BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION For BIRDS, MAMMALS,AMPHIBIANS,...

BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION For

BIRDS, MAMMALS,AMPHIBIANS, AND INSECTS

Little Valley Fuels Reduction and Ecosystem Enhancement Project

Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest Carson Ranger District

FY2013

PREPARED BY DATE _______

Maureen Easton WILDLIFE BIOLOGIST

United States Department of Agriculture Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest Carson Ranger District

Little Valley Fuels Reduction 2

I. INTRODUCTION This Biological Evaluation (BE) has been prepared to evaluate potential impacts associated with the proposed Little Valley Hazardous Fuels Reduction and Healthy Forest Restoration Project on any animal species designated as a Forest sensitive under the Region 4 Sensitive Species List (USDA 2011).The BE specifically addresses whether the project will result in a loss of viability or lead to a trend toward federal listing. This document was prepared in accordance with Forest Service Manual direction 2672.42 and meets legal requirements set forth under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended and implementing regulations (19 U.S.C. 1536 (c), 50CFR 402.12 (f) and 402.12 (c).

II. EXISTING CONDITION: The Little Valley fuels Reduction project includes approximately 1,660 acres of National Forest System lands located west of Washoe Valley in Washoe County, NV (Township 16 North, Range 19 East, in Section 8, 16, 19, 20, and 28). The majority of the project area occurs on low sloping to flat terrain and surrounds Little Valley meadow to the south, east and west. A portion of the project area also occurs east of the meadow along the foothills to Franktown Road and includes slopes between 15 and 30%. The project area ranges between 5,600 feet and 7,000 feet elevation. Franktown Creek drains from Hobart Reservoir and meanders through the southern and eastern portions of the project area. The majority of the project area includes forested stands of Jeffrey pine, lodgepole pine and white fir that surround the south end of Little Valley Meadow. These stands are characterized by an overstory of Jeffrey Pine and include a significant component of white fir and lodgepole pine. Canopy cover and structural diversity varies considerably throughout the mixed conifer stands. For example, stands along the southern and western portion of the project area contain late seral characteristics such as dense canopy closure (>50%) and multiple canopy layers. Adjacent stands, however, are much more open and representative of “eastside pine” habitat types. Current basal areas range from 120 to 392 square feet per acre and trees per acre range from 50 to 2,561, with most stands having large numbers trees less than four feet in height. Stringers of aspen stands occur along the periphery of the meadow and along portions of Franktown Creek. Aspen stands in this area are believed to be declining due to conifer encroachment. Conifer encroachment is also occurring in the meadow. Along the eastern slopes of the project area, the plant community transitions to montane chaparral consisting primarily of manzanita, tobacco brush, and willow. Average tree canopy cover on south facing slopes is estimated to be below 30 percent throughout much of the area. The soils in the Little Valley project area are predominantly derived from coarse-grained granite. Soil textures are commonly fine to coarse sand with a low percentage of fine particles (Soil survey for Washoe County). Specific Vegetation Information

Mixed Conifer/Fir; Mixed conifer stands represent approximately 54% (885 acres) of the habitat types in the project area. These stands are characterized by an overstory of Jeffrey Pine and having a significant component of white fir and limited incense cedar are present in upper


elevations of the project area and north facing slopes. Canopy cover and structural diversity varies considerably throughout the mixed conifer stands. For example, dense canopy closure (>50%) occurs within the flammulated owl PAC area, and along western portions of Little Valley meadow. These stands also contain multiple canopy layers with a diversity of tree and shrub species in the understory. Adjacent stands, however, are much more open and representative of “eastside pine” habitat types.

Aspen; Aspen stands represent approximately 4% (74 acres) of the vegetation cover in the project area. Most of these stands occur within a riparian setting and more upland locations. Aspen often functions as a succession phase to conifers, and stands within the project area contain white fir and Jeffrey pine in the understory as well as overtopping aspen trees in the overstory. Conifer can eventually replace aspen stands by outcompeting them for light and other resources. Aspen stands typically have more diverse understories of grass and forbs reflecting the wetter site conditions.

Meadow; Approximately 4% of the project area is comprised of wet and dry meadow. Willow and aspen stringers occur on the south and western portions of the meadow. Conifer encroachment is also occurring throughout the meadow.

Shrub Communities; Approximately 38% (610 acres) vegetation types within the Little Valley project area are shrub communities. Primary shrub types include greenleaf manzanita (Arctostaphylos patula), and snowbrush ceanothus (Ceanothus velutinus). Big basin sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata) and pinemat manzanita (Arctostaphylos nevadensis) are also present. A small amount of willow (Salix spp.) also occurs, mainly near the riparian areas.

Desired conditions in the forested areas would provide for a forest structure and function that generally resembles pre-settlement conditions, with stands composed forest patches that vary in size, species composition, and structure. Trees within the project area range from seedlings to very large diameter, have multi-tiered canopies, particularly in older forests, and provide vertical heterogeneity. Dead trees, both standing and fallen would meet habitat needs of old-forest associated species and where possible, areas treated to reduce fuel levels would also provide for the successful establishment of early seral stage vegetation. Desired conditions in the meadow and aspen areas would provide for hydrologically functioning meadows that support viable populations of native and desired non-native plant, invertebrate, and vertebrate riparian and aquatic-dependent species. Species composition and structural diversity of plant and animal communities in riparian areas, wetlands, and meadows would provide desired habitat conditions and ecological functions. The ecological status of meadow vegetation is late seral (50 percent or more of the relative cover of the herbaceous layer is late seral with high similarity to the potential natural community). A diversity of age classes of hardwood shrubs is present and regeneration is occurring. Streams in meadows, lower elevation grasslands, and hardwood ecosystems have vegetation and channel bank conditions that approach historic potential. West-wide wildfires are currently burning much larger and with higher severity, killing the majority of the trees in these fire areas. Locally, large fires have occurred along the Carson Range, demonstrating dangerous fire behavior close to urban areas. Significant fires include the


Little Valley Fire (1981); Waterfall Fire (2004); Arrowcreek (2000); Martis Fire (2001); and the Hawken Fire (2007). The purpose of this project is to reduce fuel loading and ladder fuels in forested and shrub areas. Reduce conifer and shrub densities in aspen stands and meadows to prevent increased competition for water and sunlight. Dense timber and shrub stands, high fuel loadings and excessive ladder fuels have created a high risk of uncharacteristic catastrophic wildland fires Reducing the density of trees will increase tree vigor, health and growth rates in the forested ecosystem. Competition from high tree densities has reduced stand vigor, thus increasing the possibility that insects, disease, or wildfire will kill the forested stands including important wildlife habitat and affecting the aesthetic value. Improving the health of the forested ecosystem will reduce the long-term risk of tree mortality, improve habitat for wildlife, and protect the overall ecosystem. This action is needed because tree and shrub densities in the project area have increased the severity of wildfire. The existing vegetation conditions support fire intensity levels which threaten the safety of firefighters engaged in community and forest protection efforts. In addition, decreased vegetation vigor is increasing the potential for the spread of insect, disease and wildfire in the forest. This action responds to the goals and objectives outlined in the Toiyabe National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (1986), as amended by the Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment Record of Decision (January, 2004) and helps move the project area towards desired conditions described in those plans.

III. PROPOSED ACTION The Carson Ranger District of the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest is proposing to reduce fuels and reduce the potential risk of catastrophic wildland fire, improve forest health and enhance aspen and meadow habitat north of Carson City, Nevada. The Little Valley project is located in Township 16 North, Range 19 East, in Section 8, 16, 19, 20, and 28. The project area consists of approximately 1,660 acres of National Forest lands. Project treatments are intended to reduce the risk of a stand replacing wildland fire and improve forest health, wildlife habitat, and watershed conditions. Mechanized equipment including masticators, feller-bunchers, skidders and tractors, hand crews and prescribed fire will be utilized to implement treatments. Conifer Areas on Slopes Less Than 30 percent: Conifer trees up to 24” dbh will be thinned from below, favoring fir species, mistletoe infected, and insect infested trees for removal, thinning from below to remove the smaller trees first. Retention of all trees 24” dbh and greater will allow for higher canopy cover for wildlife. Trees would be whole tree yarded to landings with the tops and limbs attached. If suitable markets are not obtained, tops and limbs could be removed through chipping or piled and burned on landings or within units. The project also requires the use of temporary roads to access certain project areas. Temporary roads will be obliterated after project activities. Road maintenance will be required on existing roads, including removal of vegetation and repair of the road base.


Conifer Areas on Slopes Greater Than 30 percent and All Shrub Areas: Shrubs and conifers will be thinned using mastication, hand cutting, piling, lopping and scattering, chipping and prescribed fire. Dense stands of brush that occur within 100 feet of a road or within 200 feet of the eastern National Forest System land boundary adjacent to private lands will be thinned in a mosaic pattern with removal of approximately 50 to 80 percent of the shrubs to create fuel breaks. Shrub areas not within the above areas will be thinned in a mosaic pattern by removal of approximately 30 to 50 percent of the shrubs. Where dense pockets of conifers exist, trees less than 12” dbh will be cut and trees and shrubs within the drip line of residual conifers will be removed. Seeding of treated areas with native grass and forb species may take place after treatment to reduce the potential for invasive species and promote soil retention. Prescribed fire will occur to reduce shrub densities through broadcast burning and or pile burning. Aspen Areas: Conifers less than 24” dbh that occur within and approximately 100 to 150 feet (1 ½ times the tallest aspen tree) from the edge of the existing stand would be removed utilizing mechanized equipment, hand cutting, lopping and scattering and chipping. Prescribed fire in the form of understory burning would be utilized to stimulate aspen regeneration; burning would occur in areas with and without conifer removal. In areas where conifer removal is implemented, burning would occur after conifer removal but prior to any initial aspen sprouting response. Meadow Areas: Conifers less than 24” dbh that occur within or are encroaching upon meadow areas would be removed or thinned using mechanized equipment, hand cutting, piling, lopping and scattering, chipping and/or prescribed fire. Pockets of trees within the meadow may be retained where it is determined they are providing wildlife value or other ecological benefits to the meadow ecosystem. Prescribed fire in the form of broadcast burning would be utilized to stimulate meadow vegetation. Prescribed Fire: Prescribed fire will be utilized to treat slash created from implementation activities (activity fuels), reduce tree and brush densities and stimulate aspen regeneration and meadow vegetation. Prescribed fire will include pile burning at landings and in treatment units and broadcast burning and understory burning may occur anywhere within the project area. Understory burns are intended to maintain the desired fuel loading conditions in the understory but leave overstory vegetation intact. Broadcast burning is used in grasslands and shrub lands where there is little or no forest stand present. Where prescribed burning treatments take place hand line will be constructed in areas deemed as control lines to keep the fire within the burn unit. Natural barriers and roads will be used as much as possible to limit hand line construction. Hand lines will be where vegetation is removed to bare mineral soil and are less than 12 inches wide. Following burning activities the hand line will be rehabilitated. Transportation: The proposed action would require the construction of approximately 0.6 miles of road within section 28 (T16N, R19E) on land owned by the state of Nevada to access proposed Little Valley Fuels activities. Construction of this new road segment will allow for permanent access to the Little Valley Area. The proposal also includes securing easements across private land at the east end of Tunnel Creek Road to access the Franktown Road in Sections 22, 23 (T16N, R19E).


