Upper Mokelumne Management Unit

AQUATIC BIODIVERSITY MANAGEMENT PLAN

FOR THE

UPPER MOKELUMNE MANAGEMENT UNIT

2016

Prepared By

Sarah Mussulman Environmental Scientist

Mitch Lockhart Environmental Scientist

And

Kevin Thomas Kimberly Gagnon

NORTH CENTRAL REGION DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ...... II

LIST OF FIGURES ...... III

SECTION I ...... 1

INTRODUCTION ...... 1

1) OVERVIEW ...... 2 2) FACTORS AFFECTING THE SIERRA NEVADA YELLOW-LEGGED FROG ...... 3 3) REGULATORY STATUS OF THE SIERRA NEVADA YELLOW-LEGGED FROG ...... 4 4) RESOURCE ASSESSMENT METHODS ...... 5 5) FISHERIES MANAGEMENT TECHNIQUES ...... 6 6) AMPHIBIAN MANAGEMENT TECHNIQUES ...... 7 7) MONITORING ...... 9 SECTION II ...... 10

MANAGEMENT SETTING AND RESOURCES ...... 10

1) ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING ...... 11 2) HERPETOFAUNA RESOURCES...... 12 3) FISHERIES RESOURCES ...... 13 SECTION III ...... 17

MANAGEMENT DIRECTION ...... 17

1) DEADWOOD CANYON PLANNING WATERSHED MANAGEMENT DIRECTION ...... 18 2) FOURTH OF JULY CANYON PLANNING WATERSHED MANAGEMENT DIRECTION ...... 31 3) JELMINI CREEK PLANNING WATERSHED MANAGEMENT DIRECTION ...... 35 4) LADEUX MEADOW PLANNING WATERSHED MANAGEMENT DIRECTION ...... 42 5) LOWER DEER CREEK PLANNING WATERSHED MANAGEMENT DIRECTION ...... 50 6) LOWER SUMMIT CREEK PLANNING WATERSHED MANAGEMENT DIRECTION ...... 57 7) MIDDLE COLE CREEK PLANNING WATERSHED MANAGEMENT DIRECTION ...... 62 8) TANGLEFOOT CANYON PLANNING WATERSHED MANAGEMENT DIRECTION ...... 76 9) UPPER COLE CREEK PLANNING WATERSHED MANAGEMENT DIRECTION ...... 81 10) UPPER SUMMIT CREEK PLANNING WATERSHED MANAGEMENT DIRECTION ...... 85 SECTION IV ...... 104

LITERATURE CITED ...... 104

- 2 - LIST OF TABLES

TABLE 1: SUMMARY OF HERPETOFAUNA SURVEY DATA AND MANAGEMENT FOR BULL RUN CREEK PWS...... 18 TABLE 2: SUMMARY OF HERPETOFAUNA SURVEY DATA AND MANAGEMENT FOR DEADWOOD CANYON PWS. . 23 TABLE 3: SUMMARY OF FISHERIES POPULATION DATA IN DEADWOOD CANYON PWS...... 27 TABLE 4: SUMMARY OF FISHERIES MANAGEMENT FOR DEADWOOD CANYON PWS...... 27 TABLE 5: SUMMARY OF HERPETOFAUNA SURVEY DATA AND MANAGEMENT FOR FOURTH OF JULY CANYON PWS...... 31 TABLE 6: SUMMARY OF HERPETOFAUNA SURVEY DATA AND MANAGEMENT FOR HIGHLAND LAKES PWS...... 35 TABLE 7: SUMMARY OF FISHERIES POPULATION DATA IN HIGHLAND LAKES PWS...... 36 TABLE 8: SUMMARY OF FISHERIES MANAGEMENT INFORMATION FOR HIGHLAND LAKES PWS...... 36 TABLE 9: SUMMARY OF HERPETOFAUNA SURVEY DATA AND MANAGEMENT FOR LADEUX MEADOW PWS...... 43 TABLE 10: SUMMARY OF FISHERIES POPULATION DATA IN LADEUX MEADOW PWS...... 45 TABLE 11: SUMMARY OF FISHERIES MANAGEMENT INFORMATION FOR LADEUX MEADOW PWS...... 46 TABLE 12: SUMMARY OF HERPETOFAUNA SURVEY DATA AND MANAGEMENT FOR LOWER DEER CREEK PLANNING WATERSHED...... 51 TABLE 13: SUMMARY OF FISHERIES POPULATION DATA IN LOWER DEER CREEK PWS...... 56 TABLE 14: SUMMARY OF FISHERIES MANAGEMENT INFORMATION FOR LOWER DEER CREEK PWS...... 56 TABLE 15: SUMMARY OF HERPETOFAUNA SURVEY DATA AND MANAGEMENT FOR LOWER SUMMIT CREEK PWS...... 62 TABLE 16: SUMMARY OF FISHERIES POPULATION DATA IN LOWER SUMMIT CREEK PWS...... 67 TABLE 17: SUMMARY OF FISHERIES MANAGEMENT INFORMATION FOR LOWER SUMMIT CREEK PWS...... 68 TABLE 18: SUMMARY OF HERPETOFAUNA DATA AND MANAGEMENT FOR MIDDLE COLE CREEK PWS.: ...... 73 TABLE 19: SUMMARY OF FISHERIES POPULATION DATA IN MIDDLE COLE CREEK PWS...... 74 TABLE 20: SUMMARY OF HERPETOFAUNA SURVEY DATA AND MANAGEMENT FOR TANGLEFOOT CANYON PWS...... 79 TABLE 21: SUMMARY OF FISHERIES MANAGEMENT INFORMATION FOR TANGLEFOOT CANYON PWS...... 80 TABLE 22: SUMMARY OF FISHERIES POPULATION DATA IN TANGLEFOOT CANYON PWS...... 81 TABLE 23: SUMMARY OF HERPETOFAUNA SURVEY DATA AND MANAGEMENT FOR UPPER COLE CREEK PWS. 86 TABLE 24: SUMMARY OF FISHERIES POPULATION DATA IN UPPER COLE CREEK PWS...... 90 TABLE 25: SUMMARY OF FISHERIES MANAGEMENT INFORMATION FOR UPPER COLE CREEK PWS...... 90 TABLE 26: SUMMARY OF HERPETOFAUNA SURVEY DATA AND MANAGEMENT FOR UPPER SUMMIT CREEK PWS...... 97 TABLE 27: SUMMARY OF FISHERIES POPULATION DATA IN UPPER SUMMIT CREEK PWS...... 99 TABLE 28 SUMMARY OF FISHERIES MANAGEMENT INFORMATION FOR UPPER SUMMIT CREEK PWS...... 100

LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE 1: CDFW PLANNING WATERSHEDS WITHIN UPPER MOKELUMNE MANAGEMENT UNIT...... 15 FIGURE 2: USE WITHIN THE UPPER MOKELUMNE MANAGEMENT UNIT...... 16 FIGURE 3: HERPETOFAUNA RESOURCES IN BULL RUN CREEK PLANNING WATERSHED...... 19 FIGURE 4: MANAGEMENT DIRECTION IN BULL RUN CREEK PLANNING WATERSHED...... 20 FIGURE 5: FISHERIES RESOURCES IN BULL RUN CREEK PLANNING WATERSHED...... 21 FIGURE 6: HERPETOFAUNA SPECIES DISTRIBUTION IN DEADWOOD CANYON PLANNING WATERSHED...... 28 FIGURE 7: MANAGEMENT DIRECTION IN DEADWOOD CANYON PLANNING WATERSHED...... 29 FIGURE 8: FISH SPECIES DISTRIBUTION IN DEADWOOD CANYON PLANNING WATERSHED...... 30 FIGURE 9: HERPETOFAUNA SPECIES DISTRIBUTION IN FOURTH OF JULY CANYON PLANNING WATERSHED. ... 32 FIGURE 10: MANAGEMENT DIRECTION IN FOURTH OF JULY CANYON PLANNING WATERSHED...... 33 FIGURE 11: FISH SPECIES DISTRIBUTION IN FOURTH OF JULY CANYON PLANNING WATERSHED...... 34 FIGURE 12: SUMMARY OF HERPETOFAUNA RESOURCES IN HIGHLAND LAKES PLANNING WATERSHED...... 37 FIGURE 13: MANAGEMENT DIRECTION IN HIGHLAND LAKES PLANNING WATERSHED...... 38 FIGURE 14: FISHERIES RESOURCES IN HIGHLAND LAKES PLANNING WATERSHED...... 39 FIGURE 15: LAKE AND STREAM DISTRIBUTION IN JELMINI CREEK PLANNING WATERSHED...... 41 FIGURE 16: HERPETOFAUNA SPECIES DISTRIBUTION IN LADEUX MEADOW PLANNING WATERSHED...... 47 FIGURE 17: MANAGEMENT DIRECTION IN LADEUX MEADOW PLANNING WATERSHED...... 48 FIGURE 18: FISH SPECIES DISTRIBUTION IN LADEUX MEADOW PLANNING WATERSHED...... 49 FIGURE 19: HERPETOFAUNA SPECIES DISTRIBUTION IN LOWER DEER CREEK PLANNING WATERSHED...... 57 FIGURE 20: MANAGEMENT DIRECTION IN LOWER DEER CREEK PLANNING WATERSHED...... 58 FIGURE 21: FISH SPECIES DISTRIBUTION IN LOWER DEER CREEK PLANNING WATERSHED...... 59 FIGURE 22: HERPETOFAUNA SPECIES DISTRIBUTION IN LOWER SUMMIT CREEK PLANNING WATERSHED...... 69 FIGURE 23: MANAGEMENT DIRECTION IN LOWER SUMMIT CREEK PLANNING WATERSHED...... 70 FIGURE 24: FISH SPECIES DISTRIBUTION IN LOWER SUMMIT CREEK PLANNING WATERSHED...... 71 FIGURE 25: HERPETOFAUNA SPECIES DISTRIBUTION IN MIDDLE COLE CREEK PLANNING WATERSHED...... 75 FIGURE 26: MANAGEMENT DIRECTION IN LOWER COLE CREEK PLANNING WATERSHED...... 76 FIGURE 27: FISH SPECIES DISTRIBUTION IN LOWER COLE CREEK PLANNING WATERSHED...... 77 FIGURE 28: HERPETOFAUNA SPECIES DISTRIBUTION IN TANGLEFOOT CANYON PLANNING WATERSHED...... 82 FIGURE 29: MANAGEMENT DIRECTION IN TANGLEFOOT CANYON PLANNING WATERSHED...... 83 FIGURE 30: FISH SPECIES DISTRIBUTION IN TANGLEFOOT CANYON PLANNING WATERSHED...... 84 FIGURE 31: HERPETOFAUNA SPECIES DISTRIBUTION FOR UPPER COLE CREEK PLANNING WATERSHED (MAP 1 OF 2)...... 91 FIGURE 32: HERPETOFAUNA SPECIES DISTRIBUTION FOR UPPER COLE CREEK PLANNING WATERSHED (MAP 2 OF 2)...... 92 FIGURE 33: MANAGEMENT DIRECTION FOR UPPER COLE CREEK PLANNING WATERSHED...... 93 FIGURE 34: FISH SPECIES DISTRIBUTION FOR UPPER COLE CREEK PLANNING WATERSHED...... 94 FIGURE 35: HERPETOFAUNA SPECIES DISTRIBUTION IN UPPER SUMMIT CREEK PLANNING WATERSHED. .... 101 FIGURE 36: MANAGEMENT DIRECTION FOR UPPER SUMMIT CREEK PLANNING WATERSHED...... 102 FIGURE 37: FISH SPECIES DISTRIBUTION IN UPPER SUMMIT CREEK PLANNING WATERSHED...... 103

iii LIST OF ACRONYMS

ABMP Aquatic Biodiversity Management Plan AMMA Long-toed salamander (Ambystoma macrodactylum) Bd Chytrid fungus (Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis) BK Brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis) BN Brown trout (Salmo trutta) BUBO Western toad (Bufo boreas, Anaxyrus boreas) BUCA Yosemite toad (Bufo canorus, Anaxyrus canorus) CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife CEQA California Environmental Quality Act CESA California Endangered Species Act CHIN Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) CNDDB California Natural Diversity Database CT-L Lahontan cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarkii henshawi) EIR/EIS Environmental Impact Report / Environmental Impact Statement ELCO Northern alligator lizard (Elgaria coerulea) ENF Eldorado National Forest ESA Endangered Species Act FYLF Foothill yellow-legged frog (Rana boylii) FERC Federal Energy Regulatory Commission GT Golden trout (Oncorhynchus aguabonita) HML California Department of Fish and Wildlife High Mountain Lakes Project HYRE Pacific tree frog (Hyla regilla, Pseudacris regilla) KOK Kokanee salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka) MU Management Unit MYLF Mountain yellow-legged frog (Rana sierrae and Rana muscosa) NSR Native Species Reserve PG&E Pacific Gas and Electric Company PSEP Pre-Stocking Evaluation Protocol PWS Planning watershed RT Rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) SNYLF Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog (Rana sierrae) SKR-S Sacramento sucker (Catostomus occidentalis) SPK Sacramento pikeminnow (Ptychocheilus grandis) STF Stanislaus National Forest THCO Sierra garter snake (Thamnophis couchii) THEL Mountain garter snake (Thamnophis elegans elegans) THSI Common garter snake (Thamnophis sirtalis) THSP Garter snake, various species (Thamnophis spp) UKN Unknown fish or herpetofauna species USFS U.S. Forest Service USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service USGS U.S. Geologic Survey VES Visual encounter survey

SECTION I

INTRODUCTION

1) OVERVIEW

In response to the observed decline of the Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog, Rana sierrae (SNYLF), and actions to list the species as threatened or endangered under the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA), the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) implemented actions to meet the state’s responsibility to manage SNYLF and their habitats for multiple uses. Although CDFW made significant changes to aquatic habitat management between 2000 and 2010, the Center for Biological Diversity petitioned the state to list SNYLF as endangered in 2010 and on February 2, 2012 the Fish and Game Commission voted to add SNYLF to the list of threatened species under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA), marking the first formal protection of the species. Additionally, on April 29, 2014 the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) released final rule FWS-R8-ES-2012-0100 which listed SNYLF as “endangered” throughout its range.

In 2000, in anticipation of the federal ESA listing of SNYLF, CDFW temporarily suspended aerial fish stocking in many Sierra Nevada lakes and implemented an informal Sierra Nevada fish stocking policy within the historic range of SNYLF which states that:

 Fish will not be stocked in lakes with known populations of SNYLF, nor in lakes which have not yet been surveyed for frog presence;  Waters will be stocked only with a fisheries management justification;  The number of stocked lakes will be reduced over time; and  Water bodies within the same basin and two kilometers (1.25 miles) from a known population of SNYF will not be stocked without a management plan that considers all aquatic resources in the basin, or if there is heavy angler use and no opportunity to improve habitat for native amphibians.

Concurrent with the interim stocking policy for the Sierra Nevada, the CDFW implemented the High Mountain Lakes (HML) project designed to determine the status and distribution of SNYLF populations, introduced fish species, ‘non-target’ amphibian species such as Pacific tree frogs (Hyla regilla, Pseudacris regilla, HYRE) and their habitat throughout the Sierra Nevada. In addition, CDFW initiated dialogue with researchers, other resource agencies, and constituent groups to discuss management of high elevation Sierra Nevada aquatic ecosystems. Using this information, HML continues to develop long-term aquatic resource management plans specific to hydrologic basins of the Sierra Nevada. Implementation of the plans completed to date have helped stabilize and reverse negative effects of non-native fish introductions on native frog populations while maintaining viable recreational angling in a manner consistent with both the mission of the CDFW and the guidelines set forth in CESA and the federal ESA. This “Aquatic Biodiversity Management Plan for the Upper Mokelumne Management Unit” is the most recent of such plans.

This plan, and others before it, is intended to supersede the interim stocking policy within the geographic area addressed by the plan and therefore was developed with the following objectives:

1) Manage high mountain aquatic resources at a basin scale rather than lake-by-lake; 2) Develop a plan using site-specific data collected within the last five years as well as available data collected in past years; 3) Manage high mountain aquatic resources within a basin such that native biodiversity, habitat quality and native species populations are maintained or restored; 4) Provide recreational angling opportunities considering historical, current and future use patterns; 5) Comply with the 2010 Hatchery and Stocking Program Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement (EIR/EIS) and future amendments; and 6) Incorporate objectives of the USFWS Conservation Strategy, when available.

2) FACTORS AFFECTING THE SIERRA NEVADA YELLOW-LEGGED FROG

The following factors have been identified as negatively affecting SNYLF populations in the Sierra Nevada (USFWS 2007):

 Non-native fish introduction;  Chytrid fungus (Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis);  Pollution;  Livestock grazing;  Recreation;  Dams, reservoirs, and water diversions;  Timber management; and  Road construction and maintenance.

Although there are many factors that have played a role in the decline of amphibian populations, the body of scientific literature identifies the introduction of non-native fish to historically fishless waters as one of the leading causes of population declines (Bradford 1989, Bahls 1992, Bradford et al. 1993, Drake and Naiman 2000, Knapp and Mathews 2000, Knapp et al. 2001, Pilliod and Petersen 2001, Dunham et al. 2004, Vredenburg 2004, Knapp 2005, Knapp et al. 2007).

SNYLF have a life history unique among amphibians in the Sierra Nevada, in that they spend virtually all their lives in or very near a water source and the larval, juvenile, and adult life stages must over-winter in lakes that do not completely freeze. Larvae, in particular, over-winter for up to four years before metamorphosing to the juvenile life stage (Stebbins 2003). Because of this need for deep, non-freezing lakes, SNYLF require the same deep water habitats which are able to support fish. Furthermore, fish have been introduced to the vast majority of the large interconnected lakes that provide high quality frog habitat. Once introduced, SNYLF must contend with a non-native predator and are, over time, relegated to lakes that do not contain fish populations. These are often isolated lakes of marginal size and quality which are capable of supporting small tenuous frog populations that are vulnerable to localized extinctions.

In addition to predation by non-native fish, SNYLF declines have been heavily driven by the introduction of an infectious disease to the waters of California. Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis

3 (Bd) is a fungus that infects amphibian species causing the disease chytridiomycosis (Berger et al., 1998, Longcore et al. 1999). Bd is often fatal for amphibians and has been associated with amphibian declines around the world (Ouellet et al. 2005, Skerratt et al. 2007). In the case of SNYLF, Bd has been identified as a principal mechanism for localized extinction of isolated populations (Fellers et al. 2001, Rachowicz and Vredenburg 2004, Rachowicz et al. 2006, Fellers et al. 2007, Rachowicz and Briggs 2007). Therefore, factors such as Bd distribution, prevalence, incidence, and absence must be taken into consideration when developing recovery strategies for SNYLF populations.

While the CDFW recognizes that all the aforementioned factors negatively affect native frog populations, the CDFW has primary authority over fish stocking programs in the Sierra Nevada and limited ability or authority to control other factors leading to the decline of the species.

3) REGULATORY STATUS OF THE SIERRA NEVADA YELLOW-LEGGED FROG

Current

On January 27, 2010, the Fish and Game Commission received a petition from the Center for Biological Diversity to list all populations of SNYLF as “endangered” under CESA. Following a 12-month status evaluation completed by the CDFW, the Fish and Game Commission voted unanimously February 2, 2012 to add SNYLF to the list of threatened species under CESA. This marks the first formal protection afforded the species. On April 25, 2013 the USFWS released proposed rule FWS-R8-ES-2012-0100-0001 recommending that MYLF be listed as “endangered” throughout its range.

