Final Environmental Impact Statement Kings River Experimental Watershed Project 

Chapter 3­9 – Terrestrial Wildlife 3.9­1 

Affected Environment and Environmental 

Consequences 

3­9 Terrestrial Wildlife 

3­9.1 Introduction 

Sections	3­9.1	through	3­9.5	are	an	assessment	of	the	KREW	Project	effects	on	federally	listed	

threatened	or	endangered	species	and	Forest	Service	(FS)	sensitive	species	­	which	is	a	summary	of	the	

KREW	Project	Terrestrial Species Biological Assessment and Evaluation	(BABE).		Section	3­9.6	is	a	

summary	of	the	KREW	Project	Management Indicator Species Report.		Both	of	these	reports	should	be	

reviewed	for	more	detailed	information.	

3­9.2 Scope of Analysis, Methodology, and Indicators 

3­9.2.1 Scope of Analysis

Terrestrial Wildlife Species 

A		list	of	federal	endangered,	threatened,	candidate,	and	proposed	terrestrial	wildlife	species	that	occur	

in	or	may	be	affected	by	projects	in	the	SNF	was	obtained	from	the	USFWS	website	on	November	15,	

2010	(USFWS	2010),	and	the	FS	sensitive	species	list	is	based	on	the	Pacific	Southwest	Region’s	list	of	

June	10,	1998.	

Wildlife	surveys	were	conducted	in	the	project	area	focusing	on	species	with	habitat	or	potential	habitat.	

The	status	of	the	California	spotted	owl	(CSO)	was	determined	from	the	most	recent	observations	of	the	

Pacific	Southwest	Research	Station’s	(PSW)	Spotted	Owl	Demographic	Study.	The	status	of	Pacific	fisher	

was	determined	by	the	ongoing	PSW	Kings	River	Fisher	Project	which	has	located	fisher	home	ranges,	

den	sites,	and	individual	fisher	in	the	KREW	project	area.				

Biological Assessment 

The	purpose	of	the	BA	is	to	present	an	analysis	of	effects	of	the	proposed	action	and	alternatives	on	

federally	listed	endangered,	threatened,	candidate,	and	proposed	terrestrial	wildlife	species	and	their	

habitat.		

There	are	five	threatened	(T),	endangered	(E),	or	proposed	(P)	terrestrial	wildlife	species	listed	by	the	

USFWS	(listed	below)	that	may	occur	or	may	be	affected	by	projects	on	the	SNF.	However,	they	do	not	

have	habitat	within	or	adjacent	to	the	project	areas,	therefore	are	not	affected	directly,	indirectly,	or	

cumulatively	by	the	action	alternatives	of	the	KREW	project.	Therefore,	these	species	were	not	

addressed	further	in	the	BA,	and	technical	assistance	is	not	required	with	the	USFWS	for	these	species.	

The	action	alternatives	would	have	no	effect	on	these	five	terrestrial	wildlife	species	or	their	habitats:	

x Fresno	kangaroo	rat	(E)	 Dipodomys nitratoides exilis

x Sierra	Nevada	bighorn	sheep	(E)	 Ovis candadensis californiana
Final Environmental Impact Statement Kings River Experimental Watershed Project 

Chapter 3­9 – Terrestrial Wildlife 3.9­2 

x California	condor	(E)	 Gymnogyps californianus

x San	Joaquin	kit	fox	(E)	 Vulpes macrotis mutica

x Valley	elderberry	longhorn	beetle	(T)	 Desmocerus californicus dimporhus

Biological Evaluation 

The	purpose	of	the	BE	is	to	document	FS	programs	or	activities	in	sufficient	detail	to	determine	how	the	

proposed	action	and	alternatives	may	affect	FS	sensitive	terrestrial	wildlife	species	and	their	habitats.	

Sierra	National	Forest	has	thirteen	FS	sensitive	terrestrial	wildlife	species	(listed	below),	and	the	

following	six	species	do	not	have	habitat	within	or	adjacent	to	the	KREW	project	areas,	therefore	are	not	

affected	directly,	indirectly,	or	cumulatively	by	the	proposed	action	or	alternatives.		Refer	to	the	

Terrestrial	Wildlife	BA/BE	for	further	details.	

x California	wolverine	 Gulo gulo

x Sierra	Nevada	red	fox	 Vulpes vulpes necator

x Bald	eagle	 Haliaeetus leucocephalus

x Peregrine	falcon	 Falco peregrines anatum

x Townsend’s	big­eared	bat	 Corynorhinus townsendii

x Western	red	bat	 Lasiurus blossevillii

Analysis	was	presented	in	the	BE	to	determine	the	effects	of	the	proposed	action	and	alternatives	on	the	

other	seven	sensitive	terrestrial	wildlife	species:		

x California	spotted	owl	 Strix occidentalis occidentalis

x Northern	goshawk	 Accipiter gentilis

x Great	gray	owl	 Strix nebulosa

x American	marten	 Martes americana

x Pacific	fisher		 Martes pennanti (pacifica) (DPS)

x Pallid	bat	 Antrozous pallidus

x Willow	flycatcher	 Empidonax traillii

The	terrestrial	wildlife	management	indicator	species	(MIS)	for	the	SNF	are	analyzed	in	a	separate	

report.		

3­9.2.2 Methodology and Modeling Used in the Analysis

The	overall	methodology	for	evaluating	the	effects	to	wildlife	was	to	assess	changes	in	their	habitats,	as	

adopted	from	the	Sierra	Nevada	Forest	Plan	Amendment	Final	Supplemental	Environmental	Impact	

Statement	(USDA	Forest	Service	2004).	Computer	models	were	used	to	describe	the	vegetation	current	

condition,	then	to	grow	and	display	direct	effects	(post	treatment),	indirect	(future)	effects,	and	

cumulative	effects	(landscape	and	future)	for	each	alternative.	More	than	300	stand	examination	plots	

were	collect	and	used	to	describe	the	vegetation.	Geographic	information	systems	were	used	to	assign	

plot	data	to	vegetation	polygons	in	each	stand	to	create	simulation	units.	The	Forest	Vegetation	

Simulator	(FVS)	was	used	to	grow	trees	(Crookston	1997).	This	modeling	was	used	to	model	crown	

density,	changes	in	stand	structure	(growth	and	mortality),	and	trees	harvested	and	down	wood	created	

over	time	for	the	action	and	no­action	alternatives.		The	Forest	Fire	Effects	extension	of	FVS	was	used	to	
Final Environmental Impact Statement Kings River Experimental Watershed Project 

Chapter 3­9 – Terrestrial Wildlife 3.9­3 

simulate	changes	in	potential	fire	behavior	and	fire	effects	on	vegetation	(refer	to	the	Fire	and	Fuels	

Specialist	Report	for	the	KREW	Project).	Fire/Fuels	Extension	(FFE)	models	potential	fire	outputs	such	

as	fire	flame	lengths	and	fire	type	from	a	wildfire	in	treated	and	untreated	stands	to	show	a	comparison	

between	the	action	and	no­action	alternatives.	The	potential	wildfire	is	modeled	in	FVS	after	initial	

treatments	are	completed	for	a	comparative	analysis	as	well	as	effectiveness	of	treatments	over	time.		

The	effects	of	the	alternatives	on	wildlife	species	were	evaluated	by	comparing	the	changes	in	the	

quantity	and	quality	of	habitat	types	defined	in	the	CWHR	–	Version	8.2	software	program	(CDFG	2008).	

The	CWHR	class	data	was	collected	for	each	stand	within	the	project	area	to	populate	the	models	to	

project	changes	in	the	stands	by	CWHR	class	immediately	after	and	at	30	years	after	project	

implementation.	

This	document	assesses	the	direct,	indirect,	and	cumulative	effects	on	sensitive	wildlife	species,	and	

determinations	are	presented	following	the	discussion	of	effects	on	the	species.	The	determinations	

follow	the	guidelines	and	definitions	established	by	the	Pacific	Southwest	Region	of	the	FS	(USDA	Forest	

Service	1996).	Cumulative	effects	of	past,	present,	and	reasonably	foreseeable	future	actions	within	the	

areas	surrounding	the	KREW	management	areas	were	based	on	the	list	of	those	projects	provided	in	

Table	3­2.		

The	effects	for	northern	goshawk,	CSO,	and	American	marten	are	the	same	because	habitat	suitability	

ratings	for	reproduction,	cover,	and	feeding	for	the	stages	and	size	classes	identified	as	being	suitable	for	

the	three	species	are	the	same	(CDFG	2008).	So	the	effects	for	CSO	are	presented	as	representative	of	the	

effects	for	all	species.	Additional	analysis	was	conducted	for	CSO	because	of	its	sensitivity,	the	amount	of	

research	information	available	on	the	species	and	the	availability	of	tools	for	analyzing	the	effects	of	

forest	thinning	on	populations.	Applicable	data	is	available	to	analyze	the	effects	on	PACs	and	HRCAs	for	

the	CSO	while	existing	literature	and	data	did	not	make	this	level	of	analysis	possible	for	the	other	two	

species.	

Additional	analysis	was	conducted	for	Pacific	fisher	for	the	same	reasons	as	just	stated	for	the	CSO.	

Material	for	the	analysis	and	the	project	effects	on	the	Pacific	fisher	were	taken	from	the	USDA	FS’s	

Southern	Sierra	Version	of	the	Fisher	Assessment	and	Sustainability	Tool	(FAST)	(USDA	Forest	Service	

2010).	The	FAST	is	a	standardized	tool	available	to	USDA	FS	staff	to	analyze	the	effects	of	projects	on	

fisher.		

3­9.2.3 Indicators

The	effects	of	the	alternatives	were	evaluated	using	the	following	habitat	indicators.			

CWHR Habitat Types:	Habitat	types	used	in	this	analysis	are	defined	in	the	California	Wildlife	Habitat	

Relationships	(CWHR)	Ver.	8.2	(CDFG	2008),	and	are	shown	below.		These	habitat	types	were	assigned	

to	forest	stands	for	the	current	baseline	conditions,	as	well	as	used	for	the	FVS	modeling	of	habitat	

changes	through	time.		

CWHR	Class Tree	Size	and	Cover Diameter	at	Breast	Height	(dbh)

1 Seedling Less	Than	1	inch

2 Sapling 1	to	6	inches

3 Pole 6	to	11	inches

4 Small	Tree 11	to	24	inches

5 Medium/Large Greater	than	24	inches

6 Multi	Layered Size	5	with	multi­layered	canopies	

and	>60%	tree	crown	closure	
Final Environmental Impact Statement Kings River Experimental Watershed Project 

Chapter 3­9 – Terrestrial Wildlife 3.9­4 

Class Forest	Canopy	Cover

S 10	to	24%

P 25	to	39%

M 40	to	59%

D 60	to	100%

Specific Habitat Features:	Snags,	down	wood	(logs),	and	the	number	and	size	of	retained	live	trees	also	

were	used	as	indicators	of	habitat	change	for	California	spotted	owls	and	Pacific	fishers.		

3­9.3 Affected Environment 

3­9.3.1 Regulatory Setting

The	following	documents	provide	guidance	for	managing	federally	listed	and	proposed	species	and	their	

habitats	and	FS	sensitive	species	and	their	habitat.		

x SNF	Land	and	Resource	Management	Plan	(LRMP;	USDA	Forest	Service	1992)	

x Sierra	Nevada	Forest	Plan	Amendment	Final	EIS	and	Record	of	Decision	(USDA	Forest	Service	

2004)	

x FS	Manual	and	Handbooks	(FSM/H	2670)	

x National	Forest	Management	Act	(NFMA)	

x National	Environmental	Policy	Act	(NEPA)	

x Endangered	Species	Act	(ESA)	

x Healthy	Forest	Restoration	Action	of	2004	

x Pacific	Southwest	Regional	Forester	policy	and	management	direction	

x Species	management	plans	

x Species	management	guides	or	conservation	strategies	

x Pacific	Southwest	Regional	Forester	policy	and	management	direction.	

x Counterpart	Regulations	and	Alternative	Consultation	Agreement	of	2003	

3­9.3.2		Existing Condition

Bull Management Area:		The	Bull	area	is	1,195	acres	and	ranges	between	7,000	and	8,000	feet	in	

elevation.	The	no	treatment­control	area	for	this	section	of	the	KREW	study	is	located	within	the	

Teakettle	Watershed	directly	to	the	east	of	the	KREW	Bull	area.	The	KREW	Bull	Unit	is	composed	

predominantly	of	Sierra	mixed	conifer	and	red	fir	with	scattered	Jeffrey	pine	at	higher	elevations,	and	

Sugar	pine	and	incense	cedar	at	lower	elevations,	as	well	as	some	scattered	lodgepole	pine	stands	and	

meadow	areas.	The	northeastern	stands	are	comprised	primarily	of	white	fir.		Mountain	whitethorn	and	

green	leaf	Manzanita	dominate	forest	openings.		

Providence Management Area:		The	Providence	area	is	1,862	acres	and	ranges	between	5,000	and

6,000	feet	in	elevation.	This	area	is	composed	of	Sierra	mixed	conifer	with	60	to	120	year	old	white	fir	

and	incense	cedar	dominating	the	canopy.	Large	older	trees	(greater	than	200	years)	are	scattered	

across	the	management	area.		Dense	ponderosa	pine	stands	are	at	lower	elevations,	and	most	of	these	

are	plantations	created	after	the	1947	Bretz	fire.	Mixed	chaparral,	and	montane	hardwood	are	also	

represented	at	the	lower	elevations.	
Final Environmental Impact Statement Kings River Experimental Watershed Project 

Chapter 3­9 – Terrestrial Wildlife 3.9­5 

Wildlife Species Accounts

Northern Goshawk

The	SNF	is	within	the	summer	and	winter	range	of	the	Northern	Goshawk	(Accipter gentilis).		Goshawks	

are	distributed	on	the	SNF	and	known	nest	sites	are	protected.	As	directed	in	the	SNF	LRMP,	a	total	of	50	

goshawk	territories	have	been	established	forestwide.		As	of	1998,	20	of	the	50	territories	have	been	

incorporated	into	the	Regional	FS	database.		They	were	included	for	submittal	to	the	regional	database	

based	on	the	following	criteria:		10	have	at	least	one	active	nest	site	for	which	the	nest	location	is	

known;	4	are	historical	nest	sites	for	which	the	nest	location	is	unknown;	4	are	based	on	observations	of	

young;	2	are	based	on	observations	of	territorial	defense	or	repeated	sightings.		The	remaining	30	

territories	are	based	on	incidental	sightings	of	goshawk	and/or	suitable	goshawk	habitat.		A	detailed	

account	of	the	goshawk	territories	on	the	SNF	are	contained	within	the	Goshawk Network Management

Guidelines,	approved	by	the	Forest	Supervisor	in	1997	(USDA	Forest	Service	1997b).			

Within­stand,	nest­site	habitat	structure	and	composition	are	among	the	best­studied	aspects	of	

northern	goshawk	habitat	relationships	(Squires	and	Reynolds	1997).		As	stated	in	the	SNFPA,	although	

absolute	differences	in	structural	characteristics	may	differ	between	vegetation	types	and	geographical	

regions,	relative	habitat	use	patterns	are	consistent	such	that	northern	goshawks	use	nest­sites	with	

greater	canopy	cover,	greater	basal	area,	greater	numbers	of	large	diameter	trees,	and	lower	

shrub/sapling/understory	cover	and	numbers	of	small	diameter	trees,	and	gentle	to	moderate	slopes	

relative	to	non­used,	random	sites.		High	canopy	cover	is	the	most	consistent	structural	feature	similar	

across	studies	of	northern	goshawk	nesting	habitat.		This	habitat	provides	large	trees	for	nest	sites,	a	

closed	canopy	for	protection	from	predators	and	thermal	cover,	and	open	understories	that	provide	for	

maneuverability	and	detection	of	prey	below	the	canopy.	

John	Keane	and	Sean	Parks	(2003)	developed	a	model	to	compare	population	biology	in	conjunction	

with	landscape	modeling	of	nesting	habitat	suitability	to	focus	efforts	on	the	location	with	higher	

predicted	probability	of	occurrence.		The	objective	of	this	is	to	develop	a	procedure	for	increasing	

survey	efficiency	for	the	northern	goshawk.		For	2003	and	2004,	the	USFS	took	what	Keane	and	Parks	

came	up	with	and	compared	it	to	their	field	reconnaissance	from	the	previous	year.		They	surveyed	

more	area	in	2003	due	to	the	modeling	effort.	In	2004,	some	areas	were	eliminated	because	they	did	not	

contain	habitat	as	described	by	the	model.		

Habitat:		Generalized	habitat	models	based	on	best	professional	opinion	contained	in	the	CWHR	

database	rate	the	following	affected	vegetation	types	and	strata	as	providing	high	nesting	habitat	

capability	Sierran	Mixed	Conifer,	White	Fir,	Montane	Hardwood	Conifer,	and	Montane	Riparian	(6,	5D,	

5M,	4D,	4M);	Ponderosa	Pine,	Jeffrey	Pine,	Lodgepole	Pine,	Subalpine	Conifer	and	Montane	Hardwood	

(5D,	5M,	4D,	4M);	Red	Fir	(5D,	5M).		The	following	vegetation	types	and	strata	are	rated	as	providing	

moderate	nesting	habitat	capability	in	CWHR:	Aspen	(6,	5D,	5M,	4D,	4M);	Eastside	Pine	(5D,	5M,	4D,	4M,	

3D,	3M);	Red	Fir	(4D,	4M);	Lodgepole	Pine	and	Subalpine	Conifer	(3D,	3M).	

Current	records	show	that	suitable	goshawk	habitat	in	the	4000­8000	foot	elevation	range	on	the	SNF	

has	increased	by	about	20,000	acres	in	the	past	decade	(USDA	Forest	Service	2006)	to	approximately	

405,000	acres.	
Final Environmental Impact Statement Kings River Experimental Watershed Project 

Chapter 3­9 – Terrestrial Wildlife 3.9­6 

Goshawks	breed	in	older­age	coniferous,	mixed	conifer,	and	deciduous	forest	habitat	located	in	middle	

to	high	elevations.	Northern	goshawks	also	occur	in	northern	and	montane	forests.	Habitat	provides	

large	trees	for	nesting,	a	closed	canopy	for	protection	and	thermal	cover,	and	open	space­allowing	

maneuverability	below	the	canopy	(Fowler	1988).		Nest	sites	are	frequently	associated	with	meadows,	

riparian	areas,	gentle	to	moderate	slopes	(0	to	50	percent),	and	north	to	east	aspects.		Nest	sites	are	

generally	composed	of	the	larger	trees	(medium	to	large	timber),	and	high	tree	densities	within	a	stand.		

Frequently,	nest	sites	have	an	open	understory,	and	are	adjacent	to,	or	include	small	openings.		Sixty	to	

100	percent	canopy	closure	is	optimal,	50	percent	is	suitable,	and	30	to	49	percent	closure	is	marginal	

for	nest	sites.			Habitat	that	is	suitable	for	spotted	owls	is	also	suitable	for	goshawks.	

Nesting	activities	are	initiated	in	March,	with	egg	laying	and	incubation	completed	by	early	June.		

Hatching	and	fledging	occurs	in	June	and	July.	Young	become	independent	in	late	August.	Post	fledgling	

areas	are	dense	stands	possibly	over	400	acres	in	size	that	are	adjacent	to	the	nest	site,	provide	cover,	

are	defended	by	the	adults,	and	are	surrounded	by	foraging	habitat.		

Goshawks	hunt	in	forested	areas	and	use	snags	and	dead	topped	trees	to	scout	for	prey	and	for	prey	

plucking	posts.		Open	understory	in	forested	habitat	facilitates	detection	and	capture	of	prey.		Prey	

consists	mostly	of	birds	"from	robin	to	grouse	in	size,"	with	mammals	from	"squirrel	to	rabbit	size"	also	

taken	(Ziener	et	al.	1990a).		In	the	Lake	Tahoe	region	Douglas	squirrels	"appear	to	be	a	critically	

important	prey	species"	(Keane	1997).		

Openings,	snags,	down	logs,	woody	debris,	and	duff	and	litter	layers	are	important	components	in	all	

habitat	types	used	by	goshawks.		These	components	provide	the	habitat	needed	to	provide	a	diverse	and	

sustainable	population	of	prey.		Foraging	areas	may	be	over	5,000	acres	in	size,	and	consist	of	a	mosaic	

of	vegetative	seral	stages	including	meadows,	and	other	openings.	Foraging	habitat	preferences	of	

goshawks	are	poorly	understood,	although	limited	information	from	studies	in	conifer	forests	indicate	

that	goshawks	seem	to	prefer	to	forage	in	mature	forest	(summarized	in	Squires	and	Reynolds	1997).	

Fire,	the	primary	disturbance	mechanism	throughout	the	Western	United	States,	has	historically	

provided	landscapes	that	contained	and	maintained	goshawk	populations	(Graham	et	al.	1995).		Forest	

types	and	their	respective	fire	regimes	provide	context	for	developing	desired	conditions	for	sustaining	

northern	goshawks,	including	home	ranges	for	building	and	maintaining	nests,	a	place	for	their	young	to	

learn	to	hunt,	and	an	area	that	provides	food.			

Frequent,	low­intensity	surface	fires	which	characterize	a	nonlethal	fire	regime,	often	kill	small	trees	but	

rarely	kill	overstory	trees.		The	mixed	fire	regime	has	a	mixture	of	surface	fires	and	stand­replacement	

fires.		These	fires	kill	susceptible	species	in	the	overstory.		In	most	of	the	understory,	fire­resistant	trees	

often	survive.		The	result	is	a	mosaic	landscape	of	different	fire	intensities	(Graham	et	al.	1995).	In	

forests	with	variable	and	mixed	fire	regimes,	a	high	interspersion	of	forest	structural	stages	could	lead	

to	fragmentation	of	home	ranges.		To	sustain	goshawk	habitat,	adjustments	may	then	be	needed.		For	

example,	concentrating	openings	only	in	portions	of	a	home	range	mimics	disturbance	patterns	caused	

by	fire	(Graham	et	al.	1995).	

Occurrence in Project Area

Goshawks	have	not	been	detected	in	the	Providence	area	during	surveys	conducted	yearly	from	2004	

through	2010.	One	location	with	feathers	was	identified	indicating	that	there	may	be	goshawk	use	of	
Final Environmental Impact Statement Kings River Experimental Watershed Project 

Chapter 3­9 – Terrestrial Wildlife 3.9­7 

area.		The	Bull	management	area	was	surveyed	to	protocol	in	2004	and	2006,	as	well	as	2008­2009	with	

no	goshawk	detections,	and	no	incidental	sightings	have	been	reported	for	that	area.		

California Spotted Owl

The	Regional	Forester	of	R5	has	identified	the	CSO	as	a	Sensitive	species.	Wolcott	(2006)	presented	

general	background	information	about	the	federal	status	of	the	CSO	and	the	two	petitions	for	its	listing	

that	had	been	submitted	to	the	U.S.	Fish	and	Wildlife	Service	(USFWS);	that	summary	is	utilized	as	the	

basis	for	this	discussion	(See	Wolcott	2006	for	additional	information).		Since	the	development	of	

Wolcott’s	(2006)	report,	the	USFWS	(U.S.	Dept.	of	Interior	2006)	issued	its	12­month	finding	on	a	

petition	to	list	the	CSO	as	Threatened	or	Endangered.	In	its	finding,	published	on	24	May	2006,	the	

USFWS	found	that	the	petitioned	action	was	not	warranted.	The	USFWS	went	on	to	conclude	that	the	

scale,	magnitude,	or	intensity	of	effects	on	the	CSO	resulting	from	fire,	fuels	treatments,	timber	harvest,	

and	other	activities	did	not	rise	above	the	threshold	necessitating	protection	of	the	species	under	the	

ESA;	therefore,	the	CSO’s	status	remains	unchanged.	The	CSO	is	neither	listed	under	the	federal	

Endangered	Species	Act,	nor	currently	is	it	a	candidate	for	listing.	The	Sacramento	office	of	the	USFWS	

no	longer	maintains	a	federal	species	of	concern	list	(U.S.	Fish	and	Wildlife	Service	2006).	

Range and Distribution: The	CSO	still	occurs	throughout	its	historic	range	in	California.	There	are	no	

reliable	total	population	estimates	for	the	CSO.	The	number	of	CSO	territories	has	been	used	as	an	index	

to	illustrate	the	range	of	the	species	and	jurisdictions	in	which	it	occurs.		

Based	on	all	of	the	above­cited	studies,	nesting	habitat	for	CSOs	throughout	their	range	generally	is	

described	as	stands	with	average	dominant	and	co­dominant	trees	greater	than	61	cm	(24	in)	dbh	and	

canopy	cover	of	greater	than	70	percent.	Foraging	habitat	is	generally	described	as	stands	of	trees	of	30	

cm	(12	in)	in	diameter	or	greater,	with	canopy	cover	of	40	percent	or	greater.	

Requirements for Home Range Suitability: CSOs,	like	the	other	two	subspecies	of	spotted	owls,	use	or	

select	habitats	for	nesting,	roosting,	or	foraging	that	have	structural	components	of	old	forests,	including	

large­diameter	trees	that	are	typically	greater	than	24	inches	dbh	(diameter	breast	height),	high	tree	

density,	multi­layered	canopy/complex	structure,	and	high	canopy	cover	(greater	than	40	percent	and	

mostly	greater	than	70	percent)	(	Laymon	1988,	Bias	and	Gutierrez	1992,	LaHaye	et	al.	1992,	Gutierrez	

et	al.	1992,	Zabel	et	al.	1992).		About	80	percent	of	known	sites	are	found	in	mixed­conifer	forest.	

Gutierrez	et	al.	(1992)	found	that	spotted	owls	preferentially	use	areas	with	at	least	70	percent	canopy	

cover,	use	habitats	with	40	to	69	percent	canopy	cover	in	proportion	to	their	availability,	and	spend	less	

time	in	areas	with	less	than	40	percent	canopy	cover	than	expected	if	habitat	were	selected	randomly.	

CSOs	in	the	Sierra	Nevada	prefer	stands	with	substantially	greater	canopy	cover,	total	live­tree	basal	

area,	basal	area	of	hardwoods	and	conifers,	and	snag	basal	area	for	nesting	and	roosting.	Stands	suitable	

for	nesting	and	roosting	have:	(1)	Two	or	more	canopy	layers;	(2)	dominant	and	co­dominant	trees	in	

the	canopy	averaging	at	least	24	inches	dbh;	(3)	at	least	70	percent	total	canopy	cover	(including	the	

hardwood	component);	(4)	higher	than	average	levels	of	very	large,	old	trees;	and	(5)	higher­thanaverage	levels	of	snags	and	downed	woody	material	(Gutierrez	et	al.	1992).	

Spotted	owl	pairs	have	large	home	ranges	that	may	overlap	those	of	other	spotted	owls	(Verner	et	al.	

1992b).	Estimates	of	CSO	home­range	size	are	extremely	variable.	All	available	data	indicate	that	they	

are	smallest	in	habitats	at	relatively	low	elevations	that	are	dominated	by	hardwoods,	intermediate	in	
Final Environmental Impact Statement Kings River Experimental Watershed Project 

Chapter 3­9 – Terrestrial Wildlife 3.9­8 

size	in	conifer	forests	in	the	central	Sierra	Nevada,	and	largest	in	the	true	fir	forests	in	the	northern	

Sierra	Nevada	(Zabel	et	al.	1992,	USFS	2001).	Based	on	an	analysis	of	data	from	radio	telemetry	studies	

of	CSOs,	mean	home­range	sizes	of	breeding­season	pairs	were	estimated	at	3,642	hectares	(ha)	(9,000	

acres	(ac))	in	true	fir	forests	on	the	Lassen	National	Forest,	1,902	ha	(4,700	ac)	in	mixed	conifer	forests	

on	the	Tahoe	and	Eldorado	National	Forests,	and	1,012	ha	(2,500	ac)	in	mixed	conifer	forests	on	the	SNF	

(USFS	2001).		

Nesting Habitat: Verner	et	al	(1992)	report	that	micro	habitats	used	for	nesting	typically	have	greater	

than	70	percent	total	canopy	cover	(all	canopy	above	7	feet),	except	at	very	high	elevations	where	

canopy	cover	as	low	as	30­40	percent	may	occur	(as	in	some	red	fir	stands	of	the	Sierra	Nevada).		Nest	

stands	typically	exhibit	a	mixture	of	tree	sizes	and	usually	at	least	two	canopy	layers,	and	some	very	

large,	old	trees	are	usually	present.	Often	these	have	large,	natural	cavities,	broken	tops,	and/or	dwarf	

mistletoe	brooms.	Nest	stands	in	conifer	forests	usually	have	some	large	snags	and	an	accumulation	of	

fallen	logs	and	limbs	on	the	ground;	downed	woody	debris	is	not	a	major	component	of	nest	sites	in	

lower­elevation	riparian/hardwood	forests.	Spotted	owls	do	not	build	their	own	nests	but	depend	

mainly	on	finding	a	suitable,	naturally	occurring	site.	Nest	heights	vary	regionally­about	38	feet	in	

riparian/hardwood	forests	at	lower	elevations,	and	about	65	and	57	feet	in	conifer	forests	of	the	

northern	and	southern	Sierra	Nevada.	In	Sierra	conifer	forests,	nests	are	usually	in	cavities	or	on	

broken­topped	trees	or	snags.	Less	often	they	are	on	platforms	associated	with	abandoned	raptor	nests,	

squirrel	nests,	dwarf	mistletoe	brooms,	or	debris	accumulations	in	trees.		Cavity	nests	dominate	nest	

types	of	CSOs	in	the	Sierra	Nevada.	Nest	trees	are	typically	large	(dbh	of	about	45	inches)	for	nest	trees	

in	Sierra	conifer	forests	and	decadent.	Some	owl	pairs	use	the	same	nest	cavity	or	platform	repeatedly	

from	year	to	year,	some	select	new	sites	each	year,	and	yet	other	alternate	nest	sites	over	time	(Foreman	

et	al.	1984).			

Roosting Habitat: Verner	et	al	(1992)	found	that	stands	used	for	roosting	are	similar	to	those	used	for	

nesting,	with	relatively	high	canopy	cover,	dominated	by	older	trees	with	large	diameters,	and	with	at	

least	two	canopy	layers.	Studies	of	roosting	northern	spotted	owls	indicate	that	they	respond	to	

variation	in	temperature	and	exposure	by	moving	higher	or	lower	within	the	canopy,	or	around	the	

roost	tree,	to	access	more	comfortable	microclimates	(Forsman	et	al.	1984).	The	structure	of	

multistoried	stands	characteristic	of	roost	sites	facilitates	this	movement.		

Diet: Among	the	variety	of	taxa	on	which	they	prey,	CSOs	tend	to	select	a	few	key	species	(Verner	et	al.	

1992b).	In	lower	elevations	of	the	Sierra	Nevada	and	in	southern	California,	the	primary	prey	is	the	

dusky­footed	woodrat	(Neotoma	fuscipes)	(Thrailkill	and	Bias	1989),	which	is	most	abundant	in	

shrubby	habitats	and	uncommon	in	pure	conifer	forests	or	forests	with	little	shrub	understory	(Williams	

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

(Verner	et	al.	1992b).	Other	prey	items	include	gophers	(Thomomys	spp.),	mice	(Peromyscus	spp.),	

diurnal	squirrels	(Tamiasciurus douglasii, Sciurus griseus),	ground	squirrels,	(Spermophilus beecheyi),	

and	chipmunks	(Eutamias	spp.)	and	a	variety	of	other	rodents,	shrews	(Sorex	spp.),	moles	(Scapanus

spp.),	bats	(Myotis	spp.),	birds,	frogs,	lizards,	and	insects	(Verner	et	al.	1992b,	Gutierrez	et	al.	1995,	

Tibstra	1999).	Predators	and	closest	competitors	to	spotted	owls	are	great	horned	owls	(Bubo

virginianus)	(Forsman	et	al.	1984)	and	barred	owls	(Strix varia)	(Leskiw	and	Gutierrez	1998,	Hamer	et	

al.	2001,	Kelly	et	al.	2003).	

Occurrence in Project Area
Final Environmental Impact Statement Kings River Experimental Watershed Project 

Chapter 3­9 – Terrestrial Wildlife 3.9­9 

Providence: Two	spotted	owl	PACs,	FR021	and	FR122,	occur	within	the	Providence	management	unit,	

and	FR168	partially	overlaps	the	area.	The	California	Spotted	Owl	Study	(CSOS)	conducted	by	PSW	

includes	FR122.			

Bull: The	edge	of	a	spotted	owl	Home	Range	Core	Area	(HRCA)	(FR188)	abuts	the	Bull	management	

area.			

Great Gray Owl

In	California,	great	gray	owls	are	resident	in	the	Sierra	Nevada	from	4,500	to	7,500	feet	in	elevation	from	

Plumas	County	south	to	the	southern	Sierra	Nevada.	They	are	occasionally	reported	in	northwestern	

California	in	winter	and	in	Warner	Mountains	in	summer	(Zeiner	et	al.	1990a).	Recent	surveys	and	

genetic	sampling	of	the	Sierra	Nevada	great	gray	owl	population	indicates	that	this	geographicallyisolated	population	of	a	few	hundred	individuals	in	the	central	Sierra	Nevada	constitutes	a	geneticallyunique	population	that	may	warrant	formal	recognition	as	a	sub­species	(Hull,	J.M.,	et	al.	2010).		

Currently,	the	great	gray	owl	is	listed	as	a	sensitive	species	by	USFS	and	endangered	by	the	CDFG.			

In	the	Sierra	Nevada,	great	gray	owls	nest	in	mature	mixed	conifer,	red	fir,	or	lodgepole	pine	forests	near	

meadow	complexes	from	2400to	8800	feet	in	elevation.	Great	gray	owls	spend	90	percent	of	their	time	

within	600	feet	of	montane	meadows,	or	meadow	complexes	which	are	26	acres	or	larger	and	all	nests	

have	been	found	within	845	feet	of	meadows.	Nests	and	roost	stands	are	generally	in	excess	of	60	

percent	canopy	closure.	They	prey	mostly	on	small	rodents,	mostly	in	meadows,	and	occasionally	in	

other	open	areas	such	as	clearcuts	and	thinning	units	(Greene	1995).	

Great	gray	owls	nest	in	large,	broken­topped	snags,	usually	greater	than	24	inches	in	diameter.	They	do	

not	build	their	own	nests	and	have	been	known	to	use	old	hawk	or	eagle	nests	(Zeiner	et	al,1990a).	

Great	gray	owls	are	monogamous	and	produce	one	clutch	per	year.	Peak	egg­laying	is	March	through	

May	and	averages	3	eggs	per	clutch.	Fledging	age	is	21­28	days	or	more.	(Zeiner	et	al.	1990a).	

Of	the	habitat	types	that	occur	within	the	project	area,	the	CWHR	identifies	Sierran	mixed	conifer	4M,	

4D,	5M,	5D	as	important	for	great	gray	owls.		Large	wet	meadows	(i.e.	>26	acres),	or	meadow	complexes,	

also	are	important	for	foraging;	however	the	wet	meadows	of	the	project	area	are	patches	of	small,	

dispersed	meadows.		The	4M	and	4D	types	have	been	identified	as	providing	low	quality	reproductive	

habitat	but	high	quality	cover	and	feeding	habitat	for	great	gray	owls.	The	5M	and	5D	types	provide	high	

quality	habitat	for	reproduction,	cover,	and	feeding.		

Occurrence in Project Area

A	total	of	6	wet	meadows	exist	in	the	Providence	area,	for	a	total	of	24	acres	(mean	4.0	acres)	and	13	

wet	meadows	are	in	the	Bull	area	totaling	39	acres	(mean	of	3.0	acres).		Each	management	area	has	one	

wet	meadow	greater	than	10	acres:	a	14.6	acre	meadow	for	Providence	and	a	12.6	acre	meadow	for	the	

Bull.	

Management Area <2 acres 2­10 acres >10 acres

Bull 7 5 1

Providence 3 21
Final Environmental Impact Statement Kings River Experimental Watershed Project 

Chapter 3­9 – Terrestrial Wildlife 3.9­10 

Providence: Great	gray	owls	have	not	been	found	to	nest	in	the	Providence	area,	although	in	2004	a	

great	gray	owl	nest	was	located	by	CDFG	near	the	privately	owned	Forked	Meadow	area,	which	is	

approximately	0.5	mile	northeast	of	the	Providence	management	area.		An	undisclosed	number	of	young	

were	using	that	nest,	yet	no	adults	were	located.	In	2010,	the	USFS	detected	a	male	great	gray	owl	at,	

and	near,	that	same	meadow,	along	with	feathers	found	in	the	meadow,	which	indicates	probably	great	

gray	owl	foraging	in	that	privately	owned	Forked	Meadow.			

Bull: No	detections	of	great	gray	owls	have	been	made	in	or	within	0.5	miles	of	the	Bull	management	

area.			

Willow Flycatcher

Willow	flycatcher	is	listed	as	a	sensitive	species	by	USFS	and	as	an	endangered	species	by	CDFG.	The	

willow	flycatcher	is	a	nearctic­neotropical	migrant	species	that	breeds	across	North	America	and	

winters	from	Mexico	to	northern	South	America.	Currently,	approximately	half	of	the	willow	in	

California	occurs	in	the	Sierra	Nevada	bioregion	(Zeiner	et	al.	1990a).	

The	CWHR	system	identifies	wet	meadows	as	providing	high	quality	feeding	habitat,	low	quality	cover	

habitat,	and	unsuitable	reproductive	habitat	for	willow	flycatcher.	Willow	flycatchers	occur	in	wet	

meadow	and	montane	riparian	habitats	in	the	Sierra	Nevada	and	Cascade	Ranges	(CDFG	2008).	This	

species	is	typically	associated	with	broad,	open	river	valleys	or	large	mountain	meadows	(CDFG	2008),	

often	with	standing	or	running	water	(Sedgwick	2000).	Dense	willow	thickets	are	required	for	nesting	

and	roosting.	Low,	exposed	branches	are	used	for	singing	posts	and	hunting	perches	(CDFG	2008).	In	the	

Sierra	Nevada,	willow	flycatchers	are	consistently	absent	from	otherwise	apparently	suitable	areas	

where	the	lower	branches	of	willows	have	been	browsed	heavily	by	livestock	(Serena	1982).	

The	following	information	on	willow	flycatchers	is	taken	from	the	FIES	for	the	SNFPA	and	is	

incorporated	here	by	reference	(USDA	2004).	The	mean	shrub	cover	within	willow	flycatcher	territories	

has	been	documented	at	21,529	square	feet,	but	in	some	cases	they	use	as	little	as	1,076	square	feet	

(Harris	et	al.	1987	and	1988	in	USDA	Forest	Service	2004,	Sanders	and	Flett	1989	in	USDA	Forest	

Service	2004,	Fowler	et	al.	1991,	Bombay	1999	in	USDA	Forest	Service	2004).	Willow	flycatchers	have	

nested	in	meadows	less	than	one	acre	(KRCD	1985	in	USDA	Forest	Service	2004)	and	as	large	as	several	

hundred	acres	(Serena	1982,	Harris	et	al.	1987	and	1988	in	USDA	Forest	Service	2004,	Bombay	1999	in	

USDA	Forest	Service	2004)	although	Serena	(1982)	and	Harris	et	al.	(1987	and	1988	in	USDA	Forest	

Service	2004)	report	that	most	willow	flycatchers	(more	than	80	percent)	occur	in	meadows	larger	than	

19.8	acres	in	size.	The	most	recent	compilation	of	willow	flycatcher	data	in	the	Sierra	Nevada	indicates	

that	known	sites	range	in	size	from	1	to	716	acres,	with	a	mean	size	of	approximately	80	acres.	Sierra	

Nevada	surveys	for	willow	flycatchers	in	1982	and	1986	as	well	as	subsequent	surveys	and	historic	

records	in	the	bioregion	indicate	that	willow	flycatchers	occur	at	elevations	from	1,200	to	9,500	feet,	

although	most	of	the	known	willow	flycatcher	sites	(88	percent)	occur	between	4,000	and	8,000	feet	

(Serena	1982,	Harris	et	al.	1988	in	USDA	Forest	Service	2004,	Stafford	and	Valentine	1985	in	USDA	

Forest	Service	2004,	Bombay	et	al.	1998	in	USDA	Forest	Service	2004,	Armentrout	pers.	comm.	in	USDA	

Forest	Service	2004.).	

Estimating	willow	flycatcher	fledging	dates	cannot	be	calculated	with	certainty	because	willow	

flycatcher	arrival	dates,	snowpack,	summer	weather,	nest	predation,	and	brown­headed	cowbird	brood	

parasitism	influence	the	length	of	the	nesting	season.	Weather,	predation,	and	brood	parasitism	can	
Final Environmental Impact Statement Kings River Experimental Watershed Project 

Chapter 3­9 – Terrestrial Wildlife 3.9­11 

result	in	multiple	re­nesting	attempts.	As	many	as	three	nesting	attempts	in	one	breeding	season	have	

been	documented	for	willow	flycatcher	territories	in	the	Sierra	Nevada	(Morrison	et	al.	1999	in	USDA	

Forest	Service	2004).	

A	recent	compilation	of	multiple	years	of	Sierra­wide	willow	flycatcher	nesting	data	reveals	that	willow	

flycatchers	fledge	young	between	approximately	July	15	and	August	31,	and	fledglings	remain	in	

territories	for	2	to	3	weeks	post­fledging	(158	nests;	Stafford	and	Valentine	1985	in	USDA	Forest	Service	

2004,	Sanders	and	Flett	1989	in	USDA	Forest	Service	2004).	Prior	to	the	compilation	of	these	nesting	

data,	and	based	on	an	earlier	recommendation	by	Valentine	(1987	in	USDA	Forest	Service	2004),	

Valentine	et	al.	(1988	in	USDA	Forest	Service	2004),	and	Harris	et	al.	(1987	and	1988	in	USDA	Forest	

Service	2004),	the	willow	flycatcher	nesting	period	for	some	Sierra	Nevada	meadows	was	assumed	to	

extend	through	August	15.	The	more	recent	analysis	incorporates	all	available	willow	flycatcher	nesting	

data	for	the	Sierra	Nevada	and	indicates	that	the	Sierra	Nevada	willow	flycatcher	nesting	period	extends	

from	June	1	to	August	31.	Approximately	10	percent	of	the	total	successful	nesting	attempts	occur	

between	August	15	and	August	30.	Although	there	is	some	speculation	that	late­fledging	individuals	

(after	July	15)	may	have	a	lower	survival	rate	than	early	fledging	individuals	(Sedgwick	and	Iko	1999	in	

USDA	Forest	Service	2004),	this	parameter	has	not	been	specifically	evaluated	for	the	Sierra	Nevada	

(USDA	2004).	

Occurrence in Project Area

No	occupied	willow	flycatcher	habitat	has	been	identified	within	the	project	area,	although	there	are	24	

acres	of	wet	meadow	in	the	Providence	area,	and	39acres	of	wet	meadows	in	the	Bull	area.	According	to	

USFS	records,	between	1988	and	1995,	willow	flycatchers	have	been	documented	nesting	in	Dinkey	

Meadow,	which	is	east	of	the	KREW	project	area.	

The	total	number	of	territories	at	15	monitoring	sites	declined	from	62	in	1998	to	45	in	2001,	and	to	

only	37	territories	in	2002	(Bombay	and	Morrison	2003	in	USDA	Forest	Service	2004).	Perrazo	

Meadows	on	the	Tahoe	National	Forest	has	been	consistently	surveyed	since	1997.	The	number	of	

territories	there	has	declined	from	a	high	of	12	in	1997	to	a	current	low	of	only	2	(in	2002)	(Bombay	and	

Morrison	2003	in	USDA	Forest	Service	2004).	Consistent	survey	efforts	on	the	Sierra	and	Stanislaus	

National	Forests	in	the	past	several	years	show	a	lack	of	willow	flycatchers	at	a	number	of	well­known	

breeding	areas	in	the	central	and	southern	Sierra	Nevada.	In	addition,	three	years	of	surveys	on	the	

Sequoia	National	Forest	have	failed	to	re­confirm	earlier	occupancy	by	willow	flycatchers	(USDA	2004).	

Pacific Fisher

In	2004,	the	U.S.	Fish	and	Wildlife	Service	(FWS)	completed	a	12­month	status	review	of	the	fisher	

(Martes pennanti)	and	determined	that	the	West	Coast	Distinct	Population	Segment	warranted	

protection	under	the	Endangered	Species	Act	of	1976	et seq.	but	was	precluded	from	listing	by	higher	

priority	actions	(Federal	Register	Vol.	69	No.	68,	April	8,	2004),	making	this	fisher	population	study	a	

Candidate	for	listing.		The	West	Coast	Fisher	population	study	(USDI	Fish	and	Wildlife	Service	2004)	

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

Cascade	Mountains	and	Sierra	Nevada	to	the	Pacific	coast.			

The	state	of	California	has	listed	fishers	as	Species	of	Concern	since	at	least	1986		
Final Environmental Impact Statement Kings River Experimental Watershed Project 

Chapter 3­9 – Terrestrial Wildlife 3.9­12 

(http://www.dfg.ca.gov/wildlife/species/publications/mammal_ssc.html#a64).		In	March	2009,	the	

California	Fish	and	Game	Commission	recommended	that	the	fisher	be	assessed	for	listing	under	the	

California	State	Endangered	Species	Act.			

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

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

of	the	Sierra	Nevada,	but	did	not	attempt	to	estimate	population	numbers.		The	fisher	historically	

occurred	in	the	Lassen,	Plumas,	Tahoe,	Lake	Tahoe	Basin,	Eldorado,	Stanislaus,	Sierra,	and	Sequoia	

National	Forests,	but	was	not	known	to	occur	in	the	Modoc,	Inyo	or	Humboldt­Toiyabe	National	Forests.		

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

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

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

Zielinski	(2004)	noted	that	a	comparison	of	current	vs.	historic	distribution	is	an	essential	step	to	assess	

the	status	of	any	wildlife	population.		Fishers	appear	to	be	absent	from	a	240	mile	long	expanse	of	their	

historic	range	in	the	northern	and	central	Sierra	Nevada	(Zielinski	et	al.	1995).		This	gap	is	likely	a	result	

of	negatively	synergistic	interactions	resulting	from	historic	patterns	of	logging,	trapping,	and	porcupine	

(Erethizon dorsatum)	poisoning	(Zielinski	2004);	deeper	snow	levels	in	the	northern	Sierra	Nevada	

(Krohn	et	al.	1997);	higher	densities	of	roads	and	human	developments	in	the	northern	Sierra	Nevada	

(Duane	1996);	and	the	current	distributions	of	other	generalist	carnivores	(Campbell	2003).		The	

current	disjunct	distribution	pattern	may	also	be	partially	attributed	to	movement	and	dispersal	

constraints	imposed	by	the	elongated	and	peninsular	distribution	of	montane	forests	in	the	Pacific	states	

(Wisely	et	al.	2004).		Given	the	apparent	reluctance	of	fishers	to	cross	open	areas	(Earle	1978),	and	the	

more	limited	mobility	of	terrestrial	mammals	relative	to	birds,	it	is	more	difficult	for	fishers	to	locate	

and	occupy	distant,	but	suitable,	habitat.			

Preliminary	results	indicate	that	fishers	are	well­distributed	in	portions	of	the	Sequoia	and	SNFs;	annual	

occupancy	rates	are	consistently	higher	on	the	Sequoia	(33.3	percent	to	41.1	percent)	than	the	Sierra	

(14.5	percent	to	22.7	percent)	(USDA	Forest	Service	2005).		Comparisons	to	southern	Sierra	Nevada	

survey	data	from	the	1990’s	suggest	that	the	areal	extent	of	occurrence	for	fisher	may	have	expanded	

during	the	past	10	years	(USDA	Forest	Service	2005).		Additionally,	although	results	may	change	a	bit	as	

modeling	progresses	by	employing	data	subsequent	to	the	2002­2008	period,	preliminary	results	

suggest	that	there	has	been	no	substantial	difference	in	occupancy	rates	among	years,	and	no	seasonal	

effects	on	detection	probabilities	within	the	June	to	October	sampling	periods	(Truex	et	al.	2009).	

General Sierra Nevada Fisher Habitat and Biogeography: In	the	Sierra	Nevada,	fisher	habitat	occurs	

in	mid­elevation	forests	(Grinnell	et	at.	1937,	Zielinski	et	al.	1997)	largely	on	National	Forest	System	

lands,	below	the	elevations	of	national	parks	and	wilderness	areas.		In	the	southern	Sierra	Nevada,	

fishers	occur	sympatrically	with	martens	(Martes americana)	at	elevations	of	approximately	5,000	to	

8,500	feet	in	mixed	conifer	forests	(Zielinski	et	al.	1995).		The	Sierra	Nevada	status	and	trend	monitoring	

project	(USDA	Forest	Service	2006)	has	detected	fishers	as	low	as	3,110	feet	and	as	high	as	9,000	feet	in	

the	southern	Sierra	Nevada,	which	are	considered	to	be	extremes	of	the	elevational	range.	

Fisher	populations	are	presently	at	low	numbers	or	absent	throughout	most	of	their	historic	range	in	

Montana,	Idaho,	Washington,	Oregon,	and	California	(Heinemeyer	and	Jones	1994).		In	recent	decades,	a	

scarcity	of	sightings	in	Washington,	Oregon,	and	the	northern	Sierra	Nevada	may	indicate	fisher	

extirpation	from	much	of	this	area	(Aubry	and	Raley	1999,	Carroll	et	al.	1999,	Zielinski	et	al.	1995).		The	
Final Environmental Impact Statement Kings River Experimental Watershed Project 

Chapter 3­9 – Terrestrial Wildlife 3.9­13 

Sierra	Nevada	and	northwestern	California/Southwest	Oregon	populations	appear	to	be	the	only	

naturally­occurring,	known	breeding	populations	of	fishers	in	the	Pacific	region	from	southern	British	

Columbia	to	California	(Zielinski	et	al.	1997).		Because	fishers	occur	at	lower	elevations	than	martens,	

they	are	more	likely	to	be	directly	affected	by	human	activities.			

Fishers	are	long­lived,	have	low	reproductive	rates,	large	home	ranges	(for	carnivores	of	their	size)	and	

exist	in	low	densities	throughout	their	range	(Powell	1993).		This	implies	that	fishers	are	highly	prone	to	

localized	extirpation,	colonizing	ability	is	somewhat	limited,	and	that	populations	are	slow	to	recover	

from	deleterious	impacts.		Isolated	populations	are	therefore	unlikely	to	persist.		

CWHR	assigns	habitat	values	according	to	expert	panel	ratings,	and	the	following	CWHR	types	were	

thought	to	be	important	to	fishers:	structure	classes	4M,	4D,	5M,	5D	and	6	(stands	with	trees	11”	

diameter	at	breast	height	or	greater	and	greater	than	40	percent	cover)	in	ponderosa	pine,	montane	

hardwood­conifer,	Klamath	mixed­conifer,	Douglas­fir,	mixed	conifer,	montane	riparian,	aspen,	

redwood,	red	fir,	Jeffrey	pine,	lodgepole	pine,	subalpine	conifer,	and	eastside	pine	(Timossi	1990).		

CWHR2	is	a	derivative	of	the	CWHR	fisher	habitat	relationship	model	constructed	by	Davis	et	al.	(2007).		

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

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

red	fir,	and	subalpine	conifer.		We	have	further	refined	CWHR2	to	reflect	only	those	forest	types	present	

in	the	southern	Sierra	Nevada:		Jeffrey	pine,	montane	hardwood­conifer,	Ponderosa	pine,	Sierran	mixedconifer	and	white	fir,	terming	it	CWHR2.1.			

Table 3­9­1		High and moderate capability habitat for Pacific fisher (CWHR 2008 as modified by		

Davis et al. 2007 [CWHR2.1] as applied to southern Sierra Nevada forest types.

CWHR 2.1 Habitats

CWHR2.1 High and Moderate Capability

Size, Canopy Cover, and Substrate

Classes

Montane	Hardwood	Conifer	 4P,	4M,	4D,	5S,	5P,	5M,	5D,	6	

Ponderosa	Pine	 4P,	4M,	4D,	5P,	5M,	5D	

Sierran	Mixed	Conifer	 4P,	4M,	4D,	5S,	5P,	5M,	5D,	6	

White	Fir	 4P,	4M,	4D,	5S,	5P,	5M,	5D,	6	

Fishers	(Martes pennanti)	are	among	the	most	habitat­specific	animals	in	North	America,	and	changes	in	

quality,	quantity	and	distribution	of	available	habitat	can	affect	fisher	distribution	in	California	(Buskirk	

and	Powell	1994).		The	southern	Sierra	Nevada	mountain	range	provides	habitat	for	the	southernmost	

population	of	fishers	in	the	world.		Despite	what	appears	to	be	historical	isolation	from	populations	to	

the	north,	the	small	southern	Sierra	fisher	population	has	persisted	for	many	decades	(Spencer	et	al.	

2008).		Systematic	monitoring	since	the	1990’s	has	provided	some	evidence	of	recent	population	

expansion	(Truex,	pers.	comm.).	

Fisher Biology: Fishers	have	relatively	low	reproductive	rates,	with	birth	occurring	in	late	March	to	

early	April.		Conservation	of	reproductive	sites	is	essential	to	prevent	degradation	of	habitats	used	by	

females	during	the	reproductive	period.			

Selection	of	natal	(birthing)	and	maternal	(kit	raising)	dens	is	highly	specific.	Reproductive,	thermal,	and	

escape	cover	must	exist	in	the	proper	juxtaposition	within	specific	habitats	in	order	to	provide	a	secure	

environment	for	birth	and	rearing	of	fisher	kits.	All	known	natal	and	maternal	dens	in	the	western	

United	States	have	been	in	large	diameter	logs,	snags,	or	cavities	of	large	diameter	live	conifers	or	oaks	
Final Environmental Impact Statement Kings River Experimental Watershed Project 

Chapter 3­9 – Terrestrial Wildlife 3.9­14 

(Powell	and	Zielinski	1994,	Zielinski	et	al.	1995,	Truex	et	al.	1998).		Natal	dens	in	the	Southern	Sierra	

Nevada	have	not	occurred	in	downed	woody	material	of	any	diameter	(Thompson	pers.	comm.,	Sweitzer	

pers.	comm.)	

Food Habits:		Food	habit	studies	by	Grenfell	and	Fasenfest	(1979)	in	northwestern	California	and	

Zielinski	et	al.	(1999)	in	the	southern	Sierra	Nevada	show	a	wide	diversity	of	prey.		Common	prey	in	

both	studies	were	squirrels	(California	ground	squirrel	[Spermophilus beecheyi],	western	gray	squirrel	

[Sciurus griseus],	and	Douglas	squirrel	[Tamiasciurus douglasii]),	mice	(deer	mouse	[Peromyscus spp.],	

harvest	mouse	[Reithrodontomys megalotis],	voles	[Microtus spp.]),	deer	(Odocoileus hemionus)	carrion,	

beetles,	social	wasps,	and	false	truffles	[Rhizopogan spp.]).		Southern	Sierra	fishers	also	fed	on	alligator	

lizards	(Elgaria spp.)	and	berries	(Ribes spp.,	Arctostaphylos spp.)	(Zielinski	et	al.	1999),	indicating	that	

this	most	southern	of	fisher	populations	was	exploiting	a	variety	of	food	as	well	as	relatively	small	prey	

species.		Golightly	et	al.	(2006)	found	that	reptiles	were	seasonally	important	in	their	northern	

California	study	area.		Some	prey	species	(e.g.,	Peromyscus, Scapanus, Thomomys)	frequent	early­seral	

stages	of	coniferous	forests,	while	chaparral	provides	optimal	habitat	for	some	reptiles,	lagomorphs,	

deer	mice,	and	deer	(Verner	and	Boss,	1980)	as	well	as	shrub	species	that	produce	fruits	consumed	by	

fishers	(Zielinski	et	al.	1999).			

California	fishers	respond	to	changing	prey	densities	(Kuehn	1989)	by	shifting	their	seasonal	diets.		

Increased	use	of	mice	and	carrion	in	the	winter,	and	berries	in	the	fall	probably	compensate	for	the	

unavailability	of	hibernating	squirrels	and	reptiles	(Zielinski	et	al.	1999),	and	reflects	a	generally	

opportunistic	strategy.		Further,	the	diversity	of	prey	in	the	diet	of	southern	Sierra	fishers	may	also	

reflect	the	diversity	of	habitats	(and	niches)	in	this	region.		Many	of	the	prey	species	found	in	the	diet	of	

fishers	occur	primarily	in	large	tree	and	dense	canopy	coniferous	forests	and	oak	woodland	habitats,	

while	others	prefer	chaparral	and	deciduous	riparian	areas	(Zielinski	et	al.	1999).		Oak,	especially,	may	

be	important	as	sources	of	mast	that	may	stimulate	higher	prey	densities	(Powell	and	Zielinski	1994).		

In	general,	as	compared	to	more	northern	fisher	ranges,	the	drier	southern	Sierra	Nevada	provides	a	

diversity	of	habitats	and	prey	species,	following	a	recognized	pattern	of	increased	species	richness	with	

decreased	latitude	(Pianka	1966).		This	pattern	may	also	manifest	in	the	diverse	diet	of	the	southern	

Sierra	population	of	fisher,	especially	with	the	emergence	of	reptiles,	insects,	false	truffles,	and	berries	

as	important	food	items.	

Zielinski	et	al.	(1999)	note	that	prey	habitat	provides	limited	inferences	about	the	habitat	of	fishers	

because	fishers	spend	much	of	their	time	in	non­foraging	habitat	like	resting	sites.		Zielinski	and	Duncan	

(2004)	compared	the	diets	of	fishers	and	martens	(Martes americana)	where	they	co­occur	in	the	

southern	Sierra	Nevada.		Both	species	are	at	the	southernmost	extremes	of	their	geographic	range	in	

this	area.		Populations	occurring	at	the	margin	of	their	range	usually	exist	in	environmental	conditions	

differing	from	those	in	the	heart	of	the	range,	including	prey	availability	and	foraging	conditions	

(Hoffman	and	Blows	1994).		Zielinski	and	Duncan	(2004)	confirm	this	to	be	the	case,	and	document	

diverse	and	similar	diets	for	both	species	in	this	area.		They	offer	two	explanations	for	this	phenomenon:		

the	relative	absence	of	larger	prey	species	like	leporids	plus	an	alternative	theory	they	prefer,	that	

fishers	conduct	opportunistic	exploitation	of	the	high	variety	of	foods	available	for	consumption.

Movements – Daily, Breeding, and Dispersal:		Fishers	may	be	active	day	or	night,	but	peaks	occur	at	

sunrise	and	sunset	(Powell	1993).		Assuming	two	activity	periods	per	day,	Powell	(1993)	estimated	

fishers	may	move	up	to	3.1	miles/day.		In	southern	Oregon,	breeding	movements	by	males	began	one	to	
Final Environmental Impact Statement Kings River Experimental Watershed Project 

Chapter 3­9 – Terrestrial Wildlife 3.9­15 

two	months	prior	to	the	breeding	season	of	late	February	to	the	end	of	April	(Douglas	and	Strickland	

1987)	and	terminated	at	their	non­breeding	home	range	by	the	end	of	April	(Aubry	and	Raley	2006).			

Dispersal	has	profound	implications	to	mammalian	population	structure,	affecting	the	ability	to	colonize	

vacant	habitat	(Bowman	et	al.	2001),	dispersion	(Shaw	1995),	spacing	patterns	(Krebs	et	al.	1969),	

allelic	frequencies	(Landry	and	Lapointe	1999),	demographics	(Krohne	and	Hoch	1999),	and	extinction	

thresholds	(Fahrig	2001). 	Bowman	et	al.	(2002)	demonstrated	that	dispersal	distance	of	mammals	after	

translocation	was	more	closely	related	to	the	size	of	their	home	range	than	body	size. In	2003,	Weir	

summarized	information	about	fisher	dispersal	movements	and	concluded	that	they	were	capable	of	

long	distance	movements,	and	that	neither	major	rivers	nor	other	topographic	features	appear	to	pose	

impenetrable	barriers.		Recent	anecdotal	evidence	shows	that	rivers	may	serve	as	filters,	however	

(Purcell,	pers.	comm.).		Other	considerations	such	as	availability	of	suitable	habitat	and	prey,	avoidance	

of	mortality	factors	like	predators,	and	the	presence	of	conspecifics	(which	seems	to	serve	as	an	

attractant),	may	interact	to	influence	dispersal	(Weir	2003).		In	southern	Oregon,	juvenile	female	fishers	

dispersed	from	0	to	10.6	miles,	with	a	mean	of	3.7	miles,	while	males	in	the	same	area	ranged	from	4.4	

to	34.2	miles,	with	a	mean	of	18.0	miles	(Aubry	and	Raley	2006).		

