California Red-Legged Frog

Red Mountain Complex OHV Route Restoration (Sierra National Forest Project RW16-001)

USDA Forest Service Sierra National Forest High Sierra Ranger District

Fresno County, California Township 8 S., Range 26E, Sections 20-23, 25-28, 32-36; Township 9 S., Range 26E, Sections 1-5, 9-11; Township 9 S., Range 27E, Section 6, of the Mt Diablo Base Meridian.

USGS Quads: Huntington Lake and Dogtooth Peak

Prepared by /Contact Person: Leanne Knutson Phone number: (559) 855-5355 Ext3344 Assistant Aquatics Biologist Email: [email protected]

Reviewed by: Stephanie Barnes Phone number: (559) 855-5355 Ext3343 District Aquatics Biologist Email: [email protected]

I. INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this Biological Assessment is to present an analysis of effects for the Red Mountain Complex OHV Route Restoration Project (RW16-001) on federally listed endangered and threatened species and their habitat. The analysis is conducted to determine whether formal consultation or conference is required with the United States Department of Interior (USDI) Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), pursuant to the Endangered Species Act. The biological assessment is prepared in compliance with the requirements of Forest Service Manual 2670 and provides for compliance with Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 50-402.12.

The Red mountain Complex OHV Route Restoration Project (RW16-001) is located on the Sierra National Forest; High Sierra Ranger District with elevation range from 8600 to about 9200 feet. Decommissioning and restoring damaged areas due to illegal off highway vehicle (OHV) use and overused dispersal camping on undesignated areas is proposed within parts of about 424 acres. Treatments involve a combination of manual, mechanical methods. The purpose and need is to protect resources and legal trail integrity.

There are 13 threatened (T), endangered (E), or proposed (P) aquatic species (listed next) that either do not occur, do not have habitat within or adjacent to, or are not affected directly, indirectly, or cumulatively by the Red Mountain Complex OHV Route Restoration Project. Therefore, these species will not be addressed further in this document nor is formal consultation required with the USDI Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) for these species. The Red Mountain Complex OHV Route Restoration (RW16-001) would have no effect on these 13 aquatic species or habitats:

Blunt-nosed leopard lizard (E), Gambelia (=Crotaphytus) sila California red-legged frog (T), Rana aurora draytonii California tiger salamander (T), Ambystoma californiense Central valley steelhead (T), Oncorhynchus mykiss Delta smelt (T), Hypomesus transpacificus Giant garter snake (T), Thamnophis gigas Lahontan cutthroat trout (T), Oncorhynchus (=Salm(o) clarki henshawi Owens tui chubb (E), Gila bicolor snyderi Paiute cutthroat trout (T), Oncorhynchus (=Salmo) clarki seleniris Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog (E), Rana sierrae Steelhead (T), Oncorhynchus (=salmo) mykiss Vernal Pool Fairy Shrimp (E), Branchinecta conservation Vernal Pool tadpole Shrimp (E), Lepidurus packardi

There are 6 candidate (C), Forest Service Sensitive (FFS), or Species of Concern (listed next) that either do not occur, do not have habitat within or adjacent to, or are not affected directly, indirectly, or cumulatively by Red Mountain Complex OHV Route Restoration Project. Therefore, these species will not be addressed further in this document nor is technical assistance required with the USDI Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) for these species. The Red Mountain Complex OHV Route Restoration (RW16-001) would have no effect on these 6 aquatic species or habitats:

Foothill yellow-legged frog (FSS), Rana boylii Hardhead minnow (FSS), Mylophardon conocephalus Limestone salamander (FSS), Hydromantes brunus

Kern Brook Lamprey (FFS), Lampetra hubbsi Kings River slender salamander (FSS), Batrachoseps regius Western pond turtle (FSS), Clemmys marmorata (Subspecies marmorata and pallida)

Further analysis is presented in this document to determine the effects of the Red Mountain Complex OHV Route Restoration (RW16-001) for the following threatened (T) aquatic species:

Yosemite toad (T), Anaxyrus (Bufo) canorus

Species lists are based on the November 15, 2016 (found in the project records at the High Sierra Ranger District) online database (Appendix B) of federally threatened, endangered, proposed, and candidate species for the Sierra National Forest from the USDI-USFWS (http://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/) (08ESMF00- 2017-SLI-0273). The USDA -Forest Service’s sensitive species list is based on the Pacific Southwest Region’s list of March 28, 2013, Final July 3rd, 2013 updated from the June 10, 1998, as amended on March 6, 2001 and May 7, 2003. These lists are the most current versions for the Sierra National Forests. Refer to the aquatic species checksheet located in Appendix A or in the project record for general information and the rationale for inclusion or exclusion in this document for all listed aquatic species

II. CRITICAL HABITAT

There are seven critical habitats on the Sierra National Forest: Keck’s checker-mallow, San Joaquin valley Orcutt grass, Succulent (=fleshy) owl’s –clover, Vernal pool fairy shrimp, Vernal pool tadpole shrimp, Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog and Yosemite toad. There is no effect on the Keck’s checker- mallow, San Joaquin valley Orcutt grass, Succulent (=fleshy) owl’s- clover, Vernal pool fairy shrimp, and Vernal pool tadpole shrimp critical habitats from the Project because the habitat did not occur within the aquatic analysis area, and therefore is not affected directly, indirectly, or cumulatively by the project.

The USFWS has designated critical habitats for the Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog (SYLF) (1,082,147 acres) and Yosemite toad (YT) (750,926 acres) across the range of the species (USDI-FWS 2016 -81 FR 59406). Within the Red Mountain Complex Route OHV Restoration Project or analysis area there is no critical habitat for the SYLF therefore, there is no effect on the Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog critical habitats.

