.c~HOp6,~.~ ,."

_~ I""'...7~ ._,. ~. v

(;I:Mt:.~

USDA Forest ServicePacific Southwest Region

Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit

DECISION MEMOFor Implementation of the Sierra Nevada Yellow-Legged

Frog Habitat Restoration Project

EI Dorado County, California

DECISION:

Based on the analysis contained in this Decision Memo (DM) and associated projectplanning record, it is my decision to implement the Sierra Nevada Yellow-Legged FrogHabitat Restoration Project on the Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit as described in theproposed action. My decision incorporates project design features and monitoring ascontained in this DM.

The Sierra Nevada Yellow-Legged Frog Habitat Restoration Project is located in EI DoradoCounty, California, within a series of seven high alpine lakes that are all within the DesolationWilderness, a congressionally designated wilderness area. The identified lakes encompassingthe project area include Tamarack, Cagwin, Ralston, Lucille, Margery, Jabu, and LeConte (T12NR16E and R17E). A total of69 lake acres and 3 miles of stream are proposed for habitatrestoration during the course of this project. The entire project is in California on National ForestSystem land within the Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit (LTBMU).

Project implementation will include a combination of gill netting and electro fishing to removeintroduced brook and rainbow trout from the seven identified lakes (Figure 1). No chemicals willbe used during the course of this project. It is projected that it will take three years to eradicateintroduced trout from each lake and its associated streams. Monitoring will occur at eachindividual lake for an additional two years post-project implementation once an initial level ofzero fish is captured. Monitoring will ensure introduced trout are eradicated from each of theseven lakes in the project area. Table 1 outlines the projected timelines to accomplish the project.

The key considerations I used in making my decision include:

• The project meets the purpose and need and addresses site-specific resource concernsby employing project design features as described in this OM (pp. 6-7).

• The project is consistent with the LTBMU Land and Resource Management Plan, asamended. The Forest Plan consistency check is documented in the project planningrecord (section A2).

• This project was coordinated with the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, CaliforniaDepartment of Game and Fish (CDFG), US Fish and Wildlife Service and LahontanRegional Water Quality Control Board. All agencies were given the opportunity to

USDA Forest Service ~ ~ ~

Pacific Southwest Region~

Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit ~

DECISION MEMO For Implementation of the Sierra Nevada Yellow-Legged

Frog Habitat Restoration Project

EI Dorado County, California

DECISION:

Based on the analysis contained in this Decision Memo (DM) and associated project planning record, it is my decision to implement the Sierra Nevada Yellow·Legged Frog Habitat Restoration Project on the Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit as described in the proposed action. My decision incorporates project design features and monitoring as contained in this DM.

The Sierra Nevada Yellow-Legged Frog Habitat Restoration Project is located in El Dorado County, California, within a series of seven high alpine lakes that are all within the Desolation Wilderness, a congressionally designated wilderness area. The identified lakes encompassing the project area include Tamarack, Cagwin, Ralston, Lucille, Margery, Jabu, and LeConte (Tl2N RI6E and R 17E). A total of 69 lake acres and 3 miles of stream are proposed for habitat restoration during the course of this project. The entire project is in California on National Forest System land within the Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit (LTBMU).

Project implementation will include a combination of gill ~tting and electrofishing to remove introduced brook and rainbow trout from the seven identified lakes (Figure 1). No chemicals will be used during the course of this project. It is projected that it will take three years to eradicate introduced trout from each lake and its associated streams. Monitoring will occur at each individual lake for an additional two years post-project implementation once an initial level of zero fish is captured. Monitoring will ensure introduced trout are eradicated from each of the seven lakes in the project area. Table I outlines the projected timelines to accomplish the project.

The key considerations I used in making my decision include:

• The project meets the purpose and need and addresses site-specific resource concerns by employing project design features as described in this DM (pp. 6-7).

• The project is consistent with the LTBMU Land and Resource Management Plan, as amended. The Forest Plan consistency check is documented in the project planning record (section A2).

• This project was coordinated with the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, California Department of Game and Fish (CDFG), US Fish and Wildlife Service and Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board. All agencies were given the opportunity to

BeginLake NameRalstonTamarackCaqwinMarqervLucilleLe ConteJabu

review the design of the project and provide comment. The proposed action issupported by CDFG and is consistent with the department's fishery managementobjectives for alpine lakes (section AI). The Washoe Tribe of Nevada and Californiawas consulted on the proposed action and expressed full support for restoring SierraNevada yellow-legged frog habitat in Desolation Wilderness (section CI) .

• Scoping and public involvement has been completed and is documented in the projectplanning record (sections Al and CI). I received 21 responses: five letters, 15electronic (email) and one phone message during the comment period. No significantissues were identified.

• A summary of scoping comments with our response to public input is contained in theproject planning record (section CI).

• Current state of knowledge regarding Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog conservation(section DI).

• Minimum Requirements Decisions Guidelines for management activities in wildernessareas (section D2).

Table 1. Treatment schedule for the seven lakes in the Desolation Wilderness, LTBMU.

ProjectedCompletion of

ProjectedEradicationBeginCompletion ofImplementation(zero fish captured)MonitorinnMonitoring2008201120122014200820112012201420082011201220142009201220132015200920122013201520092012201320152009201220132015

September 2008 2

review the design of the project and provide comment. The proposed action is supported by CDFa and is consistent with the department's fishery management objectives for alpine lakes (section AI). The Washoe Tribe of Nevada and California was consulted on the proposed action and expressed full support for restoring Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog habitat in Desolation Wilderness (section C I).

• Scoping and public involvement has been completed and is documented in the project planning record (sections Al and Cl).l received 21 responses: five letters, 15 electronic (email) and one phone message during the comment period. No significant issues were identified.

• A summary of scoping comments with our response to public input is contained in the project planning record (section Cl).

• Current state of knowledge regarding Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog conservation (section D1).

• Minimum Requirements Decisions Guidelines for management activities in wilderness areas (section D2).

Table 1. Treatment schedule for the seven lakes in the Desolation Wilderness, LTBMU.

Projected Completion of Projected

Begin Eradication Begin Completion of Lake Name Implementation I (zero fish captured) Monitoring Monitoring Ralston 2008 2011 2012 201' Tamarack 2008 2011 2012 201. Caawin 2008 2011 2012 201. Maraerv 2009 2012 2013 2015 Lucille 2009 2012 2013 2015 Le Conte 2009 2012 2013 2015 Jabu 2009 2012 2013 2015

September 2008 2

Figure 1. Project area map

September 2008

oI

0.25 0.5j

Miles

SNYLF Detections

Treatment Lakes

ENF/LTBMU Boundary

3

Figure I. Project area map

,

,

legend • SNYlFO'......

e:. Tt..tn-.t t..kK

o ENFIlTBMU~

o 025 0.5 1 Miles LI~_,--,-J.I ~_,--,-..J!

September 2008 3

BACKGROUND:

Sierra Nevada (mountain) yellow-legged frog (Rana sierrae; SNYLF) is a candidate species forlisting under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). On June 24, 2007, the ·us Fish and WildlifeService (FWS) published a 12-month finding on a petition to list the Sierra Nevada distinctpopulation segment of the SNYLF (Federal Register Vol. 72, No. 121). In its finding, the FWSdetermined that SNYLF was warranted for listing, but precluded due to higher priority specieslisting determinations for other candidate species. The Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog is listedas Sensitive on the Region 5 Regional Forester's Sensitive Species List (USDA Forest Service1998). Because SNYLF has been extirpated from over 90% of its historic range, there is a needto restore the species habitat and prevent its range-wide extinction. To date, range-wideconservation activities for SNYLF have been accomplished in a multi-agency format involvingthe FWS, National Park Service (NPS), US Forest Service (USFS), CDFG and academicinstitutions such as the University of California, Berkeley and Sierra Nevada Aquatic ResearchLaboratory .

It is recognized that there are numerous factors leading to the rapid decline of this speciesincluding, but not limited to, non-native fish introduction (Kats and Ferrer, 2003), disease (Dasaket al. 2003), habitat loss (Dodd and Smith, 2003) ultraviolet (UV) radiation (Blaustein et al.2003), climate change (Pounds et al. 1999) and pesticide use (Boone and Bridges, 2003). It isalso recognized that synergisms between two or more of the above mentioned factors may bedriving SNYLF declines (Blaustein and Kiesecker, 2002, Kiesecker, 2002, Ponds et aI., 2006).Many of the factors causing amphibian declines are daunting because of the limited ability toreverse changes caused by these stressors over time scales relevant to current conservationefforts. However, the manual removal of non-native trout, a known predator, is reversible andhas documented beneficial effects on population size and dispersal (Knapp et al. 2007, Bradfordet al. 1993; Knapp 1996; Hecnar and M'Closkey 1997; and Knapp and Matthews 2000; Knapp etaI.2006).

