wildlife biological evaluation: mill flat creek road...

Wildlife Biological Evaluation:

Mill Flat Creek Road Management Project

Region 5 Forest Service Sensitive Species

Townships 12-14 South and Ranges 26-28 East, Mount Diablo Base and Meridian

Hume Lake Ranger District

Sequoia National Forest and

Giant Sequoia National Monument

January 2017

Prepared by: Jeff Cordes Date: January 11, 2017 Jeff Cordes,

District Wildlife Biologist

Mill Flat Creek Road Management Project Wildlife Biological Evaluation

of 32

I. INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this Biological Evaluation (BE) is to review the potential impacts associated with the

decommissioning or closing of Forest Service roads in the Mill Flat Creek Critical Aquatic Refuge and to

determine effects on species of concern. Specifically, the BE will determine whether the proposed action

would contribute to a trend toward Federal listing or loss of viability of any Forest Service sensitive species.

This BE was prepared in accordance with the standards established under Forest Service Manual direction

(FSM 2672.42). Sensitive Species known to be present or with suitable habitat in the Mill Flat Creek

watershed are shown in Table 1. Potential effects of this project on these species area considered in detail in

this evaluation.

Appendix A lists Region 5 Forest Service Sensitive Species for Sequoia National Forest and rationale for

exclusion from further analysis based on various criteria relating to the scope and intensity of the project,

timing of ground disturbing activities, habitat requirements, and/or geographic range (See Appendix A for

rationale).

Table-1: Species considered in detail in the Mill Flat Creek Road Management Analysis.

Group Common and Scientific Names Species Status

Amphibians Foothill Yellow-legged Frog (Rana boylii) FS Region 5 Sensitive

Reptiles Western Pond Turtle (Actinemys marmorata) FS Region 5 Sensitive

Birds Northern Goshawk (Accipiter gentilis) FS Region 5 Sensitive

California spotted owl (Strix occidentalis occidentalis) FS Region 5 Sensitive

Mammals Fisher (Pekania pennanti) FS Region 5 Sensitive

II. CURRENT SPECIES MANAGEMENT DIRECTION

Direction for Forest Service sensitive species management is provided in the Forest Service Manual and the

Sequoia Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP) (USDA 1988) as amended by the Sierra

Nevada Forest Plan Amendments (USDA 2004) and the 2012 Giant Sequoia National Monument Plan

(USDA 2012). Forest Service manual direction ensures through the Biological Evaluation process that all

Regional Sensitive species receive full consideration in relation to proposed activities. The LRMP provides

general direction to utilize administrative measures to protect and improve the status of sensitive wildlife

species. Guidance for a portion of the project area is also provided by the Sequoia National Forest Mediated

Settlement Agreement (USDA 1990).

III. DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES

Alternative 1 – No Action

Under the No Action alternative, current management plans would continue to guide management of the

project area. No roads would be decommissioned and project goals would not be accomplished. There would

continue to be approximately 86 miles of Forest Service roads in the Mill Flat Creek CAR.

Alternative 2 – Proposed Action

Proposed Action


of 32

The proposed action is to decommission 14 Forest roads or portions of roads (a total of approximately 3.1

miles) within the Mill Flat Creek CAR. The roads proposed for decommissioning are not needed for

management activities and provide little, if any, recreational value. The roads proposed for

decommissioning are shown in Table 2.

Table 2. Roads Proposed for Decommissioning in Alternative 2

Forest Road Number

INFRA Road Name

INFRA Miles

Current Status1

Action

13S03C CHICAGO STUMP

0.5 Level 2 Road

Retain first 200 feet as a dispersed camping site, decommission rest of the road

13S03D CHICAGO STUMP

0.3 Level 2 Road

Decommission entire road

13S03E CHICAGO STUMP

0.2 Level 2 Road


13S35 GRANT GROVE 0.53 Level 2 Road

Decommission the last 0.25 mile of the road

13S35A GRANT GROVE 0.35 Level 2 Road

Retain road to apiary site, decommission the remaining 0.22 of the road

13S58A ABBOTT 0.29 Level 2 Road


13S58D ABBOTT 0.2 Level 2 Road


13S58E ABBOTT 0.17 Level 1 Road


13S62A MILE 0.3 Level 2 Road


13S62B MILE 0.3 Level 2 Road


13S69B SAMPSON 0.1 Level 1 Road


13S73A MILL FLAT EAST

0.1 Level 2 Road


13S78B (Northwest Portion)

MILL 0.05 Level 1 Road

Decommission level 1 portion of road

13S82 FOX SPRINGS 0.48 Level 2 Road

Decommission the entire road, except retain a turn out/parking area at the junction with the Davis Road

1Level 1 roads are for administrative use only (closed to public motorized use).

Level 2 roads are open to high clearance vehicles.


of 32

Alternative 3 –

Integration of the Travel Analysis Process

This alternative was developed using the review process developed for the recently completed Travel

Analysis Report for Sequoia National Forest. The review process considered both the importance of the

route in the overall transportation system and threats to sensitive resources.

In addition to the roads proposed in Alternative 2, Alternative 3 proposes to decommission or close an

additional 23 Forest roads or portions of roads (a total of approximately 21 miles) within the Mill Flat Creek

CAR. The roads proposed for decommissioning are not needed for management activities and provide little,

if any, recreational value. The roads proposed for decommissioning are shown in Table 3.

Table 3. Roads Proposed for Decommissioning in Alternative 3

Forest Road Number

INFRA Road Name

INFRA Miles

Current Status1

Action

12S02 RANCHERIA 1.8 Level 2 Road

•Decommission after private property. •Install water bars in the first 0.25 miles for erosion protection. •Block Entrance at junction with Earthen/rock barrier to prevent access. •Scatter surrounding vegetation on the road to discourage use.

12S02A RANCHERIA 0.3 Level 2 Road

Decommission entire road •No work needed

13S03C CHICAGO STUMP

0.5 Level 2 Road

Retain first 200 feet as a dispersed camping site, decommission rest of the road. •Remove existing culverts and re-shape drainage crossing. •Rip top soil on the way out with equipment. •Scatter surrounding vegetation on the road to discourage use. •Block Entrance with earthen barrier to prevent access.

13S03D CHICAGO STUMP

0.3 Level 2 Road

Decommission entire road •Portion of the road needs water bars.

13S03E CHICAGO STUMP

0.2 Level 2 Road

Decommission entire road •Block Entrance with earthen/rock barrier to prevent access.

13S03G CHICAGO STUMP

0.7 Level 2 Road

Make portion of road to water trough a Level 1, decommission road past the trough. •Block Entrance with earthen barrier to prevent access.


of 32

Forest Road Number

INFRA Road Name

INFRA Miles

Current Status1

Action

13S19 GRANTS 0.6 Level 2 Road

Decommission entire road •Remove Gate •Install water bars for erosion protection on the first 300’ •Block Entrance with earthen/rock barrier. •Scatter surrounding vegetation on the road to discourage use.

13S19A GRANTS 0.17 Level 1 Road

Decommission entire road •Rip top soil with equipment. •Block Entrance with earthen/rock barrier.

13S35 GRANT GROVE 0.5 Level 2 Road

Decommission the last 0.25 mile of the road •Block last 0.25 miles with earthen Barrier. •Install water bars for erosion protection. •Scatter surrounding vegetation on the road to discourage use.

13S35A GRANT GROVE 0.35 Level 2 Road

Retain road to apiary site, decommission the remaining 0.2 mile of the road. •Remove existing culverts and re-shape drainage crossing. •Install water bars for erosion protection. •Rip top soil on the way out with equipment. •Block last 0.2 miles of road with earthen barrier. •Scatter surrounding vegetation on the road to discourage use.

13S58A ABBOTT 0.29 Level 2 Road

Decommission entire road. •Remove existing culverts and re-shape drainage crossing •Rip top soil on the way out with equipment •Remove existing entrance barrier for access and put back earthen/rock barrier to block access. •Scatter surrounding vegetation on the road to discourage use.

13S58B ABBOTT 1.3 Level 2 Road

Decommission entire road. •Remove existing gate. •Remove existing culverts and re-shape drainage crossing. •Remove existing over side drains. •Install water bars for erosion


of 32

Forest Road Number

INFRA Road Name

INFRA Miles

Current Status1

Action

protection. •Rip top soil on the way out with equipment •Block Entrance with earthen/rock barrier. •Scatter surrounding vegetation on the road to discourage use.

13S58D ABBOTT 0.2 Level 2 Road

Decommission entire road •Scatter burned logs on existing earthen barrier to prevent any access.

13S58E ABBOTT 0.17 Level 1 Road


13S59 MCKENZIE SOUTH

0.8 Level 1 Road


13S62 MILE 1.9 Level 2 Road

Keep most of road; decommission portion beyond junction with 13S62A (0.5 mile). •Block road at the junction of 13S62A with earthen/rock barrier. •Scatter vegetation at the entrance to discourage use.

13S62A MILE 0.3 Level 2 Road

Decommission entire road •Block entrance with Earthen/rock barrier. •Scatter surrounding vegetation on the road to discourage use.

13S62B MILE 0.3 Level 2 Road

Decommission entire road •Scatter surrounding vegetation on the road to discourage use.

13S62C MILE 0.7 Level 2 Road

Decommission entire road •Scatter surrounding vegetation on the road to discourage use.

13S63A GRANT LINK 0.8 Level 2 Road

Decommission entire road •Remove existing culverts and re-shape drainage crossing. •Remove existing over side drains. •Block entrance with earthen/rock barrier. •Scatter surrounding vegetation on the road to discourage use.

13S63B GRANT LINK 0.7 Level 2 Road

Decommission entire road •Remove existing culverts and re-shape drainage crossing. •Remove existing over side drains. •Install water bars for erosion protection. •Rip top soil on the way out with


of 32

Forest Road Number

INFRA Road Name

INFRA Miles

Current Status1

Action

equipment. •Scatter surrounding vegetation on the road to discourage use. •Block entrance with earthen/rock barrier.

13S69 SAMPSON 0.5 Level 1 Road

Decommission entire road •Install water bars for erosion protection in entire length of the road. •Block entrance with earthen/rock barrier. •Scatter surrounding vegetation on the road to discourage use.

13S69B SAMPSON 0.1 Level 1 Road


13S70A MILL FLAT CREEK

0.15 Level 2 Road

Decommission entire road •Install water bars for erosion protection throughout the length of road. •Block entrance with earthen/rock barrier.

