Chapter VI. Determination of Effects on Federally Listed Species

• No Effect — The project (or action) is located outside suitable habitat and there would be no disturbance or other direct or indirect impacts on the species.
• May Effect, Not Likely to Adversely Effect — The project (or action) occurs in suitable habitat or results in indirect impacts on the species, but the effect on the species is likely to be beneficial, discountable, or insignificant.
• May Effect, Likely to Adversely Effect — The project (or action) would have an adverse effect on a listed species as a result of direct, indirect, interrelated, or interdependent actions.

Sierra Nevada bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis sierrae)

• There would be no direct effects on habitat for the Sierra Nevada bighorn sheep.
• Indirect effects as a result of increased visitor use at Tioga Pass would be negligible, due to the steep and relatively inaccessible terrain used by the Sierra Nevada bighorn sheep.

• Elderberry plants grow within the project area. Based on the foregoing analysis, there is a likelihood that "take," as defined in the Endangered Species Act, may occur.

• No populations of the California red-legged frog were found in the park in recent surveys, and it is unlikely that red-legged frogs will be found within Yosemite Naitonal Park (Fellers 1999).
• There are two main areas in Yosemite that would be suitable places to reintroduce the California red-legged frog, provided the bullfrog population is removed: Yosemite Valley and the Swamp Lake area (Fellers 1999). The Preferred Alternative would restore at least 135 acres of suitable habitat for the California red-legged frog in Yosemite Valley.

• Bald eagles are rarely seen within Yosemite National Park and are not known to nest in the park; however, riparian and meadow areas of Yosemite Valley may provide foraging habitat for transient eagles.
• Actions proposed in the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/SEIS would restore at least 135 acres of meadow and riparian habitat that could provide foraging habitat for transient eagles.
• Development and fragmentation in upland habitats would have negligible effects on this species.

Chapter VII. Management Recommendations and Mitigation

Avoidance and Protection Measures

• Avoid adverse effects on special-status species
• Minimize adverse effects on special-status species
• Mitigate/compensate for adverse effects on special-status species

• Prior to construction, conduct surveys as necessary for special-status species in the vicinity of all new construction in Yosemite Valley, El Portal, Wawona, Foresta, Hazel Green, South Entrance, Big Oak Flat Entrance, Tioga Pass Entrance, and Badger Pass. Bridges and other structures will be surveyed prior to deconstruction. This will take place well in advance of the project design phase to assure that avoidance and minimization requirements can be met. Should additional state or federally listed species be found that were not documented in this Biological Assessment, consultation with the USFWS would be initiated.
• To the extent practicable, site and design facilities/actions to avoid adverse effects to special-status species. If avoidance is infeasible, minimize and compensate adverse effects to special-status as appropriate and in consultation with the appropriate resource agencies.
• Develop and implement restoration and/or monitoring plans as warranted. Plans should include methods for implementation, performance standards, monitoring criteria, and adaptive management techniques.
• Implement measures to reduce adverse effects of non-native plants and wildlife on special-status species.
• Implement stormwater management measures to reduce non-point source pollution discharge from roads, parking lots, and other impervious surfaces. This could include oil/sediment separators, street sweeping, infiltration beds, and use of permeable surfaces and vegetated or natural filters to trap or filter stormwater runoff.
• Use only plants native to Yosemite National Park in landscaping.
• Prepare and implement a noxious weed abatement program. This could include restoration of degraded habitats, use of hand labor to remove weeds, and use of herbicides.
• Implement measures to reduce adverse effects of non-native wildlife. This could include use of processed feeds and hay at stables to reduce food for cowbirds, trapping programs for cowbirds, and measures to eradicate bullfrogs from wetland habitats.
• To the extent practicable, site and design facilities/actions to avoid adverse effects to sensitive wildlife habitats or habitat features, especially during breeding seasons. If avoidance is infeasible, minimize and compensate adverse effects as appropriate.
• Minimize night lighting where practicable. Where night lighting is necessary, design lighting to be minimal, directed downward, and shielded.
• Educate the public on the dangers of intentional or unintentional feeding of park wildlife, and on inadvertent harassment through observation or pursuit.
• Implement standard noise abatement measures during park operations. Standard noise abatement measures could include the following elements: a schedule that minimizes effects to adjacent noise-sensitive uses, use of the best available noise control techniques wherever feasible, use of hydraulically or electrically powered impact tools when feasible, and location of stationary noise sources as far from sensitive areas as possible.
• To the extent practicable, site and design facilities to minimize objectionable noise elements.
• Allow natural processes to maintain the presence of very large, old trees, snags, large-diameter logs, and decaying wood across the landscape.
• Maintain conditions suitable for spotted owl prey base, including decadence features such as mistletoe brooms, cavities, tree deformities, fungus growth, and large, decaying oaks.

• Implement a compliance monitoring program when sensitive resources have potential to be affected. The compliance monitoring program would oversee/enforce the below-referenced measures and include compliance strategies and reporting protocols.
• Implement a fencing and flagging program to protect special-status or sensitive habitats. This could include the following types of measures: using of high-visibility snow fences around protected elderberry shrubs, marking trees to be retained, using signs (e.g., "no refueling" signs) in areas of high sensitivity.
• Implement a native vegetation salvage program. This could include minimizing land disturbance, salvage and storage of topsoil, treatment of non-native species, erosion control, and revegetation.
• Implement a dust abatement program. Standard dust abatement measures could include the following elements: water or otherwise stabilize soils, cover haul trucks, employ speed limits on unpaved roads, minimize vegetation clearing, and revegetate after construction.
• Implement standard noise abatement measures during construction. Standard noise abatement measures could include the following elements: a schedule that minimizes effects to adjacent noise-sensitive uses, use of the best-available noise control techniques wherever feasible, use of hydraulically or electrically powered impact tools when feasible, and location of stationary noise sources as far from sensitive uses as possible.
• Implement a noxious weed abatement program. Standard measures could include the following elements: ensure construction-related equipment arrives on site free of mud or seed-bearing material, use only certified weed-free seeds and straw material, identify areas of noxious weeds pre-construction, treat noxious weeds or noxious weed topsoil prior to construction (e.g., topsoil segregation, storage, herbicide treatment), and revegetate with appropriate native species propogated from local genetic stock.
• Implement a natural resource protection program. Standard measures could include construction scheduling, biological monitoring, erosion and sediment control, protection of sensitive habitats, removal of all food-related items or rubbish to bear-proof containers, topsoil salvage, and revegetation. This could include specific construction monitoring by resource specialists, treatment, and reporting procedures.
• To the extent practicable, schedule project activities that generate high levels of noise and other disturbance (e.g., light) to occur during periods of the year and times of day when effects on species sensitive to such disturbance would be minimized.
• Implement a spill prevention and pollution control program (hazardous materials). Standard measures could include hazardous materials storage and handling procedures; spill containment, cleanup, and reporting procedures; and limitation of refueling and other hazardous activities to upland/nonsensitive sites.
• Implement an interpretation and education program. Continue signage and education programs to promote understanding among park visitors.
• Implement a tree protection plan as warranted. This could include measures such as avoiding the root zone (typically 1.5 times the tree canopy), using hand equipment for trenching within the root zone, reducing compaction within root-zones, and maintaining a natural grade.

