Wildlife Biological Assessment Conner Creek Mouth Fish Passage Enhancement Project Junction City, California Trinity County

Wildlife Biological Assessment

Conner Creek Mouth

Fish Passage Enhancement Project

Junction City, California

Trinity County

Prepared by: /s/ Carla De Juilio Date: December 31, 2014

Carla De Juilio, Wildlife Biologist

Northwest California Resource Conservation & Development Council

Reviewed and

Approved by: Date:

This Document has been prepared for the Northwest California Resource Conser- vation & Development Council’s Five Counties Salmonid Conservation Program.

Table of Contents

I. INTRODUCTION ...... 3 II. CRITICAL HABITAT ...... 6 III. CONSULTATIONS TO DATE ...... 7 IV. CURRENT MANAGEMENT DIRECTION ...... 8 V. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION ...... 9 VI. SPECIES ACCOUNTS AND HABITAT- ESA and CESA SPECIES ...... 16 VI.1 Northern Spotted Owl (Strix occidentalis caurina) ...... 16 VI.2 Willow Flycatcher (Empiodonax traillii) ...... 17 VI.3 Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) ...... 18 VI.4 Fisher, West Coast DPS (Pekania pennanti) ...... 19 VI.5 Townsend’s Big-eared Bat (Corynorhinus townsendii) ...... 20 VI.6 Trinity Bristle Snail (Monadenia setosa) ...... 21 VII. EFFECTS-ESA AND CESA SPECIES ...... 21 VII.1 Northern Spotted Owl (Strix occidentalis caurina) ...... 21 VII.2 Willow Flycatcher (Empiodonax traillii) ...... 22 VII.3 Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) ...... 22 VII.4 Fisher, West Coast DPS (Martes pennanti) ...... 23 VII.5 Townsend’s Big-eared Bat (Corynorhinus townsendii) ...... 23 VII.6 Trinity Bristle Snail (Monadenia setosa) ...... 23 VIII. CUMULATIVE EFFECTS-ESA AND CESA SPECIES ...... 24 IX. CONCLUSIONS AND DETERMINATIONS- ESA AND CESA ...... 24 IX.1 Northern Spotted Owl (Strix occidentalis caurina) ...... 24 IX.2 Willow Flycatcher (Empiodonax traillii) ...... 24 IX.3 Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) ...... 24 IX.4 Fisher, West Coast DPS (Martes pennanti) ...... 24 IX.5 Townsend’s Big-eared Bat (Corynorhinus townsendii) ...... 25 IX.6 Trinity Bristle Snail (Monadenia setosa) ...... 25 X. SPECIES STATUS AND EFFECTS TO CALIFORNIA SPECIES OF SPECIAL CONCERN AND FULLY PROTECTED SPECIES ...... 25 XI. CONCLUSIONS AND DETERMINATIONS- CALIFORNIA SPECIES OF SPECIAL CONCERN AND FULLY PROTECTED SPECIES ...... 39 XII. REFERENCES ...... 40 Appendix A. Threatened and Endangered Species Lists ...... 47 Appendix B. Project Maps ...... 49 2

I. INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this Biological Assessment is to analyze and disclose the potential effects, and their level of significance, of the Conner Creek Mouth Fish Passage Enhancement Project in Junction City (project) on wildlife species and habitats to meet National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requirements. Wildlife species analyzed include those listed under the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA), the California Endangered Species Act (CESA), and California Species of Special Concern (SSC). The project does not occur on any lands managed by the United States Forest Service (USFS), Bureau of Land Management (BLM) or any other federal land management agency, therefore USFS and BLM Sensitive Species were not specifically analyzed.

The most recent federal wildlife species lists for the Junction City and Dedrick USGS 7.5 minute quadrangles were obtained on November 23, 2014 from the Arcata Fish and Wildlife Office of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). These lists are included as Appendix A. The most recent (September 2014) list of wildlife species considered under the CESA was obtained from the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), via their website. The California list was reviewed to determine the species with potential ranges within Trinity County. These species are included in the table below and are analyzed within this report.

Table 1. Federal and California Threatened, Endangered, and Candidate Species with the potential for occurrence within or near the Conner Creek Mouth Project

Status

Common Name Scientific Name ESA CESA

Northern Spotted Owl Strix occidentalis caurina Threatened Candidate

Willow flycatcher Empiodonax traillii N/A Endangered

Bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus Delisted Endangered

Fisher (West Coast DPS) Pekania pennanti Candidate Candidate

Townsend's Big-Eared Bat Corynorhinus townsendii N/A Candidate

Trinity bristle snail Monadenia setosa N/A Threatened

The species listed in Table 2 (below) have a distribution range that is outside of the action area and are not known or expected to occur there. They are excluded from further analysis as it has been determined that the proposed action will have no effect on them.

Table 2. Threatened, Endangered, and Candidate Species excluded from further analysis. Common Name Scientific Name Rationale for No Effect Determination

Outside known or expected Wolverine Gulo gulo range and no habitat present.

Outside known or expected Western yellow-billed cuckoo Coccyzus americanus range and no habitat present.

Species of Special Concern (SSC) are designated by the CDFW and are defined as a species, subspecies, or distinct population native to California that is extirpated from the State or, in the case of birds, in its primary seasonal or breeding role; is listed as Federally-, but not State-, threatened or endangered; meets the State definition of threatened or endangered but has not formally been listed; is experiencing, or formerly experienced, serious population declines or range retractions that, if continued or resumed, could qualify it for State threatened or endangered status; or has naturally small populations exhibiting high susceptibility to risk from any factor(s), that if realized, could lead to declines that would qualify it for State threatened or endangered status. The intent of designating SSCs is to focus attention on animals at conservation risk and achieve conservation and recovery of these animals before they meet CESA criteria for listing as threatened or endangered. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA; Califor- nia Public Resources Code §§ 21000-21177) requires State agencies, local governments, and special districts to evaluate and disclose impacts from "projects" in the State. Section 15380 of the CEQA Guidelines clearly indicates that SSCs should be included in an analysis of project impacts (Comrack et. al, 2008).

The California wildlife list of Species of Special Concern (SSC) was obtained from the Califor- nia Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), via their website. This list was last updated in September 2014 and was reviewed to determine that the following species have potential ranges within Trinity County (Table 3).

Table 3. California Wildlife Species of Special Concern (SSC) with the potential for occurrence within or near the Conner Creek Mouth Project

Common Name Scientific Name State Status Golden eagle Aquila chrysaetos Full Protection American Peregrine falcon Falco peregrinus anatum Full Protection Northern goshawk Accipiter gentilis SSC Olive-sided flycatcher Contopus cooperi SSC Yellow warbler Dendroica petechia brewsteri SSC Yellow-breasted chat Icteria virens SSC Purple martin Progne subis SSC Oregon snowshoe hare Lepus americanus klamathensis SSC American badger Taxidea taxus SSC Ring-tailed cat Bassariscus astutus Full Protection Pallid bat Antrozous pallidus SSC Southern torrent salamander Rhyacotriton variegatus SSC Pacific tailed frog Ascaphus truei SSC Foothill yellow-legged frog Rana boylii SCC Cascades frog Rana cascadae SSC Western pond turtle Emys marmorata SCC

This assessment considers federal and California threatened and endangered wildlife species, and California Species of Special Concern, by either eliminating them from detailed consideration based on the lack of suitable habitat and/or occurrence within the designated action area, or analyzing the potential project effects on the species and its habitat. The direct, indirect and cumulative effects expected from the project are considered in relation to habitat effects. Where there are no direct, indirect or cumulative effects, the project actions would not affect individuals, habitat, populations or compromise existing population viability. Where there are potential direct, indirect or cumulative effects, expected effects on individuals and their demographics are considered. The project is not expected to compromise the existing population viability of any wildlife species. Project activities anticipated to benefit individuals and/or populations by improving, or protecting existing suitable habitat, are noted. The likelihood that project activities would lead to a trend in Federal and/or State listing under the ESA and/or CESA is also addressed for each

species analyzed. Habitat for each species potentially affected has been surveyed and/or evaluat- ed in order to assess potential occupancy and effects of the project.

II. CRITICAL HABITAT

Critical Habitat for the northern spotted owl was first designated on January 15, 1992 by the USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. It was revised on August 13, 2008 (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2008) and again on December 4, 2012, with the Final Rule becoming effective on Janu- ary 3, 2013. The re-designation increased and modified the boundaries of the Critical Habitat Units (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2012). The 2012 designation of critical habitat lists five physical and biological features (PBFs) that provide essential life history requirements of the species:

1. Food, water, air, light, minerals, or other nutritional or physiological requirements; 2. Cover or shelter; 3. Sites for breeding, reproduction, and rearing of offspring; 4. Habitat that is protected from disturbance or are representative of the historic geographical and ecological distributions of a species; and 5. Space for individual and population growth, and for normal behavior

Primary Constituent Elements (PCEs) include the following (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2012, pp.71906-71907): 1. Forest types in early-, mid-, or late-seral stages that support the northern spotted owl across its geographical range 2. Habitat that provides for nesting and roosting 3. Habitat that provides for foraging 4. Habitat that supports the transience and colonization phases of dispersal

The following attributes generally characterize nesting/roosting habitat (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2012, p. 71907): 1. Moderate to high tree canopy closure (60 to over 80 percent) 2. Multi-layer, multi-species canopy of overstory trees greater than 30 inches diameter at breast height (DBH) 3. High basal area (greater than 240 square feet/acre) 4. High diversity of different diameters of trees

5. Snags greater than 20 inches DBH and large live trees with various deformities (e.g. large cavities, broken tops, mistletoe infections, and other platforms 6. Large accumulations of fallen trees and other woody debris on the ground; and 7. Sufficient open space below the canopy for flying Effects to these PCEs equate to effects to designated Critical Habitat whether or not northern spotted owls are present in the area.

The Critical Habitat map for the northern spotted owl was obtained from the US Fish and Wild- life Service Critical Habitat Portal (http://criticalhabitat.fws.gov/crithab/) on November 23, 2014. This project does not fall within designated Critical Habitat for the northern spotted owl; therefore, the project will have no effect on northern spotted owl Critical Habitat. The nearest Critical Habitat is approximately 1.2 miles southwest of the project.

III. CONSULTATIONS TO DATE

Greg Schmidt (Arcata Fish & Wildlife Service) was contacted in December 2014 to obtain the most updated wildlife data from the California National Diversity Database (CNDDB), including northern spotted owl observations. Becky Rogers (Shasta-Trinity National Forest) was contacted in November 2014 to obtain the location of the nearest northern spotted owl activity center. Wildlife observation data from the U.S. Forest Service Database was obtained from the Shasta- Trinity National Forest in February 2013. This project is not located on National Forest land, therefore an updated version was not acquired.

Consultation with the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) is required where threatened, endangered or proposed species, or their designated critical habitat, may be affected by a proposed action. There are no threatened, endangered or proposed species, designated critical habitat, within the project area or designated Action Area that will be affected by project activities, therefore consultation is not required. The lists of Threatened, Endangered, proposed and candidate species for the Junction City and Dedrick USGS 7.5 minute quadrangles were obtained on November 23, 2014 from the Arcata Fish and Wildlife Office website (Appendix A). This list fulfills the federal requirement to provide a species list pursuant to Section 7 of the ESA, as amended.

IV. CURRENT MANAGEMENT DIRECTION

Trinity River Record of Decision

The proposed action conforms to the U.S. Department of the Interior Record of Decision (ROD) for the Trinity River Mainstem Fishery Restoration Final Environmental Impact State- ment/Environmental Impact Report (Trinity EIS/EIR), which was completed in December 2000. The Trinity River Restoration Program (TRRP) was created by the ROD, which outlines the plan for restoration of the Trinity River and its fish and wildlife populations. Restoration strategies include flow management, physical channel rehabilitation including establishment of side channel habitat, sediment management, watershed restoration, infrastructure improvements, adaptive environmental assessment and monitoring, and environmental compliance and mitigation. Ap- pendix C of the ROD includes appropriate measures to minimize and mitigate impacts associated with implementation of projects. The proposed action includes specific resource protection and conservation measures and best management practices (Section V) that comply with the ROD.

Federal Coho Salmon Recovery Plan (2014)

The proposed action conforms to the Final Recovery Plan for the Southern Oregon/Northern Cal- ifornia Coast (SONCC) Evolutionarily Significant Unit (ESU) of Coho Salmon (2014). The goal of this Plan is to recover the SONCC ESU to the point where the species can be removed from the ESA list of threatened and endangered species. A recovered SONCC ESU will be naturally self-sustaining, and the factors that caused it to be listed will be sufficiently reduced to allow it to persist over time. The strategy includes recovery actions to restore habitat and reduce stresses and threats, so that populations will rebuild to the levels needed. The plan outlines key limiting stresses and threats to coho salmon, including barriers. Many migration barriers exist along tributaries of the Trinity River, including Conner Creek, which preclude access to potential coho salmon habitat and refugia. The proposed project will eliminate the barriers on Conner Creek, improving fish passage and allowing coho to access additional upstream habitat for spawning and rearing. Therefore the project is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Recovery Plan.