Historically, the high-elevation habitat occupied by R. sierrae in the Desolation Wilderness wasfishless. First attempts at stocking fish in the Desolation Wilderness occurred in lakes andstreams beginning in the late 1890s. The first intensive stocking effort to develop recreationalfisheries began in 1925 when the Mount Ralston Fishing Club began stocking lakes with troutusing pack animals. In 1950, the CDFG assumed this responsibility. Of the 130 formerly fishlesslakes located in Desolation Wilderness, 98 have been stocked with non-native salmonids. All ofthe large, deep lakes within the wilderness have been stocked (USDA 1998). The most commonfish species stocked in the lakes have been brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis), followed byrainbow (Oncorhynchus mykiss) and golden trout (Oncorhynchus aguabonita).

The seven selected lakes were chosen due to their proximity to a source population of R. sierraein the Desolation Wilderness and therefore offer the greatest opportunity for populationexpansion by restoring habitat connectivity in this alpine ecosystem. A similar effort to removefish on the Eldorado National Forest began in 2007 in Desolation Wilderness in lakes adjacent tothe project area in Pyramid and Wac a Lakes. Fish removal efforts conducted by the EldoradoNational Forest will begin in 2008 in Gefo Lake. Fish removal in Pyramid, Waca and GefoLakes will continue on an annual basis.

September 2008 4

BACKGROUND:

Sierra Nevada (mountain) yellow-legged frog (Rana sierrae; SNYLF) is a candidate species for listing under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). On June 24, 2007. the ·US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) published a 12-rnonth finding on a petition to list the Sierra Nevada distinct population segment of the SNYLF (Federal Register Vol. 72, No. 121). In its finding, the FWS determined that SNYLF was warranted for listing, but precluded due to higher priority species listing determinations for other candidate species. The Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog is listed as Sensitive on the Region 5 Regional Forester's Sensitive Species List (USDA Forest Service 1998). Because SNYLF has been extirpated from over 90% of its historic range, there is a need to restore the species habitat and prevent its range-wide extinction. To date, range-wide conservation activities for SNYLF have been accomplished in a multi-agency format involving the FWS, National Park Service (NPS), US Forest Service (USFS), CDFG and academic institutions such as the University of California, Berkeley and Sierra Nevada Aquatic Research Laboratory.

It is recognized that there are numerous factors leading to the rapid decline of this species including, but not limited to, non-native fish introduction (Kats and Ferrer, 2003), disease (Dasak et al. 2003), habitat loss (Dodd and Smith, 2003) ultraviolet (UV) radiation (Blaustein et al. 2003), climate change (Pounds et al. 1999) and pesticide use (Boone and Bridges, 2003). It is also recognized that synergisms between two or more of the above mentioned factors may be driving SNYLF declines (Blaustein and Kiesecker, 2002, Kiesecker, 2002, Ponds et aI., 2006). Many of the factors causing amphibian declines are daunting because of the limited ability to reverse changes caused by these stressors over time scales relevant to current conservation efforts. However, the manual removal of non-native trout, a known predator, is reversible and has documented beneficial effects on population size and dispersal (Knapp et al. 2007, Bradford et al. 1993; Knapp 1996; Hecnar and M'Closkey 1997; and Knapp and Matthews 2000; Knapp et aI.2006).

Historically, the high-elevation habitat occupied by R. sierrae in the Desolation Wilderness was fishless. First attempts at stocking fish in the Desolation Wilderness occurred in lakes and streams beginning in the late 1890s. The first intensive stocking effort to develop recreational fisheries began in 1925 when the Mount Ralston Fishing Club began stocking lakes with trout using pack animals. In 1950, the CDFG assumed this responsibility. Of the 130 formerly fishless lakes located in Desolation Wilderness, 98 have been stocked with non-native salmonids. All of the large, deep lakes within the wilderness have been stocked (USDA 1998). The most common fish species stocked in the lakes have been brook trout (Salvelinusjontinalis), followed by rainbow (Oncorhynchus mykiss) and golden trout (Oncorhynchus aguabonita).

The seven selected lakes were chosen due to their proximity to a source population of R. sierrae in the Desolation Wilderness and therefore offer the greatest opportunity for population expansion by restoring habitat connectivity in this alpine ecosystem. A similar effort to remove fish on the Eldorado National Forest began in 2007 in Desolation Wilderness in lakes adjacent to the project area in Pyramid and Waca Lakes. Fish removal efforts conducted by the Eldorado National Forest will begin in 2008 in Gefo Lake. Fish removal in Pyramid, Waca and Gefo Lakes will continue on an annual basis.

September 2008 4

Based on two years of pre-implementation monitoring in 2006 and 2007, it is presumed that LeConte, Margery, and Jabu Lakes are already fishless as no fish were detected during thosemonitoring efforts (two to three gill nets set for 15 hour intervals with no fish detected).Additionally, pre-implementation monitoring suggests the remaining four lakes (Tamarack,Cagwin, Ralston, and Lucille) may not be self-sustaining due to very low (two to zero) numberof young of year age class fish Guveniles) that were sampled. Therefore, it is estimated thatTamarack, Cagwin, Ralston, and Lucille will not support recreational fishing if future stockingefforts are ceased. During the 2006 and 2007 sampling efforts, brook and rainbow trout were theonly species sampled. Golden trout were not sampled in any of the seven treatment lakes in 2006and 2007 despite CDFG attempts to stock this species in Jabu Lake (Table 2). The CDFG hasidentified all seven lakes as Native Species Restoration Lakes and do not plan to stock any ofthese lakes in the future (draft 2008 Desolation Fish Management Plan; section A 1).

The Tamarack, Ralston, and Cagwin Lake complex is recognized as a valuable recreationalfishing source because of the proximity to the Echo Lake trailhead located by the Echo LakesChalet. This lake complex is approximately 3.6 miles from the above mentioned trailhead.However, Saucer and Triangle Lakes, which are both identified as self-sustaining fisheries by theCDFG, are 2.1 and 3.8 miles from the Echo Lake trailhead and have been identified as recreationfishing lakes. Lucille Lake is approximately 0.8 miles from Triangle Lake and 0.7 miles fromLost Lake, which also offers a self-sustaining fishery. Additionally, both lower and upper EchoLakes have robust populations of introduced trout, which the public can continue to utilize asrecreational fishing areas.

Project implementation has been funded by South Nevada Public Land Management Act(SNPLMA) funding through an agreement with USFWS under project title "Mountain Yellow­Legged Frog Recovery Project.. The majority of the project planning was accomplished withappropriated NFWF dollars, which will also cover the first year of project implementation.

PURPOSE AND NEED:

There is a need to expand the localized range of SNYLF in the Desolation Wilderness byreclaiming 69 acres of lake and three miles of stream habitat. The primary objective for the sevenidentified lakes is to provide aquatic habitat that will allow SNYLF to fulfill all required lifehistory stages.

The decline in frog populations has resulted in the need to restore this habitat while a sourcepopulation still exists adjacent to the project area. Populations extirpated or reduced as a resultof fish introduction can recover to pre-disturbance after fish are removed (Knapp et al. 2007).Restoration of frog populations following fish removal has been documented in the SierraNevada (Vredenburg 2004, Knapp et al. 2005) and indicates that manual fish removal, as amanagement action, can be successfully implemented. Prior to the 1890s, alpine lakes in theDesolation Wilderness were fishless and supported viable populations of R. sierrae. Althoughno stocking has occurred in at least eight years for the majority of the project lakes, there is aneed to assist in the restoration of R. sierrae habitat by removing an undesired predator andcompetitor (Table 2).

September 2008 5

Based on two years of pre-implementation monitoring in 2006 and 2007. it is presumed that Le Conte, Margery, and Jabu Lakes are already fishless as no fish were detected during those monitoring efforts (two to three gill nets set for 15 hour intervals with no fish detected). Additionally, pre-implementation monitoring suggests the remaining four lakes (Tamarack, Cagwin, Ralston, and Lucille) may not be self-sustaining due to very low (two to zero) number of young of year age class fish Guveniles) that were sampled. Therefore, it is estimated that Tamarack, Cagwin, Ralston, and Lucille will not support recreational fishing if future stocking efforts are ceased. During the 2006 and 2007 sampling efforts, brook and rainbow trout were the only species sampled. Golden trout were not sampled in any of the seven treatment lakes in 2006 and 2007 despite CDra attempts to stock this species in Jabu Lake (Table 2). The CDra has identified all seven lakes as Native Species Restoration Lakes and do not plan to stock any of these lakes in the future (draft 2008 Desolation Fish Management Plan; section AI).