• Mitigation measures prescribed in the Biological Opinion for this plan (rendered by the USFWS) will be applied to all potential actions. The Biological Opinion will be based on conservation guidelines developed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS 1999).
• All National Park Service personnel that coordinate construction work should be familiar with the locations and avoidance requirements for all elderberry shrubs within the construction zone.
• The contractor and all of the contractor’s on-site personnel should be briefed on the locations of elderberry, avoidance requirements, and penalties for noncompliance.
• Elderberry plants within the project area should be individually fenced 20 feet from the dripline. The area would be signed before clearing and grubbing begins and before any large equipment is allowed access to the site.
• A qualified National Park Service staff member should be present for the duration of the project to ensure no unnecessary take of elderberry occurs. The staff member would have the authority to stop all activities should the potential for unnecessary take become apparent. He or she should report any violations to the USFWS.
• Any construction-related disturbance to the buffer zone (100 feet from the dripline) should be minimized and restored following construction.
• All potential development zones below 3,000 feet (in the typical elevation range of the Valley elderberry longhorn beetle) have been surveyed for elderberry plants. All project sites above 3,000 feet will be surveyed prior to site design for the presence or absence of beetle exit holes. In the unlikely event that exit holes are discovered in areas outside the typical range of the Valley elderberry longhorn beetle, mitigation measures as described in the Biological Opinion from the USFWS will be applied.

• To minimize adverse effects on nesting birds, limit construction activities in nesting habitat during breeding season, which is typically March to August.
• Trees or structures that contain unoccupied nests (stick nests or tree cavities), but must be removed, should be removed prior to March 1, or after nesting season is over.
• Alternatively, if activities take place during the breeding season, a qualified biologist would conduct a pre-construction survey for individuals no more than one week prior to construction in March through August. If any special-status species is observed nesting, a determination should be made as to whether or not the Preferred Alternative will impact the active nest or disrupt reproductive behavior.
• If it is determined that the action will not impact an active nest or disrupt breeding behavior, construction will proceed without any restriction or mitigation measure.
• If it is determined that construction will impact an active nest or disrupt reproductive behavior, then avoidance strategies should be implemented. Construction could be delayed within 500 feet of such a nest, until a qualified biologist determines that the subject birds are no longer nesting or until any juvenile birds are no longer using the nest as their primary day and night roost.

• Work activities within potential special-status aquatic species habitat should be completed between July 1 and November 1 or during low-flow conditions.
• A qualified biologist should survey the site two weeks before the onset of activities. If special-status aquatic species, tadpoles, or eggs are found, the biologist will contact the appropriate agency(ies) to determine if moving any of these life-stages is appropriate. Surveys will follow the "Guidance on Site Assessment and Field Surveys for California Red-legged Frogs" developed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS 1997).
• A qualified biologist should conduct training sessions for all construction personnel before activities begin.
• Construction adjacent to aquatic habitats should be fenced to prohibit the movement of frogs into the construction area, and to control siltation and disturbance in aquatic habitats.
• All construction adjacent to or within aquatic habitats should be regularly monitored.
• All trash that may attract predators should be contained and regularly removed. Following construction, all trash and construction debris will be removed from work areas.
• All fueling and maintenance of vehicles and equipment should occur at least 20 meters (65 feet) from any aquatic habitat.
• The spread or introduction of invasive, non-native plant species should be avoided. When practicable, invasive plants in the project areas will be removed.
• The number and size of access routes, staging areas, and total area of activity should be limited to the minimum necessary to achieve the project goal.
• Best management practices should be implemented to control erosion.
• During dewatering, intakes should be completely screened with wire mesh not larger than 5 millimeters to prevent aquatic species from entering the pump system. Water would be released or pumped downstream at an appropriate rate to maintain downstream flows during construction. Upon completion of construction activities, any barriers to flow will be removed in a manner that allows flow to resume with the least disturbance to the substrate.
• Where practicable, qualified biologists would permanently remove, from within the project area, any individuals of non-native species, such as bullfrogs, crayfish, and centrachid fishes, to the maximum extent possible.
• The downstream construction boundary should be fenced to prohibit the movement of aquatic species into the construction area and to control creek siltation and disturbance to downstream riparian habitat. An exclosure fence should be installed in the creek channel both upstream and downstream of construction activities as appropriate. Fences should be installed at least six weeks prior to the commencement of any construction activities.
• Immediately after installation of the exclosure fence, a qualified biologist should inspect all areas within the fence for aquatic species.

• A qualified biologist should conduct surveys to determine whether affected structures, mature trees, or other habitat (e.g., crevices) provide hibernacula, nursery colony, or roosting habitat.
• If surveys conducted during the fall do not reveal any bat species, then the action should occur within three days in order to prevent the destruction of any bats that move into the area after the survey.
• If the site is being used as a winter roost, then the action should occur either prior to hibernation (between September 1 and October 1) or after hibernation (January 15 to February 15).
• If spring surveys are conducted and reveal that the site is being used as a nursery colony, the action should not occur until after August 15, when the pups are weaned and are free-flying.

• Excavation sites (trenches or pits) would have suitable ramps for small mammals to exit these areas.
• A qualified biologist would be available to inspect all excavations before refilling occurs, ensuring that special-status species are passively relocated to avoid incidental take.
• Exclosure fencing could be erected prior to construction to ensure that no special-status species are within the construction area.
• To prevent mortality caused by motor vehicles, speed limits in primary fisher habitat should be low.

Chapter VIII. Contributors and References

Contributors

Allen-Diaz, B.H.
1991 "Water table and plant species relationships in Sierra Nevada meadows. American Midland Naturalist, 126:30-43.

Assay, Christopher E. and William E. Davis

1984 Management of an Endangered Species in a National Park: The Peregrine Falcon in Yosemite. Technical Report No. 16. Cooperative National Park Studies Unit. University of California. Davis, California.