Maintenance: Maintenance will include the use of prescribed fire, hand cutting and piling, mastication, chipping and weed treatments. Maintenance activities will begin one year after initial treatments and will continue for up to 10 years to maintain reduced fuel loadings in the treatment areas. The Forest Service expects to begin implementation on this project in the summer of 2013. Design Features The following design features were incorporated into the proposed action to minimize potential impacts to biological resources. Design features were developed by resource specialists on the project interdisciplinary team and are based on a thorough review of the proposed project and project area: Wildlife Habitat: Important habitat for wildlife, (i.e. nesting or denning areas) would be protected with the following design features which include avoiding treatment of the area and/or modifying treatment prescriptions to minimize impacts.

• A Protected Activity Center (PAC) has been designated within the project area to protect nesting habitat for flammulated owls. To maintain habitat integrity within the PAC, the following vegetation prescription has been developed:

Modify existing canopy cover no more than 10% in stands with canopy cover of

60% or more and modify no more than 5% in stands where canopy cover is less than 60%;

Brush thinning will be by hand and will retain at least 50-70% of the existing brush cover;

Tree thinning will be by hand and focused on existing dense patches of understory trees less than 12” in diameter;

Where feasible, two canopies of trees and shrubs will be maintained throughout the PAC;

All snags with existing cavities will be maintained; Limited Operating period from May 15- September 15; no project activities

within the PAC during this time period unless cleared through the District Wildlife Biologist

• Where available, three of the largest snags per acre would be retained throughout the

project area; at the minimum three pieces of large woody debris, the largest available per acre, would be also be maintained throughout the project area;

• Project activities would not occur in aspen and riparian areas April 15 through August 1st to minimize potential disturbance to migratory birds.

• Prescribed burning sites will be surveyed for active bird nests immediately before burning occurs (within 1- 3 days). Active nests will be flagged and avoided within 50 feet of a nest site.

• No trees greater than 24 inches in diameter will be removed.


Soils/Water

• Ground based equipment will operate on slopes less than 30% except for pitches of 150 feet or less. However, ground based operations may occur on slopes up to 50%; these will be designed on a unit by unit basis only after soil stability, soil rock content and the location of the steep slope in relation to the remaining portions of the treatment unit have been determined to be appropriate by the Forest Service.

• No trees will be removed where they provide stream bank stability and ground based equipment will stay on established stream crossings.

• Pile burning will be minimized in riparian areas.

• Skid trails will be designated on ground based skidding units and rehabilitated after use. Rehabilitation will include constructing waterbars. Multiple pass skid trails will be located a minimum of 100 feet apart except where they converge at landings.

• Drainage features will be installed on new temporary roads. Temporary roads will be obliterated after use, which may require ripping and seeding.

• Temporary and permanent erosion control measures will be used during new road construction.

Noxious Weeds

• Equipment and vehicles will be washed prior to entering project area to remove all mud, dirt, and plant material.

• Fill such as sand and gravel used in road construction and/or maintenance activities will be inspected before being used at the site to assure its weed free.

• Minimize ground disturbing activities on south and east-facing slopes and retain some mulch layer in these areas to inhibit production of cheatgrass.

• Ground disturbing activities on south and east-facing slopes within brush treatment areas using mechanized equipment such as a masticator treat the shrub densities in a less intense manner by removing a smaller percentage of brush to help inhibit cheatgrass spread.

• All seed used for restoration activities must be certified weed free.

• Project area will be monitored for a minimum of five years post-implementation to initiate early and rapid response to any new weed infestations that result following project activities.

IV. CURRENT MANAGEMENT DIRECTION Current management direction on desired future conditions for Sensitive, Threatened and Endangered species on the Humboldt – Toiyabe National Forest can be found in the following documents, filed at the Carson Ranger District: -Forest Service Manual and Handbooks (FSM/H 2670) -National Forest Management Act (NFMA)


-Endangered Species Act (ESA) -National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) -Toiyabe National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (USDA 1986) -Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment 2001, 2004 (USDA 2001, 2004) -Intermountain Region (R4) Sensitive Species List (USDA 2011)

V. CONSULTATION TO DATE Informal consultation to date includes a written request to USFWS, as required in 50 CFR 402.12(c), for a list of threatened, endangered, and proposed species known or likely to occur in the analysis area. According to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service species list obtained for the project area (Ref. No 2013-SL-0034), no Threatened, Endangered, or Proposed species have potential to occur in the project area.

VI. SPECIES EVALUATED The below list includes the United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service Regional Forester’s (R4) sensitive species (November 1995 list, updated in 2011).

REPTILES AND AMPHIBIANS Yosemite Toad (Bufo canorus) Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog (Rana sierrae)

Columbia spotted frog (Rana luteiventris) BIRDS Northern goshawk (Accipter gentilis) Sage grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) *Yellow-billed cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus) Peregrine Falcon (Falco peregrinus anatum) Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) Flammulated owl (Otus flammeoulus) Mountain quail (Oerortyx pictus) White-headed woodpecker (Picoides alborlarvatus) *Three-toed woodpecker (Picoides tridactylus) California spotted owl (Strix occidentalis occidentalis) Great gray owl (Strix nebulosa) MAMMALS Pygmy rabbit (Brachylagus idahoensis) Townsend’s big-eared bat (Corynorhinus townsendii) Spotted bat (Euderma maculatum) North American wolverine (Gulo gulo luteus) *Bighorn sheep (Ovis Canadensis spp.) *Sierra Nevada red fox (Vulpes vulpes necator)


INSECTS *Spring Mountain checkerspot (Chlosyne acastus robusta) *Ancilla blue (?) (Euphilotes ancilla purpura) *Morands checkerspot (Euphydryas anicia morandi) *Mt. Charelston blue butterfly (Icaricia shasta charlestonensis)

The wildlife species listed above are designated as sensitive by the United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service Regional Forester and are known to occur on the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest (Region 4; USDA 2010). Those species known to occur, or have the potential to occur, within the Carson Ranger District, shown in bold, will be analyzed to determine direct, indirect, or cumulative effects to their populations, and if project activities may lead to a downward trend in their population leading to federal listing of those species. Species marked with (*) are not known to occur within the Carson Ranger District, therefore there will be no direct, indirect, or cumulative impacts to these species from the proposed project and no further analysis will be conducted.

VII. ANALYSIS PROCESS Background Research – For the purpose of this analysis, aerial photos, soil maps, GIS coverages, and other existing documents were reviewed to determine suitable habitat potential for Forest sensitive and threatened, and endangered species. District and state wildlife databases were examined to identify any known locations or potential habitat that may occur within or adjacent to the project boundary. The Little Valley project area has an extensive management history including grazing, timber harvest, wildfire and recreation. Historical records for many of these activities/events are on file at the Carson Ranger District and were reviewed for the analysis. ID Team Meetings-Interdisciplinary team meetings for this project have been ongoing since 2009. Both field and in-office meetings were conducted on numerous occasions to examine field conditions of the project area and discuss specific components of the proposed action. Specifically, the Wildlife Biologist, Archeologist, Fuels Specialist and the Forester worked together to develop a proposed action that met multiple resource objectives while minimizing impacts to those resources. Surveys- Wildlife surveys have been ongoing in the Little Valley area since 2008. A summary of individual surveys and results is provided below: • Northern Goshawk: Surveys were conducted for goshawks in 2008, 2010, 2011, 2012, and

2013 following the Pacific Southwest Regional protocol for goshawks (USDA 2000). No detections were recorded during these surveys. According to historic records, goshawks were known to nest in the area in the late 1970’s (UNR 2013).

• California Spotted Owl-Surveys were conducted for California spotted owls in 2010, 2011, and 2012 following the Pacific Southwest Protocol for California spotted owl surveys (USDA 1993).No detections were recorded during these surveys. There are no known records of spotted owls occurring within the Little Valley area.


• Great Gray Owl- In 2006, the Institute for Bird Populations conducted focused great gray owl surveys throughout the Carson Ranger District, including the Little Valley area. Surveys were conducted following Pacific Southwest Protocol for Great Gray Owl (Beck and Winter 2000). Surveys were repeated in the Little Valley area in 2013 and resulted in no detections. Historic records indicate great gray owls may have been present in the Little Valley area in late 1970’s (UNR 2013).

• Flammulated Owl- Surveys for flammulated owls were conducted in 2011, 2012 and 2013 following survey guidelines provided and Mika et al (2005). Flammulated owls were detected in 2012 but nesting was not confirmed. In 2013, flammulated owls were detected in the same area exhibiting territorial behavior near a large snag with a nesting cavity.

• Point Counts: Migratory bird point count surveys were conducted within the Little Valley project area during 2011and 2012. Surveys were conducted following the Great Basin Bird Observatory Protocol (GBBO 2003) and included counting all identifiable species of birds along a 100 meter transect within three main specific habitat types, aspen, riparian and conifer.

• Forest Carnivore: In 2010 and 2011, surveys were conducted for rare forest carnivores within the project area using baited camera stations and sooted track plates. Survey efforts followed the methodology described by Zielinski et al (1995). No detections of rare forest carnivores were recorded.

Based on the above information, in addition to reviewing available literature, the following analysis was completed.

VIII. SPECIES ACCOUNTS, EFFECTS ANALYSIS, AND DETERMINATIONS YOSEMITE TOAD Range, Distribution, and Status: The Yosemite toad is endemic to the Sierra Nevada mountain range and occurs in wet montane meadows north of Ebbett’s Pass in Alpine County south to Kaiser Pass area in the Evolution Lake/Darwin Canyon region of Fresno Co. Its known elevational range extends from ca. 6,435 to ca. 11,385 ft (ca. 1950 to ca. 3450 m). Several studies and observations made within the first half of the twentieth century report that Yosemite toads were abundant throughout their range, especially within Yosemite National Park (Grinnell and Storer 1924). As of the mid-1990’s it had declined substantially or disappeared from over 50% of the sites where it was known historically (Jennings 1996) and it is currently a California State Species of Special Concern, Forest Service Sensitive Species, and is a Candidate a for Federal listing under the Endangered Species Act. Habitat Requirements and Natural History: Yosemite toads are found in high montane and subalpine associations in relatively open wet meadows (standing water of at least 1/10th acre on June 1) surrounded by forests of lodgepole pine or whitebark pines and are primarily active during the late spring, summer, and early fall. (Zeiner et al.1988). Yosemite toads are seldom found more than 100 yards away from permanent water although they spend actually very little time in the water.


