ATTACHMENT F

MARIPOSA BIOMASS PROJECT BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT

April 5, 2017

Prepared for:

Mariposa County Resource Conservation District

Prepared by:

G.O. Graening, PhD and Timothy R.D. Nosal, MS Natural Investigations Company, Inc. 6124 Shadow Lane, Citrus Heights, CA 95621

Mariposa Biomass Bio. Res. Assessment

TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION ...... 2 1.1. PROJECT LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION ...... 2 1.2. PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF ASSESSMENT...... 2 1.3. REGULATORY SETTING ...... 2 1.3.1. Special-status Species Regulations ...... 2 1.3.2. Jurisdictional Water Resources ...... 3 2. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING ...... 4 3. METHODOLOGY ...... 5 3.1. PRELIMINARY DATA GATHERING AND RESEARCH ...... 5 3.2. FIELD SURVEY ...... 5 3.3. MAPPING AND OTHER ANALYSES ...... 6 4. RESULTS ...... 6 4.1. INVENTORY OF FLORA AND FAUNA FROM FIELD SURVEY ...... 6 4.2. VEGETATION COMMUNITIES AND WILDLIFE HABITAT TYPES ...... 6 4.2.1. Ruderal/Developed Vegetation Community ...... 6 4.2.2. Gray Pine Woodland Vegetation Community ...... 7 4.2.3. Chaparral Vegetation Communities ...... 7 4.3. SPECIAL-STATUS SPECIES...... 7 4.3.1. Historical Special-status Species’ Occurrences ...... 8 4.3.2. Special-status Species Observed During Field Survey ...... 8 4.3.3. Focal Species Accounts ...... 8 4.3.4. Analyses of Likelihood of Occurrence of Special-status Species ...... 9 4.4. POTENTIALLY-JURISDICTIONAL WATER RESOURCES ...... 9 5. IMPACT ANALYSES AND MITIGATION MEASURES ...... 9 5.1. IMPACT SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA ...... 9 5.2. IMPACT ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDED MITIGATION ...... 10 5.2.1. Potential Direct / Indirect Adverse Effects Upon Special-status Species ...... 10 5.2.2. Recommended Mitigation Measures ...... 10 5.2.3. Potential Direct / Indirect Adverse Effects On Jurisdictional Water Resources ...... 11 5.2.4. Recommended Mitigation Measures ...... 11 5.2.5. Potential Direct / Indirect Adverse Effects on Nesting Birds ...... 11 5.2.6. Recommended Mitigation Measures For Impact # 3 ...... 11 6. REFERENCES ...... 12 7. EXHIBITS ...... 1 8. TABLES ...... 2 9. APPENDIX 1: USFWS SPECIES LIST ...... 7 10. APPENDIX 2: SITE PHOTOS ...... 8

Natural Investigations Co. Page 1 Mariposa Biomass Bio. Res. Assessment

1. INTRODUCTION 1.1. PROJECT LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION On behalf of Mariposa County Resource Conservation District, Natural Investigations Company conducted a Biological Resources Assessment for the proposed Mariposa Biomass Project. The proposed action is the construction of a 2.4 MW bioenergy facility (“Project”). The Project area is located in the Mariposa Industrial Park at 5673 Copper Leaf Drive, Mariposa, in Mariposa County, California (see Exhibits). The Project area is situated on 2 parcels having assessor’s parcel numbers 012-050-066 (2.86 acres) and 012- 050-067 (2.41 acres). The combined parcel boundary (5.3 acres) was the Study Area for this assessment.

1.2. PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF ASSESSMENT In support of the environmental review process, Natural Investigations Co. has prepared this assessment to provide information on biological resources within the Study Area. This assessment identifies the biological resources within the Study Area, the regulatory environment affecting such resources, any potential Project-related impacts upon these resources, and identifies mitigation measures to reduce these impacts. The specific scope of services performed for this Biological Resources Assessment consisted of the following tasks: • Compile all readily-available historical biological resource information about the Study Area; • Spatially query state and federal databases for any historic occurrences of special-status species or habitats within the Study Area and vicinity; • Perform a reconnaissance-level field survey of the Study Area, including photographic documentation; • Inventory all flora and fauna observed during the field survey; • Characterize and map the habitat types present within the Study Area, including any potentially- jurisdictional water resources; • Evaluate the likelihood for the occurrence of any special-status species; • Assess the potential for the Project to adversely impact any sensitive biological resources; • Recommend mitigation measures designed to avoid or minimize Project-related impacts; and • Prepare and submit a report summarizing all of the above tasks.

The scope of services does not include other services that are not described in this Section, such as focused surveys or protocol-level surveys for special-status species.

1.3. REGULATORY SETTING The following section summarizes applicable regulations of biological resources on real property in California.

1.3.1. Special-status Species Regulations The United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the National Marine Fisheries Service implement the Federal Endangered Species Act of 1973 (FESA) (16 USC §1531 et seq.). Threatened and endangered species on the federal list (50 CFR §17.11, 17.12) are protected from “take” (direct or indirect harm), unless a FESA Section 10 Permit is granted or a FESA Section 7 Biological Opinion with incidental take provisions is rendered. Pursuant to the requirements of FESA, an agency reviewing a proposed project within its jurisdiction must determine whether any federally listed species may be present in the project area and determine whether the proposed project will have a potentially significant impact upon such species. Under FESA, habitat loss is considered to be an impact to the species. In addition, the agency is required to determine whether the project is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any species proposed to be listed under FESA or result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat proposed to be designated for such species (16 USC §1536[3], [4]). Therefore, project-related impacts to these species or their habitats would be considered significant and would require mitigation.

Natural Investigations Co. Page 2 Mariposa Biomass Bio. Res. Assessment

Species that are candidates for listing are not protected under FESA; however, USFWS advises that a candidate species could be elevated to listed status at any time, and therefore, applicants should regard these species with special consideration. The California Endangered Species Act of 1970 (CESA) (California Fish and Game Code §2050 et seq., and CCR Title 14, §670.2, 670.51) prohibits “take” (defined as hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill) of species listed under CESA. A CESA permit must be obtained if a project will result in take of listed species, either during construction or over the life of the project. Section 2081 establishes an incidental take permit program for state-listed species. Under CESA, California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) has the responsibility for maintaining a list of threatened and endangered species designated under state law (CFG Code 2070). CDFG also maintains lists of species of special concern, which serve as “watch lists.” Pursuant to requirements of CESA, an agency reviewing proposed projects within its jurisdiction must determine whether any state-listed species may be present in the Study Area and determine whether the proposed project will have a potentially significant impact upon such species. Project-related impacts to species on the CESA list would be considered significant and would require mitigation. California Fish and Game Code Sections 4700, 5050, and 5515 designates certain mammal, amphibian, and reptile species “fully protected”, making it unlawful to take, possess, or destroy these species except under issuance of a specific permit. The California Native Plant Protection Act of 1977 (CFG Code §1900 et seq.) requires CDFG to establish criteria for determining if a species or variety of native plant is endangered or rare. Section 19131 of the code requires that landowners notify CDFG at least 10 days prior to initiating activities that will destroy a listed plant to allow the salvage of plant material. Many bird species, especially those that are breeding, migratory, or of limited distribution, are protected under federal and state regulations. Under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 (16 USC §703-711), migratory bird species and their nests and eggs that are on the federal list (50 CFR §10.13) are protected from injury or death, and project-related disturbances must be reduced or eliminated during the nesting cycle. California Fish and Game Code (§3503, 3503.5, and 3800) prohibits the possession, incidental take, or needless destruction of any bird nests or eggs. Fish and Game Code §3511 designates certain bird species “fully protected”, making it unlawful to take, possess, or destroy these species except under issuance of a specific permit. The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (16 USC §668) specifically protects bald and golden eagles from harm or trade in parts of these species. California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Public Resources Code §15380) defines “rare” in a broader sense than the definitions of threatened, endangered, or fully protected. Under the CEQA definition, CDFG can request additional consideration of species not otherwise protected. CEQA requires that the impacts of a project upon environmental resources must be analyzed and assessed using criteria determined by the lead agency. Sensitive species that would qualify for listing but are not currently listed may be afforded protection under CEQA. The CEQA Guidelines (§15065) require that a substantial reduction in numbers of a rare or endangered species be considered a significant effect. CEQA Guidelines (§15380) provide for assessment of unlisted species as rare or endangered under CEQA if the species can be shown to meet the criteria for listing. Plant species on the California Native Plant Society (CNPS) Lists 1A, 1B, or 2 are typically considered rare under CEQA. California “Species of Special Concern” is a category conferred by CDFG on those species that are indicators of regional habitat changes or are considered potential future protected species. While they do not have statutory protection, Species of Special Concern are typically considered rare under CEQA and thereby warrant specific protection measures.