Recovery Strategy for California Coho Salmon (2004)

The proposed action conforms to the Recovery Strategy of California Coho Salmon, adopted by the California Fish and Game Commission (CDFW) in February 2004. The primary objective of the Recovery Strategy is to return coho salmon to a level of sustained viability so that they can be delisted. A second objective of this Recovery Strategy is to achieve harvestable populations of coho salmon for Tribal, recreational, and commercial fisheries. The strategy stresses that protection of the best remaining habitat, especially in areas where coho salmon are still present, and improvements to degraded habitat are both necessary to recover coho salmon. Within the Recov-

ery Strategy, there are several recommendations regarding fish passage barriers including con- tinuing and completing assessments and prioritizations for correction of fish passage barriers, developing and maintaining a database of barriers, and encouraging funding authorities to allo- cate adequate resources to construct new crossings and upgrade existing crossings (bridges, cul- vert and fills, other crossings) within the range of coho salmon to accommodate 100-year flows and associated bedload and debris. The proposed project will eliminate the barriers on Conner Creek, improving fish passage and allowing coho to access additional upstream habitat for spawning and rearing. Therefore the project is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Re- covery Strategy.

Northern Spotted Owl Recovery Plan

On June 28, 2011, the FWS released the Revised Recovery Plan for the Northern Spotted Owl (Strix occidentalis caurina). The purpose of recovery plans is to describe reasonable actions and criteria that are considered necessary to recover a listed species. The 2011 Revised Recovery Plan for the Northern Spotted Owl represents the “best available science.” The 2011 Recovery Plan recognizes the importance of maintaining and restoring habitat for the recovery and long- term survival of the spotted owl. The 2011 Recovery Plan relies on Federal lands to provide the major contribution for recovery (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2011).

This project is not located within or near suitable northern spotted owl nesting, roosting or foraging habitat. There will be no effect on northern spotted owl habitat or individuals; therefore the project is consistent with the objectives, goals, and recovery actions of the Revised Recovery Plan.

V. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION

Location The proposed project is located in Trinity County, California, on private land within the town of Junction City. The project is within the NW ¼ of Section 1 and NE ¼ of Section 2, Township 33N, Range 11W; Mount Diablo Base Meridian (Junction City and Dedrick USGS Quadran- gles); at approximately 1,450 feet (440 meters) elevation (see Appendix B. Project Maps). The project is located along an approximately 1,400 foot-long (425 meters) segment of Conner Creek, from approximately 700 feet upstream of the Quail Street crossing (tunnel), downstream to where Conner Creek flows into the Trinity River. Conner Creek is a perennial stream that originates near the Hayfork Divide approximately 4.5 miles southwest of the project, on Shasta- Trinity National Forest. Conner Creek enters the Trinity River approximately 270 feet (80 meters) east of the project.

Habitat within the project area consists of a riparian corridor surrounded by early to mid- successional mixed conifer forest dominated by ponderosa pine. Dominant overstory species within the riparian corridor include white alder (Alnus rhombifolia), black cottonwood (Populus trichocarpa), and big-leaf maple (Acer macrophyllum). Within the corridor, much of the understory is dominated by invasive Himalayan blackberry (Rubus armeniacus), however other understory and shrub species include younger individuals of the aforementioned species, as well as poison oak (Toxicodendron diversilobum), willow (Salix sp), manzanita (Arctostaphylos manzanita), madrone (Arbutus menziesii), ceonothus sp., and invasive scotch broom (Cytisus scopari- us). Conner Creek, like many of the creeks in Trinity County, has been highly disturbed from historical mining. As early as 1890 the channel within the project area was redirected into a steep bedrock confined area and an underground tunnel before it returns to its natural course. The area surrounding the creek was heavily mined until approximately 1954 (Chilcote, 2014). This deeply incised channel, along with mining tailings surrounding the creek and a lack of soil, significantly prevent riparian vegetation from becoming more extensively established.

Beyond the riparian corridor exists early to mid-seral mixed conifer forest, dominated by ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa). This project is located on private land and several private residences are in the vicinity.

There are no late-seral or old growth forested habitats within or near the project area.

Purpose and Need The objectives of the Conner Creek Mouth Project are to provide for fish passage, improve habitat conditions for salmonids, increase fish abundance, and restore the flow of Conner Creek to its confluence with the Trinity River. The portion of Conner Creek downstream of the waterfall is known to support coho salmon, Chinook salmon and rainbow trout/steelhead, while rainbow trout/steelhead are the only species that has been observed upstream of the waterfall (Chilcote, 2014). Conner Creek has a high potential to provide spawning and rearing habitat for salmonid fish species, however, the existing barriers are preventing fish passage at some or all flows. Cur- rent site conditions and desired future conditions are included in Table 4 (below).

Table 4. Comparison of Existing and Desired Conditions for the Conner Creek Mouth Project

• Multiple barriers prevent fish passage/migration; Existing • Incised stream channel increases stream velocities, and con- tributes to scouring, reducing habitat quality and quantity for Conditions salmonid fish species; • Limited deep pools and refugia for salmonid and other aquatic species

• Elimination/modification of barriers to allow fish passage/ Desired migration • Reduced stream gradient to decrease velocities, increasing Conditions habitat quality and quantity and allowing fish passage • Increased stream channel complexity, including refugia such as deep pools and large woody components

Proposed Construction Restoration recommendations and preliminary designs for this project have been prepared by Graham Matthews and are described in Lower Conner Creek Fish Passage Project Conceptual Alternatives (December 2014). Three design alternatives were initially proposed to achieve various levels of restoration and fish passage. The 3rd alternative is no longer under consideration, therefore only the first two alternatives will be analyzed within this report. Alternative 1 would involve the least amount of construction effort while Alternative 2 would allow for greater fre- quency of fish passage. There are three geomorphic features within the project area that are considered partial or total barriers to fish passage (listed from downstream to upstream): the waterfall, the tunnel/chasm, and the chute. Preliminary proposed construction is briefly described below. See Project Maps in Appendix B.

Waterfall

Alternative 1 and 2

In both Alternatives, the waterfall would remain, but large boulders would be added downstream of the waterfall to create a jump pool system to allow fish passage. Boulders may be placed up to approximately 100 feet downstream of the waterfall. If this is not possible, then it may be necessary to build a concrete fish ladder either within or adjacent to the existing channel, or to completely bypass the waterfall with a stepped channel excavated through the bedrock immediately adjacent to the barrier.

Tunnel/Chasm

The tunnel and chasm area will likely be left unaltered during this project. However, there is the possibility that large boulders will be placed within the tunnel that goes under Quail Road and/or chasm, allowing resting/holding areas for migrating fish.

Chute

Alternative 1

In Alternative 1, the channel would remain aligned in its current position, but large boulders would be added downstream of and through the chute area to create a jump pool system to allow fish passage. If this is not possible, then it may be necessary to build a concrete fish ladder either within or adjacent to the existing channel, or to bypass the chute with a stepped channel excavated through the bedrock immediately adjacent to the barrier.

Alternative 2

In Alternative 2, an engineered channel would be created on the right bank (looking downstream) of the existing channel to completely bypass the chute area. The relocated channel would re-enter the existing channel just upstream of the tunnel (Figure 1).

In Alternative 2, the 13 foot drop would be spread over 198 feet along the existing channel alignment. The design channel would add 55 feet of channel length due to additional sinuosity; therefore the drop would actually be spread out over 253 feet of design channel. About 15 feet of excavation would be needed in the channel areas, while floodplain areas would require 10-13 feet of excavation. For a 75 foot wide flood plain along the design channel and an average of 12 feet of excavation, approximately 8,000 cubic yards of excavation would be necessary for this channel relocation.

Figure 1. Average bed profile for proposed relocated channel to bypass chute barrier (Alterna- tive 2).

For Alternative 1, project construction will take approximately 2 weeks to complete. Alternative 2 project construction will take 3-4 weeks to complete. Private residences will be notified in ad- vance of any construction activities.

Project Area

Alternative 1

For Alternative 1, the Project Area (PA) is approximately 2 acres (87,120 square feet) and includes the waterfall area and approximately 100 feet downstream, the chute area, the access routes to these two features, the equipment staging areas, and the spoils storage areas. To access the waterfall area, equipment will need to travel approximately 100 feet from the existing unimproved road that is to the southeast. To access the chute area, equipment will need to travel south approximately 30 feet from Quail Road. The equipment staging and spoils storage areas will be within the current road surface and shoulders and the existing access road on the southeast side of the creek. Refer to project maps in Appendix B and Conceptual Design Alternatives.

Alternative 2

For Alternative 2, the Project Area (PA) is approximately 3 acres (130,680 square feet) and includes the waterfall area and approximately 100 feet downstream, the area to the east of the

chute where the channel will be relocated, the access routes to these two features, the equipment staging areas, and the spoils storage areas. To access the waterfall area, equipment will need to travel approximately 100 feet from the existing unimproved road that is to the southeast. To access the area where the new channel will be built, equipment will likely travel approximately 100 feet from the private road that exists to the south of the chute area. The equipment staging and spoils storage areas will be within the current road surface and shoulders and the existing access road on the southeast side of the creek. Refer to project maps in Appendix B and Conceptual De- sign Alternatives.

Action Area The Action Area (AA) is defined as “all areas to be affected directly or indirectly by the Federal action and not merely the immediate area involved in the action” (50 CFR 402). For the purpose of analyzing effects of project-generated noise disturbance above ambient levels on species including the northern spotted owl, northern goshawk, bald eagle, golden eagle, and peregrine falcon, the Action Area includes all areas within ¼ mile of the Project Area (PA). For aquatic wildlife species, including frogs, salamanders and turtles, the Action Area includes approximately 270 feet downstream of the PA, to the confluence with the Trinity River. This distance is reasonable to assess as it includes the area that may be impacted by potential increases in turbidity or substrate inputs from project activities. Once the creek reaches the Trinity River, these effects are not expected to be meaningfully detected. For all other species, unless otherwise noted, the Ac- tion Area (distance analyzed for noise disturbance) includes all areas within 250 feet (75 meters) of the PA. Existing ambient noise at the project site is considered moderate due to its close proximity to several residential houses in the town of Junction City and its location on a road that gets light vehicular traffic. During a site visit on December 4, 2014, four cars drove past, which is about 1 car per hour. Several dogs could be heard (and seen) barking as well as high speed traffic noise on Highway 299, which is approximately 750 feet (230 meters) east of the project. Refer to project maps in Appendix B.

Resource Protection and Conservation Measures The project includes specific resource protection measures and best management practices (BMPs) to minimize effects to fish, aquatic and terrestrial wildlife, plants, water quality and soils. Activities that could result in potential short-term negative impacts include aquatic species relocation, construction within the stream channel (introduction of pollutants/sediment and species impacts), vegetation removal, introduction of minor amounts of fine sediment, noise above ambient levels and potential introduction and/or spread of noxious weed species. The BMPs described in A Water Quality and Stream Habitat Protection Manual for County Road Maintenance in Northwestern California Watersheds (Roads Manual for 5C Pro- gram http://www.5counties.org/roadmanual.htm) will be adhered to throughout project planning and construction to reduce the potential for negative impacts. These specific BMPs are listed in Chapters 4, 5 and Appendix B of the Roads Manual.

Fish and aquatic species (salamanders, frogs, turtles, etc.) relocation will be conducted by a qualified fisheries biologist prior to any construction activities that could impact water quality in accordance with the 5C Roads Manual. Instream (including bed and bank of the stream) construction dates will be limited to low-flow conditions set forth by the SAA permit (June 15-October 15). If surface water is flowing at the time of construction, fish exclusion fencing will be installed upstream and downstream of the project construction area prior to fish and other aquatic species relocation and prior to stream diversion. The exclusion fencing/nets will prevent fish and other aquatic species from entering the worksite during construction. Fish found within the project vicinity will be netted or electro-fished and transported by a qualified fish biologist with a Section 10 Endangered Species Act “Incidental Take” permit. Continuous and adequate stream- flow will be maintained around the work area to avoid adverse impacts to downstream aquatic species. Multiple pumps of varying capacities may be necessary to pump sediment-laden water from the work area. Such water shall be discharged to approved locations well away from the stream channel. An oil-trapping absorbent floating boom system will be placed immediately downstream of the project area at the start of construction. This will protect water quality against any accidental oil or petroleum discharge into the stream in accordance with the “Temporary Stream Diversion BMPs” described in the Roads Manual.