Habitat Relationships:		Fishers	use	large	areas	of	primarily	coniferous	forests	with	fairly	dense	

canopies	and	large	trees,	snags,	and	down	logs.	A	vegetated	understory	and	large	woody	debris	appear	

important	for	their	prey	species.		It	is	assumed	that	fishers	will	use	patches	of	quality	habitat	that	are	

interconnected	by	other	forest	types,	whereas	they	will	not	likely	use	patches	of	habitat	that	are	

separated	by	large	open	areas	lacking	canopy	cover	(Buskirk	and	Powell	1994).	Buck	et	al.	(1994)	

described	1970’s	research	in	managed	Douglas­fir	and	white	fir	forests	in	northwestern	California.		They	

detected	a	selection	pattern	favoring	residual	stands	of	mature	forest	in	areas	heavily	harvested	for	

timber.		

Riparian	corridors	(Heinemeyer	and	Jones	1994)	and	forested	saddles	between	major	drainages	(Buck	

1983)	may	provide	important	dispersal	habitat	or	landscape	linkages	for	the	species.	Riparian	areas	are	

important	to	fishers	because	they	provide	concentrations	of	large	rest	site	elements,	such	as	broken	top	

trees,	snags,	and	coarse	woody	debris	(Seglund	1995),	perhaps	because	they	persisted	in	the	mesic	

riparian	microtopography	through	historic	fires.		

Habitat	suitable	for	resting	and	denning	sites	is	thought	to	be	most	limiting	to	the	population;	therefore,	

these	habitats	should	be	given	more	weight	than	foraging	habitats	when	planning	or	assessing	habitat	

management	(Powell	and	Zielinski	1994,	Zielinski	et	al.	2004a).		Fishers	generally	use	at	least	one	rest	

site	per	day,	and	rarely	reuse	rest	site	structures	(Kilpatrick	and	Rego	1994,	Seglund	1995,	Zielinski	et	

al.	2004a).		Zielinski	et	al.	(2004a)	argue	that	retaining	and	recruiting	trees,	snags	and	logs	of	at	least	39	

in.	dbh,	encouraging	dense	canopies	and	structural	diversity,	and	retaining	and	recruiting	large	

hardwoods	are	important	for	producing	high	quality	fisher	habitat	and	resting/denning	sites.				

Southern Sierra Nevada Fisher Habitat:		Habitat	is	largely	restricted	to	a	narrow	north­south	band	on	

mostly	western	slopes	of	mid­elevation	forests	in	the	southern	Sierra	Nevada	Mountains	(Spencer	et	al.	

2008).		It	is	associated	with	mesic	topographic	positions	(northern	slopes)	in	areas	of	lower	

precipitation	(less	persistent	snow	cover),	and	is	concentrated	in	or	near	large	old	stands	of	mixed	

conifer,	sequoia,	and	Ponderosa	pine,	especially	areas	with	black	oak	(Spencer	et	al.	2008).		An	analysis	

of	Forest	Inventory	and	Analysis	(FIA)	plot	data	from	suitable	habitats	demonstrated	that	highly	
Final Environmental Impact Statement Kings River Experimental Watershed Project 

Chapter 3­9 – Terrestrial Wildlife 3.9­16 

suitable	resting	microhabitats	in	the	form	of	clusters	of	very	large	trees	surrounded	by	dense	canopy	are	

relatively	rare	(Spencer	et	al.	2008).					

Research	has	shown	that	fisher	rest	and	den	sites	typically	have	high	canopy	cover,	greater	tree	basal	

area	and	greater	snag	basal	area	than	random	sites	(Purcell	et	al.	2009	et	al.);	Mazzoni	(2002);	and	

Zielinski	et	al.	(2004a).	Mazzoni	(2002)	studied	habitat	use	by	fishers	in	the	Kings’	River	Experimental	

Watershed	(southern	Sierra	Nevada).		Ninety	percent	of	fisher	rest	sites	were	in	large	live	trees	(mean	

dbh	=	37in)	and	large	snags	(mean	dbh	=	40in).		Large	logs	as	well	as	stumps	and	rock	crevices	were	

also	used	for	resting.		Selection	for	resting	in	white	fir,	ponderosa	pine	and	black	oak	was	evident,	and	

selection	against	incense	cedar	and	sugar	pine	was	documented.		Compared	to	random	sites,	areas	of	

2.47	acres	surrounding	rest	sites	had	greater	levels	of	canopy,	coarse	woody	debris,	basal	area,	crown	

volume	and	canopy	layering.		Rest	sites	were	closer	to	water	than	random	sites,	and	Mazzoni	(2002)	

suggests	this	may	be	an	artifact	of	riparian	buffers	that	retain	large	structural	elements	of	the	habitat	

and	dense	canopy.		The	importance	of	ecological	processes	such	as	decay	and	disease,	especially	

mistletoe	brooms,	are	highlighted	for	creating	fisher	rest	structures.		This	has	also	been	documented	in	

other	portions	of	the	fisher’s	range	(Paragi	et	al.	1996,	Parks	et	al.	1999).	

The	measurement	of	canopy	cover	estimates	in	Mazzoni	(2002)	and	Purcell	(2009),	as	just	some	

examples,	did	not	use	the	same	methodology	as	in	the	Dinkey	North	Restoration	Project,	which	is	based	

on	FVS	modeling.		According	to	Purcell	et	al.	(2009),	their	estimates	for	canopy	cover	at	fisher	resting	

sites	(average:	73.7	percent)	are	based	on	field	methods	(i.e.,	moosehorn)	that	overestimate	canopy	

cover	relative	to	FVS	model	methodology.		The	calibrated	canopy	cover	estimates	based	on	FVS	is	64	

percent	canopy	cover	(Purcell	et	al.	2009),	and	the	range	of	fisher	studies	in	the	southern	Sierra	Nevada	

is	58	percent	to	69	percent	(based	on	FVS	model	estimation;	see	Purcell	et	al.	2009	for	table	of	studies).			

Den Site Selection:		It	is	important	to	review	data	most	localized	to	the	analysis	area	because	that	best	

reflects	availability	and	use	of	habitat	elements	in	the	specific	geographic	vicinity	being	analyzed.		

Where	such	data	are	lacking,	expanding	the	data	universe	to	include	the	nearest	information	is	an	

accepted	scientific	practice.		Due	to	ecological	differences,	separation	of	data	for	conifer	and	hardwood	

den	trees	is	recommended	(Truex,	pers.	comm.).			

Den	site	structural	elements	must	exist	in	the	proper	juxtaposition	within	specific	habitats	in	order	to	

provide	a	secure	environment	for	birth	and	rearing	of	fisher	kits.		Natal	dens,	where	kits	are	born,	are	

most	commonly	in	tree	cavities	at	heights	of	greater	than	20	feet	(Lewis	and	Stinson	1998).		Maternal	

dens,	where	kits	are	raised,	may	be	in	cavities	closer	to	the	ground	so	active	kits	can	avoid	injury	in	the	

event	of	a	fall	from	the	den	(Lewis	and	Stinson	1998).			

Den	tree	data	collected	in	KRP	area	on	the	SNF	in	2008	and	2009	(Purcell,	pers.	comm.)	included	use	of	

black	oak,	white	fir,	incense	cedar,	ponderosa	pine,	and	sugar	pine.	Oaks	selected	as	den	sites	averaged	

31.9	inches	dbh	and	conifers	averaged	40.7	inches	dbh.	Twenty­three	of	52	dens	(44	percent)	were	in	

black	oaks,	which	do	not	typically	leaf	out	until	mid–late	May,	thus	providing	little	canopy	cover	during	

actual	use	periods.		Selection	of	these	sites	may	be	driven	by	their	location	and	associated	access	to	

warming	morning	sun	(Purcell	and	Thompson,	pers.	comm.).		All	confirmed	births	through	the	2008	

field	season	occurred	between	30	March	and	11	April,	and	natal	dens	were	occupied	for	2	to	8	weeks.		

In	2007	and	2008,	den	sites	in	the	KRP	area	occurred	in	Sierran	mixed	conifer,	montane	hardwoodconifer	and	ponderosa	pine	forest	types	(Purcell,	pers.	comm.).		Black	oak	was	strongly	selected	as	the	
Final Environmental Impact Statement Kings River Experimental Watershed Project 

Chapter 3­9 – Terrestrial Wildlife 3.9­17 

den	tree	(Thompson	pers.	comm.).		On	the	KRP	study	area,	natal	dens	(n=7)	averaged	46	feet	high	with	a	

range	of	6	to	110	feet	(Purcell,	pers.	comm.).	Maternal	dens	(n=7)	on	the	KRP	averaged	21.6	feet	high,	

with	a	range	of	9	to	41	feet	(Purcell,	pers.	comm.).		Generally,	natal	dens	were	found	to	be	larger	than	

maternal	dens,	only	1	hardwood	snag	was	used,	and	conifer	snags	appear	to	be	used	more	as	maternal	

dens	(Purcell	and	Thompson,	pers.	comm.).		As	of	2009,	average	canopy	cover	was	74.3	percent	(SD	=	

12.4,	range	47.5	–	99.0,	n	=	51).	Moosehorn	readings	at	2,	5,	10,	and	15	m,	in	4	directions	were	averaged	

to	measure	canopy	cover	(Purcell	and	Thompson,	pers.	comm.).			

As	of	1998	(Truex	et	al.),	natal	dens	in	the	Southern	Sierra	were	located	in	white	fir	or	black	oak.		

Subsequently,	most	natal	and	maternal	dens	were	in	large	conifers	(white	fir,	sugar	pine	or	Ponderosa	

pine	in	southern	Sierra)	or	oaks	(California	black	oak	in	southern	Sierra),	generally	in	live	form	(Truex	

et	al.	1998,	Mazzoni	2002,	Zielinski	et	al.	2004a).		All	natal	dens	were	established	during	the	last	week	of	

March	or	the	first	week	in	April	and	were	occupied	for	4	to	7	weeks.	The	canopy	closure	surrounding	

these	den	trees	ranged	from	89	to	97	percent,	measured	by	spherical	densiometer	(implying	a	bias	on	

the	high	side	for	remotely	sensed	canopy	coverage,	as	typically	measured	by	the	Forest	Service).		The	

mean	dbh	of	dens	in	ABCO	(white	fir)	was	49.4	inches,	compared	to	only	26.3	inches	in	black	oak.		It	is	

important	to	note	the	smaller	dbh	of	oaks	used	as	den	trees,	inferring	that	they	achieve	the	requisite	

structural	characteristics	at	smaller	sizes	than	conifers.		

Rest Site Selection:		Large	diameter	black	oaks	and	canyon	live	oaks	compose	almost	half	of	the	rest	

sites	used	by	fishers	in	the	southern	Sierra	Nevada	(Zielinski	et	al.	2004a).		From	2007	to	2008,	rest	sites	

of	all	trees	in	the	KRP	area	have	averaged	35.8	inches	dbh,	ranging	from	9.4	to	73.5	inches	(n	=	152;	

Thompson,	pers.	comm.).		

Most	resting	structures	used	in	the	KRP	area	were	in	live	trees	(76	percent),	15	percent	were	in	snags,	3	

were	in	logs	and	2	each	were	in	stumps	and	rock	crevices	(Purcell	et	al.	2009).		Mean	canopy	cover	as	

measured	by	moosehorn	at	rest	sites	was	73.7	percent,	compared	to	random	site	canopy	cover	of	55.3	

percent		(Purcell	et	al.	2009).		

Resting	trees	were	predominantly	Ponderosa	pine	and	white	fir.		In	the	immediate	vicinity	of	the	

selected	resting	structure,	ponderosa	pine	was	used	more	than	expected,	while	incense	cedar	was	used	

less	than	expected	(Purcell	et	al.	2009).	

Estimated Number of Rest and Den Trees Required for Fishers in Each Home Range:		A	review	of	

available	literature	and	anecdotal	information	was	used	to	develop	an	estimate	of	forest	structure	used	

by	a	given	fisher	during	their	lifetime.		Obviously,	these	numbers	are	somewhat	speculative,	but	this	

provides	what	we	consider	to	be	a	minimum	number	of	resting	structures	that	need	to	be	available	to	

fishers	post­project.		Given	that	fishers	generally	use	at	least	one	rest	site	per	day,	and	have	been	

reported	to	reuse	only	about	14	percent	(range	of	3	­	27	percent)	of	rest	site	structures	(Seglund	1995,	

Self	and	Kerns	2001,	Mazzoni	2002,	Zielinski	et	al.	2004a,	Yeager	2005,	Aubry	and	Raley	2006),	this	

equates	to	a	minimum	of	314	rest	trees	needed	per	an	average	southern	Sierra	Nevada	female	home	

range	(2,357	acres)	annually.		The	large	range	of	3	–	27	percent	appears	to	be	an	artifact	of	divergent	

assumptions	made	in	data	analysis,	with	the	larger	numbers	being	reflective	of	number	of	incidents	of	

reuse	(counting	multiple	uses	of	a	given	tree	as	separate	instances	of	reuse	even	by	the	same	individual),	

while	the	lower	numbers	are	the	number	of	individual	trees	actually	used	more	than	once.		In	the	future,	

we	hope	to	reanalyze	the	data	to	a	common	definition	of	“reuse”.			
Final Environmental Impact Statement Kings River Experimental Watershed Project 

Chapter 3­9 – Terrestrial Wildlife 3.9­18 

Reproductive	females	also	utilize	up	to	five	den	sites	per	year	for	a	cumulative	total	of	319	potentially	

suitable	trees	needed	per	home	range	(or	0.14	trees	per	acre).		The	mean	life	span	for	fishers	is	

approximately	10	years,	equating	to	a	minimum	of	1.4	suitable	rest/den	trees	needed	per	acre	for	each	

female	home	range	over	an	average	life	span.		Males	would	also	require	an	estimated	314	rest	sites,	and	

with	a	mean	home	range	of	9,518	acres	this	equates	to	0.3	trees	per	acre	over	an	average	lifetime.		Thus	

for	an	area	to	provide	sufficient	male	and	female	rest	and	den	site	trees,	more	than	1.7	trees	per	acre	are	

required.		Because	we	don’t	know	what	factors	influence	a	fisher	to	decide	to	rest	in	one	location	versus	

another,	there	is	a	need	to	provide	sufficient	alternate	rest	and	den	tree	choices	to	compensate	for	our	

lack	of	knowledge.		Therefore	we	choose	to	buffer	the	1.7	trees	per	acre	by	a	factor	of	ten	(selected	to	

ensure	availability	of	many	more	rest	structures	than	are	actually	used)	to	maintain	up	to	17	potential	

resting/denning	trees	per	acre,	where	they	exist.		This	number	should	be	re­aggregated	to	a	total	

number	of	rest	trees	available	in	the	home	range	of	a	female	fisher.		The	spatial	distribution	of	these	

structural	elements	is	not	uniform;	suitable	trees	may	occur	individually	or	in	widely	scattered	discrete	

clumps	or	patches.		New	data	are	being	collected	in	several	areas	of	the	SNF	beginning	in	2007,	which	

will	inform	and	improve	this	estimate	in	the	future.		

Home Range Composition:		Using	data	available	at	the	time,	Zielinski	et	al.	(2004b)	examined	the	

vegetation	composition	of	fisher	home	ranges	in	the	southern	Sierra	Nevada	as	presented	in	the	

following	paragraph.		Since	these	figures	are	merely	descriptions	of	information	regarding	home	range	

composition	selected	relative	to	what	is	available,	it	should	be	noted	that	fishers	may	occupy	areas	that	

differ	somewhat	from	values	presented	here.		Additionally,	the	GIS	data	used	in	Zielinski	et	al.	(2004b)	

lacked	the	spatial	resolution	to	map	small	inclusions	of	shrub	habitat	within	the	greater	mixed­conifer	

matrix.		Truex	(pers.	comm.)	believes	that	this	fine	grain	heterogeneity	is	important	from	the	

perspective	of	prey	diversity.							

CWHR	size	class	4	stands	(11­24”	dbh),	dense	canopy	closure	(greater	than	60	percent),	and	Sierran	

Mixed	Conifer	forest	types	constituted	the	greatest	proportion	of	home	ranges.		Most	home	ranges	

supported	at	least	15	percent	Sierran	Mixed	Conifer,	less	than	5	percent	area	in	CWHR	size	class	5	

(greater	than	24”	dbh),	or	less	than	53	percent	dense	canopy	closure	stands.		The	montane	hardwoodconifer	type	averaged	12	percent	of	home	range	areas.		CWHR	size	class	2	(1­6”	dbh)	stands	comprised	

generally	less	than	3	percent	of	home	ranges,	and	less	than	10	percent	of	home	ranges	supported	open	

canopies	(25	to	39	percent).	

Sierran	Mixed	Conifer,	Ponderosa	Pine,	and	Montane	Hardwood	forest	types	comprised	an	average	of	85	

percent	of	the	12	(8	female	and	4	male)	fisher	home	ranges,	with	size­class	4	stands	(11­24	in	dbh)	and	

canopy	closure	Class	D	(60­100	percent	closure)	comprising	61	percent	and	66	percent,	respectively,	of	

the	home	ranges	(Zielinski	et	al.	2004b).		Sequoia	National	Forest	home	ranges	for	both	sexes	had	more	

than	15	percent	Sierran	Mixed	Conifer,	greater	than	5	percent	size	class	5	(>24	in	dbh)	and	more	than	

52	percent	dense	canopy	closure	(class	D)	stands.	On	the	SNF,	Mazzoni	(2002)	found	home	range	

composition	by	canopy	closure	class	for	males	and	females	combined	(n	=	11),	to	be	dense	=	14	percent	

of	the	home	range,	moderate	=	39	percent,	open	=	25	percent,	and	sparse	(canopy	closure	less	than	25	

percent)	=	21	percent	of	the	home	range	area.		

Occurrence in Project Area
Final Environmental Impact Statement Kings River Experimental Watershed Project 

Chapter 3­9 – Terrestrial Wildlife 3.9­19 

The	following	is	a	summary	of	female	fisher	den	site	locations	in,	or	within	one	half	mile,	of	the	

Providence	area,	as	well	as	home	range	core	areas	(den	site	buffer	areas)	that	overlap	the	Providence	

Management	area.	

Table 3­9­2.		Fisher	locations	in	KREW	Providence	area	as	of	June	24,	2010.	

Fisher ID a		

Latest Year

of Record

Den site or		

home range core area

General Location in Relation to the Providence

Management Area

F19 2010	

Home	range	core	area	overlapping	

the	Providence	Mgt.	Area	

Approximately	32%	(185	acres)	of	the	584	acre	

core	area	overlaps	the	southern	Providence	area	

F19 2010	

Possible	natal	den	and	three	

maternal	dens	

0.15	to	0.3	miles	outside	southeastern	boundary

F22 2009	 Natal		den	and	one	maternal	den	 100­200	ft	inside	northwestern	boundary

Research was unable to obtain an adequate number of relocations for the following individuals,

thus there was inadequate data for reliable home range and core area determinations.

F12 2009	

Natal	and	maternal	dens	

0.12	to	0.8	miles	outside	the	southwestern	

boundary,	slipped	its	collar	–	only	provided	12	

relations.	

F04 2007	 Rest	structure	w/	kit	

Died	prior	to	providing	an	adequate	number	of	

relocations	for	home	range	and	den	buffer.	

Bull:	There	is	no	current	or	historical	documentation	of	the	presence	of	fisher	in	the	Bull	project	area	

and	the	co­principle	investigator	for	the	PSW	Kings	River	Fisher	Study	stated	that	over	the	past	three	

years	of	research	they	have	not	found	fishers	using	the	Bull	management	area,	although	it	may	

occasionally	be	traversed	by	male	fishers	(Thompson	pers.	comm.	2010).		The	Bull	management	area	(at	

7,000	to	8,000	ft	elevation)	is	at	a	higher	elevation	than	any	sustained	fisher	use	has	currently	been	

documented	by	Kings	River	Fisher	Study.	

American Marten

The	preferred	habitat	for	marten	includes	mature	red	fir,	red/white	fir	mix,	lodgepole	pine,	and	Sierran	

mixed	conifer.		Although	other	habitat	includes	montane	hardwood­conifer,	Douglas	fir,	montane	

riparian,	Jeffrey	pine,	ponderosa	pine,	lodgepole	pine,	subalpine	conifer,	aspen	and	possibly	red	fir,	

mixed	conifer	is	the	preferred	habitat	of	marten	in	the	southern	Sierra	Nevada	(Freel	1991).		Radio	

telemetry	studies	in	the	southern	Sierra	Nevada	found	marten	most	often	in	mixed	conifer	and	true	fir	

habitats	while	fisher	were	found	in	montane	hardwood	and	mixed	hardwood/conifer	habitats	more	

than	martens	(Zielinski	and	Barrett	1994).			As	reported	by	Simon	(1980)	a	study	on	marten	ecology	

underway	at	the	University	of	California's	Sagehen	Creek	Station,	California	had	revealed	that	martens	

use	riparian	areas	extensively.		Marten	prefer	riparian	lodgepole	pine	associations	and	meadows	for	

foraging	(Spencer	et	al.	1983).		Using	CWHR	classification,	suitable	marten/fisher	habitat	includes	the	

4M,	4D,	5M,	and	5D	CWHR	size	and	canopy	classes;	marten	may	also	utilize	the	3S	and	3P	CWHR	size	

and	canopy	classes	(USDA	Forest	Service	2006).	Current	records	show	that	suitable	marten	habitat	on	

the	SNF	has	increased	by	about	30,000	acres	over	the	past	decade	in	the	6000	–	10,000	foot	elevation	

range.	

Low	quality	marten	habitat	is	characterized	by	30­40	percent	canopy	closure	and	by	single	or	multistoried	timbered	stands.		Moderate	quality	habitat	is	characterized	by	single	or	multi­storied	timbered	
Final Environmental Impact Statement Kings River Experimental Watershed Project 

Chapter 3­9 – Terrestrial Wildlife 3.9­20 

stands	with	41­70	percent	canopy	closure,	high	quality	habitat	has	greater	than	70	percent	canopy	

closure	and	the	latter	two	have	a	high	number	of	large	snags	(2­3	per	acre)	and	down	logs	(Freel	1991).		

Marten	often	occur	at	elevations	of	approximately	4,000	to	13,000	feet	with	an	average	of	8,300	feet.		

This	habitat	preference	puts	the	marten	mostly	outside	the	area	of	the	management	units	for	denning;	

however,	they	may	forage	in	the	area.		

Douglas	squirrels	(Tamiasciurus douglasi)	are	an	important	prey	species	for	marten.	Conifer	seeds	and	

fungi	are	the	primary	food	source	of	these	squirrels.		In	the	winter,	logs	provide	martens	with	access	to	

subnivean	(under	snow)	areas	for	foraging	and	resting	(Ruggiero,	et	al.	1994).	Selection	of	den	sites	may	

depend	on	ambient	air	temperatures.		Subnivian	(below	the	snow	surface)	sites	and	logs	used	as	winter	

dens	may	reduce	thermo­regulatory	stress.	

Occurrence in Project Area

Providence: Marten	typically	are	found	at	elevations	above	6,000	ft	elevation,	which	is	above	the	

Providence	management	area	(5,000­6,000	ft	elevation),	thus	this	area	is	not	expected	to	be	used	by	

martens	except	for	occasional	use	or	dispersal.	There	are	no	confirmed	or	incidental	sightings	in	this	

area.	

Bull: There	are	no	confirmed	or	incidental	sightings	in	this	area.	

Pallid bat

Pallid	bat	is	listed	as	USDA	FS	sensitive	species	and	species	of	special	concern	by	CDFG.	

Pallid	bats	are	found	in	a	variety	of	habitats	below	6,000'	elevation	throughout	California.	Some	of	the	

habitats	pallid	bats	use	include:	grasslands,	shrublands,	woodlands,	and	forests	from	sea	level	up	

through	mixed	conifer	forest.	In	the	SNF,	they	can	be	associated	with	oak	woodlands,	ponderosa	pine,	

mixed	conifer,	rock	crevices,	and	giant	sequoia	habitats.	Tree	roosting	has	been	documented	in	large	

conifer	snags	(e.g.,	ponderosa	pine),	basal	hollows	of	redwoods	and	giant	sequoias	and	bole	activities	in	

oaks	(Sherwin	1998).	The	pallid	bat	tends	to	be	a	roosting	habitat	generalist	that	utilizes	many	different	

natural	and	manmade	structures	(FEIS	V3Ch3	part	4.4	page	55)	(USDA	Forest	Service	2001b).	Pallid	

bats	commonly	roost	under	bridges	at	night,	but	can	also	use	caves	and	mines.	Day	roosts	are	more	

varied	and	include	rock	outcrops,	tree	hollows,	buildings,	bridges,	caves,	and	mines.	Roost	temperatures	

are	important	and	must	be	below	40	degrees	Celsius.	Foraging	habitat	requirements	appear	to	be	more	

restrictive.	The	pallid	bat	forages	close	to	the	ground,	preying	on	large,	ground	dwelling	arthropods	such	

as	beetles,	scorpions,	and	Jerusalem	crickets.	Large	moths	and	grasshoppers	are	consumed	to	a	lesser	

degree.	Pallid	bats	appear	to	be	more	prevalent	within	edges,	open	stands,	particularly	hardwoods,	and	

open	areas	without	trees	(FEIS	V3	Ch3	Part	4.4	Page	55)	(USDA	Forest	Service	2001b).	

The	pallid	bat	is	large,	as	California	bats	go,	weighing	as	much	as	one	ounce	and	having	a	wingspan	of	14	

or	15	inches.	The	females	are	larger	than	the	males.	Both	sexes	have	broad	wings,	big	ears,	and	large	

eyes.	The	fur	is	light	yellow	on	the	back	and	creamy	or	almost	white	on	the	underparts	(Hicks	1984).	

Mating	takes	place	between	late	October	and	February.	Pallid	bats	reproduce	in	nursery	colonies	of	up	

to	several	hundred	females,	but	generally	fewer	than	100.	After	a	period	of	delayed	fertilization,	

gestation	occurs	between	April	and	June.	They	normally	have	2	young	per	year	between	April	and	June.	

The	young	wean	at	about	7	weeks	of	age,	generally	in	mid	to	late	August.	Maternity	colonies	disband	
Final Environmental Impact Statement Kings River Experimental Watershed Project 

Chapter 3­9 – Terrestrial Wildlife 3.9­21 

between	August	and	October	(Sherwin	1998).	Male	bats	may	roost	with	the	nursery	colony	or	

separately.	

Occurrence in Project Area

The	Project	areas	are	generally	too	high	elevation	(>5,000	ft)	for	most	pallid	bat	use,	although	some	

individuals	could	potentially	use	roosting	habitat	within	riparian	areas	up	to	8,000	ft.		No	surveys	have	

been	conducted	for	pallid	bats	in	or	near	the	project	areas.	According	to	USDA	FS	records,	there	are	

three	known	night	roosts	on	the	SNF.	All	three	are	located	on	the	High	Sierra	Ranger	District:	the	Million	

Dollar	Mile	and	under	the	bridge	over	Highway	168	before	the	Rancheria	Bridge;	the	third	is	on	the	

Kings	River.	There	is	the	assumption	that	pallid	bats	may	be	within	the	project	area	as	potential	habitat	

does	exist.	Surveys	conducted	in	2006	near	the	Dinkey	Ranger	Station	using	mist	nets	did	not	catch	any	

pallid	bat.	No	potential	caves	have	yet	been	identified	within	the	KREW	project	area.		

According	to	the	CWHR,	the	habitat	types	within	the	project	area	represent	low	quality	reproductive,	

cover,	and	feeding	habitat	for	pallid	bats.	However,	large	snags	and	manmade	structures	within	the	

project	area	do	represent	potential	roosting	habitat	for	this	species.	The	average	number	of	snags	per	

acre	greater	than	24	inches	dbh	for	the	KREW	project	area	in	Restoration	and	Spotted	Owl	Emphasis	

stands	is	1.1	and	for	Public	and	Firefighter	Safety	Emphasis	stands	are	0.1.	

3­9.4 Environmental Consequences –TES Species 

3­9.4.1 Assumptions

Measures	of	vegetation	structure	and	composition	were	used	to	analyze	existing	and	future	habitats	for	

wildlife	under	the	different	alternatives.	These	measures	provide	the	best	indices	of	potential	effects	to	

wildlife,	but	they	are	not	without	shortcomings.	Ideally,	an	assessment	of	habitat­related	effects	would	

be	based	on	how	management	activities	directly	affect	habitat	quality	and	abundance,	which	in	turn	

would	be	used	to	predict	changes	in	basic	life	history	parameters,	such	as	growth,	reproduction,	and	

survival.	This	level	of	understanding	is	unavailable,	however,	even	for	species	that	have	been	extensively	

studied.	In	the	absence	of	direct	methods	to	predict	population	size	and	trends	in	response	to	

management,	the	distribution	and	abundance	of	habitat	is	used	as	an	indicator	of	change.	A	key	

assumption	using	this	approach	is	that	changes	in	species	distribution	and	abundance	are	correlated	

with	changes	in	the	distribution	and	abundance	of	habitat,	specifically	vegetation	structure	and	

composition.	The	key	word	here	is	“correlated,”	as	a	species	would	rarely	respond	to	habitat	change	in	a	

one­to­one	manner	unless	changes	were	dramatic	(USDA	2004).	

3­9.4.2 Alternative 1—No Action

Direct and Indirect Effects 

Direct Effects 

No	direct	impacts	will	occur	to	terrestrial	wildlife	species	as	a	result	of	implementing	this	alternative	

because	no	additional	actions	will	take	place.		
Final Environmental Impact Statement Kings River Experimental Watershed Project 

Chapter 3­9 – Terrestrial Wildlife 3.9­22 

Indirect Effects 

Under	the	no	action	alternative,	the	KREW	management	areas	(Bull	and	Providence)	will	be	operated	

under	their	current	management	direction.		Through	natural	ecological	processes	the	habitat	is	

estimated	to	decrease	52	acres	by	2012	(­64	for	Bull	and	+12	for	Providence),	and	increase	523	acres	

over	the	next	30	years	(236	for	Bull	and	287	for	Providence)	(Table	3­9­3).	Alternative	1	will	not	

produce	impacts	that	add	to	other	events	in	the	environment.		

By	not	implementing	forest	restoration	or	fuels	reduction,	this	no	action	alternative	would	lead	to	

greater	fuels	buildup	as	well	as	changes	in	the	forest	stands	that	may	not	be	typical	for	the	natural	range	

of	ecological	variability	present	for	these	ecosystems	prior	to	when	fire	suppression	began	almost	a	

century	ago.	This	lack	of	management	has	led,	or	will	lead,	to	these	stands	being	highly	susceptible	to	

wildfire;	drought,	insects,	and	disease	(also	refer	to	the	Fire/Fuels	and	Silvicultural	Specialist	Reports	

for	this	project).		If	wildfire	does	occur	under	current	conditions,	it	could	substantially	alter,	reduce	or	

eliminate	wildlife	habitat	types	and	possibly	have	substantial	repercussions	on	wildlife	species,	

particular	those	with	low	numbers	and	tenuous	populations	that	rely	on	mature	and	older	forests	with	

high	canopy	cover.			

Table 3­9­3.		Acres of KREW Project mid­seral and late­seral forest habitat with canopy cover

>40%, under Alternative 1­No Action.

Bull Current 2012 

Acre 

Change 2042 

Acre 

Change Providence Current 2012 

Acre 

Change 2042 

Acre 

Change 

RFR PPN 

4D 28 44 16 64 36 4D 129 129 0 156 27 

4M 141 103 ­38 34 ­107 4M 57 57 0 2 ­55 

5D 0 0 0 25 25 5D 1 1 0 23 22 

5M 70 33 ­37 202 132 5M 8 8 0 16 8 

Total RFR 239 180 ­59 325 86 Total PPN 195 195 0 197 2

SMC SMC 

4D 115 79 ­36 57 ­58 4D 365 407 42 495 130

4M 161 224 63 170 9 4M 502 470 ­32 306 ­196

5D 0 0 0 11 11 5D 75 75 0 338 263

5M 85 53 ­32 273 188 5M 150 152 2 238 88

Total SMC 361 356 ­5 511 150 Total SMC 1092 1104 12 1377 285

Bull Total 600 536 ­64 836 236

Providence 

Total 1287 1299 12 1574 287

KREW 

Total 1887 1835 ­52 2410 523 

a RFR – Red fir forest, SMC­Sierra Mixed Conifer Forest, PPN­Ponderosa Pine Forest 

Cumulative Effects 

As	there	are	no	direct	effects,	or	non­wildfire	related	indirect	effects,	the	no­action	alternative	does	not	

contribute	to	overall	cumulative	effects	to	terrestrial	wildlife	species.	Wildfires	may	affect	habitat	in	the	
Final Environmental Impact Statement Kings River Experimental Watershed Project 

Chapter 3­9 – Terrestrial Wildlife 3.9­23 

project	area,	however,	the	extent	that	impact	may	occur	cannot	be	exactly	quantified.	A	more	complete	

discussion	of	cumulative	effects	is	found	under	the	effects	analysis	for	the	action	alternatives	

(Alternatives	2­5).	

Determination 

Based	on	the	above	assessment	of	direct,	indirect,	and	cumulative	effects,	it	has	been	determined	that	

the	no­action	alternative	of	the	KREW	project	will	not	affect	the	California	spotted	owl,	northern	

goshawk,	great	gray	owl,	American	marten,	Pacific	fisher,	pallid	bat	and	willow	flycatcher.	However,	by	

taking	no	action	to	reduce	fuel	levels,	the	threat	of	large­scale,	stand­replacing	fires	would	remain	

unabated,	and	if	such	an	event	occurs,	there	could	be	substantial	detrimental	impacts	to	these	species	

and	their	habitat	in	and	near	the	project	area.		

3­9.4.3 Alternatives 2­4

This	section	summarizes	the	direct,	indirect	and	cumulative	effects	of	Alternatives	2­4	on	wildlife	

resources	(the	cumulative	effects	of	Alternatives	2­4	are	collectively	grouped	at	the	end	of	this	section).		

These	effects	are	similar	to	those	of	the	Preferred	Alternative	(Alternative	5),	which	is	summarized	in	a	

separate	subsequent	section.		This information represents a summary of the analysis, therefore

refer to the KREW Terrestrial Wildlife Biological Assessment and Evaluation (BA/BE) for further

details.

All	action	alternatives	(Alternatives	2­5)	involve	the	same	actions:	forest	thinning	and	prescribed	

burning	to	meet	the	purpose	and	need	of	reducing	fuel	loads	and	stand	densities	to	improve	forest	

health	and	reduce	the	potential	for	uncharacteristically	severe	wildfire.	When	assessing	the	affects	of	

treatments	on	wildlife	species	it	is	important	to	remember	that	thinning	treatments	will	not	occur	on	

938	acres	(50%)	of	the	Providence	management	area	and	451	acres	(38%)	of	the	Bull	management	area.			

The	primary	difference	among	the	action	alternatives	is	the	manner	in	which	they	are	thinned.	

Prescribed	fire	treatments	are	the	same	for	all	action	alternatives	(Table	3­9­4).	Table	3­9­5	lists	the	

differences	in	thinning	prescriptions	among	those	alternatives.			

Table 3­9­4. Acres of post­thinning fuels treatment for all action alternatives. 

Hand Pile/ 

Burn Pile 

Lop & Scatter 

Only 

Thin & scatter/ 

Underburn 

Mastication Only Mastication & 

Underburn 

Underburn Only Tractor 

Pile/ Burn 

Pile 

15 53 648 161 67 838 672 

Table 3.9­5. Comparison and summary of KREW action alternatives. 

Item Alternative 2

Uneven­aged

(Structural

Restoration)

Alternative 3

Fuels Reduction

Alternative 4

North GTR

(Process Restoration)

Alternative 5

Hybrid Forest

Restoration

Treatment	

strategy	

Scientific	research	

and	structural	

restoration	using	

uneven­aged	

management	

Scientific	research	and	

reducing	fuels	hazard	

to	meet	fire	behavior	

objectives	

Scientific	research	and	

ecological	restoration	based	

on	North	GTR	220	

Scientific	research	

Alt.	2	prescriptions	

inside	EW,	and	Alt.	4	

prescriptions	outside	

EW	

Mature	forest	 Min.	40percent	canopy	 Min	50percent	canopy	 Min	50percent	canopy	 Alt.	2	prescriptions	
Final Environmental Impact Statement Kings River Experimental Watershed Project 

Chapter 3­9 – Terrestrial Wildlife 3.9­24 

Item Alternative 2

Uneven­aged

(Structural

Restoration)

Alternative 3

Fuels Reduction

Alternative 4

North GTR

(Process Restoration)

Alternative 5

Hybrid Forest

Restoration

(5D,	5M,	6) cover,	30inches	dbh	

limit	

cover,	12inches	dbh	

limit	

cover,	fisher	rest	sites,	other	

GTR	prescriptions	

inside	EW	and	Alt.	4

prescriptions	outside	

EW	

Growing	

Space	

distribution	

Conforms	to	an	

inverse­j	shaped	

curve,	20percent	more	

in	next	smallest	

diameter	class.	Limit	

removal	to	30	percent	

of	basal	area	in	SMZ	

Thin	from	below	–

maintain	50percent	

canopy	cover,	to	

achieve	fire	behavior	

objectives	

Even	or	near	equal	

distribution	of	small,	

medium	and	large	trees;	

South/west	areas	thinned	

from	below	residual	basal	

area	120	and	180	ft2/ac.	The	

actual	basal	area	target	

would	depend	on	the	forest	

type	present:	pinedominated	would	be	120	

ft2/ac,	mixed	pine/fir	150	

ft2/ac,	and	fir­dominated	

areas	180	ft2/ac.	Neutral	

areas	thinned	from	below	to	

a	residual	basal	area	

between	180	and	240	ft2/ac	

based	on	the	same	forest	

type	

Alt.	2	prescriptions	

inside	EW	and	Alt.	4	

prescriptions	outside	

EW	

Maximum		

dbh	removal		

30	in.;	CSO	PACs	20	

in.;	owl	nest	buffer	

6inches	

20	in.	throughout,	12	

in.,	or	6in.;	owl	nest	

buffer	6in.	

30	in.;	CSO	PACs	20	in.;	owl	

nest	buffer	6	in.	

Alt.	2	prescriptions	

inside	EW	and	Alt.	4	

prescriptions	outside	

EW	

Spotted	owl	

PACs	

Maintain	50	%	CC	in	

CC	and	20inches	dbh	

limit	in	defense	zone;	

6inches	in	nest	buffer	

Maintain	50percent	CC	

and	20inches	dbh	limit	

in	defense	zone;	no		

more	than	20percent	

change	outside	

defense	

Maintain	50percent	CC	and	

20inches	dbh	limit	in	

defense	zone;	6inches	in	

nest	buffer	

Alt.	2	prescriptions	

inside	EW	and	Alt.	4	

prescriptions	outside	

EW	

California Spotted Owl, Northern Goshawk and American Martin – Direct and Indirect 

Effects of Alternatives 2­4 

The	affects	of	Alternatives	2­4	on	California	spotted	owls	(CS0),	northern	goshawk	and	American	marten	

are	similar,	therefore	the	summary	of	those	results	have	been	grouped	together	here.		The	affects	of	

these	alternatives	on	great	gray	owl	nesting	habitat	also	are	similar,	however,	that	summary	is	provided	

separately	in	the	subsequent	section.		Please	refer	to	the	KREW	Terrestrial	Wildlife	BABE	for	details	of	

all	of	this	summarized	information.			

Thinning	among	all	action	alternatives	will	use	the	same	methods	(e.g.	mechanical	and	hand	thinning);	

and	the	primary	difference	among	all	action	alternatives	is	the	number	and	size	of	trees	that	will	be	

thinned	(Table	3­9­5).	Prescribed	fire	treatments	are	the	same	for	all	action	alternatives	(Table	3­9­4).			

Alternatives	2­4	may	directly	and	indirectly	affect	CSO,	northern	goshawk,	great	gray	owl,	American	

marten,	Pacific	fisher,	and	the	pallid	bat.	The	willow	flycatcher	is	not	expected	to	be	affected	by	this	

project	due	to	lack	of	actions	within,	and	adjacent	to	meadows.	These	effects	are	the	same	or	similar	

effects	as	reported	for	Alternative	5,	such	as	from	noise	disturbance	and	smoke.		However,	the	projectlevel	LOP,	implemented	for	all	action	alternatives	(refer	to	Chap.	2.0	for	a	list	of	project	design	

prescriptions)	will	substantially	reduce	potential	impacts	to	these	species	by	not	allowing	mechanical	
Final Environmental Impact Statement Kings River Experimental Watershed Project 

Chapter 3­9 – Terrestrial Wildlife 3.9­25 

activities	from	February	1	to	June	15.	Additionally,	underburning	will	not	occur	from	February	1	to	mid	

May	15,	with	specific	mid­May	date	dependent	on	burning	weather	conditions.		Additionally	there	is	an	

LOP	for	Yosemite	toad	in	the	Bull	management	area	of	May	1	through	July	15.		These	LOPs	help	ensure	

that	project	disturbances	will	not	directly	affect	these	species	during	their	most	vulnerable	period	of	

nesting	and	denning.	The	management	actions	of	these	alternatives	are	not	expected	to	directly	cause	

mortality	to	any	individuals	of	these	species	because	of	their	ability	to	move	away	from	disturbances.		

CWHR Habitat:	Thinning	actions	proposed	for	Alternatives	2­4	will	modify	wildlife	habitat	in	similar	

ways	as	Alternative	5	(Table	3­9­6),	such	as	by	opening	the	overstory	and	understory	forest	canopies,	

and	promoting	greater	forest	heterogeneity	and	greater	resilience	to	wildfire,	drought,	insects	and	

disease.	Although	the	overall	effects	for	forest	thinning	will	be	similar	to	Alternative	5,	each	alternative	

will	vary	in	the	amount	and	intensity	of	thinning	(Table	3­9­6).	The	greatest	difference	in	effects	to	

wildlife	habitat	is	the	minimum	tree	size	allowed	to	be	thinned.		Alternatives	2	and	4	allow	thinning	up	

to	30	inch	dbh,	whereas,	whereas	Alternative	3	only	allows	thinning	up	to	20	inches	dbh.		The	following	

information	shows	changes	to	the	wildlife	habitat	indicators	(CWHR	habitat	types,	Retained	Trees,	

Snags,	Down	wood	(logs)	for	Alternatives	2­4	in	comparison	to	the	no	action	alternative	(Alternative	1)	

and	Alternative	5.			

Vegetation	change	modeling	for	Alternatives	2­4	(Table	3­9­6)	shows	an	effect	on	mature	forest	habitat	

(CWHR	4M,	4D,	5M,	5D;	there	is	no	Class	6	in	the	project	area);	which	provides	moderate	and	high	

quality	habitat	for	CSO,	northern	goshawk,	great	gray	owl,	Pacific	fisher,	American	marten,	and	pallid	

bat.	Both	the	39	acres	of	small	wet	meadows	in	the	Bull	Management	area	and	the	24	acres	of	small	wet	

meadows	in	the	Providence	area	remain	unchanged	from	current	conditions	to	30	years	post­treatment.	

Within	the	Bull	area,	152	to	290	acres	of	this	moderate	to	high	quality	habitat	will	be	initially	modified	

to	non	habitat	immediately	after	treatments,	depending	which	Alternative	2,	3	or	4	is	implemented,	and	

30	years	post­treatment,	that	habitat	loss	will	continue	to	be	150	to	229	acres	less	than	current	

conditions,	depending	on	the	alternative	implemented.		Over	the	30	year	period,	this	represents	a	25­38	

percent	decline	in	this	habitat.	In	contrast,	the	Providence	area	has	an	initial	decline	of	73	to	99	acres	of	

this	moderate	to	high	quality	habitat,	depending	which	Alternative	2­4	is	implemented,	and	in	30	years	

post­treatment	that	habitat	will	reverse	trend	and	increase	from	105	to	130	acres,	depending	on	the	

alternative	implemented.		Over	the	30	year	period,	this	represents	an	8­10	percent	increase	of	this	

habitat	type.		These	changes	will	have	some	effects	on	wildlife	species	addressed	in	this	document,	

immediately	after	treatments	are	completed,	however,	over	a	30	year	time	frame	that	habitat	is	

expected	to	increase	beyond	current	levels,	and	particularly	considering	that	the	forest	stands	will	

become	more	resilient	to	wildfires	than	with	implementing	Alternative	1.	Also	important	to	note,	that	

the	Bull	management	area	is	at	the	upper	elevational	limit	for	spotted	owls,	hence	occupied	less	than	the	

Providence	area,	which	is	in	the	heart	of	the	spotted	owl	elevational	occupancy	zone.			

Although	this	modeling	reflects	overall	changes	in	habitat,	it	does	not	address	the	smaller	scale	

management	actions	that	are	implemented	to	maintain	important	wildlife	habitat	features.	These	

smaller	scale	features	are	specifically	addressed	by	implementing	Best	Management	Practices	for	

Wildlife,	as	well	as	FS	S&Gs	(Section	2.0).		These	criteria	include	retaining	all	trees	greater	than	30	

inches	dbh,	retaining	all	mature	oaks,	and	retaining	all	snags	greater	than	15	inches	dbh,	unless	deemed	

hazardous	for	fire	or	public	safety.		Additionally,	an	average	minimum	canopy	cover	of	40­50	percent	

will	be	maintained	immediately	after	treatments,	including	retaining	a	greater	amount	of	canopy	cover	

and	higher	basal	area	in	portions	of	the	management	areas,	such	as	riparian	areas	and	lower	north	and	

east	slopes.	With	tree	growth	over	15	years,	we	expect	the	canopy	cover	to	regenerate	to	about	the	same	

level	as	current	conditions	for	most	forest	types.	Also,	by	opening	up	the	overstory	canopy	and	clearing	
Final Environmental Impact Statement Kings River Experimental Watershed Project 

Chapter 3­9 – Terrestrial Wildlife 3.9­26 

some	of	the	decadent	understory	vegetation,	the	understory	vegetation	will	become	more	diverse	in	age	

and	structure,	with	a	greater	amount	of	new	growth,	thus	helping	lead	to	greater	understory	vegetation	

abundance,	which	can	lead	to	greater	prey	species	abundance	and	diversity.	

Table 3­9­6. Summary of Changes in Post­treatment Acres for Early and Mid­seral Coniferous Forest 

Habitat – KREW Project Area. a

CWHR Canopy Cover 

Type 

Current 

Acres 

Alt. 

1 

2012 

Alt. 

1 

2042 

Alt. 

2 

2012 

Alt. 

2 

2042

Alt. 

3 

2012

Alt. 

3 

2042

Alt. 

4 

2012 

Alt. 

4 

2042

Alt. 

5 

2012

Alt. 

5 

2042

Bull

Open Mature Forest 

CWHR 4P, 5S,5P 

195 ­6 ­126 15 8 47 241 140 78 140 78 

Moderate to Dense 

Mature Forest­CWHR 

4M, 4D,5M, 5D 

600 ­64 236 ­152 ­150 ­167 ­176 ­290 ­229 ­226 ­188 

Wet Meadows 39 39 39 39 39 39 39 39 39 39 39 

Providence 

Open Mature Forest 

CWHR 4P, 5S,5P 

215 ­25 ­170 84 ­15 84 ­15 73 ­39 72 ­15 

Moderate to Dense 

Mature Forest­CWHR 

4M, 4D,5M, 5D 

1,287 12 287 ­99 105 ­73 130 ­81 116 ­81 117 

Wet Meadows 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 

a		Year	2012	represents	post­treatment	conditions.

Retained Trees and Snags:		All	trees	greater	than	30	inches	dbh,	and	most	trees	20­30	inches	dbh	will	

be	retained	under	Alternatives	2­4	management	(Table	3­9­7).		Additionally,	Figure	3­9­1	and	Table	3­9­

8	show	that	Alternatives	2­4	will	maintain	greater	than	six	snags	per	acre,	greater	than	15	inches	dbh,	

for	both	management	areas	combined,	which	meets	the	USFS	standard	of	4	trees	for	Sierra	mixed	

conifer	and	ponderosa	pine	and	6	for	red	fir	forests.			

Table 3­9­7. Number of Trees Retained, Per Acre by Alternative, Immediately after KREW Project 

Treatment. 

Bull Current Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Alt. 5 Providence Current Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Alt. 5 

20-30 “ 15 14 15 14 14 20-30 “ 20 18 20 19 19

30-35” 4 4 4 4 4 30-35” 4 4 4 4 4

>35” 7 7 7 7 7 >35” 5 5 5 5 5
Final Environmental Impact Statement Kings River Experimental Watershed Project 

Chapter 3­9 – Terrestrial Wildlife 3.9­27 

Figure 3­9­1. Total snags greater than 15 inches dbh for all alternatives, KREW Project. 

Table 3­9­8. Number of Snags, by Alternative, as a Result of KREW Project Treatment.

Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Alt. 5 

ID Current 2012 2042 2012 2042 2012 2042 2012 2042 2012 2042 

Snags in Bull Management Area 

15-24” 2.6 3.1 5.5 3.1 4.6 3.1 4.1 3.1 2.9 3.1 3.6 

24-35” 1.2 1.4 3.5 1.4 3.3 1.4 3.2 1.4 2.9 1.4 3.1 

>35” 0.9 1.1 2.3 1.1 2.3 1.1 2.3 1.1 2.1 1.1 2.2 

Total 

>15” 

4.7 5.6 11.3 5.6 10.1 5.6 9.5 5.6 7.5 5.6 8.8 

Snags in the Providence Management Area 

Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Alt. 5 

ID Current 2012 2042 2012 2042 2012 2042 2012 2042 2012 2042 

15-24” 3.8 4.2 5.5 4.2 4.2 4.2 4.0 4.2 4.4 4.2 4.4 

24-35” 1.5 1.4 2.7 1.4 2.5 1.4 2.3 1.4 2.5 1.4 2.4 

>35” 0.7 0.6 0.7 0.6 0.8 0.60 0.8 0.6 0.8 0.6 0.8 

Total 

>15” 

5.9 6.3 8.9 6.3 7.6 6.3 7.0 6.3 7.7 6.3 7.7 

Down Wood (logs): Table	3­9­9	shows	the	amount	of	large	woody	debris	(LWD)	within	each	of	the	

treatment	areas.		Most	treatment	units	contain	greater	than	10	logs	per	acre,	and	this	LWD	averages	

greater	than	15	inches	diameter.		Prescribed	underburning	will	reduce	some	of	this	material,	however	

most	of	the	loss	is	expected	to	occur	in	the	smaller	diameter	wood	and	most	of	the	larger	pieces	of	LWD	

are	expected	to	remain	after	burning	activity.			

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

12.0

2010 2012 2022 2032 2042

Snags >15" per acre

No Action

01frame work

04frame work

GTR

hybrid
Final Environmental Impact Statement Kings River Experimental Watershed Project 

Chapter 3­9 – Terrestrial Wildlife 3.9­28 

Table 3­9­9.		Large Woody Debris (Logs) per Acre in Treatment Stands		

Treatment

Stand

Logs per Acre Cubic Feet per

Acre

Tons per Acre Average Mean Log

Diameter

KREW Bull

796	 17.68	 1397	 12.8	 20.23	

811	 10.22	 869	 6.82	 19.79	

838	 21.09	 1111	 8.43	 19.16	

961	 13.18	 970	 7.53	 17.82	

962	 20.80	 762	 5.48	 15.64	

964	 14.74	 1612	 13.69	 21.64	

965	 11.50	 1094	 10.33	 18.66	

1043	 17.78	 1037	 10.58	 12.67	

1056	 17.41	 2048	 16.37	 20.20	

1057	 21.65	 16.16	 14.27	 16.82	

KREW 

Providence

235	 9.85	 995	 9.31	 14.92	

236	 8.00	 672	 5.37	 15.43	

280	 8.94	 1254	 10.03	 19.25	

281	 12.92	 1160	 11.00	 17.97	

295	 13.33	 788	 8.35	 10.28	

299	 8.00	 444	 3.83	 10.42	

301	 12.50	 1355	 11.04	 15.71	

306	 22.00	 1344	 11.99	 22.00	

316	 17.00	 1550	 12.52	 19.99	

331	 11.73	 480	 5.08	 11.77	

346	 10.29	 1788	 15.95	 19.81	

365	 16.73	 1001	 6.47	 16.46	

380	 12.00	 662	 4.36	 10.37	

449	 11.73	 2137	 16.03	 16.85	

454	 9.6	 1131	 15.91	 11.90	

499	 23.00	 1166	 10.61	 13.35	

The	long­term	positive	effects	of	fuels	treatments,	due	to	the	reduction	of	wildfire	hazard	and	greater	

forest	heterogeneity	that	promotes	greater	forest	resilience	to	wildfire,	insect,	disease	and	drought,	

outweighs	the	short­term	negative	effects	of	fuel	treatments	(due	to	immediate	loss	of	forest	biomass)	

on	CSOs,	northern	goshawks,	and	American	martens,	especially	when	assuming	a	higher	likelihood	of	a	

severe	wildfire	in	the	future	without	fuels	reduction	treatments.	These	treatments,	including	

underburns,	will	have	short­term	impacts	to	habitat	quality;	however,	new	understory	growth	within	

the	first	few	years	by	herbaceous	vegetation	and	shrubs	can	also	lead	to	habitat	enhancement	for	a	

variety	of	wildlife,	including	prey	species	for	fishers,	owls,	and	martens	in	the	form	of	new	forage	and	

hiding/thermal	cover.	If	severe,	large	scale	wildfire	would	occur	through	these	management	areas,	
Final Environmental Impact Statement Kings River Experimental Watershed Project 

Chapter 3­9 – Terrestrial Wildlife 3.9­29 

habitat	recovery	would	take	considerably	longer	(i.e.	>100	years)	than	using	incremental	fuels	reduction	

management,	as	proposed	with	these	alternatives.			

PACs and HRCAs:		The	Providence	management	area	includes	three	California	spotted	owl	(CSO)	

Protected	Activity	Centers	(PAC)	and	Home	Range	Core	Areas	(HRCA);	the	Bull	area	only	has	two	

HRCAs.	Treatment	in	spotted	owl	PACs,	for	all	action	alternatives,	is	intended	to	implement	2001	SNFPA	

ROD	management	direction	for	treatments	in	spotted	owls	PACS	that	are	also	in	the	defense	zone	of	the	

WUI.	This	includes:	

x prohibit	mechanical	treatments	within	500	foot	radius	around	CSO	activity	center	and	hand	cut	

trees	less	than	6	inches	dbh	

x limit	thinning	outside	the	CSO	activity	areas	to	20	inches	or	less	dbh	

x retain	50	percent	canopy	cover,	and	no	canopy	cover	reduction	in	stands	with	40­50	percent	

canopy	cover,	other	than	trees	with	less	than	6	inch	dbh	

x limit	mechanical	treatment	to	75	percent	of	the	stand	(PAC)	

Figures	3­9­2	and	3­9­3	show	the	location	of	spotted	owl	PACs	and	HRCAs	in	the	project	area,	and	Table	

3­9­10	shows	the	acreage	spotted	owl	habitat	of	each	action	alternative,	as	compared	with	the	no	action	

alternative.			

Table 3­9­10.		Spotted Owl Habitat in PACs and HRCAs in the Bull and Providence Areas, for all

Alternatives, KREW Project a.			

Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Alt. 5 

ID Current 2012 2042 2012 2042 2012 2042 2012 2042 2012 2042 

Home Range Conservation Areas (HRCAs) in the Bull Management Area 

Current 2012 2042 2012 2042 2012 2042 2012 2042 2012 2042 

FRO84 47 47 65 38 24 22 23 22 23 37 24 

FR188 44 58 89 58 89 44 86 42 88 45 90 

Total 91 105 154 96 113 66 109 64 112 82 114 

Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Alt. 5 

ID Current 2012 2042 2012 2042 2012 2042 2012 2042 2012 2042 

Protected Activity Centers (PACs) in the Providence Management Area 

FR021 301 303 323 301 227 301 227 301 226 301 226 

FR122 107 109 137 100 125 101 137 107 137 105 137 

FR168 86 86 87 86 87 85 86 85 86 85 86 

Total 494 498 548 487 440 487 451 493 449 491 449 

Home Range Conservation Areas (HRCAs) in the Providence Management Area 

Current 2012 2042 2012 2042 2012 2042 2012 2042 2012 2042 

FR021 194 198 255 169 241 182 253 186 248 178 250 

FR122 12 12 14 12 14 12 14 12 14 11 11 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Kings River Experimental Watershed Project 

Chapter 3­9 – Terrestrial Wildlife 3.9­30 

FR168 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 42 

Total 249 253 312 224 297 236 310 240 305 231 303 

a Year 2012 represents immediate post­treatment.		No PACs are within the Bull management area.

Figure 3­9­2.		Spotted Owl PACs and HRCAs within the Bull Management Area, KREW Project.
Final Environmental Impact Statement Kings River Experimental Watershed Project 

Chapter 3­9 – Terrestrial Wildlife 3.9­31 

Figure 3­9­3.		Spotted Owl PACs and HRCAs within the Providence Management Area, KREW

Project.
Final Environmental Impact Statement Kings River Experimental Watershed Project 

Chapter 3­9 – Terrestrial Wildlife 3.9­32 

Great Gray Owls ­ Direct and Indirect Effects by Alternatives 2­4 

Direct Effects:		If	great	gray	owls	are	using	KREW	project	areas,	or	adjoining	areas,	when	management	

does	occur,	that	management	may	potentially	directly	affect	them	as	a	result	of	noise	from	mechanical	

vegetation	clearing	and	fire	and	smoke	from	controlled	burns.		These	activities	may	disturb	the	owl	

enough	to	cause	it	to	forage	elsewhere	creating	a	minor	energetic	expenditure.	The	Project­level	LOP’s,	

however,	will	substantially	reduce	those	potential	impacts	during	the	most	sensitive	period	of	the	

nesting	season,	by	not	allowing	mechanical	activities	from	February	1	to	June	15.		Spring	underburning	

also	will	not	occur	from	February	1	to	about	May	15.		Wet	meadows	(Table	3­9­6)	would	not	be	directly	

effect	by	this	management	because	management	actions	will	not	occur	in	those	meadows	or	within	their	

buffer	area.	

Implementing	Alternatives	2­4	would	not	result	in	any	change	to	wet	meadow	habitat	due	to	the	lack	of	

management	in	those	areas	or	within	100	feet	of	them.		This	alternative	could	result	in	effects	to	forest	

habitat	that	potentially	may	be	used	for	foraging	and	nesting	through	an	initial	partial	loss	of	mid	to	late	

seral	forest	habitat	(refer	to	the	spotted	owl	habitat	assessment	­Table	3­9­6.		Although	the	modeled	

habitat	shows	an	initial	decline,	key	habitat	features	will	be	retained	or	enhanced,	including	retaining	all	

trees	greater	than	30	inches	dbh,	most	trees	20­30	inches	dbh	and	all	snags	greater	than15	inches	dbh,	

unless	deemed	hazardous,	as	well	as	maintaining	an	average	minimum	canopy	cover	of	40­50	percent	

with	a	higher	percent	cover,	and	generally	higher	basal	area,	in	portions	of	the	two	management	areas,	

such	as	lower	slopes	and	riparian	areas.		Also,	by	opening	the	overstory	canopy	and	clearing	some	of	the	

decadent	understory	vegetation,	the	understory	vegetation	will	become	more	diverse	in	age	and	

structure,	with	a	greater	amount	of	new	growth,	thus	helping	lead	to	greater	prey	species	abundance	

and	diversity	and	a	more	open	understory	for	flight	patterns	used	by	great	gray	owls	for	foraging.			

Indirect Effects:		Over	the	30	year	post	treatment	period,	wet	meadow	habitat	would	not	change	in	

acreage,	and	mid	to	late	seral	forest	habitat	will	have	recovered	(Table	3­9­6).		Although	this	action	

initially	reduces	some	potential	habitat,	the	overall	effect	of	the	management	is	counter	balanced	by	

creating	greater	forest	heterogeneity	and	moving	the	forest	into	a	greater	ecological	resiliency	that	is	

better	capable	of	sustaining	wildfire,	as	well	as	other	threats	from	insects,	disease,	and	drought	from	

climate	change.		The	increased	forest	heterogeneity	and	resiliency	also	will	provide	long­term	wildlife	

habitat	diversity,	including	a	greater	number	of	wildlife	niches	and	eco­tones	for	greater	diversity	and	

abundance	of	prey	species.	These	changes,	along	with	management	measures	designed	to	retain	and	

enhance	key	wildlife	habitat	features,	such	as	retaining	and	promoting	large	trees,	retaining	large	snags,	

maintaining	minimum	canopy	cover	and	coarse	woody	debris,	as	well	as	creating	greater	understory	

vegetation	diversity	and	riparian	area	conservation,	will	help	ensure	this	habitat	remains	suitable	for	

this	species	over	the	long	term.				

One	of	the	major	purposes	of	this	management	is	to	reduce	the	severity	of	wildfire	and	restore	a	fire	

resilient	forest	structure.	If	a	wildfire	were	to	occur	in	the	KREW	project	area	following	the	

implementation	of	the	proposed	action,	there	would	be	less	potential	impact	on	habitat	than	if	a	fire	

were	to	occur	without	implementation	of	this	alternative	(refer	to	the	Fire	and	Fuels	Management	

Specialist	report	for	further	details).			
Final Environmental Impact Statement Kings River Experimental Watershed Project 

Chapter 3­9 – Terrestrial Wildlife 3.9­33 

Willow Flycatcher ­ Direct and Indirect Effects by Alternatives 2­4 

Direct Effects:		The	action	alternatives	include	measures	to	avoid	and	minimize	effects	to	willow	

flycatcher	habitat.	Specifically,	no	mechanical	equipment	will	be	used	within	100	feet	of	meadows.	This	

buffer	also	would	help	minimize	the	potential	for	erosion	and	effects	to	hydrology	around	meadows.	