AOU (American Ornithologists’ Union)

1983 Checklist of North American Birds. 6th Edition.

Austin, K.K.

1993 "Habitat use and home range size of breeding northern goshawks in the southern Cascades." Masters thesis, Oregon State University. 57 pp.

Baxter, R.
1994 "Preliminary results of a summer gill-net survey for Sacramento splittail." Interagency Ecological Program for the Sacramento-San Joaquin Estuary Newsletter, (Autumn):14-15.

Baxter, R., W. Harrell and L. Grimaldo
1996 "1995 splittail spawning investigations." Interagency Ecological Program for the Sacramento-San Joaquin Estuary Newsletter, 9(4):27-31.

Barr, Cheryl B.
1991 "The distribution, habitat, and status of the Valley elderberry longhorn beetle Desmocerus californicus dimorphus." U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Sacramento, California.

Behler, J.L., and F.W. King
1979 The Audubon Society Field Guide to North American Reptiles and Amphibians. Alfred A Knopf, New York. 743 pp.

Bloom, P.H., G.R. Stewart, and B.J. Walton
1986 "The status of the northern goshawk in California, 1981-1983." Wildlife Management Branch Administrative Report 85-1. State of California, The Resources Agency, Department of Fish and Game. 26 pp.

Boroja, Maria.
1998 Personal communication. Chief, Forest and Foothills Ecosystems Branch. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Sacramento, California.

Brown, H.P.
1972 "Biota of Freshwater Ecosystems Identification Manual No. 6. Aquatic Dryopoid Beetles (Coleoptera) of the United States." Water Pollution Control Research Series. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Washington, D.C. 82 pp.

Camilleri. E.P.
1982 "Goshawk (Accipiter gentilis)." pages 83-91, In: Shimamoto, K, and D. Airola. "Fish and wildlife habitat capability models and special habitat criteria for the northeast zone National Forests." USDA Forest Service. 260 pp.

CDFG (California Department of Fish and Game )
1991 "Annual Report on the Status of California State Listed Threatened and Endangered Animals and Plants." State of California. The Resources Agency, Department of Fish and Game. 191 pp.

1999a Information extracted from the "Spittail Abundance and Distribution Update" (Central Valley Bay-Delta Branch).

1999b Information extracted from the Natural Diversity Data Base — Special Plants, Animals, and Natural Communities of Mariposa County. Revised April 6, 1999.

Chandler, H.P.
1954 "New genera and species of Elmidae (Coleoptera) from California." Pan-Pacific Entomologist. 30: 135-131.

Chow, Leslie Stephen
1992 Population Dynamics and Movement Patterns of Bighorn Sheep Reintroduced in the Sierra Nevada, California. Technical Report NPS/WRUC/NRTR-92/48. Western Region Cooperative National Park Studies Unit. University of California. Davis, California.

2000 Personal communication. Research Wildlife Biologist. U.S. Geological Survey. Yosemite National Park, California.

DeGraaf, R.M., V.E. Scott, R.H. Hamre, L. Ernst, and S.H. Anderson
1991 Forest and Rangeland Birds of the United States. Natural History and Habitat Use. USDA Forest Service, Agriculture Handbook 688. 625 pp.

Detrich, P.J.
1982 "Results of California winter bald eagle survey — 1982." U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Sacramento, California. 16 pp.

Drost, Charles A., and Gary M. Fellers
1994 Decline of Frog Species in the Yosemite Section of the Sierra Nevada. Technical Report No. NPS/WRUC/NRTR-94-02. National Park Service Western Region Cooperative Studies Unit, University of California. Davis, California.

1996 "Collapse of a Regional Frog Fauna in the Yosemite Area of the California Sierra Nevada, USA." In Conservation Biology (April): Vol. 10, No. 2.

Erlich, P.R., D.S. Dobkin, and D. Wheye
1988 The Birder’s Handbook. Simon and Schuster, New York. 785 pp.

Ettinger, A.O., and J.R. King
1980 "Time and energy budgets of the willow flycatcher (Empidonax trailii) during the breeding season." Auk 97: 533-546.

Fellers, Gary M.
1997 "Aquatic Amphibian Surveys — Yosemite National Park." Biological Resources Division, U.S. Geological Survey. Point Reyes National Seashore. Point Reyes, California.

1999 "Final Report — 1999: Declining Amphibians — Yosemite National Park." Biological Resources Division, U.S. Geological Survey. Point Reyes National Seashore. Point Reyes, California.

Fellers, Gary M. and Kathleen L. Freel
1995 A Standardized Protocol for Surveying Aquatic Amphibians. Technical Report NPS/WRUC/NRTR-95-01. Western Region Cooperative National Park Studies Unit. University of California. Davis, California

Fowler, C.
1988 "Habitat Capability Model for the northern goshawk." Unpublished document. USDA Forest Service, Tahoe National Forest, Nevada City, California. 21 pp.

Garrett, R.L., and D.J. Mitchell
1973 "A study of prairie falcon populations in California." California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento. Administrative Report 73-2. 15 pp.

Geist, V.
1971 Mountain Sheep, a Study in Behavior and Evolution. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, Illinois. 383 pp.

Gould, Gordon I. and Kathleen M. Norton
1993 Spotted Owl Distribution and Abundance in Yosemite National Park, 1988-89. State of California Department of Fish and Game, Nongame Bird and Mammal Section. Technical Report 1993-3.

Green, J. S., and J. T. Flinders
1980 Brachylagus idahoensis. Mammal Species, No. 135. 4 pp.

Grinnell, J., J.S. Dixon, and J.M. Linsdale
1937 Furbearing mammals of California. Vol.I. University of California Press, Berkeley. 777 pp.

Grinnell, J. and A. H. Miller
1944 "The distribution of the birds of California." Pacific Coast Avifauna. 27: 1-608.

Grinnell, Joseph and Tracy I. Storer
1924 Animal life in the Yosemite. University of California Press. Berkeley, California.

Hall, P.A.
1984 "Characterization of nesting habitat of goshawk (Accipiter gentilis) in northwest California." Masters thesis, California State University, Humboldt. Arcata, California. 70 pp.

Hargis, Christina D.
1982 Winter Habitat Utilization and Food Habits of Pine Martens in Yosemite National Park. Technical Report No. 6. Cooperative National Park Studies Unit. University of California. Davis, California.

Hargis, Christina D. and Dale R. McCullough
1984 "Winter Diet and Habitat Selection of Marten in Yosemite National Park." Journal of Wildlife Management. 48(1).

