Biological Assessment: Tenmile Aspen Restoration Project

Transcription

1 : Tenmile Aspen Restoration Project Townships South and Range 28 East, Sections 23, 36, 1 &11, Mount Diablo Base and Meridian Hume Lake Ranger District Sequoia National Forest and Giant Sequoia National Monument February 2017 Prepared by: Jeff Cordes Date: February 17, 2017 Jeff Cordes, District Wildlife Biologist

2 I. INTRODUCTION The purpose of this (BA) is to review the potential impacts associated with thinning small conifers on approximately 16 acres of aspen stands along Tenmile Creek (see Map 1) on federally endangered, threatened, and proposed species and their habitat. The analysis is conducted to determine whether formal consultation or conference is required with the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), pursuant to the Endangered Species Act (ESA). This biological assessment (BA) was prepared in accordance with Forest Service Manual (FSM) direction , and meets legal requirements under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, and implements regulations [19 U.S.C (c), 50 CFR (f) and (c)]. The BA provides a process through which federally listed species under the Endangered Species Act receive full consideration in the decision making process. Detailed analysis is presented in this document to determine the effects for the following species: Mountain Yellow-legged Frog (Rana muscosa) - Federally Endangered Appendix A provides a complete species list from the USFWS for the project area and rationale for exclusion from further analysis for this project based on various criteria relating to the scope and intensity of the project, habitat requirements, and/or geographic range. The thinning of small conifers on approximately 16 acres of aspen stands along Tenmile Creek will have no effect on these species or their habitat. Therefore, these species will not be addressed further in this document and neither formal nor informal consultation with the USFWS is not required for these species. There is no critical habitat or proposed critical habitat within or adjacent to the project area. II. CONSULTATION TO DATE A current list of federally listed endangered, threatened and proposed species for the project area was obtained from the USFWS Information for Planning and Conservation (IPAC) website on February 17, 2017 [Consultation Code: 08ESMF SLI-1192]. The California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) GIS data (version updated February, 2017), TESP records, the California Wildlife Habitat Relationships database version 8.2, NRIS Wildlife and district wildlife records were used to document presence, range and habitat requirements of species. This project was submitted in Batch 5 of consultations of projects for the three amphibian species (SNMYLF, N DPS MYLF and YOTO) in the Sierra Nevada listed under the Endangered Species Act to be appended to the Programmatic BO. The Programmatic BO covers project activities including vegetation management and watershed restoration utilizing hand treatments with chainsaws (pg. 9). This document also covers prescribed fire including understory burning, pile burning, and broadcast burning (pg. 9). Terms and conditions from the Programmatic BO that are applicable to this project are listed in Appendix B. All applicable BMPs must be followed to maintain habitat quality (See project Decision Memo for a complete list of required BMPs). III. CURRENT SPECIES MANAGEMENT DIRECTION Existing management direction for listed species can be found in: Forest Service Manual and Handbooks (FSM/H 2670) National Forest Management Act (NFMA) Page 2 of 10

3 Endangered Species Act (ESA) National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Sequoia National Forest Land and Resources Management Plan (1988), as amended (LRMP) Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment (2001 FEIS and ROD) 2012 Giant Sequoia National Monument Management Plan Species-specific Recovery Plans (including Biological Opinions), which establish population goals for recovery of threatened and endangered species Regional Forester policy and management direction Forest Service direction for Federally listed and proposed species is to manage habitats to achieve recovery objectives so that special protection measures provided under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) are no longer necessary (FM ). 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. Species specific strategies and recovery plans, where applicable, were reviewed for this analysis. They included: Mountain Yellow-Legged Frog Conservation Assessment for the Sierra Nevada Mountains of California, USA (Brown et al. 2014). There is specific guidance in the Giant Sequoia National Monument Plan for managing riparian vegetation, including: At either the landscape or project level, determine if the age class, structural diversity, composition, and cover of riparian vegetation are within the range of natural variability for the vegetative community. If conditions are outside the range of natural variability, consider implementing mitigation and/or restoration actions that will result in an upward trend. Actions could include restoration of aspen or other riparian vegetation where conifer encroachment is identified as a problem (GSNM Plan, pg. 99). There are Forest-wide management standards and guidelines for riparian conservation areas (RCA) and critical aquatic refuges (CAR). Almost the entire project area falls within RCAs. These standards and guidelines are listed in the 2012 Giant Sequoia National Monument Plan (pages ; USDA-Forest Service 2012). They include: 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 (GSNM Plan, pg. 97). Maintain woody material in and adjacent to stream courses. Where fire is responsible for removal of woody material, replace at levels associated with pre-fire conditions if possible. Evaluate the amount of wood necessary for maintenance of stream stability, sediment reduction, and aquatic species habitat (GSNM Plan, pg. 100). IV. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION This project proposes to restore aspen in the Tenmile Creek watershed by felling conifers competing with aspen at five locations near Tenmile Creek. The hand thinning will be carried out by Forest Service personnel, YCC crews or volunteers. The dynamics and species composition of each stand are unique and Page 3 of 10

