Management Indicator Species Report Strategic Community...

Management Indicator Species Report

Strategic Community Fuelbreak Improvement Project

Monterey Ranger District

Los Padres National Forest

Prepared By: /s/ Patricia Johnson _____ Date: June 2016

Patricia Johnson

Wildlife Biologist

US Forest Service

VMS Enterprise Unit

Reviewed By _____________________ Date: _________

Patrick Lieske

Assistant Forest Wildlife Biologist

Los Padres National Forest

July 25, 2016

2

Strategic Community Fuelbreak Improvement Project - MIS Report

1. Introduction The purpose of this report is to evaluate and disclose the impacts of the Strategic Community

Fuelbreak Improvement Project (Strategic Fuelbreak Project) on the Los Padres National Forest

(LPNF) Management Indicator Species (MIS) identified in the Forest Land Management Plan

(LMP) (USDA Forest Service 2005). This report documents the effects of the four alternatives

(three action alternatives and the No Action alternative) on the habitat of selected Management

Indicator Species (MIS) appropriate to the proposed project. Detailed description of the

Strategic Fuelbreak Project is in the project file, Biological Evaluation and Biological Analysis,

available at Monterey Ranger District office.

MIS are animal or plant species identified in the Los Padres National Forest (LPNF) Land

Management Plan (LMP (USDA Forest Service 2005: Part 1, page 44-45 in printed copy (p. 45-

46 on disk and internet), Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS), Vol. 1, pages 123-130,

and FEIS, Vol. 2, Appendix B, pages 72-81). MIS are included in National Forest LMPs as a

result of the 1982 National Forest System Land and Resource Management Planning Rule (1982

Planning Rule) (36 CFR 219). The current rule applicable to project decisions is the 2004

Interpretive Rule, which states “Projects implementing land management plans…must be

developed considering the best available science in accordance with §219.36(a)…and must be

consistent with the provisions of the governing plan.” (Appendix B to §219.35).

At the National Forest scale, Forest Service resource managers are directed to monitor

populations and/or habitat trends of forest MIS, (LMP Part 1, pages 44-45 in printed copy (pages

45-46 on disk and internet), LMP Part 2, page 115, LMP Part 3, Appendix C, pages 57-62, FEIS

Vol. 2, pages 76-78). At the project scale, it is more appropriate and cost effective to analyze the

(FEIS, Vol. 2, page 76) of habitat status and trend for select MIS.

1.a. Direction Regarding Monitoring of MIS Habitat and Population Trends at the Forest

Scale.

Forest scale monitoring requirements for the Los Padres NF’s MIS are found in the Monitoring

Plan of the LMP (USDA Forest Service 2005, Part 3, appendix C, pages 57-62).

Habitat Status and Trend.

The LPNF LMP (USDA 2005) requires forest-scale monitoring of habitat status and trend for

select MIS on the LPNF. For MIS with habitat potentially affected by the Strategic Fuelbreak

Project, these habitat monitoring requirements are summarized in Table 2 of this report. Habitat

status is the current amount of habitat on the Los Padres NF. Habitat trend is the direction of

change in the amount of habitat between 2005, the time the LMP was approved and the present.

The methodology for assessing habitat status and trend is described in the Los Padres National

Forest MIS Report (USDA 2007, and LMP FEIS Vol. 1, Table 433 Management Indicator

Species Selection and Monitoring Information, p. 177).

MIS habitat trend is monitored using ecological and vegetation data for the LPNF. These data

include spatial, ecological and vegetation layers created from remote-sensing imagery obtained

at various points in time, which may be verified using photo-imagery, by on-the-ground

3


observations, and/or tracking of vegetation-changing actions or events (for example, wildland

fires).

Population Status and Trend.

Population monitoring requirements for the MIS of the Los Padres NF are identified in the

Monitoring Plan of the LRMP (USDA 1988, Appendix C, pages C15-C20). This document

requires monitoring of population status and trend for select MIS on the Forest. There are many

types of population data; this document also identifies the type of population monitoring data

required for each MIS. All population monitoring data are collected and/or compiled at the

forest scale, consistent with the LRMP. The population monitoring requirements for the MIS

with habitat potentially affected by the Strategic Fuelbreak Project are summarized in Table 2 of

this report.

Population status is the current condition of the MIS related to the type of population monitoring

data (population measure) required in the LMP for that MIS. Population trend is the direction of

change in that population measure over time.

Population data for MIS are collected and consolidated by the LPNF in cooperation with State

and Federal agency partners (including the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, U.S.

Geological Survey, and USDI Fish and Wildlife Service) or conservation partners (including

Partners in Flight). Population data includes presence data, which is collected using a number of

direct and indirect methods, such as population surveys, bird point counts, or tracking number of

hunter kills. The LPNF’s MIS monitoring program for species typically hunted, fished, or

trapped was designed to be implemented in cooperation with California Department of Fish and

Wildlife (CDFW), consistent with direction in the 1982 Planning Rule to monitor forest-level

MIS population trends in cooperation with state fish and wildlife agencies to the extent

practicable (36 CFR 219.19(a)(6)). To be biologically meaningful for wide-ranging MIS,

presence data are collected and tracked not only at the forest scale, but also at larger scales, such

as range-wide, state, southern California province, or species management unit (for example,

Deer Assessment Unit). Population data at various scales are important to both assess and

provide meaningful context for population status and trend at the forest scale.

1.b. Direction Regarding the Analysis of Project-Level Effects on MIS

Project-level effects on MIS are analyzed and disclosed as part of environmental analysis under

the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). This involves examining the impacts of the

proposed project on MIS habitat by discussing how direct, indirect, and cumulative effects will

change the quantity and/or quality of habitat in the analysis area. These project-level impacts to

habitat are then related to the broader national forest population and/or habitat trends in order to

answer the outcome evaluation question for Los Padres National Forest MIS “Are trends in

resource conditions indicating that habitat conditions for fish, wildlife, and rare plants are in a

stable or upward trend?” (LMP Part 1, p. 45 in printed copy (p. 46 on disk and internet) and Part

3, Appendix C, page 59.) Hence, where the Los Padres NF LRMP requires population

monitoring or population surveys for an MIS, the project-level effects analysis for that MIS may

be informed by available population monitoring data, which are gathered at the forest scale. For

certain MIS, the Los Padres NF LRMP does not require population monitoring or surveys; for

these MIS, project-level MIS effects analysis can be informed by forest-scale habitat monitoring

4


and analysis alone. The Los Padres NF LRMP requirements for MIS analyzed for the Strategic

Fuelbreak Project are summarized in Section 3 of this report.

Therefore, adequately analyzing project effects to MIS, including Threatened, Endangered, and

Sensitive (TES) species that are also MIS, involves the following steps:

□ Identifying which MIS have habitat that would be either directly or indirectly be

affected by the project alternatives; these MIS are potentially affected by the project.

□ Identifying the LMP forest-level monitoring requirements for this subset of Forest MIS.

□ Analyzing project-level effects on MIS habitats or habitat components for this subset

of Forest MIS.

□ Discussing forest scale habitat and/or population trends for this subset of Forest MIS.

□ Relating project-level impacts on MIS habitat to habitat and/or population trends for

the affected MIS at the Forest scale.

These steps are described in detail in the Pacific Southwest Region’s draft document “MIS

Analysis and Documentation in Project-Level NEPA, R5 Environmental Coordination” (USDA

2006a).

This report documents application of the above steps to select and analyze MIS for the Strategic

Fuelbreak Project.

2. Selection of Project level MIS The MIS analyzed for the Strategic Fuelbreak Project were selected from the list of MIS

identified in the Los Padres NF LRMP, see Table 1. Table 1 identifies the status of the MIS (2nd

column), reason each MIS was identified in the LRMP (3rd column) and discloses whether or not

the MIS is potentially affected by the Strategic Fuelbreak Project (4th column).

Table 1. Management Indicator Species, Los Padres National Forest, and Selection of MIS for Project-Level

Analysis for the Strategic Fuelbreak Project.

Management

Indicator Species

Species Status LMP Habitat Indicator Category1 for

Project Analysis

Mule Deer Game Mammal Healthy Diverse Habitats 3

Mountain Lion CA Fish & Wildlife Code Section

4800 Specially Protected Mammal

Fragmentation 3

Arroyo Toad Federal Endangered Aquatic Habitat 1

Song Sparrow Riparian Habitat 2

California spotted owl R5 Sensitive species

State Species of Special Concern

Montane Mixed Conifer

Habitat

2

Blue Oak* Oak Regeneration 2

Engelmann Oak* Oak Regeneration 1

Valley Oak* Oak Regeneration 1

Coulter Pine* Coulter Pine Forest 1

Bigcone Douglas-fir* Bigcone Douglas-fir Forest 1

California black oak* Montane Conifer Habitat 2

White fir* Montane Conifer Habitat 1

*Vegetation MIS are covered in a separate MIS report specific to plants. 1 Category 1: MIS whose habitat is not in or adjacent to the project area and would not be affected by the project.