Additionally,	direct	effects	to	willow	flycatchers	due	to	noise	from	mechanical	vegetation	clearing,	and	

fire	and	smoke	from	controlled	burns	would	be	minimized	by	implementing	the	Project­level	LOP’s	

which	will	eliminate	potential	mechanical	disturbances	from	February	1	to	June	15,	which	is	the	

sensitive	nesting	period.		Spring	underburning	also	will	not	occur	from	February	1	to	about	May	15.	

Additionally,	the	LOP	implemented	for	Yosemite	toad	in	the	Bull	Management	area	from	May	1	through	

July	15	will	also	substantially	reduce	potential	direct	affects	to	willow	flycatcher	in	that	area.			

Indirect Effects:		The	habitat	modeling	shows	that	wet	meadow	habitat	will	not	change	within	the	

KREW	project	area	over	a	30	year	period	(Table	3­9­6)	after	treatment	therefore	indirect	effects	are	not	

expected	from	any	of	the	action	alternatives	to	willow	flycatchers.			

Pacific Fisher ­ Direct and Indirect Effects by Alternatives 2­4 

This	analysis	will	examine	the	potential	direct	and	indirect	effects	to	Pacific	fishers	and	their	suitable	

habitat	by	comparing	the	current	conditions	of	the	no	action	alternative,	with	the	projected	conditions	

for	each	action	alternative.		The	following	four	criteria	have	been	selected	for	purposes	of	this	analysis	of	

effects.	

1. California Wildlife Habitat Relationships (CWHR 2.1) Habitat:

The	CWHR	2.1	habitat	analysis	will	be	used	to	assess	moderate	to	high	suitability	habitat	quality	as	

described	above.		Changes	in	quality,	quantity	and	distribution	of	available	habitat	can	affect	fisher	

foraging;	reproduction;	and	movements	(daily,	breeding­season,	and	dispersal),	altering	individual	

energetics.				

2. Habitat and Habitat Changes in fisher den site buffers and home ranges in the project area:

Habitat	types	and	proposed	changes	are	assessed	within	the	fisher	den	site	buffers	and	home	ranges	

within	the	project	area.		

3. Intermediate and large trees for resting and denning structures: The	availability	of	suitable	

intermediate	(11­24”dbh)	and	large	(>24”dbh)	trees	and	snags	to	serve	as	resting	and	denning	

structures	is	thought	to	be	a	limiting	factor	across	the	environment.	It	is	therefore	important	to	

ensure	that	sufficient	structures	remain	across	the	landscape	so	that	fisher	movement	and	

reproduction	is	not	disrupted	which	could	lead	to	increased	energetic	expense	or	a	decrease	in	

reproductive	rate.	

4. Volume of dead and down coarse woody debris: Fishers	have	been	associated	with	areas	which	

contain	high	volumes	of	coarse	woody	debris.		Logs	in	the	early	state	of	decay	are	of	most	value	as	

rest	sites	for	fishers.	Unlike	snags,	logs	have	not	been	identified	as	natal	dens,	but	they	constitute	

about	10%	of	the	fisher	rest	sites	in	the	southern	Sierra	Nevada.	

5. Effects of wildfire to fisher habitat:	It	is	important	to	analyze	the	short­term	effects	of	fuels	

reduction	across	a	planning	area	compared	to	the	long­term	effects	of	severe	fire	in	the	absence	of	

fuels	reduction	treatments.		The	long	term	consequences	of	uncharacteristically	severe	wildfire	have	
Final Environmental Impact Statement Kings River Experimental Watershed Project 

Chapter 3­9 – Terrestrial Wildlife 3.9­34 

the	potential	to	eliminate	large	contiguous	acreages	of	habitat,	further	fragmenting	this	isolated	

Southern	Sierra	fisher	population.			

CWHR Habitat 

Direct	effects	to	fisher	from	Alternatives	2­4	include	noise	from	mechanical	vegetation	clearing,	fire	and	

smoke	from	controlled	burns,	and	direct	loss	of	potential	habitat.	Both	foraging	and	nesting	activities	

could	be	affected	by	these	actions.		The	Project­level	LOP’s,	however,	will	substantially	reduce	those	

potential	impacts	by	not	allowing	mechanical	activities	from	February	1	to	June	15,	which	will	avoid	

disturbance	during	the	sensitive	denning	period.		Spring	underburning	also	will	not	occur	from	

February	1	to	about	May	15.	Additionally,	fishers	are	highly	mobile	and	skittish	creatures	and	would	

likely	quickly	vacate	any	area	that	is	receiving	mechanical	treatment,	thus	minimizing	potential	direct	

effects	as	a	result	of	mechanized	activities,	which	would	only	occur	after	June	15.		Prescribed	fire	

treatments	would	move	slowly	enough	through	the	forest	to	allow	fishers	to	temporarily	vacate	the	

area,	reducing	the	chances	of	direct	mortality	from	fire	or	smoke	inhalation.		

The	Bull	management	area	is	above	approximately	7,000	ft	elevation	and	is	above	the	elevation	typically	

known	for	sustained	fisher	use,	and	therefore	not	considered	as	habitat	frequently	used	by	fisher.	The	

PSW	Kings	River	Project	(KRP)	Fisher	Study	also	found	that	there	is	no	sustained	fisher	use	of	the	Bull	

management	area	during	the	1997­2010	period	although	they	believe	that	some	fishers	may	traverse	

that	area	on	occasion,	such	as	dispersing	males	(Thompson,	C.	2010	pers.	comm.).		Additionally	the	

Conservation	Biology	Institute	(CBI)	(Spencer	et	al.	2008)	shows	the	Bull	area	has	having	less	than	20%	

fisher	probability.	In	contrast,	the	Kings	River	Project	Fisher	study	has	located	numerous	fishers	using	

the	Providence	management	area.		

Pacific	fisher	lower	quality	habitat	includes	CWHR	4P,	5P	and	5S,	and	higher	quality	habitats	are	CWHR	

classes	4M,	4D,	5M,	5D	and	6	(although	there	is	no	Class	6	habitat	in	the	management	areas),	with	the	

5M,	5D	having	the	highest	quality	denning	and	foraging	habitat.	Forest	types	typically	used	by	fisher	are	

the	Sierran	mixed­conifer,	Ponderosa	pine,	Jeffrey	pine,	white	fir,	montane	hardwood­conifer.	Red­fir	

forests	are	not	shown	to	be	fisher	habitat.		

Implementing	Alternatives	2­4	would	result	in	direct	effects	to	fisher	habitat	through	an	initial	reduction	

of	between	­11	and	­20	acres	of	potential	fisher	habitat	in	the	Bull	area	and	­15	to	+11	acres	in	the	

Providence	area,	depending	on	which	alternative	is	selected	(detailed	tables	are	provided	in	the	KREW	

Terrestrial	Wildlife	BABE).		These	affects	are	an	initial	reduction	of	2.0	to	3.6%	of	fisher	habitat	in	the	

Bull	area	and	1%	reduction	or	gain	in	the	Providence	area,	depending	on	which	alternative	is	selected.		

Over	the	30­year	post­treatment	period	fisher	habitat	would	increase	between	+9	and	+52	acres	in	the	

Bull	area	and	+88	to	+152	acres	in	the	Providence	area,	depending	on	which	alternative	is	selected	

(detailed	tables	are	provided	in	the	KREW	Terrestrial	Wildlife	BABE).			

Although	the	modeled	habitat	initially	decline,	key	habitat	features	will	be	retained	or	enhanced,	such	as	

large	trees,	oaks	and	snags,	as	well	as	maintaining	an	average	minimum	canopy	cover	of	greater	than	50	

percent	in	the	Providence	area,	along	with	a	higher	percent	cover	and	generally	higher	basal	area,	in	

portions	of	both	management	areas,	such	as	lower	slopes	and	riparian	areas,	and	this	cover	is	expected	

to	increase	as	a	result	of	tree	growth	during	post­treatment	to	a	similar	level	as	pre­project	conditions.		

Also,	by	opening	up	the	overstory	canopy	and	clearing	some	of	the	decadent	understory	vegetation,	the	

understory	vegetation	will	become	more	diverse	in	age	and	structure,	with	a	greater	amount	of	new	
Final Environmental Impact Statement Kings River Experimental Watershed Project 

Chapter 3­9 – Terrestrial Wildlife 3.9­35 

growth,	thus	helping	lead	to	greater	prey	species	abundance	and	diversity	and	a	more	open	understory	

for	flight	patterns	used	in	foraging.			

Management	actions	would	retain	an	average	of	at	least	6	snags	per	acre	greater	than	15	inches	dbh	in	

the	Providence	area	(Table	3­9­8)	and	remove	only	a	few	trees	greater	than	20	inches	dbh	(Table	3­9­7),	

and	these	larger	trees	provide	potential	and	future	fisher	den	and	rest	sites.		

For	both	project	units,	these	changes	to	habitat	may	result	in	short	term	effects	in	the	way	fisher	utilize	

the	habitat.	Fisher	may	leave	treatment	units	during	project	implementation,	and	will	likely	rely	more	

heavily	on	other	areas	of	their	home	range,	at	least	over	the	short­term.		Individual	energetic	expenses	

may	be	increased	if	fishers	have	to	travel	farther	to	forage,	however	this	silvicultural	thinning	is	not	

expected	to	substantially	change	the	forest	structure	(as	compared	with	clearcutting	practices)	thus	

fisher	are	expected	to	continue	to	use	these	management	areas	within	a	short	period	of	time	after	

treatment	actions.		None	of	these	habitat	changes	are	expected	to	result	in	fisher	mortality,	although	

there	may	be	a	slight	decline	in	individual	fitness	primarily	occurring	during	the	relatively	short	period	

of	active	vegetation	management.			

Habitat and Habitat Changes in Fisher Den Site Buffers and Home Ranges in the Project Area

2010 Fisher Use of the Project Area (Fisher #19):		Figure	3­9­4,	shows	the	2010	fisher	home	range	

and	den	site	buffer	(Fisher	#	19)	that	overlaps	the	Providence	management	area.		The	home	range	of	

this	fisher	(No.	19)	is	2,439	acres,	of	which	322	acres	are	within	the	project	area.		The	associated	781	

acre	den	buffer	area	(Figure	3­9­4)	for	this	fisher	den	site	is	the	60	percent	isopleth	boundary	identified	

by	the	PSW	­	Kings	River	Fisher	Study	team,	and	approximately	26	percent	(205	acres)	of	that	den	buffer	

is	within	the	project	area.			

Table	3­9­11	shows	that	about	half	(48%)	of	the	fisher	habitat	in	the	den	buffer	will	not	be	treated	with	

thinning	management,	and	the	remaining	habitat	will	be	treated	with	varying	types	of	thinning	(not	

clearcutting)	according	to	each	action	alternative.			

Table 3­9­11. Acres of silvicultural management in fisher #19 den buffer in the Providence 

Management Area. 

Type of Management

Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5 

Acres % Acres % Acres % Acres % 

No Thin 99	 48%	 99	 48%	 99	 48%	 99	 48%	

General Thin 93	 45%	 30	 15%	 ­­	 ­­	 35	 17%	

Old Forest Thin 13	 6%	 13	 6%	 ­­	 ­­	 ­­	 ­­	

Defense Thin ­­	 ­­	 63	 31%	 ­­	 ­­	 ­­	 ­­	

Canyon Fisher Thin ­­	 ­­	 ­­	 ­­	 67	 33%	 42	 20%	

Neutral Aspect Thin ­­	 ­­	 ­­	 ­­	 7	 3%	 4	 2%	

Southwest Aspect Thin ­­	 ­­	 ­­	 ­­	 32	 16%	 25	 12%	

Total 205	 	 205	 	 205	 	 205	 	
Final Environmental Impact Statement Kings River Experimental Watershed Project 

Chapter 3­9 – Terrestrial Wildlife 3.9­36 

Figure 3­9­4. Pacific Fisher Home Ranges and Den Buffer Areas in the Providence Management Area. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Kings River Experimental Watershed Project 

Chapter 3­9 – Terrestrial Wildlife 3.9­37 

Tables	3­9­12	and	3­9­13	show	that	all	habitat	currently	within	the	project	area	in	the	fisher	home	range	

and	den	buffer	areas	is	fisher	habitat	(CWHR	4P,	4M,	4D,	5S,	5P,	5M,	5D	in	mixed	conifer;	Ponderosa	pine	

does	not	include	5S).		Less	than	2	percent	of	that	original	habitat	within	each	of	those	areas	will	be	

converted	to	non­fisher	habitat	(CWHR	3S	and	3M)	as	a	result	of	treatments	proposed	by	the	action	

alternatives,	both	immediately	after	treatment	and	30	years	post­treatment.	Tables	3­9­12	and	3­9­13	

also	show	that	at	75%	to	100%	of	the	fisher	den	buffer	area	and	the	fisher	home	range	will	have	at	least	

60%	canopy	cover	or	greater	(CWHR	Class	D)	immediately	after	treatment	and	30	years	post­treatment,	

and	the	specific	amount	varies	with	the	alternative	selected.		Additionally,	the	most	current	SNF	

vegetation	GIS	layer	shows	that	86%	of	the	F19	fisher	home	range	has	at	least	60%	(CWHR	Class	D)	

canopy	cover	and	the	slight	reduction	of	habitat	changes	occurring	under	the	action	alternatives	will	not	

bring	that	below	50	percent.		

Table 3­9­12. Acres of Habitat within the Fisher #19 Den Site Buffer, by Alternative. 

No Action Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5 

2012 2042 2012 2042 2012 2042 2012 2042 2012 2042 

4D 188 163 135 112 129 99 155 118 136 102 

4M 9 ­­ 22 ­­ 33 ­­ 27 9 44 7 

4P ­­ ­­ ­­ ­­ ­­ ­­ ­­ ­­ ­­ ­­

5D 6 42 24 62 32 106 4 61 4 64 

5M 2 ­­ 15 31 11 ­­ 5 13 6 28 

5P ­­ ­­ 9 ­­ ­­ ­­ 9 ­­ 11 ­­

3M ­­ ­­ ­­ ­­ ­­ ­­ ­­ 4 ­­ 4 

3S ­­ ­­ ­­ ­­ ­­ ­­ 4 ­­ 4 ­­

Total 205 205 205 205 205 205 205 205 205 205 

Table 3­9­13. Acres of Fisher Habitat within the Fisher #19 Home Range, by Alternative. 

No Action Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5

2012 2042 2012 2042 2012 2042 2012 2042 2012 2042

4D 264 210 206 153 197 137 224 159 202 140 

4M 19 ­­ 34 ­­ 45 ­­ 41 9 62 7 

4P ­­ ­­ ­­ ­­ ­­ ­­ ­­ ­­ ­­ ­­

5D 31 91 45 109 62 165 24 110 25 114 

5M 9 20 28 60 18 20 15 41 15 57 

5P ­­ ­­ 9 ­­ ­­ ­­ 14 ­­ 14 ­­

3M ­­ ­­ ­­ ­­ ­­ ­­ ­­ 4 ­­ 4 

3S ­­ ­­ ­­ ­­ ­­ ­­ 4 ­­ 4 ­­

Total 322 322 322 322 322 322 322 322 322 322 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Kings River Experimental Watershed Project 

Chapter 3­9 – Terrestrial Wildlife 3.9­38 

Tables	3­9­14	and	3­9­15	shows	the	affects	of	various	treatment	types	on	fisher	#19	home	range	and	

den	buffer	for	each	action	alternative.		Prior	to	treatments	there	is	205	acres	of	fisher	habitat	within	the	

den	buffer	and	322	acres	in	the	home	range,	within	the	project	area.		Again,	there	is	less	than	2	percent	

reduction	(4	acres)	in	fisher	habitat	in	both	the	fisher	den	site	buffer	and	the	home	range	as	a	result	of	

thinning	management	under	Alternatives	4	and	5;	Alternatives	2	and	3	have	no	change.			

Table 3­9­14. Acres of fisher habitat within treatment areas in the fisher #19 den buffer that overlaps 

the Providence Management Area. 

Type of Management

Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5 

2012 2042 2012 2042 2012 2042 2012 2042

No Thin 99	 99	 99	 99	 99	 99	 99	 99	

General Thin 93	 93	 30	 30	 ­­	 ­­	 31	 31	

Old Forest Thin 13	 13	 13	 13	 ­­	 ­­	 ­­	 ­­	

Defense Thin ­­	 ­­	 64	 64	 ­­	 ­­	 ­­	 ­­	

Canyon Fisher Thin ­­	 ­­	 ­­	 ­­	 67	 67	 42	 42	

Neutral Aspect Thin ­­	 ­­	 ­­	 ­­	 7	 7	 4	 4	

Southwest Aspect Thin ­­	 ­­	 ­­	 ­­	 28	 28	 25	 25	

Total 205	 205	 205	 205	 201	 201	 201	 201	

a

 All habitat in the fisher den site buffer area is fisher habitat in 2010, 2012 and 2042, except for 4 acres in the 

southwest aspect thin area that is converted to 3S in 2012 and then to 3M in 2042, for Alternatives 4 and 5. 

Table 3­9­15. Acres of fisher habitat within treatment types in the fisher #19 home range that 

overlaps the Providence Management Area. 

Type of Management

Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5 

2012 2042 2012 2042 2012 2042 2012 2042

No Thin 178	 178	 178	 178	 178	 178	 178	 178	

General Thin 130	 130	 40	 40	 ­­	 	 37	 37	

Old Forest Thin 15	 15	 13	 13	 ­­	 	 2	 2	

Defense Thin ­­	 ­­	 91	 91	 ­­	 	 ­­	 ­­	

Canyon Fisher Thin ­­	 ­­	 ­­	 ­­	 89	 89	 57	 57	

Neutral Aspect Thin ­­	 ­­	 ­­	 ­­	 12	 12	 8	 8	

Southwest Aspect Thin ­­	 ­­	 ­­	 ­­	 39	 39	 35	 35	

Total 322	 322	 322	 322	 318	 318	 318	 318	

Fisher den buffers in the Project Area Prior to 2010 (Fishers #12 and 22)

As	noted	previously,	three	other	fishers	had	den	sites	either	in	are	near	the	Providence	area	prior	to	

2010,	and	two	of	those	fishers	(F04	and	F12)	did	not	have	enough	relocations	(i.e.>25)	to	accurately	

depict	home	ranges	and	core	areas.		F04	female	died	during	the	denning	season,	thus	had	incomplete	

maternity	den	data.			We	used	the	F12	approximate	den	buffer	as	part	of	this	assessment	as	well	as	F022	
Final Environmental Impact Statement Kings River Experimental Watershed Project 

Chapter 3­9 – Terrestrial Wildlife 3.9­39 

data	(Figure	3­9­4).		Fisher	F12	had	a	60%	isopleth	den	buffer	area	of	940	acres;	whereas	fisher	F22	had	

a	60%	isolpleth	den	buffer	area	of	725	acres.		Approximately	125	acres	of	the	providence	project	area	is	

within	the	F12	den	buffer	area	and	164	acres	within	the	F22	den	buffer	area	and	all	of	that	those	areas	

currently	consist	of	fisher	habitat.	Tables	3­9­16	and	3­9­17	show	the	type	of	management	proposed	to	

take	place	within	those	areas	and	the	amount	of	fisher	habitat	acreage	immediately	after	treatment	and	

30­years	post­treatment	(Fisher	habitat	is	CWHR	4P,	4M,	4D,	5S,	5P,	5M,	5D	in	Mixed	Conifer	forest,	and	

Ponderosa	Pine	habitat	type	does	not	include	5S).		There	is	no	change	in	the	fisher	habitat	within	the	F12	

den	buffer	immediately	after	treatment	and	30­years	post­treatment	as	a	result	of	the	action	

alternatives.		Within	the	F22	den	buffer	there	is	a	decline	of	9	acres	(5%)	of	fisher	habitat	immediately	

after	treatment	under	Alternative	4	and	5	management	(9	acres	of	CWHR	class	4	is	converted	to	class	3),	

as	compared	with	Alternative	1,	and	that	remains	the	same	30­years	post­treatment.	Additionally,	the	

most	current	SNF	vegetation	GIS	layer	shows	that	77%	of	the	F22	home	range	and	81%	of	the	F12	home	

range	has	at	least	60%	(CWHR	Class	D)	canopy	cover	and	the	slight	reduction	of	habitat	changes	

occurring	under	the	action	alternatives	will	not	bring	that	below	50	percent.		

Table 3­9­16. Acres of fisher habitat within treatment areas in the fisher F12 den buffer that overlaps the 

Providence Management Area. 

Type of Management

Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5 

2012 2042 2012 2042 2012 2042 2012 2042

No Thin 68	 68	 68	 68	 68	 68	 68	 68	

General Thin 44	 44	 40	 40	 ­­	 ­­	 ­­	 ­­	

Old Forest Thin 13	 13	 13	 13	 ­­	 ­­	 ­­	 ­­	

Defense Thin ­­	 ­­	 4	 4	 ­­	 ­­	 ­­	 ­­	

Canyon Fisher Thin ­­	 ­­	 ­­	 ­­	 22	 22	 22	 22	

Neutral Aspect Thin ­­	 ­­	 ­­	 ­­	 9	 9	 9	 9	

Southwest Aspect Thin ­­	 ­­	 ­­	 ­­	 26	 26	 26	 26	

Total Fisher Habitat 125	 125	 125	 125	 125	 125	 125	 125	

Table 3­9­17. Acres of fisher habitat within treatment areas in the fisher F22 den buffer that overlaps the 

Providence Management Area. 

Type of Management

Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5 

2012 2042 2012 2042 2012 2042 2012 2042

No Thin 30	 30	 30	 30	 30	 30	 30	 30	

General Thin 100	 100	 16	 16	 ­­	 ­­	 ­­	 ­­	

Old Forest Thin 34	 34	 ­­	 ­­	 ­­	 ­­	 ­­	 ­­	

Defense Thin ­­	 ­­	 118	 118	 ­­	 ­­	 ­­	 ­­	

Canyon Fisher Thin ­­	 ­­	 ­­	 ­­	 56	 56	 56	 56	

Neutral Aspect Thin ­­	 ­­	 ­­	 ­­	 18	 18	 18	 18	

Southwest Aspect Thin 	 	 	 	 51	 51	 51	 51	

Total Fisher Habitat 164	 164	 164	 164	 155	 155	 155	 155	
Final Environmental Impact Statement Kings River Experimental Watershed Project 

Chapter 3­9 – Terrestrial Wildlife 3.9­40 

Intermediate and Large Trees for Resting and Denning Structures – Alternatives 2­4

It	is	important	that	an	adequate	number	of	large	trees,	that	can	provide	resting	and	denning	sites,	are	

retained	post	project	implementation.	The	maintenance	of	these	large	structural	elements	at	the	

microsite	scale	may	serve	to	mitigate	the	negative	effects	of	large	scale	fisher	habitat	alterations	(Weir	

and	Harestad	2003,	Zielinski	et	al.	2004a).		

Zielinski	et	al.	(2004a)	argue	that	retaining	and	recruiting	trees,	snags	and	logs	of	at	least	39	inches	dbh,	

encouraging	dense	canopies,	structural	diversity,	and	retaining	and	recruiting	large	hardwoods	

(especially	in	the	Sierra	Nevada)	are	important	for	producing	high	quality	fisher	habitat	and	

resting/denning	sites.		In	the	Fisher	FAST	template	(USDA	Forest	Service	2009)	the	estimated	number	of	

rest	and	den	trees	required	for	fishers	by	home	range	was	calculated	to	be	a	minimum	of	17	

intermediate	(11­24”	dbh)	to	large	(greater	than	24”	dbh)	trees	needed	per	acre.	While	this	figure	

involves	a	number	of	assumptions,	it	does	quantify	what	is	believed	to	be	a	minimum	number	of	

required	structures.	For	the	KREW	project,	trees	>11”	dbh	(CWHR	size	classes	4	and	greater)	are	used	as	

a	representative	of	rest	site	structures	and	trees	>	24”	dbh	(CWHR	size	classes	5	and	6)	for	den	site	

structure	for	fishers	(Truex	et	al.	1998).			

Retained Snags: As	part	of	the	action	alternatives,	thinning	is	intended	to	reduce	density	related	

mortality	of	trees,	resulting	in	lower	recruitment	of	snags	and	down	logs	than	would	occur	with	the	No	

Action	Alternative.		However,	the	larger	size	of	down	woody	debris	and	snags,	yet	lower	overall	volume,	

is	still	favorable	for	fisher	habitat	because	it	provides	potential	resting	and	denning	sites	while	also	

reducing	the	high	fuel	loads	that	contribute	to	uncharacteristically	severe	wildfire.		There	would	be	

reduced	chances	of	long	range	spotting,	less	likelihood	of	embers	being	transported	long	distances,	and	

wildfires	with	less	resistance	to	control.			

All	action	alternatives	would	retain	an	average	of	approximately	6.3	snags	per	acre	greater	than	15	

inches	dbh	within	the	Providence	Management	Area	immediately	after	treatment	and	increasing	to	7.0	

to	8.9	thirty	years	later,	depending	on	which	alternative	is	selected	(Table	3­9­8).	The	Bull	management	

area	would	be	similar,	within	a	minimum	of	5.6	snags,	greater	than	15	inches	dbh,	immediately	after	

treatment	and	increasing	to	8.8	to	11.3	thirty	years	later,	depending	on	which	alternative	is	selected.	

Retained Live Trees:		Since	the	KREW	project	proposes	to	thin	from	below	to	reduce	fuel	loading,	the	

largest,	healthiest	trees	in	the	unit	will	be	retained	for	each	unit.		All	trees	greater	than	30	inches	dbh	

will	be	retained	under	all	action	alternatives,	and	only	a	relatively	few	trees	20­30	inches	dbh	will	be	

removed	under	Alternatives	2,	4	and	5	management	(Table	3­9­7).			

Although	these	actions	may	remove	some	trees	20	to	30	inches	dbh	that	could	become	future	large	trees	

or	snags,	a	majority	of	trees	in	this	size	class	will	be	retained,	which	will	provide	an	abundance	of	larger	

trees	and	snags	for	future	fisher	resting	and	denning	sites.		

Fisher	typically	den	in	oaks,	ponderosa	pine,	white	fir,	and	cedar,	either	as	snags,	or	live	trees	with	

cavities	(Thompson	et	al.	2010;	Purcell	2009;	Zielinski	et	al.	2004a).	In	the	KRP	study,	oak	den	trees	

averaged	31.9	inches	dbh	and	conifers	averaged	40.7	inches.	Rest	trees	also	are	large,	averaging	35.8	

inches	dbh	(9.4	to	73.5	inches)	(Thompson	pers.	comm.).	Most	resting	structures	used	in	the	KRP	area	

were	in	live	trees	(76	percent),	15	percent	were	in	snags,	3	were	in	logs	and	2	each	were	in	stumps	and	

rock	crevices	(Purcell	et	al.	2009).	Using	this	information,	and	other	recent	literature,	the	USFS	

developed	a	goal	for	maintaining	a	minimum	of	17	potential	resting/denning	live	and	dead	trees	per	
Final Environmental Impact Statement Kings River Experimental Watershed Project 

Chapter 3­9 – Terrestrial Wildlife 3.9­41 

acre	for	fisher	rest	sites	and	dens	(USDA	Forest	Service	2009).		This	goal	would	be	reached	after	

treatments	are	completed	for	each	management	area,	as	shown	by	Tables	3­9­7	and	3­9­8.	The	results	

shown	for	retained	trees	(Table	3­9­7)	are	only	for	live	coniferous	trees	and	they	do	not	reflect	the	

additional	trees	provided	by	all	mature	oaks	that	are	retained,	as	well	as	dead	trees	(snags).	This	

information	indicates	that	all	action	alternatives	exceed	the	USFS	minimum	level	of	17	trees	that	may	

provide	fisher	rest	and	den	sites.					

Volume of Dead and Down Coarse Woody Debris 

Adequate	amounts	of	down	woody	debris	are	important	habitat	components	for	fisher	to	utilize	both	as	

shelter	from	predators,	and	as	habitat	for	fisher	prey	base.		No	upper	bound	or	lower	threshold	has	been	

established	and	it	is	assumed	that	the	more	volume	of	down	woody	debris	the	better.		However	from	

studies	of	dry,	fire	adapted	forests	similar	to	the	southern	Sierra	Forests	in	KREW	project	area,	high	

volumes	of	down	woody	debris	are	not	a	natural	feature	(Minnich	et	al.	1995,	Stephens	2005)	and	can	

contribute	to	severity	of	wildfire	effects.		The	action	alternatives	would	reduce	current	levels	of	down	

woody	debris	through	prescribed	fire,	and	would	minimize	the	loading	of	mechanical	treatment	related	

debris	through	pile	burning.	Large	woody	debris	would	generally	survive	prescribed	underburning	and	

does	not	contribute	to	high	rates	of	spread	or	flame	heights	under	wildfire	conditions.	Large	decayed	

logs	do,	however,	provide	receptive	fuel	beds	for	easy	ignition,	contribute	to	long	range	spotting,	

provide	high	volumes	of	embers	that	are	easily	transported	long	distances,	and	contribute	to	high	

resistance	to	control	of	wildfires,	as	well	as	contributing	to	high	intensity	and	long	residence	times	as	

heat	sources.		These	factors	contribute	to	size	and	effects	of	wildfire	on	the	forest.		

Table	3­9­9	shows	the	amount	of	large	woody	debris	(LWD)	within	each	of	the	treatment	areas.		Most	

treatment	units	contain	greater	than	10	logs	per	acre,	and	this	LWD	averages	greater	than	15	inches	

diameter.		Prescribed	underburning	will	reduce	some	of	this	material,	however	most	of	the	loss	is	

expected	to	occur	in	the	smaller	diameter	wood	and	most	of	the	larger	pieces	of	LWD	are	expected	to	

remain	after	burning	activity.		

Habitat Connectivity 

There	are	23	acres	of	OFL	associated	with	the	Providence	Project	area	which	occur	along	the	

headwaters	of	Duff	Creek.		One	of	the	2008	natal	dens	was	associated	with	this	OFL.		Duff	Creek	is	a	

tributary	of	Big	Creek	within	Blue	Canyon,	connecting	available	habitats	to	several	other	project	areas,	

as	well	as	an	identified	female	fisher	home	range.			

There	are	six	acres	of	OFL	identified	along	the	headwaters	of	Bull	Creek.		Bull	Creek	is	a	tributary	of	Deer	

Creek	which	feeds	into	Dinkey	Creek,	connecting	available	habitats	within	Bull	project	area	to	other	

project	areas,	and	to	two	identified	female	fisher	home	ranges.			

Alternative 2	­		Uneven­	aged management

Providence:		Alternative	2	would	apply	mechanical	treatments	to	52%	of	the	habitat	area	defined	by	

CWHR	2.1	as	moderate	to	highly	suitable	habitat	for	fisher,	including	123	acres	of	Old	Forest	Emphasis	

Thin.		As	a	result	of	all	treatments,	average	canopy	coverage	for	the	Providence	unit	will	decrease	from	

61%	to	53%	(Table	3­9­18),	but	will	still	provide	forest	cover,	dominated	by	the	largest	trees	available	
Final Environmental Impact Statement Kings River Experimental Watershed Project 

Chapter 3­9 – Terrestrial Wildlife 3.9­42 

and	have	541	acres	of	the	management	area	with	canopy	cover	greater	than	65%,	compared	with	878	of	

existing	acres.	Canopy	cover	is	expected	to	recover	to	the	approximate	current	conditions	within	

approximately	15	years	after	treatment.	This	alternative	represents	the	largest	impact	to	large	trees	by	

allowing	an	upper	tree	thinning	limit	of	30	inches	dbh,	and	other	design	measures	will	be	implemented	

to	retain	other	important	fisher	habitat	features,	such	as	snag	retention.		The	project	area	overall	will	

still	provide	forest	cover,	dominated	by	the	largest	trees	available.		The	units	would	also	be	modified	to	

reduce	surface	and	ladder	fuels	with	some	thinning	of	small	and	intermediate	size	trees	and	prescribed	

fire	treatments.		The	end	result	would	still	be	within	the	range	of	habitat	conditions	considered	as	high	

and	moderate	habitat	quality	for	fisher	in	the	CWHR	2.1	system.			

Table 3­9­18. Average canopy cover for the KREW Project. a, b

Treatment 

Units 

Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Alt. 5 

Providence Management Area

208 31 30 30 30 30

235 54 47 46 45 46

236 39 35 30 32 32

250 62 54 45 48 48

280 55 47 42 42 42

281 47 38 37 35 36

292 34 22 28 26 26

295 67 46 53 50 50

299 58 51 49 51 51

301 64 64 64 64 64

306 53 37 42 41 41

316 63 63 63 63 63

331 41 41 41 41 41

346 65 50 52 49 49

365 67 66 67 66 67

380 71 62 64 62 62

449 66 53 57 56 57

450 47 47 47 47 47

499 81 81 81 81 81

1043 85 71 76 76 76

Total 61 52 53 52 53

Bull Management Area

796 44 44 44 44 44

811 52 39 43 40 40

838 40 34 36 29 37

961 41 41 41 41 41

962 54 40 43 35 45

964 44 39 37 31 23

965 34 33 33 33 40

1056 40 38 40 38 40

1057 43 38 37 30 44

Total 44 38 39 34 40
Final Environmental Impact Statement Kings River Experimental Watershed Project 

Chapter 3­9 – Terrestrial Wildlife 3.9­43 

a 	After	treatments	represents	conditions	immediately	after	treatment.	

b 	Cover	determined	from	weighted	averages	within	each	treatment	unit;	amounts	may	show	rounding	

differences	of	+	or	–	one	percent.	

Bull:		Alternative	2	would	apply	mechanical	treatments	to	40%	of	the	habitat	area	defined	by	CWHR	2.1	

as	moderate	to	highly	suitable	habitat	for	fisher,	including	65	acres	of	Old	Forest	Emphasis	Thin.		This	

alternative	represents	the	largest	impact	to	large	trees	by	allowing	an	upper	harvest	limit	of	30	inches	

dbh,	though	design	measures	will	be	implemented	to	reduce	the	impacts	within	sensitive	fisher	habitat.	

As	a	result	of	all	treatments,	average	canopy	coverage	for	the	Bull	unit	will	decrease	from	44%	to	38%	

(Table	3­9­18),	but	will	still	provide	forest	cover,	dominated	by	the	largest	trees	available.		Where	

changed,	canopy	cover	is	expected	to	recover	to	the	approximate	current	conditions	within	

approximately	15	years	after	treatment.		Since	fishers	have	not	been	found	using	the	Bull	project	area	

for	resting,	denning,	or	foraging,	it	is	expected	that	this	area	will	serve	mainly	as	a	corridor	for	fisher	

movements,	specifically	along	Bull	Creek.		Treatments	along	the	Bull	Creek	headwaters	drainage	

predominantly	fall	under	Old	Forest	Emphasis	Thin,	which	is	designed	to	maintain	canopy	coverage	of	a	

minimum	of	50%.		The	units	would	also	be	modified	to	reduce	surface	and	ladder	fuels	with	some	

thinning	of	small	and	intermediate	size	trees	and	prescribed	fire	treatments.		No	WUI	or	DFPZ	areas	

occur	within	the	Bull	project	area.	The	end	result	would	still	be	within	the	range	of	habitat	conditions	

considered	as	high	and	moderate	habitat	quality	for	fisher	in	the	CWHR	2.1	system	

Alternative 3 – Fuels Reduction 

Providence:		Alternative	3	would	apply	mechanical	treatments	to	52%	of	the	habitat	area	defined	by	

CWHR	2.1	as	moderate	to	highly	suitable	habitat	for	fisher,	including	28	acres	of	Old	Forest	Emphasis	

Thin,	and	654	acres	of	defense	zone	thin.		As	a	result	of	all	treatments,	average	canopy	coverage	for	the	

Providence	unit	will	decrease	from	61%	to	53%	(Table	3­9­18),	but	will	still	provide	forest	cover,	

dominated	by	the	largest	trees	available	and	have	379	acres	of	the	management	area	with	canopy	cover	

greater	than	65%,	compared	with	the	current	amount	of	878	acres.	Canopy	cover	is	expected	to	recover	

to	the	approximate	current	conditions	within	approximately	15	years	after	treatment.		The	upper	dbh	

thinning	limit	of	20	inch	dbh	trees	would	allow	for	a	greater	component	of	large	trees	across	the	

landscape.	The	units	would	also	be	modified	to	reduce	surface	and	ladder	fuels	with	some	thinning	of	

small	and	intermediate	size	trees	and	prescribed	fire	treatments.		The	end	result	would	still	be	within	

the	range	of	habitat	conditions	considered	as	high	and	moderate	habitat	quality	for	fisher	in	the	CWHR	

2.1	system.			

Bull:		Alternative	3	would	apply	mechanical	treatments	to	40%	of	the	habitat	area	defined	by	CWHR	2.1	

as	moderate	to	highly	suitable	habitat	for	fisher,	including	65	acres	of	Old	Forest	Emphasis	Thin.		As	a	

result	of	all	treatments,	average	canopy	coverage	for	the	Bull	unit	will	decrease	from	44%	to	39%	(Table	

3­9­18),	but	will	still	provide	forest	cover,	dominated	by	the	largest	trees	available.		Where	changed,	

canopy	cover	is	expected	to	recover	to	the	approximate	current	conditions	within	approximately	15	

years	after	treatment.		The	reduction	in	the	upper	dbh	limit	of	harvest	trees	to	20	inch	would	allow	for	a	

greater	component	of	large	trees	across	the	landscape.	Since	no	fisher	have	been	found	utilizing	the	Bull	

project	area	for	resting,	denning,	or	foraging,	it	is	expected	that	this	area	will	serve	mainly	as	a	corridor	

for	fisher	movements,	specifically	along	Bull	Creek.		Treatments	along	the	Bull	Creek	headwaters	

drainage	predominantly	fall	under	Old	Forest	Emphasis	Thin,	which	is	designed	to	maintain	canopy	

coverage	of	50%.				The	units	would	also	be	modified	to	reduce	surface	and	ladder	fuels	with	some	
Final Environmental Impact Statement Kings River Experimental Watershed Project 

Chapter 3­9 – Terrestrial Wildlife 3.9­44 

thinning	of	small	and	intermediate	size	trees	and	prescribed	fire	treatments.		No	WUI	or	DFPZ	areas	

occur	within	the	Bull	project	area.	The	end	result	would	still	be	within	the	range	of	habitat	conditions	

considered	as	high	and	moderate	habitat	quality	for	fisher	in	the	CWHR	2.1	system	

Alternative 4 – North GTR 

Providence:		Alternative	4	would	apply	mechanical	treatments	to	53%	of	the	habitat	area	defined	by	

CWHR	2.1	as	moderate	to	highly	suitable	habitat	for	fisher.		As	a	result	of	all	treatments,	average	canopy	

coverage	for	the	Providence	unit	will	decrease	from	61%	to	52%	(Table	3­9­18),	but	will	still	provide	

forest	cover,	dominated	by	the	largest	trees	available,	and	have	220	acres	of	the	management	area	with	

canopy	cover	greater	than	65%,	compared	with	the	current	amount	of	878	acres.	Canopy	cover	is	

expected	to	recover	to	the	approximate	current	conditions	within	approximately	15	years	after	

treatment.		Under	this	treatment	design,	70%	of	the	treatment	will	be	on	southwest	aspects,	which	are	

generally	on	more	hot,	open	slopes	and	which	fisher	would	tend	to	avoid	as	travel	corridors.		A	total	of	

46	acres	would	be	treated	as	the	canyon/fisher	thin	treatment,	which	receives	the	same	guidelines	as	

Old	Forest	Emphasis	Thins,	and	would	thus	preserve	canopy	cover	at	50%.		The	project	unit	overall	

would	still	provide	forest	cover,	dominated	by	the	largest	trees	available.		The	units	would	also	be	

modified	to	reduce	surface	and	ladder	fuels	with	some	thinning	of	small	and	intermediate	size	trees	and	

prescribed	fire	treatments.		The	end	result	would	still	be	within	the	range	of	habitat	conditions	

considered	as	high	and	moderate	habitat	quality	for	fisher	in	the	CWHR	2.1	system.			

Bull:		Alternative	4	would	apply	mechanical	treatments	to	41%	of	the	habitat	area	defined	by	CWHR	2.1	

as	moderate	to	highly	suitable	habitat	for	fisher.		As	a	result	of	all	treatments,	average	canopy	coverage	

for	the	Bull	unit	will	decrease	from	44%	to	34%	(Table	3­9­18),	but	will	still	provide	forest	cover.		

Where	changed,	canopy	cover	is	expected	to	recover	to	the	approximate	current	conditions	within	

approximately	15	years	after	treatment.		Under	this	treatment	design,	42%	of	the	treatment	will	be	on	

southwest	aspects,	which	are	generally	on	more	hot,	open	slopes	and	which	fisher	would	tend	to	avoid	

as	travel	corridors.		A	total	of	46	acres	would	be	treated	as	the	canyon/fisher	thin	treatment,	which	

receives	the	same	guidelines	as	Old	Forest	Emphasis	Thins,	and	would	thus	preserve	canopy	cover	at	

50%.		Since	no	fisher	have	been	found	utilizing	the	Bull	project	area	for	resting,	denning,	or	foraging,	this	

area	most	likely	will	serve	as	a	corridor	for	fisher	movements,	specifically	along	Bull	Creek.		Treatments	

along	the	Bull	Creek	headwaters	drainage	predominantly	fall	under	Old	Forest	Emphasis	Thin.		The	

units	would	also	be	modified	to	reduce	surface	and	ladder	fuels	with	some	thinning	of	small	and	

intermediate	size	trees	and	prescribed	fire	treatments.		No	WUI	or	DFPZ	areas	occur	within	the	Bull	

project	area.	The	end	result	would	still	be	within	the	range	of	habitat	conditions	considered	as	high	and	

moderate	habitat	quality	for	fisher	in	the	CWHR	2.1	system	

Alternative 5 – Hybrid Forest Restoration 

Providence:		Alternative	5	would	apply	mechanical	treatments	to	53%	of	the	habitat	area	defined	by	

CWHR	2.1	as	moderate	to	highly	suitable	habitat	for	fisher.		As	a	result	of	all	treatments,	average	canopy	

coverage	for	the	Providence	unit	will	decrease	from	61%	to	53%	(Table	3­9­18),	but	will	still	provide	

forest	cover,	dominated	by	the	largest	trees	available,	and	have	379	acres	of	the	management	area	with	

canopy	cover	greater	than	65%,	compared	with	the	current	amount	of	878	acres.	Where	changed,	

canopy	cover	is	expected	to	recover	to	the	approximate	current	conditions	within	approximately	15	
Final Environmental Impact Statement Kings River Experimental Watershed Project 

Chapter 3­9 – Terrestrial Wildlife 3.9­45 

years	after	treatment.		Under	this	treatment	design,	184	acres	would	be	treated	as	Old	Forest	Emphasis	

Thin	which	would	include	likely	fisher	habitat	corridors,	and	would	thus	preserve	canopy	cover	at	50%.		

The	project	unit	overall	would	still	provide	forest	cover,	dominated	by	the	largest	trees	available.		The	

units	would	also	be	modified	to	reduce	surface	and	ladder	fuels	with	some	thinning	of	small	and	

intermediate	size	trees	and	prescribed	fire	treatments.		The	end	result	would	still	be	within	the	range	of	

habitat	conditions	considered	as	high	and	moderate	habitat	quality	for	fisher	in	the	CWHR	2.1	system	

Bull:		Alternative	5	would	apply	mechanical	treatments	to	40%	of	the	habitat	area	defined	by	CWHR	2.1	

as	moderate	to	highly	suitable	habitat	for	fisher.		As	a	result	of	all	treatments,	average	canopy	coverage	

for	the	Bull	unit	will	decrease	from	44%	to	40%	(Table	3­9­18),	but	will	still	provide	forest	cover,	

dominated	by	the	largest	trees	available.		Where	changed,	canopy	cover	is	expected	to	recover	to	the	

approximate	current	conditions	within	approximately	15	years	after	treatment.		A	total	of	62	acres	

would	be	treated	as	the	Canyon/fisher	thin	treatment,	which	receives	the	same	guidelines	as	Old	Forest	

Emphasis	Thins,	which	preserves	canopy	cover	at	50%.		Since	no	fisher	have	been	found	utilizing	the	

Bull	project	area	for	resting,	denning,	or	foraging,	it	is	expected	that	this	area	will	serve	mainly	as	a	

corridor	for	fisher	movements,	specifically	along	Bull	Creek.		Treatments	along	the	Bull	Creek	

headwaters	drainage	predominantly	fall	under	Old	Forest	Emphasis	Thin.				The	units	would	also	be	

modified	to	reduce	surface	and	ladder	fuels	with	some	thinning	of	small	and	intermediate	size	trees	and	

prescribed	fire	treatments.		No	WUI	or	DFPZ	areas	occur	within	the	Bull	project	area.	The	end	result	

would	still	be	within	the	range	of	habitat	conditions	considered	as	high	and	moderate	habitat	quality	for	

fisher	in	the	CWHR	2.1	system	

Common for All Action Alternatives 

There	is	no	evidence	that	habitat	of	the	type	remaining	after	thinning	in	the	KREW	project	will	be	a	

barrier	to	movement	of	fisher.		Weir’s	summary	(2003)	of	fisher	dispersal	gives	no	indication	that	

modest	changes	in	habitat	structure	of	the	relatively	small	size	and	low	contrast	to	existing	forest	would	

create	barriers	to	movement	or	foraging	use.		Habitat	connectivity	will	be	further	maintained	

throughout	the	implementation	of	this	Alternative	by	design	criteria	common	to	all	alternatives.		

Riparian	conservation	areas	and	non­treated	steep­sloped	areas	(both	within	and	outside	of	the	project	

areas)	also	will	provide	high	canopy	cover	areas	for	fisher	travel	routes.		

Pallid Bat ­ Direct and Indirect Effects by Alternatives 2­4 

The	pallid	bat	tends	to	be	a	roosting	habitat	generalist	that	utilizes	many	different	natural	and	manmade	

structures.	Foraging	requirements	appear	to	be	more	restrictive.	Pallid	bats	appear	to	be	more	

prevalent	within	edges,	open	stands,	particularly	hardwoods,	and	open	areas	without	trees.		The	

proposed	action	desired	condition	is	to	protect	hardwoods	from	removal	and	reduce	competition	from	

conifers.	Therefore,	there	should	be	a	beneficial	effect	to	the	species	resulting	from	improved	hardwood	

conditions.	Pallid	bats	may	roost	in	tree	hollows,	which	may	be	burned	when	the	underburning	occurs.	

As	stated	above,	literature	shows	that	they	utilize	snags.	Snags	would	only	be	removed	from	the	Public	

and	Firefighter	Safety	Zone	and	along	transportation	corridors	where	some	snags	pose	a	threat	to	
Final Environmental Impact Statement Kings River Experimental Watershed Project 

Chapter 3­9 – Terrestrial Wildlife 3.9­46 

humans,	if	they	were	to	fall.	This	would	result	in	a	small	reduction	of	snag	numbers	(see	discussion	

under	cumulative	effects	to	California	spotted	owl)	and	as	a	result	reduce	potential	roost	trees.		Bats	

may	leave	the	area	when	logging	occurs	due	to	noise	disturbance	or	due	to	smoke	from	underburning.		

By	not	implementing	one	of	the	action	alternatives,	the	bat	habitat	within	and	near	the	project	area	have	

a	greater	risk	of	substantial	loss	from	wildfire.	

Cumulative Effects 

Cumulative Effects Approach Relevant to All Alternatives 1-5 

In	order	to	understand	the	contribution	of	past	actions	to	the	cumulative	effects	of	the	proposed	action	

and	alternatives,	this	analysis	relies	on	current	environmental	conditions	as	an	indicator	of	affects	of	

past	actions.		This	is	because	existing	conditions	reflect	the	aggregate	impact	of	all	prior	human	actions	

and	natural	events	that	have	affected	the	environment	and	might	contribute	to	cumulative	effects.			

This	cumulative	effects	analysis	does	not	attempt	to	quantify	the	effects	of	past	human	actions	by	adding	

up	all	prior	actions	on	an	action­by­action	basis.		There	are	several	reasons	for	not	taking	this	approach.		

First,	a	catalog	and	analysis	of	all	past	actions	would	be	impractical	to	compile	and	unduly	costly	to	

obtain.		Current	conditions	have	been	impacted	by	innumerable	actions	over	the	last	century	(and	

beyond),	and	trying	to	isolate	the	individual	actions	that	continue	to	have	residual	impacts	would	be	

nearly	impossible.		Second,	providing	the	details	of	past	actions	on	an	individual	basis	would	not	be	

useful	to	predict	the	cumulative	effects	of	the	proposed	action	or	alternatives.		In	fact,	focusing	on	

individual	actions	would	be	less	accurate	than	looking	at	existing	conditions,	because	there	is	limited	

information	on	the	environmental	impacts	of	individual	past	actions,	and	one	cannot	reasonably	identify	

each	and	every	action	over	the	last	century	that	has	contributed	to	current	conditions.		Additionally,	

focusing	on	the	impacts	of	past	human	actions	risks	ignoring	the	important	residual	effects	of	past	

natural	events,	which	may	contribute	to	cumulative	effects	just	as	much	as	human	actions.		By	looking	at	

current	conditions,	we	are	sure	to	capture	all	the	residual	effects	of	past	human	actions	and	natural	

events,	regardless	of	which	particular	action	or	event	contributed	those	effects.		Finally,	the	Council	on	

Environmental	Quality	issued	an	interpretive	memorandum	on	June	24,	2005	regarding	analysis	of	past	

actions,	which	states,	“agencies	can	conduct	an	adequate	cumulative	effects	analysis	by	focusing	on	the	

current	aggregate	effects	of	past	actions	without	delving	into	the	historical	details	of	individual	past	

actions.”		

	This	cumulative	effects	analysis	is	also	consistent	with	Forest	Service	National	Environmental	Policy	Act	

(NEPA)	Regulations	(36	CFR	220.4(f))	(July	24,	2008),	which	state,	in	part:		

“CEQ	regulations	do	not	require	the	consideration	of	the	individual	effects	of	all	past	actions	to	

determine	the	present	effects	of	past	actions.	Once	the	agency	has	identified	those	present	effects	of	

past	actions	that	warrant	consideration,	the	agency	assesses	the	extent	that	the	effects	of	the	

proposal	for	agency	action	or	its	alternatives	will	add	to,	modify,	or	mitigate	those	effects.	The	final	

analysis	documents	an	agency	assessment	of	the	cumulative	effects	of	the	actions	considered	

(including	past,	present,	and	reasonable foreseeable	future	actions)	on	the	affected	environment.	

With	respect	to	past	actions,	during	the	scoping	process	and	subsequent	preparation	of	the	analysis,	

the	agency	must	determine	what	information	regarding	past	actions	is	useful	and	relevant	to	the	

required	analysis	of	cumulative	effects.		Cataloging	past	actions	and	specific	information	about	the	

direct	and	indirect	effects	of	their	design	and	implementation	could	in	some	contexts	be	useful	to	
Final Environmental Impact Statement Kings River Experimental Watershed Project 

Chapter 3­9 – Terrestrial Wildlife 3.9­47 

predict	the	cumulative	effects	of	the	proposal.	The	CEQ	regulations,	however,	do	not	require	

agencies	to	catalogue	or	exhaustively	list	and	analyze	all	individual	past	actions.	Simply	because	

information	about	past	actions	may	be	available	or	obtained	with	reasonable	effort	does	not	mean	

that	it	is	relevant	and	necessary	to	inform	decision	making.	(40	CFR	1508.7)”	

For	these	reasons,	our	analysis	of	past	actions	in	this	section	is	based	on	current	environmental	

conditions.	

A Review of Past, Present, and Foreseeable Actions Relevant to All Alternatives 1-5

Cumulative	effect	is	the	impact	on	the	environment	which	results	from	the	incremental	impact	of	the	

action	when	added	to	past,	present,	and	reasonably	foreseeable	future	actions.		Section	3.4,	including	

Tables	3­1	through	3­4,	identify	the	past,	present	and	foreseeable	events	in	the	Kings	River	Project	Area	

which	encompasses	the	two	KREW	management	areas	and	is	used	as	one	scale	of	cumulative	effects	

analysis	boundary.	The	KRP	area	has	approximately	80,000	acres	of	coniferous	forest	within	a	total	area	

greater	than	100,000	acres.	To	address	past	actions	to	wildlife	habitat	we	have	updated	the	KRP	habitat	

mapping	developed	from	satellite	imagery	and	aerial	photos	with	habitat	changes	that	have	occurred,	or	

are	proposed	to	occur,	since	that	time,	including	the	Dinkey	North,	Dinkey	South,	Soap	Root,	TenS18,	

Snowy	Patterson,	East	Fork	projects,	and	vegetation	management	projects	proposed	for	SCE	private	

land	adjacent	to	the	KREW	project	area.		Other	effects	of	projects,	or	proposed	projects,	that	are	not	

included	within	the	updated	KRP	habitat	information	are	also	addressed	in	Section	3.4	cumulative	

effects	assessment.	The	following	descriptions	of	management	actions	and	events	apply	to	all	wildlife	

species	cumulative	effects	assessments	for	all	alternatives.		

Most	actions	identified	in	Section	3.4,	including	Tables	3­1	through	3­4,	do	not	cause	substantial	effects	

to	moderate	and	high	quality	habitat	(CWHR	4M,	4D,	5M,	5D)	used	by	the	species	assessed	in	this	

document.	For	example,	projects	associated	with	roads,	electrical	transmission	line	right­of­ways,	and	

recreation	sites	are	limited	in	distribution	and	almost	always	within	existing	developed	areas	and	are	

insubstantial	compared	to	the	total	acres	of	habitat	available	within	the	KRP	area.	The	conservation	of	a	

large	portion	of	the	SNF	in	Wilderness	Areas	also	needs	to	be	taken	into	consideration	due	to	the	longterm	conservation	of	habitat	in	those	areas,	particularly	for	species	that	rely	on	higher	(>9,000	ft)	

elevations,	such	as	marten,	Sierra	red	fox	and	wolverine.	

Livestock	grazing	occurs	in	many	areas	of	the	forest,	but	the	effects	are	primarily	concentrated	at	

meadows.	While	cattle	do	not	alter	the	classifications	of	habitat,	they	can	potentially	impact	meadows	

and	forest	understory	vegetation.	S&Gs	implemented	by	the	FS	for	livestock	grazing	substantially	help	

avoid	major	impacts	to	shrubs	and	herbaceous	vegetation.	

Plantation	maintenance	has	or	will	be	conducted	in	about	6,300	acres	of	plantations	which	typically	are	

less	than	25	years	old	and	limited	to	areas	of	old	clearcuts	or	wildfires.		The	recent	plantation	

maintenance	projects	are:	Power1,	Nutmeg,	Lost,	Men,	Bretz,	Flat,	Progeny	Site,	Fence,	as	well	as	the	

Snowy	Patterson	plantation	project	proposed	for	2011.	All	of	these	plantations	provide	early	or	midseral	forest	habitat,	and	ongoing	maintenance	of	these	plantations	does	not	change	their	habitat	

classification.		This	maintenance	will	result	in	better	tree	health,	vigor,	and	growth	because	remaining	

trees	will	be	released	from	competition	and	more	sunlight	penetration,	which	can	promote	understory	

vegetation.	
Final Environmental Impact Statement Kings River Experimental Watershed Project 

Chapter 3­9 – Terrestrial Wildlife 3.9­48 

Hazard	trees	are	removed,	primarily	along	roadways	and	near	structures,	only	to	a	distance	which	the	

tree	may	pose	a	danger	to	people	using	structures	and	roads.		This	type	of	thinning	typically	does	not	

alter	CWHR	habitat	types	due	to	the	selective	nature	of	the	action.	However,	removing	hazard	trees	can	

reduce	the	number	of	trees	with	potential	nesting,	denning	or	resting	cavities	for	wildlife	species,	

although	the	close	juxtaposition	of	those	trees	to	roads	and	structures	often	makes	them	lower	quality	

habitat	due	to	wildlife	avoidance	of	those	areas.	Hazard	tree	removal	projects	in	the	KRP	area	have	

removed	a	total	of	approximately	8,500	trees.	Approximately	1000	trees	greater	than	30”	(0.2%)	were	

removed	out	of	a	total	population	of	approximately	470,000	trees	greater	than	30”.	Hazard	tree	removal	

results	in	a	reduction	of	potential	nest	structures	of	less	than	one­half	of	one	percent	of	the	total	tree	

population	in	the	KRP	area.		Hazard	trees	typically	are	in	mid	and	late	seral	forest	habitat,	nevertheless	

removal	of	a	few	trees	within	a	stand	does	not	change	its	habitat	rating.	Fuels	management	will	remove	

dead	trees	(snags)	in	the	project	area,	wherever	possible,	from	the	following	locations:	(1)	300	feet	of	

structures	or	other	improvements,	(2).	strategic	roadways	that	may	be	used	for	evacuation	routes	or	

control	lines	during	wildfires,	(3).	fire	control	lines	that	may	be	constructed	for	prescribed	fires.	

About	17,300	acres	of	underburns	are	scheduled,	on	a	staggered	basis,	within	the	KRP	area.	These	

underburns	are	primarily	conducted	in	or	near	wildland­urban	interface	(WUI)	zones	to	reduce	wildfire	

hazard	to	developments	as	well	as	to	restore	forests	to	their	natural	range	of	variability	as	compared	

with	forests	managed	with	fire	suppression.	Underburns	are	only	done	in	areas	where	trees	are	large	

enough	to	withstand	the	desired	flame	height	and	temperature.	Their	purpose	is	to	decrease	fuels	and	

maintain	openness	in	the	understory;	thereby	decreasing	susceptibility	to	wildfire.	The	majority	of	

coniferous	trees	in	early	seral	coniferous	forest	habitat	are	not	large	enough	to	withstand	underburns;	

therefore	prescribed	fires	are	generally	not	implemented	within	these	stands.	However,	many	mid	seral	

stands	are	large	enough	to	withstand	prescribed	fires,	and	some	mid	seral	coniferous	forest	habitat	

within	the	cumulative	effects	boundaries	may	be	affected	by	such	treatments.	A	few	of	the	smaller	mid	

seral	trees	may	be	consumed	during	these	treatments,	but	most	of	the	stand	condition	should	remain	

and	would	benefit	by	being	released	from	vegetative	competition.	These	prescribed	underburns	also	

will	increased	health,	vigor,	and	growth	of	the	stands	and	make	them	less	susceptible	to	stand	replacing	

wildfires.	

Forest	Service	vegetation	management	projects	since	the	approximately	1997	are	focused	on	forest	

restoration,	which	primarily	involves	thinning	some	live	trees	while	retaining	the	inherent	forest	

structure	and	biodiversity	(as	opposed	to	clearcutting).	This	forest	restoration	retains	a	wide	range	of	

tree	ages	as	well	as	all	trees	greater	than	30	inches	dbh	and	most	snags	greater	than	15	inches	dbh	

unless	classified	as	a	hazard	for	fire	or	human	safety.		These	projects	are	also	are	designed	to	retain	a	

variety	of	habitat	features	important	to	wildlife.		This	management	creates	forests	with	greater	

heterogeneity	and	diversity	which	provides	better	health,	vigor,	and	growth	and	reduces	their	

susceptibility	to	severe,	large	scale	wildfires	as	well	as	drought	impacts,	insect	infestation	and	disease.		

Currently	all	of	the	vegetation	management	projects	conducted	on	FS	lands	generally	retain	a	minimum	

of	40­50	percent	canopy	cover	immediately	after	treatments,	and	tree	growth	typically	restores	the	

canopy	cover	to	pre­treatment	levels	within	about	15	years.	Each	of	these	projects	also	is	directed	by	FS	

S&Gs	that	ensure	specific	levels	of	overstory	canopy	cover,	large	diameter	trees,	snags,	and	coarse	

woody	debris.	Additionally,	many	areas	within	treated	areas,	and	adjoining	treated	areas,	are	not	

thinned	or	thinned	lightly,	such	as	riparian	SMZs,	steep	or	rocky	slopes	and	canyons.		
Final Environmental Impact Statement Kings River Experimental Watershed Project 

Chapter 3­9 – Terrestrial Wildlife 3.9­49 

The	“South	of	Shaver”	and	“10S18”	vegetation/fuels	management	projects	provide	examples	of	how	

current	FS	stand	treatments	affect	habitat.	Approximately	1,300	acres	were	involved	in	these	projects,	

and	about	355	of	these	acres	were	early	seral	coniferous	forest	habitat,	and	about	990	acres	were	mid	

seral	coniferous	forest	habitat.	Habitat	classifications	did	not	change	post­treatment	due	to	the	thinning	

prescriptions	and	the	stands	merely	reflected	less	tree	density	and	greater	canopy	openings	(small	gaps	

in	overstory)	that	promoted	understory	growth.	Through	time	these	thinned	stands	also	will	experience	

better	health,	vigor,	and	growth	and	would	be	less	susceptible	to	major	loss	from	wildfires,	and	provide	

greater	forest	heterogeneity	and	habitat	diversity.			