13S70B MILL FLAT CREEK

1.75 Level 2 Road

Decommission entire road •Block entrance with earthen/rock barrier on both ends.

13S73A MILL FLAT EAST

0.1 Level 2 Road

Decommission entire road •Rip top soil on the way out with equipment. •Block Entrance with earthen/rock barrier. •Scatter surrounding vegetation on the road to discourage use.

13S74 MCKENZIE RIDGE

4.9 Level 2 Road

Decommission only the portion of the road in Section 20. •Block portion to be decommissioned with earthen barrier. •Scatter surrounding vegetation on the road to discourage use.

13S78A MILL 1.69 Level 2 and Level 1

Change to Level 1 (closed) road beyond water trough. •Block entrance with earthen barrier. •Scatter vegetation on the road to discourage use.

13S78B MILL 0.8 Level 2 Road

Change to Level 1 (closed) road. •Remove existing culverts and re-shape drainage crossing. •Rip top soil on the way out with equipment •Block Entrance with Earthen


of 32

Forest Road Number

INFRA Road Name

INFRA Miles

Current Status1

Action

Barrier to Block OHV Access. •Scatter surrounding vegetation on the road to discourage OHV use. •Convert to Stock Trail for Range Permitee Use.

13S78C MILL 1.7 Level 2 Road

Change to Level 1 (closed) road. •Install water bars for erosion protection. •Block Entrance with Earthen/rock Barrier to Block OHV Access.

13S79 MCKENZIE NORTH

2.5 Level 1 and 2

Decommission Level 1 portion of road beyond creek •Block Entrance at the switchback with Earthen/rock Barrier. •Scatter vegetation on the entrance to discourage use.

13S82 FOX SPRINGS 0.48 Level 2 Road

Decommission the entire road, except retain a turn out/parking area at the junction with the Davis Road. •Scarify flat areas. •Construct water bars throughout to get the water off the road. •Out-slope road to drain. •Fill low spots with fill material and out-slope after. •Remove existing culvert and widen section to create a wide V-shape. •Place rip-rap at bottom outlet after removing culvert and add vegetation to prevent erosion. •Block entrance with earthen/rock barrier to prevent any access. •Scatter surrounding vegetation on the road.

13S86 CLOVER MEADOW

2.0 Level 2 Road

Decommission portion of road beyond junction with 13S88 •Block Entrance at junction with 13S88 with earthen/rock barrier. •Scatter vegetation at the entrance to discourage use.

13S92 MILL FLAT 6.5 Level 2 Road

Keep most of road; decommission portion beyond junction with 13S70 (1.75 miles). •Remove existing culverts and re-shape drainage crossing. •Install water bars for erosion protection. •Scatter vegetation on the road to


of 32

Forest Road Number

INFRA Road Name

INFRA Miles

Current Status1

Action

discourage use. •Block Entrance at junction with 13S70 with earthen Barrier.

13S92A MILL FLAT 1.0 Level 2 Road


13S97D MILLWOOD 0.9 Level 1 Road

Decommission entire road •No Work Needed

14S76A HITCHCOCK MDW

0.14 Level 2 Road

Decommission entire road •No Work Needed

1Level 1 roads are for administrative use only (closed to public motorized use).

Level 2 roads are open to high clearance vehicles.

IV. EXISTING ENVIRONMENT

The project area is the Mill Flat Creek Critical Aquatic Refuge (CAR) which is located in Townships 12-14

South and Ranges 26-28 East, Mount Diablo Base and Meridian. It is in Fresno and Tulare Counties,

approximately 30 air miles east of Fresno, California. Most of the project area is within Giant Sequoia

National Monument and a portion of the project area is within the Kings River Special Management Area.

Elevation in the CAR ranges from approximately 1,080 to 7,400 feet.

The project area is located in the Mill Flat Creek HUC 6 watershed. Project boundaries encompass

approximately 26,654 acres of National Forest land. The map quads of the project area are: Verplank Ridge,

Hume, Miramonte, Luckett Mountain and General Grant Grove.

Vegetation is dominated by oak woodland and chaparral at the lower elevations with conifers becoming

more prevalent at higher elevations. Much of the area was within the perimeter of the 2015 Rough Fire.

SPECIES AND HABITAT ACCOUNTS

Region 5 Forest Service Sensitive Species

Foothill Yellow-Legged Frog (Rana boylii)

Habitat Preferences

Foothill yellow-legged frogs occur in lower elevation streams flowing through a variety of vegetation types,

including valley-foothill hardwood, valley-foothill hardwood-conifer, valley-foothill riparian, ponderosa

pine, mixed conifer, and mixed chaparral. These frogs favor channels with at least some shading (>20

percent but <90 percent) by riparian vegetation (Hayes and Jennings 1988). Other key habitat elements

identified include a lack of introduced predators or competitors (Kupferberg 1997).

Foothill yellow-legged frogs have been found primarily in shallow channels with riffles and at least cobble-

sized substrates (Hayes and Jennings 1988). Streams and rivers used by this species have either permanent or

intermittent flow, low or high gradient, and alluvial or bedrock channels. The species is also occasionally

found in other habitats including moderately vegetated backwaters, isolated pools (Hayes and Jennings

1988), and slow-moving rivers having mud substrates (Fitch 1938).


of 32

Breeding Biology Foothill yellow-legged frogs breed at locations that provide suitable velocities and depths over a relatively

broad range of discharge volumes, ranging from small tributaries to large rivers (Kupferberg 1996, Lind

2003, Yarnell 2008). The life-history strategy of the foothill yellow-legged frog has been shaped by the wet

winters and dry summers typical of the Mediterranean climate in the Sierra Nevada. To protect its most

vulnerable life stages (eggs and larvae), breeding is timed to take place late enough in spring to avoid

extreme high flows. However breeding must occur early enough to allow tadpoles sufficient time to

metamorphose, and juveniles time to grow, before the onset of the next wet season. Breeding occurs from

late March through May, and egg deposition for any single population is concentrated into a two-week

period (Storer 1925, Zweifel 1955). Duration of the breeding season appears to be determined by weather. In

cold, rainy springs the breeding season is longer than in dry, warm springs.

Egg masses usually contain approximately 900 eggs, but the number of eggs can range from 100 to over

1,000 per mass (Storer 1925). Eggs must remain inundated and attached to substrates, despite falling/rising

water levels. Sustained high-flows subsequent to egg mass deposition may dislodge masses or wash tadpoles

downstream. Declining water levels may expose egg masses or leave tadpoles vulnerable to desiccation. In

wide, shallow channels, stage and near bank velocity are less sensitive to changes in discharge than they are

in deeper, more confined channels. Breeding sites that produce greater than average hatching success have

significantly greater width-to-depth ratios, stable channels, low bed mobility and a coarse surface texture.

Historic and Current Distribution

Foothill yellow-legged frogs were once common in most Pacific drainages from the Santiam River system in

Oregon to the San Gabriel River system in Los Angeles County, California. Its historic elevation range in

California extended from near sea level to approximately 6,000 feet. This species occurred historically in

west-side streams at low to moderate elevations all along the west slope of the Sierra Nevada (Jennings and

Hayes 1994; Stebbins 1951, 2003; Storer 1925; Zweifel 1955). A recent conservation assessment concludes

that foothill yellow-legged frogs have disappeared from 51 percent of their historical localities in the Sierra

Nevada (Hayes et al. 2016).

Historical records of foothill yellow-legged frogs on Sequoia National Forest extend back over 100 years.

By the end of the 1960s, 16 foothill yellow-legged frog localities had been documented from the Sequoia

National Forest, mostly in the southern portion. No collections and few sightings of foothill yellow-legged

frogs exist for the Sequoia National Forest and vicinity from 1980 to the present. The two most recently

occupied localities on the Sequoia National Forest consist of unnamed tributaries of the North Fork Kern

River (Hayes et al. 2016).

Most of the Mill Flat Creek watershed is within the historic range of foothill yellow-legged frogs (based on

CWHR 2008). However, surveys at historic sites and areas of suitable habitat on the Sequoia (Martin 1992,

the Cal-Academy of Sciences 2001, Southern California Edison 2008, and Forest Service, various years)

have resulted in only two confirmed detections, both in remote side tributaries to the North Fork of the Kern

River in the southern portion of the Forest. There are currently no known populations of foothill yellow-

legged frogs within the Hume Lake Ranger District; the last known detection in the vicinity was in 1910

(Hayes et al. 2016).

Risk factors

Foothill yellow-legged frogs are vulnerable to various predators, which include introduced fish species and

bullfrogs. High egg mass and tadpole mortality caused by scouring and stranding following high water flow

events or unseasonal (non-natural) dam releases have the capacity to cause profound changes in long-term

population viability. Other risk factors include: pollution, climate change and disease.


of 32

Management and Status

There is no specific management direction for this species, but there is guidance for Critical Aquatic

Refuges. Standards and guidelines within the CAR are the same as for Riparian Conservation Areas and

provide some protection to habitat by limiting impacts from management projects. Foothill yellow-legged

frogs are a California state species of concern.

Western Pond Turtle (Actinemys marmorata)* *Formerly this subspecies was called Clemmys marmorata and Emys marmorata

Habitat Preferences and Biology

Western pond turtles historically occurred in a wide variety of permanent and intermittent aquatic habitats;

generally slow-moving waters below 5,000 feet elevation. Populations have been found in rivers, streams,

lakes, ponds and other seasonal and permanent wetlands. In intermittent streams, pond turtles can use

permanent pools that persist after the main stream course dries (Holland 1991). Pond turtles require basking

sites such as partially submerged logs, rocks, mud banks or emergent vegetation. The presence of suitable

refugia, such as spaces under rocks, downed logs, holes in banks and undercut banks may be a critical factor

in the ability of populations to maintain themselves in small streams. Pond turtles eat aquatic plants,

invertebrates, worms, frog and salamander eggs and larvae, crayfish, carrion, and occasionally frogs and fish.

Hatchlings eat aquatic zooplankton.

Nests are generally located in open areas dominated by grasses or herbaceous annuals, primarily on south or

southwest aspects under 25 percent slope and with friable soils. A good supply of litter and duff is important

for nest site selection (Holland 1994). Nest distance from water varies considerably. The known range is 55-

1300 feet but most are within 650 feet of water (Ibid).


