F619_Bucks Crk_Special Status Amphibian and Aquatic Reptile Surveys

218 Pages·2013·42.23 MB·English

@
Pacific Gas and Electric Company
Bt1cks Creek Hydroelectric Project
North Fork Feather River
FERC 619
December 2002
RESULTS OF 2002 SURVEYS FOR FOOTHILL YELLOW-LEGGED
FROG (Rana boyliz), CASCADES FROG (Rana cascadae),
MOUNTAIN YELLOW-LEGGED FROG (Rana muscosa), and
WESTERN POND TURTLE (Clemmys marmorata) CONDUCTED
FOR THE BUCKS CREEK PROJECT
Prepared for:
PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY
TECHNICAL AND ECOLOGICAL SERVICES
3400 CROW CANYON ROAD
SAN RAMON, CALIFORNIA 94583
Prepared by:
GARCIA AND ASSOCIATES
1 SAUNDERS AV ENUE
SAN ANSELMO, CALIFORNIA 94960
December 16, 2002
JOB 332/13
Executive Summary
Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) owns and operates the Bucks Creek
Hydroelectric Project in northeastern California. Article 103 of the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission (FERC) license for the Bucks Creek Project (FERC 619)
requires that PG&E perform environmental studies and provide final reports to the U.S.
Forest Service by December 31, 2002. PG&E contracted Garcia and Associates to
conduct surveys for special status amphibian and reptile species that may potentially
occur in and around the Bucks Creek Project Area. Surveys were conducted from June
through October 2002 for three special status frog species: foothill yellow-legged frog
(FYLF, Rana boylii), cascades frog (CASF, Rana cascadae), and mountain yellow
legged frog (MYLF, Rana muscosa); and one special status reptile: western pond turtle
(WPT, Clemmys marmorata).
The Bucks Creek Project amphibian and aquatic reptile Study Area (Study Area)
included aquatic habitats within 0.5 miles of the normal high water line of project
affected areas of Haskins Creek, Bucks Creek, Grizzly Creek, Milk Ranch Creek,
tributaries to Bucks Lake, tributaries diverted into Three Lakes Conduit, and other non
project streams and waterways. Based on aerial reconnaissance, a total of 15 sites with at
least moderate quality potential habitat characteristics were selected for inclusion in the
2002 surveys. Detailed habitat assessments and visual encounter surveys (VES) were
conducted according to A Standardized Approach for Habitat Assessments and Visual
Encounter Surveys for the Foothill Yellow-Legged Frog (Rana boylii) (Seltenrich and
Pool 2002) for FYLF, Survey Protocols, Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs), and
Data Sheets for Amphibian Surveys and Habitat Assessments (PG&E 2001a) for MYLF
and CASF, and the "Western Pond Turtle Field Survey Form" from Holland (1991) for
WPT, at each pre-determined survey site. VESs were conducted at these sites from June
through October of2002.
One of the four special-status target species was found in the Study Area. A MYLF was
observed at Bald Eagle Lake, Site 11 during the third and final visit on 27 September
2002. No other target species were observed in the Study Area. Following the initial
surveys and site habitat assessments, overall habitat quality was rated moderate to poor
for target species at most survey locations. The primary factors affecting habitat quality
were the presence of introduced predatory fishes, high gradient streams, cattle grazing
causing down-cutting in stream channels, and at two sites (Thompson Lake and Three
Lakes). eleYated reservoir pool levels associated with water diversion for drinking water
and hydroelectric power generation.