Southern	California	Edison	(SCE)	and	several	private	individuals	own	approximately	15,000	acres	of	

land	within	the	KRP	boundary.	These	lands	are	managed	for	wildlife	benefit,	recreation	and	timber	

production.		SCE	lands	are	managed	using	an	uneven­aged	silvicultural	system	that	conforms	to	the	

California’s	Forest	Practice	Act.	Approximately	1,500	acres	is	harvested	each	year	from	SCE	lands	and	

approximately	five	million	board	feet	is	harvested	across	all	diameter	classes.	Typical	SCE	prescriptions	

remove	approximately	thirty	percent	of	standing	stem	basal	area	and	trees	are	selected	from	all	sizes	to	

create	an	uneven	aged	stand	structure.	Tree	removal	is	accomplished	using	tractor	logging	on	slopes	

less	than	40	percent	and	using	helicopter	logging	on	steeper	slopes.	Requirements	for	the	protection of	

“old	growth”	are	part	of	timber	harvest	plans.	Vegetation	management	projects	on	private	lands	(i.e.	SCE	

lands)	may	bring	canopy	cover	down	to	approximately	40	percent	immediately	after	treatment.	

Prescribed	underburns	typically	do	not	substantially	change	average	overstory	canopy	cover.	

Timber	harvests	on	Southern	California	Edison	lands	would	reduce	tree	numbers	of	trees	larger	than	30	

inches	dbh.		While	it	is	unclear	how	much	these	treatments	on	private	lands	would	reduce	large	tree	

numbers,	typical	prescriptions	can	remove	as	much	as	one	third	of	each	tree	size	class	(Ramiro	Rojas	

personal	conversation	with	SCE	managers).		Mixed	conifer	forest	on	federal	lands	near	Southern	

California	Edison	lands	contain	approximately	6	trees	per	acre	larger	than	thirty	inches.		A	typical	1,000	

acre	timber	harvest	off	of	private	lands	could	remove	as	much	as	2	trees	per	acre	or	about	2,000	trees	

greater	than	thirty	inches	diameter	breast	height.	The	cumulative	effect	of	all	these	treatments	would	be	

less	than	a	one	percent	change	in	tree	numbers	greater	than	30	inches	dbh	across	the	72,000	acre	Kings	

River	Project	cumulative	effects	analysis	area.		

Private	land	owners	of	the	Grand	Bluffs	and	Twin	Ponds	properties	manage	their	land	for	scenic	beauty	

and	recreation.	The	Grand	Bluff	property	owners	have	a	cooperative	fuels	reduction	grant	with	the	FS	

and	recently	provided	notification	of	320	acres	of	timber	harvest	that	is	being	planned.	Grand	Bluffs	

private	holdings	are	adjacent	to	the	Power1	Thinning,	KREW	Providence	1	and	Providence	4	project	

areas.			

Fire	modeling	projections	show	a	possibility	of	wildfire	occurring	in	about	1,866	acres	of	coniferous	

forest	in	the	CE	boundary	in	the	future,	without	fuels	reduction	management.	In	this	event,	some	early	

and	mid	seral	habitat	could	be	burned,	but	would	likely	be	replaced	by	natural	regeneration	and	tree	

planting.	Areas	with	intense	burning	most	likely	would	recover	within	8	to	10	years	with	saplings	

and/or	shrubs,	and	it	would	take	at	least	25	to	50	years,	depending	on	site	conditions,	for	those	areas	to	

develop	into	fully	developed	early	to	mid­seral	forest	habitat,	and	over	150	years	to	become	older,	

mature	forests.		If	a	small	or	large	portion	of	that	wildfire	burns	do	not	regenerate	into	forest,	they	most	

likely	would	perpetuate	as	scrublands	or	shrub/tree	mix.		Loss	of	mid­seral	and	late­seral	forests	can	

have	a	substantial	effect	on	species	that	depend	on	those	habitats,	particularly	those	with	low	

populations	and	low	recruitment	rates.					
Final Environmental Impact Statement Kings River Experimental Watershed Project 

Chapter 3­9 – Terrestrial Wildlife 3.9­50 

Climate	influences	the	processes	of	growth	and	disturbance	in	which	the	historic	forest	developed	

(Keeley	and	Stephenson	2000).	While	climate	cannot	be	influenced	by	landscape	level	manipulation,	it	

can	and	has	changed	over	the	last	4000	years.	The	climate	affecting	fire	return	intervals	and	plant	

growth	for	the	500	years	prior	to	1900	was	dominated	by	the	little	ice	age	(Millar	and	Woolfenden	

1999).	Fire	return	intervals	and	the	resulting	forest	structure	were	the	result	of	a	wet	and	warm	period	

prior	to	1550	(medieval	warm	period)	followed	by	a	dry	and	cold	period	(little	ice	age)	from	1550	to	

1900.	The	change	in	climate	led	to	shifts	in	vegetation	zones	and	fire	return	intervals	(Swetnam	1993,	

Miller	and	Urban	1999,	Brunell	and	Anderson	2002).	The	species	composition	changed	while	the	

presence	of	plant	species	remained	constant	(Millar	and	Woolfenden	1999).	This	past	climate	may	not	

represent	future	climate	changes.	Current	temperatures	are	rising	within	a	short­term	cycle	(100	years)	

while	temperatures	are	declining	on	a	longer	cycle	(1,000	years)	(Millar	and	Woolfenden	1999).	It	is	

unclear	what	the	future	will	mean	for	climate	change.	Maintaining	the	current	mosaic	of	forest	

structures	may	not	insure	ecosystem	stability	(Millar	and	Woolfenden	1999,	Schoennagel	and	Veblen	

2004).	Maintaining	functioning	processes	and	a	wide	range	of	age	and	class	structures	may	be	the	most	

realistic	approach	in	the	face	of	uncertainty	or	changing	climate.	
Final Environmental Impact Statement Kings River Experimental Watershed Project 

Chapter 3­9 – Terrestrial Wildlife 3.9­51 

Cumulative Effects for Alternatives 2­4

Cumulative Effects of Alternatives 2­4 on Northern Goshawks

The	northern	goshawk	has	a	continuous	distribution	throughout	the	Sierra	Nevada	with	a	network	of	50	

managed	territories	on	the	Sierra	National	Forest.	Given	the	scope	and	scale	of	the	KREW	project	

relative	to	the	size	of	the	Sierra	Nevada	and	the	goshawk’s	overall	North	American	distribution,	the	area	

considered	in	determining	the	cumulative	effects	of	past,	present,	and	reasonably	foreseeable	activities	

on	the	northern	Goshawk	would	focus	on	the	Sierra	National	Forest.	Based	on	the	following	analysis,	a	

determination	of	viability	for	the	northern	Goshawk	will	be	made.	

Currently,	there	are	405,000	acres	of	suitable	goshawk	habitat	in	the	4000	to	8,000	foot	elevation	range	

on	the	Sierra	NF;	1,887	acres	occur	on	the	two	KREW	management	areas	with	1,516	acres	initially	

remaining	after	treatment	is	completed	and	1,774	acres	remaining	in	approximately	30	years.	

The	SNFPA	(USDA	Forest	Service	2001)	was	reviewed	for	their	analysis	of	northern	goshawks,	and	that	

evidence	suggests	the	low	number	of	goshawk	breeding	territories	has	remained	relatively	stable	since	

some	of	the	earliest	data	were	reported	by	Grinnell	and	Miller	(1944	–	as	cited	in	USDA	Forest	Service	

2001).		Specifically,	there	were	12	reported	for	the	SNFPA	area	in	2001	(USDA	Forest	Service	2001)	and	

20	territories	are	known	to	exist	today.		During	this	same	period	of	time	there	also	has	been	no	apparent	

change	in	the	geographic	distribution	of	northern	goshawks	in	the	Sierra	Nevada.			

Biological	Evaluations	for	many	of	the	past	projects	in	the	Sierra	NF	also	were	reviewed	to	help	inform	

the	present	analysis.	The	review	of	these	documents	revealed	the	following	basic	information	about	

effects	to	Northern	Goshawks	from	these	activities:	

x Twenty­six	(26)	total	project	Biological	Evaluations	(BEs)	were	reviewed,	dating	back	to	1993	

on	the	Sierra	NF.	

x Determinations	reached	were:	

o No	effect	–	4	BEs	

o May	affect	individual	goshawks,	but	not	likely	to	lead	to	a	trend	toward	federal	listing	or	

loss	of	viability	–	20	BEs	

o May	affect	individual	goshawks,	and	likely	to	lead	to	a	trend	toward	federal	listing	or	

loss	of	viability	–	0	BEs	

o Northern	Goshawk	was	not	addressed	in	the	document	we	reviewed	due	to	lack	of	

habitat	or	other	reasons	–	2	BEs	

x Types	of	Projects:	Fuels	reduction,	harvest,	hazard	tree	removal,	thinning,	and	underburning	

were	the	proposed	activities	that	were	most	often	represented	in	the	sample	of	BEs	in	which	the	

Northern	Goshawk	was	analyzed.	

x Relative	to	“May	Affect”	projects,	the	described	impacts	to	Northern	Goshawks	most	often	fell	in	

the	following	categories:	

o Noise	disturbances	

o Loss	of	foraging	area	if	underburn	gets	out	of	control	

o Loss	of	plucking	trees	

o Habitat	quality	reduction	

o A	210­acre	reduction	in	canopy	cover	in	the	KRP	area	

o A	1230­acre	reduction	in	canopy	cover	on	the	Sierra	NF	

The	major	risk	factors	identified	by	the	SNFPA	(USDA	2001)	for	goshawks	are	the	effects	of	vegetation	

management	and	wildfires	on	the	amount	and	distribution	of	quality	habitat.		Immediately	after	the	
Final Environmental Impact Statement Kings River Experimental Watershed Project 

Chapter 3­9 – Terrestrial Wildlife 3.9­52 

implementation	of	the	proposed	action,	the	amount	of	suitable	goshawk	habitat	would	decrease	(refer	

to	the	indirect	affects	assessment	of	Alternatives	2­4	on	California	spotted	owls,	northern	goshawk	and	

American	marten),	however,	30	years	post­treatment,	this	habitat	in	the	KREW	management	areas	is	

expected	to	increase.	This	decrease	in	habitat	is	off­set	by	the	fact	that	implementing	this	alternative	

would	result	in	a	long­term	reduction	in	wildfire	hazards,	retain	important	habitat	features	for	the	

goshawks,	and	create	forest	conditions	that	are	overall	more	ecological	resilient,	which	helps	sustain	

goshawk	habitat	on	the	landscape.	This	management,	along	with	the	relatively	stable	geographic	

distribution	and	population	levels	of	goshawks	in	the	area	and	Sierra	NF	will	not	substantially	reduce	

goshawk	habitat	or	populations	when	also	considering	past,	present,	or	foreseeable	future	events	in	the	

cumulative	effects	analysis	area.		

Determination for Northern Goshawk

It	is	my	determination	that	Alternatives	2­4,	of	the	KREW	Project,	may affect individuals, but are not likely

to result in a trend toward Federal listing or loss of viability	for	the	northern	goshawk	due	to	the	initial	

loss	of	potential	habitat,	noise	disturbance	from	mechanical	and	prescribed	fire	activities,	and	smoke	from	

controlled	burns.	These	potential	short	term	negative	impacts	would	be	off­set	by	reducing	the	susceptibility	

of	this	habitat	to	wildfire,	insects,	disease,	and	drought,	as	well	as	maintaining	key	habitat	features	needed	by	

northern	goshawk.	

Cumulative Effects of Alternatives 2­4 on California Spotted Owls

Cumulative	effects	to	spotted	owls	were	assessed	at	multiple	scales:	Forest­wide;	High	Sierra	Ranger	

District	Scale;	and	3.1	mile	buffer	surrounding	the	tow	KREW	management	areas.			

At a Forest­wide scale,	there	currently	is	321	designated	Home	Range	Core	Areas	and	258	Protected	

Activity	Centers	encompassing	over	113,000	acres.	Over	450,000	acres	of	suitable	habitat	currently	exist	

on	the	Forest.	Considering	the	proposed	activities,	ongoing	actions,	and	reasonably	foreseeable	

activities,	less	than	one	percent	of	suitable	habitat	on	the	Sierra	National	Forest	would	be	adversely	

affected.	

High Sierra Ranger District scale area	is	bounded	by	the	San	Joaquin	River	on	the	north,	the	Kings	

River	on	the	south,	and	the	elevation	range	for	Spotted	Owls	on	the	east	and	west.	Wilderness	areas	and	

national	park	land,	where	limited	land	management	occurs,	further	define	the	boundary	on	the	east.	The	

two	rivers	course	through	steep,	rugged	canyons	that	are	dominated	by	chaparral	or	rock	at	lower	

elevations,	have	no	habitat,	and	are	inhospitable	(although	by	no	means	impenetrable	barriers)	for	

north	to	south	movement.	

Within	this	Ranger	District	scale,	past	activities	have	included	clearcutting	and	salvage	logging	(1960s	to	

1972),	sanitation	and	salvage	harvests	(1972	through	1978),	clearcutting,	shelterwood	cutting,	and	

salvage	harvests	(1978	through	1992),	and	commercial	thinning	and	salvage	in	recent	times.	The	only	

recent	fires	to	burn	substantial	amounts	of	timber	were	the	Rock	Fire	in	1981	and	the	Big	Creek	Fire	in	

1994,	with	each	fire	burning	about	3000	acres	of	forest.	Clearcuts	or	burned	areas	that	took	place	prior	

to	1972	are	most	likely	successful	plantations	today	exhibiting	size	class	3	and	density	class	M	stands.	

Other,	more	recent	disturbances,	while	they	may	be	reforested	have	probably	not	yet	reached	size	class	

3.	Overall,	approximately	23,000	acres	of	disturbance	have	been	documented	for	the	larger	area	

encompassing	the	High	Sierra	Ranger	District	since	about	1972	(Smith	pers.	comm.	in	USDA	Forest	
Final Environmental Impact Statement Kings River Experimental Watershed Project 

Chapter 3­9 – Terrestrial Wildlife 3.9­53 

Service	2006c).	Although	these	disturbances	have	caused	notable	changes	in	wildlife	habitat,	the	amount	

of	these	changes	over	the	last	30	years	is	not	extraordinary	compared	to	the	total	amount	of	suitable	

spotted	owl	habitat	that	is	available.		There	are	approximately	450,000	acres	of	suitable	California	

spotted	owl	habitat	in	this	cumulative	effects	analysis	area,	and	the	projects	listed	in	Table	3­2	result	in	

less	than	a	1	percent	change	in	suitable	habitat.	

Buffer Area	­	3.1 Miles:		We	also	assessed	the	amount	of	late	seral	coniferous	forest	habitat	(CWHR	4M,	

4D,	5M,	5D)	within	a	3.1	mile	buffer	area	surrounding	the	two	management	areas	as	another	level	of	

comparing	the	effects	of	the	KREW	project	on	mid	to	late­seral	forest	habitats	when	combined	with	past,	

present	and	future	actions	and	events.	The	habitat	within	this	area	are	based	on	the	satellite	imagery	

used	to	develop	the	vegetation	GIS	layers	as	well	as	changes	that	have	occurred	since	that	time	or	are	

planned	based	on	completed	NEPA	assessments,	such	as	the	Dinkey	North	and	Dinkey	South	vegetation	

management	projects.	

The	estimated	initial	loss	of	mid	and	late	seral	canopy	forest	in	the	KREW	project	areas,	as	a	result	of	any	

of	the	action	alternatives,	equates	to	less	than	one	percent	of	the	total	of	that	habitat	within	the	3.1	mile	

buffer	area,	and	over	a	30	year	period,	that	habitat	type	is	expected	to	increase	greater	than	the	current	

amounts	currently	in	the	Providence	area.		

Table	3­9­19	compares	the	worst	case	decline	in	spotted	owl	habitat	immediately	after	implementing	

Alternatives	2­4	(Table	3­9­6)	and	compares	it	with	the	amount	of	spotted	owl	habitat	present	at	

multiple	scales:	1)	a	3.1	mile	buffer	surrounding	the	project	area;	2)	Kings	River	Project	Area;	and	3)	

Sierra	National	Forest.		Habitat	acreage	in	three	scales	include	changes	from	past,	present	and	

foreseeable	vegetation	management,	which	includes	acres	of	changes	known	or	estimated	for	current	

and	proposed	projects	where	acres	could	be	reliably	estimated,	such	as	the	Dinkey	North,	Dinkey	South,	

and	Soaproot,	East	Fork	projects	in	the	Kings	River	Project	Area.	

Table 3­9­19.		Effects of Alternatives 2­4 on spotted owl habitat when compared with Cumulative

effects of habitat available at different scales.		

Modeled Habitat

Changes for Alt. 2­4

Immediately after

Treatment 3.1 Mile Buffer KRP Area Sierra NF

Area Current

Greatest Loss of 

Habitat due to 

KREW Project Acres

%

Difference Acres

%

Difference Acres

%

Difference

Bull 600	 ­290 ­­­­­­­­	 ­­­­­­­­	 ­­­­­­­­	 ­­­­­­­­	 ­­­­­­­­	 ­­­­­­­­	

Providence 1287	 ­99 ­­­­­­­­	 ­­­­­­­­	 ­­­­­­­­	 ­­­­­­­­	 ­­­­­­­­	 ­­­­­­­­	

Total 1887	 ­389 34,000		 1.1%	 59,808	 0.7%	 450,000		 .09%	

The	loss	of	some	habitat	from	the	Bull	area	over	the	30	year	period	is	primarily	within	the	red­fir	forest	

type.		This	loss	is	not	expected	to	be	substantial	for	spotted	owls	because	red­fir	forests	are	a	low	quality	

habitat	for	spotted	owls,	additionally,	this	loss	is	relatively	minor	considering	the	amount	of	habitat	in	

the	3.1	mile	buffer	area.		Additionally,	the	effects	of	this	action	on	spotted	owls	would	be	moderated	

when	considering	other	factors,	such	reducing	the	susceptibility	of	these	stands	to	major	losses	from	

wildfire,	as	well	as	implementing	the	Best	Management	Practices	for	Wildlife	and	the	Forest	Service	

Standards	and	Guidelines.		
Final Environmental Impact Statement Kings River Experimental Watershed Project 

Chapter 3­9 – Terrestrial Wildlife 3.9­54 

Other	federal	projects	listed	in	Tables	3­1	through	3­3	could	reduce	total	potential	habitat,	however,	

since	about	1997,	Forest	Service	vegetation	management	projects	primarily	focused	on	forest	

restoration,	which	primarily	involves	thinning	some	live	trees	(a	majority	are	less	than	20	inch	dbh)	and	

retaining	the	overall	inherent	forest	structure	and	biodiversity	(as	opposed	to	clearcutting).	This	forest	

restoration	retains	a	wide	range	of	tree	ages	and	structures	as	well	as	retaining	all	trees	greater	than	30	

inches	dbh	and	most	snags	greater	than	15	inches	dbh,	unless	snags	are	classified	as	a	hazard	for	fire	or	

human	safety.		These	projects	are	also	are	designed	to	retain	a	variety	of	habitat	features	important	to	

wildlife.		This	Forest	Service	vegetation	management	creates	forests	with	greater	structural	diversity	

and	biological	heterogeneity	which	provides	better	health,	vigor,	and	growth	and	reduces	forest	

susceptibility	to	severe,	large	scale	wildfires,	drought	impacts,	insect	infestation	and	disease.		

Forest	Service	vegetation	management	projects	typically	retain	a	minimum	of	40­50%	forest	overstory	

canopy	cover	immediately	after	treatments	and	tree	growth	typically	restores	the	canopy	cover	to	pretreatment	levels	within	about	15	years.	Each	of	these	Forest	Service	forest	management	projects	also	

follow	Forest	Service	standards	and	guidelines	(except	for	rare	amendments	for	a	few)	that	ensure	

specific	levels	of	overstory	canopy	cover,	large	diameter	trees,	snags,	coarse	woody	debris,	and	other	

wildlife	habitat	features.	Additionally,	many	areas	within	treated	areas,	and	adjoining	treated	areas,	are	

not	thinned,	such	as	riparian	SMZs,	steep	or	rocky	slopes	and	canyons,	which	provide	a	mosaic	of	

unaltered	forests	mixed	within	thinned	forests.		Vegetation	management	projects	on	private	lands	(i.e.	

SCE	lands)	may	bring	canopy	cover	down	to	approximately	40%	immediately	after	treatment,	with	tree	

growth	restoring	that	canopy	cover	over	the	long­term.	Prescribed	underburns	on	federal	and	private	

land	typically	maintain	stand	tree	canopy	cover	above	50	percent.	This	is	also	true	of	the	emergency	

salvage	operations	that	remove	dead	and	dying	trees	near	residential	structures.		

The	result	of	vegetation	management,	underburns,	and	hazard	tree	removal	is	a	partial	loss	of	tree	

canopy	cover	and	habitat	quality	in	some	limited	areas,	but	maintenance	of	foraging	and	nesting	

suitability,	particularly	considering	that	untreated	areas	treatment	areas,	and	adjoining	those	areas,	will	

retain	higher	canopy	cover,	such	as	riparian	SMZs	and	non­mechanized	zones	such	as	steep	and	rocky	

slopes	and	canyons.	

Hazard	tree	removal	projects	will	not	change	potential	California	spotted	owl	habitat.	However,	hazard	

tree	removal	could	slightly	reduce	the	number	of	potential	nest	trees.	Hazard	tree	removal	projects	in	

the	KRP	area	have	removed	a	total	of	approximately	8,500	trees.	Approximately	1000	trees	greater	than	

30”	were	removed	out	of	a	total	population	of	470,000	trees	greater	than	30	inches.	However,	hazard	

tree	removal	results	in	a	reduction	of	potential	nest	structures	less	than	one­half	of	one	percent	of	the	

total	tree	population.		Additionally,	under	the	action	alternatives	of	the	KREW	project,	the	average	

number	of	snags	per	acre	would	increase	through	time..	

The	action	alternatives	are	expected	to	result	in	long­term	positive	effects	to	the	California	spotted	owl	

by:	1)	reducing	the	potential	for	catastrophic,	stand	eliminating	wildfires;	and	2)	promoting	the	growth	

and	re­growth	of	understory	vegetation,	which	provides	forage	for	prey	species,	as	well	as	hiding	and	

thermal	cover.	The	horizontal	and	vertical	diversity	of	forest	vegetation	structure	and	species	also	may	

be	improved	in	some	sites	as	a	result	of	partially	opening	the	forest	overstory.	This	in­turn	would	bring	

greater	heterogeneity,	promoting	greater	biodiversity,	possibly	leading	to	greater	prey	species	

abundance	and	diversity,	including	promoting	the	establishment	and	improved	growing	conditions	of	

black	oaks,	which	are	important	components	of	California	spotted	owl	habitat.	These	factors,	combined	

with	the	project	measures	implemented	to	sustaining	spotted	owls,	outweigh	the	short­term	negative	

effects	of	treatments	(due	to	immediate	partial	loss	of	forest	biomass	and	disturbance),	especially	
Final Environmental Impact Statement Kings River Experimental Watershed Project 

Chapter 3­9 – Terrestrial Wildlife 3.9­55 

considering	that	this	action	will	reduce	the	potential	for	a	large	scale,	high	severity	wildfire.		Without	

fuels	reduction,	large	scale,	stand	replacing	wildfires	would	most	likely	cause	serious	and	substantial	

impacts	to	the	population.	The	temporary	loss	of	California	spotted	owl	habitat	due	to	vegetation	

management	would	be	insubstantial	contributions	to	other	events	occurring	from	the	past,	present,	and	

foreseeable	actions	listed	in	Tables	3­1	through	3.3.	

In	its	12­month	finding	in	which	it	decided	to	not	list	the	California	Spotted	Owl	as	Threatened	or	

Endangered,	the	USFWS	concluded	that	the	scale,	magnitude,	or	intensity	of	effects	on	the	California	

spotted	owl	resulting	from	fire,	fuels	treatments,	timber	harvest,	and	other	activities	did	not	rise	above	

the	threshold	necessitating	protection	of	the	species	under	the	Endangered	Species	Act	(USFWS	2006).	

The	USFWS	reached	this	conclusion	after	considering	the	impacts	of	the	Forest	Service’s	implementation	

of	the	SNFPA	ROD.	The	USFWS’	(2006)	conclusion	is	supported	by:

x Data	which	indicate	that	California	Spotted	Owl	populations	in	the	Sierra	Nevada	are	stable	and	

comprise	81%	of	the	species’	known	territories	

x The	anticipation	that	current	and	planned	fuels-reduction	activities	throughout	the	range	of	the	

species	would	have	a	long-term	benefit	by	reducing	the	risk	of	stand	replacing	wildfire;	these	

activities	embrace	those	described	by	the	SNFPA	ROD	

x Barred	Owls	represent	only	about	2%	of	California	Spotted	Owl	numbers	in	the	Sierra	Nevada	

x Protection	measures	are	being	implemented	for	the	California	Spotted	Owl	on	private	lands,	

	 including	the	largest	private	landholder	within	the	range	of	the	species.	

Based	on	the	above	analysis,	the	activities	of	the	proposed	action	are	within	the	scope	of	effects	

considered	and	described	by	the	USFWS	in	its	12­month	finding	to	not	list	the	California	Spotted	Owl.	

Therefore,	the	proposed	action,	including	the	temporary	loss	of	some	spotted	owl	habitat,	would	not	

result	in	any	cumulative	effects	that	are	greater	than	those	already	analyzed	by	the	USFWS	when	it	

determined	that	listing	of	the	California	Spotted	Owl	as	Threatened	or	Endangered	is	not	warranted	at	

this	time.	For	all	of	these	reasons,	viability	of	the	owl	in	the	KREW	project	area	is	not	a	concern.	

Determination for Northern Spotted Owl

Based	on	the	above	assessment	of	direct,	indirect,	and	cumulative	effects,	it	is	believed	that	

implementing	Alternatives	2­4	may affect individuals, but are not likely to result in a trend toward

Federal listing or loss of viability	for	the	California	Spotted	Owl.	This	determination	is	based	on:	

x Although	operations	may	affect	individual	owls	or	an	owl	pair	through	changes	in	forest	

structure	and	disturbance,	the	overall	reduction	in	fire	risk,	and	an	emphasis	on	restoring	forest	

structure	and	ecological	functions,	would	help	maintain	and	increase	California	spotted	owl	

habitat.	

x The	amount	of	suitable	spotted	owl	habitat	(with	more	than	40%	canopy	closure)	in	spotted	owl	

Protected	Activity	Centers	(PACs),	Home	Range	Conservation	Areas	(HRCAs)	and	elsewhere	in	

the	project	management	areas,	as	well	as	the	relatively	minor	amount	of	cumulative	change	

occurring	to	spotted	owl	habitat	within	the	cumulative	effects	assessment	areas.			

x The	amount	of	high	quality	forest	habitat	(classes	5M	and	5D)	would	increase,	after	treatment	

has	been	completed,	due	to	forest	growth	from	lower	quality	habitats	(classes	4M	and	4D).	

x Activities	in	the	proposed	action	are	within	the	scope	of	effects	considered	and	described	by	the	

USFWS	in	its	12­month	finding	to	not	list	the	California	spotted	owl.	As	a	result,	the	proposed	

action	would	not	result	in	any	cumulative	effects	that	are	greater	than	those	already	analyzed	by	

the	USFWS	when	it	determined	that	listing	of	the	California	spotted	owl	as	Threatened	or	

Endangered	is	not	warranted	at	this	time.	
Final Environmental Impact Statement Kings River Experimental Watershed Project 

Chapter 3­9 – Terrestrial Wildlife 3.9­56 

Cumulative Effects of Alternatives 2­4 on Great Gray Owls

The	area	considered	in	determining	the	cumulative	effects	of	past,	present,	and	reasonably	foreseeable	

activities	on	the	great	gray	owl	encompasses	the	Sierra	NF.	This	is	an	appropriate	scale	for	cumulative	

effects	for	a	species	such	as	the	great	gray	owl,	which	is	non­migratory	and	does	not	have	a	well­defined	

metapopulation	structure	(Duncan	and	Hayward	1994).	Based	on	the	following	analysis,	a	

determination	of	viability	for	the	great	gray	owl	will	be	made.

Biological	Evaluations	for	many	of	the	past	projects	in	the	Sierra	NF	were	reviewed	to	help	inform	the	

present	analysis.	Our	review	of	these	documents	revealed	the	following	basic	information	about	effects	

to	great	gray	owls	from	these	activities:	

x Twenty­six	(26)	total	project	Biological	Evaluations	(BEs)	were	reviewed,	dating	back	to	1993	

on	the	Sierra	NF.	

x Determinations	reached	were:	

o No	effect	–	12	BEs	

o May	affect	individual	owls,	but	not	likely	to	lead	to	a	trend	toward	federal	listing	or	loss	

of	viability	–	10	BEs	

o May	affect	individual	owls,	and	likely	to	lead	to	a	trend	toward	federal	listing	or	loss	of	

viability	–	0	BEs	

o Great	gray	owl	was	not	addressed	in	the	document	we	reviewed	due	to	lack	of	habitat	or	

other	reasons	–	4	BEs	

x Types	of	Projects:	Fuels	reduction,	harvest,	hazard	tree	removal,	and	underburning	were	the	

proposed	activities	that	were	most	often	represented	in	the	sample	of	BEs	in	which	the	great	

gray	owl	was	analyzed.	

x Relative	to	“May	Affect”	projects,	the	described	impacts	to	great	gray	owls	most	often	fell	in	the	

following	categories:	

o Loss	of	foraging	area	if	underburn	gets	out	of	control	

o Reduction	of	habitat	quality	

o Temporary	displacement	because	of	smoke	from	underburning	

o Noise	disturbance	

The	two	factors	considered	most	important	in	determining	habitat	use	by	breeding	great	gray	owls	are	

availability	of	nest	sites	and	availability	of	suitable	foraging	habitat	such	as	meadows	(Duncan	and	

Hayward	1994).		

Meadow Management and Conservation:		As	summarized	below,	there	are	a	total	of	6	wet	meadows	

in	the	Providence	area	that	total	24	acres	(mean	4.0	acres)	and	13	wet	meadows	in	the	Bull	area	that	

total	39	acres	(mean	of	3.0	acres).		Great	gray	owls	tend	to	forage	within	larger	meadows	(i.e.	>20	acres),	

yet	each	KREW	management	area	has	only	one	wet	meadow	greater	than	10	acres:	14.6	acre	meadow	

for	Providence	and	a	12.6	acre	meadow	for	the	Bull.	

Management Area <2 acres 2­10 acres >10 acres

Bull 7 5 1

Providence 3 21
Final Environmental Impact Statement Kings River Experimental Watershed Project 

Chapter 3­9 – Terrestrial Wildlife 3.9­57 

Most	all	past,	present,	and	reasonably	foreseeable	future	activities	listed	and	described	in	Section	3.4	

have	no	effect	on	wet	meadow	foraging	habitat.	The	USFS	conserves	wet	meadow	habitat	by	

implementing	standards	and	guidelines	with	their	management,	and	this	includes	monitored	and	

enforcing	100­foot	buffers	for	forest	management	and	implementing	cattle	grazing	standards	to	help	

ensure	meadow	vegetation	is	sustained.			

Forest and Snag Management:		Great	gray	owls	in	California	prefer	pine	and	fir	forests	adjacent	to	

montane	meadows	(Winter	1986),	and	they	also	typically	nest	in	large,	broken­topped	snags,	usually	

greater	than	24	inches	in	diameter.	They	do	not	build	their	own	nests	and	have	been	known	to	use	old	

hawk	or	eagle	nests	(Zeiner	et	al,1990a).	It	is	likely	that	population	densities	and	range	expansion	in	

California	is	limited	by	access	to	suitable	hunting	meadows	and	open	forest	conditions,	as	great	gray	

owls	seldom	forage	in	thick	forest	habitat	(Duncan	and	Hayward	1994).		

Currently,	there	are	9,050	acres	of	suitable	great	gray	owl	habitat	in	the	4000	to	8,000	foot	elevation	

range	on	the	Sierra	NF.	The	relatively	small	amount	of	mid	and	late	seral	forest	habitat	affected	by	these	

action	alternatives	is	less	than	1%	of	that	total.		Additionally,	although	this	modeling	reflects	overall	

changes	in	habitat,	it	does	not	address	the	smaller	scale	management	actions	that	are	implemented	by	

the	USFS	to	maintain	important	habitat	features.	These	smaller	scale	features	are	specifically	addressed	

by	implementing	Best	Management	Practices	for	Wildlife,	as	well	as	Forest	Service	Standards	and	

Guidelines	(Section	2.0)	for	vegetation	management	projects.		These	criteria	include	retaining	all	trees	

greater	than	30	inches	dbh,	retaining	all	mature	oaks,	and	retaining	all	snags	greater	than	15	inches	dbh,	

unless	deemed	hazardous	for	fire	or	public	safety.		Additionally,	an	average	minimum	canopy	cover	of	

40­50	percent	will	be	maintained	immediately	after	treatments,	including	retaining	a	greater	amount	of	

canopy	cover	and	higher	basal	area	in	portions	of	the	management	areas,	such	as	riparian	areas	and	

lower	north	and	east	slopes.	With	tree	growth	over	15	years,	we	expect	the	canopy	cover	to	regenerate	

to	about	the	same	level	as	current	conditions.	Also,	by	opening	up	the	overstory	canopy	and	clearing	

some	of	the	decadent	understory	vegetation,	the	understory	vegetation	will	become	more	diverse	in	age	

and	structure,	with	a	greater	amount	of	new	growth,	thus	helping	lead	to	greater	understory	vegetation	

abundance,	which	can	lead	to	greater	prey	species	abundance	and	diversity.			

The	total	California	population	of	great	gray	owls	was	estimated	to	be	60	individuals	by	Winter	(1985).	

At	the	time	of	his	survey	in	1984,	Winter	reported	no	new	evidence	of	great	gray	owls	on	the	Sierra	NF.	

In	fact,	only	Black	Point	in	Fresno	County	and	Jackass	Meadow	in	Madera	County	had	recent	owl	

evidence	(two	heard	in	1979,	and	one	possible	sighting	in	1980,	respectively).	Winter	concluded	that	the	

Yosemite	area	was	the	owl’s	last	stronghold	in	California.	Rodney	Siegel	(2001,	2002)	reported	evidence	

(i.e.,	pellets	or	visual	sightings	of	individuals)	of	great	gray	owls	at	seven	Sierra	NF	sites,	ranging	in	

elevation	from	4000	–	7000	feet,	in	2001	and	2002.	An	additional	seven	Sierra	NF	sites	bore	no	evidence	

of	great	gray	owls	during	that	time.	Additionally,	no	nests	were	found	during	the	2001	and	2002	survey	

seasons.	Most	recently,	one	privately	owned	meadow	northeast	of	the	Providence	area	had	evidence	of	

great	gray	owls	in	2004.	

Given	the	amount	of	suitable	habitat	within	the	project	area	and	across	the	Forest,	along	with	the	fact	

that	Siegel	(2001,	2002)	found	evidence	of	great	gray	owls	at	one­half	of	Sierra	NF	sites	that	were	

surveyed,	and	the	Sierra	NF	goal	of	increasing	large	diameter	trees	while	protecting	meadow	and	

riparian	habitats,	the	cumulative	effects	of	vegetation	management	activities	in	the	KREW	project	area	

taken	together	with	past,	present,	and	reasonably	foreseeable	activities	on	the	Forest	will	not	result	in	a	

loss	of	viability	for	the	great	gray	owl.	
Final Environmental Impact Statement Kings River Experimental Watershed Project 

Chapter 3­9 – Terrestrial Wildlife 3.9­58 

Determination

Under	Alternatives	2	thru	4,	it	is	my	determination	that	the	KREW	project	may affect individuals, but is not

likely to result in a trend toward Federal listing or loss of viability for	the	great	gray	owl. This	

determination	is	based	on	the	fact	that	impacts	from	the	action	alternatives	would	be	of	relatively	short	

duration,	and	this	would	be	off­set	by	benefits	to	the	species	in	the	long	run	due	to	a	reduced	potential	for	

wildfire	burning	major	portions	of	the	habitat,	retention	of	meadows	and	opening	forests	for	greater	foraging	

options	and	an	increase	in	the	number	of	large	trees	over	time	(that	could	potentially	be	used	for	nesting).		

The	wet	meadow	protection	measures	particularly	help	ensure	foraging	habitats	are	sustained	through	time.	

Cumulative Effects of Alternatives 2­4 on Willow Flycatcher

There	is	minimal	potential	for	direct	effects	to	this	species	and	no	non­wildfire	related	indirect	effects,	

therefore,	the	action	alternatives	would	not	contribute	to	overall	cumulative	effects.	

Determination

Based	on	the	above	assessment	of	direct,	indirect,	and	cumulative	effects,	it	is	my	determination	that	the	

action	alternatives	of	the	KREW	project	will not affect	the	willow	flycatcher.	This	determination	is	

based	on	the	fact	that	no	potential	or	known	willow	flycatcher	habitat	would	be	directly	affected	by	the	

proposed	action	and	no	direct	effects	would	occur	to	individuals	because	willow	flycatchers	are	not	

known	to	nest	in	the	project	area	and	were	last	observed	nesting	in	Dinkey	Meadow	which	is	not	within	

or	adjoining	the	KREW	project	area.	

Cumulative Effects of Alternatives 2­4 on Pacific Fisher

We	assessed	the	cumulative	effects	of	the	KREW	project	actions	on	fishers	at	multiple	scales:	1)	Sierra	

Nevada	Region;	2)	Southern	Sierra	Fisher	Conservation	Area	(SSFCA);	3)	Sierra	National	Forest­wide;	

and	4)	Fisher	home	ranges	potentially	influenced	by	the	project	(e.g.	3.1	mile	buffer	around	the	project	

area).		At	the	SSFCA	and	Forest­wide	scale	we	considered	habitat	changes	to	date	as	well	as	foreseeable	

future	actions.		The	Fisher	Home	Range	scale	also	includes	past	present	and	foreseeable	future	habitat	

conditions,	at	a	finer	scale,	within	the	3.1	mile	buffer	area,	including	projects	planned	but	not	yet	

implemented,	such	as	the	Dinkey	North,	Dinkey	South,	Soaproot,	and	Snowy	Patterson	vegetation	

management	projects.		This	3.1	buffer	represents	an	area	where	average	female	fisher	home	range	(95%	

kernel	home	range	of	4,735	acres)	may	overlap	or	adjoin	the	project	area.	The	average	home	range	was	

derived	from	27	radio	collared	female	fishers	studied	from	2007­2009	in	the	Kings	River	Fisher	Project	

(KRFP)	of	Sierra	National	Forest.	(Thompson	et	al.	2010).		Moderate	and	high	quality	fisher	habitat	

(CWHR	4P,	4M,	4D,	5S,	5P,	5M	and	5D)	between	the	elevations	of	3,000	to	6,500	ft	(typical	fisher	

elevational	limits)	were	used	in	this	assessment.		Assessments	of	the	Fisher	Home	Range	scale	defined	

past,	present	and	foreseeable	future	CWHR	habitat	changes	within	3.1	miles	surrounding	the	

management	areas.			

Sierra Nevada Region:		Findings	from	the	USFWS	annual	review	of	native	species	that	are	candidates	

for	listing	as	endangered	or	threatened	(Federal	Register:	Vol.	72:	69034­69105),	reemphasized	that	the	
Final Environmental Impact Statement Kings River Experimental Watershed Project 

Chapter 3­9 – Terrestrial Wildlife 3.9­59 

three	remaining	areas	containing	fisher	populations,	including	the	southern	Sierra	Nevada,	“appear	to	

be	stable	or	not	rapidly	declining	based	on	recent	survey	and	monitoring	efforts”.		

The	California	Department	of	Fish	and	Game	in	their	Evaluation	of	Petition:	Request	of	the	Center	for	

Biological	Diversity	to	list	the	Pacific	fisher	(CDFG	2008)	found	that	the	information	provided,	and	that	

was	evaluated	by	the	Department,	did	not	indicate	an	immediate	or	substantial	change	in	either	

population	or	distribution	of	fishers	since	the	selected	benchmark	analysis	period	beginning	with	the	

assessment	provided	by	Grinnell	et	al.	(1937).	Based	on	this	information,	the	Department	found	the	

fisher	has	sustained	itself	since	the	Grinnell	period,	with	no	evidence	of	recent,	immediate,	or	substantial	

change	in	population	or	distribution,	despite	a	decline	in	late	successional	forest.	Available	information	

suggests	this	may	be	the	case	for	a	number	of	reasons.		Recent	studies	of	fisher	habitat	use,	occurrence,	

and	movement	patterns	indicate	fishers	also	use	managed	forest	habitats	of	mixed	tree	age	structure	

and	canopy	closure,	which	have	essential	attributes	such	as	snag/large	tree	attributes	remaining	for	

resting/denning.	Fishers	are	no	longer	subject	to	the	substantial	mortality	factors	of	trapping	and	

poisoning	of	prey	that	were	common	in	past	decades.	Forest	management	in	California	has	been	

trending	toward	more	retention	of	late	successional	stands	and	this	change	in	management	activity	

likely	has	been,	and	will	be,	beneficial	to	species	such	as	the	fisher	in	the	future.	

Southern Sierra Fisher Conservation Area:		The	Southern	Sierra	Fisher	Conservation	Area	(SSFCA)	is	

the	primary	regional	scale	considered	in	assessing	cumulative	effects	of	past,	present,	and	reasonably	

foreseeable	activities	on	fisher.		This	SSFCA	is	approximately	1,018,000	acres	and	is	bounded	by	an	

elevational	band	from	3,500	to	8,000	feet	on	the	Sierra	and	Sequoia	National	Forests	and	Yosemite	and	

Sequoia	National	Parks	that	also	are	within	known	occupied	range	of	the	fisher.	This	is	an	appropriate	

scale	for	a	broader	scale	cumulative	effects	analysis	because	the	SSFCA	is	an	integral	component	of	the	

conservation	strategy,	as	described	in	the	SNFPA	ROD.	Fisher	populations	within	Yosemite	and	Sequoia	

National	Parks	are	not	expected	to	change	substantially	due	to	their	national	park	management	(Steve	

Thompson,	2010,	pers.	comm.).	Additionally,	the	CBI	Phase	2	report	and	maps	(Spencer	et	al.	2008)	

were	also	considered,	which	consists	of	the	previously	mentioned	areas	plus	Stanislaus	National	Forests,	

however	Stanislaus	NF	was	not	included	in	this	assessment	because	it	currently	lacks	evidence	of	fisher	

presence.		

Table	3­9­20	lists	management	projects	within	the	SSFCA,	but	outside	the	KRP	area.	Sequoia	National	

Forest	has	one	current	forest	management	project	(ICE)	which	consists	of	743	acres	of	prescribed	

burning,	as	well	as	four	other	pending	projects.	There	are	3,264	acres	of	potential	future	projects,	in	the	

foreseeable	future,	involving	fuels	treatments	(prescribed	burns	and	mastication)	and	some	potential	

thinning,	however,	final	details	of	the	size	and	prescriptions	for	those	projects	will	not	be	known	until	

final	planning	is	completed.		

Forest­wide Scale:	Suitable	fisher	habitat	on	the	Sierra	National	Forest	has	increased	slightly	from	

422,000	acres	about	ten	years	ago	to	449,000	acres	presently	(USDA	Forest	Service	2006b).	Rick	Truex,	

a	USFS	fisher	scientist	believes	fishers	may	have	increased	their	spatial	distribution	on	Sierra	National	

Forest	since	the	mid­1990s	and	that	the	annual	occupancy	rate	within	Sierra	National	Forest	seems	to	

be	consistent,	though	the	spatial	pattern	of	detections	appears	more	variable	among	years	than	on	the	

Sequoia	National	Forest	(Truex	pers.	comm.).		Additionally,	two	fisher	research	projects	on	Sierra	

National	Forest	(Kings	River	and	SNAMP)	conducted	from2007	through	2010	have	shown	fisher	

populations	remain	stable	or	potentially	slightly	increasing	(Craig	Thompson,	2011,	pers.	comm.).		The	

combination	of	a	stable	or	slightly	increasing	amount	of	suitable	fisher	habitat	on	the	Sierra	National	

Forest	over	the	last	ten	years	and	perhaps	an	increasing	spatial	distribution	of	fishers	make	it	
Final Environmental Impact Statement Kings River Experimental Watershed Project 

Chapter 3­9 – Terrestrial Wildlife 3.9­60 

reasonable	to	conclude	the	cumulative	effects	of	vegetation	management	activities	on	the	Forest	have	

not	reduced	overall	habitat	suitability	for	fishers	on	the	Forest.	

Table 3­9­20.		Major Actions within the Southern Sierra Fisher Conservation Area (SSFCA)

Evaluated for the Cumulative Effects Analysis for Fisher.

Activity Type Description

Past, Present, or

Future Action

Unit of

Measure

Percent of SSFCA

(1,018,000 ac)

Effects on fisher

habitat

Bass Lake RD

of Sierra NF

Fuels	reduction Sonny	Meadows	

North	(Bass	Lake	

District)	

Reasonably	

foreseeable		

955	acres 0.09% No	loss	of	habitat

Commercial	

thinning	

Sonny	Meadows	

South	(Bass	Lake	

District)	

Reasonably	

foreseeable		

1,400	acres 0.14% No	loss	of	habitat

Commercial	

thinning	

Cedar	Valley	(Bass	

Lake	District)	

Reasonably	

foreseeable	

915	acres (628	ac	affected)	

68%	of	project	=	

0.06%	of	SSFCA	

Short	term	

reduction	of	

denning	habitat	

Fuels	reduction Sugar	Pine	(Bass	

Lake	District)	

Reasonably	

foreseeable	

2,920	acres 0.29% 53	ac	converted	to	

lower	quality	

habitat	roughly	1%	

of	project	area	

Fuels	reduction Fish	Camp	(Bass	

Lake	District)	

Reasonably	

foreseeable	

2,000	– 3,000	

acres	

0.19%­0.29% Less	impact	to	

fisher	than	Sugar	

Pine	Project	

Sequoia NF

Commercial	

thinning	

Frog	Project	

(Sequoia	NF)	

Reasonably	

foreseeable	

510	acres Combined	10	to	

20%	for	all	

Sequoia	projects	

(234	to	469	acres)	

Not	expected	to	

result	in	CWHR	size	

class	and	cover	

type		though	would	

result	in	loss	of	

habitat	

Commercial	

thinning	

Ice	Project	–

Helicopter	

(Sequoia	NF)		

Reasonably	

foreseeable	

284	acres 0.02% Short	term	

reduction	of	

denning	habitat	

Commercial	

thinning	

Saddle	Project	

(Sequoia	NF)	

Reasonably	

foreseeable	

1,311	acres 0.12% Short	term	

reduction	of	

denning	habitat	

Commercial	

thinning	

White	River	

Project	–	

Helicopter	

(Sequoia	NF)	

Reasonably	

foreseeable	

239	acres 0.02% Short	term	

reduction	of	

denning	habitat	

Fuels	

Reduction	

Sawmill Reasonably	

foreseeable	

1,5000	acres

(estimated)	

0.14% Short	term	

reduction	of	

denning	habitat	

Fuels	

Reduction	

Breckenridge Reasonably	

foreseeable	

921	acres Not	in	SSFCA

Tables	3­1	through	3­3	list	the	ongoing	federal	management	activities	in	the	Sierra	National	Forest.		

These	projects	include	the	prescribed	burn	program,	other	fuel	reduction	projects,	timber	and	culture	

projects,	active	cattle	allotments,	and	recreational	activities	and	events	(e.g.,	off­highway	vehicles	

[OHVs]	and	off­snow	vehicles	[OSVs]).		

Since	1992,	commercial	thinning	and/or	fuel	reduction	projects	between	the	San	Joaquin	and	Kings	

Rivers	covering	more	than	500	acres(Reese,	10S18,	I­Rock,	Jose	1,	and	South	of	Shaver	)	reduced	basal	
Final Environmental Impact Statement Kings River Experimental Watershed Project 

Chapter 3­9 – Terrestrial Wildlife 3.9­61 

area	to	about	60%	of	full	stocking	and	canopy	cover	to	about	40%	in	ponderosa	pine	stands	and	50%	in	

mixed	conifer	stands.	Stream	Management	Zones	along	perennial	streams	(100	feet	on	both	sides)	were	

not	thinned,	or	minimally	thinned,	which	retained	habitat	function	in	those	areas.	The	Dinkey	South	

project	is	expected	to	decrease	fisher	suitable	habitat	by	6%	immediately	after	treatment	and	the	

adjacent	Dinkey	North	project	is	projected	to	result	in	a	1%	loss	in	suitable	fisher	habitat	within	its	

boundaries	immediately	after	project	implementation.	All	of	these	projects	are	predicted	to	ultimately	

result	in	greater	long­term	retention	of	fisher	habitat	within	project	boundaries	over	the	long	term.	

Possibly	the	greatest	potential	effect	of	vegetation/fuels	management	projects	on	mid­seral	forest	

within	close	juxtaposition	to	the	KREW	management	areas	is	the	proposed	private	land	Quarry	Timber	

Sale	adjoining	the	Providence	management	area.	This	timber	sale	involves	547	acres	of	uneven	aged	

timber	harvest	that	will	leave	at	least	100	sq	ft	of	basal	area	immediately	after	harvest	with	at	least	15	

sq	ft	of	that	amount	as	seed	trees	greater	than	18	inches	dbh.		An	estimated	500	acres	of	that	area	

consists	of	closed	canopy	forest	available	for	harvest,	and	most	of	these	mid­seral	forests	will	most	likely	

become	open	mid­seral	forest,	thus	increasing	that	particular	habitat	type	on	lands	adjoining	the	

Providence	area.	This	management	may	have	some	effects	on	fishers	inhabiting	that	area,	such	as	

reducing	potential	den	and	rest	sites	with	high	canopy	cover,	as	well	as	potentially	producing	greater	

understory	vegetation	species	and	abundance	of	herbaceous	and	shrub	vegetation,	which	in­turn	will	

increase	habitat	for	many	fisher	prey	species.			

All	of	the	vegetation	management	projects	on	federal	and	private	lands	in	the	KRP,	within	the	fisher	

habitat	elevational	zone,	will	retain	an	average	minimum	of	approximately	40	percent	overstory	canopy	

cover	immediately	after	treatment,	and	in	many	cases	at	a	higher	minim	level,	such	as	50	to	60%	or	

greater,	with	canopy	cover	restoring	to	pre­treatment	levels	approximately	15	years	post­treatment.		

Uneven	aged	management	on	the	private	lands	most	likely	would	have	the	lowest	canopy	cover	

immediately	after	treatment.	The	fact	that	all	these	projects	will	provide	for	greater	forest	heterogeneity	

and	greater	understory	vegetation	abundance	and	diversity	is	a	benefit	to	species	that	use	this	forest	

habitat,	as	well	as	reducing	their	susceptibility	to	wildfire,	drought,	insects,	and	disease.,	which	will	help	

perpetuate	these	forest	habitats	on	the	landscape.		

The	17,300	acre	underburning	program	of	work	has	been	and	continues	to	be	for	maintenance	of	DFPZs,	

reducing	surface	fuel	loads	and	reintroducing	fire	into	the	landscape.	Approximately	8,495	hazard	trees	

of	all	size	classes	have	been	removed	from	within	the	Kings	River	Project	area	throughout	the	last	five	

years.	This	represents	approximately	2.4	trees	per	acre.	Hazard	tree	removal	may	eliminate	some	

potential	fisher	rest	sites	but	because	most	hazard	trees	are	identified	in	proximity	to	roads,	

campgrounds	and	other	developed	sites,	the	likelihood	for	use	by	fishers	is	minimal.			

The	Bass	Lake	Ranger	District	of	Sierra	National	Forest	currently	has	five	land	management	projects	of	

the	size	that	could	influence	the	cumulative	effect	on	fisher	habitat	(Table	3­9­20).	Treatments	have	

recently	been	completed	for	Sonny	Meadows	North	(with	955	acres	of	treatments),	Sonny	Meadows	

South	(with	1,400	or	more	acres	of	commercial	thinning),	and	Cedar	Valley	(with	approximately	915	

acres	of	commercial	thinning).		Sugar	Pine	(2,900	acres	of	fuel	reduction	prescriptions)	has	completed	

its	NEPA	and	treatments	will	begin	in	2011	or	2012.	The	preferred	alternative	for	the	Sugar	Pine	project	

is	predicted	to	result	in	the	conversion	of	53	acres	of	fisher	habitat	to	lower	quality	habitat,	roughly	1%	

of	the	potential	habitat	in	the	project	area.	Fish	Camp	(with	2,000­3,000	acres	of	treatments)	is	

reasonably	foreseeable	and	it	will	be	undergoing	NEPA	in	late	2010	and	early	2011.	This	project	is	in	a	

higher	elevation	area	with	less	high	quality	habitat	than	the	Sugar	Pine	project	and	it	would	include	

provisions	to	minimize	impacts	to	fisher	and	would	be	fully	analyzed	through	the	NEPA	process	to	help	
Final Environmental Impact Statement Kings River Experimental Watershed Project 

Chapter 3­9 – Terrestrial Wildlife 3.9­62 

ensure	management	effects	are	addressed.	All	of	these	projects	are	not	expected	to	substantially	reduce	

the	amount	of	fisher	habitat	over	the	long­term,	although	there	may	have	been,	or	could	be,	short­term	

affects	to	the	habitat	and	some	short­term	disturbances	to	fisher	during	project	activities.	Overall,	fisher	

habitat	will	have	a	greater	chance	of	sustaining	on	the	landscape	over	the	long	term	as	a	result	of	these	

proposed	fuel	reduction	treatments,	and	the	project	would	not	increase	habitat	fragmentation	since	

post­harvest	habitat	would	remain	suitable	for	fisher.		

All	of	the	current	and	foreseeable	projects	on	national	forest	lands	will	include	management	provisions	

that	sustain	fisher	populations,	as	directed	by	Forest	Service	Standards	and	Guidelines	and	other	

wildlife	conservation	management	requirements.	All	of	these	projects	also	will	be	analyzed	through	the	

NEPA	process,	which	will	help	ensure	management	effects	on	species	are	addressed.		As	a	result,	the	

potential	effects	of	all	action	alternatives	of	the	KREW	project	are	not	expected	to	create	cumulative	

effects	when	combined	with	past,	present	and	foreseeable	future	actions	and	events	in	the	SSFCA.		

Project Area:		Table	3­9­21	compares	the	changes	in	fisher	habitat	within	the	KREW	management	areas	

as	compared	with	fisher	habitats	at	multiple	scales,	including	a	3.1	mile	buffer	area	(bounded	by	a	

3,000­6,500	elevation	range)	around	the	Providence	management	area.		As	noted	previously,	the	3.1	

buffer	represents	an	area	where	average	female	fisher	home	range	(95%	kernel	home	range	of	4,735	

acres)	may	overlap	or	adjoin	the	project	area.	The	average	home	range	was	derived	from	27	radio	

collared	female	fishers	studied	from	2007­2009	in	the	Kings	River	Fisher	Project	(KRFP)	of	Sierra	

National	Forest.	(Thompson	et	al.	2010).		We	did	not	assess	a	similar	boundary	around	the	Bull	area	

because	the	Bull	area	is	above	the	typical	elevation	used	by	fisher	and	is	not	considered	suitable	habitat	

for	sustained	fisher	use	(also	refer	to	indirect	impact	assessments	of	each	alternatives).			

Habitats	in	the	KRP	and	3.1	mile	buffer	area	approximate	the	latest	conditions	because	they	include	the	

results,	or	estimated	results,	of	other	current	or	foreseeable	Forest	Service	vegetation	management	

projects	that	have	definitive	silvicultural	prescriptions,	such	as	Dinkey	North,	Dinkey	South,	Soaproot	

and	Snowy	Patterson	projects.		The	results	show	that	the	minor	decrease	of	fisher	habitat	in	the	

Providence	area,	immediately	after	treatment,	would	be	less	than	one	percent	of	that	total	habitat	within	

the	KRP	area	and	3.1	mile	buffer	of	the	Providence	management	area,	thus	the	proposed	KREW	

management,	of	all	action	alternatives,	is	not	expected	to	create	substantial	cumulative	effects	when	

compared	with	existing	or	foreseeable	habitat	conditions	within	areas	that	may	affect	female	fisher	

home	ranges	(e.g.	habitat	within	the	3.1	mile	area	surrounding	the	Providence	area),	as	well	as	at	larger	

scales,	such	as	at	the	KRP	area	and	SSFCA	area.		

Table 3­9­21.		Effects of Action Alternatives on Pacific fisher habitat in the Providence Area when

compared with habitat available at different scales.		

Project Area 3.1 Mile Buffer KRP Area SSFCA

Area Current

Alt. 2­5

Change in

Acres Post

Treatment Acres

% change in

habitat Acres

% change

in habitat Acres

% change in

habitat

Bull 556	 ­­­­­­­	 ­­­­­­­­	 ­­­­­­­­	 ­­­­­­­­	 ­­­­­­­­	 ­­­­­­­­	 ­­­­­­­­	

Providence 1502	 ­26	to	+18	 26,600	 0.09%	 40,000	 0.06%	 449,000	 0.006%	
Final Environmental Impact Statement Kings River Experimental Watershed Project 

Chapter 3­9 – Terrestrial Wildlife 3.9­63 

All	action	alternatives	are	expected	to	result	in	long­term	positive	effects	to	the	fisher	by:	1)	retaining	

and	increasing	the	amount	of	fisher	habitat	(i.e.	larger	denning	and	resting	structures,	oaks,	and	canopy	

cover	used	for	foraging,	denning	and	resting);	2)	reducing	the	potential	for	large	scale,	stand	eliminating	

wildfires;	and	3)	promoting	the	growth	and	re­growth	of	understory	vegetation,	which	provides	forage	

for	prey	species,	as	well	as	hiding	and	thermal	cover.		The	horizontal	and	vertical	diversity	and	

abundance	of	forest	vegetation	structure	and	species	also	may	be	improved	in	some	sites	as	a	result	of	

partially	opening	the	forest	overstory.	This	in­turn	would	bring	greater	biodiversity	into	the	stands,	

promoting	greater	prey	species	abundance	and	diversity,	including	promoting	the	establishment	and	

improved	growing	conditions	of	black	oaks,	which	are	important	components	of	fisher	habitat.	

Underburning	also	has	been	shown	to	increase	understory	plant	diversity	and	abundance.		For	example,	

resent	research	by	Webster	and	Halpern	(2010)	in	Sequoia	National	Park	has	shown	that	“...burned	

plots	supported	more	than	twice	as	many	understory	plant	species	as	controls	10	yrs	after	treatment;	

first	entry	plots	(areas	with	only	one	documented	underburn)	showed	a	nearly	threefold	increase	in	

species	richness	by	year	20.		Burned	plots	supported	four	to	five	times	as	many	shrub	species	as	

controls	5­10	yrs	after	burning.	Total	plant	cover	(dominated	by	perennial	forbs	and	shrubs)	increased	

in	first­entry	plots,	but	did	not	differ	from	controls	until	20	yr	after	treatment.	Following	second­entry,	

cover	did	not	change	through	final	sampling	(10	yr).”		

The	factors	stated	above,	combined	with	the	project	measures	implemented	to	sustain	Pacific	fisher,	

outweigh	the	limited	and	short­term	negative	effects	of	treatments	(due	to	partial	loss	of	forest	biomass	

immediately	after	disturbance),	especially	considering	that	a	more	severe	fire	regime	is	predicted	for	

the	future	and	without	fuels	reduction,	large	scale,	stand	replacing	wildfires	would	most	likely	cause	

serious	and	substantial	impacts	to	high	quality	fisher	habitat.		

Determination for the Pacific Fisher

Under	Alternatives	2	thru	4,	it	is	my	determination	that	the	KREW	project	may affect individuals, but is not

likely to contribute to the need for Federal listing or result in loss of viability for the Pacific fisher

because:	

x Trees	currently	providing	fisher	rest	and	den	structure	would	be	retained,	including:	

o All	oaks	and	snags	,	not	a	human	hazard,	

o All	conifers	larger	than	30	inches	and	almost	all	larger	than	24	inches	dbh.	

x Over	the	short­term	there	will	be	relatively	low	level	of	change	in	CWHR	fisher	habitat	types	as	a	

result	of	thinning	treatments	and	an	increase	in	total	fisher	habitat	over	the	longer	term	(i.e.	30	yrs).	

x Maintaining	fisher	habitat	features	important	to	fishers.	The	provisions	include:	

o Identifying	and	protecting	fisher	rest	site	groups,	

o Establishing	minimum	canopy	cover	retention	levels,	and	

o Protecting	and	enhancing	habitat	heterogeneity	at	multiple	scales.	

x Tree	removal	and	fuels	reduction	activities	proposed	are	expected	to	reduce	extent,	severity,	and	

intensity	of	wildfires	within	and	adjacent	to	treated	stands	while	maintaining	existing	habitat	

functionality.	

