wildlife biological evaluation - 07-2012a123.g.akamai.net/7/123/11558/abc123/forestservic...2004b;...

Canyon Creek/Boulder Creek Lakes Trail Re-route Project Wildlife Biological Evaluation

USDA Forest Service Pacific Southwest Region

Shasta-Trinity National Forest Trinity River Management Unit

July 2012

Prepared By: /s/ Mark Goldsmith Date: July 30, 2012 Mark Goldsmith, Wildlife Biologist

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The proposed action would have no effect on California wolverines, bald eagles, willow flycatchers, western pond turtles, southern torrent salamanders, Shasta salamanders, California floaters, topaz jugas, montane peaclams, nugget pebblesnails, Shasta sideband snails, Wintu sideband snails, Shasta chaparral snails, Tehama chaparral snails, Shasta Hesperian snails and Pressley Hesperian snails. The proposed action may affect individual Pacific fishers, American martens, pallid bats, Townsend’s big eared bats, western red bats, northern goshawks, cascade frogs and foothill yellow-legged frogs, but potential effects to populations of these species would be very minor and would not cause a trend toward listing for any of these species.

Non Discrimination Statement The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or part of an individual’s income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410, or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.

Canyon Creek/Boulder Creek Lakes Trail Re-route Project Wildlife Biological Evaluation - 07-30-2012

TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction ....................................................................................................................................1

Table 1. Sensitive Species List ....................................................................................................2

Proposed Action ............................................................................................................................2

Species Evaluations .......................................................................................................................3

Mammals .....................................................................................................................................3

Birds .............................................................................................................................................6

Reptiles .........................................................................................................................................8

Amphibians ..................................................................................................................................8

Aquatic and Terrestrial Invertebrates .........................................................................................11

Cumulative Effects .......................................................................................................................11

Contacts and Contributors..........................................................................................................11

Literature Cited ...........................................................................................................................12

Appendix 1. Forest Plan Management Direction .....................................................................18

Appendix 2. Wildlife Resource Protection Measures .............................................................20


Shasta-Trinity National Forest, Trinity River Management Unit - 1

I. INTRODUCTION The USDA Forest Service defines sensitive species as those plant and animal species identified by a Regional Forester for which population viability is a concern, as evidenced by significant current or predicted downward trends in population numbers or density, or significant current or predicted downward trends in habitat capability that would reduce the distribution of the species. Sensitive species are managed under the authority of the National Forest Management Act (PL 94-588) and the USDA Forest Service Manual Direction (FSM 2600). The purpose of this biological evaluation is to assess the potential effects of the proposed Canyon Creek/Boulder Creek Lakes Trail Re-route Project in sufficient detail to determine if it may affect sensitive wildlife species and cause a trend toward listing under the federal Endangered Species Act. The Sensitive Species List for the Pacific Southwest Region was updated in October, 2007, and the sensitive wildlife species evaluated in this document are displayed in Table 1. This analysis is based on information collected from Forest databases and numerous site visits to the project area. Eight sensitive wildlife species are also designated as Survey and Manage species (Table 1). They are addressed in this document using the analysis criteria that apply to Forest Service Sensitive species. They are also addressed in the Wildlife Survey and Manage Report for this project (see project record), using the analysis criteria that apply to Survey and Manage species. The Shasta-Trinity National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan) provides additional protection to sensitive species in the form of management goals to maintain or increase existing viable populations of sensitive species (Forest Plan pp. 3-26, 4-5). It also includes Standards and Guidelines, management direction pertaining to individual species of wildlife, and specific management direction for each Management Area on the Forest. The Forest Plan provisions pertinent to this proposed action are listed in Appendix 1 of this document.


2 - Shasta-Trinity National Forest, Trinity River Management Unit

Table 1. Sensitive Species list - USDA Forest Service Pacific Southwest Region

Common name Scientific name Also a Survey and Manage

species (Y/N)? MAMMALS

Pacific fisher Martes pennanti pacifica N American marten Martes americana N California wolverine Gulo gulo luteus N Pallid bat Antrozous pallidus N Townsend’s big-eared bat Corynorhinus townsendii N Western red bat Lasiurus blossevillii N

BIRDS Bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus N Northern goshawk Accipiter gentilis N Willow flycatcher Empidonax traillii N

REPTILES Western pond turtle Clemmys marmorata marmorata N

AMPHIBIANS Cascade frog Rana cascadae N Foothill yellow-legged frog Rana boylii N Southern torrent salamander Rhyacotriton variegatus N Shasta salamander Hydromantes shastae Y

AQUATIC AND TERRESTRIAL INVERTEBRATES California floater Anodonta californiensis N Topaz juga Juga (Calibasis)acutifilosa N Montane peaclam Pisidium (Cyclocalyx) ultramontanum N Nugget pebblesnail Fluminicola seminalis Y Shasta sideband snail Monadenia troglodytes troglodytes Y Wintu sideband snail Monadenia troglodytes wintu Y Shasta chaparral snail Trilobopsis roperi Y Tehama chaparral snail Trilobopsis tehamana Y Pressley (Big Bar) Hesperian snail Vespericola pressleyi Y Shasta Hesperian snail Vespericola Shasta Y

II. PROPOSED ACTION Approximately 2000 feet of the Canyon Creek Trail and 800 feet of the Boulder Creek Lakes Trail will be re-routed. All work will be done using non-motorized and non-mechanical equipment. New trail segments will be constructed to standards described in Forest Service Handbook 2309.18, Trail Management Handbook. Sections of the old trails that are being re-routed will have rehabilitation work done to address erosion concerns and to direct visitors onto the new trail. This includes constructing check bars/dams and placing vegetation, large woody debris and rocks removed from the new trail segments onto the old trail. Construction and rehabilitation work will take approximately two months to complete, and will begin in spring



2013. To allow passage by horses carrying packs, the width of vegetation clearance for this project will be up to 8 feet at pack height (approximately 5 feet from ground level). The clearance width at ground level will be approximately 2 feet. This narrow clearing width will limit potential effects to less than 1 acre at pack height, and less than 0.25 acre at ground level. A more detailed description of the proposed action can be found in the project Decision Memorandum (see project record).