Historic

In 2006, a lawsuit was filed by the Pacific Rivers Council and the Center for Biological Diversity against CDFW, claiming that CDFW’s fish stocking operation did not comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The petitioners noted a special concern for the effects of trout stocking on native species of fish and amphibians. In July, 2007, CDFW was directed by the Sacramento Superior Court to comply with CEQA regarding fish stocking operations and complete an Environmental Impact Report /Environmental Impact Statement (EIR/EIS) to evaluate fish stocking activities. CDFW released the final Hatchery and Stocking Program EIR/EIS on January 11, 2010. According to the California Superior Court ruling, CDFW must consider the impacts of fish stocking on sensitive aquatic species when making future fish stocking management decisions (California Superior Court of Sacramento County, 2007).

The process to consider such impacts is outlined in Appendix K of the Hatchery and Stocking Program EIR/EIS (Jones and Stokes, 2010). “The intent is to reduce to less than significant any impacts from the CDFW hatchery stocking program on Decision Species, as defined in the EIR/EIS”. A Pre-Stocking Evaluation Protocol (PSEP) was developed “to determine that the proposed stocking action will not conflict with existing CDFW management programs, such as management directions stated in approved Aquatic Biodiversity Management Plans (ABMP), species recovery plans, or species conservation strategies” (Jones and Stokes, 2010). This protocol will be used by CDFW staff to determine if a water body may be stocked.

On February 10, 2000, the USFWS received a petition from the Center for Biological Diversity and the Pacific Rivers Council to list all populations of the mountain yellow-legged frog (MYLF) as endangered under the Distinct Vertebrate Population Segment Policy of the federal Endangered Species Act of 1973. On October 12, 2000, the USFWS published a 90-day finding in the Federal Register stating, “The petition presented substantial scientific or commercial information to indicate that the listing of the Sierra Nevada population of the mountain yellow-legged frog may be warranted” (USFWS 2007). The 90-day finding was followed by a 12-month petition finding, published on January 16, 2003 which states:

After review of all available scientific and commercial information we find that the petitioned action is warranted, but precluded by higher priority actions to amend the Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. Upon publication of this 12-month petition finding, this species will be added to our candidate species list. We will develop a proposed rule to list this population pursuant to our Listing Priority System.

Although not formally listed, candidate species are afforded some protection under the Prohibited Acts Section 9(1) (B) of the ESA. Specifically the section states that it is unlawful to “take any such species within the United States”. Section 3 (19) states “The term ‘take’ means to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, trap, capture, collect, or attempt to engage in any such conduct.” Because fish stocking in the Sierra Nevada has been linked to declines in SNYLF populations the CDFW’s aerial stocking program could potentially constitute “harm” and thus be considered “unlawful” under the provisions of the ESA.

4) RESOURCE ASSESSMENT METHODS

Resource assessments were conducted at all lentic waters within the management unit, on public land and identified on U.S. Geologic Survey (USGS) 7.5 minute series maps, and additional unmapped waters found in the field by survey crews. Each mapped water body was assigned a unique identification number (Lake ID). Unmapped waters found in the field by survey crews were assigned a unique two-decimal suffix added to the Lake ID of the nearest mapped water body.

Data used in this management plan were collected from 2001 to 2013 by CDFW with additional data from Eldorado National Forest (ENF). Fish and amphibian surveys were conducted following protocols originally designed by Fellers and Freel (1995), modified by Knapp (pers. comm.), and further revised by CDFW for HML surveys. In general, fish surveys were conducted in waters that contained fish or in all waters where fish presence could not be discounted. Fish surveys were conducted using a monofilament gill net set near the outlet of a lake. Amphibian populations were surveyed using the visual encounter survey protocol (VES) designed and field-tested for detecting genus Rana frogs in California (Fellers and Freel, 1995). Physical habitat features like stream and lake spawning substrate, littoral substrate, stream widths and depths, maximum lake depths, and the presence of fish barriers were recorded.

Survey protocols targeted SNYLF and were not designed to locate and document the presence of certain amphibian and reptile species that are primarily terrestrial or nocturnal. These species are not usually in conflict with trout management, and would require extensive

5 additional effort to inventory. All species observed were recorded although non-target species are considered incidental sightings. For a complete description of HML survey protocols see Appendix 1.

5) FISHERIES MANAGEMENT TECHNIQUES

Fisheries in high mountain lakes can be grouped into several types dependent upon whether the fishery is stocked and/or is self-sustaining. As a result three types of fisheries emerge:

1) Self-sustaining fisheries; 2) Put-and-grow stocked fisheries; and 3) Stocking-supplemented fisheries.

Self-sustaining fisheries contain enough suitable spawning habitat for natural reproduction to perpetuate the population. For most trout species the habitat requirements are access to oxygenated stream gravel and sufficiently deep or flowing water to prevent freezing during winter. However, brook trout, warm water sport fish and many non-game fish species are capable of reproducing in habitats without access to stream spawning gravels. Self-sustaining warm water fisheries are sites which support warm water game fish such as bass (Micropterus spp.).

Put-and-grow fisheries must be maintained through periodic fish stocking because natural reproduction is insufficient to sustain a trout population. In this case, fingerling-sized hatchery trout are planted and grow to adult size by utilizing the natural productivity of the lake. In high elevation lakes, put-and-grow trout fisheries often produce larger trout than self-sustaining fisheries.

A stocking-supplemented fishery is a self-sustaining fishery that is planted with additional fish to meet management goals. Examples of these goals include but are not limited to increasing catch rate, increasing average fish size, and increasing species diversity.

Historically, all hatchery trout produced by CDFW had the potential to reproduce naturally once sexually mature. Currently, CDFW is transitioning the majority of its trout production to triploid trout, which have an extra chromosome and thus are unable to reproduce because they cannot produce functional gametes. Planting triploid trout will help ensure planted fish do not hybridize with native trout species.

Reducing the number or density of fish in a population is sometimes desirable but can be difficult to achieve. In the case of lakes with little or no natural reproduction, reducing the number or density of fish in a population could be achieved by decreasing the number of fish stocked or frequency of stocking events. In the case of self-sustaining fish populations, the undesirable species can be actively suppressed or completely removed using traps, gill nets or electrofishing if the physical characteristics of the lake and its tributaries permit effective use of the equipment. Lastly, in complex habitats, self-sustaining fish frequently cannot be removed without the use of a chemical piscicide such as rotenone.

6 The best management for a particular water body is determined using the following guidelines:

 Decisions will be based upon site-specific data collected within the last five years, as well as any additional data collected in earlier years,  Decisions will consider historical, current and potential public-use patterns;  Water bodies with a population of SNYLF, or other species of concern, should not be stocked;  Water bodies within the same basin and within two kilometers of an existing SNYLF population should be assessed for fish removal;  Water bodies with self-sustaining trout populations should not be stocked unless stocking is necessary to meet other management goals;  If a water body is to be stocked, priority will be given first to species native to the watershed and then species native to California;  Adjustments to stocking frequency, number, or species should be based on site-specific data collected within the last five years;  Comply with the 2010 Hatchery and Stocking Program EIR/EIS, specifically the PSEP protocol outlined in Appendix K (Jones and Stokes, 2010);  Comply with the 1995 memorandum of understanding between State of California, Department of Fish and Wildlife and Forest Service, United States Department of Agriculture; and  Incorporate objectives of the USFWS SNYLF Conservation Strategy, when available.

6) AMPHIBIAN MANAGEMENT TECHNIQUES

Most amphibian populations found in the Sierra Nevada are HYRE populations that do not require active management or special attention to persist. In most cases, they do not directly compete with non-native fish for available habitat therefore water bodies managed for fisheries and HYRE can occur in close proximity without conflict. These amphibian populations are not managed by the CDFW and are largely excluded from this plan.

Fishless water bodies supporting non-target amphibian populations of species of concern, such as the long-toed salamander, Ambystoma macrodactylum (AMMA), are labeled by the CDFW as amphibian resources. An amphibian resource, for the purposes of this plan, is defined as a water body that is not a fishery and has evidence of breeding by an amphibian species of concern, or is being used by adult and/or subadult SNYLF. By this definition, fishless water bodies where adult or subadult SNYLF have been observed are considered amphibian resources. Native species reserves (NSR) are areas set aside for native amphibian habitat and permanently removed from stocking consideration. Areas with extant SNYLF populations or areas where SNYLF were known to be extant since 2005 fall into this category. Generally, all sites where SNLYF have been observed and any additional sites in the immediate vicinity will be included in native species reserves.

In the case of SNYLF populations that do conflict with non-native fish, more aggressive management is often necessary. Under current CDFW policy, certain native amphibians, such as those listed as species of concern or identified as a ‘decision species’ within the Hatchery and Stocking Program EIR/EIS, are given management priority over introduced fishes. If the opportunity to restore appropriate habitats to a fishless condition is feasible and beneficial to

7 native amphibians, CDFW can restore the habitat. While recovery of SNYLF is a strong focus of fish-population-removal projects, other native species are also expected to benefit (Sarnelle and Knapp 2004, Finlay and Vredenburg 2007, Knapp and Sarnelle 2008, Pope 2008, Herbst et al. 2009).

There are a variety of techniques for fish removal, however many traditional methods cannot be implemented in high mountain locations located within U.S. Forest Service (USFS) wilderness areas and accessible only by trail. The simplest method is passive fish removal. This requires discontinuing stocking at a fishery that is not self-sustaining and allowing the lake to revert to a fishless condition. However, by using this method it could take many years for fish to die and decades for the lake to revert to a pristine condition (Knapp et al. 2001). If a fishless condition is desired more quickly or the fishery is self-sustaining an active technique must be employed.

Mechanical fish removal is the most common method implemented by CDFW for habitat restoration in high mountain lakes. Large numbers of monofilament gill nets are used to catch adult fish and break the reproductive cycle. Electrofishers are used to remove fish from tributaries and shallow lake fringes. In addition, gill nets are set in fall to fish throughout the winter months under ice. However, mechanical removal requires extensive effort over the course of several years and is only effective in smaller lakes that have limited stream spawning habitat. Knapp and Mathews (1998) estimate 15-20% of high elevation Sierra Nevada lakes are suitable for mechanical fish removal. Large sections of stream or river and lakes with complicated tributaries can be reverted to a fishless condition through the use of piscicide such as rotenone. Although chemical treatment was commonly utilized in the past, it is currently an expensive and complicated endeavor subject to a lengthy permitting process. CDFW has not implemented any chemical treatment projects to date for the purposes of amphibian restoration.

For the purposes of this plan CDFW has grouped fish removal into three broad categories:  Category 1 fish removal projects are those that CDFW has determined are feasible using mechanical methods and will not negatively impact recreational angling opportunities within the watershed;  Category 2 fish removals are feasible using mechanical methods but are likely to be contested by constituents, and/or conflict with current public use patterns and/or will severely impact angling opportunities within the basin; and  Category 3 fish removal projects are those that CDFW deems should have fish removed but the physical characteristics of the habitat are such that fish removal would not be successful using mechanical methods alone and would require the use of a chemical piscicide such as rotenone.

When habitat is not available to a threatened amphibian population or fish removal is not feasible at adjacent lakes, translocation may be necessary to stabilize and expand populations. Translocations must be implemented carefully, with thorough consideration of local SNYLF genetics, prevalence, incidence and/or absence of Bd, and the size of the source population. Animals should not be moved between Bd positive and Bd negative waters therefore the source population(s) and destination water(s) must all be Bd negative or Bd positive. Whenever possible the destination water should be within the same basin as the source population and if more than one source population is available, animals from all available populations may be translocated to reduce founder effects. CDFW has found larval life stages are easiest to collect and transport using an oxygenated water filled bag kept at source water temperature (CDFW unpublished data). Adult animals are more challenging to move because of size and separation needed for transport but are more likely to survive and be successful in the new habitat as they

8 have already passed through the most vulnerable life stages for amphibians. Seeding should occur multiple times per season over the course of several years to inoculate the destination water with multiple cohorts of animals (Roland Knapp, personal communication, November 17, 2015).

7) MONITORING

A continuous monitoring program is necessary to assess resource changes, measure the effects of past management and evaluate the effectiveness of new management decisions. The following monitoring guidelines are proposed in this plan:

 Monitoring surveys are conducted using the current standard CDFW HML survey protocol or pertinent portion of the protocol. For example, if a fish population is monitored, the complete fish survey protocol is conducted. This will ensure data collected in different years and by different crew members are comparable.

 Long term monitoring of amphibian populations should occur at the same time of year, whenever possible, to minimize variance from temporal behavior patterns.

 Extra effort can be applied when monitoring fish or amphibian populations with extremely low densities. For example, a gill net may be set longer than the maximum of twelve hours stated in the protocol if it is known that few or no fish are present in the lake.

If monitoring for a species not expressly targeted by the HML protocol, the standard CDFW protocol for that species will be used. If no CDFW protocol exists, an appropriate USFWS or USFS protocol will be used.

SECTION II

MANAGEMENT SETTING AND RESOURCES

10 1) ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING

CDFW, in keeping with the Strategic Plan for Trout Management (Hopelain 2003), has adopted a watershed scale approach to management planning. This ABMP follows that approach and includes the entire Upper Mokelumne River watershed with two exceptions: Upper Deer Creek is included in the Jeff Davis Creek Management Plan (Mussulman and Lockhart 2014) due to its close biological and management ties with Jeff Davis Creek and the East Fork Carson River; four Calwaters 2.2 planning watersheds (PWS) in the Bear River drainage will be addressed separately in a future plan – Corral Flat, Little Bear River, Tragedy Creek and Upper Bear River. After careful consideration, PWSs below Salt Springs Reservoir are excluded from this plan. Although an additional 25 PWSs below Salt Springs Reservoir encompassing an additional 187,930 acres (76,050 ha) fall within the Upper Mokelumne watershed and within the native range of SNLYF, land in this area is characterized by medium to large high gradient rivers and streams rather than lakes, is generally below 3,500 feet elevation, and is known to harbor multiple populations of Foothill yellow-legged frogs, R. boylii, (FYLF) (CNDDB).

The Mokelumne Management Unit (MU) is located in the Sierra Nevada mountain range in northern California, roughly twenty-five miles south of Lake Tahoe. More specifically, the management unit lies south of State Highway 88 and north of State Highway 4, extending from the headwaters of the North Fork Mokelumne River to the dam at Salt Springs Reservoir. The management unit contains twelve Calwaters 2.2 PWSs: Bull Run Creek, Deadwood Canyon, Fourth of July Canyon, Highland Lakes, Jelmini Creek, Ladeux Meadow, Lower Deer Creek, Lower Summit Creek, Middle Cole Creek, Tanglefoot Canyon, Upper Cole Creek, and Upper Summit Creek. Together, they encompass approximately 118,200 acres (47,850 ha) of montane and sub-alpine habitat ranging from 4,000 feet (1,219 m) elevation above mean sea level at Salt Springs Reservoir to the summit of Round Top Peak at 10,381 feet (3146 m) elevation on the border of Upper Summit Creek PWS (Figure 1). Approximately 250 water bodies have been mapped and surveyed within the management unit boundary.

Within Mokelumne MU land on the north side of the Mokelumne River is managed by ENF, while south of the Mokelumne River land is managed by Stanislaus National Forest (STF). The majority of land in the MU is within Mokelumne Wilderness and therefore managed as a legislated wilderness area. The national forest land supports a suite of public use activities including fishing, hiking, hunting, camping, horseback riding, and cross country skiing. Additionally, multiple permittees graze cattle on MU lands, including lands within Mokelumne Wilderness, during summer months.

The land in the MU is highly visited along Blue Lakes Road, with many road-accessible waters and campgrounds only a short distance from the paved road. PG&E owns and operates four campgrounds at Blue Lakes with a total of 78 designated campsites. State Highway 4 bisects Highland Lakes and Bull Run Creek PWSs and a number of forest service campgrounds exist along the highway corridor. Additionally, Highland Lakes campground is accessible via a 7 mile dirt road and has 35 sites. The majority of the MU lies within the Mokelumne Wilderness, lacks a trail system, and is accessible by cross-country hiking or cross-country horseback riding. A handful of trails and rough four-wheel drive roads access the northern and southern portions of the MU and at least one trail descends from State Highway 4 down to the Mokelumne River near Salt Springs Reservoir, dropping more than 2,000’ of elevation in the process. For the purposes of this plan, proximity to access corridors, camping areas, or destination aquatic resources is used as a proxy for public visitation data (Figure 2).

2) HERPETOFAUNA RESOURCES

Upper Mokelumne Management Unit is host to a number of amphibian and reptile species. Among these are one species listed as threatened under CESA, SNYLF, and two amphibian Species’ of Concern, AMMA and Yosemite Toad (Anaxyrus canorus, Bufo canorus, BUCA). Much of the watershed falls within BUCA range and BUCA was listed as threatened under the Federal ESA by USFWS on April 29, 2014. Because the VES protocol CDFW uses to monitor amphibians is not designed to monitor BUCA, any BUCA sightings in the data are considered incidental and this management plan does not specifically address BUCA. Other species in the management unit include the widely distributed HYRE and Western toad (Anaxyrus boreas, Bufo boreas, BUBO). Three species of garter snakes (THSP), including the common garter (Thamnophis sirtalis, THSI), the mountain garter snake (Thamnophis elegans elegans, THEL), and Sierra garter snake (Thamnophis couchii, THCO) – frequent aquatic habitats to forage on frogs, salamanders, fish, and aquatic insects.

There are seven SNYLF populations within the Mokelumne Management Unit which fall into three categories based on size. The most robust population is found in Deadwood Canyon within Deadwood Canyon PWS, and consists of approximately fifty adult SNYLF breeding within approximately 1.6 kilometers of meadow stream and one unnamed pond in Deadwood Canyon.

The next largest SNYLF populations are in Ladeux Meadow PWS, Lower Summit Creek PWS and Fourth of July Canyon PWS. Each of these contains 10-20 adult SNYLF. In Laduex Meadow PWS SNYLF are found at a single stream site within Ladeux Meadow. In Lower Summit Creek PWS, SNYLF are regularly observed at three sites near Beebe Lake – this population may consist of 10-20 adults, although large amounts of wetted habitat in the area in tandem with a small population make quantifying this population particularly difficult. Larvae have only been observed at two ponds but adult SNYLF have been observed at five ponds and within shallow pools in streambeds throughout the watershed. CDFW is in the process of removing brook trout from Beebe Lake and nearby streams and meadows and will continue to monitor this population for a response to fish removal. Within Fourth of July PWS a single survey of two small ponds near the summit of Mokelumne Peak in 2012 recorded 20 adult SNYLF. Additional data are needed to determine the status of this population. A fourth population of a similar size is found in Lower Deer Creek PWS; Wheeler Lake and its tributaries support approximately 10 adult SNYLF – although Wheeler is currently fishless the majority of adults and larvae are observed in a 1.2 kilometer reach of the outlet stream.

Although only one or two frogs per survey have ever been observed at the two sites near Upper Blue Lake, they are consistently observed, along with a few larvae. More information is needed to make statements about the SNYLF population in this area, which is in the Upper Summit Creek PWS. Adult SNYLF have been observed coexisting with brook trout in both Cole Creek and its unnamed tributary in Middle Cole Creek PWS but there is little evidence of a persistent population in the area.

12 Bd samples were collected by CDFW at the four largest SNYLF populations within the Upper Mokelumne Management Unit in 2008 and 2010. Individuals at each population tested positive for Bd with a light to moderate zoospore load.

