HFQLG Monitoring
Amphibian Survey Monitoring 2007
Prepared by: Ryan Foote, Fisheries Biologist, Lassen National Forest Jan 26, 2008
Question 22 of the HFQLG Monitoring Plan “Do amphibians persist at currently occupied
sites?” addresses the distribution and extent of amphibian species within the HFQLG project
area. Amphibian species monitored as part of this plan include foothill yellow-legged (Rana
boylii), mountain yellow-legged (R. muscosa), and Cascades frog (R. cascadae). These three
species have been designated by the Regional Forester as Region 5 Forest Service Sensitive
Species (hereafter Forest Sensitive, or FS frogs).
In 2000, forty-one sites were selected for long-term amphibian monitoring by aquatic
biologists from the Lassen, Plumas, and Tahoe National Forests. These sites had been
identified as having at least one sighting of R. boylii, R. muscosa, or R. cascadae since 1990.
Results of recent amphibian surveys served as the basis for locations to be included in
HFQLG monitoring. The HFQLG monitoring plan calls for these sites to be surveyed every
two years. Several of the sites initially selected for monitoring in 2000 were later deleted from
the monitoring effort because initial detections were thought to have been mapped incorrectly
or based on misidentifications of egg masses, tadpoles or juvenile frogs. Survey efforts in
2000 indicated that suitable habitat was not present so these initial sites were deleted (e.g.
Pinkard Cr. Meadow, Middle Fork at Delleker, Clarks Crk, South Fork Feather River at
Independent Mine, Hartman Bar Ridge and Brush Crk). Additional sites are added to the list
when Forest Sensitive frogs species are found during project level or other surveys. As a
result, number of sites monitored has fluctuated: 41 in 2000, 25 in 2003, 32 in 2005, and 32 in
2007.
Surveys were conducted following methods described in the “Protocol for Herpetological
Surveys in the National Forests” (California Academy of Sciences, 2002). See Appendix A
for the survey protocol. Field equipment and boots were disinfected with 3% bleach solution
between surveys. All surveys were conducted during the daytime. Voucher specimens were
not collected as part of the 2007 monitoring effort.
Survey Results
A summary of results from the 2007 amphibian monitoring effort are shown in Table 1. At
fourteen of the thirty-two monitoring sites inventoried in 2007, at least one of the three FS
frog species was present. Sites occupied by sensitive frog species included ten streams, two
lakes, and two river locations. Of the 14 monitoring sites with positive frog sightings, eight
were comprised of foothill yellow-legged populations (See Figure 1), four were mountain
yellow-legged populations (See Figure 2), and two were Cascades frogs (See Figure 3). At
one additional site (Silver Lake, Bucks Lake Wilderness) an egg mass was observed, though a
positive identification was not made.
In 2007, FS frog species were not found at eleven sites where they were present in 2000, 2003
or 2005 (See Table 2). Of these, only Silver Lake is designated as off-base where HFQLG
treatments will not occur. The rest are located in potential treatment areas (Non off-base). Of
the ten sites located in non off-base areas, HFQLG management activities had only been
completed in the Bean Creek watershed. Treatments there included two group selections
located adjacent to RHCAs. Bean Creek was dry during the 2007 survey.
Potential reasons for the absence of individual frog sightings in 2007 include drought
conditions, use of multiple field crews, and inexperience of some crews in identification of
early life history stages of amphibians. In 2007, the survey area (Lassen, Plumas, and parts of
the Tahoe National Forest) had the lowest snow pack in over 20 years. This resulted in dry
habitat conditions in two of the survey sites (Bean Creek and Boulder Creek at Lowe Flat).
Low water conditions may have resulted in the movement of individuals outside the predetermined survey area of these sites. In previous years, mountain yellow-legged frogs were
encountered at both sites, while this species was absent in 2007. As noted above, one
unidentified egg mass was found in Silver Lake located in the Bucks Wilderness area and was
likely produced by mountain yellow-legged frogs, because this species was present in 2003
and 2005, and was present less than three miles away in both Gold Lake and Rock Lake in
2007.
During the four years of monitoring, sensitive frog species have been identified at 25 of the
long-term monitoring locations (Table 2). In 2007, frogs were observed at 14 these (8 Offbase, and 6 Non off-base sites) (See Table 3).
