supplement to the biological evaluation and biological...

Supplement to the

Biological Evaluation and Biological Assessment:

Revised Ice Timber Sale and Fuels Reduction Project

Threatened, Endangered, Proposed and Sensitive Species

Kern River Ranger District

Sequoia National Forest

February, 2011

Prepared by: /s/ Steven W. AndersonSteven W. AndersonSteven W. AndersonSteven W. Anderson Date: 02/10/2011

Steve Anderson; Resource Officer/ Wildlife Biologist

Revised Ice Timber sale and Fuels Reduction Project Revision 1 Biological Evaluation and Assessment

1


2

Contents I. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................ 3

Federally Listed Species ..................................................................................................3

Forest Service Sensitive Species ......................................................................................5

II. CONSULTATION TO DATE ....................................................................................... 6

III. CURRENT MANAGEMENT DIRECTION .................................................................. 6

IV. PROPOSED ACTION ............................................................................................... 8

Alternative C ..................................................................................................................16

V. EXISTING ENVIRONMENT ..................................................................................... 18

Species Accounts ...........................................................................................................21

Terrestrial Wildlife.....................................................................................................21

Effects - Mature Forest Sensitive Species .....................................................................24

Direct and Indirect Effects .........................................................................................24

VI. DETERMINATION ................................................................................................... 29

Federally Listed Threatened or Endangered Species .....................................................29

Region 5 Sensitive Species ............................................................................................29

Terrestrial Species ......................................................................................................29

VI. WORKS CITED ....................................................................................................... 31

VII. APPENDICES ....................................................................................................... 35

Appendix A: Species at risk: Sequoia National Forest ..................................................35

Appendix B: Changes in California Spotted Owl HRCA including PACs ...................38


3

I. INTRODUCTION

The Revised Ice Timber Sale and Fuels Reduction Project (Ice Project) is located on the Kern River

Ranger District, Sequoia National Forest. The analysis area is located on the Greenhorn Mountains

within Townships 25 and 26 South, Range 32 East, Mount Diablo Base and Meridian and includes a

total of 13,650 acres within the 7th

order watersheds comprising the Ice Project. The Ice Project was

approved in 1998 and partially implemented prior to a legal injunction in 2005 (US District Court,

2006). The purpose of this revision to the 1998 Biological Evaluation (and Biological Assessment) for

the Revised Ice Timber Sale and Fuels Reduction Project (1998 BE) (Ritter, 1998) is to review and

evaluate changed circumstances and/or new information relative to the status of federally protected

(listed) Threatened or Endangered species, species proposed for protection and Forest Service Sensitive

Species. The fisher is addressed in a separate document due to its status as a candidate species. This

document incorporates the previous analysis from the 1998 BE by reference and only revises the

discussion where significant new information or changed circumstances have occurred.

This document has been modified from the preliminary draft primarily for clarity and correction of

typographical errors. It was also modified to include analysis of Alternative C.

Federally Listed Species

The Original BE/BA identified five federally protected Threatened or Endangered species as occurring

on the Forest and with potential to occur in or near the project area. The species identified in the BE/BA

are listed below. All of these species were eliminated from further analysis based on lack of suitable

habitat affected by the project. The bald eagle and peregrine falcon have been delisted under the

Endangered Species Act. No new information is available for the species listed below that would alter

their exclusion from further analysis in this document.

• bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus),

• peregrine falcon (Falco perigrinus),

• California condor (Gymnogyps californianus),

• southwestern willow flycatcher (Empidonax traillii extimus),

• California red-legged frog (Rana aurora draytoni).

The 1998 BE made the following findings identified in italics with current annotations in standard font

within bracts[]:

Habitat requirements for the bald eagle include close proximity to a large lake, stream, or river.

The peregrine falcon also requires close proximity to a lake or river, in addition to cliffs for

nesting and perching (Verner, et al., 1980). Neither of these critical habitat components for

these two species are found in or near the project area. [bald eagle and peregrince falcon have

been de-listed].

There are no records (either recent or historical), of the federally endangered California

Condor of ever having been in the project area, or the surrounding landscape [there are no

known historical observations or known roost sites within the project area, but as noted there are

historical roost sites within 5 miles] (District Files from USFWS radio telemetry observations,

1984 revison of the Condor recovery plan (USDI-FWS, 1997; USDI-FWS, 1984), mediated


4

Settlement agreement to the Sequoia National Forest land and Resource Managemnt Plan and

Forest geographic Information systems (GIS) layers for condor management areas). The Basket

Pass area, which is approximately five air-miles southwest of the project area, is known to be a

historical roosting area for the condor. The habitat found in this area is more open than in the

Ice project area because there had been a burn in the area several years ago [the Red Mtn. Fire

in 1970]. An important habitat component of the Basket Pass area is the prevalence of large,

old snags. The California condor has also been documented as foraging in oak-savannah and

grassland habitat. Nesting sites in this portion of the condor's geographic range have generally

occurred within giant sequoia groves (USDI-FWS, 1984) (USDI-FWS, 1997). The proposed

project will not impact the known historical roosting area at Basket Pass.

The southwestern willow flycatcher occurs in riparian habitats along rivers, streams, or other

wetlands where dense growths of willows (Salix sp.), and cottonwoods (Populus sp.), are

present. The project area does not contain enough riparian habitat to support this subspecies

of willow flycatcher. In addition, this subspecies is known to utilize low-elevation riparian

systems, such as the population found along the South Fork of the Kern.

The California red-legged frog ranges below 5,000 feet primarily on the western slopes of the

Sierra Nevada in quiet pools of streams, marshes, and occasionally ponds. The Ice project is

above 5,000 ft. elevation, but its management activities could affect downstream areas. The

only area with suitable habitat downstream of the project area is Alder Creek. This stream is

within the historical range of the California red-legged frog, but there are no records of this

species in this stream ( (CDFG, 2008; CDFG, 2009; Mayer, et al., 1988), and the USFWS

species profile).

Based upon the lack of basic habitat requirements in and near the project area, the bald eagle,

peregrine falcon, and the southwestern willow flycatcher are determined not to utilize the

project area and are therefore not affected by the proposed Ice Timber Sale project. There are

no historical records that indicate past use of the project area by the condor. Historical

roosting areas of the California condor will not be affected by this timber sale. The California

condor is not expected to be negatively impacted as a result of this project. There are no

historic records of the California red-legged frog for the project area. This species is not

expected to be negatively impacted as a result of this project.

The following species have been listed since the previous Biological Assessment was completed or

determined to exist within the National Forest. However, no suitable habitat for these species exists

within the project area and they are not considered further in this document (USFWS species list from

http://www.fws.gov/sacramento/es/spp_lists/NFActionPage.cfm, accessed 2/15/2011).

• California jewel flower (FE) (Caulanthus californicus)

• San Joaquin woolly threads (FE) (Monolopia congdonii)

• Bakersfield cactus (FE) (Opuntia treleasei)

• San Joaquin adobe sunburst (FT) (Pseudobahia peirsonii)

• Keck’s checker-mallow (FE)(CH) (Sidalcea keckii)

(FT=Federal Threatened, FE=Federal Endangered, CH= Critical Habitat designated)


5

Forest Service Sensitive Species

District wildlife records, the current Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species list (USDA-FS 2002), and the

California Natural Diversity Data Base (CDFG, 2009) as well as species habitat requirements and

known range information in the California Wildlife Habitat Relationships Program were used to validate

the following list of Forest Service, Region 5 sensitive plant and animal species that were addressed in

the original 1998 BE. No new Forest Service sensitive species for the Sequoia National Forest have

been added that have suitable habitat in the project area. The following species were addressed in the

1998 BE:

• Southwestern pond turtle (Clemmys mamorata pallida),

• Foothill yellow-legged frog (Rana boylii),

• Pallid bat (Antrozous pallidus),

• Relictual slender salamander (Batrachoseps relictus),

• American marten (Martes americana),

• Fisher (Martes pennanti),

• Shirley Meadows star tulip (Calochortus coeruleus var. westonii)(Calochortus westonii),

• California spotted owl (Strix occidentalis occidentalis),

• Northern goshawk (Accipiter gentilis).

The low elevation portions of the project that had potential to affect southwestern pond turtle and

foothill yellow legged frog have been partially completed and there are no plans to move forward with

the remaining chaparral burning portion of this project. There are no other changes in information,

circumstances or anticipated effects to these species. The pond turtle and foothill yellow-legged frog

will not be further addressed in this document since the factors that were most likely to affect them in

the 1998 selected action have been eliminated.

There is no new information or changed circumstances regarding the pallid bat or relictual salamander

that would change the analysis from the 1998 BE. Therefore, these species will not be further addressed

in this document since the factors that were most likely to affect them in the 1998 analysis has not

changed, and there is no new applicable information on these species.

The 1998 BE (Ritter 1998 p. 10) discussed a detection of American marten in or adjacent to the Ice

Project area. This detection was found to be in error and was a small fisher track. Further review

indicates that American marten have not been detected either historically or currently in or adjacent to

the project despite extensive repeated survey effort (miscellaneous district surveys 1992 -2010,

(Zielinski, et al., 1995; USDA-FS, 2009), Regional monitoring 2002 -2010). Habitat elements important

to this species are covered by the analysis for fisher, but the marten will not be further addressed in this

document. As noted above, the fisher is addressed in a separate document and that analysis is not

repeated here other than by reference in the determination section.

The Shirley Meadows star tulip is now considered a species, Calochortus westonii, rather than a variety,

C. coeruleus var. westonii. The star tulip is no longer a candidate species for protection under the

Endangered Species Act by the USFWS. The existing populations expanded greatly after the Stormy

Fire. This population expansion both provided greater stability to the plant’s numbers and range as well

as reinforcing what had already been documented regarding the expansion of this species in areas of

disturbance such as skid trails, logging and fire. Disjunct new populations of Calochortus westonii have


6

been found near Camp Nelson on Sequoia National Forest and near Case Mountain on land administered

by the Bureau of Land Management. These new populations represent a range expansion of over 30

miles. Surveys for this species were conducted in 2009 to verify existing populations and determine if

there are new needs for protection. No new needs were identified. The remaining information regarding

this species has not changed and no new analysis is needed for this species.

Information for the following species is updated and analyzed as part of this supplement:

• California Spotted Owl Strix occidentalis R5 Sensitive

• Northern Goshawk Accipiter gentilis R5 Sensitive

II. CONSULTATION TO DATE

The species list for the project was updated using the USFWS website in January 2011 (USDI-FWS,

2010). The Forest Service requested technical assistance from the USFWS regarding analysis of effects

on fisher. The USFWS response regarding fisher documented their determination of no adverse effect

and is addressed in the Revised Ice Timber Sale and Fuels Reduction Project Supplemental Biological

Evaluation for Fisher (Lang, 2011). The USFWS does not provide consultation for candidate species.

However, the Forest chose to request technical assistance for the fisher due to the issues surrounding this

species and this project. The findings of the USFWS are documented in their letter of 6/14/2010 and in

the supplemental biological evaluation for fisher: Ice Project (Lang 2010).

III. CURRENT MANAGEMENT DIRECTION

In 1998, direction to maintain the viability of Region 5 Sensitive Species was provided by the National

Forest Management Act, the Code of Federal Regulations (36 CFR 219.19), the Forest Service Manual

(FSM 2672.1), and the Sequoia National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP) (USDA-

FS, 1988) as amended by the California Spotted Owl Interim Guidelines (CASPO EA) (USDA-FS,

1993). In addition, the Ice Project was designed to be consistent with the Sequoia National Forest Land

Management Plan Mediated Settlement Agreement (MSA; (USDA-FS, 1990)). The Ice Project was

approved under the CASPO EA. The Sequoia LRMP was further amended by the Sierra Nevada Forest

Plan Amendment (SNFPA; (USDA-FS, 2004)), which provides additional or changed management

direction for Sensitive Species. Currently Forest Service Manual (FSM) 2672.1 and the LRMP, as

amended, provide general direction to utilize administrative measures to protect and improve habitat for

endangered, threatened, and sensitive wildlife species. The Ice Project is still designed to be consistent

with the portions of the MSA that have not been superseded by the SNFPA.

The SNFPA (USDA-FS, 2004) takes an ecologically-based approach to assess and manage forest

landscapes, and develop conservation strategies to address five problem areas identified in the Sierra

Nevada with range-wide significance. These strategies include: the conservation strategy for old forest

ecosystems and associated species; the aquatic, riparian, and meadow conservation strategy; the fire and

fuels management strategy; the conservation strategy for lower west-side hardwood ecosystems; and the

noxious weed management strategy. Each strategy describes and maps its land allocation, which are

then prioritized through a hierarchy basis. The SNFPA also specifies desired future condition goals and

applicable standards and guidelines for the management of each allocation based on the hierarchy. A

strong monitoring component is emphasized as part of the adaptive management process.


7

Mapped allocations from the SNFPA applicable to the Ice Project are:

• Wildland Urban Intermix (WUI) – Defense and Threat Zone - Defense and threat zone

allocations have the highest priority in the SNFPA hierarchy with proposed activities to focus on

fuels treatment. In the defense zone the goal is to prevent the loss of life and property from wildland

fire by creating defensive space. The goal for treatment of threat zone is to interrupt wildland fire

spread and reduce fire intensity.

• Southern Sierra Fisher Conservation Area (SSFCA) – Management direction for Protected

Activity Centers (PACs), Home Range Core Areas (HRCAs), den site buffers, riparian areas and

meadows generally supersedes and often complements direction for the SSFCA. The Ice Project lies

within the Southern Sierra Fisher Conservation Area (SSFCA). However, the entire project is within

WUI defense or threat zones, and the fuel treatment standards and guidelines for WUI zones

supersedes those for SSFCA (USDA-FS, 2004).

Directions for unmapped allocations convey their priority ordering relative to other allocations.

Unmapped allocations from the SNFPA applied to the Ice Project area are:

California Spotted Owl Protected Activity Center (PAC)

California Spotted Owl Home Range Core Area (HRCA)

Northern Goshawk Protected Activity Center (PAC)

Riparian Conservation Areas (RCAs)

California spotted owl protected activity centers (PAC) already existed within the project area and were

discussed in the 1998 BE. These territories have been amended to conform to current direction

including the addition of 300 or more acres of suitable habitat to form a home range core area (HRCA).

The home range core area consists of 600 acres including the PAC. Light under burning and associated

fireline preparation activities are the only activities planned within the HRCA allocation. One goshawk

PAC was designated and expanded to 200 acres to meet the 2004 SNFPA guidelines.

Though PACs, HRCAs and RCAs were added to the Ice Project area, they did not require changes to the

proposed harvest or burn units from the 1998 document. Table 1 shows direction for management in

spotted owl and northern goshawk PACs provided by the 2004 SNFPA.


8

Table 1: Desired conditions, Management Intent, and Objectives by Land Allocation, 2004 SNFPA.

Land

Allocation

Desired Conditions Management Intent Management Objectives

California

spotted owl

and northern

goshawk

PACs

At least two tree canopy

layers are present.

Dominant and co-

dominant trees average at

least 24 inches dbh.

Area within PAC has at

least 60 to 70 percent

canopy cover.

Some very large snags are

present (greater than 45

inches dbh).

Levels of snags and down

woody material are higher

than average.

Maintain PACs so

that they continue to

provide habitat

conditions that

support successful

reproduction of

California spotted

owls and northern

goshawks.

Avoid vegetation and fuels management

activities within PACs to the greatest extent

feasible.

Reduce hazardous fuels in PACs in defense

zones when they create an unacceptable fire

threat to communities.

Where PACs cannot be avoided in the

strategic placement of treatments, ensure

effective treatment of surface, ladder, and

crown fuels within treated areas. If nesting

or foraging habitat in PACs is mechanically

treated, mitigate by adding acreage to the

PAC equivalent to the treated acreage

wherever possible. Add adjacent acres of

comparable quality wherever possible.

IV. PROPOSED ACTION

This biological evaluation analyzes the effects of implementing the remainder of the Ice Project.

Specific effects on fisher are analyzed separately although many of the habitat requirements for fisher

are similar to those for spotted owl and goshawk.

The proposed action is to reduce fuels through various stand treatments and fuels reduction activities on

a total of 10,695 acres in the Ice analysis area. The following description of the proposed action

includes the detailed discussion of what was proposed in the 1998 Revised Ice Timber Project EA, and a

summary of the current condition explaining what has been implemented prior to the injunction, in

accordance with the court-ordered injunction, and is still proposed to be treated.

In brief, approximately 358 acres of helicopter logging and associated fuels reduction treatments, and

road maintenance activities along 5.5 miles of Shirley Loop and Windy Gap Roads has been completed.

Though approximately 50 acres of chaparral burning has occurred, the Fuels Specialist will not conduct

the remainder of the prescribed burning of 1,480 acres of chaparral vegetation, as proposed, due to the

safety risk to the community of Alta Sierra that is upslope (See Maps 1 and 2 in Appendix B). A new

NEPA analysis would need to be conducted for fuels reduction activities in the chaparral in the future.

