Moonlight Vegetation Project Management Indicator Species ...a123.g.akamai.net/7/123/11558/abc123/forestservic.download.akam… · Moonlight Vegetation Project Management Indicator

Moonlight Vegetation Project

Management Indicator Species and

Migratory Landbird Conservation Report

Prepared by: Janet S. Moser

Wildlife Biologist

April 3, 2017

Moonlight Vegetation Project Management Indicator Species and Migratory Landbird Conservation Report

i

Contents Moonlight Vegetation Project ....................................................................................................................... 1 Management Indicator Species and .............................................................................................................. 1 Migratory Landbird Conservation Report ..................................................................................................... 1 Management Indicator Species ..................................................................................................................... 1

Selection of Project Level MIS ................................................................................................................. 1 Species and habitat components not discussed further: ........................................................................ 3 Species and habitat components discussed further: .............................................................................. 3

Comparison of Treatments between Alternatives ..................................................................................... 3 Species and Habitat Component Analysis: ............................................................................................... 4

Effects on Shrubland (west-slope chaparral type) (fox sparrow).......................................................... 4 Effects on Oak-associated Hardwood and Hardwood/Conifer (Mule Deer) ........................................ 7 Effects on Early Seral and Mid-seral Coniferous Forest (Mountain Quail) ....................................... 12 Effects on Late Seral Open Canopy Coniferous Forest (Sooty (Blue) Grouse) ................................. 18 Late Seral Closed Canopy Coniferous Forest (California Spotted Owl, Pacific Marten, Northern Flying Squirrel) ................................................................................................................................... 22 Effects on Snags in Green Forest Shrubland (Hairy Woodpecker) .................................................... 28 Effects on Snags in Burned Forest (Black-backed Woodpecker) ....................................................... 32

Migratory Landbird Conservation........................................................................................................... 36 References Cited ..................................................................................................................................... 37

List of Tables Table 1. Selection of management indicator species for the Moonlight Project ........................................... 2 Table 2. Comparison of treatments for each alternative ............................................................................... 4 Table 3. Effects to management indicator species (MIS) habitat for fox sparrow ........................................ 7 Table 4. Effects to management indicator species (MIS) habitat for mule deer ......................................... 11 Table 5. Effects to management indicator species (MIS) early-seral habitat for mountain quail ............... 17 Table 6. Effects to management indicator species (MIS) mid-seral habitat for mountain quail ................. 17 Table 7. Effects to management indicator species (MIS) habitat for sooty grouse .................................... 21 Table 8. Effects to management indicator species (MIS) habitat for California spotted owl, Pacific marten, and northern flying squirrel ........................................................................................................................ 26 Table 9. Effects to management indicator species (MIS) habitat for hairy woodpecker ............................ 31 Table 10. Effects to management indicator species (MIS) habitat for black-backed woodpecker ............. 35

List of Figures Figure 1. Moonlight project treatments within fox sparrow habitat under alternatives B and D .................. 5 Figure 2. Moonlight project treatments within fox sparrow habitat under alternative C .............................. 6 Figure 3. Moonlight project treatments within mule deer habitat under alternatives B and D ..................... 9 Figure 4. Moonlight project treatments within mule deer habitat under alternative C ............................... 10 Figure 5. Moonlight project treatments within mountain quail early-seral habitat under alternatives B and D .................................................................................................................................................................. 13 Figure 6. Moonlight project treatments within mountain quail early-seral habitat under alternative C ..... 14 Figure 7. Moonlight project treatments within mountain quail mid-seral habitat under alternatives B and D .................................................................................................................................................................. 15 Figure 8. Moonlight project treatments within mountain quail mid-seral habitat under alternative C ....... 16 Figure 9. Moonlight project treatments within sooty (blue) grouse habitat under alternatives B and D .... 19


ii

Figure 10. Moonlight project treatments within sooty (blue) grouse habitat under alternative C .............. 20 Figure 11. Moonlight project treatments within late seral closed canopy habitat under alternatives B and D .................................................................................................................................................................... 24 Figure 12. Moonlight project treatments within late seral closed canopy habitat under alternative C ....... 25 Figure 13. Moonlight project treatments within hairy woodpecker habitat under alternatives B and D .... 29 Figure 14. Moonlight project treatments within hairy woodpecker habitat under alternative C ................ 30 Figure 15. Moonlight project treatments within black-backed woodpecker habitat under alternatives B and D .................................................................................................................................................................. 33 Figure 16. Moonlight project treatments within black-backed woodpecker habitat under alternative C ... 34


1

Management Indicator Species Management indicator species (MIS) are animal species identified in the Sierra Nevada Forests MIS Amendment Record of Decision (ROD) signed December 14, 2007, which was developed under the 1982 National Forest System Land and Resource Management Planning Rule (1982 Planning Rule) (36 CFR 219). Guidance regarding management indicator species set forth in the Plumas National Forest’s Land and Resource Management Plan (forest plan as amended) as amended by the 2007 Sierra Nevada Forests MIS Amendment ROD directs Forest Service resource managers to (1) at project scale, analyze the effects of proposed projects on the habitat of each management indicator species affected by such projects, and (2) at the bioregional scale, monitor populations and/or habitat trends of management indicator species, as identified in the Plumas forest plan as amended.

Selection of Project Level MIS Management indicator species for the Plumas National Forest are listed in the 2007 Sierra Nevada Forests Management Indicator Species Amendment (USDA Forest Service 2007). The habitats and ecosystem components and associated management indicator species analyzed for the project were selected from this list, as indicated in the table below. The table discloses the habitat or ecosystem components (1st column), the California Wildlife Habitat Relationships type(s) defining each habitat/ecosystem component (2nd column), the associated management indicator species (3rd column), and whether or not the habitat of the management indicator species is potentially affected by the Moonlight Project (4th column). The management indicator species whose habitat would be either directly or indirectly affected by the Moonlight Project, identified as category 3 in the table, are carried forward in this analysis, which will evaluate the effects of the proposed action and alternatives on the habitat of these management indicator species. The species selected for project-level management indicator species analysis for the Moonlight Project are: fox sparrow, mule deer, mountain quail, sooty (blue) grouse, California spotted owl, Pacific marten, northern flying squirrel, hairy woodpecker, and black-backed woodpecker.

In table 1, column 2, all California Wildlife Habitat Relationship (CWHR) size classes and canopy closures are included unless otherwise specified; dbh = diameter at breast height.

