BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT/EVALUATION for Threatened, Endangered, Proposed, and Sensitive Wildlife Species that May be Affected by the HIGH BAR PLACER PHASE 2 PROJECT SALMON/SCOTT RIVER RANGER DISTRICT, KLAMATH NATIONAL FOREST

PROJECT LOCATION: Township 10 North, Range 7 East, Section 24, Humboldt Base Meridian

Wildlife Contact Person: Sam Cuenca, (530) 468-5351

Document Approved By: Date: 7 /ill h I Dave Hays District Ranger Salmon and Scott River Ranger Districts

1

High Bar Placer Mine Phase 2 BA/BE Wildlife & Fish Biological Assessment/Biological Evaluation for the High Bar Placer Phase 2 Project

I. INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this biological assessment/biological evaluation (BA) is to determine the effects of the High Bar Placer Phase 2 Project on wildlife and fisheries species listed as Endangered, Threatened, or Proposed under the Endangered Species Act; on designated Critical Habitat for those species; and on species listed as Sensitive by the Pacific Southwest Region, USDA Forest Service.

This BA is prepared in accordance with the legal requirements set forth under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended [16 U.S.C. 1536 (c) et seq. 50CFR 402] (ESA), and follows the standards established in the Forest Service Manual direction (FSM 2672.42; USDA Forest Service 1991). The list (dated: October 25, 2010) of federally listed species was obtained online at http://arcata.fws.gov/specieslist (reference #792457677-142616) (USDI 2010). This BA addresses the following species from those lists:

Threatened Northern spotted owl (Strix occidentalis caurina)1 Marbled murrelet (Brachyramphus marmorata)2

Candidate Western Yellow-billed Cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus) Pacific Fisher (Martes pennanti)

Sensitive Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus leucocephalus) Peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus anatum) Northern goshawk (Accipter gentiles) Great gray owl (Strix nebulosa) Swainson's hawk (Buteo swainsoni) Willow flycatcher (Empidonax trailii) Greater sandhill crane (Grus canadensis tabida) California wolverine (Gulo gulo luteus)

'The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) designated Critical Habitat for the northern spotted owl (NSO) on January 15, 1992. 2 Critical Habitat for the marbled murrelet was designated by the USFWS on May 24, 1996.

2 High Bar Placer Mine Phase 2 BA/BE Pacific fisher (Martes pennanti pacifica) American marten (Martes americana) Sierra Nevada red fox (Vulpes vulpes necator) Pallid bat (Antrozous pallidus) Townsend's big-eared bat (Corynorhinus townsendii) Northwestern pond turtle (Emys marmorata marmorata) Foothill yellow-legged frog (Rana boylii) Cascade frog (Rana cascade) Southern torrent salamander (Rhyacotriton variegates) Siskiyou Mountain salamander (Plethodon stormi) Blue-gray taildropper slug (Prophysaon coeruleum) Tehama chaparral snail (Trilobopsis tehamana)

The High Bar Placer Phase 2 Project does not occur in designated Critical Habitat for the Northern Spotted Owl.

Species Excluded from Further Documentation

The High Bar Placer Phase 2 Project is not within the range of the marbled murrelet (coastal forests) and no designated Critical Habitat for this species occurs at the project site. This species will not be addressed further in this document.

The High Bar Placer Phase 2 Project is not within the range of the Sierra Nevada red fox (Cascades Mountains and Sierran Crest) or the southern torrent salamander (streams within coastal forests). These species will not be addressed further in this document.

Habitat for the Great Gray Owl (pine and fir forests adjacent to montane meadows), Swainson's hawk (perennial grassland, grassy shrub-steppe, or agricultural landscapes), and greater sandhill crane (wetlands, marshes, grasslands, or irrigated fields) does not occur in the project area. These species will not be addressed further in this document.

CONSULTATION TO DATE

For this No Effect BA, this consultation to date sections does not apply.

HABITAT FIELD REVIEW AND MAPPING

Northern Spotted Owl

Northern spotted owl (NSO) habitat field reviews were conducted by Klamath National Forest wildlife biologist Sam Cuenca in April 2009. Field notes are available at the wildlife office of the Salmon/Scott River Ranger District Office. Field reviews were conducted to verify the presence/absence of NSO habitat in and adjacent to the project area.

3 High Bar Placer Mine Phase 2 BA/BE Mapping data delineated the project site as falling within mid-seral forest vegetation and NSO foraging habitat. Field reviews verified that the project site is located in mid-seral habitat, but that this area had been burned by forest fires in the late 1970s resulting in a brush field bounded by plantations and mid- seral timber stands.

CURRENT MANAGEMENT DIRECTION

Programmatic management direction for the Forest is provided by the Klamath Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan, 1995), which incorporates direction in the Record of Decision for Amendments to the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management Planning Documents within the Range of the NSO (1994). The Forest Plan was developed utilizing the guidelines provided by the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resource Planning Act of 1974, as amended by the National Forest Management Act of 1976, and the National Environmental Policy Act of 1976. The Klamath National Forest is divided into 17 management areas (land allocations), each with distinct management direction that has been developed in response to Forest resource opportunities and public issues. Activities proposed as part of the High Bar Placer Phase 2 Project would occur in two land allocations, in accordance with Forest Plan direction, as follows: Partial Retention Visual Quality Objective and Riparian Reserves.

DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION

The High Bar Placer Phase 2 Project has been proposed to provide extraction of gold deposits on National Forest System lands.

PROJECT AREA

"Action area" is defined for ESA purposes 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). In this document the term "analysis area" is synonymous with "action area."

The analysis area described in this analysis was determined based on the distribution of effects relative to the wildlife species listed on page one. Based on field review and consideration of direct and indirect effects, the project area is defined as: the area directly affected by vegetation removal activities, soil excavation, gold milling operations, water drafting, and the area potentially affected by noise disturbance from those activities (up to 0.25 miles from noise generating equipment, depending on topographic features that may limit noise).

The project area encompasses approximately 4 acres and is located on the Salmon/Scott River Ranger District approximately 51 miles southwest of Fort Jones, Siskiyou County, California, Township 10 North, Range 7 East, Section 24 Humboldt Meridian. The current condition, reference condition, and desired condition of the project area have been assessed in the Lower South Fork of the Salmon River Ecosystem Analysis (USDA Forest Service 1997), and copies of this analysis are available at the Salmon/Scott River Ranger District office.

Activities that are proposed as part of the High Bar Placer Phase 2 Project will be assessed for their direct, indirect and cumulative effects on the ability of individual animals of a species to breed, feed or shelter within the project area.

PRIMARY ELEMENTS OF THE PROJECT

4 High Bar Placer Mine Phase 2 BA/BE Road Actions An existing non-system road is currently used for mine exploration. Access in the project area will use this existing road for transport of excavated material to the milling area on-site. Use of road will be by pickup truck, excavator and 10-yard dump trucks. Upon termination of the operations the road will be closed. McNeal Creek Road (a Forest Service system road, open to the public year-round) will be used to access the mining operations.

Vegetation Removal Vegetation in the Phase 2 area is dominated by brush (Manzanita, deer brush, honeysuckle, poison oak, gooseberry and mock orange), with a minor amount of Douglas-fir, madrone, and knobcone pine. Approximately six (6) merchantable Douglas-fir trees (12-18 inches DBH) are proposed for removal and will be used on-site for mining purposes. Vegetation will be removed by cutting with chainsaws, loading the brush onto a dump truck and hauling it to a disposal location near McNeal Creek Road. Brush will be piled and burned as directed by the Forest Service. Timber will also be cut by chainsaws and used in log form for cribbing, bunk logs and other mine related uses. If timber removed is not needed for mining purposes, the logs will be decked (at a location identified by the Forest Service) for disposal by the Forest Service. Vegetation will be removed from approximately 1.75 acres for the mine site and milling operations. Vegetation removal will be accomplished in stages over the life of the mine plan when necessary to remove overburden and access placer deposits. Brush removal at stockpile areas and mill site will occur over an approximately 2 week period.

Overburden Soil Removal & Mining The Phase 2 area has approximately 19,000 cubic yards of overburden soil material that will need to be removed to gain access to placer deposits. Overburden is soil that is has no valuable mineral deposit or has a deposit in such low quantities that it is not considered viable to extract. This material will be excavated from the site in a step/bench cut manner to minimize surface disturbance and reduce handling the material multiple times.

Overburden excavation will be accomplished by cutting strips or "blocks" from the area; each block is approximately 200 feet in length by 40 feet wide to a depth ranging between 6 and 20 feet to the placer deposit (depth will vary based on bedrock locations). Refer to Drawing 1 for overburden stockpile location. The stockpile will be stabilized prior to the wet weather season (October 15). Stabilization may be accomplished by various methods, and will be dependent on the volume of material at the stockpile site. Methods for stabilization could consist of 1) covering the stockpile with plastic tarps or jute matting, 2) placing loose straw over the pile, 3) planting with semi-permanent vegetation (grass mixture) and straw, or 4) any combination of the above. Regardless of the method, the objective will be to stabilize the stockpile to minimize erosion so that the material can be used in reclamation.

It is anticipated that water will be produced along the bedrock formation and collect at the bottom of the face of the excavation; a test trench in 2008 produced minor amounts of water. In anticipation of this water being produced in quantities that will need to be removed from the working face, a dewatering detention basin has been located at the base of the road slope. Accumulations of water will be pumped to the detention basin to hold this water and allow it to seep into the soil or be evaporated. Actual size of the detention basin will be determined based on the actual volume of water produced in the mine workings, but is expected to handle approximately 4,500 gallons of water.

Once all placer deposits are removed from Block 1, overburden from Block 2 will be pushed into the previously excavated area of Block 1 and track compacted by a dozer. Excavation will continue until placer deposits are exposed. Once placer deposits are exposed, these will be removed using an excavator and a dump truck that will haul them to the mill site for processing. This process will be continued until

5 High Bar Placer Mine Phase 2 BA/BE the Phase 2 area has been mined. Approximately 24,500 cubic yards of ore will be processed. A review of the soils and geologic structure at the mine site shows that in-place material has sufficient structural strength to stand at a 1:1 (vertical) slope for long periods. However, this steep slope is not expected to be maintained over time so the slope will be maintained at a better angle to protect workers and be less likely to fail unexpectedly, trapping workers below. Excavation slopes will be cut at either a 1.5:1 continuous slope or will be bench cut with a maximum bench height of 15 feet. There may be times when excavated slopes will have both a 1.5:1 and 15 foot bench cut to allow for equipment access and soil handling, but these times cannot be accurately predicted at this time due to varying site conditions.

When excavation operations are completed, silts and other waste rock material from the mill site will be transported back to the mine site and placed replaced in the excavation with the overburden. This material will then be integrated with the in-place overburden. Then stockpiled topsoil will be returned to the site, graded to an appropriate slope and re-vegetated as directed by the Forest Service.

Mill Site A mill site will be established near McNeal Creek Road to process placer deposits from the site. Refer to Drawing 1 for location and layout of milling operations. Placer deposits will be brought to the mill site by dump truck and stockpiled at the wash plant. The wash plant has a capacity of 150 cubic yards per day; actual volume of operation will depend on the availability of material and efficiency of plant operations. A front end loader will load the wash plant with material, which will be washed and separated into several size classes of rock. This rock will be removed from the processing plant and stacked for later removal and return to the mine area during reclamation. Residual fine sediments, small rock and gold will exit the bottom of the processing plant and run through a series of sluice boxes where gold will be deposited. The entire area of milling operations is estimated to be approximately 0.75 acres; no trees will be removed, but small brush and surface vegetation will be cut. Brush will be piled for burning as directed by the Forest Service.

Settling ponds will be constructed to detain water on-site; these will be partially excavated and then have a berm built around them from clay soils at the mine site. Silt laden water will go into a primary settling pond (Pond #1) where the water will decant and sediment will be deposited. The size of Pond #1 is approximately 150 feet long by 50 feet wide with a depth of 4 feet, and is estimated to have a capacity of approximately 3,000 gallons. A secondary settling pond (Pond #2) will process additional water flowing from Pond #1, and a centrifuge will separate additional fines to remove sediment. This pond is estimated at 1,500 gallons, and will also be sized appropriately to handle needed outflow. Water will then percolate into the ground from Pond #2.