5


Category 2: MIS whose habitat is in or adjacent to project area, but would not be either directly or indirectly

affected by the project.

Category 3: MIS whose habitat would be either directly or indirectly affected by the project.

Arroyo toads do not occur in or adjacent to the project area. The project will not directly or

indirectly affect the habitat for this species and will, therefore, have no impact on forest-level

habitat or population trends.

As described in Page 80 of the LRMP FEIS V2 (pg. 80), “the California spotted owl and its

habitat will be monitored to answer the question, ‘Are mature, large diameter, high canopy cover

stands with densely-shaded understories being maintained in sufficient distribution, quantity and

quality to provide habitat for California spotted owl and other interior forest species?’ Many

wildlife species, including the California spotted owl, specifically require these ecological

conditions. A territorial species with large acreage requirements (at least 300 acres of mature

forest per pair), the California spotted owl is an indicator of mature conifer forest with a dense,

multilayered canopy (Stephenson and Calcarone 1999). Monitoring the California spotted owl

and its habitat will indicate the effectiveness of management activities in achieving maintenance

and restoration of this type of montane conifer habitat”.

The project would not affect spotted owl habitat as described in the LRMP FEIS (i.e. montane

mixed conifer or riparian forests with the cool temperatures, high canopy cover and dense

understory characteristics). In general, California spotted owls were selected as MIS to address

the issue of altered fire regimes (fire severity and/or fire return interval) for mixed conifer

forests. Since the proposed alternatives do not affect montane mixed conifer forests, this species

would not be valuable here in addressing the issue it was selected for, and will not be further

addressed in this report.

While riparian vegetation, may be present along the creeks in the project area, riparian vegetation

is not targeted for treatment. Therefore, no changes in the availability or abundance of riparian

vegetation is expected from the proposed project. Subsequently, the song sparrow would not be

valuable here in addressing the issue it was selected for, and will not be further addressed in this

report.

The MIS whose habitat may be either directly or indirectly affected by the Strategic Fuelbreak

Project, identified as Category 3 in Table 1, are carried forward in this analysis, which will

evaluate the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of the proposed action alternatives and no

action alternative on the habitat of these MIS. The MIS selected for Project-Level MIS analysis

for the Strategic Fuelbreak Project are mule deer and mountain lion.

3. LMP Monitoring Requirements for MIS Selected for Project-Level Analysis

3.a. MIS Monitoring Requirements.

The Los Padres NF LMRP FEIS (2005 Vol. 2, Appendix B, pages 72-81) identifies forest scale

habitat and/or population monitoring requirements for the Los Padres NF MIS. Habitat and

6


population monitoring results for Los Padres NF’s MIS are described in the Los Padres National

Forest Management Indicator Species Report (USDA 2007) and are summarized below for the

MIS being analyzed for the Strategic Fuelbreak Project.

Table 2. Los Padres NF LMP MIS Requirements for the Selected Project-Level MIS (USDA

2005) for the Strategic Fuelbreak Project.

SELECTED PROJECT-

LEVEL MIS

MIS MONITORING REQUIREMENTS (LMP FEIS, PAGES 77-78)

Habitat Population

Mule Deer Trend in habitat condition in all

habitat types and/or trend in

abundance.

Trend in abundance, herd composition in

cooperation with CDFW and/or trend in

habitat conditions.

Mountain Lion Trend in habitat condition in all

habitat types and/or trend in

distribution or movement.

Trend in distribution or movement, in

studies in cooperation with CDFW,

USGS, and/or trend in habitat conditions.

3.b. How MIS Monitoring Requirements are Being Met

Mule Deer All habitats on the Los Padres NF are identified as suitable for mule deer (CWHR 2005). Project

level analysis of habitat condition used the Calveg Tiles (Existing Vegetation -USDA Forest

Service 2007) for the LPNF and CWHR to compare the before and after amounts of low,

medium, and high value cover, forage, and reproductive habitat within the project area. Project

level habitat analysis will include an assessment of changes to open water availability and

potential for human disturbance. Forest level mule deer habitat trend on the LPNF will be

monitored over time by reporting the cumulative changes in habitat acreages in 5 year

increments. Data collection will be minimal, because to date, the value of the type and amount

of data collection that can reasonably be collected is very limited, and has not been effectively

demonstrated to relate to the number of deer in an area (FEIS Vol.2, page 76, Wallmo 1981,

pages 367-374, see also pages 417-421). None-the-less, it is believed that the monitoring of the

above values will at least give biologists an indication of potential changes to deer populations

which can then be further investigated if desired.

Population monitoring for abundance is not practical or useful on a project level basis.

Consistent with LRMP direction, forest level mule deer population status and trend are tracked

and monitored in cooperation with California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). CDFW

conducts mule deer population monitoring at the statewide, hunting zone, and herd population

scale using a variety of methods (CDFG 2004). Information gathered for Deer Assessment Unit

(DAU)-1 and Hunt Zone A South (about 2/3 of the entire DAU 1) and Hunt Zone D-13 (a small

unit located primarily in northern Ventura County) will be used to determine trends in deer

populations on the LPNF and will be reported in 5 year increments.

Mountain Lion All habitats on the LPNF were identified as suitable for mountain lions (CWHR 2005). Project

level MIS analysis for mountain lion movements and distribution will describe project effects on

mountain lion potential to use travel corridor/linkages identified in Appendix C for the LPNF.

7


Mountain lion habitat trend for the project level and forest level is expected to be associated with

the trends in mule deer habitat over time, since mule deer are their primary prey. This

information will be monitored over time for the Forest by comparing the cumulative changes in 5

year increments.

Population monitoring is not practical or useful on a project level basis, but any occurrence will

be noted and entered into the Forest wildlife database. Forest population trends for mountain

lions will be based on state and county estimates by the CDFW, mule deer population trends, and

any information obtained from regional studies and/or US Geological Survey (USGS).

4. Description of Proposed Project

A full description of the proposed action for the Strategic Fuelbreak Project can be found in

Chapters 1 and 2 of the project DEIS. A map of the project area is included in the Appendix A

of this MIS report. The following is a summary of the proposed action:

PROPOSED ACTION ALTERNATIVES

The Strategic Fuelbreak Project is a proposal to re-establish a series of fuelbreaks and anchor

points within the wildland urban interface threat zones on National Forest lands on the Monterey

Ranger District of the Los Padres National Forest (LPNF). Each segment of these fuelbreaks

would be accomplished using a combination hand and machine piling, pile burning, prescribed

fire and/or hand thinning with chainsaws, mastication, and herbicide (alternative 4 only),

depending on site specific variables and whether the treatment would be occurring within

designated wilderness.

The proposed alternatives differ from each other based on the methods by which each fuelbreak

segment would be accomplished; the location and dimension of each segment are the same for

each action alternative.

Project design features are incorporated into all action alternatives and are the same for each

alternative (see Appendix D for design features pertinent to wildlife); these standards protect

and/or minimize environmental impacts of the activity. When applied in conjunction with LMP

Land Allocation Restrictions, Strategies & Tactics, Desired Conditions, and Best Management

Practices, these design standards are effective in protecting and maintaining natural and human

resources on National Forest System lands. All project design features are described in Chapter

2 of the DEIS.

Each alternative is described in detail in Chapter 2 of the DEIS and will be incorporated by

reference in this analysis. Herbicide application and implementation tools are the elements of

the project design that differ between alternatives. Alternative 3 proposes the use of only

traditional hand tools for fuelbreak construction in wilderness areas; so chainsaws or other

mechanized tools would be used only in non-wilderness areas. Alternative 4 proposes the use of

herbicide in non-wilderness areas, but maintains the use of other mechanized tools for fuelbreak

construction in wilderness; the use of heavy equipment (i.e. dozers or masticators) in wilderness

is not proposed in any alternative.

8


The following table is a comparison of alternatives by treatment type, location and dimension

and demonstrates the identical spatial footprint of each alternative, with implementation tools

and herbicide use differing between alternatives.

Total treatment acres represent the maximum area that would potentially be treated over time.

Each unit will not necessarily be treated every year. Treatments will be prioritized based on

location and resources at risk, available funding and personnel.

There are approximately 542 acres proposed for treatment by a combination of methods with the

alternative analyzed for this consultation. Project specific design features would be applied to all

treatments where applicable. Any of the treatment methods listed for each treatment segment

could be applied and would be entirely dependent on the vegetation and fuels condition at the

time of treatment. Fuels reduction would be applied to either live or dead vegetation and would

be prescriptive; the specific method would be chosen at the time of implementation. All

treatments would retain consistency with the analysis. Individual treatments, and combinations

of treatments, are described below as they are prescribed for each unit.

Table 1: Comparison of proposed activities between alternatives for the Strategic Fuelbreak project. Total

treatment acres represent the maximum area that would potentially be treated over time.

