Page 2 of 34 - a123.g.akamai.neta123.g.akamai.net/7/123/11558/abc123/forestservic.download.akamai... · Page 2 of 34 Project ... (AMP). Design criteria ... • Equipment (trailers,

Page 2 of 34 Project Desert Grazing Allotments Project Biological Evaulation

I. INTRODUCTION The purpose of this biological evaluation (BE) is to analyze the effects of the Desert Grazing Allotment Project implementation may affect any species listed as Forest Service Region 5 sensitive animal species. This biological evaluation is prepared in compliance with the requirements of Forest Service Manual (FSM) direction 2670. The Forest Service is directed by FSM 2672.4 to complete a biological evaluation for all Forest Service planned, funded, executed or permitted programs and activities. For sensitive species, this document will evaluate whether the proposed action will result in a trend towards federal listing or a loss of viability. Sensitive species are listed by the Regional Forester of the Pacific Southwest Region (FSM 2672, Region-5 supplement 2600-92-3). II. CURRENT MANAGEMENT DIRECTION Project Area The project area is within the prescription #1, 3, 4, 12, 17 and 18 in the Owens Valley Escarpment Management Area, Golden Trout Management Area, and South Sierra as designated in the Inyo National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (1988) (LRMP). The primary objectives of these prescriptions for wildlife/fish are: Mountain Sheep Habitat (3)

• Permit no increase in livestock use if the increase is shown to be deleterious to mountain sheep populations.

• Evaluate potential transplant sites, giving preference to sites that have no current livestock grazing.

Mule Deer Habitat (4)

• Manage livestock Animal Unit Months (AUMs) on key deer winter range and other critical habitats such as migration routes, holding areas and fawning areas.

• Maintain habitat quality in key fawning areas, winter range, holding areas, and key migration routes.

• Manage vegetation on key habitat areas for optimum forage-to-cover ratios. • Manage the remaining non-key winter range to provide the composition and seral stages

of preferred brush species that will meet the dietary needs of mule deer. • Restrict vehicular access as necessary to protect deer winter ranges, holding areas, and

known key fawning areas. Threatened, Endangered, and Proposed Species Current direction is to manage National Forest System habitats and activities for threatened and endangered species to achieve recovery objectives so that special protection measures provided


under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) are no longer necessary (FSM 2670.21). Section 7 of the ESA directs Federal departments and agencies to ensure that actions authorized, funded, or carried out by them are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any threatened or endangered species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of their critical habitats. The LRMP further requires that populations of threatened and endangered species be considered as below viability until recovery is achieved. Emphasis will be placed on the protection and improvement of historic and potential habitat as necessary to meet recovery levels in cooperation with USFWS and California Department of Fish and Game (USFS 1988). Sensitive Species United States Department of Agriculture Regulation 9500-4 directs the Forest Service to avoid actions which may cause a sensitive species to become threatened or endangered (FSM 2670.12). Populations of all sensitive species of wildlife, fish, and plants must be maintained at viable levels in habitats distributed throughout their geographic range on National Forest System lands (FSM 2670.22). Standards and Guidelines of the Inyo National Forest, as stated in the LRMP, require the development and implementation of a consistent, systematic, biologically sound strategy to manage sensitive species and their habitats so that federal listing does not occur (USFS 1988). Other applicable management direction and policy for threatened, endangered and sensitive species is incorporated by reference from the following:

• Forest Service Manual and Handbooks (FSM/H 2670) • National Forest Management Act, 1976 (NFMA) • Endangered Species Act, 1973, as amended (ESA) • National Environmental Policy Act, 1969 (NEPA) • Inyo National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan, 1988 (LRMP) • Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment, 2004 (SNFPA) • Recovery Plans for individual species • Pacific Southwest Region (R5) Sensitive Species List • Wilderness Act, 1964 • Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act, 1974 (RPA) • California Wilderness Act, 1984

III. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED PROJECT The Mt. Whitney Ranger District of the Inyo National Forest proposes to continue to permit livestock grazing by incorporating adaptive management strategies on the five grazing allotments, Alabama Hills, Ash Creek, George Creek, Olancha, and Tunawee, within the Desert Allotments Group while meeting Forest Plan direction. The proposed action is designed to maintain or improve trends in vegetation and watershed conditions where current conditions are satisfactory and functioning. Collectively, these five allotments cover approximately 195,896 acres of lands owned by the U.S. Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM).


Management of BLM lands is not covered by this Proposed Action) (See Figure 1).

The Proposed Action would: A. Authorize the continued grazing of livestock on the Desert Allotments Group within the

analysis area through issuance of a permit for each allotment. B. Implement an adaptive management system to maintain defined desired conditions

through design criteria, monitoring, and constrained flexibility.

Adaptive Management System The proposed AMS is designed to maintain or improve trends in rangeland vegetation condition, stream condition, and forage utilization and to allow management the flexibility to accomplish this through a variety of management actions. The AMS is based on design criteria and monitoring. Design criteria provide the constraints that are applied to management activities, such as the maximum number of livestock, duration of grazing, and forage utilization. Monitoring indicates whether actions are being implemented as planned, whether they are meeting design criteria, and whether they are effective in meeting or moving towards desired resource conditions. Adaptive management is flexible, allowing for a variety of actions, triggered by monitoring of results, within the defined management constraints. The following sections detail the design criteria, monitoring, management actions, and desired conditions proposed for the implementation of an AMS for the five allotments within the project area.

Design Criteria The design criteria define the limits that guide management activities in the five allotments, including the proposed grazing season, stocking rates, range readiness, and utilization levels. This information will be included in the individual Allotment Management Plans (AMP). Design criteria common to all allotments under the Proposed Action are as follows:

• The number of livestock as measured by number of cow-calf pairs and period of use by grazing allotment will be determined yearly as part of the adaptive management plan. The season of use will be set based on results from range readiness checks conducted prior to turn on and utilization levels monitored throughout the grazing season. Stocking rates and grazing seasons under the previous permit will be included in the Range Specialist Report.