Water for the milling operation will be taken from McNeal Creek by a 3-inch hose connected to a gasoline powered pump; the pump will be located outside of the McNeal Creek channel. Water will be transported to the mill site by a 3-inch PVC line, laid above ground along McNeal Creek Road. Removal of water from McNeal Creek will be coordinated with the California Department of Fish and Game, who may issue a permit for this use.

Reclamation Mine reclamation will follow the steps outlined below, and as directed by the Forest Service where site conditions require modifications for the protection of natural resources and successful reclamation.

Mine Site The mine site will be reclaimed as identified in the Overburden Soil Removal section of the POO. After soil is replaced and graded, the site will be re-vegetated as directed by the Forest Service.

Material Stockpiles

6 High Bar Placer Mine Phase 2 BA/BE

! Stockpile locations will have material removed for use in reclamation of the mine site and milling area. Disturbed areas will be graded and re-vegetated as directed by the Forest Service.

Brush Disposal Area Brush piled for disposal will be burned as directed by the Forest Service. It is expected that brush will be burned each year during the wet season after sufficient amounts have accumulated.

INTERRELATED AND INTERDEPENDENT PROJECT ELEMENTS

There are no other interrelated and interdependent project elements.

TIMING OF PROJECT

Mining activities will commence upon signing of the Decision Notice and will take approximately 3 years to complete, working intermittently in each year. Burning of brush piles created by the operation will occur during fall or winter of each year depending on seasonal conditions. Reclamation of the mined areas will occur during the last year of operation.

E. PROJECT DESIGN FEATURES

Noise Disturbance LOP No existing NSO nest sites occur within 0.25 miles of mining activities, but un-surveyed suitable habitat is located near the project adjacent to McNeal Creek Road. To prevent potential impacts to NSO that may utilize the un-surveyed suitable habitat, a Limited Operating Period (LOP) restricting the use of mechanized equipment will be imposed from January 1 to July 9 of each year to minimize potential disturbance effect. Project activities can proceed if non-nesting or nesting failure can be determined using established protocol.

VI. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT AREA AND EFFECTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION

A. VEGETATION TYPES AND WILDLIFE HABITAT

The elevation range in the project area is approximately 1,580 to 1,780 feet. The composition of the vegetation is influenced in part by elevation, soils and aspect. The mixed conifer forest type is typical of the area in general, and is dominated by Douglas-fir with a minor component of ponderosa pine, sugar pine, live oak and chinquapin. The project site is dominated by brush (Manzanita, deer brush, honeysuckle, poison oak, gooseberry and mock orange) with a minor amount of widely spaced Douglas- fir, madrone and knobcone pine. A complete vegetation list of the project area is on file at the Salmon/Scott River Ranger District.

Drainage features at the project site consist of dry swales, and other landscape features that direct surface water flows from storm water. No seasonal or ephemeral water courses were identified, and no off-site drainage patterns were identified.

Past timber harvest, wildfires, and fire suppression have shaped stand composition and structure within the project area. Current habitat conditions are primarily a result of wildfire, past timber harvest activities and post-treatment regeneration. The habitat distribution at the project site is a result of the 1977 Hog Fire and related timber salvage operations and reforestation activities.

7 High Bar Placer Mine Phase 2 BA/BE EFFECTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION ON HABITAT BY ALTERNATIVE

Comparison of Alternatives Below is a summary of the four alternatives being considered with this proposal. All acres and road mileages are estimates.

Alternative 1 — Proposed Action Removal of approximately 1.75 acres of vegetation, including 6 merchantable Douglas-fir trees will occur. This area includes all associated actions of mining, milling and stockpile areas.

Alternative 2 — No Action With this Alternative, no action would take place.

Alternative 3 — Modified Proposed Action (1 inch pipe) The only difference between Alts 1 and 3 is that a 1-inch pipe will be used for water withdrawals from McNeal Creek.

Alternative 4 — Modified Proposed Action (off site water drafting) The only difference between Alts 1 and 4 is that water will be brought in from a draft location off-site.

EFFECTS ON WILDLIFE SPECIES

NORTHERN SPOTTED OWL

A. Environmental Baseline The present range of the NSO encompasses an area from southwestern British Columbia south through the coastal mountains and Cascade Range of Washington and Oregon, south into southwestern Oregon and northwestern California north of San Francisco (Thomas et al. 1990). The High Bar Placer Phase 2 project area lies in northwestern California in the Klamath Mountains within the range of the NSO.

The NSO was listed as Threatened under the ESA throughout its range "due to loss and adverse modification of suitable habitat as a result of timber harvesting and exacerbated by catastrophic events such as fire, volcanic eruption, and wind storms" (USDI 1990a). At the time of listing, significant threats to the spotted owl included low and declining populations, limited and declining habitat, poor distribution of habitat or populations, isolated provinces, predation and competition, a lack of coordinated conservation measures, and vulnerability to natural disturbance. Since listing, additional threats have been identified as part of the status of the species review (Courtney et al. 2004). These include the following:

1. Barred Owls. New information suggests that hybridization with the barred owl (Strix varia) is less of a threat (Kelly and Forsman 2004) and competition with the barred owl is a greater threat than what was previously anticipated (Courtney et al. 2004). Since 1990, the barred owl has expanded its range south into Marin County, California and the central Sierra Nevada Mountains, such that it is now roughly coincident with the range of the NSO. Additionally, barred owl populations appear to be increasing throughout the Pacific Northwest, particularly in Washington and Oregon (Courtney et al. 2004). They appear to compete with spotted owls through a variety of mechanisms that include prey and habitat-overlap. New information on encounters between barred owls and NSOs comes primarily from anecdotal reports that corroborate initial

8 High Bar Placer Mine Phase 2 BA/BE observations that barred owls react more aggressively towards NSOs than the reverse (Courtney et al. 2004). There is also limited circumstantial evidence of barred owl predation on NSOs (Leskiw and Gutierrez 1998).

Wildfire. At the time of listing, the USFWS recognized that catastrophic wildfire posed a threat to the NSO (USDI 1990a). Now, new information suggests that fire may be a greater threat than was previously thought. In particular, the rate of habitat loss in the relatively dry East Cascades and Klamath provinces has been greater than expected (Gertsch 2005). On the Klamath National Forest, approximately 5,400 acres of suitable habitat have been lost to wildfire since the listing of the NSO.

West Nile Virus. West Nile virus (WNV) has been identified as a potential threat of unknown magnitude to the NSO (Courtney et al. 2004). WNV has killed millions of wild birds in North America since it arrived in 1999 (McLean et al. 2001, Caffrey 2003 and Marra et al. 2004). Additionally, one captive NSO in Ontario, Canada, is known to have contracted WNV and died (Gertsch 2005). Health officials expect that WNV will eventually spread throughout the range of the NSO (Courtney et al. 2004), but it is unknown how WNV will ultimately affect spotted owl populations.

Under present management direction identified in the Northwest Forest Plan (NWFP), Klamath Resource and Land Management Plan, and the Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment Team (FEMAT) Report, there is an 80% or greater likelihood of providing sufficient habitat for a well-distributed population of NSOs on Federal lands over the next 100 years (USDA et al. 1993). This will be met by the application of a network of Late-Successional Reserves (LSRs) and through implementation of standard and guidelines in matrix lands.

The NWFP emphasizes protection of large blocks of habitat (LSRs) to provide for clusters of breeding pairs of NSOs that are connected by habitat (matrix) to support survival and movement across the landscape between reserves. The NWFP reserve network is designed to protect late-successional forest species, such as the NSO. While scientists expected NSO populations to decline in the matrix over time, populations were expected to stabilize and eventually increase within LSRs as habitat conditions improve over the next 50-100 years (USDA and USDI 1994). The High Bar Placer Phase 2 Project area is located in matrix land. LSR RC 346 (6,000 acres) is located south of the project area in the adjacent Knownothing Creek drainage. The Trinity Alps Wilderness Area is located south of the project area, approximately 6 miles. The High Bar Placer Phase 2 Project does not propose to alter forested habitat within the matrix, impact riparian reserves or alter other standard and guidelines to mitigate effects and provide habitat for movement between LSRs.

Suitable Habitat Northern spotted owls rely on older forest habitats because they generally contain the structures required for nesting, roosting, foraging and dispersal. These structures include: a multi-layered, multi-species canopy dominated by large overstory trees; moderate to high canopy closure; a high incidence of trees with large cavities and other types of defounities; numerous large snags; an abundance of large, dead wood on the ground; and open space within and below the upper canopy for owls to fly (Thomas et al. 1990). For this project, no suitable habitat will be altered or affected.

For this analysis, suitable NSO habitat (nesting/roosting and foraging) was identified using the definition above, Spotted Owl Habitat Modeling (USDA Forest Service 1999, Appendix G), application of Suitable Spotted Owl Habitat Definitions using GIS, and ground verification).

One historic NSO homerange is located approximately 2.5 miles to the southwest in the Knownothing

9 High Bar Placer Mine Phase 2 BA/BE Creek drainage, outside of the McNeal watershed where the project occurs. This NSO site is above the suitable habitat threshold at the 1.3 mile radius The South Fork Salmon River 5th Field Watershed contains 114,448 acres of suitable habitat.

Nesting/Roosting Habitat Nesting/roosting habitat for this analysis is measured by (1) average crown closure >60%, (2) average diameter at breast height for canopy trees (>18 inches), basal area (240-320 square feet per acre), and includes trees with cavities or platforms (usually created by dwarf mistletoe).

On the Klamath National Forest, in the California Klamath and Cascade provinces, 41% of 29 nests were in cavities and 59% on platforms, with cavity nests occurring predominantly in Douglas-fir forest and platform nests found mainly in mixed conifer forest (White 1996). Eighty-six percent of the 29 nests were in Douglas fir trees (White 1996). Marshall et al. (2003) noted that approximately 90% of known Spotted Owl nests on the Applegate Ranger District of the Rogue River National Forest (Klamath Province, Oregon, north of the Project area) were in dwarf mistletoe brooms in Douglas-fir trees.

The South Fork Salmon River 5th Field Watershed contains 35,537 acres of nesting/roosting habitat; no nesting/roosting habitat occurs within project area.

Foraging Habitat Foraging habitat is defined for this analysis as: (1) stands with >50% canopy closure; (2) average dbh of stands 12-24 inches or better (size class 3); and (3) basal areas 160-320 ft2(Irwin and Rock 2004). Stands exhibiting these characters are consistent with foraging habitat as described by Irwin and Rock (2004). The South Fork Salmon River 5th Field Watershed contains 41,442 acres of foraging habitat; foraging habitat occurs within the project area.

Northern spotted owls feed mainly on small forest mammals, particularly arboreal and semi-arboreal species (Courtney et al. 2004). Northern flying squirrels and woodrats comprise a bulk of the diet, but secondary species may be important for survival and reproduction. Deer mice, red tree voles, red-backed voles, and two species of lagomorphs are considered locally and/or seasonally important in the diet (Courtney et al. 2004). Within the project area, it is expected that both species of woodrats and northern flying squirrels are the most likely prey item based on available habitat.

Northern flying squirrels Northern flying squirrels are nocturnal arboreal rodents that are active year-round in both coniferous and deciduous forests with a variety of stand conditions. Flying squirrel den sites can include cavities in live and dead old-growth trees; cavities, stick nests and moss-lichen nests in small second-growth trees; cavities in branches of fallen trees; nests in decayed stumps of felled old-growth trees and suppressed young trees; and witches broom formed by mistletoe infections (Courtney et al. 2004). In California, flying squirrels are locally common, yearlong residents of coniferous forest habitats from 5000 to 8000 feet in elevation and riparian deciduous forests of the North Coast, Klamath, Cascade, Sierra-Nevada, and Warner Mountains (CDFG 1990). Flying squirrels can occupy both old-growth and second-growth forest stands, including young managed stands that are 45-70 years old (Meyer et al. 2005). Northern flying squirrels frequently change nest trees or dens, and an individual may use 2-12 dens each season (Meyer et al. 2005). Meyer et al. (2005) found that flying squirrels preferred to nest in tall and large-diameter trees and snags, and preferred snags to live trees in their study area. Flying squirrels selected red fir and avoided incense cedar nest trees (Meyer et al. 2005). It is anticipated that there could be flying squirrel habitat in the general vicinity of the project, but no habitat for this species is expected within the project area.