Canopy closure classifications:

• S=Sparse Cover (10-24 percent canopy closure);

• P= Open cover (25-39 percent canopy closure);

• M= Moderate cover (40-59 percent canopy closure);

• D= Dense cover (60-100 percent canopy closure);

Tree size classes:

• 1 (Seedling)(<1" dbh);

• 2 (Sapling)(1"-5.9" dbh);

• 3 (Pole)(6"-10.9" dbh);

• 4 (Small tree)(11"-23.9" dbh);

• 5 (Medium/Large tree)(>24" dbh);

• 6 (Multi-layered Tree) [In ponderosa pine and Sierran mixed conifer] (Mayer and Laudenslayer 1988).


2

Column 4, management indicator species category:

• Category 1: management indicator species whose habitat is not in or adjacent to the project area and would not be affected by the project.

• Category 2: management indicator species whose habitat is in or adjacent to project area, but would not be either directly or indirectly affected by the project.

• Category 3: management indicator species whose habitat would be either directly or indirectly affected by the project.

Table 1. Selection of management indicator species for the Moonlight Project

Habitat or Ecosystem Component

CWHR Type(s) defining the habitat or ecosystem component

Sierra Nevada Forests

Management Indicator Species Scientific Name

Category for

Project Analysis

Riverine & Lacustrine lacustrine (LAC) and riverine (RIV) aquatic macroinvertebrates

See aquatics report.

Shrubland (west-slope chaparral types)

montane chaparral (MCP), mixed chaparral (MCH), chamise-redshank chaparral (CRC)

fox sparrow Passerella iliaca

3

Oak-associated Hardwood & Hardwood/conifer

montane hardwood (MHW), montane hardwood-conifer (MHC)

mule deer Odocoileus hemionus

3

Riparian montane riparian (MRI), valley foothill riparian (VRI)

yellow warbler Dendroica petechia

2

Wet Meadow Wet meadow (WTM), freshwater emergent wetland (FEW)

Pacific tree (chorus) frog Pseudacris regilla

See aquatics report.

Early Seral Coniferous Forest

ponderosa pine (PPN), Sierran mixed conifer (SMC), white fir (WFR), red fir (RFR), eastside pine (EPN), tree sizes 1, 2, and 3, all canopy closures

Mountain quail Oreortyx pictus

3

Mid Seral Coniferous Forest

ponderosa pine (PPN), Sierran mixed conifer (SMC), white fir (WFR), red fir (RFR), eastside pine (EPN), tree size 4, all canopy closures

Mountain quail Oreortyx pictus

3

Late Seral Open Canopy Coniferous Forest

ponderosa pine (PPN), Sierran mixed conifer (SMC), white fir (WFR), red fir (RFR), eastside pine (EPN), tree size 5, canopy closures S and P

Sooty (blue) grouse Dendragapus obscurus

3

California spotted owl Strix occidentalis occidentalis

Late Seral Closed Canopy Coniferous Forest

ponderosa pine (PPN), Sierran mixed conifer (SMC), white fir (WFR), red fir (RFR), tree size 5 (canopy closures M and D), and tree size 6.

Pacific marten1

Martes caurina 3

northern flying squirrel Glaucomys sabrinus


3

Habitat or Ecosystem Component

CWHR Type(s) defining the habitat or ecosystem component

Sierra Nevada Forests

Management Indicator Species Scientific Name

Category for

Project Analysis

Snags in Green Forest Medium and large snags in green forest hairy woodpecker Picoides villosus

3

Snags in Burned Forest Medium and large snags in burned forest (stand-replacing fire)

black-backed woodpecker Picoides arcticus

3

1 - Pacific marten (Martes caurina) was formerly known as American marten (Martes americana)

Species and habitat components not discussed further: Yellow warbler (riparian component) will not be discussed in further detail because the Moonlight Project alternatives would not change riparian habitat acres, deciduous canopy cover, total canopy cover, or California Wildlife Habitat Relationship size class within montane riparian habitats.

Species and habitat components discussed further: Fox sparrow (shrubland component) will be discussed in further detail because the Plumas National Forest contains acres of shrub habitat which exists widespread across the Forest.

Mule deer (oak-associated hardwood and hardwood/conifer component) will be discussed in further detail because oak-associated hardwoods and hardwood/conifer stands are lower elevation and are important to mule deer as winter range foraging and cover habitat. Effects to these habitats will be analyzed in particular where mule deer winter range is present in designated over-snow use areas.

Mountain quail or Sooty grouse (mid seral coniferous forest or Late seral open canopy coniferous forest habitat component) will be discussed in further detail because the Plumas National Forest contains acres of early, mid seral, and late seral open canopy coniferous forest habitat which exists widespread across the Forest.

California spotted owl, Pacific marten, and northern flying squirrel (late seral closed canopy coniferous forest component) will be discussed in further detail because late seral closed canopy coniferous forest exists in certain locales across the Forest.

Hairy woodpecker and Black-backed woodpecker (snags in green forest component and snags in burned forest component) will be discussed in further detail because the Plumas National Forest contains acres of snags in green forest or burned forest habitat which exists widespread across the Forest.

Comparison of Treatments between Alternatives The proposed activities and their variation between alternatives can be summarized by examining the different categories listed below in table 2.


4

Table 2. Comparison of treatments for each alternative

Alternative Alternative B and D Alternative C

Total acres 12,711 12,711

Reforestation and release 4,063 4,063

Pre-commercial thinning 768 768

Mechanical thinning 3,767 503 ac of the treatments would be limited to hand thinning up to 6 inches

Aspen restoration 1,931 231 ac of the treatments would be limited to hand thinning up to 6 inches

Hazardous fuel reduction 231 231

Wildlife habitat improvement 1,950 625 ac of the treatments would be limited to hand thinning up to 6 inches

Road reconstruct 160 miles 146 miles

Temp road 7 miles 6 miles

Species and Habitat Component Analysis:

Effects on Shrubland (west-slope chaparral type) (fox sparrow) Fox sparrow was selected as the management indicator species for the ecosystem component shrubland (west-slope chaparral type). Fox sparrow range and habitat includes montane chaparral, mixed chaparral, chamise-redshank chaparral environments. They nest in chaparral under dense, shrubby vegetation. Fox sparrows spend a lot of time on the ground, using their legs to kick away leaf litter in search of insects and seeds. During migration and winter, fox sparrows eat a more balanced mixture plant and insect material.