Potential for Occurrence: Portions of the project area contain habitat features, such as wet meadows, associated with Yosemite toads. However, the area lacks a permanent water source such as a lake or large pond which is typically used by Yosemite toads during the breeding season. Furthermore, the distribution of this species is well documented and does not include the Little Valley area. Determination: Yosemite toads are not expected to occur in the project area due to the lack of suitable habitat. Furthermore the current and historical distribution of this species is well documented and does not include the project area. Therefore, it is my determination there will be no direct, indirect or cumulative impacts to Yosemite toads from project activities and no further analysis for this species will be conducted. SIERRA NEVADA YELLOW-LEGGED FROG Range, Distribution and Status: Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frogs historically inhabited ponds, tarns, lakes, and streams from 4,500 to over 12,000 ft. (1370 to over 3650 m) (Stebbins 1985) and was once the most common amphibian in high elevation aquatic ecosystems of the Sierra Nevada (Bradford et. al. 1993). This species is endemic to California and a small area of western Nevada and occurs in two distinct regions – the Sierra Nevada and several mountain ranges of coastal southern California. Large groups of populations in the northern Sierra Nevada and local populations elsewhere have since become extinct and have disappeared from 70-90% of its historic range in the bioregion (Jennings 1996). The Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog (SNYLF) is currently a California Species of Special Concern, Forest Service Sensitive Species, and is listed by the US Fish & Wildlife Service as a Candidate species under the Endangered Species Act. Habitat Requirements and Natural History: The SNYLF is strongly associated with montane riparian habitats in lodgepole pine, yellow pine sugar pine, white fir whitebark pine and wet meadow vegetation types (Zeiner et al. 1988). Typically, SNYLFs prefer well illuminated, sloping banks of meadow streams, riverbanks, isolated pools, and lake borders with vegetation that is continuous to the water's edge. In high elevations, breeding occurs between May and August as soon as the meadows and lakes are free of snow and ice. Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frogs usually lay their eggs in clusters submerged along stream banks or on emergent vegetation. Tadpoles and adults of this species overwinter in deep pools with undercut banks that provide cover. Adults are highly aquatic and are typically associated with near shore areas for reproduction, cover, foraging, and over-wintering. They are most abundant along lake shores and low gradient streams with irregular shores and rocks (Mullaly and Cunningham 1956). It is believed that adult frogs use the deepest sections of lakes for overwintering (Bradford et al. 1993). Potential for Occurrence: While the project area contains some habitat features associated with SNYLFs, the species distribution is well documented and does not include the project area. Franktown Creek is the only perennial water source in Little Valley. For most if its length through the project area, this creek is runs shallow and narrow and likely does not provide adequate depth for SNYLFs (Jennings and Hayes 1994, p. 77). Historically, SNYLFs occured in the general vicinity of the project area (USDA Draft SNYLF Conservation Assessment 2006). For example, in the early 1930’s several specimens were collected near Incline Lake


approximately 10 miles northwest of the project area. Between 1960 and 1985, numerous sightings of SNYLFs were also reported in Tahoe Meadows, approximately six miles south of the project area. However, all of these populations are now thought to be extirpated and SNYLFs are now considered extinct in the State of Nevada (Amphibiaweb 2006). Determination: Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frogs are not expected to occur in the project area. The current and historical distribution of this species is well documented and does not include the project area and the size of the creek is likely too small to support Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frogs. Therefore, it is my determination there will be no direct, indirect or cumulative impacts to Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frogs from project activities and no further analysis for this species will be conducted NORTHERN GOSHAWK Range, Distribution, and Status: Northern goshawks have a holarctic distribution breeding from boreal Alaska and Canada south in to the East as far as Pennsylvania and New York and in the West to the mountains of southern Arizona and New Mexico (Squires and Reynolds 1997). Nesting distribution on the Carson District ranges from north of Reno in the Dog Valley area, south to Spooner Summit and Genoa Peak and southwest throughout Alpine County including the Carson Iceberg Wilderness. Northern goshawks are year-round residents in neighboring Lake Tahoe Basin (Keane 1999) and are believed to be in the Carson Ranger District as well. Goshawks are a Forest Sensitive species in throughout the Intermountain Region (Region 4). Habitat Requirements and Natural History: Northern goshawks are typically associated with late seral or old growth forests, characterized by contiguous stands of large trees and large snags with closed canopies (53 to100%) and relatively open understory (Reynolds et al. 1992, Hayward and Escano 1989). On the Carson Ranger District, known goshawk nest sites are found in large aspens and conifers with an approximate average canopy cover of 55% to78 % (unpublished field data, on file Carson Ranger District). Within the Sierra Nevada, northern goshawks breed from approximately 2,500 feet in ponderosa pine vegetation type through approximately 10,000 feet in the red fir and lodgepole pine vegetation types, and throughout eastside pine forests on the east slope. Foraging habitat requirements for goshawks are less understood than nesting habitat (Squires and Kennedy 2006). Results from some studies suggest goshawks forage in all forest types, but appear to select forests with a high density of large trees, greater canopy cover, high basal area and relatively open understories in which to hunt (Beier and Drennan 1997). Threats: The major threats to goshawks include loss of critical nesting and foraging habitat from land management practices (i.e. vegetation management such as fuels reduction, livestock grazing, etc) and natural events such as fire, wind storms etc. (Reynolds et al, 1982) and direct human disturbance (Squires and Kennedy 2006). Potential for Occurrence: Suitable habitat for goshawks occurs primarily on the west side of the project area where mixed conifer stands include dense canopy cover and multi-canopied structure. Goshawk surveys were conducted in the Little Valley area in 2010, 2011, and 2012 following Region 5 Pacific Southwest survey protocol for Northern Goshawks (USDA 2000). To


date, no detections of goshawks have been recorded. According to historic records, goshawks were known to nest in this area in the late 1970s (UNR 2013). The nearest recently confirmed (within 10 years) breeding site occurs approximately 20 miles north of the project area in the Long Valley area. EFFECTS ANALYSIS: Direct impacts: Because goshawks are not known to occur in the area, no direct impacts to goshawks from project activities are expected to occur. Indirect impacts: Although goshawks are not known to currently occur in the area, alterations to habitat may indirectly impact potential future nesting opportunities by goshawks. For example, changes to structural diversity in a stand (reduction in canopy layers, down woody debris, snags) may indirectly impact goshawks by affecting prey populations (Kennedy 2003). When over-harvesting of dead trees (snags) occurs, habitat for prey species such as woodpeckers, songbirds, and small mammals that rely on snags for nesting and foraging, may become limited. Carey et al. (1992) showed that squirrel populations were more abundant and remained at relatively constant levels in old growth forests where snags and down wood were present in comparison to managed second growth stands. A decrease in canopy may also reduce protective cover components required by goshawks for both thermal regulation and predator protection while nesting. Portions of the project area that are considered to contain high fuel loading may receive more intense treatment than other areas. These high fuel loading areas typically would consist of ‘dog hair’ thickets of white fir and lodgepole and/or abundance of dead and down material. These areas would be treated to reduce the potential intensity of a fire while still maintaining goshawk habitat characteristics. In the short term, reductions in canopy cover and structure may reduce the quality of habitat for goshawks in some areas. However, over the long term treatments will improve forest health and reduce the threat of a stand-replacing wildfire destroying available habitat for goshawks. To maintain habitat for goshawks and other late-seral related species, the following design features have been incorporated into the proposed action:

• Where available, three of the largest snags per acre would be retained. Large woody debris on the ground would also be retained, at least three pieces per acre, greater than 12” dbh or the largest available. This design feature also helps protect habitat for goshawk prey such as songbirds and small mammals.

• Conifer trees greater than 24 inches in diameter will be retained in the project area to maintain sufficient canopy cover and structure for goshawks.

• Goshawks rely on many types of migratory birds for prey. To help reduce potential impacts to goshawk prey, project activities will not occur in aspen stands and riparian areas April 15 through August 1st to minimize disturbance during the critical breeding period.

Cumulative impacts: For the purposes of this analysis, cumulative effects include those that are presently occurring or are expected to occur within the reasonable future within the boundaries of the project area and those areas immediately adjacent to the project area. The largest threat to


goshawks includes the effects of vegetation management and wildfire on the amount, distribution, and quality of goshawk habitat (USDA 2001). The Little Valley project area is surrounded by land owned by the University of Nevada Reno and the State of Nevada. In recent years both UNR and Nevada Department of Forestry have been conducting fuels and forest health treatments on adjacent conifer stands. Treatments on the UNR lands have included mostly understory thinning of small diameter conifers as well as removal of some conifers encroaching in the meadow. Nevada Department of Forestry has to date not conducted thinning but trees are marked for future thinning efforts. Over the past ten years, the Forest Service, as well as state and county agencies, has conducted numerous fuels reduction projects in adjacent areas to reduce the fire risk to homes and other property. Projects, such as North Washoe Fuels Reduction, reduced canopy cover by half and thinned trees to an average of 60 to 80 square foot basal area. Other projects surrounding private residences have also removed numerous trees and other vegetation to reduce the fire threat. Goshawks were not known to nest in these areas and it is not known how alterations in habitat will impact future opportunities for nesting in the future.

On the Carson Ranger District, suitable habitat for goshawks is limited to small isolated stands of dense conifer and aspen dispersed along the Sierra Front. These stands are considered somewhat vulnerable to loss from catastrophic wildfire due to the high fuel loading that occurs in adjacent areas. The Little Valley Fuels Reduction and Ecosystem Enhancement project will reduce the threat of a large, catastrophic wildfire and will therefore also reduce the potential for loss of important habitat for goshawks. Although some reduction in habitat availability may occur in portions of the project area, design features incorporated into the project will also help preserve and possibly improve habitat features in other areas to allow for nesting to occur in the future

