Rim Fire Recovery Project (43033) 

Groveland and Mi-Wok Ranger Districts 

Stanislaus National Forest 

Biological Evaluation 

Aquatics- Forest Service Sensitive Species 

Biological Evaluation as supporting documentation for the Enviromnental Impact 

Statement 

Date 

This biological evaluation (BE) meets tl1e requirements of FSM 2672.4 and complies with 36 

CFR 219.19 and 24 1.1. 
2
3

Summary of determinations:

Species/Habitat Status Determination

Limestone salamander Forest Service sensitive No effect

California red-legged frog Federally Threatened May affect, likely to adversely affect 

Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog Federally Endangered May affect, likely to adversely affect

Foothill yellow-legged frog Forest Service sensitive

May affect individuals, but not likely to lead to a 

trend in federal listing or loss of viability in the 

planning area

Western pond turtle Forest Service sensitive

May affect individuals, but not likely to lead to a 

trend in federal listing or loss of viability in the 

planning area

Hardhead Forest Service sensitive

May affect individuals, but not likely to lead to a 

trend in federal listing or loss of viability in the 

planning area
4

PROJECT: 

Rim Fire Recovery Project.

GENERAL LOCATION: The project area is located on the Groveland and Mi-Wok Ranger Districts of the 

Stanislaus National Forest in Mariposa and Tuolumne Counties, California. The project 

area is generally bounded on the south by Township 2 South, the north by Township 3 

North, the east by Range 21 East, and the west by Range 16 East. The USGS 

Quadrangles include El Portal (4381), Kinsley (4382), Buckhorn Peak (4391), Groveland 

(4573), Jawbone Ridge (4574), Ascension Mountain (4563), Ackerson Mountain (4564), 

Lake Eleanor (4561), Cherry Lake South (4562), Duckwall Mountain (4571), Tuolumne 

(4752), Twain Harte (4743), Hull Creek (4744), Cherry Lake North (4733), and Kibbie 

Lake (4734). Elevation range of the project area is approximately 800 to 7,000 feet. 

ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING:

Major vegetation associations include oak grassland, chaparral, ponderosa pine, Sierran 

Mixed conifer. Aquatic features include springs, seeps, ponds, reservoirs, and ephemeral, 

intermittent, and perennial streams. Elevation range is approximately 1,000 feet to 7,000 

feet.

PROJECT TYPE: 

Salvage logging, roadside hazard tree removal, and road maintenance.

INTRODUCTION: 

The purpose of this Biological Evaluation (BE) is to review the Rim Recovery Project 

and its suite of proposed actions on the Stanislaus National Forest, and evaluate the 

effects of the proposed alternatives on Forest Service Sensitive species (FSS). A 

determination is made as to whether any of the alternatives would lead to a trend in 

Federal listing or in a loss of viability in the planning area for any sensitive species. A 

separate Biological Evaluation was completed to analyze the potential effects (direct, 

indirect, and cumulative) to federally listed species for all of the proposed alternatives. 

An additional document, a Biological Assessment, has been prepared to document the 

anticipated effects of the proposed action on federally listed threatened, endangered, and 

proposed species, provide documentation of consultation with the U. S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, and fulfill the requirements required by the Endangered Species Act and Forest 

Service Manual. Also, an analysis of effects to aquatic habitat arising from the 

alternatives is available in the management indicator species (MIS Report) prepared for 

the EIS.

This document tiers to the Stanislaus National Forest’s Forest Plan Direction (USDA

2010a). The USDA (2001, Volume 3, Chapter 3, part 4 and Appendix R) and USDA 

(2004a) evaluated population viability concerns, relevant risk factors, and vulnerability 

for all species considered in this document. The considerations of this document 

included an evaluation of species occurrence, habitat, viability concerns, and risk factors 

as discussed in USDA 2001 FEIS and USDA 2004 SEIS in relation to the proposed 
5

action for all aquatic fauna that are Federally-listed and USFS Region 5 Sensitive species. 

The analysis that was completed and detailed in these two documents is applicable at the 

range-wide scale of the species considered in this document and is incorporated into this 

analysis by reference. This Biological Evaluation defines the potential for effects to 

species at the project level scale and discusses the relevance of that potential to the 

species and their habitats.

CONSULTATION TO DATE:

Crispin Holland, the Stanislaus National Forest Wildlife, Fish, and Botany Program Coordinator 

alerted Jeremiah Karuzas of the Sacramento office of the US Fish and Wildlife Service 

several days after the Rim Fire started to notify him there may be impacts from the fire or 

fire suppression activities to listed species, including the VELB and several listed and 

candidate amphibian species. During preparation of the wildlife portion of the Burned 

Area Emergency Response report, Roy Bridgman also contacted Mr. Karuzas to discuss 

the level of concern and risk to VELB associated with any necessary roadwork. 

Roy Bridgman and Marcie Baumbach, Stanislaus National Forest biologists, conducted a 

field trip with Mr. Karuzas through the Rim Fire burn area on November 4th, 2013 and 

discussed conditions and concerns for listed species. Lucas Wilkinson discussed aquatic 

species with Mr. Karuzas on the same day. 

An official list of Federal Endangered and Threatened Species covering the Ackerson 

Mountain, Cherry Lake North, Cherry Lake South, Duckwall Mountain, Groveland, Hull 

Creek, Jawbone Ridge, Lake Eleanor, and Tuolumne U.S.G.S. 7 1⁄2 minute quadrangles 

was obtained from the Sacramento U.S. Fish and Wildlife Office website on December 5, 

2013, and updated on April 17, 2014 (Document 140417112513). The USFWS list was 

used as a basis for determining which species should be considered in the Biological 

Assessment (BA). 

CURRENT MANAGEMENT DIRECTION: 

Forest Service Manual (FSM) 2670.32 directs that a biological evaluation (BE) be 

prepared to evaluate project effects upon threatened, endangered, proposed, and sensitive 

species to ensure that project decisions do not result in loss of species viability or create a 

trend towards Federal listing. This biological evaluation (prepared in accordance with 

FSM 2670.3) analyzes the potential effects of fuel reduction and forest health actions for

the proposed Rim Fire Recovery Project. 

The Stanislaus National Forest “Forest Plan Direction” presents the current management 

direction, based on the original Forest Plan as modified through the Forest Plan appeals 

and amendment processes (USDA 2010a). For all of the sensitive species analyzed in 

this document, specific direction for the management of these species is lacking in the 

Stanislaus National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (USDA 1991), the 

previous forest plan direction. The Forest Service sensitive species addressed in this 
6

document will be managed under the blanket direction afforded to all sensitive species: 

they will be managed to ensure conservation or enhancement of their populations and 

habitats so that the species do not suffer a trend towards Federal listing or a loss of 

viability (USDA 1991). 

The land allocation in the project areas relevant to aquatic species and where the Forest 

Plan Direction’s Standards and Guidelines apply is: Riparian Conservation Area (RCA). 

The implementation of relevant Best Management Practices (BMP) specific to the 

activities needed to move the project area towards desired condition and application of 

Forest Standards and Guidelines related to riparian conservation objectives are consistent 

with the Forest Plan Direction for the Aquatic Management Strategy (USDA 2010a). 

A Forest Goal from the Forest Plan Direction is to “[p]rovide habitat for viable 

populations of all native and desired non-native wildlife, fish and plants” and to “...give 

special attention to sensitive species to see that they do not become Federally listed as 

Threatened or Endangered.” 

The Stanislaus National Forest Aquatic Management Strategy (AMS) identifies endpoints 

(desired conditions) toward which management moves watershed processes and 

functions, habitats, attributes, and populations. Goals of the Aquatic Management 

Strategy include direction to 1) maintain viable populations of native and desired nonnative species, 2) maintain habitat connectivity for aquatic and riparian species, and 3) 

maintain streamflow patterns and sediment regimes in accordance with evolutionary 

processes.

The AMS has six Riparian Conservation Objectives (RCO) that include the following 

element:

• RCO 3: Ensure a renewable supply of large down logs that can reach the 

stream channel and provide suitable habitat within and adjacent to the 

Riparian Conservation Area.

Applicable Forest wide Standards and Guidelines include:

• Ensure the habitat needs of sensitive species are considered and that habitat 

needs of Federally listed Threatened and Endangered species are met.

• Maintain high water quality values. 

• In areas adjacent to waters with known populations of western pond turtle, 

construct new roads or trails or use existing off-road routes for motorized 

vehicles only if at least 1⁄4 mile from occupied habitat or approved by a 

wildlife biologist.

• Ensure that management activities do not adversely affect water temperatures 

necessary for local aquatic- and riparian-dependent species assemblages.

• Limit pesticide applications to cases where project level analysis indicates that 

pesticide applications are consistent with riparian conservation objectives.
7

• Within 500 feet of known occupied sites for the California red-legged frog 

and foothill yellow-legged frog, design pesticide applications to avoid adverse 

effects to individuals and their habitats.

• Prohibit storage of fuels and other toxic materials within RCAs and CARs.

• Ensure that culverts or other stream crossings do not create barriers to 

upstream or downstream passage for aquatic-dependent species.

• Prevent disturbance to streambanks and natural lake and pond shorelines 

caused by resource activities from exceeding 20 percent of stream reach or 20 

percent of natural lake and pond shorelines.

• Determine if the level of coarse large woody debris (CWD) is within the range 

of natural variability in terms of frequency and distribution and is sufficient to 

sustain stream channel physical complexity and stability. Ensure proposed 

management activities move conditions toward the range of natural 

variability.

• Use screening devices for water drafting pumps.

• Post-wildfire management activities in RCAs and CARs should emphasize 

enhancing native vegetation cover, stabilizing channels by non-structural 

means, minimizing adverse effects from the existing road network, and 

carrying out activities identified in landscape analyses. Post-wildfire 

operations shall minimize the exposure of bare soil.

DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES:

The action alternatives (Alternatives 1, 3 and 4) and the no action alternative (Alternative 

2) are considered in detail. The no action alternative, as required by the implementing 

regulations of NEPA, serves as a baseline for comparison among the alternatives. More 

comprehensive descriptions of the alternatives are found later in the document.

Alternative 1 (Proposed Action)

This is the Proposed Action, as described in the Notice of Intent (78 Federal Register 

235, December 6, 2013; p. 73498-73499), with corrections based on updated data and 

map information and completion of PAC re-maps as stated in the scoping package. These 

corrections and refinements provide additional resource protection and a more accurate 

and informed proposed action. Alternative 1 (Proposed Action) includes the treatments 

and actions described below. Table 1 provides a summary of the proposed activities and 

Appendix E (Treatments) provides detailed information for each specific treatment unit.

Salvage and Fuel Reduction

Alternative 1 includes salvage logging on up to 28,326 acres including 24,127 acres of 

ground based, 16 acres of ground based/skyline swing, 2,930 acres of helicopter, and 

1,253 acres of skyline treatments. Proposed fuel treatments include: 7,626 acres of 

biomass removal, 24,143 acres of machine piling and burning and 4,199 acres of jackpot 

burning.
8

Hazard Tree Removal and Fuel Reduction

Fell and remove hazard trees (green and dead) adjacent to 341 miles of forest roads 

outside of proposed salvage units, amounting to 16,315 acres. Some non-merchantable 

trees may be felled and left in place.

Roads

Alternative 1 includes 5.4 miles of new road construction, 319.9 miles of route 

reconstruction and 216.1 miles of road maintenance along low standard roads. About 3.9 

miles of temporary road construction (new), 9.3 miles of temporary road construction 

(existing), and 8.4 miles of existing temporary use routes tied to current and future uses 

would be used for the project and then reverted afterwards to their original use.

Wildlife Habitat Enhancement

Within Critical Winter Deer Range and adjacent to Yosemite National Park units were 

identified for salvage and/or biomass removal to achieve desired forage/cover ratios and 

to provide for deer passage and access. These units encompass 1,351 acres and include: 

L03, L06, L07, L202, L203A, L203B, L204A, L204B, L205, L206, M201, O201, and 

P201.

Alternative 2 (No Action)

Alternative 2 (No Action) provides a baseline for comparison with the other alternatives 

(Table 1). Under Alternative 2 (No Action), general salvage and hazard tree abatement 

and removal adjacent to lower standard roads would not occur. Current management 

plans would continue to guide management of the project area. None of the viable timber 

would be removed from this area leaving tens to hundreds of tons of fuel per acre once 

these trees fall down and rendering access for firefighting virtually impossible. No hazard 

tree removal would occur adjacent to lower standard roads, leaving thousands of existing 

hazard trees to fall on their own as a result of natural forces. These roads would likely 

remain closed to public access. The cost of future activities where removal of this 

material is essential to implementation would be far more expensive and perhaps become 

cost prohibitive. The road maintenance and reconstruction would not be implemented to 

accomplish the project goal of a properly functioning road infrastructure.

Alternative 3

Alternative 3 responds to issues and concerns related to: Snag Forest Habitat; New Road 

Construction, Wildlife Habitat; and, Soil and Watershed Impacts. Compared to 

Alternative 1, it addresses those issues by proposing: additional wildlife habitat 

enhancement (including biomass removal in Critical Deer Winter Range and the FCCC 

Forest Plan Amendment); additional soil and watershed protection (mastication and drop 

and lop); and, less new road construction. It also includes research to help answer 

wildlife, fuels, watershed, and soils questions. Alternative 3 includes the treatments and 

actions described below. Table 1 provides a summary of the proposed activities.

Salvage and Fuel Reduction

Alternative 3 salvage and fuels treatments are similar to Alternative 1; however, it 

includes two additional fuel treatments (mastication and drop and lop) to mitigate impacts 

of the fire and logging on soil and water resources.
9

Alternative 3 includes salvage logging on up to 30,399 acres including 26,252 acres of 

ground based, 16 acres of ground based/skyline swing, 3,035 acres of helicopter, and 

1,096 acres of skyline treatments. Proposed fuels treatments include: 8,379 acres of 

biomass removal, 22,036 acres of machine piling and burning and 4,147 acres of jackpot 

burning, 1,309 acres of mastication, and 2,228 acres of drop and lop.

Hazard Tree Removal and Fuel Reduction

Alternative 3 involves felling and removing of hazard trees (green and dead) adjacent to 

314.8 miles of forest roads, amounting to 15,253 acres, outside of proposed salvage units. 

Some non-merchantable trees may be felled and left in place.

Roads

Alternative 3 includes 1.0 mile of new road construction, 323.6 miles of road 

reconstruction and 200.6 miles of road maintenance along low standard roads. It also 

includes 9.5 miles of temporary road construction (new), 22.7 miles of temporary road 

construction (existing), and 3.3 miles of existing temporary roads tied to current and 

future uses would be used for the project and then reverted afterwards to their original 

use.

Wildlife Habitat Enhancement

Alternative 3 includes several additional treatment units to enhance the Critical Deer 

Winter Range (Appendix E). In addition, the FCCC Forest Plan Amendment provides for 

long-term movement of wildlife from Yosemite National Park through the Stanislaus 

National Forest.

Research

Alternative 3 includes research projects that would collect data on California spotted owl 

use of protected area centers affected by fire, black-backed woodpecker response to fire, 

and hillslope sedimentation. 

Forest Plan Amendment

Alternative 3 includes a Forest Plan Amendment designating a 4 mile wide Forest 

Carnivore Connectivity Corridor (FCCC), as habitat for old-forest habitat associated 

species, particularly forest carnivores (portions of this corridor also overlap critical deer 

range). The corridor would lead from Yosemite National Park and North Mountain 

Inventoried Roadless Area (IRA) west to the Clavey River. The corridor includes the 

following proposed units that would be managed for Old Forest Emphasis: L02, L05, M1 

through M10, M12, M13, M15, M16, M18, M19, and N1. This Forest Plan Amendment 

changes the land allocation on 9,923 acres from General Forest to Old Forest Emphasis 

Area (OFEA). Other existing land allocations (Wild and Scenic River, PAC, HRCA, and 

OFEA) allocations would remain unchanged.

Alternative 4

Alternative 4 is similar to Alternative 3 except that it replaces new road construction with 

temporary roads and drops 2,500 acres of salvage logging in highly suitable black-backed 

woodpecker habitat.
10

Alternative 4 responds to issues and concerns related to: Snag Forest Habitat; New Road 

Construction, Wildlife Habitat; and, Soil and Watershed Impacts by proposing the same 

action items as Alternative 3 for wildlife habitat enhancement (including biomass 

removal in Critical Deer Winter Range and the FCCC Forest Plan Amendment) and, soil 

and watershed protection (mastication and drop and lop). It also includes research to help 

answer wildlife, fuels, watershed, and soils questions. Compared to Alternative 3, 

Alternative 4 further addresses the Snag Forest Habitat issue with additional blackbacked woodpecker habitat retention and, the New Road Construction issue with no new 

road construction. Alternative 4 includes the treatments and actions described below. 

Table 1 provides a summary of the proposed activities and Appendix E (Treatments) 

provides detailed information for each specific treatment unit.

Salvage and Fuel Reduction

Alternative 4 includes salvage logging on up to 27,826 acres including 24,176 acres of 

ground based, 16 acres of ground based/skyline swing, 2,568 acres of helicopter, and 

1,066 acres of skyline treatments. Proposed fuels treatments include: 7,975 acres of 

biomass removal, 20,320 acres of machine piling and burning and 3,650 acres of jackpot 

burning, 1,309 acres of mastication, and 1,798 acres of drop and lop.

Hazard Tree Removal and Fuel Reduction

Alternative 4 involves felling and removing of hazard trees (green and dead) adjacent to 

324.6 miles of forest roads, amounting to 15,692 acres, outside of proposed salvage units. 

Some non-merchantable trees may be felled and left in place.

Roads

Alternative 4 includes 315.0 miles of route reconstruction and 209.3 miles of road 

maintenance along low standard roads. Alternative 4 does not include new road 

construction. It includes 8.4 miles of temporary road construction (new), 22.1 miles of 

temporary road construction (existing) and 3.3 miles of existing temporary use routes tied 

to current and future uses would be used for the project and then reverted afterwards to 

their original use.

Wildlife Habitat Enhancement

Alternative 4 includes the same wildlife enhancement treatments as Alternative 3.

Research

Alternative 4 includes the same research treatments as Alternative 3.

Forest Plan Amendment

Alternative 4 includes the same FCCC Forest Plan Amendment as Alternative 3.
11

Table 1. Summary the actions proposed under each alternative.

Proposed Treatments1

Alternative 1

(Proposed 

Action)

Alternative 

2

(No Action)

Alternative 

3

Alternative 4

Salvage ground based (acres) 24,127 0 26,252 24,176

Salvage ground based/skyline swing (acres) 16 0 16 16

Salvage aerial based helicopter (acres) 2,930 0 3,035 2,568

Salvage skyline system (acres) 1,253 0 1,096 1,066

Subtotal Salvage (acres) 28,326 0 30,399 27,826

Hazard Tree Removal along Level 2 roads 

(miles)

341 0 314.8 324.6

Subtotal Hazard Tree Removal (acres) 16,315 0 15,253 15,692

Total Hazard Tree and Salvage (acres) 44,641 0 45,652 43,518

Biomass Removal 7,626 0 8,379 7,975

Mastication 0 0 1,309 1,309

Drop and Lop 0 0 2,228 1,798

Machine Piling and Burning 24,143 0 22,036 20,320

Jackpot Burning 4,199 0 4,147 3,650

Total Fuels Treatments (acres) 35,968 0 38,099 35,052

Route New Construction (miles) 5.4 0 1.0 0

Route Maintenance (miles) 216.1 0 200.6 209.3

Route Reconstruction (miles) 319.9 0 323.6 315.0

Subtotal Construction and Maintenance 

(miles)

541.4 0 525.2 524.3

Temporary Route (new miles) 3.9 0 9.5 8.4

Temporary Route (existing miles) 9.3 0 22.7 22.1

Temporary Use – Revert (miles) 8.4 0 3.3 3.3

Subtotal Temporary Routes (miles) 21.6 0 35.5 33.8

Total Route Treatments (miles) 563.0 0 560.7 558.1

Private Roads Needing Right-of-Way 

(miles)

11.2 0 11.2 11.2

Rock Quarry Sites 7 0 7 7

Potential Water Sources 81 0 81 81

EXISTING ENVIRONMENT: 

In the sections titled “Species Account” below, occurrence records are based on the 

Stanislaus National Forest Aquatic Survey Database (AquaSurv, USDA 2010b), 

California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB), and University of California, Berkeley, 

Museum of Vertebrate Zoology database (UCMVZ). When an occurrence record is 

followed by a date enclosed within parentheses, the date reflects the survey/observation 

or collection date. Under the “Habitat Account” sections, the habitats associated with the 

species summarize the information contained in Lannoo (2005) which compiles most of 

the available and relevant literature into a single account. Additional literature is 

referenced, as appropriate.

The project area primarily encompasses several major large rivers, multiple primary 

tributary streams to these rivers, and numerous very small tributary streams to either the 
12

large rivers or their primary tributaries. The two main rivers are the Tuolumne River and 

its largest tributary, the Clavey River. The primary tributaries to the Tuolumne River 

include Cherry Creek and the North, Middle Tuolumne and South Fork Tuolumne Rivers. 

Secondary tributaries to the Tuolumne River include Corral Creek, Granite Creek, 

Grapevine Creek, and Jawbone Creek. Primary tributaries to the Clavey River include 

the following creeks (proceeding upstream from the Tuolumne): Bull Meadow, Quilty, 

Bear Springs, Cottonwood, Reed, Reynolds, Bourland, Hull, and Twomile.

While the USGS maps indicate portions of the other streams are perennial, field 

observations made during surveys indicate these streams are largely intermittent by the 

middle of summer and into early fall in a typical year. Water in the larger pools may be

persistent in most water years and could be considered perennial aquatic habitats. The 

USGS mapping designation of perennial and intermittent streams was used to determine 

the amount of aquatic habitat present within the project area. 

SPECIES CONSIDERED FOR ANALYSIS: 

Table 2 lists the Forest Service Sensitive Species that potentially occur in or could be 

affected by the project. Table 2 is applied to this analysis document to aid in determining 

which species are to be considered for analysis based on geographic and elevation 

distribution and presence of suitable habitat within the project area or within a reasonable 

distance as to be affected by the implementation of the project. 

Species considered for analysis:

If the project area is within the geographic range but not within the elevation range of a 

species, it is not considered further in this document. These species include: limestone 

salamander and Yosemite toad. 

The following species are addressed further in this document for the Rim Recovery

Project: California red-legged frog, Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog, foothill 

yellow-legged frog, western pond turtle, and hardhead. 

The discussion sections that follow are divided into two categories: Threatened and 

Endangered species and Forest Service Sensitive species. The Forest Service Sensitive 

species include the foothill yellow-legged frog, western pond turtle, and hardhead. A 

Biological Assessment (BA) was prepared for consultation with the U. S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service and includes two federally listed species, the California red-legged frog 

and Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog. The analysis for these two species was carried 

over to the BE to include analysis of effects for all action alternatives and cumulative 

effects analysis to include private, state, and federal actions.
A Sources: AquaSurv – Stanislaus National Forest Aquatic Survey Database; CAS – California Academy of Sciences; CNDDB – California Natural Diversity DataBase; MVZ – University of California, 

Berkeley, Museum of Vertebrate Zoology records; USGS - (http://ca.water.usgs.gov/sanj/.html)

B

Habitats: 1 – Perennial stream or water (a – large stream, >4th order; b – medium stream, 2nd – 4th order; c - small/headwater stream, 1st order); 2 – Permanent/Semi-permanent Pond; 3 – Slow, shallow 

water with cobble/boulder substrate; 4 – Nearly still pools with emergent vegetation and/or undercut banks; 5 - Waterfall spray zone and/or massive rock areas/granitic talus with flowing water; 6 – Wet 

meadow; 7 - Talus; 8 – South to west facing low-angle slope with compact, well-drained soils; 9 – Foothill chapparal, chamise, toyon, buckeye; 10 – Dense or well developed riparian vegetation, 

herbaceous and woody; 11 – Upland area surrounding aquatic/breeding features

13

Table 2. Stanislaus National Forest Sensitive Species and federally-listed species potentially occurring within or near the Rim 

Recovery Project area. Those species selected for analysis are indicated by shading within the table cells.

Species Within Local 

Range1, 

Geographic or

Elevation? 

Y/N

Nearest Documented 

OccurrenceA

General and/or 

specific life stage 

habitat 

requirementsB

Is Suitable Habitat2

present within:

Citations supporting range, 

occurrence, and suitable habitat 

determinations

Project 

Area?

One 

mile?

SENSITIVE SPECIES

Limestone salamander

(Hydromantes brunus)

Status: Forest Service Sensitive

G = N

E = Y, occurs 

<3,000’

>7 miles southwest @ Gentry 

Gulch; >10 miles south @ 

Merced River ACEC.

General: 7, 9 N N 1,2,BZeiner et al. 1988, Lannoo 

2005, Gorman 1954 A CAS, CNDDB, MVZ, 

Pappenfuss (pers. comm.)

Yosemite toad

(Bufo (Anaxyrus) canorus)

Status: Forest Service Sensitive, 

Proposed for federal listing

G = Y

E = N, >7,000’ 

locally

>10 miles @ Aspen Valley 

(Yosemite NP 1933), Upper 

Relief Valley near Granite 

Dome (2005)

Breeding: 1c, 2, 6

Adult: 11

N N 1,2,BLannoo 2005, Zeiner et al. 

1988

AAquaSurv, CAS, CNDDB, MVZ

California red-legged frog

(Rana draytonii)

Status: Federally Threatened 

G = Y

E = Y, <4,000’

Within project area is a 

historic collection at Birch 

Lake (Mather) and outside 

area at Jordan Pond

Breeding: 1ab, 2, 4

General: 1abc, 2, 

4, 10

Estivation: 11

Y Y 1,2,BFederal Register (Vol. 70, No. 

212; Vol. 71, No. 71)

ACNDDB, MVZ

Foothill yellow-legged frog

(Rana boylii)

Status: Forest Service Sensitive

G = Y

E = Y, <4,000’ 

locally

Within project area at multiple 

locations

Breeding: 1ab, 3

General: 1ab, 10

Y Y 1,2,BUSDA 2001, Lannoo 2005 AAqauSurv, CNDDB, MVZ

Sierra Nevada yellow-legged 

frog (Rana sierrae)

Status: Forest Service Sensitive

Proposed for federal listing

G = Y

E = N, >5,000’ 

locally

>3 miles (northeast) @ 

Bourland Cr.

Breeding: 1bc, 2

General: 1bc, 2

N N 1,2,BUSDA 2001, Lannoo 2005 AAquaSurv, CAS, CNDDB, MVZ

Hardhead

(Mylopharodon conocephalus)

Status: Forest Service Sensitive

G = Y

E = N, <1,500’ 

in San Joaquin 

>10 miles @ Merced River at 

Snelling; SFkMerced/Merced 

confluence (1933); >10 miles, 

M. Fk. Stanislaus R. @ Camp 

9

General: 1ab N N 1,2,BMoyle 2002, AUSGS, ACAS, 

CNDDB

Western pond turtle 

(Emys marmorata)

Status: Forest Service Sensitive

G = Y

E = Y

Within project area at multiple 

locations

Nesting: 8, 11

General: 1ab, 2, 4

Estivation: 10, 11

Y Y 1,2,BUSDA 2001, Holland 1994 AAquaSurv, CNDDB
14

Federally listed Threatened and Endangered Species

California red-legged frog

Species Account

California red-legged frog was designated a threatened species on June 24, 1996 (Federal

Register 1996). The Recovery plan identified the Tuolumne River as a core recovery 

area within the Sierra Nevada Foothills and Central Valley recovery unit (USFWS 2002). 

The frog inhabits various aquatic habitats including ponds, marshes, streams, and lagoons 

(Fellers 2005). The timing of breeding varies geographically, but typically occurs from 

November through April (USFWS 2002), and coincides with what will be referred to as 

the wet-season throughout this document. Females lay from 2,000-6,000 eggs (in masses) 

that are usually attached to vegetation near the water’s surface. Eggs hatch in about 3 

weeks. Tadpoles typically metamorphose within 11 to 20 weeks, from July to September, 

but overwinter aquatically at some sites (Fellers 2005, Bobzien and DiDonato 2007). 

Stream temperatures in an occupied creek ranged from 30 to 73 degrees Fahrenheit, with 

cold water temperatures suspected of delaying tadpole development and metamorphosis 

(Bobzein and Didonato 2007). Observation sin some areas indicate red-legged frog are 

absent when water temperatures exceed 70 degrees Fahrenheit (USFWS 2002). Adult 

movements to terrestrial habitat or between aquatic habitats typically commence with the 

first fall rain (>0.5 cm) and continue until April (Fellers and Kleeman 2007, Tatarian

2008). Adults may also disperse when aquatic habitats dry out (Fellers and Kleeman 

2007, Tatarian 2008). Individual movements of up to 2 miles have been reported (Fellers 

2005), but 1 mile represents a more average dispersal distance (Federal Register 2010).

The California red-legged frog (CRLF) historically occurred from Riverside County to 

Mendocino County along the Coast Range; from as far south as Mariposa County to 

Butte County in the north in the Sierra Nevada; and in Baja California, Mexico (Federal

Register 2010). However, the CRLF is now likely extirpated from 70 percent of its 

former range including the southern Transverse and Peninsular ranges and most localities 

in the Sierra Nevada, northern coast, and northern Transverse Ranges (USFWS 2002). 

Range wide, the CRLF was documented to occur at elevations from sea level to 5,200 

feet, although the highest known extant population occurs at 3,346 ft. in Placer County 

(Barry and Fellers 2013) The Fish and Wildlife Service has acknowledged that 

occurrences above 4,000 feet in the Sierra Nevada are atypical (Federal Register 2006).

The CRLF has not been detected on the Stanislaus National Forest since 1967 and is 

considered extirpated from the Tuolumne River watershed (USFWS 2002). Historical 

records of CRLF in and near the vicinity of the project area (California Natural Diversity 

Database (CNDDB), USFWS 2002, Barry and Fellers 2013) are listed in Table CRLF1. 

The Stanislaus National Forest has completed extensive herpetofauna visual encounter 

surveys (Fellers and Freel 1995) across the forest since 1993. However, surveys specific 

to this project were not conducted and only portions of the project area have been 

previously surveyed. Appendix B summarizes past surveys and results, indicating 
15

potential red-legged frog habitat surveyed in the project area with no detections. In 

addition, from 1991 to 2012 Barry and Fellers (2013) conducted day- and night-time 

surveys in historical red-legged frog Sierra Nevada localities and nearby suitable habitat. 

Their surveys included all the historical record localities from Table CRLF1 except 

Upper Lake in Yosemite National Park because they could not find the locality. No redlegged frogs were found.

Table 3. Historical CRLF records from the Tuolumne and Merced River Basins

Locality Year (#) elevation basin

Birch Lake (near Camp 

Mather)

1922 (1), 1945 

(10)

4528’ Tuolumne 

River

Swamp Lake (Yosemite 

National Park)

1938 (1), 1939 (1), 

1940 (2), 1941 (1)

5020’ Tuolumne 

River

Miguel Meadow (Yosemite 

NP)

1939 (2) 5020’ Tuolumne 

River

Gravel Pit Lake (Yosemite 

NP)

1940 (1) 5040’ Tuolumne 

River

Upper Lake (Yosemite NP) 1941 (?) unk Tuolumne 

River

Woods Creek (edge of 

Sonora)

1950 (4) 1870’ Tuolumne 

River

Parrot’s Ferry 1975 (1) 2103’ Tuolumne 

River

Jordan Creek 1967 (1) 2687’ Merced River

Piney Creek 1972 (?), 1974 (?) 1214’ Merced River

Habitat Account

California red-legged frogs use a variety of areas where they are found, including aquatic, 

riparian and upland habitat (USFWS 2002). Breeding habitat is found in both still water 

(ponds, marshes, deep pools) and moving water (streams). Hayes and Jennings (1988) 

describe breeding habitat as deep (greater than 0.7 meters or 2 feet) still or slow moving 

water with dense, shrubby riparian or emergent vegetation. More recent literature 

(Bobzien and Didonato 2007, Federal Register 2010) has described breeding habitat as 

low-gradient, fresh water bodies that hold water for a minimum of 20 weeks during the 

breeding season. Breeding California red-legged frogs are currently found in both stream 

and pond habitats. Frogs also utilize non-breeding aquatic and riparian habitats, areas that 

do not provide suitable breeding habitat but that maintain water past the breeding season 

or are moist year-round. These areas provide protection from predators and a food source 

to the frog. Upland habitat surrounds the aquatic habitat and also provides shelter and 

food. California red-legged frog have been located in upland habitat for extended periods 

(Tatarian 2008, Bobzien and DiDonato 2007) where they are found in areas that provide 

moist conditions (under leaf litter, in mammal burrows). California red-legged frogs 

disperse over upland or riparian habitat that is free of barriers. Dispersal generally occurs 

between patches of aquatic habitat within 1 mile of one another (USFWS 2002).
16

For the purpose of this analysis, potential habitat was identified from existing survey 

data, GIS maps, and aerial imagery. All perennial and intermittent aquatic habitats within 

1 mile of proposed project activities at elevations of 4,000 feet or less (except at historic 

localities above this elevation) were assessed for CRLF breeding and non-breeding 

suitability. Potentially suitable stream breeding habitat included streams with the 

following characteristics: 1) low gradient (<4%), 2) presence of pools holding water for 

20 weeks during timing of egg and tadpole development, 3) absence of high stream flow 

during the breeding period which could wash egg masses or tadpoles downstream. 

Potentially suitable breeding ponds were identified as large and deep enough to hold 

water for 20 weeks during egg and tadpole development. Non-breeding aquatic habitat 

includes any water bodies within 1 mile of potentially suitable breeding habitat, while 

upland habitat consists of terrestrial areas within 1 mile of suitable breeding habitat. 

Dispersal habitat includes any upland, riparian, or aquatic habitat accessible and 

contiguous between suitable breeding habitats, within 1 mile of each other.

Based on the above definitions, five habitat areas were identified within the Rim Fire 

Project. This includes Birch and Mud Lakes, Drew Creek, Harden Flat Ponds, 

Homestead Pond, and Hunter Creek and Ponds. Table 3 displays the habitat found in 

each specific CRLF habitat area.

Table 3. California red-legged frog habitat by area

Habitat Area

Upland Habitat

Breeding pondAcresBreeding Stream MilesNon-breeding Total AcresStanislaus NF AcresOther Federal AcresPrivate AcresStream Miles 

Birch and Mud Lakes 2897.7 2408.5 117.7 371.5 8.3 0 7.4

Drew Creek 3604.1 3360.0 0 244.0 0 1.3 10.3

Harden Flat Ponds 1526.2 845.1 0 681.1 1.0 0 6.4

Homestead Ponds 2048.9 2046.2 0 2.6 0.2 0 4.8

Hunter Creek and 

Ponds

11516.0 8395.2 954.6 2166.3 1.6 8.4 26.8

The Rim Fire severely altered the landscape of the Tuolumne River basin and in turn, the 

potential California red-legged frog habitat. The direct effects of the fire include:

• loss of upland and riparian vegetation which can result in:

o a loss of cover and moist litter for California red-legged frogs in 

upland, riparian and dispersal habitat

o an increase in water temperature, and 

• loss of soil infiltration capacity, which coupled with a loss a vegetation 

can result in:

o increased water yield and higher flows, and

o increased erosion resulting in increased sediment entering the 

stream.
17

The post-fire conditions of each of the habitat areas are discussed below.

Birch and Mud Lakes are considered potential pond breeding habitat within the Rim 

Fire Recover Project. Birch Lake is located at Camp Mather, a private property owned 

by San Francisco Recreation and Parks. Mud Lake is on Forest Service lands 

approximately 0.5 miles west of Birch Lake. These lakes are located at approximately 

4500 feet elevation, at an elevation considered atypical habitat by USFWS (Federal 

Register 2010). However, this area is one of the historic localities for the species in the 

Sierra Nevada (Federal Register 2010, Barry and Fellers 2013). The lakes occur on 

relatively flat ground near the watershed divide. Both lakes support healthy bullfrog 

(Rana catesbeiana) populations.

As shown in Table 4, the upland habitat around Birch and Mud Lakes experienced 

moderate to high vegetation burn severity (greater than 60 percent), but unburned to low 

soil burn severity. Loss of vegetation in the upland habitats translates to a loss of cover 

on more than 60 percent of the area and a reduction in suitability for California redlegged frog. The area immediately adjacent to Birch Lake was unburned or burned at low 

severity. The area around Mud Lake burned at moderate to high severity. The dispersal 

habitat between the two lakes had very low burn severity, and therefore no changes to its 

suitability. 

These lakes are located within the Lower Middle Fork Tuolumne River watershed. 

Erosion modeling using the Disturbed Water Erosion Prediction Program indicated that 

in the Lower Middle Fork Tuolumne Watershed erosion could increase from background 

levels of 0.1 to 0.5 tons per acre, to 2.9 tons per acre post fire. Any increased erosion due 

to the fire is unlikely to have added sediment to Birch and Mud Lakes due to their 

position high in the watershed. The reduction of vegetation around Mud Lake allows 

increased solar radiation and a corresponding increase in water temperature. Increased 

sunlight to the lake and increased temperatures can result in additional riparian and 

emergent vegetation at Mud Lake.

The non-breeding habitat in this area consists of 7.4 miles of perennial (Tuolumne River, 

Middle Fork Tuolumne River, and unnamed tributaries) and unnamed intermittent 

streams (Table 3). The non-breeding stream habitat is located within the Lower Middle 

Fork Tuolumne River, Tuolumne River – Poopenaut Valley, and Upper Middle Fork 

Tuolumne River watersheds. Predicted erosion rates for the Tuolumne River –

Poopenaut Valley watershed and Upper Middle Fork Tuolumne River watershed are 1.4 

and 0.9 tons per acre, respectively. Although sediment delivery into the non-breeding 

streams is expected, the exact amount is determined by several factors, including soil 

type, soil texture, hillslope steepness, ground cover quantity, and rainfall intensity. Since 

the Rim fire California has experienced a severe drought and rainfall in the area of the 

Rim Fire has been limited. Nonetheless, an increase in sediment is expected. When large 

volumes of sediment are delivered to a stream channel, habitat complexity is reduced as 

pool and run habitats fill in and the stream bottom becomes relatively uniform. In larger 

streams like the Tuolumne and Middle Fork Tuolumne Rivers, extensive sedimentation 

could occur, but major reductions in pool volume are not likely because the energy of the 
18

streamflow is enough to keep the sediment moving downstream. Increased sedimentation 

can reduce macroinvertebrate production in the stream and result in a reduction in food 

for the frog. Monitoring of stream sedimentation after the Stanislaus Complex Fire of 

1987 in this same basin indicated that sedimentation returned to pre-fire levels within one 

to five years.

Table 4. Acres of California red-legged frog upland habitat by burn severity

Habitat Area Soil Burn 

Severity

Vegetation Burn 

Severity

Birch and Mud Lakes

 high 1.7 % 48.2 %

 moderate 36.8 % 13.1 %

 low 36.7 % 13.2 %

 unburned/very low 24.8 % 25.5 %

Drew Creek

 high 4.0 % 68.4 %

 moderate 59.7 % 10.3 %

 low 26.4 % 9.5 %

 unburned/very low 9.9 % 11.8 %

Harden Flat Ponds

 high 0.8 % 18.6 %

 moderate 26.3 % 17.3 %

 low 57.1 % 27.7 %

 unburned/very low 15.8 % 36.3 %

Homestead Pond

 high 1.9 % 45.7 %

 moderate 40.5 % 14.0 %

 low 24.0 % 10.8 %

 unburned/very low 33.6 % 29.5 %

Hunter Creek and Ponds

 high 0.3 % 17.3 %

 moderate 18.5 % 12.0 %

 low 30.5 % 16.1 %

 unburned/very low 50.7 % 54.5 %

The Drew Creek habitat area includes 1.3 miles of breeding stream habitat (Drew 

Creek). Drew Creek was surveyed in 2007 following procedures described in the 

Stanislaus National Forest Streamscape Inventory (SSI) Technical Guide (USDA 2008a). 

Drew Creek is a small intermittent stream with average wetted width of 4.2 feet with 

pools averaging 1.8 feet in depth. Most of the pools had undercut banks and emergent 

vegetation. At the time of the survey Drew Creek had little riparian canopy cover as a 

result of the 2005 Tuolumne fire. Drew Creek flows through a relatively flat valley 

bottom in this area and has a low gradient. Bullfrogs are not known to be present in Drew 

Creek. This area is moderately suitable for California red-legged frogs.
19

As shown in Table 4, the upland habitat in the Drew Creek habitat area experienced 

moderate to high vegetation burn severity (80 percent) and moderate to high soil burn 

severity (greater than 60 percent). The riparian corridor adjacent to the stream was 

unburned or burned at very low severity. Loss of vegetation in the upland areas lessened 

suitability for red-legged frog. 

Drew Creek is located within the Tuolumne River - Jawbone Creek watershed. Erosion 

modeling using the Disturbed Water Erosion Prediction Program indicated that erosion 

could increase to 3.6 tons per acre post fire. This watershed has the highest predicted 

increase in erosion due to the severity of both soil and vegetation burned. It is likely 

there will be increased sediment in Drew Creek, however because the riparian area is 

intact some sediment will be filtered out before reaching the stream. In addition, after the 

Tuolumne Fire very high sedimentation occurred in Drew Creek. Surveys the year 

following the fire showed that much of the sediment that entered the stream was 

transported downstream. It is expected that any increased sediment will again be flushed 

out in one or two years, particularly with the increase in flows due to reduced soil 

infiltration and vegetation uptake of water. Water temperature is not expected to increase 

because existing riparian vegetation is largely unchanged by the Rim Fire. Dispersal 

habitat in this area would occur in an upstream-downstream context along Drew Creek 

between suitable breeding pools (Bobzien and Didonato 2007, Tatarian 2008), as no other 

breeding habitat occurs within 1 mile.

The non-breeding habitat in this area consists of 10.3 miles of perennial (Tuolumne 

River, Middle Fork Tuolumne River, and South Fork Tuolumne River) and intermittent 

streams (unnamed tributaries) (Table 3). The non-breeding stream habitat is primarily 

located within the Tuolumne River – Jawbone Creek watershed; however some nonbreeding habitat exists within the Lower Middle Fork Tuolumne River and Lower South 

Fork Tuolumne River watersheds. Predicted erosion rates for these watersheds are 2.9 

and 3.1 tons per acre, respectively. An increase in sediment is expected. As described 

above, sediment input into the Tuolumne River, Middle Fork Tuolumne River and South 

Fork Tuolumne River is expected to move through the system and return to pre-fire levels 

in 1 to 5 years.

There are two small ponds at Harden Flat that are considered potential pond breeding 

habitat within the Rim Fire Recover Project. They are located at a privately owned 

campground and RV park. The ponds occur on relatively flat ground near the Tuolumne 

River. Bullfrogs are present in the ponds. The upland area to the south of State Highway 

120 and the urbanized 20 acres north of the breeding ponds are considered unsuitable for 

red-legged frogs. The ponds have low suitability.

As shown in Table 4, the upland habitat around Harden Flat Ponds experienced unburned 

to low soil and vegetation burn severity (greater than 60 percent). Loss of vegetation in 

the upland habitats translates to a loss of cover on 35 percent of the area. This is a slight 

reduction in suitability for California red-legged frog. Suppression efforts surrounding 

the private property were successful and vegetation immediately adjacent to the ponds is 
20

largely unburned, therefore no changes to dispersal habitat suitability or temperature of 

the ponds are anticipated. 

These ponds are located within the Lower South Fork Tuolumne River watershed. 

Erosion modeling using the Disturbed Water Erosion Prediction Program indicated that 

in this watershed erosion could increase from background levels to 3.1 tons per acre post 

fire. The unburned vegetation surrounding the ponds would filter much of the sediment 

before reaching the ponds, although slight increases may occur. A slight increase in 

sediment can improve habitat for California red-legged frog tadpoles (Bobzien and 

Didonato 2007). 

The non-breeding habitat in this area consists of 6.4 miles of perennial (South Fork 

Tuolumne River, Big Creek, and unnamed tributaries) and unnamed intermittent streams 

(Table 3). The majority of the non-breeding stream habitat is located within the Lower 

South Fork Tuolumne River, with a small amount occurring in the Lower Middle Fork 

Tuolumne. Sediment delivery into the non-breeding streams is expected; however, it is 

not expected to remain in the perennial non-breeding habitat in large amounts and is 

expected to return to pre-fire levels in one to five years. Increased sedimentation of the 

non-breeding streams can reduce macroinvertebrate production in the stream and result in 

a reduction in food for post-metamorphic frogs. There is also a predicted increase in 

discharge for the South Fork Tuolumne River (Flores et al. 2013, Stewart et al. 2013) that 

can affect suitability for frogs and macroinvertebrates. 

Homestead Pond is a small, spring-fed pond located on National Forest lands within the 

Rim Fire. The pond is located at 3,100 feet in elevation. The pond occurs on relatively 

flat ground near the top of the Tuolumne River – Grapevine Creek watershed. The pond 

currently supports a large bullfrog population. Riparian vegetation surrounding the pond 

consists of sedges and the habitat suitability is considered low based on the lack of other 

nearby aquatic habitats and the presence of bullfrogs. 

As shown in Table 4, the upland habitat around Homestead Pond experienced moderate 

to high vegetation burn severity (greater than 60 percent), but unburned to low soil burn 

severity. There is no dispersal habitat associated with Homestead Pond. 

The pond is located within the Tuolumne River – Grapevine Creek watershed. Erosion 

modeling using the Disturbed Water Erosion Prediction Program indicated that erosion 

could increase 2.0 tons per acre from background post fire. The vegetation between the 

spring that feeds it and the pond is unburned. Because of this unburned vegetation and 

the pond’s location in the watershed, sediment increases to the pond are unlikely.

The non-breeding habitat in this area consists of the perennial Tuolumne River and 

unnamed intermittent streams (4.8 miles, Table CRLF2. The non-breeding stream habitat 

is located primarily within the Tuolumne River – Grapevine Creek watershed, with a 

small amount of non-breeding habitat located in the adjacent Upper North Fork Merced 

River and Big Creek watersheds of the Merced River drainage. The Rim Fire burned a 

small area of the Upper North Fork Merced River watershed (eight percent), including 
21

the headwaters of the non-breeding habitat in this watershed. Erosion was predicted to 

increase from backgrounds levels of 0.1 to 0.5 tons per acre up to 0.7 tons per acre. The 

Big Creek watershed was not burned in the Rim Fire. Sediment delivery into the nonbreeding streams is expected, although the Tuolumne River is expected to flush the 

sediment in one to five years and the increased erosion in the North Fork Merced River is 

only slightly over background levels.

The Hunter Creek habitat area is the largest considered in this analysis for California 

red-legged frog. Hunter Creek is a small to medium sized perennial stream with a 

moderate overall gradient (3 – 8%) with approximately 7.5 miles of stream that provide 

suitable breeding habitat. There are numerous long, deep, slow moving pools with roots 

from riparian vegetation to permit egg attachment. The stream flow typically diminishes 

in April and May, bringing discharge to a suitable level during CRLF breeding season. 

Hunter Creek supports a naturalized population of rainbow trout, but there are no

non-native predators (bullfrogs, centrarchid fishes) known from the watershed. In 

addition to Hunter Creek there are five ponds within the habitat area, all located on 

private lands that appear to provide suitable breeding habitat. Hunter Creek is considered 

moderately suitable for California red-legged frog.

As shown in Table 4, the upland habitat in this habitat area was largely unburned to low 

burn severity for both soil and vegetation burn severity (greater than 80 and 70 percent, 

respectively). The fire burned the upper elevation of the habitat area at the headwaters of 

Hunter Creek and the southern portion of the habitat area in the Tuolumne River –

Grapevine Creek watershed. Over 47 percent of the habitat area is outside the Rim Fire 

perimeter. The five ponds all occur within the fire area. The area around Pond 1 (section 

18 north of Hunter Creek) was unburned or burned at low soil burn severity with up to 50 

percent loss of basal area. The area around Pond 2 (section 17 north of Hunter Creek) in 

unburned or has low vegetation and soil burn severity. The dispersal habitat between 

these ponds has unburned or low soil burn severity with a loss of vegetation basal area up 

to 50 percent while the intermittent channel that connects these ponds to Hunter Creek 

was mixed in burn severity. The areas around Pond 3 (Section 20 at Round Meadow) 

remained unburned or burned at low severity for both soil and vegetation, while at Pond 4 

soil burn severity was moderate and vegetation lost 50 to 100 percent of the basal area. 

The area between the ponds at Round Meadow burned at low to moderate soil burn 

severity with 50 to 100 percent basal area loss. Pond 5 is located on Rogge Ranch and 

had unburned to low soil burn severity and vegetation loss of 0 to 50 percent of the basal 

area. There is no dispersal habitat for Pond 5 as it is greater than 1 mile from other 

breeding habitat. 

Hunter Creek and ponds 1 and 2 are within the Lower North Fork Tuolumne River 

watershed where erosion was predicted to increase to 0.9 tons per acre. Ponds 3, 4 and 5 

are located within the Tuolumne River – Grapevine Creek watershed where erosion is 

predicted to increase to 2.0 tons per acre. Sediment at the headwaters of Hunter Creek is 

expected to increase slightly, however the sediment is expected to be washed downstream 

fairly quickly due to the gradient of the stream (three to eight percent) and the increased 

water flow from tributary input as you move downstream through the breeding habitat. 
22

Sediment is likely to increase in ponds 1, 2 and 5. Ponds three and four are located in the 

upper portion of the watershed and vegetation burned at low to moderate severity, so 

sediment delivery into the ponds is not expected.

The non-breeding habitat in this area consists of 26.8 miles of perennial streams (Hunter 

Creek, North Fork Tuolumne River) and intermittent streams (Duckwall Creek, 

Grapevine Creek, and unnamed tributaries) (Table 3). The non-breeding stream habitat is 

found within both the Lower North Fork Tuolumne River and Tuolumne River –

Grapevine Creek watersheds. Predicted erosion rates are 0.9 and 2.0 tons per acres, 

respectively. Sediment increases in the non-breeding habitat are expected, however will 

likely be flushed from the system in one to two years. In non-breeding habitat outside the 

fire there will be no increase in sediment. 

Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog

Species Account

The SNYLF inhabits high elevation lakes, ponds, marshes, meadows, tarns, and streams. 

They are highly aquatic at all lifestages and are more commonly associated with deep 

water habitats (greater than 2 meters or 6.5 feet) that lack introduced fish. While the frog 

populations show a positive correlation with deep water habitats (Knapp 2005), both 

tadpoles and adults are most commonly found along open, gently sloping shorelines that 

provide shallow waters of only 5 to 8 centimeters (2 to 3 inches) in depth (Mullally and 

Cunningham 1956, Jennings and Hayes 1994, Federal Register 2013). 