1.3.2. Jurisdictional Water Resources Real property that contains water resources are subject to various federal and state regulations and activities occurring in these water resources may require permits, licenses, variances, or similar authorization from federal, state and local agencies, as described next. The Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 (as amended), commonly known as the Clean Water Act (CWA), established the basic structure for regulating discharges of pollutants into “waters of the United States”. Waters of the US includes essentially all surface waters, all interstate waters and their tributaries, all impoundments of these waters, and all wetlands adjacent to these waters. CWA

Natural Investigations Co. Page 3 Mariposa Biomass Bio. Res. Assessment

Section 404 requires approval prior to dredging or discharging fill material into any waters of the US, especially wetlands. The permitting program is designed to minimize impacts to waters of the US, and when impacts cannot be avoided, requires compensatory mitigation. The US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) is responsible for administering Section 404 regulations. Substantial impacts to jurisdictional wetlands may require an Individual Permit. Small-scale projects may require only a Nationwide Permit, which typically has an expedited process compared to the Individual Permit process. Mitigation of wetland impacts is required as a condition of the CWA Section 404 Permit and may include on-site preservation, restoration, or enhancement and/or off-site restoration or enhancement. The characteristics of the restored or enhanced wetlands must be equal to or better than those of the affected wetlands to achieve no net loss of wetlands. Under CWA Section 401, every applicant for a federal permit or license for any activity which may result in a discharge to a water body must obtain State Water Quality Certification that the proposed activity will comply with State water quality standards. The California State Water Resources Control Board is responsible for administering CWA Section 401 regulations. Any construction project that disturbs at least one acre of land requires enrollment in the State’s general permitting program under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System and implementation of a storm water pollution prevention plan. Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 requires approval from USACE prior to the commencement of any work in or over navigable Waters of the US, or which affects the course, location, condition or capacity of such waters. Navigable waters of the United States are defined as waters that have been used in the past, are now used, or are susceptible to use as a means to transport interstate or foreign commerce up to the head of navigation. Rivers and Harbors Act Section 10 permits are required for construction activities in these waters. California Fish and Game Code (§1601 - 1607) protects fishery resources by regulating “any activity that may substantially divert or obstruct the natural flow or substantially change the bed, channel, or bank of any river, stream, or lake.” CDFG requires notification prior to commencement, and issuance of a Lake or Streambed Alteration Agreement, if a proposed project will result in the alteration or degradation of ‘’waters of the State”. The limit of CDFG jurisdiction is subject to the judgment of the Department; currently, this jurisdiction is interpreted to be the “stream zone”, defined as “that portion of the stream channel that restricts lateral movement of water” and delineated at “the top of the bank or the outer edge of any riparian vegetation, whichever is more landward”. CDFG reviews the proposed actions and, if necessary, submits to the applicant a proposal for measures to protect affected fish and wildlife resources. The final proposal that is mutually agreed upon by the CDFG and the applicant is the Streambed Alteration Agreement. Projects that require a Streambed Alteration Agreement may also require a CWA 404 Section Permit and/or CWA Section 401 Water Quality Certification. 2. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING The Study Area is located within the southern Sierra Nevada foothills geographic subregion, which is contained within the Sierra Nevada Mountains geographic subdivision of the larger California Floristic Province (Baldwin et al. 2012). This region has a Mediterranean-type climate, characterized by distinct seasons of hot, dry summers and wet, moderately- cold winters. The Study Area and vicinity is in climate Zone 7 “Gray Pine Belt,” with hot summers and mild but pronounced winters (Brenzel 2001). The topography of the Study Area is hilly with slopes that drain northward. The elevation ranges from approximately 2,320 feet to 2,410 feet above mean sea level. The Study Area is located within the Agua Fria Creek watershed, which flows to Mariposa Creek and then the San Joaquin River. The surrounding land uses are as follows: to the south and west, open space; to the north, rural residential and open space; and to east, industrial uses, including the Mariposa Landfill, Composting, and Recycling Center and a Pacific Gas & Electric substation.

Natural Investigations Co. Page 4 Mariposa Biomass Bio. Res. Assessment

3. METHODOLOGY 3.1. PRELIMINARY DATA GATHERING AND RESEARCH Prior to conducting the field survey the following information sources were reviewed: • Any readily-available previous biological resource studies pertaining to the Study Area or vicinity • United States Geologic Service (USGS) 7.5 degree-minute topographic quadrangles of the Study Area and vicinity • Aerial photography of the Study Area • California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB), electronically updated monthly by subscription to CDFW.

A protocol-level botanical survey of the Study Area was conducted concurrently with this bio assessment: • Graening, G.O., and R.D. Nosal. 2017. Botanical Survey for the Mariposa Biomass Project, Mariposa, California. Prepared for Mariposa Resource Conservation District. Prepared by Natural Investigations Co., Inc., Citrus Heights, California. 23 pp.

3.2. FIELD SURVEY Consulting biologist Timothy R.D. Nosal conducted a reconnaissance-level field survey on March 23, 2017. Weather conditions consisted of mostly sunny skies, winds of 0-5 miles per hour, and air temperature ranging from 50° to 55° F. A complete coverage, variable-intensity pedestrian survey was performed, and modified to account for differences in terrain, vegetation density, and visibility. All visible fauna and flora observed were recorded in a field notebook, and identified to the lowest possible taxon. Survey efforts emphasized the search for any special-status species that had documented occurrences in the CNDDB within the vicinity of the Study Area. The results of the botanical observations are addressed in a separate report (Graening and Nosal, 2017). The survey was conducted during a time of year when annual and perennial plant species are evident and leafed out, however, most plants had not yet begun to flower. Secretive wildlife species that require long observation periods to detect may not have been observed due to the limited survey time and constant movement of the survey team. In addition, nocturnal species were not observed because the survey was conducted during daylight hours. Landowner permission to visit neighboring parcels was not obtained, so surveys of lands adjacent to the Study Area were limited to binocular surveys from the subject parcel and from public places such as road rights-of-way. When a specimen could not be identified in the field, a photograph or voucher specimen (depending upon permit requirements) was taken and identified in the laboratory using a dissecting scope where necessary. Plant specimens difficult to identify were sent to botanist Margriet Wetherwax (U.C. Berkeley Jepson Herbarium). Mr. Nosal holds the following scientific collection permit: California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) Plant Voucher Collecting Permit No. 2081(a)-16-102-V. Dr. Graening holds the following scientific collection permits: CDFW Scientific Collecting Permit No. SC-006802; and CDFW Plant Voucher Specimen Permit 09004. Taxonomic determinations were facilitated by referencing museum specimens or by various texts, including the following: Powell and Hogue (1979); Pavlik (1991); (1993); Brenzel (2001); Stuart and Sawyer (2001); Lanner (2002); Sibley (2003); Baldwin et al. (2012); Calflora (2015); CDFG (2007b,c); NatureServe 2015; and University of California at Berkeley (2015a,b). The locations of any special-status species sighted were marked on aerial photographs and/or georeferenced with a geographic positioning system (GPS) receiver. Habitat types occurring in the Study Area were mapped on aerial photographs, and information on habitat conditions and the suitability of the habitats to support special-status species was also recorded. The Study Area was also informally assessed for the presence of potentially-jurisdictional water features, including riparian zones, isolated wetlands and vernal pools, and other biologically-sensitive aquatic habitats.