Permanent and temporary excavated material will be stored in a manner to prevent sediment de- livery to Conner Creek, the Trinity River, and any other aquatic resource during and after project construction. Any excess spoils will be removed from the site and transported to an approved disposal location. Silt fencing, plastic sheeting and straw bales will be installed as needed per Roads Manual instructions at any location where streambank material has the potential to deliver to the exposed channel during construction. Although extensive measures will be implemented throughout the project to protect the creek from sediment input, there may be a short-term increase in turbidity levels.

For Alternative 1, approximately 4,350 square feet (0.1 acre) of vegetation along the sides of the channel may be impacted during project construction. For alternative 2, approximately 43,000 square feet (1 acre) of vegetation along the sides of the channel may be impacted during project construction. The majority of this vegetation is invasive Himalayan blackberry and poison oak. All efforts will be made to minimize the removal of vegetation and trees, particularly natives. However, it may be necessary to remove up to 7 small ponderosa pines (between 8.5 inch and 16 inch diameter at breast height (DBH)), 1 larger ponderosa pine (21 inch DBH), 2 small white alders (15-18 inch DBH), and 1 small big leaf maple (11.5 inch DBH) to construct the new channel bypassing the chute area. Trees will be directionally felled to reduce impacts to additional trees, and to reduce impacts to the streambank and subsequent erosion. Upon project completion, all disturbed areas will be revegetated with native grass, shrubs and trees and mulched with certified weed free straw or wood mulch.

Although ambient noise levels in the area are moderate, project activities could result in noise above ambient levels, which has the potential to disturb wildlife during the breeding season. 15

Habitat modification through the removal of riparian vegetation, including several trees, may also occur. The project is not located within or near suitable nesting/denning habitat for any endangered, threatened or candidate species listed under the ESA therefore habitat and individuals of those species will not be impacted (see Table 1 above). Suitable habitat is present for three species listed under the CESA, the bald eagle, Townsend’s big-eared bat and Trinity bristle snail. In order to protect the Trinity bristle snail, protocol level surveys were conducted. No Trinity bristle snails were found within the project area. See Snail Survey Report by De Juilio (2014) for results. In order to protect the Townsend’s big-eared bat, a Limited Operating Period (LOP) from April 1-July 31 will be utilized for any work within the tunnel or chasm area to prevent noise and other human disturbance during the maternal roosting season. If construction is scheduled to occur prior to August 1, a preconstruction survey for Townsend’s big-eared bats will be conducted by a qualified wildlife biologist prior to construction activities. If this species is found within the tunnel, construction involving boulder placement within the tunnel or chasm area will be postponed until the biologist has determined that the bats have vacated the tunnel. To protect the bald eagle, a Limited Operating Period (LOP) from January 1-July 31 will be utilized to prevent noise and other human disturbance related to project activities during the breeding season. If construction is scheduled to occur within the breeding season, preconstruction surveys for bald eagle will be conducted by a qualified wildlife biologist prior to construction activities. If an active nest is found, CDFW will be notified and an appropriate sized buffer will be placed around the nest. Construction will be postponed within the buffer until the biologist has determined that nestlings have fledged, or breeding has failed.

VI. SPECIES ACCOUNTS AND HABITAT- ESA and CESA SPECIES

Presence or absence of each species in the project area is based on the known range of each species, habitat suitability, records in the California National Diversity Database (CNDDB), records in the Shasta-Trinity National Forest Wildlife Database, and incidental observations.

VI.1 Northern Spotted Owl (Strix occidentalis caurina) ESA Status: Threatened/CESA Status: Candidate

The northern spotted owl is a medium-sized forest owl that occurs from southwestern British Co- lumbia south into northwestern California to Marin County (Gutierrez et al. 1995). The breeding season generally begins with pair bond formation from February to early March and ends with fledging of young through August with variation among pairs dependent upon nest initiation date (Gutierrez et al. 1995).

The northern spotted owl is strongly associated with conifer stands that include the following characteristics that support nesting and roosting habitat: a multi-layered, multi-species (including hardwoods) canopy dominated by large overstory trees; moderate to high canopy closure (60 to 90 percent); a high incidence of trees with large cavities and other types of deformities; numer- 16

ous large snags; an abundance of large down logs; and open space within and below the upper canopy for spotted owls to maneuver (Thomas et al. 1990; USDI 2008). Nest sites in the Califor- nia Klamath physiographic province, where the project area is located, are usually located within stands of old-growth and late-successional (late seral) forest dominated by Douglas-fir containing structures such as cavities, broken tree tops, or mistletoe brooms (Forsman et al. 1984, Blakesley et al. 1992, LaHaye and Gutierrez 1999). They are primarily nocturnal foragers (Forsman et al. 1984), but they can be opportunistic diurnal hunters (Courtney et al. 2004). In northwestern California, their primary prey species include the Dusky-footed woodrat and northern flying squirrel. Foraging habitat is the most variable of all habitats used by territorial spotted owls (Thomas et al. 1990); though it generally has attributes similar to nesting and roosting habitat (USDI 2008).

The California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) Spotted Owl Observation Data Set from the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) and the Shasta-Trinity National Forest Database were queried to determine that the project is not within 1.3 miles of any historic or current activity centers. The nearest activity center (Conner Creek TRI0490) is 2.7 miles southwest of the project, on Forest Service land. This pair nested in 2014.

Habitat within ¼ mile of the project area was analyzed to determine its suitability for use by northern spotted owl. A field investigation was conducted on December 4, 2014 and satellite imagery was reviewed. The project is not located within or near suitable northern spotted owl nesting, roosting, or foraging habitat. There are no late-seral or old growth forested habitats within or near the project area.

VI.2 Willow Flycatcher (Empiodonax traillii) ESA Status: None/CESA Status: Endangered

Willow flycatcher habitat typically consists of riparian habitat dominated by willows (Salix spp) and/or alder (Alnus spp), and permanent water, often in the form of low gradient watercourses, ponds, lakes, wet meadows, marshes, and seeps within and adjacent to forested landscapes (Craig et al. 1996). In California, Grinnell and Miller (1944) described the breeding habitat of this species as “…strikingly restricted to thickets of willows…,” generally in a riparian situation. The willow flycatcher breeding range in California is restricted primarily to the Sierra Nevada/ Cascade region, and Santa Barbara, Riverside, and San Diego Counties (Sedgwick 2000). The willow flycatcher has been documented in the Trinity River corridor, however evidence of nesting is very limited.

In central and northern California, willow flycatchers typically arrive on their breeding grounds between late May and early June (Stafford & Valentine 1985, Fowler et al. 1991). Egg laying often starts between June 25 and July 5, rarely beginning as early as the second week of June. Young typically fledge from the nest from late July through late August (Stafford and Valentine 1985). Adults depart from breeding territories as early as mid-August, but may stay until mid- 17

September if they fledged young late in the season (Stafford and Valentine 1985). It is likely that fledglings leave the breeding area a week or two after adults, but few details are known (Sogge et al. 1997).

There are no willow flycatcher observations reported in the CNDDB in Trinity County. The nearest observation reported in the Forest Database is 11 miles west of the project, at the Forest Service bird banding station in Big Bar, next to the Trinity River. Since 1991, when this station first became active, only 8 adults have been caught. All except one of these was after August 21 (after the breeding season). Since 1991, 45 young (fledglings) have been caught, however 36 of those were prior to 2003. All except three of these were caught after August 18.

Habitat within the action area was analyzed to determine its suitability for use by the willow flycatcher during field investigations conducted on December 4, 2014. The project is located in a riparian area, however it is not considered suitable willow flycatcher breeding habitat. Overall, it is lacking sufficient willow structure that supports nesting habitat for this species. Some willows are present near the mouth of Conner Creek and along the Trinity River, however these areas will not be disturbed by project activities and it is highly unlikely that this species would breed here given the lack of nesting observations throughout the Trinity River corridor.

VI.3 Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) ESA Status: Delisted/CESA Status: Endangered

The bald eagle occurs throughout North America and is widely distributed throughout California with extensive breeding populations in the Pacific Northwest. Concentrations of bald eagles are found where their preferred food is concentrated, such as in major waterfowl wintering areas and along principal salmon streams and rivers with adjacent snags for perching. Bald eagles primarily consume fish, either self-caught or stolen from osprey (Buehler 2000).

The bald eagle breeding season is February through July, with peak activity March through June. In Northern California, eggs are laid in late February or March and young typically fledge in June or July (Hunt et al 1992, Jenkins 1992). Nesting territories are associated with lakes, reser- voirs, rivers, or large streams and 87% of nests in California are located within one mile of water bodies that support an adequate food supply. Bald eagles build large stick nests in large trees (typically greater than 36 inches DBH and over 100 feet tall), placing the nest in the top 30 feet of the tree. Live, dominant or co-dominant trees with an unobstructed view of a water body are typically used. In California the predominant nest tree is ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa) (Lehman 1979). Bald eagle nests are usually located in uneven-aged, multi-storied stands with an old-growth component (Anthony et al. 1982). Most nests in California are located in mixed conifer stands and 75% of all nest trees surveyed in 35 nest territories were within 1/4 mile of water (Jurek 1988, USDA Forest Service 1977).The same nest sites are used in successive years (up to 35 years recorded), though pairs may use alternate nests within the territory, particularly after nesting failure or disturbance. Nests can become very large after repeated use (Buehler 2000). 18

Nesting bald eagle pairs are territorial and territories are typically spaced out from one another. Eagle tolerance of human activity varies between individuals. In general, adult eagles are more sensitive to disturbance during courtship, egg-laying, and incubation, and their sensitivity de- creases as young develop (Mathisen 1968, Fraser 1981).

The nearest bald eagle observation reported in the CNDDB is approximately 14 miles northeast of the project near Trinity Lake. The nearest observation reported in the Forest Database is approximately 6 miles west of the project, near Big Flat. Bald eagles are often observed along the Trinity River however, there are no documented nests near Conner Creek.

Habitat within ¼ mile of the project area was analyzed to determine its suitability for use by the bald eagle. A field investigation was conducted on December 4, 2014 and satellite imagery was reviewed. There is no bald eagle nesting habitat within the project area, however there is suitable foraging and potentially suitable nesting habitat along the Trinity River (within the action area). No old nests were observed in the area.

VI.4 Fisher, West Coast DPS (Pekania pennanti) ESA Status: Candidate/CESA Status: Candidate

The fisher is a medium-sized, forest carnivore associated with late-seral and old-growth forest stands. In California, it has been extirpated from 50% of its former range as a result of trapping, habitat loss, and loss of prey species (i.e., porcupine). The species’ current range in northern Cal- ifornia includes Del Norte, Humboldt, Mendocino, Siskiyou, Shasta, and Trinity Counties (Cen- ter for Biological Diversity 2008).

Strongly associated with mature and late-successional forests, fisher inhabits stands exhibiting high canopy closure, large trees and snags, large woody debris, large hardwoods, and multiple canopy layers (Buskirk et al 1994). Denning and resting sites are important components of fisher habitat. Denning sites are utilized for giving birth and raising kits and resting sites are critical for resting between foraging bouts (Nichol 2006). The breeding season is mid-April to late-May (Frost et al. 1997). Resting sites are typically large physical structures such as live trees, snags, and logs. Natal and maternal den sites are typically located in tree cavities with openings large enough for entry, but small enough to exclude predators. This species is also closely tied to drainage bottoms (Yaeger 2005) and riparian areas, usually selecting resting sites within 500 feet of, and rarely more than 1,100 feet from water (Self 2001). Determining the attributes of suitable foraging habitat for fisher is difficult given their large home ranges and mobility (average home range size in northern California was 14,349 acres for males and 3,701 acres for females) but is thought to be similar to that of denning and resting habitat (Dark 1997, Zielinski 1999 in Center for Biological Diversity 2008, Zielinski et al 2004).

Fisher have been shown to avoid areas with little forest cover or significant human disturbance, preferring large areas of contiguous interior forest (Dark 1997, Powell 1993, Carroll et al. 1999,

Seglund 1995). Seglund (1995) found that a majority of fisher rest sites (83 percent) were further than 100 meters from human disturbance and Dark (1997) documented that fisher used and rest- ed in areas with less habitat fragmentation and less human activity.

The nearest fisher location reported in the CNDDB is approximately 1 mile northeast of the project site near Canyon Creek. The nearest observation reported in the Forest Database is approximately 1 mile west.

