United States Department of the Interior

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT Mother Lode Field Office 5152 Hillsdale Circle El Dorado Hills, CA 95762-5713 www.blm.gov/ca/motherlode

EA Number: CA-180-16-22

Proposed Action: Michigan Bluff California Red-legged Restoration Project

Location: MDM, T. 14 N., R. 11 E., Section 21 (see attached project area maps)

1.0 Purpose of and Need for Action

1.1 Need for Action The BLM is interested in establishing naturally appearing and functioning wetlands to benefit the California red-legged frog and other species. The California red-legged frog is listed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service as threatened under the Endangered Species Act. The California red-legged frog is particularly scarce in the Sierra Nevada with fewer than a dozen known populations. The building of ephemeral ponds a little over a mile from a robust California red-legged frog population which occurs on private lands will potentially allow expansion of the population from private lands onto public lands. The ephemeral nature of the pond will allow for California red-legged frog breeding without exposing the eggs and larvae to predatory fish and bullfrogs. These low-maintenance wetlands will also provide habitat for birds, bats, other , aquatic reptiles, aquatic insects, and drinking water for a variety of wildlife. Returning wetlands to the landscape would have other ecological benefits such as reducing erosion and improving water quality.

The wetlands would be built so that most dry in the fall season. This way they would not support bullfrogs or fish, known predators/competitors of California red-legged frog. The wetlands would be built to contain water for varying lengths of time, so that in wet or dry years, at least one of the wetlands would provide conditions suitable for successful breeding of California red-legged . The wetlands are likely to benefit the California red-legged frog, which can successfully breed in wetlands that contain water seasonally. These seasonal wetlands are called ephemeral wetlands and are some of the rarest habitats in California.

Project Objectives

Implementing the Michigan Bluff California Red-legged Frog Restoration Project would help meet these objectives: 1. Increase breeding habitat for the California red-legged frog. 2. Increase habitat for a diversity of and plants. 3. Establish ephemeral wetlands 4. Establish wetlands on the landscape that would function in times of drought 5. Increase opportunities to view and hunt wildlife 6. Clean runoff 7. Establish naturally appearing and functioning wetlands that require little, if any maintenance 1.2 Conformance with Applicable Land Use Plans The Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Mother Lode Field Office, operates under the direction of the Sierra Resource Management Plan approved in February 2008. Current BLM policy is to manage 1

BLM lands so as to conserve and/or recover ESA-listed species and the ecosystems on which they depend so that ESA protections are no longer needed for these species, and to initiate proactive conservation measures that reduce or eliminate threats to Bureau sensitive species to minimize the likelihood of and need for listing of these species under the ESA (BLM Manual 6840 Special Status Species Management, 2008).

The Sierra Resource Management Plan Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) (U.S. Bureau of Land Management 2008) provides direction for the management of threatened and endangered species.

Within this plan the goal for Water Resources is to:  Restore and maintain the ecological health of watersheds and aquatic ecosytems on BLM lands, and to the extent possible, partner with other landowners and stakeholders to coordinate restoration efforts across watersheds.

Within this plan the goals for Fish and Wildlife are to:  Maintain, improve, or enhance native fish and wildlife populations and the ecosystems upon which they depend.  Maintain the ecological integrity of foothill ecosystems in the face of urban growth and residential development through protection or improvement of habitat connectivity.  Provide opportunities for research and education.

Within this plan the goals for Special Status Species are to:  Ensure that all management activities and BLM authorizations are consistent with the conservation needs for special status species.  Manage special status species habitat to assist in the recovery of listed species.

Within this plan the objective of the California Red-legged Frog and Foothill Yellow-legged frog Conservation Strategy (jointly developed with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) is:  To sustain and manage viable populations of the California red-legged frog and foothill yellow- legged frog in the planning area. Stabilize and manage the California red-legged frog population at Spivey Pond. Repatriate the California red-legged frog to suitable habitat on BLM lands.

2.0 Proposed Action and Alternatives

2.1 Proposed Action The proposed action is a restoration project to increase available pond habitat on BLM land for an existing Federally threatened California red-legged frog population located on private land in the watershed, near Michigan Bluff. The expected timeframe for pond construction is from September 29th to September 30th, 2016.

The proposed project is to build two ponds outside of stream channel drainages. The ponds will be located approximately 4 miles northeast of Foresthill, California (T14NR11E Section 21 MDM). Access is gained off of Michigan Bluff Road and Gorman Ranch Road.