Catch per unit effort (CPUE) was calculated for the twenty five sites where FS frog species
have been identified during this monitoring effort and is summarized in Table 3. CPUE was
defined as the number of adult, subadult frogs and tadpoles captured per minute. At 11 of the
14 sites where frogs were present in 2007, the CPUE was greater than that in 2000, 2003, or
2005. CPUE at Middle Fork Feather River at Oddie Bar was greater in 2007 than in 2000 or
2005, but less than 2003. CPUE at Beaver Creek was less in 2007 than in 2000 or 2005, but
greater than 2003. Catch per unit effort was not calculated for South Fork Rock Creek
because presence of R. muscosa was determined from an ongoing telemetry study.
Table 1. Summary of the 2007 HFQLG Amphibian monitoring.
Site #
A.M.
#1L
A.M.
#1L
A.M.
#2L
A.M.#
3L
A.M.
#1T
A.M.
#2T
A.M.
#1a
A.M.
#1b
A.M.
#2
A.M.
#3
A.M.
#5
Forest
Survey Site
Species Found
Miles
Surveyed
Acres
Surveyed
LNF
Antelope Creek
Rana boylii
0.6
n/a
LNF
Indian Creek
Rana boylii
0.5
LNF
Beaver Creek
Rana boylii
0.2
LNF
Deer Creek
Rana boylii
0.9
TNF
Independence
Creek
Rana muscosa
0.6
TNF
Perazzo Creek
None
1.0
LNF
Colby Creek
Rana cascadae
1.3
LNF
Willow Creek
None
1.0
n/a
LNF
Carter Creek
Meadow
Boulder Creek at
Lowe Flat
South Fork Rock
Creek
Rana cascadae
1.3
n/a
None
0.5
n/a
0.2
n/a
PNF
PNF
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
A.M.
#7
A.M.
#8
A.M.
#9
A.M.
#12
A.M.
#13
A.M.
#14
A.M.
#15
A.M.
#16
PNF
Hunters Ravine
Rana muscosa
(presence
determined by
telemetry study
None
PNF
Faggs Reservoir
None
0.8
n/a
PNF
Flea Valley
Rana boylii
0.5
n/a
PNF
Onion Creek
None
0.4
n/a
PNF
Slate Creek
None
1.0
n/a
PNF
None
0.5
n/a
Rana boylii
0.6
n/a
None
0.5
n/a
A.M.
#17a
A.M.
#17b
A.M.
#20
PNF
Slate Creek @
Onion Creek
Slate Creek at
Womboe (sic) bar
SF Feather River at
Golden Trout
Crossing
Mud Lake, Bucks
Lake Wilderness
Rock Lake, Bucks
Lake Wilderness
Silver Lake, Bucks
Lake Wilderness
None
n/a
3.0
Rana muscosa
n/a
3.0
n/a
2.1
A.M.
#20A
A.M.
#21
PNF
Possible Rana
muscosa egg
masses
Rana muscosa
n/a
6.0
None
1.0
n/a
PNF
PNF
PNF
PNF
PNF
Gold Lake, Bucks
Lake Wilderness
Bean Creek (2
sections)
Table 1. Continued.
Site #
A.M.
#22
A.M.
#23
A.M.
#24
A.M.
#26
A.M.
#27
A.M.
#28
A.M.
#30
A.M.
#32
Miles
Surveyed
Forest
Survey Site
Species Found
PNF
Middle Fork
Feather River at
Oddie Bar
Rana boylii
PNF
Lone Rock Creek
None
0.7
PNF
Middle Fork
Feather River at
Milsap Bar
Rana boylii
0.5
PNF
Feather Falls
None
0.9
PNF
Grizzly Creek
None
0.5
PNF
Rowland Creek
None
0.2
PNF
Pierce Creek
None
2.0
LNF
Round Valley
Creek
None
0.6
Acres
Surveyed
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
Recommendations
1) As noted above, at eleven sites, FS frog species were absent where earlier survey efforts
individuals were found. We recommend that these sites be resurveyed during the spring or
early summer of 2008 to verify 2007 results.
2) The Feather Falls monitoring site will be dropped from further monitoring in 2009 due to
length of time needed for access and the fact that no frogs have been detected here in the four
years of survey effort.