The Tamarack, Ralston, and Cagwin Lake complex is recognized as a valuable recreational fishing source because of the proximity to the Echo Lake trailhead located by the Echo Lakes Chalet. This lake complex is approximately 3.6 miles from the above mentioned trailhead. However, Saucer and Triangle Lakes, which are both identified as self-sustaining fisheries by the CDFG, are 2.1 and 3.8 miles from the Echo Lake trailhead and have been identified as recreation fishing lakes. Lucille Lake is approximately 0.8 miles from Triangle Lake and 0.7 miles from Lost Lake, which also offers a self-sustaining fishery. Additionally. both lower and upper Echo Lakes have robust populations of introduced trout, which the public can continue to utilize as recreational fishing areas.

Project implementation has been funded by South Nevada Public Land Management Act (SNPLMA) funding through an agreement with USFWS under project title "Mountain Yellow­Legged Frog Recovery Project.. The majority of the project planning was accomplished with appropriated NFWF dollars, which will also cover the first year of project implementation.

PURPOSE AND NEED:

There is a need to expand the localized range of SNYLF in the Desolation Wilderness by reclaiming 69 acres of lake and three miles of stream habitat. The primary objective for the seven identified lakes is to provide aquatic habitat that will allow SNYLF to fulfill all required life history stages.

The decline in frog populations has resulted in the need to restore this habitat while a source population still exists adjacent to the project area. Populations extirpated or reduced as a result of fish introduction can recover to pre-disturbance after fish are removed (Knapp et al. 2007). Restoration of frog populations following fish removal has been documented in the Sierra Nevada (Vredenburg 2004, Knapp et al. 2005) and indicates that manual fish removal, as a management action, can be successfully implemented. Prior to the 1890s, alpine lakes in the Desolation Wilderness were fishless and supported viable populations of R. sierrae. Although no stocking has occurred in at least eight years for the majority of the project lakes, there is a need to assist in the restoration of R. sierrae habitat by removing an undesired predator and competitor (Table 2).

September 2008 5

CaQwin LakeLake LucilleMarQery LakeRalston LakeTamarack LakeLeConte LakeJabu Lake

Table 2. Project area stocking record since 1950, Desolation Wilderness, LTBMU.

Waterbody Initial Stock YearFinal Stock YearSpecies Stocked19501999Rainbow Trout19501974Brook Trout19502000Brook/Rainbow Trout19502000Brook/Rainbow Trout19502000Brook/Rainbow Trout19511999Brook/Rainbow Trout19622000Brook/Golden Trout

PROPOSED ACTION:

The LTBMU will restore ecological conditions in seven lakes in the Desolation Wilderness bymanually removing non-native fish. The proposed action will allow for the natural re­colonization of native R. sierrae from adjacent lakes where SNYLF populations currently exist.Should it be determined that further population level management is needed (i.e. reintroductionof eggs, subadults and/or adults) the CDFG will be the lead agency in taking those actions andwill coordinate with the USFS.

The proposed action includes:

• Manual removal of introduced, non-native fish using monofilament gill nets will occur inTamarack, Ralston, Cagwin, Lucille, Margery, Jabu, and Le Conte lakes and associatedponds. Gill nets will be deployed once in the fall and retrieved the following summer(immediately after snowmelt). No chemicals will be used during the course of thisproject. It is projected that it will take three years to eradicate introduced trout from eachlake and its associated streams.

• The lightweight sinking monofilament gill nets are 120 feet long by 6 feet deep withmesh sizes varying from 0.4 to 1.5 inches. The nets will be deployed perpendicular to theshoreline. The smallest mesh sizes would be anchored to the shore, and the largest meshsizes would be anchored in deep water. An average of 20 nets would be deployed eachfall with the number of nets per lake varying with lake surface area. Dead trout will bemeasured, then sunk to the deepest portion of each lake.

• Manual removal of introduced trout will occur using a backpack electroshocker in allinlet and outlet streams, to the closest upstream and downstream fish barrier, associatedwith proposed lakes and ponds. Barriers are considered falls >0.75 meters (m) high ifthere is no pool at the base, falls> 1.5 m if there is a-pool at the base, or steep cascadeshigher than approximately 1.5 m. Approximately three miles of streams will be treated.No chemicals will be used during the course of this project.

September 2008 6

Table 2. Project area stocking record since 1950, Desolation Wilderness, LTBMU.

Waterbodv Initial Stock Year Final Stock Year SDecies Stocked CaQwin Lake 1950 1999 Rainbow Trout Lake Lucille 1950 1974 Brook Trout

Maraerv Lake 1950 2000 Brook/Rainbow Trout Ralston Lake 1950 2000 Brook/Rainbow Trout

Tamarack Lake 1950 2000 Brook/Rainbow Trout LeConte Lake 1951 1999 Brook/Rainbow Trout

Jabu Lake 1962 2000 Brook/Golden Trout

PROPOSED ACTION:

The LTBMU will restore ecological conditions in seven lakes in the Desolation Wilderness by manually removing non-native fish. The proposed action will allow for the natural re­colonization of native R. sierrae from adjacent lakes where SNYLF populations currently exist. Should it be detennined that further population level management is needed (i.e. reintroduction of eggs, subadults and/or adults) the CDFG will be the lead agency in taking those actions and will coordinate with the USFS.

The proposed action includes:

• Manual removal of introduced, non-native fish using monofilament gill nets will occur in Tamarack, Ralston, Cagwin, Lucille, Margery, Jabu, and Le Conte lakes and associated ponds. Gill nets will be deployed once in the fall and retrieved the following summer (immediately after snowmelt). No chemicals will be used during the course of this project. It is projected that it will take three years to eradicate introduced trout from each lake and its associated streams.

• The lightweight sinking monofilament gill nets are 120 feet long by 6 feet deep with mesh sizes varying from 0.4 to 1.5 inches. The nets will be deployed perpendicular to the shoreline. The smallest mesh sizes would be anchored to the shore, and the largest mesh sizes would be anchored in deep water. An average of20 nets would be deployed each fall with the number of nets per lake varying with lake surface area. Dead trout will be measured, then sunk to the deepest portion of each lake.

• Manual removal of introduced trout will occur using a backpack electroshocker in all inlet and outlet streams, to the closest upstream and downstream fish barrier, associated with proposed lakes and ponds. Barriers are considered falls >0.75 meters (m) high if there is no pool at the base, falls >1.5 m if there is apeol at the base, or steep cascades higher than approximately 1.5 m. Approximately three miles of streams will be treated. No chemicals will be used during the course of this project.

September 2008 6

• Electrofishing in upstream and downstream reaches (above and below each lake inlet andoutlet) will use 3 pass depletion methods in order to track the rate of introduced fisheradication in streams. Electrofishing will occur when nets are deployed in the fall.

• Information/interpretive signs at trail heads which access the Desolation Wilderness willbe installed to inform visitors about both the project and when gill nets will be deployedin the seven lakes.

PROJECT DESIGN FEATURES:

Project design features are elements of the project design that are applied in the project area. Thefollowing features were developed to reduce or avoid negative environmental effects of theproposed action on wilderness and natural resources.

• Aquatics and Botany Decontaminate field gear (gill nets, float tubes and waders) priorto entering Tamarack, Cagwin, Ralston, Lucille, Margery, labu, and LeConte lakes inorder to avoid possible introduction of aquatic invasive species and/or diseases.Decontamination will include rinsing equipment with 120°F water or maintained in a drystate for at least 28 days. Avoid campsites in meadows or areas that exhibit wetlandherbaceous vegetation and hydrated soils. Avoid accessing treatment lakes throughmarshes, bogs, fens, sloughs, potholes, and mud flats and instead utilize shoreline areaswhere rock or sandy surfaces exist.

• Noxious Weeds Staging areas for equipment, materials, or crews will not be sited ipweed-infested areas.

• Wildlife Although there are no sensitive terrestrial wildlife species known to occurwithin the project area (including established protected activity centers), an LTBMUWildlife Biologist will be contacted if any species, nests, or evidence of breeding isdetected during project implementation in order to assist with documentation of suchdetections.