Natural Investigations Co. Page 5 Mariposa Biomass Bio. Res. Assessment

3.3. MAPPING AND OTHER ANALYSES Locations of species’ occurrences and habitat boundaries within the Study Area were recorded on color aerial photographs, and then digitized to produce the final habitat maps. The boundaries of potentially jurisdictional water resources within the Study Area were identified and measured in the field, and similarly digitized to calculate acreage and to produce informal delineation maps. Geographic analyses were performed using geographical information system software (ArcGIS 10, ESRI, Inc.). Vegetation communities (assemblages of plant species growing in an area of similar biological and environmental factors), were classified by Vegetation Series (distinctive associations of plants, described by dominant species and particular environmental setting) using the CNPS Vegetation Classification system (Sawyer and Keeler-Wolf, 1995). Wetlands and other aquatic habitats were classified using USFWS National Wetlands Inventory Classification System for Wetland and Deepwater Habitats, or “Cowardin class” (Cowardin et al., 1979; USFWS 2007). Informal wetland delineation methods consisted of an abbreviated, visual assessment of the three requisite wetland parameters (hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, hydrologic regime) defined in the US Army Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory, 1987). Wildlife habitats were classified according to the CDFW’s California Wildlife Habitat Relationships System (CDFW, 2017). Species’ habitat requirements and life histories were identified using the following sources: Baldwin et al. (2012); CNPS (2017), Calflora (2017); CDFG (2017a,b,c); and University of California at Berkeley (2017a,b). 4. RESULTS 4.1. INVENTORY OF FLORA AND FAUNA FROM FIELD SURVEY All plants and animals sighted during the protocol-level botanical survey and reconnaissance-level wildlife survey of the Study Area are listed in Table 1 and Table 2 respectively. Wildlife species were detected with binoculars or by unaided visual observation. Indicators such as burrows were used to determine the presence of unidentified small rodents.

4.2. VEGETATION COMMUNITIES AND WILDLIFE HABITAT TYPES The Study Area contains 3 general vegetation community types: ruderal/developed; gray pine woodland; and foothill chaparral. The geology underlying the study area includes ultramafic (serpentine) and metavolcanic rock types (California Geological Survey, 2010). These habitat types are discussed in detail in the following text and are delineated in the Exhibits. The CNDDB did not report any special-status habitats within 5 miles of the Study Area. The Study Area is not located within any adopted Habitat Conservation Plan or Natural Community Conservation Plan.

4.2.1. Ruderal/Developed Vegetation Community Ruderal/Developed habitat is found within the disturbed and graded portions of the Study Area, including roads and the graveled building pad. Vegetation within this habitat type consists primarily of nonnative weedy or invasive ruderal species lacking a consistent community structure. This habitat is classified as Holland vegetation type – “Urban – 11100,” and “Urban” and “Barren” wildlife habitat types by WHR. This habitat type provides limited resources for wildlife and is utilized primarily by species tolerant of human activities. Weedy species sighted include compact brome (Bromus madrietensis), poverty brome (Bromus sterilis), rattail sixweeks grass (Festuca myuros), red-stem filaree (Erodium cicutarium), smooth cat’s ear (Hypochaeris glabra), Heermann’s tarplant (Holocarpha heermannii), bird’s-foot trefoil (Lotus corniculatus), erect plantain (Plantago erecta), and common groundsel (Senecio vulgare). The disturbed and altered condition of these lands greatly reduces their habitat value and ability to sustain rare plants or diverse wildlife assemblages. However, common, disturbance-tolerant species do occur in these lands. None of the target species are expected to occur in the Ruderal/Developed community type because of competition from invasive, non-native species.

Natural Investigations Co. Page 6 Mariposa Biomass Bio. Res. Assessment

4.2.2. Gray Pine Woodland Vegetation Community Gray Pine Woodland is the dominant habitat type within the Study Area. Vegetation within this community type consists of scattered trees with an understory of shrubs. This habitat is classified as Holland vegetation type – “Open Digger Pine Woodland – 71310,” “Blue Oak – Foothill Pine” wildlife habitat type by WHR, and “Pinus sabiniana Woodland Alliance (Foothill Pine Woodland)” vegetation type by Sawyer et al (2009). This habitat type provides significant food and breeding resources for wildlife. Species sighted include Foothill pine (Pinus sabiniana), interior live-oak (Quercus wislizeni), blue oak (Quercus douglasii), wedgeleaf ceanothus (Ceanothus cuneatus), poison-oak (Toxicodendron diversilobum), while-leaf manzanita (Arctostaphylos viscida), toyon (Heteromeles arbutifolia), chamise (Adenostema fasciculatum), poverty brome, compact brome, ripgut brome (Bromus diandrus), Italian thistle (Carduus pycnocephalus), Mariposa lily (Calochortus sp.), wavy-leaved soaproot (Chlorogalum pomeridianum), blue dicks (Dichelostemma capitatum), red-stem filaree, Sierra fawn-lily (Erythronium multiscapoideum), bedstraw (Galium spp.), sock destroyer (Torilis spp.), and winter vetch (Vicia villosa). This habitat occurs primarily on soils derived from metavolcanic parent material, but transitions onto serpentine in the southwest corner of the Study Area. The portions of the Study Area containing gray pine woodland habitat have a low to moderate potential for occurrence of the following plants known to occur in woodland habitats: Mariposa daisy, Madera leptosiphon, Mariposa lupine, and slender-stalked monkeyflower. However, these rare species were not detected during the botanical survey.

4.2.3. Chaparral Vegetation Communities Vegetation within this community type consists of annual herbs with scattered shrubs and occasional trees. This habitat is classified as Holland vegetation type – “Buck Brush Chaparral – 37810,” and “Ceanothus cuneatus Alliance (Wedge Leaf Ceanothus Chaparral)” vegetation type by Sawyer et al (2009). Where chaparral integrates into the gray pine woodland, it is classified as the community 87.130.04 Foothill Pine - Interior Live Oak / Wedgeleaf Ceanothus [Pinus sabiniana-Quercus wislizeni/Ceanothus cuneatus] (Sawyer et al. 2009). Where it intersects serpentine soils, it is classified as 87.130.01 Serpentine Digger Pine Chaparral Woodland.

A special chaparral community type occurs in a narrow band along the southern edge of the Study Area and continues on adjacent parcels to the south, southeast, and southwest. Sawyer et al (2009) describes this community as 37.000.06 Mixed Serpentine Chaparral. This community occurs primarily on soils derived from serpentine bedrock parent material. Shrub cover is much lower compared to the adjacent foothill pine woodland because serpentine soils are high in several potentially toxic elements including iron and magnesium and low in required nutrients such as calcium. This restrictive soil type is home to numerous endemic plant species, many of which are rare. Species observed include wedgeleaf ceanothus, gray pine, poison oak, wavy-leaved soaproot, erect plantain (Plantago erecta), seep monkeyflower (Mimulus guttatus), shining peppergrass (Lepidium nitidum), annual checkerbloom (Sidalcea calycosa) and common goldfields (Lasthenia gracilis). The portions of the Study Area containing serpentine soils have a moderate to high potential for occurrence of the following plants known to occur on serpentine soils: Mariposa clarkia, Beaked clarkia, Mariposa cryptantha, Congdon’s lomatium and shaggyhair lupine. The field survey failed to detect these rare species.