III. SPECIES EVALUATIONS Pacific fisher (Martes pennanti pacifica)

Species account: Pacific fishers are most closely associated with late successional and old growth conifer forests throughout their range, with California populations showing a preference for riparian areas (Powell 1993, Powell and Zielinski 1994, Freel 1991). Numerous studies have documented that resting/denning fishers in the western United States favor forest stands with large trees, large snags, coarse woody-debris, dense canopy closure, multiple-canopy layers, large diameter hardwoods, and steep slopes near water (Powell and Zielinski 1994; Seglund 1995; Dark 1997; Truex et al. 1998; Self and Kerns 2001; Aubry et al. 2002; Carroll et al. 1999; Mazzoni 2002; Yeager 2005, Zielinski et al. 2004b). Resting and denning trees must be large enough to bear the type of stresses that initiate cavities, and the type of ecological processes (e.g., decay, woodpecker activity) that form cavities of sufficient size to be useful to fishers (Zielinski et al. 2004b). Yeager (2005) also found that on the Shasta-Trinity National Forest (STNF) fisher favored resting locations away from roads and human disturbance. Pacific fishers are opportunistic predators with a diverse diet that includes birds, squirrels, mice, shrews, voles, reptiles, insects, carrion, vegetation and fruit, and they forage in a wide variety of habitats (seral stages) associated with this diverse prey base (Powell 1993; Martin 1994; Zielinski et al. 1999). Effects determination: Pacific fishers have been observed across the Trinity River Management Unit, and are likely to inhabit the project area. Forest vegetation databases indicate there are approximately 200 acres of suitable Pacific fisher habitat within 0.25 miles of the project units (50 acres high-quality and 150 acres medium-quality habitat). Forest databases include no observations near the project area. The nearest recorded observation was approximately 6.5 miles to the west. Project activities would remove no trees greater than 10 inches in diameter, and would remove fewer than 20 smaller trees. No snags would be removed, and any down logs crossing the trail will be cut and left adjacent to the trail. Riparian habitat potentially affected would be limited to crossing points over 5 small ephemeral streams. As a result of these project design features and the very small project footprint (< 1 acre), project activities are expected to have no effect on habitat suitability for this species. Because of the Wilderness designation in the project area, no power tools would be used during implementation. Any increase in noise disturbance above the ambient noise level in these well-traveled trail corridors would be very minor and short in duration. Based on these factors, it is my determination that the proposed action may affect individual Pacific fishers, but the potential effects are very limited and short-term, and would not cause a trend toward listing.



American marten (Martes americana) Species account: On the STNF this species is associated with higher elevation (>4,500 feet) late-successional red-fir stands (Buskirk and Powell 1994; Freel 1991), and to a lesser extent with lower elevation conifer forest habitats similar to fisher habitat. Marten stand-level habitat characteristics are the same as those discussed previously for fisher resting/denning habitat. The presence of fishers often excludes martens from the area (Buskirk and Powell 1994; Krohn et al. 1997; Small et al. 2003; Ruggierra et al. 2007). Habitat stratification appears to occur between these species, with marten occupying the higher elevations that support greater snow loads throughout winter months. To persist in deep snow, martens rely on subnivean (below snow level) hunting strategies, facilitated by high amounts of dead and down woody material and other ground level cover components that form protected and connected travelways beneath the snow surface. Extensive survey work on the STNF using techniques suitable for detecting martens detected numerous fishers but no martens (Yeager 2005; Zielinski et al. 2004b; Seglund 1995). Effects determination: American martens have not been observed in the project area. The nearest recorded observation was approximately 19 miles to the northeast. However, the elevation at the project sites is above 4,500 feet, which is within the range of suitability for this species. STNF vegetation databases indicate there are approximately 474 acres of suitable American marten habitat (all low in quality) within 0.25 miles of the project units. Project activities would remove no trees greater than 10 inches in diameter, and would remove fewer than 20 smaller trees. No snags would be removed, and any down logs crossing the trail will be cut and left adjacent to the trail. Riparian habitat potentially affected would be limited to crossing points over 5 small ephemeral streams. As a result of these project design features and the very small project footprint (< 1 acre), project activities are expected to have no effect on habitat suitability for this species. Because of the Wilderness designation in the project area, no power tools would be used during implementation. Any increase in noise disturbance above the ambient noise level in these well-traveled trail corridors would be very minor and short in duration. Based on these factors, it is my determination that the proposed action may affect individual American martens, but the potential effects are very limited and short-term, and would not cause a trend toward listing.

California wolverine (Gulo gulo luteus) Species account: Coniferous forests are the primary habitats of wolverines, but they also make significant use of alpine habitats (Banci 1994). In north coastal areas, wolverines were historically observed in Douglas-fir and mixed conifer habitats, and likely also used red fir, lodgepole, wet meadow, and montane riparian habitats. They are opportunistic feeders that primarily scavenge carrion, but also eat fruit and insects and prey on small animals (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2003). Wolverine home ranges are generally extremely large, and availability and distribution of food is considered a primary factor in determining wolverine movements and home range. Wolverines appear to select areas that are free of significant human disturbance, especially during the denning period from late winter through early spring (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2003).



In California, wolverines historically occurred throughout the Sierra Nevada, Cascade, Klamath, and northern Coast ranges in alpine, boreal forest and mixed forest vegetation types (Schempf and White 1977). Zeiner et al. (1990) noted the wolverine is a scarce resident of North Coast mountains and the Sierra Nevada. Sightings have ranged from Del Norte and Trinity Counties, east through Siskiyou and Shasta counties in the Coast Range, and south through Tulare County. Most reported sightings in this region range from 1600 to 4800 feet in elevation, according to California Department of Fish and game records from 2005. There have been unconfirmed wolverine sightings reported on the Shasta-Trinity National Forest over the past 20 years, but no documented observations. Surveys conducted in California over that time span using remote cameras and track plate surveys, including survey sites on the Shasta-Trinity National Forest, have resulted in only one confirmed observation in the state, on the Tahoe National Forest in February, 2008 (Heil et al. 2008), and the project area is outside the current known range of this species (California Department of Fish and Game 2010). Effects determination: There have been no documented occurrences of wolverines on the STNF for the last 20 years. The proposed action would not modify the suitability of any California wolverine habitat or affect the likelihood of occurrence of this species. Based on these factors, it is my determination that the proposed action would have no effect on California wolverines.