Determination: Based on the above assessment, it is my determination that the proposed project may impact some habitat potential for goshawks but will not lead to a trend toward federal listing or a loss of viability. GREATER SAGE GROUSE Range, Distribution, and Status: Core populations of sage grouse occur in Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, and Wyoming with remnant populations occurring in other states including California (Neel 2001). On the Carson Ranger District, only scattered numbers of sage grouse are known to occur and only in Alpine County, California at the southern end of the District. As part of the Nevada Governor’s Sage Grouse Conservation Strategy (Ibid), Population Management Units (PMU) were delineated to describe occupied habitat for sage grouse throughout the state of Nevada. Habitat Requirements and Natural History: Sage grouse are largely dependent upon sagebrush ecosystems for both foraging and breeding. Breeding sites, or “leks” are usually situated on ridge tops or grassy areas surrounded by a substantial brush and herbaceous component (Schroeder et al 1999). Nesting habitat for sage grouse is characterized primarily by Wyoming big sagebrush communities that have 15 to 38 percent canopy cover and a grass and forb understory (Terres 1980). Dense sagebrush cover is important to nesting success of sage grouse (Connelly et al 2000). Summer and dispersal habitat consists of sagebrush mixed with areas of wet meadows, riparian, or irrigated fields. Potential for Occurrence: Sage grouse are not known to occur in the project area currently or in


historically. The majority of brush stands in the area are dominated by manzanita and ceonothus and do not contain contiguous stands of sage brush. The project area is not within or adjacent to a PMU. Determination: Based on the above assessment, the proposed action will not affect sage grouse habitat and will not cause populations to trend downward. PEREGRINE FALCON Range, Distribution and Status: The peregrine falcon has the most extensive natural distribution of any bird in the world and is found on all continents except Antarctica (White et al 2002). Peregrine falcons are not known to occur on the Carson Ranger District. Recent nesting activity has been recorded on the Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit, approximately 40 miles southwest of the project area. The peregrine falcon was listed by the US Fish and Wildlife Service as Endangered in 1970, and was the first species listed as endangered by the State of California. The population suffered dramatic declines beginning in the 1940’s due to ingestion of prey contaminated with the pesticide commonly known as DDT. Peregrine falcons were delisted from the Endangered Species list in 1999 following the ban of DDT in 1972, and a long recovery effort. Habitat Requirements and Natural History: Peregrines are known to occur at elevations ranging from sea level to 11,000 feet in areas containing cliffs or rocky outcroppings with large spans of open space in which to hunt. Nest sites are almost exclusively situated on cliffs or rocky outcroppings.. Breeding generally begins in mid March when pairs arrive at nest sites. Eggs are generally laid by mid April, and incubation of eggs is between 33 and 35 days (White et al 2002). Potential for Occurrence: The project area does not contains steep rocky cliffs suitable for peregrine falcons. Determination: Due to the lack of suitable habitat within the project area, it is my determination the proposed project will not directly, indirectly, or cumulatively impact peregrine falcons and no further analysis for this species will be conducted. BALD EAGLE Range, Distribution, and Status: The Bald eagles' breeding range in the west extends along the western coast from southern Alaska through the Pacific Northwest to Northern California. A few small populations live in Arizona and Colorado. The local nesting distribution of bald eagles on the Carson Ranger District includes three nests in Alpine County, approximately 60 miles south of the project area and a nesting pair on private property east of the town of Genoa, approximately30 miles south of the project. Bald eagles are also known to nest near Marlette Reservoir on the adjacent Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit. Wintering bald eagles are frequently observed in Carson Valley and Washoe Valley.


On June 28th, 2007 the bald eagle was removed from the Federal list of threatened and endangered species. The final rule delisting the bald eagle was published on July 9, 2007 and became effective on August 8, 2007. After delisting, bald eagles continue to be protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGEPA). Both of these laws prohibit killing, selling or otherwise harming eagles, their nests or their eggs. Since delisting, bald eagles are now managed as a Forest Sensitive species. Habitat Requirements and Natural History: Habitat for bald eagles usually consists of trees with heights over 100 feet tall with an average diameter of 43 inches and in stands where the canopy cover is less than 40% (Jackman and Jenkins 2004). The majority of bald eagle nests are within one mile of water and almost always have an unobstructed view of a waterbody. Potential for Occurrence: Although large diameter trees are present in the project area, these trees do not provide an unobstructed view to a large water-body and all occur over one mile from a large body of water. Determination: Due to the lack of suitable habitat in the project area, it is my determination the proposed project will not directly, indirectly, or cumulatively impact bald eagles and no further analysis for this species will be conducted. MOUNTAIN QUAIL Range, Distribution, and Status: The mountain quail is the largest North American quail and is a resident from southwestern British Columbia, western and southern Washington, central Idaho south through the mountains of California and western Nevada (Johnsgard 1973). Nevada is considered to be on the periphery of the mountain quail’s range (NDOW 2012). Mountain quail are known to occur throughout the Carson Ranger District, usually at elevations above 5,000 feet. Mountain quail are listed as a Forest Sensitive species in the Intermountain and Pacific Southwest and Northwest Regions of the Forest Service. Habitat Requirements and Natural History: Mountain quail often nest in high elevations up to 10,000 feet, occasionally migrating to lower elevation in the fall (Terres 1980, Pope 1999). In the Sierra Nevada, mountain quail were found nesting and foraging in mixed conifer stands that were mixed with montane chaparral brush communities composed of chinquapin, snowbrush, and Greenleaf manzanita (Ibid). Mean shrub cover requirements are approximately 51% with a mean shrub height of approximately 6.0 feet (Brennan et al. 1987). Mountain quail can also be opportunistic nesters utilizing a wide variety of habitat types for breeding. For example, quail have been documented nesting in old growth coniferous forest, mixed montane shrub communities, regenerating clear-cuts and old burned areas (Brennan et al 1987). In the Sierra Nevada, the reproductive period for mountain quail generally begins sometime in May with pair-bonding and nest site selection and ends in mid-July when the young are hatched and independent. Nests are often concealed under logs or fallen pine branches, in weeds, shrubs, or at the base of large trees. Mountain quail usually nest within a few hundred yards of water to provide chicks with required water supply after hatching (Brennan et al 1987). Mountain quail feed on seeds, fruit, and insects.


Threats: In Western Nevada, the main threat to mountain quail is loss of habitat due to human development (urbanization) (NDOW 2012). Other threats to mountain quail include disturbance from livestock grazing and humans during breeding season (USDA, 1991). Potential for Occurrence: Suitable habitat is present in the project area for mountain quail, particularly in the brushy chaparral areas along the eastern portions of the project, as well as aspen and riparian areas. Incidental sightings of mountain quail have occurred in this area by Forest Service personnel. EFFECTS ANALYSIS: Conifer and Shrubs:

Direct Impacts: Under the proposed action, activities associated with the removal of conifer and/or shrubs may directly impact mountain quail by flushing birds from nesting and/or foraging sites. Inadvertent trampling of nest sites may occur from heavy equipment causing mortality of eggs and/or young birds. Adults nesting in the area may permanently abandon nest sites if the disturbance is too severe and/or ongoing. However, under the proposed action, no project activities will occur in riparian areas until after July. This will reduce potential disturbance to nesting as mountain quail are more likely to nest near riparian areas and have typically completed their breeding cycle by mid-July. Direct impacts to mountain quail following the breeding season are also expected to be minimal and short term. Both adults and juvenile mountain quail are flight capable during this time period and would be able to disperse to adjacent suitable habitat during project activities. Indirect Impacts: Under the proposed action, approximately 610 acres of shrubs will be treated to reduce fuel loading. For the majority of the acres, brush will be thinned in a mosaic pattern retaining 50 to 70 % of brush stands. In areas directly behind private property, more intense treatments may occur removing up to 50 to 80% of existing brush. Reductions in canopy cover, particularly reductions in understory canopy layers areas may result in a decrease of available cover for mountain quail within the project area, particularly in the more intensely treated areas. Loss of cover habitat may increase predation or may compromise thermo-regulation for mountain quail causing them to overheat and/or become too cold during extreme weather conditions. However, impacts to cover habitat will be partially offset by improved foraging conditions as regeneration of forbs and grasses are expected following project treatments. Where brush treatments are conducted in a mosaic pattern, mountain quail will have sufficient vegetation to provide continued cover and forage. Suitable cover is also located adjacent to the project area and would provide adequate refuge for mountain quail until the site has recovered. Under the proposed action, approximately .6 miles of new road construction will occur along the lower eastern boundaries of the project area. This area contains montane chaparral and therefore is considered habitat for mountain quail. Construction of roads can often fragment habitat, reducing habitat quality for wildlife and impacting foraging and dispersing activities. Mountain quail foraging near roadsides may be flushed when vehicles pass by. However, because the new road will be for administrative purposes only, motorized use will be minimal. Because of the limited disturbance, disturbance from vehicles will be minor, temporary and not have any measureable impacts on mountain quail.


Aspen Stands: Direct impacts: Under the proposed action, aspen stands will be enhanced by removing live conifers up to 1 ½ times the existing aspen tree height. Direct impacts to mountain quail include displacing mountain quail from foraging and/or nesting areas due to noise and disruption from aspen treatment activities (conifer removal). However, design features associated with the proposed action will help minimize impacts to mountain quail. For example, treatment in aspen stands will not occur between April and July which avoids much of the critical breeding period for mountain quail. Juvenile mountain quail typically fledge between late June and July and would therefore be able to disperse to adjacent habitat during project operations. Foraging opportunities could also be disrupted resulting in mountain quail foraging in adjacent habitat during project activities. However, this disruption will be temporary and is not expected to have any long-term negative impacts to mountain quail. Indirect impacts: Under the proposed action, conifer will be removed from within and adjacent to aspens stands, temporarily reducing overstory canopy cover within the stand. Reductions in overstory canopy cover will likely have minimal impacts on habitat for mountain quail as quail are more dependent on mid and lower level canopies, such as brush and small trees for protective cover. Under the proposed action, minor removal of understory vegetation in the aspen stands is expected to occur. However, regeneration of robust and biologically diverse forbs and grasses are expected to occur as early as the following spring and will therefore provide improved foraging habitat for mountain quail over the long term. The reduction in understory vegetation may also slightly increase the potential for mountain quail to be exposed to predators. However, much of the understory vegetation in the aspen stands will be retained and the abundance of suitable cover adjacent to the project area will provide adequate refuge for mountain quail until the site has recovered. Therefore, indirect impacts to mountain quail from the proposed action are expected to be minor and short term.

Prescribed Burning:

Direct and indirect impacts: Prescribed burning may occur in the spring or the fall. Prescribed burning during the spring months could potentially impact nest sites and affect nesting success for the season. Adults, eggs, and/or nestlings could also potentially be injured or killed from fire and/or smoke. However, prescribed burning will be applied as a low intensity burn that will be slow moving and creep in the understory. Under this prescription, although some nest sites may be lost to fire, most of the adult mountain quail would have the ability to escape the site to undisturbed adjacent habitat. Furthermore, under the proposed action, spring prescribed burning sites will be surveyed prior to burning and all active nests will be flagged and avoided.

Cumulative impacts: For the purposes of this analysis, cumulative effects include those that are presently occurring or are expected to occur within the reasonable future within the boundaries of the project area and those areas immediately adjacent to the project area. Catastrophic wildfires and encroachment of urban development has lead to the loss of mountain quail habitat along the Front Range. Many burned areas have been replaced by invasive species that out-compete native vegetation and provide no forage or cover value for mountain quail. The forest health and fuels reduction projects occurring within the Little Valley and adjacent areas will help


reduce the threat of a catastrophic wildfire and will promote the re-vegetation of new shrubs, forbs, and grasses.

