SITE NAME

Gold Lake Bog

TARGET SPECIES

Oregon Spotted Frog (Rana pretiosa)

LEGAL DESCRIPTION

Gold Lake Bog and adjacent Gold Lake are located on the eastern edge of Lane County, Oregon on the Middle Fork Ranger District of the Willamette National Forest (Figure 1 and 2). Township 22S Range 6E Section 29, W. M.; 122 deg 2 min 6 sec, 43 deg 38 min 22 sec; UTM (Zone 10, Nad83); 577,878 Easting 4,832,288 Northing. The bog and lake lie within the upper sixth-field watershed of the Salt Creek/Willamette River hydrographic basin at an elevation of approximately 5,000 feet (1,524 meters). The bog is within a designated Research Natural Area (RNA) of the Willamette National Forest.

The project boundary of this plan includes both the Gold Lake Bog Research Natural Area as well as Gold Lake with a 300 foot buffer; totaling 765 acres (Figure 2).

GOAL OF THE MANAGEMENT PLAN

The goal of this ten-year site management plan for Gold Lake Bog Oregon spotted frogs is to sustain the Rana pretiosa population inhabiting the site. This is one of the largest breeding populations of R.pretiosa in Oregon and is one of only three known populations west of the Cascade Crest in Oregon. This plan is considered a working document and will be revised as conditions/needs change. It will also be revisited and updated in ten years. The threats and management actions within this plan are addressed based on the limited 10-year timeline.

BACKGROUND

Species Range, Distribution, Abundance, and Trends

Distribution of the R.pretiosa has shrunk markedly, and more than two-thirds of known populations are located along the Cascade Range in central Oregon (Pearl et al. 2009) (Figure 3). Gold Lake Bog harbors the largest breeding population of R.pretiosa west of the Cascade Crest within Oregon. In 2006, Pearl et al (2009), counted more than 900 egg masses. Assuming a sex ratio of between 1:1 and 2:1 (male to female adults), the spring 2006 population estimate was 1,800-2,700 adults (Pearl et al 2009).

2

For an overall population summary, refer to A Conservation Assessment for the Oregon Spotted Frog (Rana pretiosa). March 2007. Kathleen A. Cushman and Christopher A. Pearl. USDA Forest Service Region 6. USDI Bureau of Land Management, Oregon and Washington

3

Figure 1. Gold Lake Bog, Lane County, Willamette National Forest, Oregon.

4

Figure 2. Gold Lake Bog Oregon Spotted Frog Site Management Plan Project Boundary, Lane County, Willamette National Forest, Oregon.

Figure 3. From A Conservation Assessment for the Oregon Spotted Frog (Rana pretiosa). March 2007. Kathleen A. Cushman and Christopher A. Pearl. USDA Forest Service Region 6. USDI Bureau of Land Management, Oregon and Washington.

5

Gold Lake Bog

Gold Lake Bog

Species Life History

Rana pretiosa presence at Gold Lake Bog was documented as early as 1976 by J. Keezer. Breeding has been documented at Gold Lake Bog since 1984 (Friesen, 2010). In 2006, U.S. Geological Survey scientists counted 912 egg masses and, in 2007, they counted 729 (Friesen 2010).

For an overall life history summary, refer to A Conservation Assessment for the Oregon Spotted Frog (Rana pretiosa). March 2007. Kathleen A. Cushman and Christopher A. Pearl. USDA Forest Service Region 6. USDI Bureau of Land Management, Oregon and Washington

Site Description and Ecological Processes

As stated earlier, the project area for this Site Management Plan includes the Gold Lake Bog Research Natural Area, Gold Lake, plus a 300 foot buffer around Gold Lake. Gold Lake is a 90-acre high elevation lake fed by Ray, Salt, Skookum, and Gold Lake Creeks.

Gold Lake Bog is a complex of wetland habitats including: ponds, Carex-dominated marshes, sphagnum bogs, willow and birch swamps, as well as seasonally dry grasslands. The habitat type of Gold Lake Bog is described in Johnson and O’Neil (2001) as Montane Coniferous Wetland (See Appendix A for a full description):

“…a forest or woodland (>30% tree canopy cover) dominated by evergreen conifer trees. Deciduous broadleaf trees are occasionally co-dominant. The understory is dominated by shrubs (most often deciduous and relatively tall), forbs, or graminoids. The forb layer is usually well developed even where a shrub layer is dominant. Canopy structure includes single-storied canopies and complex multi-layered ones. Typical tree sizes range from small to very large. Large woody debris is often a prominent feature, although it can be lacking on less productive sites”. (for a complete description as well as flora and fauna lists, see Appendices A, C-E).

The wetland complex contains several interesting, and unique (to the Willamette National Forest), vegetation types. These types are mostly linked, and considerably influenced, by Salt Creek as it meanders through them on its way to Gold Lake. An area in the upper portion of the bog contains a mosaic association of Engelmann spruce, lodgepole pine, and bog birch. Although the latter species has a broad geographic range, it is quite rare on the Middle Fork Ranger District. The main portion of the true bog is closest to Gold Lake. It contains a scattered stand of lodgepole pine and a low shrub layer consisting mostly of bog laurel and bog blueberry which tend to grow on hummocks that are slightly drier than the surrounding bog.

The bog is dominated by sphagnum and other mosses and sedges, but also contains a diverse array of aquatic plants including a total of five carnivorous plants (two species of sundew and three species of bladderwort). The general bog type also contains several shallow ponds that are nearly covered during the growing season with floating aquatic vegetation composed primarily of pond lily and pondweed (Figure 4).

6

Figure 4. Gold Lake Bog, September 2009. View looking east towards Maiden Peak.

Separating the bog types from the less inundated wetlands and drier meadows is a large wetland dominated by medium to tall shrubs, mostly composed of willows, tag alder and bog birch. These tall shrub sites are very wet year round, in large part due to beaver damming of Salt Creek and its small tributaries.

The smaller, scattered meadows in the upper end of the wetland/meadow complex are drier than most of the complex, but they are fairly wet during the winter and spring. These drier meadows are typically dominated by grasses. Several of these have experienced some conifer tree encroachment in the last 40 years, and several small meadows have nearly been engulfed by forest. Around the margin of the bog complex, but concentrated on its lower areas, are a number of small to large springs that support a fen type of vegetation.

On the west corner of the bog near the north corner of Gold Lake are several large springs. Some emerge at the lake or bog margins and others flow in short creeks before entering the lake or the bog. These springs and spring-fed streams support typical fen vegetation.

According to pollen records, the Gold Lake Bog has seen considerable changes since the most recent occupation of glacial ice. Vegetation, particularly the surrounding forest vegetation, has

7

changed considerably since the ice fully retreated about 9,500 years ago (Sea and Whitlock, 1995). The current conifer assemblage has been in the area for approximately the last 4,500 years.

One keystone species in the ecological processes associated with this bog is beaver. In June 2010, we surveyed and mapped the presence of beaver features (i.e. dams, lodges) in the bog (Figures 5 and 6). We only found one lodge, thus at present, we suspect there is only one family of beavers. We found numerous recent dams and abundant historical evidence of beavers throughout the bog proper. Vegetation growth associated with dam features suggests that beavers may have dammed the hydrologic flow creating two distinct terraces across the main bog. Additionally, the main part of the bog is laced with channels suggesting travel ways created and maintained by beaver for many decades, if not centuries, throughout the area.

Because tree and shrub encroachment may reflect a change in the hydrologic condition favored by the frogs and/or change to vegetation unsuitable for the frog, in 2010 we began monitoring of tree and shrub encroachment within the bog area. Methods involved photo-plots, descriptive notes and limited measurements of changes in vegetation composition along a transect line (Doerr 2011).

8

Figure 5. Gold Lake Bog Beaver Lodge, June 2010.

9

Figure 6. Gold Lake Bog Beaver Features, June 2010.

10

Key sites selected for tree and shrub encroachment monitoring included Gold Lake Bog and the marsh area surrounding a pond northeast of Gold Lake (referred in this study as Gold Pond or Gold Pond Marsh). Gold Lake Bog was monitored because it is the primary area containing rare and sensitive floral bog species and conversion to forest cover would likely mean loss of these species. Gold Pond Marsh contains some of the most important egg-laying and overwintering habitat for this R.pretiosa population. Monitoring transects were also established at several other smaller wetland openings near these two major sites.

Twenty three photo point transects were established above Gold Lake including 20 with descriptive vegetation changes measured along a transect line. Transects include 10 to monitor Gold Lake Bog and 8 to monitor Gold Pond Marsh. Tree and shrub changes on four smaller openings are monitored by the other transects. The information is recorded in a project spreadsheet, labeled project photos, and photo reports summarizing the 2010 baseline.Three sites have recent lodgepole pine encroachment and three sites showed evidence of recent tree die-back (Figure 7). At the other sites there was no clear evidence of successional changes in tree and shrub abundance from the set-up visit, although sequential monitoring might reveal some trends over time. Redoing these transects once per decade (barring a large-scale disturbance like high-intensity fires) seems a reasonable schedule to determine coarse changes in woody vegetation abundance.

No immediate threats to documented R.Pretiosa overwintering and egg-laying sites from conifer development were observed. Gold Pond Marsh and wetlands to the west of the pond appeared relatively stable with evidence of increased tree mortality at some sites. Recent lodgepole pine establishment adjacent to the north shore of Gold Lake and at one site along the northwest corner of Gold Pond Marsh are not directly in known breeding and wintering habitat. Whether forest development at these sites pose a longer-term indirect effect to R.Pretiosa is speculative, but warrants monitoring for habitat changes.

11

Figure 7. Photo point (Site 12) example of establishment of lodgepole pine trees. Gold Lake Bog

Site Management History and Current Land Allocations

Gold Lake Bog is classified as a Research Natural Area (RNA) land allocation under the Willamette National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (1990). Research Natural Areas are set aside as areas where natural processes should be allowed to occur without human intervention. Their intent is to provide areas for non-manipulative environmental research, observation, and study. Specifically timber harvest is prohibited and access is limited to roads and trails that do not compromise the objectives of the RNA.

The boundaries of the Gold Lake Bog Research Natural Area extend beyond the actual bog proper and are somewhat an artifact of administrative and land line logistics. The Forest Service recently completed a Gold Lake Bog RNA boundary line revision in order to incorporate important elements such as springs and other natural features associated with the bog ecosystem. The Research Natural Area was expanded from 415 to 656 acres (Figure 8). This boundary revision required a Willamette National Forest Plan Amendment and a revised RNA establishment record. The Forest Plan Revision is complete and the revision of the establishment record is expected to be completed by October, 2011.

12

Figure 8. Gold Lake Bog Research Natural Area, Lane County, Willamette National Forest, Oregon.

13

Gold Lake was historically a fish-free system. Though records are unavailable, rainbow trout were stocked and established a self-sustaining population prior to the 1930s. Brook trout first appeared, probably from other lakes higher in the watershed, about 1952. According to Chris Yee and Erik Moberly, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW), much fish sampling with gillnets and trap-nets has been conducted at Gold Lake. Trap-netting to remove overly prolific brook trout was done in the 1970s and beginning again in 1989. The lake gets heavy angling use and has been fly-fishing-only since 1948, with various angling seasons, catch limits, and tributary regulations thereafter. Three thousand rainbow trout were stocked in 2010 after a trap-netting effort to remove about a thousand brook trout. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) Fisheries Biologists have a strong interest in increasing the abundance and size of rainbow trout.

Historical documents state that ODFW intentionally removed beaver dams and beavers within the Gold Lake Bog system. Keezer (1976) noted that:

“beaver have been quite prominent in the past although their population has decreased considerably in the last few years. At times, the Oregon State Game Commission [now ODFW] has removed beaver dams in the main channel to allow access for spawning rainbow trout from Gold Lake. Since the dams appear to be a natural feature of major importance in maintaining a high water level in the marsh as well as the bog, they should be retained. Trapping of beaver in the area should be prohibited. Close cooperation with the Oregon State Game Commission is needed in carrying out these decisions.”

There are established hiking trails on both sides of the bog – Gold Lake Trail on the northwest side and Maiden Peak Trail on the southeast side. Gold Lake Trail actually lies within the Research Natural Area boundary. Although these trails are close to the bog, they do not appear to attract visitors into the bog proper since there is an adequate buffer of upland forest between the trail and the bog. There is a developed campground (Gold Lake Campground) on the southern edge of Gold Lake. A lot of the recreational use in the area seems to be concentrated within the campground, the trails, and non-motorized boat and fly-fishing on Gold Lake.

Forest Road 5897 which runs parallel to the Research Natural Area along the northwest edge attracts use by vehicles in the summer and fall and snowmobiles in the winter and spring. This road is the main access to Waldo Lake, an important recreational attraction on the Willamette National Forest. It is the second largest lake in Oregon and is revered for its pristine waters.

14

Site Threats

Cushman and Pearl (2007) described the following potential threats to R. pretiosa throughout their range. Below, we list those potential threats and relate them to conditions and available data for Gold Lake Bog.

Direct loss of marsh habitat, particularly through conversion to other land uses;o Administratively, Gold Lake Bog lies within a Research Natural Area which is a

“protected” land allocation on Federal land and there is no development pending in the area, Thus direct loss of marsh habitat is a not a threat.

Alteration of hydrological regimes in extant marshes (e.g., from dam construction, channel simplification, groundwater recession, hydroperiod modification); o Hydrological regimes could be altered if beaver populations are reduced or their

activity and habitat use patterns shift. Hydrological function is crucial to maintaining both breeding and over-wintering habitat for R. pretiosa, a species that is primarily aquatic. The bog system is currently maintained via snow and rain inputs -- both direct and through run-off -- as well as groundwater, including springs. Beavers impact the distribution and availability of aquatic habitat in several ways that are relevant to R.pretiosa. Dams directly expand inundated surface area, help retain open water during summer dry periods and raise saturation near the substrate surface. In combination with chewing of trees and shrubs for dam material, flooding limits conifer and hardwood encroachment and provides a matrix of open water and emergent vegetation that are key for R. pretiosa. We found no evidence of current beaver trapping at the site but monitoring is warranted.

o While hydrologic regimes could change via climate change influences which may alter snow pack, stream discharge, etc., the timeframe of these changes is unclear. Climate change effects are not likely to be significant within the timeline of this 10-year plan. While the present condition of the site is suitable for R.pretiosa, actions to maintain or enhance hydrologic function may be warranted in the future. Thus alteration of hydrological regimes is not a significant threat to this R.pretiosa population at this time, however monitoring of water levels, temperatures, and beaver presence is warranted.