This community equates to the “Mixed Chaparral” wildlife habitat type by WHR. The restrictive soil chemistry within this vegetation type limits the overall cover and therefore the ability to sustain diverse wildlife assemblages. However, many common species do occur in these habitats.

4.3. SPECIAL-STATUS SPECIES For the purposes of this assessment, “special status” is defined to be species that are of management concern to state or federal natural resource agencies, and include those species that are: • Listed as endangered, threatened, proposed, or candidate for listing under the Federal Endangered Species Act;

Natural Investigations Co. Page 7 Mariposa Biomass Bio. Res. Assessment

• Listed as endangered, threatened, rare, or proposed for listing, under the California Endangered Species Act of 1970; • Designated as endangered or rare, pursuant to California Fish and Game Code (§1901); • Designated as fully protected, pursuant to California Fish and Game Code (§3511, §4700, or §5050); • Designated as a species of special concern by CDFG; or • Plants listed as rare under the California Native Plant Protection Act.

4.3.1. Historical Special-status Species’ Occurrences A list of special-status plant and animal species that historically occurred within the Study Area and vicinity was compiled based upon the following: • Any previous and readily-available biological resource studies pertaining to the Study Area; • Informal consultation with USFWS by generating an electronic Species List (available on the applicable Field Office website); and • A spatial query of the CNDDB.

The CNDDB was queried and any reported occurrences of special-status species were plotted in relation to the Study Area boundary using GIS software (Exhibits). The CNDDB reported 14 special-status species occurrences within the Study Area. Within a 5-mile buffer of the Study Area boundary, the CNDDB reported 30 special-status species occurrences. A federal species list was also generated from the USFWS website using the appropriate USGS 7.5-minute quadrangle. The combined species list (17 species) is presented in Table 4.

4.3.2. Special-status Species Observed During Field Survey During the field survey on March 23, 2017 no special-status species were observed within the Study Area. In the vicinity of the Study Area, 2 special-status species have been reported in the CNDDB, and 5 species have special habitat requirements that are present within the Study Area.

4.3.3. Focal Species Accounts

4.3.3.1. Limestone Salamander (Hydromantes brunus) The limestone salamander (Hydromantes brunus) is a small stocky salamander, colored brown above and pale below. This species is a highly restricted species known primarily from the Merced River watershed. The limestone salamander utilizes mixed chaparral habitats during the winter and spring, and limestone caverns, talus, or fractures in massive rock the remainder of the year. It is reported that California buckeye is an indicator species for preferred habitat for this salamander. This species is reported to occur north of the project site on BLM property with scrub oak and shrubs and on talus.

4.3.3.2. Beaked clarkia (Clarkia rostrata) Beaked clarkia (Clarkia rostrata) is a slender, spring-blooming annual in the evening primrose family (Onagraceae). This species is distinguished from other species of Clarkia by having pendulous flower buds, red/purple sepals that remain fused at the tip after the flower opens, fan-shaped petals and cylindrical fruit with a long (7-15 mm) beak. Beaked clarkia is typically found in oak/pine woodlands of the Merced River drainage in Mariposa County, less than 500 m (1500 feet) in elevation.

In 1985, this species was reported just north of the Study Area, along Highway 49. Typical habitat is woodland and grassland on north-facing slopes, although then1985 observation was reported to occur on “Gentle N-facing slope underlain by serpentine. About 75% herbaceous cover and 25% bedrock cover.” Potentially suitable serpentine habitat is found along the southern edge of the Study Area, where the property abuts a wide band of serpentine habitat. A portion of this habitat appears to have been cleared and leveled in the past.

Natural Investigations Co. Page 8 Mariposa Biomass Bio. Res. Assessment

The CNDDB was queried for all special status plant species that have been reported within 5-miles of the Study Area. The following special status plants are also known to occur on serpentine soils: Mariposa clarkia (Clarkia biloba ssp. australis), Mariposa cryptantha (Cryptantha mariposae), Congdon’s lomatium (Lomatium congdonii), and shaggyhair lupine (Lupinus spectabilis).

4.3.3.3. Mariposa daisy (Erigeron mariposanus) Mariposa daisy (Erigeron mariposanus) is a small (less than 12 inches) perennial in the daisy family (Asteraceae). This species, reported to occur in foothill woodland habitat, is known only from a few collections made from the location of “Mariposa”. This species is suspected to have occurred in specialized habitat and was last observed in 1900. The Mariposa daisy is now believed to be extinct.

4.3.4. Analyses of Likelihood of Occurrence of Special-status Species The special-status species identified in Section 4.3.1 and Section 4.3.2 were further assessed for their likelihood to occur within the Study Area based upon previously documented occurrences, field surveys, their habitat requirements, and the quality and extent of any suitable habitat within the Study Area. Each species was ranked for its likelihood to occur within the Study Area: a "high" rank was given for species where current field surveys have positively identified the species within the Study Area, where there have been previously documented occurrences within the Study Area, and/or where essential habitat elements exist within the Study Area; a "moderate" rank was given for species that were not detected during current field surveys, but where there have been previously documented occurrences within the Study Area or vicinity, and where preferred habitat elements exist within the Study Area; a "low" rank was given for species with no known observations within the Study Area or vicinity, and where habitat elements exist within the Study Area or vicinity, but the quality of that habitat is degraded or of poor quality, and/or where Study Area conditions and land uses deter its use of the Study Area; and a “unlikely” rank was given for species with no known observations within the Study Area or vicinity, and where no suitable habitat exists within the Study Area. The results of these analyses are summarized in Table 4. The following special- status species were determined to have a moderate or high likelihood of occurrence within the Study Area where serpentine soils are present: Beaked clarkia, Mariposa clarkia, Mariposa cryptantha, Congdon’s lomatium, shaggyhair lupine and Mariposa daisy.

4.4. POTENTIALLY-JURISDICTIONAL WATER RESOURCES An informal assessment for the presence of potentially-jurisdictional water resources within the Study Area was also conducted during the field survey. The USFWS National Wetland Inventory reported no water features within the Study Area. During the field survey, several 1 ephemeral channel and several drainage ditches were detected in the Study Area (see Exhibits). No wetlands or vernal pools or other isolated wetlands were identified within the Study Area. The ephemeral channel has a well-defined bank and bed and was flowing during the field survey. The drainage ditches are man-made features constructed in upland areas. Some segments display characteristics of channels while other segments are upland swales. 5. IMPACT ANALYSES AND MITIGATION MEASURES This section establishes the impact criteria, then analyzes potential Project-related impacts upon the known biological resources within the Study Area, and then suggests mitigation measures to reduce these impacts to a less-than-significant level.

5.1. IMPACT SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA The significance of impacts to biological resources depends upon the proximity and quality of vegetation communities and wildlife habitats, the presence or absence of special-status species, and the effectiveness of measures implemented to protect these resources from Project-related impacts. As defined by CEQA, the Project would be considered to have a significant adverse impact on biological resources if it would:

Natural Investigations Co. Page 9 Mariposa Biomass Bio. Res. Assessment

• Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a special-status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by USFWS or CDFG • Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by USFWS or CDFG • Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means • Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites • Conflict with any county or municipal policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance • Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved governmental habitat conservation plan.

