Middle Fork Project AQ 12 - Attachment A California Red-legged Frog Site Assessment March 10, 2008.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Assessing effects of Columbia River Basin anadromous fish flow management on the aquatic ecology of the Henrys Fork watershed A Proposal By The Henrys.
Advertisements

Riparian Thinning: Logic Paths for Silvicultural Prescriptions
1 Placer County Water Agency Middle Fork American River Project AQ 3 – Aquatic Mollusk Technical Study Report – 2008 March 3, 2009.
Middle Fork American River Project AQ 2 – Fish Population Technical Study Report Overview March 3, 2009.
Middle Fork Project AQ 6 – Fish Passage Technical Study February 3, 2009.
Chattahoochee River Restoration Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration City Mills Dam Eagle and Phenix Dam.
Riparian Zone Habitat Assessment Vegetation and More.
Vegetation Soil, Landscape Hydrology Process for Assessing Proper Functioning Condition Vegetation Items.
May Middle Fork Project Project Operations Overview May 2006 PCWA MAY 16, 2006 HANDOUT #4.
Primary Headwater Habitats (PHWH). The Basics - What is a Primary Headwater Stream? Characteristics: A Watercourse 1 with: A Watercourse 1 with: A defined.
 Analysis of the Co-Existence the of Bullfrog and Green Frog in Lake Romeyn According to Microhabitats. By Ben Ames, Chloe Fross, and Ross Julian.
Watershed Update, Kahler, ECF, 6/26/2014. The Kahler Challenge.
Shale Gas Drilling Deep Creek watershed SURFACE DRILLING CONSTRAINTS SPATIAL ANALYSIS EXERCISE.
Potential Project Evaluation and Prioritization Indian and Howard’s Creeks Local Watershed Plan April 23, 2009.
Middle Fork Project AQ 12 – Special-Status Amphibian and Aquatic Reptiles Technical Study Plan Report Overview March 10, 2008.
Placer County Water Agency Middle Fork American River Project (FERC No. 2079) Recreation Technical Working Group Meeting July 21, 2008.
Middle Fork Project AQ 12 – Special-Status Amphibian and Aquatic Reptiles Technical Study Plan Report Overview March 10, 2008.
Methods for Estimating Distributions Static Distributions –Polygon –Grid –Habitat Mapping.
Streams and Rivers.
PACIFIC REGION U.S. FISH & WILDLIFE SERVICE JANUARY 13, 2010 BULL TROUT Proposed Critical Habitat.
Overview of Watershed Systems
Indian Valley Meadow Restoration acre meadow located atop the Sierra Crest in Alpine County, CA. Headwaters of the Mokelumne River. Source for agricultural,
LOW-FLOW MONITORING IN SONOMA CREEK AND TRIBUTARIES In June 2000, Sonoma Ecology Center staff initiated a low-flow monitoring program in Sonoma Valley.
Watershed assessment, management and restoration of Little Kern golden trout in the Little Kern River, California Acknowledgements Assess the current status.
North Fork Shenandoah River Results Application For the State Drought Assessment Plan Jennifer L. Krstolic and Donald C. Hayes.
Terrestrial Resources Working Group June 3, 2008.
Thomas R. Payne & Associates Update on Flood Storage Fish Study Presented by Paul Schlenger, Bob Montgomery, Jim Shannon June 15, 2011.
Applications of habitat data to fishery management Distribution and abundance of habitat for different life stages Barriers to migration; Waterfalls /
2012 Instream Flow Study Agency Meeting on 2012 Draft Study Descriptions January 24,
Conceptual Ecological Model of San Acacia Reach of Middle Rio Grande River – 2/13/07 1 st Draft Ibis Ecosystem Associates, Inc. Diversion & Regulation.
Review Vocab: Aquatic Environments 4-1. a slow-moving body of water where the water seems to stand still; lakes, ponds; and wetlands lentic.
Middle Fork Project Flow and Temperature Modeling (Status Report) November 4, 2008.
Understanding Instream Flow Incremental Methodology (IFIM) Joey Kleiner.
Stream Processes and Habitat Ryan Johnson. Overview Watershed Processes – Factors and their effects on the watershed as a whole Stream Processes – Factors.