Bucks Creek Project Herpetofauna Surveys Garcia and Associates
Pacific Gas and Electric Company Decemba-2002
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................... I
1.0 INTRODUCTION. ................................................................................................ 1
2.0 SPECIAL-STATUS SPECIES DISTRIBUTION AND LIFE IDSTORY. ............ 5
2.1 FOOTHILL YELLOW-LEGGED FROG ............................................................................ 5
2.2 CASCADES FROG ...................................................................................................... 12
2.3 MOUNTAIN YELLOW-LEGGED FROG ........................................................................ 14
2.4 WESTERN POND TURTLE························································································· 15
3.0 METHODS ................................................................................................................ 17
3.1 SITE HABITAT ASSESSMENTS ................................................................................... 17
3.1.1 Foothill Yellow-Legged Frog ..................................................................................................... 18
3.1.2 Cascades Frog ........................................................................................................................... 19
3.1.3 Mountain Yellow-LeggedFrog .................................................................................................. 19
3.1.4 WesternPondTurtle .................................................................................................................. 19
3.2 VISUAL ENCOUNTER SURVEYS ................................................................................ 19
3.2.1 Foothill Yellow-Legged Frog ..................................................................................................... 21
3.2.2 Cascades Frog ........................................................................................................................... 21
3.2.3 Mountain Yellow-Legged Frog .................................................................................................. 22
3.2.4 Western Pond Turtle .................................................................................................................. 22
4.0 RESULTS .................................................................................................................. 23
4.1 SITE HABITAT ASSESSMENTS ................................................................................... 23
4.1.1 Foothill Yellow-Legged Frog- Grizzly Creek Riverine Sites .................................................... 23
4.1.1.1 Site I (Grizzly Creek above Highway 70) ........................................................................................... 23
4.1.1.2 Site 2 (Grizzly Creek at Wildcat Creek) .............................................................................................. 24
4.1.1.3 Site 3 (Grizzly Creek below Grizzly Forebay) .................................................................................... 24
4.1.1.4 Site 4 (Grizzly Creek above Grizzly Forebay) .................................................................................... 26
4.1.2 Foothill Yellow-Legged Frog-Tributary Sites ......................................................................... 27
4.1.2.1 Site 14 (Bucks Creek) ......................................................................................................................... 27
4.1.2.2 Site 15 (Milk Ranch Creek) ................................................................................................................ 28
4.1.3 Cascades Frog and Mountain Yellow-legged Frog ................................................................... 29
4.1.3.1 Site 5 (Grizzly Lake and Rogers Lake) ............................................................................................... 29
4.1.3.2 Site 6 (Darby Meadow Complex) ....................................................................................................... 30
4.1.3.3 Site 7 (Haskins Creek) ........................................................................................................................ 31
4.1.3.4 Site 8 (Thompson Lake) ...................................................................................................................... 32
4.1.3.5 Site 9 (Three Lakes and Grassy Lakes) ............................................................................................... 33
4.1.3.6 Site 10 (Unnamed Lake and Pond) ...................................................................................................... 35
4.1.3.7 Site II (Bald Eagle Lake) ................................................................................................................... 36
4.1.4 Western Pond Turtle .................................................................................................................. 37
4.1.4.1 Site 12 (Grizzly Forebay) .................................................................................................................... 37
4.1.4.2 Site 13 (Lower Bucks Lake) ................................................................................................................ 37
4.2 VISUAL ENCOUNTER SURVEY RESULTS ................................................................... 38
5.0 DISCUSSION ............................................................................................................ 42
7.0 LITERATURE CITED ............................................................................................ 44
Bucks Creek Project Herpetofauna Surveys Garcia and Associates
Pacific Gas and Electric Company 11 December 2002
1.0 Introduction
Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) owns and operates the Bucks Creek
Hydroelectric Project in northeastern California. Article 103 of the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission (FERC) license for the Bucks Creek Project (FERC 619)
requires that PG&E perform environmental studies and provide final reports to the U.S.
Forest Service (USFS) by December 31, 2002. PG&E contracted Garcia and Associates
(GANDA) to conduct surveys for special status amphibian and reptile species that may
potentially occur in or near the Bucks Creek Project area. Surveys were conducted from
June through October, 2002 for three special status frog species: foothill yellow-legged
frog (Rana boylii), cascades frog (Rana cascadae), and mountain yellow-legged frog
(Rana muscosa); and one special status reptile: western pond turtle (Clemmys
mannorata).