In addition, the harvest unit acres have been altered slightly from those listed in the 1998 Revised Ice

Project EA document. Once the project was approved, each harvest unit was mapped using Global

Positioning Survey equipment. This resulted in refinement of the units based on minor changes for

operability and the more accurate GPS data. These updated units were used to create the Ice Helicopter

Timber Sale Contract map. The Geographic Information System (GIS) layer for the project was updated

in 2009 based on this data, and all the supplemental analysis described in this document is based on the

refined acreage.

To reduce redundancy, the reader is referred to the 1998 EA for a portion of the referenced maps in the

quoted section of the proposed action. These maps are duplicated in part as maps 2 and 3 in Appendix


9

B. The original EA and supporting documents are available upon request from the Kern River Ranger

District Office in Kernville or may be downloaded from: http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/sequoia/projects/.

Note: The proposed action described in the 1998 Revised Ice Timber Project EA includes the actions

identified below in Courier New text (1998 Revised Ice Project EA, pages 1-3). These portions of

the description are shown in a different text to help the reader visually differentiate between the original

and updated portions of the document. Clarifications to the quoted sections are enclosed in brackets [].

1. Commercial Thinning: Commercially thin approximately 1,160 acres of

mixed conifer stands. Tractor logging will be used on

approximately 810 acres and helicopter logging on 350 acres. The

location of the proposed treatment units are shown on [Map 2, Appendix B

of the EA]. Thinning prescriptions meet all requirements of the California Spotted Owl Sierran Province Interim Guidelines

Environmental Assessment (CASPO EA). The largest, healthiest trees

in the unit will be retained to the average triangular spacing

specified for each unit. No trees larger than the diameter limit

specified will be removed. Table 1-1 [Table 2] lists the treatment

prescriptions for units.

Current conditions: The helicopter logging portion of this project was completed in 2005 on an

estimated 358 acres including a portion of unit 7 and all of unit 16, which were originally intended for

tractor harvest. Approximately 743 acres remain in tractor units that have not been completed. Of the

743 acres, 704 acres are in habitat that is of moderate to high value for spotted owl and goshawk ( also

for fisher) as defined by the California Wildlife Habitat Relationships Program (CWHR 2.1) (See

description and discussion regarding CWHR 2.1 in the project record). Fifteen acres of the 743 total

consist of small poles in Sierran mixed conifer habitat considered to be of low habitat suitability for

fisher in unit 27e. Approximately 24 acres of the 743 total are considered to be unsuitable inclusions or

other habitat types of low value or unsuitable for fisher (shrub, rock outcrop, urban).

The discussions of treating activity-created and natural fuels, and ladder fuels include design features to

protect snags, and retain all large trees, and large down woody debris within the harvest and burn units.

These design features were developed initially to protect California spotted owl habitat. However, these

design features are also helpful to identify suitable goshawk (and fisher) habitat and preserve well-

distributed suitable roost and nest sites (as well as fisher rest and den sites) throughout the project area.

Other design criteria carrying forward from the 1998 Revised Ice EA to preserve fisher rest sites and

their distribution include retaining 175square feet of basal area, retaining low-growing understory

canopy (40 trees per acre in the 5-10.9” dbh size class), oaks and high numbers of large down logs.

These design criteria are also effective in retaining habitat elements of high value to spotted owl and

goashawk.


10

Table 2: Commercial Thinning Units

Unit Logging

System1

Strata Code*

CalVeg/CWHR

Residual

Spacing

Diameter Limit

(dbh)**

(inches)

Original Area

(acres)

Remaining

Acres

MBF***

Per Acre

Removed

Total MBF

Removed

1 Tractor M3G/SMC4D 27' X 27' 23 177 177 2.6 460.2

2 Helicopter M3G/SMC4D 27' X 27' 23 9 0 2.6 23.4

3 Tractor M3G/SMC4D 27' X 27' 23 6 5 2.6 15.6




72 Tractor M3N/SMC4D 30' X 30' 30 19 9 6.1 115.9

8 Tractor M3N/SMC4D 30' X 30' 30 17 13 6.1 103.7

9 Tractor M3N/SMC4D 30' X 30' 30 14 14 6.1 85.4



12 Tractor M3N/SMC4D 32' X 32' 28 50 20 7.1 355.0

13 Tractor M3G/SMC4D 26' X 26' 30 15 7 2.9 43.5

14 Tractor M3G/SMC4D 26' X 26' 30 47 51 2.9 136.3


16 Tractor M3G/SMC4D 26' X 26' 30 5 0 2.9 14.5

17 Tractor M3G/SMC4D 26' X 26' 30 5 5 2.9 14.5


19 Tractor M3G/SMC4D 26' X 26' 30 12 12 2.9 34.8

20****Tractor M3N/SMC4D 26' X 26' 30 95 92 1.5 142.5

21 Tractor M3N/SMC4D 26' X 26' 30 37 36 1.5 55.5


23a Tractor M3G/SMC4D 27' X 27' 24 108 45 8.9 961.2

23b SMC5D 68


25 Tractor M3G/SMC4D 29' X 29' 24 66 45 4.5 297.0


27a Tractor M3G/SMC4D 29' X 29' 24 137 121 4.5 616.5

27b SMC3M 15

Misc Non forest 24TOTAL 1,160 743 6,938 Acreage is approximate from GIS data. Rounding may result in minor errors.

*See Appendix B for an explanation of the strata code abbreviations

**

dbh - Diameter at breast height, measured 4.5 feet above the ground on the uphill side of the tree

***

MBF – Thousand board feet in timber volume

**** Unit 20 was mapped using GPS as 95 acres, though the estimate in the 1998 Revised Ice EA was for 90 acres.

1 Strikethrough text displays the units where all harvest activities are now completed.

2 A portion of Unit 7 was helicopter logged. Unit 16 was changed to helicopter logging system and completed.


11

2. Treatment of Activity-created and Natural Fuels in Conifer Zone: Activity fuels, or slash, created from the commercial thinning operations will be

treated to meet fire control objectives in the Sequoia Land and

Resource Management Plan (LRMP) (pg. 4-39). Activity fuels will be piled by hand

and burned in the following areas:

• Within the foreground view of Rancheria Road (approximately

200 feet on each side of road),

• Within 50 feet of all other system roads,

• Within 200 feet of the Unal Trail [completed],

• Adjacent to the radio tower and electronics facilities on

Shirley Peak,

• Within 150 feet of any structures, and

• In the southern portions of helicopter units 6, 10 and 11

(50 acres) (this fuel treatment is prescribed due to the

large amount of existing fuel in the area) [completed],

In the remainder of the area, fuels will be treated with prescribed

underburning [low intensity fire intended to remain on the surface and generally with flame

lengths less than 4 feet high]. [Map 2, Appendix B of the EA] shows the location of the areas proposed for burning.

As a pre-treatment, activity fuels will be lopped and scattered to

no greater than 18" in depth in units logged with tractors and 12"

in depth in units logged with helicopters. The activity fuels will

also be pulled away from residual trees, snags and large dead and

down woody material in all units. Additional pre-treatment

activities designed to protect natural resources during the

underburn will be conducted throughout the burn unit boundaries.

These pre-treatment activities may include constructing firelines

around prime down logs or snags, limbing trees to reduce ladder

fuels and breaking up surface fuel concentrations. In the tractor

units, any trees less than 30" dbh that are felled and then

determined to be unmerchantable will be yarded to the landing and

piled and burned. All of the project design features associated

with prescribed burning, which were described earlier in the

chapter [are described below], will apply to the burning in this alternative.

Prescribed Burning: Logical topographic and firebreak features--major

ridgelines and existing roads and trails--were used to define the

burn unit boundaries, which in most cases are larger than the

individual thinning unit boundaries. Approximately 2,340 total

acres will be included in the burn unit boundaries within the

conifer zone.

Larger concentrations of fuels will be targeted for ignition and


12

the areas proposed for burning will be burned in a mosaic nature

(burned patches interspersed with unburned patches) to mimic

natural fire behavior. Burns will be conducted under prescribed

conditions to produce a low to moderate intensity fire. The season

of burn and the size of the area to be treated at one time will

depend on multiple environmental factors. These factors include

fuel loading, fuel moisture content, wind speed and direction,

topography, and estimated smoke dispersal. The burn plan will

outline these specific factors. This plan will be developed

following the thinning treatment and prior to the implementation of

the underburning. [A burn plan was developed and implemented following the helicopter

thinning treatments, and in accordance with the court-ordered injunction.]

As many of the factors affecting the timing of burning depend on

dynamic climatic and weather conditions, it is impossible to

accurately predict when each area will be burned and the extent of

area to be burned at one time. The following general guidelines

will be followed when planning the prescribed burning:

• The area to be burned at one time will range from 25 to 150

acres.

• Up to 475 acres of underburning may be conducted each year.

• The underburning is estimated to take place over five years

following the decision on the Revised Ice EA [2011 Revision 1 to the

Revised Ice EA]. If more than five years is required to implement

the burning, the environmental documentation will be reviewed

at that time to determine if the environmental analysis should

be corrected, supplemented or revised. [The EA documents the analysis

of the updated information regarding the underburning proposed in the 1998 Revised Ice

Project EA.]

• Treatment of activity fuels within the commercial thinning

units will be conducted as soon as possible after completion

of the logging operations. These areas will receive priority

in terms of scheduling the prescribed underburning operations.

•

Funding for the treatment of activity fuels within the 1160 acres

to be commercially thinned will come from brush disposal

collections from the timber sale. Funding for the additional

burning will come from appropriated fuels reduction funds or sale

area improvement funds.

Firelines will be constructed where natural fuelbreaks are not

available for use as fire control lines. Approximately 5.8 miles

of fireline will be constructed with hand tools and 7 miles by

tractor. These firelines are shown on [Map 2, Appendix B of the EA]. Where firelines or roads are not shown surrounding burn units, natural

barriers or changes in aspect, fuel type, fuel moisture, and


13

weather will be used to keep the fire within the perimeter.

Current conditions: Activity created fuels (limbs, tree tops and other woody debris resulting from

thinning activity) related to road brushing and completed helicopter units have been piled and unit

10 has been prepared for underburning. Unit 11, which is a completed helicopter unit, and a portion

of the surrounding area was burned in fall 2010. The area around the Unal trail was underburned

during cool spring conditions. Handlines, preparation work and some additional underburning will

continue as appropriated or timber sale deposit (brush disposal or BD funding) becomes available,

but the majority of the underburning is pending completion of the commercial thinning units.

Excavator Piling of Existing Fuel: Units 13, 14, 19 and 25 currently contain

localized areas of extremely high fuel loadings. These

concentrations are a result of past and continuing tree mortality

from bark beetles and the slash that remains following a salvage

operation of the beetle killed trees in 1993. An excavator will be

used to pile the excess material, which will then be burned. As

per the [California Spotted Owl] CASPO interim guidelines, 10-15 tons per

acre of the largest, oldest dead and down material will be left for

wildlife. Most of the material to be piled by the excavator will

be less than 20" in dbh. It is estimated that approximately half

of the area within these units would require this treatment, for a

total of approximately 72 acres. The piling and burning will be

done following any thinning operations, but prior to the prescribed

underburning. [Map 2, Appendix B of the EA] shows the location of the areas

proposed for treatment.

Current conditions: None of the excavator work associated with units 13, 14, 19 or 25 has been

completed. As discussed under item 5, a portion of the ladder fuels reduction has occurred in units

13 and 14 in compliance with the court injunction.

3. Prescribed Burning in Chaparral: Conduct prescribed burning in approximately

1,480 acres of chaparral vegetation. Two separate burning units

are proposed: Block 1 (1,120 acres) and Block 2 (360 acres). The

location of the proposed burn units is shown on [Map 2, Appendix B of the

EA]. The burn blocks include land managed by the U.S. Forest Service (1275 acres) and the Bureau of Land Management (205) acres.

Within the burn units approximately 60% of the chaparral will be

treated with fire to regenerate the chaparral. Existing roads,

trails and natural fuelbreaks will be utilized for fire control

lines where possible. Approximately 0.4 miles of fireline will be

constructed with hand tools. Maintenance and clearing of

vegetation will be required on approximately 0.9 miles of a 4 X 4

trail. Two chaparral fuelbreaks approved in the original Ice EA

(1994) are in the process of being constructed to serve as control

lines for the chaparral burns. The location of all of the proposed

fire control features are shown on [Map 2, Appendix B of the EA]. There will


14

not be a fire control line constructed on the northern boundary of

burn block 1, as the rocky ridge provides a natural fuelbreak

feature.

Current conditions: Approximately 50 acres of the chaparral burning was completed between

1999 and 2003. Fireline and fuelbreaks associated with this portion of the project have been

completed and the Bureau of Land Management portion was masticated where slopes permit

mechanical access between 2005 and 2006. According to the Fuels Specialist Report it would not be

safe to burn the chaparral under conditions that would be effective to reduce fuels in this vegetation

type below the community of Alta Sierra as proposed (Washington and Williams 2011). Therefore,

the remainder of the proposed prescribed burning of 1480 acres of chaparral vegetation has been

eliminated from the proposed action (and the other action alternatives) in this 2011 Revision 1 to the

Revised Ice Project EA. A new NEPA analysis would need to be conducted for activities proposed

in the chaparral vegetation in the future.

4. Roadside Clearing: Remove brush and small trees on cut and fill slopes on approximately 5.5 miles of road to improve or maintain safe access.

[Roadside clearing of 5.5 miles on Shirley Loop and Windy Gap Roads also included]:

Two of the roads within the project area are heavily overgrown

with roadside vegetation, to the point where it would not be

safe or possible for a fire engine to travel the road for fire

suppression activities. All action alternatives propose the

removal of brush and small trees on cut and fill slopes on

approximately 5.5 miles of road to improve or maintain safe

access. The road segments proposed for treatment (Shirley Loop

and Portions of Windy Gap Road) are shown on [Map 2, Appendix B of the

EA]. All material less than 3" in diameter [trees and shrubs] will be removed within the cut and fill slope of the road. Material

will be removed by one of the following methods:

• Opportunities to remove special forest products, such as

manzanita or small trees, will be considered first.

• Where there is access along the roadway, material will be

piled and burned.

• �Elsewhere, the material will be shredded or chipped in place.

• Treatment will be modified where necessary to maintain

sufficient wildlife screening cover. Sufficient cover will be

retained to hide 90% of a standing deer at 200 feet along the

road where this cover component currently exists.

Current conditions: This portion of the project has been completed and will be subject to periodic

maintenance. Maintenance of the roads is not expected to be necessary for approximately 20 years,

and any future work would be analyzed under a separate NEPA project.

5. Ladder Fuel Reduction: Reduce ladder fuels on approximately 387 427 [This area

was added incorrectly in the 1998 Revised Ice Project EA and is corrected here] acres of the mixed conifer stands identified for commercial thinning above. The


15

location of the proposed treatment areas is shown on [Map 2, Appendix B

of the EA]. [After commercial thinning is completed,] no trees larger than 10.9" dbh

would be cut [as a result of the ladder fuel reduction], and approximately 40 trees

per acre in the 5-10.9" dbh class would be retained [for fisher cover].

Merchantable products, such as firewood, or posts and poles can be

economically removed from approximately 80% of the area proposed

for ladder fuel reduction. This would be implemented through a

ground based, tractor logging system. All activity fuels will be

piled and burned adjacent to system roads and structures and will

be lopped and scattered to no greater than 18" in depth in all

other areas. This will be followed by prescribed underburning.

This treatment is proposed in Units 1, 3, 14, 20A and 25A.

The slope and inaccessibility of the remaining 20% of the area

makes removal of the small wood products uneconomical. However,

the high fire danger posed by the location of these areas directly

below the Alta Sierra Community make them a high priority for

treatment. Therefore, funding from sale area improvement funds,

fuels reduction funds or appropriated funds will be used to

complete the ladder fuel reduction in these areas. Trees will be

cut and then piled and burned in the unit. Following this

treatment, the units will be further treated with prescribed

underburning. These activities are proposed in Units 13, 17, 18,

19 and 20B. The units to be thinned and the estimated amount of

merchantable material to be removed from each unit is shown in

Table 2-2 below [Table 3].

Table 3: Alternative B Ladder Fuel Reduction

Unit Number Original Area

(acres)

Remaining

Area (acres)

Total Volume to be

Removed, CCF (cunits or

100 cubic feet) *

Percent Complete

1 177 177 329 0

3 6 1 11 90

13 15 7 0 50

14 47 5 480 90

17 5 5 0 0

18** 9 0 0 0

19 12 12 0 0

20a, b*** 90 95 69 0

25a 66 45 151 0

Total 427**** 342 1,040 Acreage is approximate from GIS data, Rounding may result in minor discrepancies.