Determination: Based on the above assessment, it is my determination the project may impact individual mountain quail but will not lead to a trend toward federal listing or a loss of viability. FLAMMULATED OWL Range, Distribution, and Status: Breeding populations of flammulated owls are found from central-southern British Columbia along the western United States to the Sierra Madre and mountain ranges of northern and central Mexico (Mika and Riddle 2005). In Nevada, Flammulated Owls have been documented during the breeding season in eleven mountain ranges including the Carson Range, and they could potentially occur in an additional 18 ranges (Dunham et al. 1996). Flammulated Owls are listed as a sensitive species in four U.S. Forest Service Regions, including Nevada (Intermountain Region 4). Habitat Requirements and Natural History: Flammulated owls nest in a variety of conifer forest types between 6,000 and 10,000 feet elevation. Flammulated owls prefer older forests and are often found in association with old growth yellow pine forests mixed with red fir, aspen, white fir, and incense cedar (McCallum 1994). Older forests tend to have a higher abundance of snags and live trees with suitable nesting cavities. Preferred roosting and nesting habitat appears to be stands with dense understory vegetation with multi-layered stands (Ibid). Foraging habitat however is generally more open understory and forest/grassland edge habitats (Heron et. al. 1985, McCallum 1994). In Nevada, flammulated owls breed in ponderosa pine, white fir, and limber pine with territory size ranging between 7 and 40 acres (McCallum 1994, GBBO 2010). Flammulated owls are secondary cavity nesters and prefer cavities excavated by northern flickers and pileated woodpeckers (Arsenault et al, 2002). Flammulated owls are migratory, wintering in Mexico and returning to the U.S. in late April to early May (McCallum 1994). Within the Sierra Nevada flammulated owls begin to migrate to Mexico by October and usually return in April with the establishment of territories in May (CDFG 1990). Peak breeding months are June and July. Nests occur in cavity or woodpecker cavities in aspen, oak, or pine snags or trees. Nests are usually placed three to 40 feet above ground (CDFG 1990). The young fledge in late July and disperse by September. Flammulated owls forage almost exclusively on insects including mostly moths, beetles, and grasshoppers. Potential for Occurrence: In 2012, a flammulated owl was detected within the Little Valley area during surveys conducted by Forest Service personnel. In June 2013, three flammulated owls were detected in the same location exhibiting nesting behavior. A probable nest tree was located based on white wash and proximity to territorial vocalizations. Follow up surveys will be conducted during 2013 to monitor nesting activity. To protect flammulated owls and their habitat, a Protected Activity Center (PAC) was delineated following similar Sierra Nevada Forest Plan guidelines for the California spotted owl and northern goshawk (USDA 2001, 2004). The flammulated owl PAC protects the 80 acres surrounding the core area where the majority of


detections have been recorded (the presumed nesting area). The size of the PAC was based on the upper range of the known size of flammulated owl territories (~40 acres) and then doubled to provide a protection zone for nesting and foraging. Under the Forest Plan, fuels treatments within PACs are modified to protect and/or improve the integrity of habitat conditions and are generally much less intensive than other areas. Threats: The greatest immediate risk to the flammulated owl is loss of critical nesting, security, and foraging habitat features from human and natural disturbances (i.e., tree harvesting, thinning, pest management, wildfires etc). In addition, snag removal for safety reasons or for firewood is also a threat. Long-term major threats are recruitment and maintenance of old-growth habitat features, particularly large diameter ponderosa/Jeffrey pine snags with cavities. EFFECTS ANALYSIS: Designated Flammulated Owl PAC Area: As mentioned above, an 80 acre Protected Activity Center (PAC) was designated for flammulated owls within the project area. In addition to the nesting territory, potential habitat for flammulated owls is found throughout much of the project area particularly in areas where aspen and conifers occur together.

Direct and indirect impacts: Within the PAC, disturbance to breeding flammulated owls is expected to be minimal. Under the Proposed Action, only hand thinning of small diameter trees and brush will occur in areas where such treatments will improve habitat conditions for flammulated owls. For example, thinning “dog-hair” thickets of small diameter trees will improve maneuverability and foraging capability for flammulated owls within the PAC. Thinning small patches of decadent brush will also allow for growth of new vegetation in the understory, possibly improving prey populations for flammulated owls (insects). The reduction in fuel loading will also help minimize the intensity of a potential fire and protect important habitat for flammulated owls. All snags, down woody debris and other important habitat features will be retained within the PAC. No project activities within the PAC will occur during the Limited Operating Period (May14- September 15) to minimize disturbance to nesting owls.

Potential Habitat Outside of PAC In addition to the 80 acre designated PAC, suitable habitat for flammulated owls also occurs in other portions of the project area as well, particularly where aspen and conifer stands are mixed. Surveys conducted in these areas have resulted in no detections of flammulated owls. Conifer stands:

Direct Impacts: Noise from equipment and other activities may flush flammulated owls from foraging and perching areas. Disturbance may limit foraging success and cause owls to be displaced to other areas. However, any disturbance is expected to be minor and short term as both adult and young owls will be flight capable and able to transition to adjacent habitat temporarily while project activities area occurring. In addition, project activities will occur during daytime house when flammulated owls are typically not active. Flammulated owls appear to be tolerant of some human disturbance (McCallum 1994) and therefore temporary disruptions would not likely result in any long term impacts to the owls.


Indirect impacts: The greatest immediate risk to the flammulated owl is loss of critical nesting, security, and foraging habitat features including grass and shrub components of foraging and snags for nesting. Under the proposed action, approximately 889 acres of conifer forest will be thinned using ground based logging systems. Within this area, trees up to 24” dbh will be removed with an average target basal area of 100-12-square feet. In some areas, this may result in less than half of the existing basal area being retained. Reductions in stand density and canopy cover may displace flammulated owls from traditional foraging and/or roosting sites. However, under the Proposed Action, some of the highest quality habitat for flammulated owls located on the west side of the project area will not be treated due to inaccessibility of equipment. These retained areas will provide pockets of high quality habitat including large diameter trees and snags as well as smaller trees in the understory to maintain structural integrity. Flammulated owls may occasionally use the remainder of the project area for foraging and/ or traversing outside of the breeding season. In general, treatment proposed for these areas will result in more open stands with less understory vegetation. Stand densities may be reduced by as much as 50 percent in some units from the existing levels. In the short term, changes in canopy cover and stand densities within the project area may impact flammulated owls by reducing thermal and protective cover. Over the long term, however, the more open sites may improve foraging conditions for flammulated owls, where they occur adjacent to denser stands of conifer. Under the proposed action, trees targeted for removal will be the smaller diameter trees that are competing with mature overstory trees with the average size of tree harvested estimated at 12” dbh. Other design features, including retaining three of the largest snags per acre and large down woody debris, will continue to provide structural integrity of habitat for flammulated owls throughout the project area.

Aspen Stands:

Direct and Indirect Impacts: Design features associated with the Proposed Action will reduce potential direct impacts to flammulated owls in aspen. Under the proposed action, no treatment will occur in aspen stands between April 15th and August 1st which will avoid the majority of the breeding season for flammulated owls (peak months are June and July with young usually fledging in July). Avoiding treatments during this period will reduce disturbance during the critical breeding period and increase the potential for nesting success. Aspen will be treated by removing all live conifers (under 24 inches diameter) up to 1 ½ times the existing aspen tree height. Removal of conifers will require the use of heavy equipment such as feller-bunchers. Removal of conifer may impact flammulated owl habitat by temporarily reducing canopy cover and some structure within the stand. Reduction in cover may limit nesting opportunities for flammulated owls while the aspen stands recover. Over the long-term, however, aspen stand improvements will ultimately benefit flammulated owls. Aspen stands are considered to be one of the most biologically diverse vegetation communities in the world and are often used by flammulated owls for nesting and foraging. The abundance of vegetation and relatively high moisture conditions in aspen stands tend to produce an abundance of insects, including moths, which are the primary diet of flammulated owls. Therefore, improvements to aspen stands will likely result in an increased food source for flammulated owls. Snags will be retained in the


aspens stands as well as large, down woody debris which will also help maintain structure within aspen habitat for flammulated owls.

Prescribed Burning:

Direct and Indirect Impacts: Prescribed burning will also be conducted within the project area. Flammulated owls, particularly juveniles, may be impacted from smoke and heat associated with burning operations. Areas of heavy smoke concentrations would likely cause flammulated owls to abandon the area temporarily until burning activities were concluded. Prescribed burning typically occurs during the early spring months (March and April) or in the fall. Both of these time periods do not coincide with flammulated owl breeding periods. In addition, spring burning would likely avoid flammulated owls completely as they typically do not migrate back to this region until sometime in May. Because this activity is occurring outside of the critical breeding period, impacts to flammulated owls from prescribed burning will be minimal and short term. If flammulated owls are present during fall treatment burns, it is expected the owls will be able to disperse to adjacent areas not being burned and avoid the smokiest areas. Prescribed burning may result in some loss of down woody debris and understory vegetation which may impact foraging habitat for flammulated owls. However, design features associated with the proposed action, including retaining large diameter down woody debris will minimize these impacts. Prescribed burning will reduce fuel loading in the project area and therefore reduce the potential for loss of habitat from a catastrophic wildfire.

Cumulative Impacts: For the purposes of this analysis, cumulative effects include those that are presently occurring or are expected to occur within the reasonable future within the the boundaries of the project area and those areas immediately adjacent to the project area. The Little Valley project area is surrounded by land owned by the University of Nevada Reno and the State of Nevada. In recent years both UNR and Nevada Department of Forestry have been conducting fuels and forest health treatments on adjacent conifer stands. Treatments on the UNR lands have included mostly understory thinning of small diameter conifers as well as removal of some conifers encroaching in the meadow. Nevada Department of Forestry has to date not conducted thinning but trees are marked for future thinning efforts. Over the past ten years, the Forest Service, as well as state and county agencies, has conducted numerous fuels reduction projects in adjacent areas to reduce the fire risk to homes and other property. Projects, such as North Washoe Fuels Reduction, reduced canopy cover by half and thinned trees to an average of 60 to 80 square foot basal area. Other projects surrounding private residences have also removed numerous trees and other vegetation to reduce the fire threat. Flammulated owls were not known to nest in these areas and it is not known how alterations in habitat will impact future opportunities for nesting in the future. On the Carson Ranger District, habitat for flammulated owls is limited to small isolated stands of dense conifer and aspen dispersed along the Sierra Front. These stands are considered somewhat vulnerable to loss from catastrophic wildfire due to the high fuel loading that occurs in adjacent areas. The Little Valley Fuels Reduction and Ecosystem Enhancement project will reduce the threat of a large, catastrophic wildfire and will therefore also reduce the potential for loss of important habitat for flammulated owls. For example, in 2004, the Waterfallfire burned approximately 3000 acres of timber and brush along the Sierra front. It is not known if any


flammulated owl territories were lost as a result of this fire, but potential habitat for this species was likely reduced. Natural regeneration and Forest Service reforestation efforts are expected to help restore some of this habitat in the long term. Standing snags resulting from the fires may also help improve potential nesting habitat for flammulated owls, particularly in those areas where snags are surrounded by large patches of live, intact trees. Determination: Under the Proposed Action, some impacts to flammulated owls, including human disturbance and reduction in available habitat, are expected to occur. However, these impacts will be temporary and offset by improved habitat conditions in some portions of the project area following treatment activities. Based on the above assessment, it is my determination the project may impact individual flammulated owls but will not lead to a trend toward federal listing or a loss of viability. WHITE-HEADED WOODPECKER Range, Distribution, and Status: The white-headed woodpecker occupies a restricted range from British Columbia, north central Washington, northern Idaho south through Oregon, east of the Cascades, to southern California and west-central Nevada (Johnsgard 1973). White-headed woodpeckers are year round residents on the Carson Ranger District. Listed as Species of Special Concern in Idaho and are considered a state Sensitive Species in Oregon since 1989, and reclassified as Critical in 1991. Also considered Sensitive Species in the Intermountain and northern regions of U.S. Forest Service.