Harris, J.H.
1991 "Effects of broad parasitism by brown-headed cowbirds on willow flycatcher nesting success along the Kern River, California." Western Birds 18:27-36.

Hayes, M.P. and M.M. Miyamoto
1984 "Biochemical, behavioral, and body size differences between Rana aurora aurora and R. a. draytoni." Copeia. No. 4, pp. 1,018-1,022.

Hayes, M.P., and M.R. Jennings.
1988 "Habitat correlates of distribution of the California red-legged frog (Rana aurora draytonii) and the foothill yellow-legged frog (Rana boylii): Implications for management." In Management of Amphibians, Reptiles, and Small Mammals in North America. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-166.

Hayes, M.P. and M. R. Tennant
1985 "Diet and feeding behavior of the California red-legged frog, Rana aurora draytoni (Ranidae)." Southwest Naturalist 30 (4): 601-605.

Hickman, James C., editor
1993 The Jepson Manual — Higher Plants of California. University of California Press. Berkeley and Los Angeles, California. 1,400 pp.

Ingles, L.G.
1965 Mammals of the Pacific States. Stanford University Press, Stanford, California. 506 pp.

Jennings, Mark R.
1988 "Natural history and decline of native ranids in California." In the Proceedings of the Conference on California Herpetology. De Lisle, H.F., P.R. Grown, B. Kaufman, and B.M. McGurty (eds.).

Jennings, Mark R. and M. P. Hayes
1994 "Amphibian and reptile species of special concern in California." Prepared for the California Department of Fish and Game, Inland Fisheries Division, Rancho Cordova, California. Contract #8023 Final Report. 255 pp.

Jennings, W.B., D.F. Bradford, and D.F. Johnson
1992 "Dependence of the garter snake Thanmophis elegans on amphibians in the Sierra Nevada of California. Journal of Herpetology 26: 503-505.

Jurek, R.M.
1988 "Five-year status report. Bald Eagle." California Department Fish and Game. Sacramento, California.

KRCD (Kings River Conservation District)
1985 "Studies on the willow flycatcher in the central Sierra Nevada conducted during 1983 and 1984." Kings River Conservation District Res. Report No. 85-017. 66 pp.

Laymon, S.A
1987 "Brown-headed cowbirds in California: historical perspectives and management opportunities in riparian habitats." Western Birds 18(1).

Maciolek, J.A.
1985. "Status Survey of the Keeled Snail, Monadenia circumcarinata." Progress report to the Sacramento Endangered Species Office of the USFWS. 9 pp.

Maser, C., B.R. Mate, J.F. Franklin, and C.T. Dyrness
1981 Natural History of Oregon Coast Mammals. Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experimental Station. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report, PNW-133. 496 pp.

Maurer, Jeff
2000 Personal communication. Graduate researcher. University of California at Davis. Davis, California.

Merritt, R.W. and K.W. Cummins
1984 An Introduction to the Aquatic Insects of North America. Second Edition. Dubuque, Iowa: Dendall/Hunt Publishing Company.

McCarthy, C.
1986 "Goshawk progress report/proposal for nesting habitat analysis on the Inyo National Forest." 13 pp.

Monk, J.G., B.J. Walton, R. Olendorff, and D. Carrier
1988 Draft California Peregrine Falcon Implementation Plan. 40 pp.

Moore, P.E.
1992 "Preliminary descriptions of the terrestrial natural communities of Yosemite National Park, California." U.S. Geological Survey, Yosemite National Park Research Station. El Portal, California. 39 p.

McNeal, D. W. and Mortola, W. R.
1985 "Taxonomy of the Allium tribracteatum (Alliaceae) complex." Aliso 11(1): 27-35.

Moore, Peggy
1991 "Forage site characteristics of reintroduced mountain sheep in the Sierra Nevada, California." Technical Report. Western Region Cooperative National Park Studies Unit. University of California. Davis, California.

Mullally, D.P.
1953 "Observations on the ecology of the toad Bufo canorus." Copeia 1953: 182-183.

Mullally, D.P. and J.D. Cunningham
1956 "Ecological relations of Rana muscosa at high elevations in the Sierra Nevada." Herpetologica 12:189-198.

NPS (National Park Service)
1980 General Management Plan. Yosemite National Park, California.

1988 Management Policies, National Park Service, Washington DC.

1990 Fire Management Plan, Yosemite National Park.

1991 NPS-77 Natural Resource Management Guideline. National Park Service, Washington D.C.

1994 Natural Resources Management Plan for Yosemite National Park. Yosemite National Park, California.

2000a Draft Yosemite Valley Plan/Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement. National Park Service, California.

2000b Final Yosemite Valley Plan/Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement. National Park Service, California.

Numgesser, W. and E. Pfeiffer
1965 "Water balance and the maximum concentrating capacity in the primitive rodent, Aplondontia rufa." Comparative Biochemical Physiology 14:289-297.

Palmer, Ralph S.
1988 Handbook of North American Birds — Volume 5 — Diurnal Raptors, Part 2. Yale University.

Pierson, Elizabeth D.
2000 Personal communication. Research mammologist with Conservation, Biology, and Systematics.

Pierson, Elizabeth D. and Gary M. Fellers
1998 "Distribution of the Big-Eared Bat, Corynorhinus (=Plecotus) townsendii in California." Prepared for the U.S. Geological Survey Biological Resources Division Species at Risk Program.

Pierson, Elizabeth D., and William E. Rainey
1993 "Bat Surveys: Yosemite Valley and Hetch Hetchy Reservoir, July 1993." On file at Yosemite National Park, Yosemite, California: 18 pp.

1995 "Bat Surveys: Yosemite National Park 1994." Unpublished report. On file at Yosemite National Park, Yosemite, California: 23 pp.

1996 "Habitat Use by Two Cliff-Dwelling Bat Species, the Spotted Bat, Euderma maculatum, and the Mastiff Bat, Eumops perotis, in Yosemite National Park, 1995." On file at Yosemite National Park, Yosemite, California: 28 pp.

1998 "Distribution of the Spotted Bat, Euderma maculatum, in California." Journal of Mammalogy. 79(4):1296-1305.

Pilsbry, H.A.
1939 "Land Mollusca of North America (north of Mexico). Vol I. Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, Monograph No. 3. Philadelphia, PA. 576 pp.

Ratliff, Raymond D. and Renee G. Denton
1993 "Bolander’s Clover in the Central Sierra Nevada: A Sensitive Species?" Madrono, Vol. 40, No. 3, p. 166-173.