* A cunit is roughly equivalent to a cord of wood

**Unit 18 is a completed helicopter unit.

*** Unit 20 was mapped using GPS as 95 acres, though the estimate in the 1998 Revised Ice EA was for 90 acres. Sub unit “a” reflects areas where it is

feasible to sell special forest products such as poles or fuelwood to treat ladder fuels. Sub unit “b”, ladder fuels will be cut, piled and burned using

appropriated funds. The end result is the same and for the purposes of this analysis they are not analyzed separately.

**** This is an erratum to the 1998 EA


16

Current conditions: As shown in Table 3, these actions have been partially implemented in units 3,

13 and 14 with a limitation of 10 inch diameter at breast height (dbh) as specified in the court

injunction. Approximately 10-15 acres of pole removal has been accomplished in unit 3 through

wood permits, Native American use and other small products permits from 1999 to the present.

Ladder fuel was removed in unit 14 and a portion of 13 through use of hand crews using

appropriated funding in 2009 and 2010. Following these treatments, piles in units 3 and 14 were

burned.

6. Road Maintenance and Reconstruction: All treatment units would be accessed by existing system roads. Normal road maintenance activities such as

surface blading and repair and maintenance of rolling dips and

waterbars would be completed on system roads within the project

area. The need for road reconstruction activities has been

identified on approximately 14.5 [9] miles of road within the

project area [now that 5.5 miles have been treated]. Reconstruction activities include drainage enhancement, clearing overgrown roadside

vegetation and surface stabilization.

Current conditions: The road segments necessary for access to the helicopter landings have been

repaired or reconstructed, totaling approximately 5.5 miles (see item 4 above).

One additional management action would also be included in this alternative:

Hazard Tree Removal: Hazard trees are trees with physical defects that

make the tree, or tree parts, susceptible to failure. This poses a

risk to public health and safety if these trees are located adjacent

to high use areas, such as roads, recreation sites, trails or other

structures. Trees within the analysis area which have a high

potential for failure and that pose a hazard to public health and

safety will be felled. Felled trees with commercial value located

outside of California spotted owl Protected Activity Centers (PACs)

may be removed. The Region 5 Tree Hazard Rating System, which

estimates the failure potential of the tree in conjunction with the

estimated amount of damage if failure occurs, will be used to

identify hazard trees which need to be removed.

Current conditions: The Ice Project will follow current Sequoia National Forest Hazard Tree

Identification Guidelines (USDA Forest Service 2004c) in identifying and removing hazards. Some of

the previously existing hazard trees have fallen, others have been felled, and new hazards have appeared,

but the overall task remains the same.

Alternative C An issue was raised by members of the public who were concerned that

the commercial thinning proposed in Alternative B would reduce the

canopy closure of the stands and have detrimental effects on

California Spotted Owl habitat, as well as increase the fire danger.


17

Alternative C was developed to respond to this issue. No commercial

thinning [thinning of trees > 10.9 inches dbh] is proposed under this alternative.

Treatment prescriptions focus on the removal of ladder fuels and

prescribed burning. All of the project design features [and activities other

than removal of trees > 10.9 inches dbh] common to all action alternatives

described earlier are included in this alternative [as updated]. The following actions are proposed:

1. Reduce ladder fuels: Reduce ladder fuels on approximately 387 [427(errata for

the 1998 Revised Ice EA)] acres of the mixed conifer stands. All of trees between 5 and 10.9 inches in diameter will be removed. No trees

larger than 10.9 inches diameter breast height would be harvested.

As shown in Table 2, these actions have been partially implemented in units 3, 13 and 14 with a

limitation of 10 inch diameter at breast height (dbh) as specified in the court injunction.

Approximately 10-15 acres of pole removal has been accomplished in unit 3 through wood permits,

Native American use and other small products permits from 1999 to the present. Ladder fuel was

removed in unit 14 and a portion of 13 through use of hand crews using appropriated funding in

2009 and 2010. Following these treatments, piles in units 3 and 14 were burned. Note that unit 14

was not part of Alternative C ladder fuel reduction, but was part of the proposed underburn area.

Table 4: Alternative C Fuel Reduction

Unit

Number

Acres Acres Remaining Total Volume to be

Removed,

CCF (cunits or 100 cubic

feet)*

Remaining Volume to be

Removed CCF (cunits or

100 cubic feet)

1 177 177 848 848

3 6 1 29 3

13 15 7 0 0

14 47 5 806 81

17 5 5 0 0

18** 9 0 0 0

19 12 12 0 0

20a, b*** 90 95 305 305

25a 66 45 213 213

Total ****

387

427

342 2,201 1,450

*A cunit is roughly equivalent to a cord of wood

**Unit 18 is a completed helicopter unit.

***Unit 20 was mapped using GPS as 95 acres, though the estimate in the 1998 Revised Ice EA was for 90 acres. Sub unit “a” reflects areas where it is

feasible to sell special forest products such as poles or fuelwood to treat ladder fuels. Sub unit “b”, ladder fuels will be cut, piled and burned using

appropriated funds. The end result is the same and for the purposes of this analysis they are not analyzed separately.

****This is an erratum to the 1998 EA

2. Prescribed Burning in conifer forest: Prescribed underburning is proposed on a

total of 2,340 acres in conifer forest [as described in Alternative B].

Activity-created fuels (limbs, tree tops and other woody debris resulting from thinning activity)

related to road brushing and completed helicopter units have been piled and unit 10 has been


18

prepared for underburning. Unit 11, and a portion of the surrounding area, was burned in fall 2010.

The area around the Unal trail was underburned during cool spring conditions.

3. Excavator Piling of Existing Fuel: Units 13, 14, 19 and 25 currently contain

localized areas of extremely high fuel loadings, which would be

piled using an excavator and burned [as described in Alternative B].

None of the excavator work associated with units 13, 14, 19 or 25 has been completed. As discussed

under item 2, a portion of the ladder fuels reduction has occurred in units 13 and 14 in compliance

with the court injunction.

4. Roadside clearing: As described in the Proposed Action on Shirley Loop and Windy Gap Roads,

this work is all complete.

5. Hazard Tree Removal - Hazard trees are trees with physical defects that

make the tree, or tree parts, susceptible to failure. This poses a

risk to public health and safety if these trees are located

adjacent to high use areas, such as roads, recreation sites, trails

or other structures [as described in Alternative B].

V. EXISTING ENVIRONMENT

The description of the existing condition from the original 1998 BE is summarized and updated as

needed here. There is a diversity of wildlife habitat in the vicinity in the form of pine, mixed conifer,

black oak and chaparral vegetation types. The Ice Project is primarily second-growth forest that was

heavily harvested during the 1860s mining and development of surrounding communities. Past logging

and fire suppression have resulted in a forest dominated by small to intermediate size trees composed

mostly of cedar and fir. There are some remnant larger oaks and pines, however, many of the larger

oaks appear to be overtopped by conifers. This component of the stands is being lost and is not being

replaced due to the lack of openings and small-scale disturbance required for regeneration of shade-

intolerant species such as oaks and pines. For a more complete description please see the original 1998

BE.

Drought and density related tree mortality has occurred since 1998. This contributes to and exacerbates

the high fuel loading noted in the original and updated documentation for this project. A considerable

number of previously standing snags have fallen and created large deadfalls of jackstrawed down logs.

Average annual precipitation ranges from 11 inches in the lower elevations, to 20 inches in the upper

elevations. Snowfall covers the higher areas for four months of the year. Temperatures during the

summer fire season typically range in the 90s (100s in the lower reaches) in the project area with relative

humidity dropping into the teens. Gusty hot winds resulting from local convective movement associated

with steep topography and the influence of the Mojave Desert to the east is typical during the summer.

Elevation ranges from approximately 3,800 feet to 7,200 feet.

The 1998 Ice Project analysis was based on vegetation classification from the 1996 aerial imagery in the

CalVeg system. New vegetation interpretation and sampling data is available in both CWHR and

CalVeg systems. For the purposes of this analysis, vegetation classification uses the CWHR system and

is based on the most current vegetation layer from aerial photo interpretation of 2001 imagery updated in

2003 for the effects of the McNally fire. The California Wildlife Habitat Relationship Program is used

to classify habitats according to their suitability for different species based on expert opinion. The


19

majority of the analysis area is classified as California Wildlife Habitat Relationships (CWHR) Sierra

mixed conifer , small tree size class, moderate to dense density classes (CWHR Sierra mixed conifer

(SMC), M (40-59 % canopy cover) or D (> 60 % canopy cover) density, size class 4 (11-24 inches dbh).

Other forest types that are found in the Ice Project area include: CWHR SMC 3M (mixed conifer stands,

pole size trees, moderate to dense canopy) and CWHR MHW (oak stands, small to mid-size trees,

moderate to dense canopy).

The landscape is characterized by dense clumps of small trees, 11-20" dbh (especially cedar) and/or

areas with dense understories of suppressed trees and/or oaks. In 1998, 36 acres of habitat in the Ice

Project area were described as mature forest (CWHR 5M or 5D) within the 10,000 acre analysis area

based on the CalVeg classification system used at that time. This low number is attributed to extensive

timber harvest prior to the 1900s. The current vegetation layer using the CWHR classification system

shows 903 acres of mature forest within the revised analysis area of approximately 13,650 acres based

on the 7th

order watersheds encompassing the project.

1998 Stand exams were based on over 200 sample points and determined that the weighted average

stand density index (SDI) is 422, average number of trees per acre (TPA) is 207, 5-9 snags/ acre, up to

120 tons/acre of large down woody material, and the average basal area per acre (BA) is 273 sq. ft.

These terms are used to define the health and sustainability of the forested stands in comparison to

desired values. Stand exams conducted in 2009 were based on 21 sample points and determined that the

average stand density index is 594, average number of trees per acre is 1,555, and the average basal area

per acre is 256 square feet (Burd, 2011). Snag surveys in 1998 (Roche, 1998) found that there were 5-9

snags per acre > 15” dbh in the CWHR SMC 3M, 4M and 4D strata types. The snag level exceeded

standards in the California Spotted Owl (CASPO) Interim Guidelines (USDA-FS, 1993) to maintain 20

ft.2/ac. basal area of snags comprised by a minimum of 4 and maximum requirement of 8 snags/ac. The

results of the snag surveys conducted in 1998 indicated that there was a good representation of snag

sizes distributed fairly evenly throughout the project area. The 2009 stand exams also showed an

average of 8 snags per acre > 15” inches dbh. It is apparent from visual observation; past and current

stand exams; and ongoing aerial tree mortality flights that although a large number of previous snags

have fallen, a large number of new snags have been created. In addition, surveys recorded

approximately 8 dead and down logs (>10 in.) per acre for the project area (with an average of 23

tons/acre) in 2009. This exceeds the requirement of retaining 10-15 dry tons/ac. of large, woody debris

as stated under the CASPO Interim Guidelines. These terms are used to define the health and

sustainability of the forested stands in comparison to desired values.

Concerns within the project area include: protection of the limited large tree/ mature forest habitats

from the threat of large-scale, habitat altering fires; increasing the quantity of large trees which will

provide future snags, down logs, den/nest/roost trees and mature forest habitat over time; increasing the

quality and quantity of early successional stage habitat by opening younger stands of trees to provide

new growth and improved wildlife access; providing nesting habitat and browse for a diversity of

species; and increasing size and vigor of black oaks to increase food crops and den/nest sites available

for wildlife.

The Ice Project area poses a unique set of fuels/fire related hazards due to: topographic features; fuel

types, high fuel loading and distribution; weather; and urban interface. These combined hazards create a

dangerous situation and pose a serious threat to life, property and valuable forest resources. This

situation sets the tone for the Ice Project objectives.


20

Six major fires have burned the wildlands around Alta Sierra in the last 40 years. Located

approximately three miles southwest of Alta Sierra, the Red Mountain Fire burned 25,670 acres in 1970.

The Alta Sierra Community was evacuated during the Stormy Fire in 1990, which burned 24,200 acres

just north of the community. Both of these large fires started in the lower elevation chaparral and

moved rapidly upslope into the conifer zone.

Bark beetle activity was above endemic or natural background levels in the Greenhorn Mountain area

between 1990 - 1996, and again during 2002- 2005 because of drought weather patterns. Mortality of

small pockets of trees has been occurring throughout the Ice analysis area, with some larger areas of

mortality occurring below the Alta Sierra community. Aerial mapping of tree mortality by the Forest

Service indicates that the high levels of tree mortality previously observed have abated somewhat,

however, pockets of new density related mortality are evident. (http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/spf/fhp/fhm/aerial/index.shtml).

All of these factors have led to the high surface fuel loadings throughout the analysis area. Pockets with

fuel loadings in excess of 120 tons per acre are not uncommon throughout most of the analysis area.

The BEHAVE fire prediction model was used to predict the size and intensity of a wildfire starting

within the conifer zone of the Ice analysis area under the current fuel conditions in 1998. The BEHAVE

model outputs indicate that a wildfire burning could not safely be controlled by direct attack on the fire

due to the high heat intensities that would be produced. The BEHAVE runs done in the late 1990’s for

this project have been updated with new modeling using the Forest Vegetation Simulator (FVS)

(Washington, et al., 2011) and new (2009) stand exam data (Burd, 2011). Modeling by Spencer et al.

(2008) discussed later in this report, and current modeling of fire condition in the Forest Vegetation

Simulator indicate that there is still a high risk of stand-replacing effect from wildfire in the absence of

fuels reduction treatments.

The Stormy Fire of 1990 occurred in similar fuel types and topography compared to the Ice Analysis

Area and provides an example of the type of fire behavior that can be expected in a wildfire. The

Stormy fire spread from one point of origin, on Baker Ridge near Bull Run Basin, to Tobias Peak

(approximately 5 air miles away) in approximately 3 hours. Flames were recorded as high as 200 feet.

This type of extreme crown fire behavior is likely in areas of heavy surface fuel loadings and crowded

stands on moderate to steep slopes. The intense fire behavior predicted for the Ice analysis area

indicates that the area is at a high risk of catastrophic loss of property and natural resources in a wildfire

event.

Riparian areas in the project are generally shaded and typified by a dominance of conifers. In some

areas, past harvest has opened up the forest and allowed willows to become established along with

alders and other riparian vegetation. Further survey of the riparian areas is needed before enhancement

objectives and/or projects can be developed.

Snag surveys in 1998 found that there are 5-9 snags per acre in the CWHR SMC 4M, 4D and 3 M strata

types. The results of the snag survey in 1998 indicate that there is a good representation of snag sizes

distributed fairly even throughout the project area. Surveys recorded approximately 8 dead and down

logs (>10 in.), per acre for the project area (up to 120 tons/acre) in 1998. The 2009 stand exams were

not adequate to accurately reflect snags numbers. It is clear that a large number of previous snags have

fallen, but a large number of new snags have been created. It is assumed that the snag level remains in

the range of 5-9snags/acre greater than 15inches dbh.

The Sierra de San Pedro de Martir (SSPM) is a comparable forest in northern Baja, Mexico (Franco-


21

Vizcaino, et al., 2002; Minnich, 1983; Stephens, et al., 2005). Tree species are predominantly Jeffrey

pine similar to drier Sierra Nevada habitats. The SSPM has an average precipitation of 20 inches per

year. The SSPM had little fire suppression and the natural fire regime and fire return intervals are

basically intact. This resulted in a more open forest with a higher herbaceous component and lower

accumulated fuels compared to comparable forests of the east-side and southern Sierra or southern

California. Tree density is approximately one-third of that of comparable fire suppressed forests. Trees

are typically much larger on average and snag density is on the order of 1-2 large snags per acre

(Franco-Vizcaino, et al., 2002; Minnich, et al., 2000; Stephens, et al., 2005).

During the years preceding the 2003 fire storm in southern California, the SSPM experienced a drought

similar to southern California and the southern Sierra. Southern California forests were much more

dense (200-300 trees per acre) compared to the SSPM (70-90 trees per acre) prior to the drought

(Minnich 2000, Stephens et al., 2005). The tree mortality in the SSPM amounted to 1-2 trees/acre that

died due to drought related stress and insect attack. Tree mortality in southern California in some areas

included 90 to 100 percent mortality of entire watersheds. The drought was followed by fires in late

2003. The SSPM suffered fires during the same period as southern California but rather than doing

damage and killing remaining trees, the fires in the SSPM were widespread but low intensity. The result

was mortality of 10 percent or less of the large, dominant trees and small patchy openings compared to

large gaps and high mortality reported with the southern California fires (Stephens et al., 2005).

The SSPM retained the majority of its large trees and suffered only minor to moderate changes as a

result of severe drought stress and subsequent fire. It was highly resistant to catastrophic change and

retained elements such as large trees, snags and other important wildlife habitat elements well

distributed over the landscape that make it able to return to pre disturbance conditions relatively rapidly

or a high degree of resiliency. Southern California responded to the disturbances with widespread

catastrophic change in response to the same stresses. Since the gaps are large with tree mortality at 100

percent, recovery will be slow in the absence of human intervention.