• Recreation/Wilderness Ensure public safety when installing gill nets in lakes by postingsigns at trailheads to inform visitors about the presence of gill nets and by controlling thetime of year gill nets are deployed (i.e. fall) during lower visitation time periods. Fieldcrews will follow existing rules for camping in Desolation Wilderness.

• Heritage Because earth disturbing activities are not proposed and through consultationof known heritage resources in the project area, it has been determined that the proposedaction is an exempt undertaking under the programmatic agreement with SHPO and willnot need further heritage resource surveyor consultation (Stipulation II-G).

MONITORING:

This project will initiate implementation and effectiveness monitoring to ensure project success,which will include:

September 2008 7

• Electrofishing in upstream and downstream reaches (above and below each lake inlet and outlet) will use 3 pass depletion methods in order to track the rate of introduced fish eradication in streams. Electrofishing will occur when nets are deployed in the fall.

• Information/interpretive signs at trailheads which access the Desolation Wilderness will be installed to inform visitors about both the project and when gill nets will be deployed in the seven lakes.

PROJECT DESIGN FEATURES:

Project design features are elements of the project design that are applied in the project area. The following features were developed to reduce or avoid negative environmental effects of the proposed action on wilderness and natural resources.

• Aquatics and Botany -- Decontaminate field gear (gill nets, float tubes and waders) prior to entering Tamarack, Cagwin, Ralston, Lucille, Margery, labu, and LeConte lakes in order to avoid possible introduction of aquatic invasive species and/or diseases. Decontamination will include rinsing equipment with 120°F water or maintained in a dry state for at least 28 days. Avoid campsites in meadows or areas that exhibit wetland herbaceous vegetation and hydrated soils. Avoid accessing treatment lakes through marshes, bogs, fens, sloughs, potholes, and mud flats and instead utilize shoreline areas where rock or sandy surfaces exist.

• Noxious Weeds -- Staging areas for equipment, materials, or crews will not be sited in weed-infested areas.

• Wildlife -- Although there are no sensitive terrestrial wildlife species known to occur within the project area (including established protected activity centers), an LTBMU Wildlife Biologist will be contacted if any species, nests, or evidence of breeding is detected during project implementation in order to assist with documentation of such detections.

• RecreationlWilderness -- Ensure public safety when installing gill nets in lakes by posting signs at trailheads to inform visitors about the presence of gill nets and by controlling the time of year gill nets are deployed (i.e. fall) during lower visitation time periods. Field crews will follow existing rules for camping in Desolation Wilderness.

• Heritage -- Because earth disturbing activities are not proposed and through consultation of known heritage resources in the project area, it has been determined that the proposed action is an exempt undertaking under the programmatic agreement with SHPO and will not need further heritage resource surveyor consultation (Stipulation II-G).

MONITORING:

This project will initiate implementation and effectiveness monitoring to ensure project success, which will include:

September 2008 7

• Each lake will be monitored for an additional two years post-project implementation(Table 1). Monitoring will be initiated once an initial level of zero fish is captured.Monitoring will occur on a lake-by-Iake basis and may vary depending on the rate of fisheradication.

• Document the number and size classes of introduced trout removed from the project area.This information will also be provided to the CDFG for their records.

• Conduct visual encounter surveys for R. sierrae in the project area to determinepopulation responses to fish removal. Visual encounter surveys will be conducted in eachlake once zero fish have been captured and will occur over 5 consecutive years.

• Provide the FWS and CDFG with annual reports of project implementation and post­project monitoring results.

PERMITTING:

Because the proposed action does not employ the use of chemical pesticide (rotenone orantimycin), Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board concerns for effects to waterquality have been mitigated and a permit to implement manual fish removal is not needed. Ayearly fish sampling permit will need to be acquired from CDFG by LTBMU Fisheries Biologiststaff.

REASONS FOR CATEGORICALLY EXCLUDING THE PROPOSED ACTION:

CEQ regulations allow Federal agencies to exclude from documentation in an environmentalassessment (EA) or environmental impact statement (EIS) categories of actions that do notindividually have a significant effect on the human environment, based on the agency'sexperience and knowledge. I have determined that this proposed action fits under FSH 1909.15Chapter 31.2 (6) "Timber stand and/or wildlife habitat improvement activities which do notinclude the use of herbicides or do not require more than one mile of low standard roadconstruction. "

EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES:

1. Federally listed threatened and endangered species or designated critical habitat, speciesproposed for Federal listing or proposed critical habitat. or Forest Service sensitive species

The potential effects of this decision on listed wildlife, fish, and plant species have beenanalyzed and documented in a Biological Assessment (BA) and Biological Evaluation (BE)(section B2). The only threatened or endangered species known to occur on the LTBMU isLahontan cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarkia henshawi; LCT). There will be no effect toLCT as the species does not occur in or adjacent to the project area. Critical habitat has notbeen designated by the FWS for LCT.

September 2008 8

• Each lake will be monitored for an additional two years post-project implementation (Table 1). Monitoring will be initiated once an initial level of zero fish is captured. Monitoring will occur on a lake~by-Iake basis and may vary depending on the rate of fish eradication.

• Oocwnent the number and size classes of introduced trout removed from the project area. This information will also be provided to the COFG for their records.

• Conduct visual encounter surveys for R. sierrae in the project area to determine population responses to fish removal. Visual encounter surveys will be conducted in each lake once zero fish have been captured and will occur over 5 consecutive years.

• Provide the FWS and COFa with annual reports of project implementation and post~

project monitoring results.

PERMITTING:

Because the proposed action does not employ the use of chemical pesticide (rotenone or antimycin), Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board concerns for effects to water quality have been mitigated and a permit to implement manual fish removal is not needed. A yearly fish sampling permit will need to be acquired from COFa by LTBMU Fisheries Biologist staff.

REASONS FOR CATEGORICALLY EXCLUDING THE PROPOSED ACTION:

CEQ regulations allow Federal agencies to exclude from documentation in an environmental assessment (EA) or environmental impact statement (EIS) categories of actions that do not individually have a significant effect on the human environment, based on the agency's experience and knowledge. I have determined that this proposed action fits under FSH 1909.15 Chapter 31.2 (6) - "Timber stand and/or wildlife habitat improvement activities which do not -include the use of herbicides or do not require more than one mile of low standard road construction."

EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES:

1. Federally listed threatened and endangered species or designated critical habitat. species proposed for Federal listing or proposed critical habitat. or Forest Service sensitive species

The potential effects of this decision on listed wildlife, fish, and plant species have been analyzed and documented in a Biological Assessment (SA) and Biological Evaluation (BE) (section B2). The only threatened or endangered species known to occur on the LTBMU is Lahontan cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarkia henshawi; LCT). There will be no effect to LCT as the species does not occur in or adjacent to the project area. Critical habitat has not been designated by the FWS for LCT.

September 2008 8

On June 24, 2007 the US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) published a 12-month finding ona petition to list the Sierra Nevada distinct population segment of the SNYLF (FederalRegister VoL 72, No. 121). The species is currently considered a candidate species by theFWS. Conservation activities involving manual non-native fish removal by CDFG, NPS, andUSFS are ongoing throughout the Sierra Nevada. This project is consistent with thoseconservation efforts to restore SNYLF habitat. Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog is a ForestService sensitive species and through analysis in the BE it has been determined that theproject will have a beneficial effect.

Other Forest Service sensitive wildlife and aquatic species do not occur in the project area asdescribed in the project record (section B2). Sensitive plants such as, Botrychium spp.,Bruchia bolanderi and Messia spp. may occur in the project area as described in the projectrecord (section B2). Project design features, described in this memo, are intended tominimize potential effects to sensitive species. The proposed action, including these designfeatures, may allow for minimal impact to some individuals or habitat, however, it isdetermined to have no impact to any sensitive species. Effects to wildlife, aquatic andsensitive plant resources are discussed in the Wildlife and Aquatic Species BE/BA and in theSensitive Plant BE, which are found in the project record (section B2).

2. Floodplains, Wetlands, or Municipal Watersheds

Floodplains: Executive Order 11988 is to avoid adverse impacts associated with theoccupancy and modification of floodplains. Floodplains are defined by this order as, " ... thelowland and relatively flat areas adjoining inland and coastal waters include flood proneareas of offshore islands, including at a minimum, that area subject to a one percent [100­year recurrence] or greater chance of flooding in anyone year."

The project area contains floodplains associated with streams that will have fish removal viaelectrofishing. This has been validated by map and site-review. Physical impacts tofloodplains will not occur by electrofishing in stream habitats. This is due to crews accessingthe site by foot and no alteration to the physical make-up of any floodplain will occur.