Historically found from San Francisco Bay south into northern Baja California, from sea level to over 5,900

feet (1,800 m) in elevation. The Western pond turtle has disappeared from 30-40 percent of its historic range

in California (Holland 1991).

Turtle specific surveys have not been conducted on the Sequoia National Forest. Pond turtle observations

have been made during aquatic surveys or other forest activity surveys and specific surveys for aquatic

amphibians and reptiles by Cal Academy under forest Service agreements. Pond turtles have been observed

at numerous locations within the Forest, including within the Mill Creek watershed. Pond turtles may occur

in low gradient stretches of water in the project area.

Risk factors

Factors in the decline of southwestern pond turtles include the introduction of predators such as bullfrogs and

bass, population fragmentation due to loss and alteration of riparian habitats, and historic commercial

harvests (Holland 1994). Roadkill has been documented to occur in some areas.


The Mill Flat Creek Critical Aquatic Refuge was established, in part, to protect habitat for western pond

turtles. Standards and guidelines within the CAR are the same as for Riparian Conservation Areas and

provide protection by limiting impacts from management activities. Pond turtles are listed as a California

state species of concern.


of 32

Northern Goshawk – Accipiter gentillis

Distribution and Habitat Preferences

Northern Goshawks breed throughout Alaska, Canada, and mountains of the western United States and

Mexico (Squires and Reynolds 1997). Northern Goshawks are considered locally uncommon as a breeding

and wintering species in California, including on both sides of the Sierra Nevada range, at elevations of

1,400-3,000 m, south to Tulare and Mono counties (Grinnell and Miller 1944; Keane 2008). The Sequoia

National Forest has also documented nesting in northern Kern County, as far south as Breckenridge and the

Piute Mountains.

Preferred habitat for northern goshawks consists of older-age coniferous, mixed, and deciduous forest. The

habitat is typically composed of large trees for nesting, a closed canopy for protection and thermal cover, and

open spaces allowing maneuverability below the canopy (Hargis et al. 1994, Squires and Kennedy 2006).

Snags, downed logs, and high canopy cover appear to be preferred habitat features although many east side

Sierran territories are relatively open and have fewer snags. Snags and down logs are an important

component used by numerous prey species. In addition, many of the species that provide the prey base for

northern goshawks are associated with open stands of trees or natural openings containing an understory of

native shrubs and grass (Fowler 1988). Northern goshawk demography is strongly influenced by prey

availability (Squires and Kennedy 2006).

Threats

Fire suppression and historical timber harvest has altered the structure, composition, and function of forests

utilized by goshawks in California (Keane 2008). Squires and Kennedy (2006) concluded that forest

management practices, including tree cutting, thinning, and controlled burning were the primary human-

caused activities that could impact goshawk populations. Habitat may also be lost in large stand-replacing

fires (Keane 2008).

Collection for falconry, human disturbance at nest sites and pesticides have also been considered threats to

northern goshawks (Boal and Mannan 1994; Gaines et al. 2003). Human disturbance has the potential to

cause northern goshawks to abandon nest sites during the nesting and post fledging period. However, Squires

and Kennedy (2006) considered these threats to be negligible.

Trends

Breeding Bird Survey data for northern goshawk populations in California indicate essentially stable

populations during 1966-2007 (+12.3% per year but non-significant and high variance around the mean)

(Sauer et al. 2008). According to Christmas Bird Count data, trends were non-significantly positive (+1.1%

per year) in California during 1959-1988 (Sauer et al. 1996). Population trends in the southern Sierras are

unknown.


Management direction in the 2012 Giant Sequoia National Monument Plan and 2004 SNFPA includes

delineation of 200 acre PACs that have specific restrictions on activity. Standards and guidelines for PACs

are intended to limit stand altering activities and disturbance in fuel reduction projects and other management

activities. Two of the eight northern goshawk PACs on the Hume Lake Ranger District are within the Mill

Flat Creek CAR.

California Spotted Owl (Strix occidentalis occidentalis)


California spotted owls are one of three recognized subspecies of spotted owls, including northern


of 32

spotted owls, (Strix occidentalis caurina) and Mexican spotted owls (Strix occidentalis lucida) (American

Ornithologists' Union 1957). California spotted owls are considered prey specialists (Verner et al. 1992)

because they select a few keyspecies (ibid) among the variety of taxa on which they prey, which includes

mammals, birds, and insects (Barrows 1980, Hedlund 1996, Smith et al. 1999, Thrailkill and Bias 1989). In

the upper elevations of the Sierra Nevada, the primary prey is the northern flying squirrel (Glaucomys

sabrinus) (Verner et al. 1992). In lower elevations of the Sierra Nevada and in Southern California, the

primary prey is the dusky-footed woodrat (Neotoma fuscipes) (Thrailkill and Bias 1989). Both flying

squirrels and woodrats occur in the diets of owls in the central Sierra Nevada (Verner et al. 1992).

Spotted owls are primarily territorial; however non-territorial owls (“floaters”) may also exist in populations

and occupy territories after they are vacated (Gutiérrez 1994, LaHaye et al. 1994). Estimates of California

spotted owl home range size are extremely variable. Based on an analysis of data from telemetry studies of

California spotted owls, mean breeding season, pair home range sizes have been estimated (using 100

percent minimum convex polygon method): 9,000 acres on the Lassen National Forest, true fir type; 4,700

acres on the Tahoe and El Dorado National Forests, mixed conifer type; and 2,500 acres on the Sierra

National Forest, mixed conifer type. All available data indicate that home ranges are smallest in habitats at

relatively low elevations that are dominated by hardwoods, intermediate in size in conifer forests in the

central Sierra Nevada, and largest in the true fir forests in the northern Sierra Nevada (Verner et al. 1992).

Home ranges of owls in areas where the primary prey is northern flying squirrels are consistently larger than

those where the primary prey is dusky-footed woodrats presumably because woodrats occur in greater

densities and weigh more than flying squirrels (Zabel et al. 1992). As of 1992, approximately 25 percent of

known owl sites were found where woodrats are the primary prey species and 75 percent of sites were found

where flying squirrels are the primary prey species (Verner et al. 1992).

The spotted owl breeding cycle extends from about mid-February to mid- to late September. Egg laying

through incubation, when the female spotted owl must remain at the nest, extends from early April through

mid- to late May. California spotted owls nest in a variety of tree/snag species in pre-existing structures

such as cavities, broken top trees, and platforms such as mistletoe brooms, debris platforms and old raptor

or squirrel nests (Gutiérrez et al. 1992, 1995). Young owls typically fledge from the nest in mid to late June.

In the weeks after fledging, the young are very weak fliers and remain near the nest tree. Adults continue

to bring food to the fledglings until mid- to late September when the young disperse. Summarized

information on the dispersal abilities of California spotted owls is scant. Information in Verner et al. (1992)

indicates that two-thirds of the juveniles would be expected to disperse at least eight miles.

Not all pairs of California spotted owls nest every year. In fact, over the ten years of demographic studies in

the Sierra Nevada, 1992 was the only year when nearly all study owls nested. It is not unusual for owls in an

established activity center to skip several years between one nesting and the next. Sites may be vacant for

several consecutive years when the population is in decline, but then be reoccupied to support breeding pairs

during a population upswing. Spotted owls as a species have apparently evolved high adult survival rates

associated with irregular and unpredictable reproduction (Noon and Biles 1990), where a long life span

allows eventual recruitment of offspring even if recruitment does not occur each year (Franklin et al. 2000).

Spotted owls are long-lived (owls in the wild have been known to be 17 years old) and adult survival rates in

the Sierra Nevada are relatively high (greater than 0.80; Noon et al. 1992, Blakesley and Noon 1999, Steger

et al. 1999), indicating the species may be able to persist over the short-term even with extensive reduction in

the amount of its suitable habitat (Noon et al. 1992).

In the Sierra Nevada, 80 percent of spotted owl sites have been found in mixed conifer forests (sugar and

ponderosa pine, white fir, Douglas-fir, giant sequoia, incense-cedar, black oak, and red fir), 10 percent in red

fir forests (red and white fir, lodgepole pine, and quaking aspen) 7 percent in ponderosa pine/hardwood

forests (ponderosa pine, interior and canyon live oak, black oak, incense-cedar, white fir, tanoak, and Pacific

madrone), and 3 percent in other forest types such as east-side pine (ponderosa and Jeffrey pine), and foothill

riparian/hardwood (cottonwood, California sycamore, interior live oak, Oregon ash, and California buckeye)


of 32

(Verner et al. 1992).

Six major studies (Gutiérrez et al. 1992) described habitat relations of the owl in four general areas spanning

the length of the Sierra Nevada. These studies examined spotted owl habitat use at three scales: landscape;

home range; and nest, roost, or foraging stand. By comparing the amount of time owls spend in various

habitat types to amount of habitat available, researchers determined that owls preferentially used areas with

at least 70 percent canopy cover, used habitats with 40 to 69 percent canopy cover in proportion to its

availability, and spent less time in areas with less than 40 percent canopy cover than might be expected.

In studies referenced by Gutiérrez et al. (1992), owls foraged most commonly in intermediate- to late-

successional forests with greater than 40 percent canopy cover and a mixture of tree sizes, some larger than

24 inches in dbh. The owls consistently used stands with significantly greater canopy cover, total live tree

basal area, basal area of hardwoods and conifers, snag basal area, and dead and downed wood, when

compared with random locations within the forest. Studies on the Tahoe National Forests found that owls

foraged in stands with large diameter trees significantly more than expected based on availability. In radio

tracking studies, the area including half of the foraging locations of owls was found to vary from an average

of 317 acres on the Sierra National Forest to an average of 788 acres on the Lassen National Forest (Verner

et al. 1992).

In studies referenced by Gutiérrez et al. (1992), spotted owls preferred stands with significantly greater

canopy cover, total live tree basal area, basal area of hardwoods and conifers, and snag basal area for nesting

and roosting. In general, stands suitable for nesting and roosting have (1) two or more canopy layers, (2)

dominant and codominant trees in the canopy averaging at least 24 inches in dbh, (3) at least 70 percent total

canopy cover (including the hardwood component), (4) higher than average levels of very large, old trees,

and (5) higher than average levels of snags and downed woody material.

Habitat models based on best professional opinion contained in the California Wildlife Habitat Relationships

(CWHR) database rate the following types as providing high nesting and feeding habitat capability for

spotted owls: structure classes 4M, 4D, 5M, 5D and 6. Using the CWHR model, there are about 14,000 acres

of moderate and high suitability nesting and foraging habitat for spotted owls in the Mill Flat Creek CAR.