Site 1 - Propose digging a depression (50 x 40 x 3 ft) for an ephemeral wetland with an excavator just south of Gorman Ranch Road. Remove and save plants within the area. No trees would need to be removed. Install a one-piece 30 mil PVC fish-grade liner in a created depression and removed soil will be placed back onto the liner up to a level of 8 inches deep. Reseed with adjacent native vegetation.

2

Site 2 - Propose digging a depression for an ephemeral/emergent wetland (40 x 40 x 3 ft) with an excavator. No trees would need to be removed. Install a one-piece 30 mil PVC fish grade liner and removed soil will be placed back onto the liner up to 8 inches deep. Reseed with adjacent native vegetation.

2.2 Project Design Features

 A Service-approved biologist will survey the project area for the California red-legged frog prior to project actions commencing, including vegetation removal and ground disturbance. Additionally, a Service- approved biologist will be on site during all project actions. If any listed or proposed species is discovered near proposed pond creation sites, the Bureau of Land Management will immediately notify the Service ([email protected] or [email protected]) and all construction will cease.

 Construction of ponds will occur during the driest period of late summer and fall, between August and September, when California red-legged frogs are least likely to be dispersing through the project area.

 Use of heavy equipment will occur no more than 2 days, and will occur prior to fall rains. Equipment use will be postponed if standing water is present at the project site, and the Service will be notified of new construction dates.

 All heavy equipment and motorized vehicles will be stored and fueled away from the project area and any potential aquatic habitat for the California red-legged frog, on already existing road ways or clearings. All heavy equipment and motorized vehicles will have a spill kit to contain leaks or spills at the project location. All heavy equipment and motorized vehicles will be checked daily for leaks.

 If intermittent waterways near the project have standing water creating potential summer dispersal habitat for the California red-legged frog, exclusion fencing will be erected to exclude frogs from entering the project area.

 Any steep-walled holes of trenches, pipes or similar materials more than one foot deep that may entrap wildlife will be covered or an escape ramp will be constructed with wooden planks or earthen fill at the end of each work day. All potential areas of entrapment will be inspected by the Service-approved biologist for presence of wildlife prior to beginning of work each day.

 All impacted areas will be revegetated with native plants removed from the site and mulched to promote seeding of native vegetation.

 All debris and equipment from construction will be removed from the project area immediately following completion.

 Each pond shall be monitored for implementation and effectiveness of riparian vegetation success, erosional issues, and use by the California red-legged frog. The sites shall be surveyed at least twice during the first year following construction (in winter and after spring runoff) and at least once annually thereafter, for seven additional years. Photos shall be taken and remedial measures taken for any erosional concerns. Findings of surveys will be submitted to the Service (([email protected] or [email protected]) no later than December 31st of year.

3

2.3 No Action Under the no action alternative, BLM will not build two ephemeral ponds.

2.4 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Analysis Additional pond sites were considered but eliminated from detailed analysis due to archaeological concerns.

3.0 Affected Environment The proposed project is in Placer County, four miles east of the city of Foresthill. The project sites range in elevation from 3,400-3,600 feet. The sites are within North Fork American River watershed. The nearest streams to the proposed project area are in Skunk Canyon, an intermittent stream in the vicinity of Gorman Ranch Road. The area is primarily second growth mixed conifer forest that has historically been mined for gold and mining occurred, at a smaller scale, more recently. Additionally, the project area burned in a large wildfire in the 1960’s. The area is not managed for grazing or recreational use.

The slopes above the ponds are moderately steep and densely forested with Douglas fir, incense-cedar, madrone, and black oak. The understory species includes live oak, big-leaf maple, and mountain misery, as well as various herbaceous species. Riparian areas support alder, willows, sedges, and rushes. Project area’s botanical resources were inventoried by the BLM botanist in 2016. The project area was inventoried for cultural resources by a BLM archaeologist in 2016.

Recreational use of project area is considered to be low based on observation. Dispersed recreation is possible due to road access. BLM manages the project area in accordance with class III visual resource management (VRM) standards. BLM’s objective for class III is to partially retain the existing character of the landscape. The level of change to the characteristic landscape should be minimal. The project may attract attention during actual construction but should not dominate the view of the casual observer. In addition, the ponds will be visually attractive once complete. The project area does not fall within areas with special designations such as an ACEC, wild and scenic river corridor, etc.

4.0 Environmental Effects The following critical elements have been considered for this environmental assessment, and unless specifically mentioned later in this EA, have been determined to be unaffected by the proposed project, as well as, the no action alternative: air quality, prime/unique farmlands, floodplains, hazardous waste, wild and scenic rivers, wilderness, and environmental justice.