Habitat Factor(s) for the Analysis: 1. Montane chaparral (MCP),

2. mixed chaparral (MCH), and

3. chamise-redshank chaparral (CRC)


5

Figure 1. Moonlight project treatments within fox sparrow habitat under alternatives B and D


6

Figure 2. Moonlight project treatments within fox sparrow habitat under alternative C


7

Direct and Indirect Effects The total available habitat within these ecosystem components is 3,351 acres of shrubland habitat. Fox sparrow populations on the Plumas National Forest are considered to be stable with habitat widely distributed in small parcels across the Forest. Current use has maintained stable population trends and occupancy. All action alternatives are identical regarding effects to fox sparrow and associated habitats. Under all action alternatives, treatments would occur over 41 acres (1 percent) within shrubland habitat (table 3).

Table 3. Effects to management indicator species (MIS) habitat for fox sparrow

Existing Management Indicator Species Habitat Alt B and D - MIS Habitat

acres Alt C- MIS

Habitat acres

Fox sparrow – Shrubland Total= 3,351 acres

Grapple pile, pile burn, underburn, reforestation, herbicide 12 12

Hand thin up to 6”, pile burn, underburn 15 19

Hand thin, pile burn, underburn 3 0

Mechanical thin, grapple pile, pile burn, underburn 6 6

Precommercial mechanical thin, grapple pile, pile burn, underburn 5 5

Total acres 41 41

Summary of Status and Trend at the Bioregional Scale The fox sparrow has been monitored in the Sierra Nevada along various breeding bird survey routes:

• 1968 to present – breeding bird survey routes throughout the Sierra Nevada (Sauer et al. 2014).

Fox sparrow are numerous and have continued to be detected on breeding bird survey routes in the Sierra Nevada but populations have declined by about 51 percent between 1966 and 2015, according to the North American Breeding Bird Survey. Fox sparrow is not on the 2016 State of North America’s Birds’ Watch List (Cornell 2015).

Relationship of Project-Level Effects to Bioregional-Scale Trend As a result of the action alternatives, there would minimal expected change in populations or population trends for fox sparrow, nor to the shrub ecosystem component with which they are associated. Given the ubiquity of this ecosystem component across the bioregion, the small effects at the project level would not alter the bioregional trend in the ecosystem component, nor would it lead to a change in the distribution or population of fox sparrow across the project area or the Sierra Nevada bioregion.

Effects on Oak-associated Hardwood and Hardwood/Conifer (Mule Deer) Mule deer was selected as the management indicator species for the ecosystem component oak-associated hardwood and hardwood/conifer. Mule deer range and habitat includes coniferous forest, foothill woodland, shrubland, grassland, agricultural fields, and suburban environments. Suitable habitat is composed of four distinctly different elements: fawning, foraging, cover, and winter range. Hiding and thermal cover is typically close to the ground and thick enough to camouflage the outline of the deer, without being so dense as to obscure the approach of potential predators. Thermal cover is similar and


8

generally thought to be denser, with the additional property of sheltering deer from the elements. Winter range tends to be in lower elevation habitats that meet the requirements for forage, hiding, and thermal cover described above. Mule deer migrate seasonally between higher elevation summer range and low elevation winter range.

Habitat Factor(s) for the Analysis: 1. Oak-associated hardwood (code MHW - all sizes) and

2. montane hardwood-conifer (MHC – all sizes).


9

Figure 3. Moonlight project treatments within mule deer habitat under alternatives B and D


10

Figure 4. Moonlight project treatments within mule deer habitat under alternative C


11

Direct and Indirect Effects In the current condition (alternative A), the amount of the montane hardwood/conifer ecosystem component that represents mule deer as a management indicator species is approximately 3,162 acres. Management indicator species habitat in the project area is estimated to be stable, and adequate to continue to support a stable population. All action alternatives are identical regarding effects to mule deer and associated habitat. Under all action alternatives, treatments would occur on 154 acres (5 percent) within oak montane hardwood, montane hardwood-conifer habitat (table 4).

Table 4. Effects to management indicator species (MIS) habitat for mule deer

Existing Management Indicator Species Habitat Alt B and D - MIS Habitat acres

Alt C- MIS Habitat acres

Mule Deer Oak montane hardwood (MHW), montane hardwood-conifer (MHC) Total Available 3,162 acres

Grapple pile, pile burn, underburn 2.60 1.50

Grapple pile, pile burn, underburn, reforestation, herbicide 13.30 13.30

Hand thin up to 6”, pile burn, underburn 29.70 45.00

Hand thin, grapple pile, pile burn, underburn 16.40 14.50

Mechanical thin, grapple pile, pile burn, underburn 54.20 42.00

Mechanical thin, hand thin, grapple pile, pile burn, underburn 37.40 37.40

Precommercial mechanical thin, grapple pile, pile burn, underburn 0.03 0.03

Total acres 154.00 154.00

Summary of Mule Deer Status and Trend at the Bioregional Scale This section summarize the habitat and distribution population status and trend data for the mule deer as of 2015. This information is drawn from the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) assessment of herd condition as described in the California Department of Fish and Wildlife Deer Management Program 2015.

The deer herds at the Sierra Nevada bioregional scale include California Zones X3b, X3a, X1, X2, C4, D3, X7a, X7b, X9a, D4, D5, and D6. Deer populations in these zones are considered stable to slightly declining, yet considerably below levels seen in the late 1960s and 1970s.

As with most deer herds in California and other western states, the long-term population trend of mule deer is currently steady, but has declined since the 1960s and 1970s. This long-term decline has been due to land management practices that precluded fire, resulting in changes toward more mature and less diverse habitats, and reduced quality and quantity of deer habitats. Short-term fluctuations in deer populations are usually attributed to weather events that affect forage production.

Relationship of Project-level Effects to Bioregional-scale Trend The project alternatives would cause minimal change in mule deer populations, trends, or the montane hardwood/conifer habitat associated with mule deer. Given the ubiquity of mule deer management indicator species habitat across the bioregion, this small change at the project level would not alter the


12

bioregional trend in the habitat, nor would it lead to a change in the population or distribution of mule deer across the Sierra Nevada bioregion.

Effects on Early Seral and Mid-seral Coniferous Forest (Mountain Quail) The mountain quail (Oreortyx pictus) is the management indicator species for early and mid-seral coniferous forest habitat on the ten Sierra Nevada National Forests (Eldorado, Inyo, Lassen, Modoc, Plumas, Sequoia, Sierra, Stanislaus, and Tahoe National Forests and the Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit). In California, mountain quail is a common to uncommon resident, found typically in most major montane habitats of the state (California Department of Fish and Game 2005). It is a hunted species in California. Typical causes of mortality include predation by accipiter, great horned owl, coyote, bobcat, gray fox, long-tailed weasel, and rattlesnake; accidents, including nests disturbed or trampled by cattle, sheep, and deer, nests lost to logging activities, and drowning in livestock watering devices without escape ramps and reservoirs too large for quail to fly across; fire; drought; snow and cold; and competition with other species (Gutierrez and Delehanty 1999).