At lower elevations within their historical range, the frog is associated with rocky streams 

and wet meadows surrounded by coniferous forests (Zweifel 1955). Streams utilized by 

adults vary from high gradients with numerous pools, rapids, and small waterfalls, to 

streams with low gradients and slow flows, marshy edges, and sod banks (Zweifel 1955). 

Aquatic substrates vary from bedrock to fine sand, rubble rock fragments, and boulders 

(Zweifel 1955). The SNYLF is rarely found exclusively in small or ephemeral streams 

which typically lack sufficient depth and hydroperiods for adequate refuge and 

overwintering habitat (Jennings and Hayes 1994). However, these small streams at lower 

elevations locally provide suitable habitat for post-metamorphic life stages, especially 

when they maintain permanent water.

The timing of breeding varies annually, but occurs shortly after snowmelt and typically 

between May and July. Females lay clutches varying from 15 to 350 eggs per mass 

(Vredenburg et al. 2005) attached to rocks, gravel, and vegetation or under banks (Pope

1999). Eggs hatch in about 2.5 to 3 weeks (Pope 1999). Tadpoles often require 2 to 4 

years to reach metamorphosis (Bradford et al. 1993, Knapp and Matthews 2000) 

depending on local climate conditions and site-specific variables. In high mountain lakes, 

adult frogs typically move only a few hundred meters (Matthews and Pope 2001, Pope 

1999), but single-season distances of up to 3.3 kilometers (2.05 miles) have been 

recorded along streams (Wengert 2008). Adults may move between selected breeding, 

feeding, and overwintering habitats during the course of the year. Though typically found 

near water, occasional overland movements by adults of over 66 meters (217 feet) have 
23

been recorded (Pope 1999). The farthest reported movement distance from water is 400 

meters (1,300 feet) (Federal Register 2013). 

The SNYLF has been found throughout the Stanislaus National Forest at elevations 

between 5,400 feet and 9,700 feet. Survey records from 1993 to 2013 indicate the frog is 

associated with streams, streams or potholes in meadows, and lakes. SNYLF occurrences 

on the STF are most commonly found in high elevation (alpine) lake habitats. There are 

three occurrence records on the forest below 7,000 feet in elevation, Skull Creek (5,400 

feet), Moore Creek (6,300 feet), and Snow Canyon Creek (6,550 feet). The Skull Creek 

occurrence is potentially extirpated based on multiple recent surveys with non-detections, 

while the Moore and Snow Canyon Creek populations have been recently confirmed as 

extant. Within the fire perimeter, 221 aquatic visual encounter surveys have been 

conducted including 99 surveys within the documented elevational range (between 4,500 

and 6,500 feet in elevation, Appendix 4, Map 4a). The surveys covered a range of stream 

sizes from 1st to 4th order and included approximately 70 discrete streams or sections of 

streams. Most surveys occurred when the frogs would have been active: eighty-nine 

surveys were conducted between 6 June and 19 September and 10 surveys were 

conducted after 28 September. No SNYLF (extant or historic) have been found within 

the Rim Fire Perimeter according to STF or CNDDB records. 

There are three current or historically occupied localities in the vicinity (within 5 miles) 

of the Rim Fire perimeter: Snow Canyon Creek, Bourland Creek, and an unnamed creek 

in Yosemite National Park. Snow Canyon Creek is a tributary to Cherry Creek 

immediately upstream of Cherry Lake, located along the northern edge of the fire at an 

elevation of 6,600 feet, and approximately 1.5 miles northeast of the nearest harvest 

units. Portions of the stream were within the fire perimeter, but the known occupied 

reach was not directly affected by the fire. Bourland Creek is also located along the 

northern edge of the fire perimeter, and like Snow Canyon Creek, the known occupied 

portion of the stream was not directly affected by the fire. A small population of frogs 

has been documented in in creek running through Bourland Meadow at an elevation of 

approximately 7,000 feet. The occupied site is approximately 3.5 miles north of the 

nearest harvest units. An unnamed creek near Laurel Lake in Yosemite National Park 

(approximately two miles east of Lake Eleanor and three miles north of Hetch Hetchy 

reservoir) apparently supports a population of SNYLF (CNDDB 2014) at an elevation of 

6,480 feet and is approximately 4.5 miles east of the nearest harvest unit.

Habitat Account

The SNYLF is associated with a variety of aquatic habitats including wet meadows, 

streams, and lakes (Vredenburg et al. 2005). Highest summer densities and overall total 

numbers are found in lakes lacking introduced fish, possessing high numbers of Hyla 

regilla tadpoles, more than 1 meter in depth, and near-shore habitat with warm water 

temperatures (Matthews and Pope 2001). Deep water habitats (greater than 5.4 feet (1.7 

meters)) provide the best opportunity for annual survival of adults and their multi-year 

tadpoles because complete freezing, very low dissolved oxygen conditions, and regular 

drying are factors that affect the ability of a water body to support all life stages. 
24

Egg masses are attached to streambed substrates or submergent/emergent vegetation or 

under banks. Once the embryos develop into tadpoles, the tadpoles utilize shallow, warm 

water for thermoregulation, foraging, and growth. If disturbed, the tadpoles rapidly 

retreat from shallow water and hide in deeper water, in mud, under rocks, or in 

vegetation. As noted earlier, deep water that does not freeze regularly to the bottom of 

the water body is required to allow the tadpoles to develop to metamorphosis.

During the active season (May through October), post-metamorphic individuals use a 

variety of habitats ranging from shallow snowmelt pools to streams connecting lakes and 

ponds to deep water lakes. Matthews and Preisler (2010) indicated site fidelity was high 

among individuals found in breeding, foraging, and overwintering habitats. Dispersal 

between these sites is not limited to aquatic routes. Although these frogs are often seen 

within a meter or two of water they can make terrestrial movements between suitable 

habitats up to one kilometer. Post-metamorphic individuals have been locally observed 

basking in full sun or on the water’s surface, hiding under streambanks, logs, or in 

herbaceous riparian vegetation, and lying at the bottom of lakes/ponds in deeper water. 

Adult and subadult frogs likely avoid freezing in the winter by utilizing underwater 

crevices in deep waters (Matthews and Pope 2001). 

SNYLF home range varies throughout the year and by individual. In August, home range 

can vary from a little under 20 square meters to over 1,000 square meters. Home ranges 

are largest in September (53 to 9,807 square meters) which likely accounts for foraging 

movements. By October, home ranges are very small (3.2 to 82 square meters) as frogs 

settle into overwintering habitat (Matthews and Pope 2001).

Additional information defining suitable habitat has been provided by the Federal 

Register (2013) and is briefly summarized here. The three essential habitats required by 

the frog include suitable aquatic breeding, aquatic non-breeding, and upland habitat. 

Suitable aquatic breeding habitat includes: 1) permanent water bodies (or those connected 

or close to permanent waters) that are 2) deep enough to prevent freezing in winter, 3) 

support a natural flow pattern, 4) be free of fish or other introduced predators, and 5) 

regularly maintain water persistence to allow for tadpole development. Aquatic nonbreeding habitats share many of the characteristics breeding habitats do, but they may 

lack adequate water depth to allow for completion of the species life cycle. Upland 

habitats include both immediate riparian areas around aquatic habitats (25 meters from 

the edge of water) and areas between suitable breeding habitats, and watershed-wide 

areas that provide the quantity and quality of water needed by the frog.

Two methods were used to identify suitable habitat within the project area and included a 

desk and/or field review of suitable habitats above 5,000 feet within the fire perimeter 

and subsequent application of the species distribution model developed by Roland 

Knapp. This model used historic and current occurrences to develop a predictive habitat 

model for the historical probability of occurrence of the SNYLF within the known 

historical range (Roland Knapp, personal communication). The forest’s aquatic survey 

database was queried for all streams in and adjacent to the fire perimeter. For the waters 

within the range of the frog, physical habitat survey information was reviewed if 

available to determine whether pool habitat was deep enough to allow for successful 
25

tadpole rearing. Suitable breeding habitat is defined in the Federal Register (2013) as 

having water depths greater than 5.6 feet. For the Rim Fire Recovery project, this 

definition was modified to include water depths greater than 4 feet to account for local 

conditions applicable to occupied sites in lower elevation streams. The lowest elevation 

occurrences on the forest (see Species Account) are all associated with deep (greater than 

4 feet), low gradient (less than 2 percent) stream sections and most are also associated 

with meadows (except Moore Creek). Small (1st or 2nd order), steep (average gradient 

greater than 6 percent), and isolated (did not connect to a logical breeding habitat) 

headwater streams were discounted as being suitable breeding habitat because field data 

indicate they do not have sufficient water depth. This method identified potentially 

suitable habitat within the Rim Fire perimeter. 

The second method used included the application of the SNYLF range map developed by 

Roland Knapp. We overlaid the range map with the fire perimeter and identified the 

overlapping streams and other aquatic features. These streams are consistent to previous 

determinations of suitable habitat for the frog and include the upper portion of Reynolds 

Creek, two ponds on Kibbie Ridge, a short section of Eleanor Creek below Lake Eleanor, 

and a portion of the Middle Fork Tuolumne River. These four suitable habitats are 

described below.

Reynolds Creek 

Aquatic Breeding, Rearing and Non-breeding Habitat: Reynolds Creek is one of the 

main tributaries to Reed Creek, a tributary of the Clavey River. The portion of Reynolds 

Creek within the range of the SNYLF (using the Knapp distribution model) lies almost 

entirely within an 8th level HUC (hydrologic unit code) and provides approximately 4.3 

miles of mapped perennial channel and 1.9 miles of mapped intermittent channel. 

Approximately 0.9 miles of the perennial channel is 2nd order, with the remainder being 

1st order stream. Average gradient in the 2nd order reach is 2.0 percent (range 1.2 to 3.6 

percent), but the average gradient in the 1st order tributaries ranges from 8.4 to 24.4 

percent. In July 2008, pool measurements, including pool depth, were taken along 

approximately three miles of the mainstem from an elevation of 5,720 to 6,160 feet. Both 

of the headwater tributaries were also surveyed during this time (up to an elevation of 

6,920 feet). Average pool depth in the 2nd order section was 0.65 feet (range 0.3 to 1.5 

meters (1 to 5 feet)). Of the 76 pools measured in the 2nd order section, 14 (18 percent) 

were over 1.0 meter in depth. The depths and pool frequency indicate the stream could 

potentially support the SNYLF. In the two headwater tributaries, pool depths were much 

lower on average (0.5 meters) and did not have any pools greater than one meter in depth. 

The overall habitat suitability in Reynolds Creek is considered to be very low because the 

stream supports a self-sustaining trout population where there is low gradient (less than 4 

percent), deep water (greater than 1.0 meter) and does not maintain deep, permanent 

water (average depth 0.3 meters) in the fishless sections.

The fire affected approximately 80 acres of the 1,930 acre 8th level HUC, or 4 percent of 

the watershed. Fire severity in was generally low with 58 percent in the low burn 

severity class (less than 25 percent tree mortality), 32 percent in the low-moderate class 

(25 to 50 percent mortality), 6 percent in the moderate class (50 to 75 percent mortality), 

and 4 percent in the high mortality class. Post-fire increases in erosion are expected to be 
26

very small, if detectable, due to the low amount of fire in the higher vegetation burn 

severity classes and the high levels of ground cover and tree canopy remaining in the 

burned portion of the watershed. For the lightly burned areas, the scorched needles were 

dropped by the trees and very high levels of ground cover (greater than 70 percent) are 

present to limit erosion. Also, the main patch (12 acres) of higher burn severity is located 

over 0.5 miles from the creek, and the high levels of ground cover in between the creek 

and fire area should be effective at minimizing the sediment delivery to the stream 

associated with surface and rill erosion. 

Upland Habitat: There are approximately 85 acres of upland habitat adjacent to the 

perennial stream sections of Reynolds Creek and an additional 38 acres adjacent to the 

intermittent streams within the distribution range of the frog. Approximately 12 acres of 

upland habitat was affected by the fire. All of the 25 meter SNYLF upland area burned 

in the lowest two severity classes and there was very little loss of riparian shading. There 

was some loss of ground level cover (logs, herbaceous vegetation, shrubs), but adequate 

levels remain and habitat suitability was slightly reduced from high to moderate. 

Approximately 0.4 miles of perennial suitable habitat and 0.2 miles of intermittent 

channel are within the fire perimeter. As discussed earlier, post-fire increases in 

sedimentation in all of the Reynolds Creek watershed affected by the fire are expected to 

be very minor.

Kibbie Ridge Area

This area includes two ponds situated near the top of Kibbie Ridge, Big and Little Kibbie 

Ponds, and a short section of Eleanor Creek. 

Big Kibbie Pond

Aquatic Breeding, Rearing and Non-breeding Habitat: Big Kibbie Pond is 

approximately 0.7 acre in size and fish-free, providing approximately 0.15 miles (234 

meters) of shoreline at an elevation of 5,400 feet. No physical habitat assessments have 

been completed for Big Kibbie Pond but aquatic amphibian and reptile visual encounter 

surveys report an average depth of 3.6 feet (43 inches) and the estimated maximum depth 

is less than 6 feet. There is little to no canopy and ample basking opportunities are 

present. Submergent aquatic grasses and algae dominate the vegetation on the shallow 

banks. Half of the water’s surface is covered by lilies at times of the year. Big Kibbie 

Pond provides moderate to high suitability breeding habitat because water is deep enough 

to maintain aquatic habitat perennially in almost all years and prevent freezing solid. The 

only limitation to the pond is that water depth can be less than 3 feet by the end of 

summer even in wetter than average years. If the pond does not fill prior to the onset of 

winter, then water depth may not be adequate to prevent freezing during cold weather 

(the pond likely fills during snowmelt). The hydrology of the pond is apparently 

influenced by groundwater because there are no defined inlet or outlet streams. 

Big Kibbie Pond sits close to the top a ridge and there is a limited potential for 

measurable increases in post-fire sedimentation because of the lack of a drainage network 

leading into the pond, and the slopes adjacent to the pond are very low ( less than 3 

percent) enough to prevent overland transport of sediment to the pond. The habitat 
27

suitability will remain unchanged in the post-fire environment. Big Kibbie pond has been 

surveyed six times since 2004 and SNYLF have not been detected. Four of the surveys 

(2004) were tied to California red-legged frog surveys where two day visits (June 29 and 

July 14) and two night visits (July 1 and 14) were made. The pond was also surveyed on 

June 16, 2008 and April 11, 2014. The other waters near the pond that provide some type 

of aquatic habitat include Cherry Lake and Lake Eleanor, both of which are unsuitable 

for supporting a frog population per considerations listed in the Federal Register (2013). 

Big Kibbie Pond is considered to be unoccupied because multiple surveys have been 

conducted in the past ten years without a detection of the SNYLF (see Species Account 

section).

Upland Habitat: Within 25 meters of Big Kibbie Pond there are approximately 3 acres 

of potential upland habitat. Additionally, there are 2.5 acres of upland habitat between 

Big and Little Kibbie Ponds because they are within 150 meters of each other. The 

primary CWHR vegetation types are Sierran Mixed Conifer (41 percent), Montane 

Chaparral (38 percent), and Perennial Grassland (20 percent). The upland habitat mainly

burned at moderate to high severity (94 percent combined) and will have low suitability 

for at least 5 years due to the low amount of existing ground cover. Some boulders and 

downed woody debris remain as cover objects.

Little Kibbie Pond

Aquatic Breeding, Rearing and Non-breeding Habitat: Little Kibbie Pond is 

approximately 0.6 acre in size, fish-free, and located at approximately 5,400 feet. No 

physical habitat assessments have been completed for Little Kibbie Pond, but amphibian 

and reptile visual encounter surveys (2004, 2008, 2014) report an average depth of 20 

inches (1.7 feet) with very little canopy cover provided by surrounding conifers. The 

pond was almost dry during the April 2014 survey. Short herbaceous vegetation covers 

the banks and shallow areas of the pond. Breeding habitat suitability is low due to its 

shallow depth and complete drying in average and below precipitation years. The pond 

does provide high quality non-breeding aquatic habitat due to its close proximity to Big 

Kibbie Pond (approximately 125 meters to the north) and lack of predatory fish. 

Approximately 73 percent of the vegetation in the Little Kibbie Ponds watershed burned 

at high severity; however, because the pond sits atop a ridge, there are no defined inlet 

streams, and the hillslopes adjacent to the pond are low gradient, there is a very low 

likelihood that the pond will receive any measurable levels of sedimentation from the 

effects of the Rim Fire. Therefore, the aquatic habitat suitability will remain unaffected 

by the fire. The survey history for Little Kibbie Pond is the same as that given for Big 

Kibbie Pond and Little Kibbie Pond is assumed to be unoccupied by the frog. 

Upland Habitat: Within 25 meters of Little Kibbie Pond there are approximately 1.5

acres of upland habitat. There are 2.5 additional upland habitat acres connecting Big and 

Little Kibbie Ponds because they lie within 150 meters of each other. The primary WHR 

vegetation types are Sierran Mixed Conifer (54 percent) and Montane Chaparral (40

percent). Vegetation in the upland habitat primarily burned at moderate to high severity 

(85 percent combined) and the habitat will have low suitability for at least 5 years due to 

the limited amount of cover.
28

Eleanor Creek

Aquatic Breeding, Rearing and Non-breeding Habitat: There is approximately one 

mile of Eleanor Creek downstream of Eleanor Dam within the range (using the Knapp 

distribution model) of the frog and 0.5 miles is on the STF within the fire perimeter. The 

elevation ranges of these sections of stream are from 4,320 to 4,610 feet and 4,320 to 

4,420 feet for the 1.0 and 0.5 mile reaches, respectively. This section of stream on the 

STF is below the lower elevation range of the species (4,500 feet) listed in the Federal 

Register (2013), but is within the Knapp distribution range. The creek below the dam 

provides very low suitability habitat for the SNYLF because the streamflow is regulated 

by an upstream dam, there is a self-sustaining population of introduced trout, and is at or 

below the lower elevation range of the frog. As noted in the Federal Register (2013), the 

presence of dams greatly reduces habitat suitability, potentially rendering them 

unsuitable, through habitat fragmentation, creation of migration barriers, alteration of 

hydrology (irregular and unseasonal flows), and maintenance of introduced fish 

populations. There is a very low likelihood of occupancy based on the factors identified 

above.

The portion of the Eleanor Creek watershed downstream of the dam and extending to the 

STF boundary burned at high or very high severity. This suggests that the steeper 

hillslopes adjacent to the stream are exceptionally vulnerable to post-fire erosional 

processes and extensive sedimentation of slower water habitats is likely. Deep water 

should be maintained in the pools of higher gradient (>8 percent) sections of stream and 

there would be adequate habitat available to individuals.

Upland Habitat: There are approximately ten acres of upland habitat within 25 meters 

of the section of stream on the STF and 22 acres of upland along the one mile of stream 

below Eleanor Dam. Greater than 95 percent of the upland area burned at high or very 

high vegetation severity which suggests most of the upland cover was eliminated by the 

fire. As such, the upland habitat suitability was greatly reduced and currently provides 

low to low-moderate suitability habitat for the frog. Some refuge habitat is available in 

the crevices of rocks along the stream, but very little woody or herbaceous obligate 

riparian vegetation is present.

Middle Fork Tuolumne River

Aquatic Breeding, Rearing and Non-breeding Habitat: There is approximately 1.1 

mile of the Middle Fork Tuolumne River (MFTR) and 0.4 mile of intermittent tributary 

streams on Forest Service lands that is also within the range (using the Knapp distribution 

model) of the species. The MFTR covers an elevation range of approximately 4,600 to 

4,900 feet, and the tributaries extend to elevations of approximately 5,200 feet on Forest 

Service lands. The MFTR is a free-flowing tributary to the Tuolumne River and 

originates in Yosemite National Park (YNP). Breeding habitat suitability in the MFTR is 

very low due to a self-sustaining population of trout which extends several miles into 

YNP. Because this section of the MFTR is well below the lowest known populations on 

the forest, a self-sustaining population of introduced trout has been present for 
29

approximately 100 years, and this relatively large river is atypical of SNYLF habitat at 

lower elevations, it is unlikely that the river on the STF is occupied by SNYLF. 

The upper MFTR watershed was extensively affected by the Rim Fire. The Upper 

MFTR 6th level HUC watershed is approximately 31,354 acres in size. Approximately 

54% of the watershed (17,028 acres) was affected by the fire with most of the unburned 

area located in the upper portion of the watershed. In the portion of the watershed 

affected by the fire (STF and YNP combined), vegetation burn severity ranged from 

5,041 combined acres of very low and low severity (30 percent), 3,228 acres of moderate 

severity (19 percent), and 8,759 acres of high severity (51 percent). The amount of area 

affected by high and moderate severity fire is high enough that moderate to high levels of 

sedimentation should affect the main channel of the MFTR in the next two to five years. 

While some sedimentation of slow water habitats is expected, the high annual snowmelt 

flows will be effective at maintaining deep water non-breeding habitat areas suitable for 

the SNYLF. The anticipated increase in sedimentation would not affect the overall 

habitat suitability because of the factors identified above or likelihood of occupancy in 

the next five years. 

Upland Habitat: There are approximately 1,508 acres of suitable upland habitat in the 

Upper MFTR 6th level HUC and 954 acres of suitable upland habitat within the fire 

perimeter. On STF lands, there are approximately 22 acres of suitable upland habitat 

adjacent to the MFTR and 8 acres of upland habitat adjacent to the 0.4 mile of 

intermittent stream. Burn severity within the upland area was variable, but moderate and 

high severity was most common (>45 percent) within this habitat type. The mosaic of 

burn severity indicates that some patches of moderate to moderate-high suitability habitat 

are present along the MFTR and the intermittent tributaries, but habitat suitability was 

reduced to low to moderate in the higher burn severity areas. As with Eleanor Creek, 

extensive boulder and bedrock areas adjacent to the stream provide cover within the 

upland habitat.

Forest Service Sensitive Species

Foothill yellow-legged frog

Species account

The following watersheds affected by the Rim Fire are known to support breeding 

populations of the foothill yellow-legged frogs: Basin Creek, Bull Creek, Bull Meadow 

Creek, Drew Creek, Grapevine Creek, Hunter Creek, Moore Creek, Clavey River, North 

Fork Merced River, North Fork Tuolumne River, and Tuolumne River. Also, the frog 

(post-metamorphic stages) has been found in several small unnamed tributary streams to 

the Clavey River and these populations may reflect behavioral dispersal away from 

breeding areas in the Clavey River. For the other remaining streams with breeding 

populations, it is reasonable to assume that dispersal occurs in tributaries close to the 

breeding areas.

Local observations indicate the frog is typically found at elevations lower than 4,000 feet 

and most of these observations were of post-metamorphic individuals. The highest 
30

known elevation breeding population on the forest is in the North Fork Tuolumne River 

(3,000 feet) and this is probably the upper elevation extent for breeding for the larger 

streams on the forest. This is because the developmental period between eggmass and 

metamorphosis is dependent upon water temperatures and it is unlikely that there is 

sufficient developmental time above this elevation. The maximum elevation for the 

species is considered to be 4,200 feet for adults and subadults in tributary streams near 

breeding sites.

A query of the UCMVZ database listed a 1962 occurrence of the frog at Colfax Springs

on private land located two miles east of the project area, and a 1948 occurrence at 

Harden Flat (private land) on the South Fork Tuolumne River within the project area. 

The CNDDB also lists the FYLF occurrence at Bull Creek. 

Habitat account

Perennial water is needed by the FYLF because it is rarely found far from water. This 

frog is typically associated with several types of streams based on life history aspects. 

Adults can occur along the margins of large and small streams for the entire year, sitting 

under sedges and grasses at streamside, wedged in the cracks of boulders, or perched on 

wood or rocks near the stream. However, some adults and subadults may disperse from 

the breeding sites to small tributary streams (Kupferberg 1996) and seem to use similar 

habitat elements as just noted. Perennial water in these tributary waters typically is 

provided by perennial streams and intermittent streams with deeper pools or geologic 

contact zones where water surfaces in the channel. We have observations of adults lying 

on the bottom of the stream during cold weather apparently avoiding colder air 

temperatures (and/or wind chill). All post-metamorphic individuals will find basking 

sites in the sun during part of the day as part of their thermoregulation process.

The frog breeds near cobble bars in large rivers (Kupferberg 1996) like the Clavey River 

or in slower moving run habitat in close proximity to a pool in smaller streams (ex. 

Hunter Creek, personal observations). The timing of breeding depends on several 

factors, some of which are determined by the size of stream in which the breeding occurs. 

In larger streams originating in snowpack dominated elevations, the frogs wait until the 

seasonal pulse of high water begins to recede and water temperatures rise to around 60 

degrees Fahrenheit. Locally, this timing begins in May, peaks in early to mid-June, and 

extends into July during colder or high water years. In smaller streams without snowpack 

dominated flows, breeding seems dependent on day length and water temperature (also 

approaching 60o F) and may occur as early as April in some streams. In both stream 

types, the timing of breeding is such that the negative effects of rapidly rising water 

levels reduce the risk of the eggmasses being scoured away by high flows. Also, the 

slowly receding water levels allow the developing tadpoles to gradually follow the warm 

water habitat found in water along the edges of the stream. The females attach egg 

masses to the downstream side of larger substrates (cobbles and boulders) and may 

prepare the surface of the substrate by scraping the surface with the hind legs to improve 

egg adhesion (Wheeler et al. 2003, Rombough and Hayes 2005). The presence of 

emergent rocks may be an important factor in providing eggmass attachment sites with 

low velocity habitats available on the downstream side of the rock (Kupferberg 1996). 
31

There is a good indication that there is a high degree of site-fidelity for breeding as 

indicated by decades of repeated use at the same location (Kupferberg 1996, Lind 2005). 

Eggs hatch as quickly as 1-2 weeks or as long as 5 weeks, depending on water 

temperature. 

Immediately upon hatching, tadpoles drop from the eggmass and remain relatively close 

to the mass for the first week or so. As they begin to forage and increase in size, they 

disperse to a broader area in search of food and to potentially reduce predation risk. 

Tadpoles require shallow water for foraging on the algae growing on substrates and 

deeper water with inter-substrate crevices for escape refuge. The tadpoles feed on 

algae/epiphytic diatoms (attached to other plants or algae) growing on rocky substrates, 

vegetation, or on masses growing in pools in intermittent streams. We have observed 

tadpoles in an advanced stage (with hind legs) remaining motionless in shallow water and 

can only guess that this strategy minimizes physical exertion while the tail is being 

resorbed and metamorphosis becomes complete. Tadpoles metamorphose locally in early 

fall and can usually be detected at breeding sites in September and October. Little is 

known about the dispersal of recently metamorphosed individuals (yearlings) from 

breeding habitat. They could migrate upstream or into the surrounding upland in close 

proximity to the stream’s edge. Juveniles or subadults can be found in a variety of 

habitats from open cobble bars along streams that support breeding to small tributary 

streams inhabited by dispersing adults. Their habitat requirements seem to parallel those 

of adults.

For all life stages, two habitat elements seem to be of particular importance: deep water 

in pools (>1-2 feet) and sediment free spaces between stream substrates (rocks). For 

post-metamorphic individuals in non-breeding habitats, individuals tend to be found more 

regularly adjacent to deeper water habitats. This deep water is a refuge when a frog is 

evading an actual or perceived predation event. The frogs jump from the water’s edge 

and swim to the bottom, frequently burying themselves in silty substrates or hiding in the 

spaces under rocks. Tadpoles similarly use the spaces under rocks when frightened as a 

refuge habitat. 

Other habitat elements that have some bearing on habitat suitability include dense 

herbaceous vegetation growth on the streambanks (sedges and grasses), stream shading 

from woody riparian vegetation, larger substrates for attaching egg masses, and 

predictable streamflow. The vegetation serves as overhead cover, potentially reduces 

predation risk, and may provide terrestrial food sources for post-metamorphic 

individuals. Substrates for egg attachment are hard to define because they are typically

located in relatively shallow water and there must be a water velocity cue (near zero 

velocity) that the adults use in choosing a breeding site (Lind 2005). This choice likely 

allows the tadpoles to drop out of the eggmass in areas with food resources and without 

being washed downstream. Predictable streamflow is related to a gradual recession of 

seasonal high flow, and, while peaks of increased streamflow may occur, modest changes 

in flow can occur daily with very gradual increases and decreases. These daily 

fluctuations are important because if they occur too quickly, they could result in tadpoles 
32

being washed downstream (increased flow) or stranding in shallow water habitats 

(decreased flow). 

Habitat suitability models have not been constructed for all life stages of the FYLF, but 

habitat suitability criteria have been developed for eggmass and tadpole life stages 

(Yarnell et al. 2011). However, these criteria were developed for large rivers like the 

Clavey and were intended to be used to quantify suitable breeding habitat using available 

modeling techniques. We did consider the criteria needed for breeding and tadpole 

rearing in assessing the existing environment and addressing the affected environment, 

but did not strictly apply them because we know that the Clavey River supports breeding 

in the lower reaches of the river and the criteria developed by Yarnell, et al. (2011) do not 

address habitats needed by other life stages. 

Suitable aquatic habitat was identified as all intermittent and perennial streams lower than 

4,200 feet in elevation. This elevation limit applies to adults and subadults dispersing

away from breeding habitats. The elevation limit for breeding habitat used is 4,000 feet 

in small streams (watershed area <2,500 acres) and 3,500 feet for larger rivers and 

streams. These limits were derived from the existing information we have in our survey 

database. Since the frogs are primarily known to use a narrow riparian area along the 

stream, an upland habitat area extending 30 feet from both edges of the stream was used. 

Table 3 shows the amount of suitable habitat in key streams within the project area. 

The following sections describe what is known about the post-fire condition of the 

streams supporting breeding populations of the FYLF and streams providing suitable 

habitat for the frog. Burn severity mapping done post-fire was primarily used to identify 

near stream and watershed level impacts to upland vegetation. As will be discussed later 

in the document, the extent of high severity fire has the greatest potential to impact 

important habitat elements, whereas, moderate and low severity fire have less potential to 

impact those elements. The description of streams occupied by the FYLF and providing 

suitable habitat for the frog are categorized by the primary watershed they drain into. 

This section is broken down into the Tuolumne River, North Fork Tuolumne River, 

Clavey River, and North Fork Merced River. Tributaries specific to each of these 

watersheds are grouped again at these four levels. So, small, direct tributaries to the 

Tuolumne (examples, Grapevine Creek, Drew Creek) are included in the Tuolumne River 

heading and described following the description of the Tuolumne River.

Tuolumne River

The Tuolumne River is the main watershed the Rim Fire affected. The Tuolumne is the 

largest tributary to the San Joaquin River and its headwaters are in Yosemite National 

Park. Above Don Pedro Reservoir, the Tuolumne has a watershed area of approximately 

819,000 acres and there are over 30 miles of mainstem river on the Stanislaus National 

Forest between the Yosemite National Park boundary and the high water mark at Don 

Pedro reservoir. There is an additional 6.5 miles between the forest boundary and the 

base of O’Shaughnessy Dam. The geomorphology of the Tuolumne is controlled by 

bedrock as described for the Clavey.
33

The runoff in the river is primarily attributable to snowpack, but the hydrology of 

Tuolumne is altered by dams on the Tuolumne (O’Shaughnessy Dam) and Cherry Creek. 

Stream flow in the Tuolumne between O’Shaughnessy dam and Early Intake is 

determined by negotiated flows based on water years (for example, wet, normal, dry). 

These flows do not mimic natural streamflow, but the flows do increase and subside 

seasonally at predictable rates. At present, the San Francisco Public Utilities 

Commission is in the process of negotiating a new set of seasonal releases for the river 

below Hetch Hetchy. Using geomorphic and biological criteria to inform this process, 

the new flows would better mimic the natural hydrograph and benefit multiple 

downstream resources in this reach.

Below the Cherry Creek confluence, stream flows are far more variable on a daily basis, 

especially during the period from late spring through summer, due to releases to 

accommodate recreational boating. Relatively large pulses of water are released daily 

through Holm Powerhouse and the rate at which the flows increase and decrease are 

fairly abrupt. Also, the water temperature in the reach from Cherry Creek to Don Pedro 

is widely divergent from unregulated streamflow because the water being released 

originates deep in the water profile where temperatures are quite cold. By late summer 

and continuing into the fall, stream flow more closely resembles baseflow conditions and 

water temperatures begin to warm up.

As noted earlier, the Tuolumne River has several large watersheds that drain into the 

main river. These include the North, Middle, and South Forks of the Tuolumne, the 

Clavey River, and Cherry Creek (including Eleanor Creek). The next group of smaller 

watersheds that drain into the mainstem include Big Creek, Corral Creek, and Jawbone 

Creek. 

The extent and severity of fire within the watershed is generally described (preceding and 

following this account) at the larger and smaller scales of the individual subwatersheds. 

For the main portion of the Tuolumne River canyon and the very small subwatersheds 

that are direct tributaries to the Tuolumne, the following generalization is made about 

how the Rim Fire affected the canyon. It appears that high vegetation severity fire 

impacted the majority (>60%) of the inner canyon for most of the length within the fire 

perimeter, especially on the north side (south facing) of the canyon. Burn severity was 

more moderate along the immediate stream edge and the burn severity mapping was 

confirmed with the aerial imagery. However, it is reasonable to assume that much of the 

obligate woody and herbaceous vegetation was greatly reduced due to the fire.

There is one known breeding population of FYLF on the Tuolumne and is located a short 

distance upstream of Early Intake. This population was discovered during surveys in 

2008 (subadult) and additional observations have been made of tadpoles during surveys 

in 2010 and 2012 (Mike Horvath, SFPUC, personal communication). The population 

size at this location is assumed to be very small. The remainder of the Tuolumne River 

upstream of this locality is suitable for the FYLF and the river provides 36.5 miles of 

suitable habitat below 3,500 feet in elevation.
34

The following streams are not known to be occupied by the FYLF, but they are within the 

elevation range of the species and provide suitable habitat for the species.

Alder Creek is a small tributary that enters the Tuolumne just upstream of the Clavey. It 

has a watershed area of approximately 1,525 acres, and mapping indicates approximately 

5.5 miles of intermittent channel. A 2013 field visit to this site during the first days of the 

Rim Fire indicated perennial water in a 0.1 mile reach of the river beginning where the 

stream starts its descent into the Tuolumne River. Post-fire imagery reveals this area as 

bright green, suggesting it either did not burn or the herbaceous riparian species were 

regrowing, thus indicating a high water table. While occupancy is unknown in Alder 

Creek, there were several deep pools in this perennial reach that provide suitable habitat 

for the FYLF. The hydrology of the stream is governed by rainfall. Gradient is low 

(<4%) above the river canyon and high (>25%) as it descends to the river. 

The entire watershed is within the fire perimeter and the following vegetation burn 

severities were calculated for the watershed: very low to low (4% or 68 acres), moderate 

(9% or 140 acres), and high (87% or 1,319).

Cherry Creek is the second largest tributary to the Tuolumne River in the area affected 

by the Rim Fire and has a watershed area of approximately 150,000 acres (including the 

Eleanor Creek watershed). The upper portion of the watershed arises in the high 

elevations of the Emigrant Wilderness area. As such, runoff patterns are dominated by 

snowpack and snow melt processes. The river was glaciated in the upper reaches and the 

geomorphic functioning of the creek is dominated by a bedrock channel.

This stream is flow-regulated, attributable to Cherry Valley Dam. As with the Tuolumne 

River, water bypasses the reach downstream of the dam and is used to generate 

hydropower (and recreational boating flows) at Holm Powerhouse located approximately 

one mile upstream of the confluence with the Tuolumne. Streamflow is mainly 

maintained by negotiated releases from the dam and does not closely mimic the natural 

hydrograph. Like the Tuolumne reach above Early Intake, the river is generally warmer. 

The mile of stream below the powerhouse is characterized by extreme daily fluctuations 

in water level from the spring through the summer. Water temperatures are well below 

expected due to the deep water diversion in the impoundment.

The Rim Fire affected large portions of the Lower Cherry Creek, Kibbie Creek and

Lower Eleanor Creek subwatersheds (6th level HUC) and smaller portions of the West 

Fork Cherry, East Fork Cherry, and Upper Eleanor Creek subwatersheds. For the Lower 

Cherry Creek subwatershed (24,450 acres), the fire affected approximately 20,606 acres 

(84% of subwatershed area) at the following vegetation burn severities: 5,416 acres at 

very low to low (<50% vegetation mortality), 2,250 acres at moderate (50-75% 

vegetation mortality), and 12,940 acres at high severity (75-100% vegetation mortality). 

For the Lower Eleanor Creek subwatershed (11,085 acres), the fire affected 

approximately 91% of the subwatershed area (10,043 acres) at the following burn 

severity: 2,554 acres at very low to low, 1,176 acres at moderate, and 6,313 acres at 
35

high. For the Kibbie Creek subwatershed (10,342 acres), the following burn severities 

were mapped: 1,946 acres at very low to low, 665 acres at moderate, and 705 at high. 

For the remaining three 6th field HUC subwatersheds in the Cherry Creek watershed, the 

fire affected 1,033 acres (2.5%) of the East Fork Cherry Creek HUC (40,077 acres), 86 

acres (0.3%) of the West Fork Cherry Creek HUC (26,652 acres), and 1,977 acres (7.3%) 

of the Upper Eleanor Creek HUC (27,005 acres). 

The FYLF occupancy of this stream is uncertain. There have not been extensive surveys 

of the creek, but it appears to have many of characteristics similar to the Clavey River 

and appears to be highly suitable for all FYLF life stages. The presence of the upstream 

dam appears to be a limiting factor for the frog’s distribution in this stream as described 

by Lind (2005) and this may influence the extent of FYLF occupancy in Cherry Creek. 

Between its confluence with the Tuolumne River and an elevation of 3,500 feet, Cherry 

Creek provides approximately 17.8 miles of perennial habitat for all life stages in the 

mainstem of the river below an elevation of 3,500 feet (Eleanor Creek confluence).

Corral Creek is a direct tributary to the Tuolumne River and has a watershed area of 

4,570 acres. There are approximately 9.6 miles of perennial channel mapped in this 

watershed and 5.7 miles of intermittent channel. The hydrology of the watershed is 

primarily influenced by rain, but the upper portion of the watershed is in the snow zone. 

The entire Corral Creek watershed is within the fire perimeter. The following vegetation 

burn severities were mapped in the watershed: 193 acres at very low to low (4%), 282 

acres at moderate (6%), and 4,096 acres at high (90%).

Then entire stream is within the elevation range of the FYLF, though the stream 

characteristics indicate that approximately four miles of the channel provide suitable 

habitat for all life stages.

Drew Creek is a direct tributary to the Tuolumne River with a watershed area of 

approximately 1,700 acres and 4.6 miles of mapped channel. The hydrology of this 

watershed is primarily driven by rain. The lower mile of the creek has very high gradient 

(>20%) as it descends into the Tuolumne River while the remainder of the main channel 

has a more moderate average gradient (9%) with sections of low gradient (<3%) channel 

embedded within.

The entire watershed area is within the fire perimeter. Fire severity was dominated by 

high severity across 61% (1,034 acres) of the watershed, with moderate severity fire 

affecting 10% and low or very low affecting 19%.

Drew Creek is different than most FYLF occupied streams because there are no 

tributaries for adult and subadult dispersal; therefore, the stream provides year-round 

habitat for these life stages. During the suppression efforts of the Rim Fire, several adult 

frogs were observed in Drew Meadow approximately 0.5 mile upstream of the known 

breeding activity and this may be the limit of adult dispersal because the channel is dry 
36

much of the year upstream of Drew Meadow. Of the four miles of available channel, 

only two miles provide suitable habitat for the frog and these are including the stream 

reach in, and immediately downstream of, Drew Meadow. Perennial streamflow is 

present in about one mile of the creek in and immediately downstream of the meadow, 

and persistent pools can be found patchily distributed in the remaining one downstream 

mile. Upstream of the meadow the channel is seasonally wet, and is largely dry by midJune and does not provide suitable habitat for the frog for approximately six months of 

the year.

Drew Creek was most recently impacted by the 2005 Tuolumne Fire which burned the 

lower half of the watershed (stopping at the Cherry Oil Road and Drew Meadow). This 

fire burned with high severity in the lower reaches of the stream and in the chaparral 

surrounding the stream. While there were areas of high vegetation severity fire in the 

intermittent reach above the Tuolumne River canyon, there was low to moderate fire 

severity where FYLF have been documented. Occupancy by the FYLF was unknown 

prior to the fire, and subsequent surveys for western pond turtle detected the presence of 

the frog in 2007. Breeding was observed at this time and has been documented several 

times since the first detections. This population is considered to be relatively small (<20 

individuals) based on low encounter rates and is effectively isolated from other nearby 

populations because the Tuolumne River is unsuitable for breeding, and possibly 

dispersal, at the Drew Creek confluence due to daily fluctuations from hydroelectric 

generation at Holm Powerhouse (Cherry Creek). 

Granite Creek is a tributary to the lower end of Cherry Creek and has a watershed area 

of approximately 4,100 acres. The hydrology of this stream is driven by a mix of snow 

and rainfall. The mainstem of the creek is high gradient (>15%) and most of the small 

tributaries are as well. There is a considerable amount of spring influence in Granite 

Creek, especially in the tributary streams.

The entire watershed area is within the fire boundary and burn severity was mapped as 

follows: 3% (140 acres) at very low to low, 4% at moderate, and 93% (3,802 acres) at 

high. 

The status of FYLF in Grapevine Creek is not certain. Most of the mainstem has been 

surveyed according to the visual encounter survey protocol we use (Fellers and Freel 

1995), but no amphibian or reptile species have been detected. There are approximately 

six miles of suitable under 4,200 feet in elevation, all mapped as perennial. If occupied 

by FYLF, it is likely the stream provides refuge habitat for adults and subadults. 

Breeding habitat is located in Cherry Creek upstream of the confluence with Granite 

Creek.

Grapevine Creek has a watershed area of approximately 4,500 acres and is a direct 

tributary to the Tuolumne River. Its hydrology is primarily driven by rainfall. This 

stream is very steep throughout the watershed with the mainstem having an average 

gradient of approximately 18%. Most of the tributary channels have gradients in excess 

of 20%.
37

The entire watershed is within the fire boundary and burned at the following severities: 

1,910 acres at very low to low, 1,022 acres at moderate, and 1,555 acres at high (34% of 

the total watershed area). The high burn severity was relatively well distributed 

throughout the watershed, but a large portion of the middle section of the watershed 

burned at high severity. Along the main portion of the stream, moderate and low severity 

fire primarily occurred within 50 feet of the channel. This suggests that minor effects to 

about half of the obligate riparian vegetation is expected with the remainder of the 

vegetation having the loss of the above ground portions of the trees. 

The FYLF was not known to occur in this stream until 2011 when the first survey was 

conducted. Several tadpoles and adults were observed in a short reach of the creek (<0.5 

mile) in the middle portion of the watershed. Breeding habitats in this stream are 

associated with lower gradient sections embedded between steep sections, but the 

prevalence of deep, plunge pools in the steeper sections provide habitat for adults and 

subadults. There are approximately 10.8 miles of channel providing suitable habitat.

Indian Creek is a small stream that enters the Tuolumne from the south side of the 

canyon. It has a watershed area of approximately 2,344 acres. There is 0.3 mile of 

mapped perennial stream and approximately 5 miles of mapped intermittent channel, but 

2.7 miles are considered suitable for the frog. Like other direct tributaries to the 

Tuolumne, stream gradients are low to moderate above the rim of the canyon with a steep 

reach descending to the river. The hydrology of this stream is driven by rain.

A majority of the watershed (56%) was outside of the Rim Fire perimeter with the 

headwaters being spared. For the 1,048 acres in the perimeter, the following vegetation 

burn severities were observed: 404 acres of very low to low (17%), 246 acres of 

moderate (10%), and 397 acres of high severity fire (17%).

The very lower portion of the stream may provide suitable habitat for all FYLF life stages 

based on the mapped presence of perennial water. The remainder of the stream may 

provide suitable habitat for adults and subadults. There are no surveys of this stream.

Jawbone Creek is a direct tributary to the Tuolumne River and has a watershed area of 

approximately 13,136 acres. This stream originates at moderately high elevations 

(almost 7,000 feet) and the hydrology of the stream is influenced by a combination of 

rain and snow. There are approximately 43 miles of mapped stream channel in the 

watershed, and the majority (41 miles) is mapped as perennial. This seems like a 

mapping error based on field observations of small tributaries identified as perennial. 

The mainstem of the stream is relatively high in average gradient (16%), with high 

gradient sections prevailing in the lower reach near the confluence with the Tuolumne. 

The Jawbone Creek watershed is entirely within the Rim Fire perimeter. The following 

vegetation burn severities were mapped in the watershed: 142 acres did not burn, 4,135 

acres at very low to low (31%), 1,421 acres at moderate (11%), and 7,435 acres at high 

(57%).
38

The mainstem of Jawbone Creek provides approximately 14.3 miles of suitable habitat 

for all life stages of the FYLF between its confluence with the Tuolumne River and the 

3N01 road crossing (3,500 feet in elevation). There is one small tributary to this portion 

of the mainstem that may provide suitable dispersal habitat for adults and subadults.

The Middle Fork Tuolumne River is a primary tributary to the Tuolumne River, though 

it joins, and technically becomes part of, the South Fork Tuolumne River approximately 

two miles from the confluence with the main Tuolumne. The Middle Fork is a 5th level 

HUC with a watershed area of approximately 46,740 acres and contains two 6th level 

HUCs, the Lower Middle Fork Tuolumne and the Upper Middle Fork Tuolumne. The 

average stream gradient is moderate (6.5%) on the forest (14 miles of channel), it is a 

bedrock channel stream, and the hydrologic runoff is attributable to snowmelt. 

The Rim Fire burned approximately 70% of the watershed area of the Middle Fork, with 

the entire Lower Middle Fork Tuolumne subwatershed lying entirely within the fire 

perimeter and 54% of the Upper Middle Fork Tuolumne subwatershed directly affected 

by the fire. For the Lower Middle Fork Tuolumne subwatershed (15,595 acres), 3,431 

acres (22% of the subwatershed area) were affected by very low to low fire severity, 

2,444 acres (16%) were affected by moderate severity fire, and 9,513 acres (62%) were 

affected by high severity fire. For the Upper Middle Fork Tuolumne subwatershed

(31,506 acres), 5,041 acres (16%) were affected by very low to low severity fire, 3,228 

acres (10%) were affected by moderate severity fire, 8,759 acres (28%) were affected by 

high severity fire, and 14,325 acres (46%) were outside of the fire perimeter. 

The Middle Fork Tuolumne is similar to the South Fork Tuolumne in regards to the 

FYLF. Limited survey has occurred but there have been no detections of the frog. From 

the confluence with the South Fork to the 3,500 foot elevation mark, the mainstem of the 

Middle Fork provides approximately 25.5 miles of suitable habitat.

The South Fork Tuolumne River is a direct tributary to the Tuolumne River and the 

stream’s headwaters originate in Yosemite National Park. This is another bedrock 

channel river with a snowmelt driven hydrology. The watershed area of the South Fork is 

approximately 57,670 acres (5th level HUC) and there are two 6th level HUC nested 

within the larger watershed (Lower and Upper South Fork Tuolumne). The average 

channel gradient in the river is relatively low (<5%) over the 14 mile section on the 

forest. There are several additional miles of river in Yosemite. Big Creek and Ackerson 

Creek are the two primary tributaries to the South Fork, with several smaller tributaries 

contributing to flow (Rush, Hazel Green, and North Crane Creeks). 

The Rim Fire affected almost the entire South Fork watershed (89% of 57,670 acres). 

For the two 6th level HUC, the vegetation fire severity was mapped as follows. For the 

Lower South Fork Tuolumne River subwatershed (19,870 acres), 38% (7,495 acres) 

burned at high severity, 18% burned at moderate severity (3,651 acres), and 44% (8,743 

acres) burned at very low to low severity. Less than 1% of the subwatershed did not 

burn. For the Upper South Fork Tuolumne subwatershed (37,800 acres), 25% (9,450
39

acres) burned at high severity, 14% (5,292 acres) burned at moderate severity, 43% 

(16,254 acres) burned at very low to low severity, and 17% of the subwatershed did not 

burn.

The status of the FYLF in this watershed is not well known. A limited amount of survey 

for aquatic species has occurred on the South Fork, mainly in the vicinity of Rainbow 

Pool and in some of the tributary streams. There were no detections of frogs during these 

surveys. Between its confluence with the Tuolumne River, the mainstem of the South 

Fork provides approximately 29.4 miles of suitable habitat. 

There are two unnamed larger tributaries to the Tuolumne River that may provide 

suitable habitat for the FYLF. No survey effort has been done to date on these streams, 

but interpretation of aerial imagery indicates obligate riparian vegetation and channel 

features. They are denoted by the township (T), range (R), and section (S) of their origin 

or confluence with the Tuolumne and named as one progresses upstream from the 

confluence of the North Fork Tuolumne River. There are several other smaller tributaries 

than those discussed here that are not discussed because they lack indicators of persistent 

water (that is, obligate riparian vegetation). 

Tributary 1 (T1N, R16E, S33) is mapped as an intermittent stream and has 

approximately 4 miles of channel. This stream probably does not provide the elements 

needed for all life stages and may not provide dispersal habitat for adult/subadult frogs 

because the Tuolumne is unsuitable for breeding. Tributary 2 (T1N, R16E, S36) is 

another small intermittent stream that offers three miles of channel. Like Tributary 1, this 

stream may not provide breeding habitat or dispersal habitat for post-metamorphic life 

stages. 

North Fork Tuolumne River

The North Fork Tuolumne River is the last major tributary to the Tuolumne River 

before it enters Don Pedro Reservoir. It has a watershed area of approximately 64,000 

acres reaching northward to near Pinecrest Lake. The hydrology of the watershed is 

primarily influenced by snow and it is a bedrock river like the Clavey. There are two 

primary tributaries to the North Fork, Basin Creek (described above) and Wrights Creek. 

The mainstem of the river has a moderate gradient (<10% on average).

The Rim Fire affected 684 acres (entirely within the Basin Creek subwatershed), which is 

approximately 1% of the total area of the North Fork. 

There are multiple known breeding locations on the North Fork extending from the 

confluence with the Tuolumne up to an elevation of 3,000 feet; however, the extent of 

breeding in the river is poorly known due to limited access for surveys. There has been a 

recent invasion of the river by bullfrogs originating from private ponds on the western 

side of the watershed (including the towns of MiWuk Village and Confidence).
40

Basin Creek is a tributary to the North Fork Tuolumne River and has a watershed area 

approximately 9,030 acres in size. The hydrology of this stream is partly snow and partly 

rain associated. The FYLF is known to occur in most of the lower half of the watershed 

with breeding habitat near the confluence of the North Fork Tuolumne, and dispersal 

habitat for the adults and subadults in the headwater tributaries. Overall, Basin Creek is a 

high gradient stream with the main channel having a gradient of over 9% and most of the 

tributary streams having average gradients in excess of 20%. The known breeding 

location is in a section of stream with relatively low gradient (<3%).