Habitat Requirements and Natural History: White-headed woodpeckers generally occur between 4,000 and 9,000 feet elevation in ponderosa pine forests. Preferred habitat appears to be stands with large diameter trees, soft snags averaging 23 inches dbh, and 40 to 70 percent canopy cover. White-headed woodpeckers occur more often in old growth conifer stands and are often absent in second growth stands (Dixon 1995). White-headed woodpeckers are also found in open-canopied conifer stands where large diameter trees and snags are present (Cornell 2012). White-headed woodpeckers are often observed alongside streams (Cornell 2012). Tolerant of human activity in nest vicinity as long as activity does not involve nest tree; birds become extremely agitated if nest itself is disturbed (Garrett et al 1996). Also tolerant of humans near roost as long as human activity is not prolonged (Ibid).

Threats: The primary threat to white-headed woodpeckers is over-harvesting of large diameter trees, especially ponderosa pine (USDA, 1991). Potential for Occurrence: Suitable habitat is present for white-headed woodpeckers throughout the forested portions of the project area. EFFECTS ANALYSIS: Conifer Stands:

Direct Impacts: Direct impacts to white-headed woodpeckers in and near conifer treatment areas may result from thinning operations such as timber removal and mastication. Noise from equipment and other activities may flush white-headed woodpeckers from foraging areas. However, white-headed woodpeckers appear to be tolerant of human disturbance and


therefore temporary disruptions are not likely to result in any long term impacts. In addition, adjacent undisturbed habitat will also provide sufficient foraging habitat for adults to temporarily disperse to during project operations. Juvenile white-headed woodpeckers present in these areas would likely be fully flight capable and able to disperse to neighboring undisturbed habitat as well. Design features such as retaining three of the largest snags per acre will also reduce the potential for disturbing important foraging areas and/or a potential nest site. Indirect Impacts: Indirect impacts described below, include those that have the potential to indirectly impact breeding and/or foraging activities by altering habitat conditions for white-headed woodpeckers within the project area. The primary threat to white-headed woodpeckers is over-harvesting of mature, large diameter trees, especially ponderosa (or Jeffrey) pine (USDA, 1991). Under the Proposed Action, conifer trees up to 24” dbh would be thinned from below on approximately 889 acres. In general, treatment proposed for these areas will result in more open stands with less understory vegetation. Stand densities may be reduced by as much as 50 percent in some units from the existing levels. Where stands are comprised of small diameter “dog-haired” trees, reductions in densities will likely improve habitat conditions for white-headed woodpeckers. In other areas, the reductions will likely have short term impacts causing white-headed woodpeckers to utilize adjacent areas where higher canopy cover has been retained. Under the proposed action, trees targeted for removal will be the smaller diameter trees that are competing with mature overstory trees. Other design features, including retaining three of the largest snags per acre and large down woody debris, will continue to provide structural integrity of habitat for white-headed woodpeckers. Furthermore, fuels treatments in adjacent units will lower the potential of a severe, stand replacing wildfire and help protect important habitat for white-headed woodpeckers.

Aspen Stands:

Direct Impacts: Under the proposed action, approximately 74 acres of aspen stands will be enhanced by removing live conifers up to 1 ½ times the existing aspen tree height. Direct impacts from this activity may include flushing white-headed woodpeckers from nest sites and or foraging areas. Flushing adults repeatedly from the natal area could lead to mortality or low survival probability for incubating adults and/or nestlings. However, according to the Proposed Action, project activities will not occur in aspens stands until August when the peak breeding period has ended. Although some overlap may occur between nesting activities and timber removal, this would likely occur in August when juveniles are flight capable and able to disperse to neighboring suitable habitat. Furthermore, under the proposed action, three of the largest snags per acre will be retained, minimizing the potential for impacts to a potential nest sites. Indirect Impacts: Removal of conifer in aspen stands will likely result in a permanent reduction of potential habitat for white-headed woodpeckers. White-headed woodpeckers rarely nest in pure aspen, but will utilize conifers that occur within aspens stands. Conifer encroached aspen stands make up a small percentage (less than 1%) of the available habitat in the project area and are not considered high quality habitat for white-headed woodpeckers. It


is expected that the majority of nesting occurs primarily in pure conifer stands, particularly in areas where stands of conifer where large snags and live trees are present. Therefore, impacts to habitat for white-headed woodpecker from aspen treatments are expected to be minor. Over the long-term, treatments in aspen may benefit white-headed woodpeckers by increasing the foraging availability. White headed woodpeckers primarily rely on conifer seeds for their diet but also rely on a number of insects as a food source, particularly during the breeding period. Aspen stands are considered to be one of the most biologically diverse vegetation communities in the world, often containing relatively high moisture conditions ideal for producing an abundance of insects.

Prescribed Burning:

Direct and Indirect Impacts: Prescribed burning will also be conducted within the project area. Prescribed burning operations will occur in the spring or the fall. White-headed woodpeckers, particularly juveniles, may be impacted from smoke associated with spring prescribed burning. However, burning conditions are designed to be low intensity and occur over very short time periods (usually ½ days for 1-2 days a year). Prescribed burning will be focused on burning the understory duff and small diameter trees and will therefore have little impact on habitat requirements for white-headed woodpeckers. Under the proposed action, surveys will be conducted prior to spring burns to locate active nest sites. If nests are located they will be flagged and avoided during burning operations. Prescribed burning will reduce fuel loading in the project area and therefore reduce the potential for loss of habitat from a catastrophic wildfire.

Determination: Under the Proposed Action, some impacts to white-headed woodpeckers are expected to occur. However, these impacts will be temporary and offset by improved habitat conditions in some portions of the project area following treatment activities. Based on the above assessment, it is my determination the project may impact individual white-headed woodpeckers but will not lead to a trend toward federal listing or a loss of viability. GREAT GRAY OWL Range, Distribution, and Status: The majority of great gray owls found in California are known to occur in the Sierra Nevada, where at least 75 percent of the records are from the greater Yosemite area (Winter 1986). Great gray owls are rarely found south of Yosemite, but recent detections exist as far south as the Sequoia National Forest (Tulare County) (Beck et al. 2000). They are also rare in the northern Sierra, but several historic records are from the Modoc, Lassen, Plumas, Tahoe, and Eldorado National Forests (NF) and they have been seen recently on the Plumas NF and near Nevada City (Ibid). The Sierran great gray owl population is the most southerly in the world. The great gray owl is listed as Threatened Species in the State of California and is Forest Sensitive species in the Intermountain Region. Habitat Requirements and Natural History: In the Sierra Nevada, great gray owls are found in mixed coniferous forest from 2,400 to 9,000 feet elevation where such forests occur in combination with meadows or other vegetated openings. Nesting usually occurs within 600 feet of the forest edge and adjacent open foraging habitat. Virtually all of great gray owl records in California were from in or near meadow locations (Beck et al 2000). Although breeding will occur adjacent to meadows that are 10 acres in size (Winter 1986), great gray owls generally


require at least 25 acres of meadow to maintain reproduction over time (Beck et al. 2000). Most nests are made in broken top snags (generally firs), but platforms such as old hawk nests, mistletoe infected limbs, etc. are also used (Bull et al 1990). Nest trees or snags are generally greater than 21 inches dbh and 20 feet tall. Potential for Occurrence: According to historic newsletters obtained from the University of Nevada Reno Whittell Forest website, a great gray owl was observed in Little Valley in the late 1970’s (UNR 2013). Additional sightings of great gray owls have been reported in a few other locations on the Carson Ranger District but none have been verified. In 2006, intensive surveys for great gray owls were conducted throughout the Carson Ranger District (including Little Valley) and resulted in no detections. Since 2010, numerous surveys have been conducted in the Little Valley area for various species of owls, including great grays with no detections. EFFECTS ANALYSIS: Direct Impacts: Because great gray owls do not currently occur in the project area, there will be no direct impacts as a result of the proposed action. Indirect Impacts: Similar to the spotted owl, forest thinning projects have the potential of altering habitat conditions such that the possibility of future occupancy of great gray owls is reduced. For example, reductions in canopy cover and structural diversity may impact cover requirements of great gray owls as well as reduce habitat quality for great gray owl prey species. However, under the proposed action, late seral habitat characteristics such as large snags and down wood debris will be retained. In addition, removal of conifers from the meadow will eventually improve meadow conditions, thereby improving foraging habitat for great gray owls. Cumulative Impacts: For the purposes of this analysis, cumulative effects include those that are presently occurring or are expected to occur within the reasonable future within the the boundaries of the project area and those areas immediately adjacent to the project area. The Little Valley project area is surrounded by land owned by the University of Nevada Reno and the State of Nevada. In recent years both UNR and Nevada Department of Forestry have been conducting fuels and forest health treatments on adjacent conifer stands. Treatments on the UNR lands have included mostly understory thinning of small diameter conifers as well as removal of some conifers encroaching in the meadow. Nevada Department of Forestry has to date not conducted thinning but trees are marked for future thinning efforts. Over the past ten years, the Forest Service, as well as state and county agencies, has conducted numerous fuels reduction projects in adjacent areas to reduce the fire risk to homes and other property. Projects, such as North Washoe Fuels Reduction, reduced canopy cover by half and thinned trees to an average of 60 to 80 square foot basal area. Other projects surrounding private residences have also removed numerous trees and other vegetation to reduce the fire threat. Great gray owls were not known to nest in these areas and it is not known how alterations in habitat will impact future opportunities for nesting in the future. Determination: Based on the above assessment, it is my determination that the proposed project may impact individual great gray owls and their habitat but will not lead to a trend toward federal listing or a loss of viability.