The range of the California spotted owl includes the southern Cascades south of the Pit River in Shasta

County, the entire Sierra Nevada Province of California (and extending into Nevada), all mountainous

regions of the Southern California Province, and the central Coast Ranges at least as far north as Monterey

County (Grinnell and Miller 1944, Gould 1977). Within this range, the owl occurs on 15 National

Forests/Management Units administered by the Forest Service, four National Parks, several State Parks and

Forests, private timberlands, scattered Bureau of Land Management lands, and tribal lands. The elevation of

known nest sites ranges from about 1000 feet to 7700 feet, with about 86 percent occurring between 3000

and 7000 feet.

There are currently 20 spotted owl protected activity centers (PACs) located on the Hume Lake Ranger

District. PACs along with home range core areas (HRCAs) are part of the network of areas managed to

provide spotted owl nesting habitat (USDA 2001). The Abbott Creek spotted owl PAC (#FRE0093) and its

associated HRCA fall within the Mill Flat Creek CAR. A portion of an additional HRCA is also within the

project area near Hitchcock Meadow. Surveys for California spotted owls have been conducted in

accordance with Forest Service Region 5 protocol in various portions of the District from since 1986.

Reproductive pairs and single birds were recorded during these surveys.

Population Trends

Four demographic studies of California spotted owls have been ongoing for a number of years within the

Sierra Nevada: (1) Eldorado National Forest (since 1986); (2) Lassen National Forest (since 1990); (3)


of 32

Sierra National Forest (since 1990); and (4) Sequoia-Kings Canyon National Park (since 1990). In 2007,

SNAMP initiated an additional California spotted owl study on the Tahoe National Forest. The initial study

area for this SNAMP study had so few California spotted owls that it was expanded to incorporate the long-

term Eldorado National Forest demographic study area.

For the California spotted owl demographic studies, lambda is estimated individually for each study area at

five-year intervals (Franklin et al. 2004, Blakesley et al. 2010). The most recent analysis, using data

collected between 1990 and 2005, provided estimates of lambda for all four Sierra Nevada demography

study areas (Blakesley et al. 2010):

Lassen: mean estimated lambda is 0.973, with a 95% CI ranging from 0.946 to 1.001;

Eldorado: mean estimated lambda is 1.007, with a 95% CI ranging from 0.952 to 1.066.

Sierra: mean estimated lambda is 0.992, with a 95% CI ranging from 0.966 to 1.018

Sequoia-Kings Canyon: mean estimated lambda is 1.006, with a 95% confidence interval ranging

from 0.947 to 1.068

The 2010 meta-analysis concluded that, with the exception of the Lassen study area, owl populations were

stable, with adult survival rate highest at the Sequoia-Kings Canyon study site.

Recent results from the demography study sites on and adjacent to the Sierra National Forest indicate locally

stable California spotted owl populations (Munton et al. 2012). Estimated mean λt for the Sierra (SIE) site is

0.989, with 95 percent confidence intervals ranging from 0.971-1.007. This average λ is not significantly

different than one, which is the value for a stable population. Values for mean λt at the conifer study site in

Sequoia National Park (SKC) were above 1.0 (Munton et al. 2012) which indicates an increasing population.


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

listing petitions (published 12 month findings: USFWS 2003, USFWS 2006). The latest review began

following two petitions to list in 2015. The status is currently under review by the USFWS. The California

spotted owl is listed as a species of special concern by the California Department of Fish and Game.

Management direction in the 2012 Giant Sequoia National Monument Plan and 2004 SNFPA includes

delineation of 300 acre PACs with associated 300 acre HRCAs that have specific restrictions on activity.

Standards and guidelines for PACs and HRCAs are intended to limit stand altering activities and disturbance

in fuel reduction projects and other management activities.

Fishers

A complete discussion of fisher biology and status is available in “Southern Sierra Nevada

Fisher Conservation Assessment” (Spencer, et al. 2015). Below is a summary with information specific to

the analysis area.


In the Sierra Nevada, fisher habitat occurs in mid-elevation forests (Grinnell et al. 1937). In the southern

Sierra Nevada, fishers occur sympatrically with martens (Martes americana) at elevations of 5,000 to 8,500

feet in mixed conifer forests (Zielinski et al. 1995). The Sierra Nevada status and trend monitoring project

(USDA 2006) has detected fishers as low as 3,110 feet and as high as 9,000 feet in the southern Sierra

Nevada, which are considered to be extremes of the elevation range.

In the southern Sierra Nevada, the preferred habitats include mixed conifer, ponderosa pine and montane

hardwoods. Oaks, particularly black oak (Quercus kelloggii) appear to be a key component of the habitat


of 32

(Carroll et al. 1999, Zielinski et al. 2004a). Forest structural characteristics within fisher home ranges are

strongly skewed toward mid- to late-seral stands with high canopy cover; large, cavity-forming trees are

required for resting and denning habitat (Seglund 1995, Zielinski et al. 2004b, Yaeger 2005). Geographic

conditions correlated with core fisher habitat in California include complex topography, steep slopes, and

proximity to water (particularly in the southern Sierra Nevada) (Zielinski et al. 2004b, Carroll 2005).

Purcell, et al. (2009), studied resting structures used by fishers on an area of Sierra National Forest. They

determined that canopy cover was the most important variable distinguishing areas used as rest sites by

fishers. Large live trees and large snags made up the majority of the rest structures. Trees used as resting

sites were often the largest available in the area. Resting sites were on steeper slopes, closer to streams and

with smaller and more variable trees than random sites. Habitat suitable for resting and denning sites is

thought to be most limiting to the population; therefore, these habitats should be given more weight than

foraging habitats when planning or assessing habitat management (Powell and Zielinski 1994, Zielinski et al.

2004a).

The following California Wildlife Habitat Relationships (CWHR) types were thought to be important to

fishers: generally structure classes 4M, 4D, 5M, 5D and 6 (stands with trees 11” diameter at breast height or

greater and greater than 40% canopy cover) in ponderosa pine, montane hardwood-conifer, Klamath mixed-

conifer, Douglas-fir, Sierran mixed conifer, montane riparian, aspen, redwood, red fir, Jeffrey pine,

lodgepole pine, subalpine conifer, and eastside pine. CWHR assigns habitat values according to expert panel

ratings. CWHR2 is a derivative of the CWHR fisher habitat relationship model constructed by Davis et al.

(2007). They used best available science to revise the statewide model and eliminate some forest types that

appeared to contribute little to fisher habitat: aspen, eastside pine, lodgepole pine, montane riparian, red fir,

and subalpine conifer. The model has been further refined to reflect only those forest types present in the

southern Sierra Nevada: Jeffrey pine, montane hardwood-conifer, Ponderosa pine, Sierran mixed-conifer and

white fir, terming it CWHR 2.1. Using this model and current vegetation information, there are

approximately 2,500 acres of fisher habitat in the upper portion of the Mill Flat Creek watershed.

Population Genetics Several studies have revealed low genetic diversity in the southern Sierra Nevada fisher population (Drew et

al. 2003, Wisely et al. 2004, Tucker et al. 2012, 2014). The southern Sierra population became isolated from

other populations thousands of years ago. Genetics also indicate that the southern Sierra Nevada (including

what is now Sequoia National Forest) may have provided a refuge for fisher during the era of European

settlement.

Three genetic subpopulations in the southern Sierras have been identified, separated at the Kings River and

Tule River watersheds, in or near the Mountain Home Demonstration State Forest (Tucker et al. 2012, 2014).

The subpopulation in the Hume Lake Ranger District and Sequoia National Park is labeled Core Area 3 by

the Southern Sierra Fisher Conservation Strategy (Spencer et al. 2016).


Grinnell et al. (1937) described the distribution of fishers in California as a continuous arc from the northern

Coast Range eastward to the southern Cascades, and then south through the western slope of the Sierra

Nevada. As of 1995, Zielinski et al. determined that fishers remain extant in just two areas comprising less

than half of the historic distribution: northwestern California and the southern Sierra Nevada from Yosemite

National Park southward, separated by a distance of approximately 250 miles.

Trends Status and trend monitoring for fishers in the Sierra Nevada was initiated in 2002; the monitoring objective

was to be able to detect a 20 percent decline in population abundance and habitat (USDA 2006). This

monitoring includes intensive sampling to detect population trends on the Sierra and Sequoia national


of 32

forests, where fishers currently are found, and was supplemented by less intensive sampling in suitable

habitat in the central and northern Sierra Nevada specifically designed to detect population expansion.

Results indicate that fishers are well-distributed in portions of the Sequoia and Sierra National Forests; but

occupancy rates are consistently higher on the Sequoia than the Sierra (USDA 2005). Carnivore surveys on

the Hume Lake Ranger District have resulted in numerous detections of fishers near the project area.

A recent analysis of the SNFPA Long Term Monitoring data was completed which analyzed a core of 243

sample units from 2002 through 2009 (Zielinski et. al 2013). Findings suggest that over the 8-year period,

there was no trend or statistically significant variations in fisher occupancy rates in the southern Sierra

populations. The small population of fishers in the southern Sierra does not appear to be decreasing.

Threats to Fishers in the Southern Sierra Nevada Population

The Southern Sierra Nevada Fisher Conservation Assessment (Spencer et al. 2015) identified the primary

threats to this fisher population as: habitat loss and fragmentation; rodenticides and other poisons; predation;

disease and infections; roads and other human structures; and climate change.

Habitat connectivity is a key to maintaining fisher within a landscape. Activities that result in habitat

fragmentation or population isolation pose a risk to the persistence of fishers. Timber harvest, fuels reduction

treatments, road presence and construction, and recreational activities may result in the loss of habitat

connectivity resulting in a negative impact on fisher distribution and abundance.

The level of road and trail density and associated noise disturbance may influence how fishers utilize

available habitat. Dark (1997) for example studied fishers in a well-roaded study area (i.e. areas without

roads did not exist) on the Shasta-Trinity National Forest. The results suggested that fishers were detected

more frequently at sites where roads were closed by the use of gates or otherwise designed to discourage

vehicular traffic. Fishers used habitats with a greater density of low-use roads, and favored landscapes with

more contiguous, unfrequented forests and less human activity. Campbell (2004, In USFWS 2004) noted that

sample units examined within the central and southern Sierra Nevada region occupied by fishers were

negatively associated with road density.