Ratliff, Raymond D. and Ethelynda E. Harding
1993 "Soil Acidity, Temperature, and Water Relationships of Four Clovers in Sierra Nevada Meadows." USDA Forest Service Research Note PSW-RN-413.

Rehn, J.A.G., and H.J.J. Grant, Jr.
1956 "A New Species of Tetrix." Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, Philadelphia 108-110.

Reid, Mason Edward
1989 The Predator-Prey Relationships of the Great Gray Owl in Yosemite National Park. Technical Report No. 35. Cooperative National Park Studies Unit. University of California. Davis, California.

Remsen, J.V., Jr.
1978 "Bird species of special concern in California." California Department of Fish and Game, Wildlife Management Branch Admin. Report, No. 78-1. 54 pp.

Reynolds, R.T., R.T. Graham, M.H. Reiser, R.L. Bassett, P.L. Kennedy, D.A. Boyce, Jr., G. Goodwin, R. Smith, and E.L. Fisher.
1992 "Management recommendations for the northern goshawk in the southwestern United States." USDA Forest Service General Technical Report RM-127. 90 pp.

Roberts, Kevin; Mike Escallier and Gordon I. Gould, Jr.
1988 "Spotted Owl Distribution and Abundance in Yosemite National Park, 1988." State of California. The Resources Agency, Department of Fish and Game.

Roth, Barry
1972 "Rare and Endangered Land Mollusks in California." Sterkiana. California Academy of Sciences. San Francisco, California.

Rothstein, Stephen I., Jared Verner, and Ernest Stevens
1980 "Range Expansion and Diurnal Changes in Dispersion of the Brown-headed Cowbird in the Sierra Nevada." The Auk (April): 253-267.

1984 "Radio-Tracking Confirms a Unique Diurnal Pattern of Spatial Occurrence in the Parasitic Brown-headed Cowbird." Ecology: 65(1) 1984.

Saunders, L.B.
1982 "Essential nesting habitat jof the goshawk (Accipiter gentilis) on the Shasta-Trinity National Forest, McCloud District." Masters thesis, California State University, Chico. Chico, California. 57 pp.

Saunders, S.D. and M.A. Flett
1989 "Ecology of a Sierra Nevada population of willow flycatchers (Empidonax traillii), 1986-1987. State of California, The Resources Agency, Department of Fish and Game, Wildlife Management Division. Nongame Bird and Mammal Section. 27 pp.

Schemph, Philip F. and Marshall White
1977 Status of Six Furbearer Populations in the Mountains of Northern California. Department of Forestry and Conservation, and Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, University of California. Berkeley, California.

Schnell, J. H.
1958 "Nesting behavior and food habits of goshawks in the Sierra Nevada of California." Condor 60: 377-403.

Serena, Melody
1982 "The Status and Distribution of the Willow Flycatcher (Empidonax trailii) in Selected Portions of the Sierra Nevada, 1982." State of California. The Resources Agency, Department of Fish and Game. Wildlife Management Branch. Administrative Report 82-5.

Shepard, W.D. and C.B. Barr
1991 "Description of the larva of Atractelmis (Coleoptera: Elmidae) and new information on the morphology, distribution, and habitat of Atractelmis wawona (Chandler). Pan-Pacific Entomologist (67).

Sherman, Cynthia Kagarise and Martin L. Morton
1984 "The Toad That Stays on Its Toes." Natural History (March):pp. 73-78.

1993 "Population Declines of Yosemite Toads in the Eastern Sierra Nevada of California." Journal of Herpetology: Vol. 27, No. 2, pp. 186-198.

Shields, A.O.
1990 Field Investigation of the threatened Valley elderberry longhorn beetle (Desmocerus californicus dimorphus) habitat in Kern County, California. Draft report prepared for the USFWS, Endangered Species Office. Sacramento, California (as cited in VOLPE 1997).

Skenfield, Michael W.
1999 "Biological Survey Report for Hazel Green Ranch Project — Mariposa County." Prepared for Destination Villages, Santa Barbara, California.

Skiff, Susan Louise
1986 "Winter Ecology of Great Gray Owls (Strix nebulosa) in Yosemite National Park, California." Masters thesis submitted to the University of California, Davis.

Smith, Allyn G.
1970 "Western Land Snails." Malacologia 10(1): 39-46.

Smith, Hobart M.
1978 Amphibians of North America. Golden Press, New York. 160 pp.

(SNEP) Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project
1996 Final Report to Congress (Davis: University of California, Centers for Water and Wildland Resources).

Stebbins, R.C.
1954 Amphibians and Reptiles of Western North America. McGraw-Hill, New York.

1972 California Amphibians and Reptiles. University of California Press, Berkeley. 152 pp.

1985 A Field Guide to Western Reptiles and Amphibians. Second Edition,

Steele, D.T.
1986 The mountain beaver (Aplodontia rufa) in California. Masters thesis. University of California, Davis.

Steger, George N.
2000 "Final Report." (Survey for California spotted owls, Strix occidentalis occidentalis in areas that may be affected by the Yosemite Valley Plan). Interagency Agreement No. 1A8800-00-014. On file at Yosemite National Park Research Library.

Steger, George N.
2000 Personal communication. Research biologist, U.S. Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station. Fresno, California.

Steinhart, P.
1990 "California’s Wild Heritage: Threatened and Endangered Animals in the Golden State." California Department of Fish and Game.

Storer, T.I.
1925 A Synopsis of the Amphibia of California. University of California Publications in Zoology. No. 27.

Taylor, Dean Wm.
1982 A Sensitive Plant Survey for the Stanislaus National Forest, California. Prepared for the USFS Regional Office, Stanislaus National Forest. Contract No. 53-2-12.

Thelander , Carl G., ed.
1994 Life on the Edge: A Guide To California’s Endangered Natural Resources. Biosystems Books. Santa Cruz, California.

Thompson, Steve
2000 Personal communication. National Park Service Wildlife Biologist. Yosemite National Park, California.

Todd, Paul A.
1990 "Mountain beavers in Yosemite: Habitat use and management implications of a rare species." In Yosemite Centennial Symposium Proceedings — Natural Areas and Yosemite: Prospects for the Future. October 13-20, 1990.

USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service)
1982 Pacific Coast Recovery Plan for the American Peregrine Falcon. Sacramento, California. Unpublished report, 86 pages.

1986 "Recovery Plan for the Pacific Bald Eagle." Portland, Oregon.

1997 Guidance on Site Assessment and Field Surveys for California Red-legged Frogs. Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office.

1999 Conservation Guidelines for the Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle. Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office.

2000 Draft Recovery Plan for the California Red-legged Frog (Rana aurora draytonii). Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office.