10 High Bar Placer Mine Phase 2 BA/BE

I Woodrats Dusky-footed woodrats are nocturnal, arboreal herbivores that are a major prey species for owls below 1,250 m (4,100 feet). Generally, dusky-footed woodrat densities appear to follow stages influenced by habitat quality. The progression follows as: unsuitable habitat (recently burned clearcuts), to optimal habitat (sapling/bushy poletimber 15-40 years old and young redwood forest 5-20 years old), then a gradual decline to marginal habitat (small and large sawtimber stands/intermediated-aged forests) with a possible second peak in abundance in old forest as openings form in the canopy structure creating patches of stable, bushy understory (Courtney et al. 2004, Appendix 4). Dusky-footed woodrats may be present in the project area.

Optimal habitats for bushy-tailed woodrats are rock outcrops associated with coniferous forests, montane riparian, montane chaparral, and alpine dwarf-shrub. Other preferred habitats include montane hardwood-conifer, Douglas-fir, redwood, red fir, Jeffrey pine, and subalpine conifer (CDFG 1990). Distribution and abundance seem to be limited largely by availability of shelter. Dens are made of sticks, foliage, and debris and are built at the entrance to crevices, caves, and in forks of trees (CDFG 1990). Bushy-tailed woodrats may occur within the project area.

Dispersal Habitat Dispersal of animals can be defined as the relatively permanent movement of individuals from one location to another. Usually dispersal is the movement of juveniles from their natal area to a site where they eventually settle to breed (Thomas, et al. 1990). The South Fork Salmon River 5th Field watershed contains 37,469 acres of dispersal habitat. No dispersal habitat occurs in the project area.

Modeling efforts by Thomas et al. (1990) indicated that long-term spotted owl persistence is unusually sensitive to the distance between blocks of suitable habitat in relation to the percentage of the landscape that a dispersing individual can search before perishing. The distance between adjacent pairs or groups of breeding owls should be such that the dispersal of juveniles can replace losses among existing pairs and provide for the colonization of suitable, unoccupied habitats. They suggested that the distance between Habitat Conservation Areas (the concept of HCAs was used in the NWFP to develop LSRs) should be within the known dispersal distances of at least two-thirds of all juvenile owls (Thomas, et al. 1990); 12 miles is the distance that satisfied that criteria. To provide an additional measure of security for smaller HCAs, they suggested using shorter distances to increase the likelihood of successful dispersal; they selected 7 miles, which is less than the median distance estimated from banded birds and within the dispersal range of more than 75% of all radio-marked juveniles studied (Thomas, et al. 1990).

In addition to short distances between habitat areas (<7 miles), Thomas et al. (1990) suggest that management practices, such as visual corridors, riparian corridors, streamside management zones, geologic reserves, and other special management zones, provide habitat attributes conducive to spotted owl dispersal between habitat areas. To facilitate dispersal between habitat patches, they suggest maintaining 50% of the landscape in forest crown closure over 40% with average diameter at breast height of 11 inches.

Dispersal habitat, or connectivity across the landscape (South Fork Salmon River 5th field watershed), is patchy in the vicinity of the project area due to past fire, and timber harvest on Forest Service managed lands. No dispersal habitat is located in the project area.

Maintaining dispersal habitat over at least 50% of the area (for this analysis, assessed by 5th field watershed) between large blocks of habitat in reserves (LSRs) is expected to provide adequate connectivity across the landscape to ensure a high likelihood of NSO persistence (50-11-40 principle from Thomas et al. 1990).

11 High Bar Placer Mine Phase 2 BA/BE Dispersal habitat, or connectivity, is provided across the landscape (South Fork Salmon River 5th field watershed) by forested stands meeting the criteria discussed above. Approximately 62% of the watershed is currently providing dispersal habitat (Table 1).

Table 1 displays dispersal, nesting/roosting and foraging habitat (also used for dispersal), in the South Fork Salmon River 5th Field Watershed. Dispersal habitat for the NSO has been defined as stands having at least 40% canopy closure and a minimum mean diameter of 11 inches dbh.

Table 1: Acres of Dispersal Habitat in the South Fork Salmon River 5th Field Watershed Additional Total Dispersal Total Dispersal Watershed Nesting/Roosting Foraging (1)/0 of Acres (excluding watershed) NRF) South Fork 185,573 35,537 41,442 37,469 114,448 (62%) Salmon River

Barriers to Dispersal Within the South Fork Salmon River 5th field watershed, potential barriers to dispersal for late- successional forest-related species include areas that currently do not support late-successional or mid- successional forest. Non-forested patches on the landscape would not, however, pose absolute barriers for highly mobile species, such as NS0s. Areas in the landscape that may pose barriers to dispersal, or that may discourage movement of more mobile species, include the following: the large areas burned in the 1987 fires (such as McNeal Creek); large areas of drier south facing slopes of the South Fork and main stem Salmon River.

Conversely, the successful exclusion of fire in portions of the analysis area has resulted in changes to forest structure and species composition. Fire suppression has changed the fire regime from frequent low intensity surface fires, to infrequent, but devastating, stand-replacing fires (USDA Forest Service 1997). The results of these changed conditions include increases in disease, increases in dead and live fuel, development of ladder fuels, and a more dense forest with a closed canopy that can sustain a crown fire. These conditions create the potential for large-scale loss of dispersal habitat to wildfire.

Population Size and Density According to the Forest Wide LSR Assessment (USDA Forest Service 1999), there are 261 NSO activity centers on the Forest. One hundred thirty-six of them are located within mapped LSRs, 23 are located within wilderness, and 87 are located within 100-acre LSRs. Additional NSO activity centers occur on private lands. Recent surveys conducted by USFWS within the Collins-Baldy (2002-2003) and Mt. Ashland LSRs (2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, and 2007) show that current NSO activity center locations are similar to what was reported in 1999.

The High Bar Placer Phase 2 project area was not surveyed to protocol (March 12, 1991 Regional survey protocol), due to the small acreage being proposed for impact and the availability of mapped data. No NSO activity centers will be affected by this project.

Northern Spotted Owl Home Ranges The amount and quality of habitat within known home ranges is variable. Spotted owl suitable habitat is naturally fragmented. South to west facing slopes are usually characterized by dry, harsh sites and occupied by hardwoods and pines. North to east facing slopes, as well as the lower third of slopes near streams usually offers the best habitat for nesting and roosting. In addition to this natural fragmentation, the amount of habitat within home ranges in the vicinity of the Project area has been diminished due to catastrophic fires and past timber harvest activities.

12 High Bar Placer Mine Phase 2 BA/BE

I I ' Habitat patterns of suitable NSO habitat within a territory can shape an individual owl's fitness. Individual fitness can be loosely defined as a composite measure of reproduction and survival (Franklin 2000). NSO survival seems positively associated with some level of interior mature and old-growth coniferous forest and the edge between those forest and other vegetation types, whereas reproductive output is enhanced by a convoluted edge with little interior habitat. Thus, there is evidently a trade-off in potential need for interior habitat and potential need for ecotones within a territory. This trade-off was expressed in estimates of habitat fitness potential in NSO, where high fitness balanced having both core owl habitat for maintaining high survival and having some mosaic of older forest and other vegetation types for maximizing reproduction and maintaining high survival. This mosaic was expressed as small patches of other vegetation types with convoluted edges, dispersed within and around a main patch of mature and old-growth forest (Franklin et al. 2000).

Based on a summary of data from various studies and past consultations, the USFWS has concluded that NSO productivity and survivorship are reduced when the proportion of suitable habitat within 0.7 mile of an activity center (core area) falls below 500 acres (50%) and the proportion of suitable habitat within a home range (3,300 acres or 1.3 mile radius) falls below 1,336 acres (40%) (USDI 1990b).

There are no NSO areas that overlap with the action area (the area of potential effects).

B. Direct and Indirect Effects on NSOs In the following analysis, duration of effects is described as short-term and long-term. Short-term effects occur within a time period of 0-10 years; long-term effects occur within a time period of more than 10 years after project implementation.

Direct Effects of Project Activities No nesting, roosting, or foraging habitat will be removed, down listed or degraded within the High Bar Placer Phase 2 proposal. The removal of approximately 6 conifer trees does not occur in suitable habitat. There will be no direct effects on nesting NSOs and no direct effects on suitable habitat.

Direct effects on NSOs as a result of implementing the High Bar Placer Phase 2 Project are limited to: (1) potential noise disturbance associated with use of heavy equipment.

NSOs are highly mobile, and noise and smoke have a low probability of affecting NSOs that are foraging or dispersing across the landscape because of their ability to move away from disturbances. Noise and smoke have a higher likelihood of affecting adult and juvenile NSOs early in the breeding season when they are closely associated with the nest core; this is the period when juvenile owls are not yet able to fly and adults are closely defending the nest core.

The FWS has determined that creating noise above ambient levels or smoke during the breeding season within 0.25 mile of active nest sites or unsurveyed suitable nesting habitat has the potential to disrupt essential breeding behaviors (USDI 2006). There is unsurveyed suitable habitat within 0.25 mile of the project area or within 0.25 miles of activities that would create noise above ambient levels, including along haul routes. Roads that will be used that are outside of the project area will include Road 101\104 and the South Fork Salmon River Road. Noise generated from truck traffic on these roads will be within ambient noise levels. Limited Operating Periods of 2/1 thru 7/9 will reduced the risk of potential disturbance to nesting NSO. Surveying suitable habitat that occurs within 0.25 miles of the project area on the year of implementation of noise generating activities will allow for reduced risk to potential nesting NSO.

Indirect Effect of Proposed Activities

13 High Bar Placer Mine Phase 2 BA/BE No indirect effects on NSO are expected to occur as a result of operations in the High Bar Placer Phase 2 Project. Implementation of a LOP to restrict noise disturbance to adjacent un-surveyed suitable habitat will provide needed protection for NSO using these areas.

Foraging Habitat

No Action Alternative In the short-term, existing forage habitat will continue to provide forage and dispersal opportunities for NSO. Fuels in the form of brush, trees with limbs to the ground, and dead wood will continue to accumulate, increasing the possibility of stand replacing wildfires. For the long-term, assuming the absence of a stand-replacing wildfire, existing forage habitat will continue to provide forage and dispersal opportunities for NSO.

Alternatives 1, 3 & 4 There will be no loss of suitable habitat with these alternatives. Vegetation will be slightly altered through the removal of brush and small diameter trees. Foraging habitat is expected to continue to provide forage and dispersal opportunities for the NSO.

Dispersal Habitat

No Action Alternative In the short-term, existing dispersal habitat will continue to provide dispersal opportunities for NSO. For the long-term, assuming the absence of a stand-replacing wildfire, existing dispersal habitat will continue to provide dispersal opportunities for NSO.

Alternatives 1, 3 & 4 No dispersal habitat will be impacted by this project. Dispersal habitat is expected to continue to provide dispersal opportunities for NSO.

Prey Habitat

No Action Alternative Under the No Action Alternative, snags and CWD will be maintained as described in the short term and have a high risk of being lost to wildfire for the long-term.

Alternatives 1, 3 & 4 The proposed action is not expected to alter the composition of snags and CWD in the project area. Large snags and logs, suitable for northern flying squirrels are not present in the project area.

Effects on Individual NSO

No Action Alternative There are no NSO activity centers in the High Bar Placer Phase 2 project area, therefore, there will be no effect on any NSO activity center.

Alternatives 1, 3 & 4 This project will not have any impact on NSO activity centers, as there are no NSO activity centers that overlap with the High bar Placer Phase 2 project area.

(e) Barred Owls

14 High Bar Placer Mine Phase 2 BA/BE There have been no barred owl detections in the vicinity of the High Bar Placer Phase 2 Project from past NSO surveys. Because barred owls are known to use a wide variety of forest types, including early successional habitats, some authors have suggested that timber harvest activities may favor the species (Courtney et al. 2004). However, studies of the effects of barred owls on NSOs appear inconclusive. Pearson and Livezey (2003) found that although barred owls have been thought to be more habitat generalists than spotted owls, barred owls in their study area used forests that were similar to those used by spotted owls.