Figure 1 Desert Grazing Allotments


• Base on-dates on plant phenology, soil moisture level, annual climate variation, or other site-specific constraints for each key area. Off-date is dependent on level of forage utilization.

• Distribute Livestock as evenly as possible throughout suitable rangelands by managing rotation of livestock through pastures or herd areas during the specified time periods.

• Use the Forest Plan Amendment #6 forage utilization matrices to adjust allowable use levels based on vegetation composition as measured through methods such as toe point inventories at five-year intervals.

• Allowable use levels outside of key areas would follow Forest Plan Amendment #6 protocols for the key areas (see Appendix A)

• Follow Forest Plan Amendment #6 in order to “maintain or enhance the integrity of key winter ranges, holding areas, migration routes, and fawning areas for mule deer” (USFS, 1988).

• The allowable browse utilization level would be 20% of annual leader growth of mature riparian shrubs and trees. No more than 20% of seedlings would be browsed (USDA, 2004, pg. 359).

• Remove livestock from any area of the allotment when browsing indicates a change in livestock preference from grazing herbaceous vegetation to browsing woody riparian vegetation (USDA, 2004, pg. 359).

• Streambanks would not exceed 20% disturbance per reach.1 Disturbance includes bank sloughing, chiseling, trampling, and other means of exposing bare soil or cutting plant roots (USDA, 2004b, pg.63)

• Equipment (trailers, water drafting equipment) and clothing shall be cleaned before arriving on Forest land. Equipment will be considered clean when visual inspection of tires, tracks, and underbody does not reveal soil, seeds, plant material or other such debris. Disassembly of equipment components or specialized inspection equipment is not required.

Allotment specific actions, restrictions, or mitigations are as follows: Utilization levels would be prescribed according to the Forest Plan Amendment #6 protocol for desert shrub and sagebrush/bunchgrass vegetation communities. The current grazing permits used the standards for sagebrush/bunchgrass communities for Alabama Hills, Ash Creek, Olancha, and Tunawee. George Creek was analyzed as a bitterbrush community. After data collection in 2012, it was determined that the Alabama Hills, George Creek, and Olancha key

1 Earth disturbance is defined as complete removal of vegetation or a percentage of bare ground resulting from the disturbance (USDA 1995).


areas are in sagebrush/bunchgrass communities, but that Ash Creek and Tunawee key areas are in desert shrub communities. Thus, utilization standards for the Ash Creek and Tunawee Allotments would be lower under the Proposed Action than under current management. Table 1 Proposed Utilization Standards

Key Area

Range Type/Location Desired Plants/ Total Herbacious

Am. 6 Matrices Tier

Forest Plan Amendment #6 Watershed data shows area to be at PFC?

Forest Plan Amendment #6 Standards

Utilization Levels Specific to the Alabama Hills Allotment 1 Sagebrush-

Bunchgrass/Upland between Diaz and Tuttle Creeks

45/48 1 Yes 50%

Utilization Levels Specific to the Ash Creek Allotment 1 Desert Shrub/Upland

north of Ash Canyon 51/69 1 Yes 30%

New Key Area

Desert Shrub/Upland south of Cottonwood Creek

46/68 1 Yes 30%

Utilization Levels Specific to the George Creek Allotment 1 Sagebrush-

Bunchgrass/Upland between Hogback and George Creeks

49/56 1 Yes 50%

Utilization Levels Specific to the Olancha Allotment Early Late 1 Sagebrush-

Bunchgrass/Upland, southeast of the junction of Falls and Walker Creeks

25/61 2 Yes 40% 60%

Utilization Levels Specific to the Tunawee Allotment Early Late 1 Desert Shrub/Upland

between Johnson and Talus Canyons

46/61 1 Yes 40% 30%

Table 2 summarizes possible actions that could be used in an adaptive management approach. Table 2 Possible Management Actions Employed in Adaptive Grazing Management

Grazing Management Actions* Use of salt or supplement to draw livestock toward or away from specific areas Rest from livestock grazing for one or more seasons Constructing temporary electric fence to control livestock distribution patterns or to exclude livestock from specific areas Adjusting the grazing season (livestock turn-on and removal dates) Adjusting the stocking rate (AUMs per acre)


Grazing Management Actions* Adjust utilization levels based on the current vegetation and watershed condition, per Forest Plan Amendment #6 protocol Resting areas from livestock grazing for one or more seasons Do not allow livestock grazing Implementing rest-rotation grazing system** Implementing a once-over grazing system*** Implement a deferred rotation grazing system**** Removing existing water development (pipeline, tanks, windmill, well, stock dam) Enhancing native grasses by inter-seeding Enhance riparian shrub regeneration by planting native shrubs Implement a high-intensity/short duration grazing system (by riding, herding, temp. fence, etc.) Implement a low-intensity/short duration grazing system

* Possible management practices are designed to be used alone or in combinations in order to achieve management objectives. **Rest-rotation includes only the two-pasture rest rotation system in which there would be total rest on one pasture and season-long use on the other. ***Once over grazing refers to a duration of approximately five days for cattle, within a given management unit.. ****Deferred rotation grazing involves dividing the allotment into pastures. One or more of the pastures would be rested each year.

Monitoring Monitoring that would occur if the Proposed Action was implemented is specified in the Monitoring Plan outlined below. This plan includes both implementation and effectiveness monitoring. Implementation monitoring is used to determine if the grazing activity is implemented as designed. Effectiveness monitoring is conducted to determine if the management practices applied have been effective in moving toward or maintaining desired condition and meeting resource objectives. The monitoring process involves collecting data to determine, what—if any—adjustments are needed to meet the desired conditions and the standard and guidelines outlined in Forest Plan Amendment #6 and SNFPA. At least 20 percent of the key areas shall be monitored annually. Key areas on the allotments are chosen because they are representative of the allotment as a whole. Monitoring of key areas allows one to extrapolate the condition of the rest of the allotment and to determine the effects of livestock grazing and its management. By monitoring key areas regularly it is possible to adjust management in order to produce desired conditions. Table 3 Monitoring Plan

Monitoring Item

Method

Frequency

Variability Indicating Action

Implementation Monitoring (Permit Administration) Permit Compliance Allotment and Units

Inspections Ongoing, annual permittee

actual use reports Non-compliance

Livestock numbers Count livestock Random Numbers outside of AOI authorized for season.