Cumulative Effects of Alternatives 2­4 on American Martens

The	area	considered	in	determining	the	cumulative	effects	of	past,	present,	and	reasonably	foreseeable	

activities	on	marten	encompasses	the	Sierra	NF.	This	is	an	appropriate	scale	for	cumulative	effects	for	a	

wide­ranging	species	(such	as	the	marten)	that	has	also	been	selected	as	a	Management	Indicator	

Species	for	the	Sierra	NF.		
Final Environmental Impact Statement Kings River Experimental Watershed Project 

Chapter 3­9 – Terrestrial Wildlife 3.9­64 

Region:		American	martens	typically	have	a	large	home	range	size	for	such	a	small	carnivore,	averaging	

about	1	mi2	(males	average	807	acres,	or	1.26	mi2,	and	females	average	254	acres,	or	0.40	mi2;	USDA	

2001,	Dr.	W.	J.	Zielinski,	pers.	comm.,	8	Sept	2006).	Additionally,	Dr.	W.	J.	Zielinski	(pers.	comm.,	8	Sept	

2006)	stated	that	the	average	elevation	at	which	martens	are	found	in	the	southern	Sierra	Nevada	is	

6900	feet.	Despite	requiring	such	large	home	ranges,	the	marten	remains	well­distributed	throughout	its	

current	range	in	the	southern	Sierra	Nevada	(Zielinski	et al.	2005),	which	continues	to	resemble	its	

historical	range.	

Forest and Kings River Project Area: Data	from	the	SNFPA	(USDA	2001)	indicate	that	CWHR	habitat	

stages	4M,	4D,	5M,	5D,	and	6	are	moderately	to	highly	important	for	the	marten.	The	identified	habitat	

risk	factors	for	this	species	include:	(1)	removal	of	overhead	cover,	large	diameter	trees,	and	coarse	

woody	debris,	(2)	conversion	of	mesic	to	xeric	sites,	(3)	grazing,	and	(4)	fire	suppression.	

Canopy Cover, Large Trees and Coarse Woody Debris:		All	alternatives	will	maintain	forest	canopy	

cover	of	40­50%	immediately	after	treatment	and	that	cover	is	expected	to	regenerate	to	the	

approximate	current	conditions	within	approximately	15	years	post	harvest.		These	alternatives	only	

implement	thinning	of	forests	while	also	retaining	all	trees	greater	than	30	inches	dbh,	while	also	

removing	few	trees	20­30	inches	dbh	and	snags	greater	than	15	inches	dbh.		These	treatments	remove	

some	coarse	woody	debris,	primarily	in	the	smaller	size	classes,	and	reduction	of	these	fuels	is	

periodically	part	of	the	natural	ecological	system	that	had	fire	return	intervals	of	approximately	15­20	

years	prior	to	the	last	century	of	fire	suppression	management.		All	of	these	treatments	will	not	

substantially	change	the	inherent	structure	of	these	forests,	as	compared	other	types	of	forest	

management,	such	as	clearcutting	prescriptions.	

Forest	Service	vegetation	management	projects	since	approximately	1997	are	primarily	focused	on	

forest	restoration,	which	primarily	involves	thinning	some	live	trees	while	retaining	the	inherent	forest	

structure	and	biodiversity	(as	opposed	to	clearcutting).	This	forest	restoration	retains	a	wide	range	of	

tree	ages	as	well	as	all	trees	greater	than	30	inches	dbh	and	most	snags	greater	than	15	inches	dbh	

unless	classified	as	a	hazard	for	fire	or	human	safety.		These	projects	are	also	are	designed	to	retain	a	

variety	of	habitat	features	important	to	wildlife.		This	management	creates	forests	with	greater	

heterogeneity	and	diversity	which	provides	better	health,	vigor,	and	growth	and	reduces	their	

susceptibility	to	severe,	large	scale	wildfires	as	well	as	drought	impacts,	insect	infestation	and	disease.		

Conversion of mesic to xeric sites:		The	tree	thinning	practices	proposed	for	all	action	alternatives	are	

not	expected	to	substantially	change	mesic	sites	to	xeric	sites	and	this	is	not	expected	to	add	to	any	

other	types	of	site	conversions	that	may	occur	within	the	cumulative	effects	area.	

Grazing:		Livestock	grazing	occurs	in	many	areas	of	the	forest,	but	the	effects	are	primarily	concentrated	

at	meadows.	While	cattle	do	not	alter	the	classifications	of	habitat,	they	can	potentially	impact	meadows	

and	forest	understory	vegetation.	Standards	and	Guidelines	implemented	by	the	Forest	Service	for	

livestock	grazing	substantially	help	avoid	major	impacts	to	shrubs	and	herbaceous	vegetation.	

Fire Suppression:		One	of	the	major	purposes	of	this	KREW	management	is	to	reduce	forest	fuel	

buildup	that	accumulates	san	the	historic	fire	frequency	of	15­20years	for	these	forests.	This	

management	is	intended	to	reduce	the	severity	of	wildfire	and	restore	a	fire	resilient	forest	structure.	If	

a	wildfire	were	to	occur	in	the	KREW	project	area	following	the	implementation	of	the	proposed	action,	

there	would	be	less	of	an	impact	on	northern	goshawk	habitat	than	if	a	fire	were	to	occur	without	
Final Environmental Impact Statement Kings River Experimental Watershed Project 

Chapter 3­9 – Terrestrial Wildlife 3.9­65 

implementation	of	this	alternative	(refer	to	the	Fire	and	Fuels	Management	Specialist	report	for	further	

details).			

In	addition	to	the	previously	mentioned	habitat	risk	factors,	there	are	two	important	non­habitat	risk	

factors	for	martens:	(1)	development	and	(2)	climate	change.	Climate	change	is	beyond	the	scope	for	this	

analysis	and	areas	of	large­scale	development	are	not	planned	for	the	KREW	area.	Changes	in	vegetation	

composition	and	structure	at	a	scale	larger	than	the	KREW	area	are	summarized	below.	

Biological	Evaluations	for	many	of	the	past	projects	in	the	Sierra	NF	were	reviewed	to	help	inform	the	

present	analysis.	Our	review	of	these	documents	revealed	the	following	basic	information	about	effects	

to	marten	from	these	activities:	

x Twenty­six	(26)	total	project	Biological	Evaluations	(BEs)	were	reviewed,	dating	back	to	1993	

on	the	Sierra	NF.	

x Determinations	reached	were:	

o No	effect	–	7	BEs	

o May	affect	individual	marten,	but	not	likely	to	lead	to	a	trend	toward	federal	listing	or	

loss	of	viability	–	15	BEs	

o May	affect	individual	marten,	and	likely	to	lead	to	a	trend	toward	federal	listing	or	loss	

of	viability	–	0	BEs	

o Marten	were	not	addressed	in	the	document	we	reviewed	due	to	lack	of	habitat	or	other	

reasons	–	4	BEs	

x Types	of	Projects:	Fuels	reduction,	harvest,	hazard	tree	removal,	and	thinning	were	the	

proposed	activities	that	were	most	often	represented	in	the	sample	of	BEs	in	which	the	marten	

was	analyzed.	

x Relative	to	“May	Affect”	projects,	the	described	impacts	to	marten	most	often	fell	in	the	

following	categories:	

o Temporary	disturbances	

o Foraging	area	may	be	burned	if	underburning	gets	out	of	control

o Removed	hazard	trees	could	serve	as	resting	or	denning	sites	

o Habitat	altered	or	removed	

o Reduction	of	habitat	quality	(e.g.,	reduction	in	canopy	cover)	

o Habitat	will	be	entered	

o Noise	disturbance	

Additional	past,	present,	and	reasonably	foreseeable	future	activities	are	outlined	in	Table	3­1	through	

3­3.	Many	of	these	activities	were	judged	to	have	no	effect	on	the	marten	because	the	project(s)	were	

taking	place	below	6000	ft	elevation.	Some	of	the	roadside	hazard	tree	removal	and	recreation	activities	

may	cause	disturbance	to	marten	that	may	be	in	the	area	but	not	have	substantial	changes	in	their	

habitat.	

Given	the	marten’s	continued	occupancy	of	a	range	similar	to	its	historical	distribution,	the	small	

percentage	of	suitable	habitat	being	affected	(compared	to	what	is	available	on	the	Forest),	the	retention	

of	the	inherent	structure	of	the	forest,	the	intention	of	reducing	fuels,	and	the	discussion	of	cumulative	

effects,	this	management	alternatives,	although	not	without	risk,	are	not	likely	to	result	in	a	loss	of	

viability	for	the	marten.	
Final Environmental Impact Statement Kings River Experimental Watershed Project 

Chapter 3­9 – Terrestrial Wildlife 3.9­66 

Determination

Based	on	the	above	assessment	of	direct,	indirect,	and	cumulative	effects,	it	has	been	determined	that	

Alternatives	2­4	of	the	KREW	project	may affect individuals,	but	are	not	likely	to	result	in	a	trend	

toward	Federal	listing	or	loss	of	viability	for	American	marten.	This	determination	is	based	that	fact	that	

all	direct	impacts	from	the	proposed	action	would	be	relatively	short	term	effects	to	the	species	and	a	

benefit	in	the	long	run	due	to	fuels	reductions,	an	increase	in	the	number	of	large	trees	over	time	that	

could	potentially	be	used	for	denning,	and	protecting	potential	foraging	habitat	in	meadows.

Cumulative Effects of Alternatives 2­4 on Pallid Bats

The	area	considered	in	determining	the	cumulative	effects	of	past,	present,	and	reasonably	foreseeable	

activities	on	pallid	bats	encompasses	the	Sierra	NF.	This	landscape	scale	encompasses	known	habitat	

and	provides	an	area	of	sufficient	size	to	assess	the	potential	impacts	on	this	habitat.	Since	activities	

under	the	proposed	action	would	have	a	small	direct	and	a	beneficial	indirect	effect	from	proposed	

management	activities	within	the	boundary	of	the	project,	the	potential	cumulative	effects	on	pallid	bat	

habitat	could	result	from	the	past,	present	and	foreseeable	actions	listed	in	Tables	3­1	through	3­3.		

Biological	Evaluations	for	many	of	the	past	projects	in	the	Sierra	NF	were	reviewed	to	help	inform	the	

present	analysis.	Our	review	of	these	documents	revealed	the	following	basic	information	about	effects	

to	pallid	bats	from	these	activities:	

x Twenty­six	(26)	total	project	Biological	Evaluations	(BEs)	were	reviewed,	dating	back	to	1993	

on	the	Sierra	NF.		The	species	was	not	listed	as	Forest	Service	Sensitive	until	the	updated	list	

from	June	1998.			

x Determinations	reached	were:	

o No	effect	–	4	BEs	

o May	affect	individual	bats,	but	not	likely	to	lead	to	a	trend	toward	federal	listing	or	loss	

of	viability	–	10	BEs	

o May	affect	individual	bats,	and	likely	to	lead	to	a	trend	toward	federal	listing	or	loss	of	

viability	–	0	BEs	

o Pallid	bat	was	not	addressed	in	the	document	we	reviewed	due	to	lack	of	habitat	or	

other	reasons	–	12	BEs	

x Types	of	Projects:	Fuels	reduction,	hazard	tree	removal,	thinning,	and	underburning	were	the	

proposed	activities	that	were	most	often	represented	in	the	sample	of	BEs	in	which	the	pallid	

bat	was	analyzed.	

x Relative	to	“May	Affect”	projects,	the	described	impacts	to	pallid	bats	most	often	fell	in	the	

following	categories:	

o Loss	of	roosting	trees/snags	

o Displacement	because	of	smoke	from	underburning	

o Noise	disturbance	

o Two	KRP­scale	projects	reduced	canopy	cover	on	a	total	of	210	acres	

Several	risk	factors	were	identified	for	pallid	bats	in	the	SNFPA	(USDA	2001):	(1)	removal	of	hardwoods	

and	subsequent	reduction	in	foraging	habitat,	(2)	thick	understory	vegetation	between	the	ground	and	

eight	feet	in	height,	(3)	prey	reduction	resulting	from	heavy	grazing,	(4)	renewed	exploration	or	closure	

of	mines,	(5)	recreational	caving,	and	(6)	loss	of	tree	roosts.		
Final Environmental Impact Statement Kings River Experimental Watershed Project 

Chapter 3­9 – Terrestrial Wildlife 3.9­67 

Across	federal	lands	hardwoods	are	not	generally	removed	unless	they	are	hazards.	On	private	lands	

hardwoods	are	not	removed	due	to	a	lack	of	merchantability	and	California	State	Forest	Practice	rules.	

Thus	relative	to	risk	factor	#1	the	greatest	loss	of	hardwoods	is	due	to	conifer	encroachment	and	

subsequent	shading	of	oaks.	

Relative	to	risk	factor	#2	(thick	understory	vegetation),	the	cool	burns	and	mechanical	removal	of	small	

trees	and	brush	that	would	result	from	implementation	of	the	action	would	benefit	the	pallid	bat	by	

thinning	the	understory	that	occurs	within	eight	feet	of	the	ground	(Mark	Smith,	pers.	comm.,	22	Sept	

2006).	

Risk	factor	#3	results	from	heavy	grazing	and	the	subsequent	lack	of	ground	cover.	While	grazing	occurs	

across	the	project	area,	range	management	guidelines	and	BMPs	prevent	loss	of	ground	cover	that	could	

lead	to	loss	in	pallid	bat	prey	base.	

Risk	factors	#4	and	#5	deal	with	caves	or	mine	closures.	The	past,	present	and	reasonably	foreseeable	

projects	in	Table	3­8	do	not	affect	either	mines	or	caves.	

Loss	of	tree	roosts,	risk	factor	#6,	results	from	projects	that	can	remove	or	reduce	large	snags,	such	as	

roadside	hazard	tree	removal,	larger	scale	vegetation	management	projects,	and	prescribed	fire.	For	an	

analysis	of	the	effects	of	roadside	hazard	tree	removal,	the	Dinkey	North	project	and	vegetation	

management	activities	­	see	the	above	discussion	under	cumulative	effects	to	California	spotted	owl.	

Prescribed	fire	and	vegetation	management	treatments	relying	on	prescribed	fire	such	as	the	KREW	

research	project	could	result	in	temporary	reductions	in	large	snag	numbers.	However,	observations	by	

forest	managers	on	the	High	Sierra	Ranger	District	indicate	that	longer	term	snag	creation	results	after	

prescribe	fire.	Tree	mortality	combined	with	long	term	creation	of	snags	from	prescribed	fire	have	the	

net	result	of	a	small	increase	in	snag	numbers	across	the	cumulative	effects	boundary.	These	activities	

would	not	have	a	cumulative	effect	relative	to	risk	factor	#6.	

Also,	pallid	bats	occur	most	frequently	below	6,000	feet	and	are	especially	sensitive	to	the	removal	of	

hardwoods	(USDA	2001).	Except	for	4D	and	5D,	CWHR	rates	all	size	classes	and	densities	in	blue	oak	

woodlands	as	High	for	pallid	bat,	in	terms	of	meeting	its	foraging	needs.	Montane	hardwood	conifer	and	

montane	hardwood	habitats	are	rated	Low	for	pallid	bat	by	CWHR	(California	Department	of	Fish	and	

Game	2005).	Currently,	there	are	32,600	acres	of	blue	oak	woodlands	and	251,000	acres	of	montane	

hardwoods	and	montane	hardwood	conifers	below	8,000	ft	on	the	Sierra	NF	in	CWHR	size	classes	2	and	

higher;	2,732	acres	of	that	total	are	within	the	initial	eight	management	units	of	the	KRP	area.	The	

protection,	maintenance,	and	enhancement	of	such	westside	foothill	oaks	and	montane	oaks	are	

expected	to	benefit	pallid	bats	by	ensuring	the	continued	availability	of	roosting	sites.	Indeed,	all	

alternatives	proposed	in	the	SNFPA	would	lead	to	an	increase	in	oak	species	(USDA	2001).	

Cumulative	effects	discussed	in	the	SNFPA	stated	that	there	have	been	no	recent	changes	in	the	range	or	

distribution	of	the	pallid	bat	(USDA	2001).	For	these	reasons,	and	given	the	long­term	objective	for	

increasing	the	number	of	large	trees	across	the	landscape,	the	intention	of	reducing	fuels,	and	the	

foregoing	discussion	of	effects,	the	cumulative	effects	of	vegetation	management	activities	in	the	KREW	

units	taken	together	with	past,	present,	and	reasonably	foreseeable	activities	on	the	Forest	will	not	

result	in	a	loss	of	viability	for	the	pallid	bat.	
Final Environmental Impact Statement Kings River Experimental Watershed Project 

Chapter 3­9 – Terrestrial Wildlife 3.9­68 

Determination

Based	on	the	above	information	the	KREW	Project	action	alternatives	may affect individual pallid

bats,	but	are	not	likely	to	result	in	a	trend	toward	Federal	listing	or	loss	of	viability	for	the	pallid	bat.	

This	determination	was	made	based	the	potential	for	the	project	to	remove	trees	used	for	roosting	and	

individuals	may	leave	the	area	because	of	smoke	during	underburning	activities.	There	would	also	be	

noise	disturbance	to	the	bats	while	logging	occurs.	

3­9.4.4 Alternative 5—Hybrid Action –Preferred Alternative

When	assessing	the	affects	of	treatments	on	wildlife	species	it	is	important	to	remember	that	thinning	

treatments	will	not	occur	in	938	acres	(50%)	of	the	Providence	management	area	and	451	acres	(38%)	

of	the	Bull	management	area.			

California Spotted Owl, Northern Goshawk, and American Marten 

Direct Effects 

The	California	spotted	owl	(CSO),	northern	goshawk,	and	American	marten	use	similar	habitats,	thus	

this	assessment	uses	the	spotted	owl	as	an	indicator	for	the	entire	group	when	summarizing	the	

potential	impacts	to	their	habitat.		Refer	to	the	KREW	Wildlife	BABE	for	further	details.			

Direct	effects	to	CSO	from	the	proposed	action	include	noise	from	mechanical	vegetation	clearing,	fire	

and	smoke	from	controlled	burns,	and	direct	loss	of	potential	habitat.	Both	foraging	and	nesting	

activities	could	be	affected	by	these	actions.	However,	the	project­level	LOP	will	substantially	reduce	

potential	impacts	to	these	species	by	not	allowing	mechanical	activities	from	February	1	to	June	15.	

Additionally,	underburning	will	not	occur	from	February	1	to	mid	May	15,	with	specific	mid­May	date	

dependent	on	burning	weather	conditions.	These	LOPs	help	ensure	that	project	disturbances	will	not	

directly	affect	these	species	during	their	most	vulnerable	period	of	nesting	and	denning.	These	

management	actions	of	this	alternative	are	not	expected	to	directly	cause	mortality	to	any	individuals	of	

these	species.		

The	management	actions,	such	as	thinning	and	prescribed	underburning,	could	cause	individuals	to	

have	greater	energetic	expense	as	a	result	of	avoidance	reactions,	although	this	is	expected	to	be	only	

temporary	during	the	activities	and	those	individuals	would	likely	return	after	the	disturbances	cease.	

Individuals	that	leave	the	treatments	areas	for	the	short	duration	of	the	actions	most	likely	will	rely	

more	heavily	on	other	areas	of	their	home	ranges,	given	that	their	home	ranges	are	substantially	larger	

than	the	project	areas.		

The	500	ft	buffer	around	spotted	owl	nesting	trees	will	help	protect	nesting	owls	from	direct	mechanical	

effects,	such	as	noise	disturbance	and	affects	to	their	habitat	structure.	Noise	attenuation	in	a	forest	

depends	on	a	range	of	factors	including	forest	density,	topography,	air	density,	air	moisture,	and	profile	

of	the	sound	generator	including	pitch,	amplitude,	and	duration.		Even	with	the	imposed	buffer,	we	may	

assume	that	some	portion	of	the	PACs	will	have	some	possibility	of	being	disturbed	by	neighboring	

operations.	Additionally,	owls	forage	during	nocturnal	and	crepuscular	periods	and	are	generally	
Final Environmental Impact Statement Kings River Experimental Watershed Project 

Chapter 3­9 – Terrestrial Wildlife 3.9­69 

inactive	during	day­light	when	nearly	all	mechanical	operations	would	place,	thus	minimizing	potential	

direct	impacts	to	their	foraging	activities.				

Figures	3­9­2	and	3­9­3	show	the	locations	of	spotted	owl	PACs	and	HRCAs.		Table	3­9­22	shows	there	

would	be	an	initial	loss	of	suitable	habitat	(CWHR	4M,	4D,	5M,	D5)	of	226	acres	in	the	Bull	area	and	an	

81	acre	decline	in	the	Providence	area.	It	is	important	to	point	out	that	most	of	that	loss	of	habitat	is	

within	the	red	fir	forest	type,	which	is	a	low	to	moderate	quality	habitat	for	spotted	owls.	Wet	meadows	

in	both	management	areas	would	not	change	as	a	result	of	the	treatments.	While	it	is	plausible	that	some	

bird	species	leave	their	habitat	during	underburning,	many	most	likely	return	within	a	short	time	period	

after	treatment	is	completed.	In	some	cases,	spotted	owls	have	continued	nesting	during	wildfire	and	

returned	to	the	nest	the	following	year	(Bond	2004).		Others	may	emigrate	because	the	food	and	cover	

they	require	are	not	available	in	the	treatment	area.	The	length	of	time	before	these	species	return	

depends	on	how	much	habitat	is	altered.	And	in	the	case	of	this	management	alternative,	thinning	and	

prescribed	underburning	will	retain	a	majority	of	the	forest	structure	and	function	immediately	after	

treatments	and	it	is	a	relatively	moderate	habitat	modification	as	compared	with	the	high	risk	of	high	

severity	wildfires	that	would	remain	without	this	treatment.			

Table 3­9­22.		Acres of KREW Project mid­seral and late­seral forest habitat with canopy cover

>40%, under Alternative 5­Hybrid.

Bull Current 2012 

Acre 

Change 2042 

Acre 

Change Providence Current 2012 

Acre 

Change 2042 

Acre 

Change 

RFR PPN 

4D 28 13 -15 19 -9 4D 129 104 ­25 136 7

4M 141 57 -84 0 -141 4M 57 76 19 6 ­51

5D 0 0 0 0 0 5D 1 1 0 31 30

5M 70 53 -17 67 -3 5M 8 8 0 22 14

Total RFR 239 123 -116 86 -153 Total PPN 195 189 ­6 195 0

SMC SMC 

4D 115 46 -69 22 -93 4D 365 252 ­113 264 ­101

4M 161 86 -75 33 -128 4M 502 404 ­98 89 ­413

5D 0 0 0 11 11 5D 75 121 46 309 234

5M 85 119 34 271 186 5M 150 240 90 547 397

Total SMC 361 251 -110 337 -24 Total SMC 1092 1017 ­75 1209 117

Bull Total 600 374 -226 412 -188 

Providence 

Total 1287 1206 ­81 1404 117

KREW 

Total 1887 1580 ­307 1827 ­60

Indirect Effect

CWHR Habitat:		Spotted	owl	foraging	habitat	is	generally	described	as	stands	of	trees	of	12	inches	in	

diameter	or	greater	with	canopy	cover	of		40	percent,	and	nesting	habitat	have	average	dominant	and	
Final Environmental Impact Statement Kings River Experimental Watershed Project 

Chapter 3­9 – Terrestrial Wildlife 3.9­70 

co­dominate	trees	greater	than	24	inches	dbh	and	canopy	cover	of	greater	than	70	percent.	Vegetation	

change	modeling	for	Alternative	5	(Table	3­9­22)	shows	an	indirect	effect	on	CSO	habitat	(CWHR	4M,	

4D,	5M,	5D)	immediately	after	treatment	and	extending	out	to	30	years	after	treatments.	This	modeling	

shows	a	177	acre	increase	in	habitat	over	a	30	year	period	in	the	Providence	area,	as	compared	with	

current	conditions.		The	elevation	and	forest	types	(mixed	conifer	and	ponderosa	pine)	of	the	

Providence	area	make	it	a	highly	suitable	area	for	spotted	owls.			

The	modeling	also	shows	a	decline	of	188	acres	(to	a	total	of	412	acres)	of	habitat	for	the	Bull	area	over	

a	30	year	period	compared	with	the	current	amount	of	600	acres,	however,	nearly	all	of	that	loss	

occurred	within	the	red­	fir	forest	type,	which	is	not	a	moderate	or	high	quality	habitat	for	spotted	owls.	

The	lack	of	overstory	forest	canopy	cover	recovery	in	the	Bull	management	area	over	the	30	year	posttreatment	period,	was	primarily	within	the	red	fir	(RFR)	forest	eco­type,	and	primarily	was	the	result	of	

dense	forest	canopies	(e.g.	>40	percent)	of	mature	forests	being	converted	to	sparse	canopy	mature	

forests	(e.g.	<40	percent).		Red	fir	trees	inherently	have	less	capability	to	fill	canopy	openings	as	do	tree	

species	present	within	the	Sierra	mixed	conifer	eco­type,	thus	the	fact	that	Sierra	mixed	conifer	(SMC)	

type	increased	in	dense	forest	canopy	habitat	over	the	30	year	period	(Table	3­9­22).			

About	80	percent	of	known	CSO	sites	are	found	in	Sierra	mixed­conifer	forest,	10	percent	in	red	fir	

forest,	7	percent	in	ponderosa	pine/hardwood	forest.		The	red­fir	stands	in	the	high	elevation	Bull	

management	area	are	low	quality	spotted	owl	habitat,	and	that	is	where	nearly	all	of	the	loss	of	the	

habitat	occurred	over	the	30	time	frame.		Additionally,	the	Bull	management	area	is	at	the	upper	

elevational	range	for	spotted	owls,	therefore	making	that	particular	area	substantially	less	important	for	

sustaining	spotted	owls	as	the	lower	elevation	(5,000­6,000	ft)	Providence	Area,	which	is	in	the	heart	of	

the	spotted	owl	habitation	zone.	There	are	no	spotted	owl	Protected	Activity	Centers	(PACs),	nor	HRCAs	

in	the	Bull	area,	whereas	the	Providence	area	has	two	of	each.	

Although	this	modeling	reflects	overall	changes	in	habitat,	it	does	not	address	the	smaller	scale	

management	actions	that	are	implemented	to	maintain	important	spotted	owl	habitat	features.	These	

smaller	scale	features	are	specifically	addressed	by	implementing	Best	Management	Practices	for	

Wildlife,	as	well	as	FS	S&Gs	(Section	2.0).		These	criteria	include	retaining	all	trees	greater	than	30	

inches	dbh,	retaining	all	mature	oaks,	and	retaining	all	snags	greater	than	15	inches	dbh,	unless	deemed	

hazardous	for	fire	or	public	safety.		Additionally,	an	average	minimum	canopy	cover	of	40­50	percent	

will	be	maintained	immediately	after	treatments,	including	retaining	a	greater	amount	of	canopy	cover	

and	higher	basal	area	in	portions	of	the	management	areas,	such	as	riparian	areas	and	lower	north	and	

east	slopes.	With	tree	growth	over	15	years,	we	expect	the	canopy	cover	to	regenerate	to	about	the	same	

level	as	current	conditions.	Also,	by	opening	up	the	overstory	canopy	and	clearing	some	of	the	decadent	

understory	vegetation,	the	understory	vegetation	will	become	more	diverse	in	age	and	structure,	with	a	

greater	amount	of	new	growth,	thus	helping	lead	to	greater	understory	vegetation	abundance,	which	

can	lead	to	greater	prey	species	abundance	and	diversity.			

Retained Live Trees, Snags and Down Wood (logs):		Spotted	owls	prefer	nesting	in	cavities	in	trees	

that	are	an	average	48”	dbh.	This	alternative	will	retain	all	trees	greater	than	30	inches	dbh,	all	mature	

oaks,	and	all	snags	greater	than	15	inches	dbh,	except	for	those	that	are	hazardous	for	fuels	management	

and	public	safety.	Current	conditions,	as	well	as	through	the	30	year	post­treatment	period	shows	that	

there	will	be	at	least	6	snags	per	acre	greater	than	15	inches	dbh	(Table	3­9­8).		Although	this	action	

may	remove	some	trees	20	to	30	inches	dbh	that	could	become	future	large	trees	or	snags,	a	majority	of	

trees	in	that	size	class	will	be	retained	to	promote	larger	trees	and	snags	in	the	future	(Table	3­9­7).	
Final Environmental Impact Statement Kings River Experimental Watershed Project 

Chapter 3­9 – Terrestrial Wildlife 3.9­71 

Prescribed	underburning	also	is	expected	to	create	a	net	increase	in	the	number	of	snags	over	the	longterm.		

Fire Treatments:		Understory	burning	(Table	3­9­4)	will	not	alter	spotted	owl	CWHR	habitat	

classifications,	nor	will	it	substantially	change	overstory	canopy	cover.		It	will	convert	some	retained	live	

trees	to	snags	over	the	long­term.	Underburning	may	eliminate	some	woodrat	nests	within	the	project	

area,	which	could	lead	to	a	decrease	in	available	prey	items	over	the	short­term,	therefore	an	indirect	

effect	to	the	CSO.	The	extent	of	the	effect	of	this	burning	management	on	woodrats	is	unknown,	although	

it	is	expected	to	be	minimal	since	we	expect	an	increase	in	woodrats	within	a	few	years	after	the	

treatments	due	to	new	herbaceous	and	shrub	vegetation	growth,	which	are	important	for	woodrats.	

Other	prey	species,	such	as	flying	squirrels,	are	expected	to	remain	relatively	constant	because	their	

habitation	of	the	overstory	canopy	and	would	not	be	affected	as	much	by	management	activity.		

PACs and HRCAs:		The	Providence	management	area	includes	three	CSO	Protected	Activity	Centers	

(PAC)	and	HRCA;	the	Bull	area	has	two	HRCAs.	Treatment	in	spotted	owl	PACs,	for	all	action	

alternatives,	is	intended	to	implement	2001	SNFPA	ROD	management	direction	for	treatments	in	

spotted	owls	PACS	that	are	also	in	the	defense	zone	of	the	WUI.	This	includes:	

x prohibit	mechanical	treatments	within	500	foot	radius	around	CSO	activity	center	and	hand	cut	

trees	less	than	6	inches	dbh	

x limit	thinning	outside	the	CSO	activity	areas	to	20	inches	or	less	dbh	

x retain	50	percent	canopy	cover,	and	no	canopy	cover	reduction	in	stands	with	40­50	percent	

canopy	cover,	other	than	trees	with	less	than	6	inch	dbh	

x limit	mechanical	treatment	to	75	percent	of	the	stand	(PAC)	

As	shown	in	Table	3­9­10,	Alternative	1	has	498	acres	of	CSO	habitat	in	the	Providence	PACs	and	253	

acres	in	Providence	HRCAs.	Each	of	the	action	alternatives	reduces	those	amounts	slightly.		For	the	PACs	

the	reductions	would	be	from	5	to	11	acres,	compared	with	the	498	acres	available	under	the	no	action	

alternative.		HRCA	habitat	also	would	be	reduced	slightly	by	13	to	29	acres	out	of	a	total	of	253	

compared	with	the	no	action.		Over	the	following	30	year	period	the	modeling	shows	a	gain	in	CSO	

habitat	in	both	the	PACs	and	HRCAs	although	the	action	alternatives	do	not	reach	the	total	of	548	

projected	for	the	no	action	alternative,	although	with	fuels	treatment	it	will	reduce	the	potential	for	

substantial	loss	of	this	habitat	as	a	result	of	severe,	large	scale	wildfire.		The	HRCA	habitat	in	the	Bull	

area	shows	greater	declines	in	CSO	habitat	by	the	action	alternatives,	anywhere	from	9	to	41	acres	

immediately	after	treatment,	as	compared	with	the	no	action	alternative.	However,	fuel	treatments	there	

also	would	reduce	the	potential	for	loss	of	this	habitat	as	a	result	of	wildfire.			

Effects of Herbicide Applications:	A	limited	use	of	herbicide	(glyphosate)	is	proposed	for	the	

Providence	management	area	under	all	action	alternatives	but	none	is	proposed	for	the	Bull	area.		No	

direct,	indirect,	cumulative	effects	are	expected	to	occur	to	terrestrial	wildlife	due	to	the	application	of	

glyphosate	formulated	as	Accord.	This	herbicide	would	not	come	in	contact	with	wildlife	unless	an	

accident	occurs	or	project	design	features	are	not	followed.	The	Vegetation	Management	FEIS	(USDA	

Forest	Service	1988:4­43	–	4­45)	describes	an	analysis	of	direct	effects	to	wildlife	from	exposures	such	

as	rubbing	against	or	eating	treated	vegetation	and	concludes	none	are	likely	to	occur.	

“Loss	of	body	weight	is	the	most	commonly	seen	effect	of	glyphosate	in	mammals.	Inhibition	of	oxidative	

phosphorylation	has	been	implicated	as	a	possible	mechanism	by	which	glyphosate	causes	weight	loss	

in	experimental	mammals;	.	.	.”	(SERA	2003:4­1)	
Final Environmental Impact Statement Kings River Experimental Watershed Project 

Chapter 3­9 – Terrestrial Wildlife 3.9­72 

“The	available	toxicity	studies	do	not	suggest	any	specific	or	unique	toxicity	in	birds	compared	to	

mammals.	As	in	mammals,	there	is	suggestive	evidence	that	glyphosate	may	inhibit	oxidative	

phosphorylation	and	consequently	reduce	food	conversion	efficiency.”	(SERA	2003:	4­1)	“There	is	no	

indication	that	glyphosate	or	Roundup	causes	birth	defects	in	birds	(Batt	et	al.	1980,	Hoffman	and	Albers	

1984)”	(SERA	2003:4­4).	

There	is	little	indirect	risk	to	terrestrial	wildlife	if	glyphosate	is	applied	at	the	recommended	rate.	The	

toxicity	is	extremely	low	because	it	is	highly	water	soluble,	so	does	not	bioaccumulate,	and	because	the	

mode	of	action	is	by	inhibiting	the	formation	of	the	amino	acid	phenylalanine.	This	is	one	of	the	essential	

amino	acids,	which	cannot	be	synthesized	by	animals,	so	it	is	affecting	a	process	only	carried	on	by	

plants	(Newton	and	Knight	1981).	

“In	addition	to	the	laboratory	bioassays	or	field	observations	on	single	species,	there	are	a	number	field	

studies	that	have	assessed	the	effects	of	glyphosate	on	groups	of	terrestrial	organisms,	both	animals	and	

plants.	These	studies	indicate	that	effects	on	terrestrial	animals	are	likely	to	be	secondary	to	effects	on	

vegetation	when	glyphosate	is	applied	at	application	rates	comparable	to	or	greater	than	those	

contemplated	by	the	Forest	Service.”	(SERA	2003:4­2,	4­11.)	

Cumulative Effects for Northern Spotted Owl

Region:	In	its	12­month	finding	in	which	it	decided	to	not	list	the	CSO	as	Threatened	or	Endangered,	the	

USFWS	concluded	that	the	scale,	magnitude,	or	intensity	of	effects	on	the	CSO	resulting	from	fire,	fuels	

treatments,	timber	harvest,	and	other	activities	did	not	rise	above	the	threshold	necessitating	protection	

of	the	species	under	the	Endangered	Species	Act	(USDI­FWS	2006).	The	USFWS	reached	this	conclusion	

after	considering	the	impacts	of	the	FS‘s	implementation	of	the	SNFPA	ROD	(USDA­FS	2004b).	The	

USFWS’	(USDI­FWS	2006)	conclusion	is	supported	by:		

x 	Data	which	indicate	that	CSO	populations	in	the	Sierra	Nevada	are	stable	and	comprise	81%	of	the	

species’	known	territories.		

x 	The	anticipation	that	current	and	planned	fuels­reduction	activities	throughout	the	range	of	the	

species	will	have	a	long­term	benefit	by	reducing	the	risk	of	stand	replacing	wildfire;	these	activities	

embrace	those	described	by	the	SNFPA	ROD	(USDA­FS	2004b).		

x 	Protection	measures	are	being	implemented	for	the	CSO	on	private	lands,	including	the	largest	

private	landholders	within	the	range	of	the	species.	(FSEIS,	USDA­FS	2004a)		

Forest:		SNF	currently	has	321	CSO	Home	Range	Core	Areas	(HRCAs)	and	258	Protected	Activity	

Centers	(PACs)	encompassing	over	113,000	acres.	At	least	450,000	acres	of	suitable	spotted	owl	habitat	

exists	on	the	Forest,	and	1,887	acres	are	currently	within	the	two	KREW	management	areas	(600	acres	

in	the	Bull	area	and	1,287	acres	in	the	Providence	area).	Vegetation	change	modeling	shows	that	over	a	

30	year	period	this	habitat	would	decrease	in	the	Bull	management	area	by	188	acres	(<1	percent	of	the	

SNF	habitat)	and	increase	in	the	Providence	area	by	117	acres	(<1	percent	of	the	SNF	habitat)	(Table	3­

9­22).			

Project: 	The	following	Table	3­9­23	compares	habitat	changes	to	the	habitats	surrounding	the	Bull	and	

Providence	management	areas.		Habitats	in	those	buffer	areas	approximate	the	latest	conditions	because	

they	include	the	results,	or	estimated	results	of	all	other	current	or	proposed	vegetation	management	

projects	in	that	area,	such	as	Dinkey	North	and	Dinkey	South	projects.	
Final Environmental Impact Statement Kings River Experimental Watershed Project 

Chapter 3­9 – Terrestrial Wildlife 3.9­73 

Table 3­9­23.		Effects of Alternative 5 on spotted owl habitat when compared with habitat

available at different scales.		

Project Area 3.1 Mile Buffer KRP Area Sierra NF 

Area Current 2012 Acres 

Acre 

Change Acres 

% 

Difference Acres 

% 

Difference Acres 

% 

Difference 

Bull 600 374 ­226 ­­­­­­­­	 ­­­­­­­­	 ­­­­­­­­	 ­­­­­­­­	 ­­­­­­­­	 ­­­­­­­­

Providence 1287 1203 ­81 ­­­­­­­­	 ­­­­­­­­	 ­­­­­­­­	 ­­­­­­­­	 ­­­­­­­­	 ­­­­­­­­	

Total 1887 1636 ­307 34,000	 0.9%	 59,808 0.4%	 450,000	 0.07%	

Kings River Project Area:	The	estimated	loss	of	310	acres	of	late	seral	closed	canopy	forest	in	the	

KREW	project	area	immediately	after	treatment	and	the	117	acre	loss	30	years	later	(Table	3­9­15)	are	

less	than	1	percent	of	that	habitat	within	SNF.	The	KRP	area	is	one	scale	of	assessment	used	in	the	

cumulative	effects	assessment	for	wildlife	species,	and	this	area	is	approximately	100,000	acres	with	

about	80,000	acres	in	coniferous	forest.	The	KRP	area	is	used	by	the	High	Sierra	District	for	long­term	

forest	planning,	and	it	encompasses	three	major	watersheds,	as	well	as	the	project	areas.	It	is	generally	

bordered	to	the	east	by	wilderness,	to	south	by	low	elevation	chaparral	and	the	Teakettle	Experimental	

Forest	and	to	the	west	by	low	elevation	chaparral.	Additional	details	of	management	actions	in	the	KRP	

area	of	the	High	Sierra	District	Ranger	District	may	be	found	in	the	cumulative	effects	assessment	for	

Alternatives	2­4.		

Buffer Area	­	3.1 Miles:		We	also	assessed	the	current	amount	of	late	seral	coniferous	forest	habitat	

(CWHR	4M,	4D,	5M,	5D)	within	a	3.1	mile	buffer	area	surrounding	the	two	management	areas	as	another	

level	of	comparing	the	effects	of	the	KREW		project	on	habitats,	that	also	may	affect	spotted	owls	that	

inhabit	surrounding	areas.		The	estimated	initial	loss	of	307	acres	of	mid	and	late	seral	canopy	forest	in	

the	KREW	project	area	equates	to	approximately	0.9	percent	of	the	total	of	that	habitat	within	the	3.1	

mile	buffer	area.	Over	a	30	year	period,	habitat	is	expected	to	increase	by	117	acres	above	the	current	

amounts	in	the	Providence	area.		

The	loss	of	habitat	from	the	Bull	area	over	the	30	year	period	is	not	expected	to	be	substantial	for	

spotted	owls	because	red­fir	forests	is	a	low	quality	habitat	for	spotted	owls.		Additionally,	the	effects	of	

this	action	on	spotted	owls	would	be	moderated	when	considering	other	factors	identified	in	the	

indirect	assessment,	such	as	implementing	the	Beast	Management	Practices	for	Wildlife,	as	well	as	FS	

S&Gs	during	treatments.		

Other	federal	projects	listed	in	Tables	3­1	through	3­4	could	reduce	total	potential	habitat.	Vegetation	

management	projects	conducted	on	FS	lands	generally	retain	a	minimum	of	50	percent	immediately	

after	treatments,	with	tree	growth	restoring	that	canopy	cover	over	the	long­term.	However	vegetation	

management	projects	on	private	lands	(i.e.	SCE	lands)	may	bring	canopy	cover	down	to	approximately	

40	percent	immediately	after	treatment,	with	tree	growth	restoring	that	canopy	cover	over	the	longterm.	Prescribed	underburns	typically	maintain	stand	tree	canopy	cover	above	50	percent.	This	is	also	

true	of	the	emergency	salvage	operations	that	remove	dead	and	dying	trees	near	residential	structures.	

The	result	of	vegetation	management,	underburns,	and	hazard	tree	removal	is	a	loss	of	tree	canopy	

cover	and	habitat	quality,	but	maintenance	of	foraging	and	nesting	suitability,	particularly	considering	

that	untreated	areas	treatment	areas,	and	adjoining	those	areas	will	retain	higher	canopy	cover,	such	as	

riparian	SMZs	and	non­mechanized	zones	such	as	steep	and	rocky	slopes	and	canyons	
Final Environmental Impact Statement Kings River Experimental Watershed Project 

Chapter 3­9 – Terrestrial Wildlife 3.9­74 

	Hazard	tree	removal	projects	will	not	change	potential	CSO	habitat.	However,	hazard	tree	removal	will	

reduce	the	number	of	potential	nest	trees.	Hazard	tree	removal	projects	in	the	KRP	area	have	removed	a	

total	of	approximately	8,500	trees.	Approximately	1000	trees	greater	than	30”	were	removed	out	of	a	

total	population	of	470,000	trees	greater	than	30”.	Hazard	tree	removal	results	in	a	reduction	of	

potential	nest	structures	of	less	than	one­half	of	one	percent	of	the	total	tree	population.		Under	the	

action	alternatives	of	the	KREW	project,	the	average	number	of	snags	per	acre	would	not	substantially	

change.	

This	alternative	is	expected	to	result	in	long­term	positive	effects	to	the	CSO	by:	1)	reducing	the	

potential	for	catastrophic,	stand	eliminating	wildfires;	and	2)	promoting	the	growth	and	re­growth	of	

understory	vegetation,	which	provides	forage	for	prey	species,	as	well	as	hiding	and	thermal	cover.	The	

horizontal	and	vertical	diversity	of	forest	vegetation	structure	and	species	also	may	be	improved	in	

some	sites	as	a	result	of	partially	opening	the	forest	overstory.	This	in­turn	would	bring	greater	

heterogeneity,	promoting	greater	biodiversity,	possibly	leading	to	greater	prey	species	abundance	and	

diversity,	including	promoting	the	establishment	and	improved	growing	conditions	of	black	oaks,	which	

are	important	components	of	CSO	habitat.	These	factors,	combined	with	the	project	measures	

implemented	to	sustaining	spotted	owls,	outweigh	the	short­term	negative	effects	of	treatments	(due	to	

immediate	partial	loss	of	forest	biomass	and	disturbance),	especially	considering	that	this	action	will	

reduce	the	potential	for	a	large	scale,	high	severity	wildfire.		Without	fuels	reduction,	large	scale,	stand	

replacing	wildfires	would	most	likely	cause	serious	and	substantial	impacts	to	the	population.		

Determination for California Spotted Owl

Based	on	the	above	assessment	of	direct,	indirect,	and	cumulative	effects,	it	has	been	determined	that	

the	implementation	of	the	proposed	action	may	affect	individuals,	but	is	not	likely	to	result	in	a	trend	

toward	Federal	listing	or	loss	of	viability	for	the	CSO.	This	determination	is	based	on:	

x Although	operations	may	affect	individual	owls	or	an	owl	pair	through	changes	in	forest	

structure	and	disturbance	effects,	the	overall	reduction	in	fire	risk	and	hazard	and	an	emphasis	

on	restoring	forest	structure	and	ecological	functions	to	the	KREW	management	areas	would	

help	maintain	larger	amounts	and	better	CSO	habitat.	

x Based	on	the	amount	of	forested	habitat	with	more	than	40	percent	canopy	closure	and	the	

amount	of	suitable	habitat	within	owl	home	ranges,	the	potential	for	reproduction	in	the	project	

area	appears	very	good.	These	conditions	would	persist	under	the	proposed	action.	

x Over	30	years	the	amount	of	high	quality	habitat	(classes	5M	and	5D)	would	increase	due	to	the	

conversion	from	lower	quality	habitats	(classes	4M	and	4D)	in	the	Providence	management	

area,	which	is	the	high	quality	habitat	for	spotted	owls.	

x The	activities	in	the	proposed	action	are	within	the	scope	of	effects	considered	and	described	by	

the	USFWS	in	its	12­month	finding	to	not	list	the	CSO.	As	a	result,	the	proposed	action	would	not	

result	in	any	cumulative	effects	that	are	greater	than	those	already	analyzed	by	the	USFWS	when	

it	determined	that	listing	of	the	CSO	as	Threatened	or	Endangered	is	not	warranted	at	this	time.	

Cumulative Effects of Alternative 5 on the Northern Goshawk

The	northern	goshawk	has	a	continuous	distribution	throughout	the	Sierra	Nevada	with	a	network	of	50	

managed	territories	on	the	Sierra	National	Forest.	Given	the	scope	and	scale	of	the	KREW	project	
Final Environmental Impact Statement Kings River Experimental Watershed Project 

Chapter 3­9 – Terrestrial Wildlife 3.9­75 

relative	to	the	size	of	the	Sierra	Nevada	and	the	goshawk’s	overall	North	American	distribution,	the	area	

considered	in	determining	the	cumulative	effects	of	past,	present,	and	reasonably	foreseeable	activities	

on	the	northern	Goshawk	would	focus	on	the	Sierra	National	Forest.	Based	on	the	following	analysis,	a	

determination	of	viability	for	the	northern	Goshawk	will	be	made.	

Currently,	there	are	405,000	acres	of	suitable	goshawk	habitat	in	the	4000	to	8,000	foot	elevation	range	

on	the	Sierra	NF;	1,887	acres	occur	on	the	two	KREW	management	areas	with	1,516	acres	initially	

remaining	after	treatment	is	completed	and	1,774	acres	remaining	in	approximately	30	years.	

The	SNFPA	(USDA	Forest	Service	2001)	was	reviewed	for	their	analysis	of	northern	goshawks,	and	that	

evidence	suggests	the	low	number	of	goshawk	breeding	territories	has	remained	relatively	stable	since	

some	of	the	earliest	data	were	reported	by	Grinnell	and	Miller	(1944	–	as	cited	in	USDA	Forest	Service	

2001).		Specifically,	there	were	12	reported	for	the	SNFPA	area	in	2001	(USDA	Forest	Service	2001)	and	

20	territories	are	known	to	exist	today.		During	this	same	period	of	time	there	also	has	been	no	apparent	

change	in	the	geographic	distribution	of	northern	goshawks	in	the	Sierra	Nevada.			

Biological	Evaluations	for	many	of	the	past	projects	in	the	Sierra	NF	also	were	reviewed	to	help	inform	

the	present	analysis.	The	review	of	these	documents	revealed	the	following	basic	information	about	

effects	to	Northern	Goshawks	from	these	activities:	

x Twenty­six	(26)	total	project	Biological	Evaluations	(BEs)	were	reviewed,	dating	back	to	1993	

on	the	Sierra	NF.	

x Determinations	reached	were:	

o No	effect	–	4	BEs	

o May	affect	individual	goshawks,	but	not	likely	to	lead	to	a	trend	toward	federal	listing	or	

loss	of	viability	–	20	BEs	

o May	affect	individual	goshawks,	and	likely	to	lead	to	a	trend	toward	federal	listing	or	

loss	of	viability	–	0	BEs	

o Northern	Goshawk	was	not	addressed	in	the	document	we	reviewed	due	to	lack	of	

habitat	or	other	reasons	–	2	BEs	

x Types	of	Projects:	Fuels	reduction,	harvest,	hazard	tree	removal,	thinning,	and	underburning	

were	the	proposed	activities	that	were	most	often	represented	in	the	sample	of	BEs	in	which	the	

Northern	Goshawk	was	analyzed.	

x Relative	to	“May	Affect”	projects,	the	described	impacts	to	Northern	Goshawks	most	often	fell	in	

the	following	categories:	

o Noise	disturbances	

o Loss	of	foraging	area	if	underburn	gets	out	of	control	

o Loss	of	plucking	trees	

o Habitat	quality	reduction	

o A	210­acre	reduction	in	canopy	cover	in	the	KRP	area	

o A	1230­acre	reduction	in	canopy	cover	on	the	Sierra	NF	

The	major	risk	factors	identified	by	the	SNFPA	(USDA	2001)	for	goshawks	are	the	effects	of	vegetation	

management	and	wildfires	on	the	amount	and	distribution	of	quality	habitat.		Immediately	after	the	

implementation	of	the	proposed	action,	the	amount	of	suitable	habitat	would	decrease	by	307	acres	

(Table	3­7),	which	is	approximately	16%	of	the	total	suitable	habitat	within	the	KREW	project	area,	yet	

less	than	1%	of	the	suitable	habitat	on	the	Sierra	NF.	In	the	long­term,	out	30	years,	this	habitat	in	the	

KREW	management	areas	is	expected	to	increase	to	1,827	acres,	only	a	60	acre	decrease	from	existing	
Final Environmental Impact Statement Kings River Experimental Watershed Project 

Chapter 3­9 – Terrestrial Wildlife 3.9­76 

conditions.	This	slight	decrease	in	habitat	is	off­set	by	the	fact	that	implementing	this	alternative	would	

result	in	a	long­term	reduction	in	wildfire	hazards,	retain	important	habitat	features	for	the	goshawks,	

and	create	forest	conditions	that	are	overall	more	ecological	resilient,	which	helps	sustain	goshawk	

habitat	on	the	landscape.	This	management,	along	with	the	relatively	stable	geographic	distribution	and	

population	levels	of	goshawks	in	the	area	and	Sierra	NF	will	not	substantially	reduce	goshawk	habitat	or	

populations	when	also	considering	past,	present,	or	foreseeable	future	events	in	the	cumulative	effects	

analysis	area.		

Determination for Northern Goshawk

It	is	my	determination	that	Alternative	5,	of	the	KREW	Project, may affect individuals, but is not likely to

result in a trend toward Federal listing or loss of viability	for	the	northern	goshawk	due	to	the	initial	loss	

of	potential	habitat,	noise	disturbance	from	mechanical	and	prescribed	fire	activities,	and	smoke	from	

controlled	burns.	These	potential	short	term	negative	impacts	would	be	off­set	by	reducing	the	susceptibility	

of	this	habitat	to	wildfire,	insects,	disease,	and	drought,	as	well	as	maintaining	key	habitat	features	needed	by	

northern	goshawk.	

Cumulative Effects of Alternative 5 on American Marten

The	area	considered	in	determining	the	cumulative	effects	of	past,	present,	and	reasonably	foreseeable	

activities	on	marten	encompasses	the	Sierra	NF.	This	is	an	appropriate	scale	for	cumulative	effects	for	a	

wide­ranging	species	(such	as	the	marten)	that	has	also	been	selected	as	a	Management	Indicator	

Species	for	the	Sierra	NF.		

Region:		American	martens	typically	have	a	large	home	range	size	for	such	a	small	carnivore,	averaging	

about	1	mi2	(males	average	807	acres,	or	1.26	mi2,	and	females	average	254	acres,	or	0.40	mi2;	USDA	

2001,	Dr.	W.	J.	Zielinski,	pers.	comm.,	8	Sept	2006).	Additionally,	Dr.	W.	J.	Zielinski	(pers.	comm.,	8	Sept	

2006)	stated	that	the	average	elevation	at	which	martens	are	found	in	the	southern	Sierra	Nevada	is	

6900	feet.	Despite	requiring	such	large	home	ranges,	the	marten	remains	well­distributed	throughout	its	

current	range	in	the	southern	Sierra	Nevada	(Zielinski	et al.	2005),	which	continues	to	resemble	its	

historical	range.	

Forest and Kings River Project Area: Data	from	the	SNFPA	(USDA	2001)	indicate	that	CWHR	habitat	

stages	4M,	4D,	5M,	5D,	and	6	are	moderately	to	highly	important	for	the	marten.	The	identified	habitat	

risk	factors	for	this	species	include:	(1)	removal	of	overhead	cover,	large	diameter	trees,	and	coarse	

woody	debris,	(2)	conversion	of	mesic	to	xeric	sites,	(3)	grazing,	and	(4)	fire	suppression.	

Canopy Cover, Large Trees and Coarse Woody Debris:		The	average	canopy	cover	prior	to,	and	

immediately	after	treatments	are	implemented,	for	all	action	alternatives,	is	summarized	in	Table	

3­9­18.		All	alternatives	will	maintain	forest	canopy	cover	of	40­50%	immediately	after	treatment	

and	that	cover	is	expected	to	regenerate	to	the	approximate	current	conditions	within	

approximately	15	years	post	harvest.		These	alternatives	only	implement	thinning	of	forests	while	

also	retaining	all	trees	greater	than	30	inches	dbh,	while	also	removing	few	trees	20­30	inches	dbh	

and	snags	greater	than	15	inches	dbh.		These	treatments	remove	some	coarse	woody	debris,	

primarily	in	the	smaller	size	classes,	and	reduction	of	these	fuels	is	periodically	part	of	the	natural	

ecological	system	that	had	fire	return	intervals	of	approximately	15­20	years	prior	to	the	last	
Final Environmental Impact Statement Kings River Experimental Watershed Project 

Chapter 3­9 – Terrestrial Wildlife 3.9­77 

century	of	fire	suppression	management.		All	of	these	treatments	will	not	substantially	change	the	

inherent	structure	of	these	forests,	as	compared	other	types	of	forest	management,	such	as	

clearcutting	prescriptions.	

Forest	Service	vegetation	management	projects	since	approximately	1997	focus	on	forest	

restoration,	which	primarily	involves	thinning	some	live	trees	while	retaining	the	inherent	forest	

structure	and	biodiversity	(as	opposed	to	clearcutting).	This	forest	restoration	retains	a	wide	range	

of	tree	ages	as	well	as	all	trees	greater	than	30	inches	dbh	and	most	snags	greater	than	15	inches	

dbh	unless	classified	as	a	hazard	for	fire	or	human	safety.		These	projects	are	also	are	designed	to	

retain	a	variety	of	habitat	features	important	to	wildlife.		This	management	creates	forests	with	

greater	heterogeneity	and	diversity	which	provides	better	health,	vigor,	and	growth	and	reduces	

their	susceptibility	to	severe,	large	scale	wildfires	as	well	as	drought	impacts,	insect	infestation	and	

disease.		

Conversion of mesic to xeric sites:		The	tree	thinning	practices	proposed	for	all	action	

alternatives	are	not	expected	to	substantially	change	mesic	sites	to	xeric	sites	and	this	is	not	

expected	to	add	to	any	other	types	of	site	conversions	that	may	occur	within	the	cumulative	effects	

area.	

Grazing:		Livestock	grazing	occurs	in	many	areas	of	the	forest,	but	the	effects	are	primarily	

concentrated	at	meadows.	While	cattle	do	not	alter	the	classifications	of	habitat,	they	can	

potentially	impact	meadows	and	forest	understory	vegetation.	Standards	and	Guidelines	

implemented	by	the	Forest	Service	for	livestock	grazing	substantially	help	avoid	major	impacts	to	

shrubs	and	herbaceous	vegetation.	

Fire Suppression:		One	of	the	major	purposes	of	this	KREW	management	is	to	reduce	forest	fuel	

buildup	that	accumulates	san	the	historic	fire	frequency	of	15­20years	for	these	forests.	This	

management	is	intended	to	reduce	the	severity	of	wildfire	and	restore	a	fire	resilient	forest	

structure.	If	a	wildfire	were	to	occur	in	the	KREW	project	area	following	the	implementation	of	the	

proposed	action,	there	would	be	less	of	an	impact	on	northern	goshawk	habitat	than	if	a	fire	were	

to	occur	without	implementation	of	this	alternative	(refer	to	the	Fire	and	Fuels	Management	

Specialist	report	for	further	details).			

In	addition	to	the	previously	mentioned	habitat	risk	factors,	there	are	two	important	non­habitat	risk	

factors	for	martens:	(1)	development	and	(2)	climate	change.	Climate	change	is	beyond	the	scope	for	this	

analysis	and	areas	of	large­scale	development	are	not	planned	for	the	KREW	area.	Changes	in	vegetation	

composition	and	structure	at	a	scale	larger	than	the	KREW	area	are	summarized	below.	

Biological	Evaluations	for	many	of	the	past	projects	in	the	Sierra	NF	were	reviewed	to	help	inform	the	

present	analysis.	Our	review	of	these	documents	revealed	the	following	basic	information	about	effects	

to	marten	from	these	activities:	

x Twenty­six	(26)	total	project	Biological	Evaluations	(BEs)	were	reviewed,	dating	back	to	1993	

on	the	Sierra	NF.	

x Determinations	reached	were:	

o No	effect	–	7	BEs	

o May	affect	individual	marten,	but	not	likely	to	lead	to	a	trend	toward	federal	listing	or	

loss	of	viability	–	15	BEs	
Final Environmental Impact Statement Kings River Experimental Watershed Project 

Chapter 3­9 – Terrestrial Wildlife 3.9­78 

o May	affect	individual	marten,	and	likely	to	lead	to	a	trend	toward	federal	listing	or	loss	

of	viability	–	0	BEs	

o Marten	were	not	addressed	in	the	document	we	reviewed	due	to	lack	of	habitat	or	other	

reasons	–	4	BEs	

x Types	of	Projects:	Fuels	reduction,	harvest,	hazard	tree	removal,	and	thinning	were	the	

proposed	activities	that	were	most	often	represented	in	the	sample	of	BEs	in	which	the	marten	

was	analyzed.	

x Relative	to	“May	Affect”	projects,	the	described	impacts	to	marten	most	often	fell	in	the	

following	categories:	

o Temporary	disturbances	

o Foraging	area	may	be	burned	if	underburning	gets	out	of	control

o Removed	hazard	trees	could	serve	as	resting	or	denning	sites	

o Habitat	altered	or	removed	

o Reduction	of	habitat	quality	(e.g.,	reduction	in	canopy	cover)	

o Habitat	will	be	entered	

o Noise	disturbance	

Additional	past,	present,	and	reasonably	foreseeable	future	activities	are	outlined	in	Table	3­2.	Many	of	

these	activities	were	judged	to	have	no	effect	on	the	marten	because	the	project(s)	were	taking	place	

below	6000	ft	elevation.	Some	of	the	roadside	hazard	tree	removal	and	recreation	activities	may	cause	

disturbance	to	marten	that	may	be	in	the	area	but	not	have	substantial	changes	in	their	habitat.	

Given	the	marten’s	continued	occupancy	of	a	range	similar	to	its	historical	distribution,	the	small	

percentage	of	suitable	habitat	being	affected	(compared	to	what	is	available	on	the	Forest),	the	retention	

of	the	inherent	structure	of	the	forest,	the	intention	of	reducing	fuels,	and	the	discussion	of	cumulative	

effects,	this	management	alternatives,	although	not	without	risk,	are	not	likely	to	result	in	a	loss	of	

viability	for	the	marten.	

Determination for American Marten

Based	on	the	above	assessment	of	direct,	indirect,	and	cumulative	effects,	it	has	been	determined	that	

Alternative	5	of	the	KREW	project	may affect individuals,	but	are	not	likely	to	result	in	a	trend	toward	

Federal	listing	or	loss	of	viability	for	American	marten.	This	determination	is	based	that	fact	that	all	

direct	impacts	from	the	proposed	action	would	be	relatively	short	term	effects	to	the	species	and	a	

benefit	in	the	long	run	due	to	fuels	reductions,	an	increase	in	the	number	of	large	trees	over	time	that	

could	potentially	be	used	for	denning,	and	protecting	potential	foraging	habitat	in	meadows.