According to Courtney et al. (2004), it is unclear if forest management affects the outcome of the interaction between the two species. In some portions of the NSOs range, barred owls are increasing and NSOs are declining to some degree independent of forest management history in the area (Courtney et al. 2004).

Since no habitat will be affected with the High bar Placer Phase 2 Project is not expected to have an affect on barred owl population expansion or competition between barred owls and spotted owls. Because of the small scale of the project compared to the remaining range of NSO there is no measurable effects of this project expected in relation to the recognized large scale NSO threats of wildfire and West Nile Virus.

Effects of Associated Actions

No Action Alternative The no action alternative has no associated activities.

Alternatives 1, 3 & 4

Mine Reclamation After mining activities are completed, reclamation activities consist of reclaiming the excavation areas with soil and topsoil, and revegetating the disturbed areas with vegetation. These activities will have no short- or long-term effects on suitable habitat in the action area, due to the small area impacted.

Cumulative Effects Cumulative effects under ESA are those effects on the environment that result in incremental effects of the proposed action when added to the effects of other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions on state, tribal, local, or private lands. Cumulative effects under NEPA are the same and include actions on public lands.

The action area is Federal Forest land. Past actions in the High Bar Placer Phase 2 action area have been included in baseline amount of habitat and therefore have been accounted for in the discussion of direct and indirect effects. These effects include estimated effects from past and present Forest Service logging, private logging, roads, and wildfire salvage as described below:

In 1977 the Hog Fire (wildfire) burned the entire action area, resulting in a reduction in the amount of late-successional forest habitat. Acres affected by wildfire and subsequent salvage logging have been accounted for in the baseline amount of habitat within the action area.

Determination of Effects on NSO The following factors were considered in making the determination of the effects on the NSO:

15 High Bar Placer Mine Phase 2 BA/BE Removal of 1.4 acres of brush and small trees. No expected change in suitable habitat. No effect on dispersal habitat. No known nest sites will be affected. Road related activities will occur in suitable habitat, but are considered to be insignificant. An LOP for noise related disturbances from mechanized equipment will prevent unanticipated impacts to NSO in adjacent un-surveyed suitable habitat. The project is not within NSO Critical Habitat.

It is my determination the proposed High Bar Placer Phase 2 Project will have no effect on northern spotted owls.

It is my determination the proposed High Bar Placer Phase 2 Project will have no effect on NSO Critical Habitat.

VII. SENSITIVE SPECIES ACCOUNT AND EFFECTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION

1. BALD EAGLE

Environmental Baseline The bald eagle was listed as Endangered in the United States because of a severe decline in numbers; this decline was primarily attributed to the use of certain pesticides, which caused reproductive dysfunction and eggshell thinning. Habitat loss was also a major factor. Eagle populations have rebounded since the banning of DDT and the increased protection for nesting and winter roosting habitat. Bald eagles have been de-listed a result of increased populations and are currently under review for removal from the endangered species list.

Bald eagles hunt near waterways and eat a variety of animal species. Their prey consists primarily of fish during the breeding season and waterfowl or carrion during the fall and winter (USDA Forest Service 1993). Bald eagles nest and roost in old growth forests or forests with old growth components, and nest sites are usually within about 0.25 mile of a large body of water (USFS 1977, Lehman 1979)

Bald eagles are known to occasionally forage along the Salmon River approximately 5 miles north of the High Bar Placer Phase 2 project area. The nearest known nest site is in Scott Valley 30 miles from the proposed activity.

Direct and Indirect Effects of the Proposed Action on Bald Eagles There are no known bald eagle nest sites in close proximity to the action area. No large, old trees occur in the project area and use by bald eagles for nesting or perch habitat has not been documented. There are abundant large trees and snags along the Salmon River corridor that will not be affected by the project. These trees are within 0.25 mile of the Salmon River and will be available for bald eagle nesting and roosting habitat in the future. There will be no effect on bald eagles.

Cumulative Effects on Bald Eagles The proposed High Bar Placer Phase 2 Project will have no effect on bald eagles; therefore there will be no cumulative effects from the proposed action combined with other actions in the action area.

Determination

16 High Bar Placer Mine Phase 2 BA/BE The High Bar Placer Phase 2 Project will have no effect on bald eagles.

2. PEREGRINE FALCON

Environmental Baseline Peregrine falcons were listed under the Endangered Species Act when the population declined severely due to the use of certain pesticides, which cause reproductive dysfunction and eggshell thinning. Over the past 20+ years the population has rebounded and the bird was recently removed from the endangered species list.

Presently, there are 15 active eyries being managed on the Klamath National Forest. The eyrie nearest the High Bar Placer Phase 2 Project area is the Knownothing eyrie approximately 2 'A miles south of the project area.

The presence of prominent cliffs is the most common habitat characteristic of peregrine nesting territories. Prominent cliffs function as both nesting and perching sites, and provide unobstructed views of the surrounding landscape. Nest site suitability requires the presence of ledges that are essentially inaccessible to mammalian predators, that provide protection from the elements, and that are dry (Hayes and Buchanan 2001). A source of water, such as a river, lake, marsh, or marine waters, is typically in close proximity to the nest site and likely is associated with an adequate prey base of small to medium- sized birds (Hayes and Buchanan 2001).

Foraging areas include wooded areas, riparian areas, open grasslands, shrubby areas and along the rivers. Peregrines feed primarily on avian prey (CDFG 1990). Foraging falcons have been recorded out to 14 miles from nesting areas (CDFG 1990).

Field reconnaissance for the High Bar Placer Phase 2 Project has determined that there are no large rocky cliffs or outcrops suitable for peregrine falcon nest sites within the action area. Birds from the Knownothing eyrie may forage along the Salmon River and tributaries in the vicinity of the project. The South Fork Salmon River Road is within or adjacent to the Salmon River and South Fork Salmon River Riparian areas, the most likely forage habitat for the falcons. Most project-generated noise would be within the ambient noise level created by the river and the road. Disturbance created by the project, if it occurred at all, would be very limited in scope and of short duration. The project is not expected to impact peregrine falcons or the viability of the species.

Direct and Indirect Effects of the Proposed Action on Peregrine Falcons There are no known peregrine eyries in the project area and there is no suitable habitat for peregrine nesting. Direct effects would be disturbance created by project — generated noise that is not expected to occur. Indirect effects will not occur. The project will have no effect on peregrine falcons.

Cumulative Effects on Peregrine Falcons The proposed High Bar Placer Phase 2 Project will have no effect on peregrine falcons; therefore there will be no cumulative effects from the proposed action combined with other actions in the analysis area.

Determination The High Bar Placer Phase 2 Project will have no effect on peregrine falcons.

3. NORTHERN GOSHAWK

17 High Bar Placer Mine Phase 2 BA/BE Environmental Baseline The goshawk is listed as a Forest Service Sensitive species in Region 5 due to the loss of mature conifer forest habitat in the western United States.

Based on FEMAT (USDA Forest Service 1993), viability across the range of this species will be met with the Late Successional Reserve network combined with Congressionally and Administratively withdrawn lands. The report gives goshawks a 100% chance of remaining well distributed in the Northwest Forest Plan area.

There are 67 know Goshawk Management Areas (GMAs) on the Forest. One GMA occurs outside of the project area, approximately 3 miles south, in the Knownothing Creek drainage.

Northern goshawks are uncommon raptors distributed widely throughout forested habitats. In the Forest Service Pacific Southwest Region, goshawks regularly occupy conifer and mixed conifer-hardwood forest habitats of the Sierra Nevada, Cascade, Inyo-White, Klamath, Siskiyou, and Warner Mountains, and the North Coast Ranges. Occasional sightings and rare reports of nesting occur in the Transverse Ranges and other mountainous localities in southern California. Goshawks have not been reported nesting in the Southern Coast Ranges (USDA Forest Service 2002).

Goshawks inhabit a wide variety of forest habitats, including true fir (red fir, white fir, subalpine fir), mixed conifer, lodgepole pine, ponderosa pine, Jeffrey pine, montane riparian deciduous forest, and Douglas-fir. They are occasionally found nesting in coast redwood and mixed hardwood forest. Goshawk nest sites tend to be associated with patches of relatively larger, denser forest than the surrounding landscape, however home ranges often consist of a wide range of forest age classes and conditions. Numerous habitat studies and modeling efforts have found nest sites to be associated with similar factors including proximity to water or meadow habitat, forest openings, level terrain or „benches" of gentle slope, northerly aspects, and patches of larger, denser trees, but these factors vary widely (USDA Forest Service 2002).

Results of radio telemetry studies on goshawks in California, and elsewhere in the west, suggest that foraging goshawks avoid dense young forest stands and brush, and concentrate their foraging in more open, mature stands, forest openings, and meadows. Goshawks feed mostly on birds with prey caught in air, on ground or in vegetation, using fast, searching flight or rapid dash from a perch. Goshawks are sensitive to noise disturbances during nesting and often exhibit defensive territoriality behavior around nest sites when disturbed (CDFG 1990).

Goshawks on the Salmon Scott River Ranger District have been found nesting in mature stands of mixed conifer forest on moderately steep terrain (Forest GIS database). Habitat for goshawks does not occur in the action area. On the Westside of the Forest, many known goshawk sites have been located during NSO surveys, as goshawks often respond aggressively to NSO broadcast calls. Habitat use by goshawks and NSOs on the Salmon/Scott River Ranger District is very similar and many of the known goshawk sites are also associated with NSO activity centers.

After review of the project site, no goshawk habitat will be disturbed by the High Bar Placer Phase 2 Project.

Effects of the Proposed Action There are no known goshawk sites in the project area and there, and there is no goshawk habitat disturbed by this project. The project will have no effect on goshawks.

18 High Bar Placer Mine Phase 2 BA/BE Cumulative Effects The proposed High Bar Placer Phase 2 Project will have no effect on goshawks; therefore there will be no cumulative effects from the proposed action combined with other actions in the analysis area.

Determination The High Bar Placer Phase 2 Project will have no effect on the northern goshawk.

4. WILLOW FLYCATCHER

Environmental Baseline This species is listed as Sensitive in Forest Service Region 5. The listing is due to the general loss and degradation of riparian shrub habitats throughout its range, cowbird nest parasitism and livestock grazing (CDFG 1990).

The willow flycatcher is a rare to locally uncommon, summer resident in wet meadow and montane riparian habitats at 2000-8000 feet in the Sierra Nevada and Cascade Range. It most often occurs in broad, open river valleys or large mountain meadows with lush growth of shrubby willows (CDFG 1990).

This species has been captured at the MAPS (Monitoring Avian Productivity and Survivorship) banding station in large willow thickets at Seiad Valley along the Klamath River over the past ten years (KNF files). This mist-netting station is approximately 40 air miles from the project. Both migrating adults and juveniles have been captured, indicating the species does nest in the Klamath Mountains.

Effects of the Proposed Action There are areas of isolated potential willow habitat along the South Fork Salmon River and McNeal Creek. Riparian areas and potential willow flycatcher habitat will be protected during the implementation of this project (USDA Forest Service 1995). The project will not occur within willow flycatcher habitats, and the project is approximately 0.25 miles from McNeal Creek. Since the proposed drafting will not alter any vegetation, there will be no indirect effects on willow flycatcher habitat as a result of sedimentation.

Cumulative Effects The proposed High Bar Placer Phase 2 Project will have no effect on willow flycatchers or their habitat; therefore there will be no cumulative effects from the proposed action combined with other actions in the analysis area.

Determination The High Bar Placer Phase 2 Project will have no effect on the willow flycatcher or its habitat.

5. CALIFORNIA WOLVERINE

A. Environmental Baseline The wolverine is listed as a Sensitive species in Region 5 of the Forest Service due to a number of factors, including natural low population densities, even in the best areas of its range, exacerbated by trapping, human disturbances (roads, logging) and overgrazing in high mountain meadows (CDFG 1990).