Habitat within the action area was analyzed to determine its suitability for use by fisher. A field investigation was conducted on December 14, 2014 and satellite imagery was reviewed. The project is not located within or near suitable fisher denning habitat. There are no late-seral or old growth forested habitats within or near the action area. Furthermore, fisher typically avoid areas with human disturbance and the project is located on private land in the vicinity of several residences.

VI.5 Townsend’s Big-eared Bat (Corynorhinus townsendii) ESA Status: None/CESA Status: Candidate

The Townsend's big-eared bat occurs throughout California, however details of its distribution are not well known. It inhabits all but subalpine and alpine habitats, and may be found at any season throughout its range but is most abundant in mesic habitats (Zeiner et al 1990).

Roost sites are the most limiting habitat element for this species. It requires caves, mines, buildings, or other human-made structures for roosting. They prefer large open rooms for roosting as they do not tuck themselves into cracks and crevices like many other bat species. Separate sites may be used for night, day, hibernation, or maternity roosts. Hibernation sites are cold, but not below freezing, while maternal sites have warm stable temperatures. The maternity colony is usually made up of fewer than 100 individuals (females and young). Young are born in May or June, with a peak in late May. Young can fly after 2 to 3 weeks and are weaned after 6 weeks. The maternity group begins to break up in August. Hibernation occurs between October and April. This species is highly sensitive to disturbance at roost sites (Zeiner et al 1990).

The nearest Townsend’s big-eared bat observations in the CNDDB and Forest Database are approximately 18 miles south of the project, in the Natural Bridge cave near Wildwood.

Habitat within the action area was analyzed to determine its suitability for use by Townsend’s Big-eared bat. A field investigation was conducted on December 4, 2014 and satellite imagery was reviewed. The only potentially suitable roost structure within the action area is the tunnel that goes under Quail Road. However, it is unlikely that this species would use the tunnel for roosting since it contains flowing water the entire year.

VI.6 Trinity Bristle Snail (Monadenia setosa) ESA Status: None/CESA Status: Threatened

The Trinity bristle snail is confined to habitats where there is plenty of shade, fairly low tempera- ture, and fairly high humidity. It lives mainly along riparian corridors within Douglas fir-yellow pine forests having a dense, deciduous hardwood understory. In these areas, the snail is restricted to moist but well-drained, well-shaded canyon slopes or streamside benches covered with a layer of leaf mold at least four inches deep (CDFG 2000). The snail prefers areas with a canopy cover greater than 60% and where large woody debris is greater than 10 inches and is moderately de- cayed. Lichens and mosses on rocks and logs are typically present on occupied sites (CDFG 2004). Individuals have limited home ranges, and due to its habitat specificity, the Trinity bristle snail has a restricted distribution. The range of this species includes the Trinity River and many of its tributaries (including Swede, Big, French, Bidden, Limestone, Eagle, Sailor Bar, and Little Swede Creeks), as well as Hayfork Creek, and its tributary Olson Creek (CDFG 2000).

The nearest Trinity bristle snail observation reported in the CNDDB is 4.5 miles southwest of the project site, near Eagle Ranch. The nearest observation reported in the Forest Database is approximately 1 mile west of the project. Two individuals were found along Conner Creek in 2010.

Habitat within the action area was analyzed to determine its suitability for use by the Trinity bristle snail. Protocol-level snail surveys were conducted on November 25 and December 18, 2014. No Trinity bristle snails were observed. Habitat within the action area is considered marginal for this species. While this is a riparian corridor, canopy closure is only moderate, and most areas do not have suitable soil, litter or duff layers for this species to occur. Due to intense historic mining, the area is covered predominately in mining tailings (rocks) with little, if any, soil left intact.

VII. EFFECTS-ESA AND CESA SPECIES

VII.1 Northern Spotted Owl (Strix occidentalis caurina) No northern spotted owl surveys have been conducted for this project. The results of historical surveys and past observations were obtained and reviewed from the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) Spotted Owl Observation Data Set (CNDDB) and Shasta-Trinity Na- tional Forest Database. The proposed project site was reviewed for its distance from northern spotted owl activity centers, and the presence and quality of suitable habitat nearby. The FWS uses a 0.5-mile radius circle around a spotted owl activity center to delineate the area most heavily used (i.e., territory) by spotted owls during the nesting season and a 1.3 mile home range. There are no known northern spotted owl activity centers within 1.3 miles of the project.

Direct Effects Direct effects include mortality, harm, failed breeding attempts and displacement. The proposed action will not remove any northern spotted owl habitat. It is not expected to pose a direct danger 21

of mortality, harm, failed breeding attempts or displacement of northern spotted owl given that there is no suitable nesting, roosting, or foraging habitat present within or near the project. There are no late-seral or old growth forested habitats within or near the action area.

As a result, the proposed action would have no direct effects on the northern spotted owl. Indirect Effects No indirect effects to northern spotted owl are expected to result from implementation of the proposed action. No suitable northern spotted owl habitat will be degraded, downgraded, or removed. In conclusion, the proposed action will not result in any short- or long-term indirect effects to northern spotted owl.

Effects to Northern Spotted Owl Critical Habitat There is no designated northern spotted owl Critical Habitat within the action area. Therefore, the project would have no effect on spotted owl Critical Habitat.

VII.2 Willow Flycatcher (Empiodonax traillii) Suitable nesting habitat for willow flycatcher does not occur within the action area. Conner Creek is lacking sufficient willow structure that supports nesting habitat for this species. It is unlikely that this species would occur here during the breeding season, however there is the potential for migrating individuals to pass through the area during the spring or fall. Although some riparian vegetation will be removed or impacted during project construction, all areas will be re- planted with native species. Most of the vegetation that will be impacted is invasive Himalayan blackberry and no willows will be impacted or removed. There will be no direct or indirect effects on the willow flycatcher as a result of implementing the proposed action.

VII.3 Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) Suitable nesting habitat for bald eagle does not occur within the project area, however, suitable foraging and potentially suitable nesting habitat is present along the Trinity River, approximately 270 feet downstream of the project area (within the Action Area). No old nests were seen within or near the action area. Given the project’s location on private land in close proximity to houses and Highway 299 traffic noise, any bald eagles using the area would likely be accustomed to humans and noise disturbance. To protect the bald eagle, a Limited Operating Period (LOP) from January 1-July 31 will be utilized to prevent noise and other human disturbance related to project activities during the breeding season. If construction is scheduled to occur within the breeding season, preconstruction surveys for bald eagle will be conducted by a qualified wildlife biologist prior to construction activities. If an active nest is found, CDFW will be notified and an appropriate sized buffer will be placed around the nest. Construction will be postponed within the buffer until the biologist has determined that nestlings have fledged, or breeding has failed. Therefore, there will be no direct or indirect effects on the bald eagle as a result of implementing the proposed action. The project will result in a long-term benefit to the bald eagle, though im-

measurable, by providing its prey species with additional access to cold-water rearing and spawning habitat.

VII.4 Fisher, West Coast DPS (Martes pennanti) Suitable habitat for fisher does not occur within or near the action area. There are no late-seral or old growth forested habitats present. Suitable denning sites, including large trees and snags, and large downed logs are absent. It is unlikely that fisher would even forage within the action area due to its location near several residences in the town of Junction City where disturbance by humans and dogs is high. Therefore, there will be no direct or indirect effects on the fisher as a result of implementing the proposed action.

VII.5 Townsend’s Big-eared Bat (Corynorhinus townsendii) Limited suitable habitat for Townsend’s big-eared bat occurs within the action area. The tunnel will likely be left unaltered during this project, however, there is a possibility that boulders would be placed inside to serve as velocity breaks for fish. It is unlikely that this species would use the tunnel for roosting since it contains flowing water the entire year. It would not be a safe roost for hibernation since high flows in the winter have the potential to completely fill the tunnel with water. In order to protect the Townsend’s big-eared bat, a Limited Operating Period (LOP) from April 1-July 31 will be utilized for any work within the tunnel or chasm area to prevent noise and other human disturbance during the maternal roosting season. If construction is scheduled to occur prior to August 1, a preconstruction survey for Townsend’s big-eared bats will be conducted by a qualified wildlife biologist prior to construction activities. If this species is found within the tunnel, construction involving boulder placement within the tunnel or chasm will be postponed until the biologist has determined that the bats have vacated the tunnel. There- fore, there will be no direct or indirect effects on the Townsend’s big-eared bat as a result of implementing the proposed action.

VII.6 Trinity Bristle Snail (Monadenia setosa) Limited marginally suitable habitat for Trinity bristle snail occurs within the action area however Trinity bristle snails were not found during protocol-level surveys. While this is a riparian corridor, canopy closure is only moderate, and most areas do not have suitable soil, litter or duff layers due to intense historic mining. Most of the areas suitable to snails will not be impacted by project activities. In addition, project construction will take place in the late summer/early fall when the area surrounding the creek is dry, therefore, it is not likely that any snails would be present or disturbed. Therefore, there will be no direct or indirect effects on the Trinity bristle snail as a result of implementing the proposed action.

VIII. CUMULATIVE EFFECTS-ESA AND CESA SPECIES The Endangered Species Act defines cumulative effects in 50 CFR 402.02 as “those effects of future state or private activities, not involving federal activities, that are reasonably certain to occur within the action area of the federal action subject to consultation.” Past effects are assumed to be within the baseline of the analysis and future federal activities will be consulted upon sepa- rately. For this project, the analysis area (action area) includes 270 feet downstream and all areas within 1/4 mile of the project area. Cumulative effects are considered those effects which derive from simultaneous actions or those actions which would occur within a reasonable length of time and which would affect the same individuals that have been affected by this project.

No future state or private actions are currently proposed or planned within or near the project area. In addition, the proposed action will not affect any ESA or CESA threatened, endangered, or candidate wildlife species or designated Critical Habitat and therefore will not create major effects when combined with past or future activities on adjacent lands.

IX. CONCLUSIONS AND DETERMINATIONS- ESA AND CESA

IX.1 Northern Spotted Owl (Strix occidentalis caurina) Based on the above discussions, it is my determination that the proposed action will have no effect on the Northern spotted owl as there is no suitable habitat within or near the action area for this species. No mitigation measures are necessary.

IX.2 Willow Flycatcher (Empiodonax traillii) Based on the above discussions, it is my determination that the proposed action will have no effect on the willow flycatcher as there is no suitable nesting habitat within the action area for this species. No mitigation measures are necessary.

IX.3 Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) Based on the above discussions, it is my determination that the proposed action will have no effect on the bald eagle because a Limited Operating Period (LOP) restricting work between Janu- ary 1 and July 31 will be utilized to avoid or minimize the potential impacts to nesting bald eagles during the breeding season. No mitigation measures are necessary.

IX.4 Fisher, West Coast DPS (Martes pennanti) Based on the above discussions, it is my determination that the proposed action will have no effect on the fisher as there is no suitable denning habitat within or near the action area for this species. No mitigation measures are necessary.

IX.5 Townsend’s Big-eared Bat (Corynorhinus townsendii) Based on the above discussions, it is my determination that the proposed action will have no effect on the Townsend’s big-eared bat because a Limited Operating Period (LOP) restricting work between April 1 and July 31 will be utilized to avoid or minimize the potential impacts to Town- send’s big-eared bats during the maternal roosting season. No mitigation measures are necessary.

IX.6 Trinity Bristle Snail (Monadenia setosa)

Based on the above discussions, it is my determination that the proposed action will have no effect on the Trinity bristle snail because no Trinity bristle snails were found during surveys and only marginally suitable habitat exists within the action area for this species. No mitigation measures are necessary.

X. SPECIES STATUS AND EFFECTS TO CALIFORNIA SPECIES OF SPECIAL CONCERN AND FULLY PROTECTED SPECIES

Golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos) State Status: Full Protection The golden eagle is an uncommon permanent resident and migrant throughout California, except the center of the Central Valley (Grinnell and Miller 1944). Habitat varies widely and can include rolling foothills, grasslands, savannahs, desert, mountain areas, sage-juniper flats, and early successional forest/shrub. Rugged, open habitats with canyons and escarpments are used most frequently for nesting, as open terrain is necessary for hunting. This species eats mostly lago- morphs (rabbits, hares, pikas) and rodents, but it also takes other mammals, birds, reptiles, and some carrion. Nests are large platforms of sticks and greenery, often 10 feet across and 3 feet deep, and are typically constructed on cliff walled canyons. Large trees in open areas may also be used for nesting. Alternative nest sites are maintained, and old nests are reused. Golden eagles have relatively large territories, averaging 48 mi² in northern California (Smith and Murphy 1973).

Golden eagles breed from late January through August, with a peak from March through July. Eggs are laid from early February to mid-May. Incubation lasts 43-45 days (Beebe 1974), and the nestling period usually lasts 65-70 days.

