor to fisher than resting habitat.

Although the mechanical and mechanical/fire treatments had greater effects on fisher resting habitat suitability than prescription fire at BFRS, these effects can be mitigated by the ability of mechanical treatments to avoid individual habitat elements such as the critically important hardwoods as well as all large trees. The use of prescribed fire alone can be mitigated by raking debris away from key fisher structural elements in the habitat. The effect of greatest magnitude was a reduction in canopy closure. All treatments reduced canopy closure. Canopy closure, however, recovers relatively quickly compared to the loss of large dead or live trees. Re-measurements of treatment units in this study in 5 or 10 years will provide information on how quickly the canopy actually recovers.

Interpretation of these results needs to be cautious and informed by more data in the next decade. In areas where fisher habitat suitability is already low or marginal, the predicted effects may have a disproportionately large impact to habitat recovery. On the other hand, the short-term negative effects of the treatments may result in beneficial effects on subsequent stand development. Future monitoring will be needed to elucidate the exact nature of this relationship.

Another limitation of this study is that it focused upon effects at the individual stand level. As wide-ranging predators, fisher function at larger landscape scales within their habitats. Thus, it is important to analyze the spatial and temporal array of treatments in a landscape context. The more broadly distributed the treatments are over space and time, the lower the likelihood of significant negative effects in a landscape context. It does seem that such treatments distributed over space and time should have lower impacts that large-scale catastrophic wildfire.

One last caveat offered by Truex and Zielinski (2005) in interpreting the study results is to recognize that a reduction in habitat suitability does not necessarily equate to loss of suitability. Population level implications to localized reductions in habitat suitability have yet to be studied. To decrease effects to fisher habitat suitability, the authors recommend planning treatments to maintain elements important to fisher (e.g. large diameter hardwoods). Early season burns (mid-May or later) timed to follow the fisher denning period seem to have less impact to habitat. However, Purcell and Thompson (pers. comm.) have noted that by mid-May the kits still have relatively limited mobility; they are still largely dependent on the female until the end of August. Thus, to avoid potential conflict with denning, early season burns (spring burns) should occur prior to mid-March. Planning treatments to occur dispersed over space and time to the extent possible will minimize the effect to individual fishers.

4) Habitat Fragmentation or Loss of Connectivity

Habitat connectivity is a key to maintaining fisher within a landscape. Activities under Forest Service control that result in habitat fragmentation or population isolation pose a risk to the persistence of fishers. Timber harvest, fuels reduction treatments, road presence and construction, and recreational activities may result in the loss of habitat connectivity resulting in a negative impact on fisher distribution and abundance.

APPENDIX C

United States Department of the Interior

FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office

FEDERAL BUILDING, 2800 COTTAGE WAY, ROOM W-2605 SACRAMENTO, CA 95825

PHONE: (916)414-6600 FAX: (916)414-6713

Consultation Code: 08ESMF00-2015-SLI-0828 July 08, 2015 Event Code: 08ESMF00-2015-E-02685

Project Name: Hemlock Landscape Restoration Project

Subject: List of threatened and endangered species that may occur in your proposed project location, and/or may be affected by your proposed project

To Whom It May Concern:

The enclosed species list identifies threatened, endangered, proposed and candidate species, as well as proposed and final designated critical habitat, under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) that may occur within the boundary of your proposed project and/or may be affected by your proposed project. The species list fulfills the requirements of the Service under section 7(c) of the Endangered Species Act (Act) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).

Please follow the link below to see if your proposed project has the potential to affect other species or their habitats under the jurisdiction of the National Marine Fisheries Service:

http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/protected_species/species_list/species_lists.html

http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/protected_species/species_list/species_lists.html

New information based on updated surveys, changes in the abundance and distribution of species, changed habitat conditions, or other factors could change this list. Please feel free to contact us if you need more current information or assistance regarding the potential impacts to federally proposed, listed, and candidate species and federally designated and proposed critical habitat. Please note that under 50 CFR 402.12(e) of the regulations implementing section 7 of the Act, the accuracy of this species list should be verified after 90 days. This verification can be completed formally or informally as desired. The Service recommends that verification be completed by visiting the ECOS-IPaC website at regular intervals during project planning and implementation for updates to species lists and information. An updated list may be requested through the ECOS-IPaC system by completing the same process used to receive the enclosed list.