Wetlands: Executive Order 11990 is to avoid adverse impacts associated with destruction ormodification of wetlands. Wetlands are defined by this order as, "areas inundated by surfaceor ground water with a frequency sufficient to support and under normal circumstances doesor will support a prevalence of vegetative or aquatic life that requires saturated or seasonallysaturated soil conditions for growth and reproduction. Wetlands generally include swamps,marshes, bogs, and similar areas such as sloughs, potholes, wet meadows, river overflows,mud flats, and natural ponds."

There are swamps, marshes, bogs, fens, sloughs, potholes, and mud flats within the projectarea. This has been validated by map and site review. The project area does support alpinelakes, which range from 5 15 acres. Lake water levels are influenced by snow pack andinterconnected tributaries. Careful use of design features will ensure that no effect towetlands will occur.

September 2008 9

On June 24, 2007 the US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) published a 12-month finding on a petition to list the Sierra Nevada distinct population segment of the SNYLF (Federal Register Vol. 72, No. 121). The species is currently considered a candidate species by the FWS. Conservation activities involving manual non-native fish removal by CDFG, NPS, and USFS are ongoing throughout the Sierra Nevada. This project is consistent with those conservation efforts to restore SNYLF habitat. Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog is a Forest Service sensitive species and through analysis in the BE it has been detennined that the project will have a beneficial effect.

Other Forest Service sensitive wildlife and aquatic species do not occur in the project area as described in the project record (section 82). Sensitive plants such as, Botrychium spp., Bruchia bolanderi and Mess;a spp. may occur in the project area as described in the project record (section B2). Project design features, described in this memo, are intended to minimize potential effects to sensitive species. The proposed action, including these design features, may allow for minimal impact to some individuals or habitat, however, it is detennined to have no impact to any sensitive species. Effects to wildlife, aquatic and sensitive plant resources are discussed in the Wildlife and Aquatic Species BEIBA and in the Sensitive Plant BE, which are found in the project record (section B2).

2. Floodplains, Wetlands, or Municipal Watersheds

Floodplains: Executive Order 11988 is to avoid adverse impacts associated with the occupancy and modification of floodplains. Floodplains are defined by this order as, " ... the lowland and relatively flat areas adjoining inland and coastal waters include flood prone areas of offshore islands, including at a minimum, that area subject to a one percent [100­year recurrence] or greater chance of flooding in anyone year."

The project area contains floodplains associated with streams that will have fish removal via electrofishing. This has been validated by map and site-review. Physical impacts to floodplains will not occur by electrofishing in stream habitats. This is due to crews accessing the site by foot and no alteration to the physical make-up of any floodplain will occur.

Wetlands: Executive Order 11990 is to avoid adverse impacts associated with destruction or modification of wetlands. Wetlands are defined by this order as, "areas inundated by surface or ground water with a frequency sufficient to support and under nonnal circumstances does or will support a prevalence of vegetative or aquatic life that requires saturated or seasonally saturated soil conditions for growth and reproduction. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas such as sloughs, potholes, wet meadows, river overflows, mud flats, and natural ponds."

There are swamps, marshes, bogs, fens, sloughs, potholes, and mud flats within the project area. This has been validated by map and site review. The project area does support alpine lakes, which range from 5 - )5 acres. Lake water levels are influenced by snow pack and-interconnected tributaries. Careful use of design features will ensure that no effect to wetlands will occur.

September 2008 9

Municipal Watersheds: There are no municipal watersheds located within the project area.

3. Congressionally designated areas, such as wilderness, wilderness study areas, or nationalrecreation sites.

The project area is located in Desolation Wilderness, a congressionally designatedWilderness Area. It is recognized that by removing trout from Cagwin, Tamarack, Ralston,Lucille, LeConte, Jabu and Margery lakes that a recreation experience (fishing) that isaccessible to hikers will be eliminated; however, recreational fishing during the peak fishingseason (July September) in which gill nets are not deployed will continue to be open to thepublic. Also, it is presumed that some recreationalists will find the presence of what is nowconsidered a rare species and potentially easily seen within the wilderness after restorationefforts, a memorable wilderness experience. In addition, other lakes within close proximityof the seven treatment lakes will offer the public fishing opportunities. For example, SaucerLake is 2.1 miles from the Echo Lake trailhead and Triangle Lake is 3.8 miles whileTamarack Lake is 3.7 miles from the Echo Lake trailhead. Upper and Lower Echo Lakes,which are immediately adjacent to the Desolation Wilderness, will continue to providerecreational fisheries as well. California Department of Fish and Game has identified suchlakes as having management objectives of attaining self-sustaining fisheries (section AI).

Information/interpretive signs at trailheads that access the Desolation Wilderness will beinstalled to inform visitors about both the project and range-wide efforts to restore R. sierraehabitat.

Fish removal activities implemented during the course of this project, as well as the futuredesired condition of providing for R. sierrae habitat, will ensure that attributes defined by the1964 Wilderness Act are protected and include naturally occurring ecosystems. The proposedaction is not impeding primeval character, the absence of man's imprint, and outstandingopportunities for solitude or a primitive and unconfined recreation experience. An analysisbased on the MRDG was completed and is documented in the project file (section D2).

4. Inventoried roadless areas

The project is not located in an inventoried roadless area.

5. Research Natural Areas

There are no research natural areas within the project area.

6. Native American and Alaskan Native Religious or Cultural Sites

It has been determined that the proposed action falls under exemption category Stipulation 11­C for screened exempt undertaking under programmatic agreement for compliance withsection 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act; "Activities that do not involve groundor surface disturbance and that do not have the potential to affect access to or use of

September 2008 10

Municipal Watersheds: There are no municipal watersheds located within the project area.

3. Congressionally designated areas, such as wilderness. wilderness study areas, or national recreation sites.

The project area is located in Desolation Wilderness, a congressionally designated Wilderness Area. It is recognized that by removing trout from Cagwin, Tamarack, Ralston, Lucille, LeConte, Jabu and Margery lakes that a recreation experience (fishing) that is accessible to hikers will be eliminated; however, recreational fishing during the peak fishing season (July - September) in which gill nets are not deployed will continue to be open to the public. Also, it is presumed that some recreationalists will find the presence of what is now considered a rare species and potentially easily seen within the wilderness after restoration efforts, a memorable wilderness experience. In addition, other lakes within close proximity of the seven treatment lakes will offer the public fishing opportunities. For example, Saucer Lake is 2.1 miles from the Echo Lake trailhead and Triangle Lake is 3.8 miles while Tamarack Lake is 3.7 miles from the Echo Lake trailhead. Upper and Lower Echo Lakes, which are immediately adjacent to the Desolation Wilderness, will continue to provide recreational fisheries as well. California Department ofFish and Game has identified such lakes as having management objectives of attaining self-sustaining fisheries (section A I).

-

Infonnation/interpretive signs at trailheads that access the Desolation Wilderness will be installed to infonn visitors about both the project and range-wide efforts to restore R. sierrae habitat.

Fish removal activities implemented during the course of this project, as well as the future desired condition of providing for R. sierrae habitat, will ensure that attributes defined by the 1964 Wilderness Act are protected and include naturally occurring ecosystems. The proposed action is not impeding primeval character, the absence of man's imprint, and outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive and unconfined recreation experience. An analysis based on the MRDG was completed and is documented in the project file (section D2).

4. Inventoried roadless areas

The project is not located in an inventoried road less area.

5. Research Natural Areas

There are no research natural areas within the project area.

6. Native American and Alaskan Native Religious or Cultural Sites

It has been detennined that the proposed action falls under exemption category Stipulation lI­e for screened exempt undertaking under programmatic agreement for compliance with section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act; "Activities that do not involve ground or surface disturbance and that do not have the potential to affect access to or use of

September 2008 10

resources by Native Americans." This determination is documented in the project record(section B2). Alaskan sites do not apply to the California region.

7. Archaeological Sites. or Historic Properties or Areas

It has been determined that the proposed action falls under exemption category Stipulation II­C for screened exempt undertaking under programmatic agreement for compliance withsection 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act; "Activities that do not involve groundor surface disturbance and that do not have the potential to affect access to or use ofresources by Native Americans." This determination is documented in the project record(section B2).

FINDINGS REQUIRED BY OTHER LAWS:

My decision is consistent with LTBMU 1988 Land and Resource Management Plan as amended,2004 Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment and will comply with all applicable laws andregulations.