CALIFORNIA SPOTTED OWL Range, Distribution, and Status: On the Carson Ranger District, spotted owls are known to nest in three locations including two breeding pairs in Alpine County, California and one breeding pair in Carson City, County Nevada. This pair is the only known breeding occurrence for spotted owls in the state of Nevada. The California spotted owl is listed as a Forest Sensitive species in the Pacific Southwest and Intermountain Regions (5, 4) of the Forest Service. Habitat Requirements and Natural History: California spotted owls utilize mixed conifer, ponderosa pine, red fir and montane hardwood vegetation types. Nesting habitat is characterize canopy closure (>70%) with medium to large trees and multi-storied structure stands. Foraging habitat can include all medium to large tree stands (>50% canopy closure) (Verner et al. 1992). California spotted owls tend to avoid stands with less than 40 percent canopy cover (USDA 2001). In the Sierra Nevada, spotted owls appear to nest in roost areas where the slope is less than 30% (Verner et al 1992). Spotted owls feed primarily on arboreal small mammals, including woodrats and flying squirrels. California spotted owls typically begin egg laying during late March and April with hatching occurring sometime in May (Gutierrez et al 1985). Adult owls continue to feed young until mid-August and by October juveniles have dispersed from the natal area. Potential for Occurrence: Historical records indicate spotted owls have never occurred in the Little Valley area and with the exception of one recently discovered territory, are not known to occur in the state of Nevada. Surveys for spotted owls conducted in the project area in 2010, 2011 and 2012 resulted in no detections. Surveys were conducted following the Region 5 Pacific Southwest Protocol for Surveying California Spotted Owls (USDA 1993). The project area contains potential nesting habitat for spotted owls; however, the highest quality habitat is located on the west side of the meadow and outside of any proposed treatment units. Some of the more open conifer stands adjacent to this area may provide suitable foraging and roosting habitat. EFFECTS ANALYSIS: Direct Impacts: Spotted owls are not believed to occur within the project area and therefore there will be no direct impacts as a result of the proposed action. Indirect Impacts: Although spotted owls are not known to occur in the area, alterations to habitat may indirectly impact potential future nesting opportunities. For example, changes to structural diversity in a stand (reduction in canopy layers, down woody debris, snags) may indirectly impact spotted owls by affecting prey populations. When over-harvesting of dead trees (snags) occurs, habitat for prey species such as squirrels and other small mammals may become limited. Carey et al. (1992) showed that squirrel populations were more abundant and remained at relatively constant levels in old growth forests where snags and down wood were present in comparison to managed second growth stands. A decrease in canopy may also reduce protective cover components required by spotted owls for both thermal regulation and protection from predators. Under the proposed action, the highest quality habitat for spotted owls will not be treated. Adjacent areas will be thinned and may limit foraging opportunities particularly in areas where canopy cover is reduced by 50%. However, these impacts are expected to be minimal due to the


availability of foraging habitat within untreated areas. In addition, under the Proposed Action, important habitat features such as retaining at least three snags per acre and down woody debris will maintain late seral habitat characteristics important to spotted owls.

Cumulative Impacts: For the purposes of this analysis, cumulative effects include those that are presently occurring or are expected to occur within the reasonable future within the the boundaries of the project area and those areas immediately adjacent to the project area. The Little Valley project area is surrounded by land owned by the University of Nevada Reno and the State of Nevada. In recent years both UNR and Nevada Department of Forestry have been conducting fuels and forest health treatments on adjacent conifer stands. Treatments on the UNR lands have included mostly understory thinning of small diameter conifers as well as removal of some conifers encroaching in the meadow. Nevada Department of Forestry has to date not conducted thinning but trees are marked for future thinning efforts. Over the past ten years, the Forest Service, as well as state and county agencies, has conducted numerous fuels reduction projects in adjacent areas to reduce the fire risk to homes and other property. Projects, such as North Washoe Fuels Reduction, reduced canopy cover by half and thinned trees to an average of 60 to 80 square foot basal area. Other projects surrounding private residences have also removed numerous trees and other vegetation to reduce the fire threat. California spotted owls were not known to nest in these areas and it is not known how alterations in habitat will impact future opportunities for nesting in the future. Currently there is only one known spotted owl nesting territory in the state of Nevada. This territory as well as other potential habitat is considered somewhat vulnerable to loss from catastrophic wildfire due to the high fuel loading that occurs in adjacent areas. The Little Valley Fuels Reduction and Ecosystem Enhancement project will reduce the threat of a large, catastrophic wildfire and will therefore also reduce the potential for loss of important habitat for California spotted owls. Determination: Based on the above assessment, it is my determination that the proposed project may impact individual spotted owls and their habitat but will not lead to a trend toward federal listing or a loss of viability. PYGMY RABBIT Range, Distribution, and Status: The pygmy rabbit has a discontinuous distribution occurring in Montana, Wyoming, Idaho, Utah, Nevada, California, Oregon, and Washington (USDA 2001). Pygmy rabbits are not known to occur on the Carson Ranger District (Laurrucea, 2007). Pygmy rabbits are listed as a Forest Sensitive Species in the Intermountain Region (Region 4). The Washington State population is considered genetically distinct from the remainder of the species and has been listed as endangered by the USFWS. Habitat Requirements and Natural History: The elevation range of pygmy rabbits in Nevada extends from 4,494 to over 7,004 feet and in California from 4,986 to 5,298 feet (Green and Flinders 1980). The Pygmy rabbit is dependent upon dense stands of big sagebrush for foraging and breeding habitat. In Idaho and Oregon pygmy rabbits are found in shrub densities ranging from 30 to 46 percent shrub cover (Green and Flinders 1980). Pygmy rabbits are found in


alluvial fans, swales in a rolling landscape, large flat valleys, at the foot of mountains, along creek and drainage bottoms, in basins in the mountains, or other landscape features where soil may have accumulated to greater depths (Ulmschneider et al 2004). They are generally on flatter ground, sometimes on moderate slopes, but not on steep ground. Generally, pygmy rabbits burrow in loamy soils deeper than 20 inches. Soil composition needs to be able to support a burrow system with numerous entrances, but also must be soft enough for digging. The winter diet of pygmy rabbits is comprised of up to 99 percent sagebrush (Wilde 1978). Potential for Occurrence: The project area does not contain suitable habitat for pygmy rabbits due to the lack of contiguous, dense stands of sage brush. Pygmy rabbits are not known to occur on the Carson Ranger District. Determination: Due to the minimal potential for pygmy rabbits to occur in the project area, it is my determination the proposed project will not directly, indirectly, or cumulatively impact pygmy rabbits and no further analysis for this species will be conducted. THE WESTERN (PALE TOWNSEND’S) BIG-EARED BAT Range, Distribution, and Status: The western big-eared bat occurs throughout the west and is distributed from the southern portion of British Columbia south along the Pacific Coast to central Mexico and east into the Great Plains, with isolated populations occurring in the south and southeastern United States (Sherwin 1998). On the Carson Ranger District, Townsend’s big-eared bats are known to occur in abandon mine shafts on Peavine Mountain, 20 miles north of the project area and Alpine County, California, over 60 miles south of the project area. Townsend’s big-eared bats are listed as a Forest Sensitive Species in the Intermountain Region (Region 4) Habitat Requirements and Natural History: Western big-eared bats are found in a variety of habitat types including desert, native prairies, coniferous forests, mid-elevation mixed conifer, and riparian communities. However, this species is strongly correlated with the availability of caves and cave-like roosting habitat (Sherwin 1998). They roost within caves, abandoned mines, and buildings. Potential for Occurrence: The project area does not contain abandoned mines, caves or rocky outcroppings to support Townsend big eared bats. Determination: Due to the minimal potential for Townsend’s big-eared bats to occur in the project area, it is my determination the proposed project will not directly, indirectly, or cumulatively impact Townsend big-eared bats and no further analysis for this species will be conducted. SPOTTED BAT Range, Distribution, and Status: Although the distributional range of the spotted bat encompasses the project area, very little is known about its actual population distribution (Whitaker 1980). In Nevada, the distribution appears to be patchy with only 12 known records throughout the state none of which are known to be on the Carson Ranger District (Bradley et al. 2006). The spotted bat is listed as a Forest Sensitive species in the Northern, Rocky Mountain,


and Intermountain Regions of the Forest Service. Spotted bats are State Protected in Nevada and are further classified as “Threatened”. They are also on the Bureau of Land Management Sensitive Species list. Habitat Requirements and Natural History: The spotted bat utilizes a variety of habitat types including ponderosa pine, pinyon-juniper forests, desert scrub, and open pasture and hay fields (Leonard and Fenton 1983). Spotted bats depend on rock cliff faces for roosting, typically picking cracks and crevices from 0.8 to 2.2. inches in width (Ibid). Spotted bats feed primarily on moths but will also eat a wide variety of other insects. In mountainous habitats, bats forage over meadows, forest edges, and in open woodlands. Potential for Occurrence: The project area does not contain steep, rocky crevices and/or cracks that would support spotted bat populations. Determination: The project area does not contain suitable habitat for spotted bats. Therefore there will be no direct, indirect, or cumulative impacts to spotted bats or their habitat and further analysis will be conducted for this species. CALIFORNIA WOLVERINE Range, Distribution, and Status: The wolverine inhabits semi-open terrain at or above timberline in the Cascade Mountains and the Sierra Nevada in California. Wolverines are not known to occur in California. The nearest known resident population of wolverines occurs about 600 miles northeast of the Tahoe and Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest in Idaho’s Sawtooth Range (USDA 2008). A recently detected wolverine on the adjacent Tahoe National Forest was determined to be a single animal that originated from the Rocky Mountains and is not thought to be indicative of a larger, local population (CDFG 2008). Habitat Requirements and Natural History: Northern Sierra wolverines have been sighted between 4,300 and 7,300 feet (Schempf and White 1977) and generally have a home range of 38 to 347 square miles and may move great distances on a daily basis (Ruggiero et al. 1994).Mixed conifer stands and barren treeless landscapes appears to be the most important habitat for wolverines in the Northern Sierra (USDA 1991). Den sites are characterized by a large snag or down log component. Breeding occurs during June to August. Little information is known on den sites in forested areas. Potential for Occurrence: Although some habitat components suitable for wolverines are present in the project area, the proximity to urban development, the high level of adjacent human disturbance, and the lack of known occurrences on the District and in the Sierra Nevada, make it unlikely wolverines would be present in the area. Determination: Based on the above assessment, there will be no direct, indirect, or cumulative impacts to wolverines or their habitat and no further analysis will be conducted for this species.


LITERATURE CITED Amphibiaweb, Information on amphibian biology and conservation. [web application]. 2012. Berkeley, California: AmphibiaWeb. Available: http://amphibiaweb.org/. Arsenault, D. P., G.E. Wilson, and, L. Neel. 2002. Flammulated Owls in the Spring Mountains, Nevada. Avian Research Center of Nevada, Reno, NV. 11 pp. Beck, T.W., J. Winter. 2000. Survey Protocol for the Great Gray Owl in the Sierra Nevada.USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region, Vallejo, CA. Beir, P. and J.E. Drennan. 1997. Forest Structure and Prey Abundance in Foraging Areas of Northern Goshawks. Ecological Applications, Vol. 7, No. 2 (May, 1997), pp. 564-571. Bradford, D. F., F. Tabatabai, and D. M. Graber. (1993). "Isolation of remaining populations of the native frog, Rana muscosa, by introduced fishes in Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks, California." Conservation Biology, 7, 882-888. Bradley, P.V., M.J. O’Farrell, J.A. Williams, and J.E. Newmark. Editors. 2006. The Revised Nevada Bat Conservation Plan. Nevada Bat Working Group. Reno , NV, 216 pp. Brennan L., W.M. Block, and R.J. Guitierrez. 1987. Habitat use by mountain quail in northern California. Condor 89:66-74. Bull, E.L. and M.G. Henjum. 1990. Ecology of the Great Gray Owl Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-265. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. Carey, A.B. Horton, S.P. and B.L. Biswell. 1992. Northern spotted owls: influence of prey base and landscape characteristics. Ecological Monographs 62: 223-250. CDFG- California Department of Fish and Game. 1990. California’s Wildlife Vol. II Birds, Flammulated owl. Pages: 122, 130, 310, 322, and 394. CDFG- California Department of Fish and Game. 2008. USFS News: Preliminary DNA analysis completed on wolverine. On-line at website: http://www.dfg.ca.gov/news/issues/wolverine/20080402-USFS-NR.pdf Connelly, J.W., M.A. Schroeder, A.R. Sands, and C.E. Braun. 2000. Guidelines to manage sage grouse populations and their habitats. Widl. Soc. Bulletin. 28(4): 967-985. Cornell University Laboratory of Ornithology 2012. Accessed on-line at website -http://birds.cornell.edu/BOW/WHHWOO. Dixon, R.D. 1995. Ecology of White-headed Woodpeckers in the central Oregon Cascades. Master’s thesis, University of Idaho, Moscow, ID.

http://amphibiaweb.org/

http://birds.cornell.edu/BOW/WHHWOO


Dunham, S., L. Butcher, D.A., Charlet, and J.M. Reed. 1996. Breeding range and conservation of flammulated owls (Otus flammeolus) in Nevada. J. Raptor Res. (30) 4:189-193.