Interactions with non-native fishes and American bullfrogs;o Gold Lake contains stocked brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis) and rainbow trout

(Oncorynchus mykiss). According to ODFW Biologists, brook trout probably entered the lake from stocking efforts in lakes upstream of Gold Lake. The lake is a popular fly-fishing-only lake with anglers and ODFW would like to shift the composition of brook trout and rainbow trout to 50-50. Currently the brook trout outnumber the rainbows and the health of all fish in the system is marginal. Introduced fish predators are implicated in the declines of several ranid frogs in the western U.S., but there is little data on the details of interactions with R.pretiosa. See Appendix B for a compilation of recent articles relating to “Effects of Introduced Fish and Fish Predation on Amphibians.” R.pretiosa at Gold Lake Bog appear to be persisting. Maintaining the broad array of habitats in Gold Lake and Gold Lake Bog that allow vulnerable life stages of R.pretiosa cover and habitat segregation from fish predators probably benefits frog populations. A largely

15

unknown but potentially important interaction is the potential for both frogs and fish to use springs and inflow streams in winter. Managers hypothesize that brook trout have more of an effect on R.pretiosa than rainbows since the brook trout spawn and utilize the headwaters and bog itself more frequently than rainbows however this warrants investigation. Non-native fish are likely impacting this R.pretiosa population. However removal of these fish from the lake and bog is not a feasible alternative. Thus, monitoring of frog numbers and careful coordination with ODFW fisheries management is essential.

o There is no evidence that bullfrogs exist at this site, however monitoring is warranted. Bullfrogs do persist at similar elevations in the southern Cascades and they are likely to negatively affect R.pretiosa if present. The closest known bullfrogs are in Oakridge, approximately 20 miles to the west. While bullfrogs are not a significant threat to this R.pretiosa population at this time further monitoring is warranted.

Vegetation changes such as succession and invasion by non-native species;o A historical analysis of vegetation distribution in the bog was conducted using

aerial photos from 1967 to 2007. Analysis revealed that the smaller, scattered meadows in the upper end of the wetland/meadow complex are drier than most of the complex, but they are fairly wet during the winter and spring. These drier meadows are typically dominated by grasses. Several of these have experienced some conifer tree encroachment in the last 40 years. Conifer invasion is a limited threat to this R.pretiosa population as long as hydrologic regimes are maintained by beavers and climatic changes do not reduce water inputs to the system. Thus monitoring of changes in conifer encroachment and water levels is warranted.

o There are no recent extensive plant surveys for the Gold Lake Bog, however general visits by biologists and silviculturists have not revealed any major non-native, invasive plants.

o Vegetation changes could also occur via wildfire. Naturally ignited fires would benefit the ecology of the bog. Fire suppression is not encouraged anywhere within the boundaries of the bog or Research Natural Area. Specifically, direct attack via constructed fire lines and/or fire retardant are prohibited and a restriction on dipping from Gold Lake is advised. This should be coordinated with local and visiting fire-fighting crews each year.

Livestock grazing, particularly in circumstances of high livestock density and duration, and where Oregon R.pretiosa habitat is area-limited or in more arid parts of range; o There is no livestock grazing permitted anywhere on the Willamette National

Forest, including Gold Lake Bog. Thus grazing is not a threat to the Gold Lake Bog R.pretiosa population.

Degraded water quality;o One of the intents of the Research Natural Area is to keep recreational use of the

Gold Lake Bog RNA at a level that will not measurably impact native ecosystems. There is currently thought to be little human intrusion into the bog itself. Water degradation from recreationists, including non-motorized boats, in the adjacent lake as well as the bog is a potential threat and should be monitored. Additionally, a prohibition on wildfire suppression water-dipping from Gold Lake is advised in order to limit impacts to water quality.

Isolation from other Oregon R.pretiosa populations;16

o The nearest known population of R.pretiosa is approximately 10 miles to the east in the Odell Creek/Davis Lake vicinity. Genetic data from Gold Lake Bog R.pretiosa are included in two published papers (Funk at al 2008 and Blouin et al 2010). The recent analysis by Blouin et al (2010) suggested Gold Lake frogs have relatively low genetic diversity. This could reflect isolation from other populations; there is little chance that Gold Lake frogs interact with the Davis Lake area frogs (over the high divide) and less chance of interacting with other known Willamette populations located 21 miles away and several drainages north. Given the limited dispersal capabilities of R.pretiosa, this population will likely remain isolated which is a significant threat.

Drought effects, both direct and indirect;o The water supply in this bog system is maintained through a combination of

snowmelt, precipitation, and groundwater in the form of streams and springs. The consistency of the groundwater sources (i.e. springs) should limit any future drought effects to this bog. Climate change may occur but is not likely to produce significant effects within the timeline of this 10-year plan. Monitoring of water levels and temperatures will allow trends to be assessed for future predictions and potential implications to the bog. Thus drought is not currently a threat to this R.pretiosa population, however monitoring of water levels and temperatures is warranted.

Recreation Impacts;o The bog is adjacent to Gold Lake which is utilized by non-motorized boaters and

fisherman. The lake is accessed via one boat ramp which is part of the Gold Lake Campground. There is also a hiking trail along the northwestern edge of the bog, and the Waldo Lake Road is within 0.25 miles of the bog edge. The campground, lake, and trail receive use, primarily during the summer and fall months. There is also winter over-snow use; primarily non-motorized skiers and snow-shoers along the access roads and trails system. These recreational activities could directly impact the bog and frog breeding sites via trampling and can also serve as vectors for harmful non-native species such as invasive weeds. Because the level of recreational use is not currently understood, it could pose some direct and indirect effects to the frogs, thus monitoring of recreational use is warranted.

MANAGEMENT NEEDS

Desired Site Conditions

The desired site condition at Gold Lake Bog is a vibrant, spring-fed, wetland system with active beavers and a healthy, stable or increasing population of R.pretiosa. This system should remain bog habitat with abundant open water interspersed with willow and alder clumps. Conifers are a natural part of this system, but they should be regulated by the natural hydrologic and fire regimes so that open wetland areas including shallow ponds, sedge marshes, and sphagnum bogs are maintained.

Naturally ignited fires would benefit the ecology of the bog. Fire suppression is not encouraged anywhere within the boundaries of the bog/Research Natural Area. Specifically, direct attack via

17

constructed firelines and/or fire retardant are prohibited. Additionally, a restriction on dipping out of Gold Lake is advised.

Invasive flora and fauna should be limited and not expand beyond existing non-native species (i.e. brook and rainbow trout). Key biological elements such as beaver, should remain an active resident of the bog; unrestricted by trapping or dam removal.

The R.pretiosa population should remain at current numbers or increase, but not suffer significant reductions.

These desired site conditions are compatible with the Research Natural Area “Desired Future Conditions” outlined in the Willamette National Forest Land and Management Plan (1990):

“Research Natural Areas will be managed to provide for naturally occurring physical and biological processes without undue human intervention. Plant and animal communities native to an area will be allowed to evolve unaltered, serving as gene pool sources and as a baseline for measuring long-term ecological change. RNAs will provide for non-manipulative environmental research, observation and study. They will serve as control areas for comparing results from manipulative research and for monitoring affects of resource management techniques and practices. Areas will preserve a wide spectrum of pristine values or natural settings that have unique educational and scientific interest. No programmed timber harvest will occur. Access will be limited to trails and roads that do not compromise the objectives of the RNA.” (USDA Forest Service 1990).

All actions identified in the following “Actions Needed” table, comply with the standards set forth in the Forest Service Manual 4063 regarding management of Research Natural Areas.

18

THREAT ACTION NEEDED

TIMELINE FOR ACTION,

BUDGET

ACTIVITY LOCATION

HOW TO ACCOMPLISH DESIRED SITE CONDITION

DATE COMPLETE

Alteration of hydrologic regimes; drought; climate change effects; vegetation changes such as succession and invasion by non-native species

Monitoring of beaver trapping (consider trapping ban and translocation of beavers if there is loss of the local beaver population due to trapping)

Winter CY2011-2013 (ODFW/OSP)

Gold Lake Bog Research Natural Area

ODFW/OSP Personnel to visit site 2-3 times during trapping season to monitor for evidence of trapping

Continued functional hydrological regimes through active habitat maintenance by beavers, with limited conifer encroachment and healthy ecological floral and faunal communities

January 2014

. Monitoring of beaver activity including fall cache survey

Floral and faunal inventories toto monitor biological community changes and/or invasive species

GPS perimeter of lodgepole pine encroachment

CY 2011 - 2015$1,500/yr (FS Wildlife)

CY 2011 – (FS Botany)CY 2012, 2015, 2018 $5,000/yr (FS Wildlife)

CY 2011 – (FS Wildlife)

From Gold Lake upstream to the confluence with Ray Creek

Gold Lake Bog RNA

Gold Lake Bog

Beaver monitoring protocol (Beck et al. 2008) with USFS personnel [2people-1 day]

Floral inventory via one-day “botany-blitz” in CY2011;

Faunal inventory via species group protocols based on FS Multiple Species Inventory Process CY2012, 2015, 2018See Appendix F

USFS personnel (map in relation to known R.pretiosa breeding and overwinter areas)

Same as Above

Same as Above

Same as Above

October 2015

October 2018

October 2011

19

THREAT

Alteration of hydrologic regimes; drought; climate change effects; vegetation changes such as succession and invasion by non-native species (Continued)

Isolation from other R.pretiosa populations

ACTION NEEDED

Tree and Shrub encroachment photo point monitoring

Monitoring of water levels and temperatures

Coordinate with Resource Advisor to get RNA fire suppression restrictions in RA Toolbox

Monitoring of R.pretiosa

Explore options for increasing R.Pretiosa genetic diversity

ACTION TIMELINE

CY2020 - $1,500 (FS Wildlife)

CY 2011-2021 (FS Hydro)

CY 2011- (FS Wildlife)

To be determined (USGS)

CY2019-2021 -- $Unk

ACTIVITY LOCATION

Gold Lake Bog

Gold Lake RNA

Gold Lake RNA

Gold Lake Bog

Gold lake Bog and adjacent R.pretiosa populations

HOW TO ACCOMPLISH

USFS personnel(map the extent of the lodgepole pine encroachment along the south edge of Gold Lake Bog)

USFS Hydro Team will install water level and temperature logging stations

USFS Personnel

Develop a population monitoring strategy in conjunction with USGS to sample and analyze abundance of frogs …the last count was conducted in 2008.

Form multi-district/multi-agency committee to explore options.

DESIRED SITE CONDITION

Same as Above

Same as Above

No direct fire suppression within RNA (no constructed firelines, no fire retardant; no water dipping in Gold Lake)

Healthy stable or increasing population of R. pretiosa

Same as Above

DATE COMPLETE

October 2020

October 2021

June 2011

October 2021

October 2021

20

Recreational Use Impacts Monitor Level of Use/Impacts(particulary off-trail trampling and camping in Gold Lake Bog near R.Pretiosa concentrated use areas)

CY2011-2021Bi-Annually -- $500/yr (FS/Vol)

Gold Lake RNA

USFS Personnel, Back Country Ski Rangers, RNA Stewards, Gold Lake Camp Host

No significant direct or indirect impacts and no net increase in recreational use within the RNA

October 2021

General Coordinate with ODFW Fisheries on annual fish management of Gold Lake

2011-2021 Gold Lake USFS/ODFW – ensure that actions being taken to manage fish at Gold Lake are understood by both parties and limit impacts to R.pretiosa.

Fish management actions by ODFW mitigate impacts to R.pretiosa and are in compliance with Gold Lake RNA standard and guidelines

October 2021

Educational Info about RNA posted

2013-- $1,500 (FS Wildlife)

Gold Lake Campground Boat Ramp

USFS – Design/install interp sign about RNA/R.pretiosa

An informed public

October 2013

21

ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT

DATE PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT ACTION OR SITE

REVISIT

RESULTS OR OBSERVATION

ADDITIONAL COMMENTS

2013 ODFW/OSP/Forest Service, Wildlife

Beaver trapping monitoring assessment to determine if it is a threat to Gold Lake Bog beavers

2015 Forest Service, Wildlife

Beaver use monitoring assessment to determine if beaver population in the bog is active and stable

2021 Forest Service, Hydrology

Water level and temperature trend assessment

Annually Forest Service, Botany and Wildlife

Assessment of management actions needed if new non-invasive species are detected during floral and faunal inventories (or through other methods)

2020 Forest Service, Wildlife

Assess extent and intensity of conifer encroachment

Annually Forest Service, Wildlife

Determine if wildfire suppression restrictions (i.e. no firelines, retardant of dipping from Gold Lake) were adhered to.

22

ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT Cont’d

23

DATE PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT ACTION OR SITE

REVISIT

RESULTS OR OBSERVATION

ADDITIONAL COMMENTS

2020 USGS/Forest Service, Wildlife

Assess whether R.pretiosa population appears to be stable and/or increasing

Annually Forest Service, Wildlife and Recreation

Assess trends in recreational use and impacts.

Annually Forest Service, Wildlife/ODFW, Fisheries

Coordinate fish management activities at Gold Lake and make adjustments to mitigate impacts to R.pretiosa

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This management plan was funded by the USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management Interagency Special Status Species Program (ISSSP). Additionally, the document was enhanced by several key personnel not listed on the cover page – Chris Pearl, Biologist, (USDI Geological Survey); Tim Bailey, Silviculturist, (USDA Forest Service); Lisa Kurian, Hydrologist, (USDA Forest Service), Molly Juillerat and Jenny Lippert, Botanists (USDA Forest Service) Todd Wilson, PNW RNA Coordinator (USDA Forest Service), and Erik Moberly, Fisheries Biologist (ODFW). We are grateful for their contributions.

