2

I. INTRODUCTION This Biological Evaluation (BE) and MIS specialist report analyzes the potential effects of the proposed Monroe Mountain Livestock Management Improvement Project on aquatic species listed as sensitive by the Forest Service Intermountain Region and/or as MIS for the Fishlake National Forest. The names and status of the sensitive and MIS aquatic animal species that may occur or have suitable habitat on the Fishlake National Forest are shown in Table 1, along with the potential suitable habitat for these species in the Monroe Mountain Livestock Management Improvement Project area. Based on the information in Table 1, this evaluation will analyze the effects of implementing the proposed action on two sensitive and two MIS aquatic animal species. Aquatic species without suitable habitat are not described further. There are no aquatic Threatened, Endangered, Proposed, or Candidate species on the Fishlake National Forest.

Table 1. Status of Fishlake National Forest Sensitive and MIS aquatic species known or suspected to occur in the Monroe Mountain Livestock Management Improvement Project area.

SPECIES Scientific Name

STATUS SUITABLEHABITAT

HABITAT SUITABILITY BASED ON:

Bonneville cutthroat trout Oncorhynchus clarki utah

USFS Sensitive

MIS

Yes A core conservation population is established in Manning Creek and its tributaries on an adjacent allotment. Manning Meadows Reservoir is a critical UDWR southern region broodstock lake. Other streams on Monroe Mountain that are trout supporting are either historic habitat or potential habitat, but there are no current plans to reintroduce BCT to any other Monroe Mountain streams.

Colorado River cutthroat trout Oncorhynchus clarki pleuriticus

USFS Sensitive

MIS

No

Outside of native range. No Colorado River cutthroat trout exist in project area waters, and there is no plan to introduce this species. Waters outside of native range are not normally considered for recovery purposes.

Southern Leatherside Chub Lepidomeda aliciae

USFS Sensitive

No Southern leatherside currently occupy Salina Creek and Lost Creek on the Fishlake NF, while the lower Beaver River and Clear Creek system are known or likely historic habitat. Southern leatherside have habitat requirements similar to trout, but are more limited by gradient and high flow velocities, which likely prevented their movement to middle and upper elevation stream reaches on Monroe Mountain. There is some potential that the very lower portions of streams on Monroe Mountain were once occupied by southern leatherside, but these are below areas proposed for project work.

Boreal Toad Anaxyrus boreas boreas

USFS Sensitive

Yes Monroe Mountain is a very important stronghold for boreal toads. This species has suffered dramatic declines across most of their range. Monroe Mountain still contains strong populations and should be considered critical to boreal toads in southern Utah, and even a population stronghold across several states in their southern distribution. The project area is important habitat for all life stages of boreal toads. Chytrid fungus was

3

documented at 3 sites on Monroe Mountain for the first time in 2012.

Resident trout

MIS Yes Several streams and lakes in the project area support resident trout. All lakes are generally supported by hatchery stocking, but stream populations are self-sustaining. Streams that support trout in the general area of the project area are Manning Creek, Box Creek, Greenwich Creek, Koosharem Creek, and Monroe Creek and their tributaries.

Aquatic macroinvertebrates MIS Yes

Aquatic macroinvertebrates (BCI index) was described in the 1986 Fishlake NF Plan as a MIS and required Forest Plan monitoring for trout bearing streams. It is not used for lakes or ephemeral or small perennial streams that do not support trout. The description above for streams that support resident trout thus describes habitat for this MIS category.

II. CURRENT MANAGEMENT DIRECTION Current policy as stated in the Forest Service Manual (FSM 2670.32) includes the following: 1. Assist states in achieving their goals for conservation of endemic species. 2. As part of the National Environmental Policy Act process, review programs and activities through a

biological evaluation to determine their potential effect on sensitive species. 3. Avoid or minimize impacts to species whose viability has been identified as a concern. 4. If impacts cannot be avoided, analyze the significance of potential adverse effects on the population of

its habitat within the area of concern and on the species as a whole. 5. Establish management objectives in cooperation with the states when projects on National Forest

System lands may have significant effect on sensitive species population numbers or distributions. Establish objectives for Federal candidate species, in cooperation with the FWS or NMFS and the states.

III. BACKGROUND Desired Conditions The Richfield Ranger District has identified the following as the Desired Condition for the Koosharem, Rock Springs, and Dry Lake Allotments on Monroe Mountain:

Livestock distributed throughout grazing allotments in a manner that sustains diverse ecosystems.

Range improvements are adequate to control livestock use within allotment boundaries.

Persistent aspen communities, with multi-aged stems and adequate recruitment to perpetuate the communities, include site-appropriate, biodiverse understories. Big sagebrush, if present is a minor component. Fire regimes are adequate to perpetuate aspen, particularly in areas seral to conifer.