5.2. IMPACT ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDED MITIGATION The Project’s architectural design was overlaid upon the mapped habitats to assist in the analysis of Project-related impacts (Exhibits). The following discussion evaluates the potential for Project-related activities to adversely affect biological resources according to the criteria set for in Section 5.1. The Project boundaries were digitized and then overlaid on the habitat map using GIS to quantify potential impacts. Historical aerial photos were also analyzed for changes in land use. This project consists of a feedstock storage area, biomass generator, associated access roads and ancillary facilities. Construction of this project will result in some impacts to gray pine woodland and chaparral habitats.

5.2.1. Potential Direct / Indirect Adverse Effects Upon Special-status Species No special-status species were detected within the Study Area. However, the portions of the Study Area containing gray pine woodland habitat have a low to moderate potential for occurrence of the following plants known to occur in woodland habitats: Mariposa daisy, Madera leptosiphon, Mariposa lupine, and slender-stalked monkeyflower. The portions of the Study Area containing serpentine soils have a moderate to high potential for occurrence of the following plants known to occur on serpentine soils: Mariposa clarkia, Beaked clarkia, Mariposa cryptantha, Congdon’s lomatium and shaggyhair lupine. The field survey failed to detect these rare species. As designed, the current project footprint will impact primarily ruderal/developed habitat and gray pine woodland. If project implementation involves ground disturbance or habitat conversion in areas containing gray pine woodland or serpentine soils, rare plant species not detected in the field survey could be impacted. Furthermore, special-status animal species that occur in the vicinity could migrate onto the Study Area between the time that the field survey was completed and the start of construction. These are potentially significant impacts before mitigation.

5.2.2. Recommended Mitigation Measures If project implementation involves ground disturbance or habitat conversion in areas containing gray pine woodland or serpentine soils, a pre-construction botanical survey is recommended to ensure that no special-status plant species are present. Because special-status animal species that occur in the vicinity could migrate onto the Study Area between the time that the field survey was completed and the start of construction, a pre-construction survey for special-status species should be performed by a qualified biologist to ensure that special-status species are not present. If any listed species are detected, construction should be delayed, and the appropriate wildlife agency (CDFW and/or USFWS) should be consulted and project impacts and mitigation reassessed.

Natural Investigations Co. Page 10 Mariposa Biomass Bio. Res. Assessment

5.2.3. Potential Direct / Indirect Adverse Effects On Jurisdictional Water Resources An informal assessment of the Study Area identified 1 potentially-jurisdictional water feature in the Study Area: an ephemeral channel. Drainage ditches are also present. These drainage features may be protected under federal or state law. Potential direct adverse impacts to these water resources could occur during construction by modification or destruction of stream banks or riparian vegetation, or by increased erosion and sedimentation in receiving water bodies due to soil disturbance. These are potentially significant impacts before mitigation.

5.2.4. Recommended Mitigation Measures The proposed project would not involve development within the ephemeral channel or the drainage ditches. Therefore, no adverse impacts to water resources are expected. A buffer of 50 feet is suggested to be maintained between these drainage features and any ground disturbance or developments.

Should these features need to be filled or modified, a formal delineation of waters of the US and field verification by USACE is recommended to determine if the Study Area contains any jurisdictional water resources. This delineation should also include an assessment of potential waters of the State. If the USACE determines that the watercourses are subject to their jurisdiction, a CWA 404 permit must be obtained and mitigation performed before the watercourses are filled. If waters of the State are present, a Streambed Alteration Agreement may be needed before ground disturbance is initiated at the ditches or marsh. CWA 401 water quality certification will also be necessary if Project implementation will disturb at least one acre of ground.

Because implementation of the proposed project involves disturbance of at least one acre of soil, the project proponent must enroll under the State Water Quality Control Board’s Construction General Permit prior to the initiation of construction. In conjunction with enrollment under this Permit, a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan, Erosion Control Plan, and a Hazardous Materials Management/Spill Response Plan must be created and implemented during construction to avoid or minimize the potential for erosion, sedimentation, or accidental release of hazardous materials. Implementation of these measures mandated by law would reduce potential construction-related impacts to water quality to a less-than-significant level. No mitigation is necessary.

5.2.5. Potential Direct / Indirect Adverse Effects on Nesting Birds The Study Area contains suitable nesting habitat for various bird species because of the presence of trees and dense brush. No nests or nesting activity was observed in the Study Area during the field survey. If construction activities are conducted during the nesting season, nesting birds could be directly impacted by tree removal and indirectly impacted by noise, vibration, and other construction-related disturbance. Therefore, Project construction is considered a potentially significant adverse impact to nesting birds.

5.2.6. Recommended Mitigation Measures If construction activities will occur during the nesting season (usually March to September), pre- construction surveys for the presence of special-status bird species or any nesting bird species should be conducted by a qualified biologist within 500 feet of proposed construction areas. If active nests are identified in these areas, CDFG should be consulted to develop measures to avoid “take” of active nests prior to the initiation of any construction activities. Avoidance measures may include establishment of a buffer zone using construction fencing or the postponement of vegetation removal until after the nesting season, or until after a qualified biologist has determined the young have fledged and are independent of the nest site.

Natural Investigations Co. Page 11 Mariposa Biomass Bio. Res. Assessment

6. REFERENCES Baldwin, B.G., D.H. Goldman, D.J. Keil, R. Patterson, and T.J. Rosatti, editors. 2012. The Jepson Manual: Vascular Plants of California, second edition, thoroughly revised and expanded. University of California Press, Berkeley, California. 1,600 pp.

Brenzel, K.N. 2001. Sunset Western Garden Book. Sunset Publishing Corporation, Menlo Park, California. 768 pp.

Burrowing Owl Consortium. 1993. Burrowing owl survey protocol and mitigation guidelines. Available electronically at www.dfg.ca.gov/hcpb/species/stds_gdl/bird_sg/boconsortium.pdf.

Calflora. 2017 Calflora, the on-line gateway to information about native and introduced wild plants in California. Internet database available at http://calflora.org/.

California Department of Fish and Game. 1994. Staff Report Regarding Mitigation for Impacts to Swainson’s Hawks (Buteo swainsoni) in the Central Valley of California. November 8, 1994 Memorandum. 14 pp.

California Department of Fish and Game. 2017a. RareFind 3.1.1, California Natural Diversity Data Base. Sacramento, California. (updated monthly by subscription service).

California Department of Fish and Game, 2017b. California’s Plants and Animals. Habitat Conservation Planning Branch, California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, California. http://www.dfg.ca.gov/hcpb/species/search_species.shtml.

California Department of Fish and Game. 2017c. California’s Wildlife. California Wildlife Habitat Relationships System, Biogeographic Data Branch, California Department of Fish and Game. Internet database available at http://www.dfg.ca.gov/whdab/html/cawildlife.html.

California Geological Survey. 2010. Geologic Map of California. California Geological Survey, Sacramento California. Internet database available at http://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/gmc/.

California Native Plant Society. 2017. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants, 7th edition. Rare Plant Scientific Advisory Committee, David P. Tibor, convening editor. California Native Plant Society. Sacramento, California. Internet database available at http://cnps.web.aplus.net/cgi-bin/inv/inventory.cgi.

Council of Science Editors. 2006. Scientific style and format: the CSE manual for authors, editors, and publishers, 7th edition. Rockefeller University Press, Reston, Virginia. 658 pp.

Cowardin, L. M., V. Carter, and E. T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of wetlands and deepwater habitats of the United States. Office of Biological Services, U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, District of Columbia.

Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Technical Report Y-87-1. U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station. Vicksburg, Mississippi. 92 pp.

Graening, G. O and T. R. Nosal. 2017. Botanical Survey for the Mariposa Biomass Project, Mariposa Ca. March 23, 2017. Prepared for: Mariposa County Resource Conservation District.

Holland, R. F. 1986. Preliminary descriptions of the terrestrial natural communities of California. State of California, The Resources Agency, Nongame Heritage Program, Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, California. 156 pp.

Lanner, R. M. 2002. Conifers of California. Cachuma Press, Los Olivos, California. 274 pp.

NatureServe. 2017. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life, Version 7.1. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Internet database available at http://www.natureserve.org/explorer.

Pavlik, B. M., P. C. Muick, S. G. Johnson, and M. Popper. 1991. Oaks of California. Cachuma Press and the California Oak Foundation. Los Olivos, California. 184 pp.

Powell, J. A., and C. L. Hogue, 1979. California Insects. University of California Press, Berkeley, California. 388 pp.

Sawyer, J. O., T. Keeler-Wolf and J. Evens. 2009. A Manual of California Vegetation, Second Edition. California Native Plant Society, Sacramento, California. Available electronically at http://davisherb.ucdavis.edu/cnpsActiveServer/index.html.

Sibley, D. A. 2003. The Sibley Field Guide to Birds of Western North America. Alfred A. Knopf, Inc., New York, New York.

Natural Investigations Co. Page 12 Mariposa Biomass Bio. Res. Assessment

Stuart, J. D., and J. O. Sawyer. 2001. Trees and Shrubs of California. California Natural History Guides. University of California Press, Berkeley, California. 467 pp. United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 2017. National Wetlands Inventory Program, Division of Habitat and Resource Conservation. Internet site at http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/.

University of California at Berkeley. 2015a. Jepson Online Interchange for California Floristics. Jepson Flora Project, University Herbarium and Jepson Herbarium, University of California at Berkeley. Internet database available at http://ucjeps.berkeley.edu/interchange.html.

University of California at Berkeley. 2015b. CalPhotos. Biodiversity Sciences Technology Group, University of California at Berkeley. Internet database available at http://calphotos.berkeley.edu/.

Natural Investigations Co. Page 13 Mariposa Biomass Bio. Res. Assessment

7. EXHIBITS

Natural Investigations Co. Project Location Map s M era o lav n Ca o Tuolumne S

t a n i s l a u s Mariposa

Merced Madera Project Location Fresno Fresno

Copyright:© 2013 National Geographic Society, i-cubed

Project Location 0 0.5 1 Mariposa Biomass Kilometers Figure 1 : Project Location 0 0.5 1 ® Miles 1:24,000 Map Date 3/12/2017 Bear Valley 1947 Quadrangle Photorevised 1973: Township 5S, Range 18 E, Las Mariposas PARCEL 2 APN 012-050-067 PARCEL 3 PARCEL 1 PARCEL 5 APN 012-050-066 PARCEL 4 GENERAL NOTES NOTES EARTHWORK QUANTITIES VACINITY MAP 1 1 P. 559-320-0344 F. 559-320-0345 WWW.GATEWAYENG.COM 5811 E. PRINCETON AVENUE, FRESNO, CA 93727-1377 Plants Reptiles beaked clarkia western pond turtle Mariposa clarkia Mammals Congdon's lomatium Townsend's big-eared bat Madera leptosiphon Insects Mariposa cryptantha Leech's skyline diving beetle Mariposa daisy valley elderberry longhorn beetle Mariposa lupine shaggyhair lupine Amphibians slender-stalked monkeyflower limestone salamander

Project Location 5 Mile Buffer 1:127,000 1 inch = 2 miles Notes: 0 2 4 1. The locations of all features shown are approximate. Miles ± 2. This drawing is for information purposes. It is intended to assist inshowing features discussed in an attached Special-Status Species document. Natural Investigations Company can not guarantee the accuracy and content of electronic files.The master file is Occurrences Map stored by Natural Investigations Company and will serve as the official record of this communication. Mariposa Biomass 3. It is unlawful to copy or reproduce all or any part thereof, Bear Valley 1947 Quadrangle Photorevised 1973: Sources: Esri, HERE, DeLorme, Intermap, increment P Corp., GEBCO, whether for personal use or resale, without permission.Data Township 5S, Range 18 E, Las Mariposas USGS, FAO, NPS, NRCAN, GeoBase, IGN, Kadaster NL, Ordnance Sources: CNDDB CADFG, Background ESRI Topographic Survey, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), swisstopo, UTM 10N, North American Datum 1983 MapmyIndia, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community North arrow oriented to grid north Figure 2 Parcel boundaries Vegetation Community Types Gray Pine woodland Chaparral / Serpentine soils Ruderal/developed

Vegetation Community Types Mariposa Biomass Energy Project Parcel boundaries Drainage Features Ephemeral Channel Drainage Ditch Culvert

Drainage in the Study Area Mariposa Biomass Project Mariposa Biomass Bio. Res. Assessment

8. TABLES

Table 1. List of Plants Seen During Field Survey within Study Area

Scientific Name Common Name Adenostoma fasciculatum Chamise Agoseris retrorsa Spearleaf agoseris Arctostaphylos viscida White-leaf manzanita Arceuthobium occidentale Gray pine dwarf-mistletoe Avena barbata Slender wild oat Bromus diandrus Ripgut brome Bromus madrietensis Compact brome Bromus sterilis Poverty brome Calandrinia ciliata Red maids Calochortus sp. Mariposa lily Calystegia occidentalis ssp. fulcrata Chaparral False Bindweed Cardamine oligosperma Western bittercress Carduus pycnocephalus Italian thistle Ceanothus cuneatus Wedgeleaf ceanothus Centaurea melitensis Malta starthistle Cercocarpus betuloides Mountain mahogany Chlorogalum pomeridianum Wavy-leafed soap root Clarkia sp. Clarkia Claytonia parviflora ssp. parviflora Narrow leafed miner's lettuce Claytonia parviflora ssp. perfoliata Miner's lettuce Collomia heterophylla Variable-leaf collomia Crassula connata Pigmy-weed Cynosurus echinatus Hedgehog dogtail Daucus carota Wild carrot Dichelostemma capitatum Blue dicks Draba verna Spring whitlow-grass Elymus caput-medusae Medusa head Epilobium brachycarpum Tall willowherb Ericameria arborescens Golden-fleece Eriodictyon californicum Yerba santa Eriophyllum confertiflorum Golden-yarrow Erodium cicutarium Redstem fillaree Erythronium multiscapoideum Sierra fawn-lily Euphorbia peplus Petty spurge Festuca myuros Rattail sixweeks grass Galium aparine Goosegrass Galium bolanderi Climbing bedstraw Galium porrigens Bolander's bedstraw Geranium dissectum Cut-leaved geranium Geranium molle Dove's-foot geranium Heteromeles arbutifolia Toyon Hirschfeldia incana Shortpod mustard Holocarpha heermannii Heerman's tarplant Holozonia filipes Whitecrown

Natural Investigations Co. Mariposa Biomass Bio. Res. Assessment

Scientific Name Common Name Hypericum perfoliatum Klamathweed Hypochaeris glabra Smooth cat's-ear Lasthenia fremontii Fremont's goldfields Lasthenia gracilis Common goldfields Leontodon taraxacoides Hawkbit Lepidium nitidum Shining peppergrass Leptosiphon ciliatus Whisker brush Lonicera interrupta Chaparral honeysuckle Lotus corniculatus Bird's-foot trefoil Lupinus benthamii Spider lupine Lupinus microcarpus Chick lupine Luzula comosa var. comosa Wood rush Melica sp. Melic grass Mimulus guttatus Seep monkeyflower Pentagramma triangularis Gold-backed fern Phacelia egena Rock phacelia Pinus sabiniana Gray pine Plagiobothrys fulvus Fulvus popcorn-flower Plagiobothrys tenellus Slender popcorn-flower Plantago erecta Erect plantain Plantago lanceolata English plantain Plectritis ciliosa Longspur plectritis Poa secunda One-sided bluegrass Populus fremontii Fremont cottonwood Primula hendersonii Mosquito bills Pseudobahia heermannii Foothill sunburst Quercus douglasii Blue oak Quercus wislizeni Interior live-oak Ranunculus californicus California buttercup Rumex crispus Curly dock Sanicula bipinnata Poison sanicle Sanicula bipinnitifida Purple sanicle Sanicula crassicaulis Pacific sanicle Senecio vulgare Common groundsel Sidalcea calycosa Annual checkerbloom Stellaria media Chickweed Stipa pulchra Purple needlegrass Thysanocarpus curvipes Fringepod Thysanocarpus radians Spokepod Torilis arvensis Tall sock-destroyer Torilis nodosa Short sock-destroyer Toxicodendron diversilobum Poison-oak Trifolium angustifolium Narrow-leaved clover Trifolium sp. Clover Triphysaria eriantha Butter and eggs Triteleia sp. Triteleia Turritis glabra Tower-mustard Vicia villosa Winter vetch

Natural Investigations Co. Mariposa Biomass Bio. Res. Assessment

Table 2. List of Animals Seen During Field Survey within Study Area

Scientific Name Common Name Neotoma sp. Pack rat (nest observed) Aphelocoma californica California scrub jay Buteo lineatus Red-shouldered hawk Calypte anna Anna’s hummingbird Corvus brachyrhynchos American crow Melospiza melodia Song sparrow Passeridae 2nd sparrow species Pipilo maculatus Spotted towhee Zenaida macroura Mourning dove Apis mellifera Honeybee Araneae Spider Blattodea Roach Bombus sp. Bumblebee Bombyliidae Gold bee-fly Colaptes auratus Northern flicker Formicidae Ants Gryllidae Field cricket Lepidoptera Butterfly Orthoptera Grasshopper Tenebrionidae Darkling beetle Tipulidae Crane fly

Table 3. Special-status Species Reported In CNDDB from Surrounding 9 USGS Quads

Scientific Name Scientific Name Common Name Common Name Townsend's big-eared bat Mariposa cryptantha Corynorhinus townsendii Cryptantha mariposae Western pond turtle Mariposa daisy Emys marmorata Erigeron mariposanus Limestone salamander Madera leptosiphon Hydromantes brunus Leptosiphon serrulatus Valley elderberry longhorn beetle Congdon's lomatium Desmocerus californicus dimorphus Lomatium congdonii Leech's skyline diving beetle Mariposa lupine Hydroporus leechi Lupinus citrinus var. deflexus Mariposa clarkia Shaggyhair lupine Clarkia biloba ssp. australis Lupinus spectabilis Beaked clarkia Slender-stalked monkeyflower Clarkia rostrata Mimulus gracilipes

Natural Investigations Co. Mariposa Biomass Bio. Res. Assessment

Table 4. Summary of Likelihood for Special-status Species to Occur in Study Area

Common Name and Status Primary Habitat Likelihood to Occur in Study Area Scientific Name Townsend's big-eared bat FC Throughout California in a wide variety Low. Study Area lacks suitable roosting Corynorhinus townsendii of habitats. Most common in mesic habitat and mesic foraging habitat. Species sites. Roosts in the open, hanging not detected during field survey. from walls & ceilings. Roosting sites limiting. Extremely sensitive to human disturbance. Western pond turtle CSSC Highly aquatic and associated with riparian Unlikely. Suitable aquatic habitat is not Emys marmorata habitat (streams, rivers, sloughs, ponds, present in the Study Area. Species not and artificial water bodies) with deep detected during field survey. pools, basking sites, and aquatic vegetation. California red-legged frog FT, Perennial streams and ponds or Unlikely. Suitable aquatic habitat is not Rana aurora draytonii CSSC intermittent streams with permanent, deep present in the Study Area. Species not pools; vegetative cover is needed for detected during field survey. refuge and temperature moderation. Limestone salamander FT Limestone outcrops in foothill pine- Unlikely. Suitable limestone/talus/ Hydromantes brunus chaparral belt along the Merced river massive rock habitat does not occur within and its tributaries, from 800-2600 feet the Study Area. Species not detected during in elevation. California buckeye is an field survey. indicator of optimal habitat. Seeks cover in limestone caverns, talus, rock fissures, surface o Delta smelt FT, CT Found only in the Sacramento-San None. Suitable aquatic habitat is not present Hypomesus transpacificus Joaquin Estuary and they reside primarily in the Study Area. Species not detected in the interface between salt and during field survey. freshwater. Decline in population due in large part to reductions in delta water outflow. Steelhead FT Migrates to Pacific Ocean to feed. Returns None. Suitable aquatic habitat is not present Oncorhynchus mykiss to spawn in clean, loose gravel and swift in the Study Area. Species not detected shallow water in streams and rivers of during field survey. Central Valley. Critical habitat designated on Tuolumne River. Valley elderberry longhorn beetle FT Dependent upon host plant – elderberry Unlikely. No Sambucus sp. were detected in Desmocerus californicus dimorphus (Sambucus spp.) in Central Valley basin, the Study Area. Species not detected during primarily riparian areas field survey. Leech's skyline diving beetle CSSC Aquatic. Unlikely. Suitable aquatic habitat is not Hydroporus leechi present in the Study Area. Species not detected during field survey. Mariposa clarkia List 1B Chaparral, cismontane woodland. On Moderate. Suitable serpentine soil occurs Clarkia biloba ssp. australis serpentine. Several occurrences occur with the Study Area. Species not detected in the foothill woodland/riparian during field survey. ecotone. 300-1460 m. Beaked clarkia List 1B Cismontane woodland, valley and foothill High. Population mapped just north of Study Clarkia rostrata grassland, north-facing slopes, sometimes Area along Hwy 49 is reported to occur on on sandstone serpentine. Species not detected during field survey. Mariposa cryptantha List 1B Chaparral. On serpentine outcrops. Moderate. Suitable serpentine soil occurs Cryptantha mariposae 200-650 m. with the Study Area. Species not detected during field survey. Mariposa daisy List 1A Cismontane woodland. One site Low. Suitable woodland habitat occurs

Natural Investigations Co. Mariposa Biomass Bio. Res. Assessment

Common Name and Status Primary Habitat Likelihood to Occur in Study Area Scientific Name Erigeron mariposanus known. 600-800 m. within the Study Area. Species not observed since 1900. Species not detected during field survey. Madera leptosiphon List 1B Cismontane woodland, lower montane Low. Suitable decomposed granite soils do Leptosiphon serrulatus coniferous forest. Dry slopes; often on not occur with the Study Area. Species not decomposed granite in woodland. 80- detected during field survey. 1575m. Congdon's lomatium List 1B Cismontane woodland, chaparral. Moderate. Suitable serpentine soil occurs Lomatium congdonii Serpentine soils with serpentine with the Study Area. Species not detected chaparral plants and grey pines. 300- during field survey. 2100 m. Mariposa lupine FT Chaparral, cismontane woodland. Low. Suitable decomposed granite soils do Lupinus citrinus var. deflexus List 1B Decomposed granitic sand on hilltops not occur with the Study Area. Species not and hillsides on western slope of the detected during field survey. Sierra Nevada, mostly southern exposure. 400-640m. Shaggyhair lupine List 1B Chaparral, cismontane woodland. Moderate. Suitable serpentine soil occurs Lupinus spectabilis Open rocky slopes of serpentine. with the Study Area. Species not detected Mostly on serpentine chaparral during field survey. surrounded by foothill pine woodland. 260-825 m. Slender-stalked monkeyflower List 1B Chaparral. Disturbed places such as Low. Suitable granitic habitat does not occur Mimulus gracilipes burns and railroad grades; also on thin with the Study Area. Species not detected granitic soil in cracks in large granite during field survey. rocks. 500-1300m.

Definitions of Status Codes: FE = Federally listed as endangered; FT = Federally listed as threatened; FPE = Federally proposed for listing as endangered; FPT = Federally proposed for listing as threatened; FC = Candidate for Federal listing; MB = Migratory Bird Act; CE = California State listed as endangered; CT = California State listed as threatened; CSSC = California species of special concern; CR = California rare species; CFP = California fully protected species; CNPS (California Native Plant Society) List 1A = Plants presumed extinct in California by CNPS; CNPS List 1B = CNPS designated rare or endangered plants in California and elsewhere; and CNPS List 2 = CNPS designated rare or endangered plants in California, but more common elsewhere.

Natural Investigations Co. Mariposa Biomass Bio. Res. Assessment

9. APPENDIX 1: USFWS SPECIES LIST

Natural Investigations Co. United States Department of the Interior

FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office FEDERAL BUILDING, 2800 COTTAGE WAY, ROOM W-2605 SACRAMENTO, CA 95825 PHONE: (916)414-6600 FAX: (916)414-6713

Consultation Code: 08ESMF00-2017-SLI-1434 March 14, 2017 Event Code: 08ESMF00-2017-E-03540 Project Name: Mariposa Biomass Bio Assessment

Subject: List of threatened and endangered species that may occur in your proposed project location, and/or may be affected by your proposed project

To Whom It May Concern:

The enclosed species list identifies threatened, endangered, proposed and candidate species, as well as proposed and final designated critical habitat, under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) that may occur within the boundary of your proposed project and/or may be affected by your proposed project. The species list fulfills the requirements of the Service under section 7(c) of the Endangered Species Act (Act) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).

Please follow the link below to see if your proposed project has the potential to affect other species or their habitats under the jurisdiction of the National Marine Fisheries Service: http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/protected_species/species_list/species_lists.html

New information based on updated surveys, changes in the abundance and distribution of species, changed habitat conditions, or other factors could change this list. Please feel free to contact us if you need more current information or assistance regarding the potential impacts to federally proposed, listed, and candidate species and federally designated and proposed critical habitat. Please note that under 50 CFR 402.12(e) of the regulations implementing section 7 of the Act, the accuracy of this species list should be verified after 90 days. This verification can be completed formally or informally as desired. The Service recommends that verification be completed by visiting the ECOS-IPaC website at regular intervals during project planning and implementation for updates to species lists and information. An updated list may be requested through the ECOS-IPaC system by completing the same process used to receive the enclosed list.

The purpose of the Act is to provide a means whereby threatened and endangered species and the ecosystems upon which they depend may be conserved. Under sections 7(a)(1) and 7(a)(2) of the Act and its implementing regulations (50 CFR 402 et seq.), Federal agencies are required to utilize their authorities to carry out programs for the conservation of threatened and endangered species and to determine whether projects may affect threatened and endangered species and/or designated critical habitat.

A Biological Assessment is required for construction projects (or other undertakings having similar physical impacts) that are major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment as defined in the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4332(2) (c)). For projects other than major construction activities, the Service suggests that a biological evaluation similar to a Biological Assessment be prepared to determine whether the project may affect listed or proposed species and/or designated or proposed critical habitat. Recommended contents of a Biological Assessment are described at 50 CFR 402.12.

If a Federal agency determines, based on the Biological Assessment or biological evaluation, that listed species and/or designated critical habitat may be affected by the proposed project, the agency is required to consult with the Service pursuant to 50 CFR 402. In addition, the Service recommends that candidate species, proposed species and proposed critical habitat be addressed within the consultation. More information on the regulations and procedures for section 7 consultation, including the role of permit or license applicants, can be found in the "Endangered Species Consultation Handbook" at: http://www.fws.gov/endangered/esa-library/pdf/TOC-GLOS.PDF

Please be aware that bald and golden eagles are protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 668 et seq.), and projects affecting these species may require development of an eagle conservation plan (http://www.fws.gov/windenergy/eagle_guidance.html). Additionally, wind energy projects should follow the wind energy guidelines (http://www.fws.gov/windenergy/) for minimizing impacts to migratory birds and bats.

Guidance for minimizing impacts to migratory birds for projects including communications towers (e.g., cellular, digital television, radio, and emergency broadcast) can be found at: http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/CurrentBirdIssues/Hazards/towers/towers.htm; http://www.towerkill.com; and http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/CurrentBirdIssues/Hazards/towers/comtow.html.

We appreciate your concern for threatened and endangered species. The Service encourages Federal agencies to include conservation of threatened and endangered species into their project planning to further the purposes of the Act. Please include the Consultation Tracking Number in the header of this letter with any request for consultation or correspondence about your project that you submit to our office.

Attachment

2 United States Department of Interior Fish and Wildlife Service

Project name: Mariposa Biomass Bio Assessment

Official Species List

Provided by: Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office FEDERAL BUILDING 2800 COTTAGE WAY, ROOM W-2605 SACRAMENTO, CA 95825 (916) 414-6600

Consultation Code: 08ESMF00-2017-SLI-1434 Event Code: 08ESMF00-2017-E-03540

Project Type: ** OTHER **

Project Name: Mariposa Biomass Bio Assessment Project Description: Bio Assessment

Please Note: The FWS office may have modified the Project Name and/or Project Description, so it may be different from what was submitted in your previous request. If the Consultation Code matches, the FWS considers this to be the same project. Contact the office in the 'Provided by' section of your previous Official Species list if you have any questions or concerns.

https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac, 03/14/2017 03:09 PM 1 United States Department of Interior Fish and Wildlife Service

Project name: Mariposa Biomass Bio Assessment

Project Location Map:

Project Coordinates: MULTIPOLYGON (((-120.013510640367 37.50669629340054, - 120.01286441313242 37.506505638935536, -120.01248519018289 37.50574411940993, - 120.01212568220618 37.505445194523745, -120.01166653178852 37.50522076170559, - 120.0120587419551 37.50482737088904, -120.01205709419902 37.50467735042096, - 120.0134088672966 37.504654817201754, -120.013510640367 37.50669629340054)))

Project Counties: Mariposa, CA

https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac, 03/14/2017 03:09 PM 2 United States Department of Interior Fish and Wildlife Service

Project name: Mariposa Biomass Bio Assessment

Endangered Species Act Species List

There are a total of 3 threatened or endangered species on your species list. Species on this list should be considered in an effects analysis for your project and could include species that exist in another geographic area. For example, certain fish may appear on the species list because a project could affect downstream species. Critical habitats listed under the Has Critical Habitat column may or may not lie within your project area. See the Critical habitats within your project area section further below for critical habitat that lies within your project. Please contact the designated FWS office if you have questions.

Amphibians Status Has Critical Habitat Condition(s)

California red-legged frog (Rana Threatened Final designated draytonii) Population: Wherever found

Fishes

Delta smelt (Hypomesus Threatened Final designated transpacificus) Population: Wherever found

steelhead (Oncorhynchus (=salmo) Threatened Final designated mykiss) Population: Northern California DPS

https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac, 03/14/2017 03:09 PM 3 United States Department of Interior Fish and Wildlife Service

Project name: Mariposa Biomass Bio Assessment

Critical habitats that lie within your project area There are no critical habitats within your project area.

https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac, 03/14/2017 03:09 PM 4 Mariposa Biomass Bio. Res. Assessment

10. APPENDIX 2: SITE PHOTOS

Natural Investigations Co.