The Rim Fire burned 684 acres (7% of the watershed) of the headwaters in the vicinity of 

Duckwall Mountain. For the area affected by the fire, approximately 45 acres burned at 

high severity, 69 acres burned at moderate severity, and 570 acres burned at low or very 

low severity. The burn severity mapping indicated almost all of the immediate riparian 

area (within 150 feet of the stream edge) was unburned and there was no high severity 

fire in this riparian area. Using imagery products specific to the Rim Fire (Worldview 

product), very little tree mortality occurred along the channels which limited any impact 

to habitats. 

Within this fire-affected area, there is approximately one mile of mapped stream channels 

located in two subdrainages. Based on past observations of similar locations, these 

channels probably provide low suitability habitat for the frog (lack of persistent water) 

due to position in the watershed. Habitat suitability in these stream portions is low based 

on low probability of having perennial water. The Basin Creek watershed provides a 

total of 17.8 miles of suitable habitat.

Hunter Creek has a watershed area of approximately 9,500 acres and is a tributary to the 

North Fork Tuolumne River. The mainstem of the stream has a length of approximately 

7.5 miles and the average gradient is about 7% over this distance. There are ten minor 

tributaries in the lower two-thirds of the watershed, all of which have average gradients 

of over 20%. Two additional tributaries are in the upper watershed and are also very 

steep. The hydrology of this watershed is a mix of rain and snow.

Approximately 5,000 acres burned in the Hunter Creek watershed (53%) with the 

following vegetation burn severities: 2,339 acres at very low to low, 1,044 acres at 

moderate, and 1,617 acres at high (17% of the total watershed area). The areas of high 

burn severity were located in the upper 20% of the watershed. 

There is a breeding population of FYLF in the lower portion of the creek, with limited 

surveys indicating an elevational extent from 1,500 to 2,500 feet and covering a distance 

of approximately 3.5 miles. We do not know if the adults and subadults move into the 

few tributary streams near the breeding reach. Overall, the mainstem of Hunter Creek 

provides 7.6 miles of habitat suitable for all lifestages between the North Fork Tuolumne 

River confluence and 3,500 feet in elevation (near the 2N11 bridge). There are 21.5 

miles total of suitable habitat available in the watershed.

Clavey River
41

The Clavey River is one of the primary tributaries to the Tuolumne River and the largest 

undammed river. It also has a specific land allocation, Critical Aquatic Refuge, designed 

to provide it additional consideration during land management planning. The watershed 

has an area of 100,640 acres and the hydrology is predominantly influenced by snow. 

The Clavey River is considered to be a bedrock river (versus an alluvial river) and, as 

such, has a tremendous capacity to receive and transport streambed sediments during 

annual peak flows (McBain and Trush 2004). The channel is dominated by bedrock and 

boulder substrates, with deep pools separated by cobble bars and run habitats. Overall, 

the gradient is moderate in the mainstem (<10%), but the large watershed area and the 

variable peak runoffs associated with snowmelt result in a broad channel with a wide 

scour zone. The primary tributaries to the Clavey River in the fire area include the 

following streams: Cottonwood, Reed, Hull, and Twomile Creeks and their tributaries.

The Rim Fire affected approximately 52,531 acres of the watershed and the vegetation 

burn severity was as follows: 29,677 acres burned at very low to low (29% of the total 

watershed area), 7,004 acres at moderate (7%), and 15,849 acres at high (16%). The 

majority of the high burn severity was located in the Lower Clavey and southern half of 

the Reed Creek 6th level HUCs. 

The FYLF is known to breed in much of the lower portion of the Clavey River. Breeding 

populations are known to occur from the confluence with the Tuolumne River to several 

miles above the 1N01 bridge. As a whole, the population of the FYLF in the Clavey is 

probably the largest remaining in the southern Sierra. While several of the tributaries 

provide suitable breeding habitat (Bull Meadow Creek, Bear Springs Creek), much of the 

suitable breeding habitat is found in the mainstem of the river. Between its confluence 

with the Tuolumne and an elevation of 3,500 feet, the Clavey River provides 

approximately 17 miles of suitable habitat for all life stages of the FYLF and 29 total 

miles of suitable habitat for adult/subadult life stages.

Bear Springs Creek is a tributary to the Clavey River and has a watershed area of 

approximately 2,400 acres. There are approximately 1.9 miles of suitable habitat for the 

frog in this stream. The hydrology of this small watershed is dominated by rain. The 

overall gradient of the stream above the Clavey canyon is low to moderate while the 

lower reach of the stream is very steep as it descends toward the Clavey River. 

The entire watershed area is within the fire perimeter. The following vegetation burn 

severities were mapped in the watershed: 1,006 acres at very low to low (42%), 433 

acres at moderate (18%), and 964 acres at high (40%).

About half of Bear Springs Creek provides suitable habitat for the FYLF. Limited survey 

effort has been spent looking for FYLF here, but no frogs have been detected which may 

be attributable to dense vegetation along and in the channel. While this stream may 

provide suitable habitat for all life stages, it seems more like it provides dispersal habitat 

for adult and subadult life stages. This is based on very small stream size and lack of 

habitat complexity (similar to Indian Springs Creek).
42

Bull Meadow Creek is a small tributary to the lower Clavey River with a watershed area 

of approximately 1,430 acres and approximately three miles of suitable habitat. Average 

channel gradient is high (22.9%) but a moderate gradient section (6.5%) occurs in the 

middle portion of the watershed where the frogs occur. FYLF occupancy is known from 

1.3 miles of the stream extending from the downstream end of the meadow on private 

land to the drop off into the Clavey River. The meadow is severely downcut and the 

aerial imagery indicates little evidence of regular channel scour in headwater reaches. 

Hydrology in this stream is primarily driven by rain and not snow. 

The entire watershed area is within the fire area with fire severity mapped as follows: 

55% high, 25% moderate, and 20% low or very low. In the vicinity of the stream, high 

severity fire predominately occurred to the west of the stream and low or moderate 

severity occurred east of the stream. A review of aerial imagery indicated that low to 

moderate burn severity occurred in a majority of the area immediately around the channel

(within 25 feet, with less than 50% of the area affected by high vegetation mortality). 

This resulted in irregular gaps in shade providing vegetation, not including herbaceous 

vegetation. However, much of the riparian vegetation consisted of obligate riparian 

species which should recover rapidly in the upcoming years. 

Bull Meadow Creek is curiously different than most occupied streams on the forest, but 

shares a similar fire history with the two other streams most like it (McCormick Creek 

(Darby Fire) and Drew Creek (Tuolumne Fire)). These streams appear unique in that 

there are no tributaries for the adults to move away from the breeding sites and the 

breeding sites tend to occur near bedrock areas where the tadpoles develop in shallow 

pools. Adults and subadults tend to be associated with the deeper run and pool habitats 

with heavy shading while tadpoles and metamorphs are associated with relatively open 

cascade dominated areas. 

Past impacts to Bull Meadow Creek include the 1987 Stanislaus Complex fire which 

burned with similar high and severity. The fire was essentially stand replacing for most 

of Bull Meadow Creek as evidenced by the extensive plantations established in the 

1990s. Prior to the fire, obligate woody riparian vegetation provided areas of high stream 

shading (>75%) by deciduous trees.

The outlet stream from Indian Springs is a small tributary to the Clavey River with a 

watershed area of approximately 400 acres. Approximately 0.8 mile of perennial channel 

is present beginning at the meadow/spring and flowing in an eastward direction to the 

Clavey. There is a short (<1,000 feet), moderate gradient section of stream downstream 

of the meadow before the channel assumes a more typical steep plunge to the Clavey 

River.

The entire watershed is within the Rim Fire area. About 50% of the watershed burned at 

high severity, 5% at moderate, and the remaining 45% at low to very low. High severity 

fire affected much of the area around and upslope of the channel, while the lower severity 

fire was mainly along the western edge of the watershed.
43

The FYLF was first reported from this location more than ten years ago, but confirmed in 

2013 following the fire. There is a small impoundment (<500 square feet) built on the 

channel which provided a source of water for drafting; however, the pool has accrued 

considerable sediment and is shallow with abundant herbaceous riparian vegetation. At 

approximately 4,000 feet, this occurrence record is the highest recorded for the forest. 

The stream probably does not provide suitable breeding habitat for the frog due to the 

extreme gradient over most of its length and the very small channel near the spring and 

meadow. Instead, this stream provides dispersal habitat for subadults and adults away 

from the breeding habitat in the Clavey. 

Quilty Creek is a direct tributary to the Clavey River with a watershed area of 

approximately 1,089 acres. Approximately 1.8 miles suitable habitat is available to the 

frog in this stream. The hydrology of this stream is dominated by rain. Like other small 

direct tributaries to the Clavey, the gradient above the canyon is relatively moderate 

(<5%) with a very steep descent into the Clavey River. The upper half of this stream is 

on private property.

The entire watershed area is within the fire perimeter. The following vegetation burn 

severities were mapped in the watershed: 325 acres at very low to low (30%), 176 acres 

at moderate (16%), and 588 acres at high (54%).

This stream is very similar to Indian Springs Creek with regard to FYLF habitat. It is 

probable that Quilty Creek provides dispersal habitat for adult and subadult life stages 

and does not provide breeding habitat due to small stream size and low habitat 

complexity. The entire stream length is within the elevation range of the species.

Reed Creek is a primary tributary to the Clavey River and contributes the flow from 

Reynolds and Bourland Creeks to the Clavey. Including the watershed area of these 

tributaries, the Reed Creek 6th level HUC has an area of 24,478 acres. This 6th level HUC 

contains three 7th level HUCs, Reed Creek (7,473 acres, all of the area downstream of the 

Reynolds and Bourland Creek confluence), the Reynolds Creek watershed (8,442 acres, 

including Little Reynolds and Lost Creeks), and Bourland Creek (8,563 acres, including 

Looney Creek). The hydrology in the Reed Creek watershed is dominated by snow. The 

mainstem of Reed Creek has a moderate average gradient (6%) and is a typical bedrock 

channel stream like the Clavey with high capacity for sediment storage and transport.

Fire severity patterns were apparent at the 7th level HUC scale and are as follows. In the 

Reed Creek HUC (7,473 acres), very low and low fire severity related to vegetation 

affected 33% of the watershed, moderate severity fire affected 10%, and high severity 

fire affected 57% of the watershed. The high proportion of high severity fire in this 

subwatershed reflects one of the days when extreme fire behavior was observed and was 

driven by wind from the south. For the Reynolds Creek subwatershed (8,442 acres), very 

low and low severity fire affected 62% of the watershed (5,226 acres), moderate severity 

fire affected 8%, and high severity fire affected 7% of the watershed. Approximately 

23% (1,970 acres) of the watershed was outside of the fire perimeter, mainly in the
44

headwaters of Reynolds Creek. For the Bourland Creek subwatershed (8,563 acres), a 

small portion of the watershed was affected by the fire, with high severity fire mapped for 

58 acres (<1%), moderate severity fire mapped for 147 acres (1.7%), and very low or low 

severity fire mapped across 2,030 acres (24%).

The status of FYLF in Reed Creek is not well known, but multiple surveys have occurred 

since 1995 and no detections have been made. Using a 3,500 foot criterion for FYLF 

breeding in larger streams and rivers, approximately 1.5 miles of the mainstem above the 

Clavey confluence provides suitable habitat for all life stages, and 2.7 miles of suitable 

habitat for adults and subadults. The channel complexity and low gradient sections make 

for ample breeding habitat.

Additional to Bear Springs, Bull Meadow, Reed and Quilty Creeks, there are eight 

tributaries to the Clavey River that provide suitable habitat for the frog. Adams Gulch, 

Cottonwood Creek, Russell Creek, and five unnamed streams (originating in Township 1 

South, Range 17 East, Section 9 (Tributary 1); T1S, R17E, S10 (Tributary 2); T1N, 

R17E, S13 (Tributary 3); T1N, R17E, S24 (Tributary 4); and T1N, R17E, S35 (Tributary 

5)). 

Adams Gulch has a small watershed area (approximately 815 acres) and provides 

approximately 0.8 mile of perennial channel that is suitable dispersal habitat for adults 

and subadults. The entire watershed area is within the fire perimeter and the following 

burn severities were approximated for the watershed: 50% very low to low, 15% 

moderate, and 35% high. Cottonwood Creek is a small stream coming (watershed area 

5,300 acres) in to the Clavey just downstream of the 1N01 bridge. This stream is near the 

upper elevation limit that we would expect FYLF to breed especially in a setting for a 

stream this size. Aside from the elevation, Cottonwood Creek appears to have very 

suitable habitat for all life stages especially the lowest reach of the stream as it joins the 

Clavey. There is good habitat complexity and it resembles occupied stream of similar 

size (example, Hunter Creek). The lower mile of stream is within the elevation range of 

the frog, providing suitable habitat for all life stages and 2.3 miles total suitable habitat 

for adult/subadult lifestages. Burn severity was primarily low in the watershed, affecting 

3,324 acres (63% of watershed) with approximately 1,200 acres of moderate (557 acres) 

and high (662 acres) severity and 764 acres were unburned. Russell Creek (560 acres) 

is another small tributary that provides about 1.4 miles of intermittent channel, most of 

which (0.8 mile) is in the elevation range of the FYLF. The entire channel is in the inner 

gorge of the Clavey River and stream gradient is high (>20%). The entire watershed is 

within the fire perimeter and the extent of fire severity was estimated to be 50% very low 

to low, 20% moderate, and 10% high. The combination of small stream size and high 

gradient make this stream suitable for the dispersal of adults and subadults from the 

Clavey.

Tributary 1 enters the Clavey near the confluence with the Tuolumne and there are 1.5

miles of potentially suitable habitat. The watershed area is approximately 773 acres. The 

stream is very steep (>45% gradient on average) and, based on aerial imagery, there is 

very little evidence of scour in the half of the stream. Runoff hydrology is determined by 
45

rain. There is a low likelihood that this stream provides suitable habitat for the frog. The 

entire watershed is within the perimeter of the fire and the vegetation burn severity map 

indicates a majority of the watershed burned at high severity (56%). Moderate burn 

severity was mapped for 175 acres (23%) and very low and low severity was mapped for 

the remaining 163 acres. Tributary 2 enters the Clavey a short distance upstream of 

Tributary 1, but differs in that the headwaters arise in close proximity to the springs at 

Walton Cabin. There is one mile of mapped perennial channel and the watershed area is 

approximately 373 acres. This stream may provide suitable dispersal habitat for adults 

and subadults for the breeding habitat in the Clavey. Much of the watershed burned at 

high (78%, 292 acres) and moderate (15%, 57 acres) severity. Tributary 3 enters the 

Clavey River near river mile 12.5 and has a watershed area of approximately 1,343 acres. 

There are three miles of mapped channel, 2.3 of which likely provide suitable habitat. 

The average gradient exceeds 20%. The hydrology of this stream is largely driven by 

rain. This stream may provide dispersal habitat for adults and subadults. The entire 

watershed is within the Rim Fire perimeter. High vegetation severity fire affected 

approximately 62% of the watershed (840 acres), with very little moderate conditions 

(13%, 178 acres). Tributary 4 (490 acres) lies within the same 8th level HUC as 

Tributary 3 and enters the Clavey a short distance downstream. It provides 

approximately one mile of intermittent channel and is very steep (>35% average gradient) 

over its entire length. These characteristics make occupancy by FYLF unlikely. The 

entire watershed area is within the fire perimeter and approximately 58% of the 

watershed was affected by high (34% or 168 acres) and moderate (24%, 116 acres) 

severity fire combined. Tributary 5 enters the Clavey just downstream of the 1N01 

bridge and 1N01 crosses the stream a short distance upstream the confluence. The 

watershed has an area of approximately 688 acres and there are 1.7 miles of suitable 

habitat in this watershed (one mile of intermittent and perennial). The average gradient 

of the two miles of channel is very high (>38%). The entire watershed lies within the fire 

perimeter and the proportion of the watershed affected by the classes of vegetation burn 

severities were observed: very low to low affected 23% of the watershed (159 acres), 

moderate affected 23% of the watershed, and high affected 54% (370 acres). Frogs have 

been observed at the 1N01 crossing in the past, but no positive identifications occurred 

during post-fire surveys of the upper portion of the mainly dry stream.

North Fork Merced River

The North Fork Merced River is a free flowing tributary to the Merced River, has a 

watershed area of approximately 80,000 acres, and is a bedrock river like the Clavey 

River. The hydrology of the river is dominated by rainfall. This watershed includes three 

subwatersheds (6th level HUC) including the lower North Fork, Upper North Fork 

(including Bean, Jordan, Moore, and Smith creeks), and Bull Creek, which is described 

above. The mainstem of the river is predominantly bedrock and has a moderate gradient 

(<10%) as it descends to the Merced River.

The Rim Fire burned within small portions of the Upper North Fork Merced (Moore 

Creek, described above) watershed and Bull Creek (as described below). Less than 2,200 

acres burned in the North Fork, affecting <3% of the total watershed area.
46

There is a known breeding population of the FYLF in the North Fork near the confluence 

of Moore Creek. Upstream of the breeding site, adults have been observed in the 

persistent pools in an otherwise dry channel. This population is assumed to be small 

(<10 adults) based on the small number of tadpoles observed. In total, the watershed 

provides approximately 74 miles of suitable breeding habitat, including the streams listed 

below. Most of the 74 miles is well outside of the fire perimeter and extends down 

towards the mainstem Merced River.

Bull Creek is one of the primary tributaries to the upper North Fork Merced River with a 

watershed area of approximately 21,026 acres. There are approximately 45 miles of 

suitable habitat in the watershed; fifteen miles are mapped as perennial channel. The 

average gradient in the perennial section of the mainstem is low to moderate (<6%) with 

several areas of relatively steep gradient (>15%). The hydrology of the stream is 

influenced by both rain and snow.

A small portion of the watershed was affected by the Rim Fire (1,191 acres, 5%) which 

mainly occurred along Pilot Ridge, the watershed divide with the South Fork Tuolumne 

River. Of the total area affected by the fire, very low to low fire severity conditions 

affected 616 acres, moderate severity conditions affected 293 acres, and high severity fire 

was mapped for 282 acres.

There is a known population in the upper portion of the watershed in the vicinity of 

Anderson Flat. All life stages have been documented in this area. Also, surveys from the 

1990s detected adults in the lower half of the watershed near Montgomery Gulch. 

Montgomery Gulch is not mapped as a perennial stream, but it is reasonable to assume 

that this large tributary to Bull Creek provides perennial pool habitat in its channel due to 

the length of channel, underlying geology of the watershed, and similarity to other nearby 

streams (example, Deer Lick Creek). The entire mainstem of this creek is considered to 

be suitable for FYLF breeding.

Moore Creek is a tributary to the North Fork Merced River and has a watershed area of 

approximately 5,900 acres. Average gradient is low with most of the mainstem having a 

gradient less than 3%. Two principal tributaries, Jordan and Deer Lick Creeks, enter the 

very lower end of the watershed, while one notable tributary, White Oak Creek, is in the 

upper part of the watershed. Both the Deer Lick and White Oak Creek subwatersheds 

were affected by the fire. The hydrology of this stream is driven by rainfall.

Approximately 995 acres burned in this watershed (17%) and 589 acres burned at high 

severity primarily along the northern watershed divide with the Tuolumne and South 

Fork Tuolumne Rivers. 

Evidence of breeding has been documented twice at the lower end of the stream, very 

close to the confluence with the North Fork Merced River. Other life stages have not 

been documented but it is suspected that the adults and subadults move into Deer Lick 

Creek where spring influence provides perennial pools. Moore Creek provides 
47

approximately 3.5 miles of habitat suitable for all life stages and almost 12 miles of total 

suitable habitat (not including Deer Lick and Jordan Creeks). Bullfrogs are known from 

this watershed and are a principal predator of the frog, especially newly metamorphosed 

individuals.

Deer Lick Creek, as noted previously, is a tributary to Moore Creek in the upper North 

Fork Merced River watershed. There are approximately 10 miles of suitable habitat in 

the watershed. Overall the stream has a moderate to high average stream channel 

gradient (10%) with some deep pool habitat. The hydrology of this watershed is primarily 

influenced by rainfall. 

Some survey effort has been expended on this stream but FYLF have not been detected. 

This stream provides good dispersal habitat for the frogs breeding in the lower reach of 

Moore Creek and may provide breeding habitat for the frog. The entire perennial reach is 

considered to be suitable habitat because the entire watershed is below the local elevation 

range.

Approximately 22% (894 acres) of the watershed burned during the fire, mainly burning 

the headwaters along the watershed divide. Of the total acreage burned, fire severity 

affected the following area: 385 acres of low, 285 acres of moderate, and 224 acres of 

high.

Table 5 below shows the primary streams providing suitable habitat for the FYLF and 

summarizes the miles of suitable and occupied FYLF habitat, occupancy status, and 

whether we have conducted surveys on the streams.

Table 5. Streams occupied by and providing suitable habitat for the foothill yellowlegged frog affected by the Rim Fire with miles of stream and acres of upland habitat.

Watershed 

(5th level 

Hydrologic 

Unit Code)

Stream name

Watershed 

area 

(acres)

Occupancy 

(Yes/Unknown)

Survey 

(Yes/No)

Miles of 

suitable 

stream

Acres of 

upland 

habitat 

(30-meter 

buffer)

Tuolumne 

River

Tuolumne River 819,000 Yes Yes 36.5 870

Alder Cr. 1,525 Unknown Yes 5.5 132

Corral Cr. 4,570 Unknown Yes 9.6 230

Drew Cr. 1,697 Yes Yes 4.6 110

Grapevine Cr. 4,488 Yes Yes 10.8 260

Indian Cr. 2,344 Unknown No 2.7 64

Jawbone Cr. 13,136 Unknown Yes 14.3 343

Middle Fork 

Tuolumne 

River 

Middle Fork Tuolumne 

River 46,635 Unknown Yes 25.5 612

North Fork 

Tuolumne 

River

North Fork Tuolumne 

River 63,849 Yes Yes 75 1,796

Basin Cr. 9,030 Yes Yes 17.8 427

Hunter Cr. 9,482 Yes Yes 21.5 515

South Fork 

Tuolumne 

South Fork Tuolumne 

River 57,855 Unknown Yes 29.4 704
48

Watershed 

(5th level 

Hydrologic 

Unit Code)

Stream name

Watershed 

area 

(acres)

Occupancy 

(Yes/Unknown)

Survey 

(Yes/No)

Miles of 

suitable 

stream

Acres of 

upland 

habitat 

(30-meter 

buffer)

River

Cherry 

Creek

Cherry Cr. 90,892 Unknown No 17.8 428

Eleanor Cr. 59,906 Unknown No 2.3 55

Granite Cr. 4,110 Unknown Yes 6.0 144

Clavey River

Clavey River 100,645 Yes Yes 29 696

Reed Cr. 24,527 Unknown Yes 4.2 101

Adams Gulch 815 Unknown No 0.8 18

Bear Springs Cr. 2,403 Unknown Yes 1.9 45

Bull Meadow Cr. 1,430 Yes Yes 3.0 71

Indian Springs Cr. 356 Yes Yes 0.8 20

Quilty Cr. 1,089 Unknown Yes 1.8 44

Unnamed Tributary 1 773 Unknown No 1.5 36

Unnamed Tributary 2 373 Unknown No 1.0 25

Unnamed Tributary 3 1,343 Unknown Yes 2.3 56

Unnamed Tributary 4 490 Unknown Yes 1.0 24

Unnamed Tributary 5 688 Yes Yes 1.7 41

Cottonwood Cr. 5,307 Unknown Yes 2.3 56

Russell Cr. 560 Unknown No 0.8 20

North Fork 

Merced 

River

North Fork Merced 

River 79,110 Yes Yes 74.4 1,784

Bull Cr. 21,064 Yes Yes 44.7 1,072

Deer Lick Cr. 3,981 Unknown Yes 9.7 233

Moore Cr. 5,896 Yes Yes 11.9 286

Scott Cr. 1,627 Unknown Yes 1.9 46

Hardhead

Species Account

There are no known occurrences of hardhead from any of the streams in or potentially 

affected by the Rim Fire. There has been very little survey effort for this species to date 

by any entity. Snorkeling surveys of the lower Clavey River in 2006 did not definitively 

detect the fish, though small Sacramento pikeminnow or hardhead were observed (S. 

Holdeman, pers. observation). CNDDB (2008) reports only one occurrence from near 

the forest’s boundary in the Merced River (1981), more than 20 miles to the southeast. 

The USGS reports hardhead from the Tuolumne and Merced Rivers well downstream of 

Don Pedro and LaGrange Reservoirs, respectively, but did not detect any hardhead from 

the Merced River upstream of McClure Reservoir (USGS 1999). Additional fish 

community data collected by the U. S. Geological Survey did not indicate the distribution 

of hardhead upstream of the primary dams on the Merced and Tuolumne Rivers 

(http://ca.water.usgs.gov/sanj_nawqa/eco_cycle1.html#Ecological Studies: Fixed Reach 

Assessment). Moyle (2002, citing Reeves 1964) reported this species to decline 
49

dramatically following impoundment of Don Pedro Reservoir, indicating this species 

likely occurred historically in the Tuolumne River and its tributaries.

Habitat Account

The hardhead is a large minnow that inhabits slow water habitats at low elevation 

(<1,500 feet) in larger streams in the Sacramento – San Joaquin drainage of the Sierra 

Nevada foothills (Moyle 2002). This fish is omnivorous, feeding on a wide range of 

items including aquatic and terrestrial insects, snails, crayfish and plant material. 

Preferred habitat for adult fish includes deep, clear, warm pools in larger streams, and the 

presence of this fish is an indicator of high water quality and biological integrity (Moyle 

2002). 

As noted above, suitable habitat for the hardhead likely occurred in the Tuolumne River 

prior to the impoundment of Don Pedro Reservoir. Because of the hydropower 

operations on the Tuolumne River, especially during the spawning season, the Tuolumne 

probably provides only seasonal habitat for the hardhead if it is still present in the upper 

Tuolumne River. It is assumed that the North Fork Tuolumne River, Clavey River, and 

the mouth of Hunter Creek provides suitable spawning habitat for the species. The 

presence of barriers (waterfall >15 feet) to upstream salmonid (trout and salmon) passage 

near the mouth of the North Fork Tuolumne and Clavey Rivers, may have limited the 

distribution of hardhead in these streams. However, other species in the pikeminnowhardhead-sucker fish assemblage (Moyle 2002) are present to some extent in the rivers 

which may suggest previous (or continued) occupancy by the species. Due to poor 

swimming ability in swift water (Moyle 2002) it is unlikely that the fish occupied much 

of Hunter Creek or other small tributary streams due to steep gradient reaches near the 

confluences of the Clavey, North Fork Tuolumne, and Tuolumne Rivers. We assume that 

the Tuolumne River provides 13 miles of suitable habitat between Don Pedro reservoir

and river mile 95 (Lumsden Bridge/Meral’s Pool area). Assuming the barrier at the 

mouth of the North Fork Tuolumne did not preclude hardhead occupancy further 

upstream, the river provides approximately five miles of habitat suitable for all life 

stages. Assuming the waterfall barrier on the Clavey was not a barrier to hardhead, the 

river provides approximately three miles of habitat suitable for all life stages.

Western pond turtle

Species account

The western pond turtle (WPT) occurs in a variety of habitats within the fire perimeter, 

including streams, ponds and seasonal wetlands. Many of the streams that have foothill 

yellow-legged frogs also have WPT. Within the fire perimeter, turtles have been 

observed in the following streams: Ackerson Creek, Drew Creek, and the South Fork 

Tuolumne River. Turtles have also been observed in close proximity to the project area 

in the following streams that had portions of their watershed affected by the Rim Fire: 

Big Creek, Bull Creek, Hunter Creek, Moore Creek, North Fork Merced River and the 

North Fork Tuolumne River. WPT have been observed at the following ponds within 

the fire perimeter: Birch Lake (Camp Mather), “Grandfather Pond” (T1S, R19E, S9), 

Mud Lake (T1S, R19E, S10), and the two ponds on Kibbie Ridge (T1N, R19E, S4 and 
50

T2N, R19E, S33). Turtles are also known from Abernathy Meadow (T1S, R19E, S9), a 

seasonal wetland.

Habitat account

The western pond turtle (WPT) can occur in and adjacent to a variety of aquatic habitats, 

both lotic (moving water, streams and rivers) and lentic (still water, ponds and lakes).

Perennial water is preferred, but there is an indication that the turtle can persist in 

environments where water is seasonally available by means of a process referred to as 

aestivation (Holland 1994, Rathbun et al. 2002). Basking is an important part of WPT 

ecology because several physiological processes are dependent upon increased internal 

body temperature (Boyer 1965, Hammond et al. 1988). Jennings and Hayes (1994) and 

Holland (1994) suggest habitat suitability may be higher where basking sites are more 

available. The WPT primarily uses terrestrial habitats for overwintering, nesting, and 

aestivation. The turtle is wary of human presence and readily retreats from basking 

structures into the stream where it takes refuge in deep pools or under rocks or 

overhanging banks. 

In streams, the WPT typically leaves the aquatic habitat in fall to overwinter in areas near 

the water. These overwintering sites are typically within 200 meters (650 feet) but can 

occur at distances up to 400 meters (Holland 1994, Reese 1996, Reese and Welsh 1997, 

Rathbun et al. 2002). Based on the citations above, upland habitat suitability for 

overwintering is variable in terms of vegetation composition, but must be able to provide 

the turtle a duff layer into which it can embed itself into. Hillslope and aspect do not 

appear to play a significant role in the selection of overwintering sites (Reese 1996) and 

there is some indication of turtles returning to the same site annually. 

Nesting habitat is also somewhat variable, but mainly consists of herbaceous dominated 

areas on low angle slopes facing south or west with well-drained soils (Holland 1994, 

Reese 1996, Reese and Welsh 1997, Rathbun et al. 2002). Nests can be several hundred 

meters from the aquatic feature, but more typically nesting occurs within 100 meters of 

the aquatic habitat (Holland 1994, Reese 1996, Rathbun et al. 2002). Habitats used for 

aestivation (upland use when water is not present) are essentially the same as for 

overwintering and mainly requires leaf duff or thatch to bury themselves. 

Aquatic habitats are required for mating, eating, and the development of hatchlings. 

Mating and eating must occur underwater. Once the hatchlings emerge from the nest in 

the spring, they make their way to water. Hatchlings require warm, shallow, still water 

for thermoregulation and foraging (Holland pers. comm. in Jennings and Hayes 1994). If 

the streamflow of a river is regulated by upstream dams (and hydropower generation), 

shallow water habitat suitable for rearing hatchlings is either limited or not present at all

due to fluctuating water surface and cold temperatures from hypolimnetic releases. 

Tuolumne River

The Tuolumne River likely provides suitable habitat for subadult and adult life stages of 

the WPT. The daily fluctuations in water level associated with hydropower generation in 
51

the channel likely limits or preclude the presence of warm, shallow water habitat 

especially from late spring into early summer when the hatchlings emerge from the nest. 

That said, the oak woodland/grassland vegetation type that typifies the north side of the 

river and the old floodplain appears to be highly suitable for nesting. Both sides of the

river provide excellent overwintering habitat. The steep canyon and long distances to 

ponds on the canyon rim may be sufficient to preclude extensive movements from the 

river to these ponds, and vice versa. With over 36 miles of channel in the fire perimeter, 

there are approximately 8,600 acres of suitable upland habitat adjacent to the river. 

Above Early Intake, multiple observations of WPT have been made during cooperative 

surveys (San Francisco Public Utilities Commission, National Park Service (Yosemite), 

and Forest Service). These observations extend upstream to Poopenaut Valley in the 

park. Below Early Intake, observations of WPT are rare. Anecdotal information from 

the USFS river ranger on the Tuolumne indicates adult turtles are seldom observed and 

occur most frequently near the confluence of the North Fork Tuolumne River (Bob 

Stanley, personal communication). These turtles may be individuals dispersing 

downstream from the North Fork, where WPT have been well documented.

Ackerson Creek is a modest sized tributary to the South Fork Tuolumne River with a 

watershed area of approximately 7,356 acres. Approximately 75% of the watershed lies 

within the boundary of Yosemite National Park. The average channel gradient on the 

Stanislaus is fairly low (<3%) over the three or so miles on the forest. The known 

occurrence of turtles in this watershed comes from the main tributary lying south of 

Ackerson Creek and turtles are regularly found in the stream meandering through the 

meadow. We can reasonably assume that the turtles move throughout Ackerson Creek 

and may have connectivity with other WPT in the South Fork Tuolumne River. This 

population is an elevation outlier from other populations on the forest, occurring at an 

elevation of approximately 4,800 feet.

The entire watershed area is within the Rim Fire perimeter and the following vegetation 

burn severity classes were observed. Very low to low fire severity affected 1,932 acres 

(26% of the total watershed area), moderate severity fire affected 1,652 acres (22%), and 

high severity fire affected 3,772 acres (52%).

Drew Creek was previously discussed under FYLF. Drew Creek provides 

approximately two miles of suitable habitat that coincides with the FYLF suitable habitat 

and is related to those areas with persistent water. Persistent water is particularly 

important for the WPT because once the newly hatched turtles emerge from the nest, they

need to be in close proximity to a pool for a critical period of physical growth and 

development. While they can move short distances during the early period associated 

with water, they have limited energy reserves and need to actively feed in warm water

habitats. Adult and subadult turtles are more capable of moving long distances, even in 

channels without water, to other aquatic habitats. 

Almost all of the area surrounding the stream is suitable upland habitat (for overwintering 

and aestivation), and using an average distance of 984 feet (both sides of the stream) for 
52

overwintering movements, there are approximately 1,000 acres of upland habitat. Of this 

total, we consider less than 10% of the area to be suitable for nesting, mainly along the 

north side (south facing) side of the stream, but particularly in areas of herbaceous 

vegetation created by the 2005 Tuolumne Fire. The limited amount of nesting habitat is 

due to dense chaparral in upland habitat.

Eleanor Creek provides approximately 3.5 miles of mainstem channel that appears to be 

highly suitable for the WPT. There are many deep pools and the channel is relatively 

wide with ample bedrock and boulder outcrops for basking. We have received several 

reports of turtles occupying the reach downstream of the dam. Much of the watershed 

area between the confluence with Cherry Creek and the dam burned at high severity. 

There are approximately 600 acres of upland habitat in the watershed.

The Middle Fork Tuolumne River provides excellent aquatic habitat for the turtle. The 

general low gradient, long deep pools, limited road access, and high abundance of large 

woody debris improve the overall habitat quality of the river. Approximately 14 miles of 

main channel is on the forest, providing suitable habitat the entire reach, even extending 

into the park. Detections of WPT in the Middle Fork mainly come from the lower reach 

in the vicinity of the San Jose Camp and the crossing of the Cherry Lake Road (1N07). 

We have had incidental reports of turtles being observed in the vicinity of Camp 

Towanga, but our surveys have not detected the turtle at that site. 

We consider the entire length of stream to be suitable for all life stages of WPT. As such, 

the upland habitat comprises approximately 5,365 acres. From Camp Tawonga and 

proceeding upstream, the amount of nesting habitat was limited by the extensive stands of 

mixed conifer forest along the stream. Before the fire, there was a low likelihood of 

nesting in this reach, but conditions for nesting may have improved locally in the 

aftermath of the fire. Most of the open, minimally forested area is downstream of 

Tawonga, especially in the vicinity of Spinning Wheel (just upstream of the Cherry Lake

Road). 

The North Fork Tuolumne River provides moderate to high quality aquatic habitat for 

the WPT. The known occupied reach is between Riverside Day Use area and the 

Cottonwood Road (1N04) crossing of the North Fork. Our knowledge of WPT 

distribution in the river is limited due to minimal access for surveys. Discussions with 

landowners near Sierra Village (river elevation 3,800 feet) suggest the turtle occupies at 

least the lower 17 miles of the North Fork. Over this length, there are approximately 

2,500 acres of upland habitat. Based on aerial imagery, the availability of nesting habitat 

is very limited above 2,600 (river surface elevation) due to extensive mixed conifer forest 

and lack of open meadow or chaparral areas. The lower 11 miles of the river appear to be 

moderately suitable for nesting in the upland habitat.

Hunter Creek, a North Fork Tuolumne River tributary, supports a population of WPT 

and observations have most frequently occurred in the vicinity of the 1N03 crossing of 

the creek. The uplands surrounding this lower reach support blue oak woodlands with a 

grassy understory, conditions that are favorable for nesting. The entire 7.5 miles of main 
53

channel in Hunter Creek provide suitable aquatic habitat for the WPT and the 

surrounding upland habitat amounts to almost 1,100 acres. The lower three miles of 

Hunter Creek provides suitable nesting habitat, primarily on the north side of the river.

The South Fork Tuolumne River provides approximately 14 miles of suitable aquatic 

habitat for the WPT on the forest. Habitat characteristics of the South Fork are very 

similar to those in the Middle Fork Tuolumne River, with abundant low gradient stream, 

limited disturbance in the riparian area, long and deep pools, and adequate basking 

habitat. Surveys have only detected WPT immediately upstream of the Highway 120 

crossing, but the entire reach is assumed to be occupied by the turtle. There are 

approximately 6,400 acres of suitable upland habitat. Within this upland habitat, nesting 

habitat appears to be limited to very few areas of open, herbaceous upland totaling less 

than 200 acres. Most of the nesting habitat is found in the lower five miles of the river. 

North Fork Merced River

The turtle occupies most of the upper portion of the North Fork Merced River, 

including many of the tributaries listed below. Using the stream mileage estimated for 

the FYLF (74.4 miles), there are approximately 17,000 acres of upland habitat available 

and very little breeding habitat is embedded within the upland habitat because of dense 

chaparral and live oak stands. Most of the discussion of suitable habitats is made for the 

tributaries. 

Western pond turtle distribution in Bull Creek essentially overlaps the distribution of the 

foothill yellow-legged frog. The turtle is known from the upper reach of Bull Creek in 

Anderson Valley and detections have occurred downstream to Jenkins Ranch (2S05 road 

crossing). Turtles likely use the lower three miles of inaccessible stream because the 

gradient is relatively low and aerial imagery indicates the presence of large pools. Along 

the 7.5 miles of Bull Creek’s mainstem, there are approximately 1,800 acres of suitable 

upland habitat for the WPT and almost 10,000 acres of upland habitat in total for the 

watershed. We do not have any survey in Montgomery Gulch, the primary tributary to 

Bull Creek. This subwatershed provides an additional six miles of intermittent channel 

that may provide low to moderate quality aquatic habitat for the turtle. 

Deer Lick Creek is a tributary to Moore Creek and provides about 10 miles of perennial 

channel. Other than the first mile of channel, this stream offers little in the way of 

nesting habitat as no open, herbaceous areas are present. However, the presence of adults 

in the lower mile indicates the stream is suitable for adults and subadults. This is likely 

due to the extensive bedrock streambed (provides basking habitat) and presence of deep 

pools at the bottom of cascades. The surveyors indicated habitat suitability decreased 

greatly approximately three miles up from the confluence and several large 

cascade/waterfalls (30+ feet) may preclude extensive movement to upstream reaches. As 

such, we consider the lower three miles to be the primary suitable aquatic habitat in Deer 

Lick Creek, and the surrounding upland habitat includes approximately 440 acres.
54

Moore Creek provides approximately five miles of mainly intermittent channel for the 

WPT. Our experience surveying this stream indicates persistent water in pools from the 

confluence with the North Fork Merced River to White Oak Creek. However, the 

headwater tributaries near Highway 120 have several small ponds on them, which may 

serve to attract individual turtles. We have observed shells in upland areas in this vicinity 

which may suggest overwintering was occurring in this part of the stream. The lower end 

of the stream has a small impoundment and there is a seasonal pond in close proximity to 

the stream in this vicinity as well. There are approximately 2,800 total acres of upland 

habitat in the watershed, approximately 1,200 acres of upland habitat along the five miles 

of suitable aquatic habitat, and less than 100 acres of open area that could support 

nesting.

Scott Creek is a small tributary to the North Fork Merced River with a watershed area of 

approximately 1,627 acres and approximately one mile of mapped perennial channel. 

Field surveys in this stream did not indicate perennial stream flow in the mapped portion 

and the stream is likely intermittent in most years. WPT were observed within the lower 

0.5 mile of the stream in 2012 and were associated with bedrock and pool habitat. The

surveyors indicated overall suitability of the stream decreased considerably one mile up 

the stream due to lack of pool habitat, lack of basking structures, and high levels of 

stream shading. There are approximately 240 acres of upland habitat around the lower 

mile of stream, and there appear to be several small, isolated open areas that may provide 

suitable habitat for nesting (<10 acres total).

Approximately 60% of the watershed lies within the Rim Fire perimeter and the fire was 

contained to the upper portion of the watershed. Burn conditions were generally very 

low to low with 42% (680 acres) of the watershed area affected by this degree of fire 

severity, and moderate and high severity fire affected 13% and 5%, respectively. 

Birch Lake is a man-made pond lying entirely on private lands, known as Camp Mather 

and owned by the City and County of San Francisco and operated by the San Francisco 

Recreation and Parks Department. It has a surface area of approximately four acres and, 

based on personal observations, supports a population of WPT. Non-native and 

predatory bullfrogs are abundant at this pond. There are approximately 120 acres of 

upland habitat surrounding the lake, but much of it has very low suitability due to 

extensive development at the camp. The immediate area surrounding Camp Mather was 

kept from burning, but there was a considerable amount of high severity fire on the 

hillslopes surrounding Birch Lake, including the ephemeral and intermittent channels. 

The available maps lack clarity when attempting to determine the flow paths of nearby 

streams and their potential contribution to water and sediment delivery to the lake. We 

know very little about the terrestrial use of the turtle at this site and do know that there is 

very high use in and around the lake from Memorial Day through Labor Day. 

Mud Lake is a small (3 acres) perennial pond located less than 0.5 mile to the west of 

Birch Lake. There is a relatively large population of WPT at this site, with one 

photograph showing over 30 adult turtles. The pond loses over half of its surface area in 

a typical year and less than 500 square feet of surface area was present in late 2013. This 
55

leads us to believe the lake retains water in almost all years since this is the second of two 

very dry years. There are approximately 115 acres of upland habitat surrounding the 

lake. The pond has a robust population of bullfrogs. The area immediately around Mud 

Lake, especially east and west of the pond, was affected by relatively low severity fire. 

High severity fire was prevalent north of the pond as the fire rapidly climbed the canyon 

of the Tuolumne River. Visitor use around this pond is relatively high given the 

proximity to Camp Mather, and guided horseback tours travel along a portion of the lake 

regularly throughout the summer. It is reasonable to assume that turtles move between 

Birch Lake and Mud Lake given their proximity.

There are two ponds located on Kibbie Ridge, the watershed divide between Cherry 

Creek and Eleanor Creek. The ponds differ in size and we have informally named them 

“Big Kibbie” and “Little Kibbie”. Big Kibbie pond is approximately one acre in size, 

Little Kibbie pond is approximately 0.5 acre, and they lie approximately 0.2 miles apart. 

Upland habitat around Big Kibbie Pond comprises approximately 100 acres, while the 

upland habitat around Little Kibbie is approximately 90 acres. The upland habitats for 

the ponds overlap with each other due to the proximity of the ponds. The WPT 

occupying the ponds are likely to move between the two due to this proximity. 

We have monitored these two populations regularly since the mid-1990s, including 

limited radio-tracking of a couple of individuals in the early 1990s. Both ponds are 

entirely within the fire perimeter and a mosaic of fire severity occurred in close proximity 

(<100 feet) to the pond perimeters. However, high severity fire was dominant within 0.5 

mile of the edges of the ponds.

“Grandfather Pond” is a small (<0.1 acre), isolated wetland approximately three miles 

to the west of Mud Lake and lies just on the lip of the Tuolumne River canyon. A modest 

sized population (20 individuals) has been observed at this location. There are 

approximately 80 acres of upland habitat around the pond. Fire severity was high to the 

north of the pond as the fire climbed out of the canyon, but on the other sides of the pond, 

fire severity was low to moderate. Based on aerial imagery, this pond does not maintain 

perennial water in the driest years. During periods of drought, the turtles may extensively 

use the upland habitat for aestivation in addition to overwintering.

Abernathy Meadow lies immediately to the west of Grandfather Pond and has a 

seasonal wetland in the meadow. The meadow is approximately 4.5 acres in size and the 

flooded portion coincides well with the mapped area of the meadow. This wetland is 

filled by rain and snow and typically holds water until June or July. Once the standing 

water is gone, the turtles move into the upland to aestivate and generally towards the 

north. This may be due to the disturbance created by the road that runs south of the 

meadow. Fire severity was mixed around the meadow with high severity conditions 

mapped to the south of the meadow and very low to low severity fire immediately north 

and east of the meadow. Upland habitat surrounding the ponds comprises approximately 

132 acres.

“Grandfather Pond” is a small (0.1 acre) pond perched on the rim of the Tuolumne 

River canyon. It lies approximately 0.4 miles east of Abernathy Meadow and 1.5 miles 
56

west of Mud Lake. Burn severity patterns described for Abernathy Meadow were 

consistent around Grandfather Pond. There are approximately 80 acres of upland habitat 

surrounding the pond, and upland habitat here overlaps with that of Abernathy Meadow. 

Like Grandfather Pond, Homestead Pond is a small (0.1 acre) aquatic feature that lies

immediately above the Tuolumne Canyon near Buck Meadows. There are approximately 

90 acres of upland habitat. The fire affected upland habitat to the north and east of the 

pond, but some habitat was relatively unaffected.

Other streams providing suitable habitat for the WPT include those listed under the FYLF 

as providing suitable habitat. The following estimates of stream miles (and acres) 

providing suitable aquatic habitat for the WPT are estimated using best professional 

judgment which involved the use of aerial imagery, stream gradient maps, descriptions of 

habitat on survey forms, and visual estimates made during field visits. These creeks

include all or portions of the following that are direct tributaries to the Tuolumne River: 

Cherry (11 miles of perennial stream habitat in the mainstem, 2,600 acres of upland 

habitat), Corral (5.5 miles, 1,300 acres), Grapevine (5 miles, 1,200 acres), Indian (2

miles, 480 acres), and Jawbone (11 miles, 2,600 acres). The following creeks are direct 

tributaries to the Clavey River: Bear Springs (1 mile, 240 acres), Bull Meadow (1 mile, 

240 acres), Cottonwood (2 miles, 480 acres), Quilty (1 mile, 240 acres), and Reed (6

miles, 1,400 acres). The streams listed previously for the North Fork Merced River 

include most stream miles in that watershed that provide suitable aquatic habitat for the 

WPT.

Table 6 shows the streams, ponds, and meadow with known WPT populations and lists 

the primary streams that provide suitable habitat for the turtle.

Table 6. Streams occupied by and providing suitable habitat for the western pond turtle 

in the Rim Fire area, including stream miles, pond acreage, and acres of upland habitat.

Watershed (5th

level 

Hydrologic Unit 

Code)

Stream name Occupancy 

(Yes/Unknown)

Survey 

(Yes/No)

Miles of 

suitable 

stream

Acres of upland 

habitat (300-

foot buffer)

Tuolumne 

River

Tuolumne River Yes Yes 36.5 8711

Drew Cr. Yes Yes 4.6 1011

Grapevine Cr. Yes Yes 10.8 2565

Jawbone Cr. Unknown Yes 14.3 3411

Three unnamed ponds Unknown No 10 acres 277

Homestead Pond Yes Yes 0.4 acre 91

Middle Fork 

Tuolumne 

River

Middle Fork Tuolumne 

River Yes Yes 25.5 5365

Abernathy Meadow Yes Yes 7.5 132

Grandfather Pond Yes Yes 0.2 acre 82

Mud Lake Yes Yes 3 acres 115

North Fork 

Tuolumne 

River

North Fork Tuolumne 

River Yes Yes 75 16718

Basin Cr. Unknown Yes 17.8 3902

Hunter Cr. Yes Yes 21.5 4912

South Fork South Fork Tuolumne Yes Yes 29.4 6411
57

Watershed (5th

level 

Hydrologic Unit 

Code)

Stream name Occupancy 

(Yes/Unknown)

Survey 

(Yes/No)

Miles of 

suitable 

stream

Acres of upland 

habitat (300-

foot buffer)

Tuolumne 

River

River

Cherry Creek

Cherry Cr. Unknown No 17.8 3737

Eleanor Cr. Unknown No 2.3 599

Big Kibbie Pond Yes Yes 1 acre 98

Little Kibbie Pond Yes Yes 0.5 acre 86

Clavey River Clavey River Yes Yes 29 3460

Reed Cr. Unknown Yes 4.2 904

North Fork 

Merced River

North Fork Merced 

River Yes Yes 74.4 16908

Bull Cr. Yes Yes 44.7 9879

Deer Lick Cr. Unknown Yes 9.7 2234

Moore Cr. Yes Yes 11.9 2767

Scott Cr. Unknown Yes 1.9 453

AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

The Rim Fire affected a variety of aquatic habitats including wetlands, ponds, natural and 

man-made lakes, streams, and rivers. The aquatic features at lower elevations, less than 

2,500 feet, are primarily influenced by rainfall during the wet season (November through 

April), while aquatic features above this elevation are influenced by rainfall, snowpack, 

or a combination of both. Streams in the rainfall zone typically see peak flows following 

larger rain events and some intermittent streams may support surface water for several 

months. Streams in the rain/snow zones may see very high peak flows if rain falls on a 

snowpack, but streams typically show a period of peak flow as the snow melts in the late 

spring and early summer.

All of the larger stream systems affected by the Rim Fire are bedrock rivers (versus 

alluvial rivers) shaped by snowmelt runoff during the late spring (mid-May) to middle 

summer (mid-July). Geomorphic complexity in bedrock rivers in the Sierra Nevada 

requires variable annual flow (winter floods, snowmelt peak flows, winter and summer 

baseflow), periodic inputs of large volumes of sediments (landslides, hillslope mass 

wasting), and multiple flow thresholds (variable levels of flooding) (McBain and Trush 

2004). Most of these rivers have steep canyons, and steep tributary streams, ascending to 

more gentle terrain above the canyon rim. 

A very large proportion of the fire area occurred in the Tuolumne River watershed. The 

Tuolumne River originates in Yosemite National Park and has several large tributaries 

originating in the Park or on the Stanislaus National Forest. Five primary tributaries join 

the Tuolumne within the fire area: the Clavey and Middle, North, and South Fork 

Tuolumne Rivers, and Cherry Creek. The Middle and South Fork Tuolumne Rivers 

originate in Yosemite then flow in a westerly direction to join each other and then the 

main Tuolumne. Cherry Creek and the North Fork Tuolumne and Clavey Rivers 

originate from the Stanislaus and primarily flow in a southerly direction into the 
58

Tuolumne. There are many minor tributaries to the Tuolumne River and its principal 

tributaries including: Alder, Big, Corral, Drew, Grapevine, Indian, and Jawbone Creeks 

(Tuolumne River); Basin and Hunter Creeks (North Fork Tuolumne River); Big Creek 

(South Fork Tuolumne River); Eleanor Creek and Granite Creek (Cherry Creek); and 

Hull, Reed (including Bourland, Reynolds, and Little Reynolds Creeks), and Twomile 

Creeks (Clavey River). Additionally, there are numerous very small, typically unnamed 

tributaries to each of these listed streams and rivers.

