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

2. 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 )

3. 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

4. 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

5. 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)

6. 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

7. 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

8. 7 Known Locations of CRLF in the MFAR Watershed (cont.)

9. 8 Map Potential CRLF Habitat in the Study Area Upland habitat Upland habitat Aquatic habitat Aquatic habitat

10. 9 Map Potential CRLF Habitat Upland Habitat in Study Area

11. 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

12. 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 (0.5-1.5 meters) still or slow-moving water (Hayes and Jennings 1998) Deep (0.5-1.5 meters) still or slow-moving water (Hayes and Jennings 1998)

13. 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)

14. 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

15. 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

16. 15 Aquatic Habitats in Study Area

17. 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

18. 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)

19. 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

20. 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

21. 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

22. 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

23. 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

24. 23 Off-Channel Ponds (cont.) Teichert Industries Summit Ranch ASRA

25. 24 Off-Channel Ponds (cont.) Horseshoe Bar Area

26. 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

27. 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)

28. 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