There are approximately 9,485 acres of critical habitat for the YT within the aquatic analysis area, and 424 acres within the Project boundary area (Figure 1) within Unit 14 (Kaiser/Dusy, Fresno County, California). The USFWS published a final rule setting forth a new definition of destruction or adverse modification on February 11, 2016 (81 FR 7214), which became effective on March 14, 2016. Destruction or adverse modification means a direct or indirect alteration that appreciably diminishes the value of critical habitat for the conservation of a listed species (81 FR 59085). Such alterations may include, but are not limited to, those that alter the physical or biological features essential to the conservation of a species or that preclude or significantly delay development of such features

Activities that may affect Yosemite toad critical habitat, when carried out, funded, or authorized by a Federal agency, include, but are not limited to (USDI-FWS 2016 pg. 59086):

(1) Actions that significantly alter water chemistry or temperature. Such activities could include, but are not limited to, release of chemicals, biological pollutants, or heated effluents into the surface water or into connected ground water at a point source or by dispersed release (non-point source). These activities could alter water conditions beyond the tolerances of the Yosemite toad and result in direct or cumulative adverse effects to these individuals and their life cycles.

(2) Actions that would significantly increase sediment deposition within the wet meadow systems and other aquatic features utilized by Yosemite toad or disturb upland foraging and dispersal habitat. Such activities could include, but are not limited to, excessive sedimentation from livestock overgrazing, road construction, inappropriate fuels management activities, channel alteration, inappropriate timber harvest activities, unauthorized off-road vehicle or recreational use, and other watershed and floodplain disturbances. These activities could eliminate or reduce the habitat necessary for the growth and reproduction of the Yosemite toad by increasing the sediment deposition to levels that would adversely affect a toad’s ability to complete its life cycle.

(3) Actions that would significantly alter wet meadow or pond morphology, geometry, or inundation period. Such activities could include, but are not limited to, livestock overgrazing, channelization, impoundment, road and bridge construction, mining, dredging, and inappropriate vegetation management. These activities may lead to changes in the hydrologic function of the wet meadow or pond and alter the timing, duration, water flows, and levels that would degrade or eliminate Yosemite toad habitat. These actions can also lead to increased sedimentation and degradation in water quality to levels that are beyond the tolerances of the Yosemite toad.

(4) Actions that disturb or eliminate upland foraging or overwintering habitat, as well as dispersal habitat, for the Yosemite toad. Such activities could include, but are not limited to, livestock overgrazing, road construction, recreational development, timber harvest activities, unauthorized off-road vehicle or recreational use, and other watershed and floodplain disturbances. These activities could eliminate or reduce essential cover components in terrestrial habitats of the Yosemite toad and adversely affect a toad’s ability to successfully overwinter or over summer and may fragment habitat (USDI-FWS 2016 pg. 59086).

Physical or biological features for the Yosemite toad have been determined to be (1) Space for Individual and Population Growth and for Normal Behavior, (2) Food, Water, Air, Light, Minerals, or Other Nutritional or Physiological Requirements, (3) Cover or Shelter, (4) Sites for Breeding, Reproduction or Rearing (or Development) of Offspring, (5) Habitats Protected From Disturbance or Representative of the Historical, Geographic, and Ecological Distributions of the Species (USDI-FWS 2016 p. 59064-59065)

Primary constituent elements of the physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the Yosemite toad for Fresno County consist of two components:

(i) Aquatic breeding habitat:

(A) This habitat consists of bodies of fresh water, including wet meadows, slow-moving streams, shallow ponds, spring systems, and shallow areas of lakes, that: (1) Are typically (or become) inundated during snowmelt, (2) Hold water for a minimum of 5 weeks, but more typically 7 to 8 weeks, and (3) Contain sufficient food for tadpole development.

(B) During periods of drought or less than average rainfall, these breeding sites may not hold water long enough for individual Yosemite toads to complete metamorphosis, but they are still considered essential breeding habitat because they provide habitat in most years.

(ii) Upland areas. (A) This habitat consists of areas adjacent to or surrounding breeding habitat up to a distance of 1.25 km (0.78 mi) in most cases (that is, depending on surrounding landscape and dispersal barriers), including seeps, springheads, and areas that provide: (1) Sufficient cover (including rodent burrows, logs, rocks, and other surface objects) to provide summer refugia, (2) Foraging habitat, (3) Adequate prey resources, (4) Physical structure for predator avoidance, (5) Overwintering refugia for juvenile and adult Yosemite toads, (6) Dispersal corridors between aquatic breeding habitats, (7) Dispersal corridors between breeding habitats and areas of suitable summer and winter refugia and foraging habitat, and/or (8) The natural hydrologic regime of aquatic habitats (the catchment).

(B) These upland areas should also allow maintain sufficient water quality to provide for the various life stages of the Yosemite toad and its prey base (USDI-FWS 2016 p. 59065, 59102-59103).

Potential affects from the Project to YT Critical Habitat are analyzed under the Critical Habitat Direct and Indirect Effects Section of this document.

Figure 1: Red Mountain Complex OHV Route overview with sub drainage aquatic analysis area, project area, with YT occupied habitat and critical habitat.

II. CONSULTATION HISTORY

Pursuant to 50 CFR 402.12, an updated list of federally-listed threatened, endangered, and proposed species “that may occur in or be affected by” the Project was generated (November 15, 2016) and updated via the USFWS website (http://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/) on November 16, 2016 online database (Consultation code: 08ESMF00-2016-SLI-2076, Appendix B). Consultation with USFWS may be required for the Project for the Yosemite toad.

A programmatic biological opinion (PBO) on nine forest programs on nine national forests in the Sierra Nevada of California for the endangered Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog (SYLF), endangered northern distinct population segment of the mountain yellow-legged frog, and threatened Yosemite toad (YT) was issued December 19, 2014 (FFOSESMF00-2014-F-0557). Management activities covered under the PBO include: Vegetation Management, Maintenance of Roads and Trails, Maintenance of developed recreation sites and administrative infrastructure, Special Use Permits, Rangeland Management, Biological Resources Management, Mining, and Lands (Real Estate).