Middle Fork Project Project Description April 25, 2006.
Watercourse DPA District of North Vancouver Streamside DPA Development Permit Area for the Protection of the Natural Environment: Streamside Areas Public.
Claytor Lake Debris Study. Hydro Environmental Services of Kleinschmidt Associates  Shoreline Management Plans (SMP)  Aquatic & Terrestrial Habitat.
San Pedro Creek: A Longitudinal Profile Study Andrew Georgeades Anne Jurek Mary Snow.
LOTIC ECOSYSTEMS Flowing water Moving continuously in one direction. Headwaters- Where the river or streams begin. Rivers are created in two ways: 1.
Field Ecology 1. Aquatics 2. Forests & Grasslands 4. Soils3.Wildlife Populations.
Dry Creek Fish Habitat Enhancement Feasibility Study Current Conditions Summary.
Aquatic Biomes. Aquatic ecosystems cover about 75 percent of Earth’s surface The salt content, water temperature, water depth, and speed of water flow.
Relationships between River Environment & Aquatic Life Don Sada Walker Basin Stakeholder Meeting December 12, 2007 Dr. Sudeep Chandra (UNR), Fish Dr. Christian.
Flowing water.  vitally important geologically, biologically, historically and culturally.  contain only 0.001% of the total amount of the worlds water.
Program Implementation Lower Colorado River Multi-Species Conservation Program.
Placer County Water Agency Middle Fork American River Project Plenary Meeting June 1, 2009 Handout #2.
Population - 44,301 18% - Aged 65+ Household Median Income- $29,530 Jan.-March 2004 unemployment 14 % Demographics.
Habitat Mapping of High Level Indicators at Multiple Scales for Fish and Wildlife.
Middle Fork Project TERR 6 - Special-Status Bat Technical Study Plan Report Overview March 3, 2008.
HRE Ecological Assessment PHYSICAL HABITAT MODEL.
PCWA Study Plan Physical Habitat Characterization Study Plan –Geomorphology Study Plan –Riparian Habitat Mapping Study Plan –Aquatic Habitat Characterization.
Definitions.
Natural Riparian Resources Erosion/Deposition Water Vegetation.
Watersheds This is an area where rain joins together to flow into streams, rivers, lakes, or wetlands. This is the drainage basin. The watershed boundary.
Middle Fork Project AQ 3 – Macroinvertebrate and Aquatic Mollusk Technical Study Report Overview May 5, 2008.
San Luis Rey Profile 560 Square miles; 342 below Henshaw Dam; Third largest watershed in San Diego County; 242 tributaries adding up to 759 miles of.
Middle Fork Project AQ 11 – Water Quality Contingency Sampling Protocol (Contingency Study) September 8, 2008.
Pam Jeane Deputy Chief Engineer- Operations Sonoma County Water Agency Habitat Enhancement and Water Delivery.
Chelan County Lead Entity Presentation SRFB 2005 Salmon Habitat Grant Cycle.
1 Placer County Water Agency Middle Fork American River Project Terrestrial Working Group November 6, 2007 TERR 1: Vegetation Communities and Wildlife.
U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey Arroyo Toads (Bufo californicus) in MCBCP; Findings from 5 years of Population Monitoring and Program.
Middle Fork American River Project Recreation Resources Technical Working Group Meeting October 5, 2009.
Placer County Water Agency Middle Fork American River Project Plenary Meeting February 2, 2009 Handout #5.
Watershed Management Plan Summary of 2014 Activities/Progress Presented by: Matthew Bennett, MS December 2014.
Frog Production Aquaculture Unit 6 Lesson 2. Objectives  List problems associated with frog production  Describe the requirements of frog products.
Middle Fork Project AQ 11 – Water Quality Technical Study Plan Report Overview March 10, 2008.
Middle Fork Project Overview of 2008 Technical Study Plan Implementation April 21, 2008.
Potholes Supplemental Feed Route Project
Middle Fork Project Entrainment Direct Sampling Approach (Contingency Study) September 8, 2008.
Middle Fork Project Project Description and Operations Maps
Presentation transcript:

Middle Fork Project AQ 12 - Attachment A California Red-legged Frog Site Assessment March 10, 2008

1 Purpose of Site Assessment Provide U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service with sufficient information to determine if protocol-level surveys are required California red-legged frog (Rana aurora draytonii )

2 Study Objectives Document the distribution and abundance of CRLF populations in the study area Document the distribution and abundance of CRLF populations in the study area Identify and map potential habitat for CRLF in the study area Identify and map potential habitat for CRLF in the study area

3 California Red-legged Frog Site Assessment Study Objectives and Related Map potential CRLF habitat in the study area Document distribution and abundance of CRLF in study area Compile current and historic occurrence information Document the presence of CRLF during CRLF field reconnaissance surveys & other aquatic surveys Identify current and historic CRLF occurrences Refine and expand existing habitat mapping based on Project video and aerial photographs Verify habitat mapping through field reconnaissance surveys (by helicopter and foot) Develop potential CRLF habitat map Prepare site assessment report Compile and review existing vegetation community mapping Compile and review existing aquatic habitat mapping Study Elements and Reports CRLF Site Assessment

4 Extent of Study Area One mile around : Existing Project facilities and features, recreation facilities, dispersed concentrated use areas and river/stream reaches Existing Project facilities and features, recreation facilities, dispersed concentrated use areas and river/stream reaches Potential Project betterments Potential Project betterments (below 5,000 feet in elevation)

5 Current and Historic Range of CRLF Five isolated populations currently known to occur in foothills along west slope of Sierra Nevada Five isolated populations currently known to occur in foothills along west slope of Sierra Nevada Three of these within Middle Fork American River Watershed Three of these within Middle Fork American River Watershed Study area is within: Study area is within:  Current and historic range of CRLF  USFWS CRLF Recovery Unit 1

6 Known Locations of CRLF in the MFAR Watershed  Single, adult CRLF detected in June 2001 in ephemeral pool Two additional records outside the study area, but within the MFAR Watershed Two additional records outside the study area, but within the MFAR Watershed Ralston Ridge Pond, August 2007 One known CRLF record within study area One known CRLF record within study area

7 Known Locations of CRLF in the MFAR Watershed (cont.)

8 Map Potential CRLF Habitat in the Study Area Upland habitat Upland habitat Aquatic habitat Aquatic habitat

9 Map Potential CRLF Habitat Upland Habitat in Study Area

10 Map Potential CRLF Habitat CRLF Aquatic Habitat Characteristics (based on USFWS 2002 ) Marshes Marshes Springs Springs Permanent and semi-permanent natural ponds Permanent and semi-permanent natural ponds Ponded and backwater portions of streams Ponded and backwater portions of streams Artificial impoundments such as stock ponds, irrigation ponds, and siltation ponds Artificial impoundments such as stock ponds, irrigation ponds, and siltation ponds Slow-moving shallow riffle zones in creeks Slow-moving shallow riffle zones in creeks

11 Map Potential CRLF Habitat CRLF Aquatic Habitat Characteristics Additional Characteristics (based on other literature) Dense or shrubby riparian vegetation, incl. willows, cattails, and bulrushes (USFWS 2007) Dense or shrubby riparian vegetation, incl. willows, cattails, and bulrushes (USFWS 2007) Significant portion of water body with dense vegetation providing shade (Hayes and Jennings 1998) Significant portion of water body with dense vegetation providing shade (Hayes and Jennings 1998) Deep ( meters) still or slow-moving water (Hayes and Jennings 1998) Deep ( meters) still or slow-moving water (Hayes and Jennings 1998)

12 Map Potential CRLF Habitat Aquatic Habitat Characteristics Additional Characteristics (based on other literature cont.) Water remaining long enough for metamorphosis of most tadpole (generally July to September) (USFWS 2006) Water remaining long enough for metamorphosis of most tadpole (generally July to September) (USFWS 2006) Habitats free of introduced predators (i.e. bullfrogs, non-native crayfish, and various fishes) (USFWS 2002) Habitats free of introduced predators (i.e. bullfrogs, non-native crayfish, and various fishes) (USFWS 2002)