4

Purpose and Need After a comparison of the desired and existing conditions within the proposed project area, the Richfield Ranger District has identified a need to control and improve livestock distribution in the Koosharem, Rock Springs and Dry Lake Allotments to achieve shorter grazing periods, vary the season of use, and increase rest for the purpose of reducing livestock browsing pressure on aspen, sustaining diverse ecosystems and gaining a better understanding of deer and elk browsing of aspen in the absence of livestock. This action responds to the goals and objectives outlined in the Fishlake National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (USDA Forest Service 1986). The desired conditions described above and the purpose and need for this project are consistent with Fishlake National Forest goals and objectives found in Chapter IV of the Forest Plan. Description of Project Area The project area contains a variety of habitat types including aspen, mixed conifer with remnant aspen, high elevation conifer stands, sagebrush, mountain brush, herbaceous forbs and grasses, and streams and lakes with associated riparian habitats. The elevation of the project area ranges between about 8,200 feet to 9,600 feet. The majority of the project is sited on the relatively gentle slopes of the plateau top of Monroe Mountain, but some components are on steeper slopes of all aspects. The proposed project is primarily located within Management Area 4B – emphasis on Management Indicator Species (MIS). A smaller portion is located within Management Area 5A – emphasis on wildlife winter range and a very minimal overlap is within Management Area 6B – emphasis on intensive livestock grazing management systems (USDA Forest Service 1986). The project area is located in the following HUC 6 sub-watersheds: Greenwich Creek (160300020106), Box Creek (160300020107), Pine Canyon (160300020202), Rock Canyon (160300020203), Swift Spring Creek (160300030201) and Dry Creek (160300030202). IV. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT The Forest Service proposes to meet the purpose and need within the Monroe Mountain Livestock Management Improvement Project area by implementing the following activities: Construct approximately one mile of new livestock fence along the Dry Lake and Forshea Allotment boundary and add a water improvement system. Actions that would be completed for the water improvement system include: 5 new pumping stations, 6 new 5,000–10,000 gallon water storage tanks, 31 new water troughs, and 28 miles of 2” heat fuseable polyethelene water pipe. The one mile of fence would prohibit livestock on the Forshea Allotment moving north onto the Dry Lake Allotment. These new improvements would be maintained by the permittees. Of the 31 new water troughs, 23 of the water troughs would be installed adjacent to existing ponds where some livestock grazing disturbance is already occurring. The existing ponds within the project area only hold water seasonally and having water in these ponds is weather dependent. With the installation of the water storage tanks, waterlines and troughs water could be available throughout the grazing season when needed. Under this strategy that would provide rest for 1-3 of the high elevation pastures, the District

5

anticipates the pastures that are grazed by livestock would be grazed for approximately 2-3 weeks before moving on to the next pasture. During this 2-3 week timeframe supplying water to the troughs in that particular pasture would be needed. When pastures are not being grazed by livestock, water supply to the troughs would be shut-off. To implement this proposal, equipment such as a skid-steer bobcat type tractor and/or a backhoe would be used to facilitate the construction of the new fence. Equipment would be used to clear vegetation for the new one mile of fence and dig holes for the fence posts. Vegetation would not be removed to bare ground, just brushed to facilitate fence construction. A backhoe, dozer with a ripper, or a mini-excavator would also be used to bury the water pipe at road and trail crossings. In general, the majority of the water pipe would be placed on the ground surface. Equipment such as a skid-steer bobcat type tractor would also be used to prepare the ground surface and install the water storage tanks and troughs. To minimize impacts to aquatic resources and areas around the new troughs, when troughs are not being used by livestock, water supply lines to the troughs would be turned off. Water would also be turned off when the water storage tanks and troughs are full of water. The 5 pumping stations would be operated by electricity. The Milo’s Kitchen and Box Creek/Rock Springs pumps would be operated by solar generated electricity and the South Rim Seep, Big Table and Tibadore Spring pumps would be operated by electricity from a diesel generator. The diesel generator would be located off the closest existing system road from the pump site. The generator would be located approximately 100 feet from the Tibadore Spring and Big Table pump locations and approximately 300 feet from the South Rim Seep pump location. Power would run from the diesel generator to the pump. When a pump is not being used, the pump, generator and power cords would be removed and stored off-site. Under this proposal no hazardous materials would be located within approximately 100 feet of existing water. Each of the five pump sites would have an approximately 8 inch diameter/36 inch long perforated galvanized steel pipe installed by hand. Shovels would be used to place and secure the 8 inch pipe into the substrate at the pump site. The pipe would have holes in the side so that water can get inside the pipe. Gravels collected from on-site would also be placed inside the pipe. This proposal would allow for clean water to be pumped from inside the pipe so that the pump and 2” heat fuseable polyethelene water pipe doesn’t get damaged or plugged. Each of the pump sites would also have an approximately 20 foot x 20 foot log-worm fence constructed around the site. This fence would help protect the pump site from being disturbed by wildlife or livestock. Project Design Features

Water storage tanks would initially be filled in the spring when water is more abundant.