Previous consultation with the USFWS on SYLF and YT for Forest Service activities occurring in the Sierra Nevada that include the Sierra National Forest has taken place as part of 2 different batch consultations issued on February 17, 2015 (08ESMF00-2015-F-0129) and August 18, 2015 (08ESMF00-2015-F-1054). This batch consultations were appended to the programmatic biological opinion. This Project will be included as part of Batch 6 that will be appended to the programmatic biological opinion after project and consistency review from the USFWS. Actions associated with the Red Mountain Complex OHV Route Restoration Project are covered under management activity: Maintenance of Roads and Trails

III. CURRENT MANAGEMENT DIRECTION

Existing management direction for listed species can be found in:

• Forest Service Manual and Handbooks (FSM/H 2670) • Endangered Species Act (ESA) • National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) • Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment (2001 FEIS and ROD) • Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment (2004 SEIS and ROD) • Sierra National Forest Land and Resources Management Plan, as amended (LRMP) • Species-specific Recovery Plans (including Biological Opinions), which establish population goals for recovery of threatened and endangered species • Species management plans • Species management guides or conservation strategies • Regional Forester policy and management direction

The Forest Service direction for Federally listed and proposed species is to manage National Forest Service habitats to achieve recovery objectives so that special protection measures provided under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) are no longer necessary (FSM 2670.13). Each Forest manages Threatened or Endangered Species per the applicable Recovery Plan, if one exists, in order to meet the Forest's share of Threatened and Endangered species recovery goals. Currently there are no recovery plans available for the SYLF or YT.

Sierra National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP) Viability and diversity of aquatic and terrestrial threatened, endangered, proposed or candidate species have been evaluated in the Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment (FEIS) (USDA-FS 2001, 2004). Forest wide Standard and Guidelines (S/G) that were not superseded by the 2001 or 2004 amendments applicable to the Red Mountain Complex OHV Route Restoration Project to maintain viability for aquatic species and habitats include: 69. Give primary management emphasis in riparian areas to protect and enhance the riparian ecosystem, riparian vegetation, water quality, soils, fish and wildlife resources. 70. Streamside Management Zone (SMZ) determination will be based on methods described in FSH 2509.22, Sierra Supplement 1 (USDA-FS 1989) which gives specific direction for width determinations. Streamside management zones (SMZs) are defined in the Sierra National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (USDA-FS 1992) from Sierra Supplement 1 (USDA- Forest Service 1989). SMZs are established to protect and maintain water quality, site productivity, channel stability, wildlife habitat and riparian vegetation and are zones for specific management direction. The width of the SMZ for each side of the stream channel varies depending on stream class and the steepness of the area adjacent to the stream. SMZs are designed to protect watercourses and physical processes from upslope disturbances and are applied on perennial, intermittent and ephemeral streams channels. Riparian Management Areas (RMAs) are designed to protect the aquatic and riparian ecosystems and dependent biological resources associated with perennial streams, meadows and lakes. RMAs incorporate all areas within a horizontal distance of 100 feet from the edge of perennial streams, meadows and lakes, including aquatic ecosystems, floodplains, and riparian ecosystems. RMAs can be increased as necessary to protect habitat for threatened, endangered or sensitive species. Within the project area, riparian ecological areas are located adjacent to perennial aquatic systems and designated as Class I (highly significant). The Class II/III channels are intermittent and lack riparian vegetation. Class IV-V channels are ephemeral and also lack riparian vegetation. RMAs are incorporated into SMZs with the width of the SMZ varying by stream class and side slope gradient. Minimum widths established by Forest Service Handbook 2509.22 Sierra Supplement 1 provides for SMZs of: Table 1. RCA, SMZ, and RMA Widths. Corresponding RCA Stream Minimum RMA Feature Type GIS Layer Width Class SMZ Width1 Width Stream Order 100 Perennial Streams 300 feet I2 At least 100 ft 3+ feet II At least 75 ft 2 Seasonally Flowing Streams 150 feet III At least 50 ft N/A - IV At least 25 ft 1

1 All SMZ widths include an additional three feet for each percent slope above 30 percent. SMZs are applied to each side of streams, so if treatments are located on both sides of a perennial stream, there are 100 foot SMZs on both sides for a total mechanized exclusion area of 200 feet, plus any needed slope adjustments. 2 Class I streams are not always perennial. Intermittent streams with certain characteristics can also be Class I.

Corresponding RCA Stream Minimum RMA Feature Type GIS Layer Width Class SMZ Width1 Width Stream Order V None required3 - Top of Streams in Inner Gorge inner Varies gorge Special Aquatic Features (fens, bogs, springs, seeps, lakes, N/A N/A ponds, wetlands, meadows etc.) 100 Perennial Streams with feet Identified on Riparian Conditions extending 300 feet GIS layers or in more than 150 feet from edge the field of streambank I At least 100 ft Seasonally Flowing streams with riparian conditions N/A extending more than 50 feet from edge of streambank

71. In the absence of on-site riparian area protective width determinations, riparian areas will extend 100 feet horizontally from the edge of perennial streams, lakes and reservoirs. Deviations resulting from on-site evaluations will be documented in project environmental assessments. 72. When on-site project evaluations identify the need to afford protection to intermittent and/or ephemeral drainages, the protection zone widths will be defined in accordance with the Forest Streamside Management Zone determination process as described in the FSH 2509.22, Sierra Supplement 1. 74. Manage vegetation in designated riparian areas so existing Forest-wide diversity is maintained in all periods. 75. Maintain or enhance productivity of Forest meadows to accommodate wildlife and range resources.

79. When existing routes through riparian areas and meadows are not compatible with riparian dependent resources, consider re-routing.