Wolverine habitat use seems to be dictated by abundance of food, but also avoidance of high temperatures

19 High Bar Placer Mine Phase 2 BA/BE and of humans. Wolverines have been observed in Douglas-fir and mixed conifer habitats, red fir, lodgepole, wet meadow, and montane riparian habitats (Schempf and White 1977, CDFG 1990). The species probably also uses subalpine conifer, alpine dwarf-shrub, wet meadows, and montane riparian (White and Barrett 1979, CDFG 1990). White and Barrett (1979) stated that wolverines are highly dependent upon mature conifer forests for survival in winter. Forested habitats also appear to be important for resting sites as well as natal and maternal dens. Wolverines use caves, hollows in cliffs, logs, rock outcrops, and burrows for cover, generally in denser forest stages (CDFG 1990). They den in caves, cliffs, hollow logs, and cavities in the ground, under rocks and may dig dens in snow or use beaver lodges (CDFG 1990).

The wolverine has a very large home range, and will roam over hundreds of miles through a variety of habitats, from 1,600 to 14,000 feet in elevation. However, most sightings in California occur in remote and wild areas at about 8,000 feet. In general, California wolverines seem to use open habitat, mostly at or above timberline.

According to Ruggiero et al. (1994) "Researchers have generally agreed that „habitat is probably best defined in terms of adequate year-round food supplies in large, sparsely inhabited wilderness areas, rather than in terms of particular types of topography or plant associations. In addition, it is suggested that activities that increase the availability of foods generally will affect wolverines positively, whereas those that reduce prey will do so negatively. Studies have shown the importance of large mammal carrion, notably ungulate carrion, and the availability of large mammals underlies the distribution, survival, and reproductive success of wolverines (Ruggiero et al. 1994). Deer and elk populations may be enhanced by the provision of early seral stages through logging or burning. However, these activities may exclude wolverines from areas that ungulates still use if these habitats do not provide for the wolverine's other life needs (Ruggiero et al. 1994).

Wolverines are considered a solitary species, with adults apparently associating only during the breeding season. Studies indicate home ranges in North America may vary from about 39 square miles to over 347 square miles. Wolverines frequently travel long distances and may leave home ranges for many days (Ruggiero et al. 1994, CDFG 1990). In California, wolverines are rarely sighted from Del Norte, Trinity, Shasta and Siskiyou Counties in the north, and south along the crest of the Sierra Nevada to Tulare County. Since wolverines are wary and elusive, sightings are rare, and it is hard to get an accurate population estimate (CDFG 2005).

Numerous carnivore surveys have been conducted in southern Oregon and northern California in the past decade. All of these efforts used carrion as bait, and none have detected wolverine. However, there have been unconfirmed sightings of wolverines on the Salmon/Scott River Ranger District on Scott Bar Mountain, Middle Creek and in the Canyon Creek watershed approximately 26 miles north of the project area on the Scott River. The sightings are in close proximity to the Marble Mountain Wilderness area.

Due to the large home ranges used by wolverines, the variety of habitats that they use, and the proximity of remote, rugged habitats in Wilderness areas, it is expected that wolverines may disperse or forage in the action area, either as part of individual home ranges or as individuals dispersing through the area. However, since there is limited habitat in the vicinity of the project area that would be considered potential habitat for this species (mid-mature, mature and late-successional forest habitats), it is not considered likely that this species would utilize the action area.

B. Effects of the Proposed Action on Wolverine Determining the effects on wolverines is difficult due to low densities, difficulty in detecting or surveying for wolverines, and their use of a wide variety of habitats based mainly on prey availability. Given the lack of detections during carnivore surveys, the tendency of wolverines to avoid human activity, and the

20 High Bar Placer Mine Phase 2 BA/BE large size of wolverine home ranges, the likelihood of wolverines occurring in the Project area is low. Effects of the High Bar Placer Phase 2 Project will be based on effects to potential habitat.

No Action Alternative Stands within and immediately adjacent to the project area offer little, if any, short-term habitat for wolverine. Over time, these stands could grow to provide habitat, however potential for use is low due to roads and the presence of homes in the vicinity of the project.

Alternatives 1, 3, and 4 Direct effects of noise disturbance from use of heavy equipment during project activities can lead to displacement of animals or disruption in breeding or feeding activities. Noise disturbance related to the project activities would potentially last for more than one season.. Given the natural low densities of wolverines, their tendency to avoid human activities, and the low likelihood of their presence in the action area, it is expected that disturbance or disruption of normal breeding/feeding activities will be unlikely. These activities will have inconsequential effects on individuals and will have no overall effect on the population.

Since there will be no impact to mature forest habitat in the action area, the short duration of disturbance effects from noise, and the natural low density of wolverines, the High Bar Placer Phase 2 Project will have no effect on wolverine populations and will not affect the viability of the species.

Cumulative Effects The proposed High Bar Placer Phase 2 Project will have no effect on wolverines or their habitat; therefore there will be no cumulative effects from the proposed action combined with other actions in the analysis area.

Determination The High Bar Placer Phase 2 Project will have no effect on California wolverines.

6. PACIFIC FISHER

A. Environmental Baseline Fishers are listed in Region 5 as a Forest Service Sensitive species because of loss and fragmentation of habitat across the state, as well as the fact that they are easily trapped. A petition to list the Pacific fisher was submitted by several environmental organizations in November 2000. After a 12-month review, the USFWS found Pacific fisher to be a distinct population segment (DPS) and gave a "warranted but precluded" decision to the petition. As a result of that decision, the West Coast DPS has become a Federal Candidate species under the ESA (USD1 Fish and Wildlife Service 2004).

The FEMAT report (Forest Service 1993) determined that the Northwest Forest Plan, with its system of LSRs and other reserved land allocations, provided a 63% likelihood that fisher would remain well distributed throughout its range and a 37% likelihood fisher would become locally restricted. In the Klamath Forest Plan, additional S&Gs for coarse woody debris and snags provide additional protection of habitat components for fisher within project areas.

Historically, fishers were distributed across North America from Hudson's Bay southward to Virginia in the east and to Yellowstone and the southern Sierra Nevada in the west. By 1900, trapping and logging had led to extirpations of fishers from most of the eastern United States. Regrowth of forest and regulation of trapping in New England and the northern Great Lakes states have allowed fisher to re-

21 High Bar Placer Mine Phase 2 BA/BE colonize those areas. Populations in the western United States, however, have continued to decline (Carroll et al. 1999). In recent decades the scarcity of sightings in Washington, Oregon, and the northern Sierra Nevada point to the fisher's probable extirpation from much of this area (Carroll et al. 1999). The population in the Klamath Region may be the largest remaining in the western United States (Carroll et al. 1999).

Habitat for the Pacific fisher is characterized as multi-storied Douglas fir, conifer-hardwood and mixed conifer vegetation types with a minimum tree size of >24 inches dbh, canopy closure is >80% for denning and resting and 50-60% for travel/dispersal corridors, basal area probably exceeds 260 ft2/acre (Zielinski and Kucera 1995, USDA Forest Service 1995, Gertsch 2005). Habitat components include 2-3 snags per acre >20 inches dbh and 1 or 2 snags >30 inches, and 2-3 logs/acre >20 inches diameter. These habitat components are based on moderate to high capability habitat as described in USDA Forest Service (1995), Appendix I. Habitat should include sufficient under-story of slash, rotten logs and stumps to provide hiding cover and denning areas. Stands are usually located within 0.5mile from water with forest openings less than one acre in size. Fishers are capable of moving long distances, but movement may be restricted by large, non-forested openings (Ruggiero et al. 1994). Fishers are largely carnivorous, feeding on small mammals on the ground surface and in trees (CDFG 1990). Mean home range size for fishers has been calculated at about 25 square miles for males and 10 square miles for females (Ruggiero et al. 1994).

Krohn et al. (1997) reported that forest types used by fisher in California include Douglas-fir, mixed conifer, conifer/hardwood types, oak, ponderosa pine, redwood and white fir, but did not include red fir or sub-alpine fir. Use of forest types may be related to snowfall depths. Statistical comparisons of monthly snowfall depths at locations in California where fishers occur showed that fishers are clearly associated with areas of low snowfall (<13 cm) across a wide range of forest types (Ruggiero et al. 1994, Krohn et al. 1997). It is speculated that deep snow may limit fisher due to energetics and fitness (Krohn et al. 1997, USDI 2004). Juvenile fishers disperse during winter snow season and selection of home ranges may exclude deep snow where travel is impaired or prey availability or abundance is limited.

Carroll et al. (1999) found canopy closure and hardwood diameter to be the best predictors of fisher distribution at the landscape level. Two factors may explain the importance of large hardwoods for fisher. Cavities in large hardwoods are frequently used as resting and denning sites, and these trees produce mast that may stimulate higher prey densities (Carroll et al. 1999). Canopy closure may be important because landscapes with higher levels of overhead cover may provide increased protection from predation, lower the energy costs of traveling between foraging sites, and provide more favorable microclimate and increased abundance or vulnerability of preferred prey species (Carroll et al. 1999). Although fisher exhibit sensitivity to disturbance related to open road density (Region 5 Draft Furbearer Management Guidelines, CDFG 1990), Carroll et al. (1999) found that road density at the landscape level was not significant in either univariate or multivariate analyses for predicting distribution. Roads may show negative correlations with fisher distribution either by providing access for trappers or by their association with habitat alteration.

The highest elevation recorded for fisher in California was 11,400 feet in the Sierra Nevada, but most observations in northern California forests have been below 3,300 feet (Ruggiero et al. 1994). On the Klamath National Forest, survey data and fisher observations have been recorded at 6,161 feet (Yaeger, pers. comm. 2007).

Fishers have been documented on the Oak Knoll and Scott River Ranger District (now the Salmon/Scott River Ranger District) approximately 25 miles north of the project area. There have been no historical records of incidental fisher sightings in the analysis area.

22 High Bar Placer Mine Phase 2 BA/BE Based on habitat use as described in the literature, and detections of fisher on the Klamath National Forest, it is expected that denning and resting fisher do not occur within the High Bar Placer Phase 2 Project area in mixed conifer/hardwood habitat associations.

Effects of the Proposed Action on Pacific Fisher

No Action Alternative Adjacent forested habitat to the project area may provide limited forage/dispersal/travel corridors for the fisher, but the action area does not currently provide habitat. Left undeveloped, the project site and adjacent stands could develop into foraging habitat in the future, but their benefit would be questionable due to the close proximity to existing roads.

Alternatives 1, 3, and 4 Direct effects of noise disturbance from use of heavy equipment during project activities can lead to displacement of animals or disruption in breeding or feeding activities. Noise disturbance related to the project activities would be short duration during operational periods. Disturbance or disruption of normal foraging activities may occur however fishers are highly mobile animals and would likely avoid areas of human activity.

Since the project will not impact any fisher habitat, and the disturbance effects from noise are limited, the High Bar Placer Phase 2 Project is not expected to have any direct or indirect effects on fisher.

Cumulative Effects The proposed High Bar Placer Phase 2 Project will have no effect on the fisher or their habitat; therefore there will be no cumulative effects from the proposed action combined with other actions in the analysis area.

D. Determination The High Bar Placer Phase 2 Project will have no effect on the Pacific fisher.

7. AMERICAN MARTEN

A. Environmental Baseline The American marten is listed as a Region 5 Forest Sensitive species due to loss and fragmentation of habitat across the state, as well as the fact that they are easily trapped (CDFG 1990).

The FEMAT report (USDA Forest Service 1993) determined that the Northwest Forest Plan„ with its system of LSRs and other reserved land allocations, provided a 67% likelihood that marten would remain well distributed throughout its range. In the Klamath Forest Plan, additional S&Gs for coarse woody debris and snags provide additional protection of habitat components for marten.