Activity Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4

Miles of fuelbreak

reestablished in non-wilderness 0 13.5 13.5 13.5

Acres of fuelbreak

reestablished in non-wilderness 0 352 352 352

Miles of fuelbreak

reestablished in wilderness 0 10.4 10.4 10.4

Acres of fuelbreak

reestablished in wilderness 0 190 190 190

Acres of wilderness to be

treated with hand tools only 0 0 190 0

Acres to be treated with

herbicide 0 0 0 352.6

Table 2: Fuelbreak treatment unit descriptions; elevation of the highest and lowest point of the unit, the nearest

point of the unit to the Pacific coast, acres of treatment within the unit, miles of treatment per unit, presence of

the unit inside or outside of the Ventana wilderness, and the general vegetation alliances represented within the

majority of the treatment unit.

Treatment Unit

Lowest

Elevatio

n (Feet)

Highest

Elevation

(Feet)

Approximat

e distance

from the

coast

(miles)*

Acre

s Miles

Within

Ventana

Wilderness

? General Vegetation Type

Lower Skinner

Ridge to Boy

Scout Camp

1,378 2,263 5 11.4 0.6 N Lower Montane Mixed Chaparral;

Coastal Mixed Hardwood

Mount Manuel to

Big Sur Wild

River

1,476 3,050 2.25 16.3 0.9 Y

Lower Montane Mixed Chaparral;

California Sagebrush; Tanoak

(Madrone)

9


Treatment Unit

Lowest

Elevatio

n (Feet)

Highest

Elevation

(Feet)

Approximat

e distance

from the

coast

(miles)*

Acre

s Miles

Within

Ventana

Wilderness

? General Vegetation Type

Post Summit to

Little Sur River 1,574 3,444 3.25 32.2 1.8 Y

Coast Live Oak; Tanoak (Madrone)

Redwood/Coastal Mixed Hardwood;

Lower Montane Mixed Chaparral

Bottchers Gap to

Skinner Ridge 2,066 3,247 4.5 23.4 1.3 N


Coastal Mixed Hardwood Tanoak

(Madrone)

Mescal Ridge 2,165 2,362 2.25 22.2 0.6 N Coast Live Oak; Annual Grasses and

Forbs; California Sagebrush

Partington Ridge 2,263 3,346 1 14.3 0.8 N

California Sagebrush; Lower

Montane Mixed Chaparral; Tanoak

(Madrone)

Skinner Ridge 2,263 3,444 5.5 39.3 2.2 Y/N*


Tanoak (Madrone); Coastal Mixed

Hardwood

Hennicksons

Ridge to

Tassajara Road

2,558 4,723 11.5 82.4 4.5 Y


Montane Mixed Hardwood; Coast

Live Oak

North Coast

Ridge Road -

Terrace Creek

Trailhead to

Cold Sprg.

2,657 3,641 1.25 62 3.5 N

Coast Live Oak; Annual Grasses and

Forbs; Lower Montane Mixed

Chaparral

Tan Bark Trail 2,657 3,838 1.25 16 0.8 N


Ponderosa Pine/Coulter Pine/Coastal

Mixed Hardwood

Post Summit to

Mt. Manuel 2,854 3,542 2.5 53.9 2.7 N


Tanoak (Madrone); Chamise;

California Sagebrush

Skinner Ridge to

Devils Peak 3,247 4,133 5.5 18.8 1 Y

Chamise; Montane Mixed

Hardwood; Canyon Live Oak/Lower

Montane Mixed Chaparral

North Coast

Ridge Road -

Cold Springs to

Tan Bark Trail

3,542 3,838 2 52.5 1.5 N

Ponderosa Pine/Canyon Live

Oak/Lower Montane Mixed

Chaparral; Montane Mixed

Hardwood/Lower Montane Mixed

Chaparral

North Coast

Ridge Road -

Tan Bark Trail to

Anderson Peak

3,739 3,936 2 19.1 1.1 N


Ponderosa Pine/Canyon Live

Oak/Lower Montane Mixed

Chaparral

Chews Ridge

Lookout to

Wilderness

Boundary

4,723 5,018 11.25 13 0.7 N

Canyon Live Oak//Lower Montane

Mixed Chaparral Coulter

Pine/Canyon Live Oak/Lower

Montane Mixed Chaparral Coulter

Pine/Black Oak

Chews Ridge

Lookout; MIRA 4,723 4,920 11.5 64.7 11 N


Montane Mixed Hardwood; Coulter

pine/Canyon live oak

5. Effects of Proposed Project on Selected MIS

10


5.a. Mule Deer

Please see Appendix B - Mule Deer - Region 5 MIS Account-Southern Province Forests, for

habitat and population information for the Los Padres National Forest and the Southern

California Province.

Mule deer were selected as an MIS for forest health related to vegetation management, roads and

associated recreation management. The desired condition for mule deer is that habitat functions

are maintained or improved, including primary feeding areas, winter ranges, breeding areas,

birthing areas, rearing areas, migration corridors, and landscape linkages (LMP, Part 1 p.45).

The objective for mule deer is that there are stable or increasing well-distributed populations.

Trends in abundance and/or habitat condition are to be used for measuring populations.

5.a.1. Habitat/Species Relationship

All habitats within the LPNF are considered suitable for mule deer (CWHR 2005) and are

classified as year-round usage, meaning that the resident mule deer could use all of the area to

some degree, all year (WAFWA Mule Deer Working Group 2005).

Foraging habitat: Various shrubs in summer and winter. Prefer tender new growth. Forbs and

grasses are important in spring (CWHR 2005).

Cover habitat: Brushy areas and tree thickets.

Reproduction: Moderately dense shrublands and forests, dense herbaceous stands.

Home range sizes are generally less than 1 mile in diameter (CWHR 2005).

Currently, mule deer are widespread on the LPNF and are assumed to be present in all habitat

types. Mule deer prefer edge habitat and vegetation ecotones, especially where openings and

cover are interspersed with sources of water. These provide mosaics of vegetation with

interspersions of dense shrub or trees (for hiding cover from disturbance and predation, and

thermal cover during the winter and summer) among herbaceous and riparian areas (foraging

habitat). Hiding cover is typically close to the ground and thick enough to camouflage the

outline of the deer, without being so dense as to obscure the approach of potential predators.

Thermal cover is similar and generally thought to be denser, with the additional property of

sheltering deer from the elements. Mule deer are affected by roads, human interactions, and

management activities that modify vegetation diversity and age class mosaics.

Ranges of fawn and doe groups are small, varying from 0.4 to 1.9 miles depending upon water

availability and topography. In addition to close proximity to water, fawning areas are

characterized by low shrubs or small trees suitable for protection during birthing, and dense

shrub thickets for sheltering fawns. Fawning areas must be interspersed with forage, hiding

cover, and thermal cover for the doe. Fawns are born from early April to midsummer, with peak

fawning from late April through mid-June.

Mule deer browse forbs, grasses, and shrubs. New shrub growth is preferred to mature shrubs,

since it provides a more easily digestible nutrient source. Acorns (mast) are an important part of

the fall diet.

11


Table 3: Cover type classification across the project area from the EVEG 2010 GIS layer1, as described in the

project Vegetation Report.

Cover type Acres Percentage of project area

Barren 142 <1%

Conifer forest/woodland 233 <1%

Hardwood forest/woodland 31,338 48%

Herbaceous 1,267 2%

Mixed conifer and hardwood forest/woodland

9,740 15%

Shrub 22,940 35%

Urban 5 <1%

Total 65,664 100%

As described in the project Vegetation Report, eight major vegetation types represent eighty-

eight percent (88%) of the project area and are considered the major vegetation types for this

project. The dominant vegetation types are lower montane mixed chaparral (27%) and coast

live oak (16%). Montane mixed hardwood (10%), Canyon Live Oak (9%), redwood (8%),

coastal mixed hardwood (8%) are secondary; with the remaining area being chamise and

tanoak (5% each). The major vegetation alliances within the project area are described below.

The descriptions are not specific to the project area, but rather describe the alliances as they

occur within the CalVeg geographic zone 6. Thirty three additional alliances account for the

remaining twelve percent (12%) of the project area, with most of them individually representing

less than one percent (1%) up to two percent (2%) of the project area.

In the project area, the habitat types listed below in tables 4 and 5 are of varying suitability to

mule deer.

Table 4: Vegetation alliances and cover types across the project area from the EVEG 2010 GIS layer, as

described in the project Vegetation Report. Vegetation alliances in bold make up >1% of the project area.

Note that acres listed are for the project area and not treatment units.