3) FISHERIES RESOURCES

Historically, only twenty lakes naturally contained fish in the waters of the high Sierra Nevada mountain range (above 1400 m; 4,600 feet) and all other headwaters ecosystems were naturally fishless due to impassable barriers to upstream fish passage (Moyle et al. 1996). Golden trout (Oncorhynchus aguabonita, GT) and the Kern River rainbow (Oncorhynchus mykiss, RT) of the upper Kern River Basin and the Sacramento sucker (Catostomus occidentalis,SKR-S) in the Kern River were the only native fishes to the higher elevations of the Sacramento-San Joaquin River drainage. The Lahontan cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarkii henshawi, CT-L) and Paiute cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarkii seleneris) were the only native trout species in the Lahontan Basin, which includes the Carson River, Susan River, Truckee River, Walker River, and Lake Tahoe drainages (Moyle et al. 1996, Moyle 2002). Non-trout species native to the Lahontan Basin include the Lahontan redside (Richardsonius egregius), Tahoe sucker (Catostomus tahoensis), mountain sucker (Catostomus platyrhynchus), Tui chub (Gila bicolor), Paiute sculpin (Cottus beldingi), and mountain whitefish (Prosopium williamsoni). Natural lakes in these watersheds such as Donner Lake, Eagle Lake, Fallen Leaf Lake, Independence Lake, Webber Lake and Lake Tahoe, also contained these native fish species.

Beginning in the 1800s non-native fish were introduced by a variety of groups to headwater systems in the Sierra Nevada. The practice of fish stocking became standard policy as state agencies took primary responsibility for managing each state’s fish and wildlife resources. CDFW has stocking records for many named lakes in Upper Mokelumne Management Unit starting in the 1930s. Stocking increased in scope in the 1950s with the advent of aerial fish stocking (Knapp 1996) and non-native fish were eventually introduced into nearly every Sierra Nevada headwater system.

Although the practice of introducing non-native fish in historically fishless headwater ecosystems created many productive fisheries and established angling as a recreational activity in high mountain lakes, there have been negative impacts on the viability and biodiversity of native species populations (Bradford 1989, Lunte and Luecke 1990, Bahls 1992, Bradford et al. 1993, Drake and Naiman 2000, Knapp et al. 2001, Pister 2001, Dunham et al. 2004, Vredenburg 2004, Finaly and Vredenburg 2007, Pope 2008, Herbst et al. 2009). In California, researchers have determined non-native fish introduction is a primary factor in observed population declines of SNYLF (Bradford 1989, Bradford et al. 1993, Knapp and Mathews 2000, Knapp et al. 2001, Knapp 2005, Knapp et al. 2007).

Currently, the CDFW has jurisdiction of fish stocking programs in the Sierra Nevada outside of the National Parks and has maintained thorough fish stocking records since 1950 and partial records from 1928 through 1949. Brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis, BK), brown trout (Salmo trutta, BN), golden trout, Lahontan cutthroat, and rainbow trout are the most commonly introduced fish species. Other less common species introduced include arctic grayling (Thymallus arcticus), bullhead (Ameiurus sp.), carp (Cyprinus carpio), goldfish (Carassius

13 auratus), hitch (Lavinia exilicauda), golden shiner (Notemigonus crysoleucas), king salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha), kokanee salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka), lake trout (Salvelinus naymaycush), speckled dace (Rhinichthys osculus), sunfish (Lepomis sp.), and Tui chub (Gila bicolor).

14 Figure 1: CDFW Planning Watersheds within Upper Mokelumne Management Unit.

15 Figure 2: Use within the Upper Mokelumne Management Unit.

SECTION III

MANAGEMENT DIRECTION

17 1) BULL RUN CREEK PLANNING WATERSHED MANAGEMENT DIRECTION

Bull Run Creek PWS is bisected by State Highway 4 and contains two named tributaries to the North Fork Mokelumne River, Grouse Creek and Pacific Creek. The majority of land in the watershed north of Highway 4 is within Mokelumne Wilderness, albeit bisected by an OHV trail. South of State Highway 4, Pacific Valley OHV trail follows Pacific Creek and accesses an official SNF campground. Five unnamed lakes are mapped within the PWS.

Table 1 provides summary data for amphibian resources and management in the Bull Run Creek PWS. Figure 3 provides herpetofauna species distribution for the Bull Run Creek PWS. Figure 4 provides the management direction for the Bull Run Creek PWS. Figure 5 provides fish species distribution for the Bull Run Creek PWS.

Herpetofauna and Fisheries Resources and Management AMMA larvae were observed by CDFW at three unnamed lakes in 2001: 15142; 15160 and 28070. As a result of breeding AMMA these three lakes will be managed as amphibian resources.

Although fish were not observed in the planning watershed by HML survey crews, fish are known to be present in the North Fork Mokelumne, Grouse Creek and Pacific Creek. Managing large river systems is outside the scope of this plan.

Incidentally CDFW survey crews observed HYRE at 4 sites and THSP at 1 site within the PWS (Table 1).

Table 1: Summary of herpetofauna survey data and management for Bull Run Creek PWS.

Survey Data: Lake Herpetofauna Sub- Meta- Egg Name Lake ID Survey Date Present Adult adult morph Larva mass Management Direction 15044 6/19/2003 HYRE 0 0 0 0 68 Not Actively Managed 15049 6/19/2003 HYRE 0 0 0 2800 10 Not Actively Managed AMMA 0 0 0 100 0 15142 8/3/2001 Amphibian Resource HYRE 0 0 0 50 0 AMMA 0 0 0 2 0 15160 8/3/2001 THEL 3 0 0 0 0 Amphibian Resource HYRE 0 0 0 100 0 28070 8/3/2001 AMMA 0 0 0 6 0 Amphibian Resource

18 Figure 3: Herpetofauna resources in Bull Run Creek Planning Watershed.

19 Figure 4: Management direction in Bull Run Creek Planning Watershed.

20 Figure 5: Fisheries resources in Bull Run Creek Planning Watershed.

21 2) DEADWOOD CANYON PLANNING WATERSHED MANAGEMENT DIRECTION

Deadwood Canyon PWS is bisected by the North Fork Mokelumne River and contains one named tributary to the North Fork, Meadow Creek after it flows out of Meadow Lake via a Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E)-managed dam. A single named lake, Deadwood Lake, and twenty-one unnamed waters are mapped within the PWS including Deadwood Canyon, which contains a breeding SNYLF population. Nearly all of the land within the PWS is in the Mokelumne Wilderness and the whole watershed is only accessible via cross-country hiking. Snow Canyon Research Natural Area is a small valley in the northern section of the PWS; ENF manages Snow Canyon as a primitive area for research and education (USFS, 2000). Land south of the Mokelumne River is managed by STF.

Table 2 provides summary data for amphibian resources and management in the Deadwood Canyon PWS. Table 3 provides a summary of fish population data for the Deadwood Canyon PWS. Table 4 provides a summary of fisheries management for the Deadwood Canyon PWS. Figure 6 provides herpetofauna species distribution for the Deadwood Canyon PWS. Figure 7 provides the management direction for the Deadwood Canyon PWS. Figure 8 provides fish species distribution for the Deadwood Canyon PWS.

Herpetofauna Resources and Management CDFW does not have stocking records for Deadwood Lake. SNYLF were observed at the lake in 2002 and 2008 but that population may be extirpated; CDFW surveys in 2010 and 2012 did not detect SNYLF. Three surveys without a SNYLF observation are necessary for CDFW to consider a population extirpated and this has not yet occurred at Deadwood Lake. Deadwood Lake is small and shallow and no fish have been observed there during any of the VESs conducted by CFDW. AMMA larvae were observed by CDFW in 2002 and 2003. As a result of breeding AMMA and possible SNYLF, Deadwood Lake will be managed as an amphibian resource.

Within the PWS a small population of approximately 30-50 adult SNYLF is present in Deadwood Canyon Creek and nearby meadow ponds. Due to the relatively isolated nature of this population and shallow water throughout Deadwood Canyon Creek this population is particularly vulnerable to extended drought. Six unnamed ponds, the deepest of which has a maximum recorded depth of just 3 meters, and a 1.6 kilometer section of stream and meadow habitat in the upper portion of the canyon support all life stages of SNYLF. Breeding is regularly observed in the stream and one pond. As a result each of these sites will be managed as an amphibian resource. Additionally, Deadwood Canyon Creek and nearby ponds will be managed as a Native Species Reserve and all sites within the NSR will be regularly monitored for SNLYF. AMMA are also present and breeding in Deadwood Canyon.

AMMA were observed by CDFW at fourteen sites within the watershed: Deadwood Lake, 14833, 14834, 14837, 14838, 14840, 14843, 14953, 15056, 15059, 15061, 15063, 50166, and 50167. All of these sites are fishless. As a result, they will be managed as amphibian resources.

Incidentally CDFW survey crews observed HYRE at 20 sites and THSP at 12 sites within the PWS (Table 2).

22 Table 2: Summary of herpetofauna survey data and management for Deadwood Canyon PWS.

Table 2: Summary of herpetofauna survey data and management for Deadwood Canyon PWS.

Survey Data: Lake Survey Herpetofauna Sub- Meta- Egg Management Lake Name ID Date Present Adult adult morph Larva mass Direction SNYLF 0 12 0 0 0 AMMA 0 0 0 2 0 8/14/2002 HYRE 1 10 0 69 0 THEL 2 0 0 0 0 THCO 0 1 0 0 0

AMMA 1 0 0 0 0 8/28/2003 Deadwood 14827 HYRE 0 0 21 17 0 Amphibian Resource Lake SNYLF 1 3 0 0 0

8/13/2008 THEL 1 0 0 0 0 HYRE 0 0 0 28 0 7/1/2010 HYRE 1 0 0 0 0 HYRE 0 0 4 29 0 8/19/2012 THEL 1 0 0 0 0

SNYLF 19 18 0 105 0

HYRE 0 87 0 180 0 8/14/2002 AMMA 0 0 0 55 0

THEL 2 0 0 0 0 THEL 1 2 0 0 0

AMMA 0 0 0 33 0 8/28/2003 HYRE 0 0 14 48 0

SNYLF 22 44 0 19 0

AMMA 0 0 25 55 0 Deadwood Canyon 50166 8/13/2008 SNYLF 18 88 23 164 0 Amphibian Resource Creek HYRE 0 14 0 122 0

SNYLF 10 2 0 2 2

HYRE 3 0 0 0 0 7/1/2010 AMMA 1 0 0 0 0

THEL 1 0 0 0 0

AMMA 0 0 0 16 0

SNYLF 7 3 0 74 0 8/19/2012 THSP 2 0 0 0 0 HYRE 0 0 0 2 0

23 Table 2: Summary of herpetofauna survey data and management for Deadwood Canyon PWS.

Survey Data: Lake Survey Herpetofauna Sub- Meta- Egg Management Lake Name ID Date Present Adult adult morph Larva mass Direction THEL 2 0 0 0 0 AMMA 1 0 0 77 0 8/14/2002 SNYLF 23 31 0 310 0 HYRE 0 30 0 53 0 HYRE 0 0 33 32 0 THCO 2 0 0 0 0 8/28/2003 SNYLF 18 153 0 124 0 THEL 3 1 0 0 0 AMMA 0 0 0 40 0 Deadwood THCO 1 0 0 0 0 Canyon 50167 Amphibian Resource Creek AMMA 0 0 6 129 0 8/13/2008 HYRE 0 30 2 83 0 SNYLF 27 77 19 351 0 THEL 2 1 0 0 0 SNYLF 9 0 0 4 6 7/1/2010 HYRE 7 0 0 0 0 UKN 2 0 0 0 0 AMMA 0 0 0 1 0 8/19/2012 SNYLF 13 2 0 376 0 THSP 2 0 0 0 0 8/14/2002 SNYLF 5 3 0 5 0 THEL 1 0 0 0 0 8/28/2003 SNYLF 2 4 0 23 0 SNYLF 3 7 0 0 0 Deadwood 8/13/2008 Canyon 50168 HYRE 0 5 0 0 0 Amphibian Resource Creek 7/1/2010 SNYLF 1 0 0 0 0 HYRE 0 0 2 0 0 8/19/2012 SNYLF 6 8 1 0 0 THEL 1 0 0 0 0 14831 8/13/2008 HYRE 0 0 5 500 0 Not Actively Managed

24 Table 2: Summary of herpetofauna survey data and management for Deadwood Canyon PWS.

Survey Data: Lake Survey Herpetofauna Sub- Meta- Egg Management Lake Name ID Date Present Adult adult morph Larva mass Direction HYRE 0 8 0 89 0 8/15/2002 SNYLF 1 0 0 0 0 AMMA 0 0 0 2 0 8/28/2003 HYRE 0 0 62 397 0 THEL 5 0 0 0 0 14833 SNYLF 0 3 0 0 0 Amphibian Resource 8/13/2008 HYRE 3 106 7 283 0 7/1/2010 HYRE 3 0 0 0 4 THEL 0 1 0 0 0 8/19/2012 HYRE 0 0 0 1 0 SNYLF 0 0 0 1 0 HYRE 0 4 0 25 0 8/15/2002 SNYLF 2 0 0 18 0 AMMA 0 0 0 1 0 SNYLF 2 0 0 4 0 8/28/2003 HYRE 0 0 41 25 0 14834 Amphibian Resource SNYLF 0 1 0 0 0 8/13/2008 HYRE 0 15 11 212 0 7/1/2010 HYRE 3 0 0 0 0 HYRE 0 0 4 11 0 8/19/2012 SNYLF 2 0 0 0 0 HYRE 3 0 10 0 0 14837 8/28/2003 Amphibian Resource AMMA 0 0 0 7 0 HYRE 0 9 0 128 0 AMMA 0 0 0 1 0 8/15/2002 SNYLF 1 130 0 36 0 THEL 1 0 0 0 0 HYRE 0 0 0 68 0 8/28/2003 SNYLF 1 16 2 37 0 AMMA 0 0 0 2 0 AMMA 0 0 1 8 0 14838 Amphibian Resource THEL 2 0 0 0 0 8/13/2008 HYRE 0 4 3 35 0 SNYLF 3 23 1 100 0 SNYLF 4 1 0 15 7 7/1/2010 THEL 1 0 0 0 0 THEL 1 0 0 0 0

8/19/2012 HYRE 0 0 0 5 0 SNYLF 0 6 1 78 0

25 Table 2: Summary of herpetofauna survey data and management for Deadwood Canyon PWS.

Survey Data: Lake Survey Herpetofauna Sub- Meta- Egg Management Lake Name ID Date Present Adult adult morph Larva mass Direction HYRE 0 0 18 99 0 14840 8/28/2003 AMMA 0 0 0 22 0 Amphibian Resource THEL 3 0 0 0 0 8/15/2002 HYRE 0 5 0 5 0 HYRE 0 3 15 175 0 8/13/2008 14842 SNYLF 1 0 0 0 0 Amphibian Resource 7/1/2010 HYRE 2 0 0 0 6 8/19/2012 None HYRE 0 13 0 38 0 8/15/2002 AMMA 0 0 0 1 0 AMMA 0 0 0 5 0

14843 8/13/2008 HYRE 0 1 0 140 0 Amphibian Resource SNYLF 1 0 0 0 0

7/1/2010 None 8/19/2012 None 14850 8/14/2002 HYRE 0 3 0 240 0 Not Actively Managed HYRE 0 0 0 295 0 14854 7/6/2013 THSP 1 0 0 0 0 Not Managed by HML THEL 0 1 0 0 0 HYRE 0 0 0 84 0 14860 7/6/2013 Not Actively Managed THEL 0 2 0 0 0 AMMA 0 0 0 41 0 8/15/2003 THEL 0 2 0 0 0

14953 HYRE 0 0 0 15 0 Amphibian Resource AMMA 0 0 0 35 0 7/22/2013 HYRE 0 0 0 2 0 HYRE 0 0 0 100 0 8/4/2001 AMMA 0 0 0 100 0 15056 Amphibian Resource AMMA 0 0 0 42 0 7/8/2013 HYRE 0 0 0 669 0 THEL 2 0 0 0 0 8/4/2001 HYRE 0 1 0 100 0 15059 Amphibian Resource HYRE 0 0 0 253 0 7/8/2013 AMMA 0 0 0 552 0

8/4/2001 AMMA 0 0 0 100 0 15061 Amphibian Resource 7/8/2013 AMMA 0 0 0 14 0

26 Table 2: Summary of herpetofauna survey data and management for Deadwood Canyon PWS.

Survey Data: Lake Survey Herpetofauna Sub- Meta- Egg Management Lake Name ID Date Present Adult adult morph Larva mass Direction AMMA 0 0 0 100 0 8/4/2001 HYRE 0 0 0 100 0 15063 AMMA 0 0 0 38 0 Amphibian Resource 7/8/2013 HYRE 0 0 0 70 0 THEL 1 0 0 0 0 8/13/2008 HYRE 0 105 5 150 0 50107 Not Actively Managed 7/1/2010 None

Table 3: Summary of fisheries population data in Deadwood Canyon PWS.

Survey Data: Avg. Avg. Survey Fish Species # Length Weight Avg. K Lake Name Lake ID Date Present Self-sustaining Caught (mm) (g) Value Deadwood Lake 14827 7/1/2010 None 0

Table 4: Summary of fisheries management for Deadwood Canyon PWS.

Table 4: Summary of fisheries management information for Deadwood Canyon PWS.

First Last Current Recorded Recorded Pre-Survey Proposed Lake Name Lake ID Stocking Stocking Allotments Allotment Management Direction Deadwood Lake 14827 - - DNP DNP Amphibian Resource

27 Figure 6: Herpetofauna species distribution in Deadwood Canyon Planning Watershed.

28 Figure 7: Management direction in Deadwood Canyon Planning Watershed.

29 Figure 8: Fish species distribution in Deadwood Canyon Planning Watershed.

30 3) FOURTH OF JULY CANYON PLANNING WATERSHED MANAGEMENT DIRECTION

Fourth of July PWS contains a section of the Mokelumne River Canyon and no named tributaries or lakes. The North Fork Mokelumne River bisects the PWS which contains two mapped ponds at the top of Fourth of July Canyon in the northern portion of the watershed. Mokelumne Peak (2,845m) demarks the northwestern boundary of the watershed, and the majority of land in the watershed is within Mokelumne Wilderness. Bear Valley Ski Resort is located in the southern part of the PWS and a primitive trail from Bear Valley accesses the Mokelumne River; accessing the rest of the watershed requires cross country travel.

Table 5 provides summary data for amphibian resources and management in the Fourth of July Canyon PWS. Figure 9 provides herpetofauna species distribution for the Fourth of July Canyon PWS. Figure 10 provides the management direction for the Fourth of July Canyon PWS. Figure 11 provides fish species distribution for the Fourth of July Canyon PWS.

Herpetofauna Resources and Management All life stages of SNYLF were observed in 2012 at two unnamed ponds within the PWS. The ponds are located near the top of Fourth of July canyon on the northeastern shoulder of Mokelumne Peak at approximately 2,505 meters elevation. Each pond is less than 3 meters deep and they are likely connected at high water. No fish were observed and there are no records of fish planting at these small nameless sites. This area is extremely isolated from the nearest deep water habitat and CDFW considers this population in danger of extirpation due to drought. Twenty adults, 47 juveniles and 113 larvae were observed during a 35 minute VES. Because of these survey results this area will be managed as an amphibian resource.

Incidentally, HYRE were observed at a single site within the PWS.

Table 5: Summary of herpetofauna survey data and management for Fourth of July Canyon PWS. Table 5: Summary of herpetofauna survey data and management for Fourth of July Canyon PWS.