4 based on the stand characteristic the silvicultural prescription is to cut all the small (less than 5 inches diameter) incense cedar, pine and fir. In addition, most pine, fir or incense cedar between 5 and-16 dbh will also be cut down, especially where they form thickets. Some larger pine, cedar or fir trees will be girdled. The small material will be piled and burned or chipped. Large down woody material (> 12 inches in diameter) will be left in place. If conditions are conducive, prescribed burning following thinning may be used instead of pile burning to further stimulate aspen growth in certain stands. Map 1 V. EXISTING ENVIRONMENT The project area is made up of five isolated aspen stands in Townships South, Range 28 East, Sections 23, 36, 1 &11, Mount Diablo Base and Meridian. The map quads of the project area are Hume and General Grant Grove. It is in Fresno and Tulare County, approximately 30 air miles east of Fresno, California. The project area is within Giant Sequoia National Monument. Elevation in the project area ranges from approximately 5,500 to 6,600 feet. Vegetation surrounding the aspen patches is primarily mixed conifer forest, including some wet meadows. The California Wildlife Habitat Relationships System classifies most of the vegetation in the project area as Sierran mixed conifer and ponderosa pine with tree sizes greater than 11 inches dbh and canopy cover greater than 40 percent. None of the aspen stands are large or healthy enough to have been classified as Aspen in CWHR in the current vegetation layer. Tenmile Creek or its tributaries pass through the all the aspen stands in the project area. Page 4 of 10

5 VI. SPECIES AND HABITAT ACCOUNTS Mountain Yellow-legged Frog Tenmile Aspen Restoration Project General Description Based on mitochondrial DNA, morphology and acoustic studies, Vredenburg et al. (2007) clarified the taxonomy of mountain yellow legged frogs in the Sierra Nevada. They recognized two species- Rana muscosa (mountain yellow-legged frog) south of the divide between the Middle and South Forks of the Kings River and Rana sierra (Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog) to the north. Much of literature addresses the species collectively as mountain yellow-legged frog and the term is used interchangeably. Because both species remain in the mountain yellow-legged frog complex, much of data on the complex is applicable to the following discussion, although species details are noted where possible. The mountain yellow-legged frog is moderate in size, with adults measuring mm (1.5 3 in) in length. The species has a dorsal pattern ranging from discrete dark spots or irregular lichen-like patches. The color is highly variable with a mix of brown or yellow along with grey, red or green-brown (Jennings and Hayes 1994). Dorso-lateral folds are present, but not noted as being prominent. The throat is white or yellow, sometimes mottled with dark pigment (Zweifel 1955). The undersurface of the lower belly and legs are yellow. Females are slightly larger than males and males have a swollen, darkened thumb base. The adults may produce a distinctive mink or garlic-like odor when disturbed (Stebbins 2003). Although mountain yellow-legged frogs lack vocal sacs, they can vocalize in or out of water, producing what has been described as a flat clicking sound (Zweifel 1955). Eggs of the mountain yellow-legged frog are laid in globular clumps, which are often somewhat flattened, roughly 25 to 50 mm (1 to 2 in) across. When eggs are close to hatching, egg mass volume may average 198 cubic cm (12 cubic in) (Pope 1999). Eggs have three firm jelly-like transparent envelopes surrounding a grey-tan or black vitelline (egg yolk) capsule. Tadpoles are mottled brown with a golden tint and a faintly yellow underside. Historic and Current Distribution The mountain yellow-legged frog was once extremely abundant in aquatic ecosystems of the Sierra Nevada. It was distributed nearly continuously in high elevation water bodies in the Sierra Nevada, from southern Plumas County to southern Tulare County at elevations mostly above 6,000 feet. Since about 1970, mountain yellow-legged frog numbers and populations have undergone a precipitous decline throughout the Sierra Nevada. A recent assessment of the species status in the Sierra Nevada indicates that mountain yellowlegged frogs occur at less than 10 percent of the sites from which they were historically observed. Jennings and Hayes (1994) indicate that the mountain yellow-legged frog has been extirpated from a number of historical locations in the Sequoia National Forest. From 2003 to 2006, the USFS Sierra Nevada Adaptive Management Program (SNAMP) surveyed four watersheds on the Sequoia National Forest containing 24 sites. No mountain yellow-legged frogs were recorded during any of the surveys in these watersheds. Currently, there are three known extant populations on the Sequoia National Forest, all located in the Golden Trout Wilderness. All of the recent mountain yellow-legged frog detections on the Sequoia NF have been of single frogs or very small populations. The nearest extant population is on the Sierra National Forest over nine miles from the project area. On the Hume Lake Ranger District, the most recent detection on mountain yellow-legged frogs was in Based on records from NRIS Wildlife, CNDDB, the California Academy of Science Database, Sequoia National Forest records, protocol surveys of historically occupied sites, stream surveys and anecdotal observations there are no extant populations on the Hume Lake Ranger District. Non-native fish (and/or bullfrogs) are present in most streams and lakes making habitat likely unsuitable for mountain yellow-legged frogs. Page 5 of 10