National Forest Management Act (NFMA)

This Act requires the development of long-range land and resource management plans (Plans).The Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit Land and Resource Management Plan was approved in1988 as required by this Act. It has been amended several times, including the 2004 SierraNevada Forest Plan Amendment. The amended plan provides for guidance for all naturalresource management activities. The Act requires all projects and activities to be consistent withthe Plan.

This proposed action is located in the Desolation Management Area. Activities associated withthe proposed action are consistent with the direction provided in the Lake Tahoe BasinManagement Unit Forest Plan for the Desolation Management Area.

There is no specific Forest Plan direction that applies to the management of R. sierrae; however,the following Forest-wide standard and guidelines do apply to this project:

• 1988 LTBMU LRMP (18. Protection and Enhancement of Threatened and Endangeredand Sensitive Plant Habitat) Modify or exclude uses not compatible with the survival ofthreatened or endangered species (R. sierrae is a candidate species found warranted bythe FWS for federal listing under the ESA).

This project lies within the Desolation Wilderness Management Area, whose management isdictated by the Desolation Wilderness Management Guidelines Land Management PlanAmendment (1998). Management direction from the Desolation Wilderness ManagementGuidelines Land Management Plan Amendment includes:

• To provide for the long term protection and preservation of the area's wildernesscharacter under the principle of non-degradation (pg 1-3).

September 2008 11

resources by Native Americans." This determination is documented in the project record (section 82). Alaskan sites do not apply to the California region.

7. Archaeological Sites, or Historic Properties or Areas

It has been determined that the proposed action falls under exemption category Stipulation II­C for screened exempt undertaking under programmatic agreement for compliance with section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act; "Activities that do not involve ground or surface disturbance and that do not have the potential to affect access to or use of resources by Native Americans." This determination is documented in the project record (section B2).

FINDINGS REQUIRED BY OTHER LAWS:

My decision is consistent with LTBMU 1988 Land and Resource Management Plan as amended, 2004 Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment and will comply with all applicable laws and regulations.

National Forest Management Act (NFMA)

This Act requires the development of long-range land and resource management plans (Plans). The Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit Land and Resource Management Plan was approved in 1988 as required by this Act. It has been amended several times, including the 2004 Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment. The amended plan provides for guidance for all natural resource management activities. The Act requires all projects and activities to be consistent with the Plan.

This proposed action is located in the Desolation Management Area. Activities associated with the proposed action are consistent with the direction provided in the Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit Forest Plan for the Desolation Management Area.

There is no specific Forest Plan direction that applies to the management of R. sierrae; however, the following Forest-wide standard and guidelines do apply to this project:

• 1988 LTBMU LRMP (18. Protection and Enhancement of Threatened and Endangered and Sensitive Plant Habitat) - Modify or exclude uses not compatible with the survival of-threatened or endangered species (R. sierrae is a candidate species found warranted by the FWS for federal listing under the ESA).

This project lies within the Desolation Wilderness Management Area, whose management is dictated by the Desolation Wilderness Management Guidelines Land Management Plan Amendment (1998). Management direction from the Desolation Wilderness Management Guidelines Land Management Plan Amendment includes:

• To provide for the long term protection and preservation of the area's wilderness character under the principle of non-degradation (pg 1-3).

September 2008 11

• To manage the area using the minimum tool, equipment, or structure necessary tosuccessfully and safely accomplish the objective (pg 1-4).

• To manage the wilderness as a total unit and to coordinate management direction acrossadministrative boundaries (pg 1-4).

• To provide an environment where the forces of natural selection and survival rather thanhuman action determine distribution, number and interaction of indigenous wildlifespecies (pg 1-5).

• To provide protection for known populations and aid recovery in areas of previoushabitation, of federally listed or endangered species and their habitat, so long as theaction is for correcting an undesirable condition resulting from human activity orauthorized uses (pg 1-5).

• To provide outstanding opportunities for visitors to experience solitude and to participatein primitive and unconfined types of recreation activities that are consistent withpreservation of wilderness character and that depend upon a wilderness setting (pg 1-5).

• The Eldorado National Forest and the Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit arecooperating with the California Department ofFish and Game, Region 2, in determiningthe lakes and species to be stocked within Desolation (pg 1-9).

• All existing sensitive wildlife will receive full protection at current population levels orbetter (pg viii).

USDA Forest Service: Agency Direction for Species Conservation

The Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog is listed as Sensitive on the Region 5 Regional Forester'sSensitive Species List (USDA Forest Service 1998). The USDA Forest Service Manual (FSM2670.32) includes the following direction for Sensitive Species:

• Assist States in achieving their goals for conservation of endemic species.

• Establish management objectives in cooperation with the States when a project onNational Forest System lands may have a significant effect on sensitive speciespopulation numbers or distribution. Establish objectives for Federal candidate species, incooperation with the USFWS and the States.

The proposed action is consistent with CDFG goals and objectives for restoring and developingwaters for native amphibians, as outlined in the draft 2008 Desolation Fish Management Plan.The proposed action is consistent with the International Association of Fish and WildlifeAgencies, "Policies and Guidelines for Fish and Wildlife in National Forest and Bureau of LandManagement Wilderness", which states management activities will emphasize the protection ofnatural processes.

September 2008 12

• To manage the area using the minimum tool, equipment, or structure necessary to successfully and safely accomplish the objective (pg 1-4).

• To manage the wilderness as a total unit and to coordinate management direction across administrative boundaries (pg 1-4).

• To provide an environment where the forces of natural selection and survival rather than human action determine distribution, number and interaction of indigenous wildlife species (pg 1-5).

• To provide protection for known populations and aid recovery in areas of previous habitation, of federally listed or endangered species and their habitat, so long as the action is for correcting an undesirable condition resulting from human activity or authorized uses (pg 1-5).

• To provide outstanding opportunities for visitors to experience solitude and to participate in primitive and unconfined types of recreation activities that are consistent with preservation of wildemess character and that depend upon a wilderness setting (pg 1-5).

• The Eldorado National Forest and the Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit are cooperating with the California Department of Fish and Game, Region 2, in determining the lakes and species to be stocked within Desolation (pg 1-9).

• All existing sensitive wildlife will receive full protection at current population levels or better (pg viii).

USDA Forest Service: Agency Direction for Species Conservation

The Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog is listed as Sensitive on the Region 5 Regional Forester's Sensitive Species List (USDA Forest Service 1998). The USDA Forest Service Manual (FSM 2670.32) includes the following direction for Sensitive Species:

• Assist States in achieving their goals for conservation of endemic species.

• Establish management objectives in cooperation with the States when a project on National Forest System lands may have a significant effect on sensitive species population numbers or distribution. Establish objectives for Federal candidate species, in cooperation with the USFWS and the States.

The proposed action is consistent with CDFG goals and objectives for restoring and developing waters for native amphibians, as outlined in the draft 2008 Desolation Fish Management Plan. The proposed action is consistent with the International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, "Policies and Guidelines for Fish and Wildlife in National Forest and Bureau of Land Management Wilderness", which states management activities will emphasize the protection of natural processes.

September 2008 12

Policies and Guidelines for Fish and Wildlife Management in National Forest and Bureau ofLand Management Wilderness

Management direction from the Policies and Guidelines for Fish and Wildlife Management inNational Forest and Bureau of Land Management Wilderness (USDA et al. 2006) provides:

• To prevent Federal listing, manage and conserve indigenous species that could becomethreatened or endangered.

• Threatened and endangered species may be transplanted into previously occupied habitatwithin wilderness.

• Gill netting, battery-operated electrofishing, and other standard techniques of populationsampling that would involve uses generally prohibited under Section 4 (c) of theWilderness Act will be considered and may be authorized by the Federal administeringagency through application of the Minimum Requirements Decisions Guidelines asoutlined in Section E., General Policy.

Minimum Requirements Decision Guidelines

The Minimum Requirements Decisions Guidelines (MDRG) will be applied, as described inPolicies and Guidelines for Fish and Wildlife Management in National Forest and Bureau ofLand Management Wilderness (USDA et al. 2006). Minimum Requirements DecisionsGuidelines acknowledge that actions regarding invasive species, monitoring, management ofvisitor use and fish and wildlife management activities should be assessed to determine if theyare necessary and if so, how can they be implemented with the least impact on the wildernessresource.