Equipment would be washed and inspected prior to entering National Forest System lands to remove any soil and debris that may contribute to the spread of invasives or noxious weeds.

If noxious and/or invasive weeds are found, the District would take the appropriate actions to control spread and eliminate the noxious and/or invasive weeds from the project area.

Equipment would be cleaned and dried before moving from one water source to another to prevent the spread of aquatic invasive species (AIS). If equipment cannot be completely dried, equipment would be decontaminated following the 2011 R4 Fire AIS guidelines.

Waterlines would follow contours to not be a dominant feature on the landscape. Water storage tanks and troughs would be earth tone colors and water storage tanks wouldn’t be placed on ridge tops.

6

Design of the water takeout at the Box Creek/Rock Springs pump location and at the South Rim Seep pump location would be coordinated with the Forest Fish Biologist to minimize the chance that toads will be attracted to or harmed by the pump site (i.e. graveled sump to prevent standing water, screened to prevent access so toads do not utilize for egg laying, or similar actions).

Areas within mapped key boreal toad use habitat or other higher potential use areas (Rim Seep spring source and Milo’s Kitchen spring source) would be checked for boreal toad use by a Forest Service biologist prior to spring development to ensure boreal toads will not be harmed by construction activities. If boreal toads are found, adjustments would be made to prevent impacts. Potential actions may include delaying construction activities, moving tadpoles to unaffected water features, etc. Any adjustments would involve or be coordinated with the Forest Fish Biologist or a Utah Division of Wildlife Resources (UDWR) Aquatics Biologist.

Water sources that utilize above ground/surface expression water in boreal toad occupied areas (Box Creek/Rock Springs and South Rim Seep pump locations) would be checked for toad reproductive use (tadpoles or eggs) prior to pumping and periodically during extended waterline use periods. During these checks surface water flow levels will be quantified above and below the pump location (in necessary, a small weir will be installed by hand to allow for accurate flow measurements or automated measurements). If toad reproductive use is found and may be impacted adjustments would be made to minimize negative impacts. Potential actions are delaying pumping, adjusting livestock use or rotations, movement of toad tadpoles to unaffected water features, etc. Any adjustments would involve or be coordinated with the Forest Fish Biologist or a UDWR Aquatics Biologist.

Water would be left at the spring source or stream takeout during water use – i.e. the water source would not be dried up.

Troughs would not be filled when livestock are not in the unit. The water system would be maintained by permittees to prevent leaks.

Boreal toad use of the general areas that serve as water sources for this project would be monitored periodically by UDWR or Forest Service Biologists for use and potential impacts.

The Rock Springs pipeline will be placed greater than 300 feet from the Dry Creek tributary.

As for the 8 troughs that would not be installed adjacent to existing ponds, these water troughs would be placed in more rocky and hardened areas preferably uphill of aspen locations. When possible, these troughs would be placed at least ¼ mile from the nearest aspen.

All water troughs would be equipped with escape ramps for small mammals and birds.

A short section of the 2” waterline occurs in two known Northern goshawk territories. Placement of the 2” waterline in these territories will not occur until after the young have fledged and dispersed. This waterline would be placed on the ground surface with no ground disturbing activities being anticipated. Approximately a half day is expected to install the waterline in these two areas.

The one mile of new livestock fence along the Dry Lake and Forshea Allotment boundary and the log-worm fences would be constructed in a manner that accommodates wildlife passage and complies with the fence construction standards outlined in FSH 2209.22.

7

The cultural and heritage report identified one eligible site in the Tibadore Spring area. Troughs would not be placed within 100 feet of the site boundary. Trough placement would be coordinated with the Forest Archaeologist.

V. SPECIES ACCOUNT, LIFE HISTORY AND HABITAT STATUS For more information on the distribution, trends, and life history of sensitive and MIS aquatic species discussed in this document refer to, "Life History and Analysis of Endangered, Threatened, Candidate, Sensitive and Management Indicator Species of the Fishlake National Forest, Version 4.1" (Rodriguez 2006), which is incorporated by reference. Additional information about Utah boreal toad life history, status, and management recommendations can be found in the UDWR Conservation Plan for boreal toads (Hogrefe et al. 2005), which is incorporated by reference. The life history information will not be duplicated in this document. The project area has been well surveyed, but not completely surveyed, for boreal toad use in the past 10-15 years. After a trial run in 2002, a study of habitat use by boreal toads in key portions of Monroe Mountain was undertaken in 2003 and 2004 using radio tagged toads to allow weekly relocations (Goates 2006 and Goates et al. 2007). The UDWR has surveyed known and some suspected boreal toad use areas most years. A more extensive monitoring effort in 2010 is documented in Lien and Wheeler (2010). Isolated springs and troughs south of Dry Creek, not known for boreal toad use, were specifically surveyed in 2010 and no boreal toad use was found or documented (Poole 2010).