3) In 2009, two sample sites will be randomly chosen for replicate surveys to provide a
QA/QC check for the monitoring protocol, and field personnel.
4) To ensure the greatest data consistency, every effort should be made that the same person
or field crew should conduct each survey.
Table 2. List of the twenty-five survey sites where Forest Sensitive frogs were present in at
least one of the four survey years. (Observed species is listed after survey site location) (x =
presence; -- = absence; ns= Not surveyed; *= telemetry study sight)
Year
2000
2003
2005
2007
(n=20)
(n=23)
(n=25)
Off-base
(n=20)
x
x
x
x
Off-base
x
x
x
x
Off-base
x
--
x
x
Off-base
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Colby Creek (Rana cascadae)
Non off-base
Non off-base
x
--
x
x
Willow Creek (Rana cascadae)
Non off-base
ns
--
x
--
Carter Creek Meadow (Rana cascadae)
Non off-base
x
x
x
x
Boulder Creek at Lowe Flat (Rana muscosa)
Non off-base
x
x
ns
--
South Fork Rock Creek (Rana muscosa)
Non off-base
x
--
--
x*
Hunters Ravine (Rana boylii)
Non off-base
--
ns
x
--
Flea Valley (Rana boylii)
Non off-base
x
x(2004)
--
x
Onion Creek (Rana boylii)
Non off-base
--
ns
x
--
Slate Creek (Rana boylii)
Non off-base
x
ns
--
--
Slate Creek at Onion Creek (Rana boylii)
Non off-base
x
ns
--
--
Slate Creek at Womboe (sic) bar (Rana boylii)
Non off-base
--
ns
x
x
South Fork Feather River at Golden Trout
Crossing (Rana boylii)
Rock Lake, Bucks Lake Wilderness (Rana
muscosa)
Silver Lake, Bucks Lake Wilderness (Rana
muscosa)
Gold Lake, Bucks Lake Wilderness (Rana
muscosa)
Bean Creek (Rana muscosa)
Non off-base
x
--
--
--
x
x
x
x
x
--
x
--
x
x
x*
--
x(2004)
ns
x
x
x
--
x
x
x
x(2004)
--
--
Survey Site
Antelope Creek (Rana boylii)
Indian Creek (Rana boylii)
Beaver Creek (Rana boylii)
Deer Creek (Rana boylii)
Independence Creek (Rana muscosa)
Middle Fork Feather River at Oddie Bar (Rana
boylii)
Lone Rock Creek (Rana muscosa)
Middle Fork Feather River at Milsap Bar (Rana
boylii)
Grizzly Creek
Off-base/Non
off-base
Off-base
Off-base
Off-base
Non off-base
Off-base
Non off-base
Off-base
Non off-base
x
ns
ns
ns
x
x
x
ns
Table 3. Summary of FS frog presence at Off-base and Non off-base sites by year.
Off-Base Sites
Non Off-Base Sites
# Sites
% of Off# Sites
% of Off# Sites
with
base sites
# Sites
with
base sites
Year
surveyed
frogs
with frogs surveyed
frogs
with frogs
2000
7
7
100
13
10
77
2003
9
8
89
11
7
64
2005
8
7
88
14
9
64
2007
9
8
89
16
6
38
Table 4. Summary of Catch Per Unit Effort (CPUE) for Forest Service Sensitive
frog species at the twenty-five sites listed in Table 2. (na = telemetry study; n.s. = not
surveyed).
Survey Site
Antelope Creek
Indian Creek
Beaver Creek
Deer Creek
Independence Creek
Colby Creek
Willow Creek
Carter Creek Meadow
Boulder Creek at Lowe
Flat
South Fork Rock Creek
Hunters Ravine
Flea Valley
Onion Creek
Slate Creek
Slate Creek @ Onion
Creek
Slate Creek at Womboe
(sic) bar
SF Feather River at
Golden Trout Crossing
Rock Lake, Bucks Lake
Wilderness
Silver Lake, Bucks Lake
Wilderness
Gold Lake, Bucks Lake
Wilderness
Bean Creek (2 sections)
Middle Fork Feather River
at Oddie Bar
Lone Rock Creek
Middle Fork Feather River
at Milsap Bar
Grizzly Creek
CPUE
(number adult, subadult, tadpoles detected per minute x 100)
Off-base/Non
2000
2003
2005
2007
off-base
4.2
0.4
0.9
2.0
Off-base
48.0
1.0
5.0
80.0
Off-base
94.0
6.0
11.0
8.0
Off-base
82.2
1.0
8.0
116.0
Off-base
0.4
1.0
1.0
26.0
Non off-base
Non off-base
2.0
0.0
0.4
2.0
Non off-base
n.s.