Garrett, Kimball L., Martin G. Raphael and Rita D. Dixon. 1996. White-headed Woodpecker (Picoides albolarvatus), The Birds of North America Online (A. Poole, Ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology; Retrieved from the Birds of North America Online: http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/252.

GBBO (Great Basin Bird Observatory). 2010. Nevada Comprehensive Bird Conservation Plan, ver. 1.0. Great Basin Bird Observatory, Reno, NV. Available online at www.gbbo.org/bird_conservation_plan.html. Green, J. S., J.T. Flinders. 1980. Brachylagus idahoensis. Amer. Soc. Mammal. Mammalian Species No. 125:1-4. Grinnell, J. and T.I. Storer. 1924. Animal life in Yosemite. Univ. of California Press, Berkeley, California Gutierrez, R. J.; Carey, Andrew B, eds. 1985. Ecology and management of the spotted owl in the Pacific Northwest; 1984 June 19 - June 23; Arcata, CA. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-185. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station: 119 p. [18115]. Hayward G.D. and R. E. Escano. 1989. Goshawk Nest-Site Characteristics in Western Montana and Northern Idaho. The Condor , Vol. 91, No. 2 (May, 1989), pp. 476-479. Heron, G., C.A. Motimore, M.S. Rawlings. 1985. Nevada Raptors: Their biology and management. Nevada Dept. of Wildlife, Reno, NV. Jackman, R. E. and J. M. Jenkins, 2004, Protocol for Evaluating Bald Eagle Habitat and Populations in California. USFWS, Endangered Species Division. Sacramento, CA. Jennings, M. R., and M. P. Hayes. 1994. Amphibian and reptiles species of special concern in California. California Department of Fish and Game, Inland Fisheries Division, Rancho Cordova, California, page 77. Jennings, M.R. 1996. Status of Amphibians. Pp. 921-944 in: Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Johnsgard, P.A. 1973. Grouse and Quails of North America. Univ Nebraska Press, Lincoln. 553 p. Keane, J. J. 1999. Ecology of the northern goshawk in the Sierra Nevada, California. Ph.D Dissertation, University of California, Davis. Kennedy, P.L. and J.M. Ward. 2003. Effects of experimental food supplementation on movements of juvenile northern goshawks (Accipiter gentilis). Oecologia. 134:284–291.

http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/252


Laurrucea, E.S. 2007. Distribution, behavior, and habitat preferences of the pygmy rabbit (Brachylagus idahoensis) in Nevada and California. Dissertation, University of Nevada Reno. 196 pp. Leonard, M.L. and M.B. Fenton. 1983. Habitat Use by Spotted Bats (Euderma maculatum), Chiroptera: Vespertilionidae) Roosting and Foraging Behavior. Can J. Zool. 61: 1487-1491. McCallum, D.A. 1994. Methods and terminology used with studies of habitat associations in Flammulated, Boreal, and Great Gray Owls in the United States, a Technical Conservation Assessment. Gen Tech. Rep. RM-253. Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Fort Collins, Co. Mika, M. and B.R. Riddle 2005. Biological Investigation of Flammulated owl (Otus flammeolus) Distributions and densities on National Forest Lands in Nevada: Status Report for 2005 (on file at Carson ranger District). Mullaly, D.P., and J.D. Cunningham. 1956. Ecological relations of Rana muscosa at high elevations in the Sierra Nevada. Herpetologica 12:189-198.

NDOW, Nevada Department of Wildlife, 2012. Animals of Nevada Fact Sheets. Information obtained online at: http://ndow.org/wild/animals/facts/birds_mountain_quail.shtm.

NNHP (Nevada Natural Heritage Program). 2001. Carson City, NV: Nevada Natural Heritage Program, compiled for the U.S. Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, OR and Reno, NV.

Neel L. 2001. Nevada Sage Grouse Conservation Strategy. Governor Kenny Guinn’s Sage Grouse Conservation Planning Team, Carson City, NV. Pope, M. and J. Crawford. 1999. Mountain Quail Research: Annual Report 1999. Oregon State Univeristy. Remsen, J. V., Jr. 1978. Bird species of special concern in California. Calif. Dep. Fish and Game, Sacramento. Wildl. Manage. Admin. Rep. No. 78-1. 54pp. Reynolds, R.T., E.C. Meslow, H.M. Wight. 1982. Nesting habitat of coexisting accipiters in Oregon. J. Wildl. Manage. 46(1): pp124-137. Reynolds, R.T., R.T. Graham, M.H. Reiser, R.L. Bassett, P.L. Kennedy, D.A. Boyce, Jr., G. Goodwin, R. Smith, and E.L. Fisher. 1992. Management recommendations for the northern goshawk in the southwestern United States. General Technical Report RM-217. Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, USDA Forest Service, Ft. Collins, CO. Ruggiero, L.F., K.B. Aubry, S.W. Buskirk, L.J. Lyon and W.J. Zielinski, (eds.). 1994. The Scientific Basis for Conserving Forest Carnivores: American Marten, Fisher, Lynx, and

http://ndow.org/wild/animals/facts/birds_mountain_quail.shtm


Wolverine in the United States. Gen Tech. Rep. RM-254. Ft. Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. Ryser, F.A., Jr. 1985. Birds of the Great Basin. University of Nevada Press, Las Vegas and Reno, Nevada. Pp. 461-464. Schempf , P.F., and M. White. 1977. Status of six furbearer populations in the mountains of Northern California. USDA, Forest Service, San Francisco, CA 51 pp. Schroeder, M.A., J.R. Young, and C.E. Braun. 1999. Sage grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) in A. Poole and F. Gill (eds. )The Birds of North America No. 425. Pp. 1-20. The Birds of North America Inc., Philadelphia, PA. Sherwin, R. 1998. Townsend’s Big-eared Bat, Spotted Bat. IN: Ecology, Conservation and Management of Western Bat Species – Bat Species Accounts. Proceedings from the Western Bat Working Group, Reno, NV; Feb. 9-13. Sibley, D.A. 2000. National Audubon Society. The Sibley Guide to Birds. Alfred A. Knopf, New York. Squires, J.R. and R.T. Reynolds. 1997. Northern Goshawk, No. 298 in Birds of North America series, c/o Academy of Natural Sciences, 1900 Benjamin Franklin Parkway, Philadelphia, PA. 31 pp. Squires, J. R. and P.L. Kennedy. 2006. Northern goshawk ecology: an assessment of currentknowledge and information needs for conservation and management. Studies in Avian Biology No. 31:8–62. Stebbins, R.C. 1985. A Field Guide to Western Reptiles and Amphibians. Second Edition, revised. Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston, Mass. Terres, John K. 1980. The Audubon Society Encyclopedia of North American Birds. Alfred A. Knopf, New York. Ulmschneider, H. Wildlife Biologist, Boise District Bureau of Land Management. 2004. Surveying for pygmy rabbits- Draft Protocol. On file at the Carson Ranger District. Obtained from the Biological Informatics Office of the U.S. Geological Survey website: http://www.nbii.gov on April 8, 2008. UNR, University of Nevada Reno, 2013. Whittel ForestNewsletter published in 1979 and obtained online at http://www.cabnr.unr.edu/littlevalley/general_information.aspx On June 10th, 2013. USDA Forest Service. 1986. Land and Resource Management Plan. Toiyabe National Forest, NV-CA. Chap. IV-pp 81.

http://www.nbii.gov/

http://www.cabnr.unr.edu/littlevalley/general_information.aspx


USDA Forest Service. 1991. Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Species of the Intermountain Region, Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. USDA Forest Service 1993. Survey protocol for California spotted owl (Strix occidentalis) on National Forest lands in the Pacific Southwest Region. Forest Service, Region 5, San Francisco, CA USDA Forest Service 2000. Survey protocol for northern goshawk (Accipiter gentilis) on National Forest Lands in the Pacific Southwest Region. Forest Service, Region 5, San Francisco, CA. USDA Forest Service. 2001 Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment, Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS). Pacific Southwest Region, Vallejo, CA. USDA Forest Service. 2001 and 2004a. Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment, Record of Decision (ROD). Pacific Southwest Region, Vallejo, CA. USDA Forest Service. 2006. Draft conservation assessment for the mountain yellow-legged frog. U.S. Department of Agriculture –Draft document-60pp. USDA Forest Service. 2008. News: Preliminary DNA analysis completed on wolverine. On-line at website: http://www.dfg.ca.gov/news/issues/wolverine/20080402-USFS-NR.pdf USDA Forest Service 2011. Intermountain Region Forest Sensitive Species List. On file Carson Ranger District. USDA Forest Service Manual (FSM) 2670. Threatened and Endangered, and Sensitive Plants and Animals. Washington, D.C: Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture USDI Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1973. Endangered Species Act, 16 U.S.C. 1531-1544. 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. Albany, CA: Pacific Southwest Research Station, Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture; 285pp. White, Clayton M., Nancy J. Clum, Tom J. Cade and W. Grainger Hunt. 2002. Peregrine Falcon (Falco peregrinus), The Birds of North America Online (A. Poole, Ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology; Retrieved from the Birds of North America Online: http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/660. Whitaker, J.O. 1980. The Audubon Society Field Guide to North American Mammals. Knopf, New York.

http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/660


Wilde, D. B. 1978. A population analysis of the pygmy rabbit (Sylvilagus idahoensis) on the INEL site. Ph.D. Diss., Idaho State Univ., Pocatello. Winter, Jon, 1986. Status, Distribution, and Ecology of the great gray owl (Strix nebulosa) in California, M.S. Thesis. San Francisco State University, San Francisco, CA. 121 pp. Zeiner, D.C., W.F. Laudenslayer, Jr., and K.E. Mayer. 1988. California’s Wildlife. Volume I – Amphibians and Reptiles. California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, California. 272 pp. Zielinski, William J., and Kucera, Thomas E. 1995. American Marten, Fisher, Lynx, and Wolverine: Survey Methods for Their Detection. GTR 157.

Date post:	16-Oct-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	3 times
Download:	0 times

BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION For BIRDS, MAMMALS,AMPHIBIANS,...

Documents