Cover type Alliance Name Acres Percentage of project

area

Shrub Lower Montane Mixed Chaparral 17,645 27%

Hardwood forest/woodland Coast Live Oak 10,459 16%

Hardwood forest/woodland Montane Mixed Hardwood 6,592 10%

Hardwood forest/woodland Canyon Live Oak 5,612 9%

Hardwood forest/woodland Coastal Mixed Hardwood 5,217 8%

Mixed conifer and hardwood

forest/woodland

Redwood 5,154 8%

Hardwood forest/woodland Tanoak (Madrone) 3,116 5%


forest/woodland

Coulter Pine 3,123 5%

Shrub Chamise 3,304 5%

Herbaceous Annual Grasses and Forbs 1,265 2%

1 A remotely sensed contiguous GIS vegetation layer

12



forest/woodland

Ponderosa Pine 1,012 2%

Shrub California Sagebrush 1,377 2%

Shrub North Coast Mixed Shrub 546 1%

Barren Barren 142 <1%

Conifer forest/woodland Monterey Cypress 1 <1%

Conifer forest/woodland Coulter Pine 26 <1%

Conifer forest/woodland Ponderosa Pine 56 <1%

Conifer forest/woodland Redwood 113 <1%

Hardwood forest/woodland Riparian Mixed Hardwood 48 <1%

Hardwood forest/woodland Interior Mixed Hardwood 4 <1%

Hardwood forest/woodland California Bay 56 <1%

Hardwood forest/woodland Blue Oak 124 <1%

Hardwood forest/woodland Black Oak 78 <1%

Hardwood forest/woodland Valley Oak 30 <1%

Herbaceous Pastures and Crop Agriculture 2 <1%

Conifer forest/woodland Alpine Grasses and Forbs 36 <1%


forest/woodland

Santa Lucia Fir 438 1%


forest/woodland

Monterey Cypress 1 <1%


forest/woodland

Gray Pine 11 <1%

Shrub Ceanothus Mixed Chaparral 21 <1%

Shrub Scrub Oak 47 <1%

Shrub Blueblossum Ceanothus 1 <1%

Urban Urban 5 <1%

Total 65,664 100%

Table 5: General Deer Habitat Suitability Levels within the Project Area (CWHR 2005) and acres

affected by treatment. H =High: Optimal habitat for species; habitat can support relatively high population densities at high frequencies.

M=Medium: Suitable habitat; habitat can support relatively moderate population densities at moderate frequencies.

L =Low: Marginal habitat for species; habitat can support relatively low population densities at low frequencies.

U =Unsuitable: Habitat is unsuitable for species, and species is not expected to reliably occur.

CWHR Type Stage/Density* Acres

Pre-

project

Acres

Post-

project**

Reproduction

Value

Cover

Value

Feed

Value

Mixed Chaparral Seedling shrub

Young shrub/open

Mature shrub/dense

Decadent shrub/dense 22,940

22,697

(243 acres

affected)

L - M L - M L - M

and

High

Chamise-Redshank

Chaparral

Seedling shrub

Young shrub/open

Mature shrub/dense

Decadent shrub/dense

L – M L - M L - M

13


Hardwood

forest/woodland

Pole/open

Pole/moderate

Pole/dense

Small tree/sparse

Small tee/open

Small tree/moderate

Small tree/dense

31,338

31,141

(197 acres

affected)

L M M

Annual grassland Tall herb/open-dense 1,267

1,267

(37 acres

present but

no change in

acres

expected)

L L M

Mixed

Conifer/Hardwood

woodland

Pole/open

Pole/moderate

Pole/dense

Small tree/sparse

Small tee/open

Small tree/moderate

Small tree/dense

9,973

9,908

(65 acres

affected)

Value not identified

Nearby water sources are also very important to deer, especially during reproduction.

*Stage: Trees: pole = 6-10.5 inches DBH, small tree = 11-23.5” DBH, medium/large tree = over 24” DBH. Shrubs:

seedling/sprouts = less than 3 years old, young shrub = no crown decadence, mature shrub = 1-25% crown

decadence, decadent = over 25% crown decadence. Density (cover): sparse=10-24 %, open=25-39%,

moderate=40-59%, dense=60-100%. Acres of each stage and density were not available for each treatment

unit, but are instead summarized here.

**Based on summaries from the project Vegetation Report regarding anticipated change in vegetation type relative

to treatment type. Affected acres per treatment were totaled together for the MIS report because each seral

stage of vegetation was not evaluated for this project.

5.a.2. Project-level Effects Analysis based on Habitat

Key Habitat Factor(s) for the Analysis: Mule deer were selected as a MIS for forest health

related to vegetation management, roads and associated recreation management. The following

factors are used to assess the effects of the proposed action and alternatives on deer habitat:

the increase or decrease in miles of road that would result from the project

the amount of acres affected and change in habitat suitability

Spatial and Temporal Bounds for Project-level Effects Analysis: Spatial bounding for this

analysis is the proposed project area boundary, as this area is larger than the treatment units

themselves and encompasses a large enough area to contain several deer home ranges and give

sufficient perspective to analyze key habitat factors. The project area boundary encompasses all

vegetation types pertinent to deer that would be affected by the project while not being too large

as to encompass vegetation and habitat types that would not be pertinent to the analysis.

Temporal bounding is approximately 10 years, as this represents the maximum time needed for

implementation of all stages of the project and would also take into account the regeneration

time of the treated vegetation.

14


Current Condition of the Key Habitat Factor(s) in the Analysis Area: Mule deer are

assumed to be present in all habitat types within the project area. See Table 5 for the CWHR

vegetation types, number of acres within the project area prior to project implementation and the

relative value of those acres to mule deer.

About 22,940 acres2 of the National Forest lands within the project area are dense, stands of

mixed chaparral, chamise chaparral, and coastal scrub in a variety of age classes (Table 5).

Areas containing older, more decadent stands of brush are of low value for forage and

reproduction due to the low digestibility of mature chaparral shrubs, but are of moderate value

for cover. The younger brush contains more value as forage while continuing to offer moderate

cover. The 31,338 acres of oak woodlands are of moderate to high value as deer habitat; coastal

oak woodlands are often along creeks, as well as on the steeper slopes above the creeks, whereas

the blue oaks are more often on the gentle grassy slopes in saddles or on ridges. There are 1,267

acres of annual grasslands within the analysis area that are of moderate value for forage and low

value as cover.

Water is available in many areas of the project area in perennial streams year-round, and

particularly in the larger rivers such as Big Sur and Little Sur Rivers, although portions of some

of the smaller creeks may dry up during late summer and fall. Water is available in spring in the

ephemeral and intermittent streams in the project area, but all of these can be expected to dry up

by mid summer. Water may be available year-round at small seeps or springs, which are rare in

the project area. Succulent riparian vegetation is seasonal in the project area.

Effects of Proposed Action Alternatives 2 & 3

The overall project footprint and treatment acres are the same for all action alternatives. Only

the method by which these treatments would occur when within wilderness changes with each

alternative. Implementation tools differ between alternatives, so that alternative 2 proposes the

use of mechanized equipment (i.e. chainsaws or weed eaters) within wilderness units, while

alternative 3 proposes the use of only traditional hand tools in these units. Alternative 4

proposes the same treatments as alternative 2, but with the addition of highly specified use of

herbicide in non-wilderness treatment units. All other aspects of the proposed activities are the

same across action alternatives.

Essentially, the differences between action alternatives are based on the concept of human

influence and/or disturbance to the overall wilderness character within units that occur in

wilderness, and whether treatments would maintain the perceived lack of human influence on the

natural processes, as viewed by the wilderness user. During the project planning stage, this

perceived lack of human influence within wilderness treatment units created opportunities for

distinctions between action alternatives from the implementation stand point; but, from the

standpoint of a wildlife effects analysis, these distinctions were indistinguishable and/or

immeasurable between alternatives, with the exception of herbicide treatment. Only alternative 4

proposes the use of herbicide to achieve brush reduction goals in non-wilderness units; no

herbicide treatment is proposed within wilderness for any action alternative. Acres of treatment

and the overall footprint of the project remain the same across all action alternatives.

Therefore, effects from alternatives 2 and 3 to each of the wildlife species within this analysis are

2 Coastal Scrub, Mixed Chaparral, and Chamise-Redshank Chaparral added together.

15


expected to be indistinguishable from each other due to the identical treatment footprint,

equivalent implementation methods, and the essentially same desired post treatment condition

for each unit. In addition, the same project design features and protective measures are in place

for all action alternatives, except where the measures address the use of herbicide. The

application method and project design features for herbicide application are highly specific and

explicitly describe the avoidance of all non-target plants and aquatic/riparian habitats.

For these reasons, the effects analysis below groups the effects from alternatives 2 and 3

together. Alternative 4 is analyzed in the context of the potential effects from herbicide

application where applicable, with the assumption that the effects from alternatives 2 and 3 are

also anticipated for alternative 4.

Direct and Indirect Effects to Key Habitat Factors. See Table 5 for the CWHR vegetation

types, number of acres within the project area prior to project implementation, number of acres

of various seral stages following the project, and the relative value of those acres to mule deer.

The indirect effects of the proposed action alternatives would be to potentially improve the

quality of small amounts of mule deer habitat within the units by creating more openings and by

burning decadent shrub in the prescribed burning unit. Approximately 243 acres of mixed

chaparral will be treated with this project. This is unlikely to cause discernable or meaningful

effects to the deer within the analysis area due to the patchy distribution of treatments and the

abundant amount of available habitat that will remain untreated.