113. Provide vegetation diversity to maintain viable wildlife populations, scenic qualities and to minimize losses from wildfire.

120. Preclude the impacts of cumulative watershed effects by applying appropriate BMP and mitigation measures during project implementation. Utilize regional CWE methodology when refined for application within the Forest to assess each project for potential to incur cumulative effects.

3 None is required but and SMZ width of 25 feet is frequently identified based site specific protection needs.

124. BMP will be implemented to meet water quality objectives and maintain and improve the quality of surface water in the Forest.

127. Apply appropriate erosion prevention measures on all ground-disturbing activities (FSH 2409.23) prior to fall storms (October 1) and immediately upon completion of activity begun after November 1.

The Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment (SNFPA) Forest wide management standards and guidelines (S&G) in the Record of Decision (ROD) (pages 62 – 66; USDA-FS 2004) for the 2004 Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment applicable to Red Mountain Complex OHV Route Restoration Project aquatic species and habitat include: 91. Designate riparian conservation area (RCA) widths as described in Part B of the ROD appendix (pg. 42 of ROD). The RCA widths displayed in Part B may be adjusted at the project level if a landscape analysis has been completed and a site-specific RCO analysis demonstrates a need for different widths (ROD, Table 1). RCA width and protection measures determined through project level analysis will be assigned to other hydrological or topographic depressions within the project not identified above. (See Table 1) above). 92. Evaluate new proposed management activities within CARs and RCAs during environmental analysis to determine consistency with the riparian conservation objectives at the project level and the AMS goals for the landscape. Ensure that appropriate mitigation measures are enacted to (1) minimize the risk of activity-related sediment entering aquatic systems and (2) minimize impacts to habitat for aquatic- or riparian-dependent plant and animal species. 94. As part of project-level analysis, conduct peer reviews for projects that propose ground- disturbing activities in more than 25 percent of the RCA or more than 15 percent of a CAR. Standards and Guidelines Associated with RCO #1 96. Ensure that management activities do not adversely affect water temperatures necessary for local aquatic- and riparian-dependent species assemblages. 99. Prohibit storage of fuels and other toxic materials within RCAs and CARs except at designated administrative sites and sites covered by a Special Use Authorization. Prohibit refueling within RCAs and CARs unless there are no other alternatives. Ensure that spill plans are reviewed and up-to-date. Standards and Guidelines Associated with RCO #2 100. Maintain and restore the hydrologic connectivity of streams, meadows, wetlands, and other special aquatic features by identifying roads and trails that intercept, divert, or disrupt natural surface and subsurface water flow paths. Implement corrective actions where necessary to restore connectivity. Standards and Guidelines Associated with RCO #4 113. Allow hazard tree removal within RCAs or CARs. Allow mechanical ground disturbing fuels treatments, salvage harvest, or commercial fuelwood cutting within RCAs or CARs when the activity is consistent with RCOs. Utilize low ground pressure equipment, helicopters, over the snow logging, or other non-ground disturbing actions to operate off of existing roads when needed to achieve RCOs. Ensure that existing roads, landings, and skid trails meet Best

Management Practices. Minimize the construction of new skid trails or roads for access into RCAs for fuel treatments, salvage harvest, commercial fuelwood cutting, or hazard tree removal. Standard and Guideline Associated with RCO #6 122. Recommend restoration practices in: (1) areas with compaction in excess of soil quality standards, (2) areas with lowered water tables, or (3) areas that are either actively down cutting or that have historic gullies. Identify other management practices, for example, road building, recreational use, grazing, and timber harvests that may be contributing to the observed degradation. Project and species specific Design Criteria to support these standard and guidelines to conserve species and habitat are detailed in Section IV of this BA.

IV. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED PROJECT

Project Action: The project proposes to decommission and restore damaged areas along the designated Red Mountain Complex OHV route that have be created due to illegal off highway vehicle (OHV) use and overused dispersal camping in undesignated areas. OHV routes within the Red Mountain Complex are Mirror Lake OHV, Strawberry Lake OHV, West Lake OHV, Red Mountain OHV, and Coyote Lake OHV. The Red Mountain Complex OHV route is a difficult route for many off highway road vehicles. Many illegal routes have been created because of the difficulty level of the authorized route. Illegal reroutes go through Yosemite toad occupied terrestrial dispersal habitat and designated critical habitat.

Where: The Red Mountain Complex OHV Route ( Figure 2) is located on the Sierra National Forest (SNF), High Sierra Ranger District (Township 8 S., Range 26E, Sections 20-23, 25-28, 32-36; Township 9 S., Range 26E, Sections 1-5, 9-11; Township 9 S., Range 27E, Section 6).

Figure 2: Red Mountain Complex OHV Route with sub drainage aquatic analysis area and project area.

When/Who: The Project will be implemented with SNF Forest Service employees and volunteers in late August to early September 2017 before first rains and when Yosemite toad dispersal is minimal. Work will be conducted between 8:00 AM and 6:00 PM each day.

How: Soil control efforts will consist of building/maintaining rolling dip drains and water bars to minimize trail erosion. Grading and mulching will be implemented on areas to be decommissioned to reduce soil compaction and increase new vegetation growth. Forest Service OHV Jeeps and wenches will be used to move larger boulders and logs to block access and control traffic to the designated trail system. Hand and power tools (shovels, Pulaski, and chainsaws) will be used for cutting dead trees and moving rock to block illegally made routes and trails. All materials used to decommission the illegal routes will be sourced locally such as falling dead trees, filling with native vegetative debris, and moving local rock to block access. Materials may be harvested up to 200 feet on either side of the authorized OHV trail. The purpose and need is to protect natural resources and maintain trail integrity.

Conservation Measures: In addition to ensuring that project actions meet the LRMP (USDA-FS 2001, 2004) and ROD (USDA 2004) Standard and Guidelines outlined in Section III of this document, Project Design Criteria for activities within occupied and suitable habitat were developed to support the S/Gs and minimze impacts to aquatic species and habitats during project work.