REFERENCES

Beck, Jeffrey A., Daniel C. Dauwalter, Dennis M. Staley, and Steven R. Hirtzel. 2008. USDA FOREST SERVICE REGION 2 MONITORING PROTOCOL FOR AMERICAN BEAVER (Castor canadensis): EXAMPLES FROM THE BIGHORN AND BLACK HILLS NATIONAL FORESTS. Internal Report. Revised May 2008. Black Hills National Forest, USDA Forest Service, Custer, SD.

Blouin, M.S., I.C. Phillipsen and K.J. Monsen. 2010. Population structure and conservation genetics of the Oregon spotted frog, Rana pretiosa. Conservation Genetics, 11:2179-2194

Chappell, C.B., R.C. Crawford, J. Kagan, D.H. Johnson, M. O’Mealy, G.A. Green, H.L. Ferguson, and W.D. Edge. 2001. Wildlife Habitats: descriptions, status, trends, and system dynamics. In D.H. Johnson and T.A. O’Neil (Manag. Dirs.) Wildlife-Habitat Relationships in Oregon and Washington. Oregon State University Press, Corvallis. 736 p.

Csuti, B., A.J. Kimerling, T.A. O’Neil, M.M. Shaughnessy, E.P. Gaines, and M.M.P. Huso. 1997. Atlas of Oregon Wildlife

Cushman, K.A. and C.A. Pearl. 2007. A Conservation Assessment for the Oregon Spotted Frog (Rana pretiosa). USDA Forest Service Region 6. USDI Bureau of Land Management, Oregon and Washington.

Doerr, Joseph. 2011. Monitoring Tree and Shrub Encroachment in the Gold Lake Bog Area, 2010. Internal Report.

Freisen, C. 2010. THE HISTORY OF OREGON SPOTTED FROG (Rana pretiosa) SURVEYS ON THE WILLAMETTE NATIONAL FOREST. U.S.D.A. Forest Service Internal Publication.

Funk, W. C., C. A. Pearl, H. M. Draheim, M. J. Adams, T. D. Mullins, and S. M. Haig. 2008. Range-wide phylogeographic analysis of the spotted frog complex (Rana luteiventris and Rana pretiosa) in northwestern North America. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 49:198-210.

Johnson, D.H. and T.A. O’Neill. 2001. Wildlife-Habitat Relationships in Oregon and Washington.

Keezer, J. 1976. Evaluation of Gold Lake Bog, Willamette National Forest, Lane County, Oregon, for Eligibility for Registered Natural Landmark.

24

Leonard, William P., Herbert A. Brown, Lawrence L.C. Jones, Kelly R. McAllister, and Robert M. Storm. 1993. Amphibians of Washington and Oregon. Seattle Audubon Society.

Manley, P.N.; Van Horne, B.; Roth, J.K.; Zielinski, W.J.; McKenzie, M.M.; Weller, T.J.; Weckerly, F.W.; Vojta, C. 2006. Multiple species inventory and monitoring technical guide. Gen. Tech. Rep. WO-73. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Washington Office. 204 p.

Pearl, C.A., M. J.Adams, N. Leuthold. 2009. BREEDING HABITAT AND LOCAL POPULATION SIZE OF THEOREGON SPOTTED FROG (RANA PRETIOSA) IN OREGON, USA. Northwestern Naturalist 90:136–147.

Sea, Debra S. and Cathy Whitlock. 1995. Postglacial Vegetation and Climate of the Cascade Range, Central Oregon. Quaternary Research, Volume 43, Issue 3, May 1995, Pages 370-381.

Sibley, David A. 2000. The Sibley Guide to Birds. National Audubon Society.

USDA Forest Service. 2005. Forest Service Manual 4063.

USDA Forest Service. 1990. Willamette National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan.

Verts, B.J. and Leslie N. Carraway. 1998. Land Mammals of Oregon

25

APPENDIX A: Description of Montane Coniferous Wetlands Habitat Type

http://www.nwhi.org/index/habdescriptions#24. Montane Coniferous Wetlands

24. Montane Coniferous Wetlands

Christopher B. Chappell

Geographic Distribution. This habitat occurs in mountains throughout much of Washington and Oregon, except the Basin

and Range of southeastern Oregon, the Klamath Mountains of southwestern Oregon, and the Coast Range of Oregon. This

includes the Cascade Range, Olympic Mountains, Okanogan Highlands, Blue and Wallowa mountains.

Physical Setting. This habitat is typified as forested wetlands or

floodplains with a persistent winter snow pack, ranging from

moderately to very deep. The climate varies from moderately cool

and wet to moderately dry and very cold. Mean annual

precipitation ranges from about 35 to >200 inches (89 to >508

cm). Elevation is mid- to upper montane, as low as 2,000 ft (610

m) in northern Washington, to as high as 9,500 ft (2,896 m) in

eastern Oregon. Topography is generally mountainous and

includes everything from steep mountain slopes to nearly flat

valley bottoms. Gleyed or mottled mineral soils, organic soils, or

alluvial soils are typical. Subsurface water flow within the rooting

zone is common on slopes with impermeable soil layers. Flooding

regimes include saturated, seasonally flooded, and temporarily

flooded. Seeps and springs are common in this habitat.

Landscape Setting. This habitat occurs along stream courses or

as patches, typically small, within a matrix of Montane Mixed

Conifer Forest, or less commonly, Eastside Mixed Conifer Forest

or Lodgepole Pine Forest and Woodlands. It also can occur adjacent to other wetland habitats: Eastside Riparian-Wetlands,

Westside Riparian-Wetlands, or Herbaceous Wetlands. The primary land uses are forestry and watershed protection.

26

Structure. This is a forest or woodland (>30% tree canopy cover) dominated by evergreen conifer trees. Deciduous

broadleaf trees are occasionally co-dominant. The understory is dominated by shrubs (most often deciduous and relatively

tall), forbs, or graminoids. The forb layer is usually well developed even where a shrub layer is dominant. Canopy structure

includes single-storied canopies and complex multi-layered ones. Typical tree sizes range from small to very large. Large

woody debris is often a prominent feature, although it can be lacking on less productive sites.

Composition. Indicator tree species for this habitat, any of which

can be dominant or co-dominant, are Pacific silver fir (Abies

amabilis), mountain hemlock (Tsuga mertensiana), and Alaska

yellow-cedar (Chamaecyparis nootkatensis) on the westside, and

Engelmann spruce (Picea engelmannii), subalpine fir (Abies

lasiocarpa), lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta), western hemlock (T.

heterophylla), or western redcedar (Thuja plicata) on the eastside.

Lodgepole pine is prevalent only in wetlands of eastern Oregon.

Western hemlock and redcedar are common associates with

silver fir on the westside. They are diagnostic of this habitat on the

east slope of the central Washington Cascades, and in the

Okanogan Highlands, but are not diagnostic there. Douglas-fir

(Pseudotsuga menziesii) and grand fir (Abies grandis) are

sometimes prominent on the eastside. Quaking aspen (Populus

tremuloides) and black cottonwood (P. balsamifera ssp.

trichocarpa) are in certain instances important to co-dominant,

mainly on the eastside.

Dominant or co-dominant shrubs include devil’s-club (Oplopanax horridus), stink currant (Ribes bracteosum), black currant

(R. hudsonianum), swamp gooseberry (R. lacustre), salmonberry (Rubus spectabilis), red-osier dogwood (Cornus sericea),

Douglas’ spirea (Spirea douglasii), common snowberry (Symphoricarpos albus), mountain alder (Alnus incana), Sitka alder

(Alnus viridis ssp. sinuata), Cascade azalea (Rhododendron albiflorum), and glandular Labrador-tea (Ledum glandulosum).

The dwarf shrub bog blueberry (Vaccinium uliginosum) is an occasional understory dominant. Shrubs more typical of

adjacent uplands are sometimes co-dominant, especially big huckleberry (V. membranaceum), oval-leaf huckleberry (V.

ovalifolium), grouseberry (V. scoparium), and fools huckleberry (Menziesia ferruginea).

Graminoids that may dominate the understory include bluejoint reedgrass (Calamagrostis canadensis), Holm’s Rocky

Mountain sedge (Carex scopulorum), widefruit sedge (C. angustata), and fewflower spikerush (Eleocharis quinquiflora).

Some of the most abundant forbs and ferns are ladyfern (Athyrium filix-femina), western oakfern (Gymnocarpium dryopteris),

27

field horsetail (Equisetum arvense), arrowleaf groundsel (Senecio triangularis), two-flowered marshmarigold (Caltha

leptosepala ssp. howellii), false bugbane (Trautvetteria carolinensis), skunk-cabbage (Lysichiton americanus), twinflower

(Linnaea borealis), western bunchberry (Cornus unalaschkensis), clasping-leaved twisted-stalk (Streptopus amplexifolius),

singleleaf foamflower (Tiarella trifoliata var. unifoliata), and five-leaved bramble (Rubus pedatus).

Other Classifications and Key References. This habitat

includes nearly all of the wettest forests within the Abies amabilis

and Tsuga mertensiana zones of western Washington and

northwestern Oregon and most of the wet forests in the Tsuga

heterophylla and Abies lasiocarpa zones of eastern Oregon and

Washington 88. On the eastside, they may extend down into the

Abies grandis zone also. This habitat is not well represented by

the Gap projects because of its relatively limited acreage and the

difficulty of identification from satellite images. But in the Oregon

Gap II Project 126 and Oregon Vegetation Landscape-Level Cover

Types 127 the vegetation types that include this type would be

higher elevation palustrine forest, palustrine shrubland, and NWI

palustrine emergent. These are primarily palustrine forested

wetlands with a seasonally flooded, temporarily flooded, or

saturated flooding regime 54. They occur in both lotic and lentic

systems. Other references describe this habitat 36, 57, 90, 101, 108, 111, 114,

115, 118, 123, 132, 221.

Natural Disturbance Regime. Flooding, debris flow, fire, and wind are the major natural disturbances. Many of these sites

are seasonally or temporarily flooded. Floods vary greatly in frequency depending on fluvial position. Floods can deposit new

sediments or create new surfaces for primary succession. Debris flows/torrents are major scouring events that reshape

stream channels and riparian surfaces, and create opportunities for primary succession and redistribution of woody debris.

Fire is more prevalent east of the Cascade Crest. Fires are typically high in severity and can replace entire stands, as these

tree species have low fire resistance. Although fires have not been studied specifically in these wetlands, fire frequency is

probably low. These wetland areas are less likely to burn than surrounding uplands, and so may sometimes escape

extensive burns as old forest refugia 1. Shallow rooting and wet soils are conducive to windthrow, which is a common small-

scale disturbance that influences forest patterns. Snow avalanches probably disturb portions of this habitat in the

northwestern Cascades and Olympic Mountains. Fungal pathogens and insects also act as important small-scale natural

disturbances.

28

Succession and Stand Dynamics. Succession has not been

well studied in this habitat. Following disturbance, tall shrubs may

dominate for some time, especially mountain alder, stink currant,

salmonberry, willows (Salix spp.), or Sitka alder. Quaking aspen

and black cottonwood in these habitats probably regenerate

primarily after floods or fires, and decrease in importance as

succession progresses. Lodgepole pine is often associated with

post-fire conditions in eastern Oregon 131, although in some

wetlands it can be an edaphic climax species. Pacific silver fir,

subalpine fir, or Engelmann spruce would be expected to increase

in importance with time since the last major disturbance. Western

hemlock, western redcedar, and Alaska yellow-cedar typically

maintain co-dominance as stand development progresses

because of the frequency of small-scale disturbances and the

longevity of these species. Tree size, large woody debris, and

canopy layer complexity all increase for at least a few hundred

years after fire or other major disturbance.

Effects of Management and Anthropogenic Impacts. Roads and clearcut logging practices can increase the frequency of

landslides and resultant debris flows/torrents, as well as sediment loads in streams 198, 199, 229. This in turn alters hydrologic

patterns and the composition and structure of montane riparian habitats. Logging typically reduces large woody debris and

canopy structural complexity. Timber harvest on some sites can cause the water table to rise and subsequently prevent

trees from establishing 221. Wind disturbance can be greatly increased by timber harvest in or adjacent to this habitat.

Status and Trends. This habitat is naturally limited in its extent and has probably declined little in area over time. Portions of

this habitat have been degraded by the effects of logging, either directly on site or through geohydrologic modifications. This

type is probably relatively stable in extent and condition, although it may be locally declining in condition because of logging

and road building. Five of 32 plant associations representing this habitat listed in the National Vegetation Classification are

considered imperiled or critically imperiled 10.

29

APPENDIX B: A Bibliography of the

Effects of Introduced Fish and Fish Predation on Amphibians

Created byNorthwest Partners in Amphibian and Reptile Conservation

Last Updated: 16 January 2011

Topics1. Review articles2. Effects on native amphibians/aquatic systems after introduced fish are removed3. Effects of introduced or predatory fish on frogs and toads4. Effects of introduced or predatory fish on salamanders and newts5. Effects of introduced fish on aquatic insects/aquatic systems6. Competition for food resources between introduced fish and amphibians7. Mountain lake fish stocking patterns and policies8. Anti-predator defenses and species palatability9. Disease transfer between fish and amphibians10. Native and non-native predator facilitation and additive effects of multiple predators, plus other

ecosystem effects

REVIEW ARTICLES

Dunham, J.B., D.S. Pilliod, and M.K. Young. 2004. Assessing the consequences of nonnative trout in headwater ecosystems in western North America. Fisheries 29:18-26. http://leopold.wilderness.net/pubs/510.pdf.

Kats, L.B. and R.P. Ferrer. 2003. Alien predators and amphibian declines: review of two decades of science and the transition to conservation. Diversity and Distributions 9:99-110. http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/fulltext/118852229/PDFSTART.

EFFECTS ON NATIVE AMPHIBIANS/AQUATIC SYSTEMS AFTER INTRODUCED FISH ARE REMOVED

Drake, D.C. and R.J. Naiman. 2000. An evaluation of restoration efforts in fishless lakes stocked with exotic trout. Conservation Biology 14:1807-1820. http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/fulltext/120714534/PDFSTART.