6 Risk factors Non-native trout, bullfrogs, airborne pollution, cattle grazing, ozone depletion, and chytrid fungus are all thought to be factors in the decline of this species. Management and Status RCA buffers of 300 feet on either side of perennial streams, meadows, seeps, and springs and 150 feet on either side of intermittent streams provide protection to aquatic habitat by limiting impacts from management projects. The southern Sierra population of mountain yellow-legged frogs was listed as endangered species on April 29, 2014, under the Endangered Species Act (Federal Register ). A Recovery Plan for the species has not been completed. Critical habitat was designated for this species on August 26, 2016 (Federal Register ). There are approximately 59 acres of designated Critical Habitat for mountain yellow-legged frogs on the Hume Lake Ranger District. This is a portion of the Frypan Meadows Unit in the northern portion of Monarch Wilderness which is over ten miles from the project area. VII. EFFECTS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT Mountain Yellow-legged Frogs: Direct and Indirect Effects Direct effects are caused by a proposed activity and are immediate in nature (e.g. mortality in fire, loss of streamside vegetation). Indirect effects are caused by a proposed activity but are later in time or farther removed in distance, but are reasonably certain to occur (e.g. sediment entering streams). There are no known populations or historic records of mountain yellow-legged frogs in these HUC7 watersheds. The entire project area is within a broad area mapped as having suitable habitat for this species (GIS file: RK_mylf_boundary_final_MOD). Non-native trout were stocked in Tenmile Creek by California Department of Fish and Game, likely making habitat unsuitable for MYLF. However, there have been no recent amphibian surveys in this area, so following current guidance, meadows and perennial streams would be considered suitable-unknown for mountain yellow-legged frogs. There are no lakes within the project area. The direct effects from the proposed action would include a reduction of understory canopy cover. The indirect effects of the proposed action would be possible increase in sediment reaching streams immediately after thinning and burning. In the long-term, habitat quality expected to improve because of a restoration of the aspen stands in this area. The proposed action includes standards and guidelines specific to Critical Aquatic Refuges as well as activity specific BMPs. These should help to minimize impacts to habitat quality in the short-term and enhance water quality in the long-term by reducing sediment reaching streams. Cumulative Effects The cumulative effects analysis evaluates the proposed management activity in context with past, present and reasonably foreseeable actions that when taken collectively might impact sensitive species or their habitat. The cumulative effects of past management activities are incorporated within the existing condition. Current and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Activities in the Project Area The spatial scale for the cumulative effects is the 4,403 acres in the Upper Tenmile Creek and Unnamed Page 6 of 10

7 (surrounding Aspen Hollow Campground) HUC 7 watersheds. The temporal scale for the analysis is five years into the future, the time frame that future actions can reasonably be predicted. Current and Foreseeable Future Activities Grazing: Most of the analysis area in within the Buck Rock grazing allotment. Livestock grazing of this allotment has been an ongoing activity from 1935 through the present. The allotment management plans (AMP) allow a maximum of 40% utilization on grasses and 20% on riparian shrubs or hardwoods, levels set to ensure there is sufficient forage for cattle without detriment to the health of other species. Recent utilization monitoring has not detected browsing on aspen by cattle. Recreation: Recreation uses within the project area are ongoing and include camping, hunting, and roads. Tenmile Campground and Aspen Hollow Campground are adjacent to the project area. Recreation activities have not resulted in damage to aspen stands in the project area. Hazard Tree Felling: Felling of trees along roadsides and in campgrounds that meet the Region 5 criteria as a safety hazard. Tops may be chipped or piled and burned to reduce fuel loading. This is an ongoing activity. Climate Change: Climate change is expected to cause changes in the distribution of individual species and habitat in the project area. Potential effects related to climate change for mountain yellow-legged frog populations include increased frequency, duration, and magnitude of droughts (Brown et al. 2014). Cumulative Effects Summary: Future management activities could reduce the understory canopy cover in the short term on less than 1% of the watersheds in the analysis area. The reasonably foreseeable future projects also have the potential to adversely affect water quality. In order to limit the potential effects to water quality, a suite of Best Management Practice (BMPs) has been included in the design of the projects. Implementation of these BMPs is expected to maintain the current levels of flow, sedimentation, and water surface shade in the analysis area. The use of BMPs for these projects is expected to eliminate measurable effects on habitat. VIII. DETERMINATIONS It is my determination that the proposed action in the Tenmile Aspen Restoration Project may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect mountain yellow-legged frog suitable habitat and will not affect any known populations or critical habitat. The only effects would occur in suitable habitat believed to be unoccupied. The direct, indirect and cumulative effects would include a short-term reduction in understory vegetation and potential increase in sedimentation. In the long-term, habitat quality is expected to improve because of a restoration of healthy aspen stands in these watersheds. Page 7 of 10