Pallid bat (Antrozous pallidus) Species account: The pallid bat has a wide distribution throughout the western United States, and can be abundant in many arid, low elevation regions (Sherwin and Rambaldini 2005). They roost in deep crevices in rock faces, caves, mines, bridges, cavities in trees, and occasionally in open buildings. Roosts protect bats from high temperatures. Pallid bats feed almost entirely on the ground, commonly preying on crickets, grasshoppers, beetles and scorpions. They are colonial and tend to hibernate in deep rock crevices and caves rather than migrating (Tuttle 1997).

Effects determination: STNF records show no observations of pallid bats in the project area, but habitat in the project area may potentially be suitable for this species. The nearest recorded observation was approximately 19 miles to the west. Project activities are not expected to cause any decrease in habitat suitability for this species. Removal of roost sites is unlikely. Caves, cliffs and rock crevices would not be affected, only small trees would be removed, and snags would be retained. Changes in vegetation would be minimal, and post-implementation vegetative conditions are expected to be favorable to pallid bat prey species. Because of the Wilderness designation in the project area, no power tools would be used during implementation. Any increase in noise disturbance above the ambient noise level in these well-traveled trail corridors would be very minor and short in duration. Based on these factors, it is my determination that the proposed action may affect individual pallid bats, but the potential effects are limited and short in duration, and would not cause a trend toward listing.

Townsend’s big-eared bat (Corynorhinus townsendii) Species account: This species occupies a variety of habitats ranging from coniferous forests and woodlands to deciduous riparian woodlands, semi-desert and montane shrublands.



Townsend’s big-eared bats are strongly correlated with the availability of caves and cave-like roosting habitat, although they also make use of man-made structures such as abandoned buildings, water diversion tunnels, and bridges (USDA Forest Service 1998; Zeiner 1990; Arizona Game and Fish Department 1993). This species feeds primarily on small moths and appears to show a preference for foraging along edges of riparian vegetation where conifers and deciduous riparian vegetation supports Lepidopteran prey species (Fellers and Pierson 2002, Arizona Game and Fish Department 1993). Effects determination: STNF records show no observations of Townsend’s big-eared bats in or near the project area, but habitat in the project area may potentially be suitable for this species. The nearest recorded observation was approximately 29 miles to the east. Project activities are not expected to cause any decrease in habitat suitability for this species. Removal of roost sites is unlikely. Caves, cliffs and rock crevices would not be affected, only very small trees would be removed, and snags would be retained. Changes in vegetation would be minimal, and post-implementation vegetative conditions are expected to be favorable to Townsend’s big-eared bat insect prey species. Because of the Wilderness designation in the project area, no power tools would be used during implementation. Any increase in noise disturbance above the ambient noise level in these well-traveled trail corridors would be very minor and short in duration. Based on these factors, it is my determination that the proposed action may affect individual Townsend’s big-eared bats, but the potential effects are limited and short in duration, and would not cause a trend toward listing.

Western red bat (Lasiurus blossevillii) Species account: Western red bats are typically solitary, roosting primarily in the foliage of trees and shrubs and feeding on a variety of insects (Bolster 2005). Their day roosts are commonly in edge habitats adjacent to streams or open fields, in orchards, and sometimes in urban areas. There is an association with intact riparian habitat, particularly willows, cottonwoods, and sycamores (Bolster 2005). Red bats are locally common in some areas of California, occurring from Shasta County to the Mexican border, west of the Sierra Nevada/Cascade crest and deserts (Zeiner et al. 1990). Effects determination: STNF records contain no observations of Western red bats, but habitat in the project area may potentially be suitable for this species. If Western red bats do inhabit the project area, vegetation removal may have a minor effect on roost sites. However, the very limited extent of vegetation removal would limit its effect on availability of roost sites. Changes in vegetation would be minimal, and post-implementation vegetative conditions are expected to be favorable to Western red bat prey species. Because of the Wilderness designation in the project area, no power tools would be used during implementation. Any increase in noise disturbance above the ambient noise level in these well-traveled trail corridors would be very minor and short in duration. Based on these factors, it is my determination that the proposed action may affect individual Western red bats, but the potential effects are very limited, and would not cause a trend toward listing.

Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) Species account: On the STNF Bald eagles typically utilize large trees protected from disturbance for nests, and late successional and old growth forests relatively close to large



rivers or lakes for winter roosting sites. Their primary food source is fish, which are taken live or as carrion (Anthony et al. 1992; USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 1986). On the STNF many large conifers provide potential nest sites on slopes overlooking Trinity Lake, Lewiston Lake, and the Trinity River. Effects determination: STNF records show no bald eagle nest sites in or near the project area. The nearest recorded observation was approximately 2.6 miles to the northwest (at Papoose Lake), and there nearest recorded nest site was approximately 31 miles to the southwest. Papoose Lake and the nearby Canyon Creek Lakes may potentially support nesting bald eagles. The proposed activities are not expected to have any effect on habitat suitability for this species. No activities would take place near any large bodies of water, and no large trees would be removed. Project activities are not expected to have any effect on food availability to bald eagles. Based on these factors, it is my determination that the proposed action would have no effect on bald eagles.