The discussion of the SSPM identifies some of the desired forest conditions that are likely to have

existed in the Project area prior to extensive logging and fire suppression beginning in the 1860s. The

conditions of large trees with irregular cover, fewer small trees and greater species composition of pine

and oak were likely more resistant to severe change and more resilient or able to recover after severe fire

as was found in the SSPM in 2003 compared to southern California forests.

Species Accounts

As discussed in the introduction, of the nine species discussed in the 1998 BE, only two are being

discussed in this BE: California spotted owl and northern goshawk. Six of the nine species will not be

further addressed in this document since the factors that were most likely to affect them in the 1998

selected action have not changed or have been eliminated. Potential effects to fisher are disclosed in the

Fisher BE.

Terrestrial Wildlife

The information in the following accounts is summarized from a number of different sources. Specific

documents incorporated by reference include: the Sierra Nevada Management Indicator Species Report

(USDA-FS, 2007) which includes information on habitat and population trend for mature forest species


22

including cumulative effects at multiple scales beyond the Sequoia National Forest; the Sierra Nevada

Forest Plan Amendment Final Environmental Impact Statement (SNFPA) (USDA-FS, 2001); and the

Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment Final Supplement Environmental Impact Statement (USDA-FS,

2004). The latter two references include more detailed summaries of life history and cumulative effects

on these species. Additional data sources included the Kern River Ranger District incidental sightings,

District fisheries and wildlife survey records, Sequoia National Forest Reptile and Amphibian Data

Base, the California Natural Diversity Data Base, and specific studies referenced. Mature forest species

are addressed as a group in the effects section of the document since habitat requirements are similar.

Subtle differences in habitat use are identified in the following species accounts.

California Spotted Owl

Distribution, Status and Trend

The California spotted owl occurs only in California, on the western side of the Sierra Nevada and very

locally on the eastern slope (Figure 1). Its range extends from the vicinity of Burney, Shasta County,

south through the southern Cascade Range and Sierra Nevada to Kern County; in the southern part of

the Coast Ranges from Monterey County to Santa Barbara County; and in the Transverse and Peninsular

Ranges of southern California south to Baja California (Guitierrez, et al., 1998; Verner, et al., 1992;

USDI-FWS, 2003). Isolated populations also occur in the Santa Cruz Mountains and Santa Lucia

Mountains (Gould Jr., 1974; USDI-FWS, 2003). The SNFPA (USDA Forest Service, 2001 and 2004)

described trends in habitat and population for the California spotted owl. This information was updated

and new information summarized in the 2006, 12 month finding on the California spotted owl by the US

Fish and Wildlife Service (USDI-FWS, 2006). The information from these sources is summarized

below and hereby incorporated by reference. Additional information on spotted owl distribution and

potential gap areas for the Sierra Nevada Province have also been discussed in the “California Spotted

Owl, A Technical Assessment of Its Current Status” (Verner et al. 1992).

Based on records from the California Department of Fish and Game recorded through 1998, 1,323 owl

sites are documented on National Forest System (NFS) lands in California with an additional 129 owl

sites reported on non-NFS lands (USFWS 2003). From 1970 -1991 the total pairs estimated for Sequoia

National Forest based on the California Department of Fish and Game database was 127 (Verner et al.

1992). This number increased to 133 sites based on additional surveys as presented in SNFPA (USDA

Forest Service, 2001). Currently, the Sequoia National Forest maintains 126 owl sites, where at least a

territorial single owl or pair has been detected. The differences between the 2001 data and the current

assessment is a result of several wildfires most notably the McNally and Manter fires of 2002 and 2000

respectively.

The ability of existing habitat to support owls in the Sierra Nevada does not appear to be a major

problem except at the peripheries of the subspecies range. Beck and Gould (IN: Verner et al. 1992)

suggested that this condition is normal for animal populations and typically not a concern unless the

range begins to shrink. Beck and Gould (IN: Verner et al. 1992) identified 16 areas distributed

throughout the range of the owl where there are gaps that delineate discontinuities in distribution (i.e. no

habitat exists or there is a bottleneck) and 19 areas where concern is related to low population density,

fragmented habitat, or loss of habitat due to fire (Figure 2, Verner et al. 1992). These conditions may

be solely or jointly caused by fire, land ownership patterns, natural or human caused fragmentation of

suitable habitat, and by natural geographic features that control vegetation patterns. Rather than

reflecting current negative effects on spotted owls, areas of concern as identified in Figure 2 [in: Verner

et al. 1992] simply indicate areas where future problems may be greatest if the owl’s status in the Sierra


23

Nevada were to deteriorate. Concern Area 8 is an “L” shaped band that extends from the Kern/Tulare

county line, overlapping the Ice Project area, south through the Breckenridge Mountains and east

through the Piute Mountains. It was identified in part, because small semi-isolated groups occur in the

few areas at elevations where habitat persists at the southern end of the Sierra Nevada. Small isolated

populations can become more vulnerable to extinction by local stochastic or catastrophic events.


24

Figure 1- Range of California Spotted Owl in the Sierra Nevada

(From Verner et. al. 1992, p.57)

Ice project

Western Divide RD

(California Hot

Springs RD)


25

The Ice Project is located at the southern end of the Sierra Nevada. The nearest population to the

southwest is in isolated oak habitats on the Tejon Ranch (Area of Concern 9). However, to the south

there is a very limited population in the Breckenridge and Piute Mountains where past fires have

severely limited the sparse habitat and territories that existed prior to the stand replacing fires. Beck and

Gould (IN: Verner et al. 1992) identify Gap C (Figure 2). This gap of an approximately 30 mile

Figure 2- Areas of Concern in California Spotted Owl Range

(From Verner, et. al. 1992, p.47)

Ice Project


26

distance in the known owl distribution is believed to contain little or no suitable habitat. It represents

the gap between suitable spotted owl habitat at the end of their range in the Sierra Nevada and isolated

mountains with suitable spotted owl habitats in southern California.

At the time of publication in 1992, no owls had been recorded in Area of Concern 9 post 1987 (Verner

et al 1992), and no owls have been found to date within this gap. This gap in habitat is result of existing

geographic and topographic influences on vegetation (primarily central valley annual grasslands) and

has little or no potential to support suitable or even dispersal habitat. Stephenson (1991) as cited in

Verner et al. 1992 indicated that movement between the major ranges and complexes in southern

California may be uncommon to nonexistent. Further research by LaHaye et al. (Lahaye, et al., 1994)

(Lahaye, et al., 2001) (Lahaye, et al., 2004) indicates populations isolated by six miles in southern

California showed no intermountain dispersal between 1987 and 1998.

Listing Status

The USFWS has conducted several significant status reviews of the California spotted owl in response

to listing petitions over the last six years (published 12 month findings: (USDI-FWS, 2003; USDI-FWS,

2006)). The latest finding dated May 15, 2006, incorporated the results from the most recent meta-

analysis on population dynamics of the California spotted owl (Franklin, et al., 2003), the best-published

and unpublished; scientific and commercial information; as well as information submitted to them

during the public comment periods. Based on this review, the USFWS found that the listing of the

California spotted owl was not warranted at that time because:

1) “the best-available data indicate that California spotted owl populations are stationary

throughout the Sierras which contain 81 percent of known California spotted owl territories”

2) “We anticipate that planned and currently implemented fuels-reduction activities in the Sierras

and in southern California will have a long-term benefit to California spotted owls by reducing

the risk of catastrophic wildfire”

3) “The best-available data do not show statistically significant population declines. Barred owls

have not been detected in the mountains of southern California, and they have moved into the

Sierras at much slower rates than they did in other parts of western North America. Moreover,

numbers of barred owls are only about two percent of California spotted owl numbers in the

Sierras”

4) “the largest private landholder, SPI, offers protection of spotted owls on their lands”

The USFWS concluded that “impacts from fires, fuels treatments, timber harvest, and other activities are

not at a scale, magnitude, or intensity that warrants listing, and that the overall magnitude of threats to

the California spotted owl does not rise to the level that requires the protections of the Act.”(USDI-FWS

2006)

Habitat Preference and Biology

The California spotted owl selects habitat for nesting, roosting, or foraging that have structural

components of old forests. Occupied stands tend to have a greater representation of large old trees (trees

with cavities, broken tops, etc.); higher live tree basal area; a multi-layered condition; higher canopy

cover; and an availability of large, live trees, snags and downed logs (CDFG 2008, Verner et al. 1992,

USFWS 2006). The species appears to be intolerant of high temperatures (California Wildlife Habitat

Relationships (CWHR) (CDFG, 2008)), with most roost locations occurring in areas where dense multi-

layered canopy exist. The selection of mature, multi-layered stands is also evident for breeding and nest


27

selection (Ibid). Occupied spotted owl sites in California have occurred most frequently in mixed

conifer forests (80 percent). Limited occupancy however is also noted in red fir forests (10 percent),

ponderosa pine/hardwood forests (7 percent), or other forest types such as east-side pine, and foothill

riparian/hardwood (collectively 3 percent) (Verner et al. 1992, USFWS 2003).

Six major studies (Verner et al. 1992, chapter 5) described habitat relations of the owl in four general

areas spanning the length of the Sierra Nevada. Radio-tracking studies of California spotted owls in the

Lassen NF and Sierra NF have provided some insights into habitat selection in conifer forests. Through

this analysis stands with greater than 40 percent canopy cover were considered suitable, where stands

with less than 39 percent canopy cover were not (Verner et al. 1992 p.10; USFWS 2006). Other studies

suggested that spotted owls appear to preferentially select for forests with greater than 50 percent

canopy cover but use habitat with 40- 50 percent cover in proportion to availability (neither preferred

nor avoided) (Hunsaker, et al., 2002). Nest sites are generally in habitat with 70 percent or greater total

canopy cover (defined as all canopy above 7 feet), although higher elevation nest sites in red fir types

have been documented in stands with as little as 30-40 percent canopy cover (Verner et al. 1992, pg 60).

Verner et al. (1992) found that owl foraging habitats include suitable nesting and roosting sites as well

as more open stands, regularly down to 40-50 percent canopy cover, that are generally similar in

structure and composition to nesting and roosting habitat. Typical conditions in occupied conifer forest

include:

A mixture of tree sizes, usually with some trees exceeding 24” dbh, resulting in tree canopies at a

wide range of heights but not necessarily in distinct layers.

Signs of decadence – snags, over mature trees, downed woody debris, large logs are especially

characteristic.

The presence of hardwoods probably tends to enhance foraging habitat in conifer forests.

Ample open flying space within and beneath the canopy

Estimates of California spotted owl home range size are extremely variable. Available data indicate that

home ranges are smallest in habitats at relatively low elevations that are dominated by hardwoods (800

acres), intermediate in size in conifer forests in the central Sierra Nevada (2,500 acres in the Sierra and

Sequoia NFs, 4,000 acres in the Eldorado, Stanislaus, Plumas and Tahoe NFs), and largest in the true fir

forests in the northern Sierra Nevada (9,000 acres in Lassen National Park) (Verner et al. 1992 In:

(USDA-FS, 2001)).

As part of the California spotted owl conservation strategy, the SNFPA guidelines (USDA 2001 and

2004) directs establishment of a Protected Activity Center (PAC) around each territorial single or pair

detected on National Forest System lands since 1986, with additional area established around the PAC to

form a Home Range Core Area (HRCA). For the Sequoia and Sierra National Forests, the HRCA

encompasses 600 acres including the PAC (USDA-FS 2004). HRCAs for more northern Forests are

larger based on the larger territory sizes used.

The HRCA is designed to include the best available spotted owl habitat encompassing the owl PAC

where the most concentrated owl foraging activity is likely to occur. The HRCA amounts to an

estimated 20 percent of the area described by the sum of the average breeding pair home range plus one

standard error. Verner et al. (1992) found that 50 percent of foraging activity was within 317 acres


28

surrounding the nest site (comparable use was found within 788 acres surrounding the nest site for

northern forests). Bingham and Noon (Bingham, et al., 1997)as cited in USDA-FS 2001) found the

“overused” portion of an owl’s breeding home range (core area) to be 20 to 21 percent of the owl’s

home range.

Studies suggest that spotted owl reproduction may be influenced by the percentage of closed-canopied

stands that occur around the activity core. Hunsaker et al. (2002))studied owls in southern Sierra

Nevada and reported that owl sites that consistently produced young had a median proportion of 60

percent of a 430 ha (1,062 acre) circular analysis area in greater than 50% canopy cover.

Lee and Irwin (2005)) used data from Hunsaker et al (2002) to develop and evaluate thresholds for risk

assessment of short-term fuels reduction efforts versus long –term risk of loss of habitat to fire. Lee and

Irwin (2005) grouped the 40–49 percent canopy class with the 50 percent canopy class in assessing

habitat conditions. They identified two reasons for this regrouping. First, the correlation with the

adjusted mean reproductive value is stronger when the 40 percent canopy closure breakpoint is used.

This suggests that the 40–50 percent canopy class may help explain differences in observed

reproduction. Second, the 40 percent canopy class threshold is useful when discussing fire risks and

fuels treatments. In the Sierra Nevada, 40 percent canopy cover has been identified as a general rule-of-

thumb for an upper bound on post-treated stands to minimize the probability of sustained crown fire,

although ‘‘adjustments in stand density based on local conditions certainly are appropriate’’

(Weatherspoon, 1996).

Lee and Irwin (2005) found that spotted owl reproduction was slightly increased when a greater

percentage of the home range was occupied by stands with higher canopy closures. They used the 430

ha (1,062 acre) area used by Hunsaker et al (2002) immediately surrounding the territory center and

found a minimum threshold for reproductive owls was met when 44 percent or greater of the area

contained stands with greater than 40 percent canopy cover. However, once this minimum was met, the

relative amount of forests with intermediate (40-70 percent) and dense (greater than 70 percent) canopy

cover had little measurable effect on reproduction of spotted owls. These findings were conditional on

having a suitable nest tree in the stand. This finding is consistent with the Bart (1995)) conclusion that

30–50% of northern spotted owl territories should be in suitable owl habitat to ensure replacement.

Franklin et al. (2000) (northwestern California) described a complex interaction of habitat quality and

distribution that partially explains spatial variation in reproductive success. The best-fitting model

included positive relations with the amount of edge between owl habitat and non-owl habitat. Higher

reproductive success was noted in sites with intermediate numbers of owl habitat patches intermixed

with non-habitat areas.

Blakesley (2003) found that 78% of the core area they studied (814 ha, 2011 acres Based on northern

California owls with larger home ranges.) and 83% of the nest area (203 ha, approximately 500 acres) in

reproductively successful spotted owl territories was composed of trees > 30 cm (24 inches) dbh with

>40 percent canopy cover (Lassen study area in northeastern California). Blakesley (ibid) found that

reproductive outputs were lower with increases in nest area dominated by small trees and un-forested

area although the correlation was weak and no thresholds were identified. The composition of the nest

area was a much better predictor of site occupancy than core area but relationships to apparent survival

and reproductive output were similar for both spatial scales.


29

Differences in primary prey species between the Franklin et al. (2000) and Blakesley (2003) study sites

may affect habitat relations and results (Blakesley 2003). The Franklin study which showed increased

success due to edge effects and inclusion of unforested areas was in an area where wood rats are the

dominant prey. Blakesley’s study was in an area where flying squirrels are the dominant prey

(Blakesley, et al., 2005).

Large diameter snags (trees greater than 15” dbh, and a minimum of 20’ tall) and woody debris provide

important habitat for nest and roost structures and are also utilized by many prey species. Snag levels in

nesting and roosting stands were found to range between 20 and 30 square feet basal area, and between

7-17 square feet basal area in foraging stands (Verner et al. 1992). Estimates of the mass of downed

wood in owl nesting, roosting, and foraging sites ranged from 10.5 to 24.7 tons per acre, with a mean of

17.4 tons per acre. The majority of the material sampled was in pieces of at least 11” in diameter.

Based on the lack of fire over the last 80-90 years it was thought these values probably exceed what was

present during the pre-settlement period. Consequently, Verner et al (1992) recommended a guideline

for retention of 10-15 tons per acre of large woody debris, in the largest size classes available.

Owl status and habitat availability in project area

Most of the suitable habitat on the Greenhorn Mountains has been surveyed repeatedly for spotted owls

since the late 1970s and early 1980s. The 1998 analysis was based on surveys that extend 1.3 miles

beyond the project area and found 3 owl territories. One of the territories was mapped on private lands.

