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).
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
2
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.
5
Gold Lake Bog
Gold Lake Bog
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.
6
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 90acre 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).
7
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
changed considerably since the ice fully retreated about 9,500 years ago (Sea and Whitlock,
8
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).
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
unknown but potentially important interaction is the potential for both frogs and
15




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 nonnative, 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
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)
.
TIMELINE
FOR ACTION,
BUDGET
ACTIVITY
LOCATION
HOW TO ACCOMPLISH
DESIRED SITE
CONDITION
DATE
COMPLETE
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
CY 2011 2015
$1,500/yr (FS
Wildlife)
From Gold
Lake upstream
to the
confluence
with Ray
Creek
Beaver monitoring protocol
Same as Above
(Beck et al. 2008) with USFS
personnel [2people-1 day]
October 2015
Floral and
faunal
inventories to
to monitor
biological
community
changes and/or
invasive species
CY 2011 – (FS
Botany)
CY 2012,
2015, 2018
$5,000/yr (FS
Wildlife)
Gold Lake
Bog RNA
Floral inventory via one-day
“botany-blitz” in CY2011;
Same as Above
October 2018
GPS perimeter
of lodgepole
pine
encroachment
CY 2011 – (FS
Wildlife)
Gold Lake
Bog
Same as Above
October 2011
Faunal inventory via species
group protocols based on FS
Multiple Species Inventory
Process CY2012, 2015, 2018
See Appendix F
19
USFS personnel (map in
relation to known R.pretiosa
breeding and overwinter
areas)
THREAT
ACTION
NEEDED
ACTION
TIMELINE
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 (Continued)
Tree and Shrub
encroachment
photo point
monitoring
CY2020 $1,500 (FS
Wildlife)
Gold Lake
Bog
USFS personnel
(map the extent of the
lodgepole pine encroachment
along the south edge of Gold
Lake Bog)
Same as Above
October 2020
Monitoring of
water levels and
temperatures
CY 2011-2021
(FS Hydro)
Gold Lake
RNA
USFS Hydro Team will
install water level and
temperature logging stations
Same as Above
October 2021
Coordinate with
Resource
Advisor to get
RNA fire
suppression
restrictions in
RA Toolbox
CY 2011- (FS
Wildlife)
Gold Lake
RNA
USFS Personnel
No direct fire
suppression
within RNA (no
constructed
firelines, no fire
retardant; no
water dipping in
Gold Lake)
June 2011
Monitoring of
R.pretiosa
To be
determined
(USGS)
Gold Lake
Bog
Develop a population
monitoring strategy in
conjunction with USGS to
sample and analyze
abundance of frogs …the last
count was conducted in 2008.
Healthy stable or
increasing
population of R.
pretiosa
October 2021
Explore options
for increasing
R.Pretiosa
genetic diversity
CY2019-2021 - $Unk
Gold lake Bog
and adjacent
R.pretiosa
populations
Form multi-district/multiagency committee to explore
options.
Same as Above
October 2021
Isolation from other
R.pretiosa populations
20
Recreational Use Impacts
Monitor Level
of Use/Impacts
(particulary offtrail trampling
and camping in
Gold Lake Bog
near R.Pretiosa
concentrated use
areas)
CY2011-2021
Bi-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
2013
2015
2021
Annually
2020
Annually
PERSONNEL
MANAGEMENT
ACTION OR SITE
REVISIT
ODFW/OSP/Forest Beaver trapping
Service, Wildlife
monitoring assessment to
determine if it is a threat
to Gold Lake Bog
beavers
Forest Service,
Beaver use monitoring
Wildlife
assessment to determine
if beaver population in
the bog is active and
stable
Forest Service,
Water level and
Hydrology
temperature trend
assessment
Forest Service,
Assessment of
Botany and
management actions
Wildlife
needed if new noninvasive species are
detected during floral and
faunal inventories (or
through other methods)
Forest Service,
Assess extent and
Wildlife
intensity of conifer
encroachment
Forest Service,
Determine if wildfire
Wildlife
suppression restrictions
(i.e. no firelines,
retardant of dipping from
Gold Lake) were adhered
to.
RESULTS OR
OBSERVATION
22
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS
ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT Cont’d
DATE
PERSONNEL
2020
USGS/Forest
Service, Wildlife
Annually
Forest Service,
Wildlife and
Recreation
Forest Service,
Wildlife/ODFW,
Fisheries
Annually
MANAGEMENT
ACTION OR SITE
REVISIT
Assess whether
R.pretiosa population
appears to be stable
and/or increasing
Assess trends in
recreational use and
impacts.