Vehicular collisions resulting in fisher mortality have been reported in a number of studies. Heinemeyer

(1993), for example, noted vehicular collision as a source of fisher mortality. Along a portion of Highway 41

in Sierra National Forest and Yosemite National Park, nine road-killed fishers were found from 2008-2012

(O’Brien et al. 2013). Instances of fisher mortality on the Hume Lake Ranger District have also occurred.

Most were associated with long paved stretches of road where vehicles tended to maintain higher speeds

(e.g. Highway 180).

In addition to the risk of vehicular collisions, forest roads may increase predation on fishers by mountain

lions, bobcats, and coyotes using these routes as travel and hunting corridors (Naney et al. 2012). Predation

sites tend to be closer to roads, on average, and bobcat and fisher interactions are more likely to occur near

roads and other open areas (Wengert 2013).


The Forest Service has considered fishers to be a Sensitive Species in the Pacific Southwest Region since

1984. In 2004, the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service determined that the West Coast population of fisher was

warranted for listing under the Endangered Species Act, but precluded due to heavy agency workloads (69

FR 18770), and included it on the list of “Candidate” species. In March 2013, the USFWS opened an

information gathering period regarding the status of the fisher throughout the range of its West Coast distinct

population segment (DPS).


of 32

The fisher of the Pacific states, or the West Coast DPS, was proposed for listing on December 23, 2014 as a

threatened species under the federal Endangered Species Act (79 FR 76950). The West Coast Fisher DPS

includes all potential fisher habitat in Washington, Oregon and California from the east side of the Cascade

Mountains and Sierra Nevada to the Pacific coast. That proposal was withdrawn in April 2016 (81 FR

22710).

In March 2009, the California Fish and Game Commission recommended that the fisher be assessed for

listing as threatened or endangered under the California State Endangered Species Act. This

recommendation initiated a 12-month status review by the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG)

culminating in a determination by the Commission on June 23, 2010, that the listing was not warranted. A

status review was reinitiated in March 2013, making fishers a candidate species under the California

Endangered Species Act. The status review found the Southern Sierra Nevada fisher population to be

warranted for listing as threatened (CDFW 2015). The California Fish and Game Commission Notice of

Findings stated that the Pacific fisher southern Sierra ESU (defined as California south of the Merced River)

is determined to be listed as threatened. The final date of legislation is pending.

The 2012 Monument Plan and 2004 SNFPA require the establishment of fisher den site buffers that consist

of 700 acres of the highest quality habitat in a compact arrangement surrounding verified birthing and kit

rearing dens. Fisher den site buffers have a limited operating period of March 1-June 30 for all new

projects. No den site buffers have been established in or near the project area. The entire project area is

within the Southern Sierra Fisher Conservation Area, which requires the retention of habitat structures

important to fishers, including canopy cover and large trees, with the exception of “fell and/or remove snags

as needed to address imminent safety hazards” (Monument Plan, p. 87, S&G #1). The 2016 Southern Sierra

Nevada fisher conservation strategy (Spencer et al. 2016) also contains management recommendations,

although none specific to road decommissioning.

V. Effects of the Proposed Project

Foothill Yellow-legged Frogs and Western Pond Turtles:

Direct and indirect effects

Foothill yellow-legged frogs have not been recently detected within the Mill Flat Creek watershed. The

CNDDB has historic records on private land from the 1970’s within three miles of the project area. The

nearest confirmed extant population on the Sequoia National Forest is more than 60 miles from the analysis

area. Therefore, potential effects on foothill yellow-legged frogs are confined to unoccupied habitat.

Western pond turtles are known to be present in the Mill Flat Creek watershed.

Alternative 1 (No Action)

Under the No Action alternative, current management plans would continue to guide management of the

project area. No roads would be decommissioned and project goals would not be accomplished. There would

continue to be approximately 86 miles of Forest Service roads in the Mill Flat Creek CAR.

Habitat quality for aquatic species would continue to be at threat from excess sedimentation from the roads

in the project area.

Alternative 2 (Proposed Action)


miles) within the Mill Flat Creek CAR. There are no stream crossing points of the roads proposed for

decommissioning in this alternative. Decommissioning would include ground disturbing activities on some

of the roads, including:


of 32

•Removing existing culverts and re-shaping drainage crossings.

•Installing water bars for erosion protection.

•Ripping top soil on the way out with equipment.

•Blocking the road with earthen or rock barriers.

These activities could result in a short-term increase of sedimentation in some areas, which could

temporarily lower habitat quality for aquatic species. The required Best Management Practices (see

Appendix B) would minimize the impacts to water quality. In addition, the long-term effects of fewer roads

in the CAR would reduce sedimentation and fragmentation of aquatic habitat.

Alternative 3- Integration of the Travel Analysis Process



CAR. Decommissioning would include ground disturbing activities on more miles of roads than in

Alternative 2, therefore with the potential for more short-term impacts to habitat quality for aquatic species.

However, the long-term benefits of reduced sedimentation and habitat fragmentation would be greater in this

Alternative than the others.

Within the area mapped by CWHR 2008 as range for mountain yellow-legged frogs, there are eight stream

crossings of roads proposed for decommissioning. Ground disturbing activities, other than blocking the

entrance, are not proposed on three of these roads. The required Best Management Practices (see Appendix

B) would minimize the impacts to water quality.

The Watershed Specialist Report (Emmendorfer 2016) for this project concluded that the cumulative effects

“should result in minimal, and beneficial cumulative effects to water quality in the Mill Flat Creek drainage.”

Northern Goshawks, California Spotted Owls and Fishers:

Direct and indirect effects


Habitat quality for these species would continue to be at degraded by fragmentation from the high road

density in the project area. The project area currently has a road density of approximately 2 miles of road per

square mile. Route density thresholds for these species are not readily available in the literature, however,

Freel (1991) determined that high capability habitat had road densities below 0.5 miles per square mile and

moderate capability habitat had road densities from 0.5 to 2.0 miles per square mile. Values higher than 2.0

miles per square mile are considered low capability habitat and are anticipated to negatively influence these

species.



miles) within the Mill Flat Creek CAR. Decommissioning would include ground disturbing activities on

some of the roads, including:

•Removing existing culverts and re-shaping drainage crossings.

•Installing water bars for erosion protection.

•Ripping top soil on the way out with equipment.

•Blocking the road with earthen or rock barriers.

These activities could result in a short-term increase in noise disturbance in some areas, which could

temporarily lower habitat quality for these species. However, the long-term effects of fewer roads in the

CAR would reduce habitat fragmentation. The Southern Sierra Fisher Conservation Assessment (Spencer et


of 32

al. 2015) recommends “closing … unneeded roads or trails that may facilitate increased use by bobcats,

mountain lions, and coyotes in fisher habitat, especially in or near resting and denning habitat.”




CAR. Decommissioning would include ground disturbing activities on more miles of roads than in

Alternative 2, therefore with the potential for more short-term disturbance of these species. However, the

long-term benefits of reduced habitat fragmentation would be greater in this Alternative than the others.

Determining Cumulative Effects

The spatial scale for the cumulative effects is the 28,276 acre Mill Flat Creek watershed. The temporal scale

for the analysis is five years into the future. This is the time frame that future actions can reasonably be

predicted.

In accordance with guidance provided by a CEQ memorandum dated June 24, 2005 (CEQ 2005), for this

analysis, past actions and events pertinent to each resource form the baseline for the existing condition of

that resource. This includes the Rough Fire and Davis Road Maintenance Project. Most of the Mill Flat

Creek CAR was within the perimeter of the Rough Fire, which burned in September-October 2015. The fire

burned with mixed severity in the project area. The Davis Road Maintenance Project was implemented in

spring 2016 and completed repairs to the primary road in the western portion of Mill Flat Creek drainage,

including some work repairing damage from the Rough Fire. Activities in this project included repairing

road drainage structures (including over side drains, rolling dips, etc.), adding rock to portions of the road

surface and replacing undersize culverts.

The following current or on-going, and reasonably foreseeable actions were considered in the cumulative

effects analysis of the Proposed Action and other alternatives:

Recreation uses within the project area are ongoing and include hunting, dispersed camping, road and

trail use.

Portions of the Sampson and Hoist/Converse grazing allotments are within the analysis area.

Livestock grazing of these allotments has been an ongoing activity from 1935 through the present.

The allotment management plans (AMP) allow a maximum of 40 percent utilization on grasses and

20 percent on riparian shrubs or hardwoods, levels set to ensure there is sufficient forage for cattle

without detriment to the health of other species.

The recent drought and subsequent insect infestation, and Rough Fire have resulted in many hazard

trees along the roadways and near recreation sites. Trees along roadsides and recreation sites that

meet the Region 5 criteria as a safety hazard are being felled. Tops and limbs may be chipped or

piled and burned to reduce fuel loading.

The Rough Fire Initial Reforestation Project proposed planting up to 500 acres with a mix of sugar

and ponderosa pine in the Mill Flat Creek drainage where the Rough Fire burned at high severity. A

portion of the planting was completed in 2016 and more is scheduled for 2017.

The Millwood OHV Staging Area is scheduled to be redesigned to better define camp/day use areas

and road access in order to reduce impacts to the creek and other resources.

The Sequoia Creek Burn Project is scheduled to prescribed burn 264 acres in the Big Stump area on

Kings Canyon National Park. Only 55 acres of the project area is within the Mill Flat Creek CAR

upstream of Sequoia Lake.

Climate change is expected to cause changes in the distribution of individual species and habitat in

the project area. Potential effects related to climate change for aquatic species include increased

frequency, duration, and magnitude of droughts. Foothill yellow-legged frogs and western pond

turtles were among taxa identified as being the most at risk from drought related conditions (CDFW


of 32

2016).

Cumulative Effects Summary:

Future management activities could reduce the understory canopy cover in the short term on less than 10

percent of the watershed (through prescribed fire and hazard tree felling). The reduction would generally be

in areas currently of low habitat suitabilty for northern goshawks, California spotted owls, and fishers. The

abundance of prey species for northern goshawks, California spotted owls and fishers could be affected, most

likely positively, as the disturbances stimulate new growth in vegetation.

The reasonably foreseeable future projects have the potential to adversely affect water quality. In order to

limit the potential effects to water quality, a suite of Best Management Practice (BMPs) has been included in

the design of the projects (see Appendix B). Implementation of these BMPs is expected to maintain the

current levels of flow, sedimentation, and water surface shade in the analysis area. The use of BMPs for

these projects is expected to eliminate measurable effects of management activities on foothill yellow-legged

frog and western pond turtle habitat.