The nearest golden eagle observation reported in the CNDDB and Forest Database is approximately 11 miles southeast of the project site, near Browns Creek near Douglas City. There are numerous observations near the Trinity River Hatchery.

Habitat within ¼ mile of the project area was analyzed to determine its suitability for use by golden eagles during a field investigation conducted on December 4, 2014 and a review of satellite imagery. The Trinity River, which is approximately 270 feet away from the project, provides suitable foraging habitat, however, there is no suitable nesting habitat within or near the project area for golden eagles. There are no cliffs or large trees in the vicinity that are capable of sup- porting a golden eagle nest. Furthermore, golden eagles avoid nesting near urban habitat (USFWS 2011). This project is located on private land in Junction City, with several houses in the vicinity. It is my determination that the proposed action will have no impact on the golden eagle or its habitat. No mitigation measures are necessary.

American peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus anatum) State Status: Full Protection The peregrine falcon breeds in habitats containing cliffs and almost always nests near water, including wetlands, lakes, or rivers (Wheeler 2003, p. 477, White et al. 2002). This species builds their nests in substrates on ledges of cliffs ranging from 8-440 yards in height. Many artificial habitats like towers, bridges and tall buildings are also utilized (White et al. 2002). Peregrine falcons generally forage in open habitats and may hunt over water. They are also reported to bathe frequently.

There are no peregrine falcon observations in Trinity County reported in the CNDDB. The nearest eyrie (nest) reported in the Forest Database is approximately 7 miles southeast (Limestone Peak).

Habitat within ¼ mile of the project area was analyzed to determine its suitability for use by nesting peregrine falcons during a field investigation conducted on December 4, 2014 and a review of satellite imagery. There is no suitable nesting habitat within or near the action area as there are no cliffs present. It is my determination that the proposed action will have no impact on the peregrine falcon or its habitat. No mitigation measures are necessary.

Northern goshawk (Accipiter gentilis) State Status: Species of Special Concern Goshawks in northern California prefer mature and old-growth conifer forests that are at middle to high elevations, have relatively dense canopy closures, have little understory vegetation, are in close proximity to riparian corridors, and have flat or moderately sloping terrain (Reynolds 1983). Interspersed meadows or other openings are also required for foraging habitat. Moderate and high-quality habitats contain abundant large snags and logs that provide prey habitat and plucking perches (Squires and Reynolds 1997).

Northern goshawks are yearlong residents and maintain individual territories. Eggs are usually laid in mid-April to early May. Incubation lasts about 30 days, resulting in hatching dates from mid-May through early June. Nestlings typically fledge from late June through late July (Squires and Reynolds 1997).

The nearest northern goshawk observation and nesting territory reported in the CNDDB is approximately 20 miles west of the project near Cedar Flat. The nearest territory and observation reported in the Forest Database is approximately 5 miles northwest of the project site (Territory #401 Manzanita Gulch). This territory was last active in 2013, while nesting was last confirmed in 2012.

Habitat within ¼ mile of the project area was analyzed to determine its suitability for use by nesting northern goshawks during a field investigation conducted on December 4, 2014 and a review of satellite imagery. There is no suitable northern goshawk nesting habitat within or near the project area as there are no old growth or mature conifer forests present. It is my determination that the proposed action will have no impact on northern goshawk or its habitat. No mitigation measures are necessary.

Olive-sided flycatcher (Contopus cooperi) State Status: Species of Special Concern The olive-sided flycatcher occurs in a wide variety of forest and woodland habitats, however, breeding typically occurs in late-successional conifer forests with open canopies (e.g., 0%–39% canopy cover; Verner 1980). This species is mostly associated with edges, openings, and natural and human-created clearings in otherwise relatively dense forests (Altman and Sallabanks 2000). Nests are most commonly found in large coniferous trees that are alive (Altman 1998), and this species typically uses short-needled conifers [e.g., Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziessi)] more frequently than long-needled trees (e.g., ponderosa pine) (Kotliar and Clouse 2000). Lofty perches, which are usually the apical tips of snags or uppermost branches of the tallest trees in the area, are important for singing and foraging (Grinnell and Miller 1944). Breeding locations range from sea level to timberline but usually are at mid to high elevations (3018–6988 ft); Alt- man and Sallabanks 2000).

The olive-sided flycatcher breeding season in California extends from early May to late August (Bent 1942, Altman and Sallabanks 2000). The peak of egg-laying is in June and incubation lasts about 14 days. Nestlings fledge 15-19 days after hatching (Bent 1942). This species typically departs its breeding area in August, migrating to Central or South America for the winter.

There are no olive-sided flycatcher observations in Trinity County reported in the CNDDB. The nearest observation reported in the Forest Database is 22 miles southeast, in Indian Valley.

Habitat within the action area was analyzed to determine its suitability for use by nesting olive- sided flycatchers during a field investigation conducted on December 4, 2014 and a review of satellite imagery. There is no suitable olive-sided flycatcher nesting habitat within the action area as there are no late-successional conifer forests present and the area is dominated by ponderosa pine, which this species typically does not use for nesting. It is my determination that the proposed action will have no impact on the olive-sided flycatcher or its habitat. No mitigation measures are necessary.

Yellow warbler (Dendroica petechia brewsteri) State Status: Species of Special Concern The yellow warbler generally occupies riparian vegetation in close proximity to water along streams and in wet meadows (Lowther et al. 1999). Throughout their range, they are found in willows (Salix spp.) and cottonwoods (Populus spp.), and in northern California, willow cover and Oregon Ash (Fraxinus latifolia) are important predictors of high yellow warbler abundance (Alexander 1999). Although breeding typically occurs in riparian woodlands, it can also occur in montane chaparral, and in open ponderosa pine and mixed conifer habitats with substantial amounts of brush.

The yellow warbler breeds from mid-April to late July, with peak activity in June (Dunn and Garrett 1997). Eggs are incubated for 11 days and nestlings fledge after 9-12 days (Harrison 1978). Most members of this species have left California by October.

There are no yellow warbler observations in Trinity County reported in the CNDDB. The nearest observation reported in the Forest Database is approximately 11 miles west at the Forest Service bird banding station in Big Bar, next to the Trinity River. Since 1991, when this station first became active, both adults and juveniles (fledglings) of this species have been caught and banded. Adults have been caught throughout the breeding season while the majority of fledglings were caught after June 29.

Habitat within the action area was analyzed to determine its suitability for use by nesting yellow warblers during a field investigation conducted on December 4, 2014 and a review of satellite imagery. Habitat within the action area is considered marginally suitable for this species. It is characteristic of riparian woodland habitat, consisting of white alder, black cottonwood, ponderosa pine, and Himalayan blackberry. However, the amount of willows present within the project area is limited to a few small patches and no willows will be removed or impacted. Overall, it is lacking sufficient willow structure that supports nesting habitat for this species. Willows present near the mouth of Conner Creek and along the Trinity River offer potential nesting habitat for the yellow warbler, however these areas will not be impacted or disturbed by project activities. Pro- ject-generated noise is not expected to disturb yellow warblers in this area because ambient noise is considered moderate due to the project’s location on private land in the vicinity of several houses and its close proximity to Highway 299 traffic noise. A very small amount of riparian 28

vegetation may be impacted during project construction, however this is predominately invasive Himalayan blackberry and no willows will be impacted or removed.

This riparian area will only be temporarily altered during project implementation and vegetation is expected to recover quickly. Upon project completion, all disturbed areas will be revegetated with native grass, shrubs and trees. All efforts will be made to minimize the removal of vegetation and trees, particularly natives. Currently, the mid and understory vegetation is dominated by invasive Himalayan blackberry. Habitat within the project area should improve following the removal of this species and addition of natives including willows. Due to the temporary nature of the impacts and the regional abundance of similar habitats, the project is not expected to have a significant impact on yellow warbler habitat. In addition, the prescribed bald eagle Limited Op- erating Period (LOP) restricting work between January 1 and July 31 will avoid or minimize the potential impacts to nesting yellow warblers during the breeding season. It is my determination that the proposed action may impact individual yellow warblers but would not cause a trend towards federal or state listing or a loss of viability. The potential impact to the yellow warbler is so small as to be discountable. No mitigation measures are necessary given the project design includes revegetation of all impacted areas with native species.

Yellow-breasted chat (Icteria virens) State Status: Species of Special Concern During the breeding season, the yellow-breasted chat occupies early successional riparian habitats with a well-developed shrub layer and an open canopy (Eckerle and Thompson 2001). This species is typically found near water, and nesting habitat is usually restricted to the narrow bor- der of streams, creeks, sloughs, and rivers. Blackberry (Rubus spp.), wild grape (Vitis spp.), willow, and other plants that form dense thickets and tangles are frequently selected as nesting strata (Grinnell and Miller 1944). Taller trees, such as cottonwood (Populus spp.) and alder (Alnus spp.), are required for song perches (Dunn and Garrett 1997).

This species usually arrives on its breeding grounds in April and departs by late September for wintering grounds in Mexico and Guatemala (Gaines 1977). Breeding occurs from early May to early August, with peak egg laying in June (Ehrlich et al. 1988). Incubation lasts for 11-15 days and chicks fledge 8-11 days after hatching (Harrison 1978).

There are no yellow-breasted chat observations in Trinity County reported in the CNDDB. The nearest observation reported in the Forest Database is 11 miles west of the project, at the Forest Service bird banding station in Big Bar, next to the Trinity River. Since 1991, when this station first became active, both adults and juveniles (fledglings) of this species have been caught and banded. Adults have been caught throughout the breeding season while the majority of fledglings were caught after June 29.

Data from Breeding Bird Surveys (BBS) indicates that northwestern California rivers, including the Klamath and Trinity, support the highest densities of yellow-breasted chats in the state (Sauer et al. 2005).

Habitat within the action area was analyzed to determine its suitability for use by nesting yellow- breasted chats during a field investigation conducted on December 4, 2014 and a review of satellite imagery. Habitat within the action area is considered suitable for this species. It is characteristic of riparian woodland habitat consisting of, white alder, black cottonwood, and ponderosa pine, with dense thickets of Himalayan blackberry in the understory. The amount of willows present within the project area is limited to a few small patches and no willows will be removed or impacted. Willows present near the mouth of Conner Creek and along the Trinity River offer potential nesting habitat for the yellow-breasted chat, however these areas will not be impacted or disturbed by project activities. Project-generated noise is not expected to disturb yellow-breasted chats in this area because ambient noise is considered moderate due to the project’s location on private land in the vicinity of several houses and its close proximity to Highway 299 traffic noise. A very small amount of riparian vegetation may be impacted during project construction, however this is predominately invasive Himalayan blackberry.

This riparian area will only be temporarily altered during project implementation and vegetation is expected to recover quickly. Upon project completion, all disturbed areas will be revegetated with native grass, shrubs and trees. All efforts will be made to minimize the removal of vegetation and trees, particularly natives. Due to the temporary nature of the impacts and the regional abundance of similar habitats, the project is not expected to have a significant impact on yellow- breasted chat habitat. In addition, the prescribed bald eagle Limited Operating Period (LOP) restricting work between January 1 and July 31 will avoid or minimize the potential impacts to nesting yellow-breasted chats during the breeding season. It is my determination that the proposed action may impact individual yellow-breasted chats but would not cause a trend towards federal or state listing or a loss of viability. The potential impact to the yellow-breasted chat is so small as to be discountable. No mitigation measures are necessary given the project design includes revegetation of all impacted areas with native species.

Purple martin (Progne subis) State Status: Species of Special Concern The Purple martin breeds in a wide variety of habitats, however suitable nesting cavities must be present. This species is typically found in open areas where old, tall, large diameter trees occur. They are also typically found near bodies of water (Grinnell and Miller 1944). This species of swallow is one of the largest cavity nesters in California, requiring cavities with relatively large entrances. Over 70% of the purple martins in California nest in large conifer snags, although other natural and man-made structures, including bridges and rarely nest boxes, have been reported (Grinnell and Miller 1944, Lund 1978). In one study, the average diameter at breast height

(DBH) of 17 nesting stags was 47 inches and the average snag height was 80 ft. Nest cavities are typically located within the top 15 feet of the snag (Williams 1998).

In California, purple martins begin arriving at their breeding grounds in March and may continue to arrive through mid-May (Williams 1998). Egg laying typically begins in April or May (Wil- liams 1998). The incubation period typically lasts for 15 days, and hatched nestlings are usually in the nest for about 28 days before fledging (Brown 1997). Purple martins begin to depart their nesting sites within a few days of fledging, usually in late July (Williams 1998).

There are no purple martin observations in Trinity County reported in the CNDDB or the Forest Database.