Habitat Factor(s) for the Analysis

The following parameters were used to estimate the amount of early seral and mid-seral conifer MIS habitat component: • Early Seral = ponderosa pine (PPN), Sierran mixed conifer (SMC), white fir (WFR), red fir (RFR),

eastside pine (EPN), tree sizes 1, 2, and 3, all canopy closures.

• Mid-seral = ponderosa pine (PPN), Sierran mixed conifer (SMC), white fir (WFR), red fir (RFR), eastside pine (EPN), tree size 4, all canopy closures.


13

Figure 5. Moonlight project treatments within mountain quail early-seral habitat under alternatives B and D


14

Figure 6. Moonlight project treatments within mountain quail early-seral habitat under alternative C


15

Figure 7. Moonlight project treatments within mountain quail mid-seral habitat under alternatives B and D


16

Figure 8. Moonlight project treatments within mountain quail mid-seral habitat under alternative C


17

Direct and Indirect Effects The total available habitat within this ecosystem component is 3,635 acres of early seral coniferous forest and 57,669 acres of mid-seral coniferous forest equaling 61,304 acres. Mountain quail populations on the Plumas National Forest are considered to be stable with habitat common and well distributed across the Forest. All action alternatives are identical regarding effects to mountain quail and associated habitats. Under all action alternatives, treatments would occur over 584 acres (16 percent) within early seral habitat and over 7,440 acres (13 percent) for mid-seral habitat (table 5 and table 6).

Table 5. Effects to management indicator species (MIS) early-seral habitat for mountain quail

Existing Management Indicator Species Habitat Alts B and D - MIS Habitat acres


Mountain Quail - Early Seral Coniferous Forest Total acres = 3,635





Hand thin, pile burn, underburn 1.6 1.2





Table 6. Effects to management indicator species (MIS) mid-seral habitat for mountain quail



Mountain Quail - Mid Seral Coniferous Forest Total= 57,669 acres

Fence 6.1 6.1


Grapple pile, pile burn, underburn, reforestation 9.4 9.4

Grapple pile, pile burn, underburn, reforestation, herbicide 2,024.1 2,024.1

Hand fall large trees, fence 9.1 9.1

Hand thin up to 6”, pile burn, underburn 899.9 1,686.3



Mechanical thin, grapple pile, pile burn, underburn 3,208.6 2,875.8

Mechanical thin, grapple pile, pile burn, underburn, fence 2.2 2.2

Mechanical thin, grapple pile, pile burn, underburn, manage and monitor livestock, fence if necessary 0.4 0.4




18



Total acres 7,440.0 7,440.0

Summary of Mountain Quail Status and Trend at the Bioregional Scale Current data indicates that the distribution of mountain quail populations in the Sierra Nevada is stable (Roberts et al. 2015).

Relationship of Project-level Effects to Bioregional-scale Trend As a result of the action alternatives, minimal change would be expected in trends for mountain quail or the early seral and mid-seral conifer habitat component. Given the ubiquity of this ecosystem component across the bioregion, this small change at the project level would not alter the stable bioregional trend in the habitat component, nor would it lead to a change in the population or distribution of mountain quail across the Sierra Nevada bioregion.

Effects on Late Seral Open Canopy Coniferous Forest (Sooty (Blue) Grouse) The sooty grouse, which used to be known as the blue grouse, is the management indicator species for late seral open canopy coniferous forest habitat on the ten Sierra Nevada National Forests. It is a hunted species. In California, the sooty grouse is an uncommon to common permanent resident at middle to high elevations within the North Coast Ranges in northwestern California, and the Klamath, Sierra Nevada, and portions of the Warner, White, and Tehachapi Mountains (California Department of Fish and Game 2005). Sooty grouse occurs in open, medium to mature-aged stands of fir, Douglas-fir, and other conifer habitats, interspersed with medium-to-large openings and available water. Sooty grouse pluck on shrubs, grasses and plants for seeds and insects from the ground and in the tree canopy. Their winter diet largely includes needles, buds, cones, and twigs in conifer stands, and their summer diet also includes insects, land snails, grasshoppers, and spiders. Sooty grouse breed from early April to late August, with 6-8 eggs hatching from a ground nest (built under logs, stumps, and snags) in late May to mid-June. Primary risks and management concerns discussed by the California Department of Fish and Game include heavy grazing, newly cut forests for timber, stands being treated for fuels reduction, and repeated long term burning (California Department of Fish and Game 2005).

Habitat Factor(s) for the Analysis The following parameters were used to estimate the amount of late seral open canopy habitat component:

• Ponderosa pine (PPN), Sierran mixed conifer (SMC), white fir (WFR), red fir (RFR), eastside pine (EPN), tree size 5, canopy closures S and P.


19

Figure 9. Moonlight project treatments within sooty (blue) grouse habitat under alternatives B and D


20

Figure 10. Moonlight project treatments within sooty (blue) grouse habitat under alternative C


21

Direct and Indirect Effects The total available habitat within this ecosystem component is 2,136 acres of late seral open coniferous forest. Sooty grouse populations on the Plumas National Forest are considered to be stable with habitat widely distributed in small parcels across the Forest. Current use has maintained stable population trends and occupancy. All action alternatives are identical regarding effects to sooty grouse and associated habitats. Under all action alternatives, treatments would occur over 260 acres (12 percent) within late seral open canopy habitat (table 7).

Table 7. Effects to management indicator species (MIS) habitat for sooty grouse



Sooty (blue) grouse - Late Seral Open Canopy Coniferous Forest Total= 2,136 acres

Fence 0.2 0.2









Summary of Status and Trend at the Bioregional Scale The sooty grouse has been monitored in the Sierra Nevada at various sample locations by hunter survey, modeling, point counts, breeding bird survey protocols:

• California Department of Fish and Wildlife Blue (Sooty) Grouse Surveys (Bland 1993, 1997, 2002, 2006, 2013).

• California Department of Fish and Wildlife hunter survey, modeling, and hunting regulations assessment (California Department of Fish and Game 2004a, 2004b, California Department of Fish and Wildlife 2015)


Sooty grouse continue to be detected and bagged through hunting across the Sierra Nevada (California Department of Fish and Wildlife 2015). In addition, modeling based on game take survey and habitat acres indicates that the spring breeding population can more than sustain the total annual mortality, including hunting mortality (California Department of Fish and Game 2004a). Sooty grouse have continued to be detected on breeding bird survey routes in the Sierra Nevada showing a stable trend over time (Sauer et al. 2014).