Obligate riparian vegetation (e.g., willow and alder) along most streams in the affected 

area is typically restricted to a narrow (less than 50 feet) band adjacent to the edge of the 

water. There are some wetlands in fire perimeter that support obligate herbaceous 

riparian species as dominant plant community types.

Post-fire effects on aquatic and riparian habitats

Wildland fire can cause many dramatic effects to aquatic and riparian habitats. Those 

effects can occur in the short- and longer-term. Very short-term effects are incurred 

during, and immediately following, the passage of the advancing edge of the fire. Some 

examples of these very short-term effects include increases in water temperature, gases 

dissolved in water, and loss of riparian vegetation shading. Typically, these are 

classified as direct effects because they are immediately attributable to the fire. Shortterm effects typically occur one to three years following the fire and some examples of 

these effects include increased delivery of sediment to streams, pulses of nutrients, and 

stream channel erosion. Long-term effects can be observed for many years or decades

and examples include changes in streambank stability and stream shading. Very longterm impacts to riparian and aquatic systems can also be observed and an example is the 

reduced recruitment of very large woody debris, trees that take several hundred years to 

attain large sizes (>45 inches in diameter at breast height). 

There is a considerable body of literature discussing post-fire effects, but the amount of 

literature pertaining to reptiles and amphibians is lacking, especially the species 

considered in this document. The available literature for fish (especially trout) and 

aquatic macroinvertebrates appears to be fairly well described, but a lesson learned is that 

different species may respond to fire in very different ways. For the amphibian and 

reptile species considered in this document, all have aquatic requirements for one or all 

life stages. These requirements include breeding activities, growth and development in 

larval forms, and foraging. All of the amphibian and reptile species also spend a 

considerable amount of time in terrestrial environments, sometimes long distances (>0.25 

mile) from water. 

Several journal articles were primarily used in developing this discussion of post-fire 

effects on aquatic and riparian systems and include Gresswell (1999) and several articles 

contained in the special issue of the journal Forest Ecology and Management (Young, et 

al. 2003) which was entirely devoted to the effects of wildland fire on aquatic ecosystems 

in the western United States. These articles are summarized in the paragraphs that follow 

and statements made here may reflect the work of other authors, but were used to support 

the general discussions of the effects of fire on aquatic and riparian systems. The 

discussion that follows is intentionally brief, but is expected to provide the reader with an 

understanding of the ways fire can affect the habitats that aquatic species depend upon. 
59

Many factors influence the degree of effect that any given fire may have on aquatic and 

riparian systems. Fire size and severity govern the extent and magnitude of post-fire 

related processes that influence these systems. Fire size is relatively obvious in that a 

very small fire (<10 acres) may have very localized (and small) effects on the landscape, 

but large fires (>50,000 acres) have the potential to dramatically affect large watershed 

areas, including multiple watersheds. Fire severity can be applied in several ways. 

Earlier in this document, high severity fire was used to describe the extent of vegetation 

mortality on the landscape, but, fire severity also applies to the extent to which heat is 

applied to the soil. The burn severity as related to vegetation may be important in 

describing effects to riparian shading while burn severity related to soils is very important 

when considering the potential for erosion to occur on hillslopes or water to runoff those 

hillslopes without soaking into the soil.

The direct effects of fire on aquatic and riparian systems are generally associated with 

the mortality of individuals, either plants or animals. Mortality of fish has been 

documented, but it is rare that all individuals are killed in a stream. Mortality is likely 

associated with very high fire intensity which causes water temperatures to exceed a 

tolerance threshold or changes in water chemistry via the assimilation of smoke and gases 

into the water. Mortality of vegetation is an obvious effect of a wildfire and is typically 

variable at patch and landscape scales, where “islands” of live vegetation can be found 

within large patches of high vegetation mortality. Vegetation mortality typically involves 

the loss of the above ground portion of the plant. Most obligate riparian species, those 

species requiring very close contact with water (also called phreatophytic), have evolved 

strategies to survive disturbances (like fire) by resprouting from root crowns, living 

stems, roots, and rhizomes; production of seeds light enough to be dispersed by wind and 

water; and production of refractory seeds which require the heat from fire or chemicals 

produced by burned vegetation to germinate. 

The indirect effects associated with a fire may last for years or decades and influence 

watershed characteristics such as increased hillslope erosion and sedimentation of aquatic 

systems, stream channel erosion, changes in patterns of stream water discharge, nutrient 

pulses and changes in productivity, reduced stream shading, increases in stream 

temperatures, and alteration of large woody debris dynamics. 

Erosion and sedimentation: Surface or hillslope erosion is influenced by a complex 

interaction of soil/geology, topography (steepness of a hillslope), vegetation, and climate. 

Post-fire, increases in erosion and subsequent sedimentation of aquatic habitats are 

primarily influenced by soil burn severity, steepness of hillslope, amount of ground cover 

remaining, and the intensity/duration of precipitation events, typically rain. The building 

blocks for very high erosion rates would include extensive areas of high and moderate 

soil burn severity, very little to no ground cover, steep hillslopes, and a period of rainfall 

with high intensity. High and moderate soil burn severity physically alters the structure 

of soil, making it easier to detach individual soil particles (more prone to erosion). These

burn severity conditions also increase the hydrophobicity, or water repellency, of the soil 

which decreases (or even inhibits) the rate at which precipitation will soak into the 
60

ground. Ground cover in the form of organic matter (live vegetation, leaf litter) helps to 

protect the soil from erosion by limiting the detachment potential for individual soil 

particles. Very little or no ground cover means the soil can be mobilized easily during 

precipitation events and transported downslope by water flowing across the soil surface. 

On gentle slopes (<15%), eroded soil is not easily transported, but, as slope steepness 

increases, less energy is required keep soil in transport downslope. Finally, the intensity 

or duration of a precipitation event plays a critical role in the potential for water to flow 

across the soil surface and is directly related to the infiltration capacity of the soil. High 

intensity rainfall events produce large quantities of rain in a short period of time. Under 

this condition, the soil cannot soak in the rain at a rate equivalent to the rainfall intensity 

and water begins to flow across the soil surface, eroding the soil particles at the same 

time. Similarly, long duration precipitation events (or melting snow) can saturate the soil 

which initiates overland flow and erosion. All other things being equal, precipitation 

intensity may be the one factor that truly drives extreme erosion.

Increased sediment delivery (compared to unburned conditions) can persist for years

following a wildfire. In the first year following a fire, erosion rates are typically the 

highest and can be several orders of magnitude greater than erosion rates in unburned 

forests. These post-fire rates typically decrease rapidly after the first precipitation year 

on a fire. In this part of the Sierra Nevada, hydrophobic conditions caused by high fire 

severity typically only last one to three years and are attributable to a variety of physical 

and biological processes. As such, infiltration rates in severely burned areas rapidly 

return to pre-burn levels. Ground cover typically increases rapidly with the establishment 

of herbaceous species and the regrowth by stump sprouting shrub species. When 

increased infiltration rates and ground cover are combined, the proportion of the 

landscape vulnerable to erosion quickly decreases. 

It should be noted that areas affected by very low to low fire severity classes typically do 

not respond with large increases in erosion. This is because the soil structure is 

maintained, hydrophobic conditions do not form, and ground cover is maintained either 

through existing live vegetation or the addition of leaves and needles killed by the fire. 

Therefore, the proportion of burn severities observed within a watershed regulate erosion 

and sediment delivery to streams, with greater proportions of high severity fire producing 

much more sediment than more lightly burned watersheds. 

Landslides (mass wasting) and debris flows are two extreme types of erosional processes 

that can deliver very large volumes of sediment to aquatic systems following an extreme 

fire. Debris flows, also called mudslides, are shallow landslides that are saturated with 

water. This erosional process can transport large volumes of sediment and wood and 

really scour a stream channel by eroding the vulnerable streambanks. Landslides tend to 

be more deeply rooted and typically involve higher sediment volumes than debris flows, 

and are also triggered by soil saturation. While landslides can occur immediately 

following a fire, they tend to occur many (4-10) years after burning when tree roots decay 

and the cohesive strength of the soil is decreased.
61

The increased overland and stream flows and transport of sediment and large woody 

debris in stream channels that occurs in the post-fire environment may also impact the 

road system within and downstream of the fire area. Forest roads are the source of 

significant sediment for many streams because a majority of roads have a native (dirt) 

surface, which is easily eroded. The lack of routine road surface maintenance, 

construction of ineffective drainage structures (examples, culverts and rolling dips), and 

continued use and maintenance of inside ditches (versus outsloping the road) all combine 

to produce excess sediment in unburned conditions, but especially in post-fire areas 

where runoff increases are anticipated. Roads and their associated drainage features 

(ditches and rolling dips/waterbars) tend to concentrate water flowing across and down 

the road surface. When the concentrated flow is delivered to a stream or a severely 

burned slope, stream channel and gully erosion can be initiated or aggravated. Rolling 

dips and waterbars are typically installed assuming an unburned watershed condition and, 

as such, their spacing tends to be too great to effectively dissipate post-fire runoff. The 

wider spacing allows the water to gather energy as it flows down the road surface, and 

the diversion can gully the receiving hillslope as previously mentioned.

Also, many existing stream crossings were not designed to facilitate the passage of 

increased post-fire water and fire-generated debris, resulting in road failures, overtopping 

of culverted crossings, and diversion of flow down roads. When road crossings fail, large 

volumes of earthen fill typically get eroded and washed down the stream that is being 

crossed. Undersized culverts can become plugged by woody debris and sediment, 

causing the water to overtop the road prism and erode the road surface and downhill 

slope of the crossing. 

Channel erosion and sediment deposition: In the wake of a wildfire, stream channels 

are frequently altered by increases in streamflow and sediment supply. During post-fire 

runoff events, more water is routed to stream channels because absorptive leaf litter 

layers have been reduced or eliminated, higher severity soil burn conditions tend to 

encourage overland flow, and evapotranspiration by living vegetation is reduced. 

Increased streamflows, especially those induced by very large storms (>25 recurrence 

interval), can erode stream channels in three dimensions: vertically, laterally and 

longitudinally. With the extensive loss of vegetation on the landscape, many stream 

channels are vulnerable to erosion and can incise deeper than the existing channel. This 

type of erosion is most pronounced in streams that are in alluvial deposits and less 

pronounced in bedrock and boulder/cobble streams. Moody and Martin (2001) describe 

channel erosion as the dominant source of post-fire sediment with hillslope erosion 

accounting for a minor fraction of sediment transported by stream channels in the postfire environment. Lateral erosion can occur when greater streamflows force the water 

wider in a channel, thereby eroding existing streambanks. Increases in streamflow can 

also induce streambed scour in intermittent and ephemeral channels, extending all the 

way up to the top of the watershed boundary. 

The fate of the sediment produced by in-channel and hillslope erosion is determined by 

the morphology and physical characteristics of the stream. The physical characteristics 

of the stream (examples: gradient, substrate composition) determine whether the 
62

sediment is transported out of the system or stored in areas such as low gradient reaches, 

behind debris dams, or on floodplains. In general, the sediment delivered to streams 

following the first sediment-producing flows is retained in-channel which results in 

channel aggradation (the level of the streambed rises). Using the Bagley Fire (Shasta 

Trinity National Forest in 2012) as an example, the following observations were made in 

streams in the fire area following two large storm events: low gradient (<2%) streams 

aggraded approximately 1.5 feet on average and exceeding three feet in some areas; 

substrate size decreased as a result of sand and gravel accumulation in the channels; and a 

significant loss of slow water habitats (pools and glides) via inundation by sediment

(USDA 2013). During subsequent runoff events and years, streamflows tend to flush fine 

sediments downstream and redistribute larger sized sediments throughout the channel.

Higher gradient sections of stream generally tend to transport sediment out of them and 

lower gradient sections of stream generally tend to store sediment in them. 

Wildfires can cause changes in stream channels and commonly induce those changes one 

to four years following the fire. Some impacts to channels, such as reduced streambank 

stability, may take a decade or longer to stabilize and function more closely to pre-fire 

conditions. It should be noted that, while the temporary condition of an inundated 

channel may appear “devastating” or “catastrophic” to a stream, all stream systems 

require temporary pulses of resources (including sediment) to create and maintain microand macro-habitat types in a stream network. The changes in habitat that can be observed 

in the post-fire environment may favor some species in the short- and/or long-term, and 

may be detrimental to other species.

Debris flows are a type of mass wasting that occurs in a stream channel and combines 

stream flow with large volumes of eroded sediment or sediment generated by debris 

slides. As this mass of liquefied mud moves down the channel, it begins to entrain 

additional sediment that is eroded from the stream’s channel and banks. Large woody 

debris is also mobilized by debris slides and flows. If the channel gradient is high 

enough, the debris flow can travel long distances and increase in mass to a point where it 

causes extensive changes in channel morphology. The energy of debris flows can 

dissipate in low gradient channels and deposit very large volumes of sediment in these 

reaches. Or, the flows can continue downstream and terminate at the confluence of a 

larger stream. Some of this sediment is stored on floodplains and can remain intact for 

decades to centuries. The sediment that resides in the channel is transported downstream 

in subsequent years, potentially influencing channel substrate composition and instream 

habitat complexity for many years (10+ years).

Water discharge: As noted previously, the loss of vegetation from the landscape 

following a fire can reduce infiltration capacity which leads to atypical runoff patterns 

(peak streamflow) when compared to pre-fire conditions. The baseflow of a stream can 

also increase in the post-fire environment if sufficient vegetation mortality occurs in the 

watershed. This increase in baseflow can cause dry streams to resurface, intermittent 

streams to sustain perennial flow, and perennial streams to yield a greater quantity of 

water over the course of a year. The increased magnitude of peak flows and baseflow are 

important factors for transporting post-fire sediments that are stored in channels. These 
63

changes are also important in mobilizing and redistributing stream substrates throughout 

a stream system. 

Nutrient pulses and stream productivity: Wildfires produce an immediate change in 

water chemistry during and immediately following the passage of the fire front, lasting 

days or several weeks. As noted earlier, gases produced during the combustion of 

vegetation can be assimilated into stream water. The main nutrient input from gases is 

nitrogen and is associated with ammonium in gaseous form. Another well documented 

change in water chemistry is an increase in phosphorus, attributable to leaching of 

aerially deposited ash. 

During post-fire precipitation events that deliver sediment to streams, increases in 

phosphorus have been reported when ash is mobilized to the channel and chemicals are 

leached from the ash. This punctuated delivery of sediment results in peaks or pulses of 

nutrient reaching the stream that typically last a year or two. In slightly longer 

timeframes (2-5 years), changes in water chemistry have been observed and associated 

with altered nutrient cycling resulting from the loss of forested cover. Seasonal peak 

increases for these prolonged changes in water chemistry were associated with spring 

run-off.

In the naturally occurring nutrient-poor state of streams (attributable to underlying 

geology) in the Sierra Nevada, these nutrients can be quickly taken up by plants (algae). 

When combined with increased sunlight reaching the stream (discussed below), the 

addition of readily usable nutrients can temporarily (five or so years) enhance primary 

productivity of many streams. Increases in primary productivity can initiate trophic 

cascading effects whereby secondary productivity (mainly aquatic benthic 

macroinvertebrates (insects)) is also stimulated. This type of trophic cascade may extend 

to larger aquatic and aquatic/terrestrial food webs, providing more food resources to fish, 

stream associated amphibians, and riparian bird and bat specialists.

Stream shading and water temperature: Obviously, when moderate and high 

vegetation severity fire burns through a riparian area (and adjacent hillslopes), stream 

shading can decrease as tree mortality increases. Once the vegetation loses the dead 

needles or leaves, the bole and branches provide very little shade. The decrease in shade 

and live riparian vegetation can lead to warmer stream temperatures through an increase 

in direct sunlight hitting the water and impairment of the cooler riparian microclimate. 

An impaired riparian microclimate means the vegetation no longer has the capacity to 

restrict air flow along the stream corridor and drier, warmer conditions at the stream 

surface further promote water warming. 

This shading concept applies mainly where there is a forested overstory, but at a much 

smaller scale, the fire can also temporarily eliminate the shading provided by herbaceous 

vegetation, typically tall sedges growing along the stream margin. As noted earlier, many 

of these sedge species are adapted to disturbance and can quickly regrow the leaves, even 

initiating new growth in as little time as a few days post-fire.
64

The loss of stream shading can mean that some streams, typically small streams (1-3 feet 

wide or headwaters (1st and 2nd order), can see water temperature increases of ten or more 

degrees (Fahrenheit) for a couple of years post-fire. Temperature increases may be 

partially offset by increased streamflow from enhanced groundwater interaction. The 

duration of reduced stream shading largely depends on the pre-fire extent of obligate 

riparian species. Local observations on Rose and McCormick Creeks indicate obligate 

riparian species can provide very high levels of stream shading (>60%) within ten years 

of the disturbance. The recovery of this riparian vegetation is certainly promoted when 

livestock grazing is excluded as evidenced by exclosures constructed on the upper section 

of Rose Creek. Outside of these exclosures, heavy grazing on resprouting willows and 

alders has retarded the development of shade providing vegetation.

In general, the extent to which a stream experiences decreased stream shading and 

commensurate increases in water temperatures depends upon the extent of vegetation 

killing fire in relation to the stream’s length or watershed area. If a fire induces mortality 

for >50% of the shade producing vegetation, an increase in stream temperatures is likely 

to occur. Conversely, temperature increases are not expected if <25 % of the shading is 

lost or low severity fire occurs within the riparian area (Arkle and Pilliod 2010).

Large woody debris: Wildfires can reduce the volume of large woody debris (LWD) 

stored in stream channels or on floodplains if the fuel moistures in the wood are relatively 

low. This occurred in at least one stream, Reed Creek, during the Rim Fire and likely 

occurred in other streams with greater proportions of high severity fire. During and 

immediately following the fire, there can be recruitment of LWD as snags burn at the 

ground or previously fire-damaged trees fail. If high vegetation severity fire occurs 

extensively along a stream, then large inputs of LWD are possible over the next several 

decades as the trees are structurally weakened and fall. The long-term consequence of 

extensive high severity fire in the riparian area is that there may be a long interval to the 

next time LWD can be recruited to the stream, especially where older growth forest is 

lost. In this case, it can take centuries to grow a 60-80 inch Douglas fir that is the next 

beneficial piece of LWD. Other events, such as large landslides or severe wind events, 

can cause large numbers (and volume) of LWD to be recruited to streams and riparian 

areas. Post-fire erosional processes can also transport large volumes of pre- and post-fire 

LWD during floods in severely altered watersheds. 

Large woody debris plays an important role in stream morphology and adding habitat 

complexity. When LWD is lodged in a stream channel, either as individual pieces or 

aggregations, it can reduce water velocity and cause sediment to be deposited upstream of 

the wood (the channel aggrades). This sediment can be stored for many decades and gets 

redistributed over long time periods when the woody obstruction fails. Downstream of 

LWD obstructions, pools often form as the streambed is scoured by the energy of falling 

water. So, beneficial habitats are formed upstream (example, spawning beds for fish) and 

downstream (deep pool with overhead cover) of the LWD.

Expectations for the watersheds affected by the Rim Fire
65

Several sources of information were used in predicting the extent to which we expect 

changes in aquatic and riparian systems. First, patterns and extent of fire severity, both 

vegetation and soil, were examined using aerial imagery and fire severity mapping. 

Watersheds with a high proportion of moderate and high severity fire were singled out for 

having a high potential to see significant changes in post-fire erosional processes, 

including erosion rates, sedimentation, and discharge. Then, the fire patterns within these 

watersheds were evaluated, especially as related to proximity to the streams. Data 

generated by the 1) Rim Fire Burned Area Emergency Response reports and 2) specialist 

reports for this EIS were incorporated. The primary sources used to develop expectations 

for watershed response included the soils, hydrology, and geology. The soils reports 

(BAER and Rim Recovery Project) detail erosion and sedimentation, the hydrology 

reports (BAER and Rim Recovery Project) detail changes in stream discharge and 

channel response, and the geology report (BAER) details the potential for landslides. All 

of this available information was used to develop specific expectations for the suitable 

and occupied habitats for the species considered in this document. Table 7 displays the 

anticipated changes in stream flow and sediment delivered to the stream channel at the 

most downstream point in the watershed.

Table 7. Changes in streamflow and sediment yield to channel for selected streams 

providing suitable habitat for aquatic species in the area affected by the Rim Fire. 

5th Level HUC 

Watersheds

6th Level HUC 

Watersheds

Streams Pre-fire 

stream flow 

(in cubic 

ft/second)1, 2

Post-fire 

stream flow 

(in cubic 

ft/second)1,2

Sediment 

Yield3 (in 

tons)

North Fork 

Merced River

Upper N. Fk.

Merced R.

N. Fk. Merced R. 237 237 9,805

Deer Lick Cr. n/c n/c 1,955

Moore Cr. n/c n/c 3,223

Scott Cr. n/c n/c 1,250

Bull Cr. Bull Cr. 331 356 2,586

Cherry Cr. Kibbie Cr. Kibbie Cr. 175 214 1,311

MiguelEleanor Cr.Eleanor Cr. 825 1,214 13,709

Lower Cherry 

Cr.

Cherry Cr. 1,891 3,038 56,494

Granite Cr. 14,843

Tuolumne 

River – Big 

Creek

Hetch HetchyTuolumne R.Tuolumne River 3,457 3,486 n/c

Poopenaut 

ValleyTuolumne R.

Tuolumne River 3,707 4,311 24,659

Jawbone Cr.-

Tuolumne R.

Tuolumne R. 5,505 8,216 99,846

Alder Cr. n/c n/c 5,312

Corral Cr. n/c n/c 21,417

Drew Cr. n/c n/c 4,420

Jawbone Cr. n/c n/c 40,058

Grapevine Cr.-

Tuolumne R.

Tuolumne R. 8,849 14,435 43,752

Grapevine Cr. n/c n/c 12,587

Middle Fork 

Tuolumne 

River

Upper M. Fk. 

Tuolumne R.

M. Fk. Tuolumne R. 404 849 22,263

Lower M. Fk. 

Tuolumne R.

M. Fk. Tuolumne R. 603 1,600 43,073
66

5th Level HUC 

Watersheds

6th Level HUC 

Watersheds

Streams Pre-fire 

stream flow 

(in cubic 

ft/second)1, 2

Post-fire 

stream flow 

(in cubic 

ft/second)1,2

Sediment 

Yield3 (in 

tons)

South Fork 

Tuolumne 

River

Upper S. Fk. 

Tuolumne R.

S. Fk. Tuolumne R. 558 1,161 29,060

Ackerson Cr. n/c n/c 9,907

Lower S. Fk. 

Tuolumne R.

S. Fk. Tuolumne R. 1,317 3,421 62,180

Clavey River Reed Cr. Reed Cr. 397 821 29,256

Lower Clavey 

R.

Clavey R. 1,350 2,502 51,831

Adams Gulch n/c n/c 2,341

Bear Springs Cr. n/c n/c 7,287

Bull Meadow Cr. n/c n/c 3,016

Indian Springs Cr. n/c n/c 1,239

Quilty Cr. n/c n/c 3,462

Unnamed Tributary 

1

n/c n/c 2,908

Unnamed Tributary 

2

n/c n/c 1,579

Unnamed Tributary 

3

n/c n/c 5,115

Unnamed Tributary 

4

n/c n/c 1,099

Unnamed Tributary 

5

n/c n/c 2,073

Mid. Clavey R. Clavey R. 819 1,076 26,880

Cottonwood Cr. n/c n/c 7,972

Russell Cr. n/c n/c 935

North Fork 

Tuolumne 

River

Lower N. Fk. 

Tuolumne R.

N. Fk. Tuolumne 

River

891 1,026 16,060

Basin Cr. n/c n/c 807

Hunter Cr. n/c n/c 15,205

n/c = not calculated, 1Values from the Rim Fire BAER hydrology report. 2Values are not additive for the stream segments lying 

upstream. 3

Assumes all sediment eroded from hillslope is routed to the channel and transported to the most downstream point in the 

watershed.

For the foothill yellow-legged frog, the impact to aquatic habitat is based on expected 

post-fire watershed response at various watershed scales. The estimates rely on 1) the 

extent to which a watershed was affected by fire, 2) the extent of high and moderate 

severity fire in a watershed, 3) stream gradient, and 4) sediment yield calculations when 

compared to pre-fire conditions. In the Watershed Report prepared for the Rim Recovery 

EIS, the Existing Watershed Condition provides a general narrative for how the primary 

watersheds (5th and 6th level HUC) are expected to respond in the post-fire environment, 

and those evaluations were used to put the FYLF watersheds into categories of watershed 

response. 

Three general categories were used for these watersheds: low, moderate, and high postfire response. For the low category, the post-fire watershed responses may not be readily 

observable at suitable breeding sites. The ability to reproduce is considered to be a key 

factor in maintaining recruitment as the watersheds recover, because most populations are 

small and the loss of a recruitment class could have a population-level consequence. In 

high concern watersheds, we expect major impacts to all habitat types, especially 
67

significant reduction of pool and other deep water habitat. Deep water habitats are 

refuges and critical to overwintering success and escape from perceived predation 

attempts. In moderate concern habitats, extensive sedimentation of all habitats is 

expected, but deep water habitats should be maintained by the scouring action of water. 

Table 8 lists the watersheds suitable for FYLF and expected level of watershed response.

Table 8. Watersheds providing suitable foothill yellow-legged frog habitat and the 

expected level of post-fire watershed response.

HUC level and name Stream name

Level of post-fire 

watershed 

response (low, 

moderate, high)

5 – Big Creek-Tuolumne River Big Creek Low

 6 – Grapevine Creek-Tuolumne River Tuolumne River, Indian Low

Grapevine Moderate

 6 – Jawbone Creek-Tuolumne River

 

Tuolumne River Low

Drew Moderate

Alder, Corral, Jawbone High

5 – North Fork Tuolumne River North Fork Tuolumne River, Basin Low

Hunter Moderate

5 – Clavey River Clavey River Low

 6 – Lower Clavey River

Clavey River Low

Unnamed Tributaries 1-5, Adams Gulch, 

Bear Springs, Bull Meadow, Indian 

Springs, Quilty

High

 6 – Middle Clavey River Clavey River, Cottonwood Low

Russell Moderate

 6 – Reed Creek Reed Creek Low

 7 –Lower Reed Creek Reed Creek Moderate

5 – Cherry Creek Cherry Moderate

 6 – Lower Cherry Creek Granite High

5 – Eleanor Creek Eleanor Creek Moderate

5 – Falls Creek-Tuolumne River Tuolumne River Low

5 – Middle Fork Tuolumne River Middle Fork Tuolumne River Moderate

5 – South Fork Tuolumne River South Fork Tuolumne River Moderate

5 – North Fork Merced River North Fork Merced, Bull, Deer Lick, Moore 

Creek, Scott Low

For the WPT, the potential for impact to aquatic habitat is also associated with the level 

of watershed response shown in Table 8. Since the WPT occurs with the FYLF in many 

streams and the two species use many of the same aquatic habitat types (especially deep 

water runs and pools), the evaluation made for the FYLF is considered to be appropriate 

for the WPT. The expected level of watershed response to suitable pond habitat is low 

for all ponds. The reason the concern is low is because the hillslopes adjacent to all of 

the ponds is relatively low and sediment should not transport across these gentle slopes. 

The only exception to this includes two of the “ponds” on the South Fork Tuolumne 

River that are actually impounded stream segments created by a dam on private property. 

These two habitats will see a moderate change that is commensurate with the evaluation 

for the river at the 5th level HUC scale.
68

For the hardhead, suitable habitats in the Clavey River, North Fork Tuolumne River, and 

Tuolumne River are not expected to be extensively altered by post-fire watershed 

response. In these three rivers, the large pool and deep run habitats are likely to be 

maintained by periods of peak streamflow. 

EFFECTS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT

Effects Analysis Methodology

Assumptions Specific to Aquatic Species

For the foothill yellow-legged frog (FYLF) and western pond turtle (WPT), we assumed 

all intermittent and perennial streams below 4,200 feet in elevation provided suitable 

habitat for the species. This is considered a conservative approach because some 

intermittent streams do not provide any perennial water, making occupancy by either 

species unlikely. If these small, intermittent tributaries have very steep pitches (example, 

20 foot high waterfall), they are also unlikely to be used by the turtle (Holland 1994). 

Also, the WPT may also occupy streams above the 4,200 foot elevation because one 

known occupied site above this elevation, but almost all occupied sites are lower than 

3,000 feet in elevation. Two occupied sites (ponds) are at 5,400 feet within this project 

area with no clear indication of how they became occupied by the species. It is possible 

that they occur at these sites naturally or are an artefact of introduction by humans.

All suitable habitats are assumed to be occupied by the species because of the limitations 

inherent in visual encounter surveys. Since the FYLF can remain hidden in streamside 

vegetation, roots, or cracks in rocks and WPT detect and hide quickly from surveyors (at 

long distances), the lack of detection during a single survey does not indicate unoccupied 

habitat. Also, some surveys only cover portions of a stream which limits an assumption 

of occupancy for an entire stream.

A 300-meter (984 feet) buffer was used for the WPT around suitable aquatic habitats to 

account for upland habitat use. This buffer is assumed to include a large majority of the 

upland habitat use, but acknowledges that turtles sometimes move distances greater than 

300 meters from the water.

In the post-fire environment, most of the sediment from hillslope erosion is assumed to 

end up in a stream. This assumption is more valid for high soil burn severity areas on 

steep slopes that are close to streams. High-severity areas typically have no beneficial 

ground cover and have water-repellent layers that allow sediment to be eroded. 

Roughness in topography, downed wood, rocks, and stump holes all have the potential to 

trap sediment being transported downslope and the assumption of 100 percent sediment 

routing to stream channels is an overestimation. However, using this assumption allows 

for the comparison of erosion rates and sedimentation across all alternatives.

Regardless of the level of project-related activity, changes in sediment from projectrelated activity at the 5th Level Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) watershed scale are 

assumed to be relatively minor when compared to post-fire sedimentation. For example, 

the amount of post-fire sediment delivered to the Clavey River may have small, localized 
69

consequences, but at the point of confluence with the Tuolumne, there would be too little 

sediment to impair biological functions. Further, there would be very little detectable 

change in most aquatic habitats when the total amount of project-related sediment is 

added to the post-fire sediment. This is because large bedrock rivers are very effective at 

storing and transporting fine sediments.

Water quality best management practices (BMPs) and management requirements that are 

intended to minimize sedimentation are assumed to be implemented and implemented 

effectively. 

Data Sources

Most of the data sources used are corporate spatial data layers (used in ArcMap 10.1), 

data generated during the post-fire evaluation period (Burned Area Emergency Response 

(BAER) reports), or were generated during the planning process for the EIS. The 

corporate layers include the Stanislaus National Forest basemap, watersheds delineated at 

multiple scales (Hydrologic Unit Codes 5-8), stream gradient layer, the Stanislaus 

National Forest aquatic survey database (Aquasurv), and the California Natural Diversity 

Database. The data sources used from the planning process include erosion and sediment 

modeling, and project-related activities by action each alternative. The hydrology, soils, 

and geology BAER reports for the Rim Fire stated anticipated changes in stream runoff 

and hillslope erosion, and the potential for debris flows and landslides to occur.

Aquatic Species Indicators

The indicators used for the analysis of potential impacts to aquatic species include the 

amount of species-specific buffer affected by the activities in each alternative and 

proportion of watershed affected by project activities. Specific indicators are: 

• percentage of CRLF aquatic breeding, non-aquatic breeding, and upland habitat 

affected by project activities

• percentage of SNYLF buffer affected by project activities

• percentage of foothill yellow-legged frog buffer (in acres) affected by project 

activities,

• percentage of western pond turtle buffer (in acres) affected by project activities, 

and 

• percentage of FYLF and WPT watersheds affected by project activities.

Aquatic Species Methodology by Action

For CRLF, areas were identified as suitable for the species if they occurred at or below 

4,000 feet in elevation and contained breeding habitat identified as streams with 1) low 

gradient (<4%), 2) presence of pools holding water for 20 weeks during timing of egg 

and tadpole development, 3) absence of high stream flow during the breeding period 

which could wash egg masses or tadpoles downstream or ponds large and deep enough to 

hold water for 20 weeks during egg and tadpole development. Non-breeding aquatic 

habitat was identified as any water bodies within 1 mile of potentially suitable breeding 

habitat, while upland habitat consists of terrestrial areas within 1 mile of suitable 
70

breeding habitat. Dispersal habitat includes any upland, riparian, or aquatic habitat 

accessible and contiguous between suitable breeding habitats, within 1 mile of each other.

For CRLF the spatial extent of the cumulative effects analysis occurred at the extent of 

the suitable upland habitat (one mile from breeding habitat), and the extent of the 

watersheds to determine potential sediment input.

For the FYLF and WPT, all streams below 4,200 feet were identified as suitable for the 

species. For the FYLF, all of these stream miles were buffered by approximately 100 

feet on both sides to provide an upland area for the frog. These two steps identified the 

number of stream miles to be calculated in the project area and amount of upland habitat 

associated with the streams. For the WPT, the same streams used for the FYLF analysis 

were buffered by a distance of 300 meters (984 feet) on each side of the stream to derive 

an upland habitat area. Both buffer areas (FYLF and WPT) are considered to contain the 

majority of upland habitat used by the species.

With these upland areas established, the activities proposed in each of the action 

alternatives were placed over the upland areas, or an intersection was created, to estimate 

the amount of area impacted by each activity for each species. Once this intersection of 

project activities and habitat buffer was established, the type of logging system used, 

volume estimates for “recovered” trees, road action types, and water use from designated 

sources were evaluated to conceptualize an intensity of activity occurring within each 

occupied or suitable watershed. This estimate was used to provide a point of reference 

for the amount of project-related activity occurring close to streams and provide a basis 

for assigning risk of direct and indirect effects to the species and their habitats. Since the 

types of actions in each action alternative were not different (only the amount of each 

activity differed), this approach was considered to be applicable to all of the alternatives.

For cumulative effects analysis, an internal planning effort identified all ongoing and 

planned activities on public and private lands. For public lands, ongoing actions (e.g., 

livestock grazing) and planned activities (e.g., Rim Fire Hazard Trees project) were

identified on National Forest System and National Park Service (Yosemite NP) lands. 

For private lands, emergency timber plans were retrieved from CalFire to identify the 

areas where salvage logging occurred or is proposed to occur.

The spatial boundary for analyzing cumulative effects to FYLF and WPT occurred at 

several different scales. For some small watersheds (7th and 8th level HUC and smaller) 

that are occupied or provide suitable habitat, cumulative effects were narrowed to the 

scale of the watershed. The reason this was done is to provide a detailed look at the 

activities that could affect small, isolated populations. Populations and individuals 

inhabiting these smaller streams are expected to remain within the watershed and 

complete all life stages in the watershed. Therefore, actions occurring outside of the 

small watershed, but within the larger 5th or 6th level HUC, may have no cumulative 

bearing on the isolated populations. Examples of smaller watersheds include Grapevine 

(7th level HUC) and Drew (8th level HUC) Creeks and the small, unnamed Clavey River 

tributaries (sub-8th level HUC). The spatial scale was also expanded out to larger 

watershed scales to address populations occurring in larger habitats, like the Clavey 
71

River. The downstream extent of the analysis area is Don Pedro Reservoir for the 

Tuolumne River watershed and the upper North Fork Merced River 5th level HUC.

The temporal boundary established for all species for cumulative effects analysis was ten 

years from present, a date commensurate with the Cumulative Watershed Effects (CWE) 

modeling completed for the project (see Watershed Report). The reason this time frame 

was chosen is related to the modeling approach using a threshold of concern (TOC) for 

watersheds. When a watershed exceeds the TOC, there is an increased risk that a variety 

of watershed processes may not occur as they would when a watershed functions below 

the threshold. An example of a watershed process that may not function normally when 

the TOC is exceeded is the stability of the stream within its channel. When the TOC is 

exceeded there is the risk that the streambanks will become unstable and bank erosion 

can occur. This can lead to increased sedimentation in the channel, reduction in deep 

water habitat volume, reduction in interstitial spaces in the streambed, higher turbidity 

during high stream flow, and reduced primary and secondary productivity. These 

changes in the aquatic system can affect reproduction, ability to avoid predation, and the 

availability of food resources. The CWE model includes recovery times for certain 

actions, like logging, or events, like wildfire, whose effects diminish over time. When a 

watershed returns below a TOC, natural processes in the stream system are expected to 

dominate and the stream should regain a high degree of stability over time. The CWE 

modeling indicated all streams (at 6th and 7th level HUC scale) would recover to near prefire levels within this time frame. It should be noted that some elements of the 

cumulative effect analysis, such as the long term recruitment of large woody debris, may 

extend 100 or more years into the future, but this timeframe could not be applied in the 

context of reasonably foreseeable future.

The analysis of effects for this project was exceptionally difficult due to the uncertainties 

about the precipitation patterns the first several years following the fire. Exceptionally 

wet or intense winter storms, especially rainfall dominated storms, can result in extreme 

runoff, streamflow, sediment delivery, and modification of aquatic and riparian habitats. 

As of the date on this document, precipitation was considerably below average (less than 

50%) and the precipitation events that occurred during the 2013-2014 winter were 

relatively low in intensity. This lack of rain also affected the “spring green up” period, a 

time when the seed bank germinates and re-sprouting vegetation emerges. The 

precipitation year is likely to be classified as a “critically dry” year. This suggests that 

soil moisture may not be maintained long enough to support the extensive establishment 

of new vegetation, especially in areas affected by high soil burn severity. As such, the 

extent of ground cover in the 2014 growing season may be less than expected, if we were 

to expect a “normal” or average precipitation year. 

Because ground cover is an important factor in post-fire erosion rates, the low ground 

cover conditions that are likely in the coming year may not be adequate to naturally 

mitigate erosion rates during the winter of 2014-2015. At this point in time, it is 

impossible to determine what the 2015-2015 precipitation year will be and post-fire 

watershed responses may be higher next year than they were in 2013-2014. We are fairly 

certain that some degree of salvage logging will occur on public lands to mitigate 
72

roadside hazards from dead trees on the primary roads (maintenance level 3-5) on the 

forest. If additional salvaging occurs as a result of the Rim Fire Recovery Project, 

logging operations could influence watershed response in ways that are unforeseen at this 

point in time. Assumptions about vegetative recovery and ground cover made in the 

analyses that this report relies upon (watershed and soils) may not be accurate. 

Sedimentation of aquatic habitats may be greater following the second winter than the 

first winter post-fire. However, the sediment modeling completed for this project should 

be sufficient to capture the magnitude of sediment that could be delivered to streams 

post-implementation and is considered adequate to allow for the application of effects 

analysis in subsequent years.
73

Species specific effects

California red-legged frog

Direct and indirect effects to individual California red-legged frog individuals include 

disturbance, injury or mortality, and reduced fitness as a result of repeated disturbance or a 

reduced food supply. Because California red-legged frog is considered to be extirpated from 

the Tuolumne River basin (USFWS 2002) these effects are discountable. However, because 

extensive surveys have not been completed for the frog within the project area, these potential 

effects will be discussed.

Direct and indirect effects to habitat include a reduction in shade that can result in increased 

water temperatures, reduction in large downed wood recruitment that can alter stream form 

and limit creation of downstream habitat (pools) and reduce cover in upland areas, streambank 

damage from operation of equipment, a risk of chemical contamination from accidental spill 

of Sporax®, and increased sedimentation as a result of mechanical operations and soil 

compaction.

Roadside Hazard and Salvage and Fuels Treatments

Effects to individuals are mainly associated with the operation of equipment, presence of 

forest workers in suitable habitats for the frog, and water drafting. If equipment operates in 

suitable habitat, there is the risk of injury or mortality if an individual frog does not escape the 

area when the disturbance is initiated. As activities become further from aquatic habitat the 

risk is reduced, although California red-legged frogs can be found in the upland habitat for 

extended periods in rodent burrows or under available cover (moist vegetation and downed 

wood). Any frogs in the upland habitat could be vulnerable to crushing if the equipment hits 

or runs over the cover object. As the amount of activity in the upland habitat increases, so 

does the risk. Because red-legged frog are considered extirpated from the Tuolumne River 

basin, this risk is expected to be very small. The amount of proposed operation within upland 

habitat is used as an indicator of risk. 

Physical disturbance is also a direct impact to individuals and is associated with equipment 

operation and forest workers in close proximity to suitable habitats. Repeated disturbances can 

alter the fitness of individuals as it can interrupt typical feeding and resting patterns. If an 

individual is repeatedly disturbed in an area, they may avoid the area, essentially being 

temporarily displaced from their preferred habitat. Prolonged changes to behavior or 

displacement from its habitat may detrimentally impact an individual’s fitness (RodriguezPrieto and Fernandez-Juricic 2005). As described above, red-legged frog are generally 

associated with aquatic habitats but can be found in upland habitats for extended times. Many 

overland movements of red-legged frogs are associated with the wet season when 

implementation activities are stopped. Because the risk of direct impact is highest when 

equipment works in close operation to the stream, the amount potential aquatic habitat within 

project activities is used as an indicator of risk. 
74

Indirect impacts to individuals can occur as a result of habitat modification associated with 

excessive sedimentation of habitat. As sediment is supplied in excess to a stream, deep water 

habitat can be reduced, the spaces between and under stream substrates (interstitial spaces) are 

filled in, and sediment covers suitable foraging substrates. Depth reduction of deep water 

habitats (pools and runs) can affect availability of breeding habitat. If the reduction of depth 

persists over many years, there could be population level impacts because reproductive 

success would be periodically reduced or eliminated. Excessive sedimentation also can fill in 

interstitial spaces and reduce the instream overhead cover available to all life stages. Redlegged frog tadpoles typically retreat to deep water and have also been observed burrowing in 

to sediment to escape (Bobzien and DiDonato 2007). If these refuge habitats are limited, there 

could be an increase in predation. California red-legged frog tadpoles feed on algae and adult 

frogs feed on macroinvertebrates (Federal Register 1996). In stream habitats the larger 

substrates provide the algal resources. As excessive sedimentation begins to cover the 

streambed, the substrates used for foraging can also be covered, thereby resulting in decreased 

opportunities for feeding. The consequences of reduced food supply for tadpoles means 

slightly longer developmental time to metamorphosis and reduced size at metamorphosis. 

Longer developmental times could increase predation risk as metamorphosis occurs and 

tadpoles are less mobile due to presence of legs and the physiological cost of transforming the 

body. Smaller size at metamorphosis could affect individual survivorship over winter.

Effects to habitat include reduction in shading, damage to riparian cover and streambanks, 

chemical contamination, increases sedimentation of aquatic habitats and reduction in large 

woody debris (LWD) from streams and upland habitats. Salvage logging would remove trees 

from riparian areas within the project area. The consequent impact to habitat is not known, 

but it could have positive or neutral benefit to the riparian habitat. Removal of stream shade 

can increase water temperature which can increase growth of emergent and aquatic vegetation, 

or can raise temperatures to the point frogs do not use the habitat. However, the net effect of 

salvaging dead trees may not be very big because the dead trees do not provide much shade, 

thereby making the effect somewhat neutral. The operation of equipment can potentially 

damage cover in upland riparian habitats as vehicles crush vegetation and displace large 

woody debris. The loss of cover could negatively impact the ability of red-legged frogs to 

forage or hide from predators. Equipment could also crush partially decayed logs and reduce 

potential refuge habitat under the log. The consequences of the loss of cover provided by 

riparian vegetation would be minor, because the extent of habitat loss would be limited to the 

few areas where equipment operation would occur in suitable habitat and temporary because 

the vegetation would likely regrow within a year. 

The proposed action includes the use of a registered borate compound (example, Sporax® and 

hereafter referred to as Sporax®) to limit the spread of fungal disease to recently cut 

trees/stumps. Stump treatments are unlikely to harm aquatic animals because the method of 

application and project design measures would limit the potential for adverse acute and 

chronic exposures. A risk assessment was prepared for the project to address potential 

exposure scenarios (acute accidental, acute non-accidental, and chronic) for the application of 

the borate compound. The risk is more fully described under SNYLF. The MRs proposed for 

the project would effectively mitigate the direct effects to habitat. These MRs include limiting 

the distance to streams for equipment operation.
75

There could be an increased rate of sediment delivery to the streams following roadside hazard 

abatement, salvage logging, machine piling, and pile burning. These activities create soil 

disturbance and compaction that leads to increase erosion and sedimentation. The roadside 

hazard tree removal has a potential for increasing sediment delivery to aquatic systems 

because ground based equipment is used and the logs are dragged along the ground, both 

creating soil disturbance. However, the potential for biologically important levels of 

sedimentation is low because the area affected is limited (200 feet on either side of the road), 

there is no skid trail network, and the trees are felled away from the stream so that they can be 

endlined (pulled by then end of the log furthest away from the stream) by the skidder which 

limits operation close to the stream. Pile burning also creates the potential for slight increases 

in sediment because the burn piles can cause localized soil hydrophobicity under the fire due 

to high temperatures and relatively long residence time. The potential for extensive off site 

soil movement is low because the piles tend to be small (20 to 50 square feet), but machine 

piles can have a much larger footprint (1,000 to 5,000 square feet). 

Salvage logging (including hazard tree removal) would reduce the supply of large woody 

debris (LWD) in units that encompass or lie immediately adjacent to a stream. The removal 

of dead trees in riparian areas has the potential to reduce the availability of LWD that falls into 

the stream or riparian area. LWD creates habitat complexity in a stream by trapping sediment 

upstream and creating pools downstream of the LWD obstruction. LWD in uplands habitats 

provide cover and refugia for adult frogs. A MR is in place for recruiting the largest trees 

along perennial streams in salvage units that would potentially mitigate the overall reduction 

in LWD recruitment. However, this is considered to be a minimal amount of retention (5 trees 

per acre) and there would be a very long term (greater than 150 years and up to 300 years for 

very large trees) reduction in LWD recruitment rate in streamside salvage units.

Road Management

All road actions that improve or create a new road surface have the potential to increase 

erosion from the road surface and result in sedimentation of aquatic habitats if there is 

hydrologic connectivity between the road and a stream. Roads that are connected 

hydrologically to the stream have a higher potential to increase sediment delivery. 

Reconstruction and maintenance actions are primarily intended to facilitate vehicle use, 

but limiting hydrologic connectivity to streams is another important aspect of these 

treatments. Outsloping roads and installing effective water diversion structures can have 

long term benefits to aquatic systems by reducing the amount of sediment delivered from 

the road. So, there is a tradeoff for streams with road treatments with increased sediment 

delivery in the short term (1 to 2 years) and decreased delivery in the long term (greater 

than 2 years). Temporary roads would be vulnerable to erosion as described above, but 

these roads are not expected to have long-term effects to aquatic habitats because they 

would be fully decommissioned after use, meaning any culverts or culvert fills would be 

removed and the road surface would be subsoiled to break up compaction. New roads 

would require the development of the road prism and installation of culverts and other 

drainage structures (rolling dips). These roads would remain available to use for a long 

period and have the potential to generate sediment that could be delivered to streams. 

Management requirements and BMPs are included as part of the implementation of the 
76

proposed road actions and are designed to minimize the erosion of the road surface and 

delivery of sediment to streams. 

Water Sources and Rock Pits

Water drafting is required by the project for dust abatement on roads. Eighty one potential 

drafting sites were identified for use project-wide during implementation of the project. 

Drafting has the potential to suck in tadpoles (entrainment) or other small life stages as the 

pump pulls water from a stream. Entrainment and passage through the pump could be fatal to 

individuals or if the water is dispensed on a road or during fuels management activities (pile 

burning) in an upland area, mortality would likely result. The operation of the drafting pumps 

generate noise and workers attending to the pumps also create a source of physical 

disturbance. Five drafting locations were identified for Hunter Creek, one at the 1N01 

crossing and four sites in headwater tributaries. To mitigate the potential for entrainment, MR 

would be applied to drafting operations. These include use of low intake velocity pumps and 

a screening device placed around the pump intake. These requirements would be effective at 

minimizing effects to the frog at the 1N01 crossing. At the four smaller drafting sites, a 

temporary holding tank would be used to accumulate water for drafting, not drafting directly 

from the stream.

Specific effects by habitat area are described below. Table 8 displays the indicators for each 

alternative and is shown as the amount of impact to the total amount of available habitat for 

the CRLF. Table 9 displays the acres and miles of proposed treatments in each habitat area.

Table 10 displays the miles of California red-legged frog non breeding stream habitat within 

proposed treatments. There is no California red-legged frog breeding stream habitat within 

proposed treatments.

Table 8. CRLF and SNYLF direct and indirect effect indicators for each alternative. Indicator Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4

California red-legged frog

Miles of suitable breeding stream within units/hazard tree 0(0) 0(0) 0(0) 0(0)

Acres of breeding ponds within units/ hazard tree 0.2 (1.9) 0(0) 0.1 (1.4) 0.1 (1.4)

Miles of perennial and intermittent non-breeding aquatic habitat within units/hazard tree

 Perennial and Intermittent 7.0 (2.1) 0(0) 5.8 (1.7) 5.8 (1.7)

Acres of upland habitat within units/hazard tree treatments 2,686 (12.4) 0.0(0) 2,467 (11.4) 2,467 (11.4)

Miles of road treatment within upland habitat buffer 49.8 0.0(0) 46.6 46.6

 Maintenance 40.6 0.0(0) 36.8 36.8

 Reconstruction 8.2 0.0(0) 8.3 8.3

 Temporary 1.0 0.0(0) 1.6 1.6

Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog

Miles of suitable breeding /non-breeding stream within units/hazard tree 1.0 (38) 0 (0) 1.0 (38) 1.0 (38)

Acres of breeding/non-breeding pond within units/hazard tree 1.3 (100) 0 (0) 1.3 (100) 0.7 (53.8)

Acre of upland habitat within units/hazard tree treatments 14.3(8.4) 0 (0) 14.3 (8.4) 12.7 (7.4)

Miles of road treatment within upland habitat buffer

 Maintenance or Reconstruction 0.2 0.0(0) 0.2 0.2

Birch and Mud Lakes

There are no activities proposed in the immediate vicinity of Mud Lake and all proposed 

activities occur downstream and/or downslope of the breeding habitat. There is no risk of 
77

injury or disturbance at the breeding habitat. There is no risk of increased sediment 

reaching the ponds due to project activities, or in reduced shading and an associated 

increase in temperature. The habitat suitability of the ponds will remain low postimplementation.