The purpose of the proposed treatments is to provide an increase in firefighter and public safety

by providing a zone of reduced fire behavior in which to conduct fire management actions in the

highly likely event of wildland fire. This zone of reduced fire behavior would result in a reduced

risk to life and property, improved fire suppression efficiencies, reduced fire suppression costs

and lower potential for adverse fire effects from large, high severity fires. In wilderness areas,

these treatments will indirectly improve wilderness characteristics by reducing the adverse

effects of fire suppression operations during the next wildfire.

A total of approximately 542 acres are proposed for treatment by a combination of methods.

Project specific design features would be applied to all treatments where applicable. Any of the

treatment methods listed for each treatment segment could be applied and would be entirely

dependent on the vegetation and fuels condition at the time of treatment. Fuels reduction would

be applied to either live or dead vegetation and would be prescriptive; the specific method would

be chosen at the time of implementation.

Implementing the project can decrease the amount of acres affected by a high intensity wildfire

that could remove hiding cover and affect the re-growth of vegetation. With small, low intensity

burns, more cover would remain within a mosaic of burned and unburned, such as proposed by

this project, and are more beneficial than large high severity burns that remove large swaths of

habitat and retain very little cover for deer.

Prescribed fire treatments will create a mosaic of burned and unburned vegetation, offering

forage and cover in close proximity to each other, which is beneficial to deer. Wildfire and fuel

management are two processes expected to create more edge and early succession habitat for

deer (FEIS Vol. 1, page 125, 2005).

16


The project should not affect stream flow or the suitability of riparian habitat since the riparian

areas will maintain riparian vegetation and shade levels and the treatment areas adjacent to the

riparian areas are expected to have low fire severity and unburned patches of vegetation.

Riparian vegetation is not targeted for treatment. As a result, natural water sources and water

availability are expected to remain unchanged.

No roads will be built or decommissioned for this project, so road density will remain

unchanged. Recreational use is not expected to change measurably in response to this project.

Effects from Alternative 4

Alternative 4 proposes the use of herbicide in treatment units outside of wilderness. All effects

from alternatives 2 and 3 are also assumed for alternative 4. Impacts to deer habitat from this

treatment would essentially be from the increased effectiveness of the brush reduction

treatments.

The application method and project design features for herbicide application specifically

consider avoidance of all non target vegetation, which dramatically reduces the potential for

unintended application of herbicide (see Appendix D - Project Design Features). The paint brush

application of herbicide with a viscous mixture that quickly penetrates the cut stem of woody

vegetation significantly reduces the potential for misapplication or spillage. In addition, the

weather parameters designed around dry, windless days avoid wind propelled herbicide affecting

unintended areas.

The potential for deleterious effects to terrestrial and aquatic wildlife species has been

significantly reduced or eliminated due to the application method, the specific type of herbicide

proposed for use, and the project design features integrated into the project that would prevent

misapplication to non-target species, overland runoff, and accidental spillage. Effects from the

addition of highly specific and targeted herbicide treatments proposed with alternative 4 are not

discernable from the effects from alternatives 2 and 3.

Cumulative Effects to Habitat for all Action Alternatives: Spatial bounding for this analysis

is the proposed project area boundary, as this area is larger than the treatment units themselves

and encompasses a large enough area to contain several deer home ranges and give sufficient

perspective to analyze key habitat factors. In addition, the project area boundary encompasses

all vegetation types pertinent to deer that would be affected by the project while not being too

large as to encompass vegetation and habitat types that would not be pertinent to the analysis.

Temporal bounding is approximately 10 years, as this represents the maximum time needed for

implementation of all stages of the project and would therefore capture any additive impacts

from projects occurring at the same time and space as the proposed activities. This temporal

bounding would also take into account the regeneration time of the treated vegetation.

Within this analysis area, the pertinent cumulative effects to deer would pertain to the existence

of the roads, private properties, and grazing in the watersheds within which the treatment units

17


occur3. In the past, these activities may have caused a degree of diminishment to deer habitat;

however deer are remarkably adaptable to various conditions and may also have benefited from

some of the openings that have been created. There are no known changes planned for the level

of road density or uses, grazing, private property development, or recreational activities. The

number of cattle permitted is likely to remain the same, and they are more likely to congregate in

the traditional areas of use due to better forage conditions and ease of access. There may be

more OHV use of the fuel breaks and temporary dozer lines which has the potential to generate

more disturbance to any wildlife that may be occurring in these areas. But, overall, cumulative

effects to habitat are not expected.

The cumulative effects of the past and present actions are more fully described in the revised

Strategic Fuelbreak Project Biological Assessment and the Biological Evaluation (2016, on file

at the Monterey district office).

Cumulative Effects Conclusion: The proposed action alternatives, when added to other past,

present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, will not adversely impact deer habitat within

the project area. There are no activities that would overlap in space and time with the proposed

project that may cause additive negative impacts to deer habitat within the temporal or spatial

bounding of this analysis. No substantial threats to mule deer persistence or distribution from

Forest Service activities are expected.

Effects of No Action Alternative

Direct and Indirect Effects to Habitat. If the project is not implemented, there would be no

discernable short-term direct or indirect effect to the mule deer habitat within the project area

and current conditions would remain unchanged. However, by not implementing this project, the

risk and potential extent of wildfire increases. A wildfire could potentially affect significant

amounts of habitat within and outside the project area, as well as outside the Forest boundary.

No desired cover/forage ratio has been determined for the LPNF, however, the natural variations

in vegetation types in the analysis area are expected to maintain sufficient amounts of both cover

and forage habitat to maintain the deer population within the project area.

Stream flow and the suitability of riparian habitat should remain the same, provided that the

landscape is not burned in a wildfire. Road density will remain unchanged. Illegal OHV activity

may or may not increase. Recreational use in the analysis area is not expected to change

appreciably in response to the proposed project.

Cumulative Effects to Habitat: In the absence of fire or other brush disturbances, the risk and potential extent of wildfire will

increase within the project area over time. A wildfire could potentially burn significant amounts

coastal scrub, mixed chaparral, chamise-redshank chaparral and riparian habitat within and

outside the project area. This could adversely affect deer reproduction and cover habitat in the

short-term, but after about 2-3 years, the forage value of burned areas would be high and

reproduction and cover value would be moderate until vegetation matures.

3 The HUC 10 watersheds affected by the proposed activities were the ‘Big Creek-Willow Creek Frontal’, the ‘Big

Sur River Frontal’, and the ‘Upper Carmel River’ watersheds.

18


This could adversely affect available forage, but effects would only last for 1-2 growing seasons

at most, since chaparral and coastal scrub vegetation is expected to quickly re-establish. Deer

populations generally respond favorably to the creation of openings, particularly in areas such as

the project area, where forage is more limited than cover.

Cumulative Effects Conclusion: The no action alternative, when added to other past, present,

and reasonably foreseeable future actions, will allow shrub habitat within the analysis area to

become more decadent and prone to wildfire, though no substantial threats to mule deer

persistence or distribution are expected if the project is not implemented.

5.a.3. Summary of Habitat and Population Status and Trend at the Forest Scale

Please see Appendix B for MIS information on mule deer on the LPNF. The following are brief

summaries.

Habitat Status and Trend: Mule deer are widespread on the LPNF and are assumed to

be present wherever openings and cover are interspersed with sources of water, although

they are also present to some degree in areas that are less than ideal. Mule deer habitat

within the LPNF includes riparian areas, oak woodlands, various shrublands, coniferous

forests, foothill woodlands, grasslands, and suburban environments. Vast tracts of

mature shrub habitat exist across much of the forest, and without periodic habitat

disturbance, especially from fire, can have diminished habitat value for deer as they

become decadent.

Population Status and Trend: Deer herds on the LPNF are found within Hunt Zone A

and Hunt Zone D-13. About 32% of the deer killed in Hunt Zone A come from public

lands, with the LPNF being about half of the public lands present within the zone. An

estimated 64% of deer killed in Zone D-13 came from public lands, which consists nearly

totally of the lands on the LPNF (www.dfg.ca.gov/wildlife/hunting/deer/deerhunt.html).

The estimated 2007 pre-season population size for the two hunt zones combined is

113,320 (CDFW 2007), however it is unknown what percentage of that is on LPNF. The

estimated deer kill in Hunt Zone D-13 and Hunt Zone A for the past five years show a

general decrease for Zone A and little discernable trend for Zone D-13. This trend may

be related to deer population numbers, but without further analysis, could also be due to

other factors.

5.a.4. Relationship of Project-Level Impacts to Forest-Scale Habitat and Population

Trends for Mule Deer The proposed project will move habitat on the LPNF towards the desired condition for mule

deer. The proposed treatment units are less than 0.01 % of mule deer habitat on the LPNF,

which means that the influence of this project to forest wide trends would be quite small.

19


5.b. Mountain Lion

Please see Appendix C - Mountain Lion- Region 5 MIS Account-Southern Province Forests for

habitat and population information for the Los Padres National Forest and the Southern

California Province.

The objectives for mountain lion are that there are functional landscape linkages and that the

species is well-distributed. Trends in distribution, movement, and/or habitat conditions are to be

used as measurements for evaluation.