8

Figure 1: Monroe Mountain Livestock Management Improvement Project general project area map overlaid with important aquatic resources. Note that the boreal toad coverage in this general map is somewhat less extensive then the potential habitat coverage used in Fig. 2 and Fig. 5.

9

Figure 2: Monroe Mountain Livestock Management Improvement Project – Rock Springs and Box Creek Pipeline areas overlaid with key and potential boreal toad habitat use areas.

ent

Rock SpringsAll t t

Monroe MountainLivestock ManagementImprovement Project

Fishlake National Forest0 10.5 Miles

Legend

Pump Site

Storage Tank

Trough

Fence

Pipeline

Bonn. Cutt Streams

Trout Lakes

Boreal Toad Potential Habitat

Trout Streams

Non-FS Ownership

Forest Boundary

Allotment Boundary

1:36,000

Created: 4/17/2013 By: dustinjensen

10

Figure 3: – Radio tagged boreal toad use of upper South Fork Box Creek during the 2003-2004 habitat use study. Yellow dots are radio tagged toad locations from 2003, red dots are toad locations from 2004. This figure shows the importance of upper South Fork of Box Creek for boreal toads and use along unmapped perennial seeps outside of the mapped buffer (the buffer shown in this Figure is a 100 foot study buffer, not the 300 foot on each side of the creek used as key boreal toad habitat in this analysis).

11

Figure 4 – Boreal toad use and migration distance on South Fork Box Creek during 2003-2004 habitat use study. Green dots show toad locations, while red dots show specific locations of one individual toad over the course of one summer. Besides potential movement distances, this figure also illustrates the concentrations of toad use on upper South Fork of Box Creek and the North Fork Box Creek confluence. The double confluence on South Fork which has old beaver ponds above and below it is also a common area to find toad use.

12

Figure 5: Monroe Mountain Livestock Management Improvement Project – South Rim Seep, Rim Seep, and Milo’s Kitchen Pipelines overlaid with key and potential boreal toad habitat use areas.

Monroe MountainLivestock Management Improvement Project

Fishlake National Forest 0 10.5 Miles

Legend

Pump Site

Storage Tank

Trough

Fence

Pipeline

Bonn. Cutt Streams

Trout Lakes

Trout Streams

Boreal Toad Potential Habitat

Non-FS Ownership

Forest Boundary

1:36,000

13

VI. DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT No Action Alternative If the proposed range projects are not installed, there would be no new direct or indirect effects to aquatic resources. The area would continue to be managed for existing uses including livestock grazing, wildlife habitat and recreation. Livestock management, if continued as present, would continue to not provide for suitable aspen regeneration, which may indirectly increase catastrophic fire risk and reduce habitat quality for boreal toads over the long run. Action Alternative The direct and indirect effects of the proposed action will first be described by specific components of the proposed project, then in terms of general effects of those components that do overlap aquatic resources. Potential direct and indirect impacts to the sensitive and MIS aquatic species discussed in this document were initially analyzed by overlaying the proposed range projects and mapped aquatic species habitat on the Fishlake National Forest using ArcGis (Figures 1, 2, and 5) to observe areas of overlap. The following specific project component description is based on this spatial overlay. Specific Project Component Description: Tibadore/Dry Lake Allotment boundary Fence – No aquatic species present – no impact. Tibadore Spring Development – No aquatic species present – no impact Big Table Pipeline – No aquatic species present – no impact Rock Springs Sheep Troughs – No aquatic species present – no impact Rock Springs Pipeline/Box Creek Pipeline – Areas covered by Rock Springs pipeline could potentially include areas used by boreal toads, but there are no documented toad observations to date. The [South Fork] Box Creek pipeline takes water from an important area for boreal toads (Figure 2). Habitat use surveys in 2003 and 2004 documented extensive use by marked toads just upstream of the proposed water source (Figure 3). Field surveys of the drainage found less use in the area of the proposed water source, with greater use in the double confluence area and old beaver ponds just downstream. The 2003-2004 study did document some fairly extensive moves of boreal toads along riparian corridors, including the South Fork of Box Creek (Figure 4, Goates 2006 and Goates et al. 2007). South Rim Seep Pipeline –The stream in this area has too low of water flow to support trout (V. Pace, Fishlake N.F., Richfield R.D. Rangeland Conservationist, personal communication 12/2012). Boreal toads have been documented just downstream (area shown as key habitat in Figure 5), so some toad use likely does occur in the area of the proposed water source. Rim Seep Pipeline Extension – No stream to support fish. No documented boreal toad use. Boreal toads have been documented nearby (Figure 5) so spring source could potentially have boreal toad use. Milo’s Kitchen Pipeline – Does not support fish in area of Milo’s Kitchen. No documented boreal toad use. Boreal toads have not been documented immediately nearby (Figure 5) but the spring source looks