Excess use Allotment inspections Ongoing All excess use


Monitoring Item

Method

Frequency

Variability Indicating Action

Improvement maintenance Inspections Ongoing Failure to maintain improvements

Salting Allotment inspections Ongoing Failure to follow AOI instructions

Range Readiness R5 range readiness procedure

Pre-season and ongoing as needed

Range not ready for grazing

Forage utilization Key Species, Extensive Browse

20% of key areas Annually Utilization standards exceeded

Streambank Stability/Disturbance

MIM, Alteration by livestock, Stability and

Cover

Ongoing Downward trend

Effectiveness Monitoring Riparian Ecologic

Condition and Trend Rooted Frequency,

Greenline MIM, PFC, Photo Points, BMP

3-5 years Downward trend

Upland Ecological Condition and Trend

Line Intercept, Toe Point, Shrub age and Form Class,

3-5 years Downward trend

IV. AFFFECTED ENVIRONMENT The Desert Grazing Allotments Project Area occurs along the eastern Sierra Nevada escarpment in the southern portion of the Inyo National Forest. The elevation ranges from 4400 to 7800 feet and includes gentle terrain in the lower elevations to very steep and inaccessible terrain in the higher elevations. Livestock grazing tends to only occur in the lower elevations where gentle terrain allows for access to cattle. The California Wildlife Habitat Relationship (CWHR) is a wildlife information system and predictive model for California's regularly occurring birds, mammals, reptiles and amphibians and is considered a state-of-the-art information system for California's wildlife. It contains life history, geographic range, habitat relationships, and management information on 692 species of amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals known to occur in the state. It provides the most widely used habitat relationships models for California’s terrestrial vertebrate species. CWHR is operated and maintained by the California Department of Fish and Game in cooperation with the California Interagency Wildlife Task Group (CIWTG). CWHR is a classification scheme used to describe wildlife habitats based on vegetation type, size and density (CWHR 2005). There are 59 wildlife habitats in the CWHR System to be used with predictive models for terrestrial vertebrate wildlife species (27 tree, 12 shrub, 6 herbaceous, 4 aquatic, 8 agricultural, 1 developed, and 1 non-vegetated). Stages are defined for virtually all habitats. A stage is a combination of size and cover class for tree-dominated habitats (Tables 4 and 5).


Table 4 Size Class Breakdown for Tree Habitat Types (excluding Desert Riparian, Joshua Tree, Palm Oasis, and Orchard types).

CHWR Size Class CWHR Code

Conifer Crown Diameter (ft.)

Hardwood Crown Diameter (ft.)

Quadratic Mean dbh (inches)

Seedling Tree 1 n/a n/a <1.0” Sapling Tree 2 n/a <15.0’ 1.0”-5.9” Pole Tree 3 <12.0’ 15.0’-29.9’ 6.0”-10.9” Small Tree 4 12.0’-23.9’ 30.0’-44.9’ 11.0”-23.9” Medium/large Tree 5 > 24.0’ > 45.0’ > 24.0” Multi-layered Tree 6 A distinct layer of size class 5 trees over a distinct layer of size class 4 and/or 3 trees,

and total tree canopy closure of the layers >60.0% (layers must have >10.0% canopy cover and distinct height separation)

Table 5 Canopy Closure Classes for Tree and Shrub Terrestrial Habitats (excluding desert-tree and desert-shrub habitat types).

CWHR Canopy Closure Class CWHR Code Vegetation Canopy Closure Sparse Cover S 10.0% - 24.9% Open Cover P 25.0% - 39.9%

Moderate Cover M 40.0% - 59.9% Dense cover D > 60.0%

Based on existing vegetation information provided by the Pacific Southwest Region’s Remote Sensing Laboratory, CWHR types present within the project area are displayed in Table 6. Table 6 CWHR types present within the Desert Grazing Allotments Project Area.

CWHR Type Estimated Acres

Annual grasses (AGS) 380 Alkali scrub (ASC) 2,770 Barren (BAR) 130 Bitterbrush (BBR) 480 Desert riparian (DRI) 50 Desert scrub (DSC) 10,970 Mixed chapparal (MCH) 130 Montane hardwoods conifer (MHC) 30 Montane hardwoods (MHW) 825 Montane riparian (MRI) 110 Pinyon-juniper (PJN) 5,220 Sagebrush (SGB) 14,320 Water (WAT) 10 Wet meadow (WTM) 10


V. SPECIES EVALUATED, EFFECTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION, and EFFECTS DETERMINATION Species considered in this analysis were identified from the Pacific Southwest Regional Forester's list of sensitive animals (USFS 1998, amended 3/2001). The following animal species were identified on this list:

1. Northern goshawk (Accipiter gentilis) 2. Greater sage grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) 3. Western yellow-billed cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus occidentalis) 4. Willow flycatcher (Empidonax trailii) 5. Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) 6. Great gray owl (Strix nebulosa) 7. California spotted owl (Strix occidentalis occidentalis) 8. Pallid bat (Antrozous pallidus) 9. Pygmy rabbit (Brachylagus idahoensis) 10. Townsend’s big-eared bat (Corynorhinus townsendii) 11. California wolverine (Gulo gulo luteus) 12. American marten (Martes americana) 13. Pacific fisher (Martes pennanti) 14. Fringed myotis (Myotis thysanodes) 15. Sierra Nevada red fox (Vulpes vulpes necator) 16. Yosemite toad (Anaxyrus canorus) 17. Black toad (Anaxyrus exsul) 18. Inyo mountain salamander (Batrachoseps campi) 19. Mountain yellow-legged frog (Rana muscosa) 20. Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog (Rana sierrae) 21. Panamint alligator lizard (Elgaria panamintina) 22. Mono Lake checkerspot butterfly (Euphydryas editha monoensis) 23. San Emigdio blue butterfly (Plebulina emigdionis) 24. Apache silverspot butterfly (Speyeria nokomis apacheana) 25. Owen’s Valley springsnail (Pyrgulopsis owensensis) 26. Wong’s springsnail (Pyrgulopsis wongi) 27. California golden trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss aguabonita) 28. Kern Plateau slender salamander (Batrachoseps robustus)

Habitat within and adjacent to the proposed project area was analyzed for suitability sensitive animal species potentially occurring on the Inyo National Forest. Initial evaluation was accomplished through review of aerial photographs of the analysis area, examination of vegetation maps and wildlife sighting records and review of the Forest’s corporate Geographic Information System. Aquatic habitat was evaluated on site for species occurrence and for suitable habitat. Habitat requirement parameters for sensitive species were determined from a variety of sources,


including: Habitat Evaluation Criteria for Management Indicator Species on the Inyo National Forest (USFS 1984); Wildlife Habitat Capability Models and Habitat Quality Criteria for the Western Sierra Nevada (USFS 1981); Wildlife Habitat Relationship Models (Zeiner et al 1990); A Literature Review for Management of the Marten and Fisher on National Forests in California (USFS 1991); The Scientific Basis for Conserving Forest Carnivores (USFS 1994); Ecology of American Martens on the Inyo National Forest (Kucera 1996); Management Recommendations for the Northern Goshawk in the Southwestern United States (Reynolds 1992), and; mammalian, avian, and herpetological field guides. Based on the above assessment, the following table (Table 7) lists the wildlife species which do not have the potential to occur within the analysis area. Therefore, it is my determination there will be no impact to these species from the proposed project and no further analysis will be conducted. Table 7 List of R5 Sensitive Species on the Inyo National Forest without potential habitat in the Desert Grazing Allotments Project Area.

Species Habitat Characteristics Rationale1 No Yes

Northern goshawk (Accipiter gentilis)

Mature forested habitats with large trees, dense canopy cover with at least two canopy layers, and abundant snags and down logs (CWHR size class 4, 5, and 6; vegetation density >40%) (USDA Forest Service 2001). Areas adjacent to Protected Activity Centers, or individual activity centers.

1

Greater sage-grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus)

Large, interconnected expanses of sagebrush, with a native grass and forb understory (USDA Forest Service 2008). 1

Western yellow-billed cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus occidentalis)

Deciduous riparian thickets or forests with dense, low-level or understory foliage up to 4,600 feet in elevation within the Owens Valley (USDA Forest Service 2001). Willow appears to be an important habitat component (Ibid.).

1

Willow flycatcher (Empidonax traillii)

Meadows greater than 15 acres in size with water present and a woody riparian shrub component greater than 6.5 feet in height. Areas mapped as Occupied, Emphasis, or Suitable habitat in the Forest-wide GIS layer (USDA Forest Service 2001).

1

Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus)

Forested stands with large, old dominant or co-dominant trees in the vicinity of lakes, reservoirs, rivers, or large streams that support an adequate food supply (USDA Forest Service 2001).

1

Great gray owl (Strix nebulosa)

Large meadows and meadow complexes between 2,400 and 9,000 feet in elevation which are greater than 20 acres in size with mature mixed conifer, red fir, and lodgepole pine forests within 1,000 feet of meadows (USDA Forest Service 2001).

1

California spotted owl (Strix occidentalis occidentalis)

Mature forested habitats with large trees, dense canopy cover with at least two canopy layers, and abundant snags and down logs (CWHR size class 4, 5, and 6; vegetation density >50%) (USDA Forest Service 2001). Areas adjacent to Protected Activity Centers or individual activity centers.

1

Pallid bat (Antrozous pallidus)

Rock crevices, tree hollows (particularly hardwoods), mines, caves and abandoned buildings below 6,000 feet elevation (Philpott 1997; USDA Forest Service 2001). Although the species has been found up to 10,000 feet elevation in the Sierra Nevada, it is considered scarce and localized at this elevation (Barbour and Davis 1969).

1


Species Habitat Characteristics Rationale1 Pygmy rabbit (Brachylagus idahoensis)

Typically occur in areas of tall, dense sagebrush (Artemisia spp.) cover, and are highly dependent on sagebrush to provide both food and shelter throughout the year. Inhabit dense vegetation along perennial and intermittent stream corridors, alluvial fans, and sagebrush plains probably provide travel corridors and dispersal habitat between habitat areas.

1

Townsend’s big-eared bat (Corynorhinus townsendii)

Caves or mines and adjacent open, riparian and forest habitat to those features below 6,000 feet elevation (USDA Forest Service 2001). 1

California wolverine (Gulo gulo luteus)

Alpine and subalpine habitats, including high elevation rocky substrates free from significant human disturbance (USDA Forest Service 2001). 1

American marten (Martes Americana)

Forested habitats above 5,500 feet elevation, with large diameter trees, snags, and down logs, moderate-to-high canopy closure, and an interspersion of riparian areas and meadows (CWHR size class 4, 5, and 6; vegetation density >40%) (USDA Forest Service 2001).

1

Pacific fisher (Martes pennanti pacifica)

Fishers occur in landscapes that are dominated by conifers and contain variable amounts of hardwood forests. Fishers select old growth and late seral conifer forests that provide closed canopies and a complex forest floor structure.