Coordinate fish
management activities at
Gold Lake and make
adjustments to mitigate
impacts to R.pretiosa
RESULTS OR
OBSERVATION
23
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS
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. Rangewide 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).
27
Some of the most abundant forbs and ferns are ladyfern (Athyrium filix-femina), western oakfern (Gymnocarpium dryopteris),
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 fiveleaved 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 smallscale disturbance that influences forest patterns. Snow avalanches probably disturb portions of this habitat in the
28
northwestern Cascades and Olympic Mountains. Fungal pathogens and insects also act as important small-scale natural
disturbances.
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 by
Northwest Partners in Amphibian and Reptile Conservation
Last Updated: 16 January 2011
Topics
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
Review articles
Effects on native amphibians/aquatic systems after introduced fish are removed
Effects of introduced or predatory fish on frogs and toads
Effects of introduced or predatory fish on salamanders and newts
Effects of introduced fish on aquatic insects/aquatic systems
Competition for food resources between introduced fish and amphibians
Mountain lake fish stocking patterns and policies
Anti-predator defenses and species palatability
Disease transfer between fish and amphibians
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/cgibin/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/cgibin/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=z05151.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.nrccnrc.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/cgibin/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/10.1890/00129615%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%23998649
998%23639490%23FLA%23&_cdi=5798&_pubType=J&_auth=y&_acct=C000052423&_version=1&_urlVers
ion=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 44:127136. 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 wholelake 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/10.1577/15488659%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):30-35
http://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.nrccnrc.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%23999349
997%23437320%23FLP%23&_cdi=5798&_pubType=J&_auth=y&_acct=C000052423&_version=1&_urlVersi
on=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-49&_cdi=5798&_user=4250274&_pii=S0006320701000210&_origin=browse&_coverDate=08%2F31%2F2001
&_sk=998999997&view=c&wchp=dGLbVzWzSkzS&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.15231739.1999.98237.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%23999209
33
997%2311591%23FLP%23&_cdi=5798&_pubType=J&_auth=y&_acct=C000052423&_version=1&_urlVersio
n=0&_userid=4250274&md5=71010ca11f3732397c05c9957a9be734
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 yellowlegged 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/10.1890/00129615%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%23998789
997%23514650%23FLA%23&_cdi=5798&_pubType=J&_auth=y&_acct=C000052423&_version=1&_urlVers
ion=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/10.1643/00458511%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 13:167173.
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=f07139.pdf
Meyer, A.H., B.R. Schmidt, and K. Grossenbacher. 1998. Analysis of three amphibian populations with quartercentury 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.1365294X.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/10.1672/02775212%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 80:18491862. http://article.pubs.nrccnrc.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/10.1898/10511733%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. RMGTR-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/10.1670/00221511%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-4H3JJJ1-3C&_cdi=5798&_user=4250274&_pii=S0006320705003113&_origin=browse&_zone=rslt_list_item&_coverDa
te=01%2F31%2F2006&_sk=998729997&wchp=dGLzVzbzSkzV&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 13:167173.
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=f07139.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=z09084.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/10.1898/10511733%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):345349. 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.nrccnrc.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/10.1577/15488446%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/10.1890/00129615%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 invertebrates
in 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-17&_cdi=6081&_user=4250274&_pii=S0169534706002047&_origin=browse&_zone=rslt_list_item&_coverDat
e=10%2F31%2F2006&_sk=999789989&wchp=dGLbVzWzSkzS&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/10.1577/15488446%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/ijwuploads/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+o
f+the+international+congress+of+zoology&source=bl&ots=y_C1q25lG8&sig=PJqsLagBRwq60EkOHUymHJS
0dTE&hl=en&ei=ureiS6D7Ls2Utgfh3ZVs&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CAYQ6AEw
AA#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/10.1577/15488659%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%23999679
995%23624475%23FLP%23&_cdi=6693&_pubType=J&_auth=y&_acct=C000052423&_version=1&_urlVersi
on=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%23999619
993%23624481%23FLP%23&_cdi=6693&_pubType=J&_auth=y&_acct=C000052423&_version=1&_urlVersi
on=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%23999649
997%23621488%23FLP%23&_cdi=6693&_pubType=J&_auth=y&_acct=C000052423&_version=1&_urlVersi
on=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/10.1643/00458511%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/cgibin/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=B6T32-3X9YRG1-75&_cdi=4934&_user=4250274&_pii=S016817029900057X&_origin=browse&_zone=rslt_list_item&_coverDa
te=09%2F30%2F1999&_sk=999369998&wchp=dGLzVlzzSkzk&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/10.1890/10510761%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/10.1890/10510761%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.nrccnrc.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/10.1890/00129658%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%23998589
994%23690963%23FLA%23&_cdi=5798&_pubType=J&_auth=y&_acct=C000052423&_version=1&_urlVers
ion=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/NWN0856.1.