14

like potential habitat (K.Wheeler, UDWR Biologist – Washington County Field Office, personal communication 12/2012) and could have boreal toad use. Species Effects Description: A. Bonneville cutthroat trout

Bonneville cutthroat trout occur at present on Monroe Mountain only in the Manning Creek drainage which is on two adjacent allotments – the Marysvale Peak and Manning Creek Allotments. There will be no impacts from the proposed project in those allotments, so there will be no direct, indirect, or cumulative impact to Bonneville cutthroat trout. B. Boreal Toad Potential impacts to boreal toads could be direct impacts such as a direct injury or mortality from construction activities, to indirect effects such as drying of habitats or introduction of AIS species. Design features have been incorporated into the proposed action to reduce or eliminate potential direct and indirect effects to boreal toads from the proposed actions. Potential impacts discussed are construction activities, water use, indirect effects to habitats, and AIS species. Construction activities for the pump stations, pipelines, and holding tanks could impact boreal toads, primarily through direct injury. Toads could be crushed by equipment or entombed within burrows. Habitat use studies on Monroe Mountain in the project area in 2003-2004 found that the majority (82.4%) of observations of marked toads were within buffers of 100 feet from mapped perennial water (Goates 2006). One factor identified during the 2003-2004 study was that unmapped but small perennial (often <1 foot wide) streams and seeps were important boreal toad use areas, particularly in mid-late summer as toads dispersed towards hibernacula (Goates 2006). Currently mapped key boreal toad habitat on the Fishlake N.F. is 300 feet from mapped perennial water known to support current populations of boreal toads. This greater distance would likely include a greater percentage of toad observations than reported by Goates (2006). Review of the ArcGis overlays (Figure 2 and 5) show that a minimum amount of this project’s structural improvements actually occur within this mapped key boreal toad habitat. Items that do occur within the mapped habitat are the pump station and a small amount of pipeline. In potential boreal toad habitat the South Rim Seep and Milo’s Kitchen Pipelines have pump stations with water storage tanks. Conservation plans such as Hogrefe (2005) typically recommend avoiding construction activities and vegetation treatments during toad use periods when spatially avoiding the area using buffers cannot be accommodated. A project design feature has been incorporated to check areas slated for construction activates for boreal toad use prior to toad use. If toad use is found, measures will be incorporated to protect toads during construction. This will reduce the risk of direct injury to toads from the project. Reduction or elimination of surface water in areas used by toads would indirectly impact their use of the habitat. The amount of water actually utilized by this project is relatively minor compared to normal stream and spring flows of the area, however, as illustrated by the following simple example calculations. The project includes 6 storage tanks of 5,000 to 10,000 gallons each, for a total storage capacity of 30,000 to 60,000 gallons. The project includes 28 miles of 2” poly pipe, which would require approximately 18,500 gallons to fully charge. So initial charging of the entire project would take up between 48,500 to 78,500 gallons. This would take from .75 to 1.2 days to fill or charge if 0.1 cfs of flow was used.

15

After charging, water would need to be used by livestock when they were in the unit. Figures for livestock use were based on permitted numbers (V. Pace, Fishlake N.F., Richfield R.D. Rangeland Conservationist, personal communication 01/2013). Estimated water needs were based on figures from John Vallentine’s Grazing Management (1990: p79) which used figures from the 1969 USDA Forest Service Structural Range Improvements Handbook of 15 gallons/day for cattle and 1.5 gallons/day for ewe-lamb pairs (C. Horman, Dixie and Fishlake N.F.s Range Staff Officer, email dated 1/23/13). These figures are generally consistent with the local rangeland conservationist V. Pace’s observations. These figures are somewhat lower than currently being used in Utah for Sub-basin Claims for water rights calculations, which are 25 gallons/day for cow or calf and 5 gallons/day for a ewe or lamb (L. Curtis, Fishlake N.F. Water Rights Specialist, personal communication 01/2013). Given the potential for some water intake from food, natural water sources and existing water developments, it was determined the lower figures would be more appropriate for estimating water use removal from boreal toad habitat, and even these might be considered on the high side. All of the permitted cattle in the Rock Springs allotment (185 cow/calf pairs) would consume about 116,500 gallons in 21 days, which is considered a typical time livestock may be in an area serviced by one of the improvements. This works out to about 5550 gallons/day or about 3.85 gallons/minute (less than .01cfs). Even all the permitted livestock on the Koosharem Allotment (787 cow/calf pairs) would need about 16.4 gallons/minute, which is less than .1 cfs, to meet their watering requirements. The permitted sheep on the Dry Lake Allotment (664 ewe/lambs) would need less than 1 gallon/minute. The water needs of this project are spread across 5 pump sites – further reducing the demands on any one water source. Two of the pump sites have no overlap with aquatic species. The calculated water demands above can be met by the typical stream and spring flows at the project locations. Decrease in flow on the two stream segments with pump stations will likely be only local and recharged in a short distance downstream by groundwater influx, beaver pond storage, etc. The project design features of prefilling storage tanks in early season when water is most abundant, designing water collection for the pump stations on Box Creek and Greenwich Creek so not to attract boreal toad use, checking surface water sources before pumping, leaving water at the spring source at all times, keeping the water system well maintained, maintaining compliance with state water rights, and not using water when livestock are not in the unit will prevent deleterious impacts to boreal toads from water use of the project. The project will likely result in improved riparian conditions in stream reaches occupied by boreal toads by helping to redistribute livestock use away from riparian areas and generally improving livestock distribution across the allotment. Scientific studies that document effects of livestock grazing, especially at varying forage use levels, on boreal toads is limited. One concern of grazing is trampling of toads, particularly recently metamorphosed toadlets adjacent to water sources. General biological experience would suggest that very heavy grazing levels and short stubble heights would increase the risk of trampling, expose boreal toads to increased predation, limit insect food availability, damage undercut banks used by toads, negatively impact water quality, and prevent regeneration of riparian shrubs and trees that provide important habitat components. Grazing levels within Forest Plan standards are designed to maintain suitable habitat conditions for boreal toads. Reduced levels of grazing in riparian areas due to improved distribution from the proposed action would indirectly reduce impacts to boreal toads and improve habitat conditions compared to current management. No impacts from hazardous materials associated with the diesel generators are expected. Diesel generators would be located off existing system roads and no hazardous materials would be located within approximately 100 feet of existing water.