Northern goshawk (Accipiter gentilis) Species account: Northern goshawks primarily occupy ponderosa pine, mixed-species, and spruce-fir forests. They prefer late successional and old growth conifer forests and slopes generally less than 35 percent, and may be susceptible to disturbance during the breeding season. Northern goshawks build stick nests, typically 25-50 feet off the ground, and aggressively defend nest sites. They are opportunistic predators, preying mostly on birds and small mammals. Many habitats suitable for northern spotted owls are likely to provide suitable habitat for northern goshawks (USDA Forest Service 1998, Hall 1984; Squires and Reynolds 1997; Reynolds et al. 1992). Effects determination: STNF records show no observations of this species within the project area, but habitat in the project area may potentially be suitable for this species. The nearest recorded observation was approximately 7 miles to the southeast. STNF vegetation databases indicate there are approximately 488 acres of suitable northern goshawk habitat within 0.25 miles of the project units (200 acres medium-quality and 288 acres low-quality habitat). The proposed action is unlikely to have a negative effect on habitat suitability for northern goshawks. Only very small trees would be removed, and snags would be retained. Because of the Wilderness designation in the project area, no power tools would be used during implementation. Any increase in noise disturbance above the ambient noise level in these well-traveled trail corridors would be very minor and short in duration. Based on these factors, it is my determination that the proposed action may affect individual northern goshawks, but the potential effects are very limited and short in duration, and would not cause a trend toward listing.

Willow flycatcher (Empidonax traillii) Species account: Willow flycatchers are restricted to river corridors and moist or wet shrubby habitats in the arid West. Sedgwick (2000) quoted Grinnell and Miller (1944) as concluding that in California it is “strikingly restricted to thickets of willows, whether along streams in



broad valleys, in canyon bottoms, around mountain-side seepages, or at the margins of ponds and lakes”. Today it is absent from most of California, with currently known breeding locations restricted primarily to the Sierra Nevada/Cascade region (southeast Shasta County south to north Kern County, including Alpine, Inyo, and Mono Counties), and Santa Barbara, Riverside, and San Diego Counties (Sedgwick 2000). Effects determination: STNF records show no observations of this species in or near the project area. The nearest recorded observation was approximately 19 miles to the southwest. Riparian habitat potentially affected would be limited to crossing points over 5 small ephemeral streams, and there is no willow habitat present in these areas (McFadin, personal communication). Based on these factors, it is my determination that the proposed action would have no effect on willow flycatchers.

Western pond turtle (Clemmys marmorata marmorata) Species account: Western pond turtles occur in a variety of habitat types associated with permanent or nearly permanent water. They concentrate in ponds and low flow regions of rivers and creeks such as side channels and backwater areas, and prefer creeks that have deep, still water and sunny banks. Basking sites such as rocks and partially submerged logs are important habitat components. Western pond turtles are omnivorous, but their diet typically consists primarily of insects, crayfish and other aquatic invertebrates (Jennings and Hayes 1994, Holland 1991, Wilson et al. 1991). During the spring or summer females may travel great distances away from ponds to find sites suitable for nesting, although the travel distance to most nest sites is <300 meters. Dry grassy areas are used as nest sites. The young emerge the following spring (March-April) and travel from nest sites to watercourses (Jennings and Hayes 1994, Zeiner et al. 1988; Reynolds et al. 1992, Holland 1991). In warm climates they may be active year-round, but in colder areas they hibernate in the winter in bottom mud or in upland areas, including forested areas. These upland hibernation sites can occur as far as 500 meters from occupied aquatic habitat (Jennings and Hayes 1994, Reese and Welsh 1998). Effects determination: STNF records show no observations of this species in the project area. The nearest recorded observation was approximately 33 miles to the east. Riparian habitat potentially affected would be limited to crossing points over 5 small ephemeral streams. Water flow in these small streams is seasonal and does not form ponding areas suitable for this species. As a result, there is no habitat suitable for Western pond turtles present in these areas. Based on these factors, it is my determination that the proposed action would have no effect on western pond turtles.

Cascade Frog (Rana cascadae) Species account: Cascade frogs inhabit high-altitude ponds, lakes, and streams within open coniferous forests from Washington to northern California. They can survive in ephemeral water bodies where at least some substrate remains saturated. Open, shallow water that remains unshaded during the hours of strong sunlight provide egg-laying sites. Cascade frogs hibernate in bottom mud in winter (Briggs 1987, Jennings and Hayes 1994, USDA Forest Service 1998). This species is believed to be relatively abundant in the Trinity Alps Wilderness (Fellers et al. 2007).



Effects determination: STNF records show no observations of Cascade frogs in or near the project area. The nearest recorded observation was approximately 31 miles to the northeast. However, elevation in the project area is suitable for this species, and stream habitats present may potentially be used by Cascade frogs. Riparian habitat potentially affected would be limited to crossing points over 5 small ephemeral streams. The project area footprint is less than one acre, and riparian habitats potentially affected constitute a small portion of the total project area. Because of the Wilderness designation in the project area no power tools would be used during implementation, and any increase in noise disturbance above the ambient noise level in these well-traveled trail corridors would be very minor and short in duration. Based on these factors, it is my determination that the proposed action may affect individual cascade frogs, but the potential effects are very limited in scale and duration and would not cause a trend toward listing.

Foothill yellow-legged frog (Rana boylii) Species account: Foothill yellow-legged frogs are found in or near permanent rocky streams in a variety of habitats, including ponderosa pine, mixed conifer and mixed chaparral. They are highly aquatic, spending most or all of their life in or near streams. They require shallow, flowing water, and display an apparent preference for small to moderate-sized streams with at least some cobble-sized substrate. They breed in shallow, slow flowing water with only partial shading. Insects are likely the primary food source for adults (Jennings and Hayes 1994, USDA Forest Service 1998, Zeiner 1988). Adult foothill yellow-legged frogs are often seen breeding in pools on the main stem of the Trinity River in spring and moving to basking and foraging sites in the tributaries in the summer. This species is widely distributed across the Trinity portion of the STNF. Effects determination: STNF records show no observations of foothill yellow-legged frogs in or near the project area. The nearest recorded observation was 12 miles to the southwest. Riparian habitat potentially affected would be limited to crossing points over 5 small ephemeral streams. The project area footprint is less than one acre, and riparian habitats potentially affected constitute a small portion of the total project area. Because of the Wilderness designation in the project area no power tools would be used during implementation, and any increase in noise disturbance above the ambient noise level in these well-traveled trail corridors would be very minor and short in duration. Based on these factors, it is my determination that the proposed action may affect individual foothill yellow-legged frogs, but the potential effects are limited in scale and duration and would not cause a trend toward listing.