Survey Data: Survey Herpetofauna Sub- Meta- Egg Management Lake Name Lake ID Date Present Adult adult morph Larva mass Direction Amphibian 15084 9/1/2012 SNYLF 18 47 0 56 0 Resource

SNYLF 2 0 0 57 0 Amphibian 51066 9/1/2012 HYRE 0 1 0 0 0 Resource

31 Figure 9: Herpetofauna species distribution in Fourth of July Canyon Planning Watershed.

32 Figure 10: Management Direction in Fourth of July Canyon Planning Watershed.

33 Figure 11: Fish species distribution in Fourth of July Canyon Planning Watershed.

34 4) HIGHLAND LAKES PLANNING WATERSHED MANAGEMENT DIRECTION

Highland Lakes PWS contains the headwaters of the North Fork Mokelumne River and one named tributary, Elbow Creek, which enters the North Fork near State Highway 4. A single named lake, Highland Lake, and eleven unnamed ponds are mapped within the PWS. Although there are two Highland Lakes with a small meadow between them the smaller, western lake ultimately drains into the Stanislaus River rather than the Mokelumne and is not included in this plan. A rough dirt road travels along the Mokelumne River south from State Highway 4 and accesses a Forest Service campground at Highland Lakes and a number of hiking and equestrian trails cross the southern section of the watershed.

Table 6 provides summary data for amphibian resources and management in the Highland Lakes PWS. Table 7 provides a summary of fish population data for the Highland Lakes PWS. Table 8 provides a summary of fisheries management for the Highland Lakes PWS. Figure 12 provide herpetofauna species distribution for the Highland Lakes PWS. Figure 13 provides the management direction for the Highland Lakes PWS. Figure 14 provides fish species distribution for the Highland Lakes PWS.

Fisheries and Herpetofauna Resources and Management Highland Lake is a road-accessible lake at the headwaters of the North Fork Mokelumne River. Brook trout plants began at Highland in 1950 and continued regularly through 2000. Rainbow trout were planted from 1967 through 1970 and a single Lahontan cutthroat trout plant occurred in 1977. A CDFW gill net survey in 2001 captured 27 BK and a single RT, suggesting that trout are reproducing in the area, however an additional fishery survey is necessary to determine the status of the fishery. California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) records indicate that BUCA may be present in the meadow between the Highland Lakes – BUCA were collected for museum records as recently as 1994 – and SNYLF collected from the meadow in 1976. A management direction for Highland Lake will be proposed when CDFW has collected current data for the area.

AMMA were observed by CDFW at five sites within the watershed: 15009, 15064, 15095, 15164, and 15211. All of these sites are fishless. As a result, they will be managed as amphibian breeding resources.

Incidentally CDFW survey crews observed HYRE at 11 sites and THSP at 4 sites within the PWS (Table 6).

Table 6: Summary of herpetofauna survey data and management for Highland Lakes PWS.

Survey Data: Survey Herpetofauna Sub- Meta- Egg Management Lake Name Lake ID Date Present Adult adult morph Larva mass Direction Highland 15187 8/1/2001 HYRE 1 0 0 0 0 TBD Lake

AMMA 0 0 0 100 0 15009 7/20/2001 Amphibian Resource HYRE 0 0 0 1000 0

35 Table 6: Summary of herpetofauna survey data and management for Highland Lakes PWS.

Survey Data: Survey Herpetofauna Sub- Meta- Egg Management Lake Name Lake ID Date Present Adult adult morph Larva mass Direction AMMA 0 0 0 1000 0 15064 7/21/2001 Amphibian Resource HYRE 0 0 0 1000 0 THEL 0 2 0 0 0 15095 9/5/2003 AMMA 0 0 0 750 0 Amphibian Resource HYRE 0 0 0 38 0 HYRE 0 0 1 32 0 15164 9/3/2003 Amphibian Resource AMMA 0 0 0 7 0

THEL 1 0 0 0 0 Not Actively 15165 9/3/2003 HYRE 0 0 2 0 0 Managed

THEL 0 2 0 0 0 Not Actively 15166 9/3/2003 HYRE 0 0 1 1 0 Managed

HYRE 0 0 14 10 0 Not Actively 15168 9/3/2003 THEL 1 0 0 0 0 Managed Not Actively 15207 8/1/2001 HYRE 0 0 0 3 0 Managed AMMA 0 0 0 10 0 15211 8/1/2001 Amphibian Resource HYRE 0 2 0 100 0 Not Actively 15212 8/2/2001 HYRE 0 0 0 100 0 Managed Not Actively 28069 8/2/2001 None Managed

Table 7: Summary of fisheries population data in Highland Lakes PWS.

Survey Data: Self- Avg. Avg. Lake Survey Fish Species sustaini # Length Weight Avg. K Name Lake ID Date Present ng Caught (mm) (g) Value RT Unknown 1 Highland 15187 8/1/2001 Lake BK Unknown 27 234 127 0.964

Table 8: Summary of fisheries management information for Highland Lakes PWS.

Table 8: Summary of fisheries management information for Highland Lake PWS. Pre- Current First Recorded Last Recorded Survey Proposed Management Lake Name Lake ID Stocking Stocking Allotments Allotment Direction 1950 - BK 2000 - BK Highland Lake 15187 1977 - CT-L 1977 - CT-L 1000 BK TBD TBD 1967 - RT 1970 - RT

36 Figure 12: Summary of herpetofauna resources in Highland Lakes Planning Watershed.

37 Figure 13: Management direction in Highland Lakes Planning Watershed.

38 Figure 14: Fisheries resources in Highland Lakes Planning Watershed.

5) JELMINI CREEK PLANNING WATERSHED MANAGEMENT DIRECTION

Jelmini Creek PWS includes the lowest section of the Mokelumne River Canyon to where the river enters Salt Springs Reservoir. Two named tributaries to the Mokelumne, Mattley Creek and Jelmini Creek, enter the river from the southern portion of the watershed. A number of hiking and equestrian trails cross southern section of Jelmini Creek PWS and a single trail descends to the Mokelumne River, providing access to Blue Hole and Salt Springs Reservoir. There are two named sites, Blue Hole and Salt Springs Lake, and a single unnamed pond mapped within the watershed boundary.

Tables summarizing data from Jelmini Creek PWS will be appended to this document when data is collected. Figure 15 provides a layout of mapped waters within Jelmini Creek PWS.

Recent surveys have not been conducted at Blue Hole or Salt Springs Lake, the two named sites within the PWS. Both sites are located near the Mokelumne River and Salt Springs Reservoir. CDFW intends to survey both sites as funding and personnel availability allow. When data are gathered this management plan will be updated.

40 Figure 15: Lake and stream distribution in Jelmini Creek Planning Watershed.

41 6) LADEUX MEADOW PLANNING WATERSHED MANAGEMENT DIRECTION

Ladeux Meadow PWS is a long narrow watershed in the center of the Mokelumne Wilderness which drains waters from both north and south of the North Fork Mokelumne River. A section of the Mokelumne Canyon bisects the PWS which can be accessed via hiking trails from either rugged 4WD roads in the north or State Highway 4 in the south. There are three named lakes: Black Rock Lake; Frog Lake; and Long Lake and one named SNYLF site – Ladeux Meadow Creek – as well as nineteen unnamed ponds mapped within the PWS.

Table 9 provides summary data for amphibian resources and management in the Ladeux Meadow PWS. Table 10 provides a summary of fish population data for the Ladeux Meadow PWS. Table 11 provides a summary of fisheries management for the Ladeux Meadow PWS. Figure 16 provides herpetofauna species distribution for the Ladeux Meadow PWS. Figure 17 provides the management direction for the Ladeux Meadow PWS. Figure 18 provides fish species distribution for the Ladeux Meadow PWS.

Fisheries and Herpetofauna Resources and Management Black Rock Lake is a small isolated lake which received brook trout plants between 1938 and 1994. CDFW conducted a gill net survey at the lake in 2010 and captured no fish and no fish were observed during herpetofauna surveys in 2001 and 2012 indicating Black Rock Lake is fishless. No special status herpetofauna have been observed at the lake but SNYLF were observed in a nearby stream channel by ENF in 1994 and Black Rock Lake has a maximum recorded depth of 4.6 meters, making it one of the deepest lakes in the management unit, therefore CDFW will manage Black Rock Lake as a native species restoration area for SNYLF. When a source population becomes available CDFW will translocate SNYLF to Black Rock Lake.

Frog Lake is located in the southern corner of the watershed and is accessible via a mixture of cross-country hiking and unmaintained trails from State Highway 4. Brook trout were planted in Frog Lake from 1930 through 1978. Adult trout and fry were observed during a 2003 CDFW survey and a 2013 gill net captured 17 healthy brook trout. No special status herpetofauna were observed during either survey, therefore the lake will be managed as a self-sustaining brook trout fishery.

Ladeux Meadow Creek contains a small SNYLF population with 10-20 adult SNYLF breeding in a shallow creek within Ladeux Meadow. CDFW has been monitoring this population since 2002 and it appears to be stable although the lack of deep water habitat makes this population particularly vulnerable to an extended drought. ENF also monitors the population and has placed a fence around the meadow in order to prevent grazing cattle from accessing the area. No fish have been observed in the meadow stream and CDFW will manage Ladeux Meadow Creek as an amphibian resource and continue to monitor the population.

Long Lake was originally planted with brook trout in 1930 and brook trout plants continued regularly between 1934 and 1973. Rainbow trout were planted occasionally between 1933 and 1953 and nearly annually from 1971 through 2000. A single brown trout plant occurred in 1932. In 1963 Long Lake was part of a project to construct dams and raise water levels for fish, leading to the construction of two small dams at the outlet. Although the dams are still present as of 2012, fishery surveys conducted by CDFW in 2001 and 2012 captured no fish, suggesting that fish do not persist at the lake in the absence of stocking. AMMA are present in the lake and

42 SNYLF were observed nearby in 2002 (at site ID 14937), therefore the lake will no longer be planted and Long Lake will be managed as an amphibian resource.

AMMA were observed by CDFW at 9 sites within the watershed: Long Lake, 14915, 14920, 14937, 14938, 14939, 14941, 14943, and 15057 (Table 9). All of these sites are fishless. As a result, they will be managed as amphibian breeding resources.

Incidentally CDFW survey crews observed HYRE at 13 sites and THSP at 7 sites within the PWS (Table 9).

Table 9: Summary of herpetofauna survey data and management for Ladeux Meadow PWS.

Survey Data: Lake Survey Herpetofauna Sub- Meta- Egg Management Lake Name ID Date Present Adult adult morph Larva mass Direction HYRE 0 0 0 10 0 7/5/2001 Native Species Black Rock THEL 2 0 0 0 0 14877 Restoration – Lake THEL 2 0 0 0 0 Category 1 9/3/2012 HYRE 2 11 0 2 0 HYRE 0 0 37 0 0 9/4/2003 Self-sustaining Frog Lake 15048 THCO 0 1 0 0 0 Fishery 7/8/2013 HYRE 0 0 0 25 0 THEL 1 0 0 0 0 8/1/2002 HYRE 0 7 0 17 0 SNYLF 4 117 0 223 0 SNYLF 5 0 30 83 0 9/18/2003 HYRE 0 0 10 0 0 SNYLF 8 59 3 50 0 Ladeux 9/13/2005 Meadow 38806 HYRE 1 88 10 50 0 Amphibian Resource Creek HYRE 0 13 0 190 0 8/18/2008 SNYLF 5 42 10 735 0

7/27/2010 SNYLF 1 2 0 89 0

SNYLF 3 3 2 360 0 8/2/2012 HYRE 0 1 0 0 0 THEL 2 0 0 0 0 7/6/2001 None

AMMA 0 0 0 1 0 Long Lake 14934 Amphibian Resource 9/1/2012 HYRE 1 0 0 1 0 THEL 1 0 0 0 0

14776 9/18/2003 HYRE 0 0 3 0 0 Not Actively Managed

43 Table 9: Summary of herpetofauna survey data and management for Ladeux Meadow PWS.

Survey Data: Lake Survey Herpetofauna Sub- Meta- Egg Management Lake Name ID Date Present Adult adult morph Larva mass Direction 7/6/2001 AMMA 0 0 0 9 0 14915 Amphibian Resource 9/1/2012 None HYRE 0 0 0 75 0 7/6/2001 14920 AMMA 0 0 0 10 0 Amphibian Resource 9/1/2012 None SNYLF 1 0 0 0 0 7/8/2001 AMMA 0 0 0 4 0 AMMA 0 0 0 1 0 14937 8/1/2002 Amphibian Resource SNYLF 1 0 0 0 0 7/26/2010 None 9/1/2012 None 7/8/2001 AMMA 0 0 0 3 0 14938 8/1/2002 AMMA 0 0 0 17 0 Amphibian Resource 9/1/2012 None AMMA 0 0 0 11 0 7/8/2001 HYRE 0 0 0 100 0 14939 AMMA 0 0 0 7 0 Amphibian Resource 8/1/2002 HYRE 0 1 0 86 0 9/1/2012 AMMA 0 0 0 1 0 7/6/2001 AMMA 0 0 0 27 0 AMMA 0 0 0 65 0 14941 8/1/2002 Amphibian Resource HYRE 0 0 0 260 0 9/1/2012 None 7/8/2001 None 14942 Not Actively Managed 9/1/2012 None 7/8/2001 AMMA 0 0 0 18 0 14943 8/1/2002 AMMA 0 0 0 10 0 Amphibian Resource 9/1/2012 None AMMA 0 0 0 17 0 7/6/2001 14947 HYRE 0 0 0 29 0 Amphibian Resource 9/1/2012 None THEL 1 0 0 0 0 7/7/2001 14962 HYRE 0 0 0 2 0 Not Actively Managed 9/1/2012 None

7/7/2001 None 14986 Not Actively Managed 9/1/2012 None 14988 7/7/2001 None Not Actively Managed

44 Table 9: Summary of herpetofauna survey data and management for Ladeux Meadow PWS.

Survey Data: Lake Survey Herpetofauna Sub- Meta- Egg Management Lake Name ID Date Present Adult adult morph Larva mass Direction 14991 7/7/2001 None Not Actively Managed THEL 1 0 0 0 0 7/7/2001 14992 HYRE 0 0 0 100 0 Not Actively Managed 9/1/2012 None HYRE 0 5 0 10 0 8/4/2001 THEL 2 0 0 0 0 15057 Amphibian Resource HYRE 0 0 0 230 0 7/8/2013 AMMA 0 0 0 85 0 7/5/2001 None 27514 Not Actively Managed 9/3/2012 None 7/5/2001 HYRE 0 0 0 100 0 27515 Not Actively Managed 9/3/2012 None 52374 9/3/2012 None Not Actively Managed

Table 10: Summary of fisheries population data in Ladeux Meadow PWS.

Table 10: Summary of fisheries population data in Ladeux Meadow PWS. Survey Data: Fish Avg. Avg. Avg. Survey Species Self- # Length Weight K Lake Name Lake ID Date Present sustaining Caught (mm) (g) Value

7/5/2001 None 0 Black Rock 14877 Lake 7/26/2010 None 0

9/4/2003 BK Yes 1 Frog Lake 15048 7/8/2013 BK Yes 17 250 232 1.183 7/6/2001 RT No 19 235 175 1.094 Long Lake 14934 9/1/2012 None 0

Table 11: Summary of fisheries management information for Ladeux Meadow PWS.

Table 11: Summary of fisheries management information for Ladeux Meadow PWS. First Last Current Recorded Recorded Pre-Survey Proposed Lake Name Lake ID Stocking Stocking Allotments Allotment Management Direction Black Rock Native Species 14877 1938 - BK 1994 - BK DNP DNP Lake Restoration – Category 1

1932 - CT 1949 - CT Frog Lake 15048 DNP DNP Self-sustaining Fishery 1930 - BK 1978 - BK 1933 - RT 2000 - RT Long Lake 14934 1930 - BK 1996 - BK 500 RT ANN DNP Amphibian Resource 1932 - BN 1932 - BN

46 Figure 16: Herpetofauna species distribution in Ladeux Meadow Planning Watershed.

47 Figure 17: Management direction in Ladeux Meadow Planning Watershed.

48 Figure 18: Fish species distribution in Ladeux Meadow Planning Watershed.

7) LOWER DEER CREEK PLANNING WATERSHED MANAGEMENT DIRECTION

Lower Deer Creek PWS is south of the Mokelumne Canyon and contains the lowest section of Deer Creek before it flows into the Mokelumne River and two additional named tributaries, Cache Creek and Sandy Meadow Creek. The North Fork Mokelumne bisects the PWS. Land in the watershed is managed by STF and contains 36 mapped sites including Wheeler Lake, the only named site within the PWS. A number of hiking trails provide access to the southern portion of the PWS from Highway 4.

Table 12 provides summary data for amphibian resources and management in the Lower Deer Creek PWS. Table 13 provides a summary of fish population data for the Lower Deer Creek PWS. Table 14 provides a summary of fisheries management for the Lower Deer Creek PWS. Figure 19 provides herpetofauna species distribution for the Lower Deer Creek PWS. Figure 20 provides the management direction for the Lower Deer Creek PWS. Figure 21 provides fish species distribution for the Lower Deer Creek PWS.

Herpetofauna Resources Management Wheeler Lake and its tributaries contain a small population of SNYLF which CDFW has been monitoring since 2001. SNYLF larvae have not been observed in Wheeler Lake, but 20-40 tadpoles are regularly seen in the outlet stream. Fish planting records for Wheeler Lake begin in 1931 with 25,000 brook trout. Brook trout were regularly planted until 2000 and a single rainbow trout plant occurred in 1980. A CDFW gill net survey in 2001 captured 15 large brook trout and a 2013 survey using multiple gill nets returned no fish. No fish have been observed during VESs and a small dam on the outlet to Wheeler prevents fish from accessing the stream to spawn. Wheeler Lake is likely fishless and contains SNYLF, therefore the lake will be managed as an amphibian resource. If fish are detected at the lake in the future they will be removed. Additionally, Wheeler Lake, its outlet stream, surrounding meadows and small ponds will all be managed as part of an NSR and permanently removed from stocking consideration.

AMMA were observed by CDFW at 29 sites within the watershed: 14999, 15000, 15003, 15013, 15014, 15018, 15030, 15047, 15058, 15086, 15089, 15099, 15100, 15101, 15103, 15104, 15110, 15123, 15126, 15127, 15128, 15129, 15143, 15154, 28071, 50170, 51059, 51061, and 60070 (Table 8). All of these sites are fishless. As a result, they will be managed as amphibian breeding resources.

Incidentally CDFW survey crews observed HYRE at 35 sites, BUSP at 4 sites, and THSP at 16 sites within the PWS (Table 8).

50 Table 12: Summary of herpetofauna survey data and management for Lower Deer Creek Planning Watershed.

Table 12: Summary of herpetofauna survey data and management for Lower Deer Creek PWS.