There are 2.2 miles of non-breeding habitat within proposed salvage units (Table 10) out 

of 7.4 miles in the habitat area (30 percent). The non-breeding habitat in the Tuolumne 

River – Poopenaut Valley watershed (north half of habitat area) only has proposed 

treatment at the headwaters of the stream. Most of the non-breeding aquatic habitat in the 

Lower Middle Fork Tuolumne River and Upper Middle Fork Tuolumne River watershed 

is within proposed salvage harvest. WEPP modeling does not show a change in postimplementation erosion in the Tuolumne River – Poopenaut Valley or Upper Middle 

Fork Tuolumne River watersheds. Although no change is shown it is likely that 

implementation activities will result in some erosion and there will be some sediment 

delivery to the stream. The amount is not detectable above the background of the 

predicted fire erosion. The Lower Middle Fork Tuolumne watershed modelling indicates 

erosion will be reduced from 2.9 tons per acre post fire to 2.8 tons per acre postimplementation. Despite the predicted decrease in erosion, some sediment is still likely 

to enter the non-breeding aquatic habitat due to salvage, hazard tree and fuel reduction 

treatments.
78

Table 9: Treatments in California red-legged frog upland habitat by alternative

Treatment Habitat Area System Alt. 1 Alt. 3 Alt. 4

Salvage

(acres)

Birch and Mud 

Lakes

Tractor 691.4 (24%) 680.4 (23%) 680.7 (23%)

Skyline 5.0 (0.2%) 6.2 (0.2%) 6.2 (0.2%)

Drew Creek Tractor 40.6 (1%) 35.9 (1%) 35.9 (1%)

Harden Flat 

Ponds

Tractor 129.6 (9%) 130.8 (9%) 130.8 (9%)

Skyline 44.2 (3%) 27.6 (2%) 27.6 (2%)

Helicopter 0 16.6 (1%) 16.6 (1%)

Homestead 

Ponds

Tractor 35.8 (2%) 26.6 (1%) 26.7 (1%)

Roadside 

Hazard (acres)

Birch and Mud 

Lakes

Tractor 104.9 (4%) 113.7 (4%) 113.7 (4%)

Drew Creek Tractor 311.5 (9%) 224.3 (6%) 224.3 (6%)

Harden Flat 

Ponds

Tractor 33.6 (2%) 32.8 (2%) 32.8 (2%)

Homestead 

Ponds

Tractor 145.9 (7%) 34.8 (2%) 34.8 (2%)

Hunter Creek 

and Ponds

Tractor 1137.4 (10%) 1137.4 (10%) 1137.0 (10%)

Road 

Management 

(miles)

Birch and Mud 

Lakes

Maintenance 0.49 0.75 0.75

Reconstruct 4.78 4.52 4.52

Temporary road 0 1.16 1.16

Drew Creek Maintenance 8.41 6.63 6.63

Reconstruct 0 0.70 0.7

Temporary road 0.95 0.13 0.13

Harden Flat 

Ponds

Maintenance 0.28 0.37 0.37

Reconstruct 2.10 1.92 1.92

Temporary road 0 0.09 0.09

Homestead 

Ponds

Maintenance 5.05 2.73 2.73

Reconstruct 1.27 1.05 1.05

Temporary road 0 0.22 0.22

Hunter Creek 

and Ponds

Maintenance 26.36 26.36 26.36

Water Sources Drew Creek 1 1 1

Hunter Creek 

and Ponds

5 5 5

Rock sources None located within habitat areas

Fuels 

Treatments 

(acres)

Birch and Mud 

Lakes

Piling and burning 336.8 (12%) 686.6 (24%) 686.6 (24%)

Drew Creek Piling and burning 40.6 (1%) 35.9 (1%) 35.9 (1%)

Harden Flat 

Ponds

Piling and burning 157.1 (10%) 158.5 (10%) 158.5 (10%)

Lop and scatter, 

jackpot, burning

16.6 (1%) 16.6 (1%) 16.6 (1%)

Homestead 

Ponds

Piling and burning 35.8 (2%) 26.7 (1%) 26.7 (1%)

Watershed 

Sensitive Area 

Treatments 

Birch and Mud 

Lakes

Drop and lop 0 94.8 (3%) 94.8 (3%)
79

Table 10: Miles of non-breeding stream habitat within proposed treatment units by 

alternative

Treatment Habitat Area Alt. 1 Alt. 3 Alt. 4

Salvage Birch and Mud Lakes 2.22 (30%) 2.11 (29%) 2.11 (29%)

Drew Creek 0.16 (2%) 0.16 (2%) 0.16 (2%)

Harden Flat Ponds 0.29 (5%) 0.29 (5%) 0.29 (5%)

Homestead Pond 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%)

Hunter Creek 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%)

Roadside Hazard Birch and Mud Lakes 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%)

Drew Creek 0.81 (8%) 0.05 (0.5%) 0.05 (0.5%)

Harden Flat Ponds 0.07 (1%) 0.07 (1%) 0.07 (1%)

Homestead Pond 0.34 (7%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%)

Hunter Creek and Ponds 3.10 (12%) 3.10 (12%) 3.10 (12%)

Fuels Treatments Birch and Mud Lakes 0.46 (6%) 2.11 (29%) 2.11 (29%)

Drew Creek 0.16 (2%) 0.16 (2%) 0.16 (2%)

Harden Flat Ponds 0.29 (5%) 0.29 (5%) 0.29 (5%)

Homestead Pond 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%)

Hunter Creek 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%)

Watershed Sensitive 

Area Treatments

Birch and Mud Lakes 0 0.60 (8%) 0.60 (8%)

Removal of salvage will not affect stream shading in this area as dead trees provide little 

shade. LWD recruitment will be reduced along the non-breeding habitat in the Lower 

Middle Fork Tuolumne River and Upper Middle Fork Tuolumne River. The MRs 

maintain 5 standing trees per acre within the Riparian Conservation Areas (RCAs) of 

perennial streams as recruitment for downed wood. Existing downed wood crossing or 

within 30 feet of a stream will be retained. There are no planned water sources within 

this habitat area. Roadside Hazard Tree Removal and road treatments in this area do not 

occur near aquatic habitat. 

Twenty-eight percent of the upland habitat is proposed for harvest and roadside salvage 

treatment, and 12 percent of the upland habitat with salvage treatment will also have fuels 

treatment. These activities can further decrease cover from the effects of the fire, and can 

set back vegetative regrowth by one to two years. If any California red-legged frogs are 

in the upland habitat at the time of activities, they would be at risk for disturbance or 

injury. There are no activities proposed within the dispersal habitat between Birch and 

Mud Lakes.

Drew Creek

The breeding habitat along Drew Creek is not included within any proposed salvage 

units, or within hazard tree removal areas. There is no risk of disturbance or injury at the 

breeding habitat. Adjacent to the breeding habitat there is planned roadside hazard tree 

removal that comes close to the breeding habitat in two locations along 1S58. Reduction 

in stream shading below that caused by the fire is not anticipated, and therefore no 

increase in temperature is expected. 
80

A total of 10.3 miles of non-breeding stream habitat is within the Drew Creek habitat 

area. There are 0.16 miles of non-breeding habitat in the Lower Middle Fork Tuolumne 

River watershed within proposed salvage units and 0.81 miles within roadside hazard tree 

removal units (total of 10 percent) (Table 10) in the Tuolumne River – Jawbone Creek 

watershed. WEPP modeling indicates erosion will be reduced from 2.9 tons per acre post 

fire to 2.8 tons per acre post-implementation in Lower Middle Fork Tuolumne River 

watershed and will remain at 3.6 tons per acre in the Tuolumne River – Jawbone Creek 

watershed. It is likely that implementation activities will result in some erosion and there 

will be some sediment delivery to the streams. The amount is not detectable above the 

background of the predicted fire erosion. 

The proposed activities will not alter stream shading. There is very little activity 

proposed in this habitat area adjacent to streams and in many areas LWD will not be 

altered. The area along Lumsden Road where roadside hazard trees will be removed will 

have LWD maintained as described above. There is one proposed water source in the 

Drew Creek habitat area. It is a water trough/tank located in Section 21 south of Drew 

Creek and south of the proposed roadside hazard tree removal. This trough does not 

currently have any red-legged frog populations in it. Lumsden Road crosses the 

Tuolumne River within this habitat area at Lumsden Bridge. Road treatments are planned 

across this non-breeding habitat. Some sediment may enter the stream from the road 

treatments and may continue for one to two years. However, road treatments are 

designed to reduce hydrologically connected roads segments and any increased sediment 

will decrease after two years. 

Ten percent of the upland habitat is proposed for harvest and roadside salvage treatment, 

with 1 percent of the upland habitat also receiving fuels treatments (Table 9). These 

activities can further decrease cover from the effects of the fire, and can set back 

vegetative regrowth by one to two years. If any California red-legged frogs are in the 

upland habitat at the time of activities, they would be at risk for disturbance or injury. 

Dispersal in the habitat occurs along Drew Creek and proposed activities will have no 

effect on the existing habitat.

Harden Flat Ponds

The breeding habitat within this habitat area is on private property and is not included 

within any proposed salvage units, or within hazard tree removal areas. There is no risk 

of disturbance or injury at the breeding habitat. Breeding habitat will maintain low 

suitability for red-legged frogs in this area. 

There are 0.36 miles of non-breeding habitat in the Lower South Fork Tuolumne River 

watershed and in the Lower Middle Fork Tuolumne River watershed (Table CRLF5) 

within salvage and roadside hazard tree treatment units. WEPP modeling indicates 

erosion will be slightly reduced in the Lower Middle Fork Tuolumne River watershed 

post-implementation, but will be unchanged in the Lower South Fork Tuolumne River 

watershed. Even with the predicted decrease post implementation it is likely that 

implementation activities will result in some erosion and there will be some sediment 
81

delivery to the streams. The amount is not detectable above the background of the 

predicted fire erosion. 

The proposed activities will not alter stream shading. There is very little activity 

proposed in this habitat area adjacent to streams. Of the 6.4 miles of non-breeding 

habitat, only 0.36 miles (6 percent) will have trees removed. MRs will maintain some 

standing trees to provide for LWD recruitment. There are no proposed water sources in 

this area. None of the proposed road treatments cross stream habitat (they are not 

hydrologically connected) and it is unlikely sediment from road treatments will reach the 

streams. 

Fourteen percent of the upland habitat is proposed for harvest and roadside salvage 

treatment (Table 9), with 10 percent also proposed for fuel treatment. These activities 

can further decrease cover from the effects of the fire, and can set back vegetative 

regrowth by one to two years. If any California red-legged frogs are in the upland habitat 

at the time of activities, they would be at risk for disturbance or injury. Dispersal habitat 

is on the private property and will not be impacted by this action.

Homestead Pond

Homestead Pond is surrounded by a nineteen acre proposed salvage harvest unit. There 

would be a high risk of direct impact to red-legged frogs in this pond during project 

activities, mainly from physical disturbance. A 30 foot no cut and no equipment buffer 

would be applied adjacent to Homestead Pond and mechanical operations would be 

prohibited within 1 mile of breeding habitat during the wet season when frogs would be 

most likely to be present in the upland habitats, further reducing the potential for impacts. 

Reduction in stream shading below that caused by the fire is not anticipated, and 

therefore no increase in temperature is expected. The pond and salvage unit are on flat 

ground, therefore sediment is not expected to move into the pond in great quantities. 

However, some sedimentation is anticipated and would slightly reduce the depth of the 

pond.

There are 4.8 miles of non-breeding stream habitat within the Homestead Pond habitat 

area. There are 0.3 miles (7 percent) of non-breeding habitat in the Tuolumne River –

Grapevine Creek watershed within proposed roadside hazard tree removal units (Table 

10). WEPP modeling indicates erosion will not be reduced from 2.0 tons per acre post 

fire. It is likely that implementation activities will result in some erosion and there will 

be some sediment delivery to the non-breeding habitat. The amount is not detectable 

above the background of the predicted fire erosion. 

The proposed activities will not alter stream shading. There is very little activity 

proposed in this habitat area adjacent to streams and in most of the area LWD will not be 

altered. There are no proposed water sources in the Homestead Pond habitat area. One 

road in the project area crosses the non-breeding habitat provided by the Hetch Hetchy 

ditch feature. Because the road may be hydrologically connected to the non-breeding 

habitat, some sediment may enter the stream from the road treatments and may continue 
82

for one to two years. These road treatments are designed to reduce hydrologically 

connected roads segments and any increased sediment will decrease after two years. 

Nine percent of the upland habitat is proposed for harvest and roadside salvage treatment 

(Table 9), with two percent of the habitat proposed for fuels treatment in the harvested 

units. These activities can further decrease cover from the effects of the fire, and can set 

back vegetative regrowth by one to two years. If any California red-legged frogs are in 

the upland habitat at the time of activities, they would be at risk for disturbance or injury. 

There is no dispersal habitat in this habitat area.

Hunter Creek and Ponds

There are no salvage activities proposed within the Hunter Creek and Ponds habitat area. 

Hazard Tree Removal is proposed near the Hunter Creek breeding habitat in Section 17 

(near Skidmore Pit). There is a slight risk of injury or mortality at this location; however 

this is mitigated by the management requirement to fell trees away from the stream. 

There will be no reduction in shading at breeding habitats (stream or pond) below that 

caused by the fire; therefore temperature will not be altered by this project. The 

proposed hazard tree removal and road treatments in Section 17 may result in a minor 

amount of additional sediment input into Hunter Creek due to the proximity to the creek. 

This additional input may last one to two years, and then will be reduced.

There are 26.8 miles of non-breeding stream habitat within this habitat area. There are 

3.1 miles (12 percent) of non-breeding habitat within proposed roadside hazard tree 

removal units (Table 10). The majority of non-breeding habitat consists of tributaries to 

Hunter Creek in the Lower North Fork Tuolumne River watershed and most was not 

burned in the Rim Fire. The non-breeding habitat within the Tuolumne River –

Grapevine Creek watershed was burned. WEPP modeling indicates erosion will remain 

at 2.0 tons per acre post fire and post-implementation in this watershed. It is likely that 

implementation activities will result in some erosion and there will be some sediment 

delivery to the non-breeding habitat. The amount is not detectable above the background 

of the predicted fire erosion. 

The proposed activities will not alter stream shading. There is very little activity 

proposed in this habitat area adjacent to streams and in most of the area LWD will not be 

altered. There are five proposed water sources in the Hunter Creek and Ponds habitat 

area; one water trough/tank that is not known to contain red-legged frogs, one site at the 

junction of Hunter Creek and Buchanan Road in breeding habitat, and three sites in nonbreeding habitat along Forest Service roads 1N01, 1N27 and 1N35. Drafting in the latter 

four locations has the potential to entrain tadpole or smaller California red-legged frogs if 

they are present during activities, and can also result in disturbance in the area. There are 

several roads in the area that cross non-breeding habitat that provide some hydrologic 

connectivity. Some sediment may enter the streams from the road treatments and may 

continue for one to two years. These road treatments are designed to reduce 

hydrologically connected roads segments and any increased sediment will decrease after 

two years. Long term reduction in sediment delivery from the roads would be expected 

following road improvement actions.
83

Ten percent of the upland habitat is proposed for roadside salvage and fuel treatment 

(Table 9). These activities can further decrease cover from the effects of the fire, and can 

set back vegetative regrowth by one to two years. However, only a little more than half 

of the upland habitat was within the fire and experienced changes. If any California redlegged frogs are in the upland habitat at the time of activities, they would be at risk for 

disturbance or injury. The dispersal habitat along Hunter Creek would not be altered by 

the proposed activities. 

Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog

All of the direct and indirect effects addressed in this document are common to all 

locations. The primary direct effects to individuals include mortality, injury, and 

physical disturbance. The primary direct effects to habitat include reduction in shade, 

streambank damage, and risk of chemical contamination. Indirect effects to individuals 

and populations primarily include reduced physiological functioning as a result of 

repeated disturbance and reduction in food supply and lower population levels are 

associated with increased predation and reduced recruitment. The primary indirect effect 

to habitat is the increase in sediment delivery to streams.

Direct effects to individuals are mainly associated with the operation of equipment, 

presence of forest workers in close proximity to suitable aquatic habitats for the frog, and 

water drafting. If equipment operates close to a suitable habitat, there is the risk of injury 

or mortality if the individual does not escape into the water when the disturbance is 

initiated. Since SNYLF are typically closely associated with water (within a couple of 

meters), they avoid injury/mortality by retreating into an aquatic habitat. However, the 

frog can use upland habitats, including refuge habitat under downed woody debris, and 

be vulnerable to crushing if the equipment hits or runs over the cover object. If there is 

no operation within the buffer, the risk of direct effect to individuals is considered to be 

negligible. This risk increases as the amount of buffer affected increases. The 

consequence of the loss of any individual is considered to potentially have a populationlevel impact because almost all populations on the forest are assumed to be small. 

Physical disturbance is also a direct impact to individuals and is associated with 

equipment operation and forest workers in close proximity to suitable habitats. As noted 

before, the SNYLF readily retreats into aquatic habitat to escape the disturbance. This 

retreat behavior could be lethal under narrow circumstances because the individual would 

be more vulnerable to predation as it is flushed from upland habitat. Because the risk of 

direct impact is highest when equipment works in close operation to the stream, the 

amount of proposed operation within a 25 meter upland buffer is used as an indicator of 

risk. 

Water drafting is required by the project for dust abatement on roads. Eighty one 

potential drafting sites were identified for use during implementation of the project. 

Drafting has the potential to suck in tadpoles (entrainment) or other small life stages as 

the pump pulls water from a stream. Entrainment and passage through the pump could be 

fatal to individuals or if the water is dispensed on a road or during fuels management 

activities (pile burning) in an upland area, mortality would likely result. The operation of 
84

the drafting pumps generate noise and workers attending to the pumps also create a 

source of physical disturbance. To mitigate the potential for entrainment, MR would be 

applied to drafting operations. These include use of low intake velocity pumps and a 

screening device placed around the pump intake.

Indirect effect to individuals is associated with repeated disturbance caused by 

equipment or workers. While generally non-lethal, repeated disturbances may reduce 

physiological fitness because the disturbance may not allow the individual to forage, 

bask, or otherwise engage in typical behaviors. As equipment or humans disturb an 

individual, the most common response is for that individual to avoid the threat and seek 

cover (typically into water). After this disturbance response, a period of time would 

elapse before that individual would resume pre-disturbance behavior. This change in an 

individual’s behavior may cause less time feeding, resting, or breeding, and therefore 

result in a short term change in their energy budget with relatively little physiological 

consequence. If an individual is repeatedly disturbed in an area, they may avoid the area, 

essentially being temporarily displaced from their preferred habitat. Prolonged changes 

to behavior or displacement from its habitat may detrimentally impact an individual’s 

fitness (Rodriguez-Prieto and Fernandez-Juricic 2005). 

Indirect impacts to individuals can occur as a result of habitat modification associated 

with excessive sedimentation of habitat. As sediment is supplied in excess to a stream, 

deep water habitat can be reduced, the spaces between and under stream substrates 

(interstitial spaces) are filled in, and sediment covers suitable foraging substrates. Depth 

reduction of deep water habitats (pools and runs) can affect individuals by making them 

more susceptible to annual freezing and potentially reduce the overwintering success of 

tadpoles and post-metamorphic individuals. If the reduction of depth persists over many 

years, there could be population level impacts because reproductive success would be 

periodically reduced or eliminated. Excessive sedimentation also can fill in interstitial 

spaces and reduce the instream overhead cover available to all life stages. While SNYLF 

tadpoles typically retreat to deep water, they have also been observed retreating into 

cover provided by the streambed substrates and fine sediment. If these refuge habitats 

are limited, there could be an increase in predation. The tadpoles of SNYLF are believed 

to feed on algae and detritus (Vredenburg, et al. 2005). In stream habitats like those in 

the project area, the larger substrates and backwater areas provide the algal and detritus 

resources, respectively. As excessive sedimentation begins to cover the streambed, the 

substrates used for foraging can also be covered, thereby resulting in decreased 

opportunities for feeding. An individual frog’s physiological health could be reduced if 

inadequate food resources are available for growth and development. A reduced rate of 

development could result in an increased time to metamorphosis or smaller size at 

metamorphosis (Leips and Travis 1994). Smaller size at metamorphosis could affect the 

survivorship of individuals during the first winter or time to reproduction as an adult 

(Semlitsch et al. 1988). These effects could impact recruitment rates and population size 

over longer periods of time.

Direct effects to habitat include reduction in shading, damage to riparian cover and 

streambanks, and chemical contamination. Salvage logging would remove trees from 
85

riparian areas within the project area. The consequent impact to habitat is not known, but 

it could have positive or neutral benefit to the riparian habitat. Since upland habitat 

suitability is partially determined by adequate sunlight reaching the stream (Federal 

Register 2013), there could be a beneficial effect to upland habitat through the removal of 

some canopy cover and increasing basking habitat. However, the net effect of salvaging 

dead trees may not be very big because the dead trees do not provide much shade, 

thereby making the effect somewhat neutral. The operation of equipment can potentially 

damage cover in upland riparian habitats as vehicles crush vegetation and displace large 

woody debris. The loss of cover could negatively impact the ability of SNYLF to 

thermoregulate, forage, or hide from predators. Equipment could also crush partially 

decayed logs and reduce potential refuge habitat under the log. The consequences of the 

loss of cover provided by riparian vegetation would be minor, because the extent of 

habitat loss would be limited to the few areas where equipment operation would occur in 

suitable habitat and temporary because the vegetation would likely regrow within a year. 

The proposed action includes the use of a registered borate compound (example, 

Sporax® and hereafter referred to as Sporax®) to limit the spread of fungal disease to 

recently cut trees/stumps. Stump treatments are unlikely to harm aquatic animals because 

the method of application and project design measures would limit the potential for 

adverse acute and chronic exposures. A risk assessment was prepared for the project to 

address potential exposure scenarios (acute accidental, acute non-accidental, and chronic) 

for the application of the borate compound. 

Under the acute accidental spill scenario, a direct spill of 25 pounds of Sporax® into a 

small pond (1,000 cubic meters), there would be an exceedance of the established 

threshold of concern. The threshold is a “no observable effects concentration”, or NOEC, 

which is set at 1.0 milligrams per liter and equivalent to 1.0 part per million. The 

modeled concentrations of spilled chemical in water would be 1.3 milligrams per liter 

which indicates the threshold would be slightly exceeded. This exceedance suggests a 

risk of impact to individuals is possible, but the risk of mortality or significant injury is 

very low when compared to the mortality endpoint (lethal dose 50) of 233 milligrams per 

liter. The risk of an accidental spill of this magnitude is considered to be an unlikely 

occurrence because applicators typically carry amounts less than 5 pounds at a time. 

However, should a spill occur in a smaller pond or pool in an intermittent stream, the 

level of concern for amphibians could be exceeded. However, if only one or a few 

individuals are affected, we do not expect this to have an effect on population persistence. 

Additional water quality BMPs would be applied to this activity to limit the risk of 

chemical entering any aquatic feature including no application when rain is falling or 

when rain is likely (greater than 50 percent chance) that day, or within 10 feet of surface 

water.

The MRs proposed for the project would effectively mitigate the direct effects to habitat. 

These MRs include limiting the distance to streams for equipment operation and limiting 

the distance to stream and timing of Sporax application.

Indirect effects to habitat primarily include increased sedimentation of aquatic habitats, 

the reduction in large woody debris from streams and riparian areas, and reduction in 
86

streamflow. There could be an increased rate of sediment delivery to the streams 

following roadside hazard abatement, salvage logging, machine piling, and pile burning. 

Of the four activities, salvage logging and machine piling are assumed to have the greater 

potential for effect. Salvage logging would create soil disturbance and generate a skid 

trail network, conditions conducive to increased erosion. Skid trails in post-fire 

environments tend to yield greater quantities of sediment than undisturbed areas and yield 

increased sediment for a longer period of time (Robichaud et al. 2011). The longer 

duration of erosion from skid trails is due to the lasting effects of soil compaction and 

machinery-created disturbance negatively affecting the recovery of ground cover, 

especially vegetation, on the trails (Robichaud et al. 2011). Primary and secondary skid 

trails have the most passes by skidders and these trails are most likely to have detrimental 

soil compaction. Machine piling would result in broad scale soil disturbance which is 

prone to erosion if adequate soil cover is not maintained. The primary difference 

between the two activities is that machine piling with low ground pressure equipment 

does not create a network of compacted trails because the tracked vehicles typically do 

not make repeated passes on the same trail. 

The roadside hazard tree removal has a potential for increasing sediment delivery to 

aquatic systems because ground based equipment is used and the logs are dragged along 

the ground, both creating soil disturbance. However, the potential for biologically 

important levels of sedimentation is low because the area affected is limited (200 feet on 

either side of the road), there is no skid trail network, and the trees are felled away from 

the stream so that they can be endlined (pulled by then end of the log furthest away from 

the stream) by the skidder which limits operation close to the stream. Pile burning also 

creates the potential for slight increases in sediment because the burn piles can cause 

localized soil hydrophobicity under the fire due to high temperatures and relatively long 

residence time. The potential for extensive off site soil movement is low because the 

piles tend to be small (20 to 50 square feet), but machine piles can have a much larger 

footprint (1,000 to 5,000 square feet).

The primary MRs that would reduce the potential for erosion and sediment delivery from 

equipment operation include properly designing and locating skid trails, limiting the 

operation of equipment to periods when soil strength is high enough to resist compaction, 

subsoiling primary and secondary skid trails following harvest, and maintaining or 

increasing soil cover to be consistent with the Forest Plan. MRs are also applied to burn 

piles and address pile location, ground cover during machine piling, and burning in 

riparian areas.

Effective implementation of the project would require a variety of road actions to make 

the roads accessible and durable to the vehicle traffic created by the project. Road 

actions include reconstruction and maintenance of the surface and drainage structures, 

reopening closed roads, creating temporary roads, construction of new roads, and creation 

of skid zones. Reconstruction and maintenance actions include the improvement of the 

road surface (blading/grading), installation or maintenance of drainage structures, minor 

widening or realignment to permit the passage of equipment, and removal of brush from 

the road’s edge. Some roads within the project area are designated as maintenance level 
87

1, meaning they are currently closed to vehicle traffic, but have been retained and can be 

reopened for administrative access. Many of these roads are currently impassable, so the 

actions to reopen the roads would include clearing vegetation from the road prism, 

improving the road surface to allow equipment access, and installing culverts or other 

drainage structures (example, rolling dips) as necessary. Upon project completion, access 

to the road would be blocked and measures would be implemented as needed to reduce 

sediment delivery from the road surface and fills and reduce the risk of crossing failure 

and stream diversion. These actions would presumably make these roads “hydrologically 

neutral” or not likely to contribute sediment or excess runoff to the stream network. 

Construction of temporary roads may include vegetation clearing, excavation, blading 

and shaping to provide for safe project access and removal of forest products. New and 

existing temporary roads would have improvements necessary to attain stabilization of 

the roadbed and fill slopes, including employing measures such as out-sloping, drainage 

dips, and water-spreading ditches. Unlike permanent roads, temporary roads would only 

have the minimal investment and drainage required to minimize resource impacts while 

providing for safe use and passage of haul vehicles during the short life of the route. 

Temporary roads are not intended to be a permanent part of the road system and would be 

decommissioned after use. There would be a limited amount of new road construction. 

New roads would be designed to engineering standards and according to assigned road 

management objectives. Expected actions include vegetation clearing, excavation and 

embankment, blading and shaping, installation of drainage structures, and importing of 

armoring and surfacing rock material as needed. All new roads would be added to the 

Forest Transportation System, gated and closed to public vehicular traffic, and would 

remain available for long-term administrative use for future access and management of 

NFS lands.

All road actions that improve or create a new road surface have the potential to increase 

erosion from the road surface and result in sedimentation of aquatic habitats if there is 

hydrologic connectivity between the road and a stream. For reconstruction, maintenance, 

and reopening roads, improving the road surface loosens the compaction of the road and 

makes more fine sediment available to erosion via dust and rain runoff (Coe 2006, 

Stafford 2011). Stafford (2011) indicated a fairly high rate of connectivity between roads 

and the stream network; 11 to 30 percent of roads were connected hydrologically to a 

stream. Reconstruction and maintenance actions are primarily intended to facilitate 

vehicle use, but limiting hydrologic connectivity to streams is another important aspect of 

these treatments. Outsloping roads and installing effective water diversion structures can 

have long term benefits to aquatic systems by reducing the amount of sediment delivered 

from the road. So, there is a tradeoff for streams with road treatments with increased 

sediment delivery in the short term (1 to 2 years) and decreased delivery in the long term 

(greater than 2 years). Temporary roads would be vulnerable to erosion as described 

above, but these roads are not expected to have long-term effects to aquatic habitats 

because they would be fully decommissioned after use meaning any culverts or culvert 

fills would be removed and the road surface would be subsoiled to break up compaction. 

New roads would require the development of the road prism and installation of culverts 

and other drainage structures (rolling dips). These roads would remain available to use 
88

for a long period and have the potential to generate sediment that could be delivered to 

streams.

Management requirements and BMPs are included as part of the implementation of the 

proposed road actions and are designed to minimize the erosion of the road surface and 

delivery of sediment to streams. 

Salvage logging (including hazard tree removal) would reduce the supply of large woody 

debris (LWD) in units that encompass or lie immediately adjacent to a stream. The 

removal of dead trees in riparian areas has the potential to reduce the availability of LWD 

that falls into the stream or riparian area. While the importance of LWD to SNYLF is 

unstudied, the general role and function of LWD in creating habitat complexity in a 

stream may be important to the frog. Therefore, this habitat element could be affected 

(reduced) by logging. LWD as individual pieces or in aggregates in the channel can 

create habitat for the frog by trapping sediment upstream and creating a pool downstream 

of the obstruction to stream flow. Log jams are typically very complex and provide a 

cool, moist microclimate with ample cavities that can be used as refuge habitat. The pool 

that is formed downstream of the LWD can be used by all lifestages of the frog, though 

adequate depth may not be available for successful tadpole rearing. When LWD falls 

into upland riparian habitats, spaces under the wood can be utilized by post-metamorphic 

lifestages as a refuge habitat (shade, predation, and desiccation). A MR is in place for 

recruiting the largest trees along perennial streams in salvage units that would potentially 

mitigate the overall reduction in LWD recruitment. However, this is considered to be a 

minimal amount of retention (5 trees per acre) and there would be a very long term 

(greater than 150 years and up to 300 years for very large trees) reduction in LWD 

recruitment rate in streamside salvage units.

The drafting of water also has the potential to indirectly affect aquatic habitat through

dewatering. As the pumps extract water, the water available to the drafting site and 

downstream habitats is temporarily reduced. This is considered a short duration, negative 

impact to habitat because drafting at a maximum rate takes 3 to 5 minutes when

streamflow is greater than 2 cubic feet per second. MRs would be implemented to 

maintain aquatic habitat by dictating the reduction in streamflow. 

The analysis of effects to SNYLF is evaluated discretely using the three areas providing 

suitable habitat identified above (Reynolds Creek area, Kibbie Ridge Area, and Middle 

Fork Tuolumne River area). The Reynolds Creek and MFTR areas are analyzed at the 

watershed level, and the Kibbie Ponds and Eleanor Creek areas are analyzed together. 

This approach was taken because these three areas are more than 10 miles from each 

other and are within different sub-watersheds of the Tuolumne River.

For all salvage and roadside hazard units, we assume that most of the dead timber would 

be removed in a single entry by equipment. However, some of the trees that currently 

have some green needles remaining may succumb to environmental stressors and be 

eligible for harvest at a later date. These trees could die for up to ten years from the 

initiation of the project. The number of trees likely to be removed in subsequent entries 
89

is usually restricted to less than 10% of the initial volume and likely much less than the 

volume of timber initially removed.

Reynolds Creek 

Within the range of the frog, approximately 40 acres of salvage harvest (Unit D04B) 

would occur in the Reynolds Creek watershed, but this unit is greater than 500 feet from 

stream. Therefore, harvest in this unit would not directly affect aquatic or upland habitat, 

nor would it affect individuals. This salvage unit is part of a larger unit (345 acres) that 

extends downstream from the range of the frog. The entire unit is more than 500 feet 

from stream, thereby constraining the potential for direct impact to habitats or 

individuals. Fuels treatments would occur as a follow up treatment for submerchantable 

timber and potential treatments include hand piling, machine piling, jackpot burning, and 

pile burning. As with the salvage harvest, these operations would not directly affect 

habitats or individuals. 

Roadside hazard trees would be removed from approximately 20 acres within the range 

of the frog (Map 4e). The number of trees removed from alongside roads is expected to 

be very low (<20 trees) in the initial treatment because the fire severity was very low to 

low and tree mortality was less than 50%, and generally below 25%, along the roads. All 

of the hazard tree acreage is more than 500 feet from the nearest stream providing 

suitable aquatic habitat. Because no harvest would occur in close proximity to any 

stream with suitable aquatic habitat, there would be no direct effect to aquatic and upland 

habitat or to individuals.

Direct effects to individuals, aquatic habitat, and upland habitat would not occur because 

the harvest units and roadside hazard tree units are greater than 500 feet from the stream.

The potential for increased sediment delivery to Reynolds Creek is expected to be 

minimal. This is because the salvage and machine piling activities would occur more 

than 500 feet from the creek and high levels of ground cover occur in the low burn 

severity area downslope of the treatment unit. The high levels of ground cover would be 

effective at trapping sediment generated by overland flow and preventing the sediment 

from reaching the channel. Also, management requirements (MRs) and water quality 

best management practices would be applied to mitigate the potential for off-site 

sediment loss and subsequent delivery to streams. There would be no reduction in habitat 

suitability caused by sedimentation from project activities.

Within the range of the frog, proposed road treatments include the reconstruction of 0.9 

mile of road, one of which is 0.3 mile (road 3N04Y) and the other 0.6 mile (road 

2N05A). The hauling of salvaged materials requires these two road segments be 

improved to withstand repeated passage by equipment. Actions include the improvement 

of the road surface (blading/grading), installation or maintenance of drainage structures, 

minor widening, and removal of brush from the road’s edge. Road 3N04Y is currently 

closed to traffic, would be temporarily reopened, and then closed following project 

implementation. The proposed road actions would not occur within the 25 meter upland 

buffer or within 500 feet of Reynolds Creek. There would be no new or temporary road 

construction or skid zone operation within the range of the frog. Management 
90

requirements and BMPs would be used to reduce erosion and sediment delivery to 

streams. A combination of distance to the stream and implementation of MRs and BMPs 

would effectively mitigate the potential sediment effect to habitat from road 

reconstruction to a negligible level. 

Water drafting is proposed at the 3N01 crossing Reynolds Creek, but this is outside of the 

range of the frog. Since there are fish in this reach of the creek, drafting would cease 

when streamflows fall below 4 cubic feet per second (cfs). The streamflow in Reynolds 

Creek typically drops below the 4 cfs in early summer (small watershed and extensive 

impermeable rock outcrops) making drafting from this site an unlikely occurrence. 

Sporax® would not be applied within 500 feet of the creek in the range of the frog and 

direct effects to individuals would not occur from chemical contamination. LWD would 

not be affected within the range of the frog because there would be no harvest within 500 

feet of the stream. 

Big and Little Kibbie Ponds: The two ponds and 25 meter upland area lie entirely within 

a salvage units (O02A and O201B). For Big Kibbie Pond there are no conifers on the 

east half of pond and most trees to the west are still green. An estimated 20 to 25 trees 

could be removed between the pond and road (road 1N04Y) with 6 to 10 trees removed 

from the buffer in year one (based on field review and aerial imagery). Because the fire 

burned with relatively low severity around the ponds, less than 6 additional trees would 

be removed in subsequent years as they die from fire-related stress. Unit O201B is a deer 

forage unit where biomassing would be used to reduce standing dead timber and 

encourage forage growth. This unit is on the east side of the pond and the hill slopes 

rapidly toward Lake Eleanor. Activity in this unit is unlikely to impact Big Kibbie Pond 

because there are extensive rock outcrops which would prohibit the operation of 

equipment. 

Since the pond is considered to be unoccupied, there would be no direct or indirect 

effects to individuals. There is a very low potential for sedimentation to adversely affect 

the pond (reduce the depth) because there would be a limited amount of harvest 

surrounding the ponds which means limited soil disturbance and no detrimental 

compaction of soils in skid trails (no more than two passes by skidders). Also, the 

eastern edge of the pond (where the merchantable trees are) slopes away from the pond 

toward forest road 1N04Y and sediment would not enter the pond. Because fire-killed 

trees would be salvaged, there would be a moderate impact to LWD recruitment on the 

east side of the pond. The effect of the salvage would result in a limitation in the 

recruitment of LWD in upland habitat for more than 50 years or until additional trees die 

from natural causes.

For Little Kibbie Pond, fire severity was higher and approximately 70 percent of the trees 

surrounding the pond and within the 25 meter upland habitat area were killed by the fire. 

There could be activity all around the pond, but sediment delivery to the pond is expected 

to be low because the slopes immediately adjacent to the pond (within 50 feet) are gentle 

(less than 5 percent). As with Big Kibbie Pond, because the pond is considered to be 

unoccupied, there would be no direct or indirect effects to individuals. Sediment is 
91

unlikely to be transported across this low gradient area and high levels of ground cover 

would help retain soil on the hillslope. The amount of sediment likely to enter the pond 

is less than 5 tons and this would have negligible effect on the total volume of the pond 

when full. As noted previously, this pond tends to become dry in less than average 

precipitation years, probably due to limited watershed area and location on a lateral 

glacial moraine, and this amount of sediment would not affect the suitability of this nonbreeding aquatic habitat. The salvage logging would greatly reduce LWD availability for 

cover in the upland habitat. This effect is expected to last for more than 50 years or until 

regenerating conifers become large enough to provide this type of habitat element.

For both ponds, road 1N04Y would be reconstructed as part of the proposed action. This 

would affect approximately one mile of road within a mile of the ponds. However, these 

roads are not hydrologically connected to either pond and any erosion from the roads 

would not affect the volume of either pond. Approximately 5 acres of roadside hazard 

tree removal would occur within 0.5 mile of the ponds, but the area is more than 500 feet 

from either pond. As with road 1N04Y, any erosion from project activities would not be 

delivered to the ponds.

Sporax® could be applied to stumps in close proximity to the ponds. However, the risk 

of contamination of water is considered to be very low due to MR and BMPs as identified 

under Reynolds Creek.

There are no fuels treatments planned for either salvage unit. No new or temporary roads 

would be constructed within one mile of the two ponds. Water drafting would not occur 

from these ponds. Therefore, no direct or indirect effects to habitat would result from 

these actions. 

An additional MR was developed to provide protection to western pond turtles that 

occupy the ponds. This MR would not allow the operation of equipment within 1⁄4 mile 

of the pond from June 1 to July 15 (to protect nesting turtles) or when surface water is not 

present in the ponds. This would prevent direct impacts to individuals if present.

Eleanor Creek

Approximately 160 acres of salvage would occur in two units (Unit O201B and O02A) 

within the range of the frog in the Eleanor Creek watershed downstream of Lake Eleanor. 

This area includes approximately 2.5 acres of upland habitat. There is a relatively dense 

stand of small dead conifers in Unit O02A, but relatively little vegetation in Unit O201B. 

As noted under Big Kibbie Pond, Unit O201B is a deer forage unit and biomassing would 

occur. However, a review of the aerial imagery indicates very little vegetation close to 

the creek and within the 25 meter buffer. It is unlikely that biomassing would occur close 

to the creek, but there would be soil disturbance if equipment does operate within the 

buffer. 

As noted earlier, this section of stream is not likely to be occupied by SNYLF because of 

a long-term (more than 80 years), self-sustaining fish population and the presence of the 

dam forming Eleanor Lake. The section of creek on STF lands is also below the listed 

elevation range of the species (Federal Register 2013), approximately 1,000 feet below 
92

the elevation of any historic occurrence of the SNYLF on the forest, and almost 2,000 

feet lower than any extant population on the forest. Direct or indirect effects to 

individuals are unlikely to occur based on probable lack of occupancy. Operations in 

Unit O02A could produce sediment to Eleanor Creek, but the relatively low gradient 

hillslopes near the creek would limit sediment delivery to the creek. Applicable MRs and 

BMPs would be applied to the riparian conservation area of Eleanor Creek (300 feet from 

the edge of the water). Also, the annual spill that occurs from Lake Eleanor would be 

sufficient to maintain deep water habitat and would flush project-generated sediment 

from this portion of the stream within 2 years of project implementation in this area.

Management requirements and BMPs would be applied to the units and riparian areas 

along Eleanor Creek to minimize sediment delivery to the stream. There would be no 

change in habitat suitability caused by project activities.

Approximately 0.6 mile of road reconstruction would occur within the range of the frog. 

Because the road is over 1,000 feet from Eleanor Creek, there would be very little 

measurable sediment delivery to the creek from this activity. This activity would not 

affect suitable aquatic habitat. The harvest in Unit O02A would affect less than 0.25 acre 

of upland habitat. The effect would be a reduction in LWD in the upland habitat 

affecting only the eastern side of the creek. This loss of LWD would be a long-term 

reduction in objects providing overhead cover for over 50 years. Some refuge and cover 

habitat would be maintained in the upland habitat affected by salvage and provided by 

high levels of boulders and rock outcrops. As with the habitats previously discussed, 

there is a risk of water contamination from the application of Sporax® in the riparian 

area. MRs should effectively limit the risk of contamination of surface waters and the 

minimum flow would aid in the rapid downstream dispersal of any spilled material.

Within the range of the frog, there would be no roadside hazard tree removal, fuels 

treatments, or water drafting, and new or temporary roads would not be constructed. 

These activities would not affect aquatic or upland habitats or individuals. 

Middle Fork Tuolumne River

Approximately 114 acres of salvage harvest would occur in the range of the frog within 

the MFTR watershed (Unit Q09 – 18 acres, Unit Q08 – 42 acres, Q14A – 82 acres). 

Approximately 7 acres of upland habitat adjacent to the mainstem MFTR would be 

affected by salvage harvest operations in Units Q09 and Q08. Salvage would affect 

approximately 33 percent of the total amount of upland habitat available along the MFTR

within the range of the frog. Unit Q09 would be harvested using ground based equipment 

while Q08 would be harvested using skyline methods. Skyline harvest does not use 

skidders thereby eliminating the skid trail network. This logging system typically results 

in much less ground disturbance and soil displacement and is less prone to erosion. 

However, this method does produce ruts parallel with the hillslope because one end of the 

log is dragged along the ground. Management requirements specific to skyline units 

would be applied in addition to all other MRs and BMPs for salvage operations in the 

unit and riparian areas. 

Fuels reduction actions would occur in all three units following salvage and the activities 

include hand piling, machine piling, grapple piling, and pile burning. Approximately 119 
93

acres of roadside hazard tree removal would occur within the MFTR watershed within 

the range of the frog, including approximately 3 acres in upland areas along intermittent 

streams. The proposed action would also require the maintenance or reconstruction of 

approximately 3 miles of road within the range of the frog and the application of 

Sporax® to the stumps of cut trees. With the exception of the Sporax® treatment, all 

activities identified above have the potential to cause soil disturbance (either compaction 

or displacement) which is conducive to erosion. Some sediment is expected to enter the 

MFTR following project implementation, but the relative impact of this sedimentation to 

the MFTR is expected to be relatively minor and of short duration. As with all project 

activities, MRs and BMPs would mitigate the extent of sediment delivery. Also, the 

MFTR has a relatively large watershed above the project activities (over 31,000 acres) 

that is in the snow zone where the hydrology of the watershed is driven by snowmelt and 

runoff. In average precipitation years, the peak discharge of the river would be adequate 

to diminish the immediate impacts of project-related sediment. It should be noted that 

large volumes of sediment are likely to be transported and affect SNYLF habitat in the 

MFTR in the next 2 to 5 years because much of the watershed was burned at moderate 

and high severity. As such, it would be very difficult to separate project-related 

sedimentation from fire-related sedimentation. The recovery of vegetation, soil cover, 

and soil hydrophobicity should occur within this time period and erosion rates should 

decrease and approach pre-fire rates within this time frame (Gresswell 1999, Neary et al. 

2005). Within the upland areas affected by salvage and fuel reduction, the supply of 

instream and riparian LWD would be reduced for an extended period of time. The 

impact of the instream reduction would be less than the riparian effect because the 

watershed above the salvage units will remain unharvested and LWD supply should be 

high in the next 20 years. 

No new or temporary roads would be constructed in the range of the frog and no water 

sources were identified for the MFTR in this range. 

Direct impacts to individuals are unlikely to occur in the MFTR area because there is a 

very low likelihood of occupancy by the frog. This is because there has been a selfsustaining population of trout for close to or over 100 years, rivers as large as the MFTR 

are atypical of sites occupied by the SNYLF, and there are no other logical suitable 

breeding habitats within several miles of the project area. Project activities would impact 

riparian habitats directly and indirectly with the removal of timber from within upland 

habitat and the potential for sediment delivery affecting the river from salvage areas. 

With the implementation of MRs and BMPs, the amount of sediment delivered to 

channels would be minimized, but sedimentation could slightly reduce pool volume or 

reduce the interstitial spaces in slow water habitats (especially edge waters). The 

reduction in pool volume would not significantly affect the persistence of the water or the 

ability of the river to provide suitable aquatic habitat for any life stage. The extent of 

LWD loss from upland habitat would affect a minor portion of the available habitat and 

MRs would ensure an adequate amount of LWD would be available in the future. In all, 

project activities would not change the suitability of aquatic habitats and would slightly 

reduce the overall suitability of upland habitat through the loss of LWD.
94

Foothill yellow-legged frog

Roadside Hazard and Salvage

There is no potential for direct effects to the FYLF in the following occupied locations: 

Basin, Drew, Grapevine, and Hunter Creeks, and North Fork Tuolumne and main 

Tuolumne Rivers. Proposed activity location relative to the potential habitat in the creek 

channel and Table 11 show no project related activity (hazard tree removal, salvage, road 

treatments) is in close proximity to any of these six streams occupied by the frog. There 

is no potential for direct effect at the following streams providing suitable habitat for the 

FYLF: Adams, Alder, Bear Springs, Quilty and Russell Creeks, and Unnamed Clavey 

Tributary 2. No project activities would occur in close proximity to the streams which 

negates the potential for direct effect.

Table 11. Amount of buffer, percentage of watershed area affected, and miles of road 

treatments in foothill yellow-legged frog suitable habitat for Alternative 1.

Watershed 

(5th level 

Hydrologic 

Unit Code)

Stream 

name

Percent of 

FYLF 

watershed 

area 

treated, 

hazard tree 

and 

salvage 

units 

combined

Acres of FYLF buffer 

affected

Road Treatments (miles by 

treatment type)

Hazard 

tree Salvage Percent of total

Reconstruct Maintain New Temporary

Tuolumne 

River

Tuolumne 

River

Alder Cr. 10 5 0 4 0.8 2.5 0 0

Corral Cr. 58 2 81 35 14.8 5 0.5 0

Drew Cr. 12 12 0.4 11 0.5 4.5 0.1 1.1

Grapevine 

Cr. 18 29 0 11 0.7 17.4 0 0

Indian Cr. 2 1 0 less 

than 1 0 2.2 0 0

Jawbone Cr. 25 5 46 14 18.5 8.8 0.2 3.4

Middle 

Fork 

Tuolumne 

River

Middle Fork 

Tuolumne 

River

17 22 255 46 58.3 12.5 0 5.3

North Fork 

Tuolumne 

River

North Fork 

Tuolumne 

River

2 0 0 0 0.4 22.7 0 0

Basin Cr. 1 0 0 0 0.4 2.1 0 0

Hunter Cr. 9 0 0 0 0 19.9 0 0

South Fork 

Tuolumne 

River

South Fork 

Tuolumne 

River

38 30 140 24 76.6 26.8 1.6 2.7

Cherry 

Creek

Cherry Cr. 11 8 67 18 34.6 9.9 0 1.0

Eleanor Cr. 1 0 12 22 2.5 0 0 0

Granite Cr. 27 2 50 36 12.4 1.1 0 0.1

Clavey 

River

Clavey River

Reed Cr. 20 1 49 49 25.4 17.8 0.2 2.2

Adams Gulch 18 0 0 0 1.6 1.4 0 0

Bear Springs 

Cr. 18 9 0.1 20 10 0.7 0 0

Bull Meadow 

Cr. 36 5 1 8 3.9 0.7 0 0.8

Indian 19 3 2 25 1.4 0.1 0 0
95

Watershed 

(5th level 

Hydrologic 

Unit Code)

Stream 

name

Percent of 

FYLF 

watershed 

area 

treated, 

hazard tree 

and 

salvage 

units 

combined

Acres of FYLF buffer 

affected

Road Treatments (miles by 

treatment type)

Hazard 

tree Salvage Percent of total

Reconstruct Maintain New Temporary

Springs Cr. 

Quilty Cr. 5 0 0 0 0.1 1.1 0 0

Unnamed 

Tributary 1 16 3 0 8 0 2.9 0 0

Unnamed 

Tributary 2 24 0 0 0 0 2.5 0 0

Unnamed 

Tributary 3 69 0 26 46 11 0 0 0

Unnamed 

Tributary 4 43 3 0 13 2 1.7 0 0

Unnamed 

Tributary 5 43 7 8 37 2.2 2.7 0 0

Cottonwood 

Cr. 31 0 3 5 21.4 7.2 0 0

Russell Cr. 30 0 0 0 2.2 1 0 0

North Fork 

Merced 

River

North Fork 

Merced River 2 22 18

less 

than 

0.1

11.6 11.8 0 0.3

Bull Cr. 2 5 0

less 

than 

0.1

0.5 5.5 0 0

Deer Lick Cr. 8 4 13 7 3.4 2.3 0 0.2

Moore Cr. 4 5 5 3 1.6 4.1 0 1

Scott Cr. 22 2 0 8 3.6 3.4 0 0

Based on the limited amount of habitat affected by project activities, Table 7 shows there 

is a very low risk of direct effect to the following occupied sites because there is very 

little project activity in the 30-meter buffer. These sites include Bull, Bull Meadow, 

Drew, Grapevine, and Moore Creeks, and the Clavey and North Fork Merced Rivers. 

The hazard tree areas and roads are at the upper headwaters of Bull, Drew, Grapevine, 

and Moore Creeks and the North Fork Merced River. Even though these streams were 

buffered as suitable habitat, there is a negligible chance of occupancy. Within Bull 

Meadow Creek watershed, salvage unit L206, a plantation from the 1987 fire, is a 

proposed deer forage unit. A review of the post-fire aerial imagery indicates low 

mortality of trees along the stream. A road on the east side of the stream would have 

hazard trees removed, but imagery indicates limited mortality between the stream and 

road. Only roadside hazard tree removal would occur along 1N01 at the bridge crossing 

of the Clavey River. This is outside of the merchantable conifer elevation and the hazard 

trees are likely to be oaks. If the oaks are cut down the steep bank, there is a very low 

chance that they could fall to the river over 100 feet away and directly affect an 

individual frog. However, this is considered to be an unlikely occurrence as the fallers 

would likely leave the tree close to the road for firewood. The river is far below the road 

and there is negligible chance for physical disturbance unless the tree falls down to the 

river.
96

Direct effects would be a low risk at the following streams (occupancy unknown) 

because of the limited amount of activity within the buffer as shown in Table 7 or the 

hazard tree and salvage actions would occur along stream segments with very low habitat 

suitability. These streams include Cottonwood, Deer Lick, Eleanor, and Indian Creeks, 

and Clavey River Tributaries 1, 4, and 5. At Deer Lick Creek and Clavey River 

Tributaries 1 and 5, the roadside hazard tree and salvage units are at the upper headwaters 

of the streams and habitat suitability is very low if at all suitable. For Clavey River 

Tributary 4 and Indian Creek, aerial imagery shows very little mortality to conifers at the 

road crossing. Independently, the very low suitability habitat and low number of dead 

trees make the risk of a direct effect occurring very low.