In coniferous forests of the Pacific Northwest, American martens are associated with high-elevation spruce-fir forests, whereas fishers (discussed above) are associated with lower elevation forests dominated by late-successional Douglas-fir and hardwood associations (Buskirk et al. 1994, Yaeger 2005). American marten prefer high elevation (>5,000 feet), multi-storied mature and old growth conifer (true fir) forests with moderate to dense canopy closure, minimum tree size of 24 inches dbh and sufficient under-story including slash, rotten logs and stumps, to provide hiding cover and denning areas (Ruggiero et al. 1994). Marten use travel-ways comprised of closed canopy forests to move between

23 High Bar Placer Mine Phase 2 BA/BE foraging areas.

Based on specimens of marten taken at known localities in California, Grinnell et al. (1937) concluded, "two well-marked races occur within the State [of California]". The Humboldt marten, M. americana humboldtensis, occurred in the coastal redwood zone and the Sierra Nevada marten, M a. sierrae, occurred from Trinity and Siskiyou counties east to Mt. Shasta and south through the Sierra Nevada. More recent surveys (Slauson et al. 2001, Slauson et al. 2003) have found that marten are extremely rare and there is only one known population of Humboldt marten on the coast occupying less than 5% of its historical range. A single marten was detected in the Marble Mountain Wilderness Area in 2005 (Yaeger pers. comm. 2007), approximately 25 miles north of the High Bar Placer Phase 2 Project area. It is not known if this animal is associated with a population within the Marble Mountain Wilderness Area or if it is a dispersing individual from the coastal population.

Carnivore surveys conducted by Forest personnel on the Oak Knoll Ranger District (now part of the Salmon/Scott Ranger District) have also not detected marten. Surveys were conducted using track plates, 35mm cameras and 110 cameras (Zielinski and Kucera 1995). Marten have not been detected during surveys using similar techniques on the Happy Camp, Salmon River and Scott River Ranger Districts of the Klamath National Forest. The same survey techniques have been used successfully to detect the presence of marten in areas with typical true fir habitats in the Cascade Range on the Goosenest Ranger District (over 60 miles east of the action area) and in the Sierra Nevada, both within the historic range of the Sierra Nevada marten.

No potentially suitable habitat for marten occurs within the action area, and based on information about the species range and survey data from 1989-2005, there is a very low probability of marten occurring in the action area.

Effects of the Proposed Action There are no historical records of marten in the action area, and the probability of martens occurring in the area is very low. Based on negative survey data, current range of the species, and low likelihood of occurrence, it is expected that the High Bar Placer Phase 2 Project will have no effect on American martens.

Cumulative Effects The proposed High Bar Placer Phase 2 Project will have no effect on American martens; therefore there will be no cumulative effects from the proposed action combined with other actions in the analysis area.

D. Determination The High Bar Placer Phase 2 Project will have no effect on American martens.

8. PALLID BAT

A. Environmental Baseline Pallid bats are listed as a Region 5 Forest Service Sensitive species because of disturbance created by the increasing use of caves by humans. These bats are very sensitive to disturbance at their maternity and hibernating roost sites. These sites need to be undisturbed to maintain metabolic economy and juvenile growth (CDFG 1990).

This species occurs across the Pacific Northwest. The Forest Plan standards and guidelines for the pallid

24 High Bar Placer Mine Phase 2 BA/BE bat (Chapter 4-185) require protection of caves, mines, and abandoned wooden bridges and buildings for roosting bats. As an interim measure, all timber harvest is prohibited within 250 feet of sites containing bats. The Forest Plan also states protection measures should be taken to disallow destruction, vandalism, disturbance from road construction or blasting, or any other activity that could change cave or mine temperatures or drainage patterns.

This species is generally not considered a forest bat, and throughout its entire range, it is typically associated with xeric sites. In the area of the Northwest Forest Plan this species uses large snags in oak woodlands and xeric forest types (Survey and Manage Annual Species Review 2002). Pallid bats are most common in open, dry habitats that contain rocky areas for day roosting. Pallid bats are found in arid desert habitat often near rocky outcrops. They are restricted to lower elevation sagebrush steppe and ponderosa pine forests in the vicinity of caves and water (www.royalbcmuseum.bc.ca ). This species are yearlong residents in most of their range and hibernate in winter near their summer roost (CDFG 1990). Day roosts may vary but are commonly found in rock crevices, tree hollows, mines, caves and a variety of human-made structures. Cavities in broken branches of black oak are important and there is a strong association with black oak for roosting. Pallid bats are very sensitive to roost site disturbance (CDFG 1990). Night roosts are usually more open sites and may include open buildings, porches, mines, caves, and under bridges (Pierson 1996, Sherwin 1998).

Survey work by Cross et al. (1996) on the Medford, OR, BLM District, found pallid bats occupying a variety of crevice sites, including those in living and dead trees. A summary of roost sites includes rock crevices, snags of black oak, snags of white oak, and snags of ponderosa pine. They judged that most trees used for roosting were found in relatively open forests or extended above the canopy (Pallid Bat Local Reference Summary, KNF).

Effects of the Proposed Action on Pallid Bat Since there is no habitat for this species in the project area, it is expected that the High Bar Placer Phase 2 Project will have no effect on the Pallid Bat.

Cumulative Effects The proposed High Bar Placer Phase 2 Project will have no effect on the pallid bat; therefore there will be no cumulative effects from the proposed action combined with other actions in the analysis area.

D. Determination The proposed High Bar Placer Phase 2 Project will have no effect on the pallid bat

9. TOWNSEND'S BIG-EARED BAT

A. Environmental Baseline This species is listed as a Region 5 Forest Service Sensitive species due to a steep decline in its population, at least partially due to its high sensitivity to human disturbance at roost sites.

The FEMAT Report (1993) determined that LSRs provide critical habitat components distributed throughout this species range. LSRs and site-specific protection from standards and guidelines contribute to the viability of this bat species. The Forest Plan standards and guidelines for this species (Chapter 4- 185) require protection of caves, mines, and abandoned wooden bridges and buildings. The LMRP (USDA Forest Service 1995) also states protection measures should be taken to disallow destruction, vandalism, disturbance from road construction or blasting, or any other activity that could change cave or mine temperatures or drainage patterns.

25 High Bar Placer Mine Phase 2 BA/BE The Townsend's big-eared bat occurs throughout the west. In California, the species is typically found in low desert to mid-elevation montane habitats, although sightings have been reported up to 10,800 feet (Philpott 1997, Sherwin 1998). Distribution of this species is strongly correlated with the availability of caves and cave-like roosting habitat. Townsend's big-eared bats have adapted to a variety of man-made structures, most commonly mines (Pierson et al. 1999). This species has also been found in abandoned buildings with cave-like attics, water diversion tunnels, and bridges.

Vegetation communities utilized by the species appear to vary geographically from arid plateaus in northern Mexico to primarily riparian communities in Kansas and Oklahoma (Kunz and Martin 1982). In New Mexico (Kunz and Martin 1982) and in Colorado (Armstrong et al. 1994) it appears to be more associated with mesic coniferous and deciduous forest and woodlands, as well as deciduous riparian woodland and semi-desert and montane shrubland. However, the physical characteristics of habitat are much more important to the species, especially the presence of caves or mines, which provide maternal roosts, hibernacula in winter, as well as day and night roosting opportunities for males and non-breeding females (Armstrong et al. 1994). Foraging associations include edge habitats along streams and areas adjacent to and within a variety of wooded habitats. The Townsend's big-eared bat is a moth specialist, with over 90% of its diet composed of lepidopterans (Sherwin 1998).

Townsend's big-eared bats are known to occur in Siskiyou County and on the Klamath National Forest associated with mines and caves. However, there are no caves, mines, bridges or other human structures suitable for bats that would be disturbed by the proposed action.

Effects of the Proposed Action No caves or mines suitable for bats are present in the action area. No bridges providing potential night roosts are present near timber harvest units or areas of activity where there is a potential for disturbance. Riparian habitats are important foraging areas, are protected within Riparian Reserves, and would not be modified by the proposed action.

There will be no effect from activities associated with the High Bar Placer Phase 2 Project on Townsend's big-eared bats.

Cumulative Effects The proposed High Bar Placer Phase 2 Project will have no effect on Townsend's big-eared bats; therefore there will be no cumulative effects from the proposed action combined with other actions in the analysis area.

D. Determination The High Bar Placer Phase 2 Project will have no effect on the Townsend's big-eared bat.

10. NORTHWESTERN POND TURTLE

A. Environmental Baseline Northwestern pond turtles are listed as Region 5 Forest Service Sensitive because of declining populations throughout its range due to habitat alteration and loss, population fragmentation, past and possibly present day exploitation, predation, illegal collection and pollution (Holland 1991). The most severe declines have occurred in the Sacramento and San Joaquin Valleys as a result of habitat alteration, urban sprawl, changes in water use, and over-grazing.

26 High Bar Placer Mine Phase 2 BA/BE The western pond turtle is a habitat generalist associated with ponds, marshes and low gradient streams from sea level to 6,000 feet elevation (Holland 1991). A variety of habitats are used for different life stages. Females excavate nest chambers at distances up to 1,200 feet (0.25 mile) from the water's edge, but usually much closer. Nests are usually excavated on south exposures in sandy, loose soils. One of the most important components is the availability of basking habitat. Turtles use partially submerged logs, rocks and emergent vegetation (CDFG 1988).

Northwestern pond turtles have been observed in the Klamath and Salmon Rivers associated with slow moving eddies and low gradient portions of the River. The project area is located in the lower McNeal Creek watershed, approximately 0.25 miles from the South Fork of the Salmon River. There are no streams within the project area that are considered to be suitable for Northwestern pond turtle, but water is proposed to be drafted from McNeal Creek.

Effects of the Proposed Action There are no streams in the project area suitable for the northwestern pond turtle. The Project will have no direct effects on turtles.

Cumulative Effects The proposed High Bar Placer Phase 2 Project will have no effect on northwestern pond turtles; therefore there will be no cumulative effects from the proposed action combined with other actions in the analysis area.

D. Determination The High Bar Placer Phase 2 Project will have no effect on northwestern pond turtles.

11. CASCADES FROG

Environmental Baseline This frog is listed as a Region 5 Forest Service Sensitive species because of declining populations. Many of the same reasons for decline listed for the pond turtle also apply to this frog.

This species is found in water and surrounding vegetation in mountain lakes, small streams, and ponds in meadows. It is closely associated with water. This species occurs and reproduces in ephemeral and permanent ponds or streams. It is found in areas lacking predatory fish, as fish (including salmonids) predate these frogs. Nesting generally occurs in water sources that have many unshaded hours of daylight, and standing water is required for reproduction. Developing egg masses are affected by UV radiation (CDFG 1988, Nussbaum et. al. 1983).

Surveys for the cascades frog have confirmed their presence in the Marble Mountain, Russian and Trinity Alps Wilderness Areas (Welsh and Pope 2004). The Marble Mountain Wilderness Area is approximately 6 miles north of the project area; the Trinity Alps Wilderness Area is approximately 7 miles south of the project area; and the Russian Wilderness Area is approximately 15 miles east of the project area.

No streams, ponds or lakes that provide habitat for this species occur within the High Bar Placer Phase 2 project area.

Effects of the Proposed Project Typical habitat for Cascades frogs does not occur in the action area. The High Bar Placer Phase 2 Project

27 High Bar Placer Mine Phase 2 BA/BE will have no direct or indirect effects on Cascades frogs.

Cumulative Effects The proposed High Bar Placer Phase 2 Project will have no effect on the Cascades frog; therefore there will be no cumulative effects from the proposed action combined with other actions in the analysis area.

Determination The High Bar Placer Phase 2 Project will have no effect on the Cascades frog.

12. SISKIYOU MOUNTAIN/SCOTT BAR MOUNTAIN SALAMANDER

A. Environmental Baseline The Siskiyou Mountains salamander (Plethodon stormi) (PLST) is a member of the family Plethodontidae, the lungless salamanders. The species respire primarily through their skin, are completely terrestrial, and are very sensitive to temperature and moisture regimes. Moist microclimates are essential to survival. This salamander, and its close relative, Plethodon elongatus, is associated with areas of deeply-layered talus rock (Olson 1999). Siskiyou mountains salamanders move up and down through the talus substrate as microhabitat conditions change and they are usually surface active during the fall, winter and spring rains. Optimal survey conditions for this species include 65% relative humidity and soil that is moist below the top layer of cover objects. Survey protocol authors have regarded prescribed burns as not detrimental to PLST if they are conducted when animals are not surface active and if no net loss of overstory canopy occurs (Olson 1999). Studies have shown that only a portion of the total animals present at a given site are active at the surface at any one time (CDFG 2004). This species was thought to primarily inhabit stabilized talus in old-growth forest stands with northern exposures. Present information indicates PLST occupies a wide range of forest types with a varied range of overstory canopy closures (CDFG 2004).