The purpose of the Act is to provide a means whereby threatened and endangered species and the ecosystems upon which they depend may be conserved. Under sections 7(a)(1) and 7(a)(2) of the Act and its implementing regulations (50 CFR 402 et seq.), Federal agencies are required to utilize their authorities to carry out programs for the conservation of threatened and endangered species and to determine whether projects may affect threatened and endangered species and/or designated critical habitat.

A Biological Assessment is required for construction projects (or other undertakings having similar physical impacts) that are major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment as defined in the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4332(2) (c)). For projects other than major construction activities, the Service suggests that a biological evaluation similar to a Biological Assessment be prepared to determine whether the project may affect listed or proposed species and/or designated or proposed critical habitat. Recommended contents of a Biological Assessment are described at 50 CFR 402.12.

If a Federal agency determines, based on the Biological Assessment or biological evaluation, that listed species and/or designated critical habitat may be affected by the proposed project, the agency is required to consult with the Service pursuant to 50 CFR 402. In addition, the Service recommends that candidate species, proposed species and proposed critical habitat be addressed within the consultation. More information on the regulations and procedures for section 7 consultation, including the role of permit or license applicants, can be found in the "Endangered Species Consultation Handbook" at:

http://www.fws.gov/endangered/esa-library/pdf/TOC-GLOS.PDF

Please be aware that bald and golden eagles are protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 668 et seq.), and projects affecting these species may require development of an eagle conservation plan (http://www.fws.gov/windenergy/eagle_guidance.html). Additionally, wind energy projects should follow the wind energy guidelines (http://www.fws.gov/windenergy/) for minimizing impacts to migratory birds and bats.

http://www.fws.gov/endangered/esa-library/pdf/TOC-GLOS.PDF

http://www.fws.gov/windenergy/eagle_guidance.html)

http://www.fws.gov/windenergy/eagle_guidance.html)

http://www.fws.gov/windenergy/)

Guidance for minimizing impacts to migratory birds for projects including communications towers (e.g., cellular, digital television, radio, and emergency broadcast) can be found at: http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/CurrentBirdIssues/Hazards/towers/towers.htm; http://www.towerkill.com; and http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/CurrentBirdIssues/Hazards/towers/comtow.html.

We appreciate your concern for threatened and endangered species. The Service encourages Federal agencies to include conservation of threatened and endangered species into their project planning to further the purposes of the Act. Please include the Consultation Tracking Number in the header of this letter with any request for consultation or correspondence about your project that you submit to our office.

The table below outlines lead FWS field offices by county and land ownership/project type. Please refer to this table when you are ready to coordinate (including requests for section 7 consultation) with the field office corresponding to your project, and send any documentation regarding your project to that corresponding office. Therefore, the lead FWS field office may not be the office listed above in the letterhead. Please visit our office's website (http://www.fws.gov/sacramento) to view a map of office jurisdictions.

http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/CurrentBirdIssues/Hazards/towers/towers.htm%3B

http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/CurrentBirdIssues/Hazards/towers/towers.htm%3B

http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/CurrentBirdIssues/Hazards/towers/comtow.html

http://www.fws.gov/sacramento)

http://www.fws.gov/sacramento)