0.0
0.6
0.0
Non off-base
5.0
4.0
5.0
13.0
Non off-base
2.0
0.2
n.s.
0.0
Non off-base
Non off-base
Non off-base
Non off-base
Non off-base
Non off-base
96.0
0.0
2.0
0.0
1.0
7.0
0.0
n.s.
2.0
n.s.
n.s.
n.s.
0.0
2.0
0.0
1.0
0.0
0.0
na
0.0
9.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Non off-base
0.0
n.s.
1.0
12.0
Non off-base
0.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
4.0
14.0
11.0
104.0
n.s.
0.3
9.0
0.0
n.s.
0.1
0.0
7.0
n.s.
0.0
2.0
16.0
na
n.s.
0.0
10.0
1.0
5.0
3.0
1.0
2.0
0.4
0.0
0.21
n.s.
0.8
0.0
0.0
Off-base
Off-base
Off-base
Non off-base
Off-base
Non off-base
Off-base
Non off-base
Summary
Thirty-two sites were surveyed in 2007; including the 25 sites where Region 5 designated
Forest Service Sensitive (FS) frog species had been identified during previous year surveys.
Target species were observed at 14 of these sites in 2007. To date, the data gathered during
the four years of monitoring reveals that FS frog species located in Off-base areas in the
HFQLG project area are persisting. The number of sites with FS frogs in Non off-base areas
decreased in 2007 as compared to previous years, though two sites without frog sightings
were dry, while unidentified egg masses were observed at another. All three of these sites
have had mountain yellow-legged frog (R. muscosa) observations in previous years, and are
proposed for resurveys in 2008. Additionally, six of the sites where frogs were not found
during surveys in 2007, had positive sightings in only one of the previous three survey efforts.
Data collected up to this point is inconclusive relative to persistence of the species in the
project area. Additional data collection and analysis is planned.
Figure 1. Flea Valley Creek (A.M. #9) foothill yellow-legged frog
Figure 2. Independence Creek (A.M. #1T) Mountain yellow-legged frog
Figure 3. Colby Creek (A.M. #1a) Cascades frog
References
California Academy of Sciences, Department of Herpetology, San Francisco. Protocol for
Herpetological Surveys in the National Forests. 2002.
APPENDIX A.
Protocol for Herpetological Surveys in the National Forests
Department of Herpetology, California Academy of Sciences
Golden Gate Park, San Francisco, CA 94118-4599; 415-750-7038
Revised April 2002 MSK.
The primary objective of herpetological surveys conducted in the National Forests is to provide
baseline data regarding species occurrence. Most surveys conducted in the National Forest consist of
time-constrained surveys of aquatic sites (e.g. streams, lakes, and rivers), often focusing on species of
special interest. We opportunistically collect and record other terrestrial amphibians and reptiles while
conducting these surveys of aquatic sites. In addition, when optimal habitat for reptiles is encountered,
we survey these areas as well. Visual observations of other vertebrates are included in the survey.
Given the predominance of surveys at aquatic sites, we will focus below on the protocol used for
surveying stream or river systems.
Stream Surveys
Survey teams consist of at least two people conducting fieldwork during daylight hours. Nighttime
surveys are conducted in areas that appear to have suitable habitat for nocturnal species and are thus
usually return visits to sites that have been noted during the day. Obviously, each site is unique
depending on the complexity of the creek structure, accessibility, shoreline composition, etc. General
rules may be applied, however, over a variety of habitat. Usually walking upstream, team members
walk along the bank of the stream, with frequent pauses to observe the stream and shoreline ahead for
amphibians or reptiles before they are startled. Binoculars are recommended. In particular, shallow
channels, gravel bars, areas of open canopy, and pools are examined. Depending on turbidity of water,
dip netting is required to sample bodies of water and is done at regular intervals to test a representative
transect of habitat. Logs, rocks, and secondary and emergent underbrush along stream banks are
checked for animals. Side channels and pools left by higher water levels are also inspected and noted.