VII. DETERMINATIONS

This biological evaluation analyzes the potential effects of the Mill Flat Creek Road Management project on

Forest Service Region 5 Sensitive Species.

REGION 5 FOREST SERVICE SENSITIVE SPECIES


Foothill yellow-legged frogs and Western Pond Turtles:

There would continue to be approximately 86 miles of roads in the Mill Flat Creek CAR. Habitat quality for

aquatic species would continue to be at threat from excess sedimentation from the roads in the project area.

The Davis Flat and Fox Springs areas have documented water quality problems adjacent to roads. It is my

determination that no action in the Mill Flat Creek Roads Management Project would have no effect on

foothill yellow-legged frogs and may affect individuals, but is not likely to result in a trend toward

Federal listing or loss of viability of or western pond turtles.

Northern goshawks, California spotted owls and fishers:

It is my determination that Alternative 1 in the Mill Flat Creek Road Management Project would have no

effect on northern goshawks, California spotted owls and fishers. Habitat quality for these species would be

unchanged.



Decommissioning activities could result in a short-term increase of sedimentation in some areas, which could

temporarily lower habitat quality for aquatic species. However, the long-term effects of fewer roads in the

CAR would reduce sedimentation and fragmentation of aquatic habitat. It is my determination that

Alternative 2 of the Mill Flat Creek Road Management Project may affect individuals, but is not likely to

result in a trend toward Federal listing or loss of viability of foothill yellow-legged frogs and western

pond turtles. Although foothill yellow-legged frogs have not been detected in this watershed, potential

habitat exists in the area.

Northern goshawks, California spotted owls and Fishers:


of 32

It is my determination that Alternative 2 in the Mill Flat Creek Road Management Project may affect

individuals, but is not likely to result in a trend toward Federal listing or loss of viability of Northern

goshawks, California spotted owls and fishers. Road decommissioning activities could result in a short-term

increase in noise disturbance in some areas. However, the long-term effects of fewer roads in the CAR

would reduce habitat fragmentation and improve habitat quality for these species.



Decommissioning activities could result in a short-term increase of sedimentation in some areas, which

would lower habitat quality for aquatic species. However, the long-term effects of fewer roads in the CAR

would reduce sedimentation and fragmentation of aquatic habitat. It is my determination that Alternative 3

of the Mill Flat Creek Road Management Project may affect individuals, but is not likely to result in a

trend toward Federal listing or loss of viability of foothill yellow-legged frogs and western pond turtles.

Both the short-term disturbances and long-term benefits would be greater than in Alternative 2.

Northern goshawks, California spotted owls and Fishers:

It is my determination that Alternative 3 in the Mill Flat Creek Road Management Project may affect

individuals, but is not likely to result in a trend toward Federal listing or loss of viability of Northern

goshawks, California spotted owls and fishers. Road decommissioning activities could result in a short-term

increase in noise disturbance in some areas. However, the long-term effects of fewer roads in the CAR

would reduce habitat fragmentation and improve habitat quality for these species. Both the short-term

disturbances and long-term benefits would be greater than in Alternative 2.

X. LITERATURE CITED

American Ornithologists' Union.1957. Check-list of North American birds. 5th ed. Am. Ornithol. Union,

Washington, D.C. 691 pp.

Barrows, C.W. 1980. Feeding ecology of the Spotted Owl in California. Raptor Research. 14:73-78.

Beck, T. W., and G. I. Gould Jr. 1992. Background and the current management situation for the California

spotted owl. In J. Verner, K. S. McKelvey, B. R. Noon, R. J. Gutiérrez, G. I. G. Jr., & T. W. Beck

(Eds.), The California spotted owl: a technical assessment of its current status (Vol. PSWGTR-133,

pp. 37-54): USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station, Albany, CA.

Blakesley, J.A. and B.R. Noon. 1999. Demographic parameters of the California spotted owl on the Lassen

National Forest; preliminary results (1990-1998). Unpublished report, U.S. Forest Service Pacific

Southwest Research Station, Redwood Sciences Laboratory, Arcata, CA .

Blakesley, J.A.; Seamans, M.E.; Connor, M.M.; Franklin, A.B.; White, G.C.; Gutierrez, R.J.; Hines, J.E.;

Nichols, J.D.; Munton, T.E.; Shaw, D.W.H.; Keane, J.J.; Steger, G.N.; McDonald, T.L. 2010.

Population Dynamics of Spotted Owls in the Sierra Nevada, California. Wildlife Monographs 174

(1):1-36.

Boal, C.W. and R.W. Mannan. 1994. Northern goshawk diets in ponderosa pine forests on the Kaibab

Plateau. Studies in Avian Biology, 16:97-102.

Buck, S. 1983. Habitat utilization by fisher (Martes pennanti) near Big Bar, California. M.S. Thesis.

Humboldt State University, Arcata, CA. 85 p.


of 32

California Department of Fish and Game, 1998. California Natural Diversity Database, version 2.1.0.

California Department of Fish and Game.

California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2015. Report to the Fish and Game Commission, A Status

Review of the Fisher (Pekania [formerly Martes] pennanti) in California, State of California, Natural

Resources Agency, Department of Fish and Wildlife.

California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2016. A Rapid Assessment of the Vulnerability of Sensitive

Wildlife to Extreme Drought California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Wildlife Branch.

7/15/2015, revised 1/22/2016.

Carroll, C., W. J. Zielinski and R. F. Noss. 1999. Using presence-absence data to build and test spatial

habitat models for the fisher in the Klamath Region, USA. Conservation Biology 13:1344-1359.

Carroll, C. 2005. A reanalysis of regional fisher suitability including survey data from commercial forests

in the redwood region. Report prepared for USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research

Station. Klamath Center for Conservation Research, Orleans, California, USA.

Dark, S.J. 1997. A landscape-scale analysis of mammalian carnivore distribution and habitat use by fisher.

M.S. Thesis, Humboldt State Univ. 67 pp.

Davis, F.W., C. Seo, and W.J. Zielinski. 2007. Regional variation in home-range-scale habitat models for

fisher (Martes pennanti) in California. Ecological Applications 17:2195-2213.

DeGraaf, R. M., V. E. Scott, R. H. Hamre, L. Ernst, and S. H. Anderson. 1991. Forest and rangeland birds

of the United States natural history and habitat use. U.S.D.A. Agric. Handb. 688.

Drew, R.E., J.G. Hallett, K.B. Aubry, K.W. Cullings, S.M. Koepf, and W.J. Zielinski. 2003. Conservation

genetics of the fisher (Martes pennanti) based on mitochondrial DNA sequencing. Molecular

Ecology 12:51-62.

Emmendorfer, M. 2016. Watershed Specialist Report, Mill Flat Creek Road Management Project.

Unpublished Report on file, USDA Forest Service, Sequoia National Forest, Hume Lake Ranger

District, Dunlap, CA.

Fitch, H.S. 1938. Rana boylii in Oregon. Copeia 1938(3):148.

Franklin, A. B., D. R. Anderson, R. J. Gutiérrez, and K. P. Burnham. 2000. Climate, habitat quality, and

fitness in Northern Spotted Owl populations in northwestern California. Ecological Monographs

70:539-590.

Freel, M. 1991. A literature review for management of the marten and fisher on national forests in

California. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region.

Fowler, C. 1988. Habitat Capability Model for the northern goshawk. Unpublished Document, USDA

Forest Service, Tahoe National Forest, Nevada City, CA. 21pp.

Gaines, W.L., P.H. Singleton, and R.C. Ross. 2003. Assessing the Cumulative Effects of Linear Recreation

Routes on Wildlife Habitats on the Okanogan and Wenatchee National Forests. USDA Forest

Service. Pacific Northwest Research Station. GTE PNW-GTR-586. 79 pp.


of 32

Gould, G. J. 1977. Distribution of the spotted owl in California. Western Birds, 8, 131-146.

Grinnell, J. and A. H. Miller. 1944. The distribution of the birds of California. Pacific Coast Avifauna.

27:1-608.

Grinnell, J., J.S. Dixon, and J.M. Linsdale. 1937. Fur-bearing mammals of California. Volume 1.

University of California Press, Berkeley.

Gutiérrez, R. J. 1994. Changes in distribution and abundance of spotted owls. Studies in Avian Biology,

No.15: 293-300.

Gutiérrez, R. J., J. Verner, K. S. McKelvey, B. R. Noon, G. N. Steger, D. R. Call, W. S. Lehaye, B. B.

Bingham, and J. S. Sensor. 1992. Habitat relations of the California spotted owl. In J. Verner, K. S.

McKelvey, B. R. Noon, R. J. Gutiérrez, G. I. G. Jr., & T. W. Beck (Eds.), The California spotted owl:

a technical assessment of its current status (Vol. General Technical Report, PSWGTR-133, pp. 79-

98): USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station, Albany, CA.

Gutierrez, R. J., A. B. Franklin, and W. S. Lahaye. 1995. Spotted Owl (Strix occidentalis). In Birds of

North America, No. 179 (A Poole and F. Gill, eds.). The Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia,

PA, and The American Ornithologists' Union, Washington, D.C.

Hargis, C.D., C. McCarthy and R.D. Perloff. 1994. Home ranges and habitats of northern goshawks

in eastern California. Studies in Avian Biology No. 16:66-74.

Hayes, M. P., and M. R. Jennings. 1988. Habitat correlates of the distribution of California red-legged frog

(Rana aurora draytonii) and Foothill yellow-legged frog (Rana boylii): Implications for

Management. In: R. C. Szaro, K. E. Severson, D. R. Patton, tech. coords. Management of

Amphibians, Reptiles, and Small Mammals in North America. Pp 144-158. USDA Forest Service,

Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-166, Fort Collins,

Colorado.

Hayes, Marc P.; Wheeler, Clara A.; Lind, Amy J.; Green, Gregory A.; Macfarlane, Diane C., tech. coords.

2016. Foothill yellow-legged frog conservation assessment in California. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-

GTR-248. Albany, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research

Station. 193 p.

Hedlund, C. D. 1996. Relative proportion of prey species in the diet of spotted owl Strix occidentalis

occidentalis in the San Gabriel Mountains of southern California. Unpublished Dissertation,

California State Polytechnic University, Pomona.