Relationship of Project-level Effects to Bioregional-scale Trend As a result of the action alternatives, there would minimal expected change in populations or population trends for sooty grouse, nor to the late-seral open canopy ecosystem component with which they are


22

associated. Given the ubiquity of this ecosystem component across the bioregion, the small effects at the project level would not alter the bioregional trend in the ecosystem component, nor would it lead to a change in the distribution or population of sooty grouse across the project area or the Sierra Nevada bioregion.

Late Seral Closed Canopy Coniferous Forest (California Spotted Owl, Pacific Marten, Northern Flying Squirrel) There are three species associated with this habitat component. They include the California spotted owl, Pacific marten, and the northern flying squirrel. The spotted owl and the marten are analyzed in more depth in the biological evaluation (BE) for the Moonlight project, and those results have been considered in this management indicator species report. The primary goal of this management indicator species report differs from the biological evaluation in that this report evaluates how, if at all, project effects will contribute to any changes in the management indicator species trends in the Sierra Nevada Bioregion.

The California spotted owl occurs only in California, on the western side of the Sierra Nevada (and very locally on the eastern slope). The California spotted owl is strongly associated with forests that have a complex multi-layered structure, large-diameter trees, and high canopy closure (California Department of Fish and Game 2005, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2006). It uses dense, multi-layered canopy cover for roost seclusion; roost selection appears to be related closely to thermoregulatory needs, and the species appears to be intolerant of high temperatures (California Department of Fish and Game 2005). Mature, multi-layered forest stands are required for breeding (Ibid). The mixed-conifer forest type is the predominant type used by spotted owls in the Sierra Nevada: about 80 percent of known sites are found in mixed-conifer forest, with 10 percent in red fir forest (USDA Forest Service 2001). The following factors are the primary types of activities that negatively affect the California spotted owl (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2006): destruction or modification of habitat by wildfire, fuels-reduction activities, timber harvest, tree mortality, and land development.

The Pacific marten (formerly American marten) occurs from the southern Rockies in New Mexico northward to the tree-line in Canada and Alaska, and from the southern Sierra Nevada eastward to Newfoundland in Canada; in Canada and Alaska, martens have a vast and continuous distribution, but in the contiguous western United States, martens are limited to mountain ranges within a narrow band of coniferous forest habitats. Optimal habitats in California are various mixed evergreen forests with more than 40 percent crown closure, with large trees and snags, especially within red fir, lodgepole pine, subalpine conifer, mixed conifer, Jeffrey pine, and eastside pine (California Department of Fish and Game 2005). Martens prefer coniferous forest habitat with large diameter trees and snags, large down logs, moderate-to-high canopy closure, and an interspersion of riparian areas and meadows. Important habitat attributes are: vegetative diversity, with predominately mature forest; snags; dispersal cover; and large woody debris. Marten are trapped easily (California Department of Fish and Game 2005). Decreases in habitat quality and quantity can occur from activities that cause the removal of overhead forest cover, removal of large-diameter trees and coarse woody debris, and the conversion of mesic to xeric sites with associated changes in prey communities (California Department of Fish and Game 2005). Three factors make martens vulnerable to local extirpation and extinction: (1) low reproductive potential; (2) an affinity for overhead cover and avoidance of extensive open areas, especially in winter; and (3) very large home ranges (USDA Forest Service 2001).

The northern flying squirrel, in California, is a locally common, yearlong resident of coniferous forests from 1,500 to 2,450 meters elevation (5,000 to 8,000 feet) of the North Coast, Klamath, Cascade, Sierra Nevada Ranges, and the Warner Mountains (California Department of Fish and Game 2005). The northern flying squirrel occurs primarily in mature, dense conifer habitats intermixed with various


23

riparian habitats, using cavities in mature trees, snags, or logs for cover (California Department of Fish and Game 2005). Management concerns include loss of habitat, including snags, and predation by large owls, especially spotted owls, domestic cats, martens, fishers, bobcats, and long tailed weasels (California Department of Fish and Game 2005).

Habitat Factor(s) for the Analysis The following parameters were used to estimate the amount of late seral closed canopy ecosystem component:

• Ponderosa pine (PPN), Sierran mixed conifer (SMC), white fir (WFR), red fir (RFR), tree size 5 (canopy closures M and D), and tree size 6.


24

Figure 11. Moonlight project treatments within late seral closed canopy habitat under alternatives B and D


25

Figure 12. Moonlight project treatments within late seral closed canopy habitat under alternative C


26

Direct and Indirect Effects The total available habitat within this ecosystem component is 20,831 acres of late seral closed canopy coniferous forest. Populations of all three management indicator species are considered to be stable on the Forest considering that distribution population monitoring indicates the species remains present in all previously known locations and the complex structure of this habitat type would not be modified in the project proposal. A more detailed description and analysis of effects for California spotted owl and Pacific marten is included in the Biological Evaluation which determined that all alternatives of the Moonlight Project “may affect individuals, but are not likely to lead to a loss of viability or a trend toward federal listing.” Effects to northern flying squirrels are the same as analyzed for the other management indicator species which depend on this habitat type. All action alternatives are identical regarding effects to California spotted owl, Pacific marten, and northern flying squirrel and associated habitat. Under all action alternatives, treatments would occur on 2,929 acres (14 percent) within late seral closed canopy coniferous forest habitat (table 8).

Table 8. Effects to management indicator species (MIS) habitat for California spotted owl, Pacific marten, and northern flying squirrel

Existing Management Indicator Species Habitat Alts B and D -

MIS Habitat acres


Late Seral Closed Canopy Coniferous Forest (Ca. Spotted Owl, Marten, flying squirrel) Total= 20,831 acres


Grapple pile, pile burn, underburn, reforestation 0.1 0.1

Grapple pile, pile burn, underburn, reforestation, herbicide 1,173.9 1,173.9






Mechanical thin, hand thin, grapple pile, pile burn, underburn, manage and monitor livestock, fence 5.1 5.1

Mechanical thin, grapple pile, pile burn, underburn, manage and monitor livestock, fence if necessary 13.0 13.0



Total acres 2,929.0 2,929.0

Summary of Status and Trend at the Bioregional Scale

California Spotted Owls California spotted owl has been monitored in California and throughout the Sierra Nevada through general surveys, monitoring of nests and territorial birds, and on-going demography studies. Four demographic studies of California spotted owl have been ongoing for a number of years within the Sierra


27

Nevada: (1) Eldorado National Forest (since 1986); (2) Lassen National Forest (since 1990); (3) Sierra National Forest (since 1990); and (4) Sequoia-Kings Canyon National Park (since 1990). Managers typically view a population as stable if the 95 percent confidence interval of λ (lambda - the number of owls present in a given year divided by the number of owls present the year before) overlaps a value of 1. A value less than one indicates the population is decreasing and greater than 1 indicates an increasing population. For the California spotted owl demographic studies, recent analysis (Blakesley et al. 2010), using data collected between 1990 and 2005, provided the following estimate of mean λ for the Lassen study area: 0.973, with a 95 percent confidence interval ranging from 0.946 to 1.001, which indicates a stable population. Additional clarification can be found in the Biological Evaluation for this project which contains more detailed information regarding California spotted owls.