Habitat within the action area was analyzed to determine its suitability for use by nesting purple martins during a field investigation conducted on December 4, 2014 and a review of satellite imagery. There is no suitable nesting habitat within the action area as there are no large diameter snags present. If Alternative 1 is implemented, no trees will be removed. If Alternative 2 is implemented, it may be necessary to remove up to 8 small ponderosa pines, 1 small white alder, and 1 small big-leaf maple. No large cavities were observed in any of these trees. Furthermore, the prescribed bald eagle Limited Operating Period (LOP) restricting work between January 1 and July 31 will avoid or minimize the potential impacts to nesting purple martins during the breeding season. It is my determination that the proposed action will have no impact on the purple martin or its habitat. No mitigation measures are necessary.

Oregon snowshoe hare (Lepus americanus klamathensis) State Status: Species of Special Concern The Oregon snowshoe hare is primarily found in montane riparian habitats with thickets of alders and willows, and in stands of young conifers interspersed with chaparral. The early seral stages of mixed conifer, subalpine conifer, red fir, Jeffrey pine, lodgepole pine, and aspen are likely habitats, primarily along edges, and especially near meadows (Orr 1940, Ingles 1965).

Dense cover is preferred. This subspecies is found in the vicinity of Mt. Shasta and the Trinity Alps Wilderness. This species breeds from mid-February to June or July (Asdell 1964).

According to the CNDDB, an Oregon snowshoe hare was observed approximately 6 miles east of the project “near Weaverville” in 1922. The nearest observation reported in the Forest Data- base is 60 miles northeast of the project, in Shasta County.

Habitat within the action area was analyzed to determine its suitability for use by Oregon snowshoe hare during a field investigation conducted on December 4, 2014 and a review of satellite imagery. It is not likely that this species would occur here since it is typically found at higher elevations, within the Trinity Alps. This project is outside of this species known or expected 31

range. It is my determination that the proposed action will have no impact on Oregon snowshoe hare or its habitat. No mitigation measures are necessary.

American badger (Taxidea taxus) State Status: Species of Special Concern Suitable habitat for the American badger is characterized by herbaceous, shrub, and open stages of most habitats with dry, friable soils. Friable soils include sandy loam and generally crumbly soils, which do not include clay. This type of soil is necessary as badgers dig large burrows for cover, protection from weather, and for natal dens (Messick and Hornocker 1981). Burrows can be up to 30 feet long and 10 feet deep. Large mounds of soil are built up at burrow entrances (Banfield 1974). Young are born in natal dens, typically in March and April (Long 1973). Young emerge from the den after five to six weeks, and often leave their mother in late May or June (Messick and Hornocker 1981).

The nearest American badger observation reported in the CNDDB is approximately 10 miles west, near Big Bar. This is the only observation in Trinity County. There are no badger observations in Trinity County reported in the Forest Database.

Habitat within the action area was analyzed to determine its suitability for use by American badgers during a field investigation conducted on December 4, 2014 and a review of satellite imagery. There is no suitable denning habitat present within the action area. Soils in the area are not considered friable or suitable for burrowing. Given the mining history within and around the project, the area is predominately covered in rocks (mining tailings) and there is very little soil present. In addition, most areas along the riparian corridor are covered with dense Himalayan blackberry. Furthermore, it is not likely that this species would den near the project area which is in close proximity to several houses. This project is likely outside of this species known or expected range. It is my determination that the proposed action will have no impact on American badger or its habitat. Mitigation measures are not necessary.

Ring-tailed cat (Bassariscus astutus) State Status: Full Protection Suitable habitat for the ring-tailed cat consists of a mixture of forest and shrubland, in close as- sociation with rocky and riparian areas. They are usually found within 0.6 miles of permanent water (Grinnell et al. 1937, Schempf and White 1977). This nocturnal species uses hollow trees, logs, snags, rock recesses, abandoned burrows, and woodrat nests for cover and denning. Young are typically born in May or June (Walker et al. 1968).

There are no ring-tailed cat observations in Trinity County reported in the CNDDB. The nearest observation reported in the Forest Database is approximately 2 miles west of the project.

Habitat within the action area was analyzed to determine its suitability for use by ring-tailed cats during a field investigation conducted on December 4, 2014 and a review of satellite imagery. Habitat within the action area is considered marginal for this species, and is likely foraging habitat only. It is unlikely that this species would den within or near the project area given that it is on private land in the vicinity of several houses. Dogs in the area would likely deter ring-tailed cats from existing here. Potential denning sites, such as logs and snags, will not be impacted or removed during project construction. In addition, the prescribed bald eagle Limited Operating Period (LOP) restricting work between January 1 and July 31 will avoid or minimize the potential impacts to ring-tailed cats during the denning season. It is my determination that the proposed action will have no impact on ring-tailed cat or its habitat. Mitigation measures are not necessary.

Pallid bat (Antrozous pallidus) State Status: Species of Special Concern

The pallid bat occurs in a wide variety of habitats, including grasslands, shrublands, woodlands, and forests from sea level up through mixed conifer forests. The species is most common in open, dry habitats with rocky areas, such as rock outcrops, cliffs, and crevices, for roosting. Dur- ing the day, roost sites include crevices in caves, mines, and occasionally hollow trees and buildings. Roosts must protect bats from high temperatures, and bats move deeper into cover if temperatures rise. Night roosts may be in more open sites, such as porches and open buildings. Few hibernation sites are known, but rock crevices are likely used. This species is social, and 95% of pallid bats roost in groups of 20 or more (Trune and Slobodchikoff 1976, 1978).

Breeding begins with the formation of maternity colonies in early April. Young are born from April to July, with a peak from May to June. Young can be observed flying in July and August (Cockrum 1973).

The nearest pallid bat observation reported in the CNDDB is approximately11 miles east, near Grass Valley Creek. The nearest observation reported in the Forest Database is 23 miles south, at a mist net station near Wildwood.

Habitat within the action area was analyzed to determine its suitability for use by pallid pats during a field investigation conducted on December 4, 2014 and a review of satellite imagery. The only potentially suitable roost structure within the action area is the tunnel that goes under Quail Road. The tunnel will likely be left unaltered during this project, however, there is a possibility that boulders would be placed inside to serve as velocity breaks for fish. It is unlikely that this species would use the tunnel for roosting since it contains flowing water the entire year. It would 33

not be a safe roost for hibernation since high flows in the winter have the potential to completely fill the tunnel with water. In addition, the prescribed Limited Operating Period (LOP) for Town- send’s big-eared bats restricting work between April 1 and July 31 will avoid or minimize the potential impacts to pallid bats during the maternal roosting season. If construction is scheduled to occur within the maternal roosting season (between May and August), a preconstruction survey for pallid bats will be conducted by a qualified wildlife biologist. If this species is found within the tunnel, construction involving boulder placement within the tunnel or chasm area will be postponed until the biologist has determined that the bats have vacated the tunnel. It is my determination that the proposed action will have no impact on pallid bat or its habitat. Mitigation measures are not necessary given the prescribed LOP.

Southern torrent salamander (Rhyacotriton variegates) State Status: Species of Special Concern The Southern torrent salamander is associated with streams in late-seral humid forests with large conifers, abundant moss, and high (80%) canopy closure (Welsh and Lind 1996). They occur within springs, seeps, small streams, and the margins of larger streams where they avoid open water and seek the cover of moss, rocks, and organic debris in shallow cold, percolating water (Welsh and Lind 1996). Southern torrent salamanders seldom venture away from saturated streamside areas and occur within a relatively narrow range of physical and microclimatic conditions.

The nearest southern torrent salamander observation reported in the CNDDB is approximately 18 miles west, in Stetson Creek. There are no observations in the Forest Database.

Habitat within the action area was analyzed to determine its suitability for use by southern torrent salamanders during a field investigation conducted on December 4, 2014 and a review of satellite imagery. There is no suitable habitat within or near the action area. There are no late- successional forests present. It is my determination that the proposed action will have no impact on southern torrent salamander or its habitat. No mitigation measures are necessary.

Pacific tailed frog (Ascaphus truei) State Status: Species of Special Concern In California, Pacific tailed frogs occur in permanent streams of low temperatures in conifer- dominated habitats including redwood, Douglas fir, Klamath mixed-conifer, and ponderosa pine habitats. This species also occurs in montane hardwood-conifer habitats. Pacific tailed frogs occur more frequently in mature or late-successional stands than in younger stands (Bury 1983, Bury and Corn 1988). They are most often associated with steep-gradient non-fish bearing

streams (Zevit 2010). Permanent water is critical because the aquatic larvae require 2 to 3 years to transform (Metter 1968).

Adults and tadpoles are primarily nocturnal and are seldom observed. Courtship and mating occurs from late September to early October. Internal fertilization occurs and the female lays eggs the following spring or summer (typically in June or July). Eggs hatch after three to six weeks, typically in late August or September. Permanent water is critical because the aquatic larvae require 1 to 4 years to transform, depending on elevation (Brown et. al 1993).

The nearest Pacific tailed frog observation reported in the CNDDB is approximately 3 miles southwest of the project, near Hocker Meadow. The nearest observation reported in the Forest Database is approximately 15 miles northwest of the project, near Big Creek.

Habitat within the action area was analyzed to determine its suitability for use by Pacific tailed frogs during a field investigation conducted on December 4, 2014 and a review of satellite imagery. Habitat within the action area is only marginally suitable for Pacific tailed frogs. There are no mature or late-successional conifer forests present; therefore it is unlikely that this species would occur here.

During project construction portions of the creek channel and banks will be impacted. A very small amount of riparian vegetation may be impacted during project construction; however this is predominately invasive Himalayan blackberry. The project includes specific Resource Protec- tion and Conservation Measures and Best Management Practices (BMPs) (see Section V) to minimize effects to fish, aquatic and terrestrial wildlife, plants, water quality and soils. The project design includes the relocation of aquatic species, including frogs, prior to construction activities. The stream will be diverted during construction and exclusion fencing/nets will prevent aquatic species, including frogs, from entering the worksite during construction. BMPs will control potential runoff and erosion at the project site. The project footprint is relatively small and this riparian area will only be temporarily altered during project implementation. Vegetation is expected to recover quickly and upon project completion, all disturbed areas will be revegetated with native grass, shrubs and trees. This project will increase channel complexity, including deep pool refugia which will increase and improve habitat for the Pacific tailed frog.

Despite the BMPs, there is a potential for individuals being crushed by equipment during construction. It is my determination that the proposed action may impact individual Pacific tailed frogs but would not cause a trend towards federal or state listing or a loss of viability. The potential impact to the Pacific tailed frog is so small as to be discountable. No mitigation measures are necessary.

Foothill yellow-legged frog (Rana boylii) State Status: Species of Special Concern The foothill yellow-legged frog is a highly aquatic amphibian, spending most or all of its life in or near streams (Seltenrich and Pool 2002). It is found in a variety of habitats, including valley- foothill hardwood, valley-foothill hardwood-conifer, valley-foothill riparian, ponderosa pine, mixed conifer, coastal scrub, mixed chaparral, and wet meadow types. Foothill yellow-legged frogs use a variety of aquatic habitat types (depending on their life stage and the time of year) including: pools, riffles and runs in rivers and their smaller tributary streams. Components of suitable foothill yellow-legged frog habitat include clean water, gravel and cobble substrates and lush riparian vegetation. Good water quality is an important habitat component because frogs spend a majority of their life cycle in water and absorb contaminants through their skin. Gravel and cobble substrates and lush aquatic and riparian vegetation provide cover and shade. Adults are found along the mainstem of rivers during spring when they are breeding in pools and then return to basking and foraging sites at stream tributaries. Between mid-April and late June, depending on local water conditions, egg masses are deposited on the downstream side of cobbles and boulders over which a relatively thin, gentle flow of water exists (Seltenrich and Pool 2002). Metamorphosis of tadpoles takes three to four months, with completion occurring between late July and early September. Juvenile frogs tend to migrate to upstream tributaries in late summer and early fall. High flows and seasonal flooding from storm events and dam releases can wash egg masses downstream (Zeiner et al 1990).

According to the CNDDB, there are numerous foothill yellow-legged frog observations throughout the Trinity River. The nearest observation reported in the Forest Database is approximately 4 miles northwest of the project, near a tributary of the North Fork Trinity River.

Habitat within the action area was analyzed to determine its suitability for use by foothill yellow- legged frogs during a field investigation conducted on December 4, 2014 and a review of satellite imagery. Habitat within the action area is considered suitable for this species.

with native grass, shrubs and trees. This project will increase channel complexity, including deep pool refugia, which will increase and improve habitat for the foothill yellow-legged frog.