Eaton, B.R., W.M. Tonn, C.A. Paszkowski, A.J. Danylchuk, and S.M. Boss. 2005. Indirect effects of fish winterkills on amphibian populations in boreal lakes. Canadian Journal of Zoology 83:1532-1539. http://article.pubs.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca/RPAS/rpv?hm=HInit&calyLang=eng&journal=cjz&volume=83&afpf=z05-151.pdf.

Funk, W.C. and W.W. Dunlap. 1999. Colonization of high-elevation lakes by long-toed salamanders (Ambystoma macrodactylum) after the extinction of introduced trout populations. Canadian Journal of Zoology 77:1759-1767. http://article.pubs.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca/RPAS/rpv?hm=HInit&calyLang=eng&journal=cjz&volume=77&afpf=z99-160.pdf.

30

Hoffman, R.L., G.L. Larson, and B. Samora. 2004. Responses of Ambystoma gracile to the removal of introduced nonnative fish from a mountain lake. Journal of Herpetology 38(4):578-585. http://www.bioone.org/doi/pdf/10.1670/44-04A.

Knapp, R.A. and K.R. Matthews. 1998. Eradication of nonnative fish by gill netting from a small mountain lake in California. Restoration Ecology 6(2):207-213. http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/fulltext/119132784/PDFSTART.

Knapp, R.A., K.R. Matthews, and O. Sarnelle. 2001. Resistance and resilience of alpine lake fauna to fish introductions. Ecological Monographs 71(3):401-421. http://www.esajournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1890/0012-9615%282001%29071%5B0401%3ARAROAL%5D2.0.CO%3B2.

Knapp, R.A., D.M. Boiano, and V.T. Vredenburg. 2007. Removal of nonnative fish results in population expansion of a declining amphibian (mountain yellow-legged frog, Rana muscosa). Biological Conservation 135:11-20. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=PublicationURL&_tockey=%23TOC%235798%232007%23998649998%23639490%23FLA%23&_cdi=5798&_pubType=J&_auth=y&_acct=C000052423&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=4250274&md5=9d6a80a35ff882aae0d608bc87eba782.

Lawler, S.P. and K.L. Pope. 2006. Non-native Fish in Mountain Lakes: Effects on a Declining Amphibian and Ecosystem Subsidy. UC Water Resources Center Technical Completion Report Project No. W-987. http://www.lib.berkeley.edu/WRCA/WRC/pdfs/LAWLER06WRC.pdf.

McLee, A. G. and R. W.Scaife. 1992. The colonization by great crested newts (Triturus cristatus) of a water body following treatment with a piscicide to remove a large population of sticklebacks (Gasterosteus aculeatus). British Herpetological Society Bulletin 42:6-9.

McNaught, A.S., D.W. Schindler, B.R. Parker, A.J. Paul, R.S. Anderson, D.B. Donald, and M. Agbeti. 1999. Restoration of the food web of an alpine lake following fish stocking. Limnology and Oceanography 44:127-136. http://www.aslo.org/lo/toc/vol_44/issue_1/0127.pdf.

Parker, B.R., D.W. Schindler, D.B. Donald, and R.S. Anderson. 2000. The effects of stocking and removal of a nonnative salmonid on the plankton of an alpine lake. Ecosystems 4:334-345. http://www.springerlink.com/content/d8t09q01ct65rb9t/fulltext.pdf.

Pilliod, D.S., B.R. Hossack, P.F. Bahls, E.L. Bull, P.S. Corn, G. Hokit, B.A. Maxell, J.C. Munger, and A. Wyrick. 2010. Nonnative salmonids affect amphibian occupancy at multiple spatial scales. Diversity and Distributions 16:959-974. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1472-4642.2010.00699.x/pdf.

Pope, K.L. 2008. Assessing changes in Amphibian Population Dynamics Following Experimental Manipulations of Introduced Fish. Conservation Biology 22(6):1572-1581. http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/fulltext/121359150/PDFSTART.

Pope, K. L., J. Piovia-Scott, and S. P. Lawler. 2009. Changes in aquatic insect emergence in response to whole-lake experimental manipulations of introduced trout. Freshwater Biology 54(5):982-993. http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/fulltext/121515556/PDFSTART.

Ricker, W. E. and J. Gottschalk. 1941. An experiment in removing coarse fish from a lake. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 70:382-390. http://afsjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1577/1548-8659%281940%2970%5B382%3AAEIRCF%5D2.0.CO%3B2.

31

Stenson, J.A.E., T. Bohlin, L. Henrikson, B.I. Nilsson, H.G. Nyman, H.G. Oscarson, and P. Larson, P. 1978. Effects of fish removal from a small lake. Internationale Vereinigung fur Theoretische und Angewandte Limnologie 20:794-801.Vredenburg, V.T. 2004. Reversing introduced species effects: Experimental removal of introduced fish leads to rapid recovery of a declining frog. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 101(20):7646-7650. www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.0402321101.

Walston, L.J. and S.J. Mullin. 2007. Responses of a pond-breeding amphibian community to the experimental removal of predatory fish. American Midland Naturalist 157: 63-73. http://www.bioone.org/doi/pdf/10.1674/0003-0031%282007%29157%5B63%3AROAPAC%5D2.0.CO%3B2.

Walters, C.J., and R.E. Vincent. 1973. Potential productivity of an alpine lake as indicated by removal and reintroduction of fish. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society. 102(4):675-697.http://afsjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1577/1548-8659%281973%29102%3C675%3APPOAAL%3E2.0.CO%3B2.

Zimmer K.D., M.A. Hanson, and M.G. Butler. 2001. Effects of Fathead Minnow Colonization and Removal on a Prairie Wetland Ecosystem Ecosystems 346-357. http://www.springerlink.com/content/5pre5ju88hjhhtv2/fulltext.pdf.

EFFECTS OF INTRODUCED OR PREDATORY FISH ON FROGS AND TOADS

Adams, M.J., C.A. Pearl, S. Galvan, and B. McCreary. 2011. Non-native species impacts on pond occupancy by an anuran. Journal of Wildlife Management 75(1):30-35http://www.bioone.org/toc/wild/75/1

Adams, M.J. 1999. Correlated factors in amphibian decline: Exotic species and habitat change in western Washington. Journal of Wildlife Management 63(4):1162-1171. http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdfplus/3802834.pdf.

Bosch, J., P.A. Rincón, L. Boyero, and I. Martinez-Solano. 2006. Effects of introduced salmonids on a montane population of Iberian frogs. Conservation Biology 20:180-189. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2005.00296.x/pdf.

Bradford. 1989. Allotopic distribution of native frogs and introduced fishes in the high Sierra Nevada lakes of California. Copeia 1989(3):775-778. http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdfplus/1445515.pdf.

Bradford, D.F. 1991. Mass mortality and extinction in a high-elevation population of Rana muscosa. Journal of Herpetology 25:174-177. http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdfplus/1564645.pdf.

Bradford, D.F., F. Tabatabai , and D.M. Grabe. 1993. Isolation of remaining populations of the native frog (Rana muscosa) by introduced fishes in Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks, California. Conservation Biology 7(4):882-888.

Bradford, D.F., D.M. Graber, F. Tabatabai. 1994. Populations declines of the native frog, Rana muscosa, in Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks. Southwestern Naturalist 39:323-327. http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdfplus/30054366.pdf.

Bradford, D.F., S.D. Cooper, T.M. Jenkins, Jr., K. Kratz, O. Sarnelle, and A.D. Brown. 1998. Influences of natural acidity and introduced fish on faunal assemblages in California alpine lakes. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 55(11):2478-2491. http://article.pubs.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca/RPAS/rpv?hm=HInit&calyLang=eng&journal=cjfas&volume=55&afpf=f98-128.pdf.

32

Bronmark, C. and P. Edenhamn. 1994. Does the presence of fish affect the distribution of tree frogs (Hyla arborea)? Conservation Biology 8:841-845.

Bull, E.L. and D.B. Marx. 2002. Influence of fish and habitat on amphibian communities in high elevation lakes in northeastern Oregon. Northwest Science 76(3):240-248. http://www.vetmed.wsu.edu/org_NWS/NWSci%20journal%20articles/2002%20files/Issue%203/v76%20p240%20Bull%20et%20al.PDF.

Fellers, G.M. and C.A. Drost. 1993. Disappearance of the cascades frog Rana cascadae at the southern end of its range, California, USA. Biological Conservation 65:177-181. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=PublicationURL&_tockey=%23TOC%235798%231993%23999349997%23437320%23FLP%23&_cdi=5798&_pubType=J&_auth=y&_acct=C000052423&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=4250274&md5=9dadebf95aff5d26e91bbc2667867174.

Fellers, et al. 2008. Turning population trend monitoring into active conservation: Can we save the Cascades Frog (Rana cascadae) in the Lassen region of California? Herpetological Conservation and Biology 3(1):23-39. http://www.herpconbio.org/Volume_3/Issue_1/Fellers_etal_2008.pdf.

Finlay, J.C. and V.T. Vredenburg. 2007. Introduced trout sever trophic connections between lakes and watersheds: consequences for a declining amphibian. Ecology.http://web.me.com/vancevredenburg/Vances_site/Publications_files/FinlayVrendenburg2007.pdf

Gillespie G.R. 2001. The role of introduced trout in the decline of the spotted tree frog (Litoria spenceri) in south-eastern Australia. Biological Conservation 100:187-198. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=MImg&_imagekey=B6V5X-42YW1PW-4-9&_cdi=5798&_user=4250274&_pii=S0006320701000210&_origin=browse&_coverDate=08%2F31%2F2001&_sk=998999997&view=c&wchp=dGLbVzW-zSkzS&md5=5a199fe0a14418cc158f0d24578830a6&ie=/sdarticle.pdf.

Gillespie, G.R. and J.M. Hero. 1999. Potential impacts of introduced fish and fish translocation on Australian amphibians. Pages 131-144 in Campbell, A (ed). Declines and Disappearances of Australian Frogs. Environment Australia, Canberra.

Goodsell, J.A. and L.B. Kats. 1999. Effect of introduced mosquitofish on Pacific treefrogs and the role of alternative prey. Conservation Biology 13:921-924. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1046/j.1523-1739.1999.98237.x/pdf.

Hamer, A., S. Lane, and M. Mahony. 2002. The role of introduced mosquitofish (Gambusia holbrooki) in excluding the native green and golden bell frog (Litoria aurea) from original habitats in south-eastern Australia. Oecologia 132:445-452. http://www.springerlink.com/content/nxwqmlg1hgn78hfc/fulltext.pdf.

Hayes, M.P. and M.R. Jennings. 1986. Decline of ranid frog species in western North America: are bullfrogs (Rana catesbeiana) responsible? Journal of Herpetology 20:490-509. http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdfplus/1564246.pdf?acceptTC=true.

Hartel, T., S. Nemes, D. Cogalniceanu, K. Ollerer, O. Schweiger, C. Moga, and L. Demeter. 2007. The effect of fish and aquatic habitat complexity on amphibians. Hydrobiologia 583:173-182. http://www.springerlink.com/content/h3061u065m840pv4/fulltext.pdf.

Hecnar, S.J. and R.T. M’Closkey. 1997. The effects of predatory fish on amphibian species richness and distribution. Biological Conservation 79:123-131. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=PublicationURL&_tockey=%23TOC%235798%231997%23999209997%2311591%23FLP%23&_cdi=5798&_pubType=J&_auth=y&_acct=C000052423&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=4250274&md5=71010ca11f3732397c05c9957a9be734

33

Joseph, M.G., J. Piovia-Scott, S.P. Lawler, and K.L. Pope. 2010. Indirect effects of introduced trout on Cascades frogs (Rana cascadae) via shared aquatic prey. Freshwater Biology (early view). http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2427.2010.02529.x/pdf.

Kiesecker, J.M. and A.R. Blaustein. 1998. Effects of introduced bullfrogs and smallmouth bass on microhabitat use, growth, and survival of native red-legged frogs (Rana aurora). Conservation Biology 12(4):776-787. http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/fulltext/120714487/PDFSTART.

Knapp, R.A.. 1996. Non-Native Trout in Natural Lakes of the Sierra Nevada: An Analysis of Their Distribution and Impacts on Native Aquatic Biota. Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project: Final Report to Congress, vol. III, Assessments and scientific basis for management options. Davis: University of California, Centers for Water and Wildlife Resources.

Knapp, R.A. and K.R. Matthews. 2000. Non-native fish introductions and the decline of the mountain yellow-legged frog (Rana muscos) from within protected areas. Conservation Biology 14(2):428-438. http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/fulltext/119186370/PDFSTART.

Knapp, R.A., K.R. Matthews, and O. Sarnelle. 2001. Resistance and resilience of alpine lake fauna to fish introductions. Ecological Monographs 71(3):401-421. http://www.esajournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1890/0012-9615%282001%29071%5B0401%3ARAROAL%5D2.0.CO%3B2

Knapp, R.A.. 2005. Effects of nonnative fish and habitat characteristics on lentic herpetofauna in Yosemite National Park, USA. Biological Conservation 121:265-279. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=PublicationURL&_tockey=%23TOC%235798%232005%23998789997%23514650%23FLA%23&_cdi=5798&_pubType=J&_auth=y&_acct=C000052423&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=4250274&md5=4edcae0534fb475c446b47b39d10fb5e.

Knapp, R.A., C.P. Hawkins, J. Ladau, and J.G. McClory. 2005. Fauna of Yosemite National Park lakes has low resistance but high resilience to fish introductions. Ecological Applications 15(3):835-847. http://www.esajournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1890/04-0619.

Komak, S. and M.R. Crossland. 2000. An assessment of the introduced mosquitofish (Gambusia affinis holbrooki) as a predator of eggs, hatchlings, and tadpoles of native and non-native anurans. Wildlife Research 27:185-189. http://www.publish.csiro.au/?act=view_file&file_id=WR99028.pdf. Lawler, S.P., D. Dritz, T. Strange, and M. Holyoak. 1999. Effects of introduced mosquitofish and bullfrogs on the threatened California red-legged frog. Conservation Biology 13(3):613-622. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1046/j.1523-1739.1999.98075.x/pdf.