Heinemeyer, K.S., and J.L. Jones. 1994. Fisher biology and management: a literature review and adaptive

management strategy. Missoula, MT: USDA Forest Service Northern Region. 108 pp.

Holland, D.C. 1991. A synopsis of the ecology and status of the Western pond turtle (Clemmys marmorata)

in 1991. Unpublished document, prepared for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Ecology

Research Center, San Simeon Field Station. 141pp.

Holland, D.C. 1994. The western pond turtle: habitat and history. Final Report prepared for U.S.

Department of Energy, Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, Oregon. Project Number 92-068.


of 32

Jennings, M.R. 1996. Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project: Final Report to Congress, vol. II, Assessments and

scientific basis for management options. Davis: University of California, Centers for Water and

Wildland Resources. 24pp.

Keane, J.J. 2008. In Shuford, W. D., and Gardali, T., editors. California Bird Species of Special Concern: A

ranked assessment of species, subspecies, and distinct populations of birds of immediate conservation

concern in California. Studies of Western Birds 1. Western Field Ornithologists, Camarillo,

California, and California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento.

Kilpatrick, H.J., and P.W. Rego. 1994. Influence of season, sex, and site availability on fisher (Martes

pennanti) rest-site selection in the central hardwood forest. Canadian Journal of Zoology 72: 1416-

1419.

Kupferberg S. J, 1997. Bullfrog (Rana catesbeiana) Invasion of a California River: The role of Larval

Competition. Ecology: Vol. 78, No. 6, pp. 1736–1751.

Lahaye, W. S., R. J. Gutierrez and H. R. Akcakaya. 1994. Spotted Owl metapopulation dynamics in

southern California. Journal of Animal Ecology 63:775-785.

Lind, A.F., L. Conway, H. Sanders, P. Strand, and T. Tharalson. 2003. Distribution, relative abundance,

and habitat of foothill yellow-legged frogs (Rana boylii) on National Forests in the Southern Sierra

Nevada Mountains of California. Unpublished report to the Fish Habitat Relationship (FHR)

Program, USDA Forest Service, Region 5 (California).

Lofroth, E. C., et al. 2010. Conservation of Fishers (Martes pennanti) in South-Central British Columbia,

Western Washington, Western Oregon, and California-Volume 1: Conservation Assessment. Denver,

CO.

Martin, D.L. 1992. Sierra Nevada Anuran Guide. Canorus, LTD, Ecological Research Team. San Jose,

CA. 28pp.

Munton, T.E., J.J. Keane and S.K. Sutton-Mazzocco. 2012. California Spotted Owl Demography in Sierra

National Forest and Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks. Pacific Southwest Research Station,

Fresno, CA. 24pp.

Naney, R.H., L.L. Finley, E.C. Lofroth, P.J. Happe, A.L. Krause, C.M. Raley, R.L. Truex, L.J. Hale, J.M.

Higley, A.D. Kosic, J.C. Lewis, S.A. Livingston, D.C. Macfarlane, A.M. Myers, and J.S. Yaeger.

2012. Conservation of fishers (Martes pennanti) in south-central British Columbia, western

Washington, western Oregon, and California. Volume III: threat assessment. Bureau of Land

Management, Denver, Colorado.

Noon, B. R., and C. M. Biles. 1990. Mathematical demography of Spotted Owls in the Pacific Northwest.

Journal of Wildlife Management 54:18-27.

Noon, B. R., K.S. McKelvey, D.W. Lutz, W.S. LaHaye, R.J. Gutierrez, and C.A. Moen. 1992. Estimates of

demographic parameters and rates of population change. Pp. 175-186 In J. Verner, K. S. McKelvey,

B. R. Noon, R. J. Gutiérrez, G. I. G. Jr., & T. W. Beck (Eds.), The California spotted owl: a technical

assessment of its current status (Vol. General Technical Report, PSWGTR-133): USDA Forest

Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station, Albany, CA.


of 32

O’Brien, C.J., A.B. Otto, and R.A. Sweitzer. 2013. Report from the Wildlife Vehicle Collisions Sub-group:

The Sierra National Forest Highway 41 Culvert Project.

http://snamp.cnr.berkeley.edu/static/documents/2013/03/11/WVC_CulvertProject_CJO_RAS.pdf

Powell, R. A., and W. J. Zielinski. 1994. Fisher. Pp. 38-73, in: L. F. Ruggiero, K. B. Aubry, S.W. Buskirk,

L. J. Lyon, and W. J. Zielinski (eds). The scientific basis for conserving forest carnivores: American

marten, fisher, lynx, and wolverine. General Technical Report RM-254. US Forest Service, Rocky

Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Fort Collins, Colorado, USA.

Purcell, K.L., A.K. Mazzoni, S.R. Mori and B.B. Boroski. 2009. Resting Structures and resting habitat of

fishers in the southern Sierra Nevada, California. Forest Ecol. Manage. 11pp.

Sauer, J. R., J. E. Hines, and J. Fallon. 2008. The North American Breeding Bird Survey, Results and

Analysis 1966-2007 [Web database]. USGS Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, May 15, 2008

[accessed January 5, 2011]. Available from http://www.mbr-pwrc.usgs.gov/bbs/.

Sauer, J. R., S. Schwartz, and B. Hoover. 1996. The Christmas Bird Count Home Page. Version 95.1.

Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, Laurel, MD [accessed January 5, 2011]. Available from

http://www.mbr-pwrc.usgs.gov/bbs/cbc.html.

Seglund, A. E. 1995. The use of rest sites by the Pacific fisher. MS thesis, Humboldt State University,

Arcata, CA, USA.

Sierra Nevada Research Center. 2007. California Spotted Owl Module: 2006 Annual Report. Pacific

Southwest Research Station, Davis, CA.

Smith, R. B., M. Z. Peery, R. J. Gutiérrez, and W. S. LaHaye. 1999. The relationship between spotted owl

diet and reproductive success in the San Bernardino Mountains, California. Wilson Bulletin,111(1),

22-29.

Spencer, W.D., H.L. Rustigian, R.M. Scheller, A. Syphard, J. Strittholt, and B. Ward. 2008. Baseline

evaluation of fisher habitat and population status, and effects of fires and fuels management on

fishers in the southern Sierra Nevada. Unpublished report prepared for USDA Forest Service, Pacific

Southwest Region. June 2008. 133 pp + appendices.

Spencer, W.D., S.C. Sawyer, H.L. Romsos, W.J. Zielinski, R.A. Sweitzer, C.M. Thompson, K.L. Purcell,

D.L. Clifford, L. Cline, H.D. Safford, S.A. Britting, and J.M. Tucker. 2015. Southern Sierra Nevada

fisher conservation assessment. Unpublished report produced by Conservation Biology Institute.

Spencer, W.D., S.C. Sawyer, H.L. Romsos, W.J. Zielinski, C.M. Thompson, and S.A. Britting. 2016.

Southern Sierra Nevada fisher conservation strategy. Version 1.0. Unpublished report produced

by Conservation Biology Institute.

Squires, J.R., and Kennedy, P.L. 2006. Northern Goshawk ecology: An assessment of current knowledge

and information needs for conservation and management. Studies Avian Biol. 31:8–62.

Squires, J. R. and R. T. Reynolds. 1997. Northern Goshawk (Accipiter gentilis). The Birds of North

America Online (A. Poole, ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology [accessed January 5, 2011].

Available from http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/298.

http://snamp.cnr.berkeley.edu/static/documents/2013/03/11/WVC_CulvertProject_CJO_RAS.pdf

http://www.mbr-pwrc.usgs.gov/bbs/

http://www.mbr-pwrc.usgs.gov/bbs/cbc.html

http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/663a

http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/663a


of 32

Stebbins, Robert C., 1985. A Field Guide to Western Reptiles and Amphibians, 2nd Edition. Houghton

Mifflan Company, Boston.

Steger, G. N., T. E. Munton, G. P. Eberlein, and K. D. Johnson. 1999. A study of spotted owl demographics

in the Sierra National Forest and Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks (Annual Progress

Report). Fresno, California: USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station.

Steinhart, P. 1990. California's wild heritage: threatened and endangered animals in the Golden State.

California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, CA. Sierra Club Books. 108pp.

Storer, T. 1925. A synopsis of the amphibia of California. University of California Publications in Zoology

27:1–342.

Thrailkill, J., and M. A. Bias. 1989. Diets of breeding and nonbreeding California spotted owls. Journal of

Raptor Research, 23, 39-41.

Truex, R.L. 2009. Draft 2008 SNFPA Carnivore Monitoring Accomplishment Report. USDA

Forest Service. December, 2009.

Truex, R. L. and Zielinski, W. J. 2013. Short-term effects of fuel treatments on fisher habitat in

the Sierra Nevada, California. Forest Ecology and Management. 293: 85-91.

Tucker, J.M., M.K. Schwartz, K.L. Pilgrim, and F.W. Allendorf. 2012. Historical and

contemporary DNA indicate fisher decline and isolation occurred prior to the European

settlement of California. PLOS ONE 7(12).

Tucker, J.M., M.K. Schwartz, R.L. Truex, S.M. Wisely, and F.W. Allendorf. 2014. Sampling

affects the detection of genetic subdivision and conservation implications for fisher in the

Sierra Nevada. Conservation Genetics 15:123-136.

USDA Forest Service. 1988. Sequoia National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan. On file at the

Hume Lake Ranger District, Dunlap, CA.

USDA Forest Service. 1990. Sequoia National Forest Land Management Plan 1990 Settlement Agreement.

On file at the Hume Lake Ranger District, Dunlap, CA.

USDA Forest Service. 1991. Protocol for Surveying for Spotted Owls in Proposed Management Activity

Areas and Habitat Conservation Areas.

USDA Forest Service. 2005. Sierra Nevada forest plan accomplishment monitoring report for 2004. USDA

Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region R5-MR-026. 8pp.

USDA Forest Service. 2006. Sierra Nevada forest plan accomplishment monitoring report for 2005. USDA

Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region R5-MR-000. 12pp.

USDA Forest Service, 2001. Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment Final Environmental Impact Statement

and Record of Decision. USDA Forest Service. Pacific Southwest Region, January 2001. 6 Volumes.


of 32

USDA Forest Service, 2004. Record of Decision: Final Supplement to the Sierra Nevada Forest Plan

Amendment Environmental Impact Statement. USDA Forest Service. Pacific Southwest Region,

January 2004.