A moderate risk could occur to individuals at the following locations: Cherry and Indian 

Springs Creeks. Table 7 shows 75 acres of salvage actions in the Cherry Creek 

watershed, but 52 acres alone are in Granite Creek which is discussed immediately 

below. The 23 acres of buffer treated is at the upper elevation limit established for the 

frog; therefore, the potential for occupancy is very low, especially in a relatively large 

stream like Cherry Creek. The level of activity in the buffer does pose a risk for injury, 

disturbance or mortality in these helicopter salvage units (O3, O6, O7 and P201), but the 

risk may be slightly lower because ground-based equipment would not be operating in 

the units. Within the Indian Springs watershed, a salvage unit runs along the north side 

of the creek at a distance of approximately 1,200 feet. This site has known occupancy by 

FYLF and low numbers of frogs disperse from the Clavey River breeding sites to this 

stream. Direct effects to individuals are plausible at Indian Springs. A management 

requirement mitigates some of the direct effects (injury and mortality) by having timber 

directionally felled away from the stream. Physical disturbance is probably the most 

likely effect to individuals and the disturbance could last up to three weeks at the 11-acre 

unit. Due to the almost complete tree mortality in this unit, it is likely that there would be 

only one salvage entry.

A high risk of direct effect to individual FYLF could occur for the following streams: 

Corral, Granite, Jawbone, Reed, Middle and South Fork Tuolumne Rivers. The level of 

risk is simply associated with the amount of activity within FYLF buffers (Table 11). 

Due to the high levels of activity close to streams, the risk of injury, mortality, and 

physical disturbance would increase. Although there is a management requirement to 

directionally fall trees away from the stream to limit injury/mortality, a considerable 

amount of machinery would operate in close proximity to the streams. The occupancy 

status of these six streams is unknown, but occupancy is assumed to occur in order to 

allow for disclosure of impact. If individuals are killed, a minor impact to population 

status could occur because all populations are assumed to be small. The number of 

reproducing individuals could be decreased for up to two years at the localized breeding 

site scale. The elevated risk of individual mortality would not be likely to result in a 

localized extinction of a population or subpopulation. The likely outcome of this 

extensive operation close to streams is increased physical disturbance associated with 

equipment and forest workers in close proximity to the streams. As with Indian Springs, 

the disturbance could last up to four weeks (likely 2 to 3). Repeated disturbance could 

affect basking or foraging and/or increased stress, with a low to moderate risk of 

temporarily reducing physiological fitness (body condition).
97

The primary anticipated indirect effect is the increase of sediment delivery to the streams 

following roadside hazard abatement and salvage logging. Of the two activities, 

salvaging is assumed to have the greater potential effect because it would generate a 

larger skid trail network than the area immediately within the 200-foot hazard tree buffer 

along roads. Skid trails tend to yield greater quantities of sediment than undisturbed 

areas and yield increased sediment for a longer period of time (Robichaud et al. 2011). 

The longer duration of erosion from skid trails is due to the machinery created 

disturbance negatively affecting the recovery of ground cover, especially vegetation, on 

the trails (Robichaud et al. 2011). 

The extent of salvaging in a watershed was the basis for estimating the potential for 

increased sediment and is represented as proportion of watershed area treated in Table 7. 

Additional consideration was given to the amount of buffer treated. The closer the 

activity is to a stream, the shorter the distance for runoff to travel, and the greater the 

likelihood that sediment is delivered to the stream. The logging system proposed (tractor, 

skyline, and helicopter) in an affected watershed was also considered because helicopter 

logging results in much less ground disturbance than ground-based logging. The lower 

levels of ground disturbance translate into lower erosion rates and less sediment routed to 

streams. A longer discussion of anticipated erosion effects from salvage logging is 

provided in the Soils and Watershed sections. The risk categories follow those used for 

direct effects and are low, moderate, and high. It should be noted that erosion and 

sediment modeling was completed for post-fire and post-project implementation for each 

alternative and this modeling showed very little difference in erosion rates or sediment 

yield. The modeling indicated broad scale decreases in erosion rates that were 

attributable to increased ground cover from salvage logging in high soil burn severity 

units (non-merchantable material is left behind).

For streams in the low category (less than 15 percent of watershed area affected), there 

would be negligible to very minor increases in fine sediments. These fine sediments 

would mainly affect slow water habitats found in low gradient reaches (less than 2 

percent), along the margins of the stream, and in pools. In these watersheds, it may not be 

possible to differentiate between post-fire erosion and treatment related sediment. This 

type of habitat impact would not affect habitat suitability for any life stage or the ability 

of a FYLF population to persist. Streams in the low category include Alder, Basin, 

Cherry, Deer Lick, Eleanor, Hunter, Indian, Moore, and Quilty Creeks and the Clavey, 

Tuolumne, and North Fork Merced Rivers. 

In the moderate category (15-25 percent of watershed area affected), there would be 

minor increases in sediment from treated areas. For some reaches in the affected 

watersheds, it would be possible to differentiate the project related sediment from the 

post-fire erosion and the spatial extent of the effect on habitat would be localized (up to 

several hundred square feet below the deposition point). At the smaller reach scale 

(small streams within a watershed), there could be moderate levels of sediment affecting 

pool volume or reducing other deeper water habitats (less than 50 percent reduction in 

volume), but adequate depth should be maintained for individuals needing refuge habitat. 

Breeding habitat in larger streams could have detectable increases in sediment, but there 

should be limited impairment of the capability of the habitat to allow for eggmass to 

tadpole to metamorphosis development. The primary observable change in habitat at 
98

breeding sites would be a reduction in the spaces between larger stream substrates which 

would reduce the abundance and availability of escape habitat. Also, the increase in fine 

sediments could partially cover large substrates (large gravel to cobble sized) and limit 

the amount of foraging habitat on the substrates (tadpoles scrape or suck algae from the 

surface of rocks). There would be a discountable to minor effect on adult and sub-adult 

habitat in general aquatic habitat because the small amounts of sediment would not 

substantially reduce habitat suitability. Adult and sub-adults would still have ample deep 

water habitat to escape a perceived predation attempt. Streams in the moderate category 

include Adams, Bear Springs, Clavey River Tributaries 1 and 2, Drew, Grapevine, Indian 

Springs, and Scott Creek, and the Middle and North Fork Tuolumne Rivers.

For the remaining streams (Bull Meadow, Clavey River Tributaries 3-5, Corral, 

Cottonwood, Granite, Jawbone, Reed, and Russell Creeks and the South Fork Tuolumne 

River) there would generally be minor sedimentation at the stream scale and moderate 

sedimentation of localized habitats. Moderate impact at the local scale would mean a less 

than 30 percent reduction in volume of deep water habitats, widespread streambed 

sedimentation (less than 1 inch deep), and temporary reduction of shallow water habitats. 

Small, low gradient streams would see the greatest level of impact, while higher gradient 

sections of larger streams would effectively transport this sediment. The effective 

transport of sediment from some stream reaches would insure the availability of patches 

of high suitability habitat.

For the moderate and high watershed response categories, the duration of increased 

project-related sediment would be one to two years, and it may be difficult to 

differentiate between the post-fire erosion and the treatment related sediment at a 

watershed scale in the second year. Any repeated entries to remove additional dead 

material would not be expected to generate detectable sediment because there would be a 

limited skid trail network and few equipment passes on the skid trails limiting the extent 

of compaction.

Road Management

The proposed action would include several types of road management activities including 

maintenance and reconstruction. All action alternatives would propose the construction 

of new and temporary roads to access salvage units. These actions and activities are 

further detailed in the Transportation section of this document.

Table 11 shows the types and mileage of road system related actions proposed under this 

alternative. Several factors determine the extent to which the road actions could affect 

aquatic habitats, including, but not limited to, the degree of connectivity to a stream or 

drainage network, approach angle of the road near the stream, spacing of water diversion 

structures, level of outsloping of the road surface, erodibility of the road surface (soil 

type), and road surface type. Given the short timeframe allowed for the preparation of 

this document, extensive field review of the road-stream connectivity was not possible. 

As such, this analysis lacks site-specificity and instead relies on a generalized approach 

using the 1) amount of activity in close proximity to streams and 2) total number of miles 

of road treated in each watershed. A miles per acre calculation was considered for 

analysis, but this type of simple averaging was not considered to be an accurate indicator 

of potential effect because road density (and thus, treatment intensity) varied 
99

considerably in any given watershed. The FYLF buffer (30 meters) was used as an 

indicator of road activity close to streams which includes the road surface area most 

likely to deliver sediment directly to a stream. The exceptions to this rule were the new 

and temporary road construction actions.

Road maintenance and reconstruction are similar treatments, but reconstruction typically 

includes a major reworking of the road surface and can include actions outside of the 

existing road prism. Both activities include the reworking of the road surface, typically 

with a road grader or other machine with a blade. This action loosens the compaction of 

the road surface and makes more fine sediment available to erosion via dust and rain 

runoff (Coe 2006, Stafford 2011). Stafford (2011) indicated a fairly high rate of 

connectivity between roads and the stream network; 11-30 percent of roads were 

connected hydrologically to a stream. Reconstruction and maintenance actions are 

primarily intended to facilitate vehicle use, but limiting hydrologic connectivity to 

streams is another important aspect of these treatments. Outsloping roads and installing 

effective water diversion structures can have long term benefits to aquatic systems by 

reducing the amount of sediment delivered from the road. So, there is a tradeoff for 

streams with road treatments with increased sediment delivery in the short term (1-2 

years) and decreased delivery in the long term (greater than 2 years). Since the road 

treatments would occur prior to or during salvage operations in a unit, the sediment from 

the roads would be expected to combine with sediment generated from salvaging for up 

to two years. 

Relatively little to no road-related sediment would be expected in the following FYLF 

watersheds: Adams, Alder, Basin, Bull, Clavey Tributaries 1, 2, and 4, Deer Lick, 

Eleanor, Indian, Indian Springs, Moore, Quilty, Russell, and Scott Creeks, and the North 

Fork Merced and Tuolumne Rivers. Sediment from maintenance and reconstruction 

should have no detectable effect on any habitat required by the FYLF. Minor amounts of 

road treatment related sediment would be expected in Bear Springs, Bull Meadow, 

Clavey Tributary 3, Cottonwood, Granite, Grapevine, Hunter, and Jawbone Creeks. 

Effects would be primarily localized and noticeable downstream of road crossings, and, 

depending on stream size and gradient at the crossing, could affect and area of less than 

10 square feet to 100 square feet. In the remaining streams (Cherry, Clavey Tributary 5, 

Drew, and Reed Creeks and Middle and South Fork Tuolumne Rivers), there would be 

more areas with localized effects, especially in smaller tributaries. In all the rivers 

(Clavey, Tuolumne, Middle, North and South Fork Tuolumne Rivers, and Cherry Creek), 

sediment from the roads may not be detectable after the first year following road 

improvement and is unlikely to impair any biological function at these large watershed 

scales.

Corral Creek and the South Fork Tuolumne River have the most new road construction. 

The segment of new road in the Corral Creek watershed would cross the creek in the 

uppermost portion of the watershed and would require the installation of a culvert. 

Sediment would be anticipated from this crossing and persist for two years as the fill 

compacts and vegetation grows on the bare ground. Also, excavating the channel to 

place the culvert would generate sediment. The sediment from the fill and channel 

disturbance would be detectable for approximately 100 feet downstream. This section of 

stream does not provide suitable habitat for the FYLF, and the overall gradient of the 
100

channel indicates a high potential for this sediment to be transported out of the system 

within two or three years. The new road construction in the South Fork watershed would 

occur in upper watershed of Rush Creek. The road does not appear to cross any perennial 

or intermittent streams and could have very minor impact to aquatic habitat in Rush 

Creek. Because this stream is above the elevation range of the species on the Stanislaus, 

it is unlikely that habitat for FYLF downstream in the South Fork would have a 

measurable impact on suitability.

Water Sources and Rock Pits

Water sources used for the road management activities and logging have management 

requirements that would result in minimal adverse direct and indirect effects to the FYLF. 

Direct impacts to individuals are possible as a result of getting “sucked into” the pump 

(entrainment) or physical disturbance. If an organism is sucked into the pump, it could 

sustain physical damage (potentially lethal) or could be transported to an inhospitable 

location (for example, a road prism during dust abatement). To mitigate the potential for 

entrainment, Forest Plan Direction requires the use of low velocity intake pumps and a 

management requirement was developed for the use of a drafting box consisting of small 

mesh screening (1/4 inch maximum). The low velocity intake pump would allow a 

tadpole to escape entrainment by swimming away and the drafting box would provide a 

physical barrier to individuals getting close to the pump intake. The operation of pumps 

would create noise which has the potential to result in physical disturbance to individuals. 

Under a maximum water volume drafting scenario, three minutes is needed to fill a 1,000 

gallon water tanker, but up to 45 minutes could be required under lower streamflow 

conditions and is considered to be a worst case scenario. At high streamflow locations, 

there could be up to 10 disturbances a day and up to three times a day at low streamflow 

locations. The overall duration of activities could be from April through October, 

constituting a long-term disturbance factor. This amount of disturbance could be enough 

to impact physiological well-being at the major river drafting sites. However, none of 

these locations are known to support populations of the frog.

The extent of impact to habitat includes the gradual reduction in stream flow downstream 

of the drafting sites. In all cases, aquatic habitats would be maintained in all streams with 

water sources, but periodic reduction in pool volume or the wetted width of the stream 

would occur. This could happen up to 10 times daily at heavily used sites and could 

occur from April through October. The Forest Service water quality handbook places 

limitations on the rate of water extraction and when sources can be used based on 

streamflow. The maximum drafting rate is 350 gallons per minute in streams and 

drafting ceases in fish bearing streams with streamflow under 1.5 cubic feet per second. 

In non-fish bearing streams, drafting would cease when streamflow drops below 10 

gallons per minute. These limitations are fully described in the watershed report prepared 

for the project.

Seven rock pits are proposed for use and three are within the elevation range of the frog. 

However, none of the pits are located on or within 750 feet of a stream. Because the rock 

pits are not connected to or located in close proximity to FYLF habitat, no direct or 

indirect effects to the FYLF are expected to occur.
101

Fuels Treatments

Fuels treatments are proposed for the roadside and salvage units to reduce fuel loading 

created by non-merchantable tree material. This post-salvage material would be piled by 

hand or machine (bulldozer or grapple). Hand piling does not create any ground 

disturbance and erosion would not be expected in areas treated in this manner. Dozer 

piling has the potential for the greatest amount of ground disturbance and erosion. Since 

the extent of this activity would only occur in the salvage and hazard tree units, the 

categories of watershed concern relate directly to erosion related to dozer piling. Erosion 

from the machine treated units would be detectable primarily in the moderate and high 

response watersheds, with slight impairment of FYLF habitat in the moderate response 

watersheds and minor, localized impairment of habitat in the high response watersheds.

The proposed treatments (salvage, roadside hazard, road improvement and construction) 

would have little impact on stream shading or the recovery of obligate riparian 

vegetation. The trees that would be removed are dead and no longer provide much shade 

to the stream surface. The actions to remove the dead trees would have little or no 

reduction in shading. The relative importance of shading to the frog is largely unknown, 

but as discussed earlier, a mix of shaded conditions is likely optimal for 

thermoregulation. The recovery of obligate woody riparian vegetation is unlikely to be 

significantly hindered by salvage and hazard tree removal because equipment would not 

be operating within the typically narrow riparian zone. The resprouting riparian 

vegetation may be damaged by falling trees, but further resprouting would limit the 

duration of this impact to less than a year. 

The removal of dead trees in riparian areas has the potential to reduce the availability of 

LWD that falls into the stream or riparian area. While the importance of LWD to FYLF is 

unstudied, the general role and function of LWD in creating habitat complexity in a 

stream may be important to the frog. Therefore, this habitat element could be affected 

(reduced) by logging. There are requirements for recruiting the largest trees in salvage 

units that would potentially mitigate the overall reduction in recruitment. However, this 

is considered to be a minimal amount of retention (5 trees/acre) and there would be a very 

long term (greater than 150 years and up to 300 years for very large trees) reduction in 

LWD recruitment rate in streamside salvage units. 

FYLF Alternative 1 Summary

In summary, the potential for direct effects to individuals is limited to two sites with 

known occupancy, Bull Meadow and Indian Springs Creeks, and a couple of sites where 

occupancy status is uncertain. While individuals could be injured or killed, the likely 

direct effect is a disturbance of normal behavior which should last no longer than four 

weeks at any treatment area. The primary adverse indirect effect is sedimentation of 

aquatic habitat and would be related to hazard tree treatments, salvage logging, machine 

piling, and road actions. A direct relationship between the amount of watershed area 

treated/proximity to the stream and the potential for increased sedimentation. The 

magnitude of effect would be variable, from indistinguishable to moderate sedimentation 

of slow water habitats in small streams. Larger streams and high gradient reaches should 

provide enough sediment transporting energy to maintain patches of high suitability 

habitat. Breeding sites could see minor detrimental effects from this sedimentation in the 
102

form of reduced hiding spaces for tadpoles and small sub-adults and a reduction in the 

amount of preferred foraging habitat. The sediment generated from project related 

activities would be expected to affect habitat suitability in some places for up to two 

years post-treatment, but most sites should remain suitable for all life stages of the frog. 

Western pond turtle

The risk of detrimental direct effects to the WPT is higher than for the FYLF because the 

turtle uses the uplands more extensively during different times of the year. As discussed 

earlier, the WPT can use upland habitats up to 400 meters away from an aquatic habitat 

and can occur in upland habitats for overwintering, nesting, and aestivation. In general, 

turtles remain close to water from early spring through early fall, but in habitats with 

seasonal water, they can move into upland habitat when the seasonal feature is dry. 

Table 12 provides a description of the amount of area treated by hazard tree and salvage 

logging activities for this alternative.

Table 12. Amount and percentage of western pond turtle buffer affected in salvage and 

roadside hazard tree units for Alternative 1.

Watershed (5th level 

Hydrologic Unit Code) Stream name

Amount of WPT 

buffer in salvage 

units (percent of 

total buffer area 

treated)

Amount of WPT 

buffer in hazard tree 

units (percent of total 

buffer area treated)

Tuolumne River

Drew Cr. 30 (3%) 89 (9%)

Jawbone Cr. 701 (22%) 102 (3%)

Homestead Pond 18 (20%) 0 (0%)

Three unnamed ponds 27 (10%) 4 (1%)

Middle Fork Tuolumne 

River

Middle Fork Tuolumne River 2077 (39%) 304 (6%)

Abernathy Meadow 66 (50%) 6 (5%)

Grandfather Pond 11 (13%) 2 2%)

Mud Lake 21 (18%) 0 (0%)

North Fork Tuolumne 

River

North Fork Tuolumne River 0 (0%) 411 (2%)

Basin Cr. 0 (0%) 0 (0%)

Hunter Cr. 0 (0%) 407 (2%)

South Fork Tuolumne 

River South Fork Tuolumne River 1373 (21%) 534 (8%)

Cherry Creek

Cherry Cr. 424 (11%) 61 (2%)

Eleanor Cr. 97 (16%) 0.1 (less than 1%)

Big Kibbie Pond 86 (88%) 0 (0%)

Little Kibbie Pond 54 (60%) 2 (2%)

Clavey River Reed Cr. 443 (49%) 11 (1%)

Cottonwood Cr. 29 (5%) 24 (5%)

North Fork Merced 

River

North Fork Merced River 176 (1%) 491 (3%)

Bull Cr. 35 (less than 1%) 106 (1%)

Deer Lick Cr. 42 (2%) 109 (5%)

Moore Cr. 56 (2%) 60 (2%)

Roadside Hazard and Salvage

There is very low to no risk of direct effect to turtles in the following locations: Basin, 

Bull, Deer Lick, Hunter, Moore Creeks and the North Fork Merced and Tuolumne 
103

Rivers. In these watersheds, salvage and hazard tree treatment areas are located on 

headwater reaches where habitat suitability is very low or unsuitable. The WPT needs 

fairly big pools which these habitats lack.

There is a low risk of adverse direct effect to turtles in the following locations: Cherry, 

Cottonwood, Drew, Eleanor, and Reed Creeks, and the three unnamed ponds at Yosemite 

Lakes and Grandfather Pond. At Drew Creek, all of the salvage and roadside treatments 

are in the upper half of the watershed where the stream only has water during the winter 

months. During the time when salvage activities would occur, this stream is dry and 

turtles would be expected to occur in the lower section of stream that retains perennial 

water. Cherry, Cottonwood, Eleanor, and Reed Creeks are at the upper elevation limit of 

the WPT in streams on the Forest, and potential for occupancy is low. These sites also 

retain perennial water and turtles would be expected to be streamside when salvage 

activities would occur. A review of the aerial imagery for Homestead Pond indicates a 

limited amount of dead timber to the north, west, and south of the pond and a limited 

amount of equipment operation would likely occur in these areas (greater than 70 percent 

of available habitat). There is a higher level of activity to the east of the pond, but the 

estimated volume of timber is relatively low (less than 15,000 board feet/acre) which 

suggests a fairly low level of logging activity. The most likely type of direct effect to 

WPT in these watersheds when water is present would be physical disturbance and the 

duration would be relatively short (less than 4 weeks) at any given location. 

Physical disturbance is likely to impact basking the most, since turtles spend a 

considerable amount of time in the sun in order to increase body temperature and 

possibly maintain a healthy carapace (Hammond et al. 1988, Boyer 1965). This behavior 

is important for metabolism, including the digestion of food and incubation of eggs

(Moore and Seigel 2006). The timing and amount of physical disturbance could be 

important to individuals and have low level population implications. If the disturbance 

occurs early in the season (March through June) when fertilized eggs are developing in 

females, there could be a delay in development and, if excessive, nesting attempts could 

be abandoned for the year when most activities are occurring. The amount (a 

combination of intensity and duration) of disturbance is important as well because

excessive disturbance would result in turtles spending more time in the water or 

occupying suboptimal habitats that may not provide the physiological benefits of basking 

in preferred locations. In almost all cases, the duration of disturbance from project 

implementation is expected to be limited to less than a week at most locations, though the 

intensity of the duration could be high and impact individuals for the majority of the day 

light hours. The limited duration of disturbance would have a short-term effect on 

digestion or egg development, but would not have an appreciable effect on long-term 

physical well-being, including reproduction. The highly mobile turtle can move up- or 

downstream to avoid the disturbance and there are some indications that individuals can 

acclimate to repeated disturbance (Moore and Seigel 2006). Subsequent mentioning of 

physical disturbance utilizes this discussion of consequences to inform the reader of the 

anticipated environmental outcome for individual WPT effects.

For WPT habitat in and along Jawbone Creek and the Middle and South Fork Tuolumne 

Rivers, salvage operations present a moderate risk of direct effect to the WPT, mainly 

due to the amount of activity that would occur in the 300-meter buffer. At these 
104

locations, turtles may overwinter in the upland from October through April, but logging 

activity would be unlikely at this time of year due to machinery operational constraints 

associated with soil compaction risk. During June and July, the WPT could use the 

uplands for nesting, but the availability of nesting habitat is very limited and restricted to 

relatively open, herbaceous dominated slopes. These open areas lack salvageable trees 

and the risk of direct effect is self-mitigating. In the Middle and South Fork Tuolumne 

Rivers, a majority of the salvage activity would occur in headwater tributaries and along 

low order streams (1st and 2nd order) with heavy pre-fire forest that typically provide low 

to very low suitable aquatic WPT habitat. The risk is decreased simply based on this low 

habitat suitability. However, for the mainstems of the rivers, salvage logging would 

occur close to the channel and the potential for physical disturbance is moderate. This 

disturbance could last up to four weeks at any given salvage unit, but long-term impacts 

to physical well-being are not expected. For all four locations, the potential for injury or 

mortality of individuals is low because of the year-long availability of water means the 

turtle would likely be streamside during operations. The risk increases to moderate in 

October if logging activities continue late into the year because the turtles move into the 

upland habitat as the weather gets colder. The level of potential impact at these locations 

would not be sufficient to affect the long term viability of any existing population.

Abernathy Meadow, Mud Lake, and Grandfather, Big, and Little Kibbie Ponds have the 

highest potential for direct impact to individuals. At Abernathy Meadow, the turtles 

move into upland habitats during the summer when the seasonal pond goes dry. Previous 

radio telemetry tracking of individuals at this location confirms the turtles move into the 

upland and aestivate until the rainy season fills the pond. Because the turtles could be in 

the upland during salvage operations, there is a high risk of injury or mortality. The same 

conditions apply to Big and Little Kibbie Ponds, because these wetlands occasionally go 

dry (as they were during the Rim Fire) and the WPT would be expected to move into the 

uplands to aestivate. Because of this consideration, a management requirement was 

imposed for all action alternatives to prohibit the operation of equipment within 1⁄4 mile 

of the ponds and meadow if the features are lacking water. This management requirement 

helps to limit risk of injury and mortality. Also, equipment operation is prohibited within 

1⁄4 mile from June through July would help to prevent disturbance to nesting turtles. 

Grandfather Pond and Mud Lake tend to retain perennial water and the turtles are 

expected to remain close to the aquatic habitat during the period when salvage operations 

would occur close to the ponds. Still, some individuals could make overland journeys to 

and from Birch Lake at Camp Mather or move into the uplands to aestivate. This would 

pose a risk of injury or mortality during salvage operations. The overall risk to any one 

individual is considered to be low, but there would be a moderate to high risk of physical 

disturbance during salvage operations. The consequence would be a short duration (less 

than 4 weeks) change in behavior where terrestrial basking would be reduced. This 

would have a minor impact on physiological fitness, but would not be enough to alter a 

function like reproductive or overwintering fitness. This means a female would produce 

eggs as in a typical year and the bodily energy reserves entering winter would be 

sufficient to get individuals through to spring. No long-term consequences to these 

populations would be expected.
105

The primary adverse indirect impact to individuals would be sedimentation of stream 

habitats. As with the FYLF, the degree of impact is related to the extent of activity, 

particularly activity in close proximity to the aquatic features. The same categorization 

used for the FYLF applies to the WPT because the deep water features are important 

elements for both species. The description of impacts to deep water habitat described for 

the FYLF applies to the WPT and the reader is encouraged to read the FYLF description. 

Deep water habitats are important to all life stages of the WPT (except hatchlings) for 

escaping from disturbance (a perceived predation attempt), foraging, and thermal retreat. 

Sediment that reduces the volume of a deep water habitat by more than 50 percent is 

considered excessive and degrades habitat suitability from high to low. In larger streams 

and rivers (examples, Cherry Creek and Middle Fork Tuolumne River), the energy of the 

water during annual peak flows is enough to maintain extensive areas of high quality, 

deep water habitat. For hatchling turtles, excess sediment could fill backwater areas that 

provide high quality suitable habitat for this life stage. If this occurs, some hatchlings 

may not find sufficient food resources to keep the hatchling alive during the summer or 

following winter. This impact to habitat could last for 2-3 years, a low level impact to a 

population, because population growth could be decreased for several years. This should 

not affect the persistence of any population, however.

A secondary indirect effect that could affect the WPT is that salvage operations would 

remove standing dead trees from around the aquatic feature. This impact could be 

beneficial and detrimental to the WPT. The detriment is that these trees provide good 

overwintering and aestivation habitat when they fall. Turtles will dig themselves under 

the logs, which provide protection from predators and a moister microclimate during 

aestivation. Salvage logging would reduce the short- and long-term recruitment of LWD 

and reduce habitat suitability from high to moderate or low. Salvage logging would also 

potentially provide a benefit to the WPT because the removal of the trees would provide 

open, sunny habitat conducive to nesting. Pre-fire areas with dense overstory reduced the 

quality and quantity of nesting habitat, but areas with high vegetation mortality now give 

the WPT ample nesting habitat. Salvaging the dead material would provide a more open 

ground surface which would allow nestlings to easily navigate to the water.

Another secondary indirect effect associated with salvage operations is the reduction of 

LWD in aquatic systems (as noted previously for the FYLF). The habitat associations 

between LWD and the WPT are clearer because LWD provides high quality basking 

habitat when accessible from the water. Jennings and Hayes (1994) indicate the amount 

of basking habitat improves over-all habitat quality; therefore, abundant LWD in a stream 

would enhance habitat quality. The rate of recruitment of LWD from salvaged areas 

would be greatly reduced in localized areas. However, recruitment from upstream areas 

that were burned and unsalvaged should maintain relatively high LWD recruitment rates, 

and a management requirement is in place to retain five pieces of LWD (the largest trees) 

per acre for riparian areas in salvage units. The retention of this minimum amount of 

LWD would be beneficial for streamside habitat. The expected reduction in LWD 

recruitment rate is expected to have a very long term effect (greater than 150 years) and is 

related to the time when mature forests are re-established on the landscape. 
106

Road Management 

The effects of road management activities on the WPT aquatic habitats would be very 

similar to those discussed for the FYLF.

Water Sources and Rock Pits

The effects associated with using water sources and rock pits is described under the 

FYLF and the effects to individuals and habitats is very similar to those for the FYLF.

Fuels Treatments

The effects of fuels treatments on the WPT aquatic habitats would be the same as for the 

FYLF. As with the salvage logging, treatments occurring within the buffer established 

for the WPT would increase the risk of directly impacting individuals occurring in upland 

habitats. There is a very low risk of injury and mortality in units using hand piling to 

treat surface fuels. Physical disturbance is the most likely direct impact and there would 

little to no adverse impact to an individual’s well-being. Units with machine piling 

would increase the risk of direct impact to relatively high levels because the intensity of 

operations would likely be high, especially in areas with high levels of mortality in small 

diameter (non-merchantable) stands. Machine piling would likely occur only in one year 

and could occur one to five years following the salvage activities. As with the salvaging, 

low levels of mortality could affect population size for several years and until new 

individuals enter the population. 

Hardhead

As noted earlier, suitable habitat is restricted to the lower reaches of the North Fork 

Tuolumne and Clavey Rivers and the Tuolumne River to approximately Lumsden Bridge. 

Because there are very few harvest or roadside units in close proximity to these river 

sections, there would be no direct effect to hardhead. There is a hazard tree unit along 

Lumsden Road, but trees would not be felled into the Tuolumne, thereby eliminating the 

risk of direct effect to any individual.

The indirect effect to hardhead is only related to sediment. Because a very small portion 

(less than 3 percent) of the North Fork Tuolumne River watershed burned at moderate 

severity (no high severity soil burn conditions), there would be no observable change to 

habitat conditions in the lower river. The fine sediment generated in the Hunter Creek 

watershed would be assimilated by the mainstem of Hunter Creek and then the North 

Fork Tuolumne above the reach suitable for hardhead. Because the Tuolumne River does 

not provide suitable breeding habitat for the hardhead (due to regulated streamflow), 

there would be no indirect impact on spawning habitat suitability. There would be no 

detectable effect to deep water habitats used by sub-adult and adult fish because the 

annual peak and base flows in the river are enough to mobilize and redistribute this 

sediment. There could be localized accumulations of sediment near the mouths of 

tributary streams that had a high proportion of high and moderate severity fire, but the 

sediment from all watershed sources would not be sufficient to have much of an effect on 

pool and deep run habitats. 
107

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS

Salvage harvest on private lands and livestock grazing were the two types of cumulative 

effect stressors evaluated for the FYLF, WPT, and hardhead. These two types of actions 

are considered to have the most detectable influence on aquatic systems, especially in the 

post-fire environment. The impact of post-fire logging has been discussed earlier in this 

document and this activity has the highest potential to increase erosion and sedimentation 

rates in a watershed. Livestock grazing is also discussed because the impact of 

concentrated livestock use in riparian areas (made more sensitive by moderate and high 

soil burn severity conditions) may have localized impacts to streambanks and the 

reestablishment of riparian vegetation. 

Livestock grazing as a cumulative stressor will be discussed at a general level, because 

there is uncertainty regarding Forest Service administration of permits for allotments 

affected by the fire. Livestock may be excluded, partially or fully, from some allotments 

within the Rim Fire perimeter in 2014. Assuming the Forest Service allows light levels 

of grazing in portions of the allotments in 2014, livestock could impact sensitive 

streambanks through trampling. Streambanks are more sensitive post-fire than in 

unburned conditions because much of the vegetation has been burned and there is little 

root holding capacity to resist shearing by hooves. This is especially true in low gradient 

reaches (less than 2 percent) where alluvial (or depositional) banks dominate. In steeper 

gradient reaches, the streambanks tend to be more armored by larger diameter substrates 

(rocks like cobble and boulder) and resistant to bank shear. These localized areas of 

streambank disturbance may not have much of an effect at larger watershed scales, but 

they can influence sedimentation at locally important scales. If livestock are allowed to 

graze portions of the allotments, a small increase in sedimentation would be expected 

along low gradient reaches with no discernible increase along higher gradient sections. 

Table 9 shows the cumulative impact would be unnoticeable for watersheds with limited 

salvage activity. However, any impact in watersheds with high levels of salvage (greater 

than 50 percent of watershed or FYLF/WPT buffer, Table 14) could cumulatively 

contribute to extensive degradation of aquatic habitat. The duration of this combined 

reduction in habitat suitability would be two to three years. After this period, hillslope 

erosion rates would quickly decrease and habitat suitability would increase to moderate 

levels.

Another impact associated with livestock is the potential impaired recovery of riparian 

vegetation because poorly managed livestock can severely affect the recovery of obligate 

woody and herbaceous riparian species. The rapidly regrowing riparian vegetation is a 

good food source, but especially late in the season when other forage options may have 

decreased in palatability. The proximity of this forage to water, another critical resource 

need for livestock, suggests livestock may congregate in sensitive post-fire riparian areas. 

Salvage logging does not generally impair riparian recovery if adequate equipment 

exclusion zones are maintained, so there may be very little cumulative effect to riparian 

recovery.
108

California red-legged frog

Similar to FYLF, WPT, and hardhead, salvage harvest on Forest Service and private land, and 

livestock grazing were the two types of cumulative effect stressors evaluated for California 

red-legged frog. Concentrated livestock use in riparian areas (made more sensitive by 

moderate and high soil burn severity conditions) may have localized impacts to stream banks 

and the reestablishment of riparian vegetation. The generalized discussion of livestock 

grazing provided for the FYLF, WPT and hardhead also applies to California red-legged frog. 

The remaining cumulative effects discussion focuses on salvage harvest on public and private 

land. Table 13 shows the non-grazing cumulative impacts to CRLF habitat for each specific 

analysis area.

Table 13. Cumulative impacts to CRLF habitats from non-grazing federal and private actions.

Habitat Percent of Habitat Affected

Alt 1 Alt 1 + CE Alt 3 Alt 3 + CE Alt 4 Alt 4 + CE

California red-legged frog

 Birch Lake / Mud Lake (breeding) 0/0 0 0/0 0 0/0 0

 Non-Breeding (Per and Int.) 30 35 29 34 29 34

 Upland 28 36 28 36 28 36

 Drew Creek (breeding) 0 0 0 0 0 0

 Miles of Non-Breeding (Per and Int.) 11 25 2 16 2 16

 Acres of Upland 10 19 7 17 7 17

 Harden Flat (breeding) 0 0 0 0 0 0

 Miles of Non-Breeding (Per and Int.) 6 11 6 11 6 11

 Acres of Upland 14 32 14 32 14 32

 Homestead Pond (breeding) 100 0 71 97 71 97

 Miles of Non-Breeding (Per and Int.) 0 5 0 5 0 5

 Acres of Upland 9 21 3 15 3 15

 Hunter Creek and Ponds (breeding) 0/0 0/5 0/0 0/5 0/0 0/5

 Miles of Non-Breeding (Per and Int.) 9 15 9 15 9 15

 Acres of Upland 10 16 10 16 10 16

Birch and Mud Lakes

The Rim Fire Hazard Tree project would affect approximately 254 acres of upland 

habitat along two roads (Evergreen Road and 1S02) and the Peach Growers recreational 

residence tract. Actions along these roads would not additionally impact suitable breeding 

and non-breeding aquatic habitat or dispersal habitat between the lakes, but hazard tree 

reduction along these roads would affect an additional 6 percent of the available upland 

habitat at this location. Cumulatively, 36 percent of the upland habitat would be impacted 

by salvage or roadside hazard tree harvest. The increase in activity increases the risk of 

direct impact to individuals because mechanized equipment would be working in more 

habitat frogs could be in, increases the risk of sedimentation of non-breeding aquatic 

habitat, and reduces the amount of LWD available for use by the frog. The removal of 

hazard trees as described in the Rim Fire Hazard Tree EA would contribute to a longterm decrease in LWD on the landscape and would cause a slight decrease in the 

suitability of the upland habitat relative to cover. The location of the cumulative actions 

indicates there is no likelihood that sediment would increase in Mud Lake, and the 

extensive meadow and lack of defined drainage network suggests that increased sediment 

delivery would not occur in Birch Lake.
109

Drew Creek

Within the Drew Creek habitat area there are 11 acres of private land within the Spinning 

Wheel Emergency Salvage Sale and 369 acres of hazard tree removal from National 

Forest System lands. None of these actions would directly affect suitable breeding habitat 

or dispersal habitat, but would affect non-breeding and upland habitats. For the Spinning 

Wheel sale, this activity is within the Middle Fork Tuolumne River watershed and nonbreeding habitat crosses the parcel. This sale would not affect individuals in breeding 

habitat because it is more than 0.75 mile from Drew Creek. An increase in sediment 

delivery to the Middle Fork is not likely because the area of the sale is relatively flat (less 

than 5 percent slope) and sediment transport to the stream should not occur. 

Hazard tree removal would occur adjacent to the intermittent section of Drew Creek 

above the area with suitable breeding habitat and increases in sediment are possible from 

this activity. This sediment would be additive to the proposed action in this part of the 

watershed and contribute to impacts to downstream breeding habitat. This sediment 

should be delivered to the breeding habitat either in the same year as the proposed action 

or the year before the proposed action. If it occurs with the same year as the proposed 

action, the expected outcome is a slight reduction in pool volume and fine sediment 

deposition in other slow water habitats. There would be a slight reduction in tadpole 

foraging habitat and temporary reduction in refuge habitat found between the streambed 

substrates. The consequences would be a slight increase in time to metamorphosis for 

tadpoles and slight increase in predation risk. If the sediment is delivered prior to the 

actions in Alternative 1, the sediment would have very little impact on habitats within the 

creek. The sediment would likely be stored in the very low gradient section of stream that 

traverses the private property at Drew Meadow, making detection of the sediment 

downstream very difficult. This level of sedimentation would not constitute any level of 

biological impairment and the habitat suitability would remain unchanged.

Harden Flat Ponds

There are no proposed activities on the private land immediately surrounding the ponds. 

Within the upland area around the ponds, other actions would impact approximately 306 

acres of upland habitat. The Manly Emergency Salvage Sale includes 137 acres on the 

parcel northwest of the breeding habitats, the Sawmill Emergency Salvage Sale includes 

29 acres in the northwest corner of the habitat area, and the Rim Fire Hazard Tree action 

would affect approximately 140 acres of upland habitat. Proposed activities on the Manly 

parcel is within the watershed of one of the ponds and could contribute sediment to the 

pond and cause a reduction in pond volume. This sediment would not be cumulative from 

actions proposed under Alternative 1 because there are no treatment units within this 

watershed. Sediment from the portion of the Rim Fire Hazard Tree project along 

Highway 120 would add to sediment in the pond, but is independent of the effects of the 

actions proposed in Alternative 1. The salvage harvest in the Manly parcel would not 

reach the Middle Fork Tuolumne River and would not cumulatively add to sediment in 

the river. The Sawmill Sale could affect a small non-breeding stream, but there would be 

no cumulative addition of sediment to this habitat because the actions in Alternative 1 

would not occur within this watershed. A portion of the Rim Fire Hazard Tree project 

would occur along the Harden Flat road and is adjacent to the Middle Fork Tuolumne 
110

River. Small amounts of sediment could enter the stream from this activity in addition to 

the actions proposed in Alternative 1. Cumulatively, there would be some deposition of 

sediment in slow water habitats, but this amount of sediment would not effectively impair 

any biological function of the river. The river has deep water habitat the frog needs for 

refuge. 

All three cumulative actions and the actions in Alternative 1 would cumulatively affect 

32 percent of the upland habitat available to the frog. This is a relatively high percentage 

of the upland area and the risk of direct impacts to individual CRLF would be moderate 

based on this percentage of habitat disturbed. There would also be a long-term reduction 

in LWD in these areas and upland habitat suitability would have a minor reduction in 

suitability based solely on the cover provided by the dead logs.

Homestead Pond

The Rim Fire Hazard Tree project and livestock grazing on the Meyer-Ferretti allotment 

were the two cumulative actions affecting aquatic habitat in this analysis area. Livestock 

did not graze the allotment in 2014 and it is uncertain whether grazing will occur in 2015. 

In this vicinity, livestock use the pond for watering and the meadow area surrounding the 

pond provides forage for the cows. There is moderate annual trampling of the shoreline 

of the pond and some increase in sediment occurs as a result of this action. This action 

has the potential to impact the volume of the pond over a long period of time (greater 

than 50 years). Livestock grazing does not occur in the non-breeding aquatic habitat in 

the Tuolumne River but does affect the headwaters of Moore Creek. The impacts to this 

tributary would not combine with effects from the proposed action because there would 

be no activity in this watershed. 

The roadside hazard tree removal proposed in the Rim Fire Hazard Tree EA would affect 

approximately 244 acres of upland habitat in the analysis area. Hazard tree removal 

would occur in close proximity to the pond under the Hetch Hetchy powerlines and 

would reduce the availability of LWD in upland habitat near the pond. This action would 

affect approximately 12 percent of the upland area around the pond and would combine 

with the actions proposed under this alternative to affect approximately 21 percent of the 

upland habitat. This level of impact would have very minor impact to upland habitat 

relative to LWD, and the overall suitability of the habitat to support the frog in upland 

habitat would not be affected.

Hunter Creek and Ponds

Three actions would occur in this analysis area that have the potential to cumulatively 

affect the CRLF or its habitats and include the Duckwall Emergency Salvage Sale, the 

Rim Fire Hazard Tree EA, and livestock grazing on the Hunter Creek Allotment. The 

Duckwall Emergency Salvage Sale includes 480 private acres (4 percent of upland habitat area) 

and includes 0.4 miles of breeding stream habitat in section 16, Pond 1, and 1.6 miles of nonbreeding habitat. The Rim Fire Hazard Tree EA actions would affect an additional 189 

acres of upland habitat and includes 0.1 mile of potential non-breeding aquatic habitat. 

Salvage activities around Pond 1, the breeding habitat in Hunter Creek, and the nonbreeding habitat have the potential to injure or kill any red-legged frogs in the area, and would 
111

add cumulatively to the slight possibility of the same effect due to the proposed action within the 

Hunter Creek watershed. 

The salvage and roadside hazard tree removal actions would affect approximately 6 percent 

of the upland habitat in this analysis area and would combine with the actions proposed 

under Alternative 1 to affect 15 percent of the upland habitat. The primary anticipated 

impact is the reduction of LWD which would affect both aquatic and upland habitats. 

Loss of LWD would occur on 5.1 miles of stream habitat, or 14 percent of the total stream habitat 

in the area. Salvage operations, and to a lesser degree roadside hazard tree removal, 

would result in an increased rate of sediment delivery to breeding and non-breeding 

aquatic habitats. Most of the activity is in the intermittent headwater tributaries and the 

impacts would be localized, affecting small portions of the tributaries. This sediment 

would likely not be sufficient to impact the breeding habitat after it has been flushed from 

the tributaries because it would be well distributed and probably not readily measurable. 

Sediment would be expected to increase slightly for one to two years, and then be flushed from 

the system in two to five years.

This analysis area lies entirely within the Hunter Creek grazing allotment. Livestock did 

graze this allotment in 2014. There are no primary foraging areas adjacent to the stream 

which effectively limits the extent to which livestock are close to the stream. The 

livestock do use the breeding and non-breeding aquatic habitats for accessing water and 

there are localized impacts to streambanks at these access points. Grazing is probably a 

very minor source of sediment in this stream as determined by stream surveys conducted 

in the recent past (pre-fire). These surveys indicated very low prevalence of fine 

sediments in pool and pool tail (slow water) habitats from all sources combined, 

including livestock grazing and the road system. If patterns of grazing are maintained 

post-fire, the grazing will continue to contribute very small amounts of sediment to the 

streams which would combine with other cumulative sources. This sediment should not 

impair the biological functioning of the creek and suitable habitat for the frog is expected 

to continue to be available for frogs.

Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog

Reynolds Creek

Almost the entire Reynolds Creek watershed lies within lands administered by the Forest 

Service. There is a small parcel (40 acres) of privately owned property located 

approximately 1.2 miles downstream from the range of the frog. There are no emergency 

timber harvest plans on file for this parcel. Therefore, no cumulative effects are expected 

in Reynolds Creek.

Big and Little Kibbie Ponds

The entire watersheds of these two ponds lie entirely within lands administered by the 

Forest Service. Therefore, there are no cumulative actions that would cumulatively affect 

these habitats.

Eleanor Creek

The streamflow in Eleanor Creek is regulated by the operation of the dam at Lake 

Eleanor. The San Francisco Public Utilities Commission completed the dam in 1918 to 
112

provide power and revenue for the subsequent construction of O’Shaughnessy Dam 

(Hetch Hetchy reservoir) and streamflow below the dam has been altered since that time. 

There is a conveyance tunnel between Lake Eleanor and Cherry Reservoir (Lake Lloyd) 

so that water can be diverted for hydroelectric power generation and other purposes. The 

minimum flow below the dam is 5 cubic feet per second from October through June in all 

years. The minimum flow increases to 15.5 cfs from July through September. When 

water is diverted to Cherry Reservoir, the minimum flows required are 5 cfs from 

November through February, 10 cfs from March 1 through April 14, 20 cfs from April 15 

through September 15, and 10 cfs from September 16 through October. Flows below the 

dam may be annually augmented by spill flow if the reservoir exceeds capacity. When 

this occurs, the peak flow of the creek downstream of the dam is decreased (compared to 

inflow to the reservoir) and delayed by several weeks, thereby diverging from a natural 

flow pattern. This flow pattern, including minimum flows, is conducive to maintaining 

the self-sustaining trout population in the creek and significantly alters the habitat 

suitability of Eleanor Creek for SNYLF. 

All other lands within the Eleanor Creek watershed are public lands administered by the 

Forest Service or National Park Service. 

Middle Fork Tuolumne River

The entire upper watershed of the MFTR lies within lands administered by Yosemite 

National Park and there are no private or state lands in the watershed. Therefore, there 

are no cumulative actions that would cumulatively affect this habitat.

Foothill yellow-legged frog

The remaining cumulative effects discussion is focused on salvage logging (hazard tree 

and salvaging) on public and private lands. Table 14 indicates 16 streams would not have 

cumulative effect attributable to salvage logging or hazard tree removal on public or 

private lands. Four streams (Grapevine, Hunter, and Indian Creeks and the North Fork 

Tuolumne River) would have small increases in percentage of buffer treated and 

percentage of watershed area treated, but the amount would be less than 20 percent and 

25 percent, respectively. In these four streams the amount of activity in the FYLF buffers 

and watershed is considered to be relatively low, and there would be no substantial 

increase in potential for direct and indirect effect. The primary direct effect would be 

increased disturbance, but the extent of this effect would not have an observable impact 

to overall well-being of any individual. Also, we would expect to see a very slight, if 

discernible, increase in sediment delivery to these streams, but the increase would be very 

small and would not further impair the suitability of habitat for the frog.

Table 14. Percentage of watershed area and foothill yellow-legged frog and western 

pond turtle buffers affected by salvage activities in Alternative 1 and cumulative sources 

(public and private).

Watershed and 

Stream name

Percent of FYLF buffer 

affected

Percent of watershed 

area treated

Percent of WPT buffer 

affected

Alternative 

1

Alternative 

1 + 

Cumulative

Alternative 

1

Alternative 

1 + 

Cumulative

Alternative 

1

Alternative 

1 + 

Cumulative

Tuolumne River Watershed HUC 5

Alder Cr. 4 4 10 10 -- --
113

Watershed and 

Stream name

Percent of FYLF buffer 

affected

Percent of watershed 

area treated

Percent of WPT buffer 

affected

Alternative 

1

Alternative 

1 + 

Cumulative

Alternative 

1

Alternative 

1 + 

Cumulative

Alternative 

1

Alternative 

1 + 

Cumulative

Corral Cr. 36 78 58 72 -- --

Drew Cr. 17 28 12 29 12 27

Grapevine Cr. 11 18 18 23 -- --

Indian Cr. 1 6 2 4 -- --

Jawbone Cr. 15 43 25 75 25 53

Homestead Pond -- -- -- -- 20 49

Middle Fork Tuolumne River Watershed HUC 5

Middle Fork Tuolumne 

River1 45 57 48 61 44 57

Abernathy Meadow -- -- -- -- 55 55

Grandfather Pond -- -- -- -- 16 35

Mud Lake -- -- -- -- 18 73

North Fork Tuolumne River HUC 5

North Fork Tuolumne River 0 2 1 6 2 6

Basin Cr. 0 0 1 5 0 less than 

0.1

Hunter Cr. 6 14 9 23 8 19

South Fork Tuolumne River HUC 5

South Fork Tuolumne 

River2 10 34 36 46 30 39

Unnamed ponds near 

Yosemite Lakes -- -- -- -- 5 8

Cherry Creek HUC 5

Cherry Creek 18 34 13 35 13 29

Eleanor Cr. 22 22 1 1 16 16

Big Kibbie Pond -- -- -- -- 88 88

Little Kibbie Pond -- -- -- -- 63 63

Granite Cr. 36 78 27 85 -- --

Clavey River HUC 5

Reed Cr. 50 54 20 34 50 62

Adams Gulch 0 0 18 36 -- --

Bear Springs Cr. 20 31 18 78 -- --

Bull Meadow Cr. 8 21 36 47 -- --

Indian Springs Cr. 25 25 19 29 -- --

Quilty Cr. 0 0 5 73 -- --

Unnamed Tributary 1 8 8 16 16 -- --

Unnamed Tributary 2 0 0 24 24 -- --

Unnamed Tributary 3 46 50 69 78 -- --

Unnamed Tributary 4 13 13 43 43 -- --

Unnamed Tributary 5 37 37 43 45 -- --

Cottonwood Cr. 5 18 31 43 -- --

Russell Cr. 0 0 30 30 -- --

North Fork Merced River HUC 5

North Fork Merced River 2 2 10 10 4 4

Bull Cr. less than 

0.1

less than 

0.1 2 2 1 1
114

Watershed and 

Stream name

Percent of FYLF buffer 

affected

Percent of watershed 

area treated

Percent of WPT buffer 

affected

Alternative 

1

Alternative 

1 + 

Cumulative

Alternative 

1

Alternative 

1 + 

Cumulative

Alternative 

1

Alternative 

1 + 

Cumulative

Deer Lick Cr. 7 7 8 8 7 7

Moore Cr. 3 3 4 6 6 7

Scott Cr. 4 4 22 22 -- -- 1

Percentages calculated for the 6th level HUC Lower Middle Fork Tuolumne and not for the 5th level HUC 2

Percentages calculated for the 6th level Lower South Fork Tuolumne River HUC

The amount of cumulative disturbance within FYLF buffers at Bull Meadow, Drew and 

Cherry Creeks would be moderate and not exceed 35 percent of the total buffer in the 

watershed. At Drew Creek, most of the cumulative increase in disturbance would be in 

the upper watershed where habitat suitability for the FYLF is very low. There would be 

no increase in direct effect to the FYLF, but the increased activity in the watershed could 

deliver additional sediment to the stream. The increased buffer affected for Cherry Creek 

actually reflects the amount of activity in the Granite Creek subwatershed (discussed 

later). For Cherry Creek, there would be no discernible increase in direct effect to FYLF 

from cumulative salvage actions. 