5.b.1. Habitat/Species Relationship. Mountain lions are found in nearly all habitats in

California that support mule deer and are most abundant in riparian areas. Habitat relationships

for mountain lions are defined by the California Wildlife Habitat Relationships models (CWHR

2005):

Feeding habitat: Stalks prey in nearly any habitat, preferably where there is cover, often

in riparian areas.

Cover habitat: Dense thickets in brush or trees.

Reproduction habitat: Caves and other natural cavities. Thickets are used for denning.

Home range: Male home ranges are generally at least 15 square miles, with females

utilizing smaller areas about 3-12 square miles (CWHR 2005).

In this project area, the following habitat types described in the table below are of varying

suitability to mountain lions:

20


Table 6: General Mountain Lion Habitat Suitability Levels within the Project Area

(CWHR 2005)

H =High: Optimal habitat for species; habitat can support relatively high population densities at high frequencies.

M=Medium: Suitable habitat; habitat can support relatively moderate population densities at moderate

frequencies.

L =Low: Marginal habitat for species; habitat can support relatively low population densities at low frequencies.

U =Unsuitable: Habitat is unsuitable for species, and species is not expected to reliably occur.

CWHR Type Stage/Density* Acres

Pre-

project**

Acres

Post-

project

Reproduction

Value

Cover

Value

Feed

Value

Coastal Scrub Seedling shrub

Young shrub/open

Mature

shrub/moderate

Decadent shrub/dense 22,940

22,697

(243 acres

affected)

-

L

M

M

-

L

M

M

M

H

M

L

Mixed Chaparral Seedling shrub

Young shrub/open

Mature shrub/dense


-

L

H

H

-

L

H

H

M

H

M

M

Chamise-

Redshank

Chaparral

Seedling shrub

Young shrub/open

Mature shrub/dense


31,338

31,141

(197 acres

affected)

U

L

H

H

U

L

H

H

M

M

M

M

Blue Oak

Woodland

Pole/open

Small tree/sparse

Small tee/open

Small tree/moderate

Small tree/dense 1,267

1,267

(37 acres

present but

no change in

acres

expected)

M

M

M

Coast Oak

Woodland

Pole/open

Pole/moderate

Pole/dense

Small tree/sparse

Small tee/open

Small tree/moderate

Small tree/dense

9,973

9,908

(65 acres

affected)

M

M

M

Annual

grassland Tall herb/open-dense 22,940

22,697

(243 acres

affected)

L L L

Nearby water sources are not as important, since mountain lions travel extensively, but lions do tend to favor

riparian habitats, likely due to prey availability.

*Stage: Trees: pole = 6-10.5 inches DBH, small tree = 11-23.5” DBH, medium/large tree = over 24” DBH. Shrubs:

seedling/sprouts = less than 3 years old, young shrub = no crown decadence, mature shrub = 1-25% crown

decadence, decadent = over 25% crown decadence

Density (cover): sparse=10-24 %, open=25-39%, moderate=40-59%, dense=60-100%.

**Based on summaries from the project Vegetation Report regarding anticipated change in vegetation type relative

to treatment type. Affected acres per treatment were totaled together for the MIS report because each seral

stage of vegetation was not evaluated for this project.

21


5.b.2. Project-level Effects Analysis based on Habitat

Key Habitat Factor(s) for the Analysis: The habitat conditions described within the LRMP

that contribute to a well distributed mountain lion population are as follows:

1) The availability of brushy cover and lack of impediments to movement to and within key

linkage areas identified in Appendix C that connect the LPNF to other large habitat

acreages near the forest.

2) The availability of habitat that provides an abundance of its principal prey, mule deer,

within its home range. The portion of the analysis that describes mule deer habitat is

discussed in the section above and will not be repeated below.

Spatial and Temporal Bounds for Project-level Effects Analysis: The key linkage areas

identified in Appendix C and paths of access to these areas are considered as part of the spatial

bounding for the analysis for mountain lions, as linkages were one of the key habitat factors

identified for mountain lion in the LRMP. In addition, spatial bounding for this analysis

encompasses the proposed project area boundary, as this area is larger than the treatment units

themselves and encompasses a large enough area to give sufficient perspective to analyze key

habitat factors. The project area boundary encompasses all vegetation types pertinent to deer and

mountain lion that would be affected by the project, while not being too large as to encompass

vegetation and habitat that would not be pertinent to the analysis. Direct, indirect, and

cumulative effects to mountain lion habitat suitability directly within the proposed treatment

units are also analyzed in order to give a relative scale for the changes resulting from the project.

Temporal bounding is ten years, as treatments are proposed for implementation over a ten year

period and this would also take into account the regeneration time of the treated vegetation. In

the case of cumulative effects, the current condition of the project area takes into account the

previous actions and effects to the project area and two years is considered the foreseeable future

for actions that may reasonably occur within the analysis area.

Current Condition of the Key Habitat Factor(s) in the Analysis Area: The project area is not

in or near a key linkage area identified in the Species Accounts with the LPNF LRMP.

However, large areas of brush and oak woodlands, interspersed with riparian corridors are

present within the project area, and would allow mountain lions to travel without impediment

across areas of suitable habitat. Portions of the project area within wilderness are high quality

mountain lion habitat, due to the combination of high quality prey habitat with limited human

and/or vehicle access. Outside of the wilderness, the project area is a combination of areas with

increased human access and presumably reduced suitability for mountain lion, mixed with

relatively isolated blocks of habitat with difficult access due to topography and limited road

access. The project area is spread across a wide expanse of the northern portion of the Monterey

RD and represents a wide range of habitat types. In general, the majority of the project area

likely offers abundant high value habitat to mountain lions due the relatively contiguous nature

of high quality prey habitat with reduced human access and disturbance.

22


Effects of Alternatives 2 and 3

As described above for mule deer, alternatives 2 and 3 will be grouped together for the analysis

of effects. See Table 6 for the CWHR vegetation types, number of acres within the project area

prior to project implementation, number of acres of various seral stages following the project,

and the relative value of those acres to mountain lions.

Direct and Indirect Effects to Habitat: In California, mountain lions are widespread,

uncommon permanent residents, ranging from sea level to alpine meadows. They are found in

nearly all habitats, except xeric regions of the Mojave and Colorado deserts that do not support

mule deer populations. Mountain lions are most abundant in riparian areas, and brushy stages of

most habitats (CDFG CWHR).

Mountain lions are most abundant in areas that support a large population of deer, their primary

prey. Within these habitat types, mountain lions tend to prefer rocky cliffs, ledges, and other

areas that provide cover (CDFG CWHR). Mountain lions use brushy stages of a variety of

habitat types with good cover. Preferred travel routes are along canyon bottoms, stream courses

and gentle terrain, but all habitats with cover are used.

Table 6 above describes the vegetation types occurring within the project area. However,

because of the wide variety of habitat utilized by mountain lions, an analysis of the vegetation

types proposed for treatment offers little insight into how mountains lion habitat will be affected

by project implementation. Aspects of the proposed treatments most important to maintaining or

promoting mountain lion habitat are 1) the effects to deer habitat - as mountain lions

predominantly utilize habitats that their primary prey utilize and 2) the effects to the connectivity

between areas of currently suitable habitat – as fragmentation and human encroachment are

major influences on habitat suitability. Effects to deer habitat are described above in the Mule

Deer section of this document.

Riparian corridors within the project area are likely used by deer and may therefore be areas

where mountain lions may hunt, though to what extent is unknown, as this is an elusive and

extremely difficult species to survey for abundance or density. The LPNF is not obligated to

survey for mountain lions, but relies on the state agencies to provide monitoring information via

depredation permits; anecdotal observations during field visits in 2012 detected no mountain lion

scat or tracks.

The proposed action alternatives will have no effect on identified habitat linkages (see Appendix

C) and will not create impediments to movement within the project area towards these linkages.

The project activities will not influence fragmentation, road density or human encroachment in

the area.

As described above, the proposed alternatives are not expected to have meaningful impacts to

mule deer habitat availability, condition or distribution; therefore, subsequent impacts to

mountain lion through impacts to its prey are not expected. Fuelbreaks may provide areas of

more open travel for both mountain lion and deer where they cut through brushy areas and may

be used as edge habitat. How this will influence the predator-prey relationship is unknown, but

is unlikely to cause any meaningful impacts due to the small scale of treatment relative to the

23


overall abundance of suitable habitat amidst available travel corridors across the Monterey

district.

Effects from Alternative 4

Alternative 4 proposes the use of herbicide in treatment units outside of wilderness. All effects

from alternatives 2 and 3 are also assumed for alternative 4. The use of herbicide proposed in

alternative 4 will have no effect to mountain lion habitat or connectivity of linkages, as this

aspect of the proposed treatments is not relevant to any important habitat element for mountain

lion.