Pacific Marten Pacific marten has been monitored throughout the Sierra Nevada as part of general surveys and studies from 1996-2002 (Zielinski et al. 2005). Since 2002, the marten has been monitored on the Sierra Nevada forests as part of the Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment (SNFPA) monitoring plan. Data at the rangewide, California, and Sierra Nevada scales indicates that marten appear to be distributed throughout their historic range, and their distribution has become fragmented in some areas of the southern Cascades and northern Sierra Nevada, particularly in Plumas County (USDA Forest Service 2010). The primary concern regarding marten is maintaining the continuity and character of complex forests (dense canopy, multi-storied, snags, coarse woody debris). Moriarty (2014) found that marten concentrated use in complex patches of forest for foraging and acquisition of resources, while less complex patches were used infrequently for foraging bouts, and openings were used infrequently or avoided. Distribution appears to be continuous across high-elevation forests from Placer County south through the southern end of the Sierra Nevada although detection rates have decreased in some localized areas (e.g., Sagehen basin area of Nevada County) (USDA Forest Service 2010). Carnivore surveys in 2015-2016, did not detect any marten within the project area, follow up surveys will occur in 2017.

Northern Flying Squirrel The northern flying squirrel has been monitored and surveyed in the Sierra Nevada at various sample locations by live-trapping, ear-tagging, radio-telemetry, camera surveys, and snap-trapping:

• 2002 to present - Plumas and Lassen National Forests (Sierra Nevada Research Center 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010).

• 1958 to 2004 - Monitoring and study efforts throughout the Sierra Nevada.

These data indicate that northern flying squirrels continue to be present at these samples sites and that the distribution of northern flying squirrel populations in the Sierra Nevada is stable (USDA Forest Service 2010).

Relationship of Project-level Effects to Bioregional-scale Trend As a result of the action alternatives, there would minimal expected change in populations or population trends for California spotted owls, Pacific marten, or northern flying squirrels, nor to the late-seral closed canopy habitat component with which they are associated. Given the small effects at the project level, the project would not alter the bioregional trend in the habitat component, nor would it lead to a change in the distribution of California spotted owls, Pacific marten, or northern flying squirrels across the Sierra Nevada bioregion.


28

Effects on Snags in Green Forest Shrubland (Hairy Woodpecker) Hairy woodpecker was selected as the management indicator species for the ecosystem component snags in green forest. Hairy woodpecker range and habitat includes medium and large snags in green forest environments. More than 75 percent of their diet is comprised of insects, particularly the larvae of wood-boring beetles and bark beetles, ants, and moth pupae in the cocoons. Nests are typical in the dead stub of a living tree, especially trees with heartrot, or in a dead tree.

Habitat Factor(s) for the Analysis: 1. Medium and large snags in green forest


29

Figure 13. Moonlight project treatments within hairy woodpecker habitat under alternatives B and D


30

Figure 14. Moonlight project treatments within hairy woodpecker habitat under alternative C


31

Direct and Indirect Effects The total available habitat within these ecosystem components is 9,280 acres of snags in green forest habitat. Hairy woodpecker populations on the Plumas National Forest are considered to be stable with habitat widely distributed in small parcels across the Forest. Current use has maintained stable population trends and occupancy. All action alternatives are identical regarding effects to hairy woodpecker and associated habitats. Under all action alternatives, treatments would occur over 1,438 acres (15 percent) within snags in green forest habitat (table 9).

Table 9. Effects to management indicator species (MIS) habitat for hairy woodpecker



Hairy woodpecker – Snags in green forest Total= 9,280 acres

Grapple pile, pile burn, underburn 1 1

Grapple pile, pile burn, underburn, reforestation, herbicide 2 2


Hand thin, grapple pile, pile burn, underburn 27 24

Hand thin, pile burn, underburn 163 58


Mechanical thin, grapple pile, pile burn, underburn, manage and monitor livestock, fence if necessary 4 4

Mechanical thin, hand thin, grapple pile, pile burn, underburn 42 42

Mechanical thin, hand thin, grapple pile, pile burn, underburn, manage and monitor livestock, fence 2 2



Summary of Status and Trend at the Bioregional Scale The hairy woodpecker has been monitored in the Sierra Nevada along breeding bird survey routes:


Hairy woodpecker are common and widespread, and their populations have continued to be detected on breeding bird survey routes in the Sierra Nevada showing an increasing trend over time (Sauer et al. 2014). Hairy woodpecker is not on the 2016 State of North America’s Birds’ Watch List (Cornell 2015).

Relationship of Project-level Effects to Bioregional-scale Trend As a result of the action alternatives, there would minimal expected change in populations or population trends for hairy woodpecker, nor to the shrub ecosystem component with which they are associated. Given the ubiquity of this ecosystem component across the bioregion, the small effects at the project level would not alter the bioregional trend in the ecosystem component, nor would it lead to a change in the distribution or population of hairy woodpecker across the project area or the Sierra Nevada bioregion.


32

Effects on Snags in Burned Forest (Black-backed Woodpecker) Black-backed woodpecker was selected as the management indicator species for the ecosystem component snags in burned forest. Black-backed woodpecker range and habitat includes medium and large snags in burned forest (stand-replacing fire) environments. Preferred food is larvae of bark beetles and wood-boring beetles and forages on trunks and fallen logs. It nests in holes in tree trunks.