16

One of likely greatest causes for boreal toad mortality and population declines are pathogenic infections, perhaps compounded by environmental stress, such as the chytrid fungus (Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis) (Hogrefe et al. 2005). Some evidence seems to indicate that the type of chytrid fungus which has proven so deadly to a variety of amphibian species was recently widely transported around the world, perhaps by humans involved in research or pet trade (Hogrefe et al 2005). Chytrid fungus was found in one boreal toad population on the East Fork of the Sevier River about 10 years ago and was believed to be associated with local mortalities and population declines (Hogrefe et al. 2005), although in recent years effects have been confounded with habitat quality declines due to the loss of beaver (M. Golden, Dixie NF Forest Fisheries Biologist, personal communication). A statewide chytrid fungus sampling effort was organized in 2006, which found positive samples in several Utah populations, primarily at Strawberry Reservoir and the Uintahs. The East Fork of the Sevier River tested positive, but no other southern Utah samples tested positive. All samples from the Fishlake N.F. tested negative (Wood 2006). This lack of chytrid infection is likely one reason for the strong populations of boreal toads on the Fishlake N.F. over the last decade. Three sites on Monroe Mountain - Manning Reservoir, Barney Lake, and Magleby Reservoir - were sampled by the UDWR in 2012 for chytrid fungus. (K. Wheeler, UDWR aquatic biologist, personal communication 01/2013). All three sites on Monroe Mountain had at least one strong positive test for the disease (Wood 2013). The three sites tested are close to but not within the project area. In contrast, one boreal toad sampled from a lake on Thousand Lake mountain in 2012 tested negative (Wood 2013). It is unknown what effect the chytrid fungus may have on populations where it was documented, but it is certainly possible that the populations may decline. Utah has had some populations that appear to have remained stable despite infection (such at Strawberry Reservoir) while in other areas chytrid fungus infection appears to be a major factor in population declines. Given these above findings, additional chytrid fungus testing will be necessary on Monroe Mountain to better define the extent of infection. It is critical to ensure that chytrid fungus is not transferred to disease free Fishlake N.F. boreal toad populations. In addition, it is critical that no other other aquatic invasive diseases or organisms get transferred into or out of the project area due to construction or other project activities. Aquatic Invasive Species (AIS) control measures, which are part of the design features of the project and included in Appendices A, B, and C, will prevent the further spread of aquatic AIS diseases or organisms that could negatively affect boreal toads. Give that the pipelines carry water from a source to an alternate area, discussion of this water use in relationship to chytrid fungus is warranted, given the new chytrid monitoring results. At present, it is not known if the surface water sources of S. Fork of Box Creek and Greenwich Creek (South Rim Seep Pipeline) are infected, since they were not specifically tested. The areas where water will be delivered to troughs are located in upland habitats away from mapped boreal toad habitat (see Figure 2 and Figure 5). Water is likely to be on to a specific trough for only 2-3 weeks. Troughs will have a shutoff float valve to shut off water when the trough is full, eliminating or minimizing overflow. These factors greatly reduce the likelihood that boreal toads would be attracted to, find, and utilize these water sources. In terms of the pipelines, the lines below storage tanks would be charged only when water was needed in the troughs. Proper maintenance of the system is a required design feature that will minimize leaks. The location of the pipelines and troughs are generally on flat benches and upland ridges away from mapped boreal toad habitat. If spillage from a trough or a line break were to occur, given the relatively small pipeline and the location, spills would generally run onto dry (unsaturated) soils away from streams where it would be absorbed into the ground rather than flowing into streams or mapped boreal toad habitat.