The following project design criteria will be implemented during project activities:

1. Any project activities on the Red Mountain Complex OHV route must have a District aquatic biologist present to instruct and inform what constitutes as critical habitat features and to flag any areas of concern to avoid. 2. Prior to mid-August (project activities), the District aquatic biologist will flag the Red Mountain Complex OHV route for known YT burrows and other sensitive areas to avoid during all/any project activities. 3. All operations shall end by October 1 to allow for overwintering migrations and protection of overwintering YT. On an annual basis, the end timing of Oct. 1 may be adjusted by the District aquaitc biologist up to November 1st dependent on weather conditions (Programmatic BO Project Specific 1b). 4. Prior to work each day, crew should look around site for Yosemite toad presence. If toads are located in burrows around the project area, flag and avoid working or walking in that location. If the area needs to be accessed, inform the District aquatics biologist for further instruction. 5. Throughout the day, check work area periodically for toads and potential habitat (rodent burrows), especially around places where the dragging of snags, moving rock, etc. to block reroute access is needed. 6. Materials used for ground cover post decommissioning reroute should be collected in an approved location along the route. 7. Any Yosemite toads are found moving between habitats while working in the project area must be left to move on their own. Only the onsite aquatic biologist can move individuals (Programmatic BO Project Specific resonable and prudent measure 2c). 8. During the placement of materials used to block reroute access and unauthorized campgrounds around the project site: a. Prior to removal, lift material up and look for salamander or amphibians. b. If Yosemite toads are located under material to remove: i. Put down and leave material in place. Do not use.

ii. Notify the onsite aquatic biologist to flag and avoid the area. 9. Lunch/break areas should be located away from rodent burrows or areas that are associated with YT critical habitat. 10. If forest service employees or volunteers are going to be camping during project implementation, they must camp and store equipment in designated camping sites away from YT occupied meadows/terrestrial habitat. Do not camp at the beginning of the route where YT designated critical habitat is. 11. Refueling of any machinery will take place on a spill pad to prevent spills. 12. Prior to entering project area, ensure all vehicles do not leak any fluids. (Oil, gas, hydraulic fluid). Repair any equipment that is found to be leaking immediately. 13. When restoration efforts are near the two perennial streams on Coyote OHV route or near meadows within the Red Mountain Complex, a Hydrologist will be present to ensure proper implementation of BMP’s. 14. Vehicles will not turnaround or utilize areas that are identified as a physical biological feature for YT critical habitat as designated by the District aquatics biologist. 15. Depending on winter annual snowpack and approval from the District aquatics biologist, work may be allowed earlier than mid-August, but not before mid-July.

Additional aquatic species protection measures may be required if newly listed or unknown populations or suitable habitat for aquatic species are found, or if project activites change due to unseen circumstances.

V. Action Area The aquatic analysis area (Figure 1) for Red Mountain Complex OHV Route Restoration Project is located in Fresno County, California on SNF lands. The sub drainages within the Aquatics Analysis are 516.0017, 516.0014, 516.1003, and 516.1004. Using the Hydrologic Unit Code, analysis area is located in the Upper Big Creek watershed (12th field Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) 180400060901) and the Pitman Creek 12th field HUC (180400060903) (Figure 3). The project area is approximately 8800 feet in elevation and consists of424 acres including a 200 foot buffer on both sides of the authorized Red Mountain Complex OHV Route for material harvest. There are 2 perennial ford crossings on the Red Mountain/ Coyote OHV trail.

The aquatic analysis area incorporates all stream channels, water and its associated riparian corridors which represent the majority of habitat for fish and herpetofauna.

Streams Seasonal (stream order 1 and 2) and perennial (stream order ≥3) miles are associated with the project by subdrainage. (Note: assumption that stream order 3 channels can be intermittent or perennial and are considered perennial for this analysis). Table 2 delineates the miles of stream in each subdrainage by stream order for total stream miles. The perennial streams are potentially habitat for amphibians, reptiles (herpetofauna), and fish. The primary creek drainages within the aquatic analysis area are Tamarack, Coyote, and an unnamed tributary to Big Creek. Seasonal channels can serve as migration

corridors and also influence perennial stream habitat during flow events. The Project area crosses 2 unnamed perennial streams that are tributaries to Tamarack creek.

Meadows Aquatic species discussed in this analysis have potential and occupied habitats associated within meadows. According to the most current corporate GIS meadow layer, there are 82 meadows for a total of approximately 154 acres within the 4 subdrainages of the aquatic analysis area for the Red Mountain Complex OHV Route Restoration Project, with approximately 9 acres within Project boundary area (Table 2). There are 11 meadows within the Project area and 2 of those meadows are YT occupied meadows.

Table 2. Watershed and associated drainage information on streams (including seasonal and perennial miles) and meadows with the aquatics analysis area for the Red Mountain Complex OHV Route Restoration Project. HUC16 HUC16 Project HUC12 HUC16 HUC16 Stream Meadow Meadow Name and Number Number Acres4 Miles Acres Acres Pitman Creek 516.1003 1440 2.7 30 3.15 180400060903 516.1004 3073 7.5 50 4.8 Upper Big Creek 516.0014 1851 6.2 34 0.78 180400060901 516.0017 3160 8.5 40 0.05 Total 9524 24.9 154 8.78

4 Acres are approximate

Figure 3: Red Mountain Complex Sub drainage aquatic analysis are with HUC numbers and meadows.