4.1 Impacts of the Proposed Action and Alternatives Vegetation – The BLM botanist analyzed the impacts of the proposed action on botanical resources, especially special status plants. The analysis was designed to help BLM meet its obligations under the Endangered Species Act and other special status policy. A late March, 2016, survey found no special status plants within the project area. The botanist recommends that the proposed action would not affect threatened and endangered plants or other BLM special status plants. Plants will be removed within the footprint of the proposed ponds (total area approximately 100 square feet). Revegetation with native species is part of the project proposal. The proposed action would cause negligible effects to common vegetation.

Wildlife – The BLM wildlife biologist analyzed the impacts of the proposed action on wildlife, especially on special status wildlife. Her analysis was designed to help BLM meet its obligations under the Endangered Species Act and other special status policy. California red-legged frog, a Federally threatened species, is found a little over a mile from the project site. No California red-legged frog has been observed in the project site. However, due to the frogs’ proximity and ability to travel over 2 4

miles from aquatic habitat, the project can potentially impact California red-legged frog. The project action includes use of excavators and dozers which could crush or bury frogs moving through the project area, however, the activity will only occur over a two day period when seasonally, dispersal is least likely. Additionally, the lack of permanent aquatic habitat in the vicinity and the short duration of the project action make it less likely for California red-legged frogs to be present in the area during project implementation. A Service–approved biologist will survey the project area prior to movement of heavy equipment and will be on site to monitor the potential effect of all project activities. There is increased risk associated with the action if intermittent waterways are wet, thus no work will occur if ponding occurs or intermittent waterways are not dry. To avoid risk of spills or leaks from heavy equipment, no fueling or maintenance will occur within waterways, and all equipment will be check daily for leaks. Overall, the impact of the proposed project will be beneficial to the California red- legged frog by creating potential dispersal habitat from a known breeding location. Additionally, these ponds may in the future provide suitable breeding habitat for the California red-legged frog, and serve as a satellite population that can buffer losses to the current Michigan Bluff population and serve as a source for individuals to recolonize the area should that population be extirpated.

BLM made a determination that the proposed project may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect (NLAA) the California red-legged frog because: (1) the project will not result in take of the California red-legged frog, or adverse effects to critical habitat; (2) the project will help implement goals of the California red-legged frog Recovery Plan; (3) the project will not alter existing habitat and will create additional breeding and summer habitat for the California red-legged frog; and (4) the Bureau of Land Management will implement measures to avoid adverse effects to listed species (See project design features in Section 2.2). The BLM conducted informal consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Endangered Species Division, and has received an NLAA concurrence from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Cultural/Native American concerns – The project area inventoried by a BLM archaeologist in April 2016. The archaeologist found no cultural properties in the APE. The primary purpose of the study was to identify affects to the significant cultural resources or “historic properties”, in accordance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. No historic properties were identified that would be affected by the proposed action.

Recreation and visual resources management – The proposed action would not negatively impact recreational use. Recreational use is uncommon in the area affected by the proposed action. The proposed action may have a noticeable impact on visual resources. BLM manages the area in accordance with VRM class III standards, though the area does have natural scenic beauty. The proposed action is in line with the management objective for class III, which is to partially retain the existing character of the landscape.

4.2 Impacts of the No Action Alternative Two ephemeral ponds that will provide potential habitat for California red-legged frog will not be built. Potential benefits to California red-legged frog, such as the creation of dispersal and breeding habitat on public lands within dispersal proximity of a known robust California red-legged frog population on private lands, will not be realized without the pond creation. Benefits to wildlife other than California red-legged frog will also not be realized. Vegetation that would be removed with pond creation will remain in place with the no action alternative. Cultural resources, visual resources, and recreation would be impacted the same as with the proposed project.

4.3 Cumulative Impacts Factors contributing to the threatened status of the species include: urban encroachment, construction of reservoirs and water diversions, contaminants, agriculture. These activities can destroy, degrade, 5

and fragment habitat. The introduction of non-native predators, competitors, and disease are additional factors that continue to threaten the viability of many California red-legged frog populations.