17

The few exceptions to this are where pipelines cross flowing channels. The South Rim Seep Pipeline crosses two forks on the next easterly tributary, but these are located only about ¼ mile from the fork where the water was taken from, so boreal toad movement likely already occurs between these forks (Figure 5). A small portion of the South Fork Box Creek pipeline crosses mapped boreal toad habitat, but this is very close to the water source and again, likely already has toad movement between these areas (Figure 2). Further south, the Rock Springs pipeline in Fig 5. is shown touching boreal toad habitat on a tributary to Dry Creek. In actuality, the Rock Springs pipeline will be placed greater than 300 feet from the Dry Creek tributary. The upper portion of the Dry Creek tributary is dry and likely has minimal to no toad use. In addition, the pipeline is located in the upper part of the Langdon tributary (which flows back into Box Creek) so any leaks will NOT flow into the Dry Creek watershed. C. Resident Trout The majority of the project design elements do not occur in areas that support resident trout. One fence, the sheep troughs, and several of the spring development/pipelines occur on isolated systems with no linkages to aquatic habitat. The South Fork of Box Creek is locally occupied in specific reaches with higher water flows by brook trout and rainbow trout. Stream reaches between these occupied reaches are ephemeral habitat during seasons/years of higher flow. Actual stream reaches occupied vary by year due to weather patterns, associated water flow, and beaver pond locations and conditions. The proposed water source on South Fork of Box Creek is in an area not typically occupied by trout over the last decade. The relatively minor amount of water use and limited duration of use will not measurably affect stream flow downstream in fish supporting reaches of the South Fork of Box Creek. The South Rim Seep Pipeline will use a flowing stream as a water source, but the area of the water source is too low flow to support trout (V. Pace, Rangeland Conservationist, personal communication 12/2012). The relatively minor amount of water use and limited duration of use will not measurably affect stream flow downstream in fish supporting reaches (see discussion on water use levels under boreal toad above). The project will likely result in improved riparian conditions in stream reaches occupied by trout by helping to redistribute livestock use away from riparian areas and generally improving livestock distribution across the allotment. Reduced levels of grazing in riparian areas due to improved distribution from the proposed action would indirectly reduce impacts to resident trout and improve habitat conditions compared to current management. No impacts from hazardous materials associated with the diesel generators are expected. Diesel generators would be located off existing system roads and no hazardous materials would be located within approximately 100 feet of existing water. AIS control measures, which are part of the design features of the project, will prevent the spread of diseases or organisms that could affect fisheries. D. Aquatic macroinvertebrates Since the use of aquatic macroinvertebrates as a MIS (BCI index) is tied to trout occupied stream habitat (see Table 1), the above discussion for resident trout also applies to aquatic macroinvertebrates in trout supporting reaches. The South Fork of Box Creek has been considered for aquatic macroinvertebrate monitoring in the 2000 timeframe for baseline data, and recently in association with prescribed fire

18

projects. In both cases after field inspection the monitoring was rejected due to the majority of stream reaches being low flow, ephemeral, or intermittant and thus lacking trout (much of the South Fork of Box Creek has flows between .2 to .5 cfs - 20+ years of personel experience of the author in central Utah and Nevada is that it generally takes flow > .5 cfs to support trout). These flow levels can also allow fine sediment buildup even under fairly good conditions and skew monitoring results. [Note - the North Fork of Box Creek, with continuous flow and trout occupancy has been monitored for aquatic macroinvertebreates over this time frame but is not impacted or affected by the proposed project]. With the design features incorporated into the proposed action, there will be no measurable impacts to aquatic macroinvertebrates. VII. CUMULATIVE EFFECTS The cumulative effects area (CEA) for aquatic Sensitive Species are the HUC 6 sub-watersheds cointaining the project area on the Fishlake National Forest portion of Monroe Mountain (see list under III Background – Project Area Description). This area was selected on the basis of continuity and adjacency with habitat found in the project area and includes known or predicted use areas of the species analyzed in this document. Past and Current Management Activities Management activities that take place within the CEA include: permitted livestock grazing and water developments, permitted outfitter and guide use, extensive recreational use including ATV use, hunting, camping, horseback riding, and hiking, introduction of non-native fish species, private land ownership and cabin construction activities, fire suppression, natural and prescribed fire, timber harvest, pesticide application, and noxious weed control. The EA for the Monroe Mountain Livestock Management Improvement Project (Chapter 3) lists in table format an extensive list of past vegetation manipulation projects on Monroe Mountain including Dixie harrow projects in sagebrush habitats, timber harvests, and prescribed fires. Overall stocking rates will not be changed. Forest Plan utilization standards and guidelines will still apply. Foreseeable Future Activities A vegetation manipulation project to restore aspen and a variety of seral habitat types within and adjacent to the project area is proposed. The NOI for the Monroe Mountain Aspen Ecosystems Restoration project was published in the Federal Register in October 2012. This aspen project will likely result in the use of prescribed fire and mechanical treatments in mixed conifer/aspen. This project is currently being analyzed under a separate environmental analysis. The District anticipates that design features will be incorporated to minimize impacts to aquatic species. Prescribed burning and mechanical treatments are expected to result in an increase of aspen regeneration and recruitment and an increase of grass and forb productions. That project analysis will include existing projects and this proposed Monroe Mountain Livestock Management Improvement Project within its Cumulative Effects Analysis. Cumulative Effects Summary The actions listed above within the cumulative effects area has reduced fisheries stream habitat quality. Trout have been introduced into some areas likely historically unoccupied due to natural fish barriers in steeper stream reaches between the plateau top and valley bottoms, so occupied trout stream miles has likey increased. Lake habitat for fisheries has increased with the construction of irrigation reservoirs. These reservoirs covered some stream habitat and riparian habitat formally used by boreal toads but at