USFS (U.S. Forest Service)
1994a "Biological Evaluation of Management Strategies for Managing California Spotted Owl Habitat in the Sierra Nevada National Forests of California (An Ecosystem Approach)." In the Draft Environmental Impact Statement - Managing California Spotted Owl Habitat in the Sierra Nevada National Forests of California - An Ecosystem Approach. Volume II — Appendices (1995). Pacific Southwest Region.

1994b "The Scientific Basis for Conserving Forest Carnivores – American Marten, Fisher, Lynx, and Wolverine in the Western United States." General Technical Report RM-254. Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. Fort Collins, Colorado.

1996 Managing Roads for Wet Meadow Ecosystem Recovery. Southwestern Region. FHWA-FLP-96-016.

Usinger, R.L., editor.
1956 Aquatic Insects of California. University of California Press. Berkeley, California.

Valentine, B.E., T.A. Roberts, S.D. Boland, and A.P. Woodman
1988 "Livestock management and productivity of willow flycatchers in the Central Sierra Nevada." Transactions of the Western Section of the Wildlife Society. 24:105-114.

van Wagtendonk, Jan.
2000 Personal Communication. Research Scientist, U.S. Geological Survey, Yosemite National Park, California.

Verner, J., and A.S. Boss
1983 California Wildlife and their Habitats: Western Sierra Nevada. General Technical Report PSW-37. Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experimental Station, USDA Forest Service, Berkeley, California. 439 pp.

Verner, J., K.S. McKelvey, B.R. Noon, R.J. Gutierrez, G.I. Gould, Jr., and J.W. Beck, tech coords.
1992 The California Spotted Owl: A Technical Assessment of Its Current Status. General Technical Report PSW-133. Albany, California: USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station. 285 p.

Verner, J. and L.V. Ritter.
1983 "Current status of the brown-headed cowbird in the Sierra National Forest." Auk 100: 355-368.

VOLPE National Transportation Systems Center
1997 Biological Assessment — El Portal Road Improvements. Prepared for the National Park Service, Yosemite National Park.

Wehausen, J.D.
1980 "Sierra Nevada bighorn sheep: History and population ecology." Ph.D. dissertation, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

Whitfield, Mary
2000 Personal communication. Research biologist with the Kern River Research Center, California.

Wildman, Ann Marie
1992 "The Effect of Human Activity on Great Gray Owl Hunting Behavior in Yosemite National Park, California." Technical Report No. NPS/WRVC/NRTR 92/49. Western Region Cooperative National Park Studies Unit. University of California. Davis, California.

Williams, D.F.
1986 "Mammalian species of special concern in California." California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento. Admin. Report 86-1. 122 pp.

Wildlife Society, The
1996 "Natural History and Management of Bats in California and Nevada." From proceedings of the Western Section of The Wildlife Society Conference, November 13-15, 1996.

Winter, Jon
1980 The status and distribution of the great gray owl in California. California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento. Final Report Project W-51-R-12. 37 pp.

1985 "Great Gray Owl Survey, 1984." State of California, The Resources Agency. California Department of Fish and Game. Final Report Project W-65-R-2.

1986 "Status, Distribution and Ecology of the Great Gray Owl (Strix nebulosa) in California." Masters thesis submitted to San Francisco State University.

Woodbridge, B., P.H. Bloom, and P. Detrich.
1988 "Territory fidelity and habitat use by northern goshawks; Implications for management." Paper presented at the 1988 Annual Meeting of The Wildlife Society, Hilo, Hawaii, November 1988.

Zeiner, D.C., W.F. Laudenslayer, Jr., K.E. Mayer, compiling editors
1988 California’s Wildlife, Volume I, Amphibians and Reptiles. State of California, The Resources Agency, Department of Fish and Game. Sacramento. 272 pp.

Zeiner, D.C., W.F. Laudenslayer, Jr., K.E. Mayer, and M. White
1990 California’s Wildlife, Volume II, Birds. California Department of Fish and Game. Sacramento. 732 pp.

Zweifel, R.G
1968 "Rana muscosa." Catalogue of American Amphibians and Reptiles: 65.1-65.2.

Appendix K-1 — U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Species List

United States Department of The Interior

FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office
2800 Cottage Way, Room W2605
Sacramento, California 95825

REPLY REFER

1-1-00-SP-1332

March 29, 2000

Memorandum

To: Lisa Acree, Resources Management, National Park Service, El Portal, California

From: Chief, Endangered Species Division, Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office, Fish and Wildlife Service, Sacramento, California

Subject: Species List for the Draft Yosemite Valley Plan

We are sending the enclosed list in response to your March 29, 2000, request for information about endangered and threatened species (Attachment A). These lists fulfill the requirement of the Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) to provide species lists under section 7(c) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act).

The Service used the information in your letter to locate the proposed project on a U.S. Geological Survey (U.S. Geological Survey) 7.5 minute quadrangle map. The animal species on the Attachment A quad list are those species we believe may occur within, or be affected by projects within, the U.S. Geological Survey quads where your project is planned.

Any plants on the quad list are ones that have actually been observed in that quad. Plants may occur in a quad without having been observed there. Therefore we have included a species list for the whole county in which your project occurs. We recommend that you survey for any relevant plants shown on this list.

Fish and other aquatic species appear on your list if they are in the same watershed as your quad or if water use in your quad might affect them. Birds are shown regardless of whether they are resident or migratory. Relevant birds on the county list should be considered regardless of whether they appear on a quad list.

If a species has been listed as threatened or endangered by the State of California, but not by us nor by the National Marine Fisheries Service, it will appear on your list as a Species of Concern. However you must contact the California Department of Fish and Game for official information about these species. Call (916) 322-2493 or write Marketing Manager, California Department of Fish and Game, Natural Diversity Data Base, 1416 Ninth Street, Sacramento, California 95814.

Some of the species listed in Attachment A may not be affected by the proposed action. A trained biologist or botanist, familiar with the habitat requirements of the listed species, should determine whether these species or habitats suitable for them may be affected. For plants, we recommend using the enclosed Guidelines for Conducting and Reporting Botanical Inventories for Federally Listed, Proposed and Candidate Species (Attachment C).

Some pertinent information concerning the distribution, life history, habitat requirements, and published references for the listed species is available upon request. This information may be helpful in preparing the biological assessment for this project, if one is required. Please see Attachment B for a discussion of the responsibilities Federal agencies have under section 7(c) of the Act and the conditions under which a biological assessment must be prepared by the lead Federal agency or its designated non-Federal representative.