1

Fringed myotis (Myotis thysanodes)

Roosts in crevices found in rocks, cliffs, buildings, underground mines, bridges, and in large, decadent trees (Weller 2005). In general, this species is found in open habitats that have nearby dry forests and an open water source. In California, this species is found from 4,265 to 7,220 feet in elevation in pinyon-juniper, valley foothill hardwood and hardwood-conifers (CWHR 2008).

1

Sierra Nevada red fox (Vulpes vulpes necator)

Forested areas (red fir and lodgepole pine) and subalpine and alpine habitats in proximity to meadows, riparian areas, and brush fields above 5,000 feet elevation (USDA Forest Service 2001).

1

Yosemite toad (Anaxyrus canorus)

Endemic to the Sierra Nevada mountain range and occurs in wet montane meadows from Ebbetts Pass in Alpine County south to Evolution Lake/Darwin Canyon of Fresno County. Elevation range from 6,435 to 11,385 feet.

1

Black toad (Anaxyrus exsul)

Extremely limited range in Deep Springs Valley area. Associated with springs and adjacent riparian vegetation. 1

Inyo mountain salamander (Batrachoseps campi)

Endemic to the Inyo Mountains 1

Mountain yellow-legged frog (So. Sierra DPS) (Rana muscosa)

On the Inyo National Forest, only occurs on the Kern Plateau. 1

Panamint alligator lizard (Elgaria panamintina)

Riparian areas in drier habitat types; rocky canyon bottoms near streams and springs, with creosote bush, sagebrush, and at the lower edge of the pinon-juniper zone (Macey and Papenfuss 1991). Also found in dense vegetation near damp soil, and also in rock talus outside of riparian areas (Ibid.). Ranges from 2,500 to 7,500 feet in elevation (Ibid.).

1

Sierra yelllow legged frog (Rana sierrae)

Ranges throughout the northern Sierra Nevada mountains in high elevation, deep lakes. 1

Mono Lake checkerspot butterfly (Euphydryas editha monoensis)

Found in wet meadows and pine forests on the east slope of the Sierra Nevada Mountains in Alpine and Mono Counties. 1

San Emigdio blue butterfly (Plebulina emigdionis)

Found along dry river beds and intermittent streams and adjacent flats where the larval host plant Atriplex sp. grows. 3

Apache silverspot butterfly (Speyeria nokomis apacheana)

Found on the east slope of the Sierra Nevada Mountains in Alpine, Inyo and Mono Counties where it occurs in marshes and wet meadows near springs, seeps and riparian areas.

1

Owens Valley springsnail (Pyrgulopsis owensensis)

Occurs within un-altered spring habitat with cool, clean water along the Sierra Nevada and White mountains escarpment 1

Wong’s springsnail (Pyrgulopsis wongi)

Occurs within un-altered spring habitat with cool, clean water along the Sierra Nevada and White mountains escarpment 3

California golden trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss aquabonita)

This fish is managed as a Sensitive Species in its native habitat within the South Fork Kern River on the Kern Plateau. 1

Kern Plateau slender salamader (Batrachoseps robustus)

This salamander is endemic to the Kern Plateau and slopes, and the Scodie Mts. Its preferred habitat are isolated springs and seeps, usually associated with steep canyons.

2


1Category 1: Species whose habitat is not in or adjacent to the project area and would not be affected by the project; therefore my determination is that the proposed action would not impact these species and no further analysis will be conducted. Category 2: Species whose habitat is in or adjacent to project area, but would not be either directly or indirectly affected by the project; therefore my determination is that the proposed action would not impact these species and no further analysis will be conducted. Category 3: Species whose habitat is present and individuals or habitat would be directly or indirectly affected by the project. The project area contains suitable habitat for the San Emigdio blue butterfly and Wong’s springsnail. Sensitive Species San Emigdio Blue (Plebulina emigdionis) The areas where the majority of this species have been collected include along the Mojave River near Victorville, but isolated colonies are scattered to the lower portion of Owens Valley, to northern Ventura County, and to Bouquet and Mint canyon in Los Angeles County. This species has been identified near Cartago, California on lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management. The area occupied by the butterfly is about an acre or less. There is one collection site that potentially could be on the Forest near the Sage Flat area on the Olancha allotment; however the exact collection location is not known (personal communication Davenport 2013). Throughout its range the San Emigdio blue butterfly has a complex relationship with a specific ant (Formica francoeuri or the closely related Formica moki), a specific scale insect (Ceroplastes irregularis), and a couple of closely related food plants in the Atriplex genus (Atriplex canescens (four-wing saltbush), Atriplex lentiformis (big saltbush), and Atriplex polycarpa (Allscale)) (personal communication Pratt 2013). The ant provides protection for the larvae against predators and parasites. Without the ant the San Emigdio blue would not survive and the ant seems to require the scale insect for its survival in desert habitats (Ibid). This complex dependent relationship is probably the limiting factor that limits its geographic range and occupied sites, since the food plants are common in the desert (Ibid). The larvae of the San Emigdio blue provide a nutritive reward to the ants as well as semiochemicals that mimic the pheromones of the ants, making the ants believe they are protecting their own offspring by a mimic to brood pheromone (Ibid). The larvae also have a semiochemical that mimics the alarm pheromone of the ants (Ibid). The scale provides a food for the ants throughout most of the spring through fall, when larvae are limited in their food they provide the ants (Ibid). In order for the scale insect to survive in desert conditions the Atriplex species must be in soil locations with a high water table (Ibid). It is suspected that the ant would not survive in the habitat without the scale insect (Ibid). Larvae eat Atriplex leaves. Older caterpillars hibernate (http://www.butterfliesandmoths.org/species/ Plebejus-emigdionis). Adults often remain in close proximity to food plants, where they may rest between flights (Emmel and Emmel 1973, Garth and Tilden 1986). Several generations may be produced each year and abundance is greater in years with higher summer rainfall. Typically, the first brood flies from late April to May, the second from late June to early July, and the third from August and early September.