Four streams, Cottonwood and Reed Creeks and the Middle and South Fork Tuolumne 

Rivers, would see moderate to large amounts of FYLF buffer or total watershed area 

treated. Cottonwood and Reed Creeks are at the upper elevation range of the FYLF on 

the forest, and the risk of direct effect may be mitigated by their location. The 

cumulative amount of watershed area treated in both of these watersheds is between 34 

and 43 percent. This extent is considered to be enough to potentially increase 

sedimentation to the point where habitat suitability begins to be impaired. The suitable 

habitat in both streams is near the confluence with the Clavey and the “pour point” of all 

disturbances in the watershed. Impacts to habitat would include decreased depth in slow 

water habitats, extensive sedimentation along the margins of the streams, and reduced 

availability of hiding refuges. Habitat suitability would be reduced from moderate-high 

to low-moderate. The increased sediment would be expected to last up to three years. 

This amount and duration of sediment would not be expected to affect the persistence of 

a FYLF population. Using the cumulative watershed effects (CWE) modeling from the 

Watershed section of this EIS, the Reed Creek watershed (6th level HUC) would exceed 

the threshold of concern (TOC) from 2014 through 2017, indicating watershed processes 

could become increasingly unstable during this period. Lesser, lingering watershed 

effects could continue for up to two years (through 2019) after receding below the TOC.

The amount of FYLF buffer treated would be relatively high in the Middle (57 percent) 

and South Fork (34 percent) Tuolumne River watersheds and the risk of direct effect to 

individuals would increase at a 5th level HUC watershed scale. The primary direct impact 

would be physical disturbance and the duration of activity in any given area would be 

approximately four weeks. The cumulative amount of activity in the watersheds would 

be extensive, affecting between 46 and 61 percent of the total area in the lower 6th level 

HUC (excludes the area in the upper Middle and South Fork Tuolumne River 6th level 

HUC). The extent of activity in these watersheds suggests greater increases in 

sedimentation are possible and impacts to habitat would be more observable. Again, 

deep water habitats would be reduced in volume and sedimentation would impair a 
115

greater amount of the edge water habitat. These are relatively large streams with high 

seasonal peak discharges; therefore, some high suitability deep water habitat should be 

maintained. The additional sediment along the margins of the rivers could affect tadpole 

habitat by filling the hiding spaces between larger rocks and limiting the availability of 

foraging habitat. These effects could lead to reduced survivorship from the tadpole stage 

due to increased predation or lower individual fitness (body condition) due to limited 

food resources. If adequate energy is not available from a tadpole’s body mass, it may 

not metamorphose or may not metamorphose in a timely manner as to allow the 

metamorph the opportunity to adequately forage prior to winter. These two 

consequences could reduce recruitment to populations, resulting in smaller population 

numbers over the next 3 to 5 years. Using the CWE modeling, the Middle Fork would 

exceed the TOC from 2014 – 2017, indicating watershed processes could become 

increasingly unstable during this period. Lesser, lingering watershed effects could 

continue for up to two years after receding below the TOC.

Cumulative actions in the watersheds of five streams would potentially have significant 

impacts on habitat suitability. These streams are Bear Springs, Clavey Tributary 3, 

Corral, Granite, and Jawbone Creeks. In these streams, 31 to 78 percent of the FYLF 

buffer and 72 to 85 percent of the watershed area would be affected by cumulative 

actions (Table 14). In these streams, there would be a high risk of direct impacts to 

individuals and high to very high risk of indirect effects to individuals, populations, and 

habitat. The amount of buffer treated in these watersheds means extensive equipment 

operation in close proximity to the streams. While the risk of mortality and injury should 

remain low due to the flight response of the frog, the potential for physical disturbance is 

high. Duration of disturbance should be limited to approximately 4 weeks in most 

locations, but the extent of operations suggests more individuals may be subjected to 

disturbance. The stress of disturbance may combine with the expected reduction in 

habitat suitability (less deep water habitat in small streams) and impair individual wellbeing. The added stress could indirectly lead to increased mortality rates over the first 

winter, effectively lowering population size. 

Habitat suitability would also be significantly reduced from excess sediment and some 

small stream habitats may be unsuitable for the first year post-logging. Suitability would 

slowly improve over the next two to three years as the sediment is scoured and 

transported downstream. The sediment increases may make breeding and tadpole rearing 

habitats unsuitable in Corral and Jawbone Creeks for up to two years. A loss in 

reproduction in two or more years would decrease populations and potentially affect the 

long-term viability of some populations. The two most at-risk populations are in Corral 

and Jawbone Creeks because the Tuolumne River likely effectively prevents the travel of 

individuals between watersheds. Isolated populations have a greater risk of extirpation 

than well-connected populations (Dunham et al. 2003). Therefore, if one of these 

isolated populations is extirpated, there is a very low likelihood that it would be 

recolonized within the next 20 to 50 years. For Bear Springs and Clavey Tributary 3, the 

potential for re-colonization would have a moderate to high likelihood because the FYLF 

is well distributed along the Clavey. It should be noted that surveys have not detected 

FYLF at any of these locations, but occupancy is assumed in these streams. 
116

In support of the indirect effects to these streams, the CWE modeling was used and 

indicated the Corral and Granite Creek watersheds would exceed the TOC from 2014 to 

2018, indicating watershed processes could become increasingly unstable during this 

period. Lesser, lingering watershed effects could continue for two to three years after 

receding below the TOC (through 2021). CWE modeling was also completed for the 

Bear Springs and Jawbone Creek watersheds and the TOC would be exceeded for two 

years, and relatively high equivalent roaded area (ERA) impacts would continue for three 

additional years.

Western pond turtle

The discussion of cumulative effects to stream habitat for the FYLF applies to the WPT 

because they use similar habitats. The main difference is that the WPT is less likely to 

utilize the very small, intermittent streams where sedimentation effects would be the 

highest. The discussion of direct effects for the FYLF applies to the WPT because 

actions within the FYLF buffer reflect the amount of activity in close proximity to the 

streams. 

As with the FYLF, there would be very little to no cumulative effect to individuals or 

habitats for Basin, Bull, Deer Lick, Eleanor, Hunter, and Moore Creeks; the North Fork 

Merced and Tuolumne Rivers; and the unnamed ponds near Yosemite Lakes. This 

assessment of potential effect is based on the small (or no) change in amount of buffer 

affected in Alternative 1 and cumulative actions as shown in Table 14 and the location of 

the actions adding cumulatively to the alternative.

Moderate detrimental cumulative impacts would be expected at Cherry and Drew Creeks 

and the South Fork Tuolumne River and the magnitude of indirect effect (sedimentation) 

would impact WPT habitat in the following ways. Moderate sedimentation of deep water 

habitats would be expected in Drew Creek. If the 2005 Tuolumne Fire is used as a 

comparative example, high levels of sediment would fill small, shallow pools while the 

larger, deeper pools found in higher gradient areas would maintain most of their volume. 

Sediment “lenses” would be evident at the lower end of these larger pools, but the 

deepest part of the pool would be maintained for escape habitat. The shallow edge water 

required by hatchlings would be maintained in these larger pools, and the intermittent 

nature of the stream (in sections) would provide this necessary slow water habitat. The 

cumulative salvage actions would not occur in the reach occupied by the WPT and no 

cumulative impact to nesting or overwintering habitat would be expected. The South 

Fork Tuolumne River and Cherry Creek have sections with high gradient and pool 

abundance. The water energy in annual peak flows and high gradient sections should 

maintain more than 50 percent of pool habitat at high suitability levels. The remaining 

pool habitats would have moderate to high suitability for the WPT. 

Moderate to high levels of cumulative impact would be expected at the Middle Fork 

Tuolumne River, Jawbone Creek, and Reed Creek, similar to that described previously 

for FYLF. The high overall level of activity in WPT buffers (53 to 62 percent of the 

buffers affected) suggests a moderate to high likelihood that physical disturbance would 

occur during salvage activities. The risk is greatest during June and July when females 

move upland to nest. It is possible that females could abandon nesting in the year 

salvaging would occur, but a long-term impact to population levels is not expected if only 
117

one year of recruitment is missed. The risk of injury or mortality is considered to be low 

at these locations because they maintain water during the period of time when salvage 

operations would occur (April through October). The risk of injury or mortality becomes 

moderate in October when night temperatures approach freezing and turtles move into the 

uplands to overwinter. Equipment operation in the uplands following nesting has a very 

low chance of impacting nests because the nests are typically located in areas with sparse 

overhead vegetation. These are areas that would typically not be harvested, but patches 

of open areas could occur in areas with merchantable timber.

The discussion of sediment related impacts to WPT habitat in these three locations is 

similar to what is described for the FYLF. Most deep water habitats would see moderate 

impacts (reduced pool volume), while patches of high suitability habitat would be found 

in the largest pools and in areas with higher stream gradient.

High levels of cumulative disturbance would occur in the WPT buffer areas at Abernathy 

Meadow (55 percent of buffer affected), Mud Lake (73 percent), Homestead Pond (49 

percent), and Big Kibbie (88 percent) and Little Kibbie (63 percent) Ponds (Table 14). 

The potential for adverse direct effects, mainly physical disturbance, to occur are high 

during the period when operations occur in these areas and should last for approximately 

three weeks, but multiple entries into the buffer would be likely for hazard tree removal 

and salvage logging. This means two periods of disturbance would likely occur during 

the first year (2014-15), but the intensity and duration of disturbance should not be 

enough to affect the long-term well-being of individuals. The risk of injury and mortality 

would also increase at these locations during the summer when the volume of the ponds 

decreases by greater than 50 percent. The decreased pond volume could trigger an 

aestivation response and include the departure from the water to the upland habitats or 

movement between nearby aquatic habitats. If the timing of salvage operations coincides 

with this movement period, the risk of injury or mortality would increase to moderate 

levels. Any further loss of individuals from these four locations could effectively 

suppress population size for 15 years or more. The presence of mostly adult turtles at 

these locations suggests the recruitment rate of young turtles is very low.

The extent of salvage logging around these four ponds would also reduce the recruitment 

of LWD and upland habitat suitability would be reduced. In this case, the temporal 

bounding for analyzing the cumulative effects of LWD recruitment would extend 

upwards of 150 years (or more) which is commensurate with the re-establishment of trees 

with a large diameter.

Minor behavioral changes caused by physical disturbance would be the primary effect to 

WPT at Grandfather Pond. The moderate level of cumulative action within the buffers at 

this site (35 percent) suggests a relatively short duration of activities for the 29 acres 

affected. There is a low potential for increased mortality or injury during late summer, as 

described above, as the pond size decreases. There would be a low to moderate reduction 

in habitat suitability in the treated area associated with the reduced LWD recruitment 

potential.

Hardhead

There should be very little cumulative effect on hardhead habitat in the North Fork 

Tuolumne, Clavey, and Tuolumne Rivers. Very little watershed area would be affected 
118

by cumulative actions and the sediment generated from those actions would not be 

readily detectable in suitable hardhead habitat. The Clavey and Tuolumne Rivers are so 

large and have such high capacity to transport and store fine sediment that the deep water 

habitats would be minimally impacted and deep water refuge would be maintained. The 

sediments that could accumulate in spawning habitats would not be likely to impair 

spawning success in the Clavey River. The Tuolumne River is unsuitable for breeding, 

but offers high suitability habitat for adults and sub-adults, especially in late summer. 

Alternative 2 (No Action)

DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS

No direct effect would be expected under the No Action alternative. There would be no 

potential for mortality, injury, or physical disturbance of any of the three Forest Service 

Sensitive species created by salvage logging, abating the hazard of dead trees along forest 

roads, or restoring the road infrastructure. 

Because the Forest Service would take no action under this alternative, natural watershed 

recovery processes would occur. Over time, there would be a gradual reduction in the 

delivery of sediment to stream channels as fire-resilient plant species recolonize burned 

areas and the soil-repellent layers break up. Erosion rates for most of the burned area 

would approach pre-fire rates within 5 or 6 years, but some areas could have elevated 

rates for up to 10 years. Streamflows would continue to be higher than in the pre-fire 

condition and some of the mapped intermittent streams could support perennial flow or 

maintain perennial water in pool habitats for 20 years or more. With the increased 

streamflow and decreased erosion (and sediment delivery to streams) rates, the silt and 

sand deposited and stored in the stream channels would be largely scoured from the 

channels within 5-7 years and pre-fire streambed condition would be evident in 10 years. 

The recruitment of large woody debris to the stream would occur at high rates over the 

next 10-20 years and then slowly taper off as the rot-resistant trees (incense cedar and 

Douglas fir) gradually fall. The LWD that lands on the floodplain and not in the channel 

would continue to be available for many decades. The LWD that falls into the streams 

should eventually benefit the stream by storing sediment generated by the fire and other 

events for long periods of time (greater than 20 years). Large debris dams store sediment 

and create pool habitats for many decades (Montgomery et al. 1996). The benefits of 

LWD will be most important in smaller streams (1st to 4rd order) and very important in 

lower gradient sections of streams (Ruediger and Ward 1996). Under this alternative, all 

sections of stream in the mixed conifer elevations have an unimpaired ability to receive 

large volumes of LWD. Large woody debris recruitment in lower elevation streams (less 

than 3,000 feet) will primarily recruit LWD from obligate riparian species and oak 

species.

One important consideration for Alternative 2 regarding the large volumes of LWD 

potentially recruited to stream channels, is that the LWD could mobilize during very high 

flows and threaten the road infrastructure. When LWD mobilizes down the channel and 

encounters a road crossing, the LWD can entrain (capture) other woody debris and 

sediment, creating a dam and preventing drainage of water and sediment through the 

culvert. Water could then: cross the road surface, be diverted by the road, or cause the 

crossing to fail. In all three instances, large volumes of road surface and fill could be 
119

delivered to the stream channel, with the largest volumes of sediment coming from the 

failure of the crossing and erosion of the fill.

Stream shading would quickly increase in riparian areas affected by moderate and high 

vegetation severity fire. The obligate woody riparian species would regrow from stems 

and root crowns and increase in density via dispersal of seeds along the streams. Over 

the next 20 years, shading would increase to the point where cool and cold water 

temperatures would be maintained. 

Under Alternative 2, the road system would not receive any treatment to improve 

drivability and correct drainage problems. Roads can be a primary source of humancaused sediment in forested conditions because they modify drainage networks and 

accelerate erosional processes (Furniss et al. 1991). Past surveys of hydrologically 

connected road segments (HCS) on the forest have indicated considerable connectivity 

between road runoff and streams. In many cases, relatively uncomplicated techniques 

can be employed to reduce this road-stream connectivity and include: outsloping the road 

surface, creating water diversion structures (rolling dips), and placing rock on dirt road 

surfaces. Hydrologically connected road segments that deliver large volumes of sediment 

to streams appears to be relatively uncommon given the very large number of road miles 

on the forest, but the smaller scale HCS can cumulatively deliver large volumes of 

sediment. Regular road maintenance can be very effective at reducing sediment from this 

infrastructure. Alternative 2 would not generate revenue from merchantable timber to 

improve road function and many years could pass before those funds are made available 

to implement corrective actions. During this time, road conditions would gradually 

decline and increasing amounts of sediment could be delivered to streams in the project 

area.

Roadside hazard trees would be allowed to fall under this alternative limiting ready 

access to many parts of the fire. Forest Service personnel would not be as capable of 

conducting storm patrols of the fire area to detect road-related problems such as plugged 

culverts and gully erosion on the road surface. These potentially undetected problems 

could increase road crossing failures and extensive erosion of road surfaces, leading to 

excessive sediment delivery to many stream systems. 

California red-legged frog

There would be no direct or indirect effects to the frog or its habitats arising from project 

activities if the no action alternative is selected. The main impact to California redlegged frog and its habitats under the no action alternative comes from the increased 

sedimentation and large woody debris recruitment predicted in the habitat areas resulting 

from post-fire runoff. Drew Creek would receive the largest amount of post-fire runoff 

because the upper watershed was extensively burned; however, the area immediately 

surrounding the suitable breeding habitat was not burned. Sediment would be delivered 

to the intermittent portion of the creek above Drew Meadow and much of the sediment 

would be gradually pushed through the meadow and into the breeding habitat. There 

would be a gradual movement of sediment over approximately five years because the low 

stream gradient in the meadow would retain the sediment for several years. Some 

sedimentation of pool habitat would occur in the next two or three years, but deep water 

habitats would be maintained from seasonal scouring as was observed following the 2005 
120

Tuolumne Fire. Following that fire, relatively high levels of sediment affected pool 

volume and filled in the streambed in lower gradient sections (less than 4%) but was 

flushed from the system within three years. The upland habitat surrounding the breeding 

habitat would remain in its existing condition and LWD supply would not be diminished 

by project activities.

Relatively high levels of post-fire sedimentation would occur at the Harden Flat ponds

because of the extent and severity of fire within their watersheds. Large woody debris 

would be available in very high levels primarily across the Middle Fork Tuolumne River 

and to the west of the ponds. Homestead Pond is expected to see minor increases in 

sedimentation, with Hunter Creek and Birch and Mud Lakes expecting low to moderate 

sedimentation depending on the watershed. In stream habitats, the sediment increases are 

expected to last one to two years before being washed downstream, although they could 

last as long as five years. Large woody debris is expected to increase from 1 to 5 years 

post fire as trees falls. This increase in large woody debris would provide upland refuge 

sites for red-legged frog. For the ponds, the fate of the sediment is more permanent and 

the volume of the pond could be slightly affected due to the sediment being retained in 

the pond.

Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog

There would be no project related impacts to individuals or habitat associated with the 

absence of federally-implemented actions associated with this alternative. Reynolds 

Creek and the Kibbie Ridge ponds would see very little sedimentation due to the limited 

amount of fire within the watershed and low slope angle surrounding the ponds, 

respectively. Moderate increases in sediment delivery to channel would occur in Eleanor 

Creek and the Middle Fork Tuolumne River due to the extent and prevalence of high 

severity fire in the watersheds of these streams. At Eleanor Creek, the amount of 

sediment that would pass through the channel is limited because of Eleanor Dam. The 

sediment from upstream of the dam would be retained over a very long time period (>50 

years). For the watershed area downstream of the dam, sedimentation would occur and 

affect the stream for up to three years, after which the seasonal snowmelt period would 

largely transport the sediment downstream and out of the suitable habitat area. Large 

volumes of sediment are expected to be delivered to the Middle Fork Tuolumne River 

and would impact slow water habitats in the river for two to three years until it is 

transported downstream and out of the suitable habitat area. For both the creek and river, 

the seasonal scour and presence of deep water habitats would ensure the availability of 

suitable habitat for post-metamorphic lifestages. Large woody debris supply would be 

unimpacted at all locations.

Foothill yellow-legged frog

The main impacts to FYLF habitat would come from increased sediment delivery to 

streams, increased streamflow, and reduced stream shading. For the streams shown in 

Table 8 categorized as “low watershed response”, very little change in habitat is 

expected, particularly at the location of breeding sites. Minor sedimentation will occur in 

the headwater tributaries affected by the fire, but that sediment will be dispersed 

downstream to the point where it will be undetectable at the breeding site. Some of the 

stream segments affected by fire provide suitable dispersal habitat for adult and sub-adult 
121

FYLF, but the volume of deep water habitats should be adequately maintained, and the 

reduction in stream shade should have little effect on frog.

Streams categorized as “moderate watershed response” will see moderate to major 

adverse impact to the small order streams (1st-2nd order or headwaters) affected by fire. 

Deep water habitats may be extensively filled in dispersal habitats and there could be 

minor to moderate sedimentation in suitable breeding habitats. In some small tributaries 

affected by high severity fire, some deep water habitats may be unsuitable for individual 

frogs and they may have to move up- or downstream to suitable non-breeding aquatic 

habitat. The increase in sediment at breeding sites will likely have a minor impact to the 

suitability of the breeding habitat and reproduction should still occur. However, 

increased sediment in shallow water habitats used by tadpoles may see a reduction in 

suitability as the spaces between larger substrates are filled. The lack of hiding refuge 

may increase predation for the breeding season following the fire, but habitat suitability 

should be restored in the third or fourth breeding season post-fire. Stream shading was 

substantially reduced at a watershed scale (greater than 50 percent), though patches of 

shade remain. There could be slight increases in water temperatures, but these would be 

within the known tolerance range of the frog.

For streams and watersheds in the high watershed response category, major impacts to 

habitat have occurred or will occur this precipitation year. Excess sediment is likely to 

fill many of the deep water habitats to the point where they do not provide adequate 

refuge for frogs. This situation may not hold true for high gradient sections of stream 

where the water’s energy has enough force to keep some deep pool habitat intact. There 

may be more individuals concentrated around the remaining pools, which would likely 

increase competition and territoriality between individuals. The increased interaction 

between individuals could increase stress levels and reduce physical well-being. In 

streams like Bull Meadow Creek, the sediment may be enough to inundate breeding 

habitat and preclude breeding in 2014. Streams in this category will also see extensive 

decreases in water depth in shallow water habitats, potentially enough to exclude 

extensive use of those habitats.

The environmental outcomes for this alternative range from major habitat alterations in 

very small streams to no discernible impact in the larger rivers. The biggest impacts to 

habitat would be expected to occur in the five Clavey River tributaries and Alder, Bear 

Springs, Bull Meadow, Corral, Drew, Granite, Indian, Indian Springs, Jawbone, and 

Quilty Creeks. Moderate localized to minor overall alterations in habitat would be 

expected to occur in Adams, Cherry, Grapevine, Hunter, Reed, and Russell Creeks, and 

the Middle and South Fork Tuolumne Rivers. Minimal impacts to habitat would be 

expected to occur in Basin, Bull, Cottonwood, Deer Lick, Eleanor, Hunter, Moore, and 

Scott Creeks, and the North Fork Tuolumne and Merced Rivers.

Western pond turtle

For the WPT, much of the discussion for the FYLF applies to the turtle for post-fire 

watershed response. There would be no risk of direct effect to individuals under this

alternative. The post-fire erosion and sediment outcomes discussed for the FYLF apply 

to the WPT in that small streams with a high post-fire watershed response would see 

major impacts to the deep water habitats preferred by the turtle. In larger streams, the 
122

period of annual peak streamflow would have sufficient energy to maintain high 

suitability deep water habitats created by scour. 

The primary difference for the No Action alternative relates to recruitment rate of LWD 

into suitable aquatic habitats. Under Alternative 2, the recruitment rate would not be 

decreased due to salvage harvest and trees would be left to fall naturally. As noted 

previously, habitat suitability may be positively influenced by the increased abundance of 

basking sites (Jennings and Hayes 1994). More LWD would be recruited to all channels. 

The biggest increase in habitat suitability would likely occur in the larger streams and 

rivers like the Middle and South Fork Tuolumne Rivers. 

The discussion of LWD recruitment also needs to include seasonal and perennial ponds 

and lakes at Abernathy Meadow, Big and Little Kibbie Ponds, Grandfather Pond, and 

Mud Lake. Under No Action, no trees would be harvested adjacent to lower quality 

roads or from salvage units surrounding these aquatic features leaving trees available for 

WPT use as they fall. As noted previously, the turtle will burrow under these objects in 

the upland to protect themselves from predators and weather elements. The unimpaired 

rate of recruitment of LWD would improve habitat suitability in the uplands surrounding 

the aquatic features.

The environmental outcomes under this alternative would follow natural post-fire 

processes and WPT populations would be maintained. 

Hardhead

No direct or detectable indirect effect to hardhead individuals, populations, or habitat 

would result from No Action. At the scale of the lower Clavey, Tuolumne, and lower 

North Fork Tuolumne Rivers, the amount of post-fire sediment would not be enough to 

impair the suitability of the important habitat elements (deep pool, shallow edge water, 

and spawning habitats) in any of these locations. 

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS

No direct effect on foothill yellow-legged frog, western pond turtle, or hardhead would 

result from the implementation of this alternative. The indirect effects described above 

focus on sedimentation of aquatic habitats and LWD recruitment but are not associated 

with any federal action. Therefore, this consideration of cumulative effects considers the 

effects of post-fire impacts combined with other actions carried out by federal or private 

entities. However, cumulative actions as described in the Federal Register (July 24, 

2008; Volume 73, Number 143) only occur when the alternative proposals for agency 

action result in direct and indirect effects that then combine with other actions 

implemented or proposed by other governmental or private entities. Increased sediment 

would be expected from the road system if maintenance and restoration actions are not 

taken and LWD recruitment rates would remain very high in areas that sustained 

moderate and high vegetation severity fire conditions.

California red-legged frog

The cumulative stressors identified under Alternative 1 apply to this alternative, but the 

impacts identified in that section would not add cumulatively to the impacts of 

implementing this alternative because no federal action would occur. Table XX shows 
123

the non-grazing actions proposed on federal or private lands that would affect the various 

CRLF habitats.

Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog

If Alternative 2 is implemented, there would be no direct or indirect impacts to 

individuals or habitats at Reynolds Creek, Big and Little Kibbie Ponds, Eleanor Creek, or 

the Middle Fork Tuolumne River. As such, there would be no cumulative impacts when 

added to other actions potentially impacting the species at this location. As described in 

the cumulative effects section under Alternative 1, the Rim Hazard Tree EA would affect 

Reynolds Creek, but not the other three locations. Grazing would occur within the 

Reynolds Creek and Middle Fork Tuolumne River watersheds and would act as potential 

impact source at these locations.

Foothill yellow-legged frog

Using Table 14, the cumulative actions within each watershed can be derived for other 

actions on public and private lands. Very little or no cumulative effects would be 

expected in the following watersheds because there would be no other federal or private 

actions: Adams, Alder, Basin, Bull, Deer Lick, Eleanor, Indian Springs, Moore, and 

Russell Creeks, Clavey Tributaries 1, 2, 4, and 5, and the North Fork Merced River. 

Increased sedimentation from other salvage operations would not occur and LWD 

recruitment potential would coincide with the existing condition.

Minor to no discernible cumulative effect would be expected from the following 

watersheds because the other private or federal actions would only affect a very small 

percentage (less than 15 percent) of the FYLF buffer in the watershed or total watershed 

area: Bull Meadow, Cottonwood, Grapevine, Hunter, Indian, Indian Springs, and Reed 

Creeks, Clavey Tributary 3, and the Middle, North, and South Fork Tuolumne Rivers. In 

these streams, there would be localized increases in sedimentation, but the small 

cumulative percentage of FYLF buffer and watershed affected would not be sufficient to 

impair any biological function in the streams. FYLF habitat suitability would remain in 

the moderate suitability category until post-fire sediment is flushed from the systems (1-2 

years) and relatively unimpaired habitat suitability would recover after 2 years. 

Minor to moderate localized effect to aquatic habitats in the following locations: Bear 

Springs, Cherry, Corral, Drew, Jawbone, and Quilty Creeks. At these sites, the 

percentage of FYLF buffer affected ranges from 0 to 42 percent and the percentage of 

watershed area affected ranges from 14 to 60 percent. Relatively minor changes would 

be expected in Cherry and Drew Creeks, but the remaining streams could have moderate 

reductions in habitat suitability, compared to a pre-fire condition, in extensive areas of 

the watershed. The increases in sedimentation could affect breeding and rearing success 

in Jawbone and Corral Creeks for up to two years. Adult and sub-adult habitats should 

not be significantly compromised by sediment because high energy pools and sections of 

steep stream gradient should maintain good pool depth for refuge habitat. Bear Springs 

and Quilty Creeks likely serve as dispersal habitats for frogs breeding in the Clavey 

River. In these streams, slow water habitats, especially in low gradient headwater 

streams, could have low suitability for up to two years, but larger stream sections with 

higher gradient should maintain moderate to high suitability, deep water habitats.
124

Suitable habitats in the Clavey and Tuolumne River would not be measurably affected by 

cumulative impacts. These river systems are so large that the increases in sediment from 

all sources, including post-fire runoff, would not be sufficient to cause a reduction in 

suitability of habitat for any life stage or impair any biological function associated with 

the frog (example, algal growth (tadpole food) during the summer baseflow period).

Western pond turtle

The following locations would not have cumulative effects because there would be no 

risk of direct effect, a very low risk indirect effect (discountable effect on individuals and 

habitat), and no other federal or private action: Basin, Big Creek, Bull, Deer Lick, 

Eleanor, Moore, and the North Fork Merced and Tuolumne Rivers, Big Kibbie Pond, 

Little Kibbie Pond, and the three unnamed ponds near Yosemite Lakes Campground. 

Very minor to no discernible effect to individuals would occur at the following locations: 

Cherry, Drew, and Hunter Creeks, and the Middle and South Fork Tuolumne Rivers. 

Other federal or private actions would affect up to 16 percent of the WPT buffer in these 

streams which would correlate to a low risk of direct impact, primarily physical 

disturbance. Localized areas of increased sedimentation would be apparent, but deep 

pool habitats would retain moderate to high suitability for the turtle. Shallow water 

habitats used by hatchlings should see minor reductions in suitability, but the habitat 

should meet the growth and development needs of the turtle.

Moderate levels of cumulative effect would be apparent at the following locations: 

Jawbone Creek, Grandfather and Homestead Ponds, Mud Lake, and Abernathy Meadow. 

For Jawbone Creek, the most apparent indirect impact would be increased sedimentation 

because approximately 50 percent of the watershed would be treated and 27 percent of 

the buffer would be treated. Deep water habitats would have minor to moderate 

reductions in volume, but the gradient and stream flow increases should maintain high 

quality pool habitat along most of the stream. The risk of direct effect is relatively low 

because the majority of the WPT buffer affected is in small tributary streams that provide 

low suitability habitat for the turtle. As for the ponds and meadow, between 20 and 55

percent of the buffer area would be treated by other private and federal actions. Mud 

Lake would be affected the most with over half of the buffer treated. At this location, the 

risk of physical disturbance is moderate and the risk of injury or mortality is relatively 

low. Operations would likely occur over a three to four week period and could occur 

when turtles are moving into the upland if the lake volume is reduced by 50 percent or 

more or if salvage activities occur into October when the turtles move into the upland. 

The potential recruitment of LWD would be reduced on the 63 acres treated, resulting in 

a habitat suitability reduction from just above moderate to just below moderate. For 

Homestead Pond, Grandfather Pond and Abernathy Meadow, more than 68 percent of the 

upland habitat would be unaffected by any action. There would be a low risk of physical 

disturbance because operations would only last a week or two at each location (16 - 42 

treatment acres). Habitat suitability relative to LWD recruitment would be maintained in 

most of the upland area around each habitat.

Hardhead

There would be no cumulative effects to hardhead and habitat suitability would be 

maintained at high levels for all streams providing suitable habitat.
125

Alternative 3 

DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS

California red-legged frog

The effects as described under alternative 1 are similar for all action alternatives. There are 

slight differences in acres treated and system, which is reflected in predicted erosion rates. 

This effects discussion follows the same outline as Alternative 1 for ease of comparison. 

Birch and Mud Lakes

There are no activities proposed in the immediate vicinity (within 500 feet) of Birch or 

Mud Lake and all proposed activities occur downstream and/or downslope of the 

breeding habitat. There is no risk of injury or disturbance at the breeding habitat. There 

is no risk of increased sediment reaching the ponds due to project activities, or in reduced 

shading and an associated increase in temperature. The habitat suitability of the ponds 

will remain low post-implementation.

There are 2.1 miles of non-breeding habitat within proposed salvage and fuels treatment 

units (Table 10) out of 7.4 miles in the habitat area (29 percent). Of this, 0.6 miles of the 

non-breeding habitat also falls within a proposed watershed sensitive area treatment. The 

non-breeding habitat in the Tuolumne River – Poopenaut Valley watershed (north half of 

habitat area) only has proposed treatment at the headwaters of the stream. Proposed 

treatments immediately adjacent to the non-breeding habitat include drop and lop 

treatment in a watershed sensitive area (WSA) to increase ground cover and reduce 

erosion. Most of the non-breeding aquatic habitat in the Lower Middle Fork Tuolumne 

River and Upper Middle Fork Tuolumne River watershed is within proposed salvage 

harvest. There is a 72 acre drop and lop WSA treatment in the Lower Middle Fork 

Tuolumne River along the intermittent outlet stream from Birch Lake specifically 

delineated to increase coarse cover for California red-legged frog and reduce erosion. 

WEPP modeling does not show a change in post-implementation erosion in the 

Tuolumne River – Poopenaut Valley or Upper Middle Fork Tuolumne River watersheds. 

Although no change is shown it is likely that implementation activities will result in some 

erosion and there will be some sediment delivery to the stream. The amount is not 

detectable above the background of the predicted fire erosion. The Lower Middle Fork 

Tuolumne watershed modelling indicates erosion will be reduced from 2.8 tons per acre 

post fire to 2.4 tons per acre post-implementation. This is in large part due to the 

proposed WSA treatments within the greater watershed area. Despite the predicted 

decrease in erosion, some sediment is still likely to enter the non-breeding aquatic habitat 

due to salvage, hazard tree and fuel reduction treatments.

Removal of salvage will not affect stream shading in this area as dead trees provide little 

shade. LWD recruitment will be reduced along the non-breeding habitat in the Lower 

Middle Fork Tuolumne River and Upper Middle Fork Tuolumne River. The MRs would 

maintain 5 standing trees per acre within the Riparian Conservation Areas (RCAs) of 

perennial streams as recruitment for downed wood. Existing downed wood crossing or 

within 30 feet of a stream will be retained. There are no planned water sources within 

this habitat area. Roadside Hazard Tree Removal and road treatments in this area do not 

occur near aquatic habitat. 
126

Twenty-seven percent of the upland habitat is proposed for harvest and roadside salvage 

treatment, and 24 percent of the upland habitat with salvage treatment will also have fuels 

treatment. These activities can further decrease cover from the effects of the fire, and can 

set back vegetative regrowth by one to two years. If any California red-legged frogs are 

in the upland habitat at the time of activities, they would be at risk for disturbance or 

injury. There are no activities proposed within the dispersal habitat between Birch and 

Mud Lakes.

Drew Creek

The breeding habitat along Drew Creek is not included within any proposed salvage 

units, or within hazard tree removal areas. There is no risk of disturbance or injury at the 

breeding habitat. Adjacent to the breeding habitat there is planned roadside hazard tree 

removal that comes close to the breeding habitat in two locations. Reduction in stream 

shading below that caused by the fire is not anticipated, and therefore no increase in 

temperature is expected. 

A total of 10.3 miles of non-breeding stream habitat is within the Drew Creek habitat 

area. There are 0.16 miles of non-breeding habitat in the Lower Middle Fork Tuolumne 

River watershed within proposed salvage units and 0.05 miles within roadside hazard tree 

removal units (total of 2 percent) (Table 10) in the Tuolumne River – Jawbone Creek 

watershed. WEPP modeling indicates erosion will be reduced from 2.8 tons per acre post 

fire to 2.4 tons per acre post-implementation in Lower Middle Fork Tuolumne River 

watershed and from 3.6 to 3.3 tons per acre in the Tuolumne River – Jawbone Creek 

watershed. This is a decrease in sediment delivery from Alternative 1 and the no action 

alternative. Even with the predicted decreased due to project implementation it is likely 

that implementation activities will result in some erosion and there will be some sediment 

delivery to the streams. The amount is not detectable above the background of the 

predicted fire erosion. 

The proposed activities will not alter stream shading. There is very little activity 

proposed in this habitat area adjacent to streams and in many areas LWD will not be 

altered. The area along Lumsden Road where roadside hazard trees will be removed will 

have LWD maintained as described above. There is one proposed water source in the 

Drew Creek habitat area. It is a water trough/tank located in Section 21 south of Drew 

Creek and south of the proposed roadside hazard tree removal. This trough does not 

currently have any red-legged frog populations in it. Lumsden Road crosses the 

Tuolumne River within this habitat area at Lumsden Bridge. Road treatments are planned 

across this non-breeding habitat. Some sediment may enter the stream from the road 

treatments and may continue for one to two years. However, road treatments are 

designed to reduce hydrologically connected roads segments and any increased sediment 

will decrease after two years. 

Seven percent of the upland habitat is proposed for harvest and roadside salvage 

treatment, with 1 percent of the upland habitat also receiving fuels treatments (Table 9). 

These activities can further decrease cover from the effects of the fire, and can set back 
127

vegetative regrowth by one to two years. If any California red-legged frogs are in the 

upland habitat at the time of activities, they would be at risk for disturbance or injury. 

Dispersal in the habitat occurs along Drew Creek and proposed activities will have no 

effect on the existing habitat.

Harden Flat Ponds

The breeding habitat within this habitat area is on private property and is not included 

within any proposed salvage units, or within hazard tree removal areas. There is no risk 

of disturbance or injury at the breeding habitat. Breeding habitat will maintain low 

suitability for red-legged frogs in this area. 

There are 0.36 miles of non-breeding habitat in the Lower South Fork Tuolumne River 

watershed and in the Lower Middle Fork Tuolumne River watershed (Table 10) within 

salvage and roadside hazard tree treatment units. WEPP modeling indicates erosion will 

be reduced from 2.8 to 2.4 tons per acre in the Lower Middle Fork Tuolumne River 

watershed post-implementation, and from 3.1 to 2.8 tons per acre in the Lower South 

Fork Tuolumne River watershed. Even with the predicted decrease post implementation 

it is likely that implementation activities will result in some erosion and there will be 

some sediment delivery to the streams. The amount is not detectable above the 

background of the predicted fire erosion. 

The proposed activities will not alter stream shading. There is very little activity 

proposed in this habitat area adjacent to streams. Of the 6.4 miles of non-breeding 

habitat, only 0.36 miles (6 percent) will have trees removed. MRs will maintain some

standing trees to provide for LWD recruitment. There are no proposed water sources in 

this area. None of the proposed road treatments cross stream habitat (they are not 

hydrologically connected) and it is unlikely sediment from road treatments will reach the 

streams. 

Thirteen percent of the upland habitat is proposed for harvest and roadside salvage 

treatment (Table 9), with 10 percent also proposed for fuel treatment. These activities 

can further decrease cover from the effects of the fire, and can set back vegetative 

regrowth by one to two years. If any California red-legged frogs are in the upland habitat 

at the time of activities, they would be at risk for disturbance or injury. Dispersal habitat 

is on the private property and will not be impacted by this action.

Homestead Pond

Homestead Pond is within a proposed salvage harvest. The harvest unit is limited to the 

north and east sides of the pond and is reduced in size to 15.1 acres from Alternative 1. 

There would be a high risk of injury or mortality to breeding red-legged frogs in this 

pond during project activities. However, the pond does not currently support red-legged 

frogs. Reduction in stream shading below that caused by the fire is not anticipated, and 

therefore no increase in temperature is expected. The pond and salvage unit are on flat 

ground, therefore sediment is not expected to move into the pond in great quantities. 

However, some sedimentation is anticipated.
128

There are 4.8 miles of non-breeding stream habitat within the Homestead Pond habitat 

area. There is no proposed roadside hazard tree removal (Table 10) in this habitat area 

under Alternative 3. Only the north half of the habitat area is within the Rim Fire, in the 

Grapevine Creek-Tuolumne River watershed. WEPP modeling indicates erosion will be 

reduced from 2.0 tons per acre post fire to 1.9 tons per acre post-implementation. Even 

with the predicted decreased due to project implementation it is likely that 

implementation activities will result in some erosion and there will be some sediment 

delivery to the non-breeding habitat. The amount is not detectable above the background 

of the predicted fire erosion. 

The proposed activities will not alter stream shading. There is very little activity 

proposed in this habitat area adjacent to streams and in most of the area LWD will not be 

altered. There are no proposed water sources in the Homestead Pond habitat area. One 

road in the project area crosses the non-breeding habitat provided by the Hetch Hetchy 

ditch feature. Because the road may be hydrologically connected to the non-breeding 

habitat, some sediment may enter the stream from the road treatments and may continue 

for one to two years. These road treatments are designed to reduce hydrologically 

connected roads segments and any increased sediment will decrease after two years. 

Three percent of the upland habitat is proposed for harvest and roadside salvage 

treatment (Table 9), with one percent of the habitat proposed for fuels treatment in the 

harvested units. These activities can further decrease cover from the effects of the fire, 

and can set back vegetative regrowth by one to two years. If any California red-legged 

frogs are in the upland habitat at the time of activities, they would be at risk for 

disturbance or injury. There is no dispersal habitat in this habitat area.

Hunter Creek and Ponds

There are no salvage activities proposed within the Hunter Creek and Ponds habitat area. 

Hazard Tree Removal is proposed near the Hunter Creek breeding habitat in Section 17 

(near Skidmore Pit). There is a slight risk of injury or mortality at this location; however 

this is mitigated by the management requirement to fell trees away from the stream. 

There will be no reduction in shading at breeding habitats (stream or pond) below that 

caused by the fire; therefore temperature will not be altered by this project. The 

proposed hazard tree removal and road treatments in Section 17 may result in a minor 

amount of additional sediment input into Hunter Creek due to the proximity to the creek. 

This additional input may last one to two years, and then will be reduced.

There are 26.8 miles of non-breeding stream habitat within this habitat area. There are 

3.1 miles (12 percent) of non-breeding habitat within proposed roadside hazard tree 

removal units (Table 10). The majority of non-breeding habitat consists of tributaries to 

Hunter Creek in the Lower North Fork Tuolumne River watershed and most was not 

burned in the Rim Fire. The non-breeding habitat within the Tuolumne River –

Grapevine Creek watershed was burned. WEPP modeling indicates erosion will be 

slightly reduced from 2.0 tons per acre post fire to 1.9 tons per acres post-implementation 

in this watershed. Even with the predicted decreased due to project implementation it is 

likely that implementation activities will result in some erosion and there will be some 
129

sediment delivery to the streams. The amount is not detectable above the background of 

the predicted fire erosion. 

The proposed activities will not alter stream shading. There is very little activity 

proposed in this habitat area adjacent to streams and in most of the area LWD will not be 

altered. There are five proposed water sources in the Hunter Creek and Ponds habitat 

area; one water trough/tank that is not known to contain red-legged frogs, one site at the 

junction of Hunter Creek and Buchanan Road in breeding habitat, and three sites in nonbreeding habitat along Forest Service roads 1N01, 1N27 and 1N35. Drafting in the latter 

four locations has the potential to entrain tadpole or smaller California red-legged frogs 

of they are present during activities, and can also result in disturbance in the area. There 

are several roads in the area that cross non-breeding habitat that provide some hydrologic 

connectivity. Some sediment may enter the streams from the road treatments and may 

continue for one to two years. These road treatments are designed to reduce 

hydrologically connected roads segments and any increased sediment will decrease after 

two years. 

Ten percent of the upland habitat is proposed for roadside salvage and fuel treatment 

(Table 9). These activities can further decrease cover from the effects of the fire, and can 

set back vegetative regrowth by one to two years. However, only a little more than half 

of the upland habitat was within the fire and experienced changes. If any California redlegged frogs are in the upland habitat at the time of activities, they would be at risk for 

disturbance or injury. The dispersal habitat along Hunter Creek would not be altered by 

the proposed activities. 

Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog

Effects to Individuals

The actions proposed for Alternative 1 are the same under Alternative 3 and the analysis provided 

for Alternative 1 applies to this alternative.

Effects to Habitats

The actions proposed for Alternative 1 are the same under Alternative 3 and the analysis provided 

for Alternative 1 applies to this alternative.

Foothill yellow-legged frog

The potential for direct and indirect effects for Alternative 3 are largely the same as those 

in Alternative 1. Table 15 indicates the extent to which salvage and roadside hazard 

abatement would affect the amount of buffer and overall area of each watershed. Table 

15 also shows the number of miles of road treatment by activity type for Alternative 3. 

Comparing Table 15 to Table 11, there are no differences between salvage treatments 

(hazard tree and salvage units) between Alternatives 1 and 3. These watersheds include 

North Fork Merced and Tuolumne Rivers and Basin, Clavey Tributaries 1-3 and 5, Deer 

Lick, Grapevine, Hunter, Indian, Indian Springs, Quilty, Moore, Russell, and Scott 

Creeks. Direct and indirect effects described in Alternative 1 directly apply to these 

watersheds for Alternative 3.

There are very minor differences (less than 10 percent and mainly decreases) in either 

amount of salvage treatment in buffer areas or percentage of watershed area in the 
130

following watersheds: Adams, Bear Springs, Bull, Cherry, Clavey River Tributary 4, 

Cottonwood, Drew, Eleanor, Granite, and Reed Creeks, and the Middle and South Fork 

Tuolumne Rivers. The small differences between the amounts of area treated by salvage 

activities would not be discernible between Alternatives 1 and 3. The sediment modeling 

reflects little or no change in sediment delivery for these watersheds.

Table 15. Amount of buffer, percentage of watershed area affected, and miles of road 

treatments in foothill yellow-legged frog suitable habitat for Alternative 3.

Watershed 

(5th level 

Hydrologic 

Unit Code)

Stream 

name

Percent of 

FYLF 

watershed 

area 

treated, 

hazard 

tree and 

salvage 

units 

combined

Acres of FYLF

buffer affected

Road Treatments

(miles by treatment type)

Hazard 

tree Salvage Percent of total

Reconstruct Maintain New Temporary

Tuolumne 

River

Tuolumne 

River

Alder Cr. 45 0 34 30 3.2 0.2 0 0

Corral Cr. 78 0 106 46 18.9 0 0 2.5

Drew Cr. 12 12 0.4 11 1.9 3.6 0 0.6

Grapevine 

Cr. 18 29 0 11 0.7 17.4 0 0

Indian Cr. 2 1 0 less 

than 1 0 2.2 0 0

Jawbone 

Cr. 27 5 81 25 18.6 7.3 0 5.3

Middle 

Fork 

Tuolumne 

River

Middle Fork 

Tuolumne 

River

17 22 255 46 57.2 12.5 0 11.9

North 

Fork 

Tuolumne 

River

North Fork 

Tuolumne 

River

2 0 0 0 0.4 22.7 0 0

Basin Cr. 1 0 0 0 0.4 2.1 0 0

Hunter Cr. 9 0 0 0 0 19.9 0 0

South 

Fork 

Tuolumne 

River

South Fork 

Tuolumne 

River

38 29 144 24 75.5 27.3 0 4

Cherry 

Creek

Cherry Cr. 13 6 36 9 29.3 9.9 0 1.6

Eleanor Cr. 1 0 12 22 2.5 0 0 0.5

Granite Cr. 21 0.2 36 25 12.4 1.1 0 0.1

Clavey 

River

Clavey 

River

Reed Cr. 20 1 49 49 18.2 24.7 0 2.1

Adams 

Gulch 15 0 0 0 1.2 1.8 0 0

Bear 

Springs Cr. 18 9 0.1 20 10 0.7 0 0

Bull 

Meadow Cr. 36 0 36 50 4.0 0.4 0 0.8

Indian 

Springs Cr. 19 3 2 25 1.4 0.1 0 0

Quilty Cr. 5 0 0 0 0.1 1.1 0 0
131

Watershed 

(5th level 

Hydrologic 

Unit Code)

Stream 

name

Percent of 

FYLF 

watershed 

area 

treated, 

hazard 

tree and 

salvage 

units 

combined

Acres of FYLF

buffer affected

Road Treatments

(miles by treatment type)

Hazard 

tree Salvage Percent of total

Reconstruct Maintain New Temporary

Unnamed 

Tributary 1 16 3 0 8 0 2.9 0 0

Unnamed 

Tributary 2 24 0 0 0 0 2.5 0 0

Unnamed 

Tributary 3 69 0 26 46 0.8 10.3 0 0

Unnamed 

Tributary 4 48 2 1 13 3 0.7 0 0

Unnamed 

Tributary 5 43 7 8 37 2.2 2.7 0 0

Cottonwood 

Cr. 31 0 3 5 19.1 8.8 0 0.1

Russell Cr. 30 0 0 0 0.9 2.3 0 0

North 

Fork 

Merced 

River

North Fork 

Merced 

River

2 22 18

less 

than 

0.1

12.3 11.2 0 0.2

Bull Cr. 2 5 0

less 

than 

0.1

3.95 2 0 0.5

Deer Lick 

Cr. 8 4 13 7 3.4 2.3 0 0.2

Moore Cr. 4 5 5 3 2 3.8 0 1

Scott Cr. 22 2 0 8 3.6 3.4 0 0

The following watersheds would see increases in activity from Alternative 1 to 

Alternative 3: Alder, Corral, and Jawbone Creeks. In Alder Creek, the amount of 

treatment in FYLF buffer areas increases from 0 (Alternative 1) to 34 acres and the 

percentage of watershed treated increases from 10 (Alternative 1) to 45 percent. This 

alternative includes unit L204, a forage unit in critical winter deer range, where dead 

trees would be removed as biomass. A review of the aerial imagery indicates widely 

scattered small, dead pines. The amount of disturbance created by equipment in this unit 

would be limited greatly (spatially) and there should be no discernible changes in 

sediment delivery to suitable habitat located downstream of the treatment unit. 

A similar situation exists in Corral Creek where the amount of treatment in FYLF buffers 

increases from 81 (Alternative 1) to 106 acres (Alternative 3) and the percentage of 

watershed treated increases from 58 percent to 78 percent, between Alternatives 1 and 3, 

respectively, in critical winter deer range. The increased amount of disturbance created 

by additional equipment operation would increase the amount of sediment delivered to 

Corral Creek, especially in the lower third of the watershed. The additional sediment 

would slightly diminish suitability of FYLF aquatic habitat in the first year following 

treatment, but the steep gradient would likely transport the sediment out and to the 

Tuolumne River in the subsequent year. 