Cumulative Effects to Habitat. Within this analysis area, the cumulative effects of the roads,

private properties, grazing allotments on National Forest lands are probably of little consequence

to mountain lions due to their large home ranges which undoubtedly include the Ventana

Wilderness Area. These activities may have caused some degree of disturbance to mountain

lions, and thus diminished the value of this habitat. There are no known changes planned for the

level of road density or uses, grazing, private property development, or recreational activities.

The cumulative effects of the past and present actions are more fully described in the revised

Strategic Fuelbreak Project Biological Assessment and the Biological Evaluation (2016, on file

at the district office).

Cumulative Effects Conclusion: The project will not cumulatively affect identified mountain

lion movement linkages and should not affect habitat in any way that would reduce mountain

lion movements within the project area in order to access the linkages. Some of the treatment

units will have reduced cover until vegetation recovers. During this time, deer may favor such

habitats for foraging and mountain lions may be attracted to those areas as well. There are no

known activities that would overlap in space and time with the proposed project that would cause

additive negative impacts to mountain lion habitat within the temporal or spatial bounding of this

analysis. No substantial threats to mountain lion persistence or distribution from Forest Service

activities are expected.

Effects of the No Action Alternative

Direct and Indirect Effects to Habitat. If the project is not implemented, there would be no

discernable short-term direct or indirect effect to mountain lion travel linkages or to habitat

within the project area and current conditions would remain unchanged.

However, by not implementing this project, the risk and potential extent of impacts from high

severity wildfire increases. A wildfire could potentially affect significant amounts of habitat

within and outside the project area, as well as outside the Forest boundary. This could adversely

affect foraging habitat due to lack of cover while hunting, but effects would only last for 1-2

growing seasons at most, since chaparral and coastal scrub vegetation is expected to quickly re-

establish to levels sufficient to be used for cover. Deer populations generally respond favorably

to the creation of openings, particularly in areas such as the project area, where foraging habitat

24


is more limited than cover. Due to their strong dependence on mule deer, impacts to mule deer

can be translated as impacts to mountain lions.

Cumulative Effects to Habitat. Over time, vegetation within some units would likely grow

more dense and woody, becoming less palatable for deer and making access more difficult. Oak

woodland and grasslands should remain unaltered. After 10 years, without any incidence of fire,

the levels of early and mid successional chaparral would decrease, bringing the project area

further from optimum condition.

Cumulative Effects Conclusion: Cumulative effects are not expected for the identified

mountain lion movement linkages from a lack of implementation of the proposed project; habitat

would not be affected in any way that would reduce mountain lion movements within the project

area in order to access the linkages. Cumulative effects discussed for mule deer habitat would

continue, regardless of project implementation.

5.b.3. Summary of Habitat and Population Status and Trend at the Forest Scale

Please see Appendix C for MIS information on mountain lions on the LPNF. The following are

brief summaries.

Habitat Status and Trend. All habitats on the forest are considered suitable for

mountain lions, though key habitat linkages have been identified and are considered to be

essential to mountain lion persistence. Habitat linkages connecting large blocks of

suitable habitat outside the forest have been severely degraded by human development,

particularly large highways and housing developments, and there is growing concern for

a decreasing trend for mountain lion dispersal through these areas.

Population Status and Trend. The LPNF LRMP does not require population

monitoring. Mountain lions are known to exist on the Forest, but there have been no

surveys of their abundance due to the extreme difficulty and lack of practicability of

surveying for this species. In general, mountain lion numbers have improved in the state,

and this trend is believed to be true for the LPNF as a whole, and the Monterey district in

particular due to the preponderance of national forest lands in wilderness status.

5.b.4. Relationship of Project-Level Impacts to Forest-Scale Habitat and Population

Trends for Mountain Lion.

This project will not contribute toward the current forest-wide trend in mountain lion linkages or

the use of such linkages. Meaningful effects to mule deer habitat are not expected; therefore

impacts to mountain lion through impacts to its prey are also not expected.

The treatment units represent less than 0.01% of mountain lion habitat on the LPNF, so that the

influence of this project to forest-wide trend of mountain lion distribution, movement, and/or

habitat conditions is not discernable.

25


References

CDFG. 2007. Deer Hunting Draft Environmental Document, April 10, 2007. State of

California, The Resources Agency, Department of Fish and Game. 80pp + appendices =

173pp.

CDFG. 2004. Deer Hunting Draft Environmental Document, February 6, 2004. State of

California, The Resources Agency, Department of Fish and Game. 270pp + appendices.

CWHR 2005. California Department of Fish and Game. California Interagency Wildlife Task

Group. 2005. California Wildlife Habitat Relationships version 8.1 personal computer

program. Sacramento, California.

Dickson, BG, and P Beier. 2007. c. Journal of Zoology (London) 271:270-277.

USDA Forest Service. 2005. Los Padres National Forest Land Management Plan: Part 1

Southern California National Forests Vision (R5-MB-075), Part 2 Los Padres National Forest

Strategy (R5-MB-078), Part 3 Design Criteria for the Southern California National Forests

(R5-MB-080) and Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) Vol. 1 and 2 (R5-MB-074-

A and B). US Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region.

USDA Forest Service. 2006. MIS Analysis and Documentation in Project-Level NEPA, R5

Environmental Coordination, Pacific Southwest Region. Draft document.

USDA Forest Service. 2000b. Sisquoc Watershed Analysis. Santa Lucia and Mount Pinos

Ranger Districts, Los Padres National Forest. Prepared by ACT2, R5 Internal Enterprise

Team.

USDA Forest Service. 2007. CalvegTiles_Ecoregions06_4. Pacific Southwest Region Remote

Sensing Lab, McClellan, CA. Online linkage:

http//www.fs.fed.us/r5/rsl/projects/mapping/accuracy.shtml

USDA 2011. Mule Deer - Final MIS Report.

USDA 2011. Mountain Lion - Final MIS Report.

26


27


Appendix A - Project Area Map

28


Appendix B

MANAGEMENT INDICATOR SPECIES ACCOUNT for MULE DEER IN THE SOUTHERN

CALIFORNIA PROVINCE

USDA 2011. Mule Deer - Final MIS Report.

Appendix C

MANAGEMENT INDICATOR SPECIES ACCOUNT for MOUNTAIN LION IN THE

SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA PROVINCE

USDA 2011. Mountain Lion - Final MIS Report.

Appendix B

Project Design Features

Wildlife

Project-wide

1. Within one week of activities, the Ventana Wildlife Society will be contacted to

determine if condors are utilizing habitat in the vicinity. If so, measures will be taken to

ensure that noise, pile burning activities, and smoke do not affect condors or nesting

activities. If condors approach the work site and remain on the scene, the Ventana

Wildlife Society will be notified in order to avoid harassment of condors.

2. If a condor nest is reported to the Forest by the Ventana Wilderness Society prior to

project implementation, no activities will take place within a 1.5 mile buffer of the

nesting area, as per Forest Plan direction (S28, S24, S11)4.

3. No activities will take place within a 0.5 mile of condor roosting areas, or other areas

where condors are congregating, during implementation as per Forest Plan direction

(S28, S24,S11).

4. Prior to implementation, there will be coordination between implementers and condor

biologists from the Ventana Wildlife Society for the identification of large snags that may

4 There are currently no known condor nests within or adjacent to the treatment units.

29


be currently or potentially used by condors, to avoid the inadvertent removal of important

roosting structures.

5. Prior to implementation, work crews will be advised on the appropriate ways to park and

care for equipment and tools when working in occupied condor habitat, in order to avoid

impacts to condors from the ingestion of harmful substances or objects that may be

associated with implementation tools/equipment.

6. In areas of brush treatment and prescribed fire, implementation would not occur from

March 15 through July 15 in order to mitigate effects to migratory and resident birds in

their nesting habitat during their sensitive reproductive season.

7. Within Riparian Conservation Areas, retain snags and downed logs unless they are

identified as a threat to life, property, or sustainability of the Riparian Conservation Area,

as per Forest Plan direction (S15).

8. No brush cutting, mastication, or herbicide application will occur within riparian habitat

to avoid direct impacts to species associated with riparian/aquatic habitat; brush cutting

that occurs within RCAs will not include riparian habitat.

9. No ground disturbing activities will occur within 100 feet of springs or ponds to avoid

direct impacts to species associated with riparian/aquatic habitat.

10. Where possible, large snags (≥ 24” DBH) that have been felled for safety reasons will be

left on the landscape as large down logs (i.e. not removed or bucked up) when they do

not exacerbate the current fuel condition, as per Forest Plan direction (S14).