Habitat loss and alteration, over-exploitation, and introduction of exotic predators were significant factors in the species’ decline in the early to mid-1900s. Reservoir construction, expansion of introduced predators, inappropriate grazing and prolonged drought fragmented and eliminated many of the Sierra Nevada foothill populations. Red-legged frogs are currently threatened by human activities, many of which operate synergistically and cumulatively with each other and with natural disturbances (i.e., droughts and floods). Current factors associated with declining populations of the red-legged frog include degradation and loss of its habitat through agriculture, urbanization, mining, overgrazing, recreation, timber harvesting, non-native plants, impoundments, water diversions, degraded water quality, and introduced predators. These factors have resulted in the isolation and fragmentation of habitats within many watersheds, often precluding dispersal between sub-populations and jeopardizing the viability of metapopulations (broadly defined as multiple subpopulations that occasionally exchange individuals through dispersal, and are capable of colonizing or “rescuing” extinct habitat patches). The fragmentation of existing habitat and the continued colonization of existing habitat by nonnative species may represent the most significant current threats to red-legged frogs. Red-legged frog populations are usually threatened by more than one factor.

Several researchers in central California have noted the decline and eventual local disappearance of California and northern red-legged frogs (Rana aurora aurora) in systems supporting bullfrogs (Rana catesbiena) (Hayes and Jennings 1986, Twedt 1993). Other non-native species that suppress California red-legged frog populations are the red swamp crayfish (Procambarus clarkii), signal crayfish (Pacifastacus leniusculus), and several species of warm water fish including sunfish (Lepomis spp.), goldfish (Carassius auratus), common carp (Cyprinus carpio), and mosquitofish (Gambusia affinis).

Establishment of bullfrogs has a notably destructive effect on red-legged frog populations, because they impact red-legged frogs during all life stages and in multiple ways. Cook (1997) documented bullfrog predation of a large adult red-legged frog. Larval bullfrogs enter their carnivorous stage during the spring, concurrent with the early stages of red-legged frog larval development, at a time when red-legged frog larvae are small and non-carnivorous. In addition to predation, bullfrogs may have a competitive advantage over red-legged frogs: bullfrogs are larger, possess more generalized food habits (Bury and Whelan 1984), possess an extended breeding season (Storer 1933) where an individual female can produce as many as 20,000 eggs during a breeding season (Emlen 1977), and larvae are unpalatable to predatory fish (Kruse and Francis 1977). In addition to competition, bullfrogs also interfere with red-legged frog reproduction. Both California and northern red-legged frogs have been observed in amplexus with (mounted on) both male and female bullfrogs (Jennings and Hayes 1990, Twedt 1993). Thus bullfrogs are able to prey upon and out-compete red-legged frogs.

Many pesticides and fertilizers have been shown to have deleterious effects on both red-legged frogs and treefrogs. Nebeker and Schuytema (2000) found that ammonium sulfate significantly reduced growth and survivorship for tadpoles of both species. Ammonium nitrate, ammonium chloride, ammonium sulfate, and ammonium nitrate all have adverse effects on Pacific treefrog embryos. Effects range from cardiac and abdominal edema, deformity, and death (Schuytema, and Nebeker 1999). Red-legged frog tadpoles are less sensitive to nitrates than other anurans, but respond to nitrites by reduced feeding, less vigorous swimming, disequilibrium, deformity, paralysis, and death (Marco et al. 1999). Runoff of pesticides from golf courses (Odanaka et al. 1994, Ryals et al. 1998, Suzuki et al. 1998) may suppress California red-legged frogs by significantly eliminating their prey base and by direct, reduced fitness to individual frogs.

6

Additional threats to the California red-legged frog are chytrid fungus and trematode infestations. The chytrid fungus attacks keratinized tissue (Mazzoni et al. 2003), which impairs foraging ability of tadpoles by digesting and deforming their mouth parts Chytridiomycosis (chytrid infection) also disrupts metamorphosis by reducing keratin availability for structural changes. Chytridiomycosis has caused localized extinction in many anuran species (Daszak and Cunningham 1999, Australian Government 2004) and has been found in California red-legged frog populations (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2002).

Parasitic infection from the trematode, ondatrae, has been shown to result in limb deformations in the northern red-legged frog and in the Pacific treefrog. These deformations range from missing or partial limbs in 7 to 8 percent of infected individuals to additional limbs in 34 to 48 percent of individuals tested in northern California and Oregon (Johnson et al. 2002). Frogs with additional or missing limbs are unable to move about their ecosystem effectively, especially when their hind limbs are compromised.

5.0 Agencies and Persons Consulted U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Sacramento Field Office

5.1 BLM Interdisciplinary Team

Reviewers:

/s/ Heather Daniels 6.2.2016 ______NEPA coordinator

/s/ Alden Neel ______Cultural Resources Specialist

/s/ Jeff Horn 6/2/16 ______Outdoor recreation planner/VRM Specialist

/s/ Beth Brenneman 6/1/16 ______Botanist

/s/ Peggy Cranston 5/25/16 ______Wildlife biologist

5.2 Availability of Document and Comment Procedures This EA, posted on BLM ePlanning System website (https://eplanning.blm.gov/epl-front- office/eplanning/nepa/nepa_register.do) or available upon request, will be available for a 15-day public review period. Comments can be made online at the above eplanning website, or can be sent to the Mother Lode Field Office, 5152 Hillsdale Circle, El Dorado Hills, CA 95762 or emailed to [email protected] or [email protected].