Currently there are five spotted owl PACs/HRCAs established on National Forest System Lands within

the 1.3 mile radius circle around the project based on known current and historic activity centers in or

around the Ice Project area (KE008, KE033, KE010, KE003, KE011). It is recognized that some of

these owl territories may be duplicates for the same owls where owls may have been detected in more

than one location but it couldn’t be verified that they were the same owls. This is a conservative

approach that will serve to maintain additional habitat for mature forest species.

As shown in Table 5 stands dominated by intermediate to large trees (>24” dbh) appear to be limited in

the project area. This appears to be an artifact of extensive and intensive logging prior to 1900. Most

stands in the project area are dense but dominated by smaller trees

Table 5: High and Moderate suitability habitat available

Available habitat at various

scales

Total

area All

types

Pre project Post project

Unit Forest Type 4M 4D 5M 5D Total. 4M 4D 5M 5D Total

1 SMC 161 161 161 161 161

1a MHW 16 16 16 16 16

3 SMC 6 5 5 5 5

7 SMC 10 9 9 9 9

8 SMC 13 13 13 13 13

9 SMC 14 14 14 14 14

12 SMC 20 20 20 20 20

13 SMC 7 7 7 7 7

14 SMC 51 51 51 51 51

17 SMC 5 5 5 5 5

19 SMC 12 12 12 12 12

20 SMC 95 92 92 92 92

21 SMC 37 36 36 36 36

23e SMC 45 45 45 45 45

23 SMC 68 68 68 68 68

25 SMC 45 45 45 45 45

27 SMC 122 121 121 121 121

27e SMC 16 0 0 0 0

Unit Total 743 423 297 720 720 0 0 0 720

Remainder of 7th order Watersheds 12909 3233 4202 222 688 8345 3233 4202 222 688 8345

Total 7th order watersheds 13652 3656 4499 222 688 9065 3953 4202 222 688 9065

Private harvest within 6th order 34 5 26 4 35 31 0 4 35

Forest Service Projects 0 0 0

Remainder of 6th order Watersheds 34076 4733 5603 216 753 11305 4733 5603 216 753 11305

Total 6th Order Watersheds 47762 8394 10128 438 1445 20405 8717 9805 442 1441 20405

Other Projects on NFS 2621 428 1546 37 610 2621 1974 647 2621

Other Projects on Private 1928 343 932 120 533 1928 1275 653 1928

Remainder of SW SQF 294766 81209 67713 5801 28737 183460 81209 67713 5801 28737 183460

Total SW. SQF * 347077 90374 80319 6396 31325 208414 93175 77518 7543 30178 208414

*KR and WD Ranger Districts north and west of the Kern River

Spotted Owl Detections within the Ice Analysis Area

PAC Number: KE003

Total acres :637

shared HRCA with KE011

PAC Number: KE008

Total Acres: 626

PAC Number: KE010

Total Acres: 652

PAC Number: KE011

Total Acres: 622

PAC Number: KE033

Total Acres: 625

Year Results

1989 ADULT SPOTTED

OWL

1991 Pair with young

1992 No SPOTTED OWL

2005 No SPOTTED OWL

2006 No SPOTTED OWL

Year Results

1990 ADULT SPOTTED

OWL

1991 ADULT SPOTTED

OWL

1992 Male SPOTTED OWL


2005 ADULT SPOTTED

OWL

2006 No SPOTTED OWL

Year Results


1991 No SPOTTED OWL


1995 No SPOTTED OWL


2005 Pair Occupancy


Year Results

1991 Pair Occupancy

1992 No SPOTTED OWL


2006 Pair with Young

2007 Pair

2008 Pair

2009 Pair

Year Results

1992 No SPOTTED OWL

1995 Pair

2005 ADULT SPOTTED

OWL

2006 ADULT SPOTTED

OWL


20

Prey Resources

Spotted owls detect their prey by sight and sound, generally pouncing on their prey from an elevated perch or

capturing it mid-air. Prey items documented in their diet include a diversity of mammals (gophers, mice,

squirrels, bats), birds, reptiles (lizards, frogs), and insects. Several studies suggest that the owl is a prey

specialist because, although they feed on a variety of taxa, much of their diet by weight is comprised by one

or two species. In the upper elevation conifer forest for example, the flying squirrel (Glaucomys sabrinus) is

dominant in the diet, comprising as much as 61 to 77 percent of the biomass eaten in some localities and

seasons (Verner et al. 1992). In contrast, in lower elevations of the Sierra Nevada, the primary prey species

is the dusky-footed woodrat (Neotoma fuscipes) making up 74 to 94 percent of the diet, by weight, in various

areas (Verner et al. 1992).

It is presumed that flying squirrels are present in the Greenhorn Mountains even though the forest is young

second growth without much of the large trees and decadence found in habitat for this prey species.

Woodrats are common in the project area and habitat is highly suitable with live oak, chaparral and montane

shrub communities integrating with conifer and mixed conifer –hardwood forest.

In the Sierra Nevada, woodrats occur generally below 5,000 feet in elevation in the northern and central part

of the state, but have been known to occur at higher elevations in the Kern River Drainage. In the San

Bernardino Mountains, the dusky-footed woodrat occurs on both the Pacific and desert slopes, ranging from

about 1,600 feet on the Pacific Slope and 3,800 feet on desert slope up to 8,000 feet on both sides, where it is

a common prey item of spotted owls. Woodrats are commonly observed in the Ice Project area. They are

most commonly associated with chaparral woodland and forest communities with a mix of overstory trees

and shrubs. Habitats that are poorly suited for the woodrat include open grasslands, fallow, weedy ground,

sparsely wooded forests, woodlands solely of conifers or with little shrub understory; and pure stands of

chamise, manzanita, or ceanothus (Linsdale and Tevis 1951, IN: Verner et al. 1992). The dusky-footed

woodrat eats parts of a wide variety of plant species, obtaining most of its water from thick-leaved shrubs.

The bulk of the diet consists of leaves and terminal shoots of twigs, with seasonally important foods

consisting of flowers, fruits, nuts and fungi. Bark, wood, and other organic materials are also eaten

occasionally. Lindsdale and Tevis also examined food items cached within nests. Most commonly observed

items were acorns and fruits of California coffeeberry and leaves of various species including live oak,

California blackberry, chamise, California coffeeberry, buckbrush, and Jim brush. Somewhat less common

items included valley, blue and black oaks, California wild rose, poison oak, and mountain whitethorn.

Various studies have reported effects of habitat change on dusky-footed woodrat populations. Populations

have been documented to fluctuate due to drought, and have shown varying levels of depression following

activities that significantly altered brush elements (fire, etc). Several studies suggest that woodrat densities

are higher in areas that remain undisturbed by fire, or that received light or moderate burns (Lee, et al., 2005)

(Lehkmuhl, et al., 2006). They appear to be favored by small openings in the forest that may support shrub

habitat intermixed within the forest.

Risks and Management Concerns

Verner et al. (1992) predicted increases in ‘‘stand-destroying’’ fires that will accelerate the loss of old-

growth attributes, including remnant old trees that are vital to owl nesting success. Weatherspoon et al.

(1992) suggested that severe wildfire may represent the greatest threat to current owl habitat in Sierran

mixed-conifer forests, and recommended, ‘‘aggressive, environmentally sound fuels management programs

to reduce wildfire hazard in and around owl habitat.’’ Buchanan et al. (1995) suggested that active

management is required to reduce risk of large-scale habitat loss to wildfires in the eastern Washington

Cascades. In a recent commentary on National Forest Fire Policy, Franklin and Agee (Franklin, et al., 2003)

pointed to the Sierra Nevada mixed conifer forests as areas ‘‘likely to experience uncharacteristic stand-

replacing fires without active fuels treatments and prescribed burning programs, with the resulting loss of


21

critical watershed and habitat for the California spotted owl and other endangered wildlife.’’ Recent large,

intense fires within the range of the spotted owl from northern Washington to New Mexico support the view

that forest conditions in some locations are primed for wildland fires that could render owl habitat unsuitable

for decades (Irwin, et al., 2002).

The USFWS found the following factors are affecting the California spotted owl: destruction or modification

of habitat by wildfire, fuels-reduction activities, timber harvest, tree mortality, and development; however,

the possible short-term effects from fuels-reduction activities are thought to be ameliorated by the longer-

term reduction in the greater risk of catastrophic wildfire (USDI-FWS, 2006).

Using a combination of population data, canopy cover measurements, and forest simulation models, Lee and

Irwin (2005) concluded that modest fuels treatments in the Sierra Nevada would not be expected to reduce

canopy cover sufficiently to have measurable effects on owl reproduction. Sixty-year simulations predict that

mechanical thinning or mechanical thinning plus fuel-break construction treatments in combination with

either no fire or mixed-lethal fire scenarios will not degrade canopy conditions in productive owl territories,

nor impede improvement of non-productive territories. In contrast, lethal fire simulations produced a

pronounced and lasting negative effect. Their analysis supports the hypothesis that habitat needs for owl

reproduction can be incorporated in developing effective fire and fuels management strategies that lessen the

chances of uncharacteristically severe wildfire.

Information regarding fire effects on owls is scant. Bond et al. (2002) hypothesized that relatively large

wildland fires that burned >80% of 11 owl territories, primarily at low to moderate severity, apparently had

little short-term (1 year) effect on individual survival, site fidelity, mate fidelity, and reproductive success of

spotted owls. Further study by Bond et al. (2007) followed owls after the ~150,000 acre McNally Fire

(2002). Twenty-one owl territories were affected by the McNally Fire; nine had significant loss of habitat.

Of these nine, four were relocated and studied by Bond et al. (2007). All of the four pairs studied were

located in new activity centers found after the fire and were presumed to have relocated from activity centers

that had burned with severe damage during the fire. One pair relocated outside of the fire perimeter but

continued to use areas of low burn intensity for foraging. One pair was found nesting at 9,200 feet in lightly

burned red fir habitat (most owl nests are below 8,000 feet (Verner et al 1992)). The other two owls were

found in unburned areas in islands or on the periphery of the burn. One of these pairs subsequently relocated

to a previously unoccupied area of marginal habitat approximately 1 mile to the south of the studied location

(S. Anderson pers. comm.). Survival and reproduction during the time of the study were above or

comparable to other studies on the Sierra National Forest. However, both studies by Bond et al. appear to

have only tracked spotted owls that were found to survive and were relocated post-fire. Neither study looked

at density of owl activity centers prior to and post fire, long-term survivorship and occupancy (both studies

tracked owls for approximately one year or less within a short period after the fire), or effects on habitat

availability or suitability.

Northern Goshawk (Accipiter gentilis) Overview of Species (Information for this section was summarized from (Squires, et al., 1997)

The northern goshawk is holarctic in distribution. In North America it occurs primarily in boreal forests, but

it also occurs far to the south in montane forests of the western United States and Mexico. The most

widespread subspecies (A. g. atricapillus) occurs from the northeastern United States across the boreal

forests of Canada to Alaska and southward through the upland forests of the western United States

(Reynolds, et al., 1992). The goshawk is partly migratory in the northern portion of its range, where in

winters of food shortage it migrates southward. In high elevations and montane areas, some goshawks

descend into lower elevations with woodlands, riparian areas, and scrublands during the winter (Kennedy, et

al., 1994).


22

General Suitable Habitat

Northern goshawks occur in a variety of coniferous forest communities in the western United States,

primarily in ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa), Jeffrey pine (P. jeffereyi), mixed conifer, white fir (Abies

concolor), and lodgepole pine (P. contorta). Large snags and downed logs are believed to be important

components of northern goshawk foraging habitat because such features increase the abundance of major

prey species (Squires, et al., 1997). When foraging, northern goshawks utilize a wider range of forest types

and conditions, but most populations still exhibit a preference for high canopy closure and a high density of

larger trees. In Nevada, however, northern goshawks forage in open sagebrush habitats or perch in aspen

stands to hunt ground squirrels in adjacent sagebrush (Squires, et al., 1997).

Nest stands are typically composed of large trees that have high canopy closure, are near the bottom of

moderate hill slopes, and have a sparse understory. Studies of nesting habitat show that goshawks nest in

older-aged forests with variable tree species (Shuster, 1980; Saunders, 1982; Moore, et al., 1983; Hall,

1984). Coniferous trees used for nesting in the western portion of northern goshawk's range include

ponderosa pine, Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii), white fir, and lodgepole pine (Squires, et al., 1997).

Nests are typically constructed in the largest tree in the stand (Hargis, et al., 1994; Reynolds, et al., 1992;

Squires, et al., 1996). Goshawks typically nest in stands with canopy cover between 60 percent and 80

percent (Crocker-Bedford, et al., 1988). Studies of habitat characteristics at goshawk nest sites have reported

average canopy closure measurements from 75 percent in northern California to 88 percent in northwestern

California (Saunders, 1982; Hall, 1984). Stand structure ranges from dense multi-layered stands in Oregon

to open park-like understories in Colorado and California (Shuster 1980, Saunders 1982, Hall 1984).

Average nest tree size is just as variable, with mean tree diameters ranging from 8-20 inches in Colorado

(Shuster 1980), 20 inches in Oregon (Moore, et al., 1983), and 36 inches in northwestern California (Hall

1984).

Goshawks appear to prefer north to east aspects for nest sites (Moore and Henny 1983, Hall 1984), as tree

stands within these aspects are typically denser and more suitable. Slope also appears important, as nests are

usually placed on flat to moderately slope (1-40 percent grade) where trees are larger and grow at a higher

density (Shuster 1980, Reynolds et al. 1992). Hennessy (1978) observed that there was a tendency for

goshawks to build nests near or on trails, edges, dirt roads, or other clearings such that clear flight lanes were

provided to and from the nest.

The importance of the proximity of the nest area to water is not known. Moore and Henny (1983) found that

the distance of water from nests averaged approximately 650 feet. Hall (1984) found an average distance of

500 feet. Shuster (1980) found that nests were rarely further than 900 feet from water. Hennessy (1978)

found an average of 1,300 feet in Utah. Crocker-Bedford and Chaney (1988) suggested that a permanent

water source is not required, but there may be a preference for this condition.

Food Habits

Northern goshawks prey on a variety of animals, including but not limited to tree squirrels, hares, grouse,

corvids, woodpeckers, and large passerines (Squires and Reynolds 1997). Prey may be cached on a branch

or wedged between branches (Zachel, 1985), primarily when nestlings are small and need frequent feedings

(Squires, et al., 1997). Goshawks are short-duration sit-and-wait predators, and often switch perches while

searching for food. Reynolds and Meslow (1984) found that the goshawk is a height zone generalist, taking

prey from the ground-shrub and shrub-canopy layers. Bloom et al. (Bloom, et al., 1986) stress the

importance of meadows, streams, and aspen stands, which may be important for prey species on which the

goshawk feeds. However, Bartelt (1977) observed that goshawks forage in a variety of habitats, probably

along edge as well as in deep forests. Moore (1980) also noted use of edge. The presence of prey plucking

sites within the nesting territory is also a habitat characteristic related to foraging. Prey plucking sites


23

usually consist of stumps, fallen logs, snags, or arched trees (Bartelt 1977, McCarthy et al. 1989). In Oregon

and California studies, goshawks were found to forage primarily on birds and mammals (Reynolds 1992,

Bloom et al. 1986).

Reproductive Habits

Northern goshawks are monogamous. Pairs typically arrive at nesting territories by March or early April

(Hennessy 1978), or they remain near nests year round. Nests are typically large stick platform structures

built in a fork near the trunk of the tree, on a large branch, or on top of a mistletoe whorl, 15-50 feet from the

ground, just below the crown (Bartelt 1977, Moore 1980, Saunders 1982, Hall 1984, Hennessy 1978, Shuster

1980, Bloom et al. 1986). Goshawks typically build more than one nest, placing alternates in adjacent trees

or up to a half mile away (Reynolds et al. 1992). Goshawks may alternate between these nests on an annual

or semi-annual basis, may use the same nest for years in a row, or build a new nest in the same area

(Reynolds et al. 1992). Breeding typically begins in April and lasts into August. Typically, two to four eggs

are laid in April-May and incubated primarily by the female. Incubation lasts 36-41 days (Reynolds 1992,

Moore 1980). Young fledge at approximately 35-42 days (July 15 - August 15) (Hennessy 1978, Reynolds

1992). Fledglings remain in the vicinity of the nest stand for an additional 3-4 weeks, during which time

their parents continue to provide them with food (Hennessy 1978, Squires and Reynolds 1997). The

proportion of goshawk pairs that breed each year is highly variable, ranging from 22 percent to 86 percent in

northern Arizona over a 4-year period. Nest success (i.e., the percentage of pairs laying eggs that

successfully fledge young) ranges from 80 percent to 94 percent in most studies, while most populations

fledge 2.0-2.8 young per successful nest (Squires and Reynolds 1997).