U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2003. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 12 Month Finding

for a Petition to List the California Spotted Owl (Strix occidentalis occidentalis). Federal Register:

February 14, 2003 Volume 68, Number 31.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2006. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 12 Month Finding

for a Petition to List the California Spotted Owl (Strix occidentalis occidentalis). Federal Register:

May 24, 2006 Volume 71, Number 100.

Van Wagner, T. J. 1996. Selected life-history and ecological aspects of a population of foothill yellow-

legged frogs (Rana boylii) from Clear Creek, Nevada County, California. Master’s Thesis,

Department of Biological Sciences, California State University, Chico. 143 pp.

Verner, J., K.S. McKelvey, B.R. Noon, R.J. Gutierrez, G.I. Gould Jr., and T.W. Beck (Technical

coordinators). 1992. The California spotted owl: A technical assessment of its current status. Gen.

Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-133. U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Albany, CA.

Wengert, G.M. 2013. Ecology of intraguild predation on fishers (Martes pennanti) in California. PhD

dissertation, University of California, Davis.

Wisely, S.M., S.W. Buskirk, G.A. Russell, K.B. Aubry and W.J. Zielinski. 2004. Genetic diversity and

structure of the fisher (Martes pennanti) in a peninsular and peripheral metapopulation. Journal of

Mammalogy 85:640-648.

Yaeger, J. S. 2005. Habitat at fisher resting sites in the Klamath Province of Northern California. MS

thesis, Humboldt State University, Arcata, CA, USA.

Yarnell, S.M. 2008. Quantifying physical habitat heterogeneity in an ecologically meaningful manner: a

case study of the habitat preferences of the foothill yellow legged frog (Rana boylii). In: Dupont, A.;

Jacobs, H., eds. Landscape ecology research trends. New York: Nova Science Publishers: 89–112.

Chapter 5.

Zabel, C. J., G. N. Steger, K. S. McKelvey, G. P. Eberlein, B. R. Noon, and J. Verner. 1992. Home range

size and habitat-use patterns of California spotted owls in the Sierra Nevada. In J. Verner, K. S.

McKelvey, B. R. Noon, R. J. Gutiérrez, G. I. G. Jr., & T. W. Beck (Eds.), The California spotted owl:

a technical assessment of its current status (Vol. General Technical Report, PSW GTR-133, pp. 149-

164): USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station.

Zeiner, D.C., W.F. Laudenslayer, Jr., K. Mayer, and M. White. (eds.). 1990. California's wildlife Volume

II: Birds. Calif. Dep. Fish and Game, Sacramento. 732 pp.

Zielinski, W. J., T.E. Kucera, and R.H. Barrett. 1995. Current distribution of the fisher, Martes pennanti, in

California. California Fish and Game 81(3):104-112.

Zielinski, W. J., R. L. Truex, G. A. Schmidt, F. V. Schlexer, K. N. Schmidt, and R. H. Barrett. 2004a.

Home range characteristics of fishers in California. Journal of Mammalogy 85: 649-657.

Zielinski, W. J., R. L. Truex, G. A. Schmidt, F. V. Schlexer, K. N. Schmidt, and R. H. Barrett. 2004b.


of 32

Resting habitat selection by fishers in Calfornia. Journal of Wildlife Management 68: 475-492.

Zielinski, W. J., R. L. Truex, F. V. Schlexer, L. A. Campbell and C. Carroll. 2005. Historical and

contemporary distributions of carnivores in forests of the Sierra Nevada, California, USA. Journal of

Biogeography 32: 1385-1407.

Zielinski, W.J., J.A. Baldwin, R.L. Truex, J.M. Tucker and P.A. Flebbe. 2013. Estimating trend in

occupancy for the southern Sierra fisher Martes pennanti population. Journal of Fish and Wildlife

Management 4(1):3-19.

Zweifel, R.G. 1955. Ecology, distribution, and systematics of frogs of the Rana boylii group. University of

California Publications in Zoology. 54:207-292.

Appendix A. Forest Service Sensitive Animal Species in Sequoia National Forest (List Updated 6/30/2013)

Species Status Habitat Effects

Determination

Rationale

Birds

Northern

goshawk

(Accipiter

gentilis)

FSS, CSSC Dense mixed conifer

forest to open

eastside pine

May affect

individuals, but is

not likely to result in

a trend toward

Federal listing or

loss of viability.

See analysis and effects determination

above.

Little Willow

flycatcher

(Empidonax

trailii

brewsterii)

FSS,SE Large meadow

complexes with

dense willow and

standing water, up to

8,000’

No effect Project will not affect suitable habitat.

Bald Eagle

(Haliaeetus

leucocephalus)

FSS, SP, SE Lakes and open

water. Nests on

large trees.


Great gray

owl

(Strix nebulosa)

FSS, SE Large meadows &

openings 2,500 –

9,000’. Dense forest

and large snags for

nesting.


California

spotted owl

(Strix

occidentalis

occidentalis)

FSS, CSSC Dense forest (>40%

canopy closure),

preference 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.

May affect

individuals, but is


a trend toward

Federal listing or

loss of viability.


above.

Mammals


of 32



Determination

Rationale

Pallid bat

(Antrozous

pallidus)

FSS, CSSC Open habitats, rocky

crevices, tree

cavities, mines,

caves, or buildings

for maternity

roosts. Deep

crevices are

important for day

roosts.

No effect Presumably forages near the project area.

No known maternity roosts on the Hume

Lake District. Species and habitat not

impacted by the proposed action. No

potential roost trees would be removed.

Townsend's

big eared bat

(Corynorhinus

townsendii

townsendii)

FSS, CSSC Nocturnal, roosts in

caves, uses wide

variety of habitats

although usually

mesic areas for

foraging.

No effect May forage near the project area. No

known roost sites near the project area.

Species and habitat not impacted by the

proposed action.

Fringed

myotis (Myotis

thysanodes)

FSS Optimal habitats are

pinyon-juniper,

valley foothill

hardwood, and

hardwood-conifer

habitats. Roosts in

caves, mines,

buildings, crevices in

rocks, and snags.

No effect Species and habitat not impacted by the

proposed action. No potential roost trees

would be removed.

California

wolverine

(Gulo gulo

luteus)

FSS, ST, SP Remote habitats,

sensitive to human

presence. 4000’ to

13,000’ mixed

habitats


Fisher

(Pekania

pennanti)

FSS Dense forest with

high number of large

trees and down logs.

Potential occupied

elevation 3,500-

8,000 ft.

May affect

individuals, not

likely to contribute

to the need for

federal listing or

result in a loss of

viability.


above.

American

marten

(Martes

americana)

FSS, CSSC 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.


Amphibians

Yellow FSS, CSSC Valley No effect Project area is outside of known range for


of 32



Determination

Rationale

blotched

salamander

(Ensatina

escholtzii

croceator)

foothill/hardwood

habitats and conifer,

moist habitats and

down logs in

tributaries of the

lower Kern River.

this species.

Relictual

slender

salamander

(Batrachoceps

relictus)

FSS, CSSC Down logs and moist

areas, generally in

mixed conifer zone.

No effect Project area is outside of known range for

this species.

Kern Canyon

slender

salamander

(Batrachoceps

simatus)

FSS, ST Down logs and moist

areas, below 3,500’

Limited to Kern

Canyon


this species.

Fairview

slender

salamander (Batrachoceps

bramei)

FSS, CSSC Down logs and moist

areas, ~7,000-8,000’.

Limited to Kern

Plateau


this species.

Foothill

yellow-legged

frog

(Rana boylii)

FSS, CSSC Low gradient

streams and ponds

below 6,000’

May affect

individuals, but is


a trend toward

Federal listing or

loss of viability.


above.

Reptiles

Western pond

turtle

(Actinemys

marmorata)

FSS, CSSC Low gradient ponds

and streams with

basking sites below

5,000 feet.

May affect

individuals, but is


a trend toward

Federal listing or

loss of viability.


above.

California

legless lizard

(Anniella

pulchra)

FSS, CSSC Loose, moist soil in

chaparral and valley

foothill

woodland. Generally

below 6,000’.


this species.

Fish

Kern brook

lamprey (Lampetra

hubbsi)

FSS, CSSC Silty backwaters of

rivers emerging from

the Sierra foothills,

including the Kings

River. Elevations

below 1000’

No effect Project will not impact habitat for this

species in the Kings River.

Hardhead FSS, CSSC Warm water rivers at

low elevation

No effect Habitat quality would be unaffected by the

proposed action.


of 32



Determination

Rationale

(Mylopharodon

conocephalus)

California

golden trout

(Oncorhynchus

mykiss

aguabonita)

FSS, CSSC Cold water

tributaries of the

South Fork of the

Kern River above

Rockhouse Basin.


this species.

Kern River

rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus

mykiss gilberti)

FSS, CSSC Extant populations in

the Kern River above

Durrwood Creek, in

Rattlesnake and Osa

Creeks, and possibly

upper Peppermint

Creek.


this species.

Invertebrates

Tehachapi

fritillary

butterfly (Speyeria egleis

tehachapina)

FSS Range limited to the

Piute Mountains;

utilizes violets as

host plants.


this species.

Listing Status Key:

FE= Federally Endangered

FT= Federally Threatened

FC= Federal Candidate

FSS= USFS Sensitive Species

CSSC=CA Species of Special Concern

SP= State Fully Protected

SE= State Endangered

ST = State Threatened

Appendix B. Mitigations Common to the Action Alternatives

Mitigation measures were developed to ease some of the potential impacts of the proposed activities. These

mitigation measures would be applied to either of the action alternatives.

The following Best Management Practices (BMPs) are applicable to protect water quality in accordance with

Water Quality Management for National Forest System Lands in California (USDA Forest Service, 2011) for

the project, and are tailored to meet site specific needs. The BMPs identified focus on prevention of

pollutants from entering the streams; protection of water quality from physical disturbances and sanitation

facilities; protection of the public while using potable water supplies, and public responsibilities regarding

adding pollutants in campgrounds. Further discussion of each BMP can be found in the Hydrology Report in

the project record.

BMP 2-4: Road Maintenance and Operations

BMP 2-5: Water Source Development and Utilization

BMP 2-7: Road Decommissioning

BMP 2-11: Equipment Refueling and Servicing

BMP 7-3 - Protection of Wetlands

BMP 7-4 Forest Hazardous Substance Spill Prevention and Countermeasure (SPCC) Plan

BMP 7-8 Cumulative Off-site Watershed Effects

wildlife biological evaluation: mill flat creek road...

Documents