7

6.0 References

Australian Government. 2004. Chytridiomycosis Fact Sheet. Department of the Environment and Heritage. Canberra, ACT. 3 pp.

Bury, R.B., and J.A. Whelan. 1984. Ecology and management of the bullfrog. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Resource Publ. 155. 23 pp.

Cook, D. 1997. Microhabitat use and reproductive success of the California red-legged frog (Rana aurora draytonii) and bullfrog (Rana catesbeiana) in an ephemeral marsh. Master’s thesis. Sonoma State University, Sonoma, California.

Daszak, P., and A.A. Cunningham. 1999. Extinction by infection. Trends in Ecol. and Evol. 14: 279.

Emlen, S.T. 1977. “Double clutching” and its possible significance in the bullfrog. Copeia 1977(4): 749-751.

Hayes, M.P., and M.R. Jennings. 1986. Decline of ranid frog species in western North America: Are bullfrogs (Rana catesbeiana) responsible? J. Herpetol. 20(4): 490-509.

Jennings, M.R., and M.P. Hayes. 1990. Final report of the status of the California red-legged frog (Rana aurora draytonii) in the Pescadero Marsh Natural Preserve. Prepared for the California Department of Parks and Recreation under contract No. 4-823-9018 with the California Academy of Sciences. 30 pp.

Johnson, P.T., J.K.B. Lunde, E.M. Thurman, E.G. Ritchie, S.N. Wray, D.R. Sutherland, J.M. Kapfer, T.J.Frest, J. Bowerman, and A.R. Blaustein. 2002. Parasite (Ribeiroai ondatrae) infection linked to amphibian malformations in the western United States. Ecol. Monograms 72: 151-168.

Kruse, K.C., and M.G. Francis. 1977. A predation deterrent in the larvae of the bullfrog, Rana catesbeiana. Trans. Amer. Fish. Soc. 37(5): 248-252.

Marco, A., C. Quilchano, and A.R. Blaustein. 1999. Sensitivity to nitrate and nitrite in pond-breeding amphibians from the Pacific Northwest. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 18:2836-2839.

Mazzoni, R., A.A. Cunningham, P. Dasak, A. Apolo, E. Perdoma, and G. Speranza. 2003. Emerging pathogen of wild amphibians in frogs (Rana catesbeiana) farmed for the international market. Emerging Infectious Diseases 9(8): 995-998.

Nebeker, A.V., and G.S. Schuytema. 2000. Effect of ammonium sulfate on growth of larval northwestern salamanders, red-legged and Pacific treefrog tadpoles, and juvenile flathead minnows. Bull. Environ. Contam. and Toxicol. 64(2): 271-278.

Odanaka, Y., Taniguchi, T., Shimamura, Y., Iijima, K., Koma, Y., Takechi, T. and Matano, O. (1994). Runoff and leaching of pesticides in golf course [sic]. Journal of Pesticide Science, 19(1): 1-10.

Ryals, S.C., Genter, M.B., and Leidy, R.B. (1998). Assessment of surface water quality on three eastern North Carolina golf courses. Environ.Toxicol.Chem., 17(10): 1934-1942.

8

Schuytema, G.S., and A.V. Nebeker. 1999. Effects of ammonium nitrate, sodium nitrate, and urea on red-legged frogs, Pacific treefrogs, and African clawed frogs. Bull. Env. Contam. and Toxicol. 63: 357-364.

Storer, T.J. 1933. Frogs and their commercial use. California Fish and Game 19(3): 203-213.

Suzuki, T., Kondo, H., Yaguchi, K., Maki, T., and Suga, T. (1998). Estimation of leachability and persistence of pesticides at golf courses from point-source monitoring and model [sic] to predict pesticide leaching to groundwater. Env.Sci.Tech., 32(7): 920-929.

Twedt, B. 1993. A comparative ecology of Rana aurora Baird and Girard and Rana catesbeiana Shaw at Freshwater Lagoon, Humboldt County, California. Master’s Thesis, Humboldt State University, Arcata, California. 53 pp. plus appendix.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2002. Recovery Plan for the California Red-legged Frog (Rana aurora draytonii). Region 1, Portland, Oregon. 181 pp.

9