Risks and Management Concerns

General factors influencing goshawk habitat include activities that affect forest structure such as livestock

grazing, fire suppression, timber harvest, and insect and disease outbreaks, competition, predation and

disease (Graham, et al., 1999). Because of fire exclusion, insect and disease epidemics, timber harvest,

livestock grazing, or a combination of these factors the forests and woodlands of many parts of the west have

changed drastically since the early 1900s. One of the greatest impacts on habitat loss may be the lack of fire

within the ecosystem (Graham et al. 1999). The present conditions of the forests and woodlands of older

aged forests are prone to insect and disease epidemics in addition to the risk of stand replacing fires.

Most of the factors addressed under spotted owls apply as risks to goshawk as well.

Population Status and Trend

The status of northern goshawk populations in the western United States is poorly understood (Squires and

Reynolds 1997). Data are difficult to interpret due to inherent biases in methodologies and irruptive

migrations. Although northern goshawks remain widely distributed throughout their historic range, current

sampling techniques are inadequate to determine population status or trends of this species. One index of

trend is the Christmas bird counts adjusted for observer days. This index indicates a slight positive trend for

goshawks.

Current population status and trend on Sequoia National Forest

Currently, there are 20 protected activity centers established for northern goshawk pairs documented on

Sequoia National Forest. Several more sites are under investigation to locate nests within areas with active

goshawk use. It anticipated further survey will lead to the establishment of four or more additional PACs in

the near future and 10 or more over several years across the Forest. Monitoring of existing Goshawk PACs

on the Forest suggests stability in their occupancy. Surveys and incidental observation confirm that the

species is well distributed across the Forest. Increases in the number of documented occupied territories are

a result of continued effort to find nest sites within areas of historical observation.


24

Project specific information

There is one goshawk territory north and east of the Ice Project.

Effects - Mature Forest Sensitive Species

California Spotted Owl and Northern Goshawk

Direct and Indirect Effects

Criteria for evaluating effects on mature forest species include:

• protection of nesting habitat in the immediate vicinity of nest sites or territorial centers;

• proportion of the known territories in moderate to dense forest conditions (measured by canopy

cover);

• availability of large trees (> 40” dbh); number and size of large snags (> 15” dbh);

• large (> 20” diameter at small end) down woody debris;

• Multiple-layered canopies including hardwoods.

• Retention of snags

Alternative A - No Action

No Action would mean that the remaining actions as previously approved would not occur. It is recognized

that conditions are not static in any natural environment and that there are limitations on sustainability of

dense habitats under poor site conditions and high fire hazard. The effects of onsite competition for limited

resources (i.e. water and nutrients), insects and disease, and natural drought cycles will continue to act as

agents of change, promoting higher levels of tree mortality and increased surface fuels levels. As a result,

the risk and probability of stand replacing fire would remain high. The fuel conditions and terrain are

similar to those noted within areas where the Stormy and Red Mountain Fires occurred, both of which

resulted in the removal of large tracts of suitable mature forest habitat. Effects of global climate change

cannot be precisely predicted, however, in the absence of some action to reduce stress of these changes,

effects are expected to disproportionately affect larger trees and result in more and larger uncharacteristically

severe wildfire which may convert forest habitats to non forest and limit the ability of the site to return to

forested conditions over time.

Protection of existing reproductive centers

Failure to thin ladder fuels under 6” dbh and treat surface fuels would maintain the PACs and HRCA in a

highly vulnerable state. It would be a matter of random chance whether the areas burned under extreme

conditions but it is highly probable that they would burn at some point in time. Under typical summer

conditions, wildfires that occur will have greater flame lengths and fire intensity, resulting in the loss of

many structural attributes associated with owl and goshawk use, and which take the longest to replace (i.e.

large live trees, large snags and large down woody debris).

Proportion of known territories in moderate to dense forest conditions (measured by canopy cover).

With no action, there would be no change in the proportion of the core area for the goshawk or spotted owl

activity centers in high density forest (>50 percent canopy cover) in the short-term (See Figure 2). Each of

the Owl territories would retain the existing level of mostly moderate value habitat. Opportunity to increase

habitat value through accelerating growth in tree size would be foregone. High risk of stand-replacing

wildfire effects would remain.

Multiple-layered canopies including hardwoods

Stand replacing events would depend on random chance on timing and severity or extent. Opportunity to

increase growth of hardwoods and retain suppressed hardwoods in the stand would be foregone. Current

stand exams show moderate numbers of oaks in the stands and high levels of down hardwood logs. Over


25

time, oaks within the stands will die and not be replaced as they are over-topped and shaded out in the

absence of the normal fire disturbance regime. At some point it is likely that fire will occur and favor oak

regeneration, but most large oaks and the suitable dense forest conditions favorable to spotted owls would be

lost.

Availability of large trees (> 40” dbh)

There would be no change in availability of large trees unless influenced by a stochastic event such as high

severity fire or drought related mortality. Current conditions support few large trees over 30 inches. The

high density of trees found in most stands is of intermediate size class (size class 3-4) and will continue to

grow slowly.

Large (> 20” diameter at small end) down woody debris

Crowded forest stand conditions would continue to result in high mortality and consequent contributions to

down woody debris. Logs would tend to be smaller in the absence of thinning to increase growth and

recruitment of large trees over time. High levels of large down logs, up to 120 tons/acre, from past insect

and drought related mortality would continue to exist. These conditions would contribute to a high residence

time, higher intensity of heat output, and high resistance to control in the event that a wildfire does occur.

Retention of snags, number and size of large snags (> 15” dbh)

Snags would remain at current levels in the short term and likely increase with the next drought cycle. There

is no indication that continued increases in snag levels would significantly increase abundance or diversity of

wildlife in the project area beyond what already occurs. The high abundance of snags and down woody

debris on a landscape level as is found within the project area, can contribute to fire spotting, higher fire

intensity, severity, and therefore greater resistance to control. Should a wildfire develop within the project

area these factors would be applicable. This coupled with the lack of safe, logical points of control to initiate

suppression efforts would likely contribute greater losses in suitable habitat over time. Over the long term,

existing large snags will eventually fall. Given the lower growth rates associated with densely stocked

stands common throughout the project site, the recruitment pool of large live tree that will eventually die and

replace those that fall is likely to diminish.

Alternative B - Implementation of remaining Ice Project


There is limited reduction of surface fuels through prescribed burning and ladder fuel reduction in some of

the home range core area for spotted owls. The fuels reduction treatments in these areas are designed to

retain existing canopy cover and 95 percent of trees over 11 inches dbh (up to 5 percent mortality of trees >

11” is within tolerance but not planned). Treatment of the protected areas will maintain habitat quality by

retaining all large live trees and existing canopy while reducing threat of stand-replacing fire and/or drought

related mortality to these important areas of high use. Several studies indicate that prescribed burning can

increase abundance and diversity of prey (Converse, et al., 2006).

Proportion of area in moderate to high density (> 40 percent cover), medium to large trees

Under Alternative B, the area in moderate density habitat will not decrease and the area of greatest use by

spotted owls and goshawks, PACs and HRCAs, would not changes in number of medium to large trees or

density of habitat. This amounts to approximately 3,000 acres in spotted owl home range core areas (includes

PAC) and the overlapping goshawk territory within the Ice analysis area. Approximately 297 acres of

intermediate size, high density forest will be thinned to moderate density. Forest Vegetation Simulation

model indicates that over the long term, in the absence of a stand –replacing event, implementation of

Alternative B should return to very similar canopy cover over 20-50 years. This is due to accelerated

growth of thinned stands and higher mortality in the unthinned stands.


26

In addition to the specially designated areas, an area with a 1,170 meter radius comprising approximately

430 hectares surrounding each owl territory was analyzed against the threshold of 44% in moderate or

greater density as described by Lee and Irwin (2005). Figure B-2 in Appendix C shows the owl territories

and the respective analysis areas. Table 6 identifies moderate and high quality habitat within a .7 mile radius

of each owl activity center. There are no Ice units within the analysis areas for KE008 and KE003. KE033,

KE011 and KE010 are affected by Ice units but each territory has greater than 44% of the area in habitat with

greater than 40% canopy cover post thinning.

Table 6: Moderate and high quality Owl habitat within .7 mile radius

Moderate and high quality owl habitat (montane hardwood and conifer habitat,

size classes 4 and 5 with Moderate (40%) or better canopy cover within a .7

mile (~1,088 acres) circle

PAC number

M_H

Quality

Habitat

total

% M_H

Quality

Habitat

Threshold 44%

KE010 971 1088 89%

KE011 1504 1720 87%

KE003 1412 1732 82%

KE033 987 1088 91%

KE008 831 1401 59%

KE008 was impacted by the Stormy Fire.

Large Trees > 40 inches dbh

Implementation of the project would protect existing large trees except for immediate hazard trees that may

exist adjacent to roadways. The number of trees greater than 40” is lower than desired for west-side, mesic

forests. Implementation of the Ice Project will thin the intermediate and small trees, which will result in

accelerated growth of the remaining intermediate and larger trees. This is intended to result in a forest

dominated by large trees that will provide higher canopy cover with greater resistance to change from

disturbance events such as wildfire and greater resilience after change (e.g. greater retention of large trees in

patches, lower risk of crown fire and a greater mosaic of effects after disturbance compared to more uniform

untreated stands).

Snags and large down woody debris

The 1998 analysis indicated that there were 5 to 9 snags/acre based on stand exams. Some of these snags

have fallen down and new snags have been created. The stand exams conducted in 2009 were not extensive

enough to accurately estimate snag numbers. Ocular estimates from field reviews indicate that the number of

snags/acre > 15” dbh still exceeds the minimum 4/acre. Numerous areas of high deadfall exist from blow

down and large patches of previous insect and drought related mortality. This situation has resulted in areas

with down woody debris in excess of 120 tons/acre. The desired outcome is no more than 10-15 tons per

acre. However, the areas with the HRCAs, riparian zones and other untreated areas will remain at high

levels. The 10-15 tons/acre retention is within the guidelines recommended by Verner et al. (1992).

Large trees

Implementation of the Ice Project should result in accelerated growth of the remaining trees to provide larger


27

trees over time. The thinning is not severe enough to rapidly accelerate growth but a steady growth in the

quadratic mean diameter (measure of average tree size) is expected to exceed that of the no action

alternative.

Alternative C - No Commercial Harvest

Removal of small trees < 10.9 inches and underburning would significantly reduce the potential for large-

scale stand-replacing fire. Dense stand conditions would still exist and effects of onsite competition for

limited resources (i.e. water and nutrients), insects and disease, and natural drought cycles will continue to

act as agents of change, promoting higher levels of tree mortality and increased surface fuels levels. As a

result, the risk and probability of stand replacing fire would likely return to hazardous more quickly resulting

in higher maintenance needs or higher fire risk.


Implementation of Alternative C would provide short-term protection for the area around the PACs and

treated area within the PACs.

Proportion of known territories in moderate to dense forest conditions (measured by canopy cover).

There would be no change in the proportion of the core area for the goshawk or spotted owl activity centers

in high density forest (>50 percent canopy cover) in the short-term. Each of the Owl territories would retain

the existing level of mostly moderate value habitat. Opportunity to increase habitat value through

accelerating growth in tree size would be foregone.

Multiple-layered canopies including hardwoods

Opportunity to increase growth of hardwoods and retain suppressed hardwoods in the stand would be

foregone. Current stand exams show moderate numbers of oaks in the stands and high levels of down

hardwood logs. Over time, oaks within the stands will die and not be replaced as they are over-topped and

shaded out in the absence of the normal fire disturbance regime. At some point it is likely that fire will occur

and favor oak regeneration, but most large oaks and the suitable dense forest conditions favorable to spotted

owls would be lost.

Availability of large trees (> 40” dbh)

There would be no change in availability of large trees unless influenced by a stochastic event such as high

severity fire or drought related mortality. Current conditions support few large trees over 30 inches. The

high density of trees found in most stands is of intermediate size class (size class 3-4) and will continue to

grow slowly.

Large (> 20” diameter at small end) down woody debris

Crowded forest stand conditions would continue to result in high mortality and consequent contributions to

down woody debris. Logs would tend to be smaller in the absence of thinning to increase growth and

recruitment of large trees over time. High levels of large down logs, up to 120 tons/acre, from past insect

and drought related mortality would continue to exist. These conditions would contribute to a high residence

time, higher intensity of heat output, and high resistance to control in the event that a wildfire does occur.

Retention of snags, number and size of large snags (> 15” dbh)

Snags would remain at current levels in the short term and likely increase with the next drought cycle. There

is no indication that continued increases in snag levels would significantly increase abundance or diversity of

wildlife in the project area beyond what already occurs. The high abundance of snags and down woody

debris on a landscape level as is found within the project area, can contribute to fire spotting, higher fire

intensity, severity, and therefore greater resistance to control. Should a wildfire develop within the project

area these factors would be applicable. This coupled with the lack of safe, logical points of control to initiate

suppression efforts would likely contribute greater losses in suitable habitat over time. Over the long term,


28

existing large snags will eventually fall. Given the lower growth rates associated with densely stocked

stands common throughout the project site, the recruitment pool of large live tree that will eventually die and

replace those that fall is likely to diminish.

Cumulative effects-

The cumulative effects of both action alternatives are similar. They would have minor effects in habitat

disturbance but would not reduce canopy cover below the threshold of 40% identified by Lee and Irwin

(2005). The cumulative effects of this project are shown at multiple scales in Table 5. The project affects

approximately 7 % of the moderate and highly suitable spotted owl and goshawk habitat at the scale of 7th

order watersheds or 13,650 acres. Within this analysis area no other Forest Service or private harvest is

known or planned to occur other than the thinning of county lands around Alta Sierra. As a result,

implementation of either action alternative would avoid rendering habitat unsuitable, or reduce the

availability of habitat below thresholds identified at this scale.

In summary, there are no cumulative effects beyond the 7th

order watershed for goshawk and spotted owl and

the effects within the 7th

order watershed are minimal. This is because the project would not reduce the

amount of habitat with a minimum of 40 % canopy cover below the threshold of 44 % identified by Lee and

Irwin (2005) within a circle comprising 1,062 acres surrounding the territory center. Therefore it is unlikely

that a California spotted owl or northern goshawk would be permanently displaced from an existing territory

and therefore would not affect utilization of adjacent territories.

In addition, the California spotted owl is also a management indicator species. The cumulative effects

analysis in the Revised Project Management Indicator Species (MIS) Report for the Ice Timber Sale and

Fuels Reduction Project (Cordes, 2010) provides information on California spotted owl Habitat Status and

Trend, Population Status and Trend, and the relationship of Project-Level Habitat Impacts to Bioregional

Scale Trends across the National Forest System lands along the Sierra Nevada mountains:

• Habitat Status and Trend: Over the last decade, the trend is slightly increasing (changing from 7% to

9% of the acres of habitat on National Forest System lands).

• Population Status and Trend: California spotted owl has been monitored in California and

throughout the Sierra Nevada through general surveys, monitoring of nests and territorial birds, and

demography studies (Verner et al. 1992; Gutierrez et al. 2008, 2009, 2010; USDA Forest Service

2001, 2004, 2006b; USFWS 2006; Sierra Nevada Research Center 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010). Current

data at the rangewide, California, and Sierra Nevada scales indicate that, although there may be

localized declines in population trend [e.g., localized decreases in “lambda” (estimated annual rate of

population change)], the distribution of California spotted owl populations in the Sierra Nevada is

stable.

• Relationship of Project-Level Habitat Impacts to Bioregional-Scale Trends: Since the direct, indirect,

and cumulative effects of the Ice Project will result in no change in late seral closed canopy

coniferous forest habitat acres, moderate changes in canopy closure (on 236 acres in Alternatives B

and C), and only a possible small reduction in the average large snags per acre (potential hazard tree

removal), this project will not alter the existing trend in the habitat, nor will it lead to a change in the

distribution of California spotted owl across the Sierra Nevada bioregion.


29

•

VI. DETERMINATION

This supplement to the 1998 BE analyzes the potential effects of the proposed project on federally protected

and Forest Service Region 5 Sensitive Species that have changed.

Federally Listed Threatened or Endangered Species

The 1998 BE identified five federally protected Threatened or Endangered species as occurring on the

Sequoia National Forest and with potential to occur in or near the project area. As described in the

introduction, all of these species were eliminated from further analysis based on lack of suitable habitat

affected by the project. The bald eagle and peregrine falcon have been delisted and are no longer protected

under the Endangered Species Act. No new information is available for the species listed below that would

alter the determination of no effect as first disclosed in the 1998 BE.

• bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus),

• peregrine falcon (Falco perigrinus),

• California condor (Gymnogyps californianus),

• southwestern willow flycatcher (Empidonax traillii extimus),

• California red-legged frog (Rana aurora draytoni).

The following species have been listed since the previous BA was completed or determined to exist within

the National Forest. However, no suitable habitat for these species exists within the project area and

therefore a determination of no effect is made for the species listed below.