Habitat Factor(s) for the Analysis: 1. Medium and large snags in burned forest (stand-replacing fires)


33

Figure 15. Moonlight project treatments within black-backed woodpecker habitat under alternatives B and D


34

Figure 16. Moonlight project treatments within black-backed woodpecker habitat under alternative C


35

Direct and Indirect Effects The total available habitat within these ecosystem components is 14,091 acres of snags in burned forest habitat. Twenty survey points were established and have been monitored with positive detections within the Moonlight Fire area from 2009-2015 (except in 2013) (Siegel et al. 2015). Current use has maintained stable population trends and occupancy. Black-backed woodpecker populations on the Plumas National Forest are considered to be stable with habitat widely distributed in small parcels across the Forest. All action alternatives are identical regarding effects to black-backed woodpecker and associated habitats. Under all action alternatives, treatments would occur over 1,595 acres (11 percent) within snags in burned forest habitat (table 10).

Table 10. Effects to management indicator species (MIS) habitat for black-backed woodpecker



Black-backed woodpecker – Snags in burned forest Total= 14,091 acres

Grapple pile, pile burn, underburn 36 36

Grapple pile, pile burn, underburn, reforestation, herbicide 1,190 1,190

Hand fall large trees, Fence 1 1


Hand thin, grapple pile, pile burn, underburn 14 11


Mechanical thin, grapple pile, pile burn, underburn, manage and monitor livestock, fence if necessary 9 9

Mechanical thin, hand thin, grapple pile, pile burn, underburn 29 29

Mechanical thin, hand thin, grapple pile, pile burn, underburn, manage and monitor livestock, fence 3 3



Summary of Status and Trend at the Bioregional Scale The black-backed woodpecker has been monitored in the Sierra Nevada at various sample locations by both breeding bird survey routes and Institute for Bird Populations survey routes:


• Institute for Bird Populations annual black-backed woodpecker Sierra Nevada surveys 2009-2015 (Siegel 2015)

Black-backed woodpeckers occur in low densities, and the ephemeral nature of their preferred habitat make true population estimates difficult to obtain. The North American Breeding Bird Survey estimates that populations have been stable, with a possible increase, between 1966 and 2014 (Cornell 2015). Black-backed woodpecker have continued to be detected on breeding bird survey routes and Institute for Bird Populations routes in the Sierra Nevada showing a stable trend over time (Sauer et al. 2014 and Siegel 2015). Black-backed woodpeckers are not on the 2016 State of the Birds Watch List.


36

Relationship of Project-level Effects to Bioregional-scale Trend As a result of the action alternatives, there would minimal expected change in populations or population trends for black-backed woodpecker, nor to the snags in burned forest ecosystem component with which they are associated. Given the ubiquity of this ecosystem component across the bioregion, the small effects at the project level would not alter the bioregional trend in the ecosystem component, nor would it lead to a change in the distribution or population of black-backed woodpecker across the project area or the Sierra Nevada bioregion.

Migratory Landbird Conservation Under the National Forest Management Act (NFMA), the Forest Service is directed to “provide for diversity of plant and animal communities based on the suitability and capability of the specific land area in order to meet overall multiple-use objectives.” (P.L. 94-588, Sec 6 (g) (3) (B)). The January 2000 USDA Forest Service Landbird Conservation Strategic Plan, followed by Executive Order 13186 in 2001, in addition to the Partners in Flight specific habitat conservation plans for birds and the January 2004 Partners in Flight North American Landbird Conservation Plan all reference goals and objectives for integrating bird conservation into forest management and planning.

In late 2008, a Memorandum of Understanding between the USDA Forest Service and the US Fish and Wildlife Service to Promote the Conservation of Migratory Birds was signed. The intent of the memorandum of understanding is to strengthen migratory bird conservation through enhanced collaboration and cooperation between the USDA Forest Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service as well as other federal, state, tribal and local governments. Within the National Forests, conservation of migratory birds focuses on providing a diversity of habitat conditions at multiple spatial scales and ensuring that bird conservation is addressed when planning for land management activities.

Likely impacts to habitats the migratory birds depend on have been assessed in further detail within the Biological Assessment, Biological Evaluation and the management indicator species reports for the Moonlight Project. The Biological Assessment, Biological Evaluation, and management indicator species reports found that the Moonlight project would not cause adverse effects (Biological Assessment), would not cause a trend towards a loss of viability (Biological Evaluation), nor would it degrade various management indicator species habitats to a level that affects trends in the Sierra Nevada bioregion. Also, potential impacts to migratory species are minimized through the adherence to the Forest Plan as amended standards and guidelines for snags/down woody debris, avoidance of streamside management zones, and no degradation in riparian areas and wetlands.

It is my professional finding that the Moonlight Project would have minimal impacts to individual migratory birds and would not adversely affect migratory landbird conservation. This finding is based on the results of analysis conducted in the Biological Assessment, Biological Evaluation, and management indicator species reports, and that adherence to Forest Plan as amended standards are incorporated into the project design which in turn will maintain habitat diversity. The project meets the intent of the Migratory Landbird Memorandum of Understanding.


37

References Cited Blakesley, J.A.; Seamans, M.E.; Conner, M.M.; Franklin, A.B.; White, G.C.; Gutiérrez, R.J.; Hines, J.E.;

Nichols, J.D.; Munton, T.E.; Shaw, D.W.H.; Keane, J.J.; Steger, G.N.; McDonald, T.L. 2010. Population dynamics of spotted owls in the Sierra Nevada, California. Wildlife Monographs. 174: 1–36.

Bland, J.D. 2013. Estimating the number of territorial males in low-density populations of the sooty grouse. Western Birds 44:279-293.

Bland, J.D. 2006. Features of the Forest Canopy at Sierra Sooty Grouse Courtship Sites, Summer 2006. CDFG Contract No. S0680003.

Bland, J. D. 2002. Surveys of Mount Pinos Blue Grouse in Kern County, California, Spring 2002. Unpubl. report, Wildl. Mgmt. Div., Calif. Dept. Fish & Game, 1416 Ninth St., Sacramento, CA 95814.

Bland, J.D. 1997. Biogeography and conservation of blue grouse Dendragapus obscurus in California. Wildlife Biology 3(3/4):270.

Bland, J.D. 1993. Forest grouse and mountain quail investigations: A final report for work completed during the summer of 1992. Unpubl. report, Wildl. Mgmt. Div., Calif. Dept. Fish & Game, 1416 Ninth St., Sacramento, CA.

California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2015. Harvest of Small game, Upland Birds, and Other Wildlife in California. https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/hunting/upland-game-birds#22503332-harvest-data. Accessed January, 2016.

California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2015. California’s Deer Population Estimates 1991-2014 http://www.dfg.ca.gov/wildlife/hunting/deer/population.html Accessed July, 2016.