Plethodon stormi and P. asupak have extremely restricted ranges, occurring in a small area (about 375 km2) of southern Oregon and northern California. They are found in the Klamath River drainage, northern Siskiyou County, California and in the Applegate River drainage, in southwestern Jackson County and southeastern Josephine County, Oregon. The current distribution on National Forest lands, specific to California, includes only the Klamath National Forest (Happy Camp Ranger District & Salmon/Scott River Ranger District). In addition, within Oregon, the species also occurs on the Rogue River National Forest and the Medford BLM District. A range description for PLST occurs in the 2002 Survey and Manage Annual Species Review Results and Implementation Summary.

The current range of PLST is substantially larger than was known when the species was listed as rare by the State of California. The known range of the PLST has roughly doubled since 1993 and the onset of federal surveys under the Survey and Manage provision. This species is known to occur up to 6,000 feet in elevation. Along its western edge, its range is contiguous with the Del Norte salamander. Siskiyou Mountain salamanders were recently divided into two separate species (Mead et al. 2006). The newly described species, the Scott Bar Salamander (Plethodon asupak) is located up river from Indian Creek on the north side of the Klamath River, and from Walker Creek on the south side of the Klamath River to the area around the confluence of the Klamath River and the Scott River. The Klamath National Forest has agreed to manage this species according to the Survey and Manage Standard and Guidelines established for the Siskiyou Mountain salamanders.

The High Bar Placer Phase 2 Project is outside the range of the Siskiyou Mountain and Scott Bar Mountain salamander.

28 High Bar Placer Mine Phase 2 BA/BE Effects of the Proposed Project The project area is outside the range of the Siskiyou Mountain and Scott Bar Mountain salamander, therefore the High Bar Placer Phase 2 Project will have no direct or indirect effects on these species.

Cumulative Effects The High Bar Placer Phase 2 Project will have no effect on Siskiyou Mountain and Scott Bar Mountain salamanders; therefore there will be no cumulative effects from the proposed action combined with other actions in the analysis area

D. Determination The High Bar Placer Phase 2 Project will have no effect on the Siskiyou Mountain and Scott Bar Mountain salamander.

13. BLUE-GRAY TAILDROPPER

Environmental Baseline The blue-gray taildropper is a forest-dwelling slug. The original distribution, reported in 1993 (Frest and Johannes), included portions of Washington and Oregon, but did not include California. Records of the blue-gray taildropper were scarce prior to implementation of the Northwest Forest Plan.

The species is now considered to be relatively common in southwestern Oregon, with more than 10,400 known sites reported, but it is rare elsewhere. Since 1999, well over 30,000 acres of pre-project surveys for terrestrial mollusks have been conducted on the Klamath National Forest. In 1999 and 2000, about 100 randomly selected 10-acre plots were surveyed for terrestrial mollusks. These surveys in total have yielded 11 known sites on the Goosenest Ranger District, and 8 known sites on the Happy Camp Ranger District.

The blue-gray taildropper normally comes to the surface during moist conditions and is otherwise thought to be subterranean. It has been found in a wide range of moist and mixed conifer forests. Its habitat has been described as "sites with relatively higher shade and moisture levels than those of the general forest habitat" (Duncan et al. 2003). It is usually associated with partially decayed logs, leaf and needle litter (especially hardwood leaf litter), mosses and moist plant communities such a big-leaf maple and sword fern associations (Duncan et al. 2003.).

The High Bar Placer Phase 1 Project area is outside of the suspected range of the blue-gray taildropper. Based on review of the mollusk survey protocol (Survey Protocol for Terrestrial Mollusk Species from the Northwest Forest Plan, Draft Version 2.0, October 29, 1997) and field review of habitat within the High Bar Placer Phase 2 Project area, it was determined that no habitat for this species was present and no surveys were necessary. The nearest location of a blue-gray taildropper is T17N R7E Section 2 (Humboldt Meridian).

Effects of the Proposed Project The project occurs outside of the known range, therefore there will be no effect on blue-gray taildroppers.

Cumulative Effects The proposed High Bar Placer Phase 2 Project will have no effect on blue-gray taildroppers; therefore there will be no cumulative effects from the proposed action combined with other actions in the area.

Determination

29 High Bar Placer Mine Phase 2 BA/BE The High Bar Placer Phase 2 Project will have no effect on the blue-gray taildroppers.

14. TEHAMA CHAPARRAL SNAIL

Environmental Baseline The Tehama chaparral snail is a small (7 mm in width) terrestrial snail. The species is hermaphroditic. No other data, other than the anatomy of the sexual organs, has been published for this species.

The distribution of this species is very limited. Since 1999, well over 30,000 acres of pre-project surveys for terrestrial mollusks have occurred on the Klamath National Forest. In 1999 and 2000, about 100 randomly selected 10-acre plots were surveyed for terrestrial mollusks. These recent surveys located several news sites. Currently, Tehama chaparral snails are known from 11 sites in Northern California (8 sites in Siskiyou County, and older sites: 1 in Tehama Co., 1 in Shasta Co., 1 in Butte County). Known locations in Siskiyou County include areas on the Salmon/Scott River Ranger District and along the Shasta River on the BLM Redding Resource Area. All sites on the Forest are within about a 30-mile area. On the Klamath National Forest, the occurrence of rock as a dominant surface and subsurface feature is common to all known sites (Klamath National Forest 2003). Rocks and large woody material may serve as refugia when environmental conditions at the surface are not optimal (Duncan 1999).

The project is outside of the known range for this species. Based on review of the mollusk survey protocol (Survey Protocol for Terrestrial Mollusk Species from the Northwest Forest Plan 1997) and field review of habitat within the High Bar Placer Phase 2 project area, it was determined that no habitat exists and no surveys were required. The nearest location of a Tehama chaparral snail is T45N R1 OW Section 17, MDM approximately 36 miles north of the action area.

Effects of the Proposed Project The High Bar Placer Phase 2 Project has no habitat for this species, and is located approximately 26 miles from the nearest known siting on the Klamath National Forest. There will be no effect on Tehama chaparral snails.

Cumulative Effects The proposed High Bar Placer Phase 2 Project will have no effect on Tehama chaparral snails; therefore there will be no cumulative effects from the proposed action combined with other actions in the analysis area.

Determination The High Bar Placer Phase 2 Project will have no effect on the Tehama chaparral snails.

VII. HIGH BAR PLACER PHASE 1 PROJECT SUMMARY OF DETERMINATIONS FOR ALL SPECIES

Species: Determination of Effects for the High Bar Phase 2 Project (All Alternatives): Northern Spotted Owl No effect NSO Critical Habitat No effect Bald Eagle No effect Peregrine Falcon No effect Northern Goshawk No effect

30 High Bar Placer Mine Phase 2 BA/BE Willow Flycatcher No effect California Wolverine No effect Pacific Fisher No effect American Marten No effect Pallid Bat No effect Townsend's Big-eared Bat No effect Northwestern Pond Turtle No effect Cascades Frog No effect Siskiyou Mountain/Scott Bar Mountain Outside of Known Range Salamander Blue-gray tail dropper Outside of Known Range Tehama chaparral snail No Effect

31 High Bar Placer Mine Phase 2 BA/BE IX. LITERATURE CITED

Armstrong D.M, R.A. Adams, and J. Freeman. 1994. Distribution and ecology of bats of Colorado. Natural History Inventory of Colorado No. 15. University of Colorado Museum. Boulder, CO. 83 pp.

Bryan, T., and E.D. Forsman. 1987. Distribution, abundance, and habitat of Great Gray Owls in southcentral Oregon. Murrelet 68:45-49.

Buskirk, S.W., A.S. Harestad, M.G. Raphael, and R.A. Powell, Editors. 1994. Martens, Sables, and Fishers Biology and Conservation. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, New York 14850. 484 pp.

Caffrey, C. 2003. Determining impacts of West Nile Virus on crows and other birds. American Birds (103 Count) 57:12-13. In Gertsch, Michael. 2005. Klamath Province Wildland-Urban-Intermix Hazardous Fuel Treatment Programmatic Biological Assessment.

California Department of Fish and Game, 2004. Siskiyou Mountain salamander (Plethodon stormi). Draft Status Review. 17pp.

California Department of Fish and Game. May 20, 2002. February 20, 2003. California Department of Fish and Game website, Habitat Conservation Planning Branch. www.dfg.ca.gov . Sacramento, California.

California Department of Fish and Game. November 1990. California's wildlife, Volume III, Mammals. California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, California. 407 pp.

California Department of Fish and Game. November 1990. California's wildlife, Volume II, Birds. California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, California. 732 pp.

California Department of Fish and Game. November 1988. California"s wildlife, Volume I, Amphibians and Reptiles. California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, California. 272 pp.

Carroll, C., W.J. Zielinski, and R.F. Noss. 1999. Using Presence-Absence Data to Build and Test spatial habitat Models for the Fisher in the Klamath Region, U.S.A. Conservation Biology, pp. 1344-1359. Volume 13, No. 6, December 1999.

Courtney, S P, J A Blakesley, R E Bigley, M L Cody, J P Dumbacher, R C Fleischer, AB Franklin, J F Franklin, R J Gutierrez, J M Marzluff, and L Sztukowski. 2004. Scientific evaluation of the status of the Northern Spotted Owl. Sustainable Ecosystems Institute, Portland, Oregon.

Cross, S.P., H. Lauchstedt, and C. Harmes. 1996. Characterizing forest roost sites of some bats of special concern occurring in Roseburg and Medford BLM Districts. Final Report. 47 pp. plus appendices.

Duncan, N., T. Burke, S. Dowlan, P.Hohenlohe. 2003. Survey protocol for survey and manage terrestrial mollusk species from the northwest forest plan. Version 3.0. 70 pp.

Farber, Stuart. 2007. Wildlife Biologist. Personal communication with Cliff Oakley. Timber Products Corporation. Yreka, CA.

32 High Bar Placer Mine Phase 2 BA/BE

r" Finley, Laura. 2007. Wildlife Biologist. Personal communication with Cliff Oakley. Yreka Fish and Wildlife Office. Yreka CA.

Fran'din Allen B., D.R. Anderson, R.J. Gutierrez, and K.P. Burnham. 2000. Climate, Habitat Quality, and Fitness in Northern Spotted Owl Populations in Northwestern California. Ecological Monographs, 70(4), 2000, pp 539-590.

Frest, T. and E. Johannes. 1993. Mollusk species of special concern within the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl. Final Report prepared for: Forest Ecosystem Management Working Group. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region, Portland, Oregon.

Gertsch, Michael. 2005. Klamath Province Wildland-Urban-Intermix Hazardous Fuel Treatment Programmatic Biological Assessment.

Hayes, G.E. and J.B. Buchanan. 2001. Washington State Report for the Peregrine Falcon. Washington Dept. of Fish and Wildlife. Olympia, WA. www.wdfw.wa.gov/w1m/diversty/soc/status/peregrine/draftperegrine.pdf

Hayward, G.D., and J.Verner (Eds). 1994. Flammulated, Boreal, and Great Gray Owls in the United States: A Technical Conservation Assessment. GTR RM-253. Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, USDA Forest Service.

Holland, D.C., 1991. A Synopsis of the Ecology and Status of the Western Pond Turtle (Clemmys marmorata) in 1991. Department of Biology, University of Southwestern Louisiana, Lafayette, Louisiana. Prepared for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service National Ecology Research Center, San Simeon Field Station. 141 pp.

Irwin, Larry L. and D. Rock. 2004. Adaptive management monitoring of Northern and California spotted owls. Interim Report and Addendum to Study Plan. National Council for Air and Stream Improvement. 20 August 2004.