In order to meet the MDRG a number of factors with regard to project implementation wereconsidered and include:

• The proposed action utilizes manual fish removal by installing gill nets (average of 20nets per lake) in identified treatment lakes and conducting electro fishing at each lake inletand outlet to the first fish migration barrier. The installation and retrieval of gill nets arenot classified as a motorized or mechanized activity (36 CFR 293.6). Backpackelectroshockers are also not classified as a motorized or mechanized activity due to thesmall battery-powered nature of the device (36 CFR 293.6).

• Access to the project area will be by foot travel on existing system trails and equipmentwill be carried by field personnel. Furthermore, gill nets will be completely submergedand not be visible.

• Gill nets will be deployed during the fall (late September/October) months whenswimming by recreationists is not occurring due to cold water temperatures and retrievedin the summer immediately following snowmelt. Field personnel will keep the number ofentries to perform project implementation into the Desolation Wilderness to a minimum

September 2008 13

Policies and Guidelines for Fish and Wildlife Management in National Forest and Bureau of Land Management Wilderness

Management direction from the Policies and Guidelines for Fish and Wildlife Management in National Forest and Bureau of Land Management Wilderness (USDA et al. 2006) provides:

• To prevent Federal listing, manage and conserve indigenous species that could become threatened or endangered.

• Threatened and endangered species may be transplanted into previously occupied habitat within wilderness.

• Gill netting, battery-operated eiectrofishing, and other standard techniques of population sampling that would involve uses generally prohibited under Section 4 (c) of the Wilderness Act will be considered and may be authorized by the Federal administering agency through application of the Minimum Requirements Decisions Guidelines as outlined in Section E., General Policy.

Minimum Requirements Decision Guidelines

The Minimum Requirements Decisions Guidelines (MDRG) will be applied, as described in Policies and Guidelines for Fish and Wildlife Management in National Forest and Bureau of Land Management Wilderness (USDA et a1. 2006). Minimum Requirements Decisions Guidelines acknowledge that actions regarding invasive species, monitoring, management of visitor use and fish and wildlife management activities should be assessed to determine if they are necessary and if so, how can they be implemented with the least impact on the wilderness resource.

In order to meet the MDRG a number of factors with regard to project implementation were considered and include:

• The proposed action utilizes manual fish removal by installing gill nets (average of20 nets per lake) in identified treatment lakes and conducting electrofishing at each lake inlet and outlet to the first fish migration barrier. The installation and retrieval of gill nets are not classified as a motorized or mechanized activity (36 CFR 293.6). Backpack electroshockers are also not classified as a motorized or mechanized activity due to the small battery-powered nature of the device (36 CFR 293.6).

• Access to the project area will he by foot travel on existing system trails and equipment will be carried by field personnel. Furthermore, gill nets will be completely submerged and not be visible.

• Gill nets will be deployed during the rail (late September/October) months when swimming by recreationists is not occurring due to cold water temperatures and retrieved in the summer immediately following snowmelt. Field personnel will keep the number of entries to perform project implementation into the Desolation Wilderness to a minimum

September 2008 13

(2 times per year; 3-4 days per entry). This will decrease recreation use conflicts duringimplementation. Conflicts with ongoing recreational fishing will be decreased byinstalling information/interpretive signs at trailheads which access the DesolationWilderness. Wilderness rangers will also be informed of the project timing in order toappropriately communicate implementation activities to the public.

Through the analysis prepared in compliance with the MRDG the deployment of gill nets in thetarget lakes, and electro fishing associated stream reaches as described in the proposed actionrepresents the minimum tools necessary to meet the purpose and need for this project. None ofthe activities proposed involve prohibited uses as defined in the Wilderness Act, Section 4( c).The gill nets are not considered permanent structures or installations since they will only bedeployed seasonally during the winter for an estimated three years, involve no physical alterationof the landscape and will not be visible to the public. When gill netting deployment is completedthere will be absolutely no evidence of their use.

National Strategic Plan

Nationally, nationals forest's and other federal lands provide a variety of important habitats andmany times have become primary refuges for federally threatened and endangered animals andplants. The Forest Service's National Strategic Plan identifies goals and objectives to restore,sustain and enhance forests and grasslands. The strategic plan identifies the need to develop andimplement conservation strategies to conserve endangered, threatened, and other species at ~isk.Restoration of R. sierrae populations are tied to Objectives 1.4 (reduce adverse impacts ITominvasive and native species, pests, and diseases) and 1.5 (restore and maintain healthy watershedsand diverse habitats).

Endangered Species Act (ESA)

ESA requires analysis of potential impacts by the action agency on formally listed threatened orendangered species to ensure that a proposed action will not jeopardize their continued existence.Although R. sierrae currently has candidate species status it is not afforded any federalprotection under ESA. Due to the proximity to a source population located in the DesolationWilderness (Aloha-Pyramid Lake complex), the project contributes to the range wide recovery ofthis species. Project accomplishment status will be reported to the FWS, Sacramento, CaliforniaField Office. This information will be reported to the FWS on a yearly basis post­implementation. It is estimated that upon complete eradication of fish R. sierrae will reoccupyhabitat in the seven lakes within 2 6 years.

Sensitive Species (Forest Service Manual 2670)

The manual direction requires analysis of potential impacts to sensitive species, those species forwhich the Regional Forester has identified population viability is a concern; the projectbiological review contains the sensitive species list. Potential effects have been analyzed anddocumented in Biological Evaluations (BE), which have been included as part of the projectrecord. Potential impacts of the proposed action to sensitive species will not result in a trendtoward federal listing or loss of viability.

September 2008 14

(2 times per year; 3-4 days per entry). This will decrease recreation use conflicts during implementation. Conflicts with ongoing recreational fishing will be decreased by installing infonnation/interpretive signs at trailheads which access the Desolation Wilderness. Wilderness rangers will also be informed of the project timing in order to appropriately communicate implementation activities to the public.

Through the analysis prepared in compliance with the MRDG the deployment of gill nets in the target lakes, and electrofishing associated stream reaches as described in the proposed action represents the minimum tools necessary to meet the purpose and need for this project. None of the activities proposed involve prohibited uses as defined in the Wilderness Act, Section 4(c). The gill nets are not considered permanent structures or installations since they will only be deployed seasonally during the winter for an estimated three years, involve no physical alteration of the landscape and will not be visible to the public. When gill netting deployment is completed there will be absolutely no evidence oftheir use.

National Strategic Plan

Nationally, nationals forest's and other federal lands provide a variety ofimportant habitats and many times have become primary refuges for federally threatened and endangered animals and plants. The Forest Service's National Strategic Plan identifies goals and objectives to restore, sustain and enhance forests and grasslands. The strategic plan identifies the need to develop and implement conservation strategies to conserve endangered, threatened, and other species at risk. Restoration of R. sierrae populations are tied to Objectives 1.4 (reduce adverse impacts from invasive and native species, pests, and diseases) and 1.5 (restore and maintain healthy watersheds and diverse habitats).

Endangered Species Act (ESA)

ESA requires analysis of potential impacts by the action agency on fonnally listed threatened or endangered species to ensure that a proposed action will not jeopardize their continued existence. Although R. sierrae currently has candidate species status it is not afforded any federal protection under ESA. Due to the proximity to a source population located in the Desolation Wilderness (Aloha-Pyramid Lake complex), the project contributes to the range wide recovery of this species. Project accomplishment status will be reported to the FWS, Sacramento, California Field Office. This infonnation will be reported to the FWS on a yearly basis post­implementation. It is estimated that upon complete eradication of fish R. sierrae will reoccupy habitat in the seven lakes within 2 - 6 years. -

Sensitive Species (Forest Service Manual 2670)

The manual direction requires analysis of potential impacts to sensitive species, those species for which the Regional Forester has identified population viability is a concern; the project biological review contains the sensitive species list. Potential effects have been analyzed and documented in Biological Evaluations (BE), which have been included as part of the project record. Potential impacts of the proposed action to sensitive species will not result in a trend toward federal listing or loss of viability.

September 2008 14

Management of Wildlife and Fish in Wilderness (Forest Service Manual 2320)

The manual direction allows the Forest Service to conduct wildlife and fish habitat managementin wilderness where such objectives perpetuate the wilderness resource (2323.35a and 35b). Themanual direction also requires the Forest Service to "Achieve a balance of wildlife and fish withtheir habitat through cooperation with State agencies in management of public hunting, fishing,and trapping. Objectives for the management of wildlife and fish habitat are normallycompatible with the objectives for maintaining wilderness values."

Clean Water Act

This Act is to restore and maintain the integrity of waters. The Forest Service complies with thisAct through the use of Best Management Practices (BMPs) when ground disturbing actions orthe use of pesticides or herbicides are implemented. However, because this action does notemploy either ground disturbing activities or chemical treatments traditional BMPs are notneeded. This decision incorporates design criteria to protect water resources by utilizingmeasures to prevent the spread of aquatic invasive species/diseases.