The California red-legged frog (CRLF; Rana aurora draytonii) was not included in the
amphibian and aquatic reptile study plan because suitable habitat is not present within the
Bucks Creek Project Study Area. The nearest confirmed occurrence of CRLFs to the
Bucks Creek Project is at Hughes Pond (elevation 2,520 feet), an old mill pond at the
headwaters of Jack Creek, approximately 20 miles southwest of Belden Powerhouse
(CDFG 2002). There is also an historical record of CRLFs at Rock Creek, approximately
12 miles southeast of Belden Town, dated May 31, 1973, at the 3,600-foot elevation.
Although this record is not confirmed (no museum or type specimen or photo), it forms
the basis for the designation of the Rock Creek Core Area by the USFWS.
The Bucks Creek Project amphibian and aquatic reptile Study Area (Study Area)
included aquatic habitats within 0.5 miles of the normal high water line of project
reservoirs and stream reaches including: Haskins Creek, Bucks Creek, Grizzly Creek,
Milk Ranch Creek, tributaries to Bucks Lake, tributaries diverted into Three Lakes
I
Conduit. In addition, several other non-project waterways were also surveyed (Figure 1) .
The objectives of the study were to: (1) evaluate the presence, distribution and relative
\ abundance of target herpetofauna species occurring in the Study Area; and (2) assess the
potential impact of project operations and recreational activities on the target species.
Bucks Creek Project Herpetofauna Surveys Garcia and Associates
Pacific Gas and Electric Company 1 Decemba-2002
·-~: ~-·;;;.···
,,,.,~. . '"-:-_, 15 -t 14.
A T l 0 N A L I ,.
Figure 1.
Bucks Creek Project
Herpetofauna Survey
Site Locations
Plumas County, California
December 2002
....
~. -_...- ·y
~·~·._.I -~,1--
.I ·~.. .
t~
,,,.. ...• . I
·26 : t ~
_f"ll· •....- ~-· 25"
I
i I Figure3
ll R- E
I
-· I ; ..
_j._ __ ~-· Figurel Figure 2
. ;
I
I
I s..suu c<XJI'
"'"'' 'Moun;h.
I ;.·~'
{
3.57 . .. ~· 36 - ..
.:·
N
A
I
!...
0.5 0 0.5 Miles
Basemap: USGS 7 .5' Quadrangles
Bucks Lake, Haskins Valley,
Soapstone Hill, Storrie
r:l
Pro.ject
\. .~ · ~ocation
""'"
.
'-L.,.
£,;
..,....
Garcia and Associates
(;ANIJA
I I
_, I -, \, ·'
I 'I I' .: • 14 )., \ ........../ .. 13
1_...., ' \\
. I .. • J
)
~~ Figure2.
. ! "'
__ R E SJ T Bucks Creek Project
_....
.I --------..
1' .- . Herpetofauna Survey
... .
I .
. _ Site Locations
.
~..:
-r I \ Plumas County, California
j. ""•\ ' / 21 --·' ItII , -- -IfII •\ 24 December 2002
I ""'"
23 24 1 II - \
J_ I I
i JI £... ,.i'l-' ,.· / 1 ..... (l __ _ ~----J ~I
____ --- t---;T- - /r- ~---+-- (~_. ..
-~l-.--· -1r · . ,, ...- ,jI . .. usl :~, .~-.~I ;I .'tI F Lt I
_ , -· ' !it. .. / "' .),.:. :r-•· . ··t- .. I .. I Figure3
I »-~ ,• '' -1I ' 1Ir , ·-: -,.1- - ·~ ., !I ~. .. /1 .... '-----< .,.
~-/·
28 -- 25
.• I __... .. II Figurel Figure2
.I
26 , 4
..... ---.-. ...•
"-r ... ...... . :; ;;.
--
LI N
t A
..., .
-
36'
I
I
l
0.5 0 0.5 Miles
Basemap: USGS 7. 5' Quadrangles
Bucks Lake, Haskins Valley,
Soapstone Hill, Storrie
n lP roject
\ lt Location
~~
Garcia and Associates
.1..