Liss, W.J. and G.L. Larson. 1991. Ecological effects of stocked trout in naturally fishless high-elevation lakes, North Cascades National Park Service Complex, WA, USA: Phase II. Park Science 11(3):22-23. http://www.nature.nps.gov/ParkScience/archive/PDF/ParkScience11(3)Summer1991.pdf.

Liss, W.J., G.L. Larson, and R.L. Hoffman, eds. 2002. Ecological impact of introduced trout on native aquatic communities in mountain lakes, Phase III Final Report. U.S. Geological Survey, Corvallis, OR.

Matthews, K.R. K.L. Pope, H.K. Preisler, and R.A. Knapp. 2001. Effects of non‐native trout on Pacific treefrogs (Hyla regilla) in the Sierra Nevada. Copeia 4:1130-1137. http://www.bioone.org/doi/pdf/10.1643/0045-8511%282001%29001%5B1130%3AEONTOP%5D2.0.CO%3B2.

34

Macan, T.T. 1966. The influence of predation on the fauna of a moorland fish pond. Archiv fur Hydrobiologie 61:432-452.

Martinez-solano, I., L.J. Barbadillo, and M. Lapena. 2003. Effect of introduced fish on amphibian species richness and densities at a montane assemblage in the Sierra de Neila, Spain. Herpetological Journal 13:167-173.

McGarvie Hirner, J.L. and S.P. Cox. 2007. Effects of rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) on amphibians in productive recreational fishing lakes of British Columbia. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 64:1770-1780.http://article.pubs.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca/RPAS/rpv?hm=HInit&calyLang=eng&journal=cjfas&volume=64&afpf=f07-139.pdf

Meyer, A.H., B.R. Schmidt, and K. Grossenbacher. 1998. Analysis of three amphibian populations with quarter-century long time-series. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B 265:523-528. http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/265/1395/523.full.pdf+html.

Monello, R.J. and R.G. Wright. 1999. Amphibian habitat preferences among artificial ponds in the Palouse region of northern Idaho. Journal of Herpetology 33(2):298-303. http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdfplus/1565727.pdf.

Murphy, P.D. 2002. The effects of different species of introduced salmonids on amphibians in headwater lakes of North-central Idaho. M.S. Thesis, Department of Biological Sciences, Idaho State University, Pocatello, Idaho.Murphy, M.A., R. Dezzani, D.S. Pilliod, and A. Storfer. 2010. Landscape genetics of high mountain frog metapopulations. Molecular Ecology 19:3634-3649. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-294X.2010.04723.x/pdf. Orizoala, G. and F. Braña. 2006. Effect of salmonid introduction and other environmental characteristics on amphibian distribution and abundance in mountain lakes of northern Spain. Animal Conservation 9:171-178. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1469-1795.2006.00023.x/pdf.

Paoletti, D.J.. 2009. Responses of foothill yellow-legged larvae (Rana boylii) to an introduced predator. Master’s Thesis, Oregon State University.

Pearl, C.A., M.J. Adams, N. Leuthold, and R.B. Bury. 2005. Amphibian occurrence and aquatic invaders in a changing landscape: Implications for wetland mitigation in the Willamette Valley, Oregon, USA. Wetlands 25(1):76-88. http://www.bioone.org/doi/pdf/10.1672/0277-5212%282005%29025%5B0076%3AAOAAII%5D2.0.CO%3B2.

Pilliod, D.S. and C.R. Peterson. 2001. Local and landscape effects of introduced trout on amphibians in historically fishless watersheds. Ecosystems 4:322-333. http://www.springerlink.com/content/d7udr5236m3ay09w/fulltext.pdf.

Pilliod, D.S., C.R. Peterson, and P.I. Ritson. 2002. Seasonal migration of Columbia spotted frogs (Rana luteiventris) among complementary resources in a high mountain basin. Canadian Journal of Zoology 80:1849-1862. http://article.pubs.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca/RPAS/rpv?hm=HInit&calyLang=eng&journal=cjz&volume=80&afpf=z02-175.pdf. Pilliod, D.S., B.R. Hossack, P.F. Bahls, E.L. Bull, P.S. Corn, G. Hokit, B.A. Maxell, J.C. Munger, and A. Wyrick. 2010. Nonnative salmonids affect amphibian occupancy at multiple spatial scales. Diversity and Distributions 16:959-974. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1472-4642.2010.00699.x/pdf.

35

Reid, I.S. 2005. Amphibian, fish stocking, and habitat relationships in Siskiyou mountain wilderness lakes, California and Oregon. Northwestern Naturalist 86(1):25-33. http://www.bioone.org/doi/pdf/10.1898/1051-1733%282005%29086%5B0025%3AAFSAHR%5D2.0.CO%3B2.

Reshetnikov, A.N. 2003. The introduced fish, Rotan (Perccottus glenii) depresses populations of aquatic animals (macroinvertebrates, amphibians, and a fish). Hydrobiologia 510:83-90. http://www.springerlink.com/content/l2264024607t34um/fulltext.pdf.

Rosen, P.C., C.R.Schwalbe, D.A.Parizek, Jr., P.A.Holm, and C.H. Lowe. 1995. Introduced aquatic vertebrates in the Chiricahua region: effects on declining native ranid frogs. Pages 251-261 in DeBano, L.F., G.J. Gottfried, R.H. Hamre, C.B. Edminster, P.F. Folliott, A.Ortega-Rubio (eds). Biodiversity and Management of the Madrean Archipelago: the Sky Islands of Southwestern United States and Northwestern Mexico. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-GTR-264. U.S. Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Ft. Collins, Colorado. http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/pubs_rm/rm_gtr264.html.

Schank, C.M.M. 2008. Assessing the effects of trout stocking on native amphibian communities in small boreal foothills lakes of Alberta. Master’s Thesis, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta.

Sexton, O.J. and C. Phillips. 1986. A qualitative study of fish-amphibian interactions in three Missouri ponds. Transactions of the Missouri Academy of Sciences 20:25-35.

Smith, G.R., J.E. Rettig, G.G.Mittelbach, J.L. Valiulis, and S.R.Schaack. 1999. The effects of fish on assemblages of amphibians in ponds: a field experiment. Freshwater Biology 41:829-837. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1046/j.1365-2427.1999.00445.x/pdf.

Webb, C.E. and J. Joss. 1997. Does predation by the fish Gambusia holbrooki (Atheriniformes: Poeciliidae) contribute to declining frog populations? Australian Zoologist 30:316-324. http://www.rzsnsw.org.au/index.php?/Journals/Australian-Zoologist/australian-zoologist-database.html.

Welsh Jr., H.H., K.L. Pope, and D. Boiano. 2006. Sub-alpine amphibian distributions related to species palatability to non-native salmonids in the Klamath mountains of northern California. Diversity and Distributions 12:298-309. http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/fulltext/118598951/PDFSTART.

Yoon, D. 1977. The effect of introduced fish on the amphibian life in Westfall meadow. Yosemite Nature Notes 46(2). http://www.yosemite.ca.us/library/yosemite_nature_notes/46/2/introduced_fish.html.

EFFECTS OF INTRODUCED OR PREDATORY FISH ON SALAMANDERS AND NEWTS

Bull, E.L. and D.B. Marx. 2002. Influence of fish and habitat on amphibian communities in high elevation lakes in northeastern Oregon. Northwest Science 76(3):240-248. http://www.vetmed.wsu.edu/org_NWS/NWSci%20journal%20articles/2002%20files/Issue%203/v76%20p240%20Bull%20et%20al.PDF.

Currens, C.R., W.J. Liss, and R.L. Hoffman. 2007. Impacts of a gape limited brook trout, Salvelinus fontinalis, on larval northwestern salamander, Ambystoma gracile, growth: a field enclosure experiment. Journal of Herpetology 41(2):321-324. http://www.bioone.org/doi/pdf/10.1670/0022-1511%282007%2941%5B321%3AIOAGLB%5D2.0.CO%3B2.

Denoel, M., G. Dzukic, and M.L. Kalezic. 2005. Effects of widespread fish introductions on paedomorphic newts in Europe. Conservation Biology 19:162-170.

Efford, I.E. and J.A. Mathias. 1969. A comparison of two salamander populations in Marion Lake, British Columbia. Copeia 4:723-736. http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdfplus/1441799.pdf?acceptTC=true.

36

Gamradt, S.C. and L.B. Kats. 1996. Effect of introduced crayfish and mosquitofish on California newts. Conservation Biology 10:1155-1162.

Larson, G.L. and R.L. Hoffman. 2002. Abundances of northwestern salamander larvae in montane lakes with and without fish, Mount Rainier National Park, Washington. Northwest Science 76(1):35-40. http://www.vetmed.wsu.edu/org_NWS/NWSci%20journal%20articles/2002%20files/Issue%201/v76%20p35%20Larson%20and%20Hoffman.PDF.

Leyse, K.E. 2005. Intentional introductions and biodiversity in fishless waters: the effects of introduced fish on native aquatic species. Dissertation, University of California, Davis.

Liss, W.J. and G.L. Larson. 1991. Ecological effects of stocked trout in naturally fishless high-elevation lakes, North Cascades National Park Service Complex, WA, USA: Phase II. Park Science 11(3):22-23. http://www.nature.nps.gov/ParkScience/archive/PDF/ParkScience11(3)Summer1991.pdf.

Liss, W.J., G.L. Larson, and R.L. Hoffman, eds. 2002. Ecological impact of introduced trout on native aquatic communities in mountain lakes, Phase III Final Report. U.S. Geological Survey, Corvallis, OR.

Macan, T.T. 1966. The influence of predation on the fauna of a moorland fish pond. Archiv fur Hydrobiologie 61:432-452.

Maret, T.J., J.D. Snyder, and J.P. Collins. 2006. Altered drying regime controls distribution of endangered salamanders and introduced predators. Biological Conservation 127:129-138. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=MImg&_imagekey=B6V5X-4H3JJJ1-3-C&_cdi=5798&_user=4250274&_pii=S0006320705003113&_origin=browse&_zone=rslt_list_item&_coverDate=01%2F31%2F2006&_sk=998729997&wchp=dGLzVzb-zSkzV&md5=8fe33405a93894c3afbd6b3141519531&ie=/sdarticle.pdf.

Martinez-solano, I., L.J. Barbadillo, and M. Lapena. 2003. Effect of introduced fish on amphibian species richness and densities at a montane assemblage in the Sierra de Neila, Spain. Herpetological Journal 13:167-173.

McGarvie Hirner, J.L. and S.P. Cox. 2007. Effects of rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) on amphibians in productive recreational fishing lakes of British Columbia. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 64:1770-1780.http://article.pubs.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca/RPAS/rpv?hm=HInit&calyLang=eng&journal=cjfas&volume=64&afpf=f07-139.pdf

Monello, R.J. and R.G. Wright. 2001. Predation by goldfish (Carassius auratus) on eggs and larvae of the eastern long-toed salamander (Ambystoma macrodactylum columbianum). Journal of Herpetology 35:350-353. http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdfplus/1566132.pdf?acceptTC=true. Orizoala, G. and F. Braña. 2006. Effect of salmonid introduction and other environmental characteristics on amphibian distribution and abundance in mountain lakes of northern Spain. Animal Conservation 9:171-178. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1469-1795.2006.00023.x/pdf.

Pearson, K.J. 2004. The effects of introduced fish on the long-toed salamander (Ambystoma macrodactylum) in southwestern Alberta, Canada. Master’s Thesis, University of Lethbridge, Lethbridge, Alberta, Canada.

Pearson, K.J., and C.P. Goater. 2008. Distribution of long-toed salamanders and introduced trout in high- and low-elevation wetlands in southwestern Alberta, Canada. Ecoscience 15:453-459. http://www.bioone.org/doi/pdf/10.2980/15-4-3127.

37

Pearson, K.J., and C.P. Goater. 2009. Effects of predaceous and nonpredaceous introduced fish on the survival, growth, and antipredation behaviours of long-toed salamanders. Canadian Journal of Zoology 87:948-955. http://article.pubs.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca/RPAS/rpv?hm=HInit&calyLang=eng&journal=cjz&volume=87&afpf=z09-084.pdf.

Pilliod, D.S. and C.R. Peterson. 2001. Local and landscape effects of introduced trout on amphibians in historically fishless watersheds. Ecosystems 4:322-333. http://www.springerlink.com/content/d7udr5236m3ay09w/fulltext.pdf.

Pilliod, D.S., B.R. Hossack, P.F. Bahls, E.L. Bull, P.S. Corn, G. Hokit, B.A. Maxell, J.C. Munger, and A. Wyrick. 2010. Nonnative salmonids affect amphibian occupancy at multiple spatial scales. Diversity and Distributions 16:959-974. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1472-4642.2010.00699.x/pdf.

Reid, I.S. 2005. Amphibian, fish stocking, and habitat relationships in Siskiyou mountain wilderness lakes, California and Oregon. Northwestern Naturalist 86(1):25-33. http://www.bioone.org/doi/pdf/10.1898/1051-1733%282005%29086%5B0025%3AAFSAHR%5D2.0.CO%3B2.

Reshetnikov, A.N. 2003. The introduced fish, Rotan (Perccottus glenii) depresses populations of aquatic animals (macroinvertebrates, amphibians, and a fish). Hydrobiologia. 510:83-90. http://www.springerlink.com/content/l2264024607t34um/fulltext.pdf.

Reshetnikov, A.N. and Y.B. Manteifel. 1997. Newt - fish interactions in Moscow Province: a new predatory fish colonizer, Perccottus glehni, transforms metapopulations of newts, Triturus vulgaris and T. cristatus. Advances in Amphibian Research in the Former Soviet Union 2:1-12.

Schank, C.M.M. 2008. Assessing the effects of trout stocking on native amphibian communities in small boreal foothills lakes of Alberta. Master’s Thesis, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta.

Sexton, O.J. and C. Phillips. 1986. A qualitative study of fish-amphibian interactions in three Missouri ponds. Transactions of the Missouri Academy of Sciences 20:25-35.

Smith, G.R., J.E. Rettig, G.G.Mittelbach, J.L. Valiulis, and S.R.Schaack. 1999. The effects of fish on assemblages of amphibians in ponds: a field experiment. Freshwater Biology 41:829-837. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1046/j.1365-2427.1999.00445.x/pdf.