19

least 2 reservoirs on adjacent allotments have been utilized regularily by boreal toads including for breeding use. It is likely that habitat quality has decreased slightly for boreal toads, but there is no baseline data on boreal toad habitat conditions or historic numbers to make meaninful comparisons. This proposed action does not introduce new effects or impacts or contribute greatly to existing factors within the cumulative effects area. Therefore, the effects of the past, present, and reasonably foreseeable activities listed above (that are not being covered by separate NEPA analysis) in combination with this proposed action may impact boreal toad individuals and/or their habitats in the short term but is not likely to cause a trend toward federal listing or a loss of viability. VIII. COMPLIANCE WITH MANAGEMENT DIRECTION This biological evaluation process has served to review the effects of implementing the Monroe Mountain Livestock Management Improvement Project on sensitive aquatic animal species. Adverse impacts, which would affect viability of these species and their habitat, have been avoided. IX. DETERMINATION There would be no impact [NI] to Bonneville cutthroat trout since they do not occur within the specific project area allotments. As a result of this evaluation and requirements, it is my professional determination that implementation of the proposed action may impact boreal toad individuals or habitat, but would not likely contribute to a trend towards federal listing or cause a loss of viability to the populations or species [MIIH]. Reduced levels of grazing in riparian areas due to improved distribution from the proposed action would indirectly reduce impacts to resident trout and improve habitat conditions compared to current management. AIS control measures, which are part of the design features of the project, will prevent the spread of diseases or organisms that could affect fisheries. With the design features incorporated into the proposed action, there will be no measurable impacts to aquatic macroinvertebrates.

20

X. LITERATURE CITED Goates, M.C. 2006. The Dogma of the 30 Meter Riparian Buffer: The Case of the Boreal Toad (Bufo

boreas boreas). M.S. Thesis. Brigham Young University, Provo, UT. 48pp. Goates, M.C., K.A. Hatch, and D.L. Eggett. 2007. The need to ground truth 30.5m buffers: A case study

of the boreal toad (Bufo boreas). Biological Conservation 138: 474-483. Hogrefe, T.C., C.L. Bailey, P.D. Thompson, and B. Nadolski. 2005. Boreal Toad (Bufo boreas boreas)

Conservation Plan in the State of Utah. Utah Publication Number 05-37. Utah Department of Natural Resources, Division of Wildlife Resources, Salt Lake City. 65 pp.

Lien, P. and K. Wheeler. 2010. WCFO Field Report - Boreal Toad breeding and inventory surveys, June

21-25, 2010. Utah Department of Natural Resources, Division of Wildlife Resources, St. George. 9 pp.

Poole, A. 2010. Field Trip Report – Boreal Toad Survey: Southern Monroe Mountain. USDA Forest

Service, Fishlake National Forest, Richfield, UT. 7pp. Rodriguez, R.L 2006. Life History and Analysis of Endangered, Threatened, Candidate, Sensitive and

Management Indicator Species of the Fishlake National Forest. Version 4.1 USDA Forest Service, Fishlake National Forest, Richfield, UT. 152pp.

USDA Forest Service. 1986. Land and Resource Management Plan for the Fishlake National Forest. Richfield, UT. Wood, J. 2013. Chytrid fungus test results – Summary report and spreadsheet for 2012 UDWR boreal

toad samples. Pisces Molecular, LLC. Boulder, CO. Wood, J. 2006. Chytrid fungus test results – Summary report and spreadsheet for 2006 UDWR and USFS

boreal toad samples. Pisces Molecular, LLC. Boulder, CO.

21

List of Appendices Appendix A: Additional Information on Aquatic Invasive Species (AIS) and Web Links to R4 (Intermountain Region) Guidelines Appendix B: R4 AIS Fire General Operations Guidelines Appendix C: R4 AIS Fire Technical Guidelines Appendix D: Example Water Use Calculations