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
AMPHIBIANS
Scientific Name
Status
Source
Northwestern 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
Northern Alligator Lizard
Elgaria coerulea
Potential
Rubber Boa
Charina bottae
Potential
Common Garter Snake
Thamnophis sirtalis
Potential
Double-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
REPTILES
BIRDS
45
USFS Observations
Lesser Scaup
Aythya affinis
Known
Audubon Society Observations
Solitary Sandpiper
Tringa solitaria
Known
Audubon Society Observations
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
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
Black Swift
Cypseloides niger
Potential
Vaux's Swift
Chaetura vauxi
Known
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
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
46
USFS Observations
Audubon Society Observations
Audubon Society Observations
Audubon Society 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
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
47
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
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
Vagrant 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
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
MAMMALS
48
USFS Observations
USFS Observations
Northern Flying Squirrel
Glaucomys sabrinus
Potential
Western Pocket Gopher
Thomomys mazama
Potential
Badger
Taxidea taxus
Potential
American Beaver
Castor canadensis
Known
Deer Mouse
Peromyscus maniculatus
Potential
Bushy-tailed Woodrat
Neotoma cinerea
Potential
Western Red-backed Vole
Clethrionomy californicus
Potential
Heather Vole
Phenacomys intermedius
Potential
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
Red Fox
Vulpes vulpes
Potential
Black Bear
Ursus americanus
Known
Common Raccoon
Procyon lotor
Potential
American Marten
Martes americana
Known
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
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
Brook Trout
Salvelinus fontinalis
Known
ODFW Observations
Rainbow Trout
Oncorynchus mykiss
Known
ODFW Observations
Cutthroat Trout
Oncorhynchus clarkii
Potential
USFS Observations
USFS Observations
USFS Observations
USFS Observations
USFS Observations
FISH
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 BOG
Cary Kerst
2/18/2011
COMMON NAME
SCIENTIFIC NAME
American Emerald
Cordulia shurtleffii
Black Meadowhawk
Sympetrum danae
Blue-eyed Darner
Rhionaeschna multicolor
Boreal Bluet
Enallagma boreale
Brush-tipped Emerald
Somatochlora walshii
California Darner
Rhionaeschna californica
Canada Darner
Aeshna canadensis
Chalk-fronted Corporal
Ladona julia
Common Green Darner
Anax junius
Pacific Spiketail
Cordulegaster dorsalis
Common Whitetail
Plathemis lydia
Crimson-ringed Whiteface
Leucorrhinia glacialis
Dot-tailed Whiteface
Leucorrhinia intacta
Eight-spotted Skimmer
Libellula forensis
Emerald Spreadwing
Lestes dryas
Four-spotted Skimmer
Libellula quadrimaculata
Great Basin Snaketail
Ophiogomphus morrisoni
Hudsonian Whiteface
Leucorrhinia hudsonica
Lyre-tipped Spreadwing
Lestes unguiculatus
Mountain Emerald
Somatochlora semicircularis
Northern Bluet
Enallagma annexum
Northern Spreadwing
Lestes disjunctus
Pacific Forktail
Ischnura cervula
Paddle-tailed Darner
Aeshna palmata
Ringed Emerald
Somatochlora albicincta
Sedge Darner
Aeshna juncea
Sedge Sprite
Nehalennia irene
Shadow Darner
Aeshna umbrosa
Spotted Spreadwing
Lestes congener
Tiaga Bluet
Coenagrion resolutum
Twelve-spotted Skimmer
Libellula pulchella
Variable Darner
Aeshna interrupta
Vivid Dancer
Argia vivida
Western Forktail
Ischnura perparva
Western Pondhawk
Erythemis collocata
Western Red Damsel
Amphiagrion abbreviatum
White-faced Meadowhawk
Sympetrum obtrusum
Zig-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 amabilis
Abies grandis
Abies lasiocarpa
Abies magnifica x procera
Achillea millefolium
Achlys triphylla
Aconitum columbianum
Agoseris aurantiaca
Alnus rubra
Alnus viridis ssp. sinuata
Amelanchier alnifolia
Anaphalis margaritacea
Angelica arguta
Antennaria rosea
Arctostaphylos nevadensis
Arnica mollis
Athyrium filix-femina
Berberis nervosa
Betula glandulosa
Bistorta bistortoides
Blechnum spicant
Botrychium multifidum
Caltha leptosepala
Canadanthus modestus
Carex aquatilis var. dives
Carex limosa
Carex utriculata
Castilleja miniata
Chamerion angustifolium
Chimaphila menziesii
Chimaphila umbellata
Cicuta douglasii
Cirsium remotifolium
Claytonia sibirica
Clintonia uniflora
Comarum palustre
Corallorhiza sp.