..
s
A
Figure3.
Bucks Creek Project
:\
Herpetofauna Survey
t:: ~:1 .
;",'
Site Locations
.,.\._. . _,/ s
. I Plumas County, California
.,
• ?• ..
: ---~ December 2002
- -=-- ::.5Qbsite 10b
·.,- -· ----- -"'""
I ~"'· ~- ~
··~·~
..., ----~1
. I
-t
~-·~;:-· -
' ·- Figure3
1=- 8 10 ·~· p
~, ...., . ..
.
, ~··-r~). L,! Figurel Figure2
l·· . . ---- - . •: z,._,
.t·~---=--
.. ."!. .., ,r-..
I '
t- --r- --""'\.: .i/
... -- - -.!- -- J1 -
I
0 t
·-· 18 i
'
17 TR3A7C t 15 ~.~-- !i AN
J
.... A T I 0 N A L .-1I N A t
C.>. l - ·=-- .i ? __ .,- •l :--- -
""'I ~~--7.t_~·~·
~---- 0.5 0 0.5 Miles
I
- _,
----
~ -
1 I
20 21 _
... Basemap: USGS 7.51 Quadrangles
-1 l
t Bucks Lake, Storrie
21 I·
l
,
·~~-- ~-~
I
s
2S .-·. F 0 R E T I
27 • ~ .. ·- ~-..... 1- 26
.
,-1 ·•. .,_1
/
~'--
.,..· ...
Garcia and Associates
2.0 Special-Status Species Distribution And Life History
2.1 Foothill Yellow-Legged Frog
The foothill yellow-legged frog ·(FYLF) is designated as a federal Species of Concern, a
Forest Service Sensitive species, and a California Species of Special Concern, and is fully
protected by the state. Historically, FYLFs were found in the Coast Ranges from the
Santiam River drainage in Oregon (Mehama and Marion counties) to the San Gabriel
River drainage in California (Los Angeles County), and along the west slopes of the
Sierra Nevada/Cascade crest in most of central and northern California (Storer 1925;
Fitch 1938; Zweifel1955). Livezey (1963) reported an isolated population in San Joaquin
County on the floo'r of the Central Valley. The elevational range of the FYLF extends
from near sea level to about 5,000 ft. However, specimens catalogued at the University of
California Museum of Vertebrate Zoology (MVZ 35914-18) show that this species has
been recorded at elevations as high as 6,000 ft in Plumas County (Zweifel 1955).
Jennings and Hayes (1994) indicate that FYLFs have disappeared from about 45% of
their historic range in California and 66% of their historic range in the Sierra Nevada
Mountains. Based on the results of recent surveys conducted on the Pit, North Fork
Feather, North Fork Mokelumne, and Middle Fork Stanislaus rivers, breeding
populations of FYLFs documented on these regulated rivers have all been below 3,000 ft
in elevation, with the majority of the frogs occurring at elevations below 2,500 ft. (Pacific
Gas and Electric Company 2001b, 2002a, 2002b; Spring Rivers 2001; Ibis
Environmental, Inc. 2002).
FYLF have been recorded in several locations adjacent to the Bucks Creek Study Area
associated with the Poe and Rock Creek-Cresta hydroelectric projects along the lower
reaches of the North Fork Feather River (NFFR) above Lake Oroville (ECORP 2002;
PG&E 2002a). Other records from Plumas County include observations in Slate Creek,
Onion Creek, and Slate Creek Reservoir, three miles southeast of Little Grass Valley
Reservoir; South Fork'Feather River near Forest Road 22N24; and Spanish Creek, 200m
north of Forest Road 24N30 (CDFG 2002). Koo and Vindum (1999) found FYLF in
September 1998 on Spanish Creek near Greens Flat, approximately seven miles east of
Three Lakes at an elevation of 4,000 ft (1311 m). Another recent (2002) survey along the
Spanish Creek drainage east of the Study Area found adult FYLF occurring less than one
mile from adult mountain yellow-legged frogs (MYLF) on Bean Creek (GANDA 2002).