Great Gray Owl

Direct Effects

If	great	gray	owls	are	using	KREW	project	areas,	or	adjoining	areas,	when	management	does	occur,	that	

management	may	potentially	directly	affect	them	as	a	result	of	noise	from	mechanical	vegetation	

clearing	and	fire	and	smoke	from	controlled	burns.		These	activities	may	disturb	the	owl	enough	to	

cause	it	to	forage	elsewhere	creating	a	minor	energetic	expenditure.	The	Project­level	LOP’s,	however,	

will	substantially	reduce	those	potential	impacts	during	the	most	sensitive	period	of	the	nesting	season,	

by	not	allowing	mechanical	activities	from	February	1	to	June	15.		Spring	underburning	also	will	not	

occur	from	February	1	to	about	May	15.		
Final Environmental Impact Statement Kings River Experimental Watershed Project 

Chapter 3­9 – Terrestrial Wildlife 3.9­79 

Implementing	Alternative	4	would	not	result	in	any	change	to	wet	meadow	habitat	due	to	the	lack	of	

management	in	those	areas	or	within	100	feet	of	them.		This	alternative	could	result	in	effects	to	forest	

habitat	that	potentially	may	be	used	for	foraging	and	nesting	through	an	initial	loss	of		307	acres	of	

potentially	high	quality	reproductive,	cover,	and	feeding	habitat	(226	acres	for	Bull	and	81	acres	for	

Providence	)(Table	3­9­6).		This	would	bring	the	total	habitat	acreage	to	1,580	acres	for	the	two	

management	areas.		Although	the	modeled	habitat	decline,	key	habitat	features	will	be	retained	or	

enhanced,	such	as	large	trees	and	snags,	as	well	as	maintaining	an	average	minimum	canopy	cover	of	

40­50	percent	with	a	higher	percent	cover,	and	generally	higher	basal	area,	in	portions	of	the	two	

management	areas,	such	as	lower	slopes	and	riparian	areas.		Also,	by	opening	up	the	overstory	canopy	

and	clearing	some	of	the	decadent	understory	vegetation,	the	understory	vegetation	will	become	more	

diverse	in	age	and	structure,	with	a	greater	amount	of	new	growth,	thus	helping	lead	to	greater	prey	

species	abundance	and	diversity	and	a	more	open	understory	for	flight	patterns	used	in	foraging.			

Indirect Effects

Over	the	30	year	post	treatment	period,	wet	meadow	habitat	would	not	change	in	acreage,	and	mid	to	

late	seral	forest	habitat	will	have	recovered	to	1,827	acres,	which	is	60	acres	less	than	the	current	

amount	(Table	3­9­6).	Although	this	action	removes	of	some	potential	habitat,	the	overall	effect	of	the	

management	is	counter	balanced	by	creating	greater	forest	heterogeneity	and	moving	the	forest	into	a	

greater	ecological	resiliency	that	is	better	capable	of	sustaining	wildfire,	as	well	as	other	threats	from	

insects,	disease,	and	drought	from	climate	change.		The	increased	forest	heterogeneity	and	resiliency	

also	will	provide	long­term	wildlife	habitat	diversity,	including	a	greater	number	of	wildlife	niches	and	

eco­tones	for	greater	diversity	and	abundance	of	prey	species.	These	changes,	along	with	management	

measures	designed	to	retain	and	enhance	key	wildlife	habitat	features,	such	as	retaining	and	promoting	

large	trees,	retaining	large	snags,	maintaining	minimum	canopy	cover	and	coarse	woody	debris,	as	well	

as	creating	greater	understory	vegetation	diversity	and	riparian	area	conservation,	will	help	ensure	this	

habitat	remains	suitable	for	this	species	over	the	long	term.				

One	of	the	major	purposes	of	this	management	is	to	reduce	the	severity	of	wildfire	and	restore	a	fire	

resilient	forest	structure.	If	a	wildfire	were	to	occur	in	the	KREW	project	area	following	the	

implementation	of	the	proposed	action,	there	would	be	less	of	an	impact	on	habitat	than	if	a	fire	were	to	

occur	without	implementation	of	this	alternative	(refer	to	the	Fire	and	Fuels	Management	Specialist	

report	for	further	details).			

Cumulative Effects		

The	area	considered	in	determining	the	cumulative	effects	of	past,	present,	and	reasonably	foreseeable	

activities	on	the	great	gray	owl	encompasses	the	Sierra	NF.	This	is	an	appropriate	scale	for	cumulative	

effects	for	a	species	such	as	the	great	gray	owl,	which	is	non­migratory	and	does	not	have	a	well­defined	

metapopulation	structure	(Duncan	and	Hayward	1994).	Based	on	the	following	analysis,	a	

determination	of	viability	for	the	great	gray	owl	will	be	made.

Biological	Evaluations	for	many	of	the	past	projects	in	the	Sierra	NF	were	reviewed	to	help	inform	the	

present	analysis.	Our	review	of	these	documents	revealed	the	following	basic	information	about	effects	

to	great	gray	owls	from	these	activities:	

x Twenty­six	(26)	total	project	Biological	Evaluations	(BEs)	were	reviewed,	dating	back	to	1993	

on	the	Sierra	NF.	
Final Environmental Impact Statement Kings River Experimental Watershed Project 

Chapter 3­9 – Terrestrial Wildlife 3.9­80 

x Determinations	reached	were:	

o No	effect	–	12	BEs	

o May	affect	individual	owls,	but	not	likely	to	lead	to	a	trend	toward	federal	listing	or	loss	

of	viability	–	10	BEs	

o May	affect	individual	owls,	and	likely	to	lead	to	a	trend	toward	federal	listing	or	loss	of	

viability	–	0	BEs	

o Great	gray	owl	was	not	addressed	in	the	document	we	reviewed	due	to	lack	of	habitat	or	

other	reasons	–	4	BEs	

x Types	of	Projects:	Fuels	reduction,	harvest,	hazard	tree	removal,	and	underburning	were	the	

proposed	activities	that	were	most	often	represented	in	the	sample	of	BEs	in	which	the	great	

gray	owl	was	analyzed.	

x Relative	to	“May	Affect”	projects,	the	described	impacts	to	great	gray	owls	most	often	fell	in	the	

following	categories:	

o Loss	of	foraging	area	if	underburn	gets	out	of	control	

o Reduction	of	habitat	quality	

o Temporary	displacement	because	of	smoke	from	underburning	

o Noise	disturbance	

The	two	factors	considered	most	important	in	determining	habitat	use	by	breeding	great	gray	owls	are	

availability	of	nest	sites	and	availability	of	suitable	foraging	habitat	such	as	meadows	(Duncan	and	

Hayward	1994).		

Meadow Management and Conservation:		As	summarized	below,	there	are	a	total	of	6	wet	meadows	

in	the	Providence	area	that	total	24	acres	(mean	4.0	acres)	and	13	wet	meadows	in	the	Bull	area	that	

total	39	acres	(mean	of	3.0	acres).		Great	gray	owls	tend	to	forage	within	larger	meadows	(i.e.	>20	acres),	

yet	each	KREW	management	area	has	only	one	wet	meadow	greater	than	10	acres:	14.6	acre	meadow	

for	Providence	and	a	12.6	acre	meadow	for	the	Bull.	

Management Area <2 acres 2­10 acres >10 acres

Bull 7 5 1

Providence 3 21

Most	all	past,	present,	and	reasonably	foreseeable	future	activities	listed	and	described	in	Section	3.3.3	

have	no	effect	on	wet	meadow	foraging	habitat.	The	USFS	conserves	wet	meadow	habitat	by	

implementing	standards	and	guidelines	with	their	management,	and	this	includes	monitored	and	

enforcing	100	buffers	for	forest	management	and	implementing	cattle	grazing	standards	to	help	ensure	

meadow	vegetation	is	sustained.			

Forest and Snag Management:		Great	gray	owls	in	California	prefer	pine	and	fir	forests	adjacent	to	

montane	meadows	(Winter	1986),	and	they	also	typically	nest	in	large,	broken­topped	snags,	usually	

greater	than	24	inches	in	diameter.	They	do	not	build	their	own	nests	and	have	been	known	to	use	old	

hawk	or	eagle	nests	(Zeiner	et	al,1990a).	It	is	likely	that	population	densities	and	range	expansion	in	

California	is	limited	by	access	to	suitable	hunting	meadows,	as	great	gray	owls	seldom	forage	in	forest	

habitat	(Duncan	and	Hayward	1994).		

Currently,	there	are	9,050	acres	of	suitable	great	gray	owl	habitat	in	the	4000	to	8,000	foot	elevation	

range	on	the	Sierra	NF.	The	relatively	small	amount	of	mid	and	late	seral	forest	habitat	affected	by	these	

action	alternatives	is	less	than	1%	of	that	total.		Additionally,	although	this	modeling	reflects	overall	
Final Environmental Impact Statement Kings River Experimental Watershed Project 

Chapter 3­9 – Terrestrial Wildlife 3.9­81 

changes	in	habitat,	it	does	not	address	the	smaller	scale	management	actions	that	are	implemented	by	

the	USFS	to	maintain	important	habitat	features.	These	smaller	scale	features	are	specifically	addressed	

by	implementing	Best	Management	Practices	for	Wildlife,	as	well	as	Forest	Service	Standards	and	

Guidelines	(Section	2.0)	for	vegetation	management	projects.		These	criteria	include	retaining	all	trees	

greater	than	30	inches	dbh,	retaining	all	mature	oaks,	and	retaining	all	snags	greater	than	15	inches	dbh,	

unless	deemed	hazardous	for	fire	or	public	safety.		Additionally,	an	average	minimum	canopy	cover	of	

40­50	percent	will	be	maintained	immediately	after	treatments,	including	retaining	a	greater	amount	of	

canopy	cover	and	higher	basal	area	in	portions	of	the	management	areas,	such	as	riparian	areas	and	

lower	north	and	east	slopes.	With	tree	growth	over	15	years,	we	expect	the	canopy	cover	to	regenerate	

to	about	the	same	level	as	current	conditions.	Also,	by	opening	up	the	overstory	canopy	and	clearing	

some	of	the	decadent	understory	vegetation,	the	understory	vegetation	will	become	more	diverse	in	age	

and	structure,	with	a	greater	amount	of	new	growth,	thus	helping	lead	to	greater	understory	vegetation	

abundance,	which	can	lead	to	greater	prey	species	abundance	and	diversity.			

The	total	California	population	of	great	gray	owls	was	estimated	to	be	60	individuals	by	Winter	(1985).	

At	the	time	of	his	survey	in	1984,	Winter	reported	no	new	evidence	of	great	gray	owls	on	the	Sierra	NF.	

In	fact,	only	Black	Point	in	Fresno	County	and	Jackass	Meadow	in	Madera	County	had	recent	owl	

evidence	(two	heard	in	1979,	and	one	possible	sighting	in	1980,	respectively).	Winter	concluded	that	the	

Yosemite	area	was	the	owl’s	last	stronghold	in	California.	Rodney	Siegel	(2001,	2002)	reported	evidence	

(i.e.,	pellets	or	visual	sightings	of	individuals)	of	great	gray	owls	at	seven	Sierra	NF	sites,	ranging	in	

elevation	from	4000	–	7000	feet,	in	2001	and	2002.	An	additional	seven	Sierra	NF	sites	bore	no	evidence	

of	great	gray	owls	during	that	time.	Additionally,	no	nests	were	found	during	the	2001	and	2002	survey	

seasons.	Most	recently,	one	privately	owned	meadow	northeast	of	the	Providence	area	had	evidence	of	

great	gray	owls	in	2004	and	2010.	

Given	the	amount	suitable	habitat	within	the	project	area	and	across	the	Forest,	along	with	the	fact	that	

Siegel	(2001,	2002)	found	evidence	of	great	gray	owls	at	one­half	of	Sierra	NF	sites	that	were	surveyed,	

and	the	Sierra	NF	goal	of	increasing	large	diameter	trees	while	protecting	meadow	and	riparian	habitats,	

the	cumulative	effects	of	vegetation	management	activities	in	the	KREW	project	area	taken	together	

with	past,	present,	and	reasonably	foreseeable	activities	on	the	Forest	will	not	result	in	a	loss	of	viability	

for	the	great	gray	owl.	

Determination

Under	Alternative	5,	it	is	my	determination	that	the	KREW	project	may affect individuals, but is not likely

to result in a trend toward Federal listing or loss of viability for	the	great	gray	owl. This	determination	is	

based	on	the	fact	that	impacts	from	the	action	alternatives	would	be	of	relatively	short	duration,	and	this	

would	be	off­set	by	benefits	to	the	species	in	the	long	run	due	to	a	reduced	potential	for	wildfire	burning	

major	portions	of	the	habitat,	and	an	increase	in	the	number	of	large	trees	over	time	(that	could	potentially	be	

used	for	nesting).		The	wet	meadow	protection	measures	also	will	help	ensure	foraging	habitats	are	sustained	

through	time.	
Final Environmental Impact Statement Kings River Experimental Watershed Project 

Chapter 3­9 – Terrestrial Wildlife 3.9­82 

Pacific Fisher		

Direct Effects		

Direct	effects	to	fisher	from	the	proposed	action	include	noise	from	mechanical	vegetation	clearing,	fire	

and	smoke	from	controlled	burns,	and	direct	loss	of	potential	habitat.	Foraging,	resting,	and	denning	

activities	could	be	affected	by	these	actions,	but	the	project­level	LOP	helps	reduce	the	potential	of	

treatments	negatively	affecting	denning	activities.	

Fishers	are	known	to	use	the	Providence	area,	yet	the	Bull	area	is	generally	too	high	in	elevation	for	

sustained	fisher	use.		In	contrast,	marten	most	likely	use	the	Bull	management	area,	and	the	Providence	

area	is	generally	too	low	in	elevation	for	sustained	marten	use.		Fisher	may	leave	treatment	units	during	

and	immediately	after	project	activities,	although	this	is	expected	to	be	temporary	and	most	likely	those	

individuals,	or	others,	will	use	these	habitats	after	the	treatments.	If	individuals	leave	the	areas	during	

treatments,	they	will	likely	rely	more	heavily	on	other	areas	of	their	home	ranges,	given	that	their	home	

ranges	are	substantially	larger	than	the	project	areas.	

Implementation	of	Alternative	5	also	would	result	in	direct	effects	to	fisher	through	the	initial	increase	

of	30	acres	in	the	Bull	area	and	the	initial	loss	of	12	acres	of	habitat	in	the	Providence	area	(Table	3­9­

24).	Additionally,	the	management	actions	would	retain	an	average	of	at	least	6	snags	per	acre	greater	

than	15	inches	dbh	(Table	3­9­8)	and	remove	only	a	few	trees	greater	than	20	inches	dbh	(Table	3­9­7),	

which	provides	the	larger	trees	that	are	important	for	potential	and	future	fisher	den	and	rest	sites.		

Indirect Effects

The	Bull	management	area	is	above	approximately	7,000	ft	elevation	and	is	above	the	elevation	typically	

known	for	sustained	fisher	use,	and	therefore	not	considered	as	habitat	frequently	used	by	fisher.	The	

PSW	KRP	Fisher	Study	also	found	that	there	is	no	sustained	fisher	use	of	the	Bull	management	area	

during	the	1997­2010	period	although	they	believe	that	some	fishers	may	traverse	that	area	on	

occasion,	such	as	dispersing	males	(Thompson,	C.	2010	pers.	comm.).		Additionally	the	Conservation	

Biology	Institute	(CBI)	(Spencer	et	al.	2008)	shows	the	Bull	area	as	having	less	than	20	percent	fisher	

probability.	In	contrast,	the	Kings	River	Project	Fisher	study	has	located	numerous	fishers	using	the	

Providence	management,	as	summarized	here.		

Female fisher den site locations in, or within one half mile, of the Providence area; and home

range core areas (den site buffer areas) that overlap the Providence Management area.

Fisher ID a		

Latest Year

of Record

Den site or		

home range core area

General Location in Relation to the Providence

Management Area

F19 2010	

Home	range	core	area	overlapping	

the	Providence	Mgt.	Area	

Approximately	32%	(185	acres)	of	the	584	acre	

core	area	overlaps	the	southern	Providence	area	

F19 2010	

Possible	natal	den	and	three	

maternal	dens	

0.15	to	0.3	miles	outside	southeastern	boundary

F22 2009	 Natal		den	and	one	maternal	den	 100­200	ft	inside	northwestern	boundary

Research was unable to obtain an adequate number of relocations for the following individuals,

thus there was inadequate data for reliable home range and core area determinations.

F12 2009	

Natal	and	maternal	dens 0.12	to	0.8	miles	outside	the	southwestern	

boundary,	slipped	its	collar	–	only	provided	12	
Final Environmental Impact Statement Kings River Experimental Watershed Project 

Chapter 3­9 – Terrestrial Wildlife 3.9­83 

relations.

F04 2007	 Rest	structure	w/	kit	

Died	prior	to	providing	an	adequate	number	of	

relocations	for	home	range	and	den	buffer.	

a			Two fisher males (M03 and M23) also use portions of the Providence area as part of their home ranges.

CWHR Habitat:	Pacific	fisher	lower	quality	habitat	includes	CWHR	4P,	5P	and	5S,	and	higher	quality	

habitats	are	CWHR	classes	4M,	4D,	5M,	5D	and	6,	with	the	5M,	5D	having	the	highest	quality	denning	and	

foraging	habitat.	Forest	types	typically	used	by	fisher	are	the	Sierran	mixed­conifer,	Ponderosa	pine,	

Jeffrey	pine,	white	fir,	montane	hardwood­conifer.	Red­fir	forests	are	not	shown	to	be	fisher	habitat.	For	

the	Bull	area,	vegetation	change	modeling	for	Alternative	5	(Table	3­9­24)	shows	an	increase	of	30	acres	

(to	a	total	of	586	acres)	of	habitat	initially	after	treatment	and	a	54	acre	increase	(to	a	total	of	610	acres)	

after	a	30	year	period,	however	the	entire	Bull	management	area	is	not	considered	suitable	habitat	for	

sustained	fisher	use	due	to	its	high	elevation.	The	overall	Bull	area	fisher	habitat	suitability	index	for	

Alternative	5	decreases	0.3;	the	only	increase	in	suitability	rankings	was	in	the	5P	class	(0.02)	and	the	5S	

(0.01)	(Table	3­9­25).		The	CWHR	habitat	modeling	for	the	Providence	area	shows	a	decrease	of	12	

acres	(to	a	total	of	1,490	acres)	initially	after	treatments,	yet	an	increase	of	103	acres	(to	a	total	of	1,605	

acres)	30	years	later.		The	fisher	habitat	suitability	index	for	the	Providence	area	has	a	total	increase	of	

0.08	immediately	after	treatment,	with	the	CWHR	5M	habitat	class	increasing	0.17	and	5D	increasing	

0.03	(Table	3­9­25).		Additionally,	4P	and	5P	remain	consistent.	All	of	these	habitat	types	are	used	by	

fisher.			

Table 3­9­24.			Acres of moderate to high quality fisher habitat for Alternative 5, KREW project.

Bull Current 2012 

Acre 

Change 2042 

Acre 

Change Providence Current 2012 

Acre 

Change 2042 

Acre 

Change 

RFR PPN 

4D NA NA NA NA NA 4D 129 104 -25 136 7

4M NA NA NA NA NA 4M 57 76 19 6 -51

4P NA NA NA NA NA 4P 0 1 1 1 1

5D NA NA NA NA NA 5D 1 1 0 31 30

5M NA NA NA NA NA 5M 8 8 0 22 14

Total RFR NA NA NA NA NA Total PPN 195 190 -5 196 1

SMC SMC 

4D 115 46 -69 22 -93 4D 365 252 -113 264 ­101

4M 161 86 -75 33 -128 4M 502 404 -98 89 ­413

4P 99 84 -15 38 -61 4P 113 126 13 36 ­77

5D 0 0 0 11 11 5D 75 121 46 309 234

5M 85 119 34 271 186 5M 150 237 87 547 397

5P 85 217 132 235 150 5P 71 155 84 164 93

5S 11 34 23 0 -11 5S 31 5 -26 0 ­31

Total SMC 556 586 30 610 54 Total SMC 1307 1300 -7 1409 102 

Bull Total 556 586 30 610 54 

Providence 

Total 1502 1490 -12 1605 103
Final Environmental Impact Statement Kings River Experimental Watershed Project 

Chapter 3­9 – Terrestrial Wildlife 3.9­84 

KREW 

Total 2058 2076 18 264 ­101

Table 3­9­25. Changes in Weighted Fisher Habitat Scores for All Alternatives, KREW Project. 

CWHR2.

1 Score 

Alt 1 Alt 2 Diff 

from 

Alt 1 

Alt 3 Diff 

from 

Alt 1 

Alt 4 Diff 

from 

Alt 1 

Alt 5 Diff 

from 

Alt 1 

Bull 

4D 0.89 0.18 0.04 ­0.14 0.03 ­0.15 0.04 ­0.14 0.04 ­0.14

4M 0.69 0.20 0.11 ­0.09 0.13 ­0.07 0.05 ­0.15 0.06 ­0.14

4P 0.34 0.06 0.03 ­0.03 0.03 ­0.03 0.03 ­0.03 0.03 ­0.03

5D 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

5M 0.8 0.12 0.10 ­0.02 0.06 ­0.06 0.07 ­0.05 0.09 ­0.03

5P 0.38 0.06 0.04 ­0.02 0.05 ­0.01 0.08 0.02 0.08 0.02

5S 0.21 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01

Totals 0.63 0.32 ­0.31 0.30 ­0.33 0.28 ­0.35 0.31 ­0.32

Providence 

4D 0.89 0.29 0.22 ­0.07 0.17 ­0.12 0.20 ­0.09 0.21 ­0.08

4M 0.69 0.25 0.20 ­0.05 0.23 ­0.02 0.23 ­0.02 0.22 ­0.03

4P 0.34 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.03 0.00

5D 1 0.05 0.04 ­0.01 0.09 0.04 0.08 0.03 0.08 0.03

5M 0.8 0.08 0.15 0.07 0.14 0.06 0.13 0.05 0.25 0.17

5P 0.38 0.04 0.04 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.03 ­0.01 0.04 0.00

5S 0.21 0.01 0.00 ­0.01 0.00 ­0.01 0.00 ­0.01 0.00 ­0.01

Totals 0.74 0.69 ­0.05 0.70 ­0.04 0.70 ­0.04 0.82 0.08

Although	this	modeling	reflects	overall	changes	in	habitat,	it	does	not	address	the	smaller	scale	

management	actions	that	are	implemented	to	maintain	important	habitat	features.	These	smaller	scale	

features	are	specifically	addressed	by	implementing	Best	Management	Practices	for	Wildlife,	as	well	as	

FS	S&Gs	(Section	2.0).		These	criteria	include	retaining	all	trees	greater	than	30	inches	dbh,	retaining	all	

mature	oaks,	and	retaining	all	snags	greater	than	15	inches	dbh,	unless	deemed	hazardous	for	fire	or	

public	safety.		Additionally,	an	average	minimum	canopy	cover	of	40­50	percent	will	be	maintained	

immediately	after	treatments,	including	retaining	a	greater	amount	of	canopy	cover	and	higher	basal	

area	in	portions	of	the	management	areas,	such	as	riparian	areas	and	lower	north	and	east	slopes.	With	

tree	growth	over	15	years,	we	expect	the	canopy	cover	to	regenerate	to	about	the	same	level	as	current	

conditions.	Also,	by	opening	up	the	overstory	canopy	and	clearing	some	of	the	decadent	understory	

vegetation,	the	understory	vegetation	will	become	more	diverse	in	age	and	structure,	with	a	greater	

amount	of	new	growth,	thus	helping	lead	to	greater	understory	vegetation	abundance,	which	can	lead	to	

greater	prey	species	abundance	and	diversity.			
Final Environmental Impact Statement Kings River Experimental Watershed Project 

Chapter 3­9 – Terrestrial Wildlife 3.9­85 

Landscape	topography	is	one	element	that	substantially	influences	wildlife	habitat	use	patterns,	such	as	

Pacific	fisher	and	CSO	(Underwood	et	al.	2010).		For	example,	habitat	types	in	riparian	areas	and	lower	

slopes	are	much	different	than	ridge	tops,	and	their	use	is	different.		The	KREW	Project	strives	to	

incorporate	topography	in	its	design	criteria	based	on	the	recommendations	provided	in	North	et	al.	

(2010),	which	is	supported	by	Underwood	et	al.	(2010).	A	preferred	management	strategy	as	outlined	in	

Alternatives	4	or	5	is	to	maintain	or	maximize	canopy	cover	in	portions	of	the	landscape	that	are	most	

valuable	to	Pacific	fisher	and	CSO	for	denning,	resting,	and	nesting	habitat	(e.g.,	riparian	areas,	lower	

slopes),	while	allowing	for	localized	reductions	in	canopy	cover	over	other	portions	of	the	forest	

landscape	(e.g.,	ridge	tops)	to	enhance	forest	heterogeneity,	understory	diversity,	tree	regeneration,	and	

habitats	for	prey	species.			

There	may	be	a	short­term	reduction	in	prey	availability	within	some	areas	of	the	treatment	areas;	

however,	long­term	positive	effects	of	treatment	should	promote	the	growth	and	re­growth	of	

understory	vegetation,	which	provides	forage	for	prey	species,	as	well	as	hiding	and	thermal	cover.	The	

horizontal	and	vertical	diversity	of	understory	forest	structure	and	species	also	may	be	improved	in	

some	sites	as	a	result	of	partially	opening	the	forest	overstory.	This	in­turn	would	bring	greater	

biodiversity	into	the	stands,	promoting	greater	prey	species	abundance	and	diversity.	

Habitat	modification	may	lead	to	increased	predation	of	fisher	by	mountain	lion,	bobcat,	or	coyote.	

Predation	potentially	could	increase	if	an	individual	fisher	were	to	move	into	unfamiliar	habitat,	

although	this	would	be	unlikely	as	all	male	and	female	home	ranges	extend	beyond	the	KREW	project	

boundary.	Habitat	disturbance	in	the	project	area	also	may	exacerbate	individual	fisher	mortality	

induced	by	disease.	The	degree	of	these	potential	effects	are	unknown,	but	may	be	illuminated	through	

the	Kings	River	Project	Fisher	Study.		

Retained Live Trees, Snags and Down Wood (logs):		This	alternative	will	retain	all	trees	greater	than	

30	inches	dbh,	all	mature	oaks,	and	all	snags	greater	than	15	inches	dbh,	except	for	those	that	are	

hazardous	for	fuels	management	and	public	safety.	Current	conditions,	as	well	as	through	the	30	year	

post­treatment	period	shows	that	there	will	be	at	least	6	snags	per	acre	greater	than	15	inches	dbh	

(Table	3­9­8).		Although	this	action	may	remove	some	trees	20	to	30	inches	dbh	that	could	become	

future	large	trees	or	snags,	a	majority	of	trees	in	that	size	class	will	be	retained	to	promote	larger	trees	

and	snags	in	the	future	(Table	3­9­7).	Prescribed	underburning	also	is	expected	to	create	a	net	increase	

in	the	number	of	snags	over	the	long­term.		

Recruitment	and	removal	of	snags	and	coarse	woody	debris	are	of	concern	when	planning	fuel	

treatments	including	prescribed	burning	and	thinning	because	of	their	importance	as	habitat	elements	

and	their	contribution	to	fire	hazards.		As	part	of	the	action,	thinning	is	intended	to	reduce	density	

related	mortality	of	trees,	resulting	in	lower	recruitment	of	snags	and	down	logs	than	would	occur	with	

the	No	Action	Alternative.		The	larger	size	of	down	woody	debris	and	snags,	yet	lower	overall	volume,	is	

more	favorable	for	fisher	habitat	as	it	provides	potential	resting	and	denning	sites	while	reducing	the	

high	fuel	loads	that	contribute	to	uncharacteristically	severe	wildfire.		There	would	be	reduced	chances	

of	long	range	spotting,	less	likelihood	of	embers	being	transported	long	distances,	and	wildfires	with	

less	resistance	to	control.			

Fisher	typically	den	in	oaks,	ponderosa	pine,	white	fir,	and	cedar,	either	as	snags,	or	live	trees	with	

cavities	(Thompson	et	al.	2010;	Purcell	2009;	Zielinski	et	al.	2004a).	In	the	KRP	study,	oak	den	trees	

averaged	31.9	inches	dbh	and	conifers	averaged	40.7	inches.	Rest	trees	also	are	large,	averaging	35.8	

inches	dbh	(9.4	to	73.5	inches)	(Thompson	pers.	comm.).	Most	resting	structures	used	in	the	KRP	area	
Final Environmental Impact Statement Kings River Experimental Watershed Project 

Chapter 3­9 – Terrestrial Wildlife 3.9­86 

were	in	live	trees	(76	percent),	15	percent	were	in	snags,	3	were	in	logs	and	2	each	were	in	stumps	and	

rock	crevices	(Purcell	et	al.	2009).	Using	this	information,	and	other	recent	literature,	the	USFS	

developed	a	goal	for	maintaining	a	minimum	of	17	potential	resting/denning	live	and	dead	trees	per	

acre	for	fisher	rest	sites	and	dens.		This	goal	would	be	reached	after	treatments	are	completed	for	each	

management,	as	shown	by	Tables	3­9­7	and	3­9­8).	The	results	shown	for	retained	trees	(Table	3­9­7)	

are	only	for	live	coniferous	trees	and	they	do	not	reflect	the	additional	trees	provided	by	all	mature	oaks	

that	are	retained,	as	well	as	dead	trees	(snags),	which	are	shown	in	the	same	table.	This	information	

indicates	that	the	management	areas	exceed	the	USFS	minimum	level	of	17	trees	that	may	provide	rest	

and	den	sites.					

Down Wood (logs): Table	3­9­9	show	the	retained	loading	of	dead	and	down	woody	material	as	a	result	

of	the	treatments,	and	we	expect	that	large	percentage	of	the	wood	remaining	after	treatments	will	be	in	

the	larger	size	class	logs	that	were	available	prior	to	treatments,	such	as	prescribed	fire.		This	woody	

material	will	provide	suitable	rest	sites,	potential	den	sites	and	substrate	for	prey	species.	Additionally,	

current	volumes	of	down	coarse	woody	debris	would	remain	in	the	majority	of	the	watersheds	in	

untreated	areas	including	riparian	corridors	and	identified	leave	areas	within	the	KREW	project	units.

Understory	burning	will	not	change	fisher	habitat	classification,	nor	will	it	substantially	change	

overstory	canopy	cover.		It	will	convert	some	retained	live	trees	to	snags	over	the	long­term.	

Underburning	may	eliminate	some	ground	dwelling	prey	species	within	the	Providence	area,	which	

could	lead	to	a	decrease	in	available	prey	items	over	the	short­term,	therefore	an	indirect	effect	to	the	

fisher.	The	extent	of	the	effect	of	this	burning	management	on	ground	dwelling	prey	species	is	unknown,	

although	it	is	expected	to	be	minimal	since	we	expect	an	increase	in	rodents	and	other	small	animals	

within	a	few	years	after	the	treatments	due	to	new	herbaceous	and	shrub	vegetation	growth,	which	are	

important	for	woodrats.	Other	prey	species,	such	as	squirrels,	are	expected	to	remain	relatively	constant	

because	their	habitation	of	the	overstory	canopy	and	would	not	be	affected	as	much	by	management	

activity.		

Habitat Connectivity:		Habitat	connectivity	will	be	maintained	in	the	project	area	with	the	

implementation	of	design	criteria	including	Old	Forest	Linkages	(OFLs),	and	no	treatment	areas	such	as	

riparian	SMZs	and	steep	slopes	off	limits	to	mechanized	thinning.		There	are	23	acres	of	OFL	associated	

with	the	Providence	Project	area	which	occur	along	the	headwaters	of	Duff	Creek.		One	of	the	2008	natal	

dens	was	associated	with	this	OFL.	Duff	Creek	is	a	tributary	of	Big	Creek	within	Blue	Canyon,	connecting	

available	habitats	to	several	other	project	areas,	as	well	as	an	identified	female	fisher	home	range.		There	

are	6	acres	of	OFL	identified	along	the	headwaters	of	Bull	Creek.		Bull	Creek	is	a	tributary	of	Deer	Creek	

which	feeds	into	Dinkey	Creek,	connecting	available	habitats	within	Bull	project	area	to	other	project	

areas,	and	to	two	identified	female	fisher	home	ranges.			

Prescribed Underburning:	Prescribed	underburns	will	be	used	to	reduce	the	number	of	understory	

firs	and	cedars	as	well	as	to	clear	some	surface	dead	wood,	specifically	the	smaller	and	more	flash­burn	

type	wood.		Prescribed	burns	tend	to	burn	less	severe	than	wildfires,	hence	only	some	of	the	all	larger	

diameter	(e.g.	>24	inches	diameter)	surface	dead	wood	will	be	consumed.	This	underburning	also	will	

burn	back	many,	but	not	all	shrubs.		Those	effects	typically	on	understory	vegetation	would	only	be	

temporarily	due	to	the	ability	of	most	shrubs	and	herbaceous	vegetation	to	rapidly	reestablish.		With	

less	understory	saplings	and	intermediate	sized	trees,	the	stands	generally	will	be	more	open	with	a	

mosaic	of	young	and	old	shrub	patches.	This	greater	heterogeneity	of	overstory	and	understory	

vegetation	will	not	only	create	increased	forest	health,	growth	rate,	but	also	greater	resiliency	to	severe,	
Final Environmental Impact Statement Kings River Experimental Watershed Project 

Chapter 3­9 – Terrestrial Wildlife 3.9­87 

large	scale	stand	replacing	wildfire.		This	greater	diversity	of	understory	vegetation	also	will	provide	

greater	diversity	for	small	mammals	and	other	prey	species.		

Habitat and Habitat Changes in Fisher Den Site Buffers and Home Ranges in the Project Area

2010 Fisher Use of the Project Area (Fisher #19)

Figure	3­9­4,	shows	the	2010	fisher	home	range	and	den	site	buffer	that	overlaps	the	Providence	

management	area.		The	home	range	of	this	fisher	(Fisher	No.	19)	is	2,439	acres,	of	which	322	acres	are	

within	the	project	area.		The	associated	781	acre	den	buffer	area	(Figure	3­4)	for	this	fisher	den	site	is	

the	60	percent	isopleth	boundary	identified	by	the	PSW	­	Kings	River	Fisher	Study	team,	and	

approximately	26	percent	(205	acres)	of	that	den	buffer	is	within	the	project	area.		

Table	3­9­11	shows	that	about	half	(48%)	of	the	fisher	habitat	in	the	den	buffer	will	not	be	treated	with	

thinning	management,	and	the	remaining	habitat	will	be	treated	with	varying	types	of	thinning	(not	

clearcutting)	according	to	each	action	alternative.			

Tables	3­9­12	through	3­9­15	show	that	less	than	2	percent	of	that	original	fisher	habitat	within	the	

home	range	and	den	buffer	will	be	converted	to	non­fisher	habitat	(CWHR	3S	and	3M)	as	a	result	of	

treatments	proposed	by	the	action	alternatives,	both	immediately	after	treatment	and	30	years	posttreatment.	Tables	3­9­19	and	3­9­20	also	show	that	at	75%	to	100%	of	the	fisher	den	buffer	area	and	the	

fisher	home	range	will	have	at	least	60%	canopy	cover	or	greater	(CWHR	Class	D)	immediately	after	

treatment	and	30	years	post­treatment.		

Fisher den buffers in the Project Area Prior to 2010 (Fishers #12 and 22)

As	noted	previously,	three	other	fishers	had	den	sites	either	in	are	near	the	Providence	area	prior	to	

2010,	and	two	of	those	fishers	(F04	and	F12)	did	not	have	enough	relocations	(i.e.>25)	to	accurately	

depict	home	ranges	and	core	areas.		F04	female	died	during	the	denning	season,	thus	had	incomplete	

maternity	den	data.			We	used	the	F12	approximate	den	buffer	as	part	of	this	assessment	as	well	as	F022	

data	(Figure	3­9­4).		Fisher	F12	had	a	60%	isopleth	den	buffer	area	of	940	acres;	whereas	fisher	F22	had	

a	60%	isolpleth	den	buffer	area	of	725	acres.		Approximately	125	acres	of	the	providence	project	area	is	

within	the	F12	den	buffer	area	and	164	acres	within	the	F22	den	buffer	area	and	all	of	that	those	areas	

currently	consist	of	fisher	habitat.	Tables	3­9­16	and	3­9­17	show	the	type	of	management	proposed	to	

take	place	within	those	areas	and	the	amount	of	fisher	habitat	acreage	immediately	after	treatment	and	

30­years	post­treatment	(Fisher	habitat	is	CWHR	4P,	4M,	4D,	5S,	5P,	5M,	5D	in	Mixed	Conifer	forest,	and	

Ponderosa	Pine	habitat	type	does	not	include	5S).		There	is	no	change	in	the	fisher	habitat	within	the	F12	

den	buffer	immediately	after	treatment	and	30­years	post­treatment,	compared	with	Alternative	1.		

Within	the	F22	den	buffer	there	is	a	decline	of	10	acres	of	fisher	habitat	immediately	after	treatment	

under	Alternatives	4	and	5,	as	compared	with	Alternative	1,	and	that	remains	the	same	30­years	posttreatment.		

Cumulative Effects

We	assessed	the	cumulative	effects	of	the	KREW	project	actions	on	fishers	at	multiple	scales:	1)	Sierra	

Nevada	Region;	2)	Southern	Sierra	Fisher	Conservation	Area	(SSFCA);	3)	Kings	River	Project	Area;	4)	

Sierra	National	Forest;	and	5)	Fisher	Home	Range	Buffer	Area	(home	range	areas	that	could	potentially	

be	influenced	by	the	project).		At	the	SSFCA	scale	we	considered	habitat	changes	to	date	as	well	as	

foreseeable	future	actions,	and	the	Fisher	Home	Range	Buffer	scale	is	a	similar	assessment	but	with	finer	
Final Environmental Impact Statement Kings River Experimental Watershed Project 

Chapter 3­9 – Terrestrial Wildlife 3.9­88 

grain	assessment	of	changes	to	CWHR	habitat	types	both	within	the	management	areas	as	well	as	within	

a	3.1	mile	buffer.		This	3.1	buffer	represents	an	area	where	average	female	fisher	home	range	(95%	

kernel	home	range	of	4,735	acres)	may	overlap	or	adjoin	the	project	area.	The	average	home	range	was	

derived	from	27	radio	collared	female	fishers	studied	from	2007­2009	in	the	Kings	River	Fisher	Project	

(KRFP)	of	SNF.	(Thompson	et	al.	2010).		Moderate	and	high	quality	fisher	habitat	(CWHR	4M,	4D,	5Mand	

5D)	between	the	elevations	of	3,000	to	6,500	ft	(typical	fisher	elevational	limits)	were	used	in	this	

assessment.		Assessments	of	the	Fisher	Home	Range	scale	defined	past,	present	and	foreseeable	future	

CWHR	habitat	changes	within	3.1	miles	surrounding	the	two	management	areas.			

Sierra Nevada Region:		Findings	from	the	USFWS	annual	review	of	native	species	that	are	candidates	

for	listing	as	endangered	or	threatened	(Federal	Register:	Vol.	72:	69034­69105),	reemphasized	that	the	

three	remaining	areas	containing	fisher	populations,	including	the	southern	Sierra	Nevada,	“appear	to	

be	stable	or	not	rapidly	declining	based	on	recent	survey	and	monitoring	efforts”.		

The	California	Department	of	Fish	and	Game	in	their	Evaluation	of	Petition:	Request	of	the	Center	for	

Biological	Diversity	to	list	the	Pacific	fisher	(CDFG	2008)	found	that	the	information	provided,	and	that	

was	evaluated	by	the	Department,	did	not	indicate	an	immediate	or	substantial	change	in	either	

population	or	distribution	of	fishers	since	the	selected	benchmark	analysis	period	beginning	with	the	

assessment	provided	by	Grinnell	et	al.	(1937).	Based	on	this	information,	the	Department	finds	that	the	

fisher	has	sustained	itself	since	the	Grinnell	period,	with	no	evidence	of	recent,	immediate,	or	substantial	

change	in	population	or	distribution,	despite	a	decline	in	late	successional	forest.	Available	information	

suggests	this	may	be	the	case	for	a	number	of	reasons.	Recent	studies	of	fisher	habitat	use,	occurrence,	

and	movement	patterns	indicate	fishers	also	use	managed	forest	habitats	of	mixed	tree	age	structure	

and	canopy	closure,	which	have	essential	attributes	such	as	snag/large	tree	attributes	remaining	for	

resting/denning.	Fishers	are	no	longer	subject	to	the	substantial	mortality	factors	of	trapping	and	

poisoning	of	prey	that	were	common	in	past	decades.	Forest	management	in	California	has	been	

trending	toward	more	retention	of	late	successional	stands	and	this	change	in	management	activity	

likely	has	been,	and	will	be,	beneficial	to	species	such	as	the	fisher	in	the	future.	

Southern Sierra Fisher Conservation Area:		The	SSFCA	is	the	primary	regional	scale	considered	in	

assessing	cumulative	effects	of	past,	present,	and	reasonably	foreseeable	activities	on	fisher.		This	SSFCA	

is	approximately	1,018,000	acres	and	is	bounded	by	an	elevational	band	from	3,500	to	8,000	feet	on	the	

Sierra	and	Sequoia	National	Forests	and	Yosemite	and	Sequoia	National	Parks	that	also	are	within	

known	occupied	range	of	the	fisher.	This	is	an	appropriate	scale	for	a	broader	scale	cumulative	effects	

analysis	because	the	SSFCA	is	an	integral	component	of	the	conservation	strategy,	as	described	in	the	

SNFPA	ROD.	Habitat	within	Yosemite	and	Sequoia	National	Parks	are	not	expected	to	change	

substantially	due	to	their	management.	Additionally,	the	CBI	Phase	2	report	and	maps	(Spencer	et	al.	

2008)	were	also	considered,	which	consists	of	the	previously	mentioned	areas	plus	Stanislaus	National	

Forests,	however	Stanislaus	NF	was	not	included	in	this	assessment	because	it	currently	lacks	evidence	

of	fisher	presence.		

Table	3­9­11	lists	management	projects	within	the	SSFCA,	but	outside	the	KRP	area.		Sequoia	National	

Forest	has	one	current	forest	management	project	(Ice)which	consists	of	743	acres	of	prescribed	

burning,	as	well	as	four	other	pending	projects.	There	are	3,264	acres	of	potential	future	projects,	in	the	

foreseeable	future,	involving	fuels	treatments	(prescribed	burns	and	mastication)	and	some	potential	

thinning,	however,	final	details	of	the	size	and	prescriptions	for	those	projects	will	not	be	known	until	

final	planning	is	completed.		
Final Environmental Impact Statement Kings River Experimental Watershed Project 

Chapter 3­9 – Terrestrial Wildlife 3.9­89 

Sierra National Forest:	Suitable	fisher	habitat	on	the	SNF	has	increased	slightly	from	422,000	acres	

about	ten	years	ago	to	449,000	acres	presently	(USDA	Forest	Service	2006b).	Rick	Truex,	a	USFS	fisher	

scientist	believes	fishers	may	have	increased	their	spatial	distribution	on	SNF	since	the	mid­1990s	and	

that	the	annual	occupancy	rate	within	SNF	seems	to	be	consistent,	though	the	spatial	pattern	of	

detections	appears	more	variable	among	years	than	on	the	Sequoia	National	Forest	(Truex	pers.	comm.).	

The	combination	of	a	stable	or	slightly	increasing	amount	of	suitable	fisher	habitat	on	the	SNF	over	the	

last	ten	years	and	perhaps	an	increasing	spatial	distribution	of	fishers	make	it	reasonable	to	conclude	

the	cumulative	effects	of	vegetation	management	activities	on	the	Forest	have	not	reduced	overall	

habitat	suitability	for	fishers	on	the	Forest.	

Tables	3­1	through	3­4	list	the	past,	present	and	foreseeable	activities	that	we	took	into	consideration	in	

our	analysis..	These	projects	include	the	prescribed	burn	program,	other	fuel	reduction	projects,	timber	

and	culture	projects,	active	cattle	allotments,	and	recreational	activities	and	events	(e.g.,	off­highway	

vehicles	[OHVs]	and	off­snow	vehicles	[OSVs]).	Since	1992,	commercial	thinning	and/or	fuel	reduction	

projects	between	the	San	Joaquin	and	Kings	Rivers	covering	more	than	500	acres	(Reese,	10S18,	I­Rock,	

Jose	1,	and	South	of	Shaver	)	reduced	basal	area	to	about	60	percent	of	full	stocking	and	canopy	cover	to	

about	40	percent	in	ponderosa	pine	stands	and	50	percent	in	mixed	conifer	stands.	Stream	Management	

Zones	along	perennial	streams	(100	feet	on	both	sides)	were	not	thinned,	retaining	existing	habitat	

function	in	those	areas.	The	Dinkey	South	project	is	expected	to	decrease	fisher	suitable	habitat	by	6	

percent	immediately	after	treatment	and	the	adjacent	Dinkey	North	project	is	projected	to	result	in	a	

1percent	loss	in	suitable	fisher	habitat	within	its	boundaries	immediately	after	project	implementation.	

All	of	these	projects	are	predicted	to	ultimately	result	in	an	increase	of	the	quality	and	amount	of	fisher	

habitat	within	project	boundaries	over	the	long	term.	

Possibly	the	greatest	potential	effect	of	vegetation/fuels	management	projects	on	mid­seral	forest	

within	close	juxtaposition	to	the	KREW	management	areas	is	the	proposed	private	land	Quarry	Timber	

Sale	adjoining	the	Providence	management	area.		The	private	land	sale	was	included	as	a	foreseeable	

action	and	included	in	our	assessment	of	potential	changes	in	fisher	habitat	within	the	cumulative	

effects	assessment	area.	This	timber	sale	involves	547	acres	of	uneven	aged	timber	harvest	that	will	

leave	at	least	100	sq	ft	of	basal	area	immediately	after	harvest	with	at	least	15	sq	ft	of	that	amount	as	

seed	trees	greater	than	18	inches	dbh.		An	estimated	500	ac	of	that	area	consists	of	closed	canopy	forest	

available	for	harvest,	and	most	of	these	mid­seral	forests	will	most	likely	become	open	mid­seral	forest,	

thus	increasing	that	particular	habitat	type	on	lands	adjoining	the	Providence	area.	This	management	

may	have	some	effects	on	fishers	inhabiting	that	area,	such	as	reducing	potential	den	and	rest	sites	with	

high	canopy	cover,	as	well	as	potentially	producing	greater	understory	vegetation	species	and	

abundance	of	herbaceous	and	shrub	vegetation,	which	in­turn	will	increase	habitat	for	many	fisher	prey	

species.			

Currently	all	of	the	vegetation	management	projects	on	federal	and	private	lands	in	the	KRP	area	will	

retain	at	least	approximately	40	percent	overstory	canopy	cover	immediately	after	treatment	and	many	

areas	will	have	greater	than	50	or	60	percent.	The	fact	that	all	these	projects	will	provide	for	greater	

forest	heterogeneity	and	greater	understory	vegetation	abundance	and	diversity	is	a	benefit	to	species	

that	use	this	forest	habitat,	as	well	as	reducing	their	susceptibility	to	wildfire,	drought,	insects,	and	

disease,	which	will	help	perpetuate	these	forest	habitats	on	the	landscape.			

The	17,300	acre	underburning	program	of	work	has	been	and	continues	to	be	for	maintenance	of	DFPZs,	

reducing	surface	fuel	loads	and	reintroducing	fire	into	the	landscape.	Approximately	8,495	hazard	trees	

of	all	size	classes	have	been	removed	from	within	the	Kings	River	Project	area	throughout	the	last	five	

years.	This	represents	approximately	2.4	trees	per	acre.	Hazard	tree	removal	may	eliminate	some	
Final Environmental Impact Statement Kings River Experimental Watershed Project 

Chapter 3­9 – Terrestrial Wildlife 3.9­90 

potential	fisher	rest	sites	but	because	most	hazard	trees	are	identified	in	proximity	to	roads,	

campgrounds	and	other	developed	sites,	the	likelihood	for	use	by	fishers	is	minimal.			

The	Bass	Lake	Ranger	District	of	SNF	currently	has	five	land	management	projects	of	the	size	that	could	

influence	the	cumulative	effect	on	fisher	habitat	(Table	3­9­25).	Treatments	have	recently	been	

completed	for	Sonny	Meadows	North	(with	955	acres	of	treatments),	Sonny	Meadows	South	(with	1,400	

or	more	acres	of	commercial	thinning),	and	Cedar	Valley	(with	approximately	915	acres	of	commercial	

thinning).		Sugar	Pine	(2,900	acres	of	fuel	reduction	prescriptions)	has	completed	its	NEPA	and	

treatments	will	begin	in	2011.	The	preferred	alternative	for	the	Sugar	Pine	project	is	predicted	to	result	

in	the	conversion	of	53	acres	of	fisher	habitat	to	lower	quality	habitat,	roughly	1%	of	the	potential	

habitat	in	the	project	area.	Fish	Camp	(with	2,000­3,000	acres	of	treatments)	is	reasonably	foreseeable	

and	it	will	be	undergoing	NEPA	in	late	2010	and	early	2011.	This	project	is	in	a	higher	elevation	area	

with	less	high	quality	habitat	than	the	Sugar	Pine	project	and	it	would	include	provisions	to	minimize	

impacts	to	fisher	and	would	be	fully	analyzed	through	the	NEPA	process	to	help	ensure	management	

effects	are	addressed.	All	of	these	projects	are	not	expected	to	substantially	reduce	the	amount	of	fisher	

habitat	over	the	long­term,	although	there	may	have	been,	or	could	be,	short­term	affects	to	the	habitat	

and	some	short­term	disturbances	to	fisher	during	project	activities.		Overall	habitat	suitability	would	

increase	over	the	long	term	as	a	result	of	these	proposed	treatments,	and	the	project	would	not	increase	

habitat	fragmentation	since	post­harvest	habitat	would	remain	suitable	for	fisher.		

All	of	these	current	and	foreseeable	projects	will	include	management	provisions	that	sustain	fisher	

populations,	as	directed	by	FS	S&Gs	and	other	wildlife	conservation	management	requirements.	All	of	

these	projects	also	will	be	analyzed	through	the	NEPA	process,	which	will	help	ensure	management	

effects	on	species	are	addressed.		As	a	result,	the	potential	effects	of	all	action	alternatives	of	the	KREW	

project	are	not	expected	to	create	cumulative	effects	when	combined	with	past,	present	and	foreseeable	

future	actions	and	events	in	the	SSFCA.		

Table 3­9­26. Major Actions within the Southern Sierra Fisher Conservation Area (SSFCA)

Evaluated for the Cumulative Effects Analysis for Fisher.

Activity

Type Description

Past, Present,

or		

Future Action

Unit of

Measure

Relation to

SSFCA

(1,018,000 ac)

Effects on fisher

habitat

Bass Lake

RD

Fuels	

reduction	

Sonny	Meadows	

North	(Bass	

Lake	District)	

Reasonably	

foreseeable		

955	acres	 0.09%	 No	loss	of	habitat	

Commercial	

thinning	

Sonny	Meadows	

South	(Bass	

Lake	District)	

Reasonably	

foreseeable		

1,400	acres	 0.14%	 No	loss	of	habitat	

Commercial	

thinning	

Cedar	Valley	

(Bass	Lake	

District)	

Reasonably	

foreseeable	

915	acres	 (628	ac	

affected)	68%	

of	project	=	

0.06%	of	SSFCA	

Short	term	

reduction	of	

denning	habitat	
Final Environmental Impact Statement Kings River Experimental Watershed Project 

Chapter 3­9 – Terrestrial Wildlife 3.9­91 

Activity

Type Description

Past, Present,

or		

Future Action

Unit of

Measure

Relation to

SSFCA

(1,018,000 ac)

Effects on fisher

habitat

Fuels	

reduction	

Sugar	Pine	

(Bass	Lake	

District)	

Reasonably	

foreseeable	

2,920	acres	 0.29%	 53	ac	converted	

to	lower	quality	

habitat	roughly	

1%	of	project	

area	

Fuels	

reduction	

Fish	Camp	(Bass	

Lake	District)	

Reasonably	

foreseeable	

2,000	–	

3,000	acres	

0.19%­0.29%	 Less	impact	to	

fisher	than	Sugar	

Pine	Project	

Sequoia NF

Commercial	

thinning	

Frog	Project	

(Sequoia	NF)	

Reasonably	

foreseeable	

510	acres	 Combined	10	to	

20%	for	all	

Sequoia	

projects	(234	to	

469	acres)	

Not	expected	to	

result	in	CWHR	

size	class	and	

cover	type		

though	would	

result	in	loss	of	

habitat	

Commercial	

thinning	

Ice	Project	–	

Helicopter	

(Sequoia	NF)		

Reasonably	

foreseeable	

284	acres	 0.02%	 Short	term	

reduction	of	

denning	habitat	

Commercial	

thinning	

Saddle	Project	

(Sequoia	NF)	

Reasonably	

foreseeable	

1,311	acres	 0.12%	 Short	term	

reduction	of	

denning	habitat	

Commercial	

thinning	

White	River	

Project	–	

Helicopter	

(Sequoia	NF)	

Reasonably	

foreseeable	

239	acres	 0.02%	 Short	term	

reduction	of	

denning	habitat	

Fuels	

Reduction	

Sawmill	 Reasonably	

foreseeable	

1,5000	acres	

(estimated)	

0.14%	 Short	term	

reduction	of	

denning	habitat	

Fuels	

Reduction	

Breckenridge	 Reasonably	

foreseeable	

921	acres	 Not	in	SSFCA	 	

Project Area:		Table	3­9­26	compares	the	changes	in	fisher	habitat	within	the	KREW	management	areas	

as	compared	with	fisher	habitats	at	multiple	scales,	including	a	3.1	mile	buffer	area	(bounded	by	a	

3,000­6,500	elevation	range)	around	the	Providence	management	area.		We	did	not	assess	a	similar	

boundary	around	the	Bull	area	because	the	Bull	area	is	above	the	typical	elevation	used	by	fisher	and	is	

not	considered	good	habitat	for	sustained	fisher	use	(also	refer	to	earlier	discussions	of	this	topic).		

Habitats	in	the	buffer	area	approximate	the	latest	conditions	because	they	include	the	results,	or	

estimated	results,	of	other	current	or	foreseeable	FS	vegetation	management	projects	that	have	

definitive	silvicultural	prescriptions,	such	as	Dinkey	North	and	Dinkey	South	projects.		The	results	show	

that	the	minor	decrease	of	fisher	habitat	in	the	Providence	area,	immediately	after	treatment,	would	be	

less	than	one	percent	of	that	total	habitat	within	a	3.1	mile	buffer	of	the	Providence	management	area,	

thus	the	management	is	not	expected	to	create	cumulative	effects	when	compared	with	existing	or	

foreseeable	habitat	conditions	within	areas	that	may	affect	female	fisher	home	ranges	(e.g.	habitat	
Final Environmental Impact Statement Kings River Experimental Watershed Project 

Chapter 3­9 – Terrestrial Wildlife 3.9­92 

within	the	3.1	mile	area	surrounding	the	Providence	area),	as	well	as	at	larger	scales,	such	as	at	the	KRP	

area	and	SSFCA	area.		

Table 3­9­27.		Effects of Alternative 5 on Pacific fisher habitat when compared with habitat

available at different scales.		

Project	Area	 3.1	Mile	Buffer	 KRP	Area	 SSFCA	

Area Current

2012

Acres

Acre

Change Acres

%

Difference Acres

%

Difference Acres

%

Difference

Bull 556	 586	 30	 ­­­­­­­­	 ­­­­­­­­	 ­­­­­­­­	 ­­­­­­­­	 ­­­­­­­­	 ­­­­­­­­	

Providence 1502	 1490	 ­12 26,600	 0.05% 40,000 0.03% 449,000 0.003%	

All	action	alternatives	are	expected	to	result	in	long­term	positive	effects	to	the	fisher	by:	1)	increasing	

the	amount	of	fisher	habitat;	2)	reducing	the	potential	for	large	scale,	stand	eliminating	wildfires;	and	3)	

promoting	the	growth	and	re­growth	of	understory	vegetation,	which	provides	forage	for	prey	species,	

as	well	as	hiding	and	thermal	cover.	The	horizontal	and	vertical	diversity	of	forest	vegetation	structure	

and	species	also	may	be	improved	in	some	sites	as	a	result	of	partially	opening	the	forest	overstory.	This	

in­turn	would	bring	greater	biodiversity	into	the	stands,	promoting	greater	prey	species	abundance	and	

diversity,	including	promoting	the	establishment	and	improved	growing	conditions	of	black	oaks,	which	

are	important	components	of	fisher	habitat.	These	factors,	combined	with	the	project	measures	

implemented	to	sustain	Pacific	fisher,	outweigh	the	short­term	negative	effects	of	treatments	(due	to	

partial	loss	of	forest	biomass	immediately	after	disturbance),	especially	considering	that	a	more	severe	

fire	regime	is	predicted	for	the	future,	and	without	fuels	reduction,	large	scale,	stand	replacing	wildfires	

would	most	likely	cause	serious	and	substantial	impacts	to	high	quality	fisher	habitat.		

Determination

Based	on	the	above	assessment	of	direct,	indirect,	and	cumulative	effects,	it	has	been	determined	that	

the	proposed	action	for	the	KREW	project	may affect individuals, but is not likely to contribute to

the need for Federal listing or result in loss of viability for the	Pacific	fisher	because:	

x Trees	currently	providing	fisher	rest	and	den	structure	would	be	retained.	This	includes:	

x All	oaks	and	snags	,	not	a	human	hazard,		

x All	conifers	larger	than	30	inches	and	almost	all	larger	than	24	inches	dbh		

x Additional	forest	components	which	contribute	to	habitat	suitability	for	fishers	would	be	

identified	and	maintained	or	enhanced.	The	provisions	include:	

x Identification	and	protection	of	fisher	rest	site	groups,	

x Establishing	minimum	canopy	cover	retention	levels,	and		

x Protecting	and	enhancing	habitat	heterogeneity	at	multiple	scales.	

x The	initial	loss	of	12	acres	of	habitat	is	minimal	and	not	expected	to	substantially	add	to	existing	

conditions	of	habitat	in	the	cumulative	effects	assessment	areas,	and	over	a	30	year	period	will	

increase	to	an	amount	greater	than	current	conditions.	

x Tree	removal	and	fuels	reduction	activities	proposed	are	expected	to	reduce	extent,	severity,	

and	intensity	of	wildfires	within	and	adjacent	to	treated	stands	while	maintaining	existing	

habitat	functionality.	
Final Environmental Impact Statement Kings River Experimental Watershed Project 

Chapter 3­9 – Terrestrial Wildlife 3.9­93 

Willow Flycatcher 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

Alternative	5	would	not	result	in	any	direct	effects	to	willow	flycatcher	or	its	habitat.	The	proposed	

action	would	not	result	in	any	treatments	within	meadow	habitats.	The	modeling	for	the	proposed	

action	shows	the	two	acres	of	meadows	within	the	Providence	management	area	will	remain	for	the	

next	30	years.	

The	proposed	action	includes	a	measure	to	avoid	and	minimize	effects	to	willow	flycatcher	habitat.	This	

measure,	design	criteria,	states	that	no	mechanical	equipment	would	be	used	within	100	feet	of	

meadows.	This	buffer	would	help	minimize	the	potential	for	erosion	and	effects	to	hydrology	around	

meadows.	

When	a	wildfire	would	occur	is	not	certain.	When	it	does,	the	loss	of	habitat	would	contribute	to	the	

cumulative	loss	that	fire	poses	to	willow	flycatcher	habitat	throughout	the	SNF.		

Cumulative Effects 

As	there	are	no	direct	effects	or	non­wildfire	related	indirect	effects,	the	proposed	action	does	not	

contribute	to	overall	cumulative	effects.	

Determination 

Based	on	the	above	assessment	of	direct,	indirect,	and	cumulative	effects,	it	has	been	determined	that	

the	proposed	action	alternative	of	the	KREW	project	would	result	in	no	effect	to	willow	flycatcher.	This	

determination	is	based	on	the	fact	that	no	potential	or	known	willow	flycatcher	habitat	would	be	

directly	affected	by	the	proposed	action	and	no	direct	effects	would	occur	to	individuals	because	willow	

flycatchers	are	not	known	to	nest	in	the	project	area.	

Pallid Bats 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

The	pallid	bat	tends	to	be	a	roosting	habitat	generalist	that	utilizes	many	different	natural	and	manmade	

structures.	Foraging	requirements	appear	to	be	more	restrictive.	Pallid	bats	appear	to	be	more	

prevalent	within	edges,	open	stands,	particularly	hardwoods,	and	open	areas	without	trees.	The	

reduction	of	hardwoods,	both	from	manual	removal	and	competition	from	conifers,	reduces	foraging	

habitat	for	pallid	bats.	However,	the	proposed	action	desired	condition	is	to	protect	hardwoods	from	

removal	and	reduce	competition	from	conifers.	Therefore,	there	should	be	a	beneficial	effect	to	the	

species	resulting	from	improved	hardwood	conditions.			