Formal consultation, under 50 CFR § 402.14, should be initiated if you determine that a listed species may be affected by the proposed project. If you determine that a proposed species may be adversely affected, you should consider requesting a conference with our office under 50 CFR §402.10. Informal consultation may be utilized prior to a written request for formal consultation to exchange information and resolve conflicts with respect to a listed species. If a biological assessment is required, and it is not initiated within 90 days of your receipt of this letter, you should informally verify the accuracy of this list with our office.

When a species is listed as endangered or threatened, areas of habitat considered essential to itsconservation may be designated as critical habitat. These areas may require special managementconsiderations or protection. They provide needed space for growth and normal behavior; food,water, air, light, other nutritional or physiological requirements; cover or shelter; and sites for breeding, reproduction, rearing of offspring, germination or seed dispersal. Although critical habitat may be designated on private or State lands, activities on these lands are not restricted unless there is Federal involvement in the activities or direct harm to listed wildlife.

If any species has proposed or designated critical habitat within a quad, this will be noted on the species list. Maps and boundary descriptions of the critical habitat may be found in the Federal Register. The information is also reprinted in the Code of Federal Regulations (50 CFR 17.95).

Candidate species are being reviewed for possible listing. Contact our office if your biological assessment reveals any candidate species that might be adversely affected. Although they currently have no protection under the Endangered Species Act, one or more of them could be proposed and listed before your project is completed. By considering them from the beginning, you could avoid problems later.

Your list may contain a section called Species of Concern. This term includes former category 2 candidate species and other plants and animals of concern to the Service and other Federal, tate and private conservation agencies and organizations. Some of these species may become candidate species in the future.

If the proposed project will impact wetlands, riparian habitat, or other jurisdictional waters as defined by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), a Corps permit will be required, under section 404 of the Clean Water Act and/or section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act. Impacts to wetland habitats require site specific mitigation and monitoring. You may request a copy of the Service’s General Mitigation and Monitoring Guidelines or submit a detailed description of the proposed impacts for specific comments and recommendations. If you have any questions regarding wetlands, contact Mark Littlefield at (916) 414-6580.

We appreciate your concern for endangered species. Please contact Harry Mossman, Biological Technician, at (916) 414-6650, if you have any questions about the attached list or your responsibilities under the Endangered Species Act. For the fastest response to species list requests, address them to the attention of Mr. Mossman at this address. You may fax requests to him at 414-6710.

Sincerely,

Karen J. Miller
Chief, Endangered Species Division

Attachments

ATTACHMENT A

Endangered and Threatened Species That May Occur in or be Affected by
Projects in the U.S.G.S. 7 _ Minute Quads Listed at the End of This Report
Draft Yosemite Valley
Plan March 29, 2000

Listed Species

Mammals

Sierra Nevada (=California) bighorn sheep, Ovis canadensis cailforniana (E)

Birds

bald eagle, Hailaeetus leucocephalus (T)

Amphibians

California red-legged frog, Rana aurora draytonii (T)

Fish

delta smelt, Hypomesus transpacificus (T)

Paiute cutthroat trout, Oncorhynchus (=Salmo) clarki seleniris (T)

Central Valley steelhead, Oncorhynchus mykiss (T)

Sacramento splittail, Pogonichthys macrolepidotus (T)

Species of Concern

Mammals

Mono Basin mountain beaver, Aplodontia rufa californica (SC)

pygmy rabbit, Brachylagus idahoensis (SC)

spotted bat, Euderma maculatum (SC)

greater western mastiff-bat, Eumops perotis cailfornicus (SC)

Califorma wolverine, Gulo gulo luteus (CA)

Sierra Nevada snowshoe hare, Lepus americanus tahoensis (SC)

American (=pine) marten, Martes americana (SC)

Pacific fisher, Martes pennanti pacifica (SC)

Small-footed myotis bat, Myotis ciliolabrum (SC)

long-eared myotis bat, Myotis evotis (SC)

fringed myotis bat, Myotis thysanodes (SC)

long-legged myotis bat, Myotis volans ( SC)

Yuma myotis bat, Myotis yumanensis (SC)

Mt. Lyell shrew, Sorex lyelli (SC)

Sierra Nevada red fox, Vulpes vulpes necator (CA)

Birds.

northern goshawk, Accipiter gentilis (SC)

Bell’s sage sparrow, Amphispiza belli belli (SC)

.little willow flycatcher, Empidonax traillii brewsteri (CA)

.American peregrine falcon, Falco paregrinus anatum (D)

.Harlequin duck, Histrionicus histrionicus (SC)

.California spotted owl, Strix occidentalis occidentalis (SC)

.Reptiles

northwestern pond turtle. Clemmys marmorata marmorata (SC)

.southwestern pond turtle, Clemmys marmorata pallida (SC)

.northern sagebrush lizard, Sceloporus graciosus graciosus (SC)

.Amphibians

Yosemite toad, Bufo canorus (SC)

.limestone salamander, Hydromantes brunus (CA)

.Mount Lyell salamander, Hydromantes platycephalus (SC)

.foothill yellow-legged frog, Rana boylii (SC)

.mountain yellow-legged frog, Rana muscosa (SC)

.Fish

Red Hills roach, Lavinia symmetricus (SC)

.longfin smelt, Spirinchus thlieichthys (SC)

.Invertebrates

Wawona riffle beetle, Atractelmis wawona (SC)

.Merced Canyon shoulderband snail, Helminthoglypta allynsmithi (SC)

.keeled sideband snail, Monadenia circumcarinata (SC)

.Yosemite mariposa sideband snail, Monadenia hillebrandi yosemitensis (SC)

.Bohart’s blue butterfly, Philotiella speciosa bohartorum (SC)

.Sierra pygmy grasshopper, Tetrix sierrana (SC)

.Plants

Tiehm’s rock-cress, Arabis tiehmii (SC)

Yosemite woolly-sunflower, Eriophyllum nubigenum (SC)

.Hetch Hetchy (slndr.stmmd.) monkeyflower, Mimulus filicaulis (SC)

.parasol clover, Trifolium bolanderi (SC)

KEY:

Critical Habitat

Area essential to the conservation of a species.
Endangered and Threatened Species that May Occur in or be Affected by
PROJECTS IN MARIPOSA COUNTY
March 29,2000

Listed Species

Birds

Aleutian Canada goose, Branta canadensis leucopareia (T)

bald eagle, Haliaeetus leucocephalus (T)

Reptiles

blunt-nosed leopard lizard, Gambelia (=Crotaphytus) sila (E)

Amphibians

California red-Iegged frog, Rana aurora draytonii (T)