13 Map Potential CRLF Habitat CRLF Aquatic Habitat (does not include) Deep lacustrine water bodies (lakes and reservoirs > 50 acres) Deep lacustrine water bodies (lakes and reservoirs > 50 acres) Fast flowing rivers Fast flowing rivers

14 Aquatic Habitats in the Study Area Rivers Rivers Large and Moderate Streams Large and Moderate Streams Small Tributaries Small Tributaries Reservoirs Reservoirs Diversion Pools Diversion Pools Off-Channel Ponds Off-Channel Ponds

15 Aquatic Habitats in Study Area

16Rivers Middle Fork American River and Rubicon River Middle Fork American River and Rubicon River  Not appropriate CRLF habitat  Barriers to dispersal as defined by USFWS  Rocky and fast-flowing  No backwater areas  Banks do not support dense vegetation (e.g., cattail, bulrushes) Middle Fork American River

17 Large and Moderate Streams Duncan Creek Duncan Creek Long Canyon Creek Long Canyon Creek North Fork Long Canyon Creek North Fork Long Canyon Creek South Fork Long Canyon Creek South Fork Long Canyon Creek Long Canyon Creek  Not appropriate CRLF habitat  Bedrock channel (no backwater areas)  Inappropriate instream pool habitats (large, rocky, open pools)  Banks do not support dense vegetation (e.g., cattail, bulrush)

18 Small Tributary Streams Eleven accessible small, tributary streams surveyed by field crews Eleven accessible small, tributary streams surveyed by field crews Small, remote tributaries of upper MFAR analyzed by aerial photography and helicopter surveys Small, remote tributaries of upper MFAR analyzed by aerial photography and helicopter surveys Gas Canyon Creek

19 Small Tributary Streams (cont.)  Not appropriate CRLF habitat  High gradient  Bedrock channel (no backwater areas)  Inappropriate instream pool habitats (Plunge-pool and waterfall)  Banks do not support dense vegetation (e.g., cattail, bulrush) American Canyon Creek

20Reservoirs/Interbay/Afterbays Hell Hole Reservoir and Ralston Afterbay Hell Hole Reservoir and Ralston Afterbay  Not CRLF habitat as defined by USFWS  Considered barriers to dispersal Middle Fork Interbay Middle Fork Interbay  Not appropriate CRLF habitat  Deep impoundment  Steep canyon walls  No floating or emergent vegetation

21 Diversion Pools North and South Fork Long Canyon Diversion Pools North and South Fork Long Canyon Diversion Pools  Not appropriate CRLF habitat  Do not support dense vegetation (e.g., cattails, bullrushes, willows)  Lack sufficient water though August or September for tadpoles to complete metamorphosis North Fork Long Canyon Diversion

22 Off-Channel Ponds Off-channel ponds at 5 locations: Auburn State Recreation Area (ASRA) Auburn State Recreation Area (ASRA) Teichert Industries open pit mines Teichert Industries open pit mines Summit Ranch Summit Ranch Horseshoe Bar Horseshoe Bar Ralston Ridge Ralston Ridge

23 Off-Channel Ponds (cont.) Teichert Industries Summit Ranch ASRA

24 Off-Channel Ponds (cont.) Horseshoe Bar Area

25 Off-Channel Ponds (cont.) Pond “D” – Horseshoe Bar Ponds D and E Ponds D and E Potential CRLF breeding habitat Potential CRLF breeding habitat  Appropriate water depth  Perennial ponds (retain water long enough for complete metamorphosis)  Support dense vegetation on banks (e.g., willow, blackberry, California grape) Horseshoe Bar Area

26 Off-Channel Ponds (cont.) Ponds C and F Ponds C and F Potential dispersal habitat Potential dispersal habitat Pond C Horseshoe Bar Area  Water is shallow in both ponds (< 2 feet deep)  Pond F is ephemeral (dry in most years by June)

27 Off-Channel Ponds (cont.)  Not appropriate CRLF habitat  Predatory species present  Subject to water level fluctuations of the MFAR  Banks do not support dense vegetation (e.g., cattails, bulrushes)  South Lake is very deep (~ 50 feet) Pond G and South Lake Pond G and South Lake Pond G Horseshoe Bar Area