Figure 1. Example of sampling method (from Heyer et al. 1994, pp. 122-123.)
All herpetofauna observed are recorded, including estimates of number of eggs (or egg masses) and
number of amphibian larvae. Incidental observations of other vertebrates (and, if possible,
invertebrates) are also noted on the data sheet. See Data Sheet fields below for more detailed
description. GPS readings (or detailed locality descriptions, if GPS is unavailable) must be recorded at
all significant events, such as start and end of survey, voucher specimen acquisition, visual
observations, and notable habitat changes. After a site is surveyed, equipment such as waders, boots,
dip nets and tongs are washed in 3% bleach (sodium hypochlorite) and rinsed clean. Other equipment
needed for surveying include a watch (or use GPS unit), GPS unit set to NAD 27, thermometer, plastic
bags (of various sizes), pencils, waterproof notepad or paper, flagging tape and topological maps of
site.
Data Sheet A pre-categorized survey datasheet is completed with every site surveyed (see attached).
It is initiated at the onset of surveying and is the primary source of information for the survey. Primary
survey data fields include the following: Collectors; Begin Time, given in 24 hour clock; End Time;
Date; Elevation in meters or feet, may be added from 7.5 minute quadrangles post-survey; 7.5 minute
quadrangle map used for reference, name or number, circle NAD 27 or NAD 83; Township/ Range/
Sect., Public Land Survey System (PLSS) description preferably given to the 1/16th, typically to the
1/8th may be added post survey; Locality Description, including county, typically the watercourse
name and/ or mileage from a named place; Begin Survey, the GPS reading in latitude or longitude,
may be given in PLSS if marked on paper map and GPS unavailable; End Survey; Weather
conditions during survey, typically cloud cover percentage or other general description, note in
comments if significant change occurs during survey; Time of Recording, specifically time of
recording weather conditions and temperature readings; Air Temperature, if site is mostly open
canopy then record in the open and adjust accordingly; Water Temperature, taken at a depth of 10
cm (about 4 inches); General Habitat & Predominant Vegetation, general habitat description
conforms to CDFGs Wildlife Habitat Relation (WHR) map categories for vegetation communities
(Mayer and Laudenslayer 1988) and most common vegetation listed typically include trees and woody
perennials; Site Description, circle appropriate category; Drainage; Aquatic substrate, typically size
of streambed substrate fragments (i.e. bedrock, stone at >10 in. diam., cobble at 3- 10 in. diam., gravel
or sand <3 in. diam.) or type (e.g. mud, litter); Geology, typically of parent material of substrate;
Total Time Spent on Aquatic Site, add comment if significant time spent away from aquatic site
during survey since this total time may not be equal to the difference in Begin Time and End Time
fields; Average Width, of watercourse surveyed in meters visually estimated; Average Depth;
Maximum Depth; Flow Rate, of watercourse surveyed, typically estimated by rate of flow in a 10
foot non-bend section of stream; Water Turbidity, rated on a scale of 1 to 5, 1 being completely
clear, no mid-stream debris to 5 of no visibility; Aquatic Vegetation, includes emergent and
submerged vegetation; Recent Disturbances, check general categories, add comments regarding any
recent alterations to habitat. Voucher specimen data fields include the following: Field Number,
include prefix or collector’s initials; Species, preliminary identification; Stage/Sex, limit stage to
Adult, juvenile, or larva(e); Microhabitat & Locality, includes microhabitat where specimen was
encountered (e.g. under rock, basking on log, etc.) and specific locality if significantly different from
original locality description; Remarks, comments specific to specimen, which may include stomach
contents, measurements of snake (SVL, TL), physical aberrations, etc.; LAT/LONG, typically the
GPS reading; TRS, PLSS description which may be added post-survey; Elevation, may be added
post-survey; Time, of collection. Second page of data sheets include: Visual Encounters, including
other mammals, birds, aquatic insects; Comments, concerning habitat description, suitability for
herpetological species, evaluation of the quality of habitat and any other remarks about specimens. An
estimate for the area surveyed given in acres for wet meadows, ponds and woodland sites and in miles
for watercourses is entered post-survey, calculated from 7.5 minute quadrangle maps. Multiple data
sheets may be used for a single survey and is usually numbered in the upper right-hand corner.