Kelly E.G. and E.D. Forsman. 2004. Recent Records of Hybridization between Barred Owls and Northern Spotted Owls. The Auk. In: Courtney, S.P, J.A. Blakesley, R.E. Bigley, M.L. Cody, J.P Dumbacher, P.C. Fleischer, A.B. FranIclin, J.F. Franklin, R.J. Gutierrex, J.M Marzluff, L. Sztukowski. 2004. Scientific evaluation of the status of the northern spotted owl. Sustainable Ecosystems Institute. Portland, Oregon

33 High Bar Placer Mine Phase 2 BA/BE Krohn, W.B., W.J. Zielinski, and R.B. Boone. 1997. Relations among fishers, snow, and martens in California: results from small-scale spatial comparisons. In Martes: taxonomy, ecology, techniques, and management. Pp. 211-232. G.Proulx et al. eds. Provincial Museum of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.

Kucera, T.E., W.J. Zielinski, and R.H. Barrett. 1995. Current distribution of the American Marten, Martes Americana, in California. Calf. Fish and Game 81(3):96-103.

Kunz,T.H., and R.A.Martin.1982. Plecotus Townsendii. Mammalian Species, 175 1-6.

Lehman, R. N. 1979. A surveys 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 23pp.

Leskiw, T. and R.J. Gutierrez. 1998. Possible predation of a spotted owl by a barred owl. Western Birds 29(3):225-226. In Gertsch, Michael. 2005. Klamath Province Wildland-Urban-Intermix Hazardous Fuel Treatment Programmatic Biological Assessment.

Marra, P.P, S. Griffing, C. Caffrey, A.M. Kilpatrick, R. McLean, C. Brand, E. Saito, A.P. Dupuis, L. Kramer, and R. Novak. 2004. West Nile Virus and Wildlife. BioScience 54(5):393

Marshall, David B., M.G. Hunter, and A.L. Contreras. 2003. Birds of Oregon. A General Reference. Chapter 3: Species Account: Barred Owl. Oregon State University Press, Corvallis, OR. In Courtney, S. P., J. A. Blakesley, R. E. Bigley, M. L. Cody, J. P. Dumbacher, R. C. Fleischer, A.B. Franklin, J. F. Franklin, R. J. Gutierrez, J.M. Marzluff, and L. Sztukowski. 2004. Scientific evaluation of the status of the Northern Spotted Owl. Sustainable Ecosystems Institute, Portland, Oregon.

McCaskie, G., P. DeBenedictis, R. Erickson, and J. Morlan. 1988. Birds of Northern California, an Annotated List. Second Edition. Golden Gate Audubon Society, Berkeley.

McLean, R.G., S.R. Ubico, S.E. Docherty, W.R. Hansen, L. Sileo, and T.S. McNamara. 2001. West Nile Virus and transmission and ecology in birds. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 951:54-57. In Gertsch, Michael. 2005. Klamath Province Wildland-Urban-Intermix Hazardous Fuel Treatment Programmatic Biological Assessment

Mead, L. S., D.R. Clayton, R.S. Nauman, D.H. Olson, and E.E. Pfrender. 2005. Newly discovered populations of salamanders from Siskiyou County California represent a species distinct from Plethodon stormi: Herptologica 61(2) 158-1

Meyer, M.D., D.A. Kelt, and M.P. North. 2005. Nest Trees of Northern Flying Squirrels in the Sierra Nevada. Journal of Mammology, 86(2): 275-280. 6 pp.

Mikkola, H. 1983. Owls of Europe. Buteo Books, Vermillion, South Dakota, USA.

Nero, R.W. 1980. The Great Gray Owl-phantom of the northern forest. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C. USA.

Nussbaum, R.A., E.D. Brodie Jr., R. M. Storm 1983. Amphibians and Reptiles of the Pacific Northwest. University of Idaho Press, Moscow, Idaho. 332pp.

34 High Bar Placer Mine Phase 2 BA/BE

r Olson, D. 1999. Editor. Survey Protocols for amphibians under the survey and manage provision of the Northwest Forest Plan. Version 3.0. Chapter IV, Survey Protocol for the Siskiyou Mountain salamander (Plethodon stormi). D. Clayton, L. 011ivier, and H. Welsh Jr. chapter authors.

Panjabi, A. 0., E. H. Dunn, P. J. Blancher, W. C. Hunter, B. Altman, J. Bart, C. J. Beardmore, H. Berlanga, G. S. Butcher, S. K. Davis, D. W. Demarest, R. Dettmers, W. Easton, H. Gomez de Silva Garza, E. E. Iiiigo-Elias, D. N. Pashley, C. J. Ralph, T. D. Rich, K. V. Rosenberg, C. M. Rustay, J. M. Ruth, J. S. Wendt, and T. C. Will. 2005. The Partners in Flight handbook on species assessment. Version 2005. Partners in Flight Technical Series No. 3. Rocky Mountain Bird Observatory website: http://www.rmbo.org/pubs/downloads/Handboolc2005.pdf

Pearson, R.R. and K.B. Livezey. 2003. Distribution, numbers, and site characteristics of spotted owl and barred owls in the Cascade Mountains of Washington. The Journal of Raptor Research, 37(4): 265-276.

Philpott, W. 1997. Summaries of the life histories of California bat species. USDA. Sierra National Forest, Pineridge Ranger Station. Unpublished document. 30 pp.

Pierson, E.D., M.C. Wackenhut, J.S. Altenbach, P. Bradley, P. Call, D.L. Genter, C.E. hams, B.L. Keller, B. Lengus, L. Lewis B. Luce, K.W. Navo, J.M. Perkins, S. Smith, and L. Welch. 1999. Species conservation assessment and strategy for Townsend"s big-eared bat (Corynorhinus townsendii townsendii and Corynorhinus townsendii pallescens). Idaho Conservation Effort, Idaho Department of Fish and Game, Boise, Idaho.

Ruggerio, L.F., K.B. Aubry, S.W. Buskirk, L.J. Lyon, and W.J. Zielinski. 1994. The scientific basis for conserving forest carnivores: American marten, fisher, lynx, and wolverine in the western United States. Technical Report. RM-254. Ft. Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 184 p.

Schempf, P.F., and M. White 1977. Status of six furbearer populations in the mountains of Northern California. USDA, Forest Service, San Francisco, CA. 51pp.

Sherwin, R. 1998. Presentation to the western bat working group workshop. Feb 9-13. Reno, Nevada.

Sibley, D. A. 2000. The Sibley Guide to Birds. Chanticleer Press, Inc. New York. 544 pp.

Slauson, K.M., W.J. Zielinski, and G.W. Holm. 18 March, 2003. Distribution and Habitat Associations of the Humboldt Marten (Martes Americana humboldtensis), and the Pacific Fisher (Martes pennanti pacifica) in Redwood National and State Parks. Final Report. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station, Redwood Sciences Laboratory. Arcata, CA. 29 pp.

Slauson, K.M., W.J. Zielinski, and J.P. Hayes. 15 February, 2001. Ecology of American Martens in Coastal Northwestern California, Progress Report I. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station, Redwood Sciences Laboratory. Arcata, CA. 27 pp.

35 High Bar Placer Mine Phase 2 BA/BE Thomas, J.W., E.D. Forsman, J.B. Lint, E.C. Meslow, B.R. Noon, and J. Verner. 1990. A Conservation Strategy for the Northern Spotted Owl. Report of the Interagency Scientific Committee to address the conservation of the northern spotted owl. Portland, OR. pp. 427

USDA, Ashland Ranger District. 2005. Draft EIS Ashland Forest Resiliency. Ashland Ranger District, Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forests. June 2005.

USDA, Forest Service. 1991. Forest Service Manual (FSM 2672.42)

USDA Forest Service. 2002. Survey Methodology for Northern Goshawks in the Pacific Southwest Region, U.S. Forest Service. May 14, 2002.

USDA Forest Service, California Region. 1977. Bald Eagle Habitat Management Guidelines. Forest Service, Region 5, Vallejo, CA. 60 pp.

USDA, Forest Service, Klamath National Forest. 1995. Land and Resource Management Plan. Yreka, CA

USDA, Forest Service, Klamath National Forest. 1999. Klamath National Forest, Forest wide Late Successional Reserve Assessment. Yreka, CA.

USDA, Forest Service, Klamath National Forest. 1997. Lower South Fork of the Salmon River Ecosystem Analysis. Klamath National Forest, Yreka, CA. July 1997.

USDA, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. September 1994a. The Scientific Basis for Conserving Forest Carnivores, American Marten, Fisher, Lynx, and Wolverine in the Western United States. GTR RM-254. Fort Collins, CO.

USDA, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 1994b. Flammulated, Boreal, and Great Gray Owls in the United States: A Technical Conservation Assessment. GTR RM-253. Fort Collins, CO.

USDA Forest Service, USDI Bureau of Land Management. 1994. Record of Decision for the Amendments to Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management Planning Documents within the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl.

USDA Forest Service, USDI Bureau of Land Management. 2001. Record of Decision and Standards and Guidelines for Amendments to the Survey and Manage, Protection Buffer, and other Mitigation Measures Standards and Guidelines.

USDA Forest Service, USDI Bureau of Land Management. 2004. Survey Protocol for the Great Gray Owl within the Range of the Northwest Forest Plan. Version 3.0.

USDA Forest Service, USDI, USFWS, USDC National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, NFMS, USDI National Park Service, USDI BLM and EPA. 1993. Forest ecosystem management; an ecological, economic, and social assessment. Report of the Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment Team.

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, 1990a. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Determination of Threatened Status for the Northern Spotted Owl. 50 CFR Part 17. FR Vol. 55, No. 123, June 26, 1990. 82pp

36 High Bar Placer Mine Phase 2 BA/BE USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, 1990b. Procedures Leading to Endangered Species Act Compliance for the Northern Spotted Owl. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 1. July 1990. 15 pp.

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2004. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 12-month Finding for a Petition To List the West Coast Distinct Population Segment of the Fisher (Martes pennanti); Proposed Rule. 50 CFR Part 17. April 8, 2004.

USDI, Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 2006. Estimating the Effects of Auditory and Visual Disturbances to Northern Spotted Owls and Marbled Murrelets in Northwestern California.

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2010. Accessed online October 25, 2010, reference #792457677-142616. http://arcata.fws.gov/specieslist

Welsh Jr. H.H., and K.L. Pope. 2004. Impacts of Introduced Fishes on the Native Amphibians of Northern California Wilderness Areas. Final Report to the California Department of Fish and Game Under contract number P0010025Am.01. USDA Pacific Southwest Research Station, Redwood Sciences Laboratory 1700 Bayview Dr., Arcata, CA 95521

White, A.E. 1996. Nest-site microhabitat of the spotted owl in the Klamath National Forest, California. M.S. thesis, University of Arkansas, Little Rock, AR. In Courtney, S. P., J. A. Blakesley, R. E. Bigley, M. L. Cody, J. P. Dumbacher, R. C. Fleischer, A.B. Franklin, J. F. Franklin, R. J. Gutierrez, J.M. Marzluff, and L. Sztukowslci. 2004. Scientific evaluation of the status of the Northern Spotted Owl. Sustainable Ecosystems Institute, Portland, Oregon.

White, M. and R.H. Barrett. 1979. A review of the wolverine in California with recommendations for management. Unpublished paper. Prepared for USDA Forest Service by the Department of Forestry and Resource Management. College of Natural Resources, University of California Berkeley. 71pp.

Winter, J. 1986. Status, distribution and ecology of the great gray owl (Strix nebulosa) in California. Thesis. San Francisco State University, San Francisco, Calif., USA

Woodbridge, Brian. 2006. Wildlife Biologist. Personal Communication with Cliff Oakley. US Fish and Wildlife Service, Yreka Field Office. Yreka, CA.

Yaeger, J.S. 2005. Habitat at Fisher Resting Sites in the Klamath Province of Northern California. Master" s Thesis. Humboldt State University, Arcata, CA.

Yaeger, J.S. 2007. Wildlife Biologist. Personal Communication with Cliff Oakley. US Fish and Wildlife Service, Yreka Field Office. Yreka, CA.

Zielinski, William J. and Thomas E. Kucera. 1995. American marten, fisher, lynx, and wolverine: survey methods for their detection. USDA Forest Service Pacific Southwest Research Station. Gen. Tech Report. PSW-GTR-157. 163 pp.

37 High Bar Placer Mine Phase 2 BA/BE