Pallid	bats	may	roost	in	tree	hollows,	which	may	be	burned	when	the	underburning	occurs.	As	stated	

above,	literature	shows	that	they	utilize	snags.	Snags	would	only	be	removed	from	the	Public	and	

Firefighter	Safety	Zone	and	along	transportation	corridors	where	some	snags,	if	they	were	to	fall,	pose	a	

threat	to	humans.	This	would	result	in	a	small	reduction	of	snag	numbers	(see	discussion	under	

cumulative	effects	to	CSO)	and	as	a	result	reduce	potential	roost	trees.			
Final Environmental Impact Statement Kings River Experimental Watershed Project 

Chapter 3­9 – Terrestrial Wildlife 3.9­94 

Bats	may	leave	the	area	when	logging	occurs	due	to	noise	disturbance	or	due	to	smoke	from	

underburning,	although	they	most	likely	would	return	after	treatments	are	completed	because	their	

roosting	and	foraging	habitat	would	still	be	present.		

One	of	the	purposes	of	the	proposed	action	is	to	reduce	the	severity	of	fire	and	restore	a	fire­resilient	

forest	structure.	Snags	outside	the	Public	and	Firefighter	Safety	Zone	and	along	transportation	corridors	

would	not	be	removed	as	part	of	the	proposed	action.	An	indirect	beneficial	effect	of	this	action	is	the	

reduction	of	the	threat	of	wildfire	to	those	snags	that	would	be	maintained	as	part	of	the	proposed	

action.	It	is	uncertain	when	a	wildfire	would	occur,	however,	when	it	does,	the	loss	of	habitat	would	

contribute	to	the	cumulative	loss	that	fire	poses	to	pallid	bat	habitat	throughout	SNF.		

Cumulative Effects 

Since	activities	under	the	proposed	action	would	have	a	small	direct	and	a	beneficial	indirect	effect	from	

proposed	management	activities	within	the	boundary	of	the	project,	the	potential	cumulative	effects	on	

pallid	bat	habitat	could	result	from	the	past,	present,	and	foreseeable	actions	listed	in	Tables	3­1	

through	3­4	and	contributions	from	the	alternative.	The	landscape	scale	encompasses	known	habitat	

and	provides	an	area	of	sufficient	size	to	assess	the	potential	impacts	on	this	habitat.	The	landscape	

scale	was	used	as	the	area	to	determine	if	additions	to	cumulative	effects	on	habitat	are	expected	to	be	

added	by	the	KREW	project.	

Biological	Evaluations	for	many	of	the	past	projects	in	the	SNF	were	reviewed	to	help	inform	the	present	

analysis.	Our	review	of	these	documents	revealed	the	following	basic	information	about	effects	to	pallid	

bats	from	these	activities:	

Twenty­six	project	BEs	were	reviewed,	dating	back	to	1993	on	the	SNF.	The	species	was	not	

listed	as	FS	Sensitive	until	the	updated	list	from	June	1998.		

Determinations	reached	were:	

x No	effect	–	4	BEs	

x May	affect	individual	bats,	but	not	likely	to	lead	to	a	trend	toward	federal	listing	or	loss	of	

viability	–	10	BEs	

x May	affect	individual	bats,	and	likely	to	lead	to	a	trend	toward	federal	listing	or	loss	of	

viability	–	0	BEs	

x Pallid	bat	was	not	addressed	in	the	document	we	reviewed	due	to	lack	of	habitat	or	other	

reasons	–	12	BEs	

Types	of	Projects:	Fuels	reduction,	hazard	tree	removal,	thinning,	and	underburning	were	the	

proposed	activities	that	were	most	often	represented	in	the	sample	of	BEs	in	which	the	pallid	

bat	was	analyzed.	

Relative	to	“May	Affect”	projects,	the	described	impacts	to	pallid	bats	most	often	fell	in	the	

following	categories:	

x Loss	of	roosting	trees/snags	

x Displacement	because	of	smoke	from	underburning	

x Noise	disturbance	

x Two	projects		at	the	landscape	scale	listed	in	Tables	3­1	through	3­4	reduced	canopy	cover	

on	a	total	of	210	acres	

Several	risk	factors	were	identified	for	pallid	bats	in	the	SNFPA	(USDA	Forest	Service	2001b):	(1)	

removal	of	hardwoods	and	subsequent	reduction	in	foraging	habitat,	(2)	thick	understory	vegetation	

between	the	ground	and	8	feet	in	height,	(3)	prey	reduction	resulting	from	heavy	grazing,	(4)	renewed	

exploration	or	closure	of	mines,	(5)	recreational	caving,	and	(6)	loss	of	tree	roosts.		
Final Environmental Impact Statement Kings River Experimental Watershed Project 

Chapter 3­9 – Terrestrial Wildlife 3.9­95 

Across	federal	lands,	hardwoods	are	not	generally	removed	unless	they	are	hazards.	On	private	lands,	

hardwoods	are	not	removed	due	to	a	lack	of	merchantability	and	California	State	Forest	Practice	rules.	

Thus	relative	to	risk	factor	#1,	the	greatest	loss	of	hardwoods	is	due	to	conifer	encroachment	and	

subsequent	shading	of	oaks.			

Relative	to	risk	factor	#2,	the	cool	burns	and	mechanical	removal	of	small	trees	and	brush,	which	would	

result	from	implementation	of	the	vegetation	management	treatments	and	prescribed	fire	listed	in	

Tables	3­1	through	3­4,	would	benefit	the	pallid	bat	by	thinning	the	understory	that	occurs	within	8	feet	

of	the	ground	(Ballard,	C.	pers.	comm.	in	USDA	Forest	Service	2010).	

Risk	factor	#3	results	from	heavy	grazing	and	the	subsequent	lack	of	ground	cover.		While	grazing	

occurs	across	the	project	area,	range	management	guidelines	and	BMPs	prevent	loss	of	ground	cover	

that	could	lead	to	loss	in	pallid	bat	prey	base.	

Risk	factors	#4	and	#5	deal	with	caves	or	mine	closures.	The	past,	present,	and	reasonably	foreseeable	

projects	in	Tables	3­1	through	3­4	do	not	affect	either	mines	or	caves.			

Loss	of	tree	roosts,	risk	factor	#6,	results	from	projects	listed	in	Tables	3­1	through	3­4	that	can	remove	

or	reduce	large	snags,	i.e.,	roadside	hazard	tree	removal,	KREW	research	projects,	the	Dinkey	North	and	

South	project,	prescribed	fire,	and	vegetation	management	activities.	For	an	analysis	of	the	effects	of	

roadside	hazard	tree	removal	and	vegetation	management	activities,	see	the	above	discussion	under	

cumulative	effects	to	CSO.	Prescribed	fire	and	vegetation	management	treatments	relying	on	prescribed	

fire	such	as	the	KREW	research	project	could	result	in	temporary	reductions	in	large	snag	numbers.	

However,	observations	by	forest	managers	on	the	High	Sierra	Ranger	District	indicate	that	longer	term	

snag	creation	results	after	prescribe	fire.	Tree	mortality	combined	with	long­term	creation	of	snags	from	

prescribed	fire	have	the	net	result	of	a	small	increase	in	snag	numbers	across	the	cumulative	effects	

boundary.	These	activities	would	not	have	a	cumulative	effect	relative	to	risk	factor	#6.		

Also,	pallid	bats	occur	most	frequently	below	6,000	feet	and	are	especially	sensitive	to	the	removal	of	

hardwoods	(USDA	Forest	Service	2001b).	Except	for	4D	and	5D,	CWHR	rates	all	size	classes	and	

densities	in	blue	oak	woodlands	as	High	for	pallid	bat,	in	terms	of	meeting	its	foraging	needs.	Montane	

hardwood	conifer	and	montane	hardwood	habitats	are	rated	low	for	pallid	bat	by	CWHR	(CDFG	2008).	

Currently,	there	are	32,600	acres	of	blue	oak	woodlands	and	251,000	acres	of	montane	hardwoods	and	

montane	hardwood	conifers	below	8,000	ft	on	the	SNF	in	CWHR	size	classes	2	and	higher.	The	

protection,	maintenance,	and	enhancement	of	such	westside	foothill	oaks	and	montane	oaks	are	

expected	to	benefit	pallid	bats	by	ensuring	the	continued	availability	of	roosting	sites.	Indeed,	all	

alternatives	proposed	in	the	SNFPA	would	lead	to	an	increase	in	oak	species	(USDA	Forest	Service	

2001b).	Cumulative	effects	discussed	in	the	SNFPA	stated	that	there	have	been	no	recent	changes	in	the	

range	or	distribution	of	the	pallid	bat	(USDA	Forest	Service	2001b).	For	these	reasons,	and	given	the	

long­term	objective	for	retention	of	all	conifers	larger	than	30	inches	and	almost	all	larger	than	24	

inches,	and	the	foregoing	discussion	of	effects,	the	cumulative	effects	of	vegetation	management	

activities	in	the	KREW	project	area	taken	together	with	past,	present,	and	reasonably	foreseeable	

activities	on	the	Forest	would	not	result	in	a	cumulative	effect	for	the	pallid	bat.	

Determination 

Based	on	the	above	information	the	proposed	action	may	affect	individuals,	but	is	not	likely	to	result	in	a	

trend	toward	Federal	listing	or	loss	of	viability	for	the	pallid	bat.	This	determination	was	made	based	the	

potential	for	the	project	to	remove	trees	used	for	roosting	and	individuals	may	leave	the	area	because	of	
Final Environmental Impact Statement Kings River Experimental Watershed Project 

Chapter 3­9 – Terrestrial Wildlife 3.9­96 

smoke	during	underburning	activities.	There	would	also	be	noise	disturbance	to	the	bats	while	logging	

occurs.	

3­9.5 Comparison of Alternatives – TES Species 

CWHR Habitat:		The	nearly	all	of	the	moderate	to	high	quality	habitat	for	the	terrestrial	wildlife	species	

assessed	in	this	document	is	within	the	CWHR	Sierran	Mixed	Conifer,	Ponderosa	Pine	and	Red	fir	classes	

4M,	4D,	5M,	and	5D.		Wet	meadows	are	also	important;	however	the	management	will	not	change	the	

amount	of	that	habitat	immediately	after	the	treatments	and	30	years	later.	

As	seen	in	Table	3­9­27,	the	proposed	action	(Alternative	5),	for	the	Providence	area,	would	initially	lose	

81	acres	(6%	of	the	total)	of	mature	forest	with	moderate	to	dense	forest	canopy	cover	(CWHR	4M,	4D,	

5M,	5D),	yet	have	a	net	increase	in	that	habitat,	of	117	acres,	30	years	later,	although	this	would	still	be	

170	acres	less	than	what	is	projected	under	the	no­action	alternative.	Alternatives	2­4	also	would	have	

similar	changes,	albeit	in	different	amounts.	Specifically	for	the	Providence	area,	Alternatives	2­4	would	

lose	73­99	acres	of	habitat	immediately	after	treatment	but	increase	suitable	habitat	by	105­130	acres	

30	years	after	treatment.	The	numbers	of	large	trees	and	snags	would	not	decrease	as	a	result	of	

treatments.	

Table 3­9­28. Acres of Mature Forest Habitat, by Alternative, Immediately after KREW Project

Treatment. a

Bull Current 2012 

Acre 

Change 2042 

Acre 

Change Providence Current 2012 

Acre 

Change 2042 

Acre 

Change 

Alt. 1 600 536 ­64 836 236 Alt. 1 1287 1299 12 1574 287

Alt. 2 600 448 ­152 450 ­150 Alt. 2 1287 1188 ­99 1392 105

Alt. 3 600 433 ­167 424 ­176 Alt. 3 1287 1214 ­73 1417 130

Alt. 4 600 310 ­290 371 ­229 Alt. 4 1287 1206 ­81 1403 116

Alt. 5 600 374 ­226 412 ­188 Alt. 5 1287 1203 ­81 1347 117

a		Habitat acres are mature forests with moderate and dense overstory canopy cover (CWHR 4M, 4D, 5M, 5D; there is no Class

6 habitat in the project area).

Retained Trees:		All	trees	greater	than	30’	dbh,	and	nearly	all	trees	larger	than	20”	dbh,	will	be	retained	

by	management	of	all	action	alternatives.	Table	3­9­28	further	shows	that	the	number	of	large	live	trees	

after	treatment	by	Alternative	5,	and	other	action	alternatives,	will	be	similar	to	those	under	the	no	

action	alternative	(Alternative	1).		

Table 3­9­29. Number of Trees Retained, Per Acre by Alternative, Immediately after KREW Project 

Treatment. 

Bull 

Alt. 1 

Current Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Alt. 5 

Alt. 1 

Current Current Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Alt. 5 

20-30 “ 15 14 15 14 14 20-30 “ 20 18 20 19 19

30-35” 4 4 4 4 4 30-35” 4 4 4 4 4
Final Environmental Impact Statement Kings River Experimental Watershed Project 

Chapter 3­9 – Terrestrial Wildlife 3.9­97 

>35” 7 7 7 7 7 >35” 5 5 5 5 5

Retained Snags:	Snags	greater	than	15	inches	dbh	will	be	retained	in	large	numbers	by	all	action	

alternatives	(Table	3­9­29).	Currently	under	the	no	action	alternative	there	are	7.7	snags	per	acre.		

Alternative	2	shows	an	increase	to	8.8	per	acre	immediately	after	treatment,	whereas	Alternatives	3­5	

decline	to	7.1,	6.0	and	6.7,	respectively.		Although	the	numbers	decline	immediately	after	treatment,	they	

still	meet	the	FS	desired	conditions	of	4	snags	per	acre	for	Sierra	mixed	conifer	and	ponderosa	pine	and	

6	per	acre	for	red	fir.		Additionally,	the	numbers	of	snags	increase	by	at	least	1­2	snags	per	acre	over	the	

following	30	year	period	for	all	action	alternatives	(Table	3­9­29).	

Table 3­9­30. Number of Snags, by Alternative, Immediately after KREW Project Treatment. 

Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Alt. 5 

ID Current 2012 2042 2012 2042 2012 2042 2012 2042 2012 2042 

Snags in Bull Management Area 

15-24” 2.6 3.1 5.5 3.1 4.6 3.1 4.1 3.1 2.9 3.1 3.6 

24-35” 1.2 1.4 3.5 1.4 3.3 1.4 3.2 1.4 2.9 1.4 3.1 

>35” 0.9 1.1 2.3 1.1 2.3 1.1 2.3 1.1 2.1 1.1 2.2 

Total 

>15” 

4.7 5.6 11.3 5.6 10.1 5.6 9.5 5.6 7.5 5.6 8.8 

Snags in the Providence Management Area 

Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Alt. 5 

ID Current 2012 2042 2012 2042 2012 2042 2012 2042 2012 2042 

15-24” 3.8 4.2 5.5 4.2 4.2 4.2 4.0 4.2 4.4 4.2 4.4 

24-35” 1.5 1.4 2.7 1.4 2.5 1.4 2.3 1.4 2.5 1.4 2.4 

>35” 0.7 0.6 0.7 0.6 0.8 0.60 0.8 0.6 0.8 0.6 0.8 

Total 

>15” 

5.9 6.3 8.9 6.3 7.6 6.3 7.0 6.3 7.7 6.3 7.7 

Down Wood (logs): Table	3­9­30	shows	the	amount	of	large	woody	debris	(LWD)	within	each	of	the	

treatment	areas.		Most	treatment	units	contain	greater	than	10	logs	per	acre,	and	this	LWD	averages	

greater	than	15	inches	diameter.		Prescribed	underburning	will	reduce	some	of	this	material,	however	

most	of	the	loss	is	expected	to	occur	in	the	smaller	diameter	wood	and	most	of	the	larger	pieces	of	LWD	

are	expected	to	remain	after	burning	activity.			

Table 3­9­31.		Large Woody Debris (Logs) per Acre in Treatment Stands		

Treatment

Stand

Logs per Acre Cubic Feet per

Acre

Tons per Acre Average Mean Log

Diameter

KREW Bull

796	 17.68	 1397	 12.8	 20.23	

811	 10.22	 869	 6.82	 19.79	

838	 21.09	 1111	 8.43	 19.16	
Final Environmental Impact Statement Kings River Experimental Watershed Project 

Chapter 3­9 – Terrestrial Wildlife 3.9­98 

Treatment

Stand

Logs per Acre Cubic Feet per

Acre

Tons per Acre Average Mean Log

Diameter

961	 13.18	 970	 7.53	 17.82	

962	 20.80	 762	 5.48	 15.64	

964	 14.74	 1612	 13.69	 21.64	

965	 11.50	 1094	 10.33	 18.66	

1043	 17.78	 1037	 10.58	 12.67	

1056	 17.41	 2048	 16.37	 20.20	

1057	 21.65	 16.16	 14.27	 16.82	

KREW 

Providence

235	 9.85	 995	 9.31	 14.92	

236	 8.00	 672	 5.37	 15.43	

280	 8.94	 1254	 10.03	 19.25	

281	 12.92	 1160	 11.00	 17.97	

295	 13.33	 788	 8.35	 10.28	

299	 8.00	 444	 3.83	 10.42	

301	 12.50	 1355	 11.04	 15.71	

306	 22.00	 1344	 11.99	 22.00	

316	 17.00	 1550	 12.52	 19.99	

331	 11.73	 480	 5.08	 11.77	

346	 10.29	 1788	 15.95	 19.81	

365	 16.73	 1001	 6.47	 16.46	

380	 12.00	 662	 4.36	 10.37	

449	 11.73	 2137	 16.03	 16.85	

454	 9.6	 1131	 15.91	 11.90	

499	 23.00	 1166	 10.61	 13.35	

Determinations: Table	3­9­31	summarizes	the	determinations	of	the	effects	of	the	KREW	project	on	

terrestrial	wildlife	species	assessed	in	this	document.	

Table 3­9­32. Determinations of the effects of the KREW Project on terrestrial wildlife species.

Species No Action Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Alternative 5

California 

spotted owl 

No effect may affect 

individuals, but is 

not likely to lead to 

federal listing or 

loss of viability 

may affect 

individuals, but is 

not likely to lead to 

federal listing or 

loss of viability 

may affect 

individuals, but is 

not likely to lead to 

federal listing or 

loss of viability 

may affect 

individuals, but is 

not likely to lead to 

federal listing or 

loss of viability 

Northern 

goshawk 

No effect may affect 

individuals, but is 

not likely to lead to 

federal listing or 

loss of viability 

may affect 

individuals, but is 

not likely to lead to 

federal listing or 

loss of viability 

may affect 

individuals, but is 

not likely to lead to 

federal listing or 

loss of viability 

may affect 

individuals, but is 

not likely to lead to 

federal listing or 

loss of viability 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Kings River Experimental Watershed Project 

Chapter 3­9 – Terrestrial Wildlife 3.9­99 

Great gray owl No effect may affect 

individuals, but is 

not likely to lead to 

federal listing or 

loss of viability 

may affect 

individuals, but is 

not likely to lead to 

federal listing or 

loss of viability 

may affect 

individuals, but is 

not likely to lead to 

federal listing or 

loss of viability 

may affect 

individuals, but is 

not likely to lead to 

federal listing or 

loss of viability 

Pacific fisher No effect may affect 

individuals, but is 

not likely to lead to 

federal listing or 

loss of viability 

may affect 

individuals, but is 

not likely to lead to 

federal listing or 

loss of viability 

may affect 

individuals, but is 

not likely to lead to 

federal listing or 

loss of viability 

may affect 

individuals, but is 

not likely to lead to 

federal listing or 

loss of viability 

American marten No effect may affect 

individuals, but is 

not likely to lead to 

federal listing or 

loss of viability 

may affect 

individuals, but is 

not likely to lead to 

federal listing or 

loss of viability 

may affect 

individuals, but is 

not likely to lead to 

federal listing or 

loss of viability 

may affect 

individuals, but is 

not likely to lead to 

federal listing or 

loss of viability 

Pallid bat No effect may affect 

individuals, but is 

not likely to lead to 

federal listing or 

loss of viability 

may affect 

individuals, but is 

not likely to lead to 

federal listing or 

loss of viability 

may affect 

individuals, but is 

not likely to lead to 

federal listing or 

loss of viability 

may affect 

individuals, but is 

not likely to lead to 

federal listing or 

loss of viability 

Willow 

Flycatcher 

No effect No effect No effect No effect No effect 

3­9.6 Management Indicator Species (MIS) 

3­9.6.1 Scope of Analysis

Table	3­9­32	lists	the	eight	FS	MIS	that	may	be	affected	by	the	KREW	project	(USDA	Forest	Service	

2007a).		The	Terrestrial Wildlife Management Indicator Species Report	assesses	the	effects	of	the	KREW	

project	on	the	habitats	of	those	species.		A	summary	of	that	assessment	is	provided	here,	please	refer	to	

the	Management Indicator Species Report	for	further	details.				

Table 3­9­33. MIS Species and Their Habitats Assessed for the KREW Project. 

Habitat or Ecosystem

Component

CWHR Type(s) Defining the Habitat or

Ecosystem Component1

Sierra Nevada Forests

Management Indicator

Species	­	Scientific Name

Shrubland	

(west­slope	chaparral	types)	

Montane	chaparral	(MCP),	mixed	

chaparral	(MCH),	chamise­redshank	

chaparral	(CRC)	

Fox	sparrow	

Passerella iliaca

Riparian	 Montane	riparian	(MRI),	valley	foothill	

riparian(VRI)	

Yellow	warbler	

Dendroica petechia

Early	Seral	Coniferous	Forest	

(trees	up	to	10.9”dbh)	

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

Mid	Seral	Coniferous	Forest	

(11”	to	23.9”	dbh	trees)	

Ponderosa	pine	(PPN),	Sierran	mixed	

conifer	(SMC),	white	fir	(WFR),	red	fir	

Mountain	quail	

Oreortyx pictus
Final Environmental Impact Statement Kings River Experimental Watershed Project 

Chapter 3­9 – Terrestrial Wildlife 3.9­100 

Habitat or Ecosystem

Component

CWHR Type(s) Defining the Habitat or

Ecosystem Component1

Sierra Nevada Forests

Management Indicator

Species	­	Scientific Name

(RFR),	eastside	pine	(EPN),	tree	size	4,	

all	canopy	closures	

Late	Seral	Open	Canopy	

Coniferous	Forest	

(24”dbh	trees	and	greater,	<40%	

canopy	closure)	

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 obscures

Late	Seral	Closed	Canopy	

Coniferous	Forest	

(24”dbh	trees	and	greater,	40%+	

canopy	closure)	

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.	

California	spotted	owl	

Strix occidentalis

occidentalis

American	marten	

Martes americana

northern	flying	squirrel	

Glaucomys sabrinas

Snags	in	Green	Forest	 Medium	and	large	snags	in	green	forest	 Hairy	woodpecker	

Picoides villosus

3­9.6.2 Methodology

Project­level	effects	on	MIS	habitat	are	analyzed	and	disclosed	as	part	of	environmental	analysis	under	

the	National	Environmental	Policy	Act	(NEPA).	This	involves	examining	the	impacts	of	the	proposed	

project	alternatives	on	MIS	habitat	by	discussing	how	direct,	indirect,	and	cumulative	effects	would	

change	the	habitat	in	the	analysis	area.	

These	project­level	impacts	to	habitat	are	then	related	to	broader	scale	(bioregional)	population	and/or	

habitat	trends.	The	appropriate	approach	for	relating	project­level	impacts	to	broader	scale	trends	

depends	on	the	type	of	monitoring	identified	for	MIS	in	the	LRMP	as	amended	by	the	Sierra	Nevada	

Forests	MIS	Amendment	ROD.	Hence,	where	the	SNF	LRMP	as	amended	by	the	Sierra	Nevada	Forests	

MIS	Amendment	ROD	identifies	distribution	population	monitoring	for	an	MIS,	the	project­level	habitat	

effects	analysis	for	that	MIS	is	informed	by	available	distribution	population	monitoring	data,	which	are	

gathered	at	the	bioregional	scale.	The	bioregional	scale	monitoring	identified	in	the	SNF	LRMP,	for	MIS	

analyzed	for	the	KREW	project,	is	provided	in	the	Management Indicator Species Report	for	the	KREW	

project	and	summarized	in	the	following	sections.		The	steps	of	this	assessment	process	are	described	in	

detail	in	the	Pacific	Southwest	Region’s	draft	document	“MIS	Analysis	and	Documentation	in	ProjectLevel	NEPA,	R5	Environmental	Coordination”	(May	25,	2006).		

3­9.6.3 Environmental Consequences

3­9.6.3.1 No Action Alternative – All MIS Habitats 

Direct Effects 

The	no	action	alternative	would	not	implement	actions	therefore	this	no	action	alternative	would	not	

result	in	direct	effects	to	the	MIS	habitats	assessed	in	this	document.		
Final Environmental Impact Statement Kings River Experimental Watershed Project 

Chapter 3­9 – Terrestrial Wildlife 3.9­101 

Indirect Effects 

Under	the	no	action	alternative,	the	KREW	management	areas	(Bull	and	Providence)	will	be	operated	

under	their	current	management	direction.		Alternative	1	(no	action	alternative)	will	not	produce	

impacts	that	add	to	other	actions	and	events	in	the	environment	therefore	there	will	be	no	indirect	

effects	to	any	MIS	habitats	assessed	for	this	project	as	a	result	of	implementing	Alternative	1.		

By	not	implementing	forest	restoration	or	fuels	reduction,	this	no	action	alternative	would	lead	to	

greater	fuels	buildup	as	well	as	changes	in	the	forest	stands	that	may	not	be	typical	for	the	natural	range	

of	ecological	variability	present	for	these	ecosystems	prior	to	when	fire	suppression	began	almost	a	

century	ago.	This	lack	of	management	has	led,	or	will	lead,	to	these	stands	being	highly	susceptible	to	

wildfire,	drought,	insects,	and	disease	(also	refer	to	the	Fire/Fuels	and	Silvicultural	Specialist	Reports	

for	this	project).		If	wildfire	does	occur	under	current	fuel	load	conditions,	it	could	substantially	alter,	

reduce	or	eliminate	wildlife	habitat	types	and	possibly	have	substantial	repercussions	on	wildlife	

species,	particular	those	with	low	numbers	and	tenuous	populations.			

Cumulative Effects 

As	there	are	no	direct	effects,	or	non­wildfire	related	indirect	effects,	the	no­action	alternative	does	not	

contribute	to	overall	cumulative	effects	to	MIS	habitats	assessed	for	the	KREW	project.	Wildfires	may	

affect	habitat	in	the	project	area,	and	if	wildfire	does	occur	under	current	fuel	load	conditions,	it	could	

substantially	alter,	reduce	or	eliminate	wildlife	habitat	types	and	possibly	have	substantial	

repercussions	on	wildlife	species,	particular	those	with	low	numbers	and	tenuous	populations.			

3­9.6.3.2 Action Alternatives (Alternatives 2­5) 

Direct and Indirect Effects		

The	following	sections	summarize	the	direct	and	indirect	effects	of	the	KREW	project	alternatives	on	

MIS	habitats:	Shrubland,	Riparian,	Early	and	Mid­seral	Forests,	Late	Seral	Forests	and	Snags	within	

Green	Forests.	The	four	action	alternatives	(Alternatives	2­5)	are	assessed	together	for	each	of	these	

habitats	because	they	are	somewhat	similar	actions	varying	primarily	with	the	type	of	forest	thinning.	

Prescribed	fire	treatments	are	the	same	for	all	action	alternatives.		Each	of	the	action	alternatives	

(Alternatives	2­5)	may	have	direct	and	indirect	effects	on	MIS	habitats,	and	Tables	3­9­33	and	3­9­34	

show	changes	in	habitat,	immediately	after	treatment,	as	a	result	of	implementing	the	KREW	project	

alternatives.		

Table 3­9­34. Summary of Changes in Post­treatment MIS Habitat – Providence Management Area. 

Alt. 1

a

Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5

Habitat

Type

Current		

Acres

2012b %

Change

2012 %

Change

2012 %

Change

2012 %

Change

Shrubland 29 29 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%

Riparian 

(See section 

for habitat 

description) 

277 277 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%

Coniferous 

forest, early 

152 139 138 ­1% 124 ­11% 132 ­5% 133 ­4%
Final Environmental Impact Statement Kings River Experimental Watershed Project 

Chapter 3­9 – Terrestrial Wildlife 3.9­102 

seral 

Coniferous 

forest, mid 

seral 

681 652 605 ­7% 666 2% 641 ­2% 712 9%

Coniferous 

forest, late 

seral, open 

canopy 

74 72 159 121% 140 94% 160 122% 153 113%

Coniferous 

forest, late 

seral, closed 

canopy 

234 236 356 51% 416 76% 363 54% 367 56%

Snags per 

acre in 

green forest 

(>15”) – 

(average 

snags/acre) 

7.7 7.7 8.8 14% 7.1 ­8% 6 ­22% 6.7 ­13%

a Alternative 1 immediately post­treatment. b Year 2012 represents immediate post­treatment. 

Table 3­9­35. Summary of Changes in Post­treatment MIS Habitat – Bull Management Area. 

Alt. 1

a

Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5

Habitat

Type

Current		

Acres

2012b %

Change

2012 %

Change

2012 %

Chang

e

2012 %

Change

Shrubland 12 12 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%

Riparian 

(See section 

for habitat 

description) 

124 124 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%

Coniferous 

forest, early 

seral 

73 56 36 ­36% 14 ­75% 16 ­71% 32 ­43%

Coniferous 

forest, mid 

seral 

492 472 381 ­19% 445 ­6% 318 ­33% 316 ­33%

Coniferous 

forest, late 

seral, open 

canopy 

306 281 348 24% 355 26% 480 71% 424 51%

Coniferous 

forest, late 

seral, closed 

canopy 

81 86 177 106% 134 56% 127 48% 172 100%

Snags per 

acre in 

7.7 7.7 8.8 14% 7.1 ­8% 6 ­22% 6.7 ­13%
Final Environmental Impact Statement Kings River Experimental Watershed Project 

Chapter 3­9 – Terrestrial Wildlife 3.9­103 

green forest 

(>15”) – 

(average 

snags/acre) 

a Alternative 1 immediately post­treatment. b Year 2012 represents immediate post­treatment. 

3­9.6.3.2.1. Shrubland Habitat (Fox Sparrow) 

Project­level Effects Analysis—Shrubland Habitat

Direct and Indirect Effects to Habitat by Alternatives 2­5 

Shrubland	habitat	currently	exists	on	29	acres	in	the	Providence	area	and	12	acres	in	the	Bull	area	and	

that	acreage	will	not	change	as	a	result	of	any	of	the	action	alternatives	(Tables	3­9­33	and	3­9­34).			

The	action	alternatives	do	not	directly	target	shrubland	habitat	for	management	using	mechanical	

means,	although	they	may	be	affected	by	prescribed	underburning	management.	Although	the	FVS	

modeling	of	shrubland	habitat	types	does	not	show	changes	in	the	acreage	for	any	action	alternatives,	

we	have	factored	in	some	potential	effect	on	this	habitat	type	as	a	result	of	inadvertent	tractor	logging	

activities,	mastication	and	underburning.	Thus	we	have	estimated	potentially	half	the	total	of	area	of	41	

acres	of	shrubland	habitat	may	be	potentially	directly	affected	by	management	under	the	action	

alternatives.		This	potential	loss	of	shrubland	habitat	however,	would	be	temporary,	and	shrubs	would	

recover	with	new	growth	beginning	immediately	after	the	treatments	are	completed,	such	as	within	1	to	

5	years	after	treatment,	depending	upon	prescribed	fire	intensity	and	shrub	type.	The	overall	effect	of	

this	management	would	be	to	create	a	diversity	of	ages	and	densities	in	this	shrubland	habitat.	Changes	

in	shrub	patch	age	classes	would	have	more	lasting	effects	and	likely	prevent	portions	of	the	habitat	

from	becoming	decadent.		

Cumulative Effects to Habitat in the Analysis Area 

There	are	4,363	acres	of	shrubland	habitat	in	the	Kings	River	Project	CE	analysis	area,	and	the	41	acres	

of	shrubland	habitat	in	the	KREW	management	areas	is	0.9	percent	of	that	amount.		Past,	present	and	

reasonably	foreseeable	future	projects	identified	in	Tables	3­1	through	3­4	were	considered	in	the	

cumulative	effect	analysis.		Most	of	the	activities	in	Tables	3­1	through	3­4	would	not	have	an	effect	

upon	shrubland	habitat.	Hazard	tree	removal	and	timber	sales	would	not	substantially	impact	shrubland	

habitat	since	they	do	not	tend	to	occur	in	this	habitat	type.	Cattle	browse	on	annual	spring	growth	and	

young	shrubs	that	sprout	after	fuels,	prescribed	fire,	and	plantation	treatments,	but	prefer	grasses	and	

forbs.	There	is	a	dietary	shift	to	shrub	use	late	in	the	season	(beginning	to	mid	August),	which	is	typically	

about	one	month	before	cattle	are	removed	from	the	allotments.	Nevertheless,	grazing	S&Gs	provided	in	

the	1995	SNF	LRMP	amendment	limit	use	of	woody	shrubs	to	20%	annual	leader	growth	when	

rangeland	is	in	satisfactory	condition	and	10%	annual	leader	growth	if	rangeland	is	in	unsatisfactory	

condition	(USDA	Forest	Service	1995,	p.	2­15).	Therefore,	cattle	are	not	expected	to	substantially	impact	

shrubland	habitat.	Acres	of	habitat	taken	out	by	hydroelectric	right­of­ways,	roads,	and	recreational	use,	

are	insubstantial	compared	to	the	total	acres	of	habitat	available	within	the	CE	area.	This	amount	could	

be	considered	negligible	in	itself,	and	becomes	more	negligible	when	one	considers	that	a	substantial	

portion	of	the	roads	are	in	coniferous	habitat	rather	than	shrubland	habitat.	Therefore,	roads	would	not	

substantially	impact	shrubland	habitat.	The	amount	of	4x4,	OHV,	and	OSV	(off­road	motorized	
Final Environmental Impact Statement Kings River Experimental Watershed Project 

Chapter 3­9 – Terrestrial Wildlife 3.9­104 

recreation)	routes	are	substantially	less	than	the	amount	of	roads	within	the	forest.	Therefore,	it	is	

reasonable	to	assume	impact	from	them	would	be	insubstantial,	as	well.	

About	7,341	acres	of	prescribed	fire	(underburn)	projects	are	scheduled	in	the	CE	boundary	in	the	

foreseeable	future,	along	with	5,588	acres	of	fuels	reduction	projects	and	4,976	acres	of	plantation	

maintenance	projects.	Vegetation	management	thinning	projects	also	are	not	expected	to	substantially	

alter	the	amount	of	shrubland	habitat	within	the	cumulative	effects	(CE)	boundary,	although	in	some	

areas	attempts	will	be	made	to	plant	conifers	in	areas	otherwise	dominated	by	shrubs,	although	this	is	

not	expected	to	be	a	substantial	amount	of	shrubland	habitat.	Any	portion	of	these	projects	that	occur	in	

shrubland	habitat	could	impact	the	habitat	by	creating	a	diversity	of	ages	and	densities.	Therefore,	it	is	

reasonable	to	assume	that	cumulative	effects	upon	shrubland	habitat	within	the	CE	area	would	be	

greater	than	the	estimated	direct/indirect	effects	of	the	KREW	action	alternatives	although	not	a	

substantial	impact	on	the	total	acreage	due	to	relatively	fast	recovery	times	of	shrubs.			

Along	with	FS	management	activities,	wildfires	must	be	considered	in	determining	cumulative	effects	

within	CE	boundary.	About	1,685	acres	have	been	burned	by	wildfires	within	the	past	30	years.	This	

includes	about	1,155	acres	burned	in	the	Rock	Creek	fire	of	1981,	and	about	530	acres	burned	in	the	

Duff	Creek	fire	in	1981.	The	Rock	Creek	and	Duff	Creek	fires	were	primarily	in	coniferous	forest	habitat,	

and	an	insignificant	amount	of	shrubland	habitat	was	impacted	by	these	wildfires.	However,	fire	

modeling	has	shown	that	1,866	acres	could	burn	as	a	result	of	wildfire	within	the	CE	boundary	in	the	

foreseeable	future,	and	these	areas	most	likely	will	increase	in	the	amount	of	shrubland	habitat.			

The	potential	impact	of	wildfire,	combined	with	potential	impacts	from	other	current	and	future	

projects	list	in	Tables	3­1	through	3­4	are	estimated	to	possibly	affect	no	more	than	5%	of	the	4,363	

acres	of	shrubland	habitat	within	the	CE	boundary.	The	KREW	project	shrubland	habitat	represents	less	

than	one	percent	of	the	total	shrubland	habitat	in	the	CE	boundary,	and	this	additional	potential	impact	

is	not	expected	to	be	substantial.		Even	with	the	affects	of	all	these	potential	events,	changes	in	

shrubland	habitat	would	be	relatively	short­lived	because	many	shrubs	would	sprout	within	a	year	

(depending	on	shrub	type,	treatment	type,	&	treatment	intensity).	This	process	ensures	there	will	be	a	

mosaic	of	shrub	ages	and	densities	through	time.		And	these	events	and	management	activities	would	

most	likely	be	repeated	through	time,	which	will	help	ensure	a	diversity	of	the	age	classes	of	shrubs	that	

would	prevent	the	habitat	from	becoming	decadent.		

Because	of	the	staggering	of	treatments,	the	relative	quick	recovery	of	many	shrub	species,	and	the	

inclusion	of	shrub	patches	within	other	forest	types,	changes	to	overall	availability	and	density	of	

shrubland	habitats	within	the	CE	boundary	(due	to	management	activities)	are	expected	to	be	

insignificant.	Even	if	a	substantial	change	were	to	occur	in	habitat	availability	and	density	due	to	

wildfire,	the	change	would	be	temporary	(for	about	5	years).	And,	because	most	shrubland	ecosystems	

are	fire	adapted,	and	most	fires	burn	with	a	mosaic	of	severity	and	intensity	across	the	landscape,	post	

fire	shrub	habitats	may	still	provide	forage,	nesting,	and	cover	for	many	species.	Changes	to	the	age	class	

structure	of	shrubland	habitat	from	both	wildfire	and	management	activities	would	be	beneficial.	They	

would	serve	to	rejuvenate	the	habitat.	The	repeating	nature	of	management	activities	would	likely	

prevent	treated	habitat	from	becoming	decadent.	Overall, the effects of implementing any of the

action alternatives will not create a significant cumulative impact when considering past,

present and reasonable future other events in the CE analysis area.
Final Environmental Impact Statement Kings River Experimental Watershed Project 

Chapter 3­9 – Terrestrial Wildlife 3.9­105 

Summary of Fox Sparrow Status and Trend at the Bioregional Scale

The	SNF	LRMP	(as	amended	by	the	SNF	MIS	Amendment)	requires	bioregional­scale	habitat	and	

distribution	population	monitoring	for	the	fox	sparrow;	hence,	the	shrubland	effects	analysis	for	the	

KREW	research	project	must	be	informed	by	both	habitat	and	distribution	population	monitoring	data.	

The	sections	below	summarize	the	habitat	and	distribution	population	status	and	trend	data	for	the	fox	

sparrow.	This	information	is	drawn	from	the	detailed	information	on	habitat	and	population	trends	in	

the	Sierra	Nevada	Forests	Bioregional	MIS	Report	(USDA	Forest	Service	2008),	which	is	hereby	

incorporated	by	reference.	

Habitat Status and Trend. There	are	currently	922,000	acres	of	west­slope	shrubland	habitat	on	

National	Forest	System	lands	in	the	Sierra	Nevada.	Within	the	last	decade,	the	trend	is	stable.		

Population Status and Trend.	The	fox	sparrow	has	been	monitored	in	the	Sierra	Nevada	at	various	

sample	locations	by	avian	point	counts	and	breeding	bird	survey	protocols,	including:	1997	to	present—

Lassen	National	Forest	(Burnett	and	Humple	2003,	Burnett	et	al.	2005);	2002	to	present—Plumas	and	

Lassen	National	Forests	(Sierra	Nevada	Research	Center	2007);	on­going	monitoring	through	California	

Partners	in	Flight	Monitoring	Sites	(CPIF	2002);	1992	to	2005—Sierra	Nevada	Monitoring	Avian	

Productivity	and	Survivorship	(MAPS)	stations	(Siegel	and	Kaschube	2007);	and	1968	to	present—BBS	

routes	throughout	the	Sierra	Nevada	(Sauer	et	al.	2007).	These	data	indicate	that	fox	sparrows	continue	

to	be	present	at	these	sample	sites,	and	current	data	at	the	rangewide,	California,	and	Sierra	Nevada	

scales	indicate	that,	although	there	may	be	localized	declines	in	the	population	trend,	the	distribution	of	

fox	sparrow	populations	in	the	Sierra	Nevada	is	stable.	

Relationship of Project­Level Habitat Impacts to Bioregional­Scale Fox Sparrow Trend

The	4,363	acres	of	shrubland	habitat	that	exists	within	the	CE	boundary	accounts	for	less	than	1%	of	the	

922,000	acres	that	exists	at	the	bioregional	scale,	and	only	about	20	acres	of	these	may	be	affected	by	

the	action	alternatives.	Therefore,	cumulative	impacts	within	the	CE	boundary	would	not	alter	the	

existing	bioregional	trends	in	this	habitat,	nor	would	they	lead	to	a	change	in	the	distribution	of	fox	

sparrows	across	the	Sierra	Nevada	bioregion.	

3­9.6.3.2.2. Riparian Habitat (Yellow Warbler) 

Project­level Effects Analysis—Riparian Habitat		

Existing Habitat in the Project Area:	The	exact	acres	of	riparian	habitat	can	only	be	roughly	

approximated.	The	resolution	of	small	meadows	and	slivers	of	riparian	habitat	along	stream	courses	

using	remote	sensing	is	not	strong	enough	to	accurately	portray	riparian	habitat	acreage.	An	attempt	at	

calculating	the	forest­wide	riparian	habitat	for	the	Forest	was	made,	and	results	varied	dramatically	

depending	on	the	vegetation	imagery	used.	The	1997	vegetation	data	(based	on	1993	imagery)	yielded	a	

total	of	620	acres	of	riparian	habitat	forest	wide.	The	2001	vegetation	data	yielded	4,329	acres	forest	

wide.	It	is	reasonable	to	assume	that	acres	of	streamside	management	zones	(SMZs)	for	perennial	and	

intermittent	streams	roughly	equate	to	acres	of	riparian	habitat.	Given	the	inability	to	accurately	map	

riparian	habitats	we	have	used	the	SMZ	classification	for	perennial	streams	(100	ft	buffers)	and	

intermittent	streams	(75	ft	buffers)	as	an	effective	means	for	approximately	habitat	and	habitat	effects	

alongside	streams	and	wetlands.	This	acreage	was	computed	using	the	1998	GIS	stream	coverage	for	the	

Forest.	Resulting	acres	of	riparian	habitat	using	this	technique	were	somewhat	close	to	those	received	

under	the	2001	vegetation	data.	This	technique	yielded	about	17,940	acres	of	riparian	habitat	within	the	
Final Environmental Impact Statement Kings River Experimental Watershed Project 

Chapter 3­9 – Terrestrial Wildlife 3.9­106 

KRP	cumulative	effects	boundary	and	approximately	3,580	acres	within	HUC	8	watersheds	that	

encompass	the	two	management	areas.			

The	Providence	area	consists	of	276	acres	and	the	Bull	area	has	124	acres	of	riparian	area	for	a	total	of	

401	acres.		Of	that	total	approximately	84	riparian	acres	in	the	Providence	area	and	86	riparian	acres	in	

the	Bull	management	area	in	areas	proposed	for	underburning.			

Direct and Indirect Effects to Habitat by Alternatives 2­5 

The	four	action	alternatives	are	assessed	together	here	because	they	are	somewhat	similar	actions	

varying	primarily	with	the	type	of	forest	thinning.	Prescribed	fire	treatments	are	the	same	for	all	action	

alternatives.		No	changes	are	expected	in	the	401	acres	of	riparian	habitat	classification	as	a	result	of	the	

action	alternatives.		

The	thinning	actions	of	these	alternatives	will	not	take	place	within	50	feet	of	perennial	stream	channels	

while	some	thinning	could	take	place	from	50	to	100	ft	without	vehicle	intrusion	into	those	areas.	That	

limited	thinning	management	may	have	a	minor	affect	on	riparian	areas,	but	the	habitat	as	a	whole	will	

remain	intact,	and	in	many	cases	will	be	improved	due	to	increase	sunlight	and	understory	growth.		

Chemical	applications	also	will	not	occur	within	SMZs.		Other	guidelines	implemented	for	watershed	and	

aquatic	resources,	including	SMZ	guidelines	and	riparian	conservation	areas	(RCAs)	also	will	provide	

assurance	that	riparian	habitat	within	project	areas	will	remain	relatively	intact	and	function	after	

management.	Those	objectives	include:	

x Prohibit	mechanical	equipment	within	100	feet	of	special	aquatic	features	and	meadows.	

x Maintain	bank	stability	by	not	cutting	streambank	trees	(trees	with	dripline	extending	to	or	over	

edge	of	stream	bank).	

x Maintain	highest	relative	canopy	density	along	streams	and	in	canyons	to	maintain	water	

temperature,	as	well	as	maintaining	the	highest	relative	density	to	contribute	to	future	large	

woody	debris.	

x Maintain	all	non­hazardous	snags	and	downed	logs	within	SMZs,	including	perennial	creeks,	to	

contribute	to	current	and	future	large	woody	debris	except	within	300	feet	of	a	public	and	

firefighter	safety	zone.	

x Leave	50	feet	buffer	along	perennial	creeks	(100­foot	SMZ)	untreated.	This	would	contribute	to	

maintaining	both	stream	temperature	and	future	large	woody	debris.	

x Limit	application	of	herbicides	to	methods	described	in	herbicide	design	criteria	to	maintain	

consistency	with	RCA	objectives.	

x Reduce	ground­disturbing	impacts	as	much	as	possible	within	RCAs.	

Under	all	action	alternatives	the	amount	of	thinning	that	could	occur	in	riparian	zones	would	be	minimal	

and	dispersed.	In	addition	to	the	limited	amount	of	thinning	that	would	occur,	no	piles	could	be	created	

or	burned	within	SMZs,	and	no	fuels	would	be	ignited.		

Underburning	will	be	the	same	for	all	action	alternatives	and	take	place	in	approximately	86	ac	for	Bull	

management	area	and	82	acres	of	Providence	area	(182	total	acres).		These	prescribed	underburns	will	

be	allowed	to	creep	into	riparian	areas,	which	may	directly	affect	an	estimated	60%	of	the	total	riparian	

areas	in	underburn	areas.		This	equates	to	101	acres	of	riparian	area	potentially	affected,	although	it	is	

not	known	the	total	amount	of	riparian	area	that	will	be	fully	scorched	as	part	of	the	underburning	
Final Environmental Impact Statement Kings River Experimental Watershed Project 

Chapter 3­9 – Terrestrial Wildlife 3.9­107 

management.	Riparian	zones	typically	do	not	burn	with	high	intensity	or	thoroughness,	with	prescribed	

underburning	prescriptions,	and	these	prescribed	fires	typically	leave	a	mosaic	of	unburned	vegetation.		

This	partial	burn	pattern	generally	results	in	only	about	15%	of	the	vegetation	within	the	riparian	areas	

typically	scorched	because	of	relatively	high,	and	variable	ground	and	fuel	moisture	levels	within	the	

SMZs	(McCandliss	pers.	comm.).	Using	this	estimate	we	have	calculated	a	total	of	15	acres	of	riparian	

area	directly	impacted	by	the	underburns	(15%	x101	acres).	This	represents	approximately	4%	of	

riparian	areas	within	the	KREW	management	areas,	which	is	not	a	substantial	impact	particularly	when	

considering	that	the	more	moderate	intensity	burns	of	prescribed	fires	often	help	to	promote	or	recover	

this	type	of	habitat,	when	done	in	moderation	over	the	entire	landscape.	The	15	acres	represents	only	

0.5%	of	the	total	riparian	area	of	the	Kings	River	CE	area	(3,135	total	acres).	

The	controlled	underburning	is	expected	to	have	substantially	less	impact	on	riparian	vegetation	as	

compared	with	the	effects	of	wildfire.		High	intensity	wildfires	tend	to	burn	a	substantial	portion	of	

riparian	habitat	because	they	typically	occur	during	the	hottest	part	of	the	season	when	many	drainages	

are	dry	and	fuel	moisture	levels	are	low.		Controlled	burns,	in	contrast,	are	ignited	during	less	extreme	

and	more	predictable	weather	conditions	and	typically	with	higher	fuel	moisture	levels.		Therefore	these	

controlled	underburns	are	expected	to	have	some	impact	on	riparian	vegetation	including	providing	

some	net	benefits	due	to	restoring	and	maintaining	riparian	vegetation.	

Because	such	a	small	percentage	of	habitats	would	be	impacted	by	underburns,	and	because	design	

measures	would	minimize	impact	from	thinning	and	other	management	actions,	it	is	reasonable	to	

assume	that	disturbance	to	riparian	habitat	from	the	action	alternatives	would	be	minimal	and	

dispersed.	Riparian	habitat	that	is	disturbed	by	treatments	most	likely	would	benefit	through	site

restoration	and	maintenance	of	riparian	vegetation	of	variable	ages.	For	example,	woody	riparian	

vegetation	that	is	not	shade	tolerant	will	tend	to	exhibit	higher	survival	and	growth	rate	once	released	

from	overstory	coverage.	Decadent	Scouler	willow	(which	occurs	in	various	habitat	types,	including	

drier	sites)	responds	to	overstory	thinning	by	sprouting	(Simmerman	et	al	1991	in	Anderson	2001).	

While	individual	woody	riparian	plants	would	benefit	from	proposed	thinning,	such	treatments	may	be	

too	light	to	substantially	benefit	the	habitat	as	a	whole.	On	the	other	hand,	habitat	impacted	by	

underburns	could	receive	greater	benefit,	depending	upon	burn	conditions	and	results.		

There	are	many	benefits	to	prescribed	underburns	in	portions	of	riparian	areas.		For	example,	larger	

coarse	woody	debris	in	riparian	areas	typically	is	not	consumed	in	prescribed	underburns	due	to	higher	

moisture	as	compared	with	the	great	degree	of	consumption	during	a	wildfire.		Additionally,	woody	

riparian	vegetation	may	be	top­killed	but	they	typically	sprout	back	within	the	year.	For	example,	

Scouler	willow	sprouts	may	reach	up	to	10	feet	after	the	first	growing	season	(Viereck	and	Dyrness	1979	

in	Anderson	2001).	The	greater	the	above	ground	mortality	of	Scouler	willow,	the	greater	the	sprouting.	

Twig	growth	has	been	noted	to	be	3	to	4	times	greater	when	>	50%	of	the	Scouler	canopy	is	consumed	

by	fire	(Owens	1982	in	Anderson	2001).	Scouler	willows	tend	to	achieve	browse­resistant,	pre­fire	size	

within	about	5	years	(Hayward	1945	in	Anderson	2001).	The	same	is	true	of	Geyer	willows	(which	

prefer	wet,	poorly	drained	sites)	(Kovalchik	1987	in	Uchytil	1991),	but	site	conditions	make	burns	less	

likely	where	they	exist.	In	summary,	disturbance	to	riparian	habitat	is	expected	to	be	insignificant,	but	

the	minimal	disturbance	that	would	occur	would	likely	benefit	the	habitat	by	increasing	the	health,	vigor,	

growth,	and	abundance	of	woody	riparian	vegetation.	

Cumulative Effects to Habitat in the Analysis Area 

Other	projects	and	activities	considered	in	the	CE	area	were	discussed	under	the	cumulative	effects	

analysis	for	shrubland	habitat.	None	of	the	past,	present	or	foreseeable	future	management	activities	
Final Environmental Impact Statement Kings River Experimental Watershed Project 

Chapter 3­9 – Terrestrial Wildlife 3.9­108 

within	the	CE	boundary	are	expected	to	cause	substantial	cumulative	impacts	upon	riparian	habitat.		

Acres	of	habitat	taken	out	by	hydroelectric	right­of­ways,	roads,	and	recreational	use,	are	insignificant	

compared	to	the	total	acres	of	habitat	available	within	the	CE	boundary.	Hazard	tree	removal	would	not	

impact	the	habitat	since	an	insubstantial	amount	of	trees	are	removed	from	riparian	habitat	adjacent	to	

forest	roads.	Prescribed	fire	(underburn)	projects	likely	have	or	would	benefit	some	portion	of	the	

habitat,	but	the	percentage	receiving	benefits	was/is	likely	insubstantial	as	reasoned	above.	Impact	

upon	riparian	habitat	from	other	projects	in	the	CE	boundary,	such	as	past	and	ongoing	timber	sales,	

fuels	reduction,	and	plantation	maintenance	was/would	be	minimized	through	implementation	of	the	

Forest	SMZ	protection	measures.	No	mechanical	equipment	is	allowed	in	SMZs,	50%	ground	cover	must	

be	maintained,	and	shade	canopy	cannot	be	modified	in	such	a	manner	as	to	adversely	affect	water	

temperature.	These	restrictions	limit	the	amount	of	work	that	have/would	be	done	in	SMZs,	and	thereby	

the	amount	of	impact	upon	riparian	habitat.	As	discussed	under	direct	and	indirect	impacts,	thinning	

would	benefit	individual	shade­intolerant	woody	riparian	plants	by	providing	favorable	conditions	for	

sprouting	and	growth.	But	because	of	management	restrictions,	benefit	to	riparian	habitat	is	likely	

minimal.

The	Sycamore,	Blue	Canyon,	Dinkey,	and	Patterson	Mountain	cattle	allotments	lie	within	the	CE	

boundary.	Cattle	could	potentially	cause	cumulative	effects	upon	riparian	habitat	within	the	CE	

boundary.	They	trail	along	portions	of	streams	and	natural	lakes	and	disrupt	vegetative	growth	by	

grazing/trampling	riparian	forbs	and	grasses,	and	browsing	new	growth	of	woody	riparian	vegetation.	

Browse	and	trampling	is	limited,	however,	by	grazing	utilization	standard	and	guidelines	(S&Gs).	S&G	

#121	(USDA	Forest	Service	2007a,	p.66)	protects	woody	riparian	vegetation	by	allowing	browse	on:	(1)	

no	more	than	20%	of	annual	leader	growth	on	mature	plants,	and	(2)	no	more	than	20%	of	individual	

seedlings.	Furthermore,	S&G	#121	requires	livestock	to	be	removed	when	browsing	indicates	a	change	

in	preference	from	herbaceous	vegetation	to	woody	riparian	vegetation.	S&G	#103	(USDA	Forest	Service	

2007a,	p.63)	protects	riparian	vegetation	from	trampling	by	preventing	disturbance	from	exceeding	

20%	of	a	stream	reach,	natural	lake,	or	pond	shoreline.	Both	of	these	S&Gs	limit	impact	upon	riparian	

vegetation	to	20%.	While	impact	to	riparian	habitat	could	be	as	high	as	20%,	it	is	likely	less.	The	upper	

20%	limit	would	likely	be	attained	in	meadows	well	before	it	is	attained	in	SMZs	and	cattle	would	be	

removed.	Therefore,	ongoing	cattle	grazing	within	the	CE	boundary	is	not	expected	to	cause	a	

substantial	cumulative	impact	upon	riparian	habitat.		

Wildfires	may	burn	a	portion	of	riparian	habitat	because	they	tend	to	occur	during	the	hottest	part	of	

the	season	when	many	drainages	are	dry	and	fuel	moisture	levels	are	low,	even	in	large	diameter	fuels.	

Because	downed	woody	debris	is	encouraged	in	SMZs,	portions	of	them	are	high	in	large	diameter	fuels	

that	burn	hot	for	long	lengths	of	time	once	dry.	Where	this	occurs,	the	soil	is	heated	to	such	a	depth	and	

degree	that	roots	of	woody	riparian	vegetation	is	damaged	and	do	not	sprout	back.	Riparian	habitat	can	

be	lost	in	such	situations.	However,	where	a	nearby	seed	source	is	available,	seedlings	may	recolonize	

the	site	if	favorable	conditions	exist.	Where	fires	burn	hot	enough	to	expose	mineral	soil	(Gruell	et	al	

1982	in	Anderson	2001)	and	consume	more	than	50%	of	the	pre­fire	overstory	(Forsythe	1975	in	

Anderson	2001),	willows	(especially	Scourer	willows)	can	rapidly	recolonize	a	burned	area.	In	a	northwest	Montana	study,	Scouler	willow	was	found	on	80%	of	severely	burned	sites	with	no	previous	

Scouler	willow	presence	(Stickney	1981	in	Anderson	2001).	Where	favorable	conditions	do	not	exists,	

chaparral	shrubs	such	as	manzanita,	would	likely	sprout	back/germinate	and	replace	the	woody	

riparian	vegetation.	

Within	the	CE	boundary,	about	1,685	acres	burned	in	wildfires	within	the	past	30	years,	and	wildfire	

modeling	estimated	that	about	1,866	additional	acres	would	be	burned	in	the	foreseeable	future.	The	

3,551	acres	of	past	and	foreseeable	wildfire	account	for	only	about	5%	of	the	72,000	acres	of	habitat	
Final Environmental Impact Statement Kings River Experimental Watershed Project 

Chapter 3­9 – Terrestrial Wildlife 3.9­109 

available	within	the	CE	boundary.	It	is	reasonable	to	assume	that	the	5%	impact	upon	total	habitat	

would	approximately	equate	to	a	5%	impact	upon	riparian	habitat	in	the	CE	boundary	since	streams	are	

interspersed	throughout	the	CE	area.		This	level	of	impact,	combined	with	the	minimal	impact	

anticipated	from	past,	present	and	future	projects	in	Tables	3­1	through	3­4,	plus	the	0.005%	potential	

impact	to	riparian	areas	from	any	one	of	the	action	alternatives,	is	not	substantial.		

Management	activities	listed	in	Tables	3­1	through	3­4	are	not	expected	to	add	any	substantial	longterm	impact	to	riparian	areas.		Although	riparian	vegetation	will	be	affected	by	the	project	and	other	

projects	within	the	CE,	substantial	acreage	of	habitat	is	not	expected	to	be	lost	over	the	long­term	since	

these	riparian	communities	will	continue	to	flourish	within	a	fluctuating	state	of	vegetation	age,	

distribution	and	abundance.		Additionally,	about	5%	of	the	habitat	within	the	CE	boundary	has	or	is	

expected	to	be	impacted	by	wildfires,	but	again,	such	impact	could	be	beneficial	or	detrimental,	

depending	upon	conditions,	but	most	likely	will	not	result	in	perpetual	loss	of	these	riparian	

communities,	rather	only	a	shift	their	status	of	age	and	distribution.	It	also	could	be	argued	that	natural	

or	man	induced	perturbations	of	these	communities	are	important	for	this	habitat	to	sustain	itself.		For	

example,	if	a	favorable	seed	bed	is	established	by	the	fire	and	a	seed	source	is	present,	willows	would	

readily	establish	on	the	site	and	grow	vigorously.	Any	pre­fire	habitat	that	was	becoming	decadent	

beneath	an	overstory	of	conifers	would	be	rejuvenated.	Habitat	could	also	be	expanded	by	the	spread	of	

willow	seeds.	However,	if	favorable	post	fire	conditions	do	not	exist,	habitat	could	be	lost	over	the	short	

term	of	decades	but	most	likely	reestablish	through	the	long­term.	As	discussed	above,	direct,	indirect,	

and	cumulative	effects	from	past,	ongoing,	and	proposed	thinning	treatments	have/would	improve	the	

sprouting,	growth,	and	vigor	of	individual	woody	riparian	plants.		Overall, the effects of implementing

any of the action alternatives will not create a significant cumulative impact when considering

past, present and reasonable future other events in the CE analysis area.

Summary of Yellow Warbler Status and Trend at the Bioregional Scale

The	SNF	LRMP	(as	amended	by	the	SNF	MIS	Amendment)	requires	bioregional­scale	habitat	and	

distribution	population	monitoring	for	the	yellow	warbler;	hence,	the	riparian	habitat	effects	analysis	

for	the	KREW	research	project	must	be	informed	by	both	habitat	and	distribution	population	monitoring	

data.	The	sections	below	summarize	the	habitat	and	distribution	population	status	and	trend	data	for	

the	yellow	warbler.	This	information	is	drawn	from	the	detailed	information	on	habitat	and	population	

trends	in	the	SNF	Bioregional	MIS	Report	(USDA	Forest	Service	2008),	which	is	hereby	incorporated	by	

reference.	

Habitat Status and Trend. There	are	currently	29,000	acres	of	riparian	habitat	on	National	Forest	

System	lands	in	the	Sierra	Nevada.	Within	the	last	decade,	the	trend	is	stable.	