Information contained in this report represents a compilation of stream condition and species observation in stream and meadow habitats. Segments of aquatic analysis area streams have been surveyed for stream channel characteristics and stability between 1989 and 2015. Channels and riparian

areas were evaluated using various methodologies, including Rosgen channel typing, Pfankuch channel stability ratings, and Stream Condition Inventory. Aquatic conditions were evaluated considering a combination of channel stability, stream shading, and water temperature. There have been three channel analysis surveys done within the aquatic analysis area. Two were on Tamerack Creek and found to be a stable dry channel. The third waterbody was a lake and meadow survey finding fish present in Strawberry Lake. Surveys for herpetofauna (amphibians and aquatic/riparian reptiles) were completed at various times in both stream and meadow habitats. Within the aquatic analysis area, species found in previous years are Yosemite toad, Pacific chorus frog, and the Common Garter snake.

VI. SPECIES ACCOUNTS AND STATUS IN THE ACTION AREA

Species presented in Section I of this report that require further analysis are described in detail next. Refer to appendix A of this report for the rationale for the inclusion and exclusion of all listed aquatic species. The Yosemite toad is within the range of the project and aquatic analysis area. Table 3 summarizes the acres of habitat.

Table 3: Yosemite toad habitats associated with analysis and project area for potential and occupied habitat approximate acres in the Red Mountain Complex OHV Route Restoration Project. Analysis Area Project Area Type of Buffer Species Potential Occupied Potential Occupied Habitat Distance Total Total Habitat Habitat (Acres) Habitat Habitat (Acres) (Acres) (Acres) (Acres) (Acres) Meadows Yosemite toad >6000' - 112 38 116 7 2 9 Elevation Terrestrial 1250 Yosemite toad Habitat 3376 6148 9524 0 424 424 meters Buffer Designated Yosemite toad Critical - 9524 424 Habitat

Yosemite toad Anaxyrus (=Bufo) canorus

Description: The Yosemite toad (Anaxyrus (=Bufo) canorus) (YT) can be distinguished from the similar looking western toad (Bufo boreas) by its smaller size, wide paratoid glands, the small space between paratoids, lack of vertebral stripe and high degree of sexual dichromatism (Martin 1992). Camp (1917)

gave the species the name canorus which in Latin means "tuneful". Males are olive green with varying black spotting, females are grey or brown with dark markings (Jennings and Hayes 1994). The iris is dark brown with gold iridophores (Jennings and Hayes 1994). Yosemite toad tadpoles are uniformly black, the snout is blunt, the coiled intestines are scarcely or not at all visible, and the dorsal fin is transparent and marked with few relatively large branched melanophores (Stebbins 1985).

Distribution: The Yosemite Toad is endemic to the Sierra Nevada and its range extends from north of Ebbetts Pass (Alpine County) south to approximately the Kings River (Fresno County). This includes the southern portion of the Eldorado National Forest south through the Stanislaus National Forest, Toiyabe National Forest (Region 4), Inyo National Forest, Yosemite National Park, and Sierra National Forest to the northern portion of Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Park (Brown et al. 2009). Populations have been observed as far south as Spanish Mountain on the Sierra National Forest during Forest-wide inventories conducted by the USFS between 2002 and 2004. The elevation range is approximately 6,400 to more than 11,000 feet (Jennings and Hayes 1994). On the Sierra National Forest, the Yosemite toad occurs throughout its elevation range and to date, the Forest has detected the species in 358 meadows.

Life History: Breeding for the Yosemite toad can take place between May to July in shallow pools and small, slow moving, shallow streams usually in meadows (Kagarise Sherman 1980; Martin 1992). Males emerge from hibernation for breeding as soon as snow melts from meadows (Martin ibid) arriving at breeding pools several days before females (Kagarise Sherman 1980; Kagarise Sherman and Morton 1984). Movement to and from breeding sites could be extensive (1250 meters and greater), including travel over extensive snowfields from over-winter hibernation sites in forested areas (CDFG 2005, CDFG 2008, USDI-FWS 2013a).

Males call diurnally and can be heard from more than 100 yards (Martin 1992), although Brown reports observing nocturnal calling (per. comm. 2010). Brown (per. comm. 2010) also reports instances of nocturnal breeding. Males appear to outnumber females at breeding sites with up to ten times as many males as females (Karlstrom 1962; USDI-FWS 2002; Morton and Pereyra 2010).

Eggs are laid in single or double strands, typically in pools or streams not more than three inches deep with a loose silt substrate (Martin ibid; USDI-FWS 2002). A single female lays an estimated 1,500 to 2,000 eggs (Martin ibid). Individual males only stay at breeding ponds for a week or two while females leave shortly after breeding (Kagarise Sherman and Morton 1984; USDI-FWS 2002). Eggs hatch in about 10-12 days, and tadpoles metamorphose seven to nine weeks after the eggs are laid (Kagarise Sherman and Morton ibid; USDI-FWS 2002). Karlstrom (1962) estimates critical thermal maximum of 36-38 º C for larvae and 31º C as the upper limiting temperature for egg development. Desiccation of pools before metamorphosis is a major cause of mortality in tadpoles (CDFG 2005). Mortality of eggs and tadpoles from freezing or desiccation may be high in some years leading to low or no recruitment (Kagarise Sherman 1980, Sadinski 2004, Brown et al. 2012).

Individual Yosemite toads show fidelity to breeding meadows and adult habitat (Kagarise Sherman and Morton 1984, Liang 2010, Brown et al. 2012). In Tioga Pass Meadows, most of the males and females returned to the same breeding sites (Kagarise Sherman and Morton 1984). During four years of a mark- recapture study, only three of 37 males moved to different meadows to breed, though males did move among breeding areas within meadows (Brown et al. 2012). Brown et al. (2012) also notes that toads do appear to select specific breeding areas though some are not used every year, a pattern similar to that observed at the site (e.g., meadow) scale as discussed above. In her radio tracking study, Liang (2010)

found that some toads were found in the same upland areas and sometimes the same exact site multiple years, suggesting that toads also show fidelity in their use of terrestrial sites.