Cornus unalaschkensis
Dodecatheon jeffreyi
Drosera anglica
Drosera rotundifolia
Epilobium ciliatum ssp. watsonii
Epilobium glaberrimum var. glaberrimum
Epilobium oregonense
Epilobium sp.
Equisetum arvense
Equisetum hyemale
Eriophorum gracile
Fragaria virginiana
Galium trifidum var. pacificum
Galium triflorum
Gaultheria humifusa
Gaultheria ovatifolia
Geum macrophyllum
Goodyera oblongifolia
Hieracium albiflorum
Hypericum anagalloides
Hypericum formosum
Kalmia microphylla
Lathyrus nevadensis
Lathyrus polyphyllus
Ligusticum grayi
Linnaea borealis
Listera caurina
Listera sp.
Lonicera caerulea
Lonicera involucrata
Lupinus latifolius
Lysichiton americanus
Maianthemum stellatum
Menyanthes trifoliata
Mertensia paniculata
Micranthes odontoloma
Micranthes oregana
Mimulus guttatus
Mimulus primuloides
Mitella breweri
Mitella caulescens
Monotropa hypopithys
Muhlenbergia filiformis
*Mycelis muralis
Nuphar polysepala
Orthilia secunda
Osmorhiza berteroi
Paxistima myrsinites
Pedicularis bracteosa var. flavida
Pedicularis groenlandica
Pedicularis racemosa
Perideridia sp.
Picea engelmannii
Pinus contorta var. latifolia
Pinus monticola
Platanthera stricta
Polystichum munitum
51
Potamogeton alpinus
Potamogeton natans
Potentilla drummondii
Pseudotsuga menziesii
Pyrola asarifolia
Ranunculus flammula
Ranunculus gormanii
Ranunculus sp.
Rhododendron macrophyllum
Ribes lacustre
Rosa gymnocarpa
Rubus lasiococcus
Salix commutata
Salix geyeriana
Salix lasiandra var. lasiandra
Salix sitchensis
Salix sp.
Sambucus racemosa
Scheuchzeria palustris
Scirpus microcarpus
Senecio triangularis
Sorbus sitchensis
Sparganium emersum
Sphenosciadium capitellatum
Spiraea douglasii
Spiranthes romanzoffiana
Stellaria longipes
Streptopus amplexifolius
Streptopus lanceolatus var. curvipes
Symphyotrichum spathulatum
Tiarella trifoliata var. unifoliata
Triantha occidentalis
Trifolium longipes
Tsuga heterophylla
Tsuga mertensiana
Utricularia intermedia
Utricularia macrorhiza
Utricularia minor
Vaccinium cespitosum
Vaccinium membranaceum
Vaccinium ovalifolium
Vaccinium scoparium
Vaccinium uliginosum
Valeriana sitchensis
Veratrum viride
Veronica americana
Veronica serpyllifolia var. humifusa
Veronica wormskjoldii
Vicia americana
Viola adunca
Viola glabella
Viola orbiculata
Xerophyllum tenax
52
APPENDIX F: TERRESTRIAL FAUNA INVENTORY STRATEGY
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


53
Terrestrial Visual Encounter Surveys
Small Mammal Trapping
Remote Camera/Hair Snare/Trackplate
Stations
Bat Mist Net Stations
Bat Acoustical Surveys