The percentage of FYLF buffer affected by salvage logging in Jawbone Creek would 

increase from 13 percent in Alternative 1 to 24 percent in Alternative 3, but the total 
132

watershed area treated would decrease from 25 percent (Alternative 1) to 15 percent 

under Alternative 3. The increased activity in FYLF buffers would occur in the lower 

fourth of the watershed, and there would be a slight increase in sediment delivered to 

Jawbone Creek from the additional treatment units. This increase would slightly 

decrease aquatic habitat suitability for the FYLF because deep water refuge habitats 

would be reduced. The duration of effect would remain the same between alternatives 

because the steep gradient of the creek in this part of the watershed would effectively 

transport out the sediment. 

For the Tuolumne and Clavey Rivers, there would be no discernible difference in impact 

to aquatic and riparian habitats between Alternatives 1 and 3 because the amount of 

sediment predicted for both alternatives is very similar (at this large watershed scale) and 

there would be very little or no activity in close proximity to the rivers. High suitability 

habitat would be maintained in these rivers and no biological impairment would occur. 

Western pond turtle

For 20 of the 22 aquatic features identified in Table 16, there is either no difference or 

very small differences (less than 2 percent) in the amount and type of treatment within 

WPT buffers. As such, the descriptions of environmental consequences provided for the 

WPT under Alternative 1 apply to Alternative 3. The two aquatic features where 

treatment amounts within the buffer are different are Abernathy Meadow and Mud Lake. 

At Abernathy Meadow, the percentage of buffer surrounding the meadow affected by 

salvage operations decreased from 66 acres (50 percent of total buffer area) to 26 acres 

(20 percent of total buffer area). The decrease in logging activity in the buffer would 

result in a lower potential for direct impacts to individuals, especially when the seasonal 

pond is losing volume and the turtles move into the upland for the summer to aestivate. 

The decreased logging around the meadow under this alternative would mean more trees 

would be available to fall and provide cover for turtles in 40 additional acres (when 

compared to Alternative 1). The additional amount of LWD would improve the overall 

upland habitat suitability, from moderate to high, in Alternative 3 compared to 

Alternative 1.

At Mud Lake, a similar situation would occur because the amount of buffer area treated 

would decrease by 9 acres (21 to 12). This means only 10 percent of the buffer area 

would be treated. The direct and indirect effects discussed for Abernathy Meadow apply 

to Mud Lake.

Table 16. Amount and percentage of western pond turtle buffer affected in salvage and 

roadside hazard tree units for Alternative 3. 

Watershed (5th 

level 

Hydrologic Unit 

Code)

Stream name

Amount of WPT buffer 

in salvage units 

(percent of total buffer 

area treated)

Amount of WPT buffer in 

hazard tree units (percent 

of total buffer area 

treated)

Tuolumne River

Drew Cr. 27 (3 percent) 89 (9 percent)

Jawbone Cr. 701 (22 percent) 102 (3 percent)

Homestead Pond 15 (16 percent) 0 (0 percent)

Three unnamed ponds 27 (10 percent) 4 (1 percent)

Middle Fork 

Tuolumne River

Middle Fork Tuolumne River 2113 (39 percent) 307 (6 percent)

Abernathy Meadow 26 (20 percent) 6 (5 percent)
133

Watershed (5th 

level 

Hydrologic Unit 

Code)

Stream name

Amount of WPT buffer 

in salvage units 

(percent of total buffer 

area treated)

Amount of WPT buffer in 

hazard tree units (percent 

of total buffer area 

treated)

Grandfather Pond 7 (9 percent) 2 (2 percent)

Mud Lake 12 (10 percent) 0 (0 percent)

North Fork 

Tuolumne River

North Fork Tuolumne River 0 (0 percent) 411 (2 percent)

Basin Cr. 0 (0 percent) 0 (0 percent)

Hunter Cr. 0 (0 percent) 407 (2 percent)

South Fork 

Tuolumne River South Fork Tuolumne River 1441 (22 percent) 537 (8 percent)

Cherry Creek

Cherry Cr. 365 (10 percent) 59 (2 percent)

Eleanor Cr. 97 (16 percent) 0.1 (less than 1 percent)

Big Kibbie Pond 86 (88 percent) 0 (0 percent)

Little Kibbie Pond 52 (60 percent) 2 (2 percent)

Clavey River Reed Cr. 438 (48 percent) 12 (1 percent)

Cottonwood Cr. 29 (5 percent) 24 (5 percent)

North Fork 

Merced River

North Fork Merced River 176 (1 percent) 491 (3 percent)

Bull Cr. 25 (less than 1 percent) 109 (1 percent)

Deer Lick Cr. 42 (2 percent) 109 (5 percent)

Moore Cr. 56 (2 percent) 60 (2 percent)

Hardhead

There would be no discernible differences between Alternatives 1 and 3 for the hardhead. 

The direct and indirect effects discussion for Alternative 1 applies for to this alternative. 

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS

California red-legged frog

For most of the analyzed sites, there are very small differences in the actions proposed in 

Alternatives 1 and 3 and probably not detectable at the habitat area or watershed scale. Because 

the differences between implementing either alternative would be indistinguishable, the 

cumulative effects for Alternative 3 are as discussed under Alternative 1. 

Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog

Same as Alternative 1 because the proposed action within the SNYLF analysis areas would be the 

same under Alternatives 1 and 3.

Foothill yellow-legged frog

Comparing Tables 14 (cumulative effects for Alternative 1) and 17 (cumulative effects 

for Alternative 3), only four watersheds (Alder, Bull Meadow, Corral, and Jawbone 

Creeks) would have an increase in activities. The remaining watersheds would have no 

change or very little decrease in the amount of buffer or watershed area treated and the 

cumulative effects discussions under Alternative 1 are the same or very similar for this 

alternative. 

Table 17. Percentage of watershed area and foothill yellow-legged frog and western 

pond turtle buffers affected by salvage activities in Alternative 3 and cumulative sources 

(public and private).

Watershed 

(5th level 

Percent of FYLF 

buffer affected

Percent of watershed

area treated

Percent of WPT 

buffer affected
134

Hydrologic 

Unit Code) and 

Stream name

Alternative 

3

Alternative 

3 + 

Cumulative

Alternative 

3

Alternative 

3 + 

Cumulative

Alternative 

3

Alternative 

3 + 

Cumulative

Tuolumne River

Alder Cr. 30 30 45 45 -- --

Corral Cr. 46 88 78 93 -- --

Drew Cr. 17 28 12 29 11 27

Grapevine Cr. 11 18 18 23 -- --

Indian Cr. 1 6 2 4 -- --

Jawbone Cr. 25 54 15 68 25 53

Homestead 

Pond -- -- -- -- 16 46

Middle Fork Tuolumne River 

Middle Fork 

Tuolumne 

River1 45 57 48 61 45 57

Abernathy 

Meadow -- -- -- -- 24 56

Grandfather 

Pond -- -- -- -- 11 30

Mud Lake -- -- -- -- 10 65

North Fork Tuolumne River

North Fork 

Tuolumne River 0 2 1 6 2 6

Basin Cr. 0 0 1 5 0 less than 0.1

Hunter Cr. 6 14 9 23 8 19

South Fork Tuolumne River

South Fork 

Tuolumne 

River2 10 34 36 46 31 40

Unnamed 

ponds near 

Yosemite Lakes

-- -- -- -- 5 8

Cherry Creek

Cherry Cr. 10 26 13 34 29 45

Eleanor Cr. 22 22 1 1 16 16

Big Kibbie Pond -- -- -- -- 88 88

Little Kibbie 

Pond -- -- -- -- 63 63

Granite Cr. 25 67 21 78 -- --

Clavey River

Reed Cr. 50 54 20 34 50 61

Adams Gulch 0 0 15 32 -- --

Bear Springs 

Cr. 20 31 18 78 -- --

Bull Meadow 

Cr. 50 59 65 77 -- --

Indian Springs 

Cr. 25 25 19 29 -- --

Quilty Cr. 0 0 5 73 -- --

Unnamed 

Tributary 1 8 8 16 16 -- --

Unnamed 

Tributary 2 0 0 24 24 -- --
135

Watershed 

(5th level 

Hydrologic 

Unit Code) and 

Stream name

Percent of FYLF 

buffer affected

Percent of watershed

area treated

Percent of WPT 

buffer affected

Alternative 

3

Alternative 

3 + 

Cumulative

Alternative 

3

Alternative 

3 + 

Cumulative

Alternative 

3

Alternative 

3 + 

Cumulative

Unnamed 

Tributary 3 46 50 69 78 -- --

Unnamed 

Tributary 4 13 13 43 48 -- --

Unnamed 

Tributary 5 37 37 43 45 -- --

Cottonwood Cr. 5 18 31 43 -- --

Russell Cr. 0 0 30 30 -- --

North Fork Merced River

North Fork 

Merced River 2 2 3 4 4 4

Bull Cr. less than 

0.1 less than 0.1 2 2 1 1

Deer Lick Cr. 7 7 8 8 7 7

Moore Cr. 3 3 4 6 6 7

Scott Cr. 4 4 22 22 -- -- 1

Percentages calculated for the 6th level HUC Lower Middle Fork Tuolumne and not for the 5th level HUC 2

Percentages calculated for the 6th level Lower South Fork Tuolumne River HUC

The four streams with increases in buffer and watershed area treated have cumulative 

total increases directly related to the amount of increased activity proposed under 

Alternative 3 and not from additional sources. That is, no cumulative effects increase is 

associated with private or other public activities. The environmental outcome discussed 

for Alder Creek would be the same for cumulative impacts in terms of risk to individuals 

and habitats. Jawbone and Bull Meadow Creeks would likely see high cumulative levels 

of physical disturbance to individuals because extensive areas of the buffer would be 

treated by salvage activities. The total amount of watershed area affected would also lead 

to extensive modification of aquatic habitats (channel filling from sedimentation) in the 

first two or three years following treatment. This extent of aquatic habitat modification 

would potentially impact breeding and tadpole development for the first two years 

following treatments. As a result, lower population numbers would be expected for five 

to seven years. Reproduction and recruitment rate in these streams would return to 

“normal” levels within four years of treatment and high habitat suitability would return.

Essentially all of the buffer and watershed area of Corral Creek would be impacted by 

some type of salvage logging. The watershed response would be uncertain and it is 

possible that aquatic habitat in most of Corral Creek would be unsuitable for the FYLF 

due to excessive sedimentation. Based on field experience during physical habitat 

surveys prior to the Rim Fire, there are some high gradient sections that, when combined 

with the anticipated increase in stream flow, should maintain small patches of moderate 

suitability deep water habitat. This may provide enough of a refuge for the frog to persist 

until additional habitat becomes available in the next two or three years. Breeding would 

likely not occur under these conditions for up to two years, resulting in decreased 

recruitment and population size for over ten years. From two to four years from present, 

preferred tadpole habitat could be considerably compromised because the anticipated 

amount of sediment would likely fill the spaces between the larger streambed substrates 

and reduce foraging and escape habitats. Low suitability foraging and escape habitats 
136

could lead to poor rates of survivorship and increased predation. The cumulative effects 

modeling for this watershed and alternative indicate the threshold of concern would be 

exceeded for the next six years suggesting the channel and streambanks could be highly 

unstable for up to a decade. It should be noted that the erosion and sediment modeling 

completed for the project indicated a reduction in sediment delivery compared to the 

post-fire (no action) conditions and those expected from implementing Alternative 1.

Western pond turtle

Comparing Table 14 (cumulative effects for Alternative 1) and Table 17 (cumulative 

effects for Alternative 3) indicates most values in Alternative 3 for percentage of buffer 

affected were the same or slightly (less than 5 percent) increased or decreased from those 

in Alternative 1. Given the limited amount of change (or lack of change) between the 

values, the extent of impact and risk to individuals is very similar between alternatives 

and the cumulative effects discussion for Alternative 1 applies to this alternative. 

Hardhead

The discussion of cumulative effects given under Alternative 1 applies to this alternative.

Alternative 4 

DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS

As with Alternative 3, there would be very little difference implementing Alternative 4 

when compared to Alternative 1 for all three sensitive aquatic species. Further, for the 

watersheds that differed between Alternatives 1 and 3, there are no substantial differences 

in amount of watershed treated between Alternatives 3 and 4. That is, the salvage and 

road treatments are very similar in Alternatives 3 and 4. For 30 of the 34 watersheds 

listed in Table 13, there are no differences in actions proposed under Alternative 3 and 4. 

The following watersheds have differences between Alternative 3 and 4: Cherry and 

Eleanor Creeks and the South Fork Tuolumne River.

California red-legged frog

The only differences between Alternative 3 and Alternative 4 in proposed treatments is an 

additional 0.3 acres salvage treatment in Birch and Mud Lakes habitat area, an additional 0.1 

acre of salvage treatment in the Homestead Pond habitat area, and 0.4 acres less roadside 

Hazard treatment in Hunter Creek and Ponds habitat area. The difference in the amount of 

activity would not be detectable at the habitat area or at a watershed scale. Therefore, the 

analysis of direct, indirect and cumulative effects for Alternative 4 is the same as for 

Alternative 3.

Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog

Effects to Individuals

Tree Felling and Removal 

For Reynolds Creek, Eleanor Creek, and the Middle Fork Tuolumne River, there would 

be no difference in implementing Alternative 4 from Alternatives 1 and 3 because the 

proposed actions within these analysis areas would be the same. At Big and Little Kibbie 

Ponds, unit O02 would be dropped from treatment but roadside salvage would occur 

along 1N40Y in places where the salvage unit was proposed. Overall, there would be a 

decrease in the amount of upland habitat around the ponds impacted by this alternative. 
137

This alternative would affect approximately one acre of upland habitat less than 

Alternative 1 around Little Kibbie Pond and 0.6 acre of upland habitat less than 

Alternative 1 around Big Kibbie Pond. The effects and consequences of this difference 

are essentially the same as those described in Alternative 1, but this alternative would 

result in a slightly reduced risk of direct impact (injury, mortality, and physical 

disturbance) to individuals during tree felling and removal. At Eleanor Creek, unit 

O201B would be dropped and project activities would not occur along 0.15 mile of the 

creek. This unit was approximately 100 feet away from the creek under Alternative 1, 

which is a big enough operational buffer to minimize the potential for impacts to 

individuals. Dropping unit O201B would not result in a substantial decrease in risk to 

individuals when compared to the activities in Alternative 1.

Burn Piles

For Reynolds Creek, Eleanor Creek, and the Middle Fork Tuolumne River, there would 

be no difference in implementing Alternative 4 from Alternatives 1 and 3 because the 

proposed actions within these analysis areas would be the same. For Big and Little 

Kibbie Ponds, burn piles would not occur in 1.6 acres of upland habitat when compared 

to Alternative 1. The same minimization measure of locating burn piles more than 50 feet 

from aquatic habitats would occur in this alternative. For the 1.6 acres of upland habitat 

that would be untreated, the risk of an individual being impacted during pile burning 

would be reduced because of the lack of activity in the unaffected upland habitat.

Road Treatments

For Reynolds Creek, Big and Little Kibbie Ponds, Eleanor Creek, and the Middle Fork 

Tuolumne River analysis areas, there would be no difference in implementing Alternative 

4 from Alternatives 1 and 3 because the proposed actions within these analysis areas 

would be the same. 

Water Drafting

For all sites, there would be no difference in implementing Alternative 4 from 

Alternatives 1 and 3 because the proposed actions within these analysis areas would be 

the same. 

Application of Registered Borate Compound

For all sites, there would be no difference in implementing Alternative 4 from 

Alternatives 1 and 3 because the proposed actions within these analysis areas would be 

the same. 

Effects to Habitats

In general the risk of actions proposed in Alternative 4 would be lower than those 

proposed in either Alternative 1 or Alternative 3 because there would be slightly less 

activity in SNYLF upland habitat specifically around Big and Little Kibbie Ponds and 

adjacent to Eleanor Creek. 

Increases in Sediment 

Breeding and Non-breeding Aquatic Habitat: For Reynolds Creek, Big and Little Kibbie 

Ponds, and the Middle Fork Tuolumne River, there would be no difference in the amount 
138

of sediment is essentially the same for Alternative 4 as it is in Alternative 1. Because unit 

O02B would be dropped from the Eleanor Creek watershed, there would be slightly less 

sediment produced from the eastern hillslope than in Alternative 1. The amount of 

difference would be so small that the observable impacts to habitat in the creek would not 

be distinguishable from the sediment expectations in Alternative 1. As with Alternative 1, 

the duration of sediment in all habitats would be relatively short (up to two years) and 

there would be no impairment of habitat by the sediment.

Large Woody Debris 

Upland Habitat: There would be no difference between Alternatives 1, 3, and 4 in LWD 

supply at Reynolds Creek and the Middle Fork Tuolumne River because the amount and 

type of activity would be the same. At Big and Little Kibbie Ponds, there would be 1.6 

acres more of upland habitat that would be unimpacted by project activities and 

reductions in LWD would not occur in these 1.6 acres. At Eleanor Creek, there would be 

very little difference between Alternatives 1 and 4 because unit O02 would be dropped, 

but this unit was more than 100 feet away from the stream and the upland buffer is 

approximately 82 feet (25 meters).

Foothill yellow-legged frog

Similar to Alternative 1 acreage, salvage activities would treat 54 acres of buffer in 

Cherry Creek. The environmental outcome based on this amount of buffer treated would 

be very similar to the outcome stated for Alternative 1; however, the total amount of 

watershed area treated in this alternative would be 594 acres less than what would be 

treated in Alternative 1 (3,302 acres in Alternative 1 versus 2,708 acres in Alternative 4). 

There may be a tradeoff in terms of sediment delivery to Cherry Creek between more 

acres treated in the FYLF buffer and fewer acres treated in total for the watershed, 

meaning slightly more sediment may come from the additional buffer areas and less from 

the non-buffer watershed acres. The sediment modeling indicated a 4 percent overall 

decrease in sediment delivery to the creek between Alternative 4 and Alternative 1. A 

change this small means there may be no detectable difference between the two 

alternatives and the categorization of Cherry Creek under Alternative 1 applies to this 

alternative. 

Eleanor Creek would have no change to the amount of FYLF buffer affected by salvage 

operations, but there would be an 83 acre decrease in total watershed area affected by 

salvaging. This is a 15 percent reduction in acres treated compared to Alternative 1. The 

reduced amount of salvage activity would mean a slight reduction in sediment delivery to 

Eleanor Creek, but the magnitude of effect would be very small and may not be 

discernible from Alternative 1. The sediment modeling indicated a slight decrease in 

sediment delivery for this watershed between this alternative and Alternative 1, a 

difference of 482 tons (13,982 tons in Alternative 1 versus 13,496 tons in Alternative 4) 

or 3 percent.

For the South Fork Tuolumne River, the percentage of buffer treated in all action 

alternatives is the same, but the amount of watershed area treated decreases by 132 acres 

between Alternative 1 and Alternative 4. This difference in area treated would not have a 

detectable difference than that of Alternative 1. The discussion for Alternative 1, 

therefore, applies to this alternative.
139

Table 18. Amount of buffer, percentage of watershed area affected, and miles of road 

treatments in foothill yellow-legged frog suitable habitat for Alternative 4.

Watershed 

(5th level 

Hydrologic Unit 

Code)

Stream 

name

Percent of 

FYLF 

watershed 

area 

treated, 

hazard tree 

and 

salvage 

units 

combined

Acres of FYLF buffer 

affected

Road Treatments (miles by treatment 

type)

Hazard 

tree Salvage

Percen

t of 

total

Reco

nstruct

Maintai

n

Ne

w Temporary

Tuolumne 

River

Tuolumne 

River

Alder Cr. 45 0 34 30 3.2 0.2 0 0

Corral Cr. 78 0 106 46 19.6 0.2 0 1.7

Drew Cr. 12 12 0.4 11 1.9 3.6 0 0.6

Grapevine 

Cr. 

18 29 0 11 0.7 17.4 0 0

Indian Cr. 2 1 0 less 

than 1

0 2.2 0 0

Jawbone 

Cr.

27 5 81 25 18.6 7.3 0 5.3

Middle 

Fork 

Tuolumne 

River

Middle 

Fork 

Tuolumne 

River

17 22 255 46 57.2 12.5 0 11.9

North 

Fork 

Tuolumne 

River

North Fork 

Tuolumne 

River

2 0 0 0 0.4 22.7 0 0

Basin Cr. 1 0 0 0 0.4 2.1 0 0

Hunter Cr. 9 0 0 0 0 19.9 0 0

South 

Fork 

Tuolumne 

River

South Fork 

Tuolumne 

River

38 29 144 24 75.8 27 0 4

Cherry 

Creek

Cherry Cr. 13 6 36 9 30.8 8.8 0 1.8

Eleanor Cr. 1 0 12 22 2.5 0 0 0.5

Granite Cr. 21 0.2 36 25 12.4 1.1 0 0.1

Clavey 

River

Clavey 

River

Reed Cr. 20 1 49 49 22.4 20.6 0 3.7

Adams 

Gulch

15 0 0 0 1.2 1.8 0 0

Bear 

Springs Cr. 

18 9 0.1 20 10 0.7 0 0

Bull 

Meadow 

Cr. 

36 0 36 50 4.0 0.4 0 0.8

Indian 

Springs Cr. 

19 3 2 25 1.4 0.1 0 0

Quilty Cr. 5 0 0 0 0.1 1.1 0 0

Unnamed 

Tributary 1 

16 3 0 8 0 2.9 0 0

Unnamed 

Tributary 2 

24 0 0 0 0 2.5 0 0

Unnamed 

Tributary 3 

69 0 26 46 0.8 10.3 0 0
140

Watershed 

(5th level 

Hydrologic Unit 

Code)

Stream 

name

Percent of 

FYLF 

watershed 

area 

treated, 

hazard tree 

and 

salvage 

units 

combined

Acres of FYLF buffer 

affected

Road Treatments (miles by treatment 

type)

Hazard 

tree Salvage

Percen

t of 

total

Reco

nstruct

Maintai

n

Ne

w Temporary

Unnamed 

Tributary 4 

48 2 1 13 3 0.7 0 0

Unnamed 

Tributary 5 

43 7 8 37 2.2 2.7 0 0

Cottonwoo

d Cr. 

31 0 3 5 19.1 8.8 0 0.1

Russell Cr. 30 0 0 0 0.9 2.3 0 0

North 

Fork 

Merced 

River

North Fork 

Merced 

River

2 22 18 less 

than 

0.1

12.3 11.2 0 0.2

Bull Cr. 2 5 0 less 

than 

0.1

3.95 2 0 0.5

Deer Lick 

Cr.

8 4 13 7 3.4 2.3 0 0.2

Moore Cr. 4 5 5 3 2 3.8 0 1

Scott Cr. 22 2 0 8 3.6 3.4 0 0

Western pond turtle

For the WPT, all timber removal activities (hazard tree and salvage) proposed in 

Alternative 4 are the same as those proposed in Alternative 3; therefore, the effects 

analysis for Alternative 3 applies to this alternative. There are two exceptions to this 

statement and they involve Big and Little Kibbie Ponds (Table 19). Under Alternative 4, 

the total amount of combined salvage activity would affect approximately 63 acres of the 

WPT buffer at Big Kibbie Pond and 29 acres of buffer area at Little Kibbie Pond. This is 

compared to the 86 and 54 acres proposed for treatment under Alternatives 1 and 3. The 

amount of activity in WPT buffers under Alternative 4 would lessen the potential for 

direct and indirect effects to individuals and upland habitat suitability. The lower amount 

of activity around these two ponds would decrease the total amount of time equipment 

and personnel spend in upland habitats which should decrease the potential for direct 

effect to any given individual. This would reduce the potential for injury, mortality, or 

physical disturbance. 

From an indirect effect perspective, the primary difference between Alternative 4 when 

compared with Alternatives 1 and 3 would be an increase in LWD in upland habitats. Full 

recruitment potential would occur for all trees in the 25 or so acres that would not be 

treated. These unaffected acres would have the highest habitat suitability for the 

capability of the site when compared to the other action alternatives. The LWD is used 

by turtles as refuge habitat. There would be no detectable difference in sediment delivery 

to either feature when compared to Alternative 1 because the hillslopes next to these two 

ponds have very low gradient (less than 10 percent). Low gradient hillslopes are 

typically capable of retaining sediment and not transporting it downslope.
141

The differences in road treatment actions are discussed under FYLF and apply to the 

WPT at the watershed scale. The discussion of effects to FYLF habitat applies to the 

WPT because there is high habitat association between the two species and because the 

road – stream interaction occurs in a predictable way regardless of the species involved.

Table 19. Amount and percentage of western pond turtle buffer affected in salvage and 

roadside hazard tree units for Alternative 4.

Watershed (5th 

level Hydrologic 

Unit Code)

Stream name

Amount of WPT buffer 

in salvage units ( 

percent of total buffer 

area treated)

Amount of WPT buffer in 

hazard tree units ( 

percent of total buffer 

area treated)

Tuolumne River

Tuolumne River

Drew Cr. 27 (3%) 89 (9%)

Jawbone Cr. 701 (22%) 102 (3%)

Homestead Pond 15 (16%) 0 (0%)

Three unnamed ponds 27 (10%) 4 (1%)

Middle Fork 

Tuolumne River

Middle Fork Tuolumne 

River 2113 (39%) 307 (6%)

Abernathy Meadow 26 (20%) 6 (5%)

Grandfather Pond 7 (9%) 2 (2%)

Mud Lake 12 (10%) 0 (0%)

North Fork 

Tuolumne River

North Fork Tuolumne River 0 (0%) 411 (2%)

Basin Cr. 0 (0%) 0 (0%)

Hunter Cr. 0 (0%) 407 (2%)

South Fork 

Tuolumne River South Fork Tuolumne River 1441 (22%) 537 (8%)

Cherry Creek

Cherry Cr. 365 (10%) 59 (2%)

Eleanor Cr. 97 (16%) 0.1 (less than 1%)

Big Kibbie Pond 63 (64%) 19 (19%)

Little Kibbie Pond 29 (34%) 19 (19%)

Clavey River

Clavey River

Reed Cr. 438 (48%) 12 (1%)

Cottonwood Cr. 29 (5%) 24 (5%)

North Fork 

Merced River

North Fork Merced River 176 (1%) 491 (3%)

Bull Cr. 25 (less than 1%) 109 (1%)

Deer Lick Cr. 42 (2%) 109 (5%)

Moore Cr. 56 (2%) 60 (2%)

Hardhead

As with Alternative 3, there would be no discernible differences between Alternatives 1 

and 4 for the hardhead. The direct and indirect effects discussion for Alternative 1 

applies to this alternative. 

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS

California red-legged frog

The cumulative effects anticipated under this alternative would be the same as those 

discussed under Alternative 3. The only differences between Alternatives 3 and 4 are 

less than one acre at any of the analysis areas.
142

Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog

The cumulative effects described under Alternative 1 would apply to this alternative. For 

Reynolds Creek and the Middle Fork Tuolumne, there were no differences between the 

actions proposed under Alternative 1 and 4. For Big and Little Kibbie Ponds and Eleanor 

Creek, there were no cumulative actions identified in Alternative 1 that could impact 

individuals or habitats. Therefore, the effects of Alternative 4 would be all that would 

occur at these locations.

Foothill yellow-legged frog

The cumulative actions proposed under Alternative 4 were identical to those in 

Alternative 3 except for Cherry and Eleanor Creeks. For these two exceptions, the 

amount of buffer affected increased to approximately the levels in Alternative 1. The 

cumulative effects discussion for these two streams can be found under Alternative 1.

Western pond turtle

The types and extent of activities described in Alternative 3 are unchanged for 

Alternative 4 for all but two locations: Big and Little Kibbie Ponds. For the remaining 

locations, the cumulative effects analysis for Alternative 1 applies to the WPT in 

Alternative 4. At Big Kibbie Pond, there would be a reduction in cumulative percentage 

of buffer area affected from 88 percent in Alternatives 1 and 3 to 64 percent under 

Alternative 4. At Little Kibbie Pond, there would be a reduction in cumulative percentage 

of buffer area affected from 63 percent in Alternatives 1 and 3 to 29 percent under 

Alternative 4. These reductions are related to the differences in actions proposed in the 

alternatives rather than from cumulative sources. There would be no other actions around 

the ponds other than those described for Alternative 4. Cumulatively, though, there would 

be a lower risk of direct impact to individuals in aquatic or upland habitats with the 

largest reduction occurring at Little Kibbie Pond. Large woody debris supply and 

recruitment as a habitat element would be higher under this alternative and the habitat 

suitability would be high given the current capability.

Hardhead

The cumulative effects discussion for Alternative 1 applies to this alternative.

Summary of Effects Analysis across All Alternatives

Very little difference exists between the action alternatives for the California red-legged 

frog and Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog because the amount of activities is very 

similar. For the CRLF, all three alternatives would affect the frog and its habitats in ways 

that are almost indistinguishable. For SNYLF at the Kibbie Ponds and Eleanor Creek 

areas, Alternative 4 would be slightly less impacting than Alternatives 1 or 3 because one 

treatment unit would be dropped and less equipment would operate in near-stream 

environments.

Very little difference exists between the action alternatives for most of the aquatic 

features assessed for the foothill yellow-legged frog and western pond turtle. There 

appears to be direct correlations between the amounts of salvage related activity on 

private and public lands and the prevalence of moderate and high vegetation severity fire. 

This correlation means that more severely burned watersheds have higher levels of 

salvage activity in addition to higher levels of post-fire watershed response. The 
143

environmental outcomes in the high burn severity and salvage activity watersheds are 

similar in that there would be more activity in the upland buffer areas for the species and 

a greater risk of greatly increased sedimentation of aquatic habitats. These excess 

sediment-related effects would disproportionately decrease habitat suitability in smaller 

streams because they may not be as effective at mobilizing and transporting the sediment. 

In some cases, unsuitable habitat could occur at small spatial scales within a watershed, 

but, in most cases, patches of moderate to high suitability habitat would persist. Within 

five to seven years, the sediment transport-storage balance should be regained in most 

streams and more “normal” watershed processes would resume. Reproduction and 

recruitment may be adversely affected in some aquatic habitats and population size would 

be expected to decrease for up to ten years in the most severely burned and logged 

watersheds. 

In general, the recruitment of large woody debris should only be affected to a minor 

degree because most streams would have extensive areas of unsalvaged forest adjacent to 

the water. However, some streams, like Corral, Jawbone, and Granite Creeks, could have 

a significant reduction in recruitment rates of LWD and these effects could persist for 150 

years or more. 

No differences exist between effects to hardhead or their habitats. High suitability habitat 

for all lifestages would be maintained in the lower North Fork Tuolumne and Clavey 

Rivers and habitat for adult and sub-adult lifestages would not be measurably affected by 

any or all actions.

Compliance with the Forest Plan and Other Direction

1. Provide habitat for viable populations of all native and desired non-native 

wildlife, fish and plants and give special attention to sensitive species to see that 

they do not become Federally listed as Threatened or Endangered: Habitat 

suitability would be compromised in several watersheds for up to five years. 

During this time period, reproductive recruitment into existing populations could 

decrease, but suitable habitat should be maintained for most life stages after the 

first year post-fire.

2. Maintain habitat connectivity for aquatic and riparian species: None of the 

project activities would create physical or biological barriers to up- or 

downstream movement of aquatic species. 

3. Maintain streamflow patterns and sediment regimes in accordance with 

evolutionary processes: Streamflow will naturally increase in many streams in 

the post-fire environment. The addition of ground cover in salvaged units may 

function to reduce the erosion rates in high severity areas. Also, maintenance of 

the road system is considered to reduce connectivity to the stream network and a 

long-term reduction in sediment delivery from the roads is expected to decrease.

RCO 3: Ensure a renewable supply of large down logs that can reach the stream channel 

and provide suitable habitat within and adjacent to the Riparian Conservation Area: A 

reduction in recruitment rates for LWD would occur within salvage units. A 

management requirement for snag retention in riparian areas is intended to provide a 

minimum supply of LWD for channel and watershed function.
144

1. Maintain high water quality values: Water quality best management practices and 

management requirements would be implemented and monitored in accordance 

with applicable direction.

2. In areas adjacent to waters with known populations of western pond turtle, 

construct new roads or trails or use existing off-road routes for motorized vehicles 

only if at least 1⁄4 mile from occupied habitat or approved by a wildlife biologist: 

No new roads are proposed within 1⁄4 mile of occupied habitat.

3. Ensure that management activities do not adversely affect water temperatures 

necessary for local aquatic- and riparian-dependent species assemblages: 

Equipment exclusion zones near streams would allow the re-establishment of 

obligate riparian species.

4. Limit pesticide applications to cases where project level analysis indicates that 

pesticide applications are consistent with riparian conservation objectives: Water 

quality best management practices and management requirements would align 

pesticide applications with RCOs. 

5. Within 500 feet of known occupied sites for the California red-legged frog and 

foothill yellow-legged frog, design pesticide applications to avoid adverse effects 

to individuals and their habitats: Water quality best management practices and 

standards and guidelines limit the amount and storage of pesticides within RCAs. 

6. Prohibit storage of fuels and other toxic materials within RCAs and CARs: A 

management requirement to this effect is included for all action alternatives.

7. Ensure that culverts or other stream crossings do not create barriers to upstream or 

downstream passage for aquatic-dependent species: The proposed new road 

construction would be designed to allow for aquatic organism passage.

8. Prevent disturbance to streambanks and natural lake and pond shorelines caused 

by resource activities from exceeding 20 percent of stream reach or 20 percent of 

natural lake and pond shorelines: Management requirements would restrict the 

operation of equipment close to streams and prevent streambank disturbance. 

9. Determine if the level of coarse large woody debris (CWD) is within the range of 

natural variability in terms of frequency and distribution and is sufficient to 

sustain stream channel physical complexity and stability. Ensure proposed 

management activities move conditions toward the range of natural variability: 

Unsalvaged areas would continue to recruit CWD to channels and a management 

requirement is in place to ensure a long-term supply of CWD in salvage units.

10. Use screening devices for water drafting pumps: A management requirement 

addresses this concern by requiring a drafting box (2 feet per side) covered in 1⁄4 

inch mesh at a minimum.

11. Post-wildfire management activities in RCAs and CARs should emphasize 

enhancing native vegetation cover, stabilizing channels by non-structural means, 

minimizing adverse effects from the existing road network, and carrying out 

activities identified in landscape analyses. Post-wildfire operations shall 

minimize the exposure of bare soil: Proposed treatments to the road system and 

implementation of water quality best management practices would reduce long 

term sediment delivery from most of the road system within the fire perimeter. 

Beneficial ground cover would be added in units where deficits are predicted to 

occur and hillslope considerations deem them necessary.
145

DETERMINATIONS OF EFFECT

Because the project area lies outside the geographic and/or elevational range of the 

species, it is my determination that the Rim Fire Recovery Project will not affect the 

limestone salamander or Yosemite toad.

The Rim Fire Recovery Project has the potential to impact individual California redlegged frogs and Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frogs directly through mortality, injury, 

and physical disturbance. Implementing the project would also reduce the availability of 

large woody debris in upland habitats for both frog species and there is the potential for 

project activities to produce sediment that could affect aquatic habitats in the short-term 

for streams and longer-term for ponds and lakes. At several locations, cumulative actions 

would increase the possibility for direct and indirect impacts to individuals and habitats. 

As such, it is my determination that the Rim Fire Recovery Project may affect, and is 

likely to adversely affect the California red-legged frog and the Sierra Nevada yellowlegged frog. The Rim Fire Recovery Project would not affect existing or proposed 

critical habitat for either species.

The Rim Fire Recovery Project has the potential to impact individual foothill yellowlegged frogs and western pond turtles directly through mortality, injury, and physical 

disturbance. The likelihood of direct impacts to individuals is greatest for physical 

disturbance, but the combination of low duration and moderate intensity mean there 

would be no potential for long-term physiological impacts. The project has a reasonable 

potential to increase sediment delivery to aquatic habitats, and, when combined with 

other activities occurring within affected watersheds, could reduce habitat suitability 

sufficiently to affect reproduction for up to two years in a few watersheds. There is a 

very low potential that one or more populations of the frog could be temporarily 

extirpated from small streams due to the impact to habitat. However, the frog and turtle 

remain well-distributed across the forest and within the project area. Therefore, it is my 

determination that the Rim Fire Recovery Project may affect individuals, but is not likely 

to result in a trend in federal listing or loss of viability for the foothill yellow-legged frog 

and western pond turtle in the planning area.

The Rim Fire Recovery Project has the potential to increase sedimentation in the 

Tuolumne River watershed, but deep water habitats and gravel deposits in the larger river 

systems (Clavey, North Fork Tuolumne, and Tuolumne) should continue to provide high 

quality habitat for the hardhead. There is extremely low risk of direct impacts to 

individuals or habitats if the project is implemented. Therefore, it is my determination 

that the Rim Fire Recovery Project may affect individuals, but is not likely to lead to a 

trend in federal listing or the loss of viability for the hardhead within the planning area.
146

REFERENCES:

Arkle, R. S. and D. S. Pilliod. 2010. Prescribed fire as an ecological surrogate for 

wildfires: A stream and riparian perspective. Forest Ecology and Management 259:893-

903.

Barry, S. J., and G. M. Fellers. 2013. History and status of the California red-legged frog 

(Rana draytonii) in the Sierra Nevada, California, USA. Herpetological Conservation and 

Biology 8(2):456-502.

Bobzien, S. and J. E. DiDonato. 2007. The status of the California tiger salamander 

(Ambystoma californiense), California red-legged frog (Rana aurora draytonii), foothill 

yellow-legged frog (Rana boylii), and other aquatic herpetofauna in the East Bay 

Regional Park District, California. Oakland, California. 87p.

Boyer, D. R. 1965. Ecology of the basking habit in turtles. Ecology 46(1-2):99-118.

Bradford, D.F., F. Tabatabai, and D.M. Graber. 1993.Isolation of remaining populations 

of the native frog, Rana muscosa, by introduced fishes in Sequoia and Kings Canyon 

National Parks, California. Conservation Biology 7:882-888.

Coe, D. B. R. 2006. Sediment production and delivery from forest roads in the Sierra 

Nevada, California. Master’s thesis. Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO. 117p.

Dunham, J. B., M. K. Young, R. E. Gresswell, and B. E. Riemann. 2003. Effects of fire 

on fish populations: landscape perspectives on persistence of native fishes and nonnative 

fish invasions. Forest Ecology and Management 178(1-2):183-196.

Dwire, K. A. and J. B. Kauffman. 2003. Fire and riparian ecosystems in landscapes of 

the western USA. Forest Ecology and Management 178(1-2):61-74.

Federal Register. 1996. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; determination of 

threatened status for the California red-legged frog. Federal Register, volume 61, number 

101, pages 25813-25833.

Federal Register. 2006. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; designation of 

critical habitat for the California red-legged frog, and special rule exemption associated 

with final listing for existing routine ranching activities. Federal Register, volume 71, 

number 71, pages 19244-19346.

Federal Register. 2010. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; revised 

designation of critical habitat for the California red-legged frog; final rule. Federal 

Register, volume 75, number 51, pages 12815 – 12959.

Federal Register. 2013a. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; endangered 

status for the Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog, and the northern distinct population 
147

segment of the mountain yellow-legged frog, and threatened status for the Yosemite toad; 

proposed rule. Federal Register, volume 78, number 80, pages 24472 - 24514.

Fellers, G. M. 2005. California red-legged frog species account, in Amphibian declines: 

the conservation status of United States species, Michael Lannoo, ed. University of 

California Press, Berkeley, CA. 1094p.

Fellers, G. M. and K. L. Freel. 1995. A standardized protocol for surveying aquatic 

amphibians. Technical Report NPS/WRUC/NRTR-95-01. National Biological Service, 

Cooperative Park Studies Unit, University of California, Davis. 

Fellers, G. M. and P. M. Kleeman. 2007. California red-legged frog Rana draytonii 

movement and habitat use: Implications for conservation. Journal of Herpetology 

41(2):276-286.

Flores, M., C. Kvamme, B. Rust, K. Takenaka, and D. Young. 2013. BAER Assessment 

Soils Report – Rim Fire. 34p. Unpublished document. On file with: USDA Forest 

Service, Stanislaus National Forest, Resource Management Program Area, 19777 

Greenley Road, Sonora, CA 95370.

Furniss, M. J., T. D. Roelofs, and C. S. Lee. 1991. Road construction and maintenance. 

American Fisheries Society Special Publication 19:297-324.

Gorman, J. B. 1954. Biosystematic studies of the salamanders of the Genus 

Hydromantes. PhD dissertation.

Gresswell, R. E. 1999. Fire and aquatic ecosystems in forested biomes of North 

America. Transactions of the North American Fisheries Society 128(2):193-221.

Hammond, J. A., J. R. Spotila, and E. A. Standora. 1988. Basking behavior of the turtle 

Pseudemys scripta: effects of digestive state, acclimation temperature, sex, and season. 

Physiological Zoology 61(1):69-77.

Hayes, M.P. and M.R. Jennings. 1988. Habitat correlates of distribution of the 

California red-legged frog (Rana aurora draytonii) and the foothill yellow-legged frog 

(Rana boylii): Implications for management. Pp. 144-158. In: R. C. Szaro, K. E. 

Severson, and D. R. Patton (technical coordinators), Proceedings fo the symposium on 

the management of amphibians, reptiles, and small mammals in North America. United 

States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, General Technical Report RM-166.

Holland, D. C. 1994. The western pond turtle: Habitat and history. Final Report. 

Project number 92-068. 293 pp.

Jennings, M. R. and M. P. Hayes. 1994. Amphibian and reptile species of special 

concern in California. Final report submitted to the California Department of Fish and 

Game, Inland Fisheries Division, 1701 Nimbus Road, Rancho Cordova, CA 95701 

(under contract number 8023). 255pp.
148

Jockusch, E. L., D. B. Wake, and K. P. Yanev. 1998. New species of slender 

salamanders, Batrachoseps (Amphibia: Plethodontidae), from the Sierra Nevada of 

California. Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County Contributions in Science 

472:1-17.

Knapp, R.A. and R.K. Matthews. 2000. Non-native fish introductions and the decline of 

the mountain yellow-legged frog from within protected areas. Conservation Biology, 

14(2):428–438.

Kupferberg, S. J. 1996. Hydrologic and geomorphic factors affecting conservation of a 

river-breeding frog (Rana boylii). Ecological Applications 6(4):1332-44.

Lannoo, Michael. 2005. Amphibian declines: The conservation status of United States 

species. 1094pp.

Leips, J. and J. Travis. 1994. Metamorphic responses to changing food levels in two 

species of hylid frogs. Ecology 75(5):1345-1356.

Lind, A. J. 2005. Reintroduction of a declining amphibian: determining an ecologically 

feasible approach for the foothill yellow-legged frog (Rana boylii) through analysis of 

decline factors, genetic structure, and habitat associations. Doctoral Dissertation, 

University of California, Davis. 182p.

Matthews, K. R., and K. L. Pope. 1999. A telemetric study of the movement patterns and 

habitat use of Rana muscosa, the mountain yellow-legged frog, in a high-elevation basin 

in Kings Canyon National Park, California. Journal of Herpetology 33:615–624.

Matthews, K. R. and H. K. Preisler. 2010. Site fidelity of the declining amphibian Rana 

sierrae (Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog). Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic 

Sciences 67:243-255.

McBain, S. and B. Trush. 2004. Attributes of bedrock Sierra Nevada river ecosystems. 

Stream Notes. U. S. Forest Service, Stream Systems Technology Center, Rocky 

Mountain Research Center, Fort Collins, CO. January 2004:1-4. 

Montgomery, D. R., T. B. Abbe, J. M. Buffington, N. P. Peterson, K. M. Schmidt, and J. 

D. Stock. 1996. Distribution of bedrock and alluvial channels in forested mountain 

basins. Nature 381:587-589.

Moody, J. A. and D. A. Martin. 2001. Initial hydrologic and geomorphic response 

following a wildfire in the Colorado Front Range. Earth Surface Processes and 

Landforms 26:1049-1070.
149

Moore, M. J. C. and R. A. Seigel. 2006. No place to nest or bask: effects of human 

disturbance on the nesting and basking habitats of yellow-blotched map turtles 

(Graptemys flavimaculata). Biological Conservation 130:386-393.

Moyle, P. B. 2002. Inland fishes of California. University of California Press. 502pp.

Mullally, D. P. and J. D. Cunningham. 1956. Ecological relations of Rana muscosa at 

high elevations in the Sierra Nevada. Herpetologica 12:189-198.

Neary, D. G., K. C. Ryan, and L. F. DeBano, eds. 2005. Wildland fire in ecosystems: 

effects of fire on soils and water. General Technical Report, RMRS-GTR-42-vol.4. U. 

S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Ogden, 

UT. 250p.

Pilliod, D. S., R. B. Bury, E. J. Hyde, C. A. Pearl, and P. S. Corn. 2003. Fire and 

amphibians in North America. Forest Ecology and Management 178(1-2):163-181.

Pope, K. 1999. Mountain yellow-legged frog habitat use and movement patterns in a 

high elevation basin in Kings Canyon National Park. Unpublished MS Thesis, California 

State Polytechnic University, San Luis Obispo, California. 64 p.

Rathbun, G. B., N. Siepel, and D. Holland. 1992. Nesting behavior and movements of 

western pond turtles, Clemmys marmorata. Southwestern Naturalist 37(3):319-324.

Rathbun, G. B., N. J. Scott, and T. G. Murphey. 2002. Terrestrial habitat use by Pacific 

pond turtles in a Mediterranean climate. Southwestern Naturalist 47(2):225-235.

Reese, D. A. 1996. Comparative demography and habitat use of western pond turtles in 

northern California: the effects of damming and related alterations. Doctoral dissertation, 

University of California, Berkeley. 272pp.

Reese, D. A. and H. H. Welsh. 1997. Use of terrestrial habitat by western pond turtles, 

Clemmys marmorata: Implications for management. In J. Van Abbema (ed.), 

Proceedings: Conservation, restoration, and management of tortoises and turtles – an 

international conference, pp. 352-357. WCS turtle recovery program and the New York 

Turtle and Tortoise Society, New York.

Robichaud, P. R., W. J. Elliot, L. MacDonald, R. Coats, J. W. Wagenbrenner, S. A. 

Lewis, L. E. Ashmun, and R. E. Brown. Evaluating post-fire salvage logging effects on 

erosion. Final Report, Proposal P06-3-4-21, Joint Fire Science Program. 22 p.

Rodríguez-Prieto, I. and E. Fernández-Juricic. 2005. Effects of direct human disturbance 

on the endemic Iberian frog Rana iberica at individual and population levels. Biological 

Conservation 123(1):1–9. 
150

Rombough, C. J. and M. P. Hayes. 2005. Novel aspects of oviposition site preparation 

by foothill yellow-legged frogs (Rana boylii). Northwestern Naturalist 86:157-160.

Ruediger, R. and J. Ward. 1996. Abundance and function of large woody debris in 

Central Sierra Nevada streams. Fish Habitat Relationships Technical Bulletin, Number 

20. 13p.

Semlitsch, R. D., D. E. Scott, and J. H. K. Pechmann. 1988. Time and size at 

metamorphosis related to adult fitness in Ambystoma talpoideum. Ecology 69(1):184-

192.

Stafford, A. K. 2011. Sediment production and delivery from hillslopes and forest roads 

in the southern Sierra Nevada, California. Master’s thesis. Colorado State University, 

Fort Collins, CO. 197p.

Stewart, C., K. Wright, E. Fudge, C. Shannon, B. Hill, Z. Croyle, T. Weddle, D. Coe, and 

M. Hartzell. 2013. Hydrology and watershed report, Rim Fire BAER assessment. 31p. 

Unpublished report. On file with: On file with: USDA Forest Service, Stanislaus 

National Forest, Resource Management Program Area, 19777 Greenley Road, Sonora, 

CA 95370.

Tatarian, P. J. 2008. Movement patterns of the California red-legged frog (Rana aurora 

draytonii) in an inland California environment. Herpetological Conservation and 

Biology 3(2):155-169.

USDA. 1991. Stanislaus National Forest Land and Resources Management Plan. 

Stanislaus National Forest, Sonora, CA.

USDA. 2001. Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment, Final Environmental Impact 

Statement. Pacific Southwest Region, Vallejo, CA.

USDA. 2004. Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment. Final Supplemental 

Environmental Impact Statement. Record of Decision. Pacific Southwest Region, 

Vallejo, CA.

USDA. 2008. Streamscape Inventory (SSI) Technical Guide, Version 3.0. Stanislaus 

National Forest, Sonora, CA. 31p. 

USDA. 2010a. Stanislaus National Forest Plan Direction. Stanislaus National Forest, 

Sonora, CA.

USDA. 2010b. Stanislaus National Forest StreamScape Inventory (SSI) database. 

Stanislaus National Forest, Sonora, CA.

USDA. 2010c. Stanislaus National Forest Aquatic Survey Database (AquaSurv). 

Stanislaus National Forest, Sonora, CA.
151

USDA. 2013. Bagley Fire: Erosion and sedimentation investigation. Interim Report. 

Shasta-Trinity National Forest, Redding, CA. 46p.

U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2002. Recovery plan for the California red-legged 

frog (Rana aurora draytonii). U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, Oregon. viii + 173 pp.

U. S. Geological Survey. Biological, habitat, and water quality conditions in the upper 

Merced River drainage, Yosemite National Park, California, 1993-1996. By Larry 

Brown and Terry M. Short. Water-Resources Investigations Report 99-4088. 64p.

Vredenburg, V.T., G. Fellers, and C. Davidson. 2005. The mountain yellow-legged frog 

(Rana muscosa). In Lannoo, M.J. (Ed.), Status and Conservation of U.S. Amphibians. 

University of California Press, Berkeley, California, USA.

Wengert, G. 2008. Habitat Use, Home Range, and Movements of Mountain Yellowlegged Frogs (Rana muscosa) in Bean and Spanish Creeks on the Plumas National Forest. 

Final Report to the Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

Sacramento, CA 32 pp.

Wheeler, C. A., H. H. Welsh, Jr., and L. L. Heise. 2003. Rana boylii (foothill yellowlegged frog): oviposition behavior. Herpetological Review 34(3):234.

Yarnell, S. M., C. A. Bondi, A. J. Lind, and R. A. Peek. 2011. Habitat models for the 

foothill yellow-legged frog (Rana boylii) in the Sierra Nevada of California. Center for 

Watershed Sciences Technical Report, University of California, Davis. 75p.

Young, M. K., R. E. Gresswell, and C. H. Luce. 2003. The effects of wildland fire on 

aquatic ecosystems in the Western USA. Forest Ecology and Management 178 (1-2):1-

229.

Zeiner, D. C., W. F. Laudenslayer, Jr., K. E. Mayer, and M. White, ed. 1988. 

California’s wildlife. Volume I. Amphibians and reptiles. California Statewide Wildlife 

Habitat Relationships System. Department of Fish and Game, The Resources Agency, 

Sacramento, Ca. 272pp.

Zweifel, R.G. 1955. Ecology, distribution, and systematics of frogs of the Rana boylei 

group. University of California Publications in Zoology 54(4):207–292.