The largest threat to this species is urbanization and habitat loss. A general threat to butterflies, especially rare butterflies, is that of collectors. Disturbances and destruction of habitat as a result of fire suppression activities (dozerlines, handlines, staging, etc.), road maintenance activities, and illegal off-highway vehicles are the threats to this species and its habitat. The effects of climate change on butterfly populations are difficult to assess but it is likely that changes in temperature extremes and precipitation could affect host availability and thus affect butterfly population viability. More information on the status and ecological requirements of these populations are required in order fully assess potential threats. The alkali scrub (ASC) CWHR type was queried as four-wing saltbush is a component of this type. However, it should be noted that this mapping exercise includes species other than saltbush and that the acres stated below are not exclusively acres of four-wing saltbush, but of all alkali scrub species. The other two species of Atriplex in which the butterfly occur are not found on the Inyo NF. There are approximately 2,770 acres of alkali scrub habitat within the project area; 40 acres within the Alabama Hills allotment, 920 within the Ash Creek allotment, 1,800 acres within the Olancha allotment, and 10 acres in the Tunawee allotment. However, due to the complex relationship this species has with its host plant, scale insect, and ant species not all of these acres may be suitable habitat. Also, the occurrences within the Olancha area in Inyo County are the extreme northern portion of this species range and it is not expected that this species occurs further north than this area, therefore potential habitat for this species is being analyzed within the Ash Creek and Olancha allotments only (Figure 2).


Figure 2 Alkali scrub habitat found within the Desert Allotments


Wong’s Springsnail (Pyrgulopsis wongi) Wong’s springsnail has a widespread distribution in the Owens Valley along the eastern escarpment of the Sierra Nevada Mountains. They range from Pine Creek south to Little Lake, and along the eastern side of the valley from French Spring to Marble Creek in the Inyo Mountains. It is also found in a few sites in Long, Adobe, and Deep Springs Valleys. Habitat for this species includes seeps and spring-fed streams of small to moderate size. Temperature requirements range from 49.1F to 71.6F degrees. The snails are typically found commonly in watercress and /or on small bits of travertine and stone (Hershler 1989). Spring habitat that has previously been altered by spring-improvements, grazing or other impacts would alter the water quality of the spring and would preclude occurrence of this species. Each population of snail is endemic to the spring it inhabits, and since these snails are obligatory aquatic throughout their entire life, they cannot disperse to other springs, nor can springs where snails have been extirpated be re-colonized. Springsnails have been recorded in several springs on the Alabama Hills and Tunawee allotments. Springs throughout the allotments were observed during rangeland assessments and no impacts from cattle were observed. Vegetation was thick and abundant around springheads and appeared predominately undisturbed. Most spring sites are located in the steeper portions of the allotments, up on the escarpment, where cattle do not travel due to steepness and lack of suitable forage. Other sources for water occurred at other locations on the allotment which were easier to access for cattle. Most stream areas did not exhibit observable cattle use.


Figure 1: Map overview of known locations for Wong's springsnail on the Tunawee Allotment.


VI. EFFECTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION San Emigdio Blue (Plebulina emigdionis) Direct and indirect impacts to the San Emigdio blue butterfly from livestock grazing have not been fully documented. Impacts that lead to the loss of suitable vegetation (i.e. saltbush), either directly or through increasing habitat fragmentation are considered to be detrimental to San Emigdio blue habitat. Also, due to the limited knowledge of where the desired ant species and scale insect occurs that aid the San Emigdio blue butterfly it is assumed that all saltbush habitats identified in the Ash Creek and Olancha allotments is occupied by this species. Direct impacts to the San Emigdio blue butterfly include those that disturb the butterfly in any of its life-cycles that would lead to butterfly to abandon areas of suitable habitat. The presence of cattle alone may not cause disturbance to the butterfly, but if the cattle move through an occupied area and proceed to shake or move the host plant then butterflies may disperse from the area and return once the disturbance has stopped. This direct impact would be short-term (minutes to hours) and limited to only those areas where the butterfly and cattle grazing overlap. It is unknown if cattle could cause mortality to butterflies by moving through an area, it is assumed that due to the ability of adult butterflies to fly away that mortality to adults would be limited. Mortality to larva or pupa while they are still on the host plant might occur at a low level if disturbance by cattle leads to the larva becoming detached from the host plant and then being trampled. There is slight potential for mortality to pupa if cattle graze on the leaf being used by the pupa. Direct and indirect impacts to saltbush plants would occur under the proposed action, as cattle grazing would be authorized in the Ash Creek and Olancha allotments and saltbush is a species that is grazed upon by cattle. Livestock grazing would not completely eliminate suitable butterfly habitat, as proposed utilization standards would allow for the continuance of saltbush on the landscape. Utilization standards of 30% use in the Ash Creek allotment would allow for 70% of available browse species, such as saltbush, to remain on the landscape. The same is true for the Olancha allotment in which 60% of browse would be available in the months when cattle graze an area early in the grazing season and 70% would remain when cattle graze an area later in the grazing season. Furthermore, saltbush is not the only species present in the allotments which provides suitable forage for cattle and cattle are not exclusively foraging on saltbush. Under the proposed action saltbush would remain present on the landscape and continue to provide for butterfly habitat. There is no information on how cattle grazing would impact, either directly or indirectly, the ant species (Formica francoeuri or the closely related Formica moki) or the scale insect (Ceroplastes irregularis). It is assumed that direct impacts to the ant and scale insect would be similar to the butterfly, in that cattle may disturb these species, but not to an extent that would lead them to abandon or completely disperse from an area. Cumulative effects are limited within the project area. In 1996 there was a wildfire in the Sage