Fish

delta smelt, Hypomesus transpacificus (T)

Central Valley steelhead, Oncorhynchus mykiss (T)

Sacramento splittail, Pogonichthys macrolepidotus (T)

Invertebrates

vernal pool fairy shrimp, Branchinecta lynchi (T)

Valley elderberry longhorn beetle, Desmocerus californicus dimorphus (T)

Plants

Mariposa pussy-paws, Calyptridium pulchellum (T)

fleshy owl’s-clover, Castilleja campestris ssp. succulenta (T)

Proposed Species

Birds

mountain plover, Charadrius montanus (PT)

Candidate Species

Amphibians

California tiger salamander, Ambystoma californiense (C)

Fish

Central Valley fall/late fall-run chinook salmon, Oncorhynchus tshawytscha (C)

Species of Concern

Mammals

California wolverine, Gulo gulo luteus (CA)

Sierra Nevada red fox, Vulpes vulpes necator (CA)

pygmy rabbit, Brachylagus idahoensis (SC)

pale Townsend’s big-eared bat, Corynorhinus (=Plecotus) townsendii pallescens (SC)

Pacific western big-eared bat, Corynorhinus (=Plecotus) townsendii townsendii (SC)

spotted bat, Eudenna maculatum (SC)

greater western mastiff-bat, Eumops perotis californicus (SC)

Sierra Nevada snowshoe hare, Lepus americanus tahoensis (SC)

American (=pine) marten, Martes americana (SC)

Pacific fisher, Martes pennanti pacifica {SC)

small-footed myotis bat, Myotis ciliolabrum (SC)

long-eared myotis bat, Myotis evotis (SC)

fringed myotis bat, Myotis thysanodes (SC)

long-Iegged myotis bat, Myotis volans (SC)

Yuma myotis bat, Myotis yumanensis (SC)

San Joaquin pocket mouse, Perognathus inornatus (SC)

Mt. Lyell shrew, Sorex Iyelli (SC)

Birds

Swainson’s hawk, Buteo Swainsoni (CA)

little willow flycatcher, Empidonax trailii brewsteri (CA)

American peregrine falcon, Falco peregrinus anatum (D)

northern goshawk, Accipiter gentilis (SC)

tricolored blackbird, Agelaius tricolor (SC)

grasshopper sparrow , Ammodramus savannarum (S C)

Bell’s sage sparrow, Amphispiza belli belli (SC)

short-eared owl, Asio flammeus (SC)

American bittern, Botaurus lentiginosus (SC)

ferruginous hawk, Buteo regalis (SC)

Lawrence’s goldfinch, Carduelis lawrencei (SC)

Vaux’s swift, Chaetura vauxi (SC)

olive-sided flycatcher, Contopus cooperi (SC)

black swift, Cypseloides niger (SC)

hermit warbler, Dendroica occidentalis (SC)

Pacific-slope flycatcher, Empidonax difficilis (SC)

Harlequin duck, Histrionicus histrionicus (SC)

least bittern, western, Ixobrychus exilis hesperis (SC)

loggerhead shrike, Lanius ludovicianus (SC)

Lewis’ woodpecker, Melanerpes lewis (SC)

white-faced ibis, Plegadis chihi (SC)

rufous hummingbird, Selasphorus rufus (SC)

red-breasted sapsucker, Sphyrapicus ruber (SC)

Brewer’s sparrow, Spizella breweri (SC)

California spotted owl, Strix occidentalis occidentalis (SC)

Bewick’s wren, Thryomanes bewickii (SC)

Reptiles

northwestern pond turtle, Clemmys marmorata marmorata (SC)

southwestern pond turtle, Clemmys marmorata pallida (SC)

California horned lizard, Phrynosoma coronatum frontale (SC)

northern sagebrush lizard, Sceloporus graciosus graciosus (SC)

Amphibians

limestone salamander, Hydromantes brunus (CA)

Yosemite toad, Bufo canorus (SC)

Mount Lyell salamander, Hydromantes platycephalus (SC)

foothill yellow-legged frog, Rana boylii (SC)

mountain yellow-legged frog, Rana muscosa (SC)

western spadefoot toad, Scaphiopus hammondii (SC)

Fish

green sturgeon, Acipenser medirostris (SC)

river lamprey, Lampetra ayresi (SC)

Kern brook lamprey, Lampetra hubbsi (SC)

Pacific lamprey, Lampetra tridentata (SC)

longfin smelt, Spirinchus thaleichthys (SC)

Invertebrates

Wawona riffle beetle, Atractelmis wawona SC)

Merced Canyon shoulderband snail, Helminthoglyta allynsmithi (SC)

Leech’s skyline diving beetle, Hydroporus leechi (SC)

California linderiella fairy shrimp, Linderiella occidentalis (SC)

molestan blister beetle, Lytta molesta (SC)

Yosemite mariposa sideband snail, Monadenia hillebrandi yosemitensis (SC)

Bohart’s blue butterfly, Philotiella speciosa bohartorum (SC)

Sierra pygmy grasshopper, Tetrix sierrana (SC)

Plants

Merced clarkia, Clarkia lingulata (CA)

Mariposa lupine, Lupinus citrinus var. deflexus (CA)

Hoover’s rosinweed, Calycadenia hooveri (SC)

Mono Hot Springs evening-primrose, Camissonia sierrae ssp. alticola (SC)

beaked clarkia, Clarkia rostrata (SC)

Rawson’s flaming-trumpet, Collomia rawsoniana (SC)

Yosemite woolly-sunflower, Eriophyllum nubigenum (SC)

Parry’s horkelia, Horkelia parryi (SC)

shaggy-hair lupine, Lupinus spectabilis (SC)

Hetch Hetchy (slndr.stmmd.) monkeyflower, Mimulus filicaulis (SC)

California beaked-rush, Rhynchospora californica (SC)

parasol clover, Trifolium bolanderi (SC)

Pleasant Valley mariposa, Calochortus clavatus var. avius (SC) *

Congdon’s lomatium, Lomatium congdonii (SC) *

Mariposa daisy, Erigeron mariposanus (SC) **

| Table of Contents | Appendix A | Appendix B | Appendix C | Appendix D | Appendix E | Appendix F | Appendix G |
| Appendix H | Appendix I | Appendix J | Appendix K | Appendix L | Appendix M | Appendix N |

| Chapter 1-3 | Chapter 4 Part 1 | Chapter 4 Part 2 | Chapter 5 | Chapter 6-8, K-1 |

Yosemite National Park Home Page http://www.nps.gov File created/updated Yosemite National Park Web Manager