8 IX. LITERATURE CITED Brown, C., M. Hayes, G.A. Green and D. Macfarlane Mountain Yellow-Legged Frog Conservation Assessment for the Sierra Nevada Mountains of California, USA. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region, R5-TP p. Jennings, M. R., and M. P. Hayes Amphibian and reptile species of special concern in California. California Department of Fish and Game, Inland Fisheries Division, Rancho Cordova, California. iii+255 p. Pope, K. L Mountain Yellow-Legged Frog Habitat Use and Movement Patterns in a High Elevation Basin in Kings Canyon National Park. Unpubl. master's thesis, California Polytechnic Univ., San Luis Obispo. Stebbins, R. C A field guide to western reptiles and amphibians. Third edition, revised. Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston, Massachusetts. xiv+544 p. Timossi, I California's statewide habitat relationships system. Computer database; June 1992 version. California Dept. of Fish and Game. USDA Forest Service Sequoia National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan. USDA Forest Service, Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment Final Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision. USDA Forest Service. Pacific Southwest Region, January Volumes. USDA Forest Service Giant Sequoia National Monument Management Plan. USFWS Programmatic Biological Opinion on Nine Forest Programs on Nine National Forests in the Sierra Nevada of California for the Endangered Sierra Nevada Yellow-legged Frog, Endangered Northern Distinct Population Segment of the Mountain Yellow-legged Frog, and Threatened Yosemite Toad. 194p. Vredenburg, V. T., R. Bingham, R. Knapp, J. A. T. Morgan, C. Moritz, and D. Wake Concordant molecular and phenotypic data delineate new taxonomy and conservation priorities for the endangered mountain yellow-legged frog (Ranidae: Rana muscosa). Journal of Zoology (London), 271: Zweifel, R. G Ecology, distribution, and systematics of frogs of the Rana boylei group. University of California Publications in Zoology, 54: Page 8 of 10

9 Appendix A. Proposed, Threatened and Endangered Species and Critical Habitat Identified by IPaC for the Tenmile Aspen Restoration Project Area on 2/17/2017 Common Name (Scientific Name) Amphibians California redlegged frog (Rana draytonii) Mountain yellow-legged frog (Rana muscosa) Yosemite toad (Anaxyrus canorus) Birds California condor (Gymnogyps californianus) Fishes Delta smelt (Hypomesus transpacificus) Listing Status FT FE, CH FT FE, CH FT Habitat Requirements Low gradient streams and ponds with emergent vegetation. Historically found in high elevation lakes, meadows and streams High elevation meadows Mountain and foothill rangeland and forest habitats; nests on cliffs and in large trees. Limited to San Joaquin/Sacramento Delta. Effects Determination No effects See above. No effects No effects No effects Rationale Project area is located outside elevation range. No current or historic detections within project area or this HUC 6 watershed. See analysis of effects above. Project area is located outside the geographic range of this species. No roost areas, critical habitat, or historic nest areas in the project area. No potential effect on species because there is No outlet from project area to Delta. FE = Federally Endangered; FT = Federally Threatened; PT = Proposed for Federal listing; CH = Designated Critical Habitat on Sequoia National Forest Page 9 of 10

10 Appendix B. Applicable Terms and Conditions from the Programatic BO To be exempt from the prohibitions of section 9 of the Act, the Forest Service must comply with the following terms and conditions, which implements the reasonable and prudent measures described above. These terms and conditions are non-discretionary. 1. The following Term and Condition implements Reasonable and Prudent Measure One (1): a. The Forest Service shall ensure each project submitted for appendage to this programmatic biological opinion meets the conditions and requirements in the BA and the project description of this document. 2. The following Term and Condition implements Reasonable and Prudent Measure two (2): a. The Forest Service shall implement the conservation measures described within the Biological Assessment and the project description of this programmatic biological opinion. Page 10 of 10