Population Status and Trend.	The	yellow	warbler	has	been	monitored	in	the	Sierra	Nevada	at	various	

sample	locations	by	avian	point	counts	and	breeding	bird	survey	protocols,	including	Lassen	NF	

(Burnett	and	Humple	2003,	Burnett	et	al.	2005)	and	Inyo	NF	(Heath	and	Ballard	2003)	point	counts;	ongoing	California	Partners	in	Flight	monitoring	and	studies	(CPIF	2004);	1992	to	2005—Sierra	Nevada	

MAPS	stations	(Siegel	and	Kaschube	2007);	and	1968	to	present—BBS	routes	throughout	the	Sierra	

Nevada	(Sauer	et	al.	2007).	These	data	indicate	that	yellow	warblers	continue	to	be	present	at	these	

sample	sites,	and	current	data	at	the	rangewide,	California,	and	Sierra	Nevada	scales	indicate	that	the	

distribution	of	yellow	warbler	populations	in	the	Sierra	Nevada	is	stable.		
Final Environmental Impact Statement Kings River Experimental Watershed Project 

Chapter 3­9 – Terrestrial Wildlife 3.9­110 

Relationship of Project­Level Habitat Impacts to Bioregional­Scale Yellow Warbler Trend

An	exact	approximation	of	riparian	habitat	within	the	KREW	research	project	area	cannot	be	

determined;	however,	a	rough	approximation	of	17,940	acres	within	the	CE	boundary	was	determined	

by	computing	SMZ	acreages.	Because	this	approximation	is	rough	and	was	likely	computed	differently	

than	the	regional	acres,	it	is	not	reasonable	to	use	the	numbers	to	determine	the	percentage	of	Regional	

riparian	habitat	impacted	by	the	KREW	research	project.	Nevertheless,	it	is	reasonable	to	assume	that	

the	KREW	research	project	would	not	alter	the	existing	bioregional	trend	in	the	habitat,	nor	would	it	

lead	to	a	change	in	the	distribution	of	yellow	warbler	across	the	Sierra	Nevada	bioregion.	When	impacts	

from	the	no	action	alternative	and	the	action	alternatives	were	carried	out	to	the	CE	boundary,	they	

became	minimal;	and	once	carried	out	to	the	entire	Sierra	Nevada	Region,	they	would	become	

insignificant.	

Relationship of Project­Level Habitat Impacts to Bioregional­Scale Yellow Warbler Trend

An	exact	approximation	of	riparian	habitat	within	the	KREW	research	project	area	cannot	be	

determined;	however,	a	rough	approximation	of	3,135	acres	within	the	CE	boundary	was	determined	by	

computing	SMZ	acreages.	Because	this	approximation	is	rough	and	was	likely	computed	differently	than	

the	regional	acres,	it	is	not	reasonable	to	use	the	numbers	to	determine	the	percentage	of	Regional	

riparian	habitat	impacted	by	the	KREW	research	project.	Nevertheless,	it	is	reasonable	to	assume	that	

the	KREW	research	project	would	not	alter	the	existing	bioregional	trend	in	the	habitat,	nor	would	it	

lead	to	a	change	in	the	distribution	of	yellow	warbler	across	the	Sierra	Nevada	bioregion.	When	impacts	

from	the	no	action	alternative	and	the	action	alternatives	were	carried	out	to	the	CE	boundary,	they	

became	minimal;	and	once	carried	out	to	the	entire	Sierra	Nevada	Region,	they	would	become	

insignificant.	

3­9.6.3.2.3. Early and Mid Seral Coniferous Forest Habitat (Mountain Quail) 

Project­level Effects Analysis—Early and Mid Seral Coniferous Forest Habitat		

Existing Habitat and Habitat Changes in the Project Area:	Young	and	mid­seral	aged	forest	stands	with	

sparse,	open,	and	moderate	overstory	forest	canopy	cover	were	included	in	this	assessment.	Forest	

stands	with	dense	overstory	cover	do	not	provide	enough	openness	to	maintain	an	adequate	shrub	

component	for	mountain	quail	therefore	those	habitats	were	not	included	in	this	assessment.		As	a	

result,	a	total	of	1,336	acres	were	classified	as	early	and	mid	seral	forest	habitat	suitable	for	mountain	

quail.		Specific	acreages	are	shown	in	Tables	3­9­33	and	3­9­34	and	summarized	here	for	each	

management	area.	

Providence Area:		Early	seral	coniferous	forest	shows	a	decline	of	1­11%	for	Alternatives	2­4	after	

treatment	compared	with	the	no	action	alternative	of	139	acres.		Alternative	5	shows	a	similar	decline	of	

4%	in	this	habitat	compared	with	Alternative	1.	Mid­seral	coniferous	forest	shows	a	decline	of	2­7%	for	

Alternatives	2	and	4	and	an	increase	of	2%	for	Alternative	3	after	treatment	compared	with	the	no	

action	alternative	of	652	acres.	In	contrast,	Alternative	5	shows	an	increase	of	9%	in	this	habitat	

compared	with	Alternative	1.	
Final Environmental Impact Statement Kings River Experimental Watershed Project 

Chapter 3­9 – Terrestrial Wildlife 3.9­111 

Bull Area: Early	seral	coniferous	forest	shows	a	decline	of	36­75%	for	Alternatives	2­4	after	treatment	

compared	with	the	no	action	alternative	of	73	acres.		Alternative	5	shows	a	similar	decline	of	43%	in	this	

habitat	compared	with	Alternative	1.	Mid­seral	coniferous	forest	shows	a	decline	of	6­33%	for	

Alternatives	2­4	after	treatment	compared	with	the	no	action	alternative	of	472	acres.		Alternative	5	

shows	a	similar	decline	of	33%	in	this	habitat	compared	with	Alternative	1.

Direct and Indirect Effects to Habitat by Alternatives 2­5 

The	four	action	alternatives	are	assessed	together	here	because	they	are	somewhat	similar	actions	

varying	primarily	with	the	type	of	forest	thinning.	Prescribed	fire	treatments	are	the	same	for	all	action	

alternatives.	Proposed	thinning	under	all	alternatives	would	concentrate	on	removing	smaller	diameter	

trees,	particularly	firs	and	cedars,	and	leaving	all	trees	greater	than	30	inches	dbh,	which	are	more	fireresistant,	particularly	the	pines.	Proposed	underburns	would	eliminate	many	of	the	existing	young	

understory	firs	and	cedars,	and	it	would	burn	back	many,	but	not	all	shrubs.		This	effect	on	most	shrubs	

would	be	temporarily,	because	they	have	a	relatively	quick	regrowth	due	to	resprouting	and	reseeding.		

With	less	understory	saplings	the	stands	generally	will	be	more	open	with	a	mosaic	of	young	and	old	

shrub	patches.	Although	this	management	will	have	some	net	loss	of	this	particular	habitat	type,	this	

combined	mechanical	and	prescribed	burn	management	will	help	ensure	the	young	and	mid­seral	forest	

habitats	remain	on	the	landscape	due	to	the	reduced	chance	for	a	severe	stand­replacing	wildfire.	

Although	the	vegetation	change	modeling	for	the	action	alternatives	show	a	decrease	in	early	and	mid	

seral	coniferous	forest	habitat,	the	action	alternatives	also	would	benefit	the	overall	forest	stand	

ecological	health	by	resorting	it	to	a	more	historical	ecological	condition,	which	includes	greater	forest	

heterogeneity	both	in	the	overstory	as	well	as	the	understory.		The	partial	opening	of	overstory	canopy	

cover	will	benefit	species	such	as	mountain	quail	since	greater	sunlight	will	bring	greater	understory	

diversity.		Without	such	action	the	stands	will	become	homogenized	with	high	overstory	canopy	cove,	

high	basal	area,	and	more	limited	understory	vegetation.	Forests	would	have	a	greater	pine	

representation,	trees	would	be	larger	and	more	dispersed,	and	the	understory	shrub	component	would	

be	more	diverse	with	a	mosaic	of	young	and	older	patches.	The	forests	remaining	after	treatments,	

including	early	and	mid	seral	habitat,	would	be	more	resistant	to	catastrophic	wildfires,	and	would	

exhibit	better	growth	with	less	resistance	to	drought,	disease,	and	insects.		

Cumulative Effects to Habitat in the Analysis Area 

Tables	3­1	through	3­4	lists	a	wide	variety	of	recent	past,	present	and	foreseeable	events	in	the	CE	

analysis	area,	and	most	of	those	events	do	not	cause	substantial	cumulative	impacts	to	early	coniferous	

forest	habitat.		Projects	associated	with	roads,	hydroelectric	and	other	transmission	line	right­of­ways,	

and	recreation	sites	are	limited	in	distribution	and	typically	within	existing	developed	areas	and	are	

insubstantial	compared	to	the	total	acres	of	habitat	available	within	the	CE	boundary.			

Livestock	grazing	occurs	in	many	areas	of	the	forest,	but	the	effects	are	primarily	concentrated	at	

meadows.	Therefore,	cattle	do	not	contribute	substantial	cumulative	impacts	on	early,	mid,	or	late	seral	

coniferous	forest	habitat.	Plantation	maintenance	has	or	will	be	conducted	in	about	6,300	acres	of	

plantations	which	typically	are	less	than	25	years	old	and	limited	to	areas	of	old	clear	cuts	(no	longer	

implemented)	or	wildfires.		All	of	these	plantations	provide	early	or	mid­seral	forest	habitat,	and	

ongoing	maintenance	of	these	plantations	will	not	change	their	habitat	classification.			

About	3,500	acres	of	roadside	hazard	tree	removal,	impacting	about	8,500	trees,	have	or	would	occur	

within	the	CE	boundary.	It	is	reasonable	to	assume	that	some	portion	of	the	hazardous	trees	were/are	in	
Final Environmental Impact Statement Kings River Experimental Watershed Project 

Chapter 3­9 – Terrestrial Wildlife 3.9­112 

mid	and	late	seral	forest	habitat.	Nevertheless,	removal	of	a	few	trees	within	a	stand	does	not	change	its	

habitat	rating.	Therefore,	roadside	hazard	tree	removal	would	not	substantially	impact	these	habitats	

throughout	the	CE	analysis	area.		

About	17,300	acres	of	underburns	are	scheduled,	on	a	staggered	basis,	within	the	CE	boundary.	The	

majority	of	coniferous	trees	in	early	seral	coniferous	forest	habitat	are	not	large	enough	to	withstand	

underburns;	therefore	prescribed	fires	are	generally	not	implemented	within	these	stands.	

Forest	vegetation	management	projects	are	primarily	focused	on	forest	restoration,	which	primarily	

involves	thinning	some	live	trees	while	retaining	the	inherent	forest	structure	and	biodiversity	(as	

opposed	to	clearcutting).		This	forest	restoration	retains	a	wide	range	of	tree	ages	as	well	as	all	trees	

greater	than	30	inches	dbh	and	most	snags	greater	than	15	inches	dbh	unless	classified	as	a	hazard	for	

fire	or	human	safety.		These	projects	are	also	are	designed	to	retain	a	variety	of	habitat	features	

important	to	wildlife.		This	management	retains	the	overall	forest	structure	(as	compared	with	

clearcutting)	and	creates	forests	with	greater	heterogeneity	and	diversity	which	provides	better	health,	

vigor,	and	growth	and	reduces	their	susceptibility	to	stand	severe	large	scale	wildfires	as	well	as	

drought	impacts,	insect	infestation	and	disease.		

Fire	modeling	projections	show	a	possibility	of	wildfire	occurring	in	about	1,866	acres	of	coniferous	

forest	in	the	CE	boundary	in	the	future.	In	this	event,	some	early	and	mid	seral	habitat	could	be	burned,	

but	would	likely	be	replaced	by	natural	regeneration	and	tree	planting	which	will	create	additional	early	

and	mid	seral	forests	in	those	areas.	

Roughly	60%	of	the	early	seral	coniferous	forest	habitat	within	the	CE	boundary	is	the	result	of	

clearcuts,	and	25%	the	result	of	wildfires	that	have	occurred	within	the	past	30	years.	Overall,	the	action	

alternatives	will	reduce	early	and	mid	seral	coniferous	forest	habitat	out	of	a	total	of	1,398	total	acres	of	

current	habitat.	However,	this	net	loss	is	modeled	and	does	not	take	into	consideration	the	microhabitat	

benefits	of	partially	opening	overstory	canopy	that	promotes	greater	understory	growth	which	is	

beneficial	for	species	using	open	early	and	mid­seral	forests.		Overall,	this	modeled	net	loss	in	habitat	is	

countered	by	the	fact	that	this	management	will	help	ensure	early	and	mid	seral	habitat	would	not	be	

lost	by:	(1)	becoming	too	dense	to	support	the	important	understory	shrub	component;	and	by	(2)	

catastrophic	wildfires	resulting	from	excessive	surface	fuels	and	fire	ladders.	Overall, the effects of

implementing any of the action alternatives will not create a significant cumulative impact when

considering past, present and reasonable future other events in the CE analysis area.

Summary of Mountain Quail Status and Trend at the Bioregional Scale

The	SNF	LRMP	(as	amended	by	the	SNF	MIS	Amendment)	requires	bioregional­scale	habitat	and	

distribution	population	monitoring	for	the	mountain	quail;	hence,	the	early	and	mid	seral	coniferous	

forest	effects	analysis	for	the	KREW	research	project	must	be	informed	by	both	habitat	and	distribution	

population	monitoring	data.	The	sections	below	summarize	the	habitat	and	distribution	population	

status	and	trend	data	for	the	mountain	quail.	This	information	is	drawn	from	the	detailed	information	

on	habitat	and	population	trends	in	the	SNF	Bioregional	MIS	Report	(USDA	Forest	Service	2008),	which	

is	hereby	incorporated	by	reference.	

Habitat Status and Trend. There	are	currently	546,000	acres	of	early	seral	and	2,766,000	acres	of	mid	

seral	coniferous	forest	(ponderosa	pine,	Sierran	mixed	conifer,	white	fir,	and	red	fir)	habitat	on	National	

Forest	System	lands	in	the	Sierra	Nevada.	Within	the	last	decade,	the	trend	for	early	seral	is	slightly	

decreasing	(from	9%	to	5%	of	the	acres	on	National	Forest	System	lands)	and	the	trend	for	mid	seral	is	

slightly	increasing	(from	21%	to	25%	of	the	acres	on	National	Forest	System	lands).		
Final Environmental Impact Statement Kings River Experimental Watershed Project 

Chapter 3­9 – Terrestrial Wildlife 3.9­113 

Population Status and Trend.	The	mountain	quail	has	been	monitored	in	the	Sierra	Nevada	at	various	

sample	locations	by	hunter	survey,	modeling,	and	breeding	bird	survey	protocols,	including	California	

Department	of	Fish	and	Game	hunter	survey,	modeling,	and	hunting	regulations	assessment	(CDFG	

2004a,	CDFG	2004b)	and	1968	to	present—BBS	routes	throughout	the	Sierra	Nevada	(Sauer	et	al.	

2007).	These	data	indicate	that	mountain	quail	continue	to	be	present	across	the	Sierra	Nevada,	and	

current	data	at	the	rangewide,	California,	and	Sierra	Nevada	scales	indicate	that	the	distribution	of	

mountain	quail	populations	in	the	Sierra	Nevada	is	stable.		

Relationship of Project­Level Habitat Impacts to Bioregional­Scale Mountain Quail Trend

The	6,508	acres	of	early	seral	and	27,145	acres	of	mid	seral	coniferous	forest	habitat	that	exist	within	

the	KRP	boundary	account	for	only	about	1%	of	those	habitats	at	the	bioregional	scale.	Cumulative	

impacts	within	the	KREW	research	project	would	not	alter	the	existing	bioregional	trend	of	those	

habitats,	nor	would	they	lead	to	a	change	in	the	distribution	of	mountain	quail	across	the	Sierra	Nevada	

bioregion.	

3.9.6.3.2.4. Late Seral Open Canopy Coniferous Forest Habitat (Sooty [Blue] Grouse) 

Project­level Effects Analysis—Late Seral Open Canopy Coniferous Forest Habitat

Existing Habitat and Changes in the Project Area:	Within	the	project	area,	there	currently	are	about	

380	acres	of	late	seral	open	canopy	coniferous	forest	habitat:	74	acres	in	the	Providence	area	and	306	

acres	in	the	Bull	area.		Specific	acreages,	and	their	changes	through	time	as	a	result	of	alternative	

management,	are	shown	in	the	Tables	3­9­33	and	3­9­34.		A	summary	description	is	provided	here:	

Providence Area:		Late­seral	open	canopy	coniferous	forest	shows	an	increase	of	94­122%	for	

Alternatives	2­4	after	treatment	compared	with	the	no	action	alternative	of	72	acres,	and	Alternative	5	

shows	a	similar	increase	of	113%	in	this	habitat	compared	with	Alternative	1.

Bull Area:	Late­seral	open	canopy	coniferous	forest	shows	an	increase	of	24­71%	for	Alternatives	2­4	

after	treatment	compared	with	the	no	action	alternative	of	306	acres,	and	Alternative	5	shows	a	similar	

increase	of	51%	in	this	habitat	compared	with	Alternative	1.

Direct and Indirect Effects to Habitat by Alternatives 2­5 

The	four	action	alternatives	are	assessed	together	in	this	section	because	they	are	similar	actions,		

varying	primarily	in	the	type	of	forest	thinning.	Prescribed	fire	treatments	are	the	same	for	all	action	

alternatives.	Proposed	thinning	under	all	alternatives	would	concentrate	on	removing	smaller	diameter	

trees,	particularly	firs	and	cedars,	thus	decreasing	the	chance	that	wildfire	would	completely	consume	

the	habitat.		With	less	vegetative	competition,	remaining	trees	would	exhibit	higher	growth	rates,	which	

will	promote	faster	growth	to	larger	trees.	All	trees	greater	than	30	inches	dbh	would	be	retained	and	

those	larger	trees	are	more	fire­resistant,	particularly	pines.		All	mature	oaks	also	would	be	retained	and	

snags	greater	than	15	inches	dbh	would	be	retained	unless	deemed	hazardous	for	fire	or	public	safety.	

Retaining	pines	will	be	a	high	priority	during	thinning	operations,	which	will	help	reverse	the	decline	in	

their	representation	in	the	stands.	This	also	leads	to	more	fire	resilient	stands	and	helps	provides	longterm	pine	snag	replacement	value	since	large	pine	snags	tend	to	be	chosen	for	nest	sites	and	dens	over	

firs	and	cedars	by	many	cavity	nesting	birds	(Bagne	et	al.	2008).	Overall,	the	action	alternatives	would	

lead	to	greater	pine	presence	in	the	stands	and	all	remaining	trees	will	be	more	dispersed	and	obtain	
Final Environmental Impact Statement Kings River Experimental Watershed Project 

Chapter 3­9 – Terrestrial Wildlife 3.9­114 

larger	size	through	time.		Additionally,	the	understory	shrub	component	would	be	more	diverse	with	a	

mosaic	of	young	and	older	patches	due	to	increased	sunlight	and	less	competition	from	younger	trees.		

Proposed	underburns	also	will	help	clear	many	young	understory	firs	and	cedars	as	well	as	removing	

dead	wood,	primarily	the	smaller	diameter	wood.		Prescribed	burns	tend	to	burn	less	severe	than	

wildfires,	hence	most,	but	not	all,	larger	diameter	surface	dead	wood	is	not	consumed.	This	

underburning	also	will	burn	back	many,	but	not	all	shrubs,	and	those	effects	would	be	temporarily	due	

to	most	shrubs	ability	to	reestablish	through	sprouting	or	reseeding.		With	less	understory	saplings	and	

intermediate	sized	trees,	the	stands	generally	will	be	more	open	with	a	mosaic	of	young	and	old	shrub	

patches.		

In	addition	to	the	direct	benefit	of	increasing	the	representation	of	late	seral	open	coniferous	forest	

habitat,	the	action	alternatives	would	also	benefit	the	habitat	by	returning	it	to	more	historical	

ecological	conditions,	which	includes	forest	heterogeneity	both	in	the	overstory	as	well	as	the	

understory,	as	well	as	making	them	more	resilient	to	wildfire,	drought,	insect	infestation	and	disease.			

Cumulative Effects to Habitat in the Analysis Area 

Past,	present	and	foreseeable	future	projects	and	events	in	the	CE	analysis	area	are	listed	in	Tables	3­1	

through	3­4.	Many	of	the	ongoing	management	activities	within	the	CE	boundary	do	not	cause	

substantial	cumulative	impacts	to	late	seral	open	coniferous	forest	habitat.		And	in	most	cases	this	type	

of	habitat	is	a	net	benefit,	such	as	with	thinning	mature	forests.	As	previously	discussed,	acres	of	habitat	

taken	out	by	hydroelectric	right­of­ways,	roads,	and	recreational	use,	are	insubstantial	compared	to	the	

total	acres	of	habitat	available	within	the	CE	boundary.	Cattle	tend	to	utilize	grasslands,	meadows,	and	

young	shrub	fields.	In	most	instances,	there	would	not	be	enough	trees	removed	under	roadside	hazard	

tree	removal	to	change	the	status	of	the	habitat.	Plantations	would	not	transition	to	late	seral	coniferous	

forest	habitat	within	the	time	frame	of	this	analysis.	Therefore,	ongoing	plantation	maintenance	would	

not	cause	cumulative	effects	upon	this	habitat.	About	17,300	acres	of	underburn	projects	are	ongoing	

within	the	CE	boundary.	Any	portion	of	these	underburns	that	occur	in	late	seral	open	canopy	habitat	

would	benefit	it	by	making	it	less	susceptible	to	catastrophic	wildfires,	while	also	not	changing	the	

habitat	classification.		

About	6,500	acres	of	thinning	have	recently	occurred	or	will	occur	in	the	CE	area	(South	of	Shaver,		

10S18,	Jose	1,	Dinkey	N&S,	Keola,	Soaproot,	and	East	Fork)	within	the	CE	boundary.		These	treatments	

provide	a	net	increase	in	late	seral	open	canopy	coniferous	forest	habitat.	For	example,	South	of	Shaver	

increased	this	habitat	type	by	24	acres	and	the	10S18	project	resulted	in	46	acres	of	late	seral	open	

canopy	coniferous	forest	habitat.	The	total	acreage	of	late	seral	open	canopy	coniferous	forest	habitat	

resulting	from	these	two	projects,	when	added	to	affects	of	the	KREW	action	alternatives	is	not	expected	

to	have	a	negative	effect	on	this	habitat	and	most	like	will	have	a	net	benefit	for	this	habitat	type.		

Possibly	the	greatest	potential	effect	of	vegetation/fuels	management	projects	on	mid­seral	forest	

within	close	juxtaposition	to	the	KREW	management	areas	is	the	proposed	private	land	Quarry	Timber	

Sale	adjoining	the	Providence	management	area.	This	timber	sale	involves	547	acres	of	uneven	aged	

timber	harvest	that	will	leave	at	least	100	sq	ft	of	basal	area	immediately	after	harvest	with	at	least	15	

sq	ft	of	that	amount	as	seed	trees	greater	than	18	inches	dbh.		An	estimated	500	ac	of	that	area	consists	

of	closed	canopy	forest	available	for	harvest,	and	most	of	this	mid­seral	forest	will	most	likely	become	

open	mid­seral	forest,	thus	increasing	that	particular	habitat	type	on	lands	adjoining	the	Providence	

area.		All	of	these	vegetation	management	projects	on	federal	and	private	lands	will	retain	a	minimum	of	

approximately	40	percent	overstory	canopy	cover,	albeit	the	uneven	aged	management	on	the	private	

lands	will	have	the	least	canopy	cover	immediately	after	treatment.	The	fact	that	all	these	projects	will	
Final Environmental Impact Statement Kings River Experimental Watershed Project 

Chapter 3­9 – Terrestrial Wildlife 3.9­115 

provide	for	greater	forest	heterogeneity	and	greater	understory	vegetation	abundance	and	diversity	is	a	

benefit	to	species	that	use	this	forest	habitat.	

Fire	modeling	projections	show	a	possibility	of	wildfire	occurring	in	about	1,866	acres	of	coniferous	

forest	in	the	CE	boundary	in	the	future.	In	this	event,	some	early	and	mid	seral	habitat	could	be	burned,	

but	would	likely	be	replaced	by	natural	regeneration	and	tree	planting.	Areas	with	intense	burning	most	

likely	would	recover	within	8	to	10	years	(once	saplings	reestablished	and	shrubs	sprouted	back),	it	

would	take	at	least	25	to	50	years,	depending	on	site	conditions,	for	those	areas	to	develop	into	a	fully	

developed	mid	seral	forest	habitat.		If	a	small	or	large	portion	of	that	1,866	acres	of	potential	wildfire	

burn	does	not	regenerate	into	forest,	the	resulting	scrublands	or	shrubland/tree	mix	could	provide	

some	habitat	but	may	be	limited	in	suitability	for	those	species	reliant	on	early	and	mid­seral	forests.			

Recent	past	and	foreseeable	future	vegetation	management	projects	in	the	CE	area	most	likely	will	

increase	the	amount	of	late	seral	open	coniferous	forest	habitat	due	to	the	standard	prescriptions	and	

Forest	S&Gs	that	are	implemented.	The	action	alternatives	would	further	increase	its	representation	by	

anywhere	from	42	acres	to	174	acres,	depending	on	the	alternative	implemented.	In	addition	to	

increasing	this	habitat	acreage,	the	action	alternatives	would	create	forests	that	more	fire,	drought,	

insect,	and	disease	resistant.		Overall, the effects of implementing any of the action alternatives will

not create a significant cumulative impact when also considering past, present and reasonable

future events in the CE analysis area.

Summary of Sooty Grouse Status and Trend at the Bioregional Scale

The	SNF	LRMP	(as	amended	by	the	SNF	MIS	Amendment)	requires	bioregional­scale	habitat	and	

distribution	population	monitoring	for	the	sooty	grouse;	hence,	the	late	seral	open	canopy	coniferous	

forest	effects	analysis	for	the	KREW	research	project	must	be	informed	by	both	habitat	and	distribution	

population	monitoring	data.	The	sections	below	summarize	the	habitat	and	distribution	population	

status	and	trend	data	for	the	sooty	grouse.	This	information	is	drawn	from	the	detailed	information	on	

habitat	and	population	trends	in	the	SNF	Bioregional	MIS	Report	(USDA	Forest	Service	2008),	which	is	

hereby	incorporated	by	reference.	

Habitat Status and Trend. There	is	currently	75,000	acres	of	late	seral	open	canopy	coniferous	forest	

(ponderosa	pine,	Sierran	mixed	conifer,	white	fir,	red	fir,	and	eastside	pine)	habitat	on	National	Forest	

System	lands	in	the	Sierra	Nevada.	The	trend	is	slightly	decreasing	(from	3%	to	1%	within	the	last	

decade	on	National	Forest	System	lands).		

Population Status and Trend.	The	sooty	grouse	has	been	monitored	in	the	Sierra	Nevada	at	various	

sample	locations	by	hunter	surveys,	modeling,	point	counts,	and	breeding	bird	survey	protocols,	

including	California	Department	of	Fish	and	Game	Blue	(Sooty)	Grouse	Surveys	(Bland	1993,	1997,	

2002,	2006);	California	Department	of	Fish	and	Game	hunter	survey,	modeling,	and	hunting	regulations	

assessment	(CDFG	2004a,	CDFG	2004b);	Multi­species	inventory	and	monitoring	on	the	Lake	Tahoe	

Basin	Management	Unit	(LTBMU	2007);	and	1968	to	present—BBS	routes	throughout	the	Sierra	Nevada	

(Sauer	et	al.	2007).	These	data	indicate	that	sooty	grouse	continue	to	be	present	across	the	Sierra	

Nevada,	except	in	the	area	south	of	the	Kern	Gap,	and	current	data	at	the	rangewide,	California,	and	

Sierra	Nevada	scales	indicate	that	the	distribution	of	sooty	grouse	populations	in	the	Sierra	Nevada	

north	of	the	Kern	Gap	is	stable.	
Final Environmental Impact Statement Kings River Experimental Watershed Project 

Chapter 3­9 – Terrestrial Wildlife 3.9­116 

Relationship of Project­Level Habitat Impacts to Bioregional­Scale Trends		

The	1,834	acres	of	late	seral	open	canopy	coniferous	forest	habitat	that	exists	within	the	CE	boundary	

account	for	only	about	2%	of	those	habitats	at	the	bioregional	scale.	The	380	acres	of	late	seral	open	

canopy	coniferous	forest	habitat	within	the	project	area	accounts	for	less	than	1%	of	those	habitats	at	

the	bioregional	scale.	An	increase	of	153	acres	(113%	increase)	under	the	proposed	action	for	the	

Providence	area	and	424	acre	increase	(51%)	for	the	Bull	area	would	add	to	existing	habitat	for	Sooty	

Grouse,	thus	not	negatively	altering	the	existing	bioregional	trend	of	this	habitat.	None	of	the	

alternatives	would	lead	to	a	change	in	the	distribution	of	Sooty	Grouse	across	the	Sierra	Nevada	

bioregion.		

3­9.6.3.2.5. Late Seral Closed Canopy Coniferous Forest Habitat (California Spotted Owl, 

American Marten, and Northern Flying Squirrel) 

Project­level Effects Analysis—Late Seral Closed Canopy Coniferous Forest Habitat		

Existing Habitat and Changes in the Project Area:	There	are	approximately	315	acres	of	late	seral	

closed	canopy	coniferous	forest	habitat	currently	in	the	two	KREW	management	areas:	234	acres	in	the	

Providence	area	and	81	acres	in	the	Bull	area.		Specific	acreages,	and	their	changes	through	time	as	a	

result	of	alternative	management,	are	shown	in	the	Table	3­9­33	and	Table	3­9­34.		A	summary	

description	is	provided	here.	

Providence Area:	Late­seral	closed	canopy	coniferous	forest	shows	an	increase	of	51­76%	for	

Alternatives	2­4	after	treatment	compared	with	the	no	action	alternative	of	236	acres.		Alternative	5	

shows	a	similar	increase	of	56%	in	this	habitat	compared	with	Alternative	1.	

Bull Area:	Late­seral	closed	canopy	coniferous	forest	shows	an	increase	of	48­106%	for	Alternatives	2­

4	after	treatment	compared	with	the	no	action	alternative	of	86	acres,	and	Alternative	5	shows	an	

increase	of	100%	in	this	habitat	compared	with	Alternative	1.

Direct and Indirect Effects to Habitat by Alternatives 2­5 

The	four	action	alternatives	are	assessed	together	in	this	section	because	they	are	similar	actions,	

varying	primarily	in	the	type	of	forest	thinning.	Prescribed	fire	treatments	are	the	same	for	all	action	

alternatives.		Proposed	thinning	under	all	alternatives	would	concentrate	on	removing	smaller	diameter	

trees,	particularly	firs	and	cedars,	thus	decreasing	the	chance	that	wildfire	would	completely	or	partially	

consume	the	habitat.		With	less	vegetative	competition,	remaining	trees	would	exhibit	higher	growth	

rates,	which	will	promote	faster	growth	to	larger	trees.	All	trees	greater	than	30	inches	dbh	would	be	

retained;	those	larger	trees	are	generally	more	fire­resistant,	particularly	the	pines.		All	mature	oaks	also	

would	be	retained	and	snags	greater	than	15	inches	dbh	would	be	retained	unless	deemed	hazardous	

for	fire	or	public	safety.		

The	proposed	thinning	will	retain	the	overall	forest	structure,	as	compared	with	clearcutting	that	would	

substantially	alter	it.		Therefore,	late	seral	forests	will	remain	intact	after	treatments,	albeit	in	some	

areas	the	canopy	cover	will	be	opened	slightly	converting	some	closed	canopied	forests	to	open	canopy	

forests.		However,	modeled	projections	of	late	seral	forest	canopy	overall	show	a	net	increase	

immediately	after	treatment.	Overall,	the	action	alternatives	would	lead	to	greater	pine	presence	in	the	

stands	and	all	remaining	trees	will	be	more	dispersed	and	obtain	larger	size	through	time.		Additionally,	

the	understory	shrub	component	would	be	more	diverse	with	a	mosaic	of	young	and	older	patches	due	

to	increased	sunlight	and	less	competition	from	younger	trees.	
Final Environmental Impact Statement Kings River Experimental Watershed Project 

Chapter 3­9 – Terrestrial Wildlife 3.9­117 

Proposed	underburns	also	will	help	clear	many	young	understory	firs	and	cedars	as	well	as	removing	

dead	wood,	primarily	the	smaller	diameter	wood.		Prescribed	burns	tend	to	burn	less	severe	than	

wildfires,	hence	most,	but	not	all	larger	diameter	(e.g.,	>24	inches	diameter)	surface	dead	wood	is	

expected	to	remain	after	burning.	This	underburning	also	will	burn	back	many,	but	not	all	shrubs,	and	

those	effects	would	be	temporarily	due	to	most	shrubs	ability	to	reestablish	through	sprouting	or	

reseeding.		With	less	understory	saplings	and	intermediate	sized	trees,	the	stands	generally	will	be	more	

open	with	a	mosaic	of	young	and	old	shrub	patches.		

In	addition	to	the	direct	benefit	of	increasing	the	representation	of	late	seral	closed	canopy	coniferous	

forest	habitat,	the	action	alternatives	would	also	benefit	the	habitat	by	returning	it	to	more	historical	

ecological	conditions,	which	includes	forest	heterogeneity	both	in	the	overstory	as	well	as	the	

understory,	as	well	as	making	them	more	resilient	to	wildfire,	drought,	insect	infestation	and	disease.			

Cumulative Effects to Habitat in the Analysis Area 

Past,	present	and	foreseeable	future	projects	and	events	in	the	CE	analysis	area	are	listed	in	Tables	3­1	

through	3­4.	The	effects	of	actions	and	events	in	the	cumulative	effects	area	is	the	same,	or	similar,	as	

that	described	for	the	Late	seral	Forest	Open	Canopy	habitat	type.		

Many	of	the	ongoing	management	activities	within	the	CE	boundary	do	not	cause	significant	cumulative	

impacts	to	late	seral	closed	canopy	coniferous	forest	habitat.		And	in	most	cases	this	type	of	habitat	is	a	

net	benefit.	As	previously	discussed,	acres	of	habitat	taken	out	by	hydroelectric	right­of­ways,	roads,	and	

recreational	use,	are	insignificant	compared	to	the	total	acres	of	habitat	available	within	the	CE	

boundary.	Cattle	tend	to	utilize	grasslands,	meadows,	and	young	shrub	fields.	They	do	not	utilize	late	

seral	coniferous	forest	habitat	to	a	substantial	degree;	therefore,	they	would	not	contribute	cumulative	

effects.	In	most	instances,	there	would	not	be	enough	trees	removed	under	roadside	hazard	tree	

removal	to	change	the	status	of	the	habitat.	Plantations	would	not	transition	to	late	seral	coniferous	

forest	habitat	within	the	time	frame	of	this	analysis.	Therefore,	ongoing	plantation	maintenance	would	

not	cause	cumulative	effects	upon	this	habitat.		

About	17,300	acres	of	underburn	projects	are	ongoing	within	the	CE	boundary.	Any	portion	of	these	

underburns	that	occur	in	late	seral	closed	canopy	habitat	would	benefit	this	habitat	by	making	it	less	

susceptible	to	catastrophic	wildfires.		

About	6,500	acres	of	thinning	have	recently	occurred	or	will	occur	in	the	70,000+	acre	CE	area	(South	of	

Shaver,	10S18,	Jose	1,	Dinkey	N&S,	Keola,	Soaproot,	and	East	Fork).		These	vegetation	management	

projects	present	the	greatest	potential	for	cumulative	effects	to	this	particular	habitat	type,	however	

nearly	all	forested	acreage	involved	with	FS	management	listed	in	Table	3.1­1will	retain	an	average	

minimum	of	40	percent	overstory	canopy	cover	as	part	of	policy	and	guidelines.		In	some	rare	instances	

canopy	cover	can	be	taken	below	that	level,	up	to	20	percent	lower,	if	stands	initially	have	a	low	percent	

canopy	cove,	such	as	on	upper,	drier,	southerly	slopes,	but	the	instances	of	leaving	less	than	an	average	

of	40	percent	canopy	cover	for	treatment	areas	is	generally	rare.		Therefore,	given	the	FS	policies	and	

guidelines	for	typically	maintaining	a	minimum	average	40%	canopy	cover	for	their	treatments	as	well	

as	retaining	all	trees	greater	than	30	inches	dbh	and	all	mature	oaks,	we	do	not	expect	the	federal	land	

management	projects	in	the	CE	area	to	substantially	affect	this	habitat	type.		Examples	of	vegetation	

management	project	affects	on	this	habitat	type	include	the	South	of	Shaver	project	which	did	not	

impact	any	late	seral	closed	canopy	coniferous	forest	habitat,	and	the	10S18	project	which	contained	

only	26	acres	of	this	habitat.	The	Dinkey	North	project,	which	is	immediately	north	of	the	Providence	

management	area	current	has	132	acres	of	late	seral	closed	canopy	coniferous	forest	and	the	proposed	

action	is	expected	to	increase	this	habitat	type	by	12	acres	(9%)	and	the	fire	severity	alternative		would	
Final Environmental Impact Statement Kings River Experimental Watershed Project 

Chapter 3­9 – Terrestrial Wildlife 3.9­118 

increase	it	by	21	acres	(16%).		The	Dinkey	South	project	currently	has	132	acres	of	late	seral,	closed	

canopy	coniferous	habitat	and	the	proposed	action	is	expected	to	increase	that	habitat	by	51	acres	and	

the	fire	severity	alternative	would	increase	it	by	54	acres.	

Possibly	the	greatest	potential	effect	of	vegetation/fuels	management	projects	on	mid­seral	forest	

within	close	juxtaposition	to	the	KREW	management	areas	is	the	proposed	private	land	Quarry	Timber	

Sale	adjoining	the	Providence	management	area.	This	timber	sale	involves	547	acres	of	uneven	aged	

timber	harvest	that	will	leave	at	least	100	sq	ft	of	basal	area	immediately	after	harvest	with	at	least	15	

sq	ft	of	that	amount	as	seed	trees	greater	than	18	inches	dbh.		An	estimated	500	ac	of	that	area	consists	

of	closed	canopy	forest	available	for	harvest,	and	most	of	this	mid­seral	forest	will	most	likely	become	

open	mid­seral	forest,	thus	increasing	that	particular	habitat	type	on	lands	adjoining	the	Providence	

area.			

All	of	the	vegetation	management	projects	on	federal	and	private	lands	will	retain	overstory	canopy	

cover	of	approximately	40	percent	or	greater,	albeit	the	uneven	aged	management	on	the	private	lands	

will	initially	have	some	areas	with	slightly	lower	canopy	cover	immediately	after	treatment.	The	fact	

that	all	these	projects	will	provide	for	greater	forest	heterogeneity	and	greater	understory	vegetation	

abundance	and	diversity	is	a	benefit	to	the	species	that	use	these	forest	habitats.			

Fire	modeling	projections	show	a	distinct	possibility	of	wildfire	occurring	in	about	1,866	acres	of	

coniferous	forest	in	the	CE	boundary	in	the	future.	In	this	event,	some	late	seral	closed	canopy	conifer	

forest	habitat	could	be	burned,	but	wildfires	can	also	burn	only	portions	of	the	forest	in	a	mosaic	

fashion.		Area	burned	less	intensively	would	most	likely	retain	late	seral	forest	characteristics.		Areas	

burned	most	severely	would	likely	be	replaced	by	natural	regeneration	and	tree	planting	over	many	

decades,	depending	on	the	severity.		If	a	portion	of	the	1,866	acres	of	potential	wildfire	burn	could	

regenerate	into	shrub	or	shrub/tree	habitat,	such	habitat	most	likely	would	not	by	adequate	for	those	

species	reliant	on	late	seral,	closed	canopy	forests.			

Recent	past	and	foreseeable	future	vegetation	management	projects	on	USFS	land	in	the	CE	area	most	

likely	will	increase	the	amount	of	late	seral	closed	canopy	coniferous	forest	habitat	due	to	the	FS	S&Gs	

that	are	implemented	with	each	project.	The	KREW	action	alternatives	would	further	increase	this	

habitat.	In	addition	to	increasing	this	habitat	acreage,	the	action	alternatives	would	create	forests	that	

are	more	fire,	drought,	insect,	and	disease	resistant,	which	helps	ensure	that	this	habitat	will	be	

sustained	on	the	landscape.	Overall, the effects of implementing any of the action alternatives will

not create a significant cumulative impact when considering past, present and reasonable future

other events in the CE analysis area.

Summary of Status and Trend at the Bioregional Scale

The	SNF	LRMP	(as	amended	by	the	SNF	MIS	Amendment)	requires	bioregional­scale	habitat	and	

distribution	population	monitoring	for	the	CSO,	American	marten,	and	northern	flying	squirrel;	hence,	

the	late	seral	closed	canopy	coniferous	forest	(ponderosa	pine,	Sierran	mixed	conifer,	white	fir	and	red	

fir)	habitat	effects	analysis	for	the	KREW	research	project	must	be	informed	by	both	habitat	and	

distribution	population	monitoring	data.	The	sections	below	summarize	the	habitat	and	distribution	

population	status	and	trend	data.	This	information	is	drawn	from	the	detailed	information	on	habitat	

and	population	trends	in	the	SNF	Bioregional	MIS	Report	(USDA	Forest	Service	2008),	which	is	hereby	

incorporated	by	reference.	

Habitat Status and Trend.	There	is	currently	994,000	acres	of	late	seral	closed	canopy	coniferous	

forest	(ponderosa	pine,	Sierran	mixed	conifer,	white	fir,	and	red	fir)	habitat	on	National	Forest	System	
Final Environmental Impact Statement Kings River Experimental Watershed Project 

Chapter 3­9 – Terrestrial Wildlife 3.9­119 

lands	in	the	Sierra	Nevada.	The	trend	is	slightly	increasing	(from	7%	to	9%	within	the	last	decade	on	

National	Forest	System	lands).	

Population Status and Trend—California Spotted Owl.	CSO	has	been	monitored	in	California	and	

throughout	the	Sierra	Nevada	through	general	surveys,	monitoring	of	nests	and	territorial	birds,	and	

demography	studies	(Verner	et	al.	1992;	USDA	Forest	Service	2001,	2004b,	2006b;	USFWS	2006;	Sierra	

Nevada	Research	Center	2007).	Current	data	at	the	rangewide,	California,	and	Sierra	Nevada	scales	

indicate	that,	although	there	may	be	localized	declines	in	population	trend	[e.g.,	localized	decreases	in	

“lambda”	(estimated	annual	rate	of	population	change)],	the	distribution	of	CSO	populations	in	the	

Sierra	Nevada	is	stable.	

Population Status and Trend—American Marten.	American	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	American	marten	has	been	monitored	on	the	Sierra	Nevada	forests	as	part	of	the	SNFPA	

monitoring	plan	(USDA	Forest	Service	2005a,	2006a,	2007b).	Current	data	at	the	rangewide,	California,	

and	Sierra	Nevada	scales	indicate	that,	although	marten	appear	to	be	distributed	throughout	their	

historic	range,	their	distribution	has	become	fragmented	in	the	southern	Cascades	and	northern	Sierra	

Nevada,	particularly	in	Plumas	County.	The	distribution	appears	to	be	continuous	across	high­elevation	

forests	from	Placer	County	south	through	the	southern	end	of	the	Sierra	Nevada.		

Population Status and Trend—Northern Flying Squirrel.	The	northern	flying	squirrel	has	been	

monitored	in	the	Sierra	Nevada	at	various	sample	locations	by	live­trapping,	ear­tagging,	camera	

surveys,	snap­trapping,	and	radio	telemetry:	2002–present	on	the	Plumas	and	Lassen	National	Forests	

(Sierra	Nevada	Research	Center	2007),	and	1958–2004	throughout	the	Sierra	Nevada	in	various	

monitoring	efforts	and	studies	(see	USDA	Forest	Service	2008,	Table	NOFLS­IV­1).	These	data	indicate	

that	northern	flying	squirrels	continue	to	be	present	at	these	sample	sites,	and	current	data	at	the	

rangewide,	California,	and	Sierra	Nevada	scales	indicate	that	the	distribution	of	northern	flying	squirrel	

populations	in	the	Sierra	Nevada	is	stable.	

Relationship of Project­Level Habitat Impacts to Bioregional­Scale Trends		

California Spotted Owl.	The	315	acres	of	late	seral	closed	canopy	coniferous	forest	habitat	within	the	

project	area	accounts	for	less	than	1%	of	those	habitats	at	the	bioregional	scale.	An	increase	of	225	acres	

(71%	increase)	under	the	proposed	action	would	add	to	existing	amounts	of	this	habitat,	thus	not	

negatively	altering	the	existing	bioregional	trend.	None	of	the	alternatives	would	lead	to	a	change	in	the	

distribution	of	CSO	across	the	Sierra	Nevada	bioregion.		

American Marten.	The	315	acres	of	late	seral	closed	canopy	coniferous	forest	habitat	within	the	KREW	

research	project	areas	account	for	less	than	1%	of	those	habitats	at	the	bioregional	scale.	An	increase	of	

225	acres	(71%)	under	the	proposed	action	would	add	to	existing	habitat	for	American	marten	and	thus	

not	negatively	alter	the	existing	bioregional	trend	of	this	habitat.	None	of	the	alternatives	would	lead	to	

a	change	in	the	distribution	of	American	marten	across	the	Sierra	Nevada	bioregion.		

Northern Flying Squirrel. Same	effects	as	described	for	spotted	owl	and	American	marten.	The	

Preferred	Alternative	would increase	this	habitat.	None	of	the	alternatives	would	lead	to	a	change	in	the	

distribution	of	Northern	flying	squirrel	across	the	Sierra	Nevada	bioregion.	
Final Environmental Impact Statement Kings River Experimental Watershed Project 

Chapter 3­9 – Terrestrial Wildlife 3.9­120 

3­9.6.3.2.6. Snags in Green Forest Ecosystem Component (Hairy Woodpecker) 

Project­level Effects Analysis—Snags in Green Forest Ecosystem Component		

Current Condition and Changes of Habitat in the Project Area:	Prior	to	2004,	the	forest	implemented	

S&Gs	from	the	SNF	LRMP	(USDA	Forest	Service	1992)	which	called	for	maintaining	an	average	of	1.5	

snags	per	acre	in	sizes	15–24”	dbh	and	an	average	of	0.5	snags	per	acre	in	sizes	25”	dbh	or	greater.	All	

countable	snags	had	to	be	20’	or	greater	height	(S&G	#64,	p.	4­16).	Additionally,	a	sufficient	number	of	

live	trees	had	to	be	left	in	appropriate	sizes	to	serve	as	replacement	snags.	The	SNFPA	(USDA	Forest	

Service	2004a),	modified	the	SNF	LRMP	with	the	followings	guidelines:	(1)	in	westside	mixed	conifer	

and	ponderosa	pine	types,	Forests	should	maintain	4	of	the	largest	snags	per	acre,	(2)	in	red	fir	forest	

type,	they	should	maintain	6	of	the	largest	snags	per	acre,	(3)	in	eastside	pine	and	mixed	conifer	forest	

types,	they	should	maintain	3	of	the	largest	snags	per	acre,	and	(4)	in	westside	hardwood	ecosystems,	

they	should	maintain	4	of	the	largest	snags	(hardwood	or	conifer)	per	acre,	or	if	standing	live	hardwood	

trees	lack	dead	branches,	they	should	maintain	6	of	the	largest	snags	per	acre.	The	SNFPA	goes	on	to	say	

“Use	snags	larger	than	15	inches	dbh	to	meet	this	guideline.	Snags	should	be	clumped	and	distributed	

irregularly	across	the	treatment	units.	Consider	leaving	fewer	snags	strategically	located	in	treatment	

areas	within	the	WUI.”	

The	average	number	of	snags	per	acre	for	the	Providence	and	Bull	management	areas	is	presented	in	

Tables	3­9­33	and	3­9­34.	Snags	in	green	forests	shows	an	increase	of	14%	for	Alternative	2,	whereas	

Alternative	3	and	4	shows	a	decline	of	8­22%	after	treatment	compared	with	the	no	action	alternative	of	

7.7	snags	per	acre;	Alternative	5	shows	a	similar	decline	of	13%	in	this	habitat	compared	with	

Alternative	1.		Specific	numbers	of	snags	are	summarized	here.	

Direct and Indirect Effects to Habitat by Alternatives 2­5

Retained Snags:	Snags	greater	than	15	inches	dbh	will	be	retained	in	large	numbers	by	all	action	

alternatives	(Table	3­9­8).	Currently	under	the	no	action	alternative	there	are	7.7	snags	per	acre.		

Alternative	2	shows	an	increase	to	8.8	per	acre	immediately	after	treatment,	whereas	Alternatives	3­5	

decline	to	7.1,	6.0	and	6.7,	respectively.		Although	the	numbers	decline	immediately	after	treatment,	they	

still	meet	the	FS	desired	conditions	of	4	snags	per	acre	for	Sierra	mixed	conifer	and	ponderosa	pine	and	

6	per	acre	for	red	fir.		Additionally,	the	numbers	of	snags	increase	by	at	least	1­2	snags	per	acre	over	the	

following	30	year	period	for	all	action	alternatives	(Table	3­9­8).	

Retained Trees:		All	trees	greater	than	30’	dbh	and	nearly	all	trees	larger	than	20”	dbh,	will	be	retained	

by	management	of	all	action	alternatives	(Table	3­9­7).	Table	3.9­7	further	shows	that	the	number	of	

large	live	trees	after	treatment	by	Alternative	5,	and	other	action	alternatives,	will	be	similar	to	those	

under	the	no	action	alternative	(Alternative	1).	The	action	alternatives	will	be	retaining	a	majority	of	the	

co­dominant	and	dominant	live	trees	therefore	providing	an	even	larger	number	of	larger	trees	to	

recruit	future	large	snags.		

Under	the	action	alternatives	snags	greater	than	15	inches	dbh	are	retained,	except	when	they	could	

present	hazards	to	people	using	roads	or	they	are	deemed	hazards	for	fire	control,	such	as	in	fire	line	

areas	or	WUI	areas.					

Prescribed	fire	treatments,	proposed	for	all	action	alternatives,	are	expected	to	increase	the	number	of	

snags	per	acre	through	time.		A	2007	study	conducted	in	the	Teakettle	forest	adjacent	to	Bull	

management	area	showed	that	snag	mass	and	density	increased	dramatically	after	prescribed	fire	
Final Environmental Impact Statement Kings River Experimental Watershed Project 

Chapter 3­9 – Terrestrial Wildlife 3.9­121 

treatments	(Innes	et	al	2006).		This	increase	was	most	notable	in	small	diameter	classes,	which	

increased	up	to	20%,	although	large	snags	decreased	by	about	13%.	

A	study	by	Bagne	et	al,	(2008)	showed	that	prescribed	fire	treatments	could	initially	decrease	the	

number	of	snags	per	acre.		That	2002/2003	PSW	study	found	a	net	loss	of	12%	in	all	available	snags	

after	one	burn	entry,	however,	we	do	not	anticipate	this	to	occur	for	these	two	KREW	management	

areas.	Instead,	we	anticipate	a	net	gain	of	14%	in	snags	of	all	forest	types	after	proposed	prescribed	fire	

treatments.	This	difference	in	the	study	and	our	projections	is	likely	due	to	the	time	frame	analyzed	after	

the	prescribed	fire.	In	that	study,	the	PSW	reassessed	snag	numbers	1	to	2	years	after	prescribed	fire	

treatments,	and	we	carried	the	timeframe	out	further	for	our	projections.		

Generally,	snags	continue	to	accrue	after	prescribed	fires	for	longer	than	a	couple	of	years	after	

treatment.	Trees	that	are	heavily	scorched	but	do	not	die	as	a	direct	result	of	the	burn,	are	often	stressed	

and	sometime	succumb	to	insects,	disease,	and	drought	several	years	after	a	burn	because	their	

resistance	is	lower	(Ballard,	C.	pers.	comm.).	Therefore,	while	some	snags	(particularly	the	smaller	more	

decayed	ones)	may	be	lost	in	a	burn,	in	general,	more	snags	are	gained	through	time.	Another	difference	

between	the	study	and	what	we	anticipate	to	occur	is	that	PSW	found	ponderosa	pine	snags	experienced	

a	higher	degree	of	loss	than	other	snag	species.	We	anticipate	a	higher	percent	loss	in	fir	snags.	PSW’s	

study	(Bagne	et	al	2008)	occurred	primarily	in	ponderosa	pine	habitat.	Therefore,	one	would	anticipate	

that	there	would	be	a	higher	number	of	pine	snags	lost	(rather	than	other	conifer	types)	since	their	

representation	in	the	stand	was	much	higher.		

Cumulative Effects to Habitat in the Analysis Area

Past,	present	and	foreseeable	future	projects	and	events	in	the	CE	analysis	area	are	listed	in	Tables	3­1	

through	3­4.	Many	of	the	ongoing	management	activities	within	the	CE	boundary	do	not	cause	

substantial	cumulative	impacts	to	mid	seral	and	late	seral	closed	canopy	coniferous	forest	habitat	were	

snags	greater	than	15	inches	dbh	are	found.		And	in	most	cases	this	type	of	habitat,	and	the	FS	snag	

retention	guidelines	helps	ensure	this	habitat	remains	on	the	landscapes	of	treatment	areas.		Acres	of	

habitat	taken	out	by	hydroelectric	and	transmission	line	right­of­ways,	roads,	recreational	use,	cattle	

grazing	and	plantation	maintenance	are	insubstantial	to	snag	habitat.		

About	17,300	acres	of	underburn	projects	are	ongoing	within	the	CE	boundary.	Any	portion	of	these	

underburns	that	occur	in	mid	seral	and	late	seral	forests	would	create	a	net	increase	in	small	and	large	

habitat	through	time,	as	described	under	the	direct	and	indirect	effects	section.		Prescribed	fire	

treatments,	proposed	for	all	action	alternatives,	could	initially	decrease	the	number	of	snags	per	acre	

(Bagne	et	al	2008),	yet	through	time	snags	continue	to	accrue	after	prescribed	fires	for	longer	than	a	

couple	of	years	after	treatment	and	we	expect	a	net	increase	of	snags	as	a	result	of	underburning.	Trees	

that	are	heavily	scorched	but	do	not	die	as	a	direct	result	of	the	burn,	are	often	stressed	and	sometime	

succumb	to	insects,	disease,	and	drought	several	years	after	a	burn	because	their	resistance	is	lower	

(Ballard	pers.	comm.).		We	therefore	anticipate	a	net	gain	of	14%	in	snags	of	all	forest	types	after	

proposed	prescribed	fire	treatments.	

About	6,500	acres	of	thinning	have	recently	occurred	or	will	occur	in	the	70,000+	acre	CE	area	(South	of	

Shaver,	10S18,	Jose	1,	Dinkey	N&S,	Keola,	Soaproot,	and	East	Fork).		These	vegetation	management	

projects	present	the	greatest	potential	for	cumulative	effects	to	snag	habitat.		Most	forested	acreage	

involved	with	FS	management	listed	in	Tables	3­1	through	3­4	will	retain	an	average	minimum	of	40	

percent	overstory	canopy	cover	as	part	of	policy	and	guidelines.		In	some	rare	instances	canopy	cover	
Final Environmental Impact Statement Kings River Experimental Watershed Project 

Chapter 3­9 – Terrestrial Wildlife 3.9­122 

can	be	taken	below	that	level,	up	to	20	percent	lower,	if	stands	initially	have	a	low	percent	canopy	cove,	

such	as	on	upper,	drier,	southerly	slopes,	but	the	instances	of	leaving	less	than	an	average	of	40	percent	

canopy	cover	for	treatment	areas	is	generally	rare.		This,	and	other,	FS	policies	and	guidelines	for	

maintaining	a	minimum	average	40%	canopy	cover	for	vegetation	treatments	as	well	as	retaining	all	

snags	greater	than	15	inches	DBH,	unless	deemed	hazardous,	and	retaining	all	trees	greater	than	30	

inches	dbh	and	all	mature	oaks	are	expected	to	at	least	sustain	a	reasonable	number	of	snags	in	forest	

habitat	through	time	on	FS	lands.			

Fire	modeling	projections	show	a	distinct	possibility	of	wildfire	occurring	in	about	1,866	acres	of	

coniferous	forest	in	the	CE	boundary	in	the	future.	In	this	event,	some	late	seral	closed	canopy	conifer	

forest	habitat	could	be	burned,	but	wildfires	can	also	burn	only	portions	of	the	forest	in	a	mosaic	

fashion.		Area	burned	less	intensively	would	most	likely	retain	late	seral	forest	characteristics.		Areas	

burned	most	severely	would	likely	be	replaced	by	natural	regeneration	and	tree	planting	over	many	

decades,	depending	on	the	severity.		If	a	portion	of	the	1,866	acres	of	potential	wildfire	burn	could	

regenerate	into	shrub	or	shrub/tree	habitat,	such	habitat	most	likely	would	not	by	adequate	for	those	

species	reliant	on	late	seral,	closed	canopy	forests.			

Recent	past	and	foreseeable	future	vegetation	management	projects	on	USFS	land	in	the	CE	area	most	

likely	will	increase	the	amount	of	late	seral	coniferous	forest	habitat	due	to	the	FS	S&Gs	that	are	

implemented	with	each	project.	The	KREW	action	alternatives	would	further	increase	this	habitat.	These	

habitats,	and	their	large	trees	needed	to	provide	future	large	snags.		In	addition	to	increasing	this	habitat	

acreage,	the	action	alternatives	would	create	forests	that	are	more	fire,	drought,	insect,	and	disease	

resistant,	which	helps	ensure	that	this	habitat	will	be	sustained	on	the	landscape.			

Summary of Hairy Woodpecker Status and Trend at the Bioregional Scale

The	SNF	LRMP	(as	amended	by	the	SNF	MIS	Amendment)	requires	bioregional­scale	habitat	and	

distribution	population	monitoring	for	the	hairy	woodpecker;	hence,	the	snag	effects	analysis	for	the	

KREW	research	project	must	be	informed	by	both	habitat	and	distribution	population	monitoring	data.	

The	sections	below	summarize	the	habitat	and	distribution	population	status	and	trend	data	for	the	

hairy	woodpecker.	This	information	is	drawn	from	the	detailed	information	on	habitat	and	distribution	

population	trends	in	the	SNF	Bioregional	MIS	Report	(USDA	Forest	Service	2008),	which	is	hereby	

incorporated	by	reference.	

Ecosystem Component Status and Trend. The	current	(based	on	2001–2004	inventory	sources)	

average	number	of	medium­sized	and	large­sized	snags	(>	15"	dbh,	all	decay	classes)	per	acre	across	

major	coniferous	and	hardwood	forest	types	(westside	mixed	conifer,	ponderosa	pine,	white	fir,	

productive	hardwoods,	red	fir,	eastside	pine)	in	the	Sierra	Nevada	ranges	from	1.4	per	acre	in	eastside	

pine	to	8.3	per	acre	in	white	fir.	Detailed	information	by	forest	type,	snag	size,	and	snag	decay	class	can	

be	found	in	the	SNF	Bioregional	MIS	Report	(USDA	Forest	Service	2008).	

Data	from	the	mid­to­late	1990s	were	compared	with	the	current	data	to	calculate	the	trend	in	total	

snags	per	acre	by	Regional	forest	type	for	the	10	Sierra	Nevada	national	forests	and	indicate	that,	during	

this	period,	snags	per	acre	increased	within	westside	mixed	conifer	(+0.80),	white	fir	(+1.98),	and	red	fir	

(+0.68)	and	decreased	within	ponderosa	pine	(­0.17),	productive	hardwoods	(­0.17),	and	eastside	pine	

(­0.16).	

Population Status and Trend. The	hairy	woodpecker	has	been	monitored	in	the	Sierra	Nevada	at

various	sample	locations	by	avian	point	counts	and	breeding	bird	survey	protocols,	including	1997	to	

present—Lassen	National	Forest	(Burnett	and	Humple	2003,	Burnett	et	al.	2005);	2002	to	present—
Final Environmental Impact Statement Kings River Experimental Watershed Project 

Chapter 3­9 – Terrestrial Wildlife 3.9­123 

Plumas	and	Lassen	National	Forests	(Sierra	Nevada	Research	Center	2007);	1992	to	2005—Sierra	

Nevada	MAPS	stations	(Siegel	and	Kaschube	2007);	and	1968	to	present—BBS	routes	throughout	the	

Sierra	Nevada	(Sauer	et	al.	2007).	These	data	indicate	that	the	hairy	woodpecker	continues	to	be	present	

at	these	sample	sites,	and	current	data	at	the	rangewide,	California,	and	Sierra	Nevada	scales	indicate	

that	the	distribution	of	hairy	woodpecker	populations	in	the	Sierra	Nevada	is	stable.	

Relationship of Project­Level Habitat Impacts to Bioregional­Scale Hairy Woodpecker Trend

The	47,905	acres	of	mid	and	late	seral	coniferous	forest	habitat	that	provides	the	green	forest	snag	

component	within	the	CE	boundary	account	for	only	1%	of	the	3,835,000	mid	and	late	seral	coniferous	

forest	habitat	within	the	Sierra	Nevada	bioregion.	Therefore,	none	of	the	alternatives	would	alter	the	

bioregional	trend	in	the	snag	component	of	the	coniferous	forest	habitat,	nor	would	they	lead	to	a	

change	in	the	distribution	of	the	hairy	woodpecker	across	the	Sierra	Nevada	bioregion.