Lead FWS offices by County and Ownership/Program

County

Ownership/Program

Species

Office Lead*

Alameda

Tidal wetlands/marsh adjacent to Bays

Salt marsh

species, delta smelt

BDFWO

Alameda

All ownerships but tidal/estuarine

All

SFWO

Alpine

Humboldt Toiyabe National Forest

All

RFWO

Alpine

Lake Tahoe Basin Management

Unit

All

RFWO

Alpine

Stanislaus National Forest

All

SFWO

Alpine

El Dorado National Forest

All

SFWO

Colusa

Mendocino National Forest

All

AFWO

Colusa

Other

All

By jurisdiction (see

map)

Contra Costa

Legal Delta (Excluding ECCHCP)

All

BDFWO

Contra Costa

Antioch Dunes NWR

All

BDFWO

Contra Costa

Tidal wetlands/marsh adjacent to

Bays

Salt marsh


BDFWO

Contra Costa


All

SFWO

El Dorado

El Dorado National Forest

All

SFWO

El Dorado

LakeTahoe Basin Management Unit

RFWO

Glenn


All

AFWO

Glenn

Other

All


map)

Lake


All

AFWO

Lake

Other

All


map)

Lassen

Modoc National Forest

All

KFWO

Lassen

Lassen National Forest

All

SFWO

Lassen

Toiyabe National Forest

All

RFWO

Lassen

BLM Surprise and Eagle Lake

Resource Areas

All

RFWO

Lassen

BLM Alturas Resource Area

All

KFWO

Lassen

Lassen Volcanic National Park

All (includes Eagle Lake trout on all ownerships)

SFWO

Lassen

All other ownerships

All


map)

Marin Tidal wetlands/marsh adjacent to Bays

Salt marsh species, delta

smelt BDFWO

Marin


All

SFWO

Mendocino

Russian River watershed

All

SFWO

Mendocino

All except Russian River watershed

All

AFWO

Napa


All

SFWO

Napa


San Pablo Bay

Salt marsh


BDFWO

Nevada


All

RFWO

Nevada


All

By jurisdiction (See

map)

Placer

Lake Tahoe Basin Management

Unit

All

RFWO

Placer


All

SFWO

Sacramento

Legal Delta

Delta Smelt

BDFWO

Sacramento

Other

All


map)

San Francisco


San Francisco Bay

Salt marsh


BDFWO

San Francisco All ownerships but tidal/estuarine All SFWO

San Mateo


San Francisco Bay

Salt marsh


BDFWO

San Mateo


All

SFWO

San Joaquin

Legal Delta excluding San Joaquin

HCP

All

BDFWO

San Joaquin

Other

All

SFWO

Santa Clara


San Francisco Bay

Salt marsh


BDFWO

Santa Clara


All

SFWO

Shasta

Shasta Trinity National Forest

except Hat Creek Ranger District (administered by Lassen National

Forest)

All

YFWO

Shasta

Hat Creek Ranger District

All

SFWO

Shasta

Bureau of Reclamation (Central

Valley Project)

All

BDFWO

Shasta

Whiskeytown National Recreation

Area

All

YFWO

Shasta

BLM Alturas Resource Area

All

KFWO

Shasta Caltrans By jurisdiction SFWO/AFWO

Shasta

Ahjumawi Lava Springs State Park

Shasta crayfish

SFWO

Shasta


All


map)

Shasta

Natural Resource Damage

Assessment, all lands

All

SFWO/BDFWO

Sierra


All

RFWO

Sierra


All

SFWO

Solano

Suisun Marsh

All

BDFWO

Solano


San Pablo Bay

Salt marsh


BDFWO

Solano


All

SFWO

Solano

Other

All


map)

Sonoma


San Pablo Bay

Salt marsh


BDFWO

Sonoma


All

SFWO

Tehama


All

AFWO

Shasta Trinity National Forest

Tehama except Hat Creek Ranger District (administered by Lassen National

Forest)

All YFWO

Tehama


All


map)

Yolo

Yolo Bypass

All

BDFWO

Yolo

Other

All


map)

All

FERC-ESA

All


map)