11. In all units, or portions of units, that are at or below 2,300 feet in elevation and less than

approximately 5 miles from the coastline, a botanist or other trained personnel will

survey for Smith’s blue butterfly host plants, seacliff buckwheat (Eriogonum

parvifolium) and coast buckwheat (Eriogonum latifolium); if either species is found, it

will be identified and flagged prior to implementation so that no plants of either species

will be crushed, buried, burned, mowed, removed or treated with herbicide, in order to

prevent potential impacts to Smith’s blue butterfly. Where found, no ground disturbing

or herbicide treatments will occur within 10 feet of the individual plants.

a. The following units, or portions of units, fall within the parameters for suitability

for the host plants and require pre-implementation targeted, species-specific

botanical surveys in portions of the units where the potential exists for the two

host plant species to occur (which may be only a small area within the unit):

‘Mt. Manuel to Big Sur Wild River’, ‘Post Summit to Little Sur River’, ‘Bottchers

Gap to Skinner Ridge’, ‘Mescal Ridge’, and ‘Partington Ridge’

Site-specific protective measures for individual treatment units

1. The following limited operating period may be implemented for California spotted owls

(CSO) for the ‘Bottchers Gap to Skinner Ridge’, ‘Post Summit to Little Sur River’ and

‘Lower Skinner Ridge to Boy Scout Camp’, ‘Skinner Ridge’, ‘Skinner Ridge to Devils

Peak’, and ‘Mescal Ridge’ treatment units:

30


For unsurveyed suitable nesting habitat that occurs within 0.25 miles of treatment

units:

a. For areas of suitable nesting habitat that occur within 0.25 miles of treatment units

and have not been surveyed for CSO nesting activity, a limited operating period

will be in place during the breeding season (February 1 to August 15), for all

activities that generate noise above ambient5 levels; see map 1 of potential CSO

nesting habitat. This LOP is subject to change based on field validation of habitat

suitability. If CSO surveys are conducted in the suitable nesting habitat, and no

nesting CSO are detected, the LOP would not apply.

For surveyed suitable nesting habitat - any newly discovered nests that occur within

0.25 miles of treatment units:

b. If a California spotted owl nest should be discovered within the project area, a

limited operating period (LOP) will be in place during the breeding season

(February 1 to August 15), for all activities that generate noise above ambient

levels, that occur within 0.25 miles of the new nest.

For known CSO nests or territories that occur within 0.25 miles of treatment units:

c. A limited operating period will be in place during the breeding season (February

1 to August 15), for all activities that generate noise above ambient levels, within

0.25 miles of the most recent nest site, or activity center if the specific nest site is

unknown, unless surveys confirm that the CSO associated with these territories

are not nesting (as per Forest Plan direction S19, S20).

‘Bottchers Gap to Skinner Ridge’

1. Where the treatment unit/project activities come within 300 feet or less of Mill Creek, a

biologist will be present during implementation to survey for amphibians that could

potentially occur within treatment areas; in order to avoid direct impacts to federally

listed and/or FS Sensitive amphibians. If amphibian species of concern are detected, all

efforts will be made to avoid or relocate individuals or re-direct activities to other areas if

feasible.

‘Mescal Ridge’ and ‘North Coast Ridge Road - Terrace Creek Trailhead to Cold Springs’

2. No heavy equipment or vehicles will operate within or cross over open grassland

savannah within these treatment units; and no mastication will occur in this vegetation

type in these units. These areas will be identified for equipment exclusion prior to

treatment. Heavy equipment and vehicles will stay on roads and not traverse across open

grassland savannah to access treatment areas; in order to avoid impacts to California tiger

salamanders and their potential habitat.

‘Post Summit to Little Sur River’ and ‘Lower Skinner Ridge to Boy Scout Camp’

3. No project activities will occur within a 0.5 miles of the Little Sur River from April 1

through September 30 to avoid disturbance to potential marbled murrelet nesting

5 ‘Ambient’ noise is defined here as the normal background noise level that wildlife in an area are accustomed to,

and can vary depending on the site. For noise to be above ambient levels it is substantially louder than background

noise, is recurring, and is not transitory.

31


activities. This restriction can be waived during seasons when surveys are conducted

which establish that there is no marbled murrelet presence within this 0.5 mile treatment

unit buffer.

4. Where the treatment unit/project activities come within 300 feet of the Little Sur River, a

biologist will be present during implementation to survey for amphibians that could

potentially occur within treatment areas, in order to avoid direct impacts to federally

listed and/or FS Sensitive amphibians. If amphibian species of concern are detected, all

efforts will be made to avoid or relocate individuals or re-direct activities to other areas if

feasible.

‘Post Summit to Mt. Manuel’, ‘Mt. Manuel to Big Sur Wild River’, and all three segments of

‘North Coast Ridge Road’ units

5. Within areas of the fuelbreak that are extended to 300 feet, snags ≥24 inches DBH will be

retained as legacy trees within the additional 75’ expansion area; particularly large, pre-

existing snags (i.e. those that were present prior to the last wildfire that created the

current condition) unless they are deemed a safety hazard. Snags will be marked for

retention prior to treatment in coordination with condor biologists in order to avoid the

removal of high value roost trees where practicable. Retaining large snags will also

contribute to high quality snag habitat for migratory and resident birds where present.

‘Hennicksons Ridge to Tassajara Road’ and ‘Chews Ridge Lookout to Wilderness Boundary’

6. Because the Chews Ridge area is deficient in large snags, the fuelbreak segment from

Chews Ridge to Hennicksons Ridge will be strategically located to avoid patches of large

snags (≥24 inches DBH) wherever possible, particularly those located along the southern

end of the treatment unit as well as those along the ridgeline, in order to prevent snag

levels in the area falling below Forest Plan standards (S14). All large (≥24 inches DBH)

snags that do not pose an immediate threat to safety or the efficacy of the fuelbreak will

be retained. Only those snags that cannot be avoided by strategic placement of the

fuelbreak would be considered for removal.

‘Chews Ridge Lookout and MIRA’

7. An Equipment Exclusion Zone (EEZ) will be delineated around the 17-acre stand of oak

woodland containing very large, mature oaks and pines located to the southwest of the

lookout tower. This habitat is sensitive to ground disturbance and will be excluded from

mechanized treatment. Excavators may “reach” in from the perimeter of the area to

remove dead and down fuels, but not conduct ground disturbing activities within the

EEZ.

8. All large snags (≥24 inches DBH) that do not pose an immediate threat to safety will be

retained. Only those snags that cannot be avoided by strategic placement of the fuelbreak

would be considered for removal.

Herbicides

1. Herbicide will not be applied within 10 feet of seacliff or coast buckwheat, or sensitive

plant species.

32


2. Herbicide will not be applied within 10 feet of surface water, seeps, springs, or wet

meadows.

3. Herbicide will not be applied while it is actively raining or when precipitation is

forecasted within 24 hours.

4. Herbicide will not be applied with a spray applicator if wind speed is greater than 10

mph.

5. Non-target plants will be avoided during all aspects of herbicide application.

6. Use the least amount of herbicide to achieve efficacy.

7. Applicable Best Management Practices (BMPs) will be applied to meet state and federal

water quality objectives.

8. Safety and Health: Herbicides will only be applied by trained and/or certified applicators

in accordance with label instructions and applicable federal and state pesticide laws.

9. Follow the Pesticide Safety and Spill Plan, and the Procedures for Mixing, Loading and

Disposal of Herbicides.

Fuels Treatments

1. Burn-piles will be located in open-canopy areas within the fuelbreak to avoid damage to

the overstory when piles are burned.

2. Build small slash piles for burning, approximately fifteen feet wide, to minimize

disturbance to the soil structure and encourage quick recovery of vegetation.

3. Burn piles will not be built on small mammal burrows, to avoid impacts to federally

listed amphibians species that utilize small mammal burrows.

Riparian Conservation Areas (RCA)

Riparian Conservation Areas (RCA) are established as directed in Design Criteria for the

Southern California National Forests, Part 3 of the Land Management Plan (LMP). Minimum

RCA widths as defined in the LMP are displayed in Table 10 and are measured from both sides

of the stream channel.

Table 5: Riparian Conservation Area widths based on stream type

Stream Type Width of Riparian Conservation Area

Perennial Streams

328 feet (100 meters) on each side of the

stream, measured from the bank full edge

of the stream

Seasonally flowing/Intermittent Streams

98 feet (30 meters) on each side of the

stream measured from the bank full edge

of the stream

Streams in Inner Gorge1 Top of inner gorge

1—Inner gorge is defined by adjacent stream slopes great than 70 percent gradient.

33


For the limited areas within treatment units that overlap the RCA, the following designs features

are specified:

1. No heavy equipment, such as tractors and masticators, is permitted in the RCA.

2. Only hand thinning is permitted in the RCA.

3. Piling or ignition of fuels is not permitted in the RCA.

4. Fire associated with fuels treatments is only permitted to back in to the RCA.

5. Hand line around piles or along the RCA edge to contain fire is not required.

Best Management Practices (BMP)

The following BMPs selected from the USFS Region 5 Soil and Water Conservation Handbook

(2011) are prescribed for the Strategic Community Fuelbreak project.

BMP Numbers: 1.5, 1.8, 1.19, 2.10, 2.11, 5.13, 5.2, 5.6, 5.7, 5.8, 5.10, 5.11, 6.3, and 7.8

Design features that are applicable across all treatment units are described below; in addition,

treatment units that require additional, site-specific protective measures are described and categorized

separately below.

Management Indicator Species Report Strategic Community...

Documents

Transcript of Management Indicator Species Report Strategic Community...