MYLF occurred at em elevation of 4,500 feet (1,475 m) and FYLF were observed at
4,400 feet (1440 m). The highest elevational record for FYLF from nearby Lassen
National Forest also occurred at 4,400 ft. (1,440 m) along Round Valley Creek,
approximately 22 km west of Lake Almanor in Tehama County (1999; M. McFarland,
USFS Biologist, Jan. 2001, unpublished Lassen National Forest data).
Destruction or disruption of habitat is most commonly blamed for the decline of FYLFs,
but additional unidentified factors may also be involved in their decline. The FYLF
coexists with Cascades frog (Rana cascadae, CASF) and CRLF at some localities, but
different microhabitat preferences likely diminish competition. Moyle (1973) implicated
Bucks Creek Project Herpetofauna Surveys Garcia and Associates
Pacific Gas and Electric Company 5 December 2002
the bullfrog in the observed reduction of FYLF populations in the Sierra. Centrarchid
fishes readily eat ranid eggs (Werschkul and Christensen 1977), and, where introduced
into foothill streams, may also contribute to the elimination ofFYLFs.
Species Description
Juveniles and Adults -The FYLF is a moderate-sized frog, with juveniles ranging from
22 to 40 mm snout to vent length (SVL), and adults measuring from 40 to 65 mm SVL
(Nussbaum et al. 1983). When they reach their maximum adult size, females are larger
than males, and may measure up to 20 - 25 mm longer in SVL. The dorsal coloration of
FYLFs is highly variable and in many situations blends closely with the predominant
color of the surrounding substrate, making the frogs cryptic and difficult to spot. Dorsal
color also appears to reflect the amount of sun exposure, with uniform dark gray or olive
colored individuals typically observed in heavily shaded streams, and lighter gray, brown,
tan, and yellow frogs with varying amounts of spotting found in areas that lack heavy
shading (personal observations). Both juveniles and adults may have dark red coloration,
often along the poorly developed dorsal lateral folds.
Many juvenile and adult FYLFs are spotted, and their skin may appear rough due to the
presence of small tubercles. The tympanum is relatively small, about half the size of the
eye, and is colored and roughened like the surrounding skin, often making it difficult to
see (Leonard et al. 1993; Nussbaum et al. 1983). The dorsal surfaces of the rear legs are
often distinctly barred, and the ventral surfaces are pale to brilliant yellow; however, the
yellow coloration may be faint or lacking in younger frogs. The posterior portion of the
abdomen may also be yellow or light orange in color with the remainder of the abdomen
white. Dark mottling on the chin and throat is common but not always present. The
webbing of the hind toes is full, slightly concave, and extends to the tip of the longest toe
(Leonard et al. 1993).
During the breeding period, males may be identified by their enlarged forearms, without
the need to capture them. In addition, they develop enlarged nuptial pads on the medial
surfaces of the thumbs for gripping the female during amplexus, but this characteristic
can only be observed if the frog is captured. Male frogs may be found in small groups in
areas used for breeding, and young males may be observed in amplexus with each other.
On the 'Sorth Fork Feather River, male frogs have been observed on exposed substrates at
mid-day calling from known oviposition sites (personal observations). The call consists
of short coarse or guttural sounds with a slightly descending or ascending tone at the end
of the call. These low volume calls are repeated in succession separated by silence of
various lengths (personal observations). Because FYLFs are known to call primarily
underwater (~tacTeague and Northern 1993), this type of vocalization would presumably
generate '1brauons necessary to carry underwater, particularly in stream habitats. This
call was also heard in early September on the Middle Fork Stanislaus River (personal
observations).
Egg Masses - In coastal streams, Lind et al. (1996) found that egg masses are laid along
stream margins in shallow water that is usually <1.0 m deep and in flows less than 21
Bucks Creek Project Herpetofauna Surveys Garcia and Associates
Pacific Gas and Electric Company 6 December 2002