Survey Data: Survey Herpetofauna Sub- Meta- Egg Management Lake Name Lake ID Date Present Adult adult morph Larva mass Direction HYRE 3 0 0 20 0 THEL 1 0 0 0 0 8/3/2001 SNYLF 3 0 0 0 0 BUCA 3 0 0 6 0 UKN 1 0 0 0 0 9/4/2003 SNYLF 1 0 0 0 0 THEL 3 2 0 0 0 7/27/2005 HYRE 0 0 0 41 0 BUCA 0 0 0 2488 0 Wheeler 15145 HYRE 3 0 0 116 0 Amphibian Resource Lake 7/15/2010 BUCA 0 0 0 2965 0 SNYLF 0 0 1 39 0 HYRE 0 0 0 26 0 BUBO 0 0 0 28 0 6/19/2012 THEL 1 0 0 0 0 SNYLF 1 0 0 0 0 BUBO 0 0 0 244 0 7/9/2013 HYRE 0 0 0 55 0 SNYLF 3 0 0 0 0

14993 6/18/2003 HYRE 1 0 0 0 0 Not Actively Managed

6/18/2003 HYRE 2 0 0 0 1 14994 Not Actively Managed 7/6/2013 HYRE 0 0 0 5 0 THEL 1 3 0 0 0 8/14/2003 AMMA 0 0 0 88 0 HYRE 0 0 30 7 0 14999 Amphibian Resource THEL 1 0 0 0 0 7/20/2013 AMMA 0 0 0 65 0 HYRE 0 0 3 45 0 AMMA 0 0 0 16 0 8/14/2003 HYRE 0 0 1 4 0 15000 Amphibian Resource HYRE 0 0 0 100 0 7/20/2013 AMMA 0 0 0 10 0

51 Table 12: Summary of herpetofauna survey data and management for Lower Deer Creek PWS.

Survey Data: Survey Herpetofauna Sub- Meta- Egg Management Lake Name Lake ID Date Present Adult adult morph Larva mass Direction AMMA 1 0 0 0 0 6/18/2003 BUSP 2 0 0 0 0 15003 HYRE 7 0 0 0 50 Amphibian Resource THEL 1 0 0 0 0 7/6/2013 HYRE 0 0 0 3 0 6/18/2003 HYRE 1 0 0 0 5 THEL 1 0 0 0 0 15013 Amphibian Resource 7/20/2013 HYRE 0 0 0 29 0 AMMA 0 0 0 20 0 AMMA 0 0 0 50 0 8/14/2003 HYRE 0 0 22 12 0 15014 Amphibian Resource HYRE 0 0 0 30 0 7/20/2013 AMMA 0 0 0 60 0 AMMA 0 0 0 2 0 8/14/2003 HYRE 0 0 9 7 0 15018 Amphibian Resource HYRE 0 1 2 30 0 7/20/2013 AMMA 0 0 0 11 0 AMMA 0 0 0 3 0 8/5/2001 HYRE 0 0 0 6 0 THCO 2 0 0 0 0 THEL 2 0 0 0 0 15030 Amphibian Resource HYRE 0 6 0 13 0 7/20/2013 AMMA 0 0 0 26 0 THEL 2 0 0 0 0 HYRE 0 0 1 45 0 HYRE 0 0 0 5 0 8/5/2001 THEL 2 0 0 0 0 15038 Not Actively Managed HYRE 0 2 4 39 0 7/20/2013 THEL 1 1 0 0 0 THEL 2 0 0 0 0 15047 7/20/2013 AMMA 0 0 0 26 0 Amphibian Resource HYRE 0 6 0 17 0 HYRE 1 0 0 100 0 8/4/2001 AMMA 0 0 0 100 0 15058 THEL 1 0 0 0 0 Amphibian Resource AMMA 0 0 0 199 0 7/8/2013 HYRE 0 0 0 17 0

52 Table 12: Summary of herpetofauna survey data and management for Lower Deer Creek PWS.

Survey Data: Survey Herpetofauna Sub- Meta- Egg Management Lake Name Lake ID Date Present Adult adult morph Larva mass Direction HYRE 0 0 0 100 0 8/4/2001 THEL 2 0 0 0 0 AMMA 0 0 0 100 0 15086 Amphibian Resource THEL 1 0 0 0 0 7/19/2013 HYRE 0 0 12 155 0 AMMA 0 0 0 155 0 THEL 1 0 0 0 0

8/4/2001 HYRE 0 0 0 50 0 15089 AMMA 0 0 0 100 0 Amphibian Resource

AMMA 0 0 0 307 0 7/19/2013 HYRE 0 0 0 220 0 8/4/2001 HYRE 0 4 0 1000 0

15099 AMMA 0 0 0 530 0 Amphibian Resource 7/19/2013 HYRE 0 0 0 330 0

AMMA 0 0 0 10 0 8/4/2001 HYRE 0 0 0 10 0 15100 HYRE 0 11 10 465 0 Amphibian Resource 7/19/2013 THEL 3 0 0 0 0 AMMA 0 0 0 13 0 AMMA 0 0 0 100 0 8/4/2001 HYRE 0 3 0 50 0 15101 Amphibian Resource HYRE 0 0 0 5 0 7/19/2013 AMMA 0 0 0 230 0 8/4/2001 None

15103 AMMA 0 0 0 485 0 Amphibian Resource 7/19/2013 HYRE 0 3 2 416 0 AMMA 0 0 0 100 0 8/4/2001 15104 HYRE 0 0 0 12 0 Amphibian Resource 7/19/2013 AMMA 0 0 0 43 0 8/4/2001 AMMA 0 0 0 100 0 15110 AMMA 0 0 0 297 0 Amphibian Resource 7/19/2013 HYRE 0 0 0 21 0 HYRE 0 0 0 10 0 8/5/2001 AMMA 0 0 0 100 0 15123 Amphibian Resource AMMA 0 0 0 65 0 7/19/2013 HYRE 0 0 0 120 0

53 Table 12: Summary of herpetofauna survey data and management for Lower Deer Creek PWS.

Survey Data: Survey Herpetofauna Sub- Meta- Egg Management Lake Name Lake ID Date Present Adult adult morph Larva mass Direction AMMA 0 0 0 8 0 8/5/2001 HYRE 7 3 0 100 0 15126 Amphibian Resource HYRE 0 0 0 30 0 7/9/2013 AMMA 0 0 0 97 0 HYRE 0 0 4 0 0 9/4/2003 AMMA 0 0 0 2 0 15127 Amphibian Resource AMMA 0 0 0 22 0 7/17/2013 HYRE 0 0 0 87 0 BUCA 1 0 0 0 0 8/5/2001 HYRE 2 0 0 0 0 15128 Amphibian Resource AMMA 0 0 0 38 0 7/9/2013 AMMA 0 0 0 10 0 AMMA 0 0 0 1 0 8/5/2001 HYRE 100 10 0 10 0 AMMA 0 0 0 9 0 7/24/2002 HYRE 0 0 0 3840 0 15129 Amphibian Resource THEL 2 0 0 0 0 AMMA 0 0 0 130 0 7/9/2013 THEL 1 2 0 0 0 HYRE 0 0 0 268 0

15132 7/17/2013 HYRE 0 0 0 58 0 Not Actively Managed

AMMA 0 0 0 50 0 15143 8/3/2001 Amphibian Resource HYRE 0 5 0 50 0 9/4/2003 AMMA 0 0 0 81 0 15154 THEL 0 1 0 0 0 Amphibian Resource 7/17/2013 HYRE 0 0 0 13 0

28071 8/4/2001 AMMA 0 0 0 10 0 Amphibian Resource

54 Table 12: Summary of herpetofauna survey data and management for Lower Deer Creek PWS.

Survey Data: Survey Herpetofauna Sub- Meta- Egg Management Lake Name Lake ID Date Present Adult adult morph Larva mass Direction BUCA 0 0 0 18 0 7/27/2005 SNYLF 3 0 0 0 0 HYRE 0 2 0 0 0 THEL 0 1 0 0 0 9/11/2008 AMMA 0 0 0 1 0 SNYLF 0 0 7 19 0 SNYLF 2 0 1 6 0 7/15/2010 50170 HYRE 0 1 0 0 0 Amphibian Resource BUBO 1 0 0 0 0 6/19/2012 AMMA 0 0 0 1 0 SNYLF 3 0 0 47 0 SNYLF 10 12 0 0 0 BUBO 0 0 0 8 0 7/9/2013 THEL 2 0 0 0 0 HYRE 0 29 4 32 0

51059 7/8/2013 AMMA 0 0 0 6 0 Amphibian Resource

AMMA 0 0 0 41 0 51061 7/9/2013 THEL 2 0 0 0 0 Amphibian Resource HYRE 0 2 43 144 0 AMMA 0 0 0 300 0 60070 7/19/2013 Amphibian Resource HYRE 0 3 5 80 0

67201 7/9/2013 HYRE 0 0 0 45 0 Not Actively Managed

67597 7/9/2013 HYRE 0 2 4 44 0 Not Actively Managed

Table 13: Summary of fisheries population data in Lower Deer Creek PWS.

Table 13: Summary of fisheries population data in Lower Deer Creek PWS. Survey Data: Fish Avg. Avg. Lake Survey Species Self- Length Weight Avg. K Name Lake ID Date Present sustaining # Caught (mm) (g) Value 15089 8/4/2001 BK Unknown 1

8/3/2001 BK No 15 298 357 1.29 Wheeler 15145 Lake 7/9/2013 None 0

Table 14: Summary of fisheries management information for Lower Deer Creek PWS.

First Last Current Recorded Recorded Pre-Survey Proposed Management Lake Name Lake ID Stocking Stocking Allotments Allotment Direction 1931 - BK 2000 - BK Wheeler 400 BK 15145 DNP Amphibian Resource Lake 1980 - RT 1980 - RT ANN

56 Figure 19: Herpetofauna species distribution in Lower Deer Creek Planning Watershed.

57 Figure 20: Management direction in Lower Deer Creek Planning Watershed.

58 Figure 21: Fish species distribution in Lower Deer Creek Planning Watershed.

59 8) LOWER SUMMIT CREEK PLANNING WATERSHED MANAGEMENT DIRECTION

Land within Lower Summit Creek PWS is managed by ENF and is bisected by Summit Creek, which enters the Mokelumne River just outside the watershed. There are three named lakes, Beebe, Lower Beebe and Grouse Lake, and 36 additional mapped sites within the PWS. A rugged 4WD road runs along the northern border of the watershed and provides access to a number of hiking and equestrian trails which cross the watershed.

Table 15 provides summary data for amphibian resources and management in Lower Summit Creek PWS. Table 16 provides a summary of fish population data for Lower Summit Creek PWS. Table 17 provides a summary of fisheries management for Lower Summit Creek PWS. Figure 22 provides herpetofauna species distribution for the Lower Summit Creek PWS. Figure 23 provides the management direction for Lower Summit Creek PWS. Figure 24 provides fish species distribution for Lower Summit Creek PWS.

Herpetofauna Resources and Management Four small groups of breeding SNYLF are present within the PWS. Each group occupies a single unnamed pond, (CA Lakes IDs 14706, 14774, 14802, and 14829), although SNYLF have not been observed at 14706 since 2010. Additionally, SNYLF have been observed in shallow pools within stream channels flowing out of sites 14802, 14774 and 14799. Based on the locations of breeding SNYLF sites and observations of adults there is a possibility that all SNYLF sites within the area are part of a single metapopulation. Beebe Lake is central to the SNYLF observations and CDFW is in the process of removing brook trout from Beebe Lake, a nearby stream and an interconnected meadow complex of shallow ponds and stream channels sitting slightly below and east of Beebe Lake. Ideally, removing brook trout from all aquatic habitat in this area will allow the SNYLF population to expand and will increase gene flow between SNYLF in the PWS. In recent years approximately 10 adult SNYLF have been observed during VES’s throughout whole watershed.

First surveyed by CDFW in 2002, site ID 14802 is a small lake approximately 600 meters east of Beebe Lake where CDFW survey crews consistently observe breeding SNYLF and AMMA larvae. SNYLF appear to be declining here although 27 SNYLF egg masses were observed on 7/26/2010 suggesting that at least 27 females are present in the area. Site ID 14802 is connected to site ID 14829 by a seasonal stream not shown on the map and adult SNYLF have been observed in wetted habitat along this channel.

Unnamed pond 14774 is a small spring-fed pond approximately 500 meters northwest of Beebe Lake where CDFW crews have been monitoring a breeding SNYLF population since 2001. Fourteen years of monitoring data suggest that this population is declining, and no SNYLF were observed in 2015. 14774 flows through a small meadow into stream site 52651 where CDFW has been actively removing brook trout since 2014 and juvenile SNYLF were observed in the meadow next to the stream in 2014 and 2015 indicating that SNYLF are still present in the area. Due to drought conditions 14774 has dried to a small, shallow pool and may not currently be deep enough to support larvae, but SNYLF may breed here in future water years and they now have access to additional deep water habitat in 52651 and Beebe Lake.

In the 2001 baseline survey for 14829, a heavily vegetated stream widening that consistently holds water, no SNYLF were found; however in 2005, 13 adults and 1 larva were found and adult SNYLF are consistently observed at the site, which is connected to 14802 by a seasonal

60 inlet. The site is along the outlet channel of the meadow where CDFW has been removing brook trout since 2014 and is approximately 800 meters south of Beebe Lake and 800 meters west of SNYLF site 14802. SNYLF appear plentiful here, but observing them in this terrain is difficult. Additionally, the extent of wetted habitat is likely to vary widely based on water conditions and time of year.

Although Beebe Lake is a small lake with no perennial tributaries and a maximum recorded depth of 4.1 meters it is the largest deep lake in the PWS. Brook trout were planted at Beebe Lake from 1930 through 2000 and CDFW gill net surveys in 2001 and 2010 indicated brook trout would persist at the lake. ENF and CDFW crews began fish removal at Beebe Lake in fall 2011 and no adult fish were caught in 2014 or 2015, therefore CDFW believes Beebe Lake is fishless. CDFW crews will conduct VES for herpetofauna biannually through summer of 2016. If SNYLF do not recolonize the lake naturally translocations may be needed. Currently Beebe Lake is managed as a Native Species Restoration – Category 1 site. CDFW received funding for SNYLF restoration at Beebe Lake through a USFWS Section 6 grant.

Lower Beebe Lake is becoming a meadow (Photo 1). Brook trout may have been stocked into Lower Beebe in 1966, 1967, 1973 and 1980, although a note on the stocking card on file states that the lake is too shallow to sustain trout and is dated 1951. No fish were captured during a 2010 CDFW gill net survey and none were observed during a 2001 visual survey and CDFW believes the site is fishless. CDFW observed AMMA larvae at Lower Beebe in 2012 and 2001; therefore the site will be managed as an amphibian resource.

Photo 1: Lower Beebe Lake from the west on 9/3/2012 (CDFW).

Grouse Lake received Lahontan cutthroat trout plants from 1955 through 1995. A CDFW gill net survey in 2002 captured 4 large cutthroat, while a 2013 gill net survey returned no fish and the lake is likely fishless. Access to Grouse Lake is via a 7 mile trail from the Blue Lakes road. Due to Grouse Lake’s remote location and lack of fish and special status amphibians, CDFW will not actively manage Grouse Lake.

AMMA were observed by CDFW at 20 sites within the watershed: Lower Beebe Lake, 14687, 14689, 14691, 14698, 14706, 14707, 14727, 14774, 14799, 14802, 14829, 27512, 27513, 27516, 27517, 27518, 27519, 27520, and 52373 (Table 11). All of these sites are fishless. As a result, they will be managed as amphibian breeding resources.

Incidentally CDFW survey crews observed HYRE at 30 sites and THSP at 9 sites within the PWS (Table 11).

Table 15: Summary of herpetofauna survey data and management for Lower Summit Creek PWS.

Survey Data: Lake Survey Herpetofauna Sub- Meta- Egg Name Lake ID Date Present Adult adult morph Larva mass Management Direction 7/17/2001 HYRE 0 0 0 12 0 Beebe Native Species 14797 Lake Restoration - Category 1 7/1/2015 HYRE 0 0 0 110 0

HYRE 0 0 0 1000 0 7/18/2001 AMMA 0 0 0 20 0 Beebe Lake, 2694 7/26/2010 HYRE 0 0 0 657 1 Amphibian Resource Lower AMMA 0 0 0 3 0 9/3/2012 HYRE 0 2 1 3 0 HYRE 0 9 0 1225 0 8/13/2002 Grouse THEL 1 0 0 0 0 14720 Not actively managed Lake HYRE 0 0 0 264 0 7/23/2013 THEL 3 0 0 0 0 AMMA 0 0 0 2 0 7/11/2001 14687 HYRE 0 0 0 1000 0 Amphibian Resource 8/30/2012 None AMMA 1 0 0 100 0 7/11/2001 14689 HYRE 0 0 0 100 0 Amphibian Resource 8/30/2012 AMMA 0 0 0 80 0 HYRE 0 0 0 10 0 7/11/2001 14691 AMMA 0 0 0 100 0 Amphibian Resource 8/30/2012 None HYRE 0 0 0 10 0 7/11/2001 14698 AMMA 0 0 0 1 0 Amphibian Resource 8/30/2012 None

62 Table 15: Summary of herpetofauna survey data and management for Lower Summit Creek PWS.

Survey Data: Lake Survey Herpetofauna Sub- Meta- Egg Name Lake ID Date Present Adult adult morph Larva mass Management Direction AMMA 0 0 0 1 0 7/11/2001 HYRE 0 0 0 2 0 SNYLF 1 0 0 0 0 THEL 1 1 0 0 0 7/31/2002 SNYLF 2 3 0 8 0 HYRE 0 0 0 607 0 AMMA 0 0 0 6 0 HYRE 0 7 2 0 0 9/13/2005 14706 THEL 1 0 0 0 0 Amphibian Resource SNYLF 0 2 0 0 0 THSI 1 0 0 0 0 8/17/2008 HYRE 0 1 0 3 0 7/26/2010 SNYLF 0 0 0 0 3 AMMA 0 0 0 10 0 8/3/2012 HYRE 0 3 0 365 0 THEL 1 1 0 0 0 8/30/2012 HYRE 0 5 4 5 0 HYRE 0 0 0 10000 0 THEL 1 0 0 0 0 7/11/2001 SNYLF 0 1 0 10 0

AMMA 0 0 0 3 0

AMMA 0 0 0 10 0

7/31/2002 THEL 1 0 0 0 0 HYRE 0 7 0 8115 0 14707 Amphibian Resource HYRE 0 70 0 922 0 8/17/2008 THSI 2 0 0 0 0

AMMA 0 0 0 1 0

8/3/2012 HYRE 0 34 0 2540 0 THEL 1 0 0 0 0 HYRE 0 69 43 385 0 8/30/2012 THEL 1 0 0 0 0 7/18/2001 HYRE 0 0 0 100 0 14724 Not Actively Managed 8/30/2012 HYRE 1 6 0 0 0 HYRE 0 0 0 1000 0 7/18/2001 14727 AMMA 0 0 0 3 0 Amphibian Resource

8/30/2012 HYRE 0 5 0 0 0

63 Table 15: Summary of herpetofauna survey data and management for Lower Summit Creek PWS.

Survey Data: Lake Survey Herpetofauna Sub- Meta- Egg Name Lake ID Date Present Adult adult morph Larva mass Management Direction 7/18/2001 HYRE 0 2 0 1000 0 14739 Not Actively Managed 8/30/2012 HYRE 0 5 0 0 0 7/18/2001 HYRE 0 0 0 100 0 14757 Not Actively Managed 8/30/2012 HYRE 0 4 0 7 0 8/6/2002 HYRE 0 0 0 45 0 14766 Not Actively Managed 8/30/2012 HYRE 0 3 0 0 0

14768 8/30/2012 None Not Actively Managed

HYRE 0 0 0 100 0

7/18/2001 AMMA 0 0 0 10 0 SNYLF 0 5 0 100 0

SNYLF 1 6 0 13 0

8/7/2002 HYRE 0 5 0 19 0 THCO 1 0 0 0 0

SNYLF 2 0 0 30 0 9/13/2005 HYRE 0 30 5 10 0 HYRE 1 2 0 0 0

8/19/2008 AMMA 0 0 2 0 0 14774 SNYLF 0 14 1 0 0 Amphibian Resource

7/26/2010 SNYLF 0 0 1 15 0

SNYLF 0 0 6 53 0 8/3/2012 HYRE 2 10 12 31 0 SNYLF 0 32 2 5 0 8/30/2012 HYRE 0 2 0 0 0 SNYLF 2 3 0 1 0 7/29/2014 HYRE 0 6 0 22 0 HYRE 3 0 0 0 0 8/27/2014 SNYLF 1 0 0 2 0 7/1/2015 HYRE 0 0 0 21 0 8/6/2002 HYRE 0 0 0 172 0 14775 Not Actively Managed 8/30/2012 HYRE 0 3 6 0 0