• California jewel flower (FE) (Caulanthus californicus)

• San Joaquin woolly threads (FE) (Monolopia congdonii)

• Bakersfield cactus (FE) (Opuntia treleasei)

• San Joaquin adobe sunburst (FT) (Pseudobahia peirsonii)

• Keck’s checker-mallow (FE)(CH) (Sidalcea keckii)

Region 5 Sensitive Species

Terrestrial Species

The determination of no effect on pallid bat, and Shirley Meadows star tulip are still appropriate and remain

in effect. The determination of may affect, not likely to result in a trend toward federal listing or loss of

viability for southwestern pond turtle and foothill yellow-legged frog are changed to no effect because no

further activities are proposed in their habitat under the Ice Project. The determination of may affect, not

likely to lead to federal listing or loss of viability of relictual slender salamander is still valid and remain in

effect. The discussion and determination for fisher can be found in the Fisher BE.

The determination of may affect, not likely to lead to federal listing or loss of viability of California spotted

owl, northern goshawk and relictual slender salamander are still valid and remain in effect.

California spotted owl, Northern goshawk:

No Action

In the short-term, taking no action will have no effect on California spotted owls or northern goshawks.

However, a lack of treatment could indirectly leave these areas more vulnerable to large-scale, stand –

replacing or uncharacteristically severe wildfire. The long-term result is a high probability of significant

habitat loss that is likely to adversely affect population trends for the California spotted owl and goshawk in


30

the immediate area and contribute to factors that could lead to protection of the species under the Endangered

Species Act.

Action Alternatives

As noted by the USFWS (USFWS 2006) “With information currently available to us, it is difficult to

estimate the effects of converting nesting/roosting habitat to foraging habitat. If nesting/roosting habitat is

limited, then treatments that reduce nesting/roosting to foraging could have an adverse effect on spotted

owls. If nesting/roosting habitat is not limited, then the effect could simply be an increase in foraging

habitat.” The analysis indicates that adequate nesting habitat will remain in the Home Range Core Areas and

associated Protected Activity Centers (PACs) to meet the needs of the spotted owls in the project area. This

is also provided for the goshawk in the goshawk PAC. In addition to meeting the need for high density

habitat adjacent to the nest or activity center for these species a relatively high proportion of the surrounding

area will remain at relatively high density. The USFWS also considered the risk of fuels reduction and forest

health projects such as the Ice Project in their 12-month finding on spotted owls (USFWS 2006). It was their

determination that these kinds of projects are a lower risk to spotted owls than the large scale, stand replacing

events that they are intended to mitigate.

It is my determination that implementation of the remaining portions of the Ice Project under either action

alternative is not likely to result in a trend toward Federal listing or loss of viability of the California

spotted owl or Northern goshawk. The direct, indirect effects of these actions will result in no change in

availability of moderate to highly suitable habitat and only moderate changes in canopy closure (on 743

acres). This project will result in minor habitat changes that will not limit availability of habitat for

nesting/roosting habitat to the extent that it would be expected to reduce fecundity or reproductive ability of

the existing owl territories to continue. The scale, intensity and duration of these potentially adverse effects

are small and low intensity both spatially and temporally compared to the effects of large scale stand –

replacing fire if a wildfire were to occur. The types of activities have been shown to be effective in

ameliorating effects of stand replacing fire (Safford, et al., 2009).


31

VI. WORKS CITED

Bart J. Amount of Suitable Habitat and Viability of Northern Spotted Owls [Journal] // Conservation

Biology. - August 1995. - 4 : Vol. 9. - pp. 943-946.

Bartelt P. E. Managment of the American Goshawk in the Black Hills national Forest. M.S. thesis.

[Report]. - Vermillion, SD : University of South Dakota, 1977.

Bingham B. and Noon B. R. Mitigation of Habitat "Take": Application to Habitat Conservation [Journal] //

Conservation Biology. - 1997. - 1 : Vol. 11. - pp. 127-139.

Blakesley J. A., Anderson D. R. and Noon B. R. Ecology of the California spotted owl: breeding dispersal

and associations with forest stand characteristics in northeastern Califonria. [Report] : Ph. D. Dissertation. -

Ft. Collins, CA : Colorado State University, 2003. - p. 60.

Blakesley J. A., Noon B. R. and Anderson D. R. Site occupancy, apparent survival, and reproduction of

California spotted owls in relation to forest stand characteristics. [Article] // Journal of Wildlife

Management. - 2005. - Vol. 69. - pp. 1554-1564.

Bloom P. H., Stewart G. R. and Walton B. J. The status of the Northern Goshawk in California, 1981-

1983 [Report]. - Sacramento, CA : California Department of Fish and Game, 1986. - Adm. Rep 85-1.

Bond M. L. [et al.] Short-term effects of wildfires on spotted owl survival, site fidelit, mate fidelity and

reproductive success. [Journal] // Wildlife Society Bulletin. - 2002. - Vol. 30. - pp. 1022-1028.

Bond M. L., Lee D. E. and Siegel R. B. the use of post fire landscapes by California spotted owls in the

Sierra Nevada. [Report] : unpublished. - Point Reyes, CA : the Institute for Bird Populations, 2007.

Buchanan J., Irwin. L. L. and McCutchen E. L. Within-stand Nest Site selection by spotted owls in the

eastern Washington Cascades [Journal] // Journal of Wildlife Managment. - 1995. - 2 : Vol. 59. - pp. 301-

310.

Burd L Silviculture and Vegetation Report, Revision 1 to the Revised Ice Timber sale and Fuels Reduction

project [Report]. - Kernville, CA : USDA Forest Service, Kern River Ranger District, 2011.

CDFG California Natural Diversity Database. - [s.l.] : California Department of Fish and Game,

Biogeographic Data Branch, 2009.

CDFG CWHR version 8.2 personal computer program. - Sacramento, CA : California Department of Fish

and Game, California interagency Wildlife Task Group, 2008.

Converse S. J., White G. C. and Block W. M. Small mannal response to thinning and wildfire in

ponderosa pine dominated forests in the southwestern USA [Journal] // Journal of Wildlife Management. -

2006.

Cordes J. Management Indicator Species Report; Revised Ice Timber Sale and Fuels Reduction Project

[Report]. - Kernville, CA : USDA Forest Service, Kern River Ranger District, 2010.

Crocker-Bedford D. and Chaney B. Characteristics of goshawk nesting stands [Conference] // Proceedings

of the Southwest raptor managment symposium and workshop. / ed. Flinski R. L. [et al.]. - [s.l.] : National

Wildlife Federation, 1988. - pp. 210-217. - Sci. Tech Ser. No. 11.

Franco-Vizcaino E. [et al.] Water Balance at the Southern limit of the California Mixed Conifer Forest and

Implecations for Extreme Deficit Watersheds [Journal] // Arid Land research and management . - 2002. -

Vol. 16. - pp. 133-147.

Franklin A. B. [et al.] Climate, habitat quallity, and fitness in northern spotted owl populations in

northwestern California. [Journal] // Ecological Monographs. - 2000. - Vol. 70. - pp. 539-590.

Franklin A. B. [et al.] Population Dynamics of the California spotted owl:A meta-analysis [Report] : Final

Report to the Forest Service. - Albany, CA : USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station,

2003.

Franklin J. F. and Agee J. K. Forging a science based national forest fire policy [Journal] // Issues in

Science and technology. - 2003.

Gould Jr. G. I. The status of the spotted owl in California. [Report]. - Sacramento, CA : California

Department of Fish and Game, 1974. - p. 36. - Admin Report No. 74.

Graham R. T. [et al.] The northern goshawk in Utah: Habitat assessement and management

recommendations [Report]. - Ogden, UT : USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, 1999. -


32

p. 48. - GTR-RMRS-22.

Guitierrez R. J., LaHaye W. S. and Zimmerman G. Demography of the California spotted owl i nthe San

bernardino Mountains [Report]. - San Francisco, CA : USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region,

1998. - p. 14.

Hall P. Characterization of nesting habitat of goshawk (Accipiter gentilis) in Northeastern California [MS

thesis]. - Arcata : California State University at Humboldt, 1984.

Hargis C. D., McCarthy C. and Perloff R. D. Home ranges and habitats of northern goshawks in eastern

California [Journal] // Studies in Avian biologiy. - 1994. - Vol. 16. - pp. 66-74.

Hunsaker C. T., Boroski B. B. and Steger G. N. Relations between Canopy coveer and the Occurrence and

productivity of California Spotted Owls [Book Section] // Predicting Species Occurrences. - 2002.

Irwin L. and Thomas J. W. Policy conflicts raltive to managming fire adapted forest on federal lands: the

case of the northern spottted owl [Book Section] // Fire in Oregon's Forests: Risks, Effects, and Treatment

Actions. / trans. Fitzgerald S. A.. - Salem : Oregon forest Resource Insititue, 2002.

Kennedy P. L. [et al.] Post-fleging areas in northern goshawk home rnages. [Journal] // Studies in Avian

biology. - 1994. - Vol. 16. - pp. 75-82.

Lahaye W. S., Guttierrez R. J. and Akcakaya H. R. Spotted owl metapopulation dynamics in Southern

California [Journal] // Journal of Animal Ecology. - 1994. - Vol. 63. - pp. 775-785.

Lahaye W. S., Guttierrez R. J. and Dunk J. R. Natal dispersal of the spotted owl in southern California,

dispersal profile of an insular poulation [Journal] // Condor. - 2001. - Vol. 103. - pp. 691-700.

Lahaye W. S., Zimmerman G. S. and Guttierrez R. J. Temporal variation in the vital rates of an insular

population of spotted owls ( Strix occidentalils occidentalis): contrasting effects of weather. [Journal] //

Auk. - 2004. - Vol. 121. - pp. 1056-1069.

Lang E. N. Supplemental biological evaluation for fisher: Revised Ice timber Sale and Fuels Reduction

project [Report]. - Kernville, CA : USDA Forest Service,Kkern River Ranger District, 2011.

Lee D. C. and Irwin L. L. assessing risks to spotted owls from forest thinning in fire-adapted forests of the

western United States [Journal] // Forest Ecology and Management. - 2005. - 1-2 : Vol. 211. - pp. 191-209.

Lehkmuhl J. F., Kistler K. D. and begley J. S. Bushy-tailed wooddrat abundance in dry forests of eastern

Washingotn. [Journal] // Journal of Mammalogy. - 2006. - 2 : Vol. 87. - pp. 371-379.

Mayer K. E. and Laudenslayer W. F. A Guide to Wildlife Habitats of California (CWHR) [Book]. -

Sacramento : California Department of Fish and Game, 1988.

Minnich R. A. [et al.] Californian mixed confier forests under unmanaged fire regimes in the Sierra San

Pdero Martir, Baja California [Journal] // Journal of Biogeography. - 2000. - Vol. 27. - pp. 105-129.

Minnich R. A. Fire mosaics in southern California and northern Baja California [Journal] // Science. -

1983. - Vol. 219. - pp. 1287-1294.

Moore K. and Henny J. Nest site characteristics of three coexisting Accipter hawks in northeastern Oregon

[Journal] // Journal of raptor research. - 1983. - Vol. 17. - pp. 65-76.

Reynolds R. T. [et al.] Management recommendations for the northern goshawk in the southwestern Unitied

States [Report]. - Ogden, UT : USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, 1992. - GTR-

RMRS-217.

Reynolds R. T. and Meslow E. C. Partitioning of food and niche characteristics of coexisting Accipiter

hawks during breeding. [Journal] // Auk. - 1984. - Vol. 101. - pp. 761-779.

Ritter T. Wildlife Analysis and Biological Evaluation: Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive Species.

Revised Ice Timber Sale and Fuels Reduction Project. [Report]. - Kernville, CA : USDA Forest Service,

Cannell Meadow Ranger District, 1998.

Roche K. Silviculture and Vegetation Analysis: Revised Ice Timber Sale and Fuels Reduction Project.

[Report]. - Kernville, CA : USDA Forest Service, Cannell Meadow Ranger District, 1998.

Safford H. D., Schmidt D. A. and Carlson C. H. Effects of fuels treatments on fire severity in an area of

wildland-urban interface, Angora Fire, Lake Tahoe Basin, California [Journal] // Forest Ecology and

Managment. - 2009. - p. 15 .

Saunders L. B. Essential nesting habitat of the goshawk (Accipiter gentilis) on the Shasta-Trinity National


33

Forest, McCloud Ranger District. [Report] : MS Thesis. - Chico, CA : Californiqa state University at Chico,

1982.

Shuster Northern goshawk nest-site requirements in the colorado rockies. [Journal] // western Birds. -

1980. - Vol. 11. - pp. 89-96.

Spencer W. D. [et al.] Baseline evaluation of fisher habitat and population status, and effects of fires and

fuels management on fishers in the southern Sierra Nevada [Report] : Unpublished report. - Corvallis :

USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region, 2008. - p. 133.

Squires J. R. and Reynolds R. T. Northern Goshawk (Accipiter gentilis) [Book Section] // The Birds of

North America / ed. Poole A. and Gill F.. - Philadelphia : The Academy of Natural Sciences and the

American Ornithologists' Uniion, 1997. - Vol. 298.

Squires J. R. and Ruggerio L. F. Nest site preference of norther goshawks in south-central Wyoming.

[Journal] // Journal of Wildlife Management. - 1996. - Vol. 60. - pp. 170-177.

Stephens S. L. and Gill S. J. Forest structure and mortality in an old-growth Jeffery pine-mixed conifer

forest in north-western Mexico [Article] // Forest Ecology and Management. - 2005. - Vol. 205. - pp. 15-28.

US District Court Sierra Club, et al. vs Bosworth et al., [Case] : Co5-00397 CRB. - [s.l.] : Northern District

of California, August 22, 2006. - Related Case C U05-0898 CRB.

USDA-FS California Spotted Owl Interim Guidelines Forest Plan Amendment:Decision Notice and Finding

of No Significant Impact [Report]. - San Franciso, CA : USDA Forest Service, Pacifica Southwest Region,

1993.

USDA-FS Mediated Settlement Agreement to the Sequoia National Forest Land and Resource Management

Plan [Report]. - Porterville, CA : Sequoia National Forest, 1990.

USDA-FS Record of Decision: Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment FEIS [Report]. - Vallejo, CA : USDA

Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region, 2001.

USDA-FS Record of Decision: Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment FSEIS [Report]. - Vallejo, CA :

USDA-Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region, 2004. - R5-MB-046.

USDA-FS Record of Decision: Sierra Nevada Forests Management Indicator Species Amendment

[Report]. - Vallejo, CA : USDA forest Service, Pacific Southwest region, 2007.

USDA-FS Sequoia National Forest Land and Resource Managment Plan [Report]. - Porterville, CA :

Sequoia National Forest, 1988.

USDA-FS Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment carnivore monitoring accomplishment report [Report]. -

Vallejo, CA : USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region, 2009. - p. 12. -

http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/snfpa/monitoringreport2008/.

USDI-FWS 12 month finding on a petition ot list the California Spotted owl [Report]. - Washington, D. C. :

Federal Register, 2003.

USDI-FWS 12 month finding on a petition to list the California Spotted owl [Report]. - Washington D.C. :

Federal register, 2006.

USDI-FWS Condor Recovery plan [Report]. - Ventura, CA : USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, Ventura Field

Office, 1984.

USDI-FWS Condor Recovery Plan, third revision [Report]. - 1997.

USDI-FWS Species List for the Sequoia National Forest [Online]. - USDI Fish and Wildlife Service,

Sacramento field Office, 04 29, 2010. - 02 15, 2011. -

http://www.fws.gov/sacramento/es/spp_lists/NFActionPage.cfm.

Verner J. [et al.] The California Spotted owl: A technical assessment of it's current status [Report] =

CASPO Report. - Albany, CA : USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station, 1992. - p. 285. -

GTR-PSW-133.

Verner J. and Boss A. S. California wildlife and their habitats: western Sierra Nevada [Report] : General

Technical Report. - [s.l.] : USDA Fores Service, Pacific Southwest Region, 1980. - p. 439. - PSW-37.

Washington N. and Williams S. C. Supplemental Fuels Report; Revised Ice Timber Sale and Fuels

Reduction Project [Report]. - Kernville, CA : USDA Forest Service, Kern River Ranger District, 2011.

Weatherspoon C. P., Husari S. J. and Wagtendonk. J. W. van Fire and fuels management in relation to


34

owl habitat in forests of the Sierra Nevada and Southern California. [Book Section] // The California spotted

owl: A technical assessment of its current status / ed. Verner J. [et al.]. - Albany : U.S. Forest Service, Pacific

Southwest Research Station, 1992. - General Technical Report PSW-133..

Weatherspoon C.P., Skinner, C.N., 1996. Landscape-level strategies for forest fuel management. In:

Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project: Final Report to Congress, vol. II, Assessments and Scientific Basis

for Management Options. University of California, Davi Landscape-level strategies for forest fuel

management. University of California, Davi [Report] : In: Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project: Final Report to

Congress, vol. II, Assessments and Scientific Basis for Management Options.. - Davis, CA : University of

California, Davis, Centers for Water and Wildland Resources , 1996. - pp. 1471–1492.