Females first breed at 4-6 years of age and males at 3-5 years of age (USDI-FWS 2002). Both sexes are primarily active during the day (Martin 1992; Kagarise Sherman and Morton 1984), although both Martin (2008) and Liang (per. comm. 2010) observed that adults may move nocturnally between breeding and upland foraging sites. Both Liang and Brown note fidelity in the use of breeding sites by adults monitored within the Bull Creek watershed over several years (per. comm. 2010). Most females only breed once a four year period with few females breeding annually (Kagarise 1980, Morton 1981, Morton and Pereyra 2010, Brown et al. 2012). Males are twice as likely to enter breeding sites annually, but sometimes skip one or more years between breeding attempts (Morton and Pereyra 2010, Brown et al. 2012).

After breeding is completed, both sexes were thought to remain in meadow areas to feed on various insects and small arachnids (Mullally 1953) for two to three months before hibernating (Kagarise Sherman and Morton 1984). Recent studies indicate adults may move several hundred meters from meadows to upland foraging sites (Martin 2008; Liang et al. 2010, Morton and Pereyra 2010) where they spend most of their time outside of the breeding and meadow habitat. Seasonal variation in home range size is considerable. Mullally (1953) estimated home ranges of some toads to be about 20 ft, but suggested that individuals may travel long distances away from water (CDFG 2005). Martin (2008) estimated home range at approximately 8,460 m² (2.1 ac), while Liang (2010) estimated mean home range of 27,430 m² (6.8 ac), and noted female home range was more than 1-1/2 times larger than males. Yosemite toads seek cover during non-breeding seasons (approximately August to March) in abandoned rodent burrows (Jennings and Hayes 1994) or by moving into adjacent forested areas (CDFG 2005) or rocky hillsides hundreds of meters from breeding pools (Morton and Pereyra 2010). In the late fall the toads are only active on warm days. Yosemite toads enter hibernation in late September or early October, and emerge in the spring. The toads utilize rodent burrows, crevices under rocks, or the base of willows for hibernation (Martin 1992; 2008).

Yosemite toads are likely to be more nocturnal than has previously been reported. They actively breed during the day, but a recent study found them to be equally active at night (Brown et al. unpublished data). Further, both Martin (2008) and Liang (2010) observed adults movements diurnally and nocturnally, and noted that longer distance movements seemed to occur at night.

It is estimated that some females may live at least 15 years and males at least 12 years (Kagarise Sherman and Morton 1984, Brown per. comm. 2008). It may be that periodic years of high recruitment and high survival rates of adults are important for long-term persistence of populations (Biek et al. 2002, Brown et al. 2012).

Status: The Yosemite toad was listed as a threatened species on April 29, 2014, under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (USDI-FWS 2014).

U.S. Forest Service monitoring at the bioregional scale indicates the species to be fairly widespread relative to recent (watersheds with toad localities after 1990) distribution, but there are indicators of decline (Brown et al. 2012). In watersheds where habitats were observed as occupied during surveys after 1990, 81% still had signs of breeding (tadpoles, egg-masses, or metamorphs), whereas in watersheds historically occupied prior to 1990, only 12% had evidence of breeding - indicating the population decline took place prior to 1990. Brown further noted that even through the species appears

fairly widespread, abundances of adult males and egg masses were low at monitoring meadows in two monitored watersheds compared to historical population abundances reported from literature. Current estimates indicate disappearance of 47 to 69 percent from historical locations (USDI-FWS 2002). Remaining populations seem more scattered than they were historically and frequently appear to consist of small numbers of breeding adults.

Predators and Threats: Threats potentially affecting the species and its habitats include disease, livestock grazing, climate change, and changes to fire management regimes (USDI-FWS 2002, USDI-FWS 2014). USFWS (2013a) considered recreation effects, road and timber harvest effects, and dams and diversions to be low magnitude threats to the overall populations.

Disease: Yosemite toad populations experienced sharp declines in the eastern Sierra Nevada from 1971 to 1991 (Kagarise Sherman and Morton 1993). The declines were attributed to drought, predation and disease. Kagarise Sherman and Morton (ibid) report that disease (suspected redleg, a bacterial disease) caused extensive deaths of adults in 1977 and 1978. The disease most pertinent to Yosemite toads is the fungal pathogen, Batrochochytrium dendrobatidis (Bd), which has been implicated in amphibian declines worldwide (Skerrat et al. 2007). Bd has contributed to mountain yellow-legged frog declines in the Sierra Nevada (Rachowicz et al. 2006, Briggs et al. 2010), but the toad’s other sympatric species, the Sierran treefrog (Pseudacris sierra), appears to be a reservoir species, meaning they show no signs of disease and can possibly infect other amphibians (Reeder et al. 2012). Until recently, little has been known about the effects of Bd on Yosemite toads. Green and Kagarise Sherman (2001) found that Bd played at least a partial role in the death of 2 toads, but its role in the taxa’s decline is not known. Bull (2006, 2009) reports chytrid-associated death in both subadults and adult western toads (B. boreas). Pilliod et al. (2010) also note declines of 5-7% within the similar Boreal toad populations over a six-year study. In a current study, Dodge et al. (in prep) found that Bd can kill toads when infection levels are high enough, and that both prevalence and infection intensity is highest on subadults. Prevalence was moderate in juveniles (23%) and low in adults (<10%) and infection intensities were low for all life stages.

Yosemite toads serve as prey for frogs, insects, snakes, and birds. Mullally (1953) observed that Yosemite toad tadpoles are preyed upon by mountain yellow-legged frogs. Kagarise Sherman and Morton (1984, 1993) reported robins (Turdus migratorius) and diving beetles (Dytiscus sp.) eating tadpoles, and adult Yosemite toads being killed by Clark's Nutcrackers (Nucifraga columbiana), common ravens (Corvus corax), and California gulls (Larus californicus). Some have suggested introduction of non- native trout as contributing to the decline of Yosemite toad, but Grasso (2005) indicated that brook trout found all early life stages of Yosemite toads to be unpalatable and were unlikely rely on these stages as a primary food source. In the study, Yosemite toad tadpoles that were sampled by trout did not appear to suffer any ill effects. The introduction of non-native fish is commonly associated with amphibian declines but is not likely an important factor for Yosemite toad persistence (Grasso 2010).