Despite the BMPs, there is a potential for individuals being crushed by equipment during construction. It is my determination that the proposed action may impact individual foothill yellow-legged frogs but would not cause a trend towards federal or state listing or a loss of viability. The potential impact to the foothill yellow-legged frog is so small as to be discountable. No mitigation measures are necessary.

Cascades frog (Rana cascadae) State Status: Species of Special Concern The Cascades frog is typically found near water at high elevations, rarely occurring below 2,000 feet. This species is most common in small pools adjacent to streams that flow through subal- phine meadows. They also inhabit sphagnum bogs and fens, seasonally flooded forested swamps, small lakes, ponds, and marshy areas adjacent to streams. Breeding occurs from March to April at mid elevations, and May to June at higher elevations. Larvae require three months to completely develop and while many tadpoles metamorphose in late August or September of the first year, others may not transform until their second summer (Leonard, W.P. et al. 1993). Standing water is required for reproduction, and typically occurs in waters lacking predatory fish (Jen- nings and Hayes 1994).

According to the CNDDB, there are many Cascades frog observations throughout the Trinity Alps Wilderness. The nearest is approximately 13 miles north, in Echo Lake. The nearest observation reported in the Forest Database is 22 miles northeast of the project in Found Lake.

Habitat within the action area was analyzed to determine its suitability for use by Cascades frogs during a field investigation conducted on December 4, 2014 and a review of satellite imagery. There is no suitable Cascades frog habitat within or near the action area and based on the species’ habitat requirements, the Cascades frog would not exist in Conner Creek. The elevation at the project site is approximately 1,450 feet, which is below the typical range of this species. The project area does not consist of meadow or any of the other habitats that this species typically inhabits. It is my determination that the proposed action will have no impact on Cascades frog or its habitat. Mitigation measures are not necessary.

Western pond turtle (Emys marmorata) State Status: Species of Special Concern The Western pond turtle occurs in a variety of habitat types associated with permanent or nearly permanent water (Holland 1991) and is often concentrated in low flow regions of rivers and

creeks, such as side channels and backwater areas. They prefer habitats with large areas for cover (logs, algae, vegetation) and basking sites (boulders or other substrates) and have been observed to avoid areas of open water lacking these habitat features (Holland 1994). The species typically inhabits permanent water bodies and adjacent mud banks. However, female pond turtles often climb hillsides, sometimes moving 1,500 feet or more from the stream side to nest during the spring or early summer (Holland 1991, Zeiner et al. 1990).

Nesting occurs in upland habitats consisting of dry grassy areas with a predominantly south or southwest aspect and including appropriate soils, thermal conditions, and basking sites. Nest sites typically occur in open areas dominated by grasses or herbaceous annuals on dry, well- drained soils with high clay/silt content and low (less than 15%) slope (Holland 1994). Nests are constructed four inches below ground in moist areas in sandy to very hard soil types. Nests and burrows are usually found in undisturbed areas of duff or mud. Nesting benches are usually located on flat benches on the banks of rivers in close proximity to rearing habitat (shallow water and riparian vegetation). Eggs are laid from March to August, and take 73 to 80 days to incubate. Turtles leave the water in late September and spend the winter in burrows up to 500 feet away from the stream.

According to the CNDDB, there are numerous Western pond turtle observations throughout the Trinity River. The nearest observations reported in the Forest Database are approximately 5 miles east, in two small ponds off of McKinzey Gulch.

Habitat within the action area was analyzed to determine its suitability for use by Western pond turtles during a field investigation conducted on December 4, 2014 and a review of satellite imagery. Habitat within the action area is considered marginally suitable for this species. Conner Creek is a perennial stream with low to moderate canopy cover however basking sites are limited due to dense riparian vegetation (predominantly Himalayan blackberry) along both sides of the stream channel. There are few deep pools or backwater areas present and water velocity is fast. The project is located on private land in the vicinity of several houses, therefore it is not likely that turtles would occur or breed here. Appropriate soils for nesting are absent due to intense historic mining within the action area. However, suitable turtle habitat exists along the Trinity Riv- er, approximately 270 feet downstream of the project area.

During project construction portions of the creek channel and banks will be impacted. A very small amount of riparian vegetation may be impacted during project construction, however this is predominately invasive Himalayan blackberry. The project includes specific Resource Protection and Conservation Measures and Best Management Practices (BMPs) (see Section V) to minimize effects to fish, aquatic and terrestrial wildlife, plants, water quality and soils. The project design includes the relocation of aquatic species, including turtles, prior to construction activities. The stream will be diverted during construction and exclusion fencing/nets will prevent aquatic species, including turtles, from entering the worksite during construction. BMPs will control potential runoff and erosion at the project site. Some riparian vegetation will be removed 38

however this riparian area will only be temporarily altered during project implementation and vegetation is expected to recover quickly. Upon project completion, all disturbed areas will be revegetated with native grass, shrubs and trees. All efforts will be made to minimize the removal of vegetation and trees, particularly natives. This project will increase channel complexity, including deep pool refugia, which will increase and improve habitat for the Western pond turtle.

Despite the BMPs, there is a potential for individuals being crushed by equipment during construction. It is my determination that the proposed action may impact individual Western pond turtles but would not cause a trend towards federal or state listing or a loss of viability. The potential impact to the Western pond turtle is so small as to be discountable. No mitigation measures are necessary.

XI. CONCLUSIONS AND DETERMINATIONS- CALIFORNIA SPECIES OF SPECIAL CONCERN AND FULLY PROTECTED SPECIES

Based on the above discussions, it is my determination that the proposed action: • May impact individuals but would not cause a trend towards federal listing or a loss of viability for the yellow warbler, yellow-breasted chat, Pacific tailed frog, foothill yellow-legged frog and Western pond turtle. No mitigation measures are necessary given the Resource Protection Measures and BMPs incorporated into the project design. • Will have no impact on golden eagle, American peregrine falcon, Northern goshawk, olive-sided flycatcher, purple martin, Oregon snowshoe hare, American badger, Southern torrent salamander, or Cascades frog because there is no suitable nesting or denning habitat within the action area for these species. Individuals and their habitat will not be impacted. No mitigation measures are necessary. • Will have no impact on the pallid bat because a Limited Operating Period (LOP) restricting work within the tunnel between April 1 and July 31 will be utilized to avoid or minimize the potential impacts to bats during the maternal roosting season. No mitigation measures are necessary. • Will have no impact on ring-tailed cat because no potential denning structures will be removed or altered and the prescribed bald eagle LOP (January 1-July 31) will avoid or minimize the potential impacts to ring-tailed cats during the breeding season. No mitigation measures are necessary.

XII. REFERENCES

Alexander, J. D. 1999. Bird-habitat relationships in the Klamath/Siskiyou Mountains. M.S. thesis, Southern Oregon Univ., Ashland.

Altman, B. 1998. Productivity of the Olive-sided Flycatcher in the Cascade Mountains of northern Oregon: a pilot project to assess nesting success as a potential factor in population declines. Unpublished report submitted to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Oregon State Office, Portland, OR.

Altman, B., and Sallabanks, R. 2000. Olive-sided Flycatcher (Contopus cooperi), in The Birds of North America (A. Poole and F. Gill, eds.), no. 502. Birds N. Am., Philadelphia.

Anthony, R. G., R. L. Knight, G. T. Allen, B. R. McClelland and J. I. Hodges. 1982. Habitat use by nesting and roosting bald eagles in the Pacific Northwest. North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference. Transactions, 47: 332-342. Asdell, S. A. 1964. Patterns of mammalian reproduction. 2nd ed. Cornell Univ. Press, Ithaca, Ny.

Banfield, A. W. F. 1974. The mammals of Canada. Toronto, ON: University of Toronto Press. 438 p. [21084]

Bent, A. C. 1942. Life histories of North American flycatchers, larks, swallows, and their allies. U.S. Natl. Mus. Bull. 179.

Blakesley, J.A., A.B. Franklin, and R.J. Gutierrez. 1992. Spotted owl roost and nest site selection in northwestern California. 1992. Journal of Wildlife Management, 56 (2): 388-392.

Brown, Charles R. 1997. Purple Martin (Progne subis). In The Birds of North America, No. 287 (A. Poole and F. Gill, eds.). The Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, PA, and The American Ornithologists' Union, Washington, D.C.

Buehler, D.A. 2000. Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus). p. 1-39. In A. Poole and F. Gill (ed.) The Birds of North America. Vol. 506. The Birds of North America, Inc., Philadel- phia, PA, USA. (N)

Bury, R. B. 1983. Differences in amphibian populations in logged and old-growth redwood forest. Northwest. Sci. 57:167-178.

Bury, R. B., and P. S. Corn. 1988. Douglas-fir forests in the Oregon and Washington Cascades: relation of the herpetofauna to stand age and moisture. Pages 11-22 in R. C. Szaro, K. E. Severson, and D. R. Patton, tech. coords. Proceedings of the symposium on the manage-

ment of amphibians, reptiles, and small mammals in North America. U.S.D.A. Forest Service, Gen. Tech. Rept. RM-166.

Buskirk, S. G., C. Mullis, A. S. Mossman, I. Show and C. Coolahan. 1994. Habitat ecology of American martens and fishers. In S. W. Buskirk, A. S. Harestad, M. G. Raphael, and R. A. Powell (Eds.), Martens, sables and fishers: biology and conservation. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. pp. 368-376 California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB). December 2014. CNDDB and Spotted Owl Observations Database (BIOS layer ds704). Sacramento, California, USA. CDFG. 2000. Invertebrates Species Accounts. Page 69 http://www.dfg.ca.gov/wildlife/nongame/t_e_spp/docs/2000/t_e08inverts.pdf

CDFG. 2004. Recovery strategy for California coho salmon. Report to the California Fish and Game Commission. 594 pp.

CDFG. 2004. Coho Salmon Recovery Strategy. Appendix C: Other Species at Risk. Pg C2. http://www.dfg.ca.gov/fish/documents/SAL_SH/SAL_Coho_Recovery/ReportToCo mmission_2004/16.C_OtherSpeciesAtRisk.pdf.

CDFG. 2014. Special Animals List. September 2014. Available at: http://www.dfg.ca.gov/biogeodata/cnddb/pdfs/SPAnimals.pdf

CDFW. 2014. State & Federally Listed Endangered & Threatened Animals in California. Sep- tember 2014. Available: http://www.dfg.ca.gov/biogeodata/cnddb/pdfs/TEAnimals.pdf

Center for Biological Diversity. 2008. A petition to list the pacific fisher (Martes pennanti) as an Endangered or Threatened Species under the California Endangered Species Act. 83 pp. Chilcote, Samantha D. 2014. Conner Creek Mouth Fish Passage Enhancement Feasibility Study – Fisheries Assessment. 23 pps.

Cockrum, E. L. 1973. Additional longevity records for American bats. J. Ariz. Acad. Sci. 8:108- 110.

Comrack, L., B. Bolster, J. Gustafson, D. Steele, and E. Burkett. April 10, 2008. Species of Spe- cial Concern: A Brief Description of an Important California Department of Fish and Game Designation. California Department of Fish and Game, Wildlife Branch, Nongame Wildlife Program Report 2008-03, Sacramento, CA. 4pp.

Courtney, S.P., J.A. Blakesley, R.E. Bigley, Cody, M.L., Dumbacher, J.P., Fleisher, R.C., Frank- lin, A.B., Franklin J.F., Gutierrez R.J., Marzluff, J.M., and L. Sztukowski. 2004. Scien- tific evaluation of the status of the northern spotted owl. Sustainable Ecosystems Insti- tute. Portland, OR. September

Craig, D., R.W. Schlorff, B.E. Valentine, C. Pelles, and J. Harris. 1996. Survey protocol for willow flycatchers on National Forest Service lands in the Pacific Southwest Region. Un- published document, 18pp.

Dark, S. J. 1997. A landscape-scale analysis of mammalian carnivore distribution and habitat use by fisher. Unpublished Masters Thesis, Humboldt State University, Arcata, CA. De Juilio, Carla. 2014. Snail Survey Report-Conner Creek Mouth Fish Passage Enhancement Project. Dunn, J. L., and Garrett, K. L. 1997. A Field Guide to Warblers of North America. Houghton Mifflin, Boston.

Eckerle, K. P., and Thompson, C. F. 2001. Yellow-breasted Chat (Icteria virens), in The Birds of North America (A. Poole and F. Gill, eds.), no. 575. Birds N. Am., Philadelphia.

Ehrlich, P. R., D. S. Dobkin, and D. Wheye. 1988. The birder's handbook. Simon and Schuster, New York. 785pp.

Five Counties Salmonid Conservation Program. September 2002. A Water Quality and Stream Habitat Protection Manual for County Road Maintenance in Northwestern California Wa- tersheds (Roads Manual). http://www.5counties.org/roadmanual.htm. Forsman, E.D., E.C. Meslow, and H.M. Wight. 1984. Distribution and biology of the spotted owl in Oregon. Wildlife Monographs 87:1-64.