8/30/2012 HYRE 0 3 0 0 0 Native Species 14785 7/1/2015 HYRE 0 0 0 3 0 Restoration - Category 1

8/30/2012 None Native Species 14787 7/1/2015 HYRE 0 0 0 13 0 Restoration - Category 1 Native Species 14791 7/1/2015 HYRE 0 0 0 35 0 Restoration - Category 1

64 Table 15: Summary of herpetofauna survey data and management for Lower Summit Creek PWS.

Survey Data: Lake Survey Herpetofauna Sub- Meta- Egg Name Lake ID Date Present Adult adult morph Larva mass Management Direction 7/18/2001 None Native Species 14794 8/30/2012 None Restoration - Category 1 7/1/2015 HYRE 0 0 0 290 0

Native Species 14795 7/1/2015 HYRE 0 0 0 463 0 Restoration - Category 1

AMMA 0 0 0 1 0 8/7/2002 HYRE 0 105 0 205 0 Native Species 14799 SNYLF 1 0 0 0 0 Restoration - Category 1 7/1/2015 HYRE 0 0 0 114 0 AMMA 0 0 0 2 0

8/6/2002 HYRE 1 30 0 165 0 SNYLF 17 24 0 17 0

SNYLF 13 23 0 3 0

9/13/2005 AMMA 0 0 0 1 0

HYRE 0 23 0 11 0 HYRE 0 30 8 74 0

AMMA 0 0 1 0 0 8/19/2008 SNYLF 2 48 1 0 0

THEL 1 0 0 0 0 THEL 1 0 0 0 0 14802 Amphibian Resource 7/26/2010 SNYLF 2 2 0 1 27

HYRE 0 0 0 22 0

SNYLF 6 12 0 1 0

8/2/2012 HYRE 0 14 0 435 0 THEL 3 3 0 0 0 8/30/2012 HYRE 0 45 2 6 0

SNYLF 4 32 4 44 0

8/27/2014 THEL 1 0 0 0 0 HYRE 1 0 9 0 0

SNYLF 4 5 0 0 0 7/1/2015 HYRE 0 0 0 122 0

65 Table 15: Summary of herpetofauna survey data and management for Lower Summit Creek PWS.

Survey Data: Lake Survey Herpetofauna Sub- Meta- Egg Name Lake ID Date Present Adult adult morph Larva mass Management Direction 7/18/2001 None 9/13/2005 SNYLF 13 0 0 1 0 SNYLF 16 0 0 1 0 8/19/2008 AMMA 0 0 1 2 0 7/26/2010 None 14829 Amphibian Resource 7/27/2010 SNYLF 1 0 0 0 0 8/2/2012 SNYLF 9 0 0 0 0 HYRE 13 8/27/2014 SNYLF 4 4 0 4 0

7/1/2015 SNYLF 5 0 0 0 0 7/18/2001 HYRE 1 0 0 1000 0 14855 THEL 1 0 0 0 0 Not Actively Managed 9/3/2012 HYRE 0 2 0 0 0 THEL 2 0 0 0 0 7/18/2001 14900 HYRE 0 0 0 100 0 Not Actively Managed 8/31/2012 HYRE 0 2 0 0 0 AMMA 0 0 0 100 0

7/18/2001 THEL 1 0 0 0 0 27512 Amphibian Resource HYRE 0 0 0 100 0 8/31/2012 None HYRE 0 0 0 1000 0 7/18/2001 27513 AMMA 0 0 0 100 0 Amphibian Resource 8/31/2012 None HYRE 0 0 0 1000 0 7/18/2001 27516 AMMA 0 0 0 20 0 Amphibian Resource

9/3/2012 None

AMMA 0 0 0 10 0 7/18/2001 27517 HYRE 0 0 0 10 0 Amphibian Resource 8/31/2012 None AMMA 0 0 0 35 0 8/7/2002 HYRE 0 2 0 360 0 Native Species 27518 8/30/2012 AMMA 0 0 0 10 0 Restoration - Category 1 7/1/2015 HYRE 0 0 0 25 0 HYRE 0 0 0 665 0 7/31/2002 27519 AMMA 0 0 0 16 0 Amphibian Resource

8/30/2012 HYRE 0 0 0 2 0

66 Table 15: Summary of herpetofauna survey data and management for Lower Summit Creek PWS.

Survey Data: Lake Survey Herpetofauna Sub- Meta- Egg Name Lake ID Date Present Adult adult morph Larva mass Management Direction AMMA 0 0 0 100 0 7/11/2001 27520 HYRE 0 0 0 100 0 Amphibian Resource 8/30/2012 None HYRE 0 2 0 0 0 7/31/2002 SNYLF 1 0 0 0 0 50155 Not Actively Managed THEL 0 1 0 0 0 7/26/2010 HYRE 1 0 0 0 0 HYRE 0 2 0 0 0 52373 8/30/2012 Amphibian Resource AMMA 0 0 0 17 0

52375 9/1/2012 AMMA 0 0 0 5 0 Amphibian Resource

8/27/2014 SNYLF 0 1 0 0 0 Native species 52651 7/1/2015 THEL 1 0 0 0 0 restoration - Category 1 9/22/2015 SNYLF 1

Table 16: Summary of fisheries population data in Lower Summit Creek PWS.

Table 16: Summary of fisheries population data in Lower Summit Creek PWS. Survey Data: Fish Avg. Avg. Survey Species Self- # Length Weight Avg. K Lake Name Lake ID Date Present sustaining Caught (mm) (g) Value 7/17/2001 BK Yes 17 215 124 1.166 Beebe Lake 14797 7/26/2010 BK Yes 37 228 167 1.092

Beebe Lake, 7/18/2001 None 0 2694 Lower 7/26/2010 None 0

8/13/2002 CT-L No 4 458 885 0.91 Grouse Lake 14720 7/23/2013 None 0

14785 8/30/2012 BK Yes 1 200

14787 8/30/2012 BK Yes 2 175

14799 8/7/2002 None 0 52651 8/27/2014 BK Yes

Table 17: Summary of fisheries management information for Lower Summit Creek PWS.

First Last Current Recorded Recorded Pre-Survey Proposed Lake Name Lake ID Stocking Stocking Allotments Allotment Management Direction 1998 - CT-L 1998 - CT-L 500 BK Native Species Restoration Beebe Lake 14797 DNP 1930 - BK 2000 - BK ANN - Category 1

Beebe Lake, 1966 - BK 1980 - BK 2694 DNP DNP Amphibian Resource Lower 1990 - RT 1990 - RT 1952 - UKN 1952 - UKN Grouse Lake 14720 DNP DNP Not actively managed 1955 - CT-L 1995 - CT-L Native Species Restoration 14785 - Category 1

Native Species Restoration 14787 - Category 1

Native Species Restoration 14791 - Category 1

Native Species Restoration 14794 - Category 1

Native Species Restoration 14795 - Category 1 Native Species Restoration 14799 - Category 1

Native Species Restoration 27518 - Category 1

Native Species Restoration 52651 - Category 1

68 Figure 22: Herpetofauna species distribution in Lower Summit Creek Planning Watershed.

69 Figure 23: Management direction in Lower Summit Creek Planning Watershed.

70 Figure 24: Fish species distribution in Lower Summit Creek Planning Watershed.

71 9) MIDDLE COLE CREEK PLANNING WATERSHED MANAGEMENT DIRECTION

Middle Cole Creek PWS contains one named tributary to the North Fork Mokelumne, Cole Creek, and 15 unnamed lakes and ponds are mapped within the watershed. ENF manages the land, most of which is outside the Mokelumne Wilderness boundary. A number of dirt roads cross the southern and western portions of the PWS.

Table 18 provides summary data for amphibian resources and management in the Middle Cole Creek PWS. Table 19 provides a summary of fish population data for the Middle Cole Creek PWS. Table 20 provides a summary of fisheries management for the Middle Cole Creek PWS. Figure 21 provides herpetofauna species distribution for the Middle Cole Creek PWS. Figure 22 provides the management direction for the Middle Cole Creek PWS. Figure 23 provides fish species distribution for the Middle Cole Creek PWS.

Fisheries and Herpetofauna Resources and Management Cole Creek is a small tributary to the north fork of the Mokelumne River. A small SNYLF population was observed along Cole Creek by ENF personnel as recently as 2009 but CDFW has no data on this population. A second small SNYLF population is persisting in a tributary to Cole Creek, CA Lakes ID 50174; CDFW has been monitoring this population since 2001 and it appears to be in decline. Only a single adult was observed each year in 2008, 2010 and 2012. Both of these populations are persisting with introduced rainbow trout and this fact in tandem with the drought of 2012 through 2015 is likely putting these SNYLF in high danger of extirpation. No fish passage barriers are present along these sections of stream and there are no deep lakes nearby, therefore restoration options to improve conditions for SNYLF in the PWS are limited. Due to the lack of fish passage barriers these sites are managed as Native Species Restoration - Category 3.

AMMA were observed by CDFW at 3 sites within the watershed: 14973, 14977 and 14985 (Table 18). All of these sites are fishless. As a result, they will be managed as amphibian breeding resources.

Incidentally CDFW survey crews observed HYRE at 6 sites and THSP at 4 sites within the PWS (Table 18).

72 Table 18: Summary of herpetofauna data and management for Middle Cole Creek PWS.:

Table 18: Summary of herpetofauna survey data and management for Middle Cole Creek PWS.

Survey Data: Lake Survey Herpetofauna Sub- Meta- Egg Management Name Lake ID Date Present Adult adult morph Larva mass Direction 8/18/2005 SNYLF 0 0 1 6 0 7/20/2008 SNYLF 1 0 0 0 0 Native Species Cole 5/12/2009 None 50147 Restoration - Creek SNYLF 1 0 0 0 0 Category 3 7/24/2010 THCO 0 2 0 0 0 6/7/2012 SNYLF 1 0 0 0 0

8/17/2002 HYRE 0 1 0 7 0 Not Actively 14968 9/2/2012 None Managed AMMA 0 0 0 150 0 8/17/2002 14973 HYRE 8 6 0 250 0 Amphibian Resource 9/2/2012 None HYRE 1 0 0 30 0 8/17/2002 THEL 2 0 0 0 0 14977 Amphibian Resource AMMA 0 0 0 20 0 9/2/2012 AMMA 0 0 0 41 0 8/17/2002 HYRE 0 0 0 4 0 14985 AMMA 0 0 0 18 0 Amphibian Resource 9/2/2012 THEL 1 0 0 0 0 Not Actively 15026 8/17/2002 None Managed

8/17/2002 HYRE 1 0 0 0 0 Not Actively 15032 9/20/2013 None Managed

8/17/2002 None Not Actively 15055 9/20/2013 None Managed

8/17/2002 HYRE 1 0 0 0 0 Not Actively 15066 9/20/2013 THSP 0 1 0 0 0 Managed Not Actively 15093 8/15/2002 None Managed Not Actively 15097 8/15/2002 None Managed Not Actively 15159 8/15/2002 None Managed

73 Table 19: Summary of fisheries population data in Middle Cole Creek PWS.

Table 19: Summary of fisheries population data in Middle Cole Creek PWS. Survey Data: Fish Avg. Avg. Avg. Lake Survey Species Self- # Length Weight K Name Lake ID Date Present sustaining Caught (mm) (g) Value 15026 8/17/2002 RT Unknown 1 8/17/2002 RT Unknown 1 15055 9/20/2013 RT Unknown 1 0 0 15093 8/15/2002 BK Unknown 1 15159 8/15/2002 BK Unknown 1 Cole 50147 6/7/2012 RT Yes 2 125 Creek

74 Figure 25: Herpetofauna species distribution in Middle Cole Creek Planning Watershed.

75 Figure 26: Management direction in Middle Cole Creek Planning Watershed.

76 Figure 27: Fish species distribution in Middle Cole Creek Planning Watershed.

77 10) TANGLEFOOT CANYON PLANNING WATERSHED MANAGEMENT DIRECTION

Land within Tanglefoot Canyon PWS is managed by ENF and is bisected by Salt Springs Reservoir, a 170 hectare reservoir managed for hydro-electric power generation and water storage by PG&E (Johnson, et al 2007) (Photo 2). One other named site, Shriner Lake, and nine unnamed ponds are mapped in the PWS and a number of unnamed streams descend into Salt Springs Reservoir. The area is accessible via a steep hiking trail from the southeast rim of the Mokelumne Canyon and via paved road to Salt Springs dam and a hiking trail along the north shore of the reservoir. 4WD roads and a hiking trail also access Shriner Lake in the northern section of the PWS. The Shriner Lake trail is open for equestrian use as well as hiking.

Photo 2: Salt Springs Reservoir looking west on 5/27/2014 (CDFW).

Table 20 provides summary data for amphibian resources and management in Tanglefoot Canyon PWS. Table 21 provides a summary of fish population data for Tanglefoot Canyon PWS. Table 22 provides a summary of fisheries management for Tanglefoot Canyon PWS. Figure 28 provides herpetofauna species distribution for Tanglefoot Canyon PWS. Figure 29 provides the management direction for Tanglefoot Canyon PWS. Figure 30 provides fish species distribution for Tanglefoot Canyon PWS.

Fisheries and Herpetofauna Resources and Management

Salt Springs Reservoir is part of the Mokelumne River Project, owned and operated by PG&E, which received a new license under the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) in October 2001 (Johnson, et al 2007). The dam was originally built in 1931 and water levels were known to fluctuate widely in the 1930s (CDFG 1937). Fish planting records date back to a 1941 plant of Kokanee salmon (Oncohynchus nerka, KOK)although a 1937 CDFW lake survey captured 2 BN and a single RT and notes that both those species had been successfully planted. Kokanee were planted annually between 1955 and 1962. Brown trout were planted occasionally between 1962 and 1982. A single BK plant occurred in 1971 and the most recent plant was of Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha, CHIN) in 1996. Throughout the history of the reservoir rainbow trout were the most common species planted, beginning in 1949

78 and continuing regularly through 1980. Salt Springs was chemically treated with rotenone on February 4, 1967, to reduce or eliminate hitch, causing considerable controversy (CDFW 1967). General fisheries surveys were conducted in October and November 2012 and five different species of fish were observed including rainbow trout, native Sacramento sucker (Catostomus occidentalis, SKR-S) and Sacramento pikeminnow (Ptychocheilus grandis, SPK) (Ewing 2014). Although low numbers of rainbow trout were observed during the survey, angling surveys conducted simultaneously resulted in a CPUE of 0.44 rainbow trout per hour with a mean total length of 439 mm (Ewing 2014). For the above reasons Salt Springs Reservoir will be managed as a self-sustaining rainbow trout fishery until additional data suggest a different management direction.

Shriner Lake was planted with brook trout in 1951 and 1978 and from 1963 through 1969. Rainbow trout plants occurred between 1952 and 1962 and resumed in 1970. Rainbow trout were regularly planted through 2000. A CDFW gill net survey in 2002 captured 9 rainbow trout, all of which were over 295mm total length, and a 2013 gill net survey returned no trout; CDFW believes the lake is fishless. A small rock dam is present at the outlet of the lake preventing fish from accessing the outlet and no inlet streams were observed during 2002 or 2013 surveys. Although the lake is only a two mile hike from a trailhead there were few signs of human use during the 2013 survey; therefore CDFW will not actively manage Shriner Lake.

AMMA larvae were observed by CDFW at two small unnamed ponds, 15096 and 15137 in 2002 and 2013. Both ponds have depths of less than one meter and appeared fishless. Due to the presence of an amphibian species of concern and fishless status both ponds will be managed as amphibian resources.

Incidentally CDFW survey crews observed HYRE at 8 sites and THSP at 3 sites within the PWS.

Table 20: Summary of herpetofauna survey data and management for Tanglefoot Canyon PWS.

Survey Data: Lake Survey Herpetofauna Sub- Meta- Egg Management Name Lake ID Date Present Adult adult morph Larva mass Direction Shriner 8/17/2002 THCO 2 0 0 0 0 Not Actively 15094 Lake 5/29/2013 HYRE 0 0 0 1 0 Managed 8/17/2002 HYRE 0 50 0 200 0 Not Actively 15062 9/20/2013 THEL 1 0 0 0 0 Managed

8/17/2002 None Not Actively 15085 5/29/2013 THSI 1 0 0 0 0 Managed 9/20/2013 None 8/17/2002 HYRE 15 0 0 0 0

8/17/2002 AMMA 0 1 0 0 0 15096 Amphibian Resource 5/29/2013 HYRE 1 0 0 0 0 9/20/2013 None

79 Table 20: Summary of herpetofauna survey data and management for Tanglefoot Canyon PWS.

Survey Data: Lake Survey Herpetofauna Sub- Meta- Egg Management Name Lake ID Date Present Adult adult morph Larva mass Direction 8/18/2002 HYRE 1 0 0 0 0 Not Actively 15111 9/20/2013 HYRE 0 1 0 0 0 Managed

8/18/2002 HYRE 151 0 0 0 0 Not Actively 15112 9/20/2013 HYRE 0 18 0 0 0 Managed

8/18/2002 HYRE 130 0 0 0 0 Not Actively 15124 5/29/2013 HYRE 0 0 0 147 0 Managed

8/18/2002 HYRE 144 0 0 0 0 Not Actively 15125 5/29/2013 HYRE 0 0 0 123 0 Managed 8/18/2002 AMMA 0 0 0 183 0 15137 8/18/2002 HYRE 10 4 0 420 0 Amphibian Resource 9/20/2013 AMMA 0 0 0 1 0

Not Actively 15144 9/20/2013 None Managed

Table 21: Summary of fisheries management information for Tanglefoot Canyon PWS.

First Last Current Lake Recorded Recorded Pre-Survey Proposed Management Lake Name ID Stocking Stocking Allotments Allotment Direction 1971 - BK 1971 - BK 1950 - RT 1980 - RT

Salt Springs 1955 - KOK 1962 - KOK Self-sustaining 15163 DNP DNP Reservoir 1974 - CT-L 1975 - CT-L Fishery 1996 - CHIN 1996 - CHIN 1967 - BN 1982 - BN 1952 - RT 2000 - RT Not Actively Shriner Lake 15094 1951 - BK 1978 - BK 500 RT ANN DNP Managed 1974 - CT-L 1974 - CT-L

80 Table 22: Summary of fisheries population data in Tanglefoot Canyon PWS.

Table 22: Summary of fisheries population data in Tanglefoot Canyon PWS.

Survey Data: Avg. Avg. Lake Survey Fish Species Self- # Length Weight Avg. K Lake Name ID Date Present sustaining Caught (mm) (g) Value SPK Yes 88 SKR-S Yes 15 10/17/2012 RT Yes 11 340 Salt Springs 15163 LRS Yes 110 Reservoir GSF Yes 143 RT Yes 11 434 11/20/2012 SPK Yes 1 8/17/2002 RT No 9 326 322 0.904 Shriner Lake 15094 5/29/2013 None 0

81 Figure 28: Herpetofauna species distribution in Tanglefoot Canyon Planning Watershed.

82 Figure 29: Management direction in Tanglefoot Canyon Planning Watershed.

83 Figure 30: Fish species distribution in Tanglefoot Canyon Planning Watershed.

84 11) UPPER COLE CREEK PLANNING WATERSHED MANAGEMENT DIRECTION

Upper Cole Creek PWS is bounded by Mokelumne Peak in the south and a rough forest service road along its northern border. All land within the PWS is part of Mokelumne Wilderness and managed by ENF. Sixty five water bodies have been mapped within the PWS including Cole Creek Lakes (North and South), Mosquito Lake and Pardoe Lake. Cole Creek begins in the PWS and bisects the watershed, running north-south. Many of the mapped trails within the PWS no longer exist as of 2012 and the area appears to receive very few human visitors.