All

FERC-ESA

Shasta crayfish

SFWO

All

FERC-Relicensing (non-ESA)

All

BDFWO

*Office Leads:

AFWO=Arcata Fish and Wildlife Office

BDFWO=Bay Delta Fish and Wildlife Office

KFWO=Klamath Falls Fish and Wildlife Office

RFWO=Reno Fish and Wildlife Office

YFWO=Yreka Fish and Wildlife Office

Attachment

http://ecos.fws.gov/ipac, 07/08/2015 03:13 PM

1

United States Department of Interior Fish and Wildlife Service

Project name: Hemlock Landscape Restoration Project

Official Species List

Provided by: Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office FEDERAL BUILDING

2800 COTTAGE WAY, ROOM W-2605 SACRAMENTO, CA 95825

(916) 414-6600

Consultation Code: 08ESMF00-2015-SLI-0828

Event Code: 08ESMF00-2015-E-02685

Project Type: LAND - RESTORATION / ENHANCEMENT

Project Name: Hemlock Landscape Restoration Project

Project Description: The Hemlock Landscape Restoration project is located on the Calaveras Ranger District of the Stanislaus National Forest in Calaveras County, California. The project area is northeast of Arnold and southwest of the Bear Valley Recreation area on the north side of the North Fork Stanislaus River. Size = 14,075 acres. Scope = timber, fuels, mature forest wildlife, recreation, watershed, meadow, transportation, scenic corridor and heritage resources addressed. Timing: 2016-2021.

Please Note: The FWS office may have modified the Project Name and/or Project Description, so it may be different from what was submitted in your previous request. If the Consultation Code matches, the FWS considers this to be the same project. Contact the office in the 'Provided by' section of your previous Official Species list if you have any questions or concerns.

http://ecos.fws.gov/ipac


2



Project Location Map:

Project Coordinates: The coordinates are too numerous to display here.

Project Counties: Calaveras, CA | Tuolumne, CA



3



Endangered Species Act Species List

There are a total of 4 threatened or endangered species on your species list. Species on this list should be considered in an effects analysis for your project and could include species that exist in another geographic area. For example, certain fish may appear on the species list because a project could affect downstream species. Critical habitats listed under the Has Critical Habitat column may or may not lie within your project area. See the Critical habitats within your project area section further below for critical habitat that lies within your project. Please contact the designated FWS office if you have questions.

Amphibians

Status

Has Critical Habitat

Condition(s)

Yosemite toad (Anaxyrus canorus)

Threatened

Proposed

Fishes

Delta smelt (Hypomesus

transpacificus) Population: Entire

Threatened

Final designated

steelhead (Oncorhynchus (=salmo)

mykiss) Population: Northern California DPS

Threatened

Final designated

Mammals

fisher (Martes pennanti)

Population: West coast DPS

Proposed Threatened



4



Critical habitats that lie within your project area There are no critical habitats within your project area.


APPENDIX D Figure 1. California spotted owl PACs and HRCAs in the project area.

Figure 2. Northern goshawk PACs in the project area.

Figure 3. Northern goshawk PACs and California spotted owl PACs and HRCAs within one mile of the project area.

Figure 4. California Spotted Owl survey points in the project area.

Figure 5. Northern Goshawk survey points in the project area.

APPENDIX E Figure 1. American Marten detections in the project area.

Figure 2. California Wolverine, Pacific Fisher, and American Marten remote camera survey points.

APPENDIX F Figure 1. Alternative 1 (Proposed Action) Vegetation Treatments.

Figure 2. Alternative 2 Vegetation Treatments.

Figure 3. Alternative 1 (Proposed Action) FuelsTreatments.

Figure 4. Alternative 3 Fuels Treatments.

Figure 5. Recreation Sites Proposed for Treatments within California Spotted Owl and Northern Goshawk PACs.

Calaveras Ranger District, Stanislaus National...

Documents

Transcript of Calaveras Ranger District, Stanislaus National...