Zachel C.R. Food habits, hunting activity, and post fledging behavior of northern goshawk (Accipiter

gentilis) in interior Alaska [Report] : M.S. Thesis. - Fairbanks, AK : University of Alaska, 1985.

Zielinski W. J., Kucera T. E. and Barrett R. H. The current distribution of the fisher, Martes pennanti, in

California [Article] // California Fish and Game. - [s.l.] : California Department of Fish and Game, 1995. -

pp. 104-112.


35

VII. APPENDICES

Appendix A: Species at risk: Sequoia National Forest

Appendix A, table 1. Threatened, Endangered, & Proposed Species, Sequoia National Forest Species list for Sequoia National Forest, updated via FWS web site (http://www.fws.gov/sacramento/es/spp_lists/NFFormPage.htm)

validated 3/2008

Common Name

Scientific Name Status Habitat /Range Project Level Analysis?

MAMMALS

Tipton kangaroo rat

Dipodomys nitratoides FE

Alkali sinks and valley floor habitat. SQF outside historical, known

and expected range. <1,000’ outside range No

California bighorn sheep

Ovis canadensis

californiana

FE

Rugged mountain areas, mostly eastern Sierra with small historic

range on western edge of Kern Drainage. Historic range within

GTW, TRRD. No current, verified sightings since 1940’s. > 5,000’

outside range No

San Joaquin kit fox

Vulpes macrotis mutica FE

Valley floor annual grassland, alkali washes. Outside historical,

known and expected range. +/- < 1,000’ Outside elevation range. No

birds

SW Willow flycatcher

Empidonax trailii extimus

FE,

CH

Riparian forest and meadow with dense willow habitat and standing

water. Reproduction and habitat at Lake Isabella. GHRD. < 6,000’

Suitable habitat not

affected by project. No

California condor

Gymnogyps californianus

FE,

CH

Mountain and foothill rangeland and forest habitats; nests on cliffs

and in large trees. Designated roost areas, critical habitat, nest area

and potential nest trees identified.

No recorded roost sites or

use in project area.

Specific areas to west set

aside for condor

No

Least Bell's vireo

Vireo bellii pusillus FE

Riparian forest. Historic to Kern Valley, detections in 2002 limited to

SFWA. single singing male. < 3,000’ No suitable habitat No

REPTILES

Blunt-nosed leopard lizard

Gambelia silius FE

Open grassland, valley floor. < 1,000’. SQF Outside historical,

known and expected range Outside range. No

Giant garter snake

Thamnophis gigas FT

Valley floor aquatic habitats, < 1,000’. SQF Outside historical,

known and expected range outside range No

AMPHIBIANS

California red-legged frog

Rana aurora draytoni FT

Low gradient streams and ponds with emergent vegetation, < 5,000’.

SQF is outside known, historical and expected range. outside range No

California tiger salamander

Ambystoma califoriense FT

Annual grass habitat and grassy understory of valley-foothill

hardwoods. Spend most of the year in underground in burrows of

ground squirrels and man-made structures, during breeding can us

rocks and logs. Breed in vernal pools, some human-made ponds w/o

fish, not in streams. <1,000’.

Outside range

FISH

Delta smelt

Hypomesus transpacificus FT

Limited to San Joaquin/Sacramento delta. SQF does not have an

outlet to Delta. Outside range. No.

Little Kern golden trout

Oncorhynchus mykiss

whitei

FT

CH

Native to cold water streams in Little Kern Drainage, 4,000’ – 9,000’.

Critical habitat designated Outside of range. No.

Sacramento split-tail

Pogonichthys

macrolepidotus

FT Limited to San Joaquin/Sacramento delta Outside of range. No.

INVERTEBRATES

Vernal pool fairy shrimp

Branhinecta lynchi FTCH

Valley floor annual grassland, vernal pools, +/- < 1,000’. SQF

outside historical, known and expected range Outside of range. No.

Valley elderberry longhorn

beetle

Desmocerus californicus

dimorphus

FT

Elderberry plants with base > 1” diameter in chaparral and riparian

habitats, < 2,900’. Potential exit holes and habitat exist on all districts

except CMRD.

project above elevation

range No

Kern primrose sphinx moth

Euproserpinus euterpe FT

Valley foothill, oak woodland and chaparral associated with evening

primrose. Range limited to Walker Basin area, <5,000’. SQF outside

historical and known range

Outside range No.

PLANTS


36

Appendix A, table 1. Threatened, Endangered, & Proposed Species, Sequoia National Forest Species list for Sequoia National Forest, updated via FWS web site (http://www.fws.gov/sacramento/es/spp_lists/NFFormPage.htm)

validated 3/2008

Common Name

Scientific Name Status Habitat /Range Project Level Analysis?

California jewel flower

Caulanthus californicus FE

Level areas or gentle slopes in sub alkaline sandy loam soils in the

western Sierra. Lake Success, Porterville areas < 1,350’. SQF

outside historical, known and expected range

Outside range. No

Springville clarkia

Clarkia springvillensis FT

Blue oak woodland, and chaparral, < 4,000’, within Tule River

Drainage. Outside Range No

San Joaquin woolly threads

Monolopia congdonii FE

San Joaquin Valley and western foothills, coastal scrub, saltbush

scrub and non native grasslands, < 1,000’. SQF outside historical,

known and expected range

Outside range. No

Bakersfield cactus

Opuntia treleasei

FE

Blue oak woodland, riparian woodland, and sparse, open, semi-desert

near Bakersfield. San Joaquin valley floor and foothills, < 2,000’.

Found in lower Kern Canyon near Richbar GHRD.

Outside range. No

San Joaquin adobe sunburst

Pseudobahia peirsonii FT

Heavy clay soils in the San Joaquin Valley and western foothills, <

1,000’. SQF outside historical, known and expected range Outside range. No

Keck’s checker-mallow

Sidalcea keckii

FE,

CH

Annual grasslands in the eastern Sierra foothills. Piedra, White River,

serpentine soils, a< 2,000’. Critical Habitat off Forest. Outside range. No

FE = Federally Endangered; FT = Federally Threatened; PT = Proposed for Federal listing; CH = Designated Critical Habitat on species

list for Forest

Appendix A, Table 2. Forest Service Sensitive Animals, Sequoia National Forest (SQF) (last revision 1998)

Species (status) Status Habitat/ Range Potential effects from project

Northern goshawk Accipiter

gentiles

FS, FC,

CSC

Dense mixed conifer forest to open eastside pine, 4,000-8,000’.

Found in suitable habitat across forest Occupied suitable habitat Yes

California legless lizard Anniella pulchra

FS Loose, moist soil in chaparral and valley foothill woodland.

Generally below 6,000’. Limited detections presumed present

in suitable habitat

Project outside elevation range. No

Pallid bat Antrozous pallidus

FS, CSC

Found in arid deserts, juniper woodlands, sagebrush shrub-

steppe, and grasslands, often with rocky outcrops and water

nearby. Less abundant in evergreen and mixed conifer

woodlands, Typically roost in rock crevices or buildings, less

often in caves, tree hollows, under bridges, and in abandoned

mines

May be present address in original

BE, no change in analysis or

available information

No

Inyo Mtn. slender

salamander Batrachoceps campi

FS ,CSC Down logs and moist areas in desert. Known range limited to

Inyo Mtns outside of SQF. 1,800- 8,600’ Project outside of range No

Relictual slender

salamander Batrachoceps relictus

FS, FC,

CSC Down logs and moist areas, generally in mixed conifer zone.

Kern Canyon to Tule River, 560’-7,600’

Included in original analysis , no

new information or changed

circumstances

Yes

Kern Cyn. slender

salamander Batrachoceps simatus

FS, FC, ST Down logs and moist areas, below 3,500’ Limited to Kern

Canyon Project outside of range. No

Tehachapi slender

salamander Batrachoceps stebbensii

FS, ST Down logs and moist areas, below 3,500’. Limited to canyon

and desert areas Tehachapi to Caliente, 2,000’-4,600’ Project outside of range No

Kern Plateau slender

salamander Batrachoceps sp.

FS, CSC Down logs and moist areas, ≈7,000-8,000’. Limited to Kern

Plateau Project outside of range. No

Breckenridge slender

salamander Batrachoceps sp.

FS, FC Down logs and moist areas in the Breckenridge area. Known

only from one location near Squirrel Mdw, Breckenridge Mtns.

(Unverified Lucas Cyn)

Project outside of range. No

Southwestern pond turtle Clemmys marmorata pallida

FS, FC Low gradient ponds and streams with basking sites. Can be

found up to 1 mile from perennial water. Most perennial

streams below 5,000 feet.

Considered in original BE, no new

information or changed

circumstances

No

W. yellow billed cuckoo Cocczyus americanus

occidentalis

FS, FC, SE Dense riparian forest. Limited to SF wildlife Area, lake

Isabella. Project outside of range. No


37

Appendix A, Table 2. Forest Service Sensitive Animals, Sequoia National Forest (SQF) (last revision 1998)

Species (status) Status Habitat/ Range Potential effects from project

Townsend's. big eared bat (Corynorhinus townsendii

townsendii)

FS, FC,

CSC

Nocturnal, roosts in caves, uses wide variety of habitats

although usually mesic areas for foraging. Present in most

locations

Presumed present, habitat not

affected No

Little Willow flycatcher

(Empidonax trailii brewsterii) FS, FC, SE

Meadow (15acre +) complexes with dense willow and standing

water, up to 8,000’. 8 historic sites. No detections 2001-2005.

Habitat not affected, previous

surveys, no presence detected. No

Yellow-blotched

salamander (Ensatina escholtzii croceator)

FS, FC,

CSC

Valley foothill/hardwood habitats and conifer, moist habitats

and down logs. Piutes, Breckenridge to White River 4,000-

6,000’?

Addressed with relictual salamander Yes

California wolverine (Gulo gulo luteus)

FS, FC, ST

Remote habitats, sensitive to human presence. 4000’ to

13,000’ mixed habitats. Likely present on forest in wilderness

few reports since 2002.

Outside range. No

Western red bat (Lasiurus blossevillii)

FS, CSC

Associated with riparian habitat, roosts in trees and forages

over open woodlands and grasslands. Requires water and open

areas for foraging

Outside of range. No

American marten (Martes americana)

FS, FC,

CSC

Dense forest (>30% canopy cover), high number of large snags

and down logs, close proximity to dense riparian corridors for

movement, and an interspersion of small (<1 acre) openings

with good ground cover for foraging. Potential occupied

elevation 4,000-13,000 ft.

Outside range, no presence detected

in surveys. No.

Pacific fisher (Martes pennanti pacifica)

FS, FC,

CSC

Dense forest (>40% canopy cover). High number of large

snags and down logs, close proximity to dense riparian

corridors for movement, and an interspersion of small (<1 acre)

openings with good ground cover for foraging. Potential

occupied elevation 3,500-8,000 ft.

See Fisher Analysis and

Sustainability Tool. No

Hardhead (Mylopharodon conocephalus)

FS, CSC Warm water rivers at low elevation No suitable habitat in project area No

California golden trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss

aguabonita)

FS, FC,

CSC

Cold water streams. Genetic purity questionable in many

streams. SF Kern River and Tributaries above Rockhouse

basin.

Outside range, no suitable habitat. No

Foothill yellow-legged frog (Rana boylii)

FS, FC,

CSC

Low gradient streams and ponds generally below 6,000’.

Historically present in most suitable habitats. Currently 1 pop.

known

Outside elevation range. No

Mountain yellow-legged

frog (Rana muscosa)

FS, FC,

CSC

4,500-12,000’ aquatic habitats. Present in wilderness and

historic occurrence over most of the Forest No suitable habitat affected No

Great gray owl (Strix nebulosa)

FS, FC, SE

Large meadows & openings 2,500 – 9,000’. Dense forest and

large snags for nest area. No confirmed nesting. Several

verified sightings TR and HL

No outside range, no known

detections. No

California spotted owl (Strix occidentalis occidentalis)

FS, CSC

Dense forest (>40% canopy closure), preference is shown for

stands with ≥2 layers, but open enough to allow for

observation and flying space to attack prey. Substantial

amounts of dead woody debris are desirable. Present in

suitable mixed conifer and low elevation oak habitats across

the forest.

Occupied suitable habitat Yes

Sierra Nevada red fox (Vulpes vulpes necator)

FS, FC, ST

Appears to prefer red fir and lodgepole forests in sub alpine

and alpine zone. Forages in meadows & riparian zones.

Mostly above 7,000’. No confirmed historical reports. Current

detections on the Lassen NF. Suitable habitat exists.

Distinction between non native and native difficult. Some low

elevation reports assumed to be introduced stock.

Outside range No

Sierra night lizard (Xantusia vigilis sierrae)

FS Annual grasslands. Not known outside of limited range near

Granite Station.

Outside known range, surveys have

not detected species in this area No

Status Key

FC FWS Candidate

CSC CA Species of Special Concern

SP State Fully Protected

SE State Endangered

ST State Threatened FS USFS Sensitive Species


38

Appendix B: Changes in California Spotted Owl HRCA including PACs

The protected activity centers (PAC)for California spotted owl initially delineated for the Sierra Nevada

Forest Plan Amendment (SNFPA) (USDA Forest Service, 2001) have been revised and updated at the

project level as provided for under both the 2001 SNFPA and 2004 Supplement (USDA Forest Service,

2004). The boundaries were modified to remove isolated fingers, consolidate habitat at mid-slope, shift

protected habitat further from roads to maximize interior mature forest conditions, and reduce disturbance

within the area protected where possible. Under the SNFPA (both 2001 and 2004) HRCAs are not

applicable land allocations within the Wildland Urban Interface Defense Zone. WUI Threat zone standards

supersede Owl HRCA if there is enough suitable habitat. Since the HRCA and PAC were designated outside

of the Ice Units, there is no apparent conflict. The 2001 HRCA and PAC delineation was directed to avoid

areas of existing projects under contract. Areas of the Ice Project were included in HRCAs and PACs

delineated in the area. No nests were found within the Ice units that would require shifting the units rather

than the PACs. Habitat included in the HRCAs and PACs is comparable to the 2001 delineation but has

been moved out of the Ice units. Habitat quality of most of the HRCAs and PACs was and remains moderate

quality due to tree size. No changes were made to the HRCA or PACs for KE011 or KE003.

Boundaries were adjusted to follow logical topographic or other features that are readily identifiable in the

field to minimize the potential for inadvertent intrusion. PACs are focused in the area of known nest sites or

the best information on territorial use and habitat available or where there is limited information, on the best

habitat available. The PAC boundaries were expanded where necessary to compensate for inclusions of

lower quality habitat that fell within logical boundaries using the criteria above. As provided for in the

SNFPA (USDA Forest Service, 2001) and Supplement (USDA Forest Service, 2004), inclusions such as

plantations and brush fields may be treated independently of the PAC delineation with a limited operating

period if needed. These changes are now documented in this BE as directed in the SNFPA (USDA Forest

Service, 2004).

Table B-1: Old and New area of spotted owl HRCAs and PACs by CWHR Type.

NEW HRCA and PAC Acres OLD HRCA and PAC Acres

Size 1_2_3 4 5 Total 1_2_3 4 5 Total

Density D M P_S_0 D M D M P_S_0 D M

KE008 * 128 293 221 27 38 7 713 70 409 159 16 8 3 666

HRCA 27 186 94 24 3 334 3 254 55 4 3 319

PAC 100 107 126 27 15 4 379 68 155 104 16 5 348

KE010 4 379 76 168 627 485 19 182 686

HRCA 4 200 74 34 312 257 15 44 316

PAC 0 179 2 134 315 228 5 138 370

KE033 65 432 44 126 666 37 446 32 205 721

HRCA 32 192 13 95 331 32 192 13 95 331

PAC 33 240 31 31 335 5 254 20 110 390

Grand Total 197 1104 341 27 332 7 2006 107 1340 211 16 395 3 2073 CWHR 5D and 5M are considered selected habitats or high suitability for California spotted owl, 4D and 4M are other or moderate suitability.

Suitability derived from the California Wildlife habitat Relationships Program (Timossi 1990, accessed 3/2010)

* KE008 is based on intermittent detections of an adult spotted owl in the vicinity of an island of approximately 300 acres in the Calf Creek

Drainage. Detection has been inconsistent since the 1990 Stormy Fires removed most of the surrounding habitat. Habitat to the north around

wherethe owl appears to be deteced most was limiting, so the HRCA was exended further south.


39

Figure B- 1: Map of New Spotted owl HRCAs including PACs


40

Figure B- 2: Owl Activity centers with 430 Hectare circles of influence

supplement to the biological evaluation and biological...

Documents