California Department of Fish and Game. 2005. California Department of Fish and Game and California Interagency Wildlife Task Group. California Wildlife Habitat Relationships (CWHR) version 8.1. personal computer program. Sacramento, California. On-Line version.

California Department of Fish and Game. 2004a. Resident Game Bird Hunting Final Environmental Document. August 5, 2004. State of California, The Resources Agency, Department of Fish and Game. 182 pp + appendices.

California Department of Fish and Game. 2004b. Report of the 2004 Game Take Hunter Survey. State of California, The Resources Agency, Department of Fish and Game. 20pp.

Cornell University. 2015. All About Birds, The Cornell Lab of Ornithology: Access online: https://www.allaboutbirds.org/guide.

Dailey, S., J. Fites, A. Reiner, and S. Mori. 2008. Fire behavior and effects in fuel treatments and protected habitat on the Moonlight fire. Fire Behavior Assessment Team. Available online www.fs.fed.us/adaptivemanagement/projects/FBAT/docs/MoonlightFinal_8_6_08.pdf;.

Gutiérrez, R. J. and David J. Delehanty. 1999. Mountain Quail (Oreortyx pictus), 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/457 doi:bna.457

https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/hunting/upland-game-birds#22503332-harvest-data

https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/hunting/upland-game-birds#22503332-harvest-data

http://www.dfg.ca.gov/wildlife/hunting/deer/population.html

https://www.allaboutbirds.org/guide

http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/457


38

Mayer, K. E. and W. F. Laudenslayer, Jr. 1988. A Guide to the Wildlife Habitats of California. California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, Sacramento. 166pp.

Moriarty, Katie, M. 2014. Habitat Use and Movement Behavior of Pacific Marten (Martes caurina) in Response to Forest Management Practices in Lassen National Forest, California. Dissertation. Oregon State University. Available online at https://ir.library.oregonstate.edu/xmlui/bitstream/handle/1957/54574/141203_Moriarty_OSU_Dissertation_FINAL.pdf?sequence=1 Accessed January, 2016.

Roberts, L.J., A.M. Fogg, and R.D. Burnett. 2015. Sierra Nevada National Forests Avian Management Indicator Species Project: 2014 Annual Report. Point Blue Conservation Science, Petaluma, CA. www.pointblue.org

Sauer, J. R., J. E. Hines, J. E. Fallon, K. L. Pardieck, D. J. Ziolkowski, Jr., and W. A. Link. 2014. The North American Breeding Bird Survey, Results and Analysis 1966 - 2013. Version 01.30.2015 USGS Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, Laurel, MD

Siegel, R.B., M.W. Tingley, and R.L. Wilkerson. 2015. Black-backed Woodpecker MIS Surveys on Sierra Nevada National Forests: 2015 Annual Report. Report to USFS Pacific Southwest Region. The Institute for Bird Populations, Point Reyes Station, CA.

Sierra Nevada Research Center. 2010. Plumas Lassen Study 2009 Annual Report. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station, Sierra Nevada Research Center, Davis, California. 184pp. http://www.fs.fed.us/psw/programs/snrc/forest_health/plas_annual_report_2009.pdf

USDA Forest Service. 2000. Landbird Strategic Plan, FS-648. Washington, D.C.

USDA Forest Service. 2001. Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment Final Environmental Impact Statement. Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region. January 2001. http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/snfpa/library/archives/feis/index.htm

USDA Forest Service. 2007. Record of Decision, Sierra Nevada Forests Management Indicator Species Amendment. U.S. Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region. December, 2007. 18pp.

USDA Forest Service. 2007b. Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit Multi Species Inventory and Monitoring: A Foundation for Comprehensive Biological Status and Trend Monitoring in the Lake Tahoe Basin. Draft Report.

USDA Forest Service. 2008. Sierra Nevada Forests Bioregional Management Indicator Species (MIS) Report: Life history and analysis of Management Indicator Species of the 10 Sierra Nevada National Forests: Eldorado, Inyo, Lassen, Modoc, Plumas, Sequoia, Sierra, Stanislaus, and Tahoe National Forests and the Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit. Pacific Southwest Region, Vallejo, CA. January 2008. http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/snfmisa/pdfs/2008_Sierra_Nevada_Forests_MIS_Report_January_2008.pdf

USDA Forest Service. 2010. Sierra Nevada Forests Bioregional Management Indicator Species (MIS) Report: Life history and analysis of Management Indicator Species of the 10 Sierra Nevada National Forests: Eldorado, Inyo, Lassen, Modoc, Plumas, Sequoia, Sierra, Stanislaus, and Tahoe National Forests and the Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit. Pacific Southwest Region, Vallejo, CA. December 2010. 132pp.

https://ir.library.oregonstate.edu/xmlui/bitstream/handle/1957/54574/141203_Moriarty_OSU_Dissertation_FINAL.pdf?sequence=1

https://ir.library.oregonstate.edu/xmlui/bitstream/handle/1957/54574/141203_Moriarty_OSU_Dissertation_FINAL.pdf?sequence=1

http://www.fs.fed.us/psw/programs/snrc/forest_health/plas_annual_report_2009.pdf

http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/snfpa/library/archives/feis/index.htm

http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/snfmisa/pdfs/2008_Sierra_Nevada_Forests_MIS_Report_January_2008.pdf

http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/snfmisa/pdfs/2008_Sierra_Nevada_Forests_MIS_Report_January_2008.pdf


39

USDA Forest Service. 2010b. Sierra Nevada forest plan accomplishment monitoring report for 2008. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region. On-line version. http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/snfpa/monitoringreport2008/

USDA Forest Service, USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2008. Memorandum of Understanding between the US Department of Agriculture Forest Service and the US Fish and Wildlife Service to promote the conservation of migratory birds. FS Agreement #08-MU-1113-2400-264. Washington, D.C.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2006. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 12-month Finding for a Petition to List the California Spotted Owl (Strix occidentalis occidentalis) as Threatened or Endangered. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, 50 CFR Part 17. Federal Register: May 24, 2006, Volume 71, Number 100, pages 29886-29908.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2002. Birds of conservation concern 2002. Division of Migratory Bird Management, Arlington, Virginia. 99 pp.

Zielinski, W.J., R.L. Truex, F.V. Schlexer, L.A. Campbell, C.Carroll. 2005. Historical and contemporary distributions of carnivores in forests of the Sierra Nevada, California, USA. Journal of Biogeography 32:1385-1407.

http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/snfpa/monitoringreport2008/

Documents

Moonlight Vegetation Project Management Indicator Species ...a123.g.akamai.net/7/123/11558/abc123/forestservic.download.akam… · Moonlight Vegetation Project Management Indicator