Fowler, C., B. Valentine, S. Sanders, and M. Stafford. 1991. Habitat Suitability Index Model: Willow Flycatcher (Empidonax traillii). USDA Forest Service, Tahoe National Forest.

Frost, H. C., W. B. Krohn, and C. R. Wallace. 1997. Age-specific reproductive characteristics in fishers Journal of Mammalogy 78(2):598-612. Gaines, D. 1977. Birds of the Yosemite Sierra. California Syllabus, Oakland. 153pp. Grinnell, J., J. S. Dixon, and J. M. Linsdale. 1937. Fur-bearing mammals of California. 2 Vols. Univ. California Press, Berkeley. 777pp. Grinnell, J., and A. H. Miller. 1944. The distribution of the birds of California. Pac. Coast Avi- fauna No. 27. 608pp.

Gutierrez R. J., A. B. Franklin, and W. S. LaHaye. 1995. Spotted Owl (Strix occidentalis). In The birds of North America, no. 179 (A. Poole and F. Gill, Eds.). The Academy of Natu- ral Sciences, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; The American Ornithologists’ Union, Washing- ton, D.C., USA. Harrison, C. 1978. A Field guide to the nests, eggs and nestlings of North American birds. W. Collins Sons and Co., Cleveland, OH. 416pp.

Holland, D.C. 1991. A synopsis of the ecology and status of the western pond turtle (Clemmys marmorata) in 1991. Unpublished report prepared for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 141 pp.

Holland, D.C. 1994. The western pond turtle: habitat and history. Portland, OR: U.S. Depart- ment of Energy, Bonneville Power Administration.

Ingles, L. G. 1965. Mammals of the Pacific states. Stanford Univ. Press, Stanford, CA. 506pp.

Jennings, M. R. and M. P. Hayes. 1994. Amphibian and reptile species of special concern in Cal- ifornia. California Department of Fish and Game. Rancho Cordova 255 pp.

Jurek, R. M. 1988. Five-year status report. Bald Eagle. California Dept. Fish and Game. Sacra- mento, CA, USA. Kotliar, N.B. and L.A. Clouse. 2000. Olive-sided Flycatcher nest success in stand-replacement and prescribed-understory burns. Unpublished annual report prepared for U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, USGS, Fort Collins, CO.

LaHaye, W.S. and R.J. Gutierrez. 1999. Nest sites and nesting habitat of the northern spotted owl in northwestern California. The Condor, Vol. 101(2), pp. 324-333.

Lehman, R. N. 1979. A survey of selected habitat features of 95 Bald Eagle nests in California. California Department of Fish and Game. Wildlife Management Branch Admin. Rep. 79-1, Sacramento, CA, USA. Leonard, W.P. et al, 1993. Amphibians of Washington and Oregon. Seattle Audubon Society, Seattle, Washington.

Long, C. A. 1973. Taxidea taxus. Mammal. Species. No. 26. 4pp.

Lowther, P. E., Celada, C., Klein, N. K., Rimmer, C. C., and Spector, D. A. 1999. Yellow War- bler (Dendroica petechia), in The Birds of North America (A. Poole and F. Gill, eds.), no. 454. Birds N. Am., Philadelphia.

Lund, Tom. 1978. The Purple Martin in the western United States, part two: it’s a question of holes. Oregon Birds 4(2): 1-9.

Matthews, Graham. 2014. Lower Conner Creek Fish Passage Project Conceptual Alternatives. December 2014.

Messick, John P.; Hornocker, Maurice G. 1981. Ecology of the badger in southwestern Idaho. Wildlife Monographs. 76: 1-53. [25831]

Metter D. E. 1968. Ascaphus and A. Truei. Cat. Am. Amphibians and Reptiles 69.1-69.2.

National Marine Fisheries Service. 2014. Final Recovery Plan for the Southern Oregon/Northern California Coast Evolutionarily Significant Unit of Coho Salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch). National Marine Fisheries Service. Arcata, CA.

Nichol, N. M. 2006. Draft status assessment of the Pacific fisher (Martes pennanti) in California. California Department of Fish and Game. Orr, R. T. 1940. The rabbits of California. Calif. Acad. Sci. Occas. Pap. No. 19. 227pp.

Reynolds, R.T.. 1983. Management of western coniferous forest habitat for nesting accipiter hawks. General Technical Report RM-102. USDA Forest Service

Sauer, J. R., Hines, J. E., and Fallon, J. 2005. The North American Breeding Bird Survey, results and analysis 1966–2004, version 2005.2. USGS Patuxent Wildl. Res. Ctr., Laurel, MD. Available at www.mbr-pwrc.usgs.gov/bbs/bbs.html.

Sawyer, J. O., T. Keeler-Wolf, and J. M. Evens. 2009. A Manual of California Vegetation: Second Edition. California Native Plant Society Press. Sacramento, California. Schempf, P. F., and M. White. 1977. Status of six furbearer populations in the mountains of northern California. U.S. Dep. Agric., For. Serv., San Francisco, Calif. 51pp.

Sedgwick, J.A. 2000. Willow Flycatcher (Empidonax traillii). The Birds of North America Online. .

Seglund, A.E. 1995. The use of resting sites by Pacific fisher. M.S. Thesis. Humboldt State University, Arcata, California. 66 p.

Self, S. E. & S. J. Kerns. 2001. Pacific fisher use of a managed forest landscape in northern Cali- fornia. Unpublished report - Sierra Pacific Industries. Anderson, CA : s.n., 2001.

Seltenrich, C.P. and A.C. Pool. 2002. A Standardized Approach for Habitat Assessments and Visual Encounter Surveys for the Foothill Yellow-Legged Frog (Rana boylii). Appendix A Foothill Yellow-Legged Frog (Rana boylii): Life History and Habitat Information. Technical Report for Pacific Gas and Electric Company. May 2002.

Smith, D. G., and J. R. Murphy. 1973. Breeding ecology of raptors in the eastern Great Basin of Utah. Brigham Young Univ., Provo. Sci. Bull. Biol. Ser. 18, No. 3. 76pp.

Sogge, M. K., R. M. Marshall, S. J. Sferra, and T. J. Tibbitts. 1997b. A southwestern willow flycatcher natural history summary and survey protocol. Colorado Plateau Research Station, Northern Arizona University: Flagstaff, Arizona. National Park Service Technical Report USGS/NAUCPRS/NRTR-97/12.

Stafford, M. D. and B. E. Valentine. 1985. A preliminary report on the biology of the willow flycatcher in the central Sierra Nevada. California-Nevada Wildlife Transactions, 66-67.

Squires, J.R. and Reynolds, R.T. 1997. Northern goshawk (Accipiter gentilis). The birds of North America Online (A. Poole, Ed.). Ithaca, New York: Cornell Laboratory of Orni- thology; Retrieved from the Birds of North America. Online at: http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/298.

Thomas, J.W., E.D. Forsman, J.B. Lint, E.C. Meslow, B.R. Noon, and J. Verner. 1990. A Con- servation Strategy for the Northern Spotted Owl. Report to the interagency scientific committee to address the conservation of the northern spotted owl. Portland, OR. May 1990. 427 pp.

Trune, D. R., and C. N. Slobodchikoff. 1976. Social effects of roosting on the metabolism of the pallid bat (Antrozous pallidus). J. Mammal. 57:656-663.

Trune, D. R., and C. N. Slobodchikoff. 1978. Position of immatures in pallid bat clusters: a case of reciprocal altruism? J. Mammal. 59:193-195.

USDA Forest Service. 1977. Bald eagle habitat management guidelines. Forest Service, Region 5, 630 Sansome Street, San Francisco, Ca. 94111. 60pp. USDI. 2000. Record of Decision (ROD) for the Trinity River Mainstem Fishery Restoration Fi- nal Environmental Impact Statement/ Environmental Impact Report (Trinity EIS/EIR). December 2000. Accessed from: http://odp.trrp.net/FileDatabase/Documents/ Trini- ty%20River%20Record%20of%20Decision%2012-19-00.pdf

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 1992. Determination of critical habitat for the northern spotted owl. Final rule. Federal Register 57(10):1796-1797.

_____ 2008. Revised designation of critical habitat for the northern spotted owl. Final rule. Fed- eral Register 73(157):47326-47522. _____. 2011. Golden Eagles Status Fact Sheet. Available at http://www.fws.gov. _____. 2011. Revised Northern Spotted Owl Recovery Plan. U.S. Department of the Interior. June 26, 2011. Portland, OR. 277 pp. _____. 2012. Revised designation of critical habitat for the Northern Spotted Owl. Final Rule. Federal Register 77(233): 71897-71907 _____. 2014. Critical Habitat Portal. FWS Critical Habitat for Threatened and Endangered Spe- cies. (http://criticalhabitat.fws.gov/crithab/).

Verner, J. 1980. Bird communities of mixed-conifer forests of the Sierra Nevada, in Manage- ment of western forests and grasslands for nongame birds (R. M. DeGraff, tech. coord.), pp. 198–223. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-86, U.S. Forest Serv., Intermountain Forest and Range Exp. Station, Ogden, UT. Walker, E. P., F. Warnick, and S. E. Hamlet. 1968. Mammals of the world. 2nd ed. 2 Vols. Johns Hopkins Press, Baltimore, MD. 1500pp. Welsh, H.H., and A.J. Lind. 1996. Habitat correlates of the Southern torrent salamander, in Northwestern California. Journal of Herpetology, Vol. 30, No 3, pp. 385-398.

Wheeler, B. K. 2003. Raptors of Western North America. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

White, C. M., N. J. Clum, T. J. Cade, and W. G. Hunt. 2002. Peregrine Falcon (Falco peregrinus). The Birds of North America Online, edited by A. Poole. Ithaca: Cornell Laboratory of Ornithology. Retrieved from The Birds of North American Online database, http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/BNA/account/Peregrine_Falcon/.

Williams, B.D.C. 1998. Distribution, Habitat Associations, and Conservation of Purple Martins Breeding in California (Thesis). California State University, Sacramento. (California De- partment of Fish and Game, Bird and Mammal Conservation Program Report 98-14). Yaeger, Scott J. 2005. Habitat at fisher resting sites in the Klamath Province of northern Califor- nia. Arcata, CA, USA : s.n., 2005. p. 75.

Zeiner, D.C., W.F. Laudenslayer, Jr., K.E. Mayer, and M. White, eds. 1988-1990. California's Wildlife. Vol. I-III. California Depart. of Fish and Game, Sacramento, California.

Zielinski, R. L. Truex, G. A. Schmidt, F. V. Schlexer, K. N. Schmidt, and R. H. Barrett. 2004. Resting habitat selection by fishers in California. Journal of Wildlife Management 68(3):475-492.

Appendix A. Threatened and Endangered Species Lists ======Listed/Proposed Threatened and Endangered Species for the JUNCTION CITY Quad (Candidates Included)

November 23, 2014

Document number: 293057641-164524 ======KEY: (PE) Proposed Endangered Proposed in the Federal Register as being in danger of extinction (PT) Proposed Threatened Proposed as likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future (E) Endangered Listed in the Federal Register as being in danger of extinction (T) Threatened Listed as likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future (C) Candidate Candidate which may become a proposed species Habitat Y = Designated, P = Proposed, N = None Designated * Denotes a species Listed by the National Marine Fisheries Service

Type Scientific Name Common Name Category Critical Habitat Fish * Acipenser medirostris green sturgeon T Y * Oncorhynchus kisutch S. OR/N. CA coho T Y salmon Birds Coccyzus americanus Western yellow- T Y billed cuckoo Strix occidentalis caurina northern spotted owl T Y Mammals Martes pennanti fisher, West Coast PT P DPS

======Listed/Proposed Threatened and Endangered Species for the DEDRICK Quad (Candidates Included)

November 23, 2014

Document number: 292975593-164615 ======KEY: (PE) Proposed Endangered Proposed in the Federal Register as being in danger of extinction (PT) Proposed Threatened Proposed as likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future (E) Endangered Listed in the Federal Register as being in danger of extinction (T) Threatened Listed as likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future (C) Candidate Candidate which may become a proposed species Habitat Y = Designated, P = Proposed, N = None Designated * Denotes a species Listed by the National Marine Fisheries Service

Appendix B. Project Maps

Map 1. Conner Creek Mouth Project Vicinity and Wildilfe Action Areas

Map 2. Conner Creek Mouth Project Wildilfe Action Areas

Map 3. Conner Creek Mouth Project Areas –Alternative 1 (yellow) and 2 (brown)