Flat area where the one location of the butterfly occurred on the Forest. The collection of this butterfly was after the wildfire so it can be assumed that the habitat has recovered in this area after the wildfire. Approximately 50 acres of alkali scrub habitat has the presence of invasive plants; the majority of which are red brome and cheatgrass. There is little information on if the presence of these species is leading to a decrease in saltbush in this area, but if these species continue to persist in these areas there is a higher likelihood of wildfire to occur and a potential change in the fire return interval in these systems. Wong’s Springsnail (Pyrgulopsis wongi) Springs on the Alabama Hills and Tunawee allotments were reviewed for cattle impacts. Two springs with documented springsnail occurrence were visited on the Alabama Hills allotment in February 2015. Vegetation around the spring heads was thick, vigorous and almost impenetratable. No cattle trails, manure or other signs were observed around the springs. A report of those findings, with photos, is attached to this document. Two springs on the Tunawee Allotment are located up-canyon of a private land in-holding, and conversations with the land owner indicated that cattle cannot access the area above his private land because of the gate at the bottom of the canyon and the very steep sides of the canyon. (Conversation with Dr. Neil Arbegast, January 22, 2015.) Three other springs on the Tunawee Allotment were visited and reviewed in March 2015 and revealed that no cattle impacts could be observed. Other spring sources throughout the allotments have not been verified for presence of snails, but due to the condition of the springs observed in May and November 2012 and in February and March of 2015, cattle most likely do not visit these springs due to their location in steep areas, the presence of thick, abundant vegetation around the spring, and availability of water with better access. None of the springs obsereved throughout the allotments appeared trampled, modified, de-nuded, dug out, or otherwise non-functional. However, there may be an occasion for cattle to utilize the water source with the potential that the substrate may be disturbed, but cattle use of these springs would not be intense enough to modify the habitat with the low numbers of cattle that are permitted on the allotment. VII. DETERMINATION San Emigdio Blue (Plebulina emigdionis) It is my determination that the proposed action may impact individuals, but would not lead toward federal listing or a loss of viability to the San Emigdio blue butterfly. This determination is based on:

1) Proposed utilization standards would provide for suitable habitat (i.e. saltbush) to remain on the landscape.

2) Direct impacts to butterflies would be short in duration and very limited (only to individuals).


Wong’s Springsnail (Pyrgulopsis wongi) It is my determination that the proposed action may impact individuals, but would not lead toward federal listing or a loss of viability to the Wong’s springsnail. This determination is based on:

1. Potential direct impacts to springsnails would be short term, such as limited trampling, but could result in the death of a couple of individuals from trampling impacts, but would not alter habitat enough to eliminate the population from the spring.

2. Impacts are considered unlikely due to the location of springs on steep slopes or behind inaccessible private lands, and thick vegetation surrounding the springs that would preclude access to cattle.

VIII. REFERENCES Barbour, R.W. and W.H. Davis. 1969. Bats of America. Univ. Press of Kentucky. 286 pp. CWHR 2005. California Department of Fish and Game. California Interagency Wildlife Task Group. 2005. California Wildlife Habitat Relationships version 8.1 personal computer program. Sacramento, California. Davenport, Kenneth E. 2013. Personal communication regarding butterfly species on the Inyo National Forest. Multiple e-mails received on: July 5, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12, 2013. Emmel, T.C. and J.F. Emmel. 1973. The Butterflies of Southern California. Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County, Science Series #26:1-148. Garth, J.S., and J.W. Tilden. 1986. California Butterflies. California Natural History Guide #51. Univ. of Calif. Press, Berkeley. Hershler, Robert. 1989. Springsnails (Gastropoda: Hydrobiidae) of Owens and Amargosa River (Exclusive of Ash Meadows) Drainages, Death Valley System, California-Nevada. Proc. Biol. Soc. Wash. 102(1), 1989, pp 176-248. Kucera, T. E. 1996. Ecology of American Martens on the Inyo National Forest Final Report prepared for USFS. Berkeley, Ca. Mahrdt, Clark R. and Kent R. Beaman. Unknown date. Panamint Alligator Lizard Elgaria panamintina species account information. Department of Herpetology, San Diego Natural


History Museum, and Section of Herpetology, Los Angeles County Museum of Natural History, Los Angeles, CA. Philpott, W. 1997. Summaries of the Life Histories of California Bat Species. Unpublished document. Pineridge Ranger District, Sierra National Forest, Pacific Southwest Region, Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. Pratt, Gordon. 2013. Personal communication regarding butterfly presence on the Forest, specific information received on San Emigdio Blue and White Mountains copper butterflies. E-mail received on July 4, 2013. Reynolds, Richard T., Russel T. Graham, M. Hildegard-Reiser, Richard L. Bassett, Patricia L. Kennedy, Douglas A. Boyce, Jr., Greg Goodwin, Randall Smith, and E. Leon Fisher. 1992. Management recommendations for the Northern Goshawk in the Southwestern United States. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM217. Ft. Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. August. 90p. USDA U.S. Forest Service. 1988. Inyo National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan. Bishop, Ca: USFS. 317pp -------------------. Various dates. Forest Service Manual. -------------------. 1991. A Literature Review for Management of the Marten and Fisher on National Forests in California. Santa Barbara, Ca: USFS. 22pp. -----------------. 1998. R5 USFS Sensitive Animal Species Evaluation and Documentation Form. Vallejo, CA: Pacific Southwest Region, Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. -------------------. 2001. Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment. Final Environmental Impact Statement. Biological Evaluation. Pacific Southwest and Intermountain Regions. Volume 3:Part 4.4. pages: northern goshawk: 133, 115-116; willow flycatcher: 143-144; California spotted owl: 73-74, 78; wolverine: 45; America marten: 19-22; Pacific fisher: 2-5; Sierra Nevada red fox: 36-37. -----------------. 2004. Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment. Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement. Record of Decision. Pacific Southwest Region. 72pp. -----------------. 2007. Record of Decision, Sierra Nevada Forests Management Indicator Species Amendment. U.S. Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region. December, 2007. 18pp. Zeiner, David D., William F. Laudenslayer, Jr., Kenneth E. Mayer, Marshall White. 1990. California's Wildlife. Volume II, Birds. California Statewide Wildlife Habitat Relationships System. State of California, The Resources Agency, Department of Fish and Game. Sacramento, CA. April.