Table 23 provides summary data for amphibian resources and management in Upper Cole Creek PWS. Table 24 provides a summary of fish population data for Upper Cole Creek PWS. Table 25 provides a summary of fisheries management for Upper Cole Creek PWS. Figures 31and 32 provide herpetofauna species distribution for Upper Cole Creek PWS. Figure 33 provides the management direction for Upper Cole Creek PWS. Figure 34 provides fish species distribution for Upper Cole Creek PWS.

Fisheries and Herpetofauna Resources and Management Fish planting began at Cole Creek Lake (South) in 1937 and continued through 2000. Brook trout were the only species planted with the exception of 1948 when the sole rainbow trout plant occurred. A 2001 gill net survey captured 13 brook trout in good condition and a gill net survey in 2012 returned no fish. The lake was drawn down 2.5 meters from the shoreline in 2012 and is small and shallow. For these reasons as well as the gill net results CDFW believes the lake is fishless. Additionally, the mapped trail to Cole Creek Lake is no longer easy to follow and there are few signs of human visitation in the area, therefore CDFW will not resume fish plants at the lake and will not actively manage Cole Creek Lake (South).

Cole Creek Lake (North) has a similar history of fish plants beginning with brook trout planted in 1937. Brook trout plants continued regularly through 2000. Rainbow trout were planted in 1947, 1948 and 1971. Seven brook trout between 200 and 300 mm total length were captured in a 2001 gill net survey and a 2012 gill net survey returned no fish. The lake is small and shallow and CDFW believes it is fishless. CDFW will not resume fish plants at Cole Creek Lake due to its remote location and small size and will not actively manage the lake.

Mosquito Lake received brook trout plants from 1937 through 2000. A single rainbow trout plant occurred in 1946. Mosquito Lake has a maximum recorded depth of 2 meters and a 2012 gill net survey returned no fish, while a 2001 gill net survey captured two large brook trout. Based on these results CDFW believes Mosquito Lake is fishless. Due to the remote location of Mosquito Lake as well as its shallow silty character CDFW will not resume fish plants at the lake and it will not be actively managed.

Pardoe Lake is a shallow lake on the northern border of the watershed which received brook trout plants from 1969 through 2000. Rainbow trout were planted between 1964 and 1968 and in 1991. No fish were observed during 2012 amphibian surveys and a 2001 gill net survey captured no fish, therefore CDFW believes Pardoe Lake is fishless. A single AMMA was captured in the gill net in 2001 and therefore CDFW will manage Pardoe Lake as an amphibian resource.

A cluster of unnamed ponds on the northern shoulder of Mokelumne Peak contains some of the only deep water habitat in the management unit and is located less than 1 kilometer from the

85 SNYLF population in Fourth of July Canyon on the northeastern shoulder of Mokelumne Peak. Past surveys have observed AMMA and HYRE but not SNYLF. Due to the location of these four ponds less than one mile from the SNYLF populations in Fourth of July Canyon PWS, their fishless status, and the presence of rare deep water habitat, this area will be managed as a native species restoration area and SNYLF will be translocated here when and if animals become available for translocation.

AMMA were observed by CDFW at twenty-two sites within the watershed: 14891, 14893, 14901, 14907, 14925, 14946, 14954, 14963, 14965, 14966, 14976, 14978, 14982, 14996, 14997, 15060, 15069, 15074, 27503, 27508, 27509, and 27670. All of these sites are fishless. As a result, they will be managed as amphibian breeding resources.

Incidentally CDFW survey crews observed HYRE at 43 sites, ELCO at 1 site, and THSP at 7 sites within the PWS.

Table 23: Summary of herpetofauna survey data and management for Upper Cole Creek PWS.

Table 23: Summary of herpetofauna survey data and management for Upper Cole Creek PWS. Survey Data: Survey Herpetofauna Sub- Meta- Egg Lake Name Lake ID Date Present Adult adult morph Larva mass Management Direction Cole Creek 7/4/2001 HYRE 0 0 0 1000 0 Lake 14909 Not Actively Managed (South) 9/3/2012 HYRE 1 1 0 0 0 Cole Creek 7/5/2001 None Lake 14898 Not Actively Managed (North) 9/3/2012 HYRE 0 1 0 0 0 HYRE 0 0 0 20 0 Mosquito 7/10/2001 14930 THSI 2 0 0 0 0 Not Actively Managed Lake 9/2/2012 HYRE 1 1 0 0 0 THEL 6 0 0 0 0 Pardoe 7/7/2001 14879 HYRE 0 0 0 50 0 Not Actively Managed Lake 9/2/2012 HYRE 2 8 0 2 0 7/4/2001 None 14884 Not Actively Managed 9/2/2012 None HYRE 0 0 0 8 0 7/5/2001 14891 AMMA 0 0 0 24 0 Amphibian Resource 9/3/2012 None HYRE 0 0 0 100 0 7/10/2001 14893 AMMA 0 0 0 1000 0 Amphibian Resource 9/2/2012 None 7/5/2001 HYRE 0 0 0 2 0 14895 THEL 0 1 0 0 0 Not Actively Managed 9/3/2012 HYRE 0 1 0 0 0

86 Table 23: Summary of herpetofauna survey data and management for Upper Cole Creek PWS. Survey Data: Survey Herpetofauna Sub- Meta- Egg Lake Name Lake ID Date Present Adult adult morph Larva mass Management Direction AMMA 0 0 0 22 0 7/5/2001 14901 HYRE 0 0 0 14 0 Amphibian Resource 9/3/2012 None 7/5/2001 HYRE 0 0 0 1000 0 14904 Not Actively Managed 9/2/2012 None AMMA 0 0 0 1 0 7/4/2001 HYRE 0 0 0 3 0 14907 Amphibian Resource THEL 1 0 0 0 0 9/3/2012 AMMA 0 0 0 36 0 7/10/2001 None 14910 Not Actively Managed 9/2/2012 None 7/10/2001 None 14913 Not Actively Managed 9/2/2012 None 7/5/2001 HYRE 0 100 0 0 0 14914 Not Actively Managed 9/4/2012 None 7/10/2001 HYRE 0 0 0 3 0 14916 Not Actively Managed 9/2/2012 None 7/10/2001 HYRE 0 0 0 100 0 14919 Not Actively Managed 9/2/2012 None 7/10/2001 AMMA 0 0 0 1 0 14925 Amphibian Resource 9/2/2012 None 7/10/2001 HYRE 0 0 0 7 0 14927 Not Actively Managed 9/2/2012 None THEL 2 0 0 0 0 14932 7/10/2001 Not Actively Managed HYRE 0 0 0 1000 0 7/10/2001 HYRE 0 0 0 50 0 14935 Not Actively Managed 9/2/2012 None 7/10/2001 AMMA 0 0 0 2 0 14946 8/17/2002 HYRE 1 0 0 1 0 Amphibian Resource 9/2/2012 None AMMA 0 0 0 1 0 8/17/2002 14954 HYRE 20 0 0 7 0 Amphibian Resource 9/2/2012 None 7/7/2001 HYRE 0 0 0 100 0 14956 Not Actively Managed 8/31/2012 None UKN 2 0 0 0 0 7/10/2001 14959 HYRE 0 0 0 100 0 Not Actively Managed 9/2/2012 None

87 Table 23: Summary of herpetofauna survey data and management for Upper Cole Creek PWS. Survey Data: Survey Herpetofauna Sub- Meta- Egg Lake Name Lake ID Date Present Adult adult morph Larva mass Management Direction HYRE 0 0 0 1000 0 7/8/2001 14963 AMMA 0 0 0 50 0 Amphibian Resource 8/31/2012 None AMMA 0 0 0 10 0 7/7/2001 THEL 1 0 0 0 0 14965 Amphibian Resource HYRE 0 0 0 100 0 8/31/2012 AMMA 0 0 0 4 0 7/8/2001 HYRE 0 0 0 1000 0 14966 Amphibian Resource 8/31/2012 AMMA 0 0 0 1 0 7/8/2001 HYRE 0 0 0 50 0 14974 Not Actively Managed 8/31/2012 None 7/8/2001 AMMA 0 0 0 50 0 14976 7/8/2001 HYRE 0 0 0 100 0 Amphibian Resource 8/31/2012 None 6/7/2001 HYRE 0 0 0 10 0 14978 Amphibian Resource 8/31/2012 AMMA 0 0 0 54 0 7/7/2001 None 14979 Not Actively Managed 8/31/2012 HYRE 0 2 0 0 0 7/7/2001 HYRE 0 0 0 1000 0 14981 Not Actively Managed 9/1/2012 None HYRE 0 0 0 1000 0 7/7/2001 THEL 1 0 0 0 0 14982 AMMA 0 0 0 1000 0 Amphibian Resource 8/31/2012 HYRE 2 5 0 0 0 8/31/2012 AMMA 0 0 0 3 0 7/7/2001 HYRE 0 0 0 10 0 14984 Not Actively Managed 8/31/2012 HYRE 0 8 0 0 0 7/7/2001 None 14996 Amphibian Resource 8/31/2012 AMMA 0 0 0 30 0 7/7/2001 HYRE 0 0 0 10 0 14997 HYRE 0 1 0 0 0 Amphibian Resource 8/31/2012 AMMA 0 0 0 10 0 14998 7/7/2001 None Not Actively Managed 15007 7/7/2001 None Not Actively Managed 15010 9/1/2012 None Not Actively Managed HYRE 0 0 0 3 0 8/18/2002 Native species restoration 15060 AMMA 0 0 0 2 0 – Category 1 9/1/2012 None

88 Table 23: Summary of herpetofauna survey data and management for Upper Cole Creek PWS. Survey Data: Survey Herpetofauna Sub- Meta- Egg Lake Name Lake ID Date Present Adult adult morph Larva mass Management Direction 8/18/2002 HYRE 2 0 0 25 0 Native species restoration 15065 9/1/2012 HYRE 0 1 0 0 0 – Category 1 8/18/2002 HYRE 0 0 0 12 0 Native species restoration 15069 HYRE 0 3 0 0 0 9/1/2012 – Category 1 AMMA 0 0 0 3 0 8/18/2002 HYRE 0 0 0 33 0 Native species restoration 15074 AMMA 0 0 0 14 0 9/1/2012 – Category 1 HYRE 0 2 0 0 0 AMMA 0 0 0 100 0 27503 7/7/2001 Amphibian Resource HYRE 0 0 0 10 0

27504 7/8/2001 None Not Actively Managed

7/8/2001 HYRE 0 0 0 7 0 27505 Not Actively Managed 8/31/2012 None 7/8/2001 None 27506 Not Actively Managed 8/31/2012 None 7/7/2001 HYRE 0 0 0 100 0 27507 Not Actively Managed 8/31/2012 HYRE 0 2 0 0 0 AMMA 0 0 0 50 0 7/8/2001 27508 HYRE 0 0 0 100 0 Amphibian Resource 8/31/2012 HYRE 0 2 0 0 0 7/5/2001 None 27509 Amphibian Resource 9/3/2012 AMMA 0 0 0 13 0 27510 7/10/2001 HYRE 0 0 0 10 0 Not Actively Managed 7/5/2001 HYRE 0 0 0 1000 0 27511 Not Actively Managed 9/3/2012 None 7/5/2001 None 27669 Not Actively Managed 9/3/2012 None 7/8/2001 AMMA 0 0 0 4 0 27670 Amphibian Resource 8/31/2012 None

52372 9/3/2012 None Not Actively Managed

61220 9/1/2012 HYRE 0 2 0 0 0 Not Actively Managed

61406 8/31/2012 ELCO 1 0 0 0 0 Not Actively Managed

61408 8/31/2012 None Not Actively Managed

61409 8/31/2012 None Not Actively Managed

62100 8/31/2012 None Not Actively Managed

62304 8/31/2012 None Not Actively Managed

89 Table 23: Summary of herpetofauna survey data and management for Upper Cole Creek PWS. Survey Data: Survey Herpetofauna Sub- Meta- Egg Lake Name Lake ID Date Present Adult adult morph Larva mass Management Direction 68651 9/2/2012 None Not Actively Managed

70005 8/31/2012 None Not Actively Managed 70008 8/31/2012 HYRE 0 5 0 0 0 Not Actively Managed

Table 24: Summary of fisheries population data in Upper Cole Creek PWS.

Table 24: Summary of fisheries population data in Upper Cole Creek PWS. Survey Data: Fish Avg. Avg. Avg. Survey Species Self- # Length Weight K Lake Name Lake ID Date Present sustaining Caught (mm) (g) Value Cole Creek Lake 7/5/2001 BK No 7 296 311 1.18 14898 (North) 9/3/2012 None 0

Cole Creek Lake 7/4/2001 BK No 13 265 226 1.166 14909 (South) 9/3/2012 None 0 7/10/2001 BK No 2 380 765 1.366 Mosquito Lake 14930 9/2/2012 None 0 Pardoe Lake 14879 7/7/2001 None 0

Table 25: Summary of fisheries management information for Upper Cole Creek PWS.

Table 25: Summary of fisheries management information for Cascade Lakes PWS.

First Last Current Recorded Recorded Pre-Survey Proposed Management Lake Name Lake ID Stocking Stocking Allotments Allotment Direction Cole Creek 1937 - BK 1999 - BK Not Actively 14898 500 BK ANN DNP Lake (North) 1947 - RT 1971 - RT Managed

Cole Creek 1948 - RT 1948 - RT Not Actively 14909 500 BK ANN DNP Lake (South) 1937 - BK 2000 - BK Managed

1946 - RT 1946 - RT Not Actively Mosquito Lake 14930 500 BK ANN DNP 1939 - BK 2000 - BK Managed

1964 - RT 1991 - RT Not Actively Pardoe Lake 14879 500 BK ANN DNP 1969 - BK 2000 - BK Managed

Not Actively 14914 - - DNP DNP Managed

90 Figure 31: Herpetofauna species distribution for Upper Cole Creek Planning Watershed (Map 1 of 2).

91 Figure 32: Herpetofauna species distribution for Upper Cole Creek Planning Watershed (Map 2 of 2).

92 Figure 33: Management direction for Upper Cole Creek Planning Watershed.

93 Figure 34: Fish species distribution for Upper Cole Creek Planning Watershed.

94 12) UPPER SUMMIT CREEK PLANNING WATERSHED MANAGEMENT DIRECTION

Perhaps the most prominent feature of Upper Summit Creek PWS is the popular Blue Lakes Road which enters the watershed from State Highway 88 and provides access to multiple campgrounds, Upper and Lower Blue Lakes, Twin Lake and Meadow Lake. The central section of the watershed is outside wilderness and accessed by paved and unpaved roads, while the northern half and small sections of the southern portion of the watershed are within Mokelumne Wilderness and only accessible via trail or cross-country hiking. Upper Summit Creek PWS contains thirty mapped water bodies including Upper and Lower Blue Lakes, Corrie Lochan, Evergreen Lake, Fourth of July Lake, Granite Lake, Twin Lake, Meadow Lake and Rice Lake. Waters in Upper Summit Creek drain into Meadow Creek and eventually the North Fork of the Mokelumne River. The four largest named lakes, Upper and Lower Blue, Twin and Meadow, each have dams and PG&E manages water levels under the Mokelumne River Project (FERC Project 137).

Table 26 provides summary data for amphibian resources and management in Upper Summit Creek PWS. Table 27 provides a summary of fish population data for Upper Summit Creek PWS. Table 28 provides a summary of fisheries management for Upper Summit Creek PWS. Figure 35 provides herpetofauna species distribution for Upper Summit Creek PWS. Figure 36 provides the management direction for Upper Summit Creek PWS. Figure 37 provides fish species distribution for Upper Summit Creek PWS.

Fisheries and Herpetofauna Resources and Management SNYLF have been observed at two unnamed ponds by CDFW, CA Lakes ID 14722 and 50100, both in the vicinity of Upper Blue Lake. Site 50100 is a shallow meadow pool sitting on a bench above and just west of Upper Blue Lake. Most recently a single adult SNYLF was observed at the site in 2010 and larvae were observed in 2009. The site has a maximum recorded depth of 1 meter and is particularly vulnerable to extended drought. Just south of the Upper Blue Lake dam, site 14722 sits in a small meadow that drains into Upper Blue Lake. Most recently, 3 adults, 2 juveniles and 3 larvae were observed here in 2012 – this is the largest number CDFW has observed here since monitoring began in 2001. At this time no feasible restoration options are available to improve conditions for these populations. CDFW will manage both sites as amphibian resources and continue to monitor them until either: 1) A restoration opportunity occurs 2) The population reaches a size where CDFW no longer considers it in danger of extinction or 3) No SNYLF are observed at either site for three consecutive visits and the population is considered extirpated.

Upper and Lower Blue Lakes are the uppermost two of four natural lakes with enhancement dams at the top of PG&Es Mokelumne River Project. Upper Blue Lake flows into Lower Blue Lake via Middle Creek. At Lower Blue, Lahontan cutthroat trout plants began in 1936 and continued annually through 1966 and sporadically through 1982. Occasional brook trout plants occurred from 1967 through 2009; rainbow trout plants began in 1965 and have occurred nearly annually through 2015. Brown trout were planted once, in 2000. At Upper Blue Lahontan cutthroat trout plants began in 1950 and continued regularly through 2013 while Rainbow trout have been planted since 1968. Currently, both lakes have PSEs completed and are approved for rainbow trout, and Upper Blue also has a Lahontan cutthroat trout allotment. PG&E campgrounds are present at both lakes and along the stream between Upper and Lower Blue and small craft and paddle boats are allowed on the lakes. Due to the high use that this area

95 receives CDFW will continue rainbow trout plants at Lower Blue Lake and both rainbow trout and Lahontan cutthroat trout plants will continue at Upper Blue Lake.

Corrie Lochan is a small named water body for which CDFW has no stocking records. Although a CDFW VES on 2002 returned only HYRE, CNDDB records indicate SNYLF were observed here in 1992. Due to the current lack of fish or special status species CDFW will not actively manage Corrie Lochan.

Evergreen Lake has consistently received Lahontan cutthroat trout plants since 1937 and a 2002 fisheries survey captured large fish. Access to Evergreen Lake is via a 1 mile well- maintained trail and a 0.5 mile cross country hike from a trailhead off of Blue Lakes Road. Evergreen Lake has a recorded maximum depth of 4 meters and a 1.6 hectare surface area; littoral substrate is primarily silt and the lake is surrounded by sub-alpine meadows. Due to the accessibility of Evergreen Lake and its reputation for growing large CT-L Evergreen Lake will continue to receive CT-L plants.

Fourth of July Lake has a surface are of 6.8 hectares and a maximum recorded depth of 14.9 meters. Brook trout were planted between 1930 and 1964, a single cutthroat trout plant occurred in 1932 and rainbow trout were planted from 1975 through 1979. A CDFW gill net survey in 2001 returned 98 brook trout of all sizes, suggesting that brook trout will persist indefinitely at the lake. Fourth of July Lake is within Mokelumne Wilderness accessible via hiking trails. Due to the presence of a persistent brook trout population CDFW will not resume fish plants at Fourth of July Lake and will manage the lake as a self-sustaining brook trout fishery.

Granite Lake is a small trail-accessible lake near the Mokelumne Wilderness border. Lahontan cutthroat trout plants began in 1950 and continued through 2009 and CDFW gill net surveys in 2001 and 2013 indicate that the lake grows large fish. Granite Lake has a surface area of 3.2 hectares and a maximum recorded depth of 10 meters. Littoral substrate consists primarily of silt and cobbles while shoreline substrate is mainly small meadows and boulders at an elevation of 2652 meters above mean sea level. Granite Lake is a short hike from a popular trailhead and is known to grow large fish, therefore CDFW will continue to manage the lake as a stocked fishery. Due to recent changes in plant stocking practices, fish plants have been switched from CT-L to golden trout.