Clean Air Act

Under this Act, areas of the country were designated as Class I, II, or III air sheds for Preventionof Significant Deterioration purposes. The project has no impacts to air quality as a result ofimplementing fish removal.

Archaeological Resources Protection Act

The Archaeological Resources Protection Act covers the discovery and protection of historicproperties (prehistoric and historic) that are excavated or discovered in federal lands. It affordslawful protection of archaeological resources and sites that are on public and Indian lands. Theproject has no impacts archeological resources and falls within under exemption categoryStipulation II-C for screened exempt undertaking under programmatic agreement for compliancewith section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act.

National Environmental Policy Act

This Act requires public involvement and consideration of potential environmental effects.Public comment periods are a part of the public scoping process in using categorical exclusionauthority during the project's environmental analysis.

PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT:

The LTBMU listed the proposed action on the Internet web page's Schedule of Proposed Actions(SOP A) beginning on April 1, 2008 and every quarter since. A scoping letter and project area

September 2008 15

Management of Wildlife and Fish in Wilderness (Forest Service Manual 2320)

The manual direction allows the Forest Service to conduct wildlife and fish habitat management in wilderness where such objectives perpetuate the wilderness resource (2323.35a and 35b). The manual direction also requires the Forest Service to "Achieve a balance of wildlife and fish with their habitat through cooperation with State agencies in management of public hunting, fishing, and trapping. Objectives for the management of wildlife and fish habitat are nonnally compatible with the objectives for maintaining wilderness values."

Clean Water Act

This Act is to restore and maintain the integrity of waters. The Forest Service complies with this Act through the use of Best Management Practices (BMPs) when ground disturbing actions or the use of pesticides or herbicides are implemented. However, because this action does not employ either ground disturbing activities or chemical treatments traditional BMPs are not needed. This decision incorporates design criteria to protect water resources by utilizing measures to prevent the spread of aquatic invasive species/diseases.

Clean Air Act

Under this Act, areas of the country were designated as Class I, II, or III air sheds for Prevention of Significant Deterioration purposes. The project has no impacts to air quality as a result of implementing fish removal.

Archaeological Resources Protection Act

The Archaeological Resources Protection Act covers the discovery and protection of historic properties (prehistoric and historic) that are excavated or discovered in federal lands. It affords lawful protection of archaeological resources and sites that are on public and Indian lands. The project has no impacts archeological resources and falls within under exemption category Stipulation Il-C for screened exempt undertaking under programmatic agreement for compliance with section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act.

National Environmental Policy Act

This Act requires public involvement and consideration of potential environmental effects. Public comment periods are a part of the public scoping process in using categorical exclusion authority during the project's environmental analysis.

PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT:

The LTBMU listed the proposed action on the Internet web page's Schedule of Proposed Actions (SOPA) beginning on April I, 2008 and every quarter since. A scoping letter and project area

September 2008 15

Plans" webpage on July 23, 2008. A featured story on the project proposal was publishedin the Tahoe Daily Tribune on August 19, 2008. The project also received additionalmedia coverage by the Associated Press and National Public Radio.

Responses received were both supportive and negative (section Cl). Negative responseswere clearly focused on the desire to continue to manage these seven lakes as non-nativefisheries. The project design (as coordinated with CDFG) takes into account thissentiment by recognizing that other alpine lakes in Desolation Wilderness adjacent to theproject area will continue to be managed for recreational fisheries. Saucer and TriangleLakes, which are both identified as self-sustaining fisheries by the CDFG, are 2.1 and 3.8miles :!Tomthe Echo Lake trail head and have been identified as recreation fishing lakes.Lucille Lake is approximately 0.8 miles :!TomTriangle Lake and 0.7 miles :!TomLostLake, which also offers a self-sustaining fishery. Additionally, both lower and upperEcho Lakes have robust populations of introduced trout, which the public can continue toutilize as recreational fishing areas.

The proposed action is supported by CDFG and is consistent with the department'sfishery management objectives for alpine lakes (section AI). The Washoe Tribe ofNevada and California were consulted on the proposed action. Through the scopingprocess the Washoe Tribe expressed full support for restoring Sierra Nevada yellow­legged :!Toghabitat in Desolation Wilderness (section Cl).

IMPLEMENT ATION DATE:

Project implementation is scheduled to begin in the fall of2008 in Ralston, Tamarack andCagwin Lakes (Table 1). Implementation will be initiated in Lucille, Margery, Jabu, andLeConte in 2009. It is expected that the project will take three years to eradicateintroduced trout :!Tomeach lake and its associated streams.

ADMINISTRA TIVE REVIEW OR APPEAL OPPORTUNITIES:

This decision is not subject to appeal pursuant to 36 CFR Part 215.12(f) as it is a decision"for actions that have been categorically excluded :!Tomdocumentation in an EA or EISin FSH 1909.15, Chapter 30, section 31."

CONTACT PERSON:

Richard VacircaUSDA Forest Service

Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit35 College DriveSouth Lake Tahoe, CA 96150(530) 543-2768

September 2008 16

Plans" webpage on July 23, 2008. A featured story on the project proposal was published in the Tahoe Daily Tribune on August 19,2008. The project also received additional media coverage by the Associated Press and National Public Radio.

Responses received were both supportive and negative (section CI). Negative responses were clearly focused on the desire to continue to manage these seven lakes as non-native fisheries. The project design (as coordinated with CDFG) takes into account this sentiment by recognizing that other alpine lakes in Desolation Wilderness adjacent to the project area will continue to be managed for recreational fisheries. Saucer and Triangle Lakes, which are both identified as self-sustaining fisheries by the CDFG, are 2.1 and 3.8 miles from the Echo Lake trail head and have been identified as recreation fishing lakes. Lucille Lake is approximately 0.8 miles from Triangle Lake and 0.7 miles from Lost Lake, which also offers a self-sustaining fishery. Additionally, both lower and upper Echo Lakes have robust populations of introduced trout, which the public can continue to utilize as recreational fishing areas.

The proposed action is supported by CDFG and is consistent with the department's fishery management objectives for alpine lakes (section A1). The Washoe Tribe of Nevada and California were consulted on the proposed action. Through the scoping process the Washoe Tribe expressed full support for restoring Sierra Nevada yellow­legged frog habitat in Desolation Wilderness (section Cl).

IMPLEMENTATION DATE:

Project implementation is scheduled to begin in the fall of2008 in Ralston, Tamarack and Cagwin Lakes (Table I). Implementation will be initiated in Lucille, Margery, labu, and LeConte in 2009. It is expected that the project will take three years to eradicate introduced trout from each lake and its associated streams.

ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW OR APPEAL OPPORTUNITIES:

This decision is not subject to appeal pursuant to 36 CFR Part 2l5.12(f) as it is a decision "for actions that have been categorically excluded from documentation in an EA or EIS in FSH 1909.15, Chapter 30, section 31."

CONTACT PERSON:

Richard Vacirca USDA Forest Service Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit 35 College Drive South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150 (530) 543-2768

September 2008 16

SIGNATURE AND DATE:

I have concluded that this decision may be categorically excluded from documentation in anenvironmental impact statement or environmental assessment as it is within one of the categoriesidentified by the U.S. Department of Agriculture in 7 CFR part 1b.3 or one of the categoriesidentified by the Chief of the Forest Service in Forest Service Handbook (FSH) 1909.15 sections31.12 or 31.2. My decision concludes that no extraordinary circumstances exist related to theproposed action that may result in a significant individual or cumulative effect on the humanenvironment, and that the decision is not subject to appeal.

My conclusion is based on information presented in this document and the entirety of the projectfile.

hJLfl~fRegional ForesterPacific Southwest Region

September 2008 17

SIGNATURE AND DATE:

I have concluded that this decision may be categorically excluded from documentation in an environmental impact statement or environmental assessment as it is within one of the categories identified by the U.S. Department of Agriculture in 7 CFR part Ib.3 or one of the categories identified by the Chief of the Forest Service in Forest Service Handbook (FSH) 1909.15 sections 31.12 or 31.2. My decision concludes that no extraordinary circumstances exist related to the proposed action that may result in a significant individual or cumulative effect on the human environment, and that the decision is not subject to appeal.

My conclusion is based on information presented in this document and the entirety of the project file.

andy oore Date Regional Forester Pacific Southwest Region

September 2008 17