Report for springsnail habitat on the Alabama Hills Allotment Lisa Sims, Fish and Aquatic Biologist

Inyo National Forest February 18, 2015

Figure 2: Overview of Alabama Hills Allotment.

I visited the Alabama Hills Allotment to assess the condition of the springsnail habitat for Wong’s springsnail (Pyrgulopsis wongi). The Forest Service portion of the allotment is located along the lower slopes of the escarpment. No cattle use within the area of allotment on the Forest was observed. No cattle dung, trails or tracks were observed and grasses were un-grazed. Extensive use on bitterbrush was attributed to the abundant deer sign – foot prints, deer-sized trails through vegetation, browsing indication, deer pellets, shed antlers were all observed within the area. Cattle predominately utilize the flatter portions of the allotment, located within BLM managed lands. Two springs that had reported occurrences of Wong’s springsnail were observed and assessed for impacts from cattle.


Figure 3: Overview of Alabama Hills Allotment, looking south toward Owens Lake.

Figure 4: Grasses and decadent shrubs on Alabama Hills Allotment.

The spring areas were heavily vegetated with fern, Phragmites sp., Rosa sp., and Salix sp. as the dominant species that could be observed. The trip was made in February, so vegetation was dormant. There was no indication of any animals, besides rabbits or hares, having access to the area deep within the spring area. Both springs


produced a steady flow of water that created a stream channel below. No deer trails or cattle trails or manure was observed within the spring area, and it was very difficult to access the spring source to verify the presence of springsnails. A grab sample was taken in the substrate of the larger spring, below the spring source (which was inaccessible due to thick vegetation). Two springsnails were observed, a photo of one was taken (the other fell out of my hand and back in to the water). The persistence of springsnails within these springs during the mining hey-day of the area in the late 1800’s, when cattle, sheep and horses were herded by the hundreds or thousands displays a survival strategy that allowed this species to adapt to those impacts. Springsnails cannot disperse to other springs and spend their entire life in these springs, so the altercation of a spring that would destroy habitat would preclude it from being re-colonized. In other words, once they are gone, they cannot come back. At this time the springs that are occupied by the snails are heavily vegetated which would block access to cattle to access the spring source. Water sources downstream are more easily accessible to cattle and those areas are not conducive to supporting springsnails, due to fluctuating temperatures and stronger flows.

Figure 5: Overview of spring locations and vegetation surrounding spring sources. Second spring visible in background along edge of hillside.


Figure 6: Vegetation at perimeter of spring.

Figure 7: Looking through the vegetation into the spring channel.


Figure 8: Springsnail observed at the spring.


Field Review of Seeps and Spring near Johnson Canyon on the Tunawee Grazing Allotment Brianna Goehring, 20 March 2015

Summary: I did a field visit to the Johnson Canyon area on the Tunawee Allotment on March 19, 2015. The upper and lower seeps and spring identified in the above map (circled in pink) are each located in steep draws where access for livestock is difficult but certainly not impossible. Access especially would be difficult for cattle because of the steep, rocky terrain. As I hiked about this area, I observed no sign of any recent or old livestock grazing (cattle or sheep). Livestock use of any of these areas (that is, the surrounding upland vegetation) would be unlikely because there is not currently sufficient water available to support livestock use of this part of the allotment. I came across several other patches of willows (one such is circled in red above) in draws that are not identified in the above map. All these areas are generally dense thickets of mature or decadent willows that are tucked into the draw with little or no standing water. Occasionally, there are mature cottonwoods present. There is sign (trailing, tracks, and scat) of wildlife about these areas and in the uplands in between. Spring: 409301, 3996877 (Zone 11 S) The spring site is in a draw and as such is steep—~30%+. The vegetation at this spring site is a dense clump of willows with much dead willow. The access to the spring is steep and difficult from the sides or below. The spring is accessible from above the draw. The only wet area I observed was a small area of damp soil at the lower end of the spring that was less than ½ square meter in size. I saw two mule deer in the draw below the spring. See Figures 1 through 5 below.


Figure 9. Facing north and across draw.

Figure 10. Facing ~south and across draw.


Figure 11. Below spring facing up into base of spring. There was bare ground and signs of trailing all around the spring area. This appears to be from wildlife. There was no sign of either old or recent livestock use.


Figure 12. Only wet area observed at base (lower end) of spring, less than 1/2 square meter in size. The ground was wet here, but there was no standing water.

Figure 13. Above spring, looking down (southeast). Spring is accessible from this direction.


Upper and lower seeps: 0409270, 3996246; 0409606, 3996188 The upper seep identified on the map is a dense willow thicket that extends up the draw for several hundred feet. There is little understory vegetation except at the very bottom of the seep (below the willows in the draw) where there is small area (less than four square meters) of standing water with matted grasses and grasslikes. I observed no trampling or tracks in this wet area. There were several wildlife trails tunneled into the thicket. The lower seep identified on the map consists of four or five large cottonwoods and a large oak tree growing in the draw. There is not much understory and the ground was dry in the draw under the trees. See figures 6 through 8. Figures 9 and 10 below are of a seep that I hiked across as I was looking for the identified seeps.

Figure 6. Both photos show the sting of willows in the upper seep, facing ~west up the draw.


Figure 7. Small patch of standing water and grasses/grasslikes at base of seep below the string of willows.

Figure 8. Left photo is above lower seep facing ~east down the draw. Right photo shows shady understory with little vegetation.

Documents

Page 2 of 34 - a123.g.akamai.neta123.g.akamai.net/7/123/11558/abc123/forestservic.download.akamai... · Page 2 of 34 Project ... (AMP). Design criteria ... • Equipment (trailers,