Survey flat meadows facing a southwesterly direction and covered with more than 75% snow through late spring were most likely to be used by toads for breeding. The Programmatic Biological Opinion for the nine National Forests identifies suitable breeding and rearing habitat includes wet portions of meadows, slow-moving streams, shallow ponds, spring systems, and lakes with shallow areas that are inundated at snowmelt and hold water for a minimum of 5 weeks in most years. Some sites containing suitable habitat may not retain water long enough for completion of metamorphosis in drought or below average precipitation years. Suitable habitat that is not used for breeding or development of early life history stages includes all portions of meadows or other occupied breeding habitats and

surrounding areas up to a distance of 0.78 miles (1250 meters) depending on surrounding landscapes and dispersal barriers. In some cases, additional areas may be important for dispersal.

YT also require terrestrial habitat. Metamorphs appear to overwinter their first year in the terrestrial meadow habitat adjacent to their rearing site and move to more distant terrestrial habitat during mid- summer of their second year (Kagarise Sherman and Morton 1993; USDI-FWS 2002). In meadows, metamorphs and yearlings appear to be associated with willows and long sedges and grasses. Moist upland areas such as seeps and springheads are important summer non-breeding areas for adults (67 FR 75834). In a study of YT within the Bull Creek analysis area, Liang indicated some adult YT are utilizing Sierra mixed-conifer forest for cover and foraging after leaving the breeding sites. Liang indicated adult toads preferred burrows as a component of terrestrial habitat, although they did also utilize logs, rocks, and stumps (with associated burrows). Within Sierra mixed conifer forest, she noted burrows tended to located within “clearings” (less trees and overhead canopy) with a high percent coverage of herbaceous plants. She also noted fidelity in the use of upland microsites for toads monitored over consecutive years (Liang et al. 2010). During the 2012-2014 radio tracking study, many toads were tracked away from breeding meadows to burrows associated with old stumps located at the perimeter of forested areas with these same “clearings” with herbaceous plant coverage (S. Barnes, per observation).

The dispersal patterns of YT are not totally understood, but similar high elevation toads in Colorado can disperse up to 0.6 miles (900 m) (CDFG 2005) to reach breeding or over-winter habitats. Liang’s 2007- 2009 study of toad movements in the Bull Creek drainage on the Sierra National Forest, High Sierra Ranger District reports individual movements beyond 1200 meters, with average maximum movements of 275 m. The study tracked movements of 35 adult toads post-breeding (Liang 2010). Female dispersal (420 m) was more than double movement of male toads (166 m) and primary movements occurred within 60 days of breeding. Longer movements occurred during the night and were not associated with drainages. Average movements recorded by Liang (ibid) were consistent with those reported by Martin (2008) of 279 m.

Suitable habitat: For the aquatic analysis of the Red Mountain Complex OHV Route Restoration Project area, suitable habitat was considered all meadows above 6000 feet elevation with 1250 meters buffered (USDI-FWS 2014) around it as terrestrial/upland habitat. There are approximately 192 acres of meadow habitat above 6000 feet elevation within the aquatic analysis area and 38 of those acres are occupied habitat. Nine acres of meadow habitat are within the project boundary (Table 3). Terrestrial habitat was calculated by buffering meadows by 1250 meters which incorporated approximately 6,148 total acres of occupied terrestrial habitat within the aquatic analysis area and 3,376 acres accounting for areas not currently known to be occupied (Table 3). In the Project boundary, there are 424 total acres of occupied terrestrial habitat (Table 3).

Occupied Habitat: There are 7 occupied meadows within the aquatic analysis area: 516M97, 516M94, 516M98, 516M104, 516M105, 516M107, and 516M110 ( Figure 2). There is one occupied meadow (516M229) outside of the aquatic analysis area where terrestrial habitat overlaps into the analysis area. Due to migration barriers from very steep terrain between this meadow and the project area, it is unlikely that toads from that population can disperse into the project area from there, so it will not be included as occupied terrestrial habitat. (Figure 8).

Meadows 516M107 and 516M110 Meadow 516M110 terrestrial dispersal habitat (1250 meters from the meadow) does not reach any of the project area OHV routes. However, suitable terrain and meadow corridors could allow for toads to

migrate farther towards the project area. In reviewing aerial photography of the vegetation around the meadows and between, it is most likely that adult dispersal may occur between these two meadows, but not to the south of meadow 516M107. Forested vegetation around meadows between the project area and the occupied meadows appears to be extremely dense with minimal opening for easy dispersal as noted in the Bull Creek telemetry study. Therefore it is not expected that adults would disperse very far south of 516M107 towards the project area. (Figure 4 and Figure 5).

Figure 4: Topo/terrain for YT occupied meadows 516M107 and 516M110 near Coyote Lake OHV.

Figure 5 : Meadows 516M107 and 516M110 near Coyote Lake OHV route with world imagery showing YT terrestrial dispersal habitat.

Meadow 516M107 is 9.89 acres and is located T8S R26E Section 26, approximately 0.7 miles east of the Coyote Lake OHV route (8S42). This meadow is currently occupied with YT and supports a breeding population. The breeding habitat within the meadow is 0.67 miles away from the project area. The edge of the 1250 meter terrestrial dispersal habitat for YT touches some parts of Coyote Lake OHV route, but corridor meadows, other occupied meadows and desirable habitat could promote farther dispersal from this population (Figure 4 and Figure 5).