Tyler, T., W.J. Liss, L.M. Ganio, G.L. Larson, R. Hoffman, E. Deimling, and G. Lomnicky. 1998. Interaction between introduced trout and larval salamanders (Ambystoma macrodactylum) in high-elevation lakes. Conservation Biology 12(1):94-105. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1523-1739.1998.96274.x/pdf.

Tyler T.J., W.J. Liss, R.L. Hoffman, and L.M. Ganio. 1998. Experimental Analysis of Trout Effects on Survival, Growth, and Habitat Use of Two Species of Ambystomatid Salamanders. Journal of Herpetology 32(3):345-349. http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdfplus/1565448.pdf.

Welsh Jr., H.H., K.L. Pope, and D. Boiano. 2006. Sub-alpine amphibian distributions related to species palatability to non-native salmonids in the Klamath mountains of northern California. Diversity and Distributions 12:298-309. http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/fulltext/118598951/PDFSTART.

EFFECTS OF INTRODUCED FISH ON AQUATIC INSECTS/AQUATIC SYSTEMS

Bradford, D.F., S.D. Cooper, T.M. Jenkins, Jr., K. Kratz, O. Sarnelle, and A.D. Brown. 1998. Influences of natural acidity and introduced fish on faunal assemblages in California alpine lakes. Canadian Journal of

38

Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 55(11):2478-2491. http://article.pubs.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca/RPAS/rpv?hm=HInit&calyLang=eng&journal=cjfas&volume=55&afpf=f98-128.pdf.

Carlisle, D.M. and C.P. Hawkins. 1998. Relationships between invertebrate assemblage structure, 2 trout species, and habitat structure in Utah mountain lakes. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 17:286-300. http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdfplus/1468332.pdf.

Donald, D.B. 1987. Assessment of the outcome of eight decades of trout stocking in the mountain national parks, Canada. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 7:545-553. http://afsjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1577/1548-8659%281987%297%3C545%3AAOTOOE%3E2.0.CO%3B2.

Dunham, J.B., D.S. Pilliod, and M.K. Young. 2004. Assessing the consequences of nonnative trout in headwater ecosystems in western North America. Fisheries 29:18-26. http://afsjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1577/1548-8446%282004%2929%5B18%3AATCONT%5D2.0.CO%3B2.

Epanchin, P.N., R.A. Knapp, and S.P. Lawler. 2010. Nonnative trout impact an alpine-nesting bird by altering aquatic-insect subsidies. Ecology 91(8):2406-2415. http://www.esajournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1890/09-1974.1.

Knapp, R.A. 1996. Non-native trout in natural lakes of the Sierra Nevada: an analysis of their distribution and impacts on native aquatic biota. Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project: Final Report to Congress, vol. III, Assessments and Scientific Basis for Management Options. Davis: University of California, Centers for Water and Wildlife Resources.

Knapp, R.A., K.R. Matthews, and O. Sarnelle. 2001. Resistance and resilience of alpine lake fauna to fish introductions. Ecological Monographs 71(3):401-421. http://www.esajournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1890/0012-9615%282001%29071%5B0401%3ARAROAL%5D2.0.CO%3B2

Knapp, R.A., C.P. Hawkins, J. Ladau, and J.G. McClory. 2005. Fauna of Yosemite National Park lakes has low resistance but high resilience to fish introductions. Ecological Applications 15(3):835-847. http://www.esajournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1890/04-0619.

Luecke, C.. 1990. Changes in abundances and distribution of benthic macroinvetebrates after introduction of cutthroat trout into a previously fishless lake. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 119(6):1010-1021. http://afsjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1577/1548-8659%281990%29119%3C1010%3ACIAADO%3E2.3.CO%3B2.

Nasmith, L.E. 2008. Effects of stocked trout on native fish and littoral invertebratesin boreal foothills lakes. Master’s Thesis, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta.

Reshetnikov, A.N. 2003. The introduced fish, Rotan (Perccottus glenii) depresses populations of aquatic animals (macroinvertebrates, amphibians, and a fish). Hydrobiologia 510:83-90. http://www.springerlink.com/content/l2264024607t34um/fulltext.pdf.

Schindler, D.E., R.A. Knapp, and P.R. Leavitt. 2001. Alteration of nutrient cycles and algal production resulting from fish introductions into mountain lakes. Ecosystems 4:308-321. http://www.springerlink.com/content/x3xhq8x6vxyx03qj/fulltext.pdf.

Vander Zanden, M.J., J.D. Olden, J.H. Thorne, and N.E. Mandrak. 2004. Predicting occurrences and impacts of smallmouth bass introductions in north temperate lakes. Ecological Applications 14(1):132-148. http://www.esajournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1890/02-5036.

COMPETITION FOR FOOD RESOURCES BETWEEN INTRODUCED FISH AND AMPHIBIANS

39

Eby, L.A. W.J. Roach, L.B. Crowder, and J.A. Stanford. 2006. Effects of stocking-up freshwater food webs. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 21(10):576-584. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=MImg&_imagekey=B6VJ1-4KBVTYW-1-7&_cdi=6081&_user=4250274&_pii=S0169534706002047&_origin=browse&_zone=rslt_list_item&_coverDate=10%2F31%2F2006&_sk=999789989&wchp=dGLbVzW-zSkzS&md5=a79c5dd3f6c0a7bb7ebc93b8505284fa&ie=/sdarticle.pdf.

Finlay, J.C. and V.T. Vredenburg. 2007. Introduced trout sever trophic connections in watersheds: consequences for a declining amphibian. Ecology 88(9):2187-2198. http://www.esajournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1890/06-0344.1.

MOUNTAIN LAKE FISH STOCKING PATTERNS AND POLICIES

Adams, S.B., C.A. Frissell, and B.E. Rieman. 2001. Geography of invasion in mountain streams: consequences of headwater lake fish introductions. Ecosystems 296-307. http://www.springerlink.com/content/vdl5k8lherjvgbw0/fulltext.pdf.

Bahls, P. 1992. The status of fish populations and management of high mountain lakes in the western United States. Northwest Science 66(3):183-193. http://www.vetmed.wsu.edu/org_NWS/NWSci%20journal%20articles/1992%20files/Issue%203/v66%20p183%20Bahls.PDF.

Courtenay, W.R. and P.B. Moyle. 1992. Crimes against biodiversity: the lasting legacy of fish introductions. Transactions of the North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference 57:365-372.

Courtenay, W.R. and J.R. Stauffer. 1984. Distribution, Biology, and Management of Exotic Fishes. The John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore.

Courtenay, W.R., D.A. Hensley, J.N. Taylor, and J.A. McCann. 1984. Distributions of exotic fish in the continental United States. Pages 41-78 in Courtenay, W.R. and J.R. Stauffer (eds). Distribution, Biology, and Management of Exotic Fishes. The John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore.

Courtenay, W.R. Jr. and G.K. Meffe. 1989. Small fishes in strange places: a review of introduced poeciliids. Pages 319-331 in Meffe, G.K. and F.F. Snelson Jr. (eds). Ecology and Evolution of Livebearing Fishes (Poeciliidae). Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey.

Corn, P.S. and R.A. Knapp. 2000. Fish stocking in protected areas: summary of a workshop. USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-15-VOL-5. http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/pubs/rmrs_p015_5/rmrs_p015_5_301_303.pdf.

Crossman, E.J. 1984. Introduction of exotic fishes in Canada. Pages 78-101 in Courtenay, W.R. and J.R. Stauffer. Distribution, Biology, and Management of Exotic Fishes. The John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore.

Donald, D.B. 1987. Assessment of the outcome of eight decades of trout stocking in the mountain national parks, Canada. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 7:545-553. http://afsjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1577/1548-8659%281987%297%3C545%3AAOTOOE%3E2.0.CO%3B2. Drake, J., F. DiCastri, R. Groves, F. Kruger, H. Mooney, M. Rejmanek, and M. Williamson, 1989. Biological Invasions: a Global Perspective. John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, UK. Drost, C.A. and G.M. Fellers. 1996. Collapse of a regional frog fauna in the Yosemite area of the California Sierra Nevada, USA. Conservation Biology 10(2):414-425.

Duff, D.A. 1995. Fish Stocking in U.S. Federal Wilderness Areas—Challenges and Opportunities. International Journal of Wilderness 1(1):17-19. http://www.wild.org/ijw-uploads/Vol%2001.No%201.Sept%2095.pdf.

40

Ehrlich, P.R. 1989. Attributes of invaders and the invading process: vertebrates. Pages 315-328 in Drake, J.A., H.A. Mooney, F. di Castri, R.H. Groves, F.J. Kruger, M. Rejmanek, and M. Williamson (eds). Biological Invasions: A Global Perspective. SCOPE 37. John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, UK.

Knapp, R.A. and K.R. Matthews. 2000. Effects of nonnative fishes on wilderness lake ecosystems in the Sierra Nevada and recommendations for reducing impacts. USDA Forest Service proceedings RMRS-P-15-Vol-5. http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/pubs/rmrs_p015_5/rmrs_p015_5_312_317.pdf.

Knapp, R.A., P.S. Corn, and D.E. Schindler. 2001. The introduction of nonnative fish into wilderness Lakes: good Intentions, conflicting mandates, and unintended consequences. Ecosystems 4:275-278. http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdfplus/3658924.pdf.

Landres, P., S. Meyer, and S. Matthews. 2001. The Wilderness Act and Fish Stocking: An Overview of Legislation, Judicial Interpretation, and Agency Implementation. Ecosystems 4:287-295. http://leopold.wilderness.net/pubs/426.pdf.

Ludwig, H.R. Jr. and J.A. Leitch. 1996. Inter-basin transfer of aquatic biota via anglers bait buckets. Fisheries 21:14-18. http://afsjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1577/1548-8446%281996%29021%3C0014%3AITOABV%3E2.0.CO%3B2.

Matthews, K.R. and R.A. Knapp. 1999. A study of high mountain lake fish stocking effects in the U.S. Sierra Nevada Wilderness. International Journal of Wilderness 5(1):24-26. http://www.wild.org/ijw-uploads/Vol%2005.No%201.Apr%2099.pdf.

Moore, S.E., G.L. Larson, and B. Ridley. 1986. Population control of exotic rainbow trout in streams of a natural areas park. Environmental Management 10:215-219. http://www.springerlink.com/content/m232237q2hq86326/fulltext.pdf. Patla, D. 2005. Protecting amphibians while restoring fish populations. Pages 275-276 in Lannoo, M. (ed) Amphibian declines: the conservation status of United States species. University of California Press, Berkeley.

Pilliod, D.S., and C.R. Peterson. 2000. Evaluating effects of fish stocking on amphibian populations in wilderness lakes. Pages 328-335 in Cole, D.N., S.F. McCool, W.T. Borrie, J. O'Loughlin (eds). Wilderness science in a time of change conference - Volume 5: Wilderness ecosystems, threats, and management. Proceedings RMRS-P-0-VOL-5, USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Ogden, UT.

Pister, E.P. 2001. Wilderness fish stocking: history and perspective. Ecosystems 4:279-286. http://www.springerlink.com/content/wrg8vdeqr1p6df5b/fulltext.pdf.

ANTI-PREDATOR DEFENSE AND SPECIES PALATABILITY

Cory, L. 1963. Effects of introduced trout on the evolution of native frogs in the high Sierra Nevada Mountains. Proceedings of the 16th International Congress of Zoology Vol.2, pg. 172. http://books.google.com/books?id=7EIrAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA172&lpg=PA172&dq=cory+1963+proceedings+of+the+international+congress+of+zoology&source=bl&ots=y_C1q25lG8&sig=PJqsLagBRwq60EkOHUymHJS0dTE&hl=en&ei=ureiS6D7Ls2Utgfh3ZVs&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CAYQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=&f=false.

Grasso, R.L., R.M. Coleman, and C. Davidson. 2010. Palatability and antipredator response of Yosemite toads (Anaxyrus canorus) to nonnative brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis) in the Sierra Nevada Mountains of California. Copeia 3:457-462.http://www.bioone.org/doi/pdf/10.1643/CH-09-033

41

Grasso, R.L. 2005. Palatability and anti-predator response of Yosemite toad (Bufo canorus) to nonnative brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis) in the Sierra Nevada mountains of California. Master’s Thesis, California State University, Sacramento.

Gunzburger, M.S. and J. Travis. 2005. Critical literature review of the evidence for unpalatability of amphibian eggs and larvae. Journal of Herpetology 39(4):547-571. http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdfplus/4092844.pdf.

Kats, L. B., J. W. Petranka, and A. Sih. 1988. Antipredator defenses and persistence of amphibian larvae with fishes. Ecology 69(6):1865-1870. http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdfplus/1941163.pdf.

Kruse, K.C., and M.G. Francis. 1977. A predation deterrent in the larvae of the bullfrog, Rana catesbeiana . Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 106(3):248-252. http://afsjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1577/1548-8659%281977%29106%3C248%3AAPDILO%3E2.0.CO%3B2.

Kruse, K.C. and B.M. Stone. 1984. Largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides) learn to avoid feeding on toad (Bufo) tadpoles. Animal Behavior 32(4):1035-1039. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=PublicationURL&_tockey=%23TOC%236693%231984%23999679995%23624475%23FLP%23&_cdi=6693&_pubType=J&_auth=y&_acct=C000052423&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=4250274&md5=34be21f7c120a01e33f2063f3519ece9.

Lawler, S.P.. 1989. Behavioral responses to predators and predation risk in four species of larval anurans. Animal Behavior 38(6):1039-1047. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=PublicationURL&_tockey=%23TOC%236693%231989%23999619993%23624481%23FLP%23&_cdi=6693&_pubType=J&_auth=y&_acct=C000052423&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=4250274&md5=ac53ea3b3e8460cea4fff5ed62eb8dfc.

Lawler, K.L. and J. Hero. 1997. Palatability of Bufo marinus tadpoles to a predatory fish decreases with development. Wildlife Research 24(3):327-334. http://www.publish.csiro.au/?act=view_file&file_id=WR96089.pdf.