Meadow Lake is the lowest managed water body in the PWS and a large dam, gauging station and helicopter landing pad are present at the lake. A dirt forest service road provides public access to a small parking area on the north side of Meadow Lake, but hiking down a short trail is necessary to access the water. Lahontan cutthroat trout have been planted at Meadow Lake since 1950 and CDFW will continue managing the lake as a stocked CT-L lake.

Rice Lake is a small shallow lake – 0.17 hectares surface area and 2 meters deep – for which CDFW does not have fish planting records. Surveys in 2001 and 2013 observed HYRE larvae and no fish. Due to the lack of special status herpetofauna and fish at Rice Lake CDFW will not actively manage the lake.

Twin Lake receives water from unnamed tributaries and is part of PG&Es Mokelumne River Project. Twin Lake is a natural lake with an enhancement dam. Outflow from Twin Lake enters Meadow Lake. Lahontan cutthroat trout plants began in 1950 and continued regularly through 2013. Brook trout plants took place from 1969 through 2009. A picnic area is located on the

96 north shore of the lake, which is accessed by a dirt road. Due to Twin Lake’s location in the popular Blue Lakes recreation area CDFW will continue planting Lahontan Cutthroat trout in the lake.

AMMA were observed by CDFW at four sites within the watershed: 14660, 14851, 14894, and 50100. All of these sites are fishless. As a result, they will be managed as amphibian breeding resources.

Incidentally CDFW survey crews observed HYRE at 20 sites, BUSP at 7 sites, and THSP at 9 sites within the PWS.

Table 26: Summary of herpetofauna survey data and management for Upper Summit Creek PWS.

Survey Data: Herpetofauna Sub- Meta- Egg Management Lake Name Lake ID Survey Date Present Adult adult morph Larva mass Direction Blue Lake, BUSP 1 100 0 0 0 14726 8/8/2001 Stocked Lake Lower HYRE 0 1 0 0 0

Blue Lake, 14670 6/25/2009 BUSP 2 3 0 0 1 Stocked Lake Upper

Corrie Lochan 14634 9/19/2002 HYRE 0 0 0 7 0 Not Actively Managed

Evergreen 6/29/2001 None 14756 Stocked Lake Lake 7/22/2013 HYRE 0 0 0 5 0

Fourth of July 14632 6/20/2001 THEL 1 0 0 0 0 Self-sustaining Fishery Lake

7/8/2001 None Granite Lake 14728 Stocked Lake 7/23/2013 None

Meadow Lake 14808 7/1/2010 THCO 2 0 0 0 0 Stocked Lake

14779 6/29/2001 HYRE 0 0 0 100 0 Rice Lake Not Actively Managed 14779 7/22/2013 HYRE 0 0 3 230 0 BUSP 0 2 0 2 0 Twin Lake 14780 8/8/2001 Stocked Lake HYRE 0 0 0 1 0

14609 9/17/2002 HYRE 0 10 0 0 0 Not Actively Managed

HYRE 0 5 0 1 0 14660 9/17/2002 Amphibian Resource AMMA 0 0 0 110 0

THEL 2 2 0 0 0 14712 7/8/2002 Not Actively Managed HYRE 0 0 0 117 0 7/3/2001 HYRE 0 0 0 10 0 14717 Not Actively Managed 7/8/2002 HYRE 0 0 0 190 0

97 Table 26: Summary of herpetofauna survey data and management for Upper Summit Creek PWS.

Survey Data: Herpetofauna Sub- Meta- Egg Management Lake Name Lake ID Survey Date Present Adult adult morph Larva mass Direction 7/3/2001 HYRE 0 0 0 10 0 14721 THEL 1 0 0 0 0 Not Actively Managed 7/8/2002 HYRE 0 0 0 560 0 7/3/2001 None

7/8/2002 SNYLF 0 0 0 10 0

7/13/2005 SNYLF 2 0 0 7 0

SNYLF 2 0 1 7 0

7/11/2008 THEL 1 1 0 0 0 HYRE 0 0 0 21 0 HYRE 0 0 0 20 0 14722 Amphibian Resource BUSP 0 0 0 10 0 7/23/2009 THEL 1 0 0 0 0

SNYLF 0 0 0 15 0

HYRE 2 0 0 0 0 7/1/2010 SNYLF 0 0 0 2 0

SNYLF 3 2 0 3 0 7/18/2012 HYRE 1 0 0 8 0 7/3/2001 HYRE 0 0 0 10 0 14725 Not Actively Managed 7/8/2002 HYRE 0 0 0 135 0 7/3/2001 None 14729 Not Actively Managed 7/23/2013 BUBO 1 0 0 0 0

THEL 0 1 0 0 0 14736 7/23/2013 Not Actively Managed HYRE 0 0 1 75 0 9/18/2002 HYRE 0 5 0 0 0 14758 Not Actively Managed 7/22/2013 HYRE 0 0 0 100 0 6/28/2001 HYRE 0 0 0 100 0 14762 HYRE 0 0 0 150 0 Not Actively Managed 7/22/2013 THEL 2 0 0 0 0 9/18/2002 AMMA 0 0 0 3 0 14851 Amphibian Resource 7/6/2013 HYRE 0 0 0 2 0

AMMA 0 0 0 55 0 8/15/2003 HYRE 0 0 20 97 0 14894 BUSP 0 2 0 0 0 Amphibian Resource HYRE 0 0 0 1615 0 7/22/2013 AMMA 0 0 0 30 0

98 Table 26: Summary of herpetofauna survey data and management for Upper Summit Creek PWS.

Survey Data: Herpetofauna Sub- Meta- Egg Management Lake Name Lake ID Survey Date Present Adult adult morph Larva mass Direction HYRE 0 0 0 265 0 7/11/2008 SNYLF 1 0 1 0 0 THEL 0 1 0 0 0 HYRE 0 0 0 5 0 BUSP 0 0 0 25 0 7/23/2009 SNYLF 0 0 0 58 0 50100 Amphibian Resource AMMA 0 0 0 14 0 THEL 2 0 0 0 0 AMMA 4 0 0 0 0 7/1/2010 HYRE 6 0 0 0 0 SNYLF 1 0 0 0 0 7/17/2012 HYRE 0 0 0 19 0 52584 7/22/2013 HYRE 0 0 5 65 0 Not Actively Managed 6/28/2001 HYRE 0 10 0 100 0 52585 HYRE 0 0 0 160 0 Not Actively Managed 7/22/2013 THEL 1 0 0 0 0

Table 27: Summary of fisheries population data in Upper Summit Creek PWS.

Survey Data: Fish Avg. Avg. Survey Species Self- # Length Weight Avg. K Lake Name Lake ID Date Present sustaining Caught (mm) (g) Value Corrie Lochan 14634 9/19/2002 None 0 6/29/2001 CT-L Unknown 39 261 178 0.898 Evergreen Lake 14756 7/22/2013 CT-L Unknown 1 0 0

Fourth of July Lake 14632 6/20/2001 BK Yes 98 167 50 1.013

7/8/2001 CT-L Unknown 43 287 230 0.92 7/23/2013 CT-L Unknown 1 Granite Lake 14728 CT-L Unknown 5 259 9/10/2013 CT-L Unknown 11 296 6/29/2001 None 0 Rice Lake 14779 7/22/2013 None 0

99 Table 28 Summary of fisheries management information for Upper Summit Creek PWS.

Table 28: Summary of fisheries management information for Upper Summit Creek PWS.

First Last Current Lake Recorded Recorded Pre-Survey Proposed Management Lake Name ID Stocking Stocking Allotments Allotment Direction 2000 - BN 2000 - BN

Blue Lake, 1936 - CT-L 2013 - CT-L 5000 BK ANN 14726 5000 CT-L ANN Stocked Lake Lower 1965 - RT 2013 - RT 10,000 RT ANN 1967 - BK 2009 - BK

1950 - CT-L 2013 - CT-L 10,000 RT ANN 10,000 RT ANN Blue Lake, 14670 10,000 CT-L 10,000 CT-L Stocked Lake Upper 1968 - RT 2013 - RT ANN ANN

Not Actively Corrie Lochan 14634 - - DNP DNP Managed

Evergreen 1950 - CT-L 2013 - CT-L 14756 750 CT-L 750 CT-L Stocked Lake Lake 1937 - CT 1949 - CT 1932 - CT 1932 - CT Fourth of July Self-sustaining 14632 1930 - BK 1964 - BK DNP DNP Lake Fishery 1975 - RT 1979 - RT 2013 - GT 2013 - GT Granite Lake 14728 1950 - CT-L 2009 - CT-L 250 CT-L ANN 250 CT-L ANN Stocked Lake 1992 - BK 1992 - BK

15,000 CT-L 15,000 CT-L Meadow Lake 14808 1950 - CT-L 2013 - CT-L Stocked Lake ANN ANN

Not Actively Rice Lake 14779 - - DNP DNP Managed

1969 - BK 2009 - BK 3000 BK ANN Twin Lake 14780 6000 CT-L ANN Stocked Lake 1950 - CT-L 2013 - CT-L 6000 CT-L ANN

100 Figure 35: Herpetofauna species distribution in Upper Summit Creek Planning Watershed.

101 Figure 36: Management direction for Upper Summit Creek Planning Watershed.

102 Figure 37: Fish species distribution in Upper Summit Creek planning watershed.

103

SECTION IV

LITERATURE CITED

104 Bahls, P. 1992. The status of fish populations and management of high mountain lakes in the western United States. Northwest Science. 66: 183-193.

Berger, L., R. Speare, P. Daszak, D. E. Green, A. A. Cunningham, C. L. Goggin, R. Slocombe, M. A. Ragan, A. D. Hyatt, K. R. McDonald, H. B. Hines, K. R. Lips, G. Marantelli, and H. Parkes. 1998. Chytridiomycosis causes amphibian mortality associated with population declines in the rain forests of Australia and Central America. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, USA 95: 9031-9036.

Bradford, D. F. 1989. Allotopic distribution of native frogs and introduced fishes in high Sierra Nevada lakes of California: implication of the negative effect of fish introductions. Copeia 1989:775-778.

Bradford, D. F., F. Tabatabai, and D. M. Graber. 1993. Isolation of remaining populations of the native frog, Rana muscosa, by introduced fishes in Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks, California. Conservation Biology 7:882-888.

CDFW 2013. North Central Region fisheries files. Accessed by S. Mussulman, CDFW.

CNDDB. February 13, 2015. Accessed by S. Mussulman, CDFW.

Drake, D. C., and R. J. Naiman. 2000. An evaluation of restoration efforts in fishless lakes stocked with exotic trout. Conservation Biology 14:1807–1820.

Dunham, J. B., D. S. Pilliod, and M. K. Young. 2004. Assessing the consequences of nonnative trout in headwater ecosystems in Western North America. Fisheries 29(6): 18- 26.

Ewing, B. 2014. Salt Springs Reservoir Fish Survey. California Department of Fish and Game; 3/10/2014. < https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=77613>

Fellers, G. M., D. F. Bradford, D. Pratt, and L. L. Wood. 2007. Demise of repatriated populations of mountain yellow-legged frogs (Rana muscosa) in the Sierra Nevada of California. Herpetological Conservation and Biology 2:5-21.

Fellers, G. M., and K. L. Freel. 1995. A standardized protocol for surveying aquatic amphibians. Technical Report NPS/WRUC/NRTR-95-001. National Biological Service, Cooperative Park Studies Unit, University of California, Davis, CA. 123 pp.

Fellers, G. M., D. E. Green, and J. E. Longcore. 2001. Oral chytridiomycosis in the mountain yellow-legged frog (Rana muscosa). Copeia 2001:945-953.

Finlay, J. C., and V. T. Vredenburg. 2007. Introduced trout sever trophic connections in watersheds: consequences for a declining amphibian. Ecology 88:2187-2198.

Herbst D. B., E. L. Silldorff, and S. D. Cooper. 2009. The influence of introduced trout on the benthic communities of paired headwater streams in the Sierra Nevada of California. Freshwater Biology 54:1324-1342.

Hopelain, J. S. 2003. Strategic Plan for Trout Management: A Plan for 2004 and Beyond. California Department of Fish and Game.

105

Johnson, M.C, et al. “Modernization of the Salt Springs Dam outlet works.” Modernization and optimization of existing dams and reservoirs. US Society on Dams. March 2007. Web. Accessed on 1/27/2015. < http://ussdams.com/proceedings/2007Proc/429-438.pdf>

Jones & Stokes. 2010. Hatchery and Stocking Program Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement. State clearinghouse #2008082025.

Knapp, R. A. 1996. Non-native trout in natural lakes of the Sierra Nevada: an analysis of their distribution and impacts on native aquatic biota. Pages 363-407 in Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project: Final Report to Congress. Volume III: Assessments, Commissioned Reports, and Background Information. Davis: University of California, Centers for Water and Wildland Resources.

Knapp, R. A. 2001. Personal communication with C. Milliron (CDFW), March 12, 2001.

Knapp, R. A. 2005. Effects of nonnative fish and habitat characteristics on lentic herpetofauna in Yosemite National Park, USA. Biological Conservation 121:265-279.

Knapp, R. A., D. M. Boiano, and V. T. Vredenburg. 2007. Removal of nonnative fish results in population expansion of a declining amphibian (mountain yellow-legged frog, Rana muscosa). Biological Conservation 135:11-20.

Knapp, R. A., P. S. Corn, and D. E. Schindler. 2001. The introduction of nonnative fish into wilderness lakes: good intentions, conflicting mandates, and unintended consequences. Ecosystems 4:275-278.

Knapp, R. A., and K. R. Matthews. 1998. Eradication of nonnative fish by gill netting from a small mountain lake in California. Restoration Ecology 6:207-213.

Knapp, R. A., and K. R. Matthews. 2000. Nonnative fish introductions and the decline of the mountain yellow-legged frog from within protected areas. Conservation Biology 14:428- 438.

Knapp, R. A., and O. Sarnelle. 2008. Recovery after local extinction: factors affecting re- establishment of alpine lake zooplankton. Ecological Applications 18:1850-1859.

Longcore, J. E., A. P. Pessier, and D. K. Nichols. 1999. Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis gen. et sp. nov., a chytrid pathogenic to amphibians. Mycologia 91:219–227.

Lunte, C. C., and C. Luecke. 1990. Trophic interactions of Leptodara in Lake Mendota. Limnology and Oceanography 35:1091-1100.

Moyle, P. B. 2002. Inland fishes of California. Revised and expanded. University of California Press, Berkeley. 502 pp.

Moyle, P. B., R. M. Yoshiyama, and R. A. Knapp. 1996. Status of fishes and fisheries. Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project: Final Report to Congress. Vol. II: Assessments and scientific basis for management options. University of California, Davis. Centers for Water and Wildland Resources.

106 Mussulman, S. and M. Lockhart. (2014). Jeff Davis Creek Aquatic Biodiversity Management Plan. California Department of Fish and Wildlife; 4/28/2014. Available from: https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=84128

Ouellet, M., I. Mikaelian, B. D. Pauli, J. Rodrigue, and D. M. Green. 2005. Historical evidence of widespread chytrid infection in North American amphibian populations. Conservation Biology 19:1431-1440.

Pilliod, D. S., and C. R. Peterson. 2001. Local and landscape effects of introduced trout on amphibians in historically fishless watersheds. Ecosystems 4:322-333.

Pister, E. P. 2001. Wilderness fish stocking: history and perspective. Ecosystems 4:279-286.

Pope, K. L. 2008. Assessing changes in amphibian population dynamics following experimental manipulations of introduced fish. Conservation Biology 22(6):1572-1581.

Rachowicz, L. J., and C. J. Briggs. 2007. Quantifying the disease transmission function: effects of density on Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis transmission in the mountain yellow-legged frog Rana muscosa. Journal of Animal Ecology 76:711-721. Rachowicz, L. J., R. A. Knapp, J. A. T. Morgan, M. J. Stice, V. T. Vredenburg, J. M. Parker, and C. J. Briggs. 2006. Emerging infectious disease as a proximate cause of amphibian mass mortality. Ecology 87:1671-1683.

Rachowicz, L. J., and V. T. Vredenburg. 2004. Transmission of Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis within and between amphibian life stages. Diseases of Aquatic Organisms 61:75-83.

Sarnelle, O. and R. A. Knapp. 2004. Zooplankton recovery after fish removal: Limitations of the egg bank. Limnology and Oceanography 49:1382-1392.

Skerratt, L. F., L. Berger, R. Speare, S. Cashins, K. R. McDonald, A. D. Phillott, H. B. Hines, and N. Kenyon. 2007. Spread of chytridiomycosis has caused rapid global decline and extinction of frogs. EcoHealth 4:125–134.

State of Nevada Division of Water Resources, 2011. Nevada State Water Plan: Part 1 – Background and Resource Assessment. Retrieved from http://water.nv.gov/programs/planning/stateplan/documents/pt1-sec8.pdf

Stebbins, R. C. 2003. A Field Guide to Western Reptiles and Amphibians. 3rd ed. Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston. 533 pp.

USFWS, 2007. 12- Month finding on a petition to list the Sierra Nevada distinct population segment of the mountain yellow-legged frog (Rana muscosa). Federal Register 72:34657-34661.

Vredenburg, V. T. 2004. Reversing introduced species effects: Experimental removal of introduced fish leads to rapid recovery of a declining frog. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA 101:7646-7650.

107 APPENDIX 1 PROTOCOL FOR VISUAL ENCOUNTER SURVEYS AT SNYLF MONITORING SITES Version 2.6 (Updated 5/29/13, SEM)

1. Surveyors need to have a notebook, GPS unit, thermometer, amphibian net, camera, stopwatch and possibly field binoculars. 2. All data should be recorded in a field notebook and should be in Celcius and 24-hour time.

BEFORE THE SURVEY 3. Prior to beginning the survey, take the air temperature in the shade. Record temperature, temperature units (should be Celcius) and the time the temperature was taken. 4. Take the water temperature 1 meter from shore, in shade if possible, ~20cm below the surface and record. 5. Record weather conditions: Mostly cloudy (50-95% cloud cover), partly cloudy (5-49% cloud cover), overcast (95-100% cloud cover), smoky, clear, rain or snow. - If the weather if poor, delay the survey until better conditions. 6. Record wind conditions: Calm, light, moderate, strong. Calm = no wind; light = small leaves moving, ripples on water; moderate = small waves on water; strong = lots of whitecaps on water. 7. Record water color: Clear or stained. 8. Record turbidity: Clear or cloudy.

THE SURVEY 9. Record the time you begin the survey and number of frog surveyors. Start your stopwatch. Pause your stopwatch if you need to stop surveying; start it again when you begin looking again. 10. Slowly walk the shoreline, looking ahead for amphibians and looking in the water for adults and larvae. Binoculars can be useful for scanning the shoreline ahead of you. 11. Record all amphibians seen, separating them by life stage. Record adults, metamorphs (a “fresh” sub-adult usually with a tail remnant), subadults, larvae and egg masses. If possible, break Ramu/Rasi larvae into size classes (ie small, medium, large). Record this in your notebook. 12. Include the first 200 meters of inlets and outlets in your survey. Inlets and outlets are defined as channelized tributaries and should be surveyed whether wet or dry. Survey any additional wetted habitat such as side ponds or small meadows that drain into the lake.

AFTER THE SURVEY 13. Record the time you end the survey. Record the total time you spent looking for amphibians from your stopwatch. 14. Add the total time of each surveyor to determine the total time of the VES survey. Record the final number. 15. Before leaving the site, double check your data to ensure that you record everything. 16. If continuing on to another site, proper sterilization protocol needs to be followed. Shoes, dip nets, thermometers, etc. should be sterilized before they can be used at a site that is not downstream and connected to the site you just surveyed.