Southern torrent salamander (Rhyacotriton variegatus) Species account: Southern torrent salamanders occur in aquatic habitats of conifer forests in the Coast Range from Mendocino County, California to northwestern Oregon. They occur in springs, seeps, small streams, and margins of larger streams, where they avoid open water and seek the cover of moss, rocks, and organic debris in shallow, cold water (Welsh and Lind 1996, Jennings and Hayes 1994). They occur within a relatively narrow range of physical and microclimatic conditions. They are associated with cold, clear headwater to low-order streams with loose rocky substrates (low sedimentation) in humid forest habitats with large



conifers, abundant moss, and greater than 80% canopy closure. Adults eat mostly amphipods, springtails and insect larvae (Jennings and Hayes 1994). The southern torrent salamander demonstrates an ecological dependence on streamside conditions of microclimate and habitat structure that in northwestern California are typically best created, stabilized, and maintained within late seral forests (Welsh and Lind 1996, Jennings and Hayes 1994). Effects determination: STNF records show no recorded observations in or near the project area, and the project area is likely outside the range of this species. Southern torrent salamanders are closely associated with coastal areas, and the project area is approximately 58 miles from the Pacific Coast. Based on these factors, it is my determination that the proposed action would have no effect on southern torrent salamanders.

Shasta salamander (Hydromantes shastae), California floater (Anodonta californiensis), topaz juga (Juga [Calibasis]acutifilosa), montane peaclam (Pisidium [Cyclocalyx] ultramontanum), nugget pebble snail (Fluminicola seminalis), Shasta sideband snail (Monadenia troglodytes troglodytes), Wintu sideband snail (Monadenia troglodytes wintu), Shasta chaparral snail (Monadenia troglodytes troglodytes), Tehama chaparral snail (Trilobopsis tehamana) and Shasta Hesperian snail (Vespericola Shasta).

Species accounts: Shasta salamanders inhabit moist rocky areas such as limestone outcrops. Their distribution is limited to a small area near Lake Shasta, California (USDA Forest Service 1998). California floaters are aquatic mollusks associated with lakes and slow rivers. Their distribution on the STNF is restricted to the Fall and Pit River systems in Shasta County (Furnish 2007). Topaz jugas are aquatic mollusks associated with large springs and their outflows. Their distribution on the Shasta-Trinity National Forest (STNF) is restricted to Siskiyou County (Furnish 2007). Montane peaclams are aquatic mollusks associated with sand-gravel substrates. There are historical records of this species from the Pit River system, but there are no known extant populations on the STNF (Furnish 2007, USDI Bureau of Land Management 1997). Nugget pebblesnails are aquatic mollusks typically associated with large streams that have gravel-cobble substrate and clear, flowing water. Their distribution is limited to the area around Lake Shasta, California (Furnish 2007, USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management 1999). Shasta sideband snails and Wintu sideband snails are associated with limestone areas including caves and talus slopes. Their distribution on the STNF is limited to the area east of Shasta Lake, California (USDI Bureau of Land Management 1999). Shasta chaparral snails are associated primarily with rockslides. Their distribution on the STNF is limited to the area east of Shasta Lake, California (USDI Bureau of Land Management 1999). Tehama chaparral snails are associated with rocky talus areas. Their distribution on the STNF is limited to the area east of Shasta Lake, California (USDI Bureau of Land Management 1999). Shasta Hesperian snails inhabit moist bottomlands and caves around Lake Shasta, California (USDI Bureau of Land Management 1999). Effects determinations: The project area lies outside the known range of all of these species (USDI Bureau of Land Management 1999, USDA Forest Service 1998). Based on this factor, it is my determination that the proposed action would have no effect on any of these species.



Pressley (Big Bar) Hesperian snail (Vespericola pressleyi) Species account: Pressley (Big Bar) Hesperian snails inhabit conifer and/or hardwood forest habitat in permanently damp areas within 200 meters of seeps, springs and stable streams. Herbaceous vegetation and leaf litter are common habitat elements associated with this species. Woody debris and rock refugia near water are used by the species during dry and cold periods (USDI Bureau of Land Management 1999, Roth 1985). Effects determination: STNF records show no observations of this species in the project area. The nearest recorded occurrence is approximately 17 miles to the southwest. Ground disturbing activities would not occur in any permanently damp areas within 200 meters of seeps, springs and stable streams; therefore no suitable habitat for this species would be affected. Based on these factors, it is my determination that the proposed action would have no effect on Pressley (Big Bar) Hesperian snails.

IV. CUMULATIVE EFFECTS Analysis of cumulative effects under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) addresses the impact on the environment that results from the incremental impact of the proposed action when added to other past, present and reasonable foreseeable future actions, regardless of which agency (federal or non-federal) or person undertakes these actions (40 CFR 1508.7). The cumulative effects analysis is bound in space and time to properly evaluate these potential incremental impacts. To encompass potentially affected individuals of Forest Service Sensitive species, this analysis is bounded in space to include all areas within 1.3 miles of treatment areas. Temporal bounding is 10 years to encompass full re-growth of vegetation in the trail “decommissioning” areas. The proposed action would have no effect on California wolverines, bald eagles, willow flycatchers, western pond turtles, southern torrent salamanders, Shasta salamanders, California floaters, topaz jugas, montane peaclams, nugget pebblesnails, Shasta sideband snails, Wintu sideband snails, Shasta chaparral snails, Tehama chaparral snails, Shasta Hesperian snails and Pressley Hesperian snails. The proposed action may affect individual Pacific fishers, American martens, pallid bats, Townsend’s big eared bats, western red bats, northern goshawks, cascade frogs and foothill yellow-legged frogs, but potential effects to populations of these species would be minor and would not cause a trend toward listing for any of these species. Adjacent lands within the analysis area are all within the Trinity Alps Wilderness, managed by the Shasta-Trinity National Forest. Ongoing activities on these lands are limited to trail maintenance, recreation use and fire suppression utilizing minimum impact suppression tactics. Effects of the proposed project on Forest Service Region 5 Sensitive wildlife species are expected to be minor and short in duration. When the potential effects of this project are added to the potential effects of current and foreseeable future actions, the cumulative effects are expected to be very minor and short-term, and not lead to a trend toward federal listing of any Forest Service Region 5 Sensitive wildlife species.

V. CONTACTS AND CONTRIBUTORS Mike McFadin, Trails Manager, Shasta-Trinity National Forest



Stephanie McKee, NEPA Planner, Shasta-Trinity National Forest

VI. LITERATURE CITED Anthony, R.G., R.L. Knight, G.T. Allen, B.R. McClelland and J.I. Hoges. 1992. Habitat use by

nesting and roosting bald eagles in the Pacific Northwest. Trans. N. Am. Wildl. Nat. Res. Conf. 68pp.

Arizona Game and Fish Department. 1993. Arizona Wildlife Views Special Heritage Edition,

Bats of Arizona. Vol. 36, No. 8. 36 p. Phoenix, AZ. Aubry, K.B., C.M. Raley, T.J. Catton and G.W. Tomb. 2002. Ecological characteristics of

fishers in the southern Oregon Cascade Range: final progress report: 1 June 2002. Olympia (WA): USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station.

Banci, V. 1994. Wolverine. In: Ruggiero, L.F.; Aubry, K.B.; Buskirk, S.W.; Lyon, L.J.;

Zielinski, W.J., tech. eds. The scientific basis of conserving forest carnivores, American marten, fisher, lynx, and wolverine in the Western United States. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-254. Ft. Collins, CO: USDA, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experimental Station, pp. 99-123.

Blakesley, J.A., Franklin, A.B., and R.J. Gutiérrez. 1992. Spotted owl roost and nest site

selection in northwestern California. Journal of Wildlife Management, 56(2):388-392. Bolster, B.C. 2005. Western Red Bat. Western Bat Working Group Species Accounts.

http://wbwg.org/species_accounts/vespertilonidae/labl.pdf Briggs, J.L., Sr. 1987. Breeding Biology of the Cascade Frog, Rana cascadae, with

Comparisons to R. aurora and R. pretiosa. Copeia 1987 (1):241-245. Buskirk, S.W. and R.A. Powell. 1994. Habitat ecology of fishers and American martens. In:

Buskirk S.W., A.S. Harestad, M.G. Raphael and R.A. Powell (eds). Martens, sables and fishers: biology and conservation. Ithaca (NY): Cornell University Press. Pp. 283-296.

California Department of Fish and Game. 2010. California wolverine range map at

http://www.dfg.ca.gov/biogeodata/cwhr/cawildlife.aspx. Carroll, C.R, 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, USA. Conservation Biology 13(6):1344-59.

Dark, S.J. 1997. A landscape-scale analysis of mammalian carnivore distribution and habitat use

by fisher [MSc thesis]. Arcata (CA): Humboldt State University.

Duncan N., T. Burke, S. Dowlan, and P. Hohenlohe. 2003. Survey Protocol for Survey and Manage Terrestrial Mollusk Species from the Northwest Forest Plan, Version 3.0, 70 pp. USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management.

http://wbwg.org/species_accounts/vespertilonidae/labl.pdf

http://www.dfg.ca.gov/biogeodata/cwhr/cawildlife.aspx



Fellers, G.M., K.L. Pope, J.E. Stead, M.S. Koo, and H.H. Welsh, Jr. 2007. Turning Population Trend Monitoring Into Active Conservation: Can We Save the Cascades Frog (Rana Cascadae) in the Lassen Region of California? Herpetological Conservation and Biology 3(1):28-39.

Forsman, E.D., Meslow, E.C., and H.M. Wight. 1984. Distribution and biology of the spotted

owl in Oregon. Wildlife Monographs 87:1-64. Freel, M. 1991. A literature Review for the Management of the Marten and Fisher on National

Forests in California. Unpublished document. USDA Forest Service, San Francisco, CA. Frest and Johannes. 1996. Grinnell, J. and A.H. Miller. 1944. The distribution of birds of California. Pacific Coast

Avifauna 27. Hall, P. 1984. Characteristics of nesting habitat of goshawks in northern California. M.S.

Thesis. Humboldt State University, Arcata, CA. 70pp. Heil, J., A. Westling, R. Giller and S. Martarano. 2008. Additional evidence of wolverine found

in the Tahoe National Forest. Tahoe National Forest news release, March 21, 2008. Holland, D.C. 1991. A synopsis of the Ecology and Status of the Western Pond Turtle

(Clemmys marmorata) in 1991. Prepared for the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, National Ecology Research Center, San Simeon Field Station. 141pp.

IUCN, Conservation International, and NatureServe. 2004. Global Amphibian Assessment.

IUCN, Conservation International, and NatureServe. Washington, DC and Arlington, Virginia, USA.

Jennings, M.R. and M.P. Hayes. 1994. Amphibian and reptile species of special concern in

California. California Department of Fish and Game. 255 pp. 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, pp. 211-232. In: Proulx, G., Bryant, H. N., and Woodard, P. M., Martes: taxonomy, ecology, techniques, and management. Provincial Museum of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada.

LaHaye, W.S. and R.J. Gutiérrez. 1999. Nest sites and nesting habitat of the northern spotted

owl in northwestern California. Condor 101(2):324-330. Martin, S.K. 1994. Feeding ecology of American martens and fishers. In: Buskirk S.W., A.S.

Harestad, M.G. Raphael and R.A. Powell, eds. Martens, sables and fishers: biology and conservation. Ithaca (NY): Cornell University Press. Pp. 297-315.

Mazzoni, A.K. 2002. Habitat use by fishers (Martes pennanti) in the southern Sierra Nevada

[MSc thesis]. Fresno (CA): California State University.



G.M. Fellers and E.D. Pierson. 2002. Habitat use and foraging behavior of Townsend’s big-eared bat (Corynorhinus townsendii) in coastal California. Journal of Mammalogy: February 2002, Vol. 83, No. 1, pp. 167-177.

Powel, R.A. and W.J. Zielinski. 1994. Fisher. In: Ruggiero, L.F.; K.B Aubry, S.W. Buskirk,

L.J. Lyon and W.J. Zielinski, tech. eds. The scientific basis of conserving forest carnivores, American marten, fisher, lynx, and wolverine in the Western United States. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-254. Ft. Collins, CO: U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experimental Station, pp. 38-73.

Powell, R. A. 1993. The fisher: life history, ecology and behavior. 2nd ed. Minneapolis:

University of Minnesota Press. Reese, D.A. and H.H. Welsh. 1998. Habitat use by western pond turtles in the Trinity River,

California. Journal of Wildlife Management; (62)3:842-53. Reynolds, R.T., R.T. Graham, M.H. Reiser, R.L. Bassett, P.L. Kennedy, D.A. Boyce, G.

Goodwin, R. Smith, and E.L. Fisher. 1992. Management Recommendations for the Northern Goshawk in the Southwestern United States. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report RM-217.

Roth, B. 1985. A new species of Vespericola (Gastropoda: Pulmonata: Polygyridae) from the

Klamath Mountains, California. Wasmann Journal of Biology, volume 42 (for 1984), number 1-2, pages 84-91, April 8.

Ruggierra, L.F., K.B. Aubry, S.W. Buskirk, L.J. Lyon and W.J. Zielinski, American Fisher,

Marten, Lynx and wolverine: The Scientific Basis for Conserving Forest Carnivores in the Western United States. PSW-GTR-RM-254. 2007. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station.

Schempf, P.F. and M. White. 1977. Status of six furbearer populations in the mountains of

northern California. USDA Forest Service. Region 5. CA. 51pp.

Sedgwick, J.A. 2000. Willow Flycatcher (Empidonax traillii). In The Birds of North America, No. 533. The Birds of North America, Inc., Philadelphia, PA.

Seglund, A.E. 1995. The use of rest sites by the Pacific fisher [MSc thesis]. Arcata (CA): Humboldt State University. 66 pp.

Self, S.E. and S.J. Kerns. 2001. Pacific fisher use of a managed forest landscape in Northern

California. Sierra Pacific Research and Monitoring. Wildlife Research Paper No 6. Sherwin, R. and D. A. Rambaldini. Antrozous pallidus. Pallid Bat Working Group 2005.

http://wbwg.org/species_accounts/vespertilonidae/anpa.pdf.

http://wbwg.org/species_accounts/vespertilonidae/anpa.pdf



Small, M.P., K.D. Stone and J.A. Cook. 2003. American marten (martes americana) in the Pacific Northwest: population differentiation across a landscape fragmented in time and space. Molecular Ecology (12)89-103.

Squires, J. R. and R. T. Reynolds. 1997. Northern goshawk (Accipiter gentilis). Birds of North

America Online (A. Poole, Ed.). Ithaca, New York. Cornell Laboratory of Ornithology. 26 November 2007. http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna.

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. Interagency scientific committee to address the conservation of the northern spotted owl.

Truex R.L., W.J. Zielinski, R.T. Golightly, R.L.Barrett and S.M.Wisely. 1998. A meta-analysis

of regional variation in fisher morphology, demography, and habitat ecology in California [draft report submitted to California Department of Fish and Game]. Arcata, California: USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station, Redwood Sciences Lab.

Tuttle, M.D. 1997. America’s neighborhood bats. University of Texas Press. Austin, Texas.

Revised 1997. USDA, Forest Service. 2010. Motorized Travel Management Final Environmental Impact

Statement Record of Decision. Shasta-Trinity National Forest, Redding CA. USDA, Forest Service. 2000. Protecting People and Sustaining Resources in Fire-Adapted

Ecosystems - A Cohesive Strategy. The Forest Service Management Response to the General Accounting Office Report GAO/RCED-99-65. October 2000.

USDA, Forest Service. 1998. Regional Forester's Sensitive Species List. Pacific Southwest

Region. Appended April 2004. USDA, Forest Service. 1995. Shasta-Trinity National Forests Land and Resource Management

Plan. Shasta-Trinity National Forests, Redding CA. USDA, Forest Service. 1990. Forest Service Manual, Title 2600 – Wildlife, Fish and Sensitive

Plant Habitat Management, as amended. Washington, D.C. USDA, Forest Service and USDI, Bureau of Land Management. Record of Decision and

Standards and Guidelines for Amendments to the Survey and Manage, Protection Buffer and other Mitigation Measures Standards and Guidelines. January 2001.

USDA, Forest Service; USDI, Bureau of Land Management. 1999. Survey and Management

Recommendations – Aquatic Mollusks. March 3, 1999. http://www.blm.gov/or/plans/surveyandmanage/MR/AQMollusks/im99-038.htm.

http://www.blm.gov/or/plans/surveyandmanage/MR/AQMollusks/im99-038.htm



USDA, Forest Service. USDI, Bureau of Land Management. Record of Decision for Amendments to Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management Planning Documents Within the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl; Standards and Guidelines for Management of Habitat for Late-successional and Old-Growth Forest Related Species Within the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl. April 1994.

USDA, Forest Service. USDI, Bureau of Land Management. Final Supplemental Environmental

Impact statement on management of habitat for late successional and old-growth forest related species within the range of the northern spotted owl. February 1994.

USDA, Forest Service, NOAA Fisheries, and USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2004.

Alternative Consultation Agreement to Implement Section 7 counterpart Regulations. March 2004.

USDI, Bureau of Land Management. 1999. Field Guide to Survey and Manage Terrestrial

Mollusk Species from the Northwest Forest Plan. BLM, Oregon State Office. June 1999.

USDI, Bureau of Land Management. 1997. Survey Protocol for Aquatic Mollusk Species from the Northwest Forest Plan, Version 2.0. October 29, 1997. http://www.blm.gov/or/plans/surveyandmanage/SP/Mollusks/acover.htm.

USDI, Fish and Wildlife Service. 2010. Listed/Proposed Threatened and Endangered Species

for Trinity County, California (Candidates Included). Document # 610531485-16747. Arcata Fish and Wildlife Office. February 11, 2010.

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2003. Finding for a Petition to List as Endangered or

Threatened Wolverine in the contiguous United States. Federal Register Vol. 68, No. 203. October 21, 2003

USDI, Fish and Wildlife Service. 1986. Pacific Bald Eagle Recovery Plan. U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service, Portland, Oregon. 163pp. Weller, T.J. and D.C. Lee. 2007. Mist Net Effort Required to Inventory a Forest Bat Species

Assemblage. Journal of Wildlife Management 71(1):251–257; 2007. Welsh, H.H., and A.J. Lind. 1996. Habitat correlates of the Southern torrent salamander, in

Northwestern California. Journal of Herpetology, Vol. 30, No 3, pp. 385-398. Wilson, R.A., A.J. Lind and H. Welsh Jr. 1991. Trinity River Riparian Wildlife Survey, final

report. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Experiment Station Redwood Sciences Laboratory, Arcata, CA. 98pp.

Yeager, S. 2005. Habitat at fisher resting sites in the Klamath Province of northern California.

[MSc Thesis]. Humboldt State University, Arcata, California. 75p.

http://www.blm.gov/or/plans/surveyandmanage/SP/Mollusks/acover.htm



Zielinski, W.J., N.P. Duncan, E.C. Farmer, R.L. Truex, A.P. Clevenger and R.H. Barrett. 1999. Diet of fishers (Martes pennanti) at the southernmost extent of their range. Journal of Mammalogy 80(3):961-71.

Zeiner, D.C., W.F. Laudenslayer Jr., K.E. Mayer. 1988. California's Wildlife, Vol. I.

Amphibians and Reptiles. California Department of Fish and Game. Sacramento, CA Zeiner, D.C.; W.F. Laudenslayer Jr., K.E. Mayer and M. White. 1990. California's Wildlife,

Vol. III. Mammals. California Department of Fish and Game. Sacramento, CA Zielinski, W.J., R.L.Treux, F. Schlexer, K.N. Schmidt and R.H. Barrett. 2004a. Home range

characteristics of fishers in California. Journal of Mammology (85)649-657. Zielinski, W.J., R.L. Truex, G. Schmidt, R. Schlexer, K.N. Schmidt, and R.H. Barrett. 2004b.

Resting habitat selection by fishers in California. Journal of Wildlife Management (68)475-492.

Zielinski, W.J., N.P. Duncan, E.C. Farmer, R.L. Truex, A.P. Clevenger and R.H. Barrett. 1999.

Diet of fishers (Martes pennanti) at the southernmost extent of their range. Journal of Mammalogy 80(3):961-71.



APPENDIX 1. FOREST PLAN MANAGEMENT DIRECTION Management Area The proposed project is within Management Area #4 (Forest Wilderness Areas -Trinity Alps Wilderness; Forest Plan page 4-93). Current management and desired future condition is driven by several factors including Recreation, Wildlife Habitat, Fisheries Resources and Heritage Resources. Standards and Guidelines Treatments are proposed within the following Forest Plan land management allocations: Wilderness and Riparian Reserves. The Forest Plan Standards & Guidelines pertinent to this analysis are listed below.

Forest–wide Standards & Guidelines Maintain unburned dead/down material in the quantity prescribed for each land management allocation (Forest Plan page 4-14). Provide connecting travel corridors for wildlife species, particularly late-successional dependent species, by using Riparian Reserves and silvicultural prescriptions (Forest Plan page 4-14). Wilderness Areas – prescription #5 Maintain snags, dead/down material, and hardwoods at naturally occurring levels (Forest Plan page 4-34). Use this prescription to provide additional habitat and connecting corridors for fisher and marten and to provide additional habitat for goshawk (Forest Plan page 4-34). Trail construction, reconstruction, relocation and maintenance should be accomplished in a manner consistent with the purposes of the Wilderness Act (Forest Plan page 4-34). Riparian Reserves – prescription #9 Maintain and restore the physical integrity of the aquatic system, including shorelines, banks and bottom configurations (Forest Plan page 4-53). Maintain and restore the species composition and structural diversity of plant communities in riparian areas and wetlands (Forest Plan page 4-53) Maintain and restore habitat to support well-distributed populations of native plant, invertebrate and vertebrate riparian-dependent species (Forest Plan page 4-53).

Sensitive Species Manage habitat for sensitive plants and animals in a manner that will prevent any species from becoming a candidate for T&E (threatened/endangered) status (Forest Plan p. 4-5) Bald eagles and peregrine falcons



Comply with individual nesting territory management plans for known bald eagle and peregrine falcon nesting sites (Forest Plan p. 3-27). Note: There are no known bald eagle or peregrine falcon nest sites in or near the project area. The nearest known bald eagle nest site is approximately 31 miles to the southwest, and the nearest known peregrine falcon nest site is approximately 7 miles to the east. Project activities are not expected to have any effect on these nest sites. Northern goshawks Protect known nest sites during planning and implementation (Forest Plan p. 3-27). Note: There are no known northern goshawk nest sites in or near the project area. The nearest known northern goshawk nest site is approximately 7 miles to the southeast. Project activities are not expected to have any effect on this nest site.



APPENDIX 2. WILDLIFE RESOURCE PROTECTION MEASURES Due to the very limited scale, intensity and potential effects of the proposed activities on Forest Service Region 5 Sensitive wildlife species, no wildlife resource protection measures are necessary.