Pearl, C.A., M.J. Adams, G.S. Schuytema, and A.V. Nebeker. 2003. Behavioral responses of anuran larvae to chemical cues of native and introduced predators in the Pacific northwestern United States. Journal of Herpetology 37(3):572-576. http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdfplus/1566065.pdf.

Petranka, J.W. 1983. Fish predation: a factor affecting the spatial distribution of a stream-breeding amphibian. Copeia 1983:624-628. http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdfplus/1444326.pdf?acceptTC=true.

Petranka, J.W., L.B. Kats, and A. Sih. 1987. Predator—prey interactions among fish and larval amphibians: use of chemical cues to detect predatory fish. Animal Behavior 35(2):420-425. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=PublicationURL&_tockey=%23TOC%236693%231987%23999649997%23621488%23FLP%23&_cdi=6693&_pubType=J&_auth=y&_acct=C000052423&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=4250274&md5=4db79beb6b7d02ce24f92f9b91e71fec. Rundio, D.E., and D.H. Olson. 2003. Antipredator defenses of larval Pacific giant salamanders (Dicamptodon tenebrosus) against cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarki). Copeia 2003(2):402- 407. http://www.bioone.org/doi/pdf/10.1643/0045-8511%282003%29003%5B0402%3AADOLPG%5D2.0.CO%3B2.

Skelly, D.K., and E.E. Werner. 1990. Behavioral and life history responses of larval American toads to an odonate predator. Ecology 71:2313-2322. http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdfplus/1938642.pdf.

42

Welsh Jr., H.H., K.L. Pope, and D. Boiano. 2006. Sub-alpine amphibian distributions related to species palatability to non-native salmonids in the Klamath mountains of northern California. Diversity and Distributions 12:298-309. http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/fulltext/118598951/PDFSTART.

DISEASE TRANSFER BETWEEN FISH AND AMPHIBIANS

Kiesecker, J.M., A.R. Blaustein, and C.L. Miller. 2001. Transfer of a Pathogen from Fish to Amphibians. Conservation Biology 15(4):1064-1070. http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/fulltext/118983871/PDFSTART.

Mao, J., D.E. Green, G. Fellers, and V.G. Chinchar. 1999. Molecular characterization of iridoviruses isolated from sympatric amphibians and fish. Virus Research 63:45-52. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=MImg&_imagekey=B6T32-3X9YRG1-7-5&_cdi=4934&_user=4250274&_pii=S016817029900057X&_origin=browse&_zone=rslt_list_item&_coverDate=09%2F30%2F1999&_sk=999369998&wchp=dGLzVlz-zSkzk&md5=c83ff38b39c19ee80e8b685c4dd23ffd&ie=/sdarticle.pdf.

Petrisko, J.E., C.A. Pearl, D.S. Pilliod, P.P. Sheridan, C.F. Williams, C.R. Peterson, and R.B. Bury. 2008. Saprolegniaceae identified on amphibian eggs throughout the Pacific Northwest, USA, by internal transcribed spacer sequences and phylogenetic analysis. Mycologia 100:171-180. http://www.mycologia.org/cgi/reprint/100/2/171.

NATIVE AND NON-NATIVE PREDATOR FACILITATION AND ADDITIVE EFFECTS OF MULTIPLE PREDATORS, PLUS OTHER ECOSYSTEM EFFECTS

Adams, M.J. 1999. Correlated factors in amphibian decline: exotic species and habitat change in western Washington. Journal of Wildlife Management 63:1162-1171. http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdfplus/3802834.pdf.

Adams, M.J. 2000. Pond permanence and the effects of exotic vertebrates on anurans. Ecological Applications 10(2):559-568. http://www.esajournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1890/1051-0761%282000%29010%5B0559%3APPATEO%5D2.0.CO%3B2.

Adams, M.J., C.A. Pearl, and R.B. Bury. 2003. Indirect facilitation of an anuran invasion by non-native fishes. Ecology Letters 6(4):343-351. http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/fulltext/118853164/PDFSTART.

Bence, J. 1988. Indirect effects and biological control of mosquitoes by mosquitofish. Journal of Applied Ecology 25:505-521. http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdfplus/2403840.pdf. Boone, M.D., R.D. Semlitsch, E.E. Little, and M.C. Doyle. 2007. Multiple stressors in amphibian communities: effects of chemical contamination, bullfrogs, and fish. Ecological Applications 17(1):291-301. http://www.esajournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1890/1051-0761%282007%29017%5B0291%3AMSIACE%5D2.0.CO%3B2.

Elser, J. J., C. Luecke, M.T. Brett, and C.R. Goldman. 1995. Effects of food web compensation after manipulation of rainbow trout in an oligotrophic lake. Ecology 76:52-69. http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdfplus/1940631.pdf.

Epanchin, P.N., R.A. Knapp, and S.P. Lawler. 2010. Nonnative trout impact an alpine-nesting bird by altering aquatic-insect subsidies. Ecology 91(8):2406-2415.http://www.esajournals.org/doi/full/10.1890/09-1974.1

Lacan, I., K. Matthews, and K. Feldman. 2008. Interaction of an introduced predator with future effects of climate change in the recruitment dynamics of the imperiled Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog (Rana sierra).

43

Herpetological Conservation and Biology 3(2):211-223. http://www.herpconbio.org/Volume_3/Issue_2/Lacan_etal_2008.pdf.

Matthews, K.R., R.A. Knapp, and K.L. Pope. 2002. Garter snake distributions in high elevation aquatic ecosystems: Is there a link with declining amphibian populations and nonnative trout introductions? Journal of Herpetology 36(1):16-22. http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdfplus/1565796.pdf.

Matthews, K.R. and H.K. Preisler. 2010. Site fidelity of the declining amphibian, Rana sierrae (Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog). Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 67(2): 243-255 (2010). http://article.pubs.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca/RPAS/rpv?hm=HInit&calyLang=eng&journal=cjfas&volume=67&afpf=f09-172.pdf.

Nyström, P., O. Svensson, B. Lardner, C. Brönmark, and W. Grané. 2001. The influence of multiple introduced predators on a littoral pond community. Ecology 82:1023-1039. http://www.esajournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1890/0012-9658%282001%29082%5B1023%3ATIOMIP%5D2.0.CO%3B2.

Parker, B.R. D.W. Schindler, D.B. Donald, and R.S. Anderon. 2001. The effects of stocking and removal of a nonnative salmonid on the plankton of an alpine lake. Ecosystems 4:334-345. http://www.springerlink.com/content/d8t09q01ct65rb9t/fulltext.pdf.

Pope, K.L, J.M. Garwood, H.H. Welsh Jr., and S.P. Lawler. 2008. Evidence of indirect impacts of introduced trout on native amphibians via facilitation of a shared predator. Biological Conservation 141:1321-1331. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=PublicationURL&_tockey=%23TOC%235798%232008%23998589994%23690963%23FLA%23&_cdi=5798&_pubType=J&_auth=y&_acct=C000052423&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=4250274&md5=9c0f2ba6d4f1683aea6136a73625534b.

Reshetnikov, A.N., 2003. The introduced fish, Rotan (Perccottus glenii) depresses populations of aquatic animals (macroinvertebrates, amphibians, and a fish). Hydrobiologia 510:83-90. http://www.springerlink.com/content/l2264024607t34um/fulltext.pdf. Schindler, D.E., R.A. Knapp, and P.R. Leavitt. 2001. Alteration of nutrient cycles and algal production resulting from fish introductions into mountain lakes. Ecosystems 4:308-321. http://www.springerlink.com/content/x3xhq8x6vxyx03qj/fulltext.pdf.

Stead, J.E. and K.L. Pope. 2010. Predatory leeches (Hirudinida) may contribute to amphibian declines in the Lassen region, California. Northwestern Naturalist 91:30-39. http://www.bioone.org/doi/pdf/10.1898/NWN08-56.1.

44

APPENDIX C: Known and Potential Vertebrate Fauna of Gold Lake Bog RNA

The "Potential" species were derived via a combination of:* Expert opinion* Johnson, D.H. and T.A. O’Neill. 2001. Wildlife-Habitat Relationships in Oregon and Washington.* Csuti, B., A.J. Kimerling, T.A. O’Neil, M.M. Shaughnessy, E.P. Gaines, and M.M.P. Huso. 1997. Atlas of Oregon Wildlife* Leonard, William P., Herbert A. Brown, Lawrence L.C. Jones, Kelly R. McAllister, and Robert M. Storm. 1993. Audubon Society. Amphibians of Washington and Oregon. Seattle* Sibley, David A. 2000. The Sibley Guide to Brids. National Audubon Society.* Verts, B.J. and Leslie N. Carraway. 1998. Land Mammals of Oregon

Common Name Scientific Name Status SourceAMPHIBIANSNorthwestern Salamander Ambystoma gracile Known USGS Observations

Long-toed Salamander Ambystoma macrodactylum Potential

Pacific Giant Salamander Dicampodon tenebrosus Potential

Oregon Slender Salamander Batrachoseps wrightii Potential

Ensatina Ensatina eschcholtzii Potential

Dunn's Salamander Plethodon dunni Potential

Rough-skinned Newt Taricha granulosa Known USGS Observations

Western Toad Bufo boreas Known USFS Observations

Pacific Chorus (Tree) Frog Pseudacris regilla Known USFS Observations

Cascades Frog Rana cascadae Known USGS Observations

Oregon Spotted Frog Rana pretiosa Known USGS/USFS Observations

REPTILESNorthern Alligator Lizard Elgaria coerulea Potential

Rubber Boa Charina bottae Potential

Common Garter Snake Thamnophis sirtalis Potential

BIRDSDouble-crested Cormorant Phalacrocorax auritus Known Audubon Society Observations

Pied-billed Grebe Podilymbus podiceps Known Audubon Society Observations

Great Blue Heron Ardea herodias Known Audubon Society Observations

Wood Duck Aix sponsa Known Audubon Society Observations

Mallard Anas platyrhynchos Known USFS Observations

Cinnamon Teal Anas cyanooptera Known Audubon Society Observations

Green-winged Teal Anas crecca Known Audubon Society Observations

Northern Pintail Anas acuta Known Audubon Society Observations

Gadwall Ana strepera Known USFS Observations

American Wigeon Anas americana Known Audubon Society Observations

Bufflehead Bucephala albeola Known USFS Observations

Barrow's Goldeneye Bucephala islandica Known Audubon Society Observations

Hooded Merganser Lophodytes cucllatus Potential

Common Merganser Mergus merganser Potential

Ring-necked Duck Aythya collaris Known USFS Observations

Lesser Scaup Aythya affinis Known Audubon Society Observations

Solitary Sandpiper Tringa solitaria Known Audubon Society Observations

45

Spotted Sandpiper Actitis macularia Known USFS Observations

Turkey Vulture Cathartes aura Known USFS Observations

Osprey Pandion haliaetus Known Audubon Society Observations

Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus Known USFS Observations

Sharp-shinned Hawk Accipiter striatus Known USFS Observations

Cooper's Hawk Accipiter cooperii Known USFS Observations

Northern Goshawk Accipiter gentilis Known Audubon Society Observations

Red-tailed Hawk Buteo jamaicensis Known USFS Observations

Golden Eagle Aquila chrysaetos Potential

American Kestrel Falco sparverius Potential

Merlin Falco columbarius Potential

Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus Potential

Ruffed Grouse Bonasa umbellus Potential

Sooty (Blue) Grouse Dendragapus fuliginosus Known USFS Observations

Mountain Quail Oreortyx pictus Known Audubon Society Observations

Sora Porzana carolina Known Audubon Society Observations

American Coot Fulica americana Known Audubon Society Observations

Killdeer Charadrius vociferus Potential

Common Snipe Gallinago gallinago Known USFS Observations

Western Screech-owl Otus kennicottii Potential

Great Horned Owl Bubo virginianus Known USFS Observations

Northern Pygmy-owl Glaucidium gnoma Known Audubon Society Observations

Northern spotted owl Strix occidentalis caurina Known USFS Observations

Barred Owl Strix varia Known USFS Observations

Great Gray Owl Strix nebulosa Potential

Northern Saw-whet Owl Aegolius acadicus Potential

Common Nighthawk Chordeilis minor Known Audubon Society Observations

Black Swift Cypseloides niger Potential

Vaux's Swift Chaetura vauxi Known Audubon Society Observations

Calliope Hummingbird Stellula calliope Potential

Rufous Hummingbird Selasphorus rufus Known Audubon Society Observations

Belted Kingfisher Ceryle alcyon Known USFS Observations

Williamson's Sapsucker Sphyrapicus thyroides Known USFS Observations

Red-breasted Sapsucker Sphyrapicus ruber Known USFS Observations

Downy Woodpecker Picoides villosus Potential

Hairy Woodpecker Picoides pubescens Known Audubon Society Observations

White-headed Woodpecker Picoides albolarvatus Potential

Three-toed Woodpecker Picoides tridactylus Known USFS Observations

Black-backed Woodpecker Picoides arcticus Known Audubon Society Observations

Northern Flicker Colaptes auratus Known USFS Observations

Pileated Woodpecker Dryocopus pileatus Known USFS Observations

Lewis' Woodpecker Melanerpes lewis Known Audubon Society Observations

Olive-sided Flycatcher Contopus borealis Known Audubon Society Observations

Western Wood-Pewee Contopus sordidulus Known Audubon Society Observations

Willow Flycatcher Empidonax trailii Known USFS Observations

Hammond's Flycatcher Empidonax hammondii Known Audubon Society Observations

Dusky Flycatcher Empidonax oberholseri Known Audubon Society Observations

Pacific-slope Flycatcher Empidonax difficilis Known Audubon Society Observations

Tree Swallow Tachycineta bicolor Known USFS Observations

46

Violet-green Swallow Tachycineta thalassina Known USFS Observations

Northern Rough-winged Swallow Stelgidopteryx serripennis Known Audubon Society Observations

Barn Swallow Hirundo rustica Known Audubon Society Observations

Cliff Swallow Petrochelidon pyrrhonota Known Audubon Society Observations

Gray Jay Perisoreus canadensis Known USFS Observations

Steller's Jay Cyanocitta stellari Known USFS Observations

Clark's Nutcracker Nucifraga columbiana Known Audubon Society Observations

Band-tailed Pigeon Patagioenas fasciata Potential

Mourning Dove Zenaida macroura Potential

American Crow Corvus brachyrhynchos Known USFS Observations

Common Raven Corvus corax Known USFS Observations

Mountain Chickadee Parus gambeli Known Audubon Society Observations

Chestnut-backed Chickadee Parus rufescens Known Audubon Society Observations

Red-breasted Nuthatch Sitta canadensis Known USFS Observations

Brown Creeper Certhia americana Known USFS Observations

Winter Wren Troglodytes troglodytes Known USFS Observations

Rock Wren Salpinctes obsoletus Known Audubon Society Observations

House Wren Troglodytes aedon Known Audubon Society Observations

Marsh Wren Cistothorus palustris Potential

American Dipper Cinclus mexicanus Known USFS Observations

Golden-crowned Kinglet Regulus satrapa Known USFS Observations

Ruby-crowned Kinglet Regulus calendula Known Audubon Society Observations

Western Bluebird Sialia mexicana Known Audubon Society Observations

Mountain Bluebird Sialia currucoides Known Audubon Society Observations

Townsend's Solitaire Myadestes townsendi Known Audubon Society Observations

Swainson's Thrush Catharus ustulatus Known USFS Observations

Hermit Thrush Catharus guttatus Known Audubon Society Observations

American Robin Turdus migratorius Known USFS Observations

Varied Thrush Ixoreus naevius Known USFS Observations

Cedar Waxwing Bombycilla cedrorum Known Audubon Society Observations

Hutton's Vireo Vireo huttoni Known Audubon Society Observations

Warbling Vireo Vireo gilvus Known Audubon Society Observations

Orange-crowned Warbler Vermivora celata Known Audubon Society Observations

Nashville Warbler Vermivora ruficapilla Known Audubon Society Observations

Yellow Warbler Dendroica petechia Known Audubon Society Observations

Yellow-rumped Warbler Dendroica coronata Known Audubon Society Observations

Townsend's Warbler Dendroica townsendii Known Audubon Society Observations

Hermit Warbler Dendroica occidentalis Known Audubon Society Observations

Northern Waterthrush Seiurus noveboracensis Known Audubon Society Observations

Macgillivray's Warbler Oporornis tolmiei Known Audubon Society Observations

Common Yellowthroat Geothlypis trichus Known Audubon Society Observations

Wilson's Warbler Wilsonia pusilla Known USFS Observations

Western Tanager Piranga rubra Known USFS Observations

Black-headed Grosbeak Pheucticus melanocephalus Known Audubon Society Observations

Spotted Towhee Pipilo maculatus Known Audubon Society Observations

Chipping Sparrow Spizella passerina Known Audubon Society Observations

Fox Sparrow Passerella iliaca Known Audubon Society Observations

Song Sparrow Melospiza melodia Known Audubon Society Observations

Lincoln's Sparrow Melospiza lincolnii Known Audubon Society Observations

47

White-crowned Sparrow Zonatrichia leucophrys Known Audubon Society Observations

Dark-eyed Junco Junco hyemalis Known USFS Observations

Red-winged Blackbird Agelaius phoeniceus Known Audubon Society Observations

Brewer's Blackbird Euphagus cyanocephalus Known USFS Observations

Brown-headed Cowbird Molothrus ater Known Audubon Society Observations

Bullock's Oriole Icterus bullockii Potential

Pine Grosbeak Pinicola enucleator Potential

Purple Finch Carpodacus purpureas Known Audubon Society Observations

Cassin's Finch Carpodacus cassinii Known Audubon Society Observations

Red Crossbill Loxia curvirostra Known USFS Observations

White-winged Crossbill Loxia leucoptera Known Audubon Society Observations

Pine Siskin Carduelis pinus Known USFS Observations

American Goldfinch Carduelis tristis Known Audubon Society Observations

Evening Grosbeak Coccothraustes vesperinus Known Audubon Society Observations

MAMMALSVagrant Shrew Sorex vagranus Potential

Baird's Shrew Sorex bairdi Potential

Fog Shrew Sorex sonomae Potential

Pacific Shrew Sorex pacificus Potential

Water Shrew Sorex palustris Potential

Pacific Marsh Shrew Sorex bendirii Potential

Trowbridge's Shrew Sorex trowbridgii Potential

Shrew-mole Neurotrichus gibbsii Potential

Coast Mole Scapanus orarius Potential

California Myotis Myotis californicus Potential

Yuma Myotis Myotis yumanensis Potential

Little Brown Myotis Myotis lucifugus Potential

Long-legged Myotis Myotis volans Potential

Long-eared Myotis Myotis evotis Potential

Silver-haired Bat Lasionycteris noctivagans Potential

Big Brown Bat Eptesicus fuscus Potential

Hoary Bat Lasiurus cinereus Potential

Townsend's Big-eared Bat Corynorhinus townsendii Potential

Snowshoe Hare Lepus americanus Known USFS Observations

Mountain Beaver Aplodontia rufa Potential

Townsend's Chipmunk Tamias townsendii Potential

Belding's Ground Squirrel Spermophilus beldingi Potential

California Ground Squirrel Spermophilus beecheyi Potential

Golden-mantled Ground Squirrel Spermophilus lateralis Potential

Douglas' Squirrel Tamiasciurus douglasii Known USFS Observations

Northern Flying Squirrel Glaucomys sabrinus Potential

Western Pocket Gopher Thomomys mazama Potential

Badger Taxidea taxus Potential

American Beaver Castor canadensis Known USFS Observations

Deer Mouse Peromyscus maniculatus Potential

Bushy-tailed Woodrat Neotoma cinerea Potential

Western Red-backed Vole Clethrionomy californicus Potential

Heather Vole Phenacomys intermedius Potential

48

White-footed Vole Phenacomys albipes Potential

Red Tree Vole Arborimus longicaudus Potential

Montane Vole Microtus montanus Potential

Long-tailed Vole Microtus longicaudus Potential

Creeping Vole Microtus oregoni Potential

Water Vole Microtus richardonii Potential

Western Jumping Mouse Zapus princeps Potential

Pacific Jumping Mouse Zapus trinotatus Potential

Common Porcupine Erethizon dorsatum Potential

Coyote Canis latrans Known USFS Observations

Red Fox Vulpes vulpes Potential

Black Bear Ursus americanus Known USFS Observations

Common Raccoon Procyon lotor Potential

American Marten Martes americana Known USFS Observations

Fisher Martes pennanti Potential

Ermine Mustela erminea Potential

Long-tailed Weasel Mustela frenata Potential

Mink Mustela vison Potential

Wolverine Gulo gulo Potential

Western Spotted Skunk Spilogate gracilis Potential

Northern River Otter Lutra canadencis Known USFS Observations

Mountain Lion Felix concolor Potential

Bobcat Lynx rufus Potential

Roosevelt Elk Cervus elaphus Known USFS Observations

Black-tailed Deer Odocoileus hemionus Known USFS Observations

Mule Deer Odocoileus hemionus Potential

FISHBrook Trout Salvelinus fontinalis Known ODFW Observations

Rainbow Trout Oncorynchus mykiss Known ODFW Observations

Cutthroat Trout Oncorhynchus clarkii Potential

49

APPENDIX D: Known and Potential Invertebrate Fauna of Gold Lake Bog RNA***Note that this list only includes dragonflies and damselflies since there is no other invertebrate inventory for Gold Lake RNA***

DRAGONFLIES AND DAMSELFLIES OF GOLD LAKE BOGCary Kerst2/18/2011

COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAMEAmerican Emerald Cordulia shurtleffiiBlack Meadowhawk Sympetrum danaeBlue-eyed Darner Rhionaeschna multicolorBoreal Bluet Enallagma borealeBrush-tipped Emerald Somatochlora walshiiCalifornia Darner Rhionaeschna californicaCanada Darner Aeshna canadensisChalk-fronted Corporal Ladona juliaCommon Green Darner Anax juniusPacific Spiketail Cordulegaster dorsalisCommon Whitetail Plathemis lydiaCrimson-ringed Whiteface Leucorrhinia glacialisDot-tailed Whiteface Leucorrhinia intactaEight-spotted Skimmer Libellula forensisEmerald Spreadwing Lestes dryasFour-spotted Skimmer Libellula quadrimaculataGreat Basin Snaketail Ophiogomphus morrisoniHudsonian Whiteface Leucorrhinia hudsonicaLyre-tipped Spreadwing Lestes unguiculatusMountain Emerald Somatochlora semicircularisNorthern Bluet Enallagma annexumNorthern Spreadwing Lestes disjunctusPacific Forktail Ischnura cervulaPaddle-tailed Darner Aeshna palmataRinged Emerald Somatochlora albicinctaSedge Darner Aeshna junceaSedge Sprite Nehalennia ireneShadow Darner Aeshna umbrosaSpotted Spreadwing Lestes congenerTiaga Bluet Coenagrion resolutumTwelve-spotted Skimmer Libellula pulchellaVariable Darner Aeshna interruptaVivid Dancer Argia vividaWestern Forktail Ischnura perparvaWestern Pondhawk Erythemis collocataWestern Red Damsel Amphiagrion abbreviatumWhite-faced Meadowhawk Sympetrum obtrusumZig-zag Darner Aeshna sitchensis

50

APPENDIX E: Known Flora of Gold Lake Bog RNA Provided by Tanya Harvey (Emerald Valley Native Plant Society, March 2011)

Abies amabilisAbies grandisAbies lasiocarpaAbies magnifica x proceraAchillea millefoliumAchlys triphyllaAconitum columbianumAgoseris aurantiacaAlnus rubraAlnus viridis ssp. sinuataAmelanchier alnifoliaAnaphalis margaritaceaAngelica argutaAntennaria roseaArctostaphylos nevadensisArnica mollisAthyrium filix-feminaBerberis nervosaBetula glandulosaBistorta bistortoidesBlechnum spicantBotrychium multifidumCaltha leptosepalaCanadanthus modestusCarex aquatilis var. divesCarex limosaCarex utriculataCastilleja miniataChamerion angustifoliumChimaphila menziesiiChimaphila umbellataCicuta douglasiiCirsium remotifoliumClaytonia sibiricaClintonia unifloraComarum palustreCorallorhiza sp.Cornus unalaschkensisDodecatheon jeffreyiDrosera anglicaDrosera rotundifoliaEpilobium ciliatum ssp. watsoniiEpilobium glaberrimum var. glaberrimumEpilobium oregonenseEpilobium sp.Equisetum arvenseEquisetum hyemaleEriophorum gracileFragaria virginiana

Galium trifidum var. pacificumGalium triflorumGaultheria humifusaGaultheria ovatifoliaGeum macrophyllumGoodyera oblongifoliaHieracium albiflorumHypericum anagalloidesHypericum formosumKalmia microphyllaLathyrus nevadensisLathyrus polyphyllusLigusticum grayiLinnaea borealisListera caurinaListera sp.Lonicera caeruleaLonicera involucrataLupinus latifoliusLysichiton americanusMaianthemum stellatumMenyanthes trifoliataMertensia paniculataMicranthes odontolomaMicranthes oreganaMimulus guttatusMimulus primuloidesMitella breweriMitella caulescensMonotropa hypopithysMuhlenbergia filiformis*Mycelis muralisNuphar polysepalaOrthilia secundaOsmorhiza berteroiPaxistima myrsinitesPedicularis bracteosa var. flavidaPedicularis groenlandicaPedicularis racemosaPerideridia sp.Picea engelmanniiPinus contorta var. latifoliaPinus monticolaPlatanthera strictaPolystichum munitumPotamogeton alpinusPotamogeton natansPotentilla drummondiiPseudotsuga menziesii

51

Pyrola asarifoliaRanunculus flammulaRanunculus gormaniiRanunculus sp.Rhododendron macrophyllumRibes lacustreRosa gymnocarpaRubus lasiococcusSalix commutataSalix geyerianaSalix lasiandra var. lasiandraSalix sitchensisSalix sp.Sambucus racemosaScheuchzeria palustrisScirpus microcarpusSenecio triangularisSorbus sitchensisSparganium emersumSphenosciadium capitellatumSpiraea douglasiiSpiranthes romanzoffianaStellaria longipesStreptopus amplexifoliusStreptopus lanceolatus var. curvipes

Symphyotrichum spathulatumTiarella trifoliata var. unifoliataTriantha occidentalisTrifolium longipesTsuga heterophyllaTsuga mertensianaUtricularia intermediaUtricularia macrorhizaUtricularia minorVaccinium cespitosumVaccinium membranaceumVaccinium ovalifoliumVaccinium scopariumVaccinium uliginosumValeriana sitchensisVeratrum virideVeronica americanaVeronica serpyllifolia var. humifusaVeronica wormskjoldiiVicia americanaViola aduncaViola glabellaViola orbiculataXerophyllum tenax

APPENDIX F: TERRESTRIAL FAUNA INVENTORY STRATEGY

52

Methods: Utilize Forest Service “Multiple Species Inventory and Monitoring Technical Guide” GTR

WO-73 survey methods to develop inventory strategies for major species groups Engage U of O Environmental Leadership Program Students and/or OSU/UO Graduate

Students to conduct inventories/research. Encourage local natural history groups to conduct volunteer inventory field trips to Gold Lake

RNA (eg. Lane County Audubon Society, North American Butterfly Association, etc.) Seek funding through sources such as ISSSP, PAYCO, and others to fund inventories

YEAR TARGET INVENTORY GROUP POTENTIAL INVENTORY METHODS

2012 BIRDS/LEPIDOPTERA Bird Point Count Surveys Terrestrial Visual Encounter Surveys Butterfly/Moth Netting Night-time Moth Bucket Surveys Nighttime Bird Acoustical Surveys

2015 AMPHIBS/REPTILES Amphib Egg Mass Counts Amphibian and Reptile Visual Encounter

Surveys Aquatic Visual Encounter Survey Coverboard Surveys Nocturnal Auditory Amphib Surveys

2018 MAMMALS Terrestrial Visual Encounter Surveys Small Mammal Trapping Remote Camera/Hair Snare/Trackplate

Stations